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

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

APPENDIX C: RESPONSE TO PUBLIC COMMENTS ON THE 

NATIONAL OCEAN SERVICE DRAFT PEIS
Response to Public Comments on the

National Ocean Service 

Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement 

for Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters 

for Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition 

November 2022 
 

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

Response to Public Comments for Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition 

CONTENTS 

1.0 INTRODUCTION.........................................................................................................1 

2.0 RESPONSE TO PUBLIC COMMENTS ....................................................................... 3 

2.1 Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) (Alexis Clark) ..................... 4 

2.1.1 Comment Submission.................................................................................. 4 

2.1.2 NOS Response ............................................................................................. 5 

2.2 Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission (John Hopson, Jr.) .................................... 6 

2.2.1 Comment Submission.................................................................................. 6 

2.2.2 NOS Response ............................................................................................. 7 

2.3 Calista Corporation (Andrew Guy)........................................................................ 10 

2.3.1 Comment Submission................................................................................ 10 

2.3.2 NOS Response ........................................................................................... 11 

2.4 Catawba Tribal Historic Preservation Officer (Wenonah Haire) ....................... 14 

2.4.1 Comment Submission................................................................................ 14 

2.4.2 NOS Response ........................................................................................... 15 

2.5 Chickahominy Indian Tribe (Stephen Adkins)..................................................... 16 

2.5.1 Comment Submission................................................................................ 16 

2.5.2 NOS Response ........................................................................................... 17 

2.6 Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands Division of Coastal 

Resources Management (Arthur Charfauros)..................................................... 22 

2.6.1 Comment Submission................................................................................ 22 

2.6.2 NOS Response ........................................................................................... 23 

2.7 Connecticut State Historic Preservation Officer (Jonathan Kinney) ................ 25 

2.7.1 Comment Submission................................................................................ 25 

2.7.2 NOS Response ........................................................................................... 26 

2.8 Cultural Heritage Partners (representing the Upper Mattaponi Indian Tribe) 

(Marion F. Werkheiser)........................................................................................... 27 

2.8.1 Comment Submission................................................................................ 27 

2.8.2 NOS Response ........................................................................................... 28 

2.9 Delaware State Historic Preservation Officer (Stephanie Soder) .................... 33 

2.9.1 Comment Submission................................................................................ 33 

2.9.2 NOS Response ........................................................................................... 34 

2.10 Delaware Natural Resources and Environmental Control (DNREC) (Kimberly 

B. Cole) ..................................................................................................................... 36 

2.10.1 Comment Submission................................................................................ 36 

2.10.2 NOS Response ........................................................................................... 37 

2.11 Delaware Natural Resources and Environmental Control (DNREC) (Kristi 

Lieske)....................................................................................................................... 43 

2.11.1 Comment Submission................................................................................ 43 

2.11.2 NOS Response ........................................................................................... 44 

2.12 Donlin Gold (Kristina Woolston) ............................................................................ 45 

2.12.1 Comment Submission................................................................................ 45 

November 2022 i 
 

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

Response to Public Comments for Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition 

2.12.2 NOS Response ........................................................................................... 46 

2.13 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (Robert Tomiak) ....................... 49 

2.13.1 Comment Submission................................................................................ 49 

2.13.2 NOS Response ........................................................................................... 50 

2.14 Indiana Department of Natural Resources (Cathy Draeger-Williams) ............. 51 

2.14.1 Comment Submission................................................................................ 51 

2.14.2 NOS Response ........................................................................................... 52 

2.15 Louisiana Department of Natural Resources (Charles Reulet) ......................... 54 

2.15.1 Comment Submission................................................................................ 54 

2.15.2 NOS Response ........................................................................................... 55 

2.16 Maryland Department of Natural Resources (Joseph Abe) .............................. 56 

2.16.1 Comment Submission................................................................................ 56 

2.16.2 NOS Response ........................................................................................... 57 

2.17 Maine Department of Marine Resources (Meredith Mendelson) ..................... 58 

2.17.1 Comment Submission................................................................................ 58 

2.17.2 NOS Response ........................................................................................... 59 

2.18 Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy (EGLE) (Matt 

Smar)......................................................................................................................... 63 

2.18.1 Comment Submission................................................................................ 63 

2.18.2 NOS Response ........................................................................................... 64 

2.19 New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (Megan Brunatti) ........ 67 

2.19.1 Comment Submission................................................................................ 67 

2.19.2 NOS Response ........................................................................................... 68 

2.20 Nottawaseppi Huron Band of the Potawatomi (Douglas R. Taylor).................. 74 

2.20.1 Comment Submission................................................................................ 74 

2.20.2 NOS Response ........................................................................................... 75 

2.21 Natural Resources Defense Council (Francine Kershaw) ................................. 76 

2.21.1 Comment Submission................................................................................ 76 

2.21.2 NOS Response ........................................................................................... 77 

2.22 North Slope Borough (Harry K. Brower, Jr.)........................................................ 96 

2.22.1 Comment Submission................................................................................ 96 

2.22.2 NOS Response ........................................................................................... 97 

2.23 North Slope Borough and Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission (Harry K. 

Brower, Jr. and John Hopson, Jr) ......................................................................... 99 

2.23.1 Comment Submission................................................................................ 99 

2.23.2 NOS Response ......................................................................................... 100 

2.24 Pokagon Band of Potawatomi Indians Tribal Historic Preservation Officer 

(Matthew J.N. Bussler).......................................................................................... 113 

2.24.1 Comment Submission.............................................................................. 113 

2.24.2 NOS Response ......................................................................................... 114 

2.25 Public (Anonymous).............................................................................................. 115 

2.25.1 Comment Submission.............................................................................. 115 

November 2022 ii 
 

 

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

Response to Public Comments for Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition 

2.25.2 NOS Response ......................................................................................... 116 

2.26 Public (Jean Public) .............................................................................................. 118 

2.26.1 Comment Submission.............................................................................. 118 

2.26.2 NOS Response ......................................................................................... 119 

2.27 South Carolina State Historic Preservation Officer (Elizabeth Johnson) ......120 

2.27.1 Comment Submission.............................................................................. 120 

2.27.2 NOS Response ......................................................................................... 121 

2.28 Seneca Nation (Anna Carr).................................................................................. 123 

2.28.1 Comment Submission.............................................................................. 123 

2.28.2 NOS Response ......................................................................................... 124 

2.29 Seneca Nation (Matthew B. Pagels) ................................................................... 125 

2.29.1 Comment Submission.............................................................................. 125 

2.29.2 NOS Response ......................................................................................... 126 

2.30 Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (Bettina Rayfield)...................129 

2.30.1 Comment Submission.............................................................................. 129 

2.30.2 NOS Response ......................................................................................... 130 

November 2022 iii 
 

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

Response to Public Comments for Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition 

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS 

ACHP Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 

ADCP Acoustic Doppler Current Profiler 

AEWC Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission 

AIS Automatic Identification System 

ANC Alaska Native Corporation 

ANSCA Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act 

ANO Alaska Native Organization 

BIA Biologically Important Area 

BMP Best Management Practice 

BOEM Bureau of Ocean Energy Management 

CAA Conflict Avoidance Agreement 

CARB California’s Air Resources Board 

CBPA Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area 

CD Consistency Determination 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

CMP Coastal Management Program 

CNMI Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands 

CRCP Coral Reef Conservation Program 

CWA Clean Water Act 

CZMA Coastal Zone Management Act 

dB Decibel 

DCMP Delaware Coastal Management Program 

DCRM Division of Coastal Resources Management 

DEP Department of Environmental Protection 

DEQ Department of Environmental Quality 

DFW Division of Fish and Wildlife 

DMR Department of Marine Resources 

DOC Department of Commerce 

DPEIS Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement 

DWM Department of Wildlife Management 

DWR Department of Wildlife Resources 

EEZ Exclusive Economic Zone 

EFH Essential Fish Habitat 

EGLE Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy 

EIS Environmental Impact Statement 

EJ Environmental Justice 

ENC Electronic Navigational Charts 

ENOW Economics National Ocean Watch 

EO Executive Order 

EPA Environmental Protection Agency 

ESC Erosion and Sediment Control 

ESA Endangered Species Act 

F Fahrenheit 

FAQ Frequently Asked Questions 

November 2022 iv 
 

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

Response to Public Comments for Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition 

FMC Fishery Management Council 

FR Federal Register 

ft Foot/Feet 

GDP Gross Domestic Product 

GPS Global Positioning System 

HC Hydrocarbons 

HPO Historic Preservation Office 

HRG High Resolution Geophysical 

Hz Hertz 

IPaC Information for Planning and Consultation 

IPC Intergovernmental Policy Council 

ITR Incidental Take Regulation 

IWC International Whaling Commission 

JPA Joint Permit Application 

kHz Kilohertz 

km Kilometer 

km2 Square Kilometer 

lbs Pounds 

LCRP Louisiana Coastal Resources Program 

m Meter 

MARCO Mid-Atlantic Regional Council on the Ocean 

MARPOL Marine Pollution 

MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act 

MCL Michigan Compiled Laws 

MMPA Marine Mammal Protection Act 

MPA Marine Protected Area 

MSA Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act 

MSD Marine Sanitation Device 

MTNM Marianas Trench Marine National Monument 

NAVTEX Navigational Telex 

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act 

NGO Non-Governmental Organization 

NHO Native Hawaiian Organization 

NHPA National Historic Preservation Act 

nm Nautical Mile 

NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service 

NMSA National Marine Sanctuaries Act 

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

NOAA/OCS National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Office of Coast Survey 

NOx Nitrous Oxides 

NOS National Ocean Service 

NRDC Natural Resources Defense Council 

NREPA Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act 

NRHP National Register of Historic Places 

NRT Navigation Response Team 

November 2022 v 
 

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

Response to Public Comments for Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition 

NSB North Slope Borough 

OCM Office for Coastal Management 

OMB Office of Management and Budget 

ONMS Office of National Marine Sanctuaries 

OPR Office of Protected Resources 

ORR Office of Response and Restoration 

PA Programmatic Agreement 

PEIS Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement 

PM Particulate Matter 

PSA Public Service Announcement 

PSO Protected Species Observer 

ROV Remotely Operated Vehicles 

RPA Resource Protection Area 

SAR Stock Assessment Report 

SCHPR South Carolina Historic Properties Record 

SHPO State Historic Preservation Officer 

SLA Submerged Lands Act 

SWI Sea Watch International 

SWM Storm Water Management 

SWPPP Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan 

TCP Traditional Cultural Place 

THPO Tribal Historic Preservation Officer 

U.S. United States 

U.S.C. U.S. Code 

USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

VESCL&R Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Law and Regulations 

VAFWIS Virginia Fish and Wildlife Information Service 

VMRC Virginia Marine Resource Commission 

VSMP Virginia Stormwater Management Program 

VSWML&R Virginia Storm Water Management Law and Regulations 

WQIA Water Quality Impact Assessment 

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

Response to Public Comments for Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1.0 INTRODUCTION 

The public has a critical role in helping the National Ocean Service (NOS) understand the 

environmental impacts of the Proposed Action analyzed in the Programmatic Environmental 

Impact Statement (PEIS) for Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for Coastal and 

Marine Data Acquisition. Public participation promotes transparency, facilitates better decisionmaking, and helps federal agencies identify data gaps and sources of potential concern regarding 

the environmental impacts of a proposed action. 

NOS published a “Notice of Availability of a Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement 

for Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition” in 

the Federal Register (FR) on June 25, 2021 to announce the availability of the Draft PEIS for public 

review. In conjunction with publication of the Draft PEIS, NOS prepared a comprehensive public 

involvement and outreach plan outlining the development and distribution of materials to inform 

the public and solicit input on the scope of the Proposed Action and related impact analysis. An 

interested party letter inviting public comment on the draft was distributed via email or U.S. mail 

to federal agencies; states and territories; Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs); tribes; 

regional organizations; Alaska regional and village corporations; Native Hawaiian Organizations 

(NHOs); and NOS grantees, partners, and permit/authorization recipients with potential interest in 

the Proposed Action. Potentially interested tribes include those in geographic proximity to the 

action area (i.e., located in coastal states, Great Lakes states, or along major navigable rivers) as 

well as tribes with historic, religious, or cultural connections to coastal and marine resources 

regardless of proximity to the action area. In addition to contacting interested parties directly, the 

availability of the Draft PEIS was advertised in newspapers in coastal cities throughout the United 

States (U.S.) and posted on NOAA and NOS social media platforms. These announcements 

directed readers to the project website at https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/about/environmentalcompliance/surveying-mapping.html. The website provides helpful information detailing key 

components of the Draft PEIS including an overview of the Proposed Action, fact sheets about the 

resources analyzed, and instructions on how to comment on the document. In order to reach 

communities in Alaska without reliable internet access, in addition to newspaper advertisements, 

NOS developed a Public Service Announcement (PSA) that was broadcasted by public radio 

stations to reach a broad geographic range along the Alaska coast. NOS offered to send a physical 

copy (a CD, USB drive, or hard copy) of the Draft PEIS to individuals or communities on request, 

to ensure that the Draft would be made available at community centers, libraries, and other public 

facilities as needed. 

Following the publication of the Draft PEIS, the NOS Environmental Compliance Coordinator 

presented a brief overview of the Draft PEIS to the Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission (AEWC), 

including information about NOS, the Proposed Action, expected impacts to marine mammals and 

subsistence hunting and fishing, and compliance with the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA). 

In response to preliminary feedback received from AEWC members and other Alaska Native 

community members, NOS extended the original 60-day public comment period deadline by 90 

days from August 24, 2021 to November 22, 2021 to accommodate the Alaskan subsistence 

hunting and fishing season. The extension of the public comment period was published in the 

Federal Register on August 24, 2021. 

During the public comment period for the Draft PEIS, NOS received 31 comment submissions 

from 30 commenters via Regulations.gov and email. Commenters included State Historic 

November 2022 1 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

Response to Public Comments for Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition 

Preservation Officers (SHPOs), Tribal Historic Preservation Officers (THPOs), state Coastal 

Management program (CMP) offices, federally recognized tribes, Alaska Native corporations 

(ANCs), Alaska Native Organizations (ANOs), NGOs, and members of the public. The comments 

addressed a range of issues including the following: 

• Protection of cultural and historic resources; 

• Federal consistency under the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA); 

• Incorporation of mitigation measures; 

• Environmental justice (EJ) concerns pertaining to subsistence hunting and fishing in 

Alaska communities; 

• Future coordination between NOS and other key stakeholders, such as the AEWC, North 

Slope Borough Department of Wildlife Management, Calista Corporation in Alaska, 

Donlin Gold, National Resources Defense Council, Cultural Heritage Partners 

representing the Upper Mattaponi Indian Tribe, the Chickahominy Indian Tribe, and the 

Seneca Nation of New York; 

• The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process, scope of the PEIS, selection of a 

programmatic NEPA approach, alternatives to the Proposed Action, cumulative effects 

analysis, references and data cited in the effects analysis; 

• Impacts to marine mammals, fish, habitats, birds, sea turtles 

• Methodology and data consideration for the acoustic modeling; 

• Impacts to socioeconomic resources such as fisheries; and 

• Access to surveying and mapping data collected during NOS projects through data 

sharing. 

NOS has thoroughly considered all of the input received and has responded to the public 

comments in this document. Revisions to the Final PEIS have been made in response to 

comments where appropriate. 

November 2022 2 
 

 

 

 

 

 

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

Response to Public Comments for Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition 

2.0 RESPONSE TO PUBLIC COMMENTS 

This section is organized alphabetically by the name of the organization or private individual that 

submitted a comment. These submissions were reviewed by NOS, and comments on specific 

issues were identified and labeled with a subject and comment number (e.g., Cultural and Historic 

Resources–1). This enabled NOS to provide consistent responses to similar comments made by 

multiple commenters. 

Each subsection below begins with the original comment submission as received by NOS. 

Following the original submittal, the individual comments identified are presented by subject 

followed by NOS’s response. A complete list of acronyms and abbreviations is provided at the 

beginning of this document. 

November 2022 3 
 

 

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

Response to Public Comments for Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition 

2.1 Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) (Alexis Clark) 

2.1.1 Comment Submission 

November 2022 4 
From: NOSAA Environmental Compliance - NOAA Service Account 

To: Michelle.Smyk@solvllc.com 

Subject: Fwd: NOAA National Ocean Service Releases Draft PEIS for Surveying and Mapping Projects 

Date: Friday, October 15, 2021 11:35:41 AM 

Attachments: image001.png 

ACHP 

v/r 

Giannina DiMaio 

NOS Environmental Compliance Coordinator 

Pronouns: she/her/hers 

NOAA, National Ocean Service 

Office of the Assistant Administrator 

1305 East-West Hwy, SSMC4 13th Floor 

Silver Spring, MD 20910 

V: 240-533-0918 

nosaa.ec@noaa.gov 

---------- Forwarded message ---------

From: Alexis Clark <aclark@achp.gov> 

Date: Wed, Aug 4, 2021 at 4:14 PM 

Subject: Re: NOAA National Ocean Service Releases Draft PEIS for Surveying and Mapping 

Projects 

To: nosaa.ec@noaa.gov <nosaa.ec@noaa.gov> 

Cc: Chris Daniel <cdaniel@achp.gov>, Jaime Loichinger <jloichinger@achp.gov>, Erik M. 

Hein <hein@ncshpo.org> 

Dear Ms. DeMaio, 

Thank you for providing the additional information regarding the Draft PEIS. We concur with 

NCSHPO that it appears NOAA is proposing to develop a program alternative with the ACHP. We 

request NOAA provide some additional clarification about the “programmatic approach” mentioned. 

Does NOAA intend to develop a Program Specific Programmatic Agreement (PA) or a PA for complex 

undertakings? Additionally, if NOAA intends to develop a PA, the agency needs to formally initiate 

consultation. An agency can provide this documentation via our Electronic Section 106 

Documentation Submittal System (e106). Information for this can be found on our website at 

https://www.achp.gov/e106-email-form. 

Further, as a reminder, a Program or Project PA that would guide Section compliance for a Program 

of Projects or specific Projects should be completed prior to the finalization of the EIS, as conclusion 
of the EIS prior to completion of the Section 106 process would appear to limit alternatives in the 

PA. The Draft PEIS is vague on how the Section 106 process will be completed. 

We would welcome having a call with NOAA and NCSHPO to discuss these questions and next steps. 

Thank you, 

Alexis Clark 

Historic Preservation Specialist 

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 

401 F Street NW, Suite 308, Washington, DC 20001 

(202) 517-0208 

www.achp.gov 

COVID-19 and the ACHP. The ACHP staff is teleworking and available by e-mail and phone. Up to 

date information on Section 106 and ACHP operations can be found at www.achp.gov/coronavirus. 

From: NOSAA Environmental Compliance - NOAA Service Account [mailto:nosaa.ec@noaa.gov] 

Sent: Tuesday, July 06, 2021 12:45 PM 

To: Erik M. Hein 

Cc: Chris Daniel; Jaime Loichinger

Subject: [External] Re: NOAA National Ocean Service Releases Draft PEIS for Surveying and Mapping 

Projects 
Erik, 

Thank you for taking the time to reach out to me regarding our plans for Section 106 

Consultation under the NHPA. The Draft PEIS is not intended to substitute the 

requirement to consult with SHPOs. The document was provided to State Historic 

Preservation Offices and Tribal Historic Preservation Officers for information and 

awareness. The Draft PEIS was also provided to all federally recognized tribes in the 

action area as well as Native Hawaiian Organizations and Alaska Native tribes as part 

of our government-to-government consultation process. 

NOS will be working on a programmatic approach with the Advisory Council on 

Historic Preservation (ACHP) and the National Conference of SHPOs. It is our 

understanding SHPOs will be part of this process. We would appreciate any 

comments or assistance in identifying historic or cultural resources that may be 

potentially affected by NOS surveying and mapping activities in your area. 

Additionally, if you have any thoughts or suggestions on how we could minimize or 

avoid potential adverse impacts of our surveying and mapping activities to historic 

properties that would be helpful as we develop a programmatic agreement with 

SHPOs. 

My apologies for the delayed response as I was on leave last week. Please feel free 

to contact me if you have any additional questions or would like to discuss the 

process further. 

v/r 

Giannina DiMaio 

NOS Environmental Compliance Coordinator 

Pronouns: she/her/hers 

NOAA, National Ocean Service 

Office of the Assistant Administrator 

1305 East-West Hwy, SSMC4 13th Floor 

Silver Spring, MD 20910 

V: 240-533-0918 
 

nosaa.ec@noaa.gov 

On Mon, Jun 28, 2021 at 1:30 PM Erik Hein <hein@ncshpo.org> wrote: 

Dear Giannina: 

Thank you for reaching out. I am, however, unclear on what this is – or what you are 

specifically asking State Historic Preservation Officers to do in the context of Section 106 

of the National Historic Preservation Act. Are you substituting NEPA for 106? Is there an 

independent 106 consultation taking place? Are you seeking some sort of nationwide 

programmatic solution for Section 106? 

Thank you in advance for any additional information you could provide. 

Erik M. Hein 

Executive Director 

National Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers 

Hall of States | 444 N. Capitol Street NW, Suite 342 | Washington, DC 20001 

p| 202.624.5465 e| hein@ncshpo.org f| 202.624.5419 

From: NOSAA Environmental Compliance - NOAA Service Account 

<nosaa.ec@noaa.gov> 

Sent: Friday, June 25, 2021 5:26 PM 

Subject: NOAA National Ocean Service Releases Draft PEIS for Surveying and Mapping 

Projects 
 

 

Dear State Historic Preservation Officer, 

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) National Ocean 

Service (NOS) has prepared a Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact 

Statement (PEIS) for Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for Coastal 

and Marine Data Acquisition pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act. The 

Draft PEIS is now available for a 60-day public comment ending August 24, 2021. 

The Notice of Availability was published today in the Federal Register. 

The Draft PEIS analyzes the potential environmental impacts of recurring surveying 

and mapping data collection in United States coastal and marine waters over a 

period of six years. The analysis in this document covers the use of active acoustic 

equipment such as sub-bottom profilers, single beam and multibeam echo 

sounders, and side-scan sonars by NOS to collect data on the depths and shapes 

of underwater terrain, including the ocean, rivers, and lakes. The Draft PEIS 

analyzes impacts to critical environmental resources such as marine mammals, 

endangered and threatened species, and cultural and historic resources. The 

document can be found on the NOS Surveying and Mapping Draft PEIS website 

at https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/about/environmental-compliance/surveyingmapping.html. 

Attached is the notification letter with additional information regarding the Draft 

PEIS. 

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me by phone at 240-533-0918 

or email at nosaa.ec@noaa.gov. 

v/r 

Giannina DiMaio 

NOS Environmental Compliance Coordinator 

Pronouns: she/her/hers 

NOAA, National Ocean Service 

Office of the Assistant Administrator 

1305 East-West Hwy, SSMC4 13th Floor 

Silver Spring, MD 20910 

V: 240-533-0918 

nosaa.ec@noaa.gov 
Disclaimer 

The information contained in this communication from the sender is confidential. It is intended solely for 

use by the recipient and others authorized to receive it. If you are not the recipient, you are hereby 

notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or taking action in relation of the contents of this 

information is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. 

This email has been scanned for viruses and malware, and may have been automatically archived by 

Mimecast Ltd, an innovator in Software as a Service (SaaS) for business. Providing a safer and more 

useful place for your human generated data. Specializing in; Security, archiving and compliance. To find 

out more Click Here. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

Response to Public Comments for Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition 

2.1.2 NOS Response 

Cultural and Historic Resources-1: We concur with NCSHPO that it appears NOAA is proposing 

to develop a program alternative with the ACHP. We request NOAA provide some additional 

clarification about the “programmatic approach” mentioned. Does NOAA intend to develop a 

Program Specific Programmatic Agreement (PA) or a PA for complex undertakings? 

NOS Response: While NOS may consider developing a Programmatic Agreement (PA) 

for multiple undertakings in the future, NOS will initiate project-specific consultations under 

Section 106 of the NHPA before commencing any activity with the potential to affect 

cultural or historic resources. 

Cultural and Historic Resources-2: Additionally, if NOAA intends to develop a PA, the agency 

needs to formally initiate consultation. An agency can provide this documentation via our 

Electronic Section 106 Documentation Submittal System (e106). Information for this can be found 

on our website at https://www.achp.gov/e106-email-form. 

NOS Response: Thank you for providing this information. NOS will initiate project-specific 

consultations under Section 106 of the NHPA before commencing any activity with the 

potential to affect cultural or historic resources. 

Cultural and Historic Resources-3: Further, as a reminder, a Program or Project PA that would 

guide Section compliance for a Program of Projects or specific Projects should be completed 

prior to the finalization of the EIS, as conclusion of the EIS prior to completion of the Section 106 

process would appear to limit alternatives in the PA. The Draft PEIS is vague on how the Section 

106 process will be completed. 

NOS Response: While NOS may consider developing a PA for multiple undertakings in 

the future, NOS will initiate project-specific consultations under Section 106 of the NHPA 

before commencing any project with the potential to affect cultural or historic resources. 

This PEIS contains a programmatic effects analysis, meaning it provides an effects analysis 

for activities as they are typically conducted, with impacts assessed based on regional 

conditions, habitat types, species, and other factors. However, the PEIS does not identify 

the specific time or place for individual projects or activities over the next five years. 

The PEIS will be used to inform NOS responsibilities under NHPA when conducting 

project-specific reviews. Completing the PEIS before initiating consultation under Section 

106 prior to commencing project-specific activities will not limit the ability to develop and 

evaluate alternatives or modifications to the undertaking that could avoid, minimize, or 

mitigate adverse effects. NOS will be able to consider and implement alternatives or 

additional mitigation measures developed through project-specific Section 106 

consultations. 

November 2022 5 
 

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

Response to Public Comments for Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition 

2.2 Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission (John Hopson, Jr.) 

2.2.1 Comment Submission 

November 2022 6 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

August 6, 2021 

Giannina DiMaio 

DOC/NOAA/NOS 

Environmental Compliance Coordinator 

SSMC4-Station 13612 

1305 East West Highway 

Silver Spring, MD 20910 

Via email: nosaa.ec@noaa.gov 

Re: Notice of Availability of a Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact 

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

and Marine Data Acquisition 

Dear Ms. DiMaio: 

Please accept this request for an extension to the comment period on behalf of the Alaska 

Eskimo Whaling Commission (AEWC) for the the Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact 

Statement for Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for Coastal and Marine Data 

Acquisition (DPEIS).1 We request an extension from August 24 to November 24 to allow 

adequate time to comment on the document. 

AEWC is a non-profit organization representing subsistence Whaling Captains in 

Northern coastal Alaska. AEWC represents the eleven bowhead whale subsistence hunting 

villages of Utqiaġvik (Barrow), Nuiqsut, Kaktovik, Pt. Hope, Kivalina, Wales, Savoonga, 

Gambell, Little Diomede, Wainwright and Pt. Lay. Our whaling captains and their communities 

rely on the subsistence hunt of bowhead whales and other marine mammals in or adjacent to the 

Bering, Beaufort and Chukchi Seas. 

We understand the importance of having good maps for our region, for the safety of all 

vessels. We appreciated the presentation provided at our July 2021 Board meeting in Fairbanks, 

AK. However, the presentation was general in nature and did not get into the specifics of the 

anticipated surveys in Alaska. Further, the surveying activities described in this DPEIS are of 

great concern to us as our communities participate in, and are dependent, on subsistence whaling. 

Marine activities during specific time periods have a high potential to disrupt bowhead whale 

migrations. This may put our hunters’ safety at risk and negatively impact our subsistence hunts, 

which are necessary for our food security. For this reason, most industrial and governmental 

operations in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas coordinate closely with the AEWC and the North 

Slope Borough Department of Wildlife Management to prevent and reduce the impacts of such 

activities. We have also been able to coordinate with NOAA and the National Ocean Service in 

the past, including the recent Saildrone project by the Office of Coast Survey to make 

1 86 FR 33663. 

P.O. Box 570 | Barrow, AK 99723 | P: 907.852.2392 | F: 907.852.2303 | www.aewc-alaska.com 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

adjustments to address community needs during the fall harvest. This type of consultation and 

coordination must continue. 

Unfortunately, the timing of the DPEIS process makes it difficult to adequately review 

the document. The next few months, August to October, are a particularly busy time for our 

whaling communities, and our colleagues at the North Slope Borough. Many of our North Slope 

Communities are actively whaling and then successful whaling captains are getting ready in 

November/December timeframe for Thanksgiving and Christmas Feasts. We also hope we do 

not end up with a situation like 2019 where, because of changes to the migration, the Captains in 

Utqiaġvik were unable to harvest a whale until November. In addition, the communities on St. 

Lawrence Island of Gambell and Savoonga often catch whales in late December. 

Moreover, at this time, we are unclear on what activities are planned for our region. We 

would like more time to review the document, interact with National Ocean Service personnel 

and learn more about this issue so that we can provide more useful comments. Accordingly, we 

believe that additional time is needed to adequately comment on this DPEIS. 

Thank you for your consideration of this request. 

Sincerely, 

John Hopson, Jr. 

Chairman 

Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission 

cc: AEWC Commissioners 

Mayor Brower, North Slope Borough 

Voice of the Arctic Inupiat 

Inupiat Community of the Arctic Slope 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

Response to Public Comments for Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition 

2.2.2 NOS Response 

NEPA Process-3: Please accept this request for an extension to the comment period on behalf 

of the AEWC for the Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for Surveying and 

Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition (DPEIS)1 We request an 

extension from August 24 to November 24 to allow adequate time to comment on the document 

(86 FR 33663). 

NOS Response: After receiving your letter, NOS extended the original 60-day public 

comment period deadline by 90 days from August 24, 2021 to November 22, 2021 to 

accommodate the Alaskan subsistence hunting and fishing community (86 FR 47299). 

Purpose and Need-1: We understand the importance of having good maps for our region, for the 

safety of all vessels. 

NOS Response: Thank you for your comment and support of the purpose and need for 

the Proposed Action. 

NEPA Process-4: We appreciated the presentation provided at our July 2021 Board meeting in 

Fairbanks, AK. However, the presentation was general in nature and did not get into the specifics 

of the anticipated surveys in Alaska. 

NOS Response: NOS appreciated the opportunity to present to the AEWC in July 2021. 

NOS will work with the NOAA Alaska Regional Navigation Manager to provide Alaskan 

communities with information on upcoming surveying projects to avoid or minimize 

interference with traditional hunting and fishing for subsistence uses. 

Federally recognized tribes and ANCs may request formal government-to-government 

consultation pursuant to Executive Order (EO) 13175 at any time. 

Environmental Justice-9: the surveying activities described in this DPEIS are of great concern 

to us as our communities participate in, and are dependent, on subsistence whaling. Marine 

activities during specific time periods have a high potential to disrupt bowhead whale migrations. 

This may put our hunters’ safety at risk and negatively impact our subsistence hunts, which are 

necessary for our food security. 

NOS Response: Thank you for your comment. NOS understands the North Slope 

Borough (NSB) and AEWC concerns for possible effects on subsistence, food security, 

and safety. NOS activities are conducted with the highest regard to health and safety, 

including the safety of subsistence hunters. NOS understands that protecting Alaska 

Native subsistence resources is vital. 

NOS will coordinate with tribes and subsistence hunters and fishers prior to conducting 

projects in subsistence hunting areas. NOS will also work with the NOAA Alaska Regional 

Navigation Manager to provide Alaskan communities with information on upcoming 

surveying projects to avoid or minimize interference with traditional hunting and fishing for 

subsistence uses. Through this communication strategy, NOS would minimize the 

November 2022 7 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

Response to Public Comments for Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition 

potential for adverse impacts on subsistence communities, food security, and the safety 

of hunters. 

NOS intends to notify individual tribes and ANCs pursuant to EO 13175 before conducting 

any project that may have tribal implications. Federally recognized tribes may request 

formal government-to-government consultation pursuant to EO 13175 at any time. 

Future Coordination-3: We have also been able to coordinate with NOAA and the National Ocean 

Service in the past, including the recent Saildrone project by the Office of Coast Survey to make 

adjustments to address community needs during the fall harvest. This type of consultation and 

coordination must continue. 

NOS Response: NOS agrees that the previous discussion regarding the Saildrone project 

was an example of effective coordination. We look forward to a continued cooperative 

partnership and open communication with tribes and subsistence hunters and fishers. 

NEPA Process-5: Unfortunately, the timing of the DPEIS process makes it difficult to adequately 

review the document. The next few months, August to October, are a particularly busy time for 

our whaling communities, and our colleagues at the North Slope Borough. Many of our North 

Slope Communities are actively whaling and then successful whaling captains are getting ready 

in November/December timeframe for Thanksgiving and Christmas Feasts. 

NOS Response: After receiving your comment, NOS extended the original 60-day public 

comment period deadline by 90 days from August 24, 2021 to November 22, 2021 to 

accommodate the Alaskan subsistence hunting and fishing community (86 FR 47299). 

Alaska-1: Moreover, at this time, we are unclear on what activities are planned for our region. 

NOS Response: NOS determined that a programmatic approach was appropriate 

because NOS conducts, authorizes, permits, and funds a suite of similar, ongoing data 

collection activities associated with recurring projects across a wide geographic area to 

characterize underwater features (e.g., habitat, bathymetry, marine debris). This Final PEIS 

is a comprehensive document that provides detailed programmatic effects analyses for 

surveying and mapping data collection activities based on regional conditions, habitat 

types, species, and other factors. However, the Final PEIS does not identify the specific 

time or place for individual projects or activities over the next five years. The analysis will 

be used to inform NOS leadership and the public on the environmental impacts of these 

activities before a decision is made on how to execute each project. All projects will require 

a project-specific review by NOS before proceeding. 

Specific project locations are determined annually for the upcoming surveying season. 

NOS will coordinate with tribes and subsistence hunters and fishers prior to conducting 

projects in subsistence hunting areas. NOS will work with the NOAA Alaska Regional 

Navigation Manager to provide Alaskan communities with information on upcoming 

surveying projects to avoid or minimize interference with traditional hunting and fishing for 

subsistence uses. Through this communication strategy, NOS would minimize the 

potential for adverse impacts on subsistence communities, food security, and the safety 

of hunters. 

November 2022 8 
 

 

 

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

Response to Public Comments for Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition 

NOS intends to notify individual tribes and ANCs pursuant to EO 13175 before conducting 

any project that may have tribal implications. Federally recognized tribes may request 

government-to-government consultation at any time for a proposed action that may have 

tribal implications. NOS will also initiate project-specific consultations under Section 106 

of the NHPA before commencing any activity with the potential to affect cultural or historic 

resources. 

November 2022 9 
 

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

Response to Public Comments for Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition 

2.3 Calista Corporation (Andrew Guy) 

2.3.1 Comment Submission 

November 2022 10 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

November 22, 2021 

Giannina DiMaio 

National Ocean Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

1305 East West Highway 

SSMC4-Station 13612 

Silver Spring, MD Via Email: nosaa.ec@noaa.gov

Re: Calista Comments on National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) National 

Ocean Service (NOS) Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) for Survey and 

Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition (NOAA-NOS-2021-0055) 

Dear Ms. DiMaio: 

Introduction 

On behalf of the Calista Corporation (“Calista”), an Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (“ANCSA”) 

Regional Corporation, we thank the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association (“NOAA”) National 

Ocean Service (“NOS”) for the opportunity to review and submit written comments on the Draft PEIS to 

analyze environmental impacts associated with NOS’s 2022-2027 survey and data collection activities. 

This issue is very important to the health and well-being of Calista shareholders, as it is vital to understand 

and protect our marine environment to protect our subsistence way of life. 

Alternative C is Calista’s Preferred Alternative 

Calista supports Alternative C. Improving efficiencies in surveying, mapping, charting, and related data 

gathering, combined with a funding increase of 20 percent relative to Alternative B, would maximize the 

amount of this work in the Calista region in 2022-2027. This would be consistent with our goal of better 

understanding and protecting our marine environment in order to protect our subsistence way of life. 

Calista 

Calista serves more than 34,000 Alaska Native shareholders with roots in the 56 tribal communities of the 

Yukon-Kuskokwim River Delta Region (“YK Region”). YK Region communities are located along the 

Yukon and Kuskokwim Rivers and along Bering Sea coast, spread across an area the size of New York 

State. The State of Alaska has the largest coastline of the U.S. totaling 6,640 miles. Of that, the Calista 

region contains 2,674 miles, or 40 percent, of Alaska’s coastline. 

Calista shareholders include the tribal citizens of these 56 federally recognized Tribes – nearly one-quarter 

of all the Tribes in Alaska. The YK Region is not connected by a road system: Access to each community 

is by river ice road, frozen tundra, small watercraft during the short summer, or airplane. Many commercial 

goods and fuel are barged into the main hub community of Bethel, Alaska. Logistical limitations due to 

cost and weather often make it difficult to provide even basic goods and services in the YK Region. 
 

 

 

 

 

Subsistence and Food Security 

Subsistence is a top priority for Calista and our 34,000 shareholders. Food security today relies on a mixed 

cash economy: It takes a cash income to afford the fuel, equipment, and supplies necessary to participate 

in subsistence hunting, fishing, and gathering activities. This year we saw a drastic decline in salmon 

escapement on the Yukon and Kuskokwim rivers, forcing fishing closures on communities that rely on 

salmon during the winter months. The State of Alaska, Calista, Doyon Limited, and other partners joined 

together to donate 37,000 of pounds of salmon to the Lower Yukon communities in September 2020 to 

alleviate the loss of this year’s salmon harvest. While we were able to come together to share resources 

during hard times, the source of the lower salmon numbers needs to be understood and managed at the 

local, state, federal and international level. Subsistence is our natural right to be a part of the ecosystem, 

and as caretakers and stewards of our natural resources, we support co-management approaches that 

combine science and Traditional Knowledge. 

Environmental impact mitigation during these coastal activities and data gathering should include 

protection of Alaska Native subsistence resources, including salmon, and responding to such threats 

through disaster declarations and other remedial action. NOAA NOS should also include responding to 

such threats by researching potential causes using methods that incorporate and account for Indigenous 

knowledge, climate change, and species-specific data. In the case of salmon, such species-specific data 

might include the life cycle of salmon species in the ocean; the effect changes in the ocean environment 

are having on salmon as they return to their spawning grounds in the Arctic, including the YK Region; 

by-catch practices of commercial trawlers; and international poaching. 

We recommend increased funding as outlined in Alternative C, to further scientific studies on Arctic 

activities to support an increased understanding of our socio-ecologic and socio-economic systems that 

support the health of Alaskan Arctic communities. Given the alarming decline of various fisheries and the 

importance of these fisheries to Tribal subsistence users and well-being of the Alaska Native 

Communities, Tribal participation and representation on the Northwest Pacific Fisheries Management 

Council must demand additional studies and observations on trawler impacts of the seafloor, where the 

impacts of that activity cascades through the ecosystem, to the detriment of Calista shareholders. 

Environmental Threats Due to Climate Change 

The YK Region is the most impacted region in Alaska from environmental threats due to climate change, 

per the 2019 Alaska Statewide Threat Assessment for Environmentally Threatened Communities (Figure 

1). Calista participates in Yukon Kuskokwim Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy (YK 

CEDS) work sessions with Tribes, Village Corporations and non-profits to assess the YK Region for 

economic viability and resilience. In the Climate Change Adaption Workshop, Calista met with the Alaska 

Native Tribe Health Consortium (“ANTHC”), Center for Environmentally Threatened Communities 

(CETC), Association of Village Council Presidents (“AVCP”) and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to 

address the actions needed to assist the YK Region’s 28 high-risk and 19 next-highest-risk communities. 

Continued surveys will only strengthen the data and observation in our rapidly changing environment. 

2 
 

1 Executive Office of the President, Tribal Consultation and Strengthening Nation-to-Nation Relationships, 86 Fed. Reg. 

7491 (Jan. 29, 2021). 2 Public Law No. 108-199, as amended by Public Law No. 108-447, specifically extended these obligations to ANCs, 

requiring OMB and all Federal agencies to “consult with Alaska Native corporations on the same basis as Indian tribes under 

Executive Order No. 13175.” Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2004, Pub. L. 108-199, Div. H § 161, 118 Stat. 3, 452 

(2004), as amended by Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2005, Pub. L. 108-447, Div. H, Title V § 518, 118 Stat. 2809, 3267. 

Figure 1: From ANTHC, based on data summarized from the 2019 Statewide Threat Assessment 

Incorporation of Both Tribal and ANC Consultation is Required 

President Biden’s Memorandum on Tribal Consultation and Strengthening Nation-to-Nation 

Relationships was issued on January 26, 2021. The Memorandum reaffirms Executive Order 13175,1 

which requires federal agencies to consult with American Indians and Alaska Natives on federal policies 

that have tribal implications in regulation, legislation, or policy statements or actions that have direct 

effects on one or more Tribe, impacts Federal-Tribal relations, or impacts the distribution of power and 

responsibility between the Federal Government and Tribes. 

In line with the Presidential Memorandum, we ask that the NOAA NOS prioritize upholding and 

complying with Congress’s clear and unambiguous mandate to also extend to Alaska Native Corporations 

the OMB and federal agencies’ tribal consultation obligations under Executive Order 13175. 2 Any plans, 

reports, policies, regulation, or other actions directed under the Biden Memorandum regarding 

consultation with “Indian tribes” and “Tribal officials,” as defined in EO 13175, by statute also apply to 

consultation with ANCs. All federal agencies must consult with ANCs "on the same basis" as Tribes to 

ensure the economic, social, and cultural interests of ANC shareholders are protected and advanced. One 

important reason for this is that under ANCSA, it is the ANCs, rather than the tribal governments, that are 

the caretakers and managers of the conveyed lands, which lands constitute all that remains of the 

traditional homelands of Alaska Native peoples. 

Calista respects and supports YK Region Tribes, as well as the 45 ANCSA Village Corporations in the 

YK Region. While there are important and unequivocal differences between ANCs and sovereign Tribes, 

let there be no mistake: Congress made clear that federal agencies are required to consult with ANCs “on 

the same basis” as Tribes. Consistent with this requirement, it is critical that ANCs be provided the 

3 
 

 

 

 

 

opportunity to meaningfully participate in the development and implementation of policies that could 

impact our ability to fulfill the purposes for which we were established under ANCSA: to provide 

economic and social benefits to our Alaska Native shareholders, including tribal citizens. 

ANCs should receive notice of all Tribal consultation notices provided to federally recognized Tribes 

within their respective regions. As previously mentioned, the region that Calista represents is home to 56 

federally recognized Tribes and 45 ANCSA Village Corporations spread across a roadless area the size of 

New York State. Calista works closely with the Tribes and Village ANCs in our region and provides 

support on a variety of matters including self-governance, rural economies, lands, and natural resources. 

Rural and remote tribal governments often have limited funding, administrative capacity, technology 

including internet access, and infrastructure, so Calista and YK Village Corporation staffs regularly 

provide administrative, financial, and other needed support. 

Moreover, because of the split surface-subsurface land ownership under ANCSA (Regional Corporations 

predominantly own subsurface lands, while Village Corporations predominantly own surface lands), it is 

imperative that ANCs be notified of any NOAA initiatives that may impact ANC lands and natural 

resources. This will enable Calista and the YK Region Village Corporations to support and work with the 

Tribes on issues of common concern. The NOAA NOS may not be aware of implications to ANC lands, 

projects, and resources unless potentially impacted ANCs, who own and manage the land, are invited to 

consult and given the opportunity to weigh in on any unforeseen lands and natural resources impacts. 

Current Project 

In 2018 to 2019, Calista worked with NOAA and the State of Alaska to the prioritize coastal surveys in 

the YK Region. This year, a new survey conducted by NOAA in coordination with the State of Alaska, 

gives Calista an additional opportunity to verify the coastal mapping priorities that were finalized in 2019, 

and also to expand that coastal surveying activity to include ocean mapping. This expansion will not only 

ensure that Calista’s ANCSA land selections along the coast are valid, but also help us better understand 

and protect the marine environment of the YK Region, in order to protect our subsistence way of life. 

Conclusion 

Calista supports the purpose of the proposed action, “to gather accurate and timely data on the marine and 

coastal environment,” and also the need for the proposed action, “to ensure safety at sea, economic wellbeing, and the efficient stewardship of public trust resources.” Alternative C aligns well with this purpose 

and need, and is consistent with Calista’s goal of better understanding and protecting the marine 

environment of the YK Region in order to protect our subsistence way of life. 

Quyana, 

CALISTA CORPORATION 

Andrew Guy 

President and CEO 

4 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

Response to Public Comments for Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition 

2.3.2 NOS Response 

Alternatives-3: Calista supports Alternative C. Improving efficiencies in surveying, mapping, 

charting, and related data gathering, combined with a funding increase of 20 percent relative to 

Alternative B, would maximize the amount of this work in the Calista region in 2022-2027. This 

would be consistent with our goal of better understanding and protecting our marine environment 

in order to protect our subsistence way of life...We recommend increased funding as outlined in 

Alternative C, to further scientific studies on Arctic activities to support an increased 

understanding of our socio-ecologic and socio-economic systems that support the health of 

Alaskan Arctic communities. 

NOS Response: Thank you for your support of Alternative C in which NOS would adopt 

new techniques and technologies to encourage greater program efficiencies regarding 

surveying, mapping, and related data gathering activities. Alaska continues to be a 

mapping priority for NOS. 

Mitigation Measures-19: Environmental impact mitigation during these coastal activities and data 

gathering should include protection of Alaska Native subsistence resources, including salmon, 

and responding to such threats through disaster declarations and other remedial action. NOAA 

NOS should also include responding to such threats by researching potential causes using 

methods that incorporate and account for Indigenous knowledge, climate change, and speciesspecific data. In the case of salmon, such species-specific data might include the life cycle of 

salmon species in the ocean; the effect changes in the ocean environment are having on salmon 

as they return to their spawning grounds in the Arctic, including the YK Region; by-catch practices 

of commercial trawlers; and international poaching. 

NOS Response: The Final PEIS has been updated to include additional mitigation 

measures that NOS has developed to be implemented on each project as appropriate to 

minimize the impacts of project activities, including reducing impacts on sensitive species 

and subsistence hunting and fishing. The mitigation measures in the Final PEIS were 

developed with subject matter experts and in coordination with field crews and with the 

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and 

the Office of National Marine Sanctuaries (ONMS). The complete list of mitigation 

measures is included as an appendix to the Final PEIS. 

NOS will work with the NOAA Alaska Regional Navigation Manager to provide Alaskan 

communities with information on upcoming surveying projects to avoid or minimize 

interference with traditional hunting and fishing for subsistence uses. 

NOS intends to notify individual tribes and ANCs pursuant to EO 13175 before conducting 

any project that may have tribal implications. Federally recognized tribes and ANCs may 

request formal government-to-government consultation pursuant to EO 13175 at any time. 

Out of Scope-2: Given the alarming decline of various fisheries and the importance of these 

fisheries to Tribal subsistence users and well-being of the Alaska Native Communities, Tribal 

participation and representation on the Northwest Pacific Fisheries Management Council must 

demand additional studies and observations on trawler impacts of the seafloor, where the impacts 

of that activity cascades through the ecosystem, to the detriment of Calista shareholders. 

November 2022 11 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

Response to Public Comments for Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition 

NOS Response: NOS does not regulate or conduct trawling operations. Generally, 

research on the effects of particular fishing gear is conducted by the NMFS Fisheries 

Science Centers and by NMFS through the fisheries management process. Chapter 2 of 

the Final PEIS describes the NOS surveying and mapping activities included under the 

Proposed Action. 

Cultural and Historic Resources-26: Incorporation of Both Tribal and ANC Consultation is 

Required 

President Biden’s Memorandum on Tribal Consultation and Strengthening Nation-to-Nation 

Relationships was issued on January 26, 2021. The Memorandum reaffirms Executive Order 

13175,1 which requires federal agencies to consult with American Indians and Alaska Natives on 

federal policies that have tribal implications in regulation, legislation, or policy statements or 

actions that have direct effects on one or more Tribe, impacts Federal-Tribal relations, or impacts 

the distribution of power and responsibility between the Federal Government and Tribes. 

In line with the Presidential Memorandum, we ask that the NOAA NOS prioritize upholding and 

complying with Congress’s clear and unambiguous mandate to also extend to Alaska Native 

Corporations the OMB and federal agencies’ tribal consultation obligations under Executive Order 

13175. 2 Any plans, reports, policies, regulation, or other actions directed under the Biden 

Memorandum regarding consultation with “Indian tribes” and “Tribal officials,” as defined in EO 

13175, by statute also apply to consultation with ANCs. All federal agencies must consult with 

ANCs ""on the same basis"" as Tribes to ensure the economic, social, and cultural interests of 

ANC shareholders are protected and advanced. One important reason for this is that under 

ANCSA, it is the ANCs, rather than the tribal governments, that are the caretakers and managers 

of the conveyed lands, which lands constitute all that remains of the traditional homelands of 

Alaska Native peoples. 

NOS Response: NOS recognizes its responsibility to conduct consultation when federal 

actions and decisions may have implications on ANCs. NOS appreciates that the Calista 

Corporation may also want to engage in consultation for this Proposed Action. NOS would 

like to assure the Calista Corporation that NOS recognizes its responsibility to conduct 

consultation with federally recognized ANCs on the same basis as federally recognized 

Indian tribes under EO 13175 (Public Law (Pub. L.) 108-199, 118 Stat. 452, as amended 

by Pub. L. 108-447, 118 Stat. 3267). 

NOS understands that protecting Alaska Native subsistence resources is vital. NOS is 

committed to ongoing communication with both federally recognized tribes and ANCs to 

understand the implications of NOS activities in Alaska and to mitigate the effects on 

subsistence activities, food security, and climate change. 

Cultural and Historic Resources-27: ANCs should receive notice of all Tribal consultation 

notices provided to federally recognized Tribes within their respective regions. 

NOS Response: NOS recognizes its responsibility to conduct consultation when federal 

actions and decisions may have implications on ANCs. NOS appreciates that the Calista 

Corporation may also want to engage in consultation for this Proposed Action. NOS would 

November 2022 12 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

Response to Public Comments for Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition 

like to assure you that NOS recognizes its responsibility to conduct consultation with 

federally recognized ANCs on the same basis as federally recognized Indian tribes under 

EO 13175 (Pub. L. 108-199, 118 Stat. 452, as amended by Pub. L. 108-447, 118 Stat. 

3267). Please feel free to contact us if you would like to engage in consultation under EO 

13175 for this Proposed Action. 

NOS understands that protecting Alaska Native subsistence resources is vital. NOS is 

committed to ongoing communication with both federally recognized tribes and ANCs to 

understand the implications of NOS activities in Alaska and to mitigate the effects on 

subsistence activities, food security, and climate change. 

Future Coordination-12: Moreover, because of the split surface-subsurface land ownership 

under ANCSA (Regional Corporations predominantly own subsurface lands, while Village 

Corporations predominantly own surface lands), it is imperative that ANCs be notified of any 

NOAA initiatives that may impact ANC lands and natural resources. This will enable Calista and 

the YK Region Village Corporations to support and work with the Tribes on issues of common 

concern. The NOAA NOS may not be aware of implications to ANC lands, projects, and resources 

unless potentially impacted ANCs, who own and manage the land, are invited to consult and given 

the opportunity to weigh in on any unforeseen lands and natural resources impacts. 

NOS Response: NOS understands that protecting Alaska Native subsistence resources 

is vital. NOS is committed to ongoing communication with both federally recognized tribes 

and ANCs to understand the implications of NOS activities in Alaska and to mitigate the 

effects on subsistence activities, food security, and climate change. NOS would like to 

assure you that it recognizes its responsibility to conduct consultation with federally 

recognized ANCs on the same basis as federally recognized Indian tribes under EO 13175 

(Public Law (Pub. L.) 108-199, 118 Stat. 452, as amended by Pub. L. 108-447, 118 Stat. 

3267). Please feel free to contact NOS if you would like to engage in consultation under 

EO 13175 for this Proposed Action. 

Purpose and Need-5: Calista supports the purpose of the proposed action, “to gather accurate 

and timely data on the marine and coastal environment,” and also the need for the proposed 

action, “to ensure safety at sea, economic well- being, and the efficient stewardship of public trust 

resources.” 

NOS Response: Thank you for your comment and support of the purpose and need for 

the Proposed Action. 

Alternatives-4: Alternative C aligns well with this purpose and need, and is consistent with 

Calista’s goal of better understanding and protecting the marine environment of the YK Region in 

order to protect our subsistence way of life. 

NOS Response: Thank you for your support of Alternative C. Alaska continues to be a 

mapping priority for NOS. 

November 2022 13 
 

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

Response to Public Comments for Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition 

2.4 Catawba Tribal Historic Preservation Officer (Wenonah Haire) 

2.4.1 Comment Submission 

November 2022 14 
 

 

From: NOSAA Environmental Compliance - NOAA Service Account 

To: Wendy.Grome@solvllc.com; Michelle.Smyk@solvllc.com 

Subject: Fwd: NOAA National Ocean Service Releases Draft PEIS for Surveying and Mapping Projects 

Date: Friday, June 25, 2021 7:08:02 PM 

First request to print! See address below. 

v/r 

Giannina DiMaio 

NOS Environmental Compliance Coordinator 

Pronouns: she/her/hers 

NOAA, National Ocean Service 

Office of the Assistant Administrator 

1305 East-West Hwy, SSMC4 13th Floor 

Silver Spring, MD 20910 

V: 240-533-0918 

nosaa.ec@noaa.gov 

---------- Forwarded message ---------

From: Wenonah Haire <wenonah.haire@catawba.com> 

Date: Fri, Jun 25, 2021 at 7:05 PM 

Subject: Re: NOAA National Ocean Service Releases Draft PEIS for Surveying and Mapping 

Projects 

To: NOSAA Environmental Compliance - NOAA Service Account <nosaa.ec@noaa.gov> 

Sorry but we have to have all documents in hard copy format. Please send in care of Caitlin 

Rogers at 1536 Tom Steven Road, Rock Hill, SC. 29730. 

Sincerely, 

Wenonah g. Haire, DMD 

Sent from my iPhone 

On Jun 25, 2021, at 5:46 PM, NOSAA Environmental Compliance - NOAA 

Service Account <nosaa.ec@noaa.gov> wrote: 

Dear Tribal Historic Preservation Officer, 

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) National 

Ocean Service (NOS) has prepared a Draft Programmatic Environmental 

Impact Statement (PEIS) for Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. 

Waters for Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition pursuant to the National 

Environmental Policy Act. The Draft PEIS is now available for a 60-day 

public comment ending August 24, 2021. The Notice of Availability was 
published today in the Federal Register. 

The Draft PEIS analyzes the potential environmental impacts of recurring 

surveying and mapping data collection in United States coastal and 

marine waters over a period of six years. The analysis in this document 

covers the use of active acoustic equipment such as sub-bottom profilers, 

single beam and multibeam echo sounders, and side-scan sonars by NOS 

to collect data on the depths and shapes of underwater terrain, including 

the ocean, rivers, and lakes. The Draft PEIS analyzes impacts to critical 

environmental resources such as marine mammals, endangered and 

threatened species, and cultural and historic resources. The document 

can be found on the NOS Surveying and Mapping Draft PEIS website 

at https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/about/environmentalcompliance/surveying-mapping.html. 

Attached is the notification letter with additional information regarding the 

Draft PEIS. 

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me by phone at 240-

533-0918 or email at nosaa.ec@noaa.gov. 

v/r 

Giannina DiMaio 

NOS Environmental Compliance Coordinator 

Pronouns: she/her/hers 

NOAA, National Ocean Service 

Office of the Assistant Administrator 

1305 East-West Hwy, SSMC4 13th Floor 

Silver Spring, MD 20910 

V: 240-533-0918 

nosaa.ec@noaa.gov 

<NOS Surveying and Mapping DPEIS Notification Letter - THPO 

06252021.pdf> 

Disclaimer 

The information contained in this communication from the sender is confidential. It is intended solely for use 

by the recipient and others authorized to receive it. If you are not the recipient, you are hereby notified that 

any disclosure, copying, distribution or taking action in relation of the contents of this information is strictly 

prohibited and may be unlawful. 

This email has been scanned for viruses and malware, and may have been automatically archived by 

Mimecast Ltd, an innovator in Software as a Service (SaaS) for business. Providing a safer and more 

useful place for your human generated data. Specializing in; Security, archiving and compliance. To find out 

more Click Here. 
 

 

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

Response to Public Comments for Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition 

2.4.2 NOS Response 

Out of Scope-1: Sorry but we have to have all documents in hard copy format. Please send in 

care of Caitlin Rogers at 1536 Tom Steven Road, Rock Hill, SC. 29730. 

NOS Response: A copy of the Draft PEIS was mailed to this contact at the address 

provided on June 30, 2021. 

November 2022 15 
 

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

Response to Public Comments for Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition 

2.5 Chickahominy Indian Tribe (Stephen Adkins) 

2.5.1 Comment Submission 

November 2022 16 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

August 24, 2021 

Chief Stephen Adkins 

8200 Lott Cary Road 

Providence Forge, VA 23140 

Giannina DiMaio 

DOC/NOAA/NOS 

Environmental Compliance Coordinator 

SSMC4-Station 13612 

1305 East West Highway 

Silver Spring, MD 20910 

Submitted electronically via Regulations.gov 

Re: Public Comment on NOAA-NOS-2021-0055 National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration (NOAA) National Ocean Service (NOS) Draft Programmatic Environmental 

Impact Statement for Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for Coastal and Marine 

Data Acquisition 

Dear Ms. DiMaio, 

The Chickahominy Indian Tribe (Tribe) appreciates the opportunity to comment on the Draft 

Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) for Surveying and Mapping Projects in 

U.S. Waters for Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition. We are a federally recognized tribe 

located in Virginia on the watershed of the Chickahominy River. The Tribe has over 970 tribal 

citizens, most of whom live near the Chickahominy Tribal Office and the tribe’s historic Samaria 

Indian Baptist Church in Charles City County. The Tribe was acknowledged by the federal 

government in 2018 by the Thomasina E. Jordan Act and our service and trust areas consist of 

Henrico, Charles City, New Kent, and James City Counties. 

Because of the location of Chickahominy contemporary and ancestral territory, the Tribe is most 

concerned about potential impacts affecting the Virginia coastline, Chesapeake Bay, and any 

activities where anadromous fish or other species might return from to the James River 

watershed. This is predominantly in the Southeast Region but may include small portions of the 

Greater Atlantic Region of the PEIS study areas especially for migratory species. The Tribe 

requests that NOAA extend the comments deadline and evaluate more closely the Surveying and 

Mapping Projects’ potential impacts on species of significance to Virginia Algonquian tribes, 

cultural and historic properties, and to tribes, tribal governments, and tribal trust resources. 

1. NOAA should extend the comment deadline on this Environmental Impact 

Statement 
 

 

 

This PEIS is almost 700 pages long with over 260 pages of appendices and is highly technical. A 

sixty-day review time is not sufficient for such a broad PEIS of such complexity, and the Tribe 

requests that NOAA extends the review time for an additional 60 days. In addition, the Tribe 

recommends that National Historic Preservation Act consultation on this federal action should be 

accompanied by regional area meetings and presentations to allow tribal communities to discuss 

the proposed actions within their areas of interest in more detail. 

2. The Tribe is especially concerned about anadromous fish species and other potential 

environmental effects that could impact plants and animals of traditional 

significance to the Chickahominy 

The Chickahominy Indian Tribe is especially interested in the surveying results for species such 

as shad, striped and largemouth bass, sturgeon, blueback herring, and alewife. The Tribe is a 

signatory to the 1677 Treaty of Middle Plantation, which enumerates the rights of Virginia tribal 

communities who negotiated a peace settlement with the English crown. Article VII explicitly 

assures the Indians rights to “their wonted conveniences of oystering, fishing, and gathering [of 

various plants]” used by Virginia tribes to support themselves. Fishing has been significant to 

Chickahominy people since well before English contact, and fishing has remained a very 

important practice for our Tribe.1 

The PEIS acknowledges that fish species with swim bladders (like sturgeon, herrings, and 

American shad) are susceptible to barotrauma from sound waves associated with some surveying 

equipment, and some have sensitive hearing and may be affected by hearing noises of survey 

systems. Some, like Atlantic sturgeon, are also threatened or endangered. The PEIS 

acknowledges that survey equipment, vessels, and ROV and autonomous vehicle operations may 

disturb animals from preferred feeding or breeding grounds or may cause discomfort for some 

species. However, effects of these types of activities are routinely characterized as insignificant, 

minimal, or unlikely. The Tribe requests that reviews of specific surveying activities provide 

more detail regarding the rationale for characterizing these adverse effects as minimal. 

The Tribe also observes that there are no references in the PEIS to fish hatchery, research, and 

restoration efforts conducted by Virginia Tidewater tribes. The EIS should be revised to include 

information regarding the Pamunkey NOAA Species Recovery grant to study Atlantic sturgeon, 

the shad fishery and hatchery on the Pamunkey Indian reservation, and the impacts on Virginia 

tribes of over-fishing and environmental damage that inhibited fish populations. The surveying 

and mapping that this PEIS contemplates should generally be used to encourage more 

consideration of the tribe trust rights of Virginia Tribes and to evaluate impacts of the culturally 

important fish populations and species health issues.

2 

1 See Stern, Theodore. 1952. Chickahominy: The Changing Culture of a Virginia Indian Community. Proceedings of 

the American Philosophical Society 96(2): 157-225. 2 For more details, see Jenkins, Alexis. 2019. Remembering the River: Traditional Fishery Practices, Environmental 

Change and Sovereignty on the Pamunkey Indian Reservation. Undergraduate thesis. 

https://scholarworks.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2437&context=honorstheses 
 

 

 

 

 

 

3. NOAA acknowledges that the impacts of the activities permitted under this PEIS to 

cultural resources, historic properties, and Tribes could be severe, but does not 

provide much insight or specifics about how it intends to identify, evaluate, avoid, or 

mitigate these effects 

NOS states that this PEIS will have a moderate adverse impact on cultural and historical 

resources but claims that this impact would be “insignificant.” In Section 3.3.6, NOS states that 

they will coordinate with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation to develop approaches 

for addressing potential cultural resources impacts of these programmatic activities. In Section 

3.11.2.2.3, NOAA acknowledges that the installation of tidal gauges could destroy part or all of 

historic properties in the project area. In Section 3.11.2.2.4, NOAA acknowledges that activities 

permitted under this PEIS could have effects on reservations or villages, impact tribal trust 

resources, affect facilities or entities owned or operated by tribes, affect Tribes, tribal 

governments, and traditional lifeways, and affect TCPs or traditional use areas. 

NOAA should provide more information regarding how it intends to consult with ACHP and 

tribes and should provide greater information regarding how the agency intends to identify tribes 

to reach out to for consultation on a given program or action. The Tribe requests that given 

NOAA’s acknowledgement that such significant impacts to Tribes and historic properties may 

occur, the agency develop a separate report analyzing how permitted actions in the Surveying 

and Mapping program might have such effects and propose how it intends to identify, evaluate, 

avoid, and mitigate such effects. 

4. The Tribe requests that surveying and mapping projects include archaeological 

equipment, staff, and expertise wherever practicable 

While these activities provide significant risks to tribal, historic, and cultural resources, the 

planned surveying and mapping of the oceans off the coasts also provide an opportunity to 

evaluate submerged archaeological resources with very little additional cost, as the vessels and 

equipment will likely be making similar survey routes and using similar approaches for survey as 

would be needed for archaeological evaluations. The Tribe requests that NOAA examine ways 

that draped multibeam and sub-bottom profilers calibrated for archaeological data collection 

could be added to NOAA survey vessels wherever possible, and that NOAA comprehensively 

evaluates projects where archaeological data gathering on paleochannels and paleolandscapes of 

interest to tribes could be gathered during the completion of other types of research. Currently, 

the coast of Virginia has received much less marine archaeology evaluation compared with the 

northeast Atlantic and the Gulf Coast, and this is a needed corrective so that the potential impacts 

to offshore cultural resources of importance to tribes can be more readily identified. 
 

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the National Oceanic Service Survey and Mapping 

Draft Programmatic EIS. 

Respectfully, 

Chief Stephen Adkins 

Chickahominy Indian Tribe 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

Response to Public Comments for Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition 

2.5.2 NOS Response 

Fish-5: Because of the location of Chickahominy contemporary and ancestral territory, the Tribe 

is most concerned about potential impacts affecting the Virginia coastline, Chesapeake Bay, and 

any activities where anadromous fish or other species might return from to the James River 

watershed. This is predominantly in the Southeast Region but may include small portions of the 

Greater Atlantic Region of the PEIS study areas especially for migratory species. The Tribe 

requests that NOAA extend the comments deadline and evaluate more closely the Surveying and 

Mapping Projects’ potential impacts on species of significance to Virginia Algonquian tribes, 

cultural and historic properties, and to tribes, tribal governments, and tribal trust resources...2. 

The Tribe is especially concerned about anadromous fish species and other potential 

environmental effects that could impact plants and animals of traditional significance to the 

Chickahominy 

The Chickahominy Indian Tribe is especially interested in the surveying results for species such 

as shad, striped and largemouth bass, sturgeon, blueback herring, and alewife. 

NOS Response: EO 13175 and the NOAA Tribal Consultation Handbook provide required 

procedures for consultation with federally recognized Tribes in recognition of the 

sovereignty of federally recognized Tribes and the federal government’s trust 

responsibility to those tribes. NOS would also continue to facilitate Tribal involvement 

related to planned projects throughout the action area. NOS will coordinate with your office 

about projects in Virginia waters about potential impacts on species of significance to 

Virginia Algonquian tribes; impacts are expected to be small. 

After receiving your comment, NOS extended the original 60-day public comment period 

deadline by 90 days from August 24, 2021 to November 22, 2021. 

Section 3.7.2 of the PEIS discusses that underwater acoustic sources have not been 

known to cause direct injury or mortality to fish, and that direct injuries (e.g., barotrauma) 

from sound sources used by NOS are unlikely because of slow rise times, lack of strong 

shock waves, and relatively low peak pressures. The Final PEIS also discusses that 

vessels, remotely operated vehicles (ROVs), and survey equipment can disturb and 

displace nearby fish, interrupt feeding, cause other behavior modifications, and possibly 

mask biologically important signals; such impacts would vary among species as most fish 

cannot hear the higher frequencies emitted by vessel, ROV, and equipment sound, except 

for perhaps shad, river herring, and menhaden. Therefore, impacts are expected to be 

adverse and negligible as they would be limited to temporary behavioral and stress-startle 

responses to individual fish or schools of fish found within the project area. The severity of 

effects on shad, river herring, and menhaden, species that can potentially hear the higher 

frequencies of vessel sound, could be somewhat higher but are not expected to be more 

than minor, as impacts would still be temporary or short-term, may include some stress 

responses without permanent physiological damage, and may disturb breeding, feeding, 

or other activities but without any impacts on population levels. Any displacement of fish 

would be short-term and limited to the NOS project area or its immediate surroundings. 

November 2022 17 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

Response to Public Comments for Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition 

This PEIS does not cover fisheries research, which is conducted by NOAA’s Fisheries 

Science Centers. NOS conducts benthic habitat surveys, and results may be found at 

https://products.coastalscience.noaa.gov/collections/benthic/default.aspx. 

NEPA Process-10: 1. NOAA should extend the comment deadline on this Environmental Impact 

Statement. 

This PEIS is almost 700 pages long with over 260 pages of appendices and is highly technical. A 

sixty-day review time is not sufficient for such a broad PEIS of such complexity, and the Tribe 

requests that NOAA extend the review time for an additional 60 days. 

NOS Response: NOS extended the original 60-day public comment period deadline by 

90 days from August 24, 2021 to November 22, 2021(86 FR 47299). 

Cultural and Historic Resources-22: In addition, the Tribe recommends that National Historic 

Preservation Act consultation on this federal action should be accompanied by regional area 

meetings and presentations to allow tribal communities to discuss the proposed actions within 

their areas of interest in more detail. 

NOS Response: NOS intends to notify individual tribes pursuant to EO 13175 before 

conducting any project that may have tribal implications. Federally recognized tribes may 

request government-to-government consultation at any time for a proposed action that 

may have tribal implications. 

NOS will also initiate project-specific consultations under Section 106 of the NHPA before 

commencing any activity with the potential to affect cultural or historic resources. NOS will 

consider providing regional meetings if interest is expressed after consultation is initiated. 

Fish-6: The PEIS acknowledges that fish species with swim bladders (like sturgeon, herrings, and 

American shad) are susceptible to barotrauma from sound waves associated with some surveying 

equipment, and some have sensitive hearing and may be affected by hearing noises of survey 

systems. Some, like Atlantic sturgeon, are also threatened or endangered. The PEIS 

acknowledges that survey equipment, vessels, and ROV and autonomous vehicle operations may 

disturb animals from preferred feeding or breeding grounds or may cause discomfort for some 

species. However, effects of these types of activities are routinely characterized as insignificant, 

minimal, or unlikely. The Tribe requests that reviews of specific surveying activities provide more 

detail regarding the rationale for characterizing these adverse effects as minimal. 

NOS Response: The PEIS uses the best available information to evaluate impacts on fish 

species. As discussed in Section 3.7.2 of the Final PEIS, adverse effects from NOS 

activities are possible for the small numbers of individual fish that could occur in close 

proximity (i.e., within several meters) to an active sound source. Generally, adverse effects 

on a species can be considered significant if they result in a reduction in the overall health 

and viability of a population. However, given the localized and transient spatial scale of no 

more than a few NOS projects occurring at any one time, relative to the generally largescale distribution of fish populations and the considerably narrow beam characteristics of 

equipment such as echo sounders, no population level effects are expected on marine or 

freshwater fish. 

November 2022 18 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

Response to Public Comments for Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition 

Environmental Justice-13: The Tribe also observes that there are no references in the PEIS to 

fish hatchery, research, and restoration efforts conducted by Virginia Tidewater tribes. The EIS 

should be revised to include information regarding the Pamunkey NOAA Species Recovery grant 

to study Atlantic sturgeon, the shad fishery and hatchery on the Pamunkey Indian reservation, and 

the impacts on Virginia tribes of over-fishing and environmental damage that inhibited fish 

populations. The surveying and mapping that this PEIS contemplates should generally be used to 

encourage more consideration of the tribe trust rights of Virginia Tribes and to evaluate impacts 

of the culturally important fish populations and species health issues.2 

NOS Response: Thank you for your comment. Fish hatchery, research, and restoration 

efforts conducted by Virginia Tidewater tribes and the Pamunkey NOAA Species Recovery 

grant are not expected to be impacted by the Proposed Action. 

NOS determined that a programmatic approach was appropriate because NOS conducts, 

authorizes, permits, and funds a suite of similar, ongoing data collection activities 

associated with recurring projects across a wide geographic area to characterize 

underwater features (e.g., habitat, bathymetry, marine debris). This Draft PEIS is a 

comprehensive document that provides detailed programmatic effects analyses for 

surveying and mapping data collection activities based on regional conditions, habitat 

types, species, and other factors. However, the Draft PEIS does not identify the specific 

time or place for individual projects or activities over the next five years. The analysis will 

be used to inform NOS leadership and the public on the environmental impacts of these 

activities before a decision is made on how to execute each project. All projects will require 

a project-specific review by NOS before proceeding. 

NOS agrees that surveying and mapping data could be useful to evaluate and protect tribal 

trust fisheries resources. NOS coastal and marine data support ecosystem stewardship, 

such as fisheries research and restoration work by the Virginia Tidewater Tribes. For 

instance, bathymetric base layers provide valuable information about essential habitat for 

fish. 

Tribes and the public can reach out to NOAA Navigation Managers to engage in the 

planning process for future surveying and mapping projects. Information regarding 

contacting NOAA Navigation Managers can be found at the following website: 

https://nauticalcharts.noaa.gov/customer-service/regional-managers/index.html. 

NOS will initiate project-specific consultations under Section 106 of the NHPA before 

commencing any activity with the potential to affect cultural or historic resources. 

NOS intends to notify individual tribes pursuant to EO 13175 before conducting any project 

that may have tribal implications. Federally recognized tribes may request government-togovernment consultation at any time for a proposed action that may have tribal 

implications. 

Cultural and Historic Resources-23: 3. NOAA acknowledges that the impacts of the activities 

permitted under this PEIS to cultural resources, historic properties, and Tribes could be severe, 

November 2022 19 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

Response to Public Comments for Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition 

but does not provide much insight or specifics about how it intends to identify, evaluate, avoid, or 

mitigate these effects. 

NOS states that this PEIS will have a moderate adverse impact on cultural and historical resources 

but claims that this impact would be “insignificant.” In Section 3.3.6, NOS states that they will 

coordinate with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation to develop approaches for 

addressing potential cultural resources impacts of these programmatic activities. In Section 

3.11.2.2.3, NOAA acknowledges that the installation of tidal gauges could destroy part or all of 

historic properties in the project area. In Section 3.11.2.2.4, NOAA acknowledges that activities 

permitted under this PEIS could have effects on reservations or villages, impact tribal trust 

resources, affect facilities or entities owned or operated by tribes, affect Tribes, tribal 

governments, and traditional lifeways, and affect TCPs or traditional use areas. NOAA should 

provide more information regarding how it intends to consult with ACHP and tribes and should 

provide greater information regarding how the agency intends to identify tribes to reach out to for 

consultation on a given program or action 

NOS Response: Significance criteria and determinations presented in the PEIS were 

developed for the purpose of compliance with NEPA. Impacts that would be considered 

major and significant are defined in Table 3.11-1; none of the potential impacts from NOS 

activities were evaluated to be major and significant under NEPA. 

While the Draft PEIS will be used to inform NOS responsibilities under NHPA, NOS will 

comply with Section 106 of the NHPA for any activity that has the potential to affect cultural 

or historic resources as described in the regulations at 36 Code of Federal Regulations 

(CFR) 800.8, regardless of the NEPA impact category. 

NOS will conduct project-specific NHPA consultations before commencing any project 

with the potential to affect cultural or historic resources. NOS intends to notify individual 

tribes before conducting any project that may have tribal implications. Federally 

recognized tribes may request government-to-government consultation under EO 13175 

at any time. 

Cultural and Historic Resources-24: The Tribe requests that given NOAA’s acknowledgement 

that such significant impacts to Tribes and historic properties may occur, the agency [should] 

develop a separate report analyzing how permitted actions in the Surveying and Mapping program 

might have such effects and propose how it intends to identify, evaluate, avoid, and mitigate such 

effects. 

NOS Response: Adverse effects were analyzed as required for compliance with NEPA. 

No significant adverse impacts to cultural and historic resources are expected under any 

alternative of the Proposed Action (See Sections 3.11.2.2 - 3.11.2.4). NOS intends to notify 

individual tribes before conducting any project that may have tribal implications. Federally 

recognized tribes may request government-to-government consultation under EO 13175 

at any time. 

Cultural and Historic Resources-25: 4. The Tribe requests that surveying and mapping projects 

include archaeological equipment, staff, and expertise wherever practicable. 

November 2022 20 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

Response to Public Comments for Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition 

While these activities provide significant risks to tribal, historic, and cultural resources, the planned 

surveying and mapping of the oceans off the coasts also provide an opportunity to evaluate 

submerged archaeological resources with very little additional cost, as the vessels and equipment 

will likely be making similar survey routes and using similar approaches for survey as would be 

needed for archaeological evaluations. The Tribe requests that NOAA examine ways that draped 

multibeam and sub-bottom profilers calibrated for archaeological data collection could be added 

to NOAA survey vessels wherever possible, and that NOAA comprehensively evaluates projects 

where archaeological data gathering on paleochannels and paleolandscapes of interest to tribes 

could be gathered during the completion of other types of research. Currently, the coast of Virginia 

has received much less marine archaeology evaluation compared with the northeast Atlantic and 

the Gulf Coast, and this is a needed corrective so that the potential impacts to offshore cultural 

resources of importance to tribes can be more readily identified. 

NOS Response: Adverse effects were analyzed as required for compliance with NEPA. 

No significant adverse impacts to cultural and historic resources are expected under any 

alternative of the Proposed Action (See Sections 3.11.2.2 - 3.11.2.4). 

All data collected by NOS is made publicly available to the extent allowed by federal law. 

Tribes and the public can reach out to NOAA Navigation Managers to engage in the 

planning process for future surveying and mapping projects. Information regarding 

contacting NOAA Navigation Managers can be found at the following website: 

https://nauticalcharts.noaa.gov/customer-service/regional-managers/index.html. 

November 2022 21 
 

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

Response to Public Comments for Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition 

2.6 Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands Division of Coastal 

Resources Management (Arthur Charfauros) 

2.6.1 Comment Submission 

November 2022 22 
Dear Ms. DiMaio, 

Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) National Ocean Service (NOS) Surveying and Mapping 

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS). Please see comments regarding 

this Draft PEIS from the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI) Division of 

Coastal Resources Management (DCRM). We hope to have continued collaboration leading up 

to a CZMA determination for the programmatic actions, and any supplemental activities 

throughout the life of the project. 

- 1.3.1 describes how project or site-specific review or analysis will be conducted, wherein the 

majority of future projects would not require additional project-specific analysis. For some 

potential projects such as installation of buoys or other large anchoring masses, especially those 

that trigger federal permits and are within the coastal zone, we request further coordination with 

our office as these potential projects materialize. For any addendum of activities or subsequent 

phases beyond the timeframe of the program that may have additional coastal effects which are 

not listed within the purview of the PEIS, CNMI DCRM encourages continued coordination 

pursuant to §930.34. 

-Page xxii lists the acronym and abbreviation for the Coral Reef Conservation Program (CRCP), 

which is part of NOAA’s Office for Coastal Management (OCM). The CRCP includes research 

and monitoring to assess coral reef and other marine ecosystems, however it is unclear whether 

the program is included in the Draft PEIS. 

- Would Executive Order 13352-Facilitation of Cooperative Conservation be applicable under 

3.3.8 Executive Orders? 

- Presidential Proclamation 8335 established the Marianas Trench Marine National Monument 

(MTNM) under the authority of the Antiquities Act. Why was there no mention of the MTNM or 

the Antiquities Act, although the MTNM is within the project scope? 

-The Submerged Lands Act (SLA) (43 U.S.C. §§ 1301 et seq.) is referenced on page 62 

pertaining to the Archaeological Resources Protection Act (ARPA) stating that the permit system 

established under ARPA applies to federal marine protected areas and submerged lands which 

were not transferred under the SLA. SLA is not listed under Acronyms and Abbreviations, and 

there is minimal information regarding its applicability throughout the Draft PEIS. For the 

CNMI, SLA includes Public Law 94-241, Public Law 93-435, Public Law 113-34, Proclamation 

9077, and also involves the MTNM. There should be more substantive analysis within the PEIS 

between the relevance of federal laws and regulations for the SLA, the MTNM, and NOS’s 

proposed activities within the region. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

Response to Public Comments for Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition 

2.6.2 NOS Response 

CZMA-1: For some potential projects such as installation of buoys or other large anchoring 

masses, especially those that trigger federal permits and are within the coastal zone, we request 

further coordination with our office as these potential projects materialize. 

NOS Response: NOS provided Consistency Determination (CD) letters to all coastal 

states and territories with approved Coastal Management Programs (CMPs). The CDs 

evaluate the coastal effects of proposed activities according to the relevant enforceable 

policies to make a consistency determination under CZMA. Potential requirements for 

future coordination will be developed through the CZMA process. 

CZMA-2: For any addendum of activities or subsequent phases beyond the timeframe of the 

program that may have additional coastal effects which are not listed within the purview of the 

PEIS, CNMI DCRM encourages continued coordination pursuant to §930.34. 

NOS Response: NOS does not intend to pursue a phased consistency determination 

under 15 CFR 930.36(d). NOS will continue to coordinate under CZMA for all future 

projects, as appropriate. 

Scope-2: The CRCP includes research and monitoring to assess coral reef and other marine 

ecosystems, however it is unclear whether the program is included in the Draft PEIS. 

NOS Response: The NOS PEIS addresses surveys and related projects undertaken by 

NOS. These projects may include those NOS survey and mapping activities funded by the 

Coral Reef Conservation Program (CRCP). The CRCP Final PEIS can be found online at: 

https://coast.noaa.gov/data/coralreef_noaa_gov/about/resources/CRCP_FPEIS_0713202 

0_NS_508c.pdf. 

Scope-3: Would Executive Order 13352-Facilitation of Cooperative Conservation be applicable 

under 3.3.8 Executive Orders? 

NOS Response: Yes, EO 13352 Facilitation of Cooperative Conservation would be 

applicable and has been added in Section 3.3.8. 

Scope-4: Presidential Proclamation 8335 established the Marianas Trench Marine National 

Monument (MTNM) under the authority of the Antiquities Act. Why was there no mention of the 

MTNM or the Antiquities Act, although the MTNM is within the project scope? 

NOS Response: The Proposed Action could occur anywhere in U.S. waters, including 

state waters, marine protected areas (MPAs), and other special status areas. The Marianas 

Trench Marine National Monument (MTNM) is within the geographic scope; however, 

there are no consultation requirements under the Antiquities Act for the MTNM that require 

detailed discussion of the resources within the MTNM. The analysis of impacts to 

resources in the NOS PEIS includes resources within marine national monuments. 

Scope-5: SLA is not listed under Acronyms and Abbreviations, and there is minimal information 

regarding its applicability throughout the Draft PEIS. 

November 2022 23 
 

 

 

 

 

 

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

Response to Public Comments for Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition 

NOS Response: Submerged Lands Act (SLA) has been added to the list of acronyms and 

abbreviations for the Final PEIS. The SLA (43 U.S. Code [U.S.C.] § 1301 et seq.) 

establishes the title of the states to submerged navigable lands within their boundaries 

including navigable waterways, such as rivers, as well as marine waters within the state's 

boundaries, generally 3 nautical miles (nm) (5.6 kilometers [km]) from the coastline. State 

and territory offshore waters are part of the action area for the PEIS. The analysis in the 

PEIS considers projects that could take place on submerged lands as defined in the SLA. 

Scope-6: There should be more substantive analysis within the PEIS between the relevance of 

federal laws and regulations for the SLA, the MTNM, and NOS’s proposed activities within the 

region. 

NOS Response: The Proposed Action could occur anywhere in U.S. waters, including 

state waters, MPAs, and other special status areas. NOS will follow all federal requirements 

for operating in state and territory waters, including the MTNM. Due to the extensive scope 

of the Proposed Action, the PEIS does not include an exhaustive list of applicable federal 

environmental laws, regulations, and EOs. 

NOS provided CD letters to all coastal states and territories with approved CMPs. The CDs 

evaluate the coastal effects of proposed activities according to the relevant enforceable 

policies to make a consistency determination under CZMA. Potential requirements for 

future coordination will be developed through the CZMA process. 

November 2022 24 
 

 

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

Response to Public Comments for Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition 

2.7 Connecticut State Historic Preservation Officer (Jonathan Kinney) 

2.7.1 Comment Submission 

November 2022 25 
 

 

July 16, 2021 

Ms. Giannina DiMaio 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

National Ocean Service 

1305 East West Highway 

Silver Spring, Maryland 20910 

(sent via email only to nosaa.ec@noaa.gov) 

Subject: Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for Surveying and Mapping 

Projects in U.S. Waters for Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition 

Long Island Sound, Connecticut 

Dear Ms. DiMaio: 

The Connecticut State Historic Preservation Office (CT SHPO) has reviewed the referenced 

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) and provides the following 

comments only as it pertains to activities in the Connecticut waters of Long Island Sound. The 

mission of the National Ocean Service (NOS) is to provides data, tools, and services to support 

coastal economies. The Office of Coast Survey within NOS uses acoustic technology for 

developing and upgrading charts, surveying the seafloor, responding to maritime emergencies, 

and searching for underwater obstructions that pose a danger to navigation. The primary goals 

and activities of NOS also can afford additional protection to our State’s important cultural 

resources through identification and avoidance. 

Although only small portions of Long Island Sound have been subjected to previous cultural 

resources surveys, several properties eligible for listing or listed on the National Register of 

Historic Places have been reported. However, CT SHPO concurs with NOS that the proposed 

activities described in the PEIS are not likely to affect significant historic or cultural resources. 

Our office also understands that if NOS determines that an activity has the potential for adverse 

impacts, CT SHPO will have the opportunity for additional consultation to avoid or minimize 

those effects. 

SHPO appreciates the opportunity to review and comment upon this important planning 

document and we look forward to additional consultation, as needed. For additional information, 

please contact Catherine Labadia, Environmental Reviewer, at (860) 500-2329 or 

catherine.labadia@ct.gov. 

Sincerely, 

Jonathan Kinney 

Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer 

State Historic Preservation Office 

450 Columbus Boulevard, Suite 5 | Hartford, CT 06103 | P: 860.500.2300 | Cultureandtourism.org 

An Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Employer An Equal Opportunity Lender 
 

 

 

 

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

Response to Public Comments for Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition 

2.7.2 NOS Response 

Purpose and Need-2: The primary goals and activities of NOS also can afford additional 

protection to our State’s important cultural resources through identification and avoidance. 

NOS Response: We agree and look forward to working with the Connecticut SHPO for 

the protection of cultural resources. 

Cultural and Historic Resources-4: CT SHPO concurs with NOS that the proposed activities 

described in the PEIS are not likely to affect significant historic or cultural resources. Our office 

also understands that if NOS determines that an activity has the potential for adverse impacts, CT 

SHPO will have the opportunity for additional consultation to avoid or minimize those effects. 

NOS Response: Thank you for your careful consideration and your input. NOS will initiate 

project-specific consultations under Section 106 of the NHPA before commencing any 

activity with the potential to affect cultural or historic resources. 

November 2022 26 
 

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

Response to Public Comments for Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition 

2.8 Cultural Heritage Partners (representing the Upper Mattaponi Indian 

Tribe) (Marion F. Werkheiser) 

2.8.1 Comment Submission 

November 2022 27 
 

 

August 24, 2021 

DOC/NOAA/NOS 

Environmental Compliance Coordinator 

SSMC4-Station 13612 

1305 East West Highway 

Silver Spring, MD 20910 

Submitted electronically via Regulations.gov 

Re: Public Comment on NOAA-NOS-2021-0055 National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration (NOAA) National Ocean Service (NOS) Draft Programmatic Environmental 

Impact Statement for Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for Coastal and Marine 

Data Acquisition 

Dear Ms. DiMaio, 

Our law firm represents the Upper Mattaponi Indian Tribe. We write regarding the Draft 

Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) for Surveying and Mapping Projects in 

U.S. Waters for Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition. 

The Upper Mattaponi Indian Tribe is a federally recognized sovereign tribe, headquartered in 

King William County. The Upper Mattaponi were members of the Powhatan chiefdom and have 

significant cultural affiliation to the Mattaponi River, the James River watershed, and 

environmental impacts in the Chesapeake Bay. Citizens of the Nation are descended from a 

Virginia Algonquian tribe residing in the Mattaponi watershed. One of the Tribe’s villages 

recorded by Captain John Smith was the village of Passaunkack, at the location of the present 

day Upper Mattaponi. Particularly important consultation areas include their historic area of 

Adamstown near Central Garage, the Mattaponi Indian Reservation, and the general area 

between the Pamunkey and the Mattaponi rivers. At this time, the most active Upper Mattaponi 

cultural resources consultation areas include King William, Caroline, Hanover, King and Queen, 

and New Kent Counties. The Tribe may also have consultation interests anywhere in the Middle 

Peninsula or the Northern Neck. The Tribe has environmental consultation areas anywhere 

where a project may affect the water or air quality in the above areas, the Chesapeake Bay, or the 

Atlantic Ocean. 

Because of the location of Upper Mattaponi contemporary and ancestral territory, the Tribe is 

most concerned about potential impacts affecting the Virginia coastline, Chesapeake Bay, and 

any activities where anadromous fish or other species might return from to the James River 

watershed. This is predominantly in the Southeast Region, but may include small portions of the 

Greater Atlantic Region of the PEIS study areas especially for migratory species. The Tribe 

requests that NOAA evaluate more closely the Surveying and Mapping Projects’ potential 
 

 

impacts on species of significance to Virginia Algonquian tribes, cultural and historic properties, 

and to tribes, tribal governments, and tribal trust resources. 

1. NOAA should extend the comment deadline on this Environmental Impact 

Statement 

This PEIS is almost 700 pages long with over 260 pages of appendices and is highly technical. A 

sixty-day review time is not sufficient for such a broad PEIS of such complexity, and the Tribe 

requests that NOAA extends the review time for an additional 60 days. In addition, the Tribe 

recommends that National Historic Preservation Act consultation on this federal action should be 

accompanied by regional area meetings and presentations to allow tribal communities to discuss 

the proposed actions within their areas of interest in more detail. 

2. The Tribe is especially concerned about anadromous fish species and other potential 

environmental effects that could impact plants and animals of traditional 

significance to the Upper Mattaponi 

The Upper Mattaponi Indian Tribe is especially interested in the surveying results for species 

such as shad, striped and largemouth bass, sturgeon, blueback herring, and alewife. The Tribe is 

a signatory to the 1677 Treaty of Middle Plantation, which enumerates the rights of Virginia 

tribal communities who negotiated a peace settlement with the English crown. Article VII 

explicitly assures the Indians rights to “their wonted conveniences of oystering, fishing, and 

gathering [of various plants]” used by Virginia tribes to support themselves. Fishing has been 

significant to Mattaponi people since well before English contact, and fishing has remained a 

very important practice for the Tribe. 

The PEIS acknowledges that fish species with swim bladders (like sturgeon, herrings, and 

American shad) are susceptible to barotrauma from sound waves associated with some surveying 

equipment, and some have sensitive hearing and may be affected by hearing noises of survey 

systems. Some of these fish, like Atlantic sturgeon, are also threatened or endangered. The PEIS 

acknowledges that survey equipment, vessels, and ROV and autonomous vehicle operations may 

disturb animals from preferred feeding or breeding grounds or may cause discomfort for some 

species. However, the effects of these types of activities are routinely characterized as 

insignificant, minimal, or unlikely. The Tribe requests that reviews of specific surveying 

activities provide much more detail regarding the rationale for these minimal assessments of 

adverse effects. 

The Tribe also observes that there are no references in the PEIS to fish hatchery, research, and 

restoration efforts conducted by Virginia Tidewater tribes. The EIS should be revised to include 

information regarding the Pamunkey NOAA Species Recovery grant to study Atlantic sturgeon, 

the shad fishery and hatchery on the Pamunkey and Mattaponi Indian reservations, and the 

impacts on Virginia tribes of over-fishing and environmental damage that inhibited the fish 

populations. The surveying and mapping that this PEIS contemplates should generally be used to 

Page 2 of 4 
 

 

 

encourage more consideration of the tribe trust rights of Virginia Tribes and to evaluate tribal 

impacts of these fish population and species health issues.1 

3. NOAA acknowledges that the impacts of the activities permitted under this PEIS to 

cultural resources, historic properties, and Tribes could be severe, but does not 

provide much insight or specifics about how it intends to identify, evaluate, avoid, or 

mitigate these effects 

NOS states that this PEIS will have a moderate adverse impact on cultural and historical 

resources, but claims that this impact would be “insignificant.” In Section 3.3.6, NOS states that 

they will coordinate with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation to develop approaches 

for addressing potential cultural resources impacts of these programmatic activities. In Section 

3.11.2.2.3, NOAA acknowledges that the installation of tidal gauges could destroy part or all of 

historic properties in the project area. In Section 3.11.2.2.4, NOAA acknowledges that activities 

permitted under this PEIS could have effects on reservations or villages, impact tribal trust 

resources, affect facilities or entities owned or operated by tribes, affect Tribes, tribal 

governments, and traditional lifeways, and affect TCPs or traditional use areas. 

NOAA should provide more information regarding how it intends to consult with ACHP and 

tribes, and should provide greater information regarding how the agency intends to identify tribes 

to reach out to for consultation on a given program or action. The Tribe requests that given 

NOAA’s acknowledgement that such significant impacts to Tribes and historic properties may 

occur, that the agency develop a separate report analyzing how permitted actions in the 

Surveying and Mapping program might have such effects and propose how it intends to identify 

and evaluate such effects. 

4. The Tribe requests that surveying and mapping projects include archaeological 

equipment, staff, and expertise wherever practicable 

While these activities provide significant risks to tribal, historic, and cultural resources, the 

planned surveying and mapping of the oceans off the coasts also provide an opportunity to 

evaluate submerged archaeological resources with very little additional cost, as the vessels and 

equipment will likely be making similar survey routes and using similar approaches for survey as 

would be needed for archaeological evaluations. The Tribe requests that NOAA examine ways 

that draped multibeam and sub-bottom profilers calibrated for archaeological data collection 

could be added to NOAA survey vessels wherever possible, and that NOAA comprehensively 

evaluates projects to identify situations where archaeological data gathering on paleochannels 

and paleolandscapes of interest to tribes could be added to other types of research. Currently, the 

coast of Virginia has received comparably much less marine archaeology evaluation compared 

with the northeast Atlantic and the Gulf Coast, and this is a needed corrective so that the 

1 For more details, see Jenkins, Alexis. 2019. Remembering the River: Traditional Fishery Practices, Environmental 

Change and Sovereignty on the Pamunkey Indian Reservation. Undergraduate thesis. 

https://scholarworks.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2437&context=honorstheses 

Page 3 of 4 
 

 

 

 

potential impacts to offshore cultural resources of importance to tribes can be more readily 

identified. 

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the National Oceanic Service Survey and Mapping 

Draft Programmatic EIS. 

Sincerely, 

Marion F. Werkheiser 

Attorney at Law 

Page 4 of 4 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

Response to Public Comments for Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition 

2.8.2 NOS Response 

Fish-2: Because of the location of Upper Mattaponi contemporary and ancestral territory, the 

Tribe is most concerned about potential impacts affecting the Virginia coastline, Chesapeake Bay, 

and any activities where anadromous fish or other species might return from to the James River 

watershed. This is predominantly in the Southeast Region, but may include small portions of the 

Greater Atlantic Region of the PEIS study areas especially for migratory species. The Tribe 

requests that NOAA evaluate more closely the Surveying and Mapping Projects’ potential impacts 

on species of significance to Virginia Algonquian tribes, cultural and historic properties, and to 

tribes, tribal governments, and tribal trust resources...2. The Tribe is especially concerned about 

anadromous fish species and other potential environmental effects that could impact plants and 

animals of traditional significance to the Upper Mattaponi. 

The Upper Mattaponi Indian Tribe is especially interested in the surveying results for species such 

as shad, striped and largemouth bass, sturgeon, blueback herring, and alewife. 

NOS Response: EO 13175 and the NOAA Tribal Consultation Handbook provide required 

procedures for consultation with federally recognized Tribes in recognition of the 

sovereignty of federally recognized Tribes and the federal government’s trust 

responsibility to those tribes. NOS intends to notify individual tribes and ANCs pursuant to 

EO 13175 before conducting any project that may have tribal implications. Federally 

recognized tribes may request government-to-government consultation at any time for a 

proposed action that may have tribal implications. 

Section 3.7.2 of the Final PEIS discusses that underwater acoustic sources have not been 

known to cause direct injury or mortality to fish, and that direct injuries (e.g., barotrauma) 

from sound sources used by NOS are unlikely because of slow rise times, lack of strong 

shock waves, and relatively low peak pressures. The Final PEIS also discusses that 

vessels, ROVs, and survey equipment can disturb and displace nearby fish, interrupt 

feeding, cause other behavior modifications, and possibly mask biologically important 

signals; such impacts would vary among species as most fish cannot hear the higher 

frequencies emitted by vessel, ROV, and equipment sound, except for perhaps shad, river 

herring, and menhaden. Therefore, impacts are expected to be adverse and negligible as 

they would be limited to temporary behavioral and stress-startle responses to individual 

fish or schools of fish found within the project area. The severity of effects on shad, river 

herring, and menhaden (species that can potentially hear the higher frequencies of vessel 

sound), could be somewhat higher but are not expected to be more than minor, as impacts 

would still be temporary or short-term, may include some stress responses without 

permanent physiological damage, and may disturb breeding, feeding, or other activities 

but without any impacts on population levels. Any displacement of fish would be short term 

and limited to the NOS project area or its immediate surroundings. 

NOS will initiate project-specific consultations under Section 106 of the NHPA before 

commencing any activity with the potential to affect cultural or historic resources. 

This PEIS does not cover fisheries research, which is conducted by NOAA’s Fisheries 

Science Centers. NOS conducts benthic habitat surveys, and results may be found at 

https://products.coastalscience.noaa.gov/collections/benthic/default.aspx. 

November 2022 28 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

Response to Public Comments for Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition 

NEPA Process-9: 1. NOAA should extend the comment deadline on this Environmental Impact 

Statement. 

This PEIS is almost 700 pages long with over 260 pages of appendices and is highly technical. A 

sixty-day review time is not sufficient for such a broad PEIS of such complexity, and the Tribe 

requests that NOAA extends the review time for an additional 60 days. 

NOS Response: After receiving your comment, NOS extended the original 60-day public 

comment period deadline by 90 days from August 24, 2021 to November 22, 2021. (86 

FR 47299). 

Cultural and Historic Resources-16: In addition, the Tribe recommends that National Historic 

Preservation Act consultation on this federal action should be accompanied by regional area 

meetings and presentations to allow tribal communities to discuss the proposed actions within 

their areas of interest in more detail. 

NOS Response: NOS intends to notify individual tribes pursuant to EO 13175 before 

conducting any project that may have tribal implications. Federally recognized tribes may 

request government-to-government consultation at any time for a proposed action that 

may have tribal implications. 

NOS will also initiate project-specific consultations under Section 106 of the NHPA before 

commencing any activity with the potential to affect cultural or historic resources. 

NOS will consider providing regional meetings if interest is expressed after notice is 

provided or consultation is initiated. 

Fish-3: The PEIS acknowledges that fish species with swim bladders (like sturgeon, herrings, and 

American shad) are susceptible to barotrauma from sound waves associated with some surveying 

equipment, and some have sensitive hearing and may be affected by hearing noises of survey 

systems. Some of these fish, like Atlantic sturgeon, are also threatened or endangered. The PEIS 

acknowledges that survey equipment, vessels, and ROV and autonomous vehicle operations may 

disturb animals from preferred feeding or breeding grounds or may cause discomfort for some 

species. However, the effects of these types of activities are routinely characterized as 

insignificant, minimal, or unlikely. The Tribe requests that reviews of specific surveying activities 

provide much more detail regarding the rationale for these minimal assessments of adverse 

effects. 

NOS Response: The PEIS uses the best available science to evaluate impacts on fish 

species. As discussed in Section 3.7.2 of the Final PEIS, adverse effects from NOS 

activities are possible for the small numbers of individual fish that could occur in close 

proximity (i.e., within several meters) to an active sound source. Generally, adverse effects 

on a species can be considered significant if they result in a reduction in the overall health 

and viability of a population. However, given the localized and transient spatial scale of no 

more than a few NOS projects occurring at any one time, relative to the generally largescale distribution of fish populations and the considerably narrow beam characteristics of 

November 2022 29 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

Response to Public Comments for Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition 

equipment such as echo sounders, no population level effects are expected on marine or 

freshwater fish. 

Environmental Justice-12: The Tribe also observes that there are no references in the PEIS to 

fish hatchery, research, and restoration efforts conducted by Virginia Tidewater tribes. The EIS 

should be revised to include information regarding the Pamunkey NOAA Species Recovery grant 

to study Atlantic sturgeon, the shad fishery and hatchery on the Pamunkey and Mattaponi Indian 

reservations, and the impacts on Virginia tribes of over-fishing and environmental damage that 

inhibited the fish populations. The surveying and mapping that this PEIS contemplates should 

generally be used to encourage more consideration of the tribe trust rights of Virginia Tribes and 

to evaluate tribal impacts of these fish population and species health issues. 

NOS Response: Thank you for your comment. Fish hatchery, research, and restoration 

efforts conducted by Virginia Tidewater tribes and the Pamunkey NOAA Species Recovery 

grant are not expected to be impacted by the Proposed Action. 

NOS determined that a programmatic approach was appropriate because NOS conducts, 

authorizes, permits, and funds a suite of similar, ongoing data collection activities 

associated with recurring projects across a wide geographic area to characterize 

underwater features (e.g., habitat, bathymetry, marine debris). This Final PEIS is a 

comprehensive document that provides detailed programmatic effects analyses for 

surveying and mapping data collection activities based on regional conditions, habitat 

types, species, and other factors. However, the Final PEIS does not identify the specific 

time or place for individual projects or activities over the next five years. The analysis will 

be used to inform NOS leadership and the public on the environmental impacts of these 

activities before a decision is made on how to execute each project. All projects will require 

a project-specific review by NOS before proceeding. 

NOS agrees that surveying and mapping data could be useful to evaluate and protect tribal 

trust fisheries resources. NOS coastal and marine data support ecosystem stewardship, 

such as fisheries research and restoration work by the Virginia Tidewater Tribes. For 

instance, bathymetric base layers provide valuable information about essential habitat for 

fish. 

Tribes and the public can reach out to NOAA Navigation Managers to engage in the 

planning process for future surveying and mapping projects. Information regarding 

contacting NOAA Navigation Managers can be found at the following website: 

https://nauticalcharts.noaa.gov/customer-service/regional-managers/index.html. 

NOS will initiate project-specific consultations under Section 106 of the NHPA before 

commencing any activity with the potential to affect cultural or historic resources. 

NOS intends to notify individual tribes pursuant to EO 13175 before conducting any project 

that may have tribal implications. Federally recognized tribes may request government-togovernment consultation at any time for a proposed action that may have tribal 

implications. 

November 2022 30 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

Response to Public Comments for Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition 

Cultural and Historic Resources-17: 3. NOAA acknowledges that the impacts of the activities 

permitted under this PEIS to cultural resources, historic properties, and Tribes could be severe, 

but does not provide much insight or specifics about how it intends to identify, evaluate, avoid, or 

mitigate these effects. 

NOS states that this PEIS will have a moderate adverse impact on cultural and historical 

resources, but claims that this impact would be “insignificant.” In Section 3.3.6, NOS states that 

they will coordinate with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation to develop approaches for 

addressing potential cultural resources impacts of these programmatic activities. In Section 

3.11.2.2.3, NOAA acknowledges that the installation of tidal gauges could destroy part or all of 

historic properties in the project area. In Section 3.11.2.2.4, NOAA acknowledges that activities 

permitted under this PEIS could have effects on reservations or villages, impact tribal trust 

resources, affect facilities or entities owned or operated by tribes, affect Tribes, tribal 

governments, and traditional lifeways, and affect TCPs or traditional use areas. 

NOAA should provide more information regarding how it intends to consult with ACHP and tribes, 

and should provide greater information regarding how the agency intends to identify tribes to 

reach out to for consultation on a given program or action 

NOS Response: Significance criteria and determinations presented in the PEIS were 

developed for the purpose of compliance with the NEPA. Impacts that would be 

considered major and significant are defined in Table 3.11-1; none of the potential impacts 

from NOS activities were evaluated to be major and significant under NEPA. 

While the Final PEIS will be used to inform NOS responsibilities under NHPA, NOS will 

comply with Section 106 of the NHPA for any activity that has the potential to affect cultural 

or historic resources as described in the regulations at 36 CFR 800.8. NOS will continue 

to conduct project-specific NHPA consultations before commencing any project with the 

potential to affect cultural or historic resources. 

NOS intends to notify individual tribes before conducting any project that may have tribal 

implications. Federally recognized tribes may request government-to-government 

consultation under EO 13175 at any time. 

Cultural and Historic Resources-18: The Tribe requests that given NOAA’s acknowledgement 

that such significant impacts to Tribes and historic properties may occur, that the agency develop 

a separate report analyzing how permitted actions in the Surveying and Mapping program might 

have such effects and propose how it intends to identify and evaluate such effects. 

NOS Response: Adverse effects were analyzed as required for compliance with NEPA. 

No significant adverse impacts to cultural and historic resources are expected under any 

alternative of the Proposed Action (See Sections 3.11.2.2 - 3.11.2.4). NOS intends to notify 

individual tribes before conducting any project that may have tribal implications. Federally 

recognized tribes may request government-to-government consultation under EO 13175 

at any time. 

Cultural and Historic Resources-19: 4. The Tribe requests that surveying and mapping projects 

include archaeological equipment, staff, and expertise wherever practicable. 

November 2022 31 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

Response to Public Comments for Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition 

While these activities provide significant risks to tribal, historic, and cultural resources, the planned 

surveying and mapping of the oceans off the coasts also provide an opportunity to evaluate 

submerged archaeological resources with very little additional cost, as the vessels and equipment 

will likely be making similar survey routes and using similar approaches for survey as would be 

needed for archaeological evaluations. The Tribe requests that NOAA examine ways that draped 

multibeam and sub-bottom profilers calibrated for archaeological data collection could be added 

to NOAA survey vessels wherever possible, and that NOAA comprehensively evaluates projects 

to identify situations where archaeological data gathering on paleochannels and paleolandscapes 

of interest to tribes could be added to other types of research. Currently, the coast of Virginia has 

received comparably much less marine archaeology evaluation compared with the northeast 

Atlantic and the Gulf Coast, and this is a needed corrective so that the potential impacts to offshore 

cultural resources of importance to tribes can be more readily identified. 

NOS Response: Adverse effects were analyzed as required for compliance with NEPA. 

No significant adverse impacts to cultural and historic resources are expected under any 

alternative of the Proposed Action (See Sections 3.11.2.2 - 3.11.2.4). 

All data collected by NOS is made publicly available to the extent allowed by federal law. 

Tribes and the public can reach out to NOAA Navigation Managers to engage in the 

planning process for future surveying and mapping projects. Information regarding 

contacting NOAA Navigation Managers can be found at the following website: 

https://nauticalcharts.noaa.gov/customer-service/regional-managers/index.html. 

November 2022 32 
 

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

Response to Public Comments for Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition 

2.9 Delaware State Historic Preservation Officer (Stephanie Soder) 

2.9.1 Comment Submission 

November 2022 33 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

. 

. 

. 

. 

. 

. 

July 28, 2021 

Ms. Giannina DiMaio 

Environmental Compliance Coordinator 

National Ocean and Atmospheric Administration, National Ocean Service 

1305 East-West Highway 

Silver Spring, MD 20910 

RE: NOAA Draft PEIS for NOS’s Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters

NOAA-NOS-2021-0055

SHPO Project Review #2021.06.25.01 

Dear Ms. DiMaio, 

Thank you for your recent consultation with the Delaware State Historic Preservation Office (DE SHPO) on June 25, 2021 

regarding changes to the Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) for Surveying and Mapping Projects in 

U.S. Waters for Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition. The PEIS demonstrates several alternatives that will aid in the 

National Ocean Service’s (NOS) efforts to conduct surveying and mapping throughout the coastal and marine waters of the 

United States over a period of six years. The PEIS takes into consideration potential impacts that these activities may have 

to historic and cultural resources. 

Upon review of the PEIS, DE SHPO believes that efforts to mitigate or avoid impacts to historical and cultural resources, 

both terrestrial and underwater, have been adequately addressed in the sections regarding bottom sampling and installation, 

maintenance, and removal of tidal gauges, buoys, and GPS Reference Stations. However, DE SHPO requests further 

clarification and re-review of the definition of moderate in Section 3.11.2.1 Methodology regarding its significance. 

Currently the PEIS defines moderate impact context, intensity, and likelihood as: 

The action would diminish the integrity of a submerged cultural or historic resource or a 

historic property's location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, or association, 

resulting in the loss of diagnostic features or research potential. 

While this definition is adequate to describe moderate impact, it is then categorized as insignificant under NOS- determined 

significance criteria. Under regulations 36 CFR Part 800 – Protection of Historic Properties, the definition of an adverse 

effect to historic properties is: 

when an undertaking may alter, directly or indirectly, any of the characteristics of a historic 

property that qualify the property for inclusion in the National Register [NRHP] in a manner 

that would diminish the integrity of the property's location, design, setting, materials, 

workmanship, feeling, or association. 

The definition of adverse effect under the regulations is closely matched to the NOS-determined definition of moderate 

impact, but NOS considers them insignificant. DE SHPO believes that the NOS should consider moderate impact as 

significant to appropriately relate to the regulations. This change would likely only impact anchoring practices and 

subsistence hunting and fishing areas under the PEIS, as it is determined that their impacts range from negligible to 

moderate. Given the protocol by NOS to anchor in previously surveyed areas to avoid impacting a historic property and 

ongoing consultation between THPOs and NOS, DE SHPO does not believe that a change in significance criteria for 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

age 2 of 2

moderate impact will alter the way in which these practices are conducted. DE SHPO does, however, believe that it is 

important to appropriately acknowledge the potential severity of impacts that moderate impact rated practices could have 

to historic properties. 

DE SHPO would also like to advocate for the addition of data sharing initiatives in Section 3.11.2.2.1 Anchoring. We 

appreciate that NOS has included protocol for alerting SHPOs in the event that an object is discovered that may be eligible 

for listing on the NRHP in Section 3.11.2.2.2 Bottom Sampling. However, in the case that anchoring cannot be conducted 

within a previously surveyed area as proposed in the PEIS and SHPOs cannot be consulted beforehand, there may be an 

occasion where a historic property is discovered while anchoring. In this case, we request that NOS include protocol for 

data sharing in the PEIS. 

Based on the outlined practices and mitigation efforts, DE SHPO concurs with all three alternatives presented by NOS, as 

they all indicate minimal effects to historical and cultural resources and adequate avoidance measures. DE SHPO prefers 

that Alternative 2 or Alternative 3 be considered over Alternative 1. Incorporating best practices and new technology into 

protocols may lead to an increase in non-disturbance survey practices, which will better protect historic and cultural 

resources, as well as natural resources. 

Thank you for your consideration of these comments. If you have any questions or if the PEIS changes after public comment, 

please feel free to contact Gwen Davis at gwen.davis@delaware.gov. 

Sincerely, 

Cultural Preservation Specialist 

ec: Gwenyth A. Davis, DE SHPO 

Stephanie Soder, Archaeologist 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

Response to Public Comments for Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition 

2.9.2 NOS Response 

Cultural and Historic Resources-28: Upon review of the PEIS, DE SHPO believes that efforts to 

mitigate or avoid impacts to historical and cultural resources, both terrestrial and underwater, 

have been adequately addressed in the sections regarding bottom sampling and installation, 

maintenance, and removal of tidal gauges, buoys, and GPS Reference Stations. 

NOS Response: Thank you for your careful consideration and your input. 

Cultural and Historic Resources-29: However, DE SHPO requests further clarification and rereview of the definition of moderate in Section 3.11.2.1 Methodology regarding its significance. 

Currently the PEIS defines moderate impact context, intensity, and likelihood as: 

The action would diminish the integrity of a submerged cultural or historic resource or a historic 

property's location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, or association, resulting in 

the loss of diagnostic features or research potential. 

While this definition is adequate to describe moderate impact, it is then categorized as insignificant 

under NOS- determined significance criteria. Under regulations 36 CFR Part 800 – Protection of 

Historic Properties, the definition of an adverse effect to historic properties is: 

when an undertaking may alter, directly or indirectly, any of the characteristics of a historic 

property that qualify the property for inclusion in the National Register [NRHP] in a manner that 

would diminish the integrity of the property's location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, 

feeling, or association. 

The definition of adverse effect under the regulations is closely matched to the NOS-determined 

definition of moderate impact, but NOS considers them insignificant. DE SHPO believes that the 

NOS should consider moderate impact as significant to appropriately relate to the regulations. 

This change would likely only impact anchoring practices and subsistence hunting and fishing 

areas under the PEIS, as it is determined that their impacts range from negligible to moderate. 

NOS Response: Significance criteria and determinations presented in the PEIS were 

developed for the purpose of compliance with NEPA. Impacts that would be considered 

major and significant are defined in Table 3.11-1; none of the potential impacts from NOS 

activities were evaluated to be major and significant under NEPA. 

While the Final PEIS will be used to inform NOS responsibilities under NHPA, NOS will 

comply with Section 106 of the NHPA for any activity that has the potential to affect cultural 

or historic resources as described in the regulations at 36 CFR 800.8, regardless of the 

NEPA impact category. NOS will conduct project-specific NHPA consultations before 

commencing any project with the potential to affect cultural or historic resources. 

Future Coordination-14: DE SHPO would also like to advocate for the addition of data sharing 

initiatives in Section 3.11.2.2.1 Anchoring. We appreciate that NOS has included protocol for 

alerting SHPOs in the event that an object is discovered that may be eligible for listing on the 

NRHP in Section 3.11.2.2.2 Bottom Sampling. However, in the case that anchoring cannot be 

conducted within a previously surveyed area as proposed in the PEIS and SHPOs cannot be 

November 2022 34 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

Response to Public Comments for Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition 

consulted beforehand, there may be an occasion where a historic property is discovered while 

anchoring. In this case, we request that NOS include protocol for data sharing in the PEIS. 

NOS Response: NOS will initiate project-specific consultations under Section 106 of the 

NHPA before commencing any activity with the potential to affect cultural or historic 

resources. NOS will also contact the relevant SHPOs in the event that NOS activities result 

in the recovery of a potentially historic resource or artifact. 

All data collected by NOS is made publicly available to the extent allowed by federal law. 

The DE SHPO and the public can reach out to NOAA Navigation Managers to engage in 

the planning process for future surveying and mapping projects. Information regarding 

contacting NOAA Navigation Managers can be found at the following website: 

https://nauticalcharts.noaa.gov/customer-service/regional-managers/index.html. 

Cultural and Historic Resources-30: Based on the outlined practices and mitigation efforts, DE 

SHPO concurs with all three alternatives presented by NOS, as they all indicate minimal effects 

to historical and cultural resources and adequate avoidance measures. DE SHPO prefers that 

Alternative 2 or Alternative 3 be considered over Alternative 1. Incorporating best practices and 

new technology into protocols may lead to an increase in non-disturbance survey practices, which 

will better protect historic and cultural resources, as well as natural resources. 

NOS Response: Thank you for your careful consideration and your input on the 

alternatives to the Proposed Action. 

November 2022 35 
 

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

Response to Public Comments for Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition 

2.10 Delaware Natural Resources and Environmental Control (DNREC) 

(Kimberly B. Cole) 

2.10.1 Comment Submission 

November 2022 36 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL 

DIVISION OF CLIMATE, COASTAL & ENERGY 

DELAWARE COASTAL STATE STREET COMMONS PHONE 

MANAGEMENT PROGRAM 100 W. WATER STREET, SUITE 7B (302) 739-9283 

DOVER, DELAWARE 19904 

August 24, 2021 

Giannina DiMaio 

National Ocean Service 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

1305 East West Highway 

SSMC4-Station 13612 

Silver Spring, MD 20910 

RE: Request for Comments on National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) 

National Ocean Service (NOS) Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) for 

Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition 

(NOAA-NOS-2021-0055) 

Dear Ms. DiMaio: 

The Delaware Coastal Management Program (DCMP) of the Delaware Department of Natural 

Resources and Environmental Control (DNREC) appreciates the opportunity to review and 

comment on the above referenced Draft PEIS, received by this office on June 25, 2021. As 

specified in the June 25, 2021 publication in the Federal Register, NOAA NOS has prepared a 

Draft PEIS to analyze environmental impacts associated with NOS’s recurring survey and data

collection activities during a six-year time frame (2022-2027). 

Although Delaware is a small state, its coast and marine resources yield a healthy and robust ocean 

environment, substantially contributing to the economy and livelihood of its citizens. Activities 

with the potential to impact these resources are carefully considered to ensure resource 

sustainability, while advancing Delaware’s commitment to support and encourage data collection

and research by scientists, organizations, and institutions for the purpose of informed decisionmaking. 

DCMP recognizes the importance of responsible data collection activities for ocean planning 

purposes and frequently utilizes the Mid-Atlantic Regional Council on the Ocean (MARCO) Data 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Portal to access comprehensive, regional information to aid in spatial visualizations. The 

importance of data sharing cannot be understated as development expands in offshore waters. 

DCMP urges NOS to continue coordination with MARCO to ensure the relevant data obtained in 

the proposed surveys is included in the Data Portal. 

DCMP reviewed the Draft PEIS in the context of activities occurring in the Greater Atlantic 

Region. The Draft PEIS includes rivers; states’ offshore waters; the U.S. territorial sea; the

contiguous zone; and the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (U.S. EEZ) as the “action area”. The

action area also includes coastal and riparian lands for activities such as the installation, 

maintenance, and removal of tide gauges. It is unclear which surveying and mapping activities 

may be occurring on State-owned lands and waters (up to 3 nautical miles), where broader 

regulatory considerations would be necessary. To increase transparency, DCMP recommends the 

addition of a clearer description of activities occurring in State-owned lands and waters, including 

more detailed maps defining potential data collection locations. 

When work occurs within State waters, DCMP requests that the activity complies with the State 

of Delaware’s Surface Water Quality Standards. Additionally, in-water work should be 

coordinated with DNREC, Division of Water, Wetlands and Subaqueous Lands Section. 

As it relates to affected living resources identified in the Draft PEIS, DCMP has the following 

comments: 

Fish 

Much concern has been raised at the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council about the effect 

of hydroacoustic mapping on commercially and recreationally important structure-oriented fish 

species like Black Sea Bass and Summer Flounder. Anecdotal reports from fishermen suggest that 

such species leave any area in which hydroacoustic mapping is occurring. The Council has 

suggested a time of year restriction for Black Sea Bass of December 1st through mid-May, which 

corresponds to the recreational closed season for Black Sea Bass. Additionally, we ask that vessel 

strikes be listed as potential impacts to fish. 

On page 260 of the Draft PEIS, herring-like fishes and cod-like fishes are listed as the most 

economically important in terms of commercial value. However, this is not necessarily true for 

Delaware and much of the Greater Atlantic Region. Based on 2016 data, key species for landings 

revenue in Delaware included American eel, blue crab, eastern oyster, quahog clam, striped bass, 

and whelks1. Many State of Delaware fishermen fish the U.S. EEZ. However, due to the lack of a 

port to support large scale commercial landings, residents are forced to land and report catch in 

adjacent states, often bringing their product back to Delaware for sale. Additionally, Delaware is 

home to one of Sea Watch International’s (SWI) three processing plants. This Delaware founded 

company, has been granted the largest offshore clam allocation in the industry, utilizing 34 vessels 

for fishery harvests. SWI is also the nation’s largest supplier of branded canned and frozen clams2. 

Although this product is not landed in Delaware, many of the harvested ocean quahog and surf 

clam come to Delaware for processing. As such, impacts that might affect commercial fishing 

1 National Marine Fisheries Service (2018). Fisheries Economics of the United States, 2016. U.S. Dept. of 

Commerce, NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-F/SPO-187-a, 116p. 2 https://seawatch.com/about/ 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

resources in the U.S. EEZ have the potential to have significant impacts to our state’s economy.

Sea Turtles 

The Draft PEIS Section 3.6.1.2.1 Greater Atlantic Region indicates that there are no known sea 

turtle nest sites in the Greater Atlantic Region. However, there have been several occurrences of 

sea turtles nesting in Delaware, as well as in Maryland. Delaware’s most recent instance occurred

in 2018 when 48 loggerhead hatchlings emerged from a nest at Fenwick Island State Park. 

Seabirds, Shorebirds and Coastal Birds, and Waterfowl 

The Delaware shorelines and waterways are important sites for migrating and breeding shorebirds, 

marsh birds, and waterbirds. Delaware supports a number of federally-protected bird species 

including migrating rufa Red Knots (Calidris canutus rufa) and breeding Piping Plovers 

(Charadrius melodus). Hundreds of thousands of migrating shorebirds stop along the shorelines 

of Delaware Bay to refuel during their northward migration. Breeding secretive marsh birds, such 

as Saltmarsh Sparrows (Ammodramus caudacutus), are found within Delaware's saltmarshes. Pea 

Patch Island and smaller inland islands support large breeding heronries and waterbird colonies. 

Disturbance of key foraging locations and breeding areas may be detrimental to the survival and 

productivity of these birds. We suggest that any onshore or nearshore activities, such as the 

installation of monitoring stations, should avoid important foraging and breeding sites in 

Delaware. 

With respect to potential impacts to cultural and historic resources analyzed by NOS in the Draft 

PEIS, in consultation with Delaware’s State Historic Preservation Office (DE SHPO), DCMP 

suggests NOS re-define moderate in Section 3.11.2.1 Methodology regarding its significance. 

Moderate impact is categorized as insignificant under NOS-determined significance criteria. 

The definition of adverse effect under regulations 36 CFR Part 800 – Protection of Historic 

Properties, is closely matched to the NOS-determined definition of moderate impact, but NOS 

considers them insignificant. In conjunction with DE SHPO, DCMP suggests that NOS should 

consider moderate impact as significant to appropriately relate to the regulations. 

Additionally, DCMP shares the request of DE SHPO for similar data sharing initiatives in Section 

3.11.2.2.1 Anchoring as in Section 3.11.2.2.2 Bottom Sampling. In the case that anchoring cannot 

be conducted within a previously surveyed area as proposed in the PEIS and SHPOs cannot be 

consulted beforehand, there may be an occasion where a historic property is discovered while 

anchoring. In this case, we request that NOS include protocol for data sharing in the PEIS. 

DCMP is generally supportive of the preferred, Alternative B, under which NOS would increase 

the adoption of newer techniques and technologies to more efficiently perform surveying, 

mapping, charting, and related data gathering. As data collection activities are planned, DCMP 

expects NOS to submit federal consistency determinations for activities with reasonably 

foreseeable direct and/or indirect effects on any coastal use or resource (15 CFR § 930.33). DCMP 

is of the opinion that exploration, survey, and testing activities will have reasonably foreseeable 

coastal effects due to the potential to cause seafloor disturbance, temporary or permanent decrease 

in water or air quality, impacts to living resources and their habitats, and impacts to cultural and 

historical resources. 
 

 

 

 

 

Thank you for your early coordination with the DCMP, implementing the federal consistency 

provision of the Coastal Zone Management Act, prior to official regulatory engagement. If you 

have any questions, please contact Kristi Lieske of my staff at (302) 739-9283. 

Sincerely, 

Kimberly B. Cole, Administrator 

Delaware Coastal Management Program 

KBC/kl 

cc: File FC 2021.0085 

Samantha Robinson, DNREC DFW 

Katie Esposito, DNREC DW 

Gwen Davis, DOS HCA 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

Response to Public Comments for Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition 

2.10.2 NOS Response 

Future Coordination-10: DCMP recognizes the importance of responsible data collection 

activities for ocean planning purposes and frequently utilizes the Mid-Atlantic Regional Council on 

the Ocean (MARCO) Data Portal to access comprehensive, regional information to aid in spatial 

visualizations. The importance of data sharing cannot be understated as development expands in 

offshore waters. DCMP urges NOS to continue coordination with MARCO to ensure the relevant 

data obtained in the proposed surveys is included in the Data Portal. 

NOS Response: NOS program offices intend to continue to collaborate with the MidAtlantic Regional Council on the Ocean (MARCO) to support efficient data sharing. The 

MARCO Data Portal is accessible via the Office for Coastal Management (OCM) Digital 

Coast website: https://coast.noaa.gov/digitalcoast/contributing-partners/marco.html. 

Scope-12: It is unclear which surveying and mapping activities may be occurring on State-owned 

lands and waters (up to 3 nautical miles), where broader regulatory considerations would be 

necessary. To increase transparency, DCMP recommends the addition of a clearer description of 

activities occurring in State-owned lands and waters, including more detailed maps defining 

potential data collection locations. 

NOS Response: NOS determined that a programmatic approach under NEPA was 

appropriate because NOS conducts, authorizes, permits, and funds a suite of similar, 

ongoing data collection activities associated with recurring projects across a wide 

geographic area including states’ offshore waters (0 to 3 nautical miles [nm] offshore). 

NOS has completed the Delaware CZMA Federal Consistency Form for the Proposed 

Action. This form was included with a CZMA Consistency Determination letter that was 

sent to the Delaware CMP. NOS provided CD letters to all coastal states and territories 

with approved CMPs. The CDs evaluate the coastal effects of proposed activities 

according to the relevant enforceable policies to make a consistency determination under 

CZMA. 

Future Coordination-11: When work occurs within State waters, DCMP requests that the activity 

complies with the State of Delaware’s Surface Water Quality Standards. Additionally, in-water 

work should be coordinated with DNREC, Division of Water, Wetlands and Subaqueous Lands 

Section. 

NOS Response: NOS intends to comply with Delaware Surface Water Quality Standards 

as required in the enforceable policies of the Delaware Coastal Management Program 

(DCMP). Outside of those regulated materials required for normal vessel operation (diesel 

fuel, motor oil, etc.), no regulated, hazardous, or radioactive materials, or biological warfare 

agents would be used in the course of the Proposed Action. No part of the Proposed Action 

would require or involve a thermal discharge. The Proposed Action will not involve the 

discharge or dumping of any garbage, refuse, dead animal, poultry, trash, carton, bottle, 

container, box, lumber, timber, paper, or light material or other solid waste into state 

waters. NOS looks forward to future coordination with the State of Delaware through the 

CZMA process. 

November 2022 37 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

Response to Public Comments for Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition 

Fish-4: Fish 

Much concern has been raised at the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council about the effect 

of hydroacoustic mapping on commercially and recreationally important structure-oriented fish 

species like Black Sea Bass and Summer Flounder. Anecdotal reports from fishermen suggest 

that such species leave any area in which hydroacoustic mapping is occurring. The Council has 

suggested a time of year restriction for Black Sea Bass of December 1st through mid-May, which 

corresponds to the recreational closed season for Black Sea Bass. Additionally, we ask that vessel 

strikes be listed as potential impacts to fish. 

NOS Response: The hearing frequency range of most fish is below approximately 1,500 

hertz (Hz) with the most sensitive range below 800 Hz. The hearing range of pressuresensing fish is typically extended to a few kHz (up to about 4 kilohertz [kHz]). NOS expects 

to use very high frequency (200 kHz+) sources in Delaware Bay that have not been known 

to cause direct injury or mortality to fish. Fish leaving the area in which surveys are being 

conducted could be due to disturbance from vessel presence, movement, and wake. 

NOS assessed the potential impacts to fisheries, including fish, aquatic 

macroinvertebrates, essential fish habitat (EFH), and socioeconomic resources. 

Socioeconomic resources include commercial fishing, fish hatcheries and aquaculture, 

seafood processing, and seafood markets industries. Among the impacts assessed, effects 

to fish include some stress responses without permanent physiological damage, and some 

disturbance to breeding, feeding, or other activities, but without any impacts on population 

levels; additionally, there would not be long-term changes in habitat availability and use or 

in fish behavior. NOS also assessed the impact of interactions with fishing gear and survey 

equipment on the fishing industry. Effects to commercial and recreational fishing from gear 

interaction are very unlikely. 

Data collected by NOS would have beneficial effects as that data is used to conserve, 

preserve, and restore ecological resources, including wildlife, fish, and habitat. The data 

would provide the public and private sectors with nautical charts, benthic habitat condition 

maps, current and tide charts, and other products that could support the management of 

fisheries. These products allow federal, state, and local governments to make informed 

decisions about fishing areas and other natural resource management issues. 

NOS developed additional mitigation measures in coordination and consultation with 

expert agencies including NMFS and USFWS to avoid and minimize any potential effects. 

Mitigation measures to protect fisheries include implementing mandatory invasive species 

prevention procedures and following the International Convention for the Prevention of 

Pollution by Ships (MARPOL) discharge protocols. NOS considered time-area restrictions 

for Black Sea Bass as suggested by the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (FMC). 

An evaluation of potential effectiveness and practicability of such a geographic and 

temporal mitigation resulted in a determination that restrictions as presented by the 

commenter were not warranted and impracticable. Time-area restrictions would impact 

NOS’ ability to collect data during suitable conditions for using acoustic sources and result 

in lost survey time. 

November 2022 38 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

Response to Public Comments for Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition 

NOS does not expect any mortality and very little injury of fish as a result of implementing 

any of the alternatives, including vessel strikes which are unlikely because of fish 

avoidance behavior. Vessel strikes are discussed in the PEIS in the cumulative impacts 

analysis in Section 3.2.4. 

Socioeconomic Resources-3: On page 260 of the Draft PEIS, herring-like fishes and cod-like 

fishes are listed as the most economically important in terms of commercial value. However, this 

is not necessarily true for Delaware and much of the Greater Atlantic Region. Based on 2016 data, 

key species for landings revenue in Delaware included American eel, blue crab, eastern oyster, 

quahog clam, striped bass, and whelks. Many State of Delaware fishermen fish the U.S. EEZ. 

However, due to the lack of a port to support large scale commercial landings, residents are forced 

to land and report catch in adjacent states, often bringing their product back to Delaware for sale. 

Additionally, Delaware is home to one of Sea Watch International’s (SWI) three processing plants. 

This Delaware founded company, has been granted the largest offshore clam allocation in the 

industry, utilizing 34 vessels for fishery harvests. SWI is also the nation’s largest supplier of 

branded canned and frozen clams. Although this product is not landed in Delaware, many of the 

harvested ocean quahog and surf clam come to Delaware for processing. As such, impacts that 

might affect commercial fishing resources in the U.S. EEZ have the potential to have significant 

impacts to our state’s economy. 

NOS Response: Thank you for providing information regarding indirect effects to 

Delaware’s commercial fishing industry. The values used to quantify the contribution to 

state gross domestic products (GDPs) were published by OCM in the NOAA Report on 

the U.S. Marine Economy which uses Economics: National Ocean Watch (ENOW) data. 

The purpose of this analysis was to review the economic impact of this programmatic 

action over the entire action area and the OCM data was the best available data for the 

entire action area. There may be discrepancies between state collected data and data 

collected by NOAA. The Proposed Action is not anticipated to have significant impacts to 

any commercially fished species. 

NOS assessed the potential impacts to fisheries, including fish, aquatic 

macroinvertebrates, EFH, and socioeconomic resources. Socioeconomic resources 

include commercial fishing, fish hatcheries and aquaculture, seafood processing, and 

seafood markets industries. All surveying and mapping activities listed in Section 2.0 could 

impact fisheries. Detailed analysis can be found in the following sections of the Final PEIS: 

Section 3.7 (Fish), Section 3.8 (Aquatic Macroinvertebrates), Section 3.9 (Essential Fish 

Habitat), and Section 3.12 (Socioeconomic Resources). Among the impacts assessed, 

effects to fish include some stress responses without permanent physiological damage, 

and some disturbance to breeding, feeding, or other activities, but without any impacts on 

population levels; additionally, there would not be long-term changes in habitat availability 

and use or in fish behavior. NOS also assessed the impact of interactions with fishing gear 

and survey equipment on the fishing industry. Effects to commercial and recreational 

fishing from gear interaction are very unlikely. 

Data collected by NOS would have beneficial effects as that data is used to conserve, 

preserve, and restore ecological resources, including wildlife, fish, and habitat. The data 

would provide the public and private sectors with nautical charts, benthic habitat condition 

maps, current and tide charts, and other products that could support the management of 

November 2022 39 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

Response to Public Comments for Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition 

fisheries. These products allow federal, state, and local governments to make informed 

decisions about fishing areas and other natural resource management issues. 

NOS developed additional mitigation measures in coordination and consultation with 

expert agencies including NMFS and USFWS to avoid and minimize any potential effects. 

Mitigation measures to protect fisheries include implementing mandatory invasive species 

prevention procedures and following MARPOL discharge protocols. NOS communicates 

with the public on future survey projects through announcements such as the annual 

Office of Coast Survey story map1 and, when appropriate, public “Notices to Mariners” to 

provide general information on timing and locations. This helps minimize interference with 

commercial and recreational fishing and reduces the potential for interactions with fishing 

gear like lobster traps. The full list of mitigation measures can be found in Appendix D of 

the Final PEIS. 

Overall, the impacts to fishery resources would be adverse, minor and insignificant as 

defined in the Final PEIS. NOS data collection and the resulting improvements in charting 

and mapping are expected to have indirect, beneficial, and moderate impacts on the ocean 

economy. 

Sea Turtles-1: Sea Turtles 

The Draft PEIS Section 3.6.1.2.1 Greater Atlantic Region indicates that there are no known sea 

turtle nest sites in the Greater Atlantic Region. However, there have been several occurrences of 

sea turtles nesting in Delaware, as well as in Maryland. Delaware’s most recent instance occurred 

in 2018 when 48 loggerhead hatchlings emerged from a nest at Fenwick Island State Park. 

NOS Response: Thank you for providing an example of sea turtles nesting in Delaware. 

This information from this event has been incorporated into Section 3.6.1.2.1 of the Final 

PEIS. 

Seabirds, Shorebirds & Coastal Birds, & Waterfowl-2: Seabirds, Shorebirds and Coastal Birds, 

and Waterfowl 

The Delaware shorelines and waterways are important sites for migrating and breeding 

shorebirds, marsh birds, and waterbirds. Delaware supports a number of federally-protected bird 

species including migrating rufa Red Knots (Calidris canutus rufa) and breeding Piping Plovers 

(Charadrius melodus). Hundreds of thousands of migrating shorebirds stop along the shorelines 

of Delaware Bay to refuel during their northward migration. Breeding secretive marsh birds, such 

as Saltmarsh Sparrows (Ammodramus caudacutus), are found within Delaware's saltmarshes. Pea 

Patch Island and smaller inland islands support large breeding heronries and waterbird colonies. 

Disturbance of key foraging locations and breeding areas may be detrimental to the survival and 

productivity of these birds. We suggest that any onshore or nearshore activities, such as the 

installation of monitoring stations, should avoid important foraging and breeding sites in Delaware. 

1 https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/33758b0990bb4e23a7b61323db3ae670 

November 2022 40 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

Response to Public Comments for Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition 

NOS Response: NOS has engaged in consultation with USFWS on potential effects to 

birds listed on the Endangered Species Act (ESA), including those with key foraging 

locations and breeding areas in Delaware. NOS also considered the effects on birds 

protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA). 

Onshore installations would only occupy very small proportions of available habitat, and 

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

onshore activities. During onshore projects, such as the installation, maintenance, and 

removal of shore-based Global Positioning System (GPS) reference stations and tide 

gauges, NOS would limit disturbance to foraging and breeding birds and take all necessary 

precautions to avoid wounding birds or disturbing nests during onshore activities. 

Additionally, birds likely cannot hear the majority of sounds produced by active acoustic 

underwater sound sources; thus, impacts from acoustic sources during nearshore 

activities would be limited. Birds and their prey are expected to return to project areas 

after the completion of NOS project activities with no long-term changes in habitat 

availability, habitat use, or energy expenditure. 

Cultural and Historic Resources-20: With respect to potential impacts to cultural and historic 

resources analyzed by NOS in the Draft PEIS, in consultation with Delaware’s State Historic 

Preservation Office (DE SHPO), DCMP suggests NOS re-define moderate in Section 3.11.2.1 

Methodology regarding its significance. Moderate impact is categorized as insignificant under 

NOS-determined significance criteria. 

The definition of adverse effect under regulations 36 CFR Part 800 – Protection of Historic 

Properties, is closely matched to the NOS-determined definition of moderate impact, but NOS 

considers them insignificant. In conjunction with DE SHPO, DCMP suggests that NOS should 

consider moderate impact as significant to appropriately relate to the regulations. 

NOS Response: Significance criteria and determinations presented in the PEIS were 

developed for the purpose of compliance with NEPA. Impacts that would be considered 

major and significant are defined in Table 3.11-1 under NEPA; none of the potential 

impacts from NOS activities were evaluated to be major and significant. 

While the Final PEIS will be used to inform NOS responsibilities under NHPA, NOS will 

comply with Section 106 of the NHPA for any activity that has the potential to affect cultural 

or historic resources as described in the regulations at 36 CFR 800.8, regardless of the 

NEPA impact category. NOS will conduct project-specific NHPA consultations before 

commencing any project with the potential to affect cultural or historic resources. 

NOS looks forward to working with the State of Delaware for the protection of cultural and 

historic resources. 

Cultural and Historic Resources-21: Additionally, DCMP shares the request of DE SHPO for 

similar data sharing initiatives in Section 3.11.2.2.1 Anchoring as in Section 3.11.2.2.2 Bottom 

Sampling. In the case that anchoring cannot be conducted within a previously surveyed area as 

proposed in the PEIS and SHPOs cannot be consulted beforehand, there may be an occasion 

November 2022 41 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

Response to Public Comments for Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition 

where a historic property is discovered while anchoring. In this case, we request that NOS include 

protocol for data sharing in the PEIS. 

NOS Response: NOS added language to Section 3.11.2.2.1 that “in the event anchoring 

results in the discovery of a cultural or historic property, the coordinates of the discovery 

would be noted and provided to the appropriate SHPO along with any information 

collected.” 

CZMA-24: As data collection activities are planned, DCMP expects NOS to submit federal 

consistency determinations for activities with reasonably foreseeable direct and/or indirect effects 

on any coastal use or resource (15 CFR § 930.33). DCMP is of the opinion that exploration, survey, 

and testing activities will have reasonably foreseeable coastal effects due to the potential to cause 

seafloor disturbance, temporary or permanent decrease in water or air quality, impacts to living 

resources and their habitats, and impacts to cultural and historical resources. 

NOS Response: NOS has completed the Delaware CZMA Federal Consistency Form for 

the Proposed Action. This form was included with the CZMA Consistency Determination 

letter sent to the Delaware CMP. NOS understands its responsibilities under CZMA. NOS 

provided CD letters to all coastal states and territories with approved CMPs. The CDs 

evaluate the coastal effects of proposed activities according to the relevant enforceable 

policies to make a consistency determination under CZMA. 

November 2022 42 
 

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

Response to Public Comments for Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition 

2.11 Delaware Natural Resources and Environmental Control (DNREC) 

(Kristi Lieske) 

2.11.1 Comment Submission 

November 2022 43 
From: Lieske, Kristi M (DNREC) 

To: NOSAA Environmental Compliance - NOAA Service Account 

Cc: Michelle.Smyk@solvllc.com; Mensch, Laura (DNREC) 

Subject: RE: NOAA National Ocean Service Releases Draft PEIS for Surveying and Mapping Projects 

Date: Friday, October 15, 2021 8:12:53 AM 

Good morning Giannina, 

Thank you for the advanced notice. Delaware Coastal Programs looks forward to continued 

coordination for NOS survey activities. Please also include Laura Mensch, Regulatory Programs 

Manager, (cc’d above) on future communications. 

Thank you, 

Kristi 

Kristi Lieske 

Planner IV 

DNREC Delaware Coastal Programs 

100 W. Water St. Ste 7B, Dover, Delaware 19904 

(302) 739-9136 

From: NOSAA Environmental Compliance - NOAA Service Account <nosaa.ec@noaa.gov> 

Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2021 6:41 PM 

To: Lieske, Kristi M (DNREC) <Kristi.Lieske@delaware.gov> 

Cc: Michelle.Smyk@solvllc.com 

Subject: Re: NOAA National Ocean Service Releases Draft PEIS for Surveying and Mapping Projects 

Ms. Lieske, 

NOS will soon be submitting requests to all coastal states for General Consistency Concurrence 

under CZMA. We will be reaching out to you shortly regarding the process. Thank you! 

v/r 

Giannina DiMaio 

NOS Environmental Compliance Coordinator 

Pronouns: she/her/hers 

NOAA, National Ocean Service 

Office of the Assistant Administrator 

1305 East-West Hwy, SSMC4 13th Floor 

Silver Spring, MD 20910 

V: 240-533-0918 

nosaa.ec@noaa.gov 

On Wed, Jul 21, 2021 at 2:13 PM Lieske, Kristi M (DNREC) <Kristi.Lieske@delaware.gov> wrote: 
 

 

Good afternoon, 

Thank you for inviting the Delaware Coastal Management Program to review and comment on the 

Draft PEIS for Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for Coastal and Marine Data 

Acquisition. I represent our federal consistency program and am responsible for coordinating our 

review. Does the geographic scope of data collection activities include State waters (0-3 nautical 

miles)? I’ve found several instances where the Draft PEIS says the scope includes “states’ offshore 

waters" but I want to be sure I correctly understand the exact meaning. 

Thank you for your help. 

Kristi 

Kristi Lieske 

Environmental Scientist II 

DNREC Delaware Coastal Programs 

100 W. Water St. Ste 7B, Dover, Delaware 19904 

(302) 739-9136 

From: NOSAA Environmental Compliance - NOAA Service Account <nosaa.ec@noaa.gov> 

Sent: Friday, June 25, 2021 4:33 PM 

Subject: NOAA National Ocean Service Releases Draft PEIS for Surveying and Mapping Projects 

Dear Federal Consistency Coordinator, 

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) National Ocean 

Service (NOS) has prepared a Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact 

Statement (PEIS) for Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for Coastal 

and Marine Data Acquisition pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act. The 

Draft PEIS is now available for a 60-day public comment ending August 24, 2021. 

The Notice of Availability was published today in the Federal Register. 

The Draft PEIS analyzes the potential environmental impacts of recurring surveying 

and mapping data collection in United States coastal and marine waters over a 

period of six years. The analysis in this document covers the use of active acoustic 

equipment such as sub-bottom profilers, single beam and multibeam echo 

sounders, and side-scan sonars by NOS to collect data on the depths and shapes 

of underwater terrain, including the ocean, rivers, and lakes. The Draft PEIS 

analyzes impacts to critical environmental resources such as marine mammals, 

endangered and threatened species, and cultural and historic resources. The 

document can be found on the NOS Surveying and Mapping Draft PEIS website 

at https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/about/environmental-compliance/surveyingmapping.html. 

Attached is the notification letter with additional information regarding the Draft 
PEIS. 

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me by phone at 240-533-0918 

or email at nosaa.ec@noaa.gov. 

v/r 

Giannina DiMaio 

NOS Environmental Compliance Coordinator 

Pronouns: she/her/hers 

NOAA, National Ocean Service 

Office of the Assistant Administrator 

1305 East-West Hwy, SSMC4 13th Floor 

Silver Spring, MD 20910 

V: 240-533-0918 

nosaa.ec@noaa.gov 
 

 

 

 

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

Response to Public Comments for Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition 

2.11.2 NOS Response 

CZMA-3: Delaware Coastal Programs looks forward to continued coordination for NOS survey 

activities. Please also include Laura Mensch, Regulatory Programs Manager, (cc’d above) on 

future communications. 

NOS Response: NOS will continue to coordinate with Delaware Coastal Programs and will 

include Laura Mensch, Regulatory Programs Manager, on future communications. 

Scope-7: Does the geographic scope of data collection activities include State waters (0-3 

nautical miles)? I’ve found several instances where the Draft PEIS says the scope includes “states’ 

offshore waters" but I want to be sure I correctly understand the exact meaning. 

NOS Response: Yes, the PEIS analyzes the environmental impacts of a suite of surveying 

and mapping data collection activities that could occur in state waters. 

November 2022 44 
 

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

Response to Public Comments for Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition 

2.12 Donlin Gold (Kristina Woolston) 

2.12.1 Comment Submission 

November 2022 45 
 

 

 

November 22, 2021 

DOC/NOAA/NOS Environmental Compliance Coordinator 

SSMC4-Station 13612 

1305 East West Highway 

Silver Spring, MD 20910 

Re: Comments on Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) -

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

Acquisition, NOAA-NOS-2021-0055 

Dear Sir/Madam: 

Thank you for the opportunity to provide these comments regarding the National Ocean 

Service’s (NOS’) Draft PEIS for Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for 

Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition. Donlin Gold, LLC (Donlin Gold) is in the process 

of advancing the Donlin Gold Project (Project) which includes marine barging in the 

coastal waters of western Alaska. Therefore, we are important stakeholders in NOS’ 

efforts to better define the subsurface conditions in these waters. 

The Project involves a large gold mine project along the Kuskokwim River about 300 

miles west of Anchorage. The Project area is very remote with no road access. 

Therefore, cargo and diesel fuel would be transported by barge via the ocean and then up 

the Kuskokwim River. Ports would be constructed in Bethel and upriver near the Project 

site. We received our federal Joint Record of Decision in 2018 after a multi-year NEPA 

review process. 

The Project’s transportation plan has been designed for an annual volume of 115,000 tons 

of cargo during operations. The cargo would be shipped from Pacific Northwest (Seattle, 

WA and Vancouver, BC) ports via ocean barges towed by ocean-going tugs to Bethel. 

Each ocean barge would be 360 feet long by 100 feet wide and would have a net cargo 

capacity of 10,040 tons at a maximum draft of 16 feet. The Project also requires fuel, and 

the diesel transportation plan has been designed for a peak annual usage of 42.3 million 

gallons. Diesel would be shipped from the Pacific Northwest to Dutch Harbor, where it 

would be transferred to a double-hull, 2.94-million-gallon capacity ocean fuel barge for 

delivery to Bethel. Overall, the total number of ocean barges to Bethel would be 30 

during Project construction (16 cargo barges plus 14 fuel barges), and 26 during 

operations (12 cargo barges plus 14 fuel barges). 

The Project is located on Alaska Native lands. The Alaska Native Claims Settlement 

Act, or ANSCA, is now celebrating its 50 anniversary and represented an extraordinary 

Donlin Gold, 2525 C St., Suite 450, Anchorage, AK 99503 

Tel (907) 273-0200 Fax (907) 273-0201 www.DonlinGold.com 
 

 

 

 

[Recipient Name] 

November 22, 2021 

milestone in terms of allowing Alaska Natives to select their lands and resources for their 

shareholders. Calista Regional Corporation owns the minerals and some of the lands at 

Donlin. Remaining lands are owned by The Kuskokwim Corporation, or TKC, that 

represents the local villages in the Middle Kuskokwim area. We operate Donlin Gold 

under life-of-mine agreements with each of these corporations and they are our true 

partners in developing the Project. 

Donlin Gold’s comments on Draft PEIS include: 

• Programmatic EISs serve an important function in allowing a detailed, often 

multi-year, NEPA review of similar activities that then facilitates efficient, project 

specific reviews and approvals of individual actions. In this case, the Draft PEIS 

provides an appropriately comprehensive analysis of the broader surveying 

activities planned for the next 6 years so that individual mapping projects can be 

approved and proceed in a timely manner. We, therefore, strongly urge NOS to 

finalize the FEIS and a Record of Decision. 

• Donlin Gold recognizes that NOS has identified Alternative B as the preferred 

alternative considering current funding levels and supports this alternative based 

on using the latest technologies to conduct surveys. We, however, would prefer 

adoption of Alternative C to provide additional data if funding is available. 

• The Draft PEIS properly recognizes that “Alaskan and U.S. Arctic waters are

especially important survey targets...Alaska’s approximately 55,000 kilometers 

(34,000 miles) of coastline contain oil, natural gas, minerals, fish, and other 

resources that will play an important future role in the U.S. economy, all of which 

must transit Alaska’s waterways to reach domestic and international markets." 

Based on the this, Donlin Gold strongly urges NOS to maintain or increase the 

proposed 583,072 nautical miles of Alaska survey work under Alternative B, and, 

if the funding becomes available, the 636,078 nautical miles proposed under 

Alternative C. 

• As indicated in the Draft PEIS, the coast of Alaska provides very important 

habitat for migratory birds, marine mammals, and a range of fish species. We 

concur with the general finding that the proposed surveying and mapping can be 

done with negligible, insignificant, or minor effects on biological resources, 

especially with continued Endangered Species Act and Essential Fish Habitat 

consultation and appropriate mitigations measures developed with the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, the National Marine Fisheries Service, and, in Alaska, the 

Alaska Department of Fish and Game. 

• NOS’s Alaska Fact Sheet highlights the benefits of the proposed action by 

indicating that “the data collected by NOS surveying and mapping projects could 

provide valuable information for subsistence hunting and fishing activities in the 

form of nautical charts and topographic maps of the sea floor.” We suggest 

expanding this to further recognize that much of the transport along the Alaska 

coast involves cargo that is critical to businesses and projects owned and operated 

by Alaska Natives. Accurate surveying and mapping data will, therefore, yield 

Donlin Gold, 2525 C St., Suite 450, Anchorage, AK 99503 

Tel (907) 273-0200 Fax (907) 273-0201 www.DonlinGold.com 
 

 

 

[Recipient Name] 

November 22, 2021 

additional social and economic benefits to these groups. This is consistent with 

the preceding language regarding supporting the economic stability of subsistence 

communities as well as the reference in Table ES-2 that the studies will have 

beneficial effects on Environmental Justice communities. These findings further 

support the importance and prioritization work in Alaskan coastal waters. 

• We support the plan to avoid areas with active subsistence fishing and hunting 

and the continued communication with Alaska Natives in planning and 

performing surveying and mapping activities. 

• Finally, we fully support comments submitted by Calista Regional Corporation, 

our Alaska Native Corporation partner in the Project. 

Donlin Gold appreciates the opportunity to provide these comments and looks forward to 

working with NOS to plan and implement its important marine surveying and mapping 

efforts in Alaska coastal waters. 

Sincerely, 

Kristina Woolston 

External Affairs Manager 

Donlin Gold, 2525 C St., Suite 450, Anchorage, AK 99503 

Tel (907) 273-0200 Fax (907) 273-0201 www.DonlinGold.com 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

Response to Public Comments for Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition 

2.12.2 NOS Response 

Cumulative Impacts-6: Donlin Gold, LLC (Donlin Gold) is in the process of advancing the Donlin 

Gold Project (Project) which includes marine barging in the coastal waters of western Alaska. 

Therefore, we are important stakeholders in NOS’ efforts to better define the subsurface 

conditions in these waters. 

The Project involves a large gold mine project along the Kuskokwim River about 300 miles west 

of Anchorage. The Project area is very remote with no road access. 

Therefore, cargo and diesel fuel would be transported by barge via the ocean and then up the 

Kuskokwim River. Ports would be constructed in Bethel and upriver near the Project site. We 

received our federal Joint Record of Decision in 2018 after a multi-year NEPA review process. 

The Project’s transportation plan has been designed for an annual volume of 115,000 tons of 

cargo during operations. The cargo would be shipped from Pacific Northwest (Seattle, WA and 

Vancouver, BC) ports via ocean barges towed by ocean-going tugs to Bethel. 

Each ocean barge would be 360 feet long by 100 feet wide and would have a net cargo capacity 

of 10,040 tons at a maximum draft of 16 feet. The Project also requires fuel, and the diesel 

transportation plan has been designed for a peak annual usage of 42.3 million gallons. Diesel 

would be shipped from the Pacific Northwest to Dutch Harbor, where it would be transferred to a 

double-hull, 2.94-million-gallon capacity ocean fuel barge for delivery to Bethel. Overall, the total 

number of ocean barges to Bethel would be 30 during Project construction (16 cargo barges plus 

14 fuel barges), and 26 during operations (12 cargo barges plus 14 fuel barges). 

The Project is located on Alaska Native lands. The Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, or 

ANSCA, is now celebrating its 50 anniversary and represented an extraordinary milestone in 

terms of allowing Alaska Natives to select their lands and resources for their shareholders. Calista 

Regional Corporation owns the minerals and some of the lands at Donlin. Remaining lands are 

owned by The Kuskokwim Corporation, or TKC, that represents the local villages in the Middle 

Kuskokwim area. We operate Donlin Gold under life-of-mine agreements with each of these 

corporations and they are our true partners in developing the Project. 

NOS Response: Thank you for providing more information on the Donlin Gold Project 

occurring along the Kuskokwim River. Projects such as the Donlin Gold Project are 

considered in the cumulative impact scenario in the Final PEIS under Section 4.1.12, 

Coastal Development and 4.1.5 Commercial Shipping and Recreational Boating. 

NOS recognizes its responsibility to conduct consultation when federal actions and 

decisions may have implications on ANCs. NOS would like to assure Donlin Gold that NOS 

recognizes its responsibility to conduct consultation with federally recognized ANCs on 

the same basis as federally recognized Indian tribes under EO 13175 (Public Law (Pub. 

L.) 108-199, 118 Stat. 452, as amended by Pub. L. 108-447, 118 Stat. 3267). 

NOS understands that protecting Alaska Native subsistence resources is vital. NOS 

intends to notify individual tribes and ANCs pursuant to EO 13175 before conducting any 

project that may have tribal implications. Federally recognized tribes and ANCs may 

November 2022 46 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

Response to Public Comments for Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition 

request government-to-government consultation at any time for a proposed action that 

may have tribal implications. 

NEPA Process-12: Programmatic EISs serve an important function in allowing a detailed, often 

multi-year, NEPA review of similar activities that then facilitates efficient, project specific reviews 

and approvals of individual actions. In this case, the Draft PEIS provides an appropriately 

comprehensive analysis of the broader surveying activities planned for the next 6 years so that 

individual mapping projects can be approved and proceed in a timely manner. We, therefore, 

strongly urge NOS to finalize the FEIS and a Record of Decision. 

NOS Response: Thank you for your support of the analysis in the PEIS. 

Alternatives-5: Donlin Gold recognizes that NOS has identified Alternative B as the preferred 

alternative considering current funding levels and supports this alternative based on using the 

latest technologies to conduct surveys. We, however, would prefer adoption of Alternative C to 

provide additional data if funding is available. 

NOS Response: Thank you for your support of Alternative C in which NOS would adopt 

new techniques and technologies to encourage greater program efficiencies regarding 

surveying, mapping, charting, and related data gathering activities with an overall potential 

funding increase of 20 percent relative to Alternative B. 

Alternatives-6: The Draft PEIS properly recognizes that “Alaskan and U.S. Arctic waters are 

especially important survey targets...Alaska’s approximately 55,000 kilometers (34,000 miles) of 

coastline contain oil, natural gas, minerals, fish, and other resources that will play an important 

future role in the U.S. economy, all of which must transit Alaska’s waterways to reach domestic 

and international markets."" Based on the this, Donlin Gold strongly urges NOS to maintain or 

increase the proposed 583,072 nautical miles of Alaska survey work under Alternative B, and, if 

the funding becomes available, the 636,078 nautical miles proposed under Alternative C. 

NOS Response: NOS continues to prioritize mapping and surveying of the Alaskan and 

U.S. Arctic waters. Alaskan communities can reach out to the NOAA Alaska Navigation 

Manager to engage in the planning process for future surveying and mapping projects. 

Information regarding contacting NOAA Navigation Managers can be found at the 

following website: https://nauticalcharts.noaa.gov/customer-service/regionalmanagers/index.html. 

Mitigation Measures-20: As indicated in the Draft PEIS, the coast of Alaska provides very 

important habitat for migratory birds, marine mammals, and a range of fish species. We concur 

with the general finding that the proposed surveying and mapping can be done with negligible, 

insignificant, or minor effects on biological resources, especially with continued Endangered 

Species Act and Essential Fish Habitat consultation and appropriate mitigations measures 

developed with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the National Marine Fisheries Service, and, in 

Alaska, the Alaska Department of Fish and Game. 

NOS Response: Thank you for your comment concurring with our analysis. The Final PEIS 

has been updated to include additional mitigation measures; please see the appropriate 

resource sections and Appendix D to see the full range of mitigation measures that NOS 

November 2022 47 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

Response to Public Comments for Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition 

has developed to be implemented on each project as appropriate to minimize the impacts 

on species. The additional mitigation measures in the Final PEIS were developed with 

subject matter experts and in coordination with field crews and with NMFS, USFWS, and 

ONMS. 

Environmental Justice-14: NOS’s Alaska Fact Sheet highlights the benefits of the proposed 

action by indicating that “the data collected by NOS surveying and mapping projects could 

provide valuable information for subsistence hunting and fishing activities in the form of nautical 

charts and topographic maps of the sea floor.” We suggest expanding this to further recognize 

that much of the transport along the Alaska coast involves cargo that is critical to businesses and 

projects owned and operated by Alaska Natives. Accurate surveying and mapping data will, 

therefore, yield additional social and economic benefits to these groups. This is consistent with 

the preceding language regarding supporting the economic stability of subsistence communities 

as well as the reference in Table ES-2 that the studies will have beneficial effects on Environmental 

Justice communities. These findings further support the importance and prioritization work in 

Alaskan coastal waters. 

NOS Response: Thank you for your support of the NOS surveying and mapping projects 

in Alaskan waters. NOS has revised the Socioeconomics Environmental Consequences 

Section in the Final PEIS to add that the data collected as part of the Proposed Action 

would benefit transportation operations along the Alaska coast which involve cargo that is 

critical to businesses and projects owned and operated by Alaska Natives. 

Environmental Justice-15: We support the plan to avoid areas with active subsistence fishing 

and hunting and the continued communication with Alaska Natives in planning and performing 

surveying and mapping activities. 

NOS Response: Thank you for your comment. NOS is committed to ongoing 

communication with both federally recognized tribes and ANCs to understand the 

implications of NOS activities in Alaska and to mitigate the effects on subsistence activities, 

food security, and climate change. Please be assured that NOS will notify the appropriate 

ANC when surveying and mapping activities are planned for the coastal waters in Alaska. 

Future Coordination-13: Donlin Gold appreciates the opportunity to provide these comments 

and looks forward to working with NOS to plan and implement its important marine surveying and 

mapping efforts in Alaska coastal waters. 

NOS Response: Thank you for your comment and support of the Proposed Action. 

November 2022 48 
 

 

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

Response to Public Comments for Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition 

2.13 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (Robert Tomiak) 

2.13.1 Comment Submission 

November 2022 49 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 

OFFICE OF 

POLICY 

August 18, 2021 

Giannina DiMaio 

National Ocean Service, NOAA 

SSMC4-Station 13612 

1305 East West Highway 

Silver Spring, Maryland 20910 

Dear Ms. DiMaio: 

In accordance with our responsibilities under Section 309 of the Clean Air Act and the National 

Environmental Policy Act, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has reviewed the National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact 

Statement (PEIS) for the Surveying and Mapping Projects in United States Waters for Coastal and 

Marine Data Acquisition (CEQ No. 20210083). 

According to the draft PEIS, NOAA uses hydroacoustic surveys to map the ocean floor to provide 

reliable nautical charts, benthic habitat condition and distribution maps, fishery distribution maps, current 

and tide charts, and other products necessary for safe navigation, economic security, environmental 

sustainability, and sound marine resource decision-making in U.S. ocean and coastal waters. These charts 

and maps are needed to provide reliable navigation, ecosystem distribution and condition information to 

the public, private users, and decision makers. Up-to-date navigation charts are used to ensure safety, 

efficiency of transit, and economic well-being. The preferred alternative includes adoption of new 

techniques and technologies as well as continuing with current activities at a higher level of effort. 

We appreciate the opportunity to review this draft PEIS and have no concerns on the proposed action. 

We look forward to reviewing the final PEIS related to this project. If you have any questions, please 

contact Jacob Widner, the lead reviewer for this review, at 202-564-4462 or by email at 

Widner.Jacob@epa.gov. 

Sincerely, 

for

Robert Tomiak 

Director 

Office of Federal Activities 
 

 

 

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

Response to Public Comments for Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition 

2.13.2 NOS Response 

Proposed Action-2: The preferred alternative includes adoption of new techniques and 

technologies as well as continuing with current activities at a higher level of effort. We appreciate 

the opportunity to review this draft PEIS and have no concerns on the proposed action. 

NOS Response: Thank you for your comment. 

November 2022 50 
 

 

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

Response to Public Comments for Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition 

2.14 Indiana Department of Natural Resources (Cathy Draeger-Williams) 

2.14.1 Comment Submission 

November 2022 51 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

From: NOSAA Environmental Compliance - NOAA Service Account 

To: Draeger-Williams, Cathy 

Subject: Re: Draft PEIS for surveying and mapping 

Date: Tuesday, July 6, 2021 5:23:04 PM 

Cathy, 

Thank you for providing these comments and concerns. We will certainly take this 

information into consideration as we are developing the programmatic approach for Section 

106 and ensure you are part of the consultation process. 

I look forward to working with you going forward. 

v/r 

Giannina DiMaio 

NOS Environmental Compliance Coordinator 

Pronouns: she/her/hers 

NOAA, National Ocean Service 

Office of the Assistant Administrator 

1305 East-West Hwy, SSMC4 13th Floor 

Silver Spring, MD 20910 

V: 240-533-0918 

nosaa.ec@noaa.gov 

On Tue, Jul 6, 2021 at 1:24 PM Draeger-Williams, Cathy <CDraeger-Williams@dnr.in.gov> 

wrote: 

Thank you for clarifying. We are willing to be a part of the consultation. Here are a few 

comments/concerns. 

Surveying and mapping activities should strive to be non-intrusive. 

Shipwrecks should be avoided by any ground disturbance, anchoring, equipment placement 

or other activity that would impact the components of the shipwreck. Depth of shipwreck 

components should be considered. The locations must also be kept confidential from public 

disclosure. Please be aware that field investigations on state property (i.e. the lakebed) 

must comply with state statutes. 

If equipment placement is part of any terrestrial activities, would these be considered 

temporary and would they consider the visual effect of potential historic properties in the 

viewshed. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Who is evaluating if the activity fits under the PA and if resources are present or not? Does 

this person have access to the records? 

Thanks. 

Cathy Draeger-Williams 

Archaeologist 

Indiana Department of Natural Resources 

Division of Historic Preservation and Archaeology 

317 234-3791 

Cdraeger-williams@dnr.in.gov 

From: NOSAA Environmental Compliance - NOAA Service Account 

<nosaa.ec@noaa.gov> 

Sent: Tuesday, July 6, 2021 12:44 PM 

To: Draeger-Williams, Cathy <CDraeger-Williams@dnr.in.gov> 

Subject: Re: Draft PEIS for surveying and mapping 

Cathy, 

Thank you for taking the time to reach out to me regarding our plans for Section 106 

Consultation under the NHPA. The Draft PEIS is not intended to substitute the 

requirement to consult with SHPOs. The document was provided to State Historic 

Preservation Offices and Tribal Historic Preservation Officers for information and 

awareness. The Draft PEIS was also provided to all federally recognized tribes in 

the action area as well as Native Hawaiian Organizations and Alaska Native tribes 

as part of our government-to-government consultation process. 

NOS will be working on a programmatic approach with the Advisory Council on 

Historic Preservation (ACHP) and the National Conference of SHPOs. It is our 

understanding SHPOs will be part of this process. We would appreciate any 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

comments or assistance in identifying historic or cultural resources that may be 

potentially affected by NOS surveying and mapping activities in your area. 

Additionally, if you have any thoughts or suggestions on how we could minimize or 

avoid potential adverse impacts of our surveying and mapping activities to historic 

properties that would be helpful as we develop a programmatic agreement with 

SHPOs. 

My apologies for the delayed response as I was on leave last week. Please feel free 

to contact me if you have any additional questions or would like to discuss the 

process further. 

v/r 

Giannina DiMaio 

NOS Environmental Compliance Coordinator 

Pronouns: she/her/hers 

NOAA, National Ocean Service 

Office of the Assistant Administrator 

1305 East-West Hwy, SSMC4 13th Floor 

Silver Spring, MD 20910 

V: 240-533-0918 

nosaa.ec@noaa.gov 

On Mon, Jun 28, 2021 at 11:57 AM Draeger-Williams, Cathy <CDraegerWilliams@dnr.in.gov> wrote: 

We would like to provide comments but also have a few questions. There may be cultural 

resources that might be affected by some of the proposed activities, such as anchoring or 

placing equipment depending on the locations. Will the typical Section 106 process be 

completed including consultation with the SHPO? Or is this PEIS more of a 

programmatic agreement to streamline the NEPA/Section 106 process? If this is part of a 

larger Nationwide PA with the ACHP, will the individual SHPOs be involved in 

consultation as well? I apologize for any misunderstanding. Thank you. 
 

 

 

Cathy Draeger-Williams 

Archaeologist 

Indiana State Historic Preservation Office 

Indiana Department of Natural Resources 

Division of Historic Preservation and Archaeology 

317 234-3791 

Cdraeger-williams@dnr.in.gov 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

Response to Public Comments for Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition 

2.14.2 NOS Response 

Mitigation Measures-4: Surveying and mapping activities should strive to be non-intrusive. 

NOS Response: NOS agrees and has implemented mitigation measures to be as nonintrusive as possible. As stated in Section 3.11.2 of the PEIS, most NOS actions were 

determined to have no potential to cause effects to historic properties include: operation 

of crewed vessels, operation of remotely operated vehicles and uncrewed/autonomous 

systems; use of echo sounders; use of acoustic doppler current profilers (ADCP), use of 

acoustic communication systems, use of sound speed data collection equipment, 

operation of drop/towed cameras and video systems, use of passive listening systems. 

Substrate-disturbing activities, such as anchoring and bottom sampling, could have 

negligible to moderate adverse impacts depending upon the extent of damage caused to 

the resource and the cultural significance of the resource damaged. Although anchoring 

has the potential to impact submerged isolated artifacts from prehistoric or historic 

voyages, resources submerged as a result of sea level rise, or undocumented downed 

aircraft or shipwrecks, the likelihood of an anchor landing on a historic resource is low. 

When working in an un-surveyed area or in an area that has not been surveyed in many 

years, the ship would try to anchor in bays where data have already been collected, 

providing the ship with better information on where to drop the anchor. These practices 

would minimize the potential for adverse impacts to submerged cultural or historic 

resources. Likewise, when sampling the sea floor, samples would be obtained from only 

the top few inches of sediment. This is unlikely to disturb any objects that may be present, 

as it is likely that there is a thick layer of sediment over long-buried objects. 

Cultural and Historic Resources-5: We would like to provide comments but also have a few 

questions. There may be cultural resources that might be affected by some of the proposed 

activities, such as anchoring or placing equipment depending on the locations. Will the typical 

Section 106 process be completed including consultation with the SHPO? Or is this PEIS more of 

a programmatic agreement to streamline the NEPA/Section 106 process? If this is part of a larger 

Nationwide PA with the ACHP, will the individual SHPOs be involved in consultation as well? I 

apologize for any misunderstanding. 

NOS Response: Thank you for taking the time to reach out to NOS regarding our plans 

for Section 106 consultation under the NHPA. While the Final PEIS will be used to inform 

NOS responsibilities under NHPA, NOS will comply with Section 106 of the NHPA for any 

activity that has the potential to affect cultural or historic resources as described in the 

regulations at 36 CFR 800.8. The PEIS was provided to SHPOs, THPOs, federally 

recognized tribes, Native Hawaiian Organizations, and Alaska Native tribes and 

corporations for information and awareness. 

While NOS may consider developing a PA for multiple undertakings in the future, NOS will 

initiate project-specific consultations under Section 106 of the NHPA before commencing 

any activity with the potential to affect cultural or historic resources. 

Cultural and Historic Resources-6: Shipwrecks should be avoided by any ground disturbance, 

anchoring, equipment placement or other activity that would impact the components of the 

November 2022 52 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

Response to Public Comments for Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition 

shipwreck. Depth of shipwreck components should be considered. The locations must also be 

kept confidential from public disclosure. 

NOS Response: NOS understands the potential for some surveying activities to affect 

historic properties. See 3.11.2 of the Final PEIS for more details on impacts to shipwrecks 

from anchoring, bottom sampling, tide gauges, buoys and GPS reference stations. NOS 

considers the depth and position of shipwrecks when avoiding their location. This PEIS 

considers the impacts to historical and cultural resources from data collection, as 

discussed in Chapter 3, Section 3.11, Cultural Resources. NOS understands the need for 

protecting sensitive data. NOAA, like other federal agencies, is required to comply with 

Section 304 of the NHPA, which protects certain sensitive information about historic 

properties from disclosure to the public when such disclosure could result in a significant 

invasion of privacy, damage to the historic property, or impede the use of a traditional 

religious site by practitioners. NOS will comply with Section 304 of the NHPA in the course 

of creating public data products. 

CZMA-4: Please be aware that field investigations on state property (i.e. the lakebed) must comply 

with state statutes. 

NOS Response: Pursuant to the CZMA, federal agencies must comply with approved 

state coastal enforceable policies, some of which contain state laws, to the maximum 

extent practicable. NOS provided CD letters to all coastal states and territories with 

approved CMPs. The CDs evaluate the coastal effects of proposed activities according to 

the relevant enforceable policies to make a consistency determination under CZMA. 

Cultural and Historic Resources-7: If equipment placement is part of any terrestrial activities, 

would these be considered temporary and would they consider the visual effect of potential 

historic properties in the viewshed. 

NOS Response: Installations of tide gauges, buoys, and GPS reference stations could be 

temporary or permanent, depending on the project. NOS understands that installations 

could affect the viewshed of a historic property or designed cultural landscape. NOS will 

initiate project-specific consultations under Section 106 of the NHPA before commencing 

any activity with the potential to affect cultural or historic resources. 

Cultural and Historic Resources-8: Who is evaluating if the activity fits under the PA and if 

resources are present or not? Does this person have access to the records? 

NOS Response: NOS-trained environmental compliance coordinators will evaluate 

proposed projects and review project areas for listed or eligible properties before 

commencing any project that has the potential to affect cultural or historic resources. NOS 

will contact the appropriate SHPO/THPO to identify cultural and historic properties. For 

offshore projects, NOS has access to charts and several databases of shipwrecks for 

reference during project planning. 

November 2022 53 
 

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

Response to Public Comments for Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition 

2.15 Louisiana Department of Natural Resources (Charles Reulet) 

2.15.1 Comment Submission 

November 2022 54 
 

 

 

JOHN BEL EDWARDS THOMAS F. HARRIS 

GOVERNOR SECRETARY 

State of Louisiana 

DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES 

OFFICE OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT 

July 26, 2021 

Giannina DiMaio 

National Ocean Service 

National Ocean and Atmospheric Administration 

1305 East West Highway, SSMC4 13th Floor 

Silver Spring, MD 20910 

Via email: nosaa.ec@noaa.gov 

RE: C20210090, Coastal Zone Consistency 

NOAA National Ocean Service 

Direct Federal Action 

Draft PEIS for Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for Coastal and Marine 

Data Aquisition 

Offshore Louisiana 

Dear Ms. DiMaio: 

The above referenced project has been reviewed for consistency with the Louisiana Coastal 

Resources Program in accordance with Section 307 (c) of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 

1972, as amended. The project, as proposed in the application, is consistent with the LCRP. 

If you have any questions concerning this determination please contact Jim Bondy of the 

Consistency Section at (225) 342-3870 or james.bondy@la.gov. 

Sincerely, 

/S/ Charles Reulet 

Administrator 

Interagency Affairs/Field Services Division 

CR/MH/jab 

cc: Dave Butler, LDWF 

Post Office Box 44487 • Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70804-4487 

617 North Third Street • 10th Floor • Suite 1078 • Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70802

(225) 342-7591 • Fax (225) 342-9439 • http://www.dnr.louisiana.gov 

An Equal Opportunity Employer 
 

 

 

 

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

Response to Public Comments for Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition 

2.15.2 NOS Response 

CZMA-5: The above referenced project has been reviewed for consistency with the Louisiana 

Coastal Resources Program in accordance with Section 307 (c) of the Coastal Zone Management 

Act of 1972, as amended. The project, as proposed in the application, is consistent with the LCRP. 

NOS Response: Thank you for your consideration and consistency determination. NOS 

provided CD letters to all coastal states and territories with approved CMPs. The CDs 

evaluate the coastal effects of proposed activities according to the relevant enforceable 

policies to make a consistency determination under CZMA. 

November 2022 55 
 

 

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

Response to Public Comments for Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition 

2.16 Maryland Department of Natural Resources (Joseph Abe) 

2.16.1 Comment Submission 

November 2022 56 
 

-- 

From: NOSAA Environmental Compliance - NOAA Service Account 

To: Michelle.Smyk@solvllc.com 

Subject: Fwd: August 24 Deadline/Request Potential Extension 

Date: Friday, October 15, 2021 11:37:00 AM 

v/r 

Giannina DiMaio 

NOS Environmental Compliance Coordinator 

Pronouns: she/her/hers 

NOAA, National Ocean Service 

Office of the Assistant Administrator 

1305 East-West Hwy, SSMC4 13th Floor 

Silver Spring, MD 20910 

V: 240-533-0918 

nosaa.ec@noaa.gov 

---------- Forwarded message ---------

From: Joseph Abe -DNR- <joseph.abe@maryland.gov> 

Date: Wed, Aug 4, 2021 at 12:36 PM 

Subject: August 24 Deadline/Request Potential Extension 

To: <nosaa.ec@noaa.gov> 

Cc: Heather Nelson -MDE- <hnelson@maryland.gov>, McCall, Catherine 

<catherine.mccall@maryland.gov> 

Hi Giannina: 

I am writing to inform you that Maryland just discovered (this week) your June 25 

request for comments RE NOAA/NOS' Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement 

(PEIS) for Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for Coastal and Marine Data 

Acquisition. 

We found out via email communication from New York and Delaware. Who did you send the 

letter to in Maryland? Heather Nelson is Maryland's Federal Consistiency Coordinator. 

Heather and I work together to manage Federal Consistency Reviews in Maryland. 

We see that you have an August 24 deadline to receive comments. I've already contacted key 

Maryland folks to review and comment. Given our late notice, can we have an extension to 

get our comments in? 

Thanks for considering of our request. 

Best Regards, Joe 
MD Logo.png 

dnr.maryland.gov 

Joseph Abe 

Coastal Policy Coordinator Chesapeake 

and Coastal Service 

Department of Natural Resources 

580 Taylor Avenue, E-2 

Annapolis, MD 21401 

410-260-8740 (office) 

443-534-4151 (cell) 

joseph.abe@maryland.gov 

Click here to complete a three question customer experience survey. 

*Beginning on Friday March 13th, 2020 state workers have been on mandatory telework. If 

you need to speak by phone please use my cell phone number or respond to my email with a 

request for a conference line number. Thank you. 
National Ocean Service PEIS for Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters 

Response to Public Comments for Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition 

 

 

 

2.16.2 NOS Response 

CZMA-6: Heather Nelson is Maryland's Federal Consistency Coordinator. Heather and I work 

together to manage Federal Consistency Reviews in Maryland. 

NOS Response: Thank you. NOS has updated the contact information for Maryland's 

Federal Consistency Coordinator. 

NEPA Process-7: Given our late notice, can we have an extension to get our comments in? 

NOS Response: NOS extended the original 60-day public comment period deadline by 

90 days from August 24, 2021 to November 22, 2021 after receiving this comment. 

November 2022 57 
 

 

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

Response to Public Comments for Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition 

2.17 Maine Department of Marine Resources (Meredith Mendelson) 

2.17.1 Comment Submission 

November 2022 58 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

STATE OF MA INE 

DE PARTMENT OF M AR INE RESO URCES 

21 STATE HOUSE STAT ION 

AUGU STA, MA INE 

04333 - 0 0 2 1 

JANET T. MILLS PATRICK C. KELIHER 

GOVERNOR COMMISSIONER 

August 24, 2021 

Giannina DiMaio 

Environmental Compliance Coordinator 

U.S. Department of Commerce 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

National Ocean Service 

SSMC4-Station 13612 

1305 East West Highway 

Silver Spring, MD 20910 

Delivered by E-mail 

RE: NOAA-NOS-2021-0055; Comments on Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement 

for Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition 

Dear Ms. DiMaio: 

I am writing in response to NOAA’s notice of opportunity to comment on its Draft 

Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for 

Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition (“DPEIS”).1 

The Maine Department of Marine Resources’ (“DMR”) is “established to conserve and develop 

marine and estuarine resources; to conduct and sponsor scientific research; to promote and develop the 

Maine coastal fishing industries; to advise and cooperate with local, state, and federal officials 

concerning activities in coastal waters; and to implement, administer, and enforce the laws and 

regulations necessary for these purposes..."2 Ocean and coastal data and information developed and 

shared by NOAA are key components in addressing each aspect of this multi-faceted statutory mission. 

Consequently, DMR has a direct and significant interest in how NOAA prioritizes and undertakes its 

ocean survey and mapping activities (“ocean surveys”), and a desire to continue and improve its 

coordination and cooperation with NOAA regarding those activities. 

The following comments are offered in the spirit of helping NOAA to optimize the many benefits 

of its ocean surveys to DMR as well as many other state and federal agencies, local governments, 

1 Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for Coastal and 

Marine Data Acquisition (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Ocean Service), June 2021 (“DPEIS”), 

noticed in 86 FR 33663 (June 25, 2021). 

2 12 M.R.S. §6021. 

1 
 

commercial fishing, aquaculture, renewable ocean energy, and other private sector enterprises, academic 

institutions and researchers, and the general public. 

I. Improve Coordination with Coastal States on Planning and Implementing Ocean Surveys to Avoid 

and Minimize Conflicts with Commercial Fishing Activities. 

A. Acknowledge the potential for ocean survey-commercial fishing conflicts. 

DMR suggests that the final PEIS’s section on socioeconomic resources3 and related sections as 

appropriate include discussion of the potential for conflicts between ocean surveys and commercial 

fishing activities. 

DMR agrees with the DPEIS’s overall assessment of the vital importance of NOAA’s ocean 

surveys and their many, diverse, and significant socio-economic benefits to commercial fishing and 

allied industries and many others.4 The DPEIS does not, however, adequately assess the potential for 

conflicts between ocean surveys and fishing gear and activities as a potential adverse impact. In DMR’s 

experience, such conflicts have occurred, the potential for them remains a concern, and enhanced 

coordination can help avoid and minimize them. NOAA’s preferred alternative (Alternative B) involves 

“continuation and an overall increase of all types of the activities and equipment currently used” as well

as “more widespread adoption of new techniques and technologies”, including some which appear to 

involve submerging survey instruments in or towing them though the water column and thus an increase 

in the potential for conflicts with fishing gear and activities.5 

B. Make enhanced and timely pre-survey coordination with pertinent coastal states a standard 

element of ocean surveys. 

DMR suggests that the final PEIS identify the type of enhanced coordination discussed below as 

a means to mitigate the potential for conflicts between ocean surveys and commercial fishing activities; 

include it as an element of its preferred alternative (DPEIS Alternative B); and subsequently make it a 

routine aspect of coordination with coastal states regarding ocean surveys. 

In recent years, DMR has worked cooperatively and well with NOAA’s Office of Coast Survey 

(“NOAA/OCS”) to help avoid and minimize such conflicts in state and federal waters off the Maine

coast. At DMR’s request, using a cooperatively developed standard form, NOAA/OCS has on a caseby-case basis provided DMR activity-specific information prior to initiation of ocean surveys. Using 

this detailed information, DMR has in turn provided prior notice of ocean surveys to pertinent marine 

harvesters to enable them to plan for and take timely actions to reduce the potential for gear conflicts. 

The Maine Lobstermen’s Association has often pointed to coordination regarding the 2016 sand 

resource survey conducted in Penobscot Bay as a good example of how such communication helps avoid 

gear conflict, in that case in mid-summer in an area with dense deployment of lobster fishing gear. 

3 See DPEIS, Section 3.12. 4 See, e.g., DPEIS, p.569-71. 5 See DPEIS, p.2. 

2 
 

 

 

 

DMR’s coordination with the United States Army Corps of Engineers (“USACE”) in recent years 

regarding establishment of haul routes for dredged materials from USACE’s civil works projects also 

provides a useful, comparable example of successful federal-state coordination to avoid gear conflicts. 

Using a process which DMR and USACE are currently developing into a standard practice, the agencies 

have brought together USACE project managers, DMR Marine Patrol officers and other staff, and 

groups of area fishermen to discuss designation of a haul route that both minimizes the impact on fishing 

activity as well as navigational challenges for the contractor hauling the dredged materials. While, 

occasionally, this has been an iterative process, more commonly the issue has been resolved with one 

meeting and perhaps a quick follow-up to confirm details. This relatively small investment of time and 

energy serves to forestall last-minute calls and meetings and related frustrations and tensions when gear 

conflicts arise or are imminent. 

While appreciating NOAA/OCS’s openness to coordination on this issue case-by-case in recent 

years and recognizing its benefits, DMR believes that routinization of such pre-ocean survey 

coordination would have significant and additional benefits to NOAA/OCS as well as DMR and the state 

fishing industry. Effective communication with the fishing industry can result in gear being moved out 

of survey tows and help ensure that ocean surveys can be completed more efficiently and without added 

private and federal costs due to gear entanglement and lost or damaged survey equipment. DMR 

acknowledges that such communication is no panacea as it does guarantee fishermen will move their 

gear. However, notice which provides adequate time (taking weather conditions into account) to move 

gear makes it more likely, manifests a good faith effort to avoid and minimize potential conflicts, and 

ideally helps foster cooperation more broadly. This approach is also consistent with and supports other 

NOAA policies and efforts, including its leadership on regional ocean planning and management, which 

encourage improved state-federal cooperation and identification and adoption of best practices to 

facilitate multiple existing and emerging uses of shared ocean space. 

DMR-NOAA coordination in the past has helped to build relationships and create lines of 

communication that have been of great value on various issues. With federal and state resource 

managers facing a decade of difficult conversations about risk reduction for the protection of the 

Northern right whale, every small improvement in this relationship could be valuable. It is reasonable 

to assume that many commercial fishermen, like most other people, understandably do not see the 

various line offices within NOAA as different agencies with different purposes and missions. 

Consequently, if they do not receive timely communication about NOAA ocean surveys that may 

interfere with their commercial activities and thus their livelihood, there is resulting potential for 

increased tension on multiple issues. In prior years, senior leadership at DMR, including that of the 

Marine Patrol, have held in-person meetings with the new regional leadership for NOAA/OCS and hope 

to organize such a meeting in the near future as a way to foster enhanced communication on issues of 

mutual interest and concern. 

II. Improve coordination with coastal states in planning and designing ocean surveys to create synergies 

and efficiencies. 

DMR suggests that the final PEIS include as an aspect of its preferred alternative enhanced 

consultation with pertinent coastal states in planning and designing the focus and purpose of ocean 

surveys. Such early coordination may help NOAA better address coastal states’ identified ocean data 

and information needs. In addition, it may help optimize the ocean surveys’ efficiency and effectiveness 

3 
 

 

 

and increase their overall benefit by identifying opportunities for state-federal collaboration, avoiding 

duplicative and facilitating synergistic efforts, and obtaining local, place-based information that may be 

useful for planning, design, or implementation purposes. A meeting of senior leadership at DMR and 

regional representatives of NOAA/OCS may provide a useful forum or help identify other timely opportunities for 

such an exchange of ideas. Sharing data from ocean surveys and other NOAA ocean research with the 

commercial fishing industry and public in more accessible, non-technical ways could also help increase 

the understanding of and share the benefits of this important work. Identification of ways in which DMR 

and NOAA/OCS may work together to do so would a useful topic to explore. 

III. Capture the value of the living resources economy more accurately. 

DMR suggests that NOAA reconsider the estimate of the value of the living resources economy 

provided in the DPEIS and revise it as needed to ensure that the final PEIS more accurately captures that 

value for the Northeast and perhaps other regions, particularly if it is intended to include supply chainrelated benefits. 

The table in the DPEIS which references the value of the living marine resources economy in the 

Northeast appears to significantly underestimate it.

6 Apparently using 2016 estimates, it notes 

approximately $1.9 billion in contribution to GDP, a figure which the text seems to indicate includes the 

related supply chain. Even if it includes only ex-vessel revenues, it appears low. In 2016, the Maine 

lobster fishery alone contributed approximately about $1.5 billion to the state GDP.7 

* * * 

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the DPEIS. We look forward to working closely 

with NOAA on its ocean survey and mapping activities and to helping ensure and enhance their many 

benefits to Maine’s economy and environment. 

Respectfully, 

Meredith Mendelson 

Deputy Commissioner 

6 PDEIS, Table 3.12-6 (Living Resources Economy by Region (2016), p. 428. 7 See Lobsters to Dollars: The Economic Impact of the Lobster Distribution Supply Chain in Maine, p. 1 (landings value) and 

Table 12, p. 12 (Aggregation of Economic Impacts), -

https://www.colby.edu/economics/lobsters/Lobsters2DollarsFinalReport.pdf 

4 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

Response to Public Comments for Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition 

2.17.2 NOS Response 

Purpose and Need-4: DMR has a direct and significant interest in how NOAA prioritizes and 

undertakes its ocean survey and mapping activities (“ocean surveys”), and a desire to continue 

and improve its coordination and cooperation with NOAA regarding those activities. 

NOS Response: NOS selects areas to survey based on the need for more accurate data; 

an area selected for a survey project may have outdated or no previous survey data. We 

look forward to working with the State of Maine to determine charting and data needs. 

Socioeconomic Resources-1: I. Improve Coordination with Coastal States on Planning and 

Implementing Ocean Surveys to Avoid and Minimize Conflicts with Commercial Fishing Activities. 

A. Acknowledge the potential for ocean survey-commercial fishing conflicts. 

DMR suggests that the final PEIS’s section on socioeconomic resources and related sections as 

appropriate include discussion of the potential for conflicts between ocean surveys and 

commercial fishing activities. 

DMR agrees with the DPEIS’s overall assessment of the vital importance of NOAA’s ocean surveys 

and their many, diverse, and significant socio-economic benefits to commercial fishing and allied 

industries and many others.4 The DPEIS does not, however, adequately assess the potential for 

conflicts between ocean surveys and fishing gear and activities as a potential adverse impact. In 

DMR’s experience, such conflicts have occurred, the potential for them remains a concern, and 

enhanced coordination can help avoid and minimize them. NOAA’s preferred alternative 

(Alternative B) involves “continuation and an overall increase of all types of the activities and 

equipment currently used” as well as “more widespread adoption of new techniques and 

technologies”, including some which appear to involve submerging survey instruments in or 

towing them though the water column and thus an increase in the potential for conflicts with fishing 

gear and activities. 

NOS Response: NOS assessed the potential impacts to fisheries, including fish, aquatic 

macroinvertebrates, EFH, and socioeconomic resources. Socioeconomic resources 

include commercial fishing, fish hatcheries and aquaculture, seafood processing, and 

seafood markets industries. All surveying and mapping activities listed in Section 2.0 could 

impact fisheries. Detailed analysis can be found in the following sections of the Final PEIS: 

Section 3.7 (Fish), Section 3.8 (Aquatic Macroinvertebrates), Section 3.9 (Essential Fish 

Habitat), and Section 3.12 (Socioeconomic Resources). Among the impacts assessed, 

effects to fish include some stress responses without permanent physiological damage, 

and some disturbance to breeding, feeding, or other activities, but without any impacts on 

population levels; additionally, there would not be long-term changes in habitat availability 

and use or in fish behavior. NOS also assessed the impact of interactions with fishing gear 

and survey equipment on the fishing industry. Effects to commercial and recreational 

fishing from gear interaction are very unlikely. 

Data collected by NOS would have beneficial effects as that data is used to conserve, 

preserve, and restore ecological resources, including wildlife, fish, and habitat. The data 

would provide the public and private sectors with nautical charts, benthic habitat condition 

November 2022 59 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

Response to Public Comments for Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition 

maps, current and tide charts, and other products that could support the management of 

fisheries. These products allow federal, state, and local governments to make informed 

decisions about fishing areas and other natural resource management issues. 

NOS developed mitigation measures in coordination and consultation with expert 

agencies including NMFS and USFWS to avoid and minimize any potential effects. 

Mitigation measures to protect fisheries include implementing mandatory invasive species 

prevention procedures and following MARPOL discharge protocols. NOS communicates 

with the public on future survey projects through announcements such as the annual 

Office of Coast Survey story map2 and, when appropriate, public “Notices to Mariners” to 

provide general information on timing and locations. This helps minimize interference with 

commercial and recreational fishing and reduces the potential for interactions with fishing 

gear like lobster traps. 

Overall, the impacts to fishery resources would be adverse, minor and insignificant as 

defined in the Final PEIS. NOS data collection and the resulting improvements in charting 

and mapping are expected to have indirect, beneficial, and moderate impacts on the ocean 

economy. 

Future Coordination-4: B. Make enhanced and timely pre-survey coordination with pertinent 

coastal states a standard element of ocean surveys. 

DMR suggests that the final PEIS identify the type of enhanced coordination discussed below as 

a means to mitigate the potential for conflicts between ocean surveys and commercial fishing 

activities; include it as an element of its preferred alternative (DPEIS Alternative B); and 

subsequently make it a routine aspect of coordination with coastal states regarding ocean surveys. 

In recent years, DMR has worked cooperatively and well with NOAA’s Office of Coast Survey 

(“NOAA/OCS”) to help avoid and minimize such conflicts in state and federal waters off the Maine 

coast. At DMR’s request, using a cooperatively developed standard form, NOAA/OCS has on a 

case- by-case basis provided DMR activity-specific information prior to initiation of ocean surveys. 

Using this detailed information, DMR has in turn provided prior notice of ocean surveys to 

pertinent marine harvesters to enable them to plan for and take timely actions to reduce the 

potential for gear conflicts...While appreciating NOAA/OCS’s openness to coordination on this 

issue case-by-case in recent years and recognizing its benefits, DMR believes that routinization 

of such pre-ocean survey coordination would have significant and additional benefits to 

NOAA/OCS as well as DMR and the state fishing industry. Effective communication with the fishing 

industry can result in gear being moved out of survey tows and help ensure that ocean surveys 

can be completed more efficiently and without added private and federal costs due to gear 

entanglement and lost or damaged survey equipment. DMR acknowledges that such 

communication is no panacea as it does guarantee fishermen will move their gear. However, 

notice which provides adequate time (taking weather conditions into account) to move gear makes 

it more likely, manifests a good faith effort to avoid and minimize potential conflicts, and ideally 

helps foster cooperation more broadly. This approach is also consistent with and supports other 

NOAA policies and efforts, including its leadership on regional ocean planning and management, 

2 https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/33758b0990bb4e23a7b61323db3ae670 

November 2022 60 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

Response to Public Comments for Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition 

which encourage improved state-federal cooperation and identification and adoption of best 

practices to facilitate multiple existing and emerging uses of shared ocean space....if they do not 

receive timely communication about NOAA ocean surveys that may interfere with their 

commercial activities and thus their livelihood, there is resulting potential for increased tension on 

multiple issues. In prior years, senior leadership at DMR, including that of the Marine Patrol, have 

held in-person meetings with the new regional leadership for NOAA/OCS and hope to organize 

such a meeting in the near future as a way to foster enhanced communication on issues of mutual 

interest and concern. 

NOS Response: NOS communicates with the public on future survey projects through 

announcements such as the annual Office of Coast Survey story map3 and, when 

appropriate, public “Notices to Mariners” to provide general information on timing and 

locations. This helps minimize interference with commercial and recreational fishing and 

reduces the potential for interactions with fishing gear like lobster traps. NOS proposes 

that, going forward, all NOS programs would coordinate with your office using the 

Notification of Field Work form that has been used by Coast Survey for several years. 

Discussion of gear interaction is included in the Final PEIS. 

Future Coordination-5: II. Improve coordination with coastal states in planning and designing 

ocean surveys to create synergies and efficiencies. 

DMR suggests that the final PEIS include as an aspect of its preferred alternative enhanced 

consultation with pertinent coastal states in planning and designing the focus and purpose of 

ocean surveys. Such early coordination may help NOAA better address coastal states’ identified 

ocean data and information needs. In addition, it may help optimize the ocean surveys’ efficiency 

and effectiveness and increase their overall benefit by identifying opportunities for state-federal 

collaboration, avoiding duplicative and facilitating synergistic efforts, and obtaining local, placebased information that may be useful for planning, design, or implementation purposes. A meeting 

of senior leadership at DMR and regional representatives of NOAA/OCS may provide a useful 

forum or help identify other timely opportunities for such an exchange of ideas. Sharing data from 

ocean surveys and other NOAA ocean research with the commercial fishing industry and public 

in more accessible, non-technical ways could also help increase the understanding of and share 

the benefits of this important work. Identification of ways in which DMR and NOAA/OCS may work 

together to do so would be a useful topic to explore. 

NOS Response: Thank you for your comment; however, optimizing ocean surveying 

efficiency and effectiveness and data sharing is out of scope of this PEIS (environmental 

compliance) effort. States and the public can reach out to NOAA Navigation Managers to 

engage in the planning process for future surveying and mapping projects. Contact 

information for NOAA Navigation Managers can be found at the following website: 

https://nauticalcharts.noaa.gov/customer-service/regional-managers/index.html. 

Coordination with the State of Maine on the environmental impact to state resources will 

be conducted through the CZMA Federal Consistency process. 

References and Data-1: III. Capture the value of the living resources economy more accurately. 

3 https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/33758b0990bb4e23a7b61323db3ae670 

November 2022 61 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

Response to Public Comments for Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition 

DMR suggests that NOAA reconsider the estimate of the value of the living resources economy 

provided in the DPEIS and revise it as needed to ensure that the final PEIS more accurately 

captures that value for the Northeast and perhaps other regions, particularly if it is intended to 

include supply chain- related benefits. 

The table in the DPEIS which references the value of the living marine resources economy in the 

Northeast appears to significantly underestimate it. Apparently using 2016 estimates, it notes 

approximately $1.9 billion in contribution to GDP, a figure which the text seems to indicate includes 

the related supply chain. Even if it includes only ex-vessel revenues, it appears low. In 2016, the 

Maine lobster fishery alone contributed approximately about $1.5 billion to the state GDP. 

NOS Response: The values used to quantify the contribution of living resources to GDP 

were published by the OCM in the NOAA Report on the U.S. Marine Economy which uses 

ENOW data. The discrepancy may be the result of the contribution of self-employed 

workers which are a large part of the living resources sector; however, the referenced 

ENOW data looks exclusively at the component of the data that focuses on businesses 

with employees. The purpose of this analysis was to review the economic impact of this 

programmatic action over the entire action area and the OCM data was the best available 

data for the entire action area. There may be discrepancies between state-collected data 

and data collected by NOAA. NOS has updated the information in Table 3.12.1 of the 

Socioeconomic Section in the Final PEIS. 

November 2022 62 
 

 

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

Response to Public Comments for Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition 

2.18 Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy (EGLE) 

(Matt Smar) 

2.18.1 Comment Submission 

November 2022 63 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

GRETCHEN WHITMER 

GOVERNOR

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

DEPARTMENT OF 

ENVIRONMENT, GREAT LAKES, AND ENERGY 

LANSING LIESL EICHLER CLARK

DIRECTOR

August 24, 2021 

VIA E-MAIL 

Ms. Giannina DiMaio 

DOC/NOAA/NOS Environmental Compliance Coordinator 

SSMC4 – Station 13612 

1305 East West Highway 

Silver Spring, Maryland 20910 

nosaa.ec@noaa.gov 

Dear Ms. DiMaio: 

Staff of the Water Resources Division, Michigan Department of Environment, Great 

Lakes, and Energy (EGLE) has reviewed the Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact 

Statement (PEIS) for Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for Coastal and 

Marine Data Acquisition, prepared by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration (NOAA), National Ocean Service and dated June 2021. This letter 

presents EGLE’s comments on the draft PEIS.

The geographic scope for the draft PEIS described in Section 2.3.1 contains waters and 

associated littoral and riparian lands within the Coastal Zone Boundary for Michigan’s 

Coastal Management Program approved by NOAA pursuant to the Federal Coastal 

Zone Management Act (CZMA) of 1972 (P.L. 92-583). The area within the Boundary 

includes all waters and bottomlands of Michigan’s Great Lakes and connecting

channels, all islands in those waters, and lands and waters on Michigan’s mainland

within 1,000 feet of the Great Lakes and connecting channels. The Boundary extends 

further inland in certain areas of the mainland to encompass state-designated Critical 

Dune Areas and Sand Dune Areas, as well as other coastal features. Federally owned 

lands are excluded from the Boundary. 

Under section 307 of the CZMA and 15 CFR Part 930, Michigan has the authority to 

review federal actions proposed within the Boundary that may have reasonably 

foreseeable effects on coastal resources and uses. The purpose of the review is to 

ensure that the proposed action is consistent with the enforceable policies of Michigan’s 

Coastal Management Program. Michigan’s enforceable policies are contained in more 

than 30 state statutes and administrative rules promulgated pursuant to those statutes. 

Michigan’s Enforceable Policies and Surveying and Mapping Activities 

Collectively, the activities described in Section 2.4 of the draft PEIS, Activities Common 

to All Alternatives, are subject or may be subject to several of Michigan’s enforceable 

policies. The relevant enforceable policies are parts of Michigan’s environmental code, 

CONSTITUTION HALL • 525 WEST ALLEGAN STREET • P.O. BOX 30473 • LANSING, MICHIGAN 48909-7973 

Michigan.gov/EGLE • 800-662-9278 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

the Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act (NREPA), Public Act 451 of 

1994, as amended. Generally, the enforceable policies that apply to a federal surveying 

and mapping project in Michigan’s Coastal Zone depend on the details of the proposed 

project, including the specific activities to be conducted and location. Where the project 

may impact a plant or animal species protected under state law, the time of year may be 

an additional factor. Consultation with EGLE is recommended to identify the 

enforceable policies applicable to a proposed federal surveying and mapping project. 

Many of the relevant enforceable policies include requirements to obtain a state permit 

or authorization prior to conducting a regulated activity. Surveying and mapping 

projects described in the draft PEIS may be subject to state permit or authorization 

requirements, specifically: 

• Activities to be conducted below the ordinary high watermark of an inland lake, 

river, or stream, including the St. Marys River, St. Clair River, and Detroit River, 

that are subject to regulation under Part 301, Inland Lakes and Streams, of 

NREPA must be authorized by a permit required under section 324.30102 of the 

Michigan Compiled Laws (MCL). 

• Activities to be conducted in a wetland that are subject to regulation under Part 

303, Wetlands Protection, of NREPA must be authorized by a permit required 

under MCL 324.30304. 

• Activities to be conducted in a designated Environmental Area or High-Risk 

Erosion Area that are subject to regulation under Part 323, Shorelands Protection 

and Management, of NREPA must be authorized by a permit required under 

MCL 324.32312. 

• Activities to be conducted below the ordinary high watermark of a Great Lake or 

Lake St. Clair that are subject to regulation under Part 325, Great Lakes 

Submerged Lands, of NREPA must be authorized by a permit required under 

MCL 324.32512. 

• The following activities are prohibited under Part 761, Aboriginal Records and 

Antiquities, of NREPA unless authorized under MCL 324.76105, 324.76107, 

324.76108, and 324.76109: The recovery, alteration, or destruction of an 

abandoned vessel or other abandoned property, as defined in MCL 

324.76101(a), which is in, on, under, or over the bottomlands of the Great Lakes, 

including those within a Great Lakes Bottomlands Preserve. Great Lakes 

Bottomland Preserves are established in administrative rules R 299.6001, R 

299.6002, R 299.6003, R 299.6004, R 299.6005, R 299.6006, R 299.6007, R 

299.6008, R 299.6009, R 299.6010, R 299.6011, R 299. 6012, and R 299.6013 

of the Michigan Administrative Code. 

Activities that result in a discharge to Michigan’s Great Lakes and all other surface

waters must comply with the water quality standards promulgated pursuant to Part 31, 

Water Resources Protection, of NREPA, comprising administrative rules R 323.1041 to 

R 323.1117 of the Michigan Administrative Code. Generally, EGLE permits for activities 

below the ordinary high watermark of the Great Lakes and other surface waters include 

conditions for compliance with state water quality standards. 

2 
The following activities are prohibited under Michigan’s enforceable policies:

• The discharge of any litter, sewage, oil, or other liquid or solid pollutants from any 

vessel, boat, or floating craft is prohibited pursuant to section 9502 of Part 95, 

Watercraft Pollution Control, of NREPA (MCL 324.9502). 

• The following activities are prohibited pursuant to section 36505 of Part 365, 

Endangered Species Protection, of NREPA: Harassing, harming, pursuing, 

hunting, shooting, wounding, killing, trapping, capturing, or collecting of an animal 

subject to regulation under Part 365 or the attempt to engage in such activity; 

and the collecting, picking, cutting, digging up, or destroying in any manner of a 

plant subject to regulation under Part 365. (MCL 324.36505) Lists of animal and 

plant species subject to regulation are contained in administrative rules R 

299.1021, R 299.1022, R 299.1023, R 299.1024, R 299.1025, R 299.1026, R 

299.1027, and R 299.1028 of the Michigan Administrative Code. 

Thank you for the opportunity to review the draft PEIS. If you have questions regarding 

these comments, please contact me at 517-230-7849; SmarM@Michigan.gov; or EGLE, 

P.O. Box 30458, Lansing, Michigan 48909-7958. 

Sincerely, 

Matt Smar, Federal Consistency Specialist 

Field Operations Support Section 

Water Resources Division 

3 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

Response to Public Comments for Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition 

2.18.2 NOS Response 

CZMA-7: Generally, the enforceable policies that apply to a federal surveying and mapping 

project in Michigan’s Coastal Zone depend on the details of the proposed project, including the 

specific activities to be conducted and location. Where the project may impact a plant or animal 

species protected under state law, the time of year may be an additional factor. Consultation with 

EGLE is recommended to identify the enforceable policies applicable to a proposed federal 

surveying and mapping project. 

NOS Response: Under the CZMA implementing regulations, “the amount of detail in the 

evaluation of the enforceable policies, activity description and supporting information shall 

be commensurate with the expected coastal effects of the activity.” 15 CFR 930.39(a). All 

effects are insignificant, and the adverse effects on the coastal resources or uses are 

anticipated to be of a similar nature and scale regardless of where or when the activity is 

conducted. The mitigation measures are designed to avoid or minimize impacts when 

conducting work in certain habitats or to avoid impacts on protected species. 

CZMA-8: Many of the relevant enforceable policies include requirements to obtain a state permit 

or authorization prior to conducting a regulated activity. Surveying and mapping projects 

described in the draft PEIS may be subject to state permit or authorization requirements, 

specifically: 

•Activities to be conducted below the ordinary high watermark of an inland lake, river, or stream, 

including the St. Mary’s River, St. Clair River, and Detroit River, that are subject to regulation under 

Part 301, Inland Lakes and Streams, of NREPA must be authorized by a permit required under 

section 324.30102 of the Michigan Compiled Laws (MCL). 

• Activities to be conducted in a wetland that are subject to regulation under Part 303, 

Wetlands Protection, of NREPA must be authorized by a permit required under MCL 

324.30304. 

• Activities to be conducted in a designated Environmental Area or High-Risk Erosion Area 

that are subject to regulation under Part 323, Shorelands Protection and Management, of 

NREPA must be authorized by a permit required under MCL 324.32312. 

• Activities to be conducted below the ordinary high watermark of a Great Lake or Lake St. 

Clair that are subject to regulation under Part 325, Great Lakes Submerged Lands, of 

NREPA must be authorized by a permit required under MCL 324.32512. 

• The following activities are prohibited under Part 761, Aboriginal Records and Antiquities, 

of NREPA unless authorized under MCL 324.76105, 324.76107, 324.76108, and 

324.76109: The recovery, alteration, or destruction of an abandoned vessel or other 

abandoned property, as defined in MCL 324.76101(a), which is in, on, under, or over the 

bottomlands of the Great Lakes, including those within a Great Lakes Bottomlands 

Preserve. Great Lakes Bottomland Preserves are established in administrative rules R 

299.6001, R 299.6002, R 299.6003, R 299.6004, R 299.6005, R 299.6006, R 299.6007, R 

299.6008, R 299.6009, R 299.6010, R 299.6011, R 299. 6012, and R 299.6013 of the 

Michigan Administrative Code. 

November 2022 64 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

Response to Public Comments for Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition 

NOS Response: Under the CZMA, federal agency activities with coastal effects are 

required to be consistent to the maximum extent practicable with federally approved 

enforceable policies of a State’s Coastal Management Program. NOAA regulations at 15 

CFR 930.39(e) clarify that unless required by a Federal law, neither the CZMA nor OCM’s 

approval of state enforceable policies authorize the application of state permit 

requirements to federal agencies. The federal agency activities must be consistent to the 

maximum extent practicable with the standards that underlie a state’s permit, but do not 

have to apply for or obtain a state permit (2020 OCM Federal Consistency Overview and 

65 FR 77123, 77140 (2000)). 

NOS provided CD letters to all coastal states and territories with approved CMPs. The CDs 

evaluate the coastal effects of proposed activities according to the relevant enforceable 

policies to make a consistency determination under the CZMA. 

NOS evaluated consistency with relevant enforceable policies including regulation under 

Part 301, 303, 323, 325, and 761 of the Michigan CMP. 

CZMA-9: Activities that result in a discharge to Michigan’s Great Lakes and all other surface 

waters must comply with the water quality standards promulgated pursuant to Part 31, Water 

Resources Protection, of NREPA, comprising administrative rules R 323.1041 to R 323.1117 of 

the Michigan Administrative Code. Generally, EGLE permits for activities below the ordinary high 

watermark of the Great Lakes and other surface waters include conditions for compliance with 

state water quality standards. 

NOS Response: NOS vessels would discharge treated sanitary domestic wastes from 

United States Coast Guard-approved Marine Sanitation Devices (MSDs), but could 

potentially spill oil, fuel, or chemicals into the water. The potential impacts to water quality 

from wastewater discharges and accidental spills would be minimized through compliance 

with MARPOL Annexes I, IV, and V. NOS adheres to NOAA’s environmental procedures 

which comply with the MARPOL annexes and relevant water quality implementing 

legislation, regulations, and guidance listed in Section 3.14.1 of the Final PEIS. In addition, 

NOS projects are dispersed throughout the action area, which would minimize any impact 

from wastewater discharges or spills from a single vessel. NOS vessels also represent only 

a negligible portion of total oceanic vessel traffic, and any resulting impacts produced 

would be indistinguishable from those produced by all other vessels within the action area. 

NOS evaluated consistency with relevant enforceable policies including regulation under 

Part 31 of the Michigan CMP. These determinations are described in the CD for National 

Ocean Service Mapping and Surveying Activities Undertaken in the Michigan Coastal 

Zone, 2023 – 2027. 

CZMA-10: The following activities are prohibited under Michigan’s enforceable policies: 

• The discharge of any litter, sewage, oil, or other liquid or solid pollutants from any vessel, 

boat, or floating craft is prohibited pursuant to section 9502 of Part 95, Watercraft Pollution 

Control, of NREPA (MCL 324.9502). 

November 2022 65 
 

 

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

Response to Public Comments for Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition 

• The following activities are prohibited pursuant to section 36505 of Part 365, Endangered 

Species Protection, of NREPA: Harassing, harming, pursuing, hunting, shooting, 

wounding, killing, trapping, capturing, or collecting of an animal subject to regulation under 

Part 365 or the attempt to engage in such activity; and the collecting, picking, cutting, 

digging up, or destroying in any manner of a plant subject to regulation under Part 365. 

(MCL 324.36505) Lists of animal and plant species subject to regulation are contained in 

administrative rules R 299.1021, R 299.1022, R 299.1023, R 299.1024, R 299.1025, R 

299.1026, R 299.1027, and R 299.1028 of the Michigan Administrative Code. 

NOS Response: Thank you for identifying the applicable federally enforceable policies for 

Michigan. NOS evaluated the coastal effects of proposed activities according to the 

relevant enforceable policies to make a consistency determination under CZMA. 

November 2022 66 
 

 

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

Response to Public Comments for Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition 

2.19 New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (Megan Brunatti) 

2.19.1 Comment Submission 

November 2022 67 
 

 

 

 

PHILIP D. MURPHY OFFICE OF PERMITTING AND PROJECT NAVIGATION SHAWN M. LATOURETTE 

Governor P.O. Box 420 Mail Code 401-07J Trenton, New Jersey 08625-0420 Commissioner 

Telephone: (609) 292-3600 

SHEILA Y. OLIVER FAX: (609) 633-2102 

Lt. Governor 

August 24, 2021 

Ms. Giannina DiMaio 

Environmental Compliance Coordinator 

United States Department of Commerce 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

National Ocean Service 

1305 East West Highway 

Silver Spring, Maryland 20910 

RE: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), National Ocean 

Service (NOS) Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) for Surveying 

and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition. 

Dear Ms. DiMaio: 

The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection’s (Department) Office of Permitting 

and Project Navigation (OPPN) distributed, for review and comment the draft PEIS for 

Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition. The 

NOS proposes to analyze the potential environmental impacts of recurring surveying and 

mapping data collection in United States coastal and marine waters over a period of six years. 

The analysis covers the use of active acoustic equipment such as sub-bottom profilers, single 

beam and multibeam echo sounders, and side-scan sonars by NOS to collect data on the depths 

and shapes of underwater terrain, including the ocean, rivers, and lakes. 

Based on the information provided for review, the Department offers the following comments for 

your consideration: 

Division of Land Resource Protection 

A Federal Consistency determination is required prior to performing the surveying and mapping 

activities. 

If you have any questions, please contact Colleen Keller at Colleen.Keller@dep.nj.gov. 

New Jersey Division of Fish and Wildlife 

The NJ Division of Fish and Wildlife (DFW) in coordination with the NJ Endangered & Nongame Species Program (ENSP) agree that there will be some disturbance to birds (seabirds, 

New Jersey is an Equal Opportunity Employer l Printed on Recycled Paper and Recyclable 
shorebirds, coastal birds, waterfowl) caused by aircraft sound, vessel presence/movement and 

onshore activities. Also, there may be impacts to birds, terrapins and other wildlife from 

accidental oil, fuel and/or chemical spills, but the document states that the chances are relatively 

minor for any of these to occur. Installation, maintenance, and removal of tide gauges may 

impact riparian habitat and may disturb a variety of species, including birds and 

terrapins. Bottom samplers may disrupt hibernating terrapins (November 1 to March 15) and 

freshwater mussels, depending on how far up rivers the NOS intends to sample. Many of these 

impacts can be minimized via timing restrictions. Without knowing exactly where/when surveys 

will occur, it's difficult to provide more detail at this time. The impacts identified appear to be 

relatively minor, excluding impacts to marine mammals/sea turtles. 

If you have any questions, please contact Kelly Davis at Kelly.Davis@dep.nj.gov. 

Historic and Cultural Resources 

The Historic Preservation Office (HPO) has reviewed the documentation submitted and concurs 

with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) analysis and methodology 

laid out in the draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement. The HPO does not have any 

concerns at this time and looks forward to further consultation with NOAA, pursuant to Section 

106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, as appropriate. 

If additional consultation with the HPO is needed for this undertaking, please reference the HPO 

project number 21-1447 in any future calls, emails, submissions, or written correspondence to 

help expedite your review and response. 

If you have any additional questions, please contact Jesse West-Rosenthal at Jesse.WestRosenthal@dep.nj.gov. 

Marine Fisheries Administration 

The Greater Atlantic Region is currently experiencing high rates of disturbance due to global 

climate change. The impacts from climate change will have unknown effects on all species, 

including marine mammals and sea turtles. While it is stated in the PEIS that the impacts from 

surveying and mapping activities will be adverse and minor, an increased vessel presence and the 

increased use of powerful echo-sounders could disrupt the behaviors of species of concern, such 

as the endangered North Atlantic right whale. Due to the sensitivity of these species, cumulative 

impacts introduced by all ocean users must be considered when selecting the best sampling 

alternative. In addition, submerged vegetation, oyster reefs, and shellfish aquaculture leases 

should be avoided. 

The Marine Fisheries Administration is available to provide the most recent mapping products 

that document submerged vegetation beds, oyster reefs, aquaculture leases, artificial reefs, and 

other sensitive marine habitats of New Jersey. 

If alterations to the survey and mapping activities are made, timing of proposed activities should 

avoid migratory pathways where Spring inshore/upriver migrations and spawning of anadromous 

fishes occurs. Particularly, activities that can negatively impact behavior of fishes that detect 

2 
 

 

 

 

 

 

high frequency sounds (e.g., river herrings and shad, as described on page 262-263), should 

avoid areas where these fish may be present during Spring migrations (listed below). 

Anadromous finfish timing restrictions by region in NJ: 

Area Timing Restriction 

(Anadromous I) Waters in the Delaware Bay up to the 

Delaware Memorial bridge, rivers flowing into the Delaware 

bay south of the Delaware memorial bridge, waters flowing 

into the Atlantic Ocean and associated bays. This excludes 

waters that are described as part of the NY/NJ harbor 

agreement. 

March 1 through June 30 

(Anadromous II) Waters in the Delaware River from the 

Delaware Memorial Bridge to the border of NY State and all 

tributaries flowing into the Delaware River north of the 

Delaware memorial bridge. 

March 15 through June 30 

(NY/NJ Harbor Agreement) Waters west of the Sandy Hook, 

east of the Washington Canal (40o28’19.60 N, 74o22’00.37

W) on the Raritan River, east of the NJ Turnpike on the 

Rahway River, Newark Bay, water east of NJ Turnpike on 

the Passaic River, waters south of Route 3 on the Hackensack 

River, and waters south of the George Washington Bridge on 

the Hudson River. 

February 1 through May 31 

If you have any additional questions, please contact Elizabeth Lange at 

Elizabeth.Lange@dep.nj.gov. 

Air Mobile Sources 

Based on the information provided in the draft PEIS, the Bureau of Mobile Sources provides the 

following comments: 

For the benefit of emission reductions, Crewed Vessel Operations, ferries, boats, etc. with 800 

HP or more should meet EPA Tier 4 engine regulation standards to reduce NOx, PM, and HC. 

Regarding actions to reduce diesel exhaust emissions from any and all 

construction equipment being used at the site, the Bureau of Mobile Sources provides the 

following comments: 

1. Diesel exhaust contributes the highest cancer risk of all air toxics in New Jersey and is a 

major source of NOx within the state. Therefore, NJ DEP recommends that construction 

projects involving non-road diesel construction equipment, operating in a small 

geographic area over an extended period of time, implement the following measures to 

minimize the impact of diesel exhaust: 

2. All on-road vehicles and non-road construction equipment operating at, or visiting, the 

construction site shall comply with the three-minute idling limit, pursuant to N.J.A.C. 

7:27-14 and N.J.A.C. 7:27-15. Consider purchasing "No Idling" signs to post at the site 

3 
 

 

 

 

 

____________________________________ 

to remind contractors to comply with the idling limits. Signs are available for purchase 

from the Bureau of Mobile Sources at 609/292-7953 or http://www.stopthesoot.org/stsnoidle-sign.htm. 

3. All non-road diesel construction equipment greater than 100 horsepower used on the 

project for more than ten days should have engines that meet the USEP A Tier 4 non-road 

emission standards, or the best available emission control technology that is 

technologically feasible for that application and is verified by the USEP A or the CARB 

as a diesel emission control strategy for reducing particulate matter and/or NOx 

emissions. 

4. All on-road diesel vehicles used to haul materials or traveling to and from the 

construction site should use designated truck routes that are designed to minimize 

impacts on residential areas and sensitive receptors such as hospitals, schools, daycare 

facilities, senior citizen housing, and convalescent facilities. 

5. In accordance with N.J.A.C. 7:27-14 and 15, diesel vehicles should not idle for more than 

15 consecutive minutes when the vehicle has been stopped for 3 or more hours and only 

if the temperature is <25 deg. F. 

6. In accordance with N.J.A.C. 7:27-14 and 15, diesel vehicles can idle if the engine 

provides power for mechanical operations such as: refrigeration units for perishable 

goods, hydraulic lifts, "cherry pickers", or similar equipment. 

If you have any additional questions, please contact Kris Dahl at Kris.Dahl@dep.nj.gov. 

Thank you for giving the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection the opportunity to 

comment on the draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for Surveying and Mapping 

Projects in U.S. Waters for Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition. Please contact Katherine Nolan 

at (609) 292-3600 if you have any additional questions or concerns. 

Sincerely, 

Megan Brunatti, Director 

Office of Permitting and Project Navigation 

4 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

Response to Public Comments for Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition 

2.19.2 NOS Response 

CZMA-11: A Federal Consistency determination is required prior to performing the surveying and 

mapping activities. 

NOS Response: NOS provided CD letters to all coastal states and territories with 

approved CMPs. The CDs evaluate the coastal effects of proposed activities according to 

the relevant enforceable policies to make a consistency determination under CZMA. 

Seabirds, Shorebirds & Coastal Birds, & Waterfowl-1: The NJ Division of Fish and Wildlife 

(DFW) in coordination with the NJ Endangered & Non- game Species Program (ENSP) agree that 

there will be some disturbance to birds (seabirds, shorebirds, coastal birds, waterfowl) caused by 

aircraft sound, vessel presence/movement and onshore activities. Also, there may be impacts to 

birds, terrapins and other wildlife from accidental oil, fuel and/or chemical spills, but the document 

states that the chances are relatively minor for any of these to occur. 

Many of these impacts can be minimized via timing restrictions. Without knowing exactly 

where/when surveys will occur, it's difficult to provide more detail at this time 

NOS Response: NOS assessed the potential impacts to marine mammals; sea turtles; fish; 

aquatic macroinvertebrates; essential fish habitat; seabirds, shorebirds and coastal birds, 

and waterfowl; and their habitats. NOS has initiated consultation with USFWS under 

Section 7 of the ESA on the potential effects to endangered birds. As part of the 

consultation process, NOS developed additional mitigation measures in coordination with 

USFWS to avoid and minimize any potential effects to wildlife. Mitigation measures to 

protect wildlife, fish, and habitats include implementing mandatory invasive species 

prevention procedures, maintaining safe distances from protected species, following 

vessel speed restrictions in specific protected species habitats (e.g., North Atlantic right 

whale), and avoiding anchoring on sensitive bottoms. The full list of mitigation measures 

is included as Appendix D to the Final PEIS. 

As stated in the comment, these impacts are analyzed in detail in Sections 3.5.2.2.4, 

3.6.2.2.4, 3.7.2.2.4, 3.8.2.2.4, 3.9.2.2.4, and 3.10.2.2.4 of the Final PEIS. 

Habitats-1: Installation, maintenance, and removal of tide gauges may impact riparian habitat and 

may disturb a variety of species, including birds and terrapins. Bottom samplers may disrupt 

hibernating terrapins (November 1 to March 15) and freshwater mussels, depending on how far 

up rivers the NOS intends to sample. Many of these impacts can be minimized via timing 

restrictions. Without knowing exactly where/when surveys will occur, it's difficult to provide more 

detail at this time. 

NOS Response: Only very small areas would be disturbed during the installation, 

maintenance, and removal of tide gauges and GPS reference stations, most of which are 

affixed to existing docks and piers or secured to rocks in more remote locations. Any 

affected habitat components would be expected to recover post-installation. Before 

commencing any installation, NOS considers the presence of protected species. 

Collection of bottom grab samples typically involves disturbing a negligible amount of 

sediment from a 6” by 6” grab sampler. NOS would pay particularly close attention to 

November 2022 68 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

Response to Public Comments for Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition 

sensitive bottom habitats and avoid sampling these areas. NOS developed mitigation 

measures in coordination and consultation with expert agencies including NMFS and 

USFWS to avoid and minimize any potential effects from bottom grab sampling and the 

installation, maintenance, and removal of tide gauges and GPS reference stations. 

NOS does not expect that a significant percentage of the total future survey effort would 

take place in freshwater habitat. For each NOS project being proposed in freshwater, an 

ESA species list would be requested from the USFWS Information for Planning and 

Consultation (IPaC) report system. From this information, NOS would determine if any 

ESA-listed species are present in a proposed project area that have not already been 

addressed in the programmatic consultation. If any such species are identified, NOS would 

consider possible impacts to ESA-listed species in the context of that specific project. If 

appropriate, NOS would then initiate a Section 7 consultation with the appropriate USFWS 

field office(s). Additional mitigation measures may be developed and implemented for 

these projects through the ESA consultation process with USFWS and through the CZMA 

process with New Jersey. 

Marine Mammals-3: The impacts identified appear to be relatively minor, excluding impacts to 

marine mammals/sea turtles. Marine mammals in the U.S. face an overwhelming number of direct 

human-caused threats, including fisheries bycatch, vessel strikes, noise pollution, oil and gas 

exploration and development, plastics and other pollutants, and habitat destruction and 

degradation. In addition, evidence suggests that marine mammals are already profoundly 

impacted by climate change in myriad ways and that these impacts will continue to intensify. In 

certain circumstances, climate change will exacerbate the risk of direct human threats, essentially 

placing species in “double jeopardy.” Despite decades of federal protection, marine mammal 

species and stocks at high risk of extinction occur in virtually every region of the U.S. Further, 11 

marine mammal species are endemic to the Arctic and the capacity of these species to adapt to 

ecosystem alteration caused by rapid warming remains an open question; for some species, the 

level of adaptation necessary to avoid extinction may not be possible. 

NOS Response: Thank you for your comment. As summarized in Table ES-1 in the Final 

PEIS, NOS found the overall impacts to marine mammals and sea turtles to be adverse, 

negligible to minor, and insignificant under all alternatives. As for Arctic species, adverse, 

moderate impacts on marine mammals could occur in the very unlikely event of a vessel 

strike, a walrus stampede, if polar bears are disturbed at denning sites, or if polar bearhuman interactions occur. Adverse, moderate impacts on sea turtles could occur in the 

very unlikely event of an accidental oil, fuel, or chemical spill or a vessel strike. 

Section 4.2.2 of the PEIS includes a detailed discussion of cumulative impacts on marine 

mammals. This discussion includes the effects analysis for cumulative actions including 

fisheries bycatch, vessel strikes, noise pollution, oil and gas exploration and development, 

plastics and other pollutants, and habitat destruction and degradation. 

The effects analysis for Arctic marine mammals is discussed by species in Section 3.5.2. 

Climate change is addressed as a cumulative action and the effects analysis is discussed 

Section 4.1.4. 

November 2022 69 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

Response to Public Comments for Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition 

Cultural and Historic Resources-10: The Historic Preservation Office (HPO) has reviewed the 

documentation submitted and concurs with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration's (NOAA) analysis and methodology laid out in the draft Programmatic 

Environmental Impact Statement. 

NOS Response: Thank you for your careful consideration and your input. 

Future Coordination-6: The HPO does not have any concerns at this time and looks forward to 

further consultation with NOAA, pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, 

as appropriate. 

If additional consultation with the HPO is needed for this undertaking, please reference the HPO 

project number 21-1447 in any future calls, emails, submissions, or written correspondence to 

help expedite your review and response. 

NOS Response: Thank you for your comment. NOS will initiate project-specific 

consultations under Section 106 of the NHPA before commencing any activity with the 

potential to affect cultural or historic resources. The project number 21-1447 will be used 

for any future coordination with the New Jersey Historic Preservation Office (HPO). 

Endangered Species Act-1: While it is stated in the PEIS that the impacts from surveying and 

mapping activities will be adverse and minor, an increased vessel presence and the increased 

use of powerful echo-sounders could disrupt the behaviors of species of concern, such as the 

endangered North Atlantic right whale. 

NOS Response: NOS considered behavioral impacts to species of concern in Chapter 3. 

The analysis in the Final PEIS includes mitigation measures, such as approach restrictions, 

that would further reduce adverse impacts on all species, including the North Atlantic right 

whale. NOS would maintain a vessel speed of 10 knots or less when conducting projects 

onboard a vessel 65 feet or longer in any right whale seasonal management area, when 

those areas are active. Additionally, NOS would report entry into North Atlantic right whale 

critical habitat to the Mandatory Ship Reporting System. Sightings of the North Atlantic 

right whale will also be reported to NMFS within two hours of occurrence when practicable 

and no later than 24 hours after occurrence. See the mitigation measures required by 

NMFS at https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/endangered-speciesconservation/reducing-vessel-strikes-north-atlantic-right-whales. 

Echo sounder use has been modeled in detail as described in Section 3.5.2 and Appendix 

E of the Final PEIS. For the simulated animals exposed above the 160 decibels (dB) 

threshold, the average time above threshold is under two minutes, and often under one 

minute. The disturbances, therefore, are expected to be transient, and surveys, once 

completed in an area, would not generally be repeated, thus limiting an individual’s 

behavioral disruption. Behavioral exposures need to occur over the timespan of weeks to 

have a population level effect on marine mammals, including the North Atlantic right whale. 

Impacts would be very small and further mitigated by mitigation measures. 

November 2022 70 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

Response to Public Comments for Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition 

Also, please note that there would not be a substantial increase in vessel presence or use 

of echo sounders under the NOS Proposed Action as compared to current ongoing 

activities. 

Cumulative Impacts-2: The Greater Atlantic Region is currently experiencing high rates of 

disturbance due to global climate change. The impacts from climate change will have unknown 

effects on all species, including marine mammals and sea turtles. While it is stated in the PEIS that 

the impacts from surveying and mapping activities will be adverse and minor, an increased vessel 

presence and the increased use of powerful echo-sounders could disrupt the behaviors of species 

of concern, such as the endangered North Atlantic right whale. Due to the sensitivity of these 

species, cumulative impacts introduced by all ocean users must be considered when selecting 

the best sampling alternative. 

NOS Response: The cumulative impact scenario (Section 4.1 in the Final PEIS) considers 

past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions that must be addressed in a 

cumulative effects analysis because their environmental effects may combine with the 

effects of the Proposed Action. Due to the high volume and diversity of these cumulative 

actions across the action area, NOS identified specific projects and programs, both public 

and private sector, but also relevant environmental and economic trends; however, an 

exhaustive list of all ocean users would not be feasible to consider. NOS believes that the 

cumulative effects analysis present in the document is sufficient to consider impacts on all 

aspects of the human environment. NOS has assessed the potential for cumulative 

impacts of the proposed action on marine mammals (Section 4.2.2), on sea turtles (Section 

4.2.3) from climate change (Section 4.1.4), from vessel presence (discussed throughout 

Section 4.1 for a wide variety of cumulative actions), and from acoustic sources (Section 

4.1.1). 

Habitats-2: In addition, submerged vegetation, oyster reefs, and shellfish aquaculture leases 

should be avoided. 

The Marine Fisheries Administration is available to provide the most recent mapping products that 

document submerged vegetation beds, oyster reefs, aquaculture leases, artificial reefs, and other 

sensitive marine habitats of New Jersey. 

NOS Response: Thank you for the additional information on available mapping products. 

Impacts to marine and freshwater habitats would be limited to very small-scale bottom 

disturbance from anchoring, taking bottom grab samples, and installing buoys or 

moorings. NOS would ensure that all instruments in contact with the sea floor are properly 

secured to minimize bottom disturbance. NOS would not collect bottom samples for 

sediment verification on coral reefs, shipwrecks, obstructions, or hard bottom areas. When 

NOS anchors, it seeks to do so over bottom types like sticky mud or sand, as those 

characteristics allow the flukes of the anchor to dig into the bottom and hold the chain in 

place. When working in an un-surveyed area or in an area that has not been surveyed in 

many years, the ship would try to anchor in bays where data have already been collected, 

providing the ship with better information on where to drop the anchor. NOS would not 

anchor in coral critical habitat or other known areas of coral and would avoid anchoring in 

sea grass. 

November 2022 71 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

Response to Public Comments for Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition 

NOS developed additional mitigation measures in consultation with NMFS for ESA and 

EFH under Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA). 

Additional mitigation measures may be developed and implemented for these projects in 

consultation with New Jersey through the CZMA process. 

Fish-1: If alterations to the survey and mapping activities are made, timing of proposed activities 

should avoid migratory pathways where Spring inshore/upriver migrations and spawning of 

anadromous fishes occurs. Particularly, activities that can negatively impact behavior of fishes that 

detect high frequency sounds (e.g., river herrings and shad, as described on page 262-263), 

should avoid areas where these fish may be present during Spring migrations (listed below). 

NOS Response: The hearing frequency range of most fish is below approximately 1,500 

Hz with the most sensitive range below 800 Hz. The hearing range of pressure-sensing 

fish is typically extended to a few kHz (up to about 4 kHz). It should be noted, however, 

that at least three species of herring-like fishes detect sounds above 20 kHz. NOS expects 

to use very high frequency (200 kHz+) sources in Delaware Bay and New Jersey Rivers 

that have not been known to cause direct injury or mortality to fish. 

Section 3.7.2 of the PEIS explains that direct injuries (e.g., barotrauma) from sound 

sources used by NOS are unlikely because of slow rise times, lack of strong shock waves, 

and relatively low peak pressures. Because the sensory hair cells of the inner ear in fishes 

are regularly replaced over time when they are damaged, unlike in mammals where 

sensory hair cell loss is permanent, any hearing loss in fish may be temporary and the fish 

does not become deaf but requires a louder sound stimulus to detect a sound within the 

affected frequencies. Adverse effects are possible for the small numbers of individual fish 

that could occur in close proximity (i.e., within several meters) to an active sound source. 

These effects on a species can be considered significant if they result in a reduction in the 

overall health and viability of a population. However, given the localized and transient 

spatial scale of no more than a few NOS projects occurring at any one time relative to the 

generally large-scale distribution of fish populations and the considerably narrow beam 

characteristics of equipment such as echo sounders, no population level effects are 

expected on marine or freshwater fish. 

Vessels used by NOS would likely represent a negligible proportion of all vessel traffic in 

New Jersey rivers. 

Mitigation Measures-5: For the benefit of emission reductions, Crewed Vessel Operations, 

ferries, boats, etc. with 800 HP or more should meet EPA Tier 4 engine regulation standards to 

reduce NOx, PM, and HC. 

NOS Response: Some NOAA vessels have generators that comply with Tier 4 standards. 

NOS recognizes the benefits of Tier 4 standards; however, due to project needs, NOS 

contractors and grantees may use vessels that do not meet them. 

Mitigation Measures-6: NJ DEP recommends that construction projects involving non-road 

diesel construction equipment, operating in a small geographic area over an extended period of 

time, implement the following measures to minimize the impact of diesel exhaust: 

November 2022 72 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

Response to Public Comments for Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition 

2. All on-road vehicles and non-road construction equipment operating at, or visiting, the 

construction site shall comply with the three-minute idling limit, pursuant to N.J.A.C. 7:27-14 and 

N.J.A.C. 7:27-15. Consider purchasing ""No Idling"" signs to post at the site to remind contractors 

to comply with the idling limits. Signs are available for purchase from the Bureau of Mobile 

Sources at 609/292-7953 or http://www.stopthesoot.org/stsno-idle-sign.htm. 

3. All non-road diesel construction equipment greater than 100 horsepower used on the project 

for more than ten days should have engines that meet the USEP A Tier 4 non-road emission 

standards, or the best available emission control technology that is technologically feasible for 

that application and is verified by the USEP A or the CARB as a diesel emission control strategy 

for reducing particulate matter and/or NOx emissions. 

4. All on-road diesel vehicles used to haul materials or traveling to and from the construction site 

should use designated truck routes that are designed to minimize impacts on residential areas 

and sensitive receptors such as hospitals, schools, daycare facilities, senior citizen housing, and 

convalescent facilities. 

5. In accordance with N.J.A.C. 7:27-14 and 15, diesel vehicles should not idle for more than 15 

consecutive minutes when the vehicle has been stopped for 3 or more hours and only if the 

temperature is <25 deg. F. 

6. In accordance with N.J.A.C. 7:27-14 and 15, diesel vehicles can idle if the engine provides 

power for mechanical operations such as: refrigeration units for perishable goods, hydraulic lifts, 

"cherry pickers", or similar equipment. 

NOS Response: NOS does not expect to use terrestrial vehicles or construction 

equipment in a small area over any extended period of time. All activities included in the 

PEIS occur on the water, except for a small amount of near-coastal work to install tide 

gauges. Therefore, these standards for diesel construction do not apply. 

November 2022 73 
 

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

Response to Public Comments for Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition 

2.20 Nottawaseppi Huron Band of the Potawatomi (Douglas R. Taylor) 

2.20.1 Comment Submission 

November 2022 74 
Regulations.gov Comment ID 

NOAA-NOS-2021-0055-0002 

Regulations.gov Tracking Number 

kqg-olou-pxih 

Comment from Nottawaseppi Huron Band of the Potawatomi - 1301 T Dr. S, Fulton, Michigan 

49052 

Greetings, 

Ref: NOAA-NOS-2021-0055 

Thank you for including the Nottawaseppi Huron Band of the Potawatomi in your consultation 

process. From the description of your proposed project, it does not appear as if any cultural or 

religious concerns of the Tribe’s will be affected. We therefore have no objection to the project. Of 

course, if the project scope is significantly changed or inadvertent findings are discovered during the 

course of the project, please contact us for further consultation. 

Very Respectfully 

Douglas R. Taylor 
 

 

 

 

 

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

Response to Public Comments for Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition 

2.20.2 NOS Response 

Cultural and Historic Resources-15: From the description of your proposed project, it does not 

appear as if any cultural or religious concerns of the Tribe’s will be affected. We therefore have 

no objection to the project. 

NOS Response: Thank you for your careful consideration and your input. NOS intends to 

notify individual tribes pursuant to EO 13175 before conducting any project that may have 

tribal implications. Federally recognized tribes may request government-to-government 

consultation at any time for a proposed action that may have tribal implications. 

Future Coordination-9: Of course, if the project scope is significantly changed or inadvertent 

findings are discovered during the course of the project, please contact us for further consultation. 

NOS Response: Thank you for your comment, NOS would notify all interested parties if 

there is a significant change in scope and would notify the Nottawaseppi Huron Band of 

the Potawatomi if there is an inadvertent finding discovered during the course of a project 

with connections to the tribe. 

November 2022 75 
 

 

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

Response to Public Comments for Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition 

2.21 Natural Resources Defense Council (Francine Kershaw) 

2.21.1 Comment Submission 

November 2022 76 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submitted via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal 

November 22, 2021 

Ms. Giannina DiMaio 

DOC/NOAA/NOS Environmental Compliance Coordinator 

SSMC4-Station 13612 

1305 East West Highway 

Silver Spring, MD 20910 

RE: Comments on the Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

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

Acquisition 

Dear Ms. DiMaio, 

On behalf of the Natural Resources Defense Council and Ocean Conservation Research, and our millions 

of members, we respectfully submit our recommendations on the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration (“NOAA”) National Ocean Service (“NOS”) Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact 

Statement (“PEIS”) for Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for Coastal and Marine Data 

Acquisition. 86 Fed. Reg. 33,633 (Jun. 24, 2021); 86 Fed. Reg. 47,299 (Aug. 24, 2021). 

Our comments focus on the implications of the Proposed Action for marine mammals. The Draft PEIS 

analyzes the potential environmental impacts associated with the NOS’s recurring data collection projects 

to characterize submerged features (e.g., habitat, bathymetry, marine debris).1 As part of the Proposed 

Action, NOS may use several types of active acoustic equipment that emit sound within the hearing range 

of marine mammal taxa, and which could potentially result in injury or harassment.

2 The scope of the 

“action area” is extensive and encompasses the U.S. rivers, states’ offshore waters, the U.S. territorial sea, 

the contiguous zone, the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (“EEZ”), and coastal and riparian lands.3 Thus, 

the Proposed Action has the potential to impact all marine mammal taxa found in U.S. waters, including 

acoustically sensitive Arctic species,

4 endangered and threatened species and populations listed under the 

Endangered Species Act (“ESA”),

5 stocks designated as “depleted” and “strategic” under the Marine 

Mammal Protection Act (“MMPA”),6 and small and resident populations disproportionately vulnerable to 

disturbance.7

1 86 Fed. Reg. 47,299 (Aug. 24, 2021) 

2 NOAA NOS, “Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for 

Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition,” June 2021, (hereinafter “Draft PEIS”), at Appendix C, p. 3. Table 1. 

3 Draft PEIS at 32. 

4 Halliday, William D., Matthew K. Pine, and Stephen J. Insley. "Underwater noise and Arctic marine mammals: review and 

policy recommendations." Environmental Reviews 28.4 (2020): 438-448. 

5 16 U.S.C. 1531-1544, 87 Stat. 884. 

6 16 U.S.C. §§1361-1383b, 1401-1406, 1411-1421h. 

7 Forney, Karin A., et al. "Nowhere to go: noise impact assessments for marine mammal populations with high site 

fidelity." Endangered Species Research 32 (2017): 391-413. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ms. Giannina DiMaio 

November 22, 2021 

Page 2 

Marine mammals in the U.S. face an overwhelming number of direct human-caused threats, including 

fisheries bycatch, vessel strikes, noise pollution, oil and gas exploration and development, plastics and 

other pollutants, and habitat destruction and degradation.

8 In addition, evidence suggests that marine 

mammals are already profoundly impacted by climate change in myriad ways and that these impacts will 

continue to intensify.9 In certain circumstances, climate change will exacerbate the risk of direct human 

threats, essentially placing species in “double jeopardy.”10 Despite decades of federal protection, marine 

mammal species and stocks at high risk of extinction occur in virtually every region of the U.S.11 Further, 

11 marine mammal species are endemic to the Arctic and the capacity of these species to adapt to 

ecosystem alteration caused by rapid warming remains an open question; for some species, the level of 

adaptation necessary to avoid extinction may not be possible.12

The need for accurate assessment of the additional and cumulative impacts that the Proposed Action will 

pose for already struggling marine mammal species and stocks, as well as the implementation of effective 

measures to avoid, minimize, and mitigate impacts to the full extent practicable, is paramount. We note 

that while consistency across regions is a clear goal of any programmatic permit, differences in data 

availability, marine mammal vulnerability, and mitigation needs occur between the “operational areas” 

included within the action area and need to be recognized and accounted for by NOS in the Final PEIS. 

The following comments are intended to support NOS in undertaking its data collection projects in a 

manner that is sufficiently protective of marine mammals, in line with the agency’s mandate to meet the 

requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”), as well as other relevant statutes, 

namely the MMPA and the ESA. 

8 Avila, Isabel C., Kristin Kaschner, and Carsten F. Dormann. "Current global risks to marine mammals: taking stock of the 

threats." Biological Conservation 221 (2018): 44-58. 

9 Albouy, Camille, et al. "Global vulnerability of marine mammals to global warming." Scientific Reports 10.1 (2020): 1-12. 

10 Id. See, e.g., Santora, Jarrod A., et al. "Habitat compression and ecosystem shifts as potential links between marine heatwave 

and record whale entanglements." Nature Communications 11.1 (2020): 1-12; Guilpin, Marie, et al. "Repeated vessel 

interactions and climate-or fishery-driven changes in prey density limit energy acquisition by foraging blue whales." Frontiers 

in Marine Science 7 (2020): 626; Record, Nicholas R., et al. "Rapid climate-driven circulation changes threaten conservation 

of endangered North Atlantic right whales." Oceanography 32.2 (2019): 162-169. 

11 North Atlantic right whales numbered 336 individuals in 2020; Gulf of Mexico whales (Balaenoptera ricei) currently number 

approximately 50 individuals; in the eastern North Pacific, Southern Resident killer whales currently number 74 individuals, 

approximately 30-35 individuals remain of the eastern stock North Pacific right whales, and Cook Inlet beluga whales 

numbered only 279 individuals in 2019; the population of Hawaiian monk seals currently represents only approximately 1,400 

individuals and is considered endangered throughout its range. See NOAA Fisheries, “Endangered and Threatened Species 

Directory,” available at: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/species-directory/threatened-endangered; New England Aquarium 

Press Release, “Population of North Atlantic right whales continues its downward trajectory,” available at: 

https://www.neaq.org/about-us/news-media/press-kit/press-releases/population-of-north-atlantic-right-whales-continues-itsdownward-trajectory/; Marine Mammal Commission, “Southern Resident Killer Whale,” available at: 

https://www.mmc.gov/priority-topics/species-of-concern/southern-resident-killer-whale/. 

12 Moore, Sue E., and Randall R. Reeves. "Tracking arctic marine mammal resilience in an era of rapid ecosystem alteration." 

PLoS Biology 16.10 (2018): e2006708. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ms. Giannina DiMaio 

November 22, 2021 

Page 3 

We are particularly concerned with the lack of mitigation measures proposed in the Draft PEIS.

13 In order 

to satisfy NEPA, mitigation measures must be developed as part of the EIS process and not shunted to 

processes that may be required under other statutes, with their different scopes and standards, some of 

which, as with the interagency consultation provisions of the ESA, do not provide notice and opportunity 

for public comment.14 Mitigation measures should be made available for public comment as a 

supplemental document to the Draft PEIS prior to being incorporated in the Final EIS. 

To assist NOS in this task, we recommend the following requirements for active acoustic sources that 

emit sound levels with the potential to injure or harass marine mammals (<200 kHz): 

• Time-area restrictions on survey activities in habitat areas and during times of biological importance 

to marine mammals, including, at minimum, critical habitat areas designated under the ESA and 

Biologically Important Areas (“BIAs”) designated by NOAA. 

• A prohibition on commencing surveys at night and during periods of low visibility to maximize the 

probability that marine mammals are detected and confirmed clear of the exclusion zone. 

• A requirement to establish and monitor an exclusion zone around each sound source with a radial 

distance that will minimize behavioral disturbance. 

• A requirement that a combination of visual monitoring by Protected Species Observers (“PSOs”) and 

passive acoustic monitoring is implemented at all times that survey work is underway. 

• A requirement that four PSOs adhere to a two-on/two-off shift schedule to ensure no individual PSO 

is responsible for visually monitoring more than 180° of the exclusion zone at any one time. 

• A requirement that the developer selects sub-bottom profiling systems, and operates those systems at 

power settings, that achieve the lowest practicable source level for the objective. 

• A requirement that all vessels associated with the Proposed Action, regardless of size, observe a 

mandatory 10 knot speed restriction at all times. 

I. The National Environmental Policy Act 

Enacted by Congress in 1969, NEPA establishes a national policy to “encourage productive and enjoyable 

harmony between man and his environment” and promote efforts which will prevent or eliminate damage 

to the environment and biosphere and stimulate the health and welfare of man.” 42 U.S.C. § 4321. In 

13 Draft PEIS at 58. “Additionally, this analysis concludes that the Proposed Action is not anticipated to result in significant 

impacts for any resource. As such, NOS has not proposed a discrete set of additional mitigation measures for this Draft PEIS 

... Additional mitigation measures would likely be identified through these consultations. Mitigation measures and BMPs 

developed through consultation, as well as measures suggested through public comment, will be considered as part of the 

analysis in the Final PEIS.” 

14 43 C.F.R. § 1502.14; see also id. at § 1507.4 (noting that “NEPA requires consideration of mitigation”). 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ms. Giannina DiMaio 

November 22, 2021 

Page 4 

order to achieve its broad goals, NEPA mandates that “to the fullest extent possible” the “policies, 

regulations, and public laws of the United States shall be interpreted and administered in accordance with 

[NEPA].” 42 U.S.C. § 4332. As the Supreme Court explained, 

NEPA’s instruction that all federal agencies comply with the impact statement 

requirement – and with all the requirements of § 102 – “to the fullest extent possible” 

[cit. omit.] is neither accidental nor hyperbolic. Rather the phrase is a deliberate 

command that the duty NEPA imposes upon the agencies to consider environmental 

factors not be shunted aside in the bureaucratic shuffle. 

Flint Ridge Development Co. v. Scenic Rivers Ass’n, 426 U.S. 776, 787 (1976). Central to NEPA is its 

requirement that, before any federal action that “may significantly degrade some human environmental 

factor” can be undertaken, agencies must prepare an environmental impact statement. Steamboaters v. 

F.E.R.C., 759 F.2d 1382, 1392 (9th Cir. 1985) (emphasis in original). 

The fundamental purpose of an EIS is to force the decision-maker to take a “hard look” at a particular 

action – at the agency’s need for it, at the environmental consequences it will have, and at more 

environmentally benign alternatives that may substitute for it – before the decision to proceed is made. 

See 40 C.F.R. §§ 1500.1(b), 1502.1; Baltimore Gas & Electric v. NRDC, 462 U.S. 87, 97 (1983). This 

“hard look” requires agencies to obtain high-quality information and accurate scientific analysis. See 

40 C.F.R. § 1500.1(b). “General statements about possible effects and some risks do not constitute a 

hard look absent a justification regarding why more definitive information could not be provided.” 

Klamath-Siskiyou Wilderness Center v. Bureau of Land management, 387 F.3d 989,994 (9th Cir. 

2004) (quoting Neighbors of Cuddy Mountain v. United States Forest Service, 137 F.3d 1372, 1380 

(9th Cir. 1998)). The law is clear that the EIS must be a pre-decisional, objective, rigorous, and neutral 

document, not a work of advocacy to justify an outcome that has been foreordained. 

To comply with NEPA, an EIS must inter alia include a “full and fair discussion” of direct and indirect 

environmental impacts (40 C.F.R. § 1502.1), consider the cumulative effects of reasonably foreseeable 

activities in combination with the proposed action (id. § 1508.7), analyze all reasonable alternatives that 

would avoid or minimize the action’s adverse impacts (id. § 1502.1), address measures to mitigate those 

adverse effects (id. § 1502.14(f)), and assess possible conflicts with other federal, regional, state, and 

local authorities (id. § 1502.16(c)). 

In addition to NEPA, NOS is obligated under both the ESA and the MMPA to protect marine mammals 

from additional harmful impacts of human activities and required by the MMPA to consider the full range 

of potential impacts on all marine mammal species that are known to utilize the action area. Further, 

appropriate avoidance, minimization, mitigation, and monitoring measures are required. NOS must use 

the best available scientific information on marine mammal presence, density, and population status, as 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ms. Giannina DiMaio 

November 22, 2021 

Page 5 

required by law.15 NOS must also ensure that any potential stressors and cumulative impacts posed by the 

proposed surveys are mitigated to effectuate the least practicable impact on affected species and stocks.16

II. Effects of the Proposed Action on Marine Mammals in U.S. Waters 

The Draft PEIS identifies several potential impact producing factors that may have consequences for 

marine mammals in the action area.17 While we note that NEPA requires all identified impact producing 

factors be analyzed and mitigated, we focus our comments on the factors that represent, in our view, the 

greatest risk to marine mammals posed by the Proposed Action: impacts of underwater noise on 

cetaceans; and vessel strike risk to large whales. 

A. Impacts of underwater noise generated by the Proposed Action on cetaceans 

The NOS proposes to use up to forty different active acoustic equipment sources that emit sound within 

the hearing range of cetaceans when conducting the oceanographic surveys included in the Proposed 

Action, including echo sounders, acoustic doppler current profilers (ADCPs), and acoustic 

communication systems.18 Equipment operated at or below 200 kHz overlaps with the hearing range of 

marine mammals and potentially pose a risk of injury or harassment (see Figure 1). 

Exposure to noise from geophysical surveys used for oceanographic surveys can damage the hearing and 

sensory abilities of some species, cause stress and negative health effects, disrupt vital behaviors, or 

displace marine mammals from habitat.19 These effects are particularly concerning for acoustically 

sensitive species, such as those endemic to the Arctic and deep-diving cetaceans,20 as well as those taxa 

coping with climate-driven shifts in prey distribution, including endangered and threatened large whales, 

for which displacement from preferred feeding areas or known migratory paths could have a 

disproportionately negative effect on their energy budget.21 Moreover, extensive high resolution 

geophysical (“HRG”) surveys associated with the Proposed Action will take place concurrently with other 

sources of noise occurring in marine mammal habitat,

22 making the cumulative impacts posed by these 

activities a significant concern. 

15 16 U.S.C. § 1362(19), § 1362(27). 

16 16 U.S.C. § 1371(a)(5)(D)(ii)(I). 

17 Draft PEIS at 145. 

18 Draft PEIS, Appendix C, at 3, Table 1. 

19 Erbe, Christine, Rebecca Dunlop, and Sarah Dolman. "Effects of noise on marine mammals." Effects of anthropogenic noise on 

animals. Springer, New York, NY, 2018. 277-309. 

20 Halliday, William D., et al., supra; Simonis, Anne E., et al. "Co-occurrence of beaked whale strandings and naval sonar in the 

Mariana Islands, Western Pacific." Proceedings of the Royal Society B 287.1921 (2020): 20200070. 

21 Meyer-Gutbrod, Erin L., et al. "Ocean regime shift is driving collapse of the North Atlantic right whale population." 

Oceanography 34.3 (2021): 22-31; NOAA Fisheries, “Gray Whale Unusual Mortality Event along the West Coast and 

Alaska,” available at: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-life-distress/2019-2021-gray-whale-unusual-mortalityevent-along-west-coast-and. 

22 Duarte, Carlos M., et al. "The soundscape of the Anthropocene ocean." Science 371.6529 (2021). 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ms. Giannina DiMaio 

November 22, 2021 

Page 6 

Figure 1. Frequency ranges over which groups of marine mammals call (top) and the primary frequency 

ranges over which some anthropogenic sound sources (bottom) overlap. The bracketed boxes correspond 

to the following HRG survey equipment sound sources: A) Sparkers/Boomers; B) Non-parametric subbottom profilers; C) Acoustic corers; D) Acoustic positioning systems; E) Parametric sub-bottom profilers; 

and F) Multibeam echosounders and sidescan sonar. Figure adapted from van Parijs et al. (2021).23

B. Vessel strike risk to large whales from the Proposed Action 

Vessel strikes are a leading cause of large whale injury and mortality, and a direct driver of the current 

decline of several endangered large whales species and stocks in U.S. waters.

24 The number of recorded 

vessel collisions of large whales each year is likely a significant underestimate of the actual number of 

animals struck, as animals struck, but not recovered or thoroughly examined, cannot be accounted for.25

Mortality or serious injury—considered by NOAA Fisheries to be an injury from which the animal is not 

23 Van Parijs, Sofie. "NOAA and BOEM Minimum Recommendations for Use of Passive Acoustic Listening Systems in 

Offshore Wind Energy Development Monitoring and Mitigation Programs." Frontiers in Marine Science (2021): 1575. 

24 NOAA Fisheries, “2017-2021 North Atlantic Right Whale Unusual Mortality Event,” available at: 

https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-life-distress/2017-2021-north-atlantic-right-whale-unusual-mortality-event; 

NOAA Fisheries, “2016-2021 Humpback Whale Unusual Mortality Event Along the East Coast,” available at: 

https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-life-distress/2016-2021-humpback-whale-unusual-mortality-event-alongatlantic-coast; Rockwood, R. Cotton, et al. "Estimating effectiveness of speed reduction measures for decreasing whale-strike 

mortality in a high-risk region." Endangered Species Research 43 (2020): 145-166. 

25 Pace III, Richard M., et al. "Cryptic mortality of North Atlantic right whales." Conservation Science and Practice 3.2 (2021): 

e346. Observed carcasses of North Atlantic right whales from all causes of death may have only accounted for 36 percent of all 

estimated death during 1990-2017, with detection rates dropping to 29 percent for the period of 2010-2017. Detection rates 

may be similarly low for other large whale species, and even lower for species that receive relatively less surveillance effort. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ms. Giannina DiMaio 

November 22, 2021 

Page 7 

expected to recover26—can occur from a collision with a vessel traveling above 10 knots, irrespective of 

length,

27 and vessels of any length travelling below this speed can still inflict lethal harm.28

The survey vessels associated with the Proposed Action pose a risk of collision to large whales that must 

be mitigated. The Draft PEIS states that vessel transit speeds vary by location, but are typically lower than 

25 knots, and that vessels are typically limited to speeds of 13 knots during survey activities.29 These 

speeds far exceed the 10-knot limit that best available scientific information indicates is necessary to 

reduce the probability of mortality and serious injury resulting from a vessel strike when it does occur. 

The Draft PEIS also states that vessel transits and project activities may occur at either day or night.30

Nighttime transits and survey activities increase vessel strike risk to all large whales due to the reduced 

probability of detection during periods of darkness, and particularly for those large whale species that 

exhibit nighttime behaviors that further increase their risk level. For example, the North Atlantic right 

whale and the Gulf of Mexico whale (Balaenoptera ricei)—two of the nation’s most critically endangered 

species and for which vessel strikes are a major driver of their current decline—spend the majority of 

their time at night residing just beneath the surface within the uppermost few meters of the water 

column.31 This behavior places these species in the direct path of a vessel’s hull during periods of 

darkness, when they would be virtually impossible to detect by the vessel captain or other visual observer. 

III. Recommended Improvements to the Impact Analysis 

Fundamental to satisfying NEPA’s requirement of fair and objective review, agencies must ensure the 

“professional integrity, including scientific integrity,” of the discussions and analyses that appear in 

environmental impact statements. 40 C.F.R. § 1502.24. To this end, they must make every attempt to 

obtain and disclose data necessary to their analysis. The simple assertion that “no information exists” 

will not suffice; unless the costs of obtaining the information are exorbitant, NEPA requires that it be 

obtained. See 40 C.F.R. § 1502.22(a). Agencies are further required to identify their methodologies, 

indicate when necessary information is incomplete or unavailable, acknowledge scientific disagreement 

and data gaps, and evaluate indeterminate adverse impacts based upon approaches or methods 

“generally accepted in the scientific community.” 40 C.F.R. §§ 1502.22(2), (4), 1502.24. Further, it is 

not enough, for purposes of this discussion, to consider the proposed action in isolation, divorced from 

other public and private activities that impinge on the same resource; rather, it is incumbent on NOS to 

assess cumulative impacts as well, including the “impact on the environment which results from the 

26 NOAA Fisheries, “Process for distinguishing serious from non-serious injury for marine mammals,” July 2014, available at: 

https://media.fisheries.noaa.gov/dam-migration/02-238.pdf. 

27 Conn, P. B., and G. K. Silber. "Vessel speed restrictions reduce risk of collision‐related mortality for North Atlantic right 

whales." Ecosphere 4.4 (2013): 1-16. 

28 Kelley, D.E., Vlasic, J.P. and Brilliant, S.W., “Assessing the lethality if ship strikes on whales using simple biophysical 

models,” Marine Mammal Science, vol. 37, pp. 251-267 (2020). 

29 Draft PEIS at 34. 

30 Id. 

31 Soldevilla, Melissa S., et al. "Spatial distribution and dive behavior of Gulf of Mexico Bryde’s whales: potential risk of vessel 

strikes and fisheries interactions." Endangered Species Research 32 (2017): 533-550; Parks, Susan E., et al. "Dangerous 

dining: surface foraging of North Atlantic right whales increases risk of vessel collisions." Biology Letters 8.1 (2012): 57-60. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ms. Giannina DiMaio 

November 22, 2021 

Page 8 

incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future 

significant actions.” Id. § 1508.7. 

A. NOS should be more precautionary in the assessment of acoustic impacts 

NOS should be more precautionary in its assessment of potential acoustic impacts from the survey 

activities in the Proposed Action on marine mammals and incorporate the following into its impact 

analyses: First, the potential for concurrent impulsive exposures to be experienced by the animal as 

continuous exposure should be accounted for.

32 We note that potential exposure to continuous noise 

would set the regulatory acoustic impact threshold at 120dB.

33 Second, NOS should not underestimate the 

potential for high frequency exposures due to higher attenuation rates over distance, as attenuation rates 

may be less efficient when propagation characteristics are accounted for.34 Exposures should be modeled 

for each operational area using region-specific information on propagation conditions. 

In addition, NOAA should acknowledge the limitations of current NOAA Fisheries’ acoustic thresholds 

for behavioral impacts and develop and use updated guidelines on thresholds for marine mammal 

behavioral disturbance (i.e., Level B take)35 that are sufficiently protective and consistent with the best 

available scientific information. Multiple marine mammal species have been observed to exhibit strong, 

and in some cases, lethal, behavioral reactions to sound levels well below the 160 dB threshold defined by 

NOAA Fisheries for Level B take,36 leading to calls from the scientific community for the agency to 

revise its guidelines.37 Acceptance of the current NOAA Fisheries’ acoustic threshold for Level B take 

will result in NOS’s significant underestimation of the impacts to marine mammals and potentially the 

permitting, recommendation, or prescription of ineffective mitigation measures (e.g., under protective 

exclusion zones). 

32 Hastie, Gordon, et al. "Effects of impulsive noise on marine mammals: investigating range‐dependent risk." Ecological 

Applications 29.5 (2019): e01906. 

33 NOAA Fisheries, “Revisions to: Technical Guidance for Assessing the Effects of Anthropogenic Sound on Marine Mammal 

Hearing (Version 2.0): Underwater Thresholds for Onset of Permanent and Temporary Threshold Shifts.” U.S. Dept. of 

Commerce, NOAA. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-OPR-59, 167 p (2018). 

34 See, e.g., Shapiro, G., F. Chen, and R. Thain. "The effect of ocean fronts on acoustic wave propagation in the Celtic Sea." 

Journal of Marine Systems 139 (2014): 217-226. 

35 As defined pursuant to the Marine Mammal Protection Act “any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which has the potential 

to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but 

not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering but which does not have the potential to injure a 

marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild.” 50 C.F.R. § 216.3. 

36 Gomez, Catalina, et al. "A systematic review on the behavioural responses of wild marine mammals to noise: the disparity 

between science and policy." Canadian Journal of Zoology 94.12 (2016): 801-819. 

37 E.g., England, Gordon R., et al. "Joint interim report Bahamas marine mammal stranding event of 15-16 March 2000." US 

Department of Commerce, US Secretary of the Navy (2001); Nowacek, Douglas P., Mark P. Johnson, and Peter L. Tyack. 

"North Atlantic right whales (Eubalaena glacialis) ignore ships but respond to alerting stimuli." Proceedings of the Royal 

Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences 271.1536 (2004): 227-231; Parsons, E. C. M., et al. "Navy sonar and 

cetaceans: Just how much does the gun need to smoke before we act?." Marine Pollution Bulletin 56.7 (2008): 1248-1257; 

Tougaard, Jakob, Andrew J. Wright, and Peter T. Madsen. "Cetacean noise criteria revisited in the light of proposed exposure 

limits for harbour porpoises." Marine Pollution Bulletin 90.1-2 (2015): 196-208; Wright, Andrew J. "Sound science: 

maintaining numerical and statistical standards in the pursuit of noise exposure criteria for marine mammals." Frontiers in 

Marine Science 2 (2015): 99. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ms. Giannina DiMaio 

November 22, 2021 

Page 9 

B. NOS must incorporate additional data sources into calculations of marine mammal density and 

take 

In determining the proportion of marine mammal species and stocks taken by the proposed activities, 

NOS relies on information on species abundance and distribution obtained from NOAA and U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service Stock Assessment Reports (“SARs”).38 Species and stock densities within the NOS 

operational areas were derived by distributing SARs abundance estimates over the portion of the 

operational area that coincides with the habitat preference and associated depth category for the species or 

stock. If a species or stock occupied an area larger than the operational area, the conservative assumption 

was made that the abundance of the species or stock occurred wholly within the operational areas under 

assessment.39 Densities derived from information provided by the SARs were compared with habitatbased density estimates when available but were not found to correspond in a consistent manner.40

The simple approach of averaging abundance estimates over the extent of a species’ or stock’s 

distribution or depth preference does not bring to bear the best available scientific information for the 

purposes of impact assessment. Our concerns are threefold: 

First, NOS does not consider important habitat areas where marine mammal density may be elevated 

relative to other areas either year-round or seasonally, and where concomitant survey activities would 

result in disproportionately higher impacts and number of takes. Multiple data sources describe important 

habitat areas for marine mammals (see Section IV.A. for further discussion) and this information should 

be incorporated into the impact analysis. 

Second, the habitat-based density models produced by Duke University for marine mammals from several 

regions of the U.S. (i.e., the “Roberts et al.” models), while still requiring improvement, represent a more 

sophisticated methodology for density estimation compared with NOS’s approach of averaging 

abundance estimates from the SARs. NOS should not default to the lowest common denominator in 

selecting a single methodology to estimate take across all operational areas. Rather, for those operational 

areas where improved density estimates are available, NOS should use those estimates in the impact 

assessment. 

Third, a number of marine mammal species and stocks in the U.S. are considered data poor and have 

uncertain or outdated abundance estimates. It is not precautionary to assume that density and take levels 

can be reliably estimated for these species and stocks. Rather, NOS should explicitly note which species 

are data deficient in the Draft PEIS and, based on this, indicate that potential impacts on these species and 

stocks cannot be evaluated at this time. 

NOS should update the impact assessment based on these recommendations to ensure that the PEIS aligns 

with the requirements set forth under NEPA, and other relevant statutes, including the MMPA and ESA. 

38 Draft PEIS, Appendix C, at 10. 

39 Id. 

40 Id. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ms. Giannina DiMaio 

November 22, 2021 

Page 10 

C. NOS must afford special consideration to potential direct and cumulative impacts on Arctic 

species and stocks 

The Arctic is a unique acoustic environment and maintaining its acoustic integrity should be a primary 

goal of NOS. Ambient sound levels in the Arctic are some of the lowest on Earth and Arctic marine 

species have had limited exposure to ocean noise pollution caused by human activities.41 This naivete 

means Arctic marine mammals, and their prey, will likely be disproportionately impacted by any increase 

in ocean noise.42 Many Arctic marine mammals are in serious jeopardy from additional seemingly 

intractable climate change impacts, including the diminishment of sea ice habitat,43 and impacts from 

noise will further undermine the possibility of their survival. 

The strong international interest in developing an increasingly ice-free Arctic means that Arctic marine 

mammals may face significant and rapid increases in ocean noise pollution.44 For example, noise from 

shipping increased substantially in multiple locations across the Arctic between 2013 and 2019, and some 

areas of the Arctic are now twice as loud as they were in 2013.45 Climate change is also changing the 

Arctic acoustic environment in other ways. Loss of sea ice reduces propagation loss and increases 

ambient sound levels due to increased interaction between the surface and the atmosphere. The Arctic is 

also becoming stormier during the ice-free season and increased wind speeds may lead to greater ambient 

sound levels.46

NOS must take these considerations into account when analyzing impacts of the Proposed Action on 

endemic Arctic species. In doing so, NOS must revise its take estimates for Arctic species based on the 

increased sensitivity to noise of those species relative to species in other regions. Further, NOS must fully 

evaluate the disproportionate impacts of climate change on Arctic marine mammal species and stocks and 

their habitat, as well as the unprecedented foreseeable industrial development, as part of the cumulative 

impacts analysis. For mitigation purposes, and in addition to the recommendations outlined in Section IV, 

NOS should consider limiting survey activities in the Arctic region overall and set more protective noise 

limits and stricter procedural mitigation measures for any survey activities that are undertaken. 

IV. Recommendations for Mitigation and Monitoring 

At bottom, an EIS must “inform decision-makers and the public of the reasonable alternatives which 

would avoid or minimize adverse impacts or enhance the quality of the human environment.” 40 C.F.R. § 

41 PAME, “Underwater noise in the Arctic: A state of knowledge report,” Roveniemi (May 2019), Protection of the Arctic 

Marine Environment (PAME) Secretariat, Akureyri. 

42 Id. 

43 Moore and Reeves, supra. 

44 Halliday, et al., supra. 

45 PAME, “Underwater noise pollution from shipping in the Arctic report,” Submitted by the Protection of the Arctic Marine 

Environment Working Group of the Arctic Council to the Chairman of the SAOs and the Arctic Council SAOs, Reykjavik, 

Iceland (Feb. 18, 2021). 

46 Halliday et al. supra. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ms. Giannina DiMaio 

November 22, 2021 

Page 11 

1502.1. This requirement has been described in regulation as “the heart of the environmental impact 

statement.” Id. § 1502.14. The courts describe the alternatives requirement equally emphatically, citing it 

early on as the “linchpin” of the EIS. Monroe County Conservation Council v. Volpe, 472 F.2d 693 (2d 

Cir. 1972). The agencies must therefore “[r]igorously explore and objectively evaluate all reasonable 

alternatives, and for alternatives which were eliminated from detailed study, briefly discuss the reasons 

for their having been eliminated.” Id. § 1502.14(a). Consideration of alternatives is required by (and must 

conform to the independent terms of) both sections 102(2)(C) and 102(2)(E) of NEPA. In addition, 

agencies must discuss measures designed to mitigate their action’s impact on the environment. See 42 

C.F.R. § 1502.14(f). 

No mitigation measures for marine mammals are included in the Draft PEIS. Rather, as the “analysis 

concludes that the Proposed Action is not anticipated to result in significant impacts for any resource [...] 

NOS has not proposed a discrete set of mitigation measures...”47 Additional mitigation measures and best 

management practices (“BMPs”) are expected to be developed through various interagency consultation 

as well as through public comment and “will be considered as part of the analysis in the Final EIS.”48

The predetermination by NOS that the Proposed Action is “not anticipated to result in significant impacts 

for any resource” prior to consultation and public comment, as well as the lack of inclusion of any 

mitigation measures in the Draft PEIS for evaluation by the public, fails to satisfy the requirement for 

sufficient notice and comment set forth under NEPA.49

In order to satisfy NEPA, mitigation measures must be developed as part of the EIS process and not 

shunted to processes that may be required under other statutes, with their different scopes and standards, 

some of which, as with the interagency consultation provisions of the ESA, do not provide notice and 

opportunity for public comment.50 Mitigation measures should be made available for public comment 

as a supplemental document to the Draft PEIS prior to being incorporated in the Final EIS. 

We recommend the following mitigation measures be considered for acoustic sources that could injure or 

harass endangered and protected species and stocks of marine mammals (i.e., <200 kHz). 

A. Restrict survey activities in areas and during times of year when marine mammals have higher 

relative vulnerability 

It is most protective to avoid and reduce impacts in the first instance by separating harmful activities from 

the species and stocks potentially affected. NOS should define and implement time-area restrictions to 

limit survey activities involving survey equipment with the potential to injure or harass marine 

mammals in areas and/or during times of highest risk to endangered and protected species and 

stocks. 

47 Draft PEIS at 58. 

48 Id. 

49 43 C.F.R. § 1502.14; see also id. at § 1507.4 (noting that “NEPA requires consideration of mitigation”). 

50 Id. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ms. Giannina DiMaio 

November 22, 2021 

Page 12 

Time-area restrictions should be informed, at minimum, by critical habitat designated under the ESA and 

BIAs designated by NOAA, which comprise reproductive areas, feeding areas, migratory corridors, and 

areas in which small and resident populations are concentrated.51 BIAs offer a necessary complement to 

habitat-based density models (e.g., NOAA CetMap); in addition to high density areas, BIAs may capture 

areas of critical importance to the survival of a species or stock where density of individuals may be low. 

BIA designations are not comprehensive, however, and are intended to be periodically reviewed and 

updated to reflect the best available scientific information.52 Indeed, BIAs are currently undergoing 

review, a process that may yield new or revised BIAs for several species and stocks in December 2021.

53

NOS should incorporate the revised BIAs into the necessary development of mitigation measures for the 

Proposed Action. We further recommend NOS synthesize multiple data sources when making 

determinations about the importance of marine mammal habitat (e.g., aerial survey data, acoustic 

detections, opportunistic data), rather than relying solely designated ESA critical habitat and BIAs. 

When implementing time-area restrictions, it is also imperative that NOS fully account for the 

consequences of those restrictions on other protected species and stocks not the original target of the 

restriction (i.e., the potential for displacing or concentrating survey activities in other areas or during 

times of year that may elevate risk to other species and stocks must be fully considered). 

We also recommend NOS, and NOAA Fisheries, work to advance a robust and effective near real-time 

monitoring and mitigation system for endangered and protected species and stocks of large whales that 

will be more responsive to ongoing dynamic distributional shifts resulting from climate change,

54 as well 

as provide more flexibility in the survey window. There are several technologies in various of stages of 

development that would allow near real-time detection of large whales and convey that information to 

decision-makers,55 and near real-time monitoring systems are already being deployed to mitigate risks to 

some species, including the North Atlantic right whale.

56 We recommend NOS invest in and coordinate 

with NOAA Fisheries and other relevant agencies, experts, and stakeholders, to develop a near real-time 

large whale monitoring and mitigation system. The system should be capable of detecting and alerting 

vessels, stationary platforms, and enforcement agencies of the location of large whales on a near real-time 

basis, informing sector-specific mitigation protocols that can effectively reduce take of large whales, and 

continually integrate improved technology. The development of the system could begin with a pilot 

program that incorporates all the necessary precautions (e.g., vessel speed limit of 10 knots) focused on 

51 Van Parijs, Sofie M. "Letter of introduction to the biologically important areas issue." Aquatic Mammals 41.1 (2015): 1-2. 

52 Id. 

53 See https://oceannoise.noaa.gov/biologically-important-areas. 

54 van Weelden, Celine, Jared R. Towers, and Thijs Bosker. "Impacts of climate change on cetacean distribution, habitat and 

migration." Climate Change Ecology (2021): 100009. 

55 E.g., Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, Robots4Whales, available at http://dcs.whoi.edu/; Seatrac Systems Inc., available 

at https://www.seatrac.com/; Mysticetus, LLC., available at https://www.mysticetus.com/ 

56 See, e.g., Underwater glider helps save North Atlantic Right Whales from Ship Strikes, CBC News (Aug. 30, 2020), available 

at https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/nb-north-atlantic-right-whales-underwater-glider-1.5701984. An 

unmanned acoustic glider capable of auto-detecting North Atlantic right whale calls is currently informing decisions being 

made by Transport Canada on when to impose vessel speed restrictions in the Laurentian Channel. Ten-knot speed restrictions 

can be issued within an hour of North Atlantic right whales being detected. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ms. Giannina DiMaio 

November 22, 2021 

Page 13 

the critically endangered North Atlantic right whale and then be expanded to other whales and 

geographies once the approach is tested and proven. 

B. Commence survey activities during daylight and good visibility conditions 

NOS should require that work commence, with ramp up, only during daylight hours and periods of 

good visibility to maximize the probability that marine mammals are detected and confirmed clear 

of any exclusion zone before activities begin. The activity can then continue into periods of darkness 

and low visibility if monitoring technologies effective in low visibility conditions are used (see Section 

IV.C. for more discussion of the use of infrared technologies for monitoring).

57 If the activity is halted or 

delayed because of documented or suspected presence of protected species and stocks in the area, NOS 

should wait until daylight hours and good visibility conditions to recommence survey activities. 

C. Require an exclusion zone that will minimize behavioral disturbance with both visual and 

acoustic monitoring 

As discussed in Section III.A., the 160 dB threshold for behavioral harassment is not supported by best 

available scientific information58 and grossly underestimates Level B take. NOS should establish and 

monitor an exclusion zone around the sound source with a radial distance that will minimize 

behavioral disturbance to the species expected to be present in the operational area. 

NOS must also adequately monitor the exclusion zones. Studies suggest that marine mammals exhibit 

behaviors that reduce their likelihood of detection by PSOs. These behavioral responses may be 

heightened when whales are in the proximity of the acoustic disturbance, meaning that animals may be 

less detectable by observers during the survey period relative to other times.59 There are also sighting 

condition limitations. For even the most conspicuous large whale species, estimates of relative detection 

probability for a Beaufort Sea State of six is less than half that for a Beaufort Sea State of zero.

60 Given 

57 Verfuss, Ursula K., et al. "Comparing methods suitable for monitoring marine mammals in low visibility conditions during 

seismic surveys." Marine Pollution Bulletin 126 (2018): 1-18. 

58 Blackwell, Susanna B., et al. "Effects of airgun sounds on bowhead whale calling rates: evidence for two behavioral 

thresholds." PloS One 10.6 (2015): e0125720. 

59 Robertson, Frances C., et al. "Seismic operations have variable effects on dive-cycle behavior of bowhead whales in the 

Beaufort Sea." Endangered Species Research 21.2 (2013): 143-160. 

60 Barlow, Jay. "Inferring trackline detection probabilities, g (0), for cetaceans from apparent densities in different survey 

conditions." Marine Mammal Science 31.3 (2015): 923-943; Baumgartner, Mark F., et al. "North Atlantic right whale habitat 

in the lower Bay of Fundy and on the SW Scotian Shelf during 1999-2001." Marine Ecology Progress Series 264 (2003): 137-

154. Sea state has been demonstrated to have a direct effect on the sighting probability of North Atlantic right whales in the 

Lower Bay of Fundy and in Roseway Basin of the Southwest Scotian Shelf (Baumgartner et al. 2003). In line with Barlow 

(2015), the probability of sighting a North Atlantic right whale in this area changed by a factor of 0.628 (95% CI: 0.428-0.921) 

for every unit increase in sea state. These studies indicate the effect of increasing Beaufort Sea State in reducing the probability 

of detection of large whales, including the North Atlantic right whale. From the findings of Baumgartner et al. (2003), a 

reduction in detection probability of North Atlantic right whales by up to 84.5 percent based on an average Beaufort Sea State 

of 4 would be expected, relative to ideal sighting conditions (i.e., Beaufort sea state = 0). Notably, the detectability of North 

Atlantic right whales even under ideal sighting conditions is likely to be significantly less than 100 percent given availability 

and perception biases other than those involving sea state. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ms. Giannina DiMaio 

November 22, 2021 

Page 14 

these data, observers alone are certain to underestimate the total number of marine mammals in the 

mitigation area based on sea state. 

At minimum, NOS should require a combination of agency-approved PSOs to visually detect 

marine mammals and passive acoustic monitoring to detect vocalizations in near-real time when 

noise levels that could result in injury or harassment to the species are being conducted. 

Specifically, NOS should require a minimum of four PSOs following a two-on, two-off rotation, each 

responsible for scanning no more than 180° of the horizon, and require the use of infrared equipment to 

support visual monitoring by PSOs during periods of darkness;

61 we also recommend the use of infrared 

technology during daylight hours to help maximize probability of detection.62 NOS should also require 

passive acoustic monitoring at all times to maximize the probability of detection for endangered and 

protected species and stocks, including during periods of fog, precipitation, and high sea states, when 

PSOs and infrared technologies are less effective. The passive acoustic protocol should be designed so the 

hydrophone is not masked by vessel or survey noise, and in line with other minimum requirements 

developed by agency scientists.

63

D. Underwater noise levels should be minimized to the full extent practicable 

The Draft PEIS sets no requirement to minimize the impacts of underwater noise through the use of best 

available technology and other methods to minimize sound levels from geophysical surveys. 

According to NOAA’s “Ocean Noise Strategy Roadmap:” 

“[W]here noise is concerned, mitigation should be broadly designed to do one of two 

things: (1) reduce the temporal or spatial overlap of ensonified areas with marine taxa (or 

acoustic habitat) in particular times, places or circumstances, and/or (2) reduce the sound 

level at the source (which may include replacing the source with a different type of 

source capable of the same function).”64

61 Lathlean, Justin, and Laurent Seuront. "Infrared thermography in marine ecology: methods, previous applications and future 

challenges." Marine Ecology Progress Series 514 (2014): 263-277; Smith, Heather R., et al. "A field comparison of marine 

mammal detections via visual, acoustic, and infrared (IR) imaging methods offshore Atlantic Canada." Marine Pollution 

Bulletin 154 (2020): 111026; Zitterbart, Daniel P., et al. "Scaling the Laws of Thermal Imaging–Based Whale 

Detection." Journal of Atmospheric and Oceanic Technology 37.5 (2020): 807-824. In addition, NMFS must consider the 

limitations of the infrared system proposed and ensure that the detection of marine mammals is possible at distances out to and 

beyond the exclusion zones, in the geographic region in question, and for all relevant endangered and protected species. These 

technologies have not been well tested for detection of North Atlantic right whales, and may be relatively ineffective for 

detecting minke whales, both species of concern in light of the current UMEs declared for the Atlantic coast. Further, NMFS 

should encourage developers to partner with scientists and collect data that increases our understanding of the effectiveness of 

infrared technologies, with a view towards greater reliance on these technologies to commence surveys during nighttime hours 

in the future. 

62 Smith, H.R., et al., id. 

63 Van Parijs, Sofie, et al., supra, 

64 Gedamke, Jason., et al., “Ocean Noise Strategy Roadmap,” NOAA Fisheries, (2016), at 23, available at: 

https://cetsound.noaa.gov/Assets/cetsound/documents/Roadmap/ONS_Roadmap_Final_Complete.pdf. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ms. Giannina DiMaio 

November 22, 2021 

Page 15 

In addition, simulation studies comparing the level of risk reduction associated with technologies that 

allow for reduced source levels and current exclusion zone mitigation practices indicate that there will be 

very few instances where mitigation using visual observers can achieve a greater risk reduction than 

would be achieved by a reduction in source level.65 Thus, reducing sound emissions at the source is one 

the most effective means of mitigating the impacts of noise on protected species. 

NOS should select HRG survey systems, and operate those systems at power settings, that achieve 

the lowest practicable source level for the objective. NOS should also minimize sound levels from 

the proposed survey activities to the fullest extent feasible using best available technologies and 

methods. 

E. A 10-knot speed restriction should be required for all vessels at all times 

As discussed in Section II.B., vessel strikes pose an unacceptable risk of mortality and serious injury for 

large whales. In some operational areas, activities associated with the proposed action will increase the 

risk of vessel strike to species for which any additional human-caused mortality or serious injury will lead 

to population-level consequences and directly increase extinction risk.66 While the number of vessels 

associated with the Proposed Action will be low relative to other sources of U.S. vessel traffic (the Draft 

PEIS notes that compared to AIS data for commercial vessels in 2017, vessels used or funded by NOS 

account for 0.3 percent of all nautical miles travelled within the EEZ67), any interaction between a vessel 

and whale poses a risk of serious injury or mortality, and this is true irrespective of the number of other 

vessels operating in the same location. 

The dire conservation status of several species and stocks of large whale within the action area means that 

even a single vessel strike may have population-level consequences. Even a single vessel traveling at 

speeds over 10 knots therefore poses an unacceptable risk. In addition, mariner compliance with voluntary 

speed reduction measures is extremely low68 indicating mandatory speed reduction requirements are 

necessary to provide protection. NOS should therefore act conservatively and require all vessels 

associated with the Proposed Action, regardless of size, to observe a 10-knot speed restriction 

during the entire survey period, including transits to and from the survey area. 

V. Conclusion 

Thank you for considering our comments. To comply with its statutory obligations, our organizations 

urge NOS to revise its impact analysis in the Final PEIS for the reasons stated above, as well as develop 

65 Leaper, Russell, Susannah Calderan, and Justin Cooke. "A Simulation Framework to Evaluate the Efficiency of Using Visual 

Observers to Reduce the Risk of Injury from Loud Sound Sources." Aquatic Mammals 41.4 (2015). 

66 Examples include the North Atlantic right whale and the Gulf of Mexico whale (B. ricei). 

67 Draft PEIS at 34. 

68 NOAA Fisheries, “North Atlantic Right Whale (Eubalaena glacialis) Vessel Speed Rule Assessment,” June 2020, available 

at: https://media.fisheries.noaa.gov/2021-01/FINAL_NARW_Vessel_Speed_Rule_Report_Jun_2020.pdf?null; McKenna, 

Megan F., et al. "Response of commercial ships to a voluntary speed reduction measure: are voluntary strategies adequate for 

mitigating ship-strike risk?" Coastal Management 40.6 (2012): 634-650. 
 

 

 

 

Ms. Giannina DiMaio 

November 22, 2021 

Page 16 

mitigation measures and publish those measures in a supplemental to the Draft PEIS for public notice and 

comment prior to the issuance of the Final PEIS. 

Sincerely, 

Francine Kershaw, Ph.D. 

Staff Scientist, Marine Mammal Protection Project, Oceans Division 

Natural Resources Defense Council 

Michael Stocker 

Director 

Ocean Conservation Research 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

Response to Public Comments for Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition 

2.21.2 NOS Response 

Marine Mammals-4: We note that while consistency across regions is a clear goal of any 

programmatic permit, differences in data availability, marine mammal vulnerability, and mitigation 

needs occur between the “operational areas” included within the action area and need to be 

recognized and accounted for by NOS in the Final PEIS. 

NOS Response: NOS understands that there are local differences in densities and 

distribution across the action area and the analysis in the PEIS accounts for the differences 

in data availability, marine mammal vulnerability, and mitigation needs across regions. 

Detailed data were used in the acoustic modeling for marine mammal presence, density, 

and population status using the best available information which inherently contained 

regional differences. NOS, in consultation with NMFS, has incorporated additional data 

sources into the calculations of marine mammal density and exposures. The revised 

exposure numbers are being used for consultation under the MMPA and ESA. These data 

have been updated for the Final PEIS. For the east coast of the U.S. and the Gulf of Mexico, 

the acoustic modeling for the Final PEIS uses densities obtained using the Duke University 

Marine Geospatial Ecology Laboratory model results (i.e., the “Roberts et al.” models). For 

the Pacific and Alaska regions, species abundance and distribution were obtained from 

the 2021 draft Stock Assessment Reports (SARs) for cetaceans and pinnipeds. 

In coordination with NMFS and USFWS, NOS has developed additional mitigation 

measures. Mitigation measures include maintaining safe distances from marine mammals 

achieved by decreasing vessel speeds, vessel maneuvering, and observing time-area 

restrictions in specific protected species habitats (e.g., North Atlantic right whale). The 

Final PEIS has been updated to include additional mitigation measures in the effects 

analysis of the applicable resource sections. A complete list of mitigation measures can 

be found in Appendix D of the Final PEIS. 

Mitigation Measures-8: We are particularly concerned with the lack of mitigation measures 

proposed in the Draft PEIS. In order to satisfy NEPA, mitigation measures must be developed as 

part of the EIS process and not shunted to processes that may be required under other statutes, 

with their different scopes and standards, some of which, as with the interagency consultation 

provisions of the ESA, do not provide notice and opportunity for public comment. Mitigation 

measures should be made available for public comment as a supplemental document to the Draft 

PEIS prior to being incorporated in the Final EIS. 

NOS Response: The Final PEIS has been updated to include additional mitigation 

measures developed through interagency coordination and consultations, and information 

received through public comment. Although the Draft PEIS did not include a discrete set 

of mitigation measures, NOS did include best management practices as part of the 

Proposed Action as explained in Section 3.2.3. These BMPs were discussed in the effects 

analysis where relevant, such as avoiding bottom sampling on coral reefs, shipwrecks, 

obstructions, or hard bottom areas and ensuring that all instruments placed in contact with 

the sea floor are properly secured to minimize bottom disturbance. 

November 2022 77 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

Response to Public Comments for Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition 

The Draft PEIS explained that regulatory agencies, including those with jurisdiction over 

marine mammals, may request or require additional mitigation measures that are 

necessary or prudent under other laws, such as the ESA or the MMPA. 

Following publication of the Draft PEIS, NOS initiated interagency consultations under the 

ESA, Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA), and the 

National Marine Sanctuaries Act (NMSA). NOS also submitted applications for incidental 

take authorization under the MMPA. Through this process, additional mitigation measures 

were identified to further minimize the impacts of project activities on sensitive species. 

These additional mitigation measures have been incorporated into the effects analysis in 

the appropriate resource sections of the Final PEIS. The full list of mitigation measures is 

included as Appendix D in the Final PEIS. 

The incorporation of additional mitigation measures in the Final PEIS as a result of 

interagency coordination does not represent a significant change to the Proposed Action 

or new information relevant to environmental concerns and therefore, per 40 CFR 

1502.9(d)(4), NOS is not required to publish a supplement to the Draft PEIS. Additional 

mitigation measures incorporated into the Final PEIS generally result in a reduction of any 

adverse environmental impacts previously analyzed. 

Mitigation Measures-9: To assist NOS in this task, we recommend the following requirements 

for active acoustic sources that emit sound levels with the potential to injure or harass marine 

mammals (<200 kHz): 

NOS Response: The Final PEIS has been updated to include additional mitigation 

measures; please see the appropriate resource sections and Appendix D to see the 

additional mitigation measures that NOS has developed to be implemented on each 

project as appropriate to minimize the impacts of project activities. The additional 

mitigation measures in the Final PEIS were developed with subject matter experts and in 

coordination with field crews and with NMFS, USFWS, and ONMS. Some of the measures 

suggested by NRDC are included as mitigation measures; however, some of the mitigation 

measures suggested are not practicable. 

Mitigation Measures-10: Time-area restrictions on survey activities in habitat areas and during 

times of biological importance to marine mammals, including, at minimum, critical habitat areas 

designated under the ESA and Biologically Important Areas (“BIAs”) designated by NOAA...We 

recommend the following mitigation measures be considered for acoustic sources that could 

injure or harass endangered and protected species and stocks of marine mammals (i.e., <200 

kHz). 

A. Restrict survey activities in areas and during times of year when marine mammals have higher 

relative vulnerability 

It is most protective to avoid and reduce impacts in the first instance by separating harmful 

activities from the species and stocks potentially affected. NOS should define and implement timearea restrictions to limit survey activities involving survey equipment with the potential to injure or 

harass marine mammals in areas and/or during times of highest risk to endangered and protected 

species and stocks. 

November 2022 78 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

Response to Public Comments for Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition 

Time-area restrictions should be informed, at minimum, by critical habitat designated under the 

ESA and BIAs designated by NOAA, which comprise reproductive areas, feeding areas, migratory 

corridors, and areas in which small and resident populations are concentrated. BIAs offer a 

necessary complement to habitat-based density models (e.g., NOAA CetMap); in addition to high 

density areas, BIAs may capture areas of critical importance to the survival of a species or stock 

where density of individuals may be low. BIA designations are not comprehensive, however, and 

are intended to be periodically reviewed and updated to reflect the best available scientific 

information. Indeed, BIAs are currently undergoing review, a process that may yield new or 

revised BIAs for several species and stocks in December 2021. NOS should incorporate the 

revised BIAs into the necessary development of mitigation measures for the Proposed Action. We 

further recommend NOS synthesize multiple data sources when making determinations about the 

importance of marine mammal habitat (e.g., aerial survey data, acoustic detections, opportunistic 

data), rather than relying solely designated ESA critical habitat and BIAs. 

When implementing time-area restrictions, it is also imperative that NOS fully account for the 

consequences of those restrictions on other protected species and stocks not the original target 

of the restriction (i.e., the potential for displacing or concentrating survey activities in other areas 

or during times of year that may elevate risk to other species and stocks must be fully considered). 

NOS Response: When applying significance criteria for the effects analysis, NOS 

considered the geographic extent of marine mammal exposures and whether the 

exposures are expected to occur in designated critical habitat or other biologically 

important areas (BIAs) such as preferred breeding, feeding, and nursery grounds or 

migratory routes. BIAs are discussed in Section 3.5.1.1.2 of the Final PEIS. NOS agrees 

that BIAs provide valuable information on locations where particular species engage in 

biologically important behaviors either year-round or seasonally. BIAs were created to help 

NOAA, other federal agencies, and the public in the analyses and planning used to 

characterize and minimize the impacts of anthropogenic activities on cetaceans and to 

achieve conservation and protection goals. BIAs occur in every region throughout the NOS 

action area, but they do not present the totality of important habitat throughout the marine 

mammals’ full range. Recognition of an area as biologically important for some species 

activity does not cause the area to rise to the designation of critical habitat under the ESA. 

The stated intention is for the BIAs to serve as a resource management tool and for their 

currently identified boundaries to be considered dynamic and subject to change based on 

any new information. 

NOS has considered the best available information on potential effects of acoustic and 

other stressors on biologically important behaviors as part of its impact analysis. Marine 

mammal responses to acoustic stressors from the Proposed Action are anticipated to be 

minor and temporary, regardless of where the activity is conducted. Time-area restrictions 

are only effective if there are marine mammals present in an area when and where an 

activity would otherwise occur. Given the variability in the presence of marine mammals, 

time-area restrictions would not necessarily be effective in reducing the potential impacts 

of surveying and mapping activities within BIAs. 

NOS has concluded that impacts to marine mammals are primarily limited to minor, 

temporary behavioral disturbances from active acoustics, and NOS has adopted a suite of 

November 2022 79 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

Response to Public Comments for Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition 

mitigation measures to further minimize exposures. NOS also concludes that vessel strike 

is unlikely but possible, and employs mitigation measures to avoid strike. In addition, NOS 

employs additional mitigation measures for particularly vulnerable species like the North 

Atlantic Right Whale and Rice’s Whale. NOS considered the potential effectiveness and 

practicability of additional mitigation measures in BIAs for those species for which Level A 

exposure was predicted in the PEIS. Only the harbor porpoise has designated BIAs in 

regions where Level A exposure was predicted. The BIAs are Morro and Monterey Bay in 

the West Coast Region, which was identified as two separate small resident populations 

found year-round in this area. The other BIA for harbor porpoise is a small and resident 

population in the Greater Atlantic Region, concentrated in waters less than 150 m deep in 

the Gulf of Maine between July and September. These designations reflect a concentration 

of marine mammals rather than an area where marine mammals engage in biologically 

important behaviors that could result in stronger behavioral reactions from Level A 

exposures. There are no other designated BIAs where Level A exposures were predicted. 

NOS determined that avoiding harbor porpoise BIAs entirely would be impracticable. 

Time-area restrictions for these BIAs would significantly impact NOS’ ability to collect data 

during suitable conditions for using acoustic sources, result in lost survey time, and affect 

the crew’s ability to work safely. In particular, the BIAs for harbor porpoises in Morro and 

Monterey Bays are year-round, and avoiding these areas would mean that these areas 

could not be surveyed and important information that supports habitat research and vessel 

safety would not be collected. NOS also considered the necessity and practicality of 

additional management measures for these areas. NOS already uses the lowest power 

appropriate to perform surveys, and employs mitigation measures including protected 

species observers to ensure that marine mammals are not within the vicinity of the vessel 

when active acoustics are being used (which is where Level A exposures could occur). 

During nighttime operations, NOS uses the appropriate lighting to comply with navigation 

rules and best safety practices. All project areas would be continually monitored for 

protected species by posted crewmembers during vessel operations. NOS believes that 

the mitigation measures that will be used during projects will minimize Level A exposures 

or vessel strikes to harbor porpoises in these BIAs. 

In coordination with NMFS and USFWS, NOS has developed additional mitigation 

measures. Mitigation measures include maintaining safe distances from marine mammals 

achieved by decreasing vessel speeds, vessel maneuvering, and observing time-area 

restrictions in specific protected species habitats (e.g., North Atlantic right whale). Any 

further mitigation, including entirely prohibiting mapping and surveying data collection or 

time-area restriction within the BIAs as discussed above, is unwarranted and impracticable 

due to safety concerns. Additionally, time-area restrictions for BIAs affect data collection 

and continuity and result in lost survey time. For example, surveying in the Arctic is limited 

to summer and early fall when conditions are safe. NOS believes that the implementation 

of additional mitigation measures to further reduce the minor and temporary expected 

impacts will provide substantial protection for marine mammals during NOS surveying and 

mapping activities. 

Mitigation Measures-11: A prohibition on commencing surveys at night and during periods of 

low visibility to maximize the probability that marine mammals are detected and confirmed clear 

of the exclusion zone...The Draft PEIS also states that vessel transits and project activities may 

November 2022 80 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

Response to Public Comments for Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition 

occur at either day or night. Nighttime transits and survey activities increase vessel strike risk to 

all large whales due to the reduced probability of detection during periods of darkness, and 

particularly for those large whale species that exhibit nighttime behaviors that further increase 

their risk level...Commence survey activities during daylight and good visibility conditions. 

NOS should require that work commence, with ramp up, only during daylight hours and periods 

of good visibility to maximize the probability that marine mammals are detected and confirmed 

clear of any exclusion zone before activities begin. The activity can then continue into periods of 

darkness and low visibility if monitoring technologies effective in low visibility conditions are used 

(see Section IV.C. for more discussion of the use of infrared technologies for monitoring). If the 

activity is halted or delayed because of documented or suspected presence of protected species 

and stocks in the area, NOS should wait until daylight hours and good visibility conditions to 

recommence survey activities. 

NOS Response: Restrictions on nighttime operations are included as necessary and 

appropriate for the protection of the environment. For example, NOS developed additional 

mitigation measures in coordination with NMFS for the restriction of nighttime operations 

in Rice’s whale habitat in the Gulf of Mexico. 

A blanket prohibition on surveys at night or during periods of low visibility would 

significantly degrade NOS’s ability to gather accurate data in a timely manner as indicated 

in the purpose and need of the PEIS. NOS believes the additional mitigation measures in 

the Final PEIS developed with subject matter experts and in coordination with field crews 

and with NMFS and USFWS are appropriate for reducing potential impacts to the 

environment. Additional mitigation measures such as equipment ramp-up (i.e., slowly 

increasing the sound of acoustic equipment to allow animals to exit the area) or use of 

passive acoustic monitoring would not appreciably reduce the impact to marine mammals. 

Ramp-up, which is sometimes used for sources that are omni-directional with a large 

exposure radius, would do little to reduce impacts from NOS operations because of the 

directional nature and small exposure radius of NOS sources. It is not practicable for NOS 

to power-down active acoustic sources upon sighting a marine mammal within a certain 

radius of the vessel because data continuity would be lost and NOS already employs 

approach restrictions that are larger than the exposure radius. 

Due to the small radius for Level A and B exposures, and the use of approach distances, 

passive monitoring in addition to PSOs is unnecessary. NOS has adopted a suite of 

effective mitigation measures that include maintaining safe distances from marine 

mammals achieved by decreasing vessel speeds, vessel maneuvering, and observing 

time-area restrictions in specific protected species habitats (e.g., North Atlantic right 

whale). NOS is continuing to improve its capabilities to detect marine animals, but due to 

the current state of the technology, it is not effective or practicable for NOS to require 

passive acoustic monitoring or infrared technologies for the purpose of real-time 

mitigation. 

The full list of mitigation measures can be found in Appendix D of the Final PEIS. 

November 2022 81 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

Response to Public Comments for Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition 

Mitigation Measures-12: A requirement to establish and monitor an exclusion zone around each 

sound source with a radial distance that will minimize behavioral disturbance...Require an 

exclusion zone that will minimize behavioral disturbance with both visual and acoustic monitoring. 

As discussed in Section III.A., the 160 dB threshold for behavioral harassment is not supported 

by best available scientific information and grossly underestimates Level B take. NOS should 

establish and monitor an exclusion zone around the sound source with a radial distance that will 

minimize behavioral disturbance to the species expected to be present in the operational 

area...NOS must also adequately monitor the exclusion zones. 

NOS Response: As discussed in Appendix E: Technical Acoustic Analysis of 

Oceanographic Surveys, the radius for Level A and B exposures for multibeam surveys is 

very small, especially when compared with the ensonification areas for other acoustic 

sources not used by NOS such as air guns or tactical sonar. 

In coordination with NMFS and USFWS, NOS has developed additional mitigation 

measures. Mitigation measures include maintaining safe distances from marine mammals 

achieved by decreasing vessel speeds, vessel maneuvering, and observing time-area 

restrictions in specific protected species habitats (e.g., North Atlantic right whale). The 

implementation of these mitigation measures makes an exclusion zone unnecessary. 

Exclusion zones affect data continuity and result in lost survey time. 

NOS acknowledges that behavioral responses to sound are complex and nuanced. The 

160 dB threshold is what is currently applied by NMFS/NOAA (based on NMFS 2018 

Revision to: Technical Guidance for Assessing the Effects of Anthropogenic Sound on 

Marine Mammal Hearing (Version 2.0) Underwater Thresholds for Onset of Permanent 

and Temporary Threshold Shifts), and it is what NOS used to evaluate exposures for this 

analysis. 

Mitigation Measures-13: A requirement that a combination of visual monitoring by Protected 

Species Observers (“PSOs”) and passive acoustic monitoring is implemented at all times that 

survey work is underway. 

A requirement that four PSOs adhere to a two-on/two-off shift schedule to ensure no individual 

PSO is responsible for visually monitoring more than 180° of the exclusion zone at any one 

time...Studies suggest that marine mammals exhibit behaviors that reduce their likelihood of 

detection by PSOs. These behavioral responses may be heightened when whales are in the 

proximity of the acoustic disturbance, meaning that animals may be less detectable by observers 

during the survey period relative to other times. There are also sighting condition limitations. For 

even the most conspicuous large whale species, estimates of relative detection probability for a 

Beaufort Sea State of six is less than half that for a Beaufort Sea State of zero. Given these data, 

observers alone are certain to underestimate the total number of marine mammals in the 

mitigation area based on sea state...At minimum, NOS should require a combination of agencyapproved PSOs to visually detect marine mammals and passive acoustic monitoring to detect 

vocalizations in near-real time when noise levels that could result in injury or harassment to the 

species are being conducted. 

November 2022 82 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

Response to Public Comments for Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition 

Specifically, NOS should require a minimum of four PSOs following a two-on, two-off rotation, 

each responsible for scanning no more than 180° of the horizon, and require the use of infrared 

equipment to support visual monitoring by PSOs during periods of darkness; we also recommend 

the use of infrared technology during daylight hours to help maximize probability of 

detection...NOS should also require passive acoustic monitoring at all times to maximize the 

probability of detection for endangered and protected species and stocks, including during 

periods of fog, precipitation, and high sea states, when PSOs and infrared technologies are less 

effective. The passive acoustic protocol should be designed so the hydrophone is not masked by 

vessel or survey noise, and in line with other minimum requirements developed by agency 

scientists. 

NOS Response: In coordination with NMFS and USFWS, NOS has developed additional 

mitigation measures that include implementing Protected Species Observer (PSO) 

requirements for all survey projects, as indicated in the Final PEIS. Vessel crew must 

maintain at least one PSO at all times. PSOs will use all necessary and appropriate means 

to enhance visibility (e.g., spotlights, night vision), and will be trained as appropriate. In 

order to maintain safety of navigation and avoid interactions with marine mammals and 

other sensitive species during transit, the vessel crew are instructed to remain vigilant to 

the presence of marine mammals. 

PSOs will communicate with the crew to assist in the implementation of the appropriate 

mitigation measures. Prior to and during deployment of project equipment, PSOs will 

document occurrences of marine mammals and their behaviors and provide this 

documentation to regulators, such as NMFS. NOS checks with various communication 

media for general information regarding avoiding ship strikes and specific information 

regarding North Atlantic right whale sighting locations. These include NOAA weather 

radio, U.S. Coast Guard NAVTEX broadcasts and Notices to Mariners 

Due to the small radius for Level A and B exposures, the use of PSOs, and the use of 

approach distances, NOS has determined that adding passive monitoring is unnecessary. 

NOS has adopted a suite of effective mitigation measures that include maintaining safe 

distances from marine mammals achieved by decreasing vessel speeds, vessel 

maneuvering, and observing time-area restrictions in specific protected species habitats 

(e.g., North Atlantic right whale). 

NOS is continuing to improve its capabilities to detect marine animals, but due to the 

current state of the technology, it is not effective or practicable for NOS to require passive 

acoustic monitoring or infrared technologies for the purpose of real-time mitigation. 

Restrictions on nighttime operations are included as necessary and appropriate for the 

protection of the environment. For example, NOS developed mitigation measures in 

coordination with NMFS for the restriction of nighttime operations in Rice’s whale habitat 

in the Gulf of Mexico. 

Mitigation Measures-14: A requirement that the developer selects sub-bottom profiling systems, 

and operates those systems at power settings, that achieve the lowest practicable source level 

for the objective...In addition, simulation studies comparing the level of risk reduction associated 

with technologies that allow for reduced source levels and current exclusion zone mitigation 

November 2022 83 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

Response to Public Comments for Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition 

practices indicate that there will be very few instances where mitigation using visual observers 

can achieve a greater risk reduction than would be achieved by a reduction in source level. Thus, 

reducing sound emissions at the source is one the most effective means of mitigating the impacts 

of noise on protected species. 

NOS Response: NOS considers the project objectives to determine the best-suited 

equipment and protocols. NOS has a responsibility to gather data necessary for nautical 

charts and other public data products, with consideration for the human environment. 

Surveying vessels and equipment are designed to minimize noise, and NOS uses the 

lowest appropriate power and ping rate for its acoustic sources while gathering data. 

Mitigation Measures-15: A requirement that all vessels associated with the Proposed Action, 

regardless of size, observe a mandatory 10 knot speed restriction at all times...The survey vessels 

associated with the Proposed Action pose a risk of collision to large whales that must be mitigated. 

The Draft PEIS states that vessel transit speeds vary by location, but are typically lower than 25 

knots, and that vessels are typically limited to speeds of 13 knots during survey activities. These 

speeds far exceed the 10-knot limit that best available scientific information indicates is necessary 

to reduce the probability of mortality and serious injury resulting from a vessel strike when it does 

occur....A 10-knot speed restriction should be required for all vessels at all times. 

As discussed in Section II.B., vessel strikes pose an unacceptable risk of mortality and serious 

injury for large whales. In some operational areas, activities associated with the proposed action 

will increase the risk of vessel strike to species for which any additional human-caused mortality 

or serious injury will lead to population-level consequences and directly increase extinction risk. 

While the number of vessels associated with the Proposed Action will be low relative to other 

sources of U.S. vessel traffic (the Draft PEIS notes that compared to AIS data for commercial 

vessels in 2017, vessels used or funded by NOS account for 0.3 percent of all nautical miles 

traveled within the EEZ), any interaction between a vessel and whale poses a risk of serious injury 

or mortality, and this is true irrespective of the number of other vessels operating in the same 

location. 

The dire conservation status of several species and stocks of large whale within the action area 

means that even a single vessel strike may have population-level consequences. Even a single 

vessel traveling at speeds over 10 knots therefore poses an unacceptable risk. In addition, mariner 

compliance with voluntary speed reduction measures is extremely low indicating mandatory 

speed reduction requirements are necessary to provide protection. NOS should therefore act 

conservatively and require all vessels associated with the Proposed Action, regardless of size, to 

observe a 10-knot speed restriction during the entire survey period, including transits to and from 

the survey area. 

NOS Response: In coordination with NMFS, USFWS, and ONMS, NOS has developed 

additional mitigation measures. Mitigation measures include maintaining safe distances 

from marine mammals, decreasing vessel speeds, vessel maneuvering, and observing 

time-area restrictions in specific protected species habitats (e.g., North Atlantic right 

whale). Limits on vessel speeds of 10 knots regardless of size and at all times are highly 

restrictive and unnecessary. Vessel speed limitations would particularly impact the use of 

smaller vessels because they cannot safely anchor in survey areas overnight. As such, 

observing a mandatory 10 knot speed restriction or less for all vessels at all times would 

November 2022 84 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

Response to Public Comments for Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition 

be impracticable due to safety and stability concerns. Additionally, reduced vessel speeds 

would affect data continuity and result in lost survey time. 

The mitigation measures in the Final PEIS include limiting vessel speed to 10 knots and 

steering away when an ESA-listed whale is within 500 yards of the forward path of the 

vessel, and limiting speed to 10 knots when operating a vessel of 65 ft or larger in an active 

North Atlantic right whale seasonal management area. If any cetacean is sighted while a 

vessel is underway, the vessel operator must remain parallel to the animal's course if 

feasible, and avoid excessive speed or abrupt changes in direction until the cetacean has 

left the area. 

As discussed in Section 3.5.2 of the Final PEIS, animal approach restrictions and 

decreasing vessel speeds would help reduce the potential for ship strikes of protected 

species. During NOS projects, waters surrounding the vessel would be visually monitored 

for any marine mammals as at least one individual observing the area for protected species 

at all times. While vessel strikes would pose a direct threat to marine mammals, the 

likelihood of a collision between a project vessel and a marine mammal would be extremely 

unlikely because relatively low vessel speeds (particularly within seasonally restricted 

areas and inshore waterways and during data collection) and visual observation during all 

vessel operations (regardless of size) would avoid vessel strikes with all marine mammal 

species. 

Marine Mammals-5: NOS must use the best available scientific information on marine mammal 

presence, density, and population status, as required by law. NOS must also ensure that any 

potential stressors and cumulative impacts posed by the proposed surveys are mitigated to 

effectuate the least practicable impact on affected species and stocks. 

NOS Response: NOS, in consultation with NMFS, has incorporated additional data 

sources into the calculations of marine mammal density and exposures. The revised 

exposure numbers are being used for consultation under the ESA and for the LOA 

application and an ITR request under the MMPA, and have been added to the Final PEIS. 

The 2021 SARs and Roberts data for cetaceans and pinnipeds represent the best available 

science. 

The Final PEIS has been updated to include additional mitigation measures developed 

through interagency coordination and consultations, and information received through 

public comment. Although the Draft PEIS did not include a discrete set of mitigation 

measures, NOS did include best management practices as part of the Proposed Action as 

explained in Section 3.2.3. These BMPs were discussed in the effects analysis where 

relevant, such as avoiding bottom sampling on coral reefs, shipwrecks, obstructions, or 

hard bottom areas and ensuring that all instruments placed in contact with the sea floor 

are properly secured to minimize bottom disturbance. 

The Draft PEIS explained that regulatory agencies, including those with jurisdiction over 

marine mammals, may request or require additional mitigation measures that are 

necessary or prudent under other laws, such as the ESA or the MMPA. 

November 2022 85 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

Response to Public Comments for Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition 

Following publication of the Draft PEIS, NOS initiated interagency consultations under the 

ESA, MSA, and NMSA. NOS also submitted applications for incidental take authorizations 

under the MMPA. Through this process, additional mitigation measures were identified to 

further minimize the impacts of project activities on sensitive species. These additional 

mitigation measures have been incorporated into the effects analysis in the appropriate 

resource sections of the Final PEIS. The full list of mitigation measures is included as 

Appendix D to the Final PEIS. 

Cumulative Impacts-3: Moreover, extensive high resolution geophysical (“HRG”) surveys 

associated with the Proposed Action will take place concurrently with other sources of noise 

occurring in marine mammal habitat, making the cumulative impacts posed by these activities a 

significant concern. 

NOS Response: The cumulative impact scenario (Section 4.1 in the Final PEIS) considers 

past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions that must be addressed in a 

cumulative effects analysis because their environmental effects may combine with the 

effects of the Proposed Action. Due to the volume and diversity of these cumulative 

actions, NOS identified specific projects and programs, both public and private sector, but 

also relevant environmental and economic trends; however, an exhaustive list of all ocean 

users would not be feasible to consider. 

As discussed in Section 4.2.2, increasing ambient sound levels in the marine environment 

may steadily erode marine mammals’ abilities to communicate, find food, mate, and 

navigate. If NOS projects occurred at the same time and place as noise from other sources, 

they could synergistically contribute to adverse cumulative sonic impacts on marine 

mammals within a small radius of the NOS acoustic source; if they do not occur at the 

same time and place, they could additively contribute to adverse cumulative impacts. 

However, the vast majority of impacts expected from underwater noise are behavioral in 

nature (versus injury), temporary, and relatively infrequent. Other cumulative actions are 

unlikely to overlap in time and space with NOS projects because these activities are 

dispersed and the sound sources are intermittent. It is likely that distant shipping sound, 

which is more universal and continuous, would overlap in time and space with actions 

under the NOS Proposed Action. However, the NOS Proposed Action would likely only 

contribute negligible cumulative impacts due to disturbance and behavior modification of 

marine mammals. 

Marine Mammals-6: NOS should be more precautionary in the assessment of acoustic impacts 

NOS should be more precautionary in its assessment of potential acoustic impacts from the 

survey activities in the Proposed Action on marine mammals and incorporate the following into its 

impact analyses: First, the potential for concurrent impulsive exposures to be experienced by the 

animal as continuous exposure should be accounted for. We note that potential exposure to 

continuous noise would set the regulatory acoustic impact threshold at 120dB. 

NOS Response: NOS disagrees with the assertion that concurrent impulsive exposures 

can be experienced by an animal as a continuous exposure. Concurrent impulsive 

exposures are not equivalent to continuous sound. The exposure analysis does not include 

an evaluation of either concurrent sources or continuous sound sources (e.g., vessels). 

November 2022 86 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

Response to Public Comments for Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition 

NMFS Office of Protected Resources (OPR) recommended that all NOS active acoustic 

sources be assessed using the intermittent source criteria (i.e., using a behavioral 

disruption exposure threshold of 160 dB). If the sources were modeled as continuous 

sound sources, then the 120 dB threshold would have been used. 

Marine Mammals-7: Second, NOS should not underestimate the potential for high frequency 

exposures due to higher attenuation rates over distance, as attenuation rates may be less efficient 

when propagation characteristics are accounted for. Exposures should be modeled for each 

operational area using region-specific information on propagation conditions. 

NOS Response: The best available information on region-specific propagation 

parameters was used in the technical acoustic analysis, including sound speed profiles, 

geoacoustic parameterization, and regional bathymetry. Sound fields were generated 

considering the combination of source-specific beam patterns and sound levels, and sitespecific transmission loss. A description of region-specific parameters considered is 

provided in Appendix E: Technical Acoustic Analysis of Oceanographic Surveys. 

Marine Mammals-8: NOAA should acknowledge the limitations of current NOAA Fisheries’ 

acoustic thresholds for behavioral impacts and develop and use updated guidelines on thresholds 

for marine mammal behavioral disturbance (i.e., Level B take) that are sufficiently protective and 

consistent with the best available scientific information. Multiple marine mammal species have 

been observed to exhibit strong, and in some cases, lethal, behavioral reactions to sound levels 

well below the 160 dB threshold defined by NOAA Fisheries for Level B take, leading to calls from 

the scientific community for the agency to revise its guidelines. Acceptance of the current NOAA 

Fisheries’ acoustic threshold for Level B take will result in NOS’s significant underestimation of 

the impacts to marine mammals and potentially the permitting, recommendation, or prescription 

of ineffective mitigation measures (e.g., under protective exclusion zones). 

NOS Response: NOS acknowledges that behavioral response to sound is complex and 

nuanced. NMFS OPR recommended that all NOS active acoustic sources be assessed 

using the intermittent source criteria. The 160 dB threshold is the most current 

recommended threshold for non-impulsive sources by NMFS based on the NMFS 2018 

Technical Guidance. This threshold was used to evaluate exposures for this analysis. 

Therefore, NOS used the best available science in the technical acoustic analysis. NOS 

disagrees with the assertion that using this threshold will result in underestimating impacts 

to marine mammals and adopting ineffective mitigation measures. 

Marine Mammals-9: NOS must incorporate additional data sources into calculations of marine 

mammal density and take 

In determining the proportion of marine mammal species and stocks taken by the proposed 

activities, NOS relies on information on species abundance and distribution obtained from NOAA 

and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Stock Assessment Reports (“SARs”). Species and stock 

densities within the NOS operational areas were derived by distributing SARs abundance 

estimates over the portion of the operational area that coincides with the habitat preference and 

associated depth category for the species or stock. If a species or stock occupied an area larger 

than the operational area, the conservative assumption was made that the abundance of the 

species or stock occurred wholly within the operational areas under assessment. Densities 

November 2022 87 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

Response to Public Comments for Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition 

derived from information provided by the SARs were compared with habitat- based density 

estimates when available but were not found to correspond in a consistent manner. 

The simple approach of averaging abundance estimates over the extent of a species’ or stock’s 

distribution or depth preference does not bring to bear the best available scientific information for 

the purposes of impact assessment...the habitat-based density models produced by Duke 

University for marine mammals from several regions of the U.S. (i.e., the “Roberts et al.” models), 

while still requiring improvement, represent a more sophisticated methodology for density 

estimation compared with NOS’s approach of averaging abundance estimates from the SARs. 

NOS should not default to the lowest common denominator in selecting a single methodology to 

estimate take across all operational areas. Rather, for those operational areas where improved 

density estimates are available, NOS should use those estimates in the impact assessment. 

NOS Response: Detailed data were used in the acoustic modeling for marine mammal 

presence, density, and population status using the best available information which 

inherently contained regional differences. NOS, in consultation with NMFS, has 

incorporated additional data sources into the calculations of marine mammal density and 

exposures. The revised exposure numbers are being used for consultation under the 

MMPA and ESA. These data have been updated for the Final PEIS. For the east coast of 

the U.S. and the Gulf of Mexico, the acoustic modeling for the Final PEIS uses densities 

obtained using the Duke University Marine Geospatial Ecology Laboratory model results 

(i.e., the “Roberts et al.” models). For the Pacific and Alaska regions, species abundance 

and distribution were obtained from the 2021 SARs for cetaceans and pinnipeds. 

In coordination with NMFS and USFWS, NOS has developed additional mitigation 

measures. Mitigation measures include maintaining safe distances from marine mammals, 

decreasing vessel speeds, vessel maneuvering, and observing time-area restrictions in 

specific protected species habitats (e.g., North Atlantic right whale). The Final PEIS has 

been updated to include additional mitigation measures in the effects analysis of the 

applicable resource sections. 

Although some projects may result in more exposures than others, the exposure estimates 

represent the average expected exposures from all projects in the program. Natural 

variability due to seasonal changes is expected. 

Marine Mammals-10: NOS does not consider important habitat areas where marine mammal 

density may be elevated relative to other areas either year-round or seasonally, and where 

concomitant survey activities would result in disproportionately higher impacts and number of 

takes. Multiple data sources describe important habitat areas for marine mammals (see Section 

IV.A. for further discussion) and this information should be incorporated into the impact analysis. 

NOS Response: When applying significance criteria for the effects analysis, NOS 

considered the geographic extent of marine mammal exposures and whether the 

exposures are expected to occur in designated critical habitat or other biologically 

important areas (BIAs) such as preferred breeding, feeding, and nursery grounds or 

migratory routes. BIAs are discussed in Section 3.5.1.1.2 of the Final PEIS. NOS agrees 

that BIAs provide valuable information on locations where particular species engage in 

biologically important behaviors either year-round or seasonally. BIAs were created to help 

November 2022 88 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

Response to Public Comments for Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition 

NOAA, other federal agencies, and the public in the analyses and planning used to 

characterize and minimize the impacts of anthropogenic activities on cetaceans and to 

achieve conservation and protection goals. BIAs occur in every region throughout the NOS 

action area, but they do not present the totality of important habitat throughout the marine 

mammals’ full range. Recognition of an area as biologically important for some species 

activity does not cause the area to rise to the designation of critical habitat under the ESA. 

The stated intention is for the BIAs to serve as a resource management tool and for their 

currently identified boundaries to be considered dynamic and subject to change based on 

any new information. 

NOS has considered the best available information on potential effects of acoustic and 

other stressors on these biologically important behaviors as part of its impact analysis. 

Marine mammal responses to acoustic stressors from the Proposed Action are anticipated 

to be minor and temporary, regardless of where the activity is conducted. Time-area 

restrictions are only effective if there are marine mammals present in an area when and 

where an activity would otherwise occur. Given the variability in the presence of marine 

mammals, time-area restrictions would not necessarily be effective in reducing the 

potential impacts of surveying and mapping activities within BIAs. 

NOS has concluded that impacts to marine mammals are primarily limited to minor, 

temporary behavioral disturbances from active acoustics, and NOS has adopted a suite of 

mitigation measures to further minimize exposures. NOS also concludes that vessel strike 

is unlikely but possible, and employs mitigation measures to avoid strike. In addition, NOS 

employs additional mitigation measures for particularly vulnerable species like the North 

Atlantic Right Whale and Rice’s Whale. NOS considered the potential effectiveness and 

practicability of additional mitigation measures in BIAs for those species for which Level A 

exposure was predicted in the PEIS. Only the harbor porpoise has designated BIAs in 

regions where Level A exposure was predicted. The BIAs are Morro and Monterey Bay in 

the West Coast Region, which was identified as two separate small resident populations 

found year-round in this area. The other BIA for harbor porpoise is a small and resident 

population in the Greater Atlantic Region, concentrated in waters less than 150 m deep in 

the Gulf of Maine between July and September. These designations reflect a concentration 

of marine mammals rather than an area where marine mammals engage in biologically 

important behaviors that could result in stronger behavioral reactions from Level A 

exposures. There are no other designated BIAs where Level A exposures were predicted. 

NOS determined that avoiding harbor porpoise BIAs entirely would be impracticable. 

Time-area restrictions for these BIAs would significantly impact NOS’ ability to collect data 

during suitable conditions for using acoustic sources, result in lost survey time, and affect 

the crew’s ability to work safely. In particular, the BIAS for harbor porpoises in Morro and 

Monterey Bays are year-round, and avoiding these areas would mean that these areas 

could not be surveyed and important information that supports habitat research and vessel 

safety would not be collected. NOS also considered the necessity and practicality of 

additional management measures for these areas. NOS already uses the lowest power 

appropriate to perform surveys, and employs mitigation measures including protected 

species observers to ensure that marine mammals are not within the vicinity of the vessel 

when active acoustics are being used (which is where Level A exposures could occur). 

During nighttime operations, NOS uses the appropriate lighting to comply with navigation 

November 2022 89 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

Response to Public Comments for Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition 

rules and best safety practices. All project areas would be continually monitored for 

protected species by posted crewmembers during vessel operations. NOS believes that 

the mitigation measures that will be used during projects will minimize Level A exposures 

or vessel strikes to harbor porpoises in these BIAs. 

In coordination with NMFS and USFWS, NOS has developed additional mitigation 

measures. Mitigation measures include maintaining safe distances from marine mammals 

achieved by decreasing vessel speeds, vessel maneuvering, and observing time-area 

restrictions in specific protected species habitats (e.g., North Atlantic right whale). Any 

further mitigation, including entirely prohibiting mapping and surveying data collection or 

time-area restriction within the BIAs as discussed above, is unwarranted and impracticable 

due to safety concerns. Additionally, time-area restrictions for BIAs affect data collection 

and continuity and result in lost survey time. For example, surveying in the Arctic is limited 

to summer and early fall when conditions are safe. NOS believes that the implementation 

of mitigation measures to further reduce the minor and temporary expected impacts will 

provide substantial protection for marine mammals during NOS surveying and mapping 

activities. 

Marine Mammals-11: a number of marine mammal species and stocks in the U.S. are considered 

data poor and have uncertain or outdated abundance estimates. It is not precautionary to assume 

that density and take levels can be reliably estimated for these species and stocks. Rather, NOS 

should explicitly note which species are data deficient in the Draft PEIS and, based on this, indicate 

that potential impacts on these species and stocks cannot be evaluated at this time. 

NOS should update the impact assessment based on these recommendations to ensure that the 

PEIS aligns with the requirements set forth under NEPA, and other relevant statutes, including the 

MMPA and ESA. 

NOS Response: NOS disagrees that the potential impacts on any species and stocks 

cannot be evaluated at this time. NOS has used the best available scientific information on 

marine mammal presence, density, and population status in the acoustic modeling for the 

PEIS. 

NOS conducted a quantitative total exposure estimate to determine the type and number 

of take in order to meet requirements for applying to NMFS for an incidental take 

authorization and to petition USFWS for incidental take regulations under the MMPA. NOS 

also relies on an extensive qualitative analysis of the best available science. 

Marine Mammals-12: NOS must afford special consideration to potential direct and cumulative 

impacts on Arctic species and stocks 

The Arctic is a unique acoustic environment and maintaining its acoustic integrity should be a 

primary goal of NOS. Ambient sound levels in the Arctic are some of the lowest on Earth and 

Arctic marine species have had limited exposure to ocean noise pollution caused by human 

activities. This naivete means Arctic marine mammals, and their prey, will likely be 

disproportionately impacted by any increase in ocean noise. Many Arctic marine mammals are in 

serious jeopardy from additional seemingly intractable climate change impacts, including the 

November 2022 90 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

Response to Public Comments for Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition 

diminishment of sea ice habitat, and impacts from noise will further undermine the possibility of 

their survival. 

NOS Response: NOS understands the unique characteristics of the Arctic environment. 

The increase in ocean noise in the Arctic region from commercial shipping and 

recreational boating interests (as discussed in Section 4.1.5) has largely been the result 

of decreased seasonal sea ice coverage. NOS recognizes that increased commercial 

shipping, recreational boating, and other vessel traffic is contributing to increased noise in 

Arctic waters. NOS contributions to ocean noise in the Arctic and the Alaska Region are 

extremely minimal compared to these other sources. 

The acoustic modeling estimated marine mammal exposures to sound by considering 

each species’ hearing range, as well as their population densities, location, and movement 

through the environment. The best available information on region-specific propagation 

parameters was also used in the technical acoustic analysis, including sound source 

characteristics, geoacoustic profiles, and regional bathymetry. Sound fields were 

generated considering the combination of source-specific beam patterns and sound 

levels, and site-specific transmission loss. 

Timing of a given project may be limited by seasonal environmental conditions of its 

location, making it impracticable for NOS to adopt time or spatial mitigation in this region 

For example, projects in the Arctic or Bering Sea typically take place between June and 

September to avoid dangerous, icy conditions. The effects analysis for Arctic marine 

mammals is discussed by species in Section 3.5.2. 

NOS will adhere to the additional mitigation measures developed in coordination with 

NMFS and USFWS. Mitigation measures include maintaining safe distances from marine 

mammals achieved by decreasing vessel speeds, vessel maneuvering, and observing 

time-area restrictions in specific protected species habitats (e.g., North Atlantic right 

whale). 

Cumulative Impacts-4: The strong international interest in developing an increasingly ice-free 

Arctic means that Arctic marine mammals may face significant and rapid increases in ocean noise 

pollution. For example, noise from shipping increased substantially in multiple locations across 

the Arctic between 2013 and 2019, and some areas of the Arctic are now twice as loud as they 

were in 2013. Climate change is also changing the Arctic acoustic environment in other ways. 

Loss of sea ice reduces propagation loss and increases ambient sound levels due to increased 

interaction between the surface and the atmosphere. The Arctic is also becoming stormier during 

the ice-free season and increased wind speeds may lead to greater ambient sound levels. NOS 

must take these considerations into account when analyzing impacts of the Proposed Action on 

endemic Arctic species. In doing so, NOS must revise its take estimates for Arctic species based 

on the increased sensitivity to noise of those species relative to species in other regions. 

NOS Response: Increased commercial shipping, recreational boating and other vessel 

traffic in the Alaska region as a result of decreasing seasonal sea ice coverage are 

considered in the cumulative scenario in Section 4.1.5 of the Final PEIS. The acoustic 

modeling used to estimate marine mammal exposures to sound considered each species’ 

hearing range and their location and environment. Acoustic propagation was modeled in 

November 2022 91 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

Response to Public Comments for Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition 

57 representative locations, 13 of which were located in the Alaska Region, to account for 

differences in sound propagation based on location. See Figure 2 of Appendix E: Technical 

Acoustic Analysis of Oceanographic Surveys for the acoustic modeling locations. 

Cumulative Impacts-5: Further, NOS must fully evaluate the disproportionate impacts of climate 

change on Arctic marine mammal species and stocks and their habitat, as well as the 

unprecedented foreseeable industrial development, as part of the cumulative impacts analysis. 

NOS Response: Increases in commercial shipping, recreational boating, and other vessel 

traffic in the Alaska region as a result of decreasing seasonal sea ice coverage due to 

climate change and coastal development are considered in the cumulative scenario in 

Section 4.1.5 and 4.1.12 of the Final PEIS, with general climate change trends discussed 

in Section 4.1.4. In the Final PEIS, Section 4.2.2.4, Alteration of Marine Mammal Habitat, 

has been revised to discuss increased relative cumulative impacts from climate change to 

marine mammals in the Alaska Region. 

Mitigation Measures-16: For mitigation purposes, and in addition to the recommendations 

outlined in Section IV, NOS should consider limiting survey activities in the Arctic region overall 

and set more protective noise limits and stricter procedural mitigation measures for any survey 

activities that are undertaken. 

NOS Response: Alaskan and U.S. Arctic waters, more of which are becoming navigable 

given the changing sea ice conditions, are especially important survey targets. NOS 

projects in the Arctic collect valuable information on seafloor depths for the development 

of new and updated nautical charts allowing for safe navigation as well as informing the 

discovery of historic artifacts and natural resource habitat mapping. 

Surveying vessels and equipment are designed to minimize noise, and NOS uses the 

lowest appropriate power and ping rate for its acoustic sources while gathering data. 

NOS will adhere to the additional mitigation measures developed in coordination with 

NMFS and USFWS. Mitigation measures include maintaining safe distances from marine 

mammals achieved by decreasing vessel speeds, vessel maneuvering, and observing 

time-area restrictions in specific protected species habitats (e.g., North Atlantic right 

whale). Timing of a given project may be limited by seasonal environmental conditions of 

its location. For example, projects in the Arctic or Bering Sea typically take place between 

June and September to avoid dangerous, icy conditions. 

At the request of NMFS, NOS will contact NMFS Alaska Regional staff prior to using any 

echosounders under 180 kHz in all areas north of the Forelands in Cook Inlet, Alaska. 

NEPA Process-11: No mitigation measures for marine mammals are included in the Draft PEIS. 

Rather, as the “analysis concludes that the Proposed Action is not anticipated to result in 

significant impacts for any resource [...] NOS has not proposed a discrete set of mitigation 

measures...”47 Additional mitigation measures and best management practices (“BMPs”) are 

expected to be developed through various interagency consultation as well as through public 

comment and “will be considered as part of the analysis in the Final EIS.” The predetermination 

by NOS that the Proposed Action is “not anticipated to result in significant impacts for any 

November 2022 92 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

Response to Public Comments for Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition 

resource” prior to consultation and public comment, as well as the lack of inclusion of any 

mitigation measures in the Draft PEIS for evaluation by the public, fails to satisfy the requirement 

for sufficient notice and comment set forth under NEPA. 

NOS Response: The Final PEIS has been updated to include additional mitigation 

measures developed through interagency coordination and consultations and information 

received through public comment. Although the Draft PEIS did not include a discrete set 

of mitigation measures, NOS did include best management practices as part of the 

Proposed Action as explained in Section 3.2.3. These BMPs were discussed in the effects 

analysis where relevant, such as avoiding bottom sampling on coral reefs, shipwrecks, 

obstructions, or hard bottom areas and ensuring that all instruments placed in contact with 

the sea floor are properly secured to minimize bottom disturbance. 

The Draft PEIS explained that regulatory agencies, including those with jurisdiction over 

marine mammals, may request or require additional mitigation measures that are 

necessary or prudent under other laws, such as the ESA or MMPA. 

Following publication of the Draft PEIS, NOS initiated interagency consultations under the 

ESA, MSA, and NMSA. NOS also submitted applications for incidental take authorizations 

under the MMPA. Through this process, additional mitigation measures were identified to 

further minimize the impacts of project activities on sensitive species. These mitigation 

measures have been incorporated into the effects analysis in the appropriate resource 

sections of the Final PEIS. The full list of mitigation measures is included as Appendix D to 

the Final PEIS. 

The incorporation of additional mitigation measures in the Final PEIS as a result of 

interagency coordination does not represent a significant change to the Proposed Action 

or new information relevant to environmental concerns and therefore, per 40 CFR 

1502.9(d)(4), NOS is not required to publish a supplement to the Draft PEIS. Additional 

mitigation measures incorporated into the Final PEIS generally result in a reduction of any 

adverse environmental impacts previously analyzed. 

Mitigation Measures-17: We also recommend NOS, and NOAA Fisheries, work to advance a 

robust and effective near real-time monitoring and mitigation system for endangered and 

protected species and stocks of large whales that will be more responsive to ongoing dynamic 

distributional shifts resulting from climate change, as well as provide more flexibility in the survey 

window. There are several technologies in various stages of development that would allow near 

real-time detection of large whales and convey that information to decision-makers, and near realtime monitoring systems are already being deployed to mitigate risks to some species, including 

the North Atlantic right whale. We recommend NOS invest in and coordinate with NOAA Fisheries 

and other relevant agencies, experts, and stakeholders, to develop a near real-time large whale 

monitoring and mitigation system. The system should be capable of detecting and alerting vessels, 

stationary platforms, and enforcement agencies of the location of large whales on a near real-time 

basis, informing sector-specific mitigation protocols that can effectively reduce take of large 

whales, and continually integrate improved technology. The development of the system could 

begin with a pilot program that incorporates all the necessary precautions (e.g., vessel speed limit 

of 10 knots) focused on the critically endangered North Atlantic right whale and then be expanded 

to other whales and geographies once the approach is tested and proven. 

November 2022 93 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

Response to Public Comments for Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition 

NOS Response: NOS agrees that real-time whale detection and notification systems are 

important tools, particularly for reducing vessel strikes of large whales. NOS checks with 

various communication media for general information regarding avoiding ship strikes and 

specific information regarding North Atlantic right whale sighting locations. These include 

NOAA weather radio, U.S. Coast Guard NAVTEX broadcasts, and Notices to Mariners. 

NOS has developed additional mitigation measures through the interagency consultation 

process. Mitigation measures include maintaining safe distances from marine mammals 

achieved by decreasing vessel speeds, vessel maneuvering, and observing time-area 

restrictions in specific protected species habitats (e.g., North Atlantic right whale). 

Mitigation Measures-18: Underwater noise levels should be minimized to the full extent 

practicable 

The Draft PEIS sets no requirement to minimize the impacts of underwater noise through the use 

of best available technology and other methods to minimize sound levels from geophysical 

surveys. 

According to NOAA’s “Ocean Noise Strategy Roadmap:” 

“[W]here noise is concerned, mitigation should be broadly designed to do one of two things: (1) 

reduce the temporal or spatial overlap of ensonified areas with marine taxa (or acoustic habitat) 

in particular times, places or circumstances, and/or (2) reduce the sound level at the source 

(which may include replacing the source with a different type of source capable of the same 

function).” 

NOS Response: The mapping and surveying program is consistent with NOAA’s Ocean 

Noise Strategy Roadmap because mitigation measures will reduce the temporal or spatial 

overlap of ensonified areas with marine taxa (or acoustic habitat) in particular times, 

places, or circumstances, such as pre-survey coordination with the NMFS Alaska Region 

before conducting projects using HRG sources in all areas north of the Forelands of Cook 

Inlet, Alaska. NOS considers the project objectives to determine the best-suited equipment 

and protocols. Additionally, whenever possible, the location and timing of a given project 

would be purposefully coordinated to ensure that areas are not repeatedly surveyed by 

NOS. NOS has a responsibility to gather data necessary for nautical charts and other 

public data products, with consideration for the human environment. Surveying vessels 

and equipment are designed to minimize noise, and NOS uses the lowest appropriate 

power and ping rate for its acoustic sources while gathering data. These sources are 

expected to have minimal impacts on marine mammals and other protected resources. 

Mitigation measures include the use of PSOs at all times while in transit or on-project. 

Proposed Action-3: NOS should select HRG survey systems, and operate those systems at 

power settings, that achieve the lowest practicable source level for the objective. NOS should also 

minimize sound levels from the proposed survey activities to the fullest extent feasible using best 

available technologies and methods. 

November 2022 94 
 

 

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

Response to Public Comments for Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition 

NOS Response: Appropriate equipment selection is discussed in Section 2.2 of the PEIS. 

The responsible NOS program office considers the goals and purpose of a given project 

and determines the specific equipment and protocols which would be best-suited to 

accomplish the task. NOS has a responsibility to gather data necessary for nautical charts 

and other public data products, with consideration for the human environment. Surveying 

vessels and equipment are designed to minimize noise, and NOS uses the lowest 

appropriate power and ping rate for its acoustic sources while gathering data. 

November 2022 95 
 

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

Response to Public Comments for Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition 

2.22 North Slope Borough (Harry K. Brower, Jr.) 

2.22.1 Comment Submission 

November 2022 96 


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

Response to Public Comments for Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition 

2.22.2 NOS Response 

NEPA Process-8: The North Slope Borough (Borough) requests NOAA to extend the comment 

period for the Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for Surveying and Mapping 

Projects in U.S. Waters for Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition (EIS) from August 24, 2021 to 

November 24, 2021. 

NOS Response: After receiving your comment, NOS extended the original 60-day public 

comment period deadline by 90 days from August 24, 2021 to November 22, 2021 to 

accommodate the Alaskan subsistence hunting and fishing community (86 FR 47299). 

Environmental Justice-11: The surveying activities described in this EIS are of great concern to 

us as our communities participate in, and are dependent upon, the subsistence harvest of 

bowhead whales and a host of other marine mammals. Marine activities during specific time 

periods have a high potential to disrupt bowhead whale migrations, the migrations and movements 

of other species, and to negatively impact subsistence harvests critical to the welfare of our 

communities and residents. For this reason, most industrial and governmental operations in the 

Beaufort and Chukchi Seas coordinate closely with the North Slope Borough Department of 

Wildlife Management (Wildlife Department), the Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission, and other 

marine mammal user groups to prevent and reduce the impacts of such activities. 

NOS Response: NOS will coordinate with tribes and subsistence hunters and fishers prior 

to conducting projects in subsistence hunting areas. NOS will also work with the NOAA 

Alaska Regional Navigation Manager to provide Alaskan communities with information on 

upcoming surveying projects to avoid or minimize interference with traditional hunting and 

fishing for subsistence uses. Through this communication strategy, NOS would minimize 

the potential for adverse impacts on subsistence communities, food security, and the 

safety of hunters. 

NOS intends to notify individual tribes and ANCs pursuant to EO 13175 before conducting 

any project that may have tribal implications. Federally recognized tribes may request 

formal government-to-government consultation pursuant to EO 13175 at any time. 

Alaska-2: Moreover, at this time, it is unclear what activities are planned for our region. 

NOS Response: NOS determined that a programmatic approach was appropriate 

because NOS conducts, authorizes, permits, and funds a suite of similar, ongoing data 

collection activities associated with recurring projects across a wide geographic area to 

characterize underwater features (e.g., habitat, bathymetry, marine debris). This Final PEIS 

is a comprehensive document that provides detailed programmatic effects analyses for 

surveying and mapping data collection activities based on regional conditions, habitat 

types, species, and other factors. However, the Final PEIS does not identify the specific 

time or place for individual projects or activities over the next five years. The analysis will 

be used to inform NOS leadership and the public on the environmental impacts of these 

activities before a decision is made on how to execute each project. All projects will require 

a project-specific review by NOS before proceeding. 

November 2022 97 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

Response to Public Comments for Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition 

Specific project locations are determined annually for the upcoming surveying season. 

NOS will coordinate with tribes and subsistence hunters and fishers prior to conducting 

projects in subsistence hunting and fishing areas. NOS will also work with the NOAA 

Alaska Regional Navigation Manager to provide Alaskan communities with information on 

upcoming surveying projects to avoid or minimize interference with traditional hunting and 

fishing for subsistence uses. Through this communication strategy, NOS would minimize 

the potential for adverse impacts on subsistence communities, food security, and the 

safety of hunters. 

NOS intends to notify individual tribes and ANCs pursuant to EO 13175 before conducting 

any project that may have tribal implications. Federally recognized tribes may request 

government-to-government consultation at any time for a proposed action that may have 

tribal implications. NOS will also initiate project-specific consultations under Section 106 

of the NHPA before commencing any activity with the potential to affect cultural or historic 

resources. 

Future Coordination-7: We also suggest that NOS staff reach out directly to the AEWC and the 

other potentially impacted marine mammal user groups concerning this planning effort. 

NOS Response: NOS will also work with the NOAA Alaska Regional Navigation Manager 

to provide Alaskan communities with information on upcoming surveying projects to avoid 

or minimize interference with traditional hunting and fishing for subsistence uses. Through 

this communication strategy, NOS would minimize the potential for adverse impacts on 

subsistence communities, food security, and the safety of hunters. 

November 2022 98 
 

 

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

Response to Public Comments for Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition 

2.23 North Slope Borough and Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission (Harry 

K. Brower, Jr. and John Hopson, Jr) 

2.23.1 Comment Submission 

November 2022 99 










 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

Response to Public Comments for Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition 

2.23.2 NOS Response 

NEPA Process-1: We appreciate that NOAA extended the comment period to allow adequate 

time for review. 

NOS Response: Thank you for your support of the extended comment period. 

Environmental Justice-1: As the regional government for the Alaskan Arctic and as hunters on 

the water, we understand the importance of having good maps for our region, for the safety of all 

vessels. However, the surveying activities described in this DPEIS are of great concern to us as 

our communities participate in, and are dependent, on subsistence hunting of a wide range of 

marine life, including the bowhead whale. Marine activities that include vessel traffic and noise 

during specific time periods have a high potential to disrupt bowhead whale migrations. This may 

put our hunters' safety at risk and negatively impact our food security. 

NOS Response: Thank you for your comment. NOS understands the NSB and AEWC 

concerns for possible effects on subsistence, food security, and safety. NOS activities are 

conducted with the highest regard to health and safety, including the safety of subsistence 

hunters. NOS understands that protecting Alaska Native subsistence resources is vital and 

is committed to ongoing communication with NSB and AEWC about projects that are 

proposed in bowhead whale habitat and subsistence hunting areas. 

Specific project locations are determined annually for the upcoming surveying season. 

NOS will coordinate with tribes and subsistence hunters and fishers prior to conducting 

projects in subsistence hunting areas. NOS will also work with the NOAA Alaska Regional 

Navigation Manager to provide Alaskan communities with information on upcoming 

surveying projects to avoid or minimize interference with traditional hunting and fishing for 

subsistence uses. Through this communication strategy, NOS would minimize the 

potential for adverse impacts on subsistence communities, food security, and the safety 

of hunters. 

NOS intends to notify individual tribes and ANCs pursuant to EO 13175 before conducting 

any project that may have tribal implications. Federally recognized tribes may request 

formal government-to-government consultation pursuant to EO 13175 at any time. 

Proposed Action-1: It is particularly challenging to understand the potential impacts when this 

DPEIS has broad goals, and lack of specifics for our region. It makes it nearly impossible to provide 

a more detailed analysis of the impacts to the bowhead whales, to other important marine 

mammals and to our food security. 

NOS Response: NOS recognizes the importance of subsistence hunting of marine 

mammal species such as the bowhead whale. NOS will work with the NOAA Alaska 

Regional Navigation Manager to provide Alaskan communities with information on 

upcoming surveying projects to avoid or minimize interference with traditional hunting and 

fishing for subsistence uses. 

Federally recognized tribes and ANCs may request formal government-to-government 

consultation pursuant to EO 13175 at any time. 

November 2022 100 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

Response to Public Comments for Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition 

NOS determined that a programmatic approach under NEPA was appropriate because 

NOS conducts, authorizes, permits, and funds a suite of similar, ongoing data collection 

activities associated with recurring projects across a wide geographic area, including 

Alaskan and U.S. Arctic waters, to characterize underwater features (e.g., habitat, 

bathymetry, marine debris). 

Future Coordination-1: For these reasons, NSB and AEWC expect continued consultation with 

NOAA and NOS as this Program is implemented and before any of the surveys or mapping 

projects move forward in the Arctic. 

NOS Response: NOS is committed to continued engagement with the AEWC and NSB. 

Specific project locations are determined annually for the upcoming surveying season. 

NOS will coordinate with tribes and subsistence hunters and fishers prior to conducting 

projects in subsistence hunting and fishing areas. NOS will also work with the NOAA 

Alaska Regional Navigation Manager to provide Alaskan communities with information on 

upcoming surveying projects to avoid or minimize interference with traditional hunting and 

fishing for subsistence uses. Through this communication strategy, NOS would minimize 

the potential for adverse impacts on subsistence communities, food security, and the 

safety of hunters. 

NOS intends to notify individual tribes and ANCs pursuant to EO 13175 before conducting 

any project that may have tribal implications. Federally recognized tribes may request 

formal government-to-government consultation pursuant to EO 13175 at any time. 

Environmental Justice-2: At times, the AEWC has had great coordination with NOAA and the 

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) under our Co-Management Agreement for the 

bowhead whale. The AEWC has also worked well with the Office of Coast Survey at times, such 

as the recent autonomous sailing vessels, called “Saildrones” project. In 2020, adjustments were 

made to the surveys based on changed ice conditions to honor buffers around our communities 

during the fall harvest in Kaktovik, Nuiqsut and Utqiagvik (Barrow). (more below) 

However, at times, we have also been extremely disappointed by our federal agency partners. 

The DPEIS highlights NOAA’s communication and consultation efforts as a means for mitigation 

of the surveys impacts. 6 And the Biden Administration has announced additional plans for 

meaningful consultation with Tribes and Native communities. Yet as recently as September 2021, 

NOAA failed to contact the AEWC to participate in the Alaska Spatial Priorities Survey. 

These communication and consultation efforts are necessary and must be mandatory for all 

phases of these Projects. 

NOS Response: NOS is committed to continued engagement with the AEWC and NSB. 

Specific project locations are determined annually for the upcoming surveying season. 

NOS will coordinate with tribes and subsistence hunters and fishers prior to conducting 

projects in subsistence hunting and fishing areas. NOS will also work with the NOAA 

Alaska Regional Navigation Manager to provide Alaskan communities with information on 

upcoming surveying projects to avoid or minimize interference with traditional hunting and 

fishing for subsistence uses. Through this communication strategy, NOS would minimize 

November 2022 101 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

Response to Public Comments for Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition 

the potential for adverse impacts on subsistence communities, food security, and the 

safety of hunters. 

NOS intends to notify individual tribes and ANCs pursuant to EO 13175 before conducting 

any project that may have tribal implications. Federally recognized tribes may request 

formal government-to-government consultation pursuant to EO 13175 at any time. 

Environmental Justice-3: These surveys and other vessel traffic can impact our lives and 

livelihoods. The specific surveys conducted under this Program must be implemented in a way 

that ensures our continued food security and the safety of our hunters...Our hunters are also on 

the water, and extra noise from survey vessels can greatly impact our food security. 

NOS Response: NOS is committed to continued engagement with the AEWC and NSB. 

Specific project locations are determined annually for the upcoming surveying season. 

NOS will coordinate with tribes and subsistence hunters and fishers prior to conducting 

projects in subsistence hunting and fishing areas. NOS will also work with the NOAA 

Alaska Regional Navigation Manager to provide Alaskan communities with information on 

upcoming surveying projects to avoid or minimize interference with traditional hunting and 

fishing for subsistence uses. Through this communication strategy, NOS would minimize 

the potential for adverse impacts on subsistence communities, food security, and the 

safety of hunters. 

NOS intends to notify individual tribes and ANCs pursuant to EO 13175 before conducting 

any project that may have tribal implications. Federally recognized tribes may request 

formal government-to-government consultation pursuant to EO 13175 at any time. 

Future Coordination-2: The AEWC recognizes that NOAA is familiar with our Conflict Avoidance 

Agreement (CAA), as it is recognized by NMFS and other federal agencies in various regulatory 

processes. The CAA and the collaborative Process by which it is signed each year are critical to 

the AEWC’s ability to protect the whale, our hunters, and our communities’ food security, while 

facilitating environmentally sound resource development. This CAA Process has worked well, 

especially for companies that are new to the Arctic. It provides a collaborative process for 

consultation for the different surveys, enabling us to educate the vessel operators on the need for 

mitigation measures not needed in other regions, and in many instances, our participation has 

helped the operator improve the surveys. 

These annual consultations and adaptive management approach are particularly important in the 

Arctic marine environment, where tremendous and unprecedented environmental changes are 

occurring. With changes in spring ice conditions, fall whaling is becoming more important in some 

of our villages along the Chukchi and Bering Seas. And vessel traffic is increasing in the Bering 

Strait and the Arctic. These changing circumstances underscore the need for ongoing reliance 

on adaptive management. Incorporating an adaptive process provides both the stakeholders and 

the agency an effective means of addressing new information and changed circumstances in the 

context of specific industrial operations planned for a given year. 

As NOAA develops this survey program, it must require the same level of in-depth consultation 

with our communities. Our hunters are the experts in ice condition and location of marine 

mammals. 

November 2022 102 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

Response to Public Comments for Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition 

NOS Response: NOS will coordinate with tribes and subsistence hunters and fishers prior 

to conducting projects in subsistence hunting and fishing areas. NOS will also work with 

the NOAA Alaska Regional Navigation Manager to provide Alaskan communities with 

information on upcoming surveying projects to avoid or minimize interference with 

traditional hunting and fishing for subsistence uses. Through this communication strategy, 

NOS would minimize the potential for adverse impacts on subsistence communities, food 

security, and the safety of hunters. If after engaging in this communication process it 

appears that a formal protocol is needed, NOS will consider the AEWC Conflict Avoidance 

Agreement (CAA). 

NOS intends to notify individual tribes and ANCs pursuant to EO 13175 before conducting 

any project that may have tribal implications. Federally recognized tribes may request 

formal government-to-government consultation pursuant to EO 13175 at any time. 

NOS recognizes the changing circumstances of the Arctic. NOS supports the AEWC CAA 

and agrees that the process and adaptive management is constructive and helpful. The 

Proposed Action is to continue NOS’s ongoing surveying and mapping program which 

could occur anywhere in U.S. waters, including state waters, MPAs, and other special 

status areas. NOS will continue to facilitate involvement with subsistence 

communities related to planned projects throughout the action area. 

Mitigation Measures-1: We encourage NOAA as it develops the Survey programs, and obtains 

its necessary permits, to include other provisions as mitigation including: the use of 

communication centers to communicate with our villages; time-area closures to protect 

subsistence hunting activities in the Beaufort Sea; limitations on discharges in subsistence hunting 

grounds; vessel transit guidelines, including speed restrictions; and monitoring and reporting 

requirements. These measures are relatively non-controversial and have relevance to activities 

throughout the bowhead whale migratory and subsistence hunting areas. 

NOS Response: The Final PEIS has been updated to include additional mitigation 

measures that NOS has developed to be implemented on each project as appropriate to 

minimize the impacts of project activities, including reducing impacts on sensitive species 

and subsistence hunting and fishing. The additional mitigation measures in the Final PEIS 

were developed with subject matter experts and in coordination with field crews and with 

NMFS and USFWS. The full list of mitigation measures is included as an appendix to the 

Final PEIS. Mitigation measures include maintaining safe distances from protected and 

subsistence species and following vessel speed restrictions in specific protected species 

habitats. 

Regarding your request to consider measures specifically for surveys in subsistence 

hunting areas, NOS will work with the NOAA Alaska Regional Navigation Manager to 

provide Alaskan communities with information on upcoming surveying projects to avoid or 

minimize interference with traditional hunting and fishing for subsistence uses. 

November 2022 103 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

Response to Public Comments for Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition 

NOS intends to notify individual tribes and ANCs pursuant to EO 13175 before conducting 

any project that may have tribal implications. Federally recognized tribes and ANCs may 

request formal government-to-government consultation pursuant to EO 13175 at any time. 

Regarding your request to consider additional discharge restrictions in subsistence 

hunting areas, NOS assessed the potential impacts to water quality from vessel operations 

and equipment used during NOS projects. NOS vessels would discharge treated sanitary 

domestic wastes from United States Coast Guard-approved MSDs. The assessment of 

these impacts can be found in Section 3.14.1 of the Final PEIS. The potential impacts to 

air and water quality from air emissions, vessel discharges, and accidental spills would be 

minimized through compliance with MARPOL Annexes I, IV, V, and VI. NOS adheres to 

NOAA’s environmental procedures which comply with the MARPOL annexes and relevant 

implementing legislation, regulations, and guidance. 

Mitigation Measures-2: We would like to highlight one positive incident. In the summer of 2020, 

the Office of Coast Survey launched Autonomous Sailing Vessels (""Saildrones""). These were 

monitored by AEWC and NSB-DWM with daily emails on positions. In August, the AEWC formally 

requested that the instruments be turned off, which was done immediately. The saildrones 

traversed east past Kaktovik with the sounders turned off, before returning west to complete the 

survey after the whales had migrated and hunting was completed. The number of vessels was 

also reduced, in certain areas from four saildrones down to two. These actions showed us that the 

agency listens and is willing carry out a shutdown upon request and work collaboratively with the 

hunters. We would like to know whether this type of action will be honored in the future, especially 

in relation to larger, manned ships? From recent conversations between NSB-DWM and NOS and 

AEWC and NOS, we believe the answer is ""yes""; however, we want to be clear and upfront: are 

there limits to when, where, and duration of shutdowns that NOS would not comply? We know 

that is a very general question; however, the DPEIS is general in nature, so we require an answer. 

NOS Response: Thank you for your comment, NOS appreciates the assistance of 

subsistence hunters in project planning. NOS is committed to continued coordination with 

Alaskan communities on upcoming surveying projects to avoid or minimize interference 

with traditional hunting and fishing for subsistence uses. 

In coordination with NMFS and USFWS, NOS has developed additional mitigation 

measures. Mitigation measures include maintaining safe distances from marine mammals 

achieved by decreasing vessel speeds, vessel maneuvering, and observing time-area 

restrictions in specific protected species habitats (e.g., North Atlantic right whale). In order 

to maintain safety of navigation and avoid interactions with marine mammals and other 

sensitive species during transit, the vessel crew are instructed to remain vigilant to the 

presence of marine mammals. The full list of mitigation measures is included as Appendix 

D to the Final PEIS. 

This PEIS contains a programmatic effects analysis, meaning it provides an effects analysis 

for activities as they are typically conducted, with impacts assessed based on regional 

conditions, habitat types, species, and other factors. However, the PEIS does not identify 

the specific time or place for individual projects or activities over the next five years. As 

such, NOS cannot provide details on the specific situations where Alaskan communities 

November 2022 104 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

Response to Public Comments for Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition 

may request a shutdown of vessel operations. NOS is willing to discuss these requests 

and work closely with the subsistence community to ensure concerns are addressed. 

NOS intends to notify individual tribes and ANCs pursuant to EO 13175 before conducting 

any project that may have tribal implications. Federally recognized tribes and ANCs may 

request formal government-to-government consultation pursuant to EO 13175 at any time. 

Marine Mammals-1: In reviewing the document, the analysis of the Alternatives is very 

generalized and broad. For each Alternative, NOAA provides some generalized numerical 

statistics on the impacts to bowhead whales for the analysis. There is additional information in the 

Appendices. However, without more information on the timing and specific equipment, it is 

impossible to determine the direct impact to the bowhead whales and other marine mammals of 

concern, the indirect impacts through deflection from the migration path, and the potential impacts 

to our subsistence. 

NOS Response: NOS recognizes the importance of subsistence hunting of marine 

mammal species such as the bowhead whale. NOS will work with the NOAA Alaska 

Regional Navigation Manager to provide Alaskan communities with information on 

upcoming surveying projects to avoid or minimize interference with traditional hunting and 

fishing for subsistence uses. 

Federally recognized tribes and ANCs may request formal government-to-government 

consultation pursuant to EO 13175 at any time. 

NOS determined that a programmatic approach was appropriate because NOS conducts, 

authorizes, permits, and funds a suite of similar, ongoing data collection activities 

associated with recurring projects across a wide geographic area to characterize 

underwater features (e.g., habitat, bathymetry, marine debris). This Final PEIS is a 

comprehensive document that provides detailed programmatic effects analyses for 

surveying and mapping data collection activities based on regional conditions, habitat 

types, species, and other factors. However, the Final PEIS does not identify the specific 

time or place for individual projects or activities over the next five years. The analysis will 

be used to inform NOS leadership and the public on the environmental impacts of these 

activities before a decision is made on how to execute each project. All projects will require 

a project-specific review by NOS before proceeding. Before conducting any survey, NOS 

will work with the NOAA Alaska Regional Navigation Manager to provide Alaskan 

communities with information on upcoming surveying projects to avoid or minimize 

interference with traditional hunting and fishing for subsistence uses. 

Please note that the impacts from underwater acoustic equipment used detailed modeling 

data, as discussed in Section 3.5.2 of the PEIS, and NOS does not consider this data to be 

“generalized numerical statistics.” The acoustic modeling predicts 58.89 total potential 

exposures of sound at levels associated with behavioral disruption in bowhead whales in 

the Alaska Region over five years. Similar data is provided for other marine mammals of 

concern in the region. As discussed in Section 3.5.2, behavioral disturbances are expected 

to be transient and surveys, once completed in a given area, would not generally be 

repeated for years, thus limiting an individual’s behavioral disruption to a few minutes. 

November 2022 105 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

Response to Public Comments for Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition 

Environmental Justice-4: The DPEIS specifically notes this difficulty and the potential for impacts 

to the harvest. In several places, it says the magnitude of impact would depend on vessel speed, 

size, location, frequency, and pattern of travel, as well as the timing of the activities and the degree 

of overlap with our hunt. It also specifically states: 

Subsistence harvests in the marine environment could be disrupted, prolonged; or subsistence 

resources could be unavailable for use. Communities which are primarily dependent on marine 

mammals for subsistence, such as the bowhead harvesters of northern and western Alaskan 

villages, would be especially impacted. Subsistence users may be required to travel farther to 

harvest subsistence foods at a greater cost in terms of time, fuel, wear and tear on equipment and 

people, and lost wages. A decline in the harvest efficiency of marine resources would likely lead 

to an increase in hunting pressure on terrestrial wildlife, and to an increase in competition and 

territorial conflicts among subsistence harvesters (BOEM, 2015b). 

This is unacceptable. Our food security cannot be put at risk for these surveys. 

NOS Response: NOS understands the importance of Alaska Native subsistence 

resources; therefore, NOS ensured that the full range of potential direct and indirect 

impacts to subsistence harvests are considered in the PEIS. The effects analysis in the 

PEIS provided NOS with important information to support the development of mitigation 

measures in coordination with NMFS and USFWS for the Alaska Region. NOS is 

committed to ongoing communication with subsistence communities to avoid impacts that 

could directly or indirectly affect subsistence resources. 

NOS would minimize the potential for adverse impacts on subsistence communities, food 

security, and the safety of hunters through communication with Alaskan communities on 

upcoming surveying projects to avoid or minimize interference with traditional hunting and 

fishing for subsistence uses. 

NOS would like to note that the impacts described in the comment are the potential 

adverse effects of the cumulative impact of all actions occurring in the action area such as 

other surveying and mapping efforts undertaken by the U.S. Geological Survey, the 

Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM), and the National Science Foundation 

(Section 4.1). The NOS contribution to these adverse, cumulative impacts would be minor, 

and every effort will be made to coordinate with subsistence communities to minimize 

these impacts. 

Mitigation Measures-3: From our experience and as discussed above with the CAA, we know 

there are ways to mitigate the harms. These conversations need to take place before any surveys 

are developed to get input from the communities that will be directly impacted. 

NOS Response: NOS will work with the NOAA Alaska Regional Navigation Manager to 

provide Alaskan communities with information on upcoming surveying projects to avoid or 

minimize interference with traditional hunting and fishing for subsistence uses. 

NOS intends to notify individual tribes and ANCs pursuant to EO 13175 before conducting 

any project that may have tribal implications. Federally recognized tribes and ANCs may 

request formal government-to-government consultation pursuant to EO 13175 at any time. 

November 2022 106 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

Response to Public Comments for Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition 

Environmental Justice-5: Ultimately, without more details on the timing, location and extent of 

the surveys, it is difficult to see how NOAA has reached the conclusion that impacts on 

subsistence could be minimal or insignificant. 

NOS Response: NOS is committed to continued engagement with the AEWC and NSB. 

NOS determined that a programmatic approach was appropriate because NOS conducts, 

authorizes, permits, and funds a suite of similar, ongoing data collection activities 

associated with recurring projects across a wide geographic area to characterize 

underwater features (e.g., habitat, bathymetry, marine debris). This Final PEIS is a 

comprehensive document that provides detailed programmatic effects analyses for 

surveying and mapping data collection activities based on regional conditions, habitat 

types, species, and other factors. However, the Final PEIS does not identify the specific 

time or place for individual projects or activities over the next five years. The analysis will 

be used to inform NOS leadership and the public on the environmental impacts of these 

activities before a decision is made on how to execute each project. All projects will require 

a project-specific review by NOS before proceeding. 

In areas where subsistence hunting and fishing activities could occur, NOS analyzed the 

potential impacts of all surveying and mapping data collection activities that could occur 

and determined impacts would be insignificant using the significance criteria presented in 

Table 3.13-4. 

NOS will coordinate with tribes and subsistence hunters and fishers prior to conducting 

projects in subsistence hunting and fishing areas. NOS will also work with the NOAA 

Alaska Regional Navigation Manager to provide Alaskan communities with information on 

upcoming surveying projects to avoid or minimize interference with traditional hunting and 

fishing for subsistence uses. Through this communication strategy, NOS would minimize 

the potential for adverse impacts on subsistence communities, food security, and the 

safety of hunters. 

NOS intends to notify individual tribes and ANCs pursuant to EO 13175 before conducting 

any project that may have tribal implications. Federally recognized tribes may request 

formal government-to-government consultation pursuant to EO 13175 at any time. 

Environmental Justice-6: In Section 3.13.2.2.1, the DPEIS refers to our subsistence harvest and 

talks about “restricted hunting seasons” or “restrictions on hunting seasons.” We wish to clarify 

NOAA’s intent. Specifically, it says: 

The magnitude of the impacts would depend on the degree of overlap between the hunting season 

and the activities, with greater adverse impacts on EJ communities that rely on species with 

restricted hunting seasons. Survey and whaling seasons are bound to overlap due to safety and 

weather considerations, therefore it would not be practicable for NOS to avoid surveying activities 

during all subsistence hunting seasons. Increased hunting time coupled with restrictions on 

hunting seasons could potentially decrease harvest numbers. 

This language is disturbing, and hopefully inaccurate. The bowhead harvest is highly regulated 

with a quota allocated from the IWC, and through our work with NOAA as a Co-Management 

November 2022 107 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

Response to Public Comments for Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition 

Partner. It is also based on the timing of the migration of the bowhead whale. However, NOAA has 

not outlined any restrictions on the timing of our harvest. We have fought for decades to maintain 

our hunting rights and seek adequate numbers to feed our communities across Alaska. We would 

expect NOAA to adjust its surveys – and not have NOAA place any additional restrictions on the 

hunters. 

NOS Response: The Final PEIS has been revised for clarity. NOS intended the phrase 

“Restricted hunting seasons” to refer to hunts that are limited to specific seasons due to 

animal migration patterns and seasonal changes in weather and ice, not restrictions 

imposed by NOS. The Proposed Action would not place any additional restrictions on the 

bowhead whale quota allocated by the International Whaling Commission (IWC) or on 

hunting seasons. NOS understands the importance of Alaska Native subsistence 

resources. NOS understands that even small disruptions could cause adverse impacts; as 

such, NOS is committed to ongoing communication with subsistence communities to avoid 

impacts that could directly or indirectly affect subsistence resources. 

Environmental Justice-7: The description on page 443 about Figure 3.13-2 is a bit inaccurate. 

The first sentence says, “Figure 3.13-2 shows the AEWC spring and fall hunting areas in red.” But 

the red color is defined on the map as “AEWC Hunting and Search Areas”, which would be across 

all seasons. This should be corrected. 

NOS Response: Thank you for your suggested revision, NOS has revised the description 

of Figure 3.13-2 in the Final PEIS. 

Environmental Justice-8: We also wish to correct this sentence from the DPEIS which says: 

""Over the years, bowhead hunters have incorporated modern technologies such as darting and 

shoulder guns for improved efficiency and humane hunting."" Through mandates from the 

International Whaling Commission, the AEWC has been required to adapt its techniques. 

However, the darting gun and shoulder gun are 19th century technology with only slight 

modifications since then making this sentence inaccurate. 

NOS Response: Thank you for your suggested revision, NOS has revised the sentence 

“over the years, bowhead hunters have incorporated modern technologies such as darting 

and shoulder guns for improved efficiency and humane hunting” to indicate that the 

technology has only slightly changed since the 19th century. 

Cumulative Impacts-1: In the cumulative impacts assessment, NOS should include the impacts 

from other research traffic in the Arctic. In addition, Table 4.1-7 on current Offshore Oil & Gas 

Projects in the Arctic may need some revisions to reflect that Hilcorp is operating Northstar, and 

the Liberty Project may be on hold.1 3 Section 4.1.8 on Liquefied Natural Gas projects is missing 

any reference to the Alaska LNG Project which has secured permits. 

NOS Response: The cumulative impacts section has been revised for the Final PEIS to 

include the information the commenter has provided on offshore oil and gas projects in 

Alaskan waters. 

Alternatives-1: The NSB and AEWC generally want to support the use of newer technologies that 

may be more efficient and may achieve greater accuracy. However, NOAA must ensure the 

November 2022 108 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

Response to Public Comments for Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition 

choice of equipment is well-suited to the task, and each survey is done in the least disruptive 

manner to the bowhead whale and our hunts, and is adequately analyzed to ensure proper 

mitigation measures are in place, including necessary time and area closures around our 

communities. 

NOS Response: Thank you for your comment, appropriate equipment selection is 

discussed in Section 2.2 of the Draft PEIS. The responsible NOS program office considers 

the goals and purpose of a given project and determines the specific equipment and 

protocols which would be best suited to accomplish the task. NOS has a responsibility to 

gather data necessary for nautical charts and other public data products, with 

consideration for the human environment. Surveying vessels and equipment are designed 

to minimize noise, and NOS uses the lowest appropriate power and ping rate for its 

acoustic sources while gathering data. 

The Final PEIS has been updated to include additional mitigation measures that NOS has 

developed to be implemented on each project as appropriate to minimize the impacts of 

project activities, including reducing impacts on sensitive species and subsistence hunting 

and fishing. The additional mitigation measures in the Final PEIS were developed with 

subject matter experts and in coordination with field crews and with NMFS, USFWS, and 

ONMS. The complete list of mitigation measures is included as Appendix D to the Final 

PEIS. 

NOS will work with the NOAA Alaska Regional Navigation Manager to provide Alaskan 

communities with information on upcoming surveying projects to avoid or minimize 

interference with traditional hunting and fishing for subsistence uses. 

Federally recognized tribes and ANCs may request formal government-to-government 

consultation pursuant to EO 13175 at any time. 

Alternatives-2: We also would appreciate Alternative C, to include additional funding. This 

funding could help NOAA in its outreach to our communities. We also hope to see a mechanism 

where this funding would be made available to the impacted communities to support the coproduction of knowledge and the amount of time and resources that are required for our 

organizations to engage in consultation. This could enable our communities and our hunters to 

participate early in the process, including in developing the studies and answering questions 

related to the impacts of the technology in our waters. 

NOS Response: Thank you for your support of Alternative C. 

Alternative C includes the adoption of new techniques and technologies for activities 

related to data collection for NOS surveying and mapping projects. It does not include 

additional funding for communities to cover time and resources spent by federally 

recognized tribes to engage in the consultation process. NOS is not aware of any current 

federal funding opportunities to support tribal or subsistence communities’ time spent 

consulting with Federal agencies. 

All data collected by NOS is made publicly available to the extent allowed by federal law. 

NOS will work with the NOAA Alaska Regional Navigation Manager to provide Alaskan 

November 2022 109 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

Response to Public Comments for Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition 

communities with information on upcoming surveying projects to avoid or minimize 

interference with traditional hunting and fishing for subsistence uses. 

Federally recognized tribes and ANCs may request formal government-to-government 

consultation pursuant to EO 13175 at any time. 

Scope-1: It has been brought to the attention of AEWC and NSB-DWM that freshwater surveys 

and mapping will not be conducted in Alaska. We would like confirmation of this. 

NOS Response: Freshwater projects may occur in the Alaska Region; however, the 

majority of projects would be in the marine environment. 

Marine Mammals-2: Table 3.5-10 provides the barest of information on how “Total Exposures” 

were calculated. In fact, the definition of Total Exposures, noted with an asterisk, is difficult to 

understand: “Measured as the predicted probability of exposure and interpreted as the 

percentage of the population expected to exceed threshold”. We would like clearer definition, and 

in the text, please provide sufficient information on the assumptions used in the model to 

determine these values. While the overall document refers to Appendices, these are not in the 

DPEIS. 

NOS Response: Calculations were made available with the Draft PEIS in Appendix C and 

are also available in Appendix E of the Final PEIS which contains an updated version of 

the same report, Technical Acoustic Analysis of Oceanographic Surveys. 

Acoustic Modeling-1: Upon receiving the appendix entitled Technical Acoustic Analysis of 

Oceanographic Surveys for the National Ocean Service: Underwater Acoustic Modeling 

Oceanographic Survey Sounds and Exposure Modeling from Giannina DiMaio, which we 

appreciate, we note that Table 4 includes many species of concern, including bowhead and 

beluga whales. Based on the listed publication from which densities are estimated (NOAA and 

USFWS Stock Assessments Reports, 2014, 2017-2019), we suspect that the authors are 

assuming that marine mammal densities are equal across their range; however, studies of marine 

mammal densities indicate that there are core use areas that are occupied seasonally. If the 

authors of the DPEIS are assuming that marine mammal densities are constant across their range, 

marine mammal density will be overestimated across large areas while under-estimated within 

critical use areas. Hence, it is likely that the density of marine mammals is biased low within their 

core use areas, leading to an estimate of Total Exposures that is also biased low. We are 

requesting clarification of how total exposure was estimated and would like to see the density 

maps used to calculate total exposure. Knowing and recalculating Total Exposures will not only 

assist in your successful completion of this laudable project but also provide further evidence to 

us of your willingness to listen and use local and traditional knowledge. Data based on tagged 

species should be evaluated by NOS. A recent resource to consult is George, John C., and J.G.M. 

'Hans' Thewissen, ed. The bowhead whale: Balaena mysticetus: Biology and human interactions. 

Academic Press, 2020. See also Citta et al. (2018) A multi-species synthesis of satellite telemetry 

data in the Pacific Arctic (1987-2015): Overlap of marine mammal distributions and core use 

areas. Deep-Sea Research Part II 152:132-153. https://doi.org/10.10I6 j.dsr2.2018.02.006. 

NOS Response: Thank you for the comment. NOS, in consultation with NMFS, has 

incorporated additional data sources into the calculations of marine mammal density and 

November 2022 110 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

Response to Public Comments for Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition 

exposures. The revised exposure numbers are being used for consultation under the 

MMPA and ESA, and have been incorporated in the Final PEIS. For Alaska, species 

abundance and distribution were obtained from the 2021 SARs for cetaceans and 

pinnipeds which represent the best available science. 

NOS has reviewed the referenced studies provided in the comment. These additional data 

sources are based on tagged species. NOS understands that there are local differences 

in densities and distribution in the Alaskan Region. For the purposes of modeling total 

exposure estimates, the SARs data is appropriate for estimating population level effects 

under the MMPA and ESA. However, NOS agrees that this higher resolution information 

is helpful for understanding localized impacts to subsistence hunting. As such, NOS has 

considered this higher resolution data for beluga and bowhead whales in the qualitative 

assessment in the Final PEIS. 

NOS considered several data sets when determining what density data set was most 

appropriate for use in estimating total exposures including the Navy Marine Species 

Database. As stated in the acoustic modeling report (Appendix E in the Final PEIS): “The 

Navy Marine Species Database was considered for use in the Pacific Ocean and Gulf of 

Alaska (DoN 2017, 2018, 2019). The coverage of this database, however, is less than the 

extent of the NOS operational areas, meaning SAR data would still have been needed to 

fill in large data gaps. While density estimates from SAR abundance may have lower spatial 

resolution than the Navy Marine Species Database, use of the SAR data is appropriate 

because they are broadly accurate over the operational area and surveys may occur 

anywhere within those operational areas.” As described in the referenced appendix, NOS 

used average population densities because the proposed activities may occur anywhere 

within the action area. Although some projects may result in more exposures than others, 

the exposure estimates represent expected exposures averaged across all projects in the 

program. Natural variability due to seasonal changes is expected. 

Although there are no associated density maps for the SAR data used by NOS to estimate 

total exposures, NMFS annually prepares marine mammal stock assessment reports by 

region and species. This information can be found on the NMFS Marine Mammal Stock 

Assessments website at https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammalprotection/marine-mammal-stock-assessments. 

NEPA Process-2: NOAA must engage in further consultation and communication with the NSB 

and AEWC as it develops the Final Programmatic EIS, through the development of Incidental Take 

Regulations and Letters of Authorization, and as the Program is implemented with surveys in 

Alaska. The Alternative selected and the Program as implemented must enable NOAA to achieve 

its goals, with minimal disruption to our subsistence hunt, and maximum participation by our 

communities in the process. 

NOS Response: Comments and recommendations received on the Draft PEIS from the 

public during the 90-day public comment period were considered by NOS in the 

development of the Final PEIS. Federally recognized tribes and ANCs may request formal 

government-to-government consultation pursuant to EO 13175 at any time. 

November 2022 111 
 

 

 

 

 

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

Response to Public Comments for Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition 

NOS will work with the NOAA Alaska Regional Navigation Manager to provide Alaskan 

communities with information on upcoming NOS surveying and mapping projects to avoid 

or minimize interference with traditional hunting and fishing for subsistence uses. 

NOS has submitted an application for a Letter of Authorization to NMFS and a petition for 

Incidental Take Regulations to USFWS for marine mammal species. The development of 

regulations pertaining to these consultations will provide the public with additional 

opportunities to comment. 

November 2022 112 
 

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

Response to Public Comments for Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition 

2.24 Pokagon Band of Potawatomi Indians Tribal Historic Preservation 

Officer (Matthew J.N. Bussler) 

2.24.1 Comment Submission 

November 2022 113 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

August 2nd, 2021 

NOAA, National Ocean Service

Office of the Assistant Administrator 

1305 East-West Hwy, SSMC4 13th Floor

Silver Spring, MD 20910

V: 240-533-0918 

nosaa.ec@noaa.gov 

Comments on NOAA Draft PEIS for Surveying and Mapping Projects 

Dear Responsible Party: 

Migwetth for your inquiry for comments regarding the National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) draft Programmatic Environmental

Impact Statement (PEIS) for Surveying and Mapping Projects. I am writing to

inform you that I have reviewed the Cultural and Historic Resources section 

(3.11) of the PEIS referenced above and would like to provide the following

comments for your consideration. Should you have any questions, please don’t 

hesitate to contact me at your earliest convenience. 

Comments on Section 3.11.2.1 Methodology 

1. It is of utmost importance that the NOAA undergoes in-depth discussion 

with Tribes who exercise Traditional fishing and hunting practices to

ensure that surveying and mapping work is not performed during peak

fishing seasons and timeframes. The Significance Conclusion, within Table 

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

Resources, “Insignificant” claims, under Impact Descriptor “Moderate” that 

“The action would temporarily interfere with traditional subsistence 

hunting and fishing practices during peak seasons or times.” To satisfy 

Tribes’ concerns of the disruption of their Traditional fishing and hunting

practices, detailed discussion and consultation must be conducted to 

guarantee that an annual season’s hunting and fishing harvest is not 

compromised due to actions taken by NOAA. 

2. If an action were to be performed by NOAA that is constituted as “Major”, 

detailed discussion and ongoing, meaningful consultation must be 

conducted to allow for tribes to review possible adverse effects to historic

and cultural resources and guarantee that a Tribe’s annual season’s 

hunting and fishing harvest is not compromised. Actions that obtain a 
 

 

“Major” Impact Descriptor status will require NOAA to halt all work and

contact Tribes immediately. 

I appreciate the NOAA for reaching out to the Pokagon Band of Potawatomi 

Indians for our input and comments on your Draft Programmatic Environmental

Impact Statement. If questions, comments or concerns may arise in the future,

the Pokagon Band will make contact with the NOAA to address them. 

Sincerely, 

Matthew J.N. Bussler 

Tribal Historic Preservation Officer 

Pokagon Band of Potawatomi Indians

Office: (269) 462-4316 

Cell: (269) 519-0838 

Matthew.Bussler@Pokagonband-nsn.gov 

2 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

Response to Public Comments for Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition 

2.24.2 NOS Response 

Socioeconomic Resources-2: 1. It is of utmost importance that the NOAA undergoes in-depth 

discussion with Tribes who exercise Traditional fishing and hunting practices to ensure that 

surveying and mapping work is not performed during peak fishing seasons and timeframes. The 

Significance Conclusion, within Table 3.11-1. Significance Criteria for the Analysis of Impacts to 

Cultural Resources, “Insignificant” claims, under Impact Descriptor “Moderate” that “The action 

would temporarily interfere with traditional subsistence hunting and fishing practices during peak 

seasons or times.” To satisfy Tribes’ concerns of the disruption of their Traditional fishing and 

hunting practices, detailed discussion and consultation must be conducted to guarantee that an 

annual season’s hunting and fishing harvest is not compromised due to actions taken by NOAA. 

NOS Response: Executive Order 13175 of November 6, 2000 (Consultation and 

Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments), charges all executive departments and 

agencies with engaging in regular, meaningful, and robust consultation with tribes on 

Federal policies or activities that have tribal implications. On June 28, 2021, NOS sent 

letters to tribes notifying them of the availability of the PEIS and inviting them to seek 

government-to-government consultation under EO 13175. 

NOS intends to notify individual tribes and ANCs pursuant to EO 13175 before conducting 

any project that may have tribal implications. Federally recognized tribes may request 

government-to-government consultation at any time for a proposed action that may have 

tribal implications. 

NOS will initiate project-specific consultations under Section 106 of the NHPA before 

commencing any activity with the potential to affect cultural or historic resources. 

Cultural and Historic Resources-11: 2. If an action were to be performed by NOAA that is 

constituted as “Major”, detailed discussion and ongoing, meaningful consultation must be 

conducted to allow for tribes to review possible adverse effects to historic and cultural resources 

and guarantee that a Tribe’s annual season’s hunting and fishing harvest is not compromised. 

Actions that obtain a “Major” Impact Descriptor status will require NOAA to halt all work and 

contact Tribes immediately. 

NOS Response: Overall, impacts on cultural resources under all alternatives were found 

to range from negligible to moderate and insignificant under the impact criteria NOS 

established pursuant to NEPA. While the Final PEIS will be used to inform NOS 

responsibilities under NHPA, NOS will initiate project-specific consultations under Section 

106 of the NHPA before commencing any activity with the potential to affect cultural or 

historic resources. 

NOS intends to notify individual tribes pursuant to EO 13175 before conducting any project 

that may have tribal implications. Federally recognized tribes may request government-togovernment consultation at any time for a proposed action that may have tribal 

implications. 

November 2022 114 
 

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

Response to Public Comments for Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition 

2.25 Public (Anonymous) 

2.25.1 Comment Submission 

November 2022 115 
Comment on, “Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for Surveying and

Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition, Extension of

Public Comment Period.”

The agencies involved in this plan (National Ocean Service (NOS), National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and Department of Commerce (DOC)) have provided

ample information relating to their proposed action, and they show that they have a clear

understanding of the environmental impacts it may have. The site provided by NOAA for the

“Surveying and Mapping Draft PEIS” provides the need/purpose for action, scope, methods for

surveying and mapping, draft PEIS, FAQ’s, fact sheets, and an area for public comments. The

proposed action is said to, “provide the public and private sectors with nautical charts, benthic

habitat condition maps, current and tide charts, and other products necessary to ensure safe

navigation, economic security, and environmental sustainability.” The agencies proved clear,

organized information regarding their methods of surveying and mapping with user-friendly

video explanations, supporting images, and simple, yet effective, wording for the proposed plan.

The information provided was easily accessible to the public and covered every area of concern

with regards to the plan. For instance, there is notable consideration of environmental

sustainability and environmental justice. Furthermore, the agencies have closely followed the

necessary processes required by NEPA, providing alternative plans, all environmental

regulations and other compliances, and executive orders among more information. After

reviewing this plan, it can be concluded that the proposed action is necessary and beneficial to

society as a whole and should go forth in being implemented. The plan is closely aligned with

the mission statement of NOAA's that is focused on, “...Protecting America's ocean, coastal, and

living marine resources while promoting sustainable economic development.” It is a complex

process to be able to ensure that all of these variables synchronize.

With this being said, it is noted how NOS plans to engage federally recognized tribes in

areas of the Hawaiian region and Alaskan Region. It is stated in the plan that, “Although NOS

does not anticipate any effects on historical or cultural resources, if there is a potential for

adverse impacts NOS will engage with federally recognized tribes to develop agreements to

avoid or minimize those effects.” While it is clear that NOS is committed to considering any

tribes concerns, it is still unclear how exactly they plan to mitigate any discrepancies. Will the

agencies be willing to put a halt to their actions if there are high concerns with local tribes? Or

will the concerned tribe be provided compensation for their compliance? We feel it is important

to note their consideration but there is still a lack of more in depth research concerning the social

and cultural impacts this plan may have. Since this is an integral part of the sustained mission of

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the National Ocean Service

(NOS) collectively, we believe more detail should be provided for the general concern.
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

Response to Public Comments for Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition 

2.25.2 NOS Response 

NEPA Process-6: The agencies involved in this plan (National Ocean Service (NOS), National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and Department of Commerce (DOC)) have 

provided ample information relating to their proposed action, and they show that they have a clear 

understanding of the environmental impacts it may have. The site provided by NOAA for the 

“Surveying and Mapping Draft PEIS” provides the need/purpose for action, scope, methods for 

surveying and mapping, draft PEIS, FAQ’s, fact sheets, and an area for public comments. The 

proposed action is said to, “provide the public and private sectors with nautical charts, benthic 

habitat condition maps, current and tide charts, and other products necessary to ensure safe 

navigation, economic security, and environmental sustainability.” The agencies proved clear, 

organized information regarding their methods of surveying and mapping with user-friendly video 

explanations, supporting images, and simple, yet effective, wording for the proposed plan. The 

information provided was easily accessible to the public and covered every area of concern with 

regards to the plan. For instance, there is notable consideration of environmental sustainability 

and environmental justice. Furthermore, the agencies have closely followed the necessary 

processes required by NEPA, providing alternative plans, all environmental regulations and other 

compliances, and executive orders among more information. 

NOS Response: Thank you for your support of the analysis in the PEIS and the outreach 

material provided to the public. 

Cultural and Historic Resources-9: With this being said, it is noted how NOS plans to engage 

federally recognized tribes in areas of the Hawaiian region and Alaskan Region. It is stated in the 

plan that, “Although NOS does not anticipate any effects on historical or cultural resources, if 

there is a potential for adverse impacts NOS will engage with federally recognized tribes to 

develop agreements to avoid or minimize those effects.” While it is clear that NOS is committed 

to considering any tribes concerns, it is still unclear how exactly they plan to mitigate any 

discrepancies. 

Will the agencies be willing to put a halt to their actions if there are high concerns with local tribes? 

Or will the concerned tribe be provided compensation for their compliance? We feel it is important 

to note their consideration but there is still a lack of more in depth research concerning the social 

and cultural impacts this plan may have. Since this is an integral part of the sustained mission of 

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the National Ocean Service 

(NOS) collectively, we believe more detail should be provided for the general concern. 

NOS Response: Executive Order 13175 of November 6, 2000 (Consultation and 

Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments), charges all executive departments and 

agencies with engaging in regular, meaningful, and robust consultation with tribes on 

Federal policies or activities that have tribal implications. On June 28, 2021, NOS sent 

letters to tribes notifying them of the availability of the PEIS and inviting them to seek 

government-to-government consultation under EO 13175. 

NOS intends to notify individual tribes and ANCs pursuant to EO 13175 before conducting 

any project that may have tribal implications. Federally recognized tribes may request 

government-to-government consultation at any time for a proposed action that may have 

tribal implications. 

November 2022 116 
 

 

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

Response to Public Comments for Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition 

NOS will initiate project-specific consultations under Section 106 of the NHPA before 

commencing any activity with the potential to affect cultural or historic resources. 

November 2022 117 
 

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

Response to Public Comments for Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition 

2.26 Public (Jean Public) 

2.26.1 Comment Submission 

November 2022 118 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: NOSAA Environmental Compliance - NOAA Service Account 

To: Michelle.Smyk@solvllc.com 

Subject: Fwd: unnecessary spending 

Date: Thursday, October 14, 2021 6:36:05 PM 

NOS PEIS Comment 

v/r 

Giannina DiMaio 

NOS Environmental Compliance Coordinator 

Pronouns: she/her/hers 

NOAA, National Ocean Service 

Office of the Assistant Administrator 

1305 East-West Hwy, SSMC4 13th Floor 

Silver Spring, MD 20910 

V: 240-533-0918 

nosaa.ec@noaa.gov 

---------- Forwarded message ---------

From: jean public <jeanpublic1@gmail.com> 

Date: Tue, Aug 24, 2021 at 1:50 PM 

Subject: Fwd: unnecessary spending 

To: <nosaa.ec@noaa.gov>, INFO <INFO@taxpayer.net>, media <media@cagw.org>, 

<INFO@njtaxes.org>, <info@afphq.org> 

public comment on federal register unnecessary spending 

shut down this completely unnecesary spending. there is no need also to "accommodate" 

hunters or fishers. do not fund this completely wasteful and unnecessary program. this 

commetn is for the public record. please receipt. jean publiee jeanpublic1@gmail.com 

[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 161 (Tuesday, August 24, 2021)]

[Notices]

[Pages 47299-47300]

From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office

[www.gpo.gov]

[FR Doc No: 2021-18207] 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for Surveying 

and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for Coastal and Marine Data 

Acquisition, Extension of Public Comment Period 

AGENCY: National Ocean Service (NOS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration (NOAA), Department of Commerce (DOC). 

ACTION: Notice; extension of comment period. 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

National Ocean Service (NOS) is extending the public comment period by 

90 days for the Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement 

(PEIS) for Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for Coastal 

and Marine Data Acquisition. The end of the public comment period is 

extended from August 24, 2021 to November 22, 2021. 

DATES: The public comment period is extended by 90 days to November 22, 

2021. Comments must be received by November 22, 2021, as specified 

under ADDRESSES. Comments received after this date may not be accepted. 

ADDRESSES: The Draft PEIS can be viewed or downloaded from the NOS 

website at https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/about/environmental- compliance/surveying-mapping.html. Written comments on NOS's Draft PEIS 

may be submitted by one of the following methods:

 Electronic Submission: Submit all electronic public 

comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to

https://www.regulations.gov and enter NOAA-NOS-2021-0055 in the Search box. 

Click on the ``Comment'' icon, complete the required fields, and enter 

or attach your comments.

 Mail: Please direct written comments to DOC/NOAA/NOS 

Environmental Compliance Coordinator, SSMC4-Station 13612, 1305 East 

West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910.

 Email: nosaa.ec@noaa.gov. Instructions: Comments sent by any other method, to any 

other address or individual, or received after the end of the comment 

period, may not be considered by NOAA. All comments received are a part 

of the public record and will generally be posted for public viewing on 

www.regulations.gov without change. All personal identifying 

information (e.g., name, address, etc.), confidential business 

information, or otherwise sensitive information submitted voluntarily 

by the sender will be publicly accessible. NOAA will accept anonymous 

comments (enter ``N/A'' in the required fields if you wish to remain 

anonymous). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Giannina DiMaio, DOC/NOAA/NOS, 

Environmental Compliance Coordinator, SSMC4-Station 13612, 1305 East 

West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910; Phone: 240-533-0918; or Email 

nosaa.ec@noaa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On June 25, 2021, NOS published a Notice of 

Availability of a Draft PEIS for Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. 

Waters for Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition. 86 FR 33663 (June 25, 

2021). The Draft PEIS was prepared in accordance with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA), to analyze the 

potential environmental impacts associated with NOS's recurring data 

collection projects to characterize submerged features (e.g., habitat, 

bathymetry, marine debris). The ``action area'' for these projects 

encompasses United States (U.S.) rivers, states' offshore waters, the 

U.S. territorial sea, the contiguous zone, the U.S. Exclusive Economic 

Zone (U.S. EEZ), and coastal and riparian lands. As a part of the 

Proposed Action, NOS may use active acoustic equipment such as subbottom profilers, single beam and multibeam echo sounders, side-scan 

sonars, and Acoustic Doppler Current Profilers. The Draft PEIS analyzes 

NOS data collection projects for a time period of six years. Please 

refer to the original Notice of Availability for additional summary 

information. 

[[Page 47300]]

 The original public comment period for the Draft PEIS was scheduled 

to close on August 24, 2021. In response to written and verbal requests 

from members of the public including representatives of the Alaska 

whaling community, NOS is extending the public comment period by 90 

days to November 22, 2021. The comment period extension will ensure 

adequate time for review of the Draft PEIS by all interested parties 

and will accommodate the Alaskan subsistence hunting and fishing 

community which is particularly busy during the start of the fall 

whaling season from August to October. NOS recognizes that Alaskan 

communities have valuable regional expertise in oceanography, marine 

mammals and other resources, and the subsistence patterns and needs of 

their community.

 NOS invites affected government agencies, non-governmental 
organizations, tribes and tribal organizations, and interested members 

of the public to participate in the Draft PEIS process and provide 

comments on the structure, contents, and analysis in the Draft PEIS. 

Please visit the project web page for additional information regarding 

the program: https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/about/environmental- compliance/surveying-mapping.html. Authority: The preparation of the Draft PEIS was conducted in 

accordance with the requirements of NEPA, the Council on Environmental 

Quality's Regulations (40 CFR 1500 et seq. (1978)), other applicable 

regulations, and NOAA's policies and procedures for compliance with 

those regulations. While the CEQ regulations implementing NEPA were 

revised as of November 14, 2020 (85 FR 43304, Jul. 16, 2020), NOS 

prepared this Draft PEIS using the 1978 CEQ regulations because this 

environmental review began on December 19, 2016, when NOS published a 

Notice of Intent to conduct scoping and prepare a Draft Programmatic 

Environmental Assessment. Written comments must be received on or 

before November 22, 2021. 

Nicole R. LeBoeuf,

Assistant Administrator, National Ocean Service, National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration.

[FR Doc. 2021-18207 Filed 8-23-21; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-JE-P 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

Response to Public Comments for Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition 

2.26.2 NOS Response 

Environmental Justice-10: there is no need also to ""accommodate"" hunters or fishers. 

NOS Response: Executive Order 13175 of November 6, 2000 (Consultation and 

Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments), charges all executive departments and 

agencies with engaging in regular, meaningful, and robust consultation with Tribal officials 

on Federal policies or activities that have tribal implications. Additionally, EO 12898 

“Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and LowIncome Populations” requires that federal agencies consider as a part of their action any 

disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects to minority 

and low-income populations. Agencies are required to ensure that these potential effects 

are identified and addressed. Several tribes and Alaska subsistence communities sought 

additional time to review the EIS due to the timing of its release that coincided with the 

subsistence hunting and fishing season in Alaska. NOS found this request reasonable and 

as such, NOS extended the original 60-day public comment period deadline by 90 days 

from August 24, 2021 to November 22, 2021. 

Purpose and Need-3: public comment on federal register unnecessary spending shut down this 

completely unnecessary spending... do not fund this completely wasteful and unnecessary 

program. 

NOS Response: Thank you for your comment. Projects under the Proposed Action 

provide the public and private sectors with nautical charts, benthic habitat condition maps, 

current and tide charts, and other products necessary for safe navigation, economic 

security, and environmental sustainability. The public and decision-makers need these 

products to ensure safety at sea, economic well-being, and the efficient stewardship of 

public trust resources. 

November 2022 119 
 

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

Response to Public Comments for Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition 

2.27 South Carolina State Historic Preservation Officer (Elizabeth Johnson) 

2.27.1 Comment Submission 

November 2022 120 
 

 

 

 

July 20, 2021 

Giannina DiMaio 

NOS Environmental Compliance Coordinator 

NOAA, National Ocean Service 

Silver Spring, MD 20910 

Nosaa.ec@noaa.gov 

Re: Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Coastal Waters for Coastal and Marine Data 

Acquisition 

South Carolina 

SHPO Project No. 21-EJ0219 

Dear Giannina DiMaio: 

Our office has received the letter dated June 25, 2021 and link to the Draft Programmatic Environmental 

Impact Statement (PEIS) that you submitted as part of your agency’s National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) process for the project referenced above. This letter is for preliminary, informational purposes 

only and does not constitute consultation or agency coordination with our office as defined in 36 CFR 

800: “Protection of Historic Properties” or by any state regulatory process. If NOAA chooses to substitute 

the NEPA process for the process outlined in Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, your 

agency must notify our office of the proposed substitution. 

Our office maintains several resources for identifying historic properties (for links please see our online 

research resources at https://scdah.sc.gov/historic-preservation/historic-properties-research. These 

resources in particular should assist your agency in identifying historic properties for NEPA scoping. 

 ArchSite is an online Geographic Information System (GIS) mapping program that includes all 

known historic and archaeological sites in South Carolina. Information on both the Public View 

Map and Subscriber View Map of ArchSite can be found here: http://www.scarchsite.org. 

 SC Historic Properties Record (SCHPR) includes information on all National Register of Historic 

Places listings, and historic property surveys (in process) at http://schpr.sc.gov/. 

 Additional historic contexts, survey reports, and related historic property documents can be found 

here https://scdah.sc.gov/historic-preservation/historic-properties-research/historic-contextssurvey-reports. 

Please note that in South Carolina, records of submerged cultural resources are maintained by the SC 

Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology, Maritime Research Division (MRD), 

http://artsandsciences.sc.edu/sciaa/mrd/welcome. Our office defers to the expertise of the Maritime 

Research Division (MRD), under the direction of the State Underwater Archaeologist, for undertakings 

that may include submerged resources. Please contact Athena Van Overschelde at 803-576-6565 or 
 

athenav@mailbox.sc.edu or Jim Spirek at 803-576-6566 or spirek@sc.edu if you have any questions or 

require additional information about submerged cultural resources. 

The State Historic Preservation Office will provide comments regarding historic properties and effects to 

them once the federal or state agency initiates consultation. Project Review Forms and additional 

guidance regarding our office’s role in the compliance process and historic preservation can be found on 

our website at: https://scdah.sc.gov/historic-preservation/programs/review-compliance. 

Thank you for providing information about the PEIS. Please refer to SHPO Project Number 21-EJ0219 

in any future correspondence regarding this project. If you have any questions, please contact me at (803) 

896-6168 or at ejohnson@scdah.sc.gov. 

Sincerely, 

Elizabeth M. Johnson 

Director, Historical Services, D-SHPO 

State Historic Preservation Office 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

Response to Public Comments for Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition 

2.27.2 NOS Response 

Cultural and Historic Resources-31: If NOAA chooses to substitute the NEPA process for the 

process outlined in Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, your agency must notify 

our office of the proposed substitution. 

NOS Response: While the Final PEIS will be used to inform NOS responsibilities under 

NHPA, NOS will comply with Section 106 of the NHPA for any activity that has the potential 

to affect cultural or historic resources as described in the regulations at 36 CFR 800.8, 

regardless of the NEPA impact category. NOS will conduct project-specific NHPA 

consultations before commencing any project with the potential to affect cultural or historic 

resources. 

Scope-8: These resources in particular should assist your agency in identifying historic properties 

for NEPA scoping. 

• ArchSite is an online Geographic Information System (GIS) mapping program that 

includes all known historic and archaeological sites in South Carolina. Information on both 

the Public View Map and Subscriber View Map of ArchSite can be found here: 

http://www.scarchsite.org. 

• SC Historic Properties Record (SCHPR) includes information on all National Register of 

Historic Places listings, and historic property surveys (in process) at http://schpr.sc.gov/. 

• Additional historic contexts, survey reports, and related historic property documents can 

be found here https://scdah.sc.gov/historic-preservation/historic-propertiesresearch/historic-contexts- survey-reports. 

NOS Response: Thank you for providing these resources, NOS looks forward to working 

with the South Carolina State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) for the protection of 

cultural resources. NOS will use this information when initiating consultation with the SC 

SHPO under Section 106 of the NHPA. 

Cultural and Historic Resources-12: Please note that in South Carolina, records of submerged 

cultural resources are maintained by the SC Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology, Maritime 

Research Division (MRD), http://artsandsciences.sc.edu/sciaa/mrd/welcome. Our office defers to 

the expertise of the Maritime Research Division (MRD), under the direction of the State 

Underwater Archaeologist, for undertakings that may include submerged resources. Please 

contact Athena Van Overschelde at 803-576-6565 or athenav@mailbox.sc.edu or Jim Spirek at 

803-576-6566 or spirek@sc.edu if you have any questions or require additional information about 

submerged cultural resources. 

NOS Response: Thank you for this additional information. 

November 2022 121 
 

 

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

Response to Public Comments for Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition 

Cultural and Historic Resources-13: The State Historic Preservation Office will provide 

comments regarding historic properties and effects to them once the federal or state agency 

initiates consultation. 

NOS Response: Thank you. NOS will initiate project-specific consultations under Section 

106 of the NHPA before commencing any activity with the potential to affect cultural or 

historic resources. 

NOS looks forward to hearing your future comments. 

Cultural and Historic Resources-14: Please refer to SHPO Project Number 21-EJ0219 in any 

future correspondence regarding this project. 

NOS Response: Thank you. Any future correspondence with the South Carolina SHPO 

will refer to SHPO Project Number 21-EJ0219. 

November 2022 122 
 

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

Response to Public Comments for Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition 

2.28 Seneca Nation (Anna Carr) 

2.28.1 Comment Submission 

November 2022 123 
 

From: Anna Carr 

To: Jay Nunenkamp - NOAA Federal; Rosalind Ground 

Cc: Giannina DiMaio - NOAA Federal; msmyk; Greatlakes Navmanager - NOAA Service Account; Cliff Redeye III 

Subject: RE: External: Follow-up from the National Ocean Service regarding this morning"s presentation 

Date: Monday, November 15, 2021 1:46:18 PM 

Good afternoon All, 

Thank you for taking the time to meet with Rosalind and I today to discuss the Draft PEIS and the 

potential implications of this proposed work (if they shall arise). 

Rosalind and I will work on preparing a formal response to the NOS PEIS with the below 

recommended/requested information; however, we may not be able to get a response to you by 

November 22, per our current workload. 

Thank you once again for your time. 

Respectfully submitted, 

Anna Carr 

Water Program Manager 

Seneca Nation 

Environmental Protection Department 

84 Iroquois Drive 

Irving, NY 14081 

Phone: (716) 532-2546 Ext. 5474 

Email: anna.carr@sni.org 

From: Jay Nunenkamp - NOAA Federal <jay.nunenkamp@noaa.gov> 

Sent: Monday, November 15, 2021 11:44 AM 

To: Anna Carr <Anna.Carr@sni.org>; Rosalind Ground <Rosalind.Ground@sni.org> 

Cc: Giannina DiMaio - NOAA Federal <giannina.dimaio@noaa.gov>; msmyk 

<Michelle.Smyk@solvllc.com>; Greatlakes Navmanager - NOAA Service Account 

<greatlakes.navmanager@noaa.gov> 

Subject: External: Follow-up from the National Ocean Service regarding this morning's presentation 

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you 

recognize the sender and know the content is safe. 

Ms. Carr, Ms. Ground: 

Thank you again for your time today. As we discussed, I wanted to summarize the information that 

we've requested, in order to better coordinate with your tribe regarding upcoming projects. 

1. We most urgently need an indication of the geographic areas (both on land and in the 
water) where we should coordinate with you for individual projects. This would not only be 

your reservations and other owned land, but also any areas where your tribe has concerns 

about impacts to your tribal resources. If possible, we would request GIS shapefiles for these 

areas, but if that's not available we can certainly accept images. As discussed, NOS would 

email the two of you and Mr. Stahlman (in addition to the relevant State Historic Preservation 

Officer) for relevant future projects located in these areas, per the normal NHPA Section 106 

process. 

2. We would appreciate information regarding your review and approval process for projects 

that might require entrance onto Seneca lands. so that we can incorporate this information 

into our planning procedures. 

3. If you have any other questions or concerns regarding hydrographic survey projects, (i.e., 

the use of vessels and echo sounders in the waters of the Great Lakes) please contact Mr. 

Tom Loeper, our Great Lakes Navigation Manager. He can be reached at 

greatlakes.navmanager@noaa.gov, and is cc'd here. 

It was a pleasure meeting you both, and NOS looks forward to working with the Seneca Nation in the 

future. 

Sincerely, 

Jay Nunenkamp (he/his) 

Environmental Compliance Coordinator 

Office of Coast Survey 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

If this email was received outside of your work hours, there is no expectation that you will reply until 

you are on duty. 

This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of 

the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error 

please delete this message. Please note that any views or opinions presented in this email are 

solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of the company. Finally, the 

recipient should check this email and any attachments for the presence of viruses. The 

company accepts no liability for any damage caused by any virus transmitted by this email. 

https://www.sni.org 
 

From: NOSAA Environmental Compliance - NOAA Service Account 

To: Michelle.Smyk@solvllc.com; Wendy Grome 

Subject: Fwd: NOS Surveying and Mapping Projects in US 

Date: Monday, November 8, 2021 9:05:38 AM 

See comment below from the Seneca Nation. 

v/r 

Giannina DiMaio 

NOS Environmental Compliance Coordinator 

Pronouns: she/her/hers 

NOAA, National Ocean Service 

Office of the Assistant Administrator 

1305 East-West Hwy, SSMC4 13th Floor 

Silver Spring, MD 20910 

V: 240-533-0918 

nosaa.ec@noaa.gov 

---------- Forwarded message ---------

From: Anna Carr <Anna.Carr@sni.org> 

Date: Fri, Nov 5, 2021 at 12:37 PM 

Subject: NOS Surveying and Mapping Projects in US 

To: nosaa.ec@noaa.gov <nosaa.ec@noaa.gov> 

Cc: Cliff Redeye III <clifford.redeye@sni.org>, Rosalind Ground <Rosalind.Ground@sni.org> 

To Whom It May Concern, 

I’m writing this email in regard to a notification that the Seneca Nation received on October 28th with regard to the National Ocean Service (NOS) Draft 

Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) for Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition. 

I’ve called and left two messages for Ms. DiMaio over the last week and have yet to receive a response. 

In an effort to determine if the Seneca Nation should prepare comments in response to this NOS PEIS/request a government-to-government consultation, 

I have the following question: 

My understanding is that this proposed work will be to survey coastal areas in an effort to address possible threats to coastal areas due to climate change, 

population growth, contaminants in the environment, and etc. The maps associated with the NOS PEIS show the coastlines along Lake Erie as being an 

“action area”. Since a portion of the Cattaraugus Territory of the Seneca Nation (Nation) bounds Lake Erie, I would like to know if the NOS PEIS 

Mapping Projects will be performed in proximity to the Nation’s shoreline, as shown as the map point (green tag) with the associated latitude/longitude 

on the below Figure? 

Please let us know at your earliest convenience, so that we may prepare an appropriate response, if necessary. 

Thank you, 

Anna Carr 

Water Program Manager 

Seneca Nation 

Environmental Protection Department 

84 Iroquois Drive 

Irving, NY 14081 

Phone: (716) 532-2546 Ext. 5474 

Email: anna.carr@sni.org 
 

 

From: NOSAA Environmental Compliance - NOAA Service Account <nosaa.ec@noaa.gov> 

Sent: Thursday, October 28, 2021 6:41 PM 

Subject: External: Government-to-Government: NOS Surveying and Mapping Projects in US 

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. 

Hi! 

I am reaching out to you again regarding the National Ocean Service (NOS) Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) 

for Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition. Following the publication of the Draft PEIS on 

June 25, 2021, we invited Federally Recognized Tribes to participate in the Draft PEIS process and provide comments on the Draft 

PEIS. In response to written and verbal requests from members of the public including representatives of the Alaska whaling community, 

NOS extended the public comment period by 90 days from August 24, 2021 to November 22, 2021. The comment period was extended to 

ensure adequate time for review of the Draft PEIS by all interested parties including the Alaskan subsistence hunting and fishing 

community which is particularly busy during the start of the fall whaling season from August to October. 

NOS wants to reassure you that the Draft PEIS public comment deadline does not apply to any government-to-government consultations 

that would be conducted for this action. It is important to ensure any tribal views or concerns expressed during a government-togovernment consultation are fully considered, and we kindly ask that you make a request for consultation before November 22, 2021. 

Attached is a follow-up letter inviting government-to-government consultation for future NOS surveying and mapping projects. For your 

information, I have again attached the Draft PEIS Executive Summary and an overview fact sheet. 

NOS recognizes tribal communities have valuable regional expertise in oceanography, marine mammals and other resources, and the 

subsistence patterns and needs of their community. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me by phone at 240-533-0918 

or email at nosaa.ec@noaa.gov 

v/r 

Giannina DiMaio 

NOS Environmental Compliance Coordinator 
Pronouns: she/her/hers 

NOAA, National Ocean Service 

Office of the Assistant Administrator 

1305 East-West Hwy, SSMC4 13th Floor 

Silver Spring, MD 20910 

V: 240-533-0918 

nosaa.ec@noaa.gov 

This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you 

have received this email in error please delete this message. Please note that any views or opinions presented in this email are solely those of the author 

and do not necessarily represent those of the company. Finally, the recipient should check this email and any attachments for the presence of viruses. 

The company accepts no liability for any damage caused by any virus transmitted by this email. https://www.sni.org 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

Response to Public Comments for Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition 

2.28.2 NOS Response 

Future Coordination-8: Rosalind and I will work on preparing a formal response to the NOS PEIS 

with the below recommended/requested information; however, we may not be able to get a 

response to you by November 22, per our current workload. 

NOS Response: Additional comments from the Seneca Nation have been received and 

considered by NOS. 

Scope-9: My understanding is that this proposed work will be to survey coastal areas in an effort 

to address possible threats to coastal areas due to climate change, population growth, 

contaminants in the environment, and etc. The maps associated with the NOS PEIS show the 

coastlines along Lake Erie as being an “action area”. Since a portion of the Cattaraugus Territory 

of the Seneca Nation (Nation) bounds Lake Erie, I would like to know if the NOS PEIS Mapping 

Projects will be performed in proximity to the Nation’s shoreline, as shown as the map point (green 

tag) with the associated latitude/longitude on the below Figure? 

NOS Response: The Proposed Action could occur anywhere in U.S. waters, including 

Cattaraugus Territory of the Seneca Nation that bounds Lake Erie. NOS intends to notify 

individual tribes pursuant to EO 13175 before conducting any project that may have tribal 

implications. 

Federally recognized tribes may request government-to-government consultation at any 

time for a proposed action that may have tribal implications. 

November 2022 124 
 

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

Response to Public Comments for Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition 

2.29 Seneca Nation (Matthew B. Pagels) 

2.29.1 Comment Submission 

November 2022 125 








Seneca Nation of Indians 

Locational Map of the Territories Print / Export Date: 3/2/2020 μ 

Vermont LAKE ONTARIO Ontario,

Canada Niagara Orleans Monroe

County County New County New York Hampshire 

Massach usetts 

Rhode Niagara Falls Territory Island 

Co n n e c t ic u t 

Ohio Pennsylvania N ew

Je rs New York ey 

Genesee

County 

Ontari Erie

Buffalo Creek Territory County County

o 

Wyomi

County

ng 

Livingston

County Cattaraugus Territory 

LAKE ERIE 

Allegany

County 

Cattaraugus Steuben

Chautauqua County Oil Spring Territory County County 

Allegany Territory 

Seneca Nation of Indians Territory Acreage 

Allegany Territory - 31,180.9 Acres 

Buffalo Creek Territory - 9.8 Acres 

Cattaraugus Territory - 22,060.8 Acres 

Niagara Falls Territory - 56.2 Acres 

Oil Spring Territory - 641.9 Acres 

0 5 10 20 30 Service Layer Credits: Content may not reflect National Geographic's current map policy. Sources: National G eographic, Miles Es ri, DeLorme, HERE, UNEP-WCMC, USGS, NASA, ESA, METI, NRCAN, GEBCO, NOAA, increment P Corp. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

Response to Public Comments for Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition 

2.29.2 NOS Response 

Future Coordination-15: Per NOAAs November 15, 2021 written request, the Nation is sending 

the attached ""Locational Map of the Territories"" Figure for your information, so that you may 

have a greater understanding of the territorial boundaries of the Seneca Nation. With that being 

said, the Seneca Nation requests NOAA to contact the Nation prior to surveying and/or mapping 

projects that are to be performed within the following areas (as identified using the NOAA 

Electronic Navigational Charts (ENC) [https://nauticalcharts.noaa.gov/charts/noaa-enc.html]): 

US4NY32M (North to Buffalo) 

US4NY33M (Sturgeon Point to Twenty Mile Creek) US4NY38M (Buffalo to Erie, Dunkirk, 

Barcelona Harbor) US5NY34M (Niagara Falls to Buffalo) 

US5NY34M (Grand Island) US5NY35M (Buffalo Harbor) 

NOS Response: Thank you for providing NOS with the geographic boundaries within 

which the Seneca Nation would like to be contacted about proposed projects. 

NOS will initiate project-specific consultations under Section 106 of the NHPA before 

commencing any activity with the potential to affect cultural or historic resources. NOS will 

also contact the Seneca Nation in the event that NOS activities result in the recovery of a 

potentially historic resource or artifact. 

NOS intends to notify individual tribes pursuant to EO 13175 before conducting any project 

that may have tribal implications. Federally recognized tribes may request government-togovernment consultation at any time for a proposed action that may have tribal 

implications. 

Future Coordination-16: Outside entities shall follow the Seneca Nation Council Resolution, “To 

Establish a Policy Governing Access to Nation Territories and Facilities by Officials of Foreign 

Government” where it has always been custom and tradition of the Seneca Nation that all nonSeneca, desiring to maintain a presence within Nation Territory to first receive permission from 

the Nation, prior to the visitation and inquiry at least twenty-four (24) hours advance notice of such 

intent. Additionally, if NOS/NOAA seeks to enter any of the Seneca Nation Territories to conduct 

surveying and/or mapping activities, then a request should be made in writing, by electronic 

means, or through the mail to the President of the Seneca Nation at the following addresses: 

12837 Route 438 Cattaraugus Territory Seneca Nation Irving, NY 14081 

90 Ohi:yo' Way Allegany Territory Seneca Nation Salamanca, NY 14779... 

The Nation also requests notification of future projects that are referenced in the above ENCs, 

prior to the initiation of the project through the National Historic Preservation Act, Section 106. 

Additionally, the Nation shall be immediately notified of the discovery of archaeological resources 

during the installation of tide gauges, buoys, GPS reference stations or any other activities. 

November 2022 126 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

Response to Public Comments for Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition 

NOS Response: NOS will ensure that if a project is proposed within the boundaries 

provided by the Seneca Nation, the appropriate contact will be notified and NOS will follow 

the approval procedures in the Seneca Nation Council Resolution, “To Establish a Policy 

Governing Access to Nation Territories and Facilities by Officials of Foreign Government.” 

NOS will initiate project-specific consultations under Section 106 of the NHPA before 

commencing any activity with the potential to affect cultural or historic resources. NOS will 

also contact the Seneca Nation in the event that NOS activities result in the recovery of a 

potentially historic resource or artifact. 

NOS intends to notify individual tribes pursuant to EO 13175 before conducting any project 

that may have tribal implications. Federally recognized tribes may request government-togovernment consultation at any time for a proposed action that may have tribal 

implications. 

Future Coordination-17: The Nation requests that any data collected of the territorial lands must 

also be shared freely with the Seneca Nation, whether it is mapping, archeological, environmental, 

or as otherwise related. 

NOS Response: NOS will ensure that if a project is proposed within the boundaries 

provided by the Seneca Nation, the appropriate contact will be notified and NOS will follow 

the approval procedures in the Seneca Nation Council Resolution, “To Establish a Policy 

Governing Access to Nation Territories and Facilities by Officials of Foreign Government.” 

NOS will initiate project-specific consultations under Section 106 of the NHPA before 

commencing any activity with the potential to affect cultural or historic resources. NOS will 

also contact the Seneca Nation in the event that NOS activities result in the recovery of a 

potentially historic resource or artifact. 

NOS intends to notify individual tribes pursuant to EO 13175 before conducting any project 

that may have tribal implications. Federally recognized tribes may request government-togovernment consultation at any time for a proposed action that may have tribal 

implications. 

All data collected by NOS is made publicly available to the extent allowed by federal law. 

The Seneca Nation can reach out to NOAA Navigation Managers to engage in the planning 

process for future surveying and mapping projects. Information regarding contacting 

NOAA Navigation Managers can be found at the following website: 

https://nauticalcharts.noaa.gov/customer-service/regional-managers/index.html. 

Endangered Species Act-3: With regard to concerns of the effects of hydrographic surveying 

projects, including the use of vessels and echo sounders in the waters of the Great Lakes, the 

Seneca Nation requests that NOAA follow appropriate protocol for work in areas of sensitive 

habitat and in locations where Endangered, Threatened, Special Concern or High Priority Species 

of Greatest Conservation within New York State and Federally are listed. Note that the Seneca 

Nation also has species listings and areas of special protection with regard to cultural and 

traditional uses, as well as natural resources that are of great value to the Seneca Nation. The 

November 2022 127 
 

 

 

 

 

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

Response to Public Comments for Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition 

protection of those irreplaceable resources is and will always be of the utmost priority for the 

Seneca Nation. 

NOS Response: Executive Order 13175 of November 6, 2000 (Consultation and 

Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments), charges all executive departments and 

agencies with engaging in regular, meaningful, and robust consultation with tribal officials 

on Federal policies or activities that have tribal implications. 

NOS intends to notify individual tribes and ANCs pursuant to EO 13175 before conducting 

any project that may have tribal implications in order to provide additional information on 

the project and discuss any potential additional mitigations. Federally recognized tribes 

may request government-to-government consultation at any time. 

NOS will initiate project-specific consultations with the Seneca under Section 106 of the 

NHPA before commencing any activity with the potential to affect cultural or historic 

resources. 

November 2022 128 
 

 

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

Response to Public Comments for Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition 

2.30 Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (Bettina Rayfield) 

2.30.1 Comment Submission 

November 2022 129 
 

Commonwealth of Virginia

VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY

1111 E. Main Street, Suite 1400, Richmond, Virginia 23219

P.O. Box 1105, Richmond, Virginia 23218

(800) 592-5482 FAX (804) 698-4178

www.deq.virginia.gov

Matthew J. Strickler David K. Paylor

Secretary of Natural and Historic Resources Director

(804) 698-4000

August 23, 2021 

Ms. Giannina DiMaio, DOC/NOAA/NOS 

Environmental Compliance Coordinator 

SSMC4-Station 13612 

1305 East West Highway 

Silver Spring, Maryland 20910 

Via email: nosaa.ec@noaa.gov 

RE: Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, Surveying and Mapping 

Projects in U.S. Waters for Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition, National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Ocean Service (DEQ 21-

086F) 

Dear Ms. DiMaio: 

The Commonwealth of Virginia has completed its review of the above-referenced 

document. The Department of Environmental Quality is responsible for coordinating 

Virginia’s review of federal environmental documents submitted under the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and responding to appropriate federal officials on 

behalf of the Commonwealth. DEQ is also responsible for coordinating Virginia’s review 

of federal consistency documents submitted pursuant to the Coastal Zone Management 

Act (CZMA) and providing the state’s response. This letter is in response to the June 

2021 Draft Programmatic Environment Impact Statement (DPEIS) (notification of 

document availability received June 25, 2021) for the above-referenced activities. The 

following agencies participated in the review of the DPEIS: 

Department of Environmental Quality 

Department of Wildlife Resources 

Department of Conservation and Recreation 

Marine Resources Commission 

Department of Health 

In addition, the Department of Historic Resources and the Virginia Institute of Marine 

Science were invited to comment on the document. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition 

NOAA-NOS DPEIS, DEQ 21-086F 

PROJECT DESCRIPTION 

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) National Ocean Service 

(NOS) has prepared a Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) to 

analyze the potential environmental impacts associated with NOS’s recurring data

collection projects (surveying and mapping) to characterize underwater features (e.g., 

habitat, bathymetry, marine debris) throughout United States (U.S.) waters. Data 

obtained from these projects are used to produce many products, including charts and 

maps that are relied upon by mariners, scientists, the shipping and fishing industries, 

and countless other users in the U.S. and beyond. 

The Proposed Action is to continue NOS surveying and mapping projects over the next 

six years. These projects would include surveys performed from crewed, remotely 

operated, or autonomous vessels operated by NOS field crews, other NOAA personnel 

on behalf of NOS, contractors, grantees, or permit/authorization holders. These crews 

and vehicles may use echo sounders and other active acoustic equipment and employ 

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

instruments to collect the needed data. The “action area” for these projects includes 

rivers; states’ offshore waters; the U.S. territorial sea; the contiguous zone; and the U.S. 

Exclusive Economic Zone (U.S. EEZ). The action area also includes coastal and 

riparian lands for activities such as the installation, maintenance, and removal of tide 

gauges. 

The Draft PEIS evaluates three alternatives: 1) the No Action Alternative (Alternative A), 

under which NOS would continue to gather accurate and timely data on the nature and 

condition of the marine and coastal environment, reflecting the technology, equipment, 

scope, and methods currently in use by NOS at the current level of effort (i.e., the status 

quo); 2) Alternative B, under which NOS would increase the adoption of new 

technologies to more efficiently perform surveying, mapping, charting and related data 

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

technologies and includes an overall funding increase of 20 percent. The Draft PEIS 

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

economic, and social impacts of NOS mapping and surveying projects; and 2) assist 

NOS in deciding how to execute its mapping and surveying program over the next six 

years. 

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION 

1. Surface Waters, Wetlands, and Subaqueous Lands. According to the DPEIS 

(page 74), NOS activities could impact aquatic habitat characteristics in the action area 

through: physical impacts to bottom substrate (e.g., from anchoring, collection of bottom 

grab samples, tide gauge or GPS reference station installation, and SCUBA 

operations); increase in sedimentation, turbidity, and/or chemical contaminants (e.g., 

from crewed vessel operations, remotely operated vehicles (ROV) and autonomous 

vehicle operations, anchoring, collection of bottom grab samples, installation of tide 

gauges and GPS reference stations, and SCUBA operations); and impacts to water 

2 
Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition 

NOAA-NOS DPEIS, DEQ 21-086F 

column (e.g., from crewed vessel operations, ROVs, and autonomous vehicles, 

anchoring, use of sound speed data collection equipment and bottom grab samplers, 

operation of drop/towed cameras and video systems, and SCUBA operations). 

1(a) Agency Jurisdiction. 

(i) Department of Environmental Quality 

The State Water Control Board promulgates Virginia's water regulations covering a 

variety of permits to include the Virginia Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit 

regulating point source discharges to surface waters, Virginia Pollution Abatement 

Permit regulating sewage sludge, storage and land application of biosolids, industrial 

wastes (sludge and wastewater), municipal wastewater, and animal wastes, the Surface 

and Groundwater Withdrawal Permit, and the Virginia Water Protection (VWP) Permit 

regulating impacts to streams, wetlands, and other surface waters. The VWP permit is a 

state permit which governs wetlands, surface water, and surface water withdrawals and 

impoundments. It also serves as §401 certification of the federal Clean Water Act §404 

permits for dredge and fill activities in waters of the U.S. The VWP Permit Program is 

under the Office of Wetlands and Stream Protection, within the DEQ Division of Water 

Permitting. In addition to central office staff that review and issue VWP permits for 

transportation and water withdrawal projects, the six DEQ regional offices perform 

permit application reviews and issue permits for the covered activities: 

 Clean Water Act, §401; 

 Section 404(b)(i) Guidelines Mitigation Memorandum of Agreement (2/90); 

 State Water Control Law, Virginia Code section 62.1-44.15:20 et seq.; and 

 State Water Control Regulations, 9 VAC 25-210-10. 

(ii) Virginia Marine Resources Commission 

The Virginia Marine Resources Commission (VMRC) regulates encroachments in, on or 

over state-owned subaqueous beds as well as tidal wetlands pursuant to Virginia Code 

§28.2-1200 through 1400. For nontidal waterways, VMRC states that it has been the 

policy of the Habitat Management Division to exert jurisdiction only over the beds of 

perennial streams where the upstream drainage area is 5 square miles or greater. The 

beds of such waterways are considered public below the ordinary high water line. 

1(b) Agency Findings. 

(i) Virginia Department of Environmental Quality 

The VWP Permit program at the DEQ Central Office (CO) has no comments on the 

Proposed Action. 

3 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition 

NOAA-NOS DPEIS, DEQ 21-086F 

(ii) Virginia Marine Resources Commission 

VMRC finds that if any activities involve encroachments below mean low water in tidal 

waters, or channelward of ordinary high water along non-tidal, natural rivers and 

streams with a drainage area greater than 5-square miles, a VMRC permit may be 

required. Any jurisdictional impacts will be reviewed by the VMRC during the Joint 

Permit Application (JPA) process. 

For additional information on DEQ-CO comments, contact Michelle Henicheck at (804) 

698-4007 or michelle.henicheck@deq.virginia.gov and/or VMRC comments, Randy 

Owen at (757) 247-2251 or randy.owen@mrc.virginia.gov. 

2. Marine Fisheries. According to the DPEIS (page 552), although the impacts of 

commercial fishing are a concern for fisheries worldwide, fisheries in the action area are 

generally managed conservatively and in keeping with the requirements of the MagnusonStevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Many fish stocks within the action 

area that were historically overfished have recovered or are recovering from their 

overfished status and contributing to the overall trend of increasing abundance of U.S. 

marine fish stocks. The Proposed Action would contribute to and have the potential to 

increase cumulative impacts to marine fish species, but their relative contribution would be 

negligible because impacts would be temporary or short-term, would be confined to the 

immediate vicinity of project areas, and would be small as compared to impacts from all 

other cumulative actions. 

2(a) Agency Jurisdiction. It is the policy of the Commonwealth to conserve and promote 

the seafood and marine resources of the Commonwealth, including fish, shellfish and 

marine organisms, and manage the fisheries to maximize food production and recreational 

opportunities within the Commonwealth’s territorial waters. The policy is administered by

VMRC (Virginia Code §§ 28.2-101, -201, -203, -203.1, -225, -551, -600, -601, -603 -618, 

and -1103, -1203 and the Constitution of Virginia, Article XI, Section 3). 

2(b) Agency Findings. VMRC finds that a VMRC permit may be required for activities 

related to the Proposed Action. Any jurisdictional impacts will be reviewed by the VMRC 

during the JPA process. 

For additional information, contact VMRC, Randy Owen at (757) 247-2251 or 

randy.owen@mrc.virginia.gov. 

3. Nonpoint Source Pollution Control. The DPEIS (page 74) states that NOS 

activities could impact habitat characteristics in the action area as a result of terrestrial 

impacts from ground disturbance during the installation or removal of tide gauges. 

3(a) Agency Jurisdiction. The DEQ Office of Stormwater Management (OSWM) 

administers the following laws and regulations governing construction activities: 

 Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Law (§ 62.1-44.15:51 et seq.) and 

4 
 

 

 

 

Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition 

NOAA-NOS DPEIS, DEQ 21-086F 

Regulations (9 VAC 25-840) (VESCL&R); 

 Virginia Stormwater Management Act (VSMA, § 62.1-44.15:24 et seq.); 

 Virginia Stormwater Management Program (VSMP) Regulation (9 VAC 25-870); 

and 

 2014 General Virginia Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (VPDES) Permit 

for Discharges of Stormwater from Construction Activities (9 VAC 25-880). 

In addition, DEQ is responsible for the VSMP General Permit for Stormwater 

Discharges from Construction Activities related to Municipal Separate Storm Sewer 

Systems (MS4s) and construction activities for the control of stormwater discharges 

from MS4s and land disturbing activities under the Virginia Stormwater Management 

Program (9 VAC 25-890-40). 

3(b) Requirements. 

(i) Erosion and Sediment Control and Stormwater Management Plans 

NOS and its authorized agents conducting regulated land-disturbing activities on private 

and public lands in the state must comply with VESCL&R and VSWML&R, including 

coverage under the general permit for stormwater discharge from construction activities, 

and other applicable federal nonpoint source pollution mandates (e.g. Clean Water ActSection 313, federal consistency under the Coastal Zone Management Act). Clearing 

and grading activities, installation of staging areas, parking lots, roads, buildings, 

utilities, borrow areas, soil stockpiles, and related land-disturbing activities that result in 

the total land disturbance of equal to or greater than 10,00 square feet (2,500 square 

feet in a Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area) would be regulated by VESCL&R. 

Accordingly, NOS must prepare and implement an Erosion and Sediment Control (ESC) 

Plan for applicable land-disturbing activities to ensure compliance with state law and 

regulations. 

Land-disturbing activities that result in the total land disturbance of equal to or greater 

than one acre (2,500 square feet in Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area) would be 

regulated by VSWML&R. Accordingly, NOS must prepare and implement a Stormwater 

Management (SWM) Plan for applicable land-disturbing activities to ensure compliance 

with state law and regulations. The SWM Plan is submitted to the appropriate DEQ 

regional office which serves the area where the project is located, for review for 

compliance. NOS is ultimately responsible for achieving project compliance through 

oversight of on-site contractors, regular field inspection, prompt action against noncompliant sites, and other mechanisms consistent with agency policy. [Reference: 

VESCL 62.1-44.15 et seq.] 

(ii) General Permit for Discharges of Stormwater from Construction Activities 

(VAR10) 

The owner or operator of projects involving land-disturbing activities of equal to or 

greater than one acre is required to apply for registration coverage under the General 

5 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition 

NOAA-NOS DPEIS, DEQ 21-086F 

Permit for Discharges of Stormwater from Construction Activities and develop a projectspecific stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP). Construction activities requiring 

registration also include land disturbance of less than one acre of total land area that is 

part of a larger common plan of development or sale if the larger common plan of 

development will collectively disturb equal to or greater than one acre 

 The SWPPP must be prepared prior to submission of the registration statement 

for coverage under the General Permit. 

 The SWPPP must address water quality and quantity in accordance with the 

VSMP Permit Regulations. 

General information and registration forms for the Construction General Permit are 

available from DEQ. [Reference: Virginia Stormwater Management Act 62.1-44.15 et 

seq.; VSMP Permit Regulations 9 VAC 25-880 et seq.]. 

For additional information, contact DEQ-OSWM, Larry Gavan at (804) 698-4040 or 

larry.gavan@deq.virginia.gov. 

4. Chesapeake Bay Preservation Areas. As noted above, NOS activities could impact 

habitat characteristics in the action area as a result of terrestrial impacts from ground 

disturbance during the installation or removal of tide gauges (DPEIS, page 74). 

4(a) Agency Jurisdiction. The DEQ Office of Watersheds and Local Government 

Assistance Programs (OWLGAP) administers the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act 

(Virginia Code §62.1-44.15:67 et seq.) and Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area 

Designation and Management Regulations (9 VAC 25-830-10 et seq.). Each Tidewater 

locality must adopt a program based on the Bay Act and Regulations. The Act and 

Regulations recognize local government responsibility for land use decisions and are 

designed to establish a framework for compliance without dictating precisely what local 

programs must look like. Local governments have flexibility to develop water quality 

preservation programs that reflect unique local characteristics and embody other 

community goals. Such flexibility also facilitates innovative and creative approaches in 

achieving program objectives. The regulations address nonpoint source pollution by 

identifying and protecting certain lands called Chesapeake Bay Preservation Areas. The 

regulations use a resource-based approach that recognizes differences between 

various land forms and treats them differently. 

4(b) Chesapeake Bay Preservation Areas. In general, the areas protected by the 

Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act (Bay Act), as locally implemented, require 

conformance with performance criteria. Chesapeake Bay Preservation Areas (CBPAs) 

include Resource Protection Areas (RPAs) and Resource Management Areas (RMAs) 

as designated by the local government. RPAs include: 

 tidal wetlands; 

 certain non-tidal wetlands; 

 tidal shores; and 

6 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition 

NOAA-NOS DPEIS, DEQ 21-086F 

 a 100-foot vegetated buffer area located adjacent to and landward of these 

features and along both sides of any water body with perennial flow. 

RMAs require less stringent performance criteria than RPAs and are designated using a 

variety of criteria as approved by DEQ-OWLGAP. 

4(c) Requirements. 

(i) Water-Dependent Facilities 

According to 9 VAC 25-830-140 of the Regulations, new or expanded water-dependent 

facilities may be allowed in CBPAs provided they: 

 do not conflict with the local comprehensive plan; 

 comply with the performance criteria set forth in 9 VAC2 5-830-130; 

 any non-water dependent component is located outside of the RPA; and 

 access to the water-dependent facility will be provided with the minimum 

disturbance necessary. 

The Regulations (9 VAC 25-830-40) define a “water dependent activity,” as a

development of land that cannot exist outside of the RPA and must be located on the 

shoreline by reason of the intrinsic nature of its operation. This includes facilities such 

as beaches and other public water-oriented recreation areas. In addition, according to 9 

VAC 25-830-140(5), shoreline erosion control projects are permitted within lands 

analogous to locally designated CBPAs, provided necessary control techniques are 

employed, and appropriate vegetation is established to protect or stabilize that shoreline 

in accordance with the best available technical advice and applicable permit conditions 

or requirements. 

(ii) General Performance Criteria 

Projects that include land disturbing activity in CBPAs must adhere to the general 

performance criteria of the Regulations (9 VAC 25-830-130), especially with respect to: 

 minimizing land disturbance (including access and staging areas), 

 retaining indigenous vegetation, and 

 minimizing impervious cover. 

All land-disturbing activity exceeding 2,500 square feet must comply with the 

requirements of the Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook, Third Edition, 

1992, and satisfy stormwater management criteria consistent with the water quality 

protection provisions of the Virginia Stormwater Management Regulations (9 VAC 25-

870-51 and 9 VAC 25-870-103). 

7 
 

 

Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition 

NOAA-NOS DPEIS, DEQ 21-086F 

(iii) Water Quality Impact Assessment 

A water quality impact assessment (WQIA) is required for any proposed land 

disturbance, development or redevelopment within the RPA to identify the impacts of 

proposed development on water quality and lands within RPAs consistent with the goals 

and objectives of the Regulations and the local ordinance. The WQIA also provides 

specific measures for mitigation of those impacts. 

For additional information, contact DEQ-OWLGAP, Daniel Moore at (804) 698-4520 or 

daniel.moore@deq.virginia.gov. 

5. Natural Heritage Resources. The DPEIS does not specifically address natural 

heritage resources affected by the Proposed Action. 

5(a) Agency Jurisdiction. 

(i) The Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation’s (DCR) Division of

Natural Heritage (DNH). 

DNH’s mission is conserving Virginia's biodiversity through inventory, protection and 

stewardship. The Virginia Natural Area Preserves Act (Virginia Code §10.1-209 through 

217), authorizes DCR to maintain a statewide database for conservation planning and 

project review, protect land for the conservation of biodiversity, and protect and 

ecologically manage the natural heritage resources of Virginia (the habitats of rare, 

threatened and endangered species, significant natural communities, geologic sites, 

and other natural features). 

(ii) The Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (VDACS). 

The Endangered Plant and Insect Species Act of 1979 (Virginia Code Chapter 39 §3.1-

1020 through 1030) authorizes VDACS to conserve, protect and manage endangered 

and threatened species of plants and insects. Under a Memorandum of Agreement 

established between VDACS and the DCR, DCR represents VDACS in comments 

regarding potential impacts on state-listed threatened and endangered plant and insect 

species. 

5(b) Agency Findings. 

(i) Natural Heritage Resources 

DCR-DNH searched its Biotics Data System (Biotics) for occurrences of natural heritage 

resources in Virginia. Several state and federally-listed species including marine 

mammals, sea turtles, and marine/coastal birds have been documented in the planning 

area. 

8 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition 

NOAA-NOS DPEIS, DEQ 21-086F 

(ii) State Natural Area Preserves 

DCR files do not indicate the presence of any State Natural Area Preserves under the 

agency’s jurisdiction in the vicinity of the Proposed Action in Virginia. 

(iii) State-Listed Plant and Insect Species 

DCR finds that the activities will not affect any documented state-listed plants or insects. 

5(c) Recommendations. 

(i) Federal and State-Listed Species Coordination 

Due to the legal status of state and federally-listed species, DCR recommends NOS 

coordinate with the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), the Virginia Department 

of Wildlife Resources (DWR), and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 

to ensure compliance with protected species legislation. 

(ii) Natural Heritage Resources Updates 

Contact DCR-DNH to secure updated information on natural heritage resources if the 

scope of the Proposed Action changes or six months pass before it is utilized, since 

new and updated information is continually added to Biotics. 

For additional information on DCR comments, contact DCR, Rene Hypes at (804) 371-

2708 or rene.hypes@dcr.virginia.gov. 

6. Wildlife Resources and Protected Species. The bulk of the information and 

analysis presented in the DPEIS addresses the effect of the Proposed Action on wildlife 

resources and protected species, including marine mammals, sea turtles, fish, aquatic 

macroinvertebrates, essential fish habitat, seabirds, shorebirds, coastal birds and 

waterfowl. In general, the DPEIS finds that the Proposed Action would contribute to and 

have the potential to increase cumulative impacts, but their relative contribution would 

be negligible as compared to aggregate contributions from other cumulative actions 

because the NOS impacts would be temporary or short-term, would be confined to the 

immediate vicinity of project areas, and would be small as compared to impacts from all 

other cumulative actions. 

6(a) Agency Jurisdiction. The Virginia Department of Wildlife Resources (DWR) 

(formerly the Department of Game and Inland Fisheries), as the Commonwealth’s

wildlife and freshwater fish management agency, exercises enforcement and regulatory 

jurisdiction over wildlife and freshwater fish, including state- or federally-listed 

endangered or threatened species, but excluding listed insects (Virginia Code, Title 

29.1). DWR is a consulting agency under the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act 

(16 U.S. Code §661 et seq.) and provides environmental analysis of projects or permit 

applications coordinated through DEQ and several other state and federal agencies. 

9 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition 

NOAA-NOS DPEIS, DEQ 21-086F 

DWR determines likely impacts upon fish and wildlife resources and habitat, and 

recommends appropriate measures to avoid, reduce or compensate for those impacts. 

For more information, see the DWR website at www.dwr.virginia.gov. 

6(b) Recommendations. DWR recommends that NOS consider ways to avoid and/or 

minimize any state-listed species or designated resources impacted by the Proposed 

Action, including those species that may be documented from near-shore habitats 

proposed for certain activities. This is in addition to the federally-listed species assessed 

in the DPEIS for the Proposed Action. 

DWR recommends the following steps be performed to assist in the assessment of 

potential impacts upon state-listed species, for the development of a Coastal Zone 

Management Act Federal Consistency Determination for proposed activities in Virginia. 

A. Access the Virginia Fish and Wildlife Information Service (VAFWIS) at 

https://vafwis.dwr.virginia.gov/fwis/. A request to subscribe to VAFWIS may be 

submitted to vafwis_support@dwr.virginia.gov. VAFWIS subscriptions are free of 

charge. As a subscriber, NOS will be able to generate an IPA for the project area 

(project site plus a minimum 2-mile buffer) which generates a list of imperiled 

wildlife and designated wildlife resources known from the project area. NOS may 

also access VAFWIS as a visitor, but access to data and mapping at this level is 

restricted. 

Alternatively, NOS may contact DWR’s Geographic Information Systems (GIS) 

Coordinator, Jay Kapalczynsk, at jay.kapalczynski@dwr.virginia.gov, to request 

access to the Wildlife Mapping and Environmental Review Map Service 

(WERMS), which allows the user to download GIS data. 

B. Access information about the location of bat hibernacula and roosts from the 

following locations: 

 Northern Long-Eared Bats: https://www.dwr.virginia.gov/wildlife/bats/northernlong-eared-bat-application/. 

 Little Brown Bats and Tricolored Bats: 

https://www.dwr.virginia.gov/wildlife/bats/little-brown-bat-tri-colored-bat-winterhabitat-roosts-application/. 

C. Access up to date information about the location and status of bald eagle nests in 

Virginia by accessing the Center for Conservation Biology’s Eagle Nest Locator 

at https://ccbbirds.org/what-we-do/research/species-of-concern/virginiaeagles/nest-locator/. 

D. Review the DWR information, guidance, and protocols available at 

www.virginiawildlife.gov in the “Additional Resources” section and implement, as 

appropriate. 

10 
 

 

 

 

Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition 

NOAA-NOS DPEIS, DEQ 21-086F 

E. Include the results of the desktop analysis in the final PEIS, Coastal Zone 

Consistency Determination and other project documents. 

For additional information regarding DWR comments, contact DWR, Amy Martin at 

(804) 367-2211 or amy.ewing@dwr.virginia.gov. 

7. Water Resources. The DPEIS does not indicate that the Proposed Action will 

adversely impact drinking water sources. 

7(a) Agency Jurisdiction. The Virginia Department of Health (VDH) Office of Drinking 

Water (ODW) reviews projects for the potential to impact public drinking water sources 

(groundwater wells, springs and surface water intakes). VDH administers both federal 

and state laws governing waterworks operation. 

7(b) Agency Findings. VDH-ODW has no comments on the Proposed Action. 

For additional information, contact VDH-ODW, Arlene Fields Warren at (804) 864-7781 

or arlene.warren@vdh.virginia.gov. 

8. Federal Consistency under the CZMA. According to the DPEIS (page 61), in order 

to facilitate Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) review for surveying and mapping 

projects, NOS will coordinate requirements for federal consistency with coastal states 

and territories pursuant to Section 307 of the CZMA. NOS will provide the DPEIS to 

coastal states or territories with approved coastal zone management programs. 

8(a) Requirements. Pursuant to the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) of 1972, 

as amended, NOS is required to determine the consistency of its activities affecting 

Virginia’s coastal resources or coastal uses with the Virginia Coastal Zone Management 

(CZM) Program (see section 307(c)(1) of the Act and 15 CFR Part 930, Subpart C, 

section 930.34). This involves an analysis of the activities in light of the Enforceable 

Policies of the Virginia CZM Program, and the submission of a consistency 

determination reflecting that analysis and committing NOS to comply with the 

enforceable policies. In addition, the NOS is encouraged to consider the Advisory 

Policies of the Virginia CZM Program in accordance with 15 CFR §930.39(c). Section 

930.39 gives content requirements for the consistency determination, or you may also 

find guidance in DEQ’s Federal Consistency Information Package on the agency’s 

website. 

For additional information, contact the DEQ Office of Environmental Impact Review 

(OEIR), Bettina Rayfield at (804) 698-4202 or bettina.rayfield@deq.virginia.gov or John 

Fisher at (804) 698-4339 or john.fisher@deq.virginia.gov. 

Thank you for the opportunity to review the Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact 

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

Data Acquisition. Detailed comments of reviewing agencies are attached for your 

11 
Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition 

NOAA-NOS DPEIS, DEQ 21-086F 

review. Please contact me at (804) 698-4204 or John Fisher at (804) 698-4339 for 

clarification of these comments. 

Sincerely, 

Bettina Rayfield, Program Manager 

Environmental Impact Review and Long-Range 

Priorities 

Enclosures 

Ec: Amy Martin, DWR 

Robbie Rhur, DCR 

Arleen Warren, VDH 

Tiffany Birge, VMRC 

Roger Kirchen, DHR 

Emily Hein, VIMS 

12 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Fisher, John <john.fisher@deq.virginia.gov>

ESSLog# 41395_21-086F_NOAA Surveying and Mapping_DWR_AEM_20210721

1 message

Martin, Amy <amy.ewing@dwr.virginia.gov> Wed, Jul 21, 2021 at 4:51 PM

To: John Fisher <john.fisher@deq.virginia.gov>

John,

We have reviewed the subject project that proposes to continue, with upgrades in technology, survey and

mapping activities in "rivers; states’ offshore waters; the U.S. territorial sea; the contiguous zone; and

the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (U.S. EEZ). The action area also includes coastal and riparian lands for

activities such as the installation, maintenance, and removal of tide gauges." Activities may include use

of "echo sounders and other active acoustic equipment and employ other equipment, including bottom

samplers and conductivity, temperature, and depth instruments to collect the needed data."

In addition to the federally-listed species assessed in the Programmatic EIS for the project, we also

recommend NOAA consider ways to avoid and/or minimize any state listed species or designated

resources impacted by this project, including those species that may be documented from near-shore

habitats proposed for certain activities. We recommend the following steps be performed to assist in the

assessment of potential impacts upon state-listed species, necessary during development of a

Coastal Zone Consistency Determination for the project sites in VA:

A. Access VAFWIS at this link: https://vafwis.DWR.virginia.gov/fwis/

If you are not already a VAFWIS subscriber, you should request to become one by emailing a

request to VAFWIS_support@DWR.virginia.gov. VAFWIS Subscriptions are free of charge. As a

subscriber, one is able to generate an IPA for the project area (project site plus a minimum 2-

mile buffer) which generates a list of imperiled wildlife and designated wildlife resources known

from the project area. You may also access VAFWIS as a visitor, but access to data and

mapping at this user level is restricted.

Alternatively, you may contact our Geographic Information Systems (GIS) Coordinator, Jay

Kapalczynski, at Jay.Kapalczynski@DWR.virginia.gov to request access to the Wildlife Mapping

and Environmental Review Map Service (WERMS) which allows you to download GIS data into

your own system.

B. Access information about the location of bat hibernacula and roosts from the following

locations:

Northern Long-Eared Bats: https://www.dwr.virginia.gov/wildlife/bats/northern-long-eared-batapplication/

Little Brown Bats and Tricolored Bats: https://www.dwr.virginia.gov/wildlife/bats/little-brownbat-tri-colored-bat-winter-habitat-roosts-application/

C. Access up to date information about the location and status of bald eagle nests in Virginia by

accessing the Center for Conservation Biology’s Eagle Nest Locator at https://ccbbirds.org/whatwe-do/research/species-of-concern/virginia-eagles/nest-locator/

D. Review the DWR information, guidance, and protocols available on our website at the bottom

of this page in the “Additional Resources” section and implement, as appropriate.

E. Include the results of your desktop analysis in the EIS, Coastal Zone Consistency

Determination and other project documents.
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Thank you,

Amy

**please note name change below; email address not yet changed**

Amy E. Martin (she/her/hers)

Environmental Services Biologist

Manager, Wildlife Information

P 804.367.2211

Department of Wildlife Resources

CONSERVE. CONNECT. PROTECT.

A 7870 Villa Park Drive, P.O. Box 90778, Henrico, VA 23228

www.VirginiaWildlife.gov
Fisher, John <john.fisher@deq.virginia.gov>

Fwd: NEW PROJECT NOAA Surveying and Mapping Projects, DEQ #21-086F

1 message

Fulcher, Valerie <valerie.fulcher@deq.virginia.gov> Mon, Jul 26, 2021 at 8:53 AM

To: John Fisher <john.fisher@deq.virginia.gov>

VDH Comments for 21-086F.

---------- Forwarded message ---------

From: Warren, Arlene <arlene.warren@vdh.virginia.gov>

Date: Mon, Jul 26, 2021 at 8:51 AM

Subject: Re: NEW PROJECT NOAA Surveying and Mapping Projects, DEQ #21-086F

To: Fulcher, Valerie <valerie.fulcher@deq.virginia.gov>

The Department of Health, Office of Drinking Water has no comments on this subject at this time.

Best Regards,

Arlene Fields Warren

GIS Program Support Technician

Office of Drinking Water

Virginia Department of Health

109 Governor Street

Richmond, VA 23219

(804) 864-7781
July 21, 2021 

Department of Environmental Quality 

Office of Environmental Impact Review 

Attn: John Fisher 

1111 East Main Street 

Richmond, Virginia 23219 

Re: NOAA Surveying and Mapping Projects, DEQ #21-086F 

Dear Mr. Fisher, 

This will respond to the request for comments regarding the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for 

the NOAA Surveying and Mapping Projects, (DEQ #21-086F), prepared by NOAA National Ocean 

Service (NOS). Specifically, the NOS has proposed to conduct surveys and mapping for coastal and 

marine data collection using upgraded equipment, improved hydroacoustic devices, and new tide 

stations over a six-year time period. A portion of the project area encompasses those rivers and coastal 

coastal waters throughout the Commonwealth of Virginia. 

We reviewed the provided project documents and found the proposed project is within the 

jurisdictional areas of the Virginia Marine Resources Commission (VMRC) and may require a permit 

from this agency. 

Please be advised that the VMRC, pursuant to Chapters 12, 13 and 14 of Title 28.2 of the Code of 

Virginia, administers permits required for submerged lands, tidal wetlands, and beaches and dunes. 

Additionally, the VMRC has jurisdiction over encroachments in, on, or over the beds of rivers, streams, 

or creeks, which are the property of the Commonwealth. Accordingly, if any portion of any project 

involves encroachments below mean low water in tidal waters, or channelward of ordinary high water 

along non-tidal, natural rivers and streams with a drainage area greater than 5-square miles, a permit 

may be required from our agency. Any jurisdictional impacts will be reviewed by the VMRC during 

the Joint Permit Application (JPA) process. 
Department of Environmental Quality

 

July 21, 2021 

Page Two 

Please contact me at 757-247-2251 or by email at randy.owen@mrc.virginia.gov if you have questions. 

Thank you for the opportunity to comment. 

Sincerely, 

Randy Owen 

Chief, Habitat Management Division 

RDO/tlb 

HM 
 

Rochelle Altholz

Deputy Director of 

Administration and Finance Matthew J. Strickler 

Secretary of Natural Resources Russell W. Baxter

Deputy Director of Clyde E. Cristman Dam Safety & Floodplain 

Director Management and Soil & Water 

Conservation

Nathan Burrell

Deputy Director of

Government and Community Relations

Thomas L. Smith

Deputy Director of 

Operations

MEMORANDUM

DATE: July 26, 2021

TO: John Fisher, DEQ

FROM: Roberta Rhur, Environmental Impact Review Coordinator 

SUBJECT: DEQ 21-086F, Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for Coastal and Marine Data 

Acquisition

Division of Natural Heritage

The Department of Conservation and Recreation's Division of Natural Heritage (DCR) has searched its Biotics 

Data System for occurrences of natural heritage resources from the area outlined on the submitted map. Natural 

heritage resources are defined as the habitat of rare, threatened, or endangered plant and animal species, unique or 

exemplary natural communities, and significant geologic formations. 

Several state and federally-listed species including marine mammals, sea turtles, and marine/coastal birds have 

been documented in the planning area. Due to the legal status of these species, DCR recommends coordination 

with the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), the Virginia Department of Wildlife Resources (VDWR), 

and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) to ensure compliance with protected species 

legislation.

There are no State Natural Area Preserves under DCR’s jurisdiction in the project vicinity.

Under a Memorandum of Agreement established between the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer 

Services (VDACS) and the DCR, DCR represents VDACS in comments regarding potential impacts on statelisted threatened and endangered plant and insect species. The current activity will not affect any documented 

state-listed plants or insects.

New and updated information is continually added to Biotics. Please re-submit project information and map for an 

update on this natural heritage information if the scope of the project changes and/or six months has passed before 

it is utilized.

The Virginia Department of Wildlife Resources (VDWR) maintains a database of wildlife locations, including 

threatened and endangered species, trout streams, and anadromous fish waters that may contain information not 

documented in this letter. Their database may be accessed from https://vafwis.dgif.virginia.gov/fwis/ or contact 

Ernie Aschenbach at 804-367-2733 or Ernie.Aschenbach@dwr.virginia.gov. 

600 East Main Street, 24th Floor | Richmond, Virginia 23219 | 804-786-6124

State Parks • Soil and Water Conservation • Outdoor Recreation Planning

Natural Heritage • Dam Safety and Floodplain Management • Land Conservation
Fisher, John <john.fisher@deq.virginia.gov>

Fwd: NEW PROJECT NOAA Surveying and Mapping Projects, DEQ #21-086F

1 message

Henicheck, Michelle <michelle.henicheck@deq.virginia.gov> Wed, Jul 28, 2021 at 5:43 PM

To: John Fisher <john.fisher@deq.virginia.gov>

I don't have any comments for this project.

Michelle Henicheck, PWS

Senior Wetland Ecologist

Virginia Department of Environmental Quality

Phone: 804.698.4007  

Email: michelle.henicheck@deq.virginia.gov

New Location:

1111 East Main Street, Suite 1400

Richmond, Virginia 23219
National Ocean Service PEIS for Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters 

Response to Public Comments for Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2.30.2 NOS Response 

CZMA-12: VMRC finds that if any activities involve encroachments below mean low water in tidal 

waters, or channelward of ordinary high water along non-tidal, natural rivers and streams with a 

drainage area greater than 5-square miles, a VMRC permit may be required. Any jurisdictional 

impacts will be reviewed by the VMRC during the Joint Permit Application (JPA) process. 

NOS Response: NOS activities do not include encroachments below mean low water in 

tidal waters, or channelward of ordinary high water along non-tidal, natural rivers and 

streams with a drainage area greater than 5-square miles. 

Under the CZMA, federal agency activities with coastal effects are required to be 

consistent to the maximum extent practicable with federally approved enforceable policies 

of a State’s Coastal Management Program. NOAA regulations at 15 CFR 930.39(e) clarify 

that unless required by a Federal law, neither the CZMA nor OCM’s approval of state 

enforceable policies authorize the application of state permit requirements to federal 

agencies. The federal agency activities must be consistent to the maximum extent 

practicable with the standards that underlie a state’s permit, but do not have to apply for 

or obtain a state permit (2020 OCM Federal Consistency Overview and 65 FR 77123, 

77140 (2000)). 

NOS provided CD letters to all coastal states and territories with approved CMPs, including 

Virginia. The CDs evaluate the coastal effects of proposed activities according to the 

relevant enforceable policies to make a consistency determination under the CZMA. 

CZMA-13: VMRC finds that a VMRC permit may be required for activities related to the Proposed 

Action. Any jurisdictional impacts will be reviewed by the VMRC during the JPA process. 

NOS Response: Under the CZMA, federal agency activities with coastal effects are 

required to be consistent to the maximum extent practicable with federally approved 

enforceable policies of a State’s Coastal Management Program. NOAA regulations at 15 

CFR 930.39(e) clarify that unless required by a Federal law, neither the CZMA nor OCM’s 

approval of state enforceable policies authorize the application of state permit 

requirements to federal agencies. The federal agency activities must be consistent to the 

maximum extent practicable with the standards that underlie a state’s permit, but do not 

have to apply for or obtain a state permit (2020 OCM Federal Consistency Overview and 

65 FR 77123, 77140 (2000)). 

NOS provided CD letters to all coastal states and territories with approved CMPs, including 

Virginia. The CDs evaluate the coastal effects of proposed activities according to the 

relevant enforceable policies to make a consistency determination under the CZMA. 

CZMA-14: NOS and its authorized agents conducting regulated land-disturbing activities on 

private and public lands in the state must comply with VESCL&R and VSWML&R, including 

coverage under the general permit for stormwater discharge from construction activities, and 

other applicable federal nonpoint source pollution mandates (e.g. Clean Water Act- Section 313, 

federal consistency under the Coastal Zone Management Act). Clearing and grading activities, 

installation of staging areas, parking lots, roads, buildings, utilities, borrow areas, soil stockpiles, 

November 2022 130 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

Response to Public Comments for Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition 

and related land-disturbing activities that result in the total land disturbance of equal to or greater 

than 10,00 square feet (2,500 square feet in a Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area) would be 

regulated by VESCL&R. Accordingly, NOS must prepare and implement an Erosion and Sediment 

Control (ESC) Plan for applicable land-disturbing activities to ensure compliance with state law 

and regulations. 

NOS Response: Some NOS projects under the Proposed Action would include the 

installation, maintenance, and removal of tide gauges and GPS reference stations, most of 

which are affixed to existing docks and piers or secured to rocks in more remote locations. 

Only very small areas would be disturbed, and any affected habitat components would be 

expected to recover post-installation. Due to the small scale of any terrestrial installation 

activities, no terrestrial point or non-point releases would occur. 

NOS provided CD letters to all coastal states and territories with approved CMPs, including 

Virginia. The CDs evaluate the coastal effects of proposed activities according to the 

relevant enforceable policies to make a consistency determination under the CZMA. 

CZMA-15: Land-disturbing activities that result in the total land disturbance of equal to or greater 

than one acre (2,500 square feet in Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area) would be regulated by 

VSWML&R. Accordingly, NOS must prepare and implement a Stormwater Management (SWM) 

Plan for applicable land-disturbing activities to ensure compliance with state law and regulations. 

The SWM Plan is submitted to the appropriate DEQ regional office which serves the area where 

the project is located, for review for compliance. NOS is ultimately responsible for achieving 

project compliance through oversight of on-site contractors, regular field inspection, prompt 

action against non- compliant sites, and other mechanisms consistent with agency policy. 

[Reference: VESCL 62.1-44.15 et seq.] 

NOS Response: NOS activities do not include land-disturbing activities that result in total 

land disturbance equal to or greater than one acre (2,500 square feet in Chesapeake Bay 

Preservation Area). 

NOS provided CD letters to all coastal states and territories with approved CMPs, including 

Virginia. The CDs evaluate the coastal effects of proposed activities according to the 

relevant enforceable policies to make a consistency determination under the CZMA. 

CZMA-16: The owner or operator of projects involving land-disturbing activities of equal to or 

greater than one acre is required to apply for registration coverage under the General Permit for 

Discharges of Stormwater from Construction Activities and develop a project- specific stormwater 

pollution prevention plan (SWPPP). Construction activities requiring registration also include land 

disturbance of less than one acre of total land area that is part of a larger common plan of 

development or sale if the larger common plan of development will collectively disturb equal to or 

greater than one acre 

• The SWPPP must be prepared prior to submission of the registration statement for 

coverage under the General Permit. 

• The SWPPP must address water quality and quantity in accordance with the VSMP Permit 

Regulations. 

November 2022 131 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

Response to Public Comments for Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition 

NOS Response: Thank you for identifying federally enforceable policies that may be 

applicable to the proposed project. NOS provided CD letters to each coastal state and 

territory with an approved CMP for compliance under the CZMA, including Virginia. NOS 

will comply with all requirements under the Clean Water Act (CWA). 

CZMA-17: According to 9 VAC 25-830-140 of the Regulations, new or expanded waterdependent facilities may be allowed in CBPAs provided they: 

• do not conflict with the local comprehensive plan; 

• comply with the performance criteria set forth in 9 VAC2 5-830-130; 

• any non-water dependent component is located outside of the RPA; and 

• access to the water-dependent facility will be provided with the minimum disturbance 

necessary. 

NOS Response: Thank you for identifying federally enforceable policies that may be 

applicable to the proposed project. NOS provided CD letters to all coastal states and 

territories with approved CMPs, including Virginia. The CDs evaluate the coastal effects of 

proposed activities according to the relevant enforceable policies to make a consistency 

determination under the CZMA. 

CZMA-18: according to 9 VAC 25-830-140(5), shoreline erosion control projects are permitted 

within lands analogous to locally designated CBPAs, provided necessary control techniques are 

employed, and appropriate vegetation is established to protect or stabilize that shoreline in 

accordance with the best available technical advice and applicable permit conditions or 

requirements. 

NOS Response: Thank you for identifying federally enforceable policies that may be 

applicable to the proposed project. NOS provided CD letters to all coastal states and 

territories with approved CMPs, including Virginia. The CDs evaluate the coastal effects of 

proposed activities according to the relevant enforceable policies to make a consistency 

determination under the CZMA. 

CZMA-19: Projects that include land disturbing activity in CBPAs must adhere to the general 

performance criteria of the Regulations (9 VAC 25-830-130), especially with respect to: 

• minimizing land disturbance (including access and staging areas), 

• retaining indigenous vegetation, and 

• minimizing impervious cover. 

NOS Response: Thank you for identifying federally enforceable policies that may be 

applicable to the proposed project. NOS provided CD letters to all coastal states and 

territories with approved CMPs, including Virginia. The CDs evaluate the coastal effects of 

proposed activities according to the relevant enforceable policies to make a consistency 

determination under the CZMA. 

CZMA-20: All land-disturbing activity exceeding 2,500 square feet must comply with the 

requirements of the Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook, Third Edition, 1992, and 

November 2022 132 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

Response to Public Comments for Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition 

satisfy stormwater management criteria consistent with the water quality protection provisions of 

the Virginia Stormwater Management Regulations (9 VAC 25- 870-51 and 9 VAC 25-870-103). 

NOS Response: Thank you for identifying federally enforceable policies that may be 

applicable to the proposed project. NOS provided CD letters to all coastal states and 

territories with approved CMPs, including Virginia. The CDs evaluate the coastal effects of 

proposed activities according to the relevant enforceable policies to make a consistency 

determination under the CZMA. NOS will comply with all requirements under the Clean 

Water Act. 

CZMA-21: A water quality impact assessment (WQIA) is required for any proposed land 

disturbance, development or redevelopment within the RPA to identify the impacts of proposed 

development on water quality and lands within RPAs consistent with the goals and objectives of 

the Regulations and the local ordinance. The WQIA also provides specific measures for mitigation 

of those impacts. 

NOS Response: Thank you for identifying federally enforceable policies that may be 

applicable to the proposed project. NOS provided CD letters to all coastal states and 

territories with approved CMPs, including Virginia. The CDs evaluate the coastal effects of 

proposed activities according to the relevant enforceable policies to make a consistency 

determination under the CZMA. 

Scope-10: The DPEIS does not specifically address natural heritage resources affected by the 

Proposed Action. 

NOS Response: The PEIS addresses all relevant aspects of the human environment, 

including natural heritage resources. NOS projects are predominantly aquatic actions that 

infrequently come into contact with terrestrial areas; therefore, natural heritage resources 

are appropriately addressed where relevant in Chapter 3 of the PEIS. NOS has provided 

a Federal Consistency Determination letter to VA Department of Environmental Quality 

(DEQ) under CZMA and will initiate project-specific consultations under Section 106 of the 

NHPA before commencing any activity with the potential to affect cultural or historic 

resources. 

Endangered Species Act-2: Due to the legal status of state and federally-listed species, DCR 

recommends NOS coordinate with the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), the Virginia 

Department of Wildlife Resources (DWR), and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service 

(USFWS) to ensure compliance with protected species legislation. 

NOS Response: NOS has completed consultation with NMFS for compliance with the ESA 

and MSA. NOS has initiated consultation with USFWS under Section 7 of the ESA on the 

potential effects to endangered birds. As part of the consultation process, NOS developed 

mitigation measures to avoid and minimize any potential effects to wildlife. NOS has 

submitted an application for a Letter of Authorization to NMFS and a petition for Incidental 

Take Regulations to USFWS for marine mammal species under the MMPA. NOS intends 

to coordinate with states through the CZMA Federal Consistency process. Until NOS has 

completed programmatic compliance with USFWS, NMFS, and the Commonwealth 

November 2022 133 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

Response to Public Comments for Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition 

through the CZMA process, NOS will continue to comply with these regulations on a 

project-by-project basis. 

Scope-11: Contact DCR-DNH to secure updated information on natural heritage resources if the 

scope of the Proposed Action changes or six months pass before it is utilized, since new and 

updated information is continually added to Biotics. 

NOS Response: Thank you for the additional information about Biotics. 

Mitigation Measures-7: DWR recommends that NOS consider ways to avoid and/or minimize 

any state-listed species or designated resources impacted by the Proposed Action, including 

those species that may be documented from near-shore habitats proposed for certain activities. 

This is in addition to the federally-listed species assessed in the DPEIS for the Proposed Action. 

NOS Response: NOS is committed to public transparency and working with local, state, 

tribal, and federal partners to reduce environmental impacts from NOS projects. NOS is 

undergoing consultation with the NMFS and USFWS for compliance under the MMPA, 

ESA, and MSA. It is not practicable for NOS to evaluate potential impacts to all state-listed 

species or designated resources. 

NOS provided CD letters to all coastal states and territories with approved CMPs, including 

Virginia. The CDs evaluate the coastal effects of proposed activities according to the 

relevant enforceable policies to make a consistency determination under CZMA. Potential 

requirements for future coordination will be developed through the CZMA process. 

Federal agency activities must be consistent to the maximum extent practicable with the 

standards that underlie a state’s permit requirements. However, federal agencies do not 

have to apply for or obtain a state permit unless required by another Federal law (2020 

OCM Federal Consistency Overview; 65 FR 77123,77140 (2000); and 15 CFR 930.39(e)). 

CZMA-22: DWR recommends the following steps be performed to assist in the assessment of 

potential impacts upon state-listed species, for the development of a Coastal Zone Management 

Act Federal Consistency Determination for proposed activities in Virginia. 

A. Access the Virginia Fish and Wildlife Information Service (VAFWIS) at 

https://vafwis.dwr.virginia.gov/fwis/. A request to subscribe to VAFWIS may be submitted to 

vafwis_support@dwr.virginia.gov. VAFWIS subscriptions are free of charge. As a subscriber, NOS 

will be able to generate an IPA for the project area (project site plus a minimum 2-mile buffer) 

which generates a list of imperiled wildlife and designated wildlife resources known from the 

project area. NOS may also access VAFWIS as a visitor, but access to data and mapping at this 

level is restricted. 

Alternatively, NOS may contact DWR’s Geographic Information Systems (GIS) Coordinator, Jay 

Kapalczynsk, at jay.kapalczynski@dwr.virginia.gov, to request access to the Wildlife Mapping and 

Environmental Review Map Service (WERMS), which allows the user to download GIS data. 

B. Access information about the location of bat hibernacula and roosts from the following 

locations: 

November 2022 134 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

Response to Public Comments for Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition 

• Northern Long-Eared Bats: https://www.dwr.virginia.gov/wildlife/bats/northern- longeared-bat-application/. 

• Little Brown Bats and Tricolored Bats: https://www.dwr.virginia.gov/wildlife/bats/littlebrown-bat-tri-colored-bat-winter- habitat-roosts-application/. 

C. Access up to date information about the location and status of bald eagle nests in Virginia by 

accessing the Center for Conservation Biology’s Eagle Nest Locator at https://ccbbirds.org/whatwe-do/research/species-of-concern/virginia- eagles/nest-locator/. 

D. Review the DWR information, guidance, and protocols available at www.virginiawildlife.gov in 

the “Additional Resources” section and implement, as appropriate. 

E. Include the results of the desktop analysis in the final PEIS, Coastal Zone Consistency 

Determination and other project documents. 

NOS Response: NOS provided CD letters to all coastal states and territories with 

approved CMPs. The CDs evaluate the coastal effects of proposed activities according to 

the relevant enforceable policies to make a consistency determination under the CZMA. 

NOS reviewed this information in the course of preparing the CD for the Commonwealth 

of Virginia. 

CZMA-23: NOS is encouraged to consider the Advisory Policies of the Virginia CZM Program in 

accordance with 15 CFR §930.39(c). Section 930.39 gives content requirements for the 

consistency determination, or you may also find guidance in DEQ’s Federal Consistency 

Information Package on the agency’s website. 

NOS Response: NOS provided CD letters to all coastal states and territories with 

approved CMPs. The CDs evaluate the coastal effects of proposed activities according to 

the relevant enforceable policies to make a consistency determination under the CZMA. 

NOS reviewed the Advisory Policies in accordance with 15 CFR 930.39(c) in the course 

of preparing the CD for the Commonwealth of Virginia. 

November 2022 135