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

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

1

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for

Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for Coastal and

Marine Data Acquisition

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

National Ocean Service

November 2022
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

ABSTRACT

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) National Ocean Service (NOS) has prepared 

a Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) in accordance with the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA, 42 U.S.C. § 4321, et seq.) to analyze the potential environmental impacts 

associated with NOS’s recurring data collection projects to characterize submerged features (e.g., habitat, 

bathymetry, marine debris). The “action area” for these projects encompasses the United States (U.S.)

territorial sea, the contiguous zone, the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (U.S. EEZ), U.S. rivers, States’ 

offshore waters, and coastal and riparian lands. The Proposed Action evaluated is to continue NOS’s 

surveying and mapping projects. The purpose of the Proposed Action is to gather accurate and timely data 

on the marine and coastal environment. The need for the Proposed Action is to ensure safety at sea, 

economic well-being, and the efficient stewardship of public trust resources. NOS projects would include 

surveys performed from crewed vessels and remotely operated or autonomous vehicles, operated by NOS 

field crews, other NOAA personnel on behalf of NOS, contractors, grantees, or permit/authorization 

holders. These crews and vehicles may use echo sounders and other active acoustic equipment and 

employ other equipment, including bottom samplers and conductivity, temperature, and depth 

instruments to collect the needed data. A project could also involve supporting activities, such as the use 

of divers and the installation of tide buoys. 

NOS evaluated three alternatives: 1) the No Action Alternative (Alternative A), under which NOS would 

continue to gather accurate and timely data on the nature and condition of the marine and coastal 

environment, reflecting the technology, equipment, scope, and methods currently in use by NOS at the 

current level of effort (i.e., the status quo); 2) Alternative B, under which NOS would increase the adoption 

of new technologies to more efficiently perform surveying, mapping, charting and related data gathering; 

and 3) Alternative C, which also includes the adoption of new techniques and technologies and includes 

an overall funding increase of 20 percent. The three alternatives were analyzed using criteria and 

evaluation standards under the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) Regulations for Implementing the 

Procedural Provisions of NEPA (40 CFR § 1500–1508 (1978)), and NOAA Administrative Order 216-6A.

NOS’s Preferred Alternative is Alternative B which includes conducting surveys and mapping for coastal 

and marine data collection with equipment upgrades, improved hydroacoustic devices, and new tide 

stations. No significant adverse impacts to habitats, biological resources, cultural and historic resources, 

socioeconomics, or environmental justice are expected under any alternative.

The Final PEIS has been prepared to: 1) inform NOS and the public on the physical, biological, economic, 

and social impacts of NOS mapping and surveying projects; and 2) assist NOS in deciding how to execute 

its mapping and surveying program over the next five years.

For further information contact:

Jay Nunenkamp, DOC/NOAA/NOS

Environmental Compliance Coordinator

National Ocean Service SSMC4

1305 East West Highway

Silver Spring, MD 20910

nosaa.ec@noaa.gov
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

i

CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................................................................1

Introduction .............................................................................................................................1

Public Involvement ...................................................................................................................1

Coordination with Other Agencies............................................................................................ 2

Coordination with Tribes........................................................................................................... 3

Revisions Since the Draft PEIS....................................................................................................4

Purpose and Need Statement....................................................................................................4

Proposed Action and Alternatives .............................................................................................5

Alternative A: No Action – Conduct Surveys and Mapping for Coastal and Marine Data 

Collection with Current Technology and Methods, at Current Funding Levels........... 5

Alternative B: NOS Preferred Alternative – Conduct Surveys and Mapping for Coastal and 

Marine Data Collection with Equipment Upgrades, Improved Hydroacoustic 

Devices, and New Tide Stations ................................................................................... 5

Alternative C: Upgrades and Improvements with Greater Funding Support............................ 5

Environmental Consequences ...................................................................................................7

1.0 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................22

1.1 Revisions since the Draft PEIS.........................................................................................22

1.1.1 Incorporation of Mitigation Measures....................................................................... 22

1.1.2 Change to Temporal Scope ........................................................................................ 23

1.1.3 Updated Acoustic Exposure Estimates....................................................................... 23

1.2 The Mission, Priorities, and Organization of the National Ocean Service..........................23

1.3 Purpose and Need..........................................................................................................25

1.3.1 Safe Navigation........................................................................................................... 27

1.3.2 Economic Security ...................................................................................................... 27

1.3.3 Environmental Sustainability...................................................................................... 27

1.4 Programmatic Scope ......................................................................................................27

1.4.1 Subsequent Project-Specific Consideration of Environmental Impacts..................... 28

1.5 Public Involvement ........................................................................................................28

1.5.1 Tribal Government-to-Government Consultation ..................................................... 30

1.6 Coordination and Consultation with Other Federal Agencies...........................................30

2.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION AND THE ALTERNATIVES ..........................................33

2.1 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Further Analysis........................................33

2.1.1 Protected Species Avoidance ..................................................................................... 33

2.1.2 Use of Lidar Exclusively .............................................................................................. 35

2.1.3 Use of Satellite-Derived Bathymetry Exclusively........................................................ 35

2.2 Components of the Alternatives: Projects and Activities .................................................36

2.3 Scope ............................................................................................................................38

2.3.1 Geographic Scope....................................................................................................... 38

2.3.2 Temporal Scope.......................................................................................................... 39

2.4 Activities Common to All Alternatives.............................................................................39

2.4.1 Project-Related Crewed Vessel Operations............................................................... 40

2.4.2 Anchoring ................................................................................................................... 42
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

ii

2.4.3 Operation of Remotely Operated Vehicles (ROVs), Uncrewed Surface Vehicles 

(USVs), and Autonomous Underwater Vehicles (AUVs)............................................. 42

2.4.4 Use of Echo Sounders................................................................................................. 43

2.4.5 Use of Acoustic Doppler Current Profilers (ADCPs) ................................................... 45

2.4.6 Use of Acoustic Communication Systems.................................................................. 46

2.4.7 Use of Sound Speed Data Collection Equipment ....................................................... 46

2.4.8 Operation of Drop/Towed Cameras and Magnetometers......................................... 48

2.4.9 Collection of Bottom Grab Samples........................................................................... 48

2.4.10 Use of Passive Listening Systems ............................................................................... 49

2.4.11 SCUBA Operations...................................................................................................... 49

2.4.12 Installation, Maintenance, and Removal of Tide Gauges........................................... 49

2.4.12.1 Tide Gauge / Tide Buoy Installation .............................................................. 51

2.3.12.2 Tide Gauge / Tide Buoy Maintenance........................................................... 52

2.4.12.3 Tide Gauge / Tide Buoy Removal .................................................................. 53

2.4.13 Installation of GPS Reference Stations....................................................................... 53

2.5 Alternatives A, B, and C..................................................................................................53

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

Data Collection with Current Technology and Methods, at Current Funding Levels. 53

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

Collection with Equipment Upgrades, Improved Hydroacoustic Devices, and New 

Tide Stations - NOS Preferred Alternative.................................................................. 54

2.5.3 Alternative C: Upgrades and Improvements with Greater Funding Support............. 55

2.6 Comparison of Alternatives............................................................................................55

3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES .........................................59

3.1 Affected Environment Methodology...............................................................................62

3.2 Environmental Consequences Methodology ...................................................................62

3.2.1 Types of Impacts......................................................................................................... 62

3.2.2 Significance Criteria.................................................................................................... 63

3.2.2.1 Context and Intensity .................................................................................... 63

3.2.2.2 Impact Descriptor.......................................................................................... 63

3.2.3 Mitigation Measures.................................................................................................. 63

3.3 Regulatory Background..................................................................................................64

3.3.1 Marine Mammal Protection Act................................................................................. 64

3.3.2 Endangered Species Act............................................................................................. 65

3.3.3 Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act.............................. 66

3.3.4 Migratory Bird Treaty Act........................................................................................... 66

3.3.5 Coastal Zone Management Act.................................................................................. 67

3.3.6 National Historic Preservation Act and Other Cultural Resource Regulations .......... 67

3.3.7 National Marine Sanctuaries Act................................................................................ 69

3.3.8 Executive Orders ........................................................................................................ 69

3.4 Habitats.........................................................................................................................71

3.4.1 Affected Environment................................................................................................ 71

3.4.1.1 Freshwater Areas .......................................................................................... 73

3.4.1.2 Estuarine Areas.............................................................................................. 75

3.4.1.3 Shallow Marine and Oceanic Areas............................................................... 76

3.4.1.4 Terrestrial Areas............................................................................................ 78
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

iii

3.4.1.5 Coastal Wetlands........................................................................................... 78

3.4.2 Environmental Consequences for Habitats................................................................ 79

3.4.2.1 Methodology................................................................................................. 79

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

Marine Data Collection with Current Technology and Methods, at Current 

Funding Levels............................................................................................... 80

3.4.2.2.1 Physical Impacts to Bottom Substrate ................................................ 81

3.4.2.2.2 Increase in Sedimentation, Turbidity, and/or Chemical 

Contaminants ...................................................................................... 83

3.4.2.2.3 Increased Ambient Sound ................................................................... 85

3.4.2.2.4 Facilitated Dispersal of Invasive Species ............................................. 86

3.4.2.2.5 Impacts to the Water Column ............................................................. 87

3.4.2.2.6 Terrestrial Impacts from Tide Gauge Installation, Maintenance, or 

Removal............................................................................................... 88

3.4.2.2.7 Conclusion ........................................................................................... 89

3.4.2.3 Alternative B: Conduct Surveying and Mapping Projects for Coastal and 

Marine Data Collection with Equipment Upgrades, Improved 

Hydroacoustic Devices, and New Tide Stations............................................ 89

3.4.2.4 Alternative C: Upgrades and Improvements with Greater Funding Support 90

3.5 Marine Mammals...........................................................................................................92

3.5.1 Affected Environment................................................................................................ 92

3.5.1.1 Cetaceans (Baleen Whales and Toothed Whales) ........................................ 92

3.5.1.1.1 Cetacean Sound Production and Hearing.......................................... 101

3.5.1.1.2 Regional Distribution of Cetaceans................................................... 102

3.5.1.1.2.1 Greater Atlantic Region ................................................... 103

3.5.1.1.2.2 Southeast Region............................................................. 104

3.5.1.1.2.3 West Coast Region........................................................... 105

3.5.1.1.2.4 Alaska Region................................................................... 106

3.5.1.1.2.5 Pacific Islands Region....................................................... 107

3.5.1.1.3 Threatened and Endangered Cetaceans ........................................... 108

3.5.1.1.3.1 Bowhead Whale .............................................................. 109

3.5.1.1.3.2 Sei Whale......................................................................... 110

3.5.1.1.3.3 Rice’s Whale .................................................................... 110

3.5.1.1.3.4 Blue Whale....................................................................... 112

3.5.1.1.3.5 Fin Whale......................................................................... 113

3.5.1.1.3.6 Gray Whale (Western North Pacific Distinct Population 

Segment).......................................................................... 114

3.5.1.1.3.7 North Atlantic Right Whale.............................................. 115

3.5.1.1.3.8 North Pacific Right Whale................................................ 116

3.5.1.1.3.9 Humpback Whale (Mexico DPS, Central America DPS, and 

Western North Pacific DPS)............................................. 117

3.5.1.1.3.10 Beluga Whale (Cook Inlet DPS)........................................ 119

3.5.1.1.3.11 Killer Whale (Southern Resident DPS)............................. 120

3.5.1.1.3.12 Sperm Whale ................................................................... 122

3.5.1.1.3.13 False Killer Whale (Main Hawaiian Islands Insular DPS).. 124

3.5.1.2 Pinnipeds (Seals, Sea Lions, and Walrus) .................................................... 125

3.5.1.2.1 Pinniped Sound Production and Hearing .......................................... 128

3.5.1.2.2 Regional Distribution of Pinnipeds.................................................... 128
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

iv

3.5.1.2.2.1 Greater Atlantic Region ................................................... 129

3.5.1.2.2.2 Southeast Region............................................................. 129

3.5.1.2.2.3 West Coast Region........................................................... 129

3.5.1.2.2.4 Alaska Region................................................................... 130

3.5.1.2.2.5 Pacific Islands Region....................................................... 130

3.5.1.2.3 Threatened and Endangered Pinnipeds............................................ 131

3.5.1.2.3.1 Guadalupe Fur Seal.......................................................... 131

3.5.1.2.3.2 Steller Sea Lion (Western DPS)........................................ 132

3.5.1.2.3.3 Bearded Seal (Beringia DPS)............................................ 134

3.5.1.2.3.4 Hawaiian Monk Seal ........................................................ 135

3.5.1.2.3.5 Ringed Seal (Arctic subspecies) ....................................... 136

3.5.1.2.4 Pinnipeds Hunted for Subsistence..................................................... 137

3.5.1.2.4.1 Northern Fur Seal ............................................................ 138

3.5.1.2.4.2 Harbor Seal ...................................................................... 138

3.5.1.2.4.3 Ice Seals........................................................................... 138

3.5.1.3 Sirenians (Manatees)................................................................................... 139

3.5.1.3.1 Sirenian Sound Production and Hearing ........................................... 139

3.5.1.3.2 Regional Distribution of Sirenians..................................................... 139

3.5.1.3.2.1 Southeast Region............................................................. 139

3.5.1.3.3 Threatened and Endangered Sirenians............................................. 142

3.5.1.3.3.1 West Indian Manatee (Antillean subspecies and Florida 

subspecies) ...................................................................... 142

3.5.1.4 Fissipeds (Sea Otters and Polar Bears)........................................................ 143

3.5.1.4.1 Fissiped Sound Production and Hearing............................................ 144

3.5.1.4.2 Regional Distribution of Fissipeds ..................................................... 144

3.5.1.4.2.1 West Coast Region........................................................... 144

3.5.1.4.2.2 Alaska Region................................................................... 144

3.5.1.4.3 Threatened and Endangered Fissipeds ............................................. 147

3.5.1.4.3.1 Southern Sea Otter and Northern Sea Otter................... 147

3.5.1.4.3.2 Polar Bear ........................................................................ 149

3.5.2 Environmental Consequences for Marine Mammals............................................... 151

3.5.2.1 Methodology............................................................................................... 151

3.5.2.2 Potential Effects of Sound on Marine Mammals........................................ 153

3.5.2.2.1 Death and Non-Auditory Physiological Effects.................................. 154

3.5.2.2.2 Auditory Injuries – Hearing Threshold Shift ...................................... 155

3.5.2.2.3 Masking ............................................................................................. 156

3.5.2.2.4 Physiological Stress............................................................................ 159

3.5.2.2.5 Behavioral Responses........................................................................ 160

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

Marine Data Collection with Current Technology and Methods, at Current 

Funding Levels............................................................................................. 163

3.5.2.3.1 Cetaceans .......................................................................................... 164

3.5.2.3.1.1 Active Underwater Acoustic Sources .............................. 164

3.5.2.3.1.2 Vessel and Equipment Sound.......................................... 175

3.5.2.3.1.3 Vessel Presence and Movement of Equipment in the Water

......................................................................................... 178

3.5.2.3.1.4 Human Activity ................................................................ 180
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

v

3.5.2.3.1.5 Accidental Leakage or Spillage of Oil, Fuel, and Chemicals

......................................................................................... 181

3.5.2.3.1.6 Trash and Debris.............................................................. 182

3.5.2.3.2 Pinnipeds........................................................................................... 183

3.5.2.3.2.1 Active Underwater Acoustic Sources .............................. 183

3.5.2.3.2.2 Vessel and Equipment Sound.......................................... 186

3.5.2.3.2.3 Vessel Presence and Movement of Equipment in the Water

......................................................................................... 188

3.5.2.3.2.4 Human Activity ................................................................ 190

3.5.2.3.2.5 Accidental Leakage or Spillage of Oil, Fuel, and Chemicals

......................................................................................... 191

3.5.2.3.2.6 Trash and Debris.............................................................. 192

3.5.2.3.2.7 Air Emissions.................................................................... 192

3.5.2.3.3 Sirenians ............................................................................................ 193

3.5.2.3.3.1 Active Underwater Acoustic Sources .............................. 193

3.5.2.3.3.2 Vessel and Equipment Sound.......................................... 196

3.5.2.3.3.3 Vessel Presence and Movement of Equipment in the Water

......................................................................................... 197

3.5.2.3.3.4 Human Activity ................................................................ 198

3.5.2.3.3.5 Accidental Leakage or Spillage of Oil, Fuel, and Chemicals

......................................................................................... 199

3.5.2.3.3.6 Trash and Debris.............................................................. 200

3.5.2.3.4 Fissipeds ............................................................................................ 200

3.5.2.3.4.1 Active Underwater Acoustic Sources .............................. 200

3.5.2.3.4.2 Vessel and Equipment Sound.......................................... 203

3.5.2.3.4.3 Vessel Presence and Movement of Equipment in the Water

......................................................................................... 205

3.5.2.3.4.4 Human Activity ................................................................ 207

3.5.2.3.4.5 Accidental Leakage or Spillage of Oil, Fuel, and Chemicals

......................................................................................... 208

3.5.2.3.4.6 Trash and Debris.............................................................. 209

3.5.2.3.4.7 Air Emissions.................................................................... 210

3.5.2.3.5 Conclusion ......................................................................................... 210

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

Collection with Equipment Upgrades, Improved Hydroacoustic Devices, 

and New Tide Stations................................................................................. 210

3.5.2.4.1 Cetaceans .......................................................................................... 212

3.5.2.4.1.1 Active Underwater Acoustic Sources .............................. 212

3.5.2.4.2 Pinnipeds........................................................................................... 218

3.5.2.4.2.1 Active Underwater Acoustic Sources .............................. 219

3.5.2.4.3 Sirenians ............................................................................................ 221

3.5.2.4.3.1 Active Underwater Acoustic Sources .............................. 221

3.5.2.4.4 Fissipeds ............................................................................................ 223

3.5.2.4.4.1 Active Underwater Acoustic Sources .............................. 223

3.5.2.4.5 Conclusion ......................................................................................... 225

3.5.2.5 Alternative C: Upgrades and Improvements with Greater Funding 

Support........................................................................................................ 225

3.5.2.5.1 Cetaceans .......................................................................................... 226
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

vi

3.5.2.5.1.1 Active Underwater Acoustic Sources .............................. 227

3.5.2.5.2 Pinnipeds........................................................................................... 233

3.5.2.5.2.1 Active Underwater Acoustic Sources .............................. 233

3.5.2.5.3 Sirenians ............................................................................................ 235

3.5.2.5.3.1 Active Underwater Acoustic Sources .............................. 236

3.5.2.5.4 Fissipeds ............................................................................................ 237

3.5.2.5.4.1 Active Underwater Acoustic Sources .............................. 238

3.5.2.5.5 Conclusion ......................................................................................... 239

3.5.2.6 Endangered Species Act Effects Determinations........................................ 240

3.6 Sea Turtles...................................................................................................................244

3.6.1 Affected Environment.............................................................................................. 244

3.6.1.1 Sound Production and Hearing ................................................................... 248

3.6.1.2 Regional Distribution................................................................................... 248

3.6.1.2.1 Greater Atlantic Region..................................................................... 248

3.6.1.2.2 Southeast Region............................................................................... 248

3.6.1.2.3 West Coast Region............................................................................. 249

3.6.1.2.4 Alaska Region..................................................................................... 250

3.6.1.2.5 Pacific Islands Region......................................................................... 250

3.6.1.3 Threatened and Endangered Species.......................................................... 251

3.6.1.3.1 Loggerhead (Northwest Atlantic, North Pacific, and South Pacific 

Distinct Population Segment)............................................................ 251

3.6.1.3.2 Green (North Atlantic, South Atlantic, Central North Pacific, Central 

South Pacific, Central West Pacific, and East Pacific Distinct 

Population Segment)......................................................................... 253

3.6.1.3.3 Hawksbill............................................................................................ 254

3.6.1.3.4 Kemp’s Ridley .................................................................................... 255

3.6.1.3.5 Olive Ridley........................................................................................ 256

3.6.1.3.6 Leatherback ....................................................................................... 257

3.6.2 Environmental Consequences for Sea Turtles ......................................................... 258

3.6.2.1 Methodology............................................................................................... 258

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

Marine Data Collection with Current Technology and Methods, at Current 

Funding Levels............................................................................................. 260

3.6.2.2.1 Active Underwater Acoustic Sources ................................................ 260

3.6.2.2.2 Vessel and Equipment Sound............................................................ 261

3.6.2.2.3 Vessel Presence and Movement ....................................................... 262

3.6.2.2.4 Accidental Leakage or Spillage of Oil, Fuel, Chemicals, and Waste .. 264

3.6.2.2.5 Underwater Activities........................................................................ 265

3.6.2.2.6 Onshore Activities ............................................................................. 267

3.6.2.2.7 Air Emissions...................................................................................... 268

3.6.2.2.8 Conclusion ......................................................................................... 269

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

Collection with Equipment Upgrades, Improved Hydroacoustic Devices, 

and New Tide Stations................................................................................. 269

3.6.2.4 Alternative C: Upgrades and Improvements with Greater Funding 

Support........................................................................................................ 270

3.6.2.5 Endangered Species Act Effects Determination.......................................... 270
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

vii

3.7 Fish..............................................................................................................................274

3.7.1 Affected Environment.............................................................................................. 274

3.7.1.1 Marine Fish.................................................................................................. 274

3.7.1.2 Freshwater Fish ........................................................................................... 278

3.7.1.3 Sound Production and Hearing ................................................................... 279

3.7.1.4 Threatened and Endangered Species.......................................................... 281

3.7.1.4.1 Nassau Grouper................................................................................. 284

3.7.1.4.2 Tidewater Goby ................................................................................. 285

3.7.1.4.3 Atlantic Salmon (Gulf of Maine Distinct Population Segment)......... 286

3.7.1.4.4 Pacific Salmon.................................................................................... 287

3.7.1.4.5 Chinook Salmon (California Coastal Evolutionarily Significant Unit, 

Central Valley Spring-run Evolutionarily Significant Unit, Lower 

Columbia River Evolutionarily Significant Unit, Puget Sound 

Evolutionarily Significant Unit, Sacramento River Winter-run 

Evolutionarily Significant Unit, Snake River Fall-run Evolutionarily 

Significant Unit, Snake River Spring/Summer-run Evolutionarily 

Significant Unit, Upper Columbia River Spring-run Evolutionarily 

Significant Unit, Upper Willamette River Evolutionarily Significant 

Unit)................................................................................................... 288

3.7.1.4.6 Chum Salmon (Columbia River Evolutionarily Significant Unit and 

Hood Canal Summer-run Evolutionarily Significant Unit) ................. 291

3.7.1.4.7 Coho Salmon (Central California Coast Evolutionarily Significant 

Unit, Lower Columbia River Evolutionarily Significant Unit, Oregon 

Coast Evolutionarily Significant Unit, Southern Oregon/Northern 

California Coast Evolutionarily Significant Unit)................................ 292

3.7.1.4.8 Sockeye Salmon (Ozette Lake Evolutionarily Significant Unit, Snake 

River Evolutionarily Significant Unit)................................................. 294

3.7.1.4.9 Steelhead........................................................................................... 294

3.7.1.4.10 Bull Trout........................................................................................... 298

3.7.1.4.11 Eulachon (Southern Distinct Population Segment)........................... 299

3.7.1.4.12 Bocaccio and Yelloweye Rockfish (Puget Sound/Georgia Basin 

Distinct Population Segment)............................................................ 300

3.7.1.4.13 Giant Manta Ray................................................................................ 301

3.7.1.4.14 Scalloped Hammerhead Shark (Eastern Pacific Distinct Population 

Segment, Central and Southwest Atlantic Distinct Population 

Segment, and Indo-West Pacific Distinct Population Segment) ....... 303

3.7.1.4.15 Largetooth Sawfish and Smalltooth Sawfish..................................... 303

3.7.1.4.16 Atlantic Sturgeon (New York Bight Distinct Population Segment, 

Carolina Distinct Population Segment, Chesapeake Bay Distinct 

Population Segment, South Atlantic Distinct Population Segment, 

Gulf of Maine Distinct Population Segment, and Gulf subspecies)... 305

3.7.1.4.17 Green Sturgeon (Southern Distinct Population Segment) ................ 307

3.7.1.4.18 Shortnose Sturgeon........................................................................... 308

3.7.1.5 Regional Distribution................................................................................... 309

3.7.1.5.1 Greater Atlantic Region..................................................................... 309

3.7.1.5.2 Southeast Region............................................................................... 310

3.7.1.5.3 West Coast Region............................................................................. 311

3.7.1.5.4 Alaska Region..................................................................................... 312
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

viii

3.7.1.5.5 Pacific Islands Region......................................................................... 312

3.7.2 Environmental Consequences for Fish..................................................................... 313

3.7.2.1 Methodology............................................................................................... 313

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

Marine Data Collection with Current Technology and Methods, at Current 

Funding Levels............................................................................................. 315

3.7.2.2.1 Fish..................................................................................................... 315

3.7.2.2.1.1 Active Underwater Acoustic Sources .............................. 315

3.7.2.2.1.2 Vessel Sound.................................................................... 317

3.7.2.2.1.3 Vessel Wake and Underwater Turbulence...................... 318

3.7.2.2.1.4 Accidental Leakage or Spillage of Oil, Fuel, and Chemicals

......................................................................................... 319

3.7.2.2.1.5 Disturbance of the Sea Floor........................................... 320

3.7.2.2.2 Fish Habitat........................................................................................ 321

3.7.2.2.2.1 Vessel Wake and Underwater Turbulence...................... 321

3.7.2.2.2.2 Accidental Leakage or Spillage of Oil, Fuel, and Chemicals

......................................................................................... 322

3.7.2.2.2.3 Disturbance of the Sea Floor........................................... 323

3.7.2.2.2.4 Air Emissions.................................................................... 324

3.7.2.2.3 Conclusion ......................................................................................... 324

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

Collection with Equipment Upgrades, Improved Hydroacoustic Devices, 

and New Tide Stations................................................................................. 324

3.7.2.4 Alternative C: Upgrades and Improvements with Greater Funding 

Support........................................................................................................ 325

3.7.2.5 Endangered Species Act Effects Determination.......................................... 326

3.8 Aquatic Macroinvertebrates.........................................................................................331

3.8.1 Affected Environment.............................................................................................. 331

3.8.1.1 Marine Macroinvertebrates........................................................................ 331

3.8.1.2 Freshwater Macroinvertebrates................................................................. 333

3.8.1.2.1 Freshwater Macroinvertebrate Stressors ......................................... 333

3.8.1.3 Sound Production and Hearing ................................................................... 335

3.8.1.4 Regional Distribution................................................................................... 336

3.8.1.5 Threatened and Endangered Species.......................................................... 336

3.8.1.5.1 Marine Macroinvertebrates.............................................................. 336

3.8.1.5.1.1 Acropora cervicornis (Staghorn Coral) ............................ 337

3.8.1.5.1.2 Acropora globiceps.......................................................... 338

3.8.1.5.1.3 Acropora jacquelineae..................................................... 339

3.8.1.5.1.4 Acropora palmata (Elkhorn Coral)................................... 339

3.8.1.5.1.5 Acropora retusa............................................................... 340

3.8.1.5.1.6 Acropora speciosa ........................................................... 340

3.8.1.5.1.7 Dendrogyra cylindrus (Pillar Coral).................................. 341

3.8.1.5.1.8 Euphyllia paradivisa......................................................... 342

3.8.1.5.1.9 Haliotis cracherodii (Black Abalone)................................ 342

3.8.1.5.1.10 Haliotis sorenseni (White Abalone)................................. 342

3.8.1.5.1.11 Isopora crateriformis....................................................... 343

3.8.1.5.1.12 Mycetophyllia ferox (Rough Cactus Coral) ...................... 343

3.8.1.5.1.13 Orbicella annularis (Lobed Star Coral)............................. 343
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

ix

3.8.1.5.1.14 Orbicella faveolata (Mountainous Star Coral)................. 344

3.8.1.5.1.15 Orbicella franksi (Boulder Star Coral).............................. 344

3.8.1.5.1.16 Pocillopora meandrina (Cauliflower Coral) ..................... 344

3.8.1.5.1.17 Seriatopora aculeata ....................................................... 345

3.8.1.5.2 Freshwater Macroinvertebrates........................................................ 345

3.8.1.5.2.1 Epioblasma torulosa rangiana (Northern Riffleshell)...... 346

3.8.1.5.2.2 Epioblasma triquetra (Snuffbox) ..................................... 346

3.8.1.5.2.3 Villosa fabalis (Rayed Bean)............................................. 347

3.8.1.5.2.4 Other ESA-Listed Freshwater Mussel Species................. 347

3.8.2 Environmental Consequences for Aquatic Macroinvertebrates.............................. 347

3.8.2.1 Methodology............................................................................................... 348

3.8.2.2 Alternative A: No Action - Conduct Surveying and Mapping Projects for 

Coastal and Marine Data Collection with Current Technology and 

Methods, at Current Funding Levels........................................................... 349

3.8.2.2.1 Aquatic Macroinvertebrates ............................................................. 350

3.8.2.2.1.1 Active Underwater Acoustic Sources .............................. 350

3.8.2.2.1.2 Vessel Sound.................................................................... 350

3.8.2.2.1.3 Vessel Wake and Underwater Turbulence...................... 351

3.8.2.2.1.4 Accidental Leakage or Spillage of Oil, Fuel, and Chemicals

......................................................................................... 351

3.8.2.2.1.5 Disturbance of the Sea Floor........................................... 353

3.8.2.2.2 Habitat for Aquatic Macroinvertebrates........................................... 353

3.8.2.2.2.1 Vessel Wake and Underwater Turbulence...................... 353

3.8.2.2.2.2 Accidental Leakage or Spillage of Oil, Fuel, and Chemicals

......................................................................................... 354

3.8.2.2.2.3 Disturbance of the Sea Floor........................................... 355

3.8.2.2.2.4 Air Emissions.................................................................... 355

3.8.2.2.3 Conclusion ......................................................................................... 356

3.8.2.3 Alternative B: Conduct Surveying and Mapping Projects for Coastal and 

Marine Data Collection with Equipment Upgrades, Improved 

Hydroacoustic Devices, and New Tide Stations.......................................... 356

3.8.2.4 Alternative C: Upgrades and Improvements with Greater Funding 

Support........................................................................................................ 357

3.8.2.5 Endangered Species Act Effects Determination.......................................... 358

3.9 Essential Fish Habitat...................................................................................................361

3.9.1 Affected Environment.............................................................................................. 361

3.9.1.1 Regional Distribution................................................................................... 363

3.9.1.1.1 Greater Atlantic Region..................................................................... 365

3.9.1.1.2 Southeast Region............................................................................... 370

3.9.1.1.2.1 South Atlantic .................................................................. 371

3.9.1.1.2.2 Gulf of Mexico ................................................................. 373

3.9.1.1.2.3 United States Caribbean.................................................. 376

3.9.1.1.3 West Coast Region............................................................................. 377

3.9.1.1.5 Alaska Region..................................................................................... 380

3.9.1.1.6 Pacific Islands Region......................................................................... 384

3.9.2 Environmental Consequences for Essential Fish Habitat......................................... 387

3.9.2.1 Methodology............................................................................................... 388
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

x

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

Marine Data Collection with Current Technology and Methods, at Current 

Funding Levels............................................................................................. 389

3.9.2.2.1 Physical Impacts to Bottom Habitat.................................................. 389

3.9.2.2.2 Increase in Sedimentation/Turbidity, and/or Chemical 

Contaminants .................................................................................... 391

3.9.2.2.3 Increase in Ambient Sound................................................................ 393

3.9.2.2.4 Impacts to Water Column ................................................................. 395

3.9.2.2.5 Dispersal of Invasive Species............................................................. 396

3.9.2.2.6 Conclusion ......................................................................................... 397

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

Collection with Equipment Upgrades, Improved Hydroacoustic Devices, 

and New Tide Stations................................................................................. 397

3.9.2.4 Alternative C: Upgrades and Improvements with Greater Funding 

Support........................................................................................................ 398

3.9.2.5 Conclusion................................................................................................... 399

3.10 Seabirds, Shorebirds and Coastal Birds, and Waterfowl.................................................400

3.10.1 Affected Environment.............................................................................................. 400

3.10.1.1 Overview of Taxonomic and Functional Groups......................................... 400

3.10.1.2 Sound Production and Hearing ................................................................... 401

3.10.1.3 Threatened and Endangered Species.......................................................... 401

3.10.1.3.1 Seabirds............................................................................................. 402

3.10.1.3.1.1 Marbled Murrelet............................................................ 402

3.10.1.3.1.2 Band-rumped Storm-petrel............................................. 403

3.10.1.3.1.3 Short-tailed Albatross...................................................... 403

3.10.1.3.1.4 Hawaiian Petrel ............................................................... 404

3.10.1.3.1.5 Newell's Shearwater........................................................ 404

3.10.1.3.1.6 California Least Tern........................................................ 405

3.10.1.3.1.7 Roseate Tern.................................................................... 405

3.10.1.3.2 Shorebirds and Coastal Birds............................................................. 406

3.10.1.3.2.1 Red Knot .......................................................................... 406

3.10.1.3.2.2 Piping Plover.................................................................... 407

3.10.1.3.2.3 Western Snowy Plover .................................................... 408

3.10.1.3.2.4 Hawaiian Coot ................................................................. 409

3.10.1.3.2.5 Whooping Crane.............................................................. 409

3.10.1.3.2.6 Bald Eagle ........................................................................ 410

3.10.1.3.2.7 Hawaiian Stilt................................................................... 410

3.10.1.3.2.8 Wood Stork...................................................................... 410

3.10.1.3.2.9 Eskimo Curlew ................................................................. 411

3.10.1.3.2.10 Light-footed Clapper Rail................................................. 412

3.10.1.3.2.11 California Clapper Rail ..................................................... 412

3.10.1.3.3 Waterfowl.......................................................................................... 413

3.10.1.3.3.1 Laysan Duck ..................................................................... 413

3.10.1.3.3.2 Hawaiian Duck ................................................................. 413

3.10.1.3.3.3 Steller’s Eider................................................................... 413

3.10.1.3.3.4 Spectacled Eider .............................................................. 414

3.10.1.4 Regional Distribution................................................................................... 415

3.10.1.4.1 Greater Atlantic Region..................................................................... 415
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

xi

3.10.1.4.2 Southeast Region............................................................................... 415

3.10.1.4.3 West Coast Region............................................................................. 416

3.10.1.4.4 Alaska Region..................................................................................... 416

3.10.1.4.5 Pacific Islands Region......................................................................... 417

3.10.2 Environmental Consequences for Seabirds, Shorebirds and Coastal Birds, and 

Waterfowl................................................................................................................. 417

3.10.2.1 Methodology............................................................................................... 418

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............................................................................................. 420

3.10.2.2.1 Active Underwater Acoustic Sources ................................................ 420

3.10.2.2.2 Vessel and Equipment Sound............................................................ 421

3.10.2.2.3 Aircraft Sound.................................................................................... 422

3.10.2.2.4 Vessel Movement and Presence ....................................................... 423

3.10.2.2.5 Accidental Leakage or Spillage of Oil, Fuel, Chemicals or Waste ...... 424

3.10.2.2.6 Underwater Activities........................................................................ 426

3.10.2.2.7 Onshore Activities ............................................................................. 427

3.10.2.2.8 Air Emissions from Vessel Operations............................................... 427

3.10.2.2.9 Conclusion ......................................................................................... 428

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................................................................................. 429

3.10.2.4 Alternative C: Upgrades and Improvements with Greater Funding 

Support........................................................................................................ 429

3.10.2.5 Endangered Species Act Effects Determination.......................................... 430

3.11 Cultural and Historic Resources....................................................................................434

3.11.1 Affected Environment.............................................................................................. 434

3.11.1.1 Submerged Cultural and Historic Resources............................................... 434

3.11.1.1.1 Greater Atlantic Region..................................................................... 435

3.11.1.1.2 Southeast Region............................................................................... 436

3.11.1.1.3 West Coast Region............................................................................. 437

3.11.1.1.4 Alaska Region..................................................................................... 437

3.11.1.1.5 Pacific Islands Region......................................................................... 437

3.11.1.2 Subsistence Hunting and Fishing Areas, Including Traditional Cultural 

Places........................................................................................................... 438

3.11.1.2.1 Greater Atlantic Region..................................................................... 439

3.11.1.2.2 Southeast Region............................................................................... 439

3.11.1.2.3 West Coast Region............................................................................. 440

3.11.1.2.4 Alaska Region..................................................................................... 440

3.11.1.2.5 Pacific Islands Region......................................................................... 441

3.11.1.2.6 Traditional Cultural Places................................................................. 441

3.11.1.3 Coastal Infrastructure and Communities and Nearshore Historic 

Properties.................................................................................................... 443

3.11.1.4 Visual Resources Associated with Historic Properties................................ 443

3.11.2 Environmental Consequences for Cultural and Historic Resources......................... 444

3.11.2.1 Methodology............................................................................................... 445

3.11.2.1.1 Projects with No Potential to Cause Effects to Historic Properties... 446
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

xii

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

Marine Data Collection with Current Technology and Methods, at Current 

Funding Levels............................................................................................. 446

3.11.2.2.1 Anchoring .......................................................................................... 447

3.11.2.2.2 Bottom Sampling ............................................................................... 447

3.11.2.2.3 Installation, Maintenance, and Removal of Tide Gauges, Buoys, and 

GPS Reference Stations..................................................................... 448

3.11.2.2.4 Impacts on Subsistence Hunting and Fishing Areas, Including TCPs. 449

3.11.2.2.5 Conclusion ......................................................................................... 450

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

Collection with Equipment Upgrades, Improved Hydroacoustic Devices, 

and New Tide Stations................................................................................. 451

3.11.2.4 Alternative C: Upgrades and Improvements with Greater Funding 

Support........................................................................................................ 451

3.12 Socioeconomic Resources ............................................................................................453

3.12.1 Affected Environment.............................................................................................. 454

3.12.1.1 Tourism and Recreation .............................................................................. 455

3.12.1.2 Marine and Coastal Transportation ............................................................ 456

3.12.1.3 Offshore Mineral Extraction........................................................................ 457

3.12.1.4 Living Resources.......................................................................................... 458

3.12.1.5 Marine Construction and Planning ............................................................. 460

3.12.1.6 Ship and Boat Building ................................................................................ 461

3.12.2 Environmental Consequences for Socioeconomic Resources.................................. 462

3.12.2.1 Methodology............................................................................................... 462

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

Marine Data Collection with Current Technology and Methods, at Current 

Funding Levels............................................................................................. 463

3.12.2.2.1 Economic Benefits of Coastal and Marine Data ................................ 463

3.12.2.2.2 Health and Safety .............................................................................. 466

3.12.2.2.3 Recreational Activities....................................................................... 467

3.12.2.2.4 Transportation................................................................................... 467

3.12.2.2.5 Energy................................................................................................ 468

3.12.2.2.6 Commercial Fishing ........................................................................... 469

3.12.2.2.7 Overall Economic Impacts of Alternative A....................................... 470

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

Collection with Equipment Upgrades, Improved Hydroacoustic Devices, 

and New Tide Stations................................................................................. 470

3.12.2.4 Alternative C: Upgrades and Improvements with Greater Funding 

Support........................................................................................................ 471

3.13 Environmental Justice ..................................................................................................472

3.13.1 Affected Environment.............................................................................................. 472

3.13.1.1 Subsistence Hunting and Fishing................................................................. 472

3.13.1.2 Bowhead Whale (Baleana mysticetus)........................................................ 473

3.13.1.3 Gray Whale (Eschrichtius robustus)............................................................. 475

3.13.1.4 Beluga Whale (Delphinapterus leucas) ....................................................... 476

3.13.1.5 Northern Fur Seal (Callorhinus ursinus) ...................................................... 478

3.13.1.6 Steller Sea Lion (Eumetopias jubatus)......................................................... 479
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

xiii

3.13.1.7 Harbor Seal (Phoca vitulina)........................................................................ 479

3.13.1.8 Ice Seals (Erignathus barbatus, Pusa hispida, Phoca largha, and 

Histriophoca fasciata) ................................................................................. 480

3.13.1.9 Northern Sea Otter (Enhydra lutris kenyoni) .............................................. 480

3.13.1.10 Polar Bear (Ursus maritimus) ...................................................................... 481

3.13.1.11 Pacific Walrus (Odobenus rosemarus divergens)........................................ 483

3.13.1.12 Subsistence Fishing ..................................................................................... 489

3.13.1.12.1 Pacific Salmon.................................................................................... 489

3.13.1.12.2 Pacific Halibut.................................................................................... 491

3.13.1.12.3 Other Fish Species............................................................................. 493

3.13.2 Environmental Consequences for Environmental Justice........................................ 496

3.13.2.1 Methodology............................................................................................... 496

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

Marine Data Collection with Current Technology and Methods, at Current 

Funding Levels............................................................................................. 497

3.13.2.2.1 Active Underwater Acoustic Sources ................................................ 498

3.13.2.2.2 Vessel and Equipment Sounds .......................................................... 501

3.13.2.2.3 Vessel Presence, Traffic, and Movement of Equipment in Water .... 502

3.13.2.2.4 Human Activity .................................................................................. 504

3.13.2.2.5 Accidental Leakage or Spillage of Oil, Fuel, and Chemicals into 

Surrounding Waters .......................................................................... 504

3.13.2.2.6 Trash and Debris................................................................................ 505

3.13.2.2.7 Air Emissions...................................................................................... 505

3.13.2.2.8 Availability of New Mapping and Charting Information.................... 505

3.13.2.2.9 Conclusion ......................................................................................... 506

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

Collection with Equipment Upgrades, Improved Hydroacoustic Devices, 

and New Tide Stations................................................................................. 506

3.13.2.3.1 Conclusion ......................................................................................... 507

3.13.2.4 Alternative C: Upgrades and Improvements with Greater Funding 

Support........................................................................................................ 507

3.13.2.4.1 Conclusion ......................................................................................... 508

3.14 Resources Considered but Dismissed from Further Analysis..........................................509

3.14.1 Air and Water Quality............................................................................................... 509

3.14.2 Soils and Geology ..................................................................................................... 510

3.14.3 Airborne Noise for Human Receptors...................................................................... 511

3.14.4 Select Freshwater Taxa ............................................................................................ 511

3.15 Relationship Between Short-Term Uses of the Environment and the Maintenance and 

Enhancement of Long-Term Productivity ......................................................................513

3.16 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources.............................................513

3.17 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts......................................................................................513

3.18 Comparison of Impacts ................................................................................................515

4.0 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS .........................................................................................................529

4.1 Cumulative Actions......................................................................................................529

4.1.1 Other Surveying and Mapping Efforts in the Action Area........................................ 530

4.1.1.1 Greater Atlantic Region............................................................................... 532
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

xiv

4.1.1.1.1 Great Lakes........................................................................................ 534

4.1.1.2 Southeast Region......................................................................................... 534

4.1.1.3 West Coast Region ...................................................................................... 535

4.1.1.4 Alaska Region .............................................................................................. 537

4.1.1.5 Pacific Island Region.................................................................................... 539

4.1.1.6 Expected Increases in Ocean Surveying and Mapping................................ 540

4.1.2 Offshore Oil and Natural Gas Development............................................................. 541

4.1.2.1 Oil and Gas Energy Programs...................................................................... 542

4.1.2.2 Alaska Outer Continental Shelf Region ....................................................... 543

4.1.2.3 Atlantic Outer Continental Shelf Region ..................................................... 545

4.1.2.4 Gulf of Mexico Outer Continental Shelf Region.......................................... 545

4.1.2.5 Pacific Outer Continental Shelf Region ....................................................... 545

4.1.3 Offshore Renewable Energy Development.............................................................. 546

4.1.3.1 Wind Energy ................................................................................................ 546

4.1.3.2 Other Offshore Renewable Energy ............................................................. 549

4.1.4 Climate Change ........................................................................................................ 550

4.1.5 Commercial Shipping and Recreational Boating ...................................................... 552

4.1.6 Assessment and Extraction of Marine Minerals ...................................................... 554

4.1.7 Offshore Carbon Storage Resource Assessments.................................................... 555

4.1.8 Construction and Operation of Offshore Liquified Natural Gas (LNG) Terminals.... 555

4.1.9 National Defense and Homeland Security Activities................................................ 557

4.1.10 Construction of New Submarine Telecommunication Cable Infrastructure............ 561

4.1.11 Commercial and Recreational Fishing ...................................................................... 561

4.1.12 Coastal Development............................................................................................... 562

4.2 Cumulative Effects on the Environment........................................................................567

4.2.1 Habitats.................................................................................................................... 567

4.2.1.1 Physical Impacts to Habitat Bottom Substrate ........................................... 567

4.2.1.2 Increase in Sedimentation, Turbidity, and/or Chemical Contaminants in 

Habitats....................................................................................................... 568

4.2.1.3 Increased Ambient Sound Levels in Habitats.............................................. 570

4.2.1.4 Facilitated Dispersal of Invasive Species in Habitats................................... 571

4.2.1.5 Impacts to the Water Column in Habitats................................................... 572

4.2.1.6 Impacts to Terrestrial Habitats.................................................................... 573

4.2.1.7 Conclusion................................................................................................... 574

4.2.2 Marine Mammals..................................................................................................... 575

4.2.2.1 Mortality and Injury to Marine Mammals................................................... 575

4.2.2.2 Marine Mammals Disturbance and Behavioral Modifications ................... 577

4.2.2.3 Reduced Fitness of Marine Mammals Due to Pollutants............................ 577

4.2.2.4 Alteration of Marine Mammal Habitat ....................................................... 578

4.2.2.5 Conclusion................................................................................................... 579

4.2.3 Sea Turtles................................................................................................................ 580

4.2.3.1 Mortality and Injury to Sea Turtles ............................................................. 580

4.2.3.2 Disturbance and Displacement of Sea Turtles............................................ 581

4.2.3.3 Degradation and Reduction of Sea Turtle Habitat...................................... 582

4.2.3.4 Conclusion................................................................................................... 583

4.2.4 Fish ........................................................................................................................... 584

4.2.4.1 Mortality and Injury to Fish......................................................................... 584

4.2.4.2 Fish Disturbance and Behavioral Modifications.......................................... 585
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

xv

4.2.4.3 Reduced Fitness of Fish Due to Pollutants.................................................. 586

4.2.4.4 Alteration of Fish Habitat............................................................................ 587

4.2.4.5 Conclusion................................................................................................... 588

4.2.5 Aquatic Macroinvertebrates .................................................................................... 588

4.2.5.1 Direct and Indirect Injury to Aquatic Macroinvertebrates.......................... 589

4.2.5.2 Disturbance and Displacement of Aquatic Macroinvertebrates................. 590

4.2.5.3 Degradation and Reduction of Aquatic Macroinvertebrate Habitat .......... 590

4.2.5.4 Conclusion................................................................................................... 591

4.2.6 Essential Fish Habitat ............................................................................................... 592

4.2.6.1 Physical Impacts to Essential Fish Habitat Bottom Habitat......................... 592

4.2.6.2 Increase in Sedimentation, Turbidity, and/or Chemical Contaminants in 

Essential Fish Habitat .................................................................................. 593

4.2.6.3 Increase in Sound in Essential Fish Habitat................................................. 594

4.2.6.4 Impacts to the Water Column in Essential Fish Habitat.............................. 595

4.2.6.5 Dispersal of Invasive Species in Essential Fish Habitat................................ 595

4.2.6.6 Conclusion................................................................................................... 596

4.2.7 Seabirds, Shorebirds and Coastal Birds, and Waterfowl.......................................... 597

4.2.7.1 Direct Injury to Sea Birds, Shorebirds and Coastal Birds, and Waterfowl... 597

4.2.7.2 Disturbance and Displacement of Sea Birds, Shorebirds and Coastal Birds, 

and Waterfowl............................................................................................. 599

4.2.7.3 Degradation and Reduction of Habitat for Sea Birds, Shorebirds and 

Coastal Birds, and Waterfowl...................................................................... 600

4.2.7.4 Conclusion................................................................................................... 601

4.2.8 Cultural and Historic Resources ............................................................................... 602

4.2.8.1 Damage and Destruction of Submerged Cultural and Historic Resources.. 602

4.2.8.2 Degradation of Cultural and Historic Viewsheds ........................................ 603

4.2.8.3 Disruption to Subsistence Hunting and Fishing, Including in TCPs............. 604

4.2.8.4 Conclusion................................................................................................... 605

4.2.9 Socioeconomic Resources........................................................................................ 606

4.2.9.1 Economic Benefits to the Ocean Economy ................................................. 606

4.2.9.2 Indirect Effects on Jobs and Revenue ......................................................... 607

4.2.9.3 Conclusion................................................................................................... 608

4.2.10 Environmental Justice .............................................................................................. 609

4.2.10.1 Disturbance to Subsistence Activities and Sociocultural Systems.............. 609

4.2.10.2 Disturbance to Subsistence Activities and Sociocultural Systems from 

Climate Change ........................................................................................... 610

4.2.10.3 Contamination of Subsistence Resources................................................... 611

4.2.10.4 New Mapping and Charting Information .................................................... 612

4.2.10.5 Conclusion................................................................................................... 612

5.0 REFERENCES .........................................................................................................................614

6.0 LIST OF PREPARERS ...............................................................................................................666

6.1 NOAA National Ocean Service Team.............................................................................666

6.2 Solv LLC .......................................................................................................................666

6.3 JASCO Applied Sciences................................................................................................667

7.0 GLOSSARY ............................................................................................................................668

8.0 INDEX .................................................................................................................................689
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

xvi

TABLES:

Table ES-1. Consultation with Other Federal Agencies ................................................................................ 3

Table ES-2. Comparison of NOS Annual Planned Surveying and Mapping Activities under Alternatives 

A, B, and C*......................................................................................................................... 6

Table ES-3. Summary Comparison of Impacts.............................................................................................. 8

Table 1.6-1. Consultation with Other Federal Agencies............................................................................. 32

Table 2.6-1. Comparison of Annual NOS Planned Surveying and Mapping Activities under Alternatives 

A, B, and C......................................................................................................................... 57

Table 3.4-1. Comparison of Area and Percent of Described Species for Freshwater, Terrestrial, and 

Marine Ecosystems........................................................................................................... 74

Table 3.4-2. Coastal Wetland Losses........................................................................................................... 78

Table 3.4-3. Impact Significance Criteria for the Analysis of Impacts to Habitats...................................... 80

Table 3.4-4. Survey Effort under Alternative A, by Geographic Region by Year......................................... 81

Table 3.4-5. Survey Effort under Alternative B, by Geographic Region by Year......................................... 89

Table 3.4-6. Survey Effort under Alternative C, by Geographic Region by Year......................................... 90

Table 3.5-1. Cetaceans Occurring in the Action Area ................................................................................. 94

Table 3.5-2. Pinnipeds Occurring in the Action Area................................................................................ 126

Table 3.5-3. Sirenians Occurring in the Action Area ................................................................................. 141

Table 3.5-4. Fissipeds Occurring in the Action Area ................................................................................. 146

Table 3.5-5. Significance Criteria for the Analysis of Impacts to Marine Mammals................................. 152

Table 3.5-6. Survey Effort under Alternative A, by Geographic Region by Year....................................... 164

Table 3.5-7. Active Underwater Sources and Acoustic Parameters Considered in Exposure Modeling.. 165

Table 3.5-8. Total Predicted Exposures for Cetacean Species and Range Accounting for 95 Percent of 

Exposure Above PTS Threshold Under Alternative A ..................................................... 168

Table 3.5-9. Comparison of Exposure Above PTS Threshold for Cetacean Species Under Alternative A 

with Current Potential Biological Removal (PBR) Levels ................................................ 169

Table 3.5-10. Total Predicted Exposures for Cetacean Species and Time in Seconds Above the 

Behavioral Disruption Threshold Under Alternative A................................................... 170

Table 3.5-11. Total Predicted Exposures for Pinniped Species and Time in Seconds Above the 

Behavioral Disruption Threshold Under Alternative A................................................... 184

Table 3.5-12. Total Predicted Exposures for Manatees and Time in Seconds Above the Behavioral 

Disruption Threshold Under Alternative A ..................................................................... 195

Table 3.5-13. Total Predicted Exposures for Fissiped Species and Time in Seconds Above the Behavioral 

Disruption Threshold Under Alternative A ..................................................................... 202

Table 3.5-14. Survey Effort under Alternative B, by Geographic Region by Year..................................... 211

Table 3.5-15. Total Predicted Exposures for Cetacean Species and Range Accounting for 95 Percent of 

Exposure Above PTS Threshold Under Alternative B ..................................................... 213

Table 3.5-16. Comparison of Exposure Above PTS Threshold for Cetacean Species Under Alternative B 

with Current Potential Biological Removal (PBR) Levels ................................................ 213

Table 3.5-17. Total Predicted Exposures for Cetacean Species and Time in Seconds Above the 

Behavioral Disruption Threshold Under Alternative B ................................................... 214
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

xvii

Table 3.5-18. Total Predicted Exposures for Pinniped Species and Time in Seconds Above the 

Behavioral Disruption Threshold Under Alternative B ................................................... 219

Table 3.5-19. Total Predicted Exposures for Manatees and Time in Seconds Above the Behavioral 

Disruption Threshold Under Alternative B ..................................................................... 222

Table 3.5-20. Total Predicted Exposures for Fissiped Species and Time in Seconds Above the Behavioral 

Disruption Threshold Under Alternative B ..................................................................... 224

Table 3.5-21. Survey Effort under Alternative C, by Geographic Region by Year..................................... 225

Table 3.5-22. Total Predicted Exposures for Cetacean Species and Range Accounting for 95 Percent of 

Exposure Above PTS Threshold Under Alternative C...................................................... 227

Table 3.5-23. Comparison of Exposure Above PTS Threshold for Cetacean Species Under Alternative C 

with Current Potential Biological Removal (PBR) Levels ................................................ 228

Table 3.5-24. Total Predicted Exposures for Cetacean Species and Time in Seconds Above the 

Behavioral Disruption Threshold Under Alternative C ................................................... 229

Table 3.5-25. Total Predicted Exposures for Pinniped Species and Time in Seconds Above the 

Behavioral Disruption Threshold Under Alternative C ................................................... 234

Table 3.5-26. Total Predicted Exposures for Manatees and Time in Seconds Above the Behavioral 

Disruption Threshold Under Alternative C ..................................................................... 236

Table 3.5-27. Total Predicted Exposures for Fissiped Species and Time in Seconds Above the Behavioral 

Disruption Threshold Under Alternative C ..................................................................... 238

Table 3.5-28. Summary of Effects Determinations for ESA-Listed Marine Mammals and Critical 

Habitat ............................................................................................................................ 242

Table 3.6-1. Sea Turtles Occurring in the Action Area.............................................................................. 245

Table 3.6-2. Significance Criteria for the Analysis of Impacts to Sea Turtles............................................ 258

Table 3.6-3. Summary of Effects Determinations for ESA-Listed Sea Turtles and Critical Habitat........... 272

Table 3.7-1. ESA-Listed Fish Occurring in the Action Area........................................................................ 281

Table 3.7-2. Significance Criteria for the Analysis of Impacts to Fish ....................................................... 313

Table 3.7-3. Summary of Effects Determinations for ESA-Listed Fish and Critical Habitat ...................... 327

Table 3.8-1. ESA-Listed Marine Macroinvertebrates Occurring in the Action Area ................................. 336

Table 3.8-2. ESA-Listed Aquatic Macroinvertebrates Occurring in the Great Lakes ................................ 346

Table 3.8-3. Significance Criteria for the Analysis of Impacts to Aquatic Macroinvertebrates................ 348

Table 3.8-4. Summary of Effects Determinations for ESA-Listed Aquatic Macroinvertebrates and 

Critical Habitat ................................................................................................................ 359

Table 3.9-1. EFH and HAPCs for Atlantic HMS .......................................................................................... 364

Table 3.9-2. EFH and HAPCs for the Greater Atlantic Region................................................................... 366

Table 3.9-3. EFH and HAPCs for the Southeast Region - South Atlantic................................................... 372

Table 3.9-4. EFH and HAPCs for the Southeast Region – Gulf of Mexico ................................................. 374

Table 3.9-5. EFH and HAPCs for the Southeast Region – U.S. Caribbean................................................. 376

Table 3.9-6. EFH and HAPCs for the West Coast Region........................................................................... 378

Table 3.9-7. EFH and HAPCs for the Alaska Region................................................................................... 381

Table 3.9-8. EFH and HAPCs for the Pacific Islands Region ...................................................................... 386

Table 3.9-9. Significance Criteria for the Analysis of Impacts to EFH ....................................................... 388
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

xviii

Table 3.10-1. Ecological Characteristics of Functional and Taxonomic Bird Groups................................ 400

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

the Action Area ............................................................................................................... 401

Table 3.10-3. Significance Criteria for the Analysis of Impacts to Seabirds, Shorebirds and Coastal Birds, 

and Waterfowl ................................................................................................................ 418

Table 3.10-4. Summary of Effects Determinations for ESA-Listed Seabirds, Shorebirds and Coastal 

Birds, and Waterfowl and Critical Habitat...................................................................... 432

Table 3.11-1. Significance Criteria for the Analysis of Impacts to Cultural Resources ............................. 445

Table 3.12-1. U.S. Ocean and Great Lakes National Economy by Sector (2016)...................................... 454

Table 3.12-2. U.S. Ocean and Great Lakes National Economy by Region (2016) ..................................... 455

Table 3.12-3. Tourism and Recreation Sector by Region (2016) .............................................................. 456

Table 3.12-4. Marine and Coastal Transportation by Region (2016)........................................................ 456

Table 3.12-5. Offshore Mineral Extraction by Region (2016) ................................................................... 457

Table 3.12-6. Living Resources Economy by Region (2016)...................................................................... 458

Table 3.12-7. Marine Construction Economy by Region (2016)............................................................... 461

Table 3.12-8. Ship and Boat Building by Region (2016)............................................................................ 461

Table 3.12-9. Significance Criteria for the Analysis of Impacts to Socioeconomic Resources.................. 462

Table 3.12-10. Summary of Benefits to Activities Affected by Coastal and Marine Data ........................ 464

Table 3.13-1. Summary of Subsistence Hunting of Marine Mammals..................................................... 486

Table 3.13-2. Summary of Subsistence Fishing of Salmon and Halibut.................................................... 493

Table 3.13-3. Subsistence Fishing in the Great Lakes Basin*.................................................................... 495

Table 3.13-4. Significance Criteria for the Analysis of Impacts to Environmental Justice........................ 497

Table 3.14-1. MARPOL Annexes Applicable to Vessels............................................................................. 509

Table 3.18-1. Summary Comparison of Impacts....................................................................................... 515

Table 4.1-1. Representative List of Surveying and Research Projects within the Greater Atlantic 

Region ............................................................................................................................. 532

Table 4.1-2. Representative List of Surveying and Research Projects within the Southeast Region ....... 534

Table 4.1-3. Representative List of Surveying and Research Projects within the West Coast Region ..... 535

Table 4.1-4. Representative List of Surveying and Research Projects within the Alaska Region ............. 537

Table 4.1-5. Representative List of Surveying and Research Projects within the Pacific Island Region... 540

Table 4.1-6. BOEM 2019–2024 Draft Proposed Program Lease Sale Schedule........................................ 542

Table 4.1-7. Representative List of Oil and Gas Projects within the Alaska Region ................................. 545

Table 4.1-8. Representative List of National Defense and Homeland Security Projects within the Action 

Area................................................................................................................................. 558

Table 4.1-9. Representative List of Coastal Development Projects within the Action Area..................... 562

FIGURES:

Figure 1.3-1. Action Area for Surveying and Mapping Activities Conducted by the National Ocean 

Service............................................................................................................................... 26

Figure 2.1-1. Biologically Important Areas in Alaska .................................................................................. 34
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

xix

Figure 2.2-1. Common Activities Used in NOS Projects.............................................................................. 36

Figure 2.3-1. Geographic Scope of Final PEIS.............................................................................................. 39

Figure 2.4-1. A Navigation Response Team Boat Being Placed in the Water............................................. 40

Figure 2.4-2. NOAA Ship Rainier in Alaska, with its Survey Launches......................................................... 40

Figure 2.4-3. Geographic Distribution of NOS Crewed Vessel Operations Based on Five Years of 

Projected Funding............................................................................................................. 41

Figure 2.4-4. Teledyne Z-Boat..................................................................................................................... 42

Figure 2.4-5. USV iXblue Drix ...................................................................................................................... 42

Figure 2.4-6. REMUS-100 AUV.................................................................................................................... 43

Figure 2.4-7. REMUS-600 AUV.................................................................................................................... 43

Figure 2.4-8. Artist’s Rendering of Single Beam and Multibeam Echo Sounder Operation ....................... 44

Figure 2.4-9. Diagram of Side Scan Sonar Operation.................................................................................. 45

Figure 2.4-10. A Side Scan Sonar Image of Herbert D. Maxwell, a Schooner that Sank in the Chesapeake 

Bay on May 16, 1910 ........................................................................................................ 45

Figure 2.4-11. Example of Subsurface ADCP Buoys Currently in Use by NOS (shown: Streamlined 

Underwater Buoyancy System Model A2 Coastal ADCP) ................................................. 46

Figure 2.4-12. CTD Instrument.................................................................................................................... 47

Figure 2.4-13. Moving Vessel Profiler Mounted on the Fantail of a Ship................................................... 47

Figure 2.4-14. XBT Probe............................................................................................................................. 48

Figure 2.4-15. XBT Hand Launcher.............................................................................................................. 48

Figure 2.4-16. Pier-mounted Acoustic Sensor Tide Gauge Station............................................................. 50

Figure 2.4-17. Pressure Sensor Tide Gauge Station (and Tubing) .............................................................. 50

Figure 2.4-18. Microwave Sensor and Instrument in Bridgeport, Connecticut.......................................... 51

Figure 2.4-19. A GPS Tide Buoy................................................................................................................... 51

Figure 3.4-1. Habitat Types and Features Present in the Action Area........................................................ 72

Figure 3.4-2. Global Composition of Water................................................................................................ 73

Figure 3.4-3. Global Composition of Freshwater........................................................................................ 74

Figure 3.4-4. Eutrophication Process.......................................................................................................... 75

Figure 3.4-5. Eutrophic Habitat Condition of Major U.S. Estuaries* .......................................................... 76

Figure 3.4-6. Shallow Marine Habitat Condition by Location..................................................................... 77

Figure 3.5-1. Humpback Whale with Two Blowholes................................................................................. 93

Figure 3.5-2. Humpback Whale Feeding (note Baleen Strainers)............................................................... 93

Figure 3.5-3. Cetacean Designated Critical Habitat in the Greater Atlantic Region ................................. 104

Figure 3.5-4. Cetacean Designated Critical Habitat in the Southeast Region........................................... 105

Figure 3.5-5. Cetacean Designated Critical Habitat in the West Coast Region......................................... 106

Figure 3.5-6. Cetacean Designated Critical Habitat in the Alaska Region................................................. 107

Figure 3.5-7. Cetacean Designated Critical Habitat in the Pacific Islands Region..................................... 108

Figure 3.5-8. Bowhead Whale and Calf..................................................................................................... 109

Figure 3.5-9. Core Distribution Area for the Rice’s Whale in the Gulf of Mexico..................................... 111

Figure 3.5-10. North Atlantic Right Whale................................................................................................ 115
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

xx

Figure 3.5-11. Locations of the 14 Distinct Population Segments of Humpback Whales Worldwide...... 118

Figure 3.5-12. Pod of Beluga Whales........................................................................................................ 120

Figure 3.5-13. Killer Whale Breaching....................................................................................................... 121

Figure 3.5-14. Pinniped Designated Critical Habitat in the West Coast Region ....................................... 129

Figure 3.5-15. Pinniped Designated Critical Habitat in the Alaska Region ............................................... 130

Figure 3.5-16. Pinniped Designated Critical Habitat in the Pacific Islands Region ................................... 131

Figure 3.5-17. Steller Sea Lions................................................................................................................. 133

Figure 3.5-18. Hawaiian Monk Seal .......................................................................................................... 135

Figure 3.5-19. West Indian Manatee ........................................................................................................ 139

Figure 3.5-20. Sirenian Designated Critical Habitat in the Southeast Region........................................... 140

Figure 3.5-21. Fissiped Designated Critical Habitat in the Alaska Region................................................. 145

Figure 3.5-22. Sea Otter with Sea Urchins................................................................................................ 147

Figure 3.5-23. Polar Bear on Sea Ice ......................................................................................................... 149

Figure 3.6-1. Southeast Region Sea Turtle Designated Critical Habitat and Nesting Sites....................... 249

Figure 3.6-2. West Coast Region Sea Turtle Designated Critical Habitat.................................................. 250

Figure 3.6-3. Pacific Islands Region Sea Turtle Nesting Sites.................................................................... 251

Figure 3.6-4. Young Loggerhead ............................................................................................................... 252

Figure 3.6-5. Green Sea Turtle .................................................................................................................. 253

Figure 3.6-6. Hawksbill.............................................................................................................................. 255

Figure 3.6-7. Kemp’s Ridley Sea Turtle ..................................................................................................... 256

Figure 3.6-8. Olive Ridley Sea Turtle......................................................................................................... 257

Figure 3.6-9. Leatherback Sea Turtle ........................................................................................................ 257

Figure 3.7-1. Demersal Flatfishes.............................................................................................................. 275

Figure 3.7-2. Summary of the Status, General Ecology, and General Distribution and Movement of 

Marine Fish Groups Potentially Occurring within the Action Area................................. 276

Figure 3.7-3. Pelagic Atlantic Tunas.......................................................................................................... 277

Figure 3.7-4. Sea Lamprey......................................................................................................................... 279

Figure 3.7-5. Nassau Grouper................................................................................................................... 284

Figure 3.7-6. Atlantic Salmon.................................................................................................................... 287

Figure 3.7-7. Coho Salmon........................................................................................................................ 292

Figure 3.7-8. Steelhead ............................................................................................................................. 295

Figure 3.7-9. Yelloweye Rockfish .............................................................................................................. 300

Figure 3.7-10. Giant Manta Ray ................................................................................................................ 302

Figure 3.7-11. Atlantic Sturgeon ............................................................................................................... 305

Figure 3.7-12. Designated Critical Habitat for Atlantic Sturgeon and Atlantic Salmon in the Greater 

Atlantic Region................................................................................................................ 310

Figure 3.7-13. Designated Critical Habitat for Atlantic Sturgeon in the Southeast Region...................... 311

Figure 3.7-14. Designated Critical Habitat for Ten Fish Species in the West Coast Region...................... 312

Figure 3.8-1. NOS Diver on Gray's Reef with Variety of Marine Macroinvertebrates.............................. 332
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

xxi

Figure 3.8-2. Jellyfish in the Order Limnomedusae .................................................................................. 332

Figure 3.8-3. Variety of Freshwater Benthic Macroinvertebrates............................................................ 334

Figure 3.8-4. Zebra Mussel........................................................................................................................ 334

Figure 3.8-5. Staghorn Coral and Fish for Which They Furnish Habitat.................................................... 338

Figure 3.8-6. Acropora jacquelineae ......................................................................................................... 339

Figure 3.8-7. Acropora speciosa................................................................................................................ 341

Figure 3.8-8. Pillar Coral............................................................................................................................ 341

Figure 3.8-9. White Abalone ..................................................................................................................... 343

Figure 3.8-10. Mountainous Star Coral..................................................................................................... 344

Figure 3.8-11. Pocillopora meandrina....................................................................................................... 345

Figure 3.8-12. Rayed Bean Mussel............................................................................................................ 347

Figure 3.9-1. EFH in the U.S. EEZ............................................................................................................... 362

Figure 3.9-2. Seagrass EFH........................................................................................................................ 363

Figure 3.9-3. HAPCs for Atlantic HMS ....................................................................................................... 365

Figure 3.9-4. HAPCs in the Greater Atlantic Region.................................................................................. 370

Figure 3.9-5. HAPCs in the Southeast Region ........................................................................................... 371

Figure 3.9-6. HAPCs in the West Coast Region ......................................................................................... 380

Figure 3.9-7. HAPCs in the Alaska Region ................................................................................................. 384

Figure 3.9-8. Coral Reef EFH in the Pacific Islands Region........................................................................ 385

Figure 3.9-9. HAPCs in the Pacific Islands Region ..................................................................................... 387

Figure 3.10-1. Marbled Murrelet.............................................................................................................. 403

Figure 3.10-2. Male Short-tailed Albatross Shelters a Chick..................................................................... 404

Figure 3.10-3. Caribbean Roseate Tern .................................................................................................... 406

Figure 3.10-4. Red Knot with Leg Tag ....................................................................................................... 407

Figure 3.10-5. Piping Plover...................................................................................................................... 407

Figure 3.10-6. Western Snowy Plover....................................................................................................... 408

Figure 3.10-7. Whooping Crane with Chick .............................................................................................. 409

Figure 3.10-8. A Lone Wood Stork Wades at Water’s Edge ..................................................................... 411

Figure 3.10-9. Painting of an Eskimo Curlew by Louis Agassiz Fuertes (1874-1927)................................ 412

Figure 3.10-10. Steller’s Eider Male and Female ...................................................................................... 414

Figure 3.10-11. Spectacled Eider .............................................................................................................. 414

Figure 3.10-12. Designated Critical Habitat in the Southeast Region....................................................... 415

Figure 3.10-13. Designated Critical Habitat in the West Coast Region..................................................... 416

Figure 3.10-14. Designated Critical Habitat in the Alaska Region ............................................................ 417

Figure 3.11-1. City of Washington Shipwreck, Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary ......................... 436

Figure 3.11-2. Lily Point TCP, Washington................................................................................................ 442

Figure 3.11-3. Nantucket Sound Traditional Cultural Place Boundary ..................................................... 442

Figure 3.11-4. Tide Gauge on a Pier.......................................................................................................... 443
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

xxii

Figure 3.12-1. Coastal Wetland in Alaska Serves as Nursery and Rearing Habitat for Juvenile Pacific 

Salmon ............................................................................................................................ 459

Figure 3.13-1. Alaska Bowhead Whaling Communities............................................................................ 474

Figure 3.13-2. Bowhead Whale Hunting Areas......................................................................................... 475

Figure 3.13-3. Proposed Gray Whale Hunting Area.................................................................................. 476

Figure 3.13-4. Beluga Hunting Areas (Cook Inlet stock) ........................................................................... 478

Figure 3.13-5. Alaska Native Communities Engaged in Polar Bear Subsistence Hunting......................... 482

Figure 3.13-6. Polar Bear Hunting Areas for the CBS Stock in Point Hope and Point Lay Communities.. 483

Figure 3.13-7. Historical and Present-Day Walrus Hunting Areas............................................................ 485

Figure 3.13-8. Subsistence Fishing in Alaska Peninsula and Chignik Areas .............................................. 491

Figure 3.13-9. Halibut Subsistence Fishing Areas..................................................................................... 492

Figure 3.13-10. Federally Recognized Tribes in and Around the Great Lakes Basin................................. 494

Figure 3.13-11. Proportions of Major Subsistence Species Groups Harvested in Alaska Communities... 500

Figure 4.1-1. Deep Penetration Seismic Airgun Surveying ....................................................................... 531

Figure 4.1-2. Alaska Outer Continental Shelf Program Areas................................................................... 544

Figure 4.1-3. Acoustic Pathways for Underwater Noise from an Offshore Wind Turbine in Operation.. 547

Figure 4.1-4. Locations of U.S. Offshore Wind Energy Projects and Areas for Potential Wind 

Development in the North Atlantic, South Atlantic, and Pacific .................................... 548

Figure 4.1-5. Size of Annual Dead Zone (green bars) in the Gulf of Mexico (1985 to 2021).................... 551

Figure 4.1-6. Shipping Lanes and Vessel Traffic Restrictions within the Action Area............................... 552

Figure 4.1-7. Arctic Vessel Routes............................................................................................................. 553

Figure 4.1-8. Deepwater Port Location and Status Map .......................................................................... 556

APPENDICES:

Appendix A: Summary of NOS Program Offices and Their Use of Active Acoustic Data

Appendix B: Notice of Availability of a Draft Programmatic EIS for Surveying and Mapping Projects in 

U.S. Waters for Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

Appendix C: Response to Public Comments on the National Ocean Service Draft PEIS

Appendix D: Mitigation Measures During the NOS Mapping and Surveying Activities

Appendix E: Technical Acoustic Analysis of Oceanographic Surveys for the National Ocean Service
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

xxiii

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

ac Acre

ACHP Advisory Council on Historic Preservation

ACSPI Aleut Community of St. Paul Island 

ADCP Acoustic Doppler Current Profiler

ADF&G Alaska Department of Fish and Game

AEWC Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission

AIS Automatic Identification System

AMMC Aleut Marine Mammal Commission

ANILCA Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act

ANO Alaska Native Organization

APE Area of Potential Effect

APPS Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships

AR Alaska Region

ARPA Archaeological Resources Protection Act

AUV Autonomous Underwater Vehicle

AWOIS Automated Wreck and Obstruction Information System

BA Biological Assessment

BEA Bureau of Economic Analysis

BIA Biologically Important Area

BLS Bureau of Labor Statistics

BMP Best Management Practice

BOEM Bureau of Ocean Energy Management

C Celsius

C6H12O6 Glucose

C&S Ceremonial and Subsistence

CaCO3 Calcium carbonate

CBS Chukchi/Bering Seas

CDA Core Distribution Area

CEQ Council on Environmental Quality

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

CH4 Methane

CLFA Compact Low Frequency Active

cm Centimeter

CMP Coastal Management Program

CO2 Carbon Dioxide

CO3

2- Carbonate

CO Carbon Monoxide

CO-OPS Center for Operational Oceanographic Products and Services

CORA Chippewa Ottawa Resource Authority

COVID-19 Coronavirus Disease 2019

CPA Closest Point of Approach

CTD Conductivity, Temperature, and Depth
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

xxiv

CWA Clean Water Act 

CZMA Coastal Zone Management Act

dB Decibel

DDT Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane

DO Dissolved Oxygen

DOE Department of Energy

DPS Distinct Population Segment 

EEZ Exclusive Economic Zone

EFH Essential Fish Habitat

EIS Environmental Impact Statement

EJ Environmental Justice

ENOW Economics National Ocean Watch

EO Executive Order 

EPA Environmental Protection Agency

ESA Endangered Species Act

ESU Evolutionarily Significant Unit

EWC Eskimo Walrus Commission

F Fahrenheit

FCC Federal Communications Commission

FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency

FMC Fishery Management Council

FMP Fisheries Management Plan

FR Federal Register

FSA Fur Seal Act

ft Foot/Feet

FWPCA Federal Water Pollution Control Act

G&G Geological and Geophysical

GAR Greater Atlantic Region

GDP Gross Domestic Product

GEBCO General Bathymetric Chart of the Oceans

GHG Greenhouse Gas

GIS Geographic Information System

GLIFWC Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission

GOES Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellite

GOMESA Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act

GPS Global Positioning System

ha Hectare

HAPC Habitat Area of Particular Concern

HCO3

- Bicarbonate

HF High-Frequency

HFAS High Frequency Active Sonar

HFR High Frequency Radar Systems

HMS Highly Migratory Species

HRG High Resolution Geophysical
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

xxv

HTF Hypoxia Task Force

Hz Hertz

IHA Incidental Harassment Authorization

in Inch

IOOS Integrated Ocean Observing System

IPaC Information for Planning and Consultation

IPHC International Pacific Halibut Commission

ITR Incidental Take Regulation

IUU Illegal, Unreported, and Unregulated

IWC International Whaling Commission

IWG-OCM Interagency Working Group on Ocean and Coastal Mapping

kg Kilogram

kHz Kilohertz

km Kilometer

km2 Square Kilometer

lbs Pounds

LED Light Emitting Diode

LF Low-frequency

LFA Low Frequency Active

Lidar Light Detection and Ranging

LNG Liquified Natural Gas

LOA Letter of Authorization

m Meter

MARAD Maritime Administration

MARPOL Marine Pollution

MBES Multibeam Echo Sounder

MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act

MF Mid-Frequency

MFAS Mid-frequency Active Sonar

MHK Marine and Hydrokinetic

mi Mile

mi2 Square Mile

MI Michigan

mm Millimeter 

MMP Marine Minerals Program

MMPA Marine Mammal Protection Act

MMS Minerals Management Service 

MMT Million Metric Tons

MN Minnesota

MOA Memorandum of Agreement

MPA Marine Protected Area

mph Miles per Hour

ms Millisecond

MSA Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

xxvi

MSD Marine Sanitation Device

MSM Marine Safety Manual

MW Megawatt

MWWL Microwave Water Level 

N2O Nitrogen Dioxide

NAGPRA Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act

NAO NOAA Administrative Order

NAVO Naval Oceanographic Office

NCCOS National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science

NCCR National Coastal Condition Report

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

NETL National Energy Technology Laboratory

NFH National Fish Hatchery

NGO Non-Governmental Organization

NGS National Geodetic Survey

NHO Native Hawaiian Organization

NHPA National Historic Preservation Act

nm Nautical Mile

nm2 Square Nautical Mile

NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service

NMSA National Marine Sanctuaries Act

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

NOS National Ocean Service

NOx Nitrogen Oxides

NPS National Park Service

NRHP National Register of Historic Places 

NRT Navigation Response Team

NSF National Science Foundation

NVIC Navigation and Vessel Inspection Circular

NWLON National Water Level Observation Network

O&G Oil and Gas

O3 Ozone 

OCS Outer Continental Shelf 

OCSLA Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act

OHA2 Omnibus EFH Amendment 2

OHC Ocean Heat Content

OMAO Office of Marine and Aviation Operations

ONMS Office of National Marine Sanctuaries

OPAREA Operating Areas

ORR Office of Response and Restoration

OTEC Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion

PBR Potential Biological Removal

PCB Polychlorinated Biphenyl

PCE Primary Constituent Element
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

xxvii

PEA Programmatic Environmental Assessment

PEIS Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

PIR Pacific Islands Region

PSA Public Service Announcement

PSO Protected Species Observer

PTS Permanent Threshold Shift

REC Record of Environmental Consideration

rms Root-mean-square

ROV Remotely Operated Vehicles

SAR Stock Assessment Report

SBS Southern Beaufort Sea

SCUBA Self-contained Underwater Breathing Apparatus

SDB Satellite-derived Bathymetry

SEL Sound Exposure Level

SER Southeast Region

SHARC Subsistence Halibut Registration Certificate

SHPO State Historic Preservation Officer

SLA Submerged Lands Act

SONAR Sound Navigation and Ranging

SOx Sulfur Oxides

SPL Sound Pressure Level

SRS Sanctuary Resource Statement

SURTASS Surveillance Towed Array Sensor System

TAC Total Allowable Catch

TCP Traditional Cultural Place

THPO Tribal Historic Preservation Officer

TTS Temporary Threshold Shift

μm Micrometer

μPa Micropascal

U&A Usual and Accustomed

UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization

UNOLS University-National Oceanographic Laboratory System

U.S. United States

U.S.C. U.S. Code

USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

USCB U.S. Census Bureau 

USCG U.S. Coast Guard

USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

USGS U.S. Geological Survey

USV Uncrewed Surface Vehicle

VOC Volatile Organic Compound

VRP/SOPEP Shipboard Oil Pollution Emergency Plan & Non-Tank Vessel Response Plan

vs Versus

WCR West Coast Region
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

xxviii

WI Wisconsin

XBT Expendable Bathythermograph

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

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

INTRODUCTION

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) National Ocean Service (NOS) has prepared 

this Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) to analyze the potential environmental 

impacts associated with NOS’s recurring data collection projects (surveying and mapping) to characterize 

underwater features (e.g., habitat, bathymetry, marine debris) throughout United States (U.S.) waters. 

Data obtained from these projects are used to produce many products, including charts and maps that 

are relied upon by mariners, scientists, the shipping and fishing industries, and countless other users in 

the U.S. and beyond.

The Proposed Action evaluated in this Final PEIS is to continue NOS’s surveying and mapping projects over 

the next five years. These projects would include surveys performed from crewed vessels and remotely

operated or autonomous vehicles. Field crews would include NOS personnel, other NOAA personnel on 

behalf of NOS, contractors, grantees, or permit/authorization holders. These crews and vehicles may use 

echo sounders and other active acoustic equipment and employ other equipment, including bottom 

samplers and conductivity, temperature, and depth instruments to collect the needed data. The “action 

area” for these projects includes the U.S. territorial sea; the contiguous zone; the U.S. Exclusive Economic 

Zone (U.S. EEZ); rivers; and states’ offshore waters. The action area also includes coastal and riparian lands 

for activities such as the installation, maintenance, and removal of tide gauges. This analysis has been 

carried out to meet the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). NOS opted 

to prepare a programmatic NEPA document because the NOS mapping and surveying represents a suite 

of similar activities over a broad geographic region. 

This Final PEIS evaluates three alternatives: 1) the No Action Alternative (Alternative A), under which NOS 

would continue to gather accurate and timely data on the nature and condition of the marine and coastal 

environment, reflecting the technology, equipment, scope, and methods currently in use by NOS at the 

current level of effort (i.e., the status quo); 2) Alternative B, under which NOS would increase the adoption 

of new technologies to more efficiently perform surveying, mapping, charting and related data gathering; 

and 3) Alternative C, which also includes the adoption of new techniques and technologies and includes 

an overall funding increase of 20 percent. The Final PEIS has been prepared to: 1) inform NOS and the 

public on the physical, biological, economic, and social impacts of NOS mapping and surveying projects; 

and 2) assist NOS in deciding how to execute its mapping and surveying program over the next five years.

This Final PEIS was prepared in accordance with NEPA (42 United States Code [U.S.C.] § 4321, et seq.); 

Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) Regulations for Implementing the Procedural Provisions of NEPA

(40 CFR § 1500–1508 (1978)); NOAA Administrative Order 216-6A and other relevant federal and state 

laws and regulations. NOS revised the Final PEIS from the June 2021 draft version to reflect feedback 

received through interagency coordination and consultation, stakeholder input, and public comments. 

PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

NOS published a “Notice of Availability of a Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition” in the Federal 

Register on June 25, 2021 to announce the availability of the Draft PEIS for public review. Agency and 

public comments were received on the Draft PEIS, which was available for public review from June 25, 

2021 to November 22, 2021. During the public comment period for the Draft PEIS, NOS received 31 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

2

comment submissions from 30 commenters via Regulations.gov and email. Commenters included State 

Historic Preservation Officers (SHPOs), Tribal Historic Preservation Officers (THPOs), state Coastal 

Management program offices, federally recognized tribes, Alaska Native corporations, Alaska Native 

Organizations, Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs), and members of the public. The comments 

addressed a range of issues including the following:

• Protection of cultural and historic resources;

• Federal consistency under the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA); 

• Incorporation of mitigation measures;

• Environmental justice concerns pertaining to subsistence hunting and fishing in Alaska 

communities;

• Future coordination between NOS and key stakeholders, such as Alaska Eskimo Whaling 

Commission (AEWC), North Slope Borough Department of Wildlife Management, Calista 

Corporation in Alaska, Donlin Gold, Natural Resources Defense Council, Cultural Heritage Partners 

representing the Upper Mattaponi Indian Tribe, the Chickahominy Indian Tribe, and the Seneca 

Nation of New York;

• The NEPA process, scope of the PEIS, selection of a programmatic NEPA approach, alternatives to 

the Proposed Action, cumulative effects analysis, references and data cited in the effects analysis;

• Impacts to marine mammals, fish, habitats, birds, and sea turtles;

• Methodology and data consideration for the acoustic modeling;

• Impacts to socioeconomic resources such as fisheries; and

• Access to surveying and mapping data collected during NOS projects through data sharing.

NOS has thoroughly considered all of the input received and has responded to comments in Appendix C.

Revisions to the Final PEIS have been made in response to comments where appropriate.

NOS developed a public webpage specifically for development of the Draft and Final PEIS, which can be 

found at https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/about/environmental-compliance/surveying-mapping.html. NOS 

will publish a Record of Decision no sooner than 30 days after publication of the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency's Notice of Availability for the Final PEIS in the Federal Register.

Coordination with Other Agencies

NOS coordinated with the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

(USFWS) during preparation of this Final PEIS. NMFS has legal jurisdiction over most marine mammal 

species (through the Marine Mammal Protection Act [MMPA]), most threatened or endangered marine 

plant and animal species (through the Endangered Species Act [ESA]), and Essential Fish Habitat (through 

the Magnuson Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act [MSA]). USFWS has legal jurisdiction 

over certain marine mammal species including manatees, walruses, polar bears, and sea otters (through 

the MMPA), most threatened or endangered terrestrial plant and animal species (through the ESA), and 

over 1,000 species of birds (through the Migratory Bird Treaty Act [MBTA]). 

Both agencies provided a comprehensive Technical Assistance Review prior to publication of the Draft 

PEIS. In coordinating with NOS, NMFS and USFWS participated in multiple meetings and reviews during 

the development of the Draft PEIS. On December 8, 2021, USFWS sent NOS a letter requesting additional 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

3

information for completing consultation under Section 7 of the ESA for the Proposed Action. NOS provided 

the requested additional information and proposed revisions to the Draft PEIS on June 1, 2022. These 

revisions have been incorporated into the Final PEIS where appropriate.

NOS also initiated consultation with NMFS under the MMPA, ESA, and MSA and with USFWS under the 

MMPA. Additionally, in compliance with the National Marine Sanctuaries Act (NMSA), NOS prepared and 

submitted a Sanctuary Resource Statement (SRS) to the Office of National Marine Sanctuaries (ONMS) to 

address the required analyses necessary to initiate a consultation under Section 304(d) of the Act.

Table ES-1 summarizes the status of NOS coordination and consultation as of the publication of the Final 

PEIS:

Table ES-1. Consultation with Other Federal Agencies

Federal Agency Statute Documentation

Consultation 

Initiated/

Completed

Completed Consultations

National Marine Fisheries 

Service Office of Habitat 

Conservation

Magnuson-Stevens 

Fishery Conservation 

and Management Act 

Essential Fish Habitat

Essential Fish Habitat 

Assessment

June 2, 2022

Final Response 

received from NMFS 

OHC on November 

1, 2022

Ongoing Consultations

National Marine Fisheries 

Service Office of Protected 

Resources

Endangered Species 

Act

Biological Assessment

(Draft PEIS)

August 26, 2021

Ongoing

Office of National Marine 

Sanctuaries

National Marine 

Sanctuaries Act

Sanctuary Resource 

Statement

June 1, 2022

Ongoing

National Marine Fisheries 

Service Office of Protected 

Resources

Marine Mammal 

Protection Act

Letter of Authorization 

Application

June 3, 2022

Ongoing

U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service

Endangered Species 

Act

Biological Assessment

(Draft PEIS)

June 1, 2022

Ongoing

U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service

Marine Mammal 

Protection Act

Incidental Take Regulation 

Request

September 12,2022

Ongoing

Coordination with Tribes

On June 28, 2021, NOS sent letters to tribes notifying them of the availability of the Draft PEIS and inviting 

them to request government-to-government consultation under Executive Order (EO) 13175, 

Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments. Federally recognized tribes are American 

Indian or Alaska Native tribal entitiesrecognized as having a government-to-government relationship with 

the U.S., with the responsibilities, powers, limitations, and obligations attached to that designation, and 

are eligible for funding and services from the Bureau of Indian Affairs. See 86 FR 7554, updated by 87 FR 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

4

4636, for the full list of 574 federally recognized tribes. NOS recognizes its unique relationship with tribes 

and trust responsibility with tribal governments as set forth in the U.S. Constitution, treaties, statutes, 

executive orders, and court decisions. It is the policy of NOAA to consult on a government-to-government

basis with federally recognized tribal governments when the federal actions and decisions have tribal 

implications.

NOS did not receive any requests from federally recognized tribes to initiate government-to-government 

consultation on the Draft PEIS. Additionally, no requests were received to initiate government-tocorporation consultation from any Alaska Native corporation. NOS intends to notify individual federally 

recognized tribes consistent with EO 13175 before conducting any project that may have tribal 

implications. Federally recognized tribes are welcome to request government-to-government 

consultation at any time for a project that may have tribal implications. The consultation and coordination 

process would be conducted in accordance with NOAA’s Procedures for Government-to-Government 

Consultation with Federally Recognized Indian Tribes and Alaska Native Corporations (NOAA 13175 policy, 

November 12, 2013).

REVISIONS SINCE THE DRAFT PEIS

NOS updated the Draft PEIS to include additional mitigation measures designed to minimize the impacts 

of surveying and mapping activities on the human environment. Additional mitigation measures 

incorporated into the Final PEIS are expected to result in a reduction of adverse environmental impacts 

analyzed in the Draft PEIS.

Due to the timing of the consultations and the publication of the Final PEIS, the temporal scope of the 

Proposed Action has been reduced from six years (2022-2027) to five years (2023-2027). The annual 

numbers for project activities and project miles are expected to remain consistent with those estimated 

in the Draft PEIS; however, since the Final PEIS covers one less year than the Draft PEIS, the total estimated 

survey effort has decreased.

NOS, in coordination with the National Marine Fisheries Service, has incorporated additional data sources 

into the determination of marine mammal density, and has made technical corrections to the acoustic 

exposure estimates. The updated data are included in the Final PEIS. 

PURPOSE AND NEED STATEMENT

The purpose of the Proposed Action is to gather accurate and timely data on the marine and U.S. coastal 

environment. The need for the Proposed Action is to provide the public and private sectors with nautical 

charts, benthic habitat condition maps, current and tide charts, and other products necessary for safe 

navigation, economic security, and environmental sustainability. The public and decision-makers need 

these products to ensure safety at sea, economic well-being, and the efficient stewardship of public trust 

resources.

PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES

Alternative A: No Action – Conduct Surveys and Mapping for Coastal and Marine 

Data Collection with Current Technology and Methods, at Current

Funding Levels

Under Alternative A, NOS would continue to operate a variety of equipment and technologies to gather 

accurate and timely data on the nature and condition of the marine and coastal environment. This 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

5

alternative reflects the technology, equipment, scope, and methods currently in use by NOS, at the level 

of effort reflecting NOS fiscal year 2019 funding levels. NOS operations were widely disrupted during the 

2020 field season due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Therefore, the PEIS relies on 2019 as the baseline year 

for Alternative A as it is the most recent example of typical field operations that would be enacted if NOS 

chose to continue historical levels of project effort.

Alternative B: NOS Preferred Alternative – Conduct Surveys and Mapping for 

Coastal and Marine Data Collection with Equipment Upgrades, Improved 

Hydroacoustic Devices, and New Tide Stations

Alternative B consists of Alternative A plus the more widespread adoption of new techniques and 

technologies (such as remotely operated vehicles (ROVs), microwave water level (MWWL) radar sensors, 

etc.) to more efficiently perform surveying, mapping, charting and related data gathering. Specific 

examples of adaptive methods and equipment that NOS programs are likely to adopt under Alternative B 

in the next five years include:

• Greater use of ROVs with echo sounder technologies;

• Greater use of autonomous underwater vehicles (AUVs) and uncrewed surface vehicles (USVs) 

with echo sounder technologies;

• Conversion of one or more existing 10-m (33 feet) crewed survey boats into USVs;

• Greater use of more efficient, wide-beam sonar systems (i.e., phase-differencing bathymetric 

systems) for nearshore hydrographic surveys;

• Increased field operations in the National Marine Sanctuary system with associated requirements 

for hydroacoustic charting, surveying, mapping and associated activities; and

• Installation, operation, and maintenance of additional water level stations, including transitioning 

to mostly microwave water level (MWWL) radar sensors and upgraded storm strengthening to 

make stations more climate resilient.

Under Alternative B, all of the activities and equipment operation described in Alternative A would 

continue, many at a higher level of effort. The nature of these actions would not change, but the overall 

level of activity would be increased.

Alternative B is NOS’s preferred alternative because it takes advantage of newer, more efficient 

technology, responds to the needs of anticipated new marine sanctuaries, and more effectively addresses 

the nation’s needs for coastal and marine data.

Alternative C: Upgrades and Improvements with Greater Funding Support

Like Alternative B, Alternative C adopts new techniques and technologies to encourage greater program 

efficiencies regarding surveying, mapping, charting, and related data gathering activities. In addition, 

Alternative C would consist of NOS program implementation with an overall funding increase of 20 

percent relative to Alternative B. Under Alternative C, all of the activities and equipment operation 

described in Alternative B would continue, many at a higher level of effort. The nature of these actions 

would not change, but the overall level of activity would be augmented.

Table ES-2 compares the three alternatives.
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

6

Table ES-2. Comparison of NOS Annual Planned Surveying

and Mapping Activities under Alternatives A, B, and C*

Activity

Described 

in Section Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C

Crewed vessel 

operations

2.4.1 518,000 nm 

(959,000 km) 

577,000 nm 

(1,070,000 km) 

637,000 nm 

(1,180,000 km) 

Anchoring** 2.4.2 55 projects 59 projects 64 projects 

ROV/USV/ASV

movement

2.4.3 28,600 nm (53,000 

km)

86,300 nm 

(160,000 km)

102,300 nm 

(189,000 km)

Use of echo sounders 2.4.4 479,000 nm 

(887,000 km)

534,000 nm 

(988,000 km)

589,000 nm 

(1,090,000 km)

Use of sub-bottom 

profilers

2.4.4 3,210 nm (5,940 

km)

5,310 nm (9,830 

km)

7,710 nm (14,300 

km)

Use of mobile ADCPs 2.4.5 5,890 nm (10,900 

km)

11,200 nm (20,700 

km)

15,200 nm (28,200 

km)

Stationary ADCPs 

installed/visited for 

maintenance/removed

2.4.5 37 installed/78 

maintenance 

visits/33 removed

39 installed /79 

maintenance visits 

/33 removed

40 installed /79 

maintenance visits 

/33 removed

Use of acoustic 

communication 

systems

2.4.6 24 projects 33 projects 39 projects

Sound speed data 

collection

2.4.7 56 projects 64 projects 71 projects

Drop/towed 

cameras/video system 

operation

2.4.8 31 projects 36 projects 41 projects

Bottom sample 

collection

2.4.9 54 projects 61 projects 68 projects

Use of passive listening 

systems***

2.4.10 21 projects 24 projects 29 projects

SCUBA operations 2.4.11 248 projects 254 projects 269 projects

Tide gauges 

installed/visited for 

maintenance/removed

2.4.12 32 installed /305 

maintenance visits 

/30 removed

37 installed /305 

maintenance visits 

/35 removed

40 installed /305 

maintenance visits 

/38 removed

GPS reference system 

installation

2.4.13 12 installed 13 installed 15 installed

*All numbers are approximate and represent an annual level of effort. Projects for each activity were reported by 

NOS agencies without respect to the combination of activities within projects (e.g., a project involving both crewed 

vessel operation and echo sounder use would be reported as one crewed vessel project and one echo sounder 

project).

** NOS estimates that 20 percent of crewed vessel projects include an anchoring component.

***In addition to the projects presented in the table, NOS’s Center for Operational Oceanographic Products and 

Services uses passive listening systems on an as-needed basis. This entails the use of transponder or interrogator 

sensors during the deployment or retrieval of ADCPs.
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

7

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Table ES-3 presents a summary of the assessed environmental consequences associated with Alternatives 

A, B, and C for the resources analyzed in the Final PEIS. A more complete description of impacts is provided 

in Chapter 3. All environmental consequences from each of the alternatives are anticipated to be adverse, 

ranging from negligible to moderate, and insignificant, except for the environmental consequences to 

socioeconomic resources which are anticipated to be indirect, beneficial, and moderate. The primary 

difference in impacts among the alternatives is one of scale, with the impacts from Alternative B the same 

or slightly, but not appreciably, larger than those under Alternative A, and from Alternative C the same or 

slightly, but not appreciably, larger than those under Alternatives A and B for each impact causing factor.

NOS identified the potential for acoustic disturbance to marine mammals as an area warranting detailed 

analysis. In this Final PEIS, NOS finds that, after conducting quantitative acoustic impacts modeling, 

impacts on marine mammals under all alternatives are expected to be limited to behavioral disturbances 

that would be temporary or short-term and would not be considered outside the natural range of 

variability of species’ populations, their habitats, or the natural processes sustaining them. For a few 

individual high-frequency cetaceans, potential impacts from underwater acoustic sources include injury 

exposures in the form of hearing loss.
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

8

Table ES-3. Summary Comparison of Impacts

Resource

Alternative A: No Action – Conduct 

Surveys and Mapping for Coastal and 

Marine Data Collection with Current 

Technology and Methods, at Current

Funding Levels

Alternative B: Conduct Surveys and 

Mapping with Equipment 

Upgrades, Improved Hydroacoustic 

Devices, and New Tide Stations

Alternative C: Upgrades and 

Improvements with Greater 

Funding Support

Habitats Impacts to habitats from water 

column disruptions under Alternative 

A would continue to be adverse and 

negligible. 

Impacts to habitats from activities 

involving physical disturbance to 

bottom substrate; sedimentation, 

turbidity and chemical contaminants; 

increased ambient underwater sound

levels; and onshore activities under 

Alternative A would continue to be 

adverse and negligible to minor. 

The impact on habitats from invasive 

species dispersal facilitated by 

activities under Alternative A would 

likely continue to be adverse and 

minor. 

Impacts to habitat areas resulting 

from Alternative A would not cause 

long-term changes in the availability of 

space, shelter, cover, or nutrients 

necessary for dependent species. 

Impacts of Alternative B on habitats 

throughout the action area would 

be the same or slightly, but not 

appreciably, larger than those that 

would occur under Alternative A for 

each impact causing factor. 

Impacts to habitat areas resulting 

from Alternative A would not cause 

long-term changes in the availability 

of space, shelter, cover, or nutrients 

necessary for dependent species 

and would not substantially increase 

in intensity with the increased level 

of effort of Alternative B.

Overall, impacts to habitats under 

Alternative B would be adverse, 

minor, and insignificant.

Impacts of Alternative C on habitats 

throughout the action area would 

be the same or slightly, but not 

appreciably, larger than those under

Alternatives A and B for each impact 

causing factor. 

Impacts to habitat areas resulting 

from Alternatives A and B would not 

cause long-term decreases in the 

availability of space, shelter, cover, 

or nutrients necessary for 

dependent species and would not 

substantially increase in intensity 

with the increased level of effort of 

Alternative C.

Overall, impacts to habitats under 

Alternative C would be adverse, 

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

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

9

Resource

Alternative A: No Action – Conduct 

Surveys and Mapping for Coastal and 

Marine Data Collection with Current 

Technology and Methods, at Current

Funding Levels

Alternative B: Conduct Surveys and 

Mapping with Equipment 

Upgrades, Improved Hydroacoustic 

Devices, and New Tide Stations

Alternative C: Upgrades and 

Improvements with Greater 

Funding Support

Overall, impacts to habitats under 

Alternative A would continue to be 

adverse, minor, and insignificant.

Marine Mammals Impacts on marine mammals 

(cetaceans, pinnipeds, sirenians, and 

fissipeds) from trash and debris and 

air emissions under Alternative A 

would continue to be adverse and

negligible. 

Impacts from human activity under 

Alternative A would continue to be

adverse and negligible on cetaceans 

and sirenians and adverse and minor 

on pinnipeds and fissipeds. 

Impacts on marine mammals 

(cetaceans, pinnipeds, sirenians, and 

fissipeds) from accidental oil, fuel, or 

chemical spills under Alternative A 

would continue to be adverse and

negligible to minor. 

Impacts on marine mammals 

(cetaceans, pinnipeds, sirenians, and 

fissipeds) from active underwater 

acoustic sources, vessel and 

equipment sound, vessel presence 

and movement of equipment in the 

Impacts of Alternative B on marine 

mammals would be the same or 

slightly, but not appreciably, larger 

than those that would occur under 

Alternative A for each impact 

causing factor.

Impacts to marine mammals

resulting from Alternative A would 

be temporary or short-term and 

would not be considered outside the 

natural range of variability of 

species’ populations, their habitats, 

or the natural processes sustaining 

them. These impacts would not 

substantially increase in intensity 

with the increased survey effort of 

Alternative B. 

Overall, impacts of Alternative B on 

marine mammals, including ESAlisted species, and habitat, including 

designated critical habitat, would be 

adverse, minor, and insignificant.

Impacts of Alternative C on marine 

mammals would be the same or 

slightly, but not appreciably, larger 

than those that would occur under 

Alternatives A and B for each impact 

causing factor.

Impacts to marine mammals

resulting from Alternatives A and B 

would be temporary or short-term 

and would not be considered 

outside the natural range of 

variability of species’ populations, 

their habitats, or the natural 

processes sustaining them. These 

impacts would not substantially 

increase in intensity with the 

increased survey effort of 

Alternative C. 

Overall, impacts of Alternative C on 

marine mammals, including ESAlisted species, and habitat, including 

designated critical habitat, would be 

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

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

10

Resource

Alternative A: No Action – Conduct 

Surveys and Mapping for Coastal and 

Marine Data Collection with Current 

Technology and Methods, at Current

Funding Levels

Alternative B: Conduct Surveys and 

Mapping with Equipment 

Upgrades, Improved Hydroacoustic 

Devices, and New Tide Stations

Alternative C: Upgrades and 

Improvements with Greater 

Funding Support

water under Alternative A would 

continue to be adverse and minor. 

Impacts on pinnipeds and fissipeds 

from air emissions under Alternative A 

would continue to be adverse and 

negligible.

Although a vessel strike is very 

unlikely, debilitating injury or 

mortality of one or a few individuals 

could occur and impacts would be 

adverse and moderate, or greater if 

an ESA-listed species is affected. If a 

walrus stampede occurs due to vessel 

or aircraft disturbance, the impact 

could be adverse and moderate or 

greater. If polar bears are disturbed at 

denning sites or if polar bear-human 

interactions occur, the impact could 

be adverse and moderate.

Potential impacts from underwater 

acoustic sources include injury 

exposures in the form of hearing loss 

(PTS) on cetaceans, but such injury 

would be rare and confined to a few 

individual high-frequency cetaceans. It 

would also include behavioral 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

11

Resource

Alternative A: No Action – Conduct 

Surveys and Mapping for Coastal and 

Marine Data Collection with Current 

Technology and Methods, at Current

Funding Levels

Alternative B: Conduct Surveys and 

Mapping with Equipment 

Upgrades, Improved Hydroacoustic 

Devices, and New Tide Stations

Alternative C: Upgrades and 

Improvements with Greater 

Funding Support

disruption exposures of cetaceans, 

pinnipeds, sirenians and fissipeds, but 

the amount of time individuals may 

exceed the behavioral exposure 

threshold would be on average less 

than a few minutes.

Impacts to marine mammals resulting 

from Alternative A would be 

temporary or short-term and would 

not be considered outside the natural 

range of variability of species’ 

populations, their habitats, or the 

natural processes sustaining them. 

Overall, impacts of Alternative A on 

marine mammals, including ESA-listed 

species, and habitat, including 

designated critical habitat, would 

continue to be adverse, minor, and 

insignificant.

Sea Turtles Impacts to sea turtles and their 

habitats from active underwater 

acoustic sources, vessel and 

equipment sound, and onshore 

activities under Alternative A would 

continue to be adverse and negligible.

Impacts of Alternative B on sea 

turtles and their habitats would be 

the same or slightly, but not 

appreciably, larger than those that 

would occur under Alternative A for 

each impact causing factor.

Impacts of Alternative C on sea 

turtles and their habitats would be 

the same or slightly, but not 

appreciably, larger than those that 

would occur under Alternatives A

and B for each impact causing 

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

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

12

Resource

Alternative A: No Action – Conduct 

Surveys and Mapping for Coastal and 

Marine Data Collection with Current 

Technology and Methods, at Current

Funding Levels

Alternative B: Conduct Surveys and 

Mapping with Equipment 

Upgrades, Improved Hydroacoustic 

Devices, and New Tide Stations

Alternative C: Upgrades and 

Improvements with Greater 

Funding Support

Impacts to sea turtles and their 

habitats from vessel presence and 

movement, underwater activities, and 

air emissions under Alternative A 

would continue to be adverse and

negligible to minor.

Impacts to sea turtles and their 

habitats from accidental oil, fuel, or 

chemical spills would continue to be 

adverse and negligible to minor.

Although the effects of impact causing 

factors on sea turtles and their 

habitats range from negligible to 

moderate, moderate impacts could 

occur in the very unlikely event of an 

accidental spill of oil, fuel, or 

chemicals. Likewise, in the very 

unlikely event of a vessel strike, injury 

or death to sea turtles would also 

constitute a moderate or greater 

impact. 

Impacts to sea turtles resulting from 

Alternative A would not cause longterm changes in habitat availability 

and use, sea turtle behavior, or energy 

expenditures.

Impacts to sea turtles resulting from 

Alternative A would not cause longterm changes in habitat availability 

and use, sea turtle behavior, or 

energy expenditures and would not 

substantially increase in intensity 

with the increased survey effort of 

Alternative B. 

Overall, impacts on sea turtles and 

their habitat, including designated 

critical habitat, would be adverse, 

minor, and insignificant.

Impacts to sea turtles resulting from 

Alternatives A and B would not 

cause long-term changes in habitat 

availability and use, sea turtle 

behavior, or energy expenditures

and would not substantially increase 

in intensity with the increased 

survey effort of Alternative C. 

Overall, impacts on sea turtles and 

their habitat, including designated 

critical habitat, would be adverse, 

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

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

13

Resource

Alternative A: No Action – Conduct 

Surveys and Mapping for Coastal and 

Marine Data Collection with Current 

Technology and Methods, at Current

Funding Levels

Alternative B: Conduct Surveys and 

Mapping with Equipment 

Upgrades, Improved Hydroacoustic 

Devices, and New Tide Stations

Alternative C: Upgrades and 

Improvements with Greater 

Funding Support

Overall, impacts under Alternative A 

on sea turtles and their habitats, 

including designated critical habitat, 

would continue to be adverse, minor, 

and insignificant.

Fish Impacts to fish and their habitats from 

vessel wake and turbulence; vessel 

sound; accidental spill of oil, fuel, or 

chemicals; and disturbance of the 

ocean/lake/river bottom under 

Alternative A would continue to be 

adverse and negligible to minor.

Impacts to fish and their habitats from 

active underwater acoustic sources 

and air emissions under Alternative A 

would continue to be adverse and

minor.

Impacts to fish resulting from 

Alternative A may include some stress 

responses without permanent 

physiological damage, and may disturb 

breeding, feeding, or other activities 

but without any impacts on 

population levels; additionally, there

would not be long-term changes in 

Under Alternative B, impacts on fish 

and fish habitat would be the same 

or slightly, but not appreciably, 

larger than those that would occur

under Alternative A for each impact 

causing factor. 

Impacts to fish resulting from 

Alternative A may include some 

stress responses without permanent 

physiological damage, and may 

disturb breeding, feeding, or other 

activities but without any impacts 

on population levels; additionally, 

there would not be long-term 

changes in habitat availability and 

use or in fish behavior. These 

impacts would not substantially 

increase in intensity with the 

increased survey effort of 

Alternative B. 

Impacts of Alternative C on fish and 

fish habitat would be the same or 

slightly, but not appreciably, larger 

than those that would occur under 

Alternatives A and B for each impact 

causing factor. 

Impacts to fish resulting from 

Alternatives A and B may include 

some stress responses without 

permanent physiological damage, 

and may disturb breeding, feeding, 

or other activities but without any 

impacts on population levels; 

additionally, there would not be

long-term changes in habitat 

availability and use or in fish

behavior. These impacts would not 

substantially increase in intensity 

with the increased survey effort of 

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

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

14

Resource

Alternative A: No Action – Conduct 

Surveys and Mapping for Coastal and 

Marine Data Collection with Current 

Technology and Methods, at Current

Funding Levels

Alternative B: Conduct Surveys and 

Mapping with Equipment 

Upgrades, Improved Hydroacoustic 

Devices, and New Tide Stations

Alternative C: Upgrades and 

Improvements with Greater 

Funding Support

habitat availability and use or in fish

behavior.

Overall, impacts of Alternative A on 

fish, including ESA-listed species, and 

fish habitat, including designated 

critical habitat, would continue to be 

adverse, minor, and insignificant.

Overall, impacts of Alternative B on 

fish, including ESA-listed species,

and fish habitat, including 

designated critical habitat, would be 

adverse, minor, and insignificant.

Overall, impacts of Alternative C on 

fish, including ESA-listed species,

and fish habitat, including 

designated critical habitat, would be 

adverse, minor, and insignificant.

Aquatic 

Macroinvertebrates

Impacts to aquatic macroinvertebrates

and their habitats from underwater 

acoustic sources, vessel sound, and air 

emissions under Alternative A would 

continue to be adverse and negligible.

Impacts to aquatic macroinvertebrates

and their habitats from vessel wake 

and underwater turbulence;

accidental spill of oil, fuel, or 

chemicals; and disturbance of the 

ocean/lake/river bottom under 

Alternative A would continue to be 

adverse and negligible to minor.

Overall, impacts of Alternative A on 

aquatic macroinvertebrates, including 

ESA-listed species, and habitats, 

including designated critical habitat,

Under Alternative B, impacts on 

aquatic macroinvertebrates and 

their habitats would be the same or 

slightly, but not appreciably, larger 

than those that would occur under 

Alternative A for each impact 

causing factor. These impacts would 

not substantially increase in 

intensity with the increased survey 

effort of Alternative B. 

Overall, impacts of Alternative B on 

aquatic macroinvertebrates, 

including ESA-listed species, and 

habitats, including designated 

critical habitat, would be adverse, 

minor, and insignificant.

Under Alternative C, impacts on 

aquatic macroinvertebrates and 

their habitats would be the same or 

slightly, but not appreciably, larger 

than those that would occur under 

Alternatives A and B for each impact 

causing factor. These impacts would 

not substantially increase in 

intensity with the increased survey 

effort of Alternative C. 

Overall, impacts of Alternative C on 

aquatic macroinvertebrates, 

including ESA-listed species, and 

habitats, including designated 

critical habitat, would be adverse, 

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

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

15

Resource

Alternative A: No Action – Conduct 

Surveys and Mapping for Coastal and 

Marine Data Collection with Current 

Technology and Methods, at Current

Funding Levels

Alternative B: Conduct Surveys and 

Mapping with Equipment 

Upgrades, Improved Hydroacoustic 

Devices, and New Tide Stations

Alternative C: Upgrades and 

Improvements with Greater 

Funding Support

would continue to be adverse, minor, 

and insignificant.

Essential Fish Habitat

(EFH)

Impacts to EFH from disturbance of 

the water column under Alternative A 

would continue to be adverse and

negligible.

Impacts to EFH from physical impacts 

to bottom habitat; increase in 

sedimentation, turbidity, or chemical 

contamination; dispersal of invasive 

species; and increase in ambient 

sound under Alternative A would 

continue to be adverse and negligible 

to minor.

Impacts to EFH resulting from 

Alternative A would be infrequent, 

geographically widely distributed, and 

likely to elicit a minimal or temporary 

response from prey species or cause 

short-term changes to physical 

characteristics (i.e., changes in water 

quality).

Overall, impacts of Alternative A on 

EFH would continue to be adverse, 

minor, and insignificant.

Under Alternative B, impacts on EFH 

would be the same or slightly, but 

not appreciably, larger than those 

that would occur under Alternative 

A for each impact causing factor. 

Impacts to EFH resulting from 

Alternative A would be infrequent, 

geographically widely distributed, 

and likely to elicit a minimal or 

temporary response from prey 

species or cause short-term changes 

to physical characteristics (i.e., 

changes in water quality). These 

impacts would not substantially 

increase in intensity with the 

increased survey effort of 

Alternative B. 

Overall, impacts of Alternative B on 

EFH would be adverse, minor, and 

insignificant. 

Under Alternative C, impacts on EFH 

would be the same or slightly, but 

not appreciably, larger than those 

that would occur under Alternatives

A and B for each impact causing 

factor. 

Impacts to EFH resulting from 

Alternatives A and B would be 

infrequent, geographically widely 

distributed, and likely to elicit a 

minimal or temporary response

from prey species or cause shortterm changes to physical 

characteristics (i.e., changes in 

water quality). These impacts would 

not substantially increase in 

intensity with the increased survey 

effort of Alternative C. 

Overall, impacts of Alternative C on 

EFH would be adverse, minor, and 

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

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

16

Resource

Alternative A: No Action – Conduct 

Surveys and Mapping for Coastal and 

Marine Data Collection with Current 

Technology and Methods, at Current

Funding Levels

Alternative B: Conduct Surveys and 

Mapping with Equipment 

Upgrades, Improved Hydroacoustic 

Devices, and New Tide Stations

Alternative C: Upgrades and 

Improvements with Greater 

Funding Support

Seabirds, Shorebirds 

and Coastal Birds, and 

Waterfowl

Impacts to birds and their habitats 

from active underwater acoustic

sources and vessel and equipment 

sound under Alternative A would 

continue to be adverse and negligible.

Impacts to birds and their habitats 

from aircraft sound, vessel presence 

and movement, underwater activities, 

onshore activities, and air emissions 

under Alternative A would continue to 

be adverse and negligible to minor.

Impacts to birds and their habitats 

from accidental oil, fuel, or chemical 

spills would continue to be adverse 

and minor to moderate.

Although the effects of impact causing 

factors on birds and their habitats

range from negligible to moderate, 

moderate impacts could occur in the 

very unlikely event of an accidental 

spill of oil, fuel, or chemicals. Likewise, 

in the very unlikely event of a vessel 

strike, injury or death to birds could 

constitute greater impacts. 

Under Alternative B, impacts on 

birds and their habitats would be 

the same or slightly, but not 

appreciably, larger than those that 

would occur under Alternative A for 

each impact causing factor. 

Impacts to birds resulting from 

Alternative A would generally persist 

only for the duration of an activity

and would not be expected to cause 

any long-term changes in habitat 

use and availability or energy 

expenditure outside of the natural 

range of variation. These impacts

would not substantially increase in 

intensity with the increased survey 

effort of Alternative B.

Overall, impacts on of Alternative B 

on birds, including ESA-listed 

species, and habitats, including 

designated critical habitat, would be 

adverse, minor, and insignificant.

Under Alternative C, impacts on 

birds and their habitats would be 

the same or slightly, but not 

appreciably, larger than those that 

would occur under Alternatives A 

and B for each impact causing 

factor. 

Impacts to birds resulting from 

Alternatives A and B would generally 

persist only for the duration of an

activity and would not be expected 

to cause any long-term changes in 

habitat use and availability or 

energy expenditure outside of the 

natural range of variation. These 

impacts would not substantially 

increase in intensity with the 

increased survey effort of 

Alternative C. 

Overall, impacts on of Alternative C 

on birds, including ESA-listed 

species, and habitats, including 

designated critical habitat, would be 

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

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

17

Resource

Alternative A: No Action – Conduct 

Surveys and Mapping for Coastal and 

Marine Data Collection with Current 

Technology and Methods, at Current

Funding Levels

Alternative B: Conduct Surveys and 

Mapping with Equipment 

Upgrades, Improved Hydroacoustic 

Devices, and New Tide Stations

Alternative C: Upgrades and 

Improvements with Greater 

Funding Support

Impacts to birds resulting from 

Alternative A would generally persist 

only for the duration of an activity and 

would not be expected to cause any 

long-term changes in habitat use and 

availability or energy expenditure

outside of the natural range of 

variation.

Overall, impacts on of Alternative A on 

birds, including ESA-listed species, and 

habitats, including designated critical 

habitat, would continue to be 

adverse, minor, and insignificant.

Cultural and Historic 

Resources

Impacts to cultural and historic 

resources from installation, 

maintenance, and removal of tide 

gauges, buoys, and GPS reference 

stations under Alternative A would 

continue to be adverse and negligible 

to minor.

Impacts to cultural and historic 

resources from bottom sampling 

under Alternative A would continue to 

be both adverse and beneficial, 

permanent, and negligible to minor. 

Beneficial impacts would occur if a 

resource were discovered that led to 

Under Alternative B, impacts on 

cultural and historic resources

would be the same or slightly, but 

not appreciably, larger than those 

that would occur under Alternative 

A for each impact causing factor.

These impacts would not 

substantially increase in intensity 

with the increased survey effort of 

Alternative B. 

Overall, impacts of Alternative B to 

cultural and historic resources 

would be adverse, moderate, and

insignificant.

Under Alternative C, impacts on 

cultural and historic resources

would be the same or slightly, but 

not appreciably, larger than those 

that would occur under Alternatives

A and B for each impact causing 

factor. These impacts would not 

substantially increase in intensity 

with the increased survey effort of 

Alternative C. 

Overall, impacts of Alternative C to 

cultural and historic resources 

would be adverse, moderate, and

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

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

18

Resource

Alternative A: No Action – Conduct 

Surveys and Mapping for Coastal and 

Marine Data Collection with Current 

Technology and Methods, at Current

Funding Levels

Alternative B: Conduct Surveys and 

Mapping with Equipment 

Upgrades, Improved Hydroacoustic 

Devices, and New Tide Stations

Alternative C: Upgrades and 

Improvements with Greater 

Funding Support

the identification of a culturallysignificant artifact or a previously 

undocumented historic site.

Impacts to cultural and historic 

resources from anchoring under 

Alternative A would continue to be 

adverse, permanent, and negligible to

moderate.

Impacts on subsistence hunting and 

fishing, including Traditional Cultural 

Places, under Alternative A would 

continue to be adverse and negligible 

to moderate.

Although the effects of impact causing 

factors on cultural and historic 

resources range from negligible to 

moderate, moderate impacts that 

could occur if the integrity of a 

resource is diminished would be very 

unlikely. 

Overall, impacts of Alternative A to 

cultural and historic resources would 

continue to be adverse, moderate, 

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

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

19

Resource

Alternative A: No Action – Conduct 

Surveys and Mapping for Coastal and 

Marine Data Collection with Current 

Technology and Methods, at Current

Funding Levels

Alternative B: Conduct Surveys and 

Mapping with Equipment 

Upgrades, Improved Hydroacoustic 

Devices, and New Tide Stations

Alternative C: Upgrades and 

Improvements with Greater 

Funding Support

Socioeconomic 

Resources

The economic impacts of ocean data 

procured under Alternative A on 

health and safety, recreational 

economic activity, transportation, and 

energy-related activities would 

continue to be indirect, beneficial, 

and moderate. 

Impacts to commercial fishing under 

Alternative A would continue to be 

adverse and negligible.

Data collected under Alternative A 

would continue to improve the quality 

and quantity of ocean data and data 

products. 

Overall, Alternative A would continue 

to have indirect, beneficial, and 

moderate impacts on the ocean 

economy. 

The economic benefits of impacts of 

Alternative B would be the same or 

slightly, but not appreciably, larger 

than those discussed above under 

Alternative A. These impacts would 

not substantially increase in 

intensity with the increased survey 

effort of Alternative B. 

Overall, Alternative B would have 

indirect, beneficial, and moderate 

impacts on the ocean economy.

The economic benefits of impacts of 

Alternative C would be the same or 

slightly, but not appreciably, larger 

than those under Alternatives A and 

B. These impacts would not 

substantially increase in intensity 

with the increased survey effort of 

Alternative C.

Overall, Alternative C would have 

indirect, beneficial, and moderate 

impacts on the ocean economy.

Environmental Justice Impacts of underwater acoustic

sources on subsistence hunting of 

marine mammals under Alternative A 

would continue to be adverse and 

moderate, and the impacts to 

subsistence fishing communities 

would continue to be adverse and 

minor. 

Under Alternative B, impacts on 

environmental justice would be the 

same or slightly, but not 

appreciably, larger than those that 

would occur under Alternative A for 

each impact causing factor. These 

impacts would not substantially 

increase in intensity with the 

Under Alternative C, impacts on 

environmental justice would be the 

same or slightly, but not 

appreciably, larger than those that 

would occur under Alternatives A

and B for each impact causing 

factor. These impacts would not 

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

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

20

Resource

Alternative A: No Action – Conduct 

Surveys and Mapping for Coastal and 

Marine Data Collection with Current 

Technology and Methods, at Current

Funding Levels

Alternative B: Conduct Surveys and 

Mapping with Equipment 

Upgrades, Improved Hydroacoustic 

Devices, and New Tide Stations

Alternative C: Upgrades and 

Improvements with Greater 

Funding Support

Impacts of vessel and equipment noise 

on subsistence hunting of marine 

mammals under Alternative A would 

continue to be adverse and minor, 

and the impacts to subsistence fishing 

communities would continue to be 

adverse and negligible. 

Impacts of vessel and equipment 

presence and movement on 

subsistence hunting of marine 

mammals under Alternative A would 

continue to be adverse and moderate, 

and the impacts to subsistence fishing 

communities would continue to be 

adverse and negligible. 

Impacts of human activities and 

accidental leakage or spillage of oil, 

fuel, and chemicals on subsistence

hunting and fishing under Alternative 

A would continue to be adverse and 

minor.

Impacts of marine trash and debris 

and air emissions on subsistence

hunting and fishing activities under 

increased survey effort of 

Alternative B. 

Overall, impacts of Alternative B on 

environmental justice would 

continue to be adverse, minor to

moderate, and insignificant. 

with the increased survey effort of 

Alternative C. 

Overall, impacts of Alternative C on 

environmental justice would 

continue to be adverse, minor to

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

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

21

Resource

Alternative A: No Action – Conduct 

Surveys and Mapping for Coastal and 

Marine Data Collection with Current 

Technology and Methods, at Current

Funding Levels

Alternative B: Conduct Surveys and 

Mapping with Equipment 

Upgrades, Improved Hydroacoustic 

Devices, and New Tide Stations

Alternative C: Upgrades and 

Improvements with Greater 

Funding Support

Alternative A would continue to be 

adverse and negligible. 

The availability of new mapping and 

charting information under Alternative 

A would have beneficial effects on EJ 

communities.

Overall, impacts of Alternative A on 

environmental justice would continue 

to be adverse, minor to moderate, 

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

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

22

1.0 INTRODUCTION

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) National Ocean Service (NOS) has prepared 

this Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) to analyze the potential environmental 

impacts associated with NOS’s recurring projects throughout United States (U.S.) coastal and marine 

waters to characterize underwater features (e.g., habitat, bathymetry, marine debris). Data obtained from 

these projects are used to produce many products, including charts and maps that are relied upon by 

mariners, scientists, shipping and fishing industries, and countless other users in the U.S. and beyond. 

The Proposed Action evaluated in this Final PEIS is to continue NOS data collection projects in the U.S. 

territorial sea, the contiguous zone, the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (U.S. EEZ), U.S. rivers, and states’ 

offshore waters, and some supporting activities in coastal and riparian lands such as the installation of 

tide gauges. These areas are referred to as the “action area” in this document. These projects would 

include surveys performed from crewed vessels and remotely operated or autonomous vehicles. Field 

crews would include NOS personnel, other NOAA personnel on behalf of NOS, contractors, grantees, or 

permit/authorization holders. These crews and vehicles may use echo sounders and other active acoustic 

equipment and employ other equipment, including bottom samplers and conductivity, temperature, and 

depth instruments to collect the needed data. A project could also involve supporting activities, such as 

the use of divers and the installation of tide buoys. 

This Final PEIS was prepared in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (42 United 

States Code [U.S.C.] § 4321, et seq.); Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) Regulations for 

Implementing the Procedural Provisions of NEPA (40 CFR §§ 1500–1508 (1978)); NOAA Administrative 

Order 216-6A1

; and other relevant federal and state laws and regulations. While the CEQ regulations 

implementing NEPA were revised as of September 14, 2020 (85 FR 43304, July 16, 2020) and further 

revised as of May 20, 2022 (87 FR 23453, April 20, 2022), NOS prepared this Final PEIS using the 1978 CEQ 

regulations because this environmental review began on December 19, 2016, when NOS published a 

Notice of Intent (NOI) to conduct scoping. This Final PEIS discloses the direct, indirect, and cumulative 

environmental impacts that would result from the Proposed Action to ensure that environmental 

information is available to public officials and citizens before decisions are made and before actions are 

taken.

1.1 REVISIONS SINCE THE DRAFT PEIS

NOS is committed to incorporating the best available information into the Final PEIS. NOS revised the PEIS 

since the June 2021 draft version to reflect feedback received through interagency coordination and 

consultation, stakeholder input, and public comments. A description of stakeholder input and public 

comments can be found in Section 1.5, Public Involvement. NOS has included responses to all public 

comments in Appendix C.

1.1.1 Incorporation of Mitigation Measures

The Draft PEIS has been updated to include additional mitigation measures to be implemented on each 

project as appropriate to minimize the impacts of surveying and mapping activities. NOS developed a 

suite of robust mitigation measures in coordination with subject matter experts, field crews, and in 

1 NOAA Administrative Order (NAO) 216-6A establishes NOAA’s policy and procedures for compliance with NEPA; the CEQ 

regulations; Executive Order (EO) 12114, Environmental Effects Abroad of Major Federal Actions; EO 11988 and 13690, Floodplain 

Management; and EO 11990 Protection of Wetlands.
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

23

consultation with the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 

and the Office of National Marine Sanctuaries (ONMS). Following publication of the Draft PEIS, NOS 

initiated interagency coordination and consultation under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), Marine 

Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA)

for Essential Fish Habitat (EFH), and the National Marine Sanctuaries Act (NMSA). Through these

processes, NOS and regulators identified additional mitigation measures that further minimize the 

impacts of project activities on protected species. These mitigation measures have been incorporated 

into the effects analysis in the appropriate resource sections in Chapter 3 of the Final PEIS. The full list of 

mitigation measures is included in Appendix D.

The incorporation of mitigation measures in the Final PEIS as a result of interagency coordination and 

consultation does not represent a significant change to the Proposed Action or new information relevant 

to environmental concerns and therefore, per 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 1502.9(d)(4), NOS is 

not required to publish a supplemental to the Draft PEIS. Additional mitigation measures incorporated 

into the Final PEIS generally result in a reduction of any adverse environmental impacts previously 

analyzed.

1.1.2 Change to Temporal Scope

Due to the timing of the consultations and publication of the Final PEIS, the temporal scope of the 

Proposed Action has been reduced from six years (2022-2027) to five years (2023-2027). For 2022 

projects, NOS used existing procedures for project-specific NEPA and environmental compliance. NOS has 

completed environmental reviews for all 2022 projects either planned or underway. The annual numbers

for project activities and project miles are expected to remain consistent with those estimated in the Draft 

PEIS; however, since the Final PEIS covers one less year than the Draft PEIS, the total estimated survey 

effort has decreased. This change has been reflected throughout the Final PEIS.

The change to the temporal scope would result in an overall reduction to the effects for all resources 

analyzed in the Final PEIS. NOS has determined that the environmental effects are generally not additive 

over time. Therefore, the reduction in the temporal scope does not represent a significant change to the 

effects analysis for the Proposed Action or new information relevant to environmental concerns. Per 40 

CFR 1502.9(d)(4), NOS is not required to publish a supplemental to the Draft PEIS.

1.1.3 Updated Acoustic Exposure Estimates

NOS, in coordination with NMFS, has updated the inputs to the acoustic model used to estimate marine 

mammal exposures to NOS underwater sound sources for the Final PEIS by using more current marine 

mammal abundance and density data. The acoustic model was also revised to account for the change in 

temporal scope and to correct a technical error. The updated exposure estimates are discussed in Section 

3.5.2.

1.2 THE MISSION, PRIORITIES, AND ORGANIZATION OF THE NATIONAL OCEAN SERVICE

NOS is the nation’s leading authority on hydrography, shoreline mapping, and nautical charts; water 

levels, tides, and currents; and geodetic positioning. The NOS mission is “to provide science-based 

solutions through collaborative partnerships to address evolving economic, environmental, and social 

pressures on our ocean and coasts” (NOS, No Date-a).

The NOS priorities are:

• Safe and efficient transportation and commerce;
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

24

• Preparedness and risk reduction; and

• Stewardship, recreation, and tourism.

To advance these priorities, NOS performs, funds, and authorizes a wide variety of work including 

research, education, technical assistance, data collection, software development, oversight, disaster 

response, and resource stewardship.

NOS provides data, tools, and services that support coastal economies and their contribution to the 

national economy. Approximately 40 percent of the U.S. population lives and works in coastal areas. Many 

U.S. coastal areas are undergoing substantial changes and face a variety of challenges, including port 

congestion and navigation hazards, recurrent flooding and beach erosion, pollution and algal blooms, 

habitat loss, and risk of catastrophic impacts from coastal storms and tsunamis. NOS works across all levels 

of government and with academic and private-sector partners to prepare America’s coastal communities 

to address these challenges, reduce risks, and ensure thriving coastal communities and economies now 

and in the future (NOS, 2017a).

NOS is organized into eight program offices. These are:

• Office of Coast Survey (Coast Survey): carries out NOAA’s surveying and charting responsibility in 

over 3 million square nautical miles (nm2) of U.S. waters. The program collects hydrographic data 

and creates and maintains nautical charts and other products to support safe navigation for 

commercial shipping, fishing, recreational boaters, and state and local governments.

• Center for Operational Oceanographic Products and Services (CO-OPS): provides accurate, 

reliable, and timely water level, current, and other oceanographic measurements that support 

safe and efficient maritime commerce, sound coastal management, and recreation.

• National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science (NCCOS): conducts and funds research in support of 

NOS core priorities of coastal change vulnerability, mitigation, and restoration; marine spatial 

ecology; stressor impacts and mitigation; and social science.

• Office for Coastal Management (OCM): implements the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA), 

the nation's guiding legislation for keeping the natural environment, built environment, quality of 

life, and economic prosperity of our coastal areas in balance.

• Office of National Marine Sanctuaries (ONMS): oversees the National Marine Sanctuary System, 

comprising 14 national marine sanctuaries and two marine national monuments. Together, these 

protected areas encompass more than 600,000 square miles of marine, riverine, and Great Lakes 

waters.

• Office of Response and Restoration (ORR): provides expertise in preparing for, evaluating, and 

responding to threats to coastal environments, including oil and chemical spills, hazardous waste 

releases, and marine debris.

• Integrated Ocean Observing System (IOOS): a national-regional partnership that provides 

observational coastal data, forecasts, and new tools to improve safety, enhance the economy, 

and protect the environment. IOOS provides integrated ocean information in near real time, as 

well as retrospectively, which improves NOAA’s ability to understand and predict coastal storms, 

wave heights, and sea level change.
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

25

• Office of National Geodetic Survey (NGS): provides the nation with geodetic and geographic 

positioning services through a common reference framework, the National Spatial Reference 

System, for establishing the coordinate positions of all geographic and geospatial data.

Of the eight programs listed above, all but one (NGS) perform activities that are addressed in this Final 

PEIS. Appendix A, Summary of NOS Program Offices and Their Use of Active Acoustic Data Collection 

Technology, contains more information on each office’s mission and history.

1.3 PURPOSE AND NEED

The purpose of the Proposed Action is to gather accurate and timely data on the marine and U.S. coastal 

environment.

The need for the Proposed Action is to provide the public and private sectors with nautical charts, benthic 

habitat condition maps, current and tide charts, and other products necessary for safe navigation, 

economic security, and environmental sustainability. The public and decision-makers need these products 

to ensure safety at sea, economic well-being, and the efficient stewardship of public trust resources. 

Figure 1.3-1 presents the geographic areas of U.S. surveying and mapping data needs.

1.3.1 Safe Navigation

The Coast and Geodetic Survey Act (33 U.S.C. §§ 883a et seq.) and the Hydrographic Services Improvement 

Act as amended (33 U.S.C. § 892) make surveying and charting a principal responsibility of NOAA. This 

includes rivers, states’ offshore waters, the U.S. territorial sea, contiguous zone and the U.S. EEZ. NOS 

uses survey data to create products that support safe navigation for commercial shipping, the fishing 

industry, recreational boaters, and military and government functions such as law enforcement. Many 

coastal areas are highly dynamic, with shifting shoals and wrecks, and eroding or accreting shorelines, all 

of which require routine measurement to ensure safe navigation.

1.3.2 Economic Security

The nation’s economic security requires timely and accurate data on the natural environment. Shipping 

on America's network of coastal waterways, navigable channels, ports, and marine terminals is a primary 

mode of moving goods around the country. This waterborne highway system also connects U.S. producers 

to the global marketplace. Water transportation jobs and establishments contributed $33 billion and 

467,000 jobs to the U.S. economy in 2016 (OCM, 2016a). By value, vessels carry 46 and 35 percent of U.S. 

imports and exports, respectively (USCB, 2018). To accommodate the tonnage of goods such as 

petroleum, iron, coal, and grain being transported by ship, cargo vessels have become larger and have 

deeper drafts. Port authorities, mariners, and coastal communities depend on accurate navigational 

information provided by NOS to make informed decisions. Alaskan and U.S. Arctic waters, more of which 

are becoming navigable given the changing sea ice conditions, are especially important survey targets 

(NOAA, 2018a). Alaska’s approximately 55,000 kilometers(km) (34,000 miles[mi]) of coastline contain oil, 

natural gas, minerals, fish, and other resources that will play an important future role in the U.S. economy, 

all of which must transit Alaska’s waterways to reach domestic and international markets.

1.3.3 Environmental Sustainability

NOS coastal and marine data support ecosystem stewardship. Bathymetric base layers provide valuable 

information about essential habitat for fish and marine mammals. Survey data provide the extent of coral 

reef tracts, which helps federal, state, and local governments make informed decisions about anchorages, 

fishing areas, and other natural resource management issues. For example, coastal and marine resource 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

26

managers rely on survey data to conserve, preserve, and restore ecological resources, including critical 

habitat for endangered seabirds, coral, seagrass, fish, sea turtle, and marine mammal species. National 

marine sanctuaries also rely on surveys to identify and monitor underwater cultural and historical 

resources such as shipwrecks. NOS ORR collects data to track and map oil plumes and to characterize fish 

and plankton presence. Finally, NOS coastal and marine data provide baseline resource information 

against which coastal managers can measure changes to the environment over time.
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

27

Figure 1.3-1. Action Area for Surveying and Mapping Activities Conducted by the National Ocean Service
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

28

1.4 PROGRAMMATIC SCOPE

The CEQ indicates that programmatic NEPA analysis can “address the general environmental issues 

relating to broad decisions, such as those establishing policies, plans, programs, or suite of projects, and 

can effectively frame the scope of subsequent site- and project-specific Federal actions'' (CEQ, 2014). CEQ 

guidance also provides that “[a]gencies may prepare a single NEPA document to support both 

programmatic and project-specific proposals.” Ibid.

NOS determined that a programmatic approach was appropriate for the Proposed Action because NOS 

conducts, authorizes, permits, and funds a suite of similar, ongoing data collection activities associated 

with recurring projects across a wide geographic area to characterize underwater features (e.g., habitat, 

bathymetry, marine debris). This Final PEIS analyzes the environmental impacts of a suite of surveying and 

mapping data collection activities. The analysis will be used to inform NOS leadership and the public on 

the environmental impacts of these activities before a decision is made on how to execute each project.

1.4.1 Subsequent Project-Specific Consideration of Environmental Impacts

This Final PEIS is a comprehensive document that provides detailed analyses of the environmental effects 

for the suite of surveying and mapping data collection activities based on regional conditions, habitat 

types, species, and other factors. However, the Final PEIS does not identify the specific time or place for 

individual projects or activities over the next five years. The analysis in the Final PEIS demonstrates that 

NOS has sufficient information to analyze the potential effects of projects regardless of their timing and 

location. NOS anticipates that the majority of future projects encompassed in the Proposed Action would 

not require additional, site- or project-specific effects analysis; however, NOS will initiate project-specific 

consultations under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) before commencing any 

activity with the potential to affect cultural or historic resources.

The analysis in the Final PEIS will be used to inform NOS and the public on the environmental impacts of 

the surveying and mapping program before a decision is made on how to execute each project. All projects 

will require a project-specific review and approval before proceeding. NOS will consider the applicability 

of the Final PEIS to all individual proposed projects through the preparation of a “Record of Environmental 

Consideration” (REC). RECs are signed statements submitted with project documentation to explain that 

the project has received an environmental compliance review. Within NOS, a REC is typically prepared for 

any action covered by existing programmatic analysis under NEPA. NOS will complete a REC prior to the 

start of a project to document whether the project falls within the scope of the activities and effects 

detailed in the Final PEIS. NOS will also review the project to ensure that all applicable mitigation measures 

are incorporated into project plans and instructions. Prior to project approval, NOS will review compliance 

requirements for all other applicable environmental laws such as ESA, MMPA, NHPA, Coastal Zone 

Management Act (CZMA), NMSA, and MSA for EFH. NOS will ensure its responsibilities for governmentto-government consultation with federally recognized tribes are met (EO 13175). Any additional 

compliance requirements will be fulfilled prior to project approval, as needed.

If NOS determines that all applicable environmental requirements for the proposed project have been 

satisfied, then the REC will be signed by the appropriate NOS authority. NOS will proceed with the 

proposed project only after the REC has been signed and it has been determined that no additional review 

or analysis is required. If NOS determines that any of the project activities are outside of the scope of the 

Final PEIS, an additional project or site-specific NEPA effects analysis and environmental compliance 

review will be conducted to satisfy NEPA requirements prior to commencing any activity.
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

29

1.5 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

NOS published a “Notice of Availability of a Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition” in the Federal 

Register on June 25, 2021 to announce the availability of the Draft PEIS for public review. Following the 

publication of the Draft PEIS, the NOS Environmental Compliance Coordinator presented a brief overview 

of the Draft PEIS to the Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission (AEWC), including information about NOS, the 

Proposed Action, expected impacts to marine mammals and subsistence hunting and fishing, and 

compliance with the MMPA. In response to preliminary feedback received from AEWC members and other 

Alaska Native community members, NOS extended the original 60-day public comment period deadline 

by 90 days from August 24, 2021 to November 22, 2021 to accommodate the Alaskan subsistence hunting 

and fishing season. The extension of the public comment period was published in the Federal Register on 

August 24, 2021.

NOS prepared a comprehensive public involvement and outreach plan outlining the development and 

distribution of materials to inform the public and solicit input on the scope of the Proposed Action and 

related impact analysis. In conjunction with publication of the Draft PEIS, an interested party letter inviting 

public comment on the draft was distributed via email or U.S. mail to federal agencies; states and 

territories; Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs); tribes; regional organizations; Alaska regional and 

village corporations; Native Hawaiian Organizations (NHOs); and NOS grantees, partners, and 

permit/authorization recipients with potential interest in the Proposed Action. Potentially interested 

tribes include those in geographic proximity to the action area (i.e., located in coastal states, Great Lakes

states, or along major navigable rivers) as well as tribes with historic, religious, or cultural connections to 

coastal and marine resources regardless of proximity to the action area. In addition to contacting 

interested parties directly, the availability of the Draft PEIS was advertised in newspapers in coastal cities 

throughout the U.S. and posted on NOAA and NOS social media platforms. These announcements directed

readers to the project website at https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/about/environmentalcompliance/surveying-mapping.html. The website provides helpful information detailing key components 

of the Draft PEIS including an overview of the Proposed Action, fact sheets about the resources analyzed, 

and instructions on how to comment on the document. In order to reach communities in Alaska without 

reliable internet access, in addition to newspaper advertisements, NOS developed a Public Service 

Announcement (PSA) that was broadcasted by public radio stations to reach a broad geographic range 

along the Alaska coast. NOS sent a physical copy (a CD, USB drive, or hard copy) of the Draft PEIS to 

individuals or communities upon request, to ensure that the Draft would be made available at community 

centers, libraries, and other public facilities as needed.

During the public comment period for the Draft PEIS, NOS received 31 comment submissions from 30 

commenters via Regulations.gov and email. Commenters included State Historic Preservation Officers 

(SHPOs), Tribal Historic Preservation Officers (THPOs), state Coastal Management program offices, 

federally recognized tribes, Alaska Native corporations, Alaska Native Organizations (ANOs), NGOs, and 

members of the public. The comments addressed a range of issues including the following:

• Protection of cultural and historic resources;

• Federal consistency under CZMA; 

• Incorporation of mitigation measures;

• Environmental justice concerns pertaining to subsistence hunting and fishing in Alaska 

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

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

30

• Future coordination between NOS and other key stakeholders, such as AEWC, North Slope 

Borough Department of Wildlife Management, Calista Corporation in Alaska, Donlin Gold, Natural

Resources Defense Council, Cultural Heritage Partners representing the Upper Mattaponi Indian 

Tribe, the Chickahominy Indian Tribe, and the Seneca Nation of New York;

• The NEPA process, scope of the PEIS, selection of a programmatic NEPA approach, alternatives to 

the Proposed Action, cumulative effects analysis, references and data cited in the effects analysis;

• Impacts to marine mammals, fish, habitats, birds, and sea turtles;

• Methodology and data consideration for the acoustic modeling;

• Impacts to socioeconomic resources such as fisheries; and

• Access to surveying and mapping data collected during NOS projects through data sharing.

NOS has thoroughly considered all of the input received and has responded to comments in Appendix C. 

Revisions to the Final PEIS have been made in response to comments where appropriate.

The Final PEIS is available for review on the project website https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/about/

environmental-compliance/surveying-mapping.html. NOS will publish a Record of Decision no sooner 

than 30 days after publication of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Notice of Availability 

for the Final PEIS in the Federal Register.

1.5.1 Tribal Government-to-Government Consultation

On June 28, 2021, NOS sent letters to tribes notifying them of the availability of the Draft PEIS and inviting 

them to seek government-to-government consultation under EO 13175, Consultation and Coordination 

with Indian Tribal Governments. Federally recognized tribes are American Indian or Alaska Native tribal 

entities recognized as having a government-to-government relationship with the U.S., with the 

responsibilities, powers, limitations, and obligations attached to that designation, and are eligible for 

funding and services from the Bureau of Indian Affairs. See 86 FR 7554, updated by 87 FR 4636, for the 

full list of 574 federally recognized tribes. NOS recognizes its unique relationship with tribes and trust 

responsibility with tribal governments as set forth in the U.S. Constitution, treaties, statutes, executive 

orders, and court decisions. It is the policy of NOAA to consult on a government-to-government basis with 

federally recognized tribal governments when the federal actions and decisions have tribal implications. 

NOS did not receive any requests from federally recognized tribes to initiate government-to-government 

consultation on the Draft PEIS. Additionally, no requests were received to initiate government-tocorporation consultation from any Alaska Native Corporation. NOS intends to notify individual federally 

recognized tribes consistent with EO 13175 before conducting any project that may have tribal 

implications. Federally recognized tribes are welcome to request government-to-government 

consultation at any time for a project that may have tribal implications. The consultation and coordination 

process would be conducted in accordance with NOAA’s Procedures for Government-to-Government 

Consultation with Federally Recognized Indian Tribes and Alaska Native corporations (NOAA 13175 policy, 

November 12, 2013). 

1.6 COORDINATION AND CONSULTATION WITH OTHER FEDERAL AGENCIES

NOS coordinated with NMFS and USFWS during preparation of this Final PEIS. NMFS has legal jurisdiction 

over most marine mammal species (through the MMPA), most threatened or endangered marine plant 

and animal species (through the ESA), and Essential Fish Habitat (through the MSA). USFWS has legal 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

31

jurisdiction over certain marine mammal speciesincluding manatees, walruses, polar bears, and sea otters

(through the MMPA), most threatened or endangered terrestrial plant and animal species (through the 

ESA), and over 1,000 species of birds (through the Migratory Bird Treaty Act [MBTA]). 

Both agencies provided a comprehensive Technical Assistance Review prior to publication of the Draft 

PEIS. In coordinating with NOS, NMFS and USFWS participated in multiple meetings and reviews during 

the development of the Draft PEIS.

NOS initiated consultation with USFWS under the ESA on August 21, 2021. On December 8, 2021, USFWS 

sent NOS a letter requesting additional information for completing consultation under Section 7 of the 

ESA for the Proposed Action. NOS provided the requested additional information and proposed revisions 

to the Draft PEIS on June 1, 2022. These revisions have been incorporated into the Final PEIS where 

appropriate.

NOS also initiated consultation with NMFS under the MMPA, ESA, and MSA and with USFWS under the 

MMPA. Additionally, in compliance with the NMSA, NOS prepared and submitted a Sanctuary Resource 

Statement (SRS) to ONMS to address the required analyses necessary to initiate a consultation under 

Section 304(d) of the Act. Section 3.3 discusses the full list of applicable environmental review 

requirements that NOS is integrating with the NEPA analysis included in this PEIS.

Table 1.6-1 summarizes the status of NOS coordination and consultation as of the date of this Final PEIS.
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

32

Table 1.6-1. Consultation with Other Federal Agencies

Federal Agency Statute Documentation

Consultation 

Initiated/

Completed

Completed Consultations

National Marine Fisheries 

Service Office of Habitat 

Conservation

Magnuson-Stevens 

Fishery Conservation 

and Management Act 

Essential Fish Habitat

Essential Fish Habitat 

Assessment

June 2, 2022

Final Response 

received from NMFS 

OHC on November 

1, 2022

Ongoing Consultations

National Marine Fisheries 

Service Office of Protected 

Resources

Endangered Species 

Act

Biological Assessment

(Draft PEIS)

August 26, 2021

Ongoing

Office of National Marine 

Sanctuaries

National Marine 

Sanctuaries Act

Sanctuary Resource 

Statement

June 1, 2022

Ongoing

National Marine Fisheries 

Service Office of Protected 

Resources

Marine Mammal 

Protection Act

Letter of Authorization 

Application

June 3, 2022

Ongoing

U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service

Endangered Species 

Act

Biological Assessment

(Draft PEIS)

August 21, 2021

Ongoing

U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service

Marine Mammal 

Protection Act

Incidental Take 

Regulation Request

September 12, 2022

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

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

33

2.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION AND THE ALTERNATIVES

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires federal agencies to analyze a proper range of 

reasonable alternatives to satisfy the Purpose and Need (see Section 1.3). To be considered a reasonable 

alternative, the National Ocean Service (NOS) determined that a proposed alternative must:

• Be technically feasible;

• Not violate any federal statute or regulation;

• Be consistent with reasonably foreseeable funding levels; and

• Meet national, regional, and local data needs.

Based on these criteria, NOS identified two action alternatives that meet the stated purpose of the 

proposed federal action and thus have been analyzed in detail. These alternatives are presented in 

Sections 2.5.2 and 2.5.3.

NOS also analyzed a “No Action” alternative that allows the reader to compare the potential impacts of 

either action alternative with the effects that would occur if NOS continued coastal and marine data 

collection at current levels using current technology and methods (i.e., the status quo). The No Action 

alternative is presented in Section 2.5.1.

2.1 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT ELIMINATED FROM FURTHER ANALYSIS

Early in the NEPA planning process, NOS considered a range of alternatives to the Proposed Action before 

arriving at the three alternatives presented in this Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS). 

The alternatives presented below were eliminated from further analysis because they did not meet one 

or more of the screening criteria listed above.

2.1.1 Protected Species Avoidance

NOS considered whether to discontinue hydroacoustic surveying, mapping, charting, or related data 

gathering in waters with known populations of federally protected species such as marine mammals. 

Protected species avoidance would include complete avoidance of all Biologically Important Areas (BIAs) 

such as preferred breeding, feeding, and nursery grounds or migratory routes. BIAs are discussed in 

Section 3.5.1.1.2 of the PEIS. BIAs indicate locations where particular species engage in biologically 

important behaviors either year-round or seasonally. BIAs were created to help the National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), other federal agencies, and the public in the analyses and planning 

used to characterize and minimize the impacts of anthropogenic activities on cetaceans and to achieve 

conservation and protection goals. BIAs occur in every region throughout the NOS action area, but they 

do not present the totality of important habitat throughout the marine mammals’ full range. Recognition 

of an area as biologically important for some species activity does not cause the area to rise to the 

designation of critical habitat under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The stated intention is for the BIAs 

to serve as a resource management tool and for their currently identified boundaries to be considered 

dynamic and subject to change based on any new information.

Time-area restrictions for BIAs would significantly impact the ability to collect data during suitable 

conditions for using acoustic sources, result in lost survey time, and affect the crew’s ability to work safely.

For example, BIAs in Alaska are located throughout Alaska as shown below (Figure 2.1-1); some are 

seasonal and other are year-round. Prohibiting data collection in these areas would not allow NOS to meet 

the purpose and need for the Proposed Action.
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

34

Figure 2.1-1. Biologically Important Areas in Alaska

NOS also considered the necessity and practicality of additional mitigation measures for BIAs. In 

coordination with the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

(USFWS), NOS has developed mitigation measures that include maintaining safe distances from marine 

mammals achieved by decreasing vessel speeds, vessel maneuvering, and observing time-area restrictions 

in specific protected species habitats (e.g., North Atlantic right whale). NOS already uses the lowest power 

appropriate to perform surveys, and employs mitigation measures including protected species observers 

(PSOs) to ensure that marine mammals are not within the vicinity of the vessel when active acoustics are 

being used. During nighttime operations, NOS uses the appropriate lighting to comply with navigation 

rules and best safety practices. All project areas would be continually monitored for protected species by 

posted crewmembers during vessel operations.

Any further mitigation, including entirely prohibiting mapping and surveying data collection or time-area 

restriction within the BIAs as discussed above, is unwarranted and impracticable due to safety concerns.

For example, such restrictions could force NOS crews to operate at times and locations where sea 

conditions prevent safe vessel operation. Additionally, time-area restrictions for BIAs affect data 

collection and continuity and result in lost survey time NOS believesthat the implementation of mitigation 

measures to further reduce the minor and temporary expected impacts will provide substantial protection 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

35

for marine mammals during NOS surveying and mapping activities and complete avoidance of protected 

species and BIAs is unnecessary.

This alternative would prevent NOS from providing the coastal and marine data necessary for safe 

navigation, economic security, and environmental sustainability in large parts of U.S. waters. Therefore, 

NOS rejected this alternative because it did not allow national, regional, and local data needs to be met.

2.1.2 Use of Lidar Exclusively

Bathymetric Light Detection and Ranging (lidar) technology measures depths of nearshore waters using 

laser pulses emitted from a scanner on board a low-altitude airplane typically flying at speeds of 140 to 

175 knots. The aircraft typically flies at altitudes of 300 to 365 meters (m) (1,000 to 1,200 feet [ft]) for up 

to five hours per flight. Lidar systems used for bathymetry emit visible green laser pulses to measure the 

timed sea floor bottom return, and near-infrared laser pulses measure the sea surface return. Depth is 

determined by the time of the return back to the lidar sensor from the energy reflected off the sea floor.

Lidar technology can efficiently survey large areas, identify features in a short period of time, and safely 

survey nearshore areas that are hazardous to mariners. However, lidar has distinct limitations in deeper 

water and under challenging environmental conditions. Variables such as water clarity (turbidity), sea 

state, and sea surface limit the effectiveness of bathymetric lidar. In particular, lidar does not produce 

good results when used in turbid waters. Under non-ideal conditions, lidar systems often fail to identify 

small, potentially hazardous objects on the sea floor. Even in the best conditions, reliable laser “returns” 

from the sea floor diminish in waters deeper than 20 to 30 m (65-98 ft).

NOS rejected this alternative because it does not meet national, regional, and local data needs, and thus 

fails to meet the stated purpose and need. Relying on lidar exclusively would not meet the accuracy 

standards needed for reliable charts, maps, and other products.

NOS may use lidar on individual projects, where appropriate, such as for shoreline verification. However, 

these lidar surveys are not within the scope of this document.

2.1.3 Use of Satellite-Derived Bathymetry Exclusively

Satellite-derived bathymetry (SDB) refers to data from optical satellite imagery. SDB begins with using 

multi-spectral satellite imagery, such as Landsat, Sentinel-2 and WorldView2, and calculating a ratio 

between green and blue color bands. Because of the optical nature of green light to attenuate faster in 

the water column than blue light, the blue/green band ratio can help to infer relative depths of the water. 

Using control points, SDB results can be referenced to chart datum. Unlike “active” depth measurement 

techniques that measure depths directly using “time-of-flight”, such as echo sounders or lidar, where 

controlled signals are transmitted and the return time is measured and used to calculate the water depth, 

SDB is a “passive” technology and is simply measuring the reflected sunlight intensity that is used to infer 

the water depth.

Similar to optical systems like lidar, environmental conditions (e.g., water turbidity, cloud cover, and sun 

glint) can degrade accuracy, which prevents SDB from being used exclusively as a replacement for 

hydroacoustic methods. Therefore, NOS rejected this alternative because it does not meet national, 

regional, and local data needs, and thus fails to meet the purpose and need for this Proposed Action.
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

36

NOS may use SDB as a reconnaissance tool on a case-by-case basis for investigating coastal areas before 

performing a high-resolution hydrographic survey with traditional methods. However, this use of SDB is 

not within the scope of this document.

2.2 COMPONENTS OF THE ALTERNATIVES: PROJECTS AND ACTIVITIES

NOS collects data in United States (U.S.) waters each year by undertaking a number of discrete surveying 

and mapping projects, which comprise the alternatives evaluated in this Final PEIS. Projects include, but 

are not limited to, hydrographic surveys, marine debris surveys, tide gauge installation, and benthic 

habitat characteristic surveys. A project would typically consist of several individual components, which 

are referred to in this document as “activities.” Figure 2.2-1 depicts many of the activities which are 

combined by NOS program offices to compose a given project. 

Figure 2.2-1. Common Activities Used in NOS Projects

The nature and scope of projects can vary based on the combination of activities. For example, a habitat 

characteristic survey could consist of crewed vessel use, diving using Self-contained Underwater Breathing 

Apparatus (SCUBA), Remotely Operated Vehicle (ROV) use, multibeam echo sounder use, and bottom 

sampling. The individual activities are described in Section 2.4 below.

Another example is an NOS Office of Coast Survey (Coast Survey) hydrographic survey project performed 

to update nautical charts for waters off the coast of California. Once planners identify the area that 

requires updating, a vessel such as the NOAA Ship Rainier would be tasked with the project, sailing from 

its home port in Newport, Oregon to the project area. Once there, the ship’s crew would map the sea

floor of the project area with multibeam echo sounders while also collecting water column data, and 

determine seafloor type by collecting and examining sediment. Once all of the required data are collected, 

Rainier might return to port, or head directly to its next project. In this example, the survey project 

includes the activities of crewed vessel operation (Section 2.4.1), echo sounder use (Section 2.4.4), 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

37

conductivity, temperature, and depth (CTD) instrument use (Section 2.4.7), and collection of bottom grab 

samples (Section 2.4.9).

Some NOS projects involve or include terrestrial work. For example, a field crew from the NOS Center for 

Operational Oceanographic Products and Services (CO-OPS) may take a small boat to a coastal area where 

planners have determined that more precise data on local tides and currents are needed. Upon arrival, 

the crew would determine where a new tide gauge station should be located (such as on an existing pier) 

and what type of gauge is needed. A SCUBA diver would enter the water to install the underwater 

elements of the pressure sensor for the tide gauge. The crew would install other components, and then 

test the gauge to ensure that it is operating correctly before leaving the site. The activities for this project 

therefore include crewed vessel operation (Section 2.4.1), tide gauge installation (Section 2.4.12), and 

SCUBA operations (Section 2.4.11). 

The responsible NOS program office(s) sets the goals and purpose of a given project and determines the 

specific equipment and protocols to be used. For instance, Coast Survey conducts hydrographic surveys 

using a combination of high-frequency side scan sonar and single beam and multibeam echo sounders. 

During a Coast Survey hydrographic survey, a vessel equipped with one or more echo sounders "mows 

the lawn" at a slow speed to ensonify (or visualize) the sea floor bottom and ensure full coverage of the 

sea floor within the project area. Coast Survey conducts surveys primarily in shallower waters critical for 

safe navigation, where depths are low and the need for precision is high. As a result, Coast Survey uses 

primarily high-frequency (40 to 1,000 kilohertz [kHz]) echo sounders during survey operations, but may 

use low- to mid- frequency echo sounders in deeper areas where high resolution charting is not necessary. 

When large ships are surveying for an NOS mapping project, they often operate the echo sounders 24 

hours per day. Surveys using small vessels are typically shorter in duration (8 to 12 hours). These survey 

protocols are determined by project needs. Other program offices similarly select equipment and 

protocols commensurate with the goals of a given project.

In many cases, a single NOS program office is responsible for a project; in other cases, multiple NOS offices 

may cooperate, or an office may work with colleagues from other parts of NOAA or other federal agencies. 

For example, Coast Survey routinely collaborates with the Office of Marine and Aviation Operations 

(OMAO), a NOAA component separate from NOS, to have vessels such as NOAA Ship Fairweather

undertake a project with a crew of NOAA Corps officers, OMAO civilian mariners, and Coast Survey 

scientists.

Although NOS projects occur year-round, the timing of a given project may be limited by seasonal 

environmental conditions of its location. For example, projects in the Arctic or Bering Sea typically take 

place between June and September to avoid dangerous, icy conditions, while projects in the West Coast, 

Northeast, and Mid-Atlantic regions most often take place between March and November. Projects in the 

Southeast or Gulf of Mexico are conducted year-round. The total duration of a project can vary from a 

few days to several months over multiple years. For Coast Survey hydrographic surveys, actual time 

surveying averages approximately 15 days per month over the course of a survey project, although larger 

ships can often survey 20 to 25 days per month under good conditions. When possible, program offices 

coordinate the location and timing of projects to ensure that areas are not unnecessarily repeatedly 

surveyed. This ensures that the potential environmental impacts directly resulting from the projects are 

not exacerbated by repeated surveys within a given area.
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

38

2.3 SCOPE

In this Final PEIS, scope refers to both the geographic and temporal range of the Proposed Action. 

Geographic scope is the spatial extent of the areas potentially affected by the Proposed Action. Temporal 

scope is the timeframe over which the Proposed Action is evaluated. NOS determined the scope of this 

document on the basis of the current extent of NOS project work and the ability of NOS program offices 

to reliably predict their future level of activity. Activities which occur outside of the parameters outlined 

in the below subsections were not considered in the analyses.

2.3.1 Geographic Scope

The “action area” for this Final PEIS encompasses the U.S. territorial sea; the contiguous zone; the U.S. 

Exclusive Economic Zone (U.S. EEZ); rivers; states’ offshore waters; and coastal and riparian lands for 

projects such as the installation, maintenance, and removal of tide gauges. This includes the U.S. portions 

of the Great Lakes and internal waters such as Lakes Tahoe, Mead, Champlain, Okeechobee, and parts of 

major rivers such as the Mississippi, Missouri, Hudson, and Columbia rivers. NOS projects would occur 

within freshwater bodies far less frequently than in marine environments and would likely only occur 

within or near the habitat of most freshwater species on a limited basis or not at all. From 2016 to 2021, 

less than three percent of NOS projects occurred in freshwater. Vessels and uncrewed surface vehicles 

used by NOS may transit through international waters to get to project sites, but no data collection occurs 

in international waters.

The action area assessed in this Final PEIS is organized and analyzed by geographic regions (Figure 2.3-1). 

The regions are:

• Greater Atlantic Region, which includes the U.S. portions of the Great Lakes, New England and the 

mid-Atlantic;

• Southeast Region, which includes the southern portion of the U.S. Eastern Seaboard, the U.S. 

Caribbean Islands (Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands), and the Gulf of Mexico;

• West Coast Region, which includes coastal California, Oregon, and Washington;

• Alaska Region, which includes Alaskan waters and the Arctic; and

• Pacific Islands Region, which includes Hawai’i and the Pacific territories of the U.S.
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

39

Figure 2.3-1. Geographic Scope of Final PEIS

2.3.2 Temporal Scope

As with any planning process, the confidence with which an agency can foresee and evaluate its actions, 

and the environmental effects of those actions, decreases at longer time intervals. Changes in spending 

levels, the environment, the data needs of the public, and technologies and field methods available to 

NOS can all change how surveying projects are executed. Based on NOS experience with these factors, 

this Final PEIS analyzes data collection activities for a time period of five years. For the purposes of this 

Final PEIS, a specific project could take place at any time of year.

Consistent with Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) guidance that “[NEPA documents] that are more 

than five years old should be carefully reexamined to determine if the criteria in Section 1502.9 compel 

preparation of a [NEPA] supplement.” (CEQ, 1981), NOS would reevaluate the Final PEIS to determine if 

the analysis contained within remains sufficient, or if new analysis is required. If necessary, this new 

analysis may take the form of a supplemental PEIS, a new PEIS, or more extensive project-level analysis.

2.4 ACTIVITIES COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES

Under all alternatives, NOS would operate a variety of equipment and technologies to gather accurate 

and timely data on the nature and condition of the marine and coastal environment. In the context of 

project activities, references to NOS include NOS personnel, other NOAA personnel on behalf of NOS, and 

NOS contractors, grantees, partners, and permit/authorization recipients. The subsections below describe 

the technology, equipment, and techniques which would be used in NOS projects regardless of the 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

40

selected alternative. This Final PEIS would also cover activities not specifically listed below as long as the 

relevant NOS program office(s) determined that the activities are comparable in operating characteristics 

(e.g., similar source level ranges, intensities, and frequencies) and extent of use (e.g., similar likelihood, 

duration, and frequency of use). 

2.4.1 Project-Related Crewed Vessel Operations

Collecting coastal and marine data requires NOS to be able to reach the environments of interest. The 

most common platform for this purpose is a crewed sea-going surface vessel (remotely operated and 

autonomous vehicles are considered in Section 2.4.3). These vessel operations may take place these 

vessels under one of four arrangements:

• The vessel may be operated directly by NOS or by a partner funded under a contract or other 

financial assistance award; 

• The vessel may be operated by OMAO for an NOS project; or

• The vessel may be owned and/or operated by an entity external to NOS under a contract by NOS 

or a partner. These are referred to as “contractor vessels” or “chartered vessels.”

• The vessel may be owned and/or operated by an entity external to NOS under a permit or 

authorization issued by NOS under the National Marine Sanctuaries Act (NMSA). 

Vessels used range from small, unpowered personal watercraft to large research ships. For example, 

Navigation Response Team (NRT) vessels are typically 9-m (28-ft) boats towed by a truck to the general 

project area (Figure 2.4-1). There are also larger vessels such as NOAA Ship Rainier, a 1,600-metric-ton 

(1,800-ton), 70-m (231-ft) hydrographic ship crewed by OMAO officers and sailors (Figure 2.4-2). Ships 

such as Rainier also typically carry one or more “launches” – small boats that are deployed into the water 

directly from the ship. Chartered vessels can be of various sizes and types, depending on the project needs 

and availability. NOS uses the term “ship” for vessels with sleeping accommodations, or berthing capacity, 

that may anchor overnight during a project. NOS uses the term “boat” for vessels without berthing 

capacity that would anchor only in an emergency.

Figure 2.4-1. A Navigation Response Team 

Boat Being Placed in the Water

Figure 2.4-2. NOAA Ship Rainier in

Alaska, with its Survey Launches

Survey vessels would travel to and from project sites and during projects as required. Vessel transit speeds 

vary by location, but are typically lower than 25 knots. Vessels are typically limited to speeds of 13 knots 

during survey activities. Depending on the duration of a project, a vessel might return to port periodically 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

41

for fuel, supplies, or crew changes. NOS does not routinely have contractor vessels perform long transits; 

local contractors are hired for projects. This document analyzes the environmental impact of all vessel 

transits (i.e., movements) to the project area, during the project, and back to a port for all projects 

undertaken or funded by NOS. Vessel transits and project activities may occur at either day or night. Based 

upon comparison with Global Positioning System (GPS) data collected from automatic identification 

system (AIS) transponders onboard commercial vessels in 2017, vessels used for NOS projects account for 

a very small proportion of U.S. vessel traffic2

. Figure 2.4-3 shows the estimated regional distribution of 

NOS activities for the five-year timeframe of the PEIS based on nautical miles of vessel movement, 

regardless of the selected alternative.

Figure 2.4-3. Geographic Distribution of NOS Crewed Vessel Operations

Based on Five Years of Projected Funding

Note that this Final PEIS does not consider the following:

• Vessel operations that are not related to NOS projects, such as transits to a new homeport or to 

a dry dock, to a non-NOS project, or from a non-NOS project to a port;

• Vessel construction, acquisition, repairs, maintenance, or upgrades, such as the installation of 

new scientific equipment; or

2 Compared to AIS data for commercial vessels in 2017, vessels used or funded by NOS account for 0.3 percent of all nautical 

miles traveled within the U.S. EEZ. However, because AIS transponders are not required for recreational vessels and recreational 

boating data were not available for inclusion in this analysis, vessels used and funded by NOS likely represent orders of magnitude 

less than 0.3 percent of total vessel use within the EEZ.
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

42

• Any chartered vessel operations that are not undertaken as part of an NOS contract or 

cooperative agreement. 

These forms of crewed vessel use are neither under NOS control nor connected to NOS projects, and 

therefore are not considered here.

2.4.2 Anchoring

When a vessel is not collecting data, it may anchor either within the project area or nearby. Small boats 

and survey launches used for NOS projects return to port or to the ship each day and do not typically 

anchor, except in an emergency. During any NOS project, a vessel may anchor to avoid adverse weather 

or in the unlikely event of an equipment malfunction, regardless of vessel size. For multi-day efforts, ships 

may anchor within or near the project area to reduce the transit time to the project area and to save fuel.

The choice of anchoring location is at the discretion of the ship’s officers, who select the anchor location 

based on depth, protection from seas and wind, and bottom type. Preferred bottom types are sticky mud 

or sand, as those characteristics allow the flukes of the anchor to dig into the bottom and hold the chain 

in place. NOS would not anchor in known areas of coral, except in an emergency. When working in an unsurveyed area or in an area that has not been surveyed in many years, the ship will try to anchor in bays 

where data have already been collected, providing the ship with better information on where to drop the 

anchor. Existing mooring buoys are used when available. Ships are typically anchored for a time period of 

hours, but during weather events (e.g., tropical storm or hurricane) ships may anchor for multiple days.

2.4.3 Operation of Remotely Operated Vehicles (ROVs), Uncrewed Surface 

Vehicles (USVs), and Autonomous Underwater Vehicles (AUVs)

In addition to crewed vessels, NOS proposes to use remotely operated and uncrewed vehicles to collect 

data. ROVs are controlled remotely at all times by a human operator and are often tethered to a crewed 

vessel. Autonomous vehicles operate with various levels of autonomy and include Uncrewed Surface 

Vehicles (USVs) and Autonomous Underwater Vehicles (AUVs). These systems use a variety of propulsion 

sources, including diesel, diesel/electric, battery, solar, buoyancy driven, and wave-gliding propulsion 

systems. 

USVs often look similar to boats, ranging in size from the 1.8-m (6-ft) Teledyne Z-Boat (Figure 2.4-4) to the 

7.7-m (25-ft) USV iXblue Drix (Figure 2.4-5).

Figure 2.4-4. Teledyne Z-Boat Figure 2.4-5. USV iXblue Drix
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

43

AUVs often have a “torpedo”-like appearance, and can range in size from small systems deployed by two 

to three people, such as the 1.7-m (6-ft) REMUS-100 (Figure 2.4-6), or larger systems requiring winches 

or other deployment equipment, such as the 5.5-m (18-ft) REMUS-600 (Figure 2.4-7).

Figure 2.4-6. REMUS-100 AUV Figure 2.4-7. REMUS-600 AUV

2.4.4 Use of Echo Sounders

NOS echo sounders (also referred to as sonars [sound navigation and ranging]) are typically attached to a 

crewed vessel, ROV, USV, or AUV, and are one of the most common categories of active acoustics used in 

ocean navigation, remote sensing, and ocean and habitat mapping. In rare instances, NOS may place echo 

sounders directly on the sea floor or the echo sounders may be operated by divers. 

Echo sounders transmit a repeated series of short sound signals (on the order of milliseconds) into the 

water column. These signals continue until they reach an object of a different acoustic impedance 

(typically the sea floor, but also potentially objects in the water column) and reflect back to the echo 

sounder’s receiver; echo sounders do not transmit while listening for an echo. By measuring the amount 

of time for the sound to return from the sea floor or object, the depth of the water (or the distance to the 

object) can be determined. Echo sounders used for mapping can generally be divided into three 

categories: single beam systems, multibeam systems, and side-scan sonars.

Single beam echo sounderstransmit one focused acoustic beam, typically directly below the vessel (Figure 

2.4-8). Sub-bottom profilers are a specific type of single beam echo sounder, designed to penetrate sea

floor sediments and reveal sub-surface features. The sound energy emitted by the sub-bottom profiler is 

typically of a lower frequency than other echo sounders. These lower frequencies allow the sound signal 

to penetrate the sea floor and reflect back to the vessel when it encounters different types of buried 

sediments and rock (NOAA, 2014a). Single beam systems relied on by NOS, including sub-bottom profilers, 

are typically mounted on the bottom of the vessel hull. 

Multibeam echo sounders transmit a fan of acoustic energy and can resolve individual depths across the 

return beam (Figure 2.4-8). Multibeam systems are the most commonly employed echo sounders for 

mapping the sea floor, as they allow for “full bottom coverage” of the area of interest. Many multibeam 

systems are capable of recording data on acoustic backscatter ‒ data artifacts that may interfere with the 

accuracy of depth soundings. Multibeam backscatter is intensity data collected from multibeam systems 

that can be processed to create low-resolution imagery. Backscatter is co-registered with the bathymetry 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

44

data and is often used to assist with bathymetric data interpretation. Multibeam systems are typically 

mounted on the bottom of the vessel hull.

Note the greatly improved bottom coverage of the multibeam system which reduces the time 

and number of vessels required to survey a given area. 

Figure 2.4-8. Artist’s Rendering of Single Beam

and Multibeam Echo Sounder Operation

Side-scan sonars (sometimes referred to as “imaging sonars”) are a specialized system for detecting 

objects on the sea floor that typically use fans of acoustic energy to look down and to the side of the 

sensor platform (Figure 2.4-9). In a side scan, the transmitted energy is formed into the shape of a fan 

that sweeps the sea floor from directly under the unit to either side, typically to a distance of 100 m (328 

ft). The strength of the return echo is continuously recorded, creating a "picture" of the ocean bottom 

(Figure 2.4-10). For example, objects that protrude from the bottom create a light area (strong return) 

and shadows from these objects are dark areas (little or no return). Side-scan systems are either mounted 

underneath the vessel or towed behind the vessel on a cable (NOAA, 2018b).
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

45

Figure 2.4-9. Diagram of Side

Scan Sonar Operation

Figure 2.4-10. A Side Scan Sonar Image of 

Herbert D. Maxwell, a Schooner that Sank 

in the Chesapeake Bay on May 16, 1910

Different echo sounders are designed to produce sound at different frequencies. Single beam echo 

sounders used by NOS can range from 0.5 kHz up to 200 kHz or more. Multi-beam echo sounders used by 

NOS typically range from 12 kHz up to 900 kHz or more. Side scan sonars used by NOS typically range from 

300 kHz to 1600 kHz.

In general, higher-frequency echo sounders provide higher precision than lower frequency systems. 

However, because higher frequency sound is absorbed in seawater much faster than lower frequencies, 

high frequency systems are limited in range and are therefore used in shallower water. Lower frequency 

echo sounders, by comparison, are typically used in deeper water. The source level of these echo sounders 

can range as high 247 decibels (dB) re: 1 microPascal (μPa) m.3

2.4.5 Use of Acoustic Doppler Current Profilers (ADCPs)

Acoustic Doppler Current Profilers (ADCPs) are active acoustic systems used to measure the velocity of 

water by measuring the relative shifts in sound frequency (i.e., the Doppler shift) associated with relative 

motion. These profilers provide detailed and important data on oceanographic conditions, including 

current patterns, waves, and turbulence. ADCPs (Figure 2.4-11) are often operated from tethered 

systems, buoys, or fixed moorings. Mobile ADCPs are hull mounted. The majority of these systems used 

by NOS operate at high to extremely high frequency (75-1,200 kHz) and are moderate in terms of source 

levels (< 160-180 dB re: 1 μPa m).

3 Here and throughout this document, source levels are expressed in decibels with a reference pressure of 1 

micropascal (dB re: 1 μPa m).
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

46

Figure 2.4-11. Example of Subsurface ADCP Buoys Currently in Use by NOS

(shown: Streamlined Underwater Buoyancy System Model A2 Coastal ADCP)

2.4.6 Use of Acoustic Communication Systems

Many underwater devices and platforms communicate with one another by emitting and receiving sound, 

such as simple “pingers”, altimeters, and acoustic telemetry systems, including acoustic modems. Pingers 

are typically used to indicate the location of an underwater device and have short-duration chirp signals 

in the 10s of kHz range at moderate source levels (160 to 180 dB re: 1 μPa m). Acoustic modems may 

include encoded (modulated) signals relaying navigational or operational data more easily which can then 

be decoded by receivers. These systems are commonly used in sub-surface operations, between remotely 

deployed buoys, in navigational channels, or on sub-surface vehicles. Because they are commonly used to 

communicate data over km or greater ranges, NOS typically uses mid-frequency ranges (10s of kHz) at 

moderate to relatively high source levels (160 to 200 dB re: 1 μPa m). Sound Velocity Profilers are active 

acoustic devices that measure sound speed for echo sounding corrections using the two-way travel time 

of a very high frequency sound signal across a short distance.

2.4.7 Use of Sound Speed Data Collection Equipment

NOS collects sound speed data throughout mapping surveys to determine the speed of sound in the water 

column at a given location and time, which allows crews to correct for refraction errors in the echo 

sounder data. Taken together, the two-way travel time of the acoustic signal from a single beam or 

multibeam echo sounder and the speed of sound in water determine sea floor depths.

Sound speed data are collected periodically in one of three ways. In the first method, every one to four 

hours a survey technician slowly lowers a sound speed profiler ‒ known as a CTD instrument – from a 

stationary vessel to the sea floor and back (Figure 2.4-12). Passive collection of conductivity, temperature, 

and depth with CTD systems involves remote sampling of these parameters that are used in 

oceanographic sampling and to inform site-specific sound propagation models. CTDs do not produce and 

measure sound, but rather measure environmental conditions that can be used to reconstruct how sound 

propagates through the water column.

A second method involves a moving vessel profiler, which is automatically lowered and raised through the 

water column at regular intervals while the vessel is in motion (Figure 2.4-13). Mobile vessel profilers are 

submerged for time periods ranging in minutes.
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

47

Figure 2.4-12. CTD Instrument Figure 2.4-13. Moving Vessel Profiler

Mounted on the Fantail of a Ship

A third method is the use of expendable bathythermographs (XBTs) for profiling the water column. An 

XBT is a probe dropped from a ship that measures the temperature as it falls through the water (Figure 

2.4-14). A resistance in the head of the probe and a very thin twin-wire, connecting the probe to the 

equipment on the ship, compose the electronic circuit for measuring the water temperature. The probe 

is designed to fall at a known rate, so that the depth of the temperature profile can be inferred from the 

time since it entered the water. Deployments can be made using manual or automatic launchers (Figure 

2.4-15). 

When XBTs are used, a small portion of the probe (5 to 8 centimeters [cm] (2 to 3 inches [in]) long and 

approximately 0.7 kilograms (kg) (1.5 pounds [lbs]) remains on the sea floor. The probes, constructed of 

metal and plastic, fall to the sea floor and detach from the connecting line. The connecting line then 

retracts back to the vessel. 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

48

Figure 2.4-14. XBT Probe Figure 2.4-15. XBT Hand Launcher

2.4.8 Operation of Drop/Towed Cameras and Magnetometers

NOS uses drop/towed cameras for delineation and identification of sea floor habitats (i.e., ground 

truthing) through visual observations. Magnetometers, passive instruments which measure changes in 

the magnetic field of the earth, also are commonly drop/towed to survey cultural heritage sites and to 

geologically characterize the sea floor. Drop/towed cameras and magnetometers are launched from the 

ship or small boats and lowered on a cable using a power winch or by hand using a line. Drop/towed 

cameras and magnetometers are tethered at all times and are operated at approximately 1 m (3 ft) above 

the sea floor usually on predetermined transects. The total time of equipment submersion varies by 

project, but typically occurs on the scale of hours. 

2.4.9 Collection of Bottom Grab Samples

Some NOS surveys require the collection of sea floor sediment samples by lowering a grab sampler at a 

rate of about 1 m per second (3 ft per second) through the water column to the sea floor. Bottom samples 

are collected for a variety of reasons (for example, selecting anchorages, ground truthing the sea floor, 

and verifying benthic habitat maps). Typically, crews use a clamshell bottom snapper (6” by 6”) or similar 

type of grab sampler or sediment corer to obtain samples of the surface sediment layer (approximately 

the first 5 cm (2 in) of sediment). As the sampler is lowered, two hinged upper lids swing open to let water 

pass through. When the sampler reaches the bottom, the overlapping spring-loaded scoops are tripped 

on the line, and the lids close to contain the sediment and prevent sample washout. Corers such as box 

corers work similarly but can sample different volumes and depths of sediment. Depending on the goals 

of a particular project, the sediment sample is collected, analyzed, and photographed, and under some 

circumstances released from the sampler underwater.

Samples are characterized by color, type of bottom material and other characteristics. Field personnel 

may have a bottom sample plan as a guideline of sampling density, but sampling can also occur based on 

ground-truthing needs identified in the mapping products, and researchers are given discretion on the 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

49

exact location of sampling. Crews do not typically collect samples in waters deeper than 80 m (262 ft). 

Additionally, in areas surveyed within the last 30 years, the surveyor might not need to collect samples at 

all. In some cases, the surveyor can use backscatter or side scan data acquired during the survey operation 

to determine the best place to sample. Grab samples may also be used for current survey site 

reconnaissance. 

2.4.10 Use of Passive Listening Systems

Passive listening systems are hydrophones that receive sounds present in the environment from either 

natural sources or active acoustic systems. These systems do not produce sound but record it for 

monitoring and research purposes. Passive listening systems are often integrated into the housing of 

other equipment, such as ADCPs, or moored in place to the sea floor. NOS does not use expendable 

passive listening systems. 

2.4.11 SCUBA Operations

Some projects include deploying SCUBA divers. NOS conducts SCUBA operations to verify and validate 

benthic habitat classifications, collect samples, conduct fish and benthic habitat surveys, or install or 

retrieve small sensors or other scientific instrumentation, including installation of tide gauges. In-water 

diver activities include benthic and fish monitoring that would be conducted usually on hard bottom and 

coral reef habitats and near cultural and historic resources such as shipwrecks. 

Divers are deployed from crewed vessels, typically small boats, and traverse small areas in support of 

specific tasks. The majority of NOS dives are performed by CO-OPS and Coast Survey for tide gauge

installation, maintenance, or removal (73 percent), which requires relatively quick dives that are only a 

small component of the entire installation process. Twenty-one percent of NOS dives are performed by 

the Office of National Marine Sanctuaries (ONMS); the National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science

(NCCOS) and Office of Response and Restoration (ORR) together account for the remaining six percent. 

2.4.12 Installation, Maintenance, and Removal of Tide Gauges

A tide gauge is a device fitted with sensors that continuously record the height of the surrounding water 

level. These data are critical for many coastal activities, including safe navigation, sound engineering, and 

habitat restoration/preservation. Local and national networks of tide gauges measure water levels, 

provide the vertical reference system required to describe water level variations, and help develop tidal 

predictions. A tide gauge measures the changes in water levels and transmits the data by satellite to a

computer database for processing. The tide gauge station consists of a sensor, data collection platform, 

solar panels, and satellite transmitter. The four types of gauge conformations listed below are the most 

commonly used by NOS:

• An acoustic sensor uses sound waves to measure the distance between the sensor and the water 

level surface (Figure 2.4-16). It is most often used when an existing pier or dock is available on 

which to mount the sensor and includes a protective well that houses the sounding tube. These 

sensors typically emit 1.05 kHz acoustic signals at low source levels (-45 dB re: 1 μPa m). Both 

short-term and long-term acoustic tide gauges include some or all of the following nonpermanent equipment: tide house (located on a pier), data collection platform, sensor (typically 

an “aquatrak”) housed in a 30” x 30” portable plastic case, benchmarks, and satellite transmitter 

(tripod station with antenna and solar panel). A long-term acoustic tide station typically includes 

some or all of the following equipment: primary and backup water level sensors; primary and 

backup data collection platforms; a Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellite (GOES) 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

50

transmitter and antenna; GPS antenna; batteries; solar panels; water temperature sensors; mast 

or tower on which to mount wind sensors; barometric pressure sensor; and air temperature 

sensor. The acoustic sensor requires a 6-inch-diameter polyvinyl chloride protective well to house 

the sounding tube; the well is attached to the pier with stainless steel brackets to maintain sensor 

stability.

• A pressure sensor measures the pressure of the water column above an underwater orifice that 

is securely attached to maintain its position (Figure 2.4-17). It is used when there is little 

infrastructure available or as a backup sensor. A constant supply of air is pumped through a tube 

to the orifice to establish a zero point from which to measure the changes in pressure in the water 

column.

Figure 2.4-16. Pier-mounted

Acoustic Sensor Tide Gauge Station

Figure 2.4-17. Pressure Sensor Tide

Gauge Station (and Tubing)

• A microwave water level radar sensor (MWWL) uses radar waves to measure the distance from 

the sensor to the water (Figure 2.4-18). It is used when the existing infrastructure allows its 

installation in a location overlooking the water surface. This is the only type of sensor that is not 

in direct contact with the water. Station components may include some or all of the following 

equipment as noted in the acoustic sensor above: primary and backup water level sensors; 

primary and backup data collection platforms; a GOES transmitter and antenna; GPS antenna; 

batteries; solar panels; water temperature sensors; mast or tower on which to mount wind 

sensors; barometric pressure sensor; and air temperature sensor.

• A GPS tide buoy employs a GPS receiver that measures both horizontal and vertical position using 

GPS technology (Figure 2.4-19). It is used primarily during hydrographic surveys to obtain data in 

remote locations without existing infrastructure on which to mount a gauge. Some buoys may 

also be used to collect current data observations with a mounted acoustic sensor in an identified 

region. These buoys are acoustic mounted sensors on either an existing navigation buoy (i.e., 

owned by the U.S. Coast Guard [USCG]) or buoys deployed with ADCPs as noted in Section 2.4.5. 

They are also used to collect data in shipping channels. Examples of tide buoys are the two 

HydrolevelTM GPS tide buoys currently owned by the Coast Survey Development Laboratory. They 

are approximately 26” in diameter, weigh 58 kgs (128 lbs), have amber USCG light emitting diode 

(LED) lights visible from 3 miles away, and use sealed lithium batteries. A typical mooring 

configuration includes 45 to 68 kgs (100 to 150 lbs) of anchoring mass (usually a combination of a 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

51

23-kg (50-lb) primary anchor and several 7-kg (15-lb) “mushroom” anchors) and a heavy chain, 

with a total footprint of approximately 1 square meter (3 ft).

Figure 2.4-18. Microwave Sensor

and Instrument in Bridgeport, Connecticut

Figure 2.4-19. A GPS Tide Buoy

Although some of these tide gauges are operated only for the duration of a single project, most NOS tide 

gauges belong to a larger network of more permanent gauges. NOS (through CO-OPS) manages a 

permanent observing system of over 200 long-term, continuously operating data-collection platforms 

called the National Water Level Observation Network (NWLON). The NWLON measures tide levels and 

other oceanographic and meteorological parameters. The observing stations contribute to NOAA’s 

forecast models which provide tsunami and storm surge warnings. Some tide gauge stations also include 

additional co-located sensors, such as High Frequency Radar Systems (HFR), which collect currents data 

and support currents prediction models collected by boat or mounted ADCPs.

Approximately one quarter of the NWLON is located in the Great Lakes (non-tidal), providing water level 

data for the international management of those water resources. The NWLON provides the national 

standards for tide and water level reference datums used for nautical charting, coastal engineering, 

international treaty regulation, and boundary determination. CO-OPS also installs and operates 

approximately 100 short-term water level stations annually in support of a variety of programs including 

hydrographic and shoreline mapping projects, marine boundary determination, real time navigation 

systems, coastal habitat and marsh restoration projects, and other projects (NOAA, No Date-e). 

2.4.12.1 Tide Gauge / Tide Buoy Installation

Tide gauge installation occurs primarily out of the water. Tide gauges are typically secured to existing 

piers, docks, and bulkheads. Rocks are the most common natural structures used to secure sensors in 

remote locations for short-term stations. Equipment includes primary and backup systems for sensors, 

data processing, and data transmission. All equipment is installed to last several years before needing 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

52

service or replacement. Short-term stations typically involve one primary system with no backups. They 

are less extensive, easier to install and remove, and usually only stay in place for the length of the data 

collection period (1 to 3 months). Geodetic “benchmarks” must be installed near each water level station 

and are long-term reference points to which the tidal datums can be related through standard surveying 

techniques.

A long-term station requires a network of ten benchmarks to “level” to the tide gauge during operations, 

while a short-term station only requires five benchmarks. The larger number of marks required for a longterm station is proportional to the investment made over time in the data collection and tidal datums 

determined. Additional marks ensure that there are at least five marks, even if future construction 

destroys several marks at once. The benchmarks are spaced at least 61 m (200 ft) apart to strengthen the 

leveling data and reduce the chance of losing several marks at a time. They are typically established in a 

variety of permanent structures, including surface markers, or deep driven stainless-steel rods when 

existing structures are not available.

A field crew of three to six people installs the equipment. Crews travel to most gauge sites over land, but 

a few locations ‒ especially in remote areas of Alaska ‒ can only be reached by boat, seaplane or 

helicopter. Installation equipment includes both hand and power tools. When a tide gauge is installed on 

land it is located beyond the mean high tide line, so any disturbed sediments from installation do not 

reach the water.

During tide buoy installation, a buoy is tethered to the anchoring hardware with a 15-m (50 ft), 2.5-cm (1-

in) diameter rubber cord, followed by a section of 0.5-cm (3/16-in) Amsteel rope. The rubber cord attaches 

to the bottom of the buoy, and the rope attaches the rubber cord to the anchor. The combined length of 

the rubber cord and the rope exceeds the nominal water depth by a factor of approximately two (i.e., 

“mooring scope”). The GPS buoy is deployed by floating the buoy away from the vessel to the extent of 

the rubber cord and rope. The anchor is then lowered slowly to the point where the rope attaches to the 

rubber cord, at which point the anchor is released. Tide buoys are typically operated for one month before 

being removed.

2.3.12.2 Tide Gauge / Tide Buoy Maintenance

Once installed, tide gauges operate autonomously, collecting data on water levels and transmitting the 

data by satellite to a computer database for processing. The gauge operates under its own power -

typically solar, sometimes with a battery back-up. Short-term stations may be operational for as little as 

one month, or they may operate for up to one year. Personnel would return to the long-term stations 

periodically for water level measurements and maintenance, typically once per year. Maintenance visits 

would also be used to equip existing tide gauges with MWWL sensors and upgraded weather/stormproofing. 

Very little maintenance of tide buoys is required. NOAA tide buoys are programmed to send out a "health 

message" email to a predetermined distribution list at regular intervals via satellite. For example, Coast 

Survey tide buoys send messages hourly. If the buoy reports its position outside of a certain radius (“watch 

circle”), it issues a separate alert. Field personnel respond to situations where the buoy breaks its mooring 

or stops sending messages. Occasionally the batteries must be replaced or recharged, and field personnel 

must retrieve the buoy with a small boat and bring it back to the ship or shore. When they bring the buoy 

on board, the team attaches a temporary float to the end of the mooring so that it can be reused after 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

53

the buoy batteries have been refreshed. At the end of the survey, the field personnel recover all 

components of the buoy. 

2.4.12.3 Tide Gauge / Tide Buoy Removal

Long-term stations, such as those of the NWLON, remain in operation indefinitely. They receive a 

preventative maintenance visit once a year that involves a standard inspection of all equipment, leveling 

from sensors to benchmarks to determine sensor stability, GPS observations, and diving operations to 

inspect the underwater components if present. Emergency repair visits would address failed components. 

Temporary gauges would only be repaired in the event of a specific equipment failure.

Once a temporary tide gauge is no longer needed, field personnel would be sent to remove the gauge. 

Personnel level the gauges when they remove them. SCUBA diving may or may not be involved, depending 

on the location and the type of sensor installed. Field personnel would also remove a long- or short-term 

gauge upon project completion. All equipment is removed from the site, although the benchmarks would 

remain as established spatial reference points. To recover a tide buoy, the buoy float is brought aboard 

the vessel along with the length of rubber cord. The total anchoring hardware is then hauled in by rope.

2.4.13 Installation of GPS Reference Stations

NOS installs GPS reference stations to support ellipsoidally referenced surveys, where height and depth 

are measured with respect to a geodetic datum (“ellipsoid”) rather than to a tidal datum. Ellipsoidally 

referenced surveys improve the efficiency of hydrographic surveys by removing the requirement for 

concurrent water level observations and hydrographic survey data collection.

Equipment used in ellipsoidally referenced surveys includes a ship-based inertially-aided GPS system and 

a shore-based GPS reference station. If an existing network, such as the Continually Operating Reference 

Stations, is not available, field personnel must establish a new network by using a tripod, an antenna, a 

receiver housed in a hardened waterproof “suitcase,” and data storage connected to a radio modem for 

remote downloads. If electrical service is not available at the reference station site, the network system 

requires a set of 12-volt marine, deep-cycle rechargeable batteries and a solar panel array. The site chosen 

on shore must provide an obstruction-free view to GPS satellites and accommodate line-of-sight radio 

communications. No equipment maintenance is required, although if no remote data download capability 

is available, field personnel must visit the site periodically to download data vital for survey processing.

2.5 ALTERNATIVES A, B, AND C

NOS identified a “No Action” alternative (Alternative A), which represents the actions and resulting effects 

that would occur given continued coastal and marine data collection at current levels of effort using 

current technology and methods (i.e., the status quo), and two action alternatives (Alternatives B and C) 

that satisfy the purpose and need for the action as outlined in Section 1.3. These alternatives use many of 

the same technologies, equipment, and methods for surveying and mapping (as described in Section 2.4) 

and differ from each other primarily in their overall level of survey effort. 

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

Marine Data Collection with Current Technology and Methods, at Current 

Funding Levels

CEQ regulations (40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 1502.14) require the assessment of the No Action 

alternative in Environmental Impact Statements. The No Action alternative provides the baseline 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

54

condition of the existing environment from which to compare all other alternatives. In the case of an 

ongoing agency action, the No Action alternative represents adherence to current management direction 

or intensity. 

Under Alternative A, NOS would continue to conduct the activities listed in Section 2.4 to gather accurate 

and timely data on the nature and condition of the marine and coastal environment. This alternative 

reflects the technology, equipment, scope, and methods currently in use by NOS, at the level of effort 

reflecting NOS fiscal year 20194 funding levels. The level of activity for Alternative A is described in Table

2.6-1 in terms of nautical miles of survey effort and the overall number of projects that would continue 

to occur using each activity. 

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

Collection with Equipment Upgrades, Improved Hydroacoustic Devices, 

and New Tide Stations - NOS Preferred Alternative

NOS constantly seeks to improve the design and implementation of coastal and marine data collection. 

Alternative B therefore consists of Alternative A plus the more widespread adoption of new techniques 

and technologies (such as ROVs, MWWL sensors, etc.) to more efficiently perform surveying, mapping, 

charting and related data gathering. The introduction of these technologies, combined with continued, 

more traditional data collection methods, would allow NOS to perform more projects covering more 

survey miles annually than would be possible under Alternative A. Specific examples of adaptive methods 

and equipment that NOS programs are likely to promote, plan for, and adopt under Alternative B in the 

next five years include:

• Greater use of ROVs with echo sounder technologies;

• Greater use of AUVs with echo sounder technologies;

• Conversion of one or more existing 10-m (33 ft) crewed survey boats into USVs;

• Greater use of more efficient, wide-beam sonar systems (phase-differencing bathymetric 

systems) for nearshore hydrographic surveys;

• Expanded geographic distribution of projects that use hydroacoustic sampling methodologies;

• Increased field operations in the National Marine Sanctuary system with associated requirements 

for hydroacoustic charting, surveying, mapping and associated activities; and

• Installation, operation, and maintenance of additional water level stations by CO-OPS, including 

transitioning to mostly MWWL sensors and upgraded storm strengthening to make stations more 

climate resilient.

Under Alternative B, all of the activities described in Alternative A would continue, many at a higher level 

of effort. The nature of these actions would not change from those described above in Section 2.4, but 

the overall level of activity would be increased as described in Table 2.6-1.

NOS identified Alternative B as the preferred alternative because it takes advantage of newer, more 

efficient technology, provides increased support for national marine sanctuaries, and more effectively 

addresses the nation’s needs for coastal and marine data.

4 NOS is using 2019 as the baseline year for funding, as that was the last year of normal NOS operations prior to 

COVID-19 disruptions. 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

55

2.5.3 Alternative C: Upgrades and Improvements with Greater Funding Support

Like Alternative B, Alternative C adopts new techniques and technologies to encourage greater program 

efficiencies regarding surveying, mapping, charting, and related data gathering activities. In addition, 

Alternative C would consist of NOS program implementation with an overall funding increase of 20 

percent relative to Alternative B.

Under Alternative C, all of the activities described in Alternative B would continue, many at a higher level 

of effort. The nature of these actions would not change from those described above in Section 2.4, but 

the overall level of activity would be augmented as described in Table 2.6-1.

2.6 COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES

In order to compare the alternatives, NOS collected data on the projected number of projects and 

activities that would be conducted annually by its program offices under the three alternatives selected 

for analysis. In some cases, the exact number of times an activity would take place is not known in 

advance. For example, a crew’s decision to deploy an anchor is based on schedule constraints, fuel 

supplies, safety, weather, availability of anchorages, and other concerns. Similarly, the decision to deploy 

a sound speed data collection instrument can be contingent upon data gathered during the survey itself. 

Therefore, these activities were enumerated by the number of projects where the equipment would be 

expected to be used based on a review of previous NOS projects. This approach allows the reader to 

compare the prevalence of these activities by alternative, as shown in Table 2.6-1.

It is also important to note that project estimates for each activity were reported by NOS program offices 

non-exclusively. As noted in Section 2.2, a single project typically consists of multiple activities. For 

example, a single Coast Survey project may include the activities of vessel operation, echo sounder 

operation, anchor deployment, and sound speed data collection. Non-exclusive reporting allows for more 

robust comparisons of activities between the alternatives, but it results in a greater total number of 

projects reported from that which would actually occur. For example, one nautical mile of data collection 

for a mapping survey project is reported as both one mile of the “crewed vessel use” activity and one mile 

of the “echo sounder use” activity, as the vessel and the echo sounder are operated simultaneously. As 

another example, many tide gauge installation projects would be counted as both a tide gauge installation 

activity and as a SCUBA dive activity, as the installation of many gauges requires diving to install the 

pressure gauge component of a tide gauge.

While both the total number of nautical miles surveyed by crewed vessels and the discrete number of 

projects increase by approximately 10 percent between each subsequent alternative, the magnitude of 

individual activities does not increase uniformly between alternatives, reflecting priorities in funding 

allocation and technology use. For example, ROV/USV/AUV use increases 201.7 percent from Alternative 

A to B and 18.5 percent from Alternative B to C. The proportionally greater increase in ROV activity 

compared to that of overall crewed vessel activities demonstrates the building movement towards 

uncrewed survey activities and the overall commitment of NOS agencies towards methodological 

innovation and efficiency. Likewise, mobile ADCP use increases 90.2 percent from Alternative A to B and 

35.7 percent from Alternative B to C, also reflecting NOS commitment to improved technology and 

efficiency.

It is important to note that the high number of SCUBA operations reported is related to the high number 

of tide gauge installation/maintenance/removal projects, as the majority of SCUBA projects 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

56

(approximately 73 percent) are tide gauge projects. Tide gauge projects usually involve short SCUBA dives 

that are not a large component of the overall project. 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

57

Table 2.6-1. Comparison of Annual NOS Planned Surveying

and Mapping Activities under Alternatives A, B, and C

Activity

Described 

in Section Alternative A

Percent Increase 

from Alternative A 

to Alternative B Alternative B

Percent Increase 

from Alternative B 

to Alternative C Alternative C

Crewed vessel 

operations

2.4.1 518,000 nm 

(959,000 km) 

11.4% 577,000 nm 

(1,070,000 km) 

10.4% 637,000 nm 

(1,180,000 km) 

Anchoring** 2.4.2 55 projects 6.9% 59 projects 8.1% 64 projects 

ROV/USV/AUV

movement

2.4.3 28,600 nm (53,000 

km)

201.7% 86,300 nm 

(160,000 km)

18.5% 102,300 nm 

(189,000 km)

Use of echo sounders 2.4.4 479,000 nm 

(887,000 km)

11.5% 534,000 nm 

(988,000 km)

10.3% 589,000 nm 

(1,090,000 km)

Use of sub-bottom 

profilers

2.4.4 3,210 nm (5,940 

km)

65.4% 5,310 nm (9,830 

km)

45.2% 7,710 nm (14,300 

km)

Use of mobile ADCPs 2.4.5 5,890 nm (10,900 

km)

90.2% 11,200 nm (20,700 

km)

35.7% 15,200 nm (28,200 

km)

Stationary ADCPs 

installed/visited for 

maintenance/removed

2.4.5 37 installed/78 

maintenance 

visits/33 removed

5.4%/1.3%/0% 39 installed /79 

maintenance visits 

/33 removed

2.6%/0%/0% 40 installed /79 

maintenance visits 

/33 removed

Use of acoustic 

communication 

systems

2.4.6 24 projects 37.5% 33 projects 18.2% 39 projects

Sound speed data 

collection

2.4.7 56 projects 14.3% 64 projects 10.9% 71 projects

Drop/towed camera 

operation

2.4.8 31 projects 16.1% 36 projects 13.9% 41 projects

Bottom sample 

collection

2.4.9 54 projects 13.0% 61 projects 11.5% 68 projects

Use of passive listening 

systems***

2.4.10 21 projects 14.3% 24 projects 20.8% 29 projects

SCUBA operations 2.4.11 248 projects 2.4% 254 projects 5.9% 269 projects
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

58

Activity

Described 

in Section Alternative A

Percent Increase 

from Alternative A 

to Alternative B Alternative B

Percent Increase 

from Alternative B 

to Alternative C Alternative C

Tide gauges 

installed/visited for 

maintenance/removed

2.4.12 32 installed /305 

maintenance visits 

/30 removed

15.6%/0%/16.7% 37 installed /305 

maintenance visits 

/35 removed

8.1%/0%/8.6% 40 installed /305 

maintenance visits 

/38 removed

GPS reference system 

installation

2.4.13 12 installed 8.3% 13 installed 15.4% 15 installed

*All numbers are approximate and represent an annual level of effort. Projects for each activity were reported by NOS agencies without respect to the 

combination of activities within projects (e.g., a project involving both crewed vessel operation and echo sounder use would be reported as one crewed vessel 

project and one echo sounder project).

**NOS estimates that 20 percent of crewed vessel projects include an anchoring component.

***In addition to the projects presented in the table, CO-OPS uses passive listening systems on an as-needed basis. This entails the use of transponder or 

interrogator sensors during the deployment or retrieval of ADCPs.
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

59

3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Chapter 3 describes the current environment for resources that may be affected by Alternative A (No 

Action – Conduct Surveys and Mapping for Coastal and Marine Data Collection with Current Technology 

and Methods, at Current Funding Levels), Alternative B (Conduct Surveys and Mapping for Coastal and 

Marine Data Collection with Equipment Upgrades, Improved Hydroacoustic Devices, and New Tide 

Stations), and Alternative C (Upgrades and Improvements with Greater Funding Support), and the 

potential environmental consequences associated with the alternatives. 

Sections 3.4 through 3.13 discuss the resources analyzed, and Section 3.14 discusses the resources that 

were considered but dismissed from further analysis. The resources analyzed and dismissed are listed 

below:

Resources Analyzed

• Habitats

• Marine Mammals

• Sea Turtles

• Fish

• Aquatic Macroinvertebrates

• Essential Fish Habitat

• Seabirds, Shorebirds and Coastal Birds, and Waterfowl

• Cultural and Historic Resources

• Socioeconomic Resources

• Environmental Justice

Resources Dismissed

• Air and Water Quality

• Soils and Geology

• Airborne Noise for Human Receptors

• Select Freshwater Taxa
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

60

UNDERWATER SOUND

The ambient marine and freshwater soundscape is composed of different types of sound: 

1. natural biological sounds, 

2. natural physical sounds, and 

3. human-made sounds. 

Natural biological sounds include sounds produced by fish, birds, marine mammals, invertebrates, 

and other animals that produce and use sound to perform various life functions. Natural physical 

sounds include sounds produced by the physical environment such as sounds from rain, lightning, 

wind, waves, the movement and breaking of ice, volcanic eruptions, earthquakes, and other 

physical phenomena. Human-made sounds include those from human activity such as sounds from 

vessel engines, oil and gas exploration (seismic airguns), drilling, construction, dredging 

(excavating), fishing, sonar, and echo sounders (NOAA, 2016). Since human-made sounds are 

relatively new to aquatic soundscapes and are considered unwanted, these sounds are 

interchangeably referred to as noise.

Unlike other means of communication used by animals on land involving the senses, such as visual 

communication and chemical communication (e.g., smell), sound propagates faster and farther 

underwater than in air. The properties of sound enable its production and reception to be highly 

efficient means of communication over the vast distances that make up the marine environment. 

Aquatic animals have evolved to rely on sound as a primary method for communication and for 

gaining information about the surrounding environment (NOAA, 2016). Therefore, understanding 

how to characterize and assess sound is critical to analyzing the impact of noise on aquatic animals.

Sound refers to vibrations which cause pressure changes that travel as a wave through a medium, 

such as air or water. In air, sounds are typically characterized by pitch and intensity. Although 

sounds in air and sounds in water are compared using the same metrics, the physical differences 

between air and water result in the same sound having different speed, pitch, and intensity.

● Speed. In general, sound travels much faster and farther in water than in air. Sound travels 

faster in denser mediums; however, the density of seawater varies with the water’s salinity 

(salt concentration), temperature, and pressure (depth). On average, sound travels at 

about 1,500 meters per second (m/s) (3,500 miles per hour [mph]) in seawater compared 

to 340 m/s (760 mph) in air.

● Pitch. The pitch of a sound is the frequency, or repetition rate, of the sound wave and is 

measured in hertz (Hz) and kilohertz (kHz). Sound waves with higher frequencies are 

perceived as higher pitch sounds. The frequency of sound impacts the distance a given 

sound travels, in general, low frequency sounds travel farther than high frequency sounds. 

Some sounds, particularly low-frequency ones, can travel hundreds of kilometers 

underwater.

● Intensity. The intensity, or loudness, of a sound is represented as the amplitude of the 

sound wave which is the change in pressure as the sound wave passes. Sound waves with 

larger amplitudes are perceived as louder sounds. Intensity also depends on characteristics 

of the medium in which the sound is traveling. Since intensity depends on both the sound 

and the medium, intensity is typically measured in decibels (dB), which is a relative unit on 

a logarithmic scale that compares the sound pressure to a reference pressure. The 

reference pressure is different for different mediums. In air, decibels use a reference 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

61

pressure of 20 microPascals (μPa) such that they are scaled to the range of human hearing, 

so by definition, a 0 dB sound in air is the lowest limit of human hearing. Humans perceive 

a 10 dB increase as a doubling of loudness. In water, decibels are scaled using a reference 

pressure of 1 μPa. Since dB in air and dB in water use different reference pressures, sound 

intensity reported in dB in air is not the same as sound intensity reported in underwater dB 

(DOSITS, No Date-a).

The figure below provides a simple representation of how sound travels in air compared to water.

Source: DOSITS, No Date-a

Sound Traveling in Air Versus Water

The table below compares sound intensity in air to sound intensity in water for common sounds.

Intensity Comparison for Typical Airborne and Underwater Sounds

Sound

Sound Intensity in Air

(dB re 20 μPa)

Sound Intensity 

Underwater

(dB re 1 μPa)

Threshold of human hearing (1,000 Hz) 0 26*

Very quiet living room 40 66*

Normal speech (1 meter) 60 86*

Jet airliner (10 meters) 104 130*

Fin whale call (100 meters) 114* 140

Human threshold of pain (at ear drum) 140 166*

Some military artillery 160 186*

Beluga echolocation call (1 meter) 194* 220

Source: NRC, 1994

*Nominal levels after conversion to alternate medium.

The potential impact of underwater sound on receptors is related to both the characteristics of the 

sound received and the sensitivity of the receptor. As sound emanates from a source, the intensity 

of the sound decreases with distance from the source; thus, receptors located further from a source 

receive lower intensities of sound. Just as humans have a limited range of perceptible sound 

frequencies outside of which sounds are undetectable, marine animals have different ranges of 

perceptible sounds and rely on the use of sound for different activities. The vast majority of sounds 

generated by NOS activities would be outside the frequency range of human sound perception both 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

62

in air and underwater; however, some marine animals (e.g., marine mammals) can perceive and 

potentially be impacted by these sounds. Given the great differences between how a single sound 

is received and processed by different marine animal receptors, NOS determined that the impact 

of sound would be best assessed at the receptor level for the biological resources of marine 

mammals, sea turtles, fish, aquatic macroinvertebrates, and birds.

3.1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT METHODOLOGY

The affected environment summarizes the current physical, biological, social, and economic environments 

of the “action area,” which includes the United States (U.S.) territorial sea; the contiguous zone; the U.S. 

Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ); rivers; states’ offshore waters; and coastal and riparian lands for projects 

such as the installation, maintenance, and removal of tide gauges. This includes the U.S. portions of the 

Great Lakes and internal waters including Lakes Tahoe, Mead, Champlain, Okeechobee, and major rivers 

such as the Mississippi, Missouri, Hudson, and Columbia rivers. For each resource, the affected 

environment describes the elements or components of the resource that may be potentially affected by 

the alternatives.

3.2 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES METHODOLOGY

The environmental consequences analysis considers how the condition of a resource would change as a 

result of implementing each of the alternatives and describes the impacts in terms of types (direct, 

indirect, cumulative, beneficial, adverse), context, intensity, and significance. The types of impacts are 

defined in Section 3.2.1 and the development of significance criteria is described in Section 3.2.2 below. 

The impacts analysis is performed using a framework that follows a logical sequence of analytical steps 

for each resource under each alternative:

• Impact Causing Factors. Evaluate proposed activities to identify which elements of the activities 

could lead to impacts - the impact causing factors. A systematic consideration of causes and 

effects is used to derive the impact causing factors from known actions and characteristics that 

define the activities.

• Detailed Analysis of Impacts. Evaluate the impact causing factors to produce a detailed analysis 

of the impacts. Assess the context and intensity of the impacts from each impact causing factor, 

then evaluate the impacts from all impact causing factors to define significance for the alternative.

• Significance Criteria. Develop and apply criteria that are standards for evaluating the significance 

of the impacts caused by the proposed activities. 

3.2.1 Types of Impacts

According to the Council on Environmental Quality’s (CEQ) National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 

Regulations at 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 1500-1508 (1978), direct and indirect effects are 

defined as: 

Direct effects: Effects that are caused by the action and occur at the same time and place (40 CFR 

1508.1(g)(1)). 

Indirect effects: Effects that are caused by the action and occur later in time or are farther removed in 

distance but are still reasonably foreseeable. Indirect effects also include “induced changes” in the human 

and natural environments (40 CFR 1508.1(g)(2)).
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

63

For example, the ability of the water to sustain aquatic life may become temporarily impaired in the event 

of an accidental fuel or hazardous materials spill. Indirect impacts are those follow-on effects induced by 

the initial impact; for example, fuel or hazardous materials spills could lead to species population 

reduction or displacement, adversely affecting commercial harvest of marine species. 

Identified impacts may be either adverse or beneficial. The CEQ Guidelines that govern NEPA

implementation describe the need for identifying and differentiating between adverse and beneficial 

impacts, but do not offer a definition of these terms. This Final Programmatic Environmental Impact 

Statement (PEIS) considers both adverse and beneficial impacts as defined below:

Adverse impacts: Those impacts having a negative and harmful effect on the analyzed resource. An 

adverse impact causes a change that moves the resource away from a desired condition or detracts from 

its appearance or condition. 

Beneficial impacts: Those impacts having a positive and supportive effect on the analyzed resource. A 

beneficial impact constitutes a positive change in the condition or appearance of the resource or a change 

that moves the resource toward a desired condition.

Cumulative impacts: Effects on the environment from the incremental impact of the Proposed Action 

when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. See Chapter 4 for more 

information on cumulative impacts.

3.2.2 Significance Criteria

Significance criteria provide a structured framework for assessing impacts, supporting conclusions 

regarding the significance of effects, and comparing effects between alternatives. For this Final PEIS, the 

National Ocean Service (NOS) developed significance criteria for each resource by defining the context 

and intensity of potential impacts and dividing those impacts into four categories. NOS then designated 

the significance conclusion for each category of impacts. The significance criteria for each resource 

analyzed are provided in Sections 3.4 through 3.13. 

3.2.2.1 Context and Intensity

As defined in 40 CFR 1508.27, determining the significance of impacts requires a consideration of both 

context and intensity. Context means that the significance of an action must be analyzed in several 

contexts such as society as a whole (human, national), the affected region, the affected interests, and the 

locality. Both short- and long-term effects are relevant. Intensity refers to the severity of impact. See 

Section 1508.27 for the list of factors that can contribute to the intensity of an impact. 

3.2.2.2 Impact Descriptor

Four impact descriptors are used to categorize the context and intensity of impacts: negligible, minor, 

moderate, and major. Because context and intensity vary by resource, the four impact descriptors are 

defined in the methodology section for each resource (Sections 3.4 through 3.13).

3.2.3 Mitigation Measures

Pursuant to the CEQ regulations, agencies must analyze appropriate means to mitigate adverse effects 

that are not already included in the Proposed Action. See, e.g., 40 CFR 1502.16(a) (9) and 1502.14(e). This

Final PEIS incorporates additional mitigation measures in the appropriate resource sections, and they are 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

64

presented in full in Appendix D. NOS has developed the mitigation measures to be implemented on each 

project as appropriate to minimize the impacts of project activities on sensitive species, habitats, cultural 

and historic resources, and subsistence hunting and fishing. The additional mitigation measures in the 

Final PEIS were developed in coordination with subject matter experts and field crews and with the 

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and the Office of 

National Marine Sanctuaries (ONMS).

3.3 REGULATORY BACKGROUND

In addition to NEPA, other federal environmental laws, regulations, and Executive Orders (EOs) may be 

applicable to individual projects described in this PEIS. In accordance with CEQ regulations for 

implementing NEPA, NOS is integrating the requirements of NEPA with all other applicable environmental 

review requirements to the fullest extent practicable. NOS sought to incorporate the findings and 

conclusions from other regulatory agencies in this NEPA analysis. The full list of potentially applicable legal 

requirements is included in this section, with a detailed summary of selected requirements. A summary 

of the current status of consultation with other federal agencies as of the publication of this Final PEIS is 

provided in Table 1.6-1 in Chapter 1.

NOS is committed to public transparency and working with local, state, tribal, and federal partners to 

reduce environmental impacts from NOS projects. Although state and local statutes and regulations 

(particularly procedural requirements like permitting) are not typically binding on federal agencies, it is 

NOS’s intent to comply with substantive state and local requirements to the maximum extent practicable.

3.3.1 Marine Mammal Protection Act

The Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) of 1972 (16 United States Code [U.S.C.] §§ 1361 et seq.), as 

amended, prohibits, with certain exceptions, the “take” of marine mammals in U.S. waters and by U.S. 

citizens in international waters. The MMPA defines “take” as: “to harass, hunt, capture, or kill, or attempt 

to harass, hunt, capture or kill any marine mammal” (16 U.S.C. § 1362). Harassment means “any act of 

pursuit, torment, or annoyance which has the potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal 

stock in the wild; or has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild 

by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, 

breeding, feeding, or sheltering” (16 U.S.C. § 1362).

Section 101(a)(5)(A-D) of the MMPA provides a mechanism for allowing, upon request, the "incidental" 

but not intentional taking of small numbers of marine mammals by U.S. citizens who engage in a specified 

activity (other than commercial fishing) within a specified geographic region. Jurisdiction for MMPA is 

shared by USFWS and NMFS (collectively, the Services). NMFS is responsible for the protection of whales, 

dolphins, porpoises, seals, and sea lions. The USFWS is responsible for the protection of walruses, 

manatees, sea otters, and polar bears.

Authorization for incidental takes may be granted if the Services find that the taking would be of small 

numbers, would have no more than a "negligible impact" on those marine mammal species or stocks, and 

would not have an "unmitigable adverse impact" on the availability of the species or stock for 

"subsistence" uses. For species under the jurisdiction of NMFS, incidental take authorizations may be 

issued as either: 1) regulations and associated Letters of Authorization (LOAs), or 2) Incidental Harassment 

Authorizations (IHAs). LOAs are available for actions with potential to result in serious injury or mortality. 

LOAs are issued by region and can be valid for up to five consecutive years. An IHA is also issued by region, 

can only be valid for one year, and is limited to authorizing take by harassment. For species under the 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

65

jurisdiction of USFWS, an Incidental Take Regulation (ITR) can be issued for a period of up to five years 

and can cover all forms of incidental take. 

NOS submitted an LOA Application to the NMFS Office of Protected Resources (OPR) for the Proposed 

Action on June 3, 2022. NOS submitted an ITR request to USFWS on September 12, 2022. 

3.3.2 Endangered Species Act

The Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973 as amended (16 U.S.C. §§ 1531, et seq.), provides for the 

conservation of species that are endangered or threatened throughout all or a significant portion of their 

range, and the conservation of the ecosystems on which they depend. The ESA directs all federal agencies 

to work to conserve endangered and threatened species and to use their authorities to further the 

purposes of the Act. Jurisdiction is shared by the Services. Generally, NMFS manages marine species, while 

the USFWS manages land and freshwater species. USFWS has jurisdiction over certain marine species, 

such as sea otters, manatees, and sea birds.

A species (or subspecies) is considered endangered if it is in danger of extinction throughout all or a 

significant portion of its range. A species (or subspecies) is considered threatened if it is likely to become 

an endangered species within the foreseeable future. When listing a species as threatened or endangered, 

the Services also designate critical habitat for the species to the maximum extent prudent and 

determinable (16 U.S.C. § 1533(a)(3)).

Under Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA, each federal agency shall, in consultation with the Services, ensure that 

any action they authorize, fund, or carry out is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a listed 

species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of designated critical habitat. The ESA requires 

federal agencies to consult or confer with the Services when a federal agency’s action “may affect” a 

protected species or critical habitat, whether that effect is adverse or beneficial. Consultation is initiated 

by the preparation of a Biological Assessment (BA) by the federal agency. Informal consultation is available 

if an action “may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect” protected species or designated critical 

habitat. The Services provide a letter of concurrence, which completes informal consultation. Formal 

consultation is required if adverse effects are anticipated. Formal consultation is concluded by the 

preparation of a Biological Opinion by the Services. If jeopardy is not likely, the agency may authorize 

incidental take of protected species in an incidental take statement. 

NOS prepared the Draft PEIS to serve as a BA for Section 7 consultation with NMFS and USFWS. NOS 

initiated consultation with NMFS OPR under Section 7 of the ESA on August 26, 2021. NOS initiated 

consultation with USFWS under Section 7 of the ESA on August 21, 2021. On December 8, 2021, USFWS 

sent NOS a letter requesting additional information for completing consultation under Section 7 of the 

ESA for the Proposed Action. NOS provided the requested additional information and proposed revisions 

to the Draft PEIS on June 1, 2022. These revisions have been incorporated into the Final PEIS where 

appropriate. Through the ESA consultation process, NOS developed additional mitigation measures to 

minimize impacts to sensitive species which have been incorporated into appropriate resource sections 

and listed in Appendix D.

For NOS projects being proposed in freshwater, an ESA species list will be requested from the USFWS

Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC) report system. From this information, NOS will

determine if any ESA-listed species are present in a proposed project area that have not already been 

addressed in this Final PEIS and therefore, not in the programmatic ESA consultation. If any such species 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

66

are identified, NOS will consider possible impacts to ESA-listed species in the context of that specific 

project. If appropriate, NOS will then initiate Section 7 consultation with the appropriate USFWS field 

office(s).

3.3.3 Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act

The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA), enacted in 1976, is the primary 

law governing marine fisheries management in U.S. federal waters and is administered by NMFS. The MSA 

(16 U.S.C. § 1801, et seq.) encourages the conservation and restoration of essential fish habitat (EFH) and 

resources. EFH describes all waters and substrates necessary for fish for spawning, breeding, feeding, or 

growth to maturity. Section 305(b) of the MSA (16 U.S.C. § 1855(b)) requires federal agencies to consult 

with the Secretary of Commerce on all actions, or Proposed Actions, authorized, funded, or undertaken 

by the agency, that may adversely affect EFH.

“Adverse effect” is defined in the EFH regulations as: “any impact that reduces quality and/or quantity of 

EFH. Adverse effects may include direct or indirect physical, chemical, or biological alterations of the 

waters or substrate and loss of, or injury to, benthic organisms, prey species and their habitat, and other 

ecosystem components, if such modifications reduce the quality and/or quantity of EFH. Adverse effects 

to EFH may result from actions occurring within EFH or outside of EFH and may include site-specific or 

habitat-wide impacts, including individual, cumulative, or synergistic consequences of actions.” 

EFH consultation is managed by NMFS’s Office of Habitat Conservation. If adverse effects are anticipated, 

NMFS will recommend measures to avoid, minimize, or offset any adverse impacts associated with the 

activity to ensure no reduction in the quality or quantity of EFH occurs as a result of the proposed activity.

NOS submitted an EFH Assessment to NMFS’s Office of Habitat Conservation on June 2, 2022 and received 

a final response from NMFS on November 1, 2022. Through the EFH consultation process, NOS developed 

additional mitigation measures to minimize impacts to sensitive species and habitats which have been 

incorporated into appropriate resource sections and listed in Appendix D.

3.3.4 Migratory Bird Treaty Act

The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) (16 U.S.C. §§ 703-712) is the primary legislation in the U.S. 

established to conserve migratory birds and requires the protection of migratory birds and their habitats. 

It implements the U.S. commitment to four bilateral treaties or conventions with Canada, Japan, Mexico, 

and Russia for protection of a shared migratory bird resource. The MBTA prohibits, with certain 

exceptions, pursuing, hunting, taking, capturing, killing, or selling migratory birds or any part, nest, egg, 

or product of migratory birds. Migratory birds protected under the MBTA include those that are native to 

the U.S. which are listed in 50 CFR § 10.13. The USFWS has jurisdiction over the species protected by the 

MBTA.

On January 7, 2021, a new rule (the January 7 rule) (86 FR 1134), effective on March 8, 2021, was proposed 

to restrict the scope of the MBTA to cover only intentional killings or injuring of birds; however, on May 

7, 2021, the USFWS proposed a new rule (86 FR 24573) to revoke the January 7 rule. The effect of the May 

7 proposed rule would be to return to implementing the MBTA as prohibiting incidental take as well as 

intentional take. The May 7 rule took effect on December 3, 2021 (86 FR 54642).

NOS has assessed the potential for incidental takes and described mitigation measures that will be 

implemented in Section 3.10.
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

67

3.3.5 Coastal Zone Management Act

The Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) (16 U.S.C. §§ 1456 et seq) was enacted in 1972 to encourage 

coastal states, Great Lakes states, and U.S. Territories and Commonwealths (collectively referred to as 

“coastal states” or “states”) to be proactive in managing natural resources for their benefit and the benefit 

of the nation. The CZMA is a voluntary program for states; currently, all U.S. coastal states participate 

except Alaska, which voluntarily withdrew from the program in 2011. Section 307 of the CZMA is known 

as the “federal consistency” provision. 

The federal consistency provision requires federal actions (inside or outside a state’s coastal zone) that 

affect any land or water use or natural resource of a state’s coastal zone, to be consistent with the 

enforceable policies of the state coastal management program (CMP). The term “effect on any coastal 

use or resource” means any reasonably foreseeable effect on any coastal use or resource resulting from 

the activity, including direct and indirect (cumulative and secondary) effects. The federal consistency 

regulations at 15 CFR Part 930 set forth detailed timeframes and procedures. The consistency 

requirements apply to both federal agency activities (15 CFR Part 930, Subpart C), and federal license or 

permit activities (Subpart D), but the consistency review is different for each type of federal agency action.

Federal agency activities (Subpart C) are activities and development projects performed by a federal 

agency, or a contractor for the benefit of a federal agency. For federal agency projects occurring inside or 

outside a state’s coastal zone, for states or territories with approved CMPs, the federal agency must 

submit a Consistency Determination to the state if the federal agency determines the activity may have 

reasonably foreseeable effects on the state’s coastal uses or resources. If there are no reasonably 

foreseeable effects, the federal agency may be required to provide a Negative Determination to the state 

(detailed in 15 CFR § 930.35). If the state objects to the federal agency’s consistency determination, the 

federal agency may proceed with its action if it finds that its action is consistent to the maximum 

practicable with the enforceable policies of the state’s CMP.

NOS provided Consistency Determination letters to all coastal states and territories with approved CMPs

in August 2022. The Consistency Determination letters evaluate the coastal effects of proposed activities 

according to the relevant enforceable policies of the state or territory to make a consistency 

determination under CZMA.

If NOS relies on this PEIS for issuing a permit or authorization to a non-federal entity, the permit applicant 

must submit a Consistency Certification under Subpart D to the state CMP. All federal license or permit 

activities occurring in the coastal zone are deemed to affect coastal uses or resources if the state CMP has 

listed the particular federal license, permit or authorization in the state CMP “federal consistency list” 

approved by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). The federal consistency 

regulations also identify situations in which an applicant may need to submit a Consistency Certification 

to the state even if the proposed license or permit activity is not included on the state’s federal 

consistency list. If an applicant is required to submit a Consistency Certification to a state, then the federal 

agency cannot authorize the proposed activity unless and until the state has concurred with the 

applicant’s Consistency Certification.

3.3.6 National Historic Preservation Act and Other Cultural Resource 

Regulations

The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA) is the primary federal statute addressing the 

management of historic properties. Section 106 of the NHPA (54 U.S.C. § 300101 et seq.) requires federal 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

68

agencies to take into account the effects of their undertakings on historic properties in accordance with 

regulations issued by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) at 36 CFR Part 800. Historic 

properties are properties that are included in the National Register of Historic Places or that meet the 

criteria for the National Register. If an agency’s undertaking could affect historic properties, the agency 

must identify the appropriate State Historic Preservation Officer/Tribal Historic Preservation Officer 

(SHPO/THPO) to consult with during the process. It should also plan to involve the public, and identify 

other potential consulting parties. The agency must identify historic properties in the area of potential 

effects. If the agency finds that no historic properties are present or affected, it provides documentation 

to the SHPO/THPO and, barring any objection in 30 days, proceeds with its undertaking. If effects are 

found, consultation usually results in a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA), which outlines agreed-upon 

measures that the agency will take to avoid, minimize, or mitigate the adverse effects.

NOS will initiate project-specific consultations under Section 106 of the NHPA before commencing any 

activity with the potential to affect cultural or historic resources. On June 28, 2021, NOS sent letters to 

tribes notifying them of the availability of the Draft PEIS and inviting them to request government-togovernment consultation under EO 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal 

Governments. NOS recognizes its unique relationship with tribes and trust responsibility with tribal 

governments as set forth in the U.S. Constitution, treaties, statutes, EOs, and court decisions. It is the 

policy of NOAA to consult on a government-to-government basis with federally recognized tribal 

governments when the federal actions and decisions may affect tribal interests. NOS also consults with 

Alaska Native corporations on the same basis as federally recognized tribes under EO 13175. This 

consultation and coordination process would be conducted in accordance with NOAA’s Procedures for 

Government-to-Government Consultation with Federally Recognized Indian Tribes and Alaska Native 

Corporations (NOAA 13175 policy, November 12, 2013).

NOS did not receive any requests from federally recognized tribes to initiate government-to-government 

consultation on the Draft PEIS. Additionally, no requests were received to initiate government-tocorporation consultation from any Alaska Native corporation. NOS intends to notify individual federally 

recognized tribes and Alaska Native corporations consistent with EO 13175 before conducting any project 

that may have tribal implications. Federally recognized tribes are welcome to request government-togovernment consultation at any time for a project that may have tribal implications.

Additional regulations that apply to work in tribal lands and waters and near submerged cultural resources 

include the Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 (ARPA) (16 U.S.C. §§ 470aa et seq) and the 

Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) (25 U.S.C. §§ 3001 et seq).

ARPA was enacted “to secure, for the present and future benefit of the American people, the protection 

of archaeological resources and sites which are on public lands and Indian lands, and to foster increased 

cooperation and exchange of information between governmental authorities, the professional 

archaeological community, and private individuals” (16 U.S.C. § 470aa(b)). ARPA requires a permit for 

activities directed at archaeological resources located on public lands (16 U.S.C. § 470cc(a)). ARPA‘s 

definition of public lands expressly excludes the outer continental shelf (16 U.S.C. § 470bb(3)(B)); 

therefore, with regards to the marine environment, the permit system established under ARPA only 

applies within federal marine protected areas and submerged lands to which the U.S. retained title and 

which were not transferred under the Submerged Lands Act (SLA) or other laws.

NAGPRA describes the rights of Native American lineal descendants, Indian tribes, and Native Hawaiian 

organizations with respect to the treatment, repatriation, and disposition of Native American human 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

69

remains, funerary objects, sacred objects, and objects of cultural patrimony, referred to collectively in the 

statute as cultural items, with which they can show a relationship of lineal descent or cultural affiliation. 

NAGPRA regulates the intentional excavation or inadvertent discovery of Native American human remains 

and cultural items on Federal or tribal lands (25 U.S.C. §§ 3002(c)-(d)). NAGPRA requires a permit for the 

intentional removal from or excavation of Native American cultural items from federal or tribal lands (25 

USC 3002(c)) and in the case of an inadvertent discovery, NAGPRA requires that the person must stop the 

activity in the area of the inadvertent discovery and make a reasonable effort to protect the cultural items, 

(25 U.S.C. § 3002(d)). Federal lands under NAGPRA include lands owned or controlled by Federal agencies 

(25 U.S.C. § 3001(5)); this includes submerged lands within the outer continental shelf and EEZ.

3.3.7 National Marine Sanctuaries Act

The National Marine Sanctuaries Act (NMSA) (16 U.S.C. § 1431 et seq.) authorizes the Secretary of 

Commerce to designate and manage areas of the marine environment with special national significance 

due to their conservation, recreational, ecological, historical, scientific, cultural, archeological, 

educational, or esthetic qualities as national marine sanctuaries. 

ONMS serves as the trustee for a network of National Marine Sanctuaries encompassing more than 

1,553,993 square kilometers (km2) (600,000 square miles [mi2]) of marine and Great Lakes waters from 

Washington state to the Florida Keys, and from Lake Huron to American Samoa. The network includes 15 

National Marine Sanctuaries. 

The NMSA prohibits injury to sanctuary resources. Each sanctuary has individual regulations that include 

prohibited activities. ONMS has the authority to issue permits for prohibited activities for the purpose of 

research, education, or management. NOS program offices would obtain all necessary permits to conduct 

any prohibited activities in national marine sanctuaries, consistent with regulations at 15 CFR 922.

Section 304(d) of the NMSA requires interagency consultation between NOAA and federal agencies taking 

actions, including authorization of private activities, "likely to destroy, cause the loss of, or injure a 

sanctuary resource." In addition, federal agencies are required to consult on Proposed Actions that "may 

affect" the resources of Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary. Consultation is initiated by 

submitting a sanctuary resource statement (SRS) to the ONMS describing the potential effects of the 

activity on sanctuary resources. If the ONMS finds injury is likely, it must recommend "reasonable and 

prudent alternatives" for the agency to implement to protect sanctuary resources.

NOS submitted an SRS to ONMS on June 1, 2022 that includes a programmatic-level evaluation of impacts 

from the NOS Preferred Alternative (Alternative B) on each sanctuary.

3.3.8 Executive Orders

Compliance with the following EOs has been considered in the preparation of this PEIS:

• EO 12114: Environmental Effects Abroad of Major Federal Actions. NOS crewed vessels (Section 

2.4.1) and autonomous vehicles (Section 2.4.3) may transit through waters outside the U.S. EEZ; 

however, no data collection will occur outside the U.S. EEZ.

• EO 11988: Floodplain Management. For more information on floodplains and terrestrial habitat 

impacts, see Section 3.4, Habitats).

• EO 11990: Protection of Wetlands. For more information on wetlands, habitats (Section 3.4).
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

70

• EO 13158: Marine Protected Areas. NOS has determined that the impact of NOS activities on 

individual Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) and resources within MPAs would be the same as the 

impacts on the resources within the applicable geographic region evaluated in this PEIS. 

• EO 13175: Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments. NOS has invited tribes

to comment on the Draft PEIS. For more information on the consideration of tribal resources see 

Cultural and Historic Resources (Section 3.11) and Environmental Justice (Section 3.13).

• EO 12898: Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and LowIncome Populations. For more information see Environmental Justice (Section 3.13).

• EO 13112: Invasive Species. For more information on invasive species see Habitats (Section 3.4), 

Aquatic Macroinvertebrates (Section 3.8), and Essential Fish Habitat (Section 3.8).

• EO 13693: Planning for Federal Sustainability in the Next Decade. The preparation of this PEIS will 

enable NOS to more meaningfully and efficiently consider the environmental effects of NOS 

surveying and mapping projects. For more information on how Alternatives B and C will adopt 

new techniques and technologies to encourage greater program efficiencies see Chapter 2, 

Sections 2.5.2 and 2.5.3.

• EO 14008: Tackling the Climate Crisis at Home and Abroad. For more information on climate 

change see Section 4.1.4, Climate Change and cumulative effects on the environment (Section 

4.2).

• EO 13186: Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds. For more information 

on birds see Seabirds, Shorebirds and Coastal Birds, and Waterfowl (Section 3.10).

• EO 13352: Facilitation of Cooperative Conservation. For more information on how the Proposed 

Action would support natural resource management and NOS coordination with other federal 

agencies see Sections 1.3.3 and 1.6, respectively.
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

71

3.4 HABITATS

This section describes the effects of NOS operations on definable habitat types throughout the action 

area. Note that this section does not include a discussion of EFH as defined by the MSA. The discussion 

and analysis of EFH is presented in Section 3.9.

3.4.1 Affected Environment

Essential habitat features are the defining characteristics of species’ habitats that allow the species within 

a habitat to function in equilibrium. Essential habitat features may include, but are not limited to:

1) Space for individual and population growth and for normal behavior; 

2) Food, water, air, light, minerals, and other nutritional or physiological requirements; 

3) Cover or shelter; and

4) Sites for breeding, reproduction, or rearing and development of offspring (USFWS, 2017a).

Five habitat types can be found in the action area: freshwater, estuarine, shallow marine, oceanic, and 

terrestrial. Figure 3.4-1 illustrates and defines the physical characteristics for each of these five habitats 

as defined for the purposes of this analysis. 

Freshwater: Areas located between the headwaters and the head-of-tide, with negligible salinity (NMFS, 

2015a) are classified as freshwater habitat types. The headwaters are the inland source from which a river 

originates within a basin or watershed; head-of-tide is the inland limit of water affected by tides. 

Diadromous fish species are those that spend a portion of their life cycle in both fresh water and salt 

water. These fish species require freshwater habitat as both a supporting environment for early stages of 

the life cycle and as spawning grounds during later adult stages; the quantity and quality of these areas 

are of equal importance to these fish as that of marine areas. The majority of waterfowl species also 

occupy freshwater habitats. 

Estuarine: Areas located in a semi-enclosed coastal body of water extending from head-of-tide to a free 

connection with the open sea where saline sea water is mixed with fresh water are classified as estuarine 

habitat types (NMFS, 2015a). Estuaries typically have brackish conditions, with variable salinities 

(depending on the tide stage) in between fresh water and sea water. Many protected species and 

commercially or recreationally harvested fish species occupy estuarine habitats at one or more stages of 

their respective life cycles. 

Shallow Marine: Areas less than 200 meters (m) (656 feet [ft]) in bottom depth and located between the 

outer boundary of an estuary or coast (continent or island) and the outer boundary of the U.S. EEZ, usually 

200 nautical miles (nm) (370 kilometers [km]) from shore are classified as shallow marine habitat types 

(NMFS, 2015a). Shallow marine habitats support important structural features, such as seagrass beds and 

coral reefs, which provide shelter, food, and space for a large number of marine vertebrate and 

invertebrate species. 

Oceanic: Areas greater than 200 m (656 ft) in bottom depth and located between the outer boundary of 

an estuary or coast (continent or island) and the outer boundary of the U.S. EEZ are classified as oceanic 

habitat types (NMFS, 2015a). Oceanic habitats support a large number of marine vertebrate and 

invertebrate species, including protected species. 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

72

Figure 3.4-1. Habitat Types and Features Present in the Action Area
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

73

Terrestrial: Areas located on land, such as coastal deltas, sandy shores or beaches, dune systems, coastal 

uplands, bluffs/cliffs and headlands, and coastal wetlands are classified as terrestrial habitat types for the 

purposes of this analysis. Shorelines and coastal wetland habitats provide many dependent species of 

seabirds, shorebirds, and waterfowl with food, shelter, resting sites, and breeding or nesting areas. Sandy 

shores and beaches also serve as important nesting habitat for all ESA-listed sea turtles occurring within 

the EEZ. Terrestrial areas also serve as haul out locations where large numbers of pinnipeds mate, breed, 

and rear young; they also furnish denning sites for fissipeds such as polar bears.

3.4.1.1 Freshwater Areas

Freshwater habitat types consist of rivers, marshes, streams, lakes and ponds that do not have any 

saltwater concentration. There is only a limited quantity of fresh water available globally to support 

freshwater habitats. Only three percent of water on the planet is fresh water, as shown in Figure 3.4-2. 

Of this three percent, only a very small proportion of the Earth’s fresh water is available as habitat; the 

majority of global fresh water is frozen in polar ice caps and glaciers or located below the surface of the 

Earth as groundwater and has only very limited habitat value (Figure 3.4-3). Freshwater lakes and rivers 

make up approximately 0.3 percent of total water and compose such a small proportion of total global 

water composition that they are not visible in Figure 3.4-2. 

Source: Hitt et al., 2015

Figure 3.4-2. Global Composition of Water
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

74

Source: Hitt et al., 2015

Figure 3.4-3. Global Composition of Freshwater

Despite their limited availability, freshwater habitats support a substantial number of described species 

and are extremely important ecologically (Hitt et al., 2015), as illustrated by Table 3.4-1. The Great Lakes 

constitute the largest freshwater ecosystem in the world and support approximately 3,500 species of 

plants and animals, including over 170 species of fish (SeaGrant, 2022).

Table 3.4-1. Comparison of Area and Percent of Described

Species for Freshwater, Terrestrial, and Marine Ecosystems

Ecosystem Type

Percent Earth 

Area

Percent Described 

Species *

Freshwater 0.8 2.4

Terrestrial 28.4 77.5

Marine 70.8 14.7

Source: Hitt et al., 2015

* Total does not sum to 100 percent because symbiotic species are excluded. 

Trends in the quantity and quality of freshwater habitat type areas are assessed and reported through 

surveys such as the Wadeable Streams Assessment, which shows that in 2004 more than 50 percent of 

the nation’s rivers and streams were in poor biological condition (NMFS, 2015a). Between 2004 and 2013, 

the proportion of total quality freshwater habitat available in the action area for macroinvertebrates 

decreased from 27.4 percent to 20.5 percent of all freshwater habitat areas. During this time period, the 

proportion of freshwater areas in good phosphorous condition also declined (i.e., phosphorous 

concentrations rose) from 52.8 percent to 34.2 percent, although the proportion of freshwater areas in 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

75

good nitrogen and in-stream fish habitat condition rose from 46.6 to 55.4 percent and 51.7 to 68.9 

percent, respectively (NMFS, 2015a).

3.4.1.2 Estuarine Areas

Estuarine habitat types occur in areas where oceanic salt water mixes with terrestrial freshwater outflows. 

Estuaries are generally partially enclosed or isolated from open ocean waters, and commonly consist of 

channels, sloughs, and mud and sand flats. River mouths, lagoons, and bays often contain estuarine 

habitat features and support at least one life stage for many marine taxa, including macroinvertebrates, 

fish, and birds. These areas are particularly sensitive to human activities on surrounding lands. For 

example, diking, filling, and other human activities have affected over 70 percent of the estuarine habitat 

in the Pacific Northwest and California. Generally, estuarine conditions are poorest in the Gulf of Mexico 

and Greater Atlantic region (EPA, 2012). However, restoration efforts throughout the action area, such as 

the removal and relocation of dikes and levees, are ongoing and beginning to restore many degraded 

estuaries (NMFS, 2015a). 

Many estuarine areas experience high levels of eutrophication from agricultural or urban runoff, as 

illustrated in Figure 3.4-4. High concentrations of nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphates from fertilizer 

or detergent runoff can potentially spawn algal blooms within estuaries, which reduce dissolved oxygen 

(DO), increase turbidity, and generally degrade the habitat value of affected waters. 

Figure 3.4-4. Eutrophication Process

The 2007 National Estuarine Eutrophication Assessment (Bricker et al., 2007) has characterized overall 

eutrophication condition from low to high in numerous estuaries nationwide through their collective 

expression of characteristic symptoms including increased chlorophyll a, macroalgae and nuisance/toxic 

blooms, decreased dissolved oxygen, and submerged aquatic vegetation loss. Figure 3.4-5 depicts the 

eutrophication status of these major estuarine habitats in the continental U.S.
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

76

Source: Bricker et al., 2007

*Data for Alaska and Hawai’i are not available.

Figure 3.4-5. Eutrophic Habitat Condition of Major U.S. Estuaries*

3.4.1.3 Shallow Marine and Oceanic Areas

The shallow marine habitat type encompasses all areas less than 200 m (656 ft) in depth between the 

shoreline and the outer boundary of the U.S. EEZ. These areas are typically separated from deeper waters 

by underwater topographic features such as shelf breaks or reef walls. The oceanic habitat type 

encompasses all areas 200 m (656 ft) or greater in depth between the shallow marine habitat areas and 

the outer boundary of the U.S. EEZ. As a whole, shallow marine and oceanic areas have higher water 

quality, lower turbidity, less disturbed bottom substrate, lower concentrations of contaminants, and 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

77

provide more habitat value to dependent species than freshwater areas within the action area (NMFS, 

2015a); the National Coastal Condition Report (NCCR) IV rated the overall condition of national coastal 

waters as ‘fair’ and fresh waters as ‘poor to fair’ (EPA, 2012). Regional water condition ratings from the 

NCCR IV are depicted in Figure 3.4-6.

Source: EPA, 2012

Figure 3.4-6. Shallow Marine Habitat Condition by Location
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

78

The West Coast, Southeastern Alaska, and Pacific Islands regions contain the best marine and oceanic 

water quality of all regions in the EEZ, whereas the water quality of the Northeast Coast, Southeast Coast, 

and Gulf Coast in the Greater Atlantic and Southeast regions are considered only ‘fair’ (EPA, 2012). 

3.4.1.4 Terrestrial Areas

Coastal terrestrial areas are found above the spring high tide limit within coastal areas and are 

characterized by their proximity to the sea for the purposes of this analysis. Coastal terrestrial habitat 

features include coastal wetlands, deltas, beaches, bluffs, cliffs, and dunes (Figure 3.4-1) that provide 

valuable ecosystem services such as food, shoreline stabilization, and nesting and breeding grounds for 

many species, including sensitive ESA-listed sea turtles (Section 3.6) and birds (Section 3.10). Coastal 

wetlands are particularly important to marine and terrestrial taxa and are explicitly discussed in Section 

3.4.1.5. 

Rising sea levels and extreme weather events are constantly eroding coastlines throughout the action 

area, reducing the amount of coastal terrestrial habitat available for dependent species. Erosion rates vary 

considerably from location to location and year to year, but average 0.6-0.9 m (2-3 ft) annually along the 

Atlantic coast and over 1.8 m (6 ft) annually in areas bordering the Gulf of Mexico (Heinz Center, 2000). 

Pacific coastlines tend to erode less than 0.3 m (1 ft) a year, but this lower rate is primarily a result of 

averaging episodic cliff erosion events, which can erode over 30 m (100 ft) of coastline at one time, over 

many years (Heinz Center, 2000).

3.4.1.5 Coastal Wetlands

Coastal wetlands include salt water, brackish (mixed salt water and fresh water), and freshwater wetlands 

located within coastal watersheds that drain into the Atlantic Ocean, Pacific Ocean (including areas 

surrounding Alaska and the Pacific Islands), Bering Sea, Arctic Ocean, or the Gulf of Mexico. These 

wetlands can be tidal or non-tidal, fresh water or salt water, and occur in close proximity to fresh water, 

estuarine, and shallow marine areas, typically at the interface between terrestrial and aquatic habitat 

types. This broad category includes a wide variety of habitat features, such as marshes, swamps, and 

mangrove forests as described in Figure 3.4-1.

Coastal wetlands compose roughly one third of all wetlands in the U.S. Within the EEZ, the Alaska region 

has the highest quality coastal wetlands, whereas coastal wetlands in the West Coast region and in the 

Gulf of Mexico are rated as ‘poor’ overall (EPA, 2012). As awareness of their ecological and economic 

importance has increased and a regulatory apparatus has developed to protect them, wetland loss has 

decreased. Wetland loss is now at a level that is 3 percent of the rate that it was prior to the mid-1970s, 

but coastal wetlands have experienced a net increase in the wetland loss rate during the period 1998 to 

2009. Table 3.4-2 summarizes coastal wetland losses in the U.S.

Table 3.4-2. Coastal Wetland Losses

Coastal Wetland Type

Timeframe/

Quantity Lost (ac) Notes

All Coastal Watershed 

Wetlands

2004-2009/360,000 36 percent increase in average annual loss rate over 

preceding six-year period

Marine and Estuarine 

Intertidal Wetlands

2004-2009/95,000 Includes small gains in unvegetated wetlands and 

scrub/shrub wetlands

Salt Marsh 2004-2009/128,200 Threefold increase in loss rate over preceding six-year 

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

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

79

Coastal Wetland Type

Timeframe/

Quantity Lost (ac) Notes

Louisiana Wetlands 

Lost to Open Water

1932-2010/1,206,000 Contributing factors include coastal development, 

sea level rise, coastal subsidence, storms, and 

interference with normal erosional and depositional 

processes within the Mississippi River Delta

Mangroves and 

Seagrasses

Declining in many 

areas

Declining due to an excess of suspended sediment 

associated with poor land-use practices, as well as 

algal blooms stimulated by excess nutrients

Fresh water 2004-2009/56,000 Human activity, particularly development and some 

activities related to silviculture, is the leading cause 

of freshwater wetland loss

Source: NMFS, 2015a

3.4.2 Environmental Consequences for Habitats

The following sections identify and evaluate potential impacts to the five habitat types occurring in the 

action area under Alternatives A, B, and C. The analysis specifically considers impacts to the following 

habitat characteristics:

• Space for individual and population growth and for normal behavior; 

• Food, water, air, light, minerals, and other nutritional or physiological requirements; 

• Cover or shelter; and 

• Sites for breeding, reproduction, or rearing and development of offspring. 

Activities described in Sections 2.4.1 through 2.4.13 that occur during NOS projects and could be expected 

to have impacts on habitat characteristics in the action area include crewed vessel operations; anchoring; 

remotely operated vehicles (ROVs) and autonomous vehicles operations; use of echo sounders, Acoustic 

Doppler Current Profilers (ADCPs), acoustic communication systems, sound speed data collection 

equipment, and drop/towed video camera systems; collection of bottom grab samples; installation, 

maintenance, and removal of tide gauges/buoys and Global Positioning System (GPS) reference stations; 

and Self-contained Underwater Breathing Apparatus (SCUBA) operations.

3.4.2.1 Methodology

NOS activities could impact habitat characteristics in the action area through: (1) physical impacts to 

bottom substrate (e.g., from anchoring, collection of bottom grab samples, tide gauge or GPS reference 

station installation, and SCUBA operations); (2) increase in sedimentation, turbidity, and/or chemical 

contaminants (e.g., from crewed vessel operations, ROV and autonomous vehicle operations, anchoring, 

collection of bottom grab samples, installation of tide gauges and GPS reference stations, and SCUBA 

operations); (3) increased ambient sound levels (e.g., from crewed vessel operations, ROV and 

autonomous vehicles, use of echo sounders, ADCPs, and acoustic communication systems); (4) facilitated 

dispersal of invasive species (e.g., from ballast water discharged during crewed vessel operation or 

organisms attached to hulls, equipment, and anchors); (5) impacts to water column (e.g., from crewed

vessel operations, ROVs, and autonomous vehicles, anchoring, use of sound speed data collection 

equipment and bottom grab samplers, operation of drop/towed cameras and video systems, and SCUBA 

operations); and (6) terrestrial impacts (e.g., from ground disturbance during installation or removal of 

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

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

80

As discussed in Section 3.2.2, significance criteria have been developed for each resource to provide a 

systematic and consistent approach to identifying and assessing the impacts of the alternatives. The 

significance criteria for habitats are presented in Table 3.4-3.

Table 3.4-3. Impact Significance Criteria for the Analysis of Impacts to Habitats

Impact 

Descriptor Context and Intensity

Significance 

Conclusion

Negligible

Impacts on habitat would be limited to temporary (lasting up to 

several hours) changes to habitat characteristics of space; 

nutritional or physiological requirements; cover or shelter; or sites 

for breeding, reproduction, or rearing (or development) of offspring 

found within the project area. Impacts on habitat would not cause 

lasting damage or alteration.

Insignificant

Minor

Impacts would be temporary or short-term (lasting several days to 

several weeks) changes that would not be outside the natural range 

of variability to habitat characteristics of space; nutritional or 

physiological requirements; cover or shelter; or sites for breeding, 

reproduction, or rearing (or development) of offspring found within 

the project area. Impacts on habitat would be easily recoverable 

with no long-term or permanent damage or alteration. 

Moderate

Impacts would be short-term or long-term (lasting several months 

or longer) changes that would be outside the natural range of 

variability to habitat characteristics of space; nutritional or 

physiological requirements; cover or shelter; or sites for breeding, 

reproduction, or rearing (or development) of offspring found within 

the project area. Habitat would be damaged or altered potentially 

over the long term but would continue to support the species 

dependent on it.

Major

Short-term or long-term changes well outside the limits of natural 

variability to habitat characteristics of space; nutritional or 

physiological requirements; cover or shelter; or sites for breeding, 

reproduction, or rearing (or development) of offspring found within 

the project area. Habitat would be degraded over the long term or 

permanently such that it would no longer possess sustainable 

habitat requirements.

Significant

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

Marine Data Collection with Current Technology and Methods, at Current 

Funding Levels

Under Alternative A, NOS survey effort would continue to cover a total of 2,647,958nm (4,904,017 km)

across all five regions over the five-year period. Although the survey effort under Alternative A would vary 

by year, approximately 47 percent of the total linear 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 and slightly greater in the Alaska 

Region, which contains approximately 18 percent of the total survey effort. Survey effort in the Great 

Lakes would compose less than one percent of total survey effort and would continue to average only 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

81

2,917nm (5,402km) annually. Major navigable rivers would continue to host an even smaller proportion 

of activities than the Great Lakes. Table 3.4-4 presents the expected survey effort under Alternative A for 

each year by region.

Table 3.4-4. Survey Effort under Alternative A, by Geographic Region by Year

Region Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Total

Survey Effort (in nautical miles)

Greater Atlantic Region* 64,205 108,557 53,771 49,712 49,712 325,958

Great Lakes 3,383 2,800 2,800 2,800 2,800 14,583

Southeast Region 220,336 210,185 262,450 281,733 281,733 1,256,437

West Coast Region 59,558 57,909 55,973 58,204 58,204 289,848

Alaska Region 93,871 119,974 174,445 41,350 41,327 470,967

Pacific Islands Region 70,210 54,900 69,742 54,948 54,948 304,748

* Survey effort within the Great Lakes is included as part of the total GAR survey effort as well as presented 

separately.

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 and depth of projects, that add 

nuance to this trend. More than 71 percent of NOS survey effort would occur within shallow marine 

habitat areas (a depth range of less than 200 m [656 ft]), and approximately 24 percent of NOS survey 

effort would occur within oceanic habitat areas (a depth range greater than 200 m [656 ft]). The remaining 

survey work would occur within estuarine habitat areas and freshwater habitat areas. These areas would 

likely experience relatively lower impacts than shallow marine and oceanic habitat areas. Terrestrial 

habitat areas would experience the lowest impacts under Alternative A, as terrestrial areas would only be 

impacted by occasional shore visits in support of the installation, maintenance, and removal of shorebased instrument stations. 

3.4.2.2.1 Physical Impacts to Bottom Substrate

Anchoring, collection of bottom grab samples, installation of tide gauges and remote GPS reference 

systems, dropped/towed camera systems, and SCUBA operations could physically impact bottom 

substrate in marine, freshwater, and estuarine areas, potentially degrading their habitat value to 

dependent species. 

Anchoring of vessels and dropped or towed camera systems could potentially cause damage to bottom 

substrate in all aquatic habitat areas, potentially reducing available structure, cover, and nutrient/food 

availability for dependent species. Anchors, cameras, or their attached chains/lines could drag across or 

create holes and divots in the bottom substrates of aquatic areas, potentially damaging or destroying 

underwater vegetation or sea floor structure (note that the term “sea floor” includes lake and river 

bottoms where NOS activities could occur). This alteration of underwater structure would reduce the 

availability of shelter and cover necessary for the survival or offspring development of many aquatic taxa. 

This would particularly affect those organisms at lower levels of the aquatic food chain and could 

potentially reduce the overall aquatic biodiversity of the area through cascading trophic impacts (i.e., 

reduced prey availability reduces the abundance of higher-level predators). 

Anchoring of vessels used by NOS, however, would not be a common practice. Only large vessels would 

typically anchor within or near project areas, while the small boats and launches used during NOS projects 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

82

typically return to port or to the ship each day. Most vessels used by NOS would not anchor except in case 

of emergency, such as to avoid adverse weather conditions or in the event of an engine malfunction. 

Vessels would not anchor on coral reefs, and would avoid anchoring on hard bottom areas and in seagrass 

and abalone areas whenever possible; thus, these sensitive and critical habitat areas5 and their dependent 

species would be minimally impacted, if at all. Additionally, NOS would not drag anchor chains and would 

ensure that anchors are properly secured so as to minimize bottom disturbance. However, it is possible 

that when a vessel is not collecting data, it may anchor either within the project area or nearby. 

Installation of equipment on the sea floor, such as the installation of new moorings for tide buoys or GPS 

reference stations, would cause relatively small amounts of bottom substrate disturbance. The 

disturbance could potentially create holes in the bottom sediment and damage or destruction of 

submerged vegetation/macroalgae and bottom structure. This reduction of underwater structure would 

reduce the availability of shelter and cover necessary for the survival or offspring development of many 

aquatic taxa. This would particularly affect those organisms at lower levels of the aquatic food chain and 

could potentially reduce the overall aquatic biodiversity of the area through cascading trophic impacts 

(i.e., reduced prey availability reduces the abundance of higher-level predators). NOS would ensure that 

all instruments placed in contact with the sea floor (including anchors or moorings) are properly secured 

to avoid the dragging of moorings or lines across the bottom. NOS would also ensure that any buoys 

attached to the sea floor use the best available mooring systems: all mooring lines and ancillary 

attachment lines must use one or more of the following measures to reduce entanglement risk: shortest 

practicable line length, rubber sleeves, weak-links, chains, cables or similar equipment types that prevent 

lines from looping, wrapping, or entrapping protected species. Buoys, lines (chains, cables, or coated rope 

systems), swivels, shackles, and anchor designs must prevent any potential entanglement of listed species 

while ensuring the safety and integrity of the structure or device. When possible, field crews would use 

retrievable equipment to avoid abandoning material on the sea floor. Furthermore, the frequency of 

bottom disturbance is expected to be low since NOS would use existing moorings to anchor installations 

wherever possible. Only a very small portion of the approximately 32 NOS projects performed annually 

that include tide gauge installations would involve installation of new moorings. Given the low number of 

equipment installations, the relatively small area of bottom substrate disturbance, the large geographic 

separation between installations, and the implementation of vessel operating procedures that avoid 

physical contact with sensitive substrates (e.g., coral, vegetated bottom, and hard-bottom), the physical 

impact on bottom habitat from equipment installation is expected to be small and not outside the range 

of natural variability.

Bottom grab sampling involves the targeted removal of sediment cores in approximately 54 projects 

annually in shallow marine and oceanic areas throughout the entire action area. Bottom grab samples 

inherently damage bottom substrate and could potentially reduce or damage existing underwater 

structure. This could result in reducing the availability of cover and shelter necessary for prey species or 

immature marine organisms to avoid predation. NOS sediment sampling activities would avoid sampling 

sensitive bottom substrates such as coral reefs, seagrass beds, and hard bottom areas. Given the low 

frequency, geographic separation, relatively small area of bottom substrate sampled (e.g., 6x6 inch area 

and two inches deep), and avoidance of sensitive habitat areas, the physical disturbance of bottom 

substrate within aquatic habitat areas associated with bottom grab sampling is expected to be very small 

and not outside the range of natural variability. Additionally, equipment such as AUVs would be 

programmed and operated to avoid sea floor disturbance, and stiffer line materials would be used for 

5 NMFS issued a final rule to remove Johnson's seagrass (Halophila johnsonii) from the federal list of threatened and endangered 

species on April 14, 2022. To correspond with this action, the critical habitat designation for Johnson's seagrass was also removed.
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

83

instrument deployment and kept taut during operations to reduce the potential for entanglement in 

bottom features such as coral habitats. NOS also operates dropped and towed cameras approximately 1 

m (3 ft) above the sea floor, avoiding contact with bottom substrate to the extent possible.

Operations involving SCUBA divers may inadvertently cause disturbance to shallow marine bottom 

substrates. NOS SCUBA operations would include approximately 248 benthic and fish monitoring projects 

conducted on hard bottom and coral reef habitats annually; these areas contain shallow marine habitat 

characteristics necessary for many marine invertebrate and vertebrate species and are particularly 

sensitive to disturbances. Although just a very small component of NOS projects and mainly related to 

tide gauge installation/maintenance/removal projects (see Chapter 2), SCUBA divers in these areas could 

potentially reduce or damage existing underwater structure, reducing the availability of cover and shelter 

necessary for prey species or immature marine organisms to avoid predation, and potentially inducing 

cascading impacts throughout the food chain. NOS divers are trained to hover over the sea floor to avoid 

inadvertent disturbance of sediments and to place or handle equipment such that impacts to bottom 

habitat are avoided. Divers would not stand or rest on live corals or coral reefs, and bottom contact would 

only occur in unconsolidated areas or non-living hardbottom. Given the low risk of contact with the sea 

floor during diver operations and large geographic separation of diving projects throughout the action 

area, physical disturbances to bottom substrate from SCUBA operations are expected to be minimal and 

well within the range of natural variation.

The impacts from anchoring, drop/towed camera systems, equipment installation, bottom sample 

collection, and SCUBA operations under Alternative A would infrequently disrupt small areas of bottom 

substrate in aquatic habitat areas. These physical disruptions would be short-term and would not reduce 

the space, shelter/cover, or food availability in aquatic habitat areas outside of the range of natural 

variability. As such, impacts to all aquatic habitat areas from activities involving physical disturbance to 

bottom substrate under Alternative A would continue to be adverse and negligible to minor, and 

therefore insignificant. 

3.4.2.2.2 Increase in Sedimentation, Turbidity, and/or Chemical Contaminants

Activities such as crewed vessel operations, ROV and autonomous vehicle operations, anchoring, 

collection of bottom grab samples SCUBA operations, and the installation or maintenance/removal of tide 

gauges and GPS reference stations could potentially increase the sedimentation, turbidity, and/or 

chemical contamination of all aquatic habitat areas throughout the action area, degrading their value to 

dependent species. 

Crewed vessel, ROV, and autonomous vehicle operations in conjunction with all activities which physically 

contact bottom substrate (See 3.4.2.2.1) would increase sedimentation and turbidity in disturbed areas 

from bottom sediments loosened through displaced water from transiting vessels or physical contact with 

bottom substrate. High levels of sedimentation and turbidity can potentially cause direct respiratory 

damage to aquatic species and block sunlight necessary for photosynthesis by aquatic plants, macroalgae, 

and phytoplankton. These impacts could potentially lower the overall nutrient availability of affected 

habitat areas and could reduce the cover and structure available to dependent species from submerged 

vegetation or macroalgae. Furthermore, increases in suspended sediments and turbidity reduce the depth 

to which sunlight can penetrate, which changes the wavelengths of light reaching fish and benthic species. 

Photosynthetic marine species are dependent on sunlight and often have a narrow band of wavelengths 

of light that they are able to use. Increased sedimentation and turbidity could inhibit photosynthesis in 

oceanic habitat areas, thus reducing nutrient cycling by marine phytoplankton and reducing shelter and 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

84

cover provided by submerged plants and macroalgae. Suspended material may also react with dissolved 

oxygen (DO) in the water and result in temporary or short-term oxygen depletion to aquatic resources 

(e.g., vegetation and aquatic macroinvertebrates) and could further exacerbate impacts to habitat areas 

from reduced nutrient and cover availability. NOS crewed vessels, ROVs, and autonomous vehicle 

operations would be routed to avoid stirring up bottom sediments whenever possible and their impact 

on sedimentation and turbidity is expected to be minimal. Furthermore, given the low frequency, large 

degree of geographic separation, and small affected area of activities physically impacting bottom 

substrate, the resulting increases in sedimentation/turbidity would be very small and would likely settle 

back to the sea floor or dissipate with prevailing currents and winds relatively quickly (within seconds or 

minutes). 

Crewed vessel, ROV, and autonomous vehicle operations may result in the discharge (mostly 

unintentional) of harmful substances including bilge water, debris, fuel, oil, and miscellaneous chemicals. 

The majority of contaminants, including oil and fuel, entering the aquatic environment are less dense than 

water and float on the surface until they evaporate, typically within several days (Neff et al., 2000). 

Floating contaminants typically would not affect habitat characteristics below the surface of the water, 

however contaminants introduced to shallow marine habitat areas could potentially harm seagrass 

ecosystems close to the water surface and could cause extensive mortality of the seabed (Zieman et al., 

1984). Seagrass mortality would reduce the available cover and shelter that many marine species require 

to avoid predation, reproduce, and rear or develop offspring in addition to reducing food availability for 

seagrass foragers, including echinoderms, fish, manatees, and sea turtles. 

Denser contaminants could also sink below the surface of the water and negatively impact coral colonies 

in shallow marine habitat areas through mortality, tissue death, reduced growth, impaired reproduction, 

bleaching, and reduced photosynthetic rates (Cook and Knap, 1983; Burns and Knap, 1989; Ballou et al., 

1987). Reduction of corals would reduce the food, structure, and shelter necessary for prey species and 

would likely reduce the overall biodiversity of the area through cascading impacts throughout the food 

chain. Chemical contaminants could also cling or adhere to submerged structural features in all aquatic 

habitat areas, which could serve as an additional exposure vector to fish and aquatic macroinvertebrates 

and result in changes in growth rates or behavior, injuries, and death of exposed individuals. 

Bioaccumulation of some toxic chemicals could disproportionately impact higher-level predators which 

consume contaminated prey items, which could ultimately reduce top-down ecosystem regulation and 

degrade the nutrient availability of affected habitat areas. 

The context and intensity of these impacts are contingent on the size, location, and chemical composition 

of the source discharge or spill. Small spills rarely occur during NOS activities, and large spills are unlikely 

given the size of vessels used during NOS projects. Given that operators of vessels used by NOS would 

strictly adhere to all applicable laws and regulations pursuant to the International Convention for the 

Prevention of Pollution from Ships (Marine Pollution [MARPOL] 73/78) (restricts onboard hazardous 

material use and the discharge of contaminants into the marine environment), and the low probability of 

accidental fuel spills, the likelihood of chemical contamination from vessels used by NOS, ROV, and 

autonomous vehicle operations would be relatively small. Impacts would be minimal especially when 

compared to similar disturbance and discharges from the much greater numbers of all other vessels 

occurring in the EEZ, lakes, and rivers. 

Installation and removal of tide gauges or GPS reference stations on land along the shoreline could also 

increase the turbidity, sedimentation, and chemical contamination of the water column through run-off 

of disturbed soil. Increased sedimentation and turbidity could potentially lower the overall nutrient 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

85

availability of affected coastal wetland and shallow marine habitat areas due to reduced photosynthesis 

by phytoplankton. Photosynthetic inhibition in these areas could also reduce the availability of cover and 

shelter created by submerged vegetation and macroalgae necessary for many species to avoid predation 

and develop offspring. Soil runoff also often includes chemical contaminants such as fertilizers or 

detergents with high levels of nitrates and phosphates. Influxes of nutrients or chemicals in shallow 

marine, estuarine, and coastal wetland habitat areas could potentially trigger algal blooms. Algal blooms 

are toxic for many marine species and they reduce DO concentrations, thus reducing the overall habitat 

quality of the affected area. NOS would only undertake approximately 32 projects that include tide gauge

installations annually, and 30 projects that include tide gauge removal annually. Given the low frequency, 

large degree of geographic separation, relatively small affected area, and application of runoff control 

procedures during the installation and removal of tide gauges, the resulting increases in turbidity, 

sedimentation, and chemical contamination from these activities are expected to be minimal and 

temporary. 

Overall, increased sedimentation, turbidity, and chemical contamination from all activities which 

physically contact bottom substrate under Alternative A would rarely occur and would largely be 

dissipated by prevailing currents or winds in seconds to minutes. These temporary reductions in water 

quality are not expected to substantially reduce the availability of space, shelter/cover, nutrients, or 

breeding/rearing grounds in any of the habitat types found throughout the action area outside the range 

of natural variability. Larger impacts could occur in the extremely unlikely event of a large spill; however, 

large spills are not expected to occur given the small size of vessels used in NOS projects and their 

adherence to hazardous material discharge regulations. As such, impacts to all aquatic habitat areas from 

increased sedimentation, turbidity, and/or chemical contaminants under Alternative A would continue to 

be adverse and negligible to minor, and therefore insignificant. 

3.4.2.2.3 Increased Ambient Sound 

Activities such as crewed vessel operations, ROV, and autonomous vehicle operations, and use of 

underwater acoustic equipment including echo sounders, ADCPs, and acoustic communication systems 

would increase the ambient sound level of affected aquatic habitats through the production of 

underwater sound. Increasing the ambient sound level could potentially degrade the habitat value of 

affected areas which would be manifested through impacts, such as behavioral disruption or injury to 

biological resources. Underwater sound adversely affects aquatic taxa variably, with effects differing 

considerably based on the frequency and intensity of the sound and the hearing sensitivity of the affected 

organism. Increased ambient sound levels are analyzed in this section for their potential impact on the 

various roles which biological resources have in their habitat, such as predator/prey interactions, as 

opposed to analyzing the impact on individual species. See Sections 3.5 to 3.10 for detailed discussions of 

the hearing capability of aquatic taxa present in the action area and the potential impacts on these species 

from vessel sound and underwater acoustic sources. 

Crewed vessel, ROV, and autonomous vehicle operations would generate underwater sound and 

vibrations at low- to mid-frequencies that overlap with the hearing ranges of many aquatic prey species. 

Increases in the ambient sound level of aquatic habitat areas transited by vessels could potentially reduce 

the habitat quality of preferred feeding or breeding grounds and displace disturbed animals from these 

areas (Slabbekoorn et al., 2010). Increased ambient noise can also mask biologically important sounds 

which elicit predator-avoidance or mating behaviors, cause hearing loss, and/or generally have an adverse 

effect on an organism’s stress levels and immune system (NOAA, 2016; Simpson et al., 2016). Reduction 

of prey species would reduce food and nutrient availability for top-level predators in aquatic habitat areas 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

86

and could potentially result in cascading impacts throughout the local aquatic food chain and reduce 

biodiversity. 

NOS crewed vessel transits would be infrequent in any given area and the exposure of prey species to 

vessel sound would be limited to the immediate vicinity of vessels. Exposure to vessel sounds would only 

persist for the duration of vessel transit through the habitat area. As such, prey species would only be 

temporarily exposed to vessel sound and likely would not change their behavior or habitat occupancy in 

the long-term. Furthermore, NOS vessel operations would represent a very small proportion of vessel 

traffic in the action area; therefore, the potential effects of sounds from vessels used by NOS would be 

minimal as compared to the aggregate effects from sound generated by all other ship traffic in the action 

area. The overall contribution to background sound in the ocean from vessels used by NOS would be very 

small. It would be unlikely that the exposure of prey species to these sounds would exceed the levels and 

lengths of time that would result in more than minimal adverse effects. 

Use of active underwater acoustic sources would involve relatively high frequency, directional, and short 

duration, repeated signals which could increase the ambient sound environment of aquatic habitat areas. 

These instruments produce acoustic signals perceptible to several marine prey species; exposure of these 

marine prey species to this sound could result in the same adverse impacts to shallow marine and oceanic 

habitat areas as those discussed in the preceding paragraph. However, active acoustic underwater sources 

are typically only operated while a ship is in motion, thus habitat areas would only be exposed to emitted 

acoustic energy for a very short duration. Furthermore, these sources are highly directional in nature and 

the energy of their emitted acoustic signals would drop off rapidly with distance from the source. 

Therefore, impacts on marine prey species, if any, would be predominantly limited to temporary 

behavioral and stress-startle response, and likely would not substantially impact the overall habitat quality 

of any given area. 

Sound from vessel operations, which would generate sounds in the mid- and low-level frequencies, are 

within the hearing range of most prey species, but would be infrequent, geographically widely distributed, 

and likely to elicit a minimal or temporary response. A majority of the sounds generated by underwater 

acoustic sources are well above the hearing frequencies of most prey species, thus, unlikely to cause 

behavioral disturbance and hearing impairment. Thus, activities under Alternative A that create 

underwater sound would continue to have adverse and negligible to minor, and therefore insignificant 

impacts on habitat. 

3.4.2.2.4 Facilitated Dispersal of Invasive Species

Activities such as crewed vessel, ROV, and autonomous vehicle operations and the use of echosounders, 

sub-bottom profilers, ADCPs, acoustic communication systems, and sound speed data collection 

equipment entail the use of the same physical equipment and instruments in geographically disparate 

regions and could potentially facilitate the dispersal and establishment of invasive species in novel areas. 

This would degrade habitat value for native marine or terrestrial species. 

NOS projects occur in all freshwater and marine regions of the action area and can potentially involve 

transit and surveying across large swaths of the action area using the same physical equipment and 

instrumentation. These longer voyages or projects could potentially inadvertently transport invasive 

macroinvertebrate larvae, vertebrate eggs or animals, plant seeds, or algae propagules in ballast water or 

on equipment surfaces to novel areas, thereby facilitating their dispersal and establishment (Gregory, 

2009). Invasive species such as the lionfish (Petrois spp.), zebra mussel (Dreissena polymorpha), or 

Japanese wireweed (Sargassum muticum) have large numbers of offspring and limited or no natural 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

87

threats or predators outside of their native habitat, allowing them to outcompete locally endemic species 

for space and nutrients (TISI, 2014).

Over time, the propagation of invasive species can result in cascading impacts to the local food chain 

through the extirpation of local predators and prey due to reduced nutrient cycling and availability. These 

impacts typically reduce the habitat value of affected areas in the long-term or permanently after the 

establishment of invasive species. These species and their resulting impacts persist until all invasive 

organisms are removed from a given area through aggressive trapping, harvesting, or use of pesticides 

such as glyphosate. All NOS projects would implement mandatory invasive species prevention procedures 

including, but not limited to, vessel and equipment washdown, cleaning, and de-ballasting (exchange of 

ballast water in open ocean waters for those vessels used by NOS that have ballast tanks). Proper 

implementation of these procedures would prevent most NOS equipment from serving as exchange 

vectors for invasive species; however, the possibility for the transmission of some invasive species would 

likely still exist. The majority of NOS projects would not transit to multiple areas consecutively, and NOS 

project crews would implement mandatory invasive species control procedures to limit or avoid hull 

fouling, use anti-fouling coatings, and clean hulls regularly to remove aquatic nuisance species, thus 

limiting the potential impact to habitat in the action area. Additionally, vessels used by NOS, however, 

compose only a very small proportion of vessel traffic in the action area and would likely contribute 

marginally to the overall transmission of invasive species. 

NOS equipment and instruments used in consecutive projects in disparate geographically regions could 

potentially serve as transmission vectors for invasive species which could reduce the habitat value of their 

area of introduction by outcompeting endemic plants, animals, and algae. These impacts could potentially 

persist until invasive species are removed from these areas via aggressive management techniques and 

procedures. However, the vast majority of NOS projects would not transit to multiple areas consecutively 

and NOS project crews would implement mandatory invasive species control procedures, limiting the 

potential impact to habitat areas in the action area. Given its relatively low likelihood of occurrence, the 

adverse impact of invasive species dispersal facilitated by activities under Alternative A would likely 

continue to be minor and therefore insignificant. 

3.4.2.2.5 Impacts to the Water Column

Activities such as crewed vessels, ROVs, and autonomous vehicles use of sound speed data collection 

equipment and bottom grab samplers, operation of drop/towed cameras and video systems, and SCUBA

operations could potentially impact or disturb the water column of habitat areas during the movement of 

vessels, equipment or personnel.

Wakes from crewed vessels, ROVs, and autonomous vehicles would create turbulence and generate wave 

and surge effects in the water column. This displacement of water could temporarily disrupt important 

environmental gradients, including temperature, salinity, DO, turbidity, and nutrient supply. Propellers 

from vessels could also cause water column destratification and elevated water temperatures. Vessel 

movement through the water column may disrupt benthic communities in shallow areas and other prey 

species and cause mortality to floating eggs and larvae by physically damaging them with the hull or other 

ship parts, including the propulsion system. These disruptions would likely reduce the availability of space, 

shelter, and nutrients for dependent species within oceanic and shallow marine habitat areas. Disruptions 

could also potentially affect food chains and ultimately reduce the overall biodiversity of affected areas. 

However, the vast majority of impacts to habitat areas would be temporary as disturbance would be 

limited to the immediate vicinity of vessels and would only persist for the duration of transits or projects 

within the affected area. 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

88

Instruments, gear, and personnel that interact with the water column, including sound speed data 

collection equipment, bottom grab samplers, drop/towed cameras, anchors and chains, and SCUBA divers 

could temporarily cause turbulence and disturb or displace nearby benthic communities and other prey 

species. Reduction of prey species would reduce food and nutrient availability for top-level predators in 

aquatic habitat areas. This could potentially result in cascading impacts throughout the local aquatic food 

chain and reduce biodiversity. Lines connecting equipment to a vessel could also become entangled with, 

damage, or kill underwater structural habitat features such as seagrass or corals. Reduction of underwater 

structure would likely reduce the space, shelter, and cover necessary for the avoidance of predators by 

prey species and the rearing or development of offspring. Additionally, divers in SCUBA operations that 

would be conducted as part of various projects would move through the water column, this could 

temporarily disturb prey species and reduce their availability for higher-level predators. The vast majority 

of impacts to habitat areas would be temporary as disturbance would be limited to the immediate vicinity 

of instruments, gear, or personnel and would only persist for the duration of the activity. Mobile species 

would likely only be minimally displaced from project areas and would not experience long-term changes 

in the availability of space, structure, shelter, or nutrients outside the range of natural variability. 

Vessels, equipment, and personnel used in activities conducted under Alternative A would disrupt the 

water column in project areas, potentially impacting their habitat quality by disturbing important 

environmental gradients, structure, and prey availability. However, the vast majority of these impacts 

would be limited to the immediate vicinity of vessels and would not persist beyond the duration of 

activities within the area. These temporary disruptions would not likely change the availability of space, 

shelter, cover, or nutrients necessary for dependent species outside of the range of natural variability. As 

such, impacts to habitat areas from water column disruptions under Alternative A would continue to be 

adverse, negligible and therefore insignificant. 

3.4.2.2.6 Terrestrial Impacts from Tide Gauge Installation, Maintenance, or Removal

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

stations and tide gauges, could potentially impact terrestrial habitat areas through disturbance of animals 

and the disturbance of onshore vegetation or topographical structure.

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 animals, 

including terrestrial prey species. Repeated disturbances could result in long-term changes in terrestrial 

prey distributions and could ultimately reduce the overall biodiversity of habitat areas due to reduced 

nutrient cycling and availability. However, 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 prey behavior; thus, onshore activities are not expected to 

contribute to any long-term changes in habitat occupancy, avoidance behavior, or energy expenditure in 

terrestrial prey.

The installation of semi-permanent monitoring equipment such as GPS reference systems and tide gauges 

could potentially reduce the quantity and quality of coastal terrestrial habitat. Many species of marine 

and terrestrial animals, including all ESA-listed bird species described in Sections 3.10.1.3.1 and 3.10.1.3.2 

and ESA-listed sea turtles, breed and nest along the coast. During onshore activities, vegetation in and 

adjacent to the project area could be trampled by foot traffic, damaged, or cleared, thereby reducing 

cover and shelter necessary for terrestrial or marine animals to avoid predation, breed, and nurture 

offspring. However, the majority of onshore installations would only occupy very small portions of 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

89

terrestrial habitat and any affected structural components would likely recover post-installation. Onshore 

installations are not expected to reduce the availability of space, shelter, cover, or nutrients necessary for 

dependent species in the long term. 

Onshore activity would likely only displace terrestrial 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 coastal terrestrial habitat areas and would not likely induce long-term changes in the 

availability of space, shelter, cover, or nutrients 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 impact to terrestrial habitat areas, from NOS onshore activities under 

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

3.4.2.2.7 Conclusion

Under Alternative A, NOS would continue to operate a variety of equipment and technologies to gather 

data on the marine and coastal environments at the level of effort reflecting current NOS funding levels. 

Since the effects of impact causing factors on habitat areas throughout the action area range from 

negligible to minor, the overall impact of Alternative A on habitat areas would continue to be adverse, 

minor, and therefore insignificant.

3.4.2.3 Alternative B: Conduct Surveying and Mapping Projects 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 more 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, 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. The types 

and mechanisms of impacts would remain the same in Alternative B as discussed for Alternative A. 

Therefore, the difference between the two alternatives is primarily a matter of scale with increased 

activity levels distributed unevenly among the different types of activities. As such, effects under 

Alternative B would incrementally increase from those of Alternative A but would not differ fundamentally 

in type. Table 3.4-5 presents the expected survey effort under Alternative B for each year by region.

Table 3.4-5. Survey Effort under Alternative B, by Geographic Region by Year

Region Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Total

Survey Effort (in nautical miles)

Greater Atlantic Region* 70,625 119,413 59,148 54,683 54,683 358,554

Great Lakes 3,722 3,080 3,080 3,080 3,080 16,042

Southeast Region 242,369 231,204 288,695 309,906 309,906 1,382,080

West Coast Region 65,514 63,700 61,571 64,024 64,024 318,833

Alaska Region 103,258 131,971 191,890 45,485 45,460 518,064

Pacific Islands Region 77,231 60,390 76,716 60,443 60,443 335,223

* Survey effort within the Great Lakes is included as part of the total GAR survey effort as well as presented 

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

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

90

Under Alternative B there would be crewed vessel operations covering 577,000 nm (1,070,000 km), as 

compared to 518,000 nm (959,000 km) under Alternative A. Vessel operations are amongst the most 

disruptive NOS activities to all habitat areas and could contribute to impacts through physical contact with 

bottom substrate, underwater vessel sound, vessel wake and underwater turbulence, and accidental spills 

of oil, fuel, or chemical contaminants. 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 or 

habitat type to substantially increase the context and intensity of impacts (e.g., from negligible to minor). 

This relationship is consistent for all other impact causing factors from proposed activities, such as bottom 

substrate or onshore disturbance from the installation, maintenance, and removal of tide gauges and 

installation GPS reference stations (a combined 367 projects under Alternative A and 377 projects under 

Alternative B); and bottom substrate disturbance from anchoring, bottom sample collection, and trailing 

video equipment (a combined 140 projects under Alternative A and 156 projects under Alternative B).

Impacts of Alternative B on habitat areas throughout the action area would be the same or slightly, but 

not appreciably, larger than those discussed above under Alternative A for each impact causing factor 

given that impacts do not scale proportionally with survey effort. Impacts to habitat areas resulting from 

Alternative A would not cause long-term changes in the availability of space, shelter, cover, or nutrients 

necessary for dependent species and would not substantially increase in intensity with the increased level 

of effort of Alternative B. Overall, impacts on habitat areas under Alternative B would be adverse, minor, 

and therefore insignificant.

3.4.2.4 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 more nautical 

miles traveled, than Alternatives A and B. 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, an approximately nine percent 

increase over Alternative B (2,912,753 nm [5,394,419 km] total) and 20 percent increase over Alternative 

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

mechanisms of impacts would remain the same in Alternative C as discussed for Alternatives A and B. 

Therefore, the difference between the three alternatives is primarily a matter of scale with increased 

activity levels distributed unevenly among the different types of activities. As such, effects under 

Alternative C would incrementally increase from those of Alternative B, but would not differ 

fundamentally in type. Table 3.4-6 presents the expected survey effort under Alternative C for each year 

by region.

Table 3.4-6. Survey Effort under Alternative C, by Geographic Region by Year

Region Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Total

Survey Effort (in nautical miles)

Greater Atlantic Region* 77,046 130,269 64,526 59,655 59,655 391,149

Great Lakes 4,060 3,360 3,360 3,360 3,360 17,500

Southeast Region 264,403 252,222 314,940 338,080 338,080 1,507,724

West Coast Region 71,470 69,491 67,168 69,845 69,845 347,818

Alaska Region 112,645 143,968 209,334 49,620 49,592 565,160
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

91

Region Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Total

Survey Effort (in nautical miles)

Pacific Islands Region 84,252 65,880 83,690 65,938 65,938 365,698

* Survey effort within the Great Lakes is included as part of the total GAR survey effort as well as presented 

separately.

Under Alternative C there would be annual crewed vessel operations covering 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 amongst the most disruptive NOS activities to all habitat areas and 

could contribute to impacts on through physical contact with bottom substrate, underwater vessel sound, 

vessel wake and underwater turbulence, and accidental spills of oil, fuel, or chemical contaminants. 

Although the amount of crewed vessel operations would be greater under Alternative C than under 

Alternative B, the additional 60,000 nm (111,000 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 or habitat type to substantially increase the 

context and intensity of impact (e.g., from negligible to minor). This relationship is consistent for all other 

proposed activities contributing potential impacts, such as bottom substrate or onshore disturbance from 

the installation, maintenance, and removal of tide gauges and installation GPS reference stations (a 

combined 377 projects under Alternative B and 383 projects under Alternative C); and bottom substrate 

disturbance from anchoring, bottom sample collection, and trailing video equipment (a combined 156 

projects under Alternative B and 173 projects under Alternative C).

Impacts of Alternative C on habitat areas throughout the action area would be the same or slightly, but 

not appreciably, larger than those discussed above under Alternatives A and B for each impact causing 

factor. Impacts to habitat areas resulting from Alternatives A and B would not cause long-term decreases 

in the availability of space, shelter, cover, or nutrients necessary for dependent species and would not 

substantially increase in intensity with the increased level of effort of Alternative C. Overall, impacts on 

habitat areas under Alternative C would be adverse, 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

92

3.5 MARINE MAMMALS

There are 70 species of marine mammals located throughout U.S. coastal and marine waters extending 

seaward to the limits of the U.S. EEZ (ECOS, No Date-a; NMFS, No Date-a). These species represent four 

classifications of marine mammals: Cetaceans (52 species of whales, dolphins, and porpoises), Pinnipeds 

(15 species of seals, sea lions, and walrus), Sirenians (one species of manatee), and Fissipeds (two species: 

sea otters and polar bears). Listings of species, including current status and region of occurrence, are 

provided in Tables 3.5-1, 3.5-2, 3.5-3, and 3.5-4. 

All marine mammals in U.S. waters are protected under the MMPA of 1972. The MMPA allows for agencies 

to organize marine mammals into separate stocks for management purposes. A stock is defined by the 

MMPA as a group of marine mammals of the same species or smaller taxa in a common spatial 

arrangement that interbreed when mature. Some species are further protected under the ESA of 1973. 

Under the ESA, a species is considered endangered if it is “in danger of extinction throughout all or a 

significant portion of its range.” A species is considered threatened if it “is likely to become an endangered 

species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range.” Under the 

MMPA, species or populations are considered depleted if they are below their optimum sustainable 

population level, or are listed as endangered or threatened under the ESA.

3.5.1 Affected Environment

The following sections provide discussions of marine mammal species or species group (where 

appropriate), including sound production and hearing, regional distribution, and descriptions of ESA-listed 

species. Due to the number of individual species that are present in the action area, this section provides 

detailed descriptions only of individual ESA-listed species in order to support interagency consultation. All 

USFWS MMPA species are also ESA-listed. Descriptions of all species in the action area that are not ESAlisted, as shown in Tables 3.5-1, 3.5-2, 3.5-3, and 3.5-4, can be found on the NMFS web page at 

https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/find-species (NMFS, No Date-a) and are incorporated here by reference.

3.5.1.1 Cetaceans (Baleen Whales and Toothed Whales)

Cetaceans are completely aquatic marine mammals; they feed, mate, calve, and suckle their young in the 

water. They are the most specialized mammalian swimmers. Some are capable of maintaining speeds up 

to 40 km (25 mi) per hour, diving to depths of at least 3,000 m (10,000 ft), and remaining submerged for 

up to 2 hours. The body is streamlined (limbs are tapered or lacking), and the tail is developed into 

horizontal flukes for propulsion. Cetaceans breathe through blowholes on top of the head (Sea Grant, 

2015).

Cetaceans are grouped into two taxonomic suborders: the baleen whales (Mysticeti) and the toothed 

whales (Odontoceti). Mysticetes have two blowholes (Figure 3.5-1) and baleen plates (Figure 3.5-2) 

instead of teeth. They are filter feeders that forage for zooplankton and small fish by skimming or gulping 

huge amounts of prey and water; the water is then forced back out of the mouth past hundreds of baleen 

plates that act as sieves to trap the prey, which is then swallowed. Baleen whales are generally found in 

small groups (e.g., mother-calf pairs) or in loose associations, not in large groups, except during migration 

when they may be found in small groups of several individuals; large numbers of baleen whales may also 

congregate in feeding or calving areas. Odontocetes have teeth and one opening at their blowhole. 

Toothed whales tend to be social and live in groups. They use echolocation to detect objects in their 

environment, including their prey.
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

93

Photo credit: NOAA Photo Library

Photo credit: NOAA Photo Library

All cetaceans are protected by the MMPA throughout their ranges, and some are designated as depleted. 

Many species are also federally listed under the ESA either throughout their ranges or for distinct 

population segments (DPS). Additionally, some species have critical habitat designated under the ESA. 

Table 3.5-1 lists the 52 species of cetaceans (59 distinct species, subspecies, or DPS total) occurring 

throughout the action area; 15 mysticetes, 10 of which are ESA-listed as endangered, one listed as 

threatened, and three with designated critical habitat; and 44 odontocetes, four of which are ESA-listed 

as endangered, and three with designated critical habitat. 

Figure 3.5-1. Humpback Whale

with Two Blowholes

Figure 3.5-2. Humpback Whale 

Feeding (note Baleen Strainers)
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

94

Table 3.5-1. Cetaceans Occurring in the Action Area

Common Name Scientific Name MMPA Depleted? ESA Status

Lead 

Agency Region*

Critical 

Habitat General Habitat

Baleen Whales - Mysticetes

Bowhead whale Balaena mysticetus Yes: throughout 

its range

Endangered NMFS AR No Seasonal sea ice

Minke whale Balaenoptera 

acutorostrata

No -- NMFS All -- Shallow to deep waters, 

often coastal

Sei whale Balaenoptera 

borealis

Yes: throughout 

its range

Endangered NMFS All No Primarily offshore pelagic 

deep and intermediate 

waters

Bryde’s whale Balaenoptera edeni No -- NMFS GAR, SER, 

WCR, PIR

-- Shallow to deep waters

Rice’s whale** Balaenoptera ricei Yes Endangered NMFS SER No Shallow to deep waters

Blue whale Balaenoptera 

musculus

Yes: throughout 

its range

Endangered NMFS All No Coastal and pelagic 

shallow, intermediate, and 

deep waters

Fin whale Balaenoptera 

physalus

Yes: throughout 

its range

Endangered NMFS All No Mostly pelagic, continental 

slope intermediate and 

deep waters

Gray whale (Eastern 

North Pacific DPS)

Eschrichtius robustus No -- NMFS WCR, AR -- Inshore or shallow 

offshore continental shelf 

waters

Gray whale 

(Western North 

Pacific DPS)

Eschrichtius robustus Yes Endangered NMFS WCR, AR No Inshore or shallow 

offshore continental shelf 

waters

North Atlantic right 

whale

Eubalaena glacialis Yes: throughout 

its range

Endangered NMFS GAR, SER Yes Coastal, shallow shelf 

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

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

95

Common Name Scientific Name MMPA Depleted? ESA Status

Lead 

Agency Region*

Critical 

Habitat General Habitat

offshore intermediate and 

deep waters

North Pacific right 

whale

Eubalaena japonica Yes: throughout 

its range

Endangered NMFS WCR, AR Yes Coastal, shallow shelf 

waters, occasionally 

offshore intermediate and 

deep waters

Humpback whale Megaptera 

novaeangliae

Refer to 

discussion in 

Section 3.5.1.1.3.9

-- NMFS All -- Shallow to deep waters

Humpback whale 

(Mexico DPS)

Megaptera 

novaeangliae

Refer to 

discussion in 

Section 3.5.1.1.3.9

Threatened NMFS WCR, AR Yes Shallow to deep waters

Humpback whale 

(Central America 

DPS)

Megaptera 

novaeangliae

Refer to 

discussion in 

Section 3.5.1.1.3.9

Endangered NMFS WCR Yes Shallow to deep waters

Humpback whale 

(Western North 

Pacific DPS)

Megaptera 

novaeangliae

Refer to 

discussion in 

Section 3.5.1.1.3.9

Endangered NMFS AR, PIR Yes Shallow to deep waters

Toothed Whales – Odontocetes

Baird’s beaked 

whale

Berardius bairdii No -- NMFS WCR, AR -- Cold, deep, oceanic 

waters, occasionally near 

shore along narrow 

continental shelves

Beluga whale Delphinapterus 

leucas

No -- NMFS AR -- Shallow coastal waters, 

deep water, estuaries, and 

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

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

96

Common Name Scientific Name MMPA Depleted? ESA Status

Lead 

Agency Region*

Critical 

Habitat General Habitat

Beluga whale (Cook 

Inlet DPS)

Delphinapterus 

leucas

Yes: Cook Inlet 

stock

Endangered NMFS AR Yes Shallow coastal waters, 

deep water, estuaries, and 

large river deltas

Long-beaked 

common dolphin

Delphinus capensis No -- NMFS WCR -- Shallow, tropical, 

subtropical, and warmer 

temperate waters closer to 

the coast and on the 

continental shelf

Short-beaked 

common dolphin

Delphinus delphis No -- NMFS GAR, SER, 

WCR, PIR

-- Oceanic and offshore, 

underwater ridges, 

seamounts, and 

continental shelf

Pygmy killer whale Feresa attenuata No -- NMFS GAR, SER, 

PIR

-- Deep water

Long-finned pilot 

whale

Globicephala melas No -- NMFS GAR, SER -- Pelagic

Short-finned pilot 

whale

Globicephala 

macrorhynchus

No -- NMFS All -- Pelagic

Risso’s dolphin Grampus griseus No -- NMFS All -- Pelagic over steep slopes, 

seamounts, and 

escarpments

Northern 

bottlenose whale

Hyperoodon 

ampullatus

No -- NMFS GAR -- Pelagic deep water; known 

to forage in submarine 

canyons

Longman's beaked 

Whale

Indopacetus 

pacificus

No -- NMFS PIR -- Warm, deep pelagic 

waters 

Pygmy sperm whale Kogia breviceps No -- NMFS GAR, SER, 

WCR, PIR

-- Continental shelf edge, 

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

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

97

Common Name Scientific Name MMPA Depleted? ESA Status

Lead 

Agency Region*

Critical 

Habitat General Habitat

Dwarf sperm whale Kogia sima No -- NMFS GAR, SER, 

WCR, PIR

-- Continental shelf edge, 

deep water

Atlantic white-sided 

dolphin

Lagenorhynchus 

acutus

No -- NMFS GAR, SER -- Continental shelf, slope, 

and canyons

White-beaked 

dolphin

Lagenorhynchus 

albirostris

No -- NMFS GAR -- Continental shelf waters, 

especially along shelf edge

Fraser’s dolphin Lagenodelphis hosei No -- NMFS SER, PIR -- Waters over 1,000 m 

(3,280 ft) deep

Pacific white-sided 

dolphin

Lagenorhynchus 

obliquidens

No -- NMFS AR, WCR -- Continental margins, 

occasionally enter inshore 

passages

Northern right 

whale dolphin

Lissodelphis borealis No -- NMFS WCR -- Shelf and slope waters up 

to and >2,000m

Sowerby’s beaked 

whale

Mesoplodon bidens No -- NMFS GAR -- Pelagic deep water of 

continental shelf edge and 

slopes

Hubbs' beaked 

whale

Mesoplodon 

carlhubbsi

No -- NMFS WCR -- Pelagic deep water

Blainville’s beaked 

whale

Mesoplodon 

densirostris

No -- NMFS GAR, SER, 

WCR, PIR

-- Pelagic deep water

Gervais’ beaked 

whale

Mesoplodon 

europaeus

No -- NMFS GAR, SER -- Pelagic deep water

Ginkgo-toothed 

beaked whale

Mesoplodon 

gingkodens

No -- NMFS WCR -- Pelagic deep water

True’s beaked 

whale

Mesoplodon mirus No -- NMFS GAR, SER -- Pelagic deep water, 

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

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

98

Common Name Scientific Name MMPA Depleted? ESA Status

Lead 

Agency Region*

Critical 

Habitat General Habitat

Perrin’s beaked 

whale

Mesoplodon perrini No -- NMFS WCR -- Pelagic deep water

Lesser beaked 

whale

Mesoplodon 

peruvianus

No -- NMFS WCR -- Pelagic deep water

Stejneger's beaked 

whale

Mesoplodon 

stejnegeri

No -- NMFS WCR, AR -- Deep cold, temperate, and 

subarctic waters

Narwhal Monodon 

monoceros

No -- NMFS AR -- Deep-water beneath ice 

pack in winter, shallow 

water in summer

Killer whale Orcinus orca Yes: AT1 Transient 

Stock

-- NMFS All -- Open ocean waters to 

estuaries and fjords

Killer whale 

(Southern Resident 

DPS)

Orcinus orca Yes Endangered NMFS WCR Yes Open ocean waters to 

estuaries and fjords

Melon-headed 

whale

Peponocephala 

electra

No -- NMFS GAR, SER, 

WCR, PIR

-- Pelagic or around oceanic 

islands

Harbor porpoise Phocoena phocoena No -- NMFS GAR, SER, 

WCR, AR

-- Shallow coastal and shelf 

waters

Dall’s porpoise Phocoenoides dalli No -- NMFS WCR, AR -- Inshore to deep oceanic 

waters

Sperm whale Physeter 

macrocephalus

Yes: throughout 

its range

Endangered NMFS All No Deep water, along 

continental slope

False killer whale Pseudorca crassidens No -- NMFS AR, SER, 

WCR, PIR

-- Deep offshore waters

False killer whale 

(Main Hawaiian 

Islands Insular DPS)

Pseudorca crassidens Yes: Main 

Hawaiian Islands 

Insular stock

Endangered NMFS PIR Yes Deep offshore waters
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

99

Common Name Scientific Name MMPA Depleted? ESA Status

Lead 

Agency Region*

Critical 

Habitat General Habitat

Pantropical spotted 

dolphin

Stenella attenuata No -- NMFS GAR, SER, 

PIR

-- Deeper waters

Clymene dolphin Stenella clymene No -- NMFS GAR, SER -- Deep tropical, subtropical, 

and temperate waters 

throughout the Atlantic 

Ocean

Striped dolphin Stenella 

coeruleoalba

No -- NMFS GAR, SER, 

WCR, PIR

-- Pelagic edge of continental 

shelf, occasionally coastal

Atlantic spotted 

dolphin

Stenella frontalis No -- NMFS GAR, SER -- Continental shelf waters 

<250 m (820 ft) deep

Spinner dolphin Stenella longirostris No -- NMFS GAR, SER, 

PIR

-- Pelagic and near oceanic 

islands

Rough-toothed 

dolphin

Steno bredanensis No -- NMFS GAR, SER, 

WCR, PIR

-- Deep offshore waters

Bottlenose dolphin Tursiops truncatus Yes: Western 

North Atlantic 

Central Florida 

Coastal stock, 

Western North 

Atlantic Northern 

Florida Coastal 

stock, Western 

North Atlantic 

Northern 

Migratory Coastal 

stock, Western 

North Atlantic 

South CarolinaGeorgia Coastal 

-- NMFS GAR, SER, 

WCR, PIR

-- Harbors, bays, gulfs, 

estuaries, nearshore 

coastal waters, deeper 

waters over the 

continental shelf, and far 

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

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

100

Common Name Scientific Name MMPA Depleted? ESA Status

Lead 

Agency Region*

Critical 

Habitat General Habitat

stock, and 

Western North 

Atlantic Southern 

Migratory Coastal 

stock

Cuvier’s beaked 

whale

Ziphius cavirostris No -- NMFS All -- Pelagic deep water

Source: ECOS, No Date-a; NMFS, No Date-a

*GAR = Greater Atlantic Region (includes the U.S. portions of the Great Lakes, New England, and the mid-Atlantic); SER = Southeast Region (includes the 

southern portion of the U.S. Eastern Seaboard, the U.S. Caribbean Islands [Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands], and the Gulf of Mexico); AR = Alaska Region 

(includes Alaskan waters and the Arctic); WCR = West Coast Region (includes coastal California, Oregon and Washington); PIR = Pacific Islands Region (includes 

Hawai’i and territories of the U.S.)

**Rice’s whale was referred to as Bryde’s whale in the Draft PEIS.
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

101

3.5.1.1.1 Cetacean Sound Production and Hearing

Cetaceans can vocalize and hear in a variety of frequency ranges underwater, but not all species have 

equal hearing capabilities in terms of absolute hearing sensitivity and the frequency band of hearing 

(Richardson et al., 1995; Southall et al., 2007; Au and Hastings, 2008). Odontocetes have a melon

(mysticetes do not), which is a globular fatty organ that gives shape to the domed forehead, focuses and 

modulates the animal's vocalizations, and acts as a sound lens (Cranford et al., 1996); it is a key organ 

involved in communication and echolocation. While hearing measurements are available for a small 

number of species based on captive animal studies, direct hearing measurements of many odontocetes

and all mysticetes do not exist. As a result, hearing ranges for many odontocetes are grouped with similar 

species, and predictions for mysticetes are based on other methods. In 2007, Southall et al. proposed that 

marine mammals be divided into hearing groups based on characteristics such as audible frequency range, 

auditory sensitivity, ear anatomy, and acoustic ecology (i.e., how they use sound). This division was 

updated by NMFS (2018a) using more recent best available science.

The low-frequency (LF) cetacean group contains all of the mysticetes. Although there have been no direct 

measurements of hearing sensitivity in any mysticete, an audible frequency range of approximately 10 Hz 

to 30 kHz has been inferred from observed vocalization frequencies, observed reactions to playback of 

sounds, and anatomical analyses of the auditory system (Finneran et al., 2017). Functional hearing for 

mysticetes as a group extends from approximately 7 Hz to 35 kHz, though the hearing range of individual 

species may not be as wide (Southall et al., 2007, 2019; NMFS, 2018a). A natural division may exist within 

the mysticetes, with some species (e.g., blue, fin) having better low-frequency sensitivity and others (e.g., 

humpback, minke) having better sensitivity to higher frequencies; however, at present there is insufficient 

knowledge to justify separating species into multiple groups (Southall et al., 2019). Therefore, a single 

species group is used for all mysticetes. Sound production for mysticetes can range between 0.2 kHz and 

24 kHz (Southall et al., 2019). As an example, Girola et al. (2019) found source levels varied in humpback 

whales from 138 to 187 dB re 1 μPa m (root mean squared). 

Mid- and high-frequency (HF) cetaceans are all odontocetes. Unlike the mysticetes, all odontocete 

cetaceans appear to have highly advanced echolocation systems that use intermediate to very high 

frequencies (tens of kHz to 100+ kHz). Most of them are also proven to produce social sounds in a lowerfrequency band, including generally low to intermediate frequencies (1 kHz to tens of kHz) (Southall et al., 

2007). Consequently, their functional hearing would be expected to cover a wider absolute frequency 

range than is assumed for mysticetes; however, their best hearing sensitivity typically occurs at or near 

the frequency where echolocation signals are strongest (Southall et al., 2007).

The mid-frequency (MF) cetacean group comprises dolphins and beaked whales (NMFS, 2018a). Hearing 

sensitivity has been directly measured for a number of species within this group using behavioral or 

auditory evoked potential measurements (Finneran et al., 2017). MF species are estimated to have lower 

and upper frequency limits of nominal hearing at approximately 150 Hz and 160 kHz (Southall et al., 2007, 

2019; NMFS, 2018a). Sound production for MF cetaceans can range between 0.1 kHz and 148 kHz 

(Southall et al., 2019). As an example, Møhl et al. (2003) found source levels in sperm whales to be up to 

236 dB re 1 μPa m (root mean squared).

The HF cetacean group comprises true porpoises, Kogia, river dolphins, Cephalorhynchus, Lagenorhynchus 

cruciger and L. australis. HF cetaceans generally possess a higher upper-frequency limit and better 

sensitivity at high frequencies compared to the MF cetacean species (Finneran et al., 2017). Functional 

hearing in this group was estimated to occur between 275 Hz and 160 kHz (Southall et al., 2007, 2019; 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

102

NMFS, 2018a). Sound production for HF cetaceans can range between 0.2 kHz and 200 kHz (Southall et 

al., 2019). As an example, Kyhn et al. (2013) found source levels varied in Dall’s and harbor porpoises from 

178 to 189 dB re 1 μPa m (root mean squared).

3.5.1.1.2 Regional Distribution of Cetaceans

Cetaceans are known to make wide-ranging movements and may not be present in a specific region yearround; however, some species do not migrate but may still exhibit seasonal movement patterns. The 

distribution of cetaceans is influenced by many factors, including ecological conditions, prey availability, 

anthropogenic activities, and physical features such as oceanic shelf edge or canyons; movements are 

most often associated with feeding or breeding. 

Mysticetes are widely distributed throughout all major oceans. They are highly mobile and often move 

seasonally for food and breeding. Nearly all baleen whales undertake significant seasonal migrations. 

Many stocks return to the same breeding and/or feeding areas each year including humpback, gray, and 

the North Atlantic and North Pacific right whales (Reeves et al., 2002). Mysticetes often feed at high 

latitudes in summer, exploiting biologically productive areas, and move to lower latitudes during the 

winter to mate and calve. Exceptions include the Bryde‘s whale, which remains year-round in tropical and 

subtropical areas, and the pygmy right whale, which appears to remain in southern temperate and subpolar waters (Reeves et al., 2002). Most baleen whale species calve in offshore areas. A few exceptions 

are some populations of humpback and right whales that inhabit shallow coastal, reef, or lagoon areas 

during the calving season.

Odontocetes are also widely distributed and occur in all major oceans. They are highly mobile and often 

move seasonally for food and breeding (Reeves et al., 2002). Many species remain year-round in tropical 

and subtropical areas, including the Fraser‘s dolphin and pygmy killer whale. Some are year-round 

residents in colder waters, with relatively small seasonal migrations (e.g., harbor porpoise). Others are 

more widespread, including the killer whale, sperm whale, and Cuvier‘s beaked whale. Some odontocetes

undertake extensive seasonal migrations. For example, adult male sperm whales travel to high latitudes 

for summer feeding and back toward the equator for winter breeding (Reeves et al., 2002). Numerous 

odontocetes, such as the Atlantic white-sided dolphin and Pacific white-sided dolphin feed at high 

latitudes in summer, exploiting biologically productive areas. Calving and/or breeding can occur yearround throughout the range of some odontocetes. Others exhibit specific breeding/calving periods and/or 

locations. In general, species that occur in colder waters tend to calve in warmer months while those in 

tropical waters year-round show less seasonality.

Biologically important areas (BIAs) are spatially defined areas where aggregations of individual cetaceans

display biologically important behaviors which are region-, species-, and time-specific. Identification of 

BIAs relates to understanding activities in which cetaceans are likely to be engaged at a certain time and 

place. For cetacean species with distinct migrations that separate feeding and breeding areas, three types 

of BIAs have been identified (Ferguson et al., 2015):

• Reproductive Areas: areas and months within which a particular species or population selectively 

mates, gives birth, or is found with neonates or other sensitive age classes;

• Feeding Areas: areas and months within which a particular species or population selectively feeds. 

These may either be found consistently in space and time, or may be associated with ephemeral 

features that are less predictable but can be delineated and are generally located within a larger 

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

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

103

• Migratory Corridors: areas and months within which a substantial portion of a species or 

population is known to migrate; the corridor is typically delimited on one or both sides by land or 

ice.

A fourth type of BIA has also been identified:

• Small and Resident Population: areas and months within which small and resident populations 

occupying a limited geographic extent exist.

Recognition of an area as biologically important for some species activity does not cause the area to rise 

to designation of critical habitat under the ESA. BIAs were created to help NOAA, other federal agencies, 

and the public in the analyses and planning used to characterize and minimize the impacts of 

anthropogenic activities on cetaceans and to achieve conservation and protection goals (Ferguson et al., 

2015). BIAs occur in every region throughout the NOS action area, but they do not present the totality of 

important habitat throughout the marine mammals’ full range. The stated intention is for the BIAs to serve 

as a resource management tool and for their currently identified boundaries to be considered dynamic 

and subject to change based on any new information.

Distribution of cetaceans in the geographic regions that comprise the NOS action area is described below.

3.5.1.1.2.1 Greater Atlantic Region

Thirty-three cetaceans (seven mysticetes and 26 odontocetes) occur in the Greater Atlantic Region, as 

indicated in Table 3.5-1. Four of the mysticetes are ESA-listed: the sei, blue, fin, and North Atlantic right 

whales. The North Atlantic right whale also has designated critical habitat in the region as shown in Figure 

3.5-3. One of the odontocetes is ESA-listed: the sperm whale.
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

104

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

Figure 3.5-3. Cetacean Designated Critical Habitat in the Greater Atlantic Region

3.5.1.1.2.2 Southeast Region

Thirty-three cetaceans (eight mysticetes and 25 odontocetes) occur in the Southeast Region, as indicated 

in Table 3.5-1. Five of the mysticetes are ESA-listed: the sei, blue, fin, Rice’s whale, and North Atlantic 

right whales. The North Atlantic right whale also has designated critical habitat in the region as shown in 

Figure 3.5-4. One of the odontocetes is ESA-listed: the sperm whale.
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

105

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

Figure 3.5-4. Cetacean Designated Critical Habitat in the Southeast Region

3.5.1.1.2.3 West Coast Region

Thirty-seven cetaceans (11 mysticetes and 26 odontocetes) occur in the West Coast Region, as indicated 

in Table 3.5-1. Seven of the mysticetes are ESA-listed: the sei, blue, fin, gray (Western North Pacific DPS), 

North Pacific right, humpback (Mexico DPS), and humpback (Central America DPS) whales. Two of the 

odontocetes are ESA-listed: the sperm and killer (Southern resident DPS) whales. The North Pacific right 

whale, humpback whale, and killer whale also have designated critical habitat in the region as shown in 

Figure 3.5-5.
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

106

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

Figure 3.5-5. Cetacean Designated Critical Habitat in the West Coast Region

3.5.1.1.2.4 Alaska Region

Twenty-five cetaceans (11 mysticetes and 14 odontocetes) occur in the Alaska Region, as indicated in 

Table 3.5-1. Eight of the mysticetes are ESA-listed: the bowhead, sei, blue, fin, gray (Western North Pacific

DPS), North Pacific right, humpback (Mexico DPS), and humpback (Western North Pacific DPS) whales. 

Two of the odontocetes are ESA-listed: the beluga (Cook Inlet DPS) and sperm whales. The North Pacific 

right whale, humpback whale, and beluga whale also have designated critical habitat in the region as 

shown in Figure 3.5-6.
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

107

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

Figure 3.5-6. Cetacean Designated Critical Habitat in the Alaska Region

3.5.1.1.2.5 Pacific Islands Region

Twenty-seven cetaceans (seven mysticetes and 20 odontocetes) occur in the Pacific Islands Region, as 

indicated in Table 3.5-1. Four of the mysticetes are ESA-listed: the sei, blue, fin, and humpback (Western 

North Pacific DPS) whales. Two of the odontocetes are ESA-listed: sperm and false killer (Main Hawaiian 

Islands Insular DPS) whales. The false killer whale also has critical habitat in this region as shown in Figure 

3.5-7.
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

108

Note: The critical habitat polygons shown in this map were digitized by hand 

and may contain manual errors. Care has been taken to align the polygons, to 

the extent practicable, with the Main Hawaiian Islands Insular False Killer 

Whale Critical Habitat Designation Map found at 

https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/resource/map/main-hawaiian-islands-insularfalse-killer-whale-critical-habitat-designation-map. 

Figure 3.5-7. Cetacean Designated Critical Habitat in the Pacific Islands Region

3.5.1.1.3 Threatened and Endangered Cetaceans

Fifteen distinct populations of cetaceans are ESA-listed in the action area; eleven are mysticetes and four 

are odontocetes. Two listed mysticetes and three listed odontocetes also have designated critical habitat. 

These species are shown in Table 3.5-1 and described in detail below. In some of the species descriptions 

below, species abundance is given as a best estimate of population size (due to sampling uncertainty), but 

also as a minimum population size, which is the lowest number of animals calculated to currently occur. 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

109

3.5.1.1.3.1 Bowhead Whale

Bowhead whales (Figure 3.5-8) are one of the few whale species that reside almost exclusively in Arctic 

and subarctic waters experiencing seasonal sea ice coverage, primarily between 60° and 75° north latitude 

(NMFS, No Date-a). Commercial whaling severely reduced bowhead whale numbers from historical levels. 

The economic value of the bowheads’ oil and baleen, combined with their slow swimming speeds and 

tendency to float when killed, made them a prime target for whalers. By the time commercial whaling of 

bowheads effectively ended in 1921, the worldwide bowhead abundance had declined to less than 3,000 

whales. Today, bowhead whales may be still threatened by loss of food sources, climate change, vessel 

strikes, entanglement in fishing gear, ocean noise, sound and activity from offshore oil and gas 

development, and chemical pollution.

The worldwide number of bowheads prior to commercial exploitation is estimated at a minimum of 

50,000, including an estimated 10,400 to 23,000 whales in the Western Arctic stock, the stock found in 

U.S. waters (NMFS, No Date-a). The bowhead whale was listed as endangered under the ESA in 1973. 

Bowhead whales are also listed as depleted under the MMPA (i.e., they have fallen below their optimum 

sustainable population levels). Western Arctic bowheads have shown considerable recovery since the end 

of commercial whaling, and they now comprise the largest population of bowheads in the world. The most 

recent stock assessment reports abundance data for the Western Arctic bowhead stock, collected during 

spring 2011, indicating that there are over 16,000 Western Arctic bowheads (Muto et al., 2020). 

Photo Credit: NOAA National Ocean Service

Bowhead whales inhabit the Bering, Chukchi, and Beaufort seas, Hudson Bay and Foxe Basin, Baffin Bay 

and Davis Strait, the Sea of Okhotsk, and waters from eastern Greenland and Spitsbergen to eastern 

Siberia. They spend the winter near the southern limit of the pack ice and move north as the sea ice breaks 

up and recedes during spring. The bowhead whale’s migration begins in the winter months from

November to March. They travel from winter breeding grounds in the northern Bering Sea to the Chukchi 

Sea in the spring between March and June when most calving occurs. Between May and September they 

travel to the Canadian Beaufort Sea and spend the remainder of the summer in these waters. From

September through December they return back to the Bering Sea to overwinter (Muto et al., 2020). 

Bowhead whales live in areas often covered in thick ice and are capable of breaking through ice up to 60 

centimeters (cm) (23 inches [in]) thick to manufacture breathing holes. They feed throughout the water 

column at the surface and on the bottom; the most prevalent prey are copepods, euphausiids, mysids, 

Figure 3.5-8. Bowhead 

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

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

110

and gammarid amphipods. They may stay submerged for over an hour (Rugh and Shelden, 2009). 

Bowheads likely mate in late winter or early spring, although mating behavior has been observed at other 

times of the year. Calves are usually born between April and June, during the spring migration. The calving 

interval is about three to four years. Bowheads are exceedingly long-lived and may live to greater than 

100-150 years of age (George et al., 1999).

3.5.1.1.3.2 Sei Whale

Sei whales occur in subtropical, temperate, and subpolar waters around the world, but they are most 

common in mid-latitude temperate zones. During the 19th and 20th centuries, sei whales were targeted 

and greatly depleted by commercial hunting and whaling, with an estimated 300,000 animals killed for 

their meat and oil (NMFS, No Date-a). Commercial whaling ended for this species in 1980. Although 

whaling is no longer a major threat, some scientific whaling continues today by Iceland and Japan. Vessel 

strikes, ocean noise, and entanglement with fishing gear pose the biggest threats to sei whales today. The 

sei whale was listed as endangered under the ESA in 1970, and it is listed as depleted under the MMPA. 

Sei whales are usually observed alone or in small groups of two to five animals. They are fast swimmers 

that can reach speeds of over 55 km (34 mi) per hour. Sei whales dive differently than most whales as 

they do not arch their backs or show their flukes before diving; they simply sink below the surface. They 

can dive for five to 20 minutes to feed on plankton (including copepods and krill), small schooling fish, and 

cephalopods (including squid). They prefer to feed at dawn and may exhibit unpredictable behavior while 

foraging and feeding on prey (NMFS, No Date-a).

Sei whales prefer temperate waters in the mid-latitudes and can be found in the Atlantic, Indian, and 

Pacific Oceans. Sei whales have an unpredictable distribution. Many whales may be found in one area for 

a period and then not return for years or decades. This behavior is unusual for large whales, which 

generally have a predictable distribution. Sei whales are distributed far out to sea, most often over the 

continental slope, and do not often appear to be associated with coastal features (Carretta et al., 2020). 

At times, this general offshore pattern of sei whale distribution can be disrupted during episodic incursions 

into shallower, more inshore waters.

Sei whales within the Pacific U.S. EEZ are divided into three discrete, non-contiguous areas: 1) waters 

around Hawai’i; 2) California, Oregon, and Washington waters; and 3) Alaskan waters. Sei whales migrate 

to lower latitudes for breeding and calving in the winter and to higher latitudes in summer for feeding, 

including in the Gulf of Alaska and along the Aleutian Islands and the southern Bering Sea. The abundance 

of the eastern North Pacific stock is estimated at 519 animals with a minimum of 374 whales. The 

abundance of the Hawai’i stock is estimated at 391 with a minimum of 204 (Carretta et al., 2020). 

There are two classified sei whale stocks within the Atlantic, the Nova Scotia stock and the Labrador Sea 

stock. The range of the Nova Scotia stock includes the continental shelf waters of the northeastern U.S. 

and extends northeastward to the south of Newfoundland. Sei whales are commonly sighted off Nova 

Scotia, the Gulf of Maine, and Georges Bank in spring and summer. The Nova Scotia stock size is estimated 

at 6,292 individuals with a minimum population of 3,098 (Hayes et al., 2020).

3.5.1.1.3.3 Rice’s Whale

In 2019, NMFS listed the Gulf of Mexico Bryde’s whale as an endangered subspecies under the ESA. It is 

also protected under the MMPA and designated as strategic and depleted. In 2021, NMFS revised the 

common and scientific name of the listed entity to Rice’s whale and classification to species to reflect the 

new scientifically accepted taxonomy and nomenclature of the species. Thus, the previous Gulf of Mexico 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

111

subspecies of Bryde’s whale is now officially named Rice’s whale. There is currently no designated critical 

habitat for this species; however, Figure 3.5-9 shows the Rice's whale Core Distribution Area (CDA) and 

the 100 – 400 m (325 – 1,300 ft) isobath (i.e., depth contour) that the species occupies along the 

northwestern Gulf of Mexico shelf break (NMFS, No Date-a; Roberts et al., 2015a; 2016a; Soldevilla et al., 

2022). 

Figure 3.5-9. Core Distribution Area for the Rice’s Whale in the Gulf of Mexico

Rice's whale is the only resident baleen whale in the Gulf of Mexico and is most closely related to Bryde’s 

whales. In 2021 scientists determined that the Rice’s whale was a unique species, genetically and 

morphologically distinct from Bryde’s whales (NMFS, No Date-a). The Rice's whale’s very small population 

size and limited distribution increase its vulnerability to threats. The most significant threats they face are 

energy exploration and development, oil spills and spill response, vessel strikes, ocean noise, ocean debris, 

aquaculture, and entanglement in fishing gear (NMFS, No Date-a). With such a small population size, the 

death of a single whale due to any of these stressors could have devastating consequences for the 

population’s recovery.

The historical distribution of Rice's whales may have once encompassed the northern and southern Gulf 

of Mexico (NMFS, No Date-a). For the past 25 years, Rice's whale has been consistently located in the 

northeastern Gulf of Mexico, along the continental shelf break between 100 and about 400 m (325 to 

1,300 ft) depth. A single Rice’s whale was observed in the western Gulf of Mexico off the coast of Texas, 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

112

suggesting that their distribution may occasionally include waters elsewhere in the Gulf of Mexico. 

Research is currently being conducted to better understand Rice’s whales’ distribution (e.g., if they use 

the western Gulf of Mexico and Mexican waters of the southern Gulf of Mexico, and how frequently they 

may occur in these other areas). Rice's whale is one of the few types of baleen whales to prefer warmer, 

tropical waters and that does not make long-distance migrations. Rice’s whale is one of the few types of 

baleen whales that does not migrate; they remain in the Gulf of Mexico year-round.

Rice's whales are usually seen alone or in pairs, but may form larger, loose groups associated with feeding 

(NMFS, No Date-a). Limited data suggest that Rice's whales spend the daytime diving near the sea floor 

bottom and the majority of their time at night near the water’s surface. Little is known about their foraging 

ecology and diet. However, data from two Rice’s whales suggest they may mostly forage at or near the 

sea floor. This is in contrast to Bryde's whales that have been observed feeding in the water column and 

near the surface on small crustaceans and schooling fish such as anchovy, sardine, mackerel, and herring.

When the ESA status review was completed in 2016, the team of scientists conducting the review 

concluded that there were likely fewer than 100 individual Rice's whales throughout the Gulf of Mexico, 

with 50 or fewer being mature individuals (NMFS, No Date-a). The most recent abundance estimate from 

2017–2018 surveys in the northeastern Gulf of Mexico is approximately 51 individual Rice's whales. With 

the minimum population estimate for the northern Gulf of Mexico at 34 animals (Hayes et al., 2022), Rice’s 

whales are one of the most endangered whales in the world. Recovery of the species depends upon the 

protection of each remaining whale.

3.5.1.1.3.4 Blue Whale

Blue whales are found in all oceans except the Arctic Ocean. They are the largest cetacean, and they feed 

almost exclusively on krill. Fish and copepods may also occasionally be part of the blue whale’s diet. The 

number of blue whales in the world’s oceans is only a small fraction of what it was before modern 

commercial whaling significantly reduced their numbers during the early 1900s, but populations are 

increasing globally (NMFS, No Date-a). The northern hemisphere subspecies of blue whale was listed as 

endangered under the ESA in 1970, and they are listed as depleted under the MMPA. The primary threats 

currently facing blue whales are vessel strikes and entanglements in fishing gear.

There are five currently recognized subspecies of blue whales; the subspecies Balaenoptera musculus is 

present in the U.S. EEZ. On the west coast, there are two populations of North Pacific blue whales with 

some degree of geographic overlap – the Eastern North Pacific stock and the Central North Pacific stock

(Carretta et al., 2020). The regional occurrence patterns suggest that blue whales from the Eastern North 

Pacific stock winter off Mexico, Central America, and as far south as 8° south, and feed during summer off 

the U.S. West Coast and to a lesser extent in the Gulf of Alaska. Blue whales belonging to the Central 

Pacific stock appear to feed in summer southwest of the Kamchatka Peninsula, in the Russian Far East, 

south of the Aleutians, and in the Gulf of Alaska, and in winter migrate to lower latitudes in the western 

and central Pacific, including Hawai’i. Both populations occur in lower latitudes in the central North Pacific, 

but differ in their seasonal patterns.

The best population estimate for blue whales in the Eastern North Pacific stock is 1,898 animals, with a 

minimum estimate of 1,767 animals (Carretta et al., 2022). Because whales in this stock spend 

approximately three quarters of their time outside the U.S. EEZ, the potential biological removal level 

allocation for U.S. waters is one-quarter of this total. The best population estimate for blue whales in the 

Central North Pacific stock is 133 animals, with a minimum estimate of 63 animals; this is based on a 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

113

summer/fall abundance estimate, but the majority of blue whales would be expected to be at higher 

latitudes feeding grounds at this time of year (Carretta et al., 2020).

Blue whales sometimes swim in small groups but are mostly found alone or in pairs. Blue whales generally 

migrate seasonally between summer feeding grounds in polar waters and winter breeding grounds 

towards the equator, but some evidence suggests that individuals remain in certain areas year-round 

(NMFS, No Date-a). Information about distribution and movement varies with location, and migratory 

routes are not well-known. In general, distribution is driven largely by food requirements as they occur in 

waters where krill is concentrated. In the North Atlantic Ocean, their range extends from the subtropics 

to the Greenland Sea. Blue whales have been sighted in the waters off eastern Canada, in the shelf waters 

off the eastern U.S., and infrequently in the Gulf of Mexico and the Caribbean. Along the west coast of 

the U.S., eastern North Pacific blue whales are believed to spend winters off of Mexico and Central 

America. They likely feed during summer off the U.S. west coast and, to a lesser extent, in the Gulf of

Alaska and central North Pacific waters. Blue whales with young calves have been observed often in the 

Gulf of California (Sea of Cortez) from December through March. Thus, at least some calves may be born 

in or near the Gulf of California; this area is probably an important calving and nursing area for the species. 

The blue whale is an occasional visitor in U.S. Atlantic EEZ waters, which may represent the current 

southern limit of its feeding range in the Atlantic. In the western North Atlantic Ocean, the blue whale’s 

range extends from the Arctic to Cape Cod, Massachusetts, and it is frequently sighted off eastern Canada 

(e.g., Newfoundland). Blue whales have been identified as far south as Bermuda. Blue whales show a 

strong preference for shelf breaks, sea mounts, or other areas where food resources are known to occur, 

even during summer months. Blue whales do not have specific breeding or calving areas. 

3.5.1.1.3.5 Fin Whale

The fin whale is the second-largest species of cetacean. It is found throughout the world’s oceans. During 

the summer, fin whales feed on krill, small schooling fish (including herring, capelin, and sand lance), and 

squid. Fin whales fast in the winter while they migrate to warmer waters. Like all large whales, fin whales 

were hunted by commercial whalers, which greatly lowered their population. Whaling is no longer a major 

threat for this species as commercial whaling ended in the 1970s and 1980s, though some hunting 

continues today in Greenland through subsistence whaling allowances (NMFS, No Date-a). The biggest 

threat to fin whales comes from vessel strikes; entanglement in fishing gear, lack of prey due to 

overfishing, and ocean noise also threaten this species. The fin whale was listed as endangered under 

the ESA in 1970, and it is listed as depleted under the MMPA.

Fin whales are found in deep, offshore waters of all major oceans, primarily in temperate to polar 

latitudes. They are less common in the tropics. They occur year-round in a wide range of locations, but 

the density of individuals in any one area changes seasonally. Most migrate from the Arctic and Antarctic 

feeding areas in the summer to tropical breeding and calving areas in the winter. The overall migration 

pattern is complex and specific routes have not been documented (NMFS, No Date-a). 

The location of winter breeding grounds is not known. Surveys indicate a southward flow pattern in the 

fall from the Labrador-Newfoundland region, past Bermuda, and into the West Indies. The fin whale is the 

most common whale sighted in northwest Atlantic waters from Cape Hatteras, North Carolina to Maine; 

New England waters represent a major feeding ground (Hayes et al., 2020). Within the U.S. waters in the 

Pacific Ocean, fin whales are found seasonally off the coast of North America and in the Bering Sea during 

the summer (Muto et al., 2020). Some fin whales feed in the Gulf of Alaska, including near the entrance 

to Cook Inlet, and during the months of July and August they are concentrated in the Bering Sea and 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

114

eastern Aleutian Island area. From September to October, most fin whales are in the Bering Sea, Gulf of 

Alaska, and along the U.S. coast as far south as Baja, California. There may be resident groups of fin whales 

in some areas, such as the Gulf of California. Fin whales have been considered rare in Hawaiian waters 

and are absent to rare in eastern tropical Pacific waters (Carretta et al., 2020). Fin whales travel in the 

open seas, away from the coast, so they are difficult to track. 

For management purposes, fin whales in U.S. waters are divided into four stocks: Hawai’i, California/ 

Oregon/Washington, Alaska (Northeast Pacific), and Western North Atlantic. Reliable, recent population 

estimates are available for much of the North Atlantic Ocean, but not for most of the North Pacific or the 

South Pacific. Population estimates are 6,802 fin whales in the Western North Atlantic stock with a 

minimum estimate of 5,573 animals; 3,168 individuals in the Northeast Pacific stock with a minimum 

estimate of 2,554 animals with a minimum estimate of 2,554 animals; 11,065 in the waters off of 

California, Oregon, and Washington with a minimum estimate of 7,970 animals; and 203 for the Hawai’i 

stock with a minimum estimate of 101 animals(Carretta et al., 2022; Muto et al., 2022; Hayes et al., 2022).

The estimate for the entire North Pacific is between 14,000 and 18,000. The number of fin whales in the 

southern hemisphere is around 82,000 (NMFS, No Date-a). 

3.5.1.1.3.6 Gray Whale (Western North Pacific Distinct Population Segment)

Once common throughout the Northern Hemisphere, gray whales are now mainly found in the shallow 

coastal waters in the North Pacific Ocean. Commercial whaling brought both Pacific populations to near 

extinction. Conservation measures were enacted in the 1930s and 1940s to protect whales from over 

exploitation, and in the mid-1980s, the International Whaling Commission instituted a moratorium on 

commercial whaling (NMFS, No Date-a). Gray whales are known for their curiosity toward boats and are 

the focus of whale watching; thus, they face threats from vessel strikes and disturbance on their migration 

route. The eastern population of gray whales which occurs in the action area was once listed as 

endangered under the ESA but successfully recovered and delisted in 1994. The species is protected under 

the MMPA throughout its range, but the eastern population is non-strategic and is not considered 

depleted (Carretta et al., 2020). The western population remains very low and is listed as endangered 

under the ESA and depleted under the MMPA.

There are two geographic distributions of gray whales in the North Pacific: the Eastern North Pacific stock, 

found along the west coast of North America, and the Western North Pacific stock, found along the coast 

of eastern Asia. Most eastern North Pacific gray whales spend the summer in the shallow waters of the 

northern and western Bering Sea and in the adjacent waters of the Arctic Ocean; however, some remain 

throughout the summer and fall along the Pacific coast as far south as southern California (NMFS, No 

Date-a). In the fall, gray whales migrate from their summer feeding grounds, heading south along the 

coast of North America to spend the winter in their wintering and calving areas in sheltered waters off 

the coast of Baja California, Mexico. From mid-February to May, eastern North Pacific gray whales can be 

seen migrating northward along the U.S. west coast. Gray whales are by far the most coastal of all the 

great whales and inhabit primarily inshore or shallow, offshore continental shelf waters of the North 

Pacific. They tend to be nomadic, highly migratory, and tolerant of climate extremes (Caretta et al., 2020).

The presence of individuals from the Western North Pacific stock of gray whales in the action area is 

considered extralimital. During summer and fall, the Western North Pacific stock feeds in the Okhotsk Sea, 

Russia. Historically, wintering areas included waters off Korea, Japan, and China. Recent tagging, photoidentification, and genetics studies revealed that some gray whales from this stock migrate to the eastern 

North Pacific in winter, including waters off Canada, the U.S., and Mexico (Caretta et al., 2020).
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

115

The population size of the Eastern North Pacific stock has increased over several decades and is stable or 

still increasing (Carretta et al, 2020). Monitoring over the last 30 years has provided data that have 

indicated the Eastern North Pacific population and stock is within range of its optimum sustainable 

population, which is consistent with a population approaching the carrying capacity of the environment. 

The current estimated abundance for the Eastern North Pacific stock is 26,960 whales, with a minimum 

population estimate of 25,849 (Carretta et al., 2020). The Western North Pacific stock of gray whales was 

once considered extinct, but now small numbers are known to exist (Carretta et al., 2020). Based on 

photo-identification studies off Sakhalin Island, Russia, estimated abundance of the Western North Pacific 

stock is 290, with a minimum estimate of 271 gray whales off Sakhalin (Carretta et al., 2020).

3.5.1.1.3.7 North Atlantic Right Whale

The North Atlantic right whale (Figure 3.5-10) is one of the world’s most endangered large whale species. 

By the early 1890s, commercial whalers had hunted right whales in the Atlantic to the brink of extinction. 

Whaling is no longer a threat, but human interactions still present the greatest danger to this species 

(NMFS, No Date-a). The leading causes of known mortality for North Atlantic right whales are 

entanglement in fishing gear and vessel strikes; for the period 2011 through 2015, the minimum rate of 

annual human-caused mortality and serious injury to right whales averaged 5.36 per year (Hayes et al., 

2020). Other threats include ocean noise, climate change, disturbance from whale watching activities, and 

lack of food.

Photo credit: NOAA Photo Library

North Atlantic right whales were listed as endangered under the ESA in 1970, and they are listed as 

depleted under the MMPA. North Atlantic right whales represent one of the most intensely studied 

populations of cetaceans in the world, supported by a rigorously maintained individual sightings database 

and considerable surveys throughout their range. The current estimated abundance for this species is 368 

whales, with a minimum population estimate of 364 animals (Hayes et al., 2022).

North Atlantic right whales primarily occur in Atlantic coastal waters or close to the continental shelf, 

although movements over deep waters are known (NMFS, No Date-a). New England waters are important 

feeding habitats for right whales, where they feed primarily on copepods. Right whales feed anywhere 

from the water’s surface to the bottom of the water column.

Right whales migrate seasonally and may travel alone or in small groups. In the spring, summer, and fall 

they are found in their northern habitats, where they feed and mate. Each fall, some right whales travel 

more than 1,600 km (1,000 mi) from their feeding grounds off the Canadian Maritimes and New England 

Figure 3.5-10. North Atlantic 

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

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

116

to the warm coastal waters off South Carolina, Georgia, and northeastern Florida. During winter, pregnant 

females give birth in the only known North Atlantic right whale calving area off the southeastern U.S. in 

shallow, coastal waters. However, the location of much of the population is unknown during the winter.

Surveys have demonstrated the existence of seven areas where western North Atlantic right whales 

aggregate seasonally: the coastal waters of the southeastern U.S.; the Great South Channel (south of the 

Gulf of Maine); Jordan Basin (within the Gulf of Maine); Georges Basin along the northeastern edge of 

Georges Bank; Cape Cod and Massachusetts Bays; the Bay of Fundy; and the Roseway Basin on the Scotian 

Shelf (Hayes et al., 2020). They are present year-round in the Gulf of Maine. Movements within and 

between habitats are extensive, and the area off the mid-Atlantic states is an important migratory 

corridor.

There are two designated critical habitat areas determined to provide important feeding, nursery, and 

calving habitat for the North Atlantic population of right whales. One is a foraging area off the coast of 

New England; the other is a calving area off the southeast U.S. coast from Cape Fear, North Carolina to 

below Cape Canaveral, Florida (NMFS, No Date-a).

3.5.1.1.3.8 North Pacific Right Whale

North Pacific right whales are the rarest of all large whale species and among the rarest of all marine 

mammal species. In past years, commercial whaling greatly reduced right whale populations in the Pacific 

Ocean. Whaling is no longer a threat, but human activity such as entanglement in fishing gear and marine 

debris, vessel strikes, impacts from climate change, and ocean noise continue to endanger this species 

(NMFS, No Date-a). Subsistence hunters in Alaska and Russia do not hunt animals from the Eastern North 

Pacific right whale stock (Muto et al., 2020). 

North Pacific right whales have been listed as endangered under the ESA since 1970, and they are 

designated as depleted under the MMPA. In 2008, NMFS relisted the North Pacific right whale as 

endangered as a separate species (Eubalaena japonica) from the North Atlantic species (E. glacialis). The 

principal habitat requirements for right whales are dense concentrations of prey, so on this basis, two 

areas of critical habitat were proposed: one in the southeastern Bering Sea and another south of Kodiak 

Island. (The primary prey for right whales on the Bering Sea shelf is the copepod Calanus marshallae [Muto 

et al., 2020]). In 2006, NMFS issued a final rule designating these two areas as northern right whale critical 

habitat. In 2008, the same two areas were redesignated as Eastern North Pacific right whale critical habitat 

under the newly recognized species name, E. japonica.

The North Pacific right whale population is very small, and most sightings have been of single whales, 

though small groups have been sighted (Muto et al., 2018; NMFS, No Date-a). From 1962 to 1999, there 

were only 82 published sightings of right whales in the entire eastern North Pacific, with the majority of 

these occurring in the Bering Sea and adjacent areas of the Aleutian Islands; this surprising lack of sightings 

ultimately led to the discovery that right whales had been subject to large illegal catches by the former 

U.S.S.R. (Muto et al., 2020). The current estimated abundance for the Eastern North Pacific stock is 31

whales, with a minimum population estimate of 26 individuals (Muto et al., 2020).

North Pacific right whales have occurred historically in all the world's oceans from temperate to subpolar 

latitudes. Most right whale sightings since 1996 have occurred in the southeastern Bering Sea, with a few 

records in the Gulf of Alaska near Kodiak Island, Alaska (Muto et al., 2020). Since 1996, right whales have 

been observed repeatedly in their critical habitat in the southeastern Bering Sea during the summer 

months. Migration patterns of the North Pacific right whale are unknown, although it is thought that the 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

117

whales spend the summer in far northern feeding grounds and migrate south to warmer waters, such as 

southern California, during the winter. Right whales calve in coastal waters during the winter months, but 

calving grounds have not been identified in the eastern North Pacific. Worldwide, most known right whale 

nursery areas are in shallow, coastal waters (Muto et al., 2020; NMFS, No Date-a). 

3.5.1.1.3.9 Humpback Whale (Mexico DPS, Central America DPS, and Western North Pacific DPS)

Humpback whales live in oceans around the world. They travel extensive distances every year and have 

one of the longest migrations of any mammal. Some populations swim 8,000 km (5,000 mi) from tropical 

breeding grounds in winter to high-latitude feeding grounds in summer. Humpback whales feed on 

shrimp-like krill and small fish. They are generally found close to shore and are commonly active on the 

surface, including breaching (leaping above the water) or slapping the surface with their pectoral fins and 

tails (NMFS, No Date-a). Commercial whaling severely reduced humpback whale numbers from historical 

levels. Before a moratorium on commercial whaling in 1985, all populations of humpback whales were 

greatly reduced, some by more than 95 percent. The species is increasing in abundance in much of its 

range but still faces threats from entanglement in fishing gear, vessel strikes, vessel-based harassment, 

underwater noise, and habitat impacts.

All humpback whales were listed as endangered under the Endangered Species Conservation Act in 1970, 

and then again under the ESA in 1973. NMFS has conducted a global status review of humpback whales, 

and in 2016 revised the ESA listing of the species. Currently, four out of the 14 DPS (Figure 3.5-11) are still 

protected as endangered (including two occurring in the action area: the Western North Pacific DPS and 

Central American DPS), and one is listed as threatened (the Mexico DPS, which occurs in the action area). 

Critical habitat for the endangered Western North Pacific distinct population segment (DPS), the 

endangered Central America DPS, and the threatened Mexico DPS of humpback whales (Megaptera 

novaeangliae) was designated in 2021 (86 FR 20632, April 21, 2021. Specific areas designated as critical 

habitat for the Western North Pacific DPS of humpback whales contain approximately 59,411 square 

nautical miles (nm2

) of marine habitat in the North Pacific Ocean, including areas within the eastern Bering 

Sea and Gulf of Alaska. Specific areas designated as critical habitat for the Central America DPS of 

humpback whales contain approximately 48,521 nm2 of marine habitat in the North Pacific Ocean within 

the portions of the California Current Ecosystem off the coasts of Washington, Oregon, and California. 

Specific areas designated as critical habitat for the Mexico DPS of humpback whales contain approximately 

116,098 nm2 of marine habitat in the North Pacific Ocean, including areas within portions of the eastern 

Bering Sea, Gulf of Alaska, and California Current Ecosystem.

The stock structure of humpback whales is defined by NMFS based on the stock’s fidelity to feeding 

grounds (Muto et al., 2020). As a result, the stock designations are inconsistent with the DPS designations.

Of the stocks occurring in the action area, the Western North Pacific stock, the Central North Pacific stock, 

the California/Oregon/Washington stock, and the American Samoa stock are designated as strategic and 

depleted under the MMPA; the Gulf of Maine stock is non-strategic. 

Mexico DPS whales breed along the Pacific coast of Mexico, the Baja California Peninsula, and the 

Revillagigedos Islands, and feed across a broad range from California to the Aleutian Islands (Alaska). The 

Central America DPS breeds along the Pacific coast of Costa Rica, Panama, Guatemala, El Salvador, 

Honduras, and Nicaragua and feeds almost exclusively off California and Oregon. The Western North 

Pacific DPS breeds in the areas of Okinawa, Japan, and the Philippines, and feeds in the northern Pacific, 

primarily off the Russian coast, but also in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands of Alaska (NMFS, No Date; 

Muto et al., 2020).
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

118

Source: NMFS, No Date-a

Figure 3.5-11. Locations of the 14 Distinct Population

Segments of Humpback Whales Worldwide

While calving, humpback whales prefer shallow, warm waters commonly near offshore reef systems or 

shores. Humpback whale feeding grounds are generally in cold, productive waters (NMFS, No Date). Along 

the U.S. west coast, three relatively distinct stocks migrate between their summer/fall feeding areas and 

winter/spring calving and mating areas: 1) the California/Oregon/Washington stock, consisting of 

winter/spring populations in coastal Central America and coastal Mexico which migrate to the coast of 

California to southern British Columbia in summer/fall; 2) the Central North Pacific stock, consisting of 

winter/spring populations of the Hawaiian Islands which migrate primarily to northern British 

Columbia/Southeast Alaska, the Gulf of Alaska, and the Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands; and 3) the Western 

North Pacific stock, consisting of winter/spring populations off Asia which migrate primarily to Russia and 

the Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands (Caretta et al., 2020). Humpback whales from the Western and Central 

North Pacific stocks mix to a limited extent on summer feeding grounds ranging from British Columbia 

through the central Gulf of Alaska and up to the Bering Sea. 

Most North Atlantic humpback whales, including the Gulf of Maine stock, migrate to the West Indies 

during the winter to mate and calve. Not all migrate south, however, as significant numbers occur in midand high-latitude regions in winter. Humpback whales in the western North Atlantic feed during spring, 

summer, and fall over a range which encompasses the eastern coast of the U.S., the Gulf of St. Lawrence, 

Newfoundland/Labrador, and western Greenland (Hayes et al., 2020). Additional feeding areas are off 

Iceland and northern Norway. These areas represent six relatively discrete subpopulations. Based on 

genetic analyses, the Gulf of Maine feeding stock is treated as a separate management stock.

The American Samoa stock comes from the Oceania subpopulation of humpback whales which ranges 

throughout the South Pacific, except the west coast of South America, and from the equator to the edges 

of the Antarctic ice (Caretta et al., 2020). 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

119

North Pacific humpback whales (M. novaeangliae kuzira) comprise a distinct subspecies based on DNA 

relationships and distribution compared to North Atlantic humpback whales (M. n. novaeangliae) and 

those in the Southern Hemisphere (Carretta et al., 2020). Humpback whales occur throughout the North 

Pacific, with multiple populations currently recognized based on low-latitude winter breeding areas. 

Exchange of animals between breeding areas rarely occurs, based on photo-identification data of 

individual whales; photo-identification evidence also suggests strong site fidelity to feeding areas 

(Carretta et al., 2020).

The current population estimate for the Western North Pacific stock is 1,107 animals, with a minimum 

population estimate of 865 (Muto et al., 2020). The current population estimate for the Central North 

Pacific stock is 10,103 animals, with a minimum population estimate of 7,891 (Muto et al., 2020). The 

current population estimate for the California/Oregon/Washington stock is 4,973 animals, with a 

minimum population estimate of 4,776 (Carretta et al., 2022).

Recent abundance estimates indicate continued population growth, but the size of the humpback whale 

Gulf of Maine stock off the U.S. east coast may still be below its optimum sustainable population. The 

current estimated abundance for the Gulf of Maine stock is 1,396 whales, with a minimum population 

estimate of 1,380 individuals (Hayes et al., 2020).

The status of humpback whales in American Samoan EEZ waters is unknown, and there are insufficient 

data to estimate trends in abundance. However, the minimum population estimate for the American 

Samoa stock is 150 whales, which is the number of unique humpbacks identified in the waters around 

American Samoa via photo identification (Caretta et al., 2020).

3.5.1.1.3.10 Beluga Whale (Cook Inlet DPS)

Beluga whales are known for their white color and range of vocal sounds. They are very social animals, 

forming groups to hunt, migrate, and interact with each other. Beluga whales are found in the U.S. in 

Alaska and globally throughout the Arctic Ocean. They are also at home in large rivers and can move 

between salt and fresh water. Beluga whales are vulnerable to many stressors and threats, including 

pollution, habitat degradation, harassment, interactions with commercial and recreational fisheries, 

sound and activity from oil and gas exploration, disease, and other types of human disturbance such as 

underwater noise (NMFS, No Date-a).

There are five management stocks in Alaska based on distributional separation, distinct population trends 

between regions occupied in summer, and genetic differences. These five stocks of beluga whales 

in Alaskan waters are: the Beaufort Sea, Bristol Bay, Cook Inlet, eastern Bering Sea, and eastern Chukchi 

Sea stocks. Each stock is unique, isolated from one another genetically and/or physically by migration 

routes and preferred habitats. Worldwide, belugas may number in the hundreds of thousands; however, 

some stocks are small, numbering in the low hundreds. 

The endangered Cook Inlet beluga whale population has declined by nearly 75 percent since 1979, from 

about 1,300 whales to an estimated 328 whales in 2016 (NMFS, No Date-a). The current population 

estimate for the Cook Inlet stock is 279 animals, with a minimum population estimate of 267 individuals 

(Muto et al., 2022).

Commercial and sport hunting once threatened beluga whale populations. These activities are now 

banned, though Alaska Natives still hunt beluga whales for subsistence. Beluga subsistence harvest in the 

Cook Inlet of south-central Alaska is now regulated because of the lack of recovery in the area (NMFS, No 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

120

Date-a). Alaska Natives last hunted Cook Inlet beluga whales in 2005. All beluga whale populations are 

protected under the MMPA. NMFS has designated the Cook Inlet beluga whale population in Alaska and 

the Sakhalin Bay-Nikolaya Bay-Amur River stock off the coast of Russia as depleted under the MMPA. In 

addition, the Cook Inlet DPS was listed as endangered under the ESA in 2011.

Beluga whales inhabit cold waters of the Arctic and subarctic. The northernmost extent is off Alaska, 

northwest Canada, and off Ellesmere Island, West Greenland, and Svalbard (>80° north); the southern 

limit of distribution is in the St. Lawrence River in eastern Canada (47° – 49° north). Depending on season 

and region, beluga whales can occur in both offshore and coastal waters. During the winter, beluga whales 

generally occur in offshore waters associated with the ice pack; in the spring, many migrate to warmer 

coastal estuaries, bays, and rivers for molting and calving. Breeding occurs in March and April, with calves 

born the following May through July, usually when pods are at or near summer concentration areas 

(Figure 3.5-12). The Cook Inlet DPS occurs near river mouths in the northern Cook Inlet during the spring 

and summer months and in mid-Inlet waters in the winter. The stock remains in Cook Inlet throughout 

the year (Muto et al., 2022).

Photo Credit: LCDR Gary Barone, NOAA

NMFS has designated 7,800 km2 (3,013 mi2) of critical habitat for the Cook Inlet DPS (76 Federal Register

[FR] 20180, April 11, 2011). Critical Habitat Area 1 occurs in the upper portion of Cook Inlet that contains 

a number of shallow tidal flats, river mouths, and estuarine areas important for foraging, calving, molting, 

and escaping predators. This area contains the highest concentration of beluga whales from spring 

through fall. Critical Habitat Area 2, which includes near and offshore areas of the mid- and upper Inlet 

and nearshore areas of the lower Inlet, is used less during spring and summer, but it is used in fall and 

winter. Dispersed fall and winter feeding and transit areas occur in Critical Habitat Area 2.

3.5.1.1.3.11 Killer Whale (Southern Resident DPS)

The killer whale (Figure 3.5-13), also known as the orca, is one of the top marine predators. They are 

found in every ocean in the world, with the highest densities found in coastal temperate waters, and are 

the most widely distributed of all whales and dolphins. Killer whales can adapt to almost any condition, 

and are found in both open seas and coastal waters. Killer whales are highly social, and most live in social 

groups called pods. Pod members communicate with each other through clicks, whistles, and pulsed calls. 

Each pod in the eastern North Pacific possesses a unique set of calls that are learned and culturally 

transmitted among individuals. These calls maintain group cohesion and serve as family badges. Taken as 

Figure 3.5-12. Pod of Beluga Whales
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

121

a whole, the species has the most varied diet of all cetaceans, but different populations are usually 

specialized in their foraging behavior and diet. Resident killer whales exclusively eat fish, while Transient 

killer whales primarily eat marine mammals and squid (NMFS, No Date-a).

Photo Credit: NOAA Central Library Historical Image

Hunters and fishermen once targeted killer whales. As a result, historical threats to killer whales included 

commercial hunting, and culling to protect fisheries from killer whales. In addition, although live capture 

of killer whales for aquarium display and marine parks no longer occurs in the U.S., it remains a threat 

globally. Today, some killer whale populations face many other threats, including food limitations, 

chemical contaminants, and disturbances from vessel traffic and sound (NMFS, No Date-a). 

All killer whale populations are protected under the MMPA. Additionally, the Southern Resident 

population was listed as endangered under the ESA in 2006, and, along with the AT1 Transient population,

is listed as depleted under the MMPA. AT1 Transients, a subgroup of transient killer whales in the eastern 

North Pacific, has been reduced from 22 to seven whales since the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill (NMFS, No 

Date-a). The minimum historical population size of Southern Residents in the eastern North Pacific was 

about 140 animals. Following a live-capture fishery in the 1960s for use in marine mammal parks, 71 

animals remained in 1974. Although there was some growth in the population in the 1970s and 1980s, 

the population experienced a decline of almost 20 percent in the late 1990s (NMFS, No Date-a). The 

population increased to 99 whales in 1995, then declined to 79 whales in 2001, and 83 whales in 2016 

(Carretta et al., 2018). The current population estimate for the Eastern North Pacific Southern Resident 

stock is 72 animals, with a minimum population estimate of 72 individuals (Caretta et al., 2021). 

The Southern Resident stock is a trans-boundary stock including killer whales in inland Washington and 

southern British Columbia waters. Southern Resident killer whales range from central California to 

southeast Alaska. Most sightings have occurred in the summer in inland waters of Washington and 

southern British Columbia. However, pods belonging to this stock have also been sighted in coastal waters 

off southern Vancouver Island and Washington. The complete winter range of this stock is uncertain. Of 

the three pods comprising this stock, one is commonly sighted in inshore waters in winter, while the other 

two apparently spend more time offshore. These latter two pods have been sighted as far south as 

Monterey Bay and central California in recent years. They sometimes have also been seen entering the 

inland waters of Vancouver Island through Johnstone Strait in the spring (Carretta et al., 2020). 

Figure 3.5-13. Killer Whale 

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

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

122

The Southern Residents spend large amounts of time in core inland marine waters coinciding with 

congregations of migratory salmon returning from the Pacific Ocean to spawn in U.S. and Canadian rivers. 

The topographic and oceanographic features in these core areas include channels and shorelines used to 

assist with foraging. In November 2006, a final rule was issued designating approximately 6,630 km2 (2,560 

mi2

) of inland waters of Washington State as critical habitat for the Southern Resident killer whale DPS. In 

2014, NMFS accepted a petition requesting that critical habitat be revised to include Pacific Ocean marine 

waters along the west coast of the U.S. that constitute essential foraging and wintering areas for Southern 

Resident killer whales. Additionally, the petition requests that a primary constituent element (PCE) (i.e., 

the physical and biological features of a habitat that a species needs to survive and reproduce) for 

protective in-water sound levels be adopted for both currently designated critical habitat and the 

proposed revised critical habitat (NMFS, 2018b). In 2019, NMFS proposed to revise this critical habitat 

designation by expanding it to include six new areas along the U.S. west coast, while maintaining the 

currently designated critical habitat in inland waters of Washington. Specific new areas included 40,471 

km2 (15,626 mi2

) of marine waters between the 6.1-m (20-ft) depth contour and the 200-m (656-ft) depth 

contour from the U.S. international border with Canada south to Point Sur, California (NMFS, 2018b). The 

final rule for this revised critical habitat designation came out in 2021 (86 FR 41668, August 2, 2021).

3.5.1.1.3.12 Sperm Whale

Sperm whales are the largest of the toothed whales and have one of the widest global distributions of any 

marine mammal species. They are found in all deep oceans, from the equator to the edge of the pack ice 

in the Arctic and Antarctic. They are named after the waxy substance, spermaceti, found in their heads. 

Spermaceti was used in oil lamps, lubricants, and candles. Sperm whales were a prime target of the 

commercial whaling industry from 1800 to 1987. Whaling greatly reduced the sperm whale population. 

Whaling is no longer a major threat and its population is still recovering. Current threats include vessel 

strikes, entanglement in fishing gear, ocean noise, marine debris, climate change, and oil spills and 

contaminants (NMFS, No Date-a).

The sperm whale was listed as endangered under the Endangered Species Conservation Act in 1970. When 

the ESA was passed in 1973, the sperm whale was listed as endangered throughout its range. It is also 

listed as depleted under the MMPA. Currently, there is no exact accounting of the total number of sperm 

whales worldwide. The best estimate of worldwide sperm whale population is between 300,000 and 

450,000 individuals (NMFS, No Date-a). Sperm whales within the Pacific U.S. EEZ are divided into three 

discrete, non-contiguous areas: 1) California, Oregon and Washington waters, 2) waters around Hawai’i, 

and 3) Alaska waters. In the Atlantic U.S. EEZ, they are divided into the North Atlantic stock and the Gulf 

of Mexico stock.

The current population estimate for the North Pacific stock in Alaska is 345 animals, with a minimum 

population estimate of 244 individuals (Muto et al., 2020). However, current and historical abundance 

estimates of sperm whales in the North Pacific are based on limited data and are considered unreliable. 

Further, sperm whales are far-ranging and exhibit sex segregation and stock overlap that together make 

population size estimation difficult. The existing estimates are caveated and do not cover consistent areas.

The current population estimate for the California/Oregon/Washington stock is 1,997 animals, with a 

minimum population estimate of 1,270 individuals (Caretta et al., 2020). Sperm whales in the California 

Current have been identified as demographically independent from animals in Hawai’i and the Eastern 

Tropical Pacific, based on genetic analyses.
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

123

The current population estimate for the Hawai’i stock is 5,707 animals, with a minimum population 

estimate of 4,486 individuals (Caretta et al., 2021). In the eastern tropical Pacific, the abundance of sperm 

whales has been estimated as 22,700 whales; however, it is not known whether any or all of these animals 

routinely enter the U.S. EEZ of the Hawaiian Islands.

Several estimates from selected regions of sperm whale habitat exist for select time periods, however, at 

present there is no reliable estimate of total sperm whale abundance for the entire North Atlantic (Hayes 

et al., 2020). Sightings have been almost exclusively in the continental shelf edge and continental slope 

areas; however, there has been little or no survey effort beyond the slope. The current population 

estimate for the North Atlantic stock is 4,349 animals, with a minimum population estimate of 3,451 

individuals (Hayes et al., 2020).

Sperm whales hunt for food during deep dives that routinely reach depths of 600 m (2,000 ft) and can last 

for 45 minutes. They are capable of diving to depths of over 3,000 m (10,000 ft) for over 60 minutes. After 

long, deep dives, individuals come to the surface to breathe and recover for approximately nine minutes. 

Because sperm whales spend most of their time in deep waters, their diet consists of many larger species 

that also occupy deep ocean waters. This includes squid, sharks, skates, and fish (NMFS, No Date-a).

Sperm whales inhabit all of the world’s oceans. Their distribution is dependent on their food source and 

suitable conditions for breeding, and varies with the sex and age composition of the group. Sperm whale 

migrations are not as predictable or well understood as migrations of most baleen whales. In some midlatitudes, sperm whales seem to generally migrate north and south depending on the seasons, moving 

toward the poles in the summer. However, in tropical and temperate areas, there appears to be no 

obvious seasonal migration.

Sperm whales are distributed across the entire North Pacific and into the southern Bering Sea in summer, 

but the majority are thought to be south of 40o north in winter. Historically they concentrated seasonally 

along oceanic frontal zones, for example, in the subtropical frontal zone (ca. 28-34° north) and the 

subarctic frontal zones (ca. 40-43° north) (Muto et al., 2020). In Alaska, their northernmost boundary 

extends from Cape Navarin (62° north) to the Pribilof Islands, with whales most commonly found in the 

Gulf of Alaska and along the Aleutian Islands (Muto et al., 2020). The shallow continental shelf may 

prevent their movement into the northeastern Bering Sea and the Arctic Ocean. They are found yearround in the Gulf of Alaska, although they appear to be approximately twice as common in summer than 

in winter. This seasonality of detections is consistent with the hypothesis that sperm whales generally 

move to higher latitudes in summer and to lower latitudes in winter. Sperm whales are found year-round 

in California waters, but they reach peak abundance from April through mid-June and from the end of 

August through mid-November (Carretta et al., 2020). They are seen off Washington and Oregon in every 

season except winter. Sperm whales are widely distributed in the tropics and have been sighted 

throughout the Hawaiian EEZ, including nearshore waters of the main and Northwestern Hawaiian Islands 

(Carretta et al., 2020). Sperm whales summer in the Mid-Atlantic Bight off the eastern U.S. coast from 

Virginia to Massachusetts (Hayes et al., 2018). In winter, sperm whales concentrate east and northeast of 

Cape Hatteras, North Carolina. Female/juvenile groups inhabit temperate and tropical waters and rarely 

move as far north as the Canadian EEZ. Males have a wider range, including the Hudson Strait in Canada.

Sperm whales occur year-round in the northern Gulf of Mexico along the continental slope and in oceanic 

waters; information is limited for the southern Gulf of Mexico (Hayes et al., 2020). Satellite-tagging studies 

showed no discernible seasonal migrations except for Gulf-wide movements particularly along the 

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

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

124

3.5.1.1.3.13 False Killer Whale (Main Hawaiian Islands Insular DPS)

False killer whales are social animals found globally in all tropical and subtropical oceans and generally in 

deep offshore waters. They are often found in relatively small subgroups of a single to a few individuals 

that are associated with a larger aggregation that may spread over tens of kilometers (NMFS, No Date-a). 

These strong social bonds between groups and dispersion into small subgroups likely help them find prey. 

False killer whales are top predators that primarily hunt fish and squid. Fishery interaction is one of the 

main threats facing this species. False killer whales are known to take fish and bait off of fishing lines, 

which can lead to hooking and/or entanglement. This is especially a concern for false killer whales that 

interact with the Hawai’i longline fishery (NMFS, No Date-a).

Three populations or stocks of false killer whales occur in Hawai’i: the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands 

population, the pelagic population, and the endangered main Hawaiian Islands Insular population. The 

main Hawaiian Islands insular false killer whale population is estimated at 167 animals, with a minimum 

population estimate of 149 individuals (Carretta et al., 2022). Due to the very small population size and 

population decline in recent decades of the main Hawaiian Islands Insular false killer whale DPS, it was 

listed as endangered under the ESA in 2012. It is the only false killer whale population protected under 

the ESA. This stock is also listed as depleted under the MMPA.

Although the range of the main Hawaiian Islands Insular false killer whale DPS partially overlaps with the 

ranges of the Hawai’i pelagic and Northwestern Hawaiian Islands populations, genetic analyses, photoidentification, and social network analyses indicate that the main Hawaiian Islands Insular DPS consists of 

a tight social network that is socially unconnected with the other two Hawai’i-based populations (NMFS, 

No Date-a; Carretta et al., 2020).

False killer whales generally prefer offshore tropical to subtropical waters that are deeper than 1,000 m 

(3,300 ft). Both main Hawaiian Islands Insular false killer whales and Northwestern Hawaiian Islands false 

killer whales maintain a more island-associated habitat, preferring to remain close to the Hawaiian Islands. 

This is likely due to the islands’ unique oceanographic setting, which concentrates and aggregates prey. 

The range of the main Hawaiian Islands Insular false killer whale is a modified 70-km (44-mi) radius 

(approximately 39 nm) around the main Hawaiian Islands. The waters farther than 70 km (44 mi) from 

shore, from the Island of Oahu to Hawai’i Island out to the main Hawaiian Islands Insular stock boundary, 

are an overlap zone between the insular and pelagic stocks. The greatest offshore movements occur on 

the leeward (western) sides of the islands, where individuals tend to spread out over much larger areas, 

both near and far from shore. When on the windward (eastern) sides, individuals concentrate closer to 

shore. Movements between islands may occur over the course of a few days, moving from the windward 

to leeward side and back within a day (NMFS, No Date-a).

Critical habitat for the main Hawaiian Islands Insular false killer whale DPS was designated in 2018 for 

waters from the 45-m (150-ft) depth contour to the 3,200-m (10,500-ft) depth contour around the main 

Hawaiian Islands from Ni'ihau east to Hawai'i (83 FR 35062, July 24, 2018). The physical or biological 

features essential to the conservation of this DPS are: (1) island-associated marine habitat; (2) prey species 

of sufficient quantity, quality, and availability to support individual growth, reproduction, and 

development, as well as overall population growth; (3) waters free of pollutants of a type and amount 

harmful to the species, and (4) habitat free of anthropogenic sound that would significantly impair the 

value of the habitat for false killer whale use or occupancy.
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

125

3.5.1.2 Pinnipeds (Seals, Sea Lions, and Walrus)

Pinnipeds are the marine mammals that include the true seals, eared seals, and walruses. Phocids are the 

earless seals or true seals and can be identified by their lack of external ear flaps. They have ear holes and 

small front flippers used to move on land by flopping along on their bellies, as well as rear flippers; their 

front flippers are functionally different to those of otariids. At sea, true seals move their rear flippers left 

and right to propel themselves through the water. Otariids are the eared seals. This family includes sea 

lions and fur seals. Unlike true seals, otariids have external ear flaps. Their front flippers are large, and on 

land they are able to bring all four flippers underneath their bodies and walk on them. In the water, they 

swim using their front flippers like oars. The odobenids are the walruses. Both males and females have 

tusks and vacuum-like mouths for sucking up shellfish from the sea floor. 

Pinnipeds are amphibious animals, i.e., they venture onto land for extended periods of time, called 

“hauling-out”. They forage at sea but most come ashore or onto ice at some point during the year to mate, 

give birth, suckle their young, or to molt (Sea Grant, 2015). Many of their anatomical features reflect 

compromises needed to succeed in both marine and terrestrial environments. Pinnipeds have four 

webbed flippers in the front and rear used to propel their spindle-shaped bodies. Their sensory organs 

are adapted to function in both air and water; large eyes and well-developed whiskers allow feeding in 

dimly lit water; tail and external ears are small, limiting drag. Pinnipeds have retained canine teeth, but 

molars are modified for consuming prey whole. All pinnipeds have fur, which is shed or molted annually, 

but they are insulated primarily by blubber.

Pinnipeds are present in habitats ranging from ice to tropics, coastal to pelagic waters, and may live a 

migratory or sedentary existence. They are opportunistic feeders and consume their varied prey whole or 

in chunks. Many pinnipeds are capable of long, deep, repetitive dives (up to 1,370-m [4,500-ft] depths 

and two hours). This diving ability is possible because of several physiological traits similar to cetaceans, 

such as high blood volume and reduced heart rate (Schytte Blix, 2018).

All pinnipeds are protected by the MMPA throughout their ranges. Some species are also federally listed 

under the ESA either throughout their ranges or for certain DPSs. Additionally, some species have 

designated critical habitat. Table 3.5-2 lists the 15 species of pinnipeds (16 distinct species, subspecies, or 

DPS total) occurring throughout the action area, consisting of one odobenid; five otariids, one of which is 

ESA-listed as endangered with designated critical habitat, and one listed as threatened; and 10 phocids, 

one of which is ESA-listed as endangered with designated critical habitat, and two listed as threatened, 

both with designated critical habitat.
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

126

Table 3.5-2. Pinnipeds Occurring in the Action Area

Common Name Scientific Name

MMPA 

Depleted? ESA Status

Lead 

Agency Region*

Critical 

Habitat General Ecology

Walruses-Odobenids

Pacific walrus Odobenus rosmarus No -- USFWS AR -- Coastal, loose pack ice

Eared Seals-Otariids

Guadalupe fur seal Arctocephalus 

townsendi

Yes: throughout 

its range

Threatened NMFS WCR No Coastal, shelf, pelagic 

during foraging

Northern fur seal Callorhinus ursinus Yes: Pribilof 

Island/ Eastern 

Pacific stock

-- NMFS AR, WCR -- Pelagic, coastal

Steller sea lion

(Western DPS)

Eumetopias jubatus Yes: Western 

DPS

Endangered NMFS AR Yes Coastal, shelf, sea ice

Steller sea lion (Eastern 

DPS)

Eumetopias jubatus No -- NMFS WCR, AR Yes Coastal, shelf, sea ice

California sea lion Zalophus 

californianus

No -- NMFS WCR -- Coastal, shelf

Earless Seals-Phocids

Hooded seal Cystophora cristata No -- NMFS GAR -- Pack ice and pelagic

Bearded seal (Beringia 

DPS)

Erignathus barbatus 

nauticus

Yes: Beringia 

DPS

Threatened NMFS AR Yes Sea ice, shelf areas

Gray seal Halichoerus grypus No -- NMFS GAR -- Coastal, coastal waters

Ribbon seal Histriophoca 

fasciata

No -- NMFS AR -- Pack ice and pelagic

Northern elephant seal Mirounga 

angustirostris

No -- NMFS WCR, AR -- Coastal to pelagic during 

foraging and migrating

Hawaiian monk seal Neomonachus 

schauinslandi

Yes: throughout 

its range

Endangered NMFS PIR Yes Coastal, reefs, submerged 

banks, deepwater coral 

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

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

127

Common Name Scientific Name

MMPA 

Depleted? ESA Status

Lead 

Agency Region*

Critical 

Habitat General Ecology

Harp seal Pagophilus 

groenlandicus

No -- NMFS GAR -- Pack ice and pelagic

Ringed seal (Arctic 

subspecies)

Phoca hispida Yes: Arctic 

subspecies

Threatened NMFS AR Yes Pack ice

Spotted seal (Bering 

Sea DPS)

Phoca largha No -- NMFS AR -- Seasonal sea ice, coastal, 

pelagic

Harbor seal Phoca vitulina No -- NMFS GAR, WCR, 

AR

-- Coastal waters

Source: ECOS, No Date-a; NMFS, No Date-a

*GAR = Greater Atlantic Region (includes the U.S. portions of the Great Lakes, New England, and the mid-Atlantic); SER = Southeast Region (includes the 

southern portion of the U.S. Eastern Seaboard, the U.S. Caribbean Islands [Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands], and the Gulf of Mexico); AR = Alaska Region 

(includes Alaskan waters and the Arctic); WCR = West Coast Region (includes coastal California, Oregon, and Washington); PIR = Pacific Islands Region (includes 

Hawai’i and territories of the U.S.)
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Assessment Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

128

3.5.1.2.1 Pinniped Sound Production and Hearing

Pinnipeds produce a wide range of vocalizations, most occurring at relatively low frequencies (Southall et 

al., 2007). They communicate acoustically in air and water and have different hearing capabilities in the 

two media. The main function of pinniped vocalizations appears to be to elicit the attention of recipients 

(Schusterman et al., 2001). In-air vocalizations are used to defend territories, attract females, and 

maintain the mother-pup bond, while underwater calls are mainly used to establish dominance.

Southall et al. (2007) considered pinnipeds as a single functional hearing group; more recently, however, 

pinnipeds were placed in two separate hearing groups, with phocids in one group and otariids and 

odobenids in another (NMFS, 2018a; Southall et al., 2019). Phocid species have consistently demonstrated 

an extended frequency range of hearing compared to otariids, especially in the higher frequency range. 

Phocid ears are anatomically distinct from otariid ears so that phocids are hypothetically more adapted 

for underwater hearing (NMFS, 2018a). Walrus have ears that are somewhat intermediate to a freely 

mobile ear and the ear type characteristic of phocids. Few data are available regarding acoustic sensitivity 

in walruses, so more research on walrus auditory anatomy would support further evaluation of their 

characterization within the marine carnivores group both in air and water (Southall et al., 2019; NMFS, 

2018a) either within phocid or non-phocid hearing groups or, potentially, as a distinct hearing group. 

As pinnipeds are amphibious mammals, their hearing differs in air and in water; thus, separate sound 

exposure criteria are required for each medium. Pinnipeds are sensitive to a broader range of sound 

frequencies in water than in air, and there are differences in the functional hearing range among otariids, 

phocids, and odobenids, especially under water, as well as differences in hearing sensitivity: phocids are 

more sensitive in air and underwater with especially good sensitivity at low frequencies. Southall et al. 

(2007, 2019) categorized pinnipeds as having functional underwater hearing between 75 Hz and 75 kHz 

and functional aerial hearing between 75 Hz and 30 kHz. NMFS (2018d) classified phocids as having 

functional underwater hearing between 50 Hz to 86 kHz and otariids as 60 Hz to 39 kHz. The audible range 

of hearing for walrus extends from 60 Hz to 23 kHz in air; the hearing range in water is expected to be 

similar or broader at high frequencies (Reichmuth et al., 2020). Although the upper hearing range for 

walrus in water is not precisely known, using the ratio of the in-water to in-air corner frequency from 

Southall et al. (2019) to scale up the walrus hearing range measured in air provides a good estimate for 

their high frequency cutoff in water: 34 kHz (JASCO, 2022)6

.

3.5.1.2.2 Regional Distribution of Pinnipeds

Pinnipeds are widely distributed throughout all major oceans. Many pinnipeds undertake seasonal 

migrations between breeding/pupping grounds and feeding areas, which are often at higher latitudes. 

Walruses and some phocids migrate with the seasonally-changing location of pack ice. However, some 

pinniped species remain year-round in a general region. Ice-breeding phocids tend to be solitary or form 

dispersed breeding aggregations. In contrast, other phocids, many otariids, and walruses aggregate in 

large groups to breed, pup, or molt (e.g., the elephant seals and sea lions). Most pinnipeds have a coastal 

distribution, but some occur further offshore, including foraging northern fur seals and Steller sea lions. 

Elephant seals are one of the pinnipeds that are pelagic much of the year.

6 For walrus, this calculation is 23 kHz * 12.8 kHz/8.66kHz = 34 kHz. The two latter numbers come from Table 3 of 

Southall et al. (2019).
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Assessment Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

129

3.5.1.2.2.1 Greater Atlantic Region

Four pinnipeds (hooded seal, gray seal, harp seal, and harbor seal) occur in the Greater Atlantic Region, 

as indicated in Table 3.5-2. None are ESA-listed. There is no designated critical habitat in the region.

3.5.1.2.2.2 Southeast Region

While harbor seals and gray seals can occur in the Southeast Region as vagrants, there are no known

reliable occurrences. No other pinnipeds occur in this region.

3.5.1.2.2.3 West Coast Region

Six pinnipeds (Guadalupe fur seal, northern fur seal, Steller sea lion, California sea lion, northern elephant 

seal, and harbor seal) occur in the West Coast Region, as indicated in Table 3.5-2. The Guadalupe fur seal 

is ESA-listed. The Steller sea lion has designated critical habitat in the region as shown in Figure 3.5-14.

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

Figure 3.5-14. Pinniped Designated Critical Habitat in the West Coast Region
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Assessment Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

130

3.5.1.2.2.4 Alaska Region

Ten pinnipeds (one odobenid, three otariids, and six phocids) occur in the Alaska Region, as indicated in 

Table 3.5-2. One of the otariids is ESA-listed: the Steller sea lion (Western DPS), and two of the phocids 

are ESA-listed: the bearded seal (Beringia DPS) and ringed seal (Arctic subspecies). All of these species also 

have designated critical habitat in the region as shown in Figure 3.5-15.

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

Figure 3.5-15. Pinniped Designated Critical Habitat in the Alaska Region

3.5.1.2.2.5 Pacific Islands Region

One pinniped (Hawaiian monk seal) occurs in the Pacific Islands Region, as indicated in Table 3.5-2. The 

Hawaiian monk seal is ESA-listed, and it also has designated critical habitat in the region as shown in Figure 

3.5-16.
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Assessment Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

131

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

Figure 3.5-16. Pinniped Designated Critical Habitat in the Pacific Islands Region

3.5.1.2.3 Threatened and Endangered Pinnipeds

Five distinct populations of pinnipeds are ESA-listed in the action area; two are otariids and three are 

phocids. One listed otariid and one listed phocid also have designated critical habitat. These pinnipeds are 

shown in Table 3.5-2 and described in more detail below.

3.5.1.2.3.1 Guadalupe Fur Seal

Guadalupe fur seals are generally solitary and thought to be non-social animals when at sea. They 

primarily feed at night on coastal and pelagic squid, and small pelagic fish (e.g., mackerel, sardine, and 

lanternfish) by diving to average depths of 20 m (65 ft) with maximum depths of about 75 m (250 ft). 

Commercial sealers heavily hunted Guadalupe fur seals in the 1700s to the 1800s until they were thought 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Assessment Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

132

to be extinct in the early 1900s (NMFS, No Date-a). They were rediscovered breeding in a cave on 

Guadalupe Island in 1954. The Guadalupe fur seal population has continued to increase from the small 

remnant group on Guadalupe Island due to protection by the Mexican Government. Current threats 

include entanglement in and incidental hooking on commercial and recreational fishing gear, oil spills, 

coastal development, and military activities (NMFS, No Date-a).

Guadalupe fur seals live in the waters off southern California and the Pacific coast of Mexico. Guadalupe 

fur seals generally do not migrate, although they have been documented traveling great distances from 

their breeding grounds. During the breeding season, they are found in coastal rocky habitats and caves. 

Their breeding grounds are almost entirely on Guadalupe Island, off the Pacific coast of Mexico, with 

recent re-colonization off Baja California on the San Benito Archipelago (NMFS, No Date-a). A small 

number of Guadalupe fur seals have also been reported on San Miguel Island in the Channel Islands off 

southern California. Little is known about their whereabouts during the non-breeding season. Guadalupe 

fur seals are not common along the West Coast of the U.S., although strandings occur almost annually in 

California waters, and animals are increasingly observed in Oregon and Washington waters (Carretta et 

al., 2017). 

Guadalupe fur seals were listed as threatened under the ESA in 1985, and they are listed as depleted 

under the MMPA. Guadalupe furseals within the U.S. Pacific EEZ are aggregated into a single management 

unit under the MMPA: the Mexico stock (Caretta et al., 2020). The most recent estimate of population 

size is based on pup count data collected in 2013 and a range of correction factors applied to pup counts 

to account for uncounted age classes and pre-census pup mortality (Carretta et al., 2020). Resulting 

estimates were 34,187 individuals but do not include animals at San Benito Island, where surveys counted 

a maximum of 3,710 animals and 1,494 animals in July of 2014 and 2015, respectively (Carretta et al., 

2020). The San Benito Island rookery is represented almost exclusively by immature animals migrating 

from Guadalupe Island, and negligible numbers of pups are produced at San Benito. The minimum 

population estimate for Guadalupe fur seals is 31,019 animals.

3.5.1.2.3.2 Steller Sea Lion (Western DPS)

Steller sea lions (Figure 3.5-17) were first listed as threatened under the ESA in 1990. Due to genetic, 

morphological, ecological, and population trend data supporting the overall distinctiveness, two DPSs for 

the Steller sea lion were recognized in 1997 (NMFS, No Date-a):

• The Western DPS includes all Steller sea lions originating from rookeries west of Cape Suckling 

(144° west longitude). The Western DPS ESA listing status was changed to endangered when it 

was established, due to continued declines; it remains listed as endangered today.

• The Eastern DPS includes Steller sea lions originating from rookeries east of Cape Suckling. The 

Eastern DPS kept a status of threatened when it was established; by 2013, it had recovered 

enough to be delisted off the endangered species list.

All Steller sea lions are protected under the MMPA, and the Western DPS is also designated as 

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

Final Programmatic Environmental Assessment Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

133

Photo Credit: Capt. Budd Christman, NOAA

Historically, Steller sea lions were highly abundant throughout many parts of the North Pacific. Indigenous 

peoples and other settlers hunted them for their meat, hides, oil, and other products. In addition, they 

were killed for predator control and commercial harvests, causing their numbers to decrease. Threats that 

continue today include the effects of fisheries on prey, climate change, predation, exposure to toxic 

substances, incidental take due to interactions with active fishing gear, illegal shooting, disturbance, 

disease and parasites, vessel strikes, entanglement, and illegal feeding (NMFS, No Date-a).

The western stock of Steller sea lions decreased from an estimated 220,000 to 265,000 animals in the late 

1970s to less than 50,000 in 2000. While the western population has been increasing slowly overall since 

2003, it is still declining quickly in large areas of its range. The current and minimum population estimates 

for the Western U.S. stock is approximately 52,932 animals (Muto et al., 2022). 

Steller sea lions prefer the colder temperate to subarctic waters of the North Pacific Ocean. They need 

both terrestrial and aquatic habitats. Steller sea lions are opportunistic predators, foraging and feeding 

primarily at night on over a hundred species of fish. They forage near shore and in open waters. In the 

non-breeding season, some adult females may spend long periods of time foraging well off the continental 

shelf while others forage much nearer to terrestrial sites. During the breeding season, a female must 

forage close enough to her rookery to return often and nurse her young. Steller sea lions, especially males, 

can travel long distances in a season. Steller sea lions need undisturbed land habitat to rest, molt, socialize, 

mate, give birth, and nurse small pups during the breeding season (NMFS, No Date-a). They are highly 

social and may rest in large groups, overlapping their bodies. At sea, they are seen alone or in small groups, 

but may gather in large "rafts" at the surface, including areas near important seasonal prey resources. 

Haul-outs and rookeries usually consist of beaches, ledges, and rocky reefs. Rookeries are normally 

occupied from late May to early July. In the Bering Sea, sea lions may also haul out on sea ice. The locations 

of rookeries and haul outs change little from year to year.

Steller sea lions are distributed mainly around the coasts along the North Pacific Ocean rim from northern 

Hokkaido, Japan through the Kuril Islands and Okhotsk Sea, the Aleutian Islands and Bering Sea, the 

southern coast of Alaska, and south to central California (NMFS, No Date-a; Muto et al., 2018). The 

Western DPS includes Steller sea lions that originate from rookeries west of 144° west longitude (Cape 

Suckling): those in the Gulf of Alaska, the Aleutian Islands, the Bering Sea, and Asia. The Eastern DPS 

includes sea lions originating from rookeries in southeast Alaska, British Columbia, Washington, Oregon, 

Figure 3.5-17. Steller Sea 

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

Final Programmatic Environmental Assessment Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

134

and California. The foraging ranges of the two DPSs overlap, especially in the non-breeding season. In 

recent years, a “mixing zone” has also become established in northern southeast Alaska on at least two 

new rookeries partially established by Western DPS females.

Critical habitat for Steller sea lions was first designated in 1993 and includes 66 specific sites (26 rookeries 

and 40 haul outs) in Alaska. It also includes a 32-km (20-nm) buffer around all major haul outs and 

rookeries, as well as associated terrestrial, air, and aquatic zones. Special foraging areas in Alaska have 

also been designated critical habitat for Steller sea lions, including the Shelikof Strait area of the Gulf of 

Alaska, the Bogoslof area in the Bering Sea shelf, and the Seguam Pass area in the central Aleutian Islands 

(58 FR 45269, August 27, 1993).

3.5.1.2.3.3 Bearded Seal (Beringia DPS)

Bearded seals are the largest of the northern phocids. There are two currently recognized subspecies of 

the bearded seal: E. b. barbatus, often described as inhabiting the Atlantic sector, and E. b. nauticus, 

inhabiting the Pacific sector (NMFS, No Date-a; Muto et al., 2018). Although subsistence harvest of 

bearded seals occurs in some parts of the species’ range, there is little or no evidence that these harvests 

currently pose or are likely to pose a significant threat. While the U.S. does not allow commercial harvest 

of marine mammals, such harvests are permitted in some other portions of the species’ range; however, 

there is currently no significant commercial harvest of bearded seals and significant harvests seem unlikely 

in the foreseeable future. Current threats include climate change, increased shipping activity, sound and 

activity from oil and gas exploration, and development (NMFS, No Date-a).

The Okhotsk (foreign) and Beringia (U.S.) DPSs of the Pacific sector subspecies were listed as threatened 

under the ESA in 2013, and they are also designated as depleted under the MMPA. Critical habitat was 

designed in 2022 and comprises an area of marine habitat in the Bering, Chukchi, and Beaufort seas (87 

FR 19180, April 1, 2022). Accurately assessing bearded seal abundance and trends is hindered by their 

broad distribution, sea-ice habitat, logistical challenges in data collection, and cross-political boundaries; 

thus, a reliable population estimate for the entire stock is not currently available. It is estimated that there 

are approximately 500,000 bearded seals worldwide (NMFS, No Date). The current population estimate 

for the Beringia stock is 301,836 animals, with a minimum population estimate of 273,676 individuals 

(Muto et al., 2020).

Bearded seals primarily feed on or near the sea bottom on a variety of invertebrates (e.g., shrimps, crabs, 

clams, and whelks) and some fish (e.g., cod and sculpin). While foraging, they typically dive to depths of 

less than 100 m (328 ft). They are not known to spend much time in deep water and seem prefer to forage 

in waters less than 200 m (650 ft) deep where they can reach the sea floor (NMFS, No Date-a). 

Bearded seals inhabit Arctic and sub-Arctic waters that are relatively shallow (primarily less than about 

490 m [1,600 ft] deep) and seasonally ice-covered. Typically, they occupy sea ice habitat that is broken 

and drifting with natural areas of open water. Sea ice provides some protection from predators, such as 

polar bears, during birthing and nursing. Sea ice also provides bearded seals a haul-out platform for 

molting and resting. Bearded seals are solitary and can be seen resting on ice floes with their heads facing 

downward into the water. This allows them to quickly escape into the sea if pursued by a predator. 

Bearded seals also have been seen sleeping vertically in open water with their heads on the water surface 

(NMFS, No Date-a).

Bearded seals are circumpolar in their distribution, extending from the Arctic Ocean (85° north) south to 

Hokkaido (45° north) in the western Pacific (NMFS, No Date-a). In U.S. waters, they are found off the coast 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Assessment Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

135

of Alaska over the continental shelf in the Bering, Chukchi, and Beaufort Seas. Because bearded seals are 

closely associated with sea ice, particularly pack ice, their seasonal distribution and movements are linked 

to seasonal changes in ice conditions. The shallow shelf of the Bering and Chukchi Seas provides the largest 

continuous area of habitat for bearded seals. In late winter and early spring, bearded seals are widely but 

not uniformly distributed in the broken, drifting pack ice, where they tend to avoid the coasts and areas 

of fast ice. To remain associated with their preferred ice habitat, most adult seals in the Bering Sea are 

thought to move north through the Bering Strait in late spring and summer as the ice melts and retreats. 

They then spend the summer and early fall at the edge of the Chukchi and Beaufort Sea pack ice and at 

the fragmented edge of multi-year ice. Some bearded seals—mostly juveniles—remain near the coasts of 

the Bering and Chukchi Seas during summer and early fall, where they are often found in bays, estuaries, 

and river mouths. As the ice forms again in the fall and winter, most bearded seals are thought to move 

south with the advancing ice edge (NMFS, No Date-a).

3.5.1.2.3.4 Hawaiian Monk Seal

The Hawaiian monk seal (Figure 3.5-18) is one of the most endangered seal species in the world. The 

Hawaiian monk seal is the last surviving species in its genus, and is endemic to the 2,400-km (1,500-mi)-

long Hawaiian Islands archipelago, from Hawai’i Island to Kure Atoll, occurring nowhere else in the world. 

The population overall has been declining for over six decades, and current numbers are only about onethird of historic population levels. Importantly, however, the prolonged decline has slowed over the last 

10 years due to recovery efforts. The current threats that Hawaiian monk seals face include food 

limitations in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands, especially for juveniles and sub-adults, entanglement in 

marine debris, and human interactions, especially in the main Hawaiian Islands. These human interactions 

include bycatch in fishing gear, mother-pup disturbance on beaches, and exposure to disease. Other 

threats to Hawaiian monk seals include loss of haul-out and pupping beaches due to erosion in the 

Northwestern Hawaiian Islands, disease outbreaks, shark predation, male aggression towards females, 

and low genetic diversity (NMFS, No Date-a).

Photo Credit: NOAA/PIFSC/HMSRP

Hawaiian monk seals were listed as endangered under the ESA in 1976, and they are listed as depleted 

under the MMPA; they are also protected under State of Hawai’i law. Critical habitat for the Hawaiian 

monk seal was initially designated in 1986, and revised critical habitat was designated in 2015. Specific 

designated areas include sixteen occupied locations within the range of the species: ten areas in the 

Figure 3.5-18. Hawaiian

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

Final Programmatic Environmental Assessment Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

136

Northwestern Hawaiian Islands and six in the main Hawaiian Islands. These areas contain one or a 

combination of habitat types: preferred pupping and nursing areas, significant haul-out areas, and/or 

marine foraging areas that support conservation for the species. Specific critical habitat areas are 

described in detail in the final rule (76 FR 50926 to 50988, August 17, 2011).

Though Hawaiian monk seal subpopulations often exhibit variation in demographic parameters (such as 

abundance trends and survival rates), they are connected by animal movement throughout the species’ 

range, and genetic analysis indicates the species is a single panmictic population (i.e., random mating 

within a breeding population); therefore, the Hawaiian monk seal is considered a single stock (Carretta et 

al., 2020). The population of Hawaiian monk seals is estimated to be 1,437 seals, with a minimum 

population estimate of 1,376 animals (Carretta et al., 2022). 

The species is well below its optimum sustainable population and has not recovered from past declines

that began in the late 1950s and continued until recently. Although this decline means that a full recovery 

of the species is a long way off, there have been some relatively recent, encouraging developments, 

including (NMFS, No Date): 1) apparent recolonization and significant growth of the main Hawaiian Islands 

monk seal subpopulation from low numbers to approximately 300 over the past two or more decades, 

and 2) overall species population growth of three percent each year between 2014 and 2016.

Hawaiian monk seals can hold their breath for up to 20 minutes and dive more than 550 m (1,800 ft); 

however, they usually dive an average of six minutes to depths of less than 60 m (200 ft) to forage at the 

sea floor. They are mostly solitary and do not live in colonies, but they do sometimes lie near each other 

in small groups. They usually sleep on beaches, sometimes for days at a time. They also occasionally sleep 

in small underwater caves. Monk seals do not migrate seasonally, but some seals have traveled hundreds 

of kilometers in the open ocean. Individual seals often frequent the same beaches over and over, but they 

do not defend territories (NMFS, No Date-a).

Hawaiian monk seals are found throughout the entire Hawaiian archipelago. The majority of Hawaiian 

monk seals live in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands, and a smaller population lives in the main Hawaiian 

Islands. There have also been rare sightings of Hawaiian monk seals, as well as a single birth, at Johnston 

Atoll, the closest atoll southwest of the Hawaiian Islands (NMFS, No Date-a). Monk seals live in warm, 

subtropical waters and spend two-thirds of their time at sea. They occur in the waters surrounding atolls 

and islands and areas farther offshore on reefs and submerged banks; they also use deepwater coral beds 

as foraging habitat. When on land, monk seals haul-out to rest, breed, give birth, and molt on sand, corals, 

and volcanic rock shorelines. They prefer sandy, protected beaches surrounded by shallow waters for 

pupping.

3.5.1.2.3.5 Ringed Seal (Arctic subspecies)

Ringed seals are the smallest and most common Arctic seal. There are five currently recognized subspecies 

of the ringed seal: Arctic ringed seals in the Arctic Basin and adjacent seas, including the Bering and 

Labrador Seas; Okhotsk ringed seals in the Sea of Okhotsk; Baltic ringed seals in the Baltic Sea; Ladoga 

ringed seals in Lake Ladoga, Russia; and Saimaa ringed seals in Lake Saimaa, Finland (NMFS, No Date-a; 

Muto et al., 2018). These subspecies were all listed as endangered or threatened under the ESA in 2013, 

and they are also listed as depleted under the MMPA. Critical habitat was designed in 2022 and comprises 

an area of marine habitat in the Bering, Chukchi, and Beaufort seas (87 FR 19232, April 1, 2022). Loss of 

sea ice and snow cover on the ice poses the main threat to this species. Although subsistence harvest of 

Arctic ringed seals occurs in some parts of this subspecies’ range, harvest levels appear to be sustainable. 

While the U.S. does not allow commercial harvest of marine mammals, such harvests are permitted in 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Assessment Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

137

other portions of the species’ range. This has caused population declines in some regions in the past but 

has generally been restricted since then. Other threats to the ringed seal include climate change, 

entanglement in fishing gear, increasing Arctic shipping activity, sound and activity from offshore oil and 

gas exploration, and development (NMFS, No Date-a).

The Arctic ringed seal is the most abundant of the five ringed seal subspecies. Although no accurate 

estimate exists, there are probably more than 2 million Arctic ringed seals worldwide. There is one 

recognized stock of (Arctic) ringed seals in U.S. waters: the Arctic stock. Although a reliable population 

estimate for the entire stock is not available, research programs have developed survey methods that 

have been used to determine abundance estimates for part of the range of the stock. The estimated 

population size for this stock is 171,418 animals, with a minimum population estimate of 158,507 

individuals (Muto et al., 2020). However, the actual number of ringed seals in the U.S. portion of the Bering 

Sea is likely much higher, perhaps by a factor of two or more. Researchers expect to provide a population 

estimate, corrected for availability bias, for the entire Arctic stock of ringed seals once the final Bering Sea 

results are combined with the results from spring surveys of the Chukchi Sea (conducted in 2016) and 

Beaufort Sea (in 2020).

Ringed seals do not live in large groups and are usually found alone, but they may occur in large groups 

during the molting season. Ringed seals eat a wide variety of mostly small prey. Despite regional and 

seasonal variations in the diet of ringed seals, fishes of the cod family tend to dominate the diet in many 

areas from late fall through spring. Crustaceans appear to become more important in many areas during 

the open-water season and often dominate the diet of young seals. While foraging, ringed seals dive to 

depths of up to 45 m (150 ft) or more.

Ringed seals are circumpolar and are found in all seasonally ice-covered seas of the Northern Hemisphere 

and in certain freshwater lakes (NMFS, No Date-a). They range throughout the Arctic Basin and southward 

into adjacent seas, including the Bering and Labrador Seas. They are also found in the Sea of Okhotsk and 

Sea of Japan in the western North Pacific and the Baltic Sea in the North Atlantic. Landlocked subspecies 

inhabit Lakes Ladoga (Russia) and Saimaa (Finland). During winter and spring in the U.S., ringed seals are 

found throughout the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas; they occur in the Bering Sea as far south as Bristol Bay 

in years of extensive ice coverage. Most ringed seals that winter in the Bering and Chukchi Seas are 

thought to migrate northward in spring with the receding ice edge and spend summer in the pack ice of 

the northern Chukchi and Beaufort Seas.

Throughout their range, ringed seals have an affinity for ice-covered waters and are well-adapted to 

occupying heavily ice-covered areas throughout the fall, winter, and spring by using the stout claws on 

their fore flippers to maintain breathing holes in the ice. Ringed seals remain in contact with the ice most 

of the year and normally pup and nurse pups on the ice in snow-covered lairs (snow caves) in late winter 

through early spring. The ice and snow caves provide some protection from predators, though polar bears 

spend much of their time on sea ice hunting ringed seals, which are their primary prey. Snow caves also 

protect ringed seal pups from extreme cold. As the temperatures warm and the snow covering their lairs 

melts during spring, ringed seals transition from lair use to basking on the surface of the ice near breathing

holes, lairs, or cracks in the ice as they undergo their annual molt (NMFS, No Date-a; Muto et al., 2018). 

3.5.1.2.4 Pinnipeds Hunted for Subsistence

Species of pinnipeds hunted for subsistence by Alaska native communities that are not also listed as 

threatened or endangered under the ESA are described below. Subsistence practices and analysis of 

impacts of subsistence hunting are discussed in Section 3.17 Environmental Justice. 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Assessment Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

138

3.5.1.2.4.1 Northern Fur Seal

Northern fur seals primarily inhabit two types of habitats: open ocean and rocky or sandy beaches on 

islands for resting, reproduction, and molting. They seasonally breed on six islands in the eastern North 

Pacific Ocean and Bering Sea in the U.S.: St. Paul, Bogoslof, St. George, Sea Lion Rock, San Miguel, and 

South Farallon. The Pribilof Islands, the four-island archipelago off the coast of Alaska, support the largest 

aggregation of northern fur seals, about half of the world’s northern fur seal population. In spring, most 

northern fur seals migrate north to breeding colonies in the Bering Sea. Territorial adult male northern 

fur seals leave their breeding colonies in August and are thought to spend most of their time in the Bering 

Sea and North Pacific Ocean along the Aleutian Islands. Pregnant adult females begin their winter 

migration in November and generally travel to either the central North Pacific Ocean or to offshore areas 

along the west coast of North America to feed. During summer and autumn, these seals intermittently 

fast while on land and feed at sea (NMFS, No Date-a). The Pribilof Islands/eastern Pacific stock is listed as 

depleted under the MMPA (NMFS, No Date-a). 

3.5.1.2.4.2 Harbor Seal

Harbor seals are one of the most common marine mammals along both the west and east coasts of the 

U.S. On the east coast, harbor seals are found from the Canadian Arctic to New York and occasionally as 

far south as the Carolinas. On the west coast, they are found from California to the Bering Sea. They are 

typically non-migratory and stay within 24 to 50 km (15 to 31 mi) of their home. NMFS has identified five 

stocks of harbor seals in the U.S.: Alaska, California, Oregon-Washington coastal, Washington inland, and 

western North Atlantic. The harbor seal is protected under MMPA throughout its range (NMFS, No Datea).

3.5.1.2.4.3 Ice Seals

Bearded, ringed, spotted, and ribbon seals are collectively called ice seals because of their association 

with sea ice for feeding, resting, and pupping. The geographic distribution of bearded and ringed seals 

and details of their status under ESA and MMPA are described above under Threatened and Endangered

Species. Ribbon and spotted seals, which are not ESA-listed, are described here.

Ribbon seals commonly occur in the Sea of Okhotsk and Bering Sea. More specifically, in U.S. waters they 

are found in the Bering Sea and in the Chukchi and western Beaufort Seas. Ribbon seals spend most of

their time in the open ocean and the remainder on pack ice during spring to give birth, nurse pups, and 

molt. During summer, only a small number of ribbon seals are hauled out on the ice since ice melts 

completely in the Sea of Okhotsk, and the Bering Sea ice recedes north. Most ribbon seals are only seen 

again when the sea ice reforms in winter. Ribbon seals protected under the MMPA and included in NMFS’ 

Species of Concern list (NMFS, No Date-a).

Spotted seals are widely distributed on the continental shelf of the Beaufort, Chukchi, southeastern East 

Siberian, Bering, and Okhotsk seas; south through the Sea of Japan; and into the Yellow Sea. In U.S. waters, 

spotted seals migrate south from Chukchi Sea through the Bering Strait from October to November ahead 

of advancing sea ice. They spend the winter in the Bering Sea in the annual pack ice over the continental 

shelf. During spring, they migrate to coastal habitats after the sea ice retreats. The foreign DPS of spotted 

seals and the southern DPS are listed as threatened under ESA and depleted under MMPA (NMFS, No 

Date-a).
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Assessment Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

139

3.5.1.3 Sirenians (Manatees)

Sirenians are an order of fully aquatic, herbivorous mammals that inhabit swamps, rivers, estuaries, 

marine wetlands, and coastal marine waters. Sirenians currently comprise the families Dugongidae (the 

dugong) and Trichechidae (manatees) with a total of four species, only one of which occurs in the U.S., 

the West Indian manatee (Figure 3.5-19) with two distinct subspecies (Table 3.5-3). The remaining three 

sirenian species do not occur in the action area. 

Photo Credit: David A. Straz, Jr., Manatee Critical Care Center

3.5.1.3.1 Sirenian Sound Production and Hearing

Manatees have a history of negative interaction with people. Due to their slow swimming speeds, 

tendency to linger near the water surface, and low profile at the surface, their main issue has been with 

vessel strikes, particularly by small watercraft. Vessel sound may also be a concern, but there is little other 

information available about manatee responses to other sound sources, including active sonar. 

Mysticetes, although distant relatives, are the most closely related group of marine mammals 

taxonomically and share important behavioral traits (e.g., grazing). Southall et al. (2019) indicates that 

sirenian hearing can extend from low frequencies (< 5 kHz) to above 60 kHz, and sound production for 

sirenians can range between 0.15 kHz and 22 kHz (Southall et al., 2019).

3.5.1.3.2 Regional Distribution of Sirenians

Manatees occur mainly in the Southeast Region of the action area, although they have been observed on 

occasion further north in the Greater Atlantic Region. 

3.5.1.3.2.1 Southeast Region

Both subspecies of the West Indian manatee occur in the Southeast Region, as indicated in Table 3.5-3. 

Both subspecies are ESA-listed, but only the Florida subspecies has designated critical habitat as shown in 

Figure 3.5-20.

Figure 3.5-19. West

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

Final Programmatic Environmental Assessment Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

140

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

Figure 3.5-20. Sirenian 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

141

Table 3.5-3. Sirenians Occurring in the Action Area

Common Name Scientific Name

MMPA 

Depleted? ESA Status

Lead 

Agency Region*

Critical 

Habitat General Ecology

Manatees

West Indian manatee

(Antillean subspecies)

Trichechus manatus 

manatus

Yes: Antillean 

subspecies

Threatened USFWS SER No Submerged aquatic 

vegetation in shallow 

freshwater, brackish water, 

and marine waters

West Indian manatee

(Florida subspecies)

Trichechus manatus 

latirostris

Yes: Florida 

subspecies

Threatened USFWS SER Yes Submerged aquatic 

vegetation in shallow 

freshwater, brackish water, 

and marine waters

Source: ECOS, No Date-a

*SER = Southeast Region (includes the southern portion of the U.S. Eastern Seaboard, the U.S. Caribbean Islands [Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands], and 

the Gulf of Mexico)
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

142

3.5.1.3.3 Threatened and Endangered Sirenians

The West Indian manatee is ESA-listed in the action area, and one of the two manatee subspecies has

designated critical habitat. These sirenians are shown in Table 3.5-3 and described in more detail below.

3.5.1.3.3.1 West Indian Manatee (Antillean subspecies and Florida subspecies)

The West Indian manatee is found in the Southeast Region throughout the Caribbean basin and in the 

southeastern U.S. where it reaches the northern limit of its range. It is limited to the tropics and subtropics 

due to an extremely low metabolic rate and lack of a thick layer of insulating body fat, and prolonged 

exposure to water temperatures below 20° Celsius (C) (68° Fahrenheit [F]) can be lethal. Collisions with 

motorboats are the primary cause of human-related deaths; since manatees swim slowly just below or at 

the surface of the water, they are especially vulnerable to collisions with boats. Florida manatees are also 

threatened by loss of warm-water habitat, periodic die-offs due to red tides, and unusually cold weather 

events.

Two subspecies of West Indian manatee are recognized: the Antillean subspecies (T. m. manatus) and the 

Florida subspecies (T. m. latirostris). This subspeciation could reflect reproductive isolation brought on by 

the intemperate northern coast of the Gulf of Mexico and characteristically strong currents found in the 

Straits of Florida (USFWS, 2014a; USFWS, 2014b). Florida manatees are found throughout the 

southeastern U.S., and Antillean manatees are found in Puerto Rico in the U.S. EEZ, as well as in other 

parts of the Caribbean, Central America, and South America (82 FR 16668, April 5, 2017).

The West Indian manatee was listed as endangered under the ESA in 1967, and it was reclassified as 

threatened in 2017 (82 FR 16668, April 5, 2017). It is also a strategic stock under the MMPA. The Florida 

subspecies is also protected under the Florida Manatee Sanctuary Act. Florida manatees are managed 

jointly by both the USFWS and the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. The Antillean 

manatee population is managed jointly by the USFWS and the Puerto Rico Department of Natural and 

Environmental Resources. Critical habitat was designated for the Florida manatee 1976 and includes 

coastal areas, inland waterways, headwaters, bays, estuaries, and rivers as detailed in the final rule 

(41FR41914). No critical habitat has been designated outside of Florida. The most recent surveys to 

determine the population of the Florida manatee were conducted in 2015-16 (Hostetler et al., 2018). 

These surveys estimated that the number of manatees in Florida was 8,810 animals, of which 4,810 were 

on the west coast of Florida and 4,000 were on the east coast; the minimum population estimate is 7,520 

manatees. Surveys from 2010 to 2014 estimated the average minimum island-wide population of the 

Antillean subspecies to be 386 manatees (Collazo et al., 2019) and found that manatees were more 

widespread than previously understood.

Manatees live in freshwater, brackish, and marine habitats in riverine and coastal areas. Sightings in the 

Atlantic Ocean and Gulf of Mexico are fairly common, especially near the coastlines. Satellite-tracked 

manatees have been documented moving along the coasts more than five miles offshore, and it is not 

uncommon for manatees to be seen near offshore oil platforms in the Gulf of Mexico more than 20 miles 

offshore. Preferred habitats feature submerged aquatic vegetation such as eelgrass and seagrass. The 

majority of the Atlantic population of the Florida manatee is located in eastern Florida, (USFWS, 2014b).

As water temperatures rise in spring and summer, manatees in Florida disperse throughout the state and 

into neighboring states. Warm-season manatee use along the Atlantic coast north of Florida occurs 

frequently in Georgia, South Carolina, and North Carolina, and fairly frequently in Virginia, Delaware, and 

Maryland (82 FR 16668, April 5, 2017). The numbers of manatees using these areas is not known, but use 

in South Carolina is likely similar to use in Georgia. Use in North Carolina may be a little less, and use 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

143

farther north is likely small but frequent. Because they have little tolerance for cold, manatees are 

generally restricted to the inland and coastal waters of peninsular Florida during the winter, where they 

shelter in or near sources of warm water (springs, industrial and power plant effluents, and other warm 

water sites).

The Antillean manatee is found in eastern Mexico and Central America, northern and eastern South 

America, and in the Greater Antilles (USFWS, 2014a). It inhabits riverine and coastal systems in the 

subtropical Western Atlantic Coastal Zone from the Caribbean islands to Brazil, including the Gulf of 

Mexico. Manatees found in the Bahamas are believed to be the Florida subspecies, not the Antillean. The 

distribution of the Antillean manatee extends eastward to Puerto Rico. In Puerto Rico, manatees favor 

habitats in coastal areas that are protected from severe wave action, harbor submerged aquatic 

vegetation, and have some source of fresh water. Manatees are consistently detected more on the 

eastern and southern coast than on the northern coast of the main island. Relatively higher concentrations 

of manatees are found in four areas: Ceiba on the east coast, Jobos Bay area between Guayama and 

Salinas on the southeast coast, Guayanilla and Guánica Bay area on the southwest coast, and between 

Cabo Rojo and Mayaguez (Guanajibo River mouth) in the west coast. Five offshore islands are significant 

biogeographic features in Puerto Rico: (west to east) Desecheo, Mona, Caja de Muertos, Culebra, and 

Vieques islands. Manatees do not use the western offshore islands of Mona and Desecheo as Mona 

Passage constitutes a migratory barrier to these islands since it is characterized by strong currents and 

high surf. There have been few sightings in Caja de Muertos and Culebra Island. In contrast, Vieques Island 

is within the range of the species, and manatees have been seen traveling to and from the east coast 

(USFWS, 2014a).

Manatees are herbivorous, feeding on a wide array of aquatic (freshwater and marine) plants such as 

water hyacinths and marine seagrasses. They generally prefer shallow seagrass beds, especially areas with 

access to deep channels. Preferred coastal and riverine habitats (e.g., near the mouths of coastal rivers) 

are also used for resting, mating, and calving.

3.5.1.4 Fissipeds (Sea Otters and Polar Bears)

Polar bears and sea otters are marine mammals that are neither pinniped nor cetacean. They are both 

fissipeds, or “split-footed” members of the taxonomic order Carnivora and are more closely related to 

terrestrial carnivores, like weasels (the sea otter, like its “cousin” the river otter, is in Mustelidae, the 

weasel family), than to seals or whales (Wynne, 2013). These species lack many of the physiologic 

adaptations to marine life seen in pinnipeds and cetaceans. Both species are considered marine mammals 

under U.S. laws because of the roles they play in the marine environment.

Polar bears, closely related to brown bears (Ursus arctos) in the bear family (Ursidae), spend most of their 

lives associated with marine ice and waters and are dependent on pack ice for much of their denning 

habitat and for hunting seals. Although competent swimmers, they are the marine mammal least adapted 

to aquatic existence. They rest, mate, give birth, and suckle their young on ice and terrestrial habitats

(Wynne, 2013).

Sea otters, in the weasel family (Mustelidae), and much larger than river otters, live a primarily marine 

life: they rest, mate, give birth, and suckle their young in the water. Their hind limbs are webbed for 

swimming, but their front paws are padded with separate, clawed digits. They lack blubber but are 

insulated by air trapped in their thick fur, which is densest among all mammals (Wynne, 2013), and the 

reason for which they were heavily hunted historically, drastically reducing their populations.
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

144

All marine fissipeds are protected by the MMPA throughout their ranges. Polar bears and sea otters are 

also federally listed under the ESA either throughout their ranges or for certain subspecies and DPSs. 

Additionally, the northern sea otter (Southwest Alaska DPS) and the polar bear have designated critical 

habitat. Table 3.5-4 lists the two species of fissipeds (four distinct species, subspecies, or DPS total) 

occurring throughout the action area. 

3.5.1.4.1 Fissiped Sound Production and Hearing

Polar bears spend much of their time on land or ice and little time with their heads submerged below the 

surface when they are swimming or hunting. Sea otters live in shallow coastal areas and spend a great 

deal of time floating at the surface, or conducting short foraging dives. Finneran et al. (2017) placed 

fissipeds in the “Otariids and other non-phocid marine carnivores” functional hearing group (which 

contains all eared seals, walruses, sea otters, and polar bears) as limited data can be found specifically for 

polar bear or sea otter reactions to underwater sounds. 

Polar bears are not known to communicate underwater. Nachtigall et al. (2007) measured the in-air 

hearing of polar bears and found that the best sensitivity was in the 11.2 to 22.5 kHz range. Behavioral 

testing of hearing indicates that polar bears can hear down to at least 14 Hz and up to 25 kHz. Testing by 

Owen and Bowles (2011) indicates that the greatest in-air hearing sensitivity occurs between 8-14 kHz. 

Polar bears generally hear in the less than 25 kHz range underwater (Owen and Bowles, 2011).

Ghoul and Reichmuth (2014) found that the aerial audiogram of the sea otter resembled that of sea lions; 

they can hear in the 125 Hz to 38 kHz in the air, with a best hearing sensitivity between 1.2 kHz and 27 

kHz. Under water, hearing sensitivity was significantly reduced when compared to sea lions and other 

pinniped species, demonstrating that sea otter hearing is primarily adapted to receive airborne sounds. 

Underwater, sea otters hear in the less than 32 kHz range with best sensitivity between 2 kHz to 26 kHz 

underwater They are less efficient than other marine carnivores at extracting acoustic signals from 

background sound underwater, especially at frequencies below 2 kHz (Ghoul and Reichmuth, 2014).

3.5.1.4.2 Regional Distribution of Fissipeds

The polar bear and sea otter are distributed in two regions of the action area, described below.

3.5.1.4.2.1 West Coast Region

Two fissipeds occur in the West Coast Region, as indicated in Table 3.5-4: the northern sea otter and the 

southern sea otter, which is ESA-listed as threatened. There is no designated critical habitat in the region.

3.5.1.4.2.2 Alaska Region

Two fissipeds (northern sea otter, including the Southwest Alaska DPS, and polar bear) occur in the Alaska 

Region, as indicated in Table 3.5-4. The northern sea otter (Southwest Alaska DPS) and the polar bear are 

ESA-listed as threatened, and both have designated critical habitat in the region as shown in Figure 3.5-

21.
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

145

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

Figure 3.5-21. Fissiped Designated Critical Habitat in the Alaska Region
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

146

Table 3.5-4. Fissipeds Occurring in the Action Area

Common Name Scientific Name

MMPA 

Depleted? ESA Status

Lead 

Agency Region*

Critical 

Habitat General Ecology

Mustelids

Northern sea otter Enhydra lutris kenyoni No -- USFWS AR, WCR -- Shallow, coastal, kelp 

forests

Northern sea otter

(Southwest Alaska DPS)

Enhydra lutris kenyoni Yes: 

Southwest 

Alaska DPS

Threatened USFWS AR Yes Shallow, coastal, kelp 

forests

Southern sea otter Enhydra lutris nereis Yes: 

throughout 

its range

Threatened USFWS WCR No Shallow, coastal, kelp 

forests

Ursids

Polar bear Ursus maritimus Yes: 

throughout 

its range

Threatened USFWS AR Yes Sea ice

Source: ECOS, No Date-a; NMFS, No Date-a

* AR = Alaska Region (includes Alaskan waters and the Arctic); WCR = West Coast Region (includes coastal California, Oregon, and Washington)
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

147

3.5.1.4.3 Threatened and Endangered Fissipeds

Three distinct populations of fissipeds in the action area are ESA-listed under the ESA and managed by the 

USFWS; two species also have designated critical habitat. These fissipeds are shown on Table 3.5-4 and 

described in detail below.

3.5.1.4.3.1 Southern Sea Otter and Northern Sea Otter

Historically, sea otters (Figure 3.5-22) occurred in nearshore marine waters around the North Pacific Rim 

from Hokkaido, Japan, through the Kuril Islands, the Kamchatka Peninsula, the Commander Islands, the 

Aleutian Islands, peninsular and south coastal Alaska, and south to Baja California, Mexico (USFWS, 

2014c). In the early 1700s, the worldwide population was estimated to be between 150,000 and 300,000 

individuals. Sea otters were hunted nearly to extinction during the 1700s and 1800s for the fur trade. Only 

small remnant groups of sea otters survived the fur hunting period. Prior to large-scale commercial 

exploitation, indigenous peoples of the North Pacific hunted sea otters. Although it appears that harvests 

may have periodically led to local reductions of sea otters, the species remained abundant throughout its 

range until the mid-1700s. When sea otters were afforded protection by the International Fur Seal Treaty 

in 1911, probably fewer than 2,000 animals remained in 13 remnant colonies. Population recovery began 

following legal protection. As part of efforts to re-establish sea otters in portions of their historical range, 

otters from Amchitka Island and Prince William Sound were translocated to other areas in the 1960s and 

1970s. The primary threats to sea otters currently include entanglement in fishing gear and debris, oil 

spills, harvesting for pelts, conflicts with commercial fishing interests, and coastal development. Several 

thousand sea otters were killed in Alaska by the Exxon Valdez oil spill in Prince William Sound in 1989, and 

the detrimental effects of the spill may have persisted into the 1990s.

Photo Credit: Neil Fisher

The USFWS recognizes five sea otter stocks in U.S. waters; these include single stocks in California and 

Washington and three in Alaska (Southeast, Southcentral, and Southwest). The California sea otter is the 

southern sea otter; all the rest comprise the northern sea otter. Sea otters are protected from hunting 

and harassment by the MMPA. The southern sea otter in California was listed as threatened under the 

ESA in 1977. The USFWS listed the Southwest Alaska DPS of northern sea otter as threatened under the 

ESA in 2005. The global population size is estimated at greater than 150,000 animals. The current and 

minimum population estimate for the southern sea otter in California is 3,272 animals (USFWS, 2021a).

The minimum population estimate of the Washington sea otter population is 2,785 individuals (Jeffries et 

Figure 3.5-22. Sea Otter with

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

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

148

al., 2019). The estimated population size for the Southwest Alaska stock is 54,771 animals, with a 

minimum population estimate of 45,064 individuals (USFWS, 2014c). The estimated population size for 

the Southeast Alaska stock is 25,712 animals, with a minimum population estimate of 21,798 individuals 

(USFWS, 2014d). The estimated population size for the Southcentral Alaska stock is 18,297 animals, with 

a minimum population estimate of 14,661 individuals (USFWS, 2014e).

Critical habitat was designated for the northern sea otter Southwest Alaska DPS in 2009 (74 FR 51988, 

October 8, 2009). Five units were designated as critical habitat: the Western Aleutian Unit, the Eastern 

Aleutian Unit, the South Alaska Peninsula Unit, the Bristol Bay Unit, and the Kodiak, Kamishak, Alaska 

Peninsula Unit. The PCEs of critical habitats for the northern sea otter are: 

1) Shallow, rocky areas where marine predators are less likely to forage, which are waters less than 

2 m (6.6 ft) in depth; 

2) Nearshore waters that may provide protection or escape from marine predators, which are those 

within 100 m (328.1 ft) from the mean high tide line; 

3) Kelp forests that provide protection from marine predators, which occur in waters less than 20 m 

(65.6 ft) in depth; and 

4) Prey resources within the areas identified by PCEs 1, 2, and 3 that are present in sufficient quantity 

and quality to support the energetic requirements of the species. 

The sea otter differs from most marine mammals in that it lacks an insulating subcutaneous layer of fat. 

For protection against cold water, it depends on a layer of air trapped among its hair. The underfur is the 

densest mammalian fur. The species is most commonly observed within the 40-m (approximately 12.2-ft) 

depth contour because the animals require frequent access to benthic foraging habitat in subtidal and 

intertidal zones (USFWS, 2014c). In Washington they have also been documented in waters 58 km (36 mi)

offshore in depths of 200 m (656 ft). Sea otters forage diurnally and nocturnally (Esslinger et al., 2014).

During their typical midday rest period, sea otters often rest in kelp beds, where they also spend the night.

Sea otters are gregarious and may become concentrated in an area, sometimes resting in groups 

containing less than 10 to over 1,000 animals. Sea otters mate at all times of the year, and young may be 

born in any season. However, in Alaska most pups are born in late spring. The pupping period for 

Washington’s sea otterstock occurs primarily from March to April, with peak numbers of dependent pups 

expected to be present from May to September (USFWS, 2018).

Sea otter movements are likely limited by geographic barriers, their high-energy requirements, and social 

behavior. Sea otters are not migratory and generally do not disperse over long distances, although 

movements of tens of kilometers are common. Due to their benthic foraging, sea otter distribution is 

largely limited by their ability to dive to the sea floor. The ranges of the Alaska stocks are defined as follows 

(USFWS, 2014c): 1) the Southeast Alaska stock extends from Dixon Entrance to Cape Yakataga; 2) the 

Southcentral Alaska stock extends from Cape Yakataga to Cook Inlet including Prince William Sound, the 

Kenai Peninsula coast, and Kachemak Bay; and 3) the Southwest Alaska stock includes the Alaska 

Peninsula and Bristol Bay coasts, and the Aleutian, Barren, Kodiak, and Pribilof Islands. The distribution of 

the majority of the Washington sea otter stock ranges from Pillar Point in the Strait of Juan de Fuca, west 

to Cape Flattery and as far south as Point Grenville on the outer Olympic Peninsula coast (USFWS, 2018). 

Otters can be present in Puget Sound as far south as Olympia and along the outer coast as far south as 

Cape Arago, Oregon. Southern sea otters occupy nearshore waters along the mainland coastline of 

California from San Mateo County to Santa Barbara County; a subpopulation of southern sea otters also 

exists at San Nicolas Island, Ventura County (USFWS, 2021a).
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

149

3.5.1.4.3.2 Polar Bear

Polar bears are distributed across ice-covered waters of the circumpolar Arctic. Sea ice (Figure 3.5-23) is 

their primary habitat upon which they depend for most life functions including hunting, feeding, breeding, 

travel, maternity denning areas, and resting (USFWS, 2016a). Two stocks of polar bears exist in Alaska, 

the Southern Beaufort Sea (SBS) stock and the Chukchi/Bering Seas (CBS) stock.

Warming-induced habitat degradation and loss are negatively affecting some polar bear stocks, and 

unabated global warming will ultimately reduce the worldwide polar bear population (USFWS, 2016a). 

Loss of sea ice habitat due to climate change is identified as the primary threat to polar bears. Patterns of 

increased temperatures, earlier spring thaw, later fall freeze-up, increased rain-on-snow events (which 

can cause dens to collapse), and potential reductions in snowfall are also occurring. As a result, there is 

fragmentation of sea ice, reduction in the extent and area of sea ice in all seasons, retraction of sea ice 

away from productive continental shelf areas throughout the polar basin, reduction of the amount of 

heavier and more stable multi-year ice, and declining thickness and quality of shore-fast ice. These climatic 

phenomena may also affect the abundance of seals, the polar bear’s main food source.

Photo Credit: Collection of Dr. Pablo Clemente-Colon

Subpopulations of polar bears also face different combinations of human-induced threats. The largest 

human-caused loss of polar bears results from subsistence hunting of the species, but for most 

subpopulations where subsistence hunting of polar bears occurs, it is a regulated or monitored activity. 

Other threats include accumulation of persistent organic pollutants in polar bear tissue, tourism, humanbear conflict, and increased development in the Arctic (USFWS, 2016a). 

Due to threats to its sea ice habitat, the polar bear was listed in 2008 as threatened (73 FR 28212, May 

15, 2008) throughout its range under the ESA. Polar bears are also protected under the MMPA. Low 

population densities, inaccessible habitat, and budget constraints have made estimating abundance of 

polar bear populations difficult. The estimated population of polar bears is 20,000-25,000 individuals with 

19 recognized management subpopulations or stocks worldwide (USFWS, 2016a). The estimated 

population size for the CBS stock is 2,937 animals (Regehr et al., 2018). The estimated population size for 

the SBS stock is 573 bears, with 95-percent credible interval from 232 to 1,140 animals (Atwood et al., 

2020).

Figure 3.5-23. Polar Bear

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

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

150

Polar bear critical habitat was designated in 2010 (75 FR 76086, December 7, 2010). The PCEs of critical 

habitats for the polar bear are (USFWS, 2016a): 

1) Sea-ice habitat used for feeding, breeding, denning, and movements, which is sea ice over waters 

300 m (984.2 ft) or less in depth that occurs over the continental shelf with adequate prey 

resources (primarily ringed and bearded seals) to support polar bears. 

2) Terrestrial denning habitat, which includes topographic features, such as coastal bluffs and river 

banks, with suitable macrohabitat characteristics: 

a. Steep, stable slopes with heights ranging from 1.3 to 34 m (4.3 to 111.6 ft), and with water 

or relatively level ground below the slope and relatively flat terrain above the slope;

b. Unobstructed, undisturbed access between den sites and the coast; 

c. Sea ice in proximity to terrestrial denning habitat prior to the onset of denning during the 

fall to provide access to terrestrial den sites; and 

d. The absence of disturbance from humans and human activities that might attract other 

polar bears. 

3) Barrier island habitat used for denning, refuge from human disturbance, and movements along 

the coast to access maternal den and optimal feeding habitat, which includes all barrier islands 

along the Alaska coast and their associated spits, within the range of the polar bear in the U.S., 

and the water, ice, and terrestrial habitat within 1.6 km (1 mi) of these islands (no-disturbance 

zone). 

Ringed seals are the polar bear’s primary food source, and the most productive hunting grounds are areas 

near ice edges where ocean depth is minimal (BOEM, 2015a). While polar bears primarily hunt seals, they 

occasionally also consume other marine mammals. Most polar bears use terrestrial habitat partially or 

exclusively for maternity denning; therefore, females must adjust their movements to access land at the 

appropriate time. Most pregnant female polar bears excavate snow dens in the fall to early winter and 

give birth in the dens during midwinter. Family groups emerge from dens in March and April when cubs 

are approximately three months old.

The SBS population ranges from approximately Tuktoyaktuk, Canada and west to Icy Cape, Alaska. 

Approximately 60 percent of the SBS population spends the summer on pack ice with the remaining bears 

using land during late summer and fall (Atwood et al., 2020). The CBS population is widely distributed on 

the pack ice in the Chukchi Sea and northern Bering Sea and adjacent coastal areas in Alaska and Russia. 

Individuals of the CBS stock range widely on pack ice primarily from Kivalina, Alaska west to the eastern 

Siberian Sea, but could also occur as far east as the Colville River delta. The stock’s southern boundary in 

the Bering Sea is determined by the annual extent of the pack ice. These two stocks have an extensive 

area of overlap between Icy Cape and Point Barrow, Alaska, centered near Wainwright (Scharf et al.,

2019).

Polar bear movements are extensive, individual activity areas are enormous, and bears are not dispersed 

evenly throughout their range. To access ringed and bearded seals, polar bears in the SBS concentrate in 

shallow waters less than 300 m (984 ft) deep over the continental shelf and in areas with greater than 50 

percent ice cover. In response to changes in the sea ice characteristics and declines in sea ice habitat over 

the continental shelf during the summer and late fall, some polar bears have changed distribution to 

search for seals and to access the remains of subsistence harvested bowhead whales.
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

151

3.5.2 Environmental Consequences for Marine Mammals

This section discusses potential impacts of proposed activities associated with Alternatives A, B, and C on 

marine mammals. ESA-listed endangered and threatened species are included as part of the discussion 

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

as required under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act for ESA-listed species are presented at the end 

of this section after the analysis of impacts. Activities that are part of the Proposed Action and that could 

be expected to impact marine mammals include operation of crewed sea-going surface vessels; operation 

of remotely operated or autonomous vehicles; use of echo sounders, ADCPs, acoustic communication 

systems, and sound speed data collection equipment; anchoring; operation of drop/towed cameras and 

video systems; installation, maintenance, and removal of tide gauges and GPS reference stations; and 

SCUBA operations.

3.5.2.1 Methodology

Project activities may impact marine mammals in a variety of manners in the action area, including (1) 

sound from active underwater acoustic sources (i.e., from echo sounders, ADCPs, and acoustic 

communication systems); (2) vessel operation and equipment sound - underwater and airborne (i.e., from 

crewed surface vessels; remotely operated and autonomous vehicles; tide gauge installation; and GPS 

reference station installation); (3) vessel presence and movement, including equipment in the water (i.e., 

visual and physical disturbance of and risk of collisions with marine mammals); (4) human presence and 

activity (i.e., onboard vessels, on land during tide gauge and GPS reference station installation, and 

underwater during SCUBA operations); (5) accidental leakage or spillage of oil, fuel, and chemicals into 

surrounding waters (i.e., from vessel operations); (6) trash and debris (i.e., potential for entanglement 

and ingestion); and (7) air emissions (i.e., from smokestacks and outboard motors). These potential impact 

causing factors and their associated effects on marine mammals are discussed below after an overview of 

the general effects of underwater sound on marine mammals.

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

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

significance criteria for marine mammals are shown in Table 3.5-5. Potential impacts resulting from the 

Proposed Action are calculated or discussed on an individual animal basis (i.e., the estimate of total 

exposures to sound levels above specified thresholds). However, the focus of the significance analysis is 

to determine the consequences that those individual exposures may have on a species’ population. In 

situations where the consequence of individual exposures has a potential for injury or behavioral 

disturbance (e.g., not direct mortality), it is difficult to quantitatively calculate population-level impacts 

from individual exposures. The significance criteria at the population level, while informed by the 

exposure estimates, are necessarily qualitative in considering the potential for injury or behavioral 

disturbance at the population level. The significance criteria also consider the status of the population, 

such as whether the individuals are part of an ESA-listed population. Finally, the significance criteria 

consider not only the number of individuals exposed, but also the spatial extent of exposures and whether 

the exposures are expected to occur in designated critical habitat or other biologically important areas 

such as preferred breeding, feeding, and nursery grounds or migratory routes. 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

152

Table 3.5-5. Significance Criteria for the Analysis of Impacts to Marine Mammals

Impact 

Descriptor Context and Intensity

Significance 

Conclusion

Negligible

Impacts would be temporary (lasting up to several hours) and would 

not be outside the natural range of variability of species’ 

populations, their habitats, or the natural processes sustaining 

them. Impacts could include disturbances to communication and/or

echolocation and behaviors of individuals without interference to 

feeding, reproduction, or other biologically important functions

affecting population levels. No mortality or debilitating injury to any 

individual marine mammal would occur. There would be no 

displacement of marine mammals from preferred breeding, 

feeding, or nursery grounds, migratory routes, or designated critical 

habitat.

Insignificant

Minor

Impacts would be temporary or short-term (lasting several days to 

several weeks) but would not be outside the natural range of 

variability of species’ populations, their habitats, or the natural 

processes sustaining them. Impacts could include non-lifethreatening injury to individual marine mammals and disruptions of 

behavioral patterns, including occasional disruption of 

communication and/or echolocation, behavioral disturbance of 

individuals or groups of marine mammals, and displacement of 

individuals or groups without interference to feeding, reproduction, 

or other biological important functions affecting population levels. 

Displacement of marine mammals from preferred breeding, 

feeding, or nursery grounds, migratory routes, or designated critical 

habitat would be limited to the project area or its immediate 

surroundings. 

Moderate

Impacts would be short-term or long-term (lasting several months 

or longer) and outside the natural range of variability of species’ 

populations, their habitats, or the natural processes sustaining 

them. Impacts could include injury (up to and including mortal 

injury) and repeated disruptions of communication and/or 

echolocation and time-sensitive behaviors such as feeding and 

breeding, but in low enough numbers such that the continued 

viability of the population is not threatened. Behavioral responses 

to disturbance by individuals or groups could be expected in the 

project area, its immediate surroundings, or beyond, including 

extended displacement of individuals from preferred breeding, 

feeding, or nursery grounds, migratory routes, or designated critical 

habitat.

Major

Impacts would be short-term or long-term and well outside the 

natural range of variability of species’ populations, their habitats, or 

the natural processes sustaining them. Impacts could include 

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

life-threatening, or debilitating injury and mortality and substantial 

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

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

153

Impact 

Descriptor Context and Intensity

Significance 

Conclusion

disruption of communication and/or echolocation and timesensitive behaviors such as breeding so that the continued viability 

of the local population is seriously threatened. Displacement from 

preferred breeding, feeding, or nursery grounds, migratory routes, 

or designated critical habitat would be short- or long-term within 

and well beyond the project area. Full recovery of a population 

would not be expected to occur in a reasonable time. 

The following terms are used in the analysis below and are defined here:

• Continuous Sound – a sound that is present at all times in a relevant time window. 

• Intermittent Sound – a sound that is periodically present.

• Pulse – a single segment of a periodic signal that consists of (potentially) repeating segments with 

defined beginning and end points and is, typically, short in duration (pulses are not necessarily 

impulsive).

• Impulsive Sound – sounds that are typically transient, brief (less than 1 second), broadband, and 

consist of high peak sound pressure (i.e., the decibel level of the maximum instantaneous acoustic 

pressure in a stated frequency band) with rapid rise time and rapid decay.

• Non-impulsive Sound – sounds that can be broadband, narrowband or tonal, brief or prolonged, 

continuous or intermittent and typically do not have a high peak sound pressure with rapid 

rise/decay time that impulsive sounds do.

• Duty Cycle – the percentage of time a signal is on in a relevant time window.

3.5.2.2 Potential Effects of Sound on Marine Mammals

The sounds that marine mammals hear and generate vary in characteristics such as dominant frequency, 

bandwidth, energy, temporal pattern, and directivity. The environment often contains multiple cooccurring sounds and, like all animals, marine mammals must be able to discriminate signals (meaningful 

sounds) from background sounds. 

Where there is an overlap between sound sources and the frequencies of sound heard and used by marine 

mammals, there is the potential for sound to interfere with important biological functions. Responses of 

marine mammals exposed to underwater anthropogenic sounds are variable and range from subtle 

response to injury. The magnitude of the effect appears to depend on a combination of various factors, 

such as spatial relationships between a sound source and the animal, hearing sensitivity of the animal, 

overlaps in sound frequency, received sound exposure, duration of exposure, duty cycle, and ambient 

sound level. Responses to sounds are context dependent; among other ecological factors, the animal’s 

activity at time of exposure and its history of exposure and familiarity with the sound signal are important 

influences (Ellison et al., 2012). Marine mammal hearing and sensitivity is discussed in Section 3.5.1 for 

each type of marine mammal. More information on acoustic properties and propagation of sound sources 

can be found in Appendix E, Technical Acoustic Analysis of Oceanographic Surveys.

The range of potential effects from sound includes death; non-auditory physiological effects; auditory 

effects (temporary or permanent hearing threshold shift); masking; physiological stress; and behavioral 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

154

responses. All of these effects can have potential population consequences depending on the number of 

affected individuals and whether the effects exclude marine mammals from a habitat critical for their 

survival.

Underwater sound sources from the Proposed Action include active acoustic equipment and vessel 

sounds. For regulatory purposes, sound sources are categorized as impulsive or non-impulsive. 

Continuous-type sounds such as vessels and many sonar signals are considered non-impulsive. Impulsive 

sounds consist of relatively short duration on/off pulses and include sources such as pile driving and 

airguns (although these are not a part of the NOS Proposed Action), as well as some sonar. Following 

guidance from NMFS, high-resolution geophysical sources can be either impulsive or non-impulsive. NMFS 

has performed qualitative classification of the impulsiveness of these sources. NMFS has determined that 

sparkers and boomers are classified as impulsive sources, while sub-bottom profilers and multi-beam echo 

sounders are non-impulsive. This classification is based on NMFS’ qualitative assessment of the generated 

waveforms. The acoustic analysis is based on thresholds for non-impulsive sounds (see Section 3.5.2.3.1.1 

below and Appendix E).

The following sections address this range of potential effects of underwater anthropogenic sound on 

marine mammals. 

3.5.2.2.1 Death and Non-Auditory Physiological Effects

Direct physical injury, which may result in death, may occur from exposure to high levels of impulsive

sound such as shock waves associated with in-water explosions. These pulses are typically short, with peak 

pressures that may damage internal organs or air-filled body cavities (i.e., lungs). Marine mammals can 

be susceptible to direct physical injury following intense exposure (e.g., close proximity to explosives; 

Ketten et al., 1993), such as the initial compression of a body exposed to a blast wave, or barotrauma, in 

which injuries are caused when large pressure changes occur across tissue interfaces such as the lungs. 

However, the operation of NOS acoustic equipment is not likely to elicit direct physical injury resulting in 

death because these sources do not emit high level impulsive sound or produce intense exposures. 

Potential non-auditory effects from sound sources such as sonar are unlikely due to relatively lower peak 

pressures (i.e., the maximum instantaneous sound pressure during a measurement period or sound

event) and slower rise times (i.e., the propagation of the wave between the source and the sensor) than 

potentially injurious impulsive sources such as explosives. Therefore, blast injury and barotrauma would 

not occur. The sound sources used by NOS are not expected to result in non-auditory physiological effects, 

other than stress as discussed below in Section 3.5.2.2.4.

Exposure to non-impulsive acoustic energy has also been considered a potential indirect cause of the 

death of marine mammals. In some cases, while the sound itself may not have directly caused death or 

injury, it is assumed to be a causal factor in behavior (i.e., in such cases as strandings) that led to deaths 

(Marine Mammal Commission, 2006; ICES, 2005). Sonar use during exercises involving the U.S. Navy has 

been identified as a contributing cause or factor in five specific mass stranding events: Greece in 1996; 

the Bahamas in March 2000; Madeira Island, Portugal in 2000; the Canary Islands in 2002, and Spain in 

2006 (Cox et al., 2006; Fernandez, 2006; Navy, 2017a). These five mass strandings have resulted in about 

40 known cetacean deaths consisting mostly of beaked whales and with close linkages to mid-frequency 

active sonar activity. In these circumstances, exposure to non-impulsive acoustic energy was considered 

a potential indirect cause of death of the marine mammals (Cox et al., 2006). 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

155

In another example, analysis of potential causes of a mass stranding of 100 melon-headed whales

(Peponocephala electra) in Madagascar in 2008 implicated a mapping survey using a high-power 12 kHz 

multi-beam echo sounder (similar to that used in the Proposed Action) as a likely trigger for this event. 

Although the cause is equivocal and other environmental, social, or anthropogenic factors may have 

facilitated the strandings and contributed to the mortalities, the authors determined the echo sounder as

the most plausible factor initiating the stranding response, suggesting that avoidance behavior may have 

led the pelagic whales into shallow, unfamiliar waters (Southall et al., 2013). This was the first time that a 

relatively high-frequency mapping sonar system had been associated with a stranding event (Southall et 

al., 2013). However, the exact same sound source had been used a few weeks prior in the same general 

area off Madagascar without incident. These types of systems are used extensively for ocean bottom 

mapping, fish finding, and other common surveys without any documented links to stranding events. 

Impacts can be situation-specific; in this case, the operation of the survey (north to south) parallel to shore 

may have trapped the animals between the ship (where the sound source was located) and the shore,

and the animals continued to turn inland until they entered the lagoon and became entrapped. Although

high-resolution acoustic surveys are routinely conducted by NOS, but there has only been one 

documented incident due to the use of high-resolution acoustic survey sources (as discussed above in 

Madagascar), stranding events are not expected to result from the Proposed Action.

3.5.2.2.2 Auditory Injuries – Hearing Threshold Shift

The hearing threshold is the minimum sound level (measured in decibels, or dB) an animal can hear within 

a specified frequency band. Sounds that are loud, well above the hearing threshold, and long-duration 

may result in an elevation of the hearing threshold (BOEM, 2014a) (i.e., hearing loss). Threshold shifts, or 

incremental hearing loss, may be temporary, returning to their baseline level, or permanent. Threshold 

shifts are defined as follows, as adapted from Southall et al. (2007) and Finneran et al. (2005):

• Temporary Threshold Shift (TTS) – the mildest form of hearing impairment; exposure to loud 

sound resulting in a non-permanent (reversible) elevation in hearing threshold, making it more 

difficult to hear sounds; TTS can last from minutes or hours to days; the magnitude of the TTS 

depends on the level and duration of the sound exposure, among other considerations.

• Permanent Threshold Shift (PTS) – permanent elevation in hearing threshold with physical 

damage (injury) to the sound receptors in the ear lasting indefinitely; in some cases, there can be 

total or partial deafness, whereas in other cases the animal has an impaired ability to hear sounds 

in specific frequency ranges. Repeated TTS, especially if the animal receives another loud sound 

exposure before recovering from the previous TTS, is thought to cause PTS. If the sound is intense 

enough, however, PTS may result without TTS.

The distinction between PTS and TTS is based on whether there is a complete recovery of a threshold shift 

or loss of sensitivity following a sound exposure. If the threshold shift eventually returns to zero (hearing 

returns to the pre-exposure normal), the threshold shift is a TTS. 

Several factors determine the type and magnitude of hearing loss, including exposure level, frequency, 

duration, and temporal pattern of exposure. A range of mechanical effects (e.g., stress or damage to 

supporting cell structure) and metabolic processes (e.g., inner ear hair cell metabolism such as energy 

production, protein synthesis, and ion transport) within the auditory system underlie both TTS and PTS. 

See Appendix E for more information.

For TTS, full recovery of the hearing loss (to the pre-exposure threshold) is expected based on studies of 

marine mammals which determined that this recovery occurs within minutes to hours for the small 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

156

amounts of TTS that have been experimentally induced (Finneran et al., 2005, 2010; Nachtigall et al., 

2004). The recovery time is related to the exposure duration, sound exposure level, and the magnitude of 

the threshold shift, with larger threshold shifts and longer exposure durations requiring longer recovery 

times (Finneran et al., 2005, 2010; Mooney et al., 2009a, b). If the threshold shift does not return to zero 

but leaves some finite amount of threshold shift (loss in hearing sensitivity), then that remaining threshold 

shift is a PTS. 

Studies have modeled the potential impacts (i.e., threshold shifts) (TTS: Kremser et al., 2005; PTS: Lurton 

and DeRuiter, 2011) in marine mammals exposed to echo sounders (such as those used for the NOS 

Proposed Action). The results from the studies suggest that TTS and PTS would be expected to occur in 

marine mammals generally at the distances of 100 m (328 ft) or less from the source in the cone ensonified 

by the modeled echo sounders, meaning only animals below the ship are exposed to these levels. On the 

side of the vessel, even at the same distances, animals are not exposed to these levels because of the 

conical nature of the sonar beam. Other studies involving echo sounders, such as experiments with captive 

common bottlenose dolphins, have shown that loud, short (1 second) tonal sounds can cause TTS 

(Schlundt et al., 2000), as can lower sound levels for periods up to 50 minutes (Finneran et al., 2005; 

Nachtigall et al., 2004, 2005). Sound sources used during NOS projects are likely to produce TTS or PTS in

very few nearby marine mammals through exposure to the downward-directed echo sounder frequencies 

because the probability of a marine mammal swimming through the area of exposure (ensonified area) 

when an echo sounder emits a sound is small. The animal would have to pass the transducer at close 

range and/or be swimming at speeds similar to the vessel in order to accumulate enough sound energy 

to cause TTS or PTS. Detailed analysis of the impacts of active underwater acoustic sources potentially 

resulting in TTS or PTS is provided in Sections 3.5.2.3 through 3.5.3.5 for each type of marine mammal.

3.5.2.2.3 Masking

Auditory signal masking is the reduction in an animal’s ability to perceive, recognize, or decode biologically 

relevant sounds because of interfering sounds. Masking can effectively limit the distance over which a 

marine mammal can communicate, detect biologically relevant sounds, and echolocate (for odontocetes). 

Masking only occurs in the presence of the masking noise and does not persist after the cessation of the 

noise (Navy, 2020). Masking can lead to vocal changes (e.g., Lombard effect, increasing amplitude, or 

changing frequency) and behavior changes (e.g., cessation of foraging, leaving an area) in both signalers 

and receivers, in an attempt to compensate for sound levels (Erbe et al., 2016). Masking can be caused by 

naturally occurring ambient sound produced from various sources, including wind, waves, precipitation, 

and other animals, or background sounds including human activities (e.g., impulsive sounds, sonar, and 

vessel sound). 

Vocal changes in response to anthropogenic sound can occur across many sound production modes used 

by marine mammals, such as whistling, echolocation click production, calling, and singing (Navy, 2020). 

Vocalization changes include increasing the source level, modifying the frequency, increasing the call 

repetition rate of vocalizations, or ceasing to vocalize in the presence of increased sound (Hotchkin and 

Parks, 2013). In cetaceans, vocalization changes were reported from exposure to anthropogenic sound

sources such as sonar, vessel sound, and seismic surveying (Gordon et al., 2003; Holt et al., 2009; 

McDonald et al., 2009; Rolland et al., 2012). Vocal changes represent possible tactics by the soundproducing animal to reduce the impact of masking. The receiving animal can also reduce the impacts of 

masking by using active listening strategies such as orienting to the sound source, moving to a quieter 

location, or reducing self- sound from hydrodynamic flow by remaining still (Navy, 2020).
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

157

Masking could have adverse consequences to marine mammals. Marine mammals use sound to recognize 

predators (Allen et al., 2014; Curé et al., 2015). Auditory recognition may be reduced in the presence of a 

masking noise, particularly if it occurs in the same frequency band. Therefore, the occurrence of masking 

may prevent marine mammals from responding to the acoustic cues produced by their predators. This 

could depend on the duration of the masking and the likelihood of encountering a predator during the 

time that predator cues are impeded. For example, harbor seals that reside in the coastal waters off British 

Columbia are frequently targeted by mammal-eating killer whales. The seals acoustically discriminate 

between the calls of mammal-eating and fish-eating killer whales (Deecke et al., 2002), a capability that 

should increase survivorship while reducing the energy required to attend to all killer whale calls.

Masking has been documented from use of airguns in seismic surveys, which, unlike the echo sounders

used by NOS, are a powerful, omnidirectional impulsive source. Sounds from seismic surveys contribute 

to ocean-wide masking (Hildebrand, 2009). Impulsive sounds produced during pile driving operations have 

been found to mask the calls of marine mammals at great distances (Madsen et al., 2006). Gordon et al. 

(2003) listed a range of possible effects of seismic impulses on cetacean behavior and communication, 

including masking of sounds used during foraging such as echolocation. Masking could occur in mysticetes

due to the overlap between their low-frequency vocalizations and the dominant frequencies of impulsive 

sources; however, masking in odontocetes or pinnipeds is less likely unless the activity is in close range 

when the pulses are more broadband (Navy, 2020). For example, differential vocal responses in marine 

mammals were documented in the presence of seismic survey sound. An overall decrease in vocalizations 

during active surveying was noted in large marine mammal groups (Potter et al., 2007), while blue whale 

feeding and social calls increased when seismic exploration was underway (Di Iorio and Clark, 2009), 

indicative of a possible compensatory response to the increased sound level. 

Masking by low-frequency or mid-frequency active sonar with relatively low duty cycles is unlikely for 

most cetaceans and pinnipeds as sonar signals occur over a relatively short duration and narrow 

bandwidth that does not overlap with vocalizations for most marine mammal species (Navy, 2020). While 

dolphin whistles and mid-frequency active sonar are similar in frequency, masking is limited due to the 

low-duty cycle of most sonars. Low-frequency active sonar could overlap with mysticete vocalizations 

(e.g., minke and humpback whales). For example, in the presence of low-frequency active sonar, 

humpback whales were observed to increase the length of their songs (Fristrup et al., 2003; Miller et al., 

2000), possibly due to the overlap in frequencies between the whale song and the low-frequency active 

sonar. Although findings by the Navy (2020), Fristrup et al. (2003), and Miller et al. (2000) all refer to Navy 

tactical sonars, and most NOS acoustic sources produce sounds at higher frequencies which are out of the 

hearing range of most marine mammals, the effects of masking discussed in these findings could 

potentially also apply to some acoustic sources used by NOS, such as echo sounders and ADCPs, with 

potential similar effects on marine mammals.

Newer high-duty cycle or continuous active tactical sonars used by the Navy have more potential to mask 

vocalizations, particularly for delphinids and other mid-frequency cetaceans (Navy, 2020). These sonars 

transmit more frequently (greater than 80 percent duty cycle) than traditional sonars, but at a 

substantially lower source level. Similarly, high-frequency acoustic sources such as pingers (i.e., devices

that transmit short high-pitched signals at brief intervals) that operate at higher repetition rates also 

operate at lower source levels (Culik et al., 2001). While the lower source levels limit the range of impact 

compared to traditional systems, animals close to the sonar source are likely to experience masking on a 

much longer time scale than those exposed to traditional tactical sonars. Because the frequency range at 

which high-duty cycle systems operate overlaps the vocalization frequency of many mid-frequency 

cetaceans, their use may cause disruptions to communication, social interactions, and behaviors such as 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

158

foraging or reproductive activities. Similarly, because the systems are mid frequency, there is the potential 

for the acoustic signals to mask important environmental cues like predator vocalizations (e.g., killer 

whales), possibly affecting survivorship for targeted animals. Although the acoustic sources used in these 

studies differed from the NOS acoustic sources included in the Proposed Action, their effects on marine 

mammals could be similar. Masking due to these systems is likely analogous to masking produced by other 

continuous sources (e.g., vessel sound). Long-term consequences could include changes to vocal behavior 

and vocalization structure (Foote et al., 2004; Parks et al., 2007), abandonment of habitat if masking 

occurs frequently enough to significantly impair communication (Brumm and Slabbekoorn, 2005), a 

potential decrease in survivorship if predator vocalizations are masked (Brumm and Slabbekoorn, 2005), 

and a potential decrease in recruitment if masking interferes with reproductive activities or mother-calf 

communication (Gordon et al., 2003).

Masking is more likely to occur in the presence of broadband (i.e., data transmission using a wide range 

of frequencies) and relatively continuous sound sources such as from vessels. Over the past 50 years, 

commercial shipping, the largest contributor of masking noise (McDonald et al., 2008), has increased the 

ambient low-frequency sound levels (e.g., 100-400 Hz) in the deep ocean by 10-15 dB (Hatch and Wright, 

2007). Hatch et al. (2012) estimate that calling North Atlantic right whales might have lost, on average, 

63-67 percent of their active acoustic space due to shipping sounds. Right whales were also observed to 

shift the frequency content of their calls upward while reducing the rate of calling in areas of increased 

anthropogenic sound (Parks et al., 2007) as well as increasing the amplitude (intensity) of their calls (Payne 

and Webb, 1971). Multiple delphinid species have been shown to increase the minimum or maximum 

frequencies of their whistles in the presence of anthropogenic sound (Papale et al., 2015). Holt et al. 

(2009; 2011) showed that Southern Resident killer whales in the waters surrounding the San Juan Islands 

increased their call source level as vessel sound increased. Hermannsen et al. (2014) estimated that

broadband vessel sound could extend up to 160 kHz at ranges from 60 m (196 ft) to 1,200 m (3,937 ft), 

and that the higher frequency portion of that noise might mask harbor porpoise clicks. However, this may 

not be an issue as harbor porpoises may avoid vessels and may not be close enough to have their clicks 

masked (Polacheck and Thorpe, 1990). Liu et al. (2017) found that broadband shipping noise could cause 

masking of humpback dolphin whistles within 1.5 km (0.9 mi) to 3 km (1.8 mi), and masking of 

echolocation clicks within 0.5 km (0.3 mi) to 1.5 km (0.9 mi). Aerial and underwater vocalizations are also 

an important component of pinniped social behaviors, including delineation of territory, dominance 

posturing, and courtship (Supin et al., 2001). The low-frequency sounds generated by vessel operations 

are perceptible to pinnipeds and could mask ecologically important underwater vocalizations (Southall et 

al., 2003). Harbor seals have been found to increase the frequency and amplitude of their vocalizations 

while in the presence of vessel sound, while decreasing the duration of vocalizations (Matthews, 2017). 

Underwater sound from sound sources used during NOS projects has the potential to mask marine 

mammal communication and monitoring of the environment around them. Masking of marine mammal 

calls and other natural sounds by pulsed sounds is expected to be limited during surveys because the 

narrow beam of most NOS active acoustic sources dictates that animals would not spend much time in 

ensonified zones (see Appendix E for calculations of the time animals spend in the beams of active acoustic 

sources). Vessel activity from NOS represents a very small proportion of all vessel traffic, so vessel sound

from the Proposed Action is expected to contribute minimally to overall masking in the action area. 

Additionally, the intensity of the sound received by marine mammals is dependent on the size and speed 

of the vessel in question and the distance of the animal from the vessel. The sound level of the vessels

used by NOS would be low relative to the sound level from shipping traffic as NOS uses smaller vessels

with smaller enginestraveling at lower speeds during surveys; thus, vessels used by NOS would contribute 

smaller masking impacts than shipping traffic.
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

159

3.5.2.2.4 Physiological Stress

Marine mammals naturally experience stressors within their environment and as part of their life 

histories, such as changing weather and ocean conditions, exposure to diseases and naturally occurring 

toxins, lack of prey availability, social interactions with members of the same species, and interactions 

with predators (Atkinson et al., 2015). Anthropogenic activities, such as fishery interactions, pollution,

tourism, and ocean noise, have the potential to provide additional stressors to those that occur naturally 

(Meissner et al., 2015; Rolland et al., 2012). At this time, the sound characteristics that correlate with 

specific stress responses in marine mammals are poorly understood, as are the consequences due to these 

changes. With respect to acoustically induced stress, this includes not only determining how and to what 

degree various types of anthropogenic sounds cause stress in marine mammals, but what factors can 

mitigate those responses (Navy, 2020). Factors potentially affecting an animal’s response to a stressor 

include the mammal’s life history stage, sex, age, reproductive status, overall physiological and behavioral 

plasticity, and whether they are experienced with the sound (e.g., prior experience with a stressor may 

result in a reduced response due to habituation) (Finneran and Branstetter, 2013; St. Aubin and Dierauf, 

2001). 

The stress response is a suite of physiological changes that are meant to help an organism mitigate the 

impact of a stressor (Moberg and Mench, 2000). However, if the magnitude and duration of the stress 

response is too great or too long, then it can have negative consequences to the organism (e.g., decreased 

immune function, decreased reproduction). The generalized stress response is classically characterized by 

the release of cortisol, a hormone that has many functions including elevation of blood sugar, suppression 

of the immune system, and alteration of the biochemical pathways that affect fat, protein, and 

carbohydrate metabolism. The endocrine response (glandular secretions of hormones into the blood) to 

a stressor can also extend to other hormones. These types of responses typically occur on the order of 

minutes to days, such as the “fight or flight” response, an acute stress response that is characterized by 

the very rapid release of hormones which stimulate glucose release, increase heart rate, and increase 

oxygen consumption (Navy, 2020). What is known about the function of the various stress hormones is 

based largely upon observations of the stress response in terrestrial mammals. The endocrine response 

of marine mammals to stress may not be the same as that of terrestrial mammals because of the selective 

pressures marine mammals faced during their evolution in an ocean environment (Atkinson et al., 2015). 

Relatively little information exists on the linkage between anthropogenic sound exposure and stress in 

marine mammals, and even less information exists on the consequences of sound-induced stress 

responses. Most studies have focused on acute responses to sound either by measuring hormones or by 

measuring heart rate as an assumed proxy for an acute stress response. Whereas a limited amount of 

work has addressed the potential for acute sound exposures to produce a stress response, almost nothing 

is known about how chronic exposure to acoustic stressors affects stress hormones in marine mammals, 

particularly as it relates to survival or reproduction. A literature review by the Navy (2020) of recent 

studies which assessed sound exposure effects on marine mammal stress hormones and heart rates is 

incorporated here by reference. 

Although there are only a small number of studies, different types of sounds have been shown to produce 

variable stress responses in marine mammals, and sound characteristics that correlate with specific stress 

responses are poorly understood. Therefore, a stress response to NOS activities is assumed if a 

physiological response such as a hearing loss is predicted, or if a substantial behavioral response occurs 

(i.e., constituting a moderate or major level of impact, see Table 3.5-5). Of the behavioral responses 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

160

modeled, it is unlikely that any of these responses would be substantial, and all exposures are anticipated 

to be minor and of short duration. No repeat exposures, and thus no chronic exposures, are anticipated.

3.5.2.2.5 Behavioral Responses

Disturbance of marine mammals can range from short, subtle changes in behavior to more conspicuous 

dramatic changes in biologically important behaviors such as feeding or mating, and short- or long-term 

displacement from important habitats. Behavioral response is one of the main concerns of the potential 

impacts of anthropogenic sound on marine mammals. The extent by which an animal’s behavior changes 

in response to underwater sounds varies greatly, even within the same species (Nowacek et al., 2004). 

The extent of an individual’s response to a stimulus is determined by the number and combinations of 

possible sound sources acting together, which in turn is influenced by the context in which the stimulus is 

received and the relevance an animal attributes to the acoustic stimulus. The perceived relevance 

depends on a number of biological and environmental factors, such as age, sex, and behavioral state at 

the time of exposure (e.g., resting, foraging, or socializing), where the sounds originated from, and 

proximity and nature of the sound source. One common immediate response to anthropogenic sounds is 

that animals may temporarily avoid or move away from an ensonified area or source; however, they might 

also respond more conspicuously based on how close the sounds are to them. For instance, their vigilance, 

defined as scanning for the source of the stimulus, could increase. The more time animals invest in 

addressing noise means less time they can spend foraging (Purser and Radford, 2011), but this is not 

always easy to detect. 

There is a wide range of possible behavioral responses to sound exposure, if the sound is audible to the 

particular animal, including (in approximate order of increasing severity but decreasing likelihood) (BOEM, 

2014a):

• no observable response;

• looking at the sound source or increased alertness;

• small behavioral responses such as vocal modifications associated with masking;

• cessation of feeding or social interactions;

• temporary avoidance behavior;

• modification of group structure or activity state; and

• habitat abandonment.

Severity of responses can also vary depending on characteristics of the sound source (e.g., moving or 

stationary, number and spatial distribution of sound sources, similarity to predator sounds, etc.) (Southall 

et al., 2007; Barber et al., 2009; Ellison et al., 2012). There is species variability of marine mammals to 

sound exposure and a broad spectrum of behavioral responses. Variability can also occur within a species 

at the individual level where hearing sensitivity or prior experience with a certain sound type can influence 

whether or not an individual reacts (BOEM, 2014a). 

Southall et al. (2007) synthesized data from many past behavioral studies and observations to determine 

the likelihood of behavioral reactions of marine mammals at specific sound levels. While the louder the 

sound source, the more intense the behavioral response; the proximity of a sound source and the animal’s 

experience, motivation, and conditioning were also critical factors influencing the response (Southall et 

al., 2007). After examining the available data, Southall et al. (2007) determined that the derivation of 

thresholds for behavioral response based solely on exposure level was not supported because context of 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

161

the animal at the time of sound exposure was an important factor in estimating response. However, in 

some conditions, consistent avoidance reactions were noted at higher sound levels dependent on the 

marine mammal species or group. Most low-frequency cetaceans (mysticetes) observed in studies usually 

avoided sound sources at levels of less than or equal to 160 dB re 1 μPa. Studies of mid-frequency 

cetaceans analyzed included sperm whales, belugas, bottlenose dolphins, and river dolphins. These 

groups showed no clear tendency, but for continuous sounds captive animals tolerated levels in excess of 

170 dB re 1 μPa before showing behavioral reactions, such as avoidance, erratic swimming, and attacking 

the sound source. High-frequency cetaceans (observed from studies with harbor porpoises) exhibited 

changes in respiration and avoidance behavior at levels between 90 and 140 dB re 1 μPa, with marked

avoidance behavior noted for levels exceeding this. Phocid seals showed avoidance reactions at or below 

190 dB re 1 μPa, thus seals may actually receive levels adequate to produce TTS before avoiding the 

source. 

Numerous studies on marine mammal behavioral responses to sound exposure have not resulted in 

consensus in the scientific community regarding the appropriate metric for assessing behavioral reactions. 

It is recognized that the context in which the sound is received affects the nature and extent of responses 

to a stimulus (Southall et al., 2007; Ellison and Frankel, 2012), and because of the complexity and 

variability of marine mammal behavioral responses to acoustic exposure, NMFS has not yet released 

technical guidance on behavioral thresholds for use in calculating animal exposures (NMFS, 2018a). NMFS 

currently uses a step function to assess behavioral impact and a threshold of 160 dB for behavioral 

responses (70 FR 1871, January 11, 2005; NMFS, 2018a). 

An extensive literature review by the Navy (2020) on behavioral responses of marine mammals to sound 

is incorporated here by reference. This review discusses studies of behavioral responses to mid-frequency 

active sonar (MFAS), multibeam sonar, and continuous (e.g., vessels) sounds and their effects on 

cetaceans (mysticetes and odontocetes), pinnipeds, and fissipeds (sea otters). The impact of multibeam 

echo sounder (MBES) operations, similar to sound sources included in the NOS Proposed Action, on 

marine mammals has been less studied compared to military sonars (although at least two studies using 

MBES are discussed below). Despite similar source levels (216–245 dB re 1 μPa m) of MBES and MFAS, 

and an overlap in frequency range (10–400 kHz), there are inherent differences between the two sound 

sources, aside from operational frequency differences (Varghese et al., 2020). MFAS are used to detect 

targets, like submarines, at distant ranges (10s of km). These systems generally have a wide vertical 

ensonification beam with 360o horizontal coverage, producing pings (1–2 s in length) for several minutes 

at intervals ranging from 6 to 15 minutes apart and source levels in excess of 235 dB re 1 μPa m. MBES 

are primarily used for seafloor mapping, requiring precise beam positioning. These requirements equate 

to narrow downward directed beams, 120o

-150o horizontal coverage, and short operational pulse lengths 

(10–100 milliseconds [ms]) that vary based on the ocean depth. The resulting MBES geometry leads to a 

much smaller area of direct ensonification and orders of magnitude shorter pulses in comparison to MFAS. 

Reports of observed behavioral responses by marine mammals to sound from underwater acoustic 

equipment include:

• Surface feeding blue whales did not show a change in behavior in response to mid-frequency 

sonar sources with received levels between 90 and 179 dB re 1 μPa, but deep feeding and nonfeeding whales showed temporary reactions including cessation of feeding, reduced initiation of 

deep foraging dives, generalized avoidance responses, and changes to dive behavior (DeRuiter et 

al., 2017; Goldbogen et al., 2013; Sivle et al., 2015).
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

162

• A minke whale responded to mid-frequency sonar at 146 dB re 1 μPa by strongly avoiding the 

sound source (Kvadsheim et al., 2017; Sivle et al., 2015). Although the minke whale increased its 

swim speed, directional movement, and respiration rate, none of these were greater than rates 

observed in baseline behavior, and its dive behavior remained similar to baseline dives. 

• Observed reactions by Blainville’s, Cuvier’s, and Baird’s beaked whales to mid-frequency sonar

sounds included cessation of clicking, termination of foraging dives, changes in direction to avoid 

the sound source, slower ascent rates to the surface, longer deep and shallow dive durations, and 

other unusual dive behavior (DeRuiter et al., 2013; Miller et al., 2015; Stimpert et al., 2014; Tyack 

et al., 2011).

• Beaked whales’ response to shipboard echo sounders with frequencies ranging from 12 to 400 

kHz, source levels up to 230 dB re 1 μPa, and a very narrow beam indicated that the beaked whales 

may be avoiding the area and may cease foraging near the echo sounder (Cholewiak et al., 2017). 

• A study of 12 kHz MBES surveys found that there was no consistent change in foraging behavior 

during the surveys that would suggest a clear response (Varghese et al., 2020). The animals did 

not leave the range nor stop foraging during MBES activity. These results are in stark contrast to 

those of analogous studies assessing the effect of Naval mid-frequency active sonar on beaked 

whale foraging, where beaked whales stopped echolocating and left the area.

• Quick et al. (2017) found no evidence for a change in foraging behavior in short-finned pilot 

whales when exposed to an EK60 scientific echo sounder, but they did observe that the whales 

changed their heading more frequently when the echo sounder was active. This response could 

represent increased vigilance in which whales maintained awareness of echo sounder location by 

increasing their heading variance and provides the first quantitative analysis on reactions of 

cetaceans to a scientific echo sounder.

• A study found that captive hooded seals reacted to 1–7 kHz sonar signals, in part with 

displacement (i.e., avoidance) to the areas of least sound pressure level (SPL), at levels between 

160 and 170 dB re 1 μPa (Kvadsheim et al., 2010); however, the animals adapted to the sound 

and did not show the same avoidance behavior upon subsequent exposures. Captive harbor seals 

responded differently to three signals at 25 kHz with different waveform characteristics and duty 

cycles at received levels over 137 dB re 1 μPa by hauling out more, swimming faster, and raising 

their heads or jumping out of the water (Kastelein et al., 2015). 

• Behavioral responses of captive California sea lions exposed to mid-frequency sonar at various 

received levels (125–185 dB re 1 μPa) included a refusal to participate, hauling out, an increase in 

respiration rate, and an increase in the time spent submerged (Houser et al., 2013).

• Davis et al. (1988) conducted a behavioral response study that included underwater acoustic

harassment devices (10–20 kHz at 190 dB; designed to keep dolphins and pinnipeds from being 

caught in fishing nets) and found that the sea otters often remained undisturbed and quickly 

became tolerant of the various sounds; even when chased from a location by presentation of a 

purposefully harassing sound, they generally moved only a short distance 100–200 m (110-220 

yards [yds]) before resuming normal activity.

Reports of observed behavioral responses by marine mammalsto underwater sound from vessels include:

• North Atlantic right whales may change behaviors, specifically calling behavior (shifting call 

frequency), to compensate for increased low-frequency sound, such as vessel-related sound 

(Parks et al., 2007). 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

163

• Most beaked whales tend to avoid approaching vessels (Würsig et al., 1998) and may dive for an 

extended period when approached by a vessel. Northern bottlenose whales, on the other hand, 

are sometimes quite tolerant of slow-moving vessels (Hooker et al., 2001). 

• Dolphins may tolerate boats of all sizes, often approaching and riding the bow and stern waves 

(Shane et al., 1986). At other times, dolphin species that are known to be attracted to boats will 

avoid them. Such avoidance is often linked to previous boat-based harassment of the animals 

(Richardson et al., 1995). 

• Coastal bottlenose dolphins that are the object of whale watching activities have been observed 

to swim erratically (Acevedo, 1991), remain submerged for longer periods of time (Janik and 

Thompson, 1996; Nowacek et al., 2001), display less cohesiveness among group members (Cope

et al., 2005), whistle more frequently (Scarpaci et al., 2000), and be restless often when boats 

were nearby (Constantine et al., 2004).

• Pantropical spotted dolphins and spinner dolphins in the eastern tropical Pacific, where they have 

been targeted by the tuna fishing industry because of their association with tuna, show avoidance 

of survey vessels up to 11 km (6.8 mi) away (Au and Perryman, 1982; Hewitt, 1985), whereas 

spinner dolphins in the Gulf of Mexico were observed bow riding the survey vessel in all 14 

sightings of this species during one survey (Würsig et al., 1998). 

• A recent study found that harbor seals and gray seals dive lower in the water column when in the 

presence of vessel sound (Mikkelsen et al., 2019). This observation is consistent with previous 

observations of changing diving behavior in elephant seals elicited by vessel sound (Burgess et al., 

1998), which suggests a wider pattern of noise avoidance among pinnipeds. 

• Manatees typically occupy habitats with low sound levels and avoid areas with high levels of 

vessel traffic and noise (Miksis-Olds et al., 2007). Generally, sounds from oncoming vessels are 

detectable to manatees within 93 m (305 ft) of the vessel and evoke flight responses in manatees 

within 50 m (164 ft) of the vessel, such as increased swimming speed or depth within the water 

column (Rycyk et al., 2018). 

• Sea otters off the coast of California tended to avoid areas of high vessel traffic and exhibited 

disturbance behaviors in direct response to the transit vessels through the study area (Curland, 

1997).

Active underwater sound sources and vessel operations proposed for use during NOS projects have the 

potential to produce behavioral responses in marine mammals. It is possible that if a marine mammal 

reacts briefly to an underwater sound by changing its behavior or moving a small distance, the impacts of 

the change are unlikely to be significant to the individual, stock, or population. However, if a sound source 

displaces marine mammals from an important feeding or breeding area for a prolonged period, impacts 

on both individuals and the population could be of greater intensity. Detailed analysis of the impacts of 

vessel sounds and active underwater acoustic sources is provided below for each type of marine mammal

in Sections 3.5.2.3 through 3.5.2.5. 

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

Marine Data Collection with Current Technology and Methods, at Current

Funding Levels

The discussion of impacts of Alternative A is organized by impact causing factors for each type of marine 

mammal (cetaceans, pinnipeds, sirenians, and fissipeds). Under Alternative A, NOS survey effort would 

cover a total of 2,633,374 nm (4,877,009 km) across all five regions over a five-year period (note that 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

164

survey effort in the Great Lakes is not included as no marine mammals occur there). Although the survey

effort under Alternative A would vary by year (see Table 3.5-6), over the five-year period of the Proposed 

Action, the greatest number of nautical miles surveyed every year would be in the Southeast Region 

(approximately 47 percent). The survey efforts in the other four regions are of a similar order of magnitude 

(approximately 10 percent in each region for each of the five years), although slightly greater in the Alaska 

Region where the percentage of survey effort would be approximately 18 percent. 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 and depth of surveys, sound production and 

hearing frequency of the animals, and population density of marine mammals, that add nuance to this 

trend. Overall, NOS projects would comprise a very small part of all ocean activities as vessels used by 

NOS would represent a very small proportion of all vessel traffic in the action area (as discussed in Section 

2.4.1). Additionally, whenever possible, the location and timing of a given project would be purposefully 

coordinated to ensure that areas are not repeatedly surveyed. This ensures that the potential 

environmental impacts directly resulting from proposed NOS activities would not be exacerbated by 

repeated surveys within a given area. 

Table 3.5-6. Survey Effort under Alternative A, by Geographic Region by Year

Region Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Total

Survey Effort (in nautical miles)

Greater Atlantic Region 

(without Great Lakes) 60,822 105,757 50,971 46,912 46,912 311,375

Southeast Region 220,336 210,185 262,450 281,733 281,733 1,256,437

West Coast Region 59,558 57,909 55,973 58,204 58,204 289,848

Alaska Region 93,871 119,974 174,445 41,350 41,327 470,967

Pacific Islands Region 70,210 54,900 69,742 54,948 54,948 304,748

3.5.2.3.1 Cetaceans

The analysis of impacts on cetaceans, which live primarily underwater, does not consider air emissions. 

All the other impact causing factors are discussed below. Potential impacts could occur in all of the 

geographic regions as approximately 20 to 30 species, subspecies, or DPSs of cetaceans, including several 

ESA-listed species, occur in each region (see Section 3.5.1.1 above); all regions also include designated 

critical habitat for one or more listed cetacean species (see Section 3.5.1.1).

3.5.2.3.1.1 Active Underwater Acoustic Sources

Active underwater acoustic sources in Alternative A include echo sounders, ADCPs, and acoustic 

communication systems as discussed in Section 2.4. The sound sources of potential concern during active 

acoustic surveys are the moving Sound Navigation and Ranging (SONAR) sources. The equipment used 

during any individual survey depends on the final survey design, vessel availability, site conditions, and 

data needs. A list of all active sources, and their parameters, considered in this study can be found in 

Appendix D of the Technical Acoustic Analysis of Oceanographic Surveys report (Appendix E of this Final 

PEIS). Table 1 in Appendix E identifies the proposed survey equipment expected to operate at, or below, 

200 kHz and lists the relevant acoustic parameters of each of these sources. A subset of the operational 

sources used by NOS was modeled for the technical acoustic analysis. These sources were selected to 

represent the largest ranges to PTS/injury exposures of similar source types (e.g., beam pattern, frequency 

range). Sources that would be operated at frequencies higher than 200 kHz (e.g., some multibeam echo

sounders and side scan sonars) were not included in the analysis as they operate at frequencies above the 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

165

hearing range of marine mammals. Table 3.5-7 identifies the proposed survey equipment expected to 

operate at or below 200 kHz that was used in the modeling and lists the relevant acoustic parameters of 

each of these sources; these are the sources considered in the impact analysis below for active 

underwater acoustic sources.

Table 3.5-7. Active Underwater Sources and Acoustic Parameters

Considered in Exposure Modeling

Manufacturer Model

SL

(dB re 1 μPa)

Frequency

(kHz)

Signal duration

(ms)

Ping rate

(Hz)

Knudsen 320 B/R 222 3.5 10 5

Simrad ES60 225 12 1 20

Kongsberg EM124 242 12.5 15 0.17

Teledyne Odom CV200 229 24 2 20

Simrad EM302 214 30 5 10

Kongsberg EM710 231 40 2 20

Teledyne Odom CV200 229 50 2 20

Kongsberg EM710 231 70 2 20

Klein 3000 234 100 0.4 10

Acoustic signals from echo sounders (which range from 0.5 kHz to 900 kHz) can fall within the frequency 

hearing ranges for all the cetacean hearing groups: mid-frequency and high-frequency odontocetes

(which can hear up to ~160 kHz) and low-frequency mysticetes (which can hear up to 35 kHz) if the lower 

end of the sound frequency spectrum is used. Adverse impacts of echo sounder signals could include 

behavioral responses, loss of hearing, stress, and physical harm (as discussed above in Section 3.5.2.2). 

Given the directionality and small beam widths, there is low potential for TTS and PTS, and cetacean 

communications are not expected to be masked appreciably as the animals would not be in the direct 

sound field for more than a few pulses. 

Acoustic signals from ADCPs (ranging from 35 kHz to 1200 kHz) are likely detectable by mid-frequency and 

high-frequency odontocetes(which can hear up to ~160 kHz), but not by low-frequency mysticetes(which 

can hear up to 35 kHz). The effects of underwater sound from ADCPs on cetaceans are similar to those 

discussed above for echo sounders as ADCPs have a narrow and directional beam width similar to singlebeam echo sounders.

Acoustic communication systems emit sound in mid-frequency ranges (10s of kHz) and thus could be 

detected by low-frequency mysticetes as well as mid-frequency and high-frequency odontocetes. The 

impact of underwater sound on cetaceans from acoustic communication systems would be similar but 

less than that described above for the use of echo sounders because, although acoustic communication 

systems are omnidirectional, they have lower power, a lower duty cycle, and would be used less 

frequently than echo sounders. 

Quantitative acoustic exposure to marine mammals, including cetaceans, from operation of sound

sources was modeled for nine sources (see Table 3.5-7). Acoustic modeling was conducted by determining 

the size of the sound field expected from each source (referred to and depicted as an isopleth) and 

estimating the number of marine mammals that may be exposed above sound thresholds for PTS/injury 

and behavioral disruption during surveys (see Appendix E for more information). To gauge the potential 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

166

for impacts, received sound levels that may result in injury or behavioral disruption to the animal were 

needed. For this study, the current NMFS criteria for both PTS/injury (NMFS, 2018a) and behavioral 

disruption (84 FR 72308, December 31, 2019) were used (see Appendix E). Species density estimates 

(animals/km2

) were derived from the best available data sources for each species and region. For the 

Pacific and Alaska regions, species abundance and distribution were obtained from the U.S. Pacific and 

Alaska Marine Mammal Stock Assessment Reports (SARs) (Carretta et al., 2022; Muto et al., 2022). For 

the east coast of the U.S. and the Gulf of Mexico, densities were obtained using the Duke University 

Marine Geospatial Ecology Laboratory model results (Roberts et al., 2016a, 2016b, 2017, 2018, 2021a, 

and 2021b). At the request/direction of NMFS, this is a change from the estimates reported in the Draft 

PEIS which used the SARs for all species (see below for additional discussion). Although for some species 

abundance data were either unknown, uncertain, or outdated, NOS used the best available scientific 

information on presence, density, and population status to determine exposure estimates in the acoustic 

modeling.

The estimated exposures have decreased overall for both PTS/injury and behavioral disruption between 

the Draft PEIS and the Final PEIS, although exposures for some species have increased. This can be 

attributed to three factors:

• A change in the timeframe for the Proposed Action from six years in the Draft PEIS to five years in 

the Final PEIS;

• Updated inputs to the acoustic model: 

o the use of Roberts et al. (2016a, 2016b, 2017, 2018, 2021a, and 2021b) density data for the 

Greater Atlantic and Southeast regions in the Final PEIS (versus [vs.] use of the SARs 

abundance data for those regions in the Draft PEIS);

o the use of more current abundance data from the 2021 SARs for the Alaska, West Coast, and 

Pacific Islands regions (Carretta et al., 2022; Hayes et al., 2022; and Muto et al., 2022); and

• Identification of an incorrect averaging function7 during the quality assurance/quality control 

(QA/QC) process for the acoustic modeling.

Due to the number of sources to be evaluated, the distance at which exposure above PTS threshold could 

occur was first estimated using the source level and a simple geometric spreading model. A criterion of 

10 m, roughly approximated from the survey platform vessel sizes, was chosen as encounters at shorter 

ranges are precluded by the physical presence of the vessel hull. If the distance for potential injury was 

<10 m (33 ft), then the source was categorized as having a low potential for impact and not carried through 

for further exposure modeling. If the predicted range to injury was >10 m (33 ft), then a more accurate 

(ray-tracing) propagation model was used to refine the injury range estimate. If the refined range was <10 

m (33 ft) then the source was again categorized as low impact and not considered in additional modeling. 

If the refined range was still >10 m (33 ft), then the sound field of a conservatively-chosen representative 

sound source in each frequency band (<30 kHz, 30-70 kHz, and 70-200 kHz) was used in scenario 

simulations that considered species-specific movement (i.e., agent-based modeling). These simulations 

7 During the first stage of post processing that occurs after running the animal movement and exposure model, the number of 

exposed animats is calculated to get an average for a 24-hour duration. To do this, all exposures are summed and then divided 

by the total number of 24-hour simulation steps. In this case, there were a total of 18 overlapping 24-hour simulation windows 

over a duration of 3 days. The divisor for the average should have been 18 (the number of windows) but was incorrectly set to 3 

(the total number of days). After correcting this, the average number of 24-hour exposures for every species and every zone was 

lower by a factor of 6.
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

167

estimated the number of animals that could exceed injury threshold during representative surveys. More 

detailed descriptions of acoustic and exposure modeling methods can be found in Appendix E. 

Caveats when interpreting acoustic impacts on marine mammals include:

• The modeled projections are annual estimates spanning five years by region; source locations and 

movement, animal locations and movement, oceanographic/acoustic conditions, equipment 

descriptions and specifications, and the time of the year and exact location for each project are 

not precisely known; and

• Marine mammal abundances, distributions, and behavior patterns are not precisely known and 

may change as animal populations vary from year to year and location to location.

Despite uncertainty, the use of models can provide estimates of potential impacts for likely actions. 

Modeled results, however, are only as good as the data on which they are based. Many parameters are 

required, and there are many unknowns. Representative sound sources were modeled at maximum 

power, which produces the highest level sounds that have the greatest impact. Likewise, marine mammal 

densities values used likely exceed actual densities (see Appendix E for further explanation), and models 

do not include the effect of mitigations in reducing exposure estimates.

3.5.2.3.1.1.1 Permanent Threshold Shift Exposure Estimates

Estimated PTS/injury exposures were calculated as shown in Appendix E and as noted above, the 

estimates should be considered conservative predictions of potential exposure based on modeling 

assumptions and qualifications. These estimates consider that all proposed activities would occur, that 

marine mammals do not avoid sounds, and that conservative population density estimates were used. 

Sources with a signal frequency 200 kHz or higher were expected to have no impact because the sounds 

are above the hearing frequency range of cetaceans (see Section 3.5.1.1.1). It was also expected that any 

source with a range to threshold for potential injury <10 m (33 ft) based on the geometric spreading model 

or ray-trace propagation model would result in minimal impacts because the range is similar to or smaller 

than the vessel used by NOS and that the acoustic impact very close to the vessel would not be as relevant 

a concern as a vessel strike (i.e., it is very unlikely that a cetacean would approach that close to a moving 

vessel). For sources with ranges to potential injury >10 m (33 ft), representative simulations were 

conducted to estimate the exposure of species for those sources in the various regions (Appendix E). 

Summarized total potential PTS/injury exposure over five years for all acoustic sources for cetaceans in 

each region are shown in Table 3.5-8 (note that no PTS/injury exposure was predicted for any species in 

the Pacific Islands Region). For annual numbers, see Table 13 and Table E-2 in Appendix E. The range to 

the closest point of approach (CPA) for each of the species-specific animats (i.e., simulated animals) was 

recorded. The 95 Percent Exposure Range is the horizontal range that includes 95 percent of animat CPAs 

that exceed a given impact threshold (see Appendix E). Species that may be in the area but for which no 

impacts were predicted are not included in the table.
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

168

Table 3.5-8. Total Predicted Exposures for Cetacean Species and

Range Accounting for 95 Percent of Exposure

Above PTS Threshold Under Alternative A

Species

Total 

Exposures* Exposure Range (m)

Southeast Region**

Dwarf sperm whale 2.53 35

Pygmy sperm whale 1.85 35

Greater Atlantic Region

Harbor porpoise 15.15 34

Dwarf sperm whale 0.94 32

Pygmy sperm whale 0.13 32

West Coast Region

Harbor porpoise 5.59 28

Dall's porpoise 5.48 24

Alaska Region

Harbor porpoise 4.18 27

Dall's porpoise 3.48 20

*Exposures are based on a probabilistic model that is scaled by animal 

density and may therefore include fractional counts.

**Exposure modeling for the Southeast Region was conducted for the 

Gulf of Mexico.

Exposure predictions are based on classifying the sources as non-impulsive sounds, which have higher

thresholds than impulsive sounds (NMFS, 2018a), but are conservative because the exposures consider

that neither the simulated animals nor the operators changed behaviors due to the presence of the other. 

Avoidance of sound sources, including the vessel, by the animal or mitigation measures by the vessel 

operator could reduce the exposure estimates. Including aversive behavior of harbor porpoise to loud 

sound levels would have reduced their expected injury exposures by >60 percent (Appendix E). Also, the 

model overestimates near-field sound levels because modeled predictions do not account for the reduced 

sound levels present in the near-field of the source.

As shown in Table 3.5-8, PTS/injury exposure of high-frequency cetaceans could occur in four of the five 

regions with ranges to exposures in the simulations ~30 m (~100 ft). High-frequency cetaceans (Dall’s and 

harbor porpoises, and dwarf and pygmy sperm whales) have been shown to be more sensitive to sounds 

than other cetacean species, and therefore have comparatively low thresholds for PTS/injury exposures 

(NMFS, 2018a). Over the five-year timeframe, a total of 39 individuals could be exposed above the 

PTS/injury threshold across four regions. The numbers of animals exposed above threshold over the 

extensive project area and over five years would not be expected to result in population level adverse 

impacts, especially when comparing exposures to Potential Biological Removal (PBR) levels. 

The PBR approach was developed to identify marine mammal populations experiencing human-caused 

mortality at levels that could result in population depletion. PBR can be used to consider the level of 

impact (i.e., removal of individuals) that a population can sustain before population-level impacts (e.g., 

breeding) are incurred. PBR is defined by the MMPA as the maximum number of animals, not including 

natural mortalities, that may be removed from a marine mammal stock while allowing that stock to reach 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

169

or maintain its optimum sustainable population. PBR is calculated using the product of minimum 

population size, one-half the maximum net productivity rate, and a recovery factor for ESA-listed species 

and depleted stocks. NOS emphasizes that PBR is used here to estimate population level impacts of 

mortalities, but PTS/injury exposures modelled as a response to NOS activities are not anticipated to arise 

in serious physical injuries or death. However, PBR can be a useful tool to contextualize the health or 

vulnerability of a population. When comparing the annual PTS/injury exposures for species listed in Table 

3.5-8 to the PBRs listed for each species in recent stock assessment reports (Carretta et al., 2022; Hayes 

et al., 2022; and Muto et al., 2022), the PTS/injury exposures are below, and often well below the PBR for 

all species (Table 3.5-9). For example, in the West Coast Region, the total exposure estimate for Dall’s 

porpoise is 5.48 over five years, or on average 1.10 per year, and the PBR for that species in that region is 

99; thus, population-level impacts are not predicted because the exposures do not exceed the PBR.

Table 3.5-9. Comparison of Exposure Above PTS Threshold for Cetacean Species

Under Alternative A with Current Potential Biological Removal (PBR) Levels

Species Total Exposures

Average Annual 

Exposures PBR Levels *

Southeast Region

Dwarf sperm whale 2.53 0.51 2.5**

Pygmy sperm whale 1.85 0.37 2.5**

Greater Atlantic Region

Harbor porpoise 15.15 3.03 851

Dwarf sperm whale 0.94 0.19 46

Pygmy sperm whale 0.13 0.03 46

West Coast Region

Harbor porpoise 5.59 1.12 35 to 349***

Dall's porpoise 5.48 1.10 99 

Alaska Region

Harbor porpoise 4.18 0.84 2.2 to 11** ***

Dall's porpoise 3.48 0.70 131

*Sources for PBR Levels: Carretta et al., 2022; Hayes et al., 2022; and Muto et al., 2022

**Differs from PBR levels reported in the Draft PEIS due to numbers presented in the Draft PEIS for 

incorrect stock. 

***PBR levels for harbor porpoise in the West Coast Region is shown as the range across six stocks.

 Differs from PBR levels reported in the Draft PEIS due to changes between the 2019 and the 2021 

SARs.

** *** PBR levels for the Southeast Alaska stock; PBR levels are undetermined for the Gulf of Alaska and 

Bering Sea stocks.

In the Southeast and Greater Atlantic regions, where Roberts et al. (2016a, 2016b, 2017, 2018, 2021a, and 

2021b) density data were used to predict exposure, a discrepancy may arise in abundance (and PBR) 

estimates between those derived from the Roberts et al. densities and those reported in the SARs. For 

example, the Roberts density model for Kogia spp. (dwarf and pygmy sperm whales) predicts an

abundance of 2,234 individuals over the entire Gulf of Mexico, while the SAR predicts only 336 individuals 

in the same area. The reason that the abundance predicted from the Roberts et al. model is higher than 

the SARs abundance is due to underlying assumptions made when estimating abundance. To be 

conservative (i.e., obtain the lowest abundance), NOAA assumed that any animals at the surface along 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

170

the vessel trackline would be detected during a survey, whereas Roberts et al. assumes that only a fraction 

of those animals would be detected (Roberts et al., 2015b). Had NOAA used the same probability of 

detecting an animal that occurs along a trackline that Roberts et al. used, the Kogia abundance estimates 

would have been three times higher and much closer to the Roberts abundance estimate. PBR is based 

on the lower SAR abundance estimate, while the acoustic exposure estimates are based on the higher 

Roberts density data. Although the use of the Roberts et al. density results in higher estimates than would 

come from use of the SAR abundance data, the average annual PTS/injury exposure estimate in the 

Southeast and Greater Atlantic regions is less than one individual dwarf or pygmy sperm whale, and two 

individual harbor porpoises; thus, population-level impacts are not predicted.

3.5.2.3.1.1.2 Behavioral Disruption Estimates

Behavioral disruption exposure estimates over the five-year period were calculated for sources with 

operational frequencies within the cetacean hearing frequency range (less than or equal to 200 kHz, see 

Section 3.5.1.1.1). As was the case for PTS/injury exposure estimates, the behavioral disruption exposure

estimates consider that all proposed activities would occur; the estimates use the highest levels of 

anticipated cetacean densities and do not factor in effects of potential mitigation procedures or animals 

avoiding the sounds. Summarized total potential behavioral disruption exposures of cetaceans over five

yearsfor all sources in each region are shown in Table 3.5-10. For annual numbers, see Table 16 and Table 

E-5 in Appendix E. Species that may be in the area but for which no impacts were predicted are not 

included in the table.

Table 3.5-10. Total Predicted Exposures for Cetacean Species and

Time in Seconds Above the Behavioral Disruption Threshold Under Alternative A

Species

Total 

Exposures*

Average time above 

160 dB (s)**

Alaska Region

Pacific white-sided dolphin 784.14 63

Beluga whale 256.05 85

Harbor porpoise 80.29 88

Dall's porpoise 72.03 69

Bowhead whale 58.89 53

Common minke whale 56.48 47

Humpback whale, Central North Pacific 40.84 95

Resident killer whale 31.25 58

Fin whale 27.14 50

Transient killer whale 20.60 58

Beluga, Cooke Inlet 11.84 85

Humpback whale, Western North Pacific 4.46 95

Gray whale 1.55 51

Sperm whale 0.15 56

North Pacific right whale 0.03 53

Southeast Region***

Atlantic spotted dolphin 882.77 56

Common bottlenose dolphin 555.30 89
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

171

Species

Total 

Exposures*

Average time above 

160 dB (s)**

Pantropical spotted dolphin 330.04 52

Clymene dolphin 113.80 52

Rough-toothed dolphin 62.02 75

Spinner dolphin 57.83 58

Risso’s dolphin 23.20 69

Striped dolphin 31.72 50

False killer whale 32.82 55

Pilot whale, short finned 17.02 60

Pilot whale, long finned 16.72 60

Pygmy sperm whale 16.39 52

Pygmy killer whale 4.70 52

Sperm whale 12.46 64

Melon-headed whale 12.48 50

Dwarf sperm whale 9.89 52

Fraser’s dolphin 7.67 50

Blainville beaked whale 7.18 67

Gervais’ beaked whale 7.18 67

Mesoplodont beaked whales (all) 7.18 67

Cuvier's beaked whale 2.22 64

Transient killer whale 2.02 58

Rice’s whale 0.65 82

Greater Atlantic Region

Short-beaked common dolphin 2,587.99 102

Atlantic white-sided dolphin 2,322.53 101

Atlantic spotted dolphin 1,020.42 89

Common bottlenose dolphin 970.74 184

Harbor porpoise 780.49 120

Risso’s dolphin 418.21 112

Pilot whale, long finned 291.13 63

Fin whale 188.48 98

Pilot whale, short finned 185.73 63

Common minke whale 107.46 83

Humpback whale 96.84 97

Cuvier’s beaked whale 47.07 55

Dwarf sperm whale 46.57 57

Rough-toothed dolphin 45.04 110

Gervais beaked whale 35.62 55

Sowerby’s beaked whale 35.62 55

Blainville beaked whale 35.62 55

True’s beaked whale 35.62 55
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

172

Species

Total 

Exposures*

Average time above 

160 dB (s)**

Mesoplodont beaked whales (all) 35.62 55

Striped dolphin 18.17 50

Pantropical spotted dolphin 13.94 62

Sperm whale 13.76 50

Sei whale 14.99 98

North Atlantic right whale 14.43 100

Melon-headed whale 7.34 50

Pygmy sperm whale 6.68 57

Clymene dolphin 4.57 62

Fraser’s dolphin 3.09 38

False killer whale 2.84 64

White-beaked dolphin 2.69 101

Spinner dolphin 1.29 41

Northern bottlenose whale 0.49 42

Bryde’s whale 0.35 112

Blue whale 0.06 43

West Coast Region

Short-beaked common dolphin 23,788.53 55

Long-beaked common dolphin 15,896.35 82

Pacific white-sided dolphin 6,251.14 67

Striped dolphin 3,731.43 25

Northern right whale dolphin 2,550.46 25

Gray whale 2,212.68 51

Risso’s dolphin 260.00 66

Common bottlenose dolphin 257.45 110

Humpback whale, Central America 206.39 128

Common minke whale 180.10 51

Fin whale 129.13 62

Harbor porpoise 118.37 96

Dall's porpoise 115.10 75

Mesoplodont beaked whales (all) 66.83 26

Blue whale 62.78 27

Humpback whale, Central North Pacific 40.84 95

Sperm whale 32.97 29

Cuvier’s beaked whale 29.03 33

Baird's beaked whale 29.91 55

Sei whale 23.95 62

Offshore killer whale 20.75 64

Transient killer whale 19.66 64

Resident killer whale 18.15 64
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

173

Species

Total 

Exposures*

Average time above 

160 dB (s)**

Pilot whale, short finned 16.22 82

Humpback whale, Western North Pacific 4.46 95

Pacific Islands Region

Pygmy sperm whale 9,948.66 63

Rough-toothed dolphin 9,930.13 71

Striped dolphin 6,975.36 55

Pantropical spotted dolphin 3,261.02 62

Fraser's dolphin 2,774.83 50

Pygmy killer whale 942.31 64

False killer whale 345.82 56

Risso's dolphin 89.41 69

Common bottlenose dolphin 57.09 112

Spinner dolphin 41.38 84

Humpback whale, Central North Pacific 40.84 95

Melon-headed whale 30.24 59

Pilot whale, short finned 22.41 62

Humpback whale, Western North Pacific 4.46 95

Bryde’s whale 3.95 70

Sperm whale 3.48 67

Longman’s beaked whale 2.34 54

Cuvier’s beaked whale 2.32 54

Sei whale 2.17 75

Fin whale 1.48 75

Blainville beaked whale 1.16 55

Resident killer whale 0.58 56

Transient killer whale 0.58 56

Blue whale 0.21 54

*Exposures are based on a probabilistic model that is scaled by animal density and may therefore 

include fractional counts.

**Exposure above threshold over 24 hours.

***Exposure modeling for the Southeast Region was conducted for the Gulf of Mexico.

Under Alternative A, behavioral disruption exposures to cetaceans could occur in all five regions.

Depending on the species, behavioral disruption exposure of cetaceans could affect from a few to 

thousands of individuals in each region over the five-year timeframe. However, for the simulated animals 

exposed above the 160 dB threshold, the average time above threshold is under two minutes, and often 

under one minute (Table 3.5-10). The disturbances, therefore, are expected to be transient, and surveys, 

once completed in an area, would not generally be repeated, thus limiting an individual’s behavioral 

disruption. Behavioral exposures need to occur over the timespan of weeks to have a population level 

effect on marine mammals (Southall et al., 2016), as in the case of seismic surveys that have months’ 

worth of activity. Any disruption that occurs for a matter of hours or for less than a day would not likely 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

174

have a population-level impact. Thus, although many individuals of some species could experience 

behavioral disturbance from NOS acoustic sources, the small increments of time that the animals could 

be exposed above threshold over five years and over the extensive project area would not be expected 

to result in population level adverse impacts.

In coordination with NMFS and USFWS, NOS has developed mitigation measures (see Appendix D) to 

reduce potential impacts of active acoustic sources on marine mammals. NOS would continue to use the 

lowest power appropriate to perform surveys. NOS would also continue to use Protected Species 

Observers (PSOs) and would employ a robust suite of animal approach restrictions and reduced vessel 

speeds, described in more detail in Sections 3.5.2.3.1.2 and 3.5.2.3.1.3. For instance, NOS must maintain 

a 457-m (500-yd) minimum separation distance of the vessel from ESA-listed whales, and vessel operators 

would also take steps to avoid approaching any cetaceans (see mitigation measures in Appendix D). Since 

the radius for PTS/injury exposure is small (35 m [115 ft] or less; see Table 3.5-8), and the radius for 

behavioral disruption exposure is generally less than 457-m (500-yd) (with some exceptions for several 

species, such as beaked whales, Mesoplodont whales, northern right whale dolphin, striped dolphin, 

sperm whale, and blue whale, in the West Coast Region; see Tables 7 through 11 in Appendix E), these 

approach restrictions would effectively reduce the number of marine mammals exposed to sound from 

active acoustic sources. The small radii for PTS/injury also reduce the need for and effectiveness of 

additional mitigation measures, such as equipment ramp-up (i.e., slowly increasing the sound of acoustic 

equipment to allow animals to exit the area). It is not practicable for NOS to power-down active acoustic 

sources upon sighting a marine mammal within a certain radius of the vessel because data continuity 

would be lost. For the Alaska Region, NOS would employ the additional mitigation measure:

• For use of High-Resolution Geophysical (HRG)8 sound sources in all areas north of the Forelands 

in Cook Inlet, Alaska9

, contact the Alaska Region (akr.prd.section7@noaa.gov) for advice on how 

to proceed. 

NOS also considered whether additional mitigation measures should be employed in BIAs. BIAs, as 

discussed in Section 3.5.1.1.2 of this PEIS, comprise locations where particular species engage in 

biologically important behaviors either year-round or seasonally. BIAs occur in every region throughout 

the NOS action area, but they do not present the totality of important habitat throughout a marine 

mammal’s entire range. NOS considered the geographic extent of marine mammal exposures and the 

potential for exposures to occur in designated critical habitat or BIAs, such as preferred breeding, feeding, 

and nursery grounds or migratory routes. In general, marine mammal responses to acoustic stressors from 

the Proposed Action are anticipated to be minor and temporary, regardless of where the exposure occurs. 

NOS specifically considered the potential effectiveness and practicability of mitigation measures in BIAs 

for those species for which PTS/injury exposure was predicted by the acoustic modeling. Only the harbor 

porpoise has designated BIAs in regions where PTS/injury exposure was predicted: two separate small

resident year-round populations in Morro Bay and Monterey Bay in the West Coast Region, and another 

small resident population in the Greater Atlantic Region, concentrated in waters less than 150 m (492 ft) 

deep in the Gulf of Maine between July and September. These BIA designations reflect a concentration of 

8 HRG surveys are defined as surveys using an electromechanical source that operates at frequencies less than 180 

kHz, other than those defined at § 217.184(c)(1) (i.e., side-scan sonar, multibeam echo sounder, or CHIRP subbottom profiler) per the 2020 BOEM BiOp on the Federally Regulated Oil and Gas Program Activities in the Gulf of 

Mexico.

9 The Forelands in Cook Inlet are described as 60°43'10.9" north, 151°24'35.8" west (east side of the Inlet, Nikiski, 

Alaska) and West Foreland (60°42'48.1" north, 151°42'38.3" west).
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

175

marine mammals rather than areas where marine mammals engage in biologically important behaviors 

that could be impacted by active acoustic sources. NOS determined that avoiding harbor porpoise BIAs 

entirely would be impractical, in particular, year-round Morro Bay and Monterey Bay BIAs. If these areas 

are avoided and not surveyed, important information that supports habitat research and vessel safety 

would not be collected.

3.5.2.3.1.1.3 Conclusion

The effects of underwater sound from active acoustic sources on cetaceans under Alternative A would 

continue to be adverse and minor. Potential impacts include injury exposures in the form of hearing loss 

(PTS), but such injury would be rare and confined to a few individual high-frequency cetaceans in four 

regions (from four animals in the Southeast Region up to 17 animals in the Greater Atlantic Region over 

the five-year timeframe, see Table 3.5-8). While more individual animals are expected to experience 

behavioral disruptions than injury (on the order of hundreds or thousands of animals in each of the five 

regions over the five-year timeframe), the amount of time individuals may exceed the behavioral exposure 

threshold would be on average less than two minutes (Table 3.5-10). Similarly, the potential for masking

would continue to be minimal during surveys because the narrow beams of most active acoustic sources 

mean that animals would not spend much time in ensonified zones. Overall, the potential impacts would 

likely continue to be limited to short-term disruption of acoustic habitat and behavioral patterns. Impacts 

would be temporary or short-term and would not be considered outside the natural range of variability 

of species’ populations, their habitats, or the natural processes sustaining them. Impacts could include 

disruptions of behavioral patterns such as temporary disruption of communication and/or echolocation, 

disturbance of individuals or groups of cetaceans, and possible displacement of individuals or groups, but 

without substantial interference to feeding, reproduction, or other biologically important functions 

affecting population levels. Displacement of cetaceans from preferred breeding, feeding, or nursery 

grounds, migratory routes, or designated critical habitat would be limited to the project area or its 

immediate surroundings. Thus, impacts of Alternative A on cetaceans, including ESA-listed species, would 

continue to be insignificant. 

3.5.2.3.1.2 Vessel and Equipment Sound

All vessels produce underwater sound (10 Hz to 10 kHz) and are major contributors to overall background 

sound in the sea (see Appendix E). Under Alternative A, project activities would continue to generate low 

levels of vessel and equipment sound that could disturb marine mammals. The types of sound produced 

by these sources are non-pulsed, or continuous, transitory, and of relatively low frequency. Impacts of 

underwater sound depend on the duration of the sound source and the intensity of the sound output. 

The frequency range over which mysticetes are believed to hear sounds is approximately 7 Hz to 35 kHz 

(see Section 3.5.1.1.1), thus they are considered most sensitive to low-frequency sounds. The midfrequency odontocetes have functional hearing from about 150 Hz to 160 kHz; the high-frequency hearing 

group has functional hearing from about 275 Hz to 160 kHz. Thus, all cetaceans could be impacted by 

vessel-generated sound. Behavioral responses of cetaceans to vessel and equipment sound are expected 

to be variable depending on the vessel speed, size, location, frequency, and pattern of travel, as discussed 

below. 

The dominant source of sound from vessels is from the operation of propellers, including cavitation (which 

is the formation of water vapor cavities as water passes over propeller blades), singing (i.e., propeller 

singing is a phenomenon involving resonance between the natural frequency of the propeller blade tip 

and the vortex shedding frequency at the trailing edge of the blade, thus producing radiated sound), and 

propulsion (BOEM, 2014a). Vessel size, load, and speed affect intensity of sound. Traveling at low speed 

can reduce and avoid propeller cavitation noise. The vessels used by NOS typically produce source levels 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

176

of 130 to 160 dB while transiting; in comparison, large and powerful watercraft such as ferries, container 

ships, and icebreakers have source levels of 200 dB or greater (Erbe et al., 2019). However, source levels 

may vary by 20 to 40 dB within a ship class due to variability in design, maintenance, and operational 

parameters (Simard et al., 2016). Operating speeds would vary by the marine conditions, the capabilities 

of the vessel, and the survey equipment being used. Vessels used by NOS could move at speeds of up to 

25 knots when transiting and up to13 knots while surveying, but 5 to 8 knots would be more common. 

Vessels used by NOS would be variable in size, producing variable sound levels, and could travel anywhere 

in navigable U.S waters including areas as shallow as 1.8 m (6 ft). The exact locations that would be 

surveyed in a given year would be based on a variety of factors, including the age of the existing data, the 

changeability of the local sea floor, user needs, the availability of vessels and crews, the opportunity for 

cooperative projects with other offices or agencies, and the availability of funds. Projects could occur any 

time of the year in mid-latitudes and in the spring and summer months in Alaska. However, vessels used

by NOS would represent a very small proportion of total vessel traffic in the action area (see Section 2.4.1), 

and thus would not constitute a substantial portion of the existing volume of vessels already found within 

the EEZ. 

Specific projects may comprise a single surveying pass while others may involve multiple adjacent passes 

in a designated area (i.e., to ensure 100 percent bottom coverage). The line spacing in these full coverage 

surveys would be narrow enough that a cetacean could perceive the vessel and/or its instruments more 

than once, depending on its mobility and reaction. However, whenever possible, the location and timing 

of a given project would be purposefully coordinated to ensure that areas are not repeatedly surveyed. 

This would ensure that the potential environmental impacts directly resulting from NOS activities would 

not be exacerbated by repeated surveys within a given area.

Vessel sound can cause behavioral disturbance in at least some individuals and stocks of cetaceans. 

However, the occurrence and nature of responses are variable, depending on species, location, novelty of 

the sound, vessel behavior, and habitat, among many other factors. Behavioral responses could include 

evasive maneuvers such as diving or changes in swimming direction and/or speed and dive duration, 

decreased time searching for food, and avoidance behaviors, as well as disruptions in breeding, nursing, 

and migration (BOEM, 2014a). Some cetaceans may be displaced a short distance, potentially from 

preferred or critical habitat, but they would not be anticipated to leave a project area entirely. Introduced 

underwater sound may also reduce (i.e., mask) the effective communication distance of cetaceans if the 

frequency of the source is close to that used as a signal by the species, and if the anthropogenic sound is 

present for a significant fraction of the time. Most cetaceans use sound for almost all aspects of their life, 

including mating, reproduction, feeding, predator and hazard avoidance, communication, and navigation. 

Among cetaceans, baleen whales are considered particularly vulnerable to masking by vessel sounds as 

they use low-frequency sound and communicate over great distances. Odontocetes are considered less 

sensitive to masking by low-frequency sounds than are mysticetes (Ketten, 2000). Sounds from vessels 

used by NOS would be at levels not expected to cause anything more than possible localized and 

temporary or short-term behavioral changes as vessel sound is already so prevalent that it is commonly 

considered a usual source of ambient underwater sound.

Animal approach restrictions and decreasing vessel speeds could contribute to decreased sound levels 

from vessels, as well as fewer ship-strikes (see Section 3.5.2.3.1.3); rerouting vessels to avoid animals and 

designated critical habitats would also help alleviate some detrimental impacts of underwater noise. 

Although federal agencies such as NOAA are exempt, given the sensitivity of the resource, NOS operators 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

177

shall adhere to 50 CFR 224.105 which states no vessel of 20 m (65 ft) or greater in overall length may 

exceed a speed of 10 knots in designated seasonal management areas for the North Atlantic right whale. 

Additionally, 50 CFR 224.103 lists special prohibitions for endangered marine mammals to which NOS 

operators shall adhere, specifically Part B of the regulation, which states that vessels must maintain a 91-

m (100-yd) distance from endangered humpback whales in Alaska and cannot disrupt normal behavior; 

Part C of the regulation, which states that vessels must maintain a 457-m (500-yd) distance from North 

Atlantic and North Pacific right whales; and Part E of the regulation, which states that vessels must 

maintain a 365-m (400-yd) distance from killer whales in Washington.

Transits through North Pacific right whale critical habitat would be avoided. For unavoidable transits, 

vessels would maintain a speed of 10 knots or less. Nighttime operations would be prohibited in specific 

parts of the Gulf of Mexico that have been identified as important to the Rice’s whale. Additionally, if an 

ESA-listed whale is identified within 457 m (500 yds) of the forward path of a vessel used by NOS, the 

vessel would steer a course that increases the distance from the whale at a speed of 10 knots or less until 

the 457 m (500 yds) minimum distance has been established. If an ESA-listed whale is identified within 91

m (100 yds) of the forward path of a vessel used by NOS, the vessel must reduce speed and shift the 

engine into neutral; the engines would not be engaged until the whale has moved outside of the vessel’s 

path and beyond 457 m (500 yds).

Impacts from low-frequency underwater sound generated by remotely operated and autonomous 

vehicles and other equipment would be similar to those of surface vessels but at a much-reduced 

magnitude due to the far fewer nautical miles of proposed travel (i.e., approximately 518,000 nm [959,000 

km] for surface vessels vs. 28,600 nm [53,000 km] for remotely operated and autonomous vehicles over 

the five-year period across all geographic regions).

Low-flying aircraft, such as seaplanes or helicopters, may be used to reach remote areas, especially in 

Alaska for such projects as tide gauge installation, and can disturb cetaceans. Aircraft generate sound from 

their engines, airframe, and propellers, and the physical presence of low-flying aircraft can disturb 

cetaceans because of both the sound and the visual disturbance. Levels of sound received underwater 

from passing aircraft depend on the aircraft’s altitude, the aspect (direction and angle) of the aircraft 

relative to the receiver, receiver depth and water depth, and seafloor type (Richardson et al., 1995). 

Because of these physical variables, exposure of individual cetaceans to aircraft-related sound (including 

both airborne and underwater sound) would be expected to be brief in duration. Considering the 

relatively low level of aircraft activity that may occur (once or twice a year), along with the short duration 

of exposure to sound and visual disturbance, potential impacts from this activity on cetaceans are 

expected to be minimal.

Underwater sound from vessels and equipment may adversely affect the foraging or prey characteristics

of critical habitat that support some ESA-listed cetaceans by impacting different life stages of fish and 

aquatic macroinvertebrate prey species. See Section 3.7 Fish and Section 3.8 Aquatic Macroinvertebrates 

for full discussions of the potential impacts on fish and aquatic macroinvertebrates from vessel sound and 

underwater acoustic sources.

Considering that the proposed number of vessels associated with NOS project activities within the EEZ is 

very low as compared with all other shipping and vessel traffic (see Section 2.4.1), and the assumption 

that individuals or groups of cetaceans may be familiar with various and common vessel-related sounds, 

particularly within frequented shipping lanes, the effects of vessel sound on cetaceans under Alternative 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

178

A would continue to be adverse and minor. Small disruptions of behavioral patterns or displacement of 

individuals or groups would continue to be temporary or short-term with no life-threatening injury to 

individual marine mammals. Displacement of cetaceans from preferred breeding, feeding, or nursery 

grounds, migratory routes, or designated critical habitat would continue to be limited to the project area 

or its immediate surroundings. However, vessel sound is expected to result in insignificant adverse effects 

on individuals or populations of cetaceans, including ESA-listed species and critical habitat. 

3.5.2.3.1.3 Vessel Presence and Movement of Equipment in the Water

Behavioral responses of cetaceans to vessel presence are expected to be variable, often depending on the 

vessel speed, size, location, frequency, and pattern of travel (as discussed above under Vessel and 

Equipment Sound). Reactions of cetaceans to vessel presence often include changes in general activity 

(e.g., from resting or feeding to active avoidance), changes in surfacing-respiration-dive cycles, and 

changes in speed or direction of movement. Past experience of the animals with vessels is also important 

in determining the degree and type of response elicited from an animal-vessel encounter. Whale reactions 

to slow moving vessels are less dramatic than to fast or erratic vessel movement. Some species, especially 

delphinids, commonly approach vessels (Shane et al., 1986) while others, including most beaked whales, 

avoid approaching vessels (Würsig et al., 1998). Others appear to show no reaction to a passing vessel 

(Hooker et al., 2001). Some cetaceans may be displaced a short distance, potentially away from preferred 

or critical habitat, but they would not be anticipated to leave a project area entirely. In all oceans of the 

world, vessel presence is currently so prevalent that it is commonly considered a usual source of 

disturbance. The presence of vessels used by NOS would not be at levels expected to cause anything more 

than possible localized and temporary or short-term behavioral changes in cetaceans. 

Water disturbance by remotely operated and autonomous vehicles can temporarily disturb and displace 

nearby cetaceans. The impact should be minimal, and exposure of individual cetaceans would likely be 

brief in duration as the equipment would quickly pass by; however, impacts could increase if the 

frequency of disturbance becomes greater. In either case, if displaced, cetaceans are expected to return 

to the area and resume normal activities once the water disturbance ends. Surveying equipment such as 

echo sounders is typically attached to a crewed vessel, remotely operated or autonomous system, thus 

effects on cetaceans due to its movement in the water would occur from the presence and operation of 

the equipment carrier, rather than from the presence of the equipment itself. ADCPs and acoustic 

communication systems are often operated from tethered systems, buoys, fixed moorings, or they are 

hull mounted or on remotely operated or autonomous underwater vehicles. As with echo sounders, any 

effects on cetaceans would occur from the presence and operation of the vessel, rather than from 

presence of the equipment itself. Deployment of all autonomous systems, as well as other equipment and 

divers, would be suspended if any protected species is sighted within 91 m (100 yds) of the vessel. Work 

already in progress may continue if the activity is not expected to adversely affect the animal.

Sound speed data collection equipment, grab samplers, and drop/towed cameras are lowered and raised 

through the water column. This movement through the water could temporarily disturb and displace 

nearby cetaceans. These impacts would be temporary as cetaceans are expected to return once water 

column turbulence ceases. The ropes and wires used to lower a sound speed profiler or to connect a probe 

to the equipment on a ship can cause entanglements with cetaceans. This is not expected to interfere 

with cetacean movements, as whales, dolphins, and porpoises could swim below and avoid such 

equipment. Also, prior to using equipment NOS would ensure there is at least one PSO observing the area 

for protected species at all times. 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

179

Water disturbance by anchors and chains moving through the water can also temporarily disturb and 

displace nearby cetaceans. The impact on cetaceans should be minimal and cease when the anchoring 

system comes to rest or is taken out of the water. Cetaceans are expected to return to the area and 

resume normal activities once water column turbulence ceases. Anchoring would be a relatively 

infrequent activity; thus, impacts are expected to be minimal as they would rarely occur. Additionally, 

vessels would anchor in waters that are relatively shallow; the larger cetaceans would not generally be 

expected to occur in those areas and thus would not be impacted.

An important consideration to all crewed vessel operations is the possibility of a vessel striking a marine 

mammal, with whales being the most vulnerable and commonly impacted cetacean, although collisions 

with smaller species could also occur. Determining the exact numbers of whales killed through vessel 

strikes is considered difficult or impossible because strikes often go unnoticed or unreported. In the 

project area, a minimum of 217 whales were confirmed to be killed through vessel strikes from 2006 to 

2020, including a minimum of 52 ESA-listed whales (Henry et al., 2020; Henry, 2022; NMFS, 2021a; NMFS, 

No Date-c; Shaban et al., 2021). One of the most affected species is the North Atlantic right whale, which 

is particularly vulnerable to ship-strikes and is often found in high traffic areas. Marine mammal species 

of concern for possible ship strike with vessels operating at speed primarily include slow-moving species 

(e.g., North Atlantic right whales) and deep-diving species while on the surface (e.g., sperm whales, 

pygmy/dwarf sperm whales, and beaked whales). It is expected, however, that the probability of such an 

encounter, and thus impact, is very low. However, vessel operations within areas such as the North 

Atlantic right whale critical habitat and migration corridor during calving and nursing or migration periods 

may increase the probability of vessel strikes due to a higher concentration of animals in the area. Also, 

certain cetacean species, including bottlenose dolphin and other dolphin species (e.g., Stenella spp.), may 

actively approach vessels moving at speed to swim within the pressure wave produced by the vessel’s 

bow, thus increasing the potential for vessel strikes (BOEM, 2014a).

Vessel strikes can lead to death by massive trauma, hemorrhaging, broken bones, or propeller wounds. 

Massive propeller wounds can be fatal; if more superficial, whales may be able to survive the collision. 

Most severe and lethal whale injuries involve larger ships (>80 m [260 ft]) moving at higher speeds (>15 

knots). Animal approach restrictions and decreasing vessel speeds as discussed in Section 3.5.2.3.1.2 

would help reduce the potential for ship strikes of some protected species. Additionally, if an ESA-listed 

whale is identified within 457 m (500 yds) of the forward path of a vessel used by NOS, the vessel would 

steer a course that increases the distance from the whale at a speed of 10 knots or less until the 457 m 

(500 yd) minimum distance has been established. If an ESA-listed whale is identified within 91 m (100 yds) 

of the forward path of a vessel used by NOS, the vessel must reduce speed and shift the engine into 

neutral; the engines would not be engaged until the whale has moved outside of the vessel’s path and 

beyond 457 m (500 yds). If one or more cetaceans are sighted while a vessel is underway, attempts would 

be made to remain parallel to the animals’ course and avoid excessive speed or changes in direction until 

the cetaceans have left the area. Vessels would not enter into Rice's whale CDA and the 100 - 400 m (328 

– 1,312 ft) isobath in the Gulf of Mexico at night; if vessels are present in the CDA/isobath at night, the 

vessel must be anchored, moored, or otherwise immobile. In addition to complying with all seasonal 

management areas, NOS would check with various communication media for general ship strike 

information and specific details regarding North Atlantic right whale sighting locations. These sources 

include NOAA weather radio, U.S. Coast Guard NAVTEX broadcasts, and Notices to Mariners.

During NOS projects, waters surrounding the vessel would be visually monitored for any marine mammals 

by at least one PSO observing the area for protected species at all times. PSOs would use all means 

necessary to enhance visibility (e.g., spotlights, night vision) and would be trained as appropriate. In order 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

180

to maintain safe navigation and avoid interactions with marine mammals and other sensitive species 

during transit, the vessel crew would be instructed to remain vigilant to the presence of marine mammals. 

While vessel strikes would pose a direct threat to marine mammals, the likelihood of a collision between 

a vessel used by NOS and a marine mammal would be extremely unlikely because relatively low vessel 

speeds (particularly within seasonal restricted areas and inshore waterways and during data collection)

and visual observation during all vessel operations (regardless of size) would avoid vessel strikes with all 

marine mammal species. Marine mammal strikes by ROVs and autonomous vehicles are of low concern 

because of their slow speeds, small size, and built-in proximity avoidance systems.

Vessel presence and movement of equipment in the water would not have any direct effects on the

designated critical habitat of any species of cetacean. Indirectly, prey species such as fish and seals may 

be disturbed by vessels and equipment (see discussion in Section 3.7.2 Fish and Section 3.5.2.3.2 below). 

This could affect the North Atlantic right whale, North Pacific right whale, Beluga whale, and killer whale, 

all of which have critical habitat characteristics based on feeding and finding prey. However, it is not 

expected that impacts on prey species would be substantial, and thus impacts on critical habitat from 

vessel presence and movement of equipment are likely to be negligible to minor.

Since the likelihood of a vessel strike would continue to be very low, overall effects on cetaceans, including 

ESA-listed species and designated critical habitat, from vessel presence and movement of equipment in 

the water under Alternative A would continue to be adverse and minor. Small disruptions of behavioral 

patterns or displacement of individuals or groups would continue to be temporary or short-term with no 

life-threatening injury to individual marine mammals. Displacement of cetaceans from preferred 

breeding, feeding, or nursery grounds, migratory routes, or designated critical habitat would continue to 

be limited to the project area or its immediate surroundings. Multiple activities in one area or in several 

areas across migratory corridors could lead to larger magnitudes and more widespread impacts due to 

vessel operations; however, impacts would still continue to be considered insignificant. In the unlikely 

event that a vessel strike occurs, its impact would depend on the population status of the species affected. 

Although extremely unlikely, debilitating injury or mortality of one or a few individuals could occur; if 

population-level impacts are not expected, then impacts would be moderate, although the magnitude of 

impact could be greater if an ESA-listed species is affected. 

3.5.2.3.1.4 Human Activity

Human activity on vessels above the surface of the water would not be expected to have any effects on 

cetaceans underwater. During SCUBA operations, divers would move through the water column, possibly 

temporarily disturbing cetaceans that may be in the area. Cetaceans would continue with the activities 

they were engaged in once divers depart and water column turbulence ceases. 

When using a boat or platform to conduct SCUBA operations, at least one PSO would maintain visual 

watch for protected species to ensure none are sighted within the working area. If a listed species moves 

into the work area, cessation of operation of any moving equipment within 15 m (50 ft) of the animal 

would occur and only resume when the species has left the project area. SCUBA divers involved in inwater activities would have proper training and be capable of responsible dive practices such that they 

minimize injury to organisms and avoid unnecessary habitat impacts. During all buoy deployment and 

retrieval operations, buoys would be lowered and raised slowly to minimize risk to listed species. In 

addition, observers would monitor for listed species in the area prior to and during deployment and 

retrieval. Work would be stopped if listed species are observed in the area to minimize entanglement risk.
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

181

The impacts of human activity on cetaceans, including ESA-listed species, under Alternative A would 

continue to be adverse and negligible as there would continue to be only be minimal disruptions of 

behavioral patterns and no displacement from preferred breeding, feeding, or nursery grounds, migratory 

routes, or designated critical habitat; thus, the impacts would continue to be insignificant. It is not 

expected that human activity would have any impacts on designated critical habitat.

3.5.2.3.1.5 Accidental Leakage or Spillage of Oil, Fuel, and Chemicals

An accidental event could result in release of oil, fuel, or chemicals by a vessel used by NOS. Spills occurring 

at the ocean surface would be expected to disperse to a very light sheen and weather rapidly (BOEM, 

2014a). Volatile components of the contaminant would evaporate. Fuel such as diesel used for operation 

of vessels is light and would float on the ocean surface. There is the potential for a small proportion of 

heavier fuel components to adhere to particulate matter in the upper portion of the water column and 

sink.

Severity of oil and fuel spills on cetaceans depends on the type of contaminant, exposure pathway, and 

degree of weathering of the substance. Oil and fuel harm cetaceans via acute toxicity, sublethal health 

effects that reduce fitness, and disruption of marine communities (Walker et al., 2018). In the highly 

unlikely event of an accidental oil or fuel spill into the marine environment from a vessel used by NOS, 

cetaceans may be affected through various pathways: direct contact on skin, inhalation of volatile 

components, ingestion (directly or indirectly through the consumption of fouled prey species), and (for 

mysticetes) impairment of feeding by fouling of baleen (BOEM, 2014a). Mysticetes, such as humpback 

and right whales that feed in confined areas (e.g., bays), may be at greater risk of ingesting oil and fuel. 

The most likely effects of inhalation of volatile vapors would be irritation of respiratory membranes and 

absorption of hydrocarbons into the bloodstream. Cetacean skin is highly impermeable and is not 

seriously irritated by brief exposure to petroleum products. Ingestion (via contaminated prey) or 

inhalation may have negative effects for digestive, respiratory, and circulation systems; however, 

cetaceans exposed to an accidental spill from a vessel used by NOS are unlikely to ingest enough 

contaminants to cause serious internal damage because the volume of contaminants spilled would be 

fairly small given the size of vessel used in NOS projects. Death or life-threatening injury of individual 

cetaceans would not be expected from a small spill, nor would extended displacement of animals from 

preferred feeding or breeding habitats or migratory routes.

Cetaceans can be affected indirectly by oil, fuel, and chemical spills through changes in the ecosystem 

that adversely affect prey species and habitats, including degradation of water quality. Mortality of 

phytoplankton and zooplankton from oil and fuel spills could indirectly affect mysticetes which feed on 

them. However, even if a large number of plankton were affected, they can recover rapidly due to high 

reproductive rates, rapid replacement by cells from adjacent waters, widespread distribution, and 

exchange with tidal currents. Thus, the impact of an accidental spill on a pelagic phytoplankton 

community, and consequently on mysticetes, would not be substantial.

An accidental spill adjacent to or within critical habitat areas for the North Atlantic right whale and Beluga 

whale (both of which have critical habitat characteristics associated with nursery areas and calving) during 

calving periods may result in the direct contact of the spilled contaminants with both adult and newly 

born whales. Additionally, critical habitat areas designated for feeding and foraging characteristics for the 

North Atlantic right whale, North Pacific right whale, Beluga whale, and killer whale could be affected by 

adverse impacts on prey species from spilled fuel, oil, and other contaminants. Small spills could also make 

localized areas of critical habitat temporarily unavailable because of disturbance while clean up occurs, or 

temporarily decrease the value of critical habitat through contamination. However, impacts from such 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

182

events are not likely to seriously injure individual whales, as discussed above, and the likelihood of 

occurrence of an accidental spill is expected to be very low.

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. The Office of Marine 

and Aviation Operations (OMAO) Procedure 0701-06 ‘Shipboard Oil Pollution Emergency Plan & Non-Tank 

Vessel Response Plan (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 Assessments, trainings, drills, and exercises. This plan has been approved by 

the United States Coast Guard (USCG), and complies with the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 and Federal Water 

Pollution Act of 1973.

Since the likelihood of occurrence of an accidental spill from a vessel used by NOS would continue to be 

very low, impacts on cetaceans under Alternative A are expected to be adverse and negligible. In the 

event that an accidental spill does occur, the volume of oil, fuel, and/or chemicals would be fairly small 

given the size of vessels used by NOS and the amounts of fuel and other chemicals they typically carry. 

Additionally, all hazardous or regulated materials would continue to be handled in accordance with 

applicable laws, and crew members would continue to be appropriately trained in materials storage and 

usage. Thus, the impact on cetaceans would continue to be adverse and minor as impacts would continue 

to be temporary or short-term without any impacts on population levels. Displacement of cetaceans that 

move away to avoid spilled substances would continue to be short-term and limited to the project area 

or its immediate surroundings. Impacts on cetaceans, including ESA-listed species and designated critical 

habitat, would continue to be insignificant. 

3.5.2.3.1.6 Trash and Debris

Marine debris, particularly items made of synthetic materials, is a major form of marine pollution. Shipgenerated waste generally includes glass, metal, and plastic containers, organic and food waste, 

cardboard and paper packaging waste, and hazardous waste (e.g., batteries, noxious liquids, paint waste, 

pharmaceuticals) (Walker et al., 2018). 

Marine debris poses two types of negative impacts on cetaceans: entanglement and ingestion. 

Entanglement is a far more likely cause of mortality to cetaceans than ingestion (BOEM, 2014a). 

Entanglements occur when cables, lines, nets, or other objects suspended in the water column become 

wrapped around marine mammals, potentially causing injury, interference with essential behaviors and 

functions, and possibly mortality. Entanglement is most common in pinnipeds (see Section 3.5.3.2 below), 

less common in mysticetes, and rare among odontocetes (Laist et al., 1999). Entanglement data for 

mysticetes reflects a high interaction rate with active fishing gear rather than marine debris (BOEM, 

2014a). During proposed activities, numerous cables, lines, and other objects could be towed behind the 

vessel near the water’s surface. Although it is possible that such lines and cables could detach from a 

vessel and become debris in which cetaceans could get entangled, it is not very likely.
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

183

Impacts from discarded trash and debris are expected to be avoided through vessel operators’ required 

compliance with USCG and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations. In addition, no 

intentional vessel discharges would occur if a protected species is sighted within 91 m (100 yds) of the 

vessel used by NOS, and all MARPOL discharge protocols would be followed. Thus, impacts of discarded 

trash and debris on cetaceans, including ESA-listed species, under Alternative A would continue to be 

adverse and negligible as any disturbance of animals would continue to be temporary, no mortality or 

debilitating injury would be expected, and there would continue to be no displacement from preferred or 

designated critical habitat; impacts would continue to be insignificant. It is also not expected that trash 

and debris would have any impacts on designated critical habitat.

3.5.2.3.2 Pinnipeds

The analysis of impacts on pinnipeds considers all of the impact causing factors introduced above. 

Potential impacts could occur in all of the geographic regions as one or more pinniped species, subspecies, 

or DPS occur in each region (see Section 3.5.1.2 above). Three regions – West Coast, Alaska, and Pacific 

Islands – include one or more ESA-listed species, and two regions, Alaska and Pacific Islands, each include 

designated critical habitat for one listed species.

3.5.2.3.2.1 Active Underwater Acoustic Sources

While many pinnipeds forage near the water surface, others make deep and prolonged foraging dives of 

hundreds of meters (elephant seals are the deepest-diving pinnipeds); thus, they could be affected by 

underwater sound from acoustic sources used in NOS projects. Active underwater acoustic sources 

included in Alternative A comprise echo sounders, ADCPs, and acoustic communication systems as 

discussed in Section 2.4 and under cetaceans in Section 3.5.2.3.1.1. Table 3.5-7 lists the representative

equipment and frequency ranges used in acoustic modeling.

Sound frequencies produced by the echo sounders overlap the range of pinniped hearing (50 Hz to 86 

kHz), and they can presumably hear these sounds if sufficiently close. Acoustic signals from echo sounders 

(ranging from 0.5 kHz to 900 kHz) are likely to be detectable by pinnipeds if the lower end of the sound 

frequency spectrum is used. The adverse impacts of such sound can include behavioral responses and 

short-term or permanent loss of hearing (TTS and PTS). Masking effects are expected to be minimal or 

non-existent given the beam directionality, the brief period when an individual pinniped would potentially 

be within the downward-directed beam from a transiting vessel, and the relatively low source level of an

echo sounder. TTS and PTS through exposure to the downward-directed echo sounder sounds is unlikely 

to occur because the probability of a pinniped swimming through the area of exposure when an echo 

sounder emits a sound is small. The animal would have to pass the transducer at close range and be 

swimming at speeds similar to the vessel in order to be subjected to sound levels that could cause TTS or 

PTS.

Acoustic signals from ADCPs (ranging from 35 kHz to 1200 kHz) are likely to be detectable by pinnipeds 

underwater if the lower end of the sound frequency spectrum is used. The effects of underwater sound

from ADCPs on pinnipeds would be similar to those from echo sounders, although there would potentially 

be no impacts at all as ADCPs, although capable of producing lower frequency sound, are usually operated 

at high to extremely high frequency.

Acoustic communication systems would emit sound in mid-frequency ranges (10s of kHz) and thus could 

be detectable by pinnipeds (which can hear from 50 Hz to 86 kHz) underwater. The impacts of underwater 

sound on pinnipeds from acoustic communication systems would be similar to but less than that described 

above for the use of echo sounders because, although acoustic communication systems are
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

184

omnidirectional, they have lower power, a lower duty cycle, and would be used less frequently than echo 

sounders. 

Quantitative acoustic exposure to marine mammals, including pinnipeds, from operation of sound sources 

was modeled for nine sources (see Appendix E). Acoustic modeling was conducted by determining the 

size of the sound field expected from each source (referred to and depicted as an isopleth) and estimating 

the number of pinnipeds that may be exposed above sound thresholds for PTS/injury and behavioral 

disruption (see Appendix E). To gauge the potential for impacts, received sound levels that could result in 

PTS/injury or behavioral disruption to the animal were needed. For this study, the current NMFS criteria 

for both PTS/injury (NMFS, 2018a) and behavioral disruption (84 FR 72308, December 31, 2019) were 

used (see Appendix E). The methodology for modeling the impacts of active underwater acoustic sources 

is presented in Appendix E. Additionally, Section 3.5.2.3.1.1 under Cetaceans discusses the assumptions 

made and the data sources used in the modeling scenarios to predict exposures of marine mammals, 

including pinnipeds.

Based on the modeling, and taking into account animal behavior, source characteristics, and animal 

hearing capability, no PTS/injury exposures of pinnipeds are expected to occur; thus, only behavioral 

disruption exposure is discussed below. Note that the estimated exposures have overall decreased 

between the Draft PEIS and the Final PEIS for the reasons discussed in Section 3.5.2.3.1.1 under Cetaceans.

3.5.2.3.2.1.1 Behavioral Disruption Exposure Estimates

Behavioral disruption exposure estimates over the five-year period were calculated for sources with 

operational frequencies within the pinniped hearing frequency range (<200 kHz, see Section 3.5.1.2.1). 

Behavioral disruption exposure estimates considered that all proposed activities would occur, used the 

highest levels of anticipated animal densities, and did not factor in effects of potential mitigation

procedures or animals avoiding the sounds. Summarized total potential behavioral disruption exposures

of pinnipeds over five years for all sources in the four regions where they could occur are shown in Table 

3.5-11. For annual numbers, see Appendix E. Species that may be in the area but for which no impacts 

were predicted are not included in the table.

Table 3.5-11. Total Predicted Exposures for Pinniped Species and Time

in Seconds Above the Behavioral Disruption Threshold Under Alternative A

Species

Total

Exposures*

Average time above 

160 dB (s)**

Alaska Region

Northern fur seal*** 20,494.45 138

Spotted seal 10,026.01 104

Harbor seal 6,471.74 104

Northern elephant seal*** 5,662.73 118

Bearded seal 1,451.04 104

Ribbon seal 1,372.51 104

Ringed seal 1,103.05 104

Walrus 593.19 95

Steller sea lion*** 443.17 104
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

185

Species

Total

Exposures*

Average time above 

160 dB (s)**

Greater Atlantic Region

Harp seal 691.06 174

Gray seal 559.35 168

Harbor seal 341.84 193

Hooded seal 321.20 174

West Coast Region

California sea lion 29,566.71 96

Northern fur seal 20,976.33 138

Northern elephant seal 5,662.73 118

Harbor seal 5,425.79 138

Stellar sea lion 2,472.05 138

Guadalupe fur seal 227.24 138

Pacific Islands Region

Hawaiian monk seal 548.17 86

*Exposures are based on a probabilistic model that is scaled by animal density and may 

therefore include fractional counts.

**Exposure above threshold over 24 hours.

***Populations span Alaska and West Coast regions.

Under Alternative A, behavioral disruption exposures to pinnipeds could occur in four regions. Depending 

on the species, behavioral disruption exposure of pinnipeds could affect hundreds to tens of thousands 

of animals in each region over the five-year timeframe. However, for the simulated animals exposed 

above the 160 dB threshold, the average time above threshold is under four minutes, and often less than 

two minutes (Table 3.5-11). The disturbances, therefore, are expected to be transient, and surveys, once 

completed in an area, would not generally be repeated, thus limiting an individual’s behavioral disruption. 

Behavioral exposures need to occur over the timespan of weeks to have a population level effect on 

marine mammals, as in the case of seismic surveys that have months’ worth of activity (Southall et al., 

2016). Any disruption that occurs for a matter of hours or for less than a day would not likely have a 

population-level impact. Thus, although many individuals of some species could experience behavioral 

disturbance from NOS acoustic sources, the small increments of time that the animals could be exposed 

above threshold over the five years and the extensive project area would not be expected to result in 

population level adverse impacts.

In coordination with NMFS and USFWS, NOS has developed mitigation measures (see Appendix D) to 

reduce potential impacts of active acoustic sources on marine mammals. NOS would continue to use the 

lowest power appropriate to perform surveys. NOS would also continue to use PSOs and would employ a 

robust suite of animal approach restrictions and reduced vessel speeds, described in more detail in 

Sections 3.5.2.3.2.2 and 3.5.2.3.2.3, as well as the walrus-specific measures outlined in Section 3.5.2.3.2.2.

3.5.2.3.2.1.2 Conclusion

The effects of underwater sound from active acoustic sources on pinnipeds under Alternative A would 

continue to be adverse and minor. No injury exposures in the form of hearing loss (PTS) are expected to 

occur. While individual animals would be expected to experience behavioral disruptions (from thousands 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

186

to tens of thousands of animals across four regions over the five-year timeframe), the amount of time 

individuals may exceed behavioral exposure thresholds would be on average less than four minutes (Table 

3.5-11). Similarly, the potential for masking would continue to be minimal during surveys because the 

narrow beams of most active acoustic sources mean animals would not spend much time in ensonified 

zones. Overall, the potential impacts are likely limited to short-term disruption of acoustic habitat and 

behavioral patterns. Impacts would be temporary or short-term and would not be considered outside the 

natural range of variability of species’ populations, their habitats, or the natural processes sustaining 

them. Impacts could include disruptions of behavioral patterns such as temporary disruption of 

communication, disturbance of individuals or groups of pinnipeds, and possible displacement of 

individuals or groups, but without substantial interference to feeding, reproduction, or other biologically

important functions affecting population levels. Displacement of pinnipeds from preferred breeding, 

feeding, or nursery grounds or designated critical habitat would be limited to the project area or its 

immediate surroundings. Impacts of Alternative A on pinnipeds, including ESA-listed species, would 

continue to be insignificant. 

3.5.2.3.2.2 Vessel and Equipment Sound

Pinnipeds can be classified within two separate functional hearing groups (“pinnipeds in water” [75 Hz-75 

kHz] and “pinnipeds in air” [75 Hz-30 kHz]) since these species communicate acoustically in both air and 

water and have different hearing capabilitiesin the two media. Vessels and equipment used by NOS would 

generate transitory sound (10 to 10,000 Hz) into the air and underwater while in a project area that would 

allow them to be heard by pinnipeds. 

Vessel sound in the air and underwater can cause behavioral disturbance in pinnipeds. However, the 

occurrence and nature of pinniped responses would be variable, depending on species, location, novelty 

of the sound, vessel behavior, and habitat, among many other factors (see Section 3.5.2.3.1.2 above for 

discussion of vessel variables). Behavioral responses could include evasive maneuvers such as diving, 

changes in swimming direction and/or speed, dive duration, decreased time searching for food, and 

avoidance behaviors, as well as disruptions in breeding and nursing. Introduced underwater sound may 

also reduce (i.e., mask) the effective communication distance of a pinniped if the frequency of the source 

is close to that used as a signal by the animal, and if the anthropogenic sound is present for a substantial 

fraction of the time. Vessel sounds, however, would be at levels not expected to cause anything more 

than possible reactions limited to startle or otherwise brief responses and temporary or short-term 

behavioral changes of no lasting consequence to the animals. Additionally, vessels would avoid 

approaching within 100 yards of in-water seals and sea lions.

Animal approach restrictions in part D of 50 CFR 224.103 list special prohibitions for Steller sea lions to 

which NOS operators would adhere:

• Per part D of the regulation, vessels must maintain a distance of 3 nm (5.6 km) from Steller sea 

lion rookery sites listed in the regulation (Table 1 to 50 CFR 224.103 - Listed Steller Sea Lion 

Rookery Sites). 

Impacts from low-frequency underwater sound generated by remotely operated or autonomous vehicles

and other equipment would be similar to those of surface vessels but at a much reduced magnitude due 

to the far fewer nautical miles of proposed travel (i.e., approximately 518,000 nm [959,000 km] for surface 

vessels vs. 28,600 nm [53,000 km] for remotely operated and autonomous vehicles over the five-year 

period across all geographic regions). 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

187

Low-flying aircraft used to reach remote areas, especially in Alaska for such projects as tide gauge

installation, can disturb pinnipeds because of both airborne and underwater sound and visual disturbance, 

particularly to individuals resting on the sea surface or at haul out locations. Behavioral responses of 

pinnipeds to aircraft are highly variable and range from no observable reaction to diving or rapid changes 

in swimming speed or direction. Exposure of individual pinnipeds to aircraft-related sound would be 

expected to be brief in duration, and considering the relatively infrequent level of aircraft activity that 

may occur (only once or twice a year), potential impacts from this activity on pinnipeds are expected to 

be minimal. Walruses, however, are easily frightened when on haul outs and are more sensitive to 

disturbance than swimming individuals; walruses tend to pack closely together when hauled out so that 

a flight response by one animal can quickly travel through the herd, triggering a mass exodus to the water 

(BOEM, 2016; USFWS, 2016a). Stampedes are the greatest impact of aircraft and vessel disturbance and 

may result in cow-calf separations or injuries and mortalities. In recent years, upwards of 60,000 walrus

have consistently hauled out on land near Point Lay, Alaska (USFWS, 2020). Disturbance at these types of 

haulouts would have a greater impact on walrus than on ice or on other land haulouts such as in Bristol 

Bay, Alaska since haulouts at Point Lay are primarily populated by females with pups, subadults and some 

males. A stampede at a haulout of this size with this demographic would likely incur more deaths, injuries, 

and separations than at other locations.

NOS may encounter walruses while conducting activities within the Bering Sea or Chukchi Sea, or along 

the associated coastline. Walrus are sensitive to disturbance from noise, sights, and smells associated with 

human activities and could result in significant behavioral response, injury, or death. Appendix D details 

the mitigation measures that have been suggested by USFWS and adopted by NOS to prevent such 

adverse effects and include:

• Maintain an appropriate minimum distance from walruses hauled out on ice or land: Marine 

vessels less than 15 m (50 ft) in length – 0.5 nm (1 km); Marine vessels 15 m (50 ft) or more but 

less than 30 m (100 ft) in length – 1 nm (1.8 km); and Marine vessels 30 m (100 ft) or more in 

length – 3 nm (5.5 km);

• Reduce noise levels near haulouts. Avoid abrupt maneuvers, sudden changes in engine noise, 

using loud speakers, loud deck equipment or other operations that produce noise when in the 

vicinity of walrus haulouts. Note that sound carries a long way across the water and often 

reverberates off of cliffs and bluffs adjacent to coastal walrus haulouts, amplifying noise. Do not 

operate the vessel in such a way as to separate members of a group of walruses from other 

members of the group;

• Reduce speed and maintain a minimum distance of 0.8 km (0.5 mi) from groups of walruses in the 

water;

• If walruses approach the vessel or are found to be in close proximity, place boat engines in neutral 

and allow the animals to pass. If vessel safety considerations prevent this, carefully steer around 

animals;

• When weather conditions require, such as when visibility drops, adjust speed accordingly to avoid 

the likelihood of injury to walruses;

• Do not fly autonomous system devices or single engine fixed wing aircraft over or within 0.8 km

(0.5 mi) of walruses hauled out on land or ice;

• If weather or aircraft safety require flight operations within 0.8 km (0.5 mi) of a haulout site, 

maintain a 610 m (2,000 ft) minimum altitude;
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

188

• Do not fly helicopters over or within 1.6 km (1 mi) of walruses hauled out on land or ice;

• If weather or aircraft safety require crewed flight operations within 1.6 km (1 mi) of a haulout site, 

maintain a 915 m (3000 ft) minimum altitude;

• Landings, take-offs, and taxiing of autonomous system devices or single engine fixed wing aircraft 

should not occur within 0.8 km (0.5 mi) of hauled out walruses, or within 1.6 km (1 mi) for 

helicopters;

• Avoid circling or turning near walruses hauled out on land or ice; and

• If aircraft safety requires flight operations below recommended altitudes near a haulout, pass 

inland or seaward of the haulout site at the greatest lateral distance manageable for safe 

operation of the aircraft.

Underwater sound from vessels and equipment may adversely affect the foraging or prey characteristics

of critical habitat that support some ESA-listed pinnipeds by impacting different life stages of fish and 

aquatic macroinvertebrate prey species. See Section 3.7 Fish and Section 3.8 Aquatic Macroinvertebrates 

for full discussions of the potential impacts on fish and aquatic macroinvertebrates from vessel sound and 

underwater acoustic sources.

Considering that the proposed volume of vessels associated with NOS project activities within the EEZ is 

very low as compared with all other shipping and vessel traffic (see Section 2.4.1), and the assumption 

that individuals or groups of pinnipeds may be familiar with various and common vessel-related sounds, 

particularly within frequented shipping lanes, the effects of vessel sound on pinnipeds under Alternative 

A would continue to be adverse and minor. If a walrus stampede occurs due to vessel or aircraft 

disturbance, the impact could be moderate or greater as debilitating injury or mortality could occur, but 

the continued viability of the population would not be threatened, especially when BMPs and guidelines 

are implemented. Small disruptions of behavioral patterns or displacement of individuals or groups would 

continue to be temporary or short-term with no life-threatening injury to individual pinnipeds. 

Displacement of pinnipeds from preferred breeding, feeding, or nursery grounds, or designated critical 

habitat would continue to be limited to the project area or its immediate surroundings. Multiple activities 

in one area could lead to larger magnitudes and more widespread impacts. However, vessel sound is 

expected to result in insignificant adverse effects on individuals or populations of pinnipeds, including 

ESA-listed species and designated critical habitat. 

3.5.2.3.2.3 Vessel Presence and Movement of Equipment in the Water

As with vessel sound, behavioral responses of pinnipeds to vessel presence and movement are also 

expected to be variable. Some species may tolerate slow moving vessels within several hundred meters, 

especially when the vessel is not directed towards the animal or making sudden changes in direction or 

engine speed. Reactions of pinnipeds to vessel presence and movement include attraction to the vessel, 

increased alertness, modification of vocalization, cessation of feeding or interacting, alteration of 

swimming or diving behavior (change in direction or speed), habitat abandonment, and possibly panic 

reactions such as stampeding (particularly in walruses). Disturbance from vessels can include localized 

displacement of pinnipeds in close proximity from haul out locations. The presence of vessels used by 

NOS, however, would not be at levels expected to cause anything more than possible localized and 

temporary or short-term behavioral changes in pinnipeds. 

An important consideration for all crewed vessel operations is the possibility of marine mammal vessel 

strikes. Vessel strikes can lead to death by massive trauma, hemorrhaging, broken bones, or propeller 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

189

wounds. However, vessel strikes are unlikely as pinnipeds in general are very agile, are able to swim much 

faster than the vessels used by NOS, and can easily swim away from or under vessels traveling at full 

speed. When feeding, pinnipeds may be distracted and thus inattentive to vessels; however, they can 

probably move away quickly enough to avoid collisions. As NOS would ensure visual observation during 

all vessel operations (regardless of size), along with animal approach restrictions discussed above in 

Section 3.5.2.3.2.2, vessels used by NOS would be unlikely to strike pinnipeds. Marine mammal strikes by 

ROVs and autonomous vehicles are of low concern because of their slow speeds, small size, and built-in 

proximity avoidance systems.

Water disturbance by remotely operated and autonomous vehicles can temporarily disturb and displace 

nearby pinnipeds both in the water and those who are hauled out. The impact should be minimal and 

likely brief in duration as the ROV or equipment would quickly pass by; however, impacts could increase 

if the frequency of disturbance becomes greater or if an ROV gets too close to haul out locations. In either 

case, if displaced, pinnipeds are expected to return to the area and resume normal activities once the 

water disturbance is no longer present. Equipment such as echo soundersis typically attached to a crewed

vessel or remotely operated or autonomous vehicle; thus, effects on pinnipeds would occur from the 

presence and operation of their carriers as discussed above, rather than from the presence of the 

equipment itself. ADCPs and acoustic communication systems are often operated from tethered systems, 

buoys, fixed moorings, or they are hull mounted or on remotely operated or autonomous underwater

vehicles. As with echo sounders, any effects on pinnipeds would occur from the presence and operation 

of the vessel, rather than from presence of the equipment itself. Deployment of all autonomous systems, 

as well as other equipment and divers, would be suspended if any protected species is sighted within 91 

m (100 yds) of the vessel. Work already in progress may continue if the activity is not expected to adversely 

affect the animal. Additionally, the mitigation measures discussed in Section 3.5.2.3.2.2 for protecting 

walruses also apply for vessel presence and movement of equipment in the water.

Sound speed data collection equipment, grab samplers, and drop/towed cameras are lowered and raised 

through the water column. This movement through the water could temporarily disturb and displace 

nearby pinnipeds. These impacts would be temporary as pinnipeds are expected to return once water 

column turbulence ceases. The ropes and wires used to lower such equipment, or to connect a probe to 

the equipment on a ship, can also cause entanglements with pinnipeds. However, this is not expected to 

interfere with pinniped movements as, prior to using equipment, NOS would ensure there is at least one 

PSO observing the area for protected species at all times. 

Water turbulence by anchors and chains moving through the water can also temporarily disturb and 

displace nearby pinnipeds. The impact on pinnipeds should be minimal and cease when the anchoring 

system comes to rest or is taken out of the water. Pinnipeds are expected to return to the area and resume 

normal activities once water column turbulence ceases. It is possible that vessels anchoring near haul out 

locations could disturb or displace hauled out pinnipeds. Such impacts could be avoided by using 

designated anchorage areas or previously surveyed areas when available, and if an appropriate distance 

away so as not to disturb animals. Anchoring would be a relatively infrequent activity; thus, impacts on 

pinnipeds would be expected to be minimal as they would rarely occur.

Vessel presence and movement of equipment in the water would not have any direct effects on the critical 

habitat of any pinniped species. Indirectly, prey species such as fish may be disturbed by vessels and 

equipment (see discussion in Section 3.7.2 Fish). This could affect the Steller sea lion and Hawaiian monk 

seal, both of which have critical habitat characteristics that are based on feeding and finding prey. 

However, it is not expected that impacts on prey species would be substantial, and thus impacts on critical 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

190

habitat from vessel presence are likely to be temporary and small. Additionally, vessel operations have 

the potential to interfere with the haul out, rookery, and nursing characteristics of designated critical 

habitat for the Steller sea lion and Hawaiian monk seal if these species are displaced or otherwise 

prevented from using the habitat when vessels are present. 

The mitigation measures discussed in Section 3.5.2.3.2.2 for reducing the impacts of vessel and equipment 

sound on pinnipeds also apply for reducing impacts of vessel presence and movement of equipment in 

the water.

Since the likelihood of a vessel strike would continue to be very low, the overall effects on pinnipeds, 

including ESA-listed species and designated critical habitat, from vessel presence and movement of 

equipment in the water under Alternative A would continue to be adverse and minor. Small disruptions 

of behavioral patterns or displacement of individuals or groups would continue to be temporary or shortterm with no life-threatening injury to individual pinnipeds. Displacement of pinnipeds from preferred 

breeding, feeding, or nursery grounds, or designated critical habitat would continue to be limited to the 

project area or its immediate surroundings. Multiple activities in one area could lead to larger magnitudes 

and more widespread impacts due to vessel operations; however, impacts would still continue to be 

considered insignificant. In the unlikely event that a vessel strike occurs, its impact would depend on the 

population status of the species affected. Although very unlikely, debilitating injury or mortality of one or 

a few individuals could occur; since population-level impacts are not expected, impacts would be 

moderate, although the magnitude of impact could be greater if an ESA-listed species is affected. 

3.5.2.3.2.4 Human Activity

Human activity could affect pinnipeds primarily during activities on land, such as tide gauge and shorebased reference station installation, maintenance, and removal. Sound and movement from human 

activity onboard vessels could also affect pinnipeds that are hauled out; however, the sound and presence 

from the vessels themselves would likely be the greater cause of impacts, as discussed above.

Onshore human activity during tide gauge installation near pinniped haul out sites could disturb activities 

such as communication, feeding, or reproduction and displace animals from haul outs temporarily or over 

the short-term. Tide gauge operation would not generally affect pinnipeds as tide gauges operate 

autonomously. Occasionally, there could be some disturbance or displacement of nearby pinnipeds from 

sound and activity if field personnel need to do maintenance in such situations as when a buoy breaks its 

mooring, the gauge stops sending messages, or batteries need to be recharged. Sound and activity from 

tide gauge removal could also cause temporary or short-term, localized disturbance and changes in 

behavior of nearby hauled out pinnipeds, similar to impacts during installation. During all buoy 

deployment and retrieval operations, buoys would be lowered and raised slowly to minimize risk to listed 

species. In addition, observers would monitor for listed species in the area prior to and during deployment 

and retrieval. Work would be stopped if listed species are observed in the area to minimize entanglement 

risk. 

Impacts from installation of a shore-based GPS reference station could potentially occur if the site is 

located near a pinniped haul out location, similar to impacts during tide gauge installation. In addition, 

shore and/or coastal habitat could be disturbed or altered because a small area of ground would be 

covered by the GPS reference station. Although this could affect habitat at haul out locations, it is not 

likely that the ground disturbance would be large enough to alter habitat to the point where pinnipeds 

could no longer use the site.
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

191

During SCUBA operations, divers would move through the water column, possibly temporarily disturbing 

pinnipeds that may be in the area. Pinnipeds would continue with the activities they were engaged in 

once divers depart and water column turbulence ceases. When using a boat or platform to conduct SCUBA 

operations, at least one PSO would maintain visual watch for protected species to ensure none are sighted 

within the working area. If a listed species moves into the work area, cessation of operation of any moving 

equipment within 15 m (50 ft) of the animal would occur and only resume when the species has left the 

project area. SCUBA divers involved in in-water activities would have proper training and be capable of 

responsible dive practices such that they minimize injury to organisms and avoid unnecessary habitat 

impacts.

Overall, the impacts of human activity on pinnipeds, including ESA-listed species, under Alternative A

would continue to be adverse and minor as there would only continue to be small disruptions of 

behavioral patterns and any displacement would continue to be limited to the project area or immediate 

surroundings, and thus insignificant. It is not expected that human activity would have any impacts on 

designated critical habitat as the locations for tide gauges and GPS reference stations would not likely be 

located in or adjacent to critical habitat areas.

3.5.2.3.2.5 Accidental Leakage or Spillage of Oil, Fuel, and Chemicals

Severity of oil, fuel, and chemical spills on pinnipeds depends on the type of contaminant, exposure 

pathway, and degree of weathering of the substance. Oil and fuel can harm pinnipeds via acute toxicity, 

sublethal health effects that reduce fitness, and disruption of marine communities. In the highly unlikely 

event of an accidental spill into the marine environment from a vessel used by NOS, pinnipeds could be 

coated with oil or fuel, could ingest oil or fuel with water or contaminated food, or could absorb oil or fuel 

components through the respiratory tract. Oil can destroy the insulating qualities of hair or fur, resulting 

in hypothermia. Thus, pinnipeds that depend on fur rather than a thick layer of fat for insulation, such as 

fur seals and newborn pups, are most sensitive to oiling. If oil or fuel is ingested, some of it would be 

voided in vomit or feces or metabolized at rates that prevent significant bioaccumulation, but some could 

be absorbed and could cause toxic effects. However, pinnipeds exposed to a small oil or fuel spill from 

vessels used by NOS are unlikely to ingest enough to cause serious internal damage. A small spill would 

not be likely to result in the death or life-threatening injury of individual pinnipeds, or the long-term 

displacement of these animals from preferred feeding or breeding habitats. It is expected that spilled oil 

or fuel would rapidly disperse on the sea surface to a very light sheen and weather rapidly (BOEM, 2014a).

Pinnipeds could be affected indirectly by oil, fuel, and chemical spills through changes in the ecosystem 

that adversely affect prey species and habitats, including degradation of water quality. Water quality and 

visibility could be temporarily impacted, which could indirectly affect the ability of pinnipeds to locate 

prey (primarily fish or invertebrates). This could also affect critical habitat areas designated for feeding 

and foraging characteristics for the Steller sea lion and Hawaiian monk seal. Small spills could also make 

localized areas of critical habitat temporarily unavailable because of disturbance while clean up occurs, or 

temporarily decrease the value of critical habitat through contamination. However, since it would be 

highly unlikely that an accidental spill would occur, adverse impacts on prey and habitat, including critical 

habitat, would be very low.

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

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

192

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 

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.

Since the likelihood of occurrence of an accidental spill from a vessel used by NOS would continue to be 

very low, impacts on pinnipeds under Alternative A are expected to be adverse and negligible. In the 

event that an accidental spill does occur, the volume of oil, fuel, and/or chemicals would continue to be 

fairly small given the size of vessels used by NOS and the amounts of fuel and other chemicals they 

typically carry. Additionally, all hazardous or regulated materials would continue to be handled in 

accordance with applicable laws, and crew members would continue to be appropriately trained in 

materials storage and usage. Thus, the impact on pinnipeds would continue to be adverse and minor as 

impacts would continue to be temporary or short-term without any impacts on population levels. 

Displacement of pinnipeds that move away to avoid spilled substances would continue to be short-term 

and limited to the project area or its immediate surroundings. Impacts on pinnipeds, including ESA-listed 

species and designated critical habitat, would continue to be insignificant. 

3.5.2.3.2.6 Trash and Debris

Marine debris poses two types of negative impacts on pinnipeds: entanglement and ingestion. 

Entanglement is a far more likely cause of mortality to marine mammals than ingestion and is most 

common in pinnipeds. Entanglements occur when cables, lines, nets, or other objects suspended in the 

water column become wrapped around animals, potentially causing injury, interference with essential 

behaviors and functions, and possibly mortality. Northern fur seals have been particularly susceptible to 

entanglement from commercial fishing debris, primarily trawl net webbing, plastic packing straps, and 

monofilament line (NMFS, No Date-d). However, the tendency of pinnipeds to generally avoid 

approaching vessels used by NOS (in contrast with their tendency to congregate around fishing vessels) 

presumably reduces the risk of entanglement. During proposed activities, cables, lines, and other objects 

could be towed behind the vessel near the water surface. Although it is possible that such lines and cables 

could detach from a vessel and become debris in which pinnipeds could get entangled, the likelihood of 

this occurring would be low.

Impacts from discarded trash and debris are expected to be avoided through vessel operators’ required 

compliance with USCG and EPA regulations. In addition, no intentional vessel discharges would occur if a 

protected species is sighted within 91 m (100 yds) of the vessel used by NOS, and all MARPOL discharge 

protocols would be followed. Thus, impacts of discarded trash and debris on pinnipeds, including ESAlisted species, under Alternative A would continue to be adverse and negligible as any disturbance of 

animals would continue to be temporary, no mortality or debilitating injury would be expected, and there 

would be no displacement from preferred or designated critical habitat; impacts would continue to be 

insignificant. It is expected that trash and debris would continue to not have any impacts on designated 

critical habitat under Alternative A. 

3.5.2.3.2.7 Air Emissions

Since the pre-industrial era, increased emissions of anthropogenic greenhouse gases (GHG) [carbon 

dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N2O)] have resulted in higher atmospheric concentrations 

of these gases and influenced atmospheric, terrestrial, and oceanic conditions (Limpinsel et al., 2017). 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

193

Smokestack and two-stroke outboard motor emissions from vessels used by NOS would release air 

pollutants. The type and amount of air emissions from vessels used by NOS would depend on the type of 

fuel, engine, and engine efficiency. Pinnipeds which are hauled out may be exposed to airborne 

smokestack or outboard motor emissions; however, such emissions would be temporary and ephemeral 

as they would dissipate rapidly into the air and may not reach hauled out animals. 

Burning fossil fuels pollutes not just the air but also the oceans as the waters absorb carbon dioxide, which 

lowers the pH of surface waters and leads to acidification. Changes in seawater carbon chemistry, in 

particular interference with the formation of calcium carbonate (CaCO3) in marine shells and skeletons,

may affect marine biota through a variety of biochemical, physiological, and physical processes. However, 

the amount of emissions from vessels used by NOS would continue to be a very small fraction as compared 

to emissions from all other vessel activity in the oceans. Thus, impacts on pinnipeds, including ESA-listed 

species and designated critical habitat, from air emissions under Alternative A are expected to be adverse 

and negligible as there would continue to be no disturbance of communication or behavior, no 

displacement, and no debilitating injury of individuals; impacts would continue to be insignificant. 

3.5.2.3.3 Sirenians

The analysis of impacts on sirenians, which live primarily underwater, does not consider air emissions. All 

the other impact causing factors for marine mammals are analyzed below for sirenians. Potential impacts 

could occur in one of the geographic regions, the Southeast Region, as it is the only region where sirenians 

(two subspecies of manatees) occur (see Section 3.5.1.3 above); this region also includes designated 

critical habitat for one of the manatee subspecies. Manatees occur mainly in the Southeast Region, 

although they have been found on occasion to travel further north into the Greater Atlantic Region; thus, 

the analysis of underwater acoustic impacts below also includes the Greater Atlantic Region. 

Critical habitat consists of both a geographic area and PCEs within that area (i.e., the physical or biological 

features essential to the conservation of a species upon which its designated or proposed critical habitat 

is based). The Florida manatee was among the first species for which critical habitat was designated, and 

PCEs were not listed as they have been for other species (e.g., PCEs for other marine mammals include 

such characteristics of critical habitat use as feeding, breeding, escape from predators, and haul outs). 

Without a list of PCEs, analyzing the impacts of the Proposed Action on manatee critical habitat is difficult 

other than in a general way assuming that the designated critical habitat is for protection of the species. 

3.5.2.3.3.1 Active Underwater Acoustic Sources 

Active underwater acoustic sources included in the Proposed Action comprise echo sounders, ADCPs, and 

acoustic communication systems as discussed in Section 2.4 and under cetaceans in Section 3.5.2.3.1.1. 

Table 3.5-7 lists the representative equipment and frequency ranges used in acoustic modeling.

Acoustic signals from echo sounders (ranging from 0.5 kHz to 900 kHz) are likely to be detectable by 

manatees (whose hearing ranges from approximately 5 kHz to 60 kHz). The ability to detect high 

frequencies may be an adaptation to shallow water, where the propagation of low-frequency sound is 

limited. Manatees are known or likely to use the same mid to high frequencies as produced by echo 

sounders. The adverse impacts of such sound can include behavioral responses (i.e., reactions are 

expected to be limited to startle or otherwise brief responses of no lasting consequence to the animals)

and possibly loss of hearing. Given the directionality and small beam widths, and the intermittent and 

downward-directed nature of the echo sounder signals, manatee communications are not expected to be 

masked appreciably and would result in no more than one or two brief exposures to an animal that 

happened to swim under the vessel. TTS and PTS through exposure to the downward-directed echo 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

194

sounder sounds are highly unlikely to occur because the probability of a manatee swimming through the 

area of exposure when an echo sounder emits a sound is small. The animal would have to pass the 

transducer at close range and be swimming at speeds similar to the vessel in order to be subjected to 

sound levels that could cause TTS or PTS.

ADCPs produce sound at frequencies between 35 kHz and 1200 kHz. While many ADCPs produce sounds 

outside of the hearing frequency range of manatees, others produce sounds detectable by manatees 

(whose hearing ranges from 5 kHz to 60 kHz). The effects of underwater sound from ADCPs on manatees 

would be similar to those discussed above for echo sounders, although there would potentially be no 

impacts at all as ADCPs, which can produce lower frequency sound, are usually operated at high to 

extremely high frequency.

Acoustic communication systems would emit sound in mid-frequency ranges (10s of kHz). The impact of 

underwater sound on manatees from acoustic communication systems would be similar to but less than 

that described above for the use of echo sounders because, although acoustic communication systems 

are omnidirectional, they have lower power, a lower duty cycle, and would be used less frequently than 

echo sounders. 

Quantitative acoustic exposure to marine mammals, including sirenians, from operation of sound sources 

was modeled for nine sources (see Appendix E). Acoustic modeling was conducted by determining the 

sound field expected from each source and estimating the number of manatees that may be exposed 

above sound thresholds for PTS/injury and behavioral disruption during surveys (see Appendix E). To 

gauge the potential for impacts, received sound levels that may result in PTS/injury or behavioral 

disruption to the animal were needed. For this study, the current NMFS criteria for both PTS/injury (NMFS, 

2018a) and behavioral disruption (84 FR 72308, December 31, 2019) were used (see Appendix E). 

Methodology for modeling the impacts of active underwater acoustic sources is presented in Appendix E. 

Additionally, Section 3.5.2.3.1.1 under Cetaceans discusses the assumptions made and the data sources 

used in the modeling scenarios to predict exposures of marine mammals, including sirenians. 

Based on the modeling and taking into account animal behavior, source characteristics, and animal 

hearing capability, no PTS/injury exposure of manatees is expected to occur; thus, only behavioral 

disruption exposure is discussed below. Note that the estimated exposures have overall decreased 

between the Draft PEIS and the Final PEIS for the reasons discussed in Section 3.5.2.3.1.1 under Cetaceans.

3.5.2.3.3.1.1 Behavioral Disruption Exposure Estimates

Behavioral disruption exposure estimates over the five-year period were calculated for sources with 

operational frequencies within the sirenian hearing frequency range (5 kHz to 60 kHz, see Section 

3.5.1.3.1). Behavioral disruption exposure estimates consider that all proposed activities would occur,

would expect the highest levels of anticipated animal densities, and do not factor in effects of potential 

mitigation procedures or animals avoiding the sounds. Summarized total potential behavioral disruption 

exposure of manatees over five yearsfor all sources, which could occur in two regions, are shown in Table 

3.5-12. For annual numbers, see Appendix E.
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

195

Table 3.5-12. Total Predicted Exposures for Manatees and Time in

Seconds Above the Behavioral Disruption Threshold Under Alternative A

Species

Total 

Exposures*

Average time 

above 160 dB (s)**

Greater Atlantic Region

Manatee 226.65 196

Southeast Region***

Manatee 84.73 196

*Exposures are based on a probabilistic model that is scaled by animal density 

and may therefore include fractional counts.

**Exposure above threshold over 24 hours.

***Exposure modeling for the Southeast Region was conducted for the Gulf of 

Mexico and Caribbean.

Under Alternative A, behavioral disruption exposures to sirenians could occur in two regions. Behavioral 

disruption exposure of manatees could affect up to 312 individuals over the five-year timeframe.

However, for the simulated animals exposed above the 160 dB threshold, the average time above 

threshold is under four minutes (Table 3.5-12). The disturbances, therefore, are expected to be transient, 

and surveys, once completed in an area, would not generally be repeated, thus limiting an individual’s 

behavioral disruption. Behavioral exposures need to occur over the timespan of weeks to have a 

population level effect on marine mammals, as in the case of seismic surveys that have months’ worth of 

activity (Southall et al., 2016). Any disruption that occurs for a matter of hours or for less than a day would

not likely have a population-level impact. Thus, although many individuals of some species could 

experience behavioral disturbance from NOS acoustic sources, the small increments of time that the 

animals could be exposed above threshold over five years and over the extensive project area would not 

be expected to result in population level adverse impacts.

In coordination with NMFS and USFWS, NOS has developed mitigation measures (see Appendix D) to 

reduce potential impacts of active acoustic sources on marine mammals. NOS would continue to use the 

lowest power appropriate to perform surveys. NOS would also continue to use PSOs and would employ a 

robust suite of animal approach restrictions and reduced vessel speeds, described in more detail in 

Sections 3.5.2.3.3.3 and 3.5.2.3.3.4, as well as the manatee-specific measures to prevent disturbance and 

harassment.

3.5.2.3.3.1.2 Conclusion

The effects of underwater sound from active acoustic sources on sirenians under Alternative A would 

continue to be adverse and minor. No PTS/injury exposure is expected to occur. Some individual animals 

are expected to experience behavioral disruptions (<312 animals over the five-year timeframe in two 

regions), but the amount of time they may exceed the behavioral exposure thresholds would be less than 

four minutes (Table 3.5-12). Similarly, the potential for masking would continue to be minimal during 

surveys because the narrow beams of most active acoustic sources mean animals would not spend much 

time in ensonified zones. Overall, the potential impacts are likely limited to short-term disruption of 

acoustic habitat and behavioral patterns. Impacts would be temporary or short-term and would not be 

considered outside the natural range of variability of manatee populations, their habitats, or the natural 

processes sustaining them. Impacts could include disruptions of behavioral patterns such as temporary

disruption of communication, disturbance of individuals or groups of manatees, and possible 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

196

displacement of individuals or groups, but without substantial interference to feeding, reproduction, or 

other biologically important functions affecting population levels. Displacement of manatees from 

preferred breeding, feeding, or nursery grounds or designated critical habitat would be limited to the 

project area or its immediate surroundings. Impacts of Alternative A on manatees would continue to be 

insignificant. 

3.5.2.3.3.2 Vessel and Equipment Sound

Vessels and equipment used by NOS would generate transitory sound (10 to 10,000 Hz) while in a project 

area. Manatees hear from low frequencies (< 5 kHz) to above 60 kHz, thus they would be able to hear the 

low-frequency sound emitted by ship engines and vessel hulls underwater. Especially in the freshwater

habitats of their range in Florida (i.e., in rivers, sloughs, marshes, and lakes) manatees are often exposed 

to considerable levels of background or ambient sound from numerous small and medium-sized boats 

with outboard and inboard motors. 

Vessel sound underwater can cause behavioral disturbance in manatees. However, the occurrence and 

nature of manatee responses are variable, depending on location, novelty of the sound, vessel behavior, 

and habitat, among many other factors (see Section 3.5.2.3.1.2 above for discussion of vessel variables). 

Manatee vocalizations, including chirps and squeaks, range between 0.6 and 16 kHz, although most 

vocalizations occur between 2.5 and 5 kHz. Sounds may attenuate more quickly in seabed habitat, 

particularly for sounds at frequencies less than 2 kHz such as the dominant sounds from vessels. 

Manatees, particularly mothers with calves, may select quieter habitats that attenuate sound, such as 

seagrass beds that facilitate their ability to tolerate high sound levels while also providing for nutritional 

needs. The potential for masking by vessel sound is reduced in seagrass foraging habitats. Thus, the 

potential for masking of manatee sounds is considered minimal, especially when combined with the 

intermittent nature and short duration of vessel sound. If manatees react briefly to vessels or underwater 

sounds by minimally changing their behavior or moving a short distance, the impacts of the change are 

unlikely to be substantial. However, if a sound displaces manatees from an important breeding or feeding 

area for a prolonged period, impacts on the animals could be more significant. 

Impacts from low-frequency underwater sound generated by remotely operated or autonomous vehicles

would be similar to those of surface vessels but at a much reduced magnitude due to the far fewer nautical 

miles of proposed travel (i.e., approximately 518,000 nm [959,000 km] for surface vessels vs. 28,600 nm 

[53,000 km] for remotely operated and autonomous vehicles over the five-year period across all 

geographic regions).

Considering that the proposed volume of vessels associated with project activities within the Southeast 

Region is very small as compared with all other shipping and vessel traffic, and the assumption that 

individuals or groups of manatees may be familiar with various and common vessel-related sounds, 

particularly within frequented shipping lanes, the effects of vessel sound on sirenians under Alternative A

would continue to be adverse and minor. Small disruptions of behavioral patterns or displacement of 

individuals or groups would continue to be temporary or short-term with no life-threatening injury to 

individual sirenians. Displacement of manatees from preferred breeding, feeding, or nursery grounds, or 

designated critical habitat would continue to be limited to the project area or its immediate surroundings. 

Multiple activities in one area could lead to larger magnitudes and more widespread impacts, but they 

would still continue to be considered insignificant. It is also not expected that vessel sound would have 

any impacts on designated critical habitat.
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

197

3.5.2.3.3.3 Vessel Presence and Movement of Equipment in the Water

As with vessel sound, behavioral responses of manatees to vessel presence and movement are also 

expected to be variable. Manatees have been found to reduce their use of important habitats when 

continually disturbed by boats in some areas. In other locations, manatee density is higher where there is 

the greatest boat traffic. They may even adapt to boat disturbance by concentrating their feeding 

between dusk and dawn when boat traffic and/or fishing activities are low. The presence of vessels used 

by NOS would not be at levels expected to cause anything more than possible localized and temporary or 

short-term behavioral changes. 

Water disturbance by remotely operated and autonomous vehicles can temporarily disturb and displace 

nearby manatees. The impact should be minimal, and exposure of individual manatees is likely brief in 

duration as the ROVs or equipment would quickly pass by; however, impacts could increase if the 

frequency of disturbance becomes greater. In either case, if displaced, manatees are expected to return 

to the area and resume normal activities once the water disturbance is no longer present. Equipment such 

as echo sounders is typically attached to a crewed vessel or a remotely operated or autonomous vehicle, 

thus effects on manatees due to equipment in the water would occur from the presence and operation 

of the carriers, rather than from the presence of the equipment itself. ADCPs and acoustic communication 

systems are often operated from tethered systems, buoys, fixed moorings, or are hull mounted or on 

remotely operated or autonomous underwater vehicles. As with echo sounders, any effects on manatees 

would occur from the presence and operation of the vessel, rather than from presence of the equipment 

itself. Deployment of all autonomous systems, as well as other equipment and divers, would be suspended 

if any protected species is sighted within 91 m (100 yds) of the vessel. Work already in progress may 

continue if the activity is not expected to adversely affect the animal.

Sound speed data collection equipment, grab samplers, and drop/towed cameras are lowered and raised 

through the water column. This movement through the water could temporarily disturb and displace 

nearby manatees. These impacts would be temporary as manatees are expected to return once water 

column turbulence ceases. The ropes and wires used to lower a sound speed profiler or to connect a probe 

to the equipment on a ship can cause entanglements with manatees. However, this is not expected to 

interfere with manatee movements as, prior to using equipment, NOS would ensure there is at least one 

PSO observing the area for protected species at all times. 

Water disturbance by anchors and chains moving through the water can temporarily disturb and displace 

nearby manatees. The impact on manatees should be minimal and cease when the anchoring system 

comes to rest or is taken out of the water. Manatees are expected to return to the area and resume 

normal activities once water column turbulence ceases. Additionally, anchoring is a relatively infrequent 

activity, thus any potential impacts are expected to be minimal as they would rarely occur. 

An important consideration for all crewed marine vessel operation is the possibility of marine mammal 

vessel strikes, and the relatively slow-moving manatee, which is often found at or just beneath the water 

surface, is known to be at great risk of mortality or injury from boat strikes. For example, in Florida the 

largest known cause of manatee deaths is collisions with the hulls and/or propellers of boats and ships. 

Ship strikes can lead to death by massive trauma, hemorrhaging, broken bones, or propeller wounds. 

Massive propeller wounds can be fatal. However, NOS would ensure visual observation during all vessel 

operations (regardless of size) so as to avoid manatees. Marine mammal strikes by ROVs and autonomous 

vehicles are of low concern because of their slow speeds, small size, and built-in proximity avoidance 

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

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

198

Mitigation measures (see Appendix D) that would avoid or reduce impacts from vessels on manatees 

include:

• Instructing personnel about the presence of manatees, manatee speed zones, and the need to 

avoid collisions with and injury to manatees;

• All vessels associated with NOS projects shall operate at “Idle Speed/No Wake” at all times while 

in the immediate area and while in water where the draft of the vessel provides less than a fourfoot clearance from the bottom;

• All vessels will follow routes of deep water whenever possible;

• All in-water operations, including vessels, must be shut down if a manatee(s) comes within 15 m 

(50 ft) of the operation. Activities will not resume until the manatee(s) has moved beyond the 15-

m (50-ft) radius of the project operation, or until 30 minutes elapses if the manatee(s) has not 

reappeared within 15 m (50 ft) of the operation. Animals must not be herded away or harassed 

into leaving; and

• Any collision with or injury to a manatee shall be reported immediately.

Since the likelihood of a vessel strike would continue to be very low, the overall effects on manatees from 

vessel presence and movement of equipment in the water under Alternative A would continue to be 

adverse and minor. Small disruptions of behavioral patterns or displacement of individuals or groups 

would continue to be temporary or short-term with no life-threatening injury to individual manatees. 

Displacement of manatees from preferred breeding, feeding, or nursery grounds, or designated critical 

habitat would continue to be limited to the project area or its immediate surroundings. Vessel presence 

in designated critical habitat could affect the protection capability of the habitat if animals are disturbed, 

displaced, or injured. Multiple activities in one area could lead to larger magnitudes and more widespread 

impacts due to vessel operations; however, impacts on manatees and critical habitat would still continue 

to be considered insignificant. In the unlikely event that a vessel strike occurs, its impact would depend 

on the status of the local manatee population and severity of injury. Although very unlikely, debilitating 

injury or mortality of one or a few individuals could occur; if population-level impacts are not expected, 

then impacts would be moderate, although it is possible that the magnitude of impacts could be greater 

since manatees are an ESA-listed species. 

3.5.2.3.3.4 Human Activity

Human activity on vessels above the surface of the water would continue to not be expected to have any 

effects on manatees which live underwater. During SCUBA operations, divers would move through the 

water column, possibly temporarily disturbing manatees that may be in the area. When using a boat or 

platform to conduct SCUBA operations, at least one PSO would maintain visual watch for protected 

species to ensure none are sighted within the working area. If a listed species moves into the work area, 

cessation of operation of any moving equipment within 15 m (50 ft) of the animal would occur and only 

resume when the species has left the project area. SCUBA diversinvolved in in-water activities would have 

proper training and be capable of responsible dive practices such that they minimize injury to organisms 

and avoid unnecessary habitat impacts. During all buoy deployment and retrieval operations, buoys would 

be lowered and raised slowly to minimize risk to listed species. In addition, observers would monitor for 

listed species in the area prior to and during deployment and retrieval. Work would be stopped if listed 

species are observed in the area to minimize entanglement risk. Manatees would continue with the 

activities they were engaged in once divers depart and water column turbulence ceases. Many manatees 

thrive in areas with heavy human presence and seem relatively undisturbed by human activity around 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

199

them. The impacts of human activity on manatees under Alternative A would continue to be adverse and 

negligible as there would continue to only be minimal disruptions of behavioral patterns and no 

displacement from preferred breeding, feeding, or nursery grounds, migratory routes, or designated 

critical habitat. Impacts would therefore be insignificant. It is not expected that human activity would 

have any impacts on designated critical habitat.

3.5.2.3.3.5 Accidental Leakage or Spillage of Oil, Fuel, and Chemicals 

Severity of oil, fuel, and chemical spills on manatees depends on the type of contaminant, exposure 

pathway, and degree of weathering of the substance. Oil and fuel harms manatees via acute toxicity, 

sublethal health effects that reduce fitness, and disruption of marine communities. In the highly unlikely 

event of an accidental oil or fuel spill into the marine environment from a vessel used by NOS, manatees 

may be affected through various pathways: direct contact, inhalation of volatile components, and 

ingestion (directly or indirectly through the consumption of fouled vegetation). Manatees are expected 

to be less vulnerable to oil and fuel spills than some other marine mammals due to their lack of insulating 

fur, and thus their inability to ingest oil by intense fur grooming. A small spill would not be likely to result 

in the death or life-threatening injury of individual manatees or the long-term displacement of these 

animals from preferred feeding or breeding habitats. It is expected that spilled oil or fuel would rapidly 

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

Manatees can be affected indirectly by oil, fuel, and chemical spills through changes in the ecosystem that 

adversely affect food (vegetation) and habitats, including degradation of water quality. Spills could also 

affect critical habitat in coastal areas, inland waterways, headwaters, bays, estuaries, and rivers in Florida. 

Small spills could also make localized areas of critical habitat temporarily unavailable because of 

disturbance while clean up occurs, or temporarily decrease the value of critical habitat through 

contamination. However, since it would be highly unlikely that an accidental spill would occur, adverse 

impacts on critical habitat would be very low. 

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 

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.

Since the likelihood of occurrence of an accidental spill from a vessel used by NOS would continue to be 

very low, impacts on sirenians under Alternative A are expected to be adverse and negligible. In the event 

that an accidental spill does occur, the volume of oil, fuel, and/or chemicals would continue to be fairly 

small given the size of vessels used by NOS and the amounts of fuel and other chemicals they typically 

carry. Additionally, all hazardous or regulated materials would continue to be handled in accordance with 

applicable laws, and crew members would continue to be appropriately trained in materials storage and 

usage. Thus, the impact on sirenians would continue to be adverse and minor as impacts would continue 

to be temporary or short-term without any impacts on population levels. Displacement of sirenians that 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

200

move away to avoid spilled substances would continue to be short-term and limited to the project area 

or its immediate surroundings. Impacts on sirenians, which are ESA-listed species, including designated 

critical habitat, would continue to be insignificant. 

3.5.2.3.3.6 Trash and Debris

Marine debris poses two types of negative impacts on marine mammals: entanglement and ingestion. 

Entanglement is a far more likely cause of mortality to marine mammals than ingestion. Entanglements 

occur when cables, lines, nets, or other objects suspended in the water column become wrapped around 

marine mammals, potentially causing injury, interference with essential behaviors and functions, and 

possibly mortality. Manatees are known to become entangled in various types of fishing gear and other 

marine debris. Entanglement was documented as the leading anthropogenic reason for rescue of 

manatees in Florida between 1993-2012 (Reinert et al., 2017). During proposed activities, numerous 

cables, lines, and other objects could be towed behind the vessel near the water surface. Although it is 

possible that such lines and cables could detach from a vessel and become debris in which manatees could 

get entangled, it is not very likely.

Impacts from discarded trash and debris are expected to be avoided through vessel operators’ required 

compliance with USCG and EPA regulations. In addition, no intentional vessel discharges would occur if a 

protected species is sighted within 91 m (100 yds) of the vessel used by NOS, and all MARPOL discharge 

protocols would be followed. Thus, impacts of trash and debris on manatees under Alternative A would 

continue to be adverse and negligible as any disturbance of animals would continue to be temporary, no 

mortality or debilitating injury would be expected, and there would continue to be no displacement from 

preferred or designated critical habitat. For these reasons, impacts would continue to be insignificant. It 

is also not expected that trash and debris from NOS projects would have any impacts on designated critical 

habitat.

3.5.2.3.4 Fissipeds

The analysis of impacts on fissipeds considers all of the impact causing factors introduced above. Potential 

impacts could occur in two of the geographic regions: the West Coast and Alaska regions, as two to three 

fissiped species, subspecies, or DPS, including ESA-listed species, occur in each region (see Section 3.5.1.4 

above). The Alaska Region also includes designated critical habitat for two of the listed species.

3.5.2.3.4.1 Active Underwater Acoustic Sources

Active underwater acoustic sources included in the Proposed Action comprise echo sounders, ADCPs, and 

acoustic communication systems as discussed in Section 2.4 and under cetaceans in Section 3.5.2.3.1.1. 

Table 3.5-7 lists the representative equipment and frequency ranges used in acoustic modeling.

Sound frequencies produced by the echo sounders overlap the range of fissiped hearing and they can 

presumably hear these sounds if sufficiently close. Acoustic signals from echo sounders (ranging from 0.5

kHz to 900 kHz) are likely to be detectable by fissipeds if the lower end of the sound frequency spectrum 

is used. Polar bears generally do not dive much below the water surface and they normally swim with 

their heads above the surface, where sounds produced underwater are weak. Thus, it is very unlikely that 

polar bears would be exposed to very loud underwater sounds to the point where they might be injured 

or even disturbed. 

Sea otters may be less responsive to underwater sound than other marine mammals, such as cetaceans, 

since they spend a great deal of time on the water’s surface feeding and grooming. While at the surface, 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

201

the potential exposure of sea otters to underwater sound would be much reduced. Reactions to echo 

sounders are expected to be limited to startle or otherwise brief responses. Although there could be no 

lasting consequence to the animals, a startle response may also lead to an abandoned foraging attempt, 

and possibly multiple foraging attempts. Sea otters require up to 30 percent of their body weight in food 

every day, even more for females caring for pups, thus the consequences of missed foraging may have 

lasting consequences to individuals. Although sea otters use the mid to high frequencies produced by 

echo sounders, masking effects are expected to be negligible due to their use of in-air calls rather than 

underwater calls. 

Acoustic signals from ADCPs (ranging from 35 kHz to 1200 kHz) are not likely to be detectable by polar 

bears underwater as they generally hear in the less than 25 kHz range. Sea otters, which hear in the less 

than 38 kHz range, could overlap with the lower end of ADCP signals, although their best hearing 

sensitivity underwater is less than 26 kHz. There would not be any impacts on polar bears as ADCPs usually 

produce high to extremely high-frequency sound. Additionally, polar bears tend to spend more time 

above the water surface than underwater. Sea otters spend between 40 and 60 percent of a 24-hour 

period foraging underwater (Esslinger et al., 2014; Laidre et al., 2009; Yeates et al., 2007; Tinker et al.,

2008), and thus could be affected if the lowest end of the ADCP frequency range is used.

Acoustic communication systems would emit sound in mid-frequency ranges (10s of kHz), and thus could 

be detectable by fissipeds underwater. The impacts of underwater sound on fissipeds from acoustic 

communication systems would be similar to but less than that described above for the use of echo 

sounders because, although acoustic communication systems are omnidirectional, they have lower 

power, a lower duty cycle, and would be used less frequently than echo sounders. However, there would 

potentially be no impacts at all on polar bears as they tend to spend more time above the water’s surface 

than underwater. The hearing range of sea otters (<38 kHz) and polar bears (<25 kHz) is on the low side 

of the potential frequency range; thus, there may be no impacts because sound from acoustic 

communications systems is above the hearing frequency range of fissipeds.

Quantitative acoustic exposure to marine mammals, including fissipeds, from operation of sound sources 

was modeled for nine sources (see Appendix E). Acoustic modeling was conducted by determining the 

sound field expected from each source and estimating the number of fissipeds that may be exposed above 

sound thresholds for PTS/injury and behavioral disruption during surveys (see Appendix E). To gauge the 

potential for impacts, received sound levels that may result in PTS/injury or behavioral disruption to the 

animal were needed. For this study, the current NMFS criteria for both PTS/injury (NMFS, 2018a) and 

behavioral disruption (84 FR 72308, December 31, 2019) were used (see Appendix E). Methodology for 

modeling the impacts of active underwater acoustic sources is presented in Appendix E. Additionally, 

Section 3.5.2.3.1.1 under Cetaceans discusses the assumptions made and the data sources used in the 

modeling scenarios to predict exposures of marine mammals, including fissipeds. 

Based on the modeling and taking into account animal behavior, source characteristics, and animal 

hearing capability, no PTS/injury exposures of fissipeds are expected to occur; thus, only behavioral 

disruption exposure is discussed below. Note that the estimated exposures have overall decreased 

between the Draft PEIS and the Final PEIS for the reasons discussed in Section 3.5.2.3.1.1 under Cetaceans.

3.5.2.3.4.1.1 Behavioral Disruption Exposure Estimates

Behavioral disruption exposure estimates over the five-year period were calculated for sources with 

operational frequencies within the fissiped hearing frequency range (<200 kHz, see Section 3.5.1.4.1). 

Behavioral disruption exposure estimates consider that all proposed activities would occur, would expect
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

202

the highest levels of anticipated animal densities, and do not factor in effects of potential mitigation

procedures or animals avoiding the sounds. Summarized total potential behavioral disruption exposure

of fissipeds over five years for all sources in the two regions where they could occur are shown in Table 

3.5-13. For annual numbers, see Appendix E.

Table 3.5-13. Total Predicted Exposures for Fissiped Species and

Time in Seconds Above the Behavioral Disruption Threshold Under Alternative A

Species

Total 

Exposures*

Average time above 

160 dB (s)**

Alaska Region

Sea otter, SE 432.74 124

Sea otter, SC 317.41 124

Polar Bear 54.17 177

West Coast Region

Sea otter, CA 595.70 124

Sea otter, SE 432.74 124

Sea otters, WA 192.18 124

*Exposures are based on a probabilistic model that is scaled by animal 

density and may therefore include fractional counts.

**Exposure above threshold over 24 hours.

Under Alternative A, behavioral disruption exposures to fissipeds could occur in two regions. Depending 

on the species, behavioral disruption exposure of fissipeds could affect up to 55 polar bears and a few 

hundred sea otters in each region over the five-year timeframe. However, for the simulated animals 

exposed above the 160 dB threshold, the average time above threshold is under three minutes (Table 3.5-

13). The disturbances, therefore, are expected to be transient, and surveys, once completed in an area, 

would not generally be repeated, thus limiting an individual’s behavioral disruption. Behavioral exposures

need to occur over the timespan of weeks to have a population level effect on marine mammals, as in the 

case of seismic surveys that have months’ worth of activity (Southall et al., 2016). Any disruption that 

occurs for a matter of hours or for less than a day would not likely have a population-level impact. Thus, 

although many individuals of some species could experience behavioral disturbance from NOS acoustic 

sources, the small increments of time that the animals could be exposed above threshold over five years

and over the extensive project area would not be expected to result in population level adverse impacts.

In coordination with NMFS and USFWS, NOS has developed mitigation measures (see Appendix D) to 

reduce potential impacts of active acoustic sources on marine mammals. NOS would continue to use the 

lowest power appropriate to perform surveys. NOS would also continue to use PSOs and would employ a 

robust suite of animal approach restrictions and reduced vessel speeds, described in more detail in 

Sections 3.5.2.3.4.2 and 3.5.2.3.4.3, as well as the polar bear- and sea otter-specific measures to prevent 

adverse effects on fissipeds.

3.5.2.3.4.1.2 Conclusion

The effects of underwater sound from active acoustic sources on fissipeds under Alternative A would 

continue to be adverse and minor. No PTS/injury exposure is expected to occur. While individual animals 

are expected to experience behavioral disruptions (<55 polar bears and a few hundred sea otters across 

the two regions over the five-year timeframe),the amount of time they are exposed to sound that exceeds 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

203

the behavioral exposure threshold would be on average less than three minutes (Table 3.5-13). Similarly, 

the potential for masking would continue to be minimal during surveys because the narrow beams of 

most active acoustic sources mean animals would not spend much time in ensonified zones. Overall, the 

potential impacts would likely be limited to short-term disruption of acoustic habitat and behavioral 

patterns. Impacts would be temporary or short-term and would not be considered outside the natural 

range of variability of species’ populations, their habitats, or the natural processes sustaining them. 

Impacts could include disruptions of behavioral patterns such astemporary disruption of communication, 

disturbance of individuals or groups of fissipeds, and possible displacement of individuals or groups, but 

without substantial interference to feeding, reproduction, or other biologically important functions 

affecting population levels. Displacement of fissipeds from preferred breeding, feeding, or nursery 

grounds or designated critical habitat would be limited to the project area or its immediate surroundings.

Impacts of Alternative A on fissipeds, including ESA-listed species, would continue to be insignificant. 

3.5.2.3.4.2 Vessel and Equipment Sound

Vessels and equipment used by NOS would generate transitory sound (10 to 10,000 Hz) into the air and 

water while in a project area that would allow them to be heard by sea otters, which can hear in the 125

Hz–38 kHz range, with best hearing sensitivity less than 27 kHz in the air and less than 26 kHz underwater. 

Polar bears generally hear in the less than 25 kHz range underwater and in the range of 14 Hz up to 25 

kHz in the air; thus, vessel sound could be heard by polar bears.

Vessel sound in the air and underwater can cause behavioral disturbance in fissipeds. However, the 

occurrence and nature of fissiped responses are variable depending on location, novelty of the sound, 

vessel behavior, and habitat, among many other factors (see Section 3.5.2.3.1.2 above for discussion of 

vessel variables). Short-term behavioral effects are possible during vessel operations, although effects 

may be reduced for sea otters as they do not appear to rely heavily on underwater communication and 

spend considerable time out of water. Additionally, masking effects are expected to be negligible in the 

case of sea otters due to their use of in-air calls rather than underwater calls. Polar bears normally keep 

their heads above or at the water’s surface when swimming, where underwater sound is weak or 

undetectable, and they generally do not dive much below the water surface (Richardson et al., 1995). 

Underwater sound would minimally affect polar bears because they are unlikely to hear underwater 

sound when above the water on ice or on land. Vessel sounds would be at levels not expected to cause 

anything more than possible localized and temporary behavioral changes in fissipeds.

Impacts from low-frequency underwater sound generated by remotely operated or autonomous vehicles

would be similar to those of surface vessels but at a much reduced magnitude due to the far fewer nautical 

miles of proposed travel for remotely operated and autonomous vehicles as compared to surface vessels 

(i.e., approximately 518,000 nm [959,000 km] for surface vessels vs. 28,600 nm [53,000 km] for remotely 

operated and autonomous vehicles over the five-year period across all geographic regions). Reactions to 

remotely operated and autonomous vehicles are expected to be limited to startle or otherwise brief 

responses. Although there could be no lasting consequence to the animals, a startle response may also 

lead to an abandoned foraging attempt, and possibly multiple foraging attempts. Sea otters require up to 

30 percent of their body weight in food every day, and even more for females caring for pups, thus the 

consequences of missed foraging may have lasting consequences to individuals.

Low-flying aircraft used to reach remote areas, especially in Alaska during such projects as tide gauge

installation, can disturb fissipeds because of both airborne and underwater sound and visual disturbance. 

Low altitude flights could disturb polar bears or sea otters resting on ice, on barrier islands, or at coastal 

haul outs. Denning bears have been known to abandon or depart their dens early in response to repeated 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

204

sound produced by extensive aircraft overflights (NMFS, 2016a; BOEM, 2015a), although that would not 

be expected to occur from NOS projects as aircraft use would be infrequent. In response to aircraft 

overflights, polar bears may initially run away from the area, or dive into the water if on land or ice, but 

then resume their normal activities within minutes. The effects of fleeing are likely to be minimal if the 

event is temporary, the animal is otherwise unstressed, and it is a cool day. However, on a warm spring 

or summer day, a short run may be enough to overheat a polar bear; and a bear already experiencing 

stress that swims a long distance could require rest for a long period prior to reinitiating essential life 

functions such as feeding. Additionally, small cubs could become separated from their mothers (USFWS, 

2016a). 

The visual presence of aircraft alone is unlikely to cause disturbance of sea otters. If sea otters are 

disturbed, it would more likely be due to the airborne sound. Some otters would likely show startle 

responses, change direction of travel, or dive. Sea otters reacting to overflights may divert time and 

attention from biologically important behaviors, such as feeding. In a recent questionnaire study 

conducted by the USFWS (83 FR 18330, April 26, 2018), respondent sea otter survey biologists indicated 

that only 26 percent of sea otters located directly below aircraft (flight heights unspecified) reacted to the 

presence of the aircraft, and only about 10 percent reacted at a distance of 250 m (820 ft) perpendicular 

to the flight line. Therefore, aircraft overflights are expected to disturb only a fraction of the otters 

overflown, especially considering their infrequent use by NOS.

Appendix D details the fissiped-specific mitigation measures that have been suggested by USFWS and 

adopted by NOS to prevent disturbance and harassment of polar bears and sea otters by vessels and 

aircraft. These measures include:

• Do not operate vessels in such a way as to separate northern sea otters from other members of 

their group;

• If northern sea otters are observed in groups of fewer than 10 animals, do not approach within

100 m (109 yds). If the group size is greater than 10, do not approach within 500 m (547 yds);

• Ensure that vessels maintain a 1.6 km (1 mi) separation distance from polar bears observed on 

ice, land, or water;

• If a swimming bear(s) is encountered, allow it to continue unhindered. Never approach, herd, 

chase, or attempt to lure swimming bear(s). Reduce speed when visibility is low and avoid sudden 

changes in travel direction;

• Navigate slowly, steer around polar bears, and do not approach, circle, pursue or otherwise force 

bears to change direction when observed in the water;

• Avoid multiple changes in direction and speed and do not restrict bears’ movements on land or 

sea;

• Do not conduct activities within 1.6 km (1 mi) of known or suspected polar bear dens;

• Maintain an altitude of at least 457 m (1500 ft) when flying within 85 m (0.5 mi) of polar bears;

• Unless taking off from or landing at an airport/airstrip, pilots should maintain a minimum of 457 

m (1,500 ft) flight altitude and 0.8-km (0.5-mi) horizontal distance from polar bears in the water, 

and on ice or land. Avoid circling or turning aircraft near polar bears;

• Maintain an altitude of at least 205 m (1000 ft) when flying over northern sea otters; and
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

205

• Avoid disturbing denning bears. Between November and April, special care is needed to avoid 

disturbance of denning bears. If activities are to take place during that time period, USFWS should 

be contacted to determine if any additional mitigation is required. In general, activities are not 

permitted within one mile of known den sites.

Vessel sound would not have any effects on the critical habitat of sea otters. Polar bear critical habitat has 

characteristics based on feeding and finding prey such as seals. Vessel sound could displace seals from 

pupping lairs or haul outs, seals could abandon breathing holes, and polar bears could be scared away 

from seal kills. (Additional discussion of impacts on prey species such as seals can be found in Section 

3.5.2.3.3 Pinnipeds). Thus, the ability of critical habitat to provide foraging opportunities to polar bears 

may be adversely affected. However, it is not expected that impacts on prey species would be substantial, 

and impacts on critical habitat from vessel sound are likely to be temporary and localized. 

Considering that the proposed volume of vessels associated with NOS project activities within the West 

Coast and Alaska Regions would be very small as compared with all other shipping and vessel traffic, and 

the assumption that individuals or groups of fissipeds may be familiar with various and common vesselrelated sounds, particularly within frequented shipping lanes, the effects of vessel sound on fissipeds 

under Alternative A would continue to be adverse and minor. Small disruptions of behavioral patterns or 

displacement of individuals or groups would continue to be temporary or short-term with no lifethreatening injury to individual fissipeds. Displacement of fissipeds from preferred breeding, feeding, or 

nursery grounds, or designated critical habitat would continue to be limited to the project area or its 

immediate surroundings. Multiple activities in one area could lead to larger magnitudes and more 

widespread impacts. However, vessel sound is expected to result in insignificant adverse effects on 

individuals or populations of pinnipeds, including ESA-listed species and designated critical habitat. 

3.5.2.3.4.3 Vessel Presence and Movement of Equipment in the Water

The presence of vessels used by NOS and associated project equipment have the potential to disturb polar 

bears. Reactions and responses of polar bears to vessel presence could range from walking, running, or 

swimming away, to no response at all. Polar bear encounters could occur anywhere but are most likely to 

occur near coastal areas. Vessel operations which occur in open water are unlikely to greatly affect polar 

bears because few polar bears are likely to be present in the water far from shore. However, some vessels 

have occasionally reported seeing a swimming polar bear in open water (NMFS, 2016a). Swimming can 

be energetically expensive for polar bears, particularly for bears that engage in long-distance travel 

between the leading ice edge and land. However, if an encounter between a vessel and a swimming bear 

occurs, it would most likely result in only a small disturbance (e.g., the bear may change its direction or 

temporarily swim faster) as the vessel passes the swimming bear. Most disturbance by vessels would likely 

occur while polar bears are on ice or land. Vessel presence may temporarily disturb small numbers of 

polar bears resting or foraging on marine mammal carcasses along the coast or on barrier islands. Since 

vessels used by NOS would not typically be concentrated in any one area for extended periods, any 

impacts to polar bears would be limited to temporary or short-term disturbances. Polar bears could also 

be affected indirectly if operation of vessels used by NOS disturbs or scatters their fish or seal prey species.

Sea otters are easily disturbed by human presence and typically respond to an approaching vessel by 

swimming away from the area (AKDOT, 2006). Such disturbance would be temporary and would only last 

during a project. Also, the presence of vessels used by NOS would not be at numbers or frequencies 

expected to cause anything more than possible localized and temporary behavioral changes in sea otters. 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

206

Water disturbance by remotely operated and autonomous vehicles can temporarily disturb and displace 

nearby fissipeds both in the water and on land or ice. The impact should be minimal and likely brief in 

duration as the ROV or equipment would quickly pass by; however, impacts could increase if the 

frequency of disturbance becomes greater or if the equipment gets too close to land or ice in locations 

where fissipeds occur. In either case, if displaced, fissipeds are expected to return to the area and resume 

normal activities once the disturbance is no longer present. Equipment such as echo sounders is typically 

attached to a crewed vessel or remotely operated or autonomous vehicle, thus effects on fissipeds would 

occur from the presence and operation of the carrier rather than from the presence of the equipment 

itself. ADCPs and acoustic communication systems are often operated from tethered systems, buoys, fixed 

moorings, or are hull mounted or on remotely operated or autonomous underwater vehicles. As with 

echo sounders, any effects on fissipeds would occur from the presence and operation of the vessel, rather 

than from presence of the equipment itself. Deployment of all autonomous systems, as well as other 

equipment and divers, would be suspended if any protected species is sighted within 91 m (100 yds) of 

the vessel. Work already in progress may continue if the activity is not expected to adversely affect the 

animal.

Sound speed data collection equipment, grab samplers, and drop/towed cameras are lowered and raised 

through the water column. This movement through the water could temporarily disturb and displace 

nearby fissipeds. These impacts would be temporary as fissipeds are expected to return once water 

column turbulence ceases or the equipment has departed from the area. The ropes and wires used to 

lower a sound speed profiler or to connect a probe to the equipment on a ship can cause entanglements 

with sea otters, but this would be unlikely to occur with polar bears as they spend most of their time on 

land or ice and generally keep clear of vessels. Sea otters are known to be vulnerable to entanglements 

with fishing gear, but the tendency of many marine mammals, including sea otters, to avoid approaching 

vessels (in contrast with their tendency to congregate around fishing vessels) presumably reduces the risk 

of entanglement. Additionally, prior to using the equipment, NOS would ensure there is at least one PSO 

observing the area for protected species at all times.

An important consideration for all crewed vessel operation is the possibility of marine mammal vessel 

strikes. Ship strikes can lead to death by massive trauma, hemorrhaging, broken bones, or propeller 

wounds. Ship strikes are not known to be a significant cause of sea otter mortality. There is also very little 

risk of polar bears being injured or killed as a result of ship strikes because of the infrequency of polar 

bears in open-water areas and their ability to detect and avoid vessels as they approach in the water. 

Additionally, NOS would ensure visual observation during all vessel operations (regardless of size) so as to 

avoid polar bears and sea otters. Marine mammal strikes by ROVs and autonomous vehicles are of low 

concern because of their slow speeds, small size, and built-in proximity avoidance systems. 

Polar bears can den on land and on sea ice. The presence of vessels, as well as vessel sound, could disturb 

bears at den sites, and depending on the timing in the denning cycle, could have varying effects on the 

female bear and family group. During the early stages of denning, when the pregnant female has limited 

investment at the site, disturbance could cause her to abandon the site in search of another one. At 

emergence, cubs are acclimating to their new environment, and the female bear is vigilant to protect her 

offspring (BOEM, 2015a). Visual and acoustic stimuli may disturb the female to the point of abandoning 

the den site before the cubs are physiologically ready to move. Also, it is possible that vessels anchoring 

near ice floes or denning locations could disturb or displace polar bears. 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

207

The mitigation measures discussed in Section 3.5.2.3.4.2 for reducing the impacts of vessel and equipment 

sound on fissipeds also apply for reducing impacts from vessel presence and movement of equipment in 

the water.

Vessel presence and movement of equipment in the water may affect the critical habitat of both sea otters 

and polar bears. Prey species of polar bears, such as fish and seals, may be disturbed by vessels and 

equipment (see discussion in Section 3.7.2 Fish and 3.5.2.3.3 Pinnipeds). This could affect the polar bear, 

which has critical habitat characteristics based on feeding and finding prey. However, it is not expected 

that impacts on prey species would be substantial, and thus impacts on critical habitat from vessel 

presence and movement of equipment are likely to be temporary and localized. Vessel presence is not 

likely to substantially affect aquatic macroinvertebrates, the main prey species of sea otters (see Section 

3.8 Aquatic Macroinvertebrates). However, vessel operations have the potential to disrupt kelp beds, 

which are a PCE of sea otter critical habitat used for resting and for protection from marine predators. 

Since the likelihood of a vessel strike would continue to be very low, the overall effects on fissipeds, 

including ESA-listed species and designated critical habitat, from vessel presence and movement of 

equipment in the water under Alternative A would continue to be adverse and minor. Small disruptions 

of behavioral patterns or displacement of individuals or groups of fissipeds would continue to be 

temporary or short-term with no life-threatening injury to individual pinnipeds. Displacement of fissipeds 

from preferred breeding, feeding, or nursery grounds, or designated critical habitat would continue to be 

limited to the project area or its immediate surroundings. Multiple activities in one area could lead to 

larger magnitudes and more widespread impacts due to vessel operations; however, impacts would still 

continue to be considered insignificant. In the unlikely event that a vessel strike occurs, its impact would 

depend on the population status of the species affected. Although very unlikely, debilitating injury or

mortality of one or a few individuals could occur; if population-level impacts are not expected, then 

impacts would be moderate, although the magnitude of impact could be greater if an ESA-listed species 

is affected. Additionally, if polar bears are disturbed at denning sites, impacts on both animals and critical 

habitat designated to protect denning areas could be moderate as there could be extended displacement 

of individuals from preferred breeding habitat and/or designated critical habitat, but the continued 

viability of the population would not be threatened. 

3.5.2.3.4.4 Human Activity

Human activity could affect fissipeds primarily during activities on land, such as tide gauge and shorebased reference station installation maintenance, and removal. Sound and movement from human 

activity onboard vessels could also affect fissipeds that are on land or ice; however, the sound and 

presence from the vessels themselves would likely be the greater cause of impacts, as discussed above.

Onshore human activity during tide gauge installation and shore-based GPS reference station installation 

could temporarily disturb and displace any polar bears in the area; it is not expected that sea otters would 

be affected by onshore activities. Female polar bears denning within approximately 1.6 km (1 mile) of an 

onshore activity could be disturbed by sound. Disturbance of females in maternity dens could result in 

either abandonment of the cubs or premature exposure of cubs to the elements, resulting in mortality 

(see discussion above in Section 3.5.2.3.4.3 on disturbance of polar bears at denning sites). 

Since polar bears are curious, there is the potential for human-bear interactions during tide gauge and 

GPS reference station installation, potentially resulting in injury or mortality of both bears and humans.

NOS would follow human/bear interaction guidelines as issued by USFWS.
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

208

Occasionally, there could be some disturbance or displacement of nearby polar bears due to sound and 

activity if field personnel need to conduct maintenance in such situations as when a buoy breaks its 

mooring, a tide gauge stops sending messages, or batteries need to be recharged. Additionally, in remote 

areas reached by boat or aircraft, impacts on polar bears could occur and would be similar to those for 

tide gauge installation and described above in Sections 3.5.2.3.4.2 and3.5.2.3.4.3 for vessel sound and 

vessel presence. Sound and activity from tide gauge and shore-based GPS reference station removal could 

cause temporary or short-term localized disturbance and changes in behavior of nearby polar bears, 

similar to tide gauge installation. In addition, shore/coastal habitat could be disturbed or altered as a small 

area of ground would be covered by a GPS reference station. Although this could affect polar bear habitat, 

it is not likely that the disturbance would be large enough to alter the habitat to the point where polar 

bears would no longer use the site. Mitigation measures that would minimize adverse impacts on polar 

bears from the use of aircraft are discussed in Section 3.5.2.3.4.2.

During SCUBA operations, divers would move through the water column, possibly temporarily disturbing 

sea otters that may be in the area; it is very unlikely that SCUBA would occur near a polar bear. Sea otters

would continue with the activities they were engaged in once divers depart and water column turbulence 

ceases. When using a boat or platform to conduct SCUBA operations, at least one PSO would maintain 

visual watch for protected species to ensure none are sighted within the working area. If a listed species 

moves into the work area, cessation of operation of any moving equipment within 15 m (50 ft) of the 

animal would occur and only resume when the species has left the project area. SCUBA divers involved in 

in-water activities would have proper training and be capable of responsible dive practices such that they 

minimize injury to organisms and avoid unnecessary habitat impacts. During all buoy deployment and 

retrieval operations, buoys would be lowered and raised slowly to minimize risk to listed species. In 

addition, observers would monitor for listed species in the area prior to and during deployment and 

retrieval. Work would be stopped if listed species are observed in the area to minimize entanglement risk.

Overall, the impacts of human activity on fissipeds, including ESA-listed species, under Alternative A would 

continue to be adverse and minor as there would continue to be only small disruptions of behavioral 

patterns and any displacement would continue to be limited to the project area or immediate 

surroundings. Impacts would thus be insignificant. It is not expected that human activity would impact 

designated critical habitat where the locations for tide gauges and GPS reference stations would continue 

to be located away from critical habitat areas. However, if polar bears are disturbed at denning sites, 

impacts on both animals and critical habitat designated to protect denning areas could be moderate as 

there could be extended displacement of individuals from preferred breeding habitat and/or designated 

critical habitat, but the continued viability of the population would not be threatened. Additionally, if 

polar bear-human interactions occur, impacts could also be moderate, although population-level impacts 

would not be expected.

3.5.2.3.4.5 Accidental Leakage or Spillage of Oil, Fuel, and Chemicals

Severity of oil, fuel, and chemical spills on fissipeds depends on the type of contaminant, exposure 

pathway, and degree of weathering of the substance. Oil and fuel harm fissipeds via acute toxicity, 

sublethal health effects that reduce fitness, and disruption of marine communities. In the highly unlikely 

event of an accidental oil or fuel spill into the marine environment from a vessel used by NOS, sea otters 

and polar bears would be particularly vulnerable due to their reliance on fur to maintain body heat. Polar 

bears could be exposed to oil while swimming or coming ashore onto impacted beaches. Sea otters are 

susceptible to oiling because they depend on the insulation of dense fur to keep warm and may ingest oil 

during grooming and feeding (AKDOT, 2006). Once oiled, sea otters quickly become hypothermic as oil 

compromises the insulative property of their fur. Oiling of polar bear fur reduces its insulation value, 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

209

causes irritation or damage to the skin, and may further contribute to impaired thermoregulation (USFWS, 

2016a). Both species can be adversely impacted by inhaling volatile oil and fuel components and through 

ingestion while grooming, resulting in gastrointestinal disorders. Polar bears could also ingest oil while 

grooming and feeding on oiled seals (ringed and bearded seals are the primary prey of polar bears) or 

scavenging oiled carcasses. However, a small spill would not be likely to result in death or life-threatening 

injuries, and the risk of fissipeds being exposed to oil and fuel spills would be very low. 

Fissipeds can also be affected indirectly by oil, fuel, and chemical spills through changes in the ecosystem 

that adversely affect prey species and habitats, including degradation of water quality. This could also 

affect critical habitat areas designated for feeding and foraging characteristics for sea otters and polar 

bears as both of them prey on species that could be impacted by accidental spills. Small spills could also 

make localized areas of critical habitat temporarily unavailable because of disturbance while cleanup 

occurs, or temporarily decrease the value of critical habitat through contamination. However, since it 

would be highly unlikely that an accidental spill would occur, adverse impacts on prey and habitat, 

including critical habitat, would be very low.

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 

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.

Since the likelihood of occurrence of an accidental spill from a vessel used by NOS would continue to be 

very low, impacts on fissipeds under Alternative A are expected to be adverse and negligible. In the event 

that an accidental spill does occur, the volume of oil, fuel, and/or chemicals would continue to be fairly 

small given the size of vessels used by NOS and the amounts of fuel and other chemicals they typically 

carry. Additionally, all hazardous or regulated materials would continue to be handled in accordance with 

applicable laws, and crew members would continue to be appropriately trained in materials storage and 

usage. Thus, the impact on fissipeds would continue to be adverse and minor as impacts would continue 

to be temporary or short-term without any impacts on population levels. Displacement of fissipeds that 

move away to avoid spilled substances would continue to be short-term and limited to the project area 

or its immediate surroundings. Impacts on fissipeds, including ESA-listed species and designated critical 

habitat, would continue to be insignificant. 

3.5.2.3.4.6 Trash and Debris

Marine debris poses two types of negative impacts on marine mammals: entanglement and ingestion. 

Entanglement is a far more likely cause of mortality to marine mammals than ingestion. Entanglements 

occur when cables, lines, nets, or other objects suspended in the water column become wrapped around 

marine mammals, potentially causing injury, interference with essential behaviors and functions, and 

possibly mortality. During proposed activities, numerous cables, lines, and other objects could be towed 

behind the vessel near the water surface. Although it is possible that such lines and cables could detach 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

210

from a vessel and become debris in which fissipeds could get entangled, it is not very likely. It is not 

expected that polar bears would be susceptible to entanglement since they spend most of their time on 

land or ice. Conversely, sea otters are known to be vulnerable to entanglements, particularly with fishing 

gear; however, the likelihood of vessels used by NOS producing debris in which they could become 

entangled is low. 

Impacts from discarded trash and debris are expected to be avoided through vessel operators’ required 

compliance with USCG and EPA regulations. In addition, no intentional vessel discharges would occur if a 

protected species is sighted within 91 m (100 yds) of the vessel used by NOS, and all MARPOL discharge 

protocols would be followed. Thus, impacts of trash and debris on fissipeds, including ESA-listed species, 

under Alternative A would continue to be adverse and negligible as any disturbance of animals would 

continue to be temporary, no mortality or debilitating injury would be expected, and there would 

continue to be no displacement from preferred or designated critical habitat; thus, impacts would 

continue to be insignificant. It is also not expected that trash and debris would have any impacts on 

designated critical habitat.

3.5.2.3.4.7 Air Emissions

Since the pre-industrial era, increased emissions of anthropogenic GHGs (CO2, CH4, and N2O) have resulted 

in higher atmospheric concentrations of these gases and have influenced atmospheric, terrestrial, and 

oceanic conditions (Limpinsel et al., 2017). Smokestack and two-stroke outboard motor emissions from 

vessels would release air pollutants. The type and amount of air emissions from vessels used by NOS

would depend on the type of fuel, engine, and engine efficiency. Fissipeds may be exposed to smokestack 

or outboard motor emissions when breathing the air; however, such emissions would be temporary and 

ephemeral as they would dissipate rapidly into the air and may not reach animals on land or ice. 

Burning fossil fuels pollutes not just the air but also the oceans as the waters absorb carbon dioxide, which 

lowers the pH of surface waters and leads to acidification. Changes in seawater carbon chemistry, in 

particular interference with the formation of CaCO3 in marine shells and skeletons, may affect marine 

biota through a variety of biochemical, physiological, and physical processes. Furthermore, the amount of 

emissions from vessels used by NOS would continue to be a very small fraction as compared to emissions 

from all other vessel activity in the oceans. Thus, impacts on fissipeds, including ESA-listed species and 

designated critical habitat, from air emissions under Alternative A are expected to be adverse and 

negligible as there would continue to be no disturbance of communication or behavior, no displacement, 

and no debilitating injury of individuals; thus, impacts would continue to be insignificant. 

3.5.2.3.5 Conclusion

Since the effects of impact causing factors on marine mammals range from negligible to minor, the overall 

impact of Alternative A on marine mammals, including ESA-listed species and designated critical habitat,

would continue to be adverse and minor; thus, impacts of Alternative A would continue to be 

insignificant.

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

Collection with Equipment Upgrades, Improved Hydroacoustic Devices, and 

New Tide Stations

As under Alternative A, impacts of Alternative B are considered for the same impact causing factors for 

each type of marine mammal (cetaceans, pinnipeds, sirenians, and fissipeds). Under Alternative B, all of 

the activities and equipment operations proposed in Alternative A would continue but at a higher level of 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

211

effort, although the percentage of nautical miles covered by project activities in each region would be the 

same as under Alternative A. Thus, the greatest number of nautical miles surveyed each year would be in 

the Southeast Region (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), although

slightly greater in the Alaska Region where the percentage of survey effort would be approximately 18

percent (see Table 3.5-14). 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 and 

depth of surveys, sound production and hearing frequency of the animals, and population density of 

marine mammals, that add nuance to this trend. Overall, NOS projects would comprise a very small part 

of all ocean activities as vessels used by NOS would represent a very small proportion of all vessel traffic 

in the action area (as discussed in Section 2.4.1). Additionally, whenever possible, the location and timing 

of a given project would be purposefully coordinated to ensure that areas are not repeatedly surveyed. 

This ensures that the potential environmental impacts directly resulting from NOS projects would not be 

exacerbated by repeated projects within a given area. 

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 and activities, and thus more nautical 

miles traveled, than Alternative A. Under Alternative B, NOS projects would cover a total of 2,896,712 nm 

(5,364,710 km) across all five regions over the five-year period (note that survey effort in the Great Lakes 

is not included as no marine mammals occur there). Overall, vessels used by NOS would cover an 

additional 263,337 nm (487,701 km) under Alternative B (see Table 3.5-14) as compared to Alternative A 

(2,633,374nm [4,877,009 km] total) across all regions over the five-year period. 

Table 3.5-14. Survey Effort under Alternative B, by Geographic Region by Year

Region Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Total

Survey Effort (in nautical miles)

Greater Atlantic Region 

(without Great Lakes) 66,904 116,333 56,068 51,603 51,603 342,512

Southeast Region 242,369 231,204 288,695 309,906 309,906 1,382,080

West Coast Region 65,514 63,700 61,571 64,024 64,024 318,833

Alaska Region 103,258 131,971 191,890 45,485 45,460 518,064

Pacific Islands Region 77,231 60,390 76,716 60,443 60,443 335,223

The types and mechanisms of impacts would remain the same in Alternative B as discussed for Alternative 

A. Therefore, in general, the difference between the two alternatives is a matter of scale with an increased 

activity level, although distributed unevenly among the different types of activities, leading to a 

corresponding, incremental increase in effects under Alternative B as compared to Alternative A. Section 

2.5 discusses the differences between Alternatives A and B, and Table 2.6-1 provides a comparison of 

annually planned and performed NOS projects and activities. While the total number of activities increases 

by approximately 10 percent between Alternatives A and B, the numbers for individual activities do not 

increase uniformly. For example, the number of nautical miles for crewed vessel operations increases by 

11 percent from Alternative A to B; however, the number of nautical miles using ADCPs increases by 90

percent, and ROV use increases by 202 percent.

Under Alternative B there would be projects using crewed vessel operations covering 577,000 nm 

(1,070,000 km), as compared to 518,000 nm (959,000 km) under Alternative A. Vessel operations could 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

212

contribute to impacts on marine mammals related to vessel and equipment sound, vessel presence and 

movement, accidental spills, trash and debris, and air emissions. Although the amount of crewed vessel 

operations would be greater under Alternative B than under Alternative A, additional projects over 59,000 

nm (111,000 km) across five regions would result in greater impacts overall, but not so great that the 

magnitude of a particular impact causing factor would increase (e.g., from negligible to minor). The 

increase in use of active underwater acoustic equipment and ROVs would be more pronounced than 

increases in other activities. Projects involving echo sounders, ADCPs, and acoustic communication 

systems would increase under Alternative B as compared to Alternative A. This reflects the increased use 

of technology under Alternative B and is a greater increase than for other activities on a percentage basis, 

but overall, the increase is still not very high, especially as compared to the extent of the action area.

3.5.2.4.1 Cetaceans

Impacts of Alternative B on cetaceans, including ESA-listed species and designated critical habitat, would 

be the same or slightly, but not appreciably, larger than those under Alternative A for the following impact 

causing factors: vessel and equipment sound; vessel presence and movement of equipment in the water; 

human activity; accidental leakage or spillage of oil, fuel, and chemicals; and trash and debris. Although 

the impacts of active underwater acoustic sources would also be similar under Alternative B as under 

Alternative A, they are discussed in detail below because the impacts of underwater sound on marine 

mammals are of main concern and to show the modeled increase in PTS/injury exposures and behavioral 

disruption exposures of cetaceans from the projected increase in the use of echo sounders, ADCPs, and 

acoustic communication systems (see Appendix E).

3.5.2.4.1.1 Active Underwater Acoustic Sources

As with Alternative A, active underwater acoustic sources under Alternative B would include echo 

sounders, ADCPs, and acoustic communication systems as described in Section 2.4. Descriptions of all 

active sources considered in this study can be found in Appendix E; the representative sources used in 

exposure modeling are the same as described in Alternative A and listed in Table 3.5-7.

The active underwater acoustic sources were evaluated in the same way under Alternative B as for 

Alternative A. Quantitative acoustic exposure to marine mammals, including cetaceans, from operation 

of sound sources was modeled for nine sources (see Appendix E). Acoustic modeling was conducted by 

determining the sound field expected from each source and estimating the number of marine mammals 

that may be exposed above sound thresholdsfor PTS/injury and behavioral disruption during surveys (see 

Appendix E for more information). To gauge potential for impact, received sound levels that may result in 

PTS/injury or behavioral disruption to the animal were needed. For this study, the current NMFS criteria 

for both PTS/injury (NMFS, 2018a) and behavioral disruption (84 FR 72308, December 31, 2019) were 

used (see Appendix E). Additionally, Section 3.5.2.3.1.1 under Alternative A for cetaceans discusses the 

assumptions made and the data sources used in the modeling scenarios to predict exposures of marine 

mammals.

Summarized total potential PTS/injury exposures over five years for all sources for cetaceans in each 

region are shown in Table 3.5-15 (no PTS/injury exposure was predicted for any species in the Pacific 

Islands Region). Note that the estimated exposures have overall decreased between the Draft PEIS and 

the Final PEIS for the reasons discussed in Section 3.5.2.3.1.1 under Alternative A. Summarized total 

potential behavioral disruption exposures of cetaceans for all sources in each region are shown in Table 

3.5-17. For annual numbers, see Appendix E. Species that may be in the area but for which no impacts 

were predicted are not included in the tables. Discussion of how PTS/injury exposures and behavioral 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

213

disruption exposures were modeled and calculated can be found in Sections 3.5.2.3.1.1.1 and 3.5.2.3.1.1.2 

and in Appendix E.

Table 3.5-15. Total Predicted Exposures for Cetacean Species and

Range Accounting for 95 Percent of Exposure

Above PTS Threshold Under Alternative B

Species

Total 

Exposures*

Exposure Range 

(m)

Southeast Region**

Dwarf sperm whale 3.17 35

Pygmy sperm whale 2.37 35

Greater Atlantic Region

Harbor porpoise 14.57 34

Dwarf sperm whale 1.18 32

Pygmy sperm whale 0.15 32

West Coast Region

Dall's porpoise 6.78 24

Harbor porpoise 6.01 28

Alaska Region

Harbor porpoise 4.96 27

Dall's porpoise 4.33 20

*Exposures are based on a probabilistic model that is scaled by animal 

density and may therefore include fractional counts.

**Exposure modeling for the Southeast Region was conducted for the 

Gulf of Mexico.

Under Alternative B, PTS/injury exposures to high-frequency cetaceans could occur in four of the five 

regions with ranges to exposures in the simulations ~30 m (~100 ft). High-frequency cetaceans (Dall’s and 

harbor porpoises, and dwarf and pygmy sperm whales) have been shown to be more sensitive to sounds 

than other cetacean species, and therefore have comparatively low thresholds for PTS/injury exposures 

(NMFS, 2018a). Compared to Alternative A, use of underwater acoustic sources under Alternative B would 

continue at a higher level of effort. Over the five-year timeframe, a total of up to five additional animals 

would be exposed above the PTS/injury threshold across four regions under Alternative B as compared to 

Alternative A. Such small increases in animals exposed above threshold over the extensive project area 

and over five years would not be expected to result in population level adverse impacts, particularly as 

supported by the comparison to PBR levels (see Section 3.5.2.3.1.1.1 for discussion and Table 3.5-16). 

Table 3.5-16. Comparison of Exposure Above PTS Threshold for Cetacean Species

Under Alternative B with Current Potential Biological Removal (PBR) Levels

Species Total Exposures

Average Annual 

Exposures PBR Levels*

Southeast Region

Dwarf sperm whale 3.17 0.63 2.5**

Pygmy sperm whale 2.37 0.47 2.5**
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

214

Species Total Exposures

Average Annual 

Exposures PBR Levels*

Greater Atlantic Region

Harbor porpoise 14.57 2.91 851

Dwarf sperm whale 1.18 0.24 46

Pygmy sperm whale 0.15 0.03 46

West Coast Region

Dall’s porpoise 6.78 1.36 99***

Harbor porpoise 6.01 1.20 35 to 349 

Alaska Region

Harbor porpoise 4.96 0.99 2.2 to 11** ***

Dall's porpoise 4.33 0.87 131

*Sources for PBR Levels: Carretta et al., 2022; Hayes et al., 2022; and Muto et al., 2021

**Differs from PBR levels reported in the Draft PEIS due to numbers presented in the Draft PEIS for 

incorrect stock.

***Differs from PBR levels reported in the Draft PEIS due to changes between the 2019 and the 2021 

SARs.

 PBR levels for harbor porpoise in the West Coast Region is shown as the range across six stocks.

** ** PBR levels for the Southeast Alaska stock; PBR levels are undetermined for the Gulf of Alaska and 

Bering Sea stocks.

Table 3.5-17. Total Predicted Exposures for Cetacean Species and

Time in Seconds Above the Behavioral Disruption Threshold Under Alternative B

Species Total Exposures*

Average time above 

160 dB (s)**

Alaska Region

Pacific white-sided dolphin 944.80 63

Beluga whale 281.66 85

Harbor porpoise 94.21 88

Dall’s porpoise 89.91 69

Common minke whale 65.30 47

Bowhead whale 64.79 53

Humpback whale, Central North Pacific 48.76 95

Resident killer whale 37.79 58

Fin whale 30.83 50

Transient killer whale 25.06 58

Beluga, Cooke Inlet 14.02 85

Humpback whale, Western North 

Pacific 5.35 95

Gray whale 1.83 51

Sperm whale 0.15 56

North Pacific right whale 0.03 53
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

215

Species Total Exposures*

Average time above 

160 dB (s)**

Southeast Region***

Atlantic spotted dolphin 1,068.80 56

Common bottlenose dolphin 652.30 89

Pantropical spotted dolphin 412.28 52

Clymene dolphin 137.02 52

Rough-toothed dolphin 74.56 75

Spinner dolphin 72.21 58

Risso’s dolphin 64.43 69

Striped dolphin 39.64 50

False killer whale 39.49 55

Pilot whale, short finned 20.62 60

Pilot whale, long finned 20.28 60

Pygmy sperm whale 19.70 52

Pygmy killer whale 17.68 52

Sperm whale 15.59 64

Melon-headed whale 15.59 50

Dwarf sperm whale 12.35 52

Fraser’s dolphin 9.58 50

Blainville beaked whale 8.97 67

Gervais’ beaked whale 8.97 67

Mesoplodont beaked whales (all) 8.97 67

Cuvier’s beaked whale 2.78 64

Transient killer whale 2.45 58

Rice’s whale 0.81 82

Greater Atlantic Region

Short-beaked common dolphin 2,949.76 102

Atlantic white-sided dolphin 2,189.32 101

Atlantic spotted dolphin 1,219.79 89

Common bottlenose dolphin 1,095.20 184

Harbor porpoise 716.00 55

Risso’s dolphin 490.49 112

Pilot whale, long finned 340.51 63

Pilot whale, short finned 217.60 63

Fin whale 189.84 98

Humpback whale 94.53 97

Common minke whale 105.75 101

Cuvier’s beaked whale 58.87 55

Dwarf sperm whale 58.12 57

Rough-toothed dolphin 51.96 110

Gervais beaked whale 44.52 55
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

216

Species Total Exposures*

Average time above 

160 dB (s)**

Sowerby’s beaked whale 44.52 55

Blainville beaked whale 44.52 55

True’s beaked whale 44.52 55

Mesoplodont beaked whales (all) 44.52 55

Striped dolphin 22.74 50

Sperm whale 17.21 50

Pantropical spotted dolphin 17.47 62

Sei whale 15.16 98

North Atlantic right whale 14.37 62

Melon-headed whale 9.24 50

Pygmy sperm whale 8.06 57

Clymene dolphin 5.10 100

Fraser’s dolphin 3.90 38

False killer whale 3.11 64

White-beaked dolphin 2.75 83

Spinner dolphin 1.66 41

Northern bottlenose whale 0.64 42

Bryde’s whale 0.41 112

Blue whale 0.06 43

West Coast Region

Short-beaked common dolphin 27,131.09 55

Long-beaked common dolphin 18,138.00 82

Pacific white-sided dolphin 7,176.51 67

Striped dolphin 4,412.32 25

Northern right whale dolphin 2,753.60 25

Gray whale 2,591.46 51

Risso’s dolphin 304.75 66

Common bottlenose dolphin 278.03 110

Humpback whale, Central America 241.77 128

Common minke whale 206.62 51

Fin whale 151.52 62

Dall’s porpoise 141.78 75

Harbor porpoise 122.12 96

Mesoplodont beaked whales (all) 80.60 26

Sperm whale 39.68 29

Blue whale 75.72 27

Humpback whale, Central North Pacific 48.76 95

Cuvier’s beaked whale 36.24 33

Baird’s beaked whale 36.10 55

Sei whale 28.10 62
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

217

Species Total Exposures*

Average time above 

160 dB (s)**

Offshore killer whale 24.26 64

Transient killer whale 23.94 64

Resident killer whale 22.18 64

Pilot whale, short finned 19.00 82

Humpback whale, Western North 

Pacific 5.35 95

Pacific Islands Region

Pygmy sperm whale 12,435.84 63

Rough-toothed dolphin 12,412.61 71

Striped dolphin 8,719.21 55

Pantropical spotted dolphin 4,076.24 62

Fraser’s dolphin 3,468.50 50

Pygmy killer whale 1,177.85 64

False killer whale 432.27 56

Risso’s dolphin 111.72 69

Common bottlenose dolphin 71.34 112

Spinner dolphin 51.72 84

Humpback whale, Central North Pacific 48.76 95

Melon-headed whale 37.82 59

Pilot whale, short finned 28.00 62

Humpback whale, Western North 

Pacific 5.35 95

Bryde’s whale 4.94 70

Sperm whale 4.31 67

Longman’s beaked whale 2.91 54

Cuvier’s beaked whale 2.87 54

Sei whale 2.74 75

Fin whale 1.84 75

Blainville beaked whale 1.46 55

Resident killer whale 0.77 56

Transient killer whale 0.77 56

Blue whale 0.23 54

*Exposures are based on a probabilistic model that is scaled by animal density and may 

therefore include fractional counts.

**Exposure above threshold over 24 hours.

***Exposure modeling for the Southeast Region was conducted for the Gulf of Mexico.

Under Alternative B, behavioral disruption exposures to cetaceans could occur in all five regions.

Compared to Alternative A, use of underwater acoustic sources under Alternative B would occur at a 

higher level of effort. Depending on the species, behavioral disruption exposure of cetaceans under 

Alternative B could increase from one to a few thousand animals in each region over the five-year 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

218

timeframe as compared to Alternative A. However, for the simulated animals exposed above the 160 dB 

threshold, the average amount of time an individual receives sound levels above the behavioral threshold 

remains less than two minutes, and often less than one minute. The disturbances, therefore, are expected 

to be transient, and surveys, once completed in an area, would not generally be repeated, thus limiting

an individual’s behavioral disruption. Behavioral exposures need to occur over the timespan of weeks to 

have a population level effect on marine mammals, as in the case of seismic surveys that have months’ 

worth of activity (Southall et al., 2016). Any disruption that occurs for a matter of hours or for less than a 

day would not likely have a population-level impact. Thus, although many individuals of some species 

could experience behavioral disturbance from NOS acoustic sources, the small increments of time that 

the animals are exposed above threshold over five years and over the extensive project area would not 

be expected to result in population level adverse impacts.

In coordination with NMFS and USFWS, NOS has developed mitigation measures to reduce potential 

impacts of active acoustic sources on marine mammals (as discussed in Section 3.5.2.3.1.1 under 

Alternative A, and see Appendix E).

The potential impacts of Alternative B on cetaceans include injury exposures in the form of hearing loss 

(PTS), but such injury would be rare and confined to a few high-frequency cetaceans in four regions (from 

six animals in the Southeast Region up to 15 animals in the Greater Atlantic Region over the five-year 

timeframe, see Table 3.5-15). While more individual animals are expected to experience behavioral 

disruptions than injury (on the order of tens of thousands of animals across all five regions over the fiveyear timeframe), the amount of time individuals may exceed the behavioral threshold would be on 

average less than two minutes (Table 3.5-17). Similarly, the potential for masking would be minimal during 

surveys because the narrow beams of most active acoustic sources mean animals would not spend much 

time in ensonified zones. Overall, the potential impacts are likely limited to short-term disruption of 

acoustic habitat and behavioral patterns. Although both PTS/injury and behavioral disruption exposure of 

cetaceans would be higher under Alternative B than under Alternative A, the effects of underwater sound

from active acoustic sources on cetaceans under Alternative B would still be adverse and minor because 

impacts would be temporary or short-term and would not be considered outside the natural range of 

variability of species’ populations, their habitats, or the natural processes sustaining them. Impacts could 

include disruptions of behavioral patterns such as temporary disruption of communication and/or 

echolocation, disturbance of individuals or groups of cetaceans, and possible displacement of individuals 

or groups, but without substantial interference to feeding, reproduction, or other biologically important 

functions affecting population levels. Displacement of cetaceans from preferred breeding, feeding, or 

nursery grounds, migratory routes, or designated critical habitat would be limited to the project area or 

its immediate surroundings. Impacts of Alternative B on cetaceans, including ESA-listed species, would be 

insignificant. 

3.5.2.4.2 Pinnipeds

Impacts of Alternative B on pinnipeds, including ESA-listed species and designated critical habitat, would 

be the same or slightly, but not appreciably, larger than those under Alternative A for the following impact 

causing factors: vessel and equipment sound; vessel presence and movement of equipment in the water; 

human activity; accidental leakage or spillage of oil, fuel, and chemicals; trash and debris; and air 

emissions. Although the impacts of active underwater acoustic sources would also be similar under 

Alternative B as under Alternative A, they are discussed below because the impacts of underwater sound

on marine mammals are of main concern and to show the modeled increase in behavioral disruption 

exposures of pinnipeds from the projected increase in the use of echo sounders, ADCPs, and acoustic 

communication systems (see Appendix E). 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

219

3.5.2.4.2.1 Active Underwater Acoustic Sources

As with Alternative A, active underwater acoustic sources under Alternative B would include echo 

sounders, ADCPs, and acoustic communication systems as described in Section 2.4. Descriptions of all 

active sources considered in this study can be found in Appendix E, Technical Acoustic Analysis of 

Oceanographic Surveys; the representative sources used in exposure modeling are the same as described 

in Alternative A and listed in Table 3.5-7. Since Alternative B involves improvements in techniques and 

technology with an increased use of underwater acoustic sources, the behavioral disruption exposure

estimates are higher than under Alternative A.

The active underwater acoustic sources were evaluated in the same way under Alternative B as for 

Alternative A. Quantitative acoustic exposure to marine mammals, including pinnipeds, from operation of 

sound sources was modeled for nine sources (see Appendix E). Acoustic modeling was conducted by 

determining the sound field expected from each source and estimating the number of pinnipeds that may 

be exposed above sound thresholds for PTS/injury and behavioral disruption during surveys. To gauge 

potential for impact, received sound levels that may result in PTS/injury or behavioral disruption to the 

animal were needed. For this study, the current NMFS criteria for both PTS/injury (NMFS, 2018a) and 

behavioral disruption (84 FR 72308, December 31, 2019) were used (see Appendix E). Methodology for 

modeling the impacts of active underwater acoustic sources is presented in Appendix E. Additionally, 

Section 3.5.2.3.1.1 under Cetaceans discusses the assumptions made and the data sources used in the 

modeling scenarios to predict exposures of marine mammals, including pinnipeds.

Based on the modeling, and taking into account animal behavior, source characteristics, and animal 

hearing capability, no PTS/injury exposures of pinnipeds is expected to occur. Note that the estimated 

exposures have overall decreased between the Draft PEIS and the Final PEIS for the reasons discussed in 

Section 3.5.2.3.1.1 under Cetaceans. Summarized total potential behavioral disruption exposures of 

pinnipeds over five years for all sources are shown in Table 3.5-18. For annual numbers, see Appendix E. 

Species that may be in the area but for which no impacts were predicted are not included in the tables. 

Discussion of how behavioral disruption exposure was modeled and calculated can be found in Section 

3.5.2.3.2.1.1 and in Appendix E.

Table 3.5-18. Total Predicted Exposures for Pinniped Species and

Time in Seconds Above the Behavioral Disruption Threshold Under Alternative B

Species

Total

Exposures*

Average time above 

160 dB (s)**

Alaska Region

Northern fur seal*** 23,136.32 138

Spotted seal 11,028.62 104

Harbor seal 7,826.85 104

Northern elephant seal*** 6,635.49 118

Bearded seal 1,596.14 104

Ribbon seal 1,537.25 104

Ringed seal 1,213.36 104

Walrus 652.52 95

Steller sea lion*** 513.13 104
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

220

Species

Total

Exposures*

Average time above 

160 dB (s)**

Greater Atlantic Region

Harp seal 669.17 174

Gray seal 541.65 168

Harbor seal 331.13 193

Hooded seal 304.77 174

West Coast Region

California sea lion 36,685.87 96

Northern fur seal 23,730.92 138

Northern elephant seal 6,635.49 118

Harbor seal 6,428.05 138

Stellar sea lion 2,945.39 138

Guadalupe fur seal 266.86 138

Pacific Islands Region

Hawaiian monk seal 685.25 86

*Exposures are based on a probabilistic model that is scaled by animal 

density and may therefore include fractional counts.

**Exposure above threshold over 24 hours.

***Populations span Alaska and West Coast regions.

Under Alternative B, behavioral disruption exposures of pinnipeds could occur in four regions. Compared 

to Alternative A, use of underwater acoustic sources under Alternative B would occur at a higher level of 

effort. Depending on the species, behavioral disruption exposure of pinnipeds under Alternative B could 

increase from a few dozen to a few thousand animals in each region over the five-year timeframe as 

compared to Alternative A. However, for the simulated animals exposed above the 160 dB threshold, the 

average amount of time an individual receives sound levels above the behavioral threshold remains less 

than four minutes, and often less than two minutes. The disturbances, therefore, are expected to be 

transient, and surveys, once completed in an area, would not generally be repeated, thus limiting an

individual’s behavioral disruption. Behavioral exposures need to occur over the timespan of weeks to have 

a population level effect on marine mammals, as in the case of seismic surveys that have months’ worth 

of activity (Southall et al., 2016). Any disruption that occurs for a matter of hours or for less than a day 

would not likely have a population-level impact. Thus, although many individuals of some species could 

experience behavioral disturbance from NOS acoustic sources, the small increments of time that the 

animals are exposed above threshold over five years and over the extensive project area would not be 

expected to result in population level adverse impacts.

In coordination with NMFS and USFWS, NOS has developed mitigation measures to reduce potential 

impacts of active acoustic sources on marine mammals (as discussed in Section 3.5.2.3.2.1 under 

Alternative A, and see Appendix D).

Under Alternative B, no PTS/injury exposure is expected. While individual animals would be expected to 

experience behavioral disruptions (from hundreds to tens of thousands of animals across four regions 

over the five-year timeframe), the amount of time individuals may exceed the behavioral exposure 

threshold would be on average less than four minutes (Table 3.5-18). Similarly, the potential for masking

would be minimal during surveys because the narrow beams of most active acoustic sources mean 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

221

animals would not spend much time in ensonified zones. Overall, the potential impacts are likely limited 

to short-term disruption of acoustic habitat and behavioral patterns. Although behavioral disruption 

exposure of pinnipeds would be higher under Alternative B than under Alternative A, the effects of 

underwater sound from active acoustic sources on pinnipeds under Alternative B would still be adverse

and minor because impacts would be temporary or short-term and would not be considered outside the 

natural range of variability of species’ populations, their habitats, or the natural processes sustaining 

them. Impacts could include disruptions of behavioral patterns such as temporary disruption of 

communication and disturbance of individuals or groups of pinnipeds, and possible displacement of 

individuals or groups, but without substantial interference to feeding, reproduction, or other biologically

important functions affecting population levels. Displacement of pinnipeds from preferred breeding, 

feeding, or nursery grounds or designated critical habitat would be limited to the project area or its 

immediate surroundings. Impacts of Alternative B on pinnipeds, including ESA-listed species, would be 

insignificant. 

3.5.2.4.3 Sirenians

Impacts of Alternative B on sirenians, including ESA-listed species and designated critical habitat, would 

be the same or slightly, but not appreciably, larger than those under Alternative A for the following impact 

causing factors: vessel and equipment sound; vessel presence and movement of equipment in the water; 

human activity; accidental leakage or spillage of oil, fuel, and chemicals; and trash and debris. Although 

the impacts of active underwater acoustic sources would also be similar under Alternative B as under 

Alternative A, they are discussed below because the impacts of underwater sound on marine mammals 

are of main concern and to show the modeled increase in behavioral disruption exposures of sirenians 

from the projected increase in the use of echo sounders, ADCPs, and acoustic communication systems

(see Appendix E).

3.5.2.4.3.1 Active Underwater Acoustic Sources

As with Alternative A, active underwater acoustic sources under Alternative B would include echo 

sounders, ADCPs, and acoustic communication systems as described in Section 2.4. Descriptions of all 

active sources considered in this study can be found in Appendix E; the representative sources used in 

exposure modeling are the same as described in Alternative A and listed in Table 3.5-7. Since Alternative 

B involves improvements in techniques and technology with an increased use of underwater acoustic 

sources, the behavioral disruption exposure estimates are higher than under Alternative A.

The active underwater acoustic sources were evaluated in the same way under Alternative B as for 

Alternative A. Quantitative acoustic exposure to marine mammals, including sirenians, from operation of 

acoustic sources was modeled for nine sources (see Appendix E). Acoustic modeling was conducted by 

determining the sound field expected from each source and estimating the number of manatees that may 

be exposed above sound thresholds for PTS/injury and behavioral disruption during surveys. To gauge the 

potential for impact, received sound levels that may result in PTS/injury or behavioral disruption to the 

animals were needed. For this study, the current NMFS criteria for both PTS/injury (NMFS, 2018a) and 

behavioral disruption (84 FR 72308, December 31, 2019) were used (see Appendix E). Methodology for 

modeling the impacts of active underwater acoustic sources is presented in Appendix E. Additionally, 

Section 3.5.2.3.1.1 under Cetaceans discusses the assumptions made and the data sources used in the 

modeling scenarios to predict exposures of marine mammals, including sirenians. 

Based on the modeling and taking into account animal behavior, source characteristics, and animal 

hearing capability, no PTS/injury exposures of manatees are expected to occur. Note that the estimated 

exposures have overall decreased between the Draft PEIS and the Final PEIS for the reasons discussed in 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

222

Section 3.5.2.3.1.1 under Cetaceans. Summarized total potential behavioral disruption exposures of 

manatees over five years for all sources are shown in Table 3.5-19. For annual numbers, see Appendix E.

Discussion of how behavioral disruption exposures were modeled and calculated can be found in Sections 

3.5.2.3.3.1.1 and in Appendix E.

Table 3.5-19. Total Predicted Exposures for Manatees and Time

in Seconds Above the Behavioral Disruption Threshold Under Alternative B

Species

Total 

Exposures*

Average time above 

160 dB (s)**

Greater Atlantic Region

Manatee 255.56 196

Southeast Region***

Manatee 78.19 196

*Exposures are based on a probabilistic model that is scaled by animal 

density and may therefore include fractional counts.

**Exposure above threshold over 24 hours.

***Exposure modeling for the Southeast Region was conducted for the Gulf 

of Mexico and Caribbean.

Under Alternative B, behavioral disruption exposures of sirenians could occur in two regions. Compared 

to Alternative A, use of underwater acoustic sources under Alternative B would occur at a higher level of 

effort. Behavioral disruption exposure of manatees under Alternative B could increase up to 22 animals 

over the five-year timeframe as compared to Alternative A. However, for the simulated animals exposed 

above the 160 dB threshold, the average amount of time an individual receives sound levels above the 

behavioral threshold remains less than four minutes. The disturbances, therefore, are expected to be 

transient, and surveys, once completed in an area, would not generally be repeated, thus limiting an

individual’s behavioral disruption. Behavioral exposures need to occur over the timespan of weeks to have 

a population level effect on marine mammals, as in the case of seismic surveys that have months’ worth 

of activity (Southall et al., 2016). Any disruption that occurs for a matter of hours or for less than a day 

would not likely have a population-level impact. Thus, although many individuals could experience 

behavioral disturbance from NOS acoustic sources, the small increments of time that the animals are 

exposed above threshold over five years and over the extensive project area would not be expected to 

result in population level adverse impacts.

In coordination with NMFS and USFWS, NOS has developed mitigation measures to reduce potential 

impacts of active acoustic sources on marine mammals (as discussed in Section 3.5.2.3.3.1 under 

Alternative A, and see Appendix D).

Under Alternative B, no PTS/injury exposure is expected. While some individual animals are expected to 

experience behavioral disruptions (<334 individuals in two regions over the five-year timeframe), the 

amount of time they may exceed the behavioral exposure threshold would be less than four minutes 

(Table 3.5-19). Similarly, the potential for masking would be minimal during surveys because the narrow 

beams of most active acoustic sources mean animals would not spend much time in ensonified zones. 

Overall, the potential impacts are likely limited to short-term disruption of acoustic habitat and behavioral 

patterns. Although behavioral disruption exposure of manatees would be higher under Alternative B than 

under Alternative A, the effects of underwater sound from active acoustic sources on sirenians under 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

223

Alternative B would still be adverse and minor because impacts would be temporary or short-term and

would not be considered outside the natural range of variability of species’ populations, their habitats, or 

the natural processes sustaining them. Impacts could include disruptions of behavioral patterns such as

temporary disruption of communication and disturbance of individuals or groups of sirenians, and 

possible displacement of individuals or groups, but without substantial interference to feeding, 

reproduction, or other biologically important functions affecting population levels. Displacement of 

sirenians from preferred breeding, feeding, or nursery grounds or designated critical habitat would be 

limited to the project area or its immediate surroundings. Impacts of Alternative B on sirenians would be 

insignificant. 

3.5.2.4.4 Fissipeds

Impacts of Alternative B on fissipeds, including ESA-listed species and designated critical habitat, would 

be the same or slightly, but not appreciably, larger than those under Alternative A for the following impact 

causing factors: vessel and equipment sound; vessel presence and movement of equipment in the water; 

human activity; accidental leakage or spillage of oil, fuel, and chemicals; trash and debris; and air 

emissions. Although the impacts of active underwater acoustic sources would also be similar under 

Alternative B as under Alternative A, they are discussed below because the impacts of underwater sound

on marine mammals are of main concern and to show the modeled increase in behavioral disruption 

exposures of fissipeds from the projected increase in the use of echo sounders, ADCPs, and acoustic 

communication systems (see Appendix E). 

3.5.2.4.4.1 Active Underwater Acoustic Sources

As with Alternative A, active underwater acoustic sources under Alternative B would include echo 

sounders, ADCPs, and acoustic communication systems as described in Section 2.4. Descriptions of all 

active sources considered in this study can be found in Appendix E; the representative sources used in 

exposure modeling are the same as described in Alternative A and listed in Table 3.5-7. Since Alternative 

B involves improvements in techniques and technology with an increased use of underwater acoustic 

sources, the behavioral disruption exposure estimates are higher than under Alternative A.

The active underwater acoustic sources were evaluated in the same way under Alternative B as for 

Alternative A. Quantitative acoustic exposure of, marine mammals, including fissipeds, from operation of 

sound sources was modeled for nine sources (see Appendix E). Acoustic modeling was conducted by 

determining the sound field expected from each source and estimating the number of fissipeds that may 

be exposed above sound thresholds for PTS/injury and behavioral disruption during surveys. To gauge 

potential for impact, received sound levels that may result in PTS/injury or behavioral disruption to the 

animal were needed. For this study, the current NMFS criteria for both PTS/injury (NMFS, 2018a) and 

behavioral disruption (84 FR 72308, December 31, 2019) were used (see Appendix E). Methodology for 

modeling the impacts of active underwater acoustic sources is presented in Appendix E. Additionally, 

Section 3.5.2.3.1.1 under Cetaceans discusses the assumptions made and the data sources used in the 

modeling scenarios to predict exposures of marine mammals, including fissipeds. 

Based on the modeling and taking into account animal behavior, source characteristics, and animal 

hearing capability, no PTS/injury exposures of fissipeds are expected to occur. Note that the estimated 

exposures have overall decreased between the Draft PEIS and the Final PEIS for the reasons discussed in 

Section 3.5.2.3.1.1 under Cetaceans. Summarized total potential behavioral disruption exposures of 

fissipeds over five years for all sources are shown in Table 3.5-20. For annual numbers, see Appendix E.

Species that may be in the area but for which no impacts were predicted are not included in the tables. 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

224

Discussion of how behavioral disruption exposures were modeled and calculated can be found in Sections 

3.5.2.3.4.1.1 and in Appendix E.

Table 3.5-20. Total Predicted Exposures for Fissiped Species and Time

in Seconds Above the Behavioral Disruption Threshold Under Alternative B

Species

Total 

Exposures*

Average time above 

160 dB (s)**

Alaska Region

Sea otter, SE 533.98 124

Sea otter, SC 373.89 124

Polar bear 59.60 177

West Coast Region

Sea otter, CA 591.56 124

Sea otter, SE 533.98 124

Sea otter, WA 212.40 124

*Exposures are based on a probabilistic model that is scaled by animal 

density and may therefore include fractional counts.

**Exposure above threshold over 24 hours.

Under Alternative B, behavioral disruption exposures of fissipeds could occur in two regions. Compared 

to Alternative A, use of underwater acoustic sources under Alternative B would occur at a higher level of 

effort. Behavioral disruption exposure of fissipeds under Alternative B could increase by approximately 

five polar bears and a few hundred sea otters in each region over the five-year timeframe as compared to 

Alternative A. However, for the simulated animals exposed above the 160 dB threshold, the average 

amount of time an individual receives sound levels above the behavioral threshold remains less than three 

minutes. The disturbances, therefore, are expected to be transient, and surveys, once completed in an 

area, would not generally be repeated, thus limiting an individual’s behavioral disruption. Behavioral 

exposures need to occur over the timespan of weeks to have a population level effect on marine 

mammals, as in the case of seismic surveys that have months’ worth of activity (Southall et al., 2016). Any 

disruption that occurs for a matter of hours or for less than a day would not likely have a population-level

impact. Thus, although many individuals of some species could experience behavioral disturbance from 

NOS acoustic sources, the small increments of time that the animals are exposed above threshold over 

five years and over the extensive project area would not be expected to result in population level adverse 

impacts.

In coordination with NMFS and USFWS, NOS has developed mitigation measures to reduce potential 

impacts of active acoustic sources on marine mammals (as discussed in Section 3.5.2.3.4.1 under 

Alternative A, and see Appendix D).

Under Alternative B, no PTS/injury exposure is expected. While individual animals are expected to 

experience behavioral disruptions (<60 polar bears and a few thousand sea otters across the two regions 

and over the five-year timeframe), the amount of time they may exceed the behavioral disruption 

threshold would be on average less than three minutes (Table 3.5-20). Similarly, the potential for masking

would be minimal during surveys because the narrow beams of most active acoustic sources mean 

animals would not spend much time in ensonified zones. Overall, the potential impacts are likely limited 

to short-term disruption of acoustic habitat and behavioral patterns. Although behavioral disruption 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

225

exposure of fissipeds would be higher under Alternative B than under Alternative A, the effects of 

underwater sound from active acoustic sources on fissipeds under Alternative B would still be adverse

and minor because impacts would be temporary or short-term and would not be considered outside the 

natural range of variability of species’ populations, their habitats, or the natural processes sustaining 

them. Impacts could include disruptions of behavioral patterns such as temporary disruption of 

communication and disturbance of individuals or groups of fissipeds, and possible displacement of 

individuals or groups, but without substantial interference to feeding, reproduction, or other biologically

important functions affecting population levels. Displacement of fissipeds from preferred breeding, 

feeding, or nursery grounds or designated critical habitat would be limited to the project area or its 

immediate surroundings. Impacts of Alternative B on fissipeds, including ESA-listed species, would be 

insignificant. 

3.5.2.4.5 Conclusion

Since the effects of impact causing factors on marine mammals range from negligible to minor, the overall 

impact of Alternative B on marine mammals, including ESA-listed species and designated critical habitat,

would be adverse and minor; thus, impacts of Alternative B would be insignificant.

3.5.2.5 Alternative C: Upgrades and Improvements with Greater Funding Support

As for Alternatives A and B, impacts of Alternative C are discussed for the same impact causing factors for 

each type of marine mammal (cetaceans, pinnipeds, sirenians, and fissipeds). Under Alternative C, all of 

the activities and equipment operations proposed in Alternatives A and B would continue but at a higher 

level of effort, because there would be an overall funding increase of 20 percent relative to Alternative B.

However, the percentage of nautical miles in each region would be the same as under Alternatives A and 

B. 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 other four regions would be at similar levels of effort

(approximately 10 percent of the survey effort in each region), although slightly greater in the Alaska 

Region where the percentage of survey effort would be approximately 18 percent (see Table 3.5-21). 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 and depth of surveys, sound 

production and hearing frequency of the animals, and population density of marine mammals, that add 

nuance to this trend. Overall, NOS projects would comprise a very small part of all ocean activities as 

vessels used by NOS would represent a very small proportion of all vessel traffic in the action area (as 

discussed in Section 2.4.1). Additionally, whenever possible, the location and timing of a given project 

would be purposefully coordinated to ensure that areas are not repeatedly surveyed. This ensures that 

the potential environmental impacts directly resulting from NOS projects would not be exacerbated by 

repeated projects within a given area.

Table 3.5-21. Survey Effort under Alternative C, by Geographic Region by Year

Region Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Total

Survey Effort (in nautical miles)

Greater Atlantic Region 

(without Great Lakes) 72,986 126,909 61,166 56,295 56,295 373,650

Southeast Region 264,403 252,222 314,940 338,080 338,080 1,507,724

West Coast Region 71,470 69,491 67,168 69,845 69,845 347,818

Alaska Region 112,645 143,968 209,334 49,620 49,592 565,160

Pacific Islands Region 84,252 65,880 83,690 65,938 65,938 365,698
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

226

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 and activities, and thus more 

nautical miles traveled, than Alternatives A and B. Under Alternative C, NOS projects would cover a total 

of 3,160,049 nm (5,852,411 km) across all five regions over the five-year period (note that survey effort 

in the Great Lakes is not included as no marine mammals occur there). Overall, there would be an 

additional 263,337 nm (487,701 km) covered by vessels under Alternative C (see Table 3.5-21) as 

compared to Alternative B (2,896,712 nm [5,364,710 km] total), and an additional 526,675 nm (975,402

km) as compared to Alternative A (2,633,374 nm [4,877,009 km] total) across all regions over the fiveyear period. The types and mechanisms of impacts would remain the same in Alternative C as discussed 

for Alternatives A and B across all regions over the five-year period. Therefore, in general, the difference 

between the alternatives is a matter of scale with an increased activity level, although distributed 

unevenly among the different types of activities, leading to a corresponding, incremental increase in 

effects under Alternative C as compared to Alternatives A and B. While the total number of activities 

increases by approximately 10 percent between each subsequent alternative, the numbers for individual 

activities do not increase uniformly between alternatives. For example, the number of nautical miles 

crewed vessel operations increases by 23 percent from Alternative A to C and 10 percent from Alternative 

B to C. However, the number of nautical miles using ADCPs increases by 137 percent from Alternative A 

to C and 36 percent from Alternative B to C; and ROV use increases 257 percent from Alternative A to C

and 19 percent from Alternative B to C. 

Under Alternative C, there would be projects using crewed vessel operations covering 637,000 nm 

(1,180,000 km), as compared to 518,000 nm (959,000 km) under Alternative A. Vessel operations could 

contribute to impacts on marine mammals related to vessel and equipment sound, vessel presence and 

movement, accidental spills, trash and debris, and air emissions. Although the amount of crewed vessel 

operations would be greater under Alternative C than under Alternative A, an additional 119,000 nm 

(220,000 km) across five regions would result in greater impacts overall, but not so great that the 

magnitude of a particular impact causing factor would increase (e.g., from negligible to minor). The 

increase in use of active underwater acoustic equipment and ROVs would be more pronounced than 

increases in other activities. Projects involving echo sounders, ADCPs, and acoustic communication 

systems would increase under Alternative C as compared to Alternatives A and B. This reflects the 

increased use of technology and increased funding under Alternative C and is a greater increase than for 

other activities on a percentage basis, but overall, the increase is still not very high, especially as compared 

to the extent of the action area.

3.5.2.5.1 Cetaceans

Impacts of Alternative C on cetaceans, including ESA-listed species and designated critical habitat, would 

be the same or slightly, but not appreciably, larger as those under Alternatives A and B for the following 

impact causing factors: vessel and equipment sound; vessel presence and movement of equipment in the 

water, human activity, accidental leakage or spillage of oil, fuel, and chemicals; and trash and debris. 

Overall, impacts on cetaceans from these factors would be insignificant. Although the impacts of active 

underwater acoustic sources would also be similar under Alternative C as under Alternatives A and B, they 

are discussed below because the impacts of underwater sound on marine mammals are of main concern 

and to show the modeled increase in PTS/injury exposures and behavioral disruption exposures of 

cetaceans from the projected increase in the use of echo sounders, ADCPs, and acoustic communication 

systems (see Appendix E).
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

227

3.5.2.5.1.1 Active Underwater Acoustic Sources

As with Alternatives A and B, active underwater acoustic sources under Alternative C include echo 

sounders, ADCPs, and acoustic communication systems as discussed in Section 2.4. Descriptions of all 

active sources considered in this study can be found in Appendix E. The representative sources used in 

exposure modeling are the same as described in Alternative A and listed in Table 3.5-7. Since Alternative 

C involves improvements in techniques and technology with an increased use of underwater acoustic 

sources, as well as an overall funding increase of 20 percent relative to Alternative B, the PTS/injury and 

behavioral disruption exposure estimates are somewhat higher than under Alternatives A and B.

The active underwater acoustic sources were evaluated in the same way under Alternative C as for 

Alternatives A and B. Quantitative acoustic exposure to marine mammals, including cetaceans, from 

operating the sources was modeled for nine sources (see Appendix E). Acoustic modeling was conducted

by determining the size of the sound field expected from each source and estimating the number of 

marine mammals that may be exposed above sound thresholds for PTS/injury and behavioral disruption

during surveys. To gauge potential for impact, received sound levels that may result in PTS/injury or 

behavioral disruption to the animal were needed. For this study, the current NMFS criteria for both 

PTS/injury (NMFS, 2018a) and behavioral disruption (84 FR 72308, December 31, 2019) were used. 

Methodology for modeling the impacts of active underwater acoustic sources is presented in Appendix E. 

Additionally, Section 3.5.2.3.1.1 under Cetaceans discusses the assumptions made and the data sources 

used in the modeling scenarios to predict exposures of marine mammals.

Summarized total potential PTS/injury exposures over five years for all sources for cetaceans in each 

region are shown in Table 3.5-22 (no PTS/injury exposure was predicted for any species in the Pacific 

Islands Region). Note that the estimated exposures have overall decreased between the Draft PEIS and 

the Final PEIS for the reasons discussed in Section 3.5.2.3.1.1 under Alternative A. Summarized total 

potential behavioral disruption exposures of cetaceans for all sources in each region are shown in Table 

3.5-24. For annual numbers, see Appendix E. Species that may be in the area but for which no impacts 

were predicted are not included in the tables. Discussion of how PTS/injury exposures and behavioral 

disruption exposures were modeled and calculated can be found in Sections 3.5.2.3.1.1.1 and 3.5.2.3.1.1.2 

and in Appendix E.

Table 3.5-22. Total Predicted Exposures for Cetacean Species and

Range Accounting for 95 Percent of Exposure

Above PTS Threshold Under Alternative C

Species

Total 

Exposures* Exposure Range (m)

Southeast Region**

Dwarf sperm whale 3.83 35

Pygmy sperm whale 2.79 35

Greater Atlantic Region

Harbor porpoise 13.62 34

Dwarf sperm whale 1.47 32

Pygmy sperm whale 0.17 32

West Coast Region

Harbor porpoise 8.11 28

Dall’s porpoise 6.57 24
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

228

Species

Total 

Exposures* Exposure Range (m)

Alaska Region

Harbor porpoise 5.70 27

Dall’s porpoise 5.23 20

*Exposures are based on a probabilistic model that is scaled by animal 

density and may therefore include fractional counts.

**Exposure modeling for the Southeast Region was conducted for the Gulf of 

Mexico.

Under Alternative C, PTS/injury exposure of high-frequency cetaceans could occur in four of the five 

regions with ranges to exposures in the simulations ~30 m (~100 ft). High-frequency cetaceans (Dall’s and 

harbor porpoises, and dwarf and pygmy sperm whales) have been shown to be more sensitive to sounds 

than other cetacean species, and therefore have comparatively low thresholds for PTS/injury exposures 

(NMFS, 2018a). Compared to Alternatives A and B, use of underwater acoustic sources under Alternative 

C would continue at a higher level of effort. Over the five-year timeframe, a total of up to eight additional 

animals compared to Alternative A and up to four additional animals compared to Alternative B would be 

exposed above the PTS/injury threshold across four regions. Such small increases in animals exposed 

above threshold over the extensive project area and over five years would not be expected to result in 

population level adverse impacts, particularly as supported by the comparison to PBR levels (see Section 

3.5.2.3.1.1.1 for discussion and Table 3.5-23).

Table 3.5-23. Comparison of Exposure Above PTS Threshold for Cetacean Species

Under Alternative C with Current Potential Biological Removal (PBR) Levels

Species Total Exposures

Average Annual 

Exposures PBR Levels*

Southeast Region

Dwarf sperm whale 3.83 0.77 2.5**

Pygmy sperm whale 2.79 0.56 2.5**

Greater Atlantic Region

Harbor porpoise 13.62 2.72 851

Dwarf sperm whale 1.47 0.29 46

Pygmy sperm whale 0.17 46

West Coast Region

Dall’s porpoise 8.11 1.62 99***

Harbor porpoise 6.57 1.31 35 to 

349 

Alaska Region

Harbor porpoise 5.70 1.14 2.2 to 11** ***

Dall’s porpoise 5.23 51.05 131

*Sources for PBR Levels: Carretta et al., 2022; Hayes et al., 2022; and Muto et al., 2022

**Differs from PBR levels reported in the Draft PEIS due to numbers presented in the Draft PEIS for 

incorrect stock.

***Differs from PBR levels reported in the Draft PEIS due to changes between the 2019 and the 2021 

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

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

229

 PBR levels for harbor porpoise in the West Coast Region is shown as the range across six stocks.

** *** PBR levels for the Southeast Alaska stock; PBR levels are undetermined for the Gulf of Alaska and 

Bering Sea stocks.

Table 3.5-24. Total Predicted Exposures for Cetacean Species

and Time in Seconds Above the Behavioral Disruption Threshold Under Alternative C

Species Total Exposures*

Average time above 

160 dB (s)**

Alaska Region

Pacific white-sided dolphin 1,105.50 63

Beluga whale 307.27 85

Harbor porpoise 108.08 88

Dall's porpoise 107.84 69

Common minke whale 74.13 47

Bowhead whale 70.67 53

Humpback whale, Central North Pacific 56.69 95

Resident killer whale 44.21 58

Fin whale 34.54 50

Transient killer whale 29.59 58

Beluga, Cooke Inlet 16.24 85

Humpback whale, Western North Pacific 6.21 95

Gray whale 2.13 51

Sperm whale 0.16 56

North Pacific right whale 0.03 53

Southeast Region***

Atlantic spotted dolphin 1,254.12 56

Common bottlenose dolphin 748.43 89

Pantropical spotted dolphin 494.54 52

Clymene dolphin 160.09 52

Rough-toothed dolphin 87.04 75

Spinner dolphin 86.62 58

Risso's dolphin 75.64 69

Striped dolphin 47.55 50

False killer whale 46.10 55

Pilot whale, short finned 24.22 60

Pilot whale, long finned 23.80 60

Pygmy sperm whale 23.03 52

Pygmy killer whale 20.64 52

Sperm whale 18.70 64

Melon-headed whale 18.70 50

Dwarf sperm whale 14.83 52

Fraser’s dolphin 11.49 50
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

230

Species Total Exposures*

Average time above 

160 dB (s)**

Blainville beaked whale 10.78 67

Gervais’ beaked whale 10.78 67

Mesoplodont beaked whales (all) 10.78 67

Cuvier's beaked whale 3.32 64

Transient killer whale 2.90 58

Rice’s whale 0.96 82

Greater Atlantic Region

Short-beaked common dolphin 3,298.64 102

Atlantic white-sided dolphin 1,990.71 101

Atlantic spotted dolphin 1,418.39 89

Common bottlenose dolphin 1,217.20 184

Harbor porpoise 627.10 55

Risso’s dolphin 561.77 112

Pilot whale, long finned 389.55 63

Pilot whale, short finned 249.25 63

Fin whale 187.53 98

Humpback whale 89.89 97

Common minke whale 101.72 101

Cuvier’s beaked whale 70.61 55

Dwarf sperm whale 69.72 57

Rough-toothed dolphin 59.31 110

Gervais beaked whale 53.42 55

Sowerby’s beaked whale 53.42 55

Blainville beaked whale 53.42 55

True’s beaked whale 53.42 55

Mesoplodont beaked whales (all) 53.42 55

Striped dolphin 27.28 50

Sperm whale 20.72 50

Pantropical spotted dolphin 20.93 62

North Atlantic right whale 14.00 62

Sei whale 15.00 98

Melon-headed whale 11.06 50

Pygmy sperm whale 9.44 57

Clymene dolphin 5.73 100

Fraser’s dolphin 4.69 38

False killer whale 3.25 64

White-beaked dolphin 2.78 83

Spinner dolphin 2.01 41

Northern bottlenose whale 0.74 42

Bryde’s whale 0.47 112
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

231

Species Total Exposures*

Average time above 

160 dB (s)**

Blue whale 0.09 43

West Coast Region

Short-beaked common dolphin 30,778.10 55

Long-beaked common dolphin 20,574.03 82

Pacific white-sided dolphin 8,167.96 67

Striped dolphin 5,142.33 25

Gray whale 2,993.57 55

Northern right whale dolphin 2,987.79 25

Risso’s dolphin 352.21 66

Common bottlenose dolphin 301.76 110

Humpback whale, Central America 279.29 128

Common minke whale 235.52 51

Fin whale 175.22 62

Dall's porpoise 169.00 75

Harbor porpoise 128.40 96

Mesoplodont beaked whales (all) 95.05 26

Blue whale 89.25 27

Humpback whale, Central North Pacific 56.69 95

Sperm whale 46.73 29

Cuvier's beaked whale 43.66 33

Baird's beaked whale 42.56 51

Sei whale 32.48 62

Transient killer whale 28.28 64

Offshore killer whale 28.02 64

Resident killer whale (SRKW) 26.17 64

Pilot whale, short finned 21.92 82

Humpback whale, Western North Pacific 95

Pacific Islands Region

Rough-toothed dolphin 14,913.64 71

Striped dolphin 10,463.03 55

Pantropical spotted dolphin 4,891.49 62

Fraser's dolphin 4,162.23 50

Pygmy killer whale 1,415.19 64

False killer whale 519.37 56

Risso’s dolphin 134.22 69

Common bottlenose dolphin 85.78 112

Spinner dolphin 62.09 84

Humpback whale, Central North Pacific 56.69 95

Melon-headed whale 45.37 59

Pilot whale, short finned 33.61 62
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

232

Species Total Exposures*

Average time above 

160 dB (s)**

Humpback whale, Western North Pacific 6.21 95

Bryde’s whale 5.93 70

Sperm whale 5.19 67

Longman’s beaked whale 3.50 54

Cuvier’s beaked whale 3.40 54

Sei whale 3.28 75

Fin whale 2.21 75

Blainville beaked whale 1.71 55

Resident killer whale 0.91 56

Transient killer whale 0.91 56

Blue whale 0.25 54

*Exposures are based on a probabilistic model that is scaled by animal density and may therefore 

include fractional counts.

**Exposure above threshold over 24 hours.

***Exposure modeling for the Southeast Region was conducted for the Gulf of Mexico.

Under Alternative C, behavioral disruption exposures to cetaceans could occur in all five regions.

Compared to Alternatives A and B, use of underwater acoustic sources under Alternative B would occur 

at a higher level of effort. Depending on the species, behavioral disruption exposure of cetaceans under 

Alternative C could increase from one to a few thousand animals in each region over the five-year 

timeframe as compared to Alternatives A and B. However, for the simulated animals exposed above the 

160 dB threshold, the average amount of time an individual would receive sound levels above the 

behavioral threshold remains less than two minutes, and often less than one minute. The disturbances, 

therefore, are expected to be transient, and surveys, once completed in an area, would not generally be 

repeated, thus limiting an individual’s behavioral disruption. Behavioral exposures need to occur over the 

timespan of weeks to have a population level effect on marine mammals, as in the case of seismic surveys 

that have months’ worth of activity (Southall et al., 2016). Any disruption that occurs for a matter of hours 

or for less than a day would not likely have a population-level impact. Thus, although many individuals of 

some species could experience behavioral disturbance from NOS acoustic sources, the small increments 

of time that the animals are exposed above threshold over five years and over the extensive project area 

would not be expected to result in population level adverse impacts.

In coordination with NMFS and USFWS, NOS has developed mitigation measures to reduce potential 

impacts of active acoustic sources on marine mammals (as discussed in Section 3.5.2.3.1.1 under 

Alternative A, and see Appendix D).

The potential impacts of Alternative C on cetaceans include injury exposures in the form of hearing loss 

(PTS), but such injury would be rare and confined to a few high-frequency cetaceans in four regions (from 

seven animals in the Southeast Region up to 16 animals in the Greater Atlantic Region over the five-year

timeframe, see Table 3.5-22). While more individual animals are expected to experience behavioral 

disruptions than injury (on the order of greater than one hundred thousand animals across all five regions 

over the five-year timeframe), the amount of time individuals may exceed behavioral threshold would be 

on average for less than two minutes (Table 3.5-24). Similarly, the potential for masking would be minimal 

during surveys because the narrow beams of most active acoustic sources mean animals would not spend 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

233

much time in ensonified zones. Overall, the potential impacts are likely limited to short-term disruption 

of acoustic habitat and behavioral patterns. Although both PTS/injury exposures and behavioral disruption 

exposures of cetaceans would be higher under Alternative C than under Alternatives A and B, the effects 

of underwater sound from active acoustic sources on cetaceans under Alternative C would still be adverse

and minor because impacts would be temporary or short-term and would not be considered outside the 

natural range of variability of species’ populations, their habitats, or the natural processes sustaining 

them. Impacts could include disruptions of behavioral patterns such as temporary disruption of 

communication and/or echolocation, disturbance of individuals or groups of cetaceans, and possible 

displacement of individuals or groups, but without substantial interference to feeding, reproduction, or 

other biologically important functions affecting population levels. Displacement of cetaceans from 

preferred breeding, feeding, or nursery grounds, migratory routes, or designated critical habitat would be 

limited to the project area or its immediate surroundings. Impacts of Alternative C on cetaceans, including 

ESA-listed species, would be insignificant. 

3.5.2.5.2 Pinnipeds

Impacts of Alternative C on pinnipeds, including ESA-listed species and designated critical habitat, would 

be the same or slightly, but not appreciably, larger as those under Alternatives A and B for the following 

impact causing factors: vessel and equipment sound; vessel presence and movement of equipment in the 

water, human activity, accidental leakage or spillage of oil, fuel, and chemicals; trash and debris; and air 

emissions. Overall, impacts on pinnipeds from these factors would be insignificant. Although the impacts 

of active underwater acoustic sources would also be similar under Alternative C as under Alternatives A

and B, they are discussed below because the impacts of underwater sound on marine mammals are of 

main concern and to show the modeled increase in behavioral disruption exposures of pinnipeds from the 

projected increase in the use of echo sounders, ADCPs, and acoustic communication systems (see 

Appendix E).

3.5.2.5.2.1 Active Underwater Acoustic Sources

As with Alternatives A and B, active underwater acoustic sources under Alternative C include echo 

sounders, ADCPs, and acoustic communication systems as discussed in Section 2.4. Descriptions of all 

active sources considered in this study can be found in Appendix E. The representative sources used in 

exposure modeling are the same as described in Alternative A and listed in Table 3.5-7. Since Alternative 

C involves improvements in techniques and technology with an increased use of underwater acoustic 

sources, as well as an overall funding increase of 20 percent relative to Alternative B, the behavioral 

disruption exposure estimates are higher than under Alternatives A and B.

The active underwater acoustic sources were evaluated in the same way under Alternative C as for 

Alternatives A and B. Quantitative acoustic exposure to marine mammals, including pinnipeds, from 

operating the sources were modeled for nine sources (see Appendix E). Acoustic modeling was conducted

by determining the sound field expected from each source and estimating the number of marine 

mammals that may be exposed above sound thresholds for PTS/injury and behavioral disruption during 

surveys. To gauge potential for impact, received sound levels that may result in PTS/injury or behavioral 

disruption to the animal were needed. For this study, the current NMFS criteria for both PTS/injury (NMFS, 

2018a) and behavioral disruption (84 FR 72308, December 31, 2019) were used). Methodology for 

modeling the impacts of active underwater acoustic sources is presented in Appendix E. Additionally, 

Section 3.5.2.3.1.1 under Cetaceans discusses the assumptions made and the data sources used in the 

modeling scenarios to predict exposures of marine mammals, including pinnipeds.
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

234

Based on the modeling, and taking into account animal behavior, source characteristics, and animal 

hearing capability, no PTS/injury exposures of pinnipeds is expected to occur. Note that the estimated 

exposures have overall decreased between the Draft PEIS and the Final PEIS for the reasons discussed in 

Section 3.5.2.3.1.1 under Cetaceans. Summarized total potential behavioral disruption exposures of 

pinnipeds over five years for all sources in the four regions where they could occur are shown in Table 

3.5-25. For annual numbers, see Appendix E. Species that may be in the area but for which no impacts 

were predicted are not included in the tables. Discussion of how behavioral disruption exposures were 

modeled and calculated can be found in Section 3.5.2.3.2.1.1 and in Appendix E.

Table 3.5-25. Total Predicted Exposures for Pinniped Species and

Time in Seconds Above the Behavioral Disruption Threshold Under Alternative C

Species

Total

Exposures*

Average time above 

160 dB (s)**

Alaska Region

Northern fur seal*** 25,778.11 138

Spotted seal 12,031.20 104

Harbor seal 9,181.91 104

Northern elephant seal*** 7,656.14 118

Bearded seal 1,741.25 104

Ribbon seal 1,701.92 104

Ringed seal 1,323.67 104

Steller sea lion*** 583.14 104

Walrus 711.84 95

Greater Atlantic Region

Harp seal 629.76 174

Gray seal 509.72 168

Harbor seal 311.75 193

Hooded seal 279.63 174

West Coast Region

Northern fur seal 26,485.39 138

California sea lion 43,805.08 96

Northern elephant seal 7,656.14 118

Harbor seal 7,481.23 138

Stellar sea lion 3,414.94 138

Guadalupe fur seal 308.98 138

Pacific Islands Region

Hawaiian monk seal 823.93 86

*Exposures are based on a probabilistic model that is scaled by animal density and 

may therefore include fractional counts.

** Exposure above threshold over 24 hours.

*** Populations span Alaska and West Coast regions.
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

235

Under Alternative C, behavioral disruption exposures of pinnipeds could occur in four regions. Compared 

to Alternatives A and B, use of underwater acoustic sources under Alternative C would occur at a higher 

level of effort. Depending on the species, behavioral disruption exposure of pinnipeds under Alternative 

C could increase from a few hundred to a few thousand animals in each region over the five-year 

timeframe as compared to Alternatives A and B. However, for the simulated animals exposed above the 

160 dB threshold, the average amount of time an individual receives sound levels above the behavioral 

threshold remains less than four minutes, and often less than two minutes. The disturbances, therefore, 

are expected to be transient, and surveys, once completed in an area, would not generally be repeated, 

thus limiting an individual’s behavioral disruption. Behavioral exposures need to occur over the timespan 

of weeks to have a population level effect on marine mammals, as in the case of seismic surveys that have 

months’ worth of activity (Southall et al., 2016). Any disruption that occurs for a matter of hours or for 

less than a day would not likely have a population-level impact. Thus, although many individuals of some 

species could experience behavioral disturbance from NOS acoustic sources, the small increments of time 

that the animals are exposed above threshold over five years and over the extensive project area would 

not be expected to result in population level adverse impacts.

In coordination with NMFS and USFWS, NOS has developed mitigation measures to reduce potential 

impacts of active acoustic sources on marine mammals (as discussed in Section 3.5.2.3.2.1 under 

Alternative A, and see Appendix D).

Under Alternative C, no PTS/injury exposure is expected. While individual animals would be expected to 

experience behavioral disruptions (from hundreds to tens of thousands of animals across four regions 

over the five-year timeframe), the amount of time individuals may exceed the behavioral threshold would 

be on average less than four minutes (Table 3.5-25). Similarly, the potential for masking would be minimal 

during surveys because the narrow beams of most active acoustic sources mean animals would not spend 

much time in ensonified zones. Overall, the potential impacts are likely limited to short-term disruption 

of acoustic habitat and behavioral patterns. Although behavioral disruption exposure of pinnipeds would 

be higher under Alternative C than under Alternatives A and B, the effects of underwater sound from 

active acoustic sources on pinnipeds under Alternative C would still be adverse and minor because 

impacts would be temporary or short-term and would not be considered outside the natural range of 

variability of species’ populations, their habitats, or the natural processes sustaining them. Impacts could 

include disruptions of behavioral patterns such as temporary disruption of communication and

disturbance of individuals or groups of pinnipeds, and possible displacement of individuals or groups, but 

without substantial interference to feeding, reproduction, or other biologically important functions 

affecting population levels. Displacement of pinnipeds from preferred breeding, feeding, or nursery 

grounds or designated critical habitat would be limited to the project area or its immediate surroundings.

Impacts of Alternative C on pinnipeds, including ESA-listed species, would be insignificant. 

3.5.2.5.3 Sirenians

Impacts of Alternative C on sirenians, as well as designated critical habitat, would be the same or slightly, 

but not appreciably, larger as those under Alternatives A and B for the following impact causing factors: 

vessel and equipment sound; vessel presence and movement of equipment in the water, human activity, 

accidental leakage or spillage of oil, fuel, and chemicals; and trash and debris. Overall, impacts on sirenians

from these factors would be insignificant. Although the impacts of active underwater acoustic sources 

would also be similar under Alternative C as under Alternatives A and B, they are discussed below because 

the impacts of underwater sound on marine mammals are of main concern and to show the modeled 

increase in behavioral disruption exposures of sirenians from the projected increase in the use of echo 

sounders, ADCPs, and acoustic communication systems (see Appendix E).
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

236

3.5.2.5.3.1 Active Underwater Acoustic Sources

As with Alternatives A and B, active underwater acoustic sources under Alternative C include echo 

sounders, ADCPs, and acoustic communication systems as discussed in Section 2.4. Descriptions of all 

active sources considered in this study can be found in Appendix E, Technical Acoustic Analysis of 

Oceanographic Surveys The representative sources used in exposure modeling are the same as described 

in Alternative A and listed in Table 3.5-7. Since Alternative C involves improvements in techniques and 

technology with an increased use of underwater acoustic sources, as well as an overall funding increase 

of 20 percent relative to Alternative B, the behavioral disruption exposure estimates are higher than under 

Alternatives A and B.

The active underwater acoustic sources were evaluated in the same way under Alternative C as for 

Alternatives A and B. Quantitative acoustic exposure to marine mammals, including sirenians, from 

operating the sources was modeled for nine sources (see Appendix E). Acoustic modeling was conducted

by determining the sound field expected from each source and estimating the number of marine 

mammals that may be exposed above sound thresholds for PTS/injury and behavioral disruption during 

surveys. To gauge potential for impact, received sound levels that may result in PTS/injury or behavioral 

disruption to the animal were needed. For this study, the current NMFS criteria for both PTS/injury (NMFS, 

2018a) and behavioral disruption (84 FR72308, December 31, 2019) were used. Methodology for 

modeling the impacts of active underwater acoustic sources is presented in Appendix E. Additionally, 

Section 3.5.2.3.1.1 under Cetaceans discusses the assumptions made and the data sources used in the 

modeling scenarios to predict exposures of marine mammals, including sirenians.

Based on the modeling and taking into account animal behavior, source characteristics, and animal 

hearing capability, no PTS/injury exposures of manatees are expected to occur. Note that the estimated 

exposures have overall decreased between the Draft PEIS and the Final PEIS for the reasons discussed in 

Section 3.5.2.3.1.1 under Cetaceans. Summarized total potential behavioral disruption exposures of 

manatees over five years for all sources are shown in Table 3.5-26. For annual numbers, see Appendix E.

Discussion of how behavioral disruption exposures were modeled and calculated can be found in Sections 

3.5.2.3.3.1.1 and in Appendix E.

Table 3.5-26. Total Predicted Exposures for Manatees and Time in Seconds Above the 

Behavioral Disruption Threshold Under Alternative C

Species

Total 

Exposures*

Average time above 

160 dB (s)**

Greater Atlantic Region

Manatee 291.82 196

Southeast Region***

Manatee 78.95 196

*Exposures are based on a probabilistic model that is scaled by animal 

density and may therefore include fractional counts.

**Exposure above threshold over 24 hours.

***Exposure modeling for the Southeast Region was conducted for the 

Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean.

Under Alternative C, behavioral disruption exposures of sirenians could occur in two regions. Compared 

to Alternatives A and B, use of underwater acoustic sources under Alternative C would occur at a higher 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

237

level of effort. Behavioral disruption exposure of manatees under Alternative C could increase by 59 

animals as compared to Alternative A and 37 animals as compared to Alternative B over the five-year 

timeframe. However, for the simulated animals exposed above the 160 dB threshold, the average amount 

of time an individual receives sound levels above the 237 behavioral threshold remains less than four 

minutes. The disturbances, therefore, are expected to be transient, and surveys, once completed in an 

area, would not generally be repeated, thus limiting an individual’s behavioral disruption. Behavioral 

exposures need to occur over the timespan of weeks to have a population level effect on marine 

mammals, as in the case of seismic surveys that have months’ worth of activity (Southall et al., 2016). Any 

disruption that occurs for a matter of hours or for less than a day would not likely have a population-level

impact. Thus, although many individuals could experience behavioral disturbance from NOS acoustic 

sources, the small increments of time that the animals are exposed above threshold over five years and 

over the extensive project area would not be expected to result in population level adverse impacts.

In coordination with NMFS and USFWS, NOS has developed mitigation measures to reduce potential 

impacts of active acoustic sources on marine mammals (as discussed in Section 3.5.2.3.3.1 under 

Alternative A, and see Appendix D).

Under Alternative C, no PTS/injury exposure is expected. Some individual animals are expected to 

experience behavioral disruptions (<371 individuals in two regions over the five-year timeframe), the 

amount of time they may exceed the behavioral threshold would be less than four minutes (Table 3.5-

26). Similarly, the potential for masking would be minimal during surveys because the narrow beams of 

most active acoustic sources mean animals would not spend much time in ensonified zones. Overall, the 

potential impacts are likely limited to short-term disruption of acoustic habitat and behavioral patterns. 

Although behavioral disruption exposure of manatees would be higher under Alternative C than under 

Alternatives A and B, the effects of underwater sound from active acoustic sources on sirenians under 

Alternative C would still be adverse and minor because impacts would be temporary or short-term and

would not be considered outside the natural range of variability of species’ populations, their habitats, or 

the natural processes sustaining them. Impacts could include disruptions of behavioral patterns such as

temporary disruption of communication and disturbance of individuals or groups of sirenians, and 

possible displacement of individuals or groups, but without substantial interference to feeding, 

reproduction, or other biologically important functions affecting population levels. Displacement of 

sirenians from preferred breeding, feeding, or nursery grounds or designated critical habitat would be 

limited to the project area or its immediate surroundings. Impacts of Alternative C on sirenians would be 

insignificant. 

3.5.2.5.4 Fissipeds

Impacts of Alternative C on fissipeds, including ESA-listed species and designated critical habitat, would 

be the same or slightly, but not appreciably, larger as those under Alternatives A and B for the following 

impact causing factors: vessel and equipment sound; vessel presence and movement of equipment in the 

water, human activity, accidental leakage or spillage of oil, fuel, and chemicals; trash and debris; and air 

emissions. Overall, impacts on fissipeds from these factors would be insignificant. Although the impacts 

of active underwater acoustic sources would also be similar under Alternative C as under Alternatives A

and B, they are discussed below because the impacts of underwater sound on marine mammals are of 

main concern and to show the modeled increase in behavioral disruption exposures of fissipeds from the 

projected increase in the use of echo sounders, ADCPs, and acoustic communication systems (see 

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

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

238

3.5.2.5.4.1 Active Underwater Acoustic Sources

As with Alternatives A and B, active underwater acoustic sources under Alternative C include echo 

sounders, ADCPs, and acoustic communication systems as discussed in Section 2.4. Descriptions of all 

active sources considered in this study can be found in Appendix E. The representative sources used in 

exposure modeling are the same as described in Alternatives A and B and listed in Table 3.5-7. Since 

Alternative C involves improvements in techniques and technology with an increased use of underwater 

acoustic sources, as well as an overall funding increase of 20 percent relative to Alternatives A and B, the 

behavioral disruption exposure estimates are higher than under Alternatives A and B.

The active underwater acoustic sources were evaluated in the same way under Alternative C as for 

Alternatives A and B. Quantitative acoustic exposure to marine mammals, including fissipeds, from 

operation of sound sources was modeled for nine sources (see Appendix E). Acoustic modeling was 

conducted by determining the sound field expected from each source and estimating the number of 

marine mammals that may be exposed above sound thresholds for PTS/injury and behavioral disruption

during surveys. To gauge potential for impact, received sound levels that may result in PTS/injury or 

behavioral disruption to the animal were needed. For this study, the current NMFS criteria for both 

PTS/injury (NMFS, 2018a) and behavioral disruption (84 FR 72308, December 31, 2019) were used). 

Methodology for modeling the impacts of active underwater acoustic sources is presented in Appendix E. 

Additionally, Section 3.5.2.3.1.1 under Cetaceans discusses the assumptions made and the data sources 

used in the modeling scenarios to predict exposures of marine mammals, including fissipeds.

Based on the modeling and taking into account animal behavior, source characteristics, and animal 

hearing capability, no PTS/injury exposures of fissipeds are expected to occur. Note that the estimated 

exposures have overall decreased between the Draft PEIS and the Final PEIS for the reasons discussed in 

Section 3.5.2.3.1.1 under Cetaceans. Summarized total potential behavioral disruption exposures of 

fissipeds over five years for all sources are shown in Table 3.5-27. For annual numbers, see Appendix E.

Species that may be in the area but for which no impacts were predicted are not included in the tables. 

Discussion of how behavioral disruption exposures were modeled and calculated can be found in Sections 

3.5.2.3.4.1.1 and in Appendix E.

Table 3.5-27. Total Predicted Exposures for Fissiped Species and Time in Seconds Above 

the Behavioral Disruption Threshold Under Alternative C

Species

Total 

Exposures*

Average time above 

160 dB (s)**

Alaska Region

Sea otters, SE 635.22 124

Sea otter, SC 430.34 124

Polar bear 65.01 177

West Coast Region

Sea otter, CA 609.49 124

Sea otter, SE 635.22 124

Sea otter, WA 230.14 124

*Exposures are based on a probabilistic model that is scaled by animal 

density and may therefore include fractional counts.

**Exposure above threshold over 24 hours.
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

239

Under Alternative C, behavioral disruption exposures of fissipeds could occur in two regions. Compared 

to Alternatives A and B, use of underwater acoustic sources under Alternative C would occur at a higher 

level of effort. Behavioral disruption exposure of fissipeds under Alternative C could increase by ten polar 

bears and a thousand sea otters over the five-year timeframe as compared to Alternative A, and five polar 

bears and a few hundred sea otters as compared to Alternative B. However, for the simulated animals 

exposed above the 160 dB threshold, the average amount of time an individual receives sound levels 

above the behavioral threshold remains less than three minutes. The disturbances, therefore, are 

expected to be transient, and surveys, once completed in an area, would not generally be repeated, thus 

limiting an individual’s behavioral disruption. Behavioral exposures need to occur over the timespan of 

weeks to have a population level effect on marine mammals, as in the case of seismic surveys that have 

months’ worth of activity (Southall et al., 2016). Any disruption that occurs for a matter of hours or for 

less than a day would not likely have a population-level impact. Thus, although many individuals of some 

species could experience behavioral disturbance from NOS acoustic sources, the small increments of time 

that the animals are exposed above threshold over five years and over the extensive project area would 

not be expected to result in population level adverse impacts.

In coordination with NMFS and USFWS, NOS has developed mitigation measures to reduce potential 

impacts of active acoustic sources on marine mammals (as discussed in Section 3.5.2.3.4.1 under 

Alternative A, and see Appendix D).

Under Alternative C, no PTS/injury exposure is expected. While individual animals are expected to 

experience behavioral disruptions (<66 polar bears and a few thousand sea otters across the two regions 

and over the five-year timeframe), the amount of time they would exceed the behavioral threshold would 

be on average less than three minutes (Table 3.5-27). Similarly, the potential for masking would be 

minimal during surveys because the narrow beams of most active acoustic sources mean animals would 

not spend much time in ensonified zones. Overall, the potential impacts are likely limited to short-term 

disruption of acoustic habitat and behavioral patterns. Although behavioral disruption exposures of 

fissipeds would be higher under Alternative C than under Alternatives A and B, the effects of underwater 

sound from active acoustic sources on fissipeds under Alternative C would still be adverse and minor

because impacts would be temporary or short-term and would not be considered outside the natural 

range of variability of species’ populations, their habitats, or the natural processes sustaining them. 

Impacts could include disruptions of behavioral patterns such as temporary disruption of communication 

and disturbance of individuals or groups of fissipeds, and possible displacement of individuals or groups,

but without substantial interference to feeding, reproduction, or other biologically important functions 

affecting population levels. Displacement of fissipeds from preferred breeding, feeding, or nursery 

grounds or designated critical habitat would be limited to the project area or its immediate surroundings.

Impacts of Alternative C on fissipeds, including ESA-listed species, would be insignificant. 

3.5.2.5.5 Conclusion

Since the effects of impact causing factors on marine mammals range from negligible to minor, the overall 

impact of Alternative C on marine mammals, including ESA-listed species and designated critical habitat,

would be adverse and minor; thus, impacts of Alternative C 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

240

3.5.2.6 Endangered Species Act Effects Determinations

Federal agencies are required under the ESA to formally determine whether their actions may affect listed 

species or their designated critical habitat. Effect 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 and this designation is typically only used 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. 

Potential impacts of underwater sound from active acoustic sources include injury exposures in the form 

of hearing loss (PTS), but such injury would be rare and confined to a few individuals of high-frequency 

cetaceans. While more individual animals comprising cetaceans, pinnipeds, sirenians, and fissipeds are 

expected to experience behavioral disruption exposures, the amount of time individuals may exceed the 

behavioral disruption threshold would only be for a few minutes. Similarly, the potential for masking

would continue to be minimal during surveys because the narrow beam of most active acoustic sources 

means animals would not spend much time in ensonified zones. Overall, the potential impacts would likely 

continue to be limited to short-term disruption of acoustic habitat and behavioral patterns. 

The acoustic modeling presented in the sections above and in Appendix E does not predict PTS/injury 

exposures of any ESA-listed species, only of four species of cetaceans which are not listed under the ESA.

The modeling predicts behavioral disruption exposures of ESA-listed cetaceans in all five regions, ESAlisted pinnipeds in the Alaska, West Coast, and Pacific Islands regions, ESA-listed sirenians in the Greater 

Atlantic and Southeast regions, and ESA-listed fissipeds in the Alaska and West Coast regions. The amount 

of time that the animals would be exposed above the behavioral threshold is an important factor, in 

addition to considering if the sources are emitting sounds within the hearing range of the animals, for 

determining potential impacts. The duration of the time above threshold from NOS acoustic sources is

typically on the order of two to five minutes; therefore, there would be a limited temporal disruption, and

overall potential behavioral exposures would be limited. Behavioral exposures need to occur over the 

timespan of weeks to have a population level effect, as in the case of seismic surveys that have months’ 

worth of activity (Southall et al, 2016). Any disruption that occurs for a matter of hours or for less than a 

day would not likely have a population-level impact. Additionally, mitigation measures to further reduce 

impacts from underwater acoustic sources include those listed in Appendix D. Thus, NOS determines “May 

Affect, but Not Likely to Adversely Affect” for all species exposed above the behavioral threshold. Table 

3.5-28 summarizes the effects determinations for all ESA-listed marine mammals in the action area.

Sound from the proposed number of vessels used by NOS within the EEZ, as compared with all other 

shipping and vessel traffic and the assumption that individuals or groups of marine mammals may be 

familiar with various and common vessel-related sounds, could result in masking when operating in the 

vicinity of a busy shipping lane but would be temporary or short-term and limited to the project area or 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

241

its immediate surroundings; thus, the effects on ESA-listed species from vessel sound would be 

discountable, and injury or mortality of ESA-listed species is not expected from vessel and equipment 

sound.

Given that the likelihood of a vessel strike would be expected to be discountable (i.e., extremely unlikely 

to occur), the effects of vessel presence and movement of equipment in the water would only cause small 

disruptions of behavioral patterns or displacement of individuals or groups that would be temporary or 

short-term, and displacement would be limited to the project area or its immediate surroundings. NOS 

has developed a suite of mitigation measures through consultation with the NMFS Office of Protected 

Resources (OPR) to further minimize the likelihood of vessel strikes included in Appendix D. Thus, the 

effects on ESA-listed species would be discountable, and injury or mortality of ESA-listed species is not 

expected from NOS vessel presence and movement.

The effects of human activity on cetaceans and sirenians would only be minimal disruptions of behavioral 

patterns and no expected displacement of animals. This would generally be the same for pinnipeds and 

fissipeds; however, there may be some short-term displacement limited to the project area or immediate 

surroundings. In the event of a polar bear sighting during tide gauge and GPS reference station installation, 

NOS would follow human/bear interaction guidelines as issued by USFWS. For polar bears, the 

implementation of mitigation measures with time and space restrictions would ensure that the effects of 

human activity, such as disturbance of polar bear dens and potential human-bear interactions would be 

avoided, thus effects would not reasonably occur, and injury or mortality of ESA-listed species is not 

expected from human activity.

The likelihood for an accidental spill is expected to be discountable (i.e., extremely unlikely to occur), and 

exposure of ESA-listed marine mammals and critical habitats to oil, fuel, and other contaminants is not 

expected. 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. 

Thus, effects from chemical contamination on ESA-listed species are not reasonably certain to occur.

Impacts from discarded trash and debris are expected to be avoided through vessel operators’ required 

compliance with USCG and EPA regulations. Thus, effects from entanglement and ingestion of trash and 

debris on ESA-listed species are expected to be discountable (i.e., extremely unlikely to occur). 

Additionally, mitigation measures that would reduce or avoid entanglement impacts are included in 

Appendix D. As the emissions from vessels used by NOS would continue to be a very small fraction as 

compared to emissions from all other vessel activity in the oceans, the effects on ESA-listed species would 

be discountable (i.e., extremely unlikely to occur). 

Since project activities may occur in some areas within or adjacent to designated critical habitats, there is 

the potential for impacts on critical habitat characteristics that support ESA-listed marine mammals. 

Critical habitat may be minimally disturbed but would remain functional to maintain viability of the 

species dependent on it. No destruction or adverse modification of any critical habitat would occur. 

Although prey species may be disturbed by some of the impact causing factors, which can affect critical 

habitat characteristics based on feeding and finding prey, it is not expected that impacts on prey species 

would be substantial enough to affect the fitness of individual animals. Due to the potential for effects on 

critical habitat that could be negligible or minor, as discussed in the impact analysis above, the Proposed 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

242

Action “May Affect, but Not Likely to Adversely Affect” the designated critical habitat of marine mammals 

occurring in the action area (Table 3.5-28). 

Table 3.5-28. Summary of Effects Determinations for

ESA-Listed Marine Mammals and Critical Habitat

ESA- Listed Marine Mammals Species Determination Critical Habitat Determination

Cetaceans – Mysticetes

Bowhead whale May Affect, but Not Likely to 

Adversely Affect

N/A* (no critical habitat 

designated)

Sei whale May Affect, but Not Likely to 

Adversely Affect 

N/A (no critical habitat 

designated)

Rice’s whale May Affect, but Not Likely to 

Adversely Affect

N/A (no critical habitat 

designated)

Blue whale May Affect, but Not Likely to 

Adversely Affect

N/A (no critical habitat 

designated)

Fin whale May Affect, but Not Likely to 

Adversely Affect

N/A (no critical habitat 

designated)

Gray whale (Western North 

Pacific DPS)

May Affect, but Not Likely to 

Adversely Affect

N/A (no critical habitat 

designated)

North Atlantic right whale May Affect, but Not Likely to 

Adversely Affect

May Affect, Not Likely to 

Adversely Affect

North Pacific right whale May Affect, but Not Likely to 

Adversely Affect

May Affect, but Not Likely to 

Adversely Affect

Humpback whale (Mexico DPS) May Affect, but Not Likely to 

Adversely Affect

May Affect, Not Likely to 

Adversely Affect

Humpback whale (Central 

America DPS)

May Affect, but Not Likely to 

Adversely Affect

May Affect, Not Likely to 

Adversely Affect

Humpback whale (Western North 

Pacific DPS)

May Affect, but Not Likely to 

Adversely Affect

May Affect, Not Likely to 

Adversely Affect

Cetaceans – Odontocetes

Beluga whale (Cook Inlet DPS) May Affect, but Not Likely to 

Adversely Affect

May Affect, but Not Likely to 

Adversely Affect

Killer whale (Southern Resident 

DPS)

May Affect, but Not Likely to 

Adversely Affect

May Affect, but Not Likely to 

Adversely Affect

Sperm whale May Affect, but Not Likely to 

Adversely Affect

N/A (no critical habitat 

designated)

False killer whale (Main Hawaiian 

Islands Insular DPS)

May Affect, but Not Likely to 

Adversely Affect

May Affect, but Not Likely to 

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

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

243

ESA- Listed Marine Mammals Species Determination Critical Habitat Determination

Pinnipeds – Otariids

Guadalupe fur seal May Affect, but Not Likely to 

Adversely Affect

N/A (no critical habitat 

designated)

Steller sea lion (Western DPS) May Affect, but Not Likely to 

Adversely Affect

May Affect, but Not Likely to 

Adversely Affect

Pinnipeds – Phocids

Bearded seal (Beringia DPS) May Affect, but Not Likely to 

Adversely Affect

May Affect, Not Likely to 

Adversely Affect

Hawaiian monk seal May Affect, but Not Likely to 

Adversely Affect

May Affect, but Not Likely to 

Adversely Affect

Ringed seal (Arctic subspecies) May Affect, but Not Likely to 

Adversely Affect

May Affect, Not Likely to 

Adversely Affect

Sirenians – Manatees

West Indian manatee (Antillean 

subspecies)

May Affect, but Not Likely to 

Adversely Affect

N/A (no critical habitat 

designated)

West Indian manatee (Florida 

subspecies)

May Affect, but Not Likely to 

Adversely Affect

May Affect, but Not Likely to 

Adversely Affect

Fissipeds – Mustelids

Northern sea otter (Southwest 

Alaska DPS)

May Affect, but Not Likely to 

Adversely Affect

May Affect, but Not Likely to 

Adversely Affect

Southern sea otter May Affect, but Not Likely to 

Adversely Affect

N/A (no critical habitat 

designated)

Fissipeds – Ursids

Polar bear May Affect, but Not Likely to 

Adversely Affect

May Affect, but Not Likely to 

Adversely Affect

*N/A = Not Applicable
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

244

3.6 SEA TURTLES

There are seven species of sea turtles worldwide: loggerhead, green, hawksbill, Kemp’s ridley, olive ridley, 

flatback, and leatherback. All but the flatback (which is endemic to northern Australia) are present 

throughout U.S. coastal and marine waters, including all navigationally significant U.S. waters, extending 

seaward to the limits of the EEZ. A list of sea turtle species in the action area, including current status and 

region of occurrence, is provided in Table 3.6-1.

All sea turtles in U.S. waters are protected under the ESA by NMFS while in water and by the USFWS while 

onshore. Under the ESA, a species is considered endangered if it is “in danger of extinction throughout all 

or a significant portion of its range.” A species is considered threatened if it “is likely to become an 

endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range.” Sea 

turtles and their nests are also protected to varying degrees by some states and localities.

3.6.1 Affected Environment

The following sections provide discussions of sea turtle species including acoustic capability, regional 

distribution, and descriptions of ESA-listed listed species.

The order Testudines includes all turtles and tortoises. The Cheloniidae family includes hard-shelled 

turtles and comprises six of the seven sea turtle species. The Dermochelyidae family lacks a bony shell 

and includes only one sea turtle species, the leatherback. 

Sea turtles are air breathing reptiles that are primarily aquatic, generally coming ashore only to lay eggs. 

Hatchlings immediately enter the sea and migrate to the pelagic zone where they may shelter and feed in 

drift communities for 1 to 15 years. All but two species then return to coastal zones at the early-to-mid 

juvenile stage. The turtles then remain in the coastal zone unless their migration routes to breeding and 

nesting areas include movements through pelagic habitat. The exceptions to this are leatherbacks and 

olive ridleys, which remain in the pelagic zone for the majority of their lives. Adult sea turtles range in size 

from the Kemp’s ridley, measuring about 0.6 m (2 ft) and weighing 45 kilograms (kgs) (100 pounds [lbs]), 

to the leatherback, reaching up to 1.7 m (5.5 ft) and 1,000 kgs (2,200 lbs) (NMFS, No Date-a). All species 

are thought to be long-lived, with life spans expected to range from at least 30 years to over 80 years. Sea 

turtle bodies are fusiform, that is, tapering at the front and rear. This improves their movements in aquatic 

environments but prevents retraction of their heads and limbs. Sea turtle limbs are adapted to aquatic 

movements and feeding. Their diets differ by species and life-stage, including herbivory, carnivory, and 

omnivory. Likewise, feeding strategies also vary by species and life stage. Sea turtles breathe by coming 

to the surface.

All sea turtles are protected by the ESA throughout their ranges. Additionally, four species have critical 

habitat designated for their entire range or one of their constituent DPSs. Table 3.6-1 lists the six species 

of sea turtles and nine DPSs occurring in the action area. Three entire species are listed as endangered 

along with four DPSs. One species is listed as threatened along with the five remaining DPSs.
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

245

Table 3.6-1. Sea Turtles Occurring in the Action Area

DPS

(if applicable) ESA Status Lead Agency Region*

Critical 

Habitat General Habitat

Loggerhead – Caretta caretta

Northwest Atlantic Threatened NMFS, USFWS GAR, SER Yes Nesting: occurs from April to September, peaking in June 

and July. Within the action area, nesting for the Northwest 

Atlantic DPS typically occurs on high energy, narrow, 

steep, coarse-grained beaches from Texas to Virginia. 

Most nesting within the action area occurs within Florida, 

Georgia, South Carolina, and North Carolina. Outside the 

action area, the North Pacific DPS nests in Japan and the 

South Pacific DPS nests mainly in Queensland, Australia.

Post hatchling: local downwellings with floating algae 

and/or seaweed.

Pelagic developmental phase (7-15 years): offshore 

oceanic zone.

Late juvenile and adult: nearshore coastal and/or 

continental shelf.

North Pacific Endangered NMFS, USFWS WCR, AR No

South Pacific Endangered NMFS PIR No

Green - Chelonia mydas

North Atlantic Threatened NMFS, USFWS GAR, SER Yes Nesting: Occurs from June to September. Nesting typically 

occurs on beaches with a sloping platform and minimal 

disturbance. Most nesting within the action area occurs in 

Florida and Hawai’i, with some nesting occurring in the 

U.S. Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico, Georgia, South Carolina, 

and North Carolina.

Pelagic developmental phase (5 to 7 years): offshore 

oceanic zone, pelagic drift communities.

Late juvenile and adult: Nearshore, bays, lagoons, reefs, 

especially areas with seagrass beds.

South Atlantic Threatened NMFS, USFWS SER No

Central North Pacific Threatened NMFS, USFWS PIR No

Central West Pacific Endangered NMFS, USFWS PIR No

Central South Pacific Endangered NMFS, USFWS PIR No

East Pacific Threatened NMFS, USFWS WCR No
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

246

DPS

(if applicable) ESA Status Lead Agency Region*

Critical 

Habitat General Habitat

Hawksbill - Eretmochelys imbricate

-- Endangered NMFS, USFWS GAR, SER, 

WCR, PIR

Yes Nesting: Occurs April to November. Nesting occurs on 

beaches and “pocket” beaches with little or no sand. Most 

nesting within the action area occurs within the U.S. Virgin 

Islands, Puerto Rico, and Hawai’i. Nest sites have also been 

documented in American Samoa and Guam.

Pelagic developmental phase: offshore oceanic zone, 

floating algal mats, flotsam and jetsam drift lines.

Late juvenile and adult: shallow coastal zones, coral reefs, 

high-energy shoals, and mangroves.

Kemp’s Ridley - Lepidochelys kempii

-- Endangered NMFS, USFWS GAR, SER No Nesting: Occurs from April to July. Nesting within the 

action area occurs primarily on Texas beaches of the Gulf 

of Mexico, although nest sites have been documented on 

Atlantic beaches of North Carolina, South Carolina, and 

Florida.

Pelagic developmental phase (1 to 2 years): offshore 

oceanic zone primarily of the Gulf of Mexico but also the 

Atlantic by way of the Gulf Stream, floating Sargassum 

mats.

Juvenile and adult: nearshore, areas of the Gulf of Mexico 

or northwestern Atlantic.

Olive Ridley - Lepidochelys olivacea

-- Threatened NMFS, USFWS SER, WCR, PIR No Nesting: Occurs from June to December up to 3 times in a 

single nesting season. Nesting occurs outside the action 

area in the Pacific beaches of Mexico and Costa Rica; and 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

247

DPS

(if applicable) ESA Status Lead Agency Region*

Critical 

Habitat General Habitat

in Indian Ocean beaches of India, Bangladesh, Myanmar, 

Malaysia, and Pakistan.

Breeding: coastal areas

Juvenile/adult: mainly pelagic, but can inhabit coastal 

areas, bays, and estuaries.

Leatherback - Dermochelys coriacea

-- Endangered NMFS, USFWS All Yes Nesting: Occurs from March to July on beaches. Nesting 

within the action area occurs on the Atlantic coast of 

Florida, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and Puerto Rico.

Juvenile/adult: pelagic

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

*GAR = Greater Atlantic Region (includes the U.S. portions of the Great Lakes, New England, and the mid-Atlantic); SER = Southeast Region (includes the 

southern portion of the U.S. Eastern Seaboard, the U.S. Caribbean Islands [Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands], and the Gulf of Mexico); AR = Alaska Region 

(includes Alaskan waters and the Arctic); WCR = West Coast Region (includes coastal California, Oregon and Washington); PIR = Pacific Islands Region (includes 

Hawai’i and territories of the U.S.)
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

248

3.6.1.1 Sound Production and Hearing

NOAA’s Ocean Noise Strategy Roadmap (NOAA, 2016) recognizes that the biological importance of 

hearing in sea turtles has not been studied in great detail, but that it “seems likely that they use sound for 

navigation, to locate prey, to avoid predators, and for general environmental awareness”. It is thought to 

be unlikely that turtles use sound for communication, though recent research is exploring this hypothesis. 

Sea turtle hearing has been inferred from studies of the animals’ physiology and morphology and from 

electrophysiological studies. 

Sea turtle hearing is better suited to aquatic than open-air conditions and varies by species, size, and age, 

with smaller and younger turtles having the broadest sensitivity ranges and larger, older turtles having 

the narrowest. Sea turtle hearing in aquatic conditions generally ranges from 50 Hz to 1600 Hz, with the 

highest sensitivities falling in the 200 Hz to 400 Hz range (BOEM, 2014b; NOAA, 2016; Piniak, 2012; and 

Southwood et al., 2008). Avoidance is generally observed at 166 to 174 dB re 1 μPa and behavioral 

harassment is considered to occur at sound intensities equal to or greater than 175 dB re 1 μPa, though 

studies have been limited and the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) recognized that this 

results in incomplete or unavailable information with regard to sea turtle physiology and behavioral 

response to intense sounds (BOEM, 2014b).

3.6.1.2 Regional Distribution

Sea turtles are found throughout the action area. Like marine mammals, sea turtles are known to make 

wide-ranging movements and may not be present in a specific region year-round; however, some species 

are considered distinct populations and do not migrate as broadly. Range varies by species and DPS, with 

some migrating up to 16,000 km (10,000 mi) per year and diving to nearly 1,200 m (4,000 ft) deep (NMFS, 

No Date-a). The distribution of sea turtles may be influenced by ecological conditions, physical features, 

and seasonal movements. Movements are most often associated with development stage and seasonal 

feeding, breeding, and nesting activities. 

3.6.1.2.1 Greater Atlantic Region

Five of the six sea turtle species in the action area occur in the Greater Atlantic Region, as indicated in 

Table 3.6-1. Only the olive ridley are absent. The loggerhead Northwest Atlantic DPS and green North 

Atlantic DPS are listed as threatened. The hawksbill (rare in this region), Kemp’s ridley, and leatherback 

are listed as endangered. There is no designated critical habitat and few known nest sites in the Greater 

Atlantic Region, although loggerhead sea turtles nests have recently been documented in Delaware and 

Maryland coastal areas.

3.6.1.2.2 Southeast Region

All six of the sea turtle species in the action area occur in the Southeast Region, as indicated in Table 3.6-

1. The loggerhead Northwest Atlantic DPS, green North Atlantic DPS, and olive ridley are listed as 

threatened. The hawksbill, Kemp’s ridley, and leatherback are listed as endangered. Critical habitat is 

designated in the region for leatherback, green, hawksbill, and loggerhead (Figure 3.6-1). Leatherback, 

hawksbill, green, loggerhead, and Kemp’s ridley sea turtles are known to nest in the Southeast region 

(Figure 3.6-1).
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

249

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

Figure 3.6-1. Southeast Region Sea Turtle

Designated Critical Habitat and Nesting Sites

3.6.1.2.3 West Coast Region

Five of the six sea turtle species in the action area occur in the West Coast Region, as indicated in Table 

3.6-1. Only the Kemp’s ridley are absent. The loggerhead North Pacific DPS, hawksbill, and leatherback 

are listed as endangered. The green East Pacific DPS and olive ridley are listed as threatened. Critical 

habitat is designated in the region for leatherback sea turtles (Figure 3.6-2), but there are no known nest 

locations for any species of sea turtle.
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

250

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

Figure 3.6-2. West Coast Region Sea Turtle

Designated Critical Habitat

3.6.1.2.4 Alaska Region

Four of the six species of sea turtles in the action area have ranges or have been sighted in the Alaska 

Region. Leatherback sea turtles have the broadest range in the region, though green sea turtles also have 

a limited range in southeastern areas. Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) also lists sightings, 

but no range, of olive ridley and loggerheads (ADF&G, No Date-a). Leatherbacks are listed as endangered 

throughout their range. The loggerhead North Pacific DPS includes the Alaska region and is listed as 

endangered. Though DPS descriptions for green turtles do not extend into the Alaska region, the nearest 

DPSs are the East Pacific, listed as endangered, and Central North Pacific, listed as threatened. Olive ridleys 

are listed as threatened throughout their range. No critical habitat is designated for sea turtles in the 

region, and there are no known sea turtle nest sites.

3.6.1.2.5 Pacific Islands Region

Five of the six sea turtle species in the action area occur in the Greater Atlantic Region, as indicated in 

Table 3.6-1. Only the Kemp’s ridley are absent. The loggerhead South Pacific DPS, green Central West 

Pacific DPS, green Central South Pacific DPS, hawksbill, and leatherback are listed as endangered. The 

green Central North Pacific DPS and olive ridley are listed as threatened. No critical habitat for sea turtles 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

251

has been designated in the Pacific Islands Region, although green, hawksbill, leatherback, and loggerhead 

sea turtles are known to nest there (Figure 3.6-3). 

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

Figure 3.6-3. Pacific Islands Region Sea Turtle Nesting Sites

3.6.1.3 Threatened and Endangered Species

All six species of sea turtles and their constituent DPSs are federally listed in the action area. Four species 

or their constituent DPSs also have designated critical habitat. These species are shown in Table 3.6-1 and 

described in detail below. 

3.6.1.3.1 Loggerhead (Northwest Atlantic, North Pacific, and South Pacific Distinct Population 

Segment)

Loggerhead sea turtles (Figure 3.6-4) can generally be found in temperate and tropical waters around the 

world. Upon hatching, loggerheads swim to sea for up to several days before settling at localized 

downwellings where floating materials, such as rafts of Sargassum, may accumulate. In this habitat, they 

expend little energy while floating and feeding opportunistically on small animals (Conant et al., 2009). 

Currents eventually move the young turtles into the pelagic zone where they remain for 7 to 15 years 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

252

before migrating to coastal areas. As juveniles and adults, loggerheads are primarily carnivorous and have 

large heads with strong jaws with which to feed on benthic invertebrates, whelks, mollusks, horseshoe 

crabs and sea urchins. Loggerheads may take 20 to 30 years to mature and at full growth reach 

approximately 1 m (3 ft) in length and weigh up to 113 kgs (250 lbs). Upon reaching maturity, loggerheads 

nest every 2 to 3 years on the beaches where they hatched. The lifespan of the turtles is thought to be 70 

to 80 years or more (NMFS, No Date-a).

Photo credit: Nathalie Jacque, Solv LLC

Historically, human encroachment on nesting beaches, harvest of eggs, harvest of subadults and adults, 

depredation, insufficiency of protective regulations, and incidental fishing takes led to the decline of 

loggerhead populations. In 1979, loggerheads were listed as threatened under the ESA wherever the 

species occurs (Conant et al., 2009). In 2011, USFWS determined that loggerheads comprise nine DPSs, of 

which four are listed under the ESA as threatened and five as endangered (ECOS, No Date-a). Loggerheads 

continue to face threats from bycatch in fishing gear, ocean pollution and debris, and intentional killing 

(NMFS, No Date-a).

Three DPSs occur in the action area: North Pacific, South Pacific, and Northwest Atlantic. The North Pacific 

DPS includes individuals that hatch on beaches in Japan and spend their entire lives in the north Pacific 

without crossing the equator. After hatching, the turtles initially move in a passive manner with the North 

Pacific gyre, and then use the Kuroshi and North Pacific currents on their developmental migration, which 

serves to isolate them from the South Pacific DPS. As adults, the turtles return to nest on the beaches 

where they were hatched, thus maintaining the pattern of separation. North Pacific DPS turtles forage off 

the west coast of North America as far south as Baja California Sur, Mexico (Conant et al., 2009) and have 

been observed as far north as Alaska (NMFS, No Date-a). The North Pacific DPS is listed as endangered 

and has no designated critical habitat (ECOS, No Date-a). Populations are estimated to be small, declining, 

and at risk of extinction (Conant et al., 2009).

The South Pacific DPS includes individuals hatched mainly in Queensland, Australia, but also in New 

Caledonia, Vanuatu, and Tokelau. These genetically distinct sea turtles are the only loggerheads inhabiting 

the Pacific south of the equator. New hatchlings travel passively generally with the South Pacific gyre and 

spend developmental phases in the central and southeastern Pacific before returning to the west to mate 

and nest (Conant et al., 2009). The South Pacific DPS is listed as endangered and has no designated critical 

habitat (ECOS, No Date-a). Populations are at risk of extinction (Conant et al., 2009).

Figure 3.6-4. Young Loggerhead
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

253

The Northwest Atlantic DPS includes loggerheads hatched primarily in the southeast U.S. and the Yucatan 

Peninsula of Mexico and Central America, and secondarily from other nesting sites throughout the 

Caribbean and western Atlantic as far south as northern South America. Hatchlings and juveniles use the 

North Atlantic gyre for early life stage movements before generally returning to neritic habitats nearby 

the areas where they hatched. Northwest Atlantic DPS juvenile loggerheads have some overlap in 

distribution with Northeast Atlantic and Mediterranean DPSs. Later-stage juveniles and adults inhabit 

neritic zones from Florida to Massachusetts, the Bahamas, Cuba, and the Gulf of Mexico (Conant et al., 

2009). The DPS is listed as threatened and 38 discrete areas of critical habitat have been designated in the 

Gulf of Mexico and the Atlantic (ECOS, No Date-a). Populations are at risk of extinction (Conant et al., 

2009). 

3.6.1.3.2 Green (North Atlantic, South Atlantic, Central North Pacific, Central South Pacific, 

Central West Pacific, and East Pacific Distinct Population Segment)

Green sea turtles (Figure 3.6-5) can be found across broad ranges of the Atlantic and Pacific. Young green 

sea turtles inhabit the pelagic zone for 5 to 7 years before migrating to coastal areas, bays, and lagoons 

for later stages of life. They primarily feed on algae and seagrass, though sponges and invertebrates 

occasionally make up part of their diet. Green sea turtles may take 25 to 35 years to mature and at full 

growth reach approximately 1 m (3-4 ft) in length and weigh up to 160 kgs (350 lbs). Upon reaching 

maturity, they nest every 2 to 5 years. The lifespan of the turtles is thought to be 60 years or more (NMFS, 

No Date-a).

Photo Credit: Ali Bayless, NOAA/NMFS/PIFSC

In 1978, green sea turtles were listed as threatened wherever found except for the breeding colonies in 

Florida and the Pacific coast of Mexico, which were listed as endangered. In 1998, marine critical habitat

was designated around Culebra Island in Puerto Rico (NMFS and USFWS, 2007). In 2016, 11 green sea 

turtle DPSs were designated as endangered or threatened (81 FR 20058, April 6, 2016). Six of these DPSs 

occur in the action area: the threatened North Atlantic, South Atlantic, East Pacific, and Central North 

Pacific DPSs and the endangered Central West Pacific and Central South Pacific DPSs (ECOS, No Date-a). 

Green sea turtles currently face threats from bycatch in fishing gear, ocean pollution and debris, disease, 

harvest of eggs, and intentional killing (NMFS, No Date-a).

The North Atlantic DPS includes turtles that nest and hatch on beaches along the Atlantic, Caribbean, and 

Gulf coasts of Central and North America and islands of the northwest Caribbean, and the Atlantic coast 

of Mauritania. The population is widespread. There are approximately 167,500 nesting females in the DPS 

Figure 3.6-5. Green Sea Turtle
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

254

at 74 known nesting sites, with 79 percent nesting at a single site in Costa Rica. Of the nesting sites with 

enough data to establish population trends, three sites were stable and four were increasing as of 2015 

(Seminoff, 2015).

The South Atlantic DPS includes turtles that nest and hatch along the Atlantic and Caribbean coasts of 

South America, southeast Caribbean islands, and west coast of Africa. The population is widespread. There 

are approximately 63,300 nesting females in the DPS at 51 known nesting sites, with 51 percent nesting 

at a single site in Bissau. Of the nesting sites with enough data to establish population trends, two sites 

were stable and one could not be determined as of 2015 (Seminoff, 2015).

The East Pacific DPS includes turtles that nest and hatch on beaches along the Pacific coasts of North, 

Central, and South America and islands of the eastern Pacific. The population exhibits a limited spatial 

range. There are approximately 20,000 nesting females in the DPS at 39 known nesting sites, with 58 

percent nesting at a single site in Mexico. The only nesting site with enough data to establish a population 

trend was increasing as of 2015 (Seminoff, 2015).

The Central North Pacific DPS includes turtles that nest and hatch on the islands of the Hawaiian 

Archipelago. The population exhibits a limited spatial range. There are approximately 3,800 nesting 

females in the DPS at 13 known nesting sites, with 96 percent nesting at a single site in Hawai’i. The only 

nesting site with enough data to establish a population trend was increasing as of 2015 (Seminoff, 2015).

The Central West Pacific DPS includes turtles that nest and hatch in an area very roughly bounded as 

follows: 41° north to 13° south latitude and 129° east to 175° west longitude. The highest levels of nesting 

in the area include sites in Micronesia, two islands of Japan, Marshall Islands, and Palau. The population 

is moderately dispersed. There are approximately 6,500 nesting females in the DPS at 51 known nesting 

sites, with 22 percent nesting at a single site in Micronesia. The only nesting site with enough data to 

establish a population trend was increasing as of 2015 (Seminoff, 2015).

The Central South Pacific DPS includes turtles that nest and hatch in an area very roughly bounded as 

follows: nine degrees north to 40° south latitude and 171° east to 96° west longitude. This includes a 

portion of New Zealand, Fiji, Tuvalu, Kiribati, French Polynesia, American Samoa, Cook Islands, Tokelau, 

Tonga, and Easter Island, Chile. The population is widespread. There are approximately 167,500 nesting 

females in the DPS at 59 known nesting sites, with 36 percent nesting at a single site in French Polynesia. 

No nesting sites had enough data to establish population trends as of 2015 (Seminoff, 2015).

3.6.1.3.3 Hawksbill

Hawksbill sea turtles (Figure 3.6-6) can generally be found in tropical waters of the Atlantic and Pacific, as 

well as the Gulf of Mexico, Caribbean Sea, and along the east coast of the U.S. as far north as 

Massachusetts. Young hawksbills spend a few years among drift materials in the pelagic zone before 

moving to coastal areas. As adults, the turtles can be found in coral reef, hard bottom, sea grass, algal 

bed, mangrove, and estuary habitats. Hawksbills are omnivorous, feeding on sponges, algae, corals, 

invertebrates, and inorganic material. The shapes of hawksbill mouths and beaks give the turtles their 

name and help them obtain food from small holes and difficult to reach areas of coral reefs. They take 20 

to 35 years to mature and at full growth reach approximately 1 m (30 to 35 in) in length and weigh up to 

70 kgs (150 lbs). Upon reaching maturity, hawksbills nest every 2 to 7 years in the vicinity of beaches 

where they hatched. Hawksbills can migrate from 80 to over 1,600 km (50-1,000 mi) between feeding and 

nesting grounds. The lifespan of the turtles is unknown but expected to be relatively long (NMFS, No Datea; NMFS and USFWS, 2013a).
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

255

Photo credit: Don McLeish, NOAA/NMFS/PIFSC

Historically, a combination of factors led to the decline of hawksbill populations, the most detrimental of 

which was the taking of turtles for their shells. The shells exhibit a unique marbled appearance and were 

the source of “tortoise shell” used in jewelry, handicrafts and other decorative applications. The tortoise 

shell trade led to the near extinction of the species. In 1970, hawksbills were listed as threatened wherever 

the species occurs (ECOS, No Date-a) and trade in their shells has been internationally banned (NMFS, No 

Date-a). In 1982, terrestrial critical habitat for hawksbill was designated in Puerto Rico in the vicinity of 

Isla Mona, Culebra Island, Cayo Norte, and Isla Culebrita. In 1998, marine critical habitat was designated 

around Isla Mona and Isla Munito, Puerto Rico (NMFS and USFWS, 2013a).

Hawksbills currently face threats primarily from habitat loss, but also from bycatch in fishing gear, vessel 

strikes, pollution and debris, intentional killing, and hybridization. Global populations modelled at 88 sites 

showed that all 63 of the sites with conclusive data had population declines over the last 100 years, while 

25 sites were inconclusive. More recently, 41 sites were assessed and showed about two thirds of the 

sites were still in decline, while about a quarter were increasing and the remaining were stable (NMFS 

and USFWS, 2013a). Internationally, the species is currently identified as critically endangered with 

declining populations (IUCN, 2022).

3.6.1.3.4 Kemp’s Ridley

Kemp’s ridley sea turtles (Figure 3.6-7) can generally be found in the Gulf of Mexico and the northwest 

Atlantic as far north as the Grand Banks and Nova Scotia. Nesting occurs on beaches along the Gulf coasts 

of Mexico and the U.S. and at isolated locations along the Atlantic coast from Florida through North 

Carolina (NMFS and USFWS, 2015). Young Kemp’s ridleys move into the pelagic zone of the Gulf of Mexico 

and sometimes the Atlantic and spend 1 to 2 years amongst Sargassum floats. Upon reaching about 20 

cm (8 in) in size the turtles migrate to coastal zones for the remainder of their development and adult 

lives. Kemp’s ridleys are omnivorous as young and early juveniles feeding among Sargassum mats, but 

generally prefer crabs as late-juveniles and adults when inhabiting coastal waters; they may also perform 

scavenging roles. They take about 13 years to mature and at full growth reach approximately 0.7 m (2.25

ft) in length and weigh up to 45 kgs (100 lbs). Upon reaching maturity, Kemp’s ridleys nest every 1 to 3

years en masse in arribadas (large waves of arriving females). The lifespan of the turtles is unknown but 

expected to be at least 30 years (NMFS, No Date-a).

Figure 3.6-6. Hawksbill
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

256

Photo credit: Kate Sampson, NOAA Fisheries

Kemp’s ridley sea turtles were once abundant in the Gulf of Mexico, with a single arribada observed in 

1947 containing up to 40,000 turtles. By the late 1960s, the largest recorded arribadas contained 1,500 to 

5,000 turtles. Nesting sites that hosted tens of thousands of turtles in the 1940s were estimated to be 

used by only 250 females in 1985. The historical decline of Kemp’s ridley populations has been attributed 

to egg collection, killing of nesting females, and bycatch (NMFS and USFWS, 2015). In December 1970,

Kemp’s ridleys were listed as endangered wherever the species occurs (ECOS, No Date-a). No critical 

habitat has been designated for the species.

Although the Kemp’s ridley made a limited recovery from its low in the mid-1980s, overall nests again 

declined from 2009. The turtles currently face threats from chemical pollution, fisheries interactions, and 

habitat degradation and loss (NMFS and USFWS, 2015; NMFS, No Date-a).

3.6.1.3.5 Olive Ridley

Olive ridleys (Figure 3.6-8) are the most numerous of the sea turtles with global estimates of 800,000 

females nesting annually (NMFS, No Date-a). Olive ridleys can generally be found in tropical waters of the 

Pacific and Atlantic, though they have been observed as far north as Alaska. In the Atlantic they are 

generally observed only south of Florida. Olive ridleys do not nest in the U.S. (NMFS and USFWS, 2014).

They are one of two sea turtle species that inhabit pelagic zones throughout their lives, apart from 

migrating to breeding and nesting grounds and occasional instances of populations inhabiting coastal 

waters. Olive ridleys are omnivorous foragers and have been observed over 3,800 km (2,400 mi) from 

shore. They take 7 to 17 years to mature and at full growth reach approximately 0.5m (22 to 31 in) in 

length and weigh up to 45 kgs (100 lbs). Upon reaching maturity, olive ridleys nest yearly en masse in 

arribadas. The lifespan of the turtles is unknown but expected to be relatively long (NMFS, No Date-a).

In 1978, olive ridleys were listed as threatened wherever the species occurs except for the endangered 

breeding colony populations on the Pacific coast of Mexico (ECOS, No Date-a). No critical habitat has been 

identified for olive ridleys.

Endangered olive ridley populations in Mexico seem to have stabilized. Threatened populations in the 

eastern Pacific are in decline at some nesting beaches, while they are stable or increasing at others, with 

too little data to assign an overall trend. Threatened populations in the western Atlantic are very small, 

with some nesting populations declining and others increasing (NMFS and USFWS, 2014). Olive ridley 

Figure 3.6-7. Kemp’s Ridley Sea Turtle 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

257

populations continue to face threats from bycatch in fishing gear, vessel strikes, pollution and debris, 

harvest of eggs, and killing of adults (NMFS, No Date-a).

Source: World Wildlife Fund

3.6.1.3.6 Leatherback

Leatherback sea turtles (Figure 3.6-9) can generally be found in very broad ranges of the Atlantic and 

Pacific, with known ranges along nearly the entire coastline of the continental U.S., Hawai’i, Puerto Rico, 

the U.S. Virgin Islands, and observations as far north as Alaska (NMFS and USFWS, 2013b). They are one 

of two sea turtle species that spends the majority of its life in pelagic habitat apart from nesting. 

Leatherbacks’ mouths are adapted to their carnivorous diet of soft-bodied jellyfish and salps (planktonic 

tunicates). It is believed that the turtles take 9 to 29 years to mature. At full growth leatherbacks reach 

approximately 1.5 m (4.5 to 5.5 ft) in length and weigh up to 1,000 kgs(2,200 lbs). Upon reaching maturity, 

they nest every 2 to 3 years, often on different beaches. The turtles can migrate up to 16,000 km (10,000 

mi) each year, including up to 6,000 km (3,700 mi) each way to and from foraging and nesting grounds. 

Leatherbacks can dive to almost 1,200 m (4,000 ft) below the ocean surface. The lifespan of the turtles is 

unknown but expected to be relatively long (NMFS, No Date-a).

Photo credit: Dru Devlin, NOAA

In 1970, leatherbacks were listed as endangered wherever the species occurs. In 1978, terrestrial critical 

habitat was designated in the U.S. Virgin Islands on the southwestern side of St. Croix at Sandy Point 

National Wildlife Refuge, and the following year marine critical habitat was designated along the same 

Figure 3.6-8. Olive Ridley Sea Turtle

Figure 3.6-9. Leatherback Sea Turtle
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

258

coast. In 2012, additional marine critical habitat was designated off the coasts of California, Oregon, and 

Washington (NMFS and USFWS, 2013b).

Leatherbacks currently face threats from habitat alteration and loss, bycatch in fishing gear, vessel strikes, 

pollution and debris, harvest of eggs, intentional killing (NMFS, No Date-a), and depredation (NMFS and 

USFWS, 2013b). Eastern Pacific populations of leatherbacks have collapsed, while Atlantic populations 

seem to be stable or increasing. This could be due to more consistent availability and quality of forage in 

the Atlantic resulting in higher reproduction rates (NMFS and USFWS, 2013b).

3.6.2 Environmental Consequences for Sea Turtles

This section discusses the potential impacts on sea turtles, all of which are ESA-listed, and sea turtle 

habitat of 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 have impacts on sea turtles and their habitats in the action area

include crewed vessel operations, anchoring, ROV and autonomous vehicles, use of echo sounders, use 

of ADCPs, use of acoustic communication systems, use of sound speed data collection equipment, 

operation of drop/towed cameras and video systems, collection of bottom grab samples, tide gauge

installation/maintenance/removal, GPS reference station installation, and SCUBA operations.

3.6.2.1 Methodology

The factors from NOS activities that could impact sea turtles and sea turtle habitat include: (1) active 

underwater acoustic sources (e.g., echo sounders, ADCPs, and acoustic communication systems); (2) 

vessel and equipment sound (e.g., from surface vessels, ROVs, and autonomous vehicles); (3) vessel 

presence and movement (e.g., surface vessels, ROVs, and autonomous vehicles); (4) vessel wakes (e.g.,

from surface vessels; ROVs; and autonomous vehicles); (5) accidental leakage or spillage of oil, fuel, and 

chemicals into surrounding waters (e.g., from vessel operations); (6) underwater activities (e.g., use of 

underwater survey equipment; anchors; and divers); 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 sea turtles and sea turtle 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 to provide a 

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

significance criteria for impacts to sea turtles were developed to encompass the context and intensity of 

NOS activities as they relate to direct and indirect impacts to sea turtles and designated critical sea turtle 

habitat. The significance criteria for sea turtles are shown in Table 3.6-2.

Table 3.6-2. Significance Criteria for the Analysis of Impacts to Sea Turtles

Impact 

Descriptor Context and Intensity

Significance 

Conclusion

Negligible

Impacts to sea turtles 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 sea turtle would occur. There would be no 

displacements of sea turtles from preferred breeding and feeding 

areas, nesting beaches, or migratory routes. Impacts (e.g., 

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

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

259

Impact 

Descriptor Context and Intensity

Significance 

Conclusion

increased water turbidity, displacement of marine 

macroinvertebrate prey) on sea turtle habitat would be 

temporary with no lasting damage or alteration. 

Minor

Impacts to sea turtles 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 sea turtles and small short-term 

disruptions of time-sensitive behaviors such as breeding, nesting, 

or the emergence and dispersal of hatchlings. Displacement of 

sea turtles from preferred breeding and feeding areas, nesting 

beaches, or migratory routes would be short-term and limited to 

the project area and immediately surrounding areas. Any 

resulting increased competition, additional energy expenditure, 

or loss of hatchlings would not affect overall sea turtle population 

numbers or demographic structure. Impacts on habitat (e.g., 

short-term displacement of marine macroinvertebrate prey, 

increased turbidity) would be easily recoverable with no longterm or permanent damage or alteration. 

Moderate

Impacts to sea turtles 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 some short-term disruption of time-sensitive 

behaviors such as breeding, nesting, or the emergence and 

dispersal of hatchlings. Behavioral responses and displacement 

would be expected from individual sea turtles within the project 

area, its immediate surroundings, or beyond. Long-term 

displacement of individuals from preferred breeding and feeding 

areas, nesting beaches, or migratory routes would occur. 

Resulting increased competition and energy expenditure would 

cause losses of breeding or egg-bearing adults and hatchlings, but 

not at large enough scales to negatively impact overall sea turtle 

population numbers or demographic structure. Impacts would 

not threaten the continued existence of any species. Habitat 

would be damaged or altered potentially over the long term (e.g., 

degradation of seagrass beds) but would continue to support 

dependent species. 

Major

Impacts to sea turtles 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, nesting, or the emergence and dispersal of hatchlings. 

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

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

260

Impact 

Descriptor Context and Intensity

Significance 

Conclusion

Long-term displacement of sea turtles from preferred breeding or 

feeding areas, nesting beaches, 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 hatchlings due to 

increased competition or energy expenditure at scales large 

enough to affect overall sea turtle population numbers or 

demographic structure. Full recovery of sea turtle 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 

sea turtles. 

3.6.2.2 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 sea turtles and their associated 

habitat. Under Alternative A, excluding survey effort in the Great Lakes which would not impact sea 

turtles, NOS survey effort would continue to cover a total of 2,633,374 nm (4,877,009 km) across all five 

regions over the five-year period. Although the survey effort under Alternative A would vary by year (see 

Table 3.5-6), approximately 47 percent of the total linear 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. A slightly higher level of effort would 

occur in the Alaska Region, which contains approximately 18 percent of the total survey effort, but this 

area is only rarely visited by sea turtles. 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 and depth of surveys, hearing frequency of the animals, and population density of sea turtles, 

that add nuance to this trend.

The analysis of impacts on sea turtles considers all of the impact causing factors introduced above and 

their impacts on sea turtles and sea turtle habitat. Potential impacts could occur in all of the geographic 

regions. All regions include several sea turtle species and designated critical habitat. The Pacific Islands 

Region contains the greatest number of sea turtle species, and the Greater Atlantic and Southeast Regions 

contain the most designated critical habitat areas (see Table 3.6-1). 

3.6.2.2.1 Active Underwater Acoustic Sources

Active underwater acoustic sources are used to survey a variety of ocean features and could cause impacts 

to sea turtles from the propagation of underwater sound. The intermittent acoustic pulses used in NOS 

active surveying range from 0.5 to 1,200 kHz and decrease in intensity with distance from the vessel used 

by NOS; acoustic characteristics of the active acoustic underwater equipment used by NOS are detailed in 

Section 2.4. As such, acoustic pulses are typically considered a potential temporary disturbance limited to 

the immediate vicinity of the vessel used by NOS. Sea turtles are low frequency specialists with a 

generalized hearing range of 30 to 2,000 Hz (0.03 to 2 kHz) and are most sensitive to sound between 200 

and 400 Hz (0.2 and 0.4 kHz) (BOEM, 2014b; NMFS, 2018b; NOAA, 2016; Piniak et al., 2012; and 

Southwood et al., 2008). Hearing below 80 Hz is less sensitive but still possible (Lenhardt, 1994). Sea 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

261

turtles may be able to hear low frequency sources that go down to 0.5 kHz. These low frequency sources 

are used in deeper water, so animals exposed would likely be farther away from the source. However, 

underwater sound produced by active underwater acoustic sources would mostly be at frequencies 

reaching up to orders of magnitude above the documented sea turtle hearing range and would therefore 

be imperceptible to sea turtles and unlikely to cause direct injury, hearing threshold shifts, auditory 

masking, or behavioral changes. 

Similarly, active underwater acoustic sources are not perceptible to sea turtle macroinvertebrate prey 

(see Section 3.8.2.2.1.1) and would not affect any other characteristics of sea turtle habitat, including 

designated critical habitat. Sea turtles 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 to sea turtles and sea turtle habitat, including designated critical habitat, would continue to be 

potentially adverse, but negligible and therefore insignificant. 

3.6.2.2.2 Vessel and Equipment Sound

Vessel and equipment sound (hereafter vessel sound) represent the majority of the ambient ocean 

auditory environment and are becoming more prominent with increased human marine activity. Vessel 

sound is a combination of tonal sounds (sounds with discrete frequencies such as music notes) and 

broadband sounds (sounds with a combination of many frequencies such as a choir harmonizing) 

(Richardson et al., 1995), which respectively contribute to hearing threshold shifts and acoustic masking. 

Vessel sound ranges in frequency from 10 Hz to 10 kHz and is generated predominantly through propeller 

operation, including cavitation, singing, and propulsion. The intensity of the sound received by sea turtles 

is dependent on the size and speed of the vessel in question and the distance of the sea turtle from the 

vessel. Vessel sound has the potential to disrupt normal sea turtle behavior because of their high hearing 

sensitivity between 200 and 400 Hz.

Underwater sound has the potential to impact sea turtles through hearing threshold shifts or auditory 

masking. Hearing threshold shifts refer to changes in the hearing range of an organism due to exposure 

to high intensity sounds. Threshold shifts can be short-term or long-term depending on the intensity of 

the sound exposure and can result in permanently reduced hearing capabilities of the affected organism. 

Although hearing threshold shifts in sea turtles are not well studied, the U.S. Navy estimates that exposure 

to sound intensities of 189 dB and 204 dB could respectively cause temporary and permanent threshold 

shifts in sea turtles (Navy, 2017b). These estimates were derived using the best available data on sea turtle 

hearing thresholds and mathematical relationships of threshold shifts in similar species. However, the 

vessels used by NOS typically produce source levels of 130 to 160 dB while transiting, and only larger 

vessels outside the scope of this Final PEIS, such as tankers or icebreakers, emit sound with the potential 

to cause threshold shifts in sea turtles (Erbe, 2013; Erbe et al., 2019). Note that this discussion of impacts 

on sea turtles from sound intensity (measured in dB) should not be confused with impacts from sound 

frequency (measured in Hz and kHz); see discussion of underwater sound in Section 3.0. Auditory masking 

refers to those sounds which do not cause direct changes to hearing thresholds, but have the potential to 

obscure ecologically relevant sounds to sea turtles. Masking sounds can interfere with the acquisition of 

prey or mates, the avoidance of predators, and the identification of appropriate nesting sites. There is a 

small possibility that sound from vessels used by NOS could contribute to auditory masking, but it is 

unclear whether masking would realistically have any effect on sea turtles since the role of hearing in sea 

turtle ecology is unknown; there are no quantitative data demonstrating masking effects for sea turtles 

(BOEM, 2014b).
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

262

Underwater sound intensities of 175 to 176 dB, which are roughly equivalent to the airborne sound 

intensity of a motorcycle engine, evoke erratic behavioral changes in green and leatherback turtles,

including evasive maneuvers such as diving or changes in swimming direction or speed (McCauley et al., 

2000a). Source levels as low as 166 dB can induce avoidance behaviors in sea turtles and may temporarily 

displace them from project areas. Although sound produced by vessels used by NOS would typically be 

outside of this range, source levels may vary by 20 to 40 dB within a ship class due to variability in design, 

maintenance, and operational parameters (Simard et al., 2016) and could potentially elicit behavioral 

responses in sea turtles. However, vessel sound attenuates quickly towards the surface of the water 

column and would not likely be perceptible to sea turtles outside several meters of the immediate vicinity 

of the vessel or persist after the conclusion of vessel activity. As such, any behavioral changes and 

displacements would last only for the duration of vessel activity within a given area and would not cause 

any long-term or permanent changes in sea turtle habitat use, prey availability, or competition.

Vessel sound could potentially have an adverse effect on sea turtle habitat, including designated critical 

habitat, through the disturbance and displacement of prey populations. Sea turtles, depending on the

species, eat seagrasses, algae, fish eggs, and marine macroinvertebrates such as sponges, sea squirts, 

squid, shrimp, crabs, jellyfish, cuttlefish, or sea cucumbers. Marine invertebrates, including squid, jellyfish, 

and cuttlefish, are sensitive to low frequency sound ranging from 50 to 400 Hz, although the exact range 

of invertebrate sound perception is unknown (Mooney et al., 2010; Solé et al., 2016). These important 

sea turtle prey species could temporarily be disturbed or displaced from project areas by vessel sound 

(see Section 3.8 Aquatic Macroinvertebrates). However, displacement would likely only last for the 

duration of vessel operation in the immediate area, and vessel sound is not expected to cause any longterm changes in marine invertebrate behavior or habitat use. Any increased foraging effort, competition, 

or energy expenditure resulting from displacement of prey species is not expected to substantially affect 

sea turtles. 

Vessel sound would likely only displace sea turtles and prey within the immediate vicinity of vessels used 

by NOS and would not cause any mortality or direct injury to sea turtles. Sea turtles 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 sea turtles 

and sea turtle habitat, including designated critical habitat, from vessel and equipment sound generated 

during NOS activities would continue to be adverse, negligible, and therefore insignificant. 

3.6.2.2.3 Vessel Presence and Movement

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

proportion of the total amount of vessel operations within the action area (see Section 2.4.1). As such, 

the resulting impacts of vessel operations on sea turtles only contribute marginally to the overall impact 

of all vessel presence and movement within a given area. Nevertheless, vessel presence and movement 

as a result of NOS projects could cause sea turtle–vessel interactions including visual disturbance, vessel 

strikes, underwater turbulence from vessel wakes, and reduction or displacement of sea turtle prey. To 

minimize turtle-vessel interactions, if one or more sea turtles is sighted while the vessel is underway, 

attempts would be made to maintain a distance of 45 m (50 yards) or greater whenever possible. 

Much like vessel sound, the visual presence of vessels used by NOS could disrupt normal sea turtle 

behavior and displace individuals from project areas. Very little research exists on sea turtle responses to 

vessel disturbance, but one study suggests that sea turtles may habituate to vessel sound and may be 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

263

more likely to respond to the presence of vessels (Hazel et al., 2007). The visual presence of vessels used 

by NOS in a given area could potentially cause behavioral changes in nearby sea turtles, including evasive 

maneuvers such as diving or changes in swimming direction or speed. Sea turtles would also likely be 

temporarily displaced from project areas while vessels are present. However, only sea turtles within 

approximately 10 m (33 ft) of vessels appear to alter their behavior, regardless of the primary vessel 

stressor (i.e., sight or sound) motivating the response (Hazel et al., 2007). These behavioral changes and 

displacements would last only for the duration of vessel activity within a given area and would not cause 

any long-term or permanent changes in sea turtle habitat use, prey availability, or competition. Vessels 

operating at night would also use the appropriate lighting necessary to comply with navigation rules and 

best safety practice in order to avoid visual disturbances to nesting sea turtles and emerging hatchling. As 

such, increased evasive behavior and additional energy expenditure as a result of vessel presence is not 

expected to harm individuals or the population.

Vessels used by NOS within the action area could potentially collide with sea turtles, resulting in 

debilitating injury or death of individuals. Propeller and collision injuries to sea turtles arising from 

interactions with boats and ships are relatively common; 20.5 percent of observed leatherback sea turtles 

in the Atlantic Ocean and Gulf of Mexico had sustained propeller injuries in 2004 (NMFS and USFWS, 

2008). The sea turtle collision probability of any vessel is contingent upon its size and speed. Larger, 

relatively slow-moving vessels are less likely to strike sea turtles than smaller vessels travelling at higher 

speeds because turtles more easily recognize and avoid larger, slow-moving vessels. Given the low speed 

and small size of most vessels used by NOS (see Section 2.4.1) and NOS would constantly monitor for 

protected species, collisions are expected to be generally avoided during NOS projects and during transit 

to a project site. However, behavioral observations of sea turtle vessel avoidance reveal that some sea 

turtles may be susceptible to vessel strikes at speeds as low as two knots (Hazel et al., 2007). Regardless, 

the overall probability of collision between vessels used by NOS and sea turtles remains low given that

adult and sub-adult sea turtles only spend small proportions of their time at the water surface where they 

are most susceptible to vessel strikes. Poor visibility conditions at night would impede the ability of vessels 

used by NOS and sea turtles to recognize and avoid each other, potentially resulting in a higher risk of 

vessels striking sea turtles engaged in nocturnal feeding, mate searching, and movement towards nesting 

beaches. Additionally, project areas would be continuously monitored for protected species at all times 

during vessel operations. However, as sea turtles are predominantly diurnal and do not surface often 

during the night, and because NOS operations are uncommon at night, the overall probability of nighttime 

collisions is expected to be very low. As such, the probability of vessels used by NOS striking sea turtles 

would be very low. 

Wakes associated with the movements of vessels used by NOS could also disturb the water column and 

adversely impact sea turtles within the project area. Moving vessels would displace large amounts of 

water, and the resulting underwater turbulence could disturb and displace nearby sea turtles. However, 

this displacement would be temporary, and would occur only while vessels used by NOS are within 10 m 

(33 ft) of sea turtles (Hazel et al., 2007). Any evasive behavior and energy expenditure as a result of water 

disturbance from vessel wakes is not expected to substantially affect individuals or populations; sea 

turtles are expected to return to preferred feeding, breeding, and migratory routes upon departure of the 

vessel used by NOS. Impacts to sea turtles as a result of displacement would likely increase if the frequency 

of disturbance increases (i.e., spatially or temporally replicated passes in a given project area), but NOS 

projects would be coordinated carefully to ensure project areas are not repeatedly sampled unnecessarily 

(see Section 2.2). 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

264

The presence and movement of vessels used by NOS could affect sea turtle habitat, including designated 

critical habitat, through the disturbance and displacement of macroinvertebrate prey. As with active 

underwater acoustic sources and vessel sound discussed above, vessel presence and movement would 

likely displace motile (capable of self-powered motion) macroinvertebrate prey species from project areas 

through underwater visual disturbance or turbulence from wakes. Prey 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 macroinvertebrate prey is not expected to harm sea turtle 

individuals or overall sea turtle populations. 

Any injury or death to sea turtles would constitute a moderate or greater impact, depending on the 

species, given the protection status afforded to sea turtles by the ESA. However, there is a very low 

likelihood of vessel strikes, displacement of sea turtles and their prey by vessel presence or wakes would 

be limited to the immediate project vicinity, and the duration of NOS projects would be on the order of 

hours, days, or weeks, although a small number of projects may last several months spread across years 

(see Section 2.4.1). As such, any resulting impacts to individual sea turtles or to overall sea turtle

populations, sea turtle prey, and their respective habitat availability would be well within the natural 

range of variability. Furthermore, vessels used by NOS only represent a negligible portion of overall vessel 

traffic within the U.S. EEZ, and the impacts created by the movement of vessels used by NOS would be 

indistinguishable from those produced by all other vessels. Overall, the effects of vessel presence and 

movement on sea turtles and their habitat, including designated critical habitat, would continue to be

adverse, negligible to minor, and therefore insignificant. 

3.6.2.2.4 Accidental Leakage or Spillage of Oil, Fuel, Chemicals, and Waste

Accidental oil, fuel, or chemical spills as a result of NOS projects could affect sea turtles through various 

pathways including direct contact, inhalation of the oil or fuel and its volatile components, and ingestion. 

Several aspects of sea turtle biology and behavior place them particularly at risk for exposure to spilled 

fuels, including lack of avoidance behavior, indiscriminate feeding in areas where ocean currents 

converge, and inhalation of large volumes of air before dives (Shigenaka et al., 2021). Turtles surfacing 

within or near an oil or fuel release may inhale petroleum vapors, causing respiratory stress. Ingested oil 

or fuel, particularly the lighter fractions, can be acutely toxic to sea turtles. The direct exposure of sensitive 

tissues (e.g., eyes or other mucous membranes) and soft tissues to diesel fuel or volatile hydrocarbons 

could produce irritation and inflammation. Oil and fuel also can adhere to turtle skin or shells, prolonging 

and exacerbating the direct effects of tissue exposure. Larger spills would contaminate areas beyond the 

immediate project area and increase the likelihood of sea turtle exposure to volatile chemicals and 

resulting injury or mortality. However, the vast majority of spills or releases are confined to the immediate 

project area and would disperse quickly within the ocean typically within a day or less (NOAA, 2020a). A 

small spill would not be likely to result in the death or life-threatening injury of individual turtles or 

hatchlings, or the long-term displacement of adult turtles from preferred feeding, breeding, or nesting 

habitats or migratory routes. 

All crewed vessels produce some waste through normal operations; during activities, vessels operated 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. Marine debris can potentially impact sea 

turtles through entanglement and ingestion. Entanglement with marine debris is a far more likely cause 

of mortality to sea turtles than its ingestion; loggerhead turtles have been found entangled in debris 

ranging from fishing lines to onion sacks (NMFS and USFWS, 2008). Impacts from discarded trash and 

debris are expected to be avoided through vessel operators’ required compliance with USCG and EPA 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

265

regulations. In addition, no intentional vessel discharges would occur if a protected species is sighted 

within 91 m (100 yds) of the vessel used by NOS, and all MARPOL discharge protocols would be followed.

Accidental discharge of oil, fuel, chemicals, or waste could potentially affect sea turtle habitat, including 

designated critical habitat, through the contamination of prey and sensitive foraging areas. Important sea 

turtle food sources, such as macroinvertebrates and seagrasses, could become contaminated and 

bioaccumulate (concentrate ingested substances in tissue) spilled contaminants. These food resources 

would be additional routes for exposure to and ingestion of volatile chemicals by sea turtles. Breeding 

and nesting habitat along coastlines adjacent to spills could also potentially be degraded as spilled 

substances are washed ashore. However, it is unlikely that a small spill in the ocean would reach turtle 

nests, which are usually located above the high tide line. Large spills that extend beyond the immediate 

project area have a much greater likelihood of degrading sensitive sea turtle foraging and nesting habitat 

and could result in long-term changes in sea turtle habitat availability. Assuming proper adherence to 

waste disposal regulations, prey species would very rarely be exposed to trash and debris from NOS 

projects. As such, the exposure of sea turtles to oil, fuel, chemicals, or waste from contaminated prey 

would be negligible and is not expected to threaten individual sea turtles or sea turtle populations.

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 

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.

Any injury or death to sea turtles would constitute a moderate or largerimpact, depending on the species, 

given the protection status afforded to sea turtles by the ESA, NMFS, and USFWS. However, there is only 

a very low likelihood of small spill occurrence and no possibility of large spills given the size of vessels used 

by NOS. Displacement of sea turtles and their prey by small amounts of discharged oil, fuel, chemicals, or 

waste would likely be limited to the immediate vicinity of vessels and dispersal period of the discharged 

substance. Any resulting impacts to individual sea turtles or sea turtle populations, sea turtle prey, and 

their respective habitat availability would be well within the natural range of variability. Small spills are a 

normal byproduct of oceanic vessel activity, and the impacts created by potentially small NOS spills would 

be indistinguishable from those produced by all other vessels. As such, adverse impacts to sea turtles and 

sea turtle habitat, including designated critical habitat, from accidental leakage or spillage of oil, fuel, 

chemicals and waste would continue to be adverse, negligible to minor depending on the spill size and 

location, and therefore insignificant. 

3.6.2.2.5 Underwater Activities

The vast majority of NOS underwater activities would result in temporary disturbance to the water 

column, potentially impacting sea turtles. The lowering and raising of echo sounders, anchors and chains, 

CTD equipment, sound speed data collection equipment, camera and video systems, and grab samplers 

could temporarily displace sea turtles and disrupt their behavior. Any evasive behavior and energy 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

266

expenditure as a result of water disturbance is not expected to affect individuals or populations in the 

long term; if displaced, sea turtles are expected to return to preferred feeding, breeding, and migratory 

routes and resume normal activities after completion of NOS projects in the area. The impact on sea 

turtles should be minimal and cease when the anchoring system or equipment comes to rest or is taken 

out of the water. However, sea turtles are particularly sensitive to disturbances during seasonal breeding 

periods and within coastal areas adjacent to nesting habitat. Repeated, prolonged underwater activities 

in these areas could disrupt important, time-sensitive behaviors, which would likely have more severe or 

more intense adverse effects on turtles. 

Similarly, a number of NOS activities involve trailing the equipment listed above with lines or wire behind 

and beneath vessels used by NOS, which poses a risk of entangling nearby sea turtles. Although sea turtle 

entanglement with marine debris is recognized as a major source of mortality, entanglement with 

equipment is not well studied and is typically limited to fishery-related bycatch (Duncan et al., 2017). 

Anecdotal accounts indicate that sea turtle mortalities have resulted from entanglement with trailed 

seismic equipment off the West Coast of Africa (Nelms et al., 2016), which suggests that sea turtles could 

also become entangled in the various trailed equipment used by NOS during projects. Entangled sea 

turtles may drown or starve or be struck by vessels due to restricted mobility in addition to potentially 

suffering physical trauma and/or systemic infections (NMFS, 2018b). However, the trailed equipment 

used during NOS would only be submerged for periods of time ranging from minutesto hours (see Section 

2.4), limiting the potential exposure to sea turtles and possible entanglement. Trailed equipment is also 

typically more conspicuous than common entanglement hazards such as discarded monofilament fishing 

line, and nearby sea turtles would likely be able to recognize and avoid trailing equipment. Furthermore, 

the majority of trailed equipment would stay within meters of the towing vessel and would only 

potentially impact sea turtles within close range; however, they would likely be displaced by the visual 

disturbance and sound of the vessel itself (Section 3.6.2.2.2) before they could interact with any trailed 

equipment. As such, entanglement with trailed NOS equipment is not expected to be a substantial threat 

to sea turtles.

SCUBA diving activities are included in 248 NOS projects under Alternative A (see Table 2.6-1) and have 

the potential to adversely affect sea turtles through behavioral responses to diver presence. Although 

SCUBA diving is largely considered a non-invasive activity, exposure to human presence can alter sea turtle 

behavioral patterns. Recent studies demonstrate that sea turtles are susceptible to disturbance by divers 

(Schofield et al., 2006; Dunbar et al., 2008) and spend less time foraging when divers are present (Hayes 

et al., 2017). These behavioral changes would only last for the duration of diver activity in the immediate 

area and any increased energy expenditure, competition, or nutritional deficiencies are not expected to 

affect individual sea turtles or the overall sea turtle population. Prolonged or repeated disturbances in 

seagrass habitat, migratory routes, or sensitive coastal areas adjacent to nesting beaches could disrupt 

important, time-sensitive behaviors, which would likely have more severe, adverse effects on turtles.

Underwater activities including anchoring, bottom sampling, drop cameras, and mobile ADCPs can disturb 

the sea floor, increasing sedimentation and potentially adversely affecting sea turtle habitat, including 

designated critical habitat. Seagrass and macroalgae, important sources of forage for some species of sea 

turtle, can be directly uprooted by disturbance to the sea floor and are highly sensitive to changes in water 

quality. Seagrass fields in the Southeast and Greater Atlantic Regions are designated as critical habitat for 

turtles; direct destruction of seagrass in these areas would adversely impact sea turtle populations.

Furthermore, reductions in water quality can also result in displacement of marine macroinvertebrate sea 

turtle prey. However, seafloor disturbance would be limited to relatively small portions of a given project 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

267

area and any resulting changes to water quality would be quickly dissipated by the prevailing ocean 

currents in the area.

To minimize or avoid the potential adverse effects of underwater activities, mitigation measures would 

be implemented, including (also see Appendix D):

• NOS would not drag anchor chains and would ensure that anchors are properly secured so as to 

minimize bottom disturbance.

• Deployment of all autonomous systems, instruments, and divers would be suspended if any 

protected species is sighted within 92 m (100 yards) of the vessel. Work already in progress may 

continue if the activity is not expected to adversely affect the animal.

• During all buoy deployment and retrieval operations, buoys would be lowered and raised slowly 

to minimize risk to listed species. In addition, observers would monitor for listed species in the 

area prior to and during deployment and retrieval. Work would be stopped if listed species are 

observed in the area to minimize entanglement risk.

• When using a boat or platform to conduct SCUBA operations, at least one person would maintain 

visual watch for protected species to ensure none are sighted within the working area. If a listed 

species moves into the work area, cessation of operation of any moving equipment within 15 m 

(50 ft) of the animal would occur and only resume when the species has left the project area. 

SCUBA divers involved in in-water activities would have proper training and be capable of 

responsible dive practices such that they minimize injury to organisms and avoid unnecessary 

habitat impacts.

Underwater activities would likely only displace sea turtles and prey within the immediate vicinity of 

vessels used by NOS or divers and would not cause any mortality or direct injury to sea turtles. Sea turtles 

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, habitat use, or energy 

expenditure. As such, the impacts to sea turtles and sea turtle habitat, including designated critical 

habitat, from underwater activities would continue to be adverse, negligible to minor, and therefore

insignificant. 

3.6.2.2.6 Onshore Activities

NOS onshore projects would comprise installation, operation, and maintenance of shore-based GPS 

reference stations and installation and maintenance of tide gauges. The majority of sea turtle species 

move seasonally between foraging and nesting areas (Mansfield et al., 2009; Hawkes et al., 2011). Impacts 

from onshore projects could potentially occur if the site is located near a nesting beach, in which case it 

is likely that large numbers of sea turtles would be present both on the beach and within nearshore waters 

during the nesting season. Female sea turtles are particularly sensitive to human and other artificial 

disturbances (e.g., anthropogenic light sources) while selecting nest sites, and disturbance resulting from 

onshore projects could disrupt nesting behavior and decrease nest success. However, since female sea 

turtles come ashore and dig their nests at night, there is little likelihood of any NOS activities conducted 

onshore during daytime hours directly disturbing them. Sea turtles are long-lived organisms that have a 

very low likelihood of surviving to sexual maturity (Davenport, 1997), and decreased nest success would 

have long-term, adverse effects on the populations of all sea turtle species.

Low-flying aircraft, specifically helicopters, are infrequently used to access GPS reference stations and tide 

gauges in remote areas of the Alaska Region and could also disturb sea turtles through sound and visual 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

268

disturbance. Behavioral responses to low-flying aircraft are similar to those caused by vessel sound,

presence, and movement and include evasive diving or rapid changes in swimming speed and direction. 

The level of sea turtle disturbance caused by passing aircraft is contingent upon the aircraft’s altitude, the 

aspect (direction and angle) of the aircraft relative to the receiver, receiver depth and water depth, and 

seafloor type. However, any exposure of individual sea turtles to aircraft-related sound would be expected 

to cause only temporary disturbance or displacement from the project area. Furthermore, sea turtles only 

rarely occur within the Alaskan region, which substantially lowers the likelihood of their exposure to 

aircraft. 

Onshore activity would likely only displace sea turtles and prey within the immediate vicinity of the project 

area and would not cause any mortality or direct injury to sea turtles. Sea turtles and their prey are 

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

to experience any long-term changes in habitat availability, habitat use, or energy expenditure. Given the 

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

sound and visual disturbance, the impacts to sea turtles and sea turtle habitat, including critical habitat,

from NOS onshore activities would continue to be adverse, negligible, and therefore insignificant. 

3.6.2.2.7 Air Emissions

Smokestack and two-stroke outboard motor emissions from vessels used by NOS would release 

pollutants, including CO2, into the atmosphere of the project area and immediately surrounding areas. 

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. Ocean acidification resulting from higher atmospheric CO2 levels due 

to anthropogenic emissions is within the range of sea turtle tolerance and is not expected to cause any 

direct harm to individuals and the population. Nonetheless, air emissions could potentially degrade sea 

turtle habitat indirectly, including designated critical habitat, by reducing the availability of 

macroinvertebrate prey species which are particularly sensitive to acidity during their larval life stages. 

It is important to note that vessels used by NOS make up only a small proportion of the total amount of 

vessel 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 GHG (CO2, CH4, and N2O) by vessels used 

by NOS would contribute negligibly to ongoing changes in oceanic conditions (as well as atmospheric and 

terrestrial conditions) (Limpinsel et al., 2017). Thus, NOS projects would not substantially increase air 

emissions in the oceans and any increased sea turtle competition, foraging effort, or energy expenditure 

as a result of reduced prey availability from ocean acidification is not expected to substantially affect sea 

turtle individuals or populations. 

Air emissions or their resulting contribution to ocean acidification would not cause any mortality or direct 

injury to sea turtles. Sea turtle macroinvertebrate prey populations could potentially be affected by ocean 

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

turtles are not expected to experience any long-term changes in habitat availability, habitat use, or energy 

expenditure from air emissions as the amount of emissions from vessels used by NOS would be negligible 

when compared to emissions from all other vessel activity in the action area. Thus, impacts to sea turtles 

and sea turtle habitat, including critical habitat, from air emissions would continue to be adverse,

negligible to minor due to the ability of air emissions to travel beyond the immediate project area, 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

269

3.6.2.2.8 Conclusion

Although the effects of impact causing factors on sea turtles and their associated habitat range from 

negligible to moderate, moderate impacts are only expected in the very unlikely occurrence of an 

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

impact of Alternative A on sea turtles and their habitat, including designated critical habitat, would 

continue to be adverse and minor; therefore, impacts of Alternative A would continue to be insignificant. 

3.6.2.3 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, excluding survey effort in the Great Lakes which would not impact 

sea turtles. NOS survey effort would cover a total of 2,896,712 nm (5,364,710 km) across all five regions 

over the five-year period. Overall, survey effort would cover an additional 263,337 nm (487,701 km) under

Alternative B (see Table 3.5-14), a 10 percent increase over Alternative A (2,633,374 nm [4,877,009 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), but this area is only rarely visited by sea turtles. 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 and depth of surveys, hearing 

frequency of the animals, and population density of sea turtles, that add nuance to this trend.

Under Alternative B there would be crewed vessel operations covering 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 sea turtle populations and could contribute to impacts on sea turtles and sea 

turtle habitat through visual disturbance, direct collision, vessel sound, vessel wake and underwater 

turbulence, trailing equipment, 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 sea turtles and sea turtle habitat, including designated critical habitat, would 

be the same or slightly, but not appreciably, larger than those discussed above under Alternative A for 

each impact causing factor given that impacts do not scale proportionally with survey effort. Impacts to 

sea turtles resulting from Alternative A do not cause long-term changes in habitat use or behavior and 

would not substantially increase in intensity with the increased survey effort of Alternative B. Overall, 

impacts on sea turtles and their habitat, including designated critical habitat, would be adverse, 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

270

3.6.2.4 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 Alternatives A and B. Under Alternative C, excluding survey effort in the Great Lakes which 

would not impact sea turtles, NOS survey effort would cover a total of 3,160,049 nm (5,852,411 km) across 

all five regions over the five-year period. Overall, NOS survey effort would cover an additional 263,337 nm 

(487,701 km) under Alternative C (see Table 3.5-21), an approximate nine percent increase over 

Alternative B (2,896,712 nm [5,364,710 km] total); and an additional 526,675 nm (975,402 km), an 

approximate 20 percent increase over Alternative A (2,633,374 nm [4,877,009 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), but this area is only rarely visited by sea turtles. 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 and depth of surveys, hearing frequency of the animals, and 

population density of sea turtles, that add nuance to this trend.

Under Alternative C, crewed vessel operations would cover 637,000 nm (1,180,000 km), as compared to 

the 577,000 nm (1,070,000 km) under Alternative B and the 518,000 nm (959,000 km) under Alternative 

A. Vessel operations are among the most disruptive NOS activities to sea turtle populations and could 

contribute to impacts on sea turtles and their habitat through visual disturbance, direct collision, vessel 

sound, vessel wake and underwater turbulence, trailing equipment, 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 sea turtles and sea turtle habitat, including designated critical habitat, would 

be the same or slightly, but not appreciably, larger than those discussed above under Alternative A for 

each impact causing factor. Impacts to sea turtles resulting from Alternative A do not cause long-term 

changes in habitat use or behavior and would not substantially increase in intensity with the increased 

survey effort of Alternative C. Overall, impacts on sea turtles and their habitat, including designated 

critical habitat, would be adverse, minor, and therefore insignificant.

3.6.2.5 Endangered Species Act Effects Determination

All species of sea turtles occurring within the action area are listed under the ESA, and federal agencies 

are required under the ESA to formally determine whether their actions may affect sea turtles 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. 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

271

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 only used 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. 

Sea turtles cannot hear the frequencies emitted by active underwater acoustic sources. Furthermore, due 

to the mobile and temporary nature of the projects, the small area of the sea floor affected during the 

projects relative to the entire EEZ, and the possibility of any individual sea turtles and their prey

temporarily moving away from sounds, the impacts of sound propagation from active underwater 

acoustic sources to sea turtles would be short term, limited to only a few individuals, and therefore

discountable (i.e., extremely unlikely to occur).

The proposed amount of vessel traffic associated with activities would be small in comparison to all the 

other non-project related vessel traffic in the EEZ. Disturbances from increased vessel traffic, including 

sound, presence and movement, water column disruption, and accidental waste discharge would be 

temporary to short-term and would likely only temporarily affect a few individual sea turtles. Additionally, 

mitigation measures for minimizing or avoiding impacts when one or more sea turtles are sighted while 

the vessel is underway are included in Appendix D. Because sound disturbance would be of temporary or 

of short duration and would occur infrequently in any given project area, the response by sea turtles to 

sound, wakes, and increased traffic from vessels used by NOS would be short term, limited to only a few 

individuals, and therefore discountable (i.e., extremely unlikely to occur).

The likelihood of an accidental spill is expected to be discountable (i.e., extremely unlikely to occur), and 

exposure of sea turtles and critical habitats to oil, fuel, and other contaminants is not expected. 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. Thus, effects from 

chemical contamination on sea turtles are discountable (i.e., extremely unlikely likely to occur).

Although underwater activities and equipment, such as ROVs, ADCPs, bottom samplers, drop cameras, 

and SCUBA divers could temporarily disturb and displace nearby sea turtles, effects would be temporary 

and negligible. Mitigation measuresthat would further minimize any disturbance are included in Appendix 

D. No large areas of seafloor disturbance by NOS underwater equipment and activities is planned or 

expected. Thus, the response to underwater equipment and activities by sea turtles would be short term, 

limited to only a few individuals, and therefore discountable (i.e., extremely unlikely to occur).

Onshore activities, such as aircraft use and the installation of onshore equipment, could potentially 

disturb and displace sea turtles from sensitive nesting areas, although if this occurs, it would be on a small 

scale and not widespread (e.g., limited to a few individuals). No substantial changes in sea turtle behavior 

or habitat use are expected in response to onshore activity; the response of sea turtles to onshore activity 

would be short term, limited to only a few individuals, and therefore 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

272

NOS concludes that the Proposed Action “May Affect, but Not Likely to Adversely Affect” all sea turtle 

species occurring in the action area, as listed in Table 3.6-3, except hawksbill turtles in the GAR. This 

species very rarely occurs within GAR and likely would not be encountered during any NOS projects or 

activities occurring under any of the action alternatives. As such, NOS concludes that the proposed project 

would have “No Effect” to hawksbill turtles within the GAR.

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 sea turtles. Critical habitat may be minimally 

disturbed through short-term displacements or reductions of sea turtle prey and forage but would remain 

functional to maintain viability of dependent species. Due to the potential for effects that could range 

from negligible to minor as described in Sections 3.6.2.2-4, the Proposed Action “May Affect, but Not 

Likely to Adversely Affect” the designated critical habitat occurring in the action area (except for hawksbill 

turtles in the GAR as discussed above) as listed in Table 3.6-3.

Table 3.6-3. Summary of Effects Determinations for ESA-Listed Sea Turtles and Critical 

Habitat

ESA- Listed Sea Turtles, DPS

(if applicable) Species Determination Critical Habitat Determination

Loggerhead – Caretta caretta

Northwest Atlantic May Affect, but Not Likely to 

Adversely Affect

May Affect, but Not Likely to 

Adversely Affect

North Pacific May Affect, but Not Likely to 

Adversely Affect

N/A* (no critical habitat 

designated)

Green – Chelonia mydas

North Atlantic May Affect, but Not Likely to 

Adversely Affect

May Affect, but Not Likely to 

Adversely Affect

South Atlantic May Affect, but Not Likely to 

Adversely Affect

N/A (no critical habitat 

designated)

Central North Pacific May Affect, but Not Likely to 

Adversely Affect

N/A (no critical habitat 

designated)

Central West Pacific May Affect, but Not Likely to 

Adversely Affect

N/A (no critical habitat 

designated)

Central South Pacific May Affect, but Not Likely to 

Adversely Affect

N/A (no critical habitat 

designated)

East Pacific May Affect, but Not Likely to 

Adversely Affect

N/A (no critical habitat 

designated)

Hawksbill – Eretmochelys imbricate

Hawksbill turtles within the SER, 

WCR, and PIR

May Affect, but Not Likely to 

Adversely Affect

May Affect, but Not Likely to 

Adversely Affect

Hawksbill turtles within the GAR No Effect No Effect
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

273

ESA- Listed Sea Turtles, DPS

(if applicable) Species Determination Critical Habitat Determination

Kemp’s Ridley – Lepidochelys kempii

-- May Affect, but Not Likely to 

Adversely Affect

N/A (no critical habitat 

designated)

Olive Ridley – Lepidochelys olivacea

-- May Affect, but Not Likely to 

Adversely Affect

N/A (no critical habitat 

designated)

Leatherback – Dermochelys coriacea

-- May Affect, but Not Likely to 

Adversely Affect

May Affect, but Not Likely to 

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

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

274

3.7 FISH

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

under each alternative for fish in the action area.

3.7.1 Affected Environment

This section provides an overview of fish in the action area, and specifically addresses fish of ecological or 

economic concern. The action area includes both marine fish in the U.S. EEZ and freshwater fish in the 

Great Lakes and rivers. These include fish species that are listed under the ESA, are associated with 

designated EFH (see Section 3.9 for a complete discussion of EFH), or are considered the basis of important 

fisheries. These fish are further addressed and discussed relative to their sensitivity to sound associated 

with proposed activities. The following sections provide descriptions of the fish, their hearing ability and 

sensitivity to sound, threatened and endangered designations, and regional distributions of fish and 

critical habitat.

Globally, there are over 30,000 species of fish, existing in marine (salt water) and freshwater

environments. Some fish are diadromous species that spend a portion of their life cycle in both fresh water 

and salt water. Anadromous fish, a subset of diadromous species, hatch in fresh water, spend most of 

their lives in the salt water of the ocean, and then return to fresh water to spawn (e.g., salmon, smelt, 

shad, striped bass, and sturgeon). Catadromous fish, another subset of diadromous species, do the 

opposite; they live in fresh water and enter salt water to spawn (e.g., eels). Marine and freshwater fish 

are discussed separately, but the discussion of hearing ability and sensitivity to sound applies to all fish.

3.7.1.1 Marine Fish

Marine fish that live in the ocean consist of: 

• Coastal fish that inhabit the sea between the shoreline and the edge of the continental shelf;

• Deep sea fish that live below the photic zone of the ocean, i.e., where not enough light penetrates 

for photosynthesis to occur;

• Pelagic fish that live near the surface of the ocean;

• Demersal fish that live on or near the bottom of the ocean; and

• Coral reef fish that are associated with coral reefs.

Marine fish occupy a wide variety of water depths and habitats. The vast majority of marine fishes are 

free-swimming pelagic forms. Other diverse and sometimes abundant fish species inhabit near-bottom 

and demersal (bottom) habitats (Figure 3.7-1), including flatfishes (Order Pleuronectiformes including 

soles, halibuts, and allies); sharks, skates, and rays; hagfishes; sturgeons; cods; rat-tails; and many others 

(Nelson, 2016). In general, sturgeons (Order Acipenseriformes), the herring-like fishes (Order 

Clupeiformes), and the cod-like fishes (Order Gadiformes) tend to occur only within the confines of the 

continental shelf. Other higher groups of fish are more widely dispersed. Some are highly migratory (e.g., 

tunas, lampreys, herrings, salmons) while others show high site fidelity (e.g., lingcod, some rockfishes, 

tropical reef fishes) (NSF and USGS, 2011). Figure 3.7-2 depicts these ecological diversities among the 

higher groups of fish.
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

275

Photo Credit: BreakingTheWalls

Most marine fish are piscivorous, meaning they primarily eat other fish. A few, such as anchovies, whale 

sharks, and basking sharks, are predominantly or exclusively planktivorous, consuming primarily small 

invertebrates (e.g., krill, zooplankton). Relatively few are primarily dependent on phytoplankton or 

macroalgae (e.g., seaweed like kelp) as food for much of their life cycle (NSF and USGS, 2011).

One system for classifying marine fish involves categorizing them into 11 main higher taxonomic groups 

(Sea Around Us, No Date). This classification system revolves around commercial species, but excludes 

many species of fish that are not commercial and might not fall into any of these higher groups. Therefore, 

marine fish can also be organized into groups based on ecology and habitat preferences. Taxa with special 

status (i.e., listed under ESA) occur within five of the higher groups: two Perciformes, eight Salmoniformes, 

two Scorpaeniformes, four Chondrichthyes, and three Acipenseriformes (see Table 3.7-1). The taxonomic 

groups, general ecology (i.e., habitat and feeding behavior), and general distribution and migratory 

movements of the marine fish in the action area are summarized in Figure 3.7-2 and discussed briefly 

below.

Fish species distributions vary relative to major environmental factors such as water depth, salinity, 

temperature, and habitat type; but when viewed on a broad scale, they collectively segregate into 

recognizable multi-species assemblages. Many species overlap to some degree in these ecological groups, 

due in part to the different habitat areas used by different life stages (NMFS, 2016a). Based on general 

ecology and the three-dimensional occurrence of marine fish in the sea, fish can be grouped into the 

following assemblages: nearshore-demersal, nearshore-pelagic, oceanic-demersal, and oceanic-pelagic. 

An additional assemblage unique to polar regions is the cryopelagic fish assemblage. The term cryopelagic 

is used to describe fish that actively swim in nearshore or oceanic waters but are associated during their 

life cycle with ice or water immediately below the ice (NMFS, 2016a). An example is the Arctic cod which 

often occurs in ice holes, near the ice edge, or among broken ice. 

Demersal resources include hard bottom fishes and soft bottom fishes. Hard bottom generally refers to 

exposed rock but includes other substrata such as coral and artificial structures. Hard bottom features 

provide structurally complex shelter, feeding opportunities, and hydrodynamic benefits for permanent 

and temporary fish associates (BOEM, 2014a). Hard bottom supports assemblages of sessile (non-mobile) 

organisms including algae, sponges, octocorals, and stony corals. Common families of hard bottom 

associated fishes are moray eels (Muraenidae), squirrelfishes (Holocentridae), groupers and sea basses 

Figure 3.7-1. Demersal 

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

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

276

(Serranidae), scorpionfishes (Scorpaenidae), grunts (Haemulidae), snappers (Lutjanidae), porgies 

(Sparidae), wrasses (Labridae), damselfishes (Pomacentridae), angelfishes (Pomacanthidae), blennies 

(Labrisomidae and Blenniidae), and triggerfishes(Balistidae). Individual species from these families exhibit 

differential distributions across the continental shelf (or shelf), generally depending on water depth.

Sources: NMFS, No Date-a; Sea Around Us, No Date; ECOS, No Date-a

Notes:

Typical water depth: S = shallow (<100 m), I = intermediate (100-1,000 m), D = deep (>1,000 m).

Habitat Type: D = demersal; P = pelagic.

Feeding behavior: PV = piscivorous, PN = planktivorous, PS = parasitic, S = scavenger.

Horizontal Distribution: ICS = inner continental shelf (<50 m water depth), OCS = outer continental shelf (50-200

m), BCS = beyond continental shelf (>200 m).

Distribution Variability: NS = negligible shift, IO = slight inshore-offshore movement, HM = highly migratory.

Figure 3.7-2. Summary of the Status, General Ecology, and General Distribution and 

Movement of Marine Fish Groups Potentially Occurring within the Action Area

Soft bottom or sedimentary habitat is composed of medium to coarse carbonate sands distributed over 

an extensive continental shelf (BOEM, 2014a). Soft bottom is not always flat or featureless but forms 

structures at various spatial scales, including large shoals, medium sand waves, smaller sand ripples, and 

interstitial space among sediment grains. The presence and form of these features vary with distance from 

shore, latitude, water depth, proximity to river discharge, prevailing currents, and wave energy. Families 

of soft bottom demersal fishes include skates (Rajidae), rays (Dasyatidae, Myliobatidae, and Gymnuridae), 

snake eels (Ophichthidae), searobins (Triglidae), drums and croakers (Sciaenidae), lizardfishes 

(Synodontidae), sand flounders (Paralichthyidae), and tonguefishes (Cynoglossidae). Members of these 

families, as well as others, are distributed widely across the continental shelf and upper slope (the outer 

shelf), and individual species are represented in different depth-related assemblages.

Although nearshore-pelagic species associate with structured bottom, they respond primarily to water 

column structure (temperature, salinity, DO) and circulation (currents, eddies, fronts), which vary 

seasonally and spatially (BOEM, 2014a). Large-scale influences on water column structure and circulation 

also vary across the shelf. Inner shelf waters are driven primarily by river discharge, winds, and tidal action. 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

277

Intermediate shelf waters are mostly wind driven, whereas shelf-edge and upper slope waters are 

influenced primarily by actions such as the Gulf Stream. Coastal pelagic fishes include requiem sharks

(Carcharhinidae), dogfish sharks (Squalidae), anchovies (Engraulidae), herrings (Clupeidae), mackerels

(Scombridae), jacks (Carangidae), mullets (Mugilidae), bluefish (Pomatomidae), and cobia

(Rachycentridae). Coastal pelagic species traverse shelf waters throughout the year, and many migrate 

during particular seasons.

The oceanic-pelagic assemblage consists of epipelagic and mesopelagic fish. Epipelagic fishes inhabit the 

upper 200 m (656 ft) of the water column in oceanic waters beyond the continental shelf edge (BOEM, 

2014a). Families of epipelagic fishes include sharks (Lamnidae and Sphyrnidae), flyingfishes (Exocoetidae), 

halfbeaks (Hemiramphidae), oarfishes (Regalecidae and Lophotidae), snake mackerels (Gempylidae), 

jacks (Carangidae), dolphin (Coryphaenidae), pomfrets (Bramidae), marlins, sailfish and spearfish 

(Istiophoridae), swordfish (Xiphiidae), tunas (Scombridae), medusafishes (Centrolophidae), molas 

(Molidae), and triggerfishes (Balistidae). A number of these species, such as mahi-mahi (Coryphaena 

hippurus), sailfish (Istiophorus platypterus), white marlin (Kajikia albida), blue marlin (Makaira nigricans), 

and tunas (Figure 3.7-3), are important to commercial and recreational fisheries. Below the epipelagic 

zone, the water column may be layered into mesopelagic (200-1,000 m [656-3,280 ft]) and bathypelagic 

(>1,000 m [3,280 ft]) zones. Taken together, these two zones and their inhabitants may be referred to as 

midwater. In the mesopelagic zone, fish assemblages are numerically dominated by lanternfishes 

(Myctophidae), bristlemouths (Gonostomatidae), and hatchetfishes (Sternoptychidae). Mesopelagic 

fishes, while less commonly known, are ecologically important because they transfer significant amounts 

of energy between mesopelagic and epipelagic zones over each daily cycle. Lanternfishes are important 

prey for meso- and epipelagic predators (e.g., tunas), upper slope hard bottom fishes, and particularly the

mesopelagic dragonfishes (Stomiiformes). The bathypelagic group is composed of little-known species 

such as snipe eels (Nemichthyidae), slimeheads (Trachichthyidae), deep-sea anglers (Melanocetidae), 

bigscales (Melamphaidae), and whalefishes (Cetomimidae). Most bathypelagic species are capable of 

producing and emitting light (bioluminescence) to aid in communicating in an environment devoid of 

sunlight (BOEM, 2014a).

Photo Credit: Jeff Muir ©ISSF

Important ecological considerations for fish resources of concern with respect to NOS activities are lifehistory and reproductive characteristics. These are important determinants of population-scale 

Figure 3.7-3. Pelagic 

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

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

278

vulnerability or robustness to disturbance. However, the reproductive strategies of marine fishes vary 

greatly, including those that bear live young, those that disperse their young as larvae, those that fertilize 

externally and broadcast their eggs, those that spawn into bottom-attached egg masses, or the nests 

(redds) of river spawners. More fecund fishes that have large ranges and high rates of dispersal tend to 

be more resilient to exploitation, disturbance, or other population-level stressors than those that are 

restricted to smaller areas and specific microhabitats.

In terms of commercial value, the herring-like fishes (e.g., herrings, sardines, shads, and anchovies) and 

cod-like fishes (e.g., cods, haddocks, hakes, pollocks, and whitings) are the most economically important. 

Next are perch-like fishes (the most modern, diverse, and speciose order, the Perciformes). The salmons 

and smelts (Order Salmoniformes) are also of great commercial importance.

The U.S. Geological Survey Nonindigenous Aquatic Species database tracks distributions of non-native 

marine fish, as well as other introduced aquatic species (USGS, No Date). One species that has become 

established along the southeast coast of the U.S., the Caribbean, and in parts of the Gulf of Mexico at 

unprecedented and alarming speed is the Indo-Pacific lionfish (Pterois volitans and P. miles) which is

native to the tropical and subtropical areas of the southwest Pacific and Indian Oceans.

3.7.1.2 Freshwater Fish

Nearly half of all fish species live in fresh water. Freshwater fish spend some or all of their lives in fresh 

water, such as rivers and lakes, with a salinity of less than 1.05 percent. These environments differ from 

marine conditions in many ways, the most obvious being the difference in levels of salinity. Freshwater 

fish are generally separated into one of three different categories (warmwater, coldwater, or coolwater) 

based on water temperature and the associated amount of oxygen in the water at each temperature 

range. For example, cold water holds more oxygen than warm water, which means coldwater fish require 

higher oxygen levels in order to survive.

Warmwater fish species, such as largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides), bluegill, catfish, crappies, and 

sunfish, can live in a wide range of conditions. Although they can survive cold winters in the northern 

states and can be found throughout most of the U.S., warmwater species thrive best when water 

temperatures are around 26o

C (80oF). Coldwater fish live in water cold enough throughout the year to 

support species such as brook and rainbow trout, Atlantic salmon, slimy sculpin, blacknosed and longnose 

dace, white suckers, and the non-native brown trout. Coldwater lakes and rivers generally occur in 

northern states with a temperature range of 4-15°C (40-60°F). Muskellunge, northern pike, walleye, and 

yellow perch are common coolwater fish species. These types of freshwater fish prefer water 

temperatures in-between the other two categories. Because these species grow best in water 

temperatures that range in the 15-21o

C (60-70oF), they are most often found in the northern and 

midwestern states.

More than 150 native fish species occur in the Great Lakes. There are three major thermal groupings for 

fish communities in the Great Lakes based on their preferred summer temperature preference: 

warmwater (e.g., shad [Clupeidae family], catfishes [Ictaluridae family], basses and sunfishes 

[Centrarchidae family], and drum [Sciaenidae family]); coolwater (e.g., yellow perch [Perca flavescens], 

walleye [Sander vitreus], sturgeon [Acipenseriformes], and pikes [Esox spp.]); and coldwater (e.g., trout 

and salmon [Salmonidae family], whitefishes [Coregonus spp.], and deepwater sculpin [Myoxocephalus 

thompsonii]) (USACE, 2019).
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

279

Given these temperature tolerances, fish species diversity, composition, and productivity differ to various 

degrees among the five Great Lakes, in part because of the latitudinal temperature gradient from Lake 

Superior to Lake Erie. In Lake Erie, warm-water species like walleye are common, while salmonids 

predominate in the rest of the four cooler lakes. Within the lakes, abundance and diversity are generally 

highest in nearshore habitats because of the higher plankton productivity and complex habitat structure. 

Year-round species in nearshore waters are typically warm- or cool-water species, although nearshore 

waters are used seasonally for spawning by fish that primarily inhabit cold, deep water (USACE, 2019). 

Examples of deepwater species using nearshore waters for spawning are lake trout (Salvelinus 

namaycush), lake whitefish (Coregonus clupeaformis), burbot (Lota lota), and sculpins (Corridae family). 

Commercially and recreationally important species can be found in all the lake habitats. Economically 

valuable native fishes in the Great Lakes include smallmouth bass (Micropterus dolomieu), largemouth 

bass (M. salmoides), yellow perch, whitefish, and walleye. Nonnative species, like the Pacific salmonids 

(Oncorhynchus spp.), brown trout (Salmo trutta), and rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) are also 

economically important.

Non-native fish species in the Great Lakes include common carp (Cyprinus carpio), alewife (Alosa 

pseudoharengus), sea lamprey (Petromyzon marinus) (Figure 3.7-4), round goby (Neogobius 

melanostomus), and rainbow smelt (Osmerus mordax) (USACE, 2019). There has also been intentional 

introduction of nonnative Pacific salmon into the Great Lakes including coho salmon (Oncorhynchus 

kisutch) and Chinook salmon (O. tshawytscha) (USACE, 2019).

Photo Credit: Ted Lawrence/Great Lakes Fishery Commission

3.7.1.3 Sound Production and Hearing

Sound plays a major role in the lives of all fish (e.g., Zelick et al., 1999; Fay and Popper, 2000). This is 

particularly the case since sound travels much farther in water than other potential signals and is not 

impeded by darkness, currents, or obstacles in the environment. Thus, fish can glean a great deal of 

information about biotic (living) and abiotic (environmental) sources and get information about the 

environment at a very substantial distance from the source (e.g., the presence of a reef, or the sounds 

produced by swimming predators). Many species of bony fishes communicate with sounds and use sounds 

in a wide range of behaviors including mating and territorial interactions (BOEM, 2014a).

Figure 3.7-4. Sea Lamprey
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

280

Hearing has been studied in only a few of the >30,000 species of fish. While fish may vary in their ability

to detect and use sound and vary in their potential susceptibility to damage by sound, it is evident that 

there are common mechanisms of fish hearing (Popper et al., 2003).

Sound is detected by fish with their inner ear, which in many ways is similar to the vestibular apparatus 

of mammals. Fish do not have external openings to the ear and sound is not coupled to the ear as it is 

with terrestrial animals. Because fish have a similar acoustic impedance as the water, they move with the 

water in a passing sound wave (Yan, 2004). The otoliths of fish otolithic end organs (their inner ears) are 

denser than water and consequently move less during an acoustic disturbance than the fish as a whole. It 

is this relative motion of the otolith and the rest of the fish that all fish are able to sense as sound (Fay, 

1988), and this mechanism of hearing means that fish naturally sense the particle motion aspect of sound 

as opposed to the pressure aspect that terrestrial animals sense. Pressure and particle motion are part of 

any sound wave, and some fish have specialized adaptations that allow them to additionally sense the 

pressure aspect of sound. Fish that are additionally sensitive to pressure use a gas-filled internal cavity 

near the ears, such as the swim bladder, that deforms with the pressure wave. The deformation of the 

gas bubble relays pressure information to the ears either because of its close proximity to the ears or 

because of direct mechanical coupling to the ears (e.g., Weberian ossicles). 

The hearing frequency range of most fish is below approximately 1,500 Hz with the most sensitive range 

below 800 Hz. The hearing range of pressure-sensing fish is typically extended to a few kHz (up to about 

4 kHz). It should be noted, however, that at least three species of herring-like fishes detect sounds above 

20 kHz (ultrasound). This does not apply for the Atlantic herring (Clupea harengus) (Mann et al., 1997).

These fish are thought to have evolved high-frequency sound detection in response to dolphin predation, 

but the mechanism for sensing the sound is not well understood. 

Fishes can be categorized acoustically depending on how they might be affected by sounds based on the 

presence or absence of a swim bladder and on the potential for that swim bladder to improve the hearing 

sensitivity and range of hearing (Popper et al., 2014; BOEM, 2014a):

• Fishes with no swim bladder or other gas chamber. These species are less susceptible to 

barotrauma (injury from excessive water pressure) and only detect particle motion, not sound 

pressure. However, some barotrauma may result from exposure to sound pressure. The highest 

frequency of hearing is likely to be no greater than 400 Hz, with poor sensitivity compared to 

fishes with a swim bladder. Fishes within this group include flatfish, some gobies, some tunas, and 

all sharks and rays (and relatives).

• Fishes with swim bladders in which hearing does not involve the swim bladder or other gas 

volume. These species are susceptible to barotrauma although hearing only involves particle 

motion, not sound pressure. These fishes detect sounds from below 50 Hz to perhaps 800-1,000 

Hz (though several probably detect sounds only to 600-800 Hz). A wide range of species fall into 

this category, including tuna with swim bladders, sturgeons, salmonids, etc. These species detect 

both particle motion and pressure, and the differences between species are related to how well 

the species can use the pressure signal.

• Fishes that have some kind of structure that mechanically couples the inner ear to the swim 

bladder (or other gas bubble), thereby resulting in detection of a wider bandwidth of sounds and 

lower intensities than fishes in other groups. These fishes detect sounds up to 3,000 Hz or more. 

There are not many marine species known to fit in this group, but it may include some species of 

sciaenids. It is also possible that a number of deep-sea species fall within this category based on 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

281

the morphology of their auditory system. Other members of this group would include all of the 

Otophysan fishes, though few of these species other than catfishes are found in marine waters.

• Fishes in which hearing involves a swim bladder or other gas volume. These species are 

susceptible to barotrauma and detect sound pressure as well as particle motion. All of these fishes 

are members of the herring family and their relatives (Clupeiformes). Their hearing below 1,000 

Hz is generally similar to fishes in the first group, but their hearing range extends to at least 4,000 

Hz, and some species (e.g., American shad) are able to detect sounds to over 180 kHz.

3.7.1.4 Threatened and Endangered Species

Nineteen ESA-listed fish species (comprising 49 distinct species, subspecies, Evolutionarily Significant 

Units [ESUs], or DPS total) potentially occur throughout the action area (Table 3.7-1). Additionally, there 

is one salmon ESU that is a candidate for listing. Of all the species, two are perch-likes, eight are salmonid 

species, two are scorpionfishes, four are sharks and rays, and three are sturgeons. All but eight of the 

listed fish also have designated critical habitat (Table 3.7-1). There are no federally-listed threatened or 

endangered fish species present within the Great Lakes.

Table 3.7-1. ESA-Listed Fish Occurring in the Action Area

Common Name Scientific Name ESA Status Lead Agency Region*

Critical 

Habitat

Perch-likes (Perciformes)

Nassau grouper Epinephelus striatus Threatened NMFS SER No

Tidewater goby Eucyclogobius newberryi Endangered USFWS WCR Yes

Salmon, Smelts, etc. (Salmoniformes)

Atlantic salmon 

(Gulf of Maine DPS)

Salmo salar Endangered USFWS/

NMFS

GAR Yes

Chinook salmon 

(California Coastal ESU)

Oncorhynchus 

tshawytscha

Threatened NMFS WCR Yes

Chinook salmon (Central 

Valley Spring-run ESU)

Oncorhynchus 

tshawytscha

Threatened NMFS WCR Yes

Chinook salmon (Lower 

Columbia River ESU)

Oncorhynchus 

tshawytscha

Threatened NMFS WCR Yes

Chinook salmon 

(Puget Sound ESU)

Oncorhynchus 

tshawytscha

Threatened NMFS WCR Yes

Chinook salmon 

(Sacramento River Winterrun ESU)

Oncorhynchus 

tshawytscha

Endangered NMFS WCR Yes

Chinook salmon 

(Snake River Fall-run ESU)

Oncorhynchus 

tshawytscha

Threatened NMFS WCR Yes

Chinook salmon (Snake 

River Spring/Summer-run 

ESU)

Oncorhynchus 

tshawytscha

Threatened NMFS WCR Yes
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

282

Common Name Scientific Name ESA Status Lead Agency Region*

Critical 

Habitat

Chinook salmon (Upper 

Columbia River Spring-run 

ESU)

Oncorhynchus 

tshawytscha

Endangered NMFS WCR Yes

Chinook salmon (Upper 

Willamette River ESU)

Oncorhynchus 

tshawytscha

Threatened NMFS WCR Yes

Chinook salmon (Upper 

Klamath-Trinity River)

Oncorhynchus 

tshawytscha

Candidate NMFS WCR --

Chum salmon

(Columbia River ESU)

Oncorhynchus keta Threatened NMFS WCR Yes

Chum salmon (Hood Canal 

Summer-run ESU)

Oncorhynchus keta Threatened NMFS WCR Yes

Coho salmon (Central 

California Coast ESU)

Oncorhynchus kisutch Endangered NMFS WCR Yes

Coho salmon (Lower 

Columbia River ESU)

Oncorhynchus kisutch Threatened NMFS WCR Yes

Coho salmon (Oregon 

Coast ESU)

Oncorhynchus kisutch Threatened NMFS WCR Yes

Coho salmon (Southern 

Oregon/Northern 

California Coast ESU)

Oncorhynchus kisutch Threatened NMFS WCR Yes

Sockeye salmon (Ozette 

Lake ESU)

Oncorhynchus nerka Threatened NMFS WCR Yes

Sockeye salmon (Snake 

River ESU)

Oncorhynchus nerka Endangered NMFS WCR Yes

Steelhead (California 

Central Valley DPS)

Oncorhynchus mykiss Threatened NMFS WCR Yes

Steelhead (Central 

California Coast DPS)

Oncorhynchus mykiss Threatened NMFS WCR Yes

Steelhead (Lower Columbia 

River DPS)

Oncorhynchus mykiss Threatened NMFS WCR Yes

Steelhead (Middle 

Columbia River DPS)

Oncorhynchus mykiss Threatened NMFS WCR Yes

Steelhead (Northern 

California DPS)

Oncorhynchus mykiss Threatened NMFS WCR Yes

Steelhead (Puget Sound 

DPS)

Oncorhynchus mykiss Threatened NMFS WCR Yes

Steelhead (Snake River 

Basin DPS)

Oncorhynchus mykiss Threatened NMFS WCR Yes
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

283

Common Name Scientific Name ESA Status Lead Agency Region*

Critical 

Habitat

Steelhead (South Central 

California Coast DPS)

Oncorhynchus mykiss Threatened NMFS WCR Yes

Steelhead (Southern 

California DPS)

Oncorhynchus mykiss Endangered NMFS WCR Yes

Steelhead (Upper 

Columbia River DPS)

Oncorhynchus mykiss Threatened NMFS WCR Yes

Steelhead (Upper 

Willamette River DPS)

Oncorhynchus mykiss Threatened NMFS WCR Yes

Bull trout (Coastal 

Recovery Unit)

Salvelinus confluentus Threatened USFWS WCR Yes

Eulachon (Southern DPS) Thaleichthys pacificus Threatened NMFS WCR, AR Yes

Scorpionfishes (Scorpaeniformes)

Bocaccio (Puget 

Sound/Georgia Basin DPS)

Sebastes paucispinis Endangered NMFS WCR, AR No

Yelloweye rockfish (Puget 

Sound/Georgia Basin DPS)

Sebastes ruberrimus Threatened NMFS WCR, AR Yes

Sharks, Skates, Rays, & Chimeras (Chondrichthyes)

Giant manta ray Manta birostris Threatened NMFS GAR, 

SER, PIR

No

Scalloped hammerhead 

shark (Eastern Pacific DPS)

Sphyrna lewini Endangered NMFS WCR, PIR No

Scalloped hammerhead 

shark (Central and 

Southwest Atlantic DPS)

Sphyrna lewini Threatened NMFS SER No

Scalloped hammerhead 

shark (Indo-West Pacific 

DPS)

Sphyrna lewini Threatened NMFS PIR No

Largetooth sawfish Pristis pristis Endangered NMFS SER No

Smalltooth sawfish Pristis pectinata Endangered NMFS SER No

Sturgeons (Acipenseriformes)

Atlantic sturgeon 

(New York Bight DPS)**

Acipenser oxyrinchus Endangered NMFS GAR Yes

Atlantic sturgeon 

(Carolina DPS)**

Acipenser oxyrinchus Endangered NMFS SER Yes

Atlantic sturgeon 

(Chesapeake Bay DPS)**

Acipenser oxyrinchus Endangered NMFS GAR Yes

Atlantic sturgeon 

(South Atlantic DPS)**

Acipenser oxyrinchus Endangered NMFS SER Yes
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

284

Common Name Scientific Name ESA Status Lead Agency Region*

Critical 

Habitat

Atlantic sturgeon 

(Gulf of Maine DPS)**

Acipenser oxyrinchus Threatened NMFS GAR Yes

Atlantic sturgeon 

(Gulf of Mexico subspecies)

Acipenser oxyrinchus 

desotoi

Threatened USFWS/ 

NMFS

SER Yes

Green sturgeon 

(Southern DPS)

Acipenser medirostris Threatened NMFS WCR Yes

Shortnose sturgeon Acipenser brevirostrum Endangered NMFS GAR, SER No

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

*GAR = Greater Atlantic Region (includes the U.S. portions of the Great Lakes, New England, and the mid-Atlantic); 

SER = Southeast Region (includes the southern portion of the U.S. Eastern Seaboard, the U.S. Caribbean Islands 

[Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands], and the Gulf of Mexico); AR = Alaska Region (includes Alaskan waters and 

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

Region (includes Hawai’i and territories of the U.S.) 

** All five Atlantic sturgeon DPSs mix in the offshore/marine environment (i.e., an adult Atlantic sturgeon 

encountered in the Atlantic Ocean could be from any one of the five DPSs).

3.7.1.4.1 Nassau Grouper

The Nassau grouper (Figure 3.7-5) is a reef fish associated with hard structures such as reefs, rocks, and 

ledges. They are late-maturing, long-lived, top-level predators. Nassau grouper used to be one of the most 

common species of grouper in the U.S. but became scarce due to commercial and recreational fishing 

(NMFS, No Date-a). The remaining stocks are overexploited, but all harvest of Nassau grouper is prohibited 

in the U.S. Some countries have limited or no regulations in place to protect Nassau grouper.

Photo Credit: NMFS

The Nassau grouper was listed as threatened under the ESA in 2016. Data are scarce on historical Nassau 

grouper numbers. Currently, Nassau grouper are occasionally reported during underwater reef surveys at 

low density. Based on the size and number of current spawning aggregations, the Nassau grouper 

population appears to be just a fraction of its historical size (NMFS, No Date-a).

Figure 3.7-5. Nassau Grouper
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

285

Nassau grouper are ambush predators that are not selective with their prey. Adults eat only fish, while 

juveniles eat a variety of fish and invertebrates (e.g., shrimp and crabs). They take advantage of lower 

light levels at dawn and dusk, combined with the higher number of prey during changeover between 

diurnal and nocturnal fishes (NMFS, No Date-a). 

Nassau grouper are found in tropical and subtropical waters of the western North Atlantic. This includes 

Bermuda, Florida, Bahamas, the Yucatan Peninsula, and throughout the Caribbean to southern Brazil. 

They generally live among shallow reefs, but can be found in depths to 130 m (426 ft) (NMFS, No Date-a).

The Nassau grouper is considered a reef fish, but it transitions in habitat and diet as it grows. As larvae,

they eat plankton. As juveniles, they are found in nearshore shallow waters in seagrass habitats. They shift 

deeper as they grow to predominantly reef habitat.

Water clarity, habitat, and benthos are important to determining the distribution of Nassau grouper 

(NMFS, No Date-a). Their depth range may be influenced more by the availability of suitable habitat than 

by food resources since their diet is highly varied and has more to do with body size than of water depth. 

Nassau grouper tend to spend a lot of time in one spot, often on high-relief coral reefs or rocks in clear 

water. Larger fish tend to occupy deeper reef areas with greater vertical relief. Both adults and juveniles 

use either natural or artificial reefs. 

Nassau grouper spawn in aggregations, gathering in hundreds, thousands, or tens of thousands. The

aggregations form from November through February around the full moon when water temperatures are 

around 26°C (79°F) (NMFS, No Date-a). The timing and synchronization of spawning may be to 

accommodate widely dispersed adults, facilitate egg dispersal, or reduce predation on adults or eggs. As 

spawning time approaches, adults move from the reefs where they live to specific spawning areas. Some 

of them travel only a few kilometers/miles; others are known to travel up to several hundred kilometers 

to the aggregation sites. Sites have been found near the edges of reefs as little as 46 m (150 ft) from the 

shore and near drop-offs into deeper water across a wide range of depths (6-60 m [20-200 ft]) and 

environments (including soft corals, sponges, stony coral outcrops, and sandy depressions).

3.7.1.4.2 Tidewater Goby

The tidewater goby, endemic to California, is a small fish rarely more than 2 inches in length. It was listed 

as threatened under the ESA in 1994, and critical habitat was designated in 2000. Populations of the 

tidewater goby are described as being discontinuously distributed along most of the California coast. 

Tidewater gobies are found spread across their original range; however, within that range, 17 percent of 

the populations have been extirpated, and 41-52 percent of the populations are so small and degraded 

that their long-term survival appears uncertain (EPA, 2010). Gaps in distribution along the coast may be 

natural due to steep coastlines, or due to the extirpation of populations. Because the tidewater goby is 

adapted to a narrow range of salinity tolerance, the marine environment limits genetic exchange between 

populations and recolonization of habitat following extirpations.

The tidewater goby is threatened by modification and loss of habitat as a result of coastal development, 

channelization of habitat, diversions of water flows, groundwater overdrafting, and alteration of water 

flows(USFWS, 2005). Potential threats to the tidewater goby include discharge of agricultural and sewage 

effluents, increased sedimentation due to cattle grazing and feral pig activity, summer breaching of 

lagoons, upstream alteration of sediment flows into the lagoon areas, introduction of exotic gobies (e.g., 

yellowfin goby [Acanthogobius flavimanus] and shimofuri goby [Tridentiger bifasciatus]) and rainwater 

killifish (Lucina parva), habitat damage, and watercourse contamination resulting from vehicular activity 

in the vicinity of lagoons.
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

286

Tidewater gobies are nearly unique among Pacific coast fish in that they inhabit the fresh-saltwater 

interface where salinity is less than 10 to 12 parts per thousand. This occurs both at the upper edge of 

tidal bays (such as Tomales, Bolinas, and San Francisco Bays) near the entrance of freshwater tributaries 

and in coastal lagoons formed at the mouths of coastal rivers, streams, and seasonally wet canyons (EPA, 

2010). These habitats provide the relatively shallow and still, but not stagnant, water that tidewater 

gobies prefer. Seasonal variation such as spring floods can scour lagoons, breaching the sandbar barriers 

established during the previous season, and flushing tidewater gobies into an unfavorable marine 

environment. The deeper, backwater habitats offer safe harbor for tidewater gobies during the spring 

floods. Half-grown and adult tidewater gobies may migrate upstream from the estuaries into tributaries, 

a distance of 0.8 km (0.5 mi) to 5-8 km (3-5 mi) (EPA, 2010). 

Upstream locations appear to be used for reproduction, which can occur year-round, peaking in April-May 

after the lagoons close to the ocean, and again later in summer. Males dig burrows in clean, coarse sand. 

Females compete with one another for access to these burrows, where they deposit a clutch of eggs. The 

male goby then remains in the burrow with the eggs until they hatch 9-11 days later (EPA, 2010). For a 

couple of days, the young hang out in midwater, before becoming benthic (settling to the bottom to live 

and feed). Tidewater gobies prey on chironomid midge larvae, mysid shrimp, ostracods, and amphipods. 

In turn, they are prey for young steelhead, staghorn sculpin, tule, and Sacramento perch, nonnative fish 

such as bass and shimofuri gobies, and many birds such as egrets, herons, mergansers, grebes, and loons

(EPA, 2010).

Critical habitat includes stream channels and their associated wetlands, flood plains, and estuaries along 

the California coast (USFWS, 2005). These habitat areas provide for the primary biological needs of 

foraging, sheltering, reproduction, and dispersal, which are essential for the conservation of the tidewater 

goby.

3.7.1.4.3 Atlantic Salmon (Gulf of Maine Distinct Population Segment)

The anadromous Atlantic salmon (Figure 3.7-6) are vulnerable to many stressors and threats, including 

blocked access to spawning grounds, habitat degradation caused by dams and culverts, and poor marine 

survival (NMFS, No Date-a). They are considered an indicator species: when a river ecosystem is clean and 

well-connected, its salmon population is typically healthy and robust; when a river ecosystem is not clean 

or well-connected, its salmon population will usually decline. Atlantic salmon in the U.S. were once native 

to almost every coastal river northeast of the Hudson River in New York. Commercial fishing reduced their 

population size until the fisheries closed in 1948. Commercial and recreational fishing for wild sea run 

Atlantic salmon is still prohibited in the U.S.

Currently, the last wild populations of U.S. Atlantic salmon are found in at least eight rivers in Maine. 

These populations comprise the Gulf of Maine DPS which waslisted as endangered under the ESA in 2009. 

This DPS includes all naturally reproducing wild populations and those river-specific hatchery populations 

of Atlantic salmon that have historical, river-specific characteristics. These populations are found north of 

and including tributaries of the lower Kennebec River to, but not including, the mouth of the St. Croix 

River at the U.S.-Canada border. Critical habitat was also designated for the Gulf of Maine DPS in 2009. 

Worldwide, Atlantic salmon populations in single rivers range from thousands to nearly a quarter million;

however, some populations are small, numbering in the low hundreds or even single individuals (NMFS, 

No Date-a).
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

287

Photo Credit: Design Pics Inc.

Adult Atlantic salmon can migrate several times to spawn, though repeat spawners are becoming 

increasingly rare (NMFS, No Date-a). They travel long distances from the mouths of rivers to the Atlantic 

Ocean before returning to their natal rivers. For example, U.S. salmon leave Maine rivers in the spring and 

reach the seas off Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada, by mid-summer. They spend their first winter at 

sea south of Greenland and their second growing season at sea off the coast west of Greenland and 

sometimes east of Greenland. Maturing fish travel back to their native rivers in Maine to spawn after 1 to 

3 years. The diet of Atlantic salmon depends on their age. Young salmon eat insects, invertebrates, and 

plankton. The preferred diet of adult salmon is capelin, which are elongated silvery baitfish.

There are three groups of Atlantic salmon: North American, European, and Baltic (NMFS, No Date-a). 

These groups are found in the waters of North America, Iceland, Greenland, Europe, and Russia. Atlantic 

salmon spawn in the coastal rivers of northeastern North America, Iceland, Europe, and northwestern 

Russia. After spawning, they migrate through various portions of the North Atlantic Ocean. European and 

North American populations of Atlantic salmon intermix while living in the ocean, where they share 

summer feeding grounds off Greenland. The North American group historically ranged from northern 

Quebec to Newfoundland and to Long Island Sound. This group includes Canadian populations and U.S. 

populations.

Designated critical habitat comprises 45 specific areas in Maine occupied by Atlantic salmon at the time 

of listing with approximately 19,571 km (12,161 mi) of perennial river, stream, and estuary habitat and 

799 km2 (308 mi2

) of lake habitat within the range of the Gulf of Maine DPS and in which are found those 

physical and biological features essential to the conservation of the species (74 FR 39903, August 10, 

2009). The critical habitat is defined by seven habitat features essential to spawning and rearing and six 

habitat features essential to migration.

3.7.1.4.4 Pacific Salmon

Pacific salmon are anadromous, with a life cycle occurring in a chain of connected environments as the

salmon travel through freshwater streams, estuaries, nearshore areas, and the ocean. Each of these 

habitats provides crucial elements for the salmon’s survival as they cycle through incubation, emergence, 

freshwater rearing, estuary transition, ocean residence, migration, and spawning. Pacific salmon are also 

semelparous, meaning that they die after spawning only once. Their total energies are devoted to 

producing the next generation, and their bodies help enrich the stream for that generation and other 

wildlife species (NMFS, 2007a).

Figure 3.7-6. Atlantic Salmon
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

288

Salmonid species’ homing propensity (their tendency to return to the locations where they originated) 

creates unique patterns of genetic variation and connectivity among spawning areas across the landscape. 

Diverse genetic, life history, and morphological characteristics have evolved in salmon over generations, 

creating runs adapted to diverse environments. Two criteria define an ESU of salmon: (1) it must be 

substantially reproductively isolated from other conspecific units, and (2) it must represent an important 

component of the evolutionary legacy of the species. An ESU can contain multiple populations that are 

connected by some degree of migration, and hence may have a broad geographic range across 

watersheds, river basins, and political jurisdictions (NMFS, 2013).

For salmon, and other anadromous fish, the essential features of designated critical habitat include 

substrate, water quality, water quantity, water temperature, food, riparian vegetation, access, water, 

velocity, space, and safe passage. These features also describe the habitat factors associated with viability 

for all ESUs (NMFS, 2009). Designated critical habitats for Pacific salmon comprise the specific areas, or 

portions of the areas, where the runs are located.

3.7.1.4.5 Chinook Salmon (California Coastal Evolutionarily Significant Unit, Central Valley 

Spring-run Evolutionarily Significant Unit, Lower Columbia River Evolutionarily 

Significant Unit, Puget Sound Evolutionarily Significant Unit, Sacramento River 

Winter-run Evolutionarily Significant Unit, Snake River Fall-run Evolutionarily 

Significant Unit, Snake River Spring/Summer-run Evolutionarily Significant Unit, 

Upper Columbia River Spring-run Evolutionarily Significant Unit, Upper Willamette 

River Evolutionarily Significant Unit)

Chinook are the largest of the Pacific salmon species with adults usually exceeding 0.45 kg (40 lbs), and 

often over 45 kg (100 lbs). Chinook salmon are often referred to as king salmon. They generally spawn 

between September and January. Wild Chinook salmon populations have been, and continue to be, 

threatened by a legacy of habitat degradation, hydropower impacts, harvest, and hatchery production 

(NMFS, 2013). Each listed ESU of Chinook salmon is briefly described below.

The California Coastal ESU was listed as threatened under the ESA in 1999, and critical habitat was 

designated in 2005. This ESU extends from Redwood Creek (Humboldt County, California) south to the 

Russian River (Sonoma County, California) (NMFS, 2016b). The ESU was historically composed of 38 

populations (32 fall run and six spring run); all six of the spring-run populations in the ESU are now 

considered extinct. Chinook salmon have declined substantially in coastal populations of central and 

northern California over the past 70 years, and all life stages of Chinook salmon are impaired by degraded 

habitat conditions. These impairments are due to a lack of complexity and shelter formed by instream 

wood, high sediment loads, lack of refugia during winter, low summer flows, reduced quality and extent 

of coastal estuaries and lagoons, and reduced access to historic spawning and rearing habitat. The major 

sources of these impairments are roads, water diversions and impoundments, logging, residential and 

commercial development, severe weather patterns, and channel modification. In 1965, the estimated

adult population for this ESU was over 76,000 (NMFS, 2016b). The most current available data indicate 

ESU and population-level abundances are now considerably lower; but in the Russian River, adult returns 

have apparently improved in recent years.

The Central Valley Spring-run ESU was listed as threatened under the ESA in 1999, and critical habitat was 

designated in 2005. This ESU includes naturally spawned spring-run Chinook salmon originating from the 

Sacramento River in California and its tributaries, and also spring-run Chinook salmon from the Feather 

River Hatchery Spring-run Chinook Program (NMFS, 2014a). Historically, spring-run Chinook salmon 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

289

occurred in the headwaters of all major river systems in the California Central Valley where natural 

barriers to migration were absent. The Central Valley as a whole is estimated to have supported springrun Chinook salmon runs as large as 600,000 fish between the late 1880s and 1940s. Beginning in the 

1880s, harvest, water development, construction of dams that prevented access to headwater areas, and 

habitat degradation significantly reduced the number and range of spring-run Chinook salmon. From 1970 

through 2012, Central Valley spring-run Chinook salmon annual run size estimates fluctuated from highs 

near 30,000 to lows near 3,000 (NMFS, 2014a).

The Lower Columbia River ESU was listed as threatened under the ESA in 1999, and critical habitat was 

designated in 2005. This ESU includes all naturally spawned populations of Chinook salmon from the 

Columbia River and its tributaries from the river’s mouth at the Pacific Ocean upstream to and including 

the Hood River in Oregon and the White Salmon River in Washington, including the Willamette River to 

Willamette Falls, Oregon, but excluding spring run Chinook salmon in the Clackamas River (NMFS, 2013). 

It also includes Chinook salmon from 17 artificial propagation programs. Lower Columbia River Chinook 

salmon are classified as spring, fall, or late fall based on when adults return to fresh water. Other life 

history differences among run types include the timing of spawning, incubation, emergence in fresh 

water, migration to the ocean, maturation, and return to fresh water. This life history diversity allows 

different runs of Chinook salmon to use streams as small as 3 m (10 ft) wide and rivers as large as the 

mainstem Columbia River. Depending on run type, Chinook rear for a few months to a year or more in 

freshwater streams, rivers, or the estuary before migrating to the ocean in spring, summer, or fall. All runs 

migrate far into the North Pacific on a multi-year journey along the continental shelf to Alaska before 

circling back to their river of origin. Out of the 32 populations that make up this ESU, only the two late-fall 

runs, the North Fork Lewis and Sandy, are considered viable. Most populations (26 out of 32) have a very 

low probability of persistence over the next 100 years, and some have been extirpated or nearly so (NMFS, 

2013).

The Puget Sound ESU was listed as threatened under the ESA in 1999; critical habitat was designated in 

2005. This ESU includes the Nooksack River in the north to southern Puget Sound, including the Hood 

Canal, and extends westerly out the Strait of Juan de Fuca to the Elwha River in Washington (NMFS, 

2007a). The Skagit River and its tributaries constitute what was historically the predominant system in 

Puget Sound containing naturally spawning populations. Although 22 populations of Chinook salmon have 

been identified in Puget Sound, historically it is believed that there may have been 30-37 populations or 

spawning aggregations. Threats to the ESU include access to important spawning and rearing areas

eliminated as a result of dams, culverts and other barriers, and fragmented, modified, and lost habitat. 

Chinook populations in the Nooksack, Lake Washington, mid-Hood Canal, Puyallup, and Dungeness basins 

have recently had returns of less than 200 adult fish annually. Only two populations, the Upper Skagit and 

Green/Duwamish have had annual average returns in excess of 10,000 adult Chinook (NMFS, 2007a).

The Sacramento River Winter-run ESU was first listed as threatened under the ESA in 1989 and reclassified 

as endangered in 1994; critical habitat was designated in 1993. This ESU includes winter-run Chinook 

salmon spawning naturally in the Sacramento River and its tributaries in California, as well as winter-run 

Chinook salmon that are part of the conservation hatchery program at the Livingston Stone National Fish 

Hatchery (NFH) (NMFS, 2014a). Winter-run Chinook salmon are unique because they spawn during 

summer months when air temperatures usually approach their yearly maximum. A major factor affecting 

Chinook salmon in the Central Valley was hydraulic gold mining, which began in the 1850s. By 1859, an 

estimated 8,000 km (5,000 mi) of mining flumes and canals diverted streams used by salmonids for 

spawning and nursery habitat, and an estimated 1.5 billion cubic yards of debris was sluiced into the 

streams and rivers of the Central Valley. Additionally, one of the main threats to the Sacramento River 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

290

winter-run Chinook salmon ESU is that it consists of only one small population. This population declined 

from nearly 100,000 spawners in the late 1960s to fewer than 200 in the early 1990s. In 2017, the 

population estimate was an average of 1,155 returning winter-run Chinook salmon (CDFW, 2018). 

The Snake River Fall-run ESU was listed as threatened under the ESA in 1992; critical habitat was 

designated in 1993. This ESU includes all natural-origin fall-run Chinook salmon from the mainstem Snake 

River below Hells Canyon Dam (the lowest of three impassable dams that form the Hells Canyon Complex) 

and from the Tucannon River, Grande Ronde River, Imnaha River, Salmon River, and Clearwater River 

subbasins in Idaho, Oregon, and Washington (NMFS, 2017a). Fall-run Chinook salmon from four artificial 

propagation programs are also considered part of the ESU: Lyons Ferry Hatchery Program, Fall Chinook 

Acclimation Ponds Program, Nez Perce Tribal Hatchery Program, and the Oxbow Hatchery Program. At 

one time approximately half a million adult fall Chinook salmon traveled 485 km (300 mi) up the Columbia

River and into the Snake River basin each year. The fish spawned throughout the 965-km (600-mi) reach 

of the mainstem Snake River from its confluence with the Columbia River upstream to Shoshone Falls, as 

well as in several major tributaries. The fall Chinook salmon run began to decline in the late 1800s and 

continued to decline through the 1900s as a result of overfishing and other human activities including the 

construction of major dams on the mainstem Snake River and tributaries that barred fish accessto primary 

spawning and rearing habitats. By the late 1980s, average runs of natural-origin fall Chinook salmon to 

the Snake River had dropped to approximately 100 adults annually. Only about 78 natural-origin adult fish 

returned to spawn in 1990. The abundance for the 10 years of annual spawner estimates from 2005-2014 

is approximately 6,400 adult fish (NMFS, 2017a). 

The Snake River Spring/Summer-run ESU was listed as threatened under the ESA in 1992, and critical 

habitat was designated in 1993. This ESU includes all naturally spawned spring/summer Chinook salmon 

originating from the mainstem Snake River and the Tucannon River, Grande Ronde River, Imnaha River, 

and Salmon River subbasins, as well as spring/summer Chinook salmon from 11 hatchery programs in 

Idaho, Oregon, and Washington (NMFS, 2017b). Spring/summer-run Chinook salmon from the Snake River 

basin represent two of four different seasonal (i.e., spring, summer, fall, or winter) runs in the Chinook 

salmon migration from the ocean to fresh water. These runs reflect the timing of when adult Chinook 

salmon enter fresh water to begin their spawning migration. Historically, the Snake River was the

Columbia River basin’s most productive drainage for salmon, supporting more than 40 percent of all 

Columbia River spring and summer Chinook salmon. Rates of harvest on the runs soared in the late 1800s 

and early 1900s, but deterioration of habitat conditions due to logging, mining, grazing, farming, 

hydropower development, and other practicesled to declines and, along with migration barriers, continue 

to threaten the ESU salmon. While the historical run in the Snake River likely exceeded 1 million fish 

annually in the late 1800s, the run declined to near 100,000 adults per year by the 1950s, reaching a low 

of 2,200 fish in 1995 (NMFS, 2017b). 

The Upper Columbia River Spring-run ESU was listed as endangered under the ESA in 2005, and critical 

habitat was also designated in 2005. This ESU includes naturally spawned spring-run Chinook salmon 

originating from Columbia River tributaries upstream of the Rock Island Dam and downstream of Chief 

Joseph Dam (excluding the Okanogan River subbasin), as well as spring-run Chinook salmon from six 

artificial propagation programs in Washington (NMFS, 2007b). The ESU includes three extant populations 

(Wenatchee, Entiat, and Methow), as well as one extinct population in the Okanogan subbasin. 

Populations of spring Chinook within the Upper Columbia River Basin were first affected by the intensive 

commercial fisheries in the lower Columbia River in the latter half of the 1800s and into the 1900s. Human 

population growth within the basin was increasing and land uses and the construction of dams and 

diversions, some without passage, blocked salmon migrations, isolated or fragmented populations, and 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

291

killed upstream and downstream migrating fish. At that time of listing, fish counts were declining severely,

and the individual 31 populations within the ESU were small, with none averaging more than 150 adults 

annually. Trends were mostly downward and a few local populations exhibited rates of decline exceeding 

20 percent per year. Since 2000, adult spring Chinook numbers have increased in the Upper Columbia 

Basin (NMFS, 2007b).

The Upper Willamette River ESU was listed as endangered under the ESA in 2005, and critical habitat was 

also designated in 2005. This ESU includes naturally spawned spring-run Chinook salmon originating from 

the Clackamas River and from the Willamette River and its tributaries above Willamette Falls, as well as 

spring-run Chinook salmon from six artificial propagation programs in Oregon (NMFS, 2011). Of the seven 

populations that historically comprised this ESU, the subbasins supporting these populations are 

tributaries within the Willamette River basin, but current significant natural production occurs in only the 

Clackamas and McKenzie populations. Flood control/hydropower development has blocked or impaired 

fish passage for adults and juveniles, caused loss of some riverine habitat and associated functional 

connectivity due to reservoirs, reduced in instream flow volume due to water withdrawals, altered 

physical habitat structure, and altered water temperature and flow regimes. The ESU is considered to be 

extremely depressed, likely numbering less than 10,000 adult fish annually compared to a historical 

abundance estimate of 300,000 (NMFS, 2011). 

3.7.1.4.6 Chum Salmon (Columbia River Evolutionarily Significant Unit and Hood Canal 

Summer-run Evolutionarily Significant Unit)

Chum salmon are second only to Chinook salmon in adult size, with individuals reported up to 43 inches 

in length and 21 kg (46 lbs) in weight (with an average around 4 to 7 kg (8 to 15 lbs) (NMFS, 2007a). Chum 

salmon are often referred to as dog salmon. Chum salmon spend more of their life history in marine 

waters than any other Pacific salmonid species. Also, unlike other salmon species, chum salmon form 

schools. Threats include widespread loss of estuary and lower floodplain habitat, negative interactions

with hatchery fish, and high predation by marine mammals (NMFS, 2007a). The Columbia River and Hood 

Canal summer-run ESUs were listed as threatened under the ESA in 1999. Critical habitat for both chum 

salmon ESUs was designated in 2005. 

The Columbia River ESU includes all naturally spawned populations of chum salmon in the Columbia River 

and its tributaries in Oregon and Washington and chum salmon from three artificial propagation 

programs. Columbia River chum salmon once were widely distributed throughout the lower Columbia 

Basin and spawned in the mainstem Columbia and the lower reaches of most lower Columbia River 

tributaries. Historically, spawning occurred as far upstream as the Umatilla and Walla Walla rivers, but it 

now is restricted largely to tributary and mainstem areas downstream of Bonneville (NMFS, 2013). 

Although chum salmon are strong swimmers, they rarely pass river blockages and waterfalls that pose no 

hindrance to other salmon; thus, they spawn in low-gradient, low-elevation reaches and side channels. 

Adult chum salmon returning to the Columbia River at the present time are virtually all fall-run fish, 

entering fresh water from mid-October through November and spawning from early November to late 

December. Over the last century, Columbia River chum salmon returns have collapsed from hundreds of 

thousands to just a few thousand per year. Of the 17 populations that historically made up this ESU, 15 of 

them (six in Oregon and nine in Washington) are so depleted that either their baseline probability of 

persistence is very low or they are extirpated or nearly so. Currently, almost all natural production occurs 

in just two populations: the Grays/Chinook and the Lower Gorge (NMFS, 2013). 

The Hood Canal summer-run ESU includes all naturally spawned populations of summer-run chum salmon 

in tributaries to the Hood Canal and in Discovery Bay, Sequim Bay, and the Dungeness River on the Strait 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

292

of Juan de Fuca in Washington (NMFS, 2007a). Sixteen historic populations comprise the Hood Canal 

summer-run chum ESU, of which eight currently have existing runs. Threats to the ESU include access to 

important spawning and rearing areas eliminated as a result of dams, culverts, and other barriers, and 

fragmented, modified, and loss of habitat. Hood Canal and Strait of Juan de Fuca summer chum 

experienced a severe drop in abundance in the 1980s, and returns decreased to all-time lows in 1989 and 

1990 with less than a thousand spawners each year. Population estimates of summer chum in Hood Canal 

and Strait of Juan de Fuca streams ranges from a low of 10 spawners in Jimmycomelately Creek to just 

over 4,500 in the Big/Little Quilcene River (NMFS, 2007a).

3.7.1.4.7 Coho Salmon (Central California Coast Evolutionarily Significant Unit, Lower 

Columbia River Evolutionarily Significant Unit, Oregon Coast Evolutionarily 

Significant Unit, Southern Oregon/Northern California Coast Evolutionarily 

Significant Unit)

Coho salmon (Figure 3.7-7) are often referred to as silver salmon. The anadromous life cycle for coho 

salmon begins in their home stream, normally a small tributary with moderate to low gradient stream 

reaches. After emerging from the gravel, the small fish seek cool, slow moving stream reaches with quiet 

areas such as backwater pools, beaver ponds, and side channels. Juveniles generally spend one summer 

and a winter in these rearing areas before migrating towards the ocean as smolts in the spring, typically 

from late April until early June (NMFS, 2016c). Most adult coho salmon return to natal tributaries from 

September to November as 3-year-old fish, after spending two summers in the ocean. Coho salmon have 

been, and continue to be, threatened by habitat degradation, hydropower impacts including water 

diversions, harvest, and hatchery production.

Photo Credit: NMFS

The Central California Coast ESU was listed as threatened under the ESA in 1996, and critical habitat was 

designated in 1999. This ESU occurs on California’s central coast which extends from Punta Gorda in 

southern coastal Humboldt County south to Aptos Creek in Santa Cruz County and includes the San 

Francisco Bay estuary and its tributaries (except for the Sacramento-San Joaquin Rivers) where coho 

salmon historically occurred, but are now extirpated (NMFS, 2012). The low survival of juveniles in fresh

water, in combination with poor ocean conditions, has led to the precipitous declines of populations in 

this ESU. Human population growth and land use changes threaten California’s salmon habitats. Many

streams lack sufficient water or habitat complexity, and are dammed, channelized, or polluted, making it 

more difficult for salmonids to survive. Other factors such as ocean harvest, bycatch, and hatchery 

Figure 3.7-7. Coho Salmon
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

293

practices have also had adverse impacts to salmonid survival. The abundance of the Central California 

Coast ESU was estimated at 200,000 to 500,000 in 1940 but at 2,000 to 3,000 wild adults in 2011 (NMFS, 

2012). 

The Lower Columbia River ESU was listed as threatened under the ESA in 1999, and critical habitat was 

designated in 2016. This ESU includes all naturally spawned populations of coho salmon in the lower 

Columbia River and its tributaries, from the mouth of the Columbia upstream to and including the Hood 

River (in Oregon) and the White Salmon River (in Washington), and including the Willamette River up to 

Willamette Falls (NMFS, 2013). It also includes Coho salmon from 25 artificial propagation programs. 

Lower Columbia River coho salmon are typically categorized into early- and late-returning stocks. Earlyreturning adult coho salmon enter the Columbia River in mid-August and begin entering tributaries in 

early September, with peak spawning from mid-October to early November. Late-returning coho salmon 

pass through the lower Columbia from late September through December and enter tributaries from 

October through January. Most spawning occurs from November to January, but some occurs as late as 

March. Out of the 24 populations that make up this ESU, 21 are considered to have a very low probability 

of persisting for the next 100 years, and none is considered viable (NMFS, 2013). 

The Oregon Coast ESU was listed as threatened under the ESA in 1998, and critical habitat was designated 

in 2008. This ESU includes the Pacific Ocean and the freshwater and estuarine habitat (rivers, streams,

and lakes) along the Oregon Coast from the Necanicum River on the north to the Sixes River on the south 

(NMFS, 2016c). Rivers in the ESU flow from the mountains of the Coast Range, with the exception of the 

Umpqua River, which extends east through the Coast Range to drain the Cascade Mountains. Most of the 

rivers transition to estuaries before reaching the Pacific Ocean. In 1850, coho salmon were far more 

abundant than Chinook salmon in the majority of Oregon coastal watersheds. Runs of coho salmon to

these coastal rivers and streams were likely only approached, or exceeded, by runs of chum salmon in 

rivers along the northern portion of the Oregon coast. Pre-development coho salmon runs to the Oregon 

Coast may have been in the range of 1 to 2 million fish or more during periods of favorable ocean 

conditions. Oregon Coast coho salmon were the most numerous species harvested in commercial and 

recreational fisheries off the Oregon coast during the 1950s and through the 1970s. All-time low returns 

occurred in the 1970s and 1990s – around 20,000 coho salmon spawners annually – which could be as 

low as one percent of some of the predevelopment run sizes. Since the mid-1990s, Oregon Coast coho 

spawner abundance levels have varied greatly (NMFS, 2016c).

The Southern Oregon/Northern California Coast ESU was listed as threatened under the ESA in 1997, and 

critical habitat was designated in 1999. This ESU includes all naturally spawned populations of coho 

salmon in coastal streams between Cape Blanco, Oregon and Punta Gorda, California, as well as coho 

salmon produced by three artificial propagation programs: Cole Rivers Hatchery, Trinity River Hatchery, 

and Iron Gate Hatchery (NMFS, 2014b). Currently, over three quarters of the coho salmon in 40 

populations of this ESU are at high risk due to the combined effects of fish harvest, hatcheries, 

hydropower operations, and habitat alterations caused by land management that led to declines in these 

populations. The Rogue River is the only river in the ESU with data on coho abundance from the 1800s. 

Based on extrapolations from cannery pack data, up to 114,000 adult coho salmon returned to the Rogue 

River in the late 1800s even after heavy fishing pressure had occurred for years. The estimated number 

of adult coho salmon spawners that returned to the Rogue River from 1980 to 2010 ranged from less than 

1,000 per year up to 25,000 per year (NMFS, 2014b).
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

294

3.7.1.4.8 Sockeye Salmon (Ozette Lake Evolutionarily Significant Unit, Snake River 

Evolutionarily Significant Unit)

Sockeye salmon are the second most abundant of the seven Pacific salmon species (NMFS, 2015b).

Sockeye salmon are often referred to as red salmon. Sockeye salmon are generally anadromous, but 

distinct populations of non-anadromous sockeye also exist; these fish are commonly referred to as 

kokanee or silver trout. The vast majority of sockeye salmon populations spawn in or near lakes. Spawning 

can take place in lake tributaries, lake outlets, rivers between lakes, and on lake shorelines or beaches 

where suitable upwelling or intra-gravel flow is present. Spawn timing is often determined by water

temperature. In spawning habitats with cooler water temperatures, sockeye salmon typically spawn 

earlier (August) than in warmer habitats (November). In North America, sockeye salmon spawn from the 

Columbia River north to the Noatak River in Alaska (NMFS, 2015b).

The Ozette Lake ESU was listed as threatened under the ESA in 1999, and critical habitat was designated 

in 2005. The listing was primarily attributed to concerns over abundance and effects of small population 

genetic and demographic variability. Ozette Lake ESU sockeye spawn in Ozette Lake or its tributaries on 

the Olympic Peninsula at the western edge of Washington State (NMFS, 2009). The lake, its perimeter 

shore, and most of the Ozette River, which forms the outlet of the lake to estuary and Pacific Ocean, are 

included in the 373,120-hectare (ha) (922,000-acre [ac]) Olympic National Park. The Ozette Lake ESU is 

made up of only one population, which currently contains five distinct spawning aggregations or 

subpopulations. The subpopulations can be grouped according to whether they spawn in tributaries 

(Umbrella Creek, Big River, and Crooked Creek) or near lake beaches (Olsen‘s Beach and Allen‘s Beach).

Overall abundance of the Ozette Lake ESU is low, and degraded habitat conditions represent a limiting 

factor for this ESU. Between 1996 and 1999, the Ozette Lake ESU run size averaged 2,590 sockeye 

annually, while from 2000 to 2003 the run size averaged just over 4,600 sockeye. Within these two 4-year 

cycles, the average return increased by approximately 78 percent between the first and second period 

(NMFS, 2009).

The Snake River ESU was listed as endangered under the ESA in 1999, and critical habitat was designated 

in 1993. The last remaining Snake River sockeye salmon spawn in Sawtooth Valley lakes, high in the 

Salmon River drainage of central Idaho in the Snake River basin. While very few sockeye salmon there 

currently follow an anadromous life cycle, the small remnant run of the historical population migrates 

1,450 km (900 mi) downstream from the Sawtooth Valley through the Salmon, Snake and Columbia Rivers 

to the ocean. After one to three years in the ocean, they return to the Sawtooth Valley as adults, passing 

once again through these mainstem rivers and through eight major federal dams, four on the Columbia 

River and four on the lower Snake River (NMFS, 2015b). Before the turn of the twentieth century, large

runs of sockeye salmon returned annually to the Snake River basin. When Snake River ESU sockeye salmon

were ESA-listed in 1991, all of the Snake River populations but one, the Redfish Lake population in the 

Sawtooth Valley, were gone, and that population had dwindled to fewer than 10 fish per year. Between 

1999 and 2007, more than 355 adult Snake River sockeye salmon from captive broodstock releases 

returned to Redfish Lake from the ocean. These returns increased to 1,579 by 2014 (NMFS, 2015b).

Threats still include overfishing, irrigation diversions, obstacles to migrating fish, and eradication through 

poisoning.

3.7.1.4.9 Steelhead

Steelhead trout (Figure 3.7-8) are a unique species in that individuals develop differently depending on 

their environment. They are closely related to Pacific salmon (i.e., in the same genus taxonomically). All 

steelhead trout hatch in gravel-bottomed, fast-flowing, well-oxygenated rivers and streams. Some stay in 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

295

fresh water all their lives and are called rainbow trout (NMFS, No Date-a). Steelhead that migrate to the 

ocean typically grow larger than the ones that stay in fresh water; they then return to fresh water to 

spawn. Steelhead are vulnerable to many stressors and threats including blocked access to spawning 

grounds, habitat degradation caused by dams and culverts, loss of freshwater and estuarine habitat, and 

periodic poor ocean conditions.

Photo Credit: NMFS

Steelhead was listed under the ESA between 1998 and 2007, with one DPS listed as endangered and 10 

DPS listed as threatened (see Table 3.7-1). Additionally, the Middle Columbia River non-essential 

experimental population is listed as threatened, the Northern California Summer Population is an ESA

candidate, and the Klamath Mountains Province steelhead is under ESA review. All the listed steelhead 

populations have associated designated habitat. The following describes the final steelhead species 

determinations (71 FR 834, January 5, 2006), abundance, and critical habitat designations (70 FR 52488, 

September 2, 2005 and 70 FR 52630, September 2, 2005):

The Southern California DPS is the only DPS listed as endangered and includes all naturally spawned 

populations of steelhead in streams from the Santa Maria River south to the U.S. border with Mexico. The 

historical steelhead run for four of the major river systems within the range of this DPS is estimated to 

have been between 32,000 and 46,000 adults. Recent run size for the same four systems has been 

estimated to be fewer than 500 total adults. Of 65 river drainages where steelhead are known to have 

occurred historically, between 26 and 52 percent are still occupied. Approximately 1,132 km (708 mi) of 

stream habitat are designated as critical habitat within the geographical area presently occupied by the 

Southern California DPS.

The South-Central California Coast DPS includes all naturally spawned populations of steelhead in streams 

from the Pajaro River to, but not including, the Santa Maria River. There is a paucity of abundance 

information for this DPS. In general, these river systems are much degraded and are expected to have 

steelhead runs reduced in size from historical levels. Steelhead is present in approximately 86 to 95 

percent of historically occupied streams. Approximately 2,000 km (1,249 mi) of stream habitat and 8 km2

(3 mi2) of estuarine habitat are designated as critical habitat within the geographical area presently 

occupied by the South-Central California Coast DPS.

The Central California Coast DPS includes all naturally spawned populations of steelhead in coastal 

streams from the Russian River to Aptos Creek, and the drainages of San Francisco, San Pablo, and Suisun 

Figure 3.7-8. Steelhead
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

296

Bays eastward to Chipps Island at the confluence of the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers; and tributary 

streams to Suisun Marsh exclusive of the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Basin of the California Central 

Valley. Two artificial propagation programs are also considered to be part of the DPS: the Don Clausen 

Fish Hatchery and Kingfisher Flat Hatchery/Scott Creek (Monterey Bay Salmon and Trout Project) 

steelhead hatchery. There are no population abundance data for the naturally spawning component of 

this DPS. The naturally spawning population in the largest river system in the DPS, the Russian River, is 

believed to have declined seven-fold since the mid-1960s. Steelhead are present in approximately 82 

percent of historically occupied streams. Approximately 2,344 km (1,465 mi) of stream habitat and 386 

mi2 (996 km2

) of estuarine habitat are designated as critical habitat within the geographical area presently 

occupied by the Central California Coast DPS.

The California Central Valley DPS includes all naturally spawned populations of steelhead in the 

Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers and their tributaries, excluding steelhead from San Francisco and San 

Pablo Bays and their tributaries. Two artificial propagation programs are considered to be part of the DPS: 

the Coleman NFH and Feather River Hatchery. It is estimated that on average during 1998–2000, 

approximately 181,000 juvenile steelhead were produced naturally each year in the Central Valley by 

approximately 3,600 spawning female steelhead. It is estimated that there were 1 to 2 million spawners 

in the Central Valley prior to 1850, and approximately 40,000 spawners in the 1960s. Although steelhead 

remain widely distributed in Sacramento River tributaries, the vast majority of historical spawning areas 

are currently above impassable dams. Approximately 3,693 km (2,308 mi) of stream habitat and 254 mi2

(655 km2

) of estuarine habitat are designated as critical habitat within the geographical area presently 

occupied by the California Central Valley DPS.

The Northern California DPS includes all naturally spawned populations of steelhead in coastal river basins 

from Redwood Creek southward to, but not including, the Russian River. Two artificial propagation 

programs are considered part of the DPS: the Yager Creek Hatchery and North Fork Gualala River 

Hatchery. Abundance levels range from three to 418 adults, and exhibit downward short- and long-term 

trends. Despite low abundance and downward trends, steelhead appear to be still widely distributed 

throughout this DPS. Approximately 4,844 km (3,028 mi) of stream habitat and 65 km2 (25 mi2

) of 

estuarine habitat are designated as critical habitat within the geographical area presently occupied by the 

Northern California DPS.

The Upper Willamette River DPS includes all naturally spawned populations of winter-run steelhead in the 

Willamette River, Oregon, and its tributaries upstream from Willamette Falls to the Calapooia River in 

Oregon. Abundance for this DPS is approximately 5,800 adults, and individual populations remain at low 

abundance. Long-term trends in abundance are negative for all populations in the DPS; short-term trends, 

buoyed by recent strong returns, are positive. Approximately one-third of the DPS’s historically accessible 

spawning habitat is now blocked, but the DPS continues to be spatially well distributed. Approximately 

2,054 km (1,276 mi) of stream habitat and 5.2 km2 (2 mi2

) of lake habitat are designated as critical habitat

within the geographical area presently occupied by the Upper Willamette River DPS.

The Lower Columbia River DPS includes all naturally spawned populations of steelhead in streams and 

tributaries to the Columbia River between the Cowlitz and Wind Rivers, Washington, and the Willamette 

and Hood Rivers, Oregon. Ten artificial propagation programs are considered to be part of the DPS: the 

Cowlitz Trout Hatchery (in the Cispus, Upper Cowlitz, Lower Cowlitz, and Tilton Rivers), Kalama River Wild 

(winter- and summer-run), Clackamas Hatchery, Sandy Hatchery, and Hood River (winter- and summerrun). Population abundance levels are small with no population having greater than 750 spawners

annually. Four historical populations have been extirpated or nearly extirpated, and only half of 23 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

297

historical populations currently exhibit appreciable natural production. Although approximately 35 

percent of historical habitat has been lost within the range of this DPS due to the construction of dams or 

other impassable barriers, the DPS exhibits a broad spatial distribution in a variety of watersheds and 

habitat types. Approximately 3,740 km (2,324 mi) of stream habitat and 70 km2 (27 mi2

) of lake habitat 

are designated as critical habitat within the geographical area presently occupied by the Lower Columbia 

River DPS.

The Middle Columbia River DPS includes all naturally spawned populations of steelhead in streams from 

above the Wind River, Washington, and the Hood River, Oregon, upstream to, and including, the Yakima 

River, Washington. Seven artificial propagation programs are considered part of the DPS: the Touchet 

River Endemic, Yakima River Kelt Reconditioning Program (in Satus Creek, Toppenish Creek, Naches River, 

and Upper Yakima River), Umatilla River, and the Deschutes River. The abundance of some natural 

populations in this DPS has increased substantially in recent years. Long-term trends for 11 of the 12 

production areas within the range of the DPS were negative, but short-term trends in the 12 production 

areas were mostly positive from 1990 to 2001. Steelhead remain well distributed in the majority of subbasins within the range of the DPS. Approximately 9,358 km (5,815 mi) of stream habitat are designated 

as critical habitat within the geographical area presently occupied by the Middle Columbia River DPS.

The Upper Columbia River DPS includes all naturally spawned populations of steelhead in streams in the 

Columbia River Basin upstream from the Yakima River, Washington, to the U.S.-Canada border. Six 

artificial propagation programs are considered part of the DPS: the Wenatchee River, Wells Hatchery (in 

the Methow and Okanogan Rivers), Winthrop NFH, Omak Creek, and the Ringold hatchery program. The 

1996–2001 average return through the Priest Rapids Dam fish ladder was approximately 12,900 total 

adults compared to 7,800 adults for 1992–1996, but predominantly composed of hatchery-spawners 

rather than naturally spawning fish. Approximately 2,031 km (1,262 mi) of stream habitat and 18 km2 (7 

mi2

) of lake habitat are designated as critical habitat within the geographical area presently occupied by 

the Upper Columbia River DPS.

The Snake River Basin DPS includes all naturally spawned populations of steelhead in streams in the Snake 

River Basin of southeast Washington, northeast Oregon, and Idaho. Six artificial propagation programs 

are considered part of the DPS: the Tucannon River, Dworshak NFH, Lolo Creek, North Fork Clearwater, 

East Fork Salmon River, and the Little Sheep Creek/Imnaha River Hatchery. The abundance of steelhead 

return has been generally improved, such as the return over Lower Granite Dam which was substantially

higher in 2001 (14,768 natural returns) relative to the low levels in the 1990s. The DPS remains spatially 

well distributed in each of the six major geographic areas in Snake River Basin. Approximately 12,954 km 

(8,049 mi) of stream habitat and 10 km2 (4 mi2

) of lake habitat are designated as critical habitat within the 

geographical area presently occupied by the Snake River Basin DPS.

The Puget Sound DPS includes naturally spawned populations of steelhead originating below natural and 

manmade impassable barriers from rivers flowing into Puget Sound from the Elwha River eastward, 

including rivers in Hood Canal, South Sound, North Sound and the Strait of Georgia in Washington. Six 

artificial propagation programs are considered part of the DPS: the Green River, the White River, the Hood 

Canal (in the Dewatto, Skokomish, and Duckabush Rivers), and the Lower Elwha recovery program. 

Estimates of mean population growth rates are declining, typically three to ten percent annually. 

Approximately 3,269 km (2,031 mi) of stream habitat are designated as critical habitat within the 

geographical area presently occupied by the Puget Sound DPS.
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

298

3.7.1.4.10 Bull Trout

Bull trout are native to waters in western North America. In the U.S., bull trout range widely through the 

Columbia River and Snake River basins, extending east to headwater streams in Idaho and Montana, into 

Canada and southeast Alaska, and to the Puget Sound and Olympic Peninsula watersheds of western 

Washington and the Klamath River basin of south-central Oregon (USFWS, 2015). Historically bull trout 

also occurred in the Sacramento River basin in California.

Bull trout exhibit both resident and migratory life histories. Resident forms of bull trout complete their 

entire life cycle in the tributary streams in which they spawn and rear. Migratory bull trout spawn in 

tributary streams, where juvenile fish rear for one to four years before migrating to either a lake, river, or 

in certain coastal areas, to saltwater. Bull trout typically spawn from August to November during periods 

of decreasing water temperatures. Resident and migratory forms may be found together, and either form 

may give rise to offspring exhibiting either resident or migratory behavior (USFWS, 2015).

Currently, 109 occupied bull trout core areas exist. Complex core areas contain multiple local populations; 

they are typically situated in a larger patch of habitat, often occupied by bull trout of both the migratory 

life history form and the resident form, and include a diverse pattern of connected spawning and rearing 

habitats and foraging, migratory, and overwintering habitats (USFWS, 2015). Simple core areas contain a 

single local population; typically, they are situated in a smaller patch of habitat that may not include 

foraging, migratory, and overwintering stream habitat and sometimes include only the resident life history 

form or a very simple migratory pattern.

All populations of bull trout were listed as threatened under the ESA in 1999. Of the 121 core areas in 

which bull trout populations were evaluated, 23 exhibited population trends that were declining from 

slightly to severely, 18 were stable, 14 were increasing, and 66 were unknown (USFWS, 2015). Critical 

habitat was designated in 2004 and most recently revised in 2010. The decline of bull trout is primarily 

due to habitat degradation and fragmentation, blockage of migratory corridors, poor water quality, past 

fisheries management practices, impoundments, dams, water diversions, and the introduction of 

nonnative species.

Of native salmonids in the Pacific Northwest, bull trout have the most specific habitat requirements. These 

requirements include cold water temperatures compared to other salmonids (often less than 12o

C [54oF]); 

the cleanest stream substrates; complex stream habitat including deep pools, overhanging banks and 

large woody debris; and connectivity between spawning and rearing areas and downstream foraging, 

migratory, and overwintering habitats (USFWS, 2015). Habitat components that influence bull trout 

distribution and abundance include water temperature, cover, channel form and stability, valley form, 

spawning and rearing substrate, and migratory corridors.

Bull trout are opportunistic feeders, with food habits primarily a function of size and life history strategy. 

Resident and juvenile migratory bull trout prey on terrestrial and aquatic insects, macro-zooplankton, and 

small fish. Adult migratory bull trout feed primarily on a wide variety of resident and anadromous fish 

species. In coastal areas of western Washington, bull trout feed on forage fish species such as Pacific 

herring, Pacific sand lance, and surf smelt in near shore marine areas and the ocean (USFWS, 2015).

Designated critical habitat comprises 31,751 km (19,729 mi) of streams (which includes 1,213 km [754

mi]) of marine shoreline in the Olympic Peninsula and Puget Sound), and 197,589 hectares(488,252 acres) 

of reservoirs and lakes of bull trout habitat (75 FR 63898, October 18, 2010). These areas contain 32 critical 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

299

habitat units which reflect single core areas or groups of core areas that are in close proximity 

geographically (USFWS, 2015). The PCEs (i.e., the specific elements of physical or biological features that 

provide for a species’ life-history processes and are essential to the conservation of the species) upon 

which the critical habitat areas are designated are:

1) Space for individual and population growth and for normal behavior;

2) Food, water, air, light, minerals, or other nutritional or physiological requirements;

3) Cover or shelter;

4) Sites for breeding, reproduction, or rearing (or development) of offspring; and

5) Habitats that are protected from disturbance or are representative of the historical, geographical, 

and ecological distributions of a species.

3.7.1.4.11 Eulachon (Southern Distinct Population Segment)

Eulachon are a small, anadromous fish endemic to the Pacific Ocean and are found from northern 

California to southwest and south-central Alaska. Eulachon have many other names: smelt, hooligan, 

oolichan, and candlefish. Native people continue to fish for eulachon by traditional methods for use as an 

important subsistence food and medicine. Threats to the eulachon include climate change, habitat 

degradation, habitat impediments, fisheries interaction and bycatch, and water pollution (NMFS, 2017c).

The Southern DPS of eulachon is composed of fish that spawn in rivers south of the Nass River in British 

Columbia to, and including, the Mad River in California. This DPS was listed as threatened under the ESA

in 2010, and critical habitat was designated in 2011. There are no reliable abundance estimates for 

eulachon. Spawning stock biomass estimations of eulachon in the Columbia River for the years 2000

through 2017 have ranged from a low of 783,400 fish in 2005 to a high of 185,965,200 fish in 2013, with 

an estimated 18,307,100 fish in 2017 (NMFS, 2017c). Spawning stock biomass estimations of eulachon in 

the Fraser River for the years 1995 through 2017 have ranged from a low of 109,129 to 146,606 fish in 

2010 to a high of 41,709,035 to 56,033,332 fish in 1996, with an estimated 763,330 to 1,026,251 fish in 

2017.

Eulachon commonly spawn at age three or four. They generally spawn once, although some individuals 

may spawn twice in a lifetime. Spawning appears to take place at night and can occur at various depths

up to 7 m (25 ft) or more. Spawning substrates can range from silt, sand, or gravel to cobble and detritus. 

Spawning rivers may be turbid or clear, but all have spring freshets characteristic of rivers draining large 

snow packs or glaciers. In many rivers, the spawning reach is more or less limited to the part of the river 

that is influenced by tides. Entry into the spawning rivers appears to be related to water temperature and 

the occurrence of high tides. Eulachon typically spend several years in salt water before returning to fresh 

water as a run to spawn from late winter through early summer. Some eulachon runs are very reliable 

from year to year; others occur more sporadically (NMFS, 2017c).

Numerous populations of eulachon spawn in rivers from northern California to southwestern Alaska. In 

the portion of the species’ range that lies south of the U.S.-Canada border, most eulachon production 

originates in the Columbia River Basin, including the Columbia River, the Cowlitz River the Grays River, the

Kalama River, the Lewis River, and the Sandy River (NMFS, 2017c). Historically, the only other large river 

basins in the contiguous U.S. where large, consistent spawning runs of eulachon have been documented 

are the Klamath River in northern California and the Umpqua River in Oregon. In Alaska, at least 35 rivers 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

300

have spawning runs of eulachon, including one in a glacial stream on Unimak Island, the first island in the 

Aleutian Island chain off the western end of the Alaska Peninsula.

Although they spend 95 to 98 percent of their lives at sea, little is known about the saltwater existence of 

eulachon. Once juvenile eulachon enter the ocean, they move from shallow nearshore areas to deeper 

areas over the continental shelf. Larvae and young juveniles become widely distributed in coastal waters, 

where they are typically found near the ocean bottom in waters 20 to 150 m (66 to 492 ft) deep (NMFS, 

2017c).

The PCEs for the Southern DPS fall into three major categories reflecting key life history phases of 

eulachon (76 FR 65324, October 20, 2011): 1) freshwater spawning and incubation sites with water flow, 

quality and temperature conditions and substrate supporting spawning and incubation, and with 

migratory access for adults and juveniles; 2) freshwater and estuarine migration corridors associated with 

spawning and incubation sites that are free of obstruction and with water flow, quality and temperature 

conditions supporting larval and adult mobility, and with abundant prey items supporting larval feeding

after the yolk sac is depleted; and 3) nearshore and offshore marine foraging habitat with water quality

and available prey, supporting juveniles and adult survival. Based on these features, 16 specific areas 

consisting of 539 km (335 mi) of riverine and estuarine habitat in California, Oregon, and Washington 

within the geographical area occupied by the southern DPS of eulachon were designated as critical 

habitat. No specific marine areas meet the definition of critical habitat, nor were any unoccupied areas 

identified that may be essential to the conservation of the Southern DPS.

3.7.1.4.12 Bocaccio and Yelloweye Rockfish (Puget Sound/Georgia Basin Distinct Population 

Segment)

Yelloweye rockfish (Figure 3.7-9) and bocaccio occupy the waters of the Pacific coast from California to 

Alaska. Yelloweye rockfish are among the longest lived of rockfishes, living up to 118 years. Rockfish are

slow-growing, late to mature, and long-lived. Historical overfishing has been the primary cause of the 

decline of rockfishes in Puget Sound; additional threats include bycatch, degraded water quality and 

habitat, contaminants, and derelict fishing gear (NMFS, 2017d).

Photo Credit: California Department of Fish and Wildlife

The Puget Sound/Georgia Basin DPS of yelloweye rockfish was listed asthreatened and bocaccio was listed 

as endangered under the ESA in 2010. The DPSs include all yelloweye rockfish and bocaccio found in 

waters of Puget Sound, the Strait of Georgia, and the Strait of Juan de Fuca east of Victoria Sill in 

Washington. The yelloweye rockfish DPS extendsfurther north than bocaccio into the waters of Johnstone 

Strait. Critical habitat was designated for both species in 2014. The best available data indicate that the 

Figure 3.7-9. 

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

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

301

total rockfish population in the Puget Sound region is estimated to have declined approximately three

percent per year for the past several decades, corresponding to an approximate 70 percent decline from 

1965 to 2007. The decline of yelloweye rockfish and bocaccio is estimated to be greater than the 70 

percent observed in the total rockfish decline during that time period (NMFS, 2017d).

Rockfish are mid-level predators with diverse diets that include many species of marine invertebrates and

fish (NMFS, 2017d). Larval and juvenile rockfish feed on very small organisms such as zooplankton, 

particularly copepods, phytoplankton, small crustaceans, invertebrate eggs, and krill. Rockfishes of all 

sizes are an important food resource for a variety of predators in Puget Sound including numerous fish 

species, birds, and several marine mammals.

Rockfish have multiple reproductive cycles during their lifetime and are typically long-lived. This trait 

allows the adult population to persist through many years of poor reproduction until a good recruitment 

year occurs, likely dictated by climatic or oceanic conditions. Rockfish are viviparous, meaning the eggs 

are fertilized internally, the embryonic fish develop within the mother, and the young are released as 

larvae. Larval rockfish are often observed under free-floating algae, seagrass, and detached kelp, and also 

occupy the full water column (NMFS, 2017d). Generally, juvenile rockfish move from the pelagic 

environment and associate with benthic environments when they reach approximately the age of three

to six months. As they grow, juveniles gradually move to areas of rocky habitat in deeper waters. Juvenile 

yelloweye rockfish are not typically found in intertidal waters, but rather in habitats along the shallow 

range of adult habitats. Juvenile bocaccio occurs on shallow rocky reefs and nearshore areas.

As adults, rockfish generally inhabit relatively deep waters with rugged, steep, and complex bathymetry, 

though they may also occur over less complex habitat or in the water column in association with sheer 

walls (NMFS, 2017d). Rockfish commonly occupy reef habitats, though are also found on complex soft 

bottom or in association with subtidal vegetation. Adult yelloweye rockfish and bocaccio frequently 

occupy habitats within and adjacent to areas that are highly rugged, but yelloweye rockfish have also been 

documented in areas with mud and mud/cobble habitats, and bocaccio also occupy benthic areas with 

soft-bottomed habitats, particularly those adjacent to structure such as boulders and crevices. Adult 

yelloweye rockfish remain near the substrate and have relatively small home ranges, while some bocaccio 

have larger home ranges, move long distances, and spend time suspended in the water column. Adult 

yelloweye rockfish and bocaccio generally occupy habitats from approximately 30 to 425 m (90 to 1,394 

ft).

The specific areas designated as critical habitat for bocaccio total approximately 1,617 km2 (1,005 mi2

) of 

deepwater (>30 m [98 ft]) and nearshore (<30 m [98 ft]) marine habitat in Puget Sound. The specific areas 

designated for yelloweye rockfish include 666 km2 (414 mi2

) of deepwater marine habitat in Puget Sound, 

all of which overlap with areas designated for bocaccio (NMFS, 2017d). The PCEs for yelloweye rockfish 

and bocaccio include sites deeper than 30 m (98 ft) that possess or are adjacent to areas of complex 

bathymetry, and juvenile settlement sites located in the nearshore with substrates such as sand, rock, 

and/or cobble compositions that also support kelp and eelgrass.

3.7.1.4.13 Giant Manta Ray

The giant manta ray (Figure 3.7-10) is the world’s largest ray with a wingspan of up to 9 m (29 ft). Manta 

rays are filter feeders and eat large quantities of zooplankton. Giant manta rays are slow-growing, 

migratory animals with small, highly fragmented populations that are sparsely distributed across the 

world (NMFS, No Date-a). The main threat to the giant manta ray is commercial fishing, with the species 

both targeted and caught as bycatch in a number of global fisheries. Additionally, demand for the gills of 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

302

manta rays has risen dramatically in Asian markets, leading to large harvests and declines in population 

of the species.

Photo Credit: George Schmahl

The giant manta ray waslisted as threatened under the ESA in 2018. Information on the global distribution 

of giant manta rays and their population sizes is lacking. Regional population sizes are small, ranging from 

around 100 to 1,500 individuals (NMFS, No Date-a). In areas subject to fishing, giant manta ray 

populations have significantly declined. Ecuador is thought to be home to the largest population of giant 

manta ray, with large aggregation sites within the waters of the Machalilla National Park and the 

Galapagos Marine Reserve. 

The giant manta ray is a migratory species seasonally found along productive coastlines with regular 

upwelling, in oceanic island groups, and near offshore pinnacles and seamounts. The timing when giant 

manta rays occur in these locations varies by region and seems to correspond with the movement of 

zooplankton, current circulation and tidal patterns, seasonal upwelling, seawater temperature, and 

possibly mating behavior(NMFS, No Date-a). Although the giant manta ray tends to be solitary, individuals

aggregate to feed and mate. Manta rays primarily feed on planktonic organisms such as euphausiids, 

copepods, mysids, decapod larvae and shrimp, and moderately sized fish. Giant manta rays exhibit a high 

degree of plasticity in terms of their use of depths within their habitat. During feeding, giant manta rays 

may aggregate in shallow waters at depths less than 10 m (33 ft). However, they may also dive up to 200 

to 450 m (656 to 1,476 ft) and are capable of diving to depths exceeding 1,000 m (3,281 ft). This diving 

behavior may be influenced by season and shifts in prey location associated with the thermocline.

The giant manta ray is found worldwide in tropical, subtropical, and temperate waters and is commonly 

found offshore, in oceanic waters, and near productive coastlines. Off the U.S. east coast, giant manta 

rays are commonly found in waters from 19 to 22°C (66 to 72°F) whereas those off the Yucatan peninsula 

and Indonesia are commonly found in waters between 25 to 30°C (77 to 86°F) (NMFS, No Date-a). The 

giant manta ray has also been observed in estuarine waters near oceanic inlets, with use of these waters 

as potential nursery grounds.

Figure 3.7-10. Giant Manta Ray
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

303

3.7.1.4.14 Scalloped Hammerhead Shark (Eastern Pacific Distinct Population Segment, Central 

and Southwest Atlantic Distinct Population Segment, and Indo-West Pacific Distinct 

Population Segment)

Scalloped hammerhead sharks are moderately large sharks with a global distribution. The most 

distinguishing characteristic of this shark is its hammer-shaped head. They are threatened by commercial 

fishing, mainly for the shark fin trade. Scalloped hammerhead sharks are both targeted and taken as 

bycatch in many global fisheries. They are targeted by semi-industrial, artisanal and recreational fisheries,

and caught as bycatch in pelagic longline tuna and swordfish fisheries and purse seine fisheries (NMFS, 

2014c). Since the scalloped hammerhead shark range is composed of open ocean environments occurring 

over broad geographic ranges, large-scale impacts such as global climate change that affect ocean 

temperatures, currents, and potentially food chain dynamics are most likely to pose the greatest threat 

to this species. 

The Central and Southwest Atlantic DPS and the Indo-West Pacific DPS of scalloped hammerhead shark 

were listed as threatened and the Eastern Pacific DPS was listed as endangered under the ESA in 2014. 

Current population sizes are available for the scalloped hammerhead shark but are considered qualitative 

indicators rather than precise estimates. Population estimates vary from 142,000 to 169,000 in 1981 to 

24,000 to 29,000 in 2005 (NMFS, 2014c). Data from multiple sources indicate that the Atlantic population 

experienced the most severe declines over the past few decades, with the northwestern Atlantic and Gulf 

of Mexico stocks depleted by approximately 83 percent since 1981. 

The scalloped hammerhead shark lives in coastal warm temperate and tropical seas. It occurs over 

continental and insular shelves, as well as adjacent deep waters, but is seldom found in waters cooler than 

22°C (72°F) (NMFS, 2014c). It ranges from the intertidal and surface to depths of up to 450-512 m (1,476-

1,680 ft) with occasional dives to even deeper waters. It has also been documented entering enclosed 

bays and estuaries. Scalloped hammerhead sharks are highly mobile, partly migratory, and are likely the 

most abundant of the hammerhead species. These sharks make migrations along continental margins as 

well as between oceanic islands in tropical waters. Both juveniles and adult scalloped hammerhead sharks 

occur as solitary individuals, pairs, or in schools. The scalloped hammerhead shark is a high trophic level 

predator and opportunistic feeder with a diet that includes a wide variety of fish, cephalopods, 

crustaceans, and rays. The species is viviparous (i.e., give birth to live young) with a gestation period of 9

to 12 months. Females move inshore to birth, with litter sizes anywhere between one and 40 live pups

(NMFS, 2014c).

The scalloped hammerhead shark can be found in coastal warm temperate and tropical seas worldwide. 

In the western Atlantic Ocean, the scalloped hammerhead range extends from the northeast coast of the 

U.S. (from New Jersey to Florida) to Brazil, including the Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean Sea. Distribution in 

the eastern Pacific Ocean extends from the coast of southern California, including the Gulf of California, 

to Ecuador and possibly Peru, and off waters of Hawai’i and Tahiti (NMFS, 2014c). The habitat of adult 

scalloped hammerheads consists of continental areas further offshore, with adult aggregations common 

over seamounts and near islands like the Galapagos, Malpelo, Cocos and Revillagigedo Islands, and within 

the Gulf of California. Many of these islands are considered hot spotsfor both juvenile and adult scalloped 

hammerhead sharks and are also designated as marine reserves.

3.7.1.4.15 Largetooth Sawfish and Smalltooth Sawfish

Although shark-like in appearance, sawfish are actually rays, as their gills and mouths are found on the 

underside of their bodies. Largetooth sawfish and smalltooth sawfish are the two species of sawfish that 

have historically inhabited U.S. waters in the Gulf of Mexico mainly along the Texas coast and east into 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

304

Florida waters, though largetooth sawfish have not been found in the U.S. in 50 years (NMFS, No Datea). The largetooth sawfish has the largest historical range of all sawfish species, but its populations have 

dramatically declined worldwide due to habitat loss, entanglement in fishing gear, and low population 

growth. In the present day, largetooth sawfish are thought to primarily occur in freshwater habitats in 

Central and South America and Africa. 

The largetooth sawfish was first listed as endangered under the ESA in 2011. Taxonomic changes to the 

sawfishes resulted in the largetooth sawfish known as P. pristis being revised to include the species 

formerly known as P. microdon and P. perotetti and being listed again in 2014. Though reported in the 

U.S., it appears that the largetooth sawfish was never abundant, with approximately 39 confirmed records 

(33 in Texas) from 1910 through 1961 and no confirmed sightings since then (NMFS, 2010).

Smalltooth sawfish look very similar to largetooth sawfish, and it can be hard to tell the two species apart.

Smalltooth sawfish live in tropical seas and of the Atlantic Ocean in shallow, coastal waters and sometimes 

the lower reaches of freshwater river systems. Smalltooth sawfish populations have declined dramatically 

due to habitat loss associated with coastal development and accidental capture in fisheries. The 

smalltooth sawfish was the first marine fish to receive federal protection as an endangered species under 

the ESA in 2003. Under the ESA, it is illegal to catch, harm, harass, or kill an endangered sawfish; however, 

some fishermen catch sawfish as bycatch (NMFS, No Date-a). 

Sawfish eat a variety of fish and invertebrates (e.g., shrimp and crabs). They use their rostra, the long flat 

snout edged with teeth, to slash through schools of fish, swinging it from side to side to impale and stun 

prey. Their rostra also contain electro-sensitive organs, which can sense the weak amount of electricity 

produced by other animals (NMFS, No Date-a). Sawfish are yolk-sac viviparous, meaning that their young 

are attached to yolk sacs that nourish the embryo inside the mother's body and emerge fully developed. 

They are born with their saw fully developed, but it is very flexible and sheathed in a thick gelatinous 

material to avoid injuring the mother at birth. Sawfish reach sexual maturity at around seven years and 

when they have grown to about 3 m (11 ft) long.

Largetooth sawfish are generally restricted to shallow (<10 m [33 ft]) coastal, estuarine, and fresh waters, 

although they have been found at depths of up to 122 m (400 ft) (NMFS, 2010). Largetooth sawfish are 

often found in brackish water near river mouths and large bays, preferring partially enclosed waters, lying 

in deeper holes and on bottoms of mud or muddy sand. This species, like the smalltooth sawfish, is highly 

mangrove-associated. While it is thought that they spend most of their time on the bottom, they are 

commonly observed swimming near the surface. Largetooth sawfish move across salinity gradients freely 

and appear to have more physiological tolerance of fresh water than smalltooth sawfish. Though their 

habitats once overlapped in the northern Gulf of Mexico, the largetooth sawfish historically had a more 

southerly range than the smalltooth sawfish, with what appears to be a narrower seasonal migration 

pattern.

Smalltooth sawfish were once found in the Gulf of Mexico from Texas to Florida and along the East Coast 

from Florida to North Carolina. Their distribution has decreased greatly in U.S. waters over the past 

century, and the species is only found now off the coast of Florida from about Charlotte Harbor through 

the Everglades region at the southern tip of the state (NMFS, No Date-a). Outside the U.S., smalltooth 

sawfish have been confirmed to live in the Bahamas and Sierra Leone (a single confirmed record). 

However, informal reports suggest they might also be found off the coasts of Honduras, Belize, Cuba, and 

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

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

305

Smalltooth sawfish use a variety of coastal habitats depending on life stage. During their first two years, 

juveniles live in estuaries and the smaller habitats within them, such as shallow portions of bays, lagoons,

and rivers (NMFS, No Date-a). Once they reach 2 m (7 ft), they move out of the shallow estuaries into 

more coastal habitats. Larger juveniles and adults can be found in estuaries, off beaches, and along deepwater reefs. Generally, smalltooth sawfish live in waters warmer than 18°C (64°F).

3.7.1.4.16 Atlantic Sturgeon (New York Bight Distinct Population Segment, Carolina Distinct 

Population Segment, Chesapeake Bay Distinct Population Segment, South Atlantic 

Distinct Population Segment, Gulf of Maine Distinct Population Segment, and Gulf 

subspecies)

The anadromous Atlantic sturgeon (Figure 3.7-11) lives in rivers and coastal waters from Canada to 

Florida. Atlantic sturgeon are slow-growing, late-maturing, and long-lived and have been recorded to 

reach up to 4 m (14 ft) in length and up to 60 years of age (NMFS, No Date-a). Atlantic sturgeon were once 

found in great abundance, and their eggs were valued as high-quality caviar. During the late 1800s, the 

sturgeon fishery was known as the Black Gold Rush for its caviar. By the beginning of the 1900s, sturgeon 

populations had declined drastically. Close to 3,175,147 kg (7 million lbs) of sturgeon were reportedly 

caught in 1887, but by 1905 the catch declined to only 9,071 kg (20,000 lbs), and by 1989 only 181 kg (400 

lbs) of sturgeon were recorded (NMFS, No Date-a). The primary threats currently facing Atlantic sturgeon 

are entanglement in fishing gear, habitat degradation, habitat impediments such as dams and other 

barriers, and vessel strikes.

All five U.S. Atlantic sturgeon DPSs were listed under the ESA in 2012. Atlantic sturgeon that hatch out in 

Gulf of Maine rivers are listed as threatened, and those that hatch out in other U.S. rivers are listed as 

endangered. Critical habitat for all five DPSs was designated in 2017. Additionally, the Gulf of Mexico 

subspecies (also known as the Gulf sturgeon) was listed as threatened in 1991, with critical habitat

designated in 2003.

Photo Credit: NMFS

In rivers from Georgia to the Chesapeake Bay, adult sturgeon generally spawn during the late summer and 

fall. However, there are also spring-spawning males in the James River, VA (Balazik et al., 2017) and in the 

Edisto River, SC (Farrae et al., 2017), as well as spring and fall spawning in the Altamaha River, Georgia 

(Ingram and Peterson, 2016). In rivers from Delaware to Canada, adults spawn in the spring and early 

summer. Adult Atlantic sturgeon migrate along the coast when not spawning and preferentially use 

estuaries. Juvenile fish can leave their natal rivers as early as one year of age, and juvenile aggregations 

Figure 3.7-11. Atlantic Sturgeon
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

306

within a river may be composed of two or more different natal populations of fish. After spawning in 

northern rivers, males may remain in the river or lower estuary until the fall; females typically exit the 

rivers within four to six weeks after spawning. In southern rivers, males usually enter the river in late 

summer when temperatures can be as high as 32°C (90°F), spawn as river temperatures approach 21-24°C

(70-75°F), with females leaving immediately after spawning and males leaving as temperatures drop 

below 18°F (65°F) (NMFS, No Date-a). Upon hatching, larvae hide along the bottom and drift downstream 

until they reach brackish waters where they may reside for one to five years before moving into nearshore 

coastal waters. Atlantic sturgeon are bottom feeders with a diet consisting of invertebrates such as 

crustaceans, worms, and mollusks, and bottom-dwelling fish.

Historically, Atlantic sturgeon ranged in major estuaries and river systems along the Canadian and U.S. 

Atlantic Coast from Labrador to Florida. While still found throughout their historical range, Atlantic 

sturgeon spawning is known to occur in only 22 of 38 historical spawning rivers from Maine to Georgia 

and in several more in Canada (NMFS, No Date-a). Atlantic sturgeon are anadromous fish born in fresh

water, then migrating to the sea and back again to fresh water to spawn. Most juveniles remain in their 

river of birth for at least several months before migrating out to the ocean. Tagging data indicate that 

these immature Atlantic sturgeon travel widely up and down the East Coast, and as far as Iceland, when 

they are at sea.

In designating critical habitat for the Gulf of Maine, New York Bight, and Chesapeake Bay DPSs, a key

conservation objective is to increase the abundance of each DPS by facilitating increased successful 

reproduction and recruitment to the marine environment and essential physical features: 1) hard bottom 

substrate; 2) aquatic habitat with a gradual downstream salinity gradient of 0.5 up to as high as 30 ppt 

and soft substrate; 3) water of appropriate depth and absent physical barriers to passage; and 4) water, 

between the river mouth and spawning sites, especially in the bottom meter of the water column, with 

appropriate temperature, salinity, and oxygen values (82 FR 39160, August 17, 2017). For the Carolina and 

South Atlantic DPSs of Atlantic sturgeon, the key conservation objectives are to increase the abundance 

of each DPS by facilitating increased survival of all life stages and facilitating adult reproduction and 

juvenile and subadult recruitment into the adult population, and essential physical features: 1) hard 

bottom substrates; 2) transitional salinity zones inclusive of waters with a gradual downstream gradient 

of 0.5– up to 30 ppt and soft substrate; 3) water of appropriate depth and absent physical barriers to 

passage; and 4) water quality conditions, especially in the bottom meter of the water column, between 

the river mouths and spawning sites with appropriate temperature and oxygen values (82 FR 39160, 

August 17, 2017). Specific occupied areas designated as critical habitat for these five DPSs is described in 

the Federal Register final rule notice (82 FR 39160, August 17, 2017).

The Gulf of Mexico subspecies inhabits coastal rivers from Louisiana to Florida during the warmer months 

and overwinters in estuaries, bays, and the Gulf of Mexico (68 FR 13370, March 19, 2003). Historically, 

the Gulf sturgeon occurred from the Mississippi River east to Tampa Bay. Its present range extends from 

Lake Pontchartrain and the Pearl River system in Louisiana and Mississippi east to the Suwannee River in 

Florida. Sporadic occurrences have been recorded as far west as the Rio Grande River between Texas and 

Mexico, and as far east and south as Florida Bay. In fresh water, they are typically found on sandbars and 

sand shoals over rippled bottom and in shallow, relatively open, unstructured areas. Estuarine and marine 

habitat consists of unvegetated sandy shoreline, sandbars, or shoals, with water depths less than 3.5 m 

(11.5 ft) and deep holes near passes in intertidal and subtidal energy zones.

The PCEs essential for the conservation of the Gulf sturgeon upon which the critical habitat areas are 

designated are: 1) abundant food items; 2) riverine spawning sites with substrates suitable for egg 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

307

deposition and development; 3) riverine aggregation areas, also referred to as resting, holding, and 

staging areas; 4) a flow regime necessary for normal behavior, growth, and survival of all life stages in the 

riverine environment; 5) water quality necessary for normal behavior, growth, and viability of all life 

stages; 6) sediment quality necessary for normal behavior, growth, and viability of all life stages; and 7) 

safe and unobstructed migratory pathways necessary for passage within and between riverine, estuarine, 

and marine habitats (68 FR 13370, March 19, 2003). The areas designated as critical habitat for the Gulf 

sturgeon provide one or more of these PCEs consisting of seven units of riverine habitat along 2,783 river 

km (1,730 river mi) and seven units of estuarine and marine habitat in 6,042 km2 (2,333 mi2

).

3.7.1.4.17 Green Sturgeon (Southern Distinct Population Segment)

The green sturgeon is an anadromous, long-lived, slow-growing fish native to the Pacific Ocean. Spawning 

and juvenile rearing occurs in rivers, followed by migrating to saltwater to feed, grow, and mature before 

returning to fresh water to spawn. Green sturgeon are vulnerable to many stressors and threats including 

blocked access to spawning grounds caused by dams and culverts, habitat degradation, modification, and 

loss, fishing and bycatch (NMFS, No Date-a). 

The green sturgeon Southern DPS, consisting of coastal and Central Valley populations south of the Eel 

River in California, was listed as threatened under the ESA in 2006. Data suggest that the spawning 

population of the Southern DPS is smaller than the Northern DPS, which is consistent with the threatened 

listing for the Southern, but not the Northern, DPS. The spawning population of the Southern DPS in the 

Sacramento River congregates in a limited area of the river compared to potentially available habitat. The 

reason for this is unknown, and it is concerning given that a catastrophic or targeted poaching event 

impacting just a few holding areas could affect a significant portion of the adult population. Critical habitat 

was designated for the Southern DPS of green sturgeon in 2009.

Green sturgeon range from the Bering Sea, Alaska, to Ensenada, Mexico, with abundance increasing north 

of Point Conception, CA. Green sturgeon occupy freshwater rivers from the Sacramento River up through 

British Columbia, but spawning has been confirmed in only three rivers, the Rogue River in Oregon and 

the Klamath and Sacramento rivers in California (74 FR 52300, October 9, 2009). Southern DPS green 

sturgeon typically spawn every 3-4 years, and spawning occurs primarily in the Sacramento River. Adult 

Southern DPS green sturgeon enter San Francisco Bay in late winter through early spring and spawn from 

April through early July, with peaks of activity influenced by factors including water flow and temperature. 

Spawning primarily occurs in cool sections of the upper mainstem Sacramento River in deep pools 

containing small to medium sized gravel, cobble or boulder substrate. 

Subadult and adult green sturgeon spend most of their life in the coastal marine environment, typically in 

waters less than 100 m (328 ft) (Erickson and Hightower, 2007). Southern DPS green sturgeon are found 

in high concentrations in coastal bays and estuaries along the West Coast during the summer and autumn, 

particularly in Willapa Bay, Grays Harbor, and the Columbia River estuary (74 FR 52300, October 9, 2009).

Southern DPS green sturgeon generally inhabit specific areas of coastal estuaries near or within deep 

channels or holes, moving into the upper reaches of the estuary, but rarely into fresh water. Green 

sturgeon in these estuaries may move into tidal flats areas, particularly at night, to feed. Prey species for 

juvenile, subadult, and adult green sturgeon within bays and estuaries primarily consist of benthic 

invertebrates and fishes, including crangonid shrimp, burrowing shrimp, amphipods, isopods, clams, 

annelid worms, crabs, sand lances, and anchovies. 

The primary constituent elements for the Southern DPS upon which critical habitat is designated are food 

resources, substrate type and size, water flow, water quality, migratory corridor, sediment quality, and 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

308

water depth applicable to freshwater riverine systems, estuarine areas, and coastal marine areas. Critical 

habitat is designated for approximately 515 km (320 mi) of riverine habitat and 2,323 km2 (897 mi2

) of 

estuarine habitat in California, Oregon, and Washington, and 29,581 km2 (11,421 mi2

) of coastal marine 

habitat off California, Oregon, and Washington within the geographical area presently occupied by the 

Southern DPS of green sturgeon. It is also designated on approximately 784 km (487 mi) of habitat in the 

Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, and 350 km2 (135 mi2

) of habitat within the Yolo and Sutter bypasses, 

adjacent to the Sacramento River, California (74 FR 52300, October 9, 2009).

3.7.1.4.18 Shortnose Sturgeon

Shortnose sturgeon live in rivers and coastal waters from Canada to Florida. Like other sturgeons, 

shortnose sturgeon are slow-growing and late-maturing, and they have been recorded to reach up to 1.3 

m (4.5 ft) in length and live 30 years or more (NMFS, No Date-a). Unlike Atlantic sturgeon, they tend to 

spend relatively little time in the ocean. When they do enter marine waters, they generally stay close to 

shore. In the spring, adults move far upstream and away from saltwater to spawn. After spawning, the 

adults move rapidly back downstream to the estuaries, where they feed, rest, and spend most of their 

time. In the mid-1800s, Atlantic and shortnose sturgeon began to support a thriving and profitable fishery 

for caviar, smoked meat, and oil. By the late-1800s, sturgeon were being over-exploited; in 1890, over 

3,175,147 kg (7 million lbs) of sturgeon were caught in one year alone. In 1920, only 10,433 kg (23,000 

lbs) of sturgeon were caught (NMFS, No Date-a). Although shortnose sturgeon is no longer fished, threats 

remain that continue to affect recovery efforts. Bycatch in commercial fisheries and increased industrial 

uses (e.g., hydropower, nuclear power, treated sewage disposal) of the nation’s large coastal rivers during 

the 20th century became the primary barriers to shortnose sturgeon recovery. Other threats to this 

species are habitat degradation, water pollution, dredging, water withdrawals, fisheries bycatch, and 

habitat impediments such as dams.

The shortnose sturgeon was first listed as endangered under the Endangered Species Preservation Act in 

1967. No estimate of the historical population size of shortnose sturgeon is available. While shortnose 

sturgeon were rarely the target of a commercial fishery, they were often taken incidentally in the 

commercial fishery for Atlantic sturgeon. In the 1950s, sturgeon fisheries declined on the East Coast, 

which resulted in a lack of records of shortnose sturgeon. Currently, shortnose sturgeon are found in 41 

rivers and bays along the east coast, spawning in 19 of those rivers and comprising three metapopulations, 

or reproductively isolated groups. These three metapopulations include the Carolinian Province (southern 

metapopulation), Virginian Province (mid-Atlantic metapopulation), and Acadian Province (northern 

metapopulation) (NMFS, No Date-a). Their distribution across this range is broken up, with a large gap of 

about 400 km (250 mi) separating the northern and mid-Atlantic metapopulations from the southern 

metapopulation.

Historically, shortnose sturgeon were found in the coastal rivers along the east coast of North America

from the Saint John River in New Brunswick, Canada, to the St. Johns River in Florida, and perhaps as far 

south as the Indian River in Florida (NMFS, No Date-a). In the southern metapopulation, shortnose 

sturgeon are currently found in the Great Pee Dee, Waccamaw, Edisto, Cooper, Santee, Altamaha, 

Ogeechee, and Savannah rivers. They may also be found in the Black, Sampit, Ashley, Roanoke, and Cape 

Fear rivers, as well as Albemarle Sound and Pamlico Sound. Shortnose sturgeon used to be considered 

extinct in the Satilla, St. Marys, and the St. Johns rivers, but were recently found again in both the Satilla 

and St. Marys rivers (NMFS, No Date-a). In the northern and mid-Atlantic metapopulations, shortnose 

sturgeon are currently found in the Saint John (Canada), Penobscot, Kennebec, Androscoggin, Piscataqua, 

Merrimack, Connecticut, Hudson, Delaware, and Potomac rivers. They have also been frequently spotted 

opportunistically foraging and transiting in the St. George, Medomak, Damariscotta, Sheepscot, Saco, 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

309

Deerfield, East, and Susquehanna rivers. On rare occasions, they have been seen in the Narraguagus, 

Presumpscot, Westfield, Housatonic, Schuylkill, Rappahannock, and James rivers (NMFS, No Date-a).

Spawning adults generally migrate upriver in spring, from January to April in the south, April to May in the 

Mid-Atlantic, and May to June in Canadian waters (NMFS, No Date-a). After spawning, the adults typically 

move quickly back downstream to the lower river and estuaries. Juveniles move downstream and live in 

brackish waters for a few months. Shortnose sturgeon search for food in the sandy, muddy bottom of 

rivers. They use a vacuum-like mouth to suck up this bottom-dwelling food, typically eating invertebrates 

such as insects, crustaceans, worms, and mollusks.

3.7.1.5 Regional Distribution

This section summarizes region-specific ESA-listed species and critical habitat. General fish assemblages 

are discussed in Section 3.7.1.1. 

3.7.1.5.1 Greater Atlantic Region

Six ESA-listed fish species (Atlantic salmon, giant manta, Atlantic sturgeon – New York Bight DPS, Atlantic 

sturgeon – Chesapeake Bay DPS, Atlantic sturgeon – Gulf of Maine DPS, and shortnose sturgeon) occur in 

the Greater Atlantic Region, as indicated in Table 3.7-1. The Atlantic salmon and three DPSs of Atlantic 

sturgeon also have designated critical habitat in the region as shown in Figure 3.7-12, much of it occurring 

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

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

310

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

Figure 3.7-12. Designated Critical Habitat for Atlantic Sturgeon

and Atlantic Salmon in the Greater Atlantic Region

3.7.1.5.2 Southeast Region

Nine ESA-listed fish (Nassau grouper, giant manta, scalloped hammerhead shark - Central and Southwest 

Atlantic DPS, largetooth sawfish, smalltooth sawfish, Atlantic sturgeon – Carolina DPS, Atlantic sturgeon 

– South Atlantic DPS, Atlantic sturgeon – Gulf or Mexico subspecies, and shortnose sturgeon) occur in the 

Southeast Region, as indicated in Table 3.7-1. The two DPSs of Atlantic sturgeon and the Atlantic sturgeonGulf of Mexico subspecies also have designated critical habitat in the region as shown in Figure 3.7-13,

some of it occurring in inland rivers.
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

311

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

Figure 3.7-13. Designated Critical Habitat for

Atlantic Sturgeon in the Southeast Region

3.7.1.5.3 West Coast Region

Thirty-six ESA-listed fish species, subspecies, ESU, or DPS occur in the West Coast Region, as indicated in 

Table 3.7-1. All nine ESUs of Chinook salmon, two ESUs of chum salmon, four ESUs of coho salmon, two 

ESUs of sockeye salmon, 11 DPSs of steelhead, tidewater goby, eulachon, yelloweye rockfish, bull trout, 

and green sturgeon have designated critical habitat in the region as shown in Figure 3.7-14, much of it 

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

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

312

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

Figure 3.7-14. Designated Critical Habitat for

Ten Fish Species in the West Coast Region

3.7.1.5.4 Alaska Region

Three ESA-listed fish (eulachon, bocaccio, and yellow rockfish) occur in the Alaska Region, as indicated in 

Table 3.7-1. None of these species have designated critical habitat in the region.

3.7.1.5.5 Pacific Islands Region

Three ESA-listed fish (giant manta, scalloped hammerhead [Eastern Pacific DPS], and scalloped 

hammerhead [Indo-West Pacific DPS]) occur in the Pacific Islands Region, as indicated in Table 3.7-1. None 

of these species have designated critical habitat in the region. 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

313

3.7.2 Environmental Consequences for Fish

This section discusses potential impacts of proposed activities associated with Alternatives A, B, and C on 

fish. ESA-listed endangered and threatened species are included as part of the discussion along with nonlisted species because the potential impact mechanisms are the same. However, any impacts on managed 

species are of particular concern since they could affect key populations of these species. Effects 

determinations for ESA-listed species are presented at the end of this section after the analysis of impacts.

Activities described in Sections 2.4.1 through 2.4.13 that occur on NOS projects and that could be 

expected to impact fish include operation of crewed sea-going surface vessels; operation of ROVs and 

autonomous vehicles; use of echo sounders, ADCPs, acoustic communication systems, and sound speed 

data collection equipment; anchoring; collection of bottom grab samples; operation of drop/towed 

cameras and video systems; installation, maintenance, and removal of tide gauges and GPS reference 

stations; and SCUBA operations. 

3.7.2.1 Methodology

The factors from NOS activities that could impact fish include: (1) active underwater acoustic sources (e.g., 

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

ROVs, and autonomous vehicles); (3) vessel surface wake and underwater turbulence (e.g., from surface 

vessels; ROVs and autonomous vehicles; survey equipment; and anchors); (4) accidental leakage or 

spillage of oil, fuel, and chemicals into surrounding waters (e.g., from vessel operations); (5) disturbance 

of the sea floor (e.g., from anchoring and bottom sampling); and (6) air emissions (e.g., from vessel 

smokestacks and outboard motors). These potential impact causing factors and their associated impacts 

on fish are discussed below for each alternative. 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 in this Final 

PEIS to provide a structured framework for assessing impacts from the alternatives and the significance 

of the impacts. The significance criteria for fish are shown in Table 3.7-2.

Table 3.7-2. Significance Criteria for the Analysis of Impacts to Fish

Impact Descriptor Context and Intensity

Significance 

Conclusion

Negligible

Impacts to fish would be limited to temporary (lasting up to 

several hours) behavioral and stress-startle responses to 

individual fish or schools of fish found within the project area. 

Impacts on habitat would be temporary (e.g., placement of 

object on the sea floor which increases turbidity) with no 

lasting damage or alteration.

Insignificant

Minor

Impacts would be temporary or short-term (lasting several 

days to several weeks) but would not be outside the natural 

range of variability of species’ populations, their habitats, or 

the natural processes sustaining them. This could include 

temporary threshold shift of hearing or repeated, short-term 

stress responses without permanent physiological damage. 

Behavioral responses to disturbance by some individuals or a 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

314

Impact Descriptor Context and Intensity

Significance 

Conclusion

school of fish could be expected, but only temporary 

disturbance of breeding, feeding, or other activities would 

occur, without any impacts on population levels. 

Displacement would be short-term and limited to the project 

area or its immediate surroundings. Impacts on habitat 

would be easily recoverable (e.g., short-term placement of 

objects on the sea floor which increases turbidity or causes 

loss of a small area of vegetation) with no long-term or 

permanent damage or alteration. 

Moderate

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

months or longer) and outside the natural range of variability 

of species’ populations, their habitats, or the natural 

processes sustaining them. This could include physiological 

injury to individuals in the form of temporary or permanent 

threshold shift, repeated stress responses, or mortality. 

Behavioral responses to disturbance by numerous individuals 

could be expected in the project area, its immediate 

surroundings, or beyond with some adverse impacts to 

breeding, feeding, growth, or other factors affecting 

population levels, including population-level mortality to, or 

extended displacement (up to a year) of large numbers (i.e., 

population-level) of fish but would not threaten the 

continued existence of a species. Habitat would be damaged 

or altered potentially over the long term but would continue 

to support the species reliant on it.

Major

Impacts would be short-term or long-term and well outside 

the natural range of variability of species’ populations, their 

habitats, or the natural processes sustaining them. 

Behavioral and stress responses would be repeated, and 

threshold shifts would be permanent. Actions would affect 

any stage of a species’ life cycle (i.e., breeding, feeding, 

growth, and maturity), alter population structure, genetic 

diversity, or other demographic factors, and/or cause 

mortality beyond a small number of individuals, resulting in a 

decrease in population levels. Displacement and stress 

responses would be short- or long-term within and well 

beyond the project area. Habitat would be degraded over the 

long term or permanently so that it would no longer support 

a sustainable fishery and would cause the population of a 

managed species to become stressed, less productive, or 

unstable.

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

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

315

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

Marine Data Collection with Current Technology and Methods, at Current

Funding Levels

Under Alternative A, NOS survey effort would 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), over the five-year period for proposed projects that the greatest number of nautical miles 

surveyed would be in the Southeast Region (approximately 47 percent). The survey effort in each of the 

other four regions is approximately 10 percent over five years, and perhaps slightly greater in the Alaska 

Region where the survey effort would be somewhat higher overall (approximately 18 percent). 

Additionally, survey effort in the Great Lakes would average 2,917 nm (5,402 km) annually, 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 and depth of surveys, hearing 

frequency of fish, and population densities of fish, that add nuance to this trend. Overall, NOS projects 

would be a very small part of all ocean activities as vessels used by NOS would represent a negligible 

proportion of all vessel traffic in the action area. Additionally, whenever possible, the location and timing 

of a given project would be purposefully coordinated to ensure that areas are not repeatedly surveyed.

This ensures that the potential environmental impacts directly resulting from NOS projects and activities 

would not be exacerbated by repeated surveys within a given area. 

3.7.2.2.1 Fish

The analysis of impacts on fish considers all of the impact causing factors introduced above, except for air 

emissions which are analyzed in Section 3.7.2.2.2. Potential impacts could occur in all of the geographic 

regions. All the regions include one or more ESA-listed species and designated critical habitat (with the 

exception that the Alaska Region and Pacific Islands Region do not have designated critical habitat). The 

West Coast Region contains the greatest number of ESA-listed species and the greatest amount of 

designated critical habitat (see Table 3.7-1). 

In addition to the impacts on fish discussed in this section, fish may also be affected by alteration of 

habitat, such as degradation of water quality and disturbance of benthos, aquatic vegetation, and 

sediments. These impacts are discussed in Section 3.7.2.2.2 below.

3.7.2.2.1.1 Active Underwater Acoustic Sources

Effects of human-generated sound on fishes have been examined in numerous publications (Hastings and 

Popper, 2005; Hawkins et al., 2015; Mann, 2016; Neenan et al., 2016; Popper et al., 2003, 2007, 2014).

Exposure of fish to sound from active underwater acoustic sources used in NOS projects, including echo 

sounders (0.5-900 kHz), ADCPs (35-1,200 kHz) and acoustic communication systems (10s of kHz), could 

affect pathological, physiological, and behavioral characteristics. As discussed in Section 3.7.1.3, the 

hearing frequency range of most fish is below approximately 1.5 kHz with the most sensitive range below 

0.8 kHz. Thus, most fish may be able to hear low frequency sources that go down to 0.5 kHz, and which 

are used in deeper water, but remain outside of the primary energy band. The hearing range of pressuresensing fish is typically extended to a few kHz (up to about 4 kHz). However, at least three species of 

herring-like fishes detect sounds above 20 kHz(Mann et al., 1997). Generally, underwater acoustic sources 

have not been known to cause direct injury or mortality to fish under conditions that would be found in 

the wild (Halvorsen et al., 2012; Kane et al., 2010; Popper et al., 2007). Potential direct injuries (e.g., 

barotrauma, hemorrhage or rupture of organs or tissue) from such sound sources are unlikely because of

slow rise times (the amount of time for a signal to change from static pressure [the ambient pressure 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

316

without the added sound] to high pressure), lack of strong shock waves, and relatively low peak pressures

(Navy, 2018a).

Exposure to high-intensity sound can cause hearing loss, also known as a noise-induced threshold shift. 

TTS) is a temporary, recoverable loss of hearing sensitivity which may last several minutes to several 

weeks, and the duration may be related to the intensity of the sound source and the duration of the sound 

(including multiple exposures). PTS is non-recoverable, results from the destruction of tissues within the 

auditory system, permanent loss of hair cells, or damage to auditory nerve fibers (Liberman, 2016), and 

can occur over a small range of frequencies related to the sound exposure. However, the sensory hair 

cells of the inner ear in fishes are regularly replaced over time when they are damaged, unlike in mammals 

where sensory hair cells loss is permanent (Lombarte et al., 1993; Popper et al., 2014; Smith et al., 2006). 

As a consequence, PTS has not been known to occur in fish, and any hearing loss in fish may be temporary 

(i.e., for as long as required to repair or replace the damaged or destroyed cells) (Popper et al., 2005; 

Popper et al., 2014; Smith et al., 2006). For both TTS and PTS, the fish does not become deaf but requires 

a louder sound stimulus to detect a sound within the affected frequencies.

All fish detect and use particle motion, particularly at frequencies below several hundred Hz (Popper and 

Hawkins, 2019). Thus, the detection of particle motion is integral to hearing in all fishes (and 

invertebrates), and it is used to locate the direction of the source, even in those fishes that are also 

sensitive to sound pressure. Some fish species with a swim bladder that is involved in hearing may be 

more susceptible to TTS from high intensity sound sources, such as echo sounders, depending on the 

duration and frequency of the exposure (Popper et al., 2014). Fishes with a swim bladder involved in 

hearing and fishes with high-frequency hearing may exhibit TTS from exposure to low- and mid-frequency 

sonar. Fishes without a swim bladder and fishes with a swim bladder that is not involved in hearing would 

be unlikely to detect mid- or other higher frequency sonars and would likely require a much higher source

level to exhibit the same effect from exposure to low-frequency active sonar. Adverse effects are possible 

for the small numbers of individual fish that could occur in close proximity (i.e., within several meters) to 

an active sound source. Generally, adverse effects on a species can be considered significant if they result 

in a reduction in the overall health and viability of a population. However, given the localized and transient 

spatial scale of no more than a few NOS projects occurring at any one time, relative to the generally largescale distribution of fish populations and the considerably narrow beam characteristics of equipment such 

as echo sounders, no population level effects are expected on marine or freshwater fish.

Behavioral effects from active underwater acoustic sources include changes in the distribution, migration, 

and breeding of fish populations. Fish typically exhibit a sharp startle response at the onset of a sound,

followed by habituation and a return to normal behavior after the sound ceases (Boeger et al., 2006; 

Wardle et al., 2001). The behavior and ecology of fish whose hearing does not overlap with the emitted 

sounds of active underwater acoustic sources would not, in most cases, be expected to be affected. A 

possible exception would be that those individuals within several meters of a sound source operating at 

high levels could be harmed by the energy of the sound, though the intensity of the impact is unknown. 

The frequencies of echo sounders, ADCPs, and acoustic communication systems do not overlap with the 

frequencies at which most marine and freshwater fish, including ESA-listed fish, are known to detect or 

produce sound (see above and Section 3.7.1.3). An exception to this is that some of the herring-like fishes 

(of the Clupeoid subfamily Alosinae: the anadromous shads, river herrings, and near-shore menhadens) 

can detect very high frequency (>20 kHz) signals (Mann et al., 2001). Non-alosine Clupeoids (sea herrings, 

sardines, and anchovies, among other marine fish species) do not hear above 4 or 5 kHz (Mann et al., 

2001). For those fishes in the Alosine subfamily of herrings that can hear at frequencies above 20 kHz, 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

317

exposures of most individual fish would be very brief. Therefore, NOS active underwater acoustic sources

are very unlikely to result in population-level effects on these fish species.

Masking is the effect of an acoustic source interfering with the reception and detection of an acoustic 

signal of biological importance to a receiver (NSF and USGS, 2011). Any sound within an animal’s hearing 

range can mask relevant sounds. Active underwater acoustic sources and vessel sound (see section below)

could contribute to localized transitory masking of sound detection by some fish, at least those species 

mentioned above whose sound detection capacities are in the frequency range of the active sound 

sources. However, in general, the potential for masking effects would be limited given the brief, pulsed 

nature of the equipment and the transiting vessels used by NOS relative to individual fish. For alosine 

herrings, there could be some disturbance from underwater sound, such as changes in swim direction, 

speed, foraging patterns, and respiration patterns; however, the temporal and spatial scale of these 

effects would be short-term and localized to the area where the sound is being emitted. For most fish 

populations, including ESA-listed species, disturbance from active underwater acoustic sources would be 

limited to any relatively small portion of a population that may be located near the active sound source. 

Such effects would be considered insignificant at the population level.

NOS projects using active underwater acoustic sources would likely cross schools or aggregations of fish.

Depending on water depth, these would include coastal pelagic, epipelagic, and demersal hard bottom

species. If encountered, interactions with fish would be temporary because the vessel used by NOS would 

be constantly moving during project activities. Species exposed to sound might move away from the sound 

source; experience short-term TTS (hearing loss), masking of biologically relevant sounds, or increased

levels of stress hormones; or may not show obvious effects (BOEM, 2014a). Mortality is very unlikely.

Sound levels would return to ambient conditions once the sound source ceases. When exposure to sound 

ends,stress-related behavioral response by fishes would also be expected to end (McCauley et al., 2000b).

For fish species, the greatest potential for adverse impacts as a result of active underwater acoustic

sources under Alternative A would be related to changes in behavior. Of primary importance is any change 

in behavior that would increase mortality or result in reduced survival or reproductive success. To be

significantly adverse, such behavioral changes would need to cause an overall reduction in population

abundance. Sound detection by the majority of marine and freshwater fishes, and hence behavioral 

disturbance and hearing impairment, is unlikely to occur due to the much higher frequencies of the NOS 

acoustic sources relative to fish hearing capabilities, although these sources could affect the behavior of 

shad, herrings and other fish that can hear these sounds. Active underwater acoustic sources would have 

the potential to disrupt spawning aggregations or schools of fishes, including those important as prey for 

other fishes and marine mammals. However, the mobile and temporary nature of the NOS projects, as 

well as the small area of the sea floor affected during the projects relative to the entire action area, and

the potential for fish to temporarily move away from sound that is affecting them, would result in overall 

adverse and minor impacts. Impacts on fish, including ESA-listed species, would be insignificant.

3.7.2.2.1.2 Vessel Sound

All vessels produce underwater sound (in the 0.01 to 10 kHz frequency range) and are major contributors 

to overall background sound in the sea (see Appendix E). Source levels and frequency characteristics are 

roughly related to ship size and speed. The dominant sound source of vessels used by NOS is propeller 

cavitation, although propeller singing, propulsion machinery, and other sources (e.g., flow noise, wake 

bubbles) can also contribute to underwater sound. It is likely that fish occurring in locations where there 

is high vessel traffic have habituated to this sound. Sounds from vessels are generally below levels that 

can cause temporary hearing loss or injury in fish. Underwater vessel sound can disturb and displace 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

318

nearby fish, interrupt feeding, cause other behavior modifications, and possibly mask biologically 

important signals; such impacts would vary among species as most fish cannot hear the higher frequencies 

emitted by vessel sound, except for perhaps shads, river herrings, and menhadens (see discussion in 

Sections 3.7.1.3 and 3.7.2.2.1.1). Impacts on fish behavior are expected to be temporary and localized to 

areas of vessel activity.

ROVs also generate engine sound, and impacts on fish would be similar to those from sound from surface 

vessels, but likely at a reduced severity as ROVs are smaller, thus producing less sound, and they would 

not be used as extensively as surface vessels (see Table 2.6-1).

In remote areas that are reached by boat for tide gauge installation, maintenance, and removal, impacts 

on fish could occur and would be similar to those from surface vessel operations. Likewise, installation of 

a shore-based GPS reference station would not have any effects on fish other than potentially from 

accessing the site via a surface vessel, in which case impacts on fish could occur and would be similar to 

those from surface vessel operations.

Vessels used by NOS would represent only a negligible proportion of total vessel traffic in the action area. 

Based on the proposed amount of vessel traffic associated with NOS projects in the action area under 

Alternative A, and the relatively low amounts of vessel sound produced as compared to sound from all 

other marine traffic in U.S. waters, the overall effects of vessel sound on fish, including ESA-listed species, 

would continue to be adverse and negligible as impacts would be limited to temporary behavioral and 

stress-startle responses to individual fish or schools of fish found within the project area. The severity of 

effects on shads, river herrings, and menhadens, species that can potentially hear the higher frequencies 

of vessel sound, could be somewhat higher but are not expected to be more than minor, as impacts under 

Alternative A would still continue to be temporary or short-term, may include some stress responses 

without permanent physiological damage, and may disturb breeding, feeding, or other activities but

without any impacts on population levels. Any displacement of fish would continue to be short-term and 

limited to the NOS project area or its immediate surroundings. Thus, impacts under Alternative A would 

continue to be insignificant. 

3.7.2.2.1.3 Vessel Wake and Underwater Turbulence

Water disturbance by surface vessel and ROV wakes and underwater turbulence could temporarily disturb 

and displace nearby fish in the project area or in a portion of the project area. The impact on fish would 

be minimal as the vessel would quickly pass by or stop moving. In any case, fish are expected to return to 

the area and resume normal activities once the vessel departs or the ROV is no longer present. The impact 

from ROVs would also be minimal; they would not create a wake or much underwater turbulence because 

they are slow-moving and relatively small.

Equipment used in NOS projects, such as echo sounders and ADCPs, are typically attached to a crewed

vessel, ROV, or autonomous vehicles; thus, effects on fish due to water movement that is created would 

occur from the use of these carriers, rather than any disturbance from the equipment itself. An exception 

would be in the rare instances when echo sounders are placed directly on the sea floor or operated by 

divers, who would move through the water column, possibly disturbing fish temporarily.

Some equipment, such as sound speed data collection equipment, bottom grab samplers, and 

drop/towed cameras, is lowered and raised through the water column or falls through the water. This 

movement through the water could temporarily disturb and displace nearby fish, although fish would not 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

319

be expected to move too far. These impacts would be temporary as fish are expected to return once water 

column turbulence ceases.

Under Alternative A, effects on fish, including ESA-listed species, from vessel wake and underwater

turbulence would continue to be adverse and negligible as responses to disturbance by some individuals 

would be limited to temporary behavioral and stress-startle responses, but without interference to factors 

affecting population levels. Thus, impacts under Alternative A would continue to be insignificant.

3.7.2.2.1.4 Accidental Leakage or Spillage of Oil, Fuel, and Chemicals

An accidental event could result in release of oil, fuel, or chemicals by a vessel used by NOS in a project 

area and its immediate surroundings. Adverse impacts on fish could also occur from pumping of oily bilge 

water overboard, discharged wastewater/graywater that may contain nutrients and fecal coliform

bacteria, and accidental oil, fuel, and chemical spills. Most adult fish are mobile enough to avoid discrete, 

limited areas of higher concentrations of oil and other contaminants. Depending on the product, most oil 

would remain at or near the surface and typically would not impact fish in deeper water. Lighter 

substances can disperse into the water column or might dissolve in water, potentially impacting eggs, 

larvae, and juvenile fish which are more susceptible than adults since they are less mobile. Coastal pelagic 

and epipelagic species that forage at the surface would be most likely to encounter a spill (BOEM, 2014a).

Although the probability of accidental oil and chemical spills is very low, if exposed, fish can be affected 

directly either by ingestion of oil products or oiled prey, through uptake of dissolved petroleum 

compounds and through effects on fish eggs and larvae survival (Malins and Hodgins, 1981). Sublethal 

effects may cause stress and may be transient and only slightly debilitating, but fish may also be killed 

when coming into contact with oil and other contaminants. Repair and recovery require metabolic energy, 

and use of this energy may ultimately lead to increased vulnerability to disease or to decreased growth 

and reproductive success. The egg, early embryonic, and larval-to-juvenile stages of fish seem to be the 

most sensitive to oil products. The lethal effects may not be realized until the fish fails to hatch, dies upon 

hatching, or exhibits some abnormality as a larva, such as an inability to swim.

Fish can be affected indirectly by oil, spilled fuel, and chemicals through changes in the ecosystem that 

affect prey species and habitats. All fish rely on phytoplankton and zooplankton during their larval and 

juvenile stages. However, even if a large amount of plankton were affected, it can recover rapidly due to 

high reproductive rates, rapid replacement by cells from adjacent waters, widespread distribution, and 

exchange with tidal currents. Thus, the impact on a pelagic phytoplankton community, and on fish, would 

not be substantial.

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 

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

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

320

Under Alternative A, the likelihood of an accidental spill from a vessel used by NOS would continue to be 

very low, thus impacts are expected to be adverse and negligible. All hazardous or regulated materials 

would be handled in accordance with applicable laws, crew members would be appropriately trained in 

materials storage and usage, and all MARPOL discharge protocols would be followed. In the event that an 

accidental spill does occur, the volume of oil, fuel, and/or chemicals would be fairly small given the 

amounts of fuel and other chemicals that vessels used by NOS typically carry for onboard consumption; 

thus, the impact on fish would continue to be adverse and minor asimpacts would be temporary or shortterm without any impacts on population levels. Displacement of fish that move away to avoid spilled 

substances would continue to be short-term and limited to the project area or its immediate surroundings. 

Impacts on fish, including ESA-listed species, would be considered insignificant.

3.7.2.2.1.5 Disturbance of the Sea Floor

Anchoring is an infrequent activity and would only occur in a small portion of a project area (see Table 

2.6-1). Water disturbance by anchors and chains moving in the water and across the sea floor can 

temporarily disturb and displace nearby fish. This impact on fish would be negligible and cease with the 

anchoring system coming to rest or being taken out of the water. Any displaced fish are expected to return 

to the area and resume normal activities once water column turbulence ceases.

If anchor chains drag across the sea floor, they can create a circular scour hole (Limpinsel et al., 2017). 

Anchor scour has the potential to create localized turbidity that could reduce water clarity and increase 

sediment deposition. Increased turbidity and sedimentation can have minor impacts on juvenile and adult 

fish by reducing feeding efficiency, altering reproductive cycles, and reducing response to physical 

stimulus. In cases where organisms are exposed to excessive turbidity, the sediments can coat gills, thus 

limiting gas exchange and possibly leading to asphyxiation. However, adult fish are mobile and can avoid 

highly turbid areas and, under most conditions, can survive short exposure (minutes to hours) to elevated 

turbidity levels. Additionally, NOS would not drag anchor chains and would ensure that anchors are 

properly secured so as to minimize bottom disturbance.

More sensitive species and life stages (i.e., eggs, larvae, and fry) are impacted by longer exposure to 

suspended (or deposited) sediments than less sensitive species and older life stages. There could be 

delayed or reduced hatching of eggs, reduced larval growth or development, and abnormal larval 

development. There would not be any direct impacts on those fish that spawn in coral reefs as vessels 

would not anchor on coral reefs. Coral reef fish spawn in the water column, though, and release planktonic 

eggs which drift away with the currents, hatch to larvae, and develop in the water column; thus, there 

could be impacts from suspended sediments. However, suspended sediments are expected to settle 

quickly and long exposures are not likely to occur. 

Collecting bottom samples could create localized turbidity and affect soft-bottomed seafloor habitat, 

potentially creating turbidity that could reduce water clarity temporarily. Such turbidity would likely be 

minimal as samplers are designed to close to contain the sediment and prevent sample washout. In some 

instances, equipment, such as echo sounders and XBTs, may be placed directly on the sea floor and could 

also cause minimal temporary localized turbidity. Fish in the vicinity could likely swim away and avoid any 

of these turbidity impacts. NOS would ensure that all instruments placed in contact with the sea floor are 

properly secured so as to minimize bottom disturbance. Additionally, equipment such as Autonomous 

Underwater Vehicles (AUVs) would be programmed and operated so as to avoid seafloor disturbance,

SCUBA divers would avoid inadvertent disturbance to the sea floor, and stiffer line material would be used 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

321

and kept taut during operations to reduce potential for entanglement with bottom features such as coral 

habitat.

Effects on fish from disturbance of the sea floor under Alternative A would continue to be adverse and

negligible to minor. Impacts to fish would continue to be temporary behavioral responses to localized 

turbidity by some individuals, including potential disturbance of breeding, feeding, or other activities but

without any impacts on population levels. Displacement would continue to be temporary and limited to 

the project area. Impacts on fish, including ESA-listed species, would continue to be insignificant.

3.7.2.2.2 Fish Habitat

The analysis of impacts on fish habitat, including designated critical habitat, does not consider active 

underwater acoustic sources or vessel and equipment sound as these impact causing factors would not 

affect habitat characteristics (other than on prey fish, which would have similar impacts as described 

above for fish in general). 

3.7.2.2.2.1 Vessel Wake and Underwater Turbulence

Vessel wakes and turbulence can generate wave and surge effects on nearby shorelines and stir up bottom 

sediments in shallow locations of a project area and its immediate surroundings depending on the wake 

wave energy, the water depth, and the type of shoreline (Limpinsel et al., 2017). Vessel wakes can cause 

shoreline erosion, degrade wetland habitat, and increase water turbidity. Water column habitat gradients 

would be temporarily disrupted by wake action, including temperature, salinity, DO, turbidity, and 

nutrient supply. Stirring up lake sediment can re-suspend nutrients such as phosphorus, potentially 

contributing to harmful, DO-consuming algal blooms. Impacts would have greater effects in habitats 

where fish aggregate, such as spawning aggregation sites, feeding areas, hard bottom habitats, and 

artificial reefs, than in locations with few fish. Also, not only would these types of impacts occur in general 

fish habitat, but also such areas as nearshore marine critical habitat, for such species as bull trout and 

bocaccio, and estuarine critical habitat, for such species as Atlantic salmon, gulf sturgeon, and green 

sturgeon. To reduce these adverse effects of wake action which may occur in a project area and its 

immediate surroundings, vessels used by NOS would operate at sufficiently low speeds (up to 10 knots) 

to reduce wake energy when in shallow areas or close to shorelines. Additionally, all vessels in coastal 

waters would operate in a manner to minimize propeller wash, and transiting vessels should follow deepwater routes (e.g., marked channels), as practicable, to reduce disturbance to sturgeon and sawfish critical 

habitat.

The suspension of disturbed sediments from wake action and shoreline erosion could minimize the light 

intensity that reaches aquatic vegetation which depends on light for photosynthesis. High turbidity that 

causes a substantial reduction in light availability can lead to sublethal adverse effects or mortality of 

aquatic vegetation. Suspended material may also react with DO in the water and result in temporary or 

short-term oxygen depletion to aquatic resources, including vegetation and aquatic macroinvertebrates.

The movement of AUVs, equipment used in projects such as sound speed data collection equipment, 

bottom grab samplers, drop/towed cameras, and anchors and chains through the water column could 

temporarily cause turbulence and disturb nearby aquatic macroinvertebrates and other prey species, as 

well as potentially cause damage to submerged aquatic vegetation. These impacts would be temporary 

as benthos and prey species are expected to return once water column turbulence ceases.

Equipment such as echo sounders, ADCPs, and acoustic communication systems are typically attached to 

a crewed vessel, ROV, or autonomous vehicles, thus effects on habitat would occur from the use of these 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

322

carriers, rather than any disturbance from the acoustic equipment itself. One exception would be in the 

rare instances when echo sounders are placed directly on the sea floor or operated by divers. In such 

cases, divers would move through the water column temporarily disturbing benthic communities and prey 

species. Lines connecting equipment to a vessel could also become entangled with, damage, or kill aquatic 

vegetation such as seagrass.

Underwater turbulence could occur during tide gauge installation even though it occurs primarily out of 

the water at existing piers, docks, bulkheads, and other such locales. All buoys would be attached to the 

sea floor using the best available mooring systems to reduce entanglement. Generally, no impact on 

habitat would occur except when tide gauge installation requires in-water work that could cause sediment 

disturbance. In remote areas which are reached by boat for installation, maintenance, and removal, 

impacts on habitat could occur and would be similar to those for surface vessel operations. Likewise, 

installation of a shore-based GPS reference station would not have any effects on habitat other than 

potentially from accessing the site via a surface vessel, in which case impacts on prey fish could occur and 

would be similar to those from surface vessel operations.

Effects on habitat, including designated critical habitat, from vessel wake and underwater turbulence 

under Alternative A would continue to be adverse and minor as habitat impacts would be easily 

recoverable with no long-term damage or alteration. Thus, impacts under Alternative A would continue 

to be insignificant.

3.7.2.2.2.2 Accidental Leakage or Spillage of Oil, Fuel, and Chemicals 

An accidental event could result in release of oil, fuel, or chemicals by a vessel used by NOS in a project 

area and its immediate surroundings. The accidental loss of a substantial amount of fuel or lubricating oil 

during projects could affect water quality, the water column, the sea floor, intertidal habitats, and 

associated biota (i.e., aquatic macroinvertebrates and submerged aquatic vegetation) resulting in their 

mortality or substantial injury, and in alteration of the existing quality of fish habitat. Habitat most at risk 

from a small spill would be pelagic Sargassum as it drifts at the surface in windrows or mats, and supports 

numerous fish and invertebrates (BOEM, 2014a). 

Vessel bilge water discharges, engine operations, bottom paint sloughing, boat washdowns, and other 

vessel activities or wear can also deliver debris, nutrients, and contaminants to waterways which may 

degrade water quality, contaminate sediments, and alter benthic communities in fish habitat. Vessel 

wash, including gray water, deck runoff and cooling water can damage aquatic vegetation and disturb 

benthos and sediments, which may increase turbidity and suspend contaminants in habitat. Any liquid 

contaminants, however, are expected to be rapidly diluted throughout the water column. 

Impacts from an accidental fuel spill and release of other contaminants would not only occur in general 

fish habitat, but also such areas as nearshore marine critical habitat, for such species as bull trout and 

bocaccio, deepwater critical habitat, for bocaccio and yelloweye rockfish, and estuarine critical habitat, 

for such species as Atlantic salmon, gulf sturgeon, and green sturgeon. It is also possible that impacts on 

critical habitat in rivers and streams for many species of salmon and steelhead could occur if vessels used 

by NOS are working in freshwater habitat.

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

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

323

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 

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.

All hazardous or regulated materials would be handled in accordance with applicable laws, all MARPOL 

discharge protocols would be followed, and crew members would be appropriately trained in materials 

storage and usage. The likelihood of occurrence of an accidental spill from a vessel used by NOS would be 

very low, although the release of other contaminants is a little more likely; thus, impacts are expected to 

be adverse and negligible. In the event that an accidental spill does occur, the volume of oil, fuel, and/or 

chemicals would be fairly small given the amounts of fuel and other chemicals that vessels used by NOS

typically carry for onboard consumption; thus, the impact on habitat would be adverse and minor as 

habitat impacts would be easily recoverable with no long-term damage or alteration. Impacts on habitat, 

including designated critical habitat, would be considered insignificant. 

3.7.2.2.2.3 Disturbance of the Sea Floor

Adverse impacts on fish habitat can occur when vessels anchor in shallow nearshore waters and the 

anchor chain drags across the sea floor, destroying submerged vegetation and creating a circular scour 

hole. Anchor scour has the potential to create localized turbidity and affect soft-bottomed seafloor habitat 

and/or rocky substrates, potentially creating turbidity that could reduce water clarity and increase 

sediment deposition. NOS would not drag anchor chains and would ensure that anchors are properly 

secured so as to minimize bottom disturbance.

Increased turbidity immediately following anchoring events could temporarily reduce foraging ability of 

prey due to decreased visibility in the water column; however, impacts to these conditions would be minor 

and of short duration and would soon return to baseline. Suspended material may also react with DO in 

the water and result in temporary oxygen depletion to aquatic resources.

Collecting bottom samples could create localized turbidity and affect soft-bottomed seafloor habitat, 

potentially creating turbidity that could reduce water clarity temporarily. Such turbidity would likely be 

minimal as samplers are designed to close to contain the sediment and prevent sample washout. Likewise, 

placement of echo sounders on the sea floor has the potential to create localized turbidity that could 

reduce water clarity temporarily, although this would be minor. NOS would not collect bottom samples 

on known coral reefs and would ensure that all instruments placed in contact with the sea floor are 

properly secured so as to minimize bottom disturbance. Additionally, equipment such as AUVs would be 

programmed and operated so as to avoid seafloor disturbance, SCUBA divers would avoid inadvertent 

disturbance to the sea floor; and stiffer line material would be used and kept taut during operations to 

reduce potential for entanglement with bottom features such as coral habitat.

Similar impacts from disturbance of ocean or river bottom could also occur in designated critical habitat

if anchoring, collection or bottom samples, or placement of equipment occurs in such locations, including 

nearshore marine designated critical habitat of bull trout and bocaccio, estuarine critical habitat of 

Atlantic salmon, gulf sturgeon, and green sturgeon, and riverine critical habitat of species of salmon and 

steelhead. Additionally, all vessels in coastal waters would operate in a manner to minimize seafloor 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

324

disturbance, and transiting vessels should follow deep-water routes (e.g., marked channels), as 

practicable, to reduce disturbance to sturgeon and sawfish critical habitat.

Effects from disturbance of the sea floor would be adverse and negligible to minor as habitat impacts 

would be easily recoverable with no long-term damage or alteration. Impacts on habitat, including 

designated critical habitat, would be insignificant. 

3.7.2.2.2.4 Air Emissions

Since the pre-industrial era, increased emissions of anthropogenic GHGs (e.g., CO2, CH4, and N2O) have

resulted in higher atmospheric concentrations of these gases that influenced changes in oceanic 

conditions (as well as atmospheric and terrestrial conditions) (Limpinsel et al., 2017). 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, in particular 

interference with the formation of CaCO3 in marine shells and skeletons, may adversely affect marine 

biota through a variety of biochemical, physiological, and physical processes and interactions. 

Smokestack and two-stroke outboard motor emissions from vessels used by NOS would release air 

pollutants, which can be deposited on the water surface and contribute to adverse effects such as 

increasing water acidity in fish habitat, including designated critical habitat. In addition, twostroke outboard motors can emit 25-30 percent of their unburned gas and oil mixture directly into the 

water, adding metals and chemicals directly to the water column. The amount of emissions from vessels 

used by NOS would be negligible compared to emissions from all other vessel activity in the oceans. Thus, 

impacts from air emissions are expected to be adverse and minor since air emissions could travel and be 

deposited within the project area. Air emissions could be deposited immediately outside of the project 

area but would dissipate fairly quickly. Impacts on habitat, including designated critical habitat, would be 

insignificant. 

3.7.2.2.3 Conclusion

Under Alternative A, NOS would continue to operate a variety of equipment and technologies to gather 

data on the marine and coastal environments at the level of effort reflecting NOS fiscal year 2019 funding 

levels. Since the effects of impact causing factors on fish and fish habitat range from negligible to minor, 

the overall impact of Alternative A on fish, including ESA-listed species and designated critical habitat,

would continue to be adverse and minor; thus, impacts of Alternative A would be insignificant.

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

Collection with Equipment Upgrades, Improved Hydroacoustic Devices, and 

New Tide Stations

The same impact causing factors for fish and fish habitat considered under Alternative A are considered 

under Alternative B. Under Alternative B, all of the activities and equipment operations proposed in 

Alternative A would continue but at a higher level of effort, although the percentage of nautical miles 

covered by project activities in each region would be the same as under Alternative A. Thus, the greatest 

level of effort would be in the Southeast Region (with approximately 47 percent of the survey effort); 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 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

325

effort and overall impacts trend together (i.e., greater impacts where the survey effort is higher), but

there are other factors, such as location and depth of surveys, hearing frequency of fish, and population 

densities of fish, that add nuance to this trend.

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 and activities, and thus more 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) as compared to Alternative A 

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

mechanisms of impacts would remain the same in Alternative B as discussed for Alternative A. Therefore, 

the difference between the two alternatives is a matter of scale with an increased activity level, although 

distributed unevenly among the different types of activities, leading to a corresponding, incremental 

increase in effects under Alternative B as compared to Alternative A.

For example, under Alternative B there would be projects using crewed vessel operations covering 

577,000 nm (1,070,000 km), as compared to 518,000 nm (959,000 km) under Alternative A. Vessel 

operations could contribute to impacts on fish and fish habitat related to vessel sound, vessel wake and 

underwater turbulence, accidental spills, and air emissions. Although the amount of crewed vessel 

operations would be greater under Alternative B than under Alternative A, additional projects covering 

59,000 nm (111,000 km) across five regions would result in greater impacts overall, but not so great that 

the magnitude of a particular impact causing factor would increase (e.g., from negligible to minor). The 

magnitude of impacts would likewise remain the same for other proposed activities contributing to 

potential impacts, such as underwater sound from echo sounders, ADCPs, and acoustic communication 

systems; and bottom disturbance from anchoring, bottom grab samples, and sound speed data collection.

Although NOS would add more widespread adoption of new techniques, protocols, and technologies to 

more efficiently perform surveying, mapping, charting, and related data gathering under Alternative B as 

compared to Alternative A, impacts on fish, including ESA-listed species, and fish habitat, including 

designated critical habitat, would be the same or slightly, but not appreciably, larger than those discussed 

above under Alternative A for each impact causing factor. Overall, impacts of Alternative B on fish would 

be adverse, minor, and insignificant. 

3.7.2.4 Alternative C: Upgrades and Improvements with Greater Funding Support

The same impact causing factors for fish and fish habitat considered under Alternatives A and B are 

considered under Alternative C. Under Alternative C, all of the activities and equipment operation 

proposed in Alternative A would continue but at a higher level of effort, although the percentage of 

nautical miles in each region would be the same as under Alternatives A and B. In addition, there would 

be an overall funding increase of 20 percent relative to Alternative B, thus the level of project activity 

would increase further. Thus, the level of effort would be in the Southeast Region (with approximately 47 

percent of the survey effort); 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 and depth of surveys, hearing 

frequency of fish, and population densities of fish, that add nuance to this trend.
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

326

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 and activities, and thus more 

nautical miles traveled, than Alternatives A and B. 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, there would 

be an additional 264,796 nm (490,402 km) covered by vessels used by NOS under Alternative C (see Table 

3.4-6) as compared to Alternative B (2,912,753 nm [5,394,419 km] total), and an additional 529,592 nm 

(980,803 km) as compared to Alternative A (2,647,958 nm [4,904,017 km] total) across all regions over 

the five-year period. The types and mechanisms of impacts would remain the same in Alternative C as 

discussed for Alternatives A and B across all regions over the five-year period. Therefore, the difference 

between the alternatives is a matter of scale with an increased activity level, although distributed 

unevenly among the different types of activities, leading to a corresponding, incremental increase in 

effects under Alternative C as compared to Alternatives A and B. As discussed under Alternative B, the 

additional projects and nautical miles traveled under Alternative C across five regions would result in 

greater impacts on fish overall, but not so great that the magnitude of a particular impact causing factor 

would increase (e.g., from negligible to minor).

Alternative C would be similar to Alternative B, plus it would consist of NOS program implementation with 

an overall funding increase of 20 percent relative to Alternative B. However, impacts of Alternative C on 

fish, including ESA-listed species, and fish habitat, including designated critical habitat, would be the same 

or slightly, but not appreciably, larger than those discussed above under Alternatives A and B for each 

impact causing factor. Overall, impacts of Alternative C on fish would be adverse, minor, and insignificant. 

3.7.2.5 Endangered Species Act Effects Determination

Federal agencies are required under the ESA to formally determine whether their actions may affect listed 

species 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, and this designation 

is typically only used 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. 

ESA-listed fish species cannot hear the frequencies emitted by active underwater acoustic sources. 

Additionally, due to the mobile and temporary nature of the projects, the small area of the sea floor 

affected during the projects relative to the entire EEZ, and the possibility for fish to temporarily move 

away from sound that is affecting them, the response to sound exposure from active underwater acoustic 

sources included in the alternatives would be short term, limited to only a few individuals, and therefore, 

discountable (i.e., extremely unlikely to occur).

The proposed volume of sound from the use of vessels associated with project activities would be very 

small in comparison to sound from all the other non-project related vessel traffic in the EEZ. Impacts would 

be limited to temporary behavioral and stress-startle responses to individual fish or schools of fish. 

Because sound disturbance would be temporary or of short duration, limited to only a few individuals,
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

327

and would occur infrequently in any given project area, the response by ESA-listed fish to sound from 

vessels used by NOS would be discountable (i.e., extremely unlikely to occur). Although water disturbance 

by surface vessel and ROV wakes and underwater turbulence could temporarily disturb and displace a few 

individual nearby fish, effects would be temporary and minimal and limited to the project area or its 

immediate surroundings; thus, the response by ESA-listed fish would be discountable.

The likelihood for an accidental spill is expected to be discountable (i.e., extremely unlikely to occur), and 

exposure of ESA-listed fish 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 extreme 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. 

Thus, effects from chemical contamination on ESA-listed species are discountable (i.e., extremely unlikely 

to occur).

Given the minimal amount of potential turbidity and fine sediment created by disturbance of the sea floor, 

the effect on ESA-listed species would be discountable.

Thus, NOS concludes that the proposed project “May Affect, but Not Likely to Adversely Affect” any of the 

ESA-listed fish species occurring in the action area (Table 3.7-3). Additionally, these fish species serve as 

prey to marine mammals, and thus, effects on these fish would constitute indirect effects to marine 

mammals. Thus, the “May Affect, but Not Likely to Adversely Affect” determination for ESA-listed fish also 

applies indirectly to ESA-listed marine mammals.

Since projects may occur in some areas within or adjacent to designated critical habitats, there is the 

potential for impacts on critical habitat characteristics that support ESA-listed fish species. Critical habitat 

may be minimally disturbed but would remain functional to maintain viability of the species reliant on it.

Due to the potential for effectsthat could be negligible or minor as discussed in the impact analysis above,

the Proposed Action “May Affect, but Not Likely to Adversely Affect” the designated critical habitat

occurring in the action area (Table 3.7-3). 

Table 3.7-3. Summary of Effects Determinations for ESA-Listed Fish and Critical Habitat

ESA-Listed Fish Species Determination Critical Habitat Determination

Perch-likes (Perciformes)

Nassau grouper May Affect, Not Likely to 

Adversely Affect

N/A* (no critical habitat 

designated)

Tidewater goby May Affect, Not Likely to 

Adversely Affect

May Affect, Not Likely to 

Adversely Affect

Salmon, Smelts, etc. (Salmoniformes)

Atlantic salmon 

(Gulf of Maine DPS)

May Affect, Not Likely to 

Adversely Affect

May Affect, Not Likely to 

Adversely Affect

Chinook salmon 

(California Coastal ESU)

May Affect, Not Likely to 

Adversely Affect

May Affect, Not Likely to 

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

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

328

ESA-Listed Fish Species Determination Critical Habitat Determination

Chinook salmon (Central Valley Springrun ESU)May Affect, Not Likely to 

Adversely Affect

May Affect, Not Likely to 

Adversely Affect

Chinook salmon (Lower Columbia River 

ESU)

May Affect, Not Likely to 

Adversely Affect

May Affect, Not Likely to 

Adversely Affect

Chinook salmon 

(Puget Sound ESU)

May Affect, Not Likely to 

Adversely Affect

May Affect, Not Likely to 

Adversely Affect

Chinook salmon (Sacramento River 

Winter-run ESU)

May Affect, Not Likely to 

Adversely Affect

May Affect, Not Likely to 

Adversely Affect

Chinook salmon 

(Snake River Fall-run ESU)

May Affect, Not Likely to 

Adversely Affect

May Affect, Not Likely to 

Adversely Affect

Chinook salmon (Snake River 

Spring/Summer-run ESU)

May Affect, Not Likely to 

Adversely Affect

May Affect, Not Likely to 

Adversely Affect

Chinook salmon (Upper Columbia River 

Spring-run ESU)

May Affect, Not Likely to 

Adversely Affect

May Affect, Not Likely to 

Adversely Affect

Chinook salmon (Upper Willamette 

River ESU)

May Affect, Not Likely to 

Adversely Affect

May Affect, Not Likely to 

Adversely Affect

Chinook salmon (Upper Klamath-Trinity 

River)

May Affect, Not Likely to 

Adversely Affect

NA (no critical habitat 

designated)

Chum salmon

(Columbia River ESU)

May Affect, Not Likely to 

Adversely Affect

May Affect, Not Likely to 

Adversely Affect

Chum salmon (Hood Canal Summer-run 

ESU)

May Affect, Not Likely to 

Adversely Affect

May Affect, Not Likely to 

Adversely Affect

Coho salmon (Central California Coast 

ESU)

May Affect, Not Likely to 

Adversely Affect

May Affect, Not Likely to 

Adversely Affect

Coho salmon (Lower Columbia River 

ESU)

May Affect, Not Likely to 

Adversely Affect

May Affect, Not Likely to 

Adversely Affect

Coho salmon (Oregon Coast ESU) May Affect, Not Likely to 

Adversely Affect

May Affect, Not Likely to 

Adversely Affect

Coho salmon (Southern 

Oregon/Northern California Coast ESU)

May Affect, Not Likely to 

Adversely Affect

May Affect, Not Likely to 

Adversely Affect

Sockeye salmon (Ozette Lake ESU) May Affect, Not Likely to 

Adversely Affect

May Affect, Not Likely to 

Adversely Affect

Sockeye salmon (Snake River ESU) May Affect, Not Likely to 

Adversely Affect

May Affect, Not Likely to 

Adversely Affect

Steelhead (California Central Valley 

DPS)

May Affect, Not Likely to 

Adversely Affect

May Affect, Not Likely to 

Adversely Affect

Steelhead (Central California Coast DPS) May Affect, Not Likely to 

Adversely Affect

May Affect, Not Likely to

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

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

329

ESA-Listed Fish Species Determination Critical Habitat Determination

Steelhead (Lower Columbia River DPS) May Affect, Not Likely to 

Adversely Affect

May Affect, Not Likely to 

Adversely Affect

Steelhead (Middle Columbia River DPS) May Affect, Not Likely to 

Adversely Affect

May Affect, Not Likely to 

Adversely Affect

Steelhead (Northern California DPS) May Affect, Not Likely to 

Adversely Affect

May Affect, Not Likely to 

Adversely Affect

Steelhead (Puget Sound DPS) May Affect, Not Likely to 

Adversely Affect

May Affect, Not Likely to 

Adversely Affect

Steelhead (Snake River Basin DPS) May Affect, Not Likely to 

Adversely Affect

May Affect, Not Likely to 

Adversely Affect

Steelhead (South Central California 

Coast DPS)

May Affect, Not Likely to 

Adversely Affect

May Affect, Not Likely to 

Adversely Affect

Steelhead (Southern California DPS) May Affect, Not Likely to 

Adversely Affect

May Affect, Not Likely to 

Adversely Affect

Steelhead (Upper Columbia River DPS) May Affect, Not Likely to 

Adversely Affect

May Affect, Not Likely to 

Adversely Affect

Steelhead (Upper Willamette River DPS) May Affect, Not Likely to 

Adversely Affect

May Affect, Not Likely to 

Adversely Affect

Bull trout (Coastal Recovery Unit) May Affect, Not Likely to 

Adversely Affect

May Affect, Not Likely to 

Adversely Affect

Eulachon (Southern DPS) May Affect, Not Likely to 

Adversely Affect

May Affect, Not Likely to 

Adversely Affect

Scorpionfishes (Scorpaeniformes)

Bocaccio (Puget Sound/Georgia Basin 

DPS)

May Affect, Not Likely to 

Adversely Affect

N/A (no critical habitat 

designated)

Yelloweye rockfish (Puget 

Sound/Georgia Basin DPS)

May Affect, Not Likely to 

Adversely Affect

May Affect, Not Likely to 

Adversely Affect

Sharks, Skates, Rays, & Chimeras (Chondrichthyes)

Giant manta ray May Affect, Not Likely to 

Adversely Affect

N/A (no critical habitat 

designated)

Scalloped hammerhead shark (Eastern 

Pacific DPS)

May Affect, Not Likely to 

Adversely Affect

N/A (no critical habitat 

designated)

Scalloped hammerhead shark (Central 

and Southwest Atlantic DPS)

May Affect, Not Likely to 

Adversely Affect

N/A (no critical habitat 

designated)

Scalloped hammerhead shark (IndoWest Pacific DPS)May Affect, Not Likely to 

Adversely Affect

N/A (no critical habitat 

designated)

Largetooth sawfish May Affect, 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

330

ESA-Listed Fish Species Determination Critical Habitat Determination

Smalltooth sawfish May Affect, Not Likely to 

Adversely Affect

N/A (no critical habitat 

designated)

Sturgeons (Acipenseriformes)

Atlantic sturgeon (New York Bight DPS) May Affect, Not Likely to 

Adversely Affect

May Affect, Not Likely to 

Adversely Affect

Atlantic sturgeon (Carolina DPS) May Affect, Not Likely to 

Adversely Affect

May Affect, Not Likely to 

Adversely Affect

Atlantic sturgeon (Chesapeake Bay DPS) May Affect, Not Likely to 

Adversely Affect

May Affect, Not Likely to 

Adversely Affect

Atlantic sturgeon (South Atlantic DPS) May Affect, Not Likely to 

Adversely Affect

May Affect, Not Likely to 

Adversely Affect

Atlantic sturgeon (Gulf of Maine DPS) May Affect, Not Likely to 

Adversely Affect

May Affect, Not Likely to 

Adversely Affect

Atlantic sturgeon (Gulf of Mexico 

subspecies)

May Affect, Not Likely to 

Adversely Affect

May Affect, Not Likely to 

Adversely Affect

Green sturgeon (Southern DPS) May Affect, Not Likely to 

Adversely Affect

May Affect, Not Likely to 

Adversely Affect

Shortnose sturgeon May Affect, Not Likely to 

Adversely Affect

N/A (no critical habitat 

designated)

*N/A = Not Applicable
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

331

3.8 AQUATIC MACROINVERTEBRATES

Invertebrates are animals without backbones and are the most diverse and numerous category of animals 

in the biosphere (New and Yen, 1995), comprising over 98 percent of the animal species on Earth classified 

to date by taxonomists (MarineBio, No Date). Aquatic macroinvertebrates are those aquatic invertebrates 

visible without the aid of a microscope. They evolved to live underwater in one or more stages of their life 

history, in both fresh water and salt water (marine) habitats. They are an extremely varied assortment of 

organisms that span a considerable number of taxonomic phyla.

3.8.1 Affected Environment

This section specifically covers aquatic macroinvertebrates that are found in the marine and freshwater

environments included within the action area of this Final PEIS. 

3.8.1.1 Marine Macroinvertebrates

Marine macroinvertebrates have been classified by taxonomists into more than 30 different phyla, a very 

large number representing considerable biological diversity. A phylum (plural phyla) is a major taxonomic 

category that ranks just above class and just below kingdom (as in plant, animal, and fungus kingdoms); it 

classifies organisms by their fundamental body plan. 

Among the more prominent and better known and studied phyla of marine macroinvertebrates are the 

following (MarineBio, No Date):

• Annelids – segmented worms, including polychaetes (bristle worms);

• Arthropods – animals with exoskeletons, especially the crustaceans in marine habitats, including 

lobsters, crabs, shrimp, amphipods, barnacles, and copepods; 

• Brachiopods – marine animals with hard “valves” or shells on their upper and lower surfaces;

• Bryozoans – moss animals or sea mats;

• Cnidaria – includes jellyfish, sea anemones, and corals (Figure 3.8-1);

• Echinoderms – includes sea stars, sea urchins, sea cucumbers, sand dollars, and crinoids;

• Mollusks – includes gastropods (e.g., sea snails, whelks, limpets, abalone), bivalves (clams, 

mussels, oysters, scallops), cephalopods (e.g., squid, octopus), and chitins;

• Porifera – sponges; and 

• Tunicates – sea squirts or sea pork.
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

332

Photo Credit: Greg McFall, Gray’s Reef NMS, NOS, NOAA

Arthropods have the largest number of species of the phyla listed above, with over 1 million described 

and classified. Mollusks are the next most abundant in the ocean. 

Marine macroinvertebrates are very important ecologically (New and Yen, 1995). They constitute a vital 

food source for vertebrates such as diving sea birds, fish, sea turtles, and marine mammals in the marine 

food web. Jellyfish (Figure 3.8-2), for example, are the main food source of leatherback turtles, which also 

prey upon other marine invertebrates such as sea urchins, squid, crustaceans, and tunicates (NWF, No 

Date). Marine invertebrates in turn feed upon phytoplankton and zooplankton. Many cnidarians, 

mollusks, sponges, and crustaceans are filter feeders, playing a major role in ecosystem function (NAP, 

2010; Burge et al., 2016; Sánchez et al., 2016). They help filter and clean estuaries and bays along the 

coast by removing suspended particles and reducing the turbidity of the water column. 

Photo Credit: NOAA Okeanos Explorer Program

The sessile, soft-bodied coral polyps attached to the sea floor secrete a hard, external skeleton of 

limestone (i.e., CaCO3), constructing tropical coral reefs in the process. These reefs represent the largest 

Figure 3.8-1. NOS Diver on 

Gray's Reef with Variety of 

Marine Macroinvertebrates

Figure 3.8-2. Jellyfish in the Order 

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

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

333

structures of biological origin on the planet; the structure, complex three-dimensional geometry, and hard 

surfaces they provide are the basis for biologically diverse ecosystems (NOAA, No Date-c). Coral reefs are 

increasingly at risk around the world from increasing ocean temperatures and acidification related to 

increased atmospheric carbon dioxide levels and related global warming, as well as from more localized 

threats such as sedimentation, overfishing, dynamiting, and damage from anchors.

A number of marine macroinvertebrates support economically and socially important industries, both 

commercial and sport, along the nation’s coasts and estuaries, especially crustaceans (e.g., lobster, crab, 

shrimp) and mollusks (e.g., clam, mussel, oyster, scallop, squid, octopus). In 2015 alone, total U.S. landings 

revenues were $618 million for lobster, $489 million for shrimp, and $439 million for sea scallop, in 

comparison to $509 million for walleye pollock and $461 million for Pacific salmon, the two most 

important fin fisheries (NMFS, 2017e). Harvest of these shellfish is regulated by the federal and state 

governments, and management of the harvest of cephalopods like the octopus has also begun (Conners 

et al., 2017; Conners and Conrath, No Date). 

3.8.1.2 Freshwater Macroinvertebrates

The most important freshwater aquatic macroinvertebrates are bivalve mollusks (clams and mussels), 

crustaceans (crayfish), and arthropods (aquatic insects and their larvae). Clams and mussels are often so 

inconspicuous and immobile that they can be mistaken for cobblestones; they are found on the bottom 

of waterbodies and feed by filtering water for microscopic plant and animal food particles (plankton). Like 

marine macroinvertebrates, freshwater macroinvertebrates are very important both ecologically and 

economically (MDC, No Date). They are a vital food source for vertebrates, conveying nutrients from 

producers (plants and algae) to higher-order consumers in the aquatic food web. Many species of 

mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, and fish feed on aquatic macroinvertebrates in freshwater bodies. 

Some kinds of aquatic macroinvertebrates are indicators of water quality. Still others, notably mosquitoes

whose larvae are aquatic, are disease vectors. 

3.8.1.2.1 Freshwater Macroinvertebrate Stressors

North America has the highest freshwater mussel diversity in the world, but an estimated 70 percent of 

these are extinct or imperiled (Vollman, 2019). A number of species are listed as threatened or 

endangered because of changes to hydrology caused by dams, reservoirs, and channelization, and

because of turbidity, sedimentation, and pollution (Platt, 2018) as well as invasive species (69 FR 42198, 

July 14, 2004). Aquatic macroinvertebrates are so sensitive to water quality and susceptible to water 

pollutants that certain kinds are frequently used as reliable indicators of freshwater quality in waterbodies 

(Gaufin and Tarzwell, 1952; USU, No Date). Some species of macroinvertebrates can survive degraded 

water quality, but others survive only under nearly pure or pristine conditions (NPS, 2020a).

Among the “indicator species” of water quality and pollution are the benthic (i.e., bottom-dwelling) 

macroinvertebrates: small, fully aquatic animals and the aquatic larval stages of insects (which may be 

non-aquatic as adults). They include snails, worms, beetles, and the larvae of dragonflies, mayflies, and 

stoneflies (Figure 3.8-3). Benthic macroinvertebrates are typically found attached to rocks, vegetation, 

sticks, and logs, or within burrows in bottom sand and sediments (EPA, 2022).
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

334

Photo Credit: G. Carter via NOAA/GLERL

Non-native, invasive macroinvertebrates like the zebra mussel (Dreissena polymorpha) (Figure 3.8-4), a 

native to Eurasia introduced inadvertently into the Great Lakes ecosystem from ship ballast water 

(Vollman, 2019), have affected the aquatic ecology of entire lake and river systems (USGS, 2022a) 

including the Great Lakes, Mississippi River Basin, and other watersheds, where they have threatened 

native freshwater mussel species (USFWS, 2004). Since the early 1990s, more than 95 percent of the 

native clams once found in Lake Erie have disappeared because of the zebra mussel, which attaches itself 

to native clams in large numbers, impeding the ability of the clams to feed and burrow (Nichols and Wilcox, 

2004). Zebra mussels have spread rapidly and now infest the entire Great Lakes ecosystem (Egan, 2019).

Photo Credit: Amy Benson, USGS

In addition to its ecological impacts, the invasive zebra mussel has also become an extremely costly 

nuisance to industries and municipalities, such as water and electrical utilities, which withdraw water or 

discharge effluent, because of the mussel’s tendency to completely clog water intake and effluent outfall 

pipes. Invasion of the zebra mussel has cost billions of dollars in the last three decades because of the 

need to invent, design, construct, and maintain water treatment systems that use chemicals, heat, and 

ultraviolet light to clear pipelines, intakes, and outfalls, and to keep water and effluent flowing through 

them (Egan, 2019). 

Figure 3.8-3. Variety of Freshwater 

Benthic Macroinvertebrates

Figure 3.8-4. Zebra Mussel
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

335

The closely related quagga mussel (Dreissena bugensis), an invasive native to the Dnieper River basin in 

the Ukraine, was first discovered in Lake Erie in 1989 and has also spread very rapidly, proving even more 

ecologically destructive in the Great Lakes than the zebra mussel. Quaggas are such effective filter feeders 

that they remove substantial quantities of phytoplankton from the water column. By depleting 

phytoplankton, quaggas in turn reduce food for zooplankton, thereby co-opting and diverting energy 

flows at the base of the aquatic food pyramid into their own growth and biomass (IMC, 2018). The biomass 

of quagga mussels in Lake Michigan in one recent year was estimated to be about seven times greater 

than the entire biomass of the schools of prey fish upon which the lake’s salmon and trout depend (Egan, 

2019). Under favorable conditions, these mussels can now filter all of Lake Michigan’s water in less than 

two weeks. Removal of suspended particles increases water clarity (decreasing turbidity) and reduces 

chlorophyll (phytoplankton) concentrations. In turn, increased light penetration leads to a proliferation of 

certain aquatic plants, altered species dominance, and changes in the entire aquatic ecosystem.

Pseudofeces (i.e., mucous-coated grit expelled by filter-feeding gastropod mollusks, distinct from actual 

feces) produced by quagga mussels from filtering water accumulate and foul the underwater environment 

(USGS, 2022b). As these waste particles decompose, DO is depleted and the water becomes very acidic; 

additionally, toxic byproducts are generated. Moreover, quagga mussels magnify organic pollutants 

within their tissues to concentrations 300,000 times greater than in the environment; these toxins can be 

passed up the food chain, increasing exposure of wildlife to organic pollutants (Snyder et al., 1997).

3.8.1.3 Sound Production and Hearing

The science of how aquatic macroinvertebrates, with their exceptional morphological and physiological 

diversity, use sound or are affected by anthropogenic sources of underwater sound is in its infancy 

(Mooney et al., 2010; Acoustical Society of America, 2017; Hawkins and Popper, 2012, 2017; NSF and 

USGS, 2011). Certain macroinvertebrates, such as cnidarians, annelids, arthropods, and mollusks, are 

known to have external sensory cilia (i.e., hair-like structures) and/or internal statocysts (i.e., sac-like 

organs with sensory cilia) to detect vibrations in the water (Navy, 2015). 

Similar to the way that some fish sense sound, scientists believe that macroinvertebrates are able to sense 

vibrations and particle motion – rather than sound pressure, which is detected by and affects marine 

mammals (DOSITS, No Date-b; Nedelec et al., 2016; Edmonds et al., 2016). Because any acoustic sensory 

capabilities in aquatic macroinvertebrates, to the extent they exist at all, are limited to detecting particle 

motion, and this decreases rapidly with distance from the sound source, invertebrates are probably 

restricted to detecting sound sources in close proximity rather than sound caused by pressure waves from 

distant sources (Navy, 2015). Due to their commercial importance, most attention has focused on the 

acoustic capabilities and sensitivities of marine crustaceans (e.g., lobsters, shrimp, crabs). While 

crustaceans are known to detect, produce, and respond to sound, their sensitivity to sound is unknown 

(Edmonds et al., 2016). 

The hearing range of macroinvertebrates is uncertain and likely varies from phylum to phylum. At present, 

no acoustic frequency or sound intensity thresholds exist above which there are known or observed 

impacts (Edmonds et al., 2016). All of the NOS underwater sound sources, such as echo sounders and 

ADCPs, associated with the project alternatives should be well above the hearing range of 

macroinvertebrates (Hawkins and Popper, 2012). However, certain macroinvertebrates can probably 

detect low-frequency sounds from ship movement (Mooney et al., 2010), though scientists still lack an 

understanding of what that means to them. To date, there are no studies indicating whether masking
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

336

occurs in aquatic macroinvertebrates or suggesting that anthropogenic sounds would have any impact on 

invertebrate behavior (Hawkins and Popper, 2012).

3.8.1.4 Regional Distribution

Aquatic macroinvertebrates are found in all regions of the action area, though different phyla and taxa 

predominate in different regions and habitats. In the freshwater navigable rivers throughout the 

continental U.S., as well as the Great Lakes, mollusks, in particular mussels, are ecologically predominant. 

Native insect larva and crustaceans such as amphipods and crayfish (which are all arthropods), as well as

annelids (segmented worms), are also present in these freshwater habitats. Brachiopods, bryozoans, 

Cnidaria (jellyfish and corals), echinoderms (sea stars, etc.), Porifera (sponges), and tunicates are some of 

the prominent macroinvertebrates not found to any extent or at all in freshwater environments. 

It is in the marine environment that macroinvertebrate diversity and abundance reach their zenith, 

especially in warmer waters and the tropics. All five marine regions of the EEZ support abundant 

macroinvertebrate populations, biomass, and species diversity. 

Tropical coral reefs of any significance, and the diverse animal assemblages and ecosystems they support, 

occur only in the Southeast Region and Pacific Islands Region. The economic value of particular 

commercially important macroinvertebrates varies substantially from region to region. Shrimp are 

particularly important in the Gulf states of the Southeast Region, while lobster support an important 

fishery in the Greater Atlantic Region. Oyster harvest in Chesapeake Bay (on the boundary between the 

Greater Atlantic Region and Southeast Region) used to support a major industry that is now much 

diminished, but crabs continue to be economically and culturally important. Crabs also support a large 

commercial fishery in the Alaska Region. 

3.8.1.5 Threatened and Endangered Species

NMFS and the USFWS have listed a number of imperiled aquatic macroinvertebrates as either threatened 

or endangered under the ESA. 

3.8.1.5.1 Marine Macroinvertebrates

A total of 17 ESA-listed or candidate species of marine macroinvertebrates, 15 coral species and two 

species of abalone (a marine gastropod mollusk), potentially occur in the action area (Table 3.8-1). The 

corals are all within the Southeast Region and the Pacific Islands Region, while the abalones are found in 

the West Coast Region. Two species of ESA-listed coral and one species of abalone have designated critical 

habitat. 

Table 3.8-1. ESA-Listed Marine Macroinvertebrates Occurring in the Action Area

Common Name Scientific Name ESA Status

Lead 

Agency Region* Critical Habitat

Staghorn coral Acropora cervicornis Threatened NMFS SER Yes

Coral: no common 

name

Acropora globiceps Threatened NMFS PIR No

Coral: no common 

name

Acropora 

jacquelineae

Threatened NMFS PIR No
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

337

Common Name Scientific Name ESA Status

Lead 

Agency Region* Critical Habitat

Elkhorn coral Acropora palmata Threatened NMFS SER Yes

Coral: no common 

name

Acropora retusa Threatened NMFS PIR No

Coral: no common 

name

Acropora speciosa Threatened NMFS PIR No

Pillar coral Dendrogyra cylindrus Threatened NMFS SER No

Coral: no common 

name

Euphyllia paradivisa Threatened NMFS PIR No

Black abalone Haliotis cracherodii Endangered NMFS WCR Yes

White abalone Haliotis sorenseni Endangered NMFS WCR No

Coral: no common 

name

Isopora crateriformis Threatened NMFS PIR No

Rough cactus coral Mycetophyllia ferox Threatened NMFS SER No

Lobed star coral Orbicella annularis Threatened NMFS SER No

Mountainous star 

coral

Orbicella faveolata Threatened NMFS SER No

Boulder star coral Orbicella franksi Threatened NMFS SER No

Coral: no common 

name

Pocillopora 

meandrina

Candidate NMFS PIR --

Coral: no common 

name

Seriatopora aculeata Threatened NMFS PIR No

*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).

3.8.1.5.1.1 Acropora cervicornis (Staghorn Coral)

Staghorn coral (Figure 3.8-5) is considered one of the most important corals in the Caribbean Sea because 

it furnishes crucial habitat for other reef animals, especially fish. It lives in a number of coral reef habitats: 

spur and groove, bank reef, patch reef, transitional reef habitats, limestone ridges, terraces, and hard 

bottom. Along with elkhorn and star corals, staghorn coral gradually built Caribbean coral reefs across 

millennia. However, in the early 1980s, a severe epidemic of white band disease swept across its range, 

and now the surviving staghorn population is a tiny fraction (less than three percent) of its former 

abundance. Staghorn populations now comprise isolated colonies compared to the vast thickets that once 

predominated across its range. Thickets remain a prominent feature at just a few known locations. 

Staghorn coral populations have difficulty reproducing because of white band disease and other stressors 

(NMFS, No Date-a).
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

338

Photo Credit: NMFS

The greatest single threat now facing staghorn coral is a warming ocean. This forces the corals to expel 

the photosynthetic algae (zooxanthellae) living in their tissue that provide them with food, causing “coral 

bleaching” and often leading to death. A related threat is ocean acidification, a decrease in water pH 

caused by increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, which dissolves in the surface water to form 

carbonic acid. This makes it harder for corals to build their skeletons. Other threats are unsustainable 

fishing practices, which deplete the herbivorous fish that clean the reef, and pollutants originating on 

adjacent lands such as sediments and nutrients (NMFS, No Date-a).

In 2014, staghorn coral was listed as ESA-threatened throughout its range, which includes the Bahamas, 

Caribbean, Florida, and Gulf of Mexico. NMFS has designated four critical habitat areas recognized as 

providing critical recruitment habitat for staghorn corals off the coast of Florida and off the islands of 

Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands (NMFS, No Date-a).

3.8.1.5.1.2 Acropora globiceps

Within the action area, this species of coral, which lacks a common name, occurs in the central and 

western Pacific Ocean. Within the EEZ, it is found in Guam, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana 

Islands, American Samoa, and the Pacific Remote Island Area (NMFS, No Date-a). 

A. globiceps coral has branches resembling fingers; their size and shape depend on the degree of wave 

action to which they are exposed. Colonies subject to strong wave action have pyramid-shaped 

branchlets. Colonies can range in color from uniform blue to cream, brown, or fluorescent green.

A. globiceps is susceptible to the three major threats identified for many corals, namely ocean warming, 

disease, and ocean acidification, as well as many of the other threats common to corals, such as 

unsustainable fishing, land-based pollution sources, small population size, and habitat degradation. 

Despite its widespread geographic distribution, this species occurs primarily in a limited depth range of 0 

to 8 m (0-26 ft). Shallow reef areas like these can be complex and physically diverse but are often 

vulnerable to multiple stressors, both localized and global in nature. 

The projected impact of climate change to coral reef ecosystems indicates that the shallow depth range 

that characterizes this species, in conjunction with other biological, demographic, and spatial elements, 

Figure 3.8-5. Staghorn Coral 

and Fish for Which They 

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

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

339

threaten it with extinction in the foreseeable future. In 2014, A. globiceps was listed as ESA-threatened 

throughout its range (NMFS, No Date-a).

3.8.1.5.1.3 Acropora jacquelineae

Within the action area, this species of coral, which lacks a common name, is found in the central and 

western Pacific Ocean. Within the EEZ, it is considered to be present in American Samoa. In addition, its 

current known geographic range is mostly confined to the Coral Triangle, a roughly triangular region of 

the tropical marine waters of Indonesia, Malaysia, Papua New Guinea, Philippines, Solomon Islands, and

Timor-Leste. The Coral Triangle contains at least 500 species of reef-building corals and is considered a 

biodiversity hotspot (Allen, 2007). A number of ocean-warming events have already happened in recent 

years within the western equatorial Pacific, including the Coral Triangle, suggesting that future ocean 

warming events may be more severe than average in this part of the world. 

Closely related to the previous species (A. globiceps), A. jacquelineae consists of gray-brown or pinkish 

flat plates up to 1 m (3 ft) in diameter (Figure 3.8-6). Its upper surface has many smooth-sided thin 

projections called corallites (NMFS, No Date-a). A. jacquelineae occurs in many subtidal reef slope and 

back-reef habitats, including lower reef slopes, walls and ledges, mid-slopes, and upper reef slopes 

protected from wave action. Its depth range is 10 to 35 m (33 to 115 ft). Like A. globiceps, A. jacquelineae

is vulnerable to the three major threats facing corals, including ocean warming, disease, and ocean 

acidification. This combination of factors contributes to a risk of extinction within the foreseeable future 

for A. jaquelineae. Accordingly, in 2014 it was listed as ESA-threatened throughout its range (NMFS, No 

Date-a).

Photo Credit: NMFS

3.8.1.5.1.4 Acropora palmata (Elkhorn Coral)

Elkhorn coral is in the same taxonomic genus as fellow Caribbean reef-builder staghorn coral (Acropora) 

and is threatened by the same factors. Elkhorn coral typically occurs in clear, shallow water 0.3 to 4 m (1 

to 15 ft) deep on coral reefs throughout the Bahamas, Florida, and the Caribbean. It lives in high-energy 

zones with substantial wave action (NMFS, No Date-a). 

Elkhorn coral colonies are golden tan or pale brown in color, with white tips. Like other corals, they derive 

their color from the symbiotic algae (zooxanthellae) that reside within their tissue and convert sunlight 

Figure 3.8-6. Acropora 

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

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

340

into food. Elkhorn corals have flattened frond-like branches, which typically angle upward from a central 

trunk. Individual elkhorn colonies can grow to at least 2 m (6 ft) in height and 4 m (12 ft) in diameter, as 

well as in dense stands with interlocking frameworks known as thickets. Due to their tree-like form, 

elkhorn corals furnish valuable, spatially complex habitat for fish and other coral reef organisms. In 

addition, dense thickets of elkhorn corals help prevent shoreline erosion from storm-generated waves 

(NMFS, No Date-a). 

In 2014, elkhorn coral was listed as ESA-threatened throughout its range. NMFS has designated four 

critical habitat areas recognized as providing critical recruitment habitat for elkhorn corals off the coast 

of Florida and off the islands of Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands.

3.8.1.5.1.5 Acropora retusa

A. retusa, which lacks a common name, is a species of coral found within the EEZ at Guam, American 

Samoa, and the Pacific Remote Island Area, occurring at relatively shallow depths ranging from 0 to 5 m 

(0 to 17 ft). Colonies of A. retusa, typically brown or green in color, are composed of flat plates with short, 

thick finger-like branches. These branches appear rough and spiky because their radial corallites vary in 

length. A. retusa is characterized as rare even where it is found. This species is vulnerable to the same 

global threats as other coral species, such as ocean warming, disease, and acidification. 

Projections of climate change impacts to coral reef environments indicate that the shallow depth range 

of A. retusa, in combination with its other biological, demographic, and spatial factors, contributes to a 

risk of its extinction within the foreseeable future. Accordingly, in 2014 A. retusa was listed as ESAthreatened throughout its range (NMFS, No Date-a). 

3.8.1.5.1.6 Acropora speciosa

This species of coral, which lacks a common name, is likely distributed from Indonesia to the Marshall 

Islands in the western and central Pacific. Within the EEZ, it might be found in the Pacific Remote Island 

area and American Samoa. Its colonies, which are cream or light brown in color with delicately colored 

branch tips, form thick cushions or bottlebrush branches (Figure 3.8-7). A. speciosa is found on lower reef 

slopes and walls, especially those with clear water and high Acropora diversity, at a depth ranging 12 to 

40 m (40 to 132 ft) (NMFS, No Date-a). 

This species is threatened by the same global factors as other coral species, such as ocean warming, 

disease, and acidification. Due to the widespread nature of these threats, any one threat event has the 

potential to adversely affect many coral colonies simultaneously. Thus, a species with a relatively small 

effective population size, like A. speciosa, may have a high proportion of genetically unique individuals 

harmed by threats at any given time within the foreseeable future. This, in combination with other 

biological, demographic, and spatial elements, contributes to a risk of extinction for this species within 

the foreseeable future. Accordingly, in 2014 A. speciosa was listed as ESA-threatened throughout its range 

(NMFS, No Date-a).
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

341

Photo Credit: NMFS

3.8.1.5.1.7 Dendrogyra cylindrus (Pillar Coral)

Pillar coral (Figure 3.8-8) is a hard coral found in the western Atlantic Ocean and the Caribbean Sea. It 

often resembles a cluster of cigars or fingers protruding from the sea floor (NMFS, No Date-a). Pillar coral 

colonies occur on flat or gently sloping back reef and fore reef environments from 1 to 25 m (3 to 83 ft) in 

depth. Pillar coral colonies are resistant to heavy wave surge, but colonies will occasionally topple due to 

erosion at the bases. However, upper portions of the colonies generally survive, and they produce multiple 

new pillars which continue to grow upward. 

Pillar coral is imperiled throughout its range by climate change, including ocean warming and ocean 

acidification. Diseases, land-based sources of pollution from residential and commercial development, 

overfishing, and habitat degradation are also threats (NMFS, No Date-a). In 2014, pillar coral was listed as 

ESA-threatened throughout its range. 

Photo Credit: NMFS

Figure 3.8-7. Acropora 

speciosa

Figure 3.8-8. Pillar Coral
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

342

3.8.1.5.1.8 Euphyllia paradivisa

This species of coral, which lacks a common name, is native to the Indo-Pacific islands, occurring mostly 

in the Coral Triangle area, but is also found in the waters around American Samoa. It favors underwater 

habitats sheltered from surface wave action on fringing reef crests, mid-slope terraces, and lagoons at 

depths ranging from 2-25 m (6-82 ft). Like A. globiceps and A. jacquelineae discussed above, Euphyllia 

paradivisa faces a variety of global and localized threats that in aggregate contribute to a risk of extinction 

for this species within the foreseeable future. In 2014, it was listed as ESA-threatened throughout its range 

(NMFS, No Date-a).

3.8.1.5.1.9 Haliotis cracherodii (Black Abalone)

The black abalone is an herbivorous marine snail that was once widespread and abundant along the 

California coast but is now endangered. For millennia before modern commercial fisheries appeared to 

exploit it, indigenous Californians harvested and ate abalone. Large piles of abalone shells called middens 

document human settlement dating back more than 7,000 years. Abalone shells were even traded by 

Native Americans along routes that began in southern California and extended east of the Mississippi 

River (NMFS, No Date-a).

The black abalone continues to survive in rocky intertidal pools and subtidal reefs along the California and 

Baja California coasts. Their oval-shaped shells protect them from predators, while their strong, muscular 

“foot” attaches to rocks and other hard substrates, from which they release eggs and sperm into the water 

by the millions when prompted by the right environmental conditions. Harvesting black abalone has been 

illegal in California since 1993, but the high price of abalone meat, considered a delicacy, maintains 

poaching pressure. This endangered species has declined significantly along the Southern California coast 

because of historical overharvest and poaching, and more recently, mass mortality has occurred from a 

disease known as withering syndrome. In 2009, black abalone was listed as ESA-endangered throughout 

its range (NMFS, No Date-a). Critical habitat was designated in 2011 to include approximately 360 km2 of 

rocky intertidal and subtidal habitat within five segments of the California coast between the Del Mar 

Landing Ecological Reserve to the Palos Verdes Peninsula, as well as on the Farallon Islands, Año Nuevo 

Island, San Miguel Island, Santa Rosa Island, Santa Cruz Island, Anacapa Island, Santa Barbara Island, and 

Santa Catalina Island (76 FR 66806, October 27, 2011).

3.8.1.5.1.10 Haliotis sorenseni (White Abalone)

Closely related to the black abalone, in 2001 the white abalone (Figure 3.8-9) was listed as ESAendangered throughout its range along the California coast because of overharvest and poaching. 

Although harvest of white abalone has been illegal in California since 1997, the high price of abalone meat 

on the black market makes them a continuing target of poachers. Surveys in southern California show a 

99 percent decline in the white abalone stock since the 1970s. In 2001, NMFS determined that it would 

be imprudent to designate critical habitat because identification of such habitat might increase the threat 

of poaching for white abalone (NMFS, No Date-a).
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

343

Photo Credit: NMFS

3.8.1.5.1.11 Isopora crateriformis

This coral, which lacks a common name, is believed to be distributed within the Coral Triangle, in addition 

to some of the western Pacific, including American Samoa and the Marshall Islands. It forms brown, 

fattened, solid encrusting plates which can reach over 1 m (3 ft) in diameter. When a colony grows on a 

slope, the lower edge is usually lifted as a plate. Its main habitats are shallow, high-wave-energy 

environments, including reef flats and lower crests, as well as upper reef slopes. It has been reported from 

low tide to at least 12 m (40 ft) deep. Its abundance is characterized as “rare” (NMFS, No Date-a). 

I. crateriformis is threatened by the same global and localized factors as the other species in the Coral 

Triangle and western Pacific, including ocean warming, disease, and ocean acidification. Thus, in 2014 it 

was listed as ESA-threatened throughout its range (NMFS, No Date-a). 

3.8.1.5.1.12 Mycetophyllia ferox (Rough Cactus Coral)

Rough cactus coral is distributed in the Caribbean, southern Gulf of Mexico, Florida, and the Bahamas. It 

usually exhibits shades of grey or brown, but may also be reddish or green (NMFS, No Date-a). This species 

is most abundant in fore reef environments from 5-30 m (17-100 ft), but it is also found at low abundance 

in certain deeper back reef habitats and deep lagoons (IUCN, 2022).

Rough cactus coral is threatened by many of the same factors that threaten other corals: residential and 

commercial development, transportation corridors, fishing and harvesting of aquatic resources, human 

intrusions and disturbance (e.g., recreational activities), invasive species, pollution, and climate change. 

In 2014, rough cactus coral was listed as ESA-threatened throughout its range (IUCN, 2022; NMFS, No 

Date-a). 

3.8.1.5.1.13 Orbicella annularis (Lobed Star Coral)

This species is one of the dominant corals in the reefs of the Caribbean Sea and Gulf of Mexico, where it 

can form extremely large colonies. However, it is ESA-listed as threatened due to sharp population 

declines. The size of this species makes it an ecologically and structurally important component of coral 

reefs. It provides refuge for reef-dwelling fish and other animals and can alter marine microclimates to 

suit other coral species (EDGE, No Date). 

Lobed star coral is threatened by residential and commercial development, shipping lanes, fishing and 

harvesting of aquatic resources, human intrusions and disturbance (e.g., recreational activities), invasive 

Figure 3.8-9. White Abalone
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

344

species, pollution, and climate change. In 2014, lobed star coral was listed as ESA-threatened throughout 

its range (NMFS, No Date-a). 

3.8.1.5.1.14 Orbicella faveolata (Mountainous Star Coral)

Mountainous star coral (Figure 3.8-10) is found in the Caribbean Sea and Gulf of Mexico. It is usually pale 

brown but may be deep brown with fluorescent green highlights (NMFS, No Date-a). Befitting its name, 

colonies of mountainous star coral are massive, forming large rounded domes and becoming plate-like at 

the edges (Corals of the World, No Date). While this species is one of the most important reef-building 

corals in the Caribbean Sea, its populations have recently declined severely (Rippe et al., 2017).

Photo Credit: NMFS

The mountainous star coral is threatened by a combination of climate change, including ocean warming 

and ocean acidification, diseases, land-based sources of pollution, and habitat degradation. Accordingly, 

in 2014 it was listed as ESA-threatened throughout its range (NMFS, No Date-a). 

3.8.1.5.1.15 Orbicella franksi (Boulder Star Coral)

This coral species is native to shallow waters in the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, Bahamas, Bermuda, and 

Florida. Colonies of boulder star coral generally form very large clumps with uneven surfaces; they 

sometimes form plates. Boulder star coral is usually orange-brown, greenish-brown or greyish-brown. 

However, extremities of the lumps are frequently pale or white (NMFS, No Date-a). 

The boulder star coral, like its close relative the mountainous star coral, is threatened by a combination 

of climate change, including ocean warming and ocean acidification, diseases, land-based sources of 

pollution, small population size, and habitat degradation. In 2014, it was listed as ESA-threatened 

throughout its range (NMFS, No Date-a). 

3.8.1.5.1.16 Pocillopora meandrina (Cauliflower Coral)

This coral species, sometimes called cauliflower coral, occurs at depths of 1-27 m (3-89 ft) in shallow reefs 

exposed to strong wave action. It is distributed on coral reefs across the Pacific, with a range extending 

from the Seychelles Islands in the Indian Ocean to the west coast of Central America in the eastern Pacific. 

It is found in all U.S. Pacific Islands jurisdictions (NMFS, No Date-a). 

Figure 3.8-10. Mountainous 

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

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

345

Colonies of P. meandrina are usually cream colored but can also be green or pink; they resemble small 

upright bushes (Figure 3.8-11), with branches radiating outward from the initial point of growth. These 

branches are flattened and are covered by bumps called verrucae (NMFS, No Date-a). 

P. meandrina is threatened by climate change, including ocean warming and ocean acidification, habitat 

degradation, diseases, and unsustainable fishing. It is an ESA-candidate species for listing through its 

entire range (NMFS, No Date-a). 

Photo Credit: NMFS

3.8.1.5.1.17 Seriatopora aculeata

This coral species, which lacks a common name, is likely distributed mostly within the Coral Triangle, as 

well as adjacent areas in the western Pacific Ocean including the Mariana Islands and Guam. Colonies of

S. aculeata are pink or cream in color and have short, tapered branches, about the width of a pencil, 

usually in fused clumps (NMFS, No Date-a).

This species is found in a wide range of habitats, both on the reef slope and back reef. It occurs on upper 

reef slopes, mid-slope terraces, lower reef slopes, reef flats, and lagoons at a depth range of 3-40 m (10-

132 ft).

S. aculeata is vulnerable to the three major, interrelated global threats documented for corals: ocean 

warming, disease, and ocean acidification. A number of ocean warming events have already taken place 

within the western equatorial Pacific, an indication that future ocean warming events in this part of the 

planet may be more severe than average. A substantial portion of its current known geographic range is 

located within the Coral Triangle, which over the 21st century, is predicted to experience the most rapid 

and severe impacts on the world’s coral reefs both from global climate change and localized human 

actions. In aggregate, these stressors contribute to a risk of extinction within the foreseeable future for S. 

aculeata. In 2014, this coral was listed as ESA-threatened throughout its range (NMFS, No Date-a).

3.8.1.5.2 Freshwater Macroinvertebrates

A total of three ESA-listed species of aquatic macroinvertebrates, all mussels, have been documented in 

the Great Lakes (Table 3.8-2). 

Figure 3.8-11. Pocillopora meandrina
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

346

Table 3.8-2. ESA-Listed Aquatic Macroinvertebrates Occurring in the Great Lakes

Common Name Scientific Name ESA Status Lead Agency Critical Habitat

Northern Riffleshell Epioblasma torulosa 

rangiana

Endangered USFWS No

Snuffbox Epioblasma triquetra Endangered USFWS No

Rayed Bean Villosa fabalis Endangered USFWS No

3.8.1.5.2.1 Epioblasma torulosa rangiana (Northern Riffleshell)

This mussel occurs in both small and large streams, as well as in Lake Erie, although it now survives in less 

than five percent of its former range in the upper Midwest. It buries into substrates of firmly packed sand 

or gravel, leaving its feeding siphons exposed. Like many mussels, it has a complex life history. Its 

reproduction requires undisturbed habitat and adequate numbers of host fish necessary for the mussel's 

larval development. After male mussels discharge sperm into the water, females siphon in the sperm to 

fertilize their eggs, which they store in their gill pouches until larvae hatch and are expelled. Those larvae 

that find a fish host to fasten onto by means of tiny clasping valves grow into juveniles with shells of their 

own. At that stage they detach from the host fish and settle into the stream or lakebed, ready to begin a 

long life (up to half a century) as an adult mussel (PNHP, No Date). 

Dams and reservoirs have flooded most of the northern riffleshell’s habitat. Reservoirs act as barriers that 

isolate upstream populations from downstream ones. Erosion from strip mining, logging, farming, and 

grading introduces sediments to many waterbodies. Suspended and deposited sediments can clog 

mussels’ feeding siphons and smother them. Point-source and non-point-source pollution from 

agricultural runoff and industrial discharge is another threat. These toxins can accumulate and 

concentrate in the body tissues of filter-feeders like mussels, eventually poisoning them. In addition, the 

invasive zebra mussel poses a threat because they attach in great numbers to native mussels such as the 

northern riffleshell, suffocating and killing them. In 1993, this species was listed as ESA-endangered 

“wherever found” throughout its range (ECOS, No Date-a).

3.8.1.5.2.2 Epioblasma triquetra (Snuffbox)

The snuffbox is a small, triangular freshwater mussel with a yellow, green or brown shell that occurs in a 

number of states in the South and upper Midwest, as well as Pennsylvania and West Virginia. However, 

its range and numbers have decreased by at least 90 percent. It lives in small to medium-sized creeks with 

swift currents, although it also occurs in Lake Erie and some larger rivers (USFWS, 2012a). Males can grow 

up to 7.1 cm (2.8 in), with females reaching 4.6 cm (1.8 in). Adults often burrow deep in sandy, gravel, or 

cobble substrates, except when they are spawning or when the females are attempting to attract host 

fish. Snuffbox mussels are suspension feeders, feeding on algae, bacteria, detritus, microscopic animals, 

and dissolved organic material (USFWS, 2012a).

Adapted to living in currents, the snuffbox cannot survive in the lentic (still water) conditions created by 

dams. These mussels are also adversely affected by pollution, sedimentation, and invasive specieslike the 

zebra mussel. In 2012, the snuffbox mussel was listed as ESA-endangered “wherever found” throughout 

its range (ECOS, No Date-a).
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

347

3.8.1.5.2.3 Villosa fabalis (Rayed Bean)

The rayed bean (Figure 3.8-12) is a small freshwater mussel, typically less than 3.8 cm (1.5 in) long. Its 

shell is smooth-textured and green, yellowish-green, or brown with many dark-green wavy lines. It 

generally lives in smaller, headwater creeks, but is sometimes found in large rivers and wave-washed 

areas of glacial lakes, as well as Lake Erie. It prefers sand or gravel substrates, often in and around the 

roots of aquatic vegetation. Adult rayed beans spend their entire lives partially or completely submerged 

in the substrate, filtering water through their gills to feed upon algae, bacteria, detritus, microscopic 

animals, and dissolved organic material (USFWS, 2012b).

Photo Credit: Angela Boyer, USFWS

Historically, the rayed bean used to range across a wide area in the upper Midwest and eastern states, 

north to Ontario. Once found in at least 115 streams, canals, and lakes, it now occurs in only 31 streams 

and one lake, as well as Lake Erie. It has suffered a 73 percent reduction in the number of occupied streams 

and lakes. It has been extirpated entirely from three states but is still found in several others, as well as 

Ontario, Canada. After extirpation from Tennessee and West Virginia, reintroductions have restored the 

rayed bean to these states (USFWS, 2012b).

This mussel is endangered for the same reasons as the snuffbox mussel: dams and reservoirs, pollution, 

sedimentation, and invasive species. In 2012, the rayed bean mussel was listed as ESA-endangered 

“wherever found” throughout its range (ECOS, No Date-a).

3.8.1.5.2.4 Other ESA-Listed Freshwater Mussel Species

A number of other ESA-listed freshwater mussel species are found throughout navigable rivers of the U.S., 

particularly in the major tributaries of the Mississippi River System, including the Tennessee, Ohio, Illinois, 

Arkansas, and Red Rivers; these species are unlikely to be affected by NOS projects. 

3.8.2 Environmental Consequences for Aquatic Macroinvertebrates

This section discusses the potential impacts of proposed activities associated with Alternatives A, B, and 

C on aquatic macroinvertebrates. ESA-listed endangered and threatened species are included as part of

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

However, any impacts on managed species are of particular concern since they could affect commercially 

and recreationally important populations of these species. Effects determinations for ESA-listed species 

are presented in Section 3.8.2.5.

Figure 3.8-12. Rayed Bean 

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

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

348

Activities described in Sections 2.1.1 through 2.1.13 that occur on NOS projects and that could be 

expected to impact aquatic macroinvertebrates include operation of crewed sea-going surface vessels; 

operation of ROVs and autonomous vehicles; use of echo sounders, ADCPs, acoustic communication 

systems, and sound speed data collection equipment; anchoring; collection of bottom grab samples; 

operation of drop/towed cameras and video systems; installation, maintenance, and removal of tide 

gauges and GPS reference stations; and SCUBA operations.

3.8.2.1 Methodology

The factors from NOS activities that could impact aquatic macroinvertebrates in the action area include:

(1) active underwater acoustic sources (e.g., echo sounders, ADCPs, and acoustic communication 

systems); (2) vessel sound (e.g., from surface vessels, ROVs, and autonomous vehicles); (3) vessel surface 

wake and underwater turbulence (e.g., from surface vessels; ROVs and autonomous vehicles; survey 

equipment; and anchors); (4) accidental leakage or spillage of oil, fuel, and chemicals into surrounding 

waters (e.g., from vessel operations); (5) disturbance of the sea floor (e.g., from anchoring and collection 

of bottom grab samples); and (6) air emissions (e.g., from smokestacks and outboard motors). These 

potential impact causing factors and their associated impacts on aquatic macroinvertebrates are 

discussed below for each alternative. 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 in this PEIS 

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

impacts. The significance criteria for aquatic macroinvertebrates are shown in Table 3.8-3.

Table 3.8-3. Significance Criteria for the Analysis of Impacts

to Aquatic Macroinvertebrates

Impact 

Descriptor Context and Intensity

Significance 

Conclusion

Negligible

Impacts to aquatic macroinvertebrates would be limited to 

temporary (lasting up to several hours) behavioral and stress-startle 

responses to individual invertebrates found within the project area. 

Impacts on habitat would be temporary (e.g., temporary placement 

of an object on the sea floor or increased turbidity) with no lasting 

damage or alteration.

Insignificant

Minor

Impacts to aquatic macroinvertebrates would be temporary or shortterm (lasting several days to several weeks) but would not be outside 

the natural range of variability of species’ populations, their habitats, 

or the natural processes sustaining them. This could include 

temporary or repeated short-term stress responses without 

permanent physiological damage. Behavioral responses to 

disturbance by some individuals, groups, populations, or colonies

could be expected, but only temporary disturbance of breeding, 

feeding, or other activities would occur, without any impacts on 

population levels. Displacement would be short-term and limited to 

the project area or its immediate surroundings. Impacts on habitat

(e.g., short-term placement of an object on the sea floor, increased 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

349

Impact 

Descriptor Context and Intensity

Significance 

Conclusion

turbidity, or loss of a small area of vegetation) would be easily 

recoverable, with no long-term or permanent damage or alteration. 

Moderate

Impacts to aquatic macroinvertebrates would be short-term or longterm (lasting several months or longer) and outside the natural range 

of variability of species’ populations, their habitats, or the natural 

processes sustaining them. This could include physiological injury to 

individuals, repeated stress responses, or mortality. Behavioral 

responses to disturbance by numerous individuals could be expected 

in the project area, its immediate surroundings, or beyond. These 

could include negative impacts to breeding, feeding, growth, or other 

factors affecting population levels, including population-level 

mortality to or extended displacement (up to 1 year) of large numbers 

(e.g., population-level) of invertebrates. However, they would not 

threaten the continued existence of a stock, population, or species. 

Habitat would be potentially damaged or altered over the long term 

but would continue to support the species reliant on it.

Major

Impacts to aquatic macroinvertebrates would be short-term or longterm and well outside the natural range of variability of species’ 

populations, their habitats, or the natural processes sustaining them. 

Behavioral and stress responses would be repeated or permanent. 

Actions would affect any stage of a species’ life cycle (i.e., breeding, 

feeding, growth, and maturity), alter population structure, genetic 

diversity, or other demographic factors, and/or cause mortality 

beyond a small number of individuals, resulting in a decrease in 

population levels. Displacement and stress responses would be shortor long-term within and well beyond the project area. Habitat would 

be degraded over the long term or permanently so that it would no 

longer support a sustainable fishery and/or would cause the 

population of a managed species to become stressed, less productive, 

or unstable.

Significant

3.8.2.2 Alternative A: No Action - Conduct Surveying and Mapping Projects for 

Coastal and Marine Data Collection with Current Technology and Methods, at 

Current Funding Levels

Under Alternative A, NOS survey effort would 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), over the five-year period for proposed projects, the greatest number of nautical miles 

surveyed would be in the Southeast Region (approximately 47 percent). The survey effort in each of the 

other four regions is approximately 10 percent over five years, and perhaps slightly greater in the Alaska 

Region where the survey effort would be somewhat higher overall (approximately 18 percent). 

Additionally, survey effort in the Great Lakes would average 2,917 nm (5,402 km) annually, as compared 

to an 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 and depth of surveys, hearing 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

350

frequency of aquatic macroinvertebrates, and population densities of aquatic macroinvertebrates, that 

add nuance to this trend.

Overall, vessel activity during NOS projects would comprise a negligible proportion of vessel traffic in the 

action area (not including recreational vessels as they are not generally included in the count). 

Additionally, whenever possible, the location and timing of a given project would be purposefully 

coordinated to ensure that areas are not repeatedly surveyed (although ONMS and IOOS surveys may 

occur multiple times in one year). This ensures that the potential environmental impacts directly resulting 

from NOS projects would not be exacerbated by repeated surveys within a given area.

3.8.2.2.1 Aquatic Macroinvertebrates

The analysis of impacts on aquatic macroinvertebrates considers all of the impact causing factors listed 

above, except for air emissions which are analyzed in Section 3.8.2.2.2. Potential impacts could occur in 

all of the geographic regions. Three of the regions (Southeast, West Coast, Pacific Islands) include one or

more ESA-listed species, and two regions, the Southeast Region and the West Coast Region, include 

designated critical habitat for aquatic macroinvertebrates. The Pacific Islands Region contains the greatest 

number of ESA-listed species (all corals), closely followed by the Southeast Region (also corals). The only 

designated critical habitat is for staghorn and elkhorn coral in the Southeast Region and black abalone in 

the West Coast Region (see Table 3.8-1). 

In addition to the impacts on aquatic macroinvertebrates discussed in this section, these organisms may 

also be indirectly affected by habitat modification, such as degradation of water quality and disturbance 

of benthos, aquatic vegetation, and sediments. These potential impacts are discussed in Section 3.8.2.2.2. 

3.8.2.2.1.1 Active Underwater Acoustic Sources

As noted in Section 3.8.1.3, research into the effects of underwater sound waves on aquatic 

macroinvertebrates has barely begun and there are still many unknowns. While they lack ears and related 

structures associated with hearing, certain aquatic macroinvertebrates do possess morphological 

structures (external cilia sensory hairs, and internal statocysts), and at close range to a sound source, they 

are believed to be capable of detecting low-frequency vibrations and particle motion in water. However, 

unlike aquatic vertebrates, aquatic macroinvertebrates, lacking ears with which to hear, would not be 

vulnerable to potential hearing loss from loud underwater sounds. Furthermore, virtually all of the highfrequency underwater acoustic sources used during NOS projects should be above the detection range of

aquatic macroinvertebrates.

Overall, active underwater acoustic sources including echo sounders and ADCPs, when considered with 

the mobile and temporary character of NOS projects, the limited low-frequency detection range of aquatic 

macroinvertebrates documented to date, as well as the small area of the water column and sea floor 

affected during the projects relative to the entire EEZ, would have adverse, negligible impacts on aquatic 

macroinvertebrates. Impacts on aquatic macroinvertebrates, both marine and fresh water (Great Lakes 

and major navigable rivers), including ESA-listed species, would continue to be insignificant.

3.8.2.2.1.2 Vessel Sound

As noted in earlier sections, all vessels generate low-frequency underwater sound in the 20 to 500 Hz 

range and are major contributors to the overall background sound in the sea, which has been increasing 

for decades. As indicated in Section 3.8.1.3, aquatic macroinvertebrates can probably detect lowfrequency sound from ships, but scientists do not yet understand what, if anything, this sound at these 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

351

levels means to them. It is likely that aquatic macroinvertebrates found in locations with high vessel traffic 

have already habituated to this background sound. Underwater vessel sound could potentially disturb 

certain nearby aquatic macroinvertebrates, interrupt feeding, cause other behavior modifications, and 

possibly mask biologically important signals; such impacts would vary among aquatic macroinvertebrate 

taxa. Impacts on invertebrate behavior are anticipated to be temporary and localized to areas of vessel 

activity.

ROVs also generate engine sound, and effects on aquatic macroinvertebrates would likely be similar to 

those from sound from surface vessels but likely at a reduced magnitude as ROVs are smaller, thus 

producing less sound, and they would not be used as extensively as surface vessels (see Table 2.4-1).

Given the proposed volume of vessel traffic associated with projects within the EEZ, the effects of sound

from vessels used by NOS on aquatic macroinvertebrates, including ESA-listed species, would be adverse 

and negligible. Multiple activities in one area could lead to larger magnitudes and more widespread 

impacts, but they would still be considered insignificant.

3.8.2.2.1.3 Vessel Wake and Underwater Turbulence

Water disturbance by surface vessel and ROV wakes and underwater turbulence could temporarily disturb 

nearby invertebrates and displace mobile taxa. However, these impacts would be minimal as the vessel 

used by NOS would quickly pass by or stop moving. Impacts could increase if the frequency of disturbance 

becomes greater (i.e., repeated passes). In any event, mobile aquatic macroinvertebrates would be

expected to return to the area and resume normal activities once the vessel used by NOS departs or the 

ROV is no longer present.

Equipment used in NOS projects, such as echo sounders and ADCPs, is typically attached to a crewed

vessel, ROV, or an autonomous vehicle, thus effects on invertebrates due to water movement that is 

created would occur from the use of these carriers, rather than any disturbance from the equipment itself. 

An exception would be in the rare instances when echo sounders are placed directly on the sea floor or 

operated by divers, who would possibly disturb nearby invertebrates temporarily by moving through the 

water column.

Some equipment such as sound speed data collection equipment, bottom grab samplers, and drop/towed 

cameras is lowered and raised through the water column or falls through the water. This movement 

through the water could temporarily disturb and displace nearby aquatic macroinvertebrates such as 

crabs, shrimp, or lobsters, although it is not expected that most would move very far. These impacts would 

be temporary, as these organisms are expected to return once water column turbulence ceases.

Effects on aquatic macroinvertebrates, including ESA-listed species, from vessel wake and underwater

turbulence would be adverse and negligible. Multiple activities in one area could lead to more widespread 

impacts of greater magnitude, but impacts would still be considered insignificant.

3.8.2.2.1.4 Accidental Leakage or Spillage of Oil, Fuel, and Chemicals

An accidental event could result in release of fuel or diesel by a vessel used by NOS. Adverse impacts on 

aquatic macroinvertebrates could also occur from pumping of oily bilge water overboard, discharged 

wastewater/graywater that may contain nutrients and fecal coliform, and accidental oil, fuel, and 

chemical spills. Discharges other than accidental ones are regulated by the MARPOL 73/78 protocol, to 

which the U.S. is a signatory. Moreover, all hazardous or regulated materials would be handled in 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

352

accordance with applicable laws and crew members would be appropriately trained in materials storage 

and usage.

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 

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.

Some aquatic macroinvertebrates (e.g., crustaceans) are mobile enough to avoid areas of higher 

concentrations of oil and other contaminants, while others such as corals, sea anemones, and sea urchins

are sessile or immobile. Depending on the product, most oil would remain at or near the surface and 

typically would not impact aquatic macroinvertebrates in deeper water, where most are located. Lighter 

substances can disperse into the water column or might dissolve in water, potentially impacting sessile 

eggs and larvae, as well as more mobile juvenile aquatic macroinvertebrates and adult crustaceans. 

Although the probability of an accidental oil or chemical spill from a vessel used by NOS is very low, if 

exposed, aquatic macroinvertebrates can be affected directly either by ingestion of oil or oiled prey, 

through uptake of dissolved petroleum compounds, and through effects on eggs and larvae survival. 

Sublethal effects may cause stress and could be transient and only slightly debilitating, but invertebrates

may also be killed by coming into contact with oil and other contaminants. Recovery requires energy, and 

this could eventually lead to increased vulnerability to disease, diminished growth and reproductive 

success, and reduced fitness overall. 

Aquatic macroinvertebrates can be affected indirectly by oil and chemicals via modifications of the 

ecosystem that affect their prey species and habitats. Many aquatic macroinvertebrates feed upon

phytoplankton and zooplankton during various life stages. However, even if a large amount of plankton 

were affected, it can recover rapidly due to high reproductive rates, rapid replacement from adjacent 

waters, widespread distribution, and exchange with tidal currents. Moreover, the vessels used for NOS 

projects and the quantity of fuel and other chemicals they carry are extremely small compared to the 

extensive size of the action area. Thus, the impact on a pelagic phytoplankton community, and on aquatic

macroinvertebrates, would not be substantial, widespread, or long-term.

The likelihood of an accidental spill from a vessel used for NOS projects would be very low, and thus 

impacts are expected to be adverse and negligible to minor. All hazardous or regulated materials would

be handled in accordance with applicable laws, crew members would be appropriately trained in materials 

storage and usage, and all MARPOL discharge protocols would be followed. Impacts on aquatic 

macroinvertebrates, including ESA-listed species, would be considered insignificant. In the event that an 

accidental spill did occur, the volume of oil, fuel, and/or chemicals would be fairly small, so that the impact 

on aquatic macroinvertebrates would still be considered insignificant. 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

353

3.8.2.2.1.5 Disturbance of the Sea Floor

Water disturbance by anchors and chains moving in the water, and by collection of bottom grab samples, 

can temporarily disturb, displace, damage, or crush, injure, and kill nearby aquatic macroinvertebrates, 

both mobile (e.g., crustaceans) and immobile (e.g., corals, sea urchins, sea anemones, mollusks, sponges). 

Impacts would be minimal and extremely localized (BOEM, 2014b), and would cease with the removal of 

the grab sampler, with the anchoring system coming to rest, or with the equipment being taken out of 

the water. Any displaced benthic aquatic macroinvertebrates are expected to return to the area and 

resume normal activities as soon as water column turbulence ceases.

Dropping an anchor onto the seabed or lake/river bottom would disturb a very small area (1-2 m2 [3-6 

ft2

]). If anchor chains drag across the sea floor, they can create a circular scour hole. Anchor scour has the 

potential to create localized turbidity that could reduce water clarity and increase sediment deposition. 

Increased sedimentation can impact aquatic macroinvertebrates by reducing feeding efficiency, altering 

reproductive cycles, and reducing response to physical stimulus. In cases where organisms are exposed 

to excessive turbidity, the suspended sediments can potentially limit gas exchange and possibly lead to 

asphyxiation. However, suspended sediments are expected to settle quickly and long exposures are not 

likely to occur. Furthermore, NOS personnel would be careful not to drag anchor chains, would ensure 

that anchors are properly secured so as to minimize bottom disturbance, and would generally avoid 

anchoring on coral reefs.

Samples would not be collected on coral reefs, shipwrecks, obstructions, or hard bottom areas, further 

minimizing direct impacts to aquatic macroinvertebrates. Overall effects on aquatic macroinvertebrates 

from disturbance of the sea floor would be adverse and negligible. Impacts on aquatic

macroinvertebrates, including ESA-listed species, would continue to be insignificant.

3.8.2.2.2 Habitat for Aquatic Macroinvertebrates

The analysis of impacts on habitat for aquatic macroinvertebrates does not consider active underwater 

acoustic sources or vessel and equipment sound, as these impact causing factors would not affect habitat 

characteristics.

3.8.2.2.2.1 Vessel Wake and Underwater Turbulence

Vessel wakes and turbulence can generate wave and surge effects on shorelines and stir up bottom 

sediments, increasing localized turbidity in shallow areas depending on the wake wave energy, the water 

depth, and the type of shoreline. Wakes can cause shoreline erosion, degrade wetland habitat, and

increase water turbidity. Water column habitat gradients would be temporarily disrupted by wake action, 

including temperature, salinity, DO, turbidity, and nutrient supply. Stirring up lake sediment can resuspend nutrients such as phosphorus, potentially contributing to harmful, DO-consuming algal blooms. 

The suspension of disturbed sediments from wake action and shoreline erosion could minimize the light 

intensity that reaches aquatic vegetation which depends on light for photosynthesis. High turbidity that 

causes a substantial reduction in light availability can lead to sublethal adverse effects or mortality of 

aquatic vegetation. Suspended material may also react with DO in the water and result in short-term 

oxygen depletion to aquatic resources, including vegetation and aquatic macroinvertebrates.

The movement of ROVs, such as sound speed data collection equipment, bottom grab samplers, 

drop/towed cameras, and anchors and chains through the water column could temporarily cause localized 

turbulence and disturb nearby prey species, as well as potentially cause damage to submerged aquatic 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

354

vegetation. These impacts would be temporary as prey species are expected to return once water column 

turbulence ceases.

Equipment such as echo sounders, ADCPs, and acoustic communication systems, are typically attached to 

a crewed vessel, ROV, or autonomous vehicle, thus effects on habitat would occur from the use of these 

carriers, rather than any disturbance from the equipment itself. The one exception would be in the rare 

instances when echo sounders are placed directly on the sea floor or operated by divers. In such cases, 

divers would move through the water column temporarily disturbing prey species.

Underwater turbulence could occur during tide gauge installation even though it occurs primarily out of 

the water at existing piers, docks, bulkheads, and other such locales. All buoys would be attached to the 

sea floor using the best available mooring systems to reduce entanglement. Generally, no impact on 

habitat would occur except when tide gauge installation requires in-water work that could cause sediment 

disturbance. In remote areas which are reached by boat for installation, maintenance, and removal, 

impacts on habitat could occur and would be similar to those for surface vessel operations. Likewise, 

installation of a shore-based GPS reference station would not have any effects on habitat other than 

potentially from accessing the site via a surface vessel, which would be similar to those from surface vessel 

operations.

Effects on habitat, designated critical habitat, and other aquatic macroinvertebrate habitat, from vessel 

wake and underwater turbulence would be adverse and negligible to minor. Multiple activities in one 

area could lead to greater magnitudes and extents of impacts, but impacts would still be considered 

insignificant.

3.8.2.2.2.2 Accidental Leakage or Spillage of Oil, Fuel, and Chemicals

An accidental event could result in release of fuel or oil by a vessel used by NOS. The accidental loss of a 

substantial amount of fuel or oil during projects could affect water quality, the water column, the sea

floor, intertidal habitats, and associated biota (i.e., submerged aquatic vegetation) resulting in their 

mortality or substantial injury, and in alteration of the existing quality of aquatic macroinvertebrate 

habitats. Cleaning and inspecting vessels prior to use would reduce the risk of accidental spills. In addition,

implementation of a spill prevention and recovery plan and shipboard emergency plans that outline 

measures to reduce the potential for spills and isolate accidental spills should they occur would further 

reduce the potential for adverse impacts on habitat. In addition, onboard and supporting equipment and 

the procedures specified in the spill plan are expected to reduce the effects of accidentally discharged 

fuel and other petroleum products (e.g., oil, lubricants) by facilitating rapid response and cleanup 

operations. 

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

355

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.

Vessel bilge water discharges, engine operations, bottom paint sloughing, boat washdowns, and other 

vessel activities or wear can also deliver debris, nutrients, and contaminants to waterways. This may 

degrade water quality, contaminate sediments, and alter benthic communities and other aquatic

macroinvertebrate habitats. Vessel wash, including gray water, deck runoff and cooling water can damage 

aquatic vegetation and disturb benthos and sediments, which may increase turbidity and suspend 

contaminants. Any liquid contaminants are expected to be rapidly diluted. 

The likelihood of occurrence of an accidental fuel or oil spill from a vessel used by NOS would be very low, 

although the release of other contaminants is a little more likely. All hazardous or regulated materials 

would be handled in accordance with applicable laws, crew members would be appropriately trained in 

materials storage and usage, and all MARPOL discharge protocols would be followed. Thus, impacts are 

expected to be adverse and negligible to minor. Impacts on habitat, as well as designated critical habitat, 

would continue to be insignificant.

3.8.2.2.2.3 Disturbance of the Sea Floor

Adverse impacts on aquatic macroinvertebrate habitat can occur when vessels used by NOS anchor in 

shallow nearshore waters and the anchor chain drags across the sea floor, destroying submerged 

vegetation and creating a circular scour hole. Anchor scour has the potential to create localized turbidity 

and affect soft-bottomed seafloor habitat and/or rocky substrates, potentially creating turbidity that 

could reduce water clarity and increase sediment deposition. NOS personnel would deploy anchors so as 

to minimize anchor drag, would ensure that anchors are properly secured so as to minimize bottom 

disturbance, and would not anchor on known coral reef areas.

Increased turbidity immediately following anchoring events could temporarily reduce foraging ability of

prey due to decreased visibility in the water column; however, these conditions would be of short duration 

and would soon return to baseline. Suspended material may also react with DO in the water and result in 

short-term oxygen depletion to aquatic resources.

Collecting bottom samples could create localized turbidity and affect soft-bottomed seafloor habitat, 

potentially creating turbidity that could reduce water clarity temporarily. Such turbidity would likely be 

minimal as samplers are designed to close to contain the sediment and prevent sample washout. Samples 

would not be collected on coral reefs, shipwrecks, obstructions, or hard bottom areas, further minimizing 

impacts on aquatic macroinvertebrate habitat. Placement of equipment or moorings on the sea floor has 

the potential to create localized turbidity that could reduce water clarity temporarily, although this would 

be minimal. Additionally, equipment such as AUVs would be programmed and operated so as to avoid sea 

floor disturbance, SCUBA divers would avoid inadvertent disturbance to the sea floor, and stiffer line 

material would be used and kept taut during operations to reduce potential for entanglement with 

bottom features such as coral habitat.

Effects from disturbance of the sea floor would be adverse and negligible to minor. Impacts on habitats 

and designated critical habitat would be insignificant.

3.8.2.2.2.4 Air Emissions

Since the pre-industrial era, increased anthropogenic emissions of GHGs (CO2, CH4, and N2O) have 

influenced changes in oceanic conditions (as well as atmospheric and terrestrial conditions) (Limpinsel et 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

356

al., 2017). Higher atmospheric CO2 levels increase dissolved CO2 and bicarbonate ions in seawater, which 

subsequently leads to a decrease in carbonate ions and pH, termed “ocean acidification.” Changes in 

seawater carbon chemistry may affect marine biota through a variety of biochemical, physiological, and 

physical processes. 

Smokestack and two-stroke outboard motor emissions from vessels used by NOS would release air 

pollutants which can be deposited on the water surface and contribute to such adverse effects as 

increasing water acidity in aquatic macroinvertebrate habitat. Adverse impacts can be reduced by such 

measures as integrating new technologies, operational controls, replacing old engine systems, and 

switching to low sulfur fuels. Furthermore, the amount of emissions from vessels used by NOS would be 

a negligible fraction as compared to emissions from all other non-project related vessel activity. 

Thus, impacts from air emissions are expected to be adverse and negligible. Impacts on habitat and 

designated critical habitat for aquatic macroinvertebrates would be insignificant. 

3.8.2.2.3 Conclusion

Since the effects of impact causing factors on aquatic macroinvertebrates and their habitats range from 

negligible to minor, the overall impact of Alternative A on aquatic macroinvertebrates, including ESA-listed 

species, and designated critical habitat would be adverse and minor; thus, impacts of Alternative A would 

continue to be insignificant.

3.8.2.3 Alternative B: Conduct Surveying and Mapping Projects for Coastal and 

Marine Data Collection with Equipment Upgrades, Improved Hydroacoustic 

Devices, and New Tide Stations

The same impact causing factors for aquatic macroinvertebrates and habitat considered under Alternative 

A are considered under Alternative B. Under Alternative B, all of the activities and equipment operations 

proposed in Alternative A would continue but at a higher level of effort, although the percentage of 

nautical miles covered by projects in each region would be the same as under Alternative A. The greatest 

level of effort would occur in the Southeast Region (with approximately 47 percent of the survey effort); 

level of effort in the other four regions would occur 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 the 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 and depth of surveys, hearing frequency of aquatic 

macroinvertebrates, and population densities of aquatic macroinvertebrates, that add nuance to this 

trend.

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

under Alternative A; however, Alternative B would include more projects and activities and thus more 

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 as compared to Alternative A (see Table 

3.4-5). The types and mechanisms of impacts would remain the same in Alternative B as discussed for

Alternative A. Therefore, the difference between the two alternatives is a matter of scale with an 

increased activity level, although distributed unevenly among the different types of activities, leading to 

a corresponding, incremental increase in effects under Alternative B as compared to Alternative A.
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

357

For example, under Alternative B there would be projects using crewed vessel operations covering 

577,000 nm (1,070,000 km), as compared to 518,000 nm (959,000 km) under Alternative A. Vessel 

operations could contribute to impacts on aquatic macroinvertebrates and habitat related to vessel 

sound, vessel wake and underwater turbulence, accidental spills, and air emissions. Although the amount 

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

projects covering 59,000 nm (111,000 km) across five regions would result in greater impacts overall, but 

not so great that the magnitude of a particular impact causing factor would increase (e.g., from negligible 

to minor). The magnitude of impacts would likewise remain the same for other proposed activities 

contributing to potential impacts, such as underwater sound from echo sounders, ADCPs, and acoustic 

communication systems; and bottom disturbance from anchoring, bottom grab samples, and sound speed 

data collection.

Although NOS would add more widespread adoption of new techniques, protocols, and technologies to 

more efficiently perform surveying, mapping, charting, and related data gathering under Alternative B as 

compared to Alternative A, impacts of Alternative B on aquatic macroinvertebrates, including ESA-listed 

species, and on habitat and designated critical habitat, 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 

aquatic macroinvertebrates and habitat would be adverse, minor, and insignificant.

3.8.2.4 Alternative C: Upgrades and Improvements with Greater Funding Support

The same impact causing factors for aquatic macroinvertebrates and habitat considered under Alternative 

A are considered under Alternative C. Under Alternative C, all the activities and equipment operation 

proposed in Alternative A would continue but at a higher level of effort, although the percentage of 

nautical miles in each region would be the same as under Alternatives A and B. In addition, there would 

be an overall funding increase of 20 percent relative to Alternative B, thus the level of survey activity 

would increase. The greatest level of effort would occur in the Southeast Region (with approximately 47 

percent of the survey effort); in the other four regions level of effort would occur 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 the 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 and depth of surveys, 

hearing frequency of aquatic macroinvertebrates, and population densities of aquatic 

macroinvertebrates, that add nuance to this trend.

Survey activities 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 and activities and thus 

more nautical miles traveled, than Alternatives A and B. 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, 

there would be an additional 264,796 nm (490,402 km) covered by vessels used by NOS under Alternative 

C (see Table 3.4-6) as compared to Alternative B, and an additional 529,592 nm (980,803 km) as compared 

to Alternative A. The types and mechanisms of impacts would remain the same in Alternative C as 

discussed for Alternatives A and B. Therefore, the difference between the alternatives is a matter of scale 

with an increased activity level, although distributed unevenly among the different types of activities,

leading to a corresponding, incremental increase in effects under Alternative C as compared to 

Alternatives A and B. As discussed under Alternative B, the additional projects and nautical miles traveled 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

358

under Alternative C across five regions would result in greater impacts on aquatic macroinvertebrates 

overall, but not so great that the magnitude of a particular impact causing factor would increase (e.g., 

from negligible to minor).

Alternative C would be similar to Alternative B, plus it would consist of NOS program implementation with 

an overall funding increase of 20 percent relative to Alternative B. Impacts of Alternative C on aquatic 

macroinvertebrates, including ESA-listed species, habitats, and designated critical habitat, would be the 

same or slightly, but not appreciably, larger than those discussed above under Alternatives A and B for 

each impact causing factor. Overall, impacts on aquatic macroinvertebrates and their habitats would be 

adverse, minor, and insignificant.

3.8.2.5 Endangered Species Act Effects Determination

Federal agencies are required under the ESA to determine whether their actions may affect ESA-listed 

species 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 and is typically only 

used 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. Insignificant effects under the ESA relate to the size of the impact and should never 

reach the scale where take occurs; they are of low relative impact, 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 in a manner that is not insignificant or discountable.

ESA-listed aquatic macroinvertebrate species – all of which are bottom-dwelling corals and mollusks 

(abalone and mussels) – are not believed to detect the mid-to-high frequencies emitted by active 

underwater acoustic sources. Additionally, due to the mobile and temporary nature of NOS projects and

the small area of the sea floor affected during the projects relative to the entire EEZ, the response to 

underwater sound exposure from active underwater acoustic sources would be short term, limited to only 

a few individuals, and therefore, discountable (i.e., extremely unlikely to occur).

The proposed volume of sound from vessel traffic associated with NOS projects would be very small in 

comparison to sound from all the other non-project related vessel traffic within the EEZ. Additionally, 

there is no indication that ESA-listed corals and mollusks are susceptible to adverse effects from sound

emitted by vessels. Because sound disturbance would be of temporary or short duration and would occur 

infrequently in any given area, the response by ESA-listed taxa to sound from vessels used by NOS would 

be short term, limited to only a few individuals, and therefore, discountable (i.e., extremely unlikely to 

occur).

Although water disturbance by surface vessel and ROV wakes and underwater turbulence could 

temporarily disturb and nearby corals and mollusks, effects would be temporary and minimal; thus, the 

response by ESA-listed aquatic macroinvertebrates would be short term, limited to only a few individuals, 

and therefore, 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 aquatic macroinvertebrate species and critical habitats to oil, fuel, and other 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

359

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 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. Thus, effects from chemical contamination on ESA-listed species are, therefore, discountable

(i.e., extremely unlikely to occur).

Mitigation measures to reduce or avoid disturbance of the sea floor are included in Appendix D. Given the 

minimal amount of potential turbidity and fine sediment created by disturbance of the sea floor, the effect 

on ESA-listed species would be short term, limited to only a few individuals, and therefore, discountable 

(i.e., extremely unlikely to occur).

Thus, NOS concludes that the Proposed Action “May Affect, but [is] Not Likely to Adversely Affect” any of 

the ESA-listed aquatic macroinvertebrate species occurring in the action area (Table 3.8-4). Additionally, 

these aquatic macroinvertebrate species serve as prey to marine mammals, and thus, effects on them 

would constitute indirect effects to marine mammals. Thus, the “May Affect, but Not Likely to Adversely 

Affect” determination for ESA-listed aquatic macroinvertebrates also applies indirectly to ESA-listed 

marine mammals.

Since NOS projects may occur in some areas within or adjacent to designated critical habitats for elkhorn 

and staghorn coral in the Caribbean Sea, and for black abalone off the California coast, there is the 

potential for impacts on critical habitat characteristics that support these two ESA-listed species. Critical 

habitat may be minimally disturbed but would remain functional to maintain viability of the species reliant 

on it. Due to the potential for effects that could be negligible or minor, the Proposed Action “May Affect, 

but Not Likely to Adversely Affect” the designated critical habitat occurring in the action area (Tables 3.8-

4).

Table 3.8-4. Summary of Effects Determinations for ESA-Listed Aquatic 

Macroinvertebrates and Critical Habitat

Common Name Scientific Name Species Determination

Critical Habitat 

Determination

Great Lakes

Northern Riffleshell Epioblasma torulosa 

rangiana

May Affect, but Not 

Likely to Adversely Affect

N/A (no critical habitat 

designated)

Snuffbox Epioblasma triquetra May Affect, but Not 

Likely to Adversely Affect

N/A (no critical habitat 

designated)

Rayed Bean Villosa fabalis May Affect, but Not 

Likely to Adversely Affect

N/A (no critical habitat 

designated)

Marine

Staghorn coral Acropora cervicornis May Affect, but Not 

Likely to Adversely Affect

May Affect, but Not 

Likely to Adversely Affect

Coral: no common name Acropora globiceps 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

360

Common Name Scientific Name Species Determination

Critical Habitat 

Determination

Coral: no common name Acropora jacquelineae May Affect, but Not 

Likely to Adversely Affect

N/A (no critical habitat 

designated)

Elkhorn coral Acropora palmata May Affect, but Not 

Likely to Adversely Affect

May Affect, but Not 

Likely to Adversely Affect

Coral: no common name Acropora retusa May Affect, but Not 

Likely to Adversely Affect

N/A (no critical habitat 

designated)

Coral: no common name Acropora speciosa May Affect, but Not 

Likely to Adversely Affect

N/A (no critical habitat 

designated)

Pillar coral Dendrogyra cylindrus May Affect, but Not 

Likely to Adversely Affect

N/A (no critical habitat 

designated)

Coral: no common name Euphyllia paradivisa May Affect, but Not 

Likely to Adversely Affect

N/A (no critical habitat 

designated)

Black abalone Haliotis cracherodii May Affect, but Not 

Likely to Adversely Affect

May Affect, but Not 

Likely to Adversely Affect

White abalone Haliotis sorenseni May Affect, but Not 

Likely to Adversely Affect

N/A (no critical habitat 

designated)

Coral: no common name Isopora crateriformis May Affect, but Not 

Likely to Adversely Affect

N/A (no critical habitat 

designated)

Rough cactus coral Mycetophyllia ferox May Affect, but Not 

Likely to Adversely Affect

N/A (no critical habitat 

designated)

Lobed star coral Orbicella annularis May Affect, but Not 

Likely to Adversely Affect

N/A (no critical habitat 

designated)

Mountainous star coral Orbicella faveolata May Affect, but Not 

Likely to Adversely Affect

N/A (no critical habitat 

designated)

Boulder star coral Orbicella franksi May Affect, but Not 

Likely to Adversely Affect

N/A (no critical habitat 

designated)

Coral: no common name Pocillopora meandrina May Affect, but Not 

Likely to Adversely Affect

N/A (no critical habitat 

designated)

Coral: no common name Seriatopora aculeata 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

361

3.9 ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT

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

under each alternative for EFH for fish and aquatic macroinvertebrates in the action area. EFH occurs in 

both the marine and freshwater environments, although none had been designated in the Great Lakes.

3.9.1 Affected Environment

As discussed in Section 3.3, Congress passed the MSA in 1976 and reauthorized it in 1996 as the 

Sustainable Fisheries Act. The MSA established eight regional Fishery Management Councils (FMCs) –

North Pacific, Pacific, Western Pacific, Gulf of Mexico, Caribbean, South Atlantic, Mid-Atlantic, New 

England – and mandated that Fishery Management Plans (FMPs) be developed to responsibly manage fish 

and invertebrate species in waters within the U.S. EEZ. Under the reauthorization, NMFS was required to 

designate and conserve EFH for species managed under existing FMPs. This was intended to minimize, to 

the extent practicable, any adverse effects on habitat caused by human activities and to encourage the 

conservation and enhancement of such habitat (BOEM, 2014a).

EFH is defined as “those waters and substrate necessary for fish for spawning, breeding, feeding, or 

growth to maturity” (16 U.S.C §1801 [10]). The final rule summarizing EFH regulation (50 CFR Part 600) 

outlines additional interpretation of the EFH definition. Waters, as defined previously, include “aquatic 

areas and their associated physical, chemical, and biological properties that are used by fish, and may 

include aquatic areas historically used by fish where appropriate.” Substrate includes “sediment, hard 

bottom, structures underlying the waters, and associated biological communities.” “Necessary” is defined 

as “the habitat required to support a sustainable fishery and the managed species' contribution to a

healthy ecosystem.” Fish includes “finfish, mollusks, crustaceans, and all other forms of marine animal

and plant life other than marine mammals and birds,” and “spawning, breeding, feeding or growth to

maturity” covers the complete life cycle of those species of interest. Ecologically, EFH includes waters and 

substrate that include distribution and range zones such as migration corridors, spawning areas, and rocky 

reefs, as well as water characteristics such as turbidity zones and salinity gradients. EFH is not only a 

geographic area where a species occurs, but an all-encompassing habitat designation.

EFH regulations provide guidance to FMCs to identify and define EFH, clarify the intent of key terms, and 

require that federal agencies consult with NMFS when planning or authorizing activities that could affect 

EFH. NMFS works with the FMCs to designate EFH, which has been described for more than 1,000 

managed species to date.

The area encompassed by the Proposed Action and alternatives extends from the shoreline to the 

seaward boundary of the U.S. EEZ. A large portion of these waters has been designated EFH for one or 

more species managed pursuant to the MSA. EFH also occurs in estuarine and freshwater habitat such as 

rivers, ponds, and wetlands. Figure 3.9-1 shows the large extent of EFH as it covers most of the U.S. EEZ.
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

362

Source: NMFS, 2019a

Figure 3.9-1. EFH in the U.S. EEZ

EFH designations are based on interpretations of the best available scientific information on the general 

distribution of managed species within fisheries, and their habitat-related densities, growth, 

reproduction, or survival rates within habitats, and/or production rates by habitat (50 C.F.R. §600.815 

(a)(1)(iii)). The available science is mostly limited to general distributions, and given that there are several 

life stages (eggs, larvae, juveniles and adults) and numerous representative species within all fisheries for 

which EFH has been designated, the EFH designations across regions are broad. Designations are primarily 

based on the species’ position in the water column (e.g., demersal, pelagic), and include broad 

biogeographic and bathymetric areas (0-400 m [0-1,312 ft] depth in a region), and general habitat types.

Fish habitat includes the substrate and benthic resources (e.g., submerged aquatic vegetation, shellfish 

beds, salt marsh wetlands), as well as the water column, and prey species. EFH includes all types of aquatic 

habitats such as wetlands, coral reefs, seagrass (Figure 3.9-2), muddy and rocky substrates in state and 

federal waters, and rivers where fish spawn, breed, feed, or grow to maturity. 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

363

Photo Credit: NMFS

Within the EFH designations, Habitat Areas of Particular Concern (HAPCs) have been identified; these are 

high-priority areas for conservation, management, or research because they are rare, sensitive, stressed 

by development, or important to ecosystem function. HAPCs are discrete subsets of EFH and comprise

specific sites or habitat types that meet one or more considerations including: being of particular 

ecological importance to the long-term sustainability of managed species; being of a rare type; and/or 

being especially susceptible to degradation or development (50 C.F.R. §600.815 (a)(8)). More than 100 

HAPCs have been identified across all regions for enhanced EFH conservation. Several FMCs have 

designated discrete habitat areas as HAPC, while others have broadly designated all areas of a specific 

habitat type as HAPC. 

EFH has been designated in the waters inside of the 320-km (200-mi) U.S. EEZ boundary in the eight FMC 

regions. Each EFH is described below by text and a map using the best scientific information available for 

each fish stock. Each of the FMCs has developed EFH descriptions in either separate documents or as 

amendments to existing FMPs. NMFS maintains an online EFH Mapper for viewing the spatial distributions 

of fish species, their life stages, and important habitats; it displays maps for EFH, HAPCs, and EFH areas 

protected from fishing (NMFS, 2019a). 

3.9.1.1 Regional Distribution

This section summarizes region-specific EFH and HAPCs for fish and marine macroinvertebrates. Most 

species found in federal waters are managed by FMCs through the development and implementation of 

an FMP. However, highly migratory species (HMS) such as Atlantic tunas, sharks, and billfish are different 

in that they are found throughout the Atlantic Ocean and in the Caribbean and must be managed both 

domestically and internationally. As a result, NMFS has primary authority for identifying and describing 

EFH in FMPs for HMS. NMFS has identified geographic areas, rather than specific habitat types as EFH for 

these fisheries (see Table 3.9-1 and Figure 3.9-3). Detailed descriptions of EFH and HAPC designations for 

HMS are available in the Atlantic HMS FMP (NMFS, 2019b).

Figure 3.9-2. Seagrass EFH
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

364

Table 3.9-1. EFH and HAPCs for Atlantic HMS

Fisheries EFH HAPC

Highly Migratory 

Species

Overall: waters of New England, 

Mid-Atlantic, South Atlantic, Gulf 

of Mexico, and the U.S. Caribbean.

For bluefin tuna: west of 86° west

longitude and seaward of the 100-m

(328-ft) isobath, extending from the 

100-m (328-ft) isobath to the EEZ in 

the Gulf of Mexico.

For sharks: waters off Chesapeake 

Bay, Virginia and Maryland;

Plymouth-Duxbury-Kingston Bay in 

Massachusetts; Delaware Bay, 

Delaware; Great Bay, New Jersey;

the Outer Banks off North Carolina; 

and Titusville to Jupiter off Florida 

coast.

Source: NMFS, 2019b
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

365

Source: NMFS, 2019a

Figure 3.9-3. HAPCs for Atlantic HMS

3.9.1.1.1 Greater Atlantic Region

Two FMCs occur in the Greater Atlantic Region: the New England FMC and the Mid-Atlantic FMC. EFH for 

various life stages of numerous fish species occurs in this region, including Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar), 

Atlantic herring (Clupea harengus), Atlantic mackerel (Scomber scombrus), bluefish (Pomatomus 

saltatrix), monkfish (Lophius piscatorius), spiny dogfish (Squalus acanthias), and multiple species of 

groundfish and skates such as Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua), haddock (Melanogrammus aeglefinus), red 

drum (Sciaenops ocellatus), pollock (Pollachius spp.), hake (Merlucciidae), and flounder (Pleuronectidae, 

Paralichthyidae, and Bothidae) (NEFMC, No Date; MAFMC, No Date). EFH for HMS occurring in the Greater 

Atlantic Region, including blue marlin, white marlin, and sailfish, are discussed above in Section 3.9.1.1 

and shown in Table 3.9-1. For aquatic macroinvertebrates, EFH has been delineated for Atlantic surf clam 

(Spisula solidissima), deep-sea red crab (Chaceon quinquedens), two species of squid (Doryteuthis pealeii

and Illex illecebrosus), and Atlantic sea scallop (Placopecten magellanicus) (NMFS, 2019a). 

On January 3, 2018, NMFS approved all of the updated EFH and all of the recommended HAPC 

designations as part of the New England FMC’s recommendations for the Omnibus EFH Amendment 2 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

366

(OHA2). OHA2 was initiated in 2004 to review and update the EFH components of all the New England 

FMC’s FMPs. 

A large proportion of the marine waters and habitats off the coasts of Maine and the states south of Maine 

to North Carolina, and marine waters within the full 200-mile Greater Atlantic Region EEZ have been 

designated as EFH for 15 different fisheries managed by the New England and Mid-Atlantic FMCs (see 

Table 3.9-2). EFH includes the coastal and offshore waters from the surface to the sea floor and various 

bottom substrate and habitat types in the Gulf of Maine, Georges Bank, southern New England, the middle 

Atlantic south to Cape Hatteras, North Carolina; waters over the continental shelf south of Cape Hatteras 

through Key West, Florida (some EFH designations extend into the Southeast Region); the Slope Sea and 

Gulf Stream between latitudes 29° north and 40° north; various bays and estuaries along the eastern 

coast; and all waters currently or historically accessible to Atlantic salmon within the streams, rivers, lakes, 

ponds, wetlands, and other water bodies of New England which are designated as EFH for the eggs, larvae, 

juveniles and/or adults for one or a combination of the managed species. Within these boundaries, one 

or more of the MSA-managed species are associated with certain water temperature regimes, oxygen 

saturation levels and salinities, and various seafloor substrates and habitat types.

HAPCs in New England and the Mid-Atlantic have been designated as discrete spatial areas and habitat 

types as listed in Table 3.9-2 and shown in Figure 3.9-4 and include all canyons HAPCs and seamounts 

HAPCs. In addition to the HAPCs listed in the table, the following areas have been designated for a variety 

of managed species as part of OHA2: 

• The Cashes Ledge Habitat Closure Area was designated as the Cashes Ledge HAPC;

• The existing Western Gulf of Maine Habitat Closure Area was designated as the Jeffreys 

Ledge/Stellwagen Bank HAPC; and 

• Eleven canyons or groupings of canyons south of Georges Bank and offshore of the Mid-Atlantic 

Bight were designated as HAPCs. 

Detailed descriptions of EFH and HAPC designations in New England and the Mid-Atlantic are available in 

the New England and Mid-Atlantic FMCs’ multiple FMPs (NEFMC, No Date; MAFMC, No Date).

Table 3.9-2. EFH and HAPCs for the Greater Atlantic Region

Fisheries EFH HAPC

New England

Northeast Multispecies 

(Groundfish) 

Overall: pelagic waters down to 

1,250 m (4,101 ft) depth that meet 

certain temperature and salinity 

regimes, and bottom down to 700 

m (2,297 ft) depth supporting 

aquatic vegetation; substrate of soft 

mud, clay, sand, or gravel; and 

rough or rocky bottom locations 

along slopes of the outer banks in 

Gulf of Maine, Georges Bank, 

southern New England, middle 

Atlantic south to Cape Hatteras, 

Northern Edge Juvenile Cod HAPC:

covers approximately 187 nm2 on the 

northeastern edge of Georges Bank

up to 120 m depth.

Inshore Juvenile Cod HAPC: inshore 

areas of the Gulf of Maine and 

Southern New England between 0-20 

m (0-66 ft) depth.

Great South Channel Juvenile Cod 

HAPC: the area north of 41° north 

latitude, west of 69° west longitude, 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

367

Fisheries EFH HAPC

North Carolina; also a range of 

estuaries along the coasts.

south of 42° 15’ north latitude, and 

east of 70° west longitude; offshore 

habitats between 30 and 120 m (98 

and 394 ft) depth.

Atlantic Sea Scallop Overall: coastal and offshore waters 

to the EEZ limit that meet certain 

temperature and salinity regimes, 

and bottom supporting red algae, 

hydroids, amphipod tubes and 

bryozoans and/or substrate of 

gravelly sand, sand, shell fragments, 

and pebbles, cobble and silt in the 

Gulf of Maine, Georges Bank, 

southern New England, and the 

mid-Atlantic south to the VirginiaNorth Carolina border; also various 

bays and estuaries along the coasts.

None

Atlantic Herring Overall: coastal and offshore waters 

to the EEZ limit that meet certain 

temperature and salinity regimes, 

and bottom supporting aquatic 

macrophytes and substrate of 

gravel, sand, cobble, and shell 

fragments in the Gulf of Maine and 

Georges Bank and southern New 

England.

None

Atlantic Deep-Sea Red 

Crab

Overall: water column from the 

surface to the sea floor that meets 

certain temperature, dissolved 

oxygen (DO), and salinity regimes 

along the entire depth range along 

the southern flank of the outer 

continental shelf and slope, 

including two seamounts, from 

Georges Bank, Maine south to Cape 

Hatteras, North Carolina; and 

bottom within the depths of 200 –

1,800 m (5,905 ft) of the continental 

slope with substrates of silts, clays, 

and all silt-clay-sand composites. 

Bear and Retriever Seamounts HAPC: 

the tops of Bear and Retriever 

seamounts that overlap spatially 

with the proposed EFH designation 

are designated as a HAPC.

Skates Overall: down to 750 m (2,461 ft) 

depth of soft substrate, including 

sand and mud bottoms, mud with 

echinoid and ophiuroid fragments, 

broken shells, and shell and 

pteropod ooze; and substrate of 

None
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

368

Fisheries EFH HAPC

gravel and pebbles on offshore 

banks of the Gulf of Maine, Georges 

Bank through the Mid-Atlantic Bight 

to Cape Hatteras, North Carolina.

Atlantic Salmon Overall: all waters currently or 

historically accessible to Atlantic 

salmon within the streams, rivers, 

lakes, ponds, wetlands, and other 

water bodies of Maine, New 

Hampshire, Vermont, 

Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and 

Connecticut that meet a set of 

conditions, and oceanic pelagic 

waters of the continental shelf off 

southern New England north 

throughout the Gulf of Maine. 

Eleven rivers in Maine: Dennys, 

Machias, East Machias, Pleasant, 

Narraguagus, Ducktrap, Sheepscot, 

Kennebec, Penobscot, St. Croix, and 

Tunk Stream.

Small Mesh 

Multispecies 

(Whiting/Hake)

Overall: pelagic waters along the 

outer continental shelf of Georges 

Bank and southern

New England south to Cape 

Hatteras, North Carolina; water 

depths less than 1,250 m (4,101 ft)

None

Mid-Atlantic

Atlantic Mackerel, 

Squid, and Butterfish

Overall: inshore, offshore, and 

pelagic waters down to 1,829 m 

(6,000 ft) depth along the 

continental shelf from Maine 

through Cape Hatteras, North 

Carolina; also, a range of estuaries 

along the coasts.

None

Summer Flounder, 

Scup, and Black Sea 

Bass

Overall: water column down to 152

m (499 ft) depth including demersal 

waters and bottom that is rough, 

structured, muddy, sandy, or 

supporting shellfish and eelgrass 

beds along continental shelf from 

Gulf of Maine to Cape Hatteras, 

North Carolina; also, a range of 

estuaries along the coasts.

For summer flounder: HAPC consists 

of all native species of macroalgae, 

seagrasses, and freshwater and tidal 

macrophytes in any size bed, as well 

as loose aggregations, within adult 

and juvenile summer flounder EFH

on continental shelf and estuaries 

from Cape Cod, Massachusetts to 

Cape Canaveral, Florida*.

Atlantic Bluefish Overall: pelagic waters over 

continental shelf from Nantucket 

Island, Massachusetts south to Cape 

Hatteras; and south of Cape 

Hatteras over continental shelf 

through Key West, Florida*, the 

Slope Sea and Gulf Stream between 

None
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

369

Fisheries EFH HAPC

latitudes 29° north and 40° north;

also, a range of estuaries along the 

coasts.

Tilefish Overall: semi-lithified clay 

substrates within a preferred 

temperature range, which generally 

correspond to a depth contour of 

100 to 300 m (328 to 984 ft); outer 

continental shelf and slope from 

U.S.-Canada boundary to the 

Virginia-North Carolina boundary.

Clay outcrop/pueblo six habitats 

within four canyon areas (Norfolk, 

Veatch, Lydonia, and Oceanographer 

canyons), within the same depth 

contour identified as EFH.

Atlantic Surf Clams and 

Ocean Quahogs

Overall: substrate to a depth of 245 

m (804 ft) within the EEZ.

Ocean quahog: continental shelf 

from southern New England and 

Georges Bank to Virginia.

Surf clam: continental shelf from 

southwestern Gulf of Maine to Cape 

Hatteras, North Carolina.

None

Joint

Monkfish Overall: coastal and offshore waters 

to the EEZ limit that meet certain 

temperature and salinity ranges, 

and bottom of a sand-shell mix, 

algae covered rocks, hard sand, 

pebbly gravel, or mud between 15 –

1,000 m (49 to 3,281 ft) depths in 

the Gulf of Maine, Georges Bank, 

southern New England, and the 

middle Atlantic south to Cape 

Hatteras, North Carolina. 

None

Spiny Dogfish Overall: continental shelf waters 

between 10-450 m (33 to 1,476 ft) 

depth in the Gulf of Maine through 

Cape Hatteras, North Carolina;

continental shelf waters south of 

Cape Hatteras through Florida*; 

also, a range of estuaries along the 

coasts.

None

Sources: NEFMC, 2016; NEFMC, 2018; NEFMC, No Date; MAFMC, No Date

*Note that some EFH and HAPC designations extend into 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

370

Source: NMFS, 2019a

Figure 3.9-4. HAPCs in the Greater Atlantic Region

3.9.1.1.2 Southeast Region

Three FMCs occur in the Southeast Region: the South Atlantic FMC, the Gulf of Mexico FMC, and the 

Caribbean FMC. EFH for various life stages of numerous fish species occurs in this region, including 

mackerel, cobia (Rachycentron canadum), wahoo (Acanthocybium solandri), snapper (Lutjanus spp.),

grouper (Epinephelinae), and red drum (SAFMC, No Date; Gulf Council, No Date; CFMC, No Date). EFH for 

HMS occurring in the Southeast Region, including blue marlin, white marlin, and sailfish, are discussed 

above in Section 3.9.1.1 and shown in Table 3.9-1. For aquatic macroinvertebrates, EFH has been 

established in the Gulf of Mexico for corals (Anthozoa), shrimp, and spiny lobster (Palinuridae). In the 

South Atlantic and Caribbean, EFH has been established for corals, golden crab (Chaceon fenneri), spiny 

lobster, and queen conch (Strombus gigas). In addition, EFH for sargassum (Phaeophyceae), a seaweed 

found in free-floating offshore mats throughout the waters of the South Atlantic that is harvested for use 

in the feed supplement industry, occurs in this region. The sargassum mats provide crucial habitat for a 

wide variety of marine organisms in the open ocean, including pelagic species such as tuna, dolphin, 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

371

wahoo, and billfish, as well as sea turtles and marine birds. EFH in the Southeast Region is discussed below 

for each FMC area: South Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, and Caribbean. HAPCs in the Southeast Region are 

mapped in Figure 3.9-5. 

Source: NMFS, 2019a

Figure 3.9-5. HAPCs in the Southeast Region

3.9.1.1.2.1 South Atlantic

A large proportion of the marine waters and habitat inside of the U.S. EEZ off the coasts of North Carolina 

and southward through to east Florida and Key West have been designated as EFH for eight fisheries 

managed by the South Atlantic FMC (see Table 3.9-3). EFH includes estuarine inshore habitats; various 

marine offshore habitats throughout the South Atlantic EEZ; the South- and Mid-Atlantic Bights; and the 

Gulf Stream in the South Atlantic Region EEZ. Estuarine inshore habitats consist of estuarine emergent 

vegetation, estuarine shrub/scrub, seagrass, oyster reefs and shell banks, intertidal flats, palustrine 

emergent and forested, and the estuarine water column. Marine offshore habitats include live/hard 

bottom, coral and coral reefs, artificial/manmade reefs, pelagic sargassum, and water column habitat.
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

372

HAPCs have been designated for all of the fisheries, many of which are identified for multiple managed 

species as listed in Table 3.9-3. HAPCs include: coastal inlets and Atlantic coast estuaries; pelagic and 

benthic sargassum; various discrete sites, bays, and sounds; marine protected areas and ridges; statedesignated nursery habitats; various hardbottom areas; irregular bottom; mud-clay bottoms; and various 

habitat types such as coral reefs, Phragmatopoma reefs, manganese outcroppings, mangroves, seagrass,

oyster/shell habitat, and sandy shoals.

Detailed descriptions of EFH and HAPC designations in the South Atlantic are available in the South 

Atlantic FMC’s Habitat Plan, and the South Atlantic FMCs’ multiple FMPs (SAFMC, No Date).

Table 3.9-3. EFH and HAPCs for the Southeast Region - South Atlantic

Fisheries EFH HAPC

Coral, Coral Reefs, and 

Live/Hard Bottom

Overall: hard substrate, mud, and 

silt bottoms in subtidal to outer 

shelf depths within a wide range of 

salinity and light penetration 

throughout the South Atlantic EEZ.

Big Rock; The Point; Hurl Rocks; 

Charleston Bump; Ten-Fathom 

Ledge; Georgetown Hole; The Point 

off Jupiter Inlet; The Hump off 

Islamorada; The Marathon Hump; 

The “Wall”; Hoyt Hills; Gray’s Reef 

National Marine Sanctuary (NMS); 

eight deepwater Snapper Grouper 

Marine Protected Areas (MPAs); 

Oculina Banks; Biscayne Bay; 

Biscayne National Park; Florida Keys 

National Marine Sanctuary; Cape 

Lookout; Cape Fear; Stetson Reefs;

Savannah and East Florida 

Lithoherms; Miami Terrace; Pourtals 

Terrace; Blake Ridge Diapir; Florida 

Bay; and Card Sound.

All coastal inlets and Atlantic coast 

estuaries with high numbers of 

Spanish mackerel and cobia.

All state-designated nursery habitats 

of particular importance to shrimp 

and snapper-grouper; stateidentified overwintering areas; 

localities of known or likely periodic 

spawning aggregations.

Pelagic and benthic sargassum; all 

hermatypic coral habitats and reefs;

Stetson-Miami Terrace deepwater 

coral; shrimp fishery access areas;

golden crab fishery access areas; 

Dolphin and Wahoo Overall: Gulf Stream in the Atlantic 

EEZ; Charleston Gyre, Florida 

Current, and pelagic sargassum.

Golden Crab Overall: seven habitat types (a flat 

foraminferan ooze habitat; distinct 

mounds, primarily of dead coral; 

ripple habitat; dunes; black pebble 

habitat; low outcrop; and softbioturbated habitat) throughout

the U.S. continental shelf from 

Chesapeake Bay south through the 

Florida Straits and into the Gulf of 

Mexico and the Gulf Stream.

South Atlantic Shrimp Overall: inshore estuarine nursery 

areas (including intertidal marshes, 

mangroves, and seagrass) and 

offshore marine habitats used for 

spawning and growth to maturity 

(including terrigenous and biogenic 

sand bottom and blue/black and 

white calcareous mud), and all 

interconnecting water bodies from 

North Carolina through the Florida 

Keys, shelf current systems near 

Cape Canaveral, and the Gulf 

Stream.

Snapper-Grouper Overall: coral reefs, live/hard 

bottom, macroalgae, estuarine 

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

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

373

Fisheries EFH HAPC

(saltmarshes, brackish marsh); tidal 

creeks; estuarine scrub/shrub; 

oyster reefs and shell banks; 

unconsolidated bottom; submerged 

aquatic vegetation, artificial reefs 

and outcroppings from shore up to 

610 m (2,000 ft) depth where the 

annual water temperature range is 

sufficiently warm to maintain 

populations; spawning area in the 

water column above the adult 

habitat and the additional pelagic 

environment, including sargassum; 

and Gulf Stream.

various hardbottom areas from 0-30

m depth (0-98 ft); irregular bottom 

comprising troughs and terraces 

intermingled with sand, mud, or 

shell hash bottom; mud-clay 

bottoms in depths of 150-300 m

(492-984 ft); irregular bottom 

habitats along the shelf edge in 45-

65 m (148-213 ft) depth, shelf break; 

upper slope along the 150-225 m 

(492-738 ft) contour; 

Phragmatopoma reefs off central 

and central east coast Florida; 

manganese outcroppings on the 

Blake Plateau; mangrove habitat; 

seagrass habitat; oyster/shell 

habitat; sandy shoals of Cape 

Lookout, Cape Fear, and Cape 

Hatteras; various offshore pelagic 

areas and associated benthic 

habitats.

Pelagic Sargassum 

Habitat

Where it occurs in the South 

Atlantic EEZ and in the state waters 

off of North Carolina, South 

Carolina, Georgia, and the east 

coast of Florida, including the Gulf 

Stream. 

Coastal Migratory 

Pelagics (Mackerel and 

Cobia) – Managed 

jointly by the Gulf of 

Mexico and South 

Atlantic FMCs

Overall: all coastal inlets; all statedesignated nursery habitats of 

particular importance to coastal 

migratory pelagics; high salinity 

bays, estuaries, and seagrass 

habitat; sandy shoals of capes and 

offshore bars, high profile rocky 

bottom and barrier island oceanside waters and sargassum from the 

surf to the shelf break zones 

shoreward of the Gulf stream; the 

Gulf Stream; and the South Atlantic 

and Mid-Atlantic Bights.

Atlantic Spiny Lobster –

Managed jointly by the 

Gulf of Mexico and 

South Atlantic FMCs 

Overall: nearshore shelf/oceanic 

waters; shallow subtidal bottom; 

seagrass habitat; unconsolidated 

bottom; coral and live/hard bottom 

habitat; sponges; algal 

communities; mangrove habitat;

and the Gulf Stream.

Source: SAFMC, No Date

3.9.1.1.2.2 Gulf of Mexico 

A large proportion of the marine waters and habitat inside of the U.S. EEZ off the coasts of Texas and 

states east of Texas through to western Florida and Key West have been designated as EFH for the fisheries 

managed by the Gulf of Mexico FMC (see Table 3.9-4). EFH includes the waters and substrates from 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

374

estuarine waters to depths of 100 fathoms (approximately 183 m [600 ft]) in the entire Gulf of Mexico 

and the total distribution of coral species and life stages throughout the Gulf of Mexico. EFH habitat types 

include: estuarine and marine water column; estuarine emergent wetlands; submerged aquatic 

vegetation; algal flats and non-vegetated bottoms; mangrove wetlands; live (hard) bottoms and mud, 

sand, shell, and rock substrates; and coral reefs.

HAPCs have been designated for one or more of the fisheries as 18 spatially discrete sites in waters off 

Florida, Texas, and Louisiana as listed in Table 3.9-4. These areas predominantly contain living coral reefs 

or hard bottom habitat with known coral colonies, and include various protected areas, ridges and reefs. 

Detailed descriptions of EFH and HAPC designations in the Gulf of Mexico are available in the Gulf of 

Mexico FMCs’ multiple FMPs (Gulf Council, No Date). 

Table 3.9-4. EFH and HAPCs for the Southeast Region – Gulf of Mexico

Fisheries EFH HAPC

Coral and Coral Reefs Overall: the total distribution of coral 

species and life stages throughout 

the Gulf of Mexico including the East 

and West Flower Garden Banks, 

Florida Middle Grounds, southwest 

tip of the Florida reef tract, and 

predominant patchy hard bottom 

offshore of Florida from 

approximately Crystal River south to 

the Keys and scattered along the 

pinnacles and banks from Texas to 

Mississippi at the shelf edge.

18 areas primarily for protecting coral 

and hard bottom as identified within 

Coral FMP:

Off of Florida: Madison-Swanson 

Marine Reserve; Tortugas North; 

Tortugas South; Florida Middle 

Grounds; and Pulley Ridge.

Topographic features (reefs and 

banks) off of Texas/Louisiana: West 

Flower Garden Banks; East Flower 

Garden Banks; Stetson Bank; 29 

Fathom Bank; MacNeil Bank; Rezak 

Sidner Bank; Rankin Bright Bank; 

Geyer Bank; McGrail Bank; Bouma 

Bank; Sonnier Bank; Alderdice Bank 

and Jakkula Bank.

Coral HAPCs for reefs and banks;

Alabama Alps Reef, AT047, AT357, 

Florida Keys National Marine 

Sanctuary, Garden Banks 299, Garden 

Banks 535, Green Canyon 140 and 

272, Green Canyon 234, Green 

Canyon 354, Green Canyon 852, 

Harte Bank, L&W Pinnacle and Scamp 

Reef, MacNeil, the Mississippi 

canyons (118, 751, and 885), Rough 

Tongue Bank, South Reed Site, 

Southern Bank, Steamboat Lumps, 

Red Drum Overall: all Gulf of Mexico estuaries; 

waters and substrates extending 

from Vermilion Bay, Louisiana to the 

eastern edge of Mobile Bay, Alabama 

out to depths of 25 fathoms 

(approximately 46 m [151 ft]); 

waters and substrates extending 

from Crystal River, Florida to Naples, 

Florida between depths of 5 and 10 

fathoms (9-18 m [29-59 ft]); waters 

and substrates extending from Cape 

Sable, Florida to the boundary 

between the areas covered by the 

Gulf of Mexico FMC and the South 

Atlantic FMC between depths of 5 

and 10 fathoms (9-18 m [29-59 ft]).

Gulf of Mexico 

Shrimp

Overall: Gulf of Mexico waters and 

substrates extending from the 

U.S./Mexico border to Fort Walton 

Beach, Florida from estuarine waters 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

375

Fisheries EFH HAPC

out to depths of 100 fathoms (183 m

[600 ft]); waters and substrates 

extending from Grand Isle, Louisiana 

to Pensacola Bay, Florida between 

depths of 100 and 325 fathoms (183-

594 m [600-1,949 ft]); waters and 

substrates extending from Pensacola 

Bay, Florida to the boundary 

between the areas covered by the 

Gulf of Mexico FMC and the South 

Atlantic FMC out to depths of 35 

fathoms (64 m [210 ft]), with the 

exception of waters extending from 

Crystal River, Florida to Naples, 

Florida between depths of 10 and 25 

fathoms (18-46 m [59-151 ft]) and in 

Florida Bay between depths of 5 and 

10 fathoms (9-18 m [29-59 ft]).

West Florida Wall, The Edges, and the 

Viosca Knolls (826 and 862/906).

Reef Fish Overall: Gulf of Mexico waters and 

substrates extending from the 

U.S./Mexico border to the boundary 

between the areas covered by the 

Gulf of Mexico FMC and the South 

Atlantic FMC from estuarine waters 

out to depths of 100 fathoms (183 m

[600 ft]).

Stone Crab Overall: all Gulf of Mexico estuaries; 

Gulf of Mexico waters and substrates 

extending from the U.S./Mexico 

border to Sanibel, Florida from 

estuarine waters out to depths of 10 

fathoms (9-18 m [30-59 ft]); waters 

and substrates extending from 

Sanibel, Florida to the boundary 

between the areas covered by the 

Gulf of Mexico FMC and the South 

Atlantic FMC from estuarine waters 

out to depths of 15 fathoms (27 m

[89 ft]).

Coastal Migratory 

Pelagics (Mackerel 

and Cobia) –

Managed jointly by 

the Gulf of Mexico 

and South Atlantic

FMCs

Overall: Gulf of Mexico waters and 

substrates extending from the 

U.S./Mexico border to the boundary 

between the areas covered by the 

Gulf of Mexico FMC and the South 

Atlantic FMC from estuarine waters 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

376

Fisheries EFH HAPC

out to depths of 100 fathoms (183 m

[600 ft]).

Atlantic Spiny Lobster

– Managed jointly by 

the Gulf of Mexico 

and South Atlantic

FMCs

Overall: Gulf of Mexico waters and 

substrates extending from Tarpon 

Springs, Florida to Naples, Florida 

between depths of 5 and 10 fathoms 

(9-18 m); waters and substrates 

extending from Cape Sable, Florida 

to the boundary between the areas 

covered by the Gulf of Mexico FMC 

and the South Atlantic FMC out to 

depths of 15 fathoms (27 m [89 ft]). 

Source: Gulf Council, No Date

3.9.1.1.2.3 United States Caribbean 

A large proportion of the marine waters and habitat inside of the U.S. EEZ off the coasts of Puerto Rico 

and the U.S. Virgin Islands have been designated as EFH for the five fisheries managed by the Caribbean 

FMC (see Table 3.9-5). All waters from mean high water to the outer boundary of the EEZ and all 

substrates from mean high water to 100 fathoms (183 m [600 ft]) depth are designated as EFH for the 

eggs, larvae, juveniles and/or adults for one or more of the managed species. The various habitat types 

included are: estuarine and marine water column, salt marshes, seagrass, intertidal flats, salt ponds, sandy 

beaches, rocky shores, mangrove wetlands, live (hard) bottoms, mud, sand, shell, and rock substrates, 

and corals and coral reefs.

HAPCs have been designated for two of the fisheries as listed in Table 3.9-5, with the intent that the HAPCs

protect the life stages of all managed species. The HAPCs include: eight reef fish spawning locations in 

Puerto Rico, St. Croix and St. Thomas; and 37 Ecologically Important Habitat areas in Puerto Rico, St. 

Thomas, and St. Croix. The HAPC locations sometimes overlap with refuges, bays, and banks and include 

a variety of habitat types such as coral and coral reefs, mangrove lagoons, seagrass beds, and coastal 

wetlands.

Detailed descriptions of EFH and HAPC designations in the U.S. Caribbean are available in the Caribbean 

FMCs’ multiple FMPs (CFMC, No Date). 

Table 3.9-5. EFH and HAPCs for the Southeast Region – U.S. Caribbean

Fisheries EFH HAPC

Reef Fish Overall: all waters from mean high 

water to the outer boundary of the 

EEZ and all substrates from mean 

high water to 100 fathoms (183 m

[600 ft]) depth. 

Eight reef fish spawning locations: 

four in Puerto Rico, two in St. Croix,

and two in St. Thomas. 

18 Ecologically Important Habitat 

areas: 11 in Puerto Rico, two in St. 

Thomas, and four in St. Croix.
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

377

Fisheries EFH HAPC

Areas/sites/habitat types include 

refuges, reefs, seagrass beds, bays, 

banks, and mangrove lagoons.

Queen Conch Overall: all waters from mean high 

water to the outer boundary of the 

EEZ and seagrass, benthic algae, 

coral, live/hard bottom and 

sand/shell substrates from mean 

high water to 100 fathoms (183 m

[600 ft]) depth.

None – no HAPC has been 

designated for the queen conch 

fishery in this region.

Spiny Lobster Overall: all waters from mean high 

water to the outer boundary of the 

EEZ and seagrass, benthic algae, 

mangrove, coral, and live/hard 

bottom substrates from mean high 

water to 100 fathoms (183 m [600 

ft]) depth.

None – no HAPC has been 

designated for the spiny lobster 

fishery in this region.

Coral and Reef 

Associated Plants and 

Invertebrates 

Overall: all waters from mean low 

water to the outer boundary of the 

EEZ and coral and hard bottom 

substrates from mean low water to 

100 fathoms (183 m [600 ft]) depth.

19 Ecologically Important Habitat 

areas: 13 in Puerto Rico and six in St. 

Croix.

Areas contain corals and are in some 

cases identified at a scale (e.g., state 

forest) that includes a variety of 

other habitat types such as 

mangroves, seagrass beds, and 

coastal wetlands. 

Source: CFMC, No Date

3.9.1.1.3 West Coast Region

One FMC occurs in the West Coast Region: the Pacific FMC. EFH for various life stages of numerous fish 

species occur in this region, including over 90 species of groundfish such as rockfish (Sebastes), Pacific 

ocean perch (Sebastes alutus), Dover sole (Solea solea), arrowtooth flounder (Atheresthes stomias), 

lingcod (Ophiodon elongatus), sablefish (Anoplopoma fimbria), spiny dogfish, leopard shark (Triakis 

semifasciata), and California skate (Raja inornata); Pacific salmon (Oncorhynchus spp.); Pacific halibut 

(Hippoglossus stenolepis); HMS such as thresher sharks (Alopias spp.), shortfin mako shark (Isurus 

oxyrinchus), blue shark (Prionace glauca), tuna (Thunnus spp.), striped marlin (Kajikia audax), swordfish

(Xiphias gladius), and mahimahi (Coryphaena hippurus); and coastal pelagic species such as Pacific sardine

(Sardinops sagax), Pacific mackerel (Scomber japonicus), jack mackerel (Trachurus symmetricus), and 

anchovy (Engraulidae) (PFMC, No Date). Along the coast of California, EFH for aquatic macroinvertebrates 

has been designated for squid and several species of krill.

A large proportion of the waters in the EEZ off the coasts of Washington, Oregon, and California have been 

designated as EFH for the approximately 119 individual fish species within four fisheries as managed by 

the Pacific FMC (see Table 3.9-6). EFH includes all freshwater water bodies occupied by Council-managed 

salmon; substrate down to 3,500 m (11,483 ft) depth and estuarine and marine waters from the high tide 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

378

line to the EEZ limit offshore of Washington, Oregon, and California; seamounts in depths greater than 

3,500 m (11,483 ft). Areas designated as HAPCs not already identified as EFH are designated as EFH for 

the eggs, larvae, juveniles and/or adults for one or more of the salmon, groundfish, coastal pelagic, and/or 

HMS. Within these boundaries, one or more of the federally managed species are associated with water 

temperature regimes bounded by 13°C and 31°C; (55 and 88 °F) oxygen saturation levels greater than 60

percent; and different prey such as anchovies, squid, and herring.

HAPCsin the West Coast Region have been designated for two of the fisheries, defined primarily as habitat 

types as listed in Table 3.9-6 and shown in Figure 3.9-6. For salmon, HAPCs include complex channels and 

floodplain habitats, thermal refugia, spawning habitat, estuaries, and marine and estuarine submerged 

aquatic vegetation. For groundfish, HAPCs include estuaries, canopy-forming kelp, seagrass, and rocky 

reefs plus several areas of interest which include all waters and sea bottom within the 3 nm (6 km) 

territorial boundary off Washington, several seamounts and banks off of Oregon and California, Monterey 

Canyon, and areas of the Channel Islands NMS offshore from each of the states. 

Detailed descriptions of EFH and HAPC designations in the West Coast Region are available in the Pacific 

FMC’s four FMPs (PFMC, No Date).

Table 3.9-6. EFH and HAPCs for the West Coast Region

Fisheries EFH HAPC

Pacific Coast Salmon Overall: all freshwater water bodies 

currently or historically occupied by 

Council-managed salmon within the 

USGS 4th field hydrologic units (HU), 

and estuarine and marine areas that 

extend from the extreme high tide 

line in nearshore and tidal 

submerged environments to the EEZ 

limit offshore of Washington, 

Oregon, and California north of 

Point Conception. 

Also, marine areas off Alaska 

designated as salmon EFH by the 

North Pacific FMC for stocks also 

managed by the North Pacific FMC.

Complex channels and floodplain 

habitats, thermal refugia, 

spawning habitat, estuaries, and 

marine and estuarine submerged 

aquatic vegetation. With the 

exception of estuaries, none of 

these HAPCs have been 

comprehensively mapped, and 

some may vary in location and 

extent over time. 

Pacific Coast Groundfish Overall: all waters and substrates

down to 3,500 m (11,483 ft) depth 

from mean higher high water level

(MHHW) on shoreline or the upriver 

extent of saltwater intrusion; 

seamounts in depths greater than 

3,500 m (11,483 ft) as mapped in 

the EFH assessment GIS, and areas 

designated as HAPCs not already 

identified by the above criteria. 

Estuaries, canopy-forming kelp, 

seagrass, and rocky reefs, plus 

several “areas of interest” which 

include: all waters and sea 

bottom from the MHHW out to 

the 3 nm (6 km) boundary off 

Washington, and several 

seamounts and banks off Oregon 

and California, Monterey Canyon, 

and areas of the Channel Islands 

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

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

379

Fisheries EFH HAPC

Coastal Pelagic Species Overall: all marine and estuarine 

waters from the shoreline to the EEZ 

limit offshore of California, Oregon, 

and Washington, and above the 

thermocline where sea surface 

temperatures range between 10°C 

and 26°C (50 and 80 °F). 

None – no HAPC has been 

designated for the coastal pelagic 

species fishery in this region.

West Coast HMS Overall: coastal, epipelagic, 

mesopelagic, and oceanic waters 

extending beyond the 11 m (36 ft) 

isobath to the EEZ boundary 

offshore of California, Oregon, and 

Washington. Associated with water 

temperature regimes bounded by 

10°C and 31°C (50 and 88 °F); and 

different prey such as anchovies, 

squid and herring.

None – no HAPC has been 

designated for West Coast HMS 

in this region.

Source: PFMC, No Date
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

380

Source: NMFS, 2019a

Figure 3.9-6. HAPCs in the West Coast Region

3.9.1.1.5 Alaska Region

One FMC occurs in the Alaska Region: the North Pacific FMC. EFH for various life stages of numerous fish 

species occurs in this region, including Alaskan stocks of Pacific salmon, halibut, Pacific herring (Clupea 

pallasii), and approximately 25 species of groundfish including walleye pollock (Gadus chalcogrammus), 

Greenland turbot (Reinhardtius hippoglossoides), sablefish, Atka mackerel (Pleurogrammus 

monopterygius), cods (Gadus spp.), sole, flounders (Pleuronectiformes), sculpins (Cottoidea), skates 

(Rajidae), and rockfish (NPFMC, No Date). In Alaskan waters of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands, EFH 

for aquatic macroinvertebrates have been established for octopus (Octopoda), weathervane scallop 

(Patinopecten caurinus), tanner crab (Chionoecetes bairdi and C. opilio), snow crab (Chionoecetes opilio), 

and red king crab (Paralithodes camtschaticus).

A large proportion of the waters and habitat in the EEZ off the coast of Alaska have been designated EFH 

for over 66 individual fish species within six fisheries as managed by the Alaska FMC (see Table 3.9-7). All 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

381

marine waters above the entire continental shelf, slope, and deep basins off the coast of Alaska including 

the Gulf of Alaska (GOA), Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands (BSAI), Chukchi Sea, and Arctic Ocean from the 

mean higher tide line to the EEZ limit; bottom down to 100 m (328 ft) depth (inner and middle continental 

shelf) in Arctic waters south of Cape Lisburne, and bottom down to 200 m (656 ft) depth (inner, middle 

and deep shelf) in concentrated areas of the GOA and BSAI are designated as EFH for the eggs, larvae, 

juveniles and/or adults for one or more of the BSAI ground fish, GOA ground fish, BSAI crab, salmon, 

scallops and/or Arctic fisheries species. The various substrate types across the continental shelf, slope,

and basins above which water column has been designated EFH include: sand, mud, rock, gravel, cobble, 

vegetated areas, crevices, overhangs, vertical walls, high-relief living habitats such as coral and larger 

sponges, and biogenic structures such as boltenia, bryozoans, ascidians, and shell hash.

HAPCs in the Alaska Region have been designated for one or more of the fisheries using a site-based 

approach as listed in Table 3.9-7 and shown in Figure 3.9-7. These include Alaska Seamount Habitat 

Protection Areas, Bowers Ridge Habitat Conservation Zone, GOA Coral Habitat Protection Areas; Aleutian 

Islands Coral Habitat Protection Areas, GOA Slope Habitat Conservation Areas, and Skate Nursery Areas.

Detailed descriptions of EFH and HAPC designations in the Alaska Region are available in the North Pacific 

FMC’s six FMPs (NPFMC, No Date). 

Table 3.9-7. EFH and HAPCs for the Alaska Region

Fisheries EFH HAPC

Bering Sea and Aleutian 

Islands Groundfish 

Overall: water column within bays 

and island passages, and along the 

entire shelf (0 to 200 m [0 to 656 ft]), 

upper, intermediate, and lower slope 

(200 to 3,000 m [656 to 9,843 ft) 

throughout the BSAI over various 

substrates such as sand, gravel, and 

cobble substrates of rock and in 

vegetated areas of vertical relief, 

such as crevices, overhangs, vertical 

walls, coral, and larger sponges.

Bowers Ridge Habitat 

Conservation Zone: Bowers Ridge 

and Ulm Plateau)

Alaska Seamount Habitat 

Protection Area: Bowers 

Seamount

Gulf of Alaska 

Groundfish 

Overall: water column within bays 

and island passages, and along the 

entire shelf (0 to 200 m [0 to 656 ft]), 

upper and intermediate slope (200 

to 1,000 m [656 to 3,281 ft]) and 

deep shelf gulleys throughout the 

GOA over various substrate of rock, 

cobble, gravel, sands, and muds, and 

in vegetated areas of vertical relief, 

such as crevices, overhangs, vertical 

walls, coral, and larger sponges.

Alaska Seamount Habitat 

Protection Areas: Dickens, 

Denson, Brown, Welker, Dall, 

Quinn, Giacomini, Kodiak, 

Odyssey, Patton, Chirikof & 

Marchand, Sirius, Derickson, 

Unimak, and Bowers Seamounts.

GOA Coral Habitat Protection 

Areas: Cape Ommaney, 

Fairweather Ground

NW Area, and Fairweather Ground 

Southern Area

Bering Sea and Aleutian 

Islands Crab

Overall: bottom habitats along the 

along the entire shelf (0 to 200 m [0 

Aleutian Islands Coral Habitat 

Protection Areas: Great Sitkin 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

382

Fisheries EFH HAPC

to 656 ft]) and entire slope (200 to 

3,000 m [656 to 9,843 ft]) and basins 

(more than 3,000 m [9,843 ft]) 

throughout the BSAI where there are 

substrates consisting of sand, mud, 

rock, cobble, gravel and biogenic 

structures such as boltenia, 

bryozoans, ascidians, and shell hash 

also coral, and vertical substrates, 

such as boulders, vertical walls, 

ledges, and deep water pinnacles.

Island, Cape Moffett Island, Adak 

Canyon, Bobrof Island, Ulak Island, 

and Semisopochnoi Island

Aleutian Islands Habitat 

Conservation Area: the entire 

Aleutian Islands groundfish 

management subarea

Alaska Seamount Habitat 

Protection Area: Bowers 

Seamount

Bowers Ridge Habitat 

Conservation Zone: Bowers Ridge, 

Ulm Plateau 

Alaska Scallops Overall: the sea floor along the 

entire shelf (0 to 200 m [0 to 656 ft]) 

shelf in concentrated areas of the 

GOA and BSAI where there are 

substrates of clay, mud, sand, and 

gravel that are generally elongated 

in the direction of current flow.

Alaska Seamount Habitat 

Protection Areas: Dickens, 

Denson, Brown, Welker, Dall, 

Quinn, Giacomini, Kodiak, 

Odessey, Patton, Chirikof & 

Marchand, Sirius, Derickson, 

Unimak, and Bowers Seamounts.

Bowers Ridge Habitat 

Conservation Zone: Bowers Ridge, 

Ulm Plateau

GOA Coral Habitat Protection 

Areas: Cape Ommaney, 

Fairweather Ground

NW Area, and Fairweather Ground 

Southern Area

GOA Coral Habitat Protection Area

Aleutian Islands Habitat 

Conservation Area: the entire 

Aleutian Islands groundfish 

management subarea 

Aleutian Islands Coral Habitat 

Protection Areas: Great Sitkin 

Island, Cape Moffett Island, Adak 

Canyon, Bobrof Island, Ulak Island, 

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

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

383

Fisheries EFH HAPC

GOA Slope Habitat Conservation 

Area: Yakutat, Cape Suckling, 

Kayak Island, Middleton Island 

east, Middleton Island west, 

Cable, Albatross Bank, Shumagin 

Island, Sanak Island, Unalaska and 

Island.

Alaska Salmon Overall: marine waters off the coast 

of Alaska from the mean higher tide 

line to the EEZ limit including the 

GOA, Eastern Bering Sea, Chukchi 

Sea, and Arctic Ocean along the 

entire shelf (0 to 200 m [0 to 656 ft]) 

and slope (200 to 3,000 m [656 to 

9,843 ft]); estuarine areas; fresh

waters identified in Alaska 

Department of Fish and Game’s 

Catalogue of Waters Important for 

the Spawning, Rearing, or Migration 

of Anadromous Fishes, and specific 

gravel substrate spawning areas.

Aleutian Islands Coral Habitat 

Protection Areas

Aleutian Islands Habitat 

Conservation Area: the entire 

Aleutian Islands groundfish 

management subarea 

GOA Slope Habitat Conservation 

Areas

Alaska Seamount Habitat 

Protection Areas 

Bowers Ridge Habitat 

Conservation Zone

Gulf of Alaska Coral Habitat 

Protection Areas

Skate Nursery Areas: six areas in 

the eastern Bering Sea where 

relatively high concentrations of 

skate eggs occur for several skate 

species

Arctic Fishery Overall: pelagic and epipelagic 

waters from the nearshore to 

offshore areas along the entire shelf 

(0 to 200 m [0 to 656 ft]) and upper 

slope (200 to 500 m [656 to 1,640 

ft]) throughout Arctic Ocean 

(including waters often associated 

with ice floes in deeper water, under 

nearshore ice in sand and gravel 

substrates) and bottom habitats 

along the inner and middle (0 to 100 

m [0 to 328 ft]) shelf in Arctic waters 

south of Cape Lisburne wherever 

None – no HAPC has been 

designated for the arctic fishery in 

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

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

384

Fisheries EFH HAPC

there are substrates consisting 

mainly of mud.

Source: NPFMC, No Date

Source: NMFS, 2019a

Figure 3.9-7. HAPCs in the Alaska Region

3.9.1.1.6 Pacific Islands Region

One FMC occurs in the Pacific Islands Region: the Western Pacific FMC. EFH for various life stages of 

numerous fish species occurs in this region, including bottom fish such as snappers (Lutjanidae), jacks 

(Carangidae), and groupers; coral reef fish (Figure 3.9-8) such as goatfish (Mullidae), squirrelfish and 

soldierfish (Holocentridae), parrotfish (Scaridae), and surgeonfish (Acanthuridae); and pelagic fish such as 

albacore (Thunnus alalunga), yellowfin tuna (Thunnus albacares), skipjack tuna (Katsuwonus pelamis), 

mahi (Coryphaena hippurus), wahoo (Acanthocybium solandri), blue marlin (Makaira nigricans), swordfish 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

385

(Xiphias gladius), and sharks (Selachimorpha) (WP Council, 2019a). EFH for aquatic macroinvertebrates 

has been delineated for several coral reef ecosystems. 

A large proportion of the marine waters in the EEZ surrounding the Hawaiian Archipelago, the Mariana 

Islands, American Samoa, and the Pacific Remote Island Areas (PRIAs) have been designated as EFH for 

over one thousand representative species within five fisheries as managed by the Western Pacific Regional 

FMC (see Table 3.9-8). EFH include the entire marine water column from the 0 to 1,000 m (0 to 3,281 ft) 

depth from the shoreline out to the EEZ limit, and all bottom from the shoreline down to 700 m (2,297 ft) 

depth around each of the U.S. Pacific Islands are designated as EFH for the eggs, larvae, juveniles and/or 

adults of one or more of the coral reef ecosystem, bottomfishes, crustacean, precious coral, and/or 

pelagic fisheries species. The types of habitats types within these EFH designations include: mangrove, 

lagoon, estuarine, seagrass beds, soft substrate, coral reef/hard substrate, patch reefs, surge zone, deepslope terraces, and pelagic/open ocean.

Photo Credit: NMFS

The definitions for EFH in the Pacific Islands Region changed broadly in 2019. Certain bottomfish, coral 

reef ecosystem, precious coral, and crustacean management unit species were reclassified as ecosystem 

component species, and the scientific and local names of certain species were updated (84 FR 2767, 

February 8, 2019).

HAPCs have been designated for all fisheries primarily defined in terms of habitat types within defined 

depth contours as listed in Table 3.9-8 and shown in Figure 3.9-9. HAPCsinclude the water column habitat, 

escarpments/slopes, banks with summits, MPAs, and research sites.

Detailed descriptions of EFH and HAPC designations in the U.S. Pacific Islands Region are available in the 

Western Pacific Regional FMC’s five place-based Fishery Ecosystem Plans (FEPs) for the American Samoa 

Archipelago, Hawai’i Archipelago, Mariana Archipelago, Pacific Remote Island Areas, and Pacific Pelagic 

fisheries (WP Council, 2020). Updated and amended EFH and HAPC descriptions can be found in the most 

current Annual Stock Assessment and Fishery Evaluation Reports for each of these five place-based 

fisheries (WP Council, 2019b).

Figure 3.9-8. Coral Reef EFH in 

the Pacific Islands Region
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

386

Table 3.9-8. EFH and HAPCs for the Pacific Islands Region

Fisheries EFH HAPC

Bottomfish and Seamount 

Groundfish: Hawai’i 

Archipelago, Marianas 

Archipelago, American 

Samoa Archipelago, and 

Pacific Remote Island 

Areas regions

Overall: the water column and all 

bottom habitat extending from the 

shoreline to the outer boundary of 

the EEZ to a depth of 200 fathoms 

(400 m [1,312 ft]); and all EEZ waters 

and bottom habitat bounded by 

latitude 29°–35° north and longitude 

171° E–179° west between 100 and 

300 fathoms (200 and 600 m [1,312 

and 1,969 ft]).

All escarpments and slopes 

between 20-140 fathoms (40-

280 m [131-918 ft]) throughout 

the Western Pacific Region; 

three known areas of juvenile 

opakapaka habitat (two off Oahu 

and one off Molokai).

Crustaceans: Hawai’i 

Archipelago, Marianas 

Archipelago, American 

Samoa Archipelago, and 

Pacific Remote Island 

Areas regions

Overall: water column from the 

shoreline to the outer limit of the EEZ 

down to a depth of 75 fathoms (150 

m [492 ft]) throughout the Western 

Pacific Region; bottom habitat from 

the shoreline to a depth of 50 

fathoms (100m [328 ft]); associated 

outer reef slopes at depths between 

300-700 m (984-2,297 ft).

All banks with summits less than 

or equal to 30 m (15 fathoms) 

from the surface.

Precious Corals: Hawai’i 

Archipelago, Marianas 

Archipelago, American 

Samoa Archipelago, and 

Pacific Remote Island 

Areas regions

Six known beds of precious corals 

located off Keahole

Point, Makapuu, Kaena Point, 

Wespac bed, Brooks Bank, and 180 

Fathom Bank; three black coral beds 

between Milolii and South Point on 

Hawai’i, Auau Channel between Maui 

and Lanai, and the southern border 

of Kauai.

Makapuu bed, Wespac bed, 

Brooks Banks bed; for Black 

Corals, the Auau Channel.

Coral Reef Ecosystem: 

Pacific Remote Island 

Areas region

Overall: water column and all benthic 

substrate from the shoreline to the 

outer boundary of the EEZ to a depth 

of 50 fathoms (100 m [328 ft]).

All no-take MPAs identified in 

the Coral Reef Ecosystem FMP, 

all Pacific remote islands, as well 

as numerous existing MPAs, 

research sites, and coral reef

habitats throughout the western 

Pacific.

Pelagics: Pacific Remote 

Island Areas and Pacific 

Pelagic regions

Overall: water column down to a 

depth of 500 fathoms (1,000 m 

[3,281 ft]) from the shoreline to the 

outer limit of the EEZ.

The water column from the 

surface down to a depth of 500 

fathoms (1,000 m [3,281 ft]) 

above all seamounts and banks 

with summits shallower than 

1,000 fathoms (2,000 m [6,562 

ft]) within the EEZ.

Sources: WP Council, 2019a; WP Council, 2020
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

387

Source: NMFS, 2019a

Figure 3.9-9. HAPCs in the Pacific Islands Region

3.9.2 Environmental Consequences for Essential Fish Habitat

This section discusses potential impacts of NOS activities associated with Alternatives A, B, and C on EFH, 

including HAPCs. Impacts on the managed species, fish (Section 3.7.2) and aquatic macroinvertebrates 

(Section 3.8.2), for which EFH is designated are discussed separately in their respective sections. Activities 

described in Sections 2.4.1 through 2.4.13 that occur on NOS projects and that could be expected to 

impact EFH include operation of crewed sea-going surface vessels; operation of ROVs and autonomous 

vehicles; use of echo sounders, ADCPs, acoustic communication systems, and sound speed data collection 

equipment; anchoring; collection of bottom grab samples; operation of drop/towed cameras and video 

systems; installation, maintenance, and removal of tide gauges and GPS reference stations; and SCUBA

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

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

388

3.9.2.1 Methodology

Adverse effects to EFH that could result from proposed NOS activities are discussed by the stressors that 

may occur. These stressorsinclude: (1) physical impacts to bottom habitat (e.g., from anchoring, collection 

of bottom grab samples, tide gauge installation, operation of ROVs and autonomous vehicles, and SCUBA

operations); (2) increase in sedimentation, turbidity, and/or chemical contaminants (e.g., from operation 

of crewed sea-going vessels, operation of ROVs and autonomous vehicles, anchoring, collection of bottom 

grab samples, installation of tide gauges and GPS reference stations, and SCUBA operations); (3) increase 

in ambient sound (e.g., from operation of crewed sea-going vessels, operation of ROVs and autonomous 

vehicles, use of echo sounders, ADCPs, and acoustic communication systems); (4) impacts to the water 

column (e.g., from operation of crewed sea-going vessels, operation of ROVs and autonomous vehicles, 

anchoring, use of sound speed data collection equipment and bottom grab samplers, operation of 

drop/towed cameras and video systems, and SCUBA operations); and (5) dispersal of invasive species(e.g. 

from ballast water discharged during crewed vessel operation or organisms attached to hulls, equipment, 

and anchors). 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 in this PEIS 

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

impacts. The significance criteria for EFH are shown in Table 3.9-9.

Table 3.9-9. Significance Criteria for the Analysis of Impacts to EFH

Impact Descriptor Context and Intensity

Significance 

Conclusion

Negligible

Impacts on EFH would be temporary and minimal (e.g., 

placement of an object on the sea floor which increases

turbidity) with no lasting damage or alteration.

Insignificant

Minor

Impacts on EFH would be easily recoverable (e.g., shortterm placement of an object on the sea floor which 

increases turbidity or causes loss of small area of 

vegetation) with no long-term or permanent damage or 

alteration. Effects on EFH would be temporary and 

minimal.

Moderate

EFH would be damaged or altered potentially over the 

long term but would continue to support the species 

reliant on it. Effects on EFH would be not temporary and 

not minimal.

Major

EFH would be degraded over the long term or 

permanently so that it would no longer support a 

sustainable fishery and would cause the population of a 

managed species to become stressed, less productive, or 

unstable. Effects on EFH would be not temporary and 

substantial.

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

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

389

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

Marine Data Collection with Current Technology and Methods, at Current

Funding Levels

Under Alternative A, excluding survey effort in the Great Lakes, NOS projects are estimated to cover a 

total of 2,633,374 nm (4,877,009 km) across all five regions over the five-year period. Although the survey 

effort under Alternative A would vary by year (see Table 3.5-6), over the five-year period for proposed 

projects the greatest number of nautical miles surveyed would be in the Southeast Region (approximately 

47 percent). The survey effort in each of the other four regions is approximately 10 percent over five

years, and slightly greater in the Alaska Region where the survey effort would be somewhat higher overall 

(approximately 18 percent). 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, physical contact with bottom habitat, and population density of prey, that add nuance 

to this trend.

Impacts of Alternative A on EFH and HAPCs are discussed below for each of the stressors introduced 

above. Potential impacts could occur in all of the geographic regions as EFH is extensive and covers a large 

majority of the EEZ. By region, there are 108 HAPC sites in the Southeast Region, 93 sites in the Greater 

Atlantic Region, 38 sites in the Alaska Region, 34 sites in the West Coast Region, and one site in the Pacific 

Islands Region. This indicates that by far the greatest number of projects, along with associated potential 

impacts, could occur in HAPC areas in the Southeast Region and Greater Atlantic Region, and the fewest 

by far could occur in the Pacific Islands Region.

3.9.2.2.1 Physical Impacts to Bottom Habitat

Activities that could result in physical disturbances or damage to the sea floor and bottom substrate 

consist of anchoring, collection of bottom grab samples, installation of tide gauges and remote GPS 

reference systems, operation of ROVs and autonomous vehicles, and SCUBA operations.

Anchoring of vessels and installation of equipment on the sea floor can cause damage to EFH/HAPCs

consisting of corals and vegetated bottom, potentially reducing available structure, cover, and 

nutrient/food availability for dependent species. Anchor chains, or their attached chains/lines, could drag 

across the sea floor, potentially destroying submerged vegetation and seafloor structure, and creating a 

circular scour hole; the anchor itself would create a hole or divot in the bottom habitat. This alteration of 

underwater structure would reduce the availability of shelter and cover necessary for the survival or 

offspring development of many aquatic taxa. This would particularly affect those organisms at lower levels 

of the aquatic food chain and could potentially reduce the overall aquatic biodiversity of the area through 

cascading trophic impacts (i.e., reduced prey availability reduces the abundance of higher-level 

predators).

Anchoring of vessels used by NOS, however, would not be a common practice. Only large vessels would 

typically anchor within or near project areas, while the small boats and survey launches used during NOS 

projects generally return to port or to the ship each day. Most vessels used by NOS would not anchor, 

except in an emergency, such as to avoid adverse weather conditions or in the unlikely event of an engine 

malfunction. Vessels would not anchor on coral reefs and would avoid anchoring in hard bottom areas in 

abalone critical habitat and seagrass whenever possible; thus, these sensitive habitats and their 

dependent species would be minimally impacted, if at all. Additionally, NOS would not drag anchor chains 

and would ensure that anchors are properly secured so as to minimize bottom disturbance. However, it 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

390

is possible that when a vessel is not collecting data, it may anchor either within the project area or nearby; 

there are approximately 55 projects with a planned anchoring component annually. 

Installation of equipment on the sea floor, such as new moorings for tide buoys, would cause relatively 

small footprints of bottom substrate disturbance (approximately 1 square meter (3 ft), see Section 2.4.12).

The disturbance could potentially create holes in the bottom sediment and damage or destruction of 

submerged vegetation/macroalgae and bottom structure. Additionally, infauna may be disturbed, 

removed, or destroyed in the immediate area where the buoy is installed. A decrease of underwater 

structure could reduce the availability of shelter and cover necessary for the survival or offspring 

development of many aquatic taxa. This could particularly affect those organisms at lower levels of the 

aquatic food chain and could potentially reduce the overall aquatic biodiversity of the area through 

cascading trophic impacts (i.e., reduced prey availability reduces the abundance of higher-level 

predators). During all buoy deployment and retrieval operations, buoys should be lowered and raised 

slowly to minimize risk to ESA-listed species and benthic habitat. NOS would ensure that all instruments 

placed in contact with the sea floor (including anchors or moorings) are properly secured to avoid the 

dragging of moorings or lines across the bottom. NOS would undertake approximately 32 projects that 

include tide gauge installations annually, but only a portion of these would involve installation of new 

moorings. Given the low number of equipment installations, the relatively small area of bottom substrate 

disturbance, and the large geographic separation between installations, the physical impact on bottom 

habitat from equipment installation is expected to be small.

Bottom sediment sample collection involves targeted removal of sediment cores in approximately 54 

projects annually across the entire action area. Bottom grab samples inherently damage bottom substrate 

and could potentially reduce or damage existing underwater structure. This could result in reducing the 

availability of cover and shelter necessary for prey species or immature marine organisms to avoid 

predation. NOS would not collect bottom samples for sediment verification on coral reefs or hard bottom 

areas. Sediment sampling activities would not target substrates such as coral reefs, seagrass beds, or hard

bottom areas. Bottom sampling may adversely affect EFH through the temporary suspension of sediment 

and the potential removal or disturbance of infauna. Given that the sampling activities would be

infrequent and geographically widespread across the action area, that the area of bottom habitat sampled 

would be very small (e.g., 15 x 15 cm [6 x 6 in] area and 5 cm [2 in] deep), and that physical contact with 

sensitive habitat would be avoided, the physical disturbance to bottom habitat associated with bottom 

grab sampling is expected to be minimal. Additionally, stiffer line materials would be used for instrument 

deployment and kept taut during operations to reduce the potential for entanglement in bottom features 

such as coral habitats.

ROVs and autonomous vehicles would be operated by NOS to maintain a slow speed and height above 

the sea floor. The use of AUVs may adversely affect EFH through unplanned contact with bottom habitats, 

which may cause physical damage or through the localized and temporary resuspension of bottom 

sediments if height above the sea floor cannot be maintained. Such adverse effects would occur 

accidentally and are expected to be rare.

Operations involving SCUBA divers may inadvertently disturb bottom substrates in EFH/HAPCs. NOS 

SCUBA operations would include approximately 248 benthic and fish monitoring projects conducted on 

hard bottom and coral reef habitats annually; these areas would contain shallow marine habitat 

characteristics necessary for many marine invertebrate and vertebrate species and are particularly 

sensitive to disturbances. Although SCUBA operations represent a very small component of NOS projects 

(mainly related to tide gauge installation/maintenance/removal projects), SCUBA divers in these areas 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

391

could potentially reduce or damage existing underwater structure, reducing the availability of cover and 

shelter necessary for prey species or immature marine organisms to avoid predation, and potentially 

inducing cascading impacts throughout the food chain. NOS divers are trained to hover over the sea floor 

to avoid inadvertent disturbance of sediments and to place or handle equipment such that impacts to 

bottom habitat are avoided. Given the low risk of contact with the sea floor during diver operations and 

large geographic separation of diving projects throughout the action area, physical disturbances to 

bottom substrate from SCUBA operations are expected to be minimal.

Any damage to bottom habitat would not have lasting effects on EFH as unvegetated softbottom habitat 

would shift and reform and coral reefs, seagrass beds, abalone habitat, and hard bottom habitat would 

be avoided. In general, physical damage to the sea floor recovers within 1.5 years through water currents 

and natural sedimentation (Stevenson et al., 2004). Overall, activities under Alternative A that would 

involve physical disturbance of the sea floor and bottom habitat would continue to have adverse and

negligible to minor impacts as the effects on EFH would be recoverable with no long-term damage or 

alteration. Impacts of Alternative A on EFH, including HAPCs, would be insignificant. 

3.9.2.2.2 Increase in Sedimentation/Turbidity, and/or Chemical Contaminants

Activities that could result in an increase in sedimentation, turbidity, or chemical contamination consist 

of crewed vessel operations, operation of ROVs and autonomous vehicles, anchoring, collection of bottom 

grab samples, tide gauge and GPS reference station installation or maintenance/removal, and SCUBA

operations.

Crewed vessel, ROV, and autonomous vehicle operations, in conjunction with all activities which physically 

contact bottom substrate, would increase sedimentation and turbidity in disturbed areas from bottom 

sediments loosened through displaced water from transiting vessels or physical contact with bottom 

substrate. Increased sedimentation and turbidity can potentially cause respiratory damage to aquatic 

species (e.g., damage to fish gills) and block sunlight necessary for photosynthesis by aquatic plants, 

macroalgae, and phytoplankton. These impacts could potentially lower the overall nutrient availability of 

affected EFH areas and could reduce the cover and structure available to dependent species from 

submerged vegetation or macroalgae. Furthermore, increases in suspended sediments and turbidity 

reduce the depth to which sunlight can penetrate, which changes the wavelengths of light reaching fish 

and benthic species. Divers would not stand or rest on live corals/coral reefs, and bottom contact would 

only be in unconsolidated areas or non-living hard bottom. NOS would ensure that all instruments placed 

in contact with the sea floor are properly secured to minimize bottom disturbance.

Photosynthetic marine species are dependent on sunlight and often have a narrow band of wavelengths 

of light that they are able to use. Increased sedimentation and turbidity could inhibit photosynthesis in 

oceanic habitat areas, thus reducing nutrient cycling by marine phytoplankton and reducing shelter and 

cover provided by submerged plants and macroalgae. Suspended material may also react with DO in the 

water and result in temporary or short-term oxygen depletion to aquatic resources (e.g., vegetation and 

aquatic macroinvertebrates) and could further exacerbate impacts to EFH from reduced nutrient and 

cover availability. Since most fish can avoid highly turbid areas, they may temporarily relocate to 

undisturbed areas until suspended sediments settle. Given the low frequency, large degree of geographic 

separation, and small affected area of activities physically impacting bottom substrate, the resulting 

increases in sedimentation/turbidity would be very small and would likely settle back to the sea floor or 

dissipate with prevailing currents and winds relatively quickly (within seconds or minutes).
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

392

An increase in chemical contaminants can reduce fitness and cause mortality of exposed organisms. Often, 

contaminants entering the marine environment are lighter than water, and thus float on the surface 

where most of them evaporate within a few days (Neff et al., 2000). However, this property of some 

contaminants may lead to greater exposure of seagrass ecosystems which could cause extensive mortality 

of the seabed, with the associated loss of juvenile fish and invertebrates due to the loss of habitat (Zieman 

et al., 1984). Seagrass mortality would reduce the available cover and shelter that many marine species 

require to avoid predation, reproduce, and rear or develop offspring in addition to reducing food 

availability for seagrass foragers, including prey species such as aquatic macroinvertebrates and fish. 

For those chemical contaminants that sink, the effects on coral colonies may include mortality, tissue 

death, reduced growth, impaired reproduction, bleaching, and reduced photosynthetic rates (Cook and 

Knap, 1983; Burns and Knap, 1989; Ballou et al., 1987). The effects of chemical contaminants and 

sedimentation/turbidity would range from superficial exposure of fish and aquatic macroinvertebrates to 

ingestion, sub-lethal effects and reduced fitness (due to adverse effects on sensory systems, growth, 

behavior, and/or bio-accumulation), and fatality. Reduction of corals would reduce the food, structure, 

and shelter necessary for prey species and would likely reduce the overall biodiversity of the area through 

cascading impacts throughout the food chain. Chemical contaminants could also cling or adhere to 

submerged structural features in all EFH areas, which could serve as an additional exposure vector to fish 

and aquatic macroinvertebrates and result in changes in growth rates or behavior, injuries, and death of 

exposed individuals. Bioaccumulation of some toxic chemicals could disproportionately impact higherlevel predators which consume contaminated prey items, which could ultimately reduce top-down 

ecosystem regulation and degrade the nutrient availability of affected habitat areas. To minimize impacts, 

all hazardous or regulated materials would be handled in accordance with applicable laws, and crew 

members would be appropriately trained in materials storage and usage. 

Mortality of phytoplankton and zooplankton from oil and fuel spills could indirectly affect marine 

mammals which feed on them. However, even if a large amount of plankton were affected, it can recover 

rapidly due to high reproductive rates, rapid replacement by cells from adjacent waters, widespread 

distribution, and exchange with tidal currents. Thus, the impact of changes in water quality, including an 

accidental spill on a pelagic phytoplankton community would not be substantial.

Operation of crewed vessels and of ROVs and autonomous vehicles may result in discharge (mostly 

unintentional) of harmful substances including bilge water, debris, fuel, oil, and miscellaneous chemicals. 

NOS would undertake projects covering 518,000 nm (959,000 km) of crewed vessel operations annually 

and 28,600 nm (53,000 km) of ROV and autonomous vehicles movement annually. In shallow waters, 

propellers from boats can cause increased turbidity and contamination by resuspending bottom 

materials. Equipment such as AUVs would be programmed and operated so as to avoid seafloor 

disturbance. The context and intensity of these impacts are contingent on the size, location, and chemical 

composition of the source discharge or spill. Small spills rarely occur during NOS activities, and large spills 

are unlikely given the size of vessels used during NOS projects. Given that operators of vessels used by 

NOS would strictly adhere to applicable laws and regulations pursuant to MARPOL 73/78 that restrict 

onboard hazardous material use and the discharge of contaminants into the marine environment, and 

that the probability of accidental fuel spills is very low, increases in sedimentation, turbidity, and chemical 

contamination would be relatively small, especially when compared to similar disturbance and discharges 

from the much greater number of all other vessels occurring in the EEZ, lakes, and rivers. 

Installation and removal of tide gauges on land along the shoreline could also increase the turbidity, 

sedimentation, and chemical contamination of the water column through run-off of any soil disturbed 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

393

during installation/removal on land and disturbance of bottom sediments from new buoy moorings in the 

water. The installation of buoys may have adverse impacts on EFH through direct contact with the sea 

floor or nearby habitat. During the installation process, temporary increases in sedimentation and 

turbidity may occur through the suspension of bottom sediments or drill cuttings (i.e., particles of 

rock/hard bottom). Increased sedimentation and turbidity could potentially lower the overall nutrient 

availability of affected coastal wetland and shallow marine habitat areas due to reduced photosynthesis 

by phytoplankton. Photosynthetic inhibition in these areas could also reduce the availability of cover and 

shelter created by submerged vegetation and macroalgae necessary for many species to avoid predation 

and develop offspring. Soil runoff also often includes chemical contaminants such as fertilizers or 

detergents with high levels of nitrates and phosphates. Influxes of nutrients or chemicals in shallow 

marine, estuarine, and coastal wetland habitat areas could potentially trigger algal blooms. Algal blooms 

are toxic for many marine species and they reduce DO concentrations, thus reducing the overall habitat 

quality of the affected area. However, when a tide gauge is installed on land, it would be located beyond 

the mean high tide line so any disturbed sediments from installation would not reach the water. NOS 

would undertake approximately 32 projects that include tide gauge installations annually, and 30 projects 

that include tide gauge removal annually. Given that the activities would be conducted infrequently and 

geographically widespread across the action area, that the footprints of disturbance would be small, and 

that installation and removal procedures would be applied to control sediment runoff, increases in 

turbidity and sedimentation are expected to be minimal. 

Anchoring (in approximately 55 projects annually), bottom grab sampling (approximately 54 projects 

annually), and other physical contact with bottom habitat may stir up sediments resulting in increased 

turbidity and sedimentation. The footprints of impact on bottom sediments would be relatively small and 

the sediment stirred up limited in quantity. NOS would ensure that anchors are properly secured so as to 

minimize bottom disturbance. Any sediments that are re-suspended would likely settle back to the sea 

floor relatively quickly (within seconds or minutes in the immediate area) following disturbance; fine 

sediments, however, may drift and disperse. Given that bottom sediments would be stirred up 

infrequently and activities would be dispersed across the widespread action area, increases in turbidity 

and sedimentation are expected to be minimal. 

Changes in water quality from increased sedimentation, turbidity, and chemical contamination due to 

these activities would include short-term reductions in water clarity and light availability that would 

subside shortly after activities cease. Any discharges released during vessel operation would be minimized 

through adherence to MARPOL laws and regulations. Overall, the likelihood of occurrence of an accidental 

fuel spill from a vessel used by NOS would continue to be very low. Along with the activities under 

Alternative A that would increase sedimentation, turbidity, and/or chemical discharges in EFH, this 

scenario would continue to have adverse and negligible impacts as water quality in EFH would be able to 

recover with no long-term damage or alteration. In the event that an accidental spill does occur, the 

volume of oil, fuel, and/or chemical contaminants would be fairly small given the amounts of fuel and 

other chemicals that vessels used by NOS typically carry for onboard consumption, and along with

handling hazardous and regulated materials in accordance with applicable laws, and having crew 

members appropriately trained in materials storage and usage, the impact on EFH would be adverse and

minor. Impacts of Alternative A on EFH, including HAPCs, would continue to be insignificant. 

3.9.2.2.3 Increase in Ambient Sound

Activities that could result in an increase in underwater sound consist of operation of crewed vessels, 

operation of ROVs and autonomous vehicles, and use of underwater acoustic equipment including echo 

sounders, ADCPs, and acoustic communication systems. Increases in underwater sound may adversely 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

394

affect different life stages of fish and aquatic macroinvertebrate prey species (prey is a potential habitat 

characteristic of EFH). See Section 3.7 Fish and Section 3.8 Aquatic Macroinvertebrates for full discussions 

of the hearing capabilities of fish and aquatic macroinvertebrates and the potential impacts on these 

species from vessel sound and underwater acoustic sources. Increasing the ambient sound level could 

potentially degrade the habitat value of affected areas which would be manifested through impacts such 

as behavioral disruption or injury to biological resources. Underwater sound adversely affects aquatic taxa 

variably, with effects differing considerably based on the frequency and intensity of the sound and the 

hearing sensitivity of the affected organism.

Operation of crewed vessels (approximately 518,000 nm [959,000 km] annually) and of ROV and 

autonomous vehicles (approximately 28,600 nm [53,000 km] annually) would generate underwater sound

and vibrations at low- to mid-frequencies that overlap with the hearing ranges of aquatic prey species. 

Underwater sound would not adversely affect structural EFH but may affect mobile fish that are prey 

species by temporarily altering behavior. Behavioral changes can result in animals leaving feeding or 

breeding grounds (Slabbekoorn et al., 2010) or becoming more susceptible to mortality through decrease 

predator-avoidance responses (Simpson et al., 2016). Noise can also mask biologically important sounds 

and alter the natural soundscape, cause hearing loss, and/or have an adverse effect on an organism’s 

stress levels and immune system (NOAA, 2016). Reduction of prey species would reduce food and nutrient 

availability for top-level predators in aquatic habitat areas and could potentially result in cascading 

impacts throughout the local aquatic food chain and reduce biodiversity. However, the exposure of prey 

species to vessel sound would be limited for aquatic macroinvertebrates (see Section 3.8), somewhat 

greater for fish but still with negligible to minor impacts (see Section 3.7), and the responses temporary 

in nature as activities would be infrequent in any given area and geographically widespread across the 

entire action area. Furthermore, the potential effects of sounds associated with vessel operations, which 

would be infrequent in any given area and at the most represent only a negligible proportion of total 

vessel traffic in the action area (Section 2.4.1), would be minimal as compared to the effects from sound

generated by all other ship traffic in the EEZ. The overall contribution to background sound in the ocean 

from vessels used by NOS would be negligible. Exposure to vessel sounds would only persist for the 

duration of vessel transit through the habitat area. As such, prey species would only be temporarily 

exposed to vessel sound and likely would not change their behavior or habitat occupancy in the longterm. It would be unlikely that the exposure of prey species to these sounds would exceed the levels and 

lengths of time that would result in more than minimal adverse effects.

Use of active underwater acoustic sources would involve relatively high frequency, directional, and short 

duration repeated signals which could increase the ambient sound environment of EFH areas. These 

instruments produce acoustic signals perceptible to several marine prey species; exposure of these 

marine prey species to this sound could result in the same adverse impacts to EFH as those discussed in 

the preceding paragraph. NOS would annually undertake projects covering 479,000 nm (887,000 km) of 

single beam, multibeam, and side scan sonar use; approximately 3,210 nm (5,940 km) of sub-bottom 

profiler use; approximately 5,890 nm (10,900 km) using ADCPs; and approximately 24 projects using 

acoustic communication systems. As with vessels, sound from underwater acoustic sources would not 

adversely affect structural EFH but may temporarily alter the behavior of mobile fish that are prey species. 

All of these instruments involve the production of an acoustic signal, but they are usually only operated 

while a ship is in motion, so any area would be exposed to acoustic energy for a very short duration. 

Furthermore, many of the associated sounds would be intermittent in use and highly directional in nature, 

and the energy of the signal would drop off rapidly with distance from the source (as opposed to the low 

frequency sounds emitted by vessels which can travel farther in water). Thus, any potential impacts on 

prey species would be limited to temporary behavioral and stress-startle responses. Also, more 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

395

importantly, adverse impacts are unlikely to occur due to the much higher frequencies of these 

instruments relative to the hearing capabilities of most prey species, except for a few species of shad and 

herring (as discussed in Section 3.7 Fish). 

Vessel operations, which would generate sounds in the mid- and low-level frequencies, are within the 

hearing range of most prey species but would be infrequent, geographically widely distributed, and likely 

to elicit a minimal or temporary response. A majority of the sounds generated by underwater acoustic

sources are well above the hearing frequencies of the most prey species, thus unlikely to cause behavioral 

disturbance and hearing impairment. Thus, activities under Alternative A that would create underwater 

sound would continue to have adverse and negligible to minor impacts on EFH. Impacts of Alternative A 

on EFH, including HAPCs, would continue to be insignificant. 

3.9.2.2.4 Impacts to Water Column

Impacts to the water column could be caused by vessels or equipment moving through the water column

in activities including operation of crewed sea-going vessels, operation of ROVs and autonomous vehicles, 

anchoring, use of sound speed data collection equipment and bottom grab samplers, operation of 

drop/towed cameras and video systems, and SCUBA operations.

NOS would undertake projects covering 518,000 nm (959,000 km) annually with operation of crewed 

vessels and projects covering 28,600 nm (53,000 km) annually with ROVs and autonomous vehicles. 

Wakes from crewed sea-going vessels and from ROVs and autonomous vehicles would create turbulence 

and generate wave and surge effects in the water column where habitat gradients would be temporarily 

disrupted, including temperature, salinity, DO, turbidity, and nutrient supply. Propellers from vessels 

could also cause water column destratification and elevated water temperatures. Vessel movement 

through the water column may disrupt benthic communities in shallow areas and other prey species and 

cause mortality to floating eggs and larvae by physically damaging them with the hull or other ship parts, 

including the propulsion system. These disruptions would likely reduce the availability of space, shelter, 

and nutrients for dependent species within EFH. Disruptions could also potentially affect food chains and 

ultimately reduce the overall biodiversity of affected areas. However, the vast majority of impacts to EFH 

would be temporary as disturbance would be limited to the immediate vicinity of vessels and would only 

persist for the duration of transits or projects within the affected area. Also, all vessels in coastal waters 

would operate in a manner to minimize propeller wash and seafloor disturbance, and transiting vessels 

would follow deep-water routes (e.g., marked channels), as practicable.

Instruments and gear that interact with the water column, including sound speed data collection 

equipment, bottom grab samplers, drop/towed cameras, and anchors and chains, and SCUBA divers could 

temporarily cause turbulence and disturb or displace nearby benthic communities and other prey species. 

Reduction of prey species would reduce food and nutrient availability for top-level predators in EFH. This 

could potentially result in cascading impacts throughout the local aquatic food chain and reduce 

biodiversity. Lines connecting equipment to a vessel could also become entangled with, damage, or kill 

submerged aquatic vegetation such as seagrass and corals. Reduction of underwater structure would 

likely reduce the space, shelter, and cover necessary for the avoidance of predators by prey species and 

the rearing or development of offspring. Additionally, divers in SCUBA operations that would be 

conducted as part of various projects, but mainly as a component of tide gauge

installation/maintenance/removal, would move through the water column, temporarily disturbing both 

vertebrate and invertebrate prey species. The vast majority of impacts to EFH would be temporary as 

disturbance would be limited to the immediate vicinity of instruments, gear, or personnel and would only 

persist for the duration of the activity. Mobile prey species would likely only be minimally displaced from 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

396

project areas as they would not likely move too far away and are expected to return once water column 

turbulence ceases; they would not experience long-term changes in the availability of space, structure, 

shelter, or nutrients outside the range of natural variability.

Impacts to the water column from vessels and equipment under Alternative A would continue to be 

adverse and negligible as effects on EFH would be easily recoverable with no long-term damage or 

alteration. Impacts of Alternative A on EFH, including HAPCs, would continue to be insignificant. 

3.9.2.2.5 Dispersal of Invasive Species 

Dispersal of invasive species could be caused by ballast water discharged during crewed vessel operation,

or organisms attached to hulls, equipment, and anchors. The use of the same physical equipment and 

instruments in geographically disparate regions could potentially facilitate the dispersal and 

establishment of invasive species in new areas. 

Invasive species can outcompete, displace native species, and alter biodiversity and ecosystem function.

Invasive species such as zebra mussels (Dreissena polymorpha) and lionfish (Petrois spp.) have large 

numbers of offspring and limited or no natural threats or predators outside of their native habitat, 

allowing them to outcompete locally native species for space and nutrients (TISI, 2014). Invasive seagrass 

can displace native species of seagrass, affect fish species assemblage, and decrease fish abundance 

through associated changes in habitat complexity (Becking et al., 2014). Additionally, invasive algae can 

overgrow and kill coral through smothering and shading, resulting in the reduction in biodiversity and 

coral cover (RRN, 2022). Over time, the propagation of invasive species can result in cascading impacts to 

the local food chain through the extirpation of local predators and prey due to reduced nutrient cycling 

and availability. These impacts typically reduce the habitat value of affected areas in the long-term or 

permanently after the establishment of invasive species. These species and their resulting impacts persist 

until all invasive organisms are removed from a given area through aggressive trapping, harvesting, or use 

of pesticides.

NOS would undertake projects covering 518,000 nm (959,000 km) of crewed vessel operations annually 

and 28,600 nm (53,000 km) of ROV and autonomous vehicles movement annually. NOS projects would 

occur in all regions of the action area and can potentially involve transit and surveying across large swaths 

of the action area using the same physical equipment and instrumentation. These longer voyages or 

projects could potentially inadvertently transport invasive macroinvertebrate larvae, vertebrate eggs or 

animals, plant seeds, or algae propagules in ballast water or on equipment surfaces to novel areas, 

thereby facilitating their dispersal and establishment (Gregory, 2009). 

While NOS vessel operations may unintentionally introduce or spread invasive species, the most common 

pathways for the introduction of invasive species in marine systems is shipping (i.e., ballast water and hull 

biofouling), aquaculture, canal construction, aquarium trade, and the live seafood trade (Molnar et al., 

2008). The impact of NOS activities would be miniscule in comparison, and it is unlikely that NOS activities 

would involve the release of ballast water discharge. Vessel operations could also contribute to the spread 

of invasive and nuisance species through hull fouling and anchoring. Anchoring may dislodge non-native 

or nuisance algae or seagrass, facilitating its spread; however, anchoring would be conducted 

infrequently. NOS equipment and instruments used in consecutive projects in disparate geographically 

areas could also potentially serve as transmission vectors for invasive species. However, the majority of 

NOS projects would not transit to multiple areas consecutively, and NOS project crews would implement 

mandatory invasive species control proceduresto limit or avoid hull fouling, use anti-fouling coatings, and 

clean hulls, thus limiting the potential impact to EFH in the action area.
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

397

All NOS projects, however, would include mandatory invasive species prevention procedures including, 

but not limited to, vessel and equipment washdown, cleaning, and de-ballasting (exchange of ballast 

water in open ocean waters for those vessels used by NOS that have ballast tanks). Proper implementation 

of these procedures would prevent most NOS equipment from serving as exchange vectors for invasive 

species; however, the possibility for the transmission of some invasive species would likely still exist. NOS 

project vessels, however, compose only a very small proportion of vessel traffic in the action area and 

would likely contribute marginally to the overall transmission of invasive species.

Given the relatively low likelihood of occurrence, the adverse impact on EFH, including HAPCs, of invasive 

species dispersal facilitated by NOS activities under Alternative A would continue to be adverse and 

negligible to minor, and therefore insignificant.

3.9.2.2.6 Conclusion

Under Alternative A, NOS would continue to operate a variety of equipment and technologies to gather 

data on the marine and coastal environments at the level of effort reflecting NOS fiscal year 2019 funding 

levels. Since the effects of impact causing factors on EFH range from negligible to minor, the overall impact 

of Alternative A on EFH, including HAPCs, would be adverse and minor; thus, impacts of Alternative A 

would be insignificant.

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

Collection with Equipment Upgrades, Improved Hydroacoustic Devices, and 

New Tide Stations

The same stressors on EFH considered under Alternative A are considered under Alternative B. Under 

Alternative B, all of the projects and equipment operations proposed in Alternative A would continue but 

at a higher level of effort, although the percentage of nautical miles covered by projects in each region 

would be the same as under Alternative A. Thus, the greatest level of effort would be in the Southeast 

Region (with over 50 percent of the survey effort); 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 16 

percent). 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, physical 

contact with bottom habitat, and population density of prey, that add nuance to this trend.

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 and activities, and thus more nautical 

miles traveled, than Alternative A. Under Alternative B, excluding survey effort in the Great Lakes, NOS 

projects would cover a total of 2,896,712 nm (5,364,710 km) across all five regions over the five-year 

period. Overall, vessels used by NOS would cover an additional 263,337 nm (487,701 km) under 

Alternative B (see Table 3.5-14) as compared to Alternative A (2,633,374 nm [4,877,009 km] total) across 

all regions over the five-year period. The types and mechanisms of impacts would remain the same in 

Alternative B as discussed for Alternative A. Therefore, the difference between the two alternatives is a 

matter of scale with an increased activity level, although distributed unevenly among the different types 

of activities, leading to a corresponding, incremental increase in effects under Alternative B as compared 

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

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

398

For example, under Alternative B there would be projects using crewed vessel operations covering 

577,000 nm (1,070,000 km), as compared to 518,000 nm (959,000 km) under Alternative A. Vessel 

operations could contribute to impacts on EFH related to increases in sedimentation/turbidity, and/or 

chemical contamination, increases in sound, and impacts to the water column. Although the amount of 

crewed vessel operations would be greater under Alternative B than under Alternative A, additional 

crewed vessel operations projects covering 59,000 nm (111,000 km) across five regions would result in 

greater impacts overall, but not so great that the magnitude of a particular impact-causing factor would 

increase (e.g., from negligible to minor). This would also be the case for other proposed activities 

contributing to potential impacts, such as underwater acoustic sound from echo sounders, ADCPs, and 

acoustic communication systems; and bottom disturbance from anchoring, collection of bottom grab 

samples, tide gauge installation, and SCUBA operations. 

Although NOS would add more widespread adoption of new techniques, protocols, and technologies to 

more efficiently perform surveying, mapping, charting, and related data gathering under Alternative B as 

compared to Alternative A, impacts of Alternative B on EFH and HAPCs would be the same or slightly, but 

not appreciably, larger than those discussed above under Alternative A for each stressor. Overall, impacts 

of Alternative B on EFH would be adverse, minor, and insignificant. 

3.9.2.4 Alternative C: Upgrades and Improvements with Greater Funding Support

The same stressors of EFH considered under Alternatives A and B are considered under Alternative C. 

Under Alternative C, all of the projects and equipment operation proposed in Alternatives A and B would 

continue but at a higher level of effort, although the percentage of nautical miles in each region would be 

the same as under Alternatives A and B. In addition, there would be an overall funding increase of 20 

percent relative to Alternative B, thus the level of project activity would increase further. The greatest 

level of effort would be in the Southeast Region (with over 50 percent of the survey effort); the other four 

regions would be at similar levels of effort (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 16 percent). 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, physical contact with bottom habitat, and population density of prey, that add nuance 

to this trend.

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, and thus more nautical miles 

traveled, than Alternatives A and B. Under Alternative C, excluding survey effort in the Great Lakes, NOS 

projects would cover a total of 3,160,049 nm (5,852,411 km) across all five regions over the five-year 

period. Overall, there would be an additional survey effort of 263,337 nm (487,701 km) covered by vessels 

used by NOS under Alternative C (see Table 3.5-21) as compared to Alternative B (2,896,712 nm 

[5,364,710 km] total), and an additional 526,675 nm (975,402 km) as compared to Alternative A 

(2,633,374 nm [4,877,009 km] total) across all regions over the five-year period. The types and 

mechanisms of impacts would remain the same in Alternative C as discussed for Alternatives A and B 

across all regions over the five-year period. Therefore, the difference between the alternatives is a matter 

of scale with an increased activity level, although distributed unevenly among the different types of

activities, leading to a corresponding, incremental increase in effects under Alternative C as compared to 

Alternatives A and B. As discussed under Alternative B, the additional projects and nautical miles traveled 

under Alternative C across all five regions would result in greater impacts on EFH overall, but not so great 

that the magnitude of a particular stressor would increase (e.g., from negligible to minor). 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

399

Alternative C would be similar to Alternative B, plus it would consist of NOS program implementation with 

an overall funding increase of 20 percent relative to Alternative B. However, impacts of Alternative C on 

EFH and HAPCs would be the same or slightly, but not appreciably, larger than those discussed above 

under Alternatives A and B for each stressor. Overall, impacts of Alternative C on EFH would be adverse, 

minor, and insignificant. 

3.9.2.5 Conclusion

Proposed NOS projects in the action area across all five regions would be associated with physical impacts 

to bottom habitat, increases in sedimentation, turbidity, and/or chemical contamination, increases in 

underwater sound, impacts to the water column, and dispersal of invasive species.

A subset of NOS projects would involve physical contact with the sea floor. Where this results in physical 

disturbance to bottom habitat, the disturbance is expected to be temporary and negligible to minor in 

nature. The adverse effects from physical disturbance on EFH are expected to be temporary and minimal. 

The NOS projects with a potential to increase sedimentation, turbidity, and chemical contamination in 

EFH would be geographically widespread and expected to result in only temporary to short-term, 

localized, and negligible to minor reductions to water quality. Additionally, the likelihood of occurrence 

of an accidental spill from a vessel used by NOS would be very low. Thus, the adverse effects from an 

increase in sedimentation, turbidity, and chemical contamination in EFH would be temporary and 

minimal. 

Sound generated by proposed NOS underwater acoustic sources would be well above the hearing 

frequencies of the majority of prey species and managed species. The active sources in the midfrequencies would be within hearing of a few species, such as Atlantic herring, and the passive and 

incidental sources that generate sounds in the low-level frequencies would be within the hearing range 

of most prey and managed species. However, these sound sources would be infrequent, geographically 

widely distributed, and the sound emitted would be miniscule compared to all other vessel sound in the 

EEZ. The sounds that are audible to prey and managed species, most of which would be associated with 

vessel operations, would likely elicit negligible to minor responses as many of the sounds would be 

temporary in duration and not likely detectable at an appreciable distance from vessels used by NOS. 

Thus, the adverse effects from increased sound on EFH would be temporary and minimal.

Impacts to the water column would temporarily cause destratification and turbulence, could disturb or

displace nearby benthic communities and other prey species, and could damage or kill submerged aquatic 

vegetation. However, NOS projects would be geographically widespread and expected to result in only 

temporary, localized, negligible impacts on the water column. Thus, adverse effects on EFH would be 

temporary and minimal. 

Dispersal of invasive species could cause displacement of native species and altered biodiversity and 

ecosystem function in EFH. However, it is unlikely that NOS activities would involve the release of ballast 

water discharge, anchoring would be conducted infrequently, and NOS project crews would implement 

mandatory invasive species control procedures to limit or avoid hull fouling. Given the low likelihood of 

occurrence, the adverse effects from invasive species dispersal in EFH would be minimal.
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
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

434

3.11 CULTURAL AND HISTORIC RESOURCES

This section discusses cultural and historic resources associated with the underwater marine and 

freshwater areas and coastal areas included in the action area for the Proposed Action. The Advisory 

Council on Historic Preservation regulations at 36 CFR 800.16(l)(1) define the term ‘historic property’ (or 

historic resource) as any prehistoric or historic district, site, building, structure, or object included in, or 

eligible for inclusion in, the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) maintained by the Secretary of the 

Interior. This term includes artifacts, records, and remains that are related to and located within such 

properties and also includes properties of traditional religious and cultural importance to an Indian tribe

or Alaska Native or Native Hawaiian Organization and that meet the National Register criteria. As 

described in Section 3.3, Regulatory Background, federal agencies are directed by the NHPA and NMSA to 

manage and maintain historic properties in ways that consider the preservation of their historic, 

archeological, architectural, and cultural values before undertaking a project. National marine sanctuaries 

were established, among other conservation purposes, to protect shipwrecks, downed aircraft, and other 

cultural and historic resources such as lighthouses, archaeological sites, and the cultural history of native 

communities. National marine sanctuaries are designated under the NMSA, as discussed in Section 3.3. 

Through site-specific legislation and regulations, national marine sanctuaries are afforded varying levels 

of protection from activities that would be potentially harmful to the natural and cultural resources they 

contain. 

Section 3.3 also discusses the role of SHPOs and THPOs in the Section 106 process. SHPOs are responsible 

for reviewing undertakings for their impact on historic properties and evaluating and nominating historic 

buildings, sites, structures, and objects to the National Register. In accordance with the NHPA, a THPO is 

the designated tribal preservation official of a federally-recognized Indian tribe. A THPO is responsible for 

the administration of any or all of the functions of a SHPO with respect to tribal land, which refers to all 

lands within the exterior boundaries of any Indian reservation and all dependent Indian communities.

3.11.1 Affected Environment

The types of cultural and historic resources that could be present in locations where NOS’s Proposed 

Action is conducted include:

1) Submerged cultural and historic resources (such as shipwrecks); 

2) Areas where traditional or tribal fishing rights are held and subsistence fishing and hunting are 

practiced, including Traditional Cultural Places (TCPs); 

3) Historic coastal infrastructure such as piers; and 

4) Viewsheds of nearshore historic properties. 

These resources are discussed below.

3.11.1.1 Submerged Cultural and Historic Resources

Submerged cultural and historic resources are objects found on the sea floor, lake beds, or river beds with 

historic, pre-historic, or culturally significant values (NPS, 2000). Archaeological sites present within the 

action area may include submerged isolated artifacts (e.g., fragments of tools, arrow points, stone bowls) 

from prehistoric or historic voyages, resources submerged as a result of sea level rise, downed aircraft, 

and historic shipwrecks. Based on research of federal and state agency sites, historical databases, and 

other informational sources, there are myriad inundated cultural and historic resources present 

throughout the extensive action area. Although these resources would be too numerous to list in this Final 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

435

PEIS, this subsection provides an overview of the types of submerged archaeological resources present 

throughout the action area. 

The Office of Coast Survey’s Public Wrecks and Obstructions database (also known as the Automated 

Wreck and Obstruction Information System, or AWOIS) contains information on identified submerged 

wrecks within the maritime boundaries of the U.S. Information within the database includes the position 

of each feature (latitude and longitude) along with a brief description. However, AWOIS records have not 

been updated since 2014 and are not comprehensive. A United Nations Educational, Scientific, and 

Cultural Organization (UNESCO) webpage includes information on numerous databases and maps of 

underwater cultural heritage sites maintained by external institutions worldwide (UNESCO, 2017). 

Although these and many other such databases, including the NRHP, provide valuable information on the 

nature and location of submerged historic and cultural resources, there is no one clearinghouse for the 

coordinates of the locations of all known wrecks. 

3.11.1.1.1 Greater Atlantic Region

In the Greater Atlantic Region, prehistoric archaeological sites may be present in or on the continental 

shelf. At the beginning of the Early Archaic period 10,000 years ago, the relative sea level was 

approximately 25-26 m (81-85 ft) lower than at present. Prehistoric archaeological deposits could 

potentially exist if landforms beneath the sea floor are well preserved. There is also the potential for 

historic archaeological resources to be present. For example, data sources maintained by the recreational 

SCUBA diving community in the New Jersey area estimate between 4,000 and 7,000 shipwreck sites off 

the coast of New Jersey. The majority of these wrecks are located along the coastline (NSF and USGS, 

2011). Between Truro and Wellfleet, Massachusetts, for example, more than 1,000 wrecks have occurred 

(NPS, 2020b). 

Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary, established in 1992, encompasses the historic shipping 

routes and fishing grounds for numerous ports around Massachusetts. These ports have been centers of 

maritime activity in New England for hundreds of years. Historic use of the national marine sanctuary is 

evidenced by the remains of several historic shipwrecks on the sea floor (ONMS, No Date-a). 

There are 7,290 km (4,530 mi) of coastline along the five Great Lakes. The Great Lakes region contains one 

national marine sanctuary (Thunder Bay in Lake Huron in northeastern Michigan) and two proposed 

national marine sanctuaries (Wisconsin-Lake Michigan and Lake Ontario). To date, nearly 100 shipwrecks 

have been discovered within the 11,137-km2 (4,300-mi2) Thunder Bay National Marine Sanctuary. The 

waters of Thunder Bay contain evidence of human use dating back thousands of years. Geological and 

archaeological evidence suggests a high probability of prehistoric archaeological sites that have yet to be 

discovered (ONMS, 2017). Northeastern Michigan’s maritime landscape includes hundreds of shipwrecks 

located on the bottomlands of Lake Huron. It also encompasses all of the cultural and natural features 

related to maritime heritage, such as lighthouses, commercial fishing camps, and working ports.

The proposed 2,784-km2 (1,075-mi2) Wisconsin–Lake Michigan National Marine Sanctuary would protect 

37 shipwrecks and related underwater cultural resources with historic, archaeological, and recreational 

value (ONMS, No Date-b). The area in eastern Lake Ontario being considered for designation as a national 

marine sanctuary includes approximately 4,403 km2 (1,700 mi2) of lake waters and bottomlands in the 

state of New York. These waters and bottomlands contain 21 known shipwrecks and one military aircraft. 

Based on historical records, an additional 47 shipwrecks and two aircraft are also likely located there. The 

area being considered for designation also includes a separate area surrounding the HMS Ontario, which 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

436

is both the oldest confirmed shipwreck (1780) and the only fully intact British warship discovered in the 

Great Lakes (ONMS, 2020).

3.11.1.1.2 Southeast Region

Florida has one of the longest continuous coastlines in the country and, as a result, the range of 

underwater archaeological sites is broad and covers thousands of years. Florida's Bureau of

Archaeological Research within the Department of State 

examines and interprets underwater sites. They have 

conducted surveys and excavations on both prehistoric and 

historic sites located offshore and in rivers and sinkholes - from 

submerged Native American middens and habitation sites to 

the remains of sunken steamboats and schooners. In 1987, 

Florida began to develop a statewide system of underwater 

parks featuring shipwrecks and other historic sites. Currently, 

there are 12 shipwrecks designated as underwater reserves 

(Florida DOS, No Date). Thousands more shipwrecks and 

offshore cultural and historic resources are likely to be present 

off of the Florida coast; there are over 1,000 shipwrecks along 

the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary alone (Figure 3.11-

1) (NOAA, No Date-d). 

Off the coast of North Carolina, Monitor National Marine 

Sanctuary protects the wreck of the Civil War ironclad USS 

Monitor. 

Though rare, prehistoric human remains have been discovered 

offshore in the Southeast Region. In 2016, a 0.3-ha (0.75-acre) prehistoric Native American ancestral burial 

site was discovered off the shore of Manasota Key in Florida (NatGeo, 2018). Other prehistoric and historic 

remains have been discovered within shipwrecks and underwater cave systems. 

Puerto Rico has a maritime heritage reaching back over at least 500 years. Based on archival research 

conducted by the National Park Service (NPS) and other agencies and groups, there are more than 200 

shipwrecks in Puerto Rico waters. One of the oldest of these shipwrecks is a 17th century merchantman 

off the coast of Rincon, a small municipality on Puerto Rico’s western coast. Artifacts recovered from the 

find include pins, scissors, ordnance, pewter ware, woodworking tools, myriad concretions, and a nautical 

astrolabe (NPS, 2022).

The U.S. Virgin Islands include the three main islands of St. Croix, St. Thomas, and St. John, plus Water 

Island off of St. Thomas, and about 50 islets and cays. St. Thomas was a maritime trading and mercantile 

exchange and along with St. Croix, the Danish center for the slave trade beginning in 1685. The 

importation of slaves was abolished in the early 1800s and St. Thomas became one of the first “free ports”. 

In the early 1700s, St. Thomas was a well-known haven for pirates. It later became a coaling station for 

international steamships moving between Europe and South and North America until 1935, when the U.S. 

Navy and U.S. Marine Corps began administering the islands. Based on archival research conducted by 

NPS, several hundred shipwrecks are thought to be in the waters surrounding the U.S. Virgin Islands (NPS, 

2022b).

Figure 3.11-1. City of 

Washington Shipwreck, Florida 

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

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

437

3.11.1.1.3 West Coast Region

In 2011, BOEM conducted a study to identify the locations of known and reported submerged cultural 

resources, potential inundated prehistoric sites, coastal properties that are listed or eligible for listing on 

the NRHP, and TCPs on the west coast of the U.S., including California, Oregon, and Washington. The study 

area for this effort stretched from the U.S./Canadian border to the U.S./Mexican border and extended 

322 km (200 mi) west of the U.S. EEZ. The study discovered archaeological resources such as shell middens 

(an archaeological feature consisting mainly of mollusk shells that contain debris associated with human 

activity), lithic sites, rock art, burial grounds, and caves/rock shelters, and located records on hundreds of 

shipwrecks in the Pacific OCS area (BOEM, 2013). 

The remains of prehistoric seafaring trading expeditions along the Pacific Coast (including travel to the 

Channel Islands) has resulted in artifacts such as soapstone bowls recovered and preserved from the 

offshore areas; at least 25 individual sites have been reported between Ventura Beach and Point 

Conception in California alone (Foster, No Date). Known historic archaeological resources in the southern 

California area consist of submerged shipwrecks and submerged aircraft. The most common causes of the 

wrecks were burning, collision, or stranding (NSF and USGS, 2011). Approximately 100 shipwrecks have 

been documented in the Channel Islands National Park in California (NPS, 2016). 

3.11.1.1.4 Alaska Region

According to Geographic Information System (GIS) data, Alaska has 71,000 km (44,117 mi) of coastline 

and comprises almost half the total U.S. coastline. The numbers of both identified and potential 

submerged cultural resources in this area is vast. The U.S. Department of the Interior Minerals 

Management Service (MMS, now BOEM) estimated the presence of more than 4,000 shipwrecks off the 

coast of Alaska. In addition to marine vessels, Alaska waters contain numerous historic aircraft, many of 

which were associated with World War II military activities, battles, and campaigns (McMahan, 2007). 

MMS maps indicate that known shipwrecks are scattered throughout the Western Gulf of Alaska, with 

the heaviest concentration in Chignik Bay (NSF and USGS, 2011). At Point Belcher near Wainwright, Alaska, 

30 ships were frozen in the ice in September 1871; 13 others were lost in other incidents off Icy Cape and 

Point Franklin. Another seven wrecks are known to have occurred off Cape Lisburne and Point Hope. From 

1865 to 1876, 76 whaling vessels were lost due to ice and battleship raids, which also caused the loss of 

21 whaling ships near the Bering Strait during the Civil War (OCM, 2021). 

3.11.1.1.5 Pacific Islands Region

NOAA’s Pacific Islands Region includes Hawai’i, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, and American Samoa. 

The high-energy marine surf environment of Hawai’i is capable of breaking apart wooden vessels and 

eventually destroying even iron and steel-constructed boats and ships. The volcanic shorelines and 

exposed coasts of the islands do not feature many naturally protected bays or harbors. These conditions, 

combined with the fringing or barrier reefs and sharp submerged lava rocks in nearshore waters, have led 

to a great number of shipwrecks in Hawai’i. An initial examination by BOEM of the reported positions of 

shipwrecks reveals clusters around the locations of historic landings (BOEM, 2017a). In the Hawaiian 

Archipelago alone, there are over 80 submerged U.S. Navy ships and submarines, and over 1,500 Navy 

aircraft. Many of these sites are war graves associated with major historic events that shaped the region 

(ONMS, 2017). 

Several maritime archaeology projects have been conducted on coastal fishing and aquaculture sites in 

the Hawaiian Islands, as part of a course offered by the University of Hawai’i. One resulted in the mapping 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

438

of an accumulation of hundreds of fishing lures (artificial fishing bait designed to attract a fish's attention) 

surrounding specific topographical reef features offshore from Waikiki beach on Oahu. The distribution 

of lost lures suggests hundreds of years of fishing activity at this specific location and submerged reef 

feature (BOEM, 2017a).

In June 2007, NOAA’s ONMS completed an initial maritime heritage resource document inventory for 

American Samoa. Known maritime heritage resources in American Samoa include historic shipwrecks, 

World War II naval aircraft and fortifications, gun emplacements, and coastal pillboxes; archaeological 

sites associated with the ancient past; and marine/coastal natural resources associated with the legends 

and folklore of American Samoa. Ten historic shipwrecks are known to exist in American Samoan waters, 

the earliest dating to 1828; 43 naval aircraft are known to have been ditched or crashed into American 

Samoan waters between 1942 and 1944; and countless marine archaeological resources such as whet 

stones (used to sharpen the edge of steel tools), petroglyphs (prehistoric rock carvings), and grinding 

holes/bait cups (small depressions ground into bedrock) are known to exist in American Samoan waters 

(ONMS, 2007).

In Guam, due to the region’s substantial number of historic military activities, there are various 

underwater sites associated with World War II occupation and combat. From historical records and 

discovery, there are many known aircraft, ships, construction equipment, cargo, and supplies submerged 

throughout Micronesia. World War II-affiliated sites within and south of Guam’s Apra Harbor include areas 

where the U.S. military dumped equipment or supplies; Japanese boats sank; or remnants of Japanese 

aircraft exist. One of Guam’s most popular fishing sites, Ritidian, includes the remains of an ancient fish 

camp, where indigenous people gathered to process and cook fish (Auyong, 2016).

More than four dozen documented shipwrecks have occurred in the waters of the Northern Mariana 

Islands. Two of the earliest known losses are the Santa Margarita in 1601 and the Nuestra Senora de la 

Concepción in 1635. Six other ships are reported to have been lost during the Spanish colonial period. The 

majority of shipwrecks are from World War II. Due to their location between Hawai’i and the Philippines, 

the Northern Mariana Islands played an important role in several World War II battles. As a result, the 

waters of the Northern Mariana Islands contain sunken warships, auxiliaries, airplanes, tanks, and other 

military related debris (NPS, 2022c). 

3.11.1.2 Subsistence Hunting and Fishing Areas, Including Traditional Cultural Places

State and federal laws define subsistence as the customary and traditional uses of wild resources for food, 

clothing, fuel, transportation, construction, art, crafts, sharing, and customary trade. Subsistence fishing, 

hunting, trapping, and gathering are important sources of employment and nutrition in many rural coastal 

communities and have cultural importance. In general, these rights are based on the legal foundations of 

tribal sovereignty, treaty provisions, and the "reserved rights" doctrine, which holds that Native 

Americans retain all rights not explicitly revoked in treaties or other legislation (NCAI, No Date).

From 1778 to 1871, the federal government’s relations with Indian tribes were conducted largely through 

the treaty-making process. These treaties recognized the sovereignty of Indian tribes and established 

rights, benefits, and conditions for the treaty-making tribes that agreed to cede millions of acres of their 

land to the U.S. in return for recognition of property rights and federal protections. These rights are also 

known as “reserved rights.” Treaties with Indian tribes cover reserved rights such as the right to hunt, fish, 

and gather both on land ceded by tribes and on land retained by tribes. Although treaty-making ended in 

1871, federal treaties with Indian tribes ratified by Congress remain the law, though treaties have been 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

439

supplemented by federal legislation such as land claims settlement acts and EOs (ACHP, 2018). Under the 

U.S. Constitution, treaties carry the same legal weight as federal statutes and bind both the federal 

government and the signing Indian tribe or tribes. This means that federal agencies must ensure that their 

actions do not conflict with tribal treaty rights (ACHP, 2018). Though not all federally-recognized tribes 

are located along the coastline, unless specifically revoked by the U.S., tribes have rights to fish at all 

“usual and accustomed places”, which are not typically specifically defined regions (JRank, No Date).

Subsistence harvest practices have been documented in many studies over the last several decades. A 

wide array of natural resources is harvested throughout the year in a regular cycle of seasonal efforts 

timed for availability, access, and condition of the resources. The composition of subsistence harvests 

includes many species of fish, land mammals, marine mammals, and invertebrates, terrestrial 

invertebrates, waterfowl, berries, roots, and fuel gathering. Communities express and reproduce their 

unique identities based on the enduring connections between current residents, those who used harvest 

areas in the past, and the wild resources of the land (MMS, 2010). The role of subsistence hunting and 

fishing and traditional fishing rights in each region are described below. Relevant laws, treaties, and 

organizations are noted throughout the next sections.

3.11.1.2.1 Greater Atlantic Region

The Greater Atlantic Region includes the east coast states of Maine, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, 

Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Delaware, and Maryland, and the states surrounding 

the Great Lakes (Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin). There are 17 federally-recognized tribes

within the east coast states (four in Maine, two in Massachusetts, one in Rhode Island, two in Connecticut, 

and eight in New York) and 31 federally-recognized tribes in the states surrounding the Great Lakes (one 

in Indiana/Michigan, 11 in Michigan, eight in Minnesota, and 11 in Wisconsin). 

The Maine Department for Inland Fisheries and Wildlife recognizes Maine Native American traditional 

fishing rights and issues a set number of trapping and fishing licenses for individuals belonging to the four 

federally-recognized tribes in Maine: the Passamaquoddy Tribe, Penobscot Nation, Houlton Band of 

Maliseet Indians, and Aroostook Band of Micmacs or Aroostook Micmac Council. Two tribal organizations, 

the Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission and the Chippewa Ottawa Resources Authority, 

manage traditional fishing rights and resources in the Great Lakes. The Great Lakes Indian and Wildlife 

Commission is an agency of 11 Ojibwe nations in Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan that manages 

traditional fishing rights in Lake Superior for individuals belonging to these nations (GLIFWC, No Date). 

The Chippewa Ottawa Resource Authority manages fishing rights for five different tribal organizations 

under 1836 Treaties (CORA, No Date). 

3.11.1.2.2 Southeast Region

The Southeast Region includes the states of Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, 

Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas. It also includes Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands. There 

are 23 federally-recognized tribes across all of these states (seven in Virginia, four in North Carolina, one 

in South Carolina, zero in Georgia, two in Florida, one in Alabama, one in Mississippi, four in Louisiana, 

and three in Texas); tribes in Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands are not federally-recognized. 

Fishing is an important component of the culture and livelihood of many individuals on the U.S. Caribbean 

islands, whether commercial, recreational, or subsistence, and is tied directly and indirectly to many of 

the island’s residents and businesses. Fisheries are woven into the cultural fabric of local communities 

and make an important contribution to attainment of food and nutrition security. A significant portion of 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

440

fishermen in these areas retain a portion of their landings for their own or their family’s consumption, 

and, as such, engage in subsistence fishing. In the U.S. Virgin Islands, for example, approximately 11 

percent of fishermen reported that they did not sell any of their catch in 2011. (NOAA, 2014a).

3.11.1.2.3 West Coast Region

There are more than 40 federally-recognized tribes with treaties and tribal fishing rights in place in NOAA’s 

Northwest Region, which includes Washington, Oregon, California, and Idaho (NMFS, No Date-e). The 

Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission helps support natural resources management for 20 treaty Indian 

tribes in coastal Washington (NWIFC, No Date). The Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary on the coast 

of Washington is entirely encompassed by the traditional harvest areas of the Hoh, Makah, and Quileute 

tribes, and the Quinault Indian Nation. Along with the state of Washington and the Olympic Coast National 

Marine Sanctuary, these tribes created the Olympic Coast Intergovernmental Policy Council in January 

2007, which provides a regional forum for the collective management of resources within the Olympic 

Coast National Marine Sanctuary (NOAA, No Date-e). 

3.11.1.2.4 Alaska Region

The MMPA and the ESA acknowledge, and have exemptions for, pre-existing rights for Alaska Native 

groups to hunt and fish specific protected species. Under the MMPA (16 U.S.C. § 1371(b)) and the ESA (16 

U.S.C. § 1539(e)), for example, Alaska Natives are allowed to harvest marine mammals as subsistence

resources (OCM, 2021). Subsistence hunting of marine mammals, including seals, sea lions, walruses, and 

whales, occurs throughout Alaska all year long and is critical to the nutrition, food security, and economic 

stability of Alaska Natives. The Alaska Region includes subsistence use areas of traditional cultural 

significance to Alaska Peninsula Native people, who are ancestors of the maritime hunting cultures of 

Pacific and Yupi‘k Eskimos and Aleuts. Their primary subsistence activity is fishing all five species of Pacific 

salmon, halibut, cod, and other fish species. (NSF and USGS, 2011). Section 3.13, Environmental Justice 

includes a description of Alaska Native populations that hunt marine mammals and fish for subsistence

use, including the cultural, nutritional, and spiritual importance of each marine animal as well as where, 

when, and how it is hunted or fished for subsistence use. 

The subsistence heritage of rural Alaskans is the basis for Title VIII of the Alaska National Interest Lands 

Conservation Act (ANILCA), which states that continuation of the subsistence way of life by rural Alaskans 

is essential to their physical, economic, traditional, cultural, and social existence. This applies not only to 

Indians, Eskimos, and Aleuts, but to non-Native rural residents as well (USFS, 2010). The federal 

subsistence priority means that subsistence uses by rural residents of Alaska are given priority over nonsubsistence uses (commercial or sport). On October 1, 1999, the Secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture 

published regulations (36 CFR 242 and 50 CFR 100) to provide for federal management of subsistence

fisheries on Alaska rivers and lakes and limited marine waters within and adjacent to federal public lands.

The USFWS is the lead agency for federal subsistence management. The ADF&G regulations continue to 

apply statewide to all commercial, sport, personal use, and subsistence fisheries, unless otherwise 

superseded by federal regulations. Federal subsistence fisheries often occur in the same area as state of 

Alaska fisheries. Federal regulations apply only on federal public lands and waters (USFWS, No Date-d). 

The Federal Subsistence Board oversees the Federal Subsistence Management Program. The Board 

members include the agency heads for Alaska of the USFWS, NPS, Bureau of Land Management, Bureau 

of Indian Affairs, and U.S. Forest Service. There are also three public members appointed by the 

Secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture: the Chair of the Federal Subsistence Board and two public 

members who possess personal knowledge of and direct experience with subsistence uses in rural Alaska 

(USFWS, No Date-d).
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

441

3.11.1.2.5 Pacific Islands Region

Fishing continues to contribute to the cultural integrity and social cohesion of Pacific island communities 

and support island economies (WPRFMC, 2016). In Hawai’i, a substantial portion of the local population 

participates in recreational and subsistence fishing. Fishing in Guam and the Mariana Islands is important 

not only in terms of contributing to the subsistence needs of the Chamorro people but also in preserving 

their history and identity. Fishing perpetuates traditional knowledge of marine resources and maritime 

heritage of the ancient Chamorro culture (Ka’ai’ai, 2016). In American Samoa, fish brought to shore 

continue to be distributed within Samoan villages according to age-old ceremonial traditions. Similar 

traditions are still practiced in Hawai’i, the Northern Mariana Islands, and Guam. These sociocultural 

attributes of fishing are at least as important as the contributions made to the nutritional or economic 

wellbeing of island residents (WPRFMC, 2016). 

3.11.1.2.6 Traditional Cultural Places

The NHPA defines the word ‘culture’ as the traditions, beliefs, practices, lifeways, arts, crafts, and social 

institutions of any community, be it an Indian tribe, a local ethnic group, or the people of the nation as a 

whole. One kind of cultural significance a property or place may possess, and that may make it eligible for 

inclusion in the Register, is traditional cultural significance. "Traditional" in this context refers to beliefs, 

customs, and practices that have been passed down through generations of people, usually orally or 

through practice. Thus, TCPs, also referred to as “Traditional Cultural Properties,” are historic properties 

that derive their cultural significance from the role the property plays in a community's historically rooted 

beliefs, customs, and practices (NPS, No Date-a). 

TCPs may include locations of historic events, locations where sacred or ceremonial rituals, practices, or 

activities are or were performed, locations associated with the traditional beliefs or history of a cultural 

group, traditional hunting or gathering areas of economic and cultural importance, and sources of raw 

materials used to produce tools or sacred objects. The community may consider these properties 

significant to the cultural values, identity, and persistence of their traditional culture (NPS, 2012a). 

Cultural resources usually consist of tangible man-made properties, such as buildings, archeological sites, 

structures, objects, or historic districts. Although these same types of cultural resources may also be TCPs 

when cultural groups identify them as an important part of their community's history or as important to 

maintaining the cultural identity of their community, generally, the major differences in property types 

between cultural resources and TCPs are that the latter may be natural areas with no evidence of human 

activity or intervention.

Offshore TCPs may include subsistence hunting and fishing areas of cultural groups, and locations where 

American Indians or Alaska Natives performed ceremonial activities. For example, Chelhtenem (also 

known as Lily Point), located in Puget Sound, Washington (Figure 3.11-2), was added to the NRHP in 1994 

for its cultural importance as a fishing site. Lily Point was the most important Native reef net fishery and 

one of the most significant salmon fisheries of the Central Coast Salish Tribe. Chelhtenem was a center of 

traditional salmon culture for hundreds of years and a place of spiritual importance for native peoples. 

The First Salmon Ceremony honored the returning salmon and directed them into the reef nets. The bones 

of the first fish "were carefully returned to the sea where the fish regained its form and told other salmon 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

442

how well it had been treated, thus 

allowing the capture of other fish and 

insuring a return the following year." 

(Whatcom Land Trust, No Date). In the 

late 19th century, non-Indian fish traps 

replaced traditional reef nets. Alaska 

Packers purchased a cannery at Lily 

Point in 1884. The cannery was closed 

in 1917, leaving pilings and debris still 

visible today. 

Another example of a TCP is Nantucket 

Sound, Massachusetts, which was 

determined eligible for the NRHP in 

2010 (Figure 3.11-3). Nantucket Sound 

is a culturally significant landscape 

associated with the history and 

traditional cultural practices of two Wampanoag tribes. It has yielded and has the potential to yield 

important information about the Native American exploration and settlement of Cape Cod and the 

Islands. Although the exact boundary is not precisely defined, the Sound is eligible as an integral, 

contributing feature of a larger historic district (BOEM, 2019a). 

Figure 3.11-3. Nantucket Sound Traditional Cultural Place Boundary

Figure 3.11-2. Lily Point TCP, Washington
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

443

3.11.1.3 Coastal Infrastructure and Communities and Nearshore Historic Properties

Coastal infrastructure refers to structures, 

systems, and facilities built along the coastline. 

This includes harbors, marinas, piers, and other 

types of development. 

A pier (Figure 3.11-4) is a raised structure in a 

body of water, typically supported by piles or 

pillars. Piers may support bridges, buildings, and 

walkways. Their open structure allows waves, 

tides, and currents to flow relatively 

unhindered. Piers can be categorized according 

to their principal purpose and include working 

piers, pleasure piers, and fishing piers. 

There are many piers listed or eligible for listing 

on the NRHP throughout the U.S. as either 

individual resources or as contributing elements 

of an historic district. Hanalei Pier in Hawai’i, for 

example, is a typical finger pier constructed in 

the 1920s. The structure was used seasonally, 

primarily to transport rice from Hanalei to 

Honolulu. It is one of approximately a dozen remaining structures of this type in the state and is listed on 

the NRHP for its historical significance as one of the last remaining vestiges of the rice industry in Hanalei 

(NPS, 1979).

Other cultural and historic resources located along the coastline include fishing communities, whaling

villages, and Native American settlements. A fishing community is a social or economic group whose 

members reside in a specific location and share a common dependence on commercial, recreational, or 

subsistence fishing or on directly related fisheries dependent services and industries (for example, 

boatyards, ice suppliers, tackle shops) (50 CFR 600.345).

Point Hope, Alaska, is one of the oldest continuously inhabited settlements in North America. Its whaling

traditions extend back thousands of years, and Tikigaq – its Inupiaq name – is considered to be one of the 

most traditional villages in Alaska. The people hunt caribou, moose, seals, walrus, birds, fish, beluga 

whales, and polar bear, but the bowhead whale remains the focus of the annual subsistence cycle (AEWC, 

No Date). 

In addition to the cultural and historic resources described above, there are many historic properties 

located near the shoreline that are listed or eligible for listing on the NRHP. Countless archaeological sites 

and cultural remains are also present along the coastline that provide evidence of the prehistory and 

history of coastal communities. These sites often contain lithic assemblages comprised of materials such 

as shell and midden refuse, fire cracked rock, quartz and basalt flakes, and chert points. 

3.11.1.4 Visual Resources Associated with Historic Properties

Under Section 106 of the NHPA, the potential visual impacts from a proposed project or activity are 

considered with respect to the integrity of setting, feeling, and/or association of historic properties. 

Figure 3.11-4. Tide Gauge on a Pier
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

444

Setting is the physical environment of a historic property and can include natural or human-made 

elements, such as topographic features, vegetation, paths, or fences, and, importantly, the relationships 

between buildings and other features or open space. Feeling is a property’s expression of the aesthetic or 

historic sense of a particular period of time. It results from the presence of physical features that convey 

the property’s historic character. Association is the direct link between an important historic event or 

person and a historic property. A property retains association if it is the place where the event or activity 

occurred and is sufficiently intact to convey that relationship to an observer (Sullivan et. al, 2018). 

Some historic properties are or include “designed cultural landscapes” that may include purposefully 

designed views or vistas. In a designed cultural landscape, the view itself is a significant characteristic of 

the historic property. Therefore, changes to these designed views, vistas, or view corridors may adversely 

affect the integrity of the property’s design, not simply causing visual effects on integrity of setting, 

feeling, or association (NPS, No Date-b). 

Many coastal resources listed on the NRHP derive all or part of their significance from their historic 

maritime setting. These resources include TCPs, coastal fortifications, parks and seashores, residential 

estates, lighthouses, life-saving stations, breakwaters, marinas, fishing and resort communities, and shore 

lodgings of all kinds, including hotels, motels, inns, seasonal cottages, and permanent residences. Some 

TCPs, for example, derive their importance from unobstructed views toward the rising sun (Klein et al., 

2012). 

In 2012, BOEM directed the preparation of a GIS database of known cultural resources and historic 

properties that could be impacted by the introduction of off-shore energy facilities along the entire east 

coast of the U.S. Based on existing data, each resource was assessed with respect to its maritime setting 

and view to the sea. In total, 9,175 resources were considered to have a historically significant maritime 

setting and 1,108 were considered to have a historically significant view toward the open sea (Klein et al., 

2012).

3.11.2 Environmental Consequences for Cultural and Historic Resources

This discussion includes analysis of potential impacts to submerged cultural and historic resources; areas 

where traditional or tribal fishing rights are held and subsistence fishing and hunting are practiced, 

including TCPs; and coastal infrastructure listed or eligible for listing on the NRHP. Activities described in 

Sections 2.3.1 through 2.3.13 that occur on NOS projects and that could be expected to impact cultural 

and historic resources include: (1) anchoring; (2) bottom sampling; (3) installation, maintenance, and 

removal of tide gauges and buoys; and (4) installation of GPS reference stations. 

NOS has prepared this Final PEIS to inform the NHPA Section 106 consultation when implementing the 

Proposed Action. NOS will initiate project-specific consultations under Section 106 of the NHPA before 

commencing any activity with the potential to affect cultural or historic resources. Also, NOS intends to 

notify individual federally recognized tribes and Alaska Native corporations consistent with EO 13175 

(Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments) before conducting any project that may 

have tribal implications. Federally recognized tribes and Alaska Native corporations may request formal 

government-to-government consultation pursuant to EO 13175 at any time. 

Note that this Final PEIS considers the impacts to historic and cultural resources from NOS data collection.

NOS acknowledges the potential for adverse effects resulting from the release of collected data. NOAA, 

like other federal agencies, is required to comply with Section 304 of the NHPA, which protects certain 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

445

sensitive information about historic properties from disclosure to the public when such disclosure could 

result in a significant invasion of privacy, damage to the historic property, or impede the use of a 

traditional religious site by practitioners. NOS would comply with Section 304 of the NHPA in the course 

of creating public data products. Effects from the release of collected data are not assessed further in the 

PEIS.

3.11.2.1 Methodology

The factors from NOS activities that could impact the cultural and historic environment include: (1) 

placement or dragging of equipment directly on or along the sea floor; (2) the presence of vessels 

operated by NOS within areas with activity restrictions, such as subsistence hunting and fishing areas, 

TCPs, and national marine sanctuaries; (3) placement of equipment on historic nearshore properties; (4) 

the discovery of archaeological resources during the installation of tide gauges, buoys, and GPS reference 

stations. These potential impact causing factors and their associated impacts on cultural resources are 

discussed below. 

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

structured framework for assessing impacts from the Proposed Action and the significance of the impacts. 

The significance criteria for cultural resources are shown in Table 3.11-1.

Table 3.11-1. Significance Criteria for the Analysis of Impacts to Cultural Resources

Impact 

Descriptor Context, Intensity, and Likelihood

Significance 

Conclusion

Negligible

The action would disturb a submerged archaeological 

resource or the sediment surrounding a submerged 

cultural or historic resource but would not have a 

measurable or perceptible impact. The action may occur 

in traditional subsistence hunting or fishing areas but 

would not disturb these practices.

Insignificant

Minor

The action would have a measurable or perceptible 

impact on a submerged cultural resource or historic 

resource’s location, design, setting, materials, feeling, or 

association, but would not cause the loss of diagnostic 

features or research potential. The action would cause a 

temporary (lasting a few days) interference with 

traditional subsistence hunting and fishing practices.

Moderate

The action would diminish the integrity of a submerged 

cultural or historic resource or a historic property's 

location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, 

feeling, or association, resulting in the loss of diagnostic 

features or research potential. The action would 

temporarily interfere with traditional subsistence

hunting and fishing practices during peak seasons or 

times.

Major

The action would permanently damage or destroy a 

submerged cultural or historic resource or historic 

property, resulting in the unrecoverable loss of the 

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

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

446

Impact 

Descriptor Context, Intensity, and Likelihood

Significance 

Conclusion

resource or property’s historic value, diagnostic features, 

research potential, or integrity. The action would result in 

a prolonged disturbance of traditional subsistence

hunting and fishing practices during peak seasons or 

times. 

3.11.2.1.1 Projects with No Potential to Cause Effects to Historic Properties 

On December 20, 2017, following guidance from the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP), 

NOS prepared a Statement on Surveying and Mapping Activities with No Potential to Cause Effects to 

Historic Properties (“Statement”) (NOS, 2017). This Statement identifies NOS projects that have no 

potential to cause effects to historic properties, assuming such historic properties were present, per 36 

CFR 800.3(a)(1). These projects, listed below, do not require consultation under Section 106 of the NHPA. 

The sections of this Final PEIS in which these activities are described in detail are also included below in 

parentheses. The full Statement includes justification for each NOS determination based on the potential 

for each method or technology to interact with the sea floor, where cultural and historic resources might 

be present. Actions that were determined to have no potential to cause effects to historic properties 

include: 

• Operation of manned vessels (Section 2.4.1);

• Operation of remotely operated vehicles and unmanned/autonomous systems (Section 2.4.3);

• Use of echo sounders (Section 2.4.4);

• Use of acoustic doppler current profilers (Section 2.4.5);

• Use of acoustic communication systems (Section 2.4.6);

• Use of sound speed data collection equipment (Section 2.4.7);

• Operation of drop/towed cameras and video systems (Section 2.4.8); and

• Use of passive listening systems (Section 2.4.10).

However, other activities performed under the Proposed Action (such as anchoring and bottom sampling) 

are not included in the Statement and could potentially damage cultural resources. These substratedisturbing activities and their potential impacts are discussed in the following sections. 

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

Marine Data Collection with Current Technology and Methods, at Current 

Funding Levels

Although the survey effort under Alternative A would vary by year (see Table 3.4-4), the greatest number 

of nautical miles surveyed over the five-year period would be in the Southeast Region (over 50 percent). 

The survey effort in each of the other four regions would be of a similar order of magnitude, approximately 

10 percent in each region over five years, although slightly greater in the Alaska Region, where the survey 

effort would be approximately 16 percent over five years. Survey effort in the Great Lakes would be less 

than one percent of the total 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 and depth of surveys, that add nuance to this trend. Overall, NOS projects would comprise a 

very small part of all ocean activities as vessels used by NOS would represent a very small proportion of 

all vessel traffic in the action area (as discussed in Section 2.4.1). Additionally, whenever possible, the 

location and timing of a given project would be purposefully coordinated to ensure that areas are not 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

447

repeatedly surveyed. This ensures that the potential environmental impacts directly resulting from 

proposed NOS activities would not be exacerbated by repeated surveys within a given area. 

3.11.2.2.1 Anchoring

Approximately 20 percent of NOS crewed vessel projects involve anchoring, so under Alternative A, NOS 

would undertake or fund approximately 55 projects with a planned anchoring component annually. 

Anchoring is described in Section 2.4.2. 

When a vessel is not collecting data, it may anchor either within the project area or nearby. While smaller 

boats used by NOS would not typically anchor except in an emergency, larger vessels conducting multiday efforts may anchor within or near the project area to reduce the transit time to the project area and 

to save fuel. 

Although anchoring has the potential to impact submerged isolated artifacts (e.g., fragments of tools, 

arrow points, stone bowls) from prehistoric or historic voyages, resources submerged as a result of sea 

level rise, or undocumented downed aircraft or shipwrecks, the likelihood of an anchor landing on a 

historic resource is low. Vessel operators would select the anchor location based on depth, protection 

from seas and wind, and bottom type. Preferred bottom types are sticky mud or sand, as those 

characteristics allow the flukes of the anchor to dig into the bottom and hold the chain in place. When 

working in an un-surveyed area or in an area that has not been surveyed in many years, the ship would

try to anchor in bays where data have already been collected, providing the ship with better information 

on where to drop the anchor. These practices would continue to minimize the potential for adverse 

impacts to submerged cultural or historic resources. Thus, adverse impacts would be unlikely, given that 

the submerged cultural or historic resources likely to be present in any one area compared to the 

enormous extent of the action area, continued adherence to NOS protocols, and the relatively small 

number of projects planned that would involve anchoring.

However, in the event anchoring results in the discovery of a cultural or historic property, the coordinates 

of the discovery would be noted and provided to the appropriate SHPO along with any information 

collected.

Impacts to cultural resources from anchoring under Alternative A would continue to be adverse and 

permanent and would range from negligible to moderate, depending upon the extent of damage the 

anchor caused to the resource and the cultural significance of the resource damaged. Anchoring could 

diminish the integrity of a submerged cultural or historic resource, resulting in the loss of diagnostic 

features or research potential. Impacts in general would be unlikely; impacts that would be moderate or 

higher would be very unlikely. It is far more likely that impacts would continue to be insignificant. 

3.11.2.2.2 Bottom Sampling

Under Alternative A, NOS would undertake or fund approximately 54 projects that require collection of 

bottom samples, annually. Bottom sampling is described in detail in Section 2.4.9. 

NOS would continue to use previously surveyed areas when available if anchoring were required for 

collection of the bottom sample. This would help to ensure that bottom samples are not collected near 

any documented or potential historic properties. When sampling the sea floor, crews would typically use 

a 6” by 6” clamshell bottom snapper or similar type of grab sampler or sediment corer to obtain samples. 

Samples would be obtained from only the top few inches of sediment. This is unlikely to disturb any 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

448

objects that may be present, as it is likely that there is a thick layer of sediment over long-buried objects. 

At most, a few cups of sediment would be collected during each bottom sampling activity. Samples would 

not be collected in waters deeper than 80 m (263 ft). In areas surveyed within the last 30 years, samples 

may not need to be collected at all. In keeping with NOS protocol, samples would not be collected on coral 

reefs, shipwrecks, obstructions, or hard bottom areas. These practices would continue to minimize the 

potential for adverse impacts to archaeological resources. 

However, if collection of a sample results in the discovery of an object that may be eligible for listing in 

the NRHP, the coordinates of the discovery would be noted and provided to the appropriate SHPO along 

with photographs of the sample and, if practicable, the recovered object itself. 

In the event of inadvertent resource discovery, effects from bottom sampling under Alternative A could 

be adverse or beneficial. Adverse impacts would occur if the resource were damaged or destroyed during 

sample collection and would range from negligible to minor (less than those that could result from 

anchoring activities due to the nature and smaller size of the grab sampler) and would be permanent. 

Beneficial impacts would occur if a resource were discovered that led to the identification of a culturallysignificant artifact, group of artifacts, or previously undocumented historic site. Impacts in general would 

be unlikely; impacts that could be moderate or higher would be very unlikely. It is far more likely that 

impacts would continue to be insignificant. 

3.11.2.2.3 Installation, Maintenance, and Removal of Tide Gauges, Buoys, and GPS Reference 

Stations

Tide gauge stations consist of a sensor, data collection platform, solar panels, and satellite transmitter. 

Tide gauge installation would continue to occur primarily out of the water at existing piers, docks, 

bulkheads, and similar locations. Images of tide gauge stations are included in Section 2.4.12. Under 

Alternative A, NOS would undertake or fund approximately 32 projects that include tide gauge 

installations and 305 projects that include tide gauge maintenance visits, annually. NOS would undertake 

or fund approximately 12 projects that include GPS reference system installation annually. 

As related to the Proposed Action, in accordance with 36 CFR 800.5, potential adverse effects from the 

installation of tide gauges on historic properties could include, but are not limited to:

i. Physical destruction of or damage to all or part of the property;

ii. Alteration of a property, including restoration, rehabilitation, repair, and maintenance...that is 

not consistent with the Secretary's standards for the treatment of historic properties (36 CFR 

part 68) and applicable guidelines;

iii. Removal of the property from its historic location;

iv. Change of the character of the property's use or of physical features within the property's 

setting that contribute to its historic significance; and 

v. Introduction of visual, atmospheric or audible elements that diminish the integrity of the 

property's significant historic features.

Impacts to coastal structures could occur if the installation of tide gauges and GPS reference stations 

affected the view of or from the coastal structure that would affect the integrity of the structure’s 

location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, or association, as described in Section 3.11.1.4. 

Installation of tide gauges and GPS reference stations also have the potential to damage the historic 

structures on which they are being placed. Pier-mounted acoustic sensors, pressure-sensor tide gauge
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

449

stations, microwave sensors and instruments, shore-based GPS reference stations, and, to a lesser extent, 

GPS tide buoys installed within the viewshed of a nearshore historic property or designed cultural 

landscape have the potential to impact cultural and historic resources. Changes to these designed views, 

vistas, or view corridors could impact the integrity of the property’s design, not simply cause visual effects 

on the integrity of a historic property’s setting or other historic characteristics. 

If a sensor or station were proposed for installation on any coastal structure or would be anticipated to 

cause ground disturbance, NOS would continue to confer with the appropriate SHPO prior to installation. 

Adherence to this protocol would continue to minimize or avoid potential impacts to coastal structures 

listed or eligible for listing on the NRHP. 

Since NOS would continue to confer with the SHPO prior to the installation of tide gauges or GPS reference 

stations on properties listed or eligible for listing on the NRHP, adverse impacts to historic piers and 

viewsheds would be very unlikely, given the enormous extent of the action area compared to the small 

number of tide gauge and GPS reference station installations planned annually and the likely avoidance 

of historic sites during the site selection process or avoidance of impacts to historic coastal structures 

following communication with the SHPO. 

Impacts would be very unlikely; however, if a historic resource were inadvertently damaged during 

installation of tide gauges or GPS reference stations, impacts would continue to be adverse, short-term 

or long-term (depending on whether the installation is temporary or more permanent), would occur only 

to the historic resource or the viewshed of the historic resource, and would continue to range from 

negligible to minor. Impacts would therefore be insignificant. 

3.11.2.2.4 Impacts on Subsistence Hunting and Fishing Areas, Including TCPs

Where relevant, the THPO assumes oversight of the Section 106 process from the state, providing the 

tribe with review authority over federal undertakings (NPS, 2012b). E.O. 13175, Consultation and 

Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments (November 6, 2000), requires each federal agency to 

establish procedures for meaningful consultation and coordination with tribal officials in the development 

of federal policies that have tribal implications.

The procedures outlined in the NOAA Procedures for Government-to-Government Consultation with 

Federally Recognized Indian Tribes and Alaska Natives (NOAA Tribal Consultation Handbook) provide 

guidance to NOAA to support a consistent, effective, and proactive approach to communicating with 

tribes. Examples of actions with the potential to trigger communication with tribes include but are not 

limited to: 

• An action that would have effects within a reservation or Alaska Native village.

• An action that may impact tribal trust resources or the rights of a federally-recognized Tribe.

• An action affecting a facility or entity owned or operated by a tribal government. 

• An action that affects Tribes, tribal governments, or a tribe’s traditional way of life. 

• An action that affects TCPs or Traditional Use Areas.

EO 13175 and the NOAA Tribal Consultation Handbook provide required procedures for consultation in 

recognition of the sovereignty of federally-recognized tribes and the federal government’s trust 

responsibility to those tribes. NOS must invite any tribe to consult on a proposed policy, regulation, or 

action that might have tribal implications. NOS also consults with Alaska Native corporations on the same 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

450

basis as federally recognized tribes under EO 13175. NOAA also communicates with many non-recognized 

tribes and tribal coalition groups who have interests regarding NOAA's activities. 

In recent years in Alaska, the potential for NOS work to interfere with subsistence hunting has been the 

primary issue of concern identified by tribes during meetings. In the Pacific Northwest, the primary issues 

of concern from tribes have been the potential for NOS activities to affect ecotourism and to contribute 

to commercial vessel traffic. Concerns about the potential for NOS work to damage or alter historically or 

culturally significant sites have not been routinely identified in either location by tribal representatives. 

NOS would continue to attempt to coordinate projects that would occur in traditional hunting and fishing 

areas in Alaska and the Pacific Northwest to avoid peak hunting and fishing seasons (e.g., whale, seal, and 

salmon seasons) or times of year to the extent possible, based on information obtained from the tribes. 

The effects of NOS’s projects on subsistence hunting and fishing practices of Alaska Natives and 

indigenous tribes are discussed in further detail in Section 3.13.2. Any impacts to subsistence hunting or 

fishing that might occur if traditional hunting and fishing areas cannot be avoided during peak seasons are 

also described in Section 3.13.2. 

Activities planned to occur in any NRHP-listed TCP would continue to comply with federal regulations 

related to the protection of these culturally significant places. The Section 106 review process is mandated 

for any federal projects that might affect a TCP; consultation with the affected traditional community may 

also be required (NPS, No Date-a). With the legal protection afforded to listed TCPs by the Section 106 

review process, the effects of NOS activities in these areas under Alternative A are expected to be adverse, 

short-term (lasting only the duration of the activity), negligible to minor, and insignificant. 

NOS would continue to facilitate tribal involvement related to planned projects throughout the action 

area. For example, regional Coast Survey representatives (“Navigation Managers”) for Alaska and the 

Pacific Northwest would continue to discuss survey plans for the upcoming year during meetings open to 

the public. It is anticipated that these meetings would continue to be attended by tribal leadership or 

members. Meetings in the Pacific Northwest (Harbor Safety Committee meetings) would continue to take 

place approximately once every two months. In Alaska, meetings would continue to occur six to eight 

times per year. Following meetings, meeting minutes would continue to be developed and posted online.

Although NOS projects under Alternative A could temporarily interfere with traditional subsistence

hunting and fishing practices during peak seasons or times, with ongoing communication between NOS 

and THPOs and attempted avoidance of these areas during peak times to the extent practicable, impacts 

under Alternative A of projects on subsistence hunting and fishing areas, including TCPs, would continue 

to be adverse, short-term (lasting only the duration of the activity), negligible to moderate, and 

insignificant. 

3.11.2.2.5 Conclusion

The effects of impact causing factors on cultural resources range from negligible to moderate; thus, the 

overall impact of Alternative A on cultural resources, including impacts to submerged cultural or historic 

resources; coastal infrastructure; viewsheds of nearshore historic properties and designed cultural 

landscapes; and subsistence hunting and fishing areas, including TCPs, would continue to be adverse and 

moderate. Therefore, impacts of Alternative A to cultural and historic resources would continue to be 

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

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

451

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

Collection with Equipment Upgrades, Improved Hydroacoustic Devices, and 

New Tide Stations

The same impact causing factors on cultural resources considered under Alternative A are considered 

under Alternative B. Under Alternative B, all of the activities and equipment operations proposed in 

Alternative A would continue but at a higher level of effort, although the percentage of nautical miles 

covered by projects in each region would be the same as under Alternative A. Total survey effort for 

Alternative B in each region for the five-year timeframe is shown in Table 3.4-5. The greatest number of 

nautical miles surveyed over the five-year period would be in the Southeast Region (over 50 percent). The 

survey effort in each of the other four regions is of a similar order of magnitude (approximately 10 percent 

in each region over the five-year period), although slightly greater in the Alaska Region (approximately 16 

percent). Survey effort in the Great Lakes over the five-year period would represent less than one percent 

of the overall survey effort. As described under Alternative A, it is generally 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 and depth of surveys, that add nuance to this trend. 

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

under Alternative A; however, Alternative B would include more projects and activities and thus more 

nautical miles traveled than Alternative A. Overall, there would be an additional 264,796 nm (490,402 km) 

of survey effort under Alternative B as compared to Alternative A. The types and mechanisms of impacts 

would remain the same in Alternative B as discussed for Alternative A. Therefore, the difference between 

the two alternatives is a matter of scale with an increased activity level, although distributed unevenly 

among the different types of activities, leading to a corresponding, incremental increase in the potential 

for effects under Alternative B as compared to Alternative A. 

Impacts of Alternative B on cultural resources, including submerged cultural or historic resources; coastal 

infrastructure; viewsheds of nearshore historic properties and designed cultural landscapes; and 

subsistence hunting and fishing areas, including TCPs, 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 

cultural resources under Alternative B would be adverse, moderate, and insignificant.

3.11.2.4 Alternative C: Upgrades and Improvements with Greater Funding Support

The same impact causing factors for cultural resources considered under Alternatives A and B are 

considered under Alternative C. Under Alternative C, all of the activities and equipment operation 

proposed in Alternatives A and B would continue but at an even greater level of effort than Alternative B, 

given the overall funding increase of 20 percent relative to Alternative B. However, the percentage of 

linear nautical miles of survey effort in each region would be the same as under Alternatives A and B. Total 

survey effort for Alternative C in each region for the five-year timeframe is shown in Table 3.4-6. The 

greatest number of nautical miles surveyed over the five-year period would be in the Southeast Region 

(over 50 percent). The survey effort in each of the other four regions would be of a similar order of 

magnitude (approximately 10 percent in each region over five years), although slightly greater in the 

Alaska Region (approximately 16 percent over five years). Survey effort in the Great Lakes over the fiveyear period would be less than one percent of the overall survey effort. As described under Alternatives 

A and B, it is generally 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 and depth of surveys, that 

add nuance to this trend. 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

452

Survey activities 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 and activities and thus 

more nautical miles traveled than Alternatives A and B. Overall, there would be an additional 264,796 nm 

(490,402 km) of survey effort under Alternative C as compared to Alternative B, and an additional 529,592 

nm (980,803 km) as compared to Alternative A. The types and mechanisms of impacts would remain the 

same in Alternative C as discussed for Alternatives A and B. Therefore, the difference between the 

alternatives is a matter of scale with an increased activity level, although distributed unevenly among the 

different types of activities, leading to a corresponding, incremental increase in effects under Alternative 

C as compared to Alternatives A and B.

The potential for impacts to cultural resources from Alternative C, including impacts to submerged cultural 

or historic resources; coastal infrastructure; viewsheds of nearshore historic properties and designed 

cultural landscapes; and subsistence hunting and fishing areas, including TCPs, would be the same or 

somewhat, but not appreciably, greater than those discussed above under Alternative A for each impact 

causing factor. Overall, impacts on cultural resources under Alternative C would be adverse, moderate, 

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

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

453

3.12 SOCIOECONOMIC RESOURCES

This section identifies those aspects of the social and economic environment in the action area that may 

be affected by the Proposed Action. The Proposed Action is essential to the coastal economy because it 

ensures safe navigation for coastal-dependent industries and provides data for local communities to plan 

for coastal resiliency in response to climate change. Potential socioeconomic impacts with the greatest 

magnitude, duration, and extent would occur in U.S. coastal communities and the U.S. Ocean and Great 

Lakes economies (referred to as the “ocean economy” from here on). U.S. coastal communities and the 

ocean economy are the focus for the analysis of direct socioeconomic impacts. 

There are over 120 million people living in U.S coastal counties (OCM, 2021). Although some NOS projects

would occur in coastal areas, they would not substantially affect social values, aesthetics, or demographic 

composition of the action area and likely would not have a substantial direct or indirect social impact. The 

Proposed Action would not require hiring at a scale which would substantially alter any local economies 

or stimulate migrations of populations. Furthermore, all of NOS’s activities except for the installation, 

maintenance, and removal of tide gauges would occur offshore, so sound and visual intrusions from all 

other activities would not be experienced by the general public. In addition, due to the expansive 

geographic scope of the action area and the programmatic nature of this Final PEIS, any social impact to 

demographic composition, aesthetics, or social values of communities would be difficult to quantify.

A discussion of coastal minority and low-income communities that rely on subsistence hunting and fishing 

is presented in detail in Section 3.13, Environmental Justice. 

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has caused many changes in the ocean economy. 

Widespread reductions in consumer behaviors and demand have drastically disrupted the maritime 

shipping, tourism, and commercial fishing sectors. Given the unprecedented nature of the situation, it is 

currently unclear how the ocean economy will continue to adapt and change moving into the future. Longterm ocean economic trends will be contingent upon many highly unpredictable variables, including the 

impacts of the COVID-19 virus on the global population level, international trade policy, consumer 

attitudes/behavior, and demand for tourism. Considering the uncertainty of the situation, any current 

projections of future economic activity based on the small quantity of available pandemic economic data 

would be highly speculative and may not accurately represent future economic conditions. Therefore, the 

analysis of socioeconomic impacts does not attempt to account for the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic 

and instead uses the best available pre-pandemic data. Although the magnitude and extent of impacts 

described by these data may be inflated compared to current economic conditions, the trends suggested 

by these analyses should remain constant. 

The data supporting this analysis were collected and derived from standard sources, including federal 

agencies such as NOAA, the U.S. Census Bureau (USCB), Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), and Bureau of 

Economic Analysis (BEA). All of the tables in this section present data from the NOAA Economics: National 

Ocean Watch (ENOW) dataset, which is developed by NOAA’s Office for Coastal Management in 

partnership with the BEA, BLS, and USCB. National and regional economic data presented in this section 

focus on the ocean economy and its supporting sectors. 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

454

3.12.1 Affected Environment

The ocean economy consists of six sectors: marine construction; living resources; offshore mineral 

extraction; ship and boat building; tourism and recreation; and marine transportation. Marine 

construction includes dredging navigation channels, beach renourishment, and pier building.

In 2016, the ocean economy’s 154,000 business establishments employed about 3.3 million people, paid 

$129 billion in wages, and produced $304 billion in goods and services (OCM, 2022). As described in the 

2019 NOAA Report on the U.S. Ocean and Great Lakes Economy, this accounted for 2.3 percent of the 

nation’s employment and 1.6 percent of its gross domestic product (GDP) in 2016. Employment in the 

ocean economy rose 2.7 percent (adding 85,000 jobs) from 2015 to 2016 – faster than the national 

average employment growth of 1.7 percent. To put this in perspective, the ocean economy generated a 

larger share of the U.S. economy in 2016 than many better-known economic activities such as crop 

production, telecommunications, and building construction. In 2016, the ocean economy employed more 

people than these three sectors combined (OCM, 2022b).

National data by industry sector for the ocean economy in 2016 are shown in Table 3.12-1. The tourism 

and recreation sector was the largest in terms of establishments, employment, wages, and contribution 

to GDP. 

Table 3.12-1. U.S. Ocean and Great Lakes National Economy by Sector (2016)

Industry Sector Establishments Employment

Wages 

($000)

Contribution to 

GDP ($000)

Tourism and Recreation 125,972 2,367,746 58,727,878 124,232,520

Marine Transportation 10,191 467,453 32,726,192 64,313,381

Offshore Mineral Extraction 4,960 132,007 20,241,667 80,130,037

Living Resources 8,517 87,869 3,941,825 11,292,923

Marine Construction 3,053 45,092 3,267,443 6,397,310

Ship and Boat Building 1,751 157,912 10,521,187 17,498,842

Total 154,492 3,258,081 129,426,193 303,865,013

Source: OCM, 2022a10

National data by region for the ocean economy in 2016 are shown in Table 3.12-2. The Mid-Atlantic Region 

had the most establishments (41,407) and employees (787,652) compared to the other regions; but the 

Gulf of Mexico paid the most in wages (about $33.6 billion) and produced the most in goods and services 

(about $104 billion). 

10 The values used to quantify the contribution of living resources to GDP were published by OCM in the NOAA Report 

on the U.S. Marine Economy which uses Economics: ENOW data. There may be discrepancies between state 

collected data and data collected by NOAA. This may be the result of the contribution of self-employed workers 

which are a large part of the living resources sector; however, the ENOW data cited in this section looks exclusively 

at the component of the data that focuses on businesses with employees. The purpose of this analysis was to review 

the economic impact of this programmatic action over the entire action area and the OCM data was the best 

available data for the entire action area.
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

455

Table 3.12-2. U.S. Ocean and Great Lakes National Economy by Region (2016)

Region Establishments Employment

Wages 

($000)

Contribution to 

GDP ($000)

Mid-Atlantic 41,407 787,652 2,937,154 57,192,282

Gulf of Mexico 24,570 598,311 33,607,076 104,355,021

West 32,887 733,118 29,517,336 62,118,004

Southeast 18,888 402,438 11,108,623 24,650,323

Northeast 15,185 260,056 9,775,768 19,253,186

Great Lakes 14,805 310,855 8,835,522 19,027,089

North Pacific 2,412 47,561 2,744,865 8,643,807

Pacific 4,338 118,083 4,465,464 8,625,298

Total 154,492 3,258,074 102,991,808 303,865,010

Source: OCM, 2022a

Note: Totals from Table 3.12-2 may not exactly match the total or the “All Ocean Sectors” row from Table 3.12-1 

due to rounding.

Economic data from NOAA’s ENOW 2016 dataset are presented in Sections 3.12.1.1 through 3.12.1.6 for 

each of the six sectors that compose the ocean economy, highlighting the importance of contributions 

from ocean and Great Lakes-dependent activities to the nation’s economy. As stated above, NOS data 

acquisition informs charting that provide for safe navigation that is crucial to the ocean economy. NOS 

data serve a variety of users including commercial and recreational mariners, emergency and coastal 

managers and responders, researchers, educators, and others. Furthermore, these data provide 

information that is essential for coastal resiliency planning for coastal communities, particularly on the 

East Coast. 

3.12.1.1 Tourism and Recreation

In 2016, the tourism and recreation sector of the ocean economy had more business establishments and 

employed more people than all the other five sectors combined. It was also the largest sector measured 

in terms of GDP, accounting for about 41 percent of the total ocean economy. This sector includes a wide 

range of businesses that attract or support ocean-based tourism and recreation: eating and drinking 

places, hotels and lodging, scenic water tours, parks, marinas, recreational vehicle parks and campsites, 

and associated sporting goods manufacturing (OCM, 2022b). 

While this sector employs more people and pays more in total wages than any of the other sectors of the 

ocean economy, the seasonal nature of the activities and the large number of part-time jobs (which are 

often held by students and others just entering the workforce) accounts for the relatively low average 

annual wages for employees ($25,000). From 2015 to 2016, tourism and recreation gained 73,000 jobs, 

accounting for most of the employment growth in the ocean economy. The majority of the jobs are in 

hotels and restaurants. These two industries together account for 94 percent of employment and 92 

percent of GDP in this sector. Although vacationers stay at hotels and eat in restaurants, many of the 

coastal and oceanic amenities that attract visitors are free, such as beach visitation and swimming. These 

“nonmarket” activities generate no direct employment, wages, or GDP. However, they are usually key 

drivers for all of the market-based activity, and can be greatly affected by ecosystem health, water quality, 

and the associated aesthetics (OCM, 2022b). 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

456

California and Florida are the two major contributors to the sector, accounting for more than one-third of 

the sector’s total employment and GDP in 2016 (OCM, 2022b). A summary of the tourism and recreation 

sector by region is shown in Table 3.12-3. 

Table 3.12-3. Tourism and Recreation Sector by Region (2016)

Region Establishments Employment

Wages 

($000)

Contribution to 

GDP ($000)

Mid-Atlantic 36,407 600,271 16,520,850 34,367,599

West 27,363 535,852 14,075,099 29,398,853

Gulf of Mexico 16,249 338,837 7,096,812 14,781,708

Southeast 15,502 335,204 7,611,164 16,378,267

Great Lakes 12,355 240,214 4,929,997 11,097,080

Northeast 12,458 189,098 4,520,523 9,732,781

Pacific 4,020 105,573 3,439,781 7,400,476

North Pacific 1,618 22,691 533,652 1,075,758

Total 125,972 2,367,746 58,727,878 124,232,520

Source: OCM, 2022a

3.12.1.2 Marine and Coastal Transportation

The marine and coastal transportation sector includes businesses engaged in the traffic of deep-sea and 

intracoastal freight, marine and intracoastal passenger services, warehousing, and the manufacturing of 

navigation equipment. This sector accounted for 14.3 percent of the employment and 21.2 percent of the 

GDP of the U.S. Ocean and Great Lakes economy. About 21.5 percent of employment and 25.1 percent of 

GDP attributable to the sector are supported by California. The rest is distributed across the nation, 

concentrated around major ports (OCM, 2022b). A summary of the marine and coastal transportation 

sector by region is shown in Table 3.12-4. 

Table 3.12-4. Marine and Coastal Transportation by Region (2016)

Region Establishments Employment

Wages 

($000)

Contribution to 

GDP ($000)

West 2,384 127,202 10,398,448 20,053,221

Mid-Atlantic 2,217 124,407 8,770,712 15,833,490

Gulf of Mexico 1,980 80,392 5,127,189 11,637,926

Great Lakes 1,231 55,354 3,107,550 5,652,450

Southeast 1,417 45,053 2,488,822 5,638,885

Northeast 430 23,178 2,007,429 3,599,582

North Pacific 229 2,253 158,625 393,735

Pacific 102 3,806 303,100 687,602

Total 10,191 467,453 32,726,192 64,313,381

Source: OCM, 2022a

Warehousing is the largest component of this sector in terms of employment, accounting for 50 percent 

of total sector employment. These figures include loading, unloading, and warehousing cargo and the 

movement of cargo in and out of harbors, but they do not include the value of the cargo itself. The $1.5 

trillion of cargo imported or exported through U.S. ports in 2016 is suggestive of the large indirect effects 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

457

of coastal ports; not only are maritime commerce and navigation linked to other ocean uses, they are also 

linked to land-based transportation needs(OCM, 2022b). Over 82,000 vessel calls were made at U.S. ports 

during 2015 (USDOT, 2017). Vessels carrying cargo are becoming larger and have deeper drafts than ever 

before. These vessels include bulk ships carrying iron, coal, and grain for export; heavy-load vessels 

carrying project cargo (large, heavy, high value or critical pieces of equipment for the project they are 

intended for); container ships carrying general export and import cargo for markets around the U.S. and 

the world; and tankers carrying petroleum and other liquids used to power U.S. transportation systems 

and industry (OCM, 2022b). Many of these goods are also transported along coastal and inland waterways, 

which transport approximately 15 percent of U.S. freight at the lowest unit cost of any transportation 

method (USACE, 2012a). Imported and exported goods account for 40 percent of U.S. foreign trade as 

measured by value and 69 percent as measured by weight. These effects are realized across the nation, 

accruing as benefits to the producers of agricultural and manufactured products that are sold in 

international markets and to the manufacturers and retailers whose businesses rely on imported goods 

(OCM, 2022b).

3.12.1.3 Offshore Mineral Extraction

Offshore mineral extraction includes oil and gas exploration and production, as well as limestone, sand, 

and gravel mining in the coastal and marine environment. This sector accounted for 4.1 percent of the 

total employment in the ocean economy in 2016, but contributed 26.4 percent of the GDP. Offshore 

mineral extraction is capital-intensive, requiring substantial investments in research, engineering, 

infrastructure, and operational equipment such as oceangoing vessels and drilling platforms. Much of the 

work in this sector takes place in hazardous conditions, and is one of the reasons the average annual wage 

per employee in this sector was $153,000 – almost three times the national average (OCM, 2022b). 

Oil and gas production is the largest component of this sector and is principally located in the Gulf of 

Mexico, as shown in Table 3.12-5. The Gulf of Mexico, both onshore and offshore, is one of the most 

important regions for energy resources and infrastructure. Gulf of Mexico federal offshore oil production 

accounts for 17 percent of total U.S. crude oil production and federal offshore natural gas production in 

the Gulf accounts for 5 percent of total U.S. dry gas production. Crude oil production in federal waters 

exceeds 1.5 million barrels/day and dry gas production is 1.2 trillion cubic feet annually. Over 45 percent 

of total U.S. petroleum refining capacity is located along the Gulf Coast, as well as 51 percent of total U.S. 

natural gas processing plant capacity (EIA, 2022a, 2022b). Oil prices fell sharply between 2015 and 2016, 

leading to declines in the inflation-adjusted GDP of the offshore mineral extraction sector (down 18 

percent) and the ocean economy as a whole (down 7 percent).

Table 3.12-5. Offshore Mineral Extraction by Region (2016)

Region Establishments Employment

Wages

($000)

Contribution to 

GDP ($000)

Gulf of Mexico 3,336 106,792 17,411,920 70,099,694

West 548 9,710 1,030,956 2,930,128

Mid-Atlantic 318 1,700 119,839 387,286

Great Lakes 277 921 64,564 305,312

North Pacific 170 11,525 1,529,061 5,972,744

Southeast 152 522 24,845 65,239

Northeast 123 659 45,198 314,739

Pacific 11 110 11,828 45,866
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

458

Region Establishments Employment

Wages

($000)

Contribution to 

GDP ($000)

Total 4,960 132,007 20,241,667 80,130,037

Source: OCM, 2022a

Limestone, sand, and gravel production is generally performed in support of marine and coastal 

construction activities and is, therefore, widely distributed among the U.S. coastal states. Generally 

speaking, states with large economies and long coastlines such as California, Washington, Florida, and 

Texas have the greatest production of sand, gravel, and limestone (OCM, 2022b).

3.12.1.4 Living Resources

The living resources sector includes the commercial fishing, fish hatcheries and aquaculture, seafood 

processing, and seafood markets industries. The living resources sector accounted for 3 percent of the 

employment and 4 percent of GDP of the ocean economy in 2016 (OCM, 2022b). Seafood processing 

converts the whole fish or shellfish harvested by fishermen or produced by aquaculture operations into 

the products that are sold at retail stores or restaurants. It is the largest producer in the living resources 

sector, accounting for 41 percent of the contribution to GDP. The seafood market industry retails fresh, 

frozen, and cured fish and seafood items such as tuna, salmon, lobster, and shrimp. Products are sold at 

various brick-and-mortar locations including independent markets, delicatessens, fishmongers, and 

butcher shops. Fish and seafood markets and counters operating within a supermarket are excluded from 

this industry, as are online sales of fish products. The seafood market industry accounts for most of the 

employed workers at 46 percent of the sector (OCM, 2022b). In 2015, the seafood industry supported 1.2 

million full-and part-time jobs and generated $144.2 billion in sales, $39.7 billion in income, and $60.6 

billion in value-added impacts nationwide. The seafood retail sector generated the largest employment 

impacts across sectors at 573,000 jobs, the largest income impacts ($13.3 billion), and the largest valueadded impacts ($18.2 billion) (NMFS, 2017e).

Commercial fishing can be an important component of a community’s identity. Lobster, crab, oysters, and 

finfish are important to cultural identities from Maine to the Chesapeake Bay on the Mid-Atlantic Coast, 

Apalachicola Bay in Florida, and Grays Harbor in Washington. Shrimp and crawfish are an integral part of 

Cajun culture and Creole cuisine in Louisiana. Even seafood processing and marketing can shape cultural 

identities; consider the examples of Cannery Row in Monterey, California, and the Pike Place Market in 

Seattle, Washington (OCM, 2022b). The impact of fishing and seafood in the Western, Gulf of Mexico, 

Mid-Atlantic, and Northeast regions’ cultural identities is reflected in the number of establishments, 

employment, wages, and contribution to GDP (see Table 3.12-6). 

Table 3.12-6. Living Resources Economy by Region (2016)

Region Establishments Employment

Wages 

($000)

Contribution to 

GDP ($000)

West 1,802 21,654 1,137,858 2,899,629

Gulf of Mexico 1,625 17,117 590,094 1,943,584

Mid-Atlantic 1,667 14,102 572,160 1,947,744

Northeast 1,637 11,791 658,892 1,892,138

Southeast 855 7,143 275,500 841,473

Great Lakes 451 4,101 172,990 486,094

North Pacific 324 10364 469,313 1,116,862
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

459

Region Establishments Employment

Wages 

($000)

Contribution to 

GDP ($000)

Pacific 153 1,591 65,019 165,399

Total 8,517 87,869 3,941,825 11,292,923

Source: OCM, 2022a 

The living resource sector relies on the health of coastal and ocean ecosystems. The sector also depends 

on coastal wetlands that serve as habitat, juvenile nurseries, and feeding grounds for marine fish; 

estuaries that are the primary habitat for oysters and other shellfish; and the open ocean ecosystems 

where much of the finfish harvesting occurs. The health of these ecosystems can be affected by a wide 

range of other activities which underscores the need for wise use, conservation, monitoring, and 

management of ocean and coastal resources. For example, Figure 3.12-1 shows coastal wetlands in Alaska 

that serve as a nursery and rearing habitat for juvenile Pacific salmon. These “salmon factories” are crucial 

for maintaining the wild salmon stocks upon which the commercial salmon fishery industry in Alaska 

depends. 

Photo Credit: Leon Kolankiewicz

Figure 3.12-1. Coastal Wetland in Alaska Serves as Nursery

and Rearing Habitat for Juvenile Pacific Salmon
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

460

3.12.1.5 Marine Construction and Planning

The marine construction sector accounts for heavy construction activities associated with dredging of 

navigation channels, beach renourishment, and pier building11. Marine construction accounted for 1.4 

percent of the employment and 2 percent of the GDP in the ocean economy in 2016. While the sector 

represents a small percentage of the ocean economy, it is an integral component, paying one of the 

highest annual average wages per employee of $72,000, much higher than the national average of 

$54,000. Furthermore, construction activities such as dredging navigation channels and renourishing 

beaches are vital to the marine transportation and tourism and recreation sectors (OCM, 2022b). 

Coastal resilience planning is an increasingly important component of marine and coastal construction. 

Rising sea levels and extreme weather events are constantly eroding coastlines throughout the action 

area. Erosion rates vary considerably from location to location and year to year, but average less than 1 

m (2-3 ft) annually along the Atlantic coast and over 2 m (6 ft) annually in areas bordering the Gulf of 

Mexico (Heinz Center, 2000). Pacific coastlines tend to erode less than 0.3 m (1 ft) each year, but this 

lower rate is primarily a result of averaging episodic cliff erosion events, which can erode over 31 (100 ft) 

of coastline at one time, over many years (Heinz Center, 2000). Nationwide, annual coastal erosion may 

be responsible for $500 million in property loss to coastal landowners, including both damage to 

structures and loss of land. Approximately 87,000 homes are currently located in low-lying land or coastal 

bluffs that are likely to erode into the ocean by 2060. The federal government currently spends over $150 

million annually on coastal resilience enhancement, including beach nourishment and other erosion 

prevention measures such as structural rip-rap installation (USGCRP, 2018).

Marine construction activities occur in most regions of the U.S., but are highly concentrated in Florida, 

Texas, California, and Louisiana, which together in 2016 accounted for about 56 percent of the 

employment and about 54 percent of GDP contribution from this sector. Marine construction economics 

by region are shown in Table 3.12-7.

11 Data for activities supporting offshore oil and gas production would normally be considered a form of marine 

construction. However, the underlying data on these activities are almost always suppressed because of the small 

number of businesses in any one area. In many cases, protecting the confidentiality of these businesses requires the 

suppression of the entire sector, including information for activities that could otherwise be reported. For this 

reason, these activities are not included in ENOW’s data on the ocean economy. The effect of this omission is most 

prominent in the Gulf of Mexico and Alaska (OCM, 2022b).
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

461

Table 3.12-7. Marine Construction Economy by Region (2016)

Region Establishments Employment

Wages 

($000)

Contribution to 

GDP ($000)

West 486 8,653 784,166 1,569,650

Gulf of Mexico 719 15,904 1,055,460 1,974,990

Mid-Atlantic 617 8,571 681,813 1,360,598

Northeast 159 2,425 110,256 193,613

Southeast 597 5,550 300,605 639,694

Great Lakes 326 2,074 154,677 303,677

North Pacific 47 354 35,066 59,171

Pacific 30 1,126 116,360 238,177

Total 3,053 45,092 3,267,443 6,397,310

Source: OCM, 2022a

3.12.1.6 Ship and Boat Building

This sector includes the construction, maintenance, and repair of ships, recreational boats, commercial 

fishing vessels, ferries, and other marine vessels. The ship and boat building sector accounted for 4.8 

percent of employment and 6 percent of GDP in the ocean economy in 2016. The construction, 

maintenance, and repair of ships in particular (as opposed to recreational boats, commercial fishing 

vessels, ferries, and other marine vessels) accounted for about 83 percent of the sector’s employment 

and 84 percent of GDP (OCM, 2022b).

Large shipyards are concentrated in a few locations around the country. However, boat building and repair 

activity is spread throughout the country, with concentrations in areas with high levels of commercial 

fishing and recreational boating. In 2016, Virginia contributed most to employment in this sector, 

accounting for 22 percent of the national total. Washington State was the largest contributor to GDP, 

accounting for 23 percent of the total. Kitsap County, Washington contributed more to the nation’s ship 

and boat building sector than any other county in the U.S.; it alone accounted for about 9 percent of the 

employment and 18 percent of the GDP in the nation’s ship and boat building sector (OCM, 2022b). The 

number of establishments, employment, wages, and contribution to GDP are shown by region in Table 

3.12-8.

Table 3.12-8. Ship and Boat Building by Region (2016)

Region Establishments Employment

Wages

($000)

Contribution to 

GDP ($000)

West 304 30,044 2,090,809 5,266,522

Gulf of Mexico 573 37,561 2,225,882 3,737,732

Mid-Atlantic 173 38,528 2,702,482 3,288,397

Northeast 188 28,371 2,139,833 2,825,495

Southeast 365 8,959 407,687 1,086,764

Great Lakes 81 6,920 351,895 928,987

North Pacific 24 372 19,147 25,538

Pacific 22 5,873 529,376 87,778

Total 1,751 157,912 10,521,187 17,498,842

Source: OCM, 2022a 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

462

3.12.2 Environmental Consequences for Socioeconomic Resources

This section discusses potential impacts of Alternatives A, B, and C on socioeconomic resources. 

3.12.2.1 Methodology

NOS activities would not substantially directly impact socioeconomic resources. The collection of oceanic 

data in Alternatives A, B, and C would not result in the hiring of personnel. Instead, NOS projects would 

support the collection of ocean data in order to provide information for a variety of users including 

commercial and recreational mariners, commercial and recreational fishing industries, renewable and 

non-renewable energy developers, emergency and coastal managers and responders, researchers, 

educators, and others (NERACOOS, No Date). The data collected would allow businesses and coastal 

economies to increase operational efficiency and reduce risks associated with oceanic activities. 

As discussed in Section 3.2.2, significance criteria were developed for each resource analyzed in this Final 

PEIS to provide a structured framework for assessing impacts from the alternatives and the significance 

of the impacts. The significance criteria for socioeconomic resources are shown in Table 3.12-9.

Table 3.12-9. Significance Criteria for the Analysis of

Impacts to Socioeconomic Resources

Impact 

Descriptor Context and Intensity

Significance 

Conclusion

Negligible

There would be no detectable effect on businesses and 

employment; the recreational experience and revenue 

from recreational expenditures; coastal economic 

systems; or sectors of the larger Ocean and Great Lakes 

economies in response to NOS projects and the resulting 

data. Several coastal towns or the coastal economy of a 

state could be impacted by NOS activities. Impacts would 

be temporary and would last the duration of and 

immediately after project activities.

Insignificant

Minor

There would be a detectable effect on businesses and 

employment; the recreational experience and revenue 

from recreational expenditures; coastal economic 

systems; or sectors of the larger Ocean and Great Lakes 

economies in response to NOS projects and the resulting 

data. Several coastal towns or the coastal economy of a 

state and/or the coastal economies of several states 

could be impacted by NOS activities. Impacts would be 

short-term and would last beyond activities, up to one 

year. 

Moderate

There would be a sizeable effect on businesses and 

employment; the recreational experience and revenue 

from recreational expenditures; coastal economic 

systems; or sectors of the larger Ocean and Great Lakes 

economies in response to NOS projects and the resulting 

data. The coastal economies of several states and/or 

most of or all of the coastal economies in the Exclusive 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

463

Impact 

Descriptor Context and Intensity

Significance 

Conclusion

Economic Zone (EEZ) would be impacted by activities. 

Impacts would be short-term and/or long-term, lasting 

longer than one year.

Major

There would be a substantial effect on businesses and 

employment; the recreational experience and revenue 

from recreational expenditures; coastal economic 

systems; or sectors of the larger Ocean and Great Lakes 

economies in response to NOS projects and the resulting 

data. The coastal economies of several states and/or 

most of or all of the coastal economies in the EEZ would 

be impacted by activities. Impacts would be short-term 

and/or long-term, lasting longer than one year.

Significant

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

Marine Data Collection with Current Technology and Methods, at Current 

Funding Levels

Although the survey effort under Alternative A would vary by year (see Table 3.4-4), the greatest number 

of nautical miles surveyed over the five-year period would be in the Southeast Region (over 50 percent). 

The survey effort in each of the other four regions are of a similar order of magnitude (approximately 10 

percent in each region for each of the five years), and is slightly greater in the Alaska Region where the 

survey effort would be somewhat higher overall (approximately 16 percent). Additionally, survey effort in 

the Great Lakes would average 2,917 nm (5,402 km) annually, as compared to the remaining annual 

average survey effort of 529,592 nm (980,803 km). 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 the type, location and depth of surveys, that add nuance to this trend.

3.12.2.2.1 Economic Benefits of Coastal and Marine Data

NOS conducts recurring surveys throughout the action area to characterize ocean features (e.g., habitat, 

currents, bathymetry, marine debris). Data collected from these projects are used by NOS and other 

entities, both public and private, to produce charts, maps, and other hydrographic products that are relied 

upon by mariners, scientists, shipping and fishing industries, and many other users in the U.S. and beyond. 

Therefore, although few direct economic impacts (i.e., job creation, large capital investment) are 

anticipated as a result of Alternative A, the distribution and availability of data collected as a result of NOS 

activities could indirectly benefit ocean economy stakeholders by increasing the efficiency and risk 

management of ocean-related operations.

Quantifying the indirect economic benefits of increased ocean surveying and mapping data, quality, and 

availability is inherently difficult due to the lack of available data necessary to quantify economic impacts 

over the entire action area. The economic benefits of ocean surveying and mapping data are derived from 

the value of the information and the effects that information has on the behavior of individuals and 

organizations. The standard measure of these economic benefits is the value that users of the information 

place on it, based on their willingness to pay for such information to either enhance their uses of ocean 

resources or to avoid harms that may come from oceanic or atmospheric phenomena affecting individuals 

and organizations. The propensity of users to pay for such information is a measure of “social surplus” 

(i.e., the value of the information in excess of the costs of acquiring it). When such value accrues to 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

464

businesses, it is referred to as “producer surplus”; when it accrues to individual users, it is “consumer 

surplus” (Kite-Powell et al., 2004). The economic information needed to compile estimates of both the 

total users of such information and the value they place on such information is only sporadically available 

and usually incomplete. As such, attempts to quantify these values would be highly subjective, 

speculative, and would not accurately represent the intensity or extent of impact across the entire action 

area. 

Nearly all sectors of the ocean economy would benefit from the data tools and products resulting from 

data collection during NOS projects. Kite-Powell et al.’s 2004 “Estimating the Economic Benefits of 

Regional Ocean Observing Systems” evaluates the potential economic benefits that can be realized by 

developing and deploying enhanced data collection systems (e.g., data collection buoys) within the action 

area. Although NOS uses different methods than those analyzed by Kite-Powell et al. (2004) to collect 

data, the primary economic impacts of the alternatives would result from data products and tools 

developed from data collected during NOS projects and would be consistent with the resulting impacts of 

increased data collection described by Kite-Powell et al. (2004) regardless of the differing collection 

methods. As such, the results of the Kite-Powell et al. (2004) report serve as the primary basis for this 

economic impact analysis. The report examines five major affected economic activities, including 

recreational activities (e.g., boating, beach going, fishing); transportation (e.g., freight, cruise ships); 

health and safety (e.g., search and rescue, oil spill and hazard cleanup, property damage); energy (e.g., oil 

and gas development, electric generation management); and commercial fishing. 

Kite-Powell et al. (2004) conducted reviews of these activities in 10 coastal regions (Pacific Northwest, 

California, Gulf of Mexico, Florida, Southern Atlantic coast, Mid Atlantic coast, New England/Gulf of 

Maine, Alaska, Hawai’i, and the Great Lakes) to establish baseline economic conditions and the potential 

impact of improved coastal and marine data quality and availability. Benefits were estimated using a 

multi-phased modeling process. Baseline estimates were first calculated by conservatively assuming that 

total social surplus generated from increased coastal and marine data quality and availability within a 

specific economic sector was one percent of the total economic activity (i.e., revenues or expenditures, 

depending on the benefit) of the sector reported in publicly available economic data sources. This 

assumption reflects the likelihood that changes in consumer and producer surplus elicited by coastal and 

marine data are small relative to the total aggregate level of expenditures and revenues within a sector, 

and is standard in the estimation of economic benefits from weather and atmospheric data. The second 

phase of the estimation process used fine-scale economic modeling of representative regional economic 

activities as case studies to validate the magnitude of estimates from the first phase of modeling; the 

activities modelled in phase two were selected on the basis of data availability (Kite-Powell et al., 2004). 

Table 3.12-10 summarizes the potentially affected economic sectors, their predominant region(s) of 

influence, and descriptions of the types of indirect benefits from increased coastal and marine data, 

quality, and availability. 

Table 3.12-10. Summary of Benefits to Activities Affected by Coastal and Marine Data

Activity Region* Description of Benefit

Health & 

Safety

Search & 

Rescue

Pacific Northwest, Gulf of 

Maine, Mid Atlantic coast, 

South Atlantic coast, 

California, Alaska, Hawai’i, 

Costs saved to U.S. Coast Guard 

plus value of lost lives saved; cost 

saved to local rescue squads plus 

value of lost lives saved; value of 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

465

Activity Region* Description of Benefit

Florida, Great Lakes, Gulf of 

Mexico

life; avoidance of costly accidents 

or collisions 

Oil Spills Pacific Northwest, 

California, Gulf of Mexico

Reductions in clean up and 

compensation costs

Tropical Storm 

Prediction South Atlantic Reduced loss of life, evacuation cost, and lost tourism revenue

Residential 

Property

Florida

South Atlantic

Avoided costs from earlier 

preparation for storms; coastal 

resilience planning

Beach 

Restoration California

Daily cost saving on beach 

restoration from optimized 

planning

Recreational 

Activities

Recreational 

Fishing

Pacific Northwest, Mid 

Atlantic coast, Southern 

Atlantic coast, Florida, Gulf 

of Mexico, California, 

Hawai’i, Great Lakes

Willingness to pay for improved 

charts and maps; increased 

licensing and chartering 

expenditures

Recreational 

Boating

California, Gulf of Mexico, 

Gulf of Maine, Mid Atlantic 

coast, South Atlantic coast, 

Alaska, Hawai’i, Florida, 

Great Lakes, California

Willingness to pay for improved 

charts and maps; increased 

chartering and fuel expenditures

Beaches Florida, Great Lakes, 

California

Beach-related consumer 

expenditures; increased economic 

impact; operating cost savings; 

increased business sales; increased 

visitor daily values; increased 

consumer surplus

Transportation Freight

Pacific Northwest, Gulf of 

Maine, Mid-Atlantic coast, 

South Atlantic coast, Alaska, 

Florida, Great Lakes, 

California, Gulf of Mexico

Daily cost savings from optimized 

route-planning

Cruise Ships Pacific Northwest

Energy

Electric Load 

Planning Great Lakes

Avoided use of most expensive 

peak generators; operating cost 

savings 

Oil and Gas 

Development Gulf of Mexico

Operating cost savings; increased 

accuracy of oceanographic risks in 

design

Commercial Fishing

Pacific Northwest

Gulf of Maine

Mid-Atlantic coast

Increased landed values; total 

regional economic impact in 

industries dependent on living 

resources (e.g., seafood processing, 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

466

Activity Region* Description of Benefit

retail seafood market); reduced 

operating costs

Source: Kite-Powell et al., 2004.

*The regional designation of impacts reported in this table were contingent upon the availability of economic data 

for the region and therefore may not fully represent the overall regional influence of a given economic activity. 

Also note that the Gulf of Mexico region in this study excludes the west (Gulf) coast of Florida.

The Kite-Powell et al. (2004) report provides information on the general order of magnitude of economic 

benefits produced as a result of improved coastal and marine data quality and availability; estimates of 

economic activity resulting from enhanced data quality and availability can range broadly and are not 

meant to be a descriptive accounting of all possible economic outcomes. As such, the estimates provided 

in the subsequent paragraphs serve only to provide context for the general economic impacts of 

Alternative A. Nonetheless, Kite-Powell et al. (2004) indicate that annual benefits to recreational fishing, 

recreational boating, energy development and production, and commercial fishing from improved coastal 

and marine data quality and availability range in the hundreds of millions of dollars per year for each 

sector. The following sections provide descriptions of the economic impacts to each of these sectors.

3.12.2.2.2 Health and Safety

Health and safety activities refer to planning and operations that contribute to the health and safety of 

ocean users and their property (i.e., coastal real estate, boats, or small businesses). These activities 

contribute to all other sectors of the ocean economy by reducing inherent risks involved with other 

commerce-producing maritime activities or capital (e.g., recreational boating, commercial fishing) and 

primarily benefit from increased data quality and availability through increased operational efficiency and 

risk reduction related to extreme weather events. Search and rescue operations, oil spill modeling and 

hazard cleanup, and reduction of property damage are anticipated to contribute an additional $275 

million to the ocean economy per year with increased ocean data quality and availability (Kite-Powell et 

al., 2004). 

Search and rescue teams rely on bathymetric charting and mapping to establish search areas and plan 

rescue operations. Improving the spatial and temporal resolution of ocean data would continue to 

increase the likelihood of successful search and rescue operations while also reducing their cost. 

Successful search and rescue operations additionally contribute to the ocean economy by minimizing loss 

of life in the event of catastrophe, which preserves future economic contributions from saved individuals 

and reduces inherent risk associated with oceanic activities or employment. Improved ocean mapping 

would also allow ocean resource managers to more effectively predict the spread of volatile chemicals, 

such as oil, in the event of a spill, allowing for more precise targeting of response efforts and reducing the 

overall cost of restoration. Similarly, more precise bathymetric charting and mapping of collision hazards 

would allow for more optimized route planning that could reduce the occurrence of costly marine 

accidents; collisions and groundings accounted for 16 percent of all marine vessel insurance claims at a 

total cost of $1.56 billion from 2013 to 2018 or approximately $300 million annually (Allianz, 2019). These 

savings are demonstrated in the success of the PORTS system, which uses an integrated network of realtime oceanographic data collectors to aid navigation and is estimated to generate $300 million in 

economic benefits annually from reducing risk and increasing the operational efficiency of vessels (NOAA, 

No Date-f). 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

467

Data collected during NOS projects would continue to reduce costs associated with recovery from extreme 

weather events and natural disasters. After hurricanes or other severe weather events have moved 

through an area, NOS would continue to survey areas of critical marine infrastructure such as ports and 

shipping channels to identify submerged storm debris or transported sediment that could prevent ships 

carrying food and medical supplies from reaching affected areas. These efforts would reduce the risk of 

collisions with storm debris and would increase the operational efficiency of recovery and restoration 

efforts. 

Although no direct economic impacts (i.e., job creation, capital investment) are anticipated within the 

health and safety sector as a result of Alternative A, the indirect economic benefits of increased 

operational efficiency of rescue missions and risk reduction related to extreme weather eventsfacilitated 

by data collected under Alternative A would range in the magnitude of hundreds of millions of dollars and 

would be distributed among coastal economies throughout the action area. Furthermore, the data 

collected under Alternative A would be available to the public indefinitely, and indirect economic benefits 

resulting from its use and distribution would persist beyond the conclusion of activities. Overall, the 

economic impacts of ocean data procured under Alternative A on health and safety would be indirect,

beneficial, and moderate, and therefore insignificant.

3.12.2.2.3 Recreational Activities

Recreational activities, for the purposes of this analysis, refer to recreational consumption of ocean 

resources primarily through beach visitation, boating, and sport fishing. Recreational activities are a main 

component of the ocean economy; recreation and tourism contributed 2.4 million jobs and $124 billion 

to the GDP in 2016. Increased coastal and marine data availability and quality greatly benefit the 

recreational activity sector by allowing stakeholders to make informed decisions about ocean resources. 

Beachgoing, recreational boating, and recreational fishing would be expected to increase their 

contribution to the ocean economy by approximately $430 million per year with increased ocean data 

quality and availability (Kite-Powell et al., 2004). 

Recreational boaters rely on accurate ocean charts and maps to transit ocean waters safely; improved 

ocean data quality would continue to allow recreational boaters to more effectively plan potential routes 

around prevailing winds, currents, and bathymetry. Finally, improved bathymetric data would continue 

to improve transit efficiency for recreational fishermen.

Although few direct economic impacts (i.e., job creation, large capital investment) are anticipated within 

the recreational activity sector as a result of Alternative A, the indirect economic benefits of enhanced 

decision-making by ocean economy stakeholders facilitated by data collected under Alternative A would 

range in the magnitude of hundreds of millions of dollars and would be distributed among coastal 

economies throughout the action area. Furthermore, the data collected under Alternative A would be 

available to the public indefinitely, and indirect economic benefits resulting from its use and distribution 

would persist beyond the conclusion of activities. Overall, the economic impacts of ocean data procured 

under Alternative A on recreational economic activity would be indirect, beneficial, and moderate, and

therefore insignificant. 

3.12.2.2.4 Transportation

Transportation activities refer to the transit of goods and passengers throughout the EEZ and are a 

substantial component of the ocean economy, contributing 467,000 jobs and $64 billion to the GDP. 

Transportation activities benefit from increased data quality and availability primarily through improving 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

468

operational efficiency of vessel transit. The transportation of freight and the transportation of passengers 

via cruise ships are expected to increase their contribution to the ocean economy by approximately $127 

million per year with increased ocean data quality and availability (Kite-Powell et al., 2004). 

The primary benefit of increased ocean data to the transportation sector is enhanced route-planning 

capabilities. Improved charts, maps, and bathymetry resulting from data collected during NOS projects 

would continue to allow ship crews and decision-makers to plan transit routes more efficiently, avoiding 

costs associated with longer routes and delays. Furthermore, much of the transport along the Alaska coast 

involves cargo that is critical to businesses and projects owned and operated by Alaska Natives. Accurate 

surveying and mapping data would continue to yield additional social and economic benefits to these 

groups. However, it is important to note that much of the navigationally important part of the action area 

has been previously surveyed, and ocean data collected under Alternative A are not expected to open a 

substantial number of novel transit routes or shipping lanes. NOS data collection efforts in the Alaska 

region could potentially yield a small number of novel shipping routes in areas previously restricted by sea 

ice, but the economic impact of these routes is difficult to estimate given the current lack of mapping 

coverage and underlying risks of arctic maritime navigation (NOS, No Date-c). As such, the increased ocean 

data quality and availability resulting from Alternative A would primarily increase the efficiency of existing 

routes as opposed to discovering new routes. Nonetheless, the current operating performance efficiency 

of maritime shipping is low when compared to other industries (Panayides et al., 2011) and improved 

route planning could have a substantial marginal impact on the overall efficiency of the industry. 

Although no substantial direct economic impacts (i.e., job creation, large capital investment) are 

anticipated within the transportation sector as a result of Alternative A, the indirect economic benefits of 

enhanced route-planning capabilities and daily cost savings stemming from the data collected by NOS 

would range in the magnitude of hundreds of millions of dollars and would be distributed among coastal 

economies throughout the action area. Furthermore, the data collected under Alternative A would be 

available to the public indefinitely and indirect economic benefits resulting from its use and distribution 

would persist beyond the conclusion of activities. Overall, the economic impacts of ocean data procured 

under Alternative A on transportation would be indirect, beneficial, and moderate, and therefore 

insignificant. 

3.12.2.2.5 Energy

Energy-related activities, for the purposes of this analysis, refer to the development and distribution of 

energy resulting from ocean resources and contributed 132,000 jobs and $80 billion to the GDP in 2016. 

These activities primarily benefit from increased ocean data quality and availability by increasing the 

operational efficiency of energy planning and more precise targeting of potential oceanic oil and gas 

resources. The predominant oceanic energy activities, electric load planning and oil and gas development, 

would likely contribute an additional $70 – $138 million to the ocean economy per year with increased 

ocean data quality and availability (Kite-Powell et al., 2004). 

Increased precision and resolution of bathymetric data resulting from NOS data collection would reduce 

the uncertainty and risk associated with oceanic oil and gas development as well as the operating costs of 

existing energy infrastructure. Risk reduction also allows for greater levels of investment in the 

development of oceanic oil and gas resources, which spurs economic activity in coastal regions through 

job creation and revenues from employees. However, it is important to note that NOS projects and 

activities would not specifically identify or quantify offshore oil and gas resources; doing so is outside of 

the scope of this analysis and is typically accomplished by private companies using proprietary equipment 

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

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

469

Although no direct economic impacts (i.e., job creation, large capital investment) are anticipated within 

the energy sector as a result of Alternative A, the indirect economic benefits of increasing the operational 

efficiency of energy planning and more precise targeting of potential oceanic oil and gas resources

facilitated by data collected under Alternative A would range in the magnitude of tens or hundreds of 

millions of dollars and would be distributed among coastal economies throughout the action area. 

Furthermore, the data collected under Alternative A would be available to the public indefinitely, and 

indirect economic benefits resulting from its use and distribution would persist far beyond the conclusion 

of activities. Overall, the economic impacts of ocean data procured under Alternative A on energy-related 

activities would be indirect, beneficial, and moderate, and therefore insignificant. 

3.12.2.2.6 Commercial Fishing

Commercial fishing refers to the harvest of living ocean resources for market and is a critical component 

of the ocean economy; in 2016 the living resource sector provided nearly 90,000 jobs and $11 billion to 

the GDP. With increased ocean data quality and availability, commercial fishing activities are expected to 

increase their contribution to the ocean economy by over $500 million (Kite-Powell et al., 2004).

Commercial fishermen rely on marine charts, maps, and bathymetry information that are updated using 

data collected during NOS projects. These data products are used to select potential fishing locations and 

plan transit routes. Improving the spatial and temporal resolution of these data products would continue 

to increase the landed values of fish and reduce risks of unsuccessful voyages, particularly in fisheries with 

short seasons and limited fishing grounds such as the Alaskan salmon fishery. These benefits are especially 

important to small, independent fishing operations with limited cash reserves and coastal fishing 

communities with local economies largely dependent on the commercial fishing industry. Improved data 

collection would also continue to increase the efficiency of route planning, thereby reducing the 

operational costs of fishing vessels while increasing the safety of crew members. 

Impacts to commercial fishing from vessel presence or gear interaction during NOS projects would be very 

unlikely. NOS communicates with the public on future survey projects through announcements such as 

the annual Office of Coast Survey story map and, when appropriate, public “Notices to Mariners” to 

provide general information on timing and locations of planned projects. This helps minimize interference 

with commercial and recreational fishing and reduces the potential for interactions with fishing gear like 

lobster traps.

Alternative A could adversely impact fishery resources, but impacts would be minor and insignificant. 

Detailed analysis can be found in Section 3.7 (Fish), Section 3.8 (Aquatic Macroinvertebrates) and Section 

3.9 (Essential Fish Habitat). Effects to fish from Alternative A may include some stress responses without 

permanent physiological damage and disruption to breeding, feeding or other activities but without any 

impacts on population levels. There would not be long-term changes in habitat availability and use or in 

fish behavior. NOS developed mitigation measures in coordination and consultation with expert agencies 

including NMFS to avoid and minimize any potential effects. Mitigation measures to protect fisheries 

include implementing mandatory invasive species prevention procedures, following MARPOL discharge 

protocols, and minimizing bottom disturbance. Overall, impacts to commercial fishing under Alternative 

A would be adverse, but negligible, and therefore insignificant.

Although no direct economic impacts (i.e., job creation, large capital investment) are anticipated within 

the commercial fishing sector as a result of Alternative A, the indirect economic benefits of increased 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

470

landed values and operating cost reductions facilitated by data collected under Alternative A would range 

in the magnitude of hundreds of millions of dollars and would be distributed among coastal economies 

throughout the action area. Furthermore, the data collected under Alternative A would be available to 

the public indefinitely, and indirect economic benefits resulting from its use and distribution would persist 

beyond the conclusion of activities. Overall, the economic impacts of ocean data procured under 

Alternative A on commercial fishing would be indirect, beneficial, and moderate, and therefore 

insignificant. 

3.12.2.2.7 Overall Economic Impacts of Alternative A

Data collected under Alternative A would continue to improve the quality and quantity of ocean data and 

related data products, including marine charts, maps, and hydrographic models of ocean conditions. 

These data and data products would contribute to the ocean economy indirectly, primarily by increasing 

operational efficiency and reducing risks associated with using ocean resources in a variety of economic 

sectors (e.g., route-planning, fishing ground selection, targeting of oil and gas resources, closing/opening 

recreational areas). Indirect economic benefits would likely range in the magnitude of hundreds of 

millions of dollars for each sector, although it is important to note these estimates are broadscale and 

contingent on assumptions of data use and availability. Benefits would be most pronounced in the 

recreational, commercial fishing, and health and safety sectors of the ocean economy; the energy and 

transportation sectors would also indirectly benefit from data collected under Alternative A, but to a 

lesser extent. Overall, Alternative A would have an indirect, beneficial, and moderate impact on the ocean 

economy, and therefore insignificant. 

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

Collection with Equipment Upgrades, Improved Hydroacoustic Devices, and 

New Tide Stations

Under Alternative B, all of the activities and equipment operations proposed in Alternative A would 

continue but at a higher level of effort, although the percentage of nautical miles covered by project 

activities in each region would be the same as under Alternative A. As under Alternative A, the greatest 

number of nautical miles surveyed over the five-year period would be in the Southeast Region (over 50 

percent). The survey effort in each of the other four regions are of a similar order of magnitude 

(approximately 10 percent in each region for each of the five years), and is slightly greater in the Alaska 

Region where the survey effort would be somewhat higher overall (approximately 16 percent). 

Additionally, survey effort in the Great Lakes would average 3,208 nm (5,942 km) annually, as compared 

to the remaining annual average survey effort of 582,551 nm (1,078,884 km). 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 the type, location and depth of surveys, that add nuance to 

this trend.

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

under Alternative A; however, Alternative B would include a larger number of activities and projects, and 

thus nautical miles traveled, than Alternative A. Overall, there would be an additional 264,796 nm 

(490,402 km) of survey effort under Alternative B as compared to Alternative A. The types and 

mechanisms of impacts would remain the same in Alternative B as discussed for Alternative A; ocean data 

collected under Alternative B would be used by other entities to create data products to increase the 

operational efficiency and reduce inherent risks of the oceanic industry. Since these impacts are largely 

indirect in nature and data collected would be available to a wide variety of users throughout the action 

area, the resulting impacts would not necessarily be geographically correlated with the collection of data. 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

471

Therefore, the difference between the two alternatives is primarily a matter of scale with an increased 

activity level, although distributed unevenly among the different types of activities, leading to a 

corresponding, incremental increase in effects under Alternative B as compared to Alternative A.

As such, the economic benefits of impacts of Alternative B would be the same or slightly, but not 

appreciably, larger than those discussed above under Alternative A. Overall, the economic impacts of 

Alternative B on the ocean economy would be indirect, beneficial, and moderate, and therefore 

insignificant. 

3.12.2.4 Alternative C: Upgrades and Improvements with Greater Funding Support

Under Alternative C, all of the activities and equipment operation proposed in Alternatives A and B would 

continue but at a higher level of effort, although the percentage of nautical miles in each region would be 

the same as under Alternatives A and B. In addition, there would be an overall funding increase of 20 

percent relative to Alternative B, thus the level of survey activity would increase further. As under 

Alternatives A and B, the greatest number of nautical miles surveyed over the five-year period would be 

in the Southeast Region (over 50 percent). The survey effort in each of the other four regions are of a 

similar order of magnitude (approximately 10 percent in each region for each of the five years), and is

slightly greater in the Alaska Region where the survey effort would be somewhat higher overall 

(approximately 16 percent). Additionally, survey effort in the Great Lakes would average 3,500 nm (6,482 

km) annually, as compared to the remaining annual average survey effort of 635,510 nm (1,176,964 km). 

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 the type, location and depth of surveys, 

that add nuance to this trend.

Project activities 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 and activities, and thus 

more nautical miles traveled, than Alternatives A and B. Overall, there would be an additional 264,796 nm 

(490,402 km) of survey effort under Alternative C as compared to Alternative B, and an additional 529,592 

nm (980,803 km) as compared to Alternative A. The types and mechanisms of economic impacts would 

remain the same in Alternative C as discussed for Alternatives A and B; ocean data collected under 

Alternative C would be used by other entities to create data products to increase the operational 

efficiency and reduce inherent risk of oceanic industry. Since these impacts are largely indirect in nature 

and data collected would be available to a wide variety of users throughout the action area, the resulting 

impacts would not necessarily be geographically correlated with the collection of data. Therefore, the 

difference between the alternatives is primarily a matter of scale with an increased activity level, although 

distributed unevenly among the different types of activities, leading to a corresponding, incremental 

increase in effects under Alternative C as compared to Alternatives A and B. 

As such, the economic benefits of impacts of Alternative C would be the same or slightly, but not 

appreciably, larger than those discussed above under Alternatives A and B. Overall, the economic impacts 

of Alternative C on the ocean economy would be indirect, beneficial, and moderate, 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

472

3.13 ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE

EO 12898 “Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income 

Populations” requires that federal agencies consider as a part of their action any disproportionately high 

and adverse human health or environmental effects to minority and low-income populations. Agencies 

are required to ensure that these potential effects are identified and addressed. 

The EPA defines environmental justice as “the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people 

regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the development, implementation, 

and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies.” The goal of “fair treatment” is not to 

shift risks among populations, but to identify potential disproportionately high adverse impacts on 

minority and low-income communities and identify alternatives to mitigate any adverse impacts. For the 

purposes of assessing environmental justice under NEPA, the CEQ defines a minority population as one in 

which the percentage of minorities exceeds 50 percent or is substantially higher than the percentage of 

minorities in the general population or other appropriate unit of geographic analysis (CEQ, 1997a). Lowincome populations are defined as households with incomes below the Federal poverty level.

3.13.1 Affected Environment

The majority of the impacts identified in this Final PEIS are to the aquatic environment, and as such, the 

environmental justice analysis considers potential disproportionate impacts on minority and low-income 

populations that utilize resources from the ocean. The analysis focuses on those minority and low-income 

populations that hunt marine mammals and fish for subsistence uses. While some communities described 

below also engage in subsistence hunting of terrestrial species, these species are not discussed in this 

section since NOS activities occur in aquatic environments; thus, the focus is on species hunted on sea ice, 

in coastal waters, and in the open ocean. Potential impacts to these communities would be considered 

disproportionate not only because subsistence hunting/fishing is essential for their survival, but also 

because these activities help to maintain and preserve their culture and tradition, play a key role in their 

local economies, and foster their overall physical and mental well-being. The cultural, spiritual, nutritional, 

and economic importance of each marine species to various Alaska Native populations as well as other 

indigenous tribes in the U.S. is described. The cultural, spiritual, nutritional, and economic importance of 

subsistence fishing in various regions of the U.S. is also described. This section also discusses how, when, 

and where each species is hunted for subsistence use. 

3.13.1.1 Subsistence Hunting and Fishing

Subsistence uses are defined as “customary and traditional” uses of wild resources for food, shelter, fuel, 

clothing, tools, transportation, handicrafts, barter, and customary trade (ADF&G, 2017a). Subsistence 

hunting is central to the customs and traditions of many Alaska Native populations as well as other 

indigenous tribes in the U.S. In Alaska, 11 cultures can be distinguished geographically: the Eyak, Tlingit, 

Haida, and Tsimshian peoples live in the Southeast; the Inupiaq and St. Lawrence Island Yupik live in the 

north and northwest parts of Alaska; the Athabascan peoples live in Alaska’s interior; and the southcentral Alaska and the Aleutian Islands are home to the Alutiiq (Sugpiaq) and Unangax peoples (AFN, No 

Date). A majority of these communities rely on harvests of whales, seals, sea lions, and other marine 

mammals, as well as fish species such as salmon, halibut, and cod for their nutritional, religious, and 

cultural needs. Other indigenous tribes in the U.S., such as the Chippewa and Ojibwe tribes inhabiting the 

Great Lakes region, fish for catfish, trout, and whitefish for subsistence needs. 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

473

While the MMPA prohibits the take (i.e., hunting, killing, capture, and/or harassment) of marine 

mammals, Section 101(b) of the MMPA allows Alaska Natives to take marine mammals for subsistence

purposes and/or for materials to create authentic articles of handicraft or clothing, provided taking is not 

done in a wasteful manner. The federal government cannot regulate the Alaska Native take unless the 

population being harvested is declared to be depleted (NSB, No Date-a). Furthermore, Section 119 of the 

MMPA allows Alaska Native Organizations (ANOs) to enter into cooperative agreements with NMFS or the 

USFWS to co-manage Alaska Native marine mammal harvests. This exception to the marine mammal take 

prohibition does not currently extend to the continental U.S., but members of the Makah Tribe in the 

northwestern tip of Washington State (on the Olympic Peninsula), who have traditionally hunted whales 

for subsistence, have requested authorization to hunt eastern North Pacific gray whales. The Tribe’s 

proposal to NMFS for the issuance of a waiver of the MMPA take prohibition is described below in Section 

3.13.1.2, Gray Whales (NMFS, No Date-f). 

The following sections provide a background on the subsistence hunting and fishing practices of Alaska 

Native communities and other indigenous tribes in the U.S. and a description of species that are hunted 

or fished. This discussion is organized by species, since many tribes hunt and fish the same species. 

Information on geographic distribution and migration patterns of marine mammals and fish species is 

included in Section 3.5, Marine Mammals and Section 3.7, Fish, respectively. 

3.13.1.2 Bowhead Whale (Baleana mysticetus)

The bowhead whale is one of the most culturally important resources harvested by Alaska Natives. The 

Inupiat and Siberian Yupik Alaska Natives have hunted the bowhead whale for thousands of years and 

knowledge of subsistence whaling continues to be taught to their children beginning at an early age 

(Brower and Hepa, 1998). Prior to the arrival of the whales during each migration, ritual ceremonies are 

performed in special houses known as “karigi” to ensure a hunt and to honor the whale (NOAA, 2018b). 

The Inupiat community celebrates the harvest of bowhead whales each June during the summer festival 

called Nalukataq. The community engages in singing, dancing, and blanket tossing, as well as solemn 

moments of prayer and reflection. Fried whale blubber or “muktuk” and other traditional foods are eaten. 

People of every age and gender participate to show their appreciation for the hard work that got them 

through the frigid winter (Dunn, 2016).

The Inupiat and Siberian Yupik people, who inhabit 11 bowhead whaling villages along the western and 

northern coasts of Alaska, as shown in Figure 3.13-1, regulate their bowhead whale subsistence activities 

via the Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission (AEWC) (IWC, No Date-a). The AEWC communities hunt 

bowheads for the nutritious food that they provide and use their baleen and large bones to make 

handicrafts (NOAA, 2018b). 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

474

Source: IWC, No Date-a

Figure 3.13-1. Alaska Bowhead Whaling Communities

The AEWC conducts subsistence harvest in accordance with a cooperative agreement with NMFS, which 

is responsible for the implementation of the International Whaling Commission (IWC) strike quota in the 

U.S. (NMFS, 1999). The term ‘strike quota’ refers to the limitation on the number of whales that may be 

struck by hunters, and is the sum total of the whales that are successfully and unsuccessfully landed. 

Recently, the IWC set a 7-year block catch limit of 392 bowhead whales landed for the years 2019 through 

2025 for four of its member countries (Denmark [Greenland], Russia [Chukotka], St. Vincent and the 

Grenadines [Bequia] and the U.S. [Alaska]), with an annual strike quota of 67 whales. In 2018, NOAA 

released a Final EIS to issue annual catch limits of bowhead whales to the AEWC for the years 2019 and 

beyond. Under the preferred alternative identified in that EIS, NMFS would assign AEWC an annual strike 

quota of 67 bowhead whales. AEWC would not be allowed to exceed their total of 336 landed whales over 

any six-year period. Additionally, unused strikes from previous years may be carried forward and added 

to the annual strike quota of subsequent years, to allow for variability in hunting conditions from one year 

to the next. (NOAA, 2018b).

Figure 3.13-2 shows the AEWC bowhead hunting and search areas across all seasons in red. The spring 

hunting season extends from March to May and the fall season starts in August and ends in October. The 

westerly AEWC communities engage in bowhead hunting during the species’ spring migrations whereas 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

475

the villages of Nuiqsut and Kaktovik participate in fall hunts (NOAA, 2018b). For selected communities, 

such as the Saint Lawrence Island communities of Gambell and Savoonga in the northern Bering Sea, 

winter harvest of whales is common (i.e., in December and January) (IWC, No Date-b). Hunters engage in 

whale-watching on the ice near the water to spot whales migrating north from the Bering Sea. When one 

is spotted, the team pushes an umiak, or a seal skin boat, onto the water to commence hunting. Seal skin 

boats are used due to their light weight, durability, and silence in the water (NOAA, 2018b). Bowhead 

hunters use traditional weapons such as harpoons to hunt the whales while sitting in their umiak (Stone, 

2018). Lances made from stone, ivory, and bone may also be used. Over the years, bowhead hunters have 

adapted their hunting techniques per mandates issued by IWC. For example, slight modifications to 

instruments have been in use since the 19th century (e.g., darting guns and shoulder guns) (NOAA, 2018b).

Source: NSB, No Date-a

Figure 3.13-2. Bowhead Whale Hunting Areas

3.13.1.3 Gray Whale (Eschrichtius robustus)

As stated in Section 3.13.1, the MMPA prohibits the take of marine mammals, including gray whales, by 

any group other than the Alaska Natives. Thus, while members of the Makah Tribe in the state of 

Washington are currently not authorized to hunt for gray whales, they have requested NMFS to waive the 

MMPA take moratorium on the species so that their tradition of whale hunting could continue. This 

section details the proposal put forth by the Tribe to NMFS. 

Since the 1990s, the Tribe has sought to exercise their right to whale, as established under the Treaty of 

Neah Bay. In 2002, a federal court determined that the Tribe must first apply for a waiver of the MMPA

take moratorium, which the Tribe submitted in 2005. NOAA responded by announcing a hearing on August 

12, 2019 to consider the issuance of a waiver of the take moratorium and the regulations (NMFS, 2022). 

If approved, the waiver could enable the Tribe to conduct ceremonial and subsistence hunting of eastern 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

476

North Pacific gray whales in Pacific Ocean waters near its reservation on the northwestern tip of 

Washington’s Olympic Peninsula, as shown in Figure 3.13-3 below (NMFS, 2015c). Since a decision on this 

issue is currently pending, subsistence hunting of gray whales is not discussed in detail. If the Makah tribe 

is granted the right to hunt gray whales before the release of the Final EIS, this section would be developed 

further. 

Source: NMFS, 2015c

Figure 3.13-3. Proposed Gray Whale Hunting Area

3.13.1.4 Beluga Whale (Delphinapterus leucas)

For Alaska Natives, subsistence hunting of belugas encompasses social and religious values and is tied to 

custom and tradition. The native village of Tyonek, for example, has a close cultural tie to beluga whales. 

Tyonek is located in upper Cook Inlet (southwest of Anchorage), and is accessible only by boat or plane. 

The Alutiiq Eskimos and Dena’ina Athabascans of Tyonek have occupied the Cook Inlet area for several 

hundred years, and the village is home to approximately 200 residents who participate in traditional 

subsistence hunting of belugas. Without it, the community faces economic stress because they cannot 

rely on the beluga oil, blubber, and meat (Boelens, 2013). Belugas are principally used for human 

consumption, either as meat or “maktak,” which consists of skin and the outer layer of blubber. The oil 

derived from the blubber is used for cooking and for fuel. The meat may also be used as dog food. Beluga 

bones are sometimes used in crafts (ADF&G, No Date-b). Apart from being an important food source, 

beluga hunting also provides the community with a way to pass on skills to younger generations, 

strengthen cultural identity through participation in a traditional activity, and unite the community 

(Boelens, 2013).
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

477

Belugas are harvested by Alaska Natives living in coastal villages from Tyonek in Cook Inlet to Kaktovik in 

the Beaufort Sea12. Hunting is done in the spring as whales travel northward through leads in the ice, as 

well as during the summer and autumn when they are in the open water (ADF&G, No Date-b). 

All beluga whale populations are protected under the MMPA. Harvests are considered sustainable for the 

Beaufort Sea, Bristol Bay, eastern Bering Sea, and eastern Chukchi Sea stocks; the IWC does not currently 

set a take limit on these four stocks of belugas, since the federal government does not have the authority 

to regulate the Alaska Native take unless the population being harvested is declared depleted under the 

MMPA (NSB, No Date-b). The Cook Inlet DPS is listed as endangered under ESA and depleted under MMPA

(NMFS, No Date-a). 

In 2008, NMFS issued final regulations to establish long-term limits on the maximum number of Cook Inlet 

beluga whales that may be taken by Alaska Natives for subsistence and handicraft purposes. The final rule 

established a harvest level for a five-year period based on the average abundance of beluga whales in the 

previous five-year period and the growth rate during the previous 10-year period. A harvest is not allowed 

if the previous five-year average abundance is less than 350 beluga whales (Muto et al., 2018). For 

example, if the beluga whale population averages 350-399 for a five-year block and their growth rate is 

determined to be high, then the harvest limit would be set at eight strikes for the next five-year hunting 

period (NOAA, 2008a). No beluga whales from the Cook Inlet stock have been harvested since 2005 since 

their average abundance has consistently numbered below 350 (Muto et al., 2018). 

The primary beluga whale hunting areas are located within upper Cook Inlet, off the mouths of the Chuitna 

and Susitna River systems, among others, as shown in Figure 3.13-4 below. Native hunting camps are 

located on two islands in the Susitna River delta. Hunting begins in April when hunters launch motorboats 

from Anchorage to access these camps and hunt in or near the river mouths. A common hunting technique 

involves isolating a whale from a group and pursuing it into shallow waters. The whales are shot with highpowered rifles and harpooned to help with their retrieval (NOAA, 2008a). 

12 The following Alaska Native communities harvest beluga whales from sustainable stocks (NSB, No Date-b):

● Beaufort Sea Stock: Barrow, Diomede, Kaktovik, Kivalina, Nuiqsut, Point Hope

● Eastern Chukchi Sea Stock: Wainwright, Point Lay

● Eastern Bering Sea Stock: Norton Sound (Elim, Golovin, Nome/Council, Saint Michael, Shaktoolik, Unalakleet, White 

Mountain); Yukon (Alakanuk, Chevak, Emmonak, Hooper Bay, Kotlik, Marshall, Mountain Village, Nunam Iqua, Pilot 

Station, Pitka’s Point, Saint Mary’s, Scammon Bay)

● Bristol Bay Stock: Aleknagek, Clarke’s Point, Dillingham, Egegik, Igiugig, Iliamna, Levelock, Manokotak, Naknek 

● Cook Inlet Stock: Tyonek
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

478

Source: NOAA, 2008a

Figure 3.13-4. Beluga Hunting Areas (Cook Inlet stock)

3.13.1.5 Northern Fur Seal (Callorhinus ursinus)

The Alaska Native residents of St. Paul and St. George Islands (two principal islands of the Pribilof Islands), 

called the Aleut or Unangan people, have historically relied upon northern fur seal harvests as a major 

food source and cornerstone of their culture (NMFS, 2019c).

Northern fur seals are protected under the MMPA. The Pribilof Islands/eastern Pacific stock is listed as 

depleted under the MMPA (NMFS, No Date-a). Any taking of adult fur seals or pups, or the intentional 

taking of sub-adult female fur seals is prohibited (50 CFR § 216.72). And while the taking of northern fur 

seals is prohibited under the Fur Seal Act (FSA) of 1966, certain provisions under this Act authorize 

Pribilovians to take fur seals on the Pribilof Islands if such taking is for subsistence uses and is not 

accomplished in a wasteful manner. 

The residents of St. George Island are currently authorized under Section 105 of the FSA to harvest subadult male fur seals13 124.5 cm (49 in) long or less for subsistence uses. The annual harvest occurs from 

June 23 until August 8 and uses traditional methods, which include the use of harpoons, bow and arrow, 

or stunning followed immediately by exsanguination. Additionally, annual harvest of young, male fur 

seals14 on St. George Island occurs between September 16 and November 30, with a harvest limit of 150. 

13 A sub-adult fur seal is a fur seal between 2-5 years old and less than 124.5 cm (49 in) long (NMFS, 2017f). 

14 Young, male fur seals refer to pups, or a fur seal less than a year old and dependent on its mother for food (NMFS, 2017f).
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

479

Pribilovians on St. George Island are authorized to harvest up to a total of 500 male fur seals per year over 

the course of both the sub-adult male harvest and the young, male harvest (50 CFR § 216.72).

In response to a petition from the Aleut Community of St. Paul Island (ACSPI), NMFS issued a final rule on 

October 2, 2019 to change the management of the subsistence use of the eastern Pacific stock of the 

northern fur seals. The rule allows Pribilovians on St. Paul Island greater flexibility to meet their 

subsistence needs by hunting fur seals throughout the year. Aside from maintaining the annual upper take 

limit of 2,000 sub-adult male fur seals, the rule allows the take of female seals incidental to the hunt and 

harvest of male seals up to 1 percent of the upper limit. The first season would occur from January 1 to 

May 31, during which juvenile male fur seals could be taken by hunters using firearms; and the second 

season would occur from June 23 to December 31, during which pups and juvenile15 male fur seals could 

be harvested using alternative hunting methods (NMFS, 2019c). 

3.13.1.6 Steller Sea Lion (Eumetopias jubatus)

The Stellar sea lion is an important subsistence resource for Alaska Natives, who hunt them primarily for 

food (Loughlin, 2009). Other than for consumptive uses, stellar sea lions are harvested for their oil and 

blubber – primarily by the Aleut of the Aleutian and Pribilof Islands and the Alutiiq in certain communities 

of Kodiak Island and the Gulf of Alaska. They may also be used occasionally by Tlingit, Haida, Tsimshian, 

and Yupik groups (ADF&G, 2013a). 

The species is protected under MMPA throughout its range. The western DPS is listed as depleted under 

MMPA and endangered under ESA. The eastern DPS was delisted from ESA following an increase in its 

stock (NMFS, No Date-a). 

Prior to 1992, no comprehensive program estimated the level of subsistence harvest of sea lions in Alaska. 

However, available information indicates that sea lions were being harvested in at least 60 coastal 

communities on the Bering Sea, in the Aleutian Islands, and on the Gulf of Alaska (NOAA, 2008b). Steller 

sea lions are reportedly taken during spring (March – April) and fall (September – November) (ADF&G, 

2013a). Results show the annual take decreasing substantially from about 550 sea lions in 1992; to about 

200 in 1996; to between 165 and 215 from 1997 to 2004. Available evidence indicates that the current 

take level of subsistence harvest of Steller sea lions does not substantially reduce the expected recovery 

rate of Steller sea lions (NOAA, 2008b). Consequently, NOAA has not issued Steller sea lion take limits and 

this species continues to be harvested in coastal communities on the Bering Sea, in the Aleutian Islands, 

and on the Gulf of Alaska. In November 2006, an agreement was signed between the Aleut Marine 

Mammal Commission (AMMC) and NMFS to co-manage Steller sea lions (both eastern and western DPSs) 

and monitor the harvest of this species for subsistence use (NOAA, 2017). 

3.13.1.7 Harbor Seal (Phoca vitulina)

Harbor seals are vital to traditional and subsistence use for many Alaska Natives, including the Aleut of 

the Aleutian Islands; the Alutiiq and Eyak of the Pacific Gulf Coast; the Tlingit, Haida, and Tsimshian of the 

Southeast archipelago; and the Yup’ik of the Southwest Alaska. The Dena’ina of Cook Inlet occasionally 

hunt harbor seals (ADF&G, 2013a). The meat, organs, and oil from the harbor seal’s blubber are important 

parts of the diet of many Alaska Natives; and the hide is used to make clothing and handicrafts (ADF&G, 

No Date-c).

15 Juvenile male fur seals are defined as male seals up to 7 years, excluding pups (NMFS, 2019c). Male pups are the fur seals less 

than one year old (NMFS, 2017f). 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

480

Traditionally, harbor seals were hunted using tools such as harpoons, spears, clubs, bows and arrows, 

nets, and in later times, rifles. The seasonal patterning of harbor seal takes generally shows two distinct 

hunting peaks: the first during spring, and a second during fall-early winter, with a low point in June. The 

geographic distribution of harbor seal takes indicates highest harvest numbers in the Southeast region by 

the Tlingit and Haida people, followed by the North Pacific Rim and Kodiak Islands (ADF&G, 2009a, 2009b). 

The harbor seal is protected under MMPA throughout its range (NMFS, No Date-a). As with Steller sea 

lions described in the previous section, the harbor seal subsistence harvest is co-managed by AMMC and 

NMFS. In 2012, an estimated 595 harbor seals were hunted by Southeastern Alaska Native communities. 

Substantially more adult harbor seals were harvested than juveniles or pups. Seal takes generally peaked 

in March, May, and October, and were lowest in December, January, April, and June (ADF&G, 2013a). 

3.13.1.8 Ice Seals (Erignathus barbatus, Pusa hispida, Phoca largha, and 

Histriophoca fasciata)

Ice seals include bearded, ringed, spotted, and ribbon seals. They are vital to Alaska Natives and are 

hunted by 64 communities across five geographic regions delineated by regional native governments and 

corporations: Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta (Association of Village Council Presidents), Bristol Bay (Bristol Bay 

Native Association), Bering Strait (Kawerek, Inc.), Northwest Arctic (Maniilaq Association), and North 

Slope (North Slope Borough). Ice seals are an important component in maintaining Alaska Native 

subsistence culture because seals are a source of food; their skins are a source for clothes, boats, and 

crafts (Nelson et al., 2019; ISC, 2019). 

The Okhotsk (foreign) and Beringia (U.S.) DPSs of bearded seals are listed as threatened under ESA and 

depleted under MMPA (NMFS, No Date-a). Domestic ringed seal subspecies are listed as threatened and 

foreign subspecies are listed as endangered under ESA; all are considered depleted under MMPA (NMFS, 

No Date-a). The only recognized stock of spotted seals in the U.S., the Alaska stock, is listed as threatened 

under the ESA and depleted under MMPA (NMFS, No Date-a). Ribbon seals are protected under the 

MMPA and are included in NMFS’s Species of Concern list (NMFS, No Date-a). 

Hunting implements used today include harpoons and rifles, in combination with boats and snow 

machines, as well as radios and GPS. Ice seals are hunted on open waters, on sandy or rocky shores, and 

from ice or floe edges according to region and season (ADF&G, 2007). They are hunted in varying seasons 

or year-round depending on ice and weather conditions in the region, though most hunting occurs in 

spring and fall (Nelson et al., 2019; ISC, 2019). Ice seals are broadly hunted along the coast from 

approximately Kaktovik on the Beaufort Sea in the north to Clark's Point on Kvichak Bay in the south and 

along Nunivak and Saint Lawrence Islands (Nelson et al., 2019). 

In 2003, the Ice Seal Committee and NMFS entered into an agreement to co-manage Alaska Ice Seal

populations, in part to protect the culture and way of life of Alaska Natives who rely on the harvest of ice 

seals for subsistence uses (NSB, No Date-c). NMFS does not currently impose limits on the take of ice seals 

by Alaska Natives for subsistence use since harvest is considered sustainable (Nelson et al., 2019). 

3.13.1.9 Northern Sea Otter (Enhydra lutris kenyoni)

Northern sea otters (particularly the Alaskan Southeast and Southcentral stocks) are primarily hunted by 

the Tlingit and Haida people inhabiting southeastern Alaska. Sea otters are hunted for their furs, and the 

handicrafts and clothing made from sea otter fur are generally sold or traded for subsistence purposes 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

481

(USFWS, 2007). Only Alaska Natives (Indians, Aleuts, and Eskimos) of at least one-fourth Alaska Native 

blood who reside in Alaska and who dwell on the coast of the North Pacific Ocean or the Arctic Ocean are 

allowed to harvest sea otters, provided the harvest is not wasteful (50 CFR Part 18). 

Of the three stocks of sea otters occurring in Alaska, only the Southwest Alaska DPS is listed as threatened 

under ESA and depleted under MMPA. There is no harvest limit or permit needed for hunting sea otters, 

but hunters are required to have their raw sea otter hides and skulls tagged by a USFWS tagger within 30 

days of harvest per MMPA’s Marking, Tagging, and Reporting Program (MTRP)16 (USFWS, No Date-e). Sea 

otters may be harvested any time during the year (USFWS, 2007); however, the peak hunting season 

commonly occurs during fall (ADF&G, 2013b). Although MMPA does not limit the areas of Alaska where 

sea otters may be harvested, there may be some areas with hunting or access restrictions, such as national 

parks, state game sanctuaries, or private land. There are no federal restrictions on the methods in which 

sea otters may be taken (USFWS, No Date-f). Usually, hunters fly or boat to the hunting areas and use 

modern weapons such as rifles to hunt the otters (Vox, 2014; The Guardian, 2015). 

The ADF&G has reported a rise in sea otter hunting activities between 2010–2014 compared to previous 

years. The year 2013 yielded the biggest reported harvest on record for sea otters with 2,044 otters 

harvested across the state. This number dipped to 1,237 in 2014 (USFWS, 2014f).

3.13.1.10 Polar Bear (Ursus maritimus)

Polar bears have played an important role in indigenous Arctic cultures for millennia. In parts of the Arctic, 

the Inuit and other cultures hunt polar bear as part of a subsistence lifestyle and ancient cultural 

traditions. The Inuit believe that ‘Nanuq’, or polar bear is a wise and powerful creature. Of all the animals 

they traditionally hunted, polar bears were the most prized. Hunters paid respect to Nanuq’s spirit by

hanging its skin in an honored place in their home for several days. For a male bear the hunters would 

offer the bear’s spirit knives and bow-drills; if female, they would offer knives, skin-scrapers, and needle 

cases (PBI, No Date). Polar bears are hunted for their meat, and their fur is used for clothing and blankets. 

Parts of the bear are also used for handicrafts (ADF&G, No Date-d). 

The polar bear is designated as threatened under ESA. Two stocks of polar bears occur in Alaska: the SBS 

stock and the CBS stock. Management of both populations are shared with other nations. In 1988, the 

North Slope Borough Department of Wildlife Management (representing Alaska Natives) and the 

Inuvialuit Game Council (representing Canadians) signed an agreement to coordinate management of the 

SBS stock. The Inuvialuit-Inupiat Polar Bear Commission, as established under this agreement, set a 

harvest quota of 70 bears: 35 bears for the U.S. and 35 bears for Canada. In 2007, a bilateral agreement 

between the U.S. and Russia was ratified and established a process to maintain the subsistence use by the 

Native peoples of both countries and the conservation of the CBS population (ADF&G, 2008). In 2018, the 

total possible annual harvest of CBS bears set by the U.S.-Russia Polar Bear Commission was increased 

from 58 to 85 (The Seattle Times, 2018). 

Figure 3.13-5 shows the Alaska Native communities that hunt the CBS stock of polar bears for subsistence

use. The exact timing of polar bear hunting varies by village and depends on the community’s social 

calendar and the timing of other subsistence activities. However, they are primarily hunted between 

November and April; hunters prefer to catch them in late fall and early winter because the bears are 

16 The MMPA requires that all sea otter and polar bear hides and skulls, and all walrus tusks be tagged by a representative of the 

USFWS. This program is implemented through resident MTRP taggers located in coastal villages and communities throughout 

Alaska (USFWS, No Date-e). 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

482

healthier at that time (Voorhees et al., 2014). In general, hunting areas are confined to locations 5-8 km 

(3-5 mi) offshore along the ice leads and areas with barrier islands, as shown in Figure 3.13-6 for Point Lay 

and Point Hope hunting communities (NSB, 2018). Bears are hunted using snow machines, all-terrain 

vehicles, boats, and on foot, depending on the season and condition of the sea ice (Voorhees et al., 2014).

Source: Voorhees et al., 2014

Figure 3.13-5. Alaska Native Communities Engaged in

Polar Bear Subsistence Hunting
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

483

Source: NBS, 2018

Figure 3.13-6. Polar Bear Hunting Areas for the CBS Stock

in Point Hope and Point Lay Communities

3.13.1.11 Pacific Walrus (Odobenus rosemarus divergens)

Walruses are an essential cultural and natural subsistence resource to the Alaskan coastal Yupik and 

Inupiaq communities, and have sustained these communities and culture for millennia (EWC, No Date). 

The meat, blubber, skin, and organs provide a healthy and rich source of food; the hides can be processed 

into rope or used to cover boats; and the stomach lining is used to make traditional drums for Eskimo 

dances. The ivory tusks are used for jewelry, artwork, and other handicrafts (ADF&G, No Date-e). 

Walrus hunting was an opportunity for the elders to pass on their traditional values across generations. 

Young men had to earn the respect of the senior hunters and the right to lead hunts themselves by 

demonstrating their knowledge of the rules. Hunting was a highly organized activity since it was essential 

that the walrus be treated in a proper manner, called cakarpeknaki, or ‘with respect and without waste’. 

Only the most experienced hunters were allowed to harpoon or shoot walrus. Walruses were swiftly taken 

with a thrust or shot near the back of the head. As technology advanced, skin boats, harpoons, and spears 

were replaced by wooden boats, outboard motors, and rifles on the Round Island. Historically, Qayassiq, 

or Round Island, was an important spot for walrus hunting as it was accessible in good weather and had 

an abundance of walruses during the preferred fall hunt. The capacity of the boats used to transport the 

carcasses back to mainland villages determined the harvest limits. Walrus hunting continues to be integral 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

484

to maintaining the cultural identity and upholding the traditions of the Yupik and Inupiaq communities 

(Fall and Chythlook, 1998).

Since the Pacific walrus is not listed as depleted or endangered, the agreement between USFWS and the 

Eskimo Walrus Commission (EWC) for the co-management of the species17 does not limit the areas of 

Alaska where it may be harvested and imposes no restrictions on the methods in which walruses may be 

taken. There is no harvest limit for Pacific walruses, provided that harvest does not occur in a wasteful 

manner (USFWS, No Date-g). In Little Diomede for example, walruses are important year-round food 

sources and are primarily hunted during their spring migration. Hunting may also occur to a limited extent 

during summer and fall seasons when walruses feed and haul out in the area. Many hunters travel 64-81 

km (40-50 mi) out during the spring hunting season to find walruses in open water. Environmental 

conditions such as winds, currents, and ice conditions determine the geographic extent of hunting areas. 

The prime hunting area for this region is within the 16-32-km (10-20-mi) radius of Little Diomede Island. 

During summer, hunters may only travel 8-16 km (5-10 mi) out and in fall, this distance is reduced to 5-6 

km (3-4 mi) (Kawerak Inc., 2013). 

Walrus hunting on the Round Island within the WalrusIsland State Game Sanctuary is an exception where 

a season and a quota have been established through a co-management agreement with the Qayassig 

Walrus Commission, USFWS, and ADF&G (USFWS, No Date-g)18. Alaska Natives are permitted to hunt 

walruses from September 10 through October 20 annually, with the harvest limit set at 20 walruses 

(ADF&G, 2017b). Figure 3.13-7 shows the historical and present-day walrus hunting areas in Northwestern 

Alaska in the Chukchi Sea. 

17 The co-management agreement between USFWS and EWC covers the Pacific walrus hunting practices of the St. Lawrence 

Island Yupik, Central Yupik, and Inupiat Alaska Natives across 19 villages: Utkiagvik, Wainwright, Point Lay, Point Hope, Kivalina, 

Kotzebue, Shishmaref, Little Diomede, Wales, Brevig Mission, King Island, Nome, Gambell, Savoonga, Unalakleet, Stebbins, 

Mekoryuk, Kwigillingok, and Manokotac. 

18 This agreement covers the Yupik hunting practices across nine villages: Togiak, Twin Hills, Manokotak, Aleknagik, Dillingham,

Clark's Point, Ekuk, Ekwok, and New Stuyahok.
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

485

Source: ADF&G, 2016a

Figure 3.13-7. Historical and Present-Day Walrus Hunting Areas

Several thousand walruses are legally harvested in Alaska and Russia every year. In the U.S. between 2006 

and 2010, subsistence harvest mortality levels have ranged from 3,828 to 6,119 animals per year (USFWS, 

2014g). The annual harvest in Alaska is monitored by the USFWS. 

Table 3.13-1 summarizes the subsistence hunting information related to each of the species of marine 

mammals describes in this section.
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

486

Table 3.13-1. Summary of Subsistence Hunting of Marine Mammals

Species

Communities 

engaged in 

subsistence hunting Hunting Season Hunting Areas Harvest limits

Bowhead 

Whale

Iñupiat and Siberian 

Yup'ik people across 

11 whaling villages: 

Gambell, Savoonga, 

Wales, Little 

Diomede, Kivalina, 

Point Hope, Point Lay, 

Wainwright, 

Utqiagvik, Utqiagvik, 

Nuiqsut, and 

Kaktovik.

Typically occurs 

during spring (March 

through May) and 

autumn (August 

through October). 

Hunters on Saint 

Lawrence Island 

communities of 

Gambell and 

Savoogna may 

harvest whales 

during the winter 

(December and 

January) as well.

As shown in Figure 

3.13-2. Only the 

Western Arctic 

bowhead stock is 

hunted for 

subsistence.

For each of the years 

2019 through 2025, the 

number of bowhead 

whales struck may not 

exceed 67, with unused 

strikes from the three 

prior quota blocks 

carried forward and 

added to the annual 

strike quota of 

subsequent years, 

provided that no more 

than 50 percent of the 

annual strike limit is 

added to the strike 

quota for any one year. 

The combined strike 

quota set by the IWC 

for 2019 is 100 (67 + 

33).

Beluga 

Whale

Beaufort Sea, Bristol 

Bay, eastern Bering 

Sea, and eastern 

Chukchi Sea stocks: 

Alaska Native across 6 

regions comprising 34 

villages -

North Slope: 

Utqiagvik, Point Hope, 

Point Lay, Wainwright

Kotzebue Sound: 

Buckland, Deering, 

Kivalina, Kotzebue, 

Noatak

Norton Sound: 

Council/Nome, Elim, 

Koyuk, Shaktoolik, 

Saint Michael, 

Stebbins, Unalakleet 

Yukon Delta: 

Alakanuk, Emmonak, 

Hooper Bay, Kotlik, 

Mountain Village, 

Nunam Iqua, Pilot 

Station, Pitka's Point, 

Spring, and summer 

and autumn open 

water period

As shown in Figure 

3.13-4 for the Cook 

Inlet stock. Primary 

hunting areas are 

within upper Cook 

Inlet. Native hunting 

camps exist on two 

islands in Susitna 

River delta.

No harvest limits on 

the Beaufort Sea, 

Bristol Bay, eastern 

Bering Sea, and eastern 

Chukchi Sea stocks. For 

the Cook Inlet stock, 

harvest limits vary by 

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

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

487

Species

Communities 

engaged in 

subsistence hunting Hunting Season Hunting Areas Harvest limits

Saint Mary's, 

Scammon Bay 

Kuskokwim: 

AVCP/Bethel, 

Platinum, Toksook 

Bay 

Bristol Bay: Aleknagik, 

Dillingham, Levelock, 

Manokotak, South 

Naknek

Cook Inlet stock: 

Primarily, the Alutiiq 

Eskimos and Dena'ina 

Athabascan of Tyonek 

village

Northern 

Fur Seal

Unangans of St. Paul 

and St. George Islands

St. Paul Island: 

January 1 to May 31; 

June 23 to December 

31 

St. George Island: 

June 23 to August 8; 

September 16 

through November 

30

St. Paul and St. 

George Islands of the 

Pribilof Islands

St. Paul Island: Up to 

2,000 juvenile male fur 

seals annually. A 

maximum of 20 

mortalities of female 

fur seals associated 

with subsistence

reasons are authorized. 

St. George Island: Up to 

a total of 500 male fur 

seals per year over the 

course of both the subadult male harvest and 

the male young of the 

year harvest. 

Pribilovians may 

harvest up to 150 male 

fur seal young 

annually. Up to three

mortalities of female 

fur seals are authorized 

each year for 

subsistence reasons.

Steller Sea 

Lion

Aleut Hunters in the 

AIeutian and Pribilof 

Islands and 16 

communities in 

Alaska that hunt the 

eastern DPS.

Year-round with 

harvest quantities 

varying seasonally. 

Peak harvest months 

are in spring (March –

April) and fall 

(September –

November).

Range of Western 

and Eastern DPS

No harvest limits
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

488

Species

Communities 

engaged in 

subsistence hunting Hunting Season Hunting Areas Harvest limits

Harbor 

Seal

Aleut of the Aleutian 

Islands; the Alutiiq 

and Eyak of the 

Pacific Gulf Coast; the 

Tlingit, Haida, and 

Tsimshian of the 

Southeast 

archipelago; the 

Yup’ik of Southwest 

Alaska; and the 

Dena’ina of Cook Inlet

Varies by region and 

species abundance. 

Seal takes generally 

peak in March, May, 

and October, and are 

lowest in December, 

January, April, and 

June.

Aleutian Islands, 

Pribilof Islands, 

Bristol Bay, North 

Kodiak, South 

Kodiak, Prince 

William Sound, Cook 

Inlet/Shelikof Strait, 

Glacier Bay/Icy Strait, 

Lynn Canal/Stephens 

Passage, 30 50 

Sitka/Chatham Strait, 

Dixon/Cape Decision, 

Clarence Strait

No harvest limits

Ice Seals Approximately 64 

coastal communities 

harvest ice seals in 

western and northern 

Alaska.

Varies by region Broadly hunted along 

the coast from 

approximately 

Kaktovik on the 

Beaufort Sea in the 

north to Clark's Point 

on Kvichak Bay in the 

south and along 

Nunivak and Saint 

Lawrence Islands.

No harvest limits

Northern

Sea otter

Tlingit and Haida 

people inhabiting 

southeastern Alaska.

Year-round; peak 

hunting season 

commonly occurs 

during fall.

MMPA does not limit 

the areas of Alaska 

where sea otters 

may be harvested.

No harvest limits

Polar Bear Iñupiat and Siberian 

Yup'ik Alaska Natives 

across 15 villages: 

Kaktovik, Nuiqsut, 

Utqiagvik, 

Wainwright, Point 

Lay, Point Hope, 

Kivalina, Kotzebue, 

Shishamaref, 

Diomede, Wales, 

Brevig Mission, King 

Island, Gambell, 

Savoonga

Varies by region. 

Majority of the bears 

are harvested 

between November 

and April.

The MMPA does not 

limit the areas in 

Alaska where polar 

bears may be 

harvested. There 

may be some 

hunting or access 

restrictions, such as 

on national parks or 

private land.

Southern Beaufort Sea 

stock: 35 bears for the 

U.S. annually 

(voluntary quota) 

Chukchi/Bering Seas 

stock: U.S./Russia 

combined quota of 85 

bears annually

Pacific 

Walrus

St. Lawrence Island 

Yup'ik, Central Yup'ik, 

and Iñupiat people 

across 19 villages: 

Utkiagvik, 

Wainwright, Point 

Lay, Point Hope, 

Kivalina, Kotzebue, 

Year-round, though 

the prime hunting 

season is in the 

spring (mid-April to 

early June).

September 10 -

October 20 for 

The MMPA does not 

limit the areas of 

Alaska where Pacific 

walruses may be 

harvested. However, 

areas such as 

National Parks, state 

game sanctuaries, or 

This species is not 

listed as depleted 

under the MMPA and is 

not designated as 

threatened or 

endangered under the 

ESA. No harvest limits 

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

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

489

Species

Communities 

engaged in 

subsistence hunting Hunting Season Hunting Areas Harvest limits

Shishmaref, Little 

Diomede, Wales, 

Brevig Mission, King 

Island, Nome, 

Gambell, Savoonga, 

Unalakleet, Stebbins, 

Mekoryuk, 

Kwigillingok, and 

Manokotac

Additionally, the 

Yup'ik people 

authorized to hunt 

Pacific walrus on 

Round Island inhabit 9 

villages: Togiak, Twin 

Hills, Manokotak, 

Aleknagik, Dillingham, 

Clark's Point, Ekuk, 

Ekwok, and New 

Stuyahok

subsistence hunting 

at Round Island.

private lands may 

have hunting or 

access restrictions

Round Island waters 

and beaches within 5 

km (3 mi) of Round

Island.

for subsistence

purpose.

Round Island sets a 

harvest limit of 20 

walrus (including struck 

and lost animals).

3.13.1.12 Subsistence Fishing

For numerous minority and low-income communities across the U.S., subsistence fisheries play an 

important role in ensuring a secure supply of food and strengthening the cultural and traditional aspects 

of community life. Subsistence fishing for finfish (such as salmon, halibut, herring, bottomfish, smelt, etc.) 

and shellfish (such as Dungeness crab, king crab, Tanner crab, shrimp, clams, abalone, etc.) is common 

throughout Alaska and is an important element of the state’s social and cultural heritage, as well as a 

crucial component of the subsistence sector of Alaska’s economy (ADF&G, 2020). Similarly, indigenous 

tribes on the West Coast retain strong spiritual and cultural ties to various species of fish based on 

thousands of years of use for tribal religious/cultural ceremonies, subsistence, and commerce. Some 

commonly fished species include steelhead, halibut, whiting, sturgeon, lamprey, etc. Many Pacific 

Northwest Indian tribes reserve the right to fish in the “Usual and Accustomed” fishing places and are comanagers of the fisheries with the states and federal government (NMFS, No Date-g). 

This section provides a description of some of the important fish species used for subsistence purposes 

by Alaska Natives, indigenous tribes, and other minority and low-income communities; the cultural 

importance of these species; the common fishing practices and methods; and the established fishing 

seasons and areas, as applicable.

3.13.1.12.1 Pacific Salmon

Salmon19 are important to the diets, economies, cultures, and identities of many Alaska Native and tribal 

communities of the Pacific Northwest. For Alaska Natives, salmon accounts for 32 percent of the wild 

19 The section provides a combined narrative for all five species of Pacific salmon hunted for subsistence, namely Chinook (king), 

Chum (dog), Coho (silver), Pink (humpback), and Sockeye (red). 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

490

foods annually harvested for subsistence purposes in rural communities and constitutes a major portion 

of their food supply (ADF&G, 2019). To honor the fish that is a critical part of the Alaskan identity, the 

governor of Alaska signed into law a House Bill in 2016 establishing August 10th of each year as ‘Alaska 

Wild Salmon Day’ (ADF&G, 2016b). In many Native American cultures, salmon holds a special position of 

honor and respect and is often used as a symbol of determination, renewal, and prosperity in their artwork 

and literature (NLA, No Date-a). For example, Columbia River Basin salmon have long been the symbol 

and lifeblood of the Yakama, Umatilla, Warm Springs, and Nez Perce tribes. Salmon influences culture and 

intertribal interactions and is an important part of the economies of the region. It is used for religious 

services by numerous longhouses and churches on the reservation and annual salmon returns are widely 

celebrated by tribes to assure the renewal and continuation of human and all other life (CRITFC, No Date). 

In Alaska, the state subsistence fisheries are managed by the Division of Commercial Fisheries, ADF&G, 

whereas the federal subsistence fisheries are regulated by the Federal Subsistence Board comprising five 

federal agencies: USFWS; National Park Service (NPS); Bureau of Land Management; Bureau of Indian 

Affairs; and U.S. Forest Service. Often, the state and federal subsistence fisheries occur in the same area. 

These entities administer regulations outlining salmon fishing seasons, acceptable fishing gear, and annual 

harvest limits to manage subsistence salmon harvests for different regions20 within the state (DOI, 2021). 

To qualify to fish under the federal subsistence regulations, one must have their primary place of 

residence in a rural area or must have lived in Alaska for the previous 12 months. While no licenses are 

required to take fish or shellfish for subsistence uses, state or federal subsistence fishing permits may be 

required for a particular fishery management area (see Figure 3.13-8). The permit designates the harvest 

limits and seasons, fishing areas, and the types and amount of fishing gear permitted. These specifications 

vary by region and may be modified annually.

For subsistence salmon fishing in the U.S. EEZ off Washington, Oregon, and California, PFMC is the central 

fishery management authority (PFMC, No Date-a). It primarily manages chinook and coho salmon fishing 

for different regions and groups, including for tribal ceremonial and subsistence purposes in Puget Sound, 

Washington coastal rivers and bays, Columbia River and its tributaries, and Klamath River and Trinity River 

(PFMC, No Date-b). In May 2019, NMFS established fishery management measures for the 2019 ocean 

salmon fisheries off Washington, Oregon, and California and the 2020 salmon seasons opening earlier 

than May 1, 2020. These measures outline the salmon fishing season, size requirements, gear restrictions, 

as well as harvest quotas for the S’Klallam, Makah, Quileute, Hoh, and Quinault tribes. For example, the 

Chinook harvest quota for the May 1 – June 30 fishing season is 17,500 and 17,500 for the July 1 –

September 15 fishing season. Single point, single shank, and/or barbless hooks are required in the fisheries 

and no more than eight lines are allowed per boat (84 FR 19729, May 6, 2019). 

20 Alaska is divided into fishery management areas to implement subsistence fishing regulations for finfish, including salmon and 

halibut. These regions are: Kotzebue Area, Norton Sound-Port Clarence Area, Yukon-Northern Area, Kuskokwim Area, Bristol Bay 

Area, Aleutian Islands Area, Chignik Area, Kodiak Area, Cook Inlet Area, Prince William Sound Area, Yakutat Area, Southeastern 

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

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

491

Source: DOI, 2021

Figure 3.13-8. Subsistence Fishing in Alaska Peninsula and Chignik Areas

3.13.1.12.2 Pacific Halibut

Halibut are mythologically important to many tribes in the Pacific Northwest. It is used as a clan crest in 

some Northwest Coast tribes and can sometimes be found carved on totem poles and potlatch dishes. 

The creation myths of some Kwakiutl tribes hold that their first ancestors were transformed from a halibut 

into a man. The halibut is a symbol of prosperity for the Haida people. Some Native Alaskan fishermen 

make special offering of the first halibut they catch each season (NLA, No Date-b).

Historically, Pacific halibut were fished by the indigenous people inhabiting the lands bordering the 

eastern North Pacific Ocean, and was an essential part of the diet of many groups who conducted their 

fishery by hook and line from large canoes. Today, in addition to providing recreational fisheries 

opportunities to indigenous groups, Pacific halibut continues to be an important subsistence and 

ceremonial fish. It is used to feed people at culturally important events like weddings, funerals, and 

naming ceremonies (IPHC, No Date). 

The U.S. and Canada participate in the International Pacific Halibut Commission (IPHC) and enforce 

regulations governing the Pacific halibut fishery under the authority of the Northern Pacific Halibut Act of 

1982 (Halibut Act) (NMFS, 2015d). Each year, the IPHC sets the total allowable catch (TAC) for halibut that 

will be caught in the U.S. and Canadian waters in the northeastern Pacific Ocean, and NMFS establishes 

regulations for U.S. waters off the coasts of Washington, Oregon, and California (Area 2A) (NMFS, No 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

492

Date-a). Thirteen western Washington tribes21 possess treaty fishing rights to halibut. Most tribes fish 

inside Puget Sound. Tribal allocations include a year-round ceremonial and subsistence (C&S) component 

(83 FR 13080, March 26, 2018). Under the 2019 Pacific Halibut Catch Sharing Plan for Area 2A, 35 percent 

of the area 2A TAC is allocated to the 13 treaty Indian tribes in subarea 2A-122. Tribal C&S fishery begins 

on January 1 and continues through December 31. No harvest limits apply to this fishery, except that when 

the commercial fishery is closed, treaty Indians may take and retain not more than two halibut per day 

per person for subsistence purposes (84 FR 9243, March 14, 2019). 

Before fishing under the subsistence halibut regulations, fishermen must obtain a Subsistence Halibut 

Registration Certificate (SHARC). Special permits for community harvest, ceremonial, and educational 

purposes are also available to qualified Alaska communities and Alaska Native Tribes. Fish harvest limits 

and fishing seasons vary by region and depend on the type of permit issued. For example, in regulatory 

area 2C (Sitka Sound), SHARC permits allow fishermen to take 10 halibut per day per vessel from 

September 1 through May 31 using a maximum of 30 hooks per vessel, and five halibut per day per vessel 

from June 1 through August 31 with a maximum of 15 hooks per vessel. No power hauling equipment is 

allowed (NMFS, No Date-h). Figure 3.13-9 shows a map of subsistence halibut fishing areas around Alaska. 

Source: NOAA, No Date-g

Figure 3.13-9. Halibut Subsistence Fishing Areas

21 The 13 treaty Indian tribes are: Hoh, Jamestown S’Klallam, Lower Elwha S’Klallam, Lummi, Makah, Nooksack, Port Gamble 

S’Klallam, Quileute, Quinault, Skokomish, Suquamish, Swinomish, and Tulalip (50 CFR § 300.64). 

22 Subarea 2A-1 includes: all waters off the coast of Washington that are north of the Quinault River (47°21.00’ north latitude) 

and east of 125°44.00' west longitude; all waters off the coast of Washington that are between the Quinault River (47°21.00’ 

north latitude) and Point Chehalis (46°53.30′ north latitude), and east of 125°08.50′ west longitude; and all inland marine waters 

of Washington.

Subsistence Areas

Non-subsistence Areas

Non-rural Areas
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

493

Table 3.13-2 summarizes the subsistence fishing information related to salmon and halibut described in 

Sections 3.13.1.11.1 and 2.13.1.11.2.

Table 3.13-2. Summary of Subsistence Fishing of Salmon and Halibut

Species

Communities 

engaged in 

subsistence

fishing

Hunting 

Season Hunting Areas Harvest limits

Salmon Effectively all 

Alaskan Native 

and indigenous 

communities 

inhabiting coastal 

and riverine areas 

of the Pacific 

Northwest.

Varies by 

region.

Coastal waters and rivers 

of Alaska and the Pacific 

Northwest.

Varies by region and permit.

Halibut North Pacific 

Halibut Act of 

1982 identifies 

over 120 Alaska 

Native 

communities 

eligible to harvest 

subsistence

halibut. 

Additionally, 13 

western 

Washington tribes

possess treaty 

fishing rights to 

halibut.

Generally 

year-round, 

though limits 

may vary by 

season in 

certain 

regulatory 

areas.

North Pacific Halibut Act 

of 1982 designates 

specific areas for the 13 

treaty tribes.

Varies by regulatory area and 

permit type.

3.13.1.12.3 Other Fish Species

For numerous Native American tribes that reside within the U.S. portion of the Great Lakes Basin, Upper 

Mississippi River Basin, and Ohio River Basin, fishing for subsistence is an important element of their 

traditional way of life. Sixteen of the 37 federally recognized tribes that occupy these lands have retained 

their right to hunt, fish, and gather under several treaties signed with the federal government (referred 

to as “treaty tribes”)23 and continue subsistence harvesting in the Great Lakes and Upper Mississippi River 

Basins (see Figure 3.13-10). Although the communities that engage in subsistence activities and the 

harvests associated with these activities are small, the activities play a crucial role in the tribes’ cultural 

identities. For example, the Chippewa or Ojibwe conduct species ceremonies at the beginning and 

23 The 16 federally recognized treaty tribes in the Great Lakes region are as follows: Grand Portage Band of Lake Superior 

Chippewa Indians (Wisconsin [WI]), Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians (Minnesota [MN]), Mille Lacs Band of 

Ojibwe (MN), St. Croix Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin (WI), Lac Courte Oreilles Band of Ojibwe (WI), Lac du Flambeau Band of 

Lake Superior Chippewa Indians (WI), Lac Vieux Desert Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians (Michigan [MI]), Bad River Band 

of Lake Superior Chippewa Tribe (WI), Red Cliff Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians (WI), Keweenaw Bay Indian Community 

(MI), Sokaogon Chippewa Community (WI), Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians (MI), Bay Mills Indian Community (MI), 

Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians (MI), Little River Band of Ottawa Indians (MI), and Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa 

and Chippewa Indians (MI).
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

494

towards the end of each fishing season. Generally, only a few tribal members engage in subsistence 

harvesting, but their harvest is shared with family, friends, and those in the community unable to fish. 

Subsistence harvesting is at the core of the tribes’ cultural identity and is an indication of their status as 

sovereign entities. It is an activity cherished by all, even those members of the community who are not 

presently engaged in the practice (USACE, 2012b).

Source: USACE, 2012b

Figure 3.13-10. Federally Recognized Tribes in and Around the Great Lakes Basin

Historically, traditional subsistence resources utilized by the tribes varied with the season and local 

environment. Though fishing was conducted year-round, Chippewa men would travel to and camp out at 

productive fishing sites during the summer and fall seasons. Traditional methods included the use of nets, 

weirs and traps, fish spears, angling, poisons, bows and arrows, and fishing lures. Some of the fish species 

historically harvested by the Great Lakes tribes included catfish, freshwater cod, char/lake trout, smelt, 

grayling, and whitefish (USACE, 2012b). 

Present-day subsistence fishing practices have continued the use of traditional methods of harvesting 

such as gill nets, seine nets, spear fishing, angling, and catching by hand. These methods are regulated by 

individual tribes and inter-tribal organizations, such as the Chippewa Ottawa Resource Authority (CORA) 

and the Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission (GLIFWC), due to their potential to capture many 

fish at once and potentially deplete their numbers. The fish species that are regulated are monitored

closely by these organizations due to their popularity with subsistence fishers and the risk of overfishing. 

Table 3.13-3 provides an overview of the species of fish harvested and the fishing methodologies 

employed by the tribes regulated by CORA and GLIFWC. 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

495

Table 3.13-3. Subsistence Fishing in the Great Lakes Basin*

Regulatory 

Authority Member Tribes Fish Species Harvested Harvest Limits

Chippewa Ottawa 

Resource 

Authority

Bay Mills Indian Community

Bass, catfish, common 

carp, lake sturgeon, 

salmon (coho, 

chinook), smelt, trout 

(brown, brook, lake, 

rainbow), lake 

whitefish, yellow perch 

No more than 45 kgs (100 

lbs.) of all species in 

possession

Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa 

and Chippewa Indians

Little River Band of Ottawa 

Indians

Little Traverse Bay Bands of 

Odawa Indians

Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of 

Chippewa Indians of Michigan

Great Lakes Indian 

Fish and Wildlife 

Commission 

Bay Mills Indian Community

Walleye, muskellunge, 

largemouth bass, 

smallmouth bass, 

northern pike, lake 

sturgeon, burbot 

Varies per species and 

tribe 

Keweenaw Bay Indian Community

Lac Vieux Desert Band of Lake 

Superior Chippewa Indians

Bad River Band of Lake Superior 

Chippewa Tribe

Red Cliff Band of Lake Superior 

Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin

Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake 

Superior Chippewa Indians of 

Wisconsin

Lac Courte Oreilles Band of 

Ojibwe

Sokaogon Chippewa Community

St. Croix Chippewa Indians of 

Wisconsin

Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe

Fond du Lac Band of Lake 

Superior Chippewa Indians

Source: USACE, 2012b

*Table 3.13-3 is not a comprehensive table of all tribes that practice subsistence fishing and all the fish species that 

they harvest.

For several Native American tribes living in the Gulf Coast area of the U.S., fishing for subsistence is a 

crucial component of their daily livelihood. For example, the Miccosukee Tribe inhabiting the Everglades 

National Park in Florida rely on native fish species such as red ear, largemouth bass, and blue gill for 

subsistence, recreational, and cultural uses (Miccosukee Tribe of Indians, 2010). Under Florida state law, 

members of the Miccosukee and Seminole Tribes are authorized to take fish for subsistence purposes at 

any time within the boundaries of their respective reservations and can exercise their fishing rights within

the Big Cypress Preserve (Florida Statute § 285.09). Similarly, the Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians can 

legally engage in subsistence fishing year-round within the exterior boundaries without obtaining any 

Tribal or state license or permit. Other Native American tribes located in the Gulf Coast region that engage 

in subsistence fishing activities include the Chitimacha, Tunica-Biloxi, Coushatta, Houma, and Jena Band 

of Choctaws (MMS, 2002). 

Several distinct ethnic, cultural, and low-income groups that inhabit the Gulf Coast are dependent on the 

natural resources provided by its marshes, barrier islands, coastal beaches, and wetlands (BOEM, 2012). 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

496

Low incomes tend to coincide with concentrations of minority populations across all of the Gulf Coastal 

States: African-American, Hispanic, and/or Asian-Americans (MMS, 2002). Coastal minority communities 

and low-income groups rely heavily on Gulf Coast fisheries and other traditional fishing activities to 

supplement their diet. Subsistence fishing in these regions is poorly documented and a comprehensive 

account of this activity is not available (BOEM, 2012). 

Hawaiian fishing communities are also dependent on or engaged in recreational, subsistence, and 

traditional fishing practices. Fish species such as blue marlin, mahimahi, goatfishes, trevallys and other 

jacks, scad, skipjack tuna, smallmouth bonefish, snappers, wahoo, and yellowfish tuna are most 

commonly harvested. Charter fishing and related forms of recreation contribute to the state’s tourism 

economy. Non-commercial fishing is an important part of the Hawaiian culture, and sharing of seafood 

among family and friends are particularly important local traditions (NMFS, 2015d). 

In other territories in the Pacific Islands region, such as American Samoa, nearshore fishing is undertaken 

largely for purposes of subsistence. Extensive fish and shellfish are harvested by residents from reef areas 

adjacent to the island villages. In the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, reef-associated 

fish, shallow-water bottomfish, and reef invertebrates such as shellfish and crabs are consumed by 

anglers, their immediate family, extended family, and friends. Fishing primarily occurs for social and 

cultural purposes, rather than economic. Similarly, the people of Guam, including various immigrant 

communities, continue to depend on fishing and locally caught seafood to reinforce and perpetuate 

cultural traditions such as community sharing of food (NMFS, 2015d). 

3.13.2 Environmental Consequences for Environmental Justice

This section discusses potential impacts of the activities associated with Alternatives A, B, and C on Alaska 

Natives, indigenous tribes, and other minority and low-income communities (collectively referred to as 

“EJ communities” throughout this section) who hunt marine mammals and/or fish primarily for their 

subsistence, as well as for cultural and recreational purposes. 

3.13.2.1 Methodology

The causes from NOS project activities that may impact marine mammals and fish hunted for subsistence

or other purposes described in the affected environment section in the action area include: (1) active 

underwater acoustic sources (i.e., from echo sounders, ADCPs, and acoustic communication systems); (2) 

vessel and equipment sounds - underwater and airborne (i.e., from surface vessels; ROVs and autonomous 

systems; low-flying aircraft); (3) vessel presence, including equipment in the water (i.e., visual and physical 

disturbance to and risk of collisions with marine mammals); (4) human activity (i.e., onboard vessels, on 

land during tide gauge and GPS reference station installation, and underwater during SCUBA operations); 

(5) accidental leakage or spillage of oil, fuel, and chemicals into surrounding waters (i.e., from vessel 

operations); (6) trash and debris (i.e., potential for entanglement and ingestion); and (7) air emissions 

(i.e., from smokestacks and outboard motors). Potential impacts on marine mammals and fish are 

discussed in Sections 3.5 and 3.7, respectively, and are referenced throughout this section as it relates to 

the ability of EJ communities to hunt or fish for subsistence or other purposes.

NOS projects may also indirectly benefit EJ communities with the availability of new mapping and charting 

information. Economic benefits are discussed in Section 3.12, Socioeconomics. The associated potential 

benefits on EJ communities are discussed below.
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

497

As discussed in Section 3.2.2, significance criteria were developed for each resource analyzed in this PEIS 

to provide a structured framework for assessing impacts from the Proposed Action and the significance 

of the impacts. The significance criteria for environmental justice are shown in Table 3.13-4.

Table 3.13-4. Significance Criteria for the Analysis of Impacts to Environmental Justice

Impact Descriptor Context and Intensity Significance Conclusion

Negligible

No observable decrease in the total annual subsistence

catch numbers of a species hunted by low-income or 

minority communities. No observable increase in the 

time required and the distance traveled to catch or 

harvest the same amount compared to previous years in 

which NOS projects did not occur. Impacts from any 

given project would be temporary (lasting the duration 

of and immediately after NOS projects and activities). 

Insignificant

Minor

A detectable decrease in the total annual subsistence

catch numbers of a species hunted by minority or lowincome communities, or a detectable increase in time 

needed and the distance traveled to harvest or catch the 

same amount compared to previous years in which NOS 

projects did not occur. Impacts from any given project 

would be temporary or short-term (lasting beyond NOS 

activities, up to 1 year). 

Moderate

A notable decrease in the total annual subsistence catch 

numbers of a species hunted by minority or low-income 

communities, or a notable increase in the time needed 

and the distance traveled to harvest or catch the same 

amount compared to previous years in which NOS 

projects did not occur. Impacts would be short-term. 

Major

Disproportionally high and adverse impacts on minority 

or low-income populations’ continued ability to 

subsistence hunt. A substantial decrease in the total 

annual subsistence catch numbers of a species hunted by 

minority or low-income communities, or a substantial 

increase in the time needed and distance traveled to 

harvest or catch the same amount compared to previous 

years in which NOS projects did not occur. Impacts would 

be long-term (lasting longer than 1 year). 

Significant

3.13.2.2 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 by impact causing factors for marine mammals and fish species 

harvested for subsistence by EJ communities. As indicated in Table 3.4-4, survey efforts under Alternative 

A would vary by year. Although the greatest number of nautical miles surveyed for proposed activities 

over the five-year period would be in the Southeast Region (over 50 percent), the only impacts on 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

498

subsistence hunting of marine mammals are expected to occur in the Alaska Region. Any impacts on gray 

whales would have no effect on the subsistence activities of the Makah Tribe residing in Washington state 

since there is currently a moratorium on gray whale hunting in the continental U.S. The greatest overall 

impacts on subsistence fishing are expected to occur in the Alaska Region, West Coast Region (particularly 

the Pacific Northwest), Great Lakes Region, and the Pacific Islands Region due to the prevalence of Alaska 

Natives, indigenous tribes, and other minority and low-income communities that engage in subsistence 

fishing activities in these regions. Since subsistence hunting and/or fishing activities in the Greater Atlantic 

and Southeast regions are not well documented, the scope of discussion of the potential impacts of the 

project in these regions is limited. 

Under each impact causing factor, only the marine mammal and/or fish species that would be impacted 

by that factor is discussed. For example, since those cetaceans hunted for subsistence purposes 

(bowhead, gray, and beluga whales) live primarily underwater, the impact of air emissions on these 

species is not considered. This is followed by an analysis of these impacts on the subsistence hunting and 

fishing activities of the EJ communities. 

3.13.2.2.1 Active Underwater Acoustic Sources

Sections 3.5.2.3 and 3.7.2.2 detail the adverse impacts of noise from active underwater acoustic sources 

on cetaceans, pinnipeds, fissipeds, and fish. As shown in the tables listing the total injury and behavioral 

disruption exposure estimates in Section 3.5.2.3, cetaceans, pinnipeds, and fissipeds important to the 

subsistence of Alaska Natives would only be subject to behavioral disruption exposures. The impacts to 

fish species would primarily be behavioral and may result in their temporary migration away from the 

sound sources affecting them. Such disturbances would be limited to the relatively small portion of a 

population that may be located near the active sound source.

Potential adverse impacts to subsistence activities as they relate to EJ communities primarily include 

behavioral disruptions in individual animals. The disturbance from underwater active acoustic sources 

could cause the species movements to be deflected farther offshore, causing them to temporarily 

abandon areas where hunting and harvesting habitually occur. Displaced individuals could exhibit more 

wary or skittish behavior, making them harder to strike/catch (BOEM, 2018a). Hunting/fishing crews could 

be required to travel greater distances from shore to the new hunting areas, which could lead to increased 

expenditure on gas, additional travel time, and potential increased risk to crews from adverse weather, 

depending upon the time of the year. Greater hunting distances would also mean longer distances to tow 

the harvested animal to shore, during which time it may spoil (NMFS, 2016b). This could lead to a decrease 

in the number of species successfully harvested by subsistence hunters/fishers. 

The magnitude of the impacts would depend on the degree of overlap between the hunting season and 

the activities, with greater adverse impacts on EJ communities that rely on species that are only hunted 

during specific seasons to account for animal migration patterns and seasonal changes in weather and ice, 

as described in Section 3.13.1. Survey and whaling seasons are bound to overlap due to safety and 

weather considerations, therefore it would not be practicable for NOS to avoid surveying activities during 

all subsistence hunting seasons. For species with designated hunting seasons, increased hunting time 

could potentially decrease harvest numbers. Since surveys would occur in the spring/summer months in 

Alaska, the spring bowhead whale harvest of the Iñupiat and Siberian Yup’ik people, the spring and 

summer beluga harvest, and the spring and summer northern fur seal harvest of the Unangans of St. Paul 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

499

and St. George Islands could be particularly impacted24. Impacts on the harvest limits of other species of 

marine mammals and fish would be relatively less pronounced due to year-round hunting provisions. 

For some subsistence communities, the decrease in harvest numbers of marine mammals could have 

adverse economic impacts. The Iñupiat and Siberian Yup’ik people inhabiting remote areas in the northern 

and western coasts of Alaska primarily rely on the harvest of bowhead whale for subsistence. Food 

available for purchase in the village grocery stores is often expensive. A pound of beef, for example, could 

cost anywhere between $10 - $20. Harvesting whale brings an average of approximately 1.1 million to 2 

million pounds of food per year, which is shared among members of Alaska’s Native subsistence 

communities. Replacing the food derived from whale with beef would cost the subsistence communities 

approximately $11 - $30 million per year (IWC, No Date-a). However, these communities do not entirely 

rely on a single species to meet their subsistence requirements. In addition to whales, seals, fish, and 

other marine species, terrestrial resources such as caribou, moose, small game, and edible roots and 

berries are also commonly harvested by the residents of northern and western Alaskan villages (BOEM, 

2018a). 

Most EJ communities across all five geographic regions rely on the harvest of fish for subsistence purposes. 

Figure 3.13-11 shows the dependence of Alaskan communities on salmon and non-salmon fish species 

compared to other resources for subsistence. Similarly, many minority and low-income communities, 

especially in the Pacific Northwest, Great Lakes, Gulf of Mexico, and Pacific Islands regions engage in 

subsistence fishing for their dietary requirements. These communities could be adversely affected due to 

the behavioral disruptions experienced by fish species exposed to underwater acoustic sources. However, 

given the small spatial extent of no more than a few project vessels operating at any one time relative to 

the generally large-scale distribution of fish populations, the impacts would be minimal. 

As described in Section 3.13.1, since most marine mammals and fish species harvested for subsistence are 

also crucial to the traditions and customs of Alaska’s Native subsistence communities, decreased harvest 

or catches could also have an adverse cultural impact on these communities. A loss of sociocultural values 

can occur with a loss of eating and sharing traditional subsistence foods since this activity is a substantial 

contributor to cultural identity, tradition, and social bonds in Alaskan communities. Harvest loss, if 

sustained, could result in disruptions of food sharing patterns, which could diminish general health, 

nutritional health, and well-being of affected individuals (BOEM, 2018a). 

24 “Designated hunting seasons” refer to hunts that are limited to specific seasons due to animal migration patterns and seasonal 

changes due to weather and ice. These are described in detail in Section 3.13.1. The Proposed Action would not place any 

additional restrictions on the bowhead whale quota allocated by IWC or during hunting seasons. NOS acknowledges the 

importance of Alaska Native subsistence resources. Therefore, NOS is committed to ongoing communication with Alaskan 

communities to avoid impacts that could directly or indirectly affect subsistence resources. 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

500

Source: NMFS, 2016c

Figure 3.13-11. Proportions of Major Subsistence Species Groups

Harvested in Alaska Communities

NOS program offices routinely communicate their project plans through designated NOAA 

representatives to Alaska Native and Pacific Northwest tribal communities through outreach letters 

and/or at established meetings. Typically, NOS conducts initial coordination in an informal fashion, such 

as via emails, to determine the need for a more formal consultation process in the future. These 

letters/meetings are used to inform the tribal or subsistence communities of upcoming NOS plans for or 

updates to projects that overlap areas designated as fishing or hunting grounds. NOS would attend 

meetings to provide a platform for Alaska Native and Pacific Northwest tribal communities to voice any 

of their thoughts or concerns, particularly those pertaining to treaty or subsistence hunting and fishing 

activities. NOS would work closely with tribal or subsistence communities to ensure concerns related to 

projects in areas designated as fishing or hunting grounds for ceremonial or subsistence species, 

especially during crucial fishing or hunting seasons, are addressed as appropriate. Through this 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

501

communication strategy, NOS would minimize the potential for adverse impacts on Alaska and the Pacific 

Northwest communities.

Subsistence species would only be subject to behavioral disruption exposures and would primarily 

experience behavioral disruptions. The amount of time individuals may exceed behavioral thresholds 

would on average be for less than 2-3 minutes. These disturbances are expected to be transient and 

surveys, once completed in a given area, would not generally be repeated for years, thus limiting an 

individual’s behavioral disruption to a few minutes. However, the number of individual animals impacted 

over the five-year project period would be much greater than the number that is actually harvested and 

consumed by EJ communities in Alaska. Therefore, the overall effects of active underwater acoustic

sources on subsistence hunting activities of marine mammals would continue to be adverse and 

moderate. Impacts to subsistence fishing communities would continue to be adverse and minor. Overall, 

it is unlikely that these activities would generate sounds loud enough to cause direct mortality; therefore, 

a reduction in the population abundance of subsistence species is not anticipated. Since subsistence 

communities rely on the harvest of multiple species of marine mammals and fish, as well as terrestrial 

resources to fulfill their subsistence, economic, and cultural needs, adverse effects would continue to be 

insignificant. 

3.13.2.2.2 Vessel and Equipment Sounds

As described in Sections 3.5.2.3 and 3.7.2.2, all cetaceans, pinnipeds, fissipeds, and fish species crucial for 

subsistence could be adversely impacted due to changes in behavioral patterns caused by sounds 

generated by surface vessels, ROVs, autonomous systems, and low-flying aircraft. 

The impact of primary concern to EJ communities is the behavioral disturbance to subsistence species, 

including displacement of species from their current hunting grounds, evasive maneuvers, and avoidance 

behaviors. Hunting areas generally tend not to have fixed geographic locations and may vary slightly from 

year to year (move closer to or further away from the shore), a phenomenon that hunting/fishing crews 

are generally accustomed to. However, if the species migrate too far outside of these areas, in response 

to vessel and equipment sounds, it could lead to adverse impacts on EJ communities. Hunting/fishing 

crews would be required to travel greater distances from shore to the new hunting areas, increasing gas 

expenditures, adding travel time, and potentially putting the crew at greater risk for adverse weather, 

depending upon the time of the year. Greater hunting distances would also mean longer distances to tow 

the harvest to shore, during which time it may spoil (NMFS, 2016d). This could lead to a decrease in the 

number of species successfully harvested by subsistence hunters/fishers. 

The magnitude of impact would vary based on the degree of behavioral disruption caused by factors such 

as vessel speed, size, location, frequency, pattern of travel, as well as timing of the activities. Since most 

surveys in the Alaska Region would occur in spring/summer seasons, impacts would be greater on the 

communities engaged in subsistence hunting/fishing activities during this time. These include bowhead 

whales harvested by the Iñupiat and Siberian Yup’ik people, beluga whales harvested by Alaska Natives 

across 34 villages, as well as northern fur seals harvested by the Unangans of St. Paul and St. George 

Islands.

Since cetaceans, certain pinnipeds, and fish species are less responsive to aircraft in comparison to vessels 

in water, the sound emitted by aircraft overflights and their visual presence is not expected to make these 

species unavailable to, or more difficult to harvest by subsistence hunters/fishers. Aircraft disturbances 

would have a greater impact on walruses and polar bears. Overall, potential adverse impacts from aircraft 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

502

would be minimal considering the relatively low level of aircraft activity that would occur (once or twice 

a year) along with the short duration of exposure to sound and visual disturbance. 

Adverse impacts to subsistence fishing communities, particularly in the Pacific Northwest, Great Lakes, 

and Gulf of Mexico regions could occur from vessel sound disturbances, resulting in the displacement of 

fish from areas where they are harvested. However, these impacts would be temporary. No impacts to 

fish are expected from the sound and visual disturbance generated by aircraft. 

Most marine mammals and fish species harvested for subsistence are also crucial to the traditions and 

customs of Alaska’s Native subsistence communities, and decreased harvest could also have an adverse 

cultural impact on these communities. A loss of sociocultural values can occur with a loss of eating and 

sharing traditional subsistence foods since this activity is a substantial contributor to cultural identity, 

tradition, and social bonds in Alaskan communities. Harvest loss, if sustained, could result in disruptions 

of food sharing patterns, which could diminish general health, nutritional health, and well-being of 

affected individuals (BOEM, 2018a). 

As mentioned above, NOS routinely communicates project plans to Alaska Native and Pacific Northwest 

tribal communities either formally or informally. NOS would continue to attend meetings to provide a 

platform for Alaska Native and Pacific Northwest tribal communities to voice their thoughts or concerns, 

particularly those pertaining to treaty or subsistence hunting and fishing activities. NOS would work 

closely with tribal or subsistence communities to ensure that concerns related to projects in areas 

designated as fishing or hunting grounds for ceremonial or subsistence species, especially during crucial 

fishing or hunting seasons, are addressed as appropriate. Through this communication strategy, NOS 

would minimize the potential for adverse impacts on Alaska and the Pacific Northwest communities. 

Overall, the effects of vessel and equipment sounds on subsistence hunting of marine mammals would 

continue to be adverse and minor, whereas the impacts to subsistence fishing communities would 

continue to be adverse and negligible. Since vessel sounds are currently a prevalent source of ambient 

underwater sound, vessel sounds would not be at levels expected to cause anything more than possible 

temporary or short-term behavioral changes and would cause minimal impacts on subsistence harvests. 

Multiple activities occurring simultaneously in the Alaska Region could lead to greater magnitudes. 

However, since subsistence communities rely on the harvest of multiple species of marine mammals and 

fish to fulfil their subsistence and cultural needs, adverse effects would continue to be insignificant. 

3.13.2.2.3 Vessel Presence, Traffic, and Movement of Equipment in Water

As summarized in Sections 3.5.2.3 and 3.7.2.2, the impacts on cetaceans, pinnipeds, fissipeds, and fish 

from vessel presence, traffic, and movement of equipment in water of primary concern to subsistence EJ 

communities include temporary displacement a short distance from preferred habitats, and the possibility 

of reduced harvest numbers due to the potential of marine mammal vessel strikes resulting in death. 

The presence of vessels in water and the underwater movement of equipment would cause species to 

scatter from their preferred habitats and therefore be less readily available for subsistence hunting/fishing 

activities. Entanglement with ropes and wires attached to the equipment could trap an individual and 

adversely impact harvest quantities. Species could also be indirectly impacted from these activities due 

to disturbance caused to the species on which they prey, which could result in the migration of the 

subsistence species in search of areas with a greater prey supply. Displaced species are expected to return 

to their preferred habitats and resume normal activities once the vessel leaves the area. In the event that 

the species stray too far away from their usual hunting grounds, there would be adverse impacts to the 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

503

subsistence communities from increased travel time, and additional expenditure on gas (as discussed 

above under Vessel and Equipment Sounds). Mortality of subsistence species as a result of their collision 

with vessels could potentially reduce the number of marine mammals available for harvest, which would 

adversely impact subsistence hunting activities. However, the likelihood of a vessel strike would be very 

low. 

The magnitude of impact would vary based on the degree of behavioral disruption caused by factors such 

as vessel speed, size, location, frequency, and pattern of travel, as well as the timing of the activities. Since 

most surveys in the Alaska Region would occur in spring/summer seasons, impacts would be greater on 

the communities engaged in subsistence hunting/fishing activities during this time. These include 

bowhead whales harvested by the Iñupiat and Siberian Yup’ik people, beluga whales harvested by Alaska 

Natives across 34 villages, and northern fur seals harvested by the Unangans of St. Paul and St. George 

Islands.

Adverse impacts to subsistence fishing communities, particularly in the Pacific Northwest, Great Lakes, 

and Gulf of Mexico regions, could occur from vessel wake and underwater turbulence, resulting in the 

displacement of fish from areas where they are harvested. However, these impacts would be temporary. 

Fish are expected to return to the area and resume normal activities once the vessel departs or the 

turbulence ceases. 

Most marine mammals and fish species harvested for subsistence are also crucial to the traditions and 

customs of Alaska’s Native subsistence communities, and decreased harvest could also have an adverse 

cultural impact on these communities. A loss of sociocultural values can occur with a loss of eating and 

sharing traditional subsistence foods since this activity is a substantial contributor to cultural identity, 

tradition, and social bonds in Alaskan communities. Harvest loss, if sustained, could result in disruptions 

of food sharing patterns, which could diminish general health, nutritional health, and well-being of 

affected individuals (BOEM, 2018a). 

NOS routinely communicates its project plans through designated NOAA representatives to Alaska Native 

and Pacific Northwest tribal communities through outreach letters and/or at established meetings. 

Typically, NOS conducts initial coordination in an informal fashion, such as via emails, to determine the 

need for a more formal consultation process in the future. These letters/meetings are used to inform the 

tribal or subsistence communities of upcoming NOS plans for or updates to projects that overlap areas 

designated as fishing or hunting grounds. NOS would attend meetings to provide a platform for Alaska 

Native and Pacific Northwest tribal communities to voice any of their thoughts or concerns, particularly 

those pertaining to treaty or subsistence hunting and fishing activities. NOS would work closely with tribal 

or subsistence communities to ensure concerns related to projects in areas designated as fishing or 

hunting grounds for ceremonial or subsistence species, especially during crucial fishing or hunting 

seasons, are addressed as appropriate. Through this communication strategy, NOS would minimize the 

potential for adverse impacts on Alaskan and Pacific Northwest EJ communities.

Although vessel traffic is considered a common source of disturbance and the presence of survey vessels 

is expected to cause only temporary disturbances, subsistence hunters tend to have a great sensitivity to 

vessel presence and traffic while hunting for marine mammals. Additionally, the likelihood of animal 

mortality due to vessel strikes would continue to cause adverse and moderate impacts to subsistence 

hunting of marine mammals. Impacts to subsistence hunting communities across all five geographic 

regions would continue to be adverse and negligible. Since survey efforts would be dispersed across five 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

504

geographic regions over a period of five years, and surveys would likely not be repeated in the same area, 

adverse effects would continue to be insignificant.

3.13.2.2.4 Human Activity

As mentioned in Sections 3.5.2.3 and 3.7.2.2, human activity on vessels above the surface of the water 

would not be expected to have any effects on cetaceans or fish underwater, and would therefore have no 

impacts on whale hunters and fishers. Pinnipeds and fissipeds that are on land or ice could be affected by 

the sound from human activity onboard vessels; however, the sounds and presence from the vessels 

themselves would likely be greater. The impacts from vessel sounds and presence on EJ communities are 

discussed above. 

During SCUBA operations, the presence of divers could temporarily disturb the marine mammals and fish 

in the vicinity but is not expected to make the species unavailable for or more difficult to harvest by 

subsistence hunters/fishers. 

Disturbance caused by onshore human activity during tide gauge installation and maintenance, as well as 

installation of shore-based GPS reference stations, could affect pinnipeds and polar bears, if such activities 

occur near pinniped haul out areas or close to polar bear habitats. This could temporarily displace the 

species from their hunting areas, which would adversely impact subsistence hunting activities resulting in 

increased travel time and additional expenditure on gas (as discussed above under Vessel and Equipment 

Sounds). Although very rare, disturbance from onshore human activities could cause female polar bears 

in maternity dens to abandon their cubs, resulting in mortality of the cubs. Human-bear interactions 

during tide gauge and GPS reference system installation could result in injury or mortality of both bears 

and humans. This could have adverse impacts on EJ communities, particularly the Iñupiat and Siberian 

Yup'ik people of Alaska, by decreasing the number of polar bears available to hunt. However, since 

disturbances from human activity would only occur temporarily, impacts would be minimal. 

To minimize impacts on subsistence hunting/fishing activities, NOS routinely communicates project plans 

to Alaska Native and Pacific Northwest tribal communities either formally or informally. NOS would attend 

meetings to provide a platform for Alaska Native and Pacific Northwest tribal communities to voice any 

of their thoughts or concerns, particularly those pertaining to treaty or subsistence hunting and fishing 

activities. NOS would work closely with tribal or subsistence communities to ensure concerns related to 

projects in areas designated as fishing or hunting grounds for ceremonial or subsistence species, 

especially during crucial fishing or hunting seasons, are addressed as appropriate. 

The effects of human activities on subsistence hunting/fishing activities would continue to be adverse and 

minor and would primarily impact subsistence hunting of pinnipeds and fissipeds. Multiple activities 

occurring simultaneously in the Alaska Region could lead to larger magnitudes and more widespread 

impacts. Since these subsistence communities rely on the harvest of multiple species of marine mammals 

and fish to fulfill their subsistence and cultural needs, adverse effects are expected to continue to be 

insignificant.

3.13.2.2.5 Accidental Leakage or Spillage of Oil, Fuel, and Chemicals into Surrounding Waters

The effects of accidental leakage or spillage of oil, fuel, and chemicals on subsistence hunting/fishing 

activities would continue to be adverse and minor. Impacts would be greater if accidental leakages or 

spills occurred within or adjacent to hunting areas, or if they adversely impacted prey species. Species 

would try to avoid such areas or migrate to areas with a greater supply of prey, making them less available 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

505

to, or more difficult to harvest by subsistence hunters/fishers. Additionally, if marine mammals/fish 

contaminated with oil, fuel, and/or chemicals are harvested and consumed by subsistence communities, 

public health could be adversely impacted due to the potential for bioaccumulation of these substances. 

Overall, impacts to subsistence hunting/fishing activities resulting from accidental leaks or spills would be 

minimal; therefore, adverse effects are expected to continue to be insignificant.

3.13.2.2.6 Trash and Debris

Effects of marine trash and debris on subsistence hunting/fishing activities would continue to be adverse

and negligible. These impacts would occur for several reasons. Species could become accidentally 

entangled with cables, lines, nets, or other objects which have detached from vessels and become 

suspended in the water column. This could have the effect of rendering an entangled animal easier to 

capture during subsistence hunting. Although it is possible that lines, cables, nets, and other objects could 

detach from a vessel used by NOS and become debris in which marine mammals could get entangled, it 

is not very likely.

Species are not expected to be displaced from their habitats, thus no impacts associated with the 

abandonment of hunting areas are expected to be caused by trash and debris. Adverse impacts could 

result from the ingestion of trash or debris by individuals. Consumption of meat contaminated from 

ingestion of pollutants could have indirect adverse impacts on the health of subsistence communities; 

however, impacts from ingestion are expected to be minimal and would only occur accidently. 

Additionally, vessel operators would be required to comply with USCG and EPA regulations to minimize 

adverse impacts from discarded trash and debris in hunting areas. Overall, impacts to subsistence 

hunting/fishing activities resulting from marine trash and debris would be minimal, and adverse effects 

are expected to continue to be insignificant.

3.13.2.2.7 Air Emissions

Effects of air emissions on subsistence hunting/fishing activities would continue to be adverse and 

negligible and would primarily impact subsistence hunting of pinnipeds and fissipeds and subsistence 

fishing activities. Pinnipeds and fissipeds could be exposed to air pollutants emitted by survey vessels; 

however, such emissions would be temporary and ephemeral and dissipate rapidly into the air. Emissions 

may not reach animals on land or ice as vessels would maintain a required distance away. Smokestack 

and motor emissions from project vessels could adversely affect fish habitat by increasing water acidity. 

Overall, impacts to subsistence hunting/fishing activities resulting from effects to air quality would be 

minimal, as discussed in Section 3.15; therefore, the adverse effects are expected to continue to be 

insignificant.

3.13.2.2.8 Availability of New Mapping and Charting Information

Hydrographic surveys conducted by NOS would provide valuable information about essential habitat for 

species of fish and marine mammals harvested for subsistence in the form of topographic maps of the 

seafloor, and in the form of fishery and marine mammal distribution maps. Scientists use estimates of 

biomass and population from these surveys to conduct annual stock assessments of various species to 

improve understanding of the species’ life history, and the ecological and physical factors affecting their 

distribution and abundance. This information, in combination with data collected from mapping the sea 

ice and vessel traffic, could contribute to the economic stability of subsistence communities. 

Consequently, this could help ensure a stable supply of food, and help preserve a traditional culture based 

on subsistence harvesting that has continued for centuries (NOAA, No Date-a).
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

506

As reported by NOAA in 2018, Alaskan and Arctic waters, where a majority of subsistence hunting and 

fishing occurs, are largely uncharted with modern surveys, and many areas that have soundings were 

surveyed using older, outdated technology. In addition to providing information about fish and marine 

mammal habitats, benefits from surveying would include safer navigation, availability of weather and 

tsunami forecasts and storm surge events that affect local communities, and identification of the location 

of historic wrecks (NOAA, 2018b). 

3.13.2.2.9 Conclusion

Since the effects of impact causing factors on EJ communities range from none to moderate, the overall 

impact of Alternative A on the subsistence hunting and fishing, local economy, and culture of EJ 

communities would continue to be adverse and minor to moderate; thus, impacts of Alternative A would 

continue to be insignificant. The mapping and charting information generated by Alternative A would 

continue to yield beneficial effects for EJ communities.

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

Collection with Equipment Upgrades, Improved Hydroacoustic Devices, and 

New Tide Stations

The same impact causing factors for marine mammals and fish, and therefore for EJ communities that 

hunt and/or fish for subsistence, considered under Alternative A are considered under Alternative B. 

Under Alternative B, all of the activities and equipment operations proposed in Alternative A would 

continue but at a higher level of effort, although the percentage of nautical miles covered by the project 

in each region would be the same as under Alternative A. Thus, as stated under Alternative A, the only 

impacts on subsistence hunting of marine mammals are expected to occur in the Alaska Region. Any 

impacts on gray whales would have no effect on the subsistence activities of the Makah Tribe residing in 

Washington state since there is currently a moratorium on gray whale hunting in the continental U.S. The 

greatest overall impacts to subsistence fishing are expected to occur in the Alaska Region, West Coast 

Region (particularly the Pacific Northwest), Great Lakes Region, and the Gulf of Mexico due to the 

prevalence of Alaska Natives, indigenous tribes, and other minority and low-income communities that 

engage in subsistence fishing activities.

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 and activities, and thus more nautical 

miles traveled, than Alternative A. Overall, NOS survey effort would cover an additional 264,796 nm 

(490,402 km) under Alternative B (see Table 3.4-5) as compared to Alternative A (2,647,958 nm [4,904,017 

km] total) across all regions over the five-year period. The types and mechanisms of impacts would remain 

the same in Alternative B as discussed for Alternative A. Therefore, the difference between the two 

alternatives is a matter of scale with an increased activity level, although distributed unevenly among the 

different types of activities, leading to a corresponding, incremental increase in effects under Alternative 

B as compared to Alternative A.

As discussed in Sections 3.5.2.4 and 3.7.2.3, impacts of Alternative B on cetaceans, pinnipeds, and 

fissipeds would be the same or slightly, but not appreciably, larger as those under Alternative A for the 

following impact causing factors: vessel and equipment sounds; vessel presence, traffic and movement of 

equipment in water; human activity; accidental leakage or spillage of oil, fuel, and chemicals into 

surrounding waters; trash and debris; and air emissions. Consequently, for these six factors, the impacts 

of Alternative B on Alaska Natives primarily engaged in subsistence hunting of marine mammals (and who 

may or may not fish for subsistence), would be the same, or slightly greater as compared to Alternative 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

507

A. For fish species, the effects of all seven impact causing factors under Alternative B, including active 

underwater acoustic sources, would be the same or slightly, but not appreciably, greater than those 

discussed under Alternative A. Thus, the corresponding impacts of Alternative B on EJ communities 

involved only in subsistence fishing (such as the indigenous tribes of the Pacific Northwest, the Great Lakes 

region, and the Gulf of Mexico) would be the same or slightly, but not appreciably, greater as those under 

Alternative A for all seven impact causing factors. 

As shown in the tables listing the total behavioral disruption exposure estimates in Section 3.5.2.4, active 

underwater acoustic sources would lead to behavioral disruption exposure of cetaceans, pinnipeds, and 

fissipeds important to the subsistence of Alaska Natives. Since behavioral disruption exposure of 

individual animals would be somewhat higher under Alternative B, the impact on subsistence hunting 

activities of Native Alaskans would be slightly, but not appreciably, larger than those discussed under 

Alternative A. 

3.13.2.3.1 Conclusion

The additional projects and nautical miles traveled under Alternative B across five regions would result in 

greater impacts on subsistence hunting and fishing activities of EJ communities overall, compared to 

Alternative A, but not so great that the magnitude of a particular impact causing factor would increase.

Therefore, the impacts of Alternative B on Environmental Justice would be adverse, minor to moderate, 

and insignificant. The mapping and charting information generated by Alternative B would yield slightly 

greater beneficial effects for EJ communities than would occur under Alternative A.

3.13.2.4 Alternative C: Upgrades and Improvements with Greater Funding Support

The same impact causing factors for marine mammals and fish, and therefore for EJ communities that 

hunt and/or fish for subsistence, considered under Alternatives A and B are considered under Alternative 

C. Under Alternative C, all of the activities and equipment operation proposed in Alternative A would 

continue but at a higher level of effort, although the percentage of nautical miles in each region would be 

the same as under Alternative A. In addition, there would be an overall funding increase of 20 percent 

relative to Alternative B, thus the level of survey activity would increase further. The only impacts on 

subsistence hunting of marine mammals are expected to occur in the Alaska Region. Any impacts on gray 

whales would have no effect on the subsistence activities of the Makah Tribe residing in Washington state 

due to the moratorium on gray whale hunting in the continental U.S. The greatest overall impacts on 

subsistence fishing are expected to occur in the Alaska Region, West Coast Region (particularly the Pacific 

Northwest), the Great Lakes Region, and the Gulf of Mexico due to the prevalence of Alaska Natives, 

indigenous tribes, and other minority and low-income communities that engage in subsistence fishing 

activities in these regions.

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 and activities, and thus more 

nautical miles traveled, than Alternatives A and B. Overall, there would be an additional 264,796 nm 

(490,402 km) of survey effort under Alternative C (see Table 3.4-6) as compared to Alternative B 

(2,912,753 nm [5,394,419 km] total), and an additional 529,592 nm (980,803 km) as compared to 

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

and mechanisms of impacts would remain the same in Alternative C as discussed for Alternatives A and 

B. Therefore, the difference between the two alternatives is a matter of scale with an increased activity 

level, although distributed unevenly among the different types of activities, leading to a corresponding, 

incremental increase in effects under Alternative C as compared to Alternatives A and B.
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

508

As discussed in Sections 3.5.2.5 and 3.7.2.4, impacts of Alternative C on cetaceans, pinnipeds, and 

fissipeds would be the same or slightly, but not appreciably, greater than those under Alternatives A and 

B for the following impact causing factors: vessel and equipment sounds; vessel presence, traffic and 

movement of equipment in water; human activity; accidental leakage or spillage of oil, fuel, and chemicals 

into surrounding waters; trash and debris; and air emissions. Consequently, for these six factors, the 

impacts of Alternative C on Alaska Natives primarily engaged in subsistence hunting of marine mammals 

(and who may or may not fish for subsistence), would be the same as, or slightly larger, compared to

Alternative A and B. For fish species, the effects of all seven impact causing factors under Alternative C, 

including active underwater acoustic sound sources, would be the same or slightly, but not appreciably, 

greater than those discussed under Alternatives A and B. Thus, the corresponding impacts of Alternative 

C on EJ communities involved only in subsistence fishing (such as the indigenous tribes of the Pacific 

Northwest and the Great Lakes region) would be the same or slightly, but not appreciably, greater as those 

under Alternative A and B for all seven impact causing factors. 

As shown in the tables listing the total behavioral disruption exposure estimates in Section 3.5.2.5, active 

underwater acoustic sources would lead to behavioral disruption exposure of cetaceans, pinnipeds, and 

fissipeds important to the subsistence of Alaska Natives. Since behavioral disruption exposure of 

individual animals would be somewhat higher under Alternative C compared to Alternatives A and B, the 

impact on subsistence hunting activities of Native Alaskans would be slightly, but not appreciably, larger 

than those discussed under Alternatives A and B. 

3.13.2.4.1 Conclusion

The additional projects and nautical miles traveled under Alternative C across five regions would result in 

greater impacts on subsistence hunting and fishing activities of EJ communities overall than would occur 

under Alternatives A and B; however, impacts would not be so great that the magnitude of a particular 

impact causing factor would increase. Therefore, the impacts of Alternative C on environmental justice 

would be adverse, minor to moderate, and insignificant. The mapping and charting information 

generated by Alternative C would yield incrementally greater beneficial effects for EJ communities than 

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

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

509

3.14 RESOURCES CONSIDERED BUT DISMISSED FROM FURTHER ANALYSIS

NEPA and the CEQ regulations direct agencies to prepare NEPA documents that are “concise, clear, and 

to the point” (40 CFR Part 1500.2(b)). NEPA reviews should focus on important environmental issues and 

avoid “amassing needless detail” (1500.1(b)). Environmental analysis should focus on significant issues 

(meaning pivotal issues, or issues of critical importance), discussing insignificant issues only briefly 

(1500.4(c)). Furthermore, agencies are directed to discuss impacts in proportion to their significance, and 

if the impacts are not deemed significant there should be only enough discussion to show why more study 

is not warranted (1502.2(b)). 

In those cases where impacts from the Proposed Action are not anticipated or are expected to be 

imperceptible or nondetectable, resources are dismissed from detailed analysis. Four such resources were 

identified and the rationale for their dismissal is provided below. 

3.14.1 Air and Water Quality

NOS considered two resources, air quality and water quality, with regard to discharges from equipment 

used in NOS projects. Analyzing air quality as a resource considers atmospheric conditions such as the 

concentration of criteria air pollutants and GHGs. Analyzing water quality as a resource considers aquatic 

conditions such as the concentration of dissolved solids and DO, acidity, and temperature. Vessels and 

aircraft would emit a variety of criteria air pollutants including nitrogen oxides (NOx), sulfur oxides (SOx), 

particulate matter, volatile organic compounds (VOCs), carbon monoxide (CO), and GHG emissions (e.g., 

CO2). Vessels would also discharge treated sanitary and domestic wastes from USCG-approved Marine 

Sanitation Devices (MSDs) and could potentially spill oil, fuel, or chemicals into the water. 

The potential impacts to air and water quality from air emissions, wastewater discharges, and accidental 

spills are minimized through compliance with comprehensive maritime protocols, namely the MARPOL 

73/78 Annexes. Table 3.14-1 summarizes each applicable MARPOL 73/78 annex by pollution source, its 

title, U.S. signatory status, and implementing legislation, law and/or regulations, or applicable Coast 

Guard guidance. 

Table 3.14-1. MARPOL Annexes Applicable to Vessels

Annex

Pollution 

Source Title

U.S. 

Signatory*

Implementation Legislation/

Regulations/Guidance

I Oil Regulations for the 

Prevention of Pollution by 

Oil

Yes • Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships of 

1980 (APPS) 33 U.S.C. § 1901 – 1912

• 33 CFR Parts 151,155, 156, 157 

• Marine Safety Manual, Vol. II

• Navigation and Vessel Inspection 

Circular (NVIC) No. 6-94

• CG-PCV Policy Letter No. 06-01

• CG-3PCV Policy Letter No. 06-09

• CG-MOC Policy Letter No. 04-11, Rev. 

1
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

510

Annex

Pollution 

Source Title

U.S. 

Signatory*

Implementation Legislation/

Regulations/Guidance

IV Sewage Regulations for the 

Prevention of Pollution by 

Sewage from Ships

No • Clean Water Act (CWA) 33 U.S.C. § 

1251 et seq.

• Federal Water Pollution Control Act 

(FWPCA) (as amended by the CWA)

• 33 CFR 159

• Marine Safety Manual, Vol. II

• NVIC No. 01-09

V Garbage Regulations for the 

Prevention of Pollution by 

Garbage from Ships

Yes • APPS 33 U.S.C. § 1901 – 1912

• 33 CFR 151

• Marine Safety Manual, Vol. II

VI Air Regulations for the 

Prevention of Air Pollution 

from Ships

Yes • APPS 33 U.S.C. § 1901 – 1912

• 44 U.S.C. § 7401-7671

• 40 CFR 94

• CG-543 Policy Letter No. 09-01

• CG-CVC Policy Letter No. 12-04

• USCG & EPA Revised Protocols on 

Referrals under MARPOL Annex VI as 

implemented by APPS (effective 

03/04/2015)

Source: USCG, No Date

*Indicates whether the U.S. has agreed to comply with this annex. In the case of sewage, the CWA applies to 

vessels even though the U.S. is not a signatory to the annex.

NOS adheres to NOAA’s environmental procedures which comply with MARPOL 73/78 and relevant air 

and water quality implementing legislation, regulations, and guidance listed in the above table. For 

example, discharge restrictions for vessel waste and emissions management include handling all 

hazardous and regulated materials in accordance with applicable laws and appropriately training crew 

members in materials storage and usage. In addition, NOS projects are dispersed throughout the action 

area, which would minimize any impact from air emissions and wastewater discharges from a single vessel 

or aircraft. NOS vessels also represent only a negligible portion of total oceanic vessel traffic, and any 

resulting impacts produced would be indistinguishable from those produced by all other vessels within 

the action area. Therefore, potential impacts from emissions and wastewater discharges on air and water 

quality are generally expected to be imperceptible or nondetectable and is not analyzed further. However, 

where relevant, the effects from accidental leakage or spillage of oil, fuel, and chemicals, and air emissions 

from project vessel engines is briefly analyzed where the impacts may be detectable in the context of 

other resources. For example, the impact of accidental leaks on Sea Turtles is discussed in Section 3.6.2.2.4

and the impact of air emissions on Sea Turtles is discussed in Section 3.6.2.2.7. 

3.14.2 Soils and Geology

Impacts to soils and geological resources occur primarily in terrestrial areas and tend to be from activities 

that come in direct contact with them. NOS projects are predominantly aquatic actions that infrequently 

come into contact with terrestrial areas. Smaller scale activities associated with installation, maintenance, 

and removal of land-based tide gauges and GPS stations do require access to terrestrial areas. However, 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

511

the disturbance resulting from these activities is minimal and impacts to soils and geology would be 

imperceptible or nondetectable. As such, potential impacts to soils and geology as a resource are not 

analyzed further. 

3.14.3 Airborne Noise for Human Receptors

A noise is an undesirable sound, one that interferes with communication, is intense enough to damage 

hearing, or is otherwise intrusive. The main source of airborne noise associated with NOS projects is the 

operation of vessel engines. Noise could also be generated from airplanes occasionally used in survey 

activities, flying overhead as well as taking off and landing on landing strips, and floatplanes taking off and 

touching down on water surfaces.

Airborne noise from vessels used by NOS close to shore would generally be imperceptible or 

nondetectable to nearby human receptors given the ambient noise of other boat and ship traffic. The 

acoustic signature of vessels used by NOS would be indistinguishable from other sources of noise near 

docks, marinas, and ports. While at sea, the airborne noise of vessels used by NOS would be perceptible, 

but would not be a source of concern given the distance to the human environment. Sound produced by 

underwater acoustic equipment is outside of the range of human hearing and is not transmitted between 

water and air; therefore, these sounds are imperceptible to humans in water or air.

Noise from flyovers, take-offs, and landings of fixed-wing aircraft associated with NOS projects would be 

perceptible by human observers, but very infrequent, localized, and short in duration. 

For the reasons presented above, the impact of airborne noise from NOS projects on human receptors is 

not expected to be perceptible or detectable or of concern. Therefore, potential impacts of airborne noise 

on human receptors are not analyzed further. 

3.14.4 Select Freshwater Taxa

NOS projects may include activities within U.S. freshwater bodies, such as the U.S. portion of the Great 

Lakes and major lakes such as Tahoe, Mead, Champlain, Okeechobee, and parts of major rivers such as 

the Mississippi, Missouri, Hudson, and Columbia. Impacts to many freshwater species have been analyzed 

in the Fish, Birds, and Aquatic Macroinvertebrates resource sections. However, there may be a small 

number of NOS projects that occur in other freshwater bodies where select freshwater taxa such as 

amphibians, mammals, and reptiles occur. Analysis of impacts for these select freshwater taxa was not 

carried forward for the following reasons. 

NOS projects within freshwater bodies would occur far less frequently than in marine environments. For 

example, from 2016 to 2021, less than 3 percent of NOS projects occurred in freshwater bodies. 

Based on a preliminary analysis, some stressors are likely to cause adverse, negligible impacts, including 

vessel presence, vessel wake, and accidental spills. The nature of these impacts is very similar to those 

analyzed in the Fish, Birds, Marine Mammals, and Aquatic Macroinvertebrates resource sections. The 

remaining stressors analyzed in this Final PEIS are not likely to affect these select freshwater taxa or are 

expected to be de minimis. The resulting incremental impacts would not be any greater than those already 

experienced by other freshwater species.

Project specific reviews would be conducted to determine if any select freshwater ESA-listed species are 

present in a project area; if those ESA-listed species are identified, NOS would then consult with the 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

512

USFWS or NMFS, as applicable. Therefore, potential impacts to these freshwater species are not analyzed 

further in this Final PEIS.
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

513

3.15 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SHORT-TERM USES OF THE ENVIRONMENT AND THE 

MAINTENANCE AND ENHANCEMENT OF LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY

Section 102(C)(iv) of NEPA and 40 CFR 1502.16 require an EIS to address the relationship between local 

short-term uses of the human environment and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term 

productivity. This involves the consideration of whether a proposed action is sacrificing environmental 

resources in the long term for some short-term value to the project proponent or the public. 

Many of the proposed NOS surveying and mapping projects may cause short-term adverse impacts on 

resources including marine/aquatic wildlife and habitats. However, these impacts are generally predicted 

to be minor and temporary and thus would not lead to any lasting effects. 

The Proposed Action would provide the public and private sectors with nautical charts, benthic habitat 

condition maps, current and tide charts, and other products necessary for safe navigation, economic 

security, and environmental sustainability. The data collected by NOS are used to conserve, preserve, and 

restore ecological resources, including marine/aquatic wildlife and habitat, coral reefs, and cultural and 

historic resources. The data allow federal, state, and local governments to make informed decisions about 

fishing areas and other natural resource management issues. Thus, the Proposed Action provides longterm, beneficial effects to environmental resources. None of the alternatives would entail short-term uses 

of the environment that would compromise, impair, or reduce long-term environmental productivity. 

3.16 IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES

Section 102(C)(v) of NEPA requires an EIS to address “any irreversible and irretrievable commitments of 

resources which would be involved in the Proposed Action should it be implemented.” Irreversible and 

irretrievable commitments of resources refer to losses to or impacts on natural resources that cannot be 

recovered or reversed. 

Irreversible commitments of resources are those that cannot be regained. “Irreversible” applies mainly to 

the effects from use or depletion of nonrenewable resources, such as fossil fuels or cultural resources, or 

to factors such as soil productivity that are renewable only over long periods of time. Under Alternatives 

A, B, and C, the use of non-renewable energy sources would be an irreversible commitment of resources. 

Non-renewable energy consumption would occur via the combustion of fossil fuels (diesel fuel) in vessels 

used by NOS. However, the amount of fossil energy consumed would represent a minute fraction of that 

consumed annually by the nation’s governmental, commercial, and recreational boat and shipping fleet. 

It would be an even smaller fraction of the nation’s aggregate annual fossil fuel consumption. 

Irretrievable commitments of resources are those that are lost for a period of time, but not permanently. 

No irretrievable commitments of resources are expected from implementation of the Proposed Action.

3.17 UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS

Section 102(2)(c)(ii) of NEPA requires that an EIS include information on “any adverse environmental 

effects which cannot be avoided should the proposed action be implemented.” Unavoidable adverse 

impacts are the effects on the human environment that would remain after mitigation measures and best 

practices have been applied. They do not include temporary or permanent impacts that would be 

mitigated. While these impacts do not have to be avoided by the planning agency, they must be disclosed, 

considered, and mitigated where possible (40 CFR § 1500.2[e]). All three alternatives (A, B, and C) of the 

Proposed Action would have the same unavoidable adverse impacts but to different degrees because the 

level of effort differs. Alternative B would have slightly greater unavoidable adverse impacts than 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

514

Alternative A, and Alternative C would have slightly greater unavoidable adverse impacts than 

Alternatives B and A. 

The Proposed Action would entail unavoidable adverse impacts on marine and aquatic habitats; marine 

mammals; sea turtles; fish; aquatic macroinvertebrates; EFH; and seabirds, shorebirds, coastal birds, and 

waterfowl. While unavoidable, these adverse impacts would mostly vary from negligible to minor; they 

would not be significant adverse impacts. For the marine and aquatic organisms in particular, the 

unavoidable adverse impacts would result mostly from underwater noise through the operation of vessel 

engines and use of underwater acoustic equipment. There would also be a low level of unavoidable 

adverse impacts from disturbance due to presence and associated sight, smell, and sound of humans and 

their equipment in remote locations where wildlife populations are unaccustomed to human intrusion 

and encroachment. 

The Proposed Action would also entail unavoidable adverse impacts to cultural and historic resources and 

environmental justice. These unavoidable adverse impacts would range from negligible to moderate in 

overall magnitude but would still be insignificant. Cultural and historic resources subjected to unavoidable 

impacts would include submerged cultural or historic resources, coastal infrastructure, viewsheds of 

nearshore historic properties and designed cultural landscapes, and subsistence hunting and fishing areas 

including Traditional Cultural Properties. Unavoidable adverse environmental justice impacts would 

mostly be related to potential effects of the Proposed Action on subsistence hunting, fishing, and other 

traditional harvests. 

In summary, while the Proposed Action would entail the potential for unavoidable adverse impacts on a 

variety of resources, none of these impacts would be significant. 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

515

3.18 COMPARISON OF IMPACTS

Table 3.18-1 compares the environmental consequences for Alternatives A, B, and C. For each resource analyzed in Sections 3.4 through 3.13, the 

impacts are summarized by impact causing factor and by alternative overall.

Table 3.18-1. Summary Comparison of Impacts

Resource

Alternative A: No Action – Conduct 

Surveys and Mapping for Coastal and 

Marine Data Collection with Current 

Technology and Methods, at Current 

Funding Levels

Alternative B: Conduct Surveys and 

Mapping with Equipment 

Upgrades, Improved Hydroacoustic 

Devices, and New Tide Stations

Alternative C: Upgrades and 

Improvements with Greater 

Funding Support

Habitats Impacts to habitats from water 

column disruptions under Alternative 

A would continue to be adverse and 

negligible. 

Impacts to habitats from activities 

involving physical disturbance to 

bottom substrate; sedimentation, 

turbidity, and chemical contaminants;

increased ambient underwater sound

levels; and onshore activities under 

Alternative A would continue to be 

adverse and negligible to minor. 

The impact on habitats from invasive 

species dispersal facilitated by 

activities under Alternative A would 

likely continue to be adverse and 

minor. 

Impacts to habitat areas resulting 

from Alternative A would not cause 

Impacts of Alternative B on habitats 

throughout the action area would 

be the same or slightly, but not 

appreciably, larger than those that 

would occur under Alternative A for 

each impact causing factor. 

Impacts to habitat areas resulting 

from Alternative A would not cause 

long-term changes in the availability 

of space, shelter, cover, or nutrients 

necessary for dependent species 

and would not substantially increase 

in intensity with the increased level 

of effort of Alternative B. 

Overall, impacts to habitats under 

Alternative B would be adverse, 

minor, and insignificant.

Impacts of Alternative C on habitats 

throughout the action area would 

be the same or slightly, but not 

appreciably, larger than those under 

Alternatives A and B for each impact 

causing factor. 

Impacts to habitat areas resulting 

from Alternatives A and B would not 

cause long-term decreases in the 

availability of space, shelter, cover, 

or nutrients necessary for 

dependent species and would not 

substantially increase in intensity 

with the increased level of effort of 

Alternative C.

Overall, impacts to habitats under 

Alternative C would be adverse, 

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

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

516

Resource

Alternative A: No Action – Conduct 

Surveys and Mapping for Coastal and 

Marine Data Collection with Current 

Technology and Methods, at Current 

Funding Levels

Alternative B: Conduct Surveys and 

Mapping with Equipment 

Upgrades, Improved Hydroacoustic 

Devices, and New Tide Stations

Alternative C: Upgrades and 

Improvements with Greater 

Funding Support

long-term changes in the availability of 

space, shelter, cover, or nutrients 

necessary for dependent species. 

Overall, impacts to habitats under 

Alternative A would continue to be 

adverse, minor, and insignificant.

Marine Mammals Impacts on marine mammals 

(cetaceans, pinnipeds, sirenians, and 

fissipeds) from trash and debris and 

air emissions under Alternative A 

would continue to be adverse and

negligible. 

Impacts from human activity under 

Alternative A would continue to be 

adverse and negligible on cetaceans 

and sirenians and adverse and minor 

on pinnipeds and fissipeds. 

Impacts on marine mammals 

(cetaceans, pinnipeds, sirenians, and 

fissipeds) from accidental oil, fuel, or 

chemical spills under Alternative A 

would continue to be adverse and

negligible to minor. 

Impacts on marine mammals 

(cetaceans, pinnipeds, sirenians, and 

Impacts of Alternative B on marine 

mammals would be the same or 

slightly, but not appreciably, larger 

than those that would occur under 

Alternative A for each impact 

causing factor. 

Impacts to marine mammals 

resulting from Alternative A would 

be temporary or short-term and 

would not be considered outside the 

natural range of variability of 

species’ populations, their habitats, 

or the natural processes sustaining 

them. These impacts would not 

substantially increase in intensity 

with the increased survey effort of 

Alternative B. 

Overall, impacts of Alternative B on 

marine mammals, including ESAlisted species, and habitat, including 

Impacts of Alternative C on marine 

mammals would be the same or 

slightly, but not appreciably, larger 

than those that would occur under 

Alternatives A and B for each impact 

causing factor. 

Impacts to marine mammals 

resulting from Alternatives A and B 

would be temporary or short-term 

and would not be considered 

outside the natural range of 

variability of species’ populations, 

their habitats, or the natural 

processes sustaining them. These 

impacts would not substantially 

increase in intensity with the 

increased survey effort of 

Alternative C. 

Overall, impacts of Alternative C on 

marine mammals, including ESA-
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

517

Resource

Alternative A: No Action – Conduct 

Surveys and Mapping for Coastal and 

Marine Data Collection with Current 

Technology and Methods, at Current 

Funding Levels

Alternative B: Conduct Surveys and 

Mapping with Equipment 

Upgrades, Improved Hydroacoustic 

Devices, and New Tide Stations

Alternative C: Upgrades and 

Improvements with Greater 

Funding Support

fissipeds) from active underwater 

acoustic sources, vessel and 

equipment sound, vessel presence 

and movement of equipment in the 

water under Alternative A would 

continue to be adverse and minor. 

Impacts on pinnipeds and fissipeds 

from air emissions under Alternative A 

would continue to be adverse and 

negligible.

Although a vessel strike is very 

unlikely, debilitating injury or 

mortality of one or a few individuals 

could occur and impacts would be 

adverse and moderate, or greater if 

an ESA-listed species is affected. If a 

walrus stampede occurs due to vessel 

or aircraft disturbance, the impact 

could be adverse and moderate or 

greater. If polar bears are disturbed at 

denning sites or if polar bear-human 

interactions occur, the impact could 

be adverse and moderate.

Potential impacts from underwater 

acoustic sources include injury 

exposures in the form of hearing loss 

designated critical habitat, would be 

adverse, minor, and insignificant.

listed species, and habitat, including 

designated critical habitat, would be 

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

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

518

Resource

Alternative A: No Action – Conduct 

Surveys and Mapping for Coastal and 

Marine Data Collection with Current 

Technology and Methods, at Current 

Funding Levels

Alternative B: Conduct Surveys and 

Mapping with Equipment 

Upgrades, Improved Hydroacoustic 

Devices, and New Tide Stations

Alternative C: Upgrades and 

Improvements with Greater 

Funding Support

(PTS) on cetaceans, but such injury 

would be rare and confined to a few 

individual high-frequency cetaceans. It 

would also include behavioral 

disruption exposures of cetaceans, 

pinnipeds, sirenians and fissipeds, but 

the amount of time individuals may 

exceed the behavioral exposure 

threshold would be on average less 

than a few minutes.

Impacts to marine mammals resulting 

from Alternative A would be 

temporary or short-term and would 

not be considered outside the natural 

range of variability of species’ 

populations, their habitats, or the 

natural processes sustaining them. 

Overall, impacts of Alternative A on 

marine mammals, including ESA-listed 

species, and habitat, including 

designated critical habitat, would 

continue to be adverse, minor, and 

insignificant.

Sea Turtles Impacts to sea turtles and their 

habitats from active underwater 

acoustic sources, vessel and 

equipment sound, and onshore 

Impacts of Alternative B on sea 

turtles and their habitats would be 

the same or slightly, but not 

appreciably, larger than those that 

Impacts of Alternative C on sea 

turtles and their habitats would be 

the same or slightly, but not 

appreciably, larger than those that 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

519

Resource

Alternative A: No Action – Conduct 

Surveys and Mapping for Coastal and 

Marine Data Collection with Current 

Technology and Methods, at Current 

Funding Levels

Alternative B: Conduct Surveys and 

Mapping with Equipment 

Upgrades, Improved Hydroacoustic 

Devices, and New Tide Stations

Alternative C: Upgrades and 

Improvements with Greater 

Funding Support

activities under Alternative A would 

continue to be adverse and negligible.

Impacts to sea turtles and their 

habitats from vessel presence and 

movement, underwater activities, and 

air emissions under Alternative A 

would continue to be adverse and

negligible to minor.

Impacts to sea turtles and their 

habitats from accidental oil, fuel, or 

chemical spills would continue to be 

adverse and negligible to minor.

Although the effects of impact causing 

factors on sea turtles and their 

habitats range from negligible to 

moderate, moderate impacts could 

occur in the very unlikely event of an 

accidental spill of oil, fuel, or 

chemicals. Likewise, in the very 

unlikely event of a vessel strike, injury 

or death to sea turtles would also 

constitute a moderate or greater 

impact. 

Impacts to sea turtles resulting from 

Alternative A would not cause longwould occur under Alternative A for 

each impact causing factor. 

Impacts to sea turtles resulting from 

Alternative A would not cause longterm changes in habitat availability 

and use, sea turtle behavior, or 

energy expenditures and would not 

substantially increase in intensity 

with the increased survey effort of 

Alternative B. 

Overall, impacts on sea turtles and 

their habitat, including designated 

critical habitat, would be adverse, 

minor, and insignificant.

would occur under Alternatives A 

and B for each impact causing 

factor. 

Impacts to sea turtles resulting from 

Alternatives A and B would not 

cause long-term changes in habitat 

availability and use, sea turtle 

behavior, or energy expenditures 

and would not substantially increase 

in intensity with the increased 

survey effort of Alternative C. 

Overall, impacts on sea turtles and 

their habitat, including designated 

critical habitat, would be adverse, 

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

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

520

Resource

Alternative A: No Action – Conduct 

Surveys and Mapping for Coastal and 

Marine Data Collection with Current 

Technology and Methods, at Current 

Funding Levels

Alternative B: Conduct Surveys and 

Mapping with Equipment 

Upgrades, Improved Hydroacoustic 

Devices, and New Tide Stations

Alternative C: Upgrades and 

Improvements with Greater 

Funding Support

term changes in habitat availability 

and use, sea turtle behavior, or energy 

expenditures.

Overall, impacts under Alternative A 

on sea turtles and their habitats, 

including designated critical habitat, 

would continue to be adverse, minor, 

and insignificant.

Fish Impacts to fish and their habitats from 

vessel wake and turbulence; vessel 

sound; accidental spill of oil, fuel, or 

chemicals; and disturbance of the 

ocean/lake/river bottom under 

Alternative A would continue to be 

adverse and negligible to minor.

Impacts to fish and their habitats from 

active underwater acoustic sources 

and air emissions under Alternative A 

would continue to be adverse and

minor.

Impacts to fish resulting from 

Alternative A may include some stress 

responses without permanent 

physiological damage, and may disturb 

breeding, feeding, or other activities 

but without any impacts on 

Under Alternative B, impacts on fish 

and fish habitat would be the same 

or slightly, but not appreciably, 

larger than those that would occur 

under Alternative A for each impact 

causing factor. 

Impacts to fish resulting from 

Alternative A may include some 

stress responses without permanent 

physiological damage, and may 

disturb breeding, feeding, or other

activities but without any impacts 

on population levels; additionally, 

there would not be long-term 

changes in habitat availability and 

use or in fish behavior. These 

impacts would not substantially 

increase in intensity with the 

Impacts of Alternative C on fish and 

fish habitat would be the same or 

slightly, but not appreciably, larger 

than those that would occur under 

Alternatives A and B for each impact 

causing factor. 

Impacts to fish resulting from 

Alternatives A and B may include 

some stress responses without 

permanent physiological damage, 

and may disturb breeding, feeding, 

or other activities but without any 

impacts on population levels; 

additionally, there would not be 

long-term changes in habitat 

availability and use or in fish 

behavior. These impacts would not 

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

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

521

Resource

Alternative A: No Action – Conduct 

Surveys and Mapping for Coastal and 

Marine Data Collection with Current 

Technology and Methods, at Current 

Funding Levels

Alternative B: Conduct Surveys and 

Mapping with Equipment 

Upgrades, Improved Hydroacoustic 

Devices, and New Tide Stations

Alternative C: Upgrades and 

Improvements with Greater 

Funding Support

population levels; additionally, there 

would not be long-term changes in 

habitat availability and use or in fish 

behavior.

Overall, impacts of Alternative A on 

fish, including ESA-listed species, and 

fish habitat, including designated 

critical habitat, would continue to be 

adverse, minor, and insignificant.

increased survey effort of 

Alternative B. 

Overall, impacts of Alternative B on 

fish, including ESA-listed species,

and fish habitat, including 

designated critical habitat, would be 

adverse, minor, and insignificant.

with the increased survey effort of 

Alternative C. 

Overall, impacts of Alternative C on 

fish, including ESA-listed species,

and fish habitat, including 

designated critical habitat, would be 

adverse, minor, and insignificant.

Aquatic 

Macroinvertebrates

Impacts to aquatic macroinvertebrates

and their habitats from underwater 

acoustic sources, vessel sound, and air 

emissions under Alternative A would 

continue to be adverse and negligible.

Impacts to aquatic macroinvertebrates

and their habitats from vessel wake 

and underwater turbulence;

accidental spill of oil, fuel, or 

chemicals; and disturbance of the 

ocean/lake/river bottom under 

Alternative A would continue to be 

adverse and negligible to minor.

Overall, impacts of Alternative A on 

aquatic macroinvertebrates, including 

ESA-listed species, and habitats, 

Under Alternative B, impacts on 

aquatic macroinvertebrates and 

their habitats would be the same or 

slightly, but not appreciably, larger 

than those that would occur under 

Alternative A for each impact 

causing factor. These impacts would 

not substantially increase in 

intensity with the increased survey 

effort of Alternative B. 

Overall, impacts of Alternative B on 

aquatic macroinvertebrates, 

including ESA-listed species, and 

habitats, including designated 

critical habitat, would be adverse, 

minor, and insignificant.

Under Alternative C, impacts on 

aquatic macroinvertebrates and 

their habitats would be the same or 

slightly, but not appreciably, larger 

than those that would occur under 

Alternatives A and B for each impact 

causing factor. These impacts would 

not substantially increase in 

intensity with the increased survey 

effort of Alternative C. 

Overall, impacts of Alternative C on 

aquatic macroinvertebrates, 

including ESA-listed species, and 

habitats, including designated 

critical habitat, would be adverse, 

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

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

522

Resource

Alternative A: No Action – Conduct 

Surveys and Mapping for Coastal and 

Marine Data Collection with Current 

Technology and Methods, at Current 

Funding Levels

Alternative B: Conduct Surveys and 

Mapping with Equipment 

Upgrades, Improved Hydroacoustic 

Devices, and New Tide Stations

Alternative C: Upgrades and 

Improvements with Greater 

Funding Support

including designated critical habitat,

would continue to be adverse, minor, 

and insignificant.

Essential Fish Habitat 

(EFH)

Impacts to EFH from disturbance of 

the water column under Alternative A 

would continue to be adverse and

negligible.

Impacts to EFH from physical impacts 

to bottom habitat; increase in 

sedimentation, turbidity, or chemical 

contamination; dispersal of invasive 

species; and increase in ambient

sound under Alternative A would 

continue to be adverse and negligible 

to minor.

Impacts to EFH resulting from 

Alternative A would be infrequent, 

geographically widely distributed, and 

likely to elicit a minimal or temporary 

response from prey species or cause 

short-term changes to physical 

characteristics (i.e., changes in water 

quality).

Overall, impacts of Alternative A on 

EFH would continue to be adverse, 

minor, and insignificant.

Under Alternative B, impacts on EFH 

would be the same or slightly, but 

not appreciably, larger than those 

that would occur under Alternative 

A for each impact causing factor. 

Impacts to EFH resulting from 

Alternative A would be infrequent, 

geographically widely distributed, 

and likely to elicit a minimal or 

temporary response from prey 

species or cause short-term changes 

to physical characteristics (i.e., 

changes in water quality). These 

impacts would not substantially 

increase in intensity with the 

increased survey effort of 

Alternative B. 

Overall, impacts of Alternative B on 

EFH would be adverse, minor, and 

insignificant. 

Under Alternative C, impacts on EFH 

would be the same or slightly, but 

not appreciably, larger than those 

that would occur under Alternatives 

A and B for each impact causing 

factor. 

Impacts to EFH resulting from 

Alternatives A and B would be 

infrequent, geographically widely 

distributed, and likely to elicit a 

minimal or temporary response 

from prey species or cause shortterm changes to physical 

characteristics (i.e., changes in 

water quality). These impacts would 

not substantially increase in 

intensity with the increased survey 

effort of Alternative C. 

Overall, impacts of Alternative C on 

EFH would be adverse, minor, and 

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

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

523

Resource

Alternative A: No Action – Conduct 

Surveys and Mapping for Coastal and 

Marine Data Collection with Current 

Technology and Methods, at Current 

Funding Levels

Alternative B: Conduct Surveys and 

Mapping with Equipment 

Upgrades, Improved Hydroacoustic 

Devices, and New Tide Stations

Alternative C: Upgrades and 

Improvements with Greater 

Funding Support

Seabirds, Shorebirds 

and Coastal Birds, and 

Waterfowl

Impacts to birds and their habitats 

from active underwater acoustic

sources and vessel and equipment 

sound under Alternative A would 

continue to be adverse and negligible.

Impacts to birds and their habitats 

from aircraft sound, vessel presence 

and movement, underwater activities, 

onshore activities, and air emissions 

under Alternative A would continue to 

be adverse and negligible to minor.

Impacts to birds and their habitats 

from accidental oil, fuel, or chemical 

spills would continue to be adverse 

and minor to moderate.

Although the effects of impact causing 

factors on birds and their habitats 

range from negligible to moderate, 

moderate impacts could occur in the 

very unlikely event of an accidental 

spill of oil, fuel, or chemicals. Likewise, 

in the very unlikely event of a vessel 

strike, injury or death to birds could 

constitute greater impacts. 

Under Alternative B, impacts on 

birds and their habitats would be 

the same or slightly, but not 

appreciably, larger than those that 

would occur under Alternative A for 

each impact causing factor. 

Impacts to birds resulting from 

Alternative A would generally persist 

only for the duration of an activity 

and would not be expected to cause 

any long-term changes in habitat 

use and availability or energy 

expenditure outside of the natural 

range of variation. These impacts 

would not substantially increase in 

intensity with the increased survey 

effort of Alternative B. 

Overall, impacts on of Alternative B 

on birds, including ESA-listed 

species, and habitats, including 

designated critical habitat, would be 

adverse, minor, and insignificant.

Under Alternative C, impacts on 

birds and their habitats would be 

the same or slightly, but not 

appreciably, larger than those that 

would occur under Alternatives A 

and B for each impact causing 

factor. 

Impacts to birds resulting from 

Alternatives A and B would generally 

persist only for the duration of an 

activity and would not be expected 

to cause any long-term changes in 

habitat use and availability or 

energy expenditure outside of the 

natural range of variation. These 

impacts would not substantially 

increase in intensity with the 

increased survey effort of 

Alternative C. 

Overall, impacts on of Alternative C 

on birds, including ESA-listed 

species, and habitats, including 

designated critical habitat, would be 

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

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

524

Resource

Alternative A: No Action – Conduct 

Surveys and Mapping for Coastal and 

Marine Data Collection with Current 

Technology and Methods, at Current 

Funding Levels

Alternative B: Conduct Surveys and 

Mapping with Equipment 

Upgrades, Improved Hydroacoustic 

Devices, and New Tide Stations

Alternative C: Upgrades and 

Improvements with Greater 

Funding Support

Impacts to birds resulting from 

Alternative A would generally persist 

only for the duration of an activity and 

would not be expected to cause any 

long-term changes in habitat use and 

availability or energy expenditure 

outside of the natural range of 

variation.

Overall, impacts on of Alternative A on 

birds, including ESA-listed species, and 

habitats, including designated critical 

habitat, would continue to be 

adverse, minor, and insignificant.

Cultural and Historic 

Resources

Impacts to cultural and historic 

resources from installation, 

maintenance, and removal of tide 

gauges, buoys, and GPS reference 

stations under Alternative A would 

continue to be adverse and negligible 

to minor.

Impacts to cultural and historic 

resources from bottom sampling 

under Alternative A would continue to 

be both adverse and beneficial, 

permanent, and negligible to minor. 

Beneficial impacts would occur if a 

resource were discovered that led to 

Under Alternative B, impacts on 

cultural and historic resources

would be the same or slightly, but 

not appreciably, larger than those 

that would occur under Alternative 

A for each impact causing factor. 

These impacts would not 

substantially increase in intensity 

with the increased survey effort of 

Alternative B. 

Overall, impacts of Alternative B to 

cultural and historic resources 

would be adverse, moderate, and

insignificant.

Under Alternative C, impacts on 

cultural and historic resources

would be the same or slightly, but 

not appreciably, larger than those 

that would occur under Alternatives 

A and B for each impact causing 

factor. These impacts would not 

substantially increase in intensity 

with the increased survey effort of 

Alternative C. 

Overall, impacts of Alternative C to 

cultural and historic resources 

would be adverse, moderate, and

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

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

525

Resource

Alternative A: No Action – Conduct 

Surveys and Mapping for Coastal and 

Marine Data Collection with Current 

Technology and Methods, at Current 

Funding Levels

Alternative B: Conduct Surveys and 

Mapping with Equipment 

Upgrades, Improved Hydroacoustic 

Devices, and New Tide Stations

Alternative C: Upgrades and 

Improvements with Greater 

Funding Support

the identification of a culturallysignificant artifact or a previously 

undocumented historic site.

Impacts to cultural and historic 

resources from anchoring under 

Alternative A would continue to be 

adverse, permanent, and negligible to

moderate.

Impacts on subsistence hunting and 

fishing, including Traditional Cultural 

Places, under Alternative A would 

continue to be adverse and negligible 

to moderate.

Although the effects of impact causing 

factors on cultural and historic 

resources range from negligible to 

moderate, moderate impacts that 

could occur if the integrity of a 

resource is diminished would be very 

unlikely. 

Overall, impacts of Alternative A to 

cultural and historic resources would 

continue to be adverse, moderate, 

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

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

526

Resource

Alternative A: No Action – Conduct 

Surveys and Mapping for Coastal and 

Marine Data Collection with Current 

Technology and Methods, at Current 

Funding Levels

Alternative B: Conduct Surveys and 

Mapping with Equipment 

Upgrades, Improved Hydroacoustic 

Devices, and New Tide Stations

Alternative C: Upgrades and 

Improvements with Greater 

Funding Support

Socioeconomic 

Resources

The economic impacts of ocean data 

procured under Alternative A on 

health and safety, recreational 

economic activity, transportation, and 

energy-related activities would 

continue to be indirect, beneficial, 

and moderate. 

Impacts to commercial fishing under 

Alternative A would continue to be 

adverse and negligible.

Data collected under Alternative A 

would continue to improve the quality 

and quantity of ocean data and data 

products. 

Overall, Alternative A would continue 

to have indirect, beneficial, and 

moderate impacts on the ocean 

economy. 

The economic benefits of impacts of 

Alternative B would be the same or 

slightly, but not appreciably, larger 

than those discussed above under 

Alternative A. These impacts would 

not substantially increase in 

intensity with the increased survey 

effort of Alternative B. 

Overall, Alternative B would have 

indirect, beneficial, and moderate 

impacts on the ocean economy.

The economic benefits of impacts of 

Alternative C would be the same or 

slightly, but not appreciably, larger 

than those under Alternatives A and 

B. These impacts would not 

substantially increase in intensity 

with the increased survey effort of 

Alternative C. 

Overall, Alternative C would have 

indirect, beneficial, and moderate 

impacts on the ocean economy.

Environmental Justice Impacts of underwater acoustic

sources on subsistence hunting of 

marine mammals under Alternative A 

would continue to be adverse and 

moderate, and the impacts to 

subsistence fishing communities 

would continue to be adverse and 

minor. 

Under Alternative B, impacts on 

environmental justice would be the 

same or slightly, but not 

appreciably, larger than those that 

would occur under Alternative A for 

each impact causing factor. These 

impacts would not substantially 

increase in intensity with the 

Under Alternative C, impacts on 

environmental justice would be the 

same or slightly, but not 

appreciably, larger than those that 

would occur under Alternatives A 

and B for each impact causing 

factor. These impacts would not 

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

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

527

Resource

Alternative A: No Action – Conduct 

Surveys and Mapping for Coastal and 

Marine Data Collection with Current 

Technology and Methods, at Current 

Funding Levels

Alternative B: Conduct Surveys and 

Mapping with Equipment 

Upgrades, Improved Hydroacoustic 

Devices, and New Tide Stations

Alternative C: Upgrades and 

Improvements with Greater 

Funding Support

Impacts of vessel and equipment noise 

on subsistence hunting of marine 

mammals under Alternative A would 

continue to be adverse and minor, 

and the impacts to subsistence fishing 

communities would continue to be 

adverse and negligible. 

Impacts of vessel and equipment 

presence and movement on 

subsistence hunting of marine 

mammals under Alternative A would 

continue to be adverse and moderate, 

and the impacts to subsistence fishing 

communities would continue to be 

adverse and negligible. 

Impacts of human activities and 

accidental leakage or spillage of oil, 

fuel, and chemicals on subsistence

hunting and fishing under Alternative 

A would continue to be adverse and 

minor.

Impacts of marine trash and debris 

and air emissions on subsistence

hunting and fishing activities under 

increased survey effort of 

Alternative B. 

Overall, impacts of Alternative B on 

environmental justice would 

continue to be adverse, minor to

moderate, and insignificant. 

with the increased survey effort of 

Alternative C. 

Overall, impacts of Alternative C on 

environmental justice would 

continue to be adverse, minor to

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

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

528

Resource

Alternative A: No Action – Conduct 

Surveys and Mapping for Coastal and 

Marine Data Collection with Current 

Technology and Methods, at Current 

Funding Levels

Alternative B: Conduct Surveys and 

Mapping with Equipment 

Upgrades, Improved Hydroacoustic 

Devices, and New Tide Stations

Alternative C: Upgrades and 

Improvements with Greater 

Funding Support

Alternative A would continue to be 

adverse and negligible. 

The availability of new mapping and 

charting information under Alternative 

A would have beneficial effects on EJ 

communities.

Overall, impacts of Alternative A on 

environmental justice would continue 

to be adverse, minor to moderate, 

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

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

529

4.0 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

Cumulative impacts are defined by the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations in 40 Code of 

Federal Regulations (CFR) 1508.7 (1978) as the “impact on the environment which results from the 

incremental impact of the [proposed] action when added to other past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (federal or non-federal) or person undertakes such 

actions. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor, but collectively significant, actions taking 

place over a period of time.”

Cumulative effects may be additive or interactive. Additive effects are the sum of the effects on a 

resource; for example, groundwater pumping for agricultural irrigation, domestic consumption, and 

industrial cooling and process activities that all contribute incrementally and additively to drawing down 

a groundwater aquifer. Interactive effects may be either countervailing – where the net adverse 

cumulative effect is less than the sum of the individual effects – or synergistic – where the net adverse 

cumulative effect is greater than the sum of the individual effects. An example of a countervailing effect 

is when particulate matter and aerosol air pollutants, which tend to block or reflect insolation (sunlight or 

incoming solar radiation) and thus cool the planet surface, counteract the warming or radiative forcing 

effect of carbon dioxide emitted at the same time. The discharge of nutrients and heated water to a river 

that combine to cause an algal bloom and subsequent loss of dissolved oxygen greater than the additive 

effects of each individual pollutant is an example of a synergistic effect. CEQ recommends that the 

cumulative impact analysis be narrowed as much as possible to focus on important issues at a national, 

regional, or local level (CEQ, 1997b). The first step in the cumulative impacts analysis is to identify 

cumulative actions. The second step is to analyze how, if at all, the effects of the Proposed Action may 

contribute to the effects of the cumulative actions thereby resulting in cumulative impacts (Section 4.2).

4.1 CUMULATIVE ACTIONS

Per 40 CFR 1508.25(a)(2), cumulative actions are those past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future 

actions that must be addressed in a cumulative effects analysis because their environmental effects may 

combine with the effects of the Proposed Action addressed in the National Environmental Policy Act

(NEPA) document (CEQ, 1997b). Based on the scope of the National Ocean Service (NOS) Proposed Action 

and the amount of information available regarding the past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future 

actions taking place in the action area that was defined in Chapter 2, NOS has considered actions taking 

place during a 17-year period spanning from 2010 to 2027. Due to the volume and diversity of these 

cumulative actions, this section identifies specific projects and programs, both public and private sector, 

but also relevant environmental and economic trends.

In addition to the more substantial or widespread cumulative actions described in Sections 4.1.1-4.1.12, 

the resources in the action area, particularly biological resources, are sensitive to other human activities 

that should also be considered in the cumulative impact analysis, when appropriate. These additional 

activities include:

• Accumulation of marine debris from marine or terrestrial sources (e.g., plastics, polystyrene, glass, 

metals, or rubber);

• Accidental or illicit discharges (e.g., oil or fuel spills or other introduction of chemical 

contaminants);

• Habitat encroachment from onshore and nearshore development (e.g., as a function of coastal 

population growth);
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

530

• Illegal, unreported, and unregulated (IUU) fishing;

• Flows of non-point source pollutants, contaminants, sediments, and nutrients from urbanized and 

agricultural areas in watersheds into coastal waters, with the greatest adverse effects 

experienced in waters with limited circulation such as bays, sounds, and estuaries.

As a result of the ongoing global coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, there has been a 

measurable decrease in maritime activities, including the delay and cancellation of ocean research 

projects, to ensure the health and safety of maritime workers and the coastal population. The reduction 

in overall maritime activity such as shipping, fishing operations, recreation/tourism, and research efforts 

would be expected to reduce long-term and short-term impacts on coastal environments and the ambient 

ocean sound level; however, impacts are not fully known (NOAA, 2020b). At the same time, the ongoing 

pandemic is expected to reduce the beneficial economic impacts of many maritime activities (NMFS, 

2021b). Despite the potential short- and long- term cumulative effects of the ongoing global COVID-19 

pandemic on the resources evaluated in this Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS), 

the pandemic is not considered in this analysis because its effects are not fully known. In general, 

decreases in maritime activity would be expected to decrease impacts to the coastal environment; 

therefore, the conservative assumption is to assess cumulative impacts under pre-pandemic cumulative 

actions.

4.1.1 Other Surveying and Mapping Efforts in the Action Area

As of the summer of 2010, only 906,496 square kilometers (km2) (350,000 square miles [mi2]) of seafloor, 

less than 8 percent of the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), had been mapped in the Atlantic, Pacific, 

Gulf of Mexico, and Arctic (NSTC, 2013). As of 2020, 43 percent of the 8,905,960 km2 (3.4 million square 

nautical miles [nm2

]) of U.S. underwater territory is mapped to modern standards (NOAA, 2020c). Given 

the many applications of the collected data, agencies at all governmental levels, universities, non-profit 

research institutions, and the private sector, conduct surveying and mapping projects in the action area. 

Other agencies or private groups performing hydrographic surveys would use echo sounders and 

equipment similar to those described in Chapter 2. Surveying and mapping projects that use a 

combination of different equipment and techniques can be referred to by what they are mapping rather 

than by the type of surveying equipment used. Benthic (ocean floor or lake bottom) habitat mapping 

entails using a combination of techniques, such as acoustics and lidar, to create a spatially explicit way to 

identify submerged features (NPS, 2018). Geological and geophysical (G&G) surveys are used to map gas 

hydrate deposits, bedrock characteristics, and marine mineral resources (BOEM, 2018b; USGS, 2019a). 

Marine seismic surveys are a type of G&G survey that use a variety of acoustic sources to image sediment 

and rock deep below the seafloor (USGS, 2019a). For example, deep penetration seismic airgun surveys 

are conducted by vessels towing an array of airguns that produce low frequency sound pulses that 

penetrate deep into the subsurface and are then reflected and recorded by receivers to image deep 

geological features (BOEM, 2018b). This mechanism is illustrated in Figure 4.1-1 below. 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

531

Source: BOEM, 2018a

Figure 4.1-1. Deep Penetration Seismic Airgun Surveying

High resolution geophysical (HRG) surveys are another type of G&G survey which use sound waves that 

are reflected off submerged structures to collect data on conditions both at the seafloor and the shallow 

subsurface. HRG equipment generally includes the sonar survey equipment described in Chapter 2 (e.g., 

multibeam echo sounders, side-scan sonars, sub-bottom profilers). HRG systems usually use higher 

frequencies than those used in seismic airgun surveys and image smaller structures with a higher level of 

detail (BOEM, 2018b). HRG surveys, deep penetration seismic surveys, and other types of G&G surveys 

are used during the preliminary resource assessment phases for Oil and Gas (O&G) exploration, renewable 

energy siting, and marine mineral projects (BOEM, 2018b). 

Surveying and mapping projects can also involve the collection of “core” (samples that preserve surface 

and subsurface sediment layers) and “grab” samples from the seafloor. Additional equipment used in 

these projects can include pressure gauges for measuring waves and currents, Acoustic Doppler Current 

Profilers (ADCPs) for measuring water depth, autonomous and towed instrumentation for characterizing 

ocean chemistry, and optical backscatter remote-sensing instruments for estimating the concentration of 

sediment in the water column (USGS, 2020).

Coordination within the ocean and coastal mapping community is facilitated through the Interagency 

Working Group on Ocean and Coastal Mapping (IWG-OCM) under the National Ocean Council (NSTC, 

2016; IOCM, No Date-a). In addition to NOAA, other federal agencies that undertake or permit surveying 

and mapping projects include Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM), Federal Emergency 

Management Agency (FEMA), National Park Service (NPS), Naval Oceanographic Office (NAVO), United 

States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), and United States Geological Survey (USGS).

Universities, Non-Profit Research Institutions, and Other Private Sector Efforts. Many of the federal 

agencies that undertake or permit surveying and mapping projects support research conducted at 

universities, non-profits, and other institutions. Ocean use activities are coordinated through the 

University-National Oceanographic Laboratory System (UNOLS), an organization of academic institutions 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

532

and National Laboratories (UNOLS, No Date). UNOLS vessels conduct a wide array of research activities 

including marine seismic research and oceanographic aircraft research (UNOLS, 2021).

Given the exceptional variability and vast number of surveying and mapping activities in the action area, 

it is not possible to provide an exhaustive list of all projects in the action area; however, by identifying 

regional surveying and mapping needs and using incidental take authorization data, reasonably 

foreseeable surveying and mapping projects are described for each region.

Due to their potential impact to marine mammals, surveying and mapping projects that use active acoustic 

sources require incidental take authorizations granted by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) 

under the Marine Mammals Protection Act (MMPA) (NMFS, 2019d). A list of recent surveying and 

mapping projects that require incidental take authorization is presented for each region below as a 

representative, not exhaustive, list of other surveying and mapping projects. These projects are 

categorized as G&G surveys, ecological monitoring, or fisheries management and research because of the 

difference in potential impact. G&G surveys are typically localized and require the use of high intensity 

active acoustic sources that penetrate the surface of the seafloor, while ecological monitoring and 

fisheries management and research generally use lower intensity active acoustic sources. Projects with an 

active take authorization status and projects with a take authorization application in-process are 

considered reasonably foreseeable to occur within the next five years and are categorized as ongoing 

activities. Projects that have been granted take authorizations that have expired within the past 10 years 

are considered activities that have occurred within the past 10 years. Smaller data acquisition projects 

and hydrographic surveys that did not require incidental take authorization are not captured in Tables 

4.1-1-4.1-5. Although projects that require take authorization are not the only projects occurring in the 

action area, they are used as a representative list because projects that require take authorization are 

expected to be the projects with the greatest impact.

4.1.1.1 Greater Atlantic Region

The Chesapeake Bay is the largest of 130 estuaries in the U.S. and much of it has not been charted since 

the 1930s and 1940s, causing great interest in new surveying and mapping of the area (NOAA, No Dateh). Additionally, the National Science Foundation (NSF) has funded marine geophysical surveys off the 

New Jersey coast and Cape Hatteras and has previously partnered with the USGS to conduct seismic 

surveys throughout the Atlantic (NSF, No Date). Additional surveying and mapping projects are expected 

to occur in the region for offshore renewable energy project siting, ecological monitoring, fisheries 

management, and navigational purposes; a representative list of these projects is presented below in 

Table 4.1-1 (NOAA, No Date-h; NMFS, 2019d).

Table 4.1-1. Representative List of Surveying and Research Projects

within the Greater Atlantic Region

Type of 

Surveying 

and Mapping 

Activity

Project 

Category

General 

Location / 

Geographic 

Scope Project Lead Project/Permit Description

Ongoing Activities

Ecological 

Monitoring Research/Other

Eastern MA 

NWRs

USFWS Seabird and shorebird 

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

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

533

Type of 

Surveying 

and Mapping 

Activity

Project 

Category

General 

Location / 

Geographic 

Scope Project Lead Project/Permit Description

Fisheries 

Management 

and Research

Research/Other

Atlantic Coast 

Region

NMFS NEFSC Northeast fisheries and 

ecosystem research activities

Atlantic Ocean 

south of Long 

Island

NMFS SEFSC Fisheries and ecosystem 

research activities in the 

Atlantic Ocean

G&G Survey Offshore Wind

NY Equinor Wind 

LLC

Offshore wind surveys

Offshore New 

England

Orsted Ocean 

Wind LLC 

Marine site characterization 

surveys, offshore NJ

Offshore of DE 

and MD

Skipjack Site characterization surveys

Activities within the Past 10 years

Ecological 

Monitoring Research/Other

Cape Cod MA 

NWRs; Eastern 

MA NWRs

USFWS Seabird and shorebird 

monitoring and research

G&G Survey

Offshore Wind

Nantucket 

Sound, MA

Cape Wind 

Associates

High-resolution seismic survey 

in Nantucket Sound, MA

Offshore RI Deepwater 

Wind LLC

Marine site characterization 

surveys, offshore NY

Offshore RI Deepwater 

Wind New 

England LLC

Marine site characterization 

surveys, offshore NY, RI

MA DONG Energy 

MA LLC

Geophysical and Geotechnical 

Surveys Offshore MA

Offshore DE Garden State 

Offshore 

Energy LLC

Marine site characterization 

(geophysical and geotechnical) 

surveys for Skipjack Wind farm

Offshore 

Atlantic City, NJ

Ocean Wind 

LLC

Marine site characterization 

surveys, offshore NJ

NY Statoil Offshore wind surveys

Research/Other

Atlantic Ocean 

off NJ

Lamont 

Doherty Earth 

Observatory / 

NSF 

Marine seismic survey in 

Atlantic Ocean off NJ

Atlantic Ocean 

off the Eastern 

Seaboard

USGS Marine seismic survey in the 

Atlantic Ocean off the Eastern 

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

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

534

Type of 

Surveying 

and Mapping 

Activity

Project 

Category

General 

Location / 

Geographic 

Scope Project Lead Project/Permit Description

Northwest 

Atlantic

USGS Geophysical surveys

Source: NMFS, 2019d

NEFSC = Northeast Fisheries Science Center; NMFS = National Marine Fisheries Service; NSF = National Science 

Foundation; NWR = National Wildlife Refuge; SEFSC = Southeast Fisheries Science Center; USFWS = U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service; USGS = U.S. Geological Survey

4.1.1.1.1 Great Lakes

There are no projects that require incidental take authorizations in the Great Lakes because there are no 

marine mammals; however, the Great Lakes region is one of NPS’s current benthic mapping priorities. 

NPS has collected multibeam sonar and backscatter data at all the Great Lakes Parks (NPS, 2018). More 

surveying and mapping projects are likely to occur in the Great Lakes region for habitat conservation and 

navigational purposes.

4.1.1.2 Southeast Region

Additional surveying and mapping projects are expected to occur in the Southeast region for oil and gas 

siting, offshore renewable energy project siting, ecological monitoring, fisheries management, and 

navigational purposes; a representative list of these projects is presented below in Table 4.1-2 (NOAA, No 

Date-i; NMFS, 2019d).

Table 4.1-2. Representative List of Surveying and Research Projects

within the Southeast Region

Type of 

Surveying 

and Mapping 

Activity

Project 

Category

General 

Location / 

Geographic 

Scope Project Lead Project/Permit Description

Ongoing Activities

Ecological 

Monitoring Research/Other 10 Major Bay systems of TX

Texas Parks and 

Wildlife

Fishery independent 

monitoring activities

Fisheries 

Management 

and Research

Research/Other

Eastern 

Caribbean; Gulf 

of Mexico; 

Western 

Caribbean

NMFS SEFSC

Fisheries and ecosystem 

research activities in the 

Atlantic Ocean

G&G Survey

Offshore Wind Offshore NC Avangrid 

Renewables, LLC

Site characterization surveys 

off NC

Oil and Gas Gulf of Mexico BOEM Seismic surveys in the Gulf of 

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

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

535

Type of 

Surveying 

and Mapping 

Activity

Project 

Category

General 

Location / 

Geographic 

Scope Project Lead Project/Permit Description

Activities within the Past 10 years

G&G Survey

Offshore Wind Offshore VA Dominion 

Energy Virginia

Unexploded Ordinance 

Survey in Lease of 

Submerged Lands for 

Renewable Energy 

Development on the Outer 

Continental Shelf (OCS-A 

0497) (Lease Area)

Research/Other

Atlantic Ocean 

off NC

Lamont Doherty 

Earth 

Observatory / 

NSF 

Seismic survey in the Atlantic 

Ocean off NC

Northwest Gulf 

of Mexico USGS Seismic survey in the deep water of the Gulf of Mexico

Source: NMFS, 2019d

BOEM = Bureau of Ocean Energy Management; NMFS = National Marine Fisheries Service; NSF = National Science 

Foundation; SEFSC = Southeast Fisheries Science Center; USGS = U.S. Geological Survey

4.1.1.3 West Coast Region

Hydrographic surveying projects planned along the Pacific Coast include geologic hazard assessments, 

seafloor mapping projects in the area provide multibeam bathymetry, acoustic backscatter data, and 

water column data that are used for earthquake, tsunami, and landslide hazard assessments and 

situational awareness products (NOAA, No Date-j). The NSF has funded marine geophysical surveys off 

the coasts of Oregon, Washington, and Central California and more specifically, the Cascadia Subduction 

Zone, which extends from northern Vancouver Island to Northern California (NSF, No Date). Additional 

surveying and mapping projects are expected to occur in the region for offshore energy siting, ecological 

monitoring, fisheries management, hazard assessment, and navigational purposes; a representative list 

of these projects is presented below in Table 4.1-3 (NOAA, No Date-j; NMFS, 2019d).

Table 4.1-3. Representative List of Surveying and Research Projects

within the West Coast Region

Type of 

Surveying 

and 

Mapping 

Activity

Project 

Category

General Location / 

Geographic Scope Project Lead

Project/Permit 

Description

Ongoing Activities

Ecological 

Monitoring Research/Other CA and OR UC Santa Cruz

PISCO rocky intertidal 

monitoring in CA and 

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

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

536

Type of 

Surveying 

and 

Mapping 

Activity

Project 

Category

General Location / 

Geographic Scope Project Lead

Project/Permit 

Description

Fisheries 

Managemen

t and 

Research

Research/Other

California Current 

Research Area; Lower 

Columbia River 

Research Area; Puget 

Sound Research Area

NMFS NWFSC

Northwest fisheries 

and ecosystem 

research activities

California Current 

Research Area NMFS SWFSC

Fisheries and 

ecosystem research 

activities in the Pacific 

Ocean

G&G Survey Research/Other

Northeast Pacific

Lamont Doherty 

Earth Observatory 

/ NSF 

Marine Geophysical 

Survey in the 

Northeast Pacific

Off Oregon North; 

Off Oregon South

Scripps Institution 

of Oceanography

Seismic survey in the 

Northeastern Pacific 

Ocean

Activities within the Past 10 years

Ecological 

Monitoring Research/Other

Palmer's Point; Point 

Dume; Point Arena; 

Ten Mile

UC Santa Cruz

PISCO rocky intertidal 

monitoring in CA and 

OR

G&G Survey Research/Other

Southeast Farallon 

Islands, CA

Gulf of the 

Farallones NMS, 

CA 

Abalone survey, CA

Line Islands

Lamont Doherty 

Earth Observatory 

/ NSF 

Low-energy seismic 

survey in the Pacific 

Ocean, Line Islands

Cascadia Thrust Zone 

north, WA; Cascadia 

Thrust Zone south, 

OR; Juan de Fuca 

Plate study area, 

Pacific Northwest

Lamont Doherty 

Earth Observatory 

/ NSF 

Seismic survey in the 

Northeast Pacific 

Ocean

Central Pacific Ocean Scripps

Research seismic 

survey in the Central 

Pacific Ocean

Source: NMFS, 2019d

NMFS = National Marine Fisheries Service; NMS = National Marine Sanctuary; NSF = National Science Foundation; 

NWFSC = Northwest Fisheries Science Center; PISCO = Partnership for Interdisciplinary Studies of Coastal Oceans; 

SWFSC = Southwest Fisheries Science Center; UC = University of California
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

537

4.1.1.4 Alaska Region

Some parts of the Alaska coastline, including the vast majority of the Lisianski Inlet next to Chichagof Island 

in the Alexander Archipelago, were last surveyed in 1917 (NOAA, No Date-k). Some soundings in the Arctic 

region date back to the work of Captain Cook in the 18th century. In the time since these surveys, the 

retreat of arctic sea ice has increased vessel traffic in the region, resulting in an even greater need for 

updated maps. The Port of Kodiak has seen many groundings and near misses due to the number of 

dangers to navigation that exist in this area. Additional surveying and mapping projects are expected to 

occur in these areas for navigational purposes, ecological monitoring, fisheries management, offshore 

energy siting, and offshore Liquified Natural Gas (LNG) projects; a representative list of these projects is 

presented below in Table 4.1-4 (NOAA, No Date-k; NMFS, 2019d).

Table 4.1-4. Representative List of Surveying and Research Projects

within the Alaska Region

Type of 

Surveying and 

Mapping 

Activity

Project 

Category

General Location / 

Geographic Scope Project Lead

Project/Permit 

Description

Ongoing Activities

Ecological 

Monitoring Research/Other

Boulder Island; Flapjack 

Island; Geikie Rock; 

Lone Island

NPS - Glacier 

Bay National 

Park

Seabird research and 

monitoring in Glacier 

Bay National Park, AK

Kachemak Bay; Katmai 

National Park and 

Preserve; Kenai Fjords 

National Park

NPS - SWAN

Research and 

Monitoring Activities in 

Southern Alaska 

National Parks

Fisheries 

Management 

and Research

Research/Other

Bering Sea and Aleutian 

Islands; Chukchi and 

Beaufort Seas; Gulf of 

Alaska 

NMFS AFSC Fisheries Research

G&G Survey

Offshore LNG Cook Inlet, AK

ExxonMobil 

Alaska LNG 

LLC 

Geophysical and 

geotechnical survey in 

Cook Inlet, AK

Oil and Gas Cook Inlet, AK Apache 

Alaska Co.

Seismic survey in Cook 

Inlet, AK

Research/Other Alaska

Lamont 

Doherty 

Earth 

Observatory / 

NSF 

Marine Geophysical 

Survey in the Gulf of 

Alaska

Activities within the Past 10 years

Ecological 

Monitoring Research/Other

Boulder Island; Flapjack 

Island; Geikie Rock; 

Lone Island

NPS - Glacier 

Bay National 

Park

Seabird research and 

monitoring in Glacier 

Bay National Park, AK
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

538

Type of 

Surveying and 

Mapping 

Activity

Project 

Category

General Location / 

Geographic Scope Project Lead

Project/Permit 

Description

G&G Survey

Offshore LNG Cook Inlet, AK

ExxonMobil 

Alaska LNG 

LLC 

Geophysical and 

geotechnical survey in 

Cook Inlet, AK (2016)

Oil and Gas

Cook Inlet, AK Apache 

Alaska Co.

Seismic survey in Cook 

Inlet, AK

Beaufort Sea, AK BP Open water seismic 

survey

Prudhoe Bay, AK BP Prudhoe Bay, AK 

seismic survey

Foggy Island Bay, AK BP

Shallow geohazard 

surveying Foggy Island 

Bay, AK 

Beaufort Sea, AK Hilcorp

Shallow geohazard 

survey in the Beaufort 

Sea, AK

Beaufort and Chukchi 

Seas, AK

ION 

Geophysical 

Seismic surveys in the 

Beaufort and Chukchi 

Seas, AK

Zone 1 Cook Inlet, AK; 

Zone 2 Cook Inlet, AK

SAExploration 

Inc.

Seismic survey in Cook 

Inlet, AK

Beaufort Sea, AK SAExploration 

Inc.

Seismic surveys in 

Beaufort Sea, AK

Ice gouge survey 

Beaufort Sea, AK Shell

Open water survey in 

the Beaufort and 

Chukchi Seas, AK

Ice gouge survey 

Chukchi Sea, AK Shell

Open water survey in 

the Beaufort and 

Chukchi Seas, AK

Shallow hazards survey 

Beaufort Sea, AK Shell

Open water survey in 

the Beaufort and 

Chukchi Seas, AK

Strudel scour survey 

Beaufort Sea, AK Shell

Open water survey in 

the Beaufort and 

Chukchi Seas, AK

Chukchi Sea, AK Shell Seismic survey in the 

Chukchi Sea, AK

Chukchi and Beaufort 

Seas, AK

Shell Gulf of 

Mexico Inc.

Ice overflight surveys in 

the Chukchi and 

Beaufort Seas, AK
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

539

Type of 

Surveying and 

Mapping 

Activity

Project 

Category

General Location / 

Geographic Scope Project Lead

Project/Permit 

Description

Chukchi Sea, AK StatOil 3D seismic survey in 

Chukchi Sea, AK

Alaskan Chukchi Sea StatOil

Shallow hazards seismic 

survey in the Alaskan 

Chukchi Sea

Chukchi Sea, AK

TGS-NOPEC 

Geophysical 

Co.

Seismic survey in the 

Chukchi Sea, AK

Research/Other

Unidentified island, 

Eastern Aleutian 

Islands, AK

BLM

Survey activities in the 

Eastern Aleutian 

Islands, AK

Western Gulf of Alaska

Lamont 

Doherty 

Earth 

Observatory / 

NSF 

Seismic survey in the 

Western Gulf of Alaska

Central Gulf of Alaska USGS

Geophysical survey in 

the Central Gulf of 

Alaska

Central-Western Bering 

Sea

USGS

Geophysical survey in 

the Central-Western 

Bering Sea

Central Gulf of Alaska USGS

Research seismic 

survey in the Central 

Gulf of Alaska

Source: NMFS, 2019d

AFSC = Alaska Fisheries Science Center; BLM = Bureau of Land Management; LNG = Liquified Natural Gas; NMFS = 

National Marine Fisheries Service; NPS = National Parks Service; NSF = National Science Foundation; SWAN = 

Southwest Alaska Inventory and Monitoring Network; USGS = U.S. Geological Survey

4.1.1.5 Pacific Island Region

The USGS plans to map coral reefs including sediment- or pollutant-impacted reefs, and those of special 

significance and concern such as reefs in state or national parks, national wildlife refuges, or national 

marine sanctuaries as part of a Pacific Coral Reefs Project (USGS, 2019b). Additional surveying and 

mapping projects are expected to occur in the region for habitat conservation, fisheries management, and 

navigational purposes; a representative list of these projects is presented below in Table 4.1-5 (NMFS, 

2019d).
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

540

Table 4.1-5. Representative List of Surveying and Research Projects

within the Pacific Island Region

Type of 

Surveying 

and Mapping 

Activity

Project 

Category

General Location / 

Geographic Scope Project Lead

Project/Permit 

Description

Ongoing Activities

Fisheries 

Management 

and Research

Research/ 

Other

American Samoa 

Archipelago Research 

Area; Hawaiian 

Archipelago Research 

Area; Mariana 

Archipelago Research 

Area; Western and 

Central Pacific 

Research Area

NMFS PIFSC

Pacific Islands fisheries 

and ecosystem research 

activities

Activities within the Past 10 years

G&G Survey Research/ 

Other

Central Pacific Ocean

Lamont 

Doherty Earth 

Observatory / 

NSF 

Seismic survey in 

Central Pacific Ocean

CNMI

Lamont 

Doherty Earth 

Observatory / 

NSF 

Seismic survey in CNMI

Emperor Seamounts; 

Main Hawaiian Islands

LamontDoherty Earth 

Observatory

Marine Geophysical 

Surveys by the R/V 

Marcus G. Langseth in 

the North Pacific Ocean, 

2018/2019

Wake island

Scripps 

Institution of 

Oceanography

Low-energy seismic 

survey in the Western 

Tropical Pacific Ocean

Central Pacific Ocean University of 

Hawai’i

Marine Geophysical 

Survey in the Central 

Pacific Ocean

Source: NMFS, 2019d

CNMI = Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands; NMFS = National Marine Fisheries Service; PIFSC = Pacific 

Island Fisheries Science Center; SWFSC = Southwest Fisheries Science Center; NSF = National Science Foundation

4.1.1.6 Expected Increases in Ocean Surveying and Mapping

Over the next decade, surveying and mapping projects are expected to increase throughout the action 

area to meet the existing regional needs described above and to meet new mapping goals. The November 

2019 Presidential Memorandum on Ocean Mapping of the United States Exclusive Economic Zone and the 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

541

Shoreline and Nearshore of Alaska (2019 Presidential Memo) cited the importance of the ocean economy 

to the nation and the need for updated and complete mapping of the EEZ to support it. Sections 2 and 3 

of the memorandum specifically address the need to develop a strategy for mapping the entire EEZ and 

Alaska, respectively (The White House, 2019). In light of the 2019 Presidential Memo, the number and 

frequency of surveying and mapping projects in the action area, specifically in the Alaska region, are 

expected to increase.

NOAA has also committed to supporting and contributing to Seabed 2030, an international joint project 

between the Nippon Foundation and the General Bathymetric Chart of the Oceans (GEBCO) Guiding

Committee with the goal of producing a complete, high-resolution bathymetric map of the world’s seabed 

from the coasts to the deepest trenches by the year 2030 (OCS, 2018). While the majority of the project 

is outside the geographic scope of this analysis, future hydrographic surveys and mapping within the U.S. 

EEZ will be driven by data gap assessments completed in support of this project and the 2019 Presidential 

Memo. Future hydrographic surveying methods could include collaborative mapping missions, 

crowdsourced bathymetry from essential partners such as fishing boats, ocean-going carriers, and 

recreational vessels, and technological innovations that force-multiply capacities to collect sonar data 

efficiently in remote and challenging locations (OCS, 2018). 

Both Seabed 2030 and the 2019 Presidential Memo make comprehensive ocean mapping a priority for 

the coming decade (IOCM, No Date-b). With this increase, new and more efficient technologies to rapidly 

characterize the ocean are expected to be developed. For example, NOAA has announced a four-year 

Cooperative Research and Development Agreement (CRADA) with a private company, Ocean Infinity, to 

develop deep-water autonomous technologies that can gather ultra-high-resolution ocean information 

(NOAA, 2020c). 

In addition to the use of various active acoustic sources, other impact causing factors associated with all 

types of surveying and mapping projects include seafloor disturbance to collect bottom samples, vessel 

presence, impacts to the water column, vessel and equipment noise, and the potential for accidental 

discharges. Other surveying and mapping efforts in the action area would likely contribute cumulative 

impacts related to all resources covered in this PEIS.

4.1.2 Offshore Oil and Natural Gas Development

BOEM manages the exploration and development of offshore energy by the O&G industry on the 2.5 

billion-acre U.S. outer continental shelf (BOEM, 2018b). The U.S. outer continental shelf comprises the 

portion of the seabed lying seaward of State coastal waters to the out border of the EEZ. As per the Outer 

Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA), BOEM can grant leases for the exploration, development, and 

production of O&G and other mineral resources on the outer continental shelf. Each lease covers up to 

2,331 hectares (ha) (6.8 nm2

) and is generally a square measuring 4.8 by 4.8 km (3 by 3 mi) (BOEM, No 

Date-a).

Interested companies must submit plans to BOEM prior to initiating any activity to explore a block for 

resources and/or to develop and produce O&G resources (BOEM, No Date-b). Following the preliminary 

G&G surveys described in Section 4.1.1, offshore oil and natural gas development generally involve the 

following phases with corresponding impact causing factors:

1) Exploration, which may include the use of mobile drilling units to drill a series of individual wells 

to locate and test the recoverability of oil and gas reserves and increased vessel traffic to and from 

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

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

542

2) Development, which generally involves continued vessel traffic in the area, barge operations, 

drilling multiple wells in close proximity to each other, and the construction and installation of a 

platform to collect recovered oil and gas and a pipeline to transfer the oil and gas to the shore;

3) Production/extraction, which involves continued vessel traffic and the extraction of the oil and 

gas and its transport to shore for processing; and

4) Decommissioning/platform removal, which involves the demolition of oil and gas infrastructure 

or abandonment of structures; demolition involves increased boat and barge traffic to and from 

the site and could potentially involve the use of explosives.

Each phase of oil and natural gas development would involve active underwater acoustic sources, seafloor 

disturbance including sampling and drilling, dredging, vessel presence, vessel and equipment noise, 

impacts to the water column, potential accidental discharges and oil spills, and air emissions (BOEM, 

2019b).

4.1.2.1 Oil and Gas Energy Programs

The National Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Leasing Program (National Outer Continental Shelf 

Program) specifies the size, timing, and location of potential leasing activity. For this reason, reviewing 

the program lease sale schedules in addition to reviewing the incidental take authorizations granted to oil 

and gas projects by NMFS under the MMPA provides a good understanding of previous, current, and 

reasonably foreseeable O&G projects. Projects which are currently in the preliminary G&G surveying 

phase were presented in the previous section (Section 4.1.1). Currently, BOEM is working under the 2017-

2022 National Outer Continental Shelf Program. BOEM updates the program in five-year increments, and 

has published a draft proposed National Outer Continental Shelf Program for 2019-2024 (BOEM, No Datec; BOEM, 2018c). The 2019-2024 Draft Proposed Program Lease Sale Schedule is summarized in Table 4.1-

6 below.

Table 4.1-6. BOEM 2019–2024 Draft Proposed Program Lease Sale Schedule

Sale Year Region Program Area

2019 Alaska Beaufort Sea

2020

Alaska Chukchi Sea

Pacific Southern California

Gulf of Mexico Western, Central, and Eastern Gulf of Mexico*

Western, Central, and Eastern Gulf of Mexico*

Atlantic South Atlantic

Mid-Atlantic

2021

Alaska Beaufort Sea

Cook Inlet

Pacific

Washington/Oregon

Northern California

Central California

Atlantic North Atlantic

Gulf of Mexico Western, Central, and Eastern Gulf of Mexico*

Western, Central, and Eastern Gulf of Mexico*

2022 Alaska Chukchi Sea
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

543

Sale Year Region Program Area

Pacific Southern California

Atlantic Mid-Atlantic

South Atlantic

Gulf of Mexico Western, Central, and Eastern Gulf of Mexico*

Western, Central, and Eastern Gulf of Mexico*

2023

Alaska

Beaufort Sea

Cook Inlet

Hope Basin

Norton Basin

St. Matthew-Hall

Navarin Basin

Aleutian Basin

St. George Basin

Bowers Basin

Aleutian Arc

Shumagin

Kodiak

Gulf of Alaska

Pacific Central California

Northern California

Gulf of Mexico

Western, Central, and Eastern Gulf of Mexico*

Western, Central, and Eastern Gulf of Mexico*

Eastern and Central Gulf of Mexico **

Atlantic Straits of Florida

North Atlantic

2024

Alaska Chukchi Sea

Gulf of Mexico

Western, Central, and Eastern Gulf of Mexico*

Western, Central, and Eastern Gulf of Mexico*

Eastern and Central Gulf of Mexico **

Atlantic South Atlantic

Mid-Atlantic

Source: BOEM, 2018c

*All available areas, not including those subject to the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act (GOMESA) moratorium 

through June 30, 2022. The GOMESA mandates that the states of Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama 

receive a portion of revenues from new oil and natural gas development in federal waters adjacent to the 

respective state (BOEM, 2018c).

**Those areas available following the expiration of the GOMESA moratorium.

4.1.2.2 Alaska Outer Continental Shelf Region

The Arctic region in total contains an estimated 13 percent of the world’s undiscovered oil and 30 percent 

of undiscovered natural gas (USCG, 2018). The Alaska outer continental shelf encompasses the Beaufort 

and Chukchi Seas, the Bering Sea, Cook Inlet, and the Gulf of Alaska, spanning more than 404,685,642 ha 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

544

(1,179,875 nm2). Alaska contains more than 9,656 km (6,000 mi) of coastline – more coastline than in the 

rest of the U.S. combined (BOEM, No Date-c). There are 54 active leases in the Alaska region (BOEM, 

2019c; BOEM, 2019d). The O&G leasing program areas are depicted below in Figure 4.1-2.

Source: BOEM, No Date-c

Figure 4.1-2. Alaska Outer Continental Shelf Program Areas

Decreasing sea ice and diminishing onshore oil production are creating incentives for further exploration 

offshore in the Arctic region as a whole (USCG, 2018). With the exception of the take authorization granted 

to ExxonMobil in the Santa Barbara Channel, all projects that have been granted incidental take 

authorizations for construction and operation relating to oil and gas development have occurred in the 

Alaska region (NMFS, 2019d). A summary of these projects is presented below in Table 4.1.7 as a 

representative, not exhaustive, list of offshore oil and gas development projects. Projects with an active 

take authorization status and projects with a take authorization application in-process are considered 

reasonably foreseeable to occur within the next five years and are categorized as ongoing activities. 

Projects that have been granted the requested take authorizations that have expired within the past 10 

years are considered activities that have occurred within the past 10 years. Although projects that require 

take authorization are not the only projects occurring in the action area, they are used as a representative 

list because projects that require take authorization are expected to be the projects with the greatest 

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

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

545

Table 4.1-7. Representative List of Oil and Gas Projects within the Alaska Region

General Location/ 

Geographic Scope Project Lead Project/Permit Description

Ongoing Activities

Cook Inlet, AK Hilcorp Alaska LLC Oil and Gas activities

Cook Inlet, AK Harvest Alaska (Hilcorp) Cook Inlet Pipeline Cross Inlet Extension

Arctic, AK Hilcorp Alaska Liberty Drilling and Production Island1

North Slope, AK Hilcorp Alaska, Eni Ice road Construction

Activities within the Past 10 years

Chukchi Sea, AK Shell Gulf of Mexico Inc. Drilling program in the Chukchi Sea, AK

Beaufort Sea, AK Hilcorp Alaska Operation of NorthStar facility in the 

Beaufort Sea, AK

Beaufort Sea, AK Shell Beaufort Sea exploratory drilling 

Chukchi Sea, AK Shell Chukchi Sea exploratory drilling 

1 – The Liberty Drilling and Production Island project is on hold. 

Source: NMFS, 2019d

4.1.2.3 Atlantic Outer Continental Shelf Region

The Atlantic outer continental shelf region is divided into four planning areas: North Atlantic, Mid-Atlantic, 

South Atlantic, and Straits of Florida. No active O&G leases currently exist in the Atlantic outer continental 

shelf region; and none are proposed under the current 2017-2022 Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas 

Leasing Program (BOEM, No Date-d).

4.1.2.4 Gulf of Mexico Outer Continental Shelf Region

The Gulf of Mexico outer continental shelf consists of three planning areas (Western, Central, and Eastern 

Gulf of Mexico); however, the Gulf of Mexico region also manages the four Atlantic outer continental shelf 

planning areas which all together span 174,014,826 ha (507,346 nm2

). The Gulf's Central and Western 

planning areas (offshore Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama) remain the nation's primary offshore 

source of O&G, generating about 97 percent of all offshore O&G production (BOEM, No Date-e). As 

described in BOEM’s Gulf of Mexico region Oil and Gas Production Forecast: 2018-2027, annual oil 

production is anticipated to continue to increase through 2024. Annual gas production volumes are 

anticipated to remain relatively consistent from 2018 to 2027 with an average rate of decline of less than 

1 percent annually (BOEM, 2017b).

4.1.2.5 Pacific Outer Continental Shelf Region

The Pacific outer continental shelf region has issued 470 leases and currently has 34 active leases, which 

together cover 72,248 ha (211 nm2

) in offshore California, Oregon, Washington, and Hawai’i. O&G 

production facilities have been installed in 23 of the active leases, all of which are located off the coast of 

California (BOEM, No Date-a). However, NMFS granted a marine mammal take authorization to only one 

project in the region (ExxonMobil conductor pipe installation activities at Harmony Platform in Santa 

Barbara Channel, CA in 2014), which has since expired (NMFS, 2019d).

Offshore oil and natural gas development would likely contribute cumulative impacts related to all of the 

resources covered in this Final PEIS.
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

546

4.1.3 Offshore Renewable Energy Development

Offshore renewable energy consists of several sources, including wind energy and ocean wave and current 

energy, also known as hydrokinetic energy. BOEM is the agency responsible for overseeing offshore 

renewable energy development in federal waters (BOEM, No Date-f).

4.1.3.1 Wind Energy

Both nationally and globally, wind power is one of the fastest growing forms of electricity generation. 

Wind turbines convert the kinetic energy of wind into electricity. Offshore winds tend to blow harder and 

more uniformly than on land because there are no mountains, trees, and artificial structures to obstruct 

wind currents. Since higher wind speeds can produce much more electricity, and do so more reliably than 

onshore wind farms, developers are increasingly interested in pursuing offshore wind energy resources. 

There are extensive, potentially productive areas for wind energy available offshore on the continental 

shelf (DOSITS, No Date-a). 

Offshore wind facility design and engineering depends on site-specific conditions, particularly water 

depth, seabed geology, and wave loading. Following the preliminary G&G surveys described in Section 

4.1.1, the remaining three phases of a wind farm’s life cycle entail underwater sounds of varying intensity 

and duration:

1) Construction, which may include drilling, pile driving, use of explosives, dredging, cable laying, 

increased vessel traffic to and from the site, and barge operations;

2) Operation, including long-duration sound associated with mechanical vibrations when the turbine 

blades are spinning as well as periodic maintenance vessel traffic, continuing over the 20- to 25-

year lifetime of the installation; and

3) Decommissioning, which may include mechanical cutting and explosive detonation as well as 

increased boat and barge traffic to and from the site.

In the coming years, the majority of offshore wind project activity is expected to be in the pre-construction 

and construction phase. During the operational phase (Figure 4.1-3), by far the longest of these phases, 

low-frequency sound is generated when the turbine blades are spinning. Vibrations inside the nacelle 

(housing for the generator, gearbox, and other parts) are transmitted down the main turbine shaft and 

into its foundation under the seabed. These vibrations then propagate both into the seafloor and the 

water column. The sound is primarily below 1 kilohertz (kHz) (generally below 700 hertz [Hz]), with 

a source level of 80-150 decibels (dB) re 1 μPa (micropascal) @ 1 m. Aerodynamic noise produced by the 

motion of the rotor blades through the air may also penetrate the water through an airborne path. Sound 

levels increase somewhat as wind speed increases and blades rotate faster. The type of wind turbine 

foundation also affects the propagation of underwater sound (DOSITS, No Date-a). 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

547

Image Credit: DOSITS, No Date-a, modified from Kikuchi, 2010

As of May 2022, the U.S. generates about 42 megawatts (MW) of offshore wind energy. There are 

currently two offshore wind farms in operation: the first, Block Island Wind Farm in Rhode Island, began 

operating in 2016 with a capacity of 30 MW, and the second, by Dominion Energy off the coast of Virginia, 

began operating in 2020 with a capacity of 12 MW (Musial et al., 2022). 

The offshore wind industry in the U.S. is poised for an exponential increase in project activity, especially 

by coastal states aiming to take advantage of offshore wind energy, such as New York, New Jersey, 

Massachusetts, Connecticut, Maryland, Virginia, and California. Two new wind farms are currently under 

construction: Vineyard Wind 1 located off the coast of Massachusetts would produce 800 MW once it is 

operational in 2024, and Sound Fork Wind Farm located off the coast of Massachusetts and Rhode Island

would produce 132 MW once it is operational in 2023. There are 18 lease areas in development at the 

permitting stage, which means that the developer has surveyed the lease area and submitted its 

Construction and Operations Plans to BOEM and is awaiting approval of the proposed project. The 

projects in the permitting stage have the potential to yield about 18,851 MW of offshore wind energy if 

the projects are approved and the sites become operational. BOEM has announced that it expects to 

complete the review of at least 16 of these Construction and Operations Plans by 2025, clearing the path 

for the development of offshore wind farms in the near future. Another 17 lease areas are at the site 

control stage, which means the developer has acquired the rights to develop the lease area and has begun 

surveying the area. The projects in the site control stage could potentially yield almost 16,000 MW. 

Additionally, two areas off the coast of California, Humboldt Bay and Morro Bay, were designated as wind 

energy areas in November 2021, meaning these areas can be put up for a lease sale in the future. These 

locations would likely be subdivided into five new lease areas and could potentially yield up to 4,532 MW 

of offshore wind energy. BOEM also designates certain areas as “Call Areas” which are locations that have 

been identified for their wind potential (Musial et al., 2022). The locations of U.S. offshore wind energy 

projects and areas for potential wind development are shown in Figure 4.1-4. 

Figure 4.1-3. Acoustic 

Pathways for Underwater 

Noise from an Offshore 

Wind Turbine in 

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

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

548

Source: Musial et al., 2022; Dormant Wind Areas are previously categorized wind energy areas that are no longer 

being actively reviewed or developed by BOEM.

Figure 4.1-4. Locations of U.S. Offshore Wind Energy Projects and Areas for Potential 

Wind Development in the North Atlantic, South Atlantic, and Pacific
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

549

In 2021, the Biden Administration announced its national goal of deploying 30 GW of offshore wind energy 

by 2030. The effort would support the creation of approximately 77,000 new jobs, with more than 44,000 

workers employed in offshore wind and nearly 33,000 additional jobs in communities supported by 

offshore wind activities. It would generate enough electricity to power over 10 million homes in the U.S. 

and cut 78 million metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions. The goal would spur $12 billion in capital 

investment annually, including the construction of up to 10 new manufacturing plants for offshore wind 

turbine components, new ships to install offshore wind turbines, and up to $500 million in port upgrades. 

This plan also establishes a pathway to deploy 110 GW or more of offshore wind energy in the U.S. by 

2050, which would create 77,000 offshore wind jobs and more than 57,000 additional jobs in communities 

supported by offshore wind activity (DOE, 2021).

The U.S. offshore wind energy supply chain saw significant growth in 2021 and 2022 with 10 new major 

domestic manufacturing facilities announced at ports along the East Coast. These facilities would 

contribute to the wind energy supply chain by building components such as turbine blades, towers, 

platforms, arrays and export cables, and offshore substations. The U.S. supply chain is anticipated to grow 

as more projects begin construction and could generate between $1.6 and 6.2 billion of added value to 

the economy each year, along with 12,300 to 49,000 new manufacturing jobs (Musial et al., 2022).

4.1.3.2 Other Offshore Renewable Energy

Tidal, wave, and current energy are clean, renewable resources that can be harnessed wherever changing 

tides, waves, or currents move a significant volume of water, especially off the coasts of urban centers 

where there is high electricity demand. Marine and Hydrokinetic (MHK) energy is an untapped resource 

for the U.S. and though still a new industry, the U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE) Water Power Program 

is researching projects to accelerate wave, tidal, and current projects and overall development of the MHK 

market. These projects include project siting activities, market assessments, environmental impact 

analyses, and research supporting technology commercialization (DOE, No Date-a). Due to the relatively 

steep continental slope and deep water off the West Coast and Hawai’i, different types of offshore 

renewable energy technologies have been proposed for the Pacific region than for the Atlantic region 

(BOEM, No Date-g). While the U.S. is pursuing ocean current energy, it is still in the early stages of 

development. Submerged water turbines, similar to wind turbines, may also be deployed on the outer 

continental shelf in the coming years to extract energy from ocean currents (BOEM, No Date-h).

Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion (OTEC) is a process to power a turbine to produce electricity by 

harnessing the temperature differences (thermal gradients) between ocean surface waters and deep 

ocean waters. OTEC systems using seawater as the working fluid can use the condensed water to produce 

desalinated water. As of 2015, the Natural Energy Laboratory of Hawai’i Authority, a leading test facility 

for OTEC technology, has supplied electricity to the local electricity grid. Conditions for OTEC systems exist 

in tropical coastal areas such as Hawai’i, south Florida, and the Caribbean (DOE, No Date-b).

Impact causing factors associated with other offshore renewable energy projects would likely include 

vessel presence, vessel and equipment noise, impacts to the water column, potential accidental 

discharges, the construction and installation of structures and cables connected to the shore (BOEM, 

2019b). The development of offshore renewable energy would likely contribute cumulative impacts 

related to all resources covered in this PEIS.
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

550

4.1.4 Climate Change

For more than 200 years, since the beginning of the industrial revolution, the concentration of carbon 

dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere has increased due to the burning of fossil fuels and land use change (e.g., 

increased vehicular and power plant emissions and deforestation). Increased concentrations in CO2 and 

other greenhouse gases in earth’s atmosphere trap the sun’s heat and raise temperatures, changing the 

earth’s climate system. The years between 2013 and 2021 all rank among the ten warmest years on 

record; 2021 was the sixth warmest year on record with a global temperature that was 0.84°Celcius (C) 

(1.51 °Fahrenheit [F]) above the 20th century average. The world’s oceans are of particular concern 

because the ocean absorbs about 90 percent of the heat generated by rising emissions (NCEI, 2022). In 

addition, the ocean absorbs about 30 percent of the CO2 that is released in the atmosphere (NOAA, 2013). 

Therefore, as global temperatures and the level of atmospheric CO2 increase, so does the level of CO2 in 

the ocean. In order to fully understand the impacts of climate change, the spatial boundary for analysis 

will be increased in this section to include international waters.

Warming. Between 1900 and 2016, global ocean surface waters have warmed on average 0.7° ± 0.08°C 

(1.3° ± 0.14°F) (USGCRP, 2018). In 2021, global ocean surface temperatures were 0.65 ± 0.16°C (1.17 ± 

0.29°F) above average, which is the sixth highest average on record since 1880. This translates to an 

increase in the amount of energy absorbed by the ocean, also known as the ocean’s heat content (OHC). 

Since records of OHC started in 1955, the seven highest OHC measurements have all occurred in the last 

seven years; 2021 exceeded the previous record set in 2020 (NCEI, 2022). In the last decade, the ocean 

has absorbed a large amount of heat resulting in record temperatures.

The warming of the ocean impacts sea levels, circulation and currents, productivity, and the functioning 

of entire ecosystems (USGCRP, 2018). For example, higher global temperatures have led to the melting of 

glaciers and icecaps which has caused sea levels to rise. In addition, as the ocean heats up, the water 

expands and contributes to sea level rise (NCEI, 2022). Sea levels in the U.S. have risen up to 0.6 meters 

(m) (2 feet [ft]) in the past century. As much as 4,921 km2 (1,900 mi2

) of coastal wetlands have been lost 

in Louisiana alone during this period. The amount of future sea-level rise will depend on the expansion of 

ocean volume and the response of glaciers and polar ice sheets. A rise in sea level of up to 1.2 m (4 ft) in 

this century has been predicted, but even another 0.6-m (2-ft) rise would cause major loss of coastal 

wetlands (USGCRP, 2009).

Deoxygenation. Increased CO2 levels in the atmosphere are also causing a decline of dissolved oxygen 

(DO) concentrations in the ocean. Ocean warming leads to deoxygenation because temperature has a 

direct influence on how much oxygen is soluble in water. Oxygen is less soluble in warmer waters; 

therefore, the concentration of DO is lower in waters that have been warmed by climate change (USGCRP, 

2018). Low levels of oxygen can suffocate fish and other marine life, leading to fish kills and other marine 

life mortalities.

Deoxygenation can also occur from “oxygen demanding” pollutants entering the water, mostly from 

nitrogen and phosphorus nutrients associated with agricultural/fertilizer runoff (USGCRP, 2018). This has 

become an annual occurrence in the Gulf of Mexico, which receives nutrient runoff from the Mississippi 

River and incurs large areas of very low dissolved oxygen, also known as dead zones. The Gulf of Mexico’s 

dead zone in 2021 was 6,334 square miles, which was larger than the five-year average of 5,380 square 

miles, as seen in Figure 4-1.5. The resulting low levels of oxygen are insufficient to support most marine 

life, rendering that area unusable for species and forcing them to move to other areas. The Hypoxia Task 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

551

Force (HTF), which includes federal and state agencies and tribes, has set a goal of reducing this dead zone 

to below 2,000 square miles by 2035 (NOAA, 2021).

Source: NOAA, 2021

Figure 4.1-5. Size of Annual Dead Zone (green bars) in the Gulf of Mexico (1985 to 2021)

Acidification. The ocean absorbs about 30 percent of the CO2 that is released in the atmosphere; as more 

CO2 is emitted into the atmosphere, more CO2 is absorbed by the ocean. When CO2 is absorbed by 

seawater, a series of chemical reactions occur, resulting in the increased concentration of hydrogen ions. 

Acidity is measured as a function of the concentration of hydrogen ions (pH), so the increased 

concentration of hydrogen ions causes the seawater to be more acidic. The ocean’s average pH is typically 

about 8.1 pH units. During the last 200 years, the pH of surface ocean waters has fallen by about 0.1 pH 

units. Since pH is measured on a logarithmic scale, this change represents approximately a 30 percent 

increase in acidity. As the ocean continues to absorb more CO2, the pH would continue to decrease and 

the ocean would become more acidic (NOAA, 2013).

A portion of the excess hydrogen ions react with carbonate (CO3

2-

) ions to form bicarbonate (HCO3

-

), this 

causes carbonate ions to be relatively less abundant (Hardt and Safina, 2008; NOAA, 2020d). Carbonate 

ions are a critical component of calcium carbonate (CaCO3), which many marine macroinvertebrates use 

to manufacture shells and exoskeletons. When the concentration of carbonate ions in ocean water is low 

enough, exposed CaCO3 structures such as shells, exoskeletons, and coral skeletons are more difficult to 

build and maintain and can even begin to dissolve or disintegrate (NOAA, 2020d; USGCRP, 2018).

These processes (warming, deoxygenation, and acidification) represent only a few ways that the ocean 

environment would be stressed as a result of climate change. Overall, these stressors are expected to 

persist at current levels or increase above current levels as the effects of climate change continue to 

evolve and impact the ocean environment. Impact causing factors associated with climate change include 

changes to water characteristics (including temperature, acidity, and oxygen concentration), sea level rise, 

increased storm severity and frequency, and coastal erosion, all of which contribute to coastal 

infrastructure damage and the increased need to construct protective infrastructure such as barriers and 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

552

seawalls (BOEM, 2019b). Climate change would likely contribute cumulative impacts related to habitats; 

marine mammals; sea turtles; fish; aquatic macroinvertebrates; essential fish habitat (EFH); seabirds, 

shorebirds and coastal birds, and waterfowl; cultural and historic resources; and Environmental Justice.

4.1.5 Commercial Shipping and Recreational Boating

About 90 percent of imports and exports enter and exit by ship through the nation’s 40,233 km (25,000 

mi) of navigable channels. By 2025, global demand for waterborne commerce is expected to more than 

double, which will increase the level of vessel traffic in the action area. Compared to land-based 

transportation by road and rail, the transportation of goods by waterways is considered to be a more 

economical, efficient, and environmentally sound mode of transport. For example, one Great Lakes bulk 

carrier has approximately the same cargo capacity as seven 100-car freight trains (USCG, 2018). Part of 

maintaining waterways for safe navigation includes dredging to maintain channel depths in harbors and 

inland waterways. The USACE dredges nearly 300 million cubic yards of material each year to keep the 

nation's waterways navigable. Much of this dredged material is reused for environmental restoration 

projects, including the creation of wetlands (USACE, No Date).

Designated shipping lanes occur throughout all regions of the action area with a higher concentration 

around urban centers with major ports. Shipping lanes and other areas with operational restrictions within 

the action area are shown below in Figure 4.1-6.

Figure 4.1-6. Shipping Lanes and Vessel Traffic Restrictions within the Action Area
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

553

Shipping trends in the Alaska region are expected to vary in the near-term future because the Arctic region 

is undergoing dramatic changes due to the effects of climate change. Temperatures in the Arctic are rising 

more than two times faster than the rest of the planet, and increasing ocean temperatures have caused 

a decrease in the amount of seasonal sea ice (Boylan and Elsberry, 2019; Hoegh-Guldberg and Bruno, 

2010). Currently, Arctic vessels require icebreaker escorts, but projections show that as early as 2030, 

unescorted navigation in the Arctic may be possible; by 2050, it is probable. Three principal Arctic shipping 

routes connect the Atlantic and Pacific: The Northwest Passage, the Northern Sea Route, and the 

Transpolar Sea Route illustrated in Figure 4.1-7 below (Boylan and Elsberry, 2019).

Source: Boylan and Elsberry, 2019

Figure 4.1-7. Arctic Vessel Routes

The Northwest Passage (shown in green in Figure 4.1-7) refers to the sea route that extends from the

Pacific Ocean, over Alaska, through the Canadian archipelago, between Canada and Greenland, and into 

the Atlantic Ocean. The Northern Sea Route (shown in blue in Figure 4.1-7) is the route along the north 

coast of Russia, extending from the Kara Sea in the west through the Bering Strait in the east. It is a large 

component of the Northeast Passage, which runs along the north coasts of Russia and Europe and 

connects the Pacific Ocean to the Atlantic Ocean. The Transpolar Sea Route (shown in orange in Figure

4.1-7) would represent a third Artic shipping route; however, this route is hypothetical since it involves 

ice-free conditions through the Central Arctic which have not been observed yet.

New maritime navigational opportunities are expected as ice coverage in the Artic Ocean changes with 

rising temperatures. The ice along both the Northwest Passage and the Northern Sea Route is being 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

554

reduced at the highest rate across the Arctic (Boylan and Elsberry, 2019). Observations have shown 

decreasing multi-year ice and increasing open water during the Arctic summer and early fall, making 

seasonal maritime navigation more feasible and increasing the potential for commercial shipping during 

summer months (USCG, 2018). These sea routes are advantageous to the commercial shipping industry 

because they have the potential to reduce the time it takes to transport goods between Asian and 

European ports by several days; they also provide an alternative to routes passing through the Panama or 

Suez Canals (Boylan and Elsberry, 2019; USCG, 2018). In addition, economic development drives much of 

the current maritime activity in the region. The Arctic contains an estimate 13 percent of the world’s 

undiscovered oil and 30 percent of undiscovered natural gas. As sea ice decreases, these untapped 

resources create incentives for further exploration offshore to extract these commodities.

With an increase in vessel traffic, secondary trends to consider include an increase in operational and illicit 

vessel emissions, anthropogenic sounds in the sea, opportunities for the propagation and spread of 

invasive species, and an increased risk of vessel strikes. Impact causing factors associated with commercial 

shipping and recreational boating include vessel presence, vessel noise, impacts to the water column, 

potential accidental discharges, and air emissions (BOEM, 2019b). Increases in commercial shipping and 

recreational boating within the action area would likely contribute cumulative impacts related to all 

resources covered in this PEIS. 

4.1.6 Assessment and Extraction of Marine Minerals

BOEM is responsible for identifying non-energy resources on the outer continental shelf; this includes 

managing the use of mineral and sand resources (BOEM, 2019e). BOEM’s Marine Minerals Program 

(MMP) manages non-energy minerals (primarily sand and gravel) for coastal restoration, and commercial 

leasing of gold, manganese, and other hard minerals (BOEM, 2019e). Following preliminary G&G surveys, 

marine mineral projects typically involve the dredging of sediment using either a hopper dredge which 

suctions the material or a cutterhead dredge which pumps material to be closer to the project area at 

which point the material is transferred to a pipeline connected to the shore (BOEM, 2019b).

As of 2018, the MMP had executed 55 negotiated agreements and completed 45 coastal restoration 

projects for more than 512 km (318 mi) of shoreline in Florida, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, New 

Jersey, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Virginia. To complete these projects, the MMP has provided 

nearly 150 million cubic yards of offshore sand resources to coastal communities and federal agencies—

that amount of sand would cover Manhattan, New York to a depth of more than 1.8 m (6 ft). In the past 

few years, BOEM has experienced a substantial increase in the number of requests for negotiated 

agreements from governmental agencies to use offshore sand resources. This trend is most likely due to 

a diminishing supply of available material in near shore waters, increased coastal erosion as a result of 

more frequent and intense storms, and sea level rise. The MMP is planning to sponsor new offshore 

sediment surveys from Maine to Texas that build on MMP’s plans following Hurricane Sandy in 2012, 

when BOEM supported coastal restoration projects in several Atlantic states. Sediment studies are also 

being conducted offshore of California (BOEM, 2019e).

In addition to using mineral resources for restoration projects, pursuant to Executive Order 13817 issued 

in December 2017, the MMP and the USGS are collaborating to research 35 critical minerals (i.e., minerals 

used in manufacturing, consumer products, or are otherwise economically important) along the outer 

continental shelf (BOEM, 2019e).
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

555

In addition to seafloor disturbance and dredging, impact causing factors associated with these activities 

would likely include vessel presence, vessel and equipment noise, impacts to the water column, potential 

accidental discharges, and air emissions (BOEM, 2019b). The assessment and extraction of marine 

minerals would likely contribute to cumulative impacts related to habitats; marine mammals; sea turtles; 

fish; aquatic macroinvertebrates; EFH; seabirds, shorebirds and coastal birds, and waterfowl; cultural and 

historic resources; and socioeconomic resources.

4.1.7 Offshore Carbon Storage Resource Assessments

Carbon storage is the process of removing carbon from the atmosphere or capturing it and depositing it 

for storage in a reservoir beneath the earth’s surface. While there are no offshore carbon storage or 

sequestration projects currently underway or planned, the National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL) 

in coordination with the DOE, BOEM, state geologic surveys, and other institutions have and continue to 

support offshore carbon storage resource assessments in the Mid-Atlantic, Southeast, and Gulf Coast 

regions. These projects utilize existing G&G data from existing or abandoned wells, available seismic 

surveys, and existing core samples to conduct prospective storage resource assessments. These projects 

have identified offshore sites with the potential to store at least 30 million metric tons (MMT) of CO2 and

are preliminary steps to identify regions of interest for offshore carbon storage projects (NETL, No Date). 

Once a site is identified and leased, carbon storage projects would likely require building infrastructure 

including the drilling of CO2 injection wells and construction of a pipeline to transport CO2 from the shore 

(BOEM, 2019b; Cameron et al., 2018). Following preliminary G&G surveys, offshore carbon storage 

projects would likely involve seafloor disturbance including drilling carbon injection wells, anchoring, and 

constructing structures and pipelines to shore. The operation of an offshore carbon storage project would 

include the capture of CO2 emissions and transport via submarine pipeline to injection wells; however, 

within the next several years these projects are unlikely to progress beyond the initial G&G surveying 

phase (BOEM, 2019b).

Impact causing factors associated with offshore carbon storage resource assessments would likely include 

vessel presence, vessel and equipment noise, impacts to the water column, potential accidental 

discharges, and air emissions. Offshore carbon storage resource assessments would likely contribute 

cumulative impacts to habitats; marine mammals; sea turtles; fish; aquatic macroinvertebrates; EFH; 

seabirds, shorebirds and coastal birds, and waterfowl; socioeconomic resources; and Environmental 

Justice. 

4.1.8 Construction and Operation of Offshore Liquified Natural Gas (LNG) 

Terminals

Liquefied natural gas (LNG) is a form of natural gas that has been cooled down so that it has a reduced 

volume (only 1/600th of its gaseous state) such that it can be more readily transported across the ocean 

via specialized ships (EIA, 2022a). At terminals on the coasts, the liquid is re-gasified and distributed via 

pipeline networks. LNG is imported to and exported from the U.S. through both offshore and onshore 

terminals. Licensing of offshore LNG terminals (deepwater ports) is under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Coast 

Guard (USCG) and the Maritime Administration (MARAD) (BOEM, 2014a).

The design and construction activities required to build new offshore LNG terminals varies depending on 

the capacity needed and location of the terminal. New LNG terminals use existing infrastructure if possible 

or require the construction of new infrastructure such as platforms and underwater pipelines and cables 

(CEE, 2006). To ensure the stability of these structures, the company constructing the LNG facility typically 

conducts G&G surveys of the area to determine if the seabed is suitable for such infrastructure 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

556

installations. These preliminary G&G surveys are described above in Section 4.1.1. Following these 

preliminary surveys, LNG projects generally involve three phases: construction and installation, operation, 

and decommissioning (BOEM, 2019b).

There are currently three operational facilities: Louisiana Offshore Oil Port and Neptune and Northeast 

Gateway, which are both located offshore Massachusetts. Other deepwater port license and application 

statuses located around the continental U.S. are shown in Figure 4.1-8 below (MARAD, 2021). In addition 

to the ports shown in the figure below, there are LNG ports and interests in Alaska including the Kenai 

LNG Terminal and the Alaska LNG Project (North Slope Borough).

Source: Adapted from MARAD Deepwater Port Licensing Program Map (MARAD, 2021)

Figure 4.1-8. Deepwater Port Location and Status Map

Overall, activities pertaining to the operation and construction of offshore LNG terminals are expected to 

continue at current levels or increase over the next several years in the Greater Atlantic, Southeast, and 

West Coast regions of the action area. The impact causing factors associated with the construction and 

installation of LNG terminals would involve seafloor disturbance for construction, vessel presence, vessel 

and equipment noise, impacts to the water column, potential accidental discharges, and air emissions. 

Similarly, the operation of LNG terminals would include vessel presence, vessel and equipment noise, 

impacts to the water column, potential accidental discharges, and air emissions. The decommissioning of 

LNG facilities may include demolition activities and structure removal (BOEM, 2019b). The construction 

and operation of offshore LNG terminals would likely contribute cumulative impacts related to all the 

resources considered in this Final PEIS. 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

557

4.1.9 National Defense and Homeland Security Activities

The U.S. Navy, USCG, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Air Force, U.S. Marine Corps, and U.S. 

Army conduct operations and training exercises within the EEZ to ensure national security (NOS, 2016; 

NMFS, 2019d). Operations that are not compatible with commercial or recreational transportation are 

confined to Operating Areas (OPAREAs) away from commercially used waterways and/or inside Special 

Use Airspace (U.S. Fleet Forces, 2009). Military activities can include fleet training and testing, submarine 

and anti-submarine training, gunnery exercises, launch activities, missile training, and other training 

activities. These activities can involve the deployment of surface and subsurface vessels from small craft 

to large ships, high speed pursuits, live fire actions, underway refueling, and vessel anchoring (NOS, 2016). 

In addition to these activities, the Navy uses Surveillance Towed Array Sensor System (SURTASS) Low 

Frequency Active (LFA) sonar systems, Mid-Frequency Active Sonar (MFAS), and High-Frequency Active 

Sonar (HFAS) for training and testing activities.

SURTASS LFA sonar systems are long-range sensors that transmit in the low frequency band (i.e., below 1 

kHz). The two basic types of sonar used in the SURTASS LFA sonar system are passive and active sonar. 

Passive sonar detects sound created by a source and active sonar detects objects by creating a sound 

pulse that is transmitted through the water, reflects off a target object, and returns in the form of an echo 

to be detected. The Navy plans to upgrade SURTASS LFA sonar systems to a more compact LFA (CLFA) 

system that has a transmission frequency between 100 to 500 Hz; however, the operational 

characteristics and environmental impacts are expected to remain the same. The typical LFA sonar signal 

is not a constant tone but rather a series of sound transmissions referred to as a “wavetrain,” lasting on 

average 60 seconds with 6 to 15 minutes between wavetrains. Hydrophones on the vessel then detect 

the returning echoes from submerged objects. The Navy plans to increase the annual number of LFA sonar 

transmission hours from 496 to 592 hours within the next five years and expects to continue operating at 

this higher level into the foreseeable future. Prior to 2018, the Navy used SURTASS LFA sonar in the nonpolar areas of the Atlantic, Pacific, and Indian oceans and the Mediterranean Sea. The Navy currently uses 

SURTASS LFA sonar in the western and central North Pacific and eastern Indian oceans, overlapping with 

the Pacific Island region of the action area (Navy, 2018b).

Similar to LFA sonar, the Navy uses MFAS and HFAS emit non-impulsive sound waves to detect objects, 

safely navigate, and communicate. MFAS transmits sound at frequencies between 1 kHz and 10 kHz. MFAS 

is the Navy’s primary tool for detecting and identifying submarines. HFAS transmits sound at frequencies 

between 10 kHz and 100 kHz. HFAS has a small effective range, but provides higher resolution of objects 

and is able to detect smaller objects. Active sonar is rarely used continuously during training and testing 

activities and operates using a low duty cycle when in use. Training activities that use sonar typically 

employ several hours to hundreds of hours of sonar use per exercise. These sources are expected to 

continue to be used in training and testing activities throughout the action area (Navy, 2015; Navy, 2018a).

A summary of national defense and homeland security projects that have required incidental take 

authorizations from NMFS is presented below in Table 4.1-8 as a representative, not exhaustive, list of 

projects. Projects with an active take authorization status and projects with a take authorization 

application in-process are considered reasonably foreseeable to occur within the next five years and are 

categorized as ongoing activities. Projects that have been granted the requested take authorizations that 

have expired within the past 10 years are considered activities that have occurred within the past 10 years. 

Although projects that require take authorization are not of the only projects occurring in the action area, 

they are used as a representative list because projects that require take authorization are expected to be 

the projects with the greatest impact.
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

558

Table 4.1-8. Representative List of National Defense and

Homeland Security Projects within the Action Area

Military 

Branch

General Location/ 

Geographic Scope Project/Permit Description

Greater Atlantic Region

Activities within the Past 10 years

U.S. Navy

Eastern seaboard and PR, 

USVI Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing (AFTT)

North East Atlantic Operations of SURTASS low frequency active sonar

Southeast Region

Ongoing Activities

U.S. Air 

Force

Gulf of Mexico Testing and training activities in the Eglin Gulf Test and 

Training Range (EGTTR)

U.S. Marine 

Corps

Brandt island, Pamlico 

Sound, NC Training activities in Pamlico Sound, NC

Piney island, Pamlico 

Sound, NC Training activities in Pamlico Sound, NC

U.S. Navy

Eastern seaboard and PR, 

USVI Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing (AFTT)

Gulf of Mexico Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing (AFTT)

Camp Lejeune, NC Joint logistics over-the-shore training in VA and NC

Fort Story, VA Joint logistics over-the-shore training in VA and NC

Little Creek, VA Joint logistics over-the-shore training in VA and NC

Eastern Indian Ocean Operations of SURTASS low frequency active sonar

Activities within the Past 10 years

U.S. Air 

Force

Eglin AFB, FL Eglin AFB gunnery exercises, FL

Eglin AFB, FL Eglin AFB NEODS training operations

Eglin AFB, FL Eglin AFB precision strike weapons and air-to-surface 

gunnery exercises, FL

Eglin AFB, FL Maritime strike operations at Eglin AFB, FL

FL panhandle Maritime weapon systems evaluation program (WSEP) 

near FL panhandle

offshore FL Maritime weapons systems evaluation program, offshore 

FL

offshore FL Maritime weapons systems evaluation program, offshore 

FL

U.S. Marine 

Corps

Brandt island, Pamlico 

Sound, NC

Training activities in Pamlico Sound, NC

Piney island, Pamlico 

Sound, NC

Training activities in Pamlico Sound, NC

U.S. Navy

Gulf of Mexico Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing (AFTT)

Cherry Point, NC Cherry Point (CHPT) range complex mission activities, NC
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

559

Military 

Branch

General Location/ 

Geographic Scope Project/Permit Description

Corpus Christi OPAREA Gulf of Mexico (GOMEX) range complex training exercises

Pensacola OPAREA Gulf of Mexico (GOMEX) range complex training exercises

Jacksonville, FL Jacksonville range complex, FL

Jacksonville, FL Jacksonville range complex, FL

Panama City, FL Naval Surface Warfare Center Panama City, FL

South West Atlantic Operations of SURTASS low frequency active sonar

Panama City test range, 

FL

Testing mine reconnaissance sonar system at Panama 

City test range, FL

Virginia capes, VA Virginia capes (VACAPES) range complex, VA

West Coast Region

Ongoing Activities

U.S. Air 

Force

North sites Vandenburg 

AFB, CA

Vandenberg AFB launch activities, CA

South sites Vandenburg 

AFB, CA

Vandenberg AFB launch activities, CA

U.S. Navy

Southern California 

Range Complex

Hawai’i Southern California Training and Testing (HSTT)

San Nicolas Island, CA Missile launches from San Nicolas Island, CA

Pacific Northwest Northwest training and testing activities (NWTT)

North Pacific Operations of SURTASS low frequency active sonar

Activities within the Past 10 years

U.S. Air 

Force

North sites Vandenburg 

AFB, CA

Vandenberg AFB launch and harbor maintenance 

activities, CA

South sites Vandenburg 

AFB, CA

Vandenberg AFB launch and harbor maintenance 

activities, CA

Vandenburg AFB, CA Vandenburg AFB space launch vehicle and missile 

operations, CA

U.S. Navy

Southern California 

Range Complex

Hawai’i Southern California Training and Testing (HSTT)

Dabob Bay, WA Keyport range complex expansion and activities, WA

Keyport, WA Keyport range complex expansion and activities, WA

Quinault site, coastal WA Keyport range complex expansion and activities, WA

San Nicolas Island, CA Missile launches from San Nicolas Island, CA

North Pacific Operations of SURTASS low frequency active sonar

Western Pacific Operations of SURTASS low frequency active sonar

San Diego Bay, CA Silver Strand Training Complex exercises near San Diego 

Bay, CA

Northwest Training Range 

Complex

Training in the Northwest Training Range Complex 

(NWTRC)

Silver Strand Training 

Complex, CA

Training in the Silver Strand Training Complex, CA
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

560

Military 

Branch

General Location/ 

Geographic Scope Project/Permit Description

Ports of LA/Long Beach, 

CA

West Coast civilian port defense activities

Alaska Region

Ongoing Activities

U.S. Navy Gulf of Alaska Training activities in the Gulf of Alaska temporary 

maritime activities area

Activities within the Past 10 years

U.S. Navy Beaufort Sea, Arctic 

Ocean

2018 IceX

Gulf of Alaska Training activities in the Gulf of Alaska temporary 

maritime activities area

Pacific Island Region

Ongoing Activities

U.S. Air 

Force

Kauai, HI Weapon Systems Evaluation Program

U.S. Navy Hawai’i Range Complex Hawai’i Southern California Training and Testing (HSTT)

Mariana Islands Mariana Islands Training and Testing (MITT)

Central Pacific Operations of SURTASS low frequency active sonar

Activities within the Past 10 years

U.S. Air 

Force

Kauai, HI Long Range Strike Weapon Systems Evaluation Program 

U.S. Navy Hawai’i Hawai’i range complex

Hawai’i Range Complex Hawai’i Southern California Training and Testing (HSTT)

South Pacific Operations of SURTASS low frequency active sonar

Mariana Islands Range 

Complex

Training in the Mariana Islands Range Complex (MIRC)

Source: NMFS, 2019d

AFB = Air Force Base; NEODS = Naval Explosive Ordnance Disposal School; SURTASS = Surveillance Towed Array 

Sensor System

Impact causing factors associated with national defense and homeland security activities would likely 

include the use of active underwater acoustic sources, the use of explosives, seafloor disturbance, 

dredging, vessel presence, vessel and equipment noise, impacts to the water column, potential accidental 

discharges, and air emissions (BOEM, 2019b). Prior to testing and training activities, the Navy issues 

notices to mariners and will clear the ocean range; therefore, it is unlikely that impact causing factors 

from the majority of these activities will overlap with those of other cumulative actions considered or NOS 

activities. NOS will coordinate with the Navy to ensure that surveys would not occur on or near ranges

during exercises. Overall, national defense and homeland security activities are expected to increase 

above the present level due to the ongoing and planned programs, and would likely contribute to 

cumulative impacts for habitats; marine mammals; sea turtles; fish; aquatic macroinvertebrates; EFH; 

seabirds, shorebirds and coastal birds, and waterfowl; and Environmental Justice.
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

561

4.1.10 Construction of New Submarine Telecommunication Cable Infrastructure

Submarine cables play a critical role in global interconnected networks, carrying about 99 percent of 

international communications traffic. Sharp growth in demand for data, fueled by bandwidth-intensive 

applications such as video and a proliferation of cloud-based services, has driven a considerable increase 

in global submarine cable deployments (Brake, 2019). The U.S.’s existing submarine cable infrastructure 

is already substantial and is concentrated along coastal urban centers such as New York City, Washington 

D.C., and San Francisco where demand on communication networks is larger; however, new cable 

infrastructure is needed to support growing capacity demand throughout the action area. Submarine 

cables typically have a 25-year lifespan, so the replacement and repair of existing cables is also expected 

in the next several years as current cables reach the end of their effective lifespan or become obsolete. 

Within the EEZ, installing or laying telecommunication cable infrastructure involves coordination with the 

Federal Communications Commission (FCC), USACE, and NOAA. Depending on the particular project and 

route characteristics, construction and maintenance of submarine cable infrastructure may include 

surveys of proposed cable routes; the use of specialized vessels, equipment, and divers to lay the cable; 

the use of equipment to bury the cable; construction of connection to onshore systems; and operation 

and maintenance of the cables (BOEM, 2019b).

Following preliminary G&G surveys of the cable route, the construction of new submarine 

telecommunication cable infrastructure generally involves the use of equipment to lay and bury the 

cables, the construction of a coastal landing station to connect the cables to onshore systems, 

maintenance and repairs, and eventual removal of cables. The impact producing factors associated with 

these activities include seafloor disturbance, vessel presence, vessel and equipment noise, impacts to the 

water column, potential accidental discharges, and air emissions (BOEM, 2019b). The construction of new 

submarine telecommunication cable infrastructure would likely contribute cumulative impacts related to 

habitats; marine mammals; sea turtles; fish; aquatic macroinvertebrates; EFH; seabirds, shorebirds and 

coastal birds, and waterfowl; cultural and historic resources; and Environmental Justice.

4.1.11 Commercial and Recreational Fishing

Commercial fishing is catching and selling fish and shellfish for profit, while recreational fishing is for sport 

or pleasure. The annual total landings, or poundage of fish, brought in by commercial fisheries has 

fluctuated between 4.3 and 4.4 billion kilograms (kgs) (9.4 and 9.6 billion pounds [lbs]) from 2011 to 2018. 

Alaska contributes the most to commercial fisheries, accounting for 58 percent of landings in 2018, 

followed by the Gulf of Mexico (16 percent), Atlantic (14 percent), Pacific (12 percent) and Hawai’i and 

the Great Lakes (less than 1 percent each) (NMFS, 2020). Over the past decade, while the amount of wildcaught seafood has remained relatively consistent from year to year, the amount raised through 

aquaculture has increased, though it is still less than 10 percent of the wild harvest by weight. National 

marine aquaculture production increased an average of 3.3 percent per year from 2009-2014 and in 2017, 

freshwater and marine aquaculture production was 284 million kgs (626 million lbs) (NMFS, No Date-i; 

NMFS, 2020). Most marine aquaculture production consists of oysters, clams, salmon, mussels, and 

shrimp. In addition to contributing to the seafood industry, aquaculture is also a tool to restore habitats 

and species. Hatchery stock is used to rebuild oyster reefs, grow wild fish populations, and rebuild 

threatened and endangered abalone and corals (NMFS, No Date-i).

Recreational fishing includes fishing from private/rental boats, party/charter boats, and onshore (e.g., a 

dock or the shore). In 2018, recreational fishers took approximately 194 million saltwater fishing trips, 

with 55 percent in estuaries, 35 percent in state territorial seas, and 10 percent in the U.S. EEZ. Of the 163 

million kgs (359 million lbs) of harvested fish, the majority were from the Atlantic (60 percent) and Gulf of 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

562

Mexico (37 percent) (NMFS, 2020). All saltwater recreational fishing together harvested about 1/30th the 

combined catch (by weight) of commercial fishing in 2018. 

Commercial and recreational fishing activities directly impact fishery stocks and indirectly impact seabirds 

and marine mammals that prey and depend on fishery stocks. Additionally, commercial and recreational 

fishing contribute to overall vessel traffic in the action area and therefore, the cumulative noise in the 

ocean. Over the 5-year project period, the amount of commercial and recreational fishing in the action 

area is expected to remain the same or increase. Impact causing factors associated with commercial and 

recreational fishing include seafloor disturbance, dredging, vessel presence, vessel and equipment noise, 

impacts to the water column, potential accidental discharges, and air emissions (BOEM, 2019b). 

Commercial and recreational fishing would likely contribute cumulative impacts related to habitats; 

marine mammals; sea turtles; fish; aquatic macroinvertebrates; EFH; seabirds, shorebirds and coastal 

birds, and waterfowl; cultural and historic resources; and Environmental Justice.

4.1.12 Coastal Development

Coastal development includes the construction, maintenance, renovation, and removal of infrastructure 

such as piers, lighthouses, shipping ports and storage facilities, harbors, dams, bridges, roads, buildings, 

and other structures to support increased levels of safe navigation, tourism, and residential, commercial, 

and industrial land uses. While coastal construction is concentrated along urban centers, it is expected to 

occur throughout the U.S. coastline in all regions of the action area. The expected increase in marine 

traffic, fishing operations, and offshore energy development would increase the use of existing coastal 

infrastructure and increase demand for the construction of new infrastructure and port facilities (BOEM, 

2019b). Due to their potential impact to marine mammals, coastal construction projects require incidental 

take authorizations granted by NMFS under the MMPA (NMFS, 2019d). A summary of these projects is 

presented below in Table 4.1-9 as a representative, not exhaustive, list of coastal development projects. 

Projects with an active take authorization status and projects with a take authorization application inprocess are considered reasonably foreseeable to occur within the next five years and are categorized as 

ongoing activities. Projects that have been granted the requested take authorizations that have expired 

within the past 10 years are considered activities that have occurred within the past 10 years. Although 

projects that require take authorization are not of the only projects occurring in the action area, they are 

used as a representative list because projects that require take authorization are expected to be the 

projects with the greatest impact.

Table 4.1-9. Representative List of Coastal Development Projects within the Action Area

General Location/ 

Geographic Scope Project Lead Project/Permit Description

Greater Atlantic Region

Ongoing Activities

Off NY and NJ Transcontinental Gas Pipe 

Line Company, LLC

Construction Activities for Raritan Bay Pipeline

New London, CT U.S. Navy Dock construction project

Kittery, ME U.S. Navy Dock expansion project

Activities within the Past 10 years

DE and NJ Bluewater Wind, LLC Meteorological tower installation
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

563

General Location/ 

Geographic Scope Project Lead Project/Permit Description

Atlantic City windfarm, 

NJ

Fishermen's Atlantic City 

Windfarm, LLC

Pile placement

Eastport, ME Maine DOT Pier and breakwater replacement project

Kittery, ME U.S. Navy Waterfront improvement project

Southeast Region

Ongoing Activities

Tampa Bay, FL USACE Tampa Harbor Bay Big Bend Channel expansion

Jacksonville, FL U.S. Navy South Quay Wall recapitalization project 

Kings Bay, GA U.S. Navy Submarine base waterfront construction

Activities within the Past 10 years

Port of Miami, FL USACE Blasting operations

Chesapeake Bay 

entrance

Chesapeake Tunnel Joint 

Venture

Parallel Thimble Shoal Tunnel Project

Jacksonville, FL U.S. Navy Wharf maintenance project

West Coast Region

Ongoing Activities

Coos Bay, OR USACE North Jetty Maintenance and Repairs Project

Santa Cruz, CA Caltrans Murray Street Bridge seismic retrofit project

CA Carnival Corp, City of 

Alameda, San Francisco 

Bay Area Water 

Emergency 

Transportation Authority, 

and Port of San Francisco

Three ferry and cruise terminal improvement 

and construction projects

Richmond, CA Chevron Wharf maintenance project

Kalama, WA Port of Kalama Proposed construction activities

Sant Cruz, CA Sant Cruz Port District Aldo's Seawall Replacement Project

Jenner, CA Sonoma County Water 

Agency

Estuary Management Activities

Columbia River USACE Jetty System Rehabilitation, King Pile Markers 

Project, and Sand Island Pile Dike Test Project

Seal Beach, CA U.S. Navy Construction of Pier and Turning Basin

Puget Sound, WA U.S. Navy Structure maintenance and pile replacement

Bangor, WA U.S. Navy Pier extension project

Bremerton, WA WA DOT Dolphin Relocation project

WA WA DOT Two multimodal construction projects

Aberdeen, WA WA DOT US 101/Chehalis River Bridge-Scour Repair

Activities within the Past 10 years

Columbia River USACE Jetty rehabilitation

San Francisco, CA USACE Pier 36/ Brannan Street wharf project
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

564

General Location/ 

Geographic Scope Project Lead Project/Permit Description

Newport, OR Bergerson Construction, 

Inc.

Front Street transload facility construction

Elkhorn Slough, 

Monterey, CA

California Dept of Fish 

and Wildlife

Tidal marsh restoration project

San Francisco, CA Caltrans Bridge construction and demolition and seismic 

safety tests

Trinidad Pier, CA Cher-Ae Heights Indian 

Community

Pile-driving and renovation operations

Carpinteria, CA Chevron Casitas Pier Fender Pile Replacement Project

Richmond, CA Chevron Wharf Maintenance project

WA City of Astoria and Kitsap 

Transit

Two dock construction and expansion projects

Monterey County, CA NOAA Restoration Center Parsons slough project

Friday Harbor, WA Port of Friday Harbor Marina reconstruction project

Kalama, WA Port of Kalama Proposed construction activities

San Francisco Bay, CA Port of San Francisco Activities for the America's Cup

Port of Vancouver, WA Port of Vancouver Port of Vancouver, WA

San Diego, CA San Diego Construction and demolition activities and 

Coast Blvd sidewalk Improvements 

CA San Francisco Bay Area 

Water Emergency 

Transportation Authority

Three ferry terminal expansion and 

reconstruction projects and Central Bay 

operations and maintenance project

Seattle, WA Seattle DOT Seawall and pier restoration projects

Russian River estuary Sonoma County Water 

Agency

Estuary management project

San Francisco, CA The Exploratorium Exploratorium relocation

Monterey, CA USCG USCG Monterey Waterfront Improvement 

Project

Naval Base Kitsap, WA U.S. Navy Naval Base Kitsap Bangor pile replacement 

program, test pile program, and wharf 

construction project.

WA U.S. Navy Three pier maintenance projects

San Diego, CA U.S. Navy Naval Base Point Loma fuel pier replacement 

project

San Nicolas Island, CA U.S. Navy County Roads and Airfield Repairs Project

Vandenburg AFB, CA United Launch Alliance Harbor activities related to the Delta IV/EEL 

vehicle

Aberdeen, WA WA DOT Chehalis River Bridge Repair

Woodard Bay, WA WA Dept of Natural 

Resources

Restoration activities

Anacortes, WA WA DOT Anacortes tie-up slips replacement
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

565

General Location/ 

Geographic Scope Project Lead Project/Permit Description

WA WA DOT Dolphin Relocation project and wingwall 

replacement project

Whidbey Island, WA WA DOT Coupeville timber towers preservation project

Manette Bridge, WA WA DOT Manette Bridge replacement project

WA WA DOT Four multi-modal construction projects

WA WA DOT Two ferry terminals construction projects

Vashon Island, WA WA DOT Vashon Ferry Terminal trestle seismic project

WA WA Ferries Span replacement project

Alaska Region

Ongoing Activities

AK Alaska DOT Four ferry terminal construction projects

AK Alaska DOT, Federal 

Aviation Administration 

(FAA), Skagway, AK, and 

White Pass and Yukon 

Route

Five dock construction, replacement, and 

expansion projects

AK Donlin Gold, LLC Gold mining and marine barging in coastal 

waters

Ketchikan, AK City of Ketchikan Removal of Berth II Rock Pinnacles

Hoonah, AK Duck Point Development 

II, LLC

Cruise Ship Berth Construction

Juneau, AK Jim Erickson Erickson residence marine access project

Juneau, AK Juneau Three harbor and waterfront projects

Sitka, AK Sitka Alaska Lightering float pile replacement project

Activities within the Past 10 years

AK Alaska DOT and Huna 

Totem Co.

Four ferry terminal improvement projects

AK City of Unalaska, UniSea, 

Inc., FAA, Sitka Alaska, 

and Ketchikan Dock Co

Five dock construction, replacement, and 

expansion projects

St. Paul Island, AK NMFS Alaska Region Repair of observation towers and walkways

Port of Anchorage Port of Anchorage Test pile program

Pacific Island Region

Activities within the Past 10 years

Honolulu, HI Honolulu Seawater Air 

Conditioning, LLC Honolulu seawater air conditioning project, HI

Source: NMFS, 2019d

DOT = Department of Transportation; USACE = U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; USCG = U.S. Coast Guard

Impact causing factors associated with coastal construction include seafloor disturbance, vessel presence, 

vessel and equipment noise, impacts to the water column, potential accidental discharges, and air 

emissions (BOEM, 2019b). Coastal construction would likely contribute cumulative impacts related to 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

566

habitats; marine mammals; sea turtles; fish; aquatic macroinvertebrates; EFH; and seabirds, shorebirds 

and coastal birds, and waterfowl.
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

567

4.2 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ON THE ENVIRONMENT

As described in Section 4.1, NOS is considering actions taking place in the action area during a 17-year 

period from 2010 to 2027 in the assessment of cumulative effects. The following sections analyze the 

cumulative impacts for each resource covered in Chapter 3. The analysis first summarizes the cumulative 

effects of the cumulative actions identified in 4.1, then considers how the NOS-related incremental 

impacts of Alternatives A, B, and C, when added to or acting synergistically with the cumulative effects of 

other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, would contribute to overall cumulative 

impacts. The analysis of cumulative effects also considers other human actions and activities that 

contribute to the existing condition of coastal habitats, including encroachment from onshore, nearshore, 

and offshore development (e.g., coastal population growth, light pollution); flows and runoff of pollutants 

into coastal waters from onshore land uses, including urban, residential, industrial, and agricultural; and 

accidental or illicit discharges of oil, fuel, chemicals, or waste. 

4.2.1 Habitats

All past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions described in Section 4.1 would contribute 

cumulative effects to habitats. The following section addresses habitats in general, but discussion of 

cumulative impacts on habitats for other more specific resources may be found in these other sections of 

this chapter: 4.2.2.4 (Marine Mammals), 4.2.3.3 (Sea Turtles), 4.2.4.4 (Fish), 4.2.5.3 (Aquatic 

Macroinvertebrates), 4.2.6 (Essential Fish Habitat), and 4.2.7.3 (Sea Birds, Shorebirds and Coastal Birds, 

and Waterfowl).

The cumulative impacts in the following subsections are categorized by their relevance to the following 

essential characteristics of habitat:

• space needed for individual and population growth and normal behavior;

• food, water, air, light, minerals, and other nutritional or physiological requirements;

• cover or shelter requirements;

• sites needed for breeding, reproduction, or rearing of offspring.

4.2.1.1 Physical Impacts to Habitat Bottom Substrate

NOS activities under the Proposed Action including anchoring, collection of bottom grab samples, 

installation of tide gauges and remote global positioning system (GPS) reference systems, use of 

dropped/towed camera systems, and self-contained underwater breathing apparatus (SCUBA) operations 

could contribute to overall cumulative impacts associated with the presence and movement of vessels 

and construction, operation, and decommissioning of long-term installations (e.g., LNG terminals, energy 

infrastructure, and submarine telecommunications) on the bottom substrate throughout marine, 

freshwater, and estuarine areas in the action area. These cumulative impacts could reduce the availability 

of space, shelter, cover, and nutrients for dependent species. 

The agitation of ocean, lake, or river bottom sediments during NOS projects and other cumulative actions 

requiring the presence and movement of crewed vessels or the construction, operation, and 

decommissioning of long-term installations could cumulatively reduce the availability of space, shelter, 

cover, and nutrients for dependent species throughout the action area by physically removing or altering 

underwater structure. Many cumulative actions requiring crewed vessel operations could also entail 

anchoring, collection of bottom samples, or trailing of camera systems and other equipment. Equipment, 

vessels, or displaced water from vessel wakes could potentially contact bottom substrate throughout the 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

568

action area, removing or damaging underwater structures such as submerged vegetation, macroalgae, 

and coral reefs. 

This reduction of underwater structure would reduce the shelter and cover necessary for the survival or 

offspring development of many marine and freshwater taxa, particularly those organisms at lower levels 

of the aquatic food chain, and could potentially reduce the overall aquatic biodiversity of the area through 

cascading trophic impacts (i.e., reduced prey availability reduces the abundance of higher-level 

predators). However, impacts from NOS activities to bottom substrates would be temporary and would 

be mitigated by avoiding repeated NOS surveys in the same location. For both NOS projects and other 

actions these impacts would be largely confined to the immediate vicinity of their source and would not 

likely appreciably impact the total amount of underwater structure within the action area. Long-term 

installations, including renewable or fossil fuel energy installations, could also damage underwater 

structural features and would likely cumulatively reduce the total amount of space available to dependent 

species for the lifetime of the installation. However, any potential reductions in space would be limited to 

the immediate vicinity of constructed manmade structures, which could also serve as settlement strata 

for many species of marine and freshwater macroinvertebrates and subsequently attract and retain 

organisms from higher levels of the aquatic food chain. 

The majority of cumulative impacts on bottom substrates would be limited to the immediate vicinity of 

vessels, trailed equipment, or onshore, nearshore, and offshore renewable and fossil fuel energy 

development and would not likely cause long term changes in the availability of space, shelter, cover, or 

nutrients for dependent species outside of the range of natural variation. The above-described NOS 

effects can also occur in almost all human use of water. These effects would be indistinguishable in type 

from other human uses. Overall, aggregate cumulative bottom substrate impacts would occur regardless 

of the chosen alternative, would be short-term and long-term, and could result in adverse and negligible

to minor impacts on habitat areas throughout the action area. The contribution to these aggregate, 

adverse cumulative impacts on bottom substrate from any of the three NOS alternatives would be 

negligible. 

4.2.1.2 Increase in Sedimentation, Turbidity, and/or Chemical Contaminants in 

Habitats

Crewed vessel , ROV, and autonomous vehicle operations; anchoring; dropped/towed camera systems; 

collection of bottom grab samples; installation of tide gauges and remote GPS reference systems; and 

SCUBA operations under the Proposed Action could contribute to overall cumulative impacts associated 

with the presence and movement of vessels, construction, operation, and decommissioning of long-term 

installations (e.g., LNG terminals, energy infrastructure, and submarine telecommunications), coastal 

erosion resulting from climate change, and runoff from expanding coastal development in conjunction 

with coastal population growth. The result would be a cumulative increase in sedimentation, turbidity and 

the presence of chemical contaminants throughout marine, freshwater, and estuarine areas in the action 

area, reducing the availability of space, shelter, cover, and nutrients for dependent species. 

The presence and movement of vessels and trailing equipment during both NOS projects and other 

cumulative actions, in conjunction with underwater construction activities, such as blasting and leveling, 

could potentially stir up bottom sediment, cumulatively increasing the level of sedimentation and 

turbidity within the action area. Rising sea levels as a result of climate change will also continually erode 

coastlines along the EEZ over the next five years and could further contribute to increased turbidity within 

these areas. High levels of sedimentation and turbidity can potentially cause direct respiratory damage 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

569

to aquatic species and block sunlight necessary for photosynthesis by aquatic plants, macroalgae, and 

phytoplankton. 

These impacts could cumulatively lower the overall nutrient availability or reduce the cover and structure 

available to dependent species from submerged vegetation or macroalgae within the action area. 

Furthermore, increases in sedimentation and turbidity reduce the penetration of sunlight through the 

water column, which changes the wavelengths of light reaching fish and benthic species. Photosynthetic 

marine species are dependent on sunlight and often have a narrow band of wavelengths of light that they 

are able to use; increased sedimentation and turbidity could cumulatively hinder or prohibit 

photosynthesis in oceanic habitat areas, reducing nutrient cycling and primary production by marine 

phytoplankton and reducing shelter and cover provided by submerged plants and macroalgae. 

Suspended material may also react with DO in the water and result in temporary or short-term oxygen 

depletion to aquatic resources, including vegetation and aquatic macroinvertebrates, and could further 

exacerbate impacts to habitat areas from reduced nutrient and cover availability. 

During both NOS projects and other cumulative actions, the presence and movement of vessels, 

construction and presence of long-term renewable or fossil fuel energy installations could cumulatively 

increase the concentration of contaminants within the water column when considered in tandem with 

current agricultural or urban runoff from onshore commercial development in conjunction with coastal 

population growth and accidental or illicit discharges of oil, fuel, or chemical contaminants. The magnitude 

of the majority of these impacts is contingent on the size, location, and chemical composition of the source 

discharge or spill. The majority of contaminants, including oil and fuel, currently entering the aquatic 

environment are less dense than water and float on the surface until they evaporate, typically within 

several days. Floating contaminants typically do not affect habitat characteristics below the surface of the 

water, however contaminants introduced to shallow marine habitat areas harm seagrass ecosystems 

close to the water surface and could potentially cause extensive mortality of the seabed and reduce the 

available cover and shelter that many marine species require to avoid predation, reproduce, and rear or 

develop offspring. 

Additionally, seagrass mortality reduces the nutrient availability for seagrass foragers in these areas, 

including echinoderms, fish, manatees, and sea turtles. Chemical contaminants also cling or adhere to 

structural features in all aquatic habitat areas, which serve as additional exposure vectors to fish and 

aquatic macroinvertebrates and result in changes in growth rates or behavior, injuries, and death of 

exposed individuals. Coastal runoff includes chemical contaminants such as fertilizers or detergents with 

high levels of nitrates and phosphates. Influxes of nutrients or chemicals in shallow marine, estuarine, and 

coastal wetland habitat areas elicit algal blooms, which often are toxic for many marine species and 

reduce DO concentrations as dying algae are oxidized, thereby reducing the overall habitat quality of the 

affected area. Denser contaminants sink below the surface of the water and negatively impact coral 

colonies in shallow marine habitat areas through mortality, tissue death, reduced growth, impaired 

reproduction, bleaching, and reduced photosynthetic rates. Ongoing reduction of coral coverage reduces 

the structure and shelter necessary for prey species and will continue to reduce the overall biodiversity 

of affected areas through cascading impacts throughout the food chain. Bioaccumulation of some toxic 

chemicals also disproportionately impacts higher level predators which consume contaminated prey 

items and ultimately reduces top-down ecosystem regulation and nutrient availability of affected habitat 

areas.

Overall, increased sedimentation, turbidity, and chemical contamination within the action area would 

predominantly be dissipated by prevailing currents or winds in seconds to minutes. Temporary reductions 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

570

in water quality are not expected to cumulatively reduce the availability of space, shelter/cover, nutrients, 

or breeding/rearing grounds in any of the habitat types found throughout the action area outside the 

range of natural variability. It is also an NOS practice to generally avoid repeated NOS surveys in the same 

location, thereby mitigating impacts of increased sedimentation, turbidity, and chemical contamination 

within the action area. The above-described NOS effects can also occur in almost all human use of water. 

These effects would be indistinguishable in type from other human uses. Overall, aggregate cumulative 

impacts to all aquatic habitat areas from increased sedimentation, turbidity, and/or chemical 

contamination would be adverse and negligible to minor in magnitude. The contribution to these 

aggregate, adverse cumulative impacts from any of the three NOS alternatives would be negligible.

4.2.1.3 Increased Ambient Sound Levels in Habitats

Crewed vessel, remotely operated vehicle (ROV), and autonomous vehicle operations and the use of echo 

sounders, acoustic communications systems and ADCPs under the Proposed Action, could contribute to 

overall cumulative impacts on ambient sound levels associated with the presence and movement of 

vessels, other surveying and mapping activities, and construction, operation, and decommissioning of 

long-term installations (e.g., LNG terminals, energy infrastructure, and submarine telecommunications). 

These could result in a cumulative increase in the ambient sound environment throughout marine, 

freshwater, and estuarine areas in the action area, reducing the availability of space, shelter, cover, and 

nutrients for dependent species. 

Crewed vessel, ROV, and autonomous vehicle operations from both NOS projects and other actions and 

underwater construction activities in support of long-term installations, would generate underwater 

sound and vibrations at low- to mid-frequencies that overlap with the hearing ranges of many aquatic 

prey species. Increases in the ambient sound level of aquatic habitat areas could potentially reduce the 

habitat quality of preferred feeding or breeding grounds and displace disturbed animals from these areas. 

Increased ambient sound can also mask biologically important sounds which elicit predator-avoidance or 

mating behaviors, cause hearing loss, and/or generally have an adverse effect on an organism’s stress 

levels and immune system. Reduction of prey species would reduce food and nutrient availability for toplevel predators in aquatic habitat areas and could potentially result in cascading impacts throughout the 

local aquatic food chain and reduced biodiversity. However, crewed vessel transits would be infrequent 

in any given area and the exposure of prey species to vessel sound would be limited to the immediate 

vicinity of vessels and would only persist for the duration of vessel transit through the habitat area. The 

cumulative contribution to background sound in the ocean from vessels operated by NOS would not be 

substantial and the exposure of prey species to these sounds at the levels and lengths of time that may 

cause anything other than minimal adverse effects would be unlikely. NOS sound sources would be 

localized and short term and would not likely overlap with other sound sources.

The use of active underwater acoustic sources in other surveying mapping activities, national defense and 

homeland security activities, and oil, gas, carbon storage, or renewable energy assessments would involve 

directional and brief repeated signals which could cumulatively increase the ambient sound environment 

of aquatic habitat areas. Although the active underwater acoustic sources used by NOS described in 

Chapter 2 would not be perceptible to most marine prey species, other active underwater acoustic 

sources commonly used in support of cumulative actions have a greater propensity to injure marine prey 

due to the high intensity and large-scale propagation of the broadband sound they produce. These high 

intensity sources, including airguns, could have a more substantial impact on habitat areas than the NOS 

sources described in Section 3.4, especially when considered cumulatively. Exposure of marine prey to 

this sound could result in the same adverse impacts to the aquatic food chain as those discussed in the 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

571

preceding paragraph. However, active underwater acoustic sources used by NOS are typically only 

operated while a ship is in motion and habitat areas would only be exposed to emitted acoustic energy 

for a very short duration. Furthermore, these sources are highly directional in nature, and the energy of 

their emitted acoustic signals would drop off rapidly with distance from the source. Therefore, impacts 

on marine prey species would be predominantly limited to temporary behavioral and stress-startle 

response, and the likely cumulative impact on the overall habitat quality would be negligible to minor in 

any given area. 

Sound from vessel operations (both NOS and other) and underwater construction activities from other 

actions, which would generate sounds in the mid- and low-level frequencies, are within the hearing range 

of most prey species but would be infrequent, geographically widely distributed, and likely to cumulatively 

elicit a minimal or temporary response. It is also an NOS practice to generally avoid repeated surveys by 

NOS in the same location, thereby mitigating increased ambient sound levels within the action area. A 

majority of the sounds generated by underwater acoustic sources are well above the hearing frequencies 

of the most prey species, thus they are unlikely to cause cumulative behavioral disturbance and hearing 

impairment. Increased ambient sound levels throughout the action area would not likely cause cumulative 

long-term changes in the availability of space, shelter, cover, or nutrients for dependent species outside 

of the range of natural variation. The above-described NOS effects can also occur in almost all human use 

of water. These effects would be indistinguishable in type from other human uses. Overall, the cumulative 

impact of increased ambient sound levels throughout the action area would be adverse and negligible to

minor in magnitude. The contribution to these aggregate, adverse cumulative impacts on ambient 

underwater sound levels from any of the three NOS alternatives would be negligible.

4.2.1.4 Facilitated Dispersal of Invasive Species in Habitats

All activities under the Proposed Action which entail the use of the same physical equipment and 

instruments in geographically disparate regions (e.g., crewed vessel, ROV, and autonomous vehicle 

operations; anchoring; and the use of echo sounders), could contribute to cumulative impacts from all 

actions detailed in Section 4.1 in conjunction with ongoing climate change. Cumulatively, they could 

facilitate the dispersal of invasive species throughout marine, freshwater, and estuarine areas in the 

action area, reducing the availability of space, shelter, cover, and nutrients for dependent endemic 

species. 

Cumulative actions from both NOS and other entities would occur in all freshwater and marine regions of 

the action area and could involve transit and surveying across large swaths of the action area using the 

same physical equipment and survey instrumentation. These larger voyages or projects could potentially 

inadvertently transport invasive macroinvertebrate larvae, vertebrate eggs or animals, plant seeds, or 

algae propagules in ballast water or on equipment surfaces to novel areas, thereby facilitating their 

dispersal and establishment. Invasive species often have large numbers of offspring and limited or no 

natural threats or predators outside of their native habitat, allowing them to outcompete locally endemic 

species for space and nutrients. 

Over time, invasive species could propagate far beyond the initial site of establishment, which could 

cumulatively result in cascading impacts to the local food chains through the extirpation of local predators 

and prey due to reduced nutrient cycling and availability. These impacts would cumulatively change 

habitat structure and reduce the habitat value of affected areas in the long-term or permanently after the 

establishment of invasives; these species and their resulting impacts would persist until all invasive 

organisms were removed from a given area through aggressive trapping, harvesting, or use of pesticides 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

572

such as glyphosate. Global rising sea temperatures as a result of ongoing climate change could 

cumulatively exacerbate these impacts by shifting the distribution of ideal abiotic habitat conditions (e.g., 

water temperature or acidity) for endemic species. Invasive species typically have wider ranges of 

tolerability for abiotic environmental conditions, allowing them to withstand climate-related stresses and 

either outcompete less tolerant endemic species or establish themselves in habitat areas vacated by 

endemic species dispersed by altered abiotic environmental conditions.

Physical equipment and instruments used in consecutive projects in disparate geographically regions 

could potentially serve as transmission vectors for invasive species, which could cumulatively reduce the 

habitat value of their area of introduction by outcompeting endemic plants, animals, and algae. After 

establishment, cumulative impacts could potentially spread beyond project areas and persist until 

invasive species are suppressed or removed from these areas via aggressive management techniques and 

procedures, reducing the availability of space, shelter, cover, or nutrients for dependent species outside 

of the range of natural variation. However, vessel crews on NOS projects would implement invasive 

species control procedures such as deballasting or equipment washing as required by law, reducing the 

likelihood of invasive propagation. It is also an NOS practice to generally avoid repeated surveys by NOS 

in the same location, thereby mitigating dispersal of invasive species within the action area. The abovedescribed NOS effects can also occur in almost all human use of water. These effects would be 

indistinguishable in type from other human uses. Overall, given its relatively low likelihood of occurrence, 

the aggregate, adverse cumulative impact of invasive species dispersal would be minor to moderate in 

magnitude. The contribution to these aggregate, adverse cumulative impacts on invasive species dispersal 

from any of the three NOS alternatives would be negligible.

4.2.1.5 Impacts to the Water Column in Habitats

Crewed vessel, ROV, and autonomous vehicle operations; use of sound speed data collection equipment 

and bottom grab samplers; operation of drop/towed cameras and video systems; and SCUBA operations 

under the Proposed Action could contribute to cumulative impacts from the presence and movement of 

vessels associated with all cumulative actions, including raising and lowering of equipment, and 

construction, operation, and decommissioning of long-term installations (e.g., LNG terminals, energy 

infrastructure, and submarine telecommunications). In aggregate, these could cumulatively disturb the 

water column throughout marine, freshwater, and estuarine areas in the action area, reducing the 

availability of space, shelter, cover, and nutrients for dependent species. 

Wakes from crewed vessels, ROVs, and autonomous vehicles used in support of other surveying and 

mapping activities; fossil fuel, renewable, or carbon storage assessments; homeland security activities; 

and expanded recreational boating and commercial fishing would create turbulence and generate wave 

and surge effects in the water column. This displacement of water could cumulatively disrupt important 

environmental gradients, including temperature, salinity, DO, turbidity, and nutrient supply. Propellers 

from vessels could also cause water column destratification and elevated water temperatures. Vessel 

movements through the water column could cumulatively disrupt benthic communities in shallow areas 

and other prey species and cause mortality to floating eggs and larvae by physically damaging them with 

the hull or other ship parts, including the propulsion system. These disruptions would likely reduce the 

availability of space, shelter, and nutrients for dependent species within oceanic and shallow marine 

habitat areas and could cumulatively disrupt food chains, ultimately reducing the overall biodiversity of 

the study area. However, the vast majority of cumulative disturbance impacts to habitat areas would be 

limited to the immediate vicinity of vessels, and would only persist for the duration of transit or survey 

activities within the affected area. 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

573

Instruments, gear, and personnel that interact with the water column, including anchors and chains, 

bottom sampling equipment, echo sounders, airguns, and fishing lines or nets could cumulatively disturb 

or displace nearby benthic communities and other prey species. Reduction of prey species would reduce 

food and nutrient availability for top-level predators in aquatic habitat areas and could potentially result 

in cascading impacts throughout the local aquatic food chain and reduced biodiversity. Lines connecting 

equipment to a vessel could also become entangled with, damage, or kill underwater structural habitat 

features such as seagrass or corals. Reduction of underwater structure would likely cumulatively reduce 

the space, shelter, and cover necessary for the avoidance of predators by prey species and the rearing or 

development of offspring. Additionally, the expansion of commercial or recreational fishing could disturb, 

entangle, or directly target aquatic predators and prey species, which could drastically cumulatively alter 

food chains and energy flows throughout the action area. However, the vast majority of cumulative 

disturbance impacts to habitat areas would be limited to the immediate vicinity of instruments, gear, or 

personnel and would only persist for the duration of the activity. Mobile species would likely only be 

minimally displaced from project areas and would not experience long-term changes in the availability of 

space, structure, shelter, or nutrients outside the range of natural variability. 

Most of the cumulative disturbance and displacement impacts to the water column would still likely be 

limited to the immediate vicinity of the source and would not persist beyond the conclusion of a project. 

It is also an NOS practice to generally avoid repeated surveys by NOS in the same location, thereby 

mitigating increased disturbance and displacement impacts to the water column within the action area. 

The above-described NOS effects can also occur in almost all human use of water. These effects would be 

indistinguishable in type from other human uses. Overall, aggregate impacts of all actions described in 

Section 4.2.1.5 would not likely cause cumulative, long-term changes in the availability of space, shelter, 

cover, or nutrients for dependent species in habitat areas throughout the action area outside of the range 

of natural variation; thus, aggregate, adverse cumulative impacts would be considered negligible to minor

in magnitude. The contribution of the NOS Proposed Action to these aggregate, adverse cumulative 

impacts from any of the three NOS alternatives would be negligible.

4.2.1.6 Impacts to Terrestrial Habitats

Installation of tide gauges and remote GPS reference systems under the Proposed Action could contribute 

to cumulative impacts on terrestrial habitats from construction, operation, and decommissioning of longterm installations (e.g., LNG terminals, energy infrastructure, and submarine telecommunications), 

coastal erosion resulting from climate change, and currently expanding coastal development in 

conjunction with coastal population growth. Cumulatively, these actions could degrade or reduce 

terrestrial habitat areas throughout the action area, reducing the availability of space, shelter, cover, and 

nutrients for dependent species. 

The installation of or access to semi-permanent to permanent structures or equipment, such as LNG 

terminals, energy infrastructure, submarine telecommunications, and coastal commercial development, 

in conjunction with ongoing coastal erosion resulting from climate change could cumulatively reduce the 

quantity and quality of coastal terrestrial habitat throughout the action area. Many species of marine and 

terrestrial animals, including all Endangered Species Act (ESA)-listed bird species described in Section 3.10 

and ESA-listed sea turtles, breed and nest along the coast. During onshore access or construction 

activities, vegetation in and adjacent to the project area could be trampled by foot traffic, damaged, or 

cleared, cumulatively reducing cover and shelter necessary for terrestrial or marine animals to avoid 

predation, breed, and nurture offspring. Repeated disturbances could result in long-term changes in 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

574

terrestrial prey distributions and could ultimately reduce the overall biodiversity of habitat areas due to 

reduced nutrient cycling and availability. Light pollution from these structures could also disorient 

terrestrial animals, further disrupting terrestrial and aquatic food chains within the area. 

Similarly, ongoing coastal erosion and commercial and residential development of coastal areas will 

continue to encroach upon existing coastal terrestrial habitat areas in all directions, further cumulatively 

reducing the space available for terrestrial animals. However, the majority of NOS onshore installations 

would only occupy very small portions of terrestrial habitat and any affected terrestrial components 

would likely recover post-installation. Disturbances resulting from the accessing of NOS installations 

would be limited to the immediate vicinity of the project area and would not persist beyond the 

conclusion of activity in the area. NOS’s onshore installations are not expected to reduce the availability 

of space, shelter, cover, or nutrients necessary for dependent species in the long term.

Generally, cumulative impacts to terrestrial habitat areas would persist for the entirety of the foreseeable 

future, but would not cumulatively reduce the availability of space, shelter, cover, or nutrients for 

dependent aquatic or terrestrial species. Disturbances to terrestrial taxa would also be limited to the 

immediate vicinity of onshore installations or activities and would only persist for the duration of the 

activity in question. It is also an NOS practice to generally avoid repeated surveys by NOS in the same 

location, thereby mitigating increased disturbance to terrestrial habitat within the action area. The abovedescribed NOS effects can also occur from almost all human uses of water. These effects would be 

indistinguishable in type from other human uses. Overall, the aggregate, adverse cumulative impacts to 

terrestrial habitat would likely be negligible to minor in magnitude. The contribution to these aggregate, 

adverse cumulative impacts on terrestrial habitats from any of the three NOS alternatives would be 

negligible.

4.2.1.7 Conclusion

When considered in tandem with the NOS Proposed Action, other surveying and mapping efforts in the 

action area, offshore oil and natural gas development, offshore renewable energy development, climate 

change, commercial shipping and recreational boating, assessment and extraction of marine minerals, 

offshore carbon storage resource assessments, construction and operation of offshore LNG terminals, 

national defense and homeland security activities, construction of new submarine telecommunication 

cable infrastructure, commercial and recreational fishing, and coastal development would create adverse 

cumulative impacts to habitats. Adverse impacts to habitats could occur through bottom substrate 

contact, increased sedimentation, turbidity and/or chemical contamination, increased ambient sound 

level, facilitated dispersion of invasive species, disturbances to the water column, and terrestrial 

disturbance within the action area. In the short-term, the presence and movement of vessels; use of active 

acoustic sound sources; vessel sound; and underwater activities in conjunction with current accidental or 

illicit discharges of oil, fuel, chemicals, or waste, and ongoing onshore, nearshore, and offshore 

development could temporarily adversely affect habitat by degrading water quality and displacing marine 

or terrestrial prey species in the immediate vicinity of NOS activities. Disturbances and displacements 

resulting from activities are not expected to persist beyond the duration of activities. Onshore, nearshore, 

and offshore development in conjunction with ongoing anthropogenic climate change would reduce the 

total amount of available terrestrial habitat in the long-term, however no other activities or actions would 

contribute long-term impacts to habitat areas except the unlikely occurrence of widespread propagation 

of invasive species facilitated by a given cumulative action.
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

575

Overall, the short and long-term aggregate adverse cumulative impacts from the cumulative effects 

scenario (i.e., actions described in Section 4.1) on habitats throughout the action area are negligible to

moderate in magnitude, with moderate impacts occurring only in the event of widespread propagation 

of invasive species, and are therefore expected to result in insignificant impacts to habitats.

Cumulative, adverse impacts from the Proposed Action in combination with the cumulative effects 

scenario could potentially be considered either synergistic or additive depending on the timing and 

location of activities and impacts. Synergistic impacts could result if any activities or actions occur in close 

spatial or temporal proximity within the study area. Similarly, additive cumulative impacts to habitat areas 

could occur if activities or actions are conducted sequentially within adjacent areas of the study area. 

Although the exact timing and location of NOS projects have not been finalized and are subject to change, 

the Southeast and Alaska regions contain the largest proportion of NOS’s total miles of vessel movement 

in the EEZ (Section 2.4.1) and relatively high levels of marine oil and gas development. Therefore, 

synergistic or additive cumulative impacts are most likely to occur in either of these regions. The vast 

majority of cumulative impacts are confined to the immediate vicinity of project areas and would likely 

not impact the overall availability of space, shelter, cover, or nutrients within habitat areas outside of the 

range of natural variability.

The NOS Proposed Action would contribute to and have the potential to increase these cumulative 

impacts, but their relative contribution would be negligible as compared to the aggregate contributions 

of other cumulative actions. These impacts would occur regardless of the chosen alternative since projects 

under each alternative would be composed of similar activities and take place in the same geographic 

areas and timeframes; however, Alternatives B and C would be expected to have slightly higher 

cumulative impacts because these alternatives include more projects, activities, and nautical miles 

traveled than Alternative A.

4.2.2 Marine Mammals

All past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions described in Section 4.1 would contribute 

cumulative effects on marine mammals. Based on the analysis presented in Section 3.5 Marine Mammals, 

impacts of the Proposed Action would result in negligible to minor, or possibly moderate, impacts to 

marine mammals. The main impacts from the Proposed Action that could contribute to cumulative 

impacts on marine mammals are injury acoustic exposures [permanent threshold shifts or PTS] due to 

underwater acoustic sources; entanglement; exposure to oil, fuel, and other contaminants; and a very low 

likelihood of vessel strikes) and disturbance or behavioral modification (from acoustic exposures due to 

underwater acoustic sources; vessel noise and masking; presence and movement of vessels; and human 

activity). The analysis also considers that additional actions and activities contribute to the existing 

condition of marine mammals, including the accidental or illicit discharge of oil, fuel, chemicals, or waste. 

To a lesser degree, the Proposed Action could also contribute cumulative impacts to animal fitness, 

habitat alteration, and even animal mortality.

The following analysis considers how the NOS-related incremental impacts of the NOS Proposed Action, 

when added to or acting synergistically with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future 

actions, would contribute to overall cumulative impacts.

4.2.2.1 Mortality and Injury to Marine Mammals

Marine mammal mortality and injury from other cumulative actions could result from contact with spilled 

oil and other contaminants, vessel strikes, fishing bycatch, and entanglement. Accidental or illicit 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

576

discharges of oil, fuel, chemicals, or waste contribute to the existing mortality and injury of marine 

mammals. Contact with spilled oil leads to loss of life or life-threatening injury to marine mammals, and 

can seriously threaten the continued viability of the population, potentially having a major impact if the 

level of mortality or debilitating injury was in sufficiently high numbers that the continued viability of the 

population was seriously threatened. 

Vessel strikes have been and will continue to be a cause of marine mammal mortality and injury. In 

particular, the most vulnerable marine mammals are likely those that spend extended periods at or just 

below the water surface, slow-moving species, or species whose unresponsiveness to vessel sound makes 

them more susceptible to vessel collisions (Gerstein, 2002; Nowacek et al., 2004). Marine mammals such 

as dolphins, porpoises, and pinnipeds that can move quickly throughout the water column are not as 

susceptible to vessel strikes. Vessel strikes likely have a less than perceptible impact on the status of most 

marine mammal populations, but for small populations, vessel strikes may have considerable populationlevel impacts. Commercial fishing activities are expected to result in some injury and mortality of marine 

mammals because of animals taken as fisheries bycatch or entangled in fishing gear. NOS does not expect 

any mortality and very little injury of marine mammals as a result of the Proposed Action. The probability 

for collisions of vessels used by NOS with most marine mammal species is extremely unlikely considering 

the relatively slow speeds of survey vessels, visual observation, and the speed and agility of most marine 

mammal species. 

Likewise, the likelihood of occurrence of an accidental spill from a vessel used by NOS would be very low. 

In the event that an accidental spill does occur, the volume of oil, fuel, and/or chemicals would be fairly 

small given the small amounts of fuel and other chemicals used for consumption that are typically 

onboard, as well as the proper handling of all hazardous or regulated materials in accordance with 

applicable laws. Injury that might occur under the NOS actions would be additive to injury and mortality 

associated with other cumulative actions. NOS does not anticipate mortalities to marine mammals as a 

result of any of the NOS alternatives. The relative contribution of the Proposed Action to overall injury 

would be negligible compared to other cumulative actions. Thus overall, all three alternatives would be 

expected to contribute negligible cumulative impacts due to mortality and injury of marine mammals.

In addition to injury impacts associated with vessel strikes, bycatch, and entanglement as discussed above, 

marine mammals could also be injured by underwater noise. Such noise can occur from activitiesincluding 

use of Navy sonar systems, seismic airgun surveys, HRG surveys, underwater drilling, underwater pile 

driving, and underwater use of explosives, all of which produce low to high frequency underwater noise. 

Direct physical injury, which may result in death, may occur from exposure to high levels of impulsive 

sound, such as shock waves associated with in-water explosions. Exposure to non-impulsive acoustic 

energy also has the potential to cause indirect death of marine mammals, which has been associated with 

use of Navy sonars; while the sound itself may not have directly caused death or injury, it is assumed to 

be a causal factor in behavior (i.e., in such cases as strandings) that led to deaths (Marine Mammal 

Commission, 2006; ICES, 2005). If underwater noise (at a level that causes mortality or injury) occurred at 

the same time and place, they could synergistically contribute to adverse cumulative acoustic impacts on 

marine mammals; if they do not occur at the same time and place, they could additively contribute to 

adverse cumulative impacts. However, the vast majority of impacts expected from cumulative underwater 

noise are behavioral in nature, temporary and comparatively short in duration, relatively infrequent, but 

which may result in behavioral disruption exposures (disturbance and behavior modification). The NOS 

Proposed Action could also result in both PTS/injury and behavioral disruption exposures to individuals of 

some marine mammal species from underwater acoustic sound sources. Although it is possible that injury 

that might occur under the NOS actions would be additive to injury associated with other cumulative 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

577

actions, NOS projects are not likely to occur at the same time and place as other cumulative actions 

because conducting the NOS activities near other active acoustic activities could cause survey 

interference. It is also possible that the proposed action could cause a more serious behavioral response 

in an animal already injured by another cumulative activity. However, injury exposures would not likely 

be accumulative because other acoustic activities would not likely overlap in time and space with NOS 

projects. In addition, acoustic activities are typically temporary and localized. Additionally, the relative 

contribution of all three alternatives to the overall injury exposures of marine mammals in the action area 

would be negligible as compared to other cumulative actions. 

Overall, the aggregate, adverse cumulative impacts to marine mammals from mortality and injury would 

likely be minor to moderate. The contribution to these aggregate, adverse cumulative impacts from all 

three NOS alternatives would be negligible.

4.2.2.2 Marine Mammals Disturbance and Behavioral Modifications

Disturbance and behavioral modifications of marine mammals are associated with underwater surveying 

and mapping equipment and construction sounds, vessel and aircraft sound, and vessel and human 

presence. Low frequency vessel sound occurs in the same bands in which most large whale calls and songs 

occur (Richardson et al., 1995) and could interfere with animals’ abilities to detect important sounds 

(Francis and Barber, 2013). Noise is of particular concern to marine mammals because many species use 

sound as a primary sense for navigating, finding prey, and communicating with other individuals. Noise 

can cause behavioral disturbances, mask other sounds (including their own vocalizations), and result in 

injury (as discussed above) (Tyack, 2009). 

Other anthropogenic sound sources in the action area include dredging, O&G operations, nearshore 

construction activities, G&G research operations, shipping and other large vessel noise, and military 

training and testing exercises. Increasing ambient sound levels may steadily erode marine mammals’ 

abilities to communicate, find food, mate, and navigate. Noise and visual presence of aircraft would 

similarly disturb and stress marine mammals. Overall, there would be localized disturbance and behavioral 

impacts due to vessel sound, vessel movement, and human presence within specific portions of the action 

area during NOS projects. However, impacts are expected to be spatially localized and temporary or shortterm in duration. Implementation of mitigation measures such as animal approach restrictions and low 

vessel speeds (see Section 3.5.2.3) are expected to minimize potential impacts on animal behavior. Other 

cumulative actions are unlikely to overlap in time and space with NOS projects because these activities 

are dispersed and the sound sources are intermittent. It is likely that distant shipping sound, which is more 

universal and continuous, would overlap in time and space with actions under the NOS Proposed Action. 

However, the Proposed Action would likely only contribute negligible cumulative impacts caused by 

disturbance and behavior modification of marine mammals. 

Overall, the aggregate, adverse cumulative impacts to marine mammals from disturbance and behavioral 

modifications would likely be minor. The contribution to these aggregate, adverse cumulative impacts 

from all three NOS alternatives would be negligible.

4.2.2.3 Reduced Fitness of Marine Mammals Due to Pollutants

Pollutants from multiple sources are present in, and continue to be released into, the oceans. Long-term 

exposure to pollutants poses potential risks to the health and fitness of marine mammals (Reijnders et al., 

2008). Reduced animal fitness associated with air emissions and water pollution due to the accidental 

leakage or spillage of oil, fuel, and chemicals could have potential impacts such as organ anomalies and 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

578

impaired reproduction and immune function (Reijnders et al., 2008). In an oil spill, whales, dolphins, and 

pinnipeds may be exposed to volatile chemicals during inhalation. Marine mammals with hair, such as fur 

seals or sea otters, would be at risk of insulation effects. Oil and other chemicals on skin and body may 

result in skin and eye irritation, burns to the mucous membranes of the eyes and mouth, and increased 

susceptibility to infection. For mysticetes, oil can foul the baleen they use to filter-feed, thereby 

potentially decreasing their ability to eat. 

Inhalation of volatile organics from oil or dispersants can result in respiratory irritation, inflammation, 

emphysema, or pneumonia. Ingestion of oil or dispersants may result in gastrointestinal inflammation, 

ulcers, bleeding, diarrhea, and maldigestion. If the health of an individual marine mammal were 

compromised by long-term exposure to pollutants, it is possible that it could alter the animal’s expected 

response to other environmental stresses, such as underwater noise. 

Considering that the amount of air emissions from vessels used by NOS would continue to be a tiny 

fraction as compared to emissions from all other vessel activity, and the small number of vessels used by 

NOS that could accidently spill oil, fuel, and chemical contaminants into the ocean, as well as the small 

amounts of fuel and other chemicals used for consumption that are typically onboard, the incremental 

increase in cumulative impacts of the NOS alternatives on marine mammal health and fitness would be 

negligible. The potential also exists for the impacts of ocean pollution associated with the NOS Proposed 

Action to be additive or synergistic as it is possible that the response of a previously stressed animal would 

be more severe than the response of an unstressed animal.

Overall, the aggregate, adverse cumulative impacts to marine mammals from reduced fitness would likely 

be minor. The contribution to these aggregate, adverse cumulative impacts from all three NOS 

alternatives would be negligible.

4.2.2.4 Alteration of Marine Mammal Habitat

Habitat alteration is associated with reduced prey/food sources and degraded water quality due to other 

cumulative actions, and to climate change. Overfishing of many fish stocks has resulted in significant 

changes in trophic structure, species assemblages, and pathways of energy flow in marine ecosystems 

(Jackson et al., 2001; Myers and Worm, 2003). These ecological changes may have adverse consequences 

for populations of marine mammals (DeMaster et al., 2001) as prey food sources are reduced. Air and 

water pollution can not only have adverse impacts on marine mammals themselves, as discussed above, 

but also on habitat as air and water quality are degraded. Increased emissions of anthropogenic 

greenhouse gases (GHG) [CO2, methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N2O)] are warming the atmosphere, and 

rising levels of CO2 in particular are producing changes in seawater carbon chemistry. Climate change 

effects include changes in air and sea temperatures, precipitation, the frequency and intensity of storms, 

pH level of sea water, and sea level. These changes could affect overall marine productivity, leading to 

altered migratory routes and timing, and changes in prey/food availability and reproductive success of 

marine mammals. Changes in seasonal sea ice as a result of climate change may lead to additional 

increases in commercial shipping, recreational boating, and other vessel traffic in marine mammal habitat 

in the Alaska Region. Although the NOS Proposed Action would have some adverse impacts on fish and 

aquatic macroinvertebrates that make up the prey/food sources for marine mammals (see Sections 3.7 

Fish and 3.8 Aquatic Macroinvertebrates), these impacts would be very small as compared to other 

cumulative actions affecting these resources. Likewise, the impacts of the Proposed Action from 

accidental spills and air emissions that could contribute to degraded water quality in marine mammal 

habitat or to climate change would also be negligible as compared to all other cumulative actions affecting 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

579

water quality and climate change. Thus, the NOS Proposed Action would only contribute negligible 

cumulative impacts that could alter marine mammal habitat. 

Overall, the aggregate, adverse cumulative impacts to marine mammals from alteration of their habitat 

would likely be minor to moderate. The contribution to these aggregate, adverse cumulative impacts 

from all three NOS alternatives would be negligible.

4.2.2.5 Conclusion

When considered in tandem with activities associated with the NOS Proposed Action, other surveying and 

mapping efforts in the action area, offshore oil and natural gas development, offshore renewable energy 

development, climate change, commercial shipping and recreational boating, assessment and extraction 

of marine minerals, offshore carbon storage resource assessments, construction and operation of 

offshore LNG terminals, national defense and homeland security activities, construction of new submarine 

telecommunication cable infrastructure, commercial and recreational fishing, and coastal development 

would create adverse cumulative impacts to marine mammals. These adverse impacts occur through 

mortality and injury (due to vessel strikes, bycatch in fisheries, entanglement in fishing and other gear, 

contact with contaminants, and underwater noise); disturbance and behavior modification (due to 

underwater equipment and construction sounds, vessel and aircraft sounds, and vessel and human 

presence); reduced animal fitness (due to air and water pollution); and habitat alteration (due to reduced 

prey/food sources, degraded water quality, and climate change). 

These past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions are expected to result in insignificant 

impacts to most marine mammal species, and significant impacts on some marine mammals in the action 

area. Overall, the cumulative impacts of all actions described in Section 4.1 affecting disturbance and 

behavioral modification, animal fitness, and habitat alteration are adverse and moderate as the continued 

viability of populations would not be threatened. These impacts would therefore be insignificant. Other 

impacts are considered major and thus significant because the cumulative effects of other cumulative 

actions described in Section 4.1 (particularly from vessel strikes, bycatch, entanglement, and reduced 

prey) are expected to result in relatively high rates of injury and mortality that could cause population 

declines in some marine mammal species. Therefore, cumulative impacts on marine mammals would be 

significant without consideration of the impacts of the Proposed Action.

Cumulative, adverse impacts from any of the alternatives in combination with the cumulative effects 

scenario could potentially be considered either synergistic or additive depending on the timing and 

location of activities and impacts. Cumulative adverse impacts could be synergistic if activities associated 

with the NOS Proposed Action and other cumulative actions occur in close spatial or temporal proximity. 

Similarly, additive effects to marine mammals may occur if actions taken by others are performed 

sequentially with activities associated with the NOS Proposed Action. The Proposed Action would 

contribute to and have the potential to increase cumulative impacts, but their relative contribution would 

be negligible as compared to aggregate contributions from other cumulative actions because the NOS 

impacts would be temporary or short-term, would be confined to the immediate vicinity of project areas, 

and would be small as compared to impacts from all other cumulative actions. NOS impacts would occur 

regardless of the chosen alternative since projects under each alternative would be composed of similar 

activities and take place in the same geographic areas and timeframes; however, Alternatives B and C 

would be expected to have slightly higher cumulative impacts because these alternatives include more 

projects, activities, and nautical miles traveled than Alternative A.
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

580

4.2.3 Sea Turtles

All past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions described in Section 4.1 would contribute 

cumulative effects to sea turtles. The analysis of cumulative effects also considers that other actions and 

activities contribute to the existing condition of sea turtles, including habitat encroachment from onshore 

and nearshore development (e.g., coastal population growth, light pollution) and accidental or illicit 

discharge of oil, fuel, chemicals, or waste. 

4.2.3.1 Mortality and Injury to Sea Turtles

Crewed vessel operations and active acoustic surveying under the NOS Proposed Action could contribute 

to cumulative impacts from the use of high intensity active underwater acoustic sources used by several 

cumulative activities, such as seismic surveys or piledriving, and the presence and movement of vessels 

associated with any of the past, present, or reasonably foreseeable actions. In combination, these 

cumulative activities would likely contribute direct injury impacts to sea turtles or their prey. Sea turtles 

may be able to hear low frequency sources that go down to 0.5 kHz. These low frequency sources are 

used in deeper water, so sea turtles exposed would likely be farther away from the source. However, 

underwater sound produced by the NOS active underwater acoustic sources would mostly be at

frequencies reaching up to orders of magnitude above the documented sea turtle hearing range and 

would therefore be imperceptible to sea turtles. As such, there would not likely be cumulative effects 

from NOS sources even when considering that the active acoustic sources commonly used in other 

surveying and mapping activities, assessment and exploration of marine minerals, and offshore carbon 

storage assessments have a propensity to injure sea turtles. 

The presence and movement of crewed vessels within the action area, including all vessels used in 

conjunction with activities under the Proposed Action and all past, present, and reasonably foreseeable 

actions, could cumulatively contribute to collisions with sea turtles that could result in sea turtle injury or 

mortality. Propeller and collision injuries to sea turtles arising from interactions with crewed vessels are 

relatively common; 20.5 percent of observed leatherback sea turtles in the Atlantic Ocean and Gulf of 

Mexico had sustained propeller injuries in 2004 (NMFS and USFWS, 2008). Give the low speed and small 

size of most vessels used by NOS (see Section 2.4.1), and that all vessels used by NOS would constantly 

monitor for protected species, collisions are expected to be generally avoided during NOS projects. There 

is also a very small possibility of temporary or permanent hearing threshold shifts in sea turtles resulting 

from low-frequency vessel sound from the transit of vessels through the action area. Sound produced by 

vessels used by NOS would typically be outside the range of source levels that could induce avoidance 

behaviors, limiting their contribution to cumulative impacts.

Commercial fishing activities are expected to result in some injury and mortality of sea turtles due to 

entanglement in fishing gear. Expanded commercial fishing operations would likely increase bycatch of 

sea turtles and their prey, particularly in longline or trawled fisheries where operators cannot 

continuously monitor trailed lines, hooks, and nets for protected species. As such, the overall abundance 

of sea turtle prey could be reduced.

Accidental or illicit discharges of fuel, chemicals, or waste accompanying all vessel operations within the 

action area contribute to the existing direct injury of turtles and prey through ingestion and interaction 

with spilled substances, although the intensity of the impact would be contingent upon the size and 

location of the spill in question. Contaminated prey or forage could also potentially serve as an additional 

source of contaminant exposure to sea turtles, particularly of bioaccumulated hazardous materials. Such 

accidents may be caused by equipment malfunction, human error, or natural phenomena and are not 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

581

likely to occur during NOS activities. In the unlikely event of an accidental spill, NOS personnel are required 

to respond immediately to limit the extent of the spill. Also, NOS vessel operations are only a small fraction 

of all vessels operations in the U.S. EEZ, so they would contribute very little to overall cumulative impacts 

from accidental discharges of fuel, chemicals, or waste.

Light pollution from onshore and nearshore commercial, residential, or O&G development in close 

proximity to sea turtle nesting beaches contributes to the currently reduced likelihood of offspring survival 

to reproductive maturity. Nearshore NOS night operations, although not commonly conducted, could 

potentially contribute to cumulative coastal light pollution. Light pollution disorients sea turtle hatchlings 

or nesting sea turtle adult females, which navigate beaches using moonlight. Rising temperatures as part 

of ongoing climate change will continue to skew sea turtle sex-ratios due to temperature-dependent sex 

determination of sea turtle offspring. Over time, generally warmer incubation temperatures will skew the 

overall sex-ratio towards females and result in the reduction of overall sea turtle population numbers and 

genetic diversity. Ocean acidification accompanying climate change will harm the sea turtle 

macroinvertebrate prey species that are particularly sensitive to environmental conditions during their 

larval stages and will likely reduce their availability to sea turtles. 

The majority of cumulative direct injury impacts would be limited to the immediate vicinity of vessels or 

O&G development and would not likely cause long-term changes in turtle behavioral patterns, habitat 

availability and use, or the demographic structure and abundance of turtle and prey populations. Similarly, 

climate-related impacts would not likely substantially affect turtles, although impacts would likely 

continue to increase over time. Overall, the aggregate, adverse cumulative impacts to sea turtles from 

direct injury would likely be minor to moderate. The contribution to these aggregate, adverse cumulative 

impacts from all three NOS alternatives would be negligible to minor.

4.2.3.2 Disturbance and Displacement of Sea Turtles

Sound from vessel operations under the NOS Proposed Action could contribute to the disturbance of sea 

turtles in conjunction with other cumulative oceanic anthropogenic activities. Sound from survey vessels, 

shipping vessels, commercial fishing vessels, recreational boats and underwater construction activities in 

support of energy infrastructure, LNG terminals, and submarine telecommunications infrastructure could 

also cumulatively disturb and displace turtles and their prey from the respective project areas for the 

duration of the activity in question. The visual presence of vessels would also likely serve as an additional 

source of disturbance and displacement. 

Sea turtles are low frequency specialists with a generalized hearing range of 30 to 2,000 Hz (0.03 to 2 kHz) 

and are most sensitive to sound between 200 and 400 Hz (0.2 and 0.4 kHz). Sea turtles may be able to 

hear low frequency sources that go down to 0.5 kHz. Low frequency underwater acoustic sources from 

other cumulative actions are used in deeper water, so animals exposed would likely be farther away from 

the source. Underwater sound produced by NOS active underwater acoustic sources would mostly be at

frequencies reaching up to orders of magnitude above the documented sea turtle hearing range and 

would therefore be imperceptible to sea turtles and unlikely to cause behavioral changes. Vessel sound

has the potential to disrupt normal sea turtle behavior because of their high hearing sensitivity between 

200 and 400 Hz.

The NOS Proposed Action would contribute to cumulative underwater disturbance from vessel movement 

and presence and bottom sampling. However, sea floor disturbance would be limited to relatively small 

portions of a given project area, and any resulting changes to water quality would be quickly dissipated 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

582

by prevailing ocean currents. Reduced water quality and increased turbidity would result from the ongoing 

erosion of coastlines by rising sea levels, bottom sampling, or underwater construction activities, all of 

which could disturb and displace sea turtles/prey. Climate change will continue to raise sea levels globally 

for the foreseeable future, which results in continual erosion throughout the coastlines of the EEZ. Coastal 

erosion occurs at varying rates around the EEZ, but would be most pronounced near sea turtle breeding 

grounds along the Atlantic coastline, which carry a greater risk of impacting the overall sea turtle 

population.

Ongoing accidental or illicit discharges of fuel, chemicals, or waste from vessel operations and marine 

infrastructure can disturb and displace sea turtles and their prey from contaminated areas for the lifetime 

of the spill. The intensity of the impact is contingent upon the size and location of the spill in question and 

most small spills are dissipated by ocean conditions on a timescale of minutes to hours. However, there 

is only a very low likelihood of small spill occurrence from vessels used by NOS and no possibility of large 

spills given the size of vessels used by NOS. Energy installations included in the cumulative effects scenario 

carry a larger probability of large spills than NOS activities, particularly in offshore oil/gas installations with 

tankers and pipelines. 

Cumulative disturbance and displacement impacts would still likely be limited to the immediate vicinity 

of the source and would not persist beyond the conclusion of activities, although impacts could be 

magnified in the unlikely occurrence of a large spill. These aggregate, adverse cumulative impacts are not 

expected to cause long-term changes in habitat availability, overall turtle behavioral patterns, or overall 

prey availability and would be considered negligible to minor. The contribution to these aggregate, 

adverse cumulative impacts from all three NOS alternatives would be negligible.

4.2.3.3 Degradation and Reduction of Sea Turtle Habitat

Impacts associated with the construction and eventual decommissioning of long-term installations (e.g., 

LNG terminals, energy infrastructure, and submarine telecommunications) would likely reduce the total 

amount of oceanic habitat available to sea turtles and their prey for the lifetime of the installation. Sea 

turtles and their prey would likely be displaced from these areas for the duration of the installation due 

to reduced water quality and various disturbances related to the operation and maintenance of the 

infrastructure, such as vessel traffic, low flying aircraft, waste discharge, underwater disturbance from 

welders, divers and wakes, and vessel sound. Following decommissioning, the development area would 

be reclaimed and should return to previous habitat conditions. Onshore tide gauge installations and 

remote GPS reference station installations under the NOS Proposed Action could cumulatively contribute 

to these impacts, but the footprint of tide gauge installations and reference stations is extremely small, 

and sea turtles and their prey are expected to return to project areas after the completion of NOS onshore 

activities. No long-term changes to sea turtle habitat availability or habitat use are expected.

The ongoing accidental or illicit discharges of fuel, chemicals, or waste from vessel operations and marine 

infrastructure contributes to currently degraded sensitive coastal beach sea turtle nesting habitat. The 

intensity of the impact is contingent upon the size and distance of the spill in question from nesting 

beaches; most small spills are dissipated by ocean conditions on a timescale of minutes to hours. However, 

the operation of energy installations included in the cumulative effects scenario carry a greater probability 

of large spills with larger and longer-lasting impacts than do NOS activities, particularly in the case of 

offshore oil/gas installations with tankers, drilling rigs, production platforms, and pipelines.
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

583

Coastal population growth contributes to currently degraded sea turtle nesting habitat through a variety 

of factors, including coastal water quality reductions from urban/agricultural runoff, encroachment by 

coastal development, and increased light pollution. Rising sea levels as result of climate change will 

continually erode coastlines along the EEZ and could potentially destroy or degrade sensitive sea turtle 

nesting beaches. Global rising temperatures could also shift sea turtle habitat and prey distributions 

northwards towards colder waters, and could ultimately reduce the total amount of available habitat or 

prey if the species dispersal rate is relatively lower than that of the rate of temperature changes. Seagrass, 

an important turtle forage, and coral reefs which shelter aquatic macroinvertebrate prey are also 

particularly susceptible to changes in abiotic environmental conditions and could be damaged or displaced 

from sea turtle habitat areas by eroding coastlines, rising temperatures, or ocean acidification. 

Generally, cumulative impacts to sea turtle habitat would persist for the foreseeable future, but would 

not substantially reduce overall habitat availability or quality and would not substantially impact the 

overall structure or abundance of sea turtle or prey populations. Nesting habitat reductions could 

potentially impact the overall sea turtle population since turtles return to the same beach to nest annually 

and would not be able to relocate in the event of the destruction or degradation of their predetermined 

nesting beach. However, nesting beaches are generally avoided by development given the federal 

protection of sea turtles. Aggregate cumulative impacts to sea turtle habitat from all actions and activities 

would likely be adverse, and minor to moderate. The contribution to these aggregate, adverse cumulative 

impacts from all three NOS alternatives would be negligible.

4.2.3.4 Conclusion

Activities associated with the Proposed Action and the cumulative effects scenario have the potential to 

contribute cumulatively to direct injury, disturbance and displacement, and habitat reduction impacts 

from past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions within the action area. In the short-term, the 

presence and movement of vessels could potentially result in direct injury to turtles from collisions or 

entanglements and would likely disturb or displace nearby sea turtles for the duration of activities. 

Similarly, active acoustic sound sources; vessel sound; underwater construction activities; accidental or 

illicit discharges of oil, fuel, chemicals, or waste; and onshore, nearshore, and offshore development 

would displace sea turtles and their prey in the immediate vicinity of activities. Onshore and nearshore 

development and the accidental or illicit discharges of oil, fuel, chemicals, or waste contribute to the 

currently reduced total amount of sea turtle habitat. Climate change would reduce the total amount of 

available sea turtle habitat in the long-term, however no other activities or actions would contribute longterm impacts to sea turtles, except the unlikely occurrence of a large oil, fuel, or chemical spill. The vast 

majority of cumulative impacts would be confined to the immediate vicinity of project areas and would 

likely not impact the overall abundance or structure of sea turtle or prey populations outside of the range 

of natural variability. Overall, the cumulative impacts of all actions described in Section 4.1 would 

contribute negligible to moderate short-term and long-term adverse cumulative effects on sea turtles, 

depending on the timing and location of impacts.

Cumulative, adverse impacts from the Proposed Action in combination with the cumulative effects 

scenario could potentially be considered either synergistic or additive depending on the timing and 

location of activities and impacts. Synergistic impacts could result if any activities or actions occur in close 

spatial or temporal proximity within the study area. Similarly, additive cumulative impacts to sea turtles, 

their prey, or their associated habitat could occur if activities or actions are conducted sequentially within 

adjacent areas of the study area. Although the exact timing and location of projects have not been 

finalized and are subject to change, the Southeast and Alaska regions contain the largest proportion of 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

584

total vessel transit miles of the EEZ (Section 2.4.1) and relatively high levels of marine O&G development. 

Therefore, synergistic or additive cumulative impacts are most likely to occur in either of these regions. 

However, most affected animals would be located in the Southeast, because sea turtles are only 

occasional visitors to Alaska’s Gulf Coast waters.

The NOS Proposed Action would contribute to and have the potential to increase these cumulative 

impacts, but their relative contribution would be negligible as compared to the aggregate contributions 

of other cumulative actions. These impacts would occur regardless of the chosen alternative since projects 

under each alternative would be composed of similar activities and take place in the same geographic 

areas and timeframes; however, Alternatives B and C would be expected to have slightly higher 

cumulative impacts because these alternatives include more projects, activities, and nautical miles 

traveled than Alternative A. The contribution to these aggregate, adverse cumulative impacts from all 

three NOS alternatives would be negligible.

4.2.4 Fish

All past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions described in Section 4.1 would contribute 

cumulative effects on fish and fish habitat. Based on the analysis presented in Section 3.7 Fish, impacts of 

the NOS Proposed Action would result in negligible to minor impacts on fish and fish habitat. The Proposed 

Action could contribute to cumulative impacts on fish, including injury (hearing loss from underwater 

noise), disturbance or behavioral modification (from underwater sound, vessel wake and underwater 

turbulence, and bottom disturbance), and habitat alteration (from vessel wake and underwater 

turbulence; bottom disturbance; and air emissions). The analysis also considers that other actions and 

activities contribute to the existing condition of fish, including the accidental or illicit discharge of oil, fuel, 

chemicals, or waste which can cause mortality and marine debris (e.g., plastics, glass, metals, or rubber) 

and flows of pollutants, contaminants, sediments, and nutrients, which can reduce the fitness of fish. The 

following analysis considers how the NOS-related incremental impacts of the NOS Proposed Action, when 

added to or acting synergistically with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, 

would contribute to overall cumulative impacts on fish.

4.2.4.1 Mortality and Injury to Fish

Fish mortality and injury from other cumulative actions could result from vessel strikes, underwater noise, 

fishing bycatch, and entanglement. Ongoing accidental or illicit discharges of oil, fuel, chemicals, or waste 

contribute to the existing mortality and injury of fish. All vessel operations, as well as other cumulative 

actions such as drilling and construction and placement of structures within the action area could 

cumulatively contribute to the mortality and injury of fish through ingestion and contact with spilled oil 

and fuel or released contaminants. Although most adult fish are mobile enough to avoid areas with higher 

concentrations of contaminants, less mobile eggs, larvae, and juvenile fish would be more susceptible 

than adults. Vessels and in-water devices do not normally collide with adult fish, most of which can detect 

and avoid them. However, early life stages of most fish could be displaced by vessels and a vessel’s 

propeller movement or propeller wash could entrain early life stages. 

The cumulative potential effects from underwater acoustic sources on any stock of fish from injury (i.e., 

permanent loss of hearing) are considered low because NOS acoustic sources are generally outside of fish 

hearing ranges, although these sources could affect shad, herring, and other fish that can hear these 

sounds if they are within several meters of a sound source. It is possible that shipping and aircraft sounds 

(which are pervasive and continuous) and sound associated with underwater explosions and sonar would 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

585

overlap in time and space; however, there is no evidence that the co-occurrence of these sounds would 

result in harmful additive impacts on fish. 

Overfishing is the most serious threat that has led to the listing of ESA-protected marine fish due to 

mortality and population declines (Kappel, 2005; Cheung et al., 2007; Dulvy et al., 2003; Limburg and 

Waldman, 2009). Approximately 17 percent of the U.S.-managed fish stocks are overfished (NMFS, 2018c). 

Overfishing occurs when fish are harvested in quantities above a sustainable level. Overfishing impacts 

targeted species, and non-targeted species (i.e., bycatch species) that often are prey for other fish and 

marine organisms. Commercial fishing and overfishing are also the primary causes of fish entanglement. 

Entanglement in abandoned commercial and recreational fishing gear has also caused declines for some 

marine fish (Musick et al., 2009). 

Although impacts that could occur under the Proposed Action would be additive to the injury and 

mortality of fish associated with other cumulative actions, NOS does not expect any mortality and very 

little likelihood for injury of fish (e.g., from accidental oil and fuel spills) as a result of implementing any of 

the alternatives. The likelihood of occurrence of an accidental spill from a vessel used by NOS would be 

very low. In the event that an accidental spill does occur, the volume of oil, fuel, and/or chemicals would 

be fairly small given the size of vessels used by NOS and the amounts of fuel and other chemicals they 

typically carry, as well as the proper handling of all hazardous or regulated materials in accordance with 

applicable laws. Likewise, the probability for strikes by vessels or underwater devices is unlikely. For fish 

species, the greatest potential for adverse impacts as a result of active underwater acoustic sources would 

be related to changes in behavior (see below) rather than auditory injury. The relative contribution of the 

Proposed Action to the overall mortality and injury of fish would be minimal as compared to other 

cumulative actions. The aggregate, adverse cumulative impacts to fish from mortality and injury would 

likely be minor to major. The NOS Proposed Action would be expected to contribute negligible cumulative 

mortality and injury impacts to fish.

4.2.4.2 Fish Disturbance and Behavioral Modifications

Disturbance and behavioral modifications in fish from other cumulative actions are associated with vessel 

operations, underwater sound, emplacement of structures, and use of underwater equipment. A 

significant amount of vessel traffic has taken place and is expected to continue for the foreseeable future 

under the cumulative effects scenario. Some studies found that most adult fish exhibit avoidance 

responses to vessels (Jørgensen et al., 2004; Misund, 1997) showing sudden escape responses when a 

vessel passes over them, including lateral avoidance or downward compression of the school. Conversely, 

Rostad et al. (2006) observed that some fish are attracted to different types of vessels (e.g., research 

vessels, commercial vessels) of varying sizes, sound levels, and habitat locations. Fish behavior in the 

vicinity of a vessel is therefore variable, depending on the type of fish, its life history stage, behavior, time 

of day, and the sound propagation characteristics of the water. Anthropogenic contributions to ambient 

sound in the ocean come primarily from vessel traffic, but also include other cumulative actions such as 

O&G operations, construction activities, dredging, and sonar. Most ambient sound is broadband and 

encompasses almost the entire frequency spectrum, with vessel traffic recognized as a major contributor 

to ocean sound in the low-frequency bands (< 1,000 Hz). The majority of soniferous fish are adapted to 

perceive and produce sounds in the low-frequency band, thus increased underwater sound could alter 

normal, biologically relevant behavior, disturbing basic life functions such as foraging, predator detection, 

and reproduction (Vasconcelos et al., 2007; Codarin et al., 2009). Other cumulative actions would 

contribute numerous sources of sound during the time period when NOS projects would take place, 

adding to ambient sound levels within the action area. Cumulative, low-frequency sound from multiple 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

586

anthropogenic activities could have additive or synergistic behavioral effects on fish and contribute to 

auditory masking. 

Fish could also be disturbed by structures and equipment in the water. Other cumulative actions, including 

O&G development, offshore renewable energy, carbon storage, and LNG terminals, have the potential for 

the emplacement of structures within the action area. Permanent and temporarily moored structures, 

including drilling rigs, barges, buoys, wind turbines, platforms, and other structures, would attract pelagic 

and demersal fish causing potential diversion of species from normal migratory pathways, feeding areas, 

and/or spawning areas. In addition, fish attracted to structures would then be subjected to chronic sound, 

routine discharges, and increased vulnerability to overfishing. Lights used at these structures could also 

enhance attractiveness for some species that are active at night. Water disturbance by underwater 

equipment used in other cumulative actions could also temporarily disturb and displace nearby fish. 

Because a towed in-water device is continuously moving, most fish are expected to move away from it or 

to follow behind it, in a manner similar to their responses to a vessel. When the device is removed, most 

fish are expected to return to the area and resume normal activities. 

As vessels used by NOS would represent a negligible proportion of all vessel traffic in the action area, 

disturbance and behavioral modifications due to vessel operations under the Proposed Action would be 

minimal. Sound from NOS activities would be project-based, occurring on an intermittent basis over the 

period of interest. Because only small sound impacts are expected from NOS activities, impacts associated 

with the Proposed Action would only have a negligible incremental increase in ambient sound levels. The 

mobile nature of NOS surveys and the propensity of fish to temporarily move away from water turbulence 

that is affecting them would only lead to very small behavioral impacts on fish from the Proposed Action. 

The aggregate, adverse cumulative impacts to fish from disturbance and behavioral modification would 

likely be minor to moderate. The relative contribution of the NOS Proposed Action to the overall 

disturbance and behavioral modification of fish would be minimal as compared to other cumulative 

actions, and each alternative would be expected to contribute negligible cumulative impacts on fish 

behavior. 

4.2.4.3 Reduced Fitness of Fish Due to Pollutants

Pollutants from multiple sources are present in, and continue to be released into, the oceans. A significant 

amount of vessel traffic is expected to occur under the cumulative effects scenario. All vessel operations 

are associated with a risk of oil and fuel spills and release of contaminants. Long-term exposure to 

pollutants from the accidental leakage or spillage of oil, fuel and chemicals; marine debris (e.g., plastics, 

glass, metals, or rubber); and flows of pollutants, contaminants, sediments, and nutrients in coastal 

waters stresses the health and fitness of fish. Pollution primarily impacts coastal fish that occur near the 

sources of land-based pollution and areas of heavy vessel traffic. However, global oceanic circulation 

patterns result in a considerable amount of marine pollutants and debris scattered throughout the open 

ocean (Crain et al., 2009). Spills of pollutants are not expected during the course of NOS operations. In the 

unlikely event of an accidental spill, there would be very low likelihood for large adverse effects because 

vessel operations personnel are required to respond immediately using established spill response 

procedures.

Contaminants in the marine environment that may impact marine fish include organic pollutants (e.g., 

pesticides, herbicides, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, flame retardants, and oil), inorganic pollutants 

(e.g., heavy metals), and debris (e.g., plastics and wastes from dumping at sea) (Pews Oceans Commission, 

2003). High chemical pollutant levels in marine fish may cause behavioral changes, physiological changes, 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

587

or genetic damage in some species (Moore, 2008; Pews Oceans Commission, 2003; van der Oost et al., 

2003), contributing to overall reduced health and fitness of species. Bioaccumulation of pollutants (e.g., 

metals and organic pollutants) is also a concern that can reduce animal fitness. Bioaccumulation is the net 

buildup of substances (e.g., chemicals or heavy metals) in an organism directly from contaminated water 

or sediment through the gills or skin, from ingesting food containing the substance, or from ingestion of 

the substance itself (Newman, 2019; Moore, 2008). 

The aggregate, adverse cumulative impacts on the fitness of fish would likely be moderate. The relative 

contribution of the NOS Proposed Action to the overall fitness of fish would be minimal compared to other 

cumulative actions, and each alternative would be expected to contribute negligible cumulative impacts 

on fish fitness.

4.2.4.4 Alteration of Fish Habitat

Habitat alteration is associated with reduced prey/food sources, degraded water quality, and disturbance 

of bottom habitat due to other cumulative actions and to climate change. Prey and food sources are 

significantly directly reduced by overfishing, but also indirectly by changes in water quality from increased 

turbidity and sedimentation that create changes in the ecosystem that affect prey species and habitats. 

Spilled oil, fuel, and chemicals also stress the existing condition of fish habitat. Degraded water quality 

caused by other cumulative actions can cause increases in turbidity and sedimentation, increased water 

temperature, decreases in primary productivity and DO levels, introduction of invasive plant and animal 

species, and chemical contamination. Seafloor disturbance can damage or alter hard or soft demersal 

habitats important to fisheries resources. Other cumulative actions that would disturb the sea floor 

include commercial fishing (bottom trawling and dredging), carbon storage, dredged material disposal, 

LNG terminal placement, and new cable infrastructure. Seafloor disturbance can disturb, alter, or damage 

bottom habitat and can potentially smother demersal biota. However, these actions would affect a 

relatively small area of sea floor within the action area, and incremental impacts to fish habitat attributed 

to seafloor disturbance are expected to be minor. 

Climate change effects include changes in air and sea temperatures, precipitation, the frequency and 

intensity of storms, pH level of seawater, currents, and sea level. These changes could affect overall 

marine productivity, which could affect the food resources, distribution, and reproductive success of fish. 

Pelagic fish stocks have unique spatial and temporal distribution patterns related to their bioclimatic 

niche. Climate change and the associated shifts in primary and secondary production therefore have 

impacts on the distribution range, migratory habits, and stock size of many marine fish species. Some 

species may shift away from shallow coastal waters and semi-enclosed areas, where temperatures 

increase fastest, into deeper cooler waters. In general, fish tend to live near their tolerance limits of a 

range of factors, and as a result, increased temperature and acidity, lower DO, and changes to salinity may 

have deleterious effects on their populations (ClimeFish, No Date).

Habitat alteration expected from the NOS Proposed Action would be caused by bottom sampling, 

anchoring, accidental spills of oil, fuel, and contaminants, and underwater turbulence from vessels and 

equipment. The small footprint of seafloor impacts under the NOS Proposed Action would account for a 

tiny fraction of the total sea floor in the action area, would only contribute an extremely small amount of 

contaminants to the ocean environment, if any, as compared to all other cumulative actions; and vessels 

operated by NOS would represent a negligible proportion of all vessel traffic in the action area. The 

aggregate adverse cumulative impacts from all actions on fish habitat would be minor to moderate and 

the contribution of the NOS Proposed Action to these impacts would be negligible.
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

588

4.2.4.5 Conclusion

All of the NOS alternatives would contribute to aggregate, adverse cumulative impacts on fish and fish 

habitat. This would occur through mortality and injury (vessel strikes, underwater sound, fishing bycatch, 

and entanglement); disturbance and behavior modification (due to vessel operations, underwater sound, 

emplacement of structures, and use of underwater equipment); and habitat alteration (reduced 

prey/food sources, degraded water quality, disturbance of bottom habitat, and climate change). Other 

actions and activities also contribute to the existing condition of fish, including the accidental or illicit 

discharge of oil, fuel, chemicals, or waste which can cause mortality and marine debris (e.g., plastics, glass, 

metals, or rubber) and flows of pollutants, contaminants, sediments, and nutrients, which can reduce the 

fitness of fish. 

The aggregate, cumulative impacts of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions are 

expected to result in insignificant impacts to most fish species, and may have significant impacts on some 

fish populations in the action area. The combined impacts of other cumulative actions affecting 

disturbance and behavioral modification, animal fitness, and habitat alteration would be moderate and 

adverse as the continued viability of populations would not be threatened, and therefore cumulative 

impacts would be insignificant. However, overfishing, bycatch, entanglement and reduced prey associated

with other cumulative actions are expected to result in high rates of injury and mortality that could cause 

population declines to ESA-listed species or inhibit species recovery, resulting in major impacts that are 

significant. Although the impacts of commercial fishing are a concern for fisheries worldwide, fisheries in 

the action area are generally managed conservatively and in keeping with the requirements of the 

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Many fish stocks within the action area 

that were historically overfished have recovered or are recovering from their overfished status and 

contributing to the overall trend of increasing abundance of U.S. marine fish stocks (NMFS, 2018c).

Cumulative, adverse impacts from any of the alternatives in combination with the cumulative effects 

scenario could potentially be considered either synergistic or additive depending on the timing and 

location of activities and impacts. Cumulative adverse impacts from the activities in the cumulative effects 

scenario could be synergistic if activities associated with the NOS Proposed Action and other cumulative 

actions occur in close spatial or temporal proximity. Similarly, additive effects on fish may occur if activities 

associated with the NOS Proposed Action and other cumulative actions are considered sequentially. 

Overall, cumulative impacts to fish would range from minor to major. The NOS Proposed Action would 

contribute to and have the potential to increase these cumulative impacts, but their relative contribution 

would be negligible because impacts would be temporary or short-term, would be confined to the 

immediate vicinity of project areas, and would be small as compared to impacts from all other cumulative 

actions. These impacts would occur regardless of the chosen alternative since projects under each 

alternative would be composed of similar activities and take place in the same geographic areas and 

timeframes; however, Alternatives B and C would be expected to have slightly higher cumulative impacts 

because these alternatives include more projects, activities, and nautical miles traveled than Alternative 

A. 

4.2.5 Aquatic Macroinvertebrates

All past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions described in Section 4.1 would contribute 

cumulative effects on aquatic macroinvertebrates. Based on the analysis presented in Section 3.8 Aquatic 

Macroinvertebrates, impacts of the NOS Proposed Action would result in negligible to minor impacts on 

invertebrates and their habitat. The impacts from the Proposed Action that could contribute to cumulative 

impacts on aquatic macroinvertebrates are direct and indirect injury and disturbance (from vessel sound, 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

589

vessel wake and underwater turbulence, and bottom disturbance), and habitat alteration (from vessel 

wake and underwater turbulence; bottom disturbance; and air emissions). 

The analysis of cumulative effects also considers that the other human actions and activities enumerated 

above contribute to the existing condition of aquatic macroinvertebrates, including habitat encroachment 

from onshore and nearshore development (e.g., coastal population growth), non-point sources of 

pollution, and accidental or illicit discharge of oil, fuel, chemicals, or waste. The following analysis 

considers how the NOS-related incremental impacts of the three NOS alternatives, when added to or 

acting synergistically with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, would 

contribute to overall cumulative impacts on aquatic macroinvertebrates.

4.2.5.1 Direct and Indirect Injury to Aquatic Macroinvertebrates

Sound from crewed vessel operations under the NOS Proposed Action would contribute to cumulative 

impacts from all of the past, present, or reasonably foreseeable actions. However, based on what is known 

of their ability to detect underwater sound, NOS sound sources would be unlikely to cumulatively 

contribute to direct injury impacts to aquatic macroinvertebrates. For example, the active acoustic 

underwater sources used by NOS would mostly not be perceptible to aquatic macroinvertebrates. 

However, other active acoustic sources commonly used in other surveying and mapping activities, 

assessment and exploration of marine minerals, and offshore carbon storage assessments may have a 

greater propensity to adversely affect some aquatic macroinvertebrates, at least at close range, due to 

the high intensity and widespread propagation of the broadband sound they generate. These high 

intensity sources, including airguns, could have somewhat greater effects on aquatic macroinvertebrates 

than the sources described in Section 3.8, especially when considered cumulatively. In addition, the 

presence and movement of crewed vessels within the action area, including all vessels used in conjunction 

with activities under the Proposed Action and all past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions of the 

cumulative effects scenario, would likely cumulatively contribute to collisions or entanglement of certain 

aquatic macroinvertebrates in the water column. 

Accidental or illicit discharges of fuel, chemicals, or waste accompanying all vessel operations within the 

action area contribute to the existing direct harm to aquatic macroinvertebrates through ingestion and 

interaction with spilled substances, although the intensity of the impact would depend on the size and 

location of the spill in question. A major problem for aquatic macroinvertebrates is nutrient pollution from 

non-point sources onshore, principally fertilizers applied to farmlands; these nutrient loadings can cause 

red tides in coastal waters on both East and West Coasts, as well as a large “dead zone” of hypoxic or 

anoxic waters at the mouth of the Mississippi River in the Gulf of Mexico. Spills are not expected during 

the course of NOS operations. In the unlikely event of an accidental spill, there would be very low 

likelihood for large adverse impacts because vessel operations personnel are required to respond 

immediately using established spill response procedures.

Rising ocean temperatures as part of ongoing climate change will continue to damage coral reefs in 

particular, by thermally stressing coral polyps, leading to their bleaching (expelling their symbiotic algae 

known as zooxanthellae) and possible mortality. Ocean acidification accompanying climate change, in 

particular increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations, will interfere with shell and skeleton 

formation by certain marine calcifying aquatic macroinvertebrates that use calcium carbonate. 

Most cumulative direct injury impacts would occur in the immediate vicinity of vessels or O&G 

development. Over the time period of analysis, climate-related impacts that have already led to the listing 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

590

of many species of corals described in Section 3.8 would continue to stress these species. Aggregate, 

cumulative direct and indirect injury impacts from all actions range from short-term to long-term, and 

could result in adverse and minor to major impacts on aquatic macroinvertebrates. The contribution of 

the NOS Proposed Action to these aggregate, adverse impacts would be negligible. 

4.2.5.2 Disturbance and Displacement of Aquatic Macroinvertebrates

Sound-producing and vessel operation activities under the NOS Proposed Action could potentially 

contribute to aggregate, adverse cumulative impacts along with other active underwater sound sources, 

especially from high intensity sources used in O&G surveying, by temporarily displacing aquatic 

macroinvertebrates at sites throughout the EEZ. Sound from vessels used by NOS, shipping vessels, 

commercial fishing vessels, recreational boats and underwater construction activities in support of energy 

infrastructure, LNG terminals, and submarine telecommunications infrastructure could also cumulatively 

disturb and displace invertebrates from the respective project areas for the duration of the activity in 

question. 

Underwater disturbance from vessel movement and presence, and bottom sampling under the Proposed 

Action, in combination with reduced water quality and increased turbidity resulting from the ongoing 

erosion of coastlines by rising sea levels, bottom sampling, or underwater construction activities, would 

also disturb and displace aquatic macroinvertebrates. The small footprint of seafloor impacts under the 

NOS Proposed Action would account for a tiny fraction of the total sea floor in the action area, and impacts 

would be minimal and localized. Climate change will continue to raise sea levels globally for the 

foreseeable future, which results in continual erosion throughout the coastlines of the EEZ. The ongoing 

accidental or illicit discharges of fuel, chemicals, or waste from vessel operations and marine 

infrastructure contributes to currently disturbed and displaced aquatic macroinvertebrates from 

contaminated areas for the lifetime of the spill, though most small spills are dissipated by ocean conditions 

on a timescale of minutes to hours. Spills from NOS activities are unlikely to occur.

Cumulative disturbance and displacement impacts would still likely be limited to the immediate vicinity 

of the source and would not persist beyond the conclusion of activities. These aggregate, adverse impacts 

are not expected to cause long-term changes in habitat availability, or overall behavioral patterns, and 

would be considered negligible to minor. The contribution of the NOS Proposed Action to these 

aggregate, adverse cumulative impacts would be negligible. 

4.2.5.3 Degradation and Reduction of Aquatic Macroinvertebrate Habitat

Onshore tide gauge installations and remote GPS reference station installations under the Proposed 

Action would contribute to cumulative impacts related to the degradation and reduction of aquatic 

macroinvertebrate habitats from the construction, operation, and decommissioning of long-term 

installations such as LNG terminals, energy infrastructure, and submarine telecommunications. 

Cumulatively, these actions would likely reduce the total amount of oceanic habitat available to aquatic 

macroinvertebrates for the lifetime of the installation. Aquatic macroinvertebrates would likely be 

displaced from these areas for the duration of the installation due to reduced water quality and various 

disturbances related to the operation and maintenance of the infrastructure, such as vessel traffic, waste 

discharge, and underwater disturbance from welders, divers and wakes. After the lifetime of the 

installation, the development area would be reclaimed and should return to previous habitat conditions. 

While spills from NOS activities are unlikely to occur, the ongoing accidental or illicit discharges of fuel, 

chemicals, or waste from other vessel operations and marine infrastructure contribute to currently 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

591

degraded estuarine and marine habitats. The intensity of these impacts depends on the size and distance 

of the spill in question from invertebrate habitats; most small spills are dispersed and dissipated by ocean 

conditions on a timescale of minutes to hours. Coastal population growth and elevated nutrient loadings, 

other contaminants, and non-point source discharges and runoff contribute to currently degraded habitat 

conditions for aquatic macroinvertebrates through a variety of factors, including coastal water quality

reductions from urban/agricultural runoff, and encroachment by coastal development. This degradation 

is especially pronounced in bays and sounds with restricted water circulation, such as Chesapeake Bay in 

the Greater Atlantic Region and Puget Sound in the West Coast Region. The 7,000-square mile (18,130-

square km) hypoxic (low-oxygen) “dead zone” that appears during the summer months in the Gulf of 

Mexico at the mouth of the Mississippi River is an effect of the widespread use of fertilizers (nitrogen and 

phosphorus nutrients) in the large Mississippi Basin. 

Rising sea levels as a result of climate change will continually erode coastlines along the EEZ over the next 

five years and could potentially destroy or degrade habitats for aquatic macroinvertebrates. Global rising 

temperatures could also shift aquatic macroinvertebrate ranges northward towards cooler waters. 

Generally, ongoing cumulative impacts to aquatic macroinvertebrate habitats would persist for the 

entirety of the foreseeable future; these impacts would not substantially reduce overall habitat quantity 

or availability but would continue to substantially degrade aquatic macroinvertebrate habitat quality, 

although populations would be unlikely to be further adversely affected in the near term. Aggregate 

cumulative impacts to aquatic macroinvertebrate habitat would likely be adverse and minor to major and 

the contribution of the NOS Proposed Action to these would be negligible. 

4.2.5.4 Conclusion

Activities associated with the Proposed Action and the cumulative effects scenario have the potential to 

contribute cumulatively to direct and indirect injury, disturbance and displacement, and habitat reduction 

and degradation impacts from past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions within the action area. 

In the short-term, the presence and movement of vessels could potentially result in direct injury to aquatic 

macroinvertebrates from collisions or entanglements and would likely disturb or displace nearby 

organisms for the duration of activities. Similarly, vessel sound and underwater construction activities 

could potentially displace aquatic macroinvertebrates in the immediate vicinity of activities. Disturbances 

and displacements resulting from activities are not expected to persist beyond the duration of activities, 

and short-term cumulative impacts would likely range from negligible to moderate. Onshore and 

nearshore development, non-point source pollution, and the accidental or illicit discharges of oil, fuel, 

chemicals, or waste all contribute to the currently reduced total amount of aquatic macroinvertebrate 

habitat. In conjunction with the NOS Proposed Action, ongoing climate change would reduce the total 

amount of available aquatic macroinvertebrate habitat in the long-term. As such, the long-term, 

aggregate, adverse cumulative impact of habitat reduction on aquatic macroinvertebrates would likely 

range from minor to major. 

Cumulative, adverse impacts from any of the alternatives in combination with the cumulative effects 

scenario could potentially be considered either synergistic or additive depending on the timing and 

location of activities and impacts. Synergistic impacts could result if any activities or actions occur in close 

spatial or temporal proximity within the action area. Similarly, additive cumulative impacts to aquatic 

macroinvertebrates, or their associated habitat, could occur if activities or actions are conducted 

sequentially within adjacent areas of the action area. Although the exact timing and location of projects 

have not been finalized and are subject to change, the Southeast and Alaska regions contain the largest 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

592

proportion of total vessel transit miles of the EEZ (Section 2.4.1) and relatively high levels of marine O&G 

development. Therefore, synergistic or additive cumulative impacts are most likely to occur in either of 

these regions. Most cumulative impacts would be confined to the immediate vicinity of project areas and 

would likely not impact the overall abundance or structure of invertebrate populations outside of the 

range of natural variability. Overall,the Proposed Action would contribute negligible short-term and longterm adverse cumulative effects, depending on the timing and location of impacts. These impacts would 

occur regardless of the chosen alternative since projects under each alternative would be composed of 

similar activities and take place in the same geographic areas and timeframes; however, Alternatives B 

and C would include more projects, activities, and nautical miles traveled than Alternative A, and would 

therefore have slightly greater impacts.

4.2.6 Essential Fish Habitat

All past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions described in Section 4.1 would contribute 

cumulative effects on EFH, including Habitat Areas of Particular Concern (HAPCs). Based on the analysis 

presented in Section 3.9 Essential Fish Habitat, impacts of the NOS Proposed Action would result in 

negligible to minor impacts on EFH. The impacts from the Proposed Action that could contribute to 

cumulative impacts on EFH are physical impacts to bottom habitat (e.g., from anchoring, collection of 

bottom grab samples, tide gauge installation, and SCUBA operations); increase in sedimentation, 

turbidity, and/or chemical contaminants (e.g., from operation of crewed sea-going vessels; operation of 

ROVs and autonomous vehicles; anchoring; collection of bottom grab samples; installation of tide gauges 

and GPS reference stations; and SCUBA operations); increase in sound (e.g., from operation of crewed 

sea-going vessels; operation of ROVs and autonomous vehicles; use of echo sounders; ADCPs; and 

acoustic communication systems); and impacts to the water column (e.g., from operation of crewed seagoing vessels; operation of ROVs and autonomous vehicles; anchoring; use of sound speed data collection 

equipment and bottom grab samplers; operation of drop/towed cameras and video systems; and SCUBA 

operations). The following analysis considers how the incremental impacts of the NOS Proposed Action, 

when added to or acting synergistically with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future 

actions, would contribute to overall cumulative impacts on EFH.

4.2.6.1 Physical Impacts to Essential Fish Habitat Bottom Habitat

Physical impacts to bottom habitat from other cumulative actions could result from such activities as 

commercial fishing (bottom trawling), dredging, carbon storage, O&G development, dredged material 

disposal, structure emplacement, and new cable infrastructure. Seafloor disturbance can alter or damage 

bottom habitat and can potentially smother demersal biota. 

Adverse impacts from fishing, especially those using bottom-contact fishing gear, could be substantial in 

heavily fished areas and could affect EFH and component HAPC areas to various degrees. Bottom trawl 

fishing intensity has seen a rapid global expansion since the 1950s in order to meet an increasing global 

food demand (Watson et al., 2006); and although the highest trawling intensities are found in shallow 

coastal waters, bottom trawling is expanding into deeper waters (Eigaard et al., 2016). 

In addition to seafloor disturbance from fishing, other cumulative actions that sample, anchor, dredge, 

cover, drill into, or otherwise come into contact with ocean bottom habitat can cause re-suspension of 

sediments into the water column, changes in bathymetric contours, and potential alteration or loss of 

benthic habitat. Dredging activities within the coastal zone have greatly intensified in recent decades in 

connection to harbor expansion work, maintenance and deepening of navigable waterways, land 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

593

reclamation, coastal protection, and energy provision through the construction of wind farms (OSPAR 

Commission, No Date). 

Globally, dredging involves the excavation of greater than 2 billion tons of sediment per year, of which 

approximately 80 percent is redeposited in the marine environment (EuDA, 2005). Some activities, such 

as mining, destroy hard substrate and severely disturb the seabed and the benthic soft substrate 

community. Recolonization can occur from unmined areas; but reestablishment of a community similar 

to that originally present is usually not possible (Thiel, 1992). Other activities also directly or indirectly 

introduce marine debris into the water (e.g., monofilament fishing line, nets, plastic) that often ends up 

on the sea floor or wrapped onto a shallow reef and causes stress on bottom habitat in EFH areas.

Although impacts that could occur under the NOS Proposed Action would be additive to the physical 

impacts of bottom habitat associated with other cumulative actions, NOS activities such as anchoring, 

installation of equipment on the sea floor, and sample collection would cause relatively very small 

footprints of disturbance over the very large action area as compared to all of the seafloor disturbance of 

all other cumulative actions. The relative contribution of the NOS Proposed Action to the overall 

disturbance of bottom habitat would be minimal. While aggregate, adverse cumulative impacts on 

bottom habitat in EFH areas from all actions and activities throughout the EEZ would be considered 

moderate, the contribution of the NOS Proposed Action to these adverse cumulative effects would be 

negligible.

4.2.6.2 Increase in Sedimentation, Turbidity, and/or Chemical Contaminants in 

Essential Fish Habitat

Increase in sedimentation, turbidity, and chemical contaminants in EFH from other cumulative actions are 

associated with the activities that would disturb bottom habitat as discussed above, as well as activities 

that deposit sediments into receiving waters, and vessel operations. Disturbance of the sea floor would 

stir up bottom sediment and cause turbidity in the vicinity of the activity. Additionally, sedimentation and 

turbidity can occur due to input of sediments into the ocean environment from upland activities that 

cause erosion (e.g., coastal development, beach nourishment, mining, timber harvesting, and agriculture) 

and from water-based actions (e.g., dam construction, port activities, drag fishing, dredging, and water 

diversions). Sedimentation can cause loss of important or sensitive aquatic habitat, decrease in fishery 

resources, loss of coral reef communities, changes in fish migration, loss of wetlands, nutrient balance 

changes, circulation changes, loss of submerged vegetation, and coastline alteration (Pollution Issues, No 

Date). Turbidity affects organisms that are directly dependent on light, like aquatic plants, because it limits 

their ability to carry out photosynthesis. Other organisms that depend on these plants for food and oxygen 

are then also impacted. For example, turbidity can harm fish by reducing food supplies, degrading 

spawning beds, and affecting gill function. 

In addition to sedimentation and turbidity, there are large numbers of potential sources of both direct 

and indirect marine contamination, including tankers and other marine vessels, derelict fishing gear, 

military operations, ocean dumping, airborne deposition, and runoff from industrial and agricultural 

sources on land. The accidental leakage or spillage of oil, fuel and chemicals; marine debris (e.g., plastics, 

glass, metals, or rubber); and flows of pollutants, contaminants, sediments, and nutrients in coastal 

waters stresses the condition of EFH. A significant amount of vessel traffic is expected to occur under the 

cumulative effects scenario. All vessel operations are associated with a risk of oil and fuel spills and release 

of contaminants. Contamination from spills and discharges can accumulate in the sea floor and marine 

life and have a toxic effect on plants, animals, and humans through the food chain. Some chemical 

compounds, such as polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and pesticides, can persist for many years while 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

594

others, such as petroleum products, breakdown and get diluted relatively quickly. Pollution is a long-term 

and widespread issue in the marine environment, although it varies substantially in intensity on a local 

basis. 

NOS activities associated with the Proposed Action, including vessel and ROV operations, anchoring, 

collection of bottom grab samples, installation of tide gauges and GPS reference stations, and SCUBA

operations, could increase sedimentation, turbidity, and chemical discharges in EFH. As vessels used by 

NOS would only represent a negligible proportion of all vessel traffic in the action area, increases in 

sedimentation and turbidity due to vessel operations under the NOS Proposed Action would be minimal. 

While there would be no intentional discharges of pollutants from vessels used by NOS, there is potential 

for accidental spills to occur. However, the likelihood of occurrence of an accidental spill and the 

magnitude of a potential spills are likely to be very small and the contribution to the cumulative effects of 

contamination is considered negligible. Likewise, sedimentation and turbidity from NOS anchoring and 

land-based projects would be minimal given that they would be conducted infrequently and across a 

geographically widespread area, and that the footprints of disturbance would be small. Thus, the relative 

contribution of the NOS Proposed Action to the overall increases in sedimentation, turbidity, and chemical 

contaminants in EFH would be minimal as compared to other cumulative actions. Aggregate, adverse

cumulative impacts on EFH from all sources of water pollution would be moderate, while the contribution 

from the NOS Proposed Action would be expected to be negligible. 

4.2.6.3 Increase in Sound in Essential Fish Habitat

Increases in sound from other cumulative actions could result from vessel and aircraft operations; sonar

and other underwater acoustic sources; construction, which may include drilling, pile driving, use of 

explosives, and dredging; and operation of facilities and structures, such as long-duration sound 

associated with mechanical vibrations when wind turbine blades are spinning. Noise from other 

cumulative actions would affect EFH by impacting different life stages of fish and aquatic 

macroinvertebrate prey species (prey is a potential habitat characteristic of EFH). Behavioral changes can 

occur, resulting in animals leaving feeding or breeding grounds (Slabbekoorn et al., 2010) or becoming 

more susceptible to mortality through decreased predator-avoidance responses (Simpson et al., 2016). 

Noise can also mask biologically important sounds and alter the natural soundscape, cause hearing loss, 

and/or have an adverse effect on an organism’s stress levels and immune system. Cumulative sound 

impacts on fish are discussed in Section 4.2.4 and on aquatic macroinvertebrates in Section 4.2.5. 

NOS activities under the Proposed Action that could result in an increase in underwater sound in EFH 

would consist of operation of crewed sea-going vessels; operation of ROVs, Uncrewed Surface Vehicles 

(USVs, and autonomous underwater vehicles (AUVs); and use of underwater acoustic equipment including 

echo sounders, ADCPs, and acoustic communication systems. The potential effects of sound associated 

with vessel operations, which would represent less than 0.3 percent of total vessel traffic in the action 

area, would be minimal as compared to the effects from sound generated by vessels and aircraft from all 

other cumulative actions. Sound associated with underwater acoustic sources used by NOS would be 

intermittent and highly directional, potential impacts on prey species would be limited to temporary 

behavioral and stress-startle responses, and adverse impacts are unlikely to occur due to the much higher 

frequencies of these instruments relative to the hearing capabilities of most prey species. The relative 

contribution of NOS Proposed Action to the overall increase in sound in EFH would be minimal compared 

to the contributions from all other cumulative actions. Overall, the aggregate, adverse cumulative impact 

from the increase in sound in EFH areas would be minor to moderate, while the contribution from the 

NOS Proposed Action would be negligible.
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

595

4.2.6.4 Impacts to the Water Column in Essential Fish Habitat

Impacts to the water column are caused by vessels or equipment moving through the water as part of 

activities that are part of other cumulative actions. Impacts on EFH due to climate change are also 

considered here. Wakes from vessels and other disturbance to the water column from equipment moving 

through it would create turbulence and generate wave and surge effects in the water column where 

habitat gradients including temperature, salinity, DO, turbidity, and nutrient supply would be temporarily 

disrupted. Vessel propellers could also cause water column destratification and elevated water 

temperatures. Vessel and equipment movement through the water column may disrupt benthic 

communities and other prey species in shallow areas and cause mortality to floating eggs and larvae by 

physically damaging them with the hull or other ship parts, including the propulsion system. Lines 

connecting equipment to a vessel could also become entangled with, damage, or kill submerged aquatic 

vegetation such as seagrass. 

Climate change may affect the marine environment in a variety of ways, including changes in sea level, 

changes in water temperatures, more frequent or extreme weather events, and alteration of ocean 

currents (NMFS, 2019e). These changes and others are expected to continue over the reasonably 

foreseeable future and could aggregate with the effects of other cumulative actions to impact the physical 

water environment. These changes would in turn contribute to changes in the population and distribution 

of prey species such as fish and aquatic macroinvertebrates; and changes in the population and 

distribution of fishery resources harvested in commercial fisheries, with related socioeconomic effects 

(see Section 4.2.9). In addition to changes in air and water temperatures, a related effect of climate change

is increased acidification in the ocean caused by dissolved CO2. Changes in the acidity of the world’s oceans 

are expected to continue and accelerate over the reasonably foreseeable future. Ocean acidification can 

harm organisms that build shells of CaCO3, including calcareous phytoplankton and zooplankton, corals, 

bryozoans, mollusks, and crustaceans. These organisms provide shellfish resources for humans, play vital 

roles in marine food webs, generate sand for beaches, and add to the physical structure of the sea floor. 

Although the dynamics of climate change and the potential magnitude and timing of its effects are poorly 

understood, there is general acknowledgement that the potential impacts resulting from climate change 

could be substantial.

Impacts to the water column expected from the NOS Proposed Action would be caused by vessels or 

equipment moving through the water column in activities including operation of crewed sea-going 

vessels; operation of ROVs, USVs, and AUVs; anchoring; use of sound speed data collection equipment 

and bottom grab samplers; operation of drop/towed cameras and video systems; and SCUBA operations. 

These impacts would be temporary, mobile prey species would not likely move too far away, and 

conditions would be expected to stabilize and species would return once water column turbulence ceased. 

The NOS Proposed Action would only contribute a very small impact on the water column as compared 

to all other cumulative actions. Although CO2 emissions from vessels used by NOS would contribute to 

atmospheric CO2 levels, the contribution would be a very small fraction compared to other anthropogenic 

CO2 sources. Aggregate, adverse cumulative impacts to the water column in EFH from all actions would 

be moderate. When aggregated with the impacts of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future 

actions in the action area, the NOS Proposed Action would make a negligible additive contribution to 

cumulative adverse effects on the water column in EFH.

4.2.6.5 Dispersal of Invasive Species in Essential Fish Habitat

Dispersal of invasive species could occur from all other cumulative actions listed in Section 4.1 and in 

conjunction with ongoing climate change. Cumulatively, these actions could facilitate the dispersal of 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

596

invasive species throughout EFH in the action area, reducing the availability of space, shelter, cover, and 

nutrients for dependent endemic species. Cumulative actions would occur in all regions of the action area 

and could involve transiting and surveying across large swaths of the action area using the same physical 

equipment and survey instrumentation as NOS activities. These larger transits or projects could 

inadvertently transport invasive macroinvertebrate larvae, vertebrate eggs or animals, plant seeds, or 

algae propagules in ballast water or on equipment surfaces to novel areas, thereby facilitating their 

dispersal and establishment. Invasive species often have large numbers of offspring and limited or no 

natural threats or predators outside of their native habitat, allowing them to outcompete locally endemic 

species for space and nutrients.

Over time, invasive species could propagate far beyond the initial site of establishment, which could 

cumulatively result in cascading impacts to the local food chains through the extirpation of local predators 

and prey due to reduced nutrient cycling and availability. These impacts would change habitat structure 

and reduce the habitat value of affected areas in the long term or permanently after the establishment of 

invasives; these invasive species and their resulting impacts would persist until all invasive organisms were 

removed from a given area through aggressive trapping, harvesting, or use of pesticides such as 

glyphosate. Global rising sea temperatures as a result of ongoing climate change could cumulatively 

exacerbate these impacts by shifting the distribution of ideal abiotic habitat conditions (e.g., water 

temperature or acidity) for endemic species. Invasive species typically have wider ranges of tolerance for 

abiotic environmental conditions, allowing them to withstand climate-related stresses and either 

outcompete less tolerant endemic species or establish themselves in habitat areas vacated by endemic 

species dispersed by altered abiotic environmental conditions.

Physical equipment and instruments used in consecutive projects in disparate geographically regions 

could potentially serve as transmission vectors for invasive species, which could cumulatively reduce the 

habitat value of their area of introduction by outcompeting endemic plants, animals, and algae. After 

establishment, cumulative impacts could potentially spread beyond project areas and persist until 

invasive species are suppressed or removed from these areas via aggressive management techniques and 

procedures, reducing the availability of space, shelter, cover, or nutrients for dependent species outside 

of the range of natural variation. However, vessel crews on NOS projects would implement invasive

species control procedures such as deballasting or equipment washing as required by law, thereby 

reducing the likelihood of invasive propagation. The above-described NOS effects can also occur in almost 

all human use of water. These effects would be indistinguishable in type from other human uses. Overall, 

given its relatively low likelihood of occurrence, the aggregate, adverse cumulative impact of invasive 

species dispersal would be minor to moderate. The contribution to these aggregate, adverse cumulative 

impacts on invasive species dispersal from the NOS Proposed Action would be negligible.

4.2.6.6 Conclusion

NOS actions would contribute to the adverse cumulative impacts from all actions on EFH. This would occur 

through physical impacts to bottom habitat (from other cumulative actions could result from such 

activities as commercial fishing, carbon storage, O&G development, dredged material disposal, structure 

emplacement, and new cable infrastructure), increase in sedimentation, turbidity, and chemical 

contaminants (from activities that would disturb bottom habitat, activities that deposit sediments into 

receiving waters, and vessel operations), increases in sound (from vessel and aircraft operations; sonar

and other underwater acoustic sources; construction, which may include drilling, pile driving, use of 

explosives, and dredging; and operation of facilities and structures), and impacts to the water column 

(from vessels or equipment moving through the water column and climate change). 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

597

The aggregate impacts of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions are expected to result 

in insignificant impacts to EFH in the action area. The cumulative impacts of other cumulative actions 

affecting physical impacts to bottom habitat; increase in sedimentation, turbidity, and chemical 

contaminants; and increase in sound would be moderate and adverse as EFH would not be degraded over 

the long term or permanently, would continue to support sustainable fisheries, and the continued viability 

of prey populations would not be threatened; therefore, cumulative impacts would be insignificant. In 

recent years, there have been efforts to reduce pollution of ocean environments through restrictions on 

discharges and design features of ocean-going vessels that reduce the probability and severity of spills. As 

a result, more recent incidents involving unauthorized spills or discharges have either been localized and 

limited or, if large and widespread, have generated cleanup and mitigation responses. However, impacts 

to the water column from climate change could be substantial; therefore, cumulative impacts on EFH

would be overall moderate to major from other cumulative actions contributing large atmospheric CO2 

levels leading to increased rates of climate change. Overall, aggregate, adverse cumulative impacts of all 

actions described in Section 4.1 result in moderate cumulative impacts. 

Cumulative, adverse impacts from any of the alternatives in combination with the cumulative effects 

scenario could potentially be considered either synergistic or additive depending on the timing and 

location of activities and impacts. Cumulative adverse impacts from these activities could be synergistic if 

activities associated with the NOS Proposed Action and other cumulative actions occur in close spatial or 

temporal proximity. Similarly, additive effects on EFH may occur if activities associated with the NOS 

Proposed Action and other cumulative actions are considered sequentially. Overall, cumulative impacts 

would be considered negligible under the NOS Proposed Action because the impacts would be temporary 

or short-term, would be confined to the immediate vicinity of project areas, and would be small as 

compared to impacts from all other cumulative actions. The Proposed Action would contribute to and 

have the potential to increase cumulative impacts on EFH, but their relative contribution would be 

negligible as compared to the aggregate contributions of other cumulative actions. These impacts would 

occur regardless of the chosen alternative since projects under each alternative would be composed of 

similar activities and take place in the same geographic areas and timeframes; however, Alternatives B 

and C would include more projects, activities, and nautical miles traveled than Alternative A, and would 

therefore have slightly greater impacts.

4.2.7 Seabirds, Shorebirds and Coastal Birds, and Waterfowl

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 throughout the analysis. 

All past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions described in Section 4.1 would contribute 

cumulative effects to birds. The analysis of cumulative effects also considers other actions and activities 

on birds, including habitat encroachment from onshore and nearshore development (e.g., coastal 

population growth); marine debris (e.g., plastics, glass, metals, or rubber) and accidental or illicit discharge 

of oil, fuel, chemicals, or waste. 

4.2.7.1 Direct Injury to Sea Birds, Shorebirds and Coastal Birds, and Waterfowl

Crewed vessel operations and active acoustic surveying under the NOS Proposed Action would contribute 

to cumulative impacts on birds along with the use of high intensity active underwater acoustic sources 

and the presence and movement of vessels associated with any of the past, present, or reasonably 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

598

foreseeable actions. In aggregate, they would likely cumulatively contribute direct injury impacts to birds 

or their prey. Although exposure to the active underwater acoustic sources proposed by NOS would only 

occur for diving birds and would not likely be harmful, other active acoustic sources commonly used in 

other surveying and mapping activities, assessment and exploration of marine minerals, and offshore 

carbon storage assessments have a greater propensity to injure diving birds due to the high intensity and 

large-scale propagation of the broadband sound they produce. These high intensity sources, including 

airguns, could have a more substantial impact on birds than the NOS sources described in Section 3.10, 

especially when considered cumulatively. 

The presence and movement of crewed vessels within the action area, including all vessels used in 

conjunction with activities under the Proposed Action and all past, present, and reasonably foreseeable 

actions of the cumulative effects scenario and offshore renewable energy installations, would likely 

cumulatively contribute to collisions or entanglement of all species of birds or their prey. All vessel 

movements could potentially result in collisions with airborne or floating birds and would cumulatively 

contribute direct injury or mortality impacts. Offshore renewable energy installations, particularly wind 

turbines, could similarly contribute to cumulative collision impacts since birds often are unable to 

recognize and avoid dangerous features of installations. Expanded commercial fishing operations would 

likely increase numbers of birds or their prey in bycatch, particularly in longline or trawled fisheries where

operators cannot continuously monitor trailed lines, hooks, and nets for protected species. As such, the 

overall abundance of birds and their finfish prey would likely be reduced. Accidental collisions with birds 

occasionally occur at night; however, NOS will use 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. While spills from NOS activities are not likely, accidental or illicit 

discharges of fuel, chemicals, or waste accompanying other vessel operations within the study area 

contribute to the existing direct injury of birds and prey through ingestion and interaction with spilled 

substances, although the intensity of the impact would be contingent upon the size and location of the 

discharge in question. Contaminated prey could also potentially serve as an additional source of spill 

exposure to birds, particularly of bioaccumulated hazardous materials. Discharged waste is of particular 

concern to birds, given their propensity to ingest and entangle themselves in many forms of marine debris 

(e.g., plastics, glass, metals, or rubber). 

When considered in tandem with crewed vessel operations, tide gauge installations, and remote GPS 

reference station installations under the Proposed Action, changing abiotic environmental characteristics 

related to ongoing climate change could potentially contribute direct injury impacts to birds or their prey. 

Other actions and activities that are sources of environmental stress, including ongoing habitat 

encroachment from onshore or nearshore development and coastal development, contribute to the 

current direct injury of birds. Increased light pollution from onshore and nearshore commercial or O&G 

development attracts or disorients bird fledglings, particularly alcids, and causes them to land in 

dangerous areas. Artificial-light-induced landings can result in broken limbs, internal injuries, or even 

fatalities when fledglings collide with buildings, electric wires and pylons, fences, and posts. Grounded 

fledglings are sometimes unable to take flight again, and light-induced landings leave fledglings vulnerable 

to predation by terrestrial animals, collisions with terrestrial vehicles or to starvation and dehydration in

the event they are unable to find their way back to sea. 

Similarly, ongoing climate change will continually alter marine environmental conditions throughout the 

timespan of this analysis, which could result in direct injury of bird prey. Although environmental 

conditions will not likely change to the point of directly injuring birds, ocean acidification accompanying 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

599

climate change could potentially harm macroinvertebrate prey species (bivalves, gastropods, and 

cephalopods) that are particularly sensitive to environmental conditions during their larval stages and will 

likely reduce their availability to birds. Rising surface water temperatures will also reduce the solubility of 

oxygen in seawater (resulting in lower dissolved oxygen levels) and could inhibit or stress the respiration 

of all marine prey species, further cumulatively reducing prey availability for birds within the EEZ. 

The majority of cumulative direct injury impacts would be limited to the immediate vicinity of vessels or 

O&G development and would not likely cause long-term changes in bird behavioral patterns, habitat 

availability and use, or the demographic structure and abundance of bird and prey population. Similarly, 

climate-related impacts would not likely substantially affect birds, although the magnitude of the impact 

will likely continue to increase over time. Overall, cumulative direct injury impacts on birds would occur 

regardless of the chosen alternative, would be short-term to long-term, adverse, and negligible to minor. 

The contribution of the NOS Proposed Action to these aggregate, adverse cumulative impacts would be 

negligible. 

4.2.7.2 Disturbance and Displacement of Sea Birds, Shorebirds and Coastal Birds, 

and Waterfowl

Sound-producing and vessel operation activities under the NOS Proposed Action would contribute to 

cumulative effects produced by other active acoustic sound sources, especially from high intensity sources 

used in O&G surveying. In combination, these actions could temporarily displace diving birds and their 

prey throughout the EEZ and cause cumulative adverse impacts to birds. Sound from survey vessels, 

shipping vessels, commercial fishing vessels, recreational boats, and underwater construction activities in 

support of energy infrastructure, LNG terminals, and submarine telecommunications infrastructure could 

also cumulatively disturb and displace all species of birds and their prey from the respective project areas 

for the duration of the activity in question. The visual presence of vessels would also likely serve as an 

additional source of disturbance and displacement. 

When considered in tandem with underwater disturbance from vessel movement and presence and 

bottom sampling under the NOS Proposed Action, reduced water quality and increased turbidity resulting 

from the ongoing erosion of coastlines by rising sea levels, bottom sampling, and underwater construction 

activities would also disturb and displace birds and prey; such activities conducted by NOS would be 

extremely limited. Climate change will continue to raise sea levels globally for the foreseeable future, 

which results in continual erosion throughout the coastlines of the EEZ. Coastal erosion occurs at varying 

rates around the EEZ, but would be most pronounced along the Atlantic coastline. Reduced water quality 

and increased turbidity in these areas from ongoing coastal erosion would likely shift prey distributions 

and could result in increased bird foraging effort; travel time to foraging areas could increase due to 

shifted prey distributions; and foraging success could decrease due to reduced visibility of prey species in 

turbid waters. While spills from NOS activities are unlikely, the ongoing accidental or illicit discharges of 

fuel, chemicals, or waste from other vessel operations and marine infrastructure contribute to currently 

disturbed and displaced birds and their prey from contaminated areas for the lifetime of the spill. The 

intensity of the impact is contingent upon the size and location of the spill in question; most small spills 

are dissipated by ocean conditions on a timescale of minutes to hours.

Cumulative disturbance and displacement impacts would likely be limited to the immediate vicinity of the 

source and would not persist beyond the conclusion of activities. These impacts are not expected to cause 

long-term changes in habitat availability, overall bird behavioral patterns, or overall prey availability and 

would be considered adverse and negligible to minor. The contribution of the NOS Proposed Action to 

these adverse cumulative impacts would be negligible. 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

600

4.2.7.3 Degradation and Reduction of Habitat for Sea Birds, Shorebirds and Coastal 

Birds, and Waterfowl

Onshore tide gauge installations and remote GPS reference station installations under the NOS Proposed 

Action would contribute to cumulative impacts along with the construction, operation, and 

decommissioning of long-term installations such as LNG terminals, energy infrastructure, and submarine 

telecommunications. In aggregate, these would likely reduce the total amount of oceanic and coastal 

habitat available to birds and their prey for the lifetime of the installations. Long-term installations would 

occupy space within viable habitat areas, reducing the total habitat available to birds and their prey. 

Furthermore, activities or actions related to the maintenance and operation of these long-term structures 

would degrade the habitat quality of surrounding areas. However, NOS 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. 

The ongoing accidental or illicit discharges of fuel, chemicals, or waste from other vessel operations and 

marine infrastructure contribute to currently degraded sensitive coastal nesting habitat; accidental spills 

from NOS activities are very unlikely. Coastal ground-nesting birds such as piping plovers and red knots 

breed and nest in areas below the high-water line that are particularly susceptible to contamination from 

spilled materials. The overall intensity of the impact is contingent upon the size and distance of the spill 

in question from nesting beaches; most small spills are dissipated by ocean conditions on a timescale of 

minutes to hours. 

The existing stress from coastal population growth also contributes to the degradation of bird habitat 

through a variety of factors, including coastal water quality reductions from urban/agricultural runoff, 

encroachment by coastal development, and increased light pollution. Rising sea levels as a result of 

climate change will continually erode coastlines along the EEZ over the next five years and could 

potentially destroy or degrade coastal nesting areas, particularly of sensitive coastal ground-nesting 

species. However, the magnitude of these impacts is contingent upon the amount of coastal erosion 

within a given area.

Reduced water quality would also displace finfish prey species from eroded areas and could potentially 

increase the foraging energy expenditures of birds. Changing climate conditions, such as rising surface 

water temperatures, shifting currents, and shifting wind patterns, will change the location and intensity 

of deep-water upwellings, an important source of oceanic nutrients. Prey distributions will likely shift 

along with oceanic nutrients, which could ultimately reduce the total amount of available prey if the bird 

dispersal rate is relatively lower than that of their prey. Seabirds are particularly susceptible to habitat 

reduction because their high levels of behavioral resilience and experience-based learning limit their 

ability to disperse to new areas and follow shifting prey distributions. 

Generally, cumulative impacts to bird habitat would persist for the entirety of the foreseeable future, but 

would not substantially reduce overall habitat availability or quality and would not substantially impact 

the overall structure or abundance of bird or prey populations. Shifting prey distributions in response to 

changes in oceanic nutrient cycling could potentially impact the overall population of some seabird 

species that return to the same areas or islands to breed or forage annually. These birds have high levels 

of behavioral resilience and foraging specialization and would not likely be able to follow their original 

prey or adapt to include new species in their diet. However, nesting areas are generally avoided by 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

601

development given the federal protection of most birds under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA), and 

aggregate, adverse cumulative impacts to bird habitat would likely be minor. The contribution of the NOS 

Proposed Action to these aggregate, adverse cumulative impacts would be negligible. 

4.2.7.4 Conclusion

Activities associated with the Proposed Action and the past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions 

described in the cumulative effects scenario have the potential to contribute cumulatively to direct injury, 

disturbance and displacement, and habitat reduction in the action area. In the short-term, the presence 

and movement of vessels and the development of offshore renewable energy installations could 

potentially result in direct injury to birds from collisions or entanglements and would likely disturb or 

displace nearby birds for the duration of activities. Similarly, changing abiotic environmental conditions 

resulting from ongoing climate change and the stress already placed on birds due to habitat encroachment 

from onshore or nearshore development could serve as additional sources of cumulative direct injury to 

birds and their prey. Active acoustic sound sources; vessel sound; underwater activities; and ongoing 

climate change would displace birds and their prey in the immediate vicinity of activities. Disturbances 

and displacements resulting from activities are not expected to persist beyond the duration of activities, 

and short-term cumulative impacts would likely range from negligible to moderate. Onshore and 

nearshore development and accidental discharges of oil, fuel, chemicals or waste already reduce the total 

amount of available bird habitat and climate change would cumulatively impact the total amount of 

available bird habitat in the long term. As such, the long-term cumulative impact of habitat reduction on 

birds would likely be minor. 

Cumulative adverse impacts from any of the alternatives in combination with the cumulative effects 

scenario could potentially be considered either synergistic or additive depending on the timing and 

location of activities and impacts. Synergistic impacts could result if any activities or actions occur in close 

spatial or temporal proximity within the action area. For example, a mapping project in close proximity to 

an operating offshore oil well could substantially disturb birds through the visual presence and sound of 

both vessels used by NOS and the installation and could result in bird avoidance of project areas for longer 

periods of time than would be elicited by either of the impact-causing factors independently. 

Similarly, additive cumulative impacts to birds, their prey, or their associated habitat could occur if 

activities or actions are conducted sequentially within adjacent areas of the action area. For example, 

water quality in coastal areas could be additively degraded if a bottom sampling project was conducted 

shortly after the installation of a wind turbine. Although the exact timing and location of projects have 

not been finalized and are subject to change, the Southeast and Alaska regions contain the largest 

proportion of total vessel transit miles of the EEZ (Section 2.4.1) and relatively high levels of marine O&G 

development. Therefore, synergistic or additive cumulative impacts are most likely to occur in either of 

these regions. The vast majority of cumulative impacts are confined to the immediate vicinity of project 

areas and would likely not impact the overall abundance or structure of bird or prey populations outside 

of the range of natural variability. 

Overall, the Proposed Action would contribute a negligible amount to the aggregate cumulative effects 

from all actions described in Section 4.1 depending on the timing and location of impacts within the fiveyear forward projection of the entire five-year timespan of the analysis. These impacts would occur 

regardless of the chosen alternative since projects under each alternative would be composed of similar 

activities and take place in the same geographic areas and timeframes; however, Alternatives B and C 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

602

would include more projects, activities, and nautical miles traveled than Alternative A, and thus contribute 

slightly greater impacts.

4.2.8 Cultural and Historic Resources

All past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions described in Section 4.1 would contribute 

cumulative effects to cultural and historic resources. The analysis of cumulative effects also considers the 

impact of other actions and activities on cultural and historic resources, including IUU fishing; accidental 

or illicit discharges (e.g., nutrient runoff, oil spills, or other introduction of contaminants); and flows of 

pollutants, contaminants, sediments, and nutrients into coastal waters. 

4.2.8.1 Damage and Destruction of Submerged Cultural and Historic Resources

Anchoring, bottom sampling, and other activities that would disturb the sea floor, such as the installation 

of ADCPs, under the Proposed Action would contribute to cumulative impacts associated with increases 

in the number of vessels and boats anchoring or conducting surveying and mapping throughout the EEZ, 

the construction, operation, and decommissioning of long-term installations such as LNG terminals and 

submarine telecommunications cable and associated infrastructure, offshore and OCS oil and natural gas 

development, offshore renewable energy development, and the assessment and extraction of marine 

minerals. In combination, all these actions would likely cumulatively increase the risk of damage to 

submerged cultural and historic resources. 

Coral reefs, vital to subsistence cultures and thus considered a cultural resource, would also be at 

increased risk of cumulative damage from these activities. Coral reefs host more than one quarter of all 

marine fish species, in addition to many other marine animals. Reefs also provide subsistence food and 

sustain the fishing and tourism industries (IUCN, 2022). Cultural and historic resources (including coral 

reefs) could be impacted by physical contact with anchors, submarine cables, equipment used for mineral 

extraction, and other underwater construction activities. As with vessels used by NOS operators, most 

vessels would anchor whenever practicable in designated areas and would avoid anchoring on shipwrecks 

and downed aircraft, coral reefs, and hard bottomed areas. This practice would also be followed during 

construction of underwater infrastructure and other activities described in Section 4.1. This practice 

would limit the likelihood of direct damage to known submerged cultural and historic resources, including 

coral reefs. 

Inadvertent discovery of cultural and historic resources during construction of infrastructure such as LNG 

terminals is often associated with damage or destruction of the resource. These impacts would be adverse 

and permanent. It is possible that the inadvertent discovery of cultural and historic resources could be 

considered a beneficial impact due to the research potential that discovery would afford if the resource 

were not damaged or destroyed. For federal activities (including those requiring a federal authorization 

or permit), adverse impacts could be avoided or minimized to some degree through consultation between 

the lead agency and the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) in compliance with Section 106 of the 

National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) prior to construction. This communication serves to ensure 

avoidance of known culturally and historically significant sites, and to ensure that if cultural and historic 

resources are encountered, standard protocols related to protection and documentation of the resource 

would be followed. Generally, if a cultural or historic resource is discovered during construction, work 

stops until the SHPO can properly evaluate the resource. 

The majority of cumulative damage impacts would be limited to the locations in which anchors are 

dropped or bottom sampling related to NOS projects and activities occurs, and in the immediate vicinity 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

603

of offshore O&G development, assessment and extraction of marine minerals, and construction of 

submarine infrastructure, and would cause permanent impacts to cultural and historic resources, 

including coral reefs. Impacts could be either adverse or beneficial, depending on whether the resources 

were damaged or destroyed or protected and documented. Overall cumulative impacts to submerged 

cultural and historic resources from direct damage would likely be negligible to moderate; the 

contribution of any of the NOS alternatives to these adverse, cumulative impacts would be negligible. 

Submerged cultural and historic resources are currently stressed due to accidental leakage or spillage of 

oil, fuel, and chemicals and the unintentional disposal of trash and debris, though NOS does not contribute 

to these actions (See Section 3.15). While not considered a cumulative impact, the stress has contributed 

to the existing condition of cultural and historic resources and is noteworthy. Cultural and historic 

resources may be exposed to hydrocarbon contamination (the result of oil spills). The effects of oil vary 

depending on the type of material and the condition it is in— sun-dried wood, for example, may absorb 

the oil more readily than shells in middens (NPS, 2010). The absorption of oil by cultural and historic 

resources can make radiocarbon dating impossible. Impacts from oil spills to cultural and historic 

resources could be permanent. Other contaminants, sediments, and nutrients can adversely impact the 

structural integrity of cultural and historic resources, with the greatest adverse effects occurring in waters 

with limited circulation such as bays, sounds, and estuaries. Impacts to cultural and historic resources 

from these actions and activities depend on the extent of contamination and the nature of the pollutant 

or other substance introduced by vessels throughout the action area. 

When considered in tandem with all past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects listed in Section 

4.1, impacts stemming from climate change would cumulatively increase the likelihood of damage to 

submerged cultural and historic resources. Increased temperatures cause accelerated rusting in 

submerged resources, more rapid decay of organic materials, damage from increased biological activity 

at shallow underwater sites, and increased risk of damage due to decline and loss of protective sea grass 

or nearby coral reefs. Rising temperatures also lead to faster deterioration of newly exposed artifacts and 

sites. Ocean acidification will cause increased risk of damage to shipwrecks due to loss/decline of 

protective concretions and/or nearby coral reefs. It will also cause decline in reefs from coral bleaching. 

Adverse climate change impacts will occur regardless of the chosen alternative, are long-term, and could 

result in minor to moderate impacts on cultural and historic resources within the next five years; the 

contribution of any of the NOS alternatives to these cumulative impacts would be negligible. 

4.2.8.2 Degradation of Cultural and Historic Viewsheds

Installation of tide gauges and GPS reference stations under the Proposed Action would contribute to 

cumulative effects on historic viewsheds from the activities listed in Section 4.1 that involve nearshore or 

coastal construction activities. In aggregate, these individually negligible to minor actions would change 

historic viewsheds and thus cause cumulative, adverse impacts to cultural and historic viewsheds. 

Activities occurring within the viewshed of a nearshore historic property or designed cultural landscape 

could change these designed views, vistas, or view corridors and impact the integrity of the property’s 

design, not simply cause visual effects on the integrity of a historic property’s setting or other historic 

characteristics. 

However, federal construction work proposed within the area of potential effect (APE) of coastal 

structures listed or eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) generally requires 

consultation with the appropriate SHPO prior to construction. Adherence to this protocol would help to 

minimize or avoid potential impacts to coastal structures listed or eligible for listing on the NRHP. Thus, 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

604

the likelihood of adverse impacts to cultural and historic resources for which viewshed is a contributing 

element would be low, given the likely avoidance of NRHP-listed sites during the site selection process or 

avoidance of impacts to historic coastal structures following communication with the SHPO. Impacts 

would occur only within the APE of the cultural or historic resource, and would be adverse and minor; the 

contribution of any of the NOS alternatives to these adverse cumulative impacts would be negligible. 

4.2.8.3 Disruption to Subsistence Hunting and Fishing, Including in TCPs

Activities producing sound and visual disturbances under the Proposed Action (e.g., the use of active 

underwater acoustic sources, vessel and equipment sound, physical presence of vessels and equipment 

in water, and human activities such as tide gauge and GPS reference station installation, and SCUBA

operations), the operation and presence of vessels, equipment, and humans would contribute to 

cumulative impacts on subsistence hunting and fishing associated with any of the past, present, or 

reasonably foreseeable actions described above. Together, these would create short- and long-term 

adverse cumulative impacts to subsistence hunting and fishing, including those taking place in Traditional 

Cultural Places (TCPs). Activities that create sound and visual disturbance would cause species to move 

away from the shore, and subsistence hunters could be forced to temporarily abandon common hunting 

areas. Increased recreational and commercial fishing could reduce the availability of species important to 

subsistence communities; this could have long-term adverse impacts on these communities. Subsistence 

harvests in the marine environment could be disrupted or prolonged, or subsistence resources could be 

unavailable for use. 

In the short-term, the presence and movement of vessels could potentially result in disturbance of 

traditional use in TCPs and subsistence hunting and fishing areas for the duration of project activities. 

Disturbance to subsistence activities and sociocultural systems are discussed in greater detail in Section 

4.2.10.1. Impacts could also occur if a species important to subsistence communities were overfished or 

contaminated. Subsistence resources are currently stressed due to accidental leakage or spillage of oil, 

fuel, and chemicals and the unintentional disposal of trash and debris. Contaminated, or perceived 

contaminated, resources could make subsistence resources unavailable or undesirable for use (BOEM, 

2015b). Contamination from oil/chemical spills would render the affected subsistence resource unsafe to 

eat. If the skin or fur of the animal is coated with oil, the pelt would no longer be desirable to be made 

into coats and other handicrafts. Spill cleanup operations could result in the closure of harvesting areas 

until cleanup is complete. Other actions and activities causing the contamination of subsistence resources 

are discussed further in Section 4.2.10.3. 

However, federal actions that would have effects within a reservation or Alaska Native village; affect tribal

trust resources or the rights of a federally recognized Tribe; affect a facility or entity owned or operated 

by a tribal government; affect Tribes, tribal governments, or a Tribe’s traditional way of life; or affect TCPs 

or Traditional Use Areas would trigger the need for communication with Tribes. It is possible that projects 

that would occur in traditional hunting and fishing areas would be coordinated to avoid peak hunting and 

fishing seasons (e.g., whales, seals, and salmon) or times of year to the extent possible, based on 

information obtained from the Tribes. Activities planned to occur in any NRHP-listed TCP would need to 

comply with federal regulations related to the protection of these culturally significant places. Even if peak 

seasons and times are not avoided, cumulative disruption of subsistence hunting and fishing and other 

traditional practices by tribes from additional vessels in TCPs and Traditional Use Areas would be 

temporary, adverse, and negligible to moderate. 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

605

When considered in tandem with all past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects listed in Section 

4.1, impacts stemming from climate change would cumulatively increase the likelihood of impacts to 

subsistence hunting and fishing, including in TCPs. Climate change-induced factors such as changes in 

thickness and extent of sea ice, increased snowfall, drier summers and falls, and increased storms and 

coastal erosion could adversely affect subsistence harvest patterns by altering traditional hunting 

locations, impacting subsistence travel, and result in resource patterns shift and seasonal availability 

changes, making access to subsistence resources more difficult (NOAA, 2016). The impacts of changes in 

sea ice and other vital components of subsistence hunting and fishing areas on subsistence communities 

are described in detail in Section 4.2.10.2. 

Overall, climate change could lead to changes in diversity, abundance, and distribution of traditional 

subsistence resources and harvest patterns, leading to long-term impacts on the availability of some 

subsistence resources. This could potentially threaten indigenous lifestyle and subsistence practices 

(NOAA, 2016). Adverse, cumulative climate change impacts will occur regardless of the chosen alternative, 

are long-term, and could result in moderate to major impacts on subsistence hunting and fishing; the 

contribution of any of the NOS alternatives to these adverse, cumulative impacts would be negligible. 

4.2.8.4 Conclusion

When considered with the NOS Proposed Action, other surveying and mapping efforts in the action area, 

offshore oil and natural gas development, offshore renewable energy development, climate change, 

commercial shipping and recreational boating, assessment and extraction of marine minerals, offshore 

carbon storage resource assessments, construction and operation of offshore LNG terminals, national 

defense and homeland security activities, construction of new submarine telecommunication cable 

infrastructure, commercial and recreational fishing, and coastal development would create adverse 

cumulative impacts to cultural and historic resources. Adverse impacts to cultural and historic resources 

could occur through the damage and destruction of submerged cultural and historic resources including 

coral reefs, degradation of historic viewsheds, and disruption of subsistence hunting and fishing, including 

in TCPs. 

Overall, the short-term and long-term adverse cumulative impacts from the cumulative effects scenario 

on cultural and historic resources range from negligible to major. Cumulative impacts to submerged 

cultural and historic resources from direct damage would likely be negligible to moderate. These impacts 

would be permanent, since damage cannot be reversed. Adverse climate change impacts will occur 

regardless of the chosen alternative, are long-term, and could result in minor to moderate impacts on 

cultural and historic resources within the next five years. Ongoing damage to cultural and historic 

resources from other actions and activities such as oil spills and flows of other pollutants, contaminants, 

sediments, and nutrients into coastal waters would be negligible to moderate, depending on the extent 

of contamination and the nature of the pollutant or other substance introduced by vessels throughout 

the project area. The likelihood of adverse cumulative impacts to cultural and historic resources for which 

viewshed is a contributing element from nearshore or coastal construction activities would be low, given 

the likely avoidance of NRHP-listed sites during the site selection process or avoidance of impacts to 

historic coastal structures following communication with the SHPO. Impacts would occur only within the 

APE of the cultural or historic resource, and would be minor. Even if peak seasons and times for 

subsistence hunting and fishing are not avoided, cumulative disruption of these and other traditional 

practices by tribes from additional vessels in TCPs and Traditional Use Areas would have negligible to 

moderate impacts. Impacts stemming from climate change would cumulatively increase the likelihood of 

impacts to subsistence hunting and fishing, including in TCPs. Adverse climate change impacts will occur 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

606

to subsistence hunting and fishing practices regardless of the chosen alternative and are long-term. 

Impacts would be moderate to major. Cumulative impacts from climate change on subsistence hunting 

and fishing practices are therefore significant. As such, cumulative impacts on cultural and historic 

resources would be significant without consideration of the impacts of the Proposed Action.

Cumulative, adverse impacts from any of the alternatives in combination with the cumulative effects 

scenario could be considered as either synergistic or additive depending on the timing and location of 

activities and impacts. Synergistic impacts could result if any activities or actions occur in close spatial or 

temporal proximity within the study area. Similarly, additive cumulative impacts to cultural and historic 

resources could occur if activities or actions are conducted sequentially within adjacent areas of the action 

area. Although the exact timing and location of projects have not been finalized and are subject to change, 

the Southeast and Alaska regions contain the largest proportion of total miles of NOS vessel movement in 

the EEZ (Section 2.4.1) and relatively high levels of marine O&G development. Therefore, synergistic or 

additive cumulative impacts are most likely to occur in either of these regions. The vast majority of 

cumulative impacts are confined to the immediate vicinity of project areas and are not likely to occur 

within TCPs, where certain types of activity and development are not permitted. 

The NOS Proposed Action would contribute to and have the potential to increase these cumulative 

impacts, but their relative contribution would be negligible as compared to the aggregate contributions 

of other cumulative actions. These impacts would occur regardless of the chosen alternative since projects 

under each alternative would be composed of similar activities and take place in the same geographic 

areas and timeframes; however, Alternatives B and C would include more projects, activities, and nautical 

miles traveled than Alternative A and thus contribute slightly greater impacts.

4.2.9 Socioeconomic Resources

Other surveying and mapping efforts in the action area, offshore oil and natural gas development, 

offshore renewable energy development, commercial shipping and recreational boating, assessment and 

extraction of marine minerals, offshore carbon storage resource assessments, the construction and 

operation of offshore LNG terminals, construction of new submarine telecommunication cable 

infrastructure, commercial and recreational fishing, and coastal development described in Section 4.1 

would all contribute cumulative beneficial impacts to socioeconomic resources. 

4.2.9.1 Economic Benefits to the Ocean Economy 

All mapping and surveying activities under the NOS Proposed Action would contribute to cumulative 

impacts along with other surveying and mapping efforts in the action area associated with the past, 

present, and future reasonably foreseeable actions (including offshore carbon storage and carbon storage 

assessments, offshore O&G development, offshore renewable energy development, and the assessment 

and extraction of marine minerals). In aggregate, these actions would likely cumulatively contribute 

indirect economic benefits described in Section 3.12.2. 

The high-resolution oceanographic data collected during mapping and surveying activities would be used 

by collecting agencies or third parties to create or improve navigational maps/charts and 

forecasts/nowcasts of ocean or meteorological conditions. The increased accuracy and precision of these 

resulting data products would benefit all major sectors of the ocean economy, including health and safety 

activities (including coastal or climate resilience planning), recreational activities, transportation, energy, 

and commercial fishing. These sectors would primarily benefit through operational cost reductions from 

optimized route or development planning, enhanced risk management from enhanced ocean condition 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

607

forecasts and nowcasts, and increased revenues from higher landed values or enhanced precision and 

accuracy in the location, quantification, and extraction of oceanic energy resources. Indirect, cumulative 

effects would occur from further increasing operational efficiency and reducing risks (e.g., route-planning, 

fishing ground selection, targeting of O&G resources, closing/opening recreational areas). 

Although mapping and surveying activities would not directly create large numbers of jobs or stimulate 

migrations of workers, mapping and surveying related to offshore carbon storage assessments and 

offshore development of renewable and fossil fuel energy sources would have greater indirect economic 

cumulative impacts compared to other sectors. The oceanographic data collected would facilitate the 

leasing and development of future oceanic carbon storage or offshore/nearshore energy projects, which 

would entail large scale job creation and capital expenditures in coastal areas near project sites. 

These impacts would persist as long as the data collected and resulting data products are available for 

review by the public, and certainly for the entirety of the duration considered in the cumulative effects 

analysis. As such, other surveying and mapping efforts in the action area would cumulatively contribute 

long-term, indirect, moderate, beneficial impacts to socioeconomic resources. The contribution of the 

NOS Proposed Action to these aggregate, beneficial cumulative effects would likewise be long-term, 

indirect, moderate, and beneficial.

4.2.9.2 Indirect Effects on Jobs and Revenue

Indirect economic benefits resulting from all mapping and surveying activities under the Proposed Action 

would contribute to cumulative effects on jobs and revenue from all past, present, and future reasonably 

foreseeable revenue-generating actions. In combination, these would cumulatively result in indirect 

cumulative economic benefits to the ocean economy. Offshore O&G development, offshore renewable 

energy development, the expansion of commercial shipping and recreational boating, assessment and 

extraction of marine minerals, and the construction of LNG terminals would all generate substantial 

amounts of revenue within the study area. Although mapping and surveying would not directly impact

these economic sectors, the enhanced accuracy and precision of ocean data resulting from mapping 

efforts would expedite and facilitate greater development of offshore energy resources, both from fossil 

fuels and renewable energy. Marine energy developments create large numbers of jobs related to the 

construction, operation and maintenance, and eventual reclamation in coastal areas near project sites. 

Similarly, the expansion of commercial shipping will require hiring of additional crewmembers and port 

employees. The majority of revenue-generating cumulative actions would also require large capital 

expenditures in coastal regions for raw materials or necessary equipment. Second order economic 

benefits would be generated in coastal economies from consumer or retail expenditures by newly 

employed workers or the growing number of recreational boaters. These impacts would persist for the 

entirety of the duration of the cumulative effects analysis and beyond into the foreseeable future.

The enhanced accuracy and precision of ocean data resulting from mapping efforts would expedite and 

facilitate greater development of offshore energy resources. Due to the resulting revenue and jobs that 

would be created, cumulative impacts on socioeconomic resources would be long-term, indirect, 

moderate, and beneficial; the contribution of the NOS Proposed Action would also be long-term, indirect, 

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

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

608

4.2.9.3 Conclusion

When considered with the NOS Proposed Action, other surveying and mapping efforts in the action area, 

offshore oil and natural gas development, offshore renewable energy development, commercial shipping 

and recreational boating, assessment and extraction of marine minerals, offshore carbon storage resource 

assessments, the construction and operation of offshore LNG terminals, construction of new submarine 

telecommunication cable infrastructure, commercial and recreational fishing, and coastal development 

would create cumulative impacts to socioeconomic resources. Impacts to socioeconomic resources could 

include impacts to the ocean economy and on jobs and revenue.

Overall, the short- and long-term beneficial cumulative impacts from the cumulative effects scenario on 

socioeconomics would be moderate. All NOS projects and activities associated with the Proposed Action 

and other surveying and mapping efforts considered in the cumulative effects scenario have the potential 

to contribute indirect cumulative impacts to socioeconomic resources through the collection of highresolution oceanographic data. Data products (e.g., maps and charts) resulting from these collection 

efforts would benefit all sectors of the ocean economy primarily through operational cost savings, 

improvement of risk management, and coastal or climate resilience planning. These data products would 

enhance and facilitate revenue-producing activities, advantaging future oceanic carbon storage and 

offshore energy projects in particular, which would subsequently cause job creation and capital 

expenditures within coastal regions closest to project sites. Indirect, cumulative economic benefits would 

result from consumer or retail expenditures in coastal areas by newly employed workers or the growing 

number of recreational boaters. All cumulative socioeconomic impacts would likely persist for the 

duration of the cumulative effects study period and beyond. As such, the socioeconomic cumulative 

indirect benefits of these actions would be short-term and long-term and moderate in magnitude. No 

cumulative adverse impacts to socioeconomic resources are expected from any of the actions or activities. 

Potential cumulative, adverse impacts from the Proposed Action in combination with the cumulative 

effects scenario could be considered either synergistic or additive depending on the timing and location 

of activities and impacts. Synergistic impacts could result if any activities or actions occur in close spatial 

or temporal proximity within the study area. For example, updated charts around popular coastal 

recreational areas would increase operational efficiency and safety of local boating activities; these 

synergistic benefits would likely result in larger expansions of recreational boating in these areas than in 

areas that are not surveyed. Similarly, increased accuracy and precision of ocean condition forecasts and 

nowcasts within a given area would act synergistically to facilitate greater implementation of local coastal 

or climate resilience planning in the development of commercial real estate or onshore/nearshore energy 

infrastructure. Additive socioeconomic cumulative impacts could also occur if activities or actions are 

conducted sequentially within adjacent areas of the study area. Although the exact timing and location of 

projects have not been finalized and are subject to change, the Southeast and Alaska regions contain the 

largest proportion of total vessel transit miles of the EEZ (Section 2.4.1) and relatively high levels of marine 

O&G development. Therefore, synergistic or additive cumulative impacts are most likely to occur in either 

of these regions.

The contribution of the NOS Proposed Action to beneficial, aggregate cumulative impacts would be 

moderate depending on the timing and location of impacts. These impacts would occur regardless of the 

chosen alternative since projects under each alternative would be composed of similar activities and take 

place in the same geographic areas and timeframes; however, Alternatives B and C would include more 

projects, activities, and nautical miles traveled than Alternative A and thus contribute slightly greater 

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

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

609

4.2.10 Environmental Justice

All past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions described in Section 4.1 would contribute 

cumulative effects on environmental justice. The cumulative effects analysis also considers that other 

actions and activities contributing to the existing condition of subsistence resources, including marine 

debris (e.g., plastics, glass, metals, or rubber); IUU fishing; and accidental or illicit discharges (e.g., nutrient 

runoff, oil spills, or other introduction of contaminants).

4.2.10.1 Disturbance to Subsistence Activities and Sociocultural Systems

Activities producing sound and visual disturbances under any of the three NOS alternatives (e.g., the use 

of active underwater acoustic sources, vessel and equipment sound, physical presence of vessels and 

equipment in water, and human activities such as tide gauge and GPS reference station installation, and 

SCUBA operations), the operation and presence of vessels, equipment, and humans would contribute to 

cumulative impacts associated with any of the past, present, or reasonably foreseeable actions mentioned 

above. In combination, these actions would create short- and long-term adverse cumulative impacts to 

environmental justice communities. Activities creating sound and visual disturbances would cause species 

to move away from the shore, and subsistence hunters could be forced to temporarily abandon common 

hunting areas. Subsistence harvests in the marine environment could be disrupted, prolonged; or 

subsistence resources could be unavailable for use. Communities which are primarily dependent on 

marine mammals for subsistence, such as the bowhead harvesters of northern and western Alaskan 

villages, would be especially impacted. Subsistence users may be required to travel farther to harvest 

subsistence foods at a greater cost in terms of time, fuel, wear and tear on equipment and people, and 

lost wages. A decline in the harvest efficiency of marine resources would likely lead to an increase in 

hunting pressure on terrestrial wildlife, and to an increase in competition and territorial conflicts among 

subsistence harvesters (BOEM, 2015b). 

Activities producing sound and visual disturbances under any of the three NOS alternatives (e.g., vessel 

and equipment sound, physical presence of vessels and equipment in water, and SCUBA operations) 

would contribute to cumulative impacts that potentially disrupt subsistence fishing from the operation 

and presence of vessels, equipment, and humans associated with any of the past, present, or reasonably 

foreseeable actions and commercial and recreational fishing activities. The presence of NOS and other 

vessels could startle fish, making them harder to catch by subsistence fishers. Subsistence fish species 

could become less available or unavailable from overfishing due to commercial and recreational fishing 

activities, particularly in Alaska. Also, as mentioned in Section 4.2.8.3, IUU fishing activities already 

contribute to the reduced availability of fish, other marine species, or coral reefs important to subsistence 

cultures. However, in the Gulf of Mexico the impact of such activities on subsistence fishing communities 

would be negligible since their largest source of subsistence foods are from removals from commercial 

fishery catches and from activities similar to recreational harvesting (BOEM, 2012). 

The cumulative impacts of past and present actions that cause disturbance to subsistence activities would 

adversely affect the rates of sharing between communities (NMFS, 2016d). This could adversely impact 

sociocultural systems by disrupting the social organization and/or institutional formation of communities, 

eroding cultural values, and/or disrupting the economy of households and village communities through 

changes in employment, personal income, and overall community prosperity. Sharing efforts among core 

kinship relations would likely intensify, but diminish among more remote networks of exchange. Such 

pressures could potentially undermine transmission of cultural aspects of subsistence activities to youth 

populations (BOEM, 2015b). 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

610

In general, the sound and visual disruptions from vessels, equipment, and humans are considered a 

common source of disturbance in the marine environment. Relative to most other cumulative actions 

described in Section 4.1, there would be lower impacts from the sound generated by the active 

underwater acoustic sources proposed by NOS. The vessels used for NOS projects would be smaller than 

most industrial and commercial vessels and cause less disruption. The sound and visual impacts from 

vessels, equipment, and humans would cause disturbances in their immediate vicinity and would not 

persist beyond the conclusion of project activities. To minimize adverse impacts to subsistence

communities, repeated surveys by NOS in the same area would be avoided. However, due to limited prior 

exploration in the Alaska region and the 2019 Presidential Memorandum on Ocean Mapping, the number 

and frequency of cumulative actions mentioned above, particularly surveying and mapping projects, is 

expected to increase over the next five years. Overall, cumulative impacts of the actions described in 

Section 4.1 could result in adverse and minor to moderate aggregate, cumulative impacts on EJ 

communities, depending on the type of activity, seasonal timing, and animal migration. The contribution 

of the NOS Proposed Action to these adverse, cumulative impacts would be minor. 

4.2.10.2 Disturbance to Subsistence Activities and Sociocultural Systems from 

Climate Change

Air emissions under any of the three NOS alternatives would contribute to cumulative effects on climate 

from greenhouse gas emissions associated with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions, 

particularly related to oil and natural gas development and operation of offshore LNG terminals. In 

aggregate, these actions would lead to long-term adverse cumulative impacts to environmental justice 

communities. However, these impacts would result from the overall global climate change phenomenon, 

since potential air emission impacts from NOS activities are expected to be imperceptible or nondetectable as described in Section 3.15.1. In recent years, Alaska has experienced concerning trends in 

subsistence harvest activities due to climate change-induced factors such as changes in thickness and 

extent of sea-ice, increased snowfall, drier summers and falls, and increased storms and coastal erosion. 

These could adversely affect subsistence harvest patterns by altering traditional hunting locations, 

impacting subsistence travel, and resulting in resource patterns shift and seasonal availability changes; 

making access to subsistence resources more difficult (NMFS, 2016d). 

Changes in sea-ice could have dramatic impacts on marine mammal migration routes which could impact 

harvest patterns of subsistence communities and increase the danger of hunting on sea-ice. Thawing of 

permafrost and melting of sea-ice could result in the habitat loss of important subsistence species. 

Warmer summers have already started impacting the timing of subsistence hunting. For example, whalers 

in Kaktovik are accustomed to hunting in August, but now whaling season occurs primarily in September. 

It is also becoming increasingly difficult to preserve meat during the warmer months. Common hunting 

and harvesting areas could recede away from the shore, requiring subsistence harvesters to travel farther 

to harvest subsistence foods at a greater cost in terms of time, fuel, wear and tear on equipment and 

people, and lost wages. 

Shore erosion has become increasingly common in certain Alaskan communities, which delays sea-ice 

formation, allowing wave action from storms to cause greater damage to the shoreline and change use 

patterns of local and regional subsistence use areas. As described in Section 4.1.6, the BOEM MMP has 

several coastal restoration projects that could slow down these impacts in the long-term. Changes to 

subsistence harvest patterns caused by climate change could also disrupt the social organization in 

subsistence communities and impact harvest sharing activities. Serious declines in productivity could 

result in stresses within a community or between communities, affecting the way of life for the residents 

(NMFS, 2016d). 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

611

Climate change, with resultant loss of summer sea ice and open Northwest Passage and other shipping 

lanes, will likely attract visitors associated with recreation and tourism industries and encourage increase 

in commercial shipping along those routes. The addition of vessel traffic, especially cruise ship traffic, local 

traffic, and cargo ships could impede subsistence harvests, resulting in impacts similar to the ones 

described in detail in Section 4.2.10.1. 

As mentioned in Section 4.2.4.4, effects of climate change may include changes to the water temperatures 

and increased acidification of the ocean caused by dissolved carbon dioxide. These changes are expected 

to continue over the reasonably foreseeable future and would contribute to changes in the population 

and distribution of fishery resources harvested by subsistence communities. While the dynamics of 

climate change and the potential magnitude and timing of its effects are poorly understood, it is expected 

that rising temperatures and increase in ocean acidification would disrupt subsistence harvest patterns 

by decreasing the fish species available for harvest, disrupting the seasonality of harvest activities and 

locations of fishing areas, and inducing stress within or between communities by adversely impacting 

subsistence resource sharing activities.

Overall, climate change could lead to changes in diversity, abundance, and distribution of traditional 

subsistence resources and harvest patterns, leading to long-term impacts on the availability of some 

subsistence resources. This could potentially threaten indigenous lifestyle and subsistence practices 

(NMFS, 2016d). These impacts would occur regardless of the chosen alternative and could result in 

adverse and moderate to major impacts on EJ communities. The contribution of the NOS Proposed Action 

to these adverse, cumulative, climate-change related impacts on EJ communities would be negligible. 

4.2.10.3 Contamination of Subsistence Resources

Subsistence resources are currently stressed due to accidental leakage or spillage of oil, fuel, and 

chemicals and the unintentional disposal of trash and debris, though NOS does not contribute to these 

actions (see Section 3.15). Such events associated with any of the past, present, or reasonably foreseeable 

actions mentioned above, particularly offshore and OCS oil and natural gas development, construction 

and operation of offshore LNG terminals, and commercial fishing would further stress subsistence

resources. While not technically considered a cumulative impact to environmental justice communities, 

the additional stress that could occur to subsistence resources is noteworthy and is therefore described 

below. 

Contaminated resources, or those perceived to be contaminated, from an accidental oil, fuel, or chemical 

leak or spill could make subsistence resources unavailable or undesirable for use (BOEM, 2015b). For 

example, contamination from oil/chemical spills would render the affected subsistence resource unsafe 

to eat. If the skin or fur of the animal is coated with oil, that pelt would no longer be desirable to be made 

into coats and other handicrafts. Spill cleanup operations could result in the closure of harvesting areas 

until cleanup is complete. Any impacts to known archaeological or cultural sites from spill events would 

also result in adverse impacts to EJ communities in the affected region; these impacts are discussed 

further in Section 4.2.8 (BOEM, 2016).

Contaminated, or perceived contaminated, resources from marine debris could also render subsistence

resources undesirable for consumption if plastics and other marine debris are found in whales and other 

marine species. Contaminants present in small quantities may be deemed harmless, but may accumulate 

and have serious, long-term, and ongoing health consequences for subsistence communities and the 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

612

species they rely on for subsistence (MMS, 2007). Plastic debris could adsorb and concentrate potentially 

damaging toxic compounds from sea water, further contaminating subsistence resources (Gregory, 2009). 

Additionally, entanglement in commercial fishing debris such as trawl net webbing, plastic packing straps, 

ropes, and monofilament line could cause drowning, death from injury, starvation, and/or general 

debilitation of subsistence resources, making them less available to, or more difficult to harvest by 

subsistence hunters and fishers (NMFS, 2016d). 

Minority and low-income fishing communities, like the Louisiana Vietnamese fisherfolk community in the 

Gulf of Mexico region, would be particularly sensitive to any oil spill and related fishery closures. Further 

stress to the condition of fisheries in the region would interrupt access to subsistence-based activities and 

resources (BOEM, 2012). Similarly, in the North Slope region in Alaska, the contamination of waters with 

fuel, oil, antifreeze, and other chemicals from military and oil and gas development activities in the midto late-20th century period resulted in the avoidance of these sites by subsistence harvesters and disrupted 

subsistence harvest patterns by impacting several acres of subsistence species habitat (BOEM, 2015b). 

Aggregate cumulative impacts would be considered moderately adverse and the contribution of the NOS 

Proposed Action to these adverse cumulative effects would be negligible. 

4.2.10.4 New Mapping and Charting Information

Surveying and mapping activities under any of the three NOS alternatives would contribute to cumulative 

impacts from other surveying and mapping efforts in the action area associated with any of the past, 

present, or reasonably foreseeable actions mentioned above. In aggregate, these actions would lead to 

long-term beneficial cumulative impacts to environmental justice communities. The availability of new 

and updated charts, maps, and data would result in safer navigation, availability of better forecasts of 

weather and storm surge events that affect local communities, and historic wrecks. However, the 

availability of such information about previously uncharted areas, or regions that have not been recently 

surveyed, particularly the Alaska Region, would elicit interest that could result in additional projects in the 

area, such as greater surveying and mapping efforts and oil and gas exploration and development, which 

would have the same adverse impacts on EJ communities as those described in detail above. The overall 

cumulative impacts to subsistence activities from the availability of new mapping and charting 

information would be beneficial, long-term and minor, and the contribution of the NOS Proposed Action 

would also be beneficial, long-term, and minor. 

4.2.10.5 Conclusion

When considered in tandem with activities associated with the NOS Proposed Action, other surveying and 

mapping efforts in the action area, offshore oil and natural gas development, offshore renewable energy 

development, climate change, commercial shipping and recreational boating, assessment and extraction 

of marine minerals, offshore carbon storage resource assessments, construction and operation of 

offshore LNG terminals, national defense and homeland security activities, construction of new submarine 

telecommunication cable infrastructure, commercial and recreational fishing, and coastal development 

would create adverse and beneficial cumulative impacts to EJ communities. 

Adverse impacts would occur through a potential decrease in the total annual subsistence catch numbers 

of a species hunted by low-income or minority communities, or increase in the time required and distance 

traveled to harvest the same amount compared to previous years in which NOS surveying and mapping 

activities did not occur, or both (due to sound and visual disturbances generated by vessels, equipment 

and humans, climate change, and commercial and recreational fishing); reduced availability of fish, other 

marine species, or coral reefs important to subsistence cultures (due to IUU fishing); and contamination 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

613

of subsistence resources (due to accidental spills of oil, fuel, chemicals, and/or marine debris). Beneficial 

impacts would occur through the availability of new mapping and surveying data and would result in safer 

navigation and more accurate weather forecasts for subsistence harvesters. 

These past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions are expected to result in insignificant 

impacts to EJ communities. Overall, the adverse cumulative impacts of all actions described in Section 4.1 

affecting the ability of EJ communities to secure subsistence resources are minor to moderate. The 

beneficial cumulative impacts from those actions resulting in higher quality data pertaining to 

hunting/fishing resources, navigation, and weather conditions are minor. These impacts would therefore 

be insignificant.

Cumulative impacts from any of the alternatives in combination with the cumulative effects scenario could 

potentially be considered either synergistic or additive depending on the timing, location of activities and 

impacts, and the communities impacted. Synergistic impacts could result if any activities or actions occur 

in close spatial or temporal proximity within the study area. Similarly, additive cumulative impacts to EJ 

communities could occur if activities or actions are conducted sequentially within adjacent areas of the 

study area. Although the exact timing and location of projects have not been finalized and are subject to 

change, the Southeast and Alaska regions contain the largest proportion of total miles of vessel movement 

in the EEZ (Section 2.4.1) and relatively high levels of marine oil and gas development. Therefore, 

synergistic or additive cumulative impacts are most likely to occur in either of these regions. For example, 

cumulative, adverse impacts would be synergistic and additive if activities producing sound and visual 

disturbances under the Proposed Action, oil and gas exploration in the Alaska region and the increased 

surveying and mapping associated with offshore and OCS oil and natural gas development, commercial 

shipping in the Northwest Passage, as well as other actions including the operation and presence of 

vessels, equipment, and humans take place at the same time in the Alaska region. Impacts to subsistence

hunting or fishing patterns that affect the availability and/or the quality of subsistence resources, 

community sociocultural practices and systems would be synergistic and additive. Additive beneficial 

impacts would occur in terms of better information pertaining to hunting/fishing resources, navigation, 

and weather conditions. The NOS Proposed Action would contribute to and have the potential to increase 

these cumulative impacts, but their relative contribution would be negligible as compared to the 

aggregate contributions of other cumulative actions because the NOS impacts would be temporary or 

short-term, would be confined to the immediate vicinity of project areas, and would be small as compared 

to impacts from all other cumulative actions. These impacts would occur regardless of the chosen 

alternative since projects under each alternative would be composed of similar activities and take place 

in the same geographic areas and timeframes; however, Alternatives B and C would be expected to have 

slightly higher cumulative impacts because these alternatives include more projects, activities, and 

nautical miles traveled than Alternative A.
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

614

5.0 REFERENCES

(Acevedo, 1991). Acevedo, A. 1991. Interactions between boats and bottlenose dolphins, Tursiops 

truncatus, in the entrance to Ensenada de la Paz, Mexico. Aquatic Mammals, 17(3):120-124. 

Available online at: 

https://www.aquaticmammalsjournal.org/share/AquaticMammalsIssueArchives/1991/Aquatic_Ma

mmals_17_3/Acevedo_Interactions.pdf. 

(ACHP, 2018). Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. 2018. Tribal treaty rights in the Section 106 

process. Available online at: https://www.achp.gov/sites/default/files/whitepapers/2018-

09/TribalTreatyRightsintheSection106Process20180920.pdf.

(Acoustical Society of America, 2017). Acoustical Society of America. 2017. Marine invertebrates have 

noisy human neighbors: Experimentally measuring the impact of anthropogenic noise on marine 

invertebrates provides insights into physiological and behavioral consequences of human activity. 

ScienceDaily. Accessed October 2022 at: 

www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/12/171206090650.htm.

(ADF&G, 2007). Alaska Department of Fish and Game. 2007. A student guide to seal hunting and safety. 

Available online at: 

https://www.adfg.alaska.gov/static/education/educators/curricula/pdfs/ice_seal_student_workboo

k.pdf.

(ADF&G, 2008). Alaska Department of Fish and Game. 2008. Polar bear. Available online at:

https://www.adfg.alaska.gov/static/education/wns/polar_bear.pdf.

(ADF&G, 2009a). Alaska Department of Fish and Game and Alaska Native Seal Commission. 2009. The 

subsistence harvest of harbor seals and sea lions by Alaska natives in 2007. Technical Paper No. 345. 

Available online at: https://www.adfg.alaska.gov/techpap/TP345.pdf.

(ADF&G, 2009b). Alaska Department of Fish and Game and Alaska Native Seal Commission. 2009. The 

subsistence harvest of harbor seals and sea lions by Alaska natives in 2008. Technical Paper No. 347. 

Available online at: https://www.adfg.alaska.gov/techpap/TP347.pdf. 

(ADF&G, 2013a). Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Wolfe, R.J., J. Bryant, L. Hutchinson-Scarbrough, 

M. Kookesh, and L.A. Still. 2013. The subsistence harvest of harbor seals and sea lions in Southeast 

Alaska in 2012. Available online at: https://www.arlis.org/docs/vol1/G/896210864.pdf.

(ADF&G, 2013b). Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Lichtenstein, M. 2013. Sea otter numbers – and 

harvest – on the rise. Accessed October 2022 at:

http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=wildlifenews.view_article&articles_id=637.

(ADF&G, 2016a). Alaska Department of Fish and Game. 2016. Traditional knowledge regarding ringed 

seals, bearded seals, and walrus near Shishmaref, Alaska. Available online at: 

https://www.adfg.alaska.gov/static/research/programs/marinemammals/pdfs/2016_traditional_kn

owledge_shishmaref.pdf.

(ADF&G, 2016b). Alaska Department of Fish and Game. 2016. Alaska wild salmon day. Accessed October 

2022 at: https://www.adfg.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=pressreleases.pr08102016.

(ADF&G, 2017a). Alaska Department of Fish and Game. 2017. Subsistence in Alaska: a year 2017 update. 

Available online at: 

https://www.adfg.alaska.gov/static/home/subsistence/pdfs/subsistence_update_2017.pdf.
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

615

(ADF&G, 2017b). Alaska Department of Fish and Game. 2017. Walrus Island State Game Sanctuary 

annual management report 2016. Available online at: 

http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/static/lands/protectedareas/walrusislands/pdfs/ri_16report.pdf.

(ADF&G, 2019). Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Fall, J.A, A. Godduhn, G. Halas, L. HutchinsonScarbrough, B. Jones, B. McDavid, E. Mikow, L.A. Sill, A. Wiita, and T. Lemons. 2019. Alaska 

subsistence and personal use salmon fisheries 2016 annual report. Technical Paper No. 446. 

Available online at: https://www.adfg.alaska.gov/download/Technical%20Papers/TP446.pdf.

(ADF&G, 2020). Alaska Department of Fish and Game. 2020. 2020-2021 statewide subsistence and 

personal use fishing regulations. Available online at:

https://www.adfg.alaska.gov/static/regulations/fishregulations/pdfs/commercial/2020_2021_subsis

tence_pu_regs.pdf.

(ADF&G, No Date-a). Alaska Department of Fish and Game. No Date. Reptiles and amphibians. Accessed 

October 2022 at: https://www.adfg.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=animals.listreptiles.

(ADF&G, No Date-b). Alaska Department of Fish and Game. No Date. Beluga whale (Delphinapterus 

leucas) Uses. Accessed October 2022 at: https://www.adfg.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=beluga.uses.

(ADF&G, No Date-c). Alaska Department of Fish and Game. No Date. Harbor seal (Phoca vitulina) Uses. 

Accessed October 2022 at: http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=harborseal.uses.

(ADF&G, No Date-d). Alaska Department of Fish and Game. No Date. Polar bear (Ursus maritimus)

Subsistence Use. Accessed online October 2022 at: 

http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=polarbear.uses.

(ADF&G, No Date-e). Alaska Department of Fish and Wildlife. No Date. Pacific walrus (Odobenus 

rosmarus divergens) Subsistence Use. Accessed October 2022 at: 

http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=walrus.uses.

(AEWC, No Date). Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission. No Date. Our Whaling Villages. Accessed October 

2022 at: http://www.aewc-alaska.org/whaling-villages.html. 

(AFN, No Date). Alaska Federation of Natives. No Date. Alaska Native Peoples. Accessed October 2022

at: https://www.nativefederation.org/alaska-native-peoples/.

(Ainley et al., 2019). Ainley, D., T. Telfer, M. Reynolds, and A. Raine. 2019. Newell’s shearwater. In: The 

Birds of North America (A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology. Available online at: 

https://birdsna.org.

(AKDOT, 2006). State of Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities. 2006. Biological 

Assessment of the northern sea otter Enhydra lutris kenyoni for the Akutan Airport project.

Prepared by HDR Alaska, Inc.

(Alderfer, 2003). Alderfer, J. 2003. Auks, murres, puffins. In: National Geographic Reference Atlas to the 

Birds of North America (M. Baughman, Ed.), pp. 176–185. Washington, DC: National Geographic 

Society. Available online at: https://www.natgeomaps.com/bk-reference-atlas-to-the-birds-ofnorth-america. 

(Allen et al., 2014). Allen, A.N., J.J. Schanze, A.R. Solow, and P.L. Tyack. 2014. Analysis of a Blainville's 

beaked whale's movement response to playback of killer whale vocalizations. Marine Mammal 

Science, 30(1):154–168. Available online at: https://doi.org/10.1111/mms.12028. 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

616

(Allen, 2007). Allen, G.R. 2007. Conservation hotspots of biodiversity an endemism for Indo-Pacific coral 

reef fishes. Aquatic Conservation, Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems, 18(5): 541-556. Available 

online at: https://doi.org/10.1002/aqc.880.

(Allianz, 2019). Allianz SE, Global Corporate & Specialty Division. 2019. Safety and shipping review 2019. 

Available online at: 

https://www.agcs.allianz.com/content/dam/onemarketing/agcs/agcs/reports/AGCS-SafetyShipping-Review-2019.pdf.

(American Bird Conservancy, No Date). American Bird Conservancy. No Date. Band-Rumped Storm 

Petrel. Accessed October 2022 at: https://abcbirds.org/bird/band-rumped-storm-petrel/.

(Atkinson et al., 2015). Atkinson, S., D. Crocker, D. Houser, and K. Mashburn. 2015. Stress physiology in 

marine mammals: how well do they fit the terrestrial model? Journal of Comparative Physiology B,

185:463–486. Available online at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00360-015-0901-0.

(Atwood et al., 2020). Atwood, T.C., J.F. Bromaghin, V.P. Patil, G.M. Durner, D.C. Douglas, and K.S. Simac. 

2020. Analyses on Subpopulation Abundance and Annual Number of Maternal Dens for the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service on Polar Bears (Ursus maritimus) in the Southern Beaufort Sea, Alaska. U.S. 

Geological Survey Wildlife Program. Open-File Report 2020-1087. Available online at: 

https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/ofr20201087. 

(Au and Hastings, 2008). Au, W.W.L. and M.C. Hastings. 2008. Principles of Marine Bioacoustics. 

Springer, New York. 510 p. Available online at: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-78365-9.

(Au and Perryman, 1982). Au, W.W.L. and W. Perryman. 1982. Movement and speed of dolphin schools 

responding to an approaching ship. Fishery Bulletin, 80(2):371-379. Available online at: 

https://doi.org/10.1016/0198-0254(83)90239-X.

(Auyong, 2016). Auyong, M. 2016. Maritime Archaeology: A Brief Introduction. Sea Grant, University of 

Guam. 

(Baker et al., 2013). Baker, A., P. Gonzalez, R. Morrison, and B. Harrington. 2013. Red Knot. In: The Birds 

of North America (A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology. Available online at: 

https://birdsna.org.

(Balazik et al., 2017). Balazik, M.T., D.J. Farrae, T.L. Darden, and G.C. Garman. 2017. Genetic 

differentiation of spring-spawning and fall-spawning male Atlantic sturgeon in the James River, 

Virginia. PLoS One, 12(7): e0179661. Available online at: 

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0179661.

(Ballou et al., 1987). Ballou, T.G., R.E. Dodge, S.C. Hess, A.H. Knap and T.D. Sleeter. 1987. Effects of a 

dispersed and undispersed crude oil on mangroves, seagrasses and corals. API 4460. American 

Petroleum Institute. Washington, DC. Available online at: 

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/264839961_Effects_of_a_Dispersed_and_Undispersed_

Crude_Oil_on_Mangroves_Seagrasses_and_Corals. 

(Barber et al., 2009). Barber, J.R., K.R. Crooks, and K.M. Fristrup. 2009. The costs of chronic noise 

exposure for terrestrial organisms. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 25:180-189. Available online at: 

http://soundandlightecologyteam.colostate.edu/pdf/trendsecologyevolution2010.pdf.

(Barrowclough et al., 2016). Barrowclough, G.F., J. Cracraft, J. Klicka, and R. Zink. 2016. How Many Kinds 

of Birds Are There and Why Does It Matter? PloS One, 11(11):e0166307. Available online at: 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5120813/.
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

617

(Becking et al., 2014). Becking, L.E., T. van Bussel, S. Engel, M.J.A. Christianen, and A.O. Debrot. 2014. 

Proximate response of fish, conch, and sea turtles to the presence of the invasive seagrass Halophila 

stipulacea in Bonaire. Institute for Marine Resources & Ecosystem Studies. Available online at: 

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/267865352_Proximate_response_of_fish_conch_and_se

a_turtles_to_the_presence_of_the_invasive_seagrass_Halophila_stipulacea_in_Bonaire.

(Black, 2005). Black, A. 2005. Light induced seabird mortality on vessels operating in the Southern 

Ocean: Incidents and mitigation measures. Antarctic Science, 17:67-68. Available online at: 

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/antarctic-science/article/light-induced-seabird-mortalityon-vessels-operating-in-the-southern-ocean-incidents-and-mitigationmeasures/8CA7FBA380A840736AA8814C4B97A720.

(Boeger et al., 2006). Boeger, W.A., M.R. Pie, A. Ostrensky, and M.F. Cardoso. 2006. The effect of 

exposure to seismic prospecting on coral reef fishes. Brazilian Journal of Oceanography, 54:235-239.

Available online at: 

https://www.scielo.br/j/bjoce/a/7ZVvBCzyK5xQ6bPRSLL3nLz/?format=pdf&lang=en. 

(Boelens, 2013). Boelens, R.D. 2013. Protecting Alaska’s Coastal Ecosystems: May 2013. The Story of the 

Cook Inlet Belugas. Seattle Journal of Environmental Law, 3(1):7. Available online at:

https://digitalcommons.law.seattleu.edu/sjel/vol3/iss1/7. 

(BOEM, 2012). Bureau of Ocean and Energy Management. 2012. Gulf of Mexico OCS Oil and Gas Lease 

Sales: 2012-2017. Available online at: https://www.boem.gov/EnvironmentalStewardship/Environmental-Assessment/NEPA/BOEM-2012-019_v1.aspx.

(BOEM, 2013). Bureau of Ocean Energy Management. 2013. Inventory and Analysis of Coastal and 

Submerged Archaeological Site Occurrence on the Pacific Outer Continental Shelf. OCS Study: BOEM 

2013-0115. Available online at: https://www.boem.gov/ESPIS/5/5357.pdf.

(BOEM, 2014a). Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region. 2014. Atlantic OCS 

Proposed Geological and Geophysical Activities, Mid-Atlantic and South Atlantic Planning Areas, 

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement. Available online at: 

https://www.boem.gov/Atlantic-G-G-PEIS/#Final%20PEIS.

(BOEM, 2014b). Bureau of Ocean Energy Management. 2014. Atlantic OCS Proposed Geological and 

Geophysical (G&G) Activities, Mid-Atlantic and South Atlantic Planning Areas, Final Programmatic 

Environmental Impact Statement. Appendix I: Sea turtle hearing and sensitivity to acoustic impacts. 

Available online at: https://www.boem.gov/Atlantic-G-G-PEIS/.

(BOEM, 2015a). Bureau of Ocean Energy Management. 2015. Biological Assessment Oil and Gas 

Activities Associated with Lease Sale 193, Spectacled Eider, Spectacled Eider Critical Habitat, Alaskabreeding Steller’s Eider, and Polar Bear. Alaska OCS Region. Available online at:

https://www.boem.gov/sites/default/files/uploadedFiles/BOEM/About_BOEM/BOEM_Regions/Alas

ka_Region/Environment/Environmental_Analysis/2015-01-20-FWS-BA-LS193.pdf.

(BOEM, 2015b). Bureau of Ocean and Energy Management, U.S. Department of the Interior. February 

2015. Final Second Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement Chukchi Sea Planning Area. 

Available online at: 

https://www.boem.gov/sites/default/files/uploadedFiles/BOEM/About_BOEM/BOEM_Regions/Alas

ka_Region/Leasing_and_Plans/Leasing/Lease_Sales/Sale_193/2015_0127_LS193_Final_2nd_SEIS_V

ol1.pdf.
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

618

(BOEM, 2016). Bureau of Ocean Energy Management. 2016. Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Leasing 

Program 2017-2022 Environmental Impact Statement. Available online at: 

https://www.boem.gov/oil-gas-energy/leasing/2017-2022-ocs-oil-and-gas-leasing-program.

(BOEM, 2017a). Bureau of Ocean Energy Management. 2017. The Unseen Landscape: Inventory and 

Assessment of Submerged Cultural Resources in Hawai`i. OCS Study: BOEM 2017-021. Available 

online at: https://www.boem.gov/BOEM-2017-021/.

(BOEM, 2017b). Bureau of Ocean Energy Management. 2017. U.S. Outer Continental Shelf Gulf of 

Mexico Region Oil and Gas Production Forecast: 2018-2027. OCS Report BOEM 2017-082. Available 

online at: https://www.boem.gov/sites/default/files/about-boem/BOEM-Regions/Gulf-of-MexicoRegion/Resource-Evaluation/BOEM--2017--082.pdf.

(BOEM, 2018a). Bureau of Ocean and Energy Management. 2018. Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Liberty Development and Production Plan, Beaufort Sea, Alaska. Available online at: 

https://www.boem.gov/sites/default/files/about-boem/BOEM-Regions/Alaska-Region/Leasing-andPlans/Plans/Vol-1-Liberty-FEIS.pdf.

(BOEM, 2018b). Bureau of Ocean Energy Management. 2018. Geological and Geophysical (G&G) Surveys 

Fact Sheet. Available online at: https://www.boem.gov/sites/default/files/about-boem/BOEMRegions/Atlantic-Region/GandG-Overview.pdf.

(BOEM, 2018c). Bureau of Ocean Energy Management. 2018. 2019-2024 National Outer Continental 

Shelf Oil and Gas Leasing Draft Proposed Program. Available online at: 

https://www.boem.gov/sites/default/files/oil-and-gas-energy-program/Leasing/Five-YearProgram/2019-2024/DPP/NP-Draft-Proposed-Program-2019-2024.pdf.

(BOEM, 2019a). Bureau of Ocean Energy Management. 2019. Finding of Adverse Effect for the Vineyard 

Wind Project Construction and Operations Plan. Available online at: https://www.nantucketma.gov/DocumentCenter/View/26696/Revised-Finding-of-Adverse-Effect-June-20-2019.

(BOEM, 2019b). Bureau of Ocean Energy Management. 2019. National Environmental Policy Act 

Documentation for Impact-Producing Factors in the Offshore Wind Cumulative Impacts Scenario on 

the North Atlantic Outer Continental Shelf. Available online at: 

https://www.boem.gov/sites/default/files/environmental-stewardship/EnvironmentalStudies/Renewable-Energy/IPFs-in-the-Offshore-Wind-Cumulative-Impacts-Scenario-on-the-NOCS.pdf.

(BOEM, 2019c). Bureau of Ocean Energy Management. 2019. Alaska OCS Region: Alaska Detailed Listing 

of Active Leases. Available online at: https://www.boem.gov/sites/default/files/about-boem/BOEMRegions/Alaska-Region/Leasing-and-Plans/Leasing/Alaska-Detailed-Listing-of-Active-Leases.pdf.

(BOEM, 2019d). Bureau of Ocean Energy Management. 2019. Alaska Lease Holdings by Owner. Available 

online at: https://www.boem.gov/sites/default/files/about-boem/BOEM-Regions/AlaskaRegion/Leasing-and-Plans/Leasing/Alaska-Lease-Holdings-by-Owner.pdf.

(BOEM, 2019e). Bureau of Ocean Energy Management. 2019. Marine Minerals Program Fact Sheet.

Accessed October 2022 at: https://www.boem.gov/sites/default/files/boemnewsroom/MMP_General-fact-sheet.pdf.

(BOEM, No Date-a). Bureau of Ocean Energy Management. No Date. Managing Oil and Gas Leases -

Pacific. Accessed October 2022 at: https://www.boem.gov/oil-gas-energy/leasing/pacific-ocsregion-lease-management.
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

619

(BOEM, No Date-b). Bureau of Ocean Energy Management. No Date. Exploration and Development 

Plans. Accessed October 2022 at: https://www.boem.gov/oil-gas-energy/exploration-anddevelopment-plans-0.

(BOEM, No Date-c). Bureau of Ocean Energy Management. No Date. Alaska OCS Region. Accessed 

October 2022 at: https://www.boem.gov/regions/alaska-ocs-region/alaska-ocs-region.

(BOEM, No Date-d). Bureau of Ocean Energy Management. No Date. Oil and Gas - Atlantic. Accessed 

October 2022 at: https://www.boem.gov/oil-gas-energy/atlantic-oil-and-gas-information.

(BOEM, No Date-e). Bureau of Ocean Energy Management. No Date. Gulf of Mexico OCS Region.

Accessed October 2022 at: https://www.boem.gov/regions/gulf-mexico-ocs-region.

(BOEM, No Date-f). Bureau of Ocean Energy Management. No Date. Renewable Energy Fact Sheet. 

Accessed October 2022 at: https://www.boem.gov/sites/default/files/documents/renewableenergy/BOEM_FactSheet-Renewable-2-26-2020.pdf.

(BOEM, No Date-g). Bureau of Ocean Energy Management. No Date. Pacific OCS Region Renewable 

Energy Program. Accessed October 2022 at: https://www.boem.gov/regions/pacific-ocsregion/pacific-ocs-region-renewable-energy-program.

(BOEM, No Date-h). Bureau of Ocean Energy Management. No Date. Renewable Energy on the Outer 

Continental Shelf. Accessed October 2022 at: https://www.boem.gov/Renewable-Energy-ProgramOverview/.

(Boylan and Elsberry, 2019). Boyland, B.M. and D. Elsberry. 2019. Climate Change and Maritime Traffic in 

the Arctic. University of Alaska Fairbanks, Center for Arctic Policy Studies. Available online at: 

https://uaf.edu/caps/our-work/policy-perspectives-files/climate-change-and-maritime-traffic-inthe-arctic-pb4-final-12dec2019.pdf.

(Brake, 2019). Brake, D. 2019. Submarine Cables: Critical Infrastructure for Global Communication. 

Information Technology & Innovation Foundation. Accessed October 2022 at: 

https://www2.itif.org/2019-submarine-cables.pdf. 

(Bricker et al., 2007). Bricker, S., B. Longstaff, W. Dennison, A. Jones, K. Boicourt, C. Wicks, and J. 

Woerner. 2007. Effects of Nutrient Enrichment In the Nation’s Estuaries: A Decade of Change. NOAA 

Coastal Ocean Program Decision Analysis Series No. 26. National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science, 

Silver Spring, MD. 328 pp. Available online at: https://ian.umces.edu/site/assets/files/10833/effectsof-nutrient-enrichment-in-the-nations-estuaries-a-decade-of-change.pdf.

(Brower and Hepa, 1998). Brower, H., Jr. and T. Hepa. 1998. Subsistence Hunting Activities and the 

Inupiat Eskimo. Cultural Survival Quarterly Magazine. Accessed October 2022 at: 

https://www.culturalsurvival.org/publications/cultural-survival-quarterly/subsistence-huntingactivities-and-inupiat-eskimo.

(Brumm and Slabbekoorn, 2005). Brumm, H. and H. Slabbekoorn. 2005. Acoustic communication in 

noise. Advances in the Study of Behavior, 35:151–209. Available online at:

https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-3454(05)35004-2. 

(Burge et al., 2016). Burge, C.A., C.J. Closek, C.S. Friedman, M.L. Groner, C.M. Jenkins, A. Shore-Maggio, 

and J. E. Walsh. 2016. The Use of Filter-feeders to Manage Disease in a Changing World. Integrative 

and Comparative Biology, 56(4):573-587. Available online at: https://doi.org/10.1093/icb/icw048.

(Burgess et al., 1998). Burgess, W.C., P.L. Tyack, B.J. Le Boeuf, and D.P. Costa. 1998. A Programmable 

Acoustic Recording Tag and First Results from Free-Ranging Northern Elephant Seals. Deep Sea 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

620

Research Part II: Topical Studies in Oceanography, 45(7), 1327–51. Available online at: 

https://doi.org/10.1016/S0967-0645(98)00032-0.

(Burns and Knap, 1989). Burns, K.A. and A.H. Knap. 1989. The Bahia Las Minas oil spill: Hydrocarbon 

uptake by reef building corals. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 20(8):391-398. Available online at:

https://doi.org/10.1016/0025-326X(89)90317-2.

(Cameron et al., 2018). Cameron, E., R. Thomas, J. Bauer, A. Bean, J. DiGiulio, C. Disenhof, S. Galer, K. 

Jones, M. Mark-Moser, R. Miller, L. Romeo, and K. Rose. 2018. Estimating Carbon Storage Resources 

in Offshore Geologic Environments. NETL-TRS-14-2018. NETL Technical Report Series. U.S. 

Department of Energy, National Energy Technology Laboratory: Albany, OR, 2018; p 32. Available 

online at: https://doi.org/10.18141/1464460.

(Carretta et al., 2017). Carretta, J.V., K.A. Forney, E.M. Oleson, D.W. Weller, A.R. Lang, J. Baker, M.M. 

Muto, B. Hanson, A.J. Orr, H. Huber, M.S. Lowry, J. Barlow, J.E. Moore, D. Lynch, L. Carswell, and R.L. 

Brownell Jr. 2017. U.S. Pacific Marine Mammal Stock Assessments: 2016. NOAA Technical 

Memorandum NOAA-TM-NMFS-SWFSC-577; 407 p. Available online at: 

https://repository.library.noaa.gov/view/noaa/14915.

(Carretta et al., 2018). Carretta, J.V., K.A. Forney, E.M. Oleson, D.W. Weller, A.R. Lang, J. Baker, M.M. 

Muto, B. Hanson, A.J. Orr, H. Huber, M.S. Lowry, J. Barlow, J.E. Moore, D. Lynch, L. Carswell, and R.L. 

Brownell Jr. 2018. U.S. Pacific Marine Mammal Stock Assessments: 2017. NOAA Technical 

Memorandum NOAA-TM-NMFS-SWFSC-602; 155 p. Available online at: 

https://repository.library.noaa.gov/view/noaa/18080.

(Carretta et al., 2020). Carretta, J.V., K.A. Forney, E.M. Oleson, D.W. Weller, A.R. Lang, J. Baker, M.M. 

Muto, B. Hanson, A.J. Orr, H. Huber, M.S. Lowry, J. Barlow, J.E. Moore, D. Lynch, L. Carswell, and R.L. 

Brownell Jr. 2020. U.S. Pacific Marine Mammal Stock Assessments: 2019. NOAA Technical 

Memorandum NMFS-SWFSC-629; 385 p. Available online at: https://media.fisheries.noaa.gov/dammigration/2019_sars_pacific_508.pdf.

(Carretta et al., 2022). Carretta, J.V. E.M. Oleson, K.A. Forney, M.M. Muto, D.W. Weller, A.R. Lang, J. 

Baker, B. Hanson, A.J. Orr, J. Barlow, J.E. Moore, and R.L. Brownell Jr. 2022. U.S. Pacific Marine 

Mammal Stock Assessments: 2021. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SWFSC-663; 395 p. 

Available online at: https://repository.library.noaa.gov/view/noaa/44406. 

(CDFW, 2018). California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2018. Winter-run Chinook Salmon 

Escapement Estimates for 2017. Available online at: 

https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=153108&inline.

(CEE, 2006). Center for Energy Economics. 2006. Offshore LNG Receiving Terminals. Available online at: 

http://www.beg.utexas.edu/files/energyecon/global-gas-and-lng/CEE_offshore_LNG.pdf.

(Center for Biological Diversity, No Date). Center for Biological Diversity. No Date. Western Snowy Plover 

Natural History. Accessed October 2022 at: 

https://www.biologicaldiversity.org/species/birds/western_snowy_plover/natural_history.html.

(CEQ, 1981). Council on Environmental Quality. 1981. Forty Most Asked Questions Concerning CEQ's 

National Environmental Policy Act Regulations. 46 Fed. Reg. 18026 (March 23, 1981) As amended. 

Available online at: https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2018/06/f53/G-CEQ40Questions.pdf.
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

621

(CEQ, 1997a). Council on Environmental Quality. 1997. Environmental Justice Guidance Under the 

National Environmental Policy Act. Available online at: 

https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2015-02/documents/ej_guidance_nepa_ceq1297.pdf. 

(CEQ, 1997b). Council on Environmental Quality. 1997. Considering Cumulative Effects Under the 

National Environmental Policy Act. Available online at: 

https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/nepapub/nepa_documents/RedDont/G-CEQConsidCumulEffects.pdf.

(CEQ, 2014). Effective Use of Programmatic NEPA Reviews. 2014. Memorandum for Heads of Federal 

Departments and Agencies. Available online at: https://ceq.doe.gov/docs/ceq-regulations-andguidance/Effective_Use_of_Programmatic_NEPA_Reviews_Final_Dec2014_searchable.pdf. 

(CFMC, No Date). Caribbean Fishery Management Council. No Date. Fishery Management Plans. 

Available online at: https://caribbeanfmc.com/fishery-management/fishery-management-plans.

(Cheung et al., 2007). Cheung, W.W.L., R. Watson, T. Morato, T.J. Pitcher, D. and Pauly. 2007. Intrinsic 

vulnerability in the global fish catch. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 333:1-12. Available online at:

https://doi.org/10.3354/meps333001.

(Cholewiak et al., 2017). Cholewiak, D., A.I. DeAngelis, D. Palka, P.J. Corkeron, and S.M. Van Parijs. 2017. 

Beaked whales demonstrate a marked acoustic response to the use of shipboard echosounders. 

Royal Society Open Science, 4(12):170940. Available online at: https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.170940. 

(ClimeFish, No Date). ClimeFish. No Date. Climate change and impacts on fisheries. Accessed October 

2022 at: https://climefish.eu/climate-change-and-impacts-on-fisheries/.

(Codarin et al., 2009). Codarin, A., L.E. Wysocki, F. Ladich, and M. Picciulin. 2009. Effects of ambient and 

boat noise on hearing and communication in three fish species living in a marine protected area 

(Miramare, Italy). Marine Pollution Bulletin, 58(12):1880-1887. Available online at:

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2009.07.011.

(Collazo et al., 2019). Collazo, J.A., M.J. Krachey, K.H. Pollock, F.J. Pérez-Aguilo, J.P. Zegarra, and A.A. 

Mignucci-Giannoni. 2019. Population estimates of Antillean manatees in Puerto Rico: an analytical 

framework for aerial surveys using multi-pass removal sampling. Journal of Mammalogy, 

100(4):1340–1349. Available online at: https://doi.org/10.1093/jmammal/gyz076. 

(Conant et al., 2009). Conant, T.A., P.H. Dutton, T. Eguchi, S.P. Epperly, C.C. Fahy, M.H. Godfrey, S.L. 

MacPherson, E.E. Possardt, B.A. Schroeder, J.A. Seminoff, M.L. Snover, C.M. Upite, and B.E. 

Witherington. 2009. Loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta caretta) 2009 status review under the U.S. 

Endangered Species Act. Report of the Loggerhead Biological Review Team to the National Marine 

Fisheries Service, August 2009. 222 pp. Available online at:

https://www.biologicaldiversity.org/species/reptiles/loggerhead_sea_turtle/pdfs/2009-LoggerheadStatus-Review.pdf.

(Conners and Conrath, No Date). Conners, M.E. and C. Conrath. No Date. New Management Challenge in 

Alaska – Octopus! National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Available online at:

https://apps-afsc.fisheries.noaa.gov/pubs/posters/pdfs/pEConners03_sea-lion.pdf.

(Conners et al., 2017). Conners, M.E., K. Aydin, and C. Conrath. 2017. Assessment of the Octopus Stock 

Complex in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands, 2016. Alaska Fisheries Science Center. Available 

online at: https://apps-afsc.fisheries.noaa.gov/REFM/Docs/2017/BSAIocto.pdf. 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

622

(Constantine et al., 2004). Constantine, R., D.H. Brunton, and T. Dennis. 2004. Dolphin-watching tour 

boats change bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus) behaviour. Biological Conservation 117:299-

307. Available online at: http://www.seaturtle.org/PDF/ConstantineR_2004_BiolConserv.pdf.

(Cook and Knap, 1983). Cook, C. B. and A. H. Knap. 1983. Effects of crude oil and chemical dispersant on 

photosynthesis in the brain coral Diploria strigosa. Marine Biology, 78:21-7. Available online at: 

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00392967. 

(Cope et al., 2005). Cope, M., D. St. Aubain, and J. Thomas. 2005. Effects of boat activity on the behavior 

of bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) in waters surrounding Hilton Head, South Carolina. 

Aquatic Mammals, 31(1):133-140. Available online at: 

http://orcarelief.org/docs/Neg%20effect%20boats%20T.t.%20in%20SC.pdf.

(CORA, No Date). Chippewa Ottawa Resource Authority. No Date. Home. Accessed October 2022 at: 

https://www.1836cora.org/.

(Corals of the World, No Date). Corals of the World. No Date. Orbicella faveolata. Accessed October 

2022 at: 

http://www.coralsoftheworld.org/species_factsheets/species_factsheet_summary/orbicellafaveolata/.

(Coulter et al., 1999). Coulter, M., J. Rodgers, J. Ogden, and F. Depkin. 1999. Wood Stork. In: The Birds of 

North America (A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology. Available online at: 

https://birdsna.org.

(Cox et al., 2006). Cox, T.M., T.J. Ragen, A.J. Read, E. Vox, R.W. Baird, K. Balcomb, J. Barlow, J. Caldwell, 

T. Cranford, L. Crum, A. D'Amico, G. D'Spain, A. Fernandez, J. Finneran, R. Gentry, W. Gerth, F. 

Gulland, J. Hildebrand, D. Houser, T. Hullar, P.D. Jepson, D. Ketten, C.D. MacLeod, P. Miller, S. 

Moore, D.C. Mountain, D. Palka, P. Ponganis, S. Rommel, T. Rowles, B. Taylor, P. Tyack, D. Wartzok, 

R. Gisiner, J. Mead, and L. Benner. 2006. Understanding the impacts of anthropogenic sound on 

beaked whales. Journal of Cetacean Research and Management, 7(3):189–209. Available online at: 

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/230737956_Understanding_the_impacts_of_anthropog

enic_sound_on_beaked_whales.

(Crain et al., 2009). Crain, C.M., B.S. Halpern, M.W. Beck, and C.V. Kappel.2009. Understanding and 

Managing Human Threats to the Coastal Marine Environment. In: The Year in Ecology and 

Conservation Biology (R. S. Ostfeld and W. H. Schlesinger, Eds.) pp. 39-62. Oxford, UK: Blackwell 

Publishing. Available online at: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-6632.2009.04496.x.

(Cranford et al., 1996). Cranford, T.W., M. Amundin, and K.S. Norris. 1996. Functional morphology and 

homology in the odontocete nasal complex: Implications for sound generation. Journal of 

Morphology, 228 (3):223-285. Available online at: https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-

4687(199606)228:3<223::AID-JMOR1>3.0.CO;2-3.

(CRITFC, No Date). Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission. No Date. Salmon Culture of the Pacific 

Northwest Tribes. Accessed October 2022 at: https://www.critfc.org/salmon-culture/tribal-salmonculture/.

(Culik et al., 2001). Culik, B.M., S. Koschinski, N. Tregenza, and G.M. Ellis. 2001. Reactions of harbor 

porpoises Phocoena and herring Clupea harengus to acoustic alarms. Marine Ecological Progress 

Series, 211:255–260. Available online at: https://doi.org/10.3354/meps211255.

(Curé et al., 2015). Curé, C., L.D. Sivle, F. Visser, P.J. Wensveen, S. Isojunno, C.M. Harris, P.H. Kvadsheim, 

F.P.A. Lam, and P.J.O. Miller. 2015. Predator sound playbacks reveal strong avoidance responses in a 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

623

fight strategist baleen whale. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 526:267–282. Available online at:

https://doi.org/10.3354/meps11231. 

(Curland, 1997). Curland, J.M. 1997. Effects of Disturbance on Sea Otters (Enhydra lutris) near Monterey, 

California. Master of Science, San Jose State University, 1997. Available online at: 

https://doi.org/10.31979/etd.3uq8-da46.

(Davenport, 1997). Davenport, J. 1997. Temperature and the Life-History Strategies of Sea Turtles. 

Journal of Thermal Biology, Special Issue to Commemorate the Life and Work of Professor Jack 

Grainger, 22(6): 479–88. Available online at: 

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306456597000661.

(Davis et al., 1988). Davis, R.W., T.M. Williams, and F. Awbrey. 1988. Sea Otter Oil Spill Avoidance Study. 

OSTI Technical Report PB-89-191381/XAB. Available online at: https://www.osti.gov/biblio/5860299

(Deecke et al., 2002). Deecke, V.B., P.J.B. Slater, and J.K.B. Ford. 2002. Selective habituation shapes 

acoustic predator recognition in harbour seals. Nature, 420(6912):171–173. Available online at:

https://doi.org/10.1038/nature01030. 

(DeMaster et al., 2001). DeMaster, D.P., C.W. Fowler, S.L. Perry, and M.F. Richlen. 2001. Predation and 

competition: The impact of fisheries on marine-mammal populations over the next one hundred 

years. Journal of Mammalogy, 82(3):641–651. Available online at: https://doi.org/10.1644/1545-

1542(2001)082<0641:PACTIO>2.0.CO;2.

(DeRuiter et al., 2013). DeRuiter, S.L., B.L. Southall, J. Calambokidis, W.M. Zimmer, D. Sadykova, E.A. 

Falcone, A.S. Friedlaender, J.E. Joseph, D. Moretti, G.S. Schorr, L. Thomas, and P.L. Tyack. 2013. First 

direct measurements of behavioural responses by Cuvier's beaked whales to mid-frequency active 

sonar. Biology Letters, 9(4):20130223. Available online at: https://doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2013.0223.

(DeRuiter et al., 2017). DeRuiter, S.L., R. Langrock, T. Skirbutas, J.A. Goldbogen, J. Calambokidis, A.S. 

Friedlaender, and B.L. Southall. 2017. A multivariate mixed hidden Markov model for blue whale 

behaviour and responses to sound exposure. The Annals of Applied Statistics, 11(1):362–392. 

Available online at: https://projecteuclid.org/download/pdfview_1/euclid.aoas/1491616885.

(Di Iorio and Clark, 2009). Di Iorio, L. and C.W. Clark. 2009. Exposure to seismic survey alters blue whale 

acoustic communication. Biology Letters, 6(3):51-54. Available online at: 

https://doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2009.0967.

(DOE, 2021). U.S. Department of Energy. 2021. Energy Secretary Granholm Announces Ambitious New 

30GW Offshore Wind Deployment Target by 2030. Accessed October 2022 at: 

https://www.energy.gov/articles/energy-secretary-granholm-announces-ambitious-new-30gwoffshore-wind-deployment-target.

(DOE, No Date-a). U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy. No Date. 

Marine and Hydrokinetic Market Acceleration and Deployment. Accessed October 2022 at: 

https://www.energy.gov/eere/water/marine-and-hydrokinetic-market-acceleration-anddeployment.

(DOE, No Date-b). U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy. No Date. 

Marine and Hydrokinetic Resource Assessment and Characterization. Accessed October 2022 at: 

https://www.energy.gov/eere/water/marine-and-hydrokinetic-resource-assessment-andcharacterization.
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

624

(DOI, 2021). U.S. Department of the Interior. 2021. Federal Subsistence Management Regulations for 

the Harvest of Fish and Shellfish on Federal Public Lands and Waters in Alaska. Available online at: 

https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/uploads/2019-21_fisheries_regs_book_web.pdf.

(Dooling and Popper, 2000). Dooling, R.J. and A.N. Popper. 2000. Hearing in birds and reptiles: An 

overview. In: Comparative Hearing: Birds and Reptiles (Dooling, R.J., A.N. Popper, and R.R. Fay, Eds.). 

New York, NY: Springer-Verlag. pp. 1-12. Available online at: 

https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-1-4612-1182-2_1.

(Dooling and Therrien, 2012). Dooling, R.J. and S.C. Therrien. 2012. Hearing in Birds: What Changes from 

Air to Water. In: The Effects of Noise on Aquatic Life (Popper, A.N. and A. Hawkins, Eds.). 77–82. 

Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology. New York, NY: Springer. Available online at: 

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-7311-5_17.

(DOSITS, No Date-a). Discovery of Sound in the Sea. No Date. Discovery of Sound in the Sea. Accessed 

October 2022 at: https://dosits.org.

(DOSITS, No Date-b). Discovery of Sound in the Sea. No Date. How Do Marine Invertebrates Detect 

Sounds? Accessed October 2022 at: https://dosits.org/animals/sound-reception/how-do-marineinvertebrates-detect-sounds/.

(Dulvy et al., 2003). Dulvy, N.K., Y. Sadovy, and J.D Reynolds. 2003. Extinction vulnerability in marine 

populations. Fish and Fisheries, 4(1):25-64. Available online at: https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1467-

2979.2003.00105.x.

(Dunbar et al., 2008). Dunbar, S.G., Salinas, L., & Stevenson, L. 2008. In-water observations of recently 

released juvenile hawksbills. Marine Turtle Newsletter, 121:59. Available online at: 

http://www.seaturtle.org/PDF/DunbarSG_2008_MTN.pdf.

(Duncan et al., 2017). Duncan, E.M., Botterell, Z.L.R., Broderick, A.C., Galloway, T.S., Lindeque, P.K., 

Nuno, A., Godley, B.J. 2017. A global review of marine turtle entanglement in anthropogenic debris: 

A baseline for further action. Endangered Species Research, 34:431–448. Available online at:

https://doi.org/10.3354/esr00865.

(Dunn, 2016). Dunn, T. 2016. This thousands-year-old Alaskan whaling ritual still exists...but maybe not 

much longer. Accessed October 2022 at: https://www.upworthy.com/this-thousands-year-oldalaskan-whaling-ritual-still-exists-but-maybe-not-much-longer.

(Durant et al., 2003). Durant, J. M., T. Anker-Nilssen, and N.C. Stenseth. 2003. Trophic interaction under 

climate fluctuations: The Atlantic puffin as an example. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, 

270(B)(1):461–466. Available online at: 

https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/pdf/10.1098/rspb.2003.2397.

(ECOS, No Date-a). Environmental Conservation Online System, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. No Date. 

Generate Species List. Accessed October 2022 at: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp0/reports/ad-hocspecies-report-input.

(ECOS, No Date-b). Environmental Conservation Online System, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. No Date. 

USFWS Threatened & Endangered Species Active Critical Habitat Report. Accessed October 2022 at: 

https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/report/table/critical-habitat.html. 

(EDGE, No Date). Edge of Existence.org. No Date. Border Coral Star – Orbicella annularis. Zoological 

Society of London. Accessed October 2022 at: http://www.edgeofexistence.org/species/boulderstar-coral/.
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

625

(Edmonds et al., 2016). Edmonds, N.J., C.J. Firmin, D. Goldsmith, R.C. Faulkner, and D.T. Wood. 2016. A 

review of crustacean sensitivity to high amplitude underwater noise: Data needs for effective risk 

assessment in relation to UK commercial species. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 108(1-2):5–11. Available 

online at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2016.05.006.

(Efroymson et al., 2000). Efroymson, R.A., W.H. Rose, S. Nemeth, and G.W. Suter II. 2000. Ecological risk 

assessment framework for low-altitude overflights by fixed-wing and rotary-wing military aircraft. 

ORNL/TM-2000/289. Oak Ridge, TN: Oak Ridge National Laboratory. 115p. Available online at:

https://doi.org/10.2172/777698.

(Egan, 2019). Egan, D. 2019. The Cancer of the Great Lakes: Mussels Are Devastating a Unique 

Ecosystem. Nautilus. Available online at: https://medium.com/nautilus-magazine/the-cancer-of-thegreat-lakes-2e6753352fbb. 

(EIA, 2022a). United States Energy Information Administration. 2022. Federal Offshore – Annual Gulf of 

Mexico Dry Natural Gas Production (Million Cubic Feet). Accessed October 2022 at: 

https://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/hist/na1160_r3fm_2A.htm.

(EIA, 2022b). United States Energy Information Administration. 2022. Federal Offshore – Annual Gulf of 

Mexico Field Production of Crude Oil. Accessed October 2022 at: 

https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=pet&s=mcrfp3fm2&f=m.

(Eigaard et al., 2016). Eigaard, O.R., F. Bastardie, N.T. Hintzen, and L. Buhl-Mortensen. 2016. The 

footprint of bottom trawling in European waters: distribution, intensity and seabed integrity. ICES 

Journal of Marine Science, 74(3). Available online at: https://doi.org/10.1093/icesjms/fsw194.

(Elliott-Smith and Haig, 2004). Elliott-Smith, E. and S. Haig. 2004. Piping Plover. In: The Birds of North 

America (A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology. Available online at: 

https://birdsna.org.

(Ellison and Frankel, 2012). Ellison, W.T. and A.S. Frankel. 2012. A common sense approach to source 

metrics. In: The Effects of Noise on Aquatic Life (Popper, A.N. and A.D. Hawkins, Eds.). Volume 730. 

Springer, New York. pp. 433-438. Available online at: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-7311-

5_98.

(Ellison et al., 2012). Ellison, W.T., B.L. Southall, C.W. Clark, and A.S. Frankel. 2012. A new context-based 

approach to assess marine mammal behavioral responses to anthropogenic sounds. Conservation 

Biology, 26(1):21-28. Available online at: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2011.01803.x.

(Engilis et al., 2002). Engilis, A., K. Uyehara, and J. Giffin. 2002. Hawaiian Duck. In: The Birds of North 

America (A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology. Available online at: 

https://birdsna.org.

(EPA, 2010). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Endangered Species Protection Program. 2010. 

Endangered Species Facts: Tidewater Goby Eucyclogobius newberryi. Available online at: 

https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2013-08/documents/tidewater-goby.pdf.

(EPA, 2012). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2012. National Coastal Condition Report IV. EPA842-R-10-003. Available online at: https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2014-

10/documents/0_nccr_4_report_508_bookmarks.pdf. 

(EPA, 2022). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2022. National Aquatic Resource Surveys, Indicators: 

Benthic Macroinvertebrates. Accessed October 2022 at: https://www.epa.gov/national-aquaticresource-surveys/indicators-benthic-macroinvertebrates. 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

626

(Erbe, 2013). Erbe, C. 2013. Underwater Noise of Small Personal Watercraft (Jet Skis). The Journal of the 

Acoustical Society of America, 133(4):EL326–30. Available online at: 

https://doi.org/10.1121/1.4795220.

(Erbe et al., 2016). Erbe, C., C. Reichmuth, K. Cunningham, K. Lucke, and R. Dooling. 2016. 

Communication masking in marine mammals: A review and research strategy. Marine Pollution 

Bulletin, 103(1–2):15–38. Available online at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2015.12.007.

(Erbe et al., 2019). Erbe, C., S.A. Marley, R.P. Schoeman, J.N. Smith, L.E. Trigg, and C.B. Embling. 2019. 

The Effects of Ship Noise on Marine Mammals—A Review. Frontiers in Marine Science. Available 

online at: https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2019.00606.

(Erickson and Hightower, 2007). Erickson, D.L. and J.E. Hightower. 2007. Oceanic distribution and 

behavior of green sturgeon. American Fisheries Society Symposium, 56:197–211. Available online at: 

https://repository.lib.ncsu.edu/bitstream/handle/1840.2/1960/Erickson%26Hightower_2007.pdf?se

quence=1&isAllowed=y. 

(Esslinger et al., 2014). Esslinger, G.G., J.L. Bodkin, A.R. Breton, J.M. Burns, and D.H. Monson. 2014. 

Temporal patterns in the foraging behavior of sea otters in Alaska. Journal of Wildlife Management, 

78(4):689-700. Available online at: https://doi.org/10.1002/jwmg.701. 

(EuDA, 2005). European Dredging Association. 2005. EuDA Annual Report 2005. Available online at:

https://www.european-dredging.eu/pdf/EuDA_05.pdf.

(EWC, No Date). Eskimo Walrus Commission. No Date. Eskimo Walrus Commission. Accessed October 

2022 at: https://kawerak.org/natural-resources/eskimo-walrus-commission/.

(Fall and Chythlook, 1998). Fall, J.A. and M.B. Chythlook. 1998. Cultural Survival. The Round Island 

Walrus Hunt: Reviving a Cultural tradition. Accessed October 2022 at: 

https://www.culturalsurvival.org/publications/cultural-survival-quarterly/round-island-walrus-huntreviving-cultural-tradition.

(Farrae et al., 2017). Farrae, D., W.C. Post, and T. Darden. 2017. Genetic characterization of Atlantic 

sturgeon, Acipenser oxyrinchus oxyrinchus, in the Edisto River, South Carolina and identification of 

genetically discrete fall and spring spawning. Conservation Genetics, 18(4):813–823. Available online 

at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10592-017-0929-7. 

(Fay and Popper, 2000). Fay, R.R. and A.N. Popper. 2000. Evolution of hearing in vertebrates: The inner 

ears and processing. Hearing Research, 149(1-2):1-10. Available online at:

https://doi.org/10.1016/s0378-5955(00)00168-4. 

(Fay, 1988). Fay, R.R. 1988. Hearing in vertebrates: A psychophysics databook. Hill-Fay Associates. 

Available online at: https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1988-98268-000.

(Ferguson et al., 2015). Ferguson, M.C., C. Curtice, J. Harrison, and S.M. Van Parijs. 2015. Biologically 

Important Areas for Cetaceans Within U.S. Waters – Overview and Rationale. Aquatic Mammals,

41(1):2-16. Available online at: https://doi.org/10.1578/AM.41.1.2015.2.

(Fernandez, 2006). Fernandez, A. 2006. Beaked Whale (Ziphius cavirostris) Mass Stranding on Almeria's 

Coasts in Southern Spain. Report of the University of Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, Canary Islands. 

(Finneran and Branstetter, 2013). Finneran, J.J. and B.K. Branstetter. 2013. Effects of Noise on Sound 

Perception in Marine Mammals. In: H. Animal Communication and Noise (H. Brumm, Ed.), Chapter 

10. Available online at: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-41494-7_10.
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

627

(Finneran et al., 2005). Finneran, J.J., D.A. Carder, C.E. Schlundt, and S.H. Ridgway. 2005. Temporary 

threshold shift in bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) exposed to mid-frequency tones. Journal 

of the Acoustical Society of America, 118(4):2696-2705. Available online at:

https://doi.org/10.1121/1.2032087.

(Finneran et al., 2010). Finneran, J.J., D.A. Carder, C.E. Schlundt, and R.L. Dear. 2010. Growth and 

recovery of temporary threshold shift at 3 kHz in bottlenose dolphins: Experimental data and 

mathematical models. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 127(5):3256–3266. Available 

online at: https://doi.org/10.1121/1.3372710. 

(Finneran et al., 2017). Finneran, J.J., E.E. Henderson, D. Houser, K. Jenkins, S. Kotecki, and J. Mulsow. 

2017. Technical Report: Criteria and Thresholds for U.S. Navy Acoustic and Explosive Effects Analysis 

(Phase III). Department of the Navy. SSC Pacific, San Diego, California. 194 p. Available online at: 

http://www.chamorro.com/docs/Criteria_and_Thresholds_for_U.S._Navy_Acoustic_and_Explosive_

Effects_Analysis_June2017.pdf.

(Florida DOS, No Date). Florida Department of State, Division of Historical Resources. No Date. 

Underwater Preserves. Accessed October 2022 at: 

https://dos.myflorida.com/historical/archaeology/underwater/underwater-preserves/. 

(Foote et al., 2004). Foote, A.D., R.W. Osborne, and A.R. Hoelzel. 2004. Whale-call response to masking

boat noise. Nature, 428(6986):910. Available online at: https://doi.org/10.1038/428910a.

(Foster, No Date). Foster, J.W. No Date. California’s Ancient Maritime Heritage. Accessed October 2022

at: https://www.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=23712.

(Francis and Barber, 2013). Francis, C.D. and J.R. Barber. 2013. A framework for understanding noise 

impacts on wildlife: An urgent conservation priority. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment,

11(6):305–313. Available online at: https://doi.org/10.1890/120183.

(Fredrickson, 2001). Fredrickson, L. 2001. Steller's Eider. In: The Birds of North America (A. Poole, Ed.).

Ithaca: Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology. Available online at: https://birdsna.org.

(Fristrup et al., 2003). Fristrup, K.M., L.T. Hatch, and C.W. Clark. 2003. Variation in humpback whale 

(Megaptera novaeangliae) song length in relation to low-frequency sound broadcasts. The Journal 

of the Acoustical Society of America, 113(6):3411–3424. Available online at: 

https://doi.org/10.1121/1.1573637. 

(FWC, No Date). Florida Fish and Wildlife Commission. No Date. Website. Wood stork (Mycteria 

Americana). Accessed October 2022 at: 

https://myfwc.com/wildlifehabitats/profiles/birds/waterbirds/wood-stork/.

(Gaufin and Tarzwell, 1952). Gaufin, A.R. and C.M. Tarzwell. 1952. Aquatic Invertebrates as Indicators of 

Stream Pollution. Public Health Reports, 67(1). January. Available online at: 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2030707/pdf/pubhealthreporig01073-0095.pdf.

(George et al., 1999). George, J.C., J. Bada, J. Zeh, L. Scott, S.E. Brown, T. O’Hara, and R. Suydam. 1999. 

Age and growth estimates of bowhead whales (Balaena mysticetus) via aspartic racemization. 

Canadian Journal of Zoology, 77(4):571–580. Available online at: https://doi.org/10.1139/z99-015.

(Gerstein, 2002). Gerstein, E.R. 2002. Manatees, bioacoustics and boats: hearing tests, environmental 

measurements and acoustic phenomena may together explain why boats and animals collide. 

American Scientist, 90(2):154-163. Available online at: 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

628

https://go.gale.com/ps/anonymous?id=GALE%7CA83241185&sid=googleScholar&v=2.1&it=r&linkac

cess=abs&issn=00030996&p=AONE&sw=w.

(GESAMP, 2007). Joint Group of Experts on the Scientific Aspects of Marine Environmental Protection. 

2007. Estimates of Oil Entering the Marine Environment from Sea-Based Activities. Available online

at: 

https://wedocs.unep.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.11822/12477/gesamp_rs75e.pdf?sequence=1&i

sAllowed=y.

(Ghoul and Reichmuth, 2014). Ghoul, A. and C. Reichmuth. 2014. Hearing in the sea otter (Enhydra 

lutris): auditory profiles for an amphibious marine carnivore. The Journal of Comparative Physiology, 

200(11):967–981. Available online at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00359-014-0943-x.

(Gill et al., 1998). Gill, R., P. Canevari, and E. Iverson. 1998. Eskimo Curlew. In: The Birds of North 

America (A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology. Available online at: 

https://birdsna.org.

(Girola et al., 2019). Girola, E., M.J. Noad, and R.A. Dunlop. 2019. Source levels of humpback whales 

decrease with frequency suggesting an air-filled resonator is used in sound production. The Journal

of the Acoustical Society of America, 145(2):869. Available online at: 

https://doi.org/10.1121/1.5090492. 

(GLIFWC, No Date). Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission. No Date. About GLIFWC. Accessed 

October 2022 at: https://glifwc.org/About/. 

(Goldbogen et al., 2013). Goldbogen, J.A., B.L. Southall, S.L. DeRuiter, J. Calambokidis, A.S. Friedlaender, 

E.L. Hazen, E.A. Falcone, G.S. Schorr, A. Douglas, D.J. Moretti, C. Kyburg, M.F. McKenna, and P.L. 

Tyack. 2013. Blue whales respond to simulated mid-frequency military sonar. Proceedings of the 

Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 280(1765):20130657. Available online at: 

https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2013.0657. 

(Gordon et al., 2003). Gordon, J., D. Gillespie, J. Potter, A. Frantzis, M.P. Simmonds, R. Swift, and D. 

Thompson. 2003. A review of the effects of seismic surveys on marine mammals. Marine Technology 

Society Journal, 37(4):16–34. Available online at: https://doi.org/10.4031/002533203787536998. 

(Gregory, 2009). Gregory, M.R. 2009. Environmental implications of plastic debris in marine settings—

entanglement, ingestion, smothering, hangers-on, hitch-hiking and alien invasions. Philosophical 

Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 364:2013–2025. Available online at: 

https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2008.0265. 

(Gulf Council, No Date). Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council. No Date. Implemented Fishery 

Management Plans. Available online at: http://gulfcouncil.org/fishery-management/implementedplans/.

(Halvorsen et al., 2012). Halvorsen, M. B., B. M. Casper, F. Matthews, T. J. Carlson, and A. N. Popper. 

2012. Effects of exposure to pile-driving sounds on the lake sturgeon, Nile tilapia and hogchoker. 

Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 279(1748), 4705–4714. Available online at: 

https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2012.1544. 

(Hardt and Safina, 2008). Marah Hardt and Carl Safina. 2008. Covering Ocean Acidification: Chemistry 

and Considerations. Yale Climate Connections. Accessed October 2022 at: 

https://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/2008/06/covering-ocean-acidification-chemistry-andconsiderations/.
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

629

(Hastings and Popper, 2005). Hastings, M. C., and A. N. Popper. 2005. Effects of Sound on Fish. 

Sacramento, CA: California Department of Transportation. Available online at: 

https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1434/ML14345A573.pdf. 

(Hatch and Wright, 2007). Hatch, L.T. and A.J. Wright. 2007. A Brief Review of Anthropogenic Sound in 

the Oceans. International Journal of Comparative Psychology, 20(2):121-133. Available online at: 

https://escholarship.org/uc/item/5cj6s4r9.

(Hatch et al., 2012). Hatch, L.T., C.W. Clark, S.M. Van Parijs, A.S. Frankel, and D.W. Ponirakis. 2012. 

Quantifying loss of acoustic communication space for right whales in and around a U.S. National 

Marine Sanctuary. Conservation Biology, 26(6):983-994. Available online at: 

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2012.01908.x.

(Hawaii DLNR, 2015a). Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources. 2015. Species Profile: 

‘Akē‘akē or Band-rumped storm-petrel (Oceanodroma castro). Hawaii State Wildlife Action Plan. 

Available online at: https://dlnr.hawaii.gov/wildlife/files/2019/03/SWAP-2015-Band-rumped-stormFinal.pdf.

(Hawaii DLNR, 2015b). Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources. 2015. Species Profile: ‘Ua‘u or 

Hawaiian Petrel (Pterodroma sandwichensis). Available online at:

https://dlnr.hawaii.gov/wildlife/files/2019/03/SWAP-2015-Hawaiian-petrel-Final.pdf. 

(Hawaii DLNR, 2015c). Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources. 2015. Species Profile: Ae‘o or 

Hawaiian Stilt (Himantopus mexicanus knudseni). Available online at:

https://dlnr.hawaii.gov/wildlife/files/2019/03/SWAP-2015-Hawaiian-stilt-Final.pdf. 

(Hawaii DLNR, 2015d). Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources. 2015. Species Profile: Koloa 

Maoli or Hawaiian Duck (Anas wyvilliana). Hawaii Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy. 

Available online at: https://dlnr.hawaii.gov/wildlife/files/2019/03/SWAP-2015-Hawaiian-duckFinal.pdf. 

(Hawkes et al., 2011). Hawkes, L.A., M.J. Witt, A.C. Broderick, J.W. Coker, M.S. Coyne, M. Dodd, M.G. 

Frick, M.H. Godfrey, D.B. Griffin, S.R. Murphy, T.M. Murphy, K.L. Williams, and B.J. Godley. 2011. 

Home on the range: Spatial ecology of loggerhead turtles in Atlantic waters of the USA. Diversity and 

Distributions, 17(4):624-640. Available online at: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1472-4642.2011.00768.x.

(Hawkins and Popper, 2012). Hawkins, A.D. and A.N. Popper. 2012. Effects of Noise on Fish, Fisheries, 

and Invertebrates in the U.S. Atlantic and Arctic from Energy Industry Sound-Generating Activities –

Literature Synthesis. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management. Available online at: 

https://tethys.pnnl.gov/sites/default/files/publications/Hawkins-and-Popper-2012.pdf. 

(Hawkins and Popper, 2017). Hawkins, A.D. and A.N. Popper. 2017. A sound approach to assessing the 

impact of underwater noise on marine fishes an invertebrates. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 74(3):

635-651. Available online at: https://doi.org/10.1093/icesjms/fsw205. 

(Hawkins et al., 2015). Hawkins, A. D., A. E. Pembroke, and A. N. Popper. 2015. Information gaps in 

understanding the effects of noise on fishes and invertebrates. Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries, 

25:39–64. Available online at: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11160-014-9369-3. 

(Hayes et al., 2017). Hayes, C.T., D.S. Baumbach, D. Juma, and S.G. Dunbar. 2017. Impacts of recreational 

diving on hawksbill sea turtle (Eretmochelys Imbricata) behaviour in a marine protected area. 

Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 25(1):79–95. Available online at:

https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2016.1174246.
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

630

(Hayes et al., 2018). Hayes, S.A., E. Josephson, K. Maze-Foley, P.E. Rosel, B. Byrd, S. Chavez-Rosales, 

T.V.N. Col, L. Engleby, L.P. Garrison, J. Hatch, A. Henry, S.C. Horstman, J. Litz, M.C. Lyssikatos, K.D. 

Mullin, C. Orphanides, R.M. Pace, D.L. Palka, M. Soldevilla, and F.W. Wenzel. 2018. US Atlantic and 

Gulf of Mexico Marine Mammal Stock Assessments - 2017. NOAA Tech Memo NMFS NE-245; 371 p. 

Available online at: https://repository.library.noaa.gov/view/noaa/22730.

(Hayes et al., 2020). Hayes, S.A., E. Josephson, K. Maze-Foley, and P.E. Rosel. 2020. U.S. Atlantic and Gulf 

of Mexico Marine Mammal Stock Assessments: 2019. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NE-264; 

479 p. Available online at: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammalprotection/marine-mammal-stock-assessment-reports-region.

(Hayes et al., 2022). Hayes, S.A., E. Josephson, K. Maze-Foley, P.E. Rosel, and J. Wallace. 2022. U.S. 

Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico Marine Mammal Stock Assessments: 2021. 386 p. Available online at: 

https://media.fisheries.noaa.gov/2022-

08/U.S.%20Atlantic%20and%20Gulf%20of%20Mexico%202021%20Stock%20Assessment%20Report.

pdf. 

(Hazel et al., 2007). Hazel, J., I. R. Lawler, H. Marsh, and S. Robson. 2007. Vessel speed increases collision 

risk for the green turtle Chelonia mydas. Endangered Species Research, 3:105–113. Available online 

at: https://www.int-res.com/articles/esr2007/3/n003p105.pdf.

(Heinz Center, 2000). The Heinz Center. 2000. Evaluation of Erosion Hazards. Available online at: 

https://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/erosion.pdf.

(Henry et al., 2020). Henry, A.G, M. Garron, D. Morin, A. Reid, W. Ledwell, W., and T.V.N. Cole. 2020. 

Serious Injury and Mortality Determinations for Baleen Whale Stocks along the Gulf of Mexico, 

United States East Coast, and Atlantic Canadian Provinces, 2013-2017. Northeast Fisheries Science

Center, Reference Document 20-06; 53 p. Available online at: http://marineanimals.ca/wpcontent/uploads/2020/07/Henry.-2020.-Serious-Injury-and-Mortality-Determinations-for-BaleenWhale-Stocks-along-the-Gulf-of-Mexico-United-States-East-Coast-and-Atlantic-Canadian-Provinces2013-2017.pdf.

(Henry, 2022). Henry, A. 2022. Serious Injury and Mortality Determinations for Baleen Whale Stocks 

along the Gulf of Mexico, United States East Coast, and Atlantic Canadian Provinces, 2015-2019. 

NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NE-280. Available online at: 

https://repository.library.noaa.gov/view/noaa/38941.

(Hermannsen et al., 2014). Hermannsen, L., K. Beedholm, J. Tougaard, and P.T. Madsen. 2014. High 

frequency components of ship noise in shallow water with a discussion of implications for harbor 

porpoises (Phocoena phocoena). The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 136(4):1640–

1653. Available online at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1121/1.4893908.

(Hetherington, 2008). Hetherington T. 2008. Comparative Anatomy and Function of Hearing in Aquatic 

Amphibians, Reptiles, and Birds. In: Sensory Evolution on the Threshold: Adaptations in Secondarily 

Aquatic Vertebrates (Thewissen, J.G.N. and S. Nummela, Eds). Pages 182-209. Available online at:

https://doi.org/10.1525/california/9780520252783.003.0012. 

(Hewitt, 1985). Hewitt, R.P. 1985. Reaction of dolphins to a survey vessel: Effects on census data. Fishery 

Bulletin, 83(2):187-193. Available online at: 

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/247338812_Reaction_of_dolphins_to_a_survey_vessel_

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

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

631

(Hildebrand, 2009). Hildebrand, J. 2009. Anthropogenic and Natural Sources of Ambient Noise in the 

Ocean. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 395:5-20. Available online at:

https://doi.org/10.3354/meps08353. 

(Hitt et al., 2015). Hitt, N.P, L.K. Bonneau, K.V. Jayachandran, and M.P. Marchetti. 2015. Freshwater

Ecosystems and Biodiversity. Lessons in Conservation, 5:5-16. Available online at: 

https://www.amnh.org/content/download/141379/2285479/file/LinC5_Freshwater.pdf. 

(Hoegh-Guldberg and Bruno, 2010). Hoegh-Guldberg, O. and J.F. Bruno. 2010. The impact of climate 

change on the world’s marine ecosystems. Science, 328(5985):1523-8. Available online at:

https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1189930.

(Holt et al., 2009). Holt, M.M., D.P. Noren, V. Veirs, C.K. Emmons, and S. Veirs. 2009. Speaking up: Killer 

whales (Orcinus orca) increase their call amplitude in response to vessel noise. Journal of the 

Acoustical Society of America, 125(1):EL27-EL32. Available online at: 

https://doi.org/10.1121/1.3040028.

(Holt et al., 2011). Holt, M.M., D.P. Noren, and C.K. Emmons. 2011. Effects of noise levels and call types 

on the source levels of killer whale calls. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 130(5):

3100–3106. Available online at: https://doi.org/10.1121/1.3641446. 

(Hooker et al., 2001). Hooker, S.K., R.W. Baird, S. Al-Omari, S. Gowans, and H. Whitehead. 2001. 

Behavioural reactions of northern bottlenose whales (Hyperoodon ampullatus) to biopsy darting and 

tag attachment procedures. Fishery Bulletin, 99(2):303-308. Available online at: 

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/289221375_Behavioral_reactions_of_northern_bottleno

se_whales_Hyperoodon_ampullatus_to_biopsy_darting_and_tag_attachment_procedures. 

(Hostetler et al., 2018). Hostetler, J.A. 2018. Updated statewide abundance estimates for the Florida 

manatee. Fish and Wildlife Research Institute Technical Report TR-23, 23 p. Available online at:

https://f50006a.eos-intl.net/ELIBSQL12_F50006A_Documents/TR23-18Hostetler-USAEF.pdf.

(Hotchkin and Parks, 2013). Hotchkin, C. and S. Parks. 2013. The Lombard effect and other noise-induced 

vocal modifications: Insight from mammalian communication systems. Biological Reviews, 88(4):

809-824. Available online at: https://doi.org/10.1111/brv.12026. 

(Houser et al., 2013). Houser, D.S., S.W. Martin, and J.J. Finneran. 2013. Behavioral responses of 

California sea lions to mid-frequency (3250-3450 Hz) sonar signals. Marine Environmental Research, 

92, 268–278. Available online at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marenvres.2013.10.007.

(Hyrenbach, 2002). Hyrenbach, K.D, A. Fernandez, D.J. Anderson. 2002. Oceanographic habitats of two 

sympatric North Pacific albatrosses during the breeding season. Marine Ecology Progress Series,

233:283-301. Available online at: https://doi.org/10.3354/meps233283. 

(ICES, 2005). International Council for the Exploration of the Sea. 2005. Report of the Ad-hoc Group on 

the Impact of Sonar on Cetaceans and Fish (AGISC). ICES CM 2005/ACE:01. Available online at:

https://www.thecre.com/pdf/20050320_ices_ad_hoc_report.pdf.

(Ingram and Peterson, 2016). Ingram, E.C. and D.L. Peterson. 2016. Annual Spawning Migrations of Adult 

Atlantic Sturgeon in the Altamaha River, Georgia. Marine and Coastal Fisheries: Dynamics, 

Management, and Ecosystem Science, 8(1):595-606. Available online at: 

https://doi.org/10.1080/19425120.2016.1243599. 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

632

(IMC, 2018). Invasive Mussel Collaborative. 2018. Strategy to Advance Management of Invasive Zebra 

and Quagga Mussels. Available online at: https://invasivemusselcollaborative.net/wpcontent/uploads/2018/11/IMC-Strategy-Nov-2018-final.pdf. 

(IOCM, No Date-a). NOAA Integrated Ocean and Coastal Mapping. No Date. Interagency Working Group 

on Ocean and Coastal Mapping. Accessed October 2022 at: https://iocm.noaa.gov/about/iwgocm.html#:~:text=The%20Interagency%20Working%20Group%20on,Committee%20(OPC)%20via%2

0the%20National.

(IOCM, No Date-b). NOAA Integrated Ocean and Coastal Mapping. No Date. Seabed 2030 Initiative and 

the U.S. Analysis. Accessed October 2022 at: https://iocm.noaa.gov/seabed-2030.html.

(IPHC, No Date). International Pacific Halibut Commission. No Date. Subsistence Fisheries. Accessed 

October 2022 at: https://iphc.int/management/fisheries/subsistence-fisheries.

(ISC, 2019). Ice Seal Committee. 2019. The Subsistence Harvest of Ice Seals in Alaska – A Compilation of 

Existing Information, 1960-2017. Available online at: https://www.north-slope.org/wpcontent/uploads/2022/03/SHOISiA_2019_FINAL.pdf.

(IUCN, 2022). International Union for Conservation of Nature. 2022. IUCN Red List of Threatened 

Species. Accessed October 2022 at: https://www.iucnredlist.org/.

(IWC, No Date-a). International Whaling Commission. No Date. Description of the USA Aboriginal 

Subsistence Hunt: Alaska. Accessed October 2022 at: https://iwc.int/alaska.

(IWC, No Date-b). International Whaling Commission. No Date. Subsistence harvest of bowhead whales 

(Balaena mysticetus) by Alaskan Eskimos during 2016. Available online at: http://www.northslope.org/assets/images/uploads/SC_67A_AWMP_02_rev1_2016_bowhead_harvest.pdf.

(Jackson et al., 2001). Jackson, J.B.C., M.X. Kirby, W.H. Berger, K.A. Bjorndal, L.W. Botsford, B. Bourque, 

and R.R. Warner. 2001. Historical Overfishing and the Recent Collapse of Coastal Ecosystems. 

Science, 293(5530):629-638. Available online at: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3084305.

(Janik and Thompson, 1996). Janik, V.M. and P.M. Thompson. 1996. Changes in surfacing patterns of

bottlenose dolphins in response to boat traffic. Marine Mammal Science, 12(4):597-602. Available 

online at: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-7692.1996.tb00073.x. 

(JASCO, 2022). JASCO Applied Sciences. 2022. Personal Communication with David Zeddies, Ph.D., 

Director of U.S. Operations. August 2022. 

(Jeffries et al., 2019). Jeffries, S., D. Lynch, J. Waddell, S. Ament, and C. Pasi. 2019. Results of the 2019 

Survey of the Reintroduced Sea Otter Population in Washington State. Available online at:

https://www.fws.gov/sites/default/files/documents/WASeaOtterSurvey2019.pdf.

(Jones, 2001). Jones, I.L. 2001. Auks. In C. Elphick, J. B. Dunning, Jr., and D. A. Sibley (Eds.). The Sibley 

Guide to Bird Life and Behavior, pp. 309–318. New York, NY: Alfred A. Knopf, Inc.

(Jørgensen et al., 2004). Jørgensen, R., N.O. Handegard, H. Gjøsæter, and A. Slotte. 2004. Possible vessel 

avoidance behaviour of capelin in a feeding area and on a spawning ground. Fisheries Research, 

69(2):251-261. Available online at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fishres.2004.04.012.

(JRank, No Date). Law Library: American Law and Legal Information. No Date. Native American Rights: 

Hunting and Fishing Rights. Accessed October 2022 at: https://law.jrank.org/pages/8750/NativeAmerican-Rights-Hunting-Fishing-Rights.html. 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

633

(Ka’ai’ai, 2016). Ka’ai’ai, C. 2016. Western Pacific Indigenous Fishing Communities. Pacific Islands Fishery 

Monographs, No. 7. Available online at: http://www.wpcouncil.org/wpcontent/uploads/2020/11/Monograph7_Indigenous_Web_20161108.pdf. 

(Kane et al., 2010). Kane, A. S., J. Song, M. B. Halvorsen, D. L. Miller, J. D. Salierno, L. E. Wysocki, D. 

Zeddies, and A. N. Popper. 2010. Exposure of fish to high intensity sonar does not induce acute 

pathology. Journal of Fish Biology, 76(7):1825–1840. Available online at:

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1095-8649.2010.02626.x.

(Kappel, 2005). Kappel, C.V. 2005. Losing pieces of the puzzle; threats to marine, estuarine, and 

diadromous species. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 3(5):275-282. Available online at:

https://doi.org/10.1890/1540-9295(2005)003[0275:LPOTPT]2.0.CO;2.

(Kastelein et al., 2015). Kastelein, R.A., L. Helder-Hoek, G. Janssens, R. Gransier, and T. Johansson. 2015. 

Behavioral responses of harbor seals (Phoca vitulina) to sonar signals in the 25-kHz range. Aquatic 

Mammals, 41(4):388–399. Available online at: https://doi.org/10.1578/AM.41.4.2015.388. 

(Kawerak Inc., 2013). Kawerak, Inc. 2013. Seal and Walrus Harvest and Habitat Areas for Nine Bering 

Strait Region Communities. Available online at: https://eskimowalruscommission.org/wpcontent/uploads/2016/01/Seal-and-Walrus-Harvest-and-Habitat-Areas.pdf.

(Ketten et al., 1993). Ketten, D. R., J. Lien, and S. Todd. 1993. Blast injury in humpback whale ears: 

evidence and implications. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 94(3):1849-1850. 

Available online at: https://doi.org/10.1121/1.407688. 

(Ketten, 2000). Ketten, D.R. 2000. Cetacean ears. In: Hearing by whales and dolphins (Au, W.W.L., A.N. 

Popper, and R.R. Fay, Eds.). New York, NY: Springer. Pp. 43-108. Available online at:

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4612-1150-1_2.

(Kikuchi, 2010). Kikuchi, R. 2010. Risk formulation for the sonic effects of offshore wind farms on fish in 

the EU region. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 60(2):172-177. Available online at: 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2009.09.023. 

(Kite-Powell et al., 2004). Kite-Powell, H.L., C.S. Colgan, M.J. Kaiser, M. Luger, T. Pelsoci, L. Pendleton, 

A.G. Pulsipher, K.F. Wellman, and K. Wieand. 2004. Estimating the Economic Benefits of Regional 

Ocean Observing Systems. Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution. Available online at: 

https://doi.org/10.1575/1912/71. 

(Klein et al., 2012). Klein, J., M.D. Harris, W.M. Tankers, R. Meyer, G.C. Smith, and W.J. Chadwick. 2012. 

Evaluation of Visual Impact on Cultural Resources/Historic Properties: North Atlantic, Mid-Atlantic, 

South Atlantic, and Florida Straits. Volume I: Technical Report of Findings. OCS Study BOEM 2012-

006. Available online at: https://espis.boem.gov/final%20reports/5249.pdf.

(Kremser et al., 2005). Kremser, U., P. Klemm, and W.D. Kotz. 2005. Estimating the risk of temporary 

acoustic threshold shift, caused by hydroacoustic devices, in whales in the Southern Ocean. 

Antarctic Science, 17(1):3-10. Available online at: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954102005002361. 

(Kvadsheim et al., 2010). Kvadsheim, P.H., E.M. Sevaldsen, D. Scheie, L.P. Folkow, and A.S. Blix. 2010. 

Effects of Naval Sonar on Seals. Kjeller, Norway: Norwegian Defense Research Establishment. 

Available online at: https://ffipublikasjoner.archive.knowledgearc.net/bitstream/handle/20.500.12242/2446/10-

02222.pdf?isAllowed=y&sequence=1.
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

634

(Kvadsheim et al., 2017). Kvadsheim, P.H., S. DeRuiter, L.D. Sivle, J. Goldbogen, R. Roland-Hansen, P.J.O. 

Miller, F.A. Lam, J. Calambokidis, A. Friedlaender, F. Visser, P.L. Tyack, L. Kleivane, and B. Southall. 

2017. Avoidance responses of minke whales to 1-4 kHz naval sonar. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 

121(1–2):60–68. Available online at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2017.05.037.

(Kyhn et al., 2013). Kyhn L.A., J. Tougaard, K. Beedholm, F.H. Jensen, and E. Ashe. 2013. Clicking in a 

Killer Whale Habitat: Narrow-Band, High-Frequency Biosonar Clicks of Harbour Porpoise (Phocoena 

phocoena) and Dall’s Porpoise (Phocoenoides dalli). PLoS One, 8(5):e63763. Available online at: 

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0063763. 

(Laidre et al., 2009). Laidre, K.L., R.J. Jameson, E. Gurarie, S.J. Jeffries, and H. Allen. 2009. Spatial Habitat 

Use Patterns of Sea Otters in Coastal Washington. Journal of Mammalogy, 90(4):906–917. Available 

online at: https://doi.org/10.1644/08-MAMM-A-338.1. 

(Laist et al., 1999). Laist, D.W., J.M. Coe, and K.J. O’Hara. 1999. Marine debris pollution. In: Conservation 

and Management of Marine Mammals (J.R. Twiss Jr. and R.R. Reeves, Eds.). Smithsonian Institution 

Press, Washington DC. pp. 342-363. Available online at: https://doi.org/10.1644/1545-

1542(2001)082<0252:R>2.0.CO;2.

(Laist, 1997). Laist, D. 1997. Impacts of marine debris: Entanglement of marine life in marine debris 

including a comprehensive list of species with entanglement and ingestion records. In: Coe, J.M. and 

D.B. Rogers, eds. Marine debris: Sources, impacts, and solutions. Springer, New York. 99-139p.

Available online at: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4613-8486-1_10. 

(LEEDCo, No Date). Lake Erie Energy Development Corporation. No Date. The Project: Icebreaker Wind. 

Accessed October 2022 at: http://www.leedco.org/index.php/about-icebreaker.

(Lenhardt, 1994). Lenhardt, M. L. 1994. Seismic and very low frequency sound induced behaviors in 

captive loggerhead marine turtles (Caretta caretta). NOAA Technical Memorandum, NMFS-SEFSC351, Miami, Florida. Available online at: 

http://seaturtle.org/library/LenhardtML_1994_InProceedingsoftheFourteenthAnnualSym_p238-

241.pdf.

(Liberman, 2016). Liberman, M. C. 2016. Noise-induced hearing loss: Permanent versus temporary 

threshold shifts and the effects of hair cell versus neuronal degeneration. Advances in Experimental 

Medicine and Biology, 875:1–7. Available online at: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-2981-8_1. 

(Limburg and Waldman, 2009). Limburg, K.E. and J.R Waldman. 2009. Dramatic declines in North 

Atlantic diadromous fishes. BioScience, 59(11): 955-965. Available online at: 

https://doi.org/10.1525/bio.2009.59.11.7.

(Limpinsel et al., 2017). Limpinsel, D.E., M.P. Eagleton, and J.L Hanson. 2017. Impacts to Essential Fish 

Habitat from Non-Fishing Activities in Alaska. EFH 5 Year Review: 2010 through 2015. U.S. 

Department of Commerce, NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-F/AKR-14, 229p. Available online at:

https://doi.org/10.7289/V5/TM-F/AKR-14. 

(Lin, 2002). Lin, J. 2002. Animal diversity web: Alca torda, razorbill. Accessed October 2022 at: 

https://animaldiversity.org/accounts/Alca_torda/.

(Liu et al., 2017). Liu, M., L. Dong, M. Lin, and S. Li. 2017. Broadband ship noise and its potential impacts

on Indo-Pacific humpback dolphins: Implications for conservation and management. The Journal of 

the Acoustical Society of America, 142(5): 2766. Available online at:

https://doi.org/10.1121/1.5009444. 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

635

(Lombarte et al., 1993). Lombarte, A., H. Y. Yan, A. N. Popper, J. C. Chang, and C. Platt. 1993. Damage 

and regeneration of hair cell ciliary bundles in a fish ear following treatment with gentamicin. 

Hearing Research, 66:166–174. Available online at: https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-5955(93)90002-i. 

(Loughlin, 2009). Loughlin, T.R. 2009. Steller Sea Lion. Encyclopedia of Marine Mammals (Second 

Edition). Accessed October 2022 at: https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/agricultural-andbiological-sciences/steller-sea-lion.

(Lurton and DeRuiter, 2011). Lurton, X. and S. DeRuiter. 2011. Sound radiation of seafloor-mapping 

echosounders in the water column, in relation to the risks posed to marine mammals. The 

International Hydrographic Review, 6. Available online at:

https://journals.lib.unb.ca/index.php/ihr/article/view/20886.

(Madsen et al., 2006). Madsen, P.T., M. Johnson, P.J.O. Miller, N. Aguilar de Soto, J. Lynch, and P.L. 

Tyack. 2006. Quantitative measures of air-gun pulses recorded on sperm whales (Physeter 

macrocephalus) using acoustic tags during controlled exposure experiments. Journal of the 

Acoustical Society of America, 120(4):2366-2379. Available online at: 

https://doi.org/10.1121/1.2229287.

(MAFMC, No Date). Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council. No Date. Fishery Management Plans and 

Amendments. Available online at: http://www.mafmc.org/fishery-management-plans. 

(Malins and Hodgins, 1981). Malins, D.C. and H.O. Hodgins. 1981. Petroleum and Marine Fishes: A 

Review of Uptake, Disposition, and Effects. Environmental Science and Technology, 15(11):1272-

1280. Available online at: https://doi.org/10.1021/es00093a001.

(Mann et al., 1997). Mann D.A, Z. Lu, and A.N. Popper. 1997. A clupeid fish can detect ultrasound. 

Nature, 389(6649):341. Available online at: https://doi.org/10.1038/38636.

(Mann et al., 2001). Mann, D.A., D.M. Higgs, W.N. Tavolga, M.J. Souza, and A.N. Popper. 2001. 

Ultrasound detection by clupeiforme fishes. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 109:3048-

3054. Available online at: https://doi.org/10.1121/1.1368406. 

(Mann, 2016). Mann, D. A. 2016. Acoustic Communications in Fishes and Potential Effects of Noise. In:

The Effects of Noise on Aquatic Life II (A. N. Popper and A. D. Hawkins, Eds.). Advances in 

Experimental Medicine and Biology, 875. Springer, New York, NY. Available online at: 

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-2981-8_81. 

(Mansfield et al., 2009). Mansfield, K.L., V.S. Saba, J.A. Keinath, and J.A. Musick. 2009. Satellite tracking 

reveals a dichotomy in migration strategies among juvenile loggerhead turtles in the Northwest 

Atlantic. Marine Biology, 156(12):2555-2570. Available online at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00227-

009-1279-x.

(MARAD, 2021). U.S. Maritime Administration. 2021. Deepwater Ports Map. Accessed October 2022 at: 

https://www.maritime.dot.gov/ports/deepwater-ports-and-licensing/deepwater-ports-map.

(Marine Mammal Commission, 2006). Marine Mammal Commission. 2006. Advisory Committee on 

Acoustic Impacts on Marine Mammals, Report to the Marine Mammal Commission. 136p. Available 

online at: https://www.mmc.gov/wp-content/uploads/soundFACAreport.pdf.

(MarineBio, No Date). MarineBio Conservation Society. No Date. Marine Invertebrates. Accessed 

October 2022 at: https://marinebio.org/creatures/marine-invertebrates/.
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

636

(Matthews, 2017). Matthews, L. 2017. Harbor Seal (Phoca vitulina) Reproductive Advertisement 

Behavior and the Effects of Vessel Noise. Dissertations - ALL, 718. Available online at: 

https://surface.syr.edu/etd/718.

(McCauley et al., 2000a). McCauley, R.D., J. Fewtrell, A.J. Duncan, C. Jenner, M.N. Jenner, J.D. Penrose, 

R.I.T. Prince, A. Adhitya, J. Murdoch, and K. McCabe. 2000. Marine seismic surveys: Analysis and 

propagation of air-gun signals; and effects of air-gun exposure on humpback whales, sea turtles, 

fishes and squid. Project CMST 163, Report R99-15. Curtin University of Technology, Western 

Australia. Available online at: https://cmst.curtin.edu.au/wpcontent/uploads/sites/4/2016/05/McCauley-et-al-Seismic-effects-2000.pdf.

(McCauley et al., 2000b). McCauley, R.D., J. Fewtrell, A.J. Duncan, C. Jenner, M.-N. Jenner, J.D. Penrose, 

R.I.T. Prince, A. Adhitya, J. Murdoch and K. McCabe. 2000. Marine seismic surveys – a study of 

environmental implications. APPEA Journal, 40:692-706. Available online at: 

http://www.cwr.org.au/wp-content/uploads/appea2000.pdf.

(McDonald et al., 2008). McDonald, M.A., J.A. Hildebrand, S.M. Wiggins, and D. Ross. 2008. A 50-year 

comparison of ambient ocean noise near San Clemente Island: A bathymetrically complex coastal 

region off southern California. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 124(4):1985-1992. 

Available online at: https://doi.org/10.1121/1.2967889.

(McDonald et al., 2009). McDonald, M.A., J.A. Hildebrand, S.M. Wiggins, D.W. Johnston, and J.J. 

Polovina. 2009. An acoustic survey of beaked whales at Cross Seamount near Hawaii. The Journal of 

the Acoustical Society of America, 125(2):624–627. Available online at:

https://doi.org/10.1121/1.3050317. 

(McMahan, 2007). McMahan, D.J. 2007. Management of Alaska’s Submerged Cultural Resources: A 

Current Assessment. Alaska Journal of Anthropology, 5(2):55-66. Available online at: 

http://www.alaskaanthropology.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/Vol_5_2-McMahan.pdf.

(MDC, No Date). Missouri Department of Conservation. No Date. Aquatic Invertebrate Facts. Accessed 

October 2022 at: https://mdc.mo.gov/wildlife/wildlife-facts/aquatic-invertebrate-facts.

(Meissner et al., 2015). Meissner A.M., F. Christiansen, E. Martinez, M.D.M. Pawley, M.B Orams, and K.A 

Stockin. 2015. Behavioural Effects of Tourism on Oceanic Common Dolphins, Delphinus sp., in New 

Zealand: The Effects of Markov Analysis Variations and Current Tour Operator Compliance with 

Regulations. PLoS One, 10(1):e0116962. Available online at: 

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0116962.

(Miccosukee Tribe of Indians, 2010). Miccosukee Tribe of Indians. 2010. 2010 Everglades Invasive 

Species Summit. PowerPoint Presentation. Available online at: 

https://bugwoodcloud.org/mura/ECISMA/assets/File/summit10/11Miccosukee.pdf.

(Mikkelsen et al., 2019). Mikkelsen, L., M. Johnson, D.M. Wisniewska, A. van Neer, U. Siebert, P. 

Teglberg Madsen, and J. Teilmann. 2019. Long-Term Sound and Movement Recording Tags to Study 

Natural Behavior and Reaction to Ship Noise of Seals. Ecology and Evolution, 9(5):2588–2601. 

Available online at: https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.4923.

(Miksis-Olds et al., 2007). Miksis-Olds, J.L., P.L. Donaghay, J.H. Miller, P.L. Tyack, and J.A. Nystuen. 2007. 

Noise Level Correlates with Manatee Use of Foraging Habitats. The Journal of the Acoustical Society 

of America, 121(5):3011–20. Available online at: https://doi.org/10.1121/1.2713555.

(Miller et al., 2015). Miller, P.J., P H. Kvadsheim, F P. Lam, P L. Tyack, C. Cure, S L. DeRuiter, L. Kleivane, 

L.D. Sivle, I.S.P. van, F. Visser, P.J. Wensveen, A.M. von Benda-Beckmann, L.M. Martin Lopez, T. 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

637

Narazaki, and S.K. Hooker. 2015. First indications that northern bottlenose whales are sensitive to 

behavioural disturbance from anthropogenic noise. Royal Society Open Science, 2(6):140484. 

Available online at: https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.140484.

(Miller et al., 2000). Miller, P J.O., N. Biassoni, A. Samuels, and P.L. Tyack. 2000. Whale songs lengthen in 

response to sonar. Nature, 405(6789):903. Available online at: 

https://www.nature.com/articles/35016148.pdf.

(Misund, 1997). Misund, O.A. 1997. Underwater acoustics in marine fisheries and fisheries research. 

Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries, 7:1-34. Available online at:

https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1018476523423.

(MMS, 2002). Minerals Management Service, U.S. Department of the Interior. 2002. Programmatic 

Environmental Assessment for Grid 15. Site-Specific Evaluation of TotalFinaElf Exploration and

Production USA, Inc.’s Initial Development Operations Coordination Document, N-7249. Matterhorn 

Project, Mississippi Canyon Block 243. OCS EIS/EA MMS 2002-042. Available online at: 

https://www.boem.gov/sites/default/files/environmental-stewardship/EnvironmentalAssessment/NEPA/grid15ea.pdf.

(MMS, 2007). Minerals Management Service, U.S. Department of the Interior. 2007. ChukchiSea 

Planning Area, Oil and Gas Lease Sale 193 and Seismic Surveying Activities in the Chukchi Sea, Final 

Environmental Impact Statement. OCS EIS/EA MMS 2007-026. Available online at: 

https://www.boem.gov/sites/default/files/uploadedFiles/BOEM/About_BOEM/BOEM_Regions/Alas

ka_Region/Environment/Environmental_Analysis/2007-026-Vol%20I.pdf.

(MMS, 2010). Minerals Management Service, U.S. Department of the Interior. 2010. Subsistence 

Mapping of Nuiqsut, Kaktovik, and Barrow. MMS OCS Study Number 2009-003. Available online at: 

http://www.northslope.org/assets/images/uploads/Braund%202010%20Beaufort%20maps%20MM

S_MP_Final_Report_Apr2010.pdf. 

(Moberg and Mench, 2000). Moberg, G.P., and J.A. Mench. 2000. The Biology of Animal Stress; Basic 

Principles and Implications for Animal Welfare. London, United Kingdom: CAB International.

Available online at: https://doi.org/10.1079/9780851993591.0000. 

(Møhl et al., 2003). Møhl, B. M. Wahlber, and P.T. Madsen. 2003. The monopulsed nature of sperm 

whale clicks. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 114(2):1143. Available online at: 

https://doi.org/10.1121/1.1586258 .

(Molnar et al., 2008). Molnar, J.L., R.L. Gamboa, C. Revenga, and M.D. Spalding. 2008. Assessing the 

global threat of invasive species to marine biodiversity. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment,

6:485-492. Available online at: https://doi.org/10.1890/070064.

(Mooney et al., 2009a). Mooney, T.A., P.E. Nachtigall, and S. Vlachos, S. 2009. Sonar-induced temporary 

hearing loss in dolphins. Biology Letters, 5(4):565-567. Available online at: 

https://doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2009.0099.

(Mooney et al., 2009b). Mooney, T.A., P.E. Nachtigall, M. Breese, S. Vlachos, W. Whitlow, and L. Au. 

2009. Predicting temporary threshold shifts in a bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus): The effects 

of noise level and duration. Journal of Acoustical Society of America, 125(3):1816-1826. Available 

online at: https://doi.org/10.1121/1.3068456.

(Mooney et al., 2010). Mooney, T. A. Mooney, R. T. Hanlon, J. Christensen-Dalsgaard, P. T. Madsen, D. R. 

Ketten, and P. E. Nachtigall. 2010. Sound Detection by the Longfin Squid (Loligo pealeii) Studied with 

Auditory Evoked Potentials: Sensitivity to Low-Frequency Particle Motion and Not Pressure. The 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

638

Journal of Experimental Biology, 213(21):3748-3759. Available online at: 

https://doi.org/10.1242/jeb.048348. 

(Moore, 2008). Moore, C.J. 2008. Synthetic polymers in the marine environment: A rapidly increasing, 

long-term threat. Environmental Research, 108(2):131-139. Available online at: 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2008.07.025.

(Moulton and Marshall, 1996). Moulton, D. and A. Marshall. 1996. Laysan Duck. In: The Birds of North 

America (A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology. Available online at: 

https://birdsna.org.

(Musial et al., 2022). Musial W., P. Spitsen, P. Duffy, P. Beiter, M. Marquis, R. Hammond, and M. Shields. 

2022. Offshore Wind Market Report: 2022 Edition. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency 

& Renewable Energy. Available online at: https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2022-

09/offshore-wind-market-report-2022-v2.pdf.

(Musick et al., 2009). Musick, J.A., M.M Harbin, S.A. Berkeley, G.H. Burgess, A.M. Eklund, L. Findley, and 

S.G. Wright. 2009. Marine, estuarine, and diadromous fish stocks at risk of extinction in North 

America (exclusive of Pacific salmonids). American Fisheries Society, 25(11):6-30. Available online at: 

https://doi.org/10.1577/1548-8446(2000)025<0006:MEADFS>2.0.CO;2.

(Muto et al., 2018). Muto, M.M, V.T. Helker, R.P. Angliss, B.A. Allen, P.L. Boveng, J.M. Breiwick, M.F. 

Cameron, P.J. Clapham, S.P. Dahle, M.E. Dahlheim, B.S. Fadely, M.C. Ferguson, L.W. Fritz, R.C. Hobbs, 

Y.V. Ivashchenko, A.S. Kennedy, J.M. London, S.A. Mizroch, R.R. Ream, E.L. Richmond, K.E.W. 

Shelden, R.G. Towell, P.R. Wade, J.M. Waite, and A.N. Zerbini. 2018. Alaska Marine Mammal Stock 

Assessments, 2017. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-AFSC-378; 383 p. Available online at: 

https://repository.library.noaa.gov/view/noaa/18114.

(Muto et al., 2020). Muto, M.M, V.T. Helker, B.J. Delean, R.P. Angliss, P.L. Boveng, J.M. Breiwick, B.M. 

Brost, M.F. Cameron, P.J. Clapham, S.P. Dahle, M.E. Dahlheim, B.S. Fadely, M.C. Ferguson, L.W. Fritz, 

R.C. Hobbs, Y.V. Ivashchenko, A.S. Kennedy, J.M. London, S.A. Mizroch, R.R. Ream, E.L. Richmond, 

K.E.W. Shelden, R.G. Towell, P.R. Wade, J.M. Waite, and A.N. Zerbini. 2020. Alaska Marine Mammal 

Stock Assessments: 2019. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-AFSC-404; 395 p. Available online 

at: https://media.fisheries.noaa.gov/dam-migration/2019_sars_alaska_508.pdf. 

(Muto et al., 2022). Muto, M.M, V.T. Helker, B.J. Delean, N.C. Young, J.C. Freed,R.P. Angliss, N.A. Friday, 

P.L. Boveng, J.M. Breiwick, B.M. Brost, M.F. Cameron, P.J. Clapham, J.L. Crance, S.P. Dahle, M.E. 

Dahlheim, B.S. Fadely, M.C. Ferguson, L.W. Fritz, K.T. Goetz, R.C. Hobbs, Y.V. Ivashchenko, A.S. 

Kennedy, J.M. London, S.A. Mizroch, R.R. Ream, E.L. Richmond, K.E.W. Shelden, K.L. Sweeney, R.G. 

Towell, P.R. Wade, J.M. Waite, and A.N. Zerbini. 2022. Alaska Marine Mammal Stock Assessments: 

2021. NOAA Technical Memorandum NOAA-TM-AFSC-441; 304 p. Available online at: 

https://media.fisheries.noaa.gov/2022-08/NOAA-TM-AFSC-441.pdf. 

(Myers and Worm, 2003). Myers, R.A. and B. Worm. 2003. Rapid worldwide depletion of predatory fish 

communities. Nature, 423(6937):280–283. Available online at:

https://doi.org/10.1038/nature01610.

(Nachtigall et al., 2004). Nachtigall, P.E., A.Y. Supin, J. Pawloski, and W.W.L. Au. 2004. Temporary 

threshold shifts after noise exposure in the bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus) measured using 

evoked auditory potentials. Marine Mammal Science, 20: 673-687. Available online at: 

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-7692.2004.tb01187.x. 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

639

(Nachtigall et al., 2005). Nachtigall, P.E., M.M.L. Yuen, T.A. Mooney, and K.A. Taylor. 2005. Hearing 

measurements from a stranded infant Risso's dolphin, Grampus griseus. Journal of Experimental 

Biology, 208(21):4181-4188. Available online at: https://doi.org/10.1242/jeb.01876.

(Nachtigall et al., 2007). Nachtigall, P.E, A.Y. Supin, M. Amundin, B. Roken, T. Moller, T.A. Mooney, K.A. 

Taylor, and M. Yuen. 2007. Polar bear Ursus maritimus hearing measured with auditory evoked 

potentials. The Journal of Experimental Biology, 210:1116-1122. Available online at:

https://doi.org/10.1242/jeb.02734.

(NAP, 2010). National Academies Press. 2010. Overview of Ecosystem Services Provided by Bivalve 

Mariculture. Available online at: https://nap.nationalacademies.org/read/12802/chapter/1.

(NatGeo, 2018). National Geographic. 2018. 7,000-Year-Old Native American Burial Site Found 

Underwater. Accessed October 2022 at: 

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2018/02/florida-native-american-indian-burialunderwater/.

(Navy, 2015). U.S. Department of the Navy. 2015. Northwest Training and Testing, Final Environmental 

Impact Statement/Overseas Environmental Impact Statement. Prepared by Commander, United 

States Pacific Fleet; Naval Sea Systems Command; Naval Air Systems Command. Available online at: 

https://www.nwtteis.com/Documents/2015-Northwest-Training-and-Testing-Final-EIS-OEIS/2015-

Final-EIS-OEIS. 

(Navy, 2017a). U.S. Department of the Navy. 2017. Marine Mammal Strandings Associated with U.S. 

Navy Sonar Activities. Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center Pacific, San Diego. 47p. Available 

online at: 

https://www.hstteis.com/portals/hstteis/files/reports/Marine_Mammal_Strandings_Associated_wit

h_U.S._Navy_Sonar_Activities_June2017.pdf. 

(Navy, 2017b). U.S. Department of the Navy. 2017. Criteria and Thresholds for U.S. Navy Acoustic and 

Explosive Effects Analysis (Phase III). Technical Report. SSC Pacific. Available online at:

https://www.hstteis.com/portals/hstteis/files/reports/Criteria_and_Thresholds_for_U.S._Navy_

Acoustic_and_Explosive_Effects_Analysis_June2017.pdf. 

(Navy, 2018a). U.S. Department of the Navy. 2018. Hawaii-Southern California Training and Testing 

Environmental Impact Statement/Overseas Environmental Impact Statement. Available online at: 

https://www.hstteis.com/Documents/2018-Hawaii-Southern-California-Training-and-Testing-FinalEIS-OEIS/Final-EIS-OEIS.

(Navy, 2018b). U.S. Department of the Navy. 2018. Incidental Take Authorization: U.S. Navy Operations 

of Surveillance Towed Array Sensor System Low Frequency Active (SURTASS LFA) Sonar. Available 

online at: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/action/incidental-take-authorization-us-navy-operationssurveillance-towed-array-sensor-system-0.

(Navy, 2020). U.S. Department of the Navy, Naval Sea Systems Command. 2020. Northwest Training and 

Testing, Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement/Overseas Environmental Impact 

Statement. Available online at: https://www.nwtteis.com/. 

(NCAI, No Date). National Congress of American Indians. No Date. Tribal Governance. Accessed October 

2022 at: http://www.ncai.org/policy-issues/tribal-governance. 

(NCEI, 2022). National Centers for Environmental Information, NOAA. 2022. Annual 2021 Global Climate 

Report. Accessed October 2022 at: https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/monthlyreport/global/202113. 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

640

(Nedelec et al., 2016). Nedelec, S.L., J. Campbell, A.N. Radford, S.D. Simpson, and N.D. Merchant. 2016. 

Particle motion: the missing link in underwater acoustic ecology. Methods in Ecology and Evolution. 

British Ecological Society, 7(7):836-842. Available online at: https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-

210X.12544.

(Neenan et al., 2016). Neenan, S. T. V., R. Piper, P. R. White, P. Kemp, T. G. Leighton, and P. J. Shaw. 

2016. Does Masking Matter? Shipping Noise and Fish Vocalizations. In: The Effects of Noise on 

Aquatic Life II (A. N. Popper and A. D. Hawkins, Eds.). Pp. 747–754. New York, NY: Springer. Available 

online at: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-2981-8_91. 

(Neff et al., 2000). Neff, J. M., S. Ostazeski, W. Gardiner and I. Stejskal. 2000. Effects of weathering on 

the toxicity of three offshore Australian crude oils and a diesel fuel to marine animals. 

Environmental Toxicology, 19(7):1809-21. Available online at:

https://doi.org/10.1002/etc.5620190715. 

(NEFMC, 2016). New England Fishery Management Council. 2016. Omnibus Essential Fish Habitat 

Amendment 2 Volume 2: EFH and HAPC Designation Alternatives and Environmental Impacts. 

Amendment 14 to the Northeast Multispecies FMP, Amendment 14 to the Atlantic Sea Scallop FMP, 

Amendment 4 to the Monkfish FMP, Amendment 3 to the Atlantic Herring FMP, Amendment 2 to 

the Red Crab FMP, Amendment 2 to the Skate FMP, Amendment 3 to the Atlantic Salmon FMP, 

Including a Final Environmental Impact Statement. Available online at: 

https://s3.amazonaws.com/nefmc.org/OA2-FEIS_Vol_2_FINAL_171025.pdf.

(NEFMC, 2018). New England Fishery Management Council. 2018. Framework Adjustment 57 To the 

Northeast Multispecies FMP. Available online at: 

https://s3.amazonaws.com/nefmc.org/180302_Groundfish_FW57__EA_formal_sub.pdf.

(NEFMC, No Date). New England Fishery Management Council. No Date. View Management Plans. 

Available online at: https://www.nefmc.org/.

(Nelms et al., 2016). Nelms, S.E., W.E.D. Piniak, C.R. Weir, and B.J. Godley. 2016. Seismic surveys and 

marine turtles: An underestimated global threat? Biological Conservation, 193:49–65. Available 

online at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2015.10.020.

(Nelson and Hamer, 1995). Nelson, S.K. and T.E. Hamer. 1995. Chapter 5: Nesting Biology and Behavior 

of the Marbled Murrelet. In: Ralph, C.J., G.L. Hunt, Jr., M.G. Raphael, and J.F. Piatt (Technical 

Editors). Ecology and conservation of the Marbled Murrelet. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-152. Albany, 

CA: Pacific Southwest Research Station, Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture; p. 57-68. 

Available online at: https://www.fs.usda.gov/treesearch/pubs/27887.

(Nelson et al., 2019) Nelson, M., L. Quakenbush, B. Taras, and Ice Seal Committee. 2019. Subsistence 

harvest of ringed, bearded, spotted, and ribbon seals in Alaska is sustainable. Endangered Species 

Research, 40:1-16. Available online at: https://doi.org/10.3354/esr00973.

(Nelson, 2016). Nelson, J.S. 2016. The Fishes of the World, 5th Edition. John Wiley and Sons, New York, 

NY. Available online at: https://www.wiley.com/en-us/Fishes+of+the+World,+5th+Edition-p9781118342336. 

(NERACOOS, No Date). Northeastern Regional Association of Coastal Ocean Observing Systems. No Date. 

About Ocean Observing Systems. Accessed October 2022 at:

http://drupal.neracoos.org/about/ocean_observing.

(NETL, No Date). National Energy Technology Laboratory. No Date. Offshore Projects. Accessed October 

2022 at: https://netl.doe.gov/coal/carbon-storage/storage-infrastructure/offshore-projects.
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

641

(New and Yen, 1995). New, T.R. and A.L. Yen. 1995. Ecological Importance and Invertebrate 

Conservation. Oryx, 29(3):187-191. Available online at: 

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0030605300021116. 

(Newman, 2019). Newman, M.C. 2019. Uptake, biotransformation, detoxification, elimination, and 

accumulation. Fundamentals of Ecotoxicology. 5th Edition. CRC Press. Available online at: 

https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/mono/10.1201/9781351133999-3/uptakebiotransformation-detoxification-elimination-accumulation-michael-newman.

(Nichols and Wilcox, 2004). Nichols, S.J. and D.A. Wilcox. 2004. Great Lakes Clams Find Refuge from 

Zebra Mussels in Restored, Lake-Connected Marsh. Ecological Restoration, 22(1):51-52. Available 

online at: http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12648/7543. 

(Niles et al., 2008). Niles, L.J., H.P. Sitters, A.D. Dey, P.W. Atkinson, A.J. Baker, K.A. Bennett, R. Carmona, 

K.E. Clark, N.A. Clark, C. Espoz, P.M. González, B.A. Harrington, D.E. Hernández., K.S. Kalasz, R.G. 

Lathrop, R.N. Matus, C.D.T. Minton, R.I.G. Morrison, M.K. Peck, W. Pitts., R.A. Robinson, and I.L. 

Serrano. 2008. Status of the red knot (Calidris canutus rufa) in the western hemisphere. Studies in 

Avian Biology, No. 36. Cooper Ornithological Society. Available online at: 

https://sora.unm.edu/sites/default/files/journals/sab/sab_036.pdf.

(Nisbet et al., 2014). Nisbet, C., M. Gochfeld, and J. Burger. 2014. Roseate Tern. In: The Birds of North 

America (A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology. Available online at: 

https://birdsna.org.

(NLA, No Date-a). Native Languages of the Americas. No Date. Native American Salmon Mythology. 

Accessed October 2022 at: http://www.native-languages.org/legends-salmon.htm.

(NLA, No Date-b). Native Languages of the Americas. No Date. Native American Halibut Mythology. 

Accessed October 2022 at: http://www.native-languages.org/legends-halibut.htm.

(NMFS and USFWS, 2007). National Marine Fisheries Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2007. 

Green Sea Turtle (Chelonia mydas) 5-Year Review: Summary and Evaluation. 105 p. Available online

at: https://ecos.fws.gov/docs/five_year_review/doc1078.pdf.

(NMFS and USFWS, 2008). U.S. Department of Commerce, National Marine Fisheries Service, and U.S. 

Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service. 2008. Recovery plan for the Northwest Atlantic 

population of the loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta caretta), second revision. National Marine Fisheries 

Service, Silver Spring, MD. Available online at: https://repository.library.noaa.gov/view/noaa/3720.

(NMFS and USFWS, 2013a). National Marine Fisheries Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2013. 

Hawksbill Sea Turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata) 5-Year Review: Summary and Evaluation. 92 p. 

Available online at: https://ecos.fws.gov/docs/five_year_review/doc4168.pdf.

(NMFS and USFWS, 2013b). National Marine Fisheries Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2013. 

Leatherback Sea Turtle (Dermochelys coriacea) 5-Year Review: Summary and Evaluation. 93 p. 

Available online at: https://ecos.fws.gov/docs/five_year_review/doc4313.pdf. 

(NMFS and USFWS, 2014). National Marine Fisheries Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2014. 

Olive Ridley Sea Turtle (Lepidochelys olivacea) 5-Year Review: Summary and Evaluation. 87 p. 

Available online at: https://ecos.fws.gov/docs/five_year_review/doc5824.pdf. 

(NMFS and USFWS, 2015). National Marine Fisheries Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2015. 

Kemp’s Ridley Sea Turtle (Lepidochelys kempii) 5-Year Review: Summary and Evaluation. 63 p. 

Available online at: https://ecos.fws.gov/docs/five_year_review/doc4585.pdf. 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

642

(NMFS, 1999). National Marine Fisheries Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 

1999. Agreement between the National Marine Fisheries Service and the Alaska Beluga Whale 

Committee. Available online at: https://media.fisheries.noaa.gov/dam-migration/abwccomanagement1999-akr.pdf.

(NMFS, 2007a). National Marine Fisheries Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 

2007. Puget Sound Salmon Recovery Plan. Available online at:

https://repository.library.noaa.gov/view/noaa/16005.

(NMFS, 2007b). National Marine Fisheries Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 

2007. Upper Columbia Spring Chinook Salmon and Steelhead Recovery Plan. Available online at:

https://repository.library.noaa.gov/view/noaa/15990.

(NMFS, 2009). National Marine Fisheries Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 

2009. Recovery Plan for Lake Ozette Sockeye Salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka). Available online at:

https://repository.library.noaa.gov/view/noaa/4200.

(NMFS, 2010). National Marine Fisheries Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 

2010. Status Review of the Largetooth Sawfish (Pristis perotteti). Available online at: 

https://repository.library.noaa.gov/view/noaa/16287.

(NMFS, 2011). National Marine Fisheries Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 

2011. Upper Willamette River Conservation and Recovery Plan for Chinook Salmon and Steelhead. 

Available online at: https://repository.library.noaa.gov/view/noaa/15981.

(NMFS, 2012). National Marine Fisheries Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 

2012. Final Recovery Plan for Central California Coast Coho Salmon Evolutionarily Significant Unit. 

Available online at: https://repository.library.noaa.gov/view/noaa/15987.

(NMFS, 2013). National Marine Fisheries Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 

2013. ESA Recovery Plan for Lower Columbia River Coho Salmon, Lower Columbia River Chinook 

Salmon, Columbia River Chum Salmon, and Lower Columbia River Steelhead. Available online at:

https://repository.library.noaa.gov/view/noaa/16002.

(NMFS, 2014a). National Marine Fisheries Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 

2014. Recovery Plan for the Evolutionarily Significant Units of Sacramento River Winter-Run Chinook 

Salmon and Central Valley Spring-Run Chinook Salmon and the Distinct Population Segment of 

California Central Valley Steelhead. Available online at:

https://www.noaa.gov/sites/default/files/legacy/document/2020/Oct/07354626272.pdf.

(NMFS, 2014b). National Marine Fisheries Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 

2014. Final Recovery Plan for the Southern Oregon/Northern California Coast Evolutionarily 

Significant Unit of Coho Salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch). Available online at:

https://repository.library.noaa.gov/view/noaa/15985. 

(NMFS, 2014c). National Marine Fisheries Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 

2014. Status Review Report: Scalloped Hammerhead Shark (Sphyrna lewini). Available online at: 

https://repository.library.noaa.gov/view/noaa/17835.

(NMFS, 2015a). National Marine Fisheries Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

2015. Our Living Oceans: Habitat. Status of the habitat of U.S. living marine resources. U.S. 

Department of Commerce, NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-F/SPO-75. Available online at: 

https://spo.nmfs.noaa.gov/sites/default/files/tm75.pdf. 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

643

(NMFS, 2015b). National Marine Fisheries Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 

2015. ESA Recovery Plan for Snake River Sockeye Salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka). Available online at: 

https://repository.library.noaa.gov/view/noaa/16001.

(NMFS, 2015c). National Marine Fisheries Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 

2015. Draft Environmental Impact Statement on the Makah Tribe Request to Hunt Gray Whales. 

Available online at: https://media.fisheries.noaa.gov/dam-migration/2015-makah-deis-508.pdf.

(NMFS, 2015d). National Marine Fisheries Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 

2015. Subsistence Halibut Program: Small Entity Compliance Guide. Available online at:

https://media.fisheries.noaa.gov/dam-migration/subsistence-halibut-overview.pdf.

(NMFS, 2016a). National Marine Fisheries Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 

2016. Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean, Final Environmental Impact Statement. 

Available online at: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammalprotection/environmental-impact-statement-eis-effects-oil-and-gas-activities.

(NMFS, 2016b). National Marine Fisheries Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 

2016. Final Coastal Multispecies Recovery Plan: California Coastal Chinook Salmon, Northern 

California Steelhead, Central California Coast Steelhead. Available online at: 

https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/resource/document/final-coastal-multispecies-recovery-plancalifornia-coastal-chinook-salmon.

(NMFS, 2016c). National Marine Fisheries Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 

2016. Final ESA Recovery Plan for Oregon Coast Coho Salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch). Available 

online at: https://repository.library.noaa.gov/view/noaa/15986.

(NMFS, 2016d). National Marine Fisheries Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 

2016. Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean Final Environmental Impact Statement. 

Available online at: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammalprotection/environmental-impact-statement-eis-effects-oil-and-gas-activities. 

(NMFS, 2017a). National Marine Fisheries Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 

2017. ESA Recovery Plan for Snake River Fall Chinook Salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha). Available 

online at: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/resource/document/recovery-plan-snake-river-fallchinook-salmon.

(NMFS, 2017b). National Marine Fisheries Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 

2017. ESA Recovery Plan for Snake River Spring/Summer Chinook Salmon (Oncorhynchus 

tshawytscha) & Snake River Basin Steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss). Available online at: 

https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/resource/document/recovery-plan-snake-river-spring-summerchinook-salmon-and-snake-river-basin.

(NMFS, 2017c). National Marine Fisheries Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 

2017. Recovery Plan for the Southern Distinct Population Segment of Eulachon (Thaleichthys 

pacificus). Available online at: https://repository.library.noaa.gov/view/noaa/15989.

(NMFS, 2017d). National Marine Fisheries Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 

2017. Rockfish Recovery Plan Puget Sound / Georgia Basin Yelloweye Rockfish (Sebastes ruberrimus) 

and Bocaccio (Sebastes paucispinis). Available online at: 

https://repository.library.noaa.gov/view/noaa/16866.

(NMFS, 2017e). National Marine Fisheries Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 

2017. Fisheries Economics of the United States 2015, Economic and Sociocultural Status and Trends 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

644

Series. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-F/SPO-170. Available online at: 

https://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/Assets/economics/publications/FEUS/FEUS-2015/ReportChapters/FEUS%202015%20All%20Chapters_Final4_508.pdf.

(NMFS, 2017f). National Marine Fisheries Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 

2017. Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for Management of the Subsistence 

Harvest of Northern Fur Seals on St. Paul Island, Alaska. Available online at: 

https://www.alaskapublic.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/NOAA-NMFS-2017-0117-0002.pdf.

(NMFS, 2018a). National Marine Fisheries Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 

2018. 2018 Revision to: Technical Guidance for Assessing the Effects of Anthropogenic Sound on 

Marine Mammal Hearing (Version 2.0) Underwater Thresholds for Onset of Permanent and 

Temporary Threshold Shifts. Available online at: 

https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/resource/document/technical-guidance-assessing-effectsanthropogenic-sound-marine-mammal.

(NMFS, 2018b). National Marine Fisheries Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 

2018. Biological Opinion on the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management's Issuance of Five Oil and Gas 

Permits for Geological and Geophysical Seismic Surveys off the Atlantic Coast of the United States, 

and the National Marine Fisheries Services' Issuance of Associated Incidental Harassment 

Authorizations. Available online at: https://repository.library.noaa.gov/view/noaa/19552.

(NMFS, 2018c). National Marine Fisheries Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 

2018. 2018 Report to Congress on the Status of U.S. Fisheries. Available online at: 

https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/2018-report-congress-status-us-fisheries.

(NMFS, 2019a). National Marine Fisheries Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 

2019. Essential Fish Habitat Data Inventory. Accessed October 2022 at: 

https://www.habitat.noaa.gov/application/efhinventory/index.html.

(NMFS, 2019b). National Marine Fisheries Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 

2019. Atlantic HMS Fishery Management Plans and Amendments. Available online at: 

https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/atlantic-highly-migratory-species/atlantic-hms-fisherymanagement-plans-and-amendments.

(NMFS, 2019c). National Marine Fisheries Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 

2019. Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for Management of the Subsistence 

Harvest of Northern Fur Seals on St. Paul Island, Alaska. Available online at:

https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/resource/document/draft-environmental-impact-statementmanagement-subsistence-harvest-northern-fur.

(NMFS, 2019d). National Marine Fisheries Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 

2019. Incidental Take Authorizations Points Map. Accessed October 2022 at: 

https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/resource/map/incidental-take-authorizations-points-map.

(NMFS, 2019e). National Marine Fisheries Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 

2019. Draft Programmatic Environmental Assessment for Fisheries and Ecosystem Research 

Conducted and Funded by the Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center. Available online at:

https://dcrm.gov.mp/wp-content/uploads/crm/PIFSC-Public-Draft-PEA-2019edition.pdf.

(NMFS, 2020). National Marine Fisheries Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 

2020. Fisheries of the United States 2018 Report. Available online at: 

https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/resource/document/fisheries-united-states-2018-report.
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

645

(NMFS, 2021a). National Marine Fisheries Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 

2021. Alaska Region Marine Mammal Annual Stranding Summary Reports. Accessed October 2022 

at: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/resource/document/alaska-region-marine-mammal-annualstranding-reports.

(NMFS, 2021b). National Marine Fisheries Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 

2021. NOAA Fisheries Updated Impact Assessment of the COVID-19 Crisis on the U.S. Commercial 

Seafood and Recreational For-Hire/Charter Industries. Available online at: 

https://media.fisheries.noaa.gov/2021-02/Updated-COVID-19-Impact-Assessment-webready.pdf.

(NMFS, 2022). National Marine Fisheries Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 

2022. Makah Tribal Whale Hunt. Accessed October 2022 at: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/westcoast/marine-mammal-protection/makah-tribal-whalehunt#:~:text=The%20Makah%20Indian%20Tribe%20has%20requested%20authorization%20to%20h

unt%20eastern,1855%20Treaty%20of%20Neah%20Bay.

(NMFS, No Date-a). National Marine Fisheries Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration. No Date. Find a Species. Accessed October 2022 at: 

https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/find-species.

(NMFS, No Date-b). National Marine Fisheries Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration. No Date. Science & Data. https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/resources/data-andmaps?title=critical+habitat&field_species_vocab_target_id=&sort_by=created.

(NMFS, No Date-c). National Marine Fisheries Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration. No Date. Recorded Fatal Ship Strikes on Endangered Whales in CA 2007-2020. 

Available online at: https://nmsfarallones.blob.core.windows.net/farallonesprod/media/docs/2007-2020-recorded-fatal-strikes-on-endangered-whales-in-ca.pdf. 

(NMFS, No Date-d). National Marine Fisheries Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration. No Date. Pinniped Entanglement in Marine Debris. Accessed October 2022 at: 

https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/alaska/marine-life-distress/pinniped-entanglement-marine-debris.

(NMFS, No Date-e). National Marine Fisheries Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration. No Date. Native American Tribes: Sovereign Relations. Accessed October 2022 at: 

https://www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov/whatwedo/sovereign_relations/.

(NMFS, No Date-f). National Marine Fisheries Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration. No Date. Formal Rulemaking on Proposed MMPA Waiver and Hunt Regulations 

Governing Gray Whale Hunts by the Makah Tribe. Accessed October 2022 at: 

https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/action/formal-rulemaking-proposed-mmpa-waiver-and-huntregulations-governing-gray-whale-hunts-makah.

(NMFS, No Date-g). National Marine Fisheries Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration. No Date. Sovereign Relations on the West Coast. Accessed October 2022 at: 

https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/west-coast/partners/sovereign-relations-west-coast.

(NMFS, No Date-h). National Marine Fisheries Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration. No Date. Frequently Asked Questions: Alaska Subsistence Halibut Program. 

Accessed October 2022 at: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/alaska/sustainable-fisheries/frequentlyasked-questions-alaska-subsistence-halibut-program#1.-how-many-halibut-can-i-catch-and-have-inmy-possession?.
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

646

(NMFS, No Date-i). National Marine Fisheries Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

No Date. U.S. Aquaculture. Accessed October 2022 at: 

https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/aquaculture/us-aquaculture.

(NOAA, 2008a). National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 2008. Cook Inlet Beluga Whale 

Subsistence Harvest Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement. Available online at: 

https://repository.library.noaa.gov/view/noaa/4948.

(NOAA, 2008b). National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 2008. Recovery Plan for the Steller 

Sea Lion. Available online at: https://repository.library.noaa.gov/view/noaa/15974.

(NOAA, 2014a). National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 2014. Environmental Assessment on 

Development of Island-Based Fishery Management Plans (FMPs) in the U.S. Caribbean: transition 

from species-based FMPs to island-based FMPs. Available online at: 

https://repository.library.noaa.gov/view/noaa/10213.

(NOAA, 2014b). National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 2014. Entanglement of Marine 

Species in Marine Debris with an Emphasis on Species in the United States. Available online at: 

https://marinedebris.noaa.gov/sites/default/files/mdp_entanglement.pdf.

(NOAA, 2016). National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 2016. Ocean Noise Strategy Roadmap. 

Available online at: 

https://cetsound.noaa.gov/Assets/cetsound/documents/Roadmap/ONS_Roadmap_Final_Complete.

pdf.

(NOAA, 2017). National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 2017. Final Steller Sea Lion and 

Harbor Seal Co-Management Action Plan for FY2017. Available online at:

https://aleutmarinemammal.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/AMMC-NMFS-co-managementaction-plan-2017.pdf.

(NOAA, 2018a). National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 2018. NOAA surveys the unsurveyed, 

leading the way in the U.S. Arctic. Accessed October 2022 at: 

https://www.nauticalcharts.noaa.gov/updates/noaa-surveys-the-unsurveyed-leading-the-way-inthe-u-s-arctic/.

(NOAA, 2018b). National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. November 2018. Final Supplemental 

Environmental Impact Statement For issuing annual catch limits to the Alaska Eskimo Whaling

Commission for a subsistence hunt on bowhead whales for the years 2019 and beyond. Available 

online at: https://repository.library.noaa.gov/view/noaa/19482.

(NOAA, 2020a). National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 2020. Fact sheet: Small diesel spills 

(500-5,000 gallons). NOAA Scientific Support Team, Hazardous Materials Response and Assessment 

Division. Available online at: https://response.restoration.noaa.gov/sites/default/files/Small-DieselSpills.pdf.

(NOAA, 2020b). National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 2020. NOAA Exploring Impact of 

COVID-19 Response on the Environment. Accessed October 2022 at: 

https://research.noaa.gov/article/ArtMID/587/ArticleID/2617/NOAA-exploring-impact-ofcoronavirus-response-on-the-environment.

(NOAA, 2020c). National Oceanic and Atmospheric Agency. 2020. NOAA teams with Ocean Infinity to 

advance new tools for ocean exploration and mapping. Accessed October 2022 at: 

https://www.noaa.gov/media-release/noaa-teams-with-ocean-infinity-to-advance-new-tools-forocean-exploration-and-mapping.
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

647

(NOAA, 2020d). National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 2020. Ocean Acidification. Accessed 

October 2022 at: https://www.noaa.gov/education/resource-collections/ocean-coasts-educationresources/ocean-acidification.

(NOAA, 2021). National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 2021. Larger-than-average Gulf of 

Mexico ‘dead zone’ measured. Accessed October 2022 at: https://www.noaa.gov/newsrelease/larger-than-average-gulf-of-mexico-dead-zone-measured.

(NOAA, No Date-a). National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. No Date. National Water Level 

Observation Network (NWLON). Accessed October 2022 at: 

https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/nwlon.html.

(NOAA, No Date-b). National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. No Date. Hydrographic Survey 

Equipment: Side Scan Sonars. Accessed October 2022 at: 

https://nauticalcharts.noaa.gov/learn/hydrographic-survey-equipment.html.

(NOAA, No Date-c). National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. No Date. Are Corals Animals or 

Plants. Accessed October 2022 at: https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/coral.html.

(NOAA, No Date-d). National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. No Date. Florida Keys National 

Marine Sanctuary: Estimated Shipwrecks. Accessed October 2022 at: 

https://floridakeys.noaa.gov/wrecks/howmany.html. 

(NOAA, No Date-e). National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. No Date. Olympic Coast National 

Marine Sanctuary’s Intergovernmental Policy Council. Available online at: 

https://marineprotectedareas.noaa.gov/toolkit/olympic-coast-intergov-policy-council.html.

(NOAA, No Date-f). National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. U.S. Department of Commerce. 

No Date. The Value of PORTS to the Nation. Available online at:

https://aambpublicoceanservice.blob.core.windows.net/oceanserviceprod/news/aug14/Value_of_P

ORTS_to_the_Nation.pdf.

(NOAA, No Date-g). National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. No Date. Subsistence Halibut 

Maps. Accessed October 2022 at:

https://alaskafisheries.noaa.gov/portal/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=eb7447da76f34160948

dfa1ddd90899f. 

(NOAA, No Date-h). National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. No Date. Atlantic Coast 

Hydrographic Survey Projects 2019. Accessed October 2022 at: 

https://noaa.maps.arcgis.com/apps/MapJournal/index.html?appid=56cd160ddfc248049f925fdfed4

5daca.

(NOAA, No Date-i). National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. No Date. Gulf of Mexico and 

Mississippi River Hydrographic Survey Projects 2019. Accessed October 2022 at: 

https://noaa.maps.arcgis.com/apps/MapJournal/index.html?appid=8e46cafa3ffa4945a9ed3bd22d3

eca07.

(NOAA, No Date-j). National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. No Date. Pacific Coast 

Hydrographic Survey Projects 2019. Accessed October 2022 at: 

https://noaa.maps.arcgis.com/apps/MapJournal/index.html?appid=3dbbf148df0542dbb9e8fa6821f

a1b86.

(NOAA, No Date-k). National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. No Date. Alaska Hydrographic 

Survey Projects 2019. Accessed October 2022 at: 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

648

https://noaa.maps.arcgis.com/apps/MapJournal/index.html?appid=b0b74ecc2ea048628accbbf8189

5eae2#map.

(NOS, 2016). NOAA National Ocean Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 2016. 

U.S. Integrated Ocean Observing System (IOOS) Program Programmatic Environmental Assessment.

Available online at: https://cdn.ioos.noaa.gov/media/2017/12/IOOS_PEA-withAppendices_FINAL_June-2016.pdf.

(NOS, 2017). National Ocean Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 2017. National 

Ocean Service Statement on Surveying and Mapping Activities with No Potential to Cause Effects to 

Historic Properties.

(NOS, No Date-a). National Ocean Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. No Date. 

About the National Ocean Service. Accessed October 2022 at: 

https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/about/.

(NOS, No Date-b). National Ocean Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. No Date. 

An Introduction to NOAA’s National Ocean Service. Available online at:

https://aambpublicoceanservice.blob.core.windows.net/oceanserviceprod/about/introductionnos.pdf.

(NOS, No Date-c). National Ocean Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. No Date. 

Arctic Navigation. Accessed October 2022 at: https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/economy/arctic/.

(Nowacek et al., 2001). Nowacek, S.M., R.S. Wells, and A.R. Solow. 2001. Short-term effects of boat 

traffic on bottlenose dolphins, Tursiops truncatus, in Sarasota Bay, Florida. Marine Mammal Science,

17(4):673-688. Available online at: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-7692.2001.tb01292.x. 

(Nowacek et al., 2004). Nowacek, D., M. Johnson, and P.L. Tyack. 2004. North Atlantic right whales 

(Eubalaena glacialis) ignore ships but respond to alarm stimuli. Proceedings of the Royal Society of 

London Series B, 271(1536):227-231. Available online at: https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2003.2570.

(NPFMC, No Date). North Pacific Fishery Management Council. No Date. FMPS, FEPS, & Amendment

Summaries. Available online at: https://www.npfmc.org/library/fmps-feps/.

(NPS, 1979). National Park Service. 1979. National Register of Historic Places Inventory – Nomination 

Form: Hanalei Pier. Available online at: 

https://npgallery.nps.gov/NRHP/GetAsset/NRHP/79000757_text.

(NPS, 2000). National Park Service. 2000. National Register Bulletin: Guidelines for Evaluating and 

Registering Archaeological Properties. Available online at:

https://www.nps.gov/subjects/nationalregister/upload/NRB36-Complete.pdf.

(NPS, 2010). National Park Service. 2010. Oil Spill Response. Available online at: 

http://npshistory.com/publications/eq/oil-spill/cult-res.pdf.

(NPS, 2012a). National Park Service. 2012. National Register of Historic Places - Traditional Cultural 

Properties (TCPs), A Quick Guide for Preserving Native American Cultural Resources. Available online

at: https://ctclusi.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/NPS_QuickGuide_TCP.pdf.

(NPS, 2012b). National Park Service. 2012. Tribal Historic Preservation Officer (THPO): A Quick Guide for 

Preserving Native American Cultural Resources.

(NPS, 2016). National Park Service. 2016. Channel Islands Shipwrecks. Accessed October 2022 at: 

https://www.nps.gov/chis/learn/photosmultimedia/shipwreck.htm. 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

649

(NPS, 2018). National Parks Service. 2018. Benthic Habitat Mapping for Ocean and Coastal Parks. 

Accessed October 2022 at: https://eros.usgs.gov/doi-remote-sensing-activities/2018/nps/benthichabitat-mapping-ocean-and-coastal-parks.

(NPS, 2020a). National Park Service. 2020. Aquatic Invertebrates. Accessed October 2022 at: 

https://www.nps.gov/im/htln/aquatic-invertebrates.htm.

(NPS, 2020b). National Park Service. 2020. Cape Cod National Seashore Massachusetts: Head of the 

Meadow Beach. Accessed October 2022 at: https://www.nps.gov/caco/planyourvisit/head-of-themeadow.htm.

(NPS, 2022a). National Park Service. 2022. National Park Service Archaeology Program: State Submerged 

Resources – Puerto Rico. Accessed October 2022 at: 

https://www.nps.gov/archeology/sites/stateSubmerged/puertorico.htm.

(NPS, 2022b). National Park Service. 2022. National Park Service Archaeology Program: State Submerged 

Resources – Virgin Islands. Accessed October 2022 at: 

https://www.nps.gov/archeology/sites/statesubmerged/virginislands.htm.

(NPS, 2022c). National Park Service. 2022. National Park Service Archaeology Program: State Submerged 

Resources – Northern Mariana Islands. Accessed October 2022 at: 

https://www.nps.gov/archeology/sites/stateSubmerged/northernmarianaislands.htm.

(NPS, No Date-a). National Park Service. No Date. Traditional Cultural Properties – Questions & Answers. 

Available online at: http://npshistory.com/publications/tcp-qa.pdf.

(NPS, No Date-b). National Park Service. No Date. National Register Bulletin 18: How to Evaluate and 

Nominate Designed Historic Landscapes. Available online at: 

https://www.nps.gov/subjects/nationalregister/upload/NRB18-Complete.pdf.

(NRC, 1994). National Research Council. 1994. Low-Frequency Sound and Marine Mammals. Accessed 

October 2022 at: https://www.nap.edu/catalog/4557/low-frequency-sound-and-marine-mammalscurrent-knowledge-and-research.

(NSB, 2018). North Slope Borough: Braund, S.R., P.B. Lawrence, E.G. Sears, R.K. Schraer, E.V. Regehr, B. 

Adams, R.T. Hepa, J.C. George, and A.L. Von Duyke. 2018. Polar Bear TEK: A Pilot Study to Inform 

Polar Bear Management Models. Research Report NSB.DWM.RR.2018-01. Available online at: 

https://nannut.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/NSB_DWM_RR_2018-01_-

_Polar_Bear_TEK_FINAL.pdf.

(NSB, No Date-a). North Slope Borough. No Date. Bowhead Whale Subsistence Harvest Research. 

Accessed October 2022 at: https://www.north-slope.org/departments/wildlifemanagement/studies-research-projects/bowhead-whales/bowhead-whale-subsistence-harvestresearch/.

(NSB, No Date-b). North Slope Borough. No Date. Documentation of Beluga Harvest. Accessed October 

2022 at: https://www.north-slope.org/departments/wildlife-management/co-managementorganizations/alaska-beluga-whale-committee/abwc-research-projects/documentation-of-belugaharvest/.

(NSB, No Date-c). North Slope Borough. No Date. Ice Seal Committee. Accessed October 2022 at:

https://www.iceseals.org/.

(NSF and USGS, 2011). National Science Foundation and United Sates Geological Survey. 2011. Final 

Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement / Overseas Environmental Impact Statement for 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

650

Marine Seismic Research Funded by the National Science Foundation or Conducted by the U.S. 

Geological Survey. Available online at: https://www.nsf.gov/geo/oce/envcomp/usgs-nsf-marineseismic-research/nsf-usgs-final-eis-oeis_3june2011.pdf.

(NSF, No Date). National Science Foundation. No Date. OCE Environmental Compliance. Accessed 

October 2022 at: https://www.nsf.gov/geo/oce/envcomp/index.jsp.

(NSTC, 2013). National Science and Technology Council. 2013. Progress Made in Implementing the 

Ocean and Coastal Mapping Integration Act: 2009 - 2010. Available online at: 

https://iocm.noaa.gov/reports/IWG-OCM-ReportProgress2009-10FINAL.pdf.

(NSTC, 2016). National Science and Technology Council. 2016. Progress Made in Implementing the 

Ocean and Coastal Mapping Integration Act 2014-2016. Available online at: 

https://iocm.noaa.gov/reports/IWG-OCM-ReportProgress2014-2016FINAL.pdf.

(NWF, No Date). The National Wildlife Federationi. No Date. Leatherback Sea Turtle. Accessed October 

2022 at: https://www.nwf.org/Educational-Resources/Wildlife-Guide/Reptiles/SeaTurtles/Leatherback-Sea-Turtle.

(NWIFC, No Date). Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission. No Date. About Us. Accessed October 2022

at: https://nwifc.org/about-us/. 

(OCM, 2021). Office for Coastal Management, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 2021. 

Decadal Demographic Trends (1970-2010) for Coastal Geographies. March 2016. Accessed October 

2022 at: https://coast.noaa.gov/digitalcoast/data/demographictrends.html.

(OCM, 2022a). Office for Coastal Management, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 2022. 

Economics: National Ocean Watch (ENOW) data by Ocean Sector. Accessed October 2022 at: 

https://coast.noaa.gov/digitalcoast/data/enow.html.

(OCM, 2022b). Office for Coastal Management, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 2022. 

NOAA Report on the U.S. Ocean and Great Lakes Economy 2019. Available online at: 

https://coast.noaa.gov/data/digitalcoast/pdf/econ-report.pdf.

(OCS, 2018). NOAA Office of Coast Survey. 2018. Seabed 2030: A Call to Action. Available online at:

https://nauticalcharts.noaa.gov/hsrp/meetings/miami-2018/reference-materials-articles-miamihsrp-meeting/seabed-2030-white-paper-rdml-smithocs-draft-jan2018.pdf

(ONMS, 2007). Office of National Marine Sanctuaries, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 

2007. American Samoa Maritime Heritage Inventory. Available online at: 

https://nmsamericansamoa.blob.core.windows.net/americansamoaprod/media/docs/as_heritage.pdf.

(ONMS, 2017). Office of National Marine Sanctuaries, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 

2017. Pacific Islands Region: Maritime Heritage. Accessed October 2022 at: 

https://sanctuaries.noaa.gov/about/pacific/mhp.html.

(ONMS, 2020). Office of National Marine Sanctuaries. 2020. Wisconsin Shipwreck Coast National Marine 

Sanctuary Designation Final Environmental Impact Statement and Final Management Plan. Available 

online at: https://nmssanctuaries.blob.core.windows.net/sanctuaries-prod/media/docs/2020-

wisconsin-shipwreck-coast-national-marine-sanctuary-designation-final-eis.pdf.

(ONMS, No Date-a). National Marine Sanctuaries, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. No 

Date. Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary: Maritime Heritage. Accessed October 2022 at: 

https://stellwagen.noaa.gov/maritime/welcome.html. 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

651

(ONMS, No Date-b). National Marine Sanctuaries, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. No 

Date. Wisconsin Shipwreck Coast National Marine Sanctuary. Accessed October 2022 at: 

https://sanctuaries.noaa.gov/wisconsin/. 

(OSPAR Commission, No Date). OSPAR Commission. No Date. Dredging & Dumping. Human Activities. 

Accessed October 2022 at: http://www.ospar.org/work-areas/eiha/dredging-dumping.

(Owen and Bowles, 2011). Owen, M.A. and A.E. Bowles. 2011. In-Air Auditory Psychophysics and the 

Management of a Threatened Carnivore, the Polar Bear (Ursus maritimus). International Journal of 

Comparative Physiology, 24:244-254. Available online at: 

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/236617248_InAir_Auditory_Psychophysics_and_the_Management_of_a_Threatened_Carnivore_the_Polar_Bear_

Ursus_maritimus.

(Page et al., 2009). Page, G., L. Stenzel, J.S. Warriner, J.C. Warriner, and P. Paton. 2009. Snowy Plover. In: 

The Birds of North America (A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology; Available 

online at: https://birdsna.org.

(Panayides et al., 2011). Panayides, P.M., N. Lambertides, and C.S. Savva. 2011. The relative efficiency of 

shipping companies. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 

47(5):681-694. Available online at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tre.2011.01.001.

(Papale et al., 2015). Papale, E., M. Gamba, M. Perez-Gil, V.M. Martin, and C. Giacoma. 2015. Dolphins 

adjust species-specific frequency parameters to compensate for increasing background noise. PLoS 

One, 10(4):e0121711. Available online at: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0121711. 

(Parks et al., 2007). Parks, S.E., C.W. Clark, and P.L. Tyack. 2007. Short- and long-term changes in right 

whale calling behavior: The potential effects of noise on acoustic communication. Journal of the 

Acoustical Society of America, 122(6):3725-3731. Available online at: 

https://doi.org/10.1121/1.2799904.

(Payne and Webb, 1971). Payne, R. and D. Webb. 1971. Orientation by means of long range acoustic 

signaling in baleen whales. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 188:110-141. Available 

online at: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-6632.1971.tb13093.x.

(PBI, No Date). Polar Bears International. No Date. Living with Polar Bears. Accessed October 2022 at: 

https://polarbearsinternational.org/polar-bears/indigenous-people-polar-bears/.

(Peterson et al., 2000). Petersen, M., J. Grand, and C. Dau. 2000. Spectacled Eider. In: The Birds of North 

America (A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology. Available online at: 

https://birdsna.org.

(Pews Oceans Commission, 2003). Pews Oceans Commission. 2003. America's Living Oceans: Charting a 

Course for Sea Change. pp. 166. Arlington, VA: Pew Oceans Commission. Available online at: 

https://www.pewtrusts.org/-/media/assets/2003/06/02/poc_summary.pdf.

(PFMC, No Date-a). Pacific Fishery Management Council. No Date. Fishery Management Plans. Available 

online at: https://www.pcouncil.org/.

(PFMC, No Date-b). Pacific Fishery Management Council. No Date. Salmon. Accessed October 2022 at:

https://www.pcouncil.org/salmon/.

(Pierce et al., 2004). Pierce, K.E., R.J. Harris, L.S. Larned, and M.A. Porkas. 2004. Obstruction and 

starvation associated with plastic ingestion in a Northern Gannet Morus bassanus and a Greater 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

652

Shearwater Puffinus gravis. Marine Ornithology, 32:187–189. Available online at: 

http://www.marineornithology.org/PDF/32_2/32_2_187-189.pdf.

(Piniak et al., 2012). Piniak, W.E.D., S.A. Eckert, C.A. Harms, and E.M. Stringer. 2012. Underwater hearing 

sensitivity of the leatherback sea turtle (Dermochelys coriacea): Assessing the potential effect of 

anthropogenic noise. Prepared for the U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy 

Management, Herndon, VA. Available online at:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/280559013_Underwater_hearing_sensitivity_of_the_lea

therback_sea_turtle_Dermochelys_coriacea_Assessing_the_potential_effect_of_anthropogenic_noi

se.

(Piniak, 2012). Piniak, W. 2012. Acoustic Ecology of Sea Turtles: Implications for Conservation. PhD 

Dissertation, Duke University. Available online at: https://hdl.handle.net/10161/6159.

(Platt, 2018). Platt, J.R. 2018. America’s Freshwater Mussels Are Going Extinct – Here’s Why That Sucks. 

Scientific American. Accessed October 2022 at: https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/extinctioncountdown/americas-freshwater-mussels-are-going-extinct-heres-why-that-sucks.

(PNHP, No Date). Pennsylvania Natural Heritage Program. No Date. Northern Riffleshell (Epioblasma 

torulosa rangiana). Accessed October 2022 at: 

https://www.naturalheritage.state.pa.us/factsheets/12209.pdf.

(Polacheck and Thorpe, 1990). Polacheck, T. and L. Thorpe. 1990. The swimming direction of harbor 

porpoise in relation to a survey vessel. Report of the International Whaling Commission, 40:463-470. 

Available online at: https://porpoise.org/library/swimming-direction-harbor-porpoise-relationshipsurvey-vessel/.

(Pollution Issues, No Date). Pollution Issues. No Date. Sedimentation. Accessed October 2022 at: 

http://www.pollutionissues.com/Re-Sy/Sedimentation.html.

(Popper and Hawkins, 2019). Popper A.N. and A.D. Hawkins. 2019. An overview of fish bioacoustics and 

the impacts of anthropogenic sounds on fishes. Journal of Fish Biology, 94(5):692-713. Available 

online at: https://doi.org/10.1111/jfb.13948. 

(Popper et al., 2003). Popper, A. N., R.R. Fay, C. Platt, and O. Sand. 2003. Sound detection mechanisms 

and capabilities of teleost fishes. In: Sensory Processing in Aquatic Environments (S. P. Collin and N. 

J. Marshall, Eds.). Springer-Verlag, New York, pp. 3-38. Available online at:

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-22628-6_1.

(Popper et al., 2005). Popper, A. N., M. E. Smith, P. A. Cott, B. W. Hanna, A. O. MacGillivray, M. E. Austin, 

and D. A. Mann. 2005. Effects of exposure to seismic airgun use on hearing of three fish species. The 

Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 117(6):3958–3971. Available online at: 

https://doi.org/10.1121/1.1904386. 

(Popper et al., 2007). Popper, A. N., M. B. Halvorsen, A. Kane, D. L. Miller, M. E. Smith, J. Song, P. Stein, 

and L. E. Wysocki. 2007. The effects of high-intensity, low-frequency active sonar on rainbow trout. 

The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 122(1):623–635. Available online at: 

https://doi.org/10.1121/1.2735115. 

(Popper et al., 2014). Popper, A.N., A.D. Hawkins, R.R. Fay, D.A. Mann, S. Bartol, T.J. Carlson, S. Coombs, 

W.T. Ellison, R.L. Gentry, M.B. Halvorsen, S. Lokkeborg, P.H. Rogers, B.L. Southall, D.G. Zeddies, and 

W.N. Tavolga. 2014. Sound Exposure Guidelines for Fishes and Sea Turtles: A Technical Report 

prepared by ANSI-Accredited Standards Committee S3/SC1 and registered with ANSI. ASA S3/SC1.4 

TR-2014. Available online at: 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

653

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Arthur_Popper/publication/279347068_Sound_Exposure_Gu

idelines/links/5596735d08ae99aa62c777b9/Sound-Exposure-Guidelines.pdf.

(Potter et al., 2007). Potter, J.R., M. Thillet, C. Douglas, M.A. Chitre, Z. Doborzynski, and P.J. Seekings. 

2007. Visual and passive acoustic marine mammal observations and high-frequency seismic source 

characteristics recorded during a seismic survey. IEEE Journal of Oceanic Engineering, 32(2):469–

483. Available online at: https://doi.org/10.1109/JOE.2006.880427. 

(Pratt and Brisbin, 2002). Pratt, H. and I. Brisbin. 2002. Hawaiian Coot. In: The Birds of North America (A. 

Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology. Available online at: https://birdsna.org.

(Purser and Radford, 2011). Purser, J. and A.N. Radford. 2011. Acoustic noise induces attention shifts 

and reduces foraging performance in three-spined sticklebacks (Gasterosteus aculeatus). PLOS One,

6(2):e17478. Available online at: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0017478.

(Quick et al., 2017). Quick, N., L.A.S. Scott-Hayward, D. Sadykova, and D.P. Nowacek. 2017. Effects of a 

scientific echo sounder on the behavior of short-finned pilot whales (Globicephala macrorhynchus). 

Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 74(5). Available online at: 

https://doi.org/10.1139/cjfas-2016-0293. 

(Reeves et al., 2002). Reeves, R.R., B.S. Stewart, P.J. Clapham, and J.A. Powell. 2002. National Audubon 

Society Guide to Marine Mammals of the World. Chanticleer Press, New York, NY.

(Regehr et al., 2018). Regehr, E.V., N.J. Hostetter, R.R. Wilson, K.D. Rode, M. St. Martin, and S.J. 

Converse. 2018. Integrated Population Modeling Provides the First Empirical Estimates of Vital Rates 

and Abundance for Polar Bears in the Chukchi Sea. Scientific Reports, Volume 8, Article number: 

16780. Available online at: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-34824-7. 

(Reichmuth et al., 2020). Reichmuth, C., J.M. Sills, A. Brewer, L. Triggs, R. Ferguson, E. Ashe, and R. 

Williams. 2020. Behavioral assessment of in-air hearing range for the Pacific walrus (Odobenus 

rosmarus divergens). Polar Biology, 43:767–772. Available online at: 

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00300-020-02667-6. 

(Reijnders et al., 2008). Reijnders, P.J.H., A. Aguilar, and A. Borrell. 2008. Pollution and marine mammals. 

In: Encyclopedia of Marine Mammals (Perrin, W.F., B. Wursig, and J.G.M. Thewissen, Eds.), 2nd ed., 

pp. 890-898. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Available online at: https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-

373553-9.00205-4.

(Reinert et al., 2017). Reinert, T.R., A.C. Spellman, and B.L. Bassett. 2017. Entanglement in and ingestion 

of fishing gear and other marine debris by Florida manatees, 1993–2012. Endangered Species 

Research, 32(1). Available online at: https://doi.org/10.3354/esr00816. 

(Richardson et al., 1995). Richardson, W.J., C.R. Greene, Jr., C.I. Malme, and D.H. Thomson. 1995. Marine 

Mammals and Noise. Academic Press, San Diego, CA, USA. 576 p. Available online at: 

https://www.sciencedirect.com/book/9780080573038/marine-mammals-and-noise. 

(Rippe et al., 2017). Rippe, J.P., M.V. Matz, E.A. Green, M. Medina, N.Z. Khawaja, T. Pongwarin, J.H. 

Pinzón, K.D. Castillo, and S.W. Davies. 2017. Population Structure and Connectivity of the 

Mountainous Star Coral, Orbicella faveolata, throughout the wider Caribbean region. Ecology and 

Evolution, 7(22):9234–9246. Available online at: https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.3448. 

(Roberts et al., 2015a). Roberts, J.J., B.D. Best, L. Mannocci, E. Fujioka, P.N. Halpin, D.L. Palka, L.P. 

Garrison, K.D. Mullin, T.V.N. Cole, C.B. Khan, W.M. McLellan, D.A. Pabst, and G.G. Lockhart. 2015.

Density model for Bryde’s whale (Balaenoptera edeni) in the US Atlantic. Version 3.1, 2015-11-06, 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

654

and Supplementary Report. Marine Geospatial Ecology Lab, Duke University, Durham, North

Carolina. Available online at: https://seamap.env.duke.edu/seamap-modelsfiles/Duke/GOM/Brydes_whale/v3.1/Gulf%20Of%20Mexico%20Bryde's%20Whale%20v3.1.pdf. 

(Roberts et al., 2015b). Roberts, J.J., B.D. Best, L. Mannocci, E. Fujioka, P.N. Halpin, D.L. Palka, L.P. 

Garrison, K.D. Mullin, T.V.N. Cole, C.B. Khan, W.M. McLellan, D.A. Pabst, and G.G. Lockhart. 2015. 

Density Model for Kogia Whales (Kogia spp.) for the U.S. Gulf of Mexico Version 3.3, 2015-10-07, 

and Supplementary Report. Marine Geospatial Ecology Lab, Duke University, Durham, North 

Carolina. Available online at: https://seamap.env.duke.edu/seamap-modelsfiles/Duke/GOM/Dwarf_and_pygmy_sperm_whales/v3.3/Gulf%20Of%20Mexico%20Kogia%20Whal

es%20v3.3.pdf. 

(Roberts et al., 2016a). Roberts, J.J., B.D. Best, L. Mannocci, E. Fujioka, P.N. Halpin, D.L. Palka, L.P. 

Garrison, K.D. Mullin, T.V.N. Cole, C.B. Khan, W.M. McLellan, D.A. Pabst, and G.G. Lockhart. 2016. 

Habitat-based cetacean density models for the U.S. Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico. Scientific Reports 6: 

22615. Available online at: https://doi.org/10.1038/srep22615.

(Roberts et al., 2016b). Roberts, J.J., L. Mannocci, and P.N. Halpin. 2016. Final Project Report: Marine 

Species Density Data Gap Assessments and Update for the AFTT Study Area, 2015-2016 (Base Year). 

Version 1.0. Report by the Duke University Marine Geospatial Ecology Lab for Naval Facilities 

Engineering Command, Atlantic Durham, NC, USA. Available online at: 

https://seamap.env.duke.edu/seamap-modelsfiles/Duke/Reports/AFTT_Update_2015_2016_Final_Report_v1.pdf.

(Roberts et al., 2017). Roberts, J.J., L. Mannocci, and P.N. Halpin. 2017. Final Project Report: Marine 

Species Density Data Gap Assessments and Update for the AFTT Study Area, 2016-2017 (Opt. Year 

1). Version 1.4. Report by Duke University Marine Geospatial Ecology Lab for Naval Facilities 

Engineering Command, Atlantic, Durham, NC, USA. Available online at: 

https://seamap.env.duke.edu/seamap-modelsfiles/Duke/Reports/AFTT_Update_2016_2017_Final_Report_v1.4_excerpt.pdf.

(Roberts et al., 2018). Roberts, J.J., L. Mannocci, R.S. Schick, and P.N. Halpin. 2018. Final Project Report: 

Marine Species Density Data Gap Assessments and Update for the AFTT Study Area, 2017-2018 (Opt. 

Year 2). Version 1.2. Report by the Duke University Marine Geospatial Ecology Lab for Naval 

Facilities Engineering Command, Atlantic Durham, NC, USA. Available online at: 

https://seamap.env.duke.edu/seamap-modelsfiles/Duke/Reports/AFTT_Update_2017_2018_Final_Report_v1.2_excerpt.pdf.

(Roberts et al., 2021a). Roberts, J.J., R.S. Schick, and P.N. Halpin. 2021. Final Project Report: Marine 

Species Density Data Gap Assessments and Update for the AFTT Study Area, 2018-2020 (Opt. Year 

3). Version 1.4. Report by the Duke University Marine Geospatial Ecology Lab for Naval Facilities 

Engineering Command, Atlantic Durham, NC, USA. Available online at: https://seamapdev.env.duke.edu/seamap-modelsfiles/Duke/Reports/AFTT_Update_2018_2020_Final_Report_v1.4.pdf.

(Roberts et al., 2021b). Roberts, J.J., R.S. Schick, and P.N. Halpin. 2021. Final Project Report: Marine 

Species Density Data Gap Assessments and Update for the AFTT Study Area, 2020 (Opt. Year 4). 

Version 1.0. Report by the Duke University Marine Geospatial Ecology Lab for Naval Facilities 

Engineering Command, Atlantic Durham, NC, USA. Available online at: https://seamapdev.env.duke.edu/seamap-modelsfiles/Duke/Reports/AFTT_Update_2020_Final_Report_v1.0_excerpt.pdf.
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

655

(Robinson et al., 1999). Robinson, J., J. Reed, J. Skorupa, and L. Oring. 1999. Black-necked Stilt. In: The 

Birds of North America (A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology. Available online at: 

https://birdsna.org.

(Rolland et al., 2012). Rolland, R.M., S.E. Parks, K.E. Hunt, M. Castellote, P.J. Corkeron, D.P. Nowacek, 

S.K. Wasser, and S.D. Kraus. 2012. Evidence that ship noise increases stress in right whales. 

Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 279:2363-2368. Available online at:

https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2011.2429. 

(Ronconi, 2001). Ronconi, R. 2001. Animal Diversity Web: Cepphus grylle Black Guillemot. Accessed 

October 2022 at: https://animaldiversity.org/site/accounts/information/Cepphus_grylle.html.

(Rostad et al., 2006). Rostad, A., S. Kaartvedt, T.A. Klevjer, and W. Melle. 2006. Fish are attracted to 

vessels. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 63(8):1431-1437. Available online at: 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.icesjms.2006.03.026.

(RRN, 2022). Reef Resilience Network. 2022. Algae. Accessed October 2022 at: 

https://reefresilience.org/stressors/invasivespecies/algae/#:~:text=Invasive%20algae%20can%20quickly%20invade,in%20biodiversity%20and%2

0coral%20cover. 

(Rugh and Shelden, 2009). Rugh, D.J. and K.E.W. Shelden. 2009. Bowhead whale, Balaena mysticetus. In: 

Encyclopedia of Marine Mammals (W.F. Perrin, B. Würsig, and H.G.M. Thewissen Eds.). Pages 131-

133. Academic Press, San Diego, CA. Available online at: https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-373553-

9.00036-5.

(Rycyk et al., 2018). Rycyk, A.M., C.J. Deutsch, M.E. Barlas, S.K. Hardy, K. Frisch, E.H. Leone, and D.P. 

Nowacek. 2018. Manatee Behavioral Response to Boats. Marine Mammal Science, 34(4):924–62. 

Available online at: https://doi.org/10.1111/mms.12491.

(SAFMC, No Date). South Atlantic Fishery Management Council. No Date. Fishery Management. 

Available online at: https://safmc.net/fishery-management/.

(Sánchez et al., 2016). Sánchez, M.I., I. Paredes, M. Lebvouvier, and A.J. Green. 2016. Functional Role of 

Native and Invasive Filter Feeders, and the Effect of Parasites: Learning from Hypersaline 

Ecosystems. PLOS One. Available online at: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0161478. 

(Sanderfoot and Holloway, 2017). Sanderfoot, OV. and Holloway, T. 2017. Air Pollution Impacts on Avian 

Species via Inhalation Exposure and Associated Outcomes. Environmental Research Letters,

12:083002. Available online at: https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aa8051.

(Scharf et al., 2019). Scharf, H.R., M.B. Hooten, R.R. Wilson, G.M. Durner, and T.C. Atwood. 2019. 

Accounting for phenology in the analysis of animal movement. Biometrics 75(3):810-820. Available 

online at: https://doi.org/10.1111/biom.13052. 

(Scarpaci et al., 2000). Scarpaci, C., S.W. Bigger, P.J. Corkeron, and D. Nugegoda. 2000. Bottlenose 

dolphins, Tursiops truncatus, increase whistling in the presence of “swim-with-dolphin” tour 

operators. Journal of Cetacean Research and Management, 2(3):183-185. Available online at: 

http://vuir.vu.edu.au/24367/.

(Schlundt et al., 2000). Schlundt, C.E., J.J. Finneran, D.A. Carder, and S.H. Ridgway. 2000. Temporary Shift 

in Masked Hearing Thresholds of Bottlenose Dolphins, Tursiops Truncatus, and White Whales, 

Delphinapterus Leucas, After Exposure to Intense Tones. Journal of the Acoustic Society of America,

107(6):3496-508. Available online at: https://doi.org/10.1121/1.429420.
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

656

(Schofield et al., 2006). Schofield, G., Katselidis, K.A., Dimopoulos, P., Pantis, J.D., & Hays, G.C. 2006. 

Behaviour analysis of the loggerhead sea turtle Caretta caretta from direct in-water observation. 

Endangered Species Research, 2:71-79. Available online at: https://doi.org/10.3354/esr002071.

(Schusterman et al., 2001). (Schusterman, R.J., B.L. Southall, D. Kastak, and C. Reichmuth Kastak. 2001. 

Pinniped Vocal Communication: Form and Function. Proceedings of the 17th International Congress 

on Acoustics Proceedings, Rome, Italy. Available online at: 

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/77e3/86a86aef40c440218e24779c5a5d83c0bc09.pdf.

(Schytte Blix, 2018). Schytte Blix, A. 2018. Adaptations to deep and prolonged diving in phocid seals. 

Journal of Experimental Biology, 221(12):jeb182972. Available online at: 

https://doi.org/10.1242/jeb.182972. 

(Sea Around Us, No Date). Sea Around Us. No Date. Fisheries, Ecosystems, and Biodiversity. Accessed 

October 2022 at: http://www.seaaroundus.org/.

(Sea Grant, 2015). Sea Grant Alaska. 2015. Marine Education: Marine Mammals of Alaska Field Guide. 

Accessed October 2022 at: https://seagrant.uaf.edu/marine-ed/mm/fieldguide/index.html.

(Sea Grant, 2022). Sea Grant Michigan. 2022. Great Lakes Fast Facts. Accessed October 2022 at:

https://www.michiganseagrant.org/topics/great-lakes-fast-facts/. 

(Seminoff, 2015). Seminoff, J.A., C.D. Allen, G.H. Balazs, P.H. Dutton, T. Eguchi, H.L. Haas, S.A. Hargrove, 

M.P. Jensen, D.L. Klemm, A.M. Lauritsen, S.L. MacPherson, P. Opay, E.E. Possardt, S.L. Pultz, E.E. 

Seney, K.S. Van Houtan, R.S. Waples. 2015. Status Review of the Green Turtle (Chelonia mydas) 

Under the U.S. Endangered Species Act. NOAA Technical Memorandum, NOAA-NMFS-SWFSC-539. 

571p. Available online at: https://repository.library.noaa.gov/view/noaa/4922.

(Shaban et al., 2021). Shaban, B., R. Campos, M. Villarreal, N. Hsu, E. Isleta, A. Rutanashoodech, and M. 

Horn. 2021. Ship Strikes' Killing Whales Despite Govt. Program to Slow Down Vessels. Accessed 

October 2022 at: https://www.nbcbayarea.com/investigations/ship-strikes-kill-whales-at-highestlevels-in-more-than-a-decade-despite-govt-program-to-slow-down-vessels/2238072/.

(Shane et al., 1986). Shane, S.H., R.S. Wells, and B. Würsig. 1986. Ecology, behavior, and social 

organization of the bottlenose dolphin: A review. Marine Mammal Science, 2(1):34-63. Available 

online at: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-7692.1986.tb00026.x.

(Shigenaka et al., 2021). Shigenaka, G, B.A. Stacy, and B.P. Wallace. 2021. Oil and sea turtles: Biology, 

planning, and response. NOAA NOS Office of Response and Restoration. Available online at:

https://www.widecast.org/Resources/Docs/Shigenaka_et_al_2021.pdf.

(Simard et al., 2016). Simard, Y., Roy, N., Gervaise, C., and Giard, S. 2016. Analysis and Modeling of 255 

Source Levels of Merchant Ships from an Acoustic Observatory along St. Lawrence Seaway. The 

Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 140(3):2002-18. Available online at: 

https://doi.org/10.1121/1.4962557.

(Simons and Hodges, 1998). Simons, T.R. and C.N. Hodges. 1998. Hawaiian Petrel. In: The Birds of North 

America (A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology. Available online at: 

https://birdsna.org.

(Simpson et al., 2016). Simpson, S.D., A.N. Radford, S.L. Nedelec, M.C.O. Ferrari, D.P. Chivers, M.I. 

McCormick, and M.G. Meekan. 2016. Anthropogenic noise increases fish mortality by predation. 

Nature Communications, 7(1):10544. Available online at: https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms10544. 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

657

(Sivle et al., 2015). Sivle, L.D., P.H. Kvadsheim, C. Curé, S. Isojunno, P.J. Wensveen, F.A. Lam, F. Visser, L. 

Kleivane, P.L. Tyack, C.M. Harris, and P.J.O. Miller. 2015. Severity of expert-identified behavioural 

responses of humpback whale, minke whale, and northern bottlenose whale to naval sonar. Aquatic 

Mammals, 41(4):469–502. Available online at: https://doi.org/10.1578/AM.41.4.2015.469.

(Slabbekoorn et al., 2010). Slabbekoorn, H., N. Bouton, I. van Opzeeland, A. Coers, C. ten Cate and A.N. 

Popper. 2010. A noisy spring: the impact of globally rising underwater sound levels on fish. Trends 

Ecology & Evolution, 25(7):419-27. Available online at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2010.04.005. 

(Slotterback, 2002). Slotterback, J.W. 2002. Band-rumped Storm-Petrel. In: The Birds of North America 

(A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology. Available online at: https://birdsna.org.

(Smith et al., 2006). Smith, M. E., A. B. Coffin, D. L. Miller, and A. N. Popper. 2006. Anatomical and 

functional recovery of the goldfish (Carassius auratus) ear following noise exposure. The Journal of 

Experimental Biology, 209(21):4193–4202. Available online at: https://doi.org/10.1242/jeb.02490. 

(Snyder et al., 1997). Snyder, F.L., M.B. Hilgendorf, and D.W. Garton. 1997. Zebra Mussels in North 

America. The Invasion and its Implications. Ohio Sea Grant, Ohio State University, Columbus, OH. 

Available online at:

https://nsgl.gso.uri.edu/njmsc/njmsce95001/njmsce95001_(9)zebrainvasion(multi).pdf. 

(Soldevilla et al., 2022). Soldevilla, M.S., A.J. Debich, L.P. Garrison, J.A. Hildebrand, and S.M. Wiggins. 

2022. Rice’s whales in the northwestern Gulf of Mexico: call variation and occurrence beyond the

known core habitat. Endangered Species Research, 48:155-174. Available online at: 

https://doi.org/10.3354/esr01196. 

(Solé et al., 2016). Solé, M., Lenoir, M., Fortuño, J.M., Durfort, M., van der Schaar, M., André, M. 2016. 

Evidence of Cnidarians sensitivity to sound after exposure to low frequency underwater sources. 

Scientific Reports, 6:37979. Available online at: https://www.nature.com/articles/srep37979.

(Southall et al., 2003). Southall, B.L., R.J. Schusterman, and D. Kastak. 2003. Auditory Masking in Three 

Pinnipeds: Aerial Critical Ratios and Direct Critical Bandwidth Measurements. The Journal of the 

Acoustical Society of America, 114(3):1660–66. Available online at: 

https://doi.org/10.1121/1.1587733.

(Southall et al., 2007). Southall, B. L., A. E. Bowles, W. T. Ellison, J. J. Finneran, R. L. Gentry, C. R. Greene 

Jr., D. Kastak, D. R. Ketten, J. H. Miller, P. E. Nachtigall, J. W. Richardson, J. A. Thomas, and P. L. 

Tyack. 2007. Marine mammal noise exposure criteria: initial scientific recommendations. Aquatic 

Mammals, 33(4):411-521. Available online at: https://doi.org/10.1080/09524622.2008.9753846.

(Southall et al., 2013). Southall, B.L., T. Rowles, F. Gulland, R.W. Baird, and P.D. Jepson. 2013. Final 

report of the Independent Scientific Review Panel investigating potential contributing factors to a 

2008 mass stranding of melon headed whales (Peponocephala electra) in Antsohihy, Madagascar. 

International Quiet Ocean Experiment, Report 10686. Available online at:

https://iqoe.org/library/17685.

(Southall et al., 2016). Southall, B., W. Ellison, C. Clark, D. Mann, and D. Tollit. 2016. A risk assessment 

framework to assess the biological significance of noise exposure on marine mammals. In Poster 

presented at the 21st Conference on the Biology of Marine Mammals. Accessed October 2022 at: 

https://sea-inc.net/2016/01/b-southall-and-expert-working-group-present-a-risk-assessmentframework-to-assess-the-biological-significance-of-noise-exposure-on-marine-mammals/. 

(Southall et al., 2019). Southall, B. L., J. J. Finneran, C. Reichmuth, P. E. Nachtigall, D. R. Ketten, A. E. 

Bowles, W.T. Ellison, D.P. Nowacek, and P. L. Tyack. 2019. Marine Mammal Noise Exposure Criteria: 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

658

Updated Scientific Recommendations for Residual Hearing Effects. Aquatic Mammals 2019, 

45(2):125-232. Available online at: https://doi.org/10.1578/AM.45.2.2019.125. 

(Southwood et al., 2008). Southwood, A., K. Fritsches, R. Brill.; and Y. Swimmer. 2008. Sound, chemical, 

and light detection in sea turtles and pelagic fishes: sensory-based approaches to bycatch reduction 

in longline fisheries. Journal of Endangered Species Research, 5:225-238. Available online at:

https://doi.org/10.3354/esr00097.

(St. Aubin and Dierauf, 2001). St. Aubin, D.J. and L.A. Dierauf. 2001. Stress and Marine Mammals. In: CRC 

Handbook of Marine Mammal Medicine (L. A. Dierauf and F.M.D. Gulland, Eds.). Second ed., pp. 

253-269. Boca Raton: CRC Press. Available online at: https://doi.org/10.1201/9781420041637.ch13. 

(Stimpert et al., 2014). Stimpert, A.K., S.L. DeRuiter, B.L. Southall, D.J. Moretti, E.A. Falcone, J.A. 

Goldbogen, A. Friedlaender, G.S. Schorr, and J. Calambokidis. 2014. Acoustic and foraging behavior 

of a Baird's beaked whale, Berardius bairdii, exposed to simulated sonar. Scientific Reports, 4:7031. 

Available online at: https://www.nature.com/articles/srep07031.

(Stone, 2018). Stone, D. 2018. Meet the bowhead whale hunters of northern Alaska. National 

Geographic Magazine. Accessed October 2022 at: 

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2018/12/proof-whale-hunters-northern-alaska/.

(Sullivan et. al, 2018). Sullivan, R.G., M.E. Meyer, and D.J. O’Rourke. 2018. Comparison of Visual Impact 

Analysis Under the National Environmental Policy Act and Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act. Available online at: https://www.fs.usda.gov/research/treesearch/57547.

(Supin et al., 2001). Supin, A.Y., V.V. Popov, and A.M. Mass. 2001. Hearing in Pinnipeds and Sirenians. In:

The Sensory Physiology of Aquatic Mammals (A.Y. Supin, V.V. Popov, and A.M. Mass, Eds.). Boston, 

MA: Springer US. Pp 205–27. Available online at: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-1647-7_3.

(SWOT, No Date). The State of the World’s Sea Turtles Online Database. No Date. Data provided by the 

SWOT Team and hosted on OBIS-SEAMAP. Oceanic Society, Conservation International, IUCN 

Marine Turtle Specialist Group, and Marine Geospatial Ecology Lab, Duke. Accessed October 2022

at: http://seamap.env.duke.edu/swot.

(The Guardian, 2015). The Guardian. 2015. Why would anyone want to shoot a sea otter? Accessed 

October 2022 at: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/mar/10/why-would-anyone-want-toshoot-a-sea-otter.

(The Seattle Times, 2018). The Seattle Times. 2018. Quota raised for subsistence hunting of Chukchi 

polar bears. Accessed October 2022 at: https://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/quota-raisedfor-subsistence-hunting-of-chukchi-polar-bears/.

(The White House, 2019). The White House. 2019. Memorandum on Ocean Mapping of the United 

States Exclusive Economic Zone and the Shoreline and Nearshore of Alaska. Available online at:

https://oeab.noaa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/2019-pres-memo.pdf.

(Thiel, 1992). Thiel, H. 1992. Deep-sea Environmental Disturbance and Recovery Potential. Hydrobiology,

77(2):331-339. Available online at: https://doi.org/10.1002/iroh.19920770213. 

(Thompson et al., 1997). Thompson, B., J. Jackson, J. Burger, L. Hill, E. Kirsch, and J. Atwood. 1997. Least 

Tern. In: The Birds of North America (A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology. 

Available online at: https://birdsna.org.

(Tinker et al., 2008). Tinker, M.T., G. Bentall, and J.A. Estes. 2008. Food limitation leads to behavioral 

diversification and dietary specialization in sea otters. Proceedings of the National Academy of 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

659

Sciences, 105(2):560-565. Available online at: 

https://www.pnas.org/doi/pdf/10.1073/pnas.0709263105.

(TISI, 2014). Texas Invasive Species Institute. 2014. Quagga Mussel. Accessed October 2022 at: 

http://www.tsusinvasives.org/home/database/dreissena-bugensis.

(Turnpenny and Nedwell, 1994). Turnpenny, A.W.H. and J.R. Nedwell. 1994. The effects on marine fish, 

diving mammals and birds of underwater sound generated by seismic surveys. Fawley Aquatic 

Research Laboratories Ltd. FCR 089/94. 40p. Available online at: 

https://www.pge.com/includes/docs/pdfs/shared/edusafety/systemworks/dcpp/turnpenny_and_n

edwell_1994_the_effects_on_marine_fish_diving_mammals_and_birds_of_seismic_surveys.pdf.

(Tyack, 2009). Tyack, P. 2009. Human-generated sound and marine mammals. Physics Today, 39–44. 

Available online at: https://marine.rutgers.edu/dmcs/ms320/tyack_et_al_2009.pdf.

(Tyack et al., 2011). Tyack, P., W. Zimmer, D. Moretti, B. Southall, D. Claridge, J. Durban, C. Clark, A. 

D'Amico, N. DiMarzio, S. Jarvis, E. McCarthy, R. Morrissey, J. Ward, and I. Boyd. 2011. Beaked 

Whales Respond to Simulated and Actual Navy Sonar. PLoS One, 6(3):15. Available online at:

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0017009. 

(UNESCO, 2017). United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization. 2017. Databases: 

Underwater Cultural Heritage Sites. Accessed October 2022 at: 

https://webarchive.unesco.org/web/20181203024305/http:/www.unesco.org/new/en/culture/the

mes/underwater-cultural-heritage/underwater-cultural-heritage/databases/.

(UNOLS, 2021). University-National Oceanographic Laboratory System. 2021. UNOLS Charter. Accessed 

October 2022 at: https://www.unols.org/what-unols/unols-charter#_Toc22116747.

(UNOLS, No Date). University-National Oceanographic Laboratory System. No Date. Welcome to UNOLS. 

Accessed October 2022 at: https://www.unols.org/.

(Urbanek and Lewis, 2015). Urbanek R. and J. Lewis. 2015. Whooping Crane. In: The Birds of North 

America (A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology. Available online at: 

https://birdsna.org.

(U.S. Fleet Forces, 2009). United States Fleet Forces. 2009. Virginia Capes Range Complex, Final 

Environmental Impact Statement/Overseas Environmental Impact Statement (EIS/OEIS) Volume 1.

Available online at: 

https://www.navfac.navy.mil/content/dam/navfac/Environmental/PDFs/NEPA/vacapes_feis_vol_1_

full.pdf.

(USACE, 2012a). U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2012. Inland Waterways and Export Opportunities. 

Available online at: 

https://www.lrd.usace.army.mil/Portals/73/docs/Navigation/PCXIN/Inland_Waterways_and_Export

_Opportunities-FINAL_2013-01-03.pdf.

(USACE, 2012b). U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2012. Treaty Rights and Subsistence Fishing in the U.S. 

Waters of the Great Lakes, Upper Mississippi River, and Ohio River Basins. Available online at: 

http://glmris.anl.gov/documents/docs/Subsistence_Fishing_Report.pdf.

(USACE, 2019). U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2019. The Great Lakes and Mississippi River Interbasin 

Study - Brandon Road Integrated Feasibility Study and Environmental Impact Statement - Will 

County, Illinois. Available online at: 

https://usace.contentdm.oclc.org/utils/getfile/collection/p16021coll7/id/11394.
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

660

(USACE, No Date). U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. No Date. Navigation. Accessed October 2022 at: 

https://www.sam.usace.army.mil/Missions/Civil-Works/Navigation/.

(USCB, 2018). Economic Indicators Division, United States Census Bureau. 2018. USA Trade Online. U.S. 

Import and Export Merchandise trade statistics. Accessed October 2022 at: 

https://usatrade.census.gov/data/Perspective60/View/dispview.aspx.

(USCG, No Date). U.S. Coast Guard. No Date. Office of Commercial Vessel Compliance (CG-CVC), 

International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution by Ships - MARPOL 73/7. Accessed October 

2022 at: https://www.dco.uscg.mil/Our-Organization/Assistant-Commandant-for-Prevention-PolicyCG-5P/Inspections-Compliance-CG-5PC-/Commercial-Vessel-Compliance/Domestic-ComplianceDivision/MARPOL/.

(USCG, 2018). U.S. Coast Guard. 2018. Maritime Commerce Strategic Outlook. Available online at: 

https://media.defense.gov/2018/Oct/05/2002049100/-1/-

1/0/USCG%20MARITIME%20COMMERCE%20STRATEGIC%20OUTLOOK-RELEASABLE.PDF.

(USDOT, 2017). U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics. 2017. 

Transportation Statistics Annual Report 2017. Available online at: 

https://www.bts.gov/sites/bts.dot.gov/files/docs/browse-statistical-products-anddata/transportation-statistics-annual-reports/215041/tsar-2017-rev-2-5-18-full-layout.pdf.

(USFS, 2010). U.S. Forest Service. 2010. Subsistence Hunting and Fishing. Program/Partnership Paper. 

Available online at: https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5252671.pdf.

(USFWS, 1983). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1983. Hawaiian Dark-rumped Petrel and Newel’s Manx 

Shearwater Recovery Plan. Available online at: 

https://ecos.fws.gov/docs/recovery_plan/830425.pdf.

(USFWS, 2005). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Pacific Region. 2005. Recovery Plan for the Tidewater 

Goby (Eucyclogobius newberryi). Available online at: 

https://ecos.fws.gov/docs/recovery_plan/051207.pdf. 

(USFWS, 2006a). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2006. California Least Tern (Sternulla antillarum browni) 

5-Year Review: Summary and Evaluation. Available online at: 

https://ecos.fws.gov/docs/five_year_review/doc775.pdf.

(USFWS, 2006b). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2006. Pacific Coast Population of Western Snowy Plover 

(Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus) 5-Year Review: Short Form Summary. Available online at: 

https://ecos.fws.gov/docs/five_year_review/doc770.pdf.

(USFWS, 2007). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2007. Hunting and Use of Sea Otters by Alaska Natives 

Fact Sheet. Available online at: https://www.kfsk.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/Federalregulations.pdf.

(USFWS, 2009a). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2009. Short-tailed Albatross (Phoebastria albatrus) 5-

Year Review: Summary and Evaluation. Available online at: 

https://ecos.fws.gov/docs/five_year_review/doc2623.pdf. 

(USFWS, 2009b). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2009. Piping Plover (Charadrius melodus) 5-Year Review: 

Summary and Evaluation. Available online at: 

https://ecos.fws.gov/docs/five_year_review/doc3009.pdf.
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

661

(USFWS, 2009c). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2009. Light-footed Clapper Rail (Rallus longirostris 

levipes) 5-Year Review: Summary and Evaluation. Available online at: 

https://ecos.fws.gov/docs/five_year_review/doc2573.pdf.

(USFWS, 2010a). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2010. Hawaiian Coot (Fulia alai) 5-Year Review: Summary 

and Evaluation. Available online at: https://ecos.fws.gov/docs/five_year_review/doc3337.pdf.

(USFWS, 2010b). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2010. Hawaiian Stilt or Ae`o (Himantopus mexicanus 

knudseni) 5-Year Review: Summary and Evaluation. Available online at: 

https://ecos.fws.gov/docs/five_year_review/doc3341.pdf.

(USFWS, 2012a). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2012. Snuffbox (freshwater mussle) Epioblasma 

triquetra. Available online at: 

https://www.fws.gov/sites/default/files/documents/508_snuffbox%20fact%20sheet.pdf. 

(USFWS, 2012b). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2012. Rayed Bean (freshwater mussel) Villosa fabalis.. 

Available online at: 

https://www.fws.gov/sites/default/files/documents/508_rayed%20bean%20fact%20sheet.pdf.

(USFWS, 2012c). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2012. Whooping Crane (Grus americana) 5-Year Review: 

Summary and Evaluation. Available online at: 

https://ecos.fws.gov/docs/five_year_review/doc3977.pdf.

(USFWS, 2013). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2013. California Clapper Rail (Rallus longirostris obsoletus) 

5-Year Review: Summary and Evaluation. Available online at: https://biologistshandbook.com/wpcontent/uploads/2018/01/5-Year-Review-2013-1.pdf.

(USFWS, 2014a). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2014. Stock Assessment Report West Indian Manatee

(Trichechus manatus) Puerto Rico Stock (Antillean subspecies, Trichechus manatus manatus). 

Available online at: https://www.fws.gov/sites/default/files/documents/west-indian-manateepuerto-rico-stock-assessment-report.pdf.

(USFWS, 2014b). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2014. West Indian Manatee (Trichechus manatus) Florida 

Stock (Florida subspecies, Trichechus manatus latirostris). Available online at:

https://www.fws.gov/sites/default/files/documents/west-indian-manatee-florida-stockassessment-report.pdf.

(USFWS, 2014c). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2014. Northern Sea Otter (Enhydra lutris kenyoni): 

Southwest Alaska Stock. Available online at: 

https://www.fws.gov/sites/default/files/documents/northern-sea-otter-southwest-alaska-stockassessment-report.pdf.

(USFWS, 2014d). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2014. Stock Assessment Report Northern Sea Otter

(Enhydra lutris kenyoni): Southeast Alaska Stock. Available online at: 

https://www.fws.gov/sites/default/files/documents/northern-sea-otter-southeast-alaska-stockassessment-report.pdf. 

(USFWS, 2014e). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2014. Stock Assessment Report Northern Sea Otter

(Enhydra lutris kenyoni): Southcentral Alaska Stock. Available online at: 

https://www.fws.gov/sites/default/files/documents/northern-sea-otter-southcentral-alaska-stockassessment-report.pdf. 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

662

(USFWS, 2014f). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2014. Short-tailed Albatross (Phoebastria albatrus) 5-Year 

Review: Summary and Evaluation. Available online at: 

https://ecos.fws.gov/docs/five_year_review/doc4445.pdf.

(USFWS, 2014g). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2014. Pacific Walrus (Odobenus rosmarus divergens): 

Alaska Stock. Available online at: https://www.fws.gov/sites/default/files/documents/pacificwalrus-stock-assessment-report.pdf.

(USFWS, 2015). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Pacific Region). 2015. Recovery Plan for the Coterminous 

United States Population of Bull Trout (Salvelinus confluentus). Available online at: 

https://ecos.fws.gov/docs/recovery_plan/Final_Bull_Trout_Recovery_Plan_092915-corrected.pdf.

(USFWS, 2016a). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2016. Programmatic Biological Opinion for Polar Bears 

(Ursus maritimus), Polar Bear Critical Habitat, and Conference Opinion for the Pacific Walrus

(Odobenus rosmarus divergens) on Beaufort Sea Incidental Take Regulations. Fairbanks Fish and 

Wildlife Field Office.

(USFWS, 2016b). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2016. Newell’s Shearwater (Puffinus auricularis newelli) 

5-Year Review: Short Form Summary. Available online at: 

https://ecos.fws.gov/docs/five_year_review/doc5637.pdf.

(USFWS, 2016c). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2016. Eskimo Curlew (Numenius borealis) 5-Year Review: 

Summary and Evaluation. Available online at: 

https://ecos.fws.gov/docs/five_year_review/doc4866.pdf.

(USFWS, 2017a). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2017. Critical Habitat: What is it? Available online at: 

https://www.fws.gov/sites/default/files/documents/critical-habitat-fact-sheet.pdf.

(USFWS, 2017b). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2017. Hawaiian Petrel (Pterodroma sandwichensis) 5-

Year Review: Short Form Summary and Evaluation. Available online at: 

https://ecos.fws.gov/docs/five_year_review/doc5234.pdf.

(USFWS, 2018). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2018. Sea Otter (Enhydra lutris kenyoni) Washington 

Stock. Available online at: 

https://www.fws.gov/sites/default/files/documents/WA%20NSO%20SAR%20July%202018%20Final.

pdf.

(USFWS, 2019). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2019. Marbled Murrelet (Brachyramphus marmoratus) 5-

Year Review: Summary and Evaluation. Available online at: 

https://ecos.fws.gov/docs/five_year_review/doc6027.pdf.

(USFWS, 2020). United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 2020. Personal Communication with Jenipher 

Cate, Marine Mammals Management, Alaska Region. Technical Review, September 2020. 

(USFWS, 2021a). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2021. Southern Sea Otter (Enhydra lutris nereis). 

Available online at: https://www.fws.gov/sites/default/files/documents/southern-sea-otter-stockassessment-report.pdf.

(USFWS, 2021b). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2021. Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus. Available 

online at: https://www.fws.gov/sites/default/files/documents/bald-eagle-fact-sheet.pdf.

(USFWS, 2021c). United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 2021. Personal Communication from Jennifer 

Spegon, Alaska ESA Section 7 Consultation Coordinator. Subject: NOS Meeting with USFWS Alaska. 

March 15, 2021.
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

663

(USFWS, No Date-a). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Rufa Red Knot. No Date. Accessed October 2022 at: 

https://www.fws.gov/species/rufa-red-knot-calidris-canutus-rufa.

(USFWS, No Date-b). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. No Date. Whooping Crane. Accessed October 2022

at: https://www.fws.gov/species/whooping-crane-grus-americana. 

(USFWS, No Date-c). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. No Date. Website. Species Profile: Laysan Duck. 

Accessed October 2022 at: https://www.fws.gov/species/laysan-duck-anas-laysanensis. 

(USFWS, No Date-d). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. No Date. Historic Preservation. Accessed October 

2022 at: https://www.fws.gov/program/historic-preservation. 

(USFWS, No Date-e). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. No Date. Marking, Tagging, and Reporting. Accessed 

October 2022 at: https://www.fws.gov/alaska-MTRP.

(USFWS, No Date-f). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. No Date. Alaska Sea Otter Hunting & Handicrafting.

Alaska Region.

(USFWS, No Date-g). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. No Date. Pacific Walrus Hunting and Handicrafting.

Alaska Region.

(USGCRP, 2009). U.S. Global Change Research Program. 2009. Global Climate Change Impacts in the 

United States. Available online at: https://downloads.globalchange.gov/usimpacts/pdfs/climateimpacts-report.pdf.

(USGCRP, 2018). U.S. Global Change Research Program. 2018. Impacts, Risks, and Adaptation in the 

United States: Fourth National Climate Assessment, Volume II. Available online at: 

https://nca2018.globalchange.gov/downloads/NCA4_2018_FullReport.pdf.

(USGS, 2019a). U.S. Geological Survey. 2019. Marine Seismic Imaging. Accessed October 2022 at: 

https://www.usgs.gov/natural-hazards/coastal-marine-hazards-and-resources/science/marineseismic-imaging?qt-science_center_objects=0#qt-science_center_objects.

(USGS, 2019b). U.S. Geological Survey. 2019. Mapping Coral Reefs. Accessed October 2022 at: 

https://www.usgs.gov/centers/pcmsc/science/mapping-coral-reefs?qtscience_center_objects=0#qt-science_center_objects.

(USGS, 2020). U.S. Geological Survey. 2020. Decadal Strategic Plan of the Coastal and Marine Hazards 

and Resources Program, Decadal Science Strategy. Accessed October 2022 at: 

https://wim.usgs.gov/geonarrative/cmhrp/.

(USGS, 2022a). U.S. Geological Survey. 2022. NAS – Non-indigenous Aquatic Species: Dreissena 

polymorpha. Accessed October 2022 at: 

https://nas.er.usgs.gov/queries/FactSheet.aspx?speciesID=5. 

(USGS, 2022b). U.S. Geological Survey. 2022. NAS – Non-indigenous Aquatic Species: Dreissena bugensis. 

Accessed October 2022 at: https://nas.er.usgs.gov/queries/FactSheet.aspx?speciesID=95.

(USGS, No Date). U.S. Geological Survey. No Date. NAS – Nonindigenous Aquatic Species. Accessed 

October 2022 at: https://nas.er.usgs.gov/default.aspx.

(USU, No Date). Utah State University. No Date. Water Quality – Aquatic Macroinvertebrates. Accessed 

October 2022 at: 

https://extension.usu.edu/waterquality/learnaboutsurfacewater/propertiesofwater/aquaticmacros. 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

664

(van der Oost et al., 2003). van der Oost, R., J. Beyer, and N.P.E. Vermeulen. 2003. Fish bioaccumulation 

and biomarkers in environmental risk assessment: a review. Environmental Toxicology and 

Pharmacology, 13(2): 57-149. Available online at: https://doi.org/10.1016/s1382-6689(02)00126-6.

(Varghese et al., 2020). Varghese, H.K, J. Miksis-Olds, N. DiMarzio, K. Lowell, E. Linder, L. Mayer, and D. 

Moretti. 2020. The effect of two 12 kHz multibeam mapping surveys on the foraging behavior of 

Cuvier’s beaked whales off of southern California. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America,

147:3849. Available online at: https://doi.org/10.1121/10.0001385.

(Vasconcelos et al., 2007). Vasconcelos, R.O., M.P. Amorim, and F. Ladich. 2007. Effects of ship noise on 

the detectability of communication signals in the Lusitanian toadfish. Journal of Experimental

Biology, 210(12):2104-2112. Available online at: https://doi.org/10.1242/jeb.004317.

(Vollman, 2019). Vollman, A. 2019. Forgotten Endangered Species: Freshwater Mussels. Modern 

Conservationist. Accessed October 2022 at: https://modernconservationist.com/forgottenendangered-species-freshwater-mussels/. 

(Voorhees et al., 2014). Voorhees, H., R. Sparks, H.P. Huntington, and K.D. Rode. 2014. Traditional 

Knowledge about Polar Bears (Ursus maritimus) in Northwestern Alaska. Arctic, 67(4):523-536. 

Available online at: http://dx.doi.org/10.14430/arctic4425.

(Vox, 2014). Vox, D. Matthews. 2014. What's it's like to hunt sea otters. Accessed October 2022 at: 

https://www.vox.com/2014/5/2/5671548/i-hunt-otters-ama.

(Walker et al., 2018). Walker, T.R., O. Adebambo , M.C. Del Aguila Feijoo, E. Elhaimer, T. Hossain, S. J. 

Edwards , C.E. Morrison , J. Romo , N. Sharma , S. Taylor and S. Zomorodi. 2018. Environmental 

Effects of Marine Transportation. In: Word Seas: An Environmental Evaluation, pp. 505-530, 2nd

Edition, Chapter 27. Available online at: https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-805052-1.00030-9. 

(Wardle et al., 2001). Wardle, C.S., T.J. Carter, G.G. Urquhart, A.D.F. Johnstone, A.M. Ziolkowski, G. 

Hampson, and D. Mackie. 2001. Effects of seismic airguns on marine fish. Continental Shelf 

Research, 21(8):1005-1027. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0278-4343(00)00122-9.

(Watson et al., 2006). Watson, R., C. Revenga. And Y. Kura. 2006. Fishing gear associated with global 

marine catches: II. Trends in trawling and dredging. Fisheries Research, 79(1-2):103–111. Available 

online at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fishres.2006.01.013. 

(Whatcom Land Trust, No Date). Whatcom Land Trust. No Date. Chelhtenem Lily Point Story. Accessed 

October 2022 at: http://www.jackex.com/lilypoint/SiteIndex.html. 

(Wiese et al., 2001). Wiese, F.K., W.A. Montevecchi, G.K. Davoren, F. Huettmann, A.W. Diamond, and J. 

Linke. 2001. Seabirds at risk around offshore oil platforms in the North-west Atlantic. Marine 

Pollution Bulletin, 42(12):1285-1290. Available online at: 

http://www.opc.ca.gov/webmaster/_media_library/2016/01/Wiese-et-al-2001-offshore-lightingand-seabirds.pdf.

(WP Council, 2019a). Western Pacific Fishery Management Council. 2019. Fishery Plans and Publications. 

Available online at: http://www.wpcouncil.org/fishery-ecosystem-plans-amendments/.

(WP Council, 2019b). Western Pacific Fishery Management Council. 2019. 2019 Annual Stock 

Assessment and Fishery Evaluation Reports. Available online at: http://www.wpcouncil.org/annualreports/##. 

(WP Council, 2020). Western Pacific Fishery Management Council. 2020. Fishery Plans and Publications. 

Available online at: http://www.wpcouncil.org/fishery-ecosystem-plans-amendments/.
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

665

(WPRFMC, 2016). Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council. 2016. Fishery Ecosystem Plan 

for the Mariana Archipelago. Available online at: 

http://www.wpcouncil.org/fep/WPRFMC%20Mariana%20FEP%20(2009-09-22).pdf. 

(Würsig et al., 1998). Würsig, B., S.K. Lynn, T.A. Jefferson, and K.D. Mullin. 1998. Behaviour of cetaceans 

in the northern Gulf of Mexico relative to survey ships and aircraft. Aquatic Mammals, 24(1):41-50. 

Available online at: 

https://aquaticmammalsjournal.org/share/AquaticMammalsIssueArchives/1998/AquaticMammals_

24-01/24-01_Wursig.pdf.

(Wynne, 2013). Wynne, K. 2013. Guide to Marine Mammals of Alaska. Fourth Edition. University of 

Chicago Press. 80 pp. Available online at: https://seagrant.uaf.edu/bookstore/pubs/MAB-44.html. 

(Yan, 2004). Yan, H.Y. 2004. The Role of Gas-Holding Structures in Fish Hearing: An Acoustically Evoked 

Potentials Approach. In: The Senses of Fish (von der Emde, G., J. Mogdans, and B.G. Kapoor, Eds.). 

Springer, Dordrecht. Available online at: https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-94-007-

1060-3_9#citeas.

(Yeates et al., 2007). Yeates, L.C., T.M. Williams, and T.L. Fink. 2007. Diving and foraging energetics of 

the smallest marine mammal, the sea otter (Enhydra lutris). The Journal of Experimental Biology,

210(11):1960-1970. Available online at: https://doi.org/10.1242/jeb.02767. 

(Zelick et al., 1999). Zelick, R., D. Mann, and A.N. Popper. 1999. Acoustic communication in fishes and 

frogs. In: Comparative hearing: Fish and amphibians (Fay, R.R. and A.N. Popper, Eds.). New York, NY: 

Springer-Verlag. Pp. 363-411. Available online at: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4612-0533-3_9.

(Zieman et al., 1984). Zieman, J.C., R. Orth, R.C. Phillips, G. Thayer, and A. Thorhaug. 1984. The effects of 

oil on seagrass ecosystems. In: Restoration of Habitats Impacted by Oil Spills (J. Crains and A. L. 

Buikema, Eds.). Butterworth, Boston, MA. pp. 37-64. Available online at: 

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/242651053_The_effects_of_oil_spills_on_seagrass_ecos

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

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

666

6.0 LIST OF PREPARERS

This Final PEIS was prepared and reviewed by a team from NOAA’s National Ocean Service. Consultants 

from Solv LLC and JASCO Applied Sciences assisted the National Ocean Service in conducting research, 

gathering data, acoustic modeling, and preparing the Final PEIS and supporting documents.

6.1 NOAA NATIONAL OCEAN SERVICE TEAM

Name and Qualifications Project Role

Giannina DiMaio

M.S., Natural Resources

M.S., Public Health and 

Environmental Quality

B.S., Marine Science

National Ocean Service

Environmental Compliance Coordinator/Task Monitor

Jay Nunenkamp

B.S., Geology

Office of Coast Survey

Environmental Compliance Coordinator

Jonelle Dilley, J.D. NOAA Office of General Counsel, Oceans and Coasts Section

6.2 SOLV LLC

Name and Qualifications Project Role

Wendy Grome

B.S., Chemical Engineering

Project Manager

Technical Review of All Sections

Project Quality Control

Leon Kolankiewicz

M.S., Environmental Planning and 

Natural Resources Management

B.S., Forestry and Wildlife 

Management

Deputy Project Manager/Regulatory Expert

Technical Reviewer

Aquatic Macroinvertebrates, Cumulative Effects

Nathalie Jacque

B.S., Environmental Science and 

Environmental Economics

Deputy Project Manager

Socioeconomic Resources, Environmental Justice, Cumulative 

Effects

Eveline Martin

M.S., Forest Ecology

B.S., Biology

Lead Biologist

Marine Mammals, Fish, Essential Fish Habitat, Cumulative 

Effects

Robbie Baldwin

M.S./B.S., Biology

Environmental Analyst

Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives, Birds, Sea 

Turtles, Habitats, Cumulative Effects

Dave Henney, P.E.

B.S., Civil and Environmental 

Engineering

PE, Civil Engineer

Environmental Analyst

Habitats, Resources Considered but Dismissed, Relationship 

Between Short-Term Uses of the Environment and the 

Maintenance and Enhancement of Long-Term Productivity, 

Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources,

Unavoidable Adverse Impacts

Oshin Paranjape

M.S., Environmental Management

B.S., Chemistry

Environmental Analyst and GIS Specialist

Environmental Justice, Cumulative Effects
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

667

Name and Qualifications Project Role

Certificate of Geospatial Analysis

Michelle Smyk, EIT

M.ChE., B.S., Chemical Engineering

Environmental Analyst

Methodology and Regulatory Background, Cumulative Actions, 

Cumulative Effects, Response to Public Comments

Marissa Murphy

M.A./B.A., Environmental Science 

and Policy

Environmental Analyst

Cultural and Historic Resources, Cumulative Effects, 

Methodology and Regulatory Background

Nick Iraola

M.S., Marine Science

B.A., Environmental Studies

Environmental Analyst

Cumulative Actions, Response to Public Comments

Kevin Ebert

B.S., Environmental and 

Sustainability Sciences

Environmental Analyst

Technical Review and Editing

6.3 JASCO APPLIED SCIENCES

Name and Qualifications Project Role

Samuel Denes

Ph.D., Acoustics

B.S., Bioengineering

Underwater Acoustician

Technical Acoustic Analysis of Oceanographic Surveys for the 

National Ocean Service

David Zeddies

Ph.D., Neuroscience

B.S., Mechanical Engineering

Marine Acoustics Lead

Technical Acoustic Analysis of Oceanographic Surveys for the 

National Ocean Service

Michelle Weirathmueller

Ph.D., Oceanography

M.S., Ocean Engineering

B.S., Geomatics Engineering

Underwater Acoustician

Technical Acoustic Analysis of Oceanographic Surveys for the 

National Ocean Service

Katy Limpert

Ph.D., Wetland Ecology and 

Biogeochemistry

M.S., Forest Hydrology

B.S., Biology with Environmental 

Concentration

Project Scientist

Technical Acoustic Analysis of Oceanographic Surveys for the 

National Ocean Service

Klaus Lucke

Ph.D., Biological Oceanography

M.S., Zoology, Marine Biology, 

Oceanography

Project Scientist

Technical Acoustic Analysis of Oceanographic Surveys for the 

National Ocean Service

Karlee Zammit

B.S., Physics

Project Scientist

Technical Acoustic Analysis of Oceanographic Surveys for the 

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

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

668

7.0 GLOSSARY

95% Exposure Range: The horizontal range that includes 95 percent of animat (simulated animal) closest 

points of approach (CPAs) that exceed a given impact threshold.

Abiotic: Non-living part of the ecosystem such as air, water, and substrates. 

Accuracy: The degree to which measurements or models reflect the actual value or condition of the 

subject being measured or characterized.

Acoustic Impedance: Ratio of sound pressure to sound volume. 

Action Area: The geographic location where the NOS Proposed Action would occur. It includes rivers, 

states’ offshore waters, the United States (U.S.) territorial sea, the contiguous zone, U.S. portions of 

the Great Lakes, the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone, and coastal and riparian lands.

Active Sonar: A type of Sound Navigation and Ranging (sonar) that detects objects by creating a sound 

pulse that is transmitted through the water, reflects off a target object, and returns in the form of an 

echo to be detected.

Additive Cumulative Effect: An impact on a resource which is the sum of the individual impacts on that 

resource.

Adverse Impacts: Effects which are negative and harmful for the analyzed resource; and cause a change 

that moves the resource away from a desired condition or detracts from its appearance or condition.

Algal Flat: An assemblage of cyanobacteria (i.e., blue-green algae) or other photosynthetic 

microorganisms forming a dense flat mass, especially on or within the surface layer of an aquatic 

sediment.

Alkali Flat: Dried-out lake beds adjacent to coasts containing high salt concentrations.

Alkali lake: A saline water body containing large amounts of sodium and potassium carbonates in solution 

as well as sodium chloride, commonly found in arid regions.

Amphipod: An order of crustaceans, resembling shrimp, with no carapace (i.e., hard upper shell) and 

ranging from 1 to 340 millimeters (mm) in length, comprising both marine and freshwater forms. 

Amphipods are detritivores (i.e., feed on dead organic material) or scavengers.

Amplitude: Magnitude of the largest departure from its equilibrium value of an acoustic variable. High 

amplitude corresponds to high intensity.

Anadromous: A general category of fish, such as the salmon, which hatch in fresh water, spend most of 

their lives in the salt water of the ocean, and then return to fresh water to spawn.

Angling: Recreational fishing with hook and line.

Animat: Computer simulated animals used in behavioral research and modeling. 

Annelid: Macroinvertebrate phylum consisting of segmented worms, including polychaetes (e.g., bristle 

worms).

Aquaculture: The artificial breeding, rearing, and harvesting of fish, shellfish, plants, algae, and other 

organisms in all types of water environments.

Aquatic Macroinvertebrate: Small organisms that have no internal skeletal system and live part or all of 

their lives in water; they are visible without the aid of a microscope.
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

669

Archipelago: Area that contains a chain or group of islands scattered in lakes, rivers, or the ocean. 

Area of Potential Effect (APE): The geographic location within which a physical undertaking may directly 

or indirectly cause alterations in the character or use of historic properties, if any such properties 

exist. The APE is influenced by the scale and nature of an undertaking and may be different for 

different kinds of effects caused by the undertaking.

Arribada: The synchronized, large-scale nesting on sandy beaches of some species of sea turtle (e.g., 

Kemp's ridley and olive ridley).

Arthropod: Phylum consisting of macroinvertebrate animals with exoskeletons, including (in marine 

habitats) crustaceans such as lobsters, crabs, shrimp, as well as amphipods, barnacles, and copepods.

Astrolabe: A historic scientific instrument used for reckoning time and for observational purposes.

Atoll: A ring-shaped coral reef, island, or series of islets.

Audiogram: A chart that shows the results of a hearing test.

Auditory Masking: The reduction in an animal’s ability to perceive, recognize, or decode biologically 

relevant sounds because of interfering sounds.

Automatic Identification System (AIS): A shipboard broadcast system that acts like a transponder and 

uniquely identifies ships and vessels, using radio or satellite transceivers. 

A-weighting Function: A mathematical curve that takes into account the average sensitivity of the human 

ear to sound frequency. A-weighting is used to convert a physical quantity of acoustic pressure (in 

decibels [dB]) to a value that better quantifies how loud a noise is perceived by humans. Corresponds 

to M-weighting functions for marine mammals.

Back-reef Habitat: Shallow lagoon between a barrier reef and the shoreline, often including small patches 

of corals, sand plains, and seagrass beds; waters in this habitat are typically warmer than outside the 

reef because of shallow depth, reduced water circulation, and shelter from wave action. Salinity may 

fluctuate because of variable freshwater inflow. 

Backscatter: The scattering of particles or radiation, such as sound waves, by the atoms of the medium 

through which they pass, in the backward direction. 

Bait Cup (also known as grinding hole): Small depressions ground into bedrock.

Baleen: The apparatus inside the mouths of toothless whales, upon which they rely to filter food from the 

sea.

Ballast Water: Fresh or salt water, sometimes containing sediments, held in tanks and cargo holds of ships 

to increase stability and maneuverability during transit. 

Bank Reef: Reef that is built upward from the seafloor by non-photosynthetic coral.

Barotrauma: Injury from excessive water pressure.

Barrier Reef: A coral reef roughly parallel to a shore and separated from it by a lagoon or channel of deep 

water.

Bathymetry: The depths and shapes of underwater terrain, or submarine topography.

Bathypelagic: Zone of the open ocean that extends from a depth of 1,000 to 4,000 meters (m) beneath 

the surface, with little or no sunlight present in the ecosystem. Above lies the mesopelagic zone; 

below the abyssopelagic zone. 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

670

Beach Nourishment: Process by which sediment, usually sand, lost through longshore drift or erosion is 

artificially replaced with sediment from other sources.

Beneficial Impacts: Effects which are positive and supportive for the analyzed resource. A beneficial 

impact constitutes a positive change in the condition or appearance of the resource or a change that 

moves the resource toward a desired condition.

Benthic: Relating to or occurring at the bottom of a body of water or in the depths of the ocean.

Benthos: The flora and fauna found on the bottom, or in the bottom sediments, of a sea, lake, or other 

body of water.

Best Management Practice (BMP): An action or a combination of actions, that is determined to be an 

effective and practicable means of preventing or reducing adverse impacts to a resource. 

Bicarbonate: A salt of carbonic acid containing the ion HCO3

–

.

Bilge: Area on the outer surface of a ship's hull where the bottom curves to meet the vertical sides. The 

bilge of a ship or boat is the part of the hull that would rest on the ground if the vessel were 

unsupported by water.

Bilge Water: Water that is generated by various activities involved in keeping a ship running while at sea. 

It collects in the hull of a vessel and contains industrial fluids from machinery spaces, internal drainage 

systems, sludge tanks, and various other sources.

Bioaccumulation: Over time, the buildup of ingested substances, typically heavy metals, pesticides, or 

toxins, in the tissues of a living organism. This occurs when an organism absorbs a substance at a rate 

faster than that at which the substance is lost or eliminated.

Biodiversity: The variety and variability of life on Earth. Biodiversity is typically a measure of variation at 

the genetic, species, and ecosystem level. Terrestrial biodiversity is usually greater near the equator, 

which is the result of the warm climate and high primary productivity, and lower in polar regions.

Biologically Important Area (BIA): Spatially defined locations where aggregations of individuals of 

cetaceans display biologically important behaviors which are region-, species-, and time-specific.

Bioluminescence: Light produced by a chemical reaction within a living organism; occurs widely in marine 

vertebrates and invertebrates.

Biosphere: Layer of the Earth where life exists.

Biotic: Relating to or resulting from living things, especially in their ecological relations.

Bivalve: Aquatic mollusk with two hinged shells, such as oysters, clams, mussels, and scallops.

Bleaching (of coral): Under conditions of thermal stress, the process of expelling the algae (zooxanthellae) 

living in the tissues of coral polyps, causing the corals to turn completely white; bleaching for an 

extended period of time can lead to mortality of the coral polyps and hence the coral reef. 

Blubber: The thick layer of fat under the skin of marine mammals, such as seals, whales, and walruses.

Bluff: Steep shoreline slope formed in sediment (i.e., loose material such as clay, sand, and gravel) that 

has three feet or more of vertical elevation just above the high tide line.

Brachiopod: Phylum consisting of marine macroinvertebrates with hard “valves” or shells on their upper 

and lower surfaces.

Brackish: Water with salinity levels higher than fresh water but lower than sea water (salt water).
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

671

Breaching (for whales): Leaping above the water. 

Broadband: Data transmission using a wide range of frequencies. 

Broadband Sound: Vibrations with a combination of many frequencies distributed over a wide section of 

the audible range; as opposed to narrowband sound.

Bryozoan: Macroinvertebrate phylum consisting of moss animals or sea mats.

Bycatch: Fish or shellfish caught unintentionally or inadvertently while pursuing other target species.

Capital: Human-created assets that can enhance one's power to perform economically useful work.

Carbon Geosequestration: Depositing and storing carbon in a reservoir beneath the Earth’s surface.

Catadromous: A general category describing fish, such as eels, that live in fresh water and migrate to salt 

water to spawn.

Cavitation: A phenomenon in which rapid changes of pressure in a liquid lead to the formation of small 

vapor-filled cavities (i.e., bubbles) in places where the pressure is relatively low.

Cephalopod: Active predatory mollusk of the large class Cephalopoda, such as an octopus or squid.

Cetacean: Completely aquatic marine mammals such as whales, dolphins, and porpoises; they feed, mate, 

calve, and suckle their young in the water.

Chartered Vessel: Vessels that are owned and/or operated by a private firm and are operating under an 

NOS contract. 

Cilia: Microscopic hair-like structures on the surface of certain cells that either cause currents in the 

surrounding fluid, or, in some protozoans and other small organisms, provide propulsion.

Closest Point of Approach (CPA): Term used in modeling the level of sound exposure of marine mammals 

to an underwater sound source; refers to the closest horizontal distance of animats from a sound 

source.

Cnidaria: Phylum of macroinvertebrate marine fauna including jellyfish, sea anemones, and corals.

Coastal Birds: Birds which occupy coastal habitats, such as shorebirds, pelicans, terns, gulls, and some 

waterfowl and wading birds. 

Community: Group or association of populations of two or more different species occupying the same 

ecosystem.

Conservative Estimate: Use of assumptions in analysis methodologies that result in larger impacts on the 

environment. 

Conspecific: Animals or plants belonging to the same species. 

Consumer Surplus: The value of goods in excess of the costs of acquisition.

Contiguous Zone: A band of water extending farther from the outer edge of the territorial sea to up to 24 

nautical miles (nm) (44.4 kilometers [km]) from the baseline. The zone established by the United 

States under Article 24 of the Convention on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone, as published 

in the June 1, 1972 issue of the Federal Register.

Continental Shelf: The area of sea bed around a large landmass where the sea is relatively shallow 

compared with the open ocean.
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

672

Continental Slope: The deepening sea floor out from the continental shelf (see definition above) edge to 

the upper limit of the continental rise, or the point where there is a general decrease in steepness.

Continuous Sound: Vibration that is present at all times in a relevant time window.

Copepod: Small aquatic crustaceans that are one of the most numerous macroinvertebrates in aquatic 

communities. They inhabit a wide range of salinities, from fresh water to hypersaline conditions.

Coral Polyps: Sessile macroinvertebrates of the class Anthoza that typically form and live in large colonies 

known as coral reefs, which constitute some of the most biodiverse communities on Earth.

Corallite: Skeleton of an individual coral polyp.

Core: Samples that preserve surface and subsurface sediment layers. 

Countervailing Cumulative Effect: Where the net adverse impact is less than the sum of the individual 

impacts.

Critical Habitat: Specific geographic area, as formally designated by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or 

National Marine Fisheries Service under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), that contains features 

essential to the conservation of an endangered or threatened species and that may require special 

management and protection. May also include areas that are not currently occupied by the species

but will be needed for its recovery.

Cryopelagic: Relating to the underside of an oceanic ice layer or the water immediately below the ice 

surface. 

Cultural Landscape: A geographic area, including both cultural and natural resources and the wildlife or 

domestic animals therein, associated with a historic event, activity, or person, or exhibiting other 

cultural or aesthetic values.

Cumulative Actions: Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future activities that are addressed in the 

cumulative effects analysis because their environmental effects may combine or interact with the 

effects of the Proposed Action.

Cumulative Impacts: Effects on the environment from the incremental effect of the Proposed Action 

when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions.

Cumulative Sound Exposure Level (SEL): A measure of energy that takes into account both received level 

and duration of exposure; total combined sound energy to which an animal has been exposed over 

time. 

Datum: A coordinate system and a set of reference points used for locating places on the Earth. Datums 

are used in navigation and surveying by cartographers, surveyors, and navigation systems to translate 

positions indicated on maps to their real position on Earth.

De minimis: Referring to environmental impacts so minimal as to merit disregard.

De-ballast: Exchange of ballast water (see definition above) in open ocean waters (for vessels that have 

ballast tanks).

Decidecade Band: A logarithmic frequency interval equal to one tenth of a decade (i.e., a unit for 

measuring ratios on a logarithmic scale, with one decade corresponding to a ratio of 10 between two 

numbers); it is approximately equal to one third of an octave.

Delphinid: Oceanic dolphin belonging to the family Delphinidae. 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

673

Demand: The desire of purchasers, consumers, clients, employers, etc., for a particular commodity, 

service, or other item.

Demersal: Relating to or near the ocean bottom, typically in reference to fish species such as cod, 

haddock, and flatfish (e.g., halibut) that live on or near the sea floor.

Deoxygenation: A decrease in dissolved oxygen concentration in fresh or saltwater habitats.

Depleted (under the MMPA): Status of a species under the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) when 

its population falls below the optimum sustainable population level. 

Depredation: The act of preying upon, such as the killing of adult birds and offspring by natural predators.

Designed Cultural Landscape: A setting that includes purposefully planned views or vistas.

Detritus: In aquatic ecosystems, refers to dead particulate organic material, as opposed to dissolved 

organic material. It usually includes the remains or fragments of dead organisms as well as fecal 

material, and often hosts communities of microorganisms that both colonize and decompose it.

Diadromous: A general category describing fish that spend portions of their life cycles partially in fresh 

water and partially in salt water, including both anadromous and catadromous fish. 

Direct effect: Impact caused by an action that occurs at the same time and place.

Distinct Population Segment (DPS): A vertebrate population (i.e., a group of potentially interbreeding 

organisms in the same species in a given locality) or group of populations that is discrete from other 

populations of the species and significant in relation to the entire species.

Doppler Shift: Relative change in the frequency of sounds emitted by approaching or receding sound 

sources.

Downwelling: A process where surface water is forced downwards, where it may deliver oxygen to deeper 

waters, increasing dissolved oxygen concentrations in the depths. 

Dredge: Remove sediment from the sea bed, lake bed, river bed, or the bottom of artificial waterways, 

typically done to increase or restore water depth for the transit of vessels or to restore the volume of 

water in lakes filling in with sediments.

Duty Cycle: The fraction or percentage of time that a source is ‘on’ in a relevant time window (e.g., a 

source transmitting for two hours per day has a duty cycle of 2/24 = 0.08 = 8 percent).

Echinoderm: Member of a phylum of marine macroinvertebrates; the adults are recognizable by their 

radial symmetry, including sea stars, sea urchins, sea cucumbers, sand dollars, and crinoids.

Echolocation: The use of sound waves and echoes to determine where objects are in space, used both in 

air (by bats) and water (by marine mammals).

Economic Sector: Components of the economy which are distinct from each other. 

Ecosystem: A system of biotic (i.e., living) and abiotic (i.e., non-living) components that interact with each 

other and function together as a unit.

Effects Determination: Process employed under the ESA to formally conclude whether actions may affect 

listed species or designated critical habitat.

Electric Load Planning: The process of forecasting the demand for electricity of a community and adjusting 

the generation and transmission of electricity accordingly. 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

674

Electrophysiological Studies: Investigations which stimulate the flow of ions into tissue in order to deduce 

the functional capabilities of anatomical structures. 

Endangered: A species is considered endangered under the ESA if it is in danger of extinction throughout 

all or a significant portion of its range.

Endemic: Native and restricted to a certain place, often referring to a species confined to a given locale.

Energy Source Level: In acoustics, defined as the intensity of the radiated sound at a distance of 1 meter 

from the source, where intensity is the amount of sound power transmitted through a unit area in a 

specified direction. Source level is given as a relative intensity measured in decibels.

Ensonify: To fill with sound, for example, a given volume of water of a given shape and configuration. 

Environmental Justice: A condition under which no population bears a disproportionate share of negative 

environmental consequences resulting from industrial, municipal, and commercial operations or from 

the execution of federal, state, and local services, laws, regulations, and policies.

Epipelagic: The part of the ocean where there is enough sunlight for algae to utilize photosynthesis; this 

zone reaches from the sea surface down to approximately 200 m (650 feet).

Episodic Erosion: The shore and backshore adjustment that results from short-duration, high-intensity 

meteorologic and oceanic storm events. This type of event response results in shore adjustment and 

occurs during a single storm or during a series of closely spaced storm events within a storm season.

Escarpment: An area of ground surface at which elevation changes suddenly. It usually refers to a cliff, 

precipice, or steep slope.

Essential Fish Habitat: Those waters and substrate necessary for fish for spawning, breeding, feeding, or 

growth to maturity, as designated by the National Marine Fisheries Service.

Eutrophication: Excessive richness of nutrients (e.g., nitrates and phosphates) in a lake or other body of 

water, frequently due to runoff from the land, which causes a dense growth of plant life (e.g., algal 

blooms) and death of aquatic animal life from lack of oxygen when the algae die en masse and 

decompose.

Evolutionarily Significant Unit (ESU): A population of organisms considered distinct for the purposes of 

conservation action; may be a species, subspecies, race, population, or stock, such as a stock of salmon 

associated with a particular river.

Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ): Area of the sea where the U.S. and other coastal nations have jurisdiction 

over natural resources. The U.S. EEZ extends no more than 200 nautical miles from the territorial sea 

baseline and is adjacent to the 12 nautical mile territorial sea of the U.S., including the Commonwealth 

of Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, the U.S. Virgin Islands, the Commonwealth of the Northern 

Mariana Islands, and any other territory or possession over which the United States exercises 

sovereignty.

Exoskeleton: A rigid, external supportive covering of an animal, such as an arthropod.

Federal Subsistence Priority: Subsistence (see definition below) uses by rural residents of Alaska are 

accorded priority by the federal government over non-subsistence uses, commercial or sport.

Federally Recognized Tribes: An American Indian or Alaska Native tribal entity that is recognized as having 

a government-to-government relationship with the U.S., with the responsibilities, powers, limitations, 

and obligations attached to that designation, and is eligible for funding and services from the Bureau 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

675

of Indian Affairs. See 86 FR 7554, updated by 86 FR 18552, for the full list of 574 federally recognized 

tribes.

Feeding Area: Areas and months within which a particular species or population selectively eats. These 

may either be found consistently in space and time, or may be associated with ephemeral features 

that are less predictable but can be delineated and are generally located within a larger identifiable 

area.

Filter Feeder: Animals that eat by moving water through a structure that acts as a sieve, straining 

suspended matter and food particles or prey from the water.

Fissiped: Members of the taxonomic order Carnivora, having toes separated to the base, including sea 

otters and polar bears. 

Fishery Management Councils (FMC): Eight regional bodies composed of knowledgeable people with a 

stake in fishery management, established under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and 

Management Act, to develop regional Fishery Management Plans and responsibly manage fish and 

shellfish species in waters within the U.S. EEZ. 

Fishing Community: A social or economic group whose members reside in a specific location and share a 

common dependency on commercial, recreational, or subsistence fishing or on directly related 

fisheries dependent services and industries (e.g., boatyards, ice suppliers, tackle shops). 

Fishing Lure: Artificial fishing bait designed to attract a fish's attention and instigate a bite so as to impale 

the fish on a hook; one or more hooks are often hidden within the lure.

Fjord: A long, deep, narrow body of water that reaches far inland and is bordered by steep mountains; in 

the continental United States, they are found only in Alaska.

Fledging Period: The stage in a flying animal's life between hatching or birth and becoming capable of 

flight.

Fledgling: A young bird which has developed wing feathers that are large and strong enough for flight.

Floe: A layer of floating ice on the surface of a water body; distinct from icebergs, which have calved from 

tidewater glaciers and have more vertical structure.

Flume: A narrow channel conveying water.

Fore Reef: The outside part of a reef (see definition below) seaward of the reef edge facing the open sea.

Fourier Transform: Algorithm that decomposes functions depending on space or time into functions 

depending on spatial or temporal frequency. Used to compute the spectral (frequency) content of a 

signal.

Frequency: Rate of oscillation of a sound wave as the number of cycles per second: ff [unit is Hz: Hertz]; 1 

HHz = 1/ss [second]; higher-frequency sounds are perceived as higher-pitched to the observer. Animal 

species are able to perceive sounds within given frequency ranges that vary from species to species. 

Sounds below or above that frequency range cannot be heard or detected by that species. 

Fringing Reef: One of the three main types of coral reef (see definition below). It is distinguished from the 

other main types, barrier reefs and atolls, in that it has either an entirely shallow backreef zone (i.e., 

lagoon) or none at all. Grows seaward directly from the shore and forms a border along the shoreline 

and surrounding islands. 

Frontal Zone: The transition area, sometimes amounting to a discontinuity, that separates adjacent air 

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

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

676

Fusiform: Tapering at both ends; spindle-shaped.

Gastropod: Mollusks of the class Gastropoda, having a head with eyes and feelers and a muscular foot on 

the underside of its body with which it moves. Most gastropods are aquatic in both fresh and salt 

water, but some have evolved to live on land, such as some snails and slugs; may have a univalve shell 

or none.

Geological and Geophysical (G&G) Surveys: Conducted to obtain data for oil and gas exploration and 

production; uses high-intensity active acoustic sources that penetrate the surface of the sea floor.

Gill Net: A fishing mesh which is hung vertically so that fish get trapped in it by their gills (i.e., the 

respiratory organs of fish).

Gross Domestic Product (GDP): The total value of goods produced and services provided in a country 

during one year.

Ground Truthing: To directly confirm, or validate by direct observation, information or data that was 

derived indirectly. 

Gyre: A large system of rotating ocean currents. 

Habitat: The natural environment of an organism; a place possessing the features and resources needed 

to promote the life and growth of an organism or a species.

Habitat Areas of Particular Concern (HAPC): A designation that encompasses discrete subsets of Essential 

Fish Habitat; high-priority locales for conservation, management, or research because they are rare, 

sensitive, stressed by development, or important to ecosystem function.

Habitat Occupancy: The presence of a given species within a habitat area.

Hard Bottom: Refers to exposed rock underneath a waterbody but includes other substrata such as coral 

and artificial structures.

Hatchling: A young bird that has recently emerged from its egg and is typically still nest-bound.

Haul Out: To come out of the water to spend time on land; practiced in particular by certain pinnipeds.

Head-of-tide: The inland limit of water affected by the rise and fall of sea levels.

Headwaters: The inland source from which a river originates within a basin or watershed; often refers to 

adjacent lands as well as waters within the upper reaches of a river basin.

Hearing Threshold: The minimum sound level, measured in decibels that an animal can hear within a 

specified frequency band.

Hearing Threshold Shifts: Changes in the hearing range of an organism due to exposure to high intensity 

sounds.

Highly Migratory Species (HMS): Fish that travel long distances and often cross domestic and 

international boundaries. These pelagic fish live in the open ocean, although they may spend part of 

their life cycle in nearshore waters.

High Resolution Geophysical (HRG) Survey: A type of geological and geophysical survey that uses sound 

waves that are reflected off submerged structures to collect data on conditions both at the sea floor 

and the shallow subsurface. 

High Tide Line: The intersection of the land with the water's surface at the maximum height reached by a 

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

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

677

Historic Property: Any prehistoric or historic district, site, building, structure, or object included in, or 

eligible for inclusion in, the National Register of Historic Places maintained by the Secretory of the 

Interior. This term includes artifacts, records, and remains that are related to and located within such 

properties and also includes properties of traditional religious and cultural importance to an Indian 

tribe or Hawaiian organization and that meet the National Register criteria. 

Homing Propensity: Tendency to return to the locations where a species originated.

Hydrocarbon: A compound of hydrogen and carbon, such as any of those which are the chief components 

of coal, petroleum, and natural gas (i.e., the fossil fuels).

Hydrography: The measurement and description of the physical features of oceans, seas, coastal areas, 

lakes, and rivers, as well as the prediction of their change over time, for the primary purpose of safety 

of navigation and in support of all other marine activities.

Hypoxia: Refers to low or depleted dissolved oxygen in a body of water. 

Ice Seals: Four species of seals found in the Arctic – bearded, ringed, spotted, and ribbon – which are 

collectively called ice seals because of their association with sea ice for feeding, resting, and pupping.

Illegal, Unreported, and Unregulated (IUU) Fishing: Fishing activities that violate both national and 

international fishing regulations. 

Immunocompetency or Immunocompetence: The ability of the body or of an organism to respond to 

illness.

Impulsive Sound: Sounds that are typically transient, brief (less than 1 second), broadband, and consist 

of high peak sound pressure (i.e., the decibel level of the maximum instantaneous acoustic pressure 

in a stated frequency band) with rapid rise time and rapid decay.

Indirect Effect: Environmental impact that is caused by the action and occurs later in time or is farther 

removed in distance but is still reasonably foreseeable. Indirect effects also include “induced changes” 

in the human and natural environments.

Insolation: Sunlight or incoming solar radiation. 

Intermittent Sound: A sound that is periodically present, in contrast to one that is constant or continuous.

Intertidal Zone: Area where the ocean meets the land between high and low tides. 

Inverse Fourier Transform: A mathematical algorithm that converts a space or time signal to a signal of 

the frequency domain; converting spatial or temporal data into the frequency domain data. It

computes the time-domain signal, h(t), from the spectral components H(t).

Invertebrate: Animal lacking a backbone.

Irretrievable Impact: Losses to or effects on natural resources that are lost for a period of time, but not 

permanently.

Irreversible Impact: Losses to or effects on natural resources from use or depletion of nonrenewable 

resources, such as fossil fuels or cultural resources, or to factors such as soil productivity that are 

renewable only over long periods of time.

Isopleth: Lines or curves on a map of equal values; contour lines on a topographic map depicting ground 

surfaces of the same elevation are an example of isopleths.

Karigi: Special houses used for performing ritual ceremonies by Alaska Natives.
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

678

Knot (unit): A unit of speed equal to one nautical mile per hour, exactly 1.852 kilometers per hour (km/h) 

(approximately 1.15078 miles per hour [mph] or 0.514 meters per second [m/s]).

Krill: Small, planktonic, shrimp-like crustaceans of the open oceans that are eaten by a number of marine 

animals, notably the baleen whales; they have been described as “essentially the fuel that runs the 

engine of the Earth’s marine ecosystems.”

Lagoon: A shallow body of water that may have an opening to a larger body of water but is also protected 

from it by a sandbar or coral reef; often brackish when near the sea.

Launch: A small boat that is deployed into the water directly from a ship. 

Lentic: Inhabiting or situated in still fresh water, such as the waters of a lake. 

Level A Harassment: Any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which has the potential to injure a marine 

mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild. 

Level B Harassment: Any act of pursuit, torment or annoyance which has the potential to disturb a marine 

mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing a disruption of behavioral patterns, including, 

but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering but which does not 

have the potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild.

Lidar: Acronym for Light Detection And Ranging. A remote sensing technology that uses light in the form 

of a pulsed laser to measure ranges (i.e., distances) to a target.

Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG): A form of natural gas (i.e., a naturally occurring hydrocarbon gas mixture 

consisting primarily of methane) that has been cooled down so that it has a reduced volume and 

behaves as a liquid.

Lithic: Of the nature of or relating to stone; in archaeology, it refers to any stone that has been used or 

beat on by humans. 

Lombard Effect: A phenomenon in which speakers increase their vocal production to communicate in 

noisy environments.

Low-income Population: Group of individuals living in geographic proximity to one another, or a 

geographically dispersed or transient (i.e., migrant) group of individuals that have household incomes 

at or below the designated “low-income” threshold or the designated federal poverty level. 

Macroalgae: Large marine algae, often living attached in dense beds, such as kelp and seaweed.

Macrohabitat: An extensive habitat presenting considerable variation of the environment, containing a 

variety of ecological niches, and supporting a large number and variety of complex flora and fauna. 

Macroinvertebrate: An animal lacking a backbone that can be seen without the aid of a microscope and 

captured by a 500--micrometer (μm) net or sieve. This includes arthropods (e.g., insects, mites, scuds 

and crayfish), mollusks (e.g., snails, limpets, mussels and clams), annelids (e.g., segmented worms), 

nematodes (e.g., roundworms), and platyhelminthes (e.g., flatworms).

Mangrove: A tree or shrub that grows in chiefly tropical coastal swamps that are flooded at high tide, 

typically with numerous tangled roots above ground and forming dense thickets.

Markov Chain: A mathematical system that transitions from one state to another according to certain 

probabilistic rules. Its defining characteristic is that no matter how the process reached its present 

state, the possible future states are fixed. They are used to model randomness in biological and 

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

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

679

Marine Hydrokinetic Technologies (MHK): The use of movement or temperature gradients of water to 

generate electricity in the ocean.

Marine Seismic Survey: A type of geological and geophysical survey that uses a variety of acoustic sources 

to image sediment and rock deep below the sea floor.

Maritime Heritage: The study of our past, both recent and ancient, in the context of the marine 

environment; study of the history of vessels, trade, transport, seaports, migration, navies, and sea 

battles, among other topics.

Marsh: A type of wetland which is dominated by grasses and other herbaceous plants; may be freshwater, 

brackish, or saltwater, and may be located inland or along the coast. 

Masking: The effect of an acoustic source interfering with the reception and detection of an acoustic 

signal of biological importance to a receiver.

Mechanical Wave: A wave, such as sound, that is not capable of transmitting its energy through a vacuum. 

They require a medium in order to propagate their energy from one location to another. 

Melon (as in Odontocetes): A globular fatty organ in certain whale species that gives shape to the domed 

forehead, focuses and modulates the animal’s vocalizations, and acts as a sound lens; it is a key organ 

involved in communication and echolocation. 

Merchantman: A merchant or trading ship that transports cargo or carries passengers for hire. 

Mesopelagic: Also known as the middle open ocean, this zone stretches from the bottom of the epipelagic 

down to the point where sunlight cannot reach. The deep end of this zone is approximately 1,000 m 

(3,300 feet) deep.

Metapopulation: Consists of a group of spatially separated populations of the same species which 

interact at some level. Among certain marine fish species, for example, populations may be spatially 

separated and independent, but spatial overlap occurs during breeding periods, allowing for gene 

flow between the distinct populations.

Midden: An old dump for domestic waste which may consist of animal bone, human excrement, botanical 

material, mollusk shells, sherds, lithics, and other artifacts and ecofacts associated with past human 

occupation.

Midwater: Mesopelagic and bathypelagic (see definitions above) zones of the open ocean.

Migratory Corridor: Areas and seasons within which a substantial portion of a species or population is 

known to migrate; for aquatic species the corridor is typically delimited on one or both sides by land 

or ice. 

Minimum Population Estimate: An estimate of the number of animals in a stock that: 

(A) is based on the best available scientific information on abundance, incorporating the precision and 

variability associated with such information; and

(B) provides reasonable assurance that the stock size is equal to or greater than the estimate.

Minority Population: A population in which the percentage of minorities exceeds 50 percent or is 

substantially higher than the percentage of minorities in the general population or other appropriate 

unit of geographic analysis.

Mollusk: Phylum of macroinvertebrates including gastropods (e.g., sea snails, whelks, limpets, abalone), 

bivalves (e.g., clams, mussels, oysters, scallops), cephalopods (e.g., squid, octopus), and chitins.
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

680

Molt: The process of shedding feathers, fur, or skin that will be replaced by a new growth. 

Motile: Capable of self-powered motion.

Muktuk/maktak: Fried whale blubber. 

M-weighting Function: Sound frequency weighting function for marine mammals based on a literature 

review of their physiological and behavioral responses to anthropogenic sound. Applied in a similar 

way as A-weighting for noise level assessments for humans (see definition for A-weighting function).

Mysticete: A taxonomic suborder of cetaceans; whales that have two blowholes and baleen plates instead 

of teeth. 

Nacelle: Housing for the generator, gearbox, and other parts of a wind turbine.

National Register of Historic Places (NRHP): The official list of the nation's historic places worthy of 

preservation. Authorized by the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, the National Park Service's 

NRHP is part of a national program to coordinate and support public and private efforts to identify, 

evaluate, and protect America's historic and archeological resources.

National Wildlife Refuge: A designation for protected areas that are managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service. These public lands and waters are set aside to conserve America's wild animals and plants.

Neritic: Relating to or denoting the shallow part of the sea near a coast and overlying the continental 

shelf.

Nesting: The process of building or occupying a nest (i.e., a structure built by certain animals to hold eggs, 

offspring, and, oftentimes, the animal itself). 

Noise: An undesirable sound, one that interferes with communication, is intense enough to damage 

hearing, or is otherwise intrusive or objectionable to certain living organisms, including humans.

Non-impulsive Sound: Sounds that can be broadband, narrowband or tonal, brief or prolonged, 

continuous or intermittent, and typically do not have a high peak sound pressure with rapid rise/decay 

time as impulsive sounds do.

Nursery Area: A location, usually offering plentiful food and some level of protection from predation, in 

which the juveniles of a marine species undergo growth and development.

Nutrient Cycling: Movement of organic and inorganic materials through different components of a cell, 

community, or ecosystem, which can be cycled and reutilized by some of these components. 

Ocean Acidification: The process in which the acidity, a measure of hydrogen ion concentration (pH), of 

seawater increases as a result of absorbing carbon dioxide (CO2).

Ocean Economy: Economic activity which indirectly or directly uses the ocean (or Great Lakes) as an input.

It consists of six sectors: marine construction; living resources; offshore mineral extraction; ship and 

boat building; tourism and recreation; and marine transportation.

Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion (OTEC): A process or technology to power a turbine to produce 

electricity by harnessing the temperature differences (i.e., thermal gradients) between ocean surface 

waters and deep ocean waters.

Octave: A series of eight notes occupying the interval between, and including, two notes, one having twice 

or half the frequency of vibration of the other.

Odobenid: Organisms belonging to the family Odobenidae. The only living species is the walrus.
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

681

Odontocete: A taxonomic suborder of cetaceans; whales that have teeth (e.g., the orca) and one opening 

at their blowhole. 

Offshore Waters: Marine waters outside the territorial boundaries of a state. 

Ordnance: Military supplies including weapons, ammunition, combat vehicles, and maintenance tools and 

equipment.

Ostracod: A class of crustaceans that has several pairs of legs and a body made up of sections that are 

covered in a hard outer shell. 

Otariid: Eared seals. This family includes sea lions and fur seals. 

Otolith: Also known as “earstones”, they are hard, calcium carbonate structures located directly behind 

the brain of bony fishes; involved in sensing gravity and movement. Alternating bands develop over 

time that can be read like tree rings to determine a specimen’s age, which is important information 

in managing the sustainable harvest of fish stocks. 

Overwintering: The process of organisms adapting to and surviving winter conditions, such as freezing 

temperatures, ice, snow, and less available food. 

Pack Ice: Any area of detached sea ice (i.e., ice formed by freezing of sea water) that is not land fast; it is 

mobile by virtue of not being attached to the shoreline or something else.

Palustrine: Relating to a system of inland freshwater wetlands, such as marshes, swamps, and lake shores, 

and characterized by the presence of trees, shrubs, or emergent vegetation. 

Passband: Frequency bands obtained by splitting a spectrum into 1 Hz wide bands. 

Passive Sonar: A method for detecting acoustic signals in an underwater environment, usually the ocean. 

The difference between passive and active sonar is that a passive sonar system emits no signals; 

instead, its purpose is to detect the acoustic signals emanating from external sources.

Patch Reef: Small, isolated reefs (see definition below) that grow up from the open bottom of the island 

platform or continental shelf. They usually occur between fringing reefs and barrier reefs.

Peak Pressure: The maximum value reached by sound pressure (see definition below); referred to as the 

Lpeak or sometimes Lpk. 

Peak-to-peak Sound Pressure: The difference between the maximum and minimum instantaneous sound 

pressure (see definition below), possibly filtered in a stated frequency band, attained by an impulsive 

sound, p(t).

Pelagic: Relating to, living in, or found on the open sea, away from land, where water is deep; oceanic. 

Permanent Threshold Shift (PTS): Permanent elevation in hearing threshold with physical damage to the 

sound receptors in the ear lasting indefinitely; in some cases, there can be total or partial deafness, 

whereas in other cases the animal has an impaired ability to hear sounds in specific frequency ranges. 

Period (as related to sound): Duration of 1 cycle: TT = 1/ ff [s], where T = time period to complete one cycle 

of an oscillation, ff = frequency, and s = second. It is related to wavelength by TT=λ/v, where, λ = 

wavelength (lambda), and v = velocity.

Petroglyphs: Prehistoric rock carvings.

Phocid: Earless seals or “true seals” that can be identified by their lack of external ear flaps.
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

682

Photic Zone: Part of a body of water where enough light penetrates for photosynthesis to occur in 

phytoplankton.

Photosynthesis: Process by which green plants, algae, diatoms, and certain forms of bacteria (e.g., 

cyanobacteria) manufacture the carbohydrate glucose (C6H12O6) from carbon dioxide and water, using 

energy captured from sunlight by chlorophyll, and releasing excess oxygen as a byproduct.

Phylum (p. phyla): Major taxonomic category that ranks just above class and just below kingdom (as in 

plant, animal, and fungus kingdoms) in the taxonomic hierarchy; it classifies organisms by their 

fundamental body plan.

Physiology: The normal functions of living organisms and their anatomical structures.

Phytoplankton: Microscopic organisms that live in both saltwater and freshwater aquatic environments; 

like all green plants, they contain the pigment chlorophyll to convert sunlight via the process of 

photosynthesis into carbohydrates (i.e., food, organic matter, and chemical energy); phytoplankton 

are critically important in aquatic ecosystems and form the base of the aquatic food web or pyramid.

Pillbox: Small concrete forts used by armies as outposts or guard posts. 

Pinger: Underwater signaling device or locator beacon; they have short-duration chirp signals in the 10 s 

of kHz range at moderate source levels (160-180 dB re: 1 micropascal [μPa] @ 1 m).

Pinniped: Marine mammals that include the true seals, eared seals, sea lions, and walruses.

Piscivorous: Referring to organisms that primarily eat fish.

Planktivorous: Referring to organisms that primarily consume small invertebrates (e.g., plankton such as 

krill, zooplankton).

Plankton: Organisms, including both plants and animals (i.e., autotrophs and heterotrophs), that drift in 

water in the oceans, seas, rivers, and lakes.

Plunge Diving: A seabird foraging technique that involves rapidly diving into deep waters while in flight in 

order to hunt for prey; practiced by gannets and boobies, among other species.

Pod: A social group of whales. 

Population: Group of individual organisms of the same plant, animal, or microorganism species capable 

of interbreeding and occupying the same geographic area or ecosystem; or, the size (i.e., number of 

individuals) in any given population; members of a given population are typically more closely related 

to one another genetically than to individuals of other populations within the same species. 

Potential Biological Removal (PBR) Level: Defined by the MMPA as the maximum number of animals, not 

including natural mortalities, that may be removed from a marine mammal stock while allowing that 

stock to reach or maintain its optimum sustainable population.

Porifera: Macroinvertebrate animal phylum composed of sponges.

Precision: The degree to which separate measurements or models of the same subject are close in value. 

Precocial: Offspring requiring lower levels of parental care.

Primary Constituent Element (PCE): The physical and biological features of a habitat that a species needs 

to survive and reproduce. Used in definitions of designated critical habitat.

Producer Surplus: The value of a good or service in excess of the costs of production.
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

683

Programmatic: Describes any broad or high-level National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) review; it is 

not limited to a NEPA review for a particular project. Programmatic NEPA reviews assess the general 

environmental impacts of proposed policies, plans, programs, or suites of projects for which 

subsequent actions will be implemented either based on the Programmatic Environmental 

Assessment or Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, or based on subsequent NEPA

reviews tiered from the programmatic review (e.g., a site- or project- specific document).

Project Cargo: Large, heavy, high value or critical pieces of equipment for a project.

Propagation Loss: Reduction in sound pressure level (SPL) between two designated locations in a sound 

transmission system, one location often being at a reference location from the source. Also known as 

propagation transmission loss.

Propagules: Any material that functions in growing an organism to the next stage in its life cycle, such as 

by dispersal. The propagule is usually distinct in form from the parent organism.

Propeller Singing: The resonance between the local natural frequency of the propeller blade tip and the 

vortex shedding frequency at trailing edge of the blade. Propeller singing creates very intensive levels 

of radiated noise.

Protected Species: An animal or plant which it is forbidden by federal law to harm or destroy, e.g., 

endangered species. 

Pseudofeces: Mucous-coated grit expelled by filter-feeding gastropod mollusks, distinct from actual feces.

Pulse (as related to sound): A single segment of a periodic signal that consists of (potentially) repeating 

segments with defined beginning and end points and is, typically, short in duration. Pulses are not 

necessarily impulsive. 

Pulse Length: For impulsive (pulsed) sound (e.g., airguns, pile driving), the pulse length is often taken as 

the 90 percent pulse energy duration T90%, which is the time between the 5 percent and 95 percent 

points on the cumulative energy curve. 

P-wave: Also called primary waves, these are mechanical waves that are longitudinal in nature. 

Received Level: Amount of sound energy actually reaching a receiver such as a modeled animal; the 

greater the transmission loss, the lower the received sound level at any given location.

Red Tide: A common term used for harmful algal blooms, which can be dangerous to people and deadly 

for fish due to potent neurotoxins released by the dinoflagellate Karenia brevis.

Reef: A ridge of jagged rock, coral, or sand just above or below the surface of the sea.

Reef Crest: The highest (i.e., most shallow) part of the reef which lies between the shoreward, protected 

back reef zone and the outer fore reef zone (see definitions above).

Reef Flat: Occupies the inshore side of the bank reef (see definition above). This consists of broken coral 

skeletons and coralline algae and excludes most other organisms due to the inhospitable, heavy surf 

that often characterizes this area.

Reef Slope: Area of high coral cover and moderate to low wave energy on the fringing reef.

Reproductive Area: Locations and seasons within which a particular species or population selectively 

mates, gives birth, or is found with neonates or other sensitive age classes.

Reserved Right: The doctrine that holds that Native Americans retain all rights not explicitly revoked in 

treaties or other legislation.
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

684

Rise Time: The amount of time it takes for a signal to change from static pressure to high pressure.

Rookery: Large, clustered nesting colony, generally of gregarious seabirds, wading birds, and pinnipeds. 

Salp: Semi-transparent barrel-shaped marine animals that move through the water by contracting bands 

of muscles which ring the body. They belong to the subphylum Tunicata, a group of marine 

macroinvertebrates also known as sea squirts. 

Salt Marsh: Coastal wetlands that are flooded and drained by salt water moved by the tides; the soil may 

be composed of deep mud and peat.

Sandbar: Along the seashore, a ridge of sand or coarse sediment connected to the shoreline or resting 

offshore that is submerged or partially exposed; generally narrow and straight and formed by the 

breaking of waves moving material from the shoreline.

Sandflat: A flat, marshy, or barren tract of land that is alternately covered and uncovered by the tide and 

consisting of unconsolidated sediment mostly of mud and sand. 

Sea floor: The solid surface underlying a sea or ocean.

Seabirds: Birds which spend much of their lives at sea foraging over pelagic habitat (i.e., open sea), often 

thousands of kilometers from their nesting grounds.

Seamount: Undersea mountains formed by volcanic activity.

Sediment: A naturally occurring material that is broken down by processes of weathering and erosion and 

subsequently transported by the action of wind, water, or ice or by the force of gravity.

Seine Net: A large mesh with sinkers on one edge and floats on the other that hangs vertically in the water 

and is used to enclose and catch fish when its ends are pulled together or are drawn ashore.

Semelparous: Organisms that die after spawning only once, such as Pacific salmonids.

Sessile: Non-mobile, or attached, organisms such as adult coral polyps.

Shelf Break: The point of the first major change in gradient at the outermost edge of the continental shelf 

(see definition above); its depth, distance from shore, and configuration are highly variable.

Shoal: A shallow place in a river, sea, or other body of water caused by a submerged bank or bar of sand 

or other unconsolidated material deposited on the substrate

Shorebirds: A distinct taxonomic subset of coastal birds, such as sandpipers, plovers, sanderlings, and 

godwits which forage on sandy shores at the water’s edge.

Sirenian: An order of fully aquatic, herbivorous mammals that inhabit swamps, rivers, estuaries, marine 

wetlands, and coastal marine waters. Sirenians currently comprise the families Dugongidae (e.g., the 

dugong) and Trichechidae (e.g., manatees) with a total of four species.

Social Surplus: The value of a good or service in excess of the costs of acquisition or production.

Sonar: A technique that uses sound propagation to navigate (e.g., submarines), communicate with, or 

detect objects on or under the surface of the water, such as other vessels.

Sound: Vibrations that travel through the air or water and can be heard when they reach a person's or 

animal's ear.

Sound Exposure Level (SEL): The time-integral of the squared acoustic pressure over a duration (T).
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

685

Sound Pressure Level (SPL): The root-mean-square (rms) pressure level in a stated frequency band over 

a specified time window (T; s).

Source Level: Amount of sound radiated by a sound source, defined as the intensity of the radiated sound 

at a distance of 1 meter from the source, where intensity is the amount of sound power transmitted 

through a unit area in a specified direction. Source level is stated as a relative intensity in decibels 

(dB). In underwater sound, decibels are referenced to a pressure of 1 μPa; thus, sound level is 

reported in units of dB re 1 μPa @ 1 m.

South Pacific Gyre: A distinct area of the Earth’s system of rotating ocean currents bounded by the 

equator to the north, Australia to the west, the Antarctic Circumpolar Current to the south, and South 

America to the east.

Spawn: The mass of eggs deposited by fishes, amphibians, mollusks, crustaceans, etc.; the release or 

deposit of eggs.

Species: The most basic unit in the hierarchical system of taxonomy, a group of organisms that can and 

do reproduce with one another in nature and produce offspring that are fertile.

Spectral Density: The distribution of a sound’s power with frequency is described by the sound’s 

spectrum. The sound spectrum can be split into a series of adjacent frequency bands with a width of 

1 Hz (called passbands), which yields the power spectral density of the sound.

Speed: The distance travelled per unit time cc = λλ/TT = λλ × ff where c = the speed of sound [m/s], ff = 

frequency (Hz), λ = wavelength (m), and TT = time (s).

Spermaceti: The solid wax found in the head cavity of the sperm whale.

Spherical Spreading Loss: With regard to spherical sound waves emitted by a point source, refers to that 

portion of the transmission loss due to the divergence, that is, spreading, of sound waves in 

accordance with a system’s configuration. Also known as divergence loss.

Spur and Groove: Geomorphic feature of many coral reefs, consisting of ridges or “spurs” of coral 

separated by channels or “grooves”; grooves are often characterized by sediments such as sand or 

rubble. 

State Historic Preservation Office/Officer (SHPO): Entities within each state and U.S. territory that 

administer the state historic preservation program, a state and National Register of Historic Places 

Program, a Historic Preservation Fund grant program, a data management program, review and 

compliance, and other programs. The latter term refers to the individual who directs that office and 

oversees management of each of its programs.

Statocysts: Sac-like organs with sensory cilia. 

Stock: In fisheries, it refers to a particular fish population of a given species that is more or less genetically 

isolated from other stocks of the same species, such as those associated with a particular river or 

tributary. For marine mammals, it is a group of individuals of the same species or smaller taxa in a 

common spatial arrangement that interbreed when mature.

Stranding: The term may refer to any of the following:

• A marine mammal that is on the shore and unable to return to the water under its own power;

• A marine mammal that is on the shore and, although able to return to the water, is in need of 

apparent medical attention;
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

686

• A marine mammal in the water that cannot return to its natural habitat without assistance; or

• A dead marine mammal on the beach or in the water.

Strategic Stock (under the MMPA): Defined by the MMPA as a marine mammal stock: 

• For which the level of direct human-caused mortality exceeds the potential biological removal 

level (see definition above);

• Which, based on the best available scientific information, is declining and is likely to be listed as a 

threatened species under the ESA within the foreseeable future; or

• Which is listed as a threatened or endangered species under the ESA, or is designated as depleted 

under the MMPA.

Strike Quota: Under international agreement, refers to the limitation on the number of bowhead whales 

that may be struck by subsistence hunters, and is the sum total of the whales that are successfully 

and unsuccessfully landed.

Submarine Canyon: Narrow, steep-sided valleys that cut into continental slopes and continental rises of 

the oceans. They originate either within continental slopes or on a continental shelf.

Submerged Cultural and Historic resources: Objects found on the sea floor, lake, or river beds with 

historic, pre-historic, or culturally significant values.

Subsistence: Subsistence uses of wild resources are defined as “noncommercial, customary and 

traditional uses” for a variety of purposes. These include: Direct personal or family consumption as 

food, shelter, fuel, clothing, tools, or transportation; for the making and selling of handicraft articles 

out of nonedible by-products of fish and wildlife resources taken for personal family consumption; 

and for the customary trade, barter, or sharing for personal or family consumption. 

Substrate: Surface or material on or from which an organism lives, grows, or obtains its nourishment; also, 

the material or sediments that rest at the bottom of a stream, lake, or ocean. 

Subtidal Zone: On a coastline, the area that lies below the intertidal zone (see definition above) and is 

almost continuously submerged. 

Suspension Feeder: Animals that eat particles of organic matter that are suspended in water.

S-wave: Also called secondary waves, these are mechanical waves that are transverse in nature.

Swim Bladder: In fish, gas-filled internal cavity near the ears that deforms with the pressure wave and 

allows fish to sense the pressure impact of sound.

Taxon (pl. taxa): Units used in the science of biological classification, or taxonomy. A taxonomic group of 

any rank, such as a species, family, or class.

Taxonomy: Science of naming, describing, and classifying organisms, including all plants, animals, and 

microorganisms in the biosphere.

Temporary Threshold Shift (TTS): The mildest form of hearing impairment; exposure to loud sound 

resulting in a non-permanent (i.e., reversible) elevation in hearing threshold, making it more difficult 

to hear sounds; TTS can last from minutes or hours to days; the magnitude of the TTS depends on the 

level and duration of the sound exposure, among other considerations.

Territorial Sea: Defined as a belt of coastal waters extending 12-nautical miles from the baseline, usually 

the low-water line, along the coast. 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

687

Tidal Flat: Intertidal, non-vegetated, soft sediment habitats, found between mean high-water and mean 

low-water spring tide datums and generally located in estuaries and other low energy marine 

environments.

Thermal Refugium (pl. refugia): A place that serves as a shelter for organisms from adverse temperatures 

(e.g., in a stream).

Thermocline: Transition layer between warmer mixed water at the ocean’s surface and cooler deep water 

below. 

Thicket: Dense groups of corals. 

Threatened: A species is considered threatened if it is likely to become an endangered species under the 

ESA within the foreseeable future.

Tonal Sound: Sounds with discrete frequencies, such as music notes.

Traditional Cultural Places: Also referred to as “Traditional Cultural Properties”, TCPs are historic 

properties that derive their cultural significance from the role the property plays or played in a 

community’s historically rooted beliefs, customs, and practices. 

Transducer: Any device that converts one form of energy into a readable signal.

Transmission Loss: A measure, in decibels, of the decrease in sound level between a source and a receiver 

some distance away. Geometric spreading of acoustic waves is the predominant way by which 

transmission loss occurs. Transmission loss also happens when the sound is absorbed and scattered 

by the seawater, and reflected at the water surface and within the seabed. Transmission loss depends 

on the acoustic properties of the ocean and seabed; its value changes with frequency.

Treaty Tribe: Federally recognized tribe that has retained its right to hunt, fish, and gather under a treaty 

signed with the federal government.

Tribal Sovereignty: The right of American Indians and Alaska Natives to govern themselves. The U.S. 

Constitution recognizes Indian tribes as distinct governments and they have, with a few exceptions, 

the same powers as federal and state governments to regulate their internal affairs. 

Trophic Level: The position an organism occupies in a food chain. A food chain is a succession of organisms 

that eat other organisms and may, in turn, be eaten themselves. The trophic level of an organism is 

the number of steps it is from the start of the chain.

Tunicate: Macroinvertebrate animal phylum including sea squirts or sea pork.

Tympanum: Membrane, or eardrum, in certain animals. 

Umiak: Seal skin boat. 

Unavoidable Adverse Impact: Effects on the human environment that would remain even after mitigation

measures and BMPs have been applied.

Undertaking: A project, activity, or program funded in whole or in part by a federal agency, including 

those carried out by or on behalf of a federal agency; those carried out with federal assistance; those 

requiring a federal permit, license, or approval; and those subject to state or local regulation 

administered pursuant to a delegation or approval by a federal agency. 

Unregulated Fishing: Occurs in areas or for fish stocks for which there are no applicable conservation or 

management measures and where such fishing activities are conducted in a manner inconsistent with 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

688

the responsibilities of nation-states for the conservation of living marine resources under 

international law. Unregulated fishing occurs in marine regions outside the EEZs of nation-states.

Unreported Fishing: Fishing activities that are not reported or are misreported to relevant authorities in 

contravention of national laws and regulations or reporting procedures of a relevant regional fisheries 

management organization. 

Upwelling: A process in which deep, cold water rises toward the surface. It occurs in the open ocean and 

along coastlines. 

Usual and Accustomed (U&A) Places: Lands adjacent to streams, rivers, or shorelines to which a tribe

usually travels or is accustomed to travel for the purpose of taking fish.

Vessel Wake: Waves created by the hull of a ship as it moves through the water. Depending on hull design, 

speed, vessel weight, and power supply, the wake of a vessel can produce anywhere from a minimal 

flow of water and rippling chop to swelling waves of significant size.

Vestibular Apparatus: In vertebrates, the structure of the inner ear involved in balance. 

Viewshed: A subset of a landscape unit that consists of all the surface areas visible from an observer’s 

viewpoint.

Viscosity: Quantity that describes a fluid’s resistance to flow. 

Viviparous: Animals that give birth to developed, live young, instead of producing eggs. 

Water Column: Conceptual vertical area of water extending from the surface of the ocean, river, or lake 

to the bottom substrate or sediment. Many physical, chemical, and biological aquatic phenomena are 

characterized by their relative and/or absolute positions in the water column.

Waterfowl: Birds which spend much of their lives on the water’s surface in both freshwater and saltwater 

environments. Specifically refers to ducks, geese, and swans. 

Watershed: An area of land that drains or “sheds” water into a specific watercourse (i.e., a river or 

stream), such as the Missouri River watershed or the Ohio River watershed.

Wavelength: Spatial distance between two successive ‘peaks’ in a propagating wave: λλ [m]. It is related 

to sound speed c and frequency ff by λ= cc/ff.

Weighting Function: In acoustical analysis, a weighting function is used to correlate objective sound level 

meter measurements with subjective responses to sound in the subject organisms (such as marine 

mammals) under study.

Whelping: The process of a mammal giving birth, such as female polar bears birthing their cubs.

Willingness to Pay: The amount users are hypothetically willing to pay for goods, services, or information. 

Commonly used to monetize goods, services, or information without clear market values. 

Zero-to-peak Sound Pressure/Peak Sound Pressure: Decibel level of the maximum instantaneous 

acoustic pressure in a stated frequency band attained by an acoustic pressure signal, p(t).

Zooplankton: A type of heterotrophic (i.e., non-photosynthesizing) plankton that ranges from microscopic 

organisms to macroinvertebrates such as jellyfish; zooplankton drift or float with marine currents. 

Zooplankton are heterotrophs (i.e., they cannot produce their own food via photosynthesis) and must 

obtain their energy by consuming other organisms. 

Zooxanthellae: Unicellular, golden-brown algae (e.g., dinoflagellates) that live either in the water column 

as plankton or symbiotically inside the tissue of other organisms, such as coral polyps.
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

689

8.0 INDEX

A

air quality, 428, 505, 509

Autonomous Underwater Vehicle

AUV, 5, 42, 43, 54, 57, 178, 189, 197, 206, 320, 

323, 390, 594, 595

B

Best Management Practices

BMPs, 188, 670, 687

C

cetacean, 7, 9, 33, 92, 93, 94, 101, 102, 103, 104, 

105, 106, 107, 108, 112, 113, 115, 121, 125, 143, 

154, 156, 157, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 167, 168, 

169, 170, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 

181, 182, 183, 184, 193, 194, 200, 201, 210, 212, 

213, 214, 217, 218, 219, 221, 222, 223, 225, 226, 

227, 228, 229, 232, 233, 234, 236, 238, 240, 241, 

242, 498, 501, 502, 504, 506, 507, 508, 516, 622, 

626, 631, 633, 654, 655, 671

climate change, 70, 109, 115, 116, 122, 133, 134, 

137, 149, 299, 303, 338, 340, 341, 343, 344, 345, 

407, 453, 550, 551, 552, 553, 568, 571, 572, 573, 

574, 578, 579, 581, 582, 583, 587, 588, 589, 590, 

591, 595, 596, 597, 598, 599, 600, 601, 603, 605, 

610, 611, 612, 621, 631

Coastal Zone Management Act

CZMA, 2, 24, 28, 29, 67

coral reef, 27, 49, 71, 82, 83, 246, 254, 274, 285, 320, 

323, 332, 333, 336, 337, 338, 339, 340, 343, 344, 

345, 353, 355, 362, 371, 372, 374, 376, 384, 385, 

386, 389, 390, 391, 448, 513, 539, 568, 583, 589, 

593, 602, 603, 605, 609, 612, 617, 669, 670, 675, 

678

critical habitat, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, 27, 65, 244, 248, 

250, 251, 252, 253, 255, 256, 257, 260, 261, 262, 

264, 265, 266, 267, 268, 269, 270, 271, 272, 274, 

281, 285, 287, 288, 289, 290, 291, 292, 293, 294, 

295, 296, 297, 298, 299, 300, 301, 305, 306, 307, 

309, 310, 311, 312, 315, 321, 322, 323, 324, 325, 

326, 327, 336, 338, 340, 342, 350, 354, 355, 356, 

357, 358, 359, 403, 404, 405, 406, 407, 408, 409, 

410, 411, 412, 413, 414, 415, 416, 417, 418, 420, 

421, 422, 424, 425, 426, 427, 428, 429, 430, 432, 

516, 517, 518, 519, 520, 521, 523

E

echo sounders, i, 1, 6, 22, 35, 36, 37, 43, 45, 57, 60, 

79, 85, 151, 156, 157, 162, 164, 165, 178, 183, 

189, 193, 194, 197, 200, 201, 206, 212, 218, 219, 

221, 223, 226, 227, 233, 235, 236, 237, 238, 258, 

265, 313, 315, 316, 318, 320, 321, 323, 325, 335, 

348, 350, 351, 354, 357, 387, 388, 393, 398, 417, 

418, 420, 446, 496, 530, 531, 570, 571, 573, 592, 

594

Endangered Species Act

ESA, 2, 9, 13, 14, 16, 30, 65, 73, 78, 88, 151, 240, 

244, 245, 252, 258, 264, 265, 270, 274, 275, 

281, 284, 285, 286, 288, 289, 290, 291, 292, 

293, 294, 295, 298, 299, 300, 302, 303, 304, 

305, 307, 309, 310, 311, 312, 313, 315, 316, 

317, 318, 319, 320, 321, 324, 325, 326, 327, 

336, 338, 339, 340, 341, 342, 343, 344, 345, 

346, 347, 350, 351, 352, 353, 356, 357, 358, 

359, 400, 401, 415, 416, 417, 418, 420, 421, 

422, 423, 424, 425, 426, 427, 428, 429, 430, 

431, 432, 440, 477, 479, 480, 481, 488, 511, 

516, 520, 521, 523, 573, 585, 588, 621, 656, 

672, 673, 674, 687

F

fissiped, 9, 73, 92, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 161, 163,

200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 

210, 223, 224, 225, 237, 238, 239, 240, 241, 243, 

498, 501, 502, 504, 505, 506, 507, 508, 516, 675

freshwater, 38, 59, 60, 65, 71, 73, 74, 75, 77, 78, 79, 

81, 86, 137, 141, 142, 143, 196, 274, 278, 286, 

287, 289, 290, 292, 293, 295, 300, 304, 306, 307, 

308, 316, 317, 322, 331, 333, 334, 336, 345, 346, 

347, 350, 361, 368, 377, 378, 400, 407, 408, 409, 

410, 413, 414, 434, 494, 511, 561, 567, 568, 570, 

571, 572, 616, 631, 652, 661, 664, 668, 669, 679, 

681, 682, 688

H

Habitat Areas of Particular Concern
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

690

HAPCs, 363, 364, 365, 366, 370, 371, 372, 374, 

376, 378, 380, 381, 384, 385, 386, 387, 389, 

391, 393, 395, 396, 397, 398, 399, 592, 676

I

invasive species, 8, 15, 70, 79, 86, 87, 333, 343, 344, 

346, 347, 388, 396, 397, 399, 469, 515, 522, 554, 

571, 572, 574, 575, 595, 596, 637

M

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and 

Management Act

MSA, 2, 66, 361, 366, 588, 675

manatee, 2, 30, 64, 65, 84, 92, 139, 141, 142, 143, 

193, 195, 196, 197, 198, 222, 236, 243, 631, 636, 

655, 661

Marine Mammal Protection Act

MMPA, 2, 30, 64, 440, 473, 475, 477, 478, 479, 

480, 481, 488, 532, 542, 562, 673, 686

Marine Protected Areas

MPAs, 68, 70, 372, 385, 386

masking, 153, 156, 157, 158, 160, 175, 176, 186, 195, 

196, 201, 203, 218, 220, 222, 224, 232, 235, 237, 

239, 240, 261, 317, 335, 421, 575, 586, 626, 627

Migratory Bird Treaty Act

MBTA, 2, 30, 66, 400, 407, 421, 422, 424, 426, 

427, 428, 429, 430, 601

mitigation, 24, 167, 168, 170, 184, 194, 202, 241, 

513, 597, 617, 687

mysticetes, 92, 93, 94, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 

107, 108, 139, 157, 161, 165, 175, 176, 181, 182, 

242, 578

N

National Environmental Policy Act

NEPA, 1, 22, 27, 33, 39, 62, 63, 64, 472, 509, 513, 

529, 683

National Historic Preservation Act

NHPA, 67, 434, 441, 443, 444, 445, 446, 602, 658, 

680

National Marine Sanctuaries

National Marine Sanctuary, 3, 5, 24, 54, 69, 372, 

378, 435, 436, 440

O

odontocetes, 92, 93, 95, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 

106, 107, 108, 156, 157, 161, 165, 175, 176, 182, 

242, 679

P

Permanent Threshold Shift

PTS, 155, 167, 261, 314, 316, 681

pinniped, 9, 73, 92, 125, 126, 128, 129, 130, 131, 

143, 144, 158, 183, 184, 186, 189, 190, 219, 234, 

504, 645, 656, 682

polar bear, 9, 92, 134, 137, 143, 144, 146, 149, 150, 

200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 210, 

224, 238, 239, 241, 243, 443, 481, 504, 516, 639

R

remotely operated vehicle

ROV, 5, 6, 36, 42, 43, 55, 57, 79, 83, 84, 85, 86, 

258, 318, 321, 327, 351, 354, 358, 392, 394, 

396, 417, 568, 570, 571, 572, 594

S

SCUBA, 6, 36, 37, 49, 53, 55, 57, 79, 81, 83, 87, 88, 

151, 180, 191, 198, 208, 258, 266, 271, 313, 320, 

323, 348, 387, 388, 389, 391, 395, 398, 418, 426, 

431, 435, 496, 504, 567, 568, 572, 592, 594, 595, 

604, 609

sea ice, 27, 94, 109, 126, 127, 133, 134, 135, 136, 

137, 138, 149, 150, 206, 413, 468, 472, 482, 505, 

537, 544, 553, 605, 611, 677, 681

sea lion, 92, 125, 126, 128, 129, 130, 132, 133, 134, 

138, 144, 162, 184, 185, 186, 189, 191, 219, 220, 

234, 243, 440, 472, 479, 480, 487, 614, 631, 635, 

646, 681, 682

sea otter, 92, 143, 144, 146, 147, 148, 161, 162, 163, 

200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 210, 

224, 238, 239, 243, 480, 481, 614, 615, 623, 628, 

632, 658, 661, 662, 663, 665

seal, 92, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 134, 

135, 136, 137, 138, 147, 149, 184, 185, 189, 191, 

205, 219, 220, 234, 243, 414, 450, 475, 478, 479, 

480, 487, 488, 498, 563, 614, 615, 619, 632, 633, 

636, 640, 644, 646, 649, 677, 687
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

691

significance criteria, 62, 63, 80, 258, 313, 348, 388, 

418, 445, 462, 497

sonar, 5, 37, 54, 60, 139, 154, 155, 156, 157, 161, 

162, 316, 394, 531, 534, 541, 557, 558, 559, 560, 

576, 584, 585, 594, 596, 623, 628, 631, 633, 634, 

637, 639, 647, 652, 657, 658, 659, 668, 681, 684

subsistence, xxiii, 17, 19, 64, 113, 119, 134, 136, 137, 

149, 150, 299, 434, 438, 439, 440, 441, 443, 444, 

445, 450, 451, 452, 453, 472, 473, 474, 475, 476, 

477, 478, 479, 480, 481, 483, 485, 486, 487, 488, 

489, 490, 491, 492, 493, 494, 495, 496, 497, 498, 

499, 500, 501, 502, 503, 504, 505, 506, 507, 508, 

514, 524, 526, 602, 604, 605, 609, 610, 611, 612, 

613, 614, 619, 632, 644, 645, 646, 658, 674, 675, 

686

sustainability, 4, 25, 35, 363, 513

T

Temporary Threshold Shift

TTS, 155, 313, 316, 317, 686

Threatened and Endangered, 108, 131, 138, 142, 

147, 251, 274, 281, 336, 401, 561

tide buoy, 22, 50, 51, 52, 53, 82, 390, 449

tide gauge, 36, 37, 49, 51, 52, 53, 55, 79, 82, 83, 85, 

151, 177, 187, 190, 203, 207, 208, 258, 318, 322, 

354, 388, 389, 390, 391, 393, 395, 398, 418, 448, 

449, 496, 504, 582, 590, 592, 598, 600, 604, 609

tribal governments, 4, 30, 68, 449, 604

tribes, 29, 68, 70, 434, 438, 439, 440, 442, 449, 450, 

472, 473, 489, 490, 491, 492, 493, 494, 495, 496, 

498, 506, 507, 508, 604, 605, 622, 636, 643, 645, 

677, 687, 688

U

Uncrewed Surface Vehicle

USV, 5, 6, 38, 42, 43, 54, 55, 57, 595

underwater acoustic, 7, 9, 11, 13, 14, 16, 19, 85, 86, 

151, 156, 162, 163, 164, 177, 183, 184, 188, 193, 

194, 200, 201, 212, 213, 217, 218, 219, 220, 221, 

222, 223, 224, 226, 227, 228, 232, 233, 235, 236, 

237, 238, 239, 258, 260, 261, 264, 271, 313, 315, 

316, 317, 321, 326, 348, 350, 353, 358, 393, 394, 

395, 398, 399, 418, 420, 421, 422, 424, 430, 496, 

498, 499, 501, 507, 508, 511, 514, 516, 518, 520, 

521, 523, 526, 542, 560, 570, 571, 575, 576, 580, 

581, 584, 585, 594, 596, 597, 604, 609, 610, 640

underwater sound, 8, 15, 61, 85, 86, 144, 151, 154, 

158, 160, 161, 162, 163, 165, 175, 176, 177, 183, 

185, 186, 187, 188, 194, 195, 196, 200, 201, 202, 

203, 212, 218, 221, 222, 223, 225, 226, 233, 235, 

237, 239, 240, 260, 261, 262, 317, 325, 335, 350, 

357, 358, 393, 394, 395, 399, 401, 420, 421, 431, 

502, 515, 522, 546, 570, 571, 580, 581, 584, 585, 

588, 589, 590, 594, 657, 659, 671, 685

V

vessel strike, 9, 11, 16, 109, 110, 112, 113, 114, 115, 

116, 117, 122, 133, 139, 167, 179, 180, 188, 190, 

197, 198, 206, 207, 241, 255, 257, 258, 262, 263, 

264, 305, 423, 424, 431, 502, 503, 516, 518, 523, 

554, 575, 576, 579, 584, 588

W

walrus, 9, 92, 125, 126, 128, 184, 187, 188, 219, 234, 

443, 481, 483, 484, 485, 488, 489, 516, 614, 615, 

626, 633, 653, 662, 663, 680

water quality, 15, 59, 76, 78, 85, 181, 191, 199, 209, 

266, 288, 298, 300, 306, 307, 315, 322, 333, 350, 

354, 355, 393, 399, 455, 509, 510, 522, 570, 574,

578, 579, 582, 583, 587, 588, 590, 591, 599, 600, 

601

whaling, 113, 114, 115, 116, 122, 437, 443, 473, 474, 

486, 498, 610, 615, 632, 646, 652