INI KO RZ EUG ct eased ae tae NOSC TR 844 pps Ul DSON Vol 2 Technical Report 844 Volume 2 EFFECTS OF NOISE OF OFFSHORE OIL AND GAS OPERATIONS ON MARINE MAMMALS — AN INTRODUCTORY ASSESSMENT RS Gales September 1982 Research report: 1980—1981 Prepared for the Bureau of Land Management, Department of Interior Approved for public release; distribution unlimited. IN OEIC NAVAL OCEAN SYSTEMS CENTER San Diego, California 92152 DOCUMENT LIBRARY Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution Pras yd NAVAL OCEAN SYSTEMS CENTER, SAN DIEGO, CA 92152 AN ACTIVITY OF THE NAVAL MATERIA E €C OUMEMPAgNED JM PATTON, CAPT, USN HL BLOOD Commander Technical Director ADMINISTRATIVE INFORMATION The work described in this report was conducted in 1980 and 1981 for the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) of the U.S. Department of Interior under Interagency Agree- ment No. AA851-IAO-5 entitled, “Study of the Effects of Sound on Marine Mammals: (NOSC Project 513-MM28). The work was sponsored by the New York Outer Continental Shelf office of BLM under the general supervision of J. Philip Thomas and Eiji Imamura. Jeffery P. Petrion of BLM Code 851 served as contracting officer. This research was per- formed by the Naval Ocean Systems Center (NOSC). Computer Sciences Corporation (CSC) provided services under contract to NOSC. The work was done by the task group managed by Dr. Elek Lindner of the NOSC Marine Sciences Division. Principal members of the task team were: R.S. Gales, Acoustics, J.A. Hoke, Instrumentation, and D.R. Schmidt, Data Recording and Analysis. Participants from CSC were: Alma Church, Head Bio Science and Surface Surveillance Section, D. MacCormack, and R. Christensen, who performed the source spectrum analysis. Released by Under authority of S Yamamoto, HO Porter, Head Marine Sciences Division Biosciences Department This report has been reviewed by the Bureau of Land Management and approved for publication. The opinions expressed in this report are those of the authors and not neces- sarily those of the Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of the Interior. The use of trade names or identification of specific products or equipment by manufacturer does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use. WON AU 0 0301 0045084 ? BUNCUASSIEIED Rae inoue SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE (When Data Entered) READ INSTRUCTIONS REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE T. REPORT NUMBER 2. GOVT ACCESSION NO, 3. RECIPIENT'S CATALOG NUMBER NOSC Technical Report 844 (TR 844) Volume 2 een newer 4. TITLE (and Subtitle) 5. EFFECTS OF NOISE OF OFFSHORE OIL AND GAS OPERATIONS ON MARINE MAMMALS, AN: INTRODUCTORY ASSESSMENT TYPE OF REPORT & PERIOD COVERED Research report, 1980-81 6. PERFORMING ORG. REPORT NUMBER 8. CONTRACT OR GRANT NUMBER(s) 7. AUTHOR(s) RS Gales 10. P A RAM ELEMENT, PROJECT, TASK PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS & WORK UNIT NUMBERS OF ROG REA Naval Ocean Systems Center San Diego CA 92152 V1. 513-MM28 12. REPORT DATE September 1982 CONTROLLING OFFICE NAME AND ADDRESS US Department of Interior Bureau of Land Management 13. NUMBER OF PAGES New York, NY 300 14. MONITORING AGENCY NAME & ADDRESS(/f different from Controlling Office) 1S. SECURITY CLASS. (of this report) Unclassified 1Sa. DECLASSIFICATION/ DOWNGRADING | SCHEDULE 16. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT (of this Report) Approved for public release; distribution unlimited 17. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT (of the abstract entered in Block 20, if different from Report) 18. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES Contains appendices to Volume 1. 19. KEY WORDS (Continue on reverse side if necessary and identify by block number) Underwater acoustics Underwater hearing Underwater noise Underwater sound production Noise measurement Echolocation Outer continental shelf 20. ABSTRACT (Continue on reverse side If necessary and Identify by block number) The effects of noise from offshore oil and gas operations on marine mammals were assessed by a multi- faceted study. The literature was surveyed for available data on noise from oil platforms and on hearing capa- bilities of marine mammals. Data on animal behavior around the platforms were collected by field observations and interviews. The noise from platforms was measured at various geographical locations and analyzed in the laboratory. Evaluation of the combined data indicates that certain platforms are relatively quiet, and therefore platforms with minimal sound emission can be designed. The highest level components of the noise from oil plat- (Continued on reverse side) DD for". 1473 ~~ EDITION OF 1 NOV 65 1S OBSOLETE JAN 73 UNCLASSIFIED S/N 0102- LF- 014-6601 SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE (When Data Entered) UNCLASSIFIED SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE (When Data Entered) 20. Continued forms are below 100 Hz. The distances at which large whales can detect such noise were estimated for various geographical locations. It is unlikely that platform noise will interfere with echolocation of marine mammals, and according to anecdotal information, whales ignore or easily avoid the platforms. S/N 0102- LF- 014-6601 UNCLASSIFIED rt SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE(When Data Entered) Appendix A CONTENTS Effects of Noise of Offshore Oil and Gas qe ations on Marine Mammals . : Interview Program to Determine Proximity of Large Marine Mammals to Oil/Gas Platforms . ; Survey of the Effects of Outer Continental Shelf Platforms on Cetacean Behavior ; een | ae Field Measurements of Underwater Noise from Offshore 0i1 Operations 1 January to 20 June 1980 Summary Report of 30 September 1980 on BLM Task: "Study of the Effects of Sound on Marine Mammals" . Underwater Noise Measured at Fourteen Oil Platforms Off Santa Barbara, California Estimated Underwater Detection Ranges by Marine Mammals of Noise from Oil and Gas Platforms . Possible Effects of Noise from Offshore Oi] and Gas Drilling Activities on Marine Mammals: A Survey of the Literature Sibeey aise Pane cree ls Ahan IN Page A-1 B-1 D-1 E-1 F-1 G-1 H-1 Can «i i ial Pe ae rs ; wt yan me Ae an my ‘ Pant PRP Td wre va i hiss Ry ae hy wae cake Hck EN i Ni ai of tin} Sai ANS ae APPENDIX A Papert, ye ODN ae tie ine Paral hat Literature Review on: I. Underwater Noise from Offshore 0i1 Operations and II. Underwater Hearing and Sound Productions of Marine Mammals. Compiled by Charles W. Turl Edited by Elek Lindner Naval Ocean Systems Center San Diego, California June 1980 A-1 INTRODUCTION The rapid increase in offshore petroleum operations during the past decade, and the more rapid increase that is anticipated for the next two decades, suggests that the noise generated during these operations may pose serious noise pollution problems for a variety of acoustic sensors (Underwater Systems, 1973). The discovery of oi] in deep water and the development of mobile drilling platforms, which have the capability for drilling in water depths of several thousand feet, suggests that the past trend of drilling platforms in a few shallow shelf regions (e.g. Gulf of Mexico) can be augmented by exploration and production wells out to water depths of several thousand feet. Location of these noise sources in greater water depths will thus provide better acoustic coupling to deep oceanic waters. The acoustic environment in the area of offshore drilling activities may influence the behavior and distribution of marine mammals in outer continental shelf waters. The protection of wildlife and the acoustic problems relating to human noise pollution form but a fraction of the whole subject that relates to human-wildlife interactions (Busnel, 1978). There is general agreement among biologists that the acoustical sense of. aquatic animals probably constitutes their most important distance receptor system. Studies of the acoustic activities of marine animals suggests that an animal's acoustical system can, and does, provide its owner appropriate information readily and rapidly, on a variety of functions relative to food, competitors, potential mates and predators (Myrberg, 1978). Noise measurement data from offshore drilling activities are sparse. A survey of the published literature and contacts with private industry revealed that much of the available information is bandwidth limited. Measurements that have been made were with equipment which was either limited in its high-frequency response or was "rolled off" at the lower frequency limits due to high ambient noise levels. Shallow water ambient noise levels in areas of offshore drilling activity are also limited. In the relatively shallow waters of drilling activities, the problem of multi-paths becomes significant in terms of making accurate measurements. The acoustic wave may reflect off the surface, the bottom, and the sub-bottom at several levels before it reaches the measurement station (Drouin, 1974). Many of the data presented in this report show a large amount of variability, probably due to shallow-water propagation characteristics. Information on the effects of sustained, sub-critical levels of noise on the behavior and responses of marine animals is poorly understood. Although underwater hearing threshold data is available for some species, this information is not sufficient by itself to predict the effects of noise on behavior. This report is divided into two sections. Section I summarizes published acoustic data from drilling platforms, construction sites, and support craft associated with offshore drilling activities. These data are presented as source levels and specify the amount of sound radiated by a projector. Source level is defined as the ratio of the intensity of radiated sound in decibels to the intensity of a plane wave of rms pressure 1 u Pa referred to a point 1 m from the acoustic center of the projector in the direction of the target. Section II, discusses the underwater hearing and underwater hearing thresholds for cetaceans and pinnipeds, and discusses sound production by large whales. A-3 SECTION I. ESTIMATED SOURCE LEVELS FROM OFFSHORE OIL AND GAS DRILLING ACTIVITIES. Source levels for six activities and ambient noise spectra corresponding to these areas are shown in figures 1-6. Each figure contains two pieces of information that describe the acoustic environment in the vicinity of the drilling activity. The source level data for an activity is plotted in the upper half of each figure, and ambient noise spectrum levels are plotted for the general area in which the measurements were made in the lower half of each figure. Data at 20, 100, 200 and 300 Hz are from the ASEPS prediction model, and are plotted as the average of four predicted values plus or minus a standard deviation for winter (0) and summer (.) seasons. (ASEPS prediction model data were obtained from NOSC, San Diego, for specific lease areas.) The ambient noise levels as a function of shipping traffic and wind speed are from published sources (Urick, 1967). Signal-to-noise (S/N) ratios may be estimated from these figures by subtracting the spectrum level noise from the source level at a particular frequency. The S/N ratio can be used to estimate the maximum range at which the sound may be detectable for these ambient noise conditions. Prudhoe Bay Area Figure I shows the major tonal components from two drilling sites in the Prudhoe Bay area: the NIAKUK 3 well, on a man-made gravel island, and the Reindeer Island Coast well, on a natural barrier beach island (Malme and Lawski, 1979). The source levels are plotted as averages of received levels from several ranges (1,000 to 1,600 m) corrected for attentuation. The variability indicated by the standard deviation probably indicates changes in (1) propagation characteristics in shallow water, and (2) wind speed, ice movement and activity levels at these sites during the measurements. These data show little difference in the noise levels; however, they have different tonal components. Although the bandwidth of the receiving equipment was reported to be at least 20 kHz, the authors noted that no useful data were obtained at frequencies higher than 8 kHz, and that the acoustic levels in this high frequency region were low. A-4 Tufts Point Dredging Site - Arnak Artificial Island Construction Site Figures 2, 3 and 4 shows the noise generated from two construction locations in the Beaufort Sea area (Ford, 1977). Although not platform noise, the sounds from construction activities are nevertheless associated with offshore operations. At the Tufts Point dredging site, noise sources included a suction dredge, several crew boats and tugs pushing barges into and out of the area. Noise measurements were made at several ranges (90 to 4,000 m) in four different directions from this site. An artificial breakwall extends northwest from the site, and is the probable reason the noise was lowest from that direction (Figure 2). The average noise levels from the other three directions are similar in frequency and amplitude. Transient sounds were also recorded at the Tufts Point site. Noisy couplings in the floating pipeline probably produced the short duration sounds plotted in Figure 3. At the Arnak artificial construction site, operating machinery included a suction dredge, a tending tug, a clamshell shovel and several crew boats. Figure 4 shows tonal components measured from this site. The frequency band and amplitudes from the Tufts Point and the Arnak site are similar. The author did not report any data for frequencies below 250 Hz. Either they were not included if present or they were of such a low amplitude as not to be detectable. Logistic Traffic Noise at the Tufts Point Site Figure 5 shows source levels for major tonal components from tugs, tugs pushing barges (empty and full) and crew boats (Ford, 1977). The frequency spectra and amplitudes are comparable to those shown in Figure 2. Although these levels are slightly higher, this is probably a result that these sources were included with those measurements for the composite sounds that were shown in Figure 2. Semi-Submersible Platform (SEDCO J) in the North Atlantic Figure 6 shows source levels for low frequency tonals from a semi-submersible platform during drilling and tripping operations (Kramer and Wing, 1976). These values are of a similar level as those shown in Figure 1; however, they do not show the variability. This is probably due to the fact that these measurements were taken in "deep" water, and that all measurements were made from a single, distant measuring site. The data shown in figures 1-6 indicate that based on available sources, the noise from offshore oi] and gas drilling activities can potentially cover a broad frequency range (10 Hz to 10 kHz) with average source levels from 130 to 180 dB re 1 pPa at lm. The major tonal components are below 1.0 kHz with the major energy below 200 Hz. Signal-to-noise ratios may approach 80 to 100 dB above the ambient levels, which means that levels of this magnitude would not be completely attentuated until they reached a point 30 to 50 nautical miles from the source. A-6 SECTION II UNDERWATER HEARING AND SOUND PRODUCTION OF MARINE MAMMALS Anatomy The anatomy and function of the auditory and associated neural structure for several species of odontocete cetaceans has been reviewed by several authors (Fraser and Purves, 1960; Morgane and Jacobs, 1972; Bullock, Grinnell, Ikezono, Kameda, Katsuki, Nonoto, Sato and Yanagisawa, 1968; McCormick, Wever, Palin and Ridgway, 1970; Wever, McCormick, Palin and Ridgway, 1971). The sound path to the inner ear is not well understood. One theory (Fraser and Purves, 1960) concludes that the dolphin receives sound via the external auditory meatus, while Norris (1969) suggests that the sound is received via bone conduction through the fat layer of the lower jaw. Electrophysiological recordings and cochlear microphonic measurements (McCormick, Wever, Palin and Ridgway, 1970) has demonstrated that sound passing through the lower jaw excites cochlear and mid-brain with greater intensity than those sounds presented in the area of the external auditory meatus. These finding support the theory presented by Norris (1969). The hearing capabilities of large whales are difficult to establish. Anecdotal evidence is available suggesting that mysticetes respond to ship noises, sonar pings and low-flying aircraft (Norris and Reeves, 1978). The anatomical structure of the mysticete auditory structure has been reviewed by several authors (Reysenbach de Haan, 1957; Dudok van Heel, 1962; Purves, 1966). Fleischer (1976) compared cochlear morphometrics in extinct and extant cetaceans, and concluded that mysticete cochlea have structurally evolved for sensitivity to low frequency sounds as compared to odontocete high-frequency sensitivity, although mysticete hearing for high frequency is probably very good. The outer ear structure of pinnipeds has undergone considerable modification. The external ear of the sea lion is very reduced and may serve to close off the ear canal during diving; true seals have no external ears. The middle ear of pinnipeds has undergone additional modification in order to function in an aquatic environment; yet despite these modifications the pinniped ear must also function in air. One theory suggests that with A-7 pinniped underwater hearing the sound enters the head and proceeds directly to the organ of corti, whereas aerial sound transmission is apparently accomplished in a typical mammalian pattern -- from the tympanic membrane via the middle ear to the oval window (Reppening, 1972). Marine Mammal Auditory Threshold In the early 1950's scientific observations began on the auditory capabilities of cetaceans. These were prompted in part by the hypothesis of McBride (1956) and others in the 1940's that some cetaceans were capable of echolocation. The experimental designs of these studies range from the initial "naturalistic observations" of Kellogg and Kohler (1952) to the more detailed experimental paradigms pioneered by Johnson in 1966. A wide variety of techniques has been devised to deterine the auditory thresholds of a mammal (Francis, 1975). These can be broadly separated into behavioral and electrophysiological measurement techniques. Both measurement techniques have been used with marine mammals. The goal of each study is the measurement of hearing sensitivity (in dB) as a function of frequency (Hz). These may be referred to as audiograms (Stevens, 1951) or absolute auditory threshold curves (Licklider, 1951). This report will use the term audiogram. Behavioral audiograms have been obtained by training marine mammals to respond to the perception of a tone with operant or Pavlovian conditioning techniques. Electrophysiological audiograms are obtained by a) monitoring evoked potentials to auditory stimuli; and b) measuring the cochlear microphonics at the round window of the cochlea. The auditory capabilities of the following cetaceans have been behaviorally tested: Tursiops truncatus truncatus and Tursiops truncatus gilli, Phocoena phocoena, Delphinus delphis, Orcinus orca, Inia geoffrensis and Delphinapterus leucas. Data from these tests are presented in Table 1. Studies giving frequency and intensity thresholds are graphed in Figures 7 and 8. The following pinnipeds have been behaviorally tested: Phoca vitulina, Pagophilus groenlandicus, Pusa hispida and Zalophus californianus. Data from these tests are presented in Table 2 and figures 9 and 10. The following marine mammals have been tested using electrophysiological measurement techniques: Stenella coeruleoalba, Stenella attenuata, Steno A-8 bredanensis, Tursiops truncatus gilli, Tursiops truncatus truncatus, Lagenorhynchus obliquidens, Zalophus californianus, Phoca vitulina, and Halichoerus grypus. Auditory data are summarized for both pinnipeds and cetaceans in Table 3. Studies giving frequency and intensity thresholds are graphed in figure 11. Behavioral Tests - Cetacea Kellogg and Kohler (1952) made the first systematic observations of cetacean hearing by playing tones to a group of free-swimming captive Tursiops truncatus and Stenella plagiodon. No training techniques were used, and changes in the animals' natural swimming behavior at the onset of a tone were used as criteria for tone perception. Tones between 100 Hz and 200 kHz were used to obtain a rough outline of the test subjects hearing range. No attempt was made to determine dB intensity sensitivity thresholds. Tonal intensities were maintained at a minimum sound pressure level of 4.03 dynes/cm2 at four meters (118 dB re 1 pPa) (unless otherwise stated, all dB re 1 p Pascal). Behavioral differences were noted from 100 Hz to 50 kHz. Later tests on other Tursiops truncatus (Kellogg, 1953) at other locations indicated frequency responses from 100 Hz to 80 kHz. Schevill and Lawrence (1953) tested the hearing range of a single free swimming captive Tursiops truncatus. The animal was tested at frequencies from 150 Hz - 153 kHz, the upper limit of the equipment. Intensity levels were maintained between 100 and 110 dB. The animal had been trained by operant conditioning to swim to a trainer for a fish reward if it perceived a tone. Responses were noted throughout the frequency band tested, from 150 Hz - 120 kHz 50% of the time, at 130 kHz 30% of the time, and from 151 - 153 kHz 13% of the time. Thirteen years later the first true audiogram giving frequency and intensity thresholds for a marine mammal was made by Johnson (1966) on a Tursiops truncatus. The test subject responded from 75 Hz - 150 kHz. The single test subject was trained using standard operant conditioning techniques to respond to the presentation of a signal by pushing the appropriate manipulandum or remaining at station if no signal was presented or perceived. Frequency results were in close agreement with the earlier work of Schevill and Lawrence (1953). The maximum dB intensity threshold was at 45 dB at 50 kHz. The frequency band of high sensitivity was from 12 - 115 KHz. The frequency band of high sensitivity is defined as the frequency band where dB intensity thresholds are within 10 dB of the frequency of maximum sensitivity. In this case, it is the frequency band with at least a 55 dB threshold. The 10 dB criterion is arbitrary. It is an approximation of the frequency bandwidth where the test subject has acute hearing. Below 50 kHz, the dB sensitivity gradually decreased to approximately 52 dB at 20 kHz (6 dB/octave). Below 15 kHz sensitivity decreased by approximately 12 dB/octave to 1 kHz. Above 50 kHz intensity thresholds decreased to 55 dB at 100 kHz (10 dB/octave) and then rapidly to 135 dB at 150 kHz, an approximate decrease in sensitivity of 700 dB/octave. Ljungblad (pers. comm.) recently completed an audiogram for a single Pacific bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus gilli). Frequencies from 1 - 160 kHz were tested. The animal responded from 2 - 135 kHz. Maximum sensitivities at 47 dB at 20 kHz and 46 dB at 50 kHz were recorded. Decibel intensity thresholds included 115 dB at 2 kHz, 58 dB at 25 kHz, 46 dB at 50 kHz, 74 dB at 100 kHz, and 118 dB at 135 kHz. Frequency and intensity thresholds and maximum sensitivities were slightly lower than the Atlantic bottlenose dolphin tested by Johnson (1966). Cetacean psychophysics has also been studied in the Soviet Union. Golubkov, Ershova and Zhezherin (1969) reported that Tursiops truncatus responded to signals up to 500 kHz. Intensity sensitivities were not determined. Morozov, Akopian, Burdin, Donskov, Zaitseva and Sokovykh (1971) reported an audiogram for Tursiops truncatus from delivered frequencies of 5 - 140 kHz. High sensitivity to pure tones was from 10 - 100 kHz, with maximum intensity threshold of 60 dB at 80 kHz. Sensitivity below 80 kHz decreased by approximately 10 dB/octave and above 100 kHz by 67 dB/octave. Note should be taken of the decreased intensity thresholds as compared to those of Johnson (1966). An audiogram for Phocoena phocoena was reported by Andersen (1970). A single animal was tested from 1 - 150 kHz, the lower and upper limits of the equipment. Responses were noted throughout those frequencies with maximum sensitivities found at approximately 45 dB at 8 and 32 kHz. High sensitivity was noted from 4 - 64 kHz. Below 4 kHz the thresholds decreased to 85 dB at 1 kHz (15 dB/octave). Above 40 kHz thresholds decreased to 70 dB at 150 kHz (15 dB/octave) and to at least 150 dB at 150 kHz (700 dB/octave). Sukhoruchenko (1973) used a respondent (Francis, 1975) or Pavlovian conditioning training technique. This was the only behavioral measurement technique not to use operant conditioning. Twenty Phocoena phocoena were preconditioned with a mild shock to the presentation of a tone. An electromyogram (EMG) was produced from skin-mounted electrodes monitoring the muscle twitch in the skin resulting from the shock. The shock was faded out of the experiment after the muscular action was conditioned to the tone. By monitoring the EMG to the onset of tones with varying frequency and intensities, an audiogram was obtained from 3 - 190 kHz. Maximum sensitivity was at 60 dB at 64 kHz. High sensitivity was from 10 - 90 kHz. The results reported are averages of the twenty test subjects. The auditory studies of Delphinus delphis report only frequency thresholds (Bel'kovich and Solntseva, 1970). Correct responses to the signal were indicated by the animal swimming towards a lever and vocalizing. Four series of test frequencies were run. The first series contained frequencies from 660 Hz - 204.6 kHz. Responses up to 119.2 kHz were noted. Frequencies from 120 - 206 kHz elicited a negative response (tail slaps and fast swimming). The authors reported this was due to the animal's dislike of the signal. They felt this warranted inclusion in the threshold report. The third series of tests were run from 16 Hz - 3.73 kHz and elicited responses in every case. In the final series, frequencies from 200 - 400 kHz were used. Above 290 kHz responses were inconsistent. The authors reported responses to frequencies as high as 320 kHz. They concluded that the auditory perception of Delphinus delphis ranges from 18 Hz - 280 kHz. These tests were repeated On another animal with the same results. In 1970 auditory threshold research on Orcinus orca was conducted by Hall and Johnson (1972) at Sea World of San Diego. The young male test subject responded from 500 Hz, the lowest frequency presented, to 31 kHz. Maximum sensitivity was at 15 kHz; 30 dB. High sensitivity was noted from 10 - 20 kHz. Below 15 kHz thresholds decreased by approximately 10 dB/octave. Above 30 kHz sensitivity decreased in an almost vertical manner. Also in 1970, Jacobs and Hall (1972) obtained auditory thresholds for the Amazon River dolphin, Inia geoffrensis, using a test subject at Sea World. The animal responded to frequencies ranging from 1, the minimum presented, to 105 kHz. According to the authors, the maximum sensitivity was between 75 and 90 kHz at approximately 50 dB; however, their graph indicates maximum sensitivity between 30-50 kHz at 50 dB. Below 30 kHz the sensitivity decreased by approximately 10 - 15 dB/octave, from 60 - 100 kHz sensitivity decreased by 55 dB/octave and above 100 kHz by approximately 300 dB/octave. A male and female Delphinapterus leucas were used to determine the auditory thresholds of the Beluga whale (White, Norris, Ljungblad, Baron, di Sciara, manuscript). The upper frequency threshold for the female was 123 kHz, and for the male 120 kHz. Maximum sensitivity for both test subjects was at 30 kHz, 36 dB for the female and 41 dB for the male. High sensitivity began at 20 kHz for both animals, ending at 75 kHz for the male and 85 kHz for the female. The increase in sensitivity from 1 kHz to 20 kHz was 12 - 15 dB/octave in both animals. The decrease in sensitivity at the upper threshold was 370 dB/octave for both whales. In the audiogram for the female there were three notches where sensitivity was 15 - 20 dB less than the adjoining frequencies. Thresholds at these notches were 57 to 54 dB at 25 kHz, 50 kHz and 100 kHz. The cause for these harmonically related notches is unknown. Behavioral Tests - Pinnipedia Audiograms for three phocid and one otariid seal have been determined behaviorally. The common seal (Phoca vitulina) has a hearing range in water of 1 - 180 kHz (Moh], 1968). These frequencies represent the undistorted range of the testing equipment. Maximum sensitivity occurred at 63 dB at 32 kHz. Thresholds above 32 kHz decreased by 60 dB/octave to 64 kHz and by only 12 dB/octave from 90 - 180 kHz. Frequency thresholds with the test subject in air were from 1 - 22.5 kHz with maximum sensitivity at 12 kHz at -85 dB (re 1 uW/cm). A-12 For the harp seal (Pagophilus groenlandicus) (Terhune and Ronald, 1971; 1972) the aquatic audiogram was from 760 Hz - 100 kHz. Maximum sensitivities were at 68 dB at 2 kHz and 63 dB zt 22.9 kHz. Frequencies were tested in 1/2 octave steps. In-air responses were obtained from 1 - 50 kHz. Maximum sensitivity was at 5 kHz at -57 dB (re 1 uW/cm). If expressed as power units (rather than intensity units) the water audiograms are comparable to sensitivities noted for terrestrial mammals. The intensity threshold of air audiograms was generally 10 - 30 dB less than the water audiograms when comparing like dB units. Male and female test subjects were used to determine the auditory threshold of Pusa hispida (Terhune and Ronald, 1975). Test frequencies from 1-90 kHz were used with the upper and lower frequency limits fixed by the equipment. Both test subjects responded throughout the test band. The female test subject had slightly more acute hearing than the male. However, the male had relatively better hearing at higher frequencies than the female. Maximum sensitivity for the female was at 11 and 16 kHz at 68 dB with a high sensitivity from 8-22.9 kHz. Maximum sensitivity for the male was at 44.9 kHz with high sensitivity from 4-44.9 kHz. Schusterman, Balliet and Nixon (1972) tested Zalophus californianus at frequencies from 250 Hz - 64 kHz. The upper frequency threshold was considered to be between 36 and 48 kHz. Maximum sensitivity was approximately 79 dB at 16 kHz. Above 18 kHz sensitivity decreased at 60 dB/octave to 36 kHz and by 14 dB/octave to 64 kHz. Responses were noted to frequencies as high as 192 kHz with intensities at approximately 138 dB. The authors maintain that at levels above 48 kHz the animals were responding to pressure conducted through the skull, whereas at lower frequency conventional (ossicular chain conduction) hearing was used. Electrophysiological Tests Electrophysiological audiograms have been obtained in two ways: a) evoked potentials from deep cortical probes (Bullock, Grinnel, Ikezono, Kameda, Katsuki, Nomoto, Seto, Suga and Yanagisawa, 1968; Bullock and Ridgway, 1972; Bullock, Ridgway and Suga, 1971; and Ridgway and Joyce, 1975); or from electrodes mounted to the skull, with an artifact inhibiting system to monitor EEG (Seeley, Ridgway and Flanigan, 1976); b) and cochlear microphonics (McCormick, 1968). Cetacea Bullock et al. (1968) played frequencies from 5 - 150 kHz to 29 anesthesized test animals, including Stenella coeruleoalba, S. attenuata, Steno bredanensis and Tursiops gilli. Interspecific sensitivities were not significantly different and were in close agreement with the behavioral audiograms for Tursiops of Johnson (1966) and Ljungblad (Pers. comm.). Auditory evoked potentials were noted from 5 kHz to 120-140 kHz. Maximum sensitivities were 35 dB at 60 kHz. High sensitivities were noted from 20 - 80 kHz. Sensitivity decreased by approximately 100 dB/octave above 100 kHz. In 1972 these tests were repeated on alert Tursiops truncatus (Bullock and Ridgway, 1972). Responses to 120 kHz were noted. Maximum sensitivities were from 40 - 60 kHz. The intensity at maximum sensitivities was approximately 60 dB greater than at 10 kHz where the evoked potentials were barely determinable. Seeley, Ridgway and Flanigan (1976) tested seven alert Tursiops truncatus at frequencies between 5-200 kHz. Probes were mounted to the skulls of alert animals and using a special artifact inhibiting system an audiogram was obtained. Thresholds were obtained throughout the test frequencies. Maximum sensitivities were around 70 kHz at 54 dB for the most sensitive animal. An electrophysiological audiogram was completed at the Naval Ocean Systems Center on the same Tursiops truncatus gilli used by Ljungblad for a behavioral audiogram. The results of the two auditory threshold measurement techniques for this cetacean were within 10 kHz. Using a cochlear microphonics technique on Lagenorhynchus obliquidens and Tursiops truncatus, McCormick (1968) obtained several audiograms. In this measurement technique an electrode mounted to the round window of the cochlea monitors electrical potentials produced by firings of the hair cells. By changing the frequency and intensity of tones played to the test subject audiograms are obtained. McCormick tested auditory thresholds for signals transmitted to the cochlea by bone and ossicular chain conduction. Tests were done with the test subject in air and underwater. Five audiograms were produced. The air audiograms using bone conduction were more variable than those taken underwater where marked notches were noted, particularly at 10 A-14 kHz. In the test, tones up to 250 kHz were played to a Tursiops truncatus; results above 100 kHz were not given by the author. With LC-10 hydrophone used aS a sound source, underwater responses were noted as high as 200 kHz in a Tursiops truncatus. In a similar test the upper threshold was 100 kHz with another Tursiops. Since the dB intensity reference was in terms of the dB loss relative to the highest cochlear potential measured with each animal, absolute dB intensity thresholds were not obtained. Thus, only the upper frequency thresholds and the comparative slope of the intensity thresholds are available. This last term refers to a comparison of their audiogram with that of Johnson's (1966) Tursiops behavioral audiogram (Figure 12). A comparison of the relative intensity thresholds can be made, and in this case the increase in sensitivity of the cochlear microphonics audiogram is similar to that of the behavioral tests. Pinnipedia Using deep cortical probes on both alert and anesthetized animals, Bullock, Ridgway and Suga (1971) obtained audiograms from two Zalophus californianus and one Phoca vitulina. All results were from subjects tested in the air; the results from both species were similar. Evoked potentials were recorded in the harbor seal from 400 Hz - 20 kHz, with maximum sensitivity of 54 dB at 4 kHz. In one sea lion potentials were recorded from 500 Hz - 35 kHz and in the other from 500 Hz - 20 kHz. Maximum sensitivity for both was from 4 - 8 kHz, with a maximum sensitivity threshold of 52 aB. The results for Zalophus were in close agreement with those of Schusterman (1972); however, results for Phoca differed significantly from those of Mohl (1968) and Terhune (1972; 1975). Using deep cortical probes on six gray seals (Halichoerchus grypus) audiograms were obtained for hearing both in and out of the water (Ridgway and Joyce, 1975). The animals were not restrained and the EEG signals were transmitted by radio from the animals. Responses were noted from the lowest used frequency of 1 kHz to 150 kHz in water and from 200 Hz - 30 kHz in air. Maximum sensitivity in water was 60 dB at 30 kHz and in air 70 dB at 5 kHz. A-15 The cetaceans appear to have a 20-30 dB superiority over the pinnipeds in their respective regions of greatest sensitivity, and except for the killer whale, their audition extends one to two octaves beyond that of the pinnipeds. Sound Production of Marine Mammals Although little information is currently available on the sounds perceived by large whales, it is generally assumed that most animals can hear sounds similar to those that they produce. A major portion of the regions of peak sensitivity fits well the animals' own signal characteristics (Diercks, Trochta and Evans, 1973). These similarities correlate with those noted for some species of fish and other animals for which similar data are available. Marine mammals have a broad repertoire of sounds, the echolocation pulses of the dolphin being the best documented. The high-frequency character of the echolocation clicks is reflected in the high-frequency sensitivity of these animals. Caution should be exercised in limiting the received bandwidth of sounds based solely on those that a large whale produces. Tables 4 and 5 summarize source level data for cetaceans with corresponding peak frequency bands or sound characters. These values are typically based on peak energy levels in relatively narrow bandwidths. Broadband (1 kHz - 40 kHz) recordings for four species of toothed whales were presented by Fish and Turl (1976). These included the northern right whale dolphin, Lissodelphis borealis; the Pacific bottlenose dolphin, Tursiops truncatus; the Pacific pilot whale, Globicephala macrorhynchus; and the common dolphin, Delphinus delphis. The data for these species showed that source levels were not confined to narrow bandwidths, as presented in Tables 4 and 5, but can cover a broad frequency range. Thompson, Winn and Perkins (1979) classified mysticete sounds into four groups. Group I includes low frequency moans from 0.4 to 36 seconds long, with the fundamental frequencies from 12 to 500 Hz. Moans may contain strong harmonic structures or pure tones. All but the sei whale, Balaenoptera borealis, and the minke whale, Balaenoptera acutorostrata, are known to make these sounds. Group II includes grunt-like thumps and knocks of short A-16 | | duration. The humpback whale, Megaptera novaeangliae, the southern right whale, Eubalaena glacialis australis, the northern right whale, Eubalaena glacialis glacialis, the bowhead whale, Balaena mysticetus, the gray whale, Eschrichtius robustus, the fin whale, Balaenoptera physalus, and the minke whale, Balaenoptera acutorostrata, are known to produce these sounds, which range in duration from 50 to 500 msec with major energy between 40 and 200 Hz. Group III contains chirps, cries and whistles at frequencies above 1.0 kHz. Chirps are generally pulses producing short (50 to 100 msec) discrete tones which change frequency rapidly and are not harmonically related, whereas cries and whistles are pure tones with or without harmonics. Group IV sounds are clicks or pulses which generally last from 0.5 to 5 msec with peak energy between 20 to 30 Hz. Ljungblad, Leatherwood and Dahlheim (1979) recorded two types of sounds from bowhead whales (Balaena mysticetus): a short (0.35-0.85 sec) sound and a longer (0.65-2.56 sec) sound, with fundamental frequencies of 50-580 Hz and 100-195 Hz, respectively. A-17 SUMMARY Noise from offshore oil and gas drilling activities cover a broad frequency range (10 Hz to 10 kHz), and average source levels range from 130 to 180 dB re 1 m PA a lm. Depending on the frequency band where these levels appear in the spectrum, signal-to-noise ratios may approach 80 to 100 dB. The ambient noise level would be 80 to 100 dB higher than that measured in an area if the source were not operating. For example, a signal-to-noise ratio of 100 dB would not be completely attentuated until it reaches a point of almost 50 NM from the source. Underwater hearing thresholds for marine mammals of "pure tones" in low background noise environments show that the lower and upper limits are comparable. The areas of maximum sensitivity, however, are quite variable possibly due to the acoustic environment in which they were sampled and due to individual species sensitivity. It should be noted that the lower limits do not extend below 1.0 kHz, but in most cases sounds below 1 kHz were not used. This is possibly due to the difficulty of projecting low frequency pure tones at levels above ambient noise without distortion, the effects of standing waves, or interference due to near field effects. The upper hearing limits for the recorded cetaceans are between 75 and 150 kHz with the exception of the killer whale, whose upper hearing limit was measured around 30 kHz. The upper limit of aquatic hearing for the recorded pinnipeds are between 30 and 50 kHz. A-18 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT: Parts of this literature review were based on a report by Norris and White (1978) of Hubbs/Sea World Research Institute prepared for and submitted to the Naval Ocean Systems Center, San Diego, California. A-19 BIBLIOGRAPHY Andersen, S. (1970). Auditory sensitivity of the harbour porpoise, Phocoena phocoena. In: G. Pillerie (ed.) Invest. on Cetacea. Berne, SWihEZeralanG wrmViOlll pe Zamcoo = 250.5 Au, W.W.L., R.W. Floyd, R.H.Penner, and A.E. Murchison (1974). Measurements of echolocation signals of the bottlenose dolphin, Tursiops truncatus, in open waters. J. Acous. Soc. Amer. 56: 1280-1290. Beamish, P. and E. Mitchell (1971). Ultrasonic sounds recorded in the presence of a blue whale, Balaenoptera musculus, Deep-Sea. Res., 18: 803-809. Beamish, P. and E. Mitchell (1973). Short pulse length audio sounds recorded in the presence of a minke whale, Balaenoptera acutorostrata. Deep-Sea Res. and Ocean. Abst. 20: 375-386. Bel'kovich, U.M. and G.N. Solntseva (1970). Anatomy and function of the ear in dolphins. Zoolog. Zh. (Russian) No. 2, 275-282. (J.P.R.S. 50253, 7 April 1970, 9 pp.) mr Bullock, T.H., A.D. Grinnel, E. Ikezono, K. Kameda, Y. Katsuki, M. Nomoto, 0. Seto, N. Suga, and K. Yanagisawa (1968). Electrophysiological studies of central auditory mechanisms in cetaceans. Z. Vergl. Physiol. 59: 117-156. Bullock, T.H., S. H. Ridgway and N. Suga (1971). Acoustically evoked potentials in midbrain auditory structures in sea lions (Pinnipedia). Z. Vergl. Physiol. 74:. 372-387. Bullock, T.H. and S.H. Ridgway (1972). Evoked potentials in the central auditory system of alert porpoises to their own and artificial sounds. J. Neurobiology 3: 79-99. Busnel, R.G. (1978). Introduction. In: Effects of Noise on Wildlife, J.L. Fletcher and R.G. Busnel (eds)., Academic Press: -5. Corcella, A.T. and M. Green (1968). Investigations of impulsive deep-sea noise resembling sounds produced by a whale. J. Acous. Soc. Amer. 44: 483-487. Cummings, W.C. and P.O. Thompson (1971). Underwater sounds from the Blue Whale, Balaenoptera musculus. J. Acous. Soc. Amer. 50: 1193-1198. Cummings, W.C. and J.F. Fish and P.O. Thompson (1972). Sound production and other behavior of southern Right Whales, Eubalaena glacialis. Trans. SansDijegouSoce Natio nise wins Lous: A-20 Cummings, W.C., P.O. Thompson and R. Cook (1968). Underwater sounds of migrating gray whales, Eschrichtius glaucus (Cope). J. Acous. Soc. Amer. 44: 1278-1281. Diercks, K. J., T. Trochta, and W. E. Evans (1973). Delphinid sonar: measurements and analysis. J. Acous. Soc. Amer. 54: 200-204. Drouin, A.H. (1974). Design and field operations of an underwater acoustic telemetry system. 6th Ann. Offshore Tech. Conf. OTC 1965: 9 pp. Dudok van Heel, W.H. (1962). Sound and cetacea, Neth. J. Sea Res., 1(4): 407-507. Dunn, J. L. (1969). Airborne measurements of the acoustic characteristics of a sperm whale. J. Acous. Soc. Amer. 46: 1052-1054. Evans, W.E. (1976). Personal communications. Fish, J.F. and C.W. Turl (1976). Acoustic source levels of four species of small whales. Naval Undersea Center, NUC TP 547: 14 pp. Fleischer, G. (1976). Hearing in extinct cetaceans as determined by cochlear structure. J. Paleontal. 50(1): 133-152. Ford, J. (1977). White whale offshore exploration acoustic study. Report submitted to Imperial Oil Co., F. F. Glaney & Co., Ltd. Vancouver, Canada: 21 pp. Francis, R.L. (1975). Behavioral audiometry in mammals: Review and evaluation of techniques. Symp. Zool. Soc. Lond. 37: 237-239. Fraser, F.C. and P.E. Purves (1960). Hearing in cetaceans. Bull. of the Brit. Mus. 7: 1-140. Golubkov, A.G., I.V. Ershova and A.P. Zhezherin (1969). Methods and equipment pegce sean dolphin sounds. Proceedings of Leningrad Institute of Aircraft Gear Construction, Leningrad (Russian) em: 133-140. Hall, J.D. and C.S. Johnson (1971). Auditory threshold of a killer whale, Orcinus orca. J. Acous. Soc. Amer. 41(1): 515-517. Hall, J.D. and C.S. Johnson (1972). Auditory thresholds of a killer whale Orcinus orca Linnaeus. J. Acoust. Soc. Amer. 51: 2 (Part 2). Jacobs, D.W. and J.D. Hall (1972). Auditory thresholds of a freshwater dolphin, Inia geoffrensis Blainville. J. Acoust. Soc. Amer. 51: 2 (Part 2). Johnson, C.S. (1966). Auditory thresholds in the bottlenose porpoise Tursiops truncatus Montagu, U.S.N. Ordnance Test Station (NOTS) TP 4178, 22 p. A-?1 Kellog, W.N. (1953). Ultrasonic hearing in the porpoise. J. Comp. Physiol. Psychol. 44: 446-450. Kellogg, W.N. and R. Kohler (1952). Reactions of the porpoise to ultrasonic frequencies. Science 116: 250-252. Kramer, S.A. and T.E. Wing (1976). APEX Final Report (U). Bell Laboratories. Levenson, C. (1972). Characteristics of sounds produced by humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae). NAVOCEAN TECH. NOTE NO. 7700-6-72: 1-10. Levenson, C. (1974). Source level and bistatic target strength of the sperm whale (Physeter catodon) measured from an oceanographic aircraft. J. Acous. Soc. Amer. 55: 1100-1103. Licklider, J.C.R. (1951). Basic correlates of the auditory stimulus. In: Steven, S.S. (ed.) Handbook of Experimental Psychology. New York, Wiley, 985-1039. Ljungblad, D.K., S. Leatherwood, and M.E. Dahlheim (1979). Sounds recorded in the presence of an adult and calf bowhead whale, Balaena mysticetus. Naval Ocean Systems Center, NOSC TR 420, 1-7. Malme, C.I. and R.M. Lawski (1979). Measurements of underwater acoustic noise in the Prudhoe Bay area. Bolt, Beranek & Newman, Inc., Tech. Memo. No. fhe SE ES eee 513: 16 pp. McBride, A. F. (1956). Evidence for echolocation by cetaceans. Deep-Sea Reseanchwsca) Los 5154: McCormick, J.G. (1968). Theory of hearing for delphinids. Doctoral Dissertation, Princeton University. McCormic, J.G., E.g. Wever, J. Palin, and S.H. Ridgway (1970). Sound conduction in the dolphin ear. J. Acous. Soc. Amer. 48(6): 1418-1428. Moh], B. (1968). Auditory sensitivity of the common seal in air and water. Je AuGTtORyeReS.18:) 12/=387 Mohl, B. and S. Andersen (1973). Echolocation: High-frequency components in the click of the harbour porpoise (Phocoena ph. L). J. Acous. Soc. Amer. 54: 1368-1372. Morgane, J.P. and N.S. Jacobs (1972). Comparative anatomy of the cetacean nervous system. In Functional Anatomy of Marine Mammals, Vol. I. R. J. Harrison (ed). Academic Press: rT] -Da, Morozov, V.P., A.I. Akopian, V.I. Burdin, A.A. Donskov, K.A. Zaitseva and Yu. A. Sokovykh (1971). Audiogram of the dolphin Tursiops truncatus (Russian). Sechenov Physiological Journal of USSR 6: 843-848. Myrberg, A.A. (1978). Ocean noise and the behavior of marine animals: Relationships and implications. In: Effects of Noise on Wildlife. J.L. Fletcher and R.G. Busnel (eds). Academic Press: 168-208. A-22 Norris, K.S. (1969). The echolocation of marine mammals. In The Biology of Marine Mammals, H.T. Harrison (ed). Acad. Press: 391-423. Norris, K.S. and R.R. Reeves (eds) (1978). Report on a workshop on problems related to humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae) in Hawaii. U.S. Dept. Comm., NTIS PB-280-794: 90 pp. Norris, J. and M.J. White (1978). Review of marine mammal auditory threshold literature. Submitted to the Naval Ocean Systems Center by Hubbs/Sea World Research Institute, H/SWRJ TR 78-112. Patterson, B. and G.R. Hamilton (1964). Repetitive 20 cycle per second biological hydrostatic signals at Bermuda. In: Marine Bio-Acoustics, W.N. Tavolga (ed). Pergamon Press: 125-145. Purves, P.E. (1966). Anatomy and physiology of the outer and middle ear in cetacean. In: Whales, dolphins and porpoise, K.S. Norris (ed). Univ. Calif. Press.: 320-380. Reppening, C.A. (1972). Underwater hearing in seals. In Functional anatomy of marine mammals. R. J. Harrison (ed). Acad. Press: 307-331. Reysenbach de Haan, F.W. (1957). Hearing in whales. Acta Otolaryngol 134: 1-114. Ridgway, S.H. and P.L. Joyce (1975). Studies on seal brain by radio-telemetry. Rapp. P.-v. Re'un. cons. int. Expl. Mer. 169: 81-91. Schevill, W.E. and B. Lawrence (1953). Auditory response of a bottlenose porpoise, Tursiops truncatus, to frequencies above 100 Kc. J. Expl. LOlee UC la7 65k Schevill, W.E. and W.A. Watkins (1966). Sound structure and directionality in Orcinus (Killer whale). Zoologica 51: 71-76. Schevill, W.E. and W.A. Watkins (1971). Pulsed sounds of the porpoise, Lagenorhynchus australis, Brevoria 366: 1-10. Schevill, W.E., W.A. Watkins and R.H. Backus (1964). The 20-cycle signals and Balaenoptera (fin whales). In: Marine Bio-Acoustics, W.N. Tavloga (ed)., Pergamon Press: 147-157. Schevill, W.E., W.A. Watkins and C. Ray (1969). Click structure in the porpoise, Phocoena phocoena. J. Mamm. 50: 721-728. Schusterman, R.J., R.F. Balliet and J. Nixon (1972). Underwater audiogram of the California sea lion by the conditioned vocalization technique. J._ Experimental Analysis of Behavior 17: 339-350. Seeley, R.L., W.F. Flanigan, Jr., and S.H. Ridgway (1976). A technique for rapidly assessing the hearing of the bottlenose porpoise, Tursiops truncatus. Naval Undersea Center, NUC TP 552. A-23 Stevens, E.E. (1951). Mathematics, measurement and psychophysics. In: Handbook of Experimental Psychology, Stevens, S.S. (ed.), New York, Wiley, 1-49. Sukhoruchenko, M.N. (1973). Frequency discrimination in dolphins (Phocoena hocoena) (Russian). Sechenov Physiological Journal of USSR 9(8): 7205-1210. Terhune, J.M. and K. Ronald (1971). The Harp Seal, Pagophilus groenlandicus (Erxleben, 1777). X. The Air Audiogram. Canadian J. of Zool. 49: 385-390. Terhune, J.M. and K. Ronald (1972). The Harp Seal, Pagophilus groenlandicus (Erxleben, 1777). III. The Underwater Audiogram. Canadian J. of Zool. 50: 565-569). Terhune, J.M. and K. Ronald (1975). Underwater hearing sensitivity of two Ringed Seals (Pusa hispida). Can. J. Zool. 53: 227-231. Thompson, T.J., H.E. Winn and P.J. Perkins (1979). Mysticete sounds. In: Behavior of marine animals. Vol. 3. Cetaceans. H.E. Winn and B.L. 03-431. OTTa (eds). Plenum Press: 403- Underwater Systems, Inc. (1973). Noise measurements from offshore oil rigs. Under. Sys. Ine. Note 312-53)» 15 ipp. Urick, R.J. (1967). Principles of Underwater Sounds. McGraw-Hil] Book Co., 384 pp. Watkins, W.A. and W.E. Schevill (1974). Listening to Hawaiian spinner porpoises, Stenella cf. longirostris, with a three-dimensional hydrophone array. J. Mamm. 55: 319-328. Wever, E.G., J.G. McCormick, J. Palin, and S.H. Ridgway (1971). The cochlea of the dolphin, Tursiops truncatus: general morphology. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci., 68(10): 2382-2385. White, M.J., J.C. Norris, D.K. Ljungblad, K.S. Baron, and G.N. DeSciara. 1978. Auditory thresholds of two beluga whales (Delphinapterus leucas). Manuscript. A-24 *paysay Aouanbauy 7SaM07, Gl-02 0€ /6S- 221 (Lew) “L “a — (alewas) seona, “su f° [e *}a 92L4M S8-02 0€/9- eel snuazaeuLydjaq SLSUdd}} 00D Z26T ‘LLEH 8 Sgooer 09-02 0S-0€/0S- SOT e LUT e940 cL6T ‘uosuyor § LLeH 02-01 S1/0L- ei ~00S snulo4Q Styudtap OL6T “PAASULOS RF YDLAOHL ag 082 9T snutyd [ad EZ6T ‘oxuaysnNuoYyr NS 06-02 06T x000P " euacaoyd We OL61T ‘uasuapuy v9-v 2€°8/GS- x000T eug030Ud SW bal] o8 x aS ani wa hy ea ASN Pacoe SSeunsa A-30 “(ZL61 P4O4) BAS JroOzJneag UF B9IFS Zuyspeip wo1y payerauas asyou yo Tavat adanos aa }on3 93a 4 Qa. VU °Z vsin3styq (San) ATadS anim I! ASBMW- KAY I—-—-T Asvy - \1a0W 9----9o i303: 4 FOC} ASAM-HLOOG °-— -« W891) Bus hWYNDyY M1908 SIAL ~ oO 921 a aa og qf OU pn of t2 ae, es 5h oh ee an Qa\ (LL6T P4045) Bag JAOFnNeegG Uz aIFs Zuy3peip wo1y payer|9ues ssfou Jusatsueiq Jo [erat 291N0S nIyw3a0g73a4 foyey Q\ go\ OV °E ein3ty ~ ~ e2-82 SL a (AA) GRS ANM WAND « aSuB- KAN0G VY ATM. WLOOG oa (SARAAS WH) Sus Piiiwoy Wd SLIOL a) a 1 z “ 4) as Wd} obs Sr vuusy am CJ ise) “(LL61 P4O4) BAG J1OFNe|G UT aITS UOFIONAYSUOD wWorzy pszZeraus3s asfou TerAeT adinoOS °y sVsANsTY han ade 2a aol ar Qa1 ay , 9% in = Bi = W AE > at 7 Sr i “~. Say SSS eS ee ee eet eg ee 59 =e } Fe iS tp = ~ 32 ~ SSS fo) (sin) ERS ATW Shs eae oe =| as ce 8 7 ki vay 24 ap) WHT) oases, aanwallS3 3 o-—o < SSS 1) WIDON 9 Asya (SABNOL) Bars NavoMiSNo> oat AWTS) WOUlIY AvNUY ea A=-33 “(ZL6T p4O4) BES JAoFneag uF 93FsS Buy3spexp Jo AXFupFoFA ayQ uz peanseow Jye1d Jaoddns woxrzy estou jo sTesAe2sT as2ANO0S *¢ aAN3TY howamaad aa Qy ofl a ou H Sa | = | SS = po Se ; ov ~ ~ SS SS = — i i ~ — _—— od ~— ~ PS xe = ~ a ES <-3 ~ r4 ~. See ~ o> =S T eS re ~ pe (S1A) GaaAS ANI Se ee T ae = oS Ce ~ v. < rraw® a mos \h YL | SS = 2 Sie cord se | oy) hiawa las, o—_¢ SS Be vy Vo— eA NMIAD 0 v Se 2 on arava MA | On Sa NS oer rem amea Ty Im SAL (SAT) WWW) WaavVAL wUcaaANS oF\ ~N RBas A-34 fexe)y "(9261 5ulm pue saweuy) ofQueTIy |9YyI UF payedsoT wz0oz Qe Td @TqFslouqns-yuss wory pa zer|vusas estou jo [TaedAaT ed1NnoOS oN — ~ ~ ~ Wm — ~ ie ~~ = ~~ — OO aS ~ > ~ FE B~ ~ Se SS (Siwy ATIaS ANITH, Sas (OmMaaray) 13S3Q V CONTA, ) WSAQA-NAQ (rmagq) ZWs3s1Q 9 icy AAS) SIGIS UAUGAIS - WAS Wow3anozs 4 oo! Pe = (ANe3A) midaihs °g ein3sty TOU Ov 08 orl Owl Qn\ O@! e\ om 7 Woudtds words A-35 "(TL6T “Le 42 AOZOUOW £9961 UOSUYOr) SnzedUNAZ SdoLSun| pue (8/6T "12 3a 92LyM) Seona, Snuaqdeutydjaq voy sweubotpne uazemrapun | euoLAeyag (ZHYA) ADUenbezg 0°o00tT 0°0T ELGE snsvonnyL sdolsyny ++ 99bF SOLLINNAL SaOISYNn, °- —*— } svon77 snyzldwNiAdtag —~----- 2 Sv¥WNSaT SAYSLAUNIHE TIT "7 aunBbLy Or 9a) «aby ap) ALIMUSNAS A. -36 "(Z/6T LLeH pue sqooer) Stsuaissoab PLU] pue (T/6T UOSsuYyor puke | LeH) PI4O SNULDUO *(E/6T OXU@YIN4OYANS £Q/6[ uOSuapuy) Puadd0Yyd eUaOdd0Yq 40} SWeUbOLpNe wayeMAapUN [P4OLAeYag “8 aunb LY (ZHy) AdUenboazy 0°OOoT 0°0T O'T un fg) Z "i =) é 2 Qv ° | a | NX 01 a ; SISNFVIIOID YINT —-—-— x 1g | SS O®% » ! eoyO SANoOYo — — — ry | €LHF YNFOIOR, YNIOVOHE OLGE WN3Z070Hd YNIOQI0HG —----- Or Qui A-37 "(2161 "Le 3a uewwazsnyds) SnueLusosLi{ed Snydolez pue ‘(G/6T pleuoy pue aunyal ) eprdsty esnd ‘(T/6T pLeuoy pue aunyual) sndtpue_tuaoubh snj tydobeg “(8961 LYOW) PUL{NFLA eD0Yq :eLpadLuuLg uO} “azeM UapUN SweuboLpne [euoLAeyag “6 aunBbL4 (ZH4) Aduenbezyz 0°OT O°T: 0°00T SANUINYOFINGD SnHdOI"Vz.-.—..~ fo) YCidS/H sng ga Seoa A] YWdIdSIH osSndg SNIIQNYTINIOYD smmHdodbg—-—-— BNIINLIA VWIOHY— -~- waby> ap) ALIMUSNAS OU [ | ou | A-38 (8961 LYoW) “(TL61 PLeuoy pue aunyual) Snolpue|uaoub SsniLyudobeg pue PUL{NILA eD0Ud :eLpadLuuLd sO} Le UL SwesbOLpne LevoLAeyag “QT aunbL4 (ZHy) AdUanbozg Or Oot 0°OT O'T 7p) a vA “ a S Qo Aw pS a on f SE a Oe » YNITALIA WIOHY SATITNYINAOND Satit#doIvg -- -- out A-39 "(TL6T “L& 39 YOOLLMG) PULLNZLA eBD0Ud puke “snue Lu -aogt ted snydolez *(9/6T “Le 39 fayaas) snyeounsy sdotsan| *(G/6T aohor pue Kembpty) sndAub snyovaoydt ey 404 sweuborpne jeo.boporsAkydouz99a14 “TT aunBb 4 (zHy) Aduanbeaz 0° 0T O'T: 0°ooT GALVINNYL SdOISAN] -- —--— SPNVINUOITWD SNHdOTYZs-»—+0- — = MATINLIA VIO Hd SAMY INYOSITY? SNHdoTyZ--- — - a sngkud saiazommyH—-°-—-— OT aN / “A fy x oo Sh ‘ ie Ps \ hp / ‘ee ‘ Sy); ; i | eX / eae 5 / ey i ! / — Te 0 Vi, ee Vi j . : | j 5 : = OU qaby> ap) ALINUSNAS A-40 “(AZLSUBALUN UOJIDULAg SUOLZeJUASSLG [2403900 *896T ‘splutyudjag soy Hulueay JO ANOaYy]) YILWAOJVIW wWOuf Snzedsunsy sdoisuny 40} sweubolpne LevolLAeyaq pue SdLuoYydoudlw uealYyd0d 40 uoSLueduo) “ZT aunbl4 ZH) AN3 ooF St (=H 4) noms : ae \ SNLVINNAL SdoISyAL \ aos BM = THAIABH3Y we S,/ MOSNHOK 41095 mec yIMo7 AHN SIO AILYMAITNN INOHAOSTAH a SMPILOS IHD STHILNZLOA AXYIIWIOD (L9-08-901) SALwONANL SLOISAAy TE LNALOL BUITHIOD Uszhbiy o1 JAlLy14ayY. Sso7 gp A-41 aibuinsig \ i} f it F ‘ ie’ ie ck: il I aa eA : f vy i : i} i} H i tf i] } : , Ti} j i ‘ f F f\ 1 i i Lui 4 ; ; i ; WAY ey ‘ i} i! 1 ‘ t , t Ath U \' It APPENDIX B 79 Ve Lie a ni ae Hf INTERVIEW PROGRAM TO DETERMINE PROXIMITY OF LARGE MARINE MAMMALS TO OIL/GAS PLATFORMS Prepared for: NAVAL OCEAN SYSTEMS CENTER San Diego, California Prepared by: CHAMBERS CONSULTANTS AND PLANNERS 10557 Beach Boulevard P. 0. Box 356 Stanton, California 90680 March 1981 CEP PAB (OF GON Lis hos Section Page 1 TINTRODUGHTELON Goce aera cross vol abs. or sos ter ites eure NopMoiimemmt mca omitonine 1-1 Z QUESTHONNATRES DEVE OPMENT ied ersaret stot spltienltena cele inti ireuercmarelits 2-1 Zoll lhes Concepts Of thes PROGmaMe seu. ci ven ver feet esuhin al om ems roumsmreues 2-1 AoC} The In-Person Historical Interview Questionnaire ..... 2-2 233 MNES Siighitaing Carpd eee erase cghle: terlt ek Jak val le) Mlotatelshh/ote aeta et neato 2-3 3 INSTRUCTIONAL MEMHODSWAND) MATIERTAUS ur carnre to) su-ulotomicme 3-1 4 COLLECTION OF RELEVANT BASELINE DATA FOR COMPARISON WITH RESUITSZ OR MINTERV IEW PROGRAMiiicss., vcurciirsn etna crite: ciiloastcumremine 4-1 5 THER COMPUMER PROGRAM] ch courte “sulesnivey vors’s) usteton ie) ve) eouiccamoh een yemeee 5-1 Soll DME GOA UGEMOM sce: 28) ried fave ai er ey Naa lsiuie feu opis ei ton ieasetels vel ronlrcnme 5-1 52 Program to Analyze the In-Person Historical Interview Danae cca ek esers Went enasamireyy ienat arabe he aitay (cel alee sin Goi Minn ey Me ctaPe vate a dl anata 5-2 SoZodl Description of the Program to Analyze the In-Person AU SVOPUCEN WNVCIMIGSan 66 Woo torclS dud 96 6 bo dG io./c 5-2 oGoe Creating the Raw Data to be Read Into the Program. . . 5-2 6468) The In-Person Historical Interview Program. ...... 5-9 5.2.4 The Job Control Language Necessary to Run the In-Person Historical Interview Program ........ 5-15 53 Program to Analyze the Sighting Card Data ......... 5-17 Rg cigal Deseriptiionvof therProgiramsereucsuentee neuer. Ets aioy—3L,// Seiad Creating the Raw Data to be Read into the Program erie, en Omley, Dados mhesSighGingeCardePrognam:serculsmtcn ctmeaen cones: toil tiie aromnomns 5-19 | 5.3.4 The Job Control Language Necessary to Run the SUGMUMC ACEel Pollina a6 6 SMolG Socom ol ooo! 6 5-32 5.4 The BLM Data 5.4.1 How the BLM Data is Read into the Program....... 5-47 5.4.2 HowmthenBeM) DatauwasiDeriVedircnrmy-mi sire menitenicn i suleretieimne 5-47 5.6 Saniplie RunSwitha imaginary Dartay surest ics arayuicitaletin sill omens 5-57 | 6 THE PILOT PROGRAM Greil Contacts and Communications with Oil Companies. ....... 6-1 Grell TNE GOCUCTEMONE spies dorsen ec Uewiee iat emo tna eth (at vei Ced Ing oun 6-1 OealeZ Detailed Account of Communications with Oil Companies. . 6-2 6.2 Implementation of Che PiloCePrOgiraini ion cts mete ov) su vem nstnrcia came 6-6 Bara al Aminoil Platform Emmy (Huntington Beach) ........ 6-6 5267 Shell Beta: Platforms: (Huntingtons Beach)i.. Ss such eenneane 6-7 6.3 RESUMES ice retard eel sun ache Up invela rae atea ten ee lineal mettle cuitc oul ten Te: Vay Tatra Uietiate 6-8 Oaciail Results of In-Person Historical Interviews ....... 6-8 Osi RESUMES TROMPSHGhitinge CandSs cate wemsy wun eu ne oieueerits Weems 6-14 7 CONCEUSIIONS weg eevee cutcuires concn iifer Hat toummactisen tel viel ineumncudten tralia stiien melU outs 7-1 8 RECOMMENDATIONS en ieinanetare vice tte lor menieren re tecelirel tle ag sia veMesparedy relate uments 8-1 i, Gee Section 1 INTRODUCTION This interview program to determine the proximity of large marine mammals to oil and gas platforms was designed to support the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Program at the Naval Ocean Systems Center (NOSC). The larger NOSC study is directed at investigating the effects of noise of offshore oi] and gas Operations on the behavior of marine mammals. The objective of the interview program was to design a method to find out from workers aboard oil platforms and ships and aircraft servicing those platforms whether or not large whales and other marine mammals occur in any substantial numbers in areas where oi] resource development is underway. The interview program was also planned to obtain as much useful data as possible on the behavior of those marine mammals observed by the oi1 platform workers. In an effort to ascertain whether the marine mammal density around a platform was the same as the density without the platform, a method was developed to compare the observations of the oi] platform workers with baseline data on marine mammal distributions in the Southern California Bight. i CEP Section 2 QUESTIONNAIRE DEVELOPMENT Zo THE CONCEPT OF THE PROGRAM It was determined that the goals of the program could best be met by two separate types of questionnaires: 1) an in-person interview questionnaire to extract data on previous (historical) observations, and 2) a sighting card to be filled out by the worker as soon as possible after he sees a marine mammal. Previous experience with training scientific observers has indicated that if observations are not written down within a few hours most of the details are lost. Therefore, it seemed that the most realistic way to obtain valid data would be to develop a sighting card which could be left on the platform for the worker to fill out the same day that he saw a marine mammal. The sighting cards would provide the most reliable and quantitative data for this program. However, it was also decided that there would be considerable value in adminis- tering an in-person interview to question workers about marine mammals that they had seen during the whole length of time they had been working on the platform. Although the reliability of observations made as much as months or years in the past is open to doubt, it seemed as though the goals of this program would best be met by extracting all possible information from the workers. In addition, it was likely that many workers who would not take the time to fill out a sighting card would answer questions if contacted directly. : CCF The informal, conversational format of the in-person interview would invite anecdotes on observed marine mammal behavior. It was felt that even though the reliability of the data from historical observations was marginal, if enough workers were questioned patterns might become apparent in the distribu- tion and behavior of marine mammals around offshore platforms. Anecdotes about unusual behavior might also provide important clues on how the offshore activities are affecting marine mammals. In addition, the contact with the workers during the in-person interviews would provide an opportunity to explain the sighting card program and personally elicit their coopration. It was originally envisioned that the interview program would proceed in the following way. Scientists would go to each platform and put up the posters, the sighting cards, and a box for completed sighting cards. The scientists would then administer the historical questionnaire to as many workers as possible. While talking to the workers, they would explain the program, ask for cooperation, and ask for any suggestions that would make the program easier for the workers. Two weeks later, the scientists would return to each platform, collect the completed sighting cards and interview as many workers as possible again. For those workers who were previously interviewed, the second in-person interview would focus on the marine mammal observations during the 2 weeks between interviews. The workers would be asked if they had any difficulties filling out the sighting cards, and if they had any suggestions for improving the program. (Le THE IN-PERSON HISTORICAL INTERVIEW QUESTIONNAIRE The in-person historical interview questionnaire consists of 37 questions (Table 2-1, at end of section). If all questions are asked, the questionnaire takes approximately 10 minutes to administer. If the worker being questioned has seen only one or two categories of marine mammals, the time is considerably shorter. Since the questionnaire elicits information about observations made over an extended period of time (months and sometimes years), questions are only asked about details that could reasonably be remembered. No attempt is made to ask : CEP questions about such fine points as the shape of the dorsal fin or the position of the spout. The questionnaire was also designed in such a way that it did not suggest details which the worker may not really have remembered. The questions were phrased so that the answers could be readily analyzed by computer. There are two spaces at the end of the questionnaire (Questions 38 and 39) which are to be filled out by the interviewer. These questions allow the interviewer to put down his own impressions of how the interview went and what he thought the reliability and knowledge of the subject was. Such information may be important to the later evaluation of the data. The most effective way to administer the in-person interview is for the inter- viewer to use a tape recorder. In many cases, the worker being interviewed will tell anecdotes about the marine mammals he saw. These anecdotes constitute some of the potentially most valuable information which can be elicited from the in-person interview. If the interviewer has to write these incidents down, he will have to stop the flow of the story. The tape recorder captures these anecdotes which can then be transcribed later. oe) THE SIGHTING CARD The purpose of the sighting card is to record detailed information on recent marine mammal observations. The sighting card is designed to identify marine mammals to species, to determine densities of these species around the oi] platforms, and to determine the relationship, if any, between the densities of marine mammals around the platforms and various oil] drilling activities. The sighting cards are to be placed on the platforms alongside the posters which not only demonstrate how to identify marine mammals but have the following explanation of the sighting cards: : CEP Aan Nill oeO) Nie WER NEED RYOURGHERE HAVE YOU SEEN ANY WHALES, PORPOISES, SEALS, OR SEA LIONS FROM THIS PLATFORM? WE ARE TAKING A SURVEY OF MARINE MAMMALS IN SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA WATERS, AND WOULD APPRECIATE ANY INFORMATION ON MARINE MAMMALS (WHALES, PORPOISES, AND SEALS) WHICH YOU HAVE OBSERVED OFF THE PLATFORM. IF YOU SEE A WHALE, PORPOISE, OR SEAL PLEASE FILL OUT A CARD AS SOON AS POSSIBLE AFTER SEEING THE ANIMAL AND PLACE THE CARD IN THE BOX. THESE POSTERS DEMONSTRATE HOW TO IDENTIFY THE COMMON MARINE MAMMALS. YOUR INFORMATION WILL HELP US TO UNDERSTAND THE POPULATIONS, DISTRIBUTIONS AND BEHAVIOR OF THESE ANIMALS. WE HOPE 10 SHOW THAT OIL PLATFORMS ARE A GOOD SOURCE OF INFORMATION. In addition, the sighting card program will be explained to the workers during the in-person interviews. The sighting card consists of a total of 47 questions (Table 2-2) but the worker does not fill them all out. He completes 16 initial questions and then goes to the category of animal he saw and fills out an additional 7 to 12 questions. Most questions are answered by simply checking the appropriate box, and the entire card takes only a couple of minutes to fill out. The sighting card was designed not only to extract information pertinent to the NOSC program, but to act as a learning tool for the worker. As he fills out the set of questions for the category of marine mammal that he saw, he will learn the important characteristics in identifying these animals. Hope- fully, the next time he sees a marine mammal, he will look for those characteristics. The sighting card is designed to be readily analyzed by computer. The computer can identify to species the marine mammal observed if the worker can fill out most of the characteristics even if he is unable to name the species. The card is also designed to double-check false identifications since the worker is asked not only to put down the species he thinks he saw, but to check the characteristics. i; CEP The sighting card is somewhat formidable in appearance but is easy to fill out. Once the worker has become familiar with the card he should be able to complete it rapidly. The difficulty is to get workers into the habit of using cards. : EEF Date Site Table 2-1 Interview # IN-PERSON HISTORICAL INTERVIEW What is your occupation and shift? How long have you been working on this platform? Are your interested in the marine life around you out here? How often do you see marine mammals from this platform? 1) Never 2) Seldom (less than once a month) 3) Often (at least once a month) How many large whales have you seen? (Ask for number if he can give one) 1) None ) One 3) A few (less than ten) ) Many (ten or greater) Do you know what kind? (Name) Do you remember what they looked like? If so, describe. How close to the platform were they? In yards or miles. Do you remember what time of day it was? 1S) NO ) Dawn or dusk ) Midday ) 5) > W PP Throughout the day Night Do you remember what time of year it was? No Winter Spring Fall 1) ) ) Summer ) ) ) Throughout the year Oye One COIN) Page 1 of 5 9. When you saw the animals were they alone or in groups? 1) Single 2) Group 3) Both 10. Do you remember what direction they were moving in? No Mostly upcoast Mostly downcoast 1) ) ) ) Mostly out to sea ) Mostly towards shore ) Dm FP WwW MY Changed direction while watching. Explain: 7) All directions 11. Did you notice any behavior? Explain: 12. Did this behavior seem related to any work on the platform?_ 13. When you saw the whales do you remember what the activity was on the platform? 14. How many dolphins or porpoises have you seen from this platform? (Ask for number if he can give on) ) None 2) One ) A few (less than ten) ) Many (ten or more) 15. Do you know what kind? (Name) Do you remember what they looked like? If so, describe 16. How close to the platform were they? In yards or miles. 17. Do you remember what time of day it was? 1) No ) Dawn or dusk ) Midday ) Throughout the day ) Night an FP WwW PY Page 2 of 5 B-10 18. 19. 20. (adhe COR (aay 24. (A9)0 Do you remember what time of year it was? No Ns) — f= Winter PP Ww Spring Fall 6) Throughout the year When you saw the dolphins or porpoises were they alone or in groups? ) ) ) Summer ) ) 1) Single 2) Group 3) Both Do you remember what direction they were moving in? il) No 2) Mostly upcoast 3) Mostly downcoast 4) Mostly out to sea 5) Mostly toward shore 6) Changed direction while watching. Explain: 7) All directions Did you notice any behavior? Explain: Did this behavior seem related to any work on the platform? When you saw the dolphins or porpoises do you remember what the activity was on the platform? How many seals or sea lions have you seen from this platform? (Ask for number if he can give one) 1) None 2) One 3) A few (less than ten) 4) Many (ten or more) Do you know what kind? (Name) SS Do you remember what they looked like? If so, describe: a EEnInnIIIEI SEES SESS SSeS Benin Page 3 of 5 26. How close to the platform were they? In yards or miles. 27. Do you remember what time of day it was? 1) No ) Dawn or dusk ) Midday ) 5) Pp WwW PY Throughout the day Night 28. Do you remember what time of year it was? No Winter Spring Fall Throughout the year nan FP WwW PY 1) ) ) Summer ) ) 6) 29. When you saw the seals or sea lions were they alone or in groups? 1) ie eSaingilie 2) Group 3) Both 30. Do you remember what direction they were moving in? i) No 2) Mostly upcoast 3) Mostly downcoast 4) Mostly out to sea 5) Mostly inshore 6) Changed direction while watching. Explain: 7) All directions 31. Did you notice any behavior? Explain: 32. Did this behavior correspond to any work on the platform? Explain: 33. When you saw the seals or sea lions do you remember what the activity was on the platform? Page 4 of 5 B-12 Any comments: Interviewers impression of reliability and scientific knowledge of subject: Page 5 of 5 SMINNVd ONY SINVIVBNCD SIH) dad oN £7 (2 sar £7 (1 éSayN[f SPL MOYS YL PLA “22 (ued nok se suo.zsanb Auew se uamsuy) JOLAeyag mouy 3,u0qg /_7 (€ quasqy (J (2 juasadd £/ (1 uly Lesuog “12 mMouy 3,u0qg /// (€ MOL yous £7 (2 yBty yous £7 (1 ‘02 mouy 3,u0g /77 (€ dn 3ybLeayzs yous (7 (2 puemsoy yous (7 (1 “61 mouy 3,u0g (7 (€ peay uo yoeg (7 (2 peay uo paemuoy (7 (1 ‘8T mouy 3,u0g (7 (€ atqnog £7 (2 atbuis Z7 (1 “LT (a@dLoyd yoea 40 auo 494d) ynods yo azLs puke adeys (A[uo T€-ZT SuoLysand) J1VHM 39YV1 *yewLue yo adAy azerudoudde ayy wo} saquiawar ued nox yeud SdLyStuazoeueyd Aue Y9YD 3SW3IId “6h-ZE SuoLysanD 3no [114 aseatd [eas e uo uLudjop e sem Mes nok zeUM 4ayuzayM aunsun aue Nok jy] = ‘“6b-Eb suotzsanh 3no [ [Ly SUOL[ eas uO |P—aS e mes nod J] ‘“2t-ZE suotysanh no LUts (3994 02 ueYy. ssa,) aLeYyM {LeU 4o fastoduod ‘utydtop e mes nok $1] ‘T€-ZT suorqsand yno [1 t4 aseald (3994 OZ ueyy auow) ayleym abuel e mes nok 4s] “mes Nok [ewLue ayy yO aweu ay Mouy NOX You vO uayzaYM MOLaq SUOLZSAaNb aU. 4NO [[LJ aSeald Z@ $0 T 3904S Zuuo0j7e[d ayz wous Aemy (2 LJ MOUy¥ 3 ,U070 guuojzeid ayy spuemol (T £7 90} OF uey, 49zPaI9 :UOL}ZDaULp abueyd Aayz PLp ‘Sa, 4] 3993 O€ 02 02 39a} 02 ueyy ssaq _ te = éButyozem auam NOK al Lum UOLZIA4LP abueyd s|ewweu aulueul ayy Pld yseooumog (p £7 yseoodn (€ C7] eas 03 3n0 (2 L/ auous spaemol (T £7 Ebutparesz si ewwew SDULUPW BY} AUAM UOLZOAALP ZEUM yseooumog (pb L/ yseoodg (€ C7 eas 02 3n0 (2 L/ auous spuemol (T £7 éES[Lewwew asuLuew ayy auam wWuoszeLd ayy viOUJ UOLJD2eULP ZeUM S|eulLUe JO PULY ay. aweU ‘Sajqissod 4] édnoub ayy ut auam sieuLue Auew moy ynoqge ‘dnoub e Mes NOA 4] estewrue yo dnoub y (2 £7 éLewLue ajburs y (1 £7 :aas nof pig guOLL eas “wo [eas (€ L7 gsuLudlop uo sastoduod (Z2 L/ 2areum (1 L7 :aas Noh pid “ZT spuek ul udoszetd ay} wouy auam S[PWUWIeW aULueU aDUeZSLP JO azeUILSZ ASLOU Se OT pue yainb se T LM SOT 02 I JfO aLeds e uO uaas SPM |eulLUue UayM WOsZeL[d UO aSLOU JO 9zeUILISJ aULy ayy 7e APLALZOe wuos7eLd ‘wed “wre 4no patty Sem puro Aep yo aul ONC [ae en = SUR uaas SPM UOL| Ras uO [Pas “Oo ‘ULYdjOp ‘SaleyM Aep jo awLl a7 eG uotzedndo9 uaes ST] LeuWeW oULueW YY 49IJSY BLGLSSOd Sy UOOS SY INO paltts eg OL - CYVI INILHOIS cana “OT ({euol3dQ) awen 2-2 a1qel # ALIS # QUvd B-12 2 40 2 3aaUS egBurpaaeua at sem (2 LJ geaue awes au} ul punoue {{Lw at pra (tT LJ é6uimoys peay szt ALuo uyLM WEMS 3L PLA (2 C7 gastoduod e ayL] 4azemM Jy} 40 yno dea, yt pid (1 C7 (ued nok se suoizsanb Auew se vamsuy) sOLAeyag mouy 3,u0qd (€ C7 ON (2 C7 sa, (I C7 éx4eq 4L PLa 2L183 3,upinoy (€ (7 ésuaddt[4 pury S}L YILM YSLy eB ayL, wems (2 £7 za.pped 0} suaddiiy quous peasy mMOUy 3 ,U0G peqqods weg uUMOAg gouo oO oo jo) Oo on SOA gsura Aue aaey ( ( 3 Mou 3,U0d (¥ ( ( ( 200 asou Papuazxa afueq pe Ulod papunoy :peay jo adey (AU0 6b-Eh SuoLysand noo o ~— ” NOI WaS 40 1VvaS “60 “8Y “ly épadtyou nok sot4stuaz -4eyd uvayzo Aue auayz auam eBut paaruy Kay. auam (2 C7] geaue awes ay} ult punoue Lutw Aayz pia (1 C7 “9b mouy 3,u0g (€ £7 ON (2 C7 saa (1 £7 £437 2M ay 40 3no Burdwnl “Gh qou ynq Aeuds yno Buimouyz pue A, pideu Burwwims Asay, auan “bb ON (2 C7 sa, (I C7 ¢43}2M By} UL MOL pur A\MO[S wims Aayy pla ON (2 L7 sa, (1 £7 “Cy éA|quanbauy 4azeM ay? JO NO Burdwnf pue A, yoLNb BuLaaeu. Jo soLAeyaq asLtoduod 913SLua29e -4eyd 343 mMoys Aayy pia ON (2 (7 saa (1 L/ 49} 2M BY} 40 yno ybty dwnf Aayy pig “ge (ued no& se suotzsanb Auew se wamsuy) uolAeyag ON (2 LT sa, (I LJ éSy4ewW YdPRUDS UO SURdS Aue adtqou nok pig “re mou 3,U0Q Reuy SFLUM B AORLA He LG sQoon Soh Mouy 3 ,U0G 4e9q YNOYZLM 4e9q ULM QOQ = fo) c n "GE mou 37 ,U0G pazuLod snog[ng % papunoy (1 £7 speay Jo adeys “pe Mouy 3,u0g [7 (G pu emydeqg paaand y4uous (7 (b puemyoeq paaand [lel £7 (€ 4sepnbuetay yoasa yyuoys (77 (2 4sernbuetay qoaua (lel L7 (1 (4bed yoea jo auo y9ay)) uLJ LeS4Op jo adeus ‘EE Mouy 3,u0g (€ £7 quasqy (2 L/ quasaug (1 // sUL} [PS4OG “Z2E (Alud 2p-ZE SuoLqzsand) JIVHM 11VINS 40 ‘3S1OdHOd ‘NIHd10a NM PANM LANNY QQ Mou },u0g (€ £7 ON (2 sh tt édnou6 ay} ul saleuM Aqeq Aue auayi auam mouy 3,u0g (€ £7 ON (2 C7 saa (1 C7 éSuaddt[y uous d}LyM Huo, aaey 3L pig mouy 3,u0Gg (€ £7 papunou R 3e4 (2 C7 uLyz pue Buo7 (tT £7 aiqussod gt ‘Apog so adeys Mou 7,U00 (p LJ papunos 3 yunig (€ S7 4seynbuetuy B paqurod (2 C7 pepunou R peoug (I L7 atqissod yt ‘pray $O 3ZLS pue adeus ébut Laaeuz yL sem uo (2 [7 *paue owes dy} uL punoue LL yt pra (1 £7 2}0[ e aalp yt pip (2 LJ 4o fawLy ayy 40 3SOU! aoejuns aud ud (T £7 sWEMS JL Pld ON (2 LJ saa (1 £7 d{Le} Szt dets 1 pig ON (2 £7 sa, (I LJ g4a2eM By 40 INO peasy SzL HYOLZS ZL Pla ON (2 L7 Sey (Cl y¥/ 492 eM ay JO yno duinf 3L pia =\S “OE “62 “82 BEC =9¢ BAC “02 “€? B-15 Section 3 INSTRUCTIONAL METHODS AND MATERIALS The training program is designed to be as straightforward, simple, and relevant as possible. Three posters have been designed: one for large whales, one for dolphins and porpoises, and one for seals and sea lions. These posters focus on the species the workers are most likely to see, and they emphasize the most relevant characteristics for identification. No attempt is made to get workers to differentiate between species that are very difficult to tell apart, such as the large rorqual whales, as even trained marine mammalogists have difficulty identifying these animals in the field. Field guides were not developed as part of the instructional program, because communications with oil company personnel suggested that the fewer separate materials we supplied the less confusing the program would be for the workers. It might be a good idea to supply a small guidebook such as that put out by the California Department of Fish and Game. The guidebook would serve not so much as an instructional material but as a source of information for workers who become interested in the marine mammals. However, we have found that it is quite difficult to locate space for the siting cards and posters and would recommend that field guides be put out only if there is a convenient place for them. In addition to the posters, the sighting cards were designed to be not only a source of data, but part of the instructional program. As the worker fills out a sighting card he will learn what characteristics are important for the identification of marine mammals. " Cer Section 4 COLLECTION OF RELEVANT BASELINE DATA FOR COMPARISION WITH RESULTS OF INTERVIEW PROGRAM In order to determine whether or not offshore oil activities are affecting the distribution of marine mammals, it is necessary to know what density of marine mammals would be expected in the area if no oi] activities were present. A literature search rapidly determined that by far the most complete and quantitative data available on marine mammals in the Southern California Bight are from the Bureau of Land Management's (BLM's) 3-year marine mammal program. These data have not yet been published, but BLM will allow the report to be examined in their offices, and they will permit the relevant portions to be photocopied. The BLM report gives seasonal sightings for each species of marine mammal on a grid pattern of the Southern California Bight. From these sighting data, the BLM investigators has regressions of densities of each species versus various environmental parameters. From those regressions which were statistically significant an overall density pattern, which correlated a species’ abundance to the distribution of the significant environmental parameters, was projected for each marine mammal species in the Bight. Densities of each species of marine mammal around the oil platforms as estimated by the sighting cards can then be compared to the density of the marine mammal species in the appropriate quadrat as estimated by BLM. The sighting card program determines whether the density calculated by the sighting cards is within the range of density estim- ates calculated by BLM for that quadrat during the same season. _ ECP The portion of the BLM document which explains how their data were derived is reproduced in Section 5.4.2 of this report. The BLM investigators had to make a number of assumptions in their data calculations, and there are obvious limitations to the data collected from the sighting cards by this program. Furthermore, one can question whether or not it is even valid to compare data collected by such different methods. Still, it is felt that if enough data can be gathered from the oil platforms the overall results derived from the comparison will help to answer the question of whether the oi] activities are affecting marine mammal distributions. If densities around the platforms do not fall within the range calculated by BLM, it will be necessary to question whether the differences are simply due to a dissimilarity in methods. However, the differences in marine mammal densities between the oil platform and the quadrat as a whole will also alert NOSC scientists to a possible real effect of the platforms on marine mammals. ‘i CEP Section 5 THE COMPUTER PROGRAM Dyce INTRODUCTION The following is a description of programs written to analyze anecdotal data gathered from oi] platform workers. Two programs were written, one to analyze data generated by in-person interviews and the other to analyze data gathered from questionnaires left on oi] platforms. The questionnaires are to be filled out by workers upon sighting marine mammals. The two methods of data gathering were employed for different ends. The in- person interviews were meant to gather "historical" data on marine manmal occurrence and behavior around oi] platforms while the sighting cards were to be used as a method of determining present marine mammal distribution and densities and possibly determining the effects, if any, of oi] platform opera- tion on marine mammal distribution and density. The programs, for both the in-person interview and the sighting card analysis, were written in SAS, the statistical analysis system, version 79.3. The SAS program can be used as a data management system, report writing system, data analysis system and a programming language. For these reasons, it was used in the applications to be described. i CEP Ho’ PROGRAM TO ANALYZE THE IN-PERSON HISTORICAL INTERVIEW DATA BoBoll Description of the Program to Analyze the In-Person Historical Interviews The analysis of the in-person interviews is very basic. The program merely reads in the raw data derived from the interview forms and reports on the frequencies of responses to the individual questions. The reports are divided into three sections. One section corresponding to question concerning whales, One corresponding to questions about porpoises and dolphins and, lastly, one corresponding to questions about seals and sea lions. 5.2.2 Creating the Raw Data to be Read Into the Program This section presents information necessary to correctly create data cards for input into the in-person interview analysis program. Data will be input in standard 80-column record format. Each interview will result in one 80-column record. The data will be column dependent. The "code book" presents the data format variable, with column specifications, all possible values for each variable, a definition of each value and, where appropriate, notes on converting multiple responses or incorrect responses to a codeable form. 3-20 CEP Variable QUEST_NO DATE OCCUP SHIFT Ql Q2 Variable Label Column Questionnaire Identification 1-5 Number NOTE: Right justify value Date of Interview 6-13 Occupation of Interviewee 14-15 NOTE: Code only one value in columns 14-15. Right justify the value Shift which interviewee works 16-17 NOTE: Right justify coded value Months working this platform 18-19 NOTE: Convert all units to months (i.e., 14 years should be 18 months). Right justify coded values Are you interested in marine 20 life? B-21 Value WOONDOPWNHMH PRR RPP ere GTrNDGHHRPWNHHrO dgror Value Label NOTE: Each sighting card should have a unique number. The high- est number that can be assigned is 99999, since only five columns have been defined for this variable. The format of this variable is MM/DD/YY with the slashes (/) in columns 8 and 11 and where: MM = Month DD = Day YY = Year (i.e., 01/02/81) Production Foreman Platform (Prod.) Operator Head Well Puller Derrickman Floorman Rous tabout Mechanic Electrician Chemical Tech/Cathodic Protection Drilling Foreman Driller Roughneck Helper Helicopter Pilot Boat Operator Divers Other Code blank if no response Day Shift Night Shift Swing Shift Code blank if no response NOTE: If value of months is greater than 99 code 99 Code blank if no response Yes No Code blank if no response CEP Variable i Q5 Q6 Q7 Q8 Variable Label How often do you see marine mammals from this platform? How many large whales have you seen? NOTE: Ignore any values other than those coded here (i.e. 1,23,3,4 or $) What kind of whale? NOTE: If no positive ID try to key using the verbal description recorded on interviewed coded sheet. Right justify values. How close to platform were whales? (in yard) NOTE: Convert all units to the nearest yard and right justify all numbers Time of day whales were sighted? Time of year whales were sighted? Column 22 23-24 25-28 29 30 Bo2a2 Value d¢Pwonre WOONDOPWNYeE 1 Thru 9999 Value Label Never Seldon (less than 1/Mo) Often (at least 1/Mo) None One A few (less than ten) Many (ten or greater) Code blank if no response Gray whale Sei, fin, or blue Right whale Sperm whale Humpback whale Killer whale Minke whale Pilot whale Rissos dolphin (Grampus) Bottlenosed dolphin (Tursiops) Common dolphin Right whale dolphin Harbor porpoise Dall's porpoise Pacific white-sided dolphin Elephant seal Harbor seal Stellar sea lion Northern fur seal California sea lion Code blank if respondant answered other than above or did not respond If the respondant answers a value of greater than 9,999 yards Code 9999 + Code blank if no response Unknown Dawn or dusk Midday Through the day Night Code blank if no response Unknown Winter Summer Spring CEP Variable Q8 Q9 Q10 Q1l Ql2 Q13 Q14 Q15 Variable Label Time of year whales were sighted? (Cont'd) Were whales alone or in groups? What direction were whales traveling? Did you notice any whale behavior? NOTE: Right justify question- naire number Did behavior relate to plat- form activity? Type of platform activity NOTE: Right justify activity codes. Number of dolphins or porpoises seen, NOTE: Ignore any actual counts and code only values given here. What kind of dolphin or por- poise did you see? NOTE: If no positive ID try using the verbal des- cription recorded on interview coding sheet. Column 31 32 38 39-40 41 42-43 B-23 Value ram dgwonrnor TrIUMHPwWrHeHe Value Label Fall Throughout the year Code blank if no response Single Group Both Code blank if no response Unknown Mostly upcoast Mostly downcoast Mostly out to sea Mostly towards shore Changed direction while watching All directions Code blank if no response or different than above No If yes code questionnaire number Code blank if no response Yes No Code blank if no response Drilling Production Dormant Testing Code blank if no response None One A few (less than ten) Many (ten or greater Code blank if no response *See Q5 for codes and value labels CEP Variable Q17 Q18 Value od ¢roPrPwnr TFAOPWwWHrre Variable Label Column How close to platform were 44-47 dolphins or porpoises? NOTE: Convert all other units to nearest yard and right justify numbers Time of day porpoises or dol- 48 phins were sighted. Time of year porpoises or 49 dolphins were sighted. Were dolphins or porpoises 50 Q19 Q20 Q21 Q22 Q23 along or in groups? What direction were porpoises/ 51 dolphins going? Did you notice any porpoise/ 52-56 dolphin behavior? NOTE: Right justify question- naire number Did behavior relate to plat- 57 form activity? Type of work on platform when 58-59 dolphin/porpoise sighted. NOTE: Right justify activity values. trwnror TNDHPwWNRH 0 QUEST_NO + grrr ¢PwrMre Value Label NOTE: If respondant answers a value greater than 9,999 yards code 9999 Code blank if no response Unknown Dawn or dusk Midday Throughout the day Night Code blank if no response Unknown Winter Summer Spring Fall Throughout the year Code blank if no response Single In groups Both Code blank if no response Unknown Mostly upcoast Mostly downcoast Mostly out to sea Mostly toward shore Changed direction while watching All directins Code blank if no response or different than above No If yes, code questionnaire number Code blank if no response Yes No Code blank if no response Drilling Production Dormant Testing Code blank if no repsonse CEP Variable Q24 Q25 Q26 Q27 Q28 Q29 Q30 Variable Label Column Number of seals or sea lions 60 seen. NOTE: Ignore any actual counts. Only code values given here. What kind of seal or sea lion 61-62 did you see? NOTE: If no positive ID try using the verbal des- cription recorded on interview sheet. Right justify codes. How close to platform were 63-66 seals or sea lions? NOTE: Convert all other units to nearest yard and right justify numbers. Time of day seals or sea 67 lions observed. Time of year seals or sea 68 lions sighted. Were seals/sea lions alone 69 or in groups? What direction were seals/ 70 sea lions going when seen? B-25 Value grPrwonrr Yards od TrOPwWwrwore DOP WP eH Value Label None One A few (less than ten) Many (ten or more) Code blank if no response *See Q5 for codes and value labels NOTE: If respondant answers a value greater than 9,999 yards code 9999 Code blank if no response Unknown Dawn or dust Midday Throughout the day Night Code blank if no response Unknown Winter Summer Spring Fall Throughout the year oo trwnrnr TUDGHPwWPrRe Code blank if no response Single Group Both Code blank if no repsonse Unknown Mostly upcoast Mostly downcoast Mostly out to sea Mostly inshore Changed direction while watching All directions Code blank if no response or different than above CEP Variable Variable Label — Cees Q32 Q33 SIME Did you notice any seals/ sea lions behavior? NOTE: Right justify ques- tionnaire number Did behavior relate to plat- form activity? Type of activity on plat- form when seals/sea lions sighted. NOTE: Right justify activity codes. SHES CeOnNG Da Gea ReD Name of platform surveyed Column Value 71-75 0 QUEST_NO 4 76 1 2 a Sy 77-78 1 2 3 4 + 1-10 b B-26 Value Label No If yes, code questionnaire number Code blank if no response Yes No Code blank if no response Drilling Production Dormant Testing Code blank if no response Write name of platform Code blank if missing CEP Do 4os) The In-Person Historical Interview Program The following is an annotated version of the SAS program to analyze the in- person historical interview data. The annotation will point out changes necessary to the program depending on whether data will be input as cards or input from tape or disk. The annotation also describes what each section of code does and where necessary program logic is. CEP RRR RRKK KK KAMA K KKK KM KRM MK RRA KKK KKK KKK KK ERK CKERK KK KKK KKKRK KK CK KK ERK KKKK KKK KK ECE KE. / EXEC SAS,CASDSN="WYIDO10.YIDO1.PIATFORM.CNTL? **DATA DESCRIPTION, VARIAELE LABELS,AND VALUE LABELS*; TIONS LLKSIZE=19040; ATA MASTER; FILE CAS CLOSE=FRES; VPUT QUEST_NO DATE OCCUP SHerese Q1-033 SITE ) Si MHDDYY8. 3*2. 3*1. 226 Qu, #1, 5. Al ae ae 2. 4. *1. Be 1. ae 1. ae 4. #1, oh ap De / $10. ) : ENGTH OcCUP Sep Qaur Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 5 07 02 09 010 Q12 013 14 015 Q17 018 919 020 022 23 O24 025 927 928 929 030 32 033 2 06 911 016 Q21 26 Q31 3; ABEL QUEST_NO=QUESTIONAIRE NUMBER STTE=NAME OF PLATFORA OCCUP=OCCUPATION OF INTERVIEWEE SHIFT=SHIFT OF INTERVIEWEE Q1=LENGTH OF TIME WORKING TRIS PLATFORM Q2=INTERESTED IN MARINE LIFE? Q3=ARF MAMMALS SIGHTED FROM PLATFCRM OFTEN? QU=NINBER OF LARGE WHALES SEEN? Q5=SPFCIES OF WHALE SEEN? Q6=DISTANCE FROM PIATFORN(ZIN YDS.) ? Q7=WHAT TIME OF DAY? Q8=TIME OF YEAR OF WHALE SIGETINGS? Q9=WERE WHALES ALONE OR IN GROUPS? Q1IO=DIRECTION WHALES WERE MOVING? Q11=NOTICE ANY WHAJ.E PEHAYIOR? C€12=BEHAVIOR RELATED TO PLATFORM ACTIVITY? Q1I3="HAT WAS FLATFORM ACTIVITY? Q14=NUMBEP CF DOLPHINS OP PORPOISES SEEN? Q15=SPECIES OF PORPOISE CR DOLPHIN SEEN Q16=DISTANCE FROM PLATFORM(IN YDS.)? Q17=WHAT TIME OF DAY? Q18=TIME OF YEAR OF PORECISE SIGHTINGS? Q19=WERE DOLPHINS ALONE OR IN GROUPS? Q20=DIRECTION PORP/DOLPHINS WERE MOVING? Q21=NOTICL ANY PORPOLSE/DOLPHIN BEHAVIOR? Q22=BEHAVIOR RELATED TO PLATFORM ACTIVITY? Q23=WHAT WAS PLATFORM ACTIVITY? Q24=NNMBER OF SEALS OR SEA LIONS SEEN? O2Z5=SoSEMss OR SENL ORV SDA LEON SEEM Q26=DISTANCE FRON PLATFORM(IN YDS.)? Q27=WHAT UTIME OF DAY? Q28='"TINE OF YEAR OF SEAL/SEA LIOW SIGHTING! Q29=WFRE SEALS/SEA LICNS ALONE CR IN GROUPS? Q30=DIFECTION SEALS/SEA LIONS WERE NOVING? Q31=NOTICE ANY SEALS/SZA LIONS SRHAVIOR? Q32=BENAVIOR RELATED TO PLATFORM ACTIVITY? Q33=WHAT WAS PLATFORM ACTIVITY?; CREATE VYARIARLES WHALE, POPPOTSE, AND STAAL. THESE VARIABLES WILL BE USED IN CREATING REPORTS TO ANALYZE THE INTERVIEW DATA IF THE KESPONDENT WAS UNABLE TO IDENTIFY TEE; MARINE MAMMAL TO SPECIES. B-28 S2AY WHAT (A) O4=0)13;; PRAY PORP (RB) Q14-923; NIRAYOSET. (GC) 024038). DC OVER WHAL; IF WHAL NE . THEN WHALE=1; END DO OVER POKRP; IF PORP NE . THEN PORPOISE=1; END; DO OVER SEL; EE SEL NED. SHEN SEAL=i\5 END; FOC SORT DATA=NASTER; isd Sagely CREATE VALUE LABELS ROC FORMAT; VALVE INTRST 1=INTFRESTED 2=NOT INTERESTED; VALUE OCCUP 1=PRODINCTICN FORENAN 2="PLATTOFM (PFOD.) OPEPATOR! 3=HEAD WELL PULLER 4=DEFRICKMAN 5=FLOORMAN 6=RCUSTABOUT 7=MECHANIC 8=ELECTRICIAN S=VCHEMICAL V2ECHe/ CATHODE 2 ROTECS LON! 10=DRILLING FOREMAN 11=DRILLE 12=ROUGHNECK 13=HELPER J4=HELICOPTER PILOT 15=BOAT OFEPATOR 16=DIVERS; VALUE -SHFT 1=DAY SHIFT 2=NIGHT SHIFT 3=SWING SHIFT; VALYE OFTEN =NEVER 2=US ELDON (Lis Sm aHaAn) /ONse PES INOMTE) 2 SSUOR oN (AT SEAS GNee SP. MON a))*s VALUE HOWNANY 1=NONE Q=ONE SUN Mae (OGSS Btls ey 4='"MANY (TEN OR GREATER) '; VEL KEYS PSC 1=GREY WHALE 2=S Ea pny OR ete Sy aati 3=RIGHT WHALE G=SPTRM WHALE 5=HIMPBACK WHALE 6=KILL=ER WHALE J=MINZE WHALE RB=PILOT WHAL® 9=PISSOS DOLPHIN 10=B3O0TTLENOSED NOLPHIN YITE-SIDED DOLPHIN! TAL \ LION IR SEAL SEA LIC; 5K Pyle DAW. THE YEAP; VAST 'COAST TO SEA; jouTvays MONTES [EARS SEARS; (F9Z7=10) YARDS 100 YARDS ) 209 YARDS £00 YARDS 200 YARDS; “NG OF ALL OVESTICNAIRES WHICH INDICATE SYPJECT NOTICED IAPINE YANMAL BEEAVIOR, \TED TO PLATFORM ACTIVITY. 1D Q12 ZO 1) CR (O21 NE 0 AND O22 EQ 1) OR (Q31 NE O AER Seah GHiel NDS GAiter ena i ealiatel Trae wee RT AEN ODN ENDERV RSH SSURVECE NOSTEE DM Asses ee ee REPORT THE NUMBER OF INTERVIEW SUBJECTS WHO CONSIDERED THEMSELVES INTERESTED OBSERVERS VS. THOSE WHO WERE NOT INTERESTED OBSERVERS. FOC FREQ DATA=MASTER; TABLES Q2; FORMAT Q2 INTRST.; TITLE BREAKDO@N CF INTERVIEWEES SY INTEREST IN MARINE LIFE; REPORT ON THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN INTERVIEWEE'S OCCUPATION, SHIFT, AND LENGTH OF TIMS WORKING ON THE PLATFORM AND HIS PEPCEPTION OF THE FREQUENCY OF MARINE NAMMAL SIGHTINGS FPOM THE PLATFORM. ROC FREQ DATA=MASTER;: yg Sacseay TITLE "RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN INTERVIEWEE''S OCCUPATION, SHIFT, AND'; TITL22 LENGTH OF TIME WORKING PLATFORY AND HIS PERCEPTICN OF TEE; TITLE3 FREQUENCY OF MAPINE MAMMAL SIGHTINGS FROM THE PLATFORM; TA3LES (Q3) * (Q1 SHIFT OCCIP) / EXPECTED DEVIATION CHISO; FORNAT Q3 OFTEN. Q1 TIMEWRK. SHIFT SHFT. OCCUP OCCUP.; CREATE “HREE DATA SETS, CNE CONTAINING RESPONSES CCNCERNING WHALES, ONE CONCERNING PORPOISES OP DCLPHINS, AND ONE CONCERNING SFALS OR SEA LIONS. ATA WHALE (DROP=Q 14-933) PORPOTSE (LROP=Q4-Q13 Q24-933) SEAL (DFOP=9Q4-923); SET MASTER; IF WHALE EQ 1 THEN OJTPUT WHALE; IF PORPOISE EQ 1 THEN OUTPUT PORPOISE; IF SEAL EQ 1 THEN OUTPUT SEAL; REPORTS ON QUESTIONS PEPTAINING TO WHALE SIGHTINGS. alee OC FREQ DATA=WHALE;: BY SITE; TITL31 FREQUENCY OF RESPONCS FOP QUESTIONS PEPTAINING TO WHALES; TITLE2 BY SITE; TABLES (Q4--C10 012 ¢13); FORMAT Q4 HOWMANY. QS KEYSPEC. Q7 TYE. 98 SEASON. Q° GROUPS. Q10 DIRECTN. Q12 RELATE. Q13 ACTIVITY.; REPORTS ON QUESTIONS PERTAINING TO PORPOISE CR DOLPHIN SIGHTINGS. FCC FREQ DATA=PORPOISE; BiaeSiamnyis TITLE1 FREQUENCY OF RESPO'ISS FOR QUESTIONS PERTAINING TO DOLPHINS oR; TITLE2 PORFCISES PY SITF: TABLES (Q14--920 922 923); FORIAT Q14 HOWAANY. CHS SIPEG euGuliaeine Q18 SEASCN. Q19 GRONPS. 020 DIPECTN. Q22 PELATE. 923 ACTIVITY.; PEPORTS ON QUESTICNS PEPTATNING TO SEAL OR SEA LICN SIGHTINGS. FOC FREC DATA=32R1; BY SITE; TITLE FREQUENCY OF FSS?ONSE FCP QMESTIONS PERTAINING TO SEALS OP; TAD EE 2. eSir ay lee ONS HAR: Sayers TASLZS (Q24--C30 232 932); B-31 FORMAT Q24 HOWMANY. Q25 ZEYSPEC. (27 TMF. 028 SEASON. 029 GROUPS. Q30 DIZECTN. CAZES EN RE 0323 AG TARViseT ie: Moana LONER ripal een be Oboe Och worn G HESS eG) WOES Shean ACTIVITY FOR -WHALES. FOC FREQ DATA=WHALE; AU LAG etct TITLE? RELATIONSHIP OF WHALE SIGHTINGS TO DISTANCE AND PLATFORM ; RAL 62) AC EebV eras TABLES Q6 * G13 / DEVIATION EXPECTED CHISQ; FORMAT G6 DISTANCE. Q13 ACTIVITY.; REPORT ON THE RELATIONSHIP OF SIGHTINGS TO DISTANCE ACTIVITY FOR DOLPEINS AND PORPOISES. ’ °0C FRE DATA=POSPOIS®; TITLE! RELATICNSHIP OF PCRFOISE CR DOLPHIN SIGHTINGS TITLE2 PLATFORM ACTIVITY; TABLES Q16 * Q23 / DEVIATION EXPECTED CRISQ; FORMAT Q16 DISTANCE. Q232 ACTIVITY.; REPCPT ON THE RELATICNSHIP OF SIGHTINGS TO DISTANCE ACTIVITY FOR SEALS AND SEA LICNS. ROC FREC DATA=SEAL; TITLE! RELATICNSHIP OF SEAL OR SEA LION SIGHTINGS TC TITLE2 PLATFORM ACTIVITY; TABLES Q26 * Q33 / DEVIATION EXPECTED CHISQ; FORMAT Q26 DISTANCE. Q33 ACTIVITY.; B=32 AND PLATFORM TO DISTANCE AND; AND PLATFOR‘" DISTANCE AND; 5.2.4 The Job Control Language Necessary to Run the In-Person Historical Interview Program The following is the catalogued procedure used to execute this program. : CEP 7/7 EXEC SAS eCASOSN=*WYTBOLOCYIDOLsDATA® »zTIME=5 eee THIS APRGCCEIURE INVOKES SAS THE STATISTICAL ANALYSIS SYSTEM; *** SEE JSM STO3 S EXEC S TS Se La ee a LIBRARY DOD /OTHER DD ip / [Cut DD PRINTER DO PUNCH DD SURE IB OD SORTWKOL re) ORTwKOL DOD SORTWKO2 YO LSS REE EE OSE _—_~~—r~~ //soRTwKO2 DD //S0RTWKO3 9D //SORT#WKO3 DD // JY STEP ViIE3 7 sb) // ND pif //SY¥SOUT faye) / [xORK DD //RLMDATA DD //YSIN py) SAS PEOGC CASBLK=5)CASDEN=4 sCASOSNENULL FILE »CASFILE=0e CASLABL=s» CASLRCL=e CASDPCD= oe CASRCFM= eC ASUNIT=TAPES eCASVCL= 0 ENTRY=SASe TNBULK=32750.TINDOEN=eINOSN=ENULLF ILE es INFILE=»9 INLABL=.e. INRCF M=U, INUMNT T=TAPESG.INVOL=o LEVEL=eLISRARY="CETEMP*. CPTIONS=2 DUTDEN=H4sCUTDISP=H=KEEP >» OUTDSN=NULLF ILE o CUTFILE =e OUTLABL= ee OUTSPCE=A190,0UTUNIT=TAPES ,QUTVOL=>o FAN BLK=31209RAWDEN=44 RAWDI SP=KEEP sRAWOSN=NULLE ILE 9» RPAWFILE=0 RAWCGPCD=» RAWLABL= eRAWLPCL=802.RAWOUT=PUNCH > PAWRCEM=FB »-RAWSPCZ=700sRAWUNIT=TAPEG eRAWVOL= SCRT=4 PGM=EENTRY »sPARM=*EOPTIONS® ,REGION=AL 92K DSN=ECASDSNe VOL=( sRETAINe SFR=ECASVOEL) » OISPHSULD,LABEL=(ECASFILE+«ECASL ABL eo IN) » DC3=(RECFM=ECASRCFMeLRECL=ECASLRCL o CPTCO=ECASOPCD sBLKSI ZE=ECASBLK ee DEN=ECASDEN) » UNIT=(CECASUNIT. »sCEFER) SYSOUT=*,9CB=( RECFM=VALLRECL=127e/RLKSI ZE=141 ) SYSOUT=*«,OCB=(RECFM=VA sLRECL=L27,BLKSIZE=141 ) DONAME=ERAWOUT UNTT=SY SDA .SPACE=( 80 (160001690) eeCONTIGsRUUND) » DC3=(RECFE M=FB sLRECL=80,8LKSIZE=3003sCUFNO=1 ) DSN=EINISNeDISP=CLOeUNITH=(CETNUNITs eOEFER) o VOL=ACZ,RETAINe SER=SINVCIL ) 0 OCB =(BLKSIZEFHEINBLK »RECFM=E INPCFM,DEN=ELNDEN) » LABEL=(ECINFILE eEINLASL oo IN) JISN=ELTB3R ARY PUNITH=HSYSDA eoSPACE=H(TRK oe (292229) ) DSN=EPAWDSNsUNIT=(CERAWUNIT* sOEFER) » VOL =( pRETAINes SER=ERAWVOL ) LABEL=(FRAWFILE es ERAWLADBL )o SPACE=(ERAWBLK o (ER AWSPCE sERAWSPCE) »oRLS OCS=( RECFM=ERAWRCFEM eLRECL=ERAWLACL oe BLK CPT CD=ERAWOPCOD se DEN=ERAWDEN ) 9 DISP=(NEW,ERAWDISP. DELETE) DSN=ECUTOSNe DI SP=(NEW*e EOUTOISP DELETE) © VUL=H(C eRETAINS SFR=ETUTVOL ) >» UNIT=CENUTUNTT » DEFER) s OCB=DEN=E0UTDEN >» LABEL=(S0UTFILEs EQNUTLABL 0 eCUT) »s SPACE=( 1906990 (ECUTSSAICEs EOUTSFPCE) sRLSE) SYSOUT=*#>% OCB=(RETFMH=ERAWROCFMsLRECL=H=I33e+ALKSIZE=1330) SYSCUT=3,0CB=3LKSIZE=39 DSNAME=SYS1¢ SORTLISGeDISP=HSHR UNIT=)1ISK SPACE=(CYL>».(CESORT) » es CONTIG) sUNIT=SYSDA UNITH=D ISK Ede SIZE=EFAWBL Ke SPACE=( Crt »( SFSORT)osCONTIG) eUNTT=H(SYSDA,» eSEP=(SGRTWKOL) UNIT=DISK SPACE=CCYL 0 (&E SORT) 9 oCONTIG) pUNITH(SYSD Ae eSEP=A(SORTUKOL SORTWKO2)) QOSN=SYS4e¢SASeLOADSLEVEL »sDI SP=SHR DSN=* eLTRRARY»DISI=(CLD ePASS)e®UNIT=SYSDA. VIL =E=REF=* eLIPRARY SYSOUT=* ,NCB=BVUFNUO=1 UNI T=SYSDAsSPACE=H(TRK (240-80) ) OSN=E=WVLD9OL OC YI DOL)? QUADATASCCNTL eDISP=NLD Ge: 5.3 PROGRAM TO ANALYZE THE SIGHTING CARD DATA 5.3). 1 Description of the Program The purpose of this program is to use the results of a simple questionnaire to identify marine mammals to species, to determine densities of these species, to determine the relationship, if any, between densities and oi] drilling activities, and to compare the results of chance data gathered from sighting cards to data from more conventional methods of estimating marine mammal population densities. Figure 5-1 represents the flow of the overall program which accomplishes the above goals. Raw data is read in, new variables are generated, questionnaires are evaluated to determine species of marine mammal observed, counts are tallied, densities calculated, data from an unpublished BLM report are read in, densities from both sources are compared and reports are written. Sresac Creating the Raw Data to be Read Into the Program This section presents information necessary to correctly create data cards for input into the sighting card analysis program. Data will be input in standard 80-column record format. Each sighting card will result in two 80-column records. The data will be column dependent. This "code book" presents the data format, variable by variable, with column specifications, all possible values for each variable, a definition of each variable, a definition of each value, and, where appropriate, notes on converting multiple responses or incorrect responses to a codeable form. The two cards which represent the information from one sighting card must be in sequence. In other words, the final data deck (or data set if on tape or disk) must have the following sequence, card one, card two, card one, card two...etc. a CEP REAIC NEW VAZIABPEST ATA SET MASTER egoer Sonrma 24 | 7 ACTNiTy Laas De MM ALS G2 7s do Alay 2LM cama are Cum whet SES EIST Figure 5-1 5.3.3 The Sighting Card Program Figures 5-2, 5-3, 5-4, 5-5, 5-6 represent the logic of the section of the program which evaluates the data to determine the species of marine mammal sighted by the respondent. Note that many of the branches lead to intermediate results. if certain key questions were not answered or were answered ambigu- ously the results of the key to the point of ambiguity will be printed and the next sighting card analyzed. An annotated version of the entire program is as follows. : CEP Qo = ot DE, ~ Ns = ©) = & SS OG & Ss S&S Figure 5-2 CCE B-38 Figure 5-3 on CEP =”) Ny yp CRY Se ee $8) SER Ces i Q25 y, OF fe eceeD Qda Q37 wL2202 Shs ae & D> R21 Ee CG» Bont evose Qe Gee sivou vi ? © “ C7902, FUG WHE 4969, TELS of MA Zee 25 Figure 5-4 a CEP Figure 5-5 a CEP DIP THEY AuAwez RUSWEZ D2 Te or) 0 Figure 5-6 ) CCE Variable QUEST_NO OCCUP SITE_NO DATE TIME SITE Variable Label Questionnaire Identification Number NOTE: Right justify value Occupation of Interviewee NOTE: Code only one value in columns 6-7. Right justify the value Quadrat number within which the oil platform is located. NOTE: Code only one quadrat per sighting card. Right justify value of this variable. Date this sighting card was filled out. The time marine mammal was sighted. NOTE: Code in military time (i.e. 1 PM = 13:00). 1-5 6-7 11-18 19-23 B-43 Column Value 1 Thru 99999 WOONAOLPWNHHE ee TNDHEPWHHrO Value Label NOTE: Each sighting card should have a unique number. The high- est number that can be assigned is 99999, since only five columns have been defined for this variable. Production Foreman Platform (Prod.) Operator Head Well Puller Derrickman Floorman Roustabout Mechanic Electrician Chemical Tech/Cathodic Protection Drilling Foreman Driller Roughneck Helper Helicopter Pilot Boat Operator Divers Other Code blank if no response To determine value of this variable consult the quadrat map (Fig. 5-7). Choose the quadrat within which the oil platform of concern is located. NOTE: This variable is of extreme importance for comparing BLM data and the results of the sighting card data. The format of this variable is MM/DD/YY with the slashes (/) in columns 13 and 16 and where: MM = Month DD = Day YY = Year The format of this variable is hh:mm with the colon (:) in column 21, and where: hh hour mm = minute EGER Variable Variable Label TIME FILL The time of day this sighting ACTIVITY NOISE Q7 Q8 Q9 Q10 card was filled out. NOTE: Code in military time (i.e. 2:35 PM = 14:35) Activity on platform when marine mammal was sighted. NOTE: Code only one activity per sighting card. Right justify the values. Estimate of platform noise. NOTE: Code only one noise estimate for each Sighting card. Right justify the values. Distance of mammal from plat- form (in yards) NOTE: Right justify value. Direction from platform to mammal(s). Direction marine mammal traveled Did mammal(s) change direction? Column 29-30 31-32 33-36 37 38 39 B-44 Value eee &$Pwonrnr DOONDNPWNHe ¢o 1 Thru 9999 gPwonrnr trPWwNMre gyre Value Label The format of this variable is hh:mm with the colon (:) in column 26 and where: hh = hour mm = minute Drilling Production Dormant Testing Blank if no response Quiet Noisy Blank if no response The value of this variable should be in the units yards. Any other units should be converted. If the respon- dant answers a value of greater than 9,999 yards, code 9999 Towards shore Out to sea Upcoast Downcoast Code blank if no response Towards shore Qut to sea Upcoast Downcoast Code blank if no response Yes No Code blank if no response CEP Variable Qll Q12 Q13 Q14 Q15 Q16 Variable Label If yes, towards or away from platform? Kind of marine mammal sighted. Were mammals along or in a group? If group, how many? Name of mammal sighted. Size of mammal Column 40 41 42 43-45 46-47 48 Value 1 Thru 999 d¢Pwnrnpe Value Label Towards Away Code blank if no response Whale Porpoise or dolphin Seal or sea lion Code blank if no response Single animal Group of animals Code blank if no response Number of animals respondant sighted. If value is greater than 999, code 999 Code blank if missing Gray whale Sei, fin, or blue Right whale Sperm whale Humpback whale Killer whale Minke whale Pilot whale Rissos dolphin (Grampus) Bottlenosed dolphin (Tursiops) Common dolphin Right whale dolphin Harbor porpoise Dall's porpoise Pacific white-sided dolphin Elephant seal Harbor seal Stellar sea lion Northern fur seal California sea lion Code blank if respondant answered other than above or did not respond Less than 20 feet 10 to 30 feet Greater than 30 feet Don't know Code blank if no response CEP Variable Variable Label Column Value Value Label 1 Single 2 Double 3 Don't know + Code blank if no response Q17 Shape and size of spout. 49 1 Forward on head 2 Back on head 3 Don't know + Code blank if no response Q18 Shape and size of spout. 50 Q19 Shape and size of spout. 51 1 Shot forward 2 Shot straight up 3 Don't know +b Code blank if no response Q20 Shape and size of spout. 52 1 Shot high 2 Shot low 8 Don't know + Code blank if no response 1 Present 2 Absent 3 Don't know + Code blank if no response Q21 Dorsal Fin. 53 Yes No Code blank if no response Q22 Did whale show flukes? 54 dor Yes No Code blank if no response Q23 Did whale jump out of water? 55 $row Yes No Code blank if no response Q24 Did whale stick head out of 56 water? fo NOM Yes No Code Blank if no response Q25 Did whale slap tail? 57 grr Swam on surface Dove often Code blank if no response Q26 Swimming behavior. 58 rere Milling about Traveling Code blank if no response Q27 Was whale traveling or milling 59 about? grrr i EeEP Variable Variable Label Column Value Value Label Q28 Shape of head. 60 ih Broad and rounded 2 Pointed and triangular 3 Blunt and rounded 4 Don't know + Code blank if no response Q29 Shape of body. 61 1 Long and thin 2 Fat and rounded 3 Don't know + Code blank if no response Q30 Did whale have long white 62 1 Yes flippers? 2 No 3 Don't know + Code blank if no response Q31 Were there any young? 63 1 Yes 2 No 3 Don't know + Code blank if no response Q32 Occurrence of dorsal fin 64 1 Present 2 Absent 3 Don't know + Code blank if no response Q33 Shape of dorsal fin. 65 1 Tall, erect, triangular 2 Short, erect, triangular 3 Tall, curved backward 4 Short, curved backward 5 Don't know + Code blank if no response Q34 Shape of head. 66 1 Rounded and bulbous 2 Pointed 3 Don't know + Code blank if no response Q35 Description of snout. 67 1 With beak 2 Without beak 3 Don't know + Code blank if no response Q36 Color of porpoise/dolphin 68 1 Black 2 Black and white 3 Gray 4 Don't know + Code blank if no response Q 37 Did you see scars? 69 1 Yes 2 No & Code blank if no response . CEP a Q40 Q41 Q42 Q43 Q44 Q45 Q46 Q47 Q48 Did propoise/dolphin jump high out of water? Was the animal porpoising? Did mammals swim slowly and low in water? Did mammals swim rapidly throwing spray? Were dolphins traveling or milling about? Shape of head of seal/sea lion Did you notice any ears? Color of seal or sea lion. Swimming behavior. Did the seal/sea lion bark? Other swimming behavior. Column 71 72 73 74 76 V7. 78 79 80 B-48 Value dwnrere gore dgPwnrnr ¢t$ryoePe PFPwonrwrw Pwr Frere FTNe grnur Value Label Yes No Code blank if no response Yes No Code blank if no response No Code blank if no response Yes No Code blank if no response Milling about Traveling Code blank if no response Rounded Pointed Large extneded nose Don't know Code blank if no response Yes No k Code blank if no response Brown Black Spotted Don't know Code blank if no response Used front flippers to paddle Swam iike fish with hind flipper Could not tell Code blank if no response Yes No Don't know Code blank if no response Leapt out of water like porpoise Swam with only head showing Code blank if no response CEP Variable Variable Label Column Value Value Label SECOND | GAL) Q49 Were seals/sea lions 1 1 Milling about traveling or milling about? 2 Traveling NOTE: This variable will be coded in column one of + Code blank if no response card #2. Q50 Other characteristics noted 2-6 0 Code 0 if no comments on sighting card # : # Code same value as variable NOTE: This variable will be SITE_NO if additional comments. coded in columns 2-6 of card #2. x CEP 5.3.4 The Job Control Language Necessary to Run the Sighting Card Program The following is the catalogued procedure used to run SAS programs. 4 CGE * ¥CLATA DESCRIPTION, LARELS,LENGTH AND INPUT STATEMENTS. He CPTIONS ELKSIZE=19064; CATA MASTER; INPUT ( CARICENOM NC CCUPESOn | SLmEE Ole eDATE TIMESITE ACTIVITY NOISE ©7-c50 ) ( 22. M™DDYVP. «TIMES. "INES . 2*2. 6*1. ae 2. 33*1. y, 1. 56 ) ; LENGTT CCCUP_NO ACTIVITY NOTSE fal) 99 ¢11 Q12 ¢13 O14 Q16 Q17 ¢19 920 Q21 922 223 Q24 ¢26 Q27 228 92° 930 Q31 ¢33 Q34 Q35 236 937 038 C40 041 Qu2 C43 Quy 045 (47 43 249 2 CARD_NO SITE_NO ¢14 050 3 ; IABEL CARD_NO=STSHTING CARD NUMRER CCCUP_NO=OCCUPATION OF RESPONDENT STTE_NC=LOCATICN OF MAPINE MAMMAL SIGHTING LATE=LATE OF SIGHTING JIMESITE=TIME OF MARINE MANMAL SIGHTING TIMEPILL=TIME SIGHTING CARD FILLED OUT ACTIVITY=ACTIVITY CN ELATFORM WHEN ANIMAL SIGHTED NOISE=ESTIMATE OF PLATFORM NOISE C7=DISTANCF CF MAMMAL FRC™ DLATFORY™ (8=DIRECTICN FROM PLATFORM TO MAMMAL (S) C9=DIRECTICN MAMMAL(S) TRAVELED C€10=DID MARINE MAMMALS CHANGE DIRECTION? Q11=IF YES, TCWARDS OR AWAY FEOM ELATFCRM? (12=KIND(S) OF MARINE MAMMAL(S) SIGHTED? G13=WERE MAMMALS ALCNE OR TN A GRCUE? C14=IF GROUP, HOW MANY? C15=NAME OF MANMAL(S) STGET3D €16=SIZE OF MAMMAL (S) €17=SHAPE AND SIZE OF (18=SHAPE AND SIZE OP C19=SHAPE ANZ SIZE OF BLOW(DIRECTICY) ? C20=SHAPE AND SIZE OF BLCW (HETSHT) ? €21=DORSAL FIN, PRESENT OR ABSENT? (22=DID WHALE SHOW FLUKES? C23=DIC WHALE JUMP OUT OF WATER? C24=DID GHALE STICK PEAR CUT OF WATER? C25=DID WHALE SLAP FLUKES? €26=TYPE OF SWIMMING REHAVIOR? C27=WAS WHALE TRAVELING OR MILLING ABOUT? €28=SYAPE OF HEAD? €29=SHAPE OF 30DY? €30=DID WHALE FAVE LCNG WTITE C31=WERE THERE ANY YOUNG? C22=PRESENCE CF DCLPHIN DCRSAL PIN? C33=SHAPE OF CORSAL FIN? C34=S4APE OF HEAD? BLOY (NUMREB) ? BLOW (LCCATTICN) ? FLIPPERS ? B-51 C35=SHAPE OF SNOUT? €36=COLOR OF PORPOISE/LOLPHIN ? C37=DID YO SEE ANY SCARS? €38=DID PORPOISE JUM? HIGH OUT OF WATER? €29=DTD THE ANTMALS YON SAV POKPOISE? £4O=DID MAMMALS SKIM SLOWLY AND LOW IN WATER C41=DID MAMMALS S¥™M EAPICLY THROWTNS SORRY? CH2=WERE MAMMALS TRAVELING OR MILLING ABOUT? C4Y3=SHADE OF SEAL/SSEA LICN READ? C44=DID YOU NOTICE ANY EAPS? C45=COLCR OF SEAL/SER LICN? C4Y6=TYDE OF SWIMMING BEHAVIOR? CYT=ANY BARKING BENAAVIOF? C4¥B=TYPE OF SWIMMING BRHAVIOR? C49=WERE MAMMALS TRAVELING OR MILLING ABOUT? CSO=OTHER COMMENTS(SEE FORM # ...)? e x * IF DATA TS CN CARIS THE ASTERISK PRECEEDING THE CARDS STATEMENT SHOULD * EE REMOVEL AND THE CARD DATA SHOULD FOLLOW TPAT STATEMENT AND PRECEED + OTHE EXT SECLIGN OF iGO. IF DATA IS ON TAPE OR DISK THEN REMOVE THE * ASTERISK FRCM THE ILNSILE CAS STATEMENT (YOU MUST TREN HAVE A DD STATEMENT * WITH THE DDNAMNE CAS DEFINING THE CAS FILE). ALTER CNE OF THE TWO +7 FNOLLOWENS “SDALEME NGS VAS) DES CR RBRE DL VABOVES 8 4CARDS; *INFILE CAS; He J # CREATE TYE VARIABLE SEASON. WINTER=01/01-03/31,SPRING=04/01-06/30, 4 SUMMER=07/01-09/30,FALI=10/9 1-12/31. g- LAT = PUT (LATE, MMDDYY5.); IF DAT GE '01/91" AND DAT LE '03/31" THEN SRASON=1; IF DAT GE "04/01" AND TAT LE '06/30' TEEN SEASON=2; IF CAT GE '07/01" AND DAT LE 109730" THEN SEASON=3; IF DAT GE '10/01" AND CAT LE *12/31" TREN SEASON=4; GREATESSHE VARSABLE FREGS | EREO TS TIE ONUM EER (OF AN mMALS, @SriGittEeD) EYSDREP RESPONDENT OF EACH CUBS TCNATRES > sees THE FOLLOWING SECTICN TS THE PROGRAM YHUCH ANALYZES THE QUESTIONATRE LO) DETERMINE THES SaCLES ORSERVE DABY) GUE RES SCN DENTS iy Amable wAINAN Le eSheS! A REPORT IS PRINTED WHICH LISTS THE QUESTICNAIRES BY NUMRER AND THERE Sil SiO bene Wits DAs PROGRAM PAR MVEM PTS WOM REY lOl SDR Cur Sten: WILL ERIND INTENVEDIATE RESULTS SHOULD) THESOUSSTICNALRE BE -ENCOMPLERE BECAUSE THe RESTFONDENT WAS MWNABLE TO ORSIERVE ENOUGH DETATL. Ei ES RECOMMENDED THAT THOSE DUESTIONALRES THAT LEAD TO INTRREMEDIATE RESULT BS CYECKED BY SCMECNS VITY EXPERIENCE IN OSSERVING MATINE MAMMALS. THEY OMA: OBE CARE OM AmQu/ Ah Le DVCKaEDIGUE SSMS ehOmS PE GlES2y THES PROGRAM CANNOT MAKE EDUCATED SUESSES. CRPARE? MME VARTA DE MES Dr Gi tohm GH ih Ri SHEN Sone beeen eyes Milan Sy Ole tetis FOLLOWING SECTION. ee DETREMI'R WHAT SET OF CUESTICHS WERE ANSWERED, Q17-Q31(LARGE WHALE), Q32-042 (DCLFHIN, FCEECTSE, OR SMALL WHALE), OR QU3-Q49(SEAL OR SEA se eeeteeaetet ee eH we He wD # LION). ARRAY WHAL(C) Q17-031; ARRAY PORE(D) Q32-Q42; ARRAY SEAL(E) C43-049; DO OVER WHAL; TE WHE NES = THEN WAHALE= 15 END; DO OVER PORP; IF PORD NE . THEN PORPOISE= END; DO CVER SEAL; TF SEAL NE . THEN S@ALS=1; END; .Y ® ELIMINATE QUESTIONAIRES W/ AMBIGUOUS ANSWERS. ge THONG mE OH oP AN LN On2 mE Ore ORE Oi2 EON 3) STHEN iGO near: IF Q16 FQ 3 AND (Q12 NE 2 OR O12 NE 3) AND SEALS FQ 1 THEN GO TO A; IF Q16 EC 3 AND (Q12 NE 2 CR Q12 NE 3) AND SEALS NE 1 AND PORPOISE EQ THEN GO TO A; 1 IF Q16 EG 2 AND 912 EQ 3 THEN GO TO A; IF Q16 EG 2 AND Q12 NE 3 AND WHALE EQ 1 THEN GC TO Aj IF Q16 EQ 2 AND Q12 NE 3 AND YHALE NE 1 AND SEALS EQ 1 THEN GO TO A; IF Q16 EQ 1 AND O12 FC 1 THEN GO TOC A; IF Q16 EQ 1 AND Q12 NE 1 AND DPORFOISE N= 1 AND WHALE EQ 1 THEN GO TO Aj IF 916 ©Q 1 ANC Q12 EQ 2 AND POFPOISE NF 1 AND SEALS EQ 1 AND WHALE NE 1 THEN GO TO A; IF (916 EQ 4 OR Q16 EQ .) AND ¥YHALF EQ 1 AND SEALS EQ 1 THEN GO TO A; IP (916 EO 4 OR O16 2D .) AND WHALF EQ 1 AND PORPOISE EQ 1 THEN GO TO A; IF (216 EQ 4 OR G16 QO .) AND SFALS EQ 1 AND PORPOISE FQ 1 THEN GO TO A; ) EQ IP (016 FO 4 OR Q16 EQ .) AND SEALS - AND POBPOISE EQ . AND WHALE EQ . AND C12 EC . THEN GO TO A; KEY ALL QUESTICNAIL RES WHTC™ HAVE NC ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS 17 THRU 49. » * 4 DETERMINES IF THE FEPCNDENT SAW A WRALE, A PORPOISE OR DOLPHIN, OR * A SEAL CR SEAL LION. He TF (O16 NAS AND) O16 NEU.) AND (G12 NE. AND SEALS SEG < AND POPLOMS Ease Cure AN Dent ClAise, ark Curednamb rine uG Ole OR TET * * CEECK TO SEE IF THE RESPCNDENT ANSWERED QUESTION 32 THRU 42, WHICH * REFEP TO PORPOISES CR SMALL WHALES, PUT FAILED TO ANSWERF €16, WHICH SPREE NS OMole Soh reo e WOME a Rai bh TORO Crs sINiG roo hOSSMmB LE. Re I TF (Q916 EQ 4 OF Q1€ FO . ) AND SEALS NE 1 AND PORPOTSE EC 1 AND WHALE NE! 1 TREN KEYSPEC=25); a * FIND QUESTICYATEES WHICH “IAVE ANSWERED QNESTICNS DESCRIBTNG LARGE 4 WHALES. *; IF Q16 EC 3 AND WHALE EQ 1 AND POPPCISE NF 1 AND SEALS NE 1 AND (QUA EZ a AND CH2y EGS) PENS GO. CO ROE. IF (O16 8S GOP Cl6 So.) AWD PHALR EG 1 AND SEALS NE 1 AND POFPOISE NE 1 TEEN GO TO ONE; 9 6 4 FIND QUESTIONNAIRES WHICH HAVE ANSWEDED QUESTICNS DESCRIBING SMALL * WHALES. B-53 a5 IF 916 EQ 2 AND (Q12 NE 2 OP 912 NE 3) AND WHALE NE 1 AND SEALS NE 1 AND POFPOISS =O 1 TEFEN GO TO THO; 2 * FIND QURSTICNATRES WHICH HAVE ANSWEFED QUESTIONS DESCRIBING PORPOTSES. He IF 016 EC 2 AND 912 £9 NE 1 TNEN KEYS2?EC=2 IF Q16 =Q 1 AND (Q12 N EQ 1 AND SEALS NE 1 THEN 2 AND WHALE NE 1 AND PORPOISE FQ 1 AND SEALS 912 NE 3) AND WHALE NE 1 AND PORPOISE of 50 TO THREE; 4 * FIND QUESTIONAIRES WHICY AAVE ANSWERED QUESTIONS DESCRIBING SEALS. he . IF Q16 EO 1 AND (G12 NE 1 AND Q12 HE 2) AND WHALE NE 1 AND PORFOISE NE 1 AND SEALS EC 1 THEN GO TO FCUR; IF (216 EQ 4 OR Q16 FQ .) AND WHALE NE 1 AND PORPOISE NE 1? AND SEALS EQ 17 THEN GO TO FOMK; 4 RKO RRO Ro RO a kok tek koe OSTA TK BY 2% 3% tk ko ek ak oe ke ke fe ate ae eae a ake ee oe ake ake ak ke he CNE: 12 (OD Wo) 0) 3) ORE @2 Wy aaa) owe KEYSEPEC=27; 02 OP At He WE Wio O80. Jko “ay SBhARI Lessgsiwiate ss 8 IF 921 EQ 1 AND O29 \EQ 2. THEN KEYSPEC=2; TEO2 CE Ce AND UN(CSO MEG) SOR O30) ,EON si MEN RY SPE C= ills TE) O21) EO! 92) ANID ON 9 PEO.) \SHEN KEN SPEC=4U\s LEO 2 OE Ce AWN DIL OMG NE male iO 7 mE Oui ME WSIEE G=3)s TEMO2T PE Coe AND ONO NEM ASD Ont. NE 2a AND O28 VEO MT UBIEN KEYSPFC=3; WEF O27 EC 2 AND OVO NE JV AND C17 NE 2 AND O28 RO 2 THEN KEYS PEC= 1); IF Q21 FQ 2 AND Q19 N= 1 AND 017 NE 2 AND Q28 EQ 3 THEN KEYSPFRC=4; IF Q21 EC 2 ANC 919 NE 1 AND Q17 NF 2 AND (9028 FQ 4 OR Q28 EQ .) AND O20, EO MI TEN KEY S25 C=sh: IF Q21 EQ 2 AND 9195 YE 1 AND 917 NE 2 AND (928 EQ 4 OR G28 EQ .) AND C22 SNE SAND. O25) NEN MN OANDI O23) sh0) 1) SEN KE VS PEGE: IF Q21 EQ 2 AND Q19 NE 1 AND 917 NE 2 AND (028 FQ 4 OR 928 EQ .) AND Q24 NE 1 AND 925 NE 1-AND 923 NE 17 AND 929 EQ 17) THEN KEYS PEC=1; LE OZ EG 2yAND OS) SE ND) OT, ME 2 AND CO28 Ores ORO 28 EOn .))) AND O24 NE UW AND, O25 NE WAND O23 NE) TV AND O29) EO 2° THEN KEYS PEC= 28); IF 021. EC 2 AND O19 NE 1AND O17 NE 2 AND (C28 EQ 4 OP) O28 EQ.) AND OLB MEMMUA ED MOS aia Sul): FANIDA NODS Ahly LUNI De OMI) sok: Ce au cu Rin Nai Ker eS Eis C219) FETURN; a BEEREEKERR AEE KR RK KEKE KK SMALL WHALE KEY He ae Re oe eRe a Ko foe oe ae ae ae age a ae eae ee a ae eo ee 45 TWO: IF ¢32 NER 1 THEN KEYSPEC=25; TF MOS 2 ECE th ANDI GRA ECE 2ON -ORBME SS) ORM OSS MEG) S UREN, KEYSPEG— 30h, IF Q32 EC 1 AND (933 5Q 1 CR 033 EQ ) AND 036 EQ 2 THEN KEYSPEC=6; THOS 2. LOna AND) AICS) Ee uly OR C29) 5Eo ) AND 936 NE 2 THEN KEYSPEC=30; IF 032 EQ 1 AND 923 EQ 4 AND O24 EQ THEN KEYSEPEC=8; IF 932 FQ 1 AND 032 EQ & AND O34 NF AND ©13 EQ 2 TEEN KEYSPEC=30; IF 932 FO 1 AND O33 EQ 4 AND 934 NE AND ©13 NE 2 AND Q36 EQ 3 THEN KEYSEEC=7; IF O32.6C 1 AND, O33) EQ 8 AND O30 NE OT AND! (CNS NE 2 0AND, OSE NE 3 THEN KEYSPEC=31; EFETUSN; 4 WH HR em te te eK Ke eK eo PORPOIS® KEY ook he Re te Be fe ae ok ak a of a ke Rok te fe ae ke fe ok fe fe ae ee ake af ok ae a . THREE RN Osi2) EO 2) THEN MEY SPREG=N)2) = 2 pe Wl B-54 OR 032 EQ 3 THEN KEYSPEC=22; 036 EQ 3 THEN KEYSPEC=10; 036 EC 2 THEN KEYSPEC=11; (036 NE 2 AND Q36 NE 3) THEN KEYSPEC=40; 035 20 3) AND (C33 EQ 5 CE Q33 £Q .«) 2) Q32 932 Q32 EC. EQ 1 AND Q35 4Q 1 AND EQ 1 ANC Q35 EQ 7 AND 032 FQ 1 AND 935 EQ 1 AND 032 EC 1 ANC (Q35 EC . CR THEN KEYSPEC=32; 032 EQ 1 AND (035 EC. OR Q41 EQ 1 THEN KEYSPEC=14; 032 FO 1 AND (C35 EC. OR 935 C41 EC 2 THEN KEYSPEC=13; Q32 EQ 1 AND (¢35 EG . on 935 OBS MEO WS) AND (CSB EC On) 1033550 AND EQ 3) AND (033 1 Of Q33 EQ 2) AND EC 3) AND (033 1 OR 933 2) AND (051 EC 3 Of 941 EQ oo) isha 1arSy) SRYCSIS)3}2 032 EQ 1 AND (C35 FO . ORE 035 ER 3) AND (G23 EQ 3 OR €33 EQ 4) AND Q37 EQ 1 THEN KEYSEEC=°¢; Q32 EO 1 AND (035 EQ - OP O35 EQ 3) AND (Q33 EQ Q37 NE 1 AND Q36 FO 3 THEN KEYSTEC=10; C32 EC 1 AND (035 EQ . OR Q35 EQ 3) AND (033 EQ 3 OR Q33 AND 037 NE 1 AND ( 036 ZQ 4 OR Q36 EQ .) THEN KEYSPEC=34; Q32 EC 1 AND (C35 Fc. OR C35 EQ 3) AND (C33 EQ 3 OR O33 EQ AND Q37 NE 1 ANT ( Q26 EQ 1 OR 936 EQ 2) AND Q34 EQ 1 THEN KEYSPEC=9; 032 EC 1 AND 3 OF 023 4) AND EQ 4) 4) (CBSE SCOR OS oe Ol es) ANP a(iO3s wEO SaCR OSS wEOms) AND 037 NE 1 AND ( 036 EQ 10R 036 EQ 2) AND (934 EQ 3 OR Q34 EQ .) THEN KEYSPEC=34; 1F 932 EQ 1 AND (Q35 EQ . OR 035 EQ 3) AND (033 EO 3 OR Q33 EQ 4) AND Q37 NE 1 AND ( 036 EQ 1 OR Q36 EQ 2) AND Q34 EQ 2 AND Q40 EQ. THEN KEYSEEC=34; IF Q32 EG 1 AND (035 EQ . OF 235 FQ 3) AND (Q33 EQ 3 OR 033 EQ 4) AND Q37 NE 1 AND ( 936 72 1 OR 036 EQ 2) AND Q34 EQ 2 AND QUO EO 1 THEN KEYSPEC=36; IF Q32 EQ 1 AND (035 EQ - OR O35 EQ 3) AND (033 EQ 3 OR Q33 EQ 4) AND Q37 NE 1 AND ( 336 £2 1 OR 036 EQ 2) AND Q34 EQ 2 AND Q4O EQ 2 THEN KEYSPEC=37; IF Q32 EC 1 AND Q35 EQ 2? AND Q37 EQ 1 THEN KEYSPEC=9; IF 032 £0 1 AND 035 EC 2 AND 237 NE 1 AND (036 EQ 1 OR 936 FO 3) THEN KEYSEPEC=38; IF Q32 EQ 1 AND Q35 EG 2 AND 037 NE 1 AND (036 £Q 4 OF Q36 EQ .) THEN KEYSEEC=35; IF Q32 EQ 1 AND Q35 FO 2 AND C37 NE 1 AID 936 EQ 2 AND QH1 EQ 1 THEN KEYSPEC=14; IF 932 EQ 1 AND 935 £0 2 AND Q37 NE 1 AND 936 EQ 2 AND (Q41 EQ 3 OF Q41 EQ .) THEN KEYSPEC=3); IF 932 EQ 1 AND 035 20 2 AND O37 NE 1 AND 936 EQ 2 AND QU1 EQ 2 AND (933 FQ 1 OR C33 EQ 2) “NEN KEYS EFC=14; IF 032 EQ 1 AND 035 EC 2 AND 937 NE 1 AND 236 EG 2 AND C41 EQ 2 AND (033 EQ 3 OR 933 EQ 4) TYEN KEYSEEC=15; IF Q32 EC 1 AND 235 50 2 AND 937 NE 1 AND 026 FC 2 AND Q41 EQ 2 AND (033 EQ 5 OP 933 SC .) TNSN KEYS PEC=39; FETORN: a AERA RE KKK KKK KK KEV FOr PINNEPEDS KARAM AMA KK EEA EKA REEKKA EK HK KE ae FOUR: IF Q44 E92 1 AND QUE TQ 2 THEN KFEYSPEC=23; IF Q44 FO 1 AND QU6 NE 2 AN7 9045 EQ 3 THEN KEYSEEC=23; IF Q94 EO 1 AND CUE JE 2 AND (245 FO 4 OR O45 EQ .) THEN KEYSDEC=44; IF Q44 EQ 1 AND Q46 NE 2 AND 245 FO 2 AND QU7 EQ 1 THEN KLYSPEC=20; IF QY4 FQ 1 AND QU6 YS 2 AND 285 ES 2 AND Q47 EQ 2 THEN KEYSPEC=19; 1F C44 EG 1 AND Q4Y6 NE 2 AND 945 EQ 2 AND (C47 FQ 3 OR C47 EQ .) THEN B00 aK a2 KRYSPEC=43; Q44u EC 1 AND O44 EQ 1 ANE Q4Y FO 1 AND KEYS PEC=42; Q44 FQ 2 AND O44 EQ 2 ANC O44 EC 2 AND O44 EQ 2 AND KEYSPEC=16; Q4u4 EQ 2 AND KEYSPEC=41; C44 EQ . AND O44 EQ . AND Q44 EQ . AND O44 EQ . AND KEYS PEC=43; Q44 EQ . AND QU4 EC . AND O44 EQ. AND O44 EC . AND K EYS PEC=42; Q44 EQ . AND Q44 EQ . AND Q44 ECG . AND: KRYSPEC=16; Q4Y4 EQ. AND KEYSPEC=41; O44 EC. AND KEYSPFRC=17; C44 EQ . AND Q45 EQ 2) THE Q44 FQ . AND AND QUS5 FQ 1 AND 945 =O 1 AND CYS EQ 1 [e) £ fey) ~ td NMrvwn THEN KEYS PEC= AND 243 FQ 3 AND 043 WE 3 AND QOG3 NE 3 Le) £ a) td IV pv bo Ps AND 943 NE 3 Cs) is fon = 34 nN AND Q45 FQ 3 AND Q4U5 EQ 2 AND 945 EQ 2 AND Q&S FO 2 [e) P= fon = My: Lor 2) — > AND (Q4S EC 4 AND 045 EQ 1 AND 045 EC 1 AND CUS FO 1 —o3 = AND O42 EQ 3 AND Q43 NE 3 AND Q43 NF 3 oO Jia n Seis tr hp idn Le) £ on) td Le) vy 2 AND 942 NF 3 (046 EQ 3 OR Q46 £Q .) (C46 EC 3 OR O86 EQ .) N KEYSPEC=16; (C46 EC 3 OR 246 EQ .) C45 EC .) TREN KEYSPEC=41; Q44 EQ. AND KEYSPEC=23; Q4u4 EQ . AND Q47 EQ 1 THEN Ouu EO 2 CANT C47 EQ 2 THEN QU4 EQ . ANC (247 EQ 30R O44 EC . AND C47 EO 1 THEN Q4u FC . AND O47 EG 2 TNEN guu EO . AND (Q47 EQ 3 OF O44 FO . AND C45 EQ .) THE Q44 EQ . AND Quy EQ . AND KEYSPEC=23; nN EFTURN; As KBYSPEC=21; EETURN; B:IP 212 £0 . TH AN CHE CEE (Q46 EQ 3 OP O46 EQ .) (046 EC 3 Of Q46 FO .) KEYS PEC=20; (046 EQ 3 OP C46 FO .) KEYS PEC=12; (C46 FC 3 CR Q46 FO.) Q47 EQ .) THEN KEYSPEC (C46 FQ 32 OR O46 EC .) KEYSPEC=29; (C46 RO 3 OR O46 FO .) KEYSPEC=18; (046 EQ 3 OP 946 EC .) Q4u7 EQ .) THEN KEYSEEC (046 EC 3 OR 046 EQ .) N KEYSDPEC=44; (046 EQ 3 OP G46 FC .) (C16 TQ 3 OR 246 EQ .) EN KEYSEEC=21; KEYSDEC=24; AND O47 EQ 1 THEN K¥YSPEC=20; AND O47 FQ 2 THEN KEYSPEC=19; AND (C47 EQ 3 OP Q47 EQ .) THEN 23; THEN KEYSPEC= 16; AND 045 EQ 3 THEN KEYSPEC=17; AND (C45 EQ 108 945 EQ 2) THEN AND (C4S EQ 4 OR QU5 EQ .) THEN THEN KEYSEEC=23; AND 047 EQ 1 THEN KRYSPEC=20; AND Q47 EC 2 THEN KEYSPEC=18; AND (C47 EQ 3 OR Q47 EQ .) TAEN OR Q4S 5Q .) TEEN K®YSPRC=44; AND Q47 EQ 1 THEN KEYSPFC=20; AND Q47 EQ 2 THEN KLYSPEC=19; AND (C47 EQ 3 OR QU? EQ .) THEN THEN KEYSPEC=23; AND 945 EQ 3 THEN KEYSPEC=17; AND (045 EQ 1 OR O4S EQ 2) THEN = AND (Q4US EQ 4 OR G45 EQ .) THEN AND Q43 5Q 1 AND Q45 EQ 3 THEN AND C43 FO 1 AND (Q85 EQ 1 OR AND O43 FQ 1 AND (Q45 EQ 4 OR AND Q43 FQ 2 AND 945 EQ 3 THEN AND 943 EQ 2 AND Q4S EQ 1 AND AND 043 EQ 2 AND Q&S EQ 1 AND AND C43 EQ 2 AND Q45 EQ 1 AND =u. ae C43 EQ 2 AND Q4S EQ 2 AND AND Q43 EQ 2 AND Q45 EQ 2 AND AND C43 EQ 2 AND C4S EQ 2 AND Ta 243 EQ 2 AND (945 EQ 4 OR AND G43 FQ 3 THEN KEYSPFC=16; AND (C43 EQ 4 CR C43 EQ .) THEN IF Q12 EQ 2 THEN KEYSPEC=22; IF Q12 EQ 3 THEN KEYSPEC=23; FETURN; ry 4 CREATE REPORT LISTING QUESTIONAIRE NUMBER AND RESULSS OF KEY i ERCC FORMAT; VALUE KEYS?FEC 1=GREY WHALE 2=SEL,EUN CR BLE WUALE 3=RIGHT WilALE 4Y=SPERM WHALE 5=HUMPBACK WHALE 6=KILLER WHALE J=MINKE WHALE 8=PILOT WHALE 9=RISSOS DOLPHIN 1O=BOTTLENOSE DCLPNIN 11=CCMMCN DOLPHIN 12=RISHTYHALE DCLPRIN 13=HARBCR POKRPOISE 1H=DALL''S FORPOTSE 15="PACIFIC WHITE-SIDED DOL?HIN® 16=ELEPHANT SEAL 17=HARBCR SEAL 18=STELLAR SEA LION 19=NORTHERN FOR SEAL 20=CALIFORNIA SEA LION 21=NOT IDENTIFIABLE 22=PORPOISZ OR DCLDOHIN 23=SEAL C2 SEA LICN 24=WHALE 25=PORPOTSS CR SMALL WHALE 26="HUMPBACK,SEI,FIN OF ELUE WHALC’ 27="LARGE WHALE (FCROUAL,GPSY,SPESM,CK FTC.)' 28=RIGHT OF SPERN WHALE DI=IGMEW So Stiga Cihy sR leh weecANle rye 30="KILLER PILOT, CR MENKE WHALES SI=SMENKE OR ELLOT WHALE 32="DOLENIN(NOT RIGHT WHALE DOLPHIN) * 33=DALL''S OR YAFROK PORPOTSE 34="PISSOS, COMMON, WHITE-SID=D,OF TUFSIOPS?® SSeS SOS Arr SM DED b A Leo OR MEN THOS 36=RISSOS OR BOTTLENOSE DOLPHIN 37="COMMON OR PACTFIC WHITS-STDER CCLDYIN® 38=RISSOS OR HARBOR DOLPHIN 39 = PAGTEUG Ss eth Sipe iG hy ALLS 4O=CCMMCN OR BOTTLENOSE DOLPHIN 41=HARBCR SEAL OR ELEPHANT SEAL 42="CALIF. SEA LICN OR NORTHERN FUR SEAL! Q3=CALIFCRNIA OR STELLAR SHA LICN QU="CALIF. OR STELLAR OP NO. FUR SEAL‘; x SNE OO aide oa omOS Kn NoeNGuciin OS uO AIRE Sr. he EROC PRINT; VAR CARD_NC KEYSPEC; REDE Les UN GiObgiSonGies SNS oD Sib hE Sve Shs CARDS: PROGRAM. FORMAT KEYSEEC KZYSPEC.; a # REPORT TRE NUNRER OF MARINE MAMMALS STSNTED BY SPECIES. a TATA NEW; SET MASTER; IF KEYSESC LE 20; KEEP KEYSPEC FREQ SEASON; EROC CHART DATA=NEv; TITLE MAEINE MAMMAL COUNTS RY SPECIES; FORMAT KEYSPEC KEYSPEC. ; ) 4 REPORT THE NUMBER CF MARINE MAMMALS SIGHTED BY SPECIES ®Y he EROC FORMAT; VALUE SDASCN 1=WINTER 2=SPPING 3=SUMMER 4=FALL; EROC CHART CATA=NEN; FORMAT SEASON SEASON. KEYS FEC KEYSPEC.; TITLE MARINE MAMMAL COUNTS BY SPECIES RY SEASCN; HBAR KEYSEEC / DISCRETE GROUP=SEASCN FREQ=FREQ; a SEASON. 4 REPORT THE NUMBER OF SIGHTINGS RIOKEN DOWN BY THE OCCUPATION OF * THE RESPONDENT. 45 EROC PORMAT; VALUE CCCUP 1=PRODUCTICN FOREMAN 2="PLATFORM(PROD.) OPERATOR? 3=HEAD WELL PULLER 4=DERRICKMAN 5=FLOCEMAY 6=ROUSTABOUT 7=MECHANIC R=ELECTRICIAN 9='CHEMICAL TECR./CATHODIC PPOTFCTION! 10=DRILLING FCREMAN 11=DRILLER 12=ROUGHNACK 13=HELPER IU=HELICCPTER PILCT 15=BOAT OPERATOR 16=DTVER 17=OTHER; EROC FREC DATA=MASTER; FORMAT OCCUP_NO OCCUP.; TITLE NUMBER OF STSHTTNGS BROKEN ECUN RY CCCUPATION OF 2 ESPONDENT; TABLES OCCN2_NO / EXPECTED DEVIATICN g 4S REPORT ATE NUMER AE Gr SiGH PENG BECKEN DGtiN SY. chUME OR NDAYie g- EROC FORMAT; VALE imeis. 1="MIDNIGHT TO 1:09AM! 2="1:00AM TC 2:09AN?* 3="2:0CAM TO 3:00AM! 4="3:00AM TO 4:D0AX%! 5="4sO0AM TO S:00AN? ='5:00AM TO 6:00AM! ="6:00A™" TC 7:00AM! 8="7:290AM TO 8:00A%'" 9="R:00AM TO 9:00A%" 10="9:00AM TO 10:00AM! 11="10:;00AM TO 11:00AM? 12="11:00AM TO NOON! 13="NCCN TO 1:00EM? 14='1:00PM TO 2:00PéM?® 15="'2:00PM TO 3:00EM!? 16="3:00P™ TO 4:NO0PM! 17="4:00PM TO 5:00PM! 18='S:002™ TO 6:00PM! 19="6:00PM TO 7:00PM" 20="7:00PM TO 8:00EN! 21="8:00PM TO 9:00PM! 22='9:002"% TC 10:00E™! 23='10:00PM TO 11:09PM! 24='11:00f31 TO MIDNISHT!; TATA; SEV ApS) Liens! KEEP er bSald be vre ME TE UM Sileueas Gene OOOONSAN Deck eS Siu om Sisto 90) aa PEN rain Eat sha GH adubatssGely (qe SO) Peto) Gea diptstade yo opal 7/4)! ah shal fe Gr shal) js 7 TE OLIMESGDS GE) 7 200 CAND LSEMeSEse La VO799) THEN LEME=2 IF TIMESTTE GE 10800 AND TINESITE LE 14399 TREN TYIME=4 IF TIMESITE GE 14400 AND TIRESITE LE 1799° THEN TIME=5 IF TIMESITE SE 18000 AND TIMESTTE LE 215°9 THEN TIME=6 TE QT AUMES TRE) GE) 2150/0) (AND) LMIRSETE LS) (251/99) THEN sea E=7 IF TIMESITE GE 25200 AND ‘TIMESITE LE 28799 THEN TIME=3 PE GralitE SMe Ge oo OO AMD) EM SileRr es 2309 sHHSN OTE ME=o IF TIMESITE GE 32400 AND TIMESITE LE 325999 TEEN TIME=10; IF TILESITE GE 36000 AND TIMNESITE LE 319599 THEN TIME=1 115 IF TIMESETE GE 39600) AND TIMESTRE LE 43199 TREN TIMEB=12> TETAS TE Se GEN43 2.00 AND TIMESEPE SES w67 99 THEN GED wB=i3) IF TIMESITS SE 46800 AND TINSSTTE LE 50399 THEN TIME=14; Ey ESer Gaon VOC PAN D Viet SS hase 5 SeCO MTHEN anltib= ih: TF LIMESENE GE754/000) AND TXMESITE LE S7599 TREN TIME= 16) LE LIMES OE GE 7/600 AND) TIMNSLIA VLE 69 Oo THEN LEME= 7" IF TIMESIZE GE 61200 AND TXMESTTE LE 64799 THEN TIME= 18; LE LLL ES ME GE 64800) AND TIM SSLeh Ss 6e399 UO TAEN i TEM B=1,0% IF DEMESE SE (GS) 684100) AND) TEMES STE LE 71999 (TEEN \TIME=20); LET ES TUE GE 2000 PhD) eter SS eak S099) THONG DM E=2h1/ IF TIMESITS SE 75600 AND TIMFSITS LE 7199 THEN TIME=22; IF TIMESITE GE 79200 AND TIMESITE LE 82799 THEN TIME=23; IF TIMESITE GE 92800 AND TIMESIT™F LE 86299 TEEN TIME=24; EFCC FREC; FORMAT TIME TME.; TITLE NUMBER OF SIGHTINGS PPOKEN DOWN BY TIME OF DAY; TABLES TIME / EXPECTED DEVIATICN y * REPORT THE NUMBER OF SIGHTINGS BICKEN DOWN BY PLATFORM ACTIVITY. He ° EROC FORMAT; VALUE ACTIVITY 1=DRILLING 2=PRODUCT7ICN 3=DCRMANT 4W=TRSTING; EROC FREQ CATA=“ASTEP; FORMAT ACTIVITY ACTIVITY. ; TITLE NUMBER OF SIGHTINGS BROKEN DOWN BY PLATFORM ACTIVITY; TABLES ACTIVITY / EXPECTED DEVIATION; ¥ # PEDORT THE NUMBER OF STSNTINGS BROKE! DOWN BY PLATFORM ACTIVITY 4 CONTROLLING FOR OCCUPATION OF BFSECNDENT.; Re ° EFOC FREC DATA=MASTER; FORMAT ACTIVITY ACTIVITY. OCCUD_NC OCCUT.; TITLE1 NUMBER OF SIGHTINGS BROKEN DCWN BY PLATFCRM ACTIVITY CONTROLLING; JITLE2 FOR CCCUPATION OF RESEONDENT. ; TABLES ACTIVITY*OCCUPD_NC / ALL; & 4 REPORT THE NUM3ER OF MAMMALS SIGHTED BROKEN DOWN BY PLATFORM 4 ACTIVITY. He PROC FREC DATA=MASTER; FORMAT ACTIVITY ACTIVITY.; TITLE NUMBER OF MAMMALS SIGHTED EROKEN NOVN RY PLATFORM ACTIVITY. ; TABLES ACTIVITY / BXYPECTED DEVIATION ; WEIGHT FREC; » * REPORT "ME NUMBER CF GREY WHALES STGHTEN FROKEN DOWN BY PLATFORM ACTIVITY. 8 LATA; SET MASTER; IF XEYSPEC=1; KEEP KEYSEEC ACTIVITY FEEQ ; EROC FREQ; FORMAT ACTIVITY ACTIVITY. ; TITLE1 NUMBER OF GREY WHALES SIGHTFD BROKEN DOWN BY ELATFORM; TITLE2 ACTIVITY. ; TABLES ACTIVITY / EXPECTED DEVIATION ; WEIGHT FREC; 4 * REPOPT THE NUNBER OF MAMMALS SIGHTED RPCKEN DOWN BY NOTSE LEVEL. qe , ERCC FORMAT; VALUE NOISE 1=QUIET 1O=VERY NOISY; EROC FREQ DATA=“MASTER; FORMAT NOISE NOISE.; TITLE NUMPER OF MAMMALS ST3NTED FRCKEN DOWN BY NOISE LEVEL; TABLES NOISE / EXPECTED DEVIATION ; WEIGHT FREC; PORT THE NUMBER CF GREY THALES SIGHTED EROKEN DOW BY SE CEVEL. a a SET MASTER; KEE? NCISE KEYSFEC FREQ; IF KEYSPEC=1; FFOC FREQ; FORMAT NOISE NOISE. ; TITLE NOMBEP OF GREY WHALES STSHYTEL BROKEN DOWN BY NOTSE LEVEL; TABLES NOISE / EXPECTED DEVTATTC' ; WEIGHT FREQ; REPORTS CCNPARING BLATFCPRM ACTIVITY TO TRE DISTANCE FROM THE PLATFORM THAT THE MARINE MAMMAL WAS SIGHTEL. ONF REPOPT FCR WHALES, CNE REPORT FOR COLPHINS OP PORPOISES AND CNE REPORT FCR SEALS OR SEA LTONS. =“ &Seee & HE i} FOC FORMAT; VALUF DISTANCE (FUZZ=10) 0-50=FROM O TO 50 YARDS 50-100=FROM 50 TO 100 VAFPDS 100-300=FRCM 100 TO 300 YARDS 309-S500=FROM 300 TC 500 YARDS 500-HIGH=GREATER THAN 500 YARDS; VALUE GROUP 1-8,24 ,26-31=NHALE 9-15, 22, 32-4O=DOLPHIN OF FORPOISE 16-20,23,41-44=SEAL OR SEA LION; TATA; SET MASTER; TE SREYS PEG NEV2 1) (ANID) KEY S2EG NE -2'5\* EROC FREQ; FORMAT ACTIVITY ACTIVITY. 97? DISTANCE. KEYSPEC GROUP. ; TITLE? COMPARISON OF ELATFOCEM ACTYTVITY TO DISTANCE FRCM PLATFORM OF; TITLE2 MARINE MARMALS SIGHTED; TITLEY ONE REPORT FOR WHALES, ONE REPORT FOR PORPOISES OF DOLPHINS,; TITLES AND CNE REPORT FCR SEALS AND SEA LIONS; TABLES Ka vopee =) ACTIVAGDY #07" / EXPECTED DEVWATTION!s 3 % REPORT OF COMPARISON OF PLATFOFN ACTIVITY TO DISTANCE FROM PLATFORM * MARINE MAMMALS SIG"ETED. ONE REPORT FOR FACH SPECIES. he CATA; SET MASTER; IF KEYSEEC GE 1 AND KEYSEEC LE 20; ERCC FREQ; FORMAT IAGTIEVTAY NCTEVGS Y. Of, (DISTANCE. KeVSRDEC (KEYS EG. + TITLE? COMPARISON CT PLATFORM ACTIVITY TO DISTANCE FEOM PLATFOPM OF; TITLE2 MARINE MAMMALS SIGATED; TITLF4Y CNE KEPORT FOR EAC SPECTFS; TABL EST KES D eC * PAGe Van) * Oe LoOEXoSG PSD) DEVAS TOT: THE FOLLOWING SECTICN DEALS WITH COMPAPING THE BLM DENSITY ESTIMATES AND DENSITY ESTUMATES LERIVED FROM SITE CARD DATA. THE POULPOSE! LS TOSuVE SCME IDEA ABOUT THE) ACCURACY OF ANECDOTAL DADA AS CER UVVED ROA, OUSSTLONAT RE. DSR LEST SDA STG MEA cA) CoAWAUS ot) (CON TACUNGNG THE) mn Ony AL COUNT CF INDIVIDUALS SIGHTED RY ELATFOPRM(SITE QUADFANT). RY SRASON 3Y SPECLES,) TO) (GREASE THE \VAPLASLE DENSE NY PY, DIVIDING Tae TOTAL FRACUENCY RY TPE AREA OF A CUADRANT (25 SQ. NM.) AND TO CREATE ese nasaeeaee ae s&s & B-S1 # A GEPORT GIVING THE TOTAL MAMMAL COUNT PY SPECIES BY QUADRANT * SEASON. a; FROC SORT DATA=MASTER; BY SITA_NO SEASON KSYSFEC; CATA BLMCOMP1; SET MASTER; IF KEYSPEC LE 20; BY SITE _NO SRASCN KEYSEEC; KEEP SITE_NO SEASON KEYSPHRC TOTFREQ DENSITY; RETAIN TOTFREQ 0; TOTFREG=TOTEFREQ + FFEQ; IF LAST.STIE_NO CR LAST. KEYSPSC OF LAST.SEASON THEN DO; DENSE — Cm EO AZ or OUTPUT; TOTFREQ=0; END; 8 # REPORT THE NUMBER CF HAMMALS SIGHTFD PER ONAD(PLATFORM) PER * SEASON PER SPECIES. geo 9 FEOC PRINT DATA=BLNCOMP1; VAR SITE_NO SEASON KEYSEEC TOTFEEC; FORMAT SEASON SEASCN. KEYSPTC KEYSPEC.; TITLE? NUMBER OF MBMMALS SISHTED PER QUAD(PLATFORM) PEP SEASON; THIRTIES 2 Pas hao SE Gave sis SITE CARD CATA IN DATASET SLMCOMP1 TO FORM DATA SET COMPARE. SCIENTIFIC METHODS. ONCS BOTH LATA SETS HAVE BEEN COHBYNED A WHETHER THE ESTIMATE OF DENSITY EASED CN SITE CARD CATA FALLS eetae SHH SRS HSE BE READ THE BIM CATA AND CREATE CATA SET BLM. he LATA BLM; INPUT SITE_NO SEASCN KEYSDEC LO HIGH; LENGTH STTE_NO SEASCK KEYSEEC 2; LABEL LO=LCW ESTIMATE OF DENSITY MADE BY BLY HIGH=HIGH ESTIMATE OF DENSITY MADE BY RLM; INFILE BLMDATA CLCSE=FREE; a 4 MERGE DATA SET ELM AND BLNCON?1 CREATING CATASET COMPARE, gs EROC SORT DATA=WORK. RLM; BY SITE_NO SEASON KEYSPEC; LATA CCMEARE; UPLATE 3LMCOMP1 BLY; BY StTE_NC SEASCN KRYSEEC;° BY READ IN TKE BLM DATA ANC CBEATE THE DATA SET BLM MERGE RLM AND THE DATA SET CCNPARE WILL CCNTAIN THE VARIABLES STTE_NO, SEASON, KEYSPEC, HI, DENSITY, AND LO. THE VARIABLE HI AND LO REPRESENT THE SLM DENSITY ESTIMATES FOR THE QUADRANT IN QUESTION. THE BLM DENSITY ESTIMATES WERE TAKEN FROM AN UNPUBLISHED BIM REPORT AND ARE NOT TO BE QUOTED. THESE ESTIMATES ARE MERELY USED EERE TO SEE IF ANECDOTAL INFORMATION WILL FALL WITHIN THE FANGS CF DENSITY VALUES AS ESTIMATED BY CURRENT REPORT WILL PE GENERATED LISTING THE SPECIES, SEASCN, QUADRANT NUMBER AND WITHIN TRE BLM ESTIMATES OF IF ITS IS HIGHER OR LOWER THAN PLM ESTIMATSS. IF NENSITY NE .; * * COMPARE SITE CARD DENSITY ESTIMATE WITH BLM HIGH AND LOY DENSITY # ESTIMATE FOR ZACK QUADRANT. Ye CATIA CCMPARE; SET COMPARE; IF LO EC . OR HIGH FO . THEN RESULT=4; IF DENSITY GE LO AND DENSITY LE HIGH THEN RFSULT=1; IF DENSITY LT LO THEN RESULT=2; IF DENSITY GT HIGH THEN RESULT=3; *% * REPORT ON THE RESULTS OF DENSITY CCMPARISONS we ERCC FORMAT; VALUE RESULT 1=DENSITY WITHIN RANGE OF BLM ESTIMATES 2=DENSTTY LOWER THAN FLM ESTIMATES 3=DENSITY HIGHER THAN BLM ESTIMATES 4=NO ESTIMATES MADE PY BLM; EFOC PRINT CATA=COMPARE; FORMAT SEASCN SEASON. KEYSPEC KEYSPEC. RESULT RESULT.;: TITLE1 RESULTS OF COMPARING SITE CARD DENSITY ESTIMATES AND BLM; TITLE2 DENSITY ESTIMATES; EROC FREQ CATA=COMPARE; TITLE BREAKDCYN CF DENSITY CCMPARISONS; FORMAT RESULT RESULT.; TABLES RESULT; 4 * REPORT ON STGHT CARDS WHICH HAVE ADDITIONAL COMMENTS DESCRIBING 4 MARINE MAMMALS He LATA; SET MASTER; IF Q50 NE 0; KEEP 050; EEOC PRINT; TITLE1 PLEASE NOTE: THE FOLLOWING STGNT CARDS HAVE ADDITIONAL; TITLE2 COMMENTS DESCRIBING MARINE MAMMALS; 7/7 EXEC SASeCASDSN=*WYIDOLOCVYIDO1LeDATA® ,TIME=5 *** THIS PROCEDURE INVOKES SAS THE STATISTICAL ANALYSIS SYSTEMS; *** SEE USM STO3 //Sas PROC CASBLK=»CASDEN=4 5C i ENTRY=SASe if iH LEVEL=sLIBRARY="EETEMP*%, Hh ify 1) Hi SORT=4 //SAS EXEC //CAS DD iif 1) // UNIT=(ECASUNI Ts »DEFER) //ET11F001 OD //ET12F001 00 //FT13F001 DO ONNAME=ERAWOUT //FT1SF001 DD // //1N DO ty VOL=( »RETAINesSER=EINVOL) © // LABEL=(EINFILE eEINLASL ee IN) //L1BRARY OD //OTHER DD // VOL=( eRETAINes SER=ERAWVOL ) o yy LABEL=(SRAWFILEsERAWLABL ) o i // OPT CDO=ERAWOPCO.DEN=ERAWDEN) » i DISP=(NEWsERAWDISP.,DELETE) OUT DD yy VOL=( RETAIN, SER=ECDUTVGAL ) » hy LABEL=( GQ0UTFILEs SOUTLABL » eQUT) » TaN as DD SYSOUT=*>5 //PUNCH DD SYSCUT=3.,0CB=BLKSIZE=80 //SORTLIB DD OSNAME=SYS1¢SORTLIBeDISP=SHR //SORTWKOL OO UNIT=9ISK //SORTWKO1 OD //SORTWKO2 OD UNIT=DISK //SOoRTWKO2 DD //SORTWKO3 OD He le DD //STEPLIB OD // DO // //SY¥ SOUT OD / WORK OD //RLMDATA DD /BYSIN DO ASOSN=NULL FILE »CASFILE=+*CASLABL=> CASLRCL= » CASOP CD= 2» CASRCFM= eCASUNI T=TAPESsCASVCL=> INBLK=32750%s INDEN=eTINDSN=NULLFILEsINFILE=» INLABL=es INRCFM=U, INUNT T=TAPE9Ss,INVOL=>5 OPT IONS=s OUT VDEN=4 »s CUTDISP=KEEP » OUTDSN=NULLFILE » OUTFILE=s5s OUTLABL= » OUTSPCE=190 » OUTUNIT=TAPES »,OUTVUi=» RAWBLK=31202RAWDEN=4 RAWDI SP=KEEP sRAWDSN=NULLF ILE » RAWFILE=s RAWCOPCD= « RAWLABL= » RAWLRCL=802RAWOUT=PUNCH >» RAWRCFM=FB ¢eRAWSPCE=7 00» RAWUNIT=TAPES »sRAWVOL=>o PGM=EENTRY »sPARM="E0PTIONS® ,REGION=1 92K DSN=ECASOSN»s VOL=( »RETAIN»s SER=ECASVOL ) » DISP=OLD»,LABEL=(ECASFILEsECASLABL « o IN) » DC8=(RECF M=ECA SRCFMsLRECL=ECASLRCL o OPTCD=ECASOPCD sBLKSI ZE=ECASBLK 0 DEN=ECASDEN) » SYSOUT=*»O0C8=( RECFM=VA,LRECL=1 37.BLKSI ZE=141) SYSOUT=*,0CB=( RECFM=VA ,LRECL=1 37s8LKSIZE=141 ) UNIT=SYSDAeSPACE=(80 o(1600¢1600)2sCONTIGeROUND) » DCB=(RECFM=FB »sLRECL=80.¢ BLKSI ZE=800s BUFNO=1 ) DSN=EINDSN»OISP=OLDeUNIT=(ELTNUNIT»s eDEFER) o OCS=(BLKSIZE=EINBLK »RECFM=E INRCFM»DEN=EINDEN) o DSN=EL TBRARY » UNIT=SY SDA eSPACE=(TRKe (200220) ) DSN=6RAWDSNeoUNIT=(CERAWUNIT» DEFER) » SPACE=(ERAWBLK 0 (ERAWSPCE sERAWSPCE ) »RLSE) o DCB=(RECFM=ERAWRCFMeLRECL=ERAWLRCL »BLKSI ZE=ERAWBLK » DSN=E0DUT DSN» DI SP=(NEWse ECOUTDISP eDELETE) » UNI T=(CEOQUTUNIT »s sSDEFER) s OCB=DEN=E0UTDENs SPACE=(190694(EO0UTSPCEs CO0UTSPCE) »RLSE) OCB=(RECFM=ERAWRCFMeLRECL=133-BLKSIZE=1330) SPACE=(CYL»(ESORT) » » CONTIG) sUNIT=SYSDA SPACE=(CYL » (ESGRT) o2»CONTIG) sUNIT=(SYSDA>» »SEP=( SORTWKOIL) ) UNIT=OISK SPACE=( CYL 0 (FE SORT) » »CONTIG) sUNIT=(SYSDAe eSEP=(SORTWKOL © SORTWKO2)) DSN=SYS4eSASeLOADELEVEL »DI SP=SHR OSN=* eLIBRARY»DISP=(OLD»sPASS) eUNIT=SYSDA, VOL =REF=* eLIBRARY SYSOUT=* ,~OCB=BUFNUD=1 UNIT=SYSDAeSPACE=(TRK» (240.80) ) OSN=WV1D90100e¢YIDOLe QUADATAeCCNTL e®DISP=OLD * B-64 CEP 5.4 THE BLM DATA Sara How the BLM Data is Read into the Program The BLM data is read into the program from tape. The program as written requires that a JCL card with DONAME BLMDATA be supplied pointing to the tape containing the raw data. The data is on File One of the IBM Standard Label Tape with Volumn Serial Number: NOSC. The data set name is BLMDATA. The tape is written at 6,250 BPI with a logical record length of 80 characters, anda block size of 3120. There are 15,599 card image records. Each record contains five variables. They are: Site number (see Figure 5-7), season, species (see Q15 in Section 5.3.2), low-density estimate, and high-density estimate. The codes are as follows: Winter = 1, Spring = 2, Summer = 3, and Fall = 4. The data is not column dependent and can be read with SPSS using freefield input or SAS using list input. Sara How the BLM Data Was Derived The following is a direct quotation from the BLM report explaining the deriva- tion of their data: NB) 6 Data Analysis From the onset of this study we have intended to correlate cetacean abundance, distribution, and movement with measurable features of the physical environment. Some of these features such as bottom topography, bottom slope, water depth, and distance from mainland are fixed in time and space and are constants. Others, such as sea surface temperature, wind direction and velocity are seasonal and variable. We divided the Southern California Bight (SCB) into nine zones or subunits of similar ecogeographic types. We further divided the study area into 1,000 quadrat blocks of five minutes latitude by five minutes longitude for which water depth, bottom slope, and distance factors were determined and entered into the computer file. ‘ CEP ce OES e ee see | SUNN ONY SINVINE Os Sav) => € j l SY ur For oe a ee We SY Ww Fo FOOSE ae HREEce aN LS seco rral|eaiza] | | opie] | | Cx {au wail gai LLI}9Lt | N4.llen)| zi Sl GULL] Fl} Sue yi | el) go'| £01 [901] sot | +or Gai gb Lb 9G Sb Heeb eh ob | TT © lez] zz} zl al a9 B-66 To determine whether our shipboard and aerial transect coverage adequately sampled the SCB and the full range of environmental gradients found within the study area, we determined the frequency distribution of these variable characteristics for all 1,000 quadrats and compared these statistically with the same parameters represented by, for example, transect lines. Chi-square analysis showed no statistical difference between the range of environmental parameters sampled in our transects and that of all the quadrats in the SCB. We therefore conclude that our shipboard and aerial transects adquately sampled the environmental vari- ables with no significant bias. Since seasonal and geographical variations and sea surface temper- atures affect the potential availability of cetacean prey, and therefore cetacean distribution, we mapped water temperatures along our Survey tracks for each period and each trip. Surface temperatures were measured hourly from the ship with a through-hull thermometer calibrated with a bucket thermometer. For offshore or coastal areas or quadrats not visited on a particular trip, we referred to maps generated by the U.S. Coast Guard aerial surveys and the biweekly temperature projections published by the National Marine Fisheries Service. Temperatures to .5°C were assigned to each quadrat for a given survey period and entered into the permanent computer files. The resultant computer-generated maps were used to obtain mean sea surface temperature profiles throughout the Bight and in each zone for comparison of cetacean densities with the above stated environmental factors. For each cruise or flight series a battery of computer data output was produced: 1) a chronological listing of all cetacean sightings including species, number of individuals, and locations, 2) a listing by specific location (quadrat) of all cetacean sightings, density and num- bers, 3) a generated cetacean density map of the entire Baghitee v4 )ira computer-generated graphic display Bight-wide of cetacean density in relation to environmental factors, 5) a computer-generated level of effort map indicating quadrats visited and number of visitations. Stepwise multiple linear regression programs were designed to detect and rank those environmental features which related significantly to variation in cetacean density. The output of the regression program, carried out on an IBM 360 computer, determined which environmental features best predicted geographic variation in density. Independent variables entered into the regression analysis included water depth, sea surface temperature, bottom slope, distance to nearest land, distance to mainland, as well as the inverse of these variables. If density along the transect line was functionally related to some variables, for instance, water depth, its measured value would be expected to increase or decrease with an increase or decrease in the value of the independent variable. This analysis calculated a sequence of equations beginning with regres- sion of density against that single variable that made the greatest reduction in the error sums of squares and continuing to rank and include variables until no additional variation in density could be explained. ne CGP The validity of the completed equation was then measured by an F test of the significance of each regression coefficient. The use of the regression equation as a predictive tool was determined from the multiple R valug or the coefficient of determination value, R When the multiple R or R value was large enough to indicate a substantial portion of the density variation from quadrat to quadrat was accounted for by the regression relationship, the equation was then used to interpolate from our sample to the entire study area. This step consisted of sequentially substitut- ing the value found at the quadrat midpoint for each statistically significant variable into the regression equation in order to calculate an expected density in this specific location. This interpolation procedure was carried out for each of the 1,000 quadrats following each ship or aerial transect survey and resulted in a picture of how and in what numbers animals were distributed within the study area at the time of the survey. Interpolations, however, did not extend into waters that were insufficiently sampled (Fig. III-41). Comments on population enumerators It is generally agreed that aerial surveys of terrestrial wildlife yield underestimates of total populations. The reliability of aerial Surveys, when utilized in the marine environment, becomes even more difficult to assess. Cetacea generate their own set of handicaps to the investigator engaged in population surveys. First, to be counted, the animal must be at or near the surface; the smaller species of cetacea surface every 3-4 minutes or so, while the large ones may not surface for 10-12 minutes or considerably longer. Secondly, when cetacea are disturbed or "flushed" they, unlike birds, move downward in the water and become unavailable for enumeration. Finally, it is well known that schooling cetacea are stacked or layered in the water column so that only some portion of the school are at the surface at any one time. Each of these phenomena indeed add to the probability that population numbers are underestimated, and/or that entire schools pass uncounted. Although aware of these conditions which lead to probable underesti- mation, no attempt was made to establish a "fudge" factor for those animals flushing away from the line of sight or those below the surface at the time of the count. The rationale for this is twofold: we are more comfortable with "hard" numbers (those representing actually observed animals), and any arrived at "fudge" factor would only fit one of many sets of conditions, leading to a series of such factors, each more suspect than the last. Secondly, since any future surveys or mon- itoring attempts will be faced with the same vexing conditions of flushing, layering, and surface time, it seems reasonable for the sake of comparability to utilize only observed numbers and relative indices of abundance, rather than lean too heavily upon absolute population estim- ates arrived at in a questionable or non-reproducible manner. A usual assumption made during a census of this type is that the transect lines or search areas are randomly selected. Such was not the case in this survey; our transect lines were fixed and we considered : ECEP ease jnoyBnosy} Ayisudg payoalosy dew bdS Jy uoleindog PajdalOjg |BJOJ Pue S$d1}ISUBQ P|aldI!OI1q JO SOURWWNS 8U07 JO a|Gey uolenb3 uolssasbay yn 0} Buipsooae y90/q pub “‘Buoj-je| .¢x.g yors 0} sanjea Ajisuap ubissy *sounpesoud sishjeue pus Bulssoooid ajep JO UO!}EJUaSosde/ B)\OWEYDS * by-Il] oUNGLYy jueoyiuBis AWEINSNEIS uoleso; Aq Ayisuag paruasqo dew uonenb uolssolbay ajdijnyy uolNeoo; Aq Aysuag Ppanasqo jsiq uanyeooj/ayep Aq SOZIS AUQIOD - G1OJIP] ASuLysip - Aydribodo) woyjoq - YIdon salem - auNjesudwa) Jajum Byep sayorag Isiq | [anasne | BAUudy werd 40\UQ _S|P]UAWUOJIAUZ.. (sy901q Buo| — jr} (uoNe2o) ‘aren hes py pue sajqeiea juapuad OL 40) a6cudAe 2) ‘saigads) sBunygig | 5) apooug yoday bunybis -apu; jsulebe Ayisuaq yuawbas joasurs) Aq U | suoIssaiBay seduly BIGUINA ISIMdI\S Ayisuap ajejnojeg (UOljLd0] ‘a)ep) ejep JejUdWUOJIAUG 69 that the highly mobile animals were the random element. We know that we violate this premise, since these animals are not randomly distributed but as social animals are found in aggregations, and this very patchiness of sightings leads to additional problems with statistical analyses. Another assumption that must be made in a survey of this nature is that the estimate of distance from transect line to target is accurate. Estimation of distances over open water with no landmarks for guidance is extremely difficult and the precision of estimations of distance must be in doubt. However, whatever error or bias that might exist in our dis- tance estimation should be consistent, since the method of the distance estimation was the same from observer to observer. For an enumerator to be effective and consistent, the probability of detection of each target must be the same and the detection of one target should not lead to the detection of additional targets. For cetacea this is not the case; small schools may be detected by the behavior (e.g. aerial behavior) of a single animals, while large schools may be located from the actions of only a small proportion of the group. Other variables which may aid or hinder the "see-ability" of cetacea are the animal's size, color, or type of movement. In addition, environ- mental factors such as sun angle, light levels, glare, sea state, and visibility all contribute to the probability of detection. And we have yet to consider observer bias. Does he see more when fresh at the start of a day's survey; does the sighting of one school "perk" him up so that he is more likely to see subsequent groups? We know that on many, if not all, occasions we have violated from three to five of the assumptions necessary to maintain the statistical accuracy for any line transect theory, and realize we probably grossly underestimate or "undersee" the number of cetacea on any survey. In spite of these errors in methodology, common to all current survey tech- niques, we present five common methods of computatign for determining the relative abundance of cetacea. Animal densities/nm” from each of the five formulae are then extrapolated to arrive at Bight-wide estimtes of populations. Each of the formulae is outline in turn below, followed by consideration of the most useful and reasonable method to assess realis- tic population numbers. Formula #1. Index of Abundance: N = Index transect length x path width where N = number of animals observed; where L (transect length) = linear distance flown in nm; Where W (path width) = right angle distance off flight line which observer scanned. If each side of aircraft was manned by observers, right angle distance is doubled. In this formula right angle distance was considered to be 1 nm and, since both sides * (el of the aircraft were manned, the path width distance was called 2 nm. Example: Let N = 350 L = 2,034 nm W = wonm e350 = 0.086 animals/nm- 7,034 x 2 This density of 0.086 sqm) 9/09) , when extrapolated to the area surveyed (25,000 nm~), yields an estimated abundance of 2,150 animals in a ScB. Formula #1 is fundamentally the same as Eberhardt 1968, the estimator used by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in their Alaskan bird surveys, and the uncorrected or raw estimator referred to by Wiens et al. 1977. The only difference between these estimators is in path width utilized by each investigator. It is also the estimator we initially utilized until sufficient data were assembled for us to question the validity of a 2 nm wide observed path width. Other investigators have utilized an inverted form of this formula, mistakenly believing that the resultant computations yielded animal density per unit,area squared, when in actuality their formula yielded the number of nm traveled to locate one animal. Formula #2. Animals observed/linear nm: N ———_—____———— = animals/linear nm transect length where N = number of animals observed; where L (transect length) = linear distance flown in nm. Example: Let N = 350 L = 2,034 nm 2350 = OL 72 /Alinearinm 2,034 This formula is useful only as a relative index of abundance and may be used under circumstances where the path width is unbounded or when obser- vational conditions very substantially during a transect or from transect to transect. However, the denisty figure obtained should not be extra- polated to area-wide population estimates, since path width is not avail- able. This method of computation has extremely limited applications, but is presented for comparison's sake and since it has been utilized by investigators in the past. B-71 CEP Formula #3. 90% sighting distance: N = density transect length x 90% sighting distance where N = number of animals observed; where L (transect length) = linear distance flown in nm; where 90% sighting distance = right angle distance within which 90% of sightings occur. This 90% distance is obtained from records kept of right angle distance to sighting. If both sides of aircarft are manned, the distance is doubled. In this study the 90% right angle distance was determined to be 0.48 nm. Therefore in this formula 0.96 nm was used Since both sides of the aircraft were manned. Example: Let N = 350 L = 2,034 nm 90% distance = 0.96 nm 5 350. = 0.179/nm* "2,034 x 0.96 This density figure of 0.179 animals/nm¢, when extrapolated to the area surveyed (25,000 nm’), yields an estimated abundance of 4,475 animals in the Bight. Note that the density figure in this formula does not differ greatly from that derived from formula #2. Formula #3 is an inhouse modification of Formula #1, adjusting the path width downward, as a result of our review of the initial sighting data. Formula #4. Percent of area surveyed ratio: Ratio = % of Bight surveyed: N :: 100% of Bight : X where % of Bight surveyed = nm flown x 0.96 nm (path width when both sides of aircraft are manned) divided by area of the Bight; where N = number of animals observed. : ECP Example: Let L (transect length) = 2,034 nm 9 Bight area = 25,000 nm % surveyed = 7.8 N = 350 X = Bight-wide population Dep) Oli SOOM el OO) cay X 7.8x = 35,000 x = 4,487 This simplistic ratio yields population estimates that are in significant agreement with figures obtained using either formula #2 or #3. Its usefulness may also be extended to smaller geographic zones where the assumed range of a species may be less than the entire study area. Formula #5. Gates I; N- 1 = density AEN ETE ¢ where N = number of animals observed; where L = linear distance flown in nm, multipled by 2 if both sides of the aircraft are manned. where x= the mean of right angle sightings distances, obtained from records kept at the right angle distance to each sighting from transect line. Example: Let N = 350 L = 2,034 nm x= 0.25 nm . 350 - 1 = 0.34 animals/nm® OC Mer Osa One 5 The above g = 0.34, when extrapolated to the area of the SCB (25,000 nm“), yields an estimated abundance of 8,500 animals. These figures for d and Bight-wide abundance are approximately double those obtained in formulae #2, #3, or #4. Formula #5, utilizing the mean right-angle sighting distance, appears to artifically inflate the animal density number by drawing al] sightings into a very narrow corridor, in this case 0.25 nm wide. General remarks on data analysis Throughout the remainder of this report and within the individual species accounts, animal density and area-wide population estimates are ‘ Cer computed using Formula #3. This formula seems to combine the advantages of a line transect estimator with that of a strip survey. It gave these investigators some degree of confidence that computed estimates generally agreed with our feel for the numbers and densities of the animals seen. There remains a basic schism between choosing a conservative but realistic formula for computation of density and area-wide population estimates on one hand, and, on the other, the sure knowledge that we are underestimating actual population numbers with existent survey methods. There is no reason to believe that new improved or more precise survey methodologies will become available in the foreseeable future. There- fore, we prefer to maintain a more conservative reproducible data analysis technique that will allow subsequent investigators to reasonably compare their data base and those data collected during this three-year study. Total population numbers would be of considerable interest, but we believe they are unobtainable at this time. To monitor the health of the cetacean community and to look at future population trends, seasonal sampling will probably be the method of choice. Given that actual popula- tion numbers are unknowable, a rigorous and reproducible sampling tech- nique would appear to be the method of choice." 55 THE TAPE The tape supplied with this report is an IBM Standard Label Tape. It is written at 6,250 BPI. It contains three files whose DCBs are; PREECE) =hio0 BLKSIZE = 3120 RECEMai =i iB File One contains BLM data described in the previous section. The data set name is BLMDATA. It is 400 blocks in length. File Two contains the SAS program to analyze data from sighting cards. The data set name is SIGHT.CARD.PGM. The data set is 19 blocks long. File Three contains the SAS program to analyze data from in-person interviews. The data set name is INTER.VIEW.PGM. The data set is 8 blocks long. i CEP 56 SAMPLE RUNS WITH IMAGINARY DATA Both the in-person historical interview program and the sighting card program were tested by running them with imaginary data. The output from these sample runs are shown on the computer printout sheets. i CEP Section 6 THE PILOT PROGRAM 6.1 CONTACTS AND COMMUNICATIONS WITH OIL COMPANIES VS Mba al Introduction Obtaining the cooperation of the oil companies turned out to be the single most serious difficulty encountered in conducting this program. Lack of oil company support was not anticipated, because initial contact with oil company biologists and executives was positive. The difficulty seems to come at the level of the immediate supervisors in charge of platform work. The problem obtaining support from oi] company employees at that level seems to be related to several factors: 1. They are busy people, and it is easier to say no than yes. 2. They are afraid that the men under their supervision will turn into whale watchers and their output will decrease. 3. They have anti-envrionmentalist sentiments. The lack of cooperation from the oil company supervisors caused several dif- ficulties in implementing the Pilot Interview Program: ys It took us much longer than anticipated to arrange permission to use the platforms. B-76 CCE 2. We had to modify our program to meet the restrictions of the oil companies. 0il companies were willing to cooperate in different ways and, consequently, the program was implemented differently at different platforms. 3. Lack of enthusiastic support from the oi] companies made it more difficult for us to elicit cooperation from the workers than we had anticipated. We were generally tolerated rather than supported, and the men usually were not encouraged by their supervisors to fill out the cards. In the one case where we did have enthusiastic support from the immediate supervisor (Aminoil) we got an encouraging number of sighting cards filled out. The lack of support from the oil companies may make this method of obtaining information on marine mammals around platforms unfeasible. On the other hand, it is hoped that this difficulty may evaporate as the program proceeds. When the oi] company supervisors discover that the program does not interfere with work, they may become more willing to cooperate. In addition, the oil companies which initially refused to support the program may change their minds when they are shown that the program has worked on other platforms. GpuleZ Detailed Account of Communications with Oi] Companies Appendix A contains copies of all written correspondence between Chambers Consultants and Planners (CCP) and oil companies. 6.1.2.1 Aminoil (Platform Emmy) Contacts: Steve Stephens - Construction Supervisor (714) 540-8787 Ext. 265 Louis Kastroff - Crew Foreman (714) 540-8787 Ext. 272 R.L. Goggins = Head of Production (714) 540-8787 " CEP Aminoil USA, Inc. Golden West and Ocean Avenue PaOSmBOxwl Oi Huntington Beach, California 92648 Initial contact with Aminoil was made through Steve Stephens whom we had worked with on a previous job. CCP met with Stephens and Crew Foreman, Louis Kastroff, and they reviewed the questionnaire and sighting cards. They said they thought the platform workers would have no problems with either format. Stephens informed Head of Production, R.C. Goggins, of our program, and we sent Goggins a formal letter. Mr. Goggins approved the program on the condition that we did not interrupt workers' schedules. The interviews were initially conducted at the Aminoil heliport on December 23, 1980. Mr. Kastroff was on vacation and Ed Taylor was acting as foreman. Mr. Taylor permitted us to conduct our program but was negative about it and seemed wary of “environmentalists." Further interviews were conducted at the Aminoil heliport on January 15, 1981. Mr. Kastroff had returned from vacation. He was very supportive and told us that he had actively been encouraging his workers to fill out the sighting cards. 6.1.2.2 Shell Oil (Shell Beta Unit) Contacts: Claude F. Martin - Staff Engineer of Pacific Division (715) 879-2466 Entex Building 1200 Milan P30) Box: 527 Houston, Texas 7/7001 Tom Hartnet - Construction Supervisor (213) 435-3783 ) CCE Chet J. Frazier = Production Superintendent (805) 648-2751 P.O. Box 92047 Worldway Center Los Angeles, California 90009 Initial contact was with Claude Martin whom CCP had worked with on another job. Mr. Martin contacted Tom Hartnet who agreed to let us conduct the program. CCP then got in touch with Hartnet who said he had no problems with the proposed program but he had to check with Chet Frazier. Mr. Frazier called CCP and said he did not want to conduct the program until the end of January because the workers at the platform were too busy. CCP discussed the matter with Mr. Martin who instructed Frazier to find a way to accommodate the program. CCP met with Mr. Frazier and discussed the interview program. Mr. Frazier said that he thought he could help us best by emphasizing the sighting cards rather than trying to accommodate both sighting cards and interviews. He provided sighting cards to the workers on the Beta platforms and they have sent these completed cards to CCP. So far we have received two completed cards. 6.1.2.3 ARCO (Platform Holly) Contacts: June Lindstedt Siva - Senior Science Advisor (213) 486-0741 515 Flower Street Los Angeles, California 90071 Bob Carlson P.O. Box 2540 Goleta, California 93010 Initial contact was with June Lindstedt Siva. Dr. Siva was supportive of the interview program, and said that she had previously initiated a program to a CEP collect scientific data from workers on oil platforms. Her program had also involved filling out observaiton sheets. She said her program had worked fine until the workers got very busy. At that point they ceased to take the time to fill out her sheets. Dr. Siva put us in touch with Bob Carlson who is in charge of operations. He suggested that we make a formal written request. He responded to our letter by saying he felt that they were too busy at the time to accommodate the interview program. 6.1.2.4 Union Oi] (Platforms A, B, and C) Contacts: Ken Guziak - Biologist (805) 659-0130 Ray M. Barnds - District Operations Manager (805) 659-0130 P.O. Box 6176 Ventura, California 93006 Initial contact was with Ken Guziak who supported the program. He put us in touch with Ray Barnds. Subsequent communications were with both Mr. Barnds and Mr. Guziak. Mr. Barnds kept saying that he had to have more information about the program before he could make a decision. These communications extended over a period of approximately 3 months. Finally, Mr. Barnds turned down our request on the basis that use of the posters and questionnaires would require extensive training of Union platform workers. One useful suggestion that Mr. Barnds made was that we prepare a written handout to explain the program to workers before beginning the interviews. We prepared such a handout, and it is included in Appendix A. 6.1.2.5 Chevron (Platfomis Hilda, Hazel, Hope, and Heidi) Contacts: Beth P. Johnke - Engineering Assistant (415) 894-6105 = CEP 575 Market Street San Francisco, California 94105 John Herring - Operation Foreman 1253 Coast Village Road Santa Barbara, California 93108 W.D. Edman - Division Manager P.O. Box 605 La Habra, California 90631 Initial contact was with Beth Johnke whom CCP had worked for on another job. She was supportive of the program and put us in touch with John Herring. John Herring did not want us on the platforms but he was willing to let us conduct interviews and put out posters on Chevron Pier. CCP wrote a formal letter to Division Manager, W.D. Edman, to confirm Mr. Herring's position. Ge IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PILOT PROGRAM 4261 Aminoil Platform Emmy (Huntington Beach) The pilot program was begun on December 23, 1980, at 0700 at the Aminoil heliport. Workers on Platform Emmy take the helicopter out to the platform at this time. On December 23, it was too foggy for the helicopter to fly, and the workers were preparing to drive to the harbor to take a boat to the platform. Two scientists from CCP and a scientist from NOSC interviewed the workers before they left for the boat dock. The workers had not been alerted that the interview program was going to take place, and the interviewers had to explain it to them. A few of the workers did not want to talk, but most were coopera- tive. A few of the workers, especially the older ones who had been working on the platform a long time, had good whale stories to tell. The tape recorders proved to be very useful in these instances. Posters and sighting cards were : CEP put up in the room where the men wait for the helicopter. One of the workers offered to put the posters and boxes on the platform itself and acting foreman, Ed Taylor, said that he would prefer if the interviewers did not go out to the platform. The interviewers returned at 1430 on the same day to catch the swing shift which goes out to the platform at this time. It was still too foggy to fly and, apparently, the men had gone directly to the boat dock. There were only a couple of people around to interview. Two scientists from CCP returned to the Aminoil heliport at 1430 in the after- noon of January 15, 1981. The posters were still up in the room but the sighting card box had apparently fallen down and was set on a bench. There was one completed sighting card in it. Workers coming in and going out for the shift change were interviewed, but there were fewer of them than there had been for the morning shift. Apparently, less men work the swing shift. At the time of the second interview, the men were aware of the program because they had seen the boxes and posters and had heard about the program from crew foreman, Louis Kastroff, as well as other workers. One CCP scientist returned to the Aminoil heliport on February 3, 1981 and collected six completed sighting cards from the sighting card box. The program seems to be working relatively well at Platform Emmy. 6.2.2 Shell Beta Platforms (Huntington Beach The pilot program at the Shell Beta Platforms was implemented by putting out Sighting cards only. No interviews were administered, because Production Superintendent, Chet Frazier, felt that it was better to concentrate on only One method. He made the sighting cards available to the workers on the Shel] Beta Platforms. Two completed sighting cards were sent to CCP. Shell did not provide any input as to how the program was received by the workers. i. CEP 558 RESULTS 6.3.1 Results of In-Person Historical Interviews 6.3.1.1 Analysis of Questionnaires The analysis of the data from the Historical Interview Questionnaires is shown on a computer printout sheet. The pilot program analyzed questionnaires from the interviews at Platfornn Emmy, as well as questionnaires from interviews conducted by NOSC personnel at Platforms Holly and Hondo in the Santa Barbara Channel. A total of 30 questionnaires were analyzed. There was too little data for valid statistical analysis of most of the information. Not only were there a small number of questionnaires filled out from each platform (1 for Holly, 12 from Hondo, 17 from Emmy). but in many cases the interviewer did not answer all the questions. The interviews did clearly show that oil platform workers see all three cate- gories of marine mammals from the platforms, and that in many cases these marine mammals come close to the platforms. 75 percent of the workers said that they were interested in the marine life around the platforms. From these data, no relationship could be detected between the distance the marine mammals occurred from the platform and the activity on the platform. For Platform Emmy, there was a significant relationship (chi square test) between the length of time a worker had been employed on the platform and his frequency of marine mammal sightings. Those who had been working on Emmy longer stated that they saw marine mammals more frequently. No significant relationship could be detected between a worker's job and his frequency of sightings. For large whales, 31.2 percent of the Emmy workers said that they had seen many, 37.5 percent said that they had seen a few, 6.2 percent said that they had seen one, and 25 percent said that they had seen none. Uf those who could name the kind of whale they thought they had seen 87.5 percent said they had seen gray whales, and one worker (12.5 percent) said he had seen a humpback. Since humpback whales are unusual in the San Pedro area (the BLM i CEP recorded none on the San Pedro quadrats), this was probably a misidentification. 12.5 percent of the workers who had seen a whale (s) said that it was within 10 yards of Platform Emmy, 62.5 percent said it was about 100 yards away from the platform, 12.5 percent said 200 yards away, and 12.5 percent said it was 1,760 yards away. 45.5 percent of the Platform Emmy workers said that they saw whales throughout the day, 36.4 percent said they saw them at midday, 9.1 percent said they saw them at dawn or dusk, and 9.1 percent said they did not remember when they had seen them. 80 percent of the workers said they saw whales in the winter, 10 percent said they saw them in the fall, and 10 percent said they could not remember. 36.4 percent of the workers said the whales they saw were alone, 36.4 percent said the whales they saw were in groups, and 27.3 percent said they had seen both solitary whales and groups of whales. For the direction the whales were traveling, 57.1 percent of the workers said mostly upcoast, and 42.9 percent said mostly downcoast. None of the workers noticed any relationship between activity on the platform and whale behavior. 85.7 percent said the platform was drilling when they saw the whales and 14.3 percent said the platform was in production. Of the Platform Emmy workers. 14.3 percent had seen no dolphins or porpoises from the platforms, 14.3 percent had seen one dolphin or porpoise, 35.7 percent had seen a few, and 35.7 percent had seen many. Only one worker could name a Species. That worker thought he had seen a Pacific white-sided dolphin. 16.7 percent of the Emmy workers said the dolphons or porpoises were within 20 yards of the platform, 33.3 percent said they were 50 yards away, 16.7 percent said they were 100 yards away, 16.7 percent said they were 440 yards away, and 16.7 percent said they were 1,760 yards away. 33.3 percent of the workers saw porpoises at dawn or dusk, 41.7 percent saw them at midday, and 25 percent said they saw dolphins or porpoises throughout the day. For time of year of porpoise sightings, 33.3 percent of the workers could not remember, 25 percent Saw porpoises in winter, 25 percent saw propoises in summer, 8.3 percent saw dolphins or porpoises in fall, and 8.3 percent saw dolphins or porpoises throughout the year. 70 percent of the workers reported that the dolphins or porpoises they saw were moving upcoast, and 30 percent reported the ones they Saw were moving downcoast. All dolphins or porpoises sighted from Platform Emmy had been in groups. No worker had noticed any relationship between : Gel. behavior and platform activity. 62.5 percent of the workers said the platforn was drilling when they saw the dolphins, and 37.5 percent said the platform was in production. 15.4 percent of the workers interviewed had seen no seals or sea lions from Platform Emmy, 46.1 percent had seen a few, and 53.8 percent had seen many. 75 percent of the workers who had seen seals or sea lions said the seal or sea lion was within 3 yards of the platform and 25 percent said the seal or sea lion was within 50 yards. 11.1 percent of the workers could not remember what time of day they saw seals or sea lions, 22.2 percent said they saw them at midday, 55.6 percent said they saw them throughout the day, and 11.1 percent said they saw them at night. 77.8 percent of the workers saw seals or sea lions throughout the year, while 11.1 percent said summer, and 11.1 percent could not remember. 55.6 percent of the workers reported seeing a single seal or sea lion, 11.1 percent had seen a group, and 33.3 percent had seen seals and sea lions both alone and in groups. None of the workers could recall seeing seals or sea lions moving in any particular direction. 80 percent of the workers said seal or sea lion behavior was unrelated to work on the platform and one worker (20 percent) said he had noted a relationship. All of the workers who had seen seals or sea lions reported that the platform was drilling at the time. The one worker interviewed from Platform Holly was a crewboat skipper who said he often saw marine mammals. He had seen a few large whales, mostly grays, at varying distances from the platform. He reported that he saw whales throughout the day. The whales were usually moving downcoast alone or in pairs. He had not noted any relationship between whale behavior and work on the platforn. He had seen many dolphins or porpoises at varying distances from the platform. He usually saw the dolphins or porpoises at dawn or dusk. They were always in groups. He could not remember the time of year he had seen them or the direc- tion they were moving in. He had seen many seals and sea lions near Holly. He had seen both California sea lions and harbor seals. They had been close to the platform and he saw them throughout the day and throughout the year. The seals and sea lions occurred both singly and in groups and moved in all directions. He had not noticed any relationship between seal and sea lion i CEP behavior and work on the platform. For Platform Hondo, there was not a significant relationship between length of employment on the platform and frequency of marine mammal sightings, although, workers who had been employed longer did see marine mammals more frequently. Of the Platform Hondo workers interviewed, 22.2 percent had seen no large whales, 11.1 percent had seen one, 55.6 percent had seen a few, and 11.1 percent had seen many. All those who could name a species said they had seen gray whales. 40 percent of the \iorkers had seen the whales within 880 yards of Hondo while 60 percent said the whales had been 2,640 yards away. 66.7 percent of the workers reported seeing whales throughout the day, 22.2 percent saw whales at dawn or dusk, and 11.1 percent could not remember what time of day they had seen whales. For time of year of whale sightings, 45.5 percent of the workers could not remember, 45.5 percent said winter, and 9.1 percent said throughout the year. All of the workers who had seen whales said the whales were alone and none of the workers could remember what direction the whales were moving in. None of the workers had noticed any relationship between the whales and platform activity. In all cases in which whales were seen, Hondo was drilling. 58.3 percent of the Hondo workers had seen a few dolphins or porpoises, 8.3 per- cent had seen one, and 33.3 percent had seen none. 62.5 percent of the workers had seen the dolphins or porpoises at dawn or dusk, while 37.5 percent had seen them throughout the day. None of the workers could remember the time of year of the dolphin or porpoise sighting or what direction the animals had been moving in. 62.5 percent of the workers said the dolphins or porpoises were in groups, while 37.5 percent had seen solitary animals. None of the workers had noticed any relationship between dolphin or porpoise behavior and platform activity. All of the workers interviewed on Platforn Hondo reported seeing many seals or sea lions. All the workers said they saw the seals or sea lions throughout the day and throughout the year. 88.9 percent of the workers reported seeing both single animals and groups while 11.1 percent said the seals or sea lions were in groups. 33.3 percent of the workers thought there was a relationship between seal or sea lion behavior and platform activity. CGE 6.3.1.2 Additional Anecdotes and Observaitons from Interviews Direct quotations of comments, observations, and anecdotes which were volun- teered by the workers during the in-person historical interviews follow. All these quotations were from workers on Oil Platform Emmy. "T've seen California gray whales carrying their young on their back." "I'd say I'd seen more gray whales when they were coming back home." "IT haven't seen the dolphins and propoises as close to the platform as the whales." "There's a lot of sea lions." "There was a whale washed in from the beach last week." "I see porpoises all the time going through the waves going out on the helicopter." "Don't forget our pet seal." "There was a whale about a half mile out, just blowing steam, gasping for aulitwene "IT see seals out there all the time. They're always trying to get the mackerals. They're just right next to the platforn swimming around - big brown ones. They go Swimming around those pylons - in between ‘em - they just play around out there. You see a lot of them when we take the boat like right now from Long Beach. You see them sitting on those rocks. They try to get fish around the platform. There's a lot of fish around there. I saw one dead on the beach about 8 or 10 months ago - just right over there." "There used to be more marine mammal sightings than there have been the last few years." CEP "This time of year the whales are moving and we see them." "The whales kind of hung by out there at certain times of the year." "There is this one place the gray whales hang around. I've seen seven or eight at a time out there. These migrating whales do some unusual stunts out there. They dive and jump. It seems as if when they go away they come right back to tnis one place. There must be something out there. The area is about half a mile due south of the platform." "Whales come right up to the platform. This baby whale was laying on the back of its mother." "This whale dived underneath the buoy. We could see its tail near the chain. He might have been rubbing up against the chain." "T saw three whales go right underneath the heliport. They were gray whales for sure." "IT very seldom see porpoises near the rig." "Seven or 8 years ago, seals would come in quite regularly and climb on the buoys and boat landings. In the last year or so you hardly see any anymore. I don't know why." "T've seen little bitty harbor seals get upon the sportfishing boats tied to the buoys and the fishermen feed them." "IT saw a seal once on our boat landing that had a puncture in his side that looked like a bullet hole. A guy stepped down onto the boat landing and scared the seal which made a big noise and dived into the water." "As far as seeing seals or sea lions, I haven't seen that many." "T haven't seen anything since you started this program." ‘i CEP "We see the whales migrate once in a while, but you have to catch them. They are at a distance." The following comment comes from Platform Hondo: "When the big boats come up to the platform the sea lions leave for awhile, but they come back soon" 6.3.2 Results from Sighting Cards The computer output from the analysis of the sighting cards from the pilot program is shown in one of the computer printout sheets. Only 10 sighting cards were returned in the pilot program. Unfortunately, in most of the cases there were not enough boxes checked for an identification of the marine mammal to be made. Consequently, the computer analysis did not yield much useful information. The one identification the program did make was of a right whale. This is probably a misidentification since right whales are very rare in southern California. The problem is that some of the characteristics on the sighting card call for subjective detenninations on the part of the observer (i.e., broad and rounded versus blunt and rounded). If a large number of cards are collected, these problems should be overwhelmed by the sheer volume of data. When there are just a few cards, analysis by scientists, rather than computer, will probably yield more useful information. Three of the seven workers who filled out cards from Platform Emmy saw gray whales. Two of the whales were seen at 1100 (on different days) and one worker did not specify the time of his observation. One whale was 150 yards from the platform, one was 300 yards, and one worker did not specify. Estimates of noise at the time of observation ranged from 3 to 5 ona scale of 10. Two of the whales were shoreward of the platform and one was seaward. Two of the whales were traveling downcoast and one was going upcoast. In no case did the whales change direction while the worker was watching. Two of the workers saw Single whales and one saw a pair. None of the whales showed their flukes. One whale dived a lot and milled around in the same area. 7 CEP Two of the seven sighting cards filled out from Platform Emmy were for dolphin or porpoise sightings. One worker guessed he had seen Pacific dolphins and the other thought he had seen common dolphins. Neither checked enough character- istics to be sure of the identification. The worker who thought he saw common dolphons apparently made two sightings between 1600 and 1700 the same day. The platform was doing nomial well work and noise was estimated to be 4 to 6 on a scale of 10. One group of dolphins were 50 yards from the platform and one group were 500 yards. One group was seaward of the platform and the other was upcoast. Both groups were traveling upcoast. The worker indicated that the dolphins changed direction towards the platform while he was watching. One group had about 20 animals in it and one had 100. They did not swim rapidly. They swam slowly and low in the water and milled around in the same area. They did not jump high out of the water but they did jump out of the water frequently. The worker who thought he saw Pacific dolphins made his sighting at 1430. The platform was coring and the worker esimated noise as 7 on a scale of 1 to 10. The dolphins were 20 yards shoreward of the platform. The animals were moving toward shore and did not change direction. The worker estimated that there were 75 dolphins in the herd. They swam rapidly and jumped high out of the water. One sighting card from Emmy was for seals and sea lions. The worker said he saw one sea lion, about 12 feet long, and several gray seals. "The sea lion was on board for four straight days. The seals are on board regularly. The sea lion didn't look like an elephant seal but was huge and aggressive." Two of the three sighting cards filled out for the Shell Beta Platforms were for gray whale sightings. One observation was made at 1300. The whale was 400 yards shoreward froin the platform and platform noise was estimated as 7 on a 1 to 10 scale. The whale was traveling downcoast and changed direction towards the platform while the worker was watching. The whale jumped out of the water and slapped its tail. It swam on the surface most of the time. The other gray whale observation was made from a helicopter and the whales were 2 miles upcoast from the Beta Platforms. A group of six was seen at 1530. . CGF They were traveling upcoast and did not change direction. They jumped out of the water, slapped their tails and swam on the surface most of the time. There were baby whales in the group. The other sighting card from the Beta Platforms was for harbor seals and sea lions. Seals and sea lions are seen everyday of the week on the platform and the moorings, usually in the mornings. “ CEP Section 7 CONCLUSIONS The major unanticipated problem encountered in the pilot interview program was the difficulty in securing the cooperation of the oil companies. Lack of oil company support caused less data to be collected in the pilot program than had been anticipated. A great deal of time and effort was expended in trying to get permission to conduct "some sort of a program." In some cases permission was refused. In other cases, interviews were only permitted "if they didn't interfere with schedules." It was thus necessary to conduct hurried interviews with men on their way to or from work. Most of the men interviewed were interested and cooperative, however. Fewer sighting cards were returned than had been anticipated. Part of this lack of response may have been because men were not encouraged to cooperate. Response seemed to be picking up at Aminoil's Platform Emmy, however. Six cards were in the box the last time the platform was monitored. Because of the small amount of data, the computer program yielded little useful information. It is likely that some of the difficulties encountered in the pilot program will disappear as the interview program proceeds. Once the oil companies have been shown that the interview program can be conducted without interrupting the men's work, the companies may become more helpful. As the men fill out the sighting cards they will find that the process can be done easily and rapidly. The sighting cards will teach them what characteristics of marine mammals are important to look for, so that in the future they may be able to check more boxes which will enable the computer prograin to make more positive identifications. - CEP It is apparent from this pilot program that workers on oil platforms do frequently sight marine mammals around the platforms. Whether enough infor- mation can be collected by this method to provide useful data to help meet the objectives of NOSC's larger mission remains to be determined. i Cer Section 8 RECOMMENDATIONS Most of the difficulties encountered during the pilot interview program stem directly or indirectly from the lack of support of the oil companies. If the oil companies could be persuaded to actively cooperate, much more data could be collected. It might be possible to make participation in the interview program a mitigation measure for future offshore 01] exploration programs. Workers on Oi] Platform Emmy are beginning to fill out the sighting cards. These workers who have shown enough interest to fill out cards will probably continue to do so only if they are provided with some kind of encouragement and feedback. Otherwise, it might seem to them as if they are sending their cards out into a vacuum. One way to provide feedback would be to establish a whale watchers newsletter detailing some of the results of the program. The sighting cards could have a space for the observer to write his address if he were interested in receiving such information. i. CEP Appendix WRITTEN CORRESPONDENCE WITH OIL COMPANIES CEP October 7, 1980 (3005) Robert E, Carlson P.O. Box 2540 Goleta, California 93018 Dear Mr. Carlson: As I told you in our phone conversation on Qctober 6, our firm is acting as a consultant to the Naval Ocean Systems Center to develop a program to interview oil platform workers on their observations of marine mammals around oil and gas platforms. We would like to use Platform Holly for this study. The program would involve two scientists from our firm coming out for one day and interviewing as many workers as possible. We would hope that we could conduct these interviews without interfering with the men's work. Mr. Gealy of Arco's Environmental Sciences Division suggested that we might do the interviews during the boat ride to the platfrom. We would also like to put some posters on the platform, perhaps in the room where the men have their coffee. These posters would explain the program and give pointers on how to identify marine mammals. There will be a box with cards which we would request the men to fill out as soon as possible after seeing a marine mammal. We would then like to come back to Platform Holly two weeks after the initial visit and collect the filled out cards and interview as many workers as possible again. We would like to begin this program as soon as it is convenient. Thank you so much for your assistance in this matter, Sincerely, CHAMBERS CONSULTANTS AND PLANNERS (Cy & No&l Davis, Ph.D. Director of Biology TJ ' WO oO) CHAMBERS CONSULTANTS AND PLANNERS P.O. Box 356 - 10557 Beach Boulevard Stanton, California 90680 714/828-3324 one es a CHAMBERS CONSULTANTS AND PLANNERS We P.O. Box 356 - 10557 Beach Boulevard Stanton, California 90680 | | = 714/828-3324 Lt INN (ESSER eee oes z ° SRG od Nee gt Sa TS a ad es oe ete SSS ESTE a : = he ES 7 FED PETES S (aL eae hs 2 a a RR ST ad ON oo SF EE ELON FI IOS SBS TS Ee US OTS OTS ET LTD Pe — eee = — ee eee a ne a ae ee October 10, 1980 (3005) R.L. Goggins Aminoil U.S.A. Golden West and Ocean Avenue P.O. Box 191 Huntington Beach, California 92648 Dear Mr. Goggins: As Mr. Stephens has told you, our firm is acting as a consultant to the Naval Ocean Systems Center to develop a program to interview oil] platform workers on their observations of marine mammals around oil and gas platforms. We would like to use Platform Emmy for this study. The program would involve two scientists from our firm coming out for one day and interviewing as many workers as possible. We would hope that we could conduct these interviews without interfering with the men's work. We thought maybe we could try to catch them while they are waiting for the helicopter to take them to the platform. We would also like to put some posters on the platform, perhaps in the room where the men have their coffee. These posters would explain the program and give pointers on how to identify marine mammals. We would then like to come back two weeks after the initial visit and collect the filled out cards and interview as many workers as possible again. We would like to begin this program as soon as it is convenient. Thank you so much for your assistance in this matter. Sincerely, CHAMBERS CONSULTANTS AND PLANNERS n~ No@] Davis, Ph.D. Director of Biology ND: sg ff oy = Cs CHAMBERS CONSULTANTS AND PLANNERS P.O. Box 356 - 10557 Beach Boulevard Stanton, California 30680 714/828-3324 pe a a a 0 NN Oe iene TUTE AN EL EN. ee ES October 22, 1980 (3005) Union 011 Company P.0. Box 6176 Ventura, California 93006 Attention: Ken Guziak Dear Mr. Guziak: As Mel Chambers told you in your telephone conversation of October 21, our firm is acting as a consultant to the Naval Ocean Systems Center to develop a program to interview oil platform workers in their observations of marine mammals around oil and gas platforms. We would like to use two of Union Oil's Santa Barbara Channel platforms for this study. The program would involve two scientists from our firm coming out to each platform for one day and interviewing as many workers as possible. We would hope that we could conduct these interviews without iriterfering with the men's work. We would also like to put some posters in the platform, perhaps in the room were the men have their coffee. These posters would explain the program and give pointers as how to identify marine mammals. There will be a box with cards which we would request the men to fill out as soon as possible after seeing a marine mammal. We would then like to come back to each plat- form two weeks after the initial visit and collect the filled out cards and interview as many workers as possible again. We would like to begin this program as soon as it is convenient. Thanks so much for helping us. Sincerely, CHAMBERS CONSULTANTS AND PLANNERS -C No&l Davis Director of Biology ND:sg ae CHAMBERS CONSULTANTS AND PLANNERS ¢ P.O. Box 356 - 10557 Beach Boulevard Stanton, California 90680 714/828-3324 A es on ae cere ree ae November 14, 1980 (3005) Union Oi] Company P.O. Box 6176 Ventura, California 93006 Attention: Ken Guziak Dear Ken: Per your conservation with Mel Chambers on November 12, 1980, we are enclosing several questionnaires and photocopies of the proof for the posters. Sincerely, CHAMBERS CONSULTANTS AND PLANNERS Noél Davis, Ph.D Director of Biology ND:sg CHAMBERS CONSULTANTS AND PLANNERS P.O. Box 356 - 10557 Beach Boulevard Stanton, California 90680 714/828-3324 BI FE So see December 15, 1980 (3005) Union Oil Co. P.O. Box 6176 Ventura, California’ 93006 Attention: Ken Guziak Dear Ken: As you requested in your conversation with Mel on December 15, here is a description of our marine mammal program. Chambers Consultants and Planners (CCP) is working as a contractor to the Naval Ocean Systems Center (NOSC) to develop a method to interview workers on oil and gas platforms to determine the proximity of large marine mammals to oil and gas platforms. This interview program is a small part of a large program in which NOSC is trying to find out if marine mammals are affected by noise from offshore oi] operations. We would like to have two people from CCP and an observer from NOSC inter- view workers from two platforms in the Santa Barbara Channel. We would be able to conduct all our interviews in the crew boats going out to the platforms. If possible, we would like to put the posters and sighting cards out on the platforms themselves. We would then like to come back two weeks after the initial inter- view and collect any cards which have been filled out and conduct some follow-up interviews. Each visit to each platform would take about one day, and we would be visiting each platform a total of two times. We enclose copies of the posters, the sighting cards, and the questionnaire. B-190 Union Oi] Co. December 15, 1980 Page 2 of 2 CCP is most grateful for Union's help in this program, and we would be glad to meet any conditions and restrictions which you choose to impose. Sincerely, CHAMBERS CONSULTANTS AND PLANNERS wn No&l Davis Project Manager ND:sg Encl. B-101 CHAMBERS CONSULTANTS AND PLANNERS P.O. Box 356 - 10557 Beach Boulevard Stanton, California 90680 714/828-3324 December 16, 1980 (3005) Union Oi] P.O. Box 6176 Ventura, California 93006 Attention: Ken Guziak Dear Ken: Here is the handout for the platform workers. I hope it will meet Union's needs. If you want us to add or modify anything just let me know. Thanks, CHAMBERS CONSULTANTS AND PLANNERS VY Noél Davis Project Manager ND:sg Encille B-102 TO: Platform Workers The Naval Ocean Systems Center is studying the distribution of whales, porpoises, and seals and sea lions around oi] and gas platforms. We would appreciate any information on those animals which you have seen from the platforms. Your information will help us to understand the populations, distributions and behavior of these animals. People from the Naval Ocean Systems Center will come on the crew boats and inter- view workers about their observations of whales, porpoises, and seals. These Naval Ocean Systems Center people will also put posters out which will show how to identify different types of these marine mammals. Beside the posters they will put a box of cards. If you see a whale, porpoise, or seal, we would very much appreciate it if you would fill out one of these cards. The Naval Ocean Systems Center people will come back in two weeks and collect these cards and ask some more questions about whether you saw any marine mammals in the past two weeks and if you had any trouble filling out the sighting cards. We very much appreciate your cooperation in this program. B-103 Union Oil and Gas Division: Western Region Union Oil Company of California Southern California District 2151 Alessandro Drive P.O. Box 6176, Ventura, California 93006 Telephone (805) 659-0130 Una “6 7a ———- ge Oistrict Operations Manager January 21 > 1981 Ms. No&l Davis, PhD Chambers Consultants and Planners P. O. Box 356 Stanton, California 90680 Dear Ms. Davis: I have reviewed the information you have provided Mr. Ken Guziak to Support your marine mammal monitoring program in the Santa Barbara Channel. In my judgment, the questionnaires, observation cards, and charts, while being excellently designed for a marine biologist or other skilled observer, are far too complicated to be effectively utilized during brief interview sessions on board the crew boat or at the Casitas Pier. To effectively carry out the apparent objectives of your program utilizing the materials provided Union Oil Company would require extensive training to develop observation skills clearly beyond the scope of casual sightings as they occur during normal daily produc- tion operations in the Dos Cuadras oil field. In view of the obvious cost to Union Oil Company in terms of man-hours, operational efficiency and potential liability as a result of dividing the platform operators' attention from their assigned work, I must decline to cooperate with your program. By copy of this letter, I am informing Mr. Michael F. Reitz, Acting District Supervisor of the U.S. Geological Survey, of this decision and suggest you contact his office for further suggestions as to appropriate methods to conduct the marine mammal monitoring program. Sincerely yours, RMB/bhs cc: Michael F. Reitz R. W. Yarbrough R. C. Keller R. A. Dombrowski KEE Guzdak B-104 January 29, 1981 (3005) Mr. W.D. Edman, Division Manager Chevron USA, Inc. P.O. Box 605 La Habra, California 90631 Dear Mr. Edman I spoke with Mr. John Herring in Santa Barbara about our-program with the Naval Ocean System Center. This program involves studying the distribution of whales, porpoises, and seals and sea lions around oil and gas platforms by interviewing offshore workers. Mr. Herring suggested that an interview pro- gram held at the Chevron pier would not inerfere with workers' operation. We have scheduled our interview on Chevron's pier for early February. We would like to have two people from our company and an observer from NOSC interview workers coming and going on the crew boats. If possible, we would then like to come back 2 weeks after the initial interview and collect any cards which have been filled out and conduct some follow-up interviews. Each visit will take about 1 day. We are most grateful for Chevron's help in this program, and we would be glad to meet any conditions and restrictions which you choose to impose. Sincerely, CHAMBERS CONSULTANJS AND PLANNERS ge 1) M.D. Chambers Vice President, Operations MDC:ND:db cc: Mr. John Herring, Operation Foreman 1253 Coast Village Road Santa Barbara, California 93108 2-105 CHAMBERS CONSULTANTS AND PLANNERS P.O. Box 356 - 10557 Beach Boulevard Stanton, California 90680 714/828-3324 = 5 iNet APPENDIX C on oi r 4 oo cite ae ae TECHNICAL REPORT SURVEY OF THE EFFECTS OF OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF PLATFORMS ON CETACEAN BEHAVIOR September, 1981 Prepared for: Dr. Elek Lindner, Code 5131 Naval Ocean Systems Center San Diego, California 92152 Prepared by: Susan L. McCarty Computer Sciences Corporation 4045 Hancock Street San Diego, California 92110 Contract N00123-79-D-0272 Delivery Order 7N69 C-1 TABLE OF CONTENTS ODIECEIVG rica cri culcuied oe cmto lia tebe ure te sta nuh prota ito deur: soa fea! seals ADD ROACH aes akatsih can ac cuhie visr col tel non (thio uronmron tou repNsnicr wenereTamen otal opiisial ouias BSG KGROUNG avin acess tte ones Uaniloiiion meNcclirey Moreuar tronics teliss: Nomi veiiie: ie ccta cer Hiatus PaOCR SEU ircumemrcnrcucrace tt aradipaetert yan vietete titel dal ferach vogivon ies inal ecu eaune Study Area I: Santa Barbara Channel, California........ StudveAneamhliss CookmlinletAiliaSkave.:, vc. cate mutter) ie is) eeion a cs ce fe MaitoriiallSerandaMetniods moutvuaerstucc tenet it etineiate is, tayttern or le! Mel ceMewlas wats AMES VACWS goecuronccs crmtcnasine tala rsligei te, volte Wieiien Teralies vet soon fala, av rears: Mianyee SiighitingeGandsiands Posters Vester associ) su telnet silse voter vo conc Study Anca: SantayBarbarayChannelll:.a sta oe Geriatr) wen olive StudygAreawlil ss Cooke tisurciee. Mma « Mervewivetyen Souvem seu te alive: bey seme RESUMES Part Ccittlly oaistwaee arigy svcailatite Weletie for wen fOyermel tel tence au wel oe PROCS UC Vaecrre se clitetrais cacy te ea) neytiay fetes Cente lan euies meetin pene StudysAneael:wsantasBarbarray Channel.) cayeiveutawac cy coven xt ueuae HNL SEVMEWSRESUMESI OS cemicusrtcnire! Reuter vesluel Jes yietiien lev sey wel cell ceh segs teulagueeaas SHGHtINGMCARdERESUIES ia. cunsune nici enc cites eile roitioyi sh vecmcia ti eune Wen wogiee SEUd VHA came COOK MIMICE vaucukey toa Mee eenee tithes: nor leh en fier a aay wee UE CHpVCW Stuer eit ccn aren rare est ered ten kee Car ae reunion cal Geb Penney aa 66 SHGMtINGMCardSis couksuuattincenwetatvsa ner se, leommecne Ne neato seek weedinetoct ns DiS CUSSION Me cote temycer aren cles 3 ste sis r te -o~ ora e wep enarade ees seelMe rater ents StudyvrAnecamlcn Santa BanbatrauGhannel voucinis vein secs tent) they sil as StudivaAne dene COOkKminete qn vcw chon eierle teen | lot voirerotlena) rol sem ceeecs CONCHUSHION Mamet tere By se min Mies Lop toes (on iain omni tag eb ey atin redars RECOMMENC alta ON Shrommmou ple MMoMem caus lns: Honenien lish ietuel tehweatsnhe tN tmsiaeaite REHCRENCCS emmy Cam reves ema ns i sie ee Sereda tieyitg: ctl vaste can ort Sipuuiaiae, Crater AppendiixwAy—eSantayBarbararchannell Visitations. ss. eu ci. eats ADDENAN Xe Diem COOMUINTE CVS TEACHOMS i siecle elas eal ral Gaia ILLUSTRATIONS Figure 1 SitudyaAnecagii sm CookminilietesAliaSKiar ct. a6) isis sifel ie e. eiieis 2 Santa Barbara Channel Identification Poster ....... 3 Santa Barbara Channel Identification Poster ....... 4 Santa Barbara Channel Identification Poster ....... 5 Original Sighting Card Used in Santa Barbara Channel ... 6 Revised Santa Barbara Channel Sighting Card ....... 7 CookminiletrelidenitataicationisPostem i. sacs i eter es eter ce ne 8 Cookminivlet Booklet: CovervandeSighting Card) 4... wee 2 uv fev) DAMN NWWNMHNMFRFRrF iB SURVEY OF THE EFFECTS OF OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF PLATFORMS ON CETACEAN BEHAVIOR Objective The objective of this study was to evaluate the potential impact on marine mammals of outer continental shelf (OCS) oi] and gas operations. This portion of the study deals with behavioral observations and subjective analysis by industry personnel of marine mammals in the areas of the OCS development. This program is to be used with the analysis of sound recordings of OCS platforms to try and determine a correlation between cetacean behavior and the noise from platform operations. Other possible factors such as supply boat and helicopter movements and simple physical presence will be evaluated. The observed and suggested responses of marine mammals to offshore structures and associated activity is needed to develop policies regarding offshore deve lopment. Approach To collect the maximum amount of data two sampling methods were used: 1. Collection of historical and anecdotal data by interviews. Researchers were transported to offshore platforms via crewboat or helicopter. All industry personnel contacted were interviewed about the types of marine mammals they could remember seeing. This information yielded general trends in marine mammal occurrence. 2. Collection of direct observations by sighting cards. Personnel were provided with and asked to fill out a sighting card whenever they sighted marine mammals. This card recorded behavioral and general information related to the sighting. This information will be correlated with sound recordings of the platforms and evaluated for possible effects. Background The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is designated as the administrative agency for leasing OCS lands. One of the BLM's four priority goals for OCS leasing is “protection of the human, marine and coastal environments." To attain this goal much information must be added to the current data base of impacts from oi] and gas exploration and production. One of the major data gaps identified by previous studies and by the BLM is the lack of information on the effects of oil and gas operations on marine mammals, especially cetaceans. For example, no comprehensive studies have been undertaken to determine the effects of C-3 various sounds emitted from 011 and gas operations on the behavior of cetaceans, or to evaluate the impacts resulting from offshore Structures and human activity on cetacean populations. A number of cetacean species are listed as endangered or threatened and are protected under the Endangered Species Act of 1973. Therefore, a study on the effects of OCS activites on cetaceans is recommended for making effective management decisions and for developing mitigating measures if needed. Pilot Study Chambers Consultants and Planners (CCP) was responsible for a pilot study for this project. They developed identification posters and created the first sighting card and interview formats. The sighting cards and interviews were designed to permit computer analysis. An objective of the pilot study was to determine what job categories are expected to provide better results in the interview program because some jobs are better suited to make observations. Due to a low number of responses, this information was never attained. Essentially, the pilot study provided a basis to develop a full scale interview program. As many individuals as possible were interviewed and all data received was analyzed. CCP wrote two computer programs. One analyzed the sighting card information, the other, the interview data. Although these programs proved to be useful with a sufficient number of theoretical data points, the collected actual information was not sufficient to yield any significant results. Study Area I: Santa Barbara Channel, California Perhaps the most significant aspect of this area is that it contains the transition point between two biogeographic coastal provinces. Stretching along the coast to the north from Point Conception to Alaska is a biologically rich cold-temperature province. To the south from Point Conception to the lower third of Baja California in Mexico is a warm-temperature area. The biota of this transition zone includes cold temperature species from the north and tropical species from the south, as well as a large number of endemic species. The importance of Point Conception as a major marine biogeographic boundary is well documented. Several investigators note that this California point lies at a significant biogeographic boundary for many species of fish and invertebrates. In addition, the point is also a significant boundary area for several species of marine mammals and seabirds. The area marks a northern breeding limit for some warm-temperate species and a southern breeding limit for certain northern cold-temperate organisms. In general, the large size, high mobility and wide pelagic range of the large whales, (gray, blue, humpback, and fin) have discouraged compilation of more complete ecological species accounts. It is clear, however, that toothed whales and dolphins, like most pinnipeds, represent a major link in the overall food chain. Furthermore, it is probable that cetaceans play a significant role in influencing relative species abundance levels of other marine biota. (FEIS Proposed Channel Island Marine Sanctuary) A recent study by the BLM of the Southern California Bight (1975-1977) covered a 3-year period of observations. Recordings were made of all marine mammals observed along aerial and nautical transects. Based on observed distribution, projected distributions and density were plotted for 5' latitude by 5' longitude squares created within the bight. The purpose was to be able to estimate at any given time and place, the number and type of marine mammals likely to be found. The BLM study and studies documenting gray whale migration routes and population densities (Gilmore 1960a, 1976; Rice 1959/1960) were used to determine what types of animals in what numbers would be seen in the Santa Barbara Channel area. Study Area II: Cook Inlet, Alaska Cook Inlet is a tidal estuary. It measures 200 nautical miles long and 75 nautical miles wide at the mouth. Oriented northeast and southwest it joins the Gulf of Alaska east of the Alaska peninsula. Glaciers are common throughout the mountainous surroundings with many streams and several major rivers emptying their silt and sediment loads into the inlet (Figure 1). Due to strong and constant currents (5 to 6 knots) and an average tidal flow of 25-30 feet, the water in the Cook Inlet is very silty. After the break-up of the ice in the Cook Inlet around March or early April "hooligan," a smelt-like fish, move up the Cook Inlet and into the river mouths in mid-April or early May. Following the hooligan are the beluga whales (Delphinapterus leucas). From the initial movement of the hooligan, throughout the salmon migration beginning in mid-June and until the inlet begins to freeqe, belugas are inhabitants of the Cook Inlet. Materials and Methods Data on the occurrence and behavior of marine mammals was collected by interviews for anecdotal data and by actual observation documented on sighting cards. Individuals working in areas or jobs associated with offshore platforms were interviewed to obtain their observations and opinions concerning the local marine life. In addition they were asked to fill out sighting cards during the study whenever they saw marine mammals. Educational posters were provided to assist them in making accurate recordings. Persons involved in this program were C=5 BXSELY ©FALU] YOO) < YOISSASSOd [VIO . 7 ae Ne ch HANOAL i! rae et ji Jonvist Bud HOVYOHONY / y oA aN = sio13)) bulsns U3IAIN 3 19V3 t asads funoW BUInHa juNOW ee y ouysng juno fans a 18 ho NS platform workers, supply boat crews and skippers, helicopter pilots, pier workers and a few others. Interviews The offshore oi] and gas industry encompasses many various jobs and activites. A goal of the pilot study was to determine if some of these activities and therefore the individuals who performed them were better suited to sighting marine mammals. The interview was constructed to collect information about the workers, as well as their accounts of specific marine mammal sightings. The questionnaire form of the interview was designed to allow easy information transfer to a computer program. The form was very structured and seemed to sometimes stifle spontaneous conversation. During the project, the researchers found that if they allowed the conversation to flow freely, at least as much could be learned from each person as when the format was followed rigorously. The worker remained more relaxed and willing to talk. A more informal format allowed the interviewer to modify the questions to suit the worker's position, attitude and knowledge of marine life. Interviews were usually conducted on a one-to-one basis. Although some people were intimidated in that type of situation, it was generally quite successful. Sometimes interviews were conducted in small groups. Three or four workers would start talking and would no longer be talking specifically with the interviewer. At these times, the interviewer was aided by a hand-held tape recorder. The tape recorder made it easier to get everyone's additions and corrections to group discussions. The tape recorder was also useful when the interview was conducted in difficult locations, such as decks of crew boats, flights of stairs, etc. Sighting Cards and Posters The workers were provided with sighting cards to record actual observations. These cards asked for information about the animals sighted and related events. Distance of the animals from the platform and size of animals were the only estimations required. Most of the questions were yes or no, or multiple choice about some aspect of the observation. Time of day sighted and type of activity on the platform were also asked to permit correlation between marine mammal behavior and OCS activity. The posters were designed to help with specific identification. They also suggested to the workers what identifying features to look for when observing the marine mammals. Study Area I: Santa Barbara Channel Visits to the platforms were made during the months of January and February. Interviews were conducted on the platforms, docks or at the heliport. The interview only requred 5 to 10 minutes to complete. Consequently many people could be interviewed in a short period of time. Usually, the researcher explained the purpose and method of the study before the interview. The interviews included questions designed to establish the interviewed persons background, experience and type of job as well as his recollection of marine mammal sightings. Often, specific questions were not necessary because as soon as "whales and dolphins" were mentioned the worker would eagerly recall past sightings. During the interviews the posters and cards were explained and left behind for future use. For the Santa Barbara Channel area a set of three posters (Figures 2, 3, and 4) was designed. These posters described in words and pictures the species of marine mammals likely to be seen in the study area. The posters were displayed aboard supply boats, in platform galleys, and anywhere that seemed appropriate. Besides their instructional purpose, the posters constantly reminded the workers that a study was in progress, and inspired filling out sighting cards. The 3" x 5" sighting cards had questions printed on both sides pertaining to the appearance and behavior of the sighted animals. The Sighting cards contained only a few personal questions regarding the worker's job and interest in marine life, putting the emphasis on recent marine mammal observations. Most questions on the card were presented in a "forced-choice" manner. Possible answers were provided and the worker allowed to choose the one that "fit the best." Some questions required filling in blanks, especially those pertaining to the size of the animal or distance from the platform. There was also room allotted for comments and any information not specifically asked f or TE might have been considered important and relevant (Figures 5 and 6). The workboat skippers and crews interviewed in Santa Barbara, are all employees of the "Tide Fleet," and were very cooperative. Industry personnel were associated with the platforms listed in Appendix A. Study Area II: Cook Inlet The Cook Inlet area was studied over a 3-week period during the months of July and August. All interviews were conducted on board the platforms. Helicopters provided the transportation to and from the rigs. While helicopters are excellent vantage points for sightings, conducting interviews on them was not successful. Therefore, all interviews were conducted on the relatively stable and quiet platforms. (oe) A his INE OU! Wile NielelOy WORE InEIL I? HAVE YOU SEEN ANY WHALES, PORPOISES, SEALS, OR SEA LIONS FROM THIS PLATFORM? WE ARE TAKING A SURVEY OF MARINE MAMMALS IN SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA WATERS, AND WOULD APPRECIATE ANY INFORMATION ON MARINE MAMMALS (WHALES, PORPOISES, AND SEALS) WHICH YOU HAVE OBSERVED OFF THE PLATFORM. IF YOU SEE A WHALE, PORPOISE, OR SEAL PLEASE FILL OUT A CARD AS SOON AS POSSIBLE AFTER SEEING THE ANIMAL AND PLACE THE CARD IN THE BOX. THESE POSTERS DEMONSTRATE HOW TO IDENTIFY THE COMMON MARINE MAMMALS. YOUR INFOR- MATION WILL HELP US TO UNDERSTAND THE POPULATIONS, DISTRIBUTIONS AND BEHAVIOR OF THESE ANIMALS. WE HOPE TO SHOW THAT O/L PLATFORMS ARE A GOOD SOURCE OF INFORMATION NAVAL OCEAN SYSTEMS CENTER SEALS & SEALIONS pe EARS Yer Saat | FRONT BE EON Je eee FLIPPERS \ Lhe RHI tens ney ee RBOR SEAL HA BLACK & WHITE SPOTTED BROWN / DISTINGUISHING LARGE NOSE LARGE iiimtOnsiriekON G 4706 FT. LONG NO NOISE IN WATER STELLER SEA LION LIGHT BROWN BLACK TO CHOCOLATE BROWN BLACK WITH FUR LARGE / 7 TO 10 FT. LONG MALES HAVE LUMP ON HEAD SOWA EIA LONG 6 TO 8 FT. LONG “BARK” Figure 2. Santa Barbara Channel Identification Poster C=9 DOLPHINS, PORPOISES & ooo lide BLOWHOLE — boreal FIN -— ee PILOT WHALE 10 TO 20 FT. LONG PERG ES ———— | eC CHARACTERISTIC FIN RISSOS DOLPHIN LARGE & LAID BACK a ae ee BULBOUS HEAD TALL POINTED FIN ON BACK BLUNT ROUNDED HEAD DARK TO GRAY w/ NUMEROUS SCARS ON _ BODY seeing WHITE rast SIDED DOLPHIN SWIMMER BoiNTED FIN w/ LIGHT WHITE. GRAY ON BACKOFFIN THROAT BLUISH GRAY TO BLACK w/ WHITE PATCH ON SIDE BOTTLENOSE DOLPHIN § siow SWIMMER 107012 FT. LONG DALL’S PORPOISE VERY EASIiOnlOl4 Fale LONG CHUNK NSWIMMER BoDY \ : FAST SWIMMER LONG BEAK a > DARK “V" DARK FIN FIN TRIANGULAR a ran f COLORATION ON BACK w/ WHITE TIP PROMINENT ON SIDE = JBLACK BACKY cin smaLt &XGRAYISH TO BLACK BEAK LIGHT GRAY BELLYf WHITE BELLY \ TRIANGULAR w/ WHITE PATCH ALL GRAY LONG ON SIDE : SLENDER BODY pT = 6 TO 8 FT. 6 TO 8 FT. LONG 8} 10) SA Se LONG FT LONG — : P (SMALL) 12s i i —— RIGHT WHALE —— COMMON DOLPHIN DOLPHIN \HARBOR PORPOISE Figure 3. Santa Barbara Channel Identification Poster C-19 LARGE & MEDIUM WHALES aie Re et FIN COP oa essie MINKE WHALE | HUMPBACK WHALE WHITE PATCH ON FLIPPERS LONG WHITE FLIPPERS BUMPY HEAD GRAYISH BLACK ABOVE WHITE BELOW ——— LARGE RO RQ UAL WHALE KILLER WHALE OVAL WHITE PATCH BEHIND EYE GRAY SADDLE ON BACK 70 50 FT. o™ (SEI, FIN & BLUE WHALE) TALL ERECT FIN HUGE HEAD FIN ON BACK LOCATED TOWARDS REAR w/ BLUNT SQUARISH SNOUT SMOOTH eee BLOW HOLE WELL FORWARD DARK BACK BUMPS ON BACK GRAY MOTTLED BODY WRINKLED SKIN SPERM WHALE RIGHT WHALE GRAY WHALE. Figure 4. Santa Barbara Channel Identification Poster SIGHTING CARD - To Be Filled out As Soon As Possible After A Marine Mammal Is Seen Name (Optional) Ie (25 10. ll. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. Occupation Date Please fill out the questions below whether or not you know the name of the animal you saw. If you sawa large whale (more than 20 feet) please fill out Questions 17-29. If you Time of day whale, dolphin, or seal or sea lion was seen Time of day card was filled out Platform activity at the time saw a dolphin, porpoise, or smal] whale (less than 20 feet) fill out Questions 30-40. If you sawa seal or sea lion, fill out Questions 41-47. If you are unsure whether what you saw was a dolphin or a seal p.m.}| please fill 17. Estimate of noise on platform when animal was seen on a scale of 1 to 10; with 1 as quiet and 10 as noisy Estimate of distance marine mammals were from the platform in yards What direction from the platform were the marine mammals? /J i) Towards shore LJ 2) Out to sea [7 3) Upcoast LT 4) Downcoast What direction were the marine mammals traveling? /-7 1) Towards shore LJ 2) Out to sea LT 3) Upcoast LT 4) Downcoast Did the marine mammals change direction while you were watching? [7 1) Yes [7 2) No If Yes, did they change direction: LJ 1) Towards the platform? LJ 2) Away from the platform? Did it jump out of the water? LT 1) Yes LT 2) No Did it stick its head out of the water? LT 1) Yes LT 2) No Did it slap its tail? L7 1) Yes [7 2) No Did it swim: LJ 1) On the surface most of the time, or LJ 2) did it dive a lot? fT 1) Did it mill around in the same area, LJ] 2) or was it traveling? Shape and size of head, if possible f7 1) Broad & rounded LJ 2) Pointed & triangular ZT 3) Blunt & rounded LJ 4) Don't know Shape of body, if possible LJ 1) Long and thin LJ 2) Fat & rounded [7] 3) Don't know Did it have long white front flippers? 7 1) Yes VEFR2)NO [7 3) Don't know Were there any baby whales in the group? i i on't know Figure 5. 30. St SyA5 33) 34. 18. ) Porpoises or dolphins? ) Seal or sea lion? 1) A single animal? animals were in the group? you saw. £7 2) A group of animals? g was it? out Questions 30-47. Please check any characteristics that you can remember for the appropriate type of animal. LARGE WHALE (Questions 17-29 only) Shape and size of spout (check one of each choice) 1) LD Single £7 Double 2) LD Forward on head LD Back on head 3) LD Shot forward LJ Shot straight up 4) LJ Shot high (J Shot low If you saw a group, about how many 5) LJ Don't know ——-———]| 19. Dorsal fin If possible, name the kind of animals £7 1) Present CUR Node ey LT 2) Absent £7 3) Don't know Behavior (Answer as many questions as you can) Less than 20 feet 20 to 30 feet 20. DOLPHIN, PORPOISE, or SMALL_WHALE (Questions 30-40 Only) Dorsal fin: L7 1) Present LT 2) Absent LJ 3) Don't know Shape of dorsal fin (Check one of each pair) 1) LO Tall £7 short 2) C7 Erect & trian- gular /; Curved backward 3) £7 Don't know Shape of head: LJ 1) Rounded & bulbous LJ 2) Pointed L7 3) Don't know [J 1) With beak LJ 2) Without beak LJ 3) Don't know ) Black ) Black & White ) Gray ) Don't know LT 1) Yes L7 2) Wo Behavior (Answer as iany 36. questions as you can) Did they jump high out of the water? (Sf }} Yes [7 2) No Greater than 30 feet Don't know Did they show the char- acteristic porpoise behavior of traveling quickly and jumping out of the water frequently? 7 1) Yes LT 2) No Did they swim slowly and low in the water? [7 1) Yes LJ 2) No Were they swimming rapidly and throwing out spray but not jumping out of the water? Yes No Don't know Did they mill around in the same area? Were they traveling? Were there any other characteristics you noticed? Original Sighting Card Used in Santa C-12 Did it show its flukes? SEAL or SEA LION (Questions 41-47 Only) 41. Shape of head: LJ 1) Rounded (J 2) Pointed LT 3) Large extended nose Don't know Q RP PWNRESF NEK FS 42. Did you notice any ears? Yes No 43. Colo Brown Black Spotted Don't know 44. Did it use front flippers to paddle? 2) Did it swim like a fish with its hind flippers? 3) Couldn't tell? 45. Did it bark? 1) Yes NO 3) Don't know Behavi r (Answer as imany questions as you can) 1) Did it leap out of the water like a porpoise? 2) Did it swim with only its head showing? 1) Did it mill around in the same area? 2) Was it traveling? now ° 46. Q Q 47. QQ Barbara Channel Sighting Card (Check correct box) Date: Time of sighting: 1. What did you see? Whale [] Dolphin [] Seal/Sea Lion [_] Could you specifically identify it? 2. Was it ALONE [ | or in a GROUP [|]? (How many? ) 3. Approximate length? 4. Direction of travel? 5. Direction from platform? 6. Distance from platform? 7. Did their travel seem affected by the platform? YES [ ] NO [_]} Did they move TOWARDS [_] AWAY FROM [ | the platform? Behavior: Did the animal.. 1. Show its tail on dives? 2. Jump out of the water? 3. Stick its head out of Ssh = 1 mH 4 5 6 i - Slap its tail on the water? . Swim on the surface [] Dive a ea . Stay in one area L) Travel a lot . Swim slowly [ ] Swim fast [] General Description 1. Did it have a dorsal fin? YES [] NO[ ] Didn't see [| If yes, what was the shape? 2. What shape was the head? 3. What shape was the 2 4. Did it have a "beak"? YES NO 5. Did it have scratches or scars on it? YES[] No[ ] 6. What color was it? 7. Did you notice any ears? YES NO 8. Did you notice the flippers? YES[ ] NO| ] Can you describe them? 9. Did it swim with FRONT | ] BACK | flippers? 10. Did it make any sounds? YES [ } NO[_] What kinds? Was there any activity on the platform that seemed to affect the behavior of the animal(s) that you saw? Figure 6. Revised Santa Barbara Channel Sighting Card Gag A less restricted, more free-flowing conversation interview format was used with great success. More emphasis was placed on past observations and less on personal, job-related questions. There are very few species of marine mammals in the Cook Inlet. Therefore, questions did not need to cover as wide a range as at Santa Barbara Channel. As at Santa Barbara Channel, almost as soon as the project was explained, information on marine mammals was provided. During the interviews, the instructional poster was displayed (Figure 7). Because of the few species in the Cook Inlet area all species of expected marine mammals were shown on one poster. The poster was placed in a prominent place on each platform and at the heliport offices. The sighting card had been revised and simplified (Figure 8). The revised card had questions on only one side, and a postage paid return address on the other side. All of the personal questions were removed; only questions dealing strictly with sightings remained. A space was left for additional comments. Five sighting cards were bound into a booklet, with a cover sheet explaining the project. This way, each person interviewed could have their own supply of sighting cards. The cards took less time to fill out and it was easier to collect them by mail than by a company representative. The helicopter pilots interviewed worked either for ERA helicopters, or Kenai Air Alaska, and all were very helpful. Industry personnel were associated with the platforms listed in Appendix B. Results Pilot Study The pilot study analyzed data from workers on four platforms. On Shell's platform Beta, only the sighting cards were used, because the platform management did not want the work to be disturbed by conducting interviews. Thirty interviews were analyzed in the pilot study: 1 from a crew boat skipper at Holly, 12 from workers on platform Hondo, and 17 from platform Emmy. Ten sighting cards were returned during the pilot study, seven from platform Emmy and three from platform Beta. The collected data were not sufficient for valid statistical analysis. However, the interviews did show that 011] platform workers do see cetaceans and pinnipeds from the platforms. C-14 Marine Mammal | Identification === White oval “eye” patch e White bodies e Rounded flippers e “Moveable” head Tall erect fin e Fin small and e Fin small and towards the rear towards the rear e Large whale e “Splotchy” color e Fast swimmer FIN WHALE BEAKED WHALE KILLER WHALE 3—5 ftlong e Shallow water Chunky body e Thick, dark fur Small, dark triangular fin Eat lying on their back poe os Flat tail we de e/a = White patch e on flippers Grayish back e White belly e ———e ~ HARBOR PORPOISE SEA OTTER Brown or Black 6-8 ft long e Small, round head Se x ag Black and white spotted *Lots of whiskers e”Tusks” e” Loose” skin 4-6 ft long WALRUS SEA LION Figure 7. Poster The Naval Ocean Systems Center is conducting research on marine mammals in the Cook Inlet. Observations made by oil industry personnel provide very useful information about where and when these animals are present, and their patterns of movement and other behaviors. We would be very grateful to you for completing one of these postage paid business reply cards for each sighting you make. Many species of marine mammals occur in the Cook Inlet. Some of these are described by the poster accompanying these cards Information of particular importance is species, number of animals present, their direction of movement (indicate magnetic or true heading), the location of the sighting (latitude and longitude, if possible), and the water depth (some species appear to prefer certain depth ranges.) The type of vessel or aircraft you were in and how close the animal was to you is of interest, as 1s any reaction the animals may have had to your presence (did they dive or change course?) Record anything interesting you may have noticed. Naval Ocean Systems Center, San Diego, CA 92152 COOK INLET MARINE MAMMAL SIGHTING CARD O WHALE TYPE SIZE O DOLPHIN O SEA OTTER O SEAL/SEA LION Number of animals___________ Direction of movement (Indicate true or magnetic neading) Location. CCW leptth (Latitude and longitude. if possibte) Date seen____—*d1'928:11 Time seen ________ am O pm O Observation point Name Type Closest distance of animal to observation O Plattorm —_—_—_—_—<—_—_ _ —______} point: O Vessel AS ESET hn ae LEE O Aircratt aS Sf SMA TT NT | Activity around observation area Other observations Your name Thank you tor taking the time to record your observations. DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY COMMANDER, Code 032) NAVAL OCEAN SYSTEMS CENTER POSTAGE AND FEES PAID > SAN DIEGO. CALIFORNIA 92152 OEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY DoD-316 Eas OFFICIAL BUSINESS U.S.MAIL PENALTY FOR PRIVATE USE $300 eae | 1IND-NOSC-5216/5(2-77) COMMANDER, CODE 0321 Naval Ocean Systems Center San Diego, California 92152 Attn: Code 5131, Seaside Cook Inlet Sighting Program Figure 8. Cook Inlet Booklet Cover and Siahting Card >) 1 =) LY) Study Area I: Santa Barbara Channel Interview Results Thirty interviews were analyzed. Four interviews were conducted with work boat skippers, four with crew boat hands, twenty with platform workers, and two interviews with land-based office personnel. Most people were helpful and cooperative when approached to be interviewed. Almost everyone seemed to be interested in marine life and they could recall seeing at least sea lions. The awareness of the workers toward marine life varied from disinterested to very aware and interested. Interviews conducted in a relaxed atmosphere rather than trying to strictly follow the prepared questionnaire format inspired cooperation, although some of the questions of lesser importance were omitted. Most people could not recall the direction that the sighted animals were traveling or their distance from the platform. The results are shown in Table 1. Graphs 1 and 2 show that when more people were interviewed on a platform more animal sightings were reported. With the exception of platform Hogan, interest in marine life was found essentially the same at all study points. With a larger sample size the personnel at Hogan would probably fit the trend. There are all combinations of relative numbers of whales compared to relative numbers of dolphins. As in the pilot study these results show that many animals are seen from the platforms. Only four people interviewed could provide any information about platform activity influencing cetacea behavior. A third of those interviewed (10) stated that the mammals seemed to come in closer when there was less noise, but didn't seem to avoid or be driven away from the platforms when they were noisy. Sighting Card Results Only 11 sighting cards from five platforms were returned during the whole project. These cards were analyzed by hand because of insufficient numbers for computer evaluation. Three cards were from workers on platform Grace, four were from Hondo, two from Houchin, one from Hogan, and one from a worker on Emmy. One of the three sighting cards from Chevron's platform Grace reported only sharks. Therefore, this sighting had no relevance to this project. Another reported a school of dolphins moving south, 1/2 mile southeast of the platform. The platform didn't seem to affect their travel. The third sighting was of four whales, about 30 feet in length, moving northwest, about 500 yards west of the platform. Based on the reported behavior, and the date of the sighting, these were probably gray whales. ON ON SHA ON ON ON ON ON SAA ON ON ON ON ON SHA SHA ON ON ON ON ON ON ON ON ON ON ON ON ON ON E4OLAeYaG [euUeW suLseW pue AztAtzoe wucyzeyd uagamzaq dtysuolzelay X X X xX X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X JNON JNO M34 ANWW JNON JNO M34 ANVW JNON JNO Mad ANYW G3LH9IS SNOI1 W3S/S 14S GSLHSIS SNINd 100 GaLHDIS SITVHM LauuRey) euequeg eJUeS :ST[NSIY MALAUBZUT “TT al get S4A S4A SHA ON S4A SAA SHA ON SAA SHA S4A SHA SHA ON SHA SHA SHA SSA SHA SHA SIA SAA S4A SJA SAA SHA SHA SHA S3A S3A ast] autsey ul paqsasaquy aNMO St aN S Lal mANMTWMOW m—N mN aN aN pue|s] uoouLy uLYONOH wUOJz2 Ld opuoy WU0472 Ld ueboy wWwAOs7P Ld asnou| LtH W40J$7eLd Auuay Ww40j7Pld a0eu9 W40J72 Ld nV WAOJ7ELd suaqua}! Maa suaddtys dALZeQUaSAAd|yY Auedwo9 C-18 PEOPLE Lhe) =ENI : = aI Be K Comoany Skippers Crew Platform A Platform il HHAIIMIRI ea Reps Members Grace a interviewed =| interested in marine life whales sighted "many" sighted = 5/5 square RE "few" sighted = 3/5 square dolphins sighted "one" sighted = 1/5 square Graph 1. Interview Results: Santa Barbara Channel C-19 PEOPLE =e —— = =! = ——* NS Sm ) Oo + oO N =; S on co) ae) 4 ot et ed 71 a4 gp ul [aaay pueg aAez99 pulyr~aug D-18 Water depth was 75 feet, with a sea state of 2 and Recordings were made from the platform in Cook Inlet, Alaska, at slack high One-third octave band analysis of water-borne noise from the production platform The hydrophone depth was 35 feet. King Salmon. Figure 10. tide. a wind of 30 knots. tee PUTT HI HI Hn PUTT SS il TTT TTT 2< P= Hit RUDAORRTED CRRA ROOUEUOEEI i LTT TEL TTT HT ITTUAUUOOQOOOQ0UGMAUUAAAASUUTTAOANCACUOQOOGNITITIAAIAAUELL 2 sritteec batt ETS EHEe BETTE TET TTT UT = | COPPA oH TTL oT HEE a ee 3 20 10 00 90 89 eg AT at gp uL [aAa7 pueg aAeq9Q9 p4alyy-auQ D-19 One-third Octave ae Center Frequency in Hz Sea state was 1 he production platform Recordings were made from , Alaska. -borne noise from t Hydrophone depth was 20 feet. third octave band analysis of water One- Spark located in nominally 60 feet of water in Cook Inlet the platform at slack high tide of 15 feet. with a wind of 10 knots. Figure 11. NTT PUTT T= PUT TTT TT PUTT TT ATT UT AANA OUEUOUHOOREO NGI NNGHE DAS TTT TARA Ac CHECHEN HU ATT OURO LAUER AAEEE ana a PUTT ETT PTT IHTHALOUGCGSGGUIAAAIAIITI TT A eer PRE eam See n SE a oO (=) ons N tam] = oq (on) — ol o sts 130 ed A/T au gp uL Lada] pueg arezio9 putuz-au D-20 Qne-third Octave Band Center Frequency in Hz One-third octave band analysis of water-borne noise from the production platform Figure 12. Recordings were made from Spark located in nominally 60 feet of water in Cook Inlet, Alaska. the platform at slack high tide of 15 feet. with a wind of 10 knots. Sea state was 1 Hydrophone depth was 30 feet. GRUNT EAAAG FAERA AREA AAU TOAAUNEDETOWONGAOAOFAHOUANOUOTOTAT™ TOT TTT TTT TTT TOOT PTET NTT FXNUGMRAUOUMUDOUOUOCRROU SNUOUORNUOQUOUNRRREOOHOS UNNNED ERED Pr TOT ESET OEAUEOU TEL AGEELAAEEUAL LP AAUEEATETEL tT DRADER RROGED ER ARRAR TREAD ER RS RR ORR OR RE TTT TNT a HU es UE T= AOESESUHSEOENEVONGT SSC OHERSEUOHOTSERENONONNGNOTSEOEUSHOT AVVONSANAGNSRNOGANSORAD /TOROOTSATOANOROSROOESONNOEORENOEOU HURRE ARO ER rt ee UTA a EEE AT aes ela Lenin EE ee eee ccc MRNA AR ARAR ARO ER ERR R DRO OR OR OR ARES HEEL HEERDAS CAC EEOEEUAUELEEETSE EUCLA HE CTE TTL lattes HTT SE ET i ee +H o i—] — Se ° ~- = = = a - -t co a egA/ | a4 gp UL [aAaq pueg aAe120 pulyy-aug D-21 One-third Octave Band Center Frequency if Hz One-third octave band analysis of water-borne noise from the production platform Figure 13. Recordings were made from Spark located in nominally 60 feet of water in Cook Inlet, Alaska. the platform at slack high tide of 15 feet. with a wind of 10 knots. Sea state was 1 Hydrophone depth was 50 feet. APPENDIX E i 45); site pyri i mu | } mA f ra Be Cy ihi ; \ \ i Watney aa} rt vy i i ne } ny tee Poel Avi ? ii i) ; A Kren tUh STUY aaNet a a l NOSC TR SUMMARY REPORT OF 30 SEPTEMBER 1980 ON BLM TASK: "STUDY OF THE EFFECTS OF SOUND ON MARINE MAMMALS" Robert S. Gales Naval Ocean Systems Center San Diego, CA 9215? E-1 June 1982 SUMMARY REPORT OF 30 SEPTEMBER 1980 ON BEMEnASK:s oSiUDY OR MIE ERRECTS OF SOUND ON MARINE MAMMALS" Introduction This will summarize briefly the work conducted under Naval Ocean Systems Center Project MM28, BLM Project AA851-1A0-5 from the commencement of work in January to September 1980. Objective The overall objective is to assess the impact of underwater noise created by offshore oil drilling and production operations on marine mammals along the outer continental shelf of the U.S. Approach 1. Conduct literature search on underwater noise from offshore oil operations, and on underwater hearing and sound production of marine mammals to estimate potential interference of man-made noise with endangered wildlife. 2. Initiate a program of interviews with platform operational and support personnel, and others who may provide data from personal observations of the behavior of marine mammals in the vicinity of offshore platforms and Supporting equipment. 3. Obtain high-fidelity tape recordings and spectrum of underwater radiated noise in the vicinity of offshore oi] operations in various geographic areas and employing various types of platforms. These should also sample a range of operating conditions. 4. Relate the noise levels and spectra to the machinery and other potential sources of noise and vibration on the platforms. 5. Calculate the expected maximum ranges of noise influence based on the source-path-receiver model. 6. Analyze data to determine what mitigating measures could be recommended in case it is found necessary to minimize the effect of any sounds created by OSC oi] and gas operation on cetaceans. Results Literature Survey "Literature Review on: I. Underwater Noise from Offshore 011 Operations, and V. Underwater Hearing and Sound Productions of Marine Mammals " compiled by C. W. Turl and edited by E. Lindner as part of the first summary report was submitted to BLM in June 1980. E-2 Interview Program The questionnaire- interview pilot survey program was contracted to Chambers Consultants and Planners. The work on this program was initiated on 1 August 1980, and the first draft of the questionnaire and the instructional material were reviewed by NOSC in September 1980. Recording and Measurement of Source Data Instrumentation. A state-of-the-art recording system was selected, purchased, and assembled with the following properties: @ Hydrophone: B&K Type 8101 with useful frequency range from 1 Hz to 125 kHz. @ Pre-amplifier and Filter: Ithaco Model 451 Data Acquisition Amplifier with gain adjustable in 1 dB steps, and low frequency rolloff selectable to 1, LOR OOF ke -anded Oke hizs @ Magnetic Tape Recorder: Nagra Model TI, twin capstan instrumentation tape recorder, with four tracks, speed adjustable in 8 steps from 15/32 to 60 inches per second (ips). Frequency response is 0 to 10 kHz in the FM mode and 0.1 to 125 kHz in direct mode at 30 ips. Normal operating speed is 7.5 ips, which provides a frequency coverage of 0 to 2500 Hz on the FM channel and 0.1 to 30 kHz on the direct channel. Both channels are recorded simultaneously to provide frequency coverage from 0 to 30 kHz. The above system is capable of battery operation for field measurement, and may be packaged for ready transportation to field locations by air transport, boat, and/or helicopter. The hydrophone is equipped with 300 feet of cable and may be suspended from a special float system for stabilizing vertical motion. Field Measurements Tape recordings have been acquired for six different platforms located in three geographic areas: Santa Barbara, California; Cook Inlet, Alaska; and Atlantic City, New Jersey. General information on each is summarized below: 1. Santa Barbara-Ventura, California, April 1980. Platfcrm Holly--ARCO production/drilling platform, 2-1/2 miles off shore from Goleta, California in water of 211 feet. The platform is supported on eight hollow steel legs driven into the ocean floor and filled with concrete. Prime power is supplied by diesel engines with mufflers. Measurements included airborne, structureborne, and underwater sound. Underwater measurements were made overside from a drifting boat. Underwater recordings utilized an interim system which did not achieve the high gain, wide bandwidth capability of the NOSC-developed system described above, and used at other locations. Measurements were made during production, drill] pulling, and dyna drilling operations. Production was approximately 6000 barrels per day and drill depth, 850 feet. E-3 Island Rincon--ARCO production island--man-made, approximately 1/2 mile off shore, 10 miles north of Ventura, California. It is connected to Shore via a pile supported trestleway. Power is supplied via electrical lines from shore. Measurements included airborne, structureborne, and underwater sound. Uncerwater measurements were made from a hydrophone lowered from the trestleway, and also overside from a small, drifting boat. All measurements were near the island in water depths less than 50 feet. Here also, the interim recorder-measurement system used at Platform Holly was used. 2. Cook Inlet, Alaska, June 1980 Ocean Bounty--ODECO operated, leased by ARCO, semi-submersible, located in Lower Gack Inlet, approximately 40 miles southwest of Homer. The platform is mounted on eight legs supported by a pair of submerged cylindrical hulls 26 feet in diameter. The rig is anchored by chains in an eight point moor in water 300 feet deep. Platform elevation is maintained by adjusting water level in ballast tanks. Prime power is derived from unmuffled diesel engines. Measurements included airborne, structureborne, and underwater sound. Underwater measurements were from a drifting 50 foot trawler, at ranges from 10 to 400 yards from the platform. Hydrophone depths varied from 20 to 110 feet. Platform King Salmon--ARCO production platform located in Upper Cook Inlet, near Kenai, Alaska. It is a quadripod with legs 10 feet in diameter. Water depth is approximately 60 feet. Primary power is gas turbine. Measurements included airborne, structureborne, and underwater sound. Underwater measurements were obtained during periods near slack tide by lowering the hydrophone from the structure about midway between legs 1 and 2. Hydrophone depths varied from 10 to 35 feet. Platform Spark--ARCO production platform located in Upper Cook Inlet near Kenai, Alaska. It is a tripod with legs 16 feet in diameter. Water depth is approximately 75 feet. Primary power is gas turbine. Measurements included airborne, structureborne, and underwater sound. Underwater measurements were taken during near slack tide with the hydrophone suspended from the edge of the platform approximately midway between legs 2 and 3. Hydrophone depths were varied from 20 to 50 feet. 3. Atlantic City, New Jersey, August 1980 Ocean Victory--ODECO operated, leased by Tenneco, semi-submersible, located near Baltimore Canyon approximately 100 miles out of Atlantic City, New Jersey. This rig is nearly identical to the Ocean Bounty described earlier. It is anchored in approximately 500 feet of water. Measurements were made during drilling at a depth of approximately 15,000 feet. Primary power was from unmuffled diesel engines. Measurements were made of airborne sound (one location) and underwater sound. Underwater sound measurements were made by a hydropnone suspended from the deck edge at the bow location, approximately equally distant from the two submerged hulls. Hydrophone depths were 20 and 120 feet. E-4 Field Data Analysis Preliminary one-third octave band analysis of data on the five platforms in the Santa Burbara and Cook Inlet areas is described in a report entitled, "Field Measur2ments of Underwater Noise from Offshore 011 Operations from January-June 1980" by David R. Schmidt, June 1980. Narrow Sand analysis has been performed on the recordings from Cook Inlet and Atlantic City. These were obtained on the NOSC IDHACS (Intelligent Data Handling and Control System) facility using the Spectral Dynamics SD 360 analyzer to provide analyses of the FM channel from 1 to 300 Hz with an analysis bandwidth of 0.8 Hz, and the AM channel from 100 to 6000 Hz with an analysis bandwidth of 16 Hz. Appendix A presents the hardcopy IDHACS printout for one measurement location on semi-submersible platform Ocean Bounty. The digitized data are for a station at a distance of approximately 50 feet from the Ocean Bounty structure, and with hydrophone depth of 50 feet. The two sets of data are identified by code numbers: OB50A2BDA for the 16 Hz analysis of the direct recording, and OBO5F2BDA for the 0.8 Hz analysis of the FM recordings. Representative spectra for both the 16 and 0.8 Hz analyses are presented in Figures 1 through 8 for platforms Ocean Bounty, King Salmon, Spark, and Ocean Victory. Figures 1 and 2 are graphic presentations of the same data from Ocean Bounty that is shown in digital form in Appendix A. The sharp spikes indicate the presence of line spectra, with multiple single frequency components in the above four platforms. Such line spectra are representative of radiated noise from rotating machinery. Analysis is continuing in order to relate the frequency components to individual machinery sources, and to compare the magnitudes of noise on the various platforms. The magnitude data will be available to estimate zones of potential acoustical influence about the various platforms. Other Data Outputs Magnetic tape duplicates of portions of tape recordings of platforms Ocean Bounty, King Salmon, and Spark have been furnished to the ARCO, Anchorage office. A magnetic tape duplicate of portions of two drift runs of Ocean Bounty has been provided to Polar Research, Inc. for use in connection with BLM-sponsored studies of marine mammal response to acoustic playback of platform radiated noise. E=5 "ZH OT ‘UuypLMpueq sLSA[eue £ZH QOO9-OOT ‘bultpuodeu ydeu1g *jaa4 OG ALazewLxoudde wos zeld uoudoupAH “*€ “ON UNY “AUNOg UuR|aDQ 4O puNOS 4sayeMuspun “*T aunbL4 oss = + ps i cesetsee That 5H ob gui ear be aes OF FS PETES IIS Py OS ALeyzewLxoudde aduejsip epans esagecen "ZH 8°O SURPLMpUeG SLSAL PUR fZH OOE-O ‘bulp4ode4 W4 4394 0G uydap asuoydouphy € "ON uny "4904 *Aqunog ueacg 40 punos uazeMsepup qo tte - caebah Ht "2 ounbL4 SSS a Sa ees = E-7 “ZH OT ‘uypimpueg sisfjeue $24 QO09-00T ‘bulpuodeu 3yd841q “3884 QS A, azewt xoudde Ba, w4ojze,d wouy aouezsiq “aay OE uIdap auoydoupsy ‘uoWLesS BuLy W404 ze{g JO puUNoS Jdazemsapuyn “Ee aunbLy = [Ee Pees hies 1 SYNE ES] HEPES pegs ys SHJSH PSS Sy jas Sooo HE fer 6-8 ) -LoalSdd SSISN-WId ||: E-8 "ZH 8°O ‘UIPLMpueG SLSALeUe $ZH OOE-O “bulp4ode4 W4 ‘yaad og Ajazeurxoudde Ha, wo4uy aouezsip “4aa4 Q€ uydep auoydoupxy *uowles HBuly JO punos 4azeMuapun “y aunbt 4 fe) arent “ZH 8°O ‘UpLMpueg sLSALeue £ZH QOOJ-OOT ‘bulpuodeu ydeuiqg *48e84 GZ Al aqewLxoudde Ba, wuojze,d wouj aoueqysip ‘3984 0g yydap auoYdoupsY ~y4edS wWuosqe[ gq JO Punos 4azeMuspun “Gg aunbL4 {2 Oe ‘LDBPOUd 3STON +16 ea oil tad E-10 G2 Al aqzewtxoudde Ba, wouy aoueysip ZH 8°0 “U3pLMpuRg siskieue £ZH OOE-O “buLp4ode4 Wy “Iae4 “Jae4 0G yidep auoydoupAy *yueds wuosqe[g JO PpuNOS uayeMuapuN Saal Sa Bem ba Saye VS SSS Sy ee { Se aS *g aunbiy ° paasl booed pooss bosbabeood bees a = SS SSS feisionas Dotedeeaas betenes See a 1 enh, + Sa 3 E-11 “ZH OT ‘YapLmpueq sis; eure £z - G bp Kk w G . H 0009-00 Bul puodau ) OU ahaa euEKe ddequnoyaelid Woods BDURISLP “Jaa4 OZ Yydap auoydoupAy SREY CEE LG nines SE LuC Rte *Z aunbiy reaH Es ESOT EpaT Pecev as VURCERETOSESE SSH ie wou iP C rly H pith E HE ; te sisi IE Ws ‘ t ia tl fe Es if ; a HF 23. Se SSS i E i Speoceesoy Sxosteceel betes bests essii = Sok a = = remees po el jeseccceagesgs di HH si ctetstel isbeee E-12 W4 ooo So at BHT swe paess EF: Esesctssssetess ‘a iow sone Et aS es CI f= es 1. SBe' “ZH 8 °4994 Op ALezeuLxXoudde aoueysip ‘3a04 OZ yydap auoydouphy "Q ‘yapimpueg sisdieue *KAOYILA uk|dQ JO puNoOS sazeMsapuN Pete Peis {ed Sse tee DOU areal Bo bere ‘ZH OO€-0 PES: pas ‘BuLlpuodau *g ounbl4 E-13 APPENDIX A REPRESENTATIVE DIGITAL PRINTOUTS FROM SPECTRUM ANALYSES PERFORMED BY THE NOSC IDHACS FACILITY REPRESENTATIVE DIGITAL PRINTOUTS FROM SPECTRUM ANALYSES PERFORMED BY THE NOSC IDHACS FACILITY The following materials are copies of the digital printouts from the NOSC IDHACS (Intelligent Data Handling and Control System). These data are presented as representative examples of the hardcopy obtained from IDHACS on each analysis performed. The example presented here is for a measurement position approximating 50 feet from the bow structure of Ocean Bounty and hydrophone depth of 50 feet. Two analyses are presented, each preceded by an IDHACS status sheet. The first analysis is for 16 Hz analysis bandwidth on the AM recording; the second, for 0.8 Hz analysis of the FM recording. Graphic presentations of these same data are shown in Figures 1 and 2 of the report. E-15 S0-360 SPECTRUM ANALYZER DATA SHEET IDHACS TEST FACILITY 8-14-80 PROJECT: BLM NOISE PROJECT DATA FILE: OESOAZ2. BDA CONFIGURATIGN COMMENTS: UCEAN BOUNTY FUNCTION = 2 -- FWD TRANSFORM A( 1024) INPUT: ATTENUATORS:: FILTERS: AVERAGING: A = 23 WIG = CN N= 8 B= 16 ALIAS = «iN LIN STOREFC = OFF MEMORY HOLD: TRANSIENT PACKAGE: FREQ = 8000 Hz A = OFF CAPTURE KNOE = OFF E = OFF LEVEL INT/EXT = ON TFORMS = MAX OUT = GFF ARM = CFF DELAYB INT/EXT = CFF K/Z = IS OUTPUT: DISFLAY: SCALES PLOTTER: MEMIQ = GFF X = LIN FOINT 4=A Yi = LOG POLAR Y2 = LIN Cor = OFF Fo= 4 G = | DATA: FORMAT=LQG OdE EIN # => 14 BIN RANGE: OMG ytoZzs COMMENTS: ssp V4Oo DATA *ROJECT: BLM NOISE PROJECT DATE: &-14-s0 PAGE 2 OF 4 FH FREG AMPL P# FRE@Q AMF'L PH # P# FREG AMPL PH ee ee eee ee ee ee Qa 00 «6137.8 50 800 Biss Zz + 69.7 -44 1 16.00 132.0 Sl G16 .9 159 # 90. 4 110 Zs ZOO mi ticanl S52 822 L -i3 # 90.9 -106 3 48.00 115.3 53 846 pS SN ease 90. 6 ZL 4 64.00 122.6 54 aé4 5 72D # IO. 17S 3 80.00 122.7 SS Ge .O -& # eg. 26 4 94.00 120.0 n6 € LD NO) a3 5. 4 ~ bb Al l25 OO) T2052 Se? aie So # 87. & 129 & 1276.00 116. 1 SG 92 ne oI), V3 87.9 --41 9 144.00 116.0 59 944 Be 4 # 87.7 154 JO 160.00 114.4 40 940 -5 -147 # 84. 1 =7/ L7G OOn liliGuel 61 976 94.0 120 # 64.0 —-1146 1Z2 197.00 114 1 42 992 PHA, [3 7 SY vas 7.0 172 13 206.00 110.5 43 1. v2.0 Dd Sie, il 14 224.00 110.0 44 1. 92.0 ~o4 + 67.2 -1465 1il.0 (aray ols 927. 1 —9Z 86. 6 18 SUSAN 64 1. Ae, (G) 42 # 64. 1 44 108. 7 67 1. es 154 +# Gé. 1 —-146 107. 1 43 1. DAL 9 ~4 # 84. 4 54 106. 1 6? 1. eee st a6. 4 -105 106. 7 wha) the ey SZ 35.9 117 105. 2 Te Ale QO 141 4 eo. 4 -67 106. 0 ea We 4 =A itt BA. 4 Dh 105.6 Wesel 116 # 87. Zz -&2 102. 4 HAD ASTEH ts) 34.5 102 102. 4 a NM. L137 # es.9 —-Lil 102. 0 Uo bs ~2a # a6. 1 17 102.5 Uh Me 170 # G5. S 176 101.9 en he ~24 # ‘ 35. 4 seals 10zZ, 0 Ze We 139 # s 65.6 176 101. & SO 1. Ba seh oe BS. Z 1? 101.6 SN: & d 108 # A 64.9 -132 100. 5 Sele athay, 112 # 4 4.4 44 ee Eye ao 4 BO # 4 64.3 -140 LOE: B4 1. LOR 154 # K o4. 5 4 Sees fara) A, 4 Sa kK G4. & ete 79. 4 Ss Auele ba # KE BS. 4 WZ Sh 72 8 le hl Sip KE Gusleaest -—o4 Sik Af ite 4 KE 54.9 Lies = mle W + k 65. 1 Le =) Oise 4 $+ K Pate (CO) Su Co keh ; Sale q * aK =\518 as Sl Mich 1 oH K EG rs aSele & a 4K. Her, 77 By ASNT. 0. 4 as OKs Ce, vs) Oey ll. yt Ss eats Wh 4 ke. fl il # 3 OK 9S & Sel re i K. ety ie Sumas 2 3 4 95. & Sua 4 K E-17 Ss—St | 6CUmO AT PROJECT: BLM NOISE FROJECT DATE: &-14--20 PAGE 3 UF 4 * | | I | | ! t | ! | | | x 150 2.40 K S35. & 1278 # 200 3. 20 K 72.1 47 00 K 3. 0 She) 151 2.41 K a4. 4 SE ie AXON ee 2s GEE aie OL K Gils U 167 152 2.43 K Soars 170 # 2027 3. 22 K 72. & 5 as K Cle & mS S3 2. 44 +} 63. 0 67 # 3. 24 K UE -s80 04 K 77.& 145 154 7. 44 tates 7/ Me tas m Zh K Bs it 127 OS K Wek & -47 S52. 46 K SZa7/, So + eh BS 79.8 ei ae K 7&7 108 15464 2. 47 K eh, @). Wy 3 St <. 2, 3 beats oF K Wek 7 - 4 Sy 2 Sil fs S3. 4 1a # Si 79.4 4 ll K eh Z SUT, Sere ae, ene oS 24.4 LG4 # aie ES 154 1Z kK Tiles (es 3 SD). ea 64.5 -14 +# 3 VES baby 14 K 73. 4 144 140 27. 3A KE Soe! 178 ae} Te, 14 K Wak, 45 Shes dh. 7 eas 8 tot, (Ojo Couey? et Ves ® 17 K 60.9 —-150 NEL BS te m4 rey, BO. 2 17K 50. 0 26 VES GOl kK SZ Sh Neate Sh SO. 46 20 K Per ay esi 144 2. 42 K See, ke Bo # ‘. nO, 4 PEPE AS Bis B Lom 165 2.64 - s1. 4 -40 # ch 79.4 K 77.4 -S0 Nate ZB (oa [ks S14 -141 + a. ek K Cus 2 120 Le? 2 GY lk SZ a Silo 3 ch, 79. E 7s. 7 SxS) 14 2. AS ao. O —-jiq # eet PE K 73. & 13 149 2.70 K 1 Q # 3. Ue) K 78.7 -140 ONZE HZ 1 L172 # a ise K SS 4t WIN Fay 77S} y 4 # Sy Tit K Sh di Sal NZ FE TS (iy he Peer 4 ps EK Libs ef sys) WIE 25 KS 4 Sy 7S K ifs A PRG Al 174 2. 7&8 eg 3 WAR K Tues wy LS), Z 7, 4 72, K VY, NAO) WH ZS 3 +H Te 4i kK Tene Bay NOU Fe, 4 ey, 43a °K 77 a 4B is N tet! N a) no cn + b a NAMA NNNIN SS SG NVR ON Oe onan SECS FS NN PD Oe SON PPOR SOR OMNN SAH WH PUR YA OO fo 60 t) 0) Oo 02 oa 63 0) 03 Ga ha WAM oom Oa 4 4 = w/ : 5 : a9 OK T6.5 cad 3 BO K F200 40 K 7b, & ? -142 e2 K aust 62 K. 7&6. 3 FA6) &4, S84 EK Us 64 K 76,35 I! -106 oS. SS K a. 4 45K THe eh ie 26 387 K Tact 47K 76. 5 eh Sapa 6g K 7&4 ot, MnNFMOMFOmANerrpaen Ovi) ¢£ — ho N Pype (= Q) AN a VAN KO pi 82 02 03 02 oF SI ~~ ooh in in ne Kok Kk wk kK Kw KR Ok OK Ke KR KR OK Ok OK eK KOK Kaki KK KOK Kk OK KOK KKK KKK N NO ip SPAHR AS HAHA SA HADDAD SEA AH ADAAADA DSSS HAAS ASDA HAHARHSS } ‘." ae a a a ee a ae a a a a ee a a a a ead ee a a NESS Ho ta 6. > sD TeEeO DATA -ROUECT: BLM NOISE PROJECT DATE: 8-14-80 PAGE 4 OF 4 merece res SSS SSS SSS SSS SSS SS SS SS SSS SSS SS SS SS SS SSS SSS SSS SSS SS SSS SS SSS SSS SSS Pe FREQ AMPL PH + FP# FREG AMPL. PH # P# FRED AMPL FH ee ewe ew Be ee ee Ke a i i i ie 300 4. 20 K 77.90 + at 7h. & DO # Aol 301 4.81 kK 76.8 od = 76. 0 -f6 + 75.3 B02 4. 835 K 75. 2 4 en 75. & 144 3 sh 303 4.84 K 75.9 * Sr TAS -38 # 75. a 304 4. 846 K 7&. 0 + Sh Wa 120 # See. B05 4. 38 K 76.9 # a. 73. 4 104 # 74. 6 » 4 ao k 7&1 + 5. V/Sy ENS # 74.6 4.91 kK Tey, S + ay Vy & 110 # 75. 4 § 4.92 K 7&. 1 # a. 735. 4 -o4 # ah, 4.94 K owl + =, Vay 3 4a + 74.6 4.96 K Ash * ay Vayeh atlinlly a2 74.7 4.297 K isin) * th isto So + 74.6 CAN NS) LES 75. 4 # sh Vey the peta 74.4 ec OOMIK Ves 7 * S. 735. & 47 * 74.1 5.027 K TaD, + a: sy —39 ot 74.1 5.04 K Tile vl # th 76.& -16zZ * 74.5 5 re en of Sy * a Tes Bors 74.4 Fi O7aik 7b. b # 5. WU) 63 # 74. 2 NOE KS VG.O +t ia 76.0 -14&5 # 74.2 SE lOols 76.7 ete ah ay ee fl a 74. i ip, ts T&. 2 * rt 7a. & L175 + Wi Fh cosh =) dN GS 75.8 Pye rah Sie, —S2 # 74.1 Oe ty ole: TS S. & * 5 TA =o Falun tt 74. Zz LSi7, migliou ike Tes, \ cs =, Tiina: 74. 7 —34 Tyo) tay (ke Tbs * a i ©) bat 74.5 {31 (CUE TEIN hey Pe betes NUL eit a Ry TA rl a eM ath CALA TE ah Qe ce MB PRN A AEN rab EAS MIN Co WITNESSES: E-19 S0-340 SPECTRUM ANALYZER DATA SHEET IDHACS TEST FACILITY CCEAN BOUNTY FROJECT: BLM NOISE FROJECT DATA FILE: OBOSFZ. BDA CONFIGURATICGN COMMENTS: OCEAN BOUNTY FUNCTION = 2 -—- FWD TRANSFORM A( 1024) INFUT: ATTENLIATORS: FILTERS: AVERAGING: A = 23 WIG = ON N= & B= 16 ALIAS = ON LIN STOREFC = OFF MEMORY HOLD: TRANSIENT PACKAGE: FRED = 400 hz A = OFF CAPTURE KNOE = ON B= OFF LEVEL INT/EXT = UN TFORMS = MAX QUT = OFF ARM = OFF DELAYEB INT/EXT = OFF K/Z = 15 OUTPUT: DISPLAY: SCALES: PLOTTER: MEMIO = OFF X = LIN POINT ASA Yt = LOG POLAR Y2 = LIN cur = OFF P= 4 @e=t DATA: FORMAT=LO06 OdB BIN # => 312 BIN RANGE: 0 TO 1LOZzS COMMENTS: E-20 f:D-SBeO DATA *-ROJECT: BLM NOISE PROJECT DATE: OCEAN BOLINTY FH FREQ AMF'L zs BU ig eh UE WS, Rite N a oy if on cé) 00 127.7 O # 1 .60 123.6 -180 # Zz 1.40 109.5 O # 3 Zz. 40 62. 4 —-71 * 4 2. 20 85. 4 1o4 + S 4.00 93. 4 OT ae é 4.80 100.3 73 % w 5.40 103.4 -ID # & 440 102, & va # 9 7.20 100.0 -43 # 10 &. OO Be 7 aN ss 11 & 80 100.2 64 # 1Z 9.40 100.& -147 # 132 10.40 #101. 1 S7 4 LA ie Z OF SOAs ZU i DL 2OO OVO Qi 14 17.50 106 7 -GD3 LIE WNSSGoO! WooNs -SS + 16 14.40 100. 1 7& # LO LS ZO VOLE = VNOSi st ZO 14 00 103.0 -G1 # Zl 16.60 103.1 G1 # ZENG EEO! OZ Z. ili .O) itt 23 1840 101.9 -17 # Z4 197.270 105.9 -Lha # 25 20.00 105.5 -9 * 26 20.80 102.3 ah # ZI PANO)» HOSS 174 # AB. PD TVoy Soka, Sv ce Sey 3 Che) PaS, PAG) Mayen, Ml ZO # 30 24.00 105, 1 <-f5a) * Sl 24.80 103.6 est ve Fu & 104.6 L145 + OSE, — ese 101. & 128 # TOL? -4A # 104, & Tie LOLS 16 * NOUS OM (itr /amest 105. 6 a0 + NOG (7) = AE ais 3 OZR, oS ey 104.8 -25 + NOG? 70 Fe lize ae se 114.9 Gl # AVIA Sie Oli crest 102.4 GZ # 100, ft ~145 # 100. 9 -17 * 40 ee 20 esl (axa) EG 80 NS 40 LE 40 LOL ZO arf (aye) Dt ao 27 60 99 40 Bye) 20 99 E-21 Ah Rm: Ln ,OiUeN RO we KR wk KR eK eK eR KK KR RK KK eK Ke Kk KR ke OK RK RK me KK Kk KK OK KK KK Ok Kk KK OK KX 5d PAGE 2 UF 4 F# FREQ AMF'L PH 100 80. 00 98. 3 ~4Z 101 &0, &O 96.46 177 102 81.40 101.47 147 103 82.40 110.5 cabs 104 85.20 111.4 148 105 &4.00 104.5 =i 104 84.80 101.8 122 107 €5. 60 4 yd 105 sé 40 On. 8 1905 LOSE S7ZO etait —120 110 &&. 00 973. 2 -15 lil 6&6. eo 94.6 L144 112 sv. 40 YS. & a 113 90. 40 yes, eh Nery 114 P41. 20 20. 7 32 Lis 92. a0 Oe Me hes 114 92. GO BL, PE 73 117) 93. 6O ile -&4 lie 94.40 103.3 90 IW 9S ZO OBI, -62 120 394.00 105.4 -147 121 946.60 104.4 24 122 97.40 23.0 -4 123 698. 40 95.9 NY 124 979. 20 24.1 27/ mG 116 Bd -47 Be 120 1 - 47 4 10 Ba mala mi NOOO so ho PNFON Me Ke mete Mc VASE EEG) Ne = Di— Sz. DATA -ROJECT: BLM NOISE PROJECT DATE: CCEAN EOLINTY QON PROBE CS ee Chen chen on on cn on ch 14 ; 143 -48 144 Z 145 170 144 22 167 120 cod G23 OO os MNF OR RNTOMF-UVUNNEONFTObHVOUPUHHOD t p= ho oN | cS N 9 -Z1 9 ~149 @Z 145.40 106.4 -98 BG 146 40) So7ea Wet BVT SWAG) eto GYM Vy eee) 85 148.00 99.7 -69 G4 140. 50 101. 2 Set 87 149.460 97.1 ; a Z g 2 so so Nt mon Mya ay “2 ty. 1 4 é r7, “a0 .3 wn ky RK ROK Kk KR RK KEK KOK OK RK OK KR OK KR KR KR KO RR KR OK kK kK ek OK OK KOK Ok OK OK 2700 140. 00 RSL (a) 173 ZO1 160. 8a eS =z} 202 141. 40 Ot, ez ay 203 162. 40 Ce Ss NIE} 204 143. 20 A It L190 205 1464. 00 92.3 -47 206 164, 80 Sy U7 154 207 145. 60 97.9 —2 Zon 164. 40 oy ae | 145 209 147. 20 94.9 1 Zio 148.00 100.97 -I1S1 Zil 148. 8 1o1.a 30 Z1l2 149. 40 96. St -26 Z13 170. 40 S37 EO Z 95. 5 73 : ba 30 Qa -109 = 110 Z mshi Qj lee z 10 1 127 @) -70 7 O17: ren L os 02 “aN DS ! = 2 164 te) 149 oF og pale, 7A Por Se Sie ONG ON PEN Poo w E-22 Ke KR RK OK eK KK KK KK KK KR KKK KKK KK KK KK KKK KKK 250 200, 00 PR A) aha? 251 200. SO 97.4 Ve 252 ZOL. 6&0 B75 By 124 253 2027. 40 96.2 =1a6 254 203. 20 Pe. Z 134 255 204. 00 99.0 & 254 204, 20 22.3 tes) 257 205. 60 Yee the) brie: 258 204. 40 75.4 44 Paste) AX7/., ZA9) 95. 3 a3} 240 208. 00 bic iy Aco WC / 261 208. &O 92. & -91 Z62 209. 60 93.9 105 243 210. 40 94.7 -26 264 2114. 20 ye. 1 -1463 2635 212.00 102.3 107 ZEA 212.80 104. 9 -77 247 213.640 104. 1 9S 245 214.40 100. 7 -—30 Ze VMS ZO" eNO Ores L146 LO VAL ERO el OA re 2. ali LTA GeO) TAO Sone) 64 PLU EL LWT Cah AMG) - 52 BATS SE Loe 274 aL NI Ce 5 Daas bay a & SrA ue. YW 94.2 go =) BN) ech etWes 94.7 of) Yh G 154 96.8 I “sw 1} ppm — ie 2 MOESSES rs Oooo =o) Ls pb Pi Re Se 4 rahe) Wek Los 4 AU cel ltora) scl 4&2 a) -9 1 as 107 6 ane ir 73 5 collects =O Seo OATA _ROJECT: BLM NOISE PROJECT DATE: QCEAN EQUNTY PAGE 4 OF 4 FH FREG AMF*L FH # FH FREQ AMPL FH # PH FREO AMPL PR ee ee ee ee ee ee ee Se 300 240. 00 96.3 49 * 325 260. 00 D4. & 1764 # 350 250. 00 92.7 15 301 240. 80 98. 7 -92 # 324 240. 80 EER a) -1 # 351 260. 20 92.6 127 302 2741. 60 9b. & 105 # 327 241. 40 92.7 -145 # 252 251. 60 93. 6 -91 303 242. 40 94.9 -5G # S28 262.40 92.1 92 # 353 2787 40 895.4 40 B04 242. 20 93. 4 94 # 329 243. 20 93.6 -105 # 354 283. 20 98.90 -134 305 244. 00 92.9 -Lll * 330 244. 00 96.5 67 # S55 284. 00 99.9 6Z BO4 244. 2O CEE) 74 # 331 244. GO 96.2 -117 # 354 284. &O 97.6 -107 307 245. 40 94.4 -61 # 332 265. 60 94.0 38 # S57 ZES. 60 94.6 EY SOE 244.40 97.1 149 # S32 266.40 92.7 -167 # 258 254.40 95.4 —Al 309 247.20 101.2 -44 # 334 267. 20 93.0 4 # S59 287. 20 96.7 -8S 310 248.00 104.0 9a # S35 2465. 00 93.5 -L151 * 340 288. 00 23.6 Be Sli 245.60 103.8 -93 # 336 24S. BO D3a@ 7i * S61 288.80 too, 5 —Lilo SiZ 249.40 100.5 J) # 337 249, 40 92.4 -L11 # 3462 259. 40 250) coh S13 250. 40 hey, (0) | atchsy cis 270, 40 Sie Sl G5 # S 290, 40 94. 7 40 B14 251. 20 et 44 # & 271. 20 DE. J -100 # 34644 291. 270 Sel 144 315 252.G0 104.8 -145 # 272. 00 ie), (a) S2 # S45 2927. 00 fret, al -40 S14 257,80 107.6 -12 # S41 272. 50 97.5 -1058 # B64 292. SO REY (0) 20 317 253.60 108°6 138 # 342 272. 60 94.4 37 # 347 293. 40 es 2 So) a1o 254. 40 27. & -84 # 343 274. 40 93.7 -1S9 # S48 294. 40 rey ce 101 G1i9Y 255. 20 wie ol ZO # 344 275. 20 93.3 41 # 349 295. 20 ne xe 14 BZO 254. OO 92. 1 -149 # 245 2746. 00 93.3 -147 *# 370 294. 00 CHO) ase S21 2546. 60 89.5 32 # G44 274. GO ish Z2# S71 296. 80 XG) 2 9b S22 257. 40 SS. 7 -124 # 247 277. 460 DZ. & 146 % S7Z 2977. 60 B39. Zz -54 323 258. 40 39.6 lll # 345 278. 40 92.4 27 # S73 295. 40 E946 ae) 374 259, 20 Zao SWF st AD 27) tO DPA TEN eA te eure ARIS. eX) Pk, 73 D4 E-23 R Peg th an v me ne edt nA iF er i : wy ") ite 7 ee ry ‘ Prt, Bias APPENDIX F as if \ ear i ys Sain fae vin are 5 Thora Ye ay a Underwater Noise Measured at Fourteen Oil Platforms Off Santa Barbara, California 1 August 1981 Prepared for: Dr. Elek Lindner, Code 5131 Naval Ocean Systems Center San Diego, California 92152 Prepared by: Robert S. Gales Computer Sciences Corporation 4045 Hancock Street San Diego, California 92110 Contract N00123-79-D-0272 Delivery Order No. 7N17 F-1 Underwater Noise Measured at Fourteen Oil Platforms Off Santa Barbara, California R. S. Gales INTRODUCTION This report is a brief summary of data from a series of measurements of underwater noise in the vicinity of fourteen oi] and gas platforms engaged in offshore drilling and/or oil and gas production in the general area of Santa Barbara, California. This is an interim summary report on the field-data recording portions of the Bureau of Land Management Task: "Study of the Effects of Sound on Marine Mammals." This work was conducted under Naval Ocean Systems Center Project MM28, BLM Project AA851-1A0-5. The scheduling of the measurement activity during Janury 1981 was selected specifically to coincide with the southward migration of the gray whales through the Santa Barbara offshore waters. During the time of the noise measurements, extensive observations were being made on the specific migration routes of the whales between Point Conception and Santa Barbara. These observations were being conducted by the Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History under contract in connection with BLM-sponsored studies of effects of oi] concentration on animal behavior. It was hypothesized that oil seeps known to exist in the Santa Barbara area might influence the migratory behavior of the whales. Similarily, the possibility that noise from the extensive offshore drilling and production might also affect the whales made it important to gather noise data in the same general area. The noise data have not yet at this writing been related to the migratory behavior in any detailed fashion. F-2 OBJECTIVE The overall objective of the Project is to assess the impact of under- water noise created by offshore oil drilling and production operations on marine mammals along the outer continental shelf of the U.S. and propose mitigating measures if necessary. The measurements described in this report were directed at three goals: (1) To broaden the data base on underwater noise radiated by offshore oi] operations by gathering data on a large number of drilling and production platforms. (2) To determine the general geographic distribution of underwater noise in the area off Santa Barbara, California, to provide data which might be correlated with the miaration pattern of the California Gray whales which traverse this area. (3) To determine the variability with time over a period of five days for a platform engaged in offshore drilling. APPROACH (1) Magnetic tape recordings were made of the underwater noise near each of fourteen platforms using a hydrophone-pre amplifier-filter- recorder package especially designed for broad frequency range, high sensitivity and low noise. This system is the one used in all field surveys conducted on this project since June 1980. Recordings were analyzed for spectrum content in the NOSC Intelligent Data Handling and Control System (IDHACS) facility. Both the recording system and the IDHACS facility are described in Ref. 1. F-3 (2) A continuous graphic record was obtained on one platform over a period of five days. This was accomplished by suspending a hydrophone to a depth of 30 feet below the oil platform and coupling the hydrophone output into a sound level meter with an ink-writing chart recorder. RESULTS The results of the underwater noise measurements in the Santa Barbara area are presented in two sections. The first will deal with the spectrum analyses of the noise from each of the fourteen platforms and will describe the location and operating characteristics of each. The second section will present the results of the five-day continous graphic record for a single platform. 1. Spectrum Data A listing of the fourteen platforms, with an abbreviated code designation for each, is given in Table 1. The table lists the type of platform, its activity (drilling and/or production) at the time of the data recording, the prime power source, water depth, and a general noise rating to give a qualitative rating of quiet vs noisy rigs. The locations of the platforms are shown in Figures 1, 2, and 3 which are taken from hydrographic charts showing shoreline, water depth contours, and miscellaneous information, such aS pipeline locations. Figure 4 is a chart showing the locations of the areas covered by figures 1, 2, and 3 (outlined in red). This chart shows the geographic relationship to Santa Barbara, its offshore islands, the F-4 general coastal configuration, and the coastwise shipping lanes. Platforms Hondo and Rincon, the most westerly and easterly of the platforms measured, are shown as blue circles. The magnetic tape recordings of the underwater noise at the platforms were made on January 19, 20 and 28, 1981. Large swells of height approximately 5 to 10 ft and period about 12 seconds were present from a storm offshore to the west. The wind varied from about 5 to 10 knots at Platforms Hondo, Holly, and Rincon to 15 to 20 knots for the remainder. Recordings were made from several boats, each drifting freely with all motors secured. The boats were approximately 45 to 80 feet long. The hydro- phone was lowered overside to a depth of 100 feet for measurements reported herein. At times rolling motion of the recording boat generated interfering noise. Tape sections used for analysis were carefully selected to reject portions in which the self noise of the recording boat was noticeable. Each tape sample was recorded on two channels. The FM channel recorded from 0 to 2500 Hz and the direct channel from 100 to 30000 Hz. The analysis was performed on the NOSC IDHACS facility, which utilizes a Spectral Dynamics S.D. 360 to provide analysis of the FM channel from 1 to 300 Hz with an analysis bandwidth of 0.8 Hz, and the direct channel from 100 to 6000 Hz with an analysis bandwidth of 16 Hz. Data outputs were in the form of digital printouts, and spectrum plots in analog graphic form. Data from the latter were transcribed manually to spectrum plots of sound pressure spectrum level F-5 vs frequency. These plots are overlaid on standard ambient noise curves to show the relationship of the measured noise to expected natural ambient sea noise. Such plots for each of the fourteen platforms are shown in Figures 5 through 9. They show tonal components (also called spectrum lines) as vertical lines with a dot at the top showing the sound pressure level of that component. In general, line components are produced by a repetitive mechanical process of very stable cyclic repetition rate, such as a rotating machine (engine, electric motor, turbine, pump, etc.). All platforms show such lines, as might be expected from their extensive use of rotating machinery. Also on each plot is a dashed curve showing the spectrum level (level in a one-hertz-wide band) of the continuous spectrum portion of the noise. A continuous spectrum is generated by a series of non-cyclic, or random events. Such noise generally covers a broad band of frequencies; hence, it is often called broad-band noise. The normal ambient noise in the sea is generated by breaking waves and is dependent on sea state, and therefore wind speed. The spectra of such natural broad- band noises for each of four selected sea-state conditions are plotted on each graph to serve as a reference to natural sea noise which is familiar to animals. Also shown are curves of the continuous spectrum noise (at lower frequencies) generated by the cavitating propellors of ships. The level of such noise depends on the number of cavitating ships in the general vicinity (shipping density). Note that the three curves are labeled heavy, moderate, and light. It is likely that the area off Santa Barbara would be characterized as "heavy" shipping. The two sets of ambient noise curves (sea state, and shipping) are widely used in underwater acoustics for pre- diction of oceanic noise (Ref. 2). F-6 A method for evaluating the noise of a platform is presented in which the highest of the ambient noise curves shown in Figs. 5-9 is used as reference norm for natural noise. The number of decibels by which the platform noise exceeds this reference is readily observable from the graphs. The maximum value of this was determined in each of three frequency regions, rather arbitrarily selected to cover the frequency range from 5 to 5000 Hz which encompasses the main noise of the platforms. The three frequency regions are: (1) 0-30 Hz, (2) 30 to 300 Hz, and (3) above 300 Hz. The value of the maximum excess in each of these frequency regions is tabulated for each olatform in Table I. Their values in decibels vary from a maximum of 45 decibels in the under 30 Hz band for platform A to zero for platform Rincon. The right hand column of Table I gives a noise rating derived by rating the noise excess of each of the three frequency regions separately as follows: an excess of over 40 is designated: N, for noisy; 30 to 40: M for moderate and under 30 Q, for quiet. The three ratings are combined to derive a total rating of Noisy, Moderate, Quiet, or Very Quiet. Note that only one olatform, the man-made Rincon Island, rates a Q in each frequency region, and so is rated very quiet. This is probably the result of its being supplied by shore power, so it does not need a local generator of prime power, and vibration from machinery on the island does not propagate effectively through the island material and does not radiate efficiently into the surrounding shallow water. The two platforms rated "noisy" have no obvious common relationship. Platform C is a production platform driven by shore-generated power, so it might have been expected to be quiet. Its noisy rating results from relatively high-level spectrum lines in all three frequency regions, especially those F-7 below 300 hertz. Platform Henry, also rated noisy, similarly was rated noisy in the two lower bands. It was engaged in drilling and production, and generated its own prime power with a gas turbine, so it might be expected to be noisy. A rise in the broad band spectrum in the frequency region above 2000 Hz was observed for some platforms, including man-made Rincon Island. It may be hypothesized that this is due to breaking waves, or surf-like noise which was prominent at some rigs, including Rincon Island. Because of the high swells, there was a great deal of water splashing and run-off from various structural members of the platforms, and from auxiliary boat landing aids, such as rubber tires, etc. This is visible in the photograph of Platform Houchin (Fig. 10). It may be noted that the broad-band spectra for the various platforms in general were shaped approximately like the sea-state spectrum curves, which are related to breaking waves at the sea surface. The variability in snape and level of the continuous spectrum portion for the various platforms might be ex- pected, based on specific structural differences in those areas washed by the passing swells. 2. Variation of Underwater Sound Level With Time A continuous chart record of the sound pressure level of the noise at Platform Hondo was made for five days starting at approximately 1000 hours on Monday, 19 January 1981. The termination of the data was inadvertently caused by a gradual loss of marking density by the recording pen. Although the trace began to fade at 1500 hours on Thursday, 22 January, it remained slightly visible through 24 January. F-8 The pen traced the overall sound pressure level in a wide frequency band. The band was determined by the "C" weighting on the sound level meter which has its -3 decibel roll-off points at 30 and 8009 Hz. This indicates that the two spectral lines at 4 and 28 hertz (Fig. 4, Hondo) were out of the pass band, so that the overall level was principally made up of the components clustered between 70 and 280 Hz, and those at 3.4 and 4.3 KHz, plus the broad band noise component which is estimated to have an overall level comparable to, or perhaps exceeding that of the spectrum lines above 30 Hz. In general, the overall level was quite stable, except when a work boat, or personnel boat was in the near vicinity. It was quite apparent that the noise of these boats was dominant, particularly when their propellers were cavitating, as when maneuvering and when at cruising speed or above. Figure 11 shows a work boat alongside Platform Hope during drilling operations. Note that Hope and Heidi (in background) each have two large cylindrical legs. Data presented will show the variability of the overall sound level at the hydrophone location below the west edge of the platform at a depth of 30 feet, and will relate the level to local activity. For reference purposes a value of 100 decibels is assigned to the minimum overall sound pressure level which was observed at midnight (2400 hours) on Wednesday, 21 January, at which time the wind and sea were probably relatively calm. At this time, and during other relatively quiet periods the level varied over about a four decibel range, rising repeatedly to maxima of about 104 to 105 aB, and falling to minima of about 100 to 101 dB. On one occasion, at approxi- mately 0720 hours on Friday, 23 January the level rose to 114 dB, with F-9 maxima of 117, and remained at this fairly stably until about 1400 hours, at which time the level returned to 102 dB with maxima of 104. The ink trace at this point was very faint so details of the level variation during this period are not observable. The absence of an accurate time reference after Thursday, 22 January makes it impossible to state the times with much accuracy. The times are all estimated on the basis of the time mark at the start of the run on Monday, 19 January and the assumption that the nominal chart speed of 10 cm per hour was accurate. The major noise increases were related to work boat activity nearby. The "Brazos Sea Horse", a 200 foot work boat, raised the level to about 115-116 dB with a maximum of 119. While it was maneuvering nearby it raised the level to 123 dB with a brief peak at 132 dB. The "Tiger-Shark," an 80 foot boat with twin engines, produced levels of 120-130 dB with a maximum of 132 while maneuvering nearby. A somewhat similar vessel, the "Tap Tide," produced levels of 110-130 dB, also with a 132 dB maximum while ijt was maneuvering near the platform. From the above, rather limited data, it would appear that the sounds of the drilling operations from platform Hondo are relatively stable, but that substantial increases in local noise occur during the times of arrival, departure and maneuvering of support boats. References NOSC, Summary Report of 30 September 1980 on BLM Task: Study of the Effects of Sound on Marine Mammals". Urick, Robert J. Principles of Underwater Sound, McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York, 1975. O€>"9XJ aston O Ov-O€ °9XJZ aston W Ob < "9XJ 9SLON N Bulzeu astou 03 POW OWN POW OWN 721NdD DOW POW DWW POW DDN Pow DON ASLON ONN POW DON POW DON Pow ODN ASLON WNN yatnd AsaQ Odd 791ND DOW Pow WOW xxxbUL}OY 9SLON Kay HK (Juatsueuz [euoz) yuelo uLreyy pueq peoug wnuzoads auLy 42 Hast OO a a2O Ha Ha a Aa 7 SS99Xq BSLON 02 Aa 62 62 ce €2 Te S2 8T 92 ce 82 8v GE 02 €2 ce a 4 a Coal foe) aa 4 = N a a 4 Sa ae oe | 4% (dP) xx SS89XJ BSLON “44 “HH “43 “33 yzdaq 06 06 021 cel tbl c91 ra} c6l O8T O8T O8T Sv 002 0S8 4a7eM SWHOSLV Id WuVadva VINYS JO AYYWWNS *sBat [eotupuL[Ad vazowelp abel om7 sey w4osreld 0-0 ‘yaquinu [eLuas SL | euawny uoLqoNposg = dq “BULLLLAG = G pue|st apew-uew = gautquny seB uotqonpoug "19919 axoys uoLyoNpoug "y9a13 auoys a gaurquny seb uOLJONpOUd gaurqunz seb “poug 9 LL Lud “39919 auoYs UOLJINPOUg "49919 a4oYys UuoLyINpoUg “79913 auoys F autquny seb SLLOM 6 “POdd B LLLG autquny seB S|[am 9¢ “poug °398[9 Buoys S_LaM TZ “Ppoug "39918 BuoUS SLAM Tp ‘poug “29919 BUOYS SLLaM Zp “poud *q99,[a au0Yys UoLIONpoud *qoaLa sn} + L9SAlPf “pOdd B LLL4d Lasaip Butt {tug 9IUNOS 4aMod AXLALOY “T F18VL IWW ‘paxt4y = 4 0-0 0-0 AYLALZOY swuoszetd yo adAy :3pO) UOLJeLABUqgY 032 Aay x BaLtainw paxt4 BaLtdinw paxt4 BaLLILNW paxt4 Barlainw paxt4 BaLtiLnW paxty Hal tdLnw paxt4 BaLlLa[nW paxt4 HaLtainw paxt4 Bal t7LNW paxt4 BaLtainW paxt4 HatlzinW paxt pue[s] apew-uey BaLlazinW paxt4 BaLLa_nwW pext4 xWUOJFELd JO adh] II-d4 OI-d4 6-d4 €-dd4 8-d4 L-d4 e-ddd 9-d4 S-d4 b-dj €-d4 I-IWW I-dd4 1-d4 x Aaaqqy PPLLH Lazey {play adoy ueBoy uLyonoy Auuay SSNOuLLtH Vv § 2) uOoULY ALLOH Opuoy aweN F-12 My a fe Avy 1 or yal 6 Hapa o 7 ast y y ~ 4 c i f I, SS 7 wb / upytdey F-13 NIGHT: Flames on the boot as from o burning tor borrel, 9 forth. DAY OR NIGHT: Continuous sounding of fog signol opporat Fi g. 2 i 1 | | ) 2 65m 17 (| | " t —-' — i = Beall i ; 13 H ene M [| SCALE 1:50,000 2 19 —~~_!8 KS ie | 3000 ‘000 ‘8000 ‘6000 % 8 ] 2 2 2) 2 20 (7 (| 19 7 2! 20 ie x ‘ < as eee ss 6i¥ WM4oF JP) apo WE rr, | =“ BOAR 3 — 7 65e" | b i! Beig — fe HOU EP) 4 io] sO! SitaND panoHq ob L. A i Be 202 702 vRay WOM oe IS A. Neusisap 42})2) UO!) 30 3dAL NOILVLS 1O1L143d34N 3SINd 4and3u4 9-NVYOT JYANI9 1 \, bs il i \ S oe | | gasnacsassnsless Gupenenesseusensessses. Creer yee {SURE SeSReSee sees seaeeesseuseseesenerassses poor Pry maseusasessses AEl p64 F-16 ~oectrum level. dre 1uPo Sper Wsercte: De Na = -—-L Be 120 10 Frequency, Hz 50 100 200 5001,000 10,000 100,000 ’ 1 Stiencorsl 50 100 200 $001,000 Frequency, Hz 10,000 100,000 5 10 20 50 100 200 5001000 Frequency, He 10°90 F-17 100,000 HONDO Water Depth: 850 ft. Hydrophone Depth: 100 ft. Distance: Average 50,100,200 ft. i Tonal (Spectrum line) ceed} ~ ©”. Broad band (cont. spect.) ° Data tape speed 75 ips oO Data tape speed 30 ips HOLLY Water Depth: 210 ft. Hydrophone Depth: 100 ft. Distance: 100 ft. RINCON Water Depth: 30 ft. Hydrophone Depth: 20 ft. Distance: 110 ft. Fig. 5 Spectra of underwater noise of platforms Hondo, Holly and Rincon Superimposed on average deep water ambient noise spectra F-17 Platform C Water Depth: 180 ft. Hydrophone Depth: 100 ft. Distance: Average 50,200,200 ft. ind speed, knots Spectrum level, dB re} uPo | Tonal (Spectrum line) \ € 5, 10) (20 50 100 200 500 1,000 10,000 100,000 Frequency, Hz —O ~ Broad band (cont. spect.) * Narrow band component ! from chain clanking | of mooring buoy. Shipping |.f. 2 teed Tne tee ess Platform B Water Depth: 180 ft. Hydrophone Depth: 100 ft. Distance: 100 ft. e wi 7 ind speed, <1 2 t | =: aN 1 2 5 10 20 50 100 200 $001,000 10,000 100,000 Frequency, Hz 120 | 110 = | fae Po ane) ° Hes ey Platform A 60 Beoutort r wiretarce | | | | Water Depth: 180 ft. iG Poche eel at Hydrophone Depth: 100 ft. é S26. 57> heen Distance: 100 ft. (i &Xo) 5s Seale + euuvs uJ hone 5 10 20 50 100 200 5001000 1aa00 100,000 Frequency, He F- 18 Fig. 6 Spectra of underwater noise of Platform C, Platform B and Platform A superimposed on average deep water ambient noise spectra F-18 Spectrum levei, dB re ' Po TP Srectrum level. cS re’ uPo 120}-—-+ Wo 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 o Heovy | <<] Mosderote ~ = Smipping ~ re Gi Maa 2 5 10 20 50 100 200 5001,000 Frequency, Hz HILLHOUSE Water Depth: 192 Hydrovhone Depth: Distance: 100 ft. ft. 100 ft. | Tonal (Spectrum line) _—2~ Broad band (cont. Spect.) Bhs AEH FXo) 50 100 200 500 1,000 Frequency, Hz 10,000 100,000 at hor Pad force =o an snd speed, knots: ial ‘iol Ey Ako Xo) 50 100 200 5091000 Frequency, Ve swuee) $0.90 100,900 HENRY Water Depth: Hydrophone Depth: Distance: 1090 ft. HOUCHIN Water Depth: 162 f Hydrophone Depth: Distance: 100 ft. 162 ft. 100 ft. Be 100 ft. Fig. 7 Spectra of underwater noise of platforms Hillhouse, Henry and Houchin superimposed on average deen water ambient noise spectra F-19 120 }—- }- ——4++4+— }---—-}| + -- _ |—- 1 ----+ no 100 a 90}—4 = 80 HOGAN Dero Water Depth: 144 ft. oe Hydrophone Depth: 100 ft. shi Distance: 100 ft. € 50 fa I EE | | 20 pee brn | Tonal (Spectrum line) PSL \ 2 i Nero) 50 100 200 500 1,000 10,000 100,000 Frequency, Hz io ~ Broad band (cont. spect.) HOPE Water Depth: IS 2 fits Hydrophone Depth: Distance: 100 ft. 100 ft. 1 2 5 10 20 50 100 200 £001,000 10,C0O 100,000 Frequency, Hz 3 ica es rama | + ie aaa aia ena at ee ae Grates 10 = | ee ‘lame sis 100 - + | Tag ils if 90 {——}.-- sealed i cl a HEIDI : BE OSU aL aa eel aA Saal - wind oy || ne Water Depth: 120 ft. a GEE OTAGO Hydrophone Depth: 100 ft. >oectrun level, d3 re 1uPu 60 feo S 2 4 [2 Seah Seep | | Water Depth: 90 ft. ci > Wind speed. trots] | Hydrophone Depth: 100 ft. S295 seo Distance: 100 ft. ~LI> L6 stote Spectrum level, d3 re i uPo a fe) aK : 1\ | Wis se a 2 [ Tonal (Spectrum line) ‘ ra 5 10 20 50 100 200 500 1,000 10,000 100,000 Frequency, Hz ——O~ Broad band (cont. spect.) HILDA Water Depth: 90 ft. Hydrophone Depth: 100 ft. Distance: Average 59 and 200 ft. SSI LLU 1 2 By) AOS feo) 50 100 200 500 1,000 10,000 100,000 Frequency, Hz Fig. 9 Spectra of underwater noise of platforms Hazel and Hilda superimposed on average deep water ambient noise spectra F=21 ULYONOH wWuosze Id “OT eunbly F-22 adOH wuOsdeld “TT aunbLy APPENDIX G NOSC TD June 1982 ESTIMATED UNDERWATER DETECTION RANGES BY MARINE MAMMALS OF NOISE FROM OIL AND GAS PLATFORMS Robert S. Gales Naval Ocean Systems Center San Diego, California 92152 cal ile OMS Me VII. CONTENTS INTRO DU GIRTON Aen ok ta eee aie CORA Humpa ney 7ote ee Me Wat fads ee Dea eam SOUPC ESP IMEEM IODE Ss Go 608. old Gale eils 6 6 a400616 58 6 oF 6 DE SS OUIGC Cee fe loeaicetcce wan eee icc eve necanmelit zee d nose al Gate PI a Paes A cee Tihs irs ee a SiMe fel] Gleam Nee Ie TOR NRC SIMS i (10 ee emer Buea AC icy Eze MRIGCENIVEI ete ey as ramen ean Utne aMvaaii ess Bi (lan Oe Res ce se aaa aa ae Are aire QUITE C Cxtatineivstuzecnte diel Cialis uahores a ite h oman enmenmelerarsur siete ral) online yak dred ys ne SA SOWING PARCIEGENEIOM 6 Nah oa Go 6) old GS Marea oo my ous 6 60 Ike SRSE TG MLOSS id b GU aio) bolo 6 Gee G64) 516 6 5.5 6 oo Be ANCA UGHE TOME OSSam Us uo etsoae: lo\no. “oy se oo eRe Gaas 6. noo -6 6 GR IRICCENVEIE. evan et klniesy ose ieaiiarcr a everuapetstaion, tetas Sere ceaker ahha rae hes art ae ae aes ‘ DreSSvAmb ie nitaiN@slisi@uvory cos ley versa neck MUL Cplllern de mmesyeh Neemphe iOS J Sey 0 Soe ce Sa NPM [D aitralbsytor ev uccin saint ai ein napiecticara | toUitec. evil re psnele Mallen ater ey ii sey Uw ait ly. iclvee Meer, sts Seema tS aia s. -Soltzes Havel) (SESS las SCMiRCaS 6666 6.6086 Bb S665 6 Zee Minimums Detectabiles sigma (MDS: =iiNIER+NCR))steweclts sree) celer eam Gre GaliGuiliacadon sO DeLeCtallon Rang Curnutencncimrmmsterents .0\\topiren reuse DRSCUSSTON MR loins: foe tela rinesiig feiss nsaiiemeo NC Eea Ne eMemi neo eels eyp esi couch aay eines CON GEUSTONS Wer esw sles at naniresiceriwem tem atom tale ies Lonel te se mreMin Mes otits/icral Re’ oon Comic aat tals G=2 ee ee LETSiy OF TABLES Calculated Detection Ranges for Platform SSD-1 Platform Data Calculated Detection Ranges for Platform FP-1 Platform Data Calculated Detection Ranges for Platform FP-2 Platform Data LEDSTORRIGURIES Simplified diagram of hypothetical fixed drilling platform Attenuation coefficients in decibels per kiloyard as a function of frequency for sound propagation in sea water Sound transmission loss in sea water vs. distance Critical ratio and critical band data for four animals as a function of frequency Average deep-water ambient noise spectra Ambient noise spectra at coastal locations with wind speed as a parameter One-third octave band analysis of water-borne noise from the semi- submersible drilling rig SSD-1 One-third octave band analysis of water-borne noise from the production platform FP-1 One-third octave band analysis of water-borne noise from the production platform FP-2 G-3 Page ADMINISTRATIVE DATA The work described in this report was conducted in 1980 and 1981 for the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) of the U.S. Department of Interior under Interagency Agreement No. AA851-IA0-5 entitled, "Study of the Effects of Sound on Marine Mammals" (NOSC Project 513-MM28). The work was sponsored by the New York Outer Continental Shelf office of BLM under the general supervision of J. Philip Thomas and Eiji Imamura. Jeffrey P. Petrino of BLM Code 851 served as Cont RaGciingmoOnencerm NOSC was selected for this work because of its unique combination of experience and facilities in the areas of underwater sound and marine mammals. The work was done by a task group managed by Dr. Elek Lindner of the Marine Sciences Division. Principal members of the task team were: R. S. Gales, Acoustics, J. A. Hoke, Instrumentation, and D. R. Schmidt, Data Recording and Analysis. The whole-hearted cooperation and assistance of all members of the team is gratefully acknowledged. In addition, thanks are due to other members of the Airborne Acoustics Branch who assisted at various times, particularly to Karen Wilcken, who typed the original manuscript. Acknowledgements are also due to members of Computer Sciences Corporation (CSC) under contract to NOSC for their significant contributions to the later portions of the project. Participants from CSC were: D. MacCormack and R. Christensen who performed the source spectrum analyses, and J. A. Hoke who performed under CSC after his retirement from government service in late 1980. G-4 ESTIMATED UNDERWATER DETECTION RANGES OF NOISE FROM OIL AND GAS PLATFORMS IT. INTRODUCTION The oil and gas resources of the outer continental shelf (OCS) are an important element of the energy plan of the United States, yet the development of these resources must be accomplished with minimum adverse effects on the coastal environment. High on the list of environmental concerns is the well being of the ecosystem. Of the several agents which might impinge adversely on coastal animal life, noise is a potential pollutant which has to date received very little attention. Noise and vibration from offshore installations may be transmitted into the sea and sea floor, and may propagate for long distances in the underwater environment. It is known that underwater sound is important to many marine organisms, particularly marine mainmals, such as the Cetacea (Tavolga, 1964; Myrberg, 1978). Therefore, it is important that a systematic study be made of the sounds radiated by OCS operations and of their potential effects on undersea animal life. G-5 This report is a brief initial look at this problem. It presents data on underwater noise measured in the vicinity of OCS 011 and gas platforms, discusses propagation of this sound in the ocean, and considers potential interaction of the sounds with certain marine animals. Major attention is given to those species which are most likely to be sensitive to sound. The Cetacea (whales, dolphins, and porpoises) have been particularly selected for this analysis because of their known uses of, and observed sensitivity to, sound (Herman, 1980). The ultimate objective of this project is to describe the behavior of the various species of marine animals in response to the various noises produced by the OCS oil and gas operations. This is a very difficult goal, one which may be attainable with confidence only after comprehensive observations of behavior of many animals in the presence of many types and levels of noise. Such observations would need to be made for long periods of time in order to determine whether observed changes in behavior were temporary, and whether the animals readily adapt to the continuation of the noise with no sustained adverse effects. Furthermore, to predict a substantial adverse effect on a species, one must determine whether such effect is deleterious to the existence of the species or to its ecological interactions. Even a sustained effect of the noise, such as denying a favored habitat, might simply displace the habitat by a mile or two, with no serious adverse consequences. In view of the unavailability of a data base of direct behavioral observation as described above, this study is taking an alternative approach, using the source-path-receiver model. In this approach, the underwater noise is measured at a known distance from the oil platform, or other noise source, a sound propagation path is assumed, and the sound pressure level is calculated for various distances from the source. Estimates of the hearing sensitivity of various species of animals are then used to predict the range of audibility of the various sounds emitted from OCS operations under various weather and oceanographic conditions. Such estimates of detection range provide initial guidelines of maximum expected ranges of influence, the implicit assumption being that if the animal is unable to hear the sound, the animal will be unaffected by it. Of course, it must be pointed out that the fact that the animal is able to hear the sound (at ranges shorter than the detection range) does not assure a reaction. In fact, it is likely that unless the sound has an extremely threatening meaning to the animal, overt responses to the sound may not occur until its level is substantially above the threshold of detectability. The need for actual observational data on response thresholds of the animal§ to various OCS oil and gas platform-related sounds must be reiterated here. Field observations of animal behavior under conditions of known acoustic stimuli are essential, and should be strongly supported, but until they are available, maximum range estimates of the type presented in this report can serve as rough estimates of maximum ranges of possible influence. Although the type of response to be expected from animals within the maximum detection range is highly uncertain, the expectation of zero influence at distances beyond this range may be a very useful consideration in environmental planning. G-7 The project task statement lists five specific objectives as follows: A. To determine and characterize the various sounds emitted from OCS oi] and gas operations (exploration, development, and production) and from related vessel traffic. B. To characterize the sounds emitted and perceived by various cetacean species. C. To evaluate the sound spectra created by human activities which could disrupt the behavior of Cetaceans. D. To determine the effects of a physical structure, such as a platform, on Cetacean behavior. E. To propose a range of mitigating measures which would eliminate or minimize the im, act of sounds, offshore physical structures, and associated human activities on Cetaceans. Of these five specific objectives, this report deals with the first three. It is intended to serve as an initial exploratory study illustrating (1) the relationships between sound emitted from oi] and gas platforms, (2) perception of these sounds by cetaceans, and (3) distance limits to possible disruption of behavior of cetaceans. Effects of the physical structure, such as a platform, and noise mitigating measures will be treated in future reports. G-8 It must be emphasized that this report is intended to describe the factors which are involved in the interaction between noise and marine mammals, and to explore maximal ranges of possible influence. It is not intended to estimate zones of noise influence for any specific OCS locations. II. SOURCE-PATH-RECEIVER MODEL The source-path-receiver model has proved very useful for the estimation of the range to which a sound may be detected. Its greatest use has been in estimating detection of underwater sounds, and accordingly, the analytic expression for calculating detection range, given the proper quantitative data on source, path, and receiver, is called the sonar equation (Urick, 1975). It was developed for naval applications during World War II and is expressed in two forms: (a) active sonar involving detection of an echo reflected from an object in the ocean, and (b) passive sonar involving detection of sound emitted by a source. The passive sonar model is the one used exclusively in this report. The elements of the source-path-receiver model as used in this report may be described as follows: A. Source The sound source is OCS oil- and gas-related, such as an oil drilling rig, a production platform, a supply boat, an impulse noise maker for seismic exploration, etc. The sound propagation path is a one-way water path between source and receiver. Such paths are generally quite complex, involving vertical curvature due to sound velocity gradients in the water, and multiple reflections from the surface and bottom. In order to carry out the calculations of transmission loss in a reasonably tractable manner, a number of simplifying assumptions relating to the path and its boundaries are made. These have been validated by many years of use in naval applications related to detection of submarine and ship noises by passive sonar (Urick, 1975). The literature contains a large body of both theoretical and experimental data on underwater sound propagation (Urick, 1975). The sound propagation assumptions used in this report are described in Section III below. C. Receiver The receiver in the OCS model is the animal whose behavior is possibly subject to modification by hearing the sound. In order to estimate the greatest range at which a sound may be detected by the animal, it is necessary to determine the weakest sound that is detectable. This is called the "threshold of hearing," and is generally dependent on the frequency of the sound. If the animal is listening in an environment free of interfering noise, the threshold is termed the "absolute threshold." Ordinarily, however, the animal is in an environment in which certain normal sounds of the sea are present. These are caused by wind and waves at the sea surface, by breakers G-10 on shore, by distant ships, by natural seismic activity, by ice activity in frigid areas, and by various soniferous marine life, such aS snapping shrimp, croakers, etc. The total sum of these is termed "ambient sea noise," and is generally at such a level that the audibility of a sound, such as that of a drilling platform, is limited by interference or "masking" by this ambient sea noise (Myrberg, 1978). Therefore, in order to predict the audibility of a sound, one needs to know the "masked threshold" for the animal under the environmental sea conditions at the time. This masked threshold for a given animal is dependent on (1) the noise discrimination capability of the animal (aural critical ratio, or bandwidth), (2) frequency component to be detected, (3) background noise spectrum, which in turn depends on sea state, amount of shipping in the general area, local noise-making animals, etc. The various assumptions in this report relating to these are discussed below. Frequency of the sound is a critical factor in each of the elements of the sonar equation: source, propagation, and receiver; therefore, each of these will be considered as a function of frequency. The source is described by its frequency spectrum at a known distance, sound transmission loss over the sound path is considered as a frequency-dependent quantity; and receiver minimum-detectable signal is approached in terms ot a frequency-dependent threshold based on ambient noise spectrum. III. ASSUMPTIONS FOR APPLICATION OF THE MODEL A. Source The sound source is assumed to be a localized (point) source radiating into the water uniformly in all directions (omnidirectional source). The acoustic strength of each platform is characterized by "source level." This is a well established concept which describes the source by a sound pressure level in decibels relative to the underwater sound reference zero of one micropascal, and at a reference distance of one yard. The sound pressure level is actually measured at distances of ten to several hundred yards, and the source level at one yard is calculated by applying an appropriate level vs. distance rule, such as that of inverse square (6 dB per distance doubled). This concept of source level at a standard distance serves aS a convenient means of comparing the acoustic source strength of various noise sources such as 011] platforms, work boats, etc.; furthermore, it provides a standard input to sound propagation calculations of the sound pressure level at various distances from the source. At this early point in the study, very little is known of the actual mechanism of radiation of sound from offshore oi] platforms. Various mechanisms may contribute to the coupling of vibratory energy into the water. Possible pathways are illustrated in Figure 1. A major potential noise source is the prime energy source, S, usually a diesel or gas engine or turbine. Its vibratory energy may couple into the rig structure and radiate into the water from submerged portions of the structure, or couple into the ocean bottom from which noise may be re-radiated into the water. The engine or turbine exhaust may produce high noise levels in the air, and couple into the water to be radiated also as underwater noise. Various elements of the drill string may be noise sources, from the point of application of energy at the drill platform, along the drill string, and down to the bit itself as it bites into various rock formations. Vibratory energy from the drill system may radiate by various paths, including drill to earth to water, drill string to water, drill string to platform to water, etc. The above discussion illustrates the complexity of the sound emission process at an oil platform. Studies conducted to date have been insufficient to determine which of the various individual source and radiation mechanisms are the important ones. It is expected that the mechanisms wil] vary from platform to platform, and with the particular operation on the platform, such as drilling vs. production, type of drilling, type of prime power source, and type of vibration isolation, muffling, etc. As stated earlier, the analytic approach used in this report treats the source as a simple, localized, omnidirectional source. Future work which looks in detail at the distribution of vibration in different parts of the structure and in the vicinity of various mechanical sources will be required to understand the noise radiation process, and to provide a scientific base for noise mitigation if it is required. G-13 B. Sound Propagation As noted earlier, the calculation of sound transmission loss for various distances from an underwater source can be very complex and involve many oceanographic factors related to the water depth, temperature structure, bottom type, etc. Basically, sound transmission loss can be considered as made up of two components: (1) spreading loss, which results from the energy in the wave front being spread out over a greater total area as the sound travels, and (2) attenuation, which is the loss of sound energy due to absorption and scattering in the medium. The following discussion is presented as an aid in understanding the nature of spreading loss, and attenuation loss. 1. Spreading Loss. Assume that a sound radiates one watt of sound power into the ocean, and that this sound radiates equally in all directions (omnidirectional source). The sound wave-front propagates outward from the source aS an ever-expanding sphere, with an ever-increasing surface area which, at distance r from the source, is given by Anr2. The intensity of the sound is defined as power per unit area of the wave. The unit of source intensity is watts per square meter. For the above example of a source power of 1 watt, the intensity at a distance r = 1 meter is 1 divided by 47 = .08 watts per square meter. At a distance of 2 meters, the intensity is 1 divided by 4,(2)2 = .02 watts per square meter. Thus, doubling this distance reduces the sound intensity by a factor of 4. Expressed in decibels, this reduction is 10 log 4 = 6 decibels. 2. Attenuation Loss. This is a second form of loss of intensity of a sound wave as it propagates in a given medium such as water. The total loss, out to a given distance, r, is the sum of the spreading loss and attenuation loss, each expressed in decibels. Attenuation loss results from sound power being extracted from the wave as it propagates. The extraction of power results when some of the energy of the wave is scattered in various directions by various inhomogeneities in the medium, such as small organisms, gas bubbles, etc. Loss of power also occurs when some energy is absorbed by molecular interactions, and is converted into heat. In either case the attenuation loss is proportional to the intensity of the wave, and the loss is given by a certain fraction of the intensity per unit distance of travel. This fraction is known as the attenuation coefficient per meter or per foot, or per kiloyard. it is usually expressed in decibels as so many decibels per unit distance. Figure 2 shows values of the attenuation coefficient for sea water in decibels per kiloyard. These particular units are much used in underwater sound. These two components of sound propagation loss discussed above are treated quantitatively as follows: 1. For the most common form of spreading, spherical spreading, the wave front is an ever-expanding sphere, and the spreading loss is 6 decibels (dB) per doubling of distance (inverse square law). This was described in the example above. A second common form, where the sound is confined between two reflecting planar boundaries (the surface and a reflective bottom) is called cylindrical spreading. Here the spreading loss is proportional to the first power of distance, so it is 3 dB per doubling of distance. G=-15 2. The second form of sound transmission loss, attenuation, results, as mentioned above, from loss of energy by such processes as absorption by molecular interaction in sea water, and scattering of energy by inhomogeneities such as marine organisms and bubbles. Attenuation loss is very dependent on frequency, as is shown in Figure 2, and slightly dependent on temperature. Figure 2 shows the attenuation coefficient in dB per kiloyard plotted as a function of frequency. Note the very low loss at low frequency (.001 dB/kiloyard at 0.1 kilohertz). This leads to very long range transmission of low frequency sound. For example, sound at 100 hertz is attenuated only 1 dB over a distance of 1000 kiloyards (493 nautical miles). Of course, one must recognize that the spherical spreading loss from a range of 1 yard to 1000 kiloyards is 120 dB, so at low frequencies, where attenuation loss is small, spreading loss is dominant. The equations for calculating transmission loss (TL) as a combination of spreading loss and attenuation are, for TL in decibels: For spherical spreading: T= ZO WMoGger E airx 10-3 (1) For cylindrical spreading: TL = 10 log r + ar x 10-3 (2) where r = range in yards a = absorption loss in dB per kiloyard G-1l6 The above discussion deals with the most general aspects of propagation of sound in the ocean. In practice, sound propagation in any given situation depends on a very complex set of parameters, including water depth, source depth, water temperature and salinity, surface roughness, surface cover (e.g., ice), bottom type, bottom profile, etc. Although sound propagation can be predicted roughly by employing the general concepts of spreading and absorption presented in the section above, accurate prediction is virtually impossible without specific knowledge of each of the above listed factors. Continental shelf operations pose a particularly difficult problem because of the fact that they generally occur in shallow water (depth less than 100 fathoms) for which the bottom plays an important role, and the water structure is often quite variable. Discussing shallow water propagation, Urick (1975) states, "Because of these complexities, the transmission loss to be expected at a shallow water location may be said to be, for many purposes, unpredictable. Resource to direct measurements is necessary." In view of this complexity, it is beyond the scope of this report to attempt to predict the propagation at specific OCS sites. Instead, the basic equations of spreading loss and absorption loss (expressions (1) and (2) above will be used to provide general estimates of propagation of OCS-related noise. For the purposes of this report, these two expressions will be used to provide two estimates of sound transmission to bracket roughly the upper and lower ranges of expected sound transmission. Spherical spreading provides a low limit, for conditions where sound propagation is not enhanced by sound reflections from the sea surface and ocean bottom. This occurs for water so deep that reflections from it may be ignored and for shallow water where the bottom and/or surface are highly absorptive. This occurs where the bottom is soft and muddy, and where the surface is covered with old ice which may have a mushy, rough underside. Normally the ocean surface is reflective, except in the case of a highly agitated sea state, with many breaking waves. Cylindrical spreading gives an upper limit for sound propagation. It is used for cases where sound is propagated efficiently, as between a reflective bottom and surface. Hard, smooth bottoms, such as sand and relatively uniform rock tend to be reflective, and as mentioned above, the sea surface is normally reflective at low and moderate sea states (less than state 3). This report will give estimates for detection range under both spherical and cylindrical propagation conditions. Figure 3 shows the transmission loss for both cylindrical and spherical spreading out to a range of 10,000 kiloyards. The effect of normal attenuation loss is clearly evident by the fall-off beyond 1000 yards. Note that this effect is greatest for high frequencies and is nearly negligible at the lowest frequencies of 16 and 32 hertz. Under certain conditions, propagation losses may greatly exceed the more normal ones cited above. The presence of large quantities of scatterers or absorbers such as bubbles, fish with swim bladders, squid, certain euphausiids and other small crustaceans, and even plankton in large numbers may greatly increase absorption loss particularly at certain frequencies, related to specific scatterers. Accurate prediction of such losses must be based on detailed oceanographic observations of the specific area under consideration. A second factor which may lead to abnormally high propagation losses is vertical refraction, or bending of the sound beam. This occurs when temperature and/or salinity varies with depth. For example, higher temperatures near the surface, as often happens because of solar heating of the ocean surface, cause downward bending of sound rays so that the loss effect of an absorptive bottom is accentuated. Not all departures from standard progagation appear as excess loss. Under some conditions propagation is enhanced such as to give rise to higher sound levels than predicted by the simple expressions (1) and (2) above. One such mechanism involves penetration of sound (particularly low frequency) energy into the ocean bottom which may act as a hetter sound path than the water above. Sound so conducted may leak back into the ocean far down the path and appear again as underwater sound. A second mechanism is the so called "megaphone effect," whereby sound transmission over a downward sloping bottom, as from the continental shelf out into deep water, is enhanced because consecutive bottom reflections tend to direct the sound into the horizontal path. C. Receiver A critical element in the application of the source-path-receiver model to estimate animal response to sound is the specification of the particular species of animal which will be the receiver, and the conditions under which the listening will be done (quiet background, or high ambient noise due to high sea state, ship traffic, or activities of other noisy animals). The outer continental shelves comprise habitats for almost all species of marine mammals. This includes the large whales, both mysticete (baleen) and odontocete (toothed), smaller odontocetes (dolphins and porpoises), and pinnipeds (seals and sea lions). Their hearing capability varies markedly from species to species, particularly with respect to the frequency of maximum sensitivity. Much is known about the hearing of the smaller odontocetes and pinnipeds (Herman and Tavolga, , 1980) as a result of many experiments on captive animals. On the other hand, very little is known about the hearing of the large whales, because of the great difficulty of conducting controlled experiments on these animais. G-20 Experimental data on the odontocetes show them to have excellent underwater hearing, particularly at high frequencies (10 to upwards of 100 KHz). These animals generally emit click-like sounds with components in this general frequency region for the purpose of echolocation which is an important sensory tool for many species such as the bottlenosed dolphin. These animals make very effective use of echolocation sounds to detect, locate, and identify underwater objects such as fish and other food items. It has often been postulated that other mammals such as baleen whales and pinnipeds also employ echolocation, a. they also emit click-like sounds on occasion. Their use of these sounds for echolocation, however, has not been satisfactorily demonstrated. Many of the marine mammals are observed to emit tonal sounds, and it is generally agreed that an important use is for communication. These sounds vary greatly in frequency, from around 15 Hz for the Blue Whale to 4-20KHz for the bottlenosed dolphin. The sounds also vary widely in duration and wave-form. Some are nearly pure tones, whereas others have a very complex harmonic structure. It is clear that the use of sound by the various marine animals is very complex; so much so that it is not within the scope of this report to address the many species, sounds, and uses in any sort of a comprehensive way. The approach used here is to select a single class of animal, one with maximal relevance to the OCS environmental issues. The mysticete (baleen) whales have been selected for several reasons: (a) they comprise several endangered species (bowhead, humpback, etc.), (b) they are very critical and controversial components of the Alaska, North Slope-Beaufort Sea area slated G=21 for OCS development, (c) they are believed to have very sensitive hearing in the low frequency region in which oil platforms have been found to produce high noise levels. The odontocetes, on the other hand, also have sensitive hearing, but it is mainly employed at high frequencies, generally above those emitted from the oil platforms in data obtained from studies up to this time. This, together with the directional sound discrimination capability of most odontocetes suggests that they are least likely to be affected adversely by oil platform noise. For the purpose of this report, the receiver is assumed to be a mysticete (baleen) whale. At this point it is probably not necessary to select a particular single species (bowhead, gray, humpback, etc.), as the available data on the hearing of any specific species is minimal. In order to predict the threshold of audibility of sounds it will be necessary to make a number of assumptions regarding the whales' hearing. In the main, these assumptions follow those of Payne and Webb (1971) in their paper on acoustic signaling by baleen whales. The mysticetes are known to emit sounds in the low-frequency range, approximately between 10 and 1000 Hz, with particular emphasis on the region around 20 Hz. At these low frequencies, the wave length is very long (500 feet at 10 Hz and 50 feet at 100 Hz). Since physical considerations require that a receiving body have dimensions at least approximating the wavelength in order to have appreciable directivity, and since even the head of a large whale does not reach 50 feet in size, it is assumed in this report that the animals' hearing sensitivity is equal in all directions, yielding a receiver directivity indexl of zero. This is a useful assumption for the purpose of simplifying the analytic treatment. It will be essentially true for the lowest frequencies, up to about 100 Hz. Above this some directivity will be expected, but the directivity index is not expected to exceed 10 dB at frequencies below 500 Hz. For the general estimates of this report this will] be ignored. It should be pointed out that a directivity index of zero does not mean that the acoustic receiver is not capable of determining the direction of a sound source. The human ear, for example, by using interaural phase information, makes excellent determinations of direction of sounds at low frequencies whre the ear-head size is less than 0.1 wavelength, so is functioning as an omni-directional system with directivity index near zero. IPirectivity index of a receiving sensor system, such as a hydrophone or hydrophone array is a number used to quantify the discrimination of the system against omnidirectional noise as a result of its directional sensitivity pattern. A receiver which is equally sensitive in all directions has no capability to discriminate directionally against noise, so it has a directivity index of zero. G-23 It is believed that the sounds of these baleen whales are used for communication, and that it is likely that the whales have their most sensitive hearing at frequencies in the 10 to 500 Hz region in which so many of their vocalizations lie. It is also interesting to observe that human hearing is most sensitive in the frequency region between 500 and 3000 Hz, which is the frequency band which contains most of the acoustic energy of those sounds most important to the understanding of human speech. Furthermore, as with human hearing, it is assumed that the haces absolute hearing threshold is sufficiently sensitive that under normal conditions, sound detection is limited by the masking of ambient water noise (Payne & Webb, 1971). In order to predict the masked threshold, it is necessary to know the critical ratio or critical bandwidth for the animal. The critical ratio in decibels is the number of decibels a pure tone or narrow band signal must exceed the level of background noise in a band one hertz wide at the signal frequency in order to be heard in the presence of the noise. The critical bandwidth is the effective frequency analysis bandwidth of the animal's auditory system. The critical band theory assumes that an animal can hear a tone or narrow-band Signal in a broad band noise if the tone is D dB above the level of the noise jn a critical band at the frequency of the tone. A conservative assumption is that D = 0. With this assumption, the critical ratio in dB = 10 log critical band in hertz. The lower the critical ratio, the better the animal can detect weak tonal signals in noise. This critical ratio is a function of frequency, and ordinarily has a minimum value near the low frequency end of the range of frequencies of importance to the animal. Experimental data are available on only a few animals, but this general trend is shown in data for man, cat, bottlenosed dolphin, and ringed seals, as plotted in Figure 4. G-24 These data indicate a critical ratio of 16 to 18 dB (for frequencies below 500 Hz) for man and cat, the only two animals for which data are available at these low frequencies. An estimate of the critical ratio for a whale at frequencies near 20 Hz may be done by extrapolating downward at a slope which conforms to a constant percentage bandwidth. Payne and Webb (1971) assumed a one-third octave bandwidth which is about 4 Hz at a frequency of 20 Hz. This gives a critical ratio of 10 log 4 = 6 dB. This would seem to be a reasonable value for the critical ratio, but in recognition of the possibility that it may be somewhat on the optimistic side of detectability, a substantially more conservative assumption of a critical ratio of 20 dB, corresponding to a masking critical bandwidth of 100 Hz, is also used in this report at frequencies below 450 Hz. At frequencies above 450 Hz, a critical ratio based on the 1/3 octave critical band relationship of Figure 4 may be considered conservative, since it tends to lie along the upper bound of the experimental points. For the mysticete whales, for which the hearing estimates in this report are made, it is likely that the assumption of the third-octave critical ratio is fairly realistic, and may even be slightly conservative. This view follows observations by various researchers based on studies of both cochlear anatomy (Fleischer, 1976) and on evolutionary considerations related to the use of low-frequency communications for the maintenance of the species (Herman, 1980; Thompson, Thomas, Winn, & Perkins, 1979). These same considerations make the alternative assumptions of a critical ratio of 20 dB (100 Hz critical band) at frequencies below 450 Hz highly conservative. D. Ambient Noise In order to calculate the masked threshold it is necessary to know the ambient noise level at the frequency of interest, as well as the animals’ critical ratio. This is necessary, since a tonal signal of frequency, f, is detectable when its sound pressure level equals or exceeds a level which is the sum of the -pectrum level (level in a one Hz band) of the ambient noise at f and the critical ratio at f. Tne fact that ambient noise varies widely in level and spectrum Shape, depending on the nature of noise sources in the areas, makes it necessary to specify certain ambient noise levels to he introduced into the sonar equation for calculation of the detection range of the 011 platform sounds. Comprehensive data on ambient noise levels and spectra have been published by Wenz (1962) for various conditions of wind, sea state, and ship traffic. These and other data have been combined by Urick (1975) to give sets of curves for obtaining sound spectrum level for deep (Figure 5) and coastal (Figure 6) waters. The curves from Figure 5 are used for data inputs in the calculations in the following section. G-26 IV. DATA AND CALCULATIONS The source-path-receiver model is used in this section to calculate the range at which a hypothetical baleen whale may be expected to hear various oil platform sounds under several stated environmental conditions. The analytic expression used for these calculations is the passive sonar equation which states mathematically that the source level (SL) minus the transmission loss (TL) equals the minimum detectable signal (MDS). The MDS under the masking limited conditions assumed is equal to the spectrum level of the ambient noise (NL) plus the critical ratio (CR). The directivity index is omitted here as we have assumed it to be zero (omnidirectional hearing). Therefore, SEINE CRA OR TeV SEy NES CR (3) For known values of source level, ambient noise level, and critical ratio, the transmission loss acceptable to enable the source sound to just be heard is calculated. Then the distance at which this TL occurs is obtained by calculation using the transmission loss expressions (equations (1) or (2)) or graphically from Figure 3 or similar plots. G-27 A. Data 1. Source Level (SL)--Three Sources. At this writing, source level analysis has been performed on three drilling rigs: SSD-1, semi-submersible drilling rig, Lower Cook Inlet, Alaska; SSD-2, semi-submersible drilling rig, Baltimore Canyon, Atlantic; and FDP-1, fixed drilling and production platform, Santa Barbara, California; and three production only platforms: FP-1, fixed, 4-legged production platform, Upper Cook Inlet, Alaska; FP-2, fixed, 3-legged production platform, Upper Cook Inlet Alaska; and MMIP, man-made island, production, Santa Barbara, California. The noise measured in the water from FDP-1 and MMIP was so low that the measurements are considered doubtful and are being repeated. Noise radiated from SSD-1 and SSD-2 and FP-1 and FP-2 was Substantially above the ambient background noise, and contained prominent low frequency tonal components of the type expected to be detectable by whales. Figures 7, 8, and 9 show the third-octave band spectra measured by NOSC for the three platforms selected as sources for this study. In view of tne Similarity between the two drilling semi-submersibles (one in lower Cook Inlet, Alaska, and the other off Baltimore Canyon in the Atlantic) source level data for the Alaskan rig only will be used. Table 1 shows source levels for four principal tonal components, including what appears to be the fundamental frequency at 12 Hz.2 The two production platforms differed in several respects, as did their radiated noise spectra, so source levels of both are being presented in Tables 2 and 3. 2. Minimum Detectable Signal (MDS = NL + CR). Minimum detectable Signal level is obtained at each of the signal frequencies in the SL data for three ambient noise conditions (NL) and one or two critical ratio (CR) assumptions, depending on whether the frequency is above or below 450 Hz where the CR = 20 dB. Above 450 Hz the CR is that of the solid line in Figure 4. Below 450 Hz a "best estimate" is taken from the solid line, and a "conservative estimate” is taken as 20 dB. 2In describing a spectrum containing many discrete lines, each representing a tonal component of the spectrum, the term fundamental frequency is often used. These spectra, often called "line spectra" frequently contain a series of components, -ach at a frequency (fn) which equals an integer (n = 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, etc.) multiplied by a number which is called the fundamental frequency (f,); thus fy = nfo. When n= 1, fn = fo = fundamental Frequency. If n= 3, f, - 3 £9, This is the third harmonic, etc. For the example of the Alaska drilling (SSD-1) the spectrum shown in Figure 7 shows line frequency components at 12, 72, 180, and 250 hertz. These correspond to n= 1, n= 6, n= 15, and n= 21 respectively. Therefore, the fundamental is at a frequency of 12 hertz and the other components are the 6th, 15th, and 21st harmonics. The three ambient noise conditions are: High Noise: Sea state 6, heavy shipping Moderate: Sea state 2, moderate shipping Low: Sea state 0, light shipping These three conditions span the essential variability of expected ambient noises, and so should give a good estimate of the range in minimum detectable signal levels to be expected. Tne MDS levels for the three ambient noise conditions and appropriate critical ratios are given in Tables 1, 2, and 3 in the frequency columns representing the components of each source. In the absence of an exhaustive analysis of the various OCS sites, it would appear that the moderate case, represented by sea state 2 and moderate shipping might be most representative of OCS areas in general. The high noise condition would be expected in areas near major ports and shipping lanes during high winds, and the low nioise condition would occur at locations remote fron. Shipping such as certain Alaskan waters during periods of calm winds. It should be pointed out that the three combinations of sea state and Shipping density listed above were selected to demonstrate the dependence of detection distance on the noise generation parameters. The sea state 6, heaving shipping, represents the highest noise background ‘ikely to be encountered by a listening animal, while the sea state 0, light shipping, represents a minimal background condition. It must be emphasized that, in G-30 practice, any combination of sea state and shipping may be encountered. As may be seen from Figure 5, the sea state noise dominates the high frequencies, and shipping noise controls the low frequency region of the ambient noise spectrum. 3. Calculation of Detection Range. The detection range calculations are carried out for two sound propagation conditions: a. Spherical (inverse square law) spreading, where We S20 oy ip pk Os) b. Cylindrical spreading, where Ml = OMlOgiia tame xelO—3 The latter is the better sound transmission, and leads to the upper limiting detection ranges. In all cases the value of attenuation coefficient ( ) is taken from Figure 2. The calculated detection ranges are given at the bottom of Tables 1, 2, and 3. V. DISCUSSION It is clear from the calculations above that there is a distinct possibility that the sounds radiated from the noisier oil platforms, either in drilling or production mode, may be audible to whales out to great ranges under favorable sound propagation and noise conditions. It must be noted that the range is very dependent on the specific propagation and ambient noise situation. For example, as shown in Table 1, Case IA3, the semi-submersible drilling rig is audible under quiet ambient conditions out to the tremendous range of 1230 nautical miles with cylindrical spreading loss, but with the more conservative spherical spreading, it is audible only to the moderate range of 1.2 nautical miles. The ambient noise condition at the location of the receiving animal has important influence on detection as may be noted in Table 1, Case IAl vs. Case IA3, and Case IIA1 vs. Case IIA3. Case I (optimal propagation) shows that for high ambient noise, the detection range is reduced to 13 nautical miles as compared to 1230 in low ambient. Case II (conservative propagation) shows a range of only 190 yards under high ambient noise, compared to 2400 yards (1.2 nautical miles) for low ambient conditions. It is important to note that the above estimates are intended to provide initial guidelines of maximum and minimum ranges as upper and lower limiting conditions for general planning. The upper limit, Case IA3, is an extreme situation, highly unlikely to be met in practice. Reflection losses at the surface and bottom result in propagation which will in general fall between the Case I and Case II curves of Figure 3, probably more often nearer the Spherical spreading of Case II. For example, an estimate of propagation loss out to 50 nautical miles (101 kiloyards) for the continental shelf off the northern coast of Alaska is 80 to 120 dB for a frequency of 100 hertz (Underwater Systems, Inc., 1974). This is much greater than the 50 dB shown for cylindrical spreading in Figure 3, and, in fact, brackets the 100 dB shown for spherical spreading. G-32 A second factor which makes unlikely the extreme ranges calculated for low ambient noise is the upward trend in ship noise during the last few decades (Ross, 1976). At low frequencies the present levels of shipping make it highly unlikely the light shipping noise shown in Figure 4 will be experienced, except in very remote locations. The moderate curve serves as a much more probable lower limit to low-frequency ambient noise. The above considerations suggest thal a realistic interpretation of maximum expected ranges in Table 1 would best depreciate the possibility of the extreme ranges associated with Case I (cylindrical spreading) and ambient noise condition 3 (low). This suggests that the more probable limiting ranges would fall between Case IIA2 (0.22 nautical miles) and Case IA2 (99 nautical miles). Another important consideration is the apparent wide variation in amount of underwater noise radiated by different platforms, both drilling and production. Some, like those used for the calculations in this report, are quite noisy, particularly at the low frequencies in the 10 to 1000 Hz range considered important to whales, while other platforms, with no highly obvious mechanical differences, appear to be quiet underwater. The fact that such differences occur suggests that it is possible to construct and operate oi] drilling and production platforms such that they do not produce great underwater noise levels. It is highly important that the differences between the noisy and quiet platforms be carefully analyzed to determine the critical noise-determining factors in design, machinery type and mounting, and G-33 operation. Such analysis should include such considerations as type of prime power source (turbine, reciprocating, etc.); its inherent balancing and vibration; method of mounting (isolation mounts or coupled solidly to structure); exhaust method (muffler vs. direct exhaust into air); and location and direction of exhaust outlet. The analysis should also consider platform structural features, such as dimensions of legs and other elements which might serve as underwater radiators. Other features for study are the mass, thickness, and damping of structural members. For example, one quiet platform had legs filled with concrete, which might be a factor. This platform also had excellent muffling of its engine exhaust, while in contrast the relatively noisy semi-submersible platform had unmuffled exhaust stacks directed down toward the ocean surface. Of course, it may be misleading to make simple comparisons between these platforms, since they differ in many ways. The semi-submersible, for example, possesses two large submerged hulls, which could serve as excellent underwater sound radiators. Understanding the differences in noise radiation by the various platforms will require critical analyses of sound and vibration data from a large number of platforms, sampling a wide variety of types, construction details, and operating and environmental conditions. VI. CONCLUSIONS The following must be considered tentative, as they are derived from a very elementary, initial analysis of data from a very small number of platforms, and from calculations using many assumptions, some of which are not yet validated. A. Noisy platforms radiate low-frequency underwater sounds with line-frequency components capable of detection at ranges of the order of hundreds of miles under favorable conditions of propagation and ambient noise. B. Under conditions unfavorable for detection (i.e., poor propagation and high ambien’ noise), detection of all platforms, including the noisy ones, is expected to be limited to ranges of the order of 100 yards. C. lhe existence of quiet platforms conducting both drilling and production operations indicates that these systems can be engineered for minimal underwater noise pollution. D. Accurate prediction of expected detection range will require a scenario which defines (a) acoustic source spectrum for the particular platform, {b) propagation conditions for the particular location and season, (c) ambient noise condition as specific to sea state, ship traffic, and biological noise sources in the area, and (d) species of animal involved as listener. Additional data are needed on all of the above elements in order to employ the source-path-receiver model effectively for accurate predictions of detectability. E. The estimates of detection range given in this report are the distances at which a mysticete whale may be expected to just detect the presence of a tonal component radiated by a platform. No prediction is made of animal behavior to be expected as a result of this detection. Overt animal behavior may result from several considerations: 1. The animal may associate the sound with previous experience. Such recognition, for man, normally requires a sound level many dB above that of bare detection. 2. The sound may become so loud that the magnitude of the hearing sensation alone elicits aversive behavior. With man, for example, most sounds do not become uncomfortably loud until they are about 100 or more dB above the auditory threshold. F. This report does not address the interfering, or masking effects, that the platform noise may have on sounds such as communication signals emitted by marine animals. Data for some such predictions are now available. This is an important area for future analysis. Estimates of such interference require a knowledge of the frequency spectrum, source level, and directional properties of the communication sounds of the species of animal under consideration. Data on spectrum and source level of sounds thought to be communication signals emitted by several species of cetacea are available. Directional data are meager. However, calculations assuming onmini-directionality could be useful as an initial exploratory step. VII. RECOMMENDATIONS The recommendations below are prepared in recognition of the fact that this study is, at the point of this report, a very limited and brief overview of a very complex operation. The recommendations are nearly all related to additional data and studies needed for an adequate understanding of this complex problem. It is understood that certain of these recommendations are scheduled as future elements of this program. A. Under .ater Noise Source Levels of OCS 0i1 and Gas Platforms. Obtain additional field measurements and recordings on existing platforms of al] types. Particular emphasis should be placed on drill ships, jack-up rigs, and monopods, fer which no data are yet in hand. Large differences in underwater noise from platform to platform indicate that a broad sampling of many platforms embracing various types of construction, machinery, installation, and types of ongoing operations is needed to attain a reasonable degree of confidence in the sound source level predictions. B. Detection Distances for Specific OCS Locations. Employ the source-path-receiver model to calculate expected detection range for selected scenarios involving specific OCS locations, noise sources, and seasonal weather conditions. Sound propagation and ambient noise parameters should be selected as appropriate to the specific locality, season, and weather. The receiving animal species should be selected as appropriate to locale. C. Estimation of Animal Behavioral Response. Conduct studies of the behavioral response of various species of marine mammals to noise stimuli. These studies could involve playback of selected sounds, such as tape recordings of sounds emitted from OCS platforms, at carefully controlled levels and for animals in selected settings of location and season. Tape recordings suitable for such studies are available at NOSC. Such studies should also obtain direct observational data on behavior of various species of marine animals subjected to noise stimuli in the actual vicinity of 011 and gas operations. These data should include both initial responses as mignt occur at a new installation, and responses over a long period as might relate to animals who have had an opportunity to adapt to the sounds. D. Estimation of Interference with Animal Communication Sound Signals. Apply the source-path-receiver model to calculate the expected masking effects which the noises from OCS operations might impose on acoustic communication Signals between marine animals at various distances from the platform. E. Detailed Measurements on OCS Platforms. Conduct measurements of airborne noise, platform vibration, and underwater noise in such a manner that the mechanisms of sound generation and transfer into water can be understood, and the specific transmission paths defined. Such understanding is required to speci*ty engineering procedures for noise control where needed to meet future noise goals. REFERENCES 1. Fleischer, G. Hearing in extinct cetaceans as determined by cochlear structure. Journal of Paleontology, 1976, 50(1), 148. 2. Gales, R. S. Second summary report on the Bureau of Land Management project, "Study of the Effects of Sound on Marine Mammals (NOSC Rep.). San Diego, CA: Naval Ocean Systems Center, September 1980. 3. Herman, L. M., & Tavolga, W. N. The communications systems of cetaceans. In: Cetacean Behavior, L. M. Herman (Ed.), Wiley, New York, 1980. 4, Myrberg, A. A., Jr. Ocean noise and the behavior of marine animals: Relationships and implications. In Effects of Noise on Wildlife, J. L. Fletcher & R. G. Busnel (Eds.), Academic Press, 1978. 5. Payne, R., & Webb, D. Orientation by means of long-range acoustic Signaling in baleen whales. Annals of New York Academy of Sciences, 197], 188, 110-142. 6. Ross, D. Mechanics of Underwater Noise. Pergamon Press, 1976. 7. Schmidt, D. R. Field measurements of underwater noise from offshore Oil operations from January-June 1980 (NOSC Interim Report). San Diego, CA: Naval Ocean Systems Center, June 1980. 8. Tavolga, W. N. (Ed.). Marine Bio-Acoustics, Pergamon Press, 1964. G-39 Qe iihompson, i. Jan Winnie Es. ce Rerkins. PJ.) Mysticete: soundse In: Behavior of Marine Animals, Vol. 3, H. E. Winn & B. L. Olla (Eds. ), Plenum Publishing Corporation, 1979. 10. Underwater Systems, Inc. Hydroacoustic noise generated by offshore oil operations (Report 3128, ONR Contract No. N00014-71-C-0312), April 1974. 11. Urick, R. J. Principles of Underwater Sound for Engineers, McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1975. 12. Wenz, G. M. Acoustic ambient noise in the ocean: Spectra and sources. Journal of Acoustical Society of America, 1962, 34(12), 1936-1956. G-40 Table 1 Calculated Detection Ranges for Platform SSD-1 Platform Data: Semi-submersible, drilling, twin hulls, 26 ft. diameter. Prime power-diesel engines. Water depth--300 feet ——~ a NN RR ah SE RN Frequency Source Level (1/3 Octave Band at 1 Yard) 12 Hz 129 dB re 1 micropascal 72 Hz 138 180 Hz 132 250 Hz 125 ee ee ee en ee er ee ey Case I: Optimal Propagation (Cylindrical Spreading) Animal Listening Assumption santa eeeeet lie ade ite etatieneeeeetenretnmentat A. Good Detection B. Conservative Detection (1/3 octave crit. band) (100 Hz crit. band) Ambient Noise Condition Frequency Detection Range Frequency Detection Range wae 1. High Ambient 72 Hz 30 Kyd 13 nm 180 Hz 66.5 Kyd 3.2 nm 2. Medium Ambient 72 Hz 200 Kyd 99 nm 180 Hz 80 Kyd 39 iim 3. Low Ambient 180 Hz 2500 Kyd 1230 nm 180 Hz 800 Kyd 395 nm @ereemmemaowreme en me eww meme mmm meee een mer mem emo mw em Bem ee ew De DODO BO MSH SO Dee BAO VE Se Se Case II: Conservative Propagation (Spherical Spreading) Animal Listening Assumption Lae ae eee a A. Good Detection B. Conservative Detection (1/3 octave crit. band) (100 Hz crit. hand) Ambient Noise Condition Frequency Detection Range Frequency Detection Range ee ee 1. High Ambient 72 Hz 190 yds 0.09 nm 180 Hz 80 yds 0.04 nm 2. Medium Ambient 72 Hz 450 yds 0.22 nm 180 Hz 290 yds 0.14 nm 3. Low Ambient 180 Hz 2400 yds 1.20 nm 180 Hz 1500 yds 0.40 nm A Tabie 2 Calculated Detection Ranges for Platform FP] Platform Data: Fixed, production, four legs - 30 ft’ diameter. Prime power - gas turbine, water depth - 60 feet Frequency Source Level (1/3 Octave Band at 1 Yard) 40 Hz 137 dB re 1 micropascal 630 Hz 124 2000 Hz 118 5000 Hz 117 ww wm & ww oe oe ot oe on we oe we ee no 0 ewe ot ete a ee a Case I: Optimal Propagation (Cylindrical Spreading) Animal Listening Assumption A. Good Detection B. Conservative Detection (1/3 octave crit. band) (100 Hz crit. band) Ambient Noise Condition Frequency Detection Range Frequency Detection Range 1. High Ambient 40 Hz oeKydien 7.4 nm 46 Hz 1.5 Kyd 0.74 nm 2. Medium Ambient 40 Hz 120 Kyd 59.0 nm 40 Hz 12.0 Kyd 5.90 nm 3. Low Ambient 40 Hz 600 Kyd 296.0 nm 40 Hz 60.0 Kyd 29.60 nn wee RM OP ee eM ew Oe we ew ee ee ee ei en ee ee we ee we we ee er 0 a a Case II: Conservative Propagation (Spherical Spreading) Animal Listening Assumption A. Good Detection B. Conservative Detection (1/3 octave crit. band) (100 Hz crit. band) in nn Ambient Noise Condition Frequency Detection Range Frequency Detection Range 1. High Ambient 40 Hz 130 yds 0.60 nm 40 Hz 40 yds 0.02 nm 2. Medium Ambient 40 Hz 350 yds 0.17 nm 40 Hz 110 yds 0.05 nm 3. Low Ambient 40 Hz 800 yds 0.39 nm 40 Hz 250 yds 0.12 nm Table 3 Calculated Detection Ranges for Platform FP-2 Platform Data: Fixed, production, three leas - 16 ft diameter. Prime power - gas turbine, water depth - 75 feet Frequency Source Level (1/3 Octave Band at 1 Yard) 20 Hz 142 dB re 1 micropascal 63 Hz 134 125 Hz 128 250 Hz 124 500 Hz 125 1600 Hz 110 eer er rem ee ee em eee mM we we eee ww we we Oo om 00 ee ew om om Oe me es oS ee a ee ee Ue ts Te ED Case I: Optimal Propagation (Cylindrical Spreading) Animal Listening Assumption A. Good Detection B. Conservative Detection (1/3 octave crit. band) (100 Hz crit. band) Ambient Noise Condition Frequency Detection Range Frequency Detection Range 1. High Ambient 20 Hz 120 Kyd 59 nm 20 Hz 5 Kyd 2.50 nm 2. Medium Ambient 20 Hz 1000 Kyd 490 nm 20 Hz 35 Kyd 17.00 nm 3. Low Ambient 20 Hz 6000 Kyd 2960 nm 20 Hz 300 Kyd 148.00 nm wererenmnr ewe em m em eww eww mem mmm meme em em mem em ee we ew mM OM OB eB eB BP ee we we Om HOVE wee Ow Owe we Case II: Conservative Propagation (Spherical Spreadin Animal Listening Assumption ee A. Good Detection B. Conservative Detection (1/3 octave crit. band) (100 Hz crit. band) Ambient Noise Condition Frequency Detection Range Frequency Detection Range 1. High Ambient 20 Hz 350 yds 0.17 nin 20 hz 70 yds 0.02 nm 2. Medium Ambient 20 Hz 1000 yds 0.49 nm 20 Hz 200 yds 0.05 nm 3. Low Ambient 20 Hz 3000 yds 1.50 nm 20 Hz 600 yds 0.12 nm [as Drill plal form 1ésel ehgine or orks favs pore : Go 7 MG PRY Buta. Figure 1. Simplified diagram of hypothetical fixed drilling platform, showing possible sound pathways from source points: diesel engine or turbine, drill platform, and drill bit. Possible paths include: structure-borne, air-borne, drill string and casing-borne, ground-borne, and water-borne sound. a,dB/kyd oo1 0062 005 01 02 O05 4 2 5 10 20 50 109 Frequency, kHz Figure 2. Attenuation coefficients in decibels per kiloyard as a function of frequency for sound propagation in sea water (Urick, 1975). G-45 °F BuNBL4 WOuy Sue 2QEep auenbS asusrul) Bulpeauds jedrusyds uoy S42 S3nund JO ZOS AMO, SYR PUE 5utpeaids jPILupuL{AD uO Bue SBAAND JO 49S Jaddn duj “aoueysip “SA 497eM BOS uotzyenueyzy *(UoLzededoud “(uorqebedoud lewrzdo ueau) UL SSOL UOLSSLWSUeIy punos ‘e aunbi4 700000 SS 10090 ~ ~ LN) S$: sph Gov 0s eset oj sraapicg Womdsna SAG HULL OL HL % FAG, “OD UISSI T W32H4NIN 99-696 "ON “A'N i _ SAY Ua/ssitafrups S VG G-46 es +7 44 BASE OAS 47 wy 9 / Od! > 0, TI O/ : Be ment] | fs aT | = ay PUNPED) y/ 4 , T[Lp slog memos ll Ney St xX 8 s al ma x o : > ae Ma 5 : : Y ry N 25 > us ANH mill il aii AL "(0861 ‘uewuay ue) uostuedwod vos Spueq aAezd0 puLyy-auO sMOYSs aul| Aree PLLOS aul *Aquanbaus JO uoLzouny e se sjeuLUe unoy vo} eZep (escurpac qy614) pueq ,ed13149 pue (eseurpu 342L) OLFeA LeIIGL4Q “y dunBLy | f f G-47 ae yd} : le it J Be Be Pineal “| Besufort 7 faa, \wind force AA dl Me Aa lee =A a's Uy ri Wind specd, knots Spectrum level, dB re | uPa $a nA VW g/l ba H c Ee | v Frequency, Kz Figure 5. Average deep-water ambient noise spectra. Spectrum level is the level in a one hertz band (Urick, 1975) (after Wenz, 1962). ny sera ————= Off Ft. Lauderdole, Fla, Knudsen (5) === Scotian Shelf, Piggott (15) =~ = —= Average of sevan Pacific Ocean locations, Wenz (4) Wind speed, knots ee he emcee Spectrum level, dB re 4 pPa 8$8a88 8 ! vie AJL ee Soe ea 10 100 1,000 10,000 400,000 Frequency, Hz Figure 6. Ambient noise spectra at coastal locations with wind speed as a parameter (Urick, 1975). G-49 Page Been eq AT a4 gp UL [are] pueg aAe{99 p4Lyz-aUd LTT TT One-third Octave Band Center Frequency in Hz kK Sea state was 2-3 with a wind of 10-15 hored in 200 feet of water in Coo ts (Gales, 1980). Vertical bars show line frequency componen Cne-third octave band enalysis of water-borne noise from the semi-submersible drilling rig SS0-1. wasin progress at the time of recording. ‘acorcings were made from a-boat 50 feet from the rig which was anc i=2) i ome UL) Le) (se) Sao) an ee) oU n oO = (a KS) ain ~~ run OD» rn ent Figure 7. eco aniiiu ORE L Ui “ ceeeae al Aces Hunn zanna i SET AGS TUTE iiesat Ht Ht H i PT EE TS LHe al TH TTCCCCEEELE TTL HU eit fae in nen nN Saat PN (noe He PE TTT HHH rt it EDERATDKRROTAEA ETDS me (CUE TTT eT a TT STR TH a nM TT ST SH + S Sept vat “S oS w (==) a —_ ttf tH att SH i ih meee La Uy ae set SE aE nt 2OD00 as a8 One-third Octave Band ee Frequency ee Hi eT i Lt ES a 16 (0 cc ns Se i a eee [es[ia fay PTT ~ oO (a>) s+ a a = (oe) ce ct - = eg MT au gp ul [aaa] pueg aae199 putryz-sug -borne noise from the production platform FP-1. One-third octave band analysis of water Figure 8. The , Alaska, at slack high tide. Recordings were made from the platfrom in Cook Inlet hydrophone depth was 35 feet. , with a sea state of 2 anda Water depth was 75 feet (Gales, Vertical bars show line frequency components wind of 30 knots (Schmidt, 1980). 1980). a aaa pea Tar st RENE EAAET COMA ANNAN COTON ESAGTANS EER EEOEA RE ETAL OCT EE SLLETIE DONKEY ONUENORETA SUGANO HET KRARCEELHSU EAT AEE UCASE TL tH nuit | FEU? FUANENOTUOHORUOUOONEOUONOUD ERE LAUEADEAOURORSOLSEOOEESOCRROUHOEOOUAEOED EAEAESEAUSLEAESANOEOONNGNSENEA NORCO OONGEOD’, a | | HTT | DER EAOAUAD AR AOR TREO EEERUDS PU Tn opp LEN, DON OUpSe canta GEN nti rl AUAAMGETInSSCUUTUMACUELE PUT LL PTET eer UESGLOL Te TTT ee: dl ees anu ae mA HTT HTT i LAA 46 One-third Octave Band Center Frequency in Hz pane oN Tl BMloaneeaniie CEE niu a aug mAh Hani shiaay:Seest tr 0TH UT tt Tt PUTT ts HT UT UNO i — i i La Hr TOAUTAITIGAMGHIPRTOOOGGTTTETOGE UR PUTT = HT = PTET DECCOOS PET [i fen nf fi i fai oi i fie fn ia few afi aa fi mew fea fo a so i} ~ oO Oo los) S oO [om) oO a oO N os (=) or (ee) Lam ad al Con] Smal eq AYT a4 yp UL Lada] pueg aAez29 PuLyy-auQ One-third octave band analysis of water-borne noise from the production platform FP-2 located in nominally 60 feet of water in Cook Inlet, Alaska. the platform at slack high tide of 15 feet. Figure 9. Recordings were made from Sea state Vertical bars show line frequency Hydrophone depth was 30 feet. was 1 with a wind of 10 knots (Schmidt, 1980). components (Gales, 1980). APPENDIX H res ee ; NOSC TR 776 Technical Report 776 POSSIBLE EFFECTS OF NOISE FROM OFFSHORE OIL AND GAS DRILLING ACTIVITIES ON MARINE MAMMALS: A SURVEY OF THE LITERATURE CW Turl January 1982 Prepared for The Bureau of Land Management Approved for public release; distribution unlimited NAVAL OCEAN SYSTEMS CENTER SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92152 H-1 944 Yl DSON Pras ~F NAVAL OCEAN SYSTEMS CENTER, SAN DIEGO, CA 92152 AN ACTIVITY OF THE NAVAL MATERIAL COMMAND SL GUILLE, CAPT, USN HL BLOOD Commander Technical Director ADMINISTRATIVE INFORMATION The work reported here was performed under NOSC work unit FGOV BLM 0 513-MM28. It was manged by the Bureau of Land Management, New York Office, from the Bureau of Land Management, Washington, D. C. The author thanks W. A. Friedl, NOSC Code 512, for his assistance and suggestions in the preparation of this report. Released by: Under authority of: JM Stallard, Head HO Porter, Head Bioacoustics & Bionics Division Biosciences Department H-2 UNCLASSIFIED SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE (When Data Entered) READ INSTRUCTIONS REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE T. REPORT NUMBER 2. GOVT ACCESSION NO|| 3. RECIPIENT'S CATALOG NUMBER NOSC Technical Report 776 (TR776) ear heen 4. TITLE (and Subtitle) 5. TYPE OF REPORT & PERIOD COVERED POSSIBLE EFFECTS OF NOISE FROM OFFSHORE OIL AND GAS Final: FY80 DRILLING ACTIVITIES ON MARINE MAMMALS: A SURVEY OF THE LITERATURE 6. PERFORMING ORG. REPORT NUMBER 8. CONTRACT OR GRANT NUMBER(s) 7. AUTHOR(s) C. W. Turl 10. PROGRAM ELEMENT, PROJECT, TASK AREA & WORK UNIT NUMBERS FGOV BLM 0 513-MM25 12. REPORT DATE January 1982 13. NUMBER OF PAGES 24 15. SECURITY CLASS. (of thie report) 9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS Naval Ocean Systems Center, Hawaii Laboratory P.O. Box 997 Kailua, Hawaii 96734 CONTROLLING OFFICE NAME AND ADDRESS Bureau of Land Management, New York Office 26 Federal Plaza New York, NY 10007 14. MONITORING AGENCY NAME & ADDRESS(/f different from Controlling Office) Halls Unclassified DECLASS!IFICATION: DOWNGRADING SCHEDULE 1Sa. OISTRIBUTION STATEMENT (of this Report) 16. Approved for public release; distribution unlimited. 17. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT (of the abstract entered in Block 20, If different from Report) 18. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES KEY WORDS (‘Continue on reverse side if necessary and identify by block number) 19, Behavior Outer Continental Shelf Underwater Noise Dolphins Sea Lions Whales Marine Mammals Seals Offshore Drilling Activities Sound Production Offshore Drilling Noise Unde 20. ABSTRACT (Continue on reverse side {f necessary and identify by block number) The acoustic environment in the area of offshore oil and gas drilling activities may influence the behavior of marine mammals. Increased noise levels may mask their acoustic signals. Offshore structures and the increased level of human activities in outer continental shelf areas could displace marine mammals from traditional feeding and breeding areas. No conclusions about the effects of noise on natural populations have been verified under controlled conditions. DD , arate 1473 EDITION OF 1 NOV 65 1S OBSOLETE UNCLASSIFIED S N 0102- LF- 014-6601 SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE (When Data Entered) H-3 UNCLASSIFIED —_—_—— SSeS SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE (When Data Entered) N 0102- LF- 014-6601 9 é H-2 ( UNCLASSIFIED SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE(When Data Entered) OBJECTIVES 1. Summarize the data on underwater noise generated from offshore drilling activities. 2. Summarize the data on underwater hearing capabilities of marine mammals. 3. Estimate the possible impact of noise from offshore drilling operations and associated human activities on natural populations of marine mammals. RESULTS 1. Noise measurements from offshore drilling operations are sparse. Existing mea- surements are limited in bandwidth and are variable. 2. Some information is available on the underwater hearing sensitivity for a few species of marine mammals. However, without direct measurement of a species it is impossible to extrapolate to other species. 3. Information on the effects of subcritical levels of noise on animals is incon- clusive. The effects of noise on natural populations of marine mammals is largely anecdotal. Therefore, the effects of offshore drilling noise on these animals based on present data can- not be determined. 4. Noconclusions about the effects of stress on natural populations of marine mammals has been verified under controlled conditions. RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Measure the noise generated from current and future offshore drilling operations. Include sensitive frequency ranges from known marine mammal audiograms. 2. Identify lease areas where offshore oil development is anticipated. Identify species of marine mammals that inhabit these areas. 3. Identify lease areas where introduction of increased sustained noise might dis- rupt a critical life cycle of marine mammals. For example, feeding, breeding, transit or congregation areas. 4, Initiate a monitoring program when a lease area is opened. Monitor both acoustic and population parameters in the lease area as development progresses. 5. Develop a program to monitor the effects of controlled introduction of noise to a marine mammal population. Quantify the effects of the noise on the population. 6. Obtain underwater audiograms of marine mammals that occur in the selected lease areas. 7. Determine the effects of noise on marine mammals under controlled conditions. CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ... page 5 SUMMARY OF LITERATURE... 6 SUMMARY OF PUBLISHED DATA... 8 Estimated Source Levels... 8 Offshore Drilling Activities in the Prudhoe Bay Area... 8 Tufts Point Dredging Site/Arnak Artificial Island Construction Site... 12 Logistic Traffic Noise at the Tufts Point Site... 12 Semi-Submersible Platform in the North Atlantic... 12 UNDERWATER HEARING OF MARINE MAMMALS ... 14 Sound Production and Hearing of Large Whales... 16 DISCUSSION... 18 RECOMMENDATIONS... 20 REBERENCES ©...) 21 BW iO i) ILLUSTRATIONS Average source level of noise generated from two drilling sites in Prudhoe Bay .. . 9 Average source level of noise generated from a construction site in the Beaufort Sea... 9 Average source level of noise generated from a construction site in the Beaufort Sea... 10 Maximum source levels of transient noise generated from a construction site in the Beaufort Sea... 10 Maximum source levels of the noise generated by logistic support traffic measured in the vicinity of a construction site in the Beaufort Sea... 11 Maximum source levels of the noise generated from a semi-submersible drilling platform located in the Atlantic Ocean... 11 Behavioral underwater audiograms (smoothed curves) for the beluga whale and the bottlenosed porpoise... 15 Behavioral underwater audiograms (smoothed curves) for the harbor porpoise and the killer whale. Behavioral underwater audiograms (smoothed curves) for the California sea lion, the harp seal, the ringed seal and the harbor seal... 16 Summary of possible effects of offshore drilling noise on marine mammal popula- TiOntraeall TABLES Estimated distances from which noise from oil and gas drilling activities might be detected by marine mammals... 13 Summary of source level data for cetaceans... 17 H-6 INTRODUCTION Increasing noise levels are the result of advanced technologies and rapidly growing human populations. Noise is a by-product of almost every aspect of human activity. Areas previously thought to be remote and nonpolluted by noise may soon have noise pollution from a variety of sources. Offshore petroleum operations increased rapidly during the last decade and an even more rapid increase is anticipated for the next two decades. Noise generated during offshore drilling operations may become noise pollution for some acoustic sensors (ref 1). Early off- shore drilling activities were concentrated in shallow water regions (eg, the Gulf of Mexico), but future exploration and production facilities will extend to water several thousand feet deep. These deep water noise sources will have better acoustic coupling to deep oceanic waters, and thus the noise may impact larger areas. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has identified the need for information on the effects of noise on wildlife (ref 2). The EPA recommended studies to determine (1) the effects of low-level chronic noise on animals, and (2) the effects of noise on animals in their natural habitat (ref 3, 4). The Bureau of Land Management has identified two aspects of outer continental shelf gas and oil activities that may impact marine mammals: (1) the effects of underwater sounds emitted from oil and gas operations on cetacean behavior, and (2) the impact of off- shore structures and associated human activities on cetacean populations. The effects of noise on man and animals has been documented (see ref 5, 6 for review). The effects of noise are classified as (1) effects on the auditory system resulting in loss of hearing or damage to the auditory mechanism, or (2) nonauditory effects of noise. In the first case, loss of hearing or damage to auditory structures can be produced by brief exposures to very intense sounds or prolonged exposures to moderate levels of sound. Noise with different frequency spectra have different effects on auditory structures. High frequency pure tones or narrow bands of noise tend to produce changes in localized regions of the inner ear. Low frequency or random and broadband noise tend to produce changes throughout the cochlea. The extent of noise-induced damage to the auditory system de- pends on the intensity, spectrum, duration and the exposure pattern of the noise source. Rest intervals between periods of exposure significantly reduce the extent of permanent damage. Underwater Systems, Inc. Note 312-5, Noise measurements from Offshore Oil Rigs, p 17, Silver Springs, MD, 1973. Information on Levels of Environmental Noise Requisite to Protect Public Health and Welfare with an Adequate Margin of Safety, Environmental Protection Agency, Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 1974. The White House, Executive Order No. 11644, as amended May 24, 1977. Janssen, R, Noise and Animals: Perspectives of Government and Public Policy, In: Effects of Noise on Wildlife, JL Fletcher and RG Busnel, ed, p 287-301, Academic Press, New York, NY, 1978. Kryter, KD, The Effects of Noise on Man, p 633, Academic Press, New York, NY, 1970 Welch, BL and AS Welch, ed, Physiological Effects of Noise, p 365, Plenum, 1970. Nonauditory effects of noise may produce physiological stress, with symptoms analo- gous to exposure to extreme heat or cold (ref 7, 8). An animal’s response to stress includes a variety of measurable physiological changes: eg, increased blood pressure, increased cortio- steriod levels, and changes in adrenal gland weight. Prolonged stress can exhaust an animal’s resistance to infection and disease and, in extreme cases, can result in the animal’s death. Noise produces the same general effects in animals and humans: namely, hearing loss, masking of signals, behavioral changes, and nonauditory physiological effects. Labora- tory studies with animals indicate temporary and permanent noise-induced threshold shifts. However, damage risk criteria for most species of animals have not been developed. Physio- logical effects of noise exposure have been demonstrated in laboratory and farm animals, but the degree to which the results apply to wildlife is unknown. Animals’ physiological and behavioral adaptations to noise stimuli are also yet unknown, and definitive research criteria to assess such adaptation have not been developed. In this report, however, judgments of environmental impact will be based on existing, though incomplete, information (ref 2). The acoustic environment in areas of offshore drilling activities may influence the behavior of marine mammals. Increased noise levels may mask acoustic signals or reduce the range at which the mammals detect the signals (ref 9). The impact of offshore structures and the associated increase in the level of human activities in outer continental shelf areas could disrupt normal migratory routes or displace marine mammals from traditional feeding and breeding areas. Such disruptions could re- duce the biological fitness of a population. This report summarizes (1) acoustic data from offshore dmilling activities, and (2) the hearing capabilities of cetaceans and pinnipeds and presents data on the underwater hearing of large whales. The report also discusses the possible impact of offshore drilling activities on natural populations of marine mammals. SUMMARY OF LITERATURE Underwater noise measurements from offshore drilling activities are sparse. Published surveys and the author’s personal contacts with private industry reveal that available infor- mation is bandwidth limited; ie, the measurements at high frequency were limited or the low frequencies were rolled off due to high ambient noise. Shallow water ambient noise measure- ments also are limited. In the shallow water of most offshore drilling operations (ie, less than 250 m) accurate source level noise measurements are difficult because of multipath propaga- tion (ref 10). Variability is inherent in the data because sound propagation characteristics vary greatly in shallow water and ambient background noise is strong and variable in shelf areas. Selye, H, Stress and Disease, Science. 122(3171), p 625-631, 1955. Selye, H, The General Adaptation Syndrome and the Diseases of Adaptation, J Clin Endocrin & Metab, 6(2). p 117-230. 1946. Mvrberg, AA, Ocean Noise and the Behavior of Marine Animals: Relationships and Implications, In: Effects of Noise on Wildlife, JL Fletcher ana RG Busnel, ed, p 168-208, Academic Press, New York, NY, 1978. 10 Drouin, AH, Design and Field Operation of an Underwater Acoustic Telemetry System, Offsiniore Tech- nology Conference, 6th, OTC 1965, p 9. H-8 The source level data from offshore drilling activities specify the amount of sound energy radiated by a projector measured | m from the source. The anatomy and function of the auditory and audio-neural structure of several species of small cetaceans have been reviewed (ref 11-16). Electrophysiological recordings and cochlear microphonic measurements (ref 13) support the hypothesis that sound is received via bone conduction through the fat layer of the lower jaw (ref 16) for small toothed whales. The anatomical structure of the mysticete (large whales) auditory structure has been reviewed (ref 17-19). Mysticete cochlea are structurally sensitive to low frequency sounds; however, these animals may be capable of hearing higher frequencies (ref 20). Anecdotes suggest that large whales respond to ship noise, sonar pings and low flying aircraft (ref 21). The pinniped external ear accommodates in-air and underwater hearing. Underwater, the pinniped head may conduct sound directly to the organ of Corti, whereas aerial sound transmission apparently is typically mammalian (ref 22). 1 Morgane, JP and NS Jacobs, Comparative Anatomy of the Cetacean Nervous System, In: Functional Anatomy of Marine Mammals, Vol 1, RJ Harrison, ed, p 117-244, Academic Press, New York, NY, 1972. 12 Bullock, TH. AD Grinnel, E Ikezono, K Kameda, Y Katsuki, M Nomoto, N Sato and K Yanagisawa, Electrophysiological Studies of the Central Auditory Mechanism in Cetaceans, Z Vergl Physiol 59, p 117- 156, 1968. 13 McCormick, JG, EG Wever, J Palin and SH Ridgway, Sound Conduction in the Dolphin Ear, J Acous Soc Amer, 48(6), p 1418-1428, 1970. 14 Wever, EG, JG Mc Cormick, J Palin and SH Ridgway, The Cochlea of the Dolphin, Tursiops truncatus: General Morphology, Proc Nat Acad Sci, 68(10), p 2381-2385, 1971. 15 Fraser, FC and PE Purves, Hearing in Cetaceans, Bull of Brit Mus, 7, p 1-140, 1960. 16 Norris, KS, The Echolocation of Marine Mammals. In: The Biology of Marine Mammals, HT Harrison, ed, p 391-423, Academic Press, New York, 1969. 17 Reysenback de Haan, FW, Hearing in Whales, Acta Otolaryngal, 134, p 1-114, 1957. 18 Dudok van Heel, WH, Sound and Cetacea, Neth J Sea Res, 1(4), p 407-507. 19 Purves, PE, Anatomy and Physiology of the Outer and Middle Ear in Cetacea, In: Whales, Dolphin and Porpoise, KS Norris, ed, Univ of Calif Press, p 320-380, 1966. 20 Fleischer, G, Hearing in Extinct Cetaceans as Determined by Cochlear Structure, J Paleontol, 50(1), p 133-152, 1976. 71 Norris, KS and RR Reeves, eds, Report on a Workshop on Problems Related to Humpback Whales (Megaptera novaeangliae) in Hawaii, US Dept Comm, NTIS PB-280-794, p 90, 1978. 22 Reppening, CA, Underwater Hearing in Seals, In: Functional Anatomy of Marine Mammals, RJ Harrison, ed, p 307-331, Academic Press, New York, 1972. H-S The techniques used to measure auditory thresholds of mammals have been reviewed (ref 23). Both behavioral or electrophysiological methods have been used to measure the hearing thresholds of marine mammals. Although an audiogram (ie, a measurement of hear- ing sensitivity as a function of frequency) describes an animal’s hearing limits and regions of maximum sensitivity, it does not describe the animal’s ability to hear a signal in the presence of background noise. To determine such detection ability, critical band or critical ratio data are required. Audiograms indicate that cetaceans and pinnipeds are capable of hearing noise from offshore drilling activities. Data concerning marine mammals’ reactions to such sounds are incomplete and essentially lacking. SUMMARY OF PUBLISHED DATA Source levels (dB re 1 uPa at 1m) for six offshore drilling activities are shown in figures 1 through 6. Estimated source levels were computed by taking the absolute received level measured at the hydrophone and applying propagation loss for the distance from the source so as to estimate the absolute level 1 m from the source. Transmission loss in shallow water is sensitive to the environment, eg, sea surface, water depth and bottom type; therefore, spherical spreading loss (20 log R) is not appro- priate. Reference 24 (figure 1) cites 40 log R to approximate sound propagation in the shallow water of Prudhoe Bay. Reference 25 (figures 2 through 5) approximates transmis- sion loss as (20 log R + XR) + S!. For figure 2, X = .0045 dB, and for figures 3 through 5, X = .0075 dB. Spherical spreading (20 log R) was used to approximate the transmission loss in computing source levels for figure 6 (ref 26). The source levels of specific frequency components contained in the noise spectrum shown in figures | through 3 (ref 24, 25) are based on maximum received levels measured at several distances from the source; therefore, the data in these figures are plotted as average source levels. Source levels shown in figures 4 and 5 (ref 25) and in figure 6 (ref 26) are based on maximum received levels measured at a single distance from the source. The data in these figures are plotted as maximum source levels. ESTIMATED SOURCE LEVELS Offshore Drilling Activities in the Prudhoe Bay Area Figure | shows the major noise components from two drilling sites in the Prudhoe Bay area: the NIAKUK 3 well, on a man-made gravel island, and the Reindeer Island Cost Well, on a natural barrier beach island (ref 24). The source levels plotted are averages for received levels measured at ranges from 1000 to 1600 m. 23 Francis, RL, Behavioral Audiometry in Mammals: Review and Evaluation of Techniques, Symp Zaol Soc Lond, 37, p 327-280, 1975. 24 Rot Beranek and Newman Inc Tech Memo 513, Measurements of Underwater Acoustic Noise in the Prud- hoe Bay Area, by CI Malme and R Mlawski, p 16, 1979. 25 Ford, J White Whale Offshore Exploration Acoustic Study, Report submitted to Imperial Oil Co, FF Slaney and Co, Ltd, Vancouver, Canada, p 21, 1977. 76 Bell Laboratories, APEX Final Report, by SA Kramer and TE Wing, 1976, H-10 ESTIMATED SOURCE LEVEL (dB re 1p PA 1M) ESTIMATED SOURCE LEVEL (dB re 1p) PA 1M) o PRUDHOE BAY AREA (TONALS) 7 c REINDEER ISLAND ©) e NIAKUK 3 COST WELL 220 01 1 1.0 10.0 FREQUENCY (kHz) Figure 1. Average source level of noise generated from two drilling sites in Prudhoe Bay. 180 160 e e@ ° si e@ ° 140 ae 120 100 80 60 ARNAK ARTIFICIAL ISLAND CONSTRUCTION SITE (TONALS) e EAST o NORTH 01 A 1.0 10.0 FREQUENCY (kHz) Figure 2. Average source level of noise generated from a construction site in the Beaufort Sea. H-11 ESTIMATED SOURCE LEVEL ESTIMATED SOURCE LEVEL (dB re 1p) PA 1M) (dB re 1p) PA 1M) TUFTS POINT ACTIVITY SITE (TONALS) e SOUTH-WEST « SOUTH-EAST 160 o NORTH-EAST «2 NORTH-WEST 180 fo} @ a a .01 A 1.0 10.0 FREQUENCY (kHz) Figure 3. Average source level of noise generated from a construction site in the Beaufort Sea. 180 TUFTS POINT ACTIVITY SITE (TRANSIENTS) o) koouit o SOUTH-WEST a 160 4 SOUTH-EAST 4 ° NORTH @ 140 Boe @ 120 100 80 60 01 ) 1.0 10.0 FREQUENCY (kHz) Figure 4. Maximum source levels of transient noise generated from a construction site in the Beaufort Sea. H-12 ESTIMATED SOURCE LEVEL (dB re 1p) PA 1M) ESTIMATED SOURCE LEVEL (dB re 1p) PA 1M) SUPPORT TRAFFIC (TONALS) 180 e TUG W/ FULL BARGE o TUG W/ FULL BARGE a CREW BOAT a 160 a TUG W/ EMPTY BARGE Maes ohne v TUG W/ FULL BARGE ° 140 120 100 80 60 01 4 1.0 10.0 FREQUENCY (kHz) Figure 5. Maximum source levels of the noise generated by logistic support traffic measured in the vicinity of a construction site in the Beaufort Sea. 180 160 ° ° On a 3° OES OKT, 140 i sie a a eo @ e 120 100 80 SEMI-SUBMERSIBLE PLATFORM (ATLANTIC) o DIESEL (DRILLING) 60 e NON-DIESEL (DRILLING) 4 DIESEL (TRIPPING) C1 it 1.0 10.0 FREQUENCY (kHz) Figure 6. Maximum source levels of the noise generated from a semi-sub mersible drilling platform located in the Atlantic Ocean. H-13 Although the Prudhoe Bay data show little difference in noise level, the noise com- ponents at each site differ. The authors (ref 24) note that the noise levels above 8 kHz were low. Tufts Point Dredging Site/Arnak Artificial Island Construction Site Figures 2, 3 and 4 show the noise generated from two construction locations in the Beaufort Sea (ref 25). The sounds are from construction activities associated with develop- ment of offshore operations. At the Arnak artificial island site, operating machinery included a suction dredge, a tending tug, a clamshell shovel, and several crew boats. Figure 2 shows the noise components from this site. The frequency band and amplitudes from the Tufts Point and Arnak sites are similar. Data were not reported for frequencies below 250 Hz (ref 25). At the Tufts Point dredging site, noise sources included a suction dredge, crew boats and tugs. Noise measurements were made at ranges from 90 to 4000 m in four different di- rections from the site. An artificial breakwall extends northwest from the site and probably limited noise from that direction (fig 3). The average noise levels from the other three direc- tions are similar in frequency and higher than values measured from the northwest. Transient sounds also were recorded at the Tufts Point site. Noisy couplings in the floating pipeline probably produced the short-duration sounds plotted in figure 4. Logistic Traffic Noise at the Tufts Point Site Figure 5 shows the noise generated from tugs, tugs pushing barges (empty and full) and crew boats at the Tufts Point site. The frequency spectra and amplitudes are compar- able to those in figure 2. The isolated sources shown in figure 5 also were included in the composite sounds shown in figure 2. Semi-Submersible Platform in the North Atlantic Figure 6 shows source levels for low frequency component noise from a semi-sub- mersible drilling platform in the North Atlantic (ref 26). These values are similar to those shown in figure |, but the amplitude varies less with frequency. The Atlantic measurements are from a Single, distant measuring site in deep water, and thus likely less variable than the Arctic measurement. Data in figures 1-6 show noise from offshore oil and gas drilling activities is in the frequency range from 10 Hz to 10 kHz, with peak source levels between 130 and 180 GB. Signal-to-noise (S/N) ratios may approach 80 to 100 dB above background noise levels (ref 27). Depending on the detection threshold of the receiver and the prevailing back- ground noise levels, S/N levels of these magnitudes could be detected at considerable ranges from the source. To estimate distances at which a marine mammal could detect a component of noise with source levels shown in figures 1-6, a transmission loss model for deep or shallow water propagation must be selected. Either model includes a number of assumptions concerning the characteristics of the receiving system. (Information on the hearing for large whales is discussed in the following section.) These assumptions are: *7 Urick; RJ, Principles of Underwater Sound, p 384, McGraw-Hill Book Co, 1967. H-14 @ The underwater hearing of large whales is optimized. Because the ocean is a noisy place, an acoustic system will be limited by noise before it is limited by sensitivity; therefore, a detection threshold of 0 dB will be required for a signal to be heard 50 percent of the time. @ The hearing bandwidth is 1/3 octave. @ The receiver is omnidirectional. In deep water (greater than 100 fathoms), a good approximation for transmission loss is given by spherical spreading (20 log r). The estimation detection range can be approximated by: 10 20 ul Range (m) Where: SL(peak) = Peak source level (dB re 1] wPa at | m) Ns BW Background noise level (dB re 1 wPa) Critical bandwidth at the frequency of the signal. Attenuation is also a factor in range determinations. The attenuation coefficient (a) is frequency dependent, and at frequencies below | kHz is approximately 0.05 dB/kyd. In the following calculations attenuation was considered insignificant and was ignored. In shallow water, transmission loss is sensitive to many variables, particularly the sea surface, the water medium and the bottom. Thus, in the absence of specific knowledge of the variables, especially the sound velocity and density structure of the bottom, transmission loss in shallow water is only approximately predictable (see ref 27). Therefore, for shallow water, the formula above at best approximates a “‘minimal detectable range” in the absence of further information. The values in table 1 show that noise generated from oil and gas drilling activities may be detected at considerable distances from the drilling sites. Favorable propagation character- istics could extend these ranges further. AREA OFA CIRCLE WITH SOURCE | BACKGROUND A RADIUS = FREQUENCY BANDWIDTH TO RANGE (ki) (Hz) (SQ.NMD 0.02 1.3 x 102 Ce 2 ale 1.00 2.8 x 104 Table 1. Estimated minimum distances from which noise from oil and gas drilling activities might be detected by marine mammals. H-15 UNDERWATER HEARING OF MARINE MAMMALS Behavioral underwater audiograms have been made for the bottlenose dolphin, Tursiops truncatus (ref 28), the harbor porpoise, Phocoena phocoena (ref 29), the killer whale, Orcinus orca (ref 30), the white whale, Del/phinapterus leucas (ref 31), and the Amazon river dolphin, Inia goeffrensis (ref 32). Audiograms for the bottlenosed dolphin, the killer whale, the har- bor porpoise and the white whale are shown in figures 7 and 8. Underwater audiograms also have been made for four species of pinnipeds: the Cali- fornia sea lion, Zalophus californianus (ref 33), the harp seal, Pagophilus groenlandicus (ref 34), the ringed seal, Pusa hispida (ref 35), and the harbor seal, Phoca vitulina (ref 36). Figure 9 shows the underwater audiograms for these four species. — Electrophysiological audiograms have been made for both cetaceans and pinnipeds. Bullock et al (ref 12) tested anesthetized animals, including the striped dolphin, Stenella coeruleoalba, the spotted dolphin, Stenella attenuata, the rough-toothed dolphin, Steno bredanensis, and the Pacific bottlenosed dolphin, Tursiops gilli. Interspecific sensitivities were similar and resembled the behavioral audiogram for Tursiops truncatus (ref 28). Evoked potentials were used to determine an audiogram for an unrestrained, alert grey seal, Hali- choerus grypus (ref 37). Figures 7 through 9 show underwater audiograms for eight species of marine mammals. The data shown in these figures indicate that the marine mammals tested were relatively insensi- tive at low frequencies. Most underwater threshold experiments have been conducted in small tanks that introduced serious measurerient problems because of the sound field in the tank (ref 38). Consequently, the low freque :cy thresholds for marine mammals have not been documented adequately. 28 Naval Ordance Test Station TP 41 78, Aud.tory Thresholds in the Bottlenose Porpoise, Tursiops truncatus, by CS Johnson, p 22, 1966. 29 Andersen, S, Auditory Sensitivity in the k:-bor Porpoise, Phocoena phocoena, In: Investigations on Cetacea, Vol 2, G Pilleri, ed, p 255-258, 1970. 30 Hall, JD and CS Johnson, Auditory Threshold of a Killer Whale, Orcinus Orca, J Acous Soc Amer, 41(1), p 515-517, 1971. 31 Hubb Sea Work Research Institute Technical Report 78-109, Auditory Thresholds of Two Beluga Whales (Delphinapterus leucas), by MJ White, JC Norris, DK Ljunblad, KS Baron and GN DeSciara, p 13, 1978. 32 Jacobs, DW and JD Hall, Thresholds of a Freshwater Dolphin, Inia geoffrensis, J Acous Soc Amer, 51(1), p 530-533, 1972. 33 Schusterman, RJ, RF Balliet and J Nixon, Underwater Audiogram of the California Sea Lion by Condi- tioned Vocalization Techniques, J Exp Anal Beh, 17, p 339-350, 1972. 34 Terhune, JM and K Ronald, The Harp Seal, Pagophilus groenlandicus, 1, The Underwater Audiogram, Can J Zool, 50, p 565-569, 1975. 35 Terhune, JM and K Ronald, Underwater Hearing Sensitivity of Two Ringed Seals (Pusa hispida), Can J Zool, 53, p 227-231, 1975. 36 Mohl, B, Auditory Sensitivity of the Commen Seal in Air and Water, J Aud Res, 8, p 27-38, 1968. 37 Ridgway, SH and PL Joyce. Studies on Seal Brain by Radiotelemetry, In: Biology of the Seal, K Ronaid and AW Mansfield, eds, p 81-91, 1975. 38 Parvulescu, A, The Acoustics of Small Tanks. In: Marine Bioacoustics, WN Tauolga, ed, p 7-13, Pergam- mon Press, 1967. H-16 SENSITIVITY (dB re 1: PA) SENSITIVITY (dB re tu PA) 130 120 110 100 —— BELUGA WHALE 9¢ —— BELUGA WHALE ° --— BOTTLENOSE 90 PORPOISE BOF Nar in ae 70 60 50 40 30 1.0 10.0 100.0 FREQUENCY (kHz) Figure 7. Behavioral underwater audiograms (smoothed curves) for the beluga whale and the bottlenosed porpoise. 130 120 | --- HARBOR PORPOISE 110 ! NS i —— KILLER WHALE 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 1.0 10.0 100.0 FREQUENCY (kHz) Figure 8. Behavioral underwater audiograms (smoothed curves) for the harbor porpoise and the killer whale. e HARBOR SEAL ° HARP SEAL 4 RINGED SEAL vy CALIFORNIA SEA LION SENSITIVITY (dB re 1p) PA) 1.0 10.0 100 1000 FREQUENCY (k#iz) Figure 9. Behavioral underwater audiograms (smoothed curves) for the California sea lion, the harp seal, the ringed seal and the harbor seal. SOUND PRODUCTION AND HEARING OF LARGE WHALES The hearing sensitivities of large whales have not been measured. It is assumed that most animals can hear the sounds they produce; however, we cannot determine the limit of the receiving bandwidth of large whales without direct measurements. Source level and fre- quency data for cetaceans are summarized in table 2. These reported values are peak energy levels in relatively narrow bands. Broadband source level measurements are presented in reference 39 for four species of small toothed whales (the common dolphin, the northern right whale dolphin, the Pacific pilot whale and the Pacific bottlenosed dolphin). The values shown in table 2 suggest that sounds produced by large whales are restricted in frequency; however, these values probably reflect the manner in which source level data normally are presented as narrow band measurements. Reference 58 classifies mysticete sounds into four categories. Group I includes low frequency moans with fundamental frequencies from 12 to 500 Hz. The moans generally contain harmonically structured pure tones. Except for the sei and minke whales, all mysticetes make these sounds. Group II sounds include grunt-like thumps and knocks of short duration. The humpback, right, bowhead, grey, fin and minke whales produce these sounds. Major energy in Group II sounds is between 40 and 200 Hz. Group III sounds con- tain chirps, cries and whistles above 1.0 kHz. Chirps generally are pulses of short, discrete, 39 Naval Undersea Center TP 547, Acoustic Source Levels of Four Species of Small Whales, by JF Fish and CW Turl, p 14, 1976. 58 Thompson, TJ, HE Winn and PJ Perkins, Mysticete Sounds. In: Behavior of Marine Mammals, Vol 3, Cetaceans, HE Winn and BL Ola, eds, p 403-431, Plenum Press, 1979. H-18 SOURCE LEVEL SPECIES (dB, re 1 uPa @ 1 m) ODONTOCETE Tursiops truncatus 217-228 175 Lagenorhynchus australis Orcinus orca 108-115 109-125 85-95 Stenella lognirostris FREQUENCY Broadband peak-to-peak level of clicks. Broadband peak-to-peak level of clicks. Broadband RMS level of clicks. Broadband RMS level of screams (click trains) Broadband R;S levels of pulse bursts. “squeals” clicks REFERENCE NUMBER Inia geoffrensis Broadband peak-to-peak levels of clicks. Phocena phocena Physeter catadon 135 173.5 171.5 (165.5-175.3) MYSTICETE Megaptera novaeangliae 138.6 148.6 155.4 (144.3-174.4) Eubalaena glacialis 172-187 Eschrichtius glaucus 138-152 Balaenoptera musculus Balaenoptera physalus 173-181 Balaenoptera acutorostrata Broadband RMS level of clicks. Mean and range of peak broadband levels of click. Peak broadband level of pulses thought to be P. catadon. Mean 1/3-octave level of clicks at 1 kHz. Mean and range of broadband level of clicks. Mean 1/3-octave level at 5 kHz. Mean 1/3-octave level at 1 kHz. Mean and range of broadband levels of various types of signals. Levels in the 25-2500-Hz band for belch-like sounds. Mean broadband levels for several different types of low-frequency signals. Highest level measured. Maximum broadband level of clicks. Mean level of moans in a 14-222-Hz band. Source level for 20-Hz pulses. Source level of 20-Hz pulses thought to be from B. physalus, based on source level calculations as cited in reference. Maximum broadband level of clicks. Table 2. Summary of source level data for cetaceans (from reference 39). nonharmonic tones which change frequency rapidly. Cries and whistles are pure tones with or without harmonics. Group IV are clicks or pulses which have peak energy at high frequen- cies, often between 20 and 30 kHz. Two types of sounds have been recorded from bowhead whales: a short duration and a long duration sound. The sounds’ fundamental frequencies are 50-80 Hz and 100-195 Hz, respectively (ref 59). The hearing thresholds for large whales have not been measured. If the sounds pro- duced by these whales are indications of sounds they could receive, then the whales’ hearing bandwidth extends from 12 Hz to 30 kHz. DISCUSSION Excess or increased environmental noise could impact animals that rely on acoustic signals to maintain biological functions such as feeding, mating, and protecting and raising young. No standards exist to evaluate the effects of noise on marine mammals and we lack data on the auditory sensitivity for many species of marine mammals, particularly the large whales. Data on the effects of sustained, low levels of noise on biological functions also is sparse. Thus, in this report we cannot quantify the effects of offshore drilling operations on marine mammals. The acoustic characteristics of the 20-Hz sound produced by the fin whale, Balaenoptera physalus (ref 60), is described as a signal well suited for long range communi- cations. The authors surmise that a decrease in the signal-to-noise ratio, either at the source or the receiver, could sustantially reduce the detection range. Reference 61 showed that as the noise level in the vicinity of an echolocating dolphin increased, the number of clicks increased (echolocation effort). Furthermore. overall detec- tion performance was degraded with increased noise levels. Reference 62 suggests that increased shipping activities in Japanese waters have re- sulted in altering the historical migration routes of the Baird’s beaked whale, Berardius bairdi, and the minke whale, Balaenoptera acutorostrata, Although additional factors may be affecting these populations, the impact of increased maritime activities in whaling grounds should be considered as a potential disrupting influence. Figure 10 summarizes some possible effects of offshore drilling noise on marine mammal populations. Noise can be classified as either chronic or acute. Chronic noise will either mask signals or induce stress that may become manifest either physiologicaily or be- haviorally. Acute noise may reduce the animal’s ability to perceive a signal. Both acute and chronic noise can cause short-term disruption of critical behaviors or mask intraspecitic trans- mission of information. If a population cannot adapt or accommodate to the short-term 59 Ljungblad, DK, S Leatherwood and ME Dahleim, Sounds Recorded in the Presence of an Adult and Calf Bowhead Whale, Balaena mysticetus, Naval Ocean Systems Center TR 420, p 1-7, 1979. 60 Payne, R and D Webb, Orientation by Means of Long Range Acoustic Signaling in Baleen Whales, New York Acad Sci, 188, p 110-141, 1971. 61 Penner, RH and J Kadane, Tursiops Biosonar Detection in Noise, In: Animal Sonar Systems. RF Busnel and JF Fish, eds, p 957-959, Plenum Press, 1980. 62 Nishiwake, M and A Sasao, Human Activities Disturbing Natural Migration Routes of Whales, Sci Rep Whales Res Inst, 29, p 113-120, 1977. ‘suonjefndod jewel aureus UO astou BUIT[IP BOYs}Jo JO s}9ajJa a[qissod yo Airtwwing “Q] aN3Iy ALINIGVAIAUNS $193443 HLMOHYD LIGIHNI WOIIDSOTISAHd eee JAVaI SvauV G34H3434d JO LNINNOGNVEY SHOIAVH3a SSVYVH/SS3Y1S Wwo1Lldd Lanusia \ SdIHSNOILV13Y WID0S Ldnusia \ SS3NLI4 1vDID01018 Aaud 3LV9071 \ 3HL JO NOILONGaY ee ao eecuaivaaae S¥YOLVG3Ud 193130 \ ud-YOLva SSMONL dino ne Ubi vats S31LVW 4O WWNOIS ONINSVN DINOYHD ( dNOUD 31V907 ‘LdNYSIG DNNOA GNIS 193343 ON Scion 31VY ALIGNND34 NOILONGOUdaY 40 SS399NS NOILONGOUd3Y 4O FLV "39naG3u ONIUW3H OL singe JOVWVG HO SSOT SNOILV1NdOd NO $1933443 $193443 WH31-9NO1 $193433 WH31-LYOHS GYVZVH effects, then the long-term effects of noise may reduce the population’s reproductive capa- bilities, disrupt predator-prey relationships, or cause a population to abandon preferred breeding or feeding areas. The above discussion deals only with the possible effects of noise on marine mammals. Data are not yet available to determine the probability of such effects occurring or to evaluate the severity of the effects on wild populations of animals. Damage risk criteria that have been established for humans may not be appropriate in evaluating possible effects of noise on wild- life (re{63), because the amount of physiological and behavioral adaptation that occurs in response to noise stimulus is unknown. Continuous noise levels above 90 dBA (approximately 115 dBre 1 uPaat 1 min water) have potentially detrimental effects on human performance and noise levels of less than 90 dBa can be disruptive (ref 2). Until noise standards are established for wild animals, we may assume that animals will be at least partially protected by applying maximum levels identified for humans. RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Measure the noise generated from current and future offshore drilling operations. Include sensitive frequency ranges from known marine mammal audiograms. 2. Identify lease areas where offshore oil development is anticipated. Identify species of marine mammals that inhabit these areas. 3. Identify lease areas where introduction of increased sustained noise might dis- rupt a critical life cycle of marine mammals. For example, feeding, breeding, transit or congregation areas. 4. Initiate a monitoring program when a lease area is opened. Monitor both acoustic and population dynamic parameters in the lease area as development progresses. 5. Develop a program to monitor the effects of controlled introduction of noise to a marine mammal population. Quantify the effects of the noise on the population. 6. Obtain underwater audiograms of marine mammals that occur in the selected lease areas. 7. Determine the effects of noise on marine mammals under controlled conditions. ©3 Fletcher, JL and RF Busnel, eds, Summary and Discussion, In: Effects of Noise on Wildlife, p 303-305, Academic Press, 1978. GS GS Whe 12: 13: We 18. REFERENCES Underwater Systems, Inc. Note 312-5, Noise measurements from Offshore Oil Rigs, p 17, Silver Springs, MD, 1973. Information of Levels of Environmental Noise Requisite to Protect Publich Health and Welfare with an Adequate Margin of Safety, Environmental Protection Agency, Super- intendent of Documents, US Government Printing Office, Washington, DC, 1974. The White House, Executive Order No. 11644, as amended May 24, 1977. Janssen, R, Noise and Animals: Perspectives of Government and Public Policy, In: Effects of Noise on Wildlife, JL Fletcher and RG Busnel, ed, p 287-301, Academic Press, New York, NY, 1978. Kryter, KD, The Effects of Noise on Man, p 633, Academic Press, New York, NY, 1970. Welch, BL and AS Welch, ed, Physiological Effects of Noise, p 365, Plenum, 1970. Selye, H, Stress and Disease, Science, 122(3171), p 625-631, 1955. Selye, H, The General Adaptation Syndrome and the Diseases of Adaptation, J Clin Endoctrine & Metab, 6(2), p 117-230, 1946. Myrberg, AA, Ocean Noise and the Behavior of Marine Animals: Relationships and Implications, In: Effects of Noise on Wildlife, JL Fletcher and RG Busnel, ed, p 168-208, Academic Press, New York, NY, 1978. Drouin, AH, Design and Field Operation of an Underwater Acoustic Telemetry System, Offshore Technology Conference, 6th, OTC 1965, p 9. Morgane, JP and NS Jacobs, Comparative Anatomy of the Cetacean Nervous System, In: Functional Anatomy of Marine Mammals, Vol 1, RJ Harrison, ed, p 117-244, Academic Press, New York, NY, 1972. Bullock, TH, AD Grinnel, E Ikezono, K Kameda, Y Katsuki, M Nomoto, N Sato and K Yanagisawa, Electrophysiological Studies of the Central Auditory Mechanisms in Cetaceans, Z Vergl Physiol 59, p 117-156, 1968. McCormick, JG, EG Wever, J Palin and SH Ridgway, Sound Conduction in the Dolphin Ear, J Acous Soc Amer, 48(6), p 1418-1428, 1970. Wever, EG, JG McCormick, J Palin and SH Ridgway, The Cochlea of the Dolphin, Tursiops truncatus: General Morphology, Proc Nat Acad Sci, 68(10), p 2381-2385, LOTR Fraser, FC and PE Purves, Hearing in Cetaceans, Bull of Brit Mus, 7, p 1-140, 1960. Norris, KS, The Echolocation of Marine Mammals, In: The Biology of Marine Mammals, HT Harrison, ed, p 391-423, Academic Press, New York, 1969. Reysenback de Haan, FW, Hearing in Whales, Acta Otolaryngal, 134, p 1-114, 1957. Dudok van Heel, WH, Sound and Cetacea, Neth J Sea Res, 1(4), p 407-507. H-23 WY), 30. 31. bo 1S) REFERENCES (CONTINUED) Purves PE, Anatomy of Physiology of the Outer and Middle Ear in Cetacea, In: Whales, Dolphin and Porpoise, KS Norris, ed, Univ of Calif Press, p 320-380, 1966. Fleischer, G, Hearing in Extinct Cetaceans as Determined by Cochlear Structure, J Paleontol, 50(1), p 133-152, 1976. Norris, KS and RR Reeves, eds, Report on a Workshop on Problems Related to Hump- back Whales (Megaptera novaeangliae) in Hawaii, US Dept Comm, NTIS PB-280-794, 19) SO), NOW, Reppening, CA, Underwater Hearing in Seals, In: Functional Anatomy of Marine Mammals, RJ Harrison, ed, p 307-331, Academic Press, New York, 1972. Francis, RL, Behavioral Audiometry in Mammals: Review and Evaluation of Techniques, Symp Zool Soc Lond, 37, p 237-280, 1975. Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc Tech Memo 513, Measurements of Underwater Acoustic Noise in the Prudhoe Bay Area, by CI Malme and R Mlawski, p 16, 1979. Ford, J, White Whale Offshore Exploration Acoustic Study, Report submitted to Imperial Oil Co, FF Slaney and Co, Ltd, Vancouver, Canada, p 21, 1977. Bell Laboratories, APEX Final Report, by SA Kramer and TE Wing, 1976. Urick, RJ, Principles of Underwater Sound, p 384, McGraw-Hill Book Co, 1967. Naval Ordance Test Station TP 4178, Audiotory Thresholds in the Bottlenose Porpoise, Tursiops truncatus, by CS Johnson, p 22, 1966. Andersen, S, Auditory Sensitivity in the Harbor Porpoise, Phocoena phocoena, In: Investigations on Cetacea, Vol 2, G Pilleri, ed, p 255-258, 1970. Hall, JD and CS Johnson, Auditory Threshold of a Killer Whale, Orcinus Orca, J Acous Soc Amer, 41(1), p 515-517, 1971. Hubb Sea Work Research Institute Technical Report 78-109, Auditory Thresholds of Two Beluga Whales (Delphinapterus leucas), by MJ White, JC Norris, DK Ljunblad, KS Baron and GN DeSciara, p 13, 1978. Jacobs, DW and JD Hall, Thresholds of a Freshwater Dolphin, /nia geoffrensis, J Acous Soc Amer, 51(1), p 530-533, 1972. Schusterman, RJ, RF Balliet and J Nixon, Underwater Audiogram of the California Sea Lion by Conditioned Vocalization Techniques, J Exp Anal Beh, 17, p 339-350, 1972. Terhune, JM and K Ronald, the Harp Seal, Pagophilus groenlandicus, I11, The Under- water Audiogram, Can J Zool, 50, p 565-569, 1975. Ternune, JM and K Ronald, Underwater Hearing Sensitivity of Two Ringed Seals (Pusa hispida), Can J Zool, 53, p 227-231, 1975. Mohi, B, Auditory Sensitivity of the Common Seal in Air and Water, J Aud Res, 8, p 27-38, 1968. Si 38. 44, 45. 46. 48. AQ. REFERENCES (CONTINUED) Ridgway, SH and PL Joyce, Studies on Seal Brain by Radio-telemetry, In: Biology of the Seal, K Ronald and AW Mansfield, eds, p 81-91, 1975. Parvulescu, A, The Acoustics of Small Tanks, In: Marine Bioacoustics, WN Tauolga, ed, p 7-13, Pergammon Press, 1967. Naval Undersea Center TP 547, Acoustic Source Levels of Four Species of Small Whales, by JF Fish and CW Turl, p 14, 1976. Au, WWL, RW Floyd, RH Penner and AE Murchinson, Measurements of Echolocation Signals of the Bottlenose Dolphin, Tursiops truncatus, in Open Water, J Acous Soc Amer, 56, p 1280-1290, 1974. Ref 40, p 2. Schevill, WE and WA Watkins, Pulsed Sounds of the Porpoise Lagenorhyncus australis, Brevoria, 366, p 1-10, 1971. Schevill. WE and WA Watkins, Sound Structure and Directionality in Orcinus (Killer Whale), Zoologica, 51, p 71-76, 1966. Watkins, WA and WE Schevill, Listening to Hawaiian Spinner Porpoises, Stenella of longirostris, with a Three-Dimensional Hydrophone Array, J Mamm, 55, p 319-328, 1974. Schevill, WE, WA Watkins and C Ray, Click Structure in the Porpoise, Phonoena phocoena, J Mamm. 50, p 721-728, 1969. Mohl. B and S Andersen, Echolocation: High-Frequency Components in the Click of the Harbour Porpoise (Phocoena ph L), J Acous Soc Amer, 54, p 1368-1372, 1973. Corcell. AT and M Green, Investigations of Impulsive Deepsea Noise Resembling Sounds Produced by a Whale, J Acous Soc Amer, 44, p 483-487, 1968. Dunn, JL. Airborne Measurements of the Acoustic Characteristics of a Sperm Whale, J Acous Soc Amer, 46, p 1052-1054, 1969. Levenson. C. Source Level and Bistatic Target Strength of the Sperm Whale (Physter catodon) Measured from an Oceanographic Aircratt, J Acous Soc Amer, 55, p 1100- 1103, 1974. Levenson, C, Characteristic of Sounds Produced by Humpback Whales (Megaptera novaeangliae), NAVOCEAN Technical Note 7700-6-72, p 1-10, 1972. Cummings, WC, JF Fish and PO Thompson, Sound Production and Other Behavior of Southern Right Whales, Eubalaena glacialis, Trans San Diego Soc Nat Hist, 17, i) oils}, WOW Cummings, WC, PO Thompson and R Cook, Underwater Sounds of Migrating Gray Whales, Eschrichtius glaucus (Cope), J Acous Soc Amer, 44, p 1278-1281, 1968. 53. 54. 56 56. Sie 58. 59: 60. 61. 63" REFERENCES (CONTINUED) Beamish, P and E Mitchell, Ultrasonic Sounds Recorded in the Presence of a Blue Whale, Balaenoptera musculus, Deep-Sea Res, 18, p 803-809, 1971. Cummings, WC and PO Thompson, Underwater Sounds from the Blue Whale, Balaenoptera musculus, J Acous Soc Amer, 50, p 1193-1198, 1971. Patterson, B and TF Hamilton, Repetitive 20 Cycle per Second Biological Hydrostatic Signals at Bermuda, In: Marine Bio-Acoustics, WN Tavolga, ed, p 125-145, Pergammon Press, 1964. Schevill, WE, WA Watkins and RH Backus, The 20-Cycle Signals and Balaenoptera (Fin Whales), In: Marine Bio-Acoustics, WN Tavolga, ed, p 147-157, Pergammon Press, 1964. Beamish, P and E Mitchell, Short Pulse Length Audio Sounds Recorded in the Presence of a Minke Whale (Balaenoptera Acutorostrata), Deep-Sea Res and Ocean Abst, 20, p 375-386, 1973. Thompson, TJ, HE Winn and PJ Perkins, Mysticete Sounds, In: Behavior of Marine Mammals, Vol 3, Cetaceans, HE Winn and BL Olla, eds, p 403-431, Plenum Press, 1979. Ljungblad, DK, S Leatherwood and ME Dahleim, Sounds Recorded in the Presence of an Adult and Calf Bowhead Whale, Balaena mysticetus, Naval Ocean Systems Center TR 420, p 1-7, 1979. Payne, R and D Webb, Orientation by Means of Long Range Acoustic Signaling in Baleen Whales, New York Acad Sci, 188, p 110-141, 1971. Penner, RH and J Kadane, Tursiops Biosonar Detection in Noise, In: Animal Sonar Systems, RF Busnel and JF Fish, eds, p 957-959, Plenum Press, 1980. Nishiwake, M and A Sasao, Human Activities Disturbing Natural Migration Routes of Whales, Sci Rep Whales Res Inst, 29, p 113-120, 1977. Fletcher, JL and RF Busnel, eds, Summary and Discussion, In: Effects of Noise on Wildlife, p 303-305, Academic Press, 1978. WHO! DOCUMENT COLLECTION JAN 23 1986 EMCO » ‘2 ! : be ca le ae P i — — a