Background This section includes information about seismic surveys, oil and gas  activities in the four OCS regions, and the potential effects of seismic  activities on the environment and marine mammals as well as related  requirements. Seismic Surveys Seismic surveys use mechanically generated sound waves from an  acoustic source such as an airgun to transmit energy into the subsurface.  Some of this energy is reflected or refracted back to recording sensors,  and data are transformed into representative images of the layers in the  subsurface of the earth. Entities use seismic surveys for several  purposes. For example, oil and gas companies use both onshore and  offshore seismic surveys to collect data on geology that may indicate the  presence of oil and gas. Other entities, such as research institutions, use  seismic surveys for a variety of purposes, such as helping to detect  groundwater, identifying archaeological resources and fault zones, and  conducting other research. There are two main types of seismic surveys used on the OCS: (1) deep- penetration and (2) high-resolution seismic surveys. Deep-penetration  seismic surveys are conducted by vessels towing an array of airguns that  use a low frequency source and emit high-energy acoustic pulses into the  seafloor over long durations. Deep-penetration seismic surveys can  penetrate several thousand meters into the subsurface and are then  reflected and recorded by receivers to image deep geological features.  Deep-penetration seismic surveys are often acquired prior to the drilling  phase of oil and gas exploration. High-resolution seismic surveys typically  use high-frequency acoustic signals to image the sea bottom and shallow  parts right below the ocean bottom with a higher level of detail. Seismic  surveys vary in technologies used, as well as in their size and scope, with  towed gear in some cases spanning several miles (see fig. 1). Activities in the Outer  Continental Shelf (OCS)  Regions The OCS refers to the submerged lands outside the territorial jurisdiction  of all 50 states but that appertain to the United States and are under its  jurisdiction and control. State submerged lands generally extend from the  shore to 3 geographical miles offshore. Federal submerged lands, which are lands under the jurisdiction of the federal government—generally  extend from 3 geographical miles to 200 nautical miles offshore. With  certain exceptions, waters and submerged lands beyond 200 nautical  miles offshore are considered international. The OCS is divided into four regions managed by BOEM—Alaska,  Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, and Pacific—each with its own histories and  concerns and levels of commercial activities, including oil and gas  development and history of using seismic surveys. The Gulf of Mexico  OCS region has had the most oil and gas activity. The Alaska OCS  encompasses the Arctic submerged lands, Cook Inlet planning area, and  the Gulf of Alaska. The Arctic waters of the Alaska OCS include the  Beaufort and Chukchi planning areas and the Bering Sea. In the last 25  years, seismic activities in the Alaska OCS have generally taken place in  the Cook Inlet and the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas. The Atlantic OCS  region is divided into four areas for administrative purposes under  BOEM’s oil and gas leasing program: the North Atlantic, Mid-Atlantic,  South Atlantic, and the Straits of Florida. At present, no active OCS oil  and gas leases exist in any of these four planning areas. The most recent  geological and geophysical seismic data for the Mid- and South Atlantic  OCS were gathered more than 30 years ago. The Gulf of Mexico’s central  and western planning areas—offshore Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi and  Alabama—remain the United States’ primary offshore source of oil and  gas, generating about 97 percent of all OCS oil and gas production. BOEM oversees offshore oil and gas resource-management activities,  including preparing the 5-year OCS oil and gas leasing program,  conducting lease sales and issuing leases, and receiving, reviewing, and  approving oil and gas exploration and development and production plans.  As part of its role, BOEM also issues permits for geological and  geophysical data acquisition on the OCS, including seismic surveys,  under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act and regulations under the  act. BOEM does not have statutory review time frame requirements for  issuing geological and geophysical seismic survey permits. Entities  seeking to conduct geological and geophysical scientific research related  to oil and gas but not associated with oil and gas exploration and  development, including seismic surveys, generally do not need to obtain a  permit from BOEM, but they are generally required to file a Notice of  Scientific Research with the Regional Director of BOEM at least 30 days  before beginning such research. Environmental Impacts of  Seismic Surveys Man-made sources of ocean noise—such as from commercial shipping,  marine pile driving, sonar, and seismic activities—may have a variety of  impacts on marine mammals ranging from minor disturbance to injury or  death. Effects of noise on marine mammals depend on a variety of factors  including the species and behavior, as well as the frequency, intensity,  and duration of the noise. NMFS and FWS evaluate the potential effects  of activities, such as seismic surveys, on marine mammals in determining  whether to authorize incidental take under the MMPA when such  authorization is requested by entities engaging in those activities.  Agencies are required to evaluate potential environmental effects of their  actions, such as approval of seismic survey permits, under the National  Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and in cases where Endangered  Species Act listed species may be affected, conduct Endangered Species  Act section 7 consultations. Marine Mammal Protection Act The MMPA was enacted in 1972 to ensure that marine mammals are  maintained at or restored to their optimum sustainable population.  NMFS and FWS implement the MMPA, which generally prohibits the  “taking” of marine mammals. However, the MMPA provides a  mechanism for NMFS and FWS, upon request, to authorize the incidental  take of small numbers of marine mammals by U.S. citizens engaging in a  specified activity, other than commercial fishing, within a specified  geographic region. Specifically, NMFS and FWS issue incidental take  authorizations after finding that the activities will cause the taking of only  small numbers of marine mammals of a species or stock, the taking will  have a negligible impact on such marine mammal species or stocks, and  the taking will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability  of the species or stock for taking for subsistence uses. Entities whose  seismic survey activities may result in incidental take of marine mammals  obtain an incidental take authorization from NMFS or FWS, or both,  depending on the affected species. If operators incidentally take a marine  mammal and do not have authorization to cover the incidental take, they  would be in violation of the MMPA. By statute, incidental take  authorizations must also include permissible methods of taking and  means of affecting the least practicable adverse impact on affected  species and stocks and their habitat, monitoring requirements, and  reporting requirements. National Environmental Policy  Act Under NEPA, federal agencies are required to evaluate the potential  environmental effects of actions they propose to carry out, fund, or  approve (e.g., by permit). NEPA and implementing regulations set out  an environmental review process that has two principal purposes: (1) to  ensure that an agency carefully considers information concerning the  potential environmental effects of proposed actions and alternatives to  proposed actions and (2) to ensure that this information will be made  available to the public. Under NEPA, before approving any oil and gas  leasing, exploration, geological and geophysical permits, or development  activities, BOEM must evaluate the potential environmental effects of  approving or permitting those activities. NMFS and FWS also must  evaluate potential environmental effects under NEPA of issuing the  MMPA incidental take authorization as part of their review of the  proposed authorizations. Generally, the scope of the proposed permit or  authorization—that is, the federal action—determines whether the federal  agency prepares either an environmental assessment or a more detailed  environmental impact statement. Agencies may prepare an  environmental assessment to determine whether a proposed action is  expected to have a potentially significant impact on the human  environment. If the agency determines that the action will not have  significant environmental impacts following the environmental  assessment, the agency will issue a Finding of No Significant Impact. If  prior to or during the development of an environmental assessment, the  agency determines that the action may cause significant environmental  impacts, an environmental impact statement should be prepared. In implementing NEPA, federal agencies may rely on “tiering”, in which  prior broader, earlier NEPA reviews are incorporated into subsequent  site-specific analyses. Tiering is used to avoid duplication of analysis as  a proposed activity moves through the NEPA process, from a broad  assessment to a site-specific analysis. If an agency would like to evaluate  the potential significant environmental impacts of multiple similar or  recurring activities, the agency can prepare a programmatic  environmental assessment or environmental impact statement. Because  BOEM prepares a site specific environmental analysis for each geological  and geophysical permit application, to increase efficiency, BOEM uses  this tiering process and tiers from either an existing environmental impact  statement or environmental assessment during its site specific  environmental analysis review. Endangered Species Act The Endangered Species Act provides programs for conserving  threatened and endangered species. Under section 7 of the act, federal  agencies must ensure that any action they authorize, fund, or carry out is  not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered or  threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of  its critical habitat. To fulfill this responsibility, federal agencies must consult with NMFS or FWS, depending on the affected species, to assess  the potential effects of proposed actions, including approval of seismic  survey permits and authorization of incidental take under the MMPA, on  threatened and endangered species. The Endangered Species Act allows  NMFS and FWS to exempt incidental takings from the taking prohibition  for endangered and threatened species as provided through an incidental  take statement. The statement is to include the amount or extent of  anticipated take, reasonable and prudent measures to minimize the  effects of incidental take, and the terms and conditions that must be  observed. Formal consultations between federal agencies and NMFS or  FWS are required where a proposed action could have an adverse effect  on listed species or designated critical habitat and are concluded with  issuance by NMFS or FWS of biological opinions. The biological opinion  is to discuss in detail the effects of the proposed action on listed species  and their critical habitat and contain NMFS’s or FWS’s opinion on whether  the proposed action is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the  species or destroy or adversely modify any designated critical habitat. For  consultations involving marine mammals, an Endangered Species Act  section 7 incidental take statement cannot be issued until the incidental  take has been authorized under the MMPA. Agencies may informally consult with NMFS or FWS, and if it is  determined by the federal agency during such informal consultation that  the proposed action is not likely to adversely affect endangered or  threatened species or critical habitat, the informal consultation process is  concluded upon written concurrence of NMFS or FWS, and no further  action is necessary. If an action agency would like to evaluate the impacts  of multiple similar or recurring activities on endangered and threatened  species, NMFS or FWS can prepare a programmatic biological opinion for  the OCS region. BOEM’s Process  Differs by OCS  Region, and BOEM  Reviewed 297  Seismic Survey  Permit Applications  from 2011 through  2016 BOEM’s Process for  Reviewing Seismic Survey  Permit Applications Differs  by Selected OCS Region BOEM has a documented process for reviewing seismic survey  applications in each of the three selected OCS regions that differs at the  final step (see fig. 2), depending on the region. For the Alaska and  Atlantic regions, the applicant generally submits an application to BOEM  for a seismic survey permit at the same time that the applicant submits an  application to NMFS or FWS for an incidental take authorization. For the  Gulf of Mexico region, the applicant has generally only submitted an  application to BOEM for a seismic survey permit. In all three regions, BOEM is required to conduct environmental reviews  under NEPA, and Endangered Species Act Section 7 consultations as  necessary to help ensure agency actions, such as permit approvals, do  not jeopardize the continued existence of a species or destroy or  adversely modify critical habitat. In all three regions, when appropriate,  BOEM is also to coordinate with relevant stakeholders, such as state  officials, the Department of Defense and the National Aeronautics and  Space Administration, if proposed activities have the potential to interfere  with defense or civil aerospace activities in the same area. The final step in BOEM’s process for reviewing seismic survey permit  applications differs among the three selected OCS regions. In the Atlantic  region, prior to issuing a permit, BOEM intends to require incidental take  authorizations related to the seismic survey activities proposed in the  permit application to be in place before issuing permits, but BOEM  issues conditional permits while waiting for incidental take authorizations  in the Alaska region. In the Gulf of Mexico region, BOEM generally issues  permits without requiring incidental take authorizations to be in place. Stakeholders from industry groups and BOEM officials we interviewed  stated that differences in the review process were the natural result of the  process adapting to the three different OCS regions and their history of oil  and gas exploration. For example, agency officials stated that, in terms of  oil and gas activity, the Atlantic is a “frontier region,” and, according to a  stakeholder group, has vocal coastal communities that are uncomfortable  with offshore energy development and, relatedly, the potential impacts of  seismic surveys on marine mammals and commercial fishing. If certain  activities are considered controversial or have more vocal public  opponents, they may result in an increased number of public comments  the agency must review, which in turn may result in BOEM taking extra  time to review applications for permits or NMFS requiring more time to  review incidental take authorization applications, agency officials said. For  example, in the Atlantic OCS, there was a large vocal public opposition to  the seismic surveys proposed. Specifically, 126 municipalities, 1,200  officials, and over 40,000 businesses representing Republicans and  Democrats opposed seismic surveying, according to testimony at a July  2017 hearing of the House Committee on Natural Resources. By contrast, according to BOEM officials and industry stakeholders we  interviewed, the Gulf of Mexico region has a long history of offshore  energy development and seismic survey activity. BOEM has issued  permits in the Gulf of Mexico region without requiring an applicant to  already have an incidental take authorization in place. According to two  industry stakeholders we interviewed, obtaining permits in the Gulf of  Mexico has been a fairly routine process. BOEM has made a policy  decision to generally require an incidental take authorization in Alaska  and the Atlantic but not in the Gulf of Mexico, agency officials said. While historically, BOEM has not required incidental take authorizations in  the Gulf of Mexico to be in place prior to issuing seismic survey permits,  around 2002, ocean noise emerged as an environmental concern in the  region, according to BOEM officials. At that time, BOEM requested  incidental take regulations from NMFS for the Gulf of Mexico at the  request of NMFS and on behalf of the industry and submitted revised  requests in 2004, 2011, and 2016. According to BOEM officials we  interviewed, the agency has been working with NMFS since 2002 to get  incidental take regulations in place. According to NMFS officials, BOEM’s  2002 request only addressed 1 of the 21 species present in the Gulf of  Mexico, so NMFS requested that BOEM revise its request. The 2004  request included all marine mammals present in the area, according to  NMFS officials. BOEM and NMFS agreed to require mitigation measures  on all deep penetration seismic surveys in lieu of the formal authorization  until completion of the pending rulemaking, according to BOEM officials. Meanwhile, in 2010, a consortium of environmental organizations sued  Interior, alleging that BOEM permitted seismic activities in the Gulf of  Mexico in violation of NEPA. In correspondence with BOEM, plaintiffs  also alleged that seismic activities permitted by BOEM in the Gulf of  Mexico resulted in the unauthorized take of marine mammals in violation  of the MMPA. In June 2013, the parties reached an agreement providing  for a temporary stay of all proceedings in the lawsuit until Final Action, as  defined in the settlement agreement, with respect to BOEM’s application  for incidental take regulations or until the expiration of 30 months,  whichever occurs first. In addition, BOEM agreed to consider the  appropriateness of prescribing additional mitigation measures for industry  applicants related to seismic survey permits during the stay, including  seasonal restrictions for coastal waters and certain monitoring and  reporting requirements; the plaintiffs agreed not to challenge such permits  for surveys implementing the mitigations during the stay. In February  2016, the parties agreed to extend the stay through September 25, 2017,  subject to BOEM’s consideration of certain additional conditions on  seismic surveys permitted in the Gulf of Mexico. In October 2016, BOEM  submitted a revised request to NMFS for incidental take regulations  governing geophysical surveys in the Gulf of Mexico. In December 2016,  NMFS published in the Federal Register a notice of receipt and request  for comments and information in response to BOEM’s revised request for  incidental take regulations. According to NMFS officials, the agency is  currently working on developing incidental take regulations for the Gulf of  Mexico region. In September 2017, the parties agreed to extend the  stay through November 1, 2018. From 2011 through 2016, BOEM Reviewed 297 Applications for Seismic  Survey Permit Applications and Issued 264 Permits  Based on our review of agency data, from 2011 through 2016, BOEM  reviewed 297 applications for seismic survey permits. Of the 297 seismic  survey permit applications reviewed, BOEM issued 264 permits during  this period, and the number of applications reviewed and permits issued  varied by OCS region (see table 1). For the Gulf of Mexico region, which  has had the most oil and gas activity, BOEM reviewed the most permit  applications (268) and issued the most permits (250). From 2011 through 2016,  BOEM Time Frames for  Issuing Seismic Survey  Permit Applications Varied  by OCS Region BOEM does not have statutory review time frame requirements for  issuing geological and geophysical seismic survey permits. The range of  BOEM’s review time frames—from the date the agency determined that  an application was complete to when BOEM issued a seismic survey  permit—varied by OCS region (see table 2 and fig. 3). This table does not include pending, denied, or withdrawn applications or  Notices of Scientific Research. This table also does not include the  Pacific Outer Continental Shelf region because the Bureau of Ocean  Energy Management did not issue any seismic survey permits there from  2011 through 2016. The six permits issued in the Atlantic region were for  high-resolution seismic surveys for non-oil and gas mineral resources. Internally, according to BOEM officials, BOEM’s goal in the Gulf of Mexico  OCS region is to issue high-resolution seismic survey permits within 40  days and to issue deep penetration (airgun) permits within 70 days. Our  analysis of BOEM data on seismic survey permits found that, in the Gulf  of Mexico OCS region, for high-resolution seismic survey permits, the  agency issued 103 permits out of 108 permits (95 percent) within 40  days; for deep penetration permits, the agency issued 90 permits out of  142 permits (63 percent) within 70 days. NMFS and FWS  Follow a Similar  Process for Incidental  Take Authorization  Reviews, but  Guidance Does Not  Sufficiently Describe  How to Record  Certain Review Dates NMFS and FWS follow a similar application review process for reviewing  incidental take authorization applications, and from 2011 through 2016,  the agencies reviewed a total of 35 applications. However, neither agency  was able to provide accurate data for the dates on which it began its  formal processing of these applications because neither agency’s  guidance sufficiently describes how to record certain review dates. As a  result, it is not possible to determine whether the agencies were meeting  their statutory time frames for the type of incidental take authorization  application that has such time frames—the incidental harassment  authorizations. NMFS and FWS Follow a  Similar General Process to  Review Incidental Take  Authorization Applications Based on our review of agency guidance, NMFS and FWS follow a  similar general process in reviewing applications for incidental take  authorizations—both incidental harassment authorizations and letters of  authorization with associated incidental take regulations—related to  seismic survey activities (see fig. 4). According to NMFS and FWS officials we interviewed, the incidental take  authorization process is concurrent with, but separate from, BOEM’s  process for issuing seismic survey permits, and entities seeking to  conduct seismic surveys apply separately with each agency, as  appropriate. When applicants apply for an incidental take authorization,  they are first to decide which type of authorization they need—an  incidental harassment authorization or a letter of authorization associated  with incidental take regulations, depending on the expected effect on  marine mammals. Specifically, if the proposed activity has the potential to  result in the taking of marine mammals by harassment only, applicants  can request an incidental harassment authorization. Incidental  harassment authorizations can be issued for up to 1 year. The MMPA  provides that NMFS or FWS shall issue incidental harassment  authorizations within 120 days of receiving an application. If an activity  has the potential to result in serious injury to marine mammals, the  applicant would request incidental take regulations, which can be issued  for up to 5 years. Letters of authorization are required to conduct activities  pursuant to incidental take regulations. Once incidental take regulations  are finalized, the applicant can submit a request for a letter of  authorization, which is issued under the incidental take regulations. Once NMFS or FWS initially receives an application for an incidental  harassment authorization or incidental take regulation, agency officials  said that they begin their review and determine whether the application is  adequate and complete. They also work with the applicant to obtain any  additional required or clarifying information, according to agency officials  we interviewed. According to agency regulations and guidance, once the  agency deems an application to be adequate and complete, it begins to  formally process the application and may initiate several review actions,  including a NEPA environmental review and, if appropriate, an  Endangered Species Act Section 7 consultation. In the case of NMFS, the  agency publishes a notice of receipt of a request for incidental take  regulations in the Federal Register. The agencies then publish in the  Federal Register a proposed incidental harassment authorization or  proposed incidental take regulations. For incidental harassment authorizations, the MMPA provides that NMFS  or FWS, or both, are to publish a proposed incidental harassment  authorization and request public comment in the Federal Register no later  than 45 days after receiving an application. Following a 30-day public  comment period for proposed incidental harassment authorizations, the  agencies would make their final determination on the authorization, based  on:  the findings of their NEPA review,  the Endangered Species Act consultation, an assessment of whether the proposed activity is consistent with the  requirements of other statutes, as necessary, an analysis of the applicant’s ability to implement any necessary  mitigation measures to reduce potential effects on marine mammals,  and a review of the formal public comments submitted regarding the  proposed application. Not later than 45 days after the close of the public comment period,  NMFS and/or FWS is to, under the MMPA, issue an incidental  harassment authorization, including any appropriate conditions. In order  to issue an incidental harassment authorization, the relevant agency must  make the required findings that the activity will result in a taking by  harassment only of small numbers of marine mammals, that the  anticipated take will have a negligible impact on the species or stock, and  the anticipated take will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the  availability of the species or stock for subsistence uses. For incidental take regulations, the agencies are to publish proposed  regulations in the Federal Register and generally provide a public  comment period of 30-to-60 days, depending on the type of authorization  requested and circumstances that may warrant a shorter or longer period.  The agencies then publish a final rule in the Federal Register, which  includes the agencies’ response to public comments received. Generally,  30 days after the final rule is published, an approved incidental take  regulation becomes effective. Once the regulation becomes effective,  the agencies may issue letters of authorization, the applications for which  may have been received at the same time as the submission of the  incidental take regulation request or following the implementation of the  regulations, and then determine whether the activities in the letter of  authorization application are within the scope of the activities analyzed in  the regulations. The relevant agency can issue a letter of authorization  based on a determination under the agency’s regulations that the level of  any incidental takings will be consistent with the findings used to  determine the total taking allowable under the specific regulations. NMFS Reviewed and  Approved Incidental Take  Authorizations in Three  OCS Regions, and FWS  Reviewed and Approved  Authorizations in the  Alaska OCS From 2011 through 2016, based on our analysis of agency data, NMFS  reviewed 28 applications for incidental take authorizations and issued 21  incidental take authorizations across the Alaska, Atlantic, and Gulf of  Mexico OCS regions, and FWS reviewed and issued 7 authorizations  only in the Alaska OCS, in part because the marine species under FWS’  jurisdiction do not tend to occur in waters of the OCS in the other  regions. Of the 28 applications NMFS reviewed, it reviewed the most  applications (18) and issued the most authorizations (16) related to  seismic surveys in the Alaska region (see table 3). With regard to incidental take regulations, NMFS reviewed and issued  one set of incidental take regulations related to seismic surveys in Alaska  but did not receive applications for—and as a result has not issued—any  letters of authorization associated with the incidental take regulations,  agency officials said. There were no requests for incidental take  regulations related to seismic surveys in the Atlantic region, and NMFS is  currently developing incidental take regulations for the Gulf of Mexico, in  response to BOEM’s request, as noted previously. From 2011 through 2016, FWS reviewed applications for and issued  incidental take authorizations related to seismic surveys only in the  Alaska region, in part because the species under FWS’ jurisdiction do not  tend to occur in waters of the OCS in the other regions or there has not  been industry interest in applying for incidental take authorizations in  those regions, according to agency officials. Specifically, FWS reviewed  and issued two incidental harassment authorizations and two incidental  take regulations, which had five associated letters of authorization, for  seismic activities in the Alaska OCS. Both NMFS and FWS Did  Not Accurately Record  Certain Review Dates  Because Neither Agency’s  Guidance Sufficiently  Describes How to Record  Such Dates From 2011 through 2016, NMFS did not accurately record the dates on  which it determined applications to be adequate and complete, and FWS  did not record those dates at all; therefore, it is not possible to determine  NMFS and FWS time frames for reviewing incidental take authorization  applications. As noted previously, both agencies, per their guidance and  regulations, are to begin their formal processing of a request for an  incidental take authorization once an application is determined to be  “adequate and complete.” NMFS has general guidance on what  constitutes an adequate and complete incidental take authorization  application—for both incidental harassment authorization and incidental  take regulation applications, as well as associated letter of authorization  applications. Specifically, NMFS’ regulations and website outline 14  sections of information required in an incidental take authorization  application, such as the anticipated impact of the activity to the species or  stock of marine mammal. The agency’s website also notes that  adequate and complete means “with enough information for the agency to  analyze the potential impacts on marine mammals, their habitats, and on  the availability of marine mammals for subsistence uses.” FWS also has general guidance on what constitutes an adequate and  complete incidental take authorization application, for both incidental  harassment authorization and incidental take regulations, as well as  associated letters of authorization. Specifically, FWS regulations and  guidance specify that all applications must include certain pieces of  information and note that if an application is determined to be incomplete,  FWS staff are to notify the applicant within 30 days of receiving the  application that information is lacking. However, neither NMFS nor FWS guidance sufficiently describes how  agency staff should record the date on which an application is determined  to be adequate and complete, which would start the time frame for  reviewing incidental take authorization applications. Specifically, NMFS’  guidance provides information on what should be included in an adequate  and complete application but does not include information on how or  when staff should record the date an application is determined to be  adequate and complete. NMFS officials we interviewed told us that while  they generally record these dates, they are not sufficiently accurate to be  used for an analysis of review time frames. These officials said that  determinations of whether an application is adequate and complete have  historically varied by staff member, with some staff waiting until all  outstanding questions are resolved with an applicant before deeming the  application adequate and complete, and others considering an application  to be adequate and complete if more substantive questions are answered  (e.g., the dates, duration, specified geographic region of, and estimated  take for the proposed activity), even if some less substantive questions  are still outstanding (e.g., contact information). In addition, NMFS officials  told us that, in some cases, staff might not enter into their system the date  they determine an application to be adequate and complete and might  instead enter the information in batches once they have a few  applications that are ready for data entry. This might mean that, in cases  where a staff member waits until an application is done being processed  and reviewed, the date recorded for the determination of adequate and  complete, and the date the incidental take authorization is published, may  be zero to a few days apart. Based on our review of NMFS data, in at  least two cases, the date NMFS recorded for the determination of  adequacy and completeness of an application was after the date when  the proposed incidental take authorization was published in the Federal  Register. While FWS has guidance on what applicants should include in an  incidental take authorization application, the guidance does not specify  how or when staff should record the date on which they determine an  application is adequate and complete. One FWS official we interviewed  told us that the agency does not record this date in the spreadsheet for  tracking incidental take authorization applications. According to this FWS  official, agency officials do not record this date because they do not wait  until the application is considered adequate and complete to begin their  review. Instead, they begin processing the application while working with  applicants to provide missing information and clarifications. By the time  FWS officials consider an application to be adequate and complete, the  officials said that they usually have a well-developed draft incidental take  authorization and are typically finalizing details with the applicant.  According to FWS officials, recording an adequate and complete date  would have little meaning. NMFS’s and FWS’s guidance does not specify how or when staff should  record the date an application is determined to be adequate and complete  to help ensure that such a date is recorded consistently. As a result, the  agencies are either not accurately recording the date an application is  adequate and complete or not recording that date. Thus, the agencies are  not able to determine how long their formal processing takes. This  outcome is inconsistent with federal internal control standards, which call  for management to use quality information to achieve agency objectives  and design control activities, such as accurate and timely recording of  transactions, to achieve objectives and respond to risk. Officials we  interviewed at both agencies told us that they work to help meet  applicants’ project timelines—for example, applicants might need an  incidental harassment authorization to be in place when their seismic  survey vessel becomes available to begin operations. Until NMFS and  FWS develop guidance that clarifies how and when staff should record  the date on which the agency determines the “adequacy and  completeness” of an application, the agencies and applicants will  continue to have uncertainty around review time frames for incidental take  authorizations. Further, NMFS and FWS do not know if they are meeting their statutory  time frames for reviewing one type of incidental take authorization  application—incidental harassment authorization applications—because  they do not assess the time it takes their agencies to review applications  and make authorization decisions. As noted previously, the MMPA  provides that NMFS or FWS shall issue incidental harassment  authorizations within 120 days of receiving an application. Industry  representatives, scientific researchers, and agency officials we  interviewed noted, however, that the agencies often take longer than 120  days to make a decision about whether to issue an incidental harassment  authorization. For example, NMFS and FWS officials we interviewed told  us they often do not complete incidental harassment authorization  reviews within the 120-day statutory time frame. According to NMFS and  FWS officials, reviews may take longer than 120 days in cases where the  agency determines that a threatened or endangered species under the  Endangered Species Act may be affected, because the agency generally  must request the initiation of a section 7 consultation, which by regulation  can take up to 135 days. More specifically, NMFS and FWS officials we interviewed were unable to  provide accurate estimates of how long it takes their agency to review  incidental harassment authorization applications because they said that  they do not conduct analyses of their review time frames. This practice is  inconsistent with federal standards for internal control, which call for  agency management to design control activities to achieve objectives and  respond to risks, including by comparing actual performance to planned  or expected results throughout the organization and analyzing significant  differences. Without analyzing how long it takes to review incidental  harassment authorization applications, from the date the agency  determines that an application is adequate and complete until the date an  application is approved or denied, and comparing it to the statutory review  time frame, NMFS and FWS will be unable to determine whether they are  meeting their objectives of completing reviews within the statutory time  frame of 120 days. For Several Years,  BOEM and NMFS  Have Been  Reviewing Certain  Seismic Survey  Permit and Incidental  Take Authorization  Applications in the  Atlantic OCS As of October 2017, in addition to the six permits BOEM issued in the  Atlantic OCS from 2011 through 2016, another six permits were pending  a decision. Five related incidental harassment authorizations have also  been pending a decision by NMFS, as of October 2017. BOEM Has Been  Reviewing Six Seismic  Survey Permit Applications  in the Atlantic OCS Region  for Several Years As of October 2017, in addition to the six permits BOEM issued in the  Atlantic OCS from 2011 through 2016, another six permits were pending  a decision. From March to May 2014, BOEM received these six  applications for seismic survey permits in the Atlantic region (see fig. 5).  Of the six applicants that applied to BOEM during that time, five also  applied to NMFS for incidental harassment authorizations related to their  seismic survey permit applications, from August 2014 to January 2016.  The sixth applicant that applied to BOEM for a seismic survey permit in  the Atlantic OCS region did not apply for an incidental harassment  authorization with NMFS, according to NMFS officials. BOEM officials we interviewed stated that beginning in August 2014, the  agency began conducting outreach to Atlantic state officials to explain the  geological and geophysical permitting process and the seismic  technologies involved in the applications. In addition, according to BOEM  officials, the agency began coordinating with the Department of Defense  and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration to ensure that the  proposed seismic surveys did not interfere with any of their activities.  According to BOEM data we reviewed, the agency had determined that  all six applications to be “accepted,” or complete in late April to early June  2014. In March 2015, BOEM made the applications available for public  comment for 10 or 30 days, depending on the type of activity proposed.  According to BOEM officials, while the agency does not generally provide  a similar public comment period for the Gulf of Mexico or Alaska OCS  regions, once the Atlantic applications were considered “accepted,”  BOEM decided to provide a public comment period for them because the  region is considered a “frontier area”—a region without a long history of  oil and gas development—and local communities in Atlantic states are  less familiar with the impacts of seismic surveys than communities in the  Gulf states. From March 2015 until January 2017, BOEM had no further  data on its review activities that took place. BOEM officials we interviewed  told us that their seismic survey permit reviews were complete, but the  agency did not issue the seismic survey permits because it had made a  policy decision to wait for NMFS to issue incidental harassment  authorizations before doing so. In January 2017, BOEM denied the six applications for deep-penetration  seismic survey permits in the Atlantic OCS region after reviewing the  applications for 948 to 982 days. In May 2017, BOEM announced it  would reconsider the six applications for seismic survey permits in the  Atlantic region, after the new administration rescinded the permit denials.  As of August 2017, BOEM officials we interviewed were unable to provide  estimates of when the agency’s reviews would be completed. NMFS Has Been  Reviewing Incidental  Harassment Authorization  Applications Related to  Seismic Survey Permits in  the Atlantic OCS for  Several Years In addition to the four incidental harassment authorizations NMFS  approved in the Atlantic OCS region from 2011 through 2016, there are  five authorization applications related to seismic survey permits that are  pending a decision by NMFS, as of October 2017. NMFS received three  incidental harassment authorization applications related to seismic  surveys in the Atlantic OCS region from August to September 2014, a  fourth in March 2015, and a fifth in January 2016 (see fig. 6). In fall 2014, NMFS redirected staff reviewing the Atlantic incidental  harassment authorization applications to work on issues related to the  agency’s Fisheries Science Center, according to a NMFS official we  interviewed. According to this official, review of the Atlantic applications  resumed in February 2015. In spring 2015, NMFS became aware of some  academic studies concerning the impacts of seismic surveys on marine  mammals that they felt would be important to consider with the Atlantic  OCS applications under review, according to agency officials we  interviewed. According to these officials, NMFS notified applicants of  these studies, and one applicant voluntarily revised its impact estimates based on the studies. In summer 2015, NMFS officials said they  determined the three applications were sufficiently complete to begin  processing. The agency also published a formal notice of receipt and  request for comments in the Federal Register. According to NMFS  officials we interviewed, this procedure is not a required step in the  incidental harassment authorization review process, but NMFS officials  thought it was important to solicit the input, given potential local  community concern over the surveys in the Atlantic OCS region. Also  according to NMFS officials, based on comments received during the  public comment period, NMFS determined one application had been  erroneously considered complete and returned the application to the  applicant. In fall 2015, NMFS officials informed applicants that NMFS would need  revised applications based on the new academic studies. In addition to  the applicant noted above who updated its application in spring 2015, one  additional applicant chose to update its application in fall 2015, and  NMFS updated two additional remaining applications. NMFS officials  told us they received the last major revisions to the applications in May  2016 and were reviewing and drafting mitigation and monitoring  proposals throughout 2016. In November 2016, according to NMFS  officials, the five proposed incidental harassment authorizations were  ready to be published in the Federal Register, but internal leadership  placed the process on hold due to uncertainty regarding BOEM’s actions  on the permits. Following BOEM’s denials in January 2017, NMFS suspended the five  incidental harassment authorization applications related to the denied  seismic survey permits; according to NMFS officials, NMFS determined  there was no longer a valid basis for any proposed activity following  BOEM’s denial of permits for the actual activity. Agency officials informed  applicants that NMFS may resume its incidental harassment authorization  review if BOEM resumed its permit review at some point in the future.  Once BOEM announced it would reconsider the six applications for  seismic survey permits in the Atlantic region, NMFS published five  proposed incidental harassment authorizations related to the permits  being reconsidered by BOEM in June 2017. In July 2017, NMFS  extended the public comment period an additional 15 calendar days for a  total of 45 days. After the close of the public comment period, under the  MMPA, NMFS is to finalize its decision regarding the applications and  either publish the final incidental harassment authorizations or deny the  applications. As of October 2017, officials we spoke with at NMFS were  unable to provide estimates of when the agency’s reviews would be  completed. Conclusions Offshore seismic surveys provide federal agencies and commercial  entities with a wide range of information, including data on fault zones  and geology that may indicate the presence of oil and gas. This  information can help inform regulatory and resource development  decisions. In reviewing applications for seismic survey permits, BOEM  records the date on which an application for a seismic survey permit is  “accepted”, or complete, which may be weeks or months after an  application is received. NMFS and FWS, however, were unable to provide  accurate data on the dates that they determined applications for  incidental take authorizations were adequate and complete because the  agencies’ guidance does not specify how or when staff should record this  date. Until NMFS and FWS develop guidance that clarifies how and when  staff should record the date the agency determines the “adequacy and  completeness” of an application, the agencies and applicants will  continue to have uncertainty around review time frames for incidental take  authorizations. Moreover, NMFS and FWS officials we interviewed said  that they do not analyze their review time frames, a practice that is  inconsistent with federal standards for internal control. Without analyzing  how long it takes to review incidental harassment authorization  applications and comparing time frames to the statutory review time  frame, NMFS and FWS will be unable to determine whether they are  meeting their statutory review time frame of 120 days. Recommendations for  Executive Action We are making the following four recommendations, including two to  NMFS and two to FWS. Specifically:  The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries of NMFS should develop  guidance that clarifies how and when staff should record the date on  which the agency determines the “adequacy and completeness” of an  incidental take authorization application. (Recommendation 1). The Principal Deputy Director of FWS should develop guidance that  clarifies how and when to record the date on which the agency  determines the “adequacy and completeness” of an incidental take  authorization application. (Recommendation 2). The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries of NMFS should analyze the  agency’s time frames for reviewing incidental harassment authorization  applications—from the date the agency determines that an application is  adequate and complete until the date an application is approved or  denied—and compare the agency’s review time frames to the statutory  review time frame. (Recommendation 3). The Principal Deputy Director of FWS should analyze the agency’s time  frames for reviewing incidental harassment authorization applications— from the date the agency determines that an application is adequate and  complete until the date an application is approved or denied—and  compare the agency’s review time frames to the statutory review time  frame. (Recommendation 4). Agency Comments  and Our Evaluation We provided a copy of this report to the Departments of Commerce and  the Interior for review and comment. The Department of Commerce provided comments on behalf of the  National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). NMFS agreed with our  recommendations but recommended changes to some of the terms used  in our report and stated that our characterization of the statutory and  mandated requirements did not fully describe the extent of review and  analysis required during their review. While we believe that our  description of the extent and complexity of NMFS’ review and analysis,  including the terms we use to describe NMFS’ process, was sufficient for  this report, we revised the report as appropriate. In its letter, NMFS  acknowledged that it does not consistently record the date that an  application is deemed ”adequate and complete,” and agreed with our  recommendations, including describing the steps it plans to take to  address them. The Department of Commerce also provided technical  comments, which we incorporated throughout our report as appropriate.  The Department of Commerce’s letter can be found in appendix II. The Department of the Interior provided comments on behalf of the  Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) and the U.S. Fish and  Wildlife Service (FWS). The FWS partially concurred with our first  recommendation and fully concurred with our second. Regarding the first  recommendation, FWS noted that it plans to develop guidance for  recording the “adequate and complete” date of incidental harassment  authorization applications; however, it did not indicate that it would  develop such guidance for the other type of incidental take  authorization—the incidental take regulations. We believe that FWS  should develop guidance for both. Such guidance is necessary to  maintain consistency with federal internal control standards, which call for  management to use quality information to achieve agency objectives and  design control activities, such as accurate and timely recording of  transactions, to achieve objectives and respond to risk. The Department  of the Interior also provided technical comments, which we incorporated  throughout our report as appropriate. The Department of the Interior’s  letter can be found in appendix III. As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce the contents of  this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days from the  report date. At that time, we will send copies to the appropriate  congressional committees, the Acting Director of BOEM, the Assistant  Administrator for Fisheries of NMFS, and the Principal Deputy Director of  FWS. If you or your staff members have any questions about this report, please  contact me at (202) 512-3841 or ruscof@gao.gov. Contact points for our  Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on  the last page of this report. GAO staff members who made significant  contributions to this report are listed in appendix IV. Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and  Methodology This report examines (1) BOEM’s process for reviewing seismic survey  permit applications in each OCS region, the number of applications  reviewed from 2011 through 2016, and BOEM’s review time frames; (2)  NMFS’s and FWS’s processes for reviewing incidental-take authorization  applications related to seismic surveys in each OCS region, the number  of such applications reviewed by the agencies from 2011 through 2016,  and their review time frames; and (3) the status of pending seismic survey  permit applications and related incidental take authorizations in the  Atlantic OCS region. In our preliminary review of all four OCS regions— Alaska, the Atlantic, the Gulf of Mexico, and the Pacific—we determined  that there had been no new oil and gas and related seismic activity in the  Pacific OCS region for the last two decades; as a result, we excluded the  Pacific OCS region from our review. To examine BOEM’s, NMFS’s, and FWS’s processes for reviewing  seismic survey permit applications and related incidental take  authorizations, we analyzed relevant laws and regulations that govern the  processes and reviewed and analyzed agency guidance, such as process  flowcharts, and other documents, including Federal Register notices. We  also interviewed BOEM, NMFS, and FWS agency officials, in their  headquarters and regional offices, responsible for overseeing seismic  permitting and incidental take authorization reviews in each selected OCS  region. In addition, we interviewed a range of stakeholders, identified and  selected because of their knowledge of the seismic survey permit and  incidental take authorization application processes, to obtain their views.  Specifically, we interviewed representatives from 10 stakeholder groups,  which included industry groups, a research institution, and environmental  organizations. Because this was a nonprobability sample of stakeholders,  the views of stakeholders we spoke with are not generalizable beyond  those groups that we interviewed. To examine the number of seismic survey permit applications and related  incidental take authorizations that BOEM, NMFS, and FWS reviewed  from 2011 through 2016, we obtained data from BOEM, NMFS, and FWS  on the number of permit and authorization applications each agency reviewed and the number of permits and authorizations the agencies  issued in each selected OCS region. We asked the agencies to  categorize their data with different types of seismic survey technologies  (e.g., deep-penetration seismic surveys, high-resolution seismic surveys,  or other seismic survey technology such as vertical seismic profile  technology). As a result, we identified the number of relevant permits and  authorizations that were identified by these agencies as having used  seismic survey technologies. We used publicly available information on  the number of permit and authorization applications on agency websites  to check the reliability of BOEM, NMFS, and FWS data and found the  data on the number of permits and authorizations to be sufficiently  reliable for our purposes. To examine the review time frames for seismic survey permit applications  and related incidental take authorizations from 2011 through 2016, as  well as pending applications, and the extent to which NMFS and FWS are  meeting their statutory time frames for reviewing incidental harassment  authorization applications related to seismic survey permits, we obtained  data from BOEM, NMFS, and FWS. We also interviewed agency officials  knowledgeable about the data and analyzed the data to determine the  range of review time frames by agency and by selected OCS region. We  focused our review of pending applications on the Atlantic OCS region  because it was the only region with applications that had been pending  review for several years. We used information on the dates applications  were received and issued as listed in the Federal Register or publicly  available documentation to check the reliability of BOEM, NMFS, and  FWS data. For BOEM, we found the dates the agency gave us generally  were consistent with the dates listed in the Federal Register. As a result,  we used BOEM’s dates from the time an application was deemed  “accepted,” or adequate and complete, until the permit was issued. We  found the data to be sufficiently reliable for our purposes. For NMFS and  FWS, we found errors between the dates the agencies gave us and the  dates listed in the Federal Register. In addition, the agencies told us they  did not have reliable information on the dates that applications were  determined to be adequate and complete. We also examined NMFS and  FWS guidance on review time frames, agency communication with  applicants, and data- recording procedures. We also interviewed agency  officials as well as industry stakeholders to learn more about time frames  for seismic survey permit applications and related incidental take  authorizations. Appendix II: Comments from the Department  of Commerce Appendix III: Comments from the  Department of the Interior Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff  Acknowledgments GAO Contact Staff  Acknowledgments In addition to the contact named above, Christine Kehr (Assistant  Director), Nirmal Chaudhary, Maggie Childs, John Delicath, Marissa  Dondoe, Cindy Gilbert, Jessica Lewis, Greg Marchand, Patricia Moye,  Katrina Pekar-Carpenter, Caroline Prado, Dan Royer, and Kiki  Theodoropoulos made key contributions to this report.
Offshore seismic surveys provide federal agencies and other entities with a wide range of data, from research on fault zones to geology that may indicate the presence of oil and gas. Companies seeking to conduct such surveys to find oil and gas resources in the OCS must obtain a permit from BOEM—which oversees offshore oil and gas activities. Man-made sources of ocean noise, such as seismic surveys, may harm marine mammals. Entities whose activities may cause the taking of marine mammals, which includes harassing or injuring an animal, may obtain incidental take authorizations for seismic surveys from NMFS or FWS, depending on the potentially affected species. GAO was asked to provide information on the seismic permitting process. This report examines (1) BOEM's review process, the number of permit applications reviewed from 2011 through 2016, and its review time frames; and (2) NMFS's and FWS's review process, the number of incidental take authorization applications reviewed from 2011 through 2016, and their review time frames, among other objectives. GAO reviewed laws and regulations and agency documents, analyzed data on applications to BOEM, NMFS, and FWS, and interviewed agency officials. The Department of the Interior's Bureau of Ocean Energy Management's (BOEM) process and time frames for reviewing seismic survey applications differ by region along the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS). From 2011 through 2016, BOEM reviewed 297 applications and issued 264 seismic survey permits, and the reviews' time frames differed by region (see table). As part of the process, BOEM may require approved “incidental take” authorizations from the Department of Commerce's National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) or Interior's U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), given the possibility such surveys may disturb or injure marine mammals. BOEM does not have statutory review time frame requirements for issuing permits, and officials said the agency starts its formal review once it determines that an application is complete. In some cases, the agency issued a permit on the same day it determined an application was complete. NMFS and FWS follow a similar general process for reviewing incidental take authorization applications related to seismic survey activities. From 2011 through 2016, NMFS and FWS reviewed 35 and approved 28 such applications across the three OCS regions, including some authorizations related to BOEM permits as well as research seismic surveys not associated with BOEM permits. NMFS was unable to provide accurate data for the dates the agency determines an application is adequate and complete—and FWS does not record this date. For example, based on GAO's review of NMFS data, in at least two cases, the date NMFS recorded the application had been determined adequate and complete was after the date when the proposed authorization was published in the Federal Register . Federal internal control standards call for agencies to use quality information. Without guidance on how to accurately record review dates, agencies and applicants will continue to have uncertainty around review time frames. Further, under the Marine Mammal Protection Act, the agencies are to review one type of incidental take authorization application—incidental harassment authorization applications—within 120 days of receiving an application for such authorizations. NMFS and FWS have not conducted an analysis of their review time frames. Not conducting such an analysis is inconsistent with federal internal control standards that call for agency management to design control activities to achieve objectives and respond to risks. Without analyzing the review time frames for incidental harassment authorization applications and comparing them to statutory review time frames, NMFS and FWS are unable to determine whether they are meeting their objectives to complete reviews in the 120-day statutory time frame.