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

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

509

3.14 RESOURCES CONSIDERED BUT DISMISSED FROM FURTHER ANALYSIS

NEPA and the CEQ regulations direct agencies to prepare NEPA documents that are “concise, clear, and 

to the point” (40 CFR Part 1500.2(b)). NEPA reviews should focus on important environmental issues and 

avoid “amassing needless detail” (1500.1(b)). Environmental analysis should focus on significant issues 

(meaning pivotal issues, or issues of critical importance), discussing insignificant issues only briefly 

(1500.4(c)). Furthermore, agencies are directed to discuss impacts in proportion to their significance, and 

if the impacts are not deemed significant there should be only enough discussion to show why more study 

is not warranted (1502.2(b)). 

In those cases where impacts from the Proposed Action are not anticipated or are expected to be 

imperceptible or nondetectable, resources are dismissed from detailed analysis. Four such resources were 

identified and the rationale for their dismissal is provided below. 

3.14.1 Air and Water Quality

NOS considered two resources, air quality and water quality, with regard to discharges from equipment 

used in NOS projects. Analyzing air quality as a resource considers atmospheric conditions such as the 

concentration of criteria air pollutants and GHGs. Analyzing water quality as a resource considers aquatic 

conditions such as the concentration of dissolved solids and DO, acidity, and temperature. Vessels and 

aircraft would emit a variety of criteria air pollutants including nitrogen oxides (NOx), sulfur oxides (SOx), 

particulate matter, volatile organic compounds (VOCs), carbon monoxide (CO), and GHG emissions (e.g., 

CO2). Vessels would also discharge treated sanitary and domestic wastes from USCG-approved Marine 

Sanitation Devices (MSDs) and could potentially spill oil, fuel, or chemicals into the water. 

The potential impacts to air and water quality from air emissions, wastewater discharges, and accidental 

spills are minimized through compliance with comprehensive maritime protocols, namely the MARPOL 

73/78 Annexes. Table 3.14-1 summarizes each applicable MARPOL 73/78 annex by pollution source, its 

title, U.S. signatory status, and implementing legislation, law and/or regulations, or applicable Coast 

Guard guidance. 

Table 3.14-1. MARPOL Annexes Applicable to Vessels

Annex

Pollution 

Source Title

U.S. 

Signatory*

Implementation Legislation/

Regulations/Guidance

I Oil Regulations for the 

Prevention of Pollution by 

Oil

Yes • Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships of 

1980 (APPS) 33 U.S.C. § 1901 – 1912

• 33 CFR Parts 151,155, 156, 157 

• Marine Safety Manual, Vol. II

• Navigation and Vessel Inspection 

Circular (NVIC) No. 6-94

• CG-PCV Policy Letter No. 06-01

• CG-3PCV Policy Letter No. 06-09

• CG-MOC Policy Letter No. 04-11, Rev. 

1
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

510

Annex

Pollution 

Source Title

U.S. 

Signatory*

Implementation Legislation/

Regulations/Guidance

IV Sewage Regulations for the 

Prevention of Pollution by 

Sewage from Ships

No • Clean Water Act (CWA) 33 U.S.C. § 

1251 et seq.

• Federal Water Pollution Control Act 

(FWPCA) (as amended by the CWA)

• 33 CFR 159

• Marine Safety Manual, Vol. II

• NVIC No. 01-09

V Garbage Regulations for the 

Prevention of Pollution by 

Garbage from Ships

Yes • APPS 33 U.S.C. § 1901 – 1912

• 33 CFR 151

• Marine Safety Manual, Vol. II

VI Air Regulations for the 

Prevention of Air Pollution 

from Ships

Yes • APPS 33 U.S.C. § 1901 – 1912

• 44 U.S.C. § 7401-7671

• 40 CFR 94

• CG-543 Policy Letter No. 09-01

• CG-CVC Policy Letter No. 12-04

• USCG & EPA Revised Protocols on 

Referrals under MARPOL Annex VI as 

implemented by APPS (effective 

03/04/2015)

Source: USCG, No Date

*Indicates whether the U.S. has agreed to comply with this annex. In the case of sewage, the CWA applies to 

vessels even though the U.S. is not a signatory to the annex.

NOS adheres to NOAA’s environmental procedures which comply with MARPOL 73/78 and relevant air 

and water quality implementing legislation, regulations, and guidance listed in the above table. For 

example, discharge restrictions for vessel waste and emissions management include handling all 

hazardous and regulated materials in accordance with applicable laws and appropriately training crew 

members in materials storage and usage. In addition, NOS projects are dispersed throughout the action 

area, which would minimize any impact from air emissions and wastewater discharges from a single vessel 

or aircraft. NOS vessels also represent only a negligible portion of total oceanic vessel traffic, and any 

resulting impacts produced would be indistinguishable from those produced by all other vessels within 

the action area. Therefore, potential impacts from emissions and wastewater discharges on air and water 

quality are generally expected to be imperceptible or nondetectable and is not analyzed further. However, 

where relevant, the effects from accidental leakage or spillage of oil, fuel, and chemicals, and air emissions 

from project vessel engines is briefly analyzed where the impacts may be detectable in the context of 

other resources. For example, the impact of accidental leaks on Sea Turtles is discussed in Section 3.6.2.2.4

and the impact of air emissions on Sea Turtles is discussed in Section 3.6.2.2.7. 

3.14.2 Soils and Geology

Impacts to soils and geological resources occur primarily in terrestrial areas and tend to be from activities 

that come in direct contact with them. NOS projects are predominantly aquatic actions that infrequently 

come into contact with terrestrial areas. Smaller scale activities associated with installation, maintenance, 

and removal of land-based tide gauges and GPS stations do require access to terrestrial areas. However, 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

511

the disturbance resulting from these activities is minimal and impacts to soils and geology would be 

imperceptible or nondetectable. As such, potential impacts to soils and geology as a resource are not 

analyzed further. 

3.14.3 Airborne Noise for Human Receptors

A noise is an undesirable sound, one that interferes with communication, is intense enough to damage 

hearing, or is otherwise intrusive. The main source of airborne noise associated with NOS projects is the 

operation of vessel engines. Noise could also be generated from airplanes occasionally used in survey 

activities, flying overhead as well as taking off and landing on landing strips, and floatplanes taking off and 

touching down on water surfaces.

Airborne noise from vessels used by NOS close to shore would generally be imperceptible or 

nondetectable to nearby human receptors given the ambient noise of other boat and ship traffic. The 

acoustic signature of vessels used by NOS would be indistinguishable from other sources of noise near 

docks, marinas, and ports. While at sea, the airborne noise of vessels used by NOS would be perceptible, 

but would not be a source of concern given the distance to the human environment. Sound produced by 

underwater acoustic equipment is outside of the range of human hearing and is not transmitted between 

water and air; therefore, these sounds are imperceptible to humans in water or air.

Noise from flyovers, take-offs, and landings of fixed-wing aircraft associated with NOS projects would be 

perceptible by human observers, but very infrequent, localized, and short in duration. 

For the reasons presented above, the impact of airborne noise from NOS projects on human receptors is 

not expected to be perceptible or detectable or of concern. Therefore, potential impacts of airborne noise 

on human receptors are not analyzed further. 

3.14.4 Select Freshwater Taxa

NOS projects may include activities within U.S. freshwater bodies, such as the U.S. portion of the Great 

Lakes and major lakes such as Tahoe, Mead, Champlain, Okeechobee, and parts of major rivers such as 

the Mississippi, Missouri, Hudson, and Columbia. Impacts to many freshwater species have been analyzed 

in the Fish, Birds, and Aquatic Macroinvertebrates resource sections. However, there may be a small 

number of NOS projects that occur in other freshwater bodies where select freshwater taxa such as 

amphibians, mammals, and reptiles occur. Analysis of impacts for these select freshwater taxa was not 

carried forward for the following reasons. 

NOS projects within freshwater bodies would occur far less frequently than in marine environments. For 

example, from 2016 to 2021, less than 3 percent of NOS projects occurred in freshwater bodies. 

Based on a preliminary analysis, some stressors are likely to cause adverse, negligible impacts, including 

vessel presence, vessel wake, and accidental spills. The nature of these impacts is very similar to those 

analyzed in the Fish, Birds, Marine Mammals, and Aquatic Macroinvertebrates resource sections. The 

remaining stressors analyzed in this Final PEIS are not likely to affect these select freshwater taxa or are 

expected to be de minimis. The resulting incremental impacts would not be any greater than those already 

experienced by other freshwater species.

Project specific reviews would be conducted to determine if any select freshwater ESA-listed species are 

present in a project area; if those ESA-listed species are identified, NOS would then consult with the 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

512

USFWS or NMFS, as applicable. Therefore, potential impacts to these freshwater species are not analyzed 

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

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

513

3.15 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SHORT-TERM USES OF THE ENVIRONMENT AND THE 

MAINTENANCE AND ENHANCEMENT OF LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY

Section 102(C)(iv) of NEPA and 40 CFR 1502.16 require an EIS to address the relationship between local 

short-term uses of the human environment and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term 

productivity. This involves the consideration of whether a proposed action is sacrificing environmental 

resources in the long term for some short-term value to the project proponent or the public. 

Many of the proposed NOS surveying and mapping projects may cause short-term adverse impacts on 

resources including marine/aquatic wildlife and habitats. However, these impacts are generally predicted 

to be minor and temporary and thus would not lead to any lasting effects. 

The Proposed Action would provide the public and private sectors with nautical charts, benthic habitat 

condition maps, current and tide charts, and other products necessary for safe navigation, economic 

security, and environmental sustainability. The data collected by NOS are used to conserve, preserve, and 

restore ecological resources, including marine/aquatic wildlife and habitat, coral reefs, and cultural and 

historic resources. The data allow federal, state, and local governments to make informed decisions about 

fishing areas and other natural resource management issues. Thus, the Proposed Action provides longterm, beneficial effects to environmental resources. None of the alternatives would entail short-term uses 

of the environment that would compromise, impair, or reduce long-term environmental productivity. 

3.16 IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES

Section 102(C)(v) of NEPA requires an EIS to address “any irreversible and irretrievable commitments of 

resources which would be involved in the Proposed Action should it be implemented.” Irreversible and 

irretrievable commitments of resources refer to losses to or impacts on natural resources that cannot be 

recovered or reversed. 

Irreversible commitments of resources are those that cannot be regained. “Irreversible” applies mainly to 

the effects from use or depletion of nonrenewable resources, such as fossil fuels or cultural resources, or 

to factors such as soil productivity that are renewable only over long periods of time. Under Alternatives 

A, B, and C, the use of non-renewable energy sources would be an irreversible commitment of resources. 

Non-renewable energy consumption would occur via the combustion of fossil fuels (diesel fuel) in vessels 

used by NOS. However, the amount of fossil energy consumed would represent a minute fraction of that 

consumed annually by the nation’s governmental, commercial, and recreational boat and shipping fleet. 

It would be an even smaller fraction of the nation’s aggregate annual fossil fuel consumption. 

Irretrievable commitments of resources are those that are lost for a period of time, but not permanently. 

No irretrievable commitments of resources are expected from implementation of the Proposed Action.

3.17 UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS

Section 102(2)(c)(ii) of NEPA requires that an EIS include information on “any adverse environmental 

effects which cannot be avoided should the proposed action be implemented.” Unavoidable adverse 

impacts are the effects on the human environment that would remain after mitigation measures and best 

practices have been applied. They do not include temporary or permanent impacts that would be 

mitigated. While these impacts do not have to be avoided by the planning agency, they must be disclosed, 

considered, and mitigated where possible (40 CFR § 1500.2[e]). All three alternatives (A, B, and C) of the 

Proposed Action would have the same unavoidable adverse impacts but to different degrees because the 

level of effort differs. Alternative B would have slightly greater unavoidable adverse impacts than 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

514

Alternative A, and Alternative C would have slightly greater unavoidable adverse impacts than 

Alternatives B and A. 

The Proposed Action would entail unavoidable adverse impacts on marine and aquatic habitats; marine 

mammals; sea turtles; fish; aquatic macroinvertebrates; EFH; and seabirds, shorebirds, coastal birds, and 

waterfowl. While unavoidable, these adverse impacts would mostly vary from negligible to minor; they 

would not be significant adverse impacts. For the marine and aquatic organisms in particular, the 

unavoidable adverse impacts would result mostly from underwater noise through the operation of vessel 

engines and use of underwater acoustic equipment. There would also be a low level of unavoidable 

adverse impacts from disturbance due to presence and associated sight, smell, and sound of humans and 

their equipment in remote locations where wildlife populations are unaccustomed to human intrusion 

and encroachment. 

The Proposed Action would also entail unavoidable adverse impacts to cultural and historic resources and 

environmental justice. These unavoidable adverse impacts would range from negligible to moderate in 

overall magnitude but would still be insignificant. Cultural and historic resources subjected to unavoidable 

impacts would include submerged cultural or historic resources, coastal infrastructure, viewsheds of 

nearshore historic properties and designed cultural landscapes, and subsistence hunting and fishing areas 

including Traditional Cultural Properties. Unavoidable adverse environmental justice impacts would 

mostly be related to potential effects of the Proposed Action on subsistence hunting, fishing, and other 

traditional harvests. 

In summary, while the Proposed Action would entail the potential for unavoidable adverse impacts on a 

variety of resources, none of these impacts would be significant. 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

515

3.18 COMPARISON OF IMPACTS

Table 3.18-1 compares the environmental consequences for Alternatives A, B, and C. For each resource analyzed in Sections 3.4 through 3.13, the 

impacts are summarized by impact causing factor and by alternative overall.

Table 3.18-1. Summary Comparison of Impacts

Resource

Alternative A: No Action – Conduct 

Surveys and Mapping for Coastal and 

Marine Data Collection with Current 

Technology and Methods, at Current 

Funding Levels

Alternative B: Conduct Surveys and 

Mapping with Equipment 

Upgrades, Improved Hydroacoustic 

Devices, and New Tide Stations

Alternative C: Upgrades and 

Improvements with Greater 

Funding Support

Habitats Impacts to habitats from water 

column disruptions under Alternative 

A would continue to be adverse and 

negligible. 

Impacts to habitats from activities 

involving physical disturbance to 

bottom substrate; sedimentation, 

turbidity, and chemical contaminants;

increased ambient underwater sound

levels; and onshore activities under 

Alternative A would continue to be 

adverse and negligible to minor. 

The impact on habitats from invasive 

species dispersal facilitated by 

activities under Alternative A would 

likely continue to be adverse and 

minor. 

Impacts to habitat areas resulting 

from Alternative A would not cause 

Impacts of Alternative B on habitats 

throughout the action area would 

be the same or slightly, but not 

appreciably, larger than those that 

would occur under Alternative A for 

each impact causing factor. 

Impacts to habitat areas resulting 

from Alternative A would not cause 

long-term changes in the availability 

of space, shelter, cover, or nutrients 

necessary for dependent species 

and would not substantially increase 

in intensity with the increased level 

of effort of Alternative B. 

Overall, impacts to habitats under 

Alternative B would be adverse, 

minor, and insignificant.

Impacts of Alternative C on habitats 

throughout the action area would 

be the same or slightly, but not 

appreciably, larger than those under 

Alternatives A and B for each impact 

causing factor. 

Impacts to habitat areas resulting 

from Alternatives A and B would not 

cause long-term decreases in the 

availability of space, shelter, cover, 

or nutrients necessary for 

dependent species and would not 

substantially increase in intensity 

with the increased level of effort of 

Alternative C.

Overall, impacts to habitats under 

Alternative C would be adverse, 

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

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

516

Resource

Alternative A: No Action – Conduct 

Surveys and Mapping for Coastal and 

Marine Data Collection with Current 

Technology and Methods, at Current 

Funding Levels

Alternative B: Conduct Surveys and 

Mapping with Equipment 

Upgrades, Improved Hydroacoustic 

Devices, and New Tide Stations

Alternative C: Upgrades and 

Improvements with Greater 

Funding Support

long-term changes in the availability of 

space, shelter, cover, or nutrients 

necessary for dependent species. 

Overall, impacts to habitats under 

Alternative A would continue to be 

adverse, minor, and insignificant.

Marine Mammals Impacts on marine mammals 

(cetaceans, pinnipeds, sirenians, and 

fissipeds) from trash and debris and 

air emissions under Alternative A 

would continue to be adverse and

negligible. 

Impacts from human activity under 

Alternative A would continue to be 

adverse and negligible on cetaceans 

and sirenians and adverse and minor 

on pinnipeds and fissipeds. 

Impacts on marine mammals 

(cetaceans, pinnipeds, sirenians, and 

fissipeds) from accidental oil, fuel, or 

chemical spills under Alternative A 

would continue to be adverse and

negligible to minor. 

Impacts on marine mammals 

(cetaceans, pinnipeds, sirenians, and 

Impacts of Alternative B on marine 

mammals would be the same or 

slightly, but not appreciably, larger 

than those that would occur under 

Alternative A for each impact 

causing factor. 

Impacts to marine mammals 

resulting from Alternative A would 

be temporary or short-term and 

would not be considered outside the 

natural range of variability of 

species’ populations, their habitats, 

or the natural processes sustaining 

them. These impacts would not 

substantially increase in intensity 

with the increased survey effort of 

Alternative B. 

Overall, impacts of Alternative B on 

marine mammals, including ESAlisted species, and habitat, including 

Impacts of Alternative C on marine 

mammals would be the same or 

slightly, but not appreciably, larger 

than those that would occur under 

Alternatives A and B for each impact 

causing factor. 

Impacts to marine mammals 

resulting from Alternatives A and B 

would be temporary or short-term 

and would not be considered 

outside the natural range of 

variability of species’ populations, 

their habitats, or the natural 

processes sustaining them. These 

impacts would not substantially 

increase in intensity with the 

increased survey effort of 

Alternative C. 

Overall, impacts of Alternative C on 

marine mammals, including ESA-
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

517

Resource

Alternative A: No Action – Conduct 

Surveys and Mapping for Coastal and 

Marine Data Collection with Current 

Technology and Methods, at Current 

Funding Levels

Alternative B: Conduct Surveys and 

Mapping with Equipment 

Upgrades, Improved Hydroacoustic 

Devices, and New Tide Stations

Alternative C: Upgrades and 

Improvements with Greater 

Funding Support

fissipeds) from active underwater 

acoustic sources, vessel and 

equipment sound, vessel presence 

and movement of equipment in the 

water under Alternative A would 

continue to be adverse and minor. 

Impacts on pinnipeds and fissipeds 

from air emissions under Alternative A 

would continue to be adverse and 

negligible.

Although a vessel strike is very 

unlikely, debilitating injury or 

mortality of one or a few individuals 

could occur and impacts would be 

adverse and moderate, or greater if 

an ESA-listed species is affected. If a 

walrus stampede occurs due to vessel 

or aircraft disturbance, the impact 

could be adverse and moderate or 

greater. If polar bears are disturbed at 

denning sites or if polar bear-human 

interactions occur, the impact could 

be adverse and moderate.

Potential impacts from underwater 

acoustic sources include injury 

exposures in the form of hearing loss 

designated critical habitat, would be 

adverse, minor, and insignificant.

listed species, and habitat, including 

designated critical habitat, would be 

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

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

518

Resource

Alternative A: No Action – Conduct 

Surveys and Mapping for Coastal and 

Marine Data Collection with Current 

Technology and Methods, at Current 

Funding Levels

Alternative B: Conduct Surveys and 

Mapping with Equipment 

Upgrades, Improved Hydroacoustic 

Devices, and New Tide Stations

Alternative C: Upgrades and 

Improvements with Greater 

Funding Support

(PTS) on cetaceans, but such injury 

would be rare and confined to a few 

individual high-frequency cetaceans. It 

would also include behavioral 

disruption exposures of cetaceans, 

pinnipeds, sirenians and fissipeds, but 

the amount of time individuals may 

exceed the behavioral exposure 

threshold would be on average less 

than a few minutes.

Impacts to marine mammals resulting 

from Alternative A would be 

temporary or short-term and would 

not be considered outside the natural 

range of variability of species’ 

populations, their habitats, or the 

natural processes sustaining them. 

Overall, impacts of Alternative A on 

marine mammals, including ESA-listed 

species, and habitat, including 

designated critical habitat, would 

continue to be adverse, minor, and 

insignificant.

Sea Turtles Impacts to sea turtles and their 

habitats from active underwater 

acoustic sources, vessel and 

equipment sound, and onshore 

Impacts of Alternative B on sea 

turtles and their habitats would be 

the same or slightly, but not 

appreciably, larger than those that 

Impacts of Alternative C on sea 

turtles and their habitats would be 

the same or slightly, but not 

appreciably, larger than those that 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

519

Resource

Alternative A: No Action – Conduct 

Surveys and Mapping for Coastal and 

Marine Data Collection with Current 

Technology and Methods, at Current 

Funding Levels

Alternative B: Conduct Surveys and 

Mapping with Equipment 

Upgrades, Improved Hydroacoustic 

Devices, and New Tide Stations

Alternative C: Upgrades and 

Improvements with Greater 

Funding Support

activities under Alternative A would 

continue to be adverse and negligible.

Impacts to sea turtles and their 

habitats from vessel presence and 

movement, underwater activities, and 

air emissions under Alternative A 

would continue to be adverse and

negligible to minor.

Impacts to sea turtles and their 

habitats from accidental oil, fuel, or 

chemical spills would continue to be 

adverse and negligible to minor.

Although the effects of impact causing 

factors on sea turtles and their 

habitats range from negligible to 

moderate, moderate impacts could 

occur in the very unlikely event of an 

accidental spill of oil, fuel, or 

chemicals. Likewise, in the very 

unlikely event of a vessel strike, injury 

or death to sea turtles would also 

constitute a moderate or greater 

impact. 

Impacts to sea turtles resulting from 

Alternative A would not cause longwould occur under Alternative A for 

each impact causing factor. 

Impacts to sea turtles resulting from 

Alternative A would not cause longterm changes in habitat availability 

and use, sea turtle behavior, or 

energy expenditures and would not 

substantially increase in intensity 

with the increased survey effort of 

Alternative B. 

Overall, impacts on sea turtles and 

their habitat, including designated 

critical habitat, would be adverse, 

minor, and insignificant.

would occur under Alternatives A 

and B for each impact causing 

factor. 

Impacts to sea turtles resulting from 

Alternatives A and B would not 

cause long-term changes in habitat 

availability and use, sea turtle 

behavior, or energy expenditures 

and would not substantially increase 

in intensity with the increased 

survey effort of Alternative C. 

Overall, impacts on sea turtles and 

their habitat, including designated 

critical habitat, would be adverse, 

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

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

520

Resource

Alternative A: No Action – Conduct 

Surveys and Mapping for Coastal and 

Marine Data Collection with Current 

Technology and Methods, at Current 

Funding Levels

Alternative B: Conduct Surveys and 

Mapping with Equipment 

Upgrades, Improved Hydroacoustic 

Devices, and New Tide Stations

Alternative C: Upgrades and 

Improvements with Greater 

Funding Support

term changes in habitat availability 

and use, sea turtle behavior, or energy 

expenditures.

Overall, impacts under Alternative A 

on sea turtles and their habitats, 

including designated critical habitat, 

would continue to be adverse, minor, 

and insignificant.

Fish Impacts to fish and their habitats from 

vessel wake and turbulence; vessel 

sound; accidental spill of oil, fuel, or 

chemicals; and disturbance of the 

ocean/lake/river bottom under 

Alternative A would continue to be 

adverse and negligible to minor.

Impacts to fish and their habitats from 

active underwater acoustic sources 

and air emissions under Alternative A 

would continue to be adverse and

minor.

Impacts to fish resulting from 

Alternative A may include some stress 

responses without permanent 

physiological damage, and may disturb 

breeding, feeding, or other activities 

but without any impacts on 

Under Alternative B, impacts on fish 

and fish habitat would be the same 

or slightly, but not appreciably, 

larger than those that would occur 

under Alternative A for each impact 

causing factor. 

Impacts to fish resulting from 

Alternative A may include some 

stress responses without permanent 

physiological damage, and may 

disturb breeding, feeding, or other

activities but without any impacts 

on population levels; additionally, 

there would not be long-term 

changes in habitat availability and 

use or in fish behavior. These 

impacts would not substantially 

increase in intensity with the 

Impacts of Alternative C on fish and 

fish habitat would be the same or 

slightly, but not appreciably, larger 

than those that would occur under 

Alternatives A and B for each impact 

causing factor. 

Impacts to fish resulting from 

Alternatives A and B may include 

some stress responses without 

permanent physiological damage, 

and may disturb breeding, feeding, 

or other activities but without any 

impacts on population levels; 

additionally, there would not be 

long-term changes in habitat 

availability and use or in fish 

behavior. These impacts would not 

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

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

521

Resource

Alternative A: No Action – Conduct 

Surveys and Mapping for Coastal and 

Marine Data Collection with Current 

Technology and Methods, at Current 

Funding Levels

Alternative B: Conduct Surveys and 

Mapping with Equipment 

Upgrades, Improved Hydroacoustic 

Devices, and New Tide Stations

Alternative C: Upgrades and 

Improvements with Greater 

Funding Support

population levels; additionally, there 

would not be long-term changes in 

habitat availability and use or in fish 

behavior.

Overall, impacts of Alternative A on 

fish, including ESA-listed species, and 

fish habitat, including designated 

critical habitat, would continue to be 

adverse, minor, and insignificant.

increased survey effort of 

Alternative B. 

Overall, impacts of Alternative B on 

fish, including ESA-listed species,

and fish habitat, including 

designated critical habitat, would be 

adverse, minor, and insignificant.

with the increased survey effort of 

Alternative C. 

Overall, impacts of Alternative C on 

fish, including ESA-listed species,

and fish habitat, including 

designated critical habitat, would be 

adverse, minor, and insignificant.

Aquatic 

Macroinvertebrates

Impacts to aquatic macroinvertebrates

and their habitats from underwater 

acoustic sources, vessel sound, and air 

emissions under Alternative A would 

continue to be adverse and negligible.

Impacts to aquatic macroinvertebrates

and their habitats from vessel wake 

and underwater turbulence;

accidental spill of oil, fuel, or 

chemicals; and disturbance of the 

ocean/lake/river bottom under 

Alternative A would continue to be 

adverse and negligible to minor.

Overall, impacts of Alternative A on 

aquatic macroinvertebrates, including 

ESA-listed species, and habitats, 

Under Alternative B, impacts on 

aquatic macroinvertebrates and 

their habitats would be the same or 

slightly, but not appreciably, larger 

than those that would occur under 

Alternative A for each impact 

causing factor. These impacts would 

not substantially increase in 

intensity with the increased survey 

effort of Alternative B. 

Overall, impacts of Alternative B on 

aquatic macroinvertebrates, 

including ESA-listed species, and 

habitats, including designated 

critical habitat, would be adverse, 

minor, and insignificant.

Under Alternative C, impacts on 

aquatic macroinvertebrates and 

their habitats would be the same or 

slightly, but not appreciably, larger 

than those that would occur under 

Alternatives A and B for each impact 

causing factor. These impacts would 

not substantially increase in 

intensity with the increased survey 

effort of Alternative C. 

Overall, impacts of Alternative C on 

aquatic macroinvertebrates, 

including ESA-listed species, and 

habitats, including designated 

critical habitat, would be adverse, 

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

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

522

Resource

Alternative A: No Action – Conduct 

Surveys and Mapping for Coastal and 

Marine Data Collection with Current 

Technology and Methods, at Current 

Funding Levels

Alternative B: Conduct Surveys and 

Mapping with Equipment 

Upgrades, Improved Hydroacoustic 

Devices, and New Tide Stations

Alternative C: Upgrades and 

Improvements with Greater 

Funding Support

including designated critical habitat,

would continue to be adverse, minor, 

and insignificant.

Essential Fish Habitat 

(EFH)

Impacts to EFH from disturbance of 

the water column under Alternative A 

would continue to be adverse and

negligible.

Impacts to EFH from physical impacts 

to bottom habitat; increase in 

sedimentation, turbidity, or chemical 

contamination; dispersal of invasive 

species; and increase in ambient

sound under Alternative A would 

continue to be adverse and negligible 

to minor.

Impacts to EFH resulting from 

Alternative A would be infrequent, 

geographically widely distributed, and 

likely to elicit a minimal or temporary 

response from prey species or cause 

short-term changes to physical 

characteristics (i.e., changes in water 

quality).

Overall, impacts of Alternative A on 

EFH would continue to be adverse, 

minor, and insignificant.

Under Alternative B, impacts on EFH 

would be the same or slightly, but 

not appreciably, larger than those 

that would occur under Alternative 

A for each impact causing factor. 

Impacts to EFH resulting from 

Alternative A would be infrequent, 

geographically widely distributed, 

and likely to elicit a minimal or 

temporary response from prey 

species or cause short-term changes 

to physical characteristics (i.e., 

changes in water quality). These 

impacts would not substantially 

increase in intensity with the 

increased survey effort of 

Alternative B. 

Overall, impacts of Alternative B on 

EFH would be adverse, minor, and 

insignificant. 

Under Alternative C, impacts on EFH 

would be the same or slightly, but 

not appreciably, larger than those 

that would occur under Alternatives 

A and B for each impact causing 

factor. 

Impacts to EFH resulting from 

Alternatives A and B would be 

infrequent, geographically widely 

distributed, and likely to elicit a 

minimal or temporary response 

from prey species or cause shortterm changes to physical 

characteristics (i.e., changes in 

water quality). These impacts would 

not substantially increase in 

intensity with the increased survey 

effort of Alternative C. 

Overall, impacts of Alternative C on 

EFH would be adverse, minor, and 

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

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

523

Resource

Alternative A: No Action – Conduct 

Surveys and Mapping for Coastal and 

Marine Data Collection with Current 

Technology and Methods, at Current 

Funding Levels

Alternative B: Conduct Surveys and 

Mapping with Equipment 

Upgrades, Improved Hydroacoustic 

Devices, and New Tide Stations

Alternative C: Upgrades and 

Improvements with Greater 

Funding Support

Seabirds, Shorebirds 

and Coastal Birds, and 

Waterfowl

Impacts to birds and their habitats 

from active underwater acoustic

sources and vessel and equipment 

sound under Alternative A would 

continue to be adverse and negligible.

Impacts to birds and their habitats 

from aircraft sound, vessel presence 

and movement, underwater activities, 

onshore activities, and air emissions 

under Alternative A would continue to 

be adverse and negligible to minor.

Impacts to birds and their habitats 

from accidental oil, fuel, or chemical 

spills would continue to be adverse 

and minor to moderate.

Although the effects of impact causing 

factors on birds and their habitats 

range from negligible to moderate, 

moderate impacts could occur in the 

very unlikely event of an accidental 

spill of oil, fuel, or chemicals. Likewise, 

in the very unlikely event of a vessel 

strike, injury or death to birds could 

constitute greater impacts. 

Under Alternative B, impacts on 

birds and their habitats would be 

the same or slightly, but not 

appreciably, larger than those that 

would occur under Alternative A for 

each impact causing factor. 

Impacts to birds resulting from 

Alternative A would generally persist 

only for the duration of an activity 

and would not be expected to cause 

any long-term changes in habitat 

use and availability or energy 

expenditure outside of the natural 

range of variation. These impacts 

would not substantially increase in 

intensity with the increased survey 

effort of Alternative B. 

Overall, impacts on of Alternative B 

on birds, including ESA-listed 

species, and habitats, including 

designated critical habitat, would be 

adverse, minor, and insignificant.

Under Alternative C, impacts on 

birds and their habitats would be 

the same or slightly, but not 

appreciably, larger than those that 

would occur under Alternatives A 

and B for each impact causing 

factor. 

Impacts to birds resulting from 

Alternatives A and B would generally 

persist only for the duration of an 

activity and would not be expected 

to cause any long-term changes in 

habitat use and availability or 

energy expenditure outside of the 

natural range of variation. These 

impacts would not substantially 

increase in intensity with the 

increased survey effort of 

Alternative C. 

Overall, impacts on of Alternative C 

on birds, including ESA-listed 

species, and habitats, including 

designated critical habitat, would be 

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

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

524

Resource

Alternative A: No Action – Conduct 

Surveys and Mapping for Coastal and 

Marine Data Collection with Current 

Technology and Methods, at Current 

Funding Levels

Alternative B: Conduct Surveys and 

Mapping with Equipment 

Upgrades, Improved Hydroacoustic 

Devices, and New Tide Stations

Alternative C: Upgrades and 

Improvements with Greater 

Funding Support

Impacts to birds resulting from 

Alternative A would generally persist 

only for the duration of an activity and 

would not be expected to cause any 

long-term changes in habitat use and 

availability or energy expenditure 

outside of the natural range of 

variation.

Overall, impacts on of Alternative A on 

birds, including ESA-listed species, and 

habitats, including designated critical 

habitat, would continue to be 

adverse, minor, and insignificant.

Cultural and Historic 

Resources

Impacts to cultural and historic 

resources from installation, 

maintenance, and removal of tide 

gauges, buoys, and GPS reference 

stations under Alternative A would 

continue to be adverse and negligible 

to minor.

Impacts to cultural and historic 

resources from bottom sampling 

under Alternative A would continue to 

be both adverse and beneficial, 

permanent, and negligible to minor. 

Beneficial impacts would occur if a 

resource were discovered that led to 

Under Alternative B, impacts on 

cultural and historic resources

would be the same or slightly, but 

not appreciably, larger than those 

that would occur under Alternative 

A for each impact causing factor. 

These impacts would not 

substantially increase in intensity 

with the increased survey effort of 

Alternative B. 

Overall, impacts of Alternative B to 

cultural and historic resources 

would be adverse, moderate, and

insignificant.

Under Alternative C, impacts on 

cultural and historic resources

would be the same or slightly, but 

not appreciably, larger than those 

that would occur under Alternatives 

A and B for each impact causing 

factor. These impacts would not 

substantially increase in intensity 

with the increased survey effort of 

Alternative C. 

Overall, impacts of Alternative C to 

cultural and historic resources 

would be adverse, moderate, and

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

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

525

Resource

Alternative A: No Action – Conduct 

Surveys and Mapping for Coastal and 

Marine Data Collection with Current 

Technology and Methods, at Current 

Funding Levels

Alternative B: Conduct Surveys and 

Mapping with Equipment 

Upgrades, Improved Hydroacoustic 

Devices, and New Tide Stations

Alternative C: Upgrades and 

Improvements with Greater 

Funding Support

the identification of a culturallysignificant artifact or a previously 

undocumented historic site.

Impacts to cultural and historic 

resources from anchoring under 

Alternative A would continue to be 

adverse, permanent, and negligible to

moderate.

Impacts on subsistence hunting and 

fishing, including Traditional Cultural 

Places, under Alternative A would 

continue to be adverse and negligible 

to moderate.

Although the effects of impact causing 

factors on cultural and historic 

resources range from negligible to 

moderate, moderate impacts that 

could occur if the integrity of a 

resource is diminished would be very 

unlikely. 

Overall, impacts of Alternative A to 

cultural and historic resources would 

continue to be adverse, moderate, 

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

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

526

Resource

Alternative A: No Action – Conduct 

Surveys and Mapping for Coastal and 

Marine Data Collection with Current 

Technology and Methods, at Current 

Funding Levels

Alternative B: Conduct Surveys and 

Mapping with Equipment 

Upgrades, Improved Hydroacoustic 

Devices, and New Tide Stations

Alternative C: Upgrades and 

Improvements with Greater 

Funding Support

Socioeconomic 

Resources

The economic impacts of ocean data 

procured under Alternative A on 

health and safety, recreational 

economic activity, transportation, and 

energy-related activities would 

continue to be indirect, beneficial, 

and moderate. 

Impacts to commercial fishing under 

Alternative A would continue to be 

adverse and negligible.

Data collected under Alternative A 

would continue to improve the quality 

and quantity of ocean data and data 

products. 

Overall, Alternative A would continue 

to have indirect, beneficial, and 

moderate impacts on the ocean 

economy. 

The economic benefits of impacts of 

Alternative B would be the same or 

slightly, but not appreciably, larger 

than those discussed above under 

Alternative A. These impacts would 

not substantially increase in 

intensity with the increased survey 

effort of Alternative B. 

Overall, Alternative B would have 

indirect, beneficial, and moderate 

impacts on the ocean economy.

The economic benefits of impacts of 

Alternative C would be the same or 

slightly, but not appreciably, larger 

than those under Alternatives A and 

B. These impacts would not 

substantially increase in intensity 

with the increased survey effort of 

Alternative C. 

Overall, Alternative C would have 

indirect, beneficial, and moderate 

impacts on the ocean economy.

Environmental Justice Impacts of underwater acoustic

sources on subsistence hunting of 

marine mammals under Alternative A 

would continue to be adverse and 

moderate, and the impacts to 

subsistence fishing communities 

would continue to be adverse and 

minor. 

Under Alternative B, impacts on 

environmental justice would be the 

same or slightly, but not 

appreciably, larger than those that 

would occur under Alternative A for 

each impact causing factor. These 

impacts would not substantially 

increase in intensity with the 

Under Alternative C, impacts on 

environmental justice would be the 

same or slightly, but not 

appreciably, larger than those that 

would occur under Alternatives A 

and B for each impact causing 

factor. These impacts would not 

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

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

527

Resource

Alternative A: No Action – Conduct 

Surveys and Mapping for Coastal and 

Marine Data Collection with Current 

Technology and Methods, at Current 

Funding Levels

Alternative B: Conduct Surveys and 

Mapping with Equipment 

Upgrades, Improved Hydroacoustic 

Devices, and New Tide Stations

Alternative C: Upgrades and 

Improvements with Greater 

Funding Support

Impacts of vessel and equipment noise 

on subsistence hunting of marine 

mammals under Alternative A would 

continue to be adverse and minor, 

and the impacts to subsistence fishing 

communities would continue to be 

adverse and negligible. 

Impacts of vessel and equipment 

presence and movement on 

subsistence hunting of marine 

mammals under Alternative A would 

continue to be adverse and moderate, 

and the impacts to subsistence fishing 

communities would continue to be 

adverse and negligible. 

Impacts of human activities and 

accidental leakage or spillage of oil, 

fuel, and chemicals on subsistence

hunting and fishing under Alternative 

A would continue to be adverse and 

minor.

Impacts of marine trash and debris 

and air emissions on subsistence

hunting and fishing activities under 

increased survey effort of 

Alternative B. 

Overall, impacts of Alternative B on 

environmental justice would 

continue to be adverse, minor to

moderate, and insignificant. 

with the increased survey effort of 

Alternative C. 

Overall, impacts of Alternative C on 

environmental justice would 

continue to be adverse, minor to

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

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

528

Resource

Alternative A: No Action – Conduct 

Surveys and Mapping for Coastal and 

Marine Data Collection with Current 

Technology and Methods, at Current 

Funding Levels

Alternative B: Conduct Surveys and 

Mapping with Equipment 

Upgrades, Improved Hydroacoustic 

Devices, and New Tide Stations

Alternative C: Upgrades and 

Improvements with Greater 

Funding Support

Alternative A would continue to be 

adverse and negligible. 

The availability of new mapping and 

charting information under Alternative 

A would have beneficial effects on EJ 

communities.

Overall, impacts of Alternative A on 

environmental justice would continue 

to be adverse, minor to moderate, 

and insignificant.