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

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

361

3.9 ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT

This section discusses the affected environment and environmental consequences that would result 

under each alternative for EFH for fish and aquatic macroinvertebrates in the action area. EFH occurs in 

both the marine and freshwater environments, although none had been designated in the Great Lakes.

3.9.1 Affected Environment

As discussed in Section 3.3, Congress passed the MSA in 1976 and reauthorized it in 1996 as the 

Sustainable Fisheries Act. The MSA established eight regional Fishery Management Councils (FMCs) –

North Pacific, Pacific, Western Pacific, Gulf of Mexico, Caribbean, South Atlantic, Mid-Atlantic, New 

England – and mandated that Fishery Management Plans (FMPs) be developed to responsibly manage fish 

and invertebrate species in waters within the U.S. EEZ. Under the reauthorization, NMFS was required to 

designate and conserve EFH for species managed under existing FMPs. This was intended to minimize, to 

the extent practicable, any adverse effects on habitat caused by human activities and to encourage the 

conservation and enhancement of such habitat (BOEM, 2014a).

EFH is defined as “those waters and substrate necessary for fish for spawning, breeding, feeding, or 

growth to maturity” (16 U.S.C §1801 [10]). The final rule summarizing EFH regulation (50 CFR Part 600) 

outlines additional interpretation of the EFH definition. Waters, as defined previously, include “aquatic 

areas and their associated physical, chemical, and biological properties that are used by fish, and may 

include aquatic areas historically used by fish where appropriate.” Substrate includes “sediment, hard 

bottom, structures underlying the waters, and associated biological communities.” “Necessary” is defined 

as “the habitat required to support a sustainable fishery and the managed species' contribution to a

healthy ecosystem.” Fish includes “finfish, mollusks, crustaceans, and all other forms of marine animal

and plant life other than marine mammals and birds,” and “spawning, breeding, feeding or growth to

maturity” covers the complete life cycle of those species of interest. Ecologically, EFH includes waters and 

substrate that include distribution and range zones such as migration corridors, spawning areas, and rocky 

reefs, as well as water characteristics such as turbidity zones and salinity gradients. EFH is not only a 

geographic area where a species occurs, but an all-encompassing habitat designation.

EFH regulations provide guidance to FMCs to identify and define EFH, clarify the intent of key terms, and 

require that federal agencies consult with NMFS when planning or authorizing activities that could affect 

EFH. NMFS works with the FMCs to designate EFH, which has been described for more than 1,000 

managed species to date.

The area encompassed by the Proposed Action and alternatives extends from the shoreline to the 

seaward boundary of the U.S. EEZ. A large portion of these waters has been designated EFH for one or 

more species managed pursuant to the MSA. EFH also occurs in estuarine and freshwater habitat such as 

rivers, ponds, and wetlands. Figure 3.9-1 shows the large extent of EFH as it covers most of the U.S. EEZ.
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

362

Source: NMFS, 2019a

Figure 3.9-1. EFH in the U.S. EEZ

EFH designations are based on interpretations of the best available scientific information on the general 

distribution of managed species within fisheries, and their habitat-related densities, growth, 

reproduction, or survival rates within habitats, and/or production rates by habitat (50 C.F.R. §600.815 

(a)(1)(iii)). The available science is mostly limited to general distributions, and given that there are several 

life stages (eggs, larvae, juveniles and adults) and numerous representative species within all fisheries for 

which EFH has been designated, the EFH designations across regions are broad. Designations are primarily 

based on the species’ position in the water column (e.g., demersal, pelagic), and include broad 

biogeographic and bathymetric areas (0-400 m [0-1,312 ft] depth in a region), and general habitat types.

Fish habitat includes the substrate and benthic resources (e.g., submerged aquatic vegetation, shellfish 

beds, salt marsh wetlands), as well as the water column, and prey species. EFH includes all types of aquatic 

habitats such as wetlands, coral reefs, seagrass (Figure 3.9-2), muddy and rocky substrates in state and 

federal waters, and rivers where fish spawn, breed, feed, or grow to maturity. 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

363

Photo Credit: NMFS

Within the EFH designations, Habitat Areas of Particular Concern (HAPCs) have been identified; these are 

high-priority areas for conservation, management, or research because they are rare, sensitive, stressed 

by development, or important to ecosystem function. HAPCs are discrete subsets of EFH and comprise

specific sites or habitat types that meet one or more considerations including: being of particular 

ecological importance to the long-term sustainability of managed species; being of a rare type; and/or 

being especially susceptible to degradation or development (50 C.F.R. §600.815 (a)(8)). More than 100 

HAPCs have been identified across all regions for enhanced EFH conservation. Several FMCs have 

designated discrete habitat areas as HAPC, while others have broadly designated all areas of a specific 

habitat type as HAPC. 

EFH has been designated in the waters inside of the 320-km (200-mi) U.S. EEZ boundary in the eight FMC 

regions. Each EFH is described below by text and a map using the best scientific information available for 

each fish stock. Each of the FMCs has developed EFH descriptions in either separate documents or as 

amendments to existing FMPs. NMFS maintains an online EFH Mapper for viewing the spatial distributions 

of fish species, their life stages, and important habitats; it displays maps for EFH, HAPCs, and EFH areas 

protected from fishing (NMFS, 2019a). 

3.9.1.1 Regional Distribution

This section summarizes region-specific EFH and HAPCs for fish and marine macroinvertebrates. Most 

species found in federal waters are managed by FMCs through the development and implementation of 

an FMP. However, highly migratory species (HMS) such as Atlantic tunas, sharks, and billfish are different 

in that they are found throughout the Atlantic Ocean and in the Caribbean and must be managed both 

domestically and internationally. As a result, NMFS has primary authority for identifying and describing 

EFH in FMPs for HMS. NMFS has identified geographic areas, rather than specific habitat types as EFH for 

these fisheries (see Table 3.9-1 and Figure 3.9-3). Detailed descriptions of EFH and HAPC designations for 

HMS are available in the Atlantic HMS FMP (NMFS, 2019b).

Figure 3.9-2. Seagrass EFH
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

364

Table 3.9-1. EFH and HAPCs for Atlantic HMS

Fisheries EFH HAPC

Highly Migratory 

Species

Overall: waters of New England, 

Mid-Atlantic, South Atlantic, Gulf 

of Mexico, and the U.S. Caribbean.

For bluefin tuna: west of 86° west

longitude and seaward of the 100-m

(328-ft) isobath, extending from the 

100-m (328-ft) isobath to the EEZ in 

the Gulf of Mexico.

For sharks: waters off Chesapeake 

Bay, Virginia and Maryland;

Plymouth-Duxbury-Kingston Bay in 

Massachusetts; Delaware Bay, 

Delaware; Great Bay, New Jersey;

the Outer Banks off North Carolina; 

and Titusville to Jupiter off Florida 

coast.

Source: NMFS, 2019b
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

365

Source: NMFS, 2019a

Figure 3.9-3. HAPCs for Atlantic HMS

3.9.1.1.1 Greater Atlantic Region

Two FMCs occur in the Greater Atlantic Region: the New England FMC and the Mid-Atlantic FMC. EFH for 

various life stages of numerous fish species occurs in this region, including Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar), 

Atlantic herring (Clupea harengus), Atlantic mackerel (Scomber scombrus), bluefish (Pomatomus 

saltatrix), monkfish (Lophius piscatorius), spiny dogfish (Squalus acanthias), and multiple species of 

groundfish and skates such as Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua), haddock (Melanogrammus aeglefinus), red 

drum (Sciaenops ocellatus), pollock (Pollachius spp.), hake (Merlucciidae), and flounder (Pleuronectidae, 

Paralichthyidae, and Bothidae) (NEFMC, No Date; MAFMC, No Date). EFH for HMS occurring in the Greater 

Atlantic Region, including blue marlin, white marlin, and sailfish, are discussed above in Section 3.9.1.1 

and shown in Table 3.9-1. For aquatic macroinvertebrates, EFH has been delineated for Atlantic surf clam 

(Spisula solidissima), deep-sea red crab (Chaceon quinquedens), two species of squid (Doryteuthis pealeii

and Illex illecebrosus), and Atlantic sea scallop (Placopecten magellanicus) (NMFS, 2019a). 

On January 3, 2018, NMFS approved all of the updated EFH and all of the recommended HAPC 

designations as part of the New England FMC’s recommendations for the Omnibus EFH Amendment 2 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

366

(OHA2). OHA2 was initiated in 2004 to review and update the EFH components of all the New England 

FMC’s FMPs. 

A large proportion of the marine waters and habitats off the coasts of Maine and the states south of Maine 

to North Carolina, and marine waters within the full 200-mile Greater Atlantic Region EEZ have been 

designated as EFH for 15 different fisheries managed by the New England and Mid-Atlantic FMCs (see 

Table 3.9-2). EFH includes the coastal and offshore waters from the surface to the sea floor and various 

bottom substrate and habitat types in the Gulf of Maine, Georges Bank, southern New England, the middle 

Atlantic south to Cape Hatteras, North Carolina; waters over the continental shelf south of Cape Hatteras 

through Key West, Florida (some EFH designations extend into the Southeast Region); the Slope Sea and 

Gulf Stream between latitudes 29° north and 40° north; various bays and estuaries along the eastern 

coast; and all waters currently or historically accessible to Atlantic salmon within the streams, rivers, lakes, 

ponds, wetlands, and other water bodies of New England which are designated as EFH for the eggs, larvae, 

juveniles and/or adults for one or a combination of the managed species. Within these boundaries, one 

or more of the MSA-managed species are associated with certain water temperature regimes, oxygen 

saturation levels and salinities, and various seafloor substrates and habitat types.

HAPCs in New England and the Mid-Atlantic have been designated as discrete spatial areas and habitat 

types as listed in Table 3.9-2 and shown in Figure 3.9-4 and include all canyons HAPCs and seamounts 

HAPCs. In addition to the HAPCs listed in the table, the following areas have been designated for a variety 

of managed species as part of OHA2: 

• The Cashes Ledge Habitat Closure Area was designated as the Cashes Ledge HAPC;

• The existing Western Gulf of Maine Habitat Closure Area was designated as the Jeffreys 

Ledge/Stellwagen Bank HAPC; and 

• Eleven canyons or groupings of canyons south of Georges Bank and offshore of the Mid-Atlantic 

Bight were designated as HAPCs. 

Detailed descriptions of EFH and HAPC designations in New England and the Mid-Atlantic are available in 

the New England and Mid-Atlantic FMCs’ multiple FMPs (NEFMC, No Date; MAFMC, No Date).

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

Fisheries EFH HAPC

New England

Northeast Multispecies 

(Groundfish) 

Overall: pelagic waters down to 

1,250 m (4,101 ft) depth that meet 

certain temperature and salinity 

regimes, and bottom down to 700 

m (2,297 ft) depth supporting 

aquatic vegetation; substrate of soft 

mud, clay, sand, or gravel; and 

rough or rocky bottom locations 

along slopes of the outer banks in 

Gulf of Maine, Georges Bank, 

southern New England, middle 

Atlantic south to Cape Hatteras, 

Northern Edge Juvenile Cod HAPC:

covers approximately 187 nm2 on the 

northeastern edge of Georges Bank

up to 120 m depth.

Inshore Juvenile Cod HAPC: inshore 

areas of the Gulf of Maine and 

Southern New England between 0-20 

m (0-66 ft) depth.

Great South Channel Juvenile Cod 

HAPC: the area north of 41° north 

latitude, west of 69° west longitude, 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

367

Fisheries EFH HAPC

North Carolina; also a range of 

estuaries along the coasts.

south of 42° 15’ north latitude, and 

east of 70° west longitude; offshore 

habitats between 30 and 120 m (98 

and 394 ft) depth.

Atlantic Sea Scallop Overall: coastal and offshore waters 

to the EEZ limit that meet certain 

temperature and salinity regimes, 

and bottom supporting red algae, 

hydroids, amphipod tubes and 

bryozoans and/or substrate of 

gravelly sand, sand, shell fragments, 

and pebbles, cobble and silt in the 

Gulf of Maine, Georges Bank, 

southern New England, and the 

mid-Atlantic south to the VirginiaNorth Carolina border; also various 

bays and estuaries along the coasts.

None

Atlantic Herring Overall: coastal and offshore waters 

to the EEZ limit that meet certain 

temperature and salinity regimes, 

and bottom supporting aquatic 

macrophytes and substrate of 

gravel, sand, cobble, and shell 

fragments in the Gulf of Maine and 

Georges Bank and southern New 

England.

None

Atlantic Deep-Sea Red 

Crab

Overall: water column from the 

surface to the sea floor that meets 

certain temperature, dissolved 

oxygen (DO), and salinity regimes 

along the entire depth range along 

the southern flank of the outer 

continental shelf and slope, 

including two seamounts, from 

Georges Bank, Maine south to Cape 

Hatteras, North Carolina; and 

bottom within the depths of 200 –

1,800 m (5,905 ft) of the continental 

slope with substrates of silts, clays, 

and all silt-clay-sand composites. 

Bear and Retriever Seamounts HAPC: 

the tops of Bear and Retriever 

seamounts that overlap spatially 

with the proposed EFH designation 

are designated as a HAPC.

Skates Overall: down to 750 m (2,461 ft) 

depth of soft substrate, including 

sand and mud bottoms, mud with 

echinoid and ophiuroid fragments, 

broken shells, and shell and 

pteropod ooze; and substrate of 

None
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

368

Fisheries EFH HAPC

gravel and pebbles on offshore 

banks of the Gulf of Maine, Georges 

Bank through the Mid-Atlantic Bight 

to Cape Hatteras, North Carolina.

Atlantic Salmon Overall: all waters currently or 

historically accessible to Atlantic 

salmon within the streams, rivers, 

lakes, ponds, wetlands, and other 

water bodies of Maine, New 

Hampshire, Vermont, 

Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and 

Connecticut that meet a set of 

conditions, and oceanic pelagic 

waters of the continental shelf off 

southern New England north 

throughout the Gulf of Maine. 

Eleven rivers in Maine: Dennys, 

Machias, East Machias, Pleasant, 

Narraguagus, Ducktrap, Sheepscot, 

Kennebec, Penobscot, St. Croix, and 

Tunk Stream.

Small Mesh 

Multispecies 

(Whiting/Hake)

Overall: pelagic waters along the 

outer continental shelf of Georges 

Bank and southern

New England south to Cape 

Hatteras, North Carolina; water 

depths less than 1,250 m (4,101 ft)

None

Mid-Atlantic

Atlantic Mackerel, 

Squid, and Butterfish

Overall: inshore, offshore, and 

pelagic waters down to 1,829 m 

(6,000 ft) depth along the 

continental shelf from Maine 

through Cape Hatteras, North 

Carolina; also, a range of estuaries 

along the coasts.

None

Summer Flounder, 

Scup, and Black Sea 

Bass

Overall: water column down to 152

m (499 ft) depth including demersal 

waters and bottom that is rough, 

structured, muddy, sandy, or 

supporting shellfish and eelgrass 

beds along continental shelf from 

Gulf of Maine to Cape Hatteras, 

North Carolina; also, a range of 

estuaries along the coasts.

For summer flounder: HAPC consists 

of all native species of macroalgae, 

seagrasses, and freshwater and tidal 

macrophytes in any size bed, as well 

as loose aggregations, within adult 

and juvenile summer flounder EFH

on continental shelf and estuaries 

from Cape Cod, Massachusetts to 

Cape Canaveral, Florida*.

Atlantic Bluefish Overall: pelagic waters over 

continental shelf from Nantucket 

Island, Massachusetts south to Cape 

Hatteras; and south of Cape 

Hatteras over continental shelf 

through Key West, Florida*, the 

Slope Sea and Gulf Stream between 

None
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

369

Fisheries EFH HAPC

latitudes 29° north and 40° north;

also, a range of estuaries along the 

coasts.

Tilefish Overall: semi-lithified clay 

substrates within a preferred 

temperature range, which generally 

correspond to a depth contour of 

100 to 300 m (328 to 984 ft); outer 

continental shelf and slope from 

U.S.-Canada boundary to the 

Virginia-North Carolina boundary.

Clay outcrop/pueblo six habitats 

within four canyon areas (Norfolk, 

Veatch, Lydonia, and Oceanographer 

canyons), within the same depth 

contour identified as EFH.

Atlantic Surf Clams and 

Ocean Quahogs

Overall: substrate to a depth of 245 

m (804 ft) within the EEZ.

Ocean quahog: continental shelf 

from southern New England and 

Georges Bank to Virginia.

Surf clam: continental shelf from 

southwestern Gulf of Maine to Cape 

Hatteras, North Carolina.

None

Joint

Monkfish Overall: coastal and offshore waters 

to the EEZ limit that meet certain 

temperature and salinity ranges, 

and bottom of a sand-shell mix, 

algae covered rocks, hard sand, 

pebbly gravel, or mud between 15 –

1,000 m (49 to 3,281 ft) depths in 

the Gulf of Maine, Georges Bank, 

southern New England, and the 

middle Atlantic south to Cape 

Hatteras, North Carolina. 

None

Spiny Dogfish Overall: continental shelf waters 

between 10-450 m (33 to 1,476 ft) 

depth in the Gulf of Maine through 

Cape Hatteras, North Carolina;

continental shelf waters south of 

Cape Hatteras through Florida*; 

also, a range of estuaries along the 

coasts.

None

Sources: NEFMC, 2016; NEFMC, 2018; NEFMC, No Date; MAFMC, No Date

*Note that some EFH and HAPC designations extend into the Southeast Region.
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

370

Source: NMFS, 2019a

Figure 3.9-4. HAPCs in the Greater Atlantic Region

3.9.1.1.2 Southeast Region

Three FMCs occur in the Southeast Region: the South Atlantic FMC, the Gulf of Mexico FMC, and the 

Caribbean FMC. EFH for various life stages of numerous fish species occurs in this region, including 

mackerel, cobia (Rachycentron canadum), wahoo (Acanthocybium solandri), snapper (Lutjanus spp.),

grouper (Epinephelinae), and red drum (SAFMC, No Date; Gulf Council, No Date; CFMC, No Date). EFH for 

HMS occurring in the Southeast Region, including blue marlin, white marlin, and sailfish, are discussed 

above in Section 3.9.1.1 and shown in Table 3.9-1. For aquatic macroinvertebrates, EFH has been 

established in the Gulf of Mexico for corals (Anthozoa), shrimp, and spiny lobster (Palinuridae). In the 

South Atlantic and Caribbean, EFH has been established for corals, golden crab (Chaceon fenneri), spiny 

lobster, and queen conch (Strombus gigas). In addition, EFH for sargassum (Phaeophyceae), a seaweed 

found in free-floating offshore mats throughout the waters of the South Atlantic that is harvested for use 

in the feed supplement industry, occurs in this region. The sargassum mats provide crucial habitat for a 

wide variety of marine organisms in the open ocean, including pelagic species such as tuna, dolphin, 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

371

wahoo, and billfish, as well as sea turtles and marine birds. EFH in the Southeast Region is discussed below 

for each FMC area: South Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, and Caribbean. HAPCs in the Southeast Region are 

mapped in Figure 3.9-5. 

Source: NMFS, 2019a

Figure 3.9-5. HAPCs in the Southeast Region

3.9.1.1.2.1 South Atlantic

A large proportion of the marine waters and habitat inside of the U.S. EEZ off the coasts of North Carolina 

and southward through to east Florida and Key West have been designated as EFH for eight fisheries 

managed by the South Atlantic FMC (see Table 3.9-3). EFH includes estuarine inshore habitats; various 

marine offshore habitats throughout the South Atlantic EEZ; the South- and Mid-Atlantic Bights; and the 

Gulf Stream in the South Atlantic Region EEZ. Estuarine inshore habitats consist of estuarine emergent 

vegetation, estuarine shrub/scrub, seagrass, oyster reefs and shell banks, intertidal flats, palustrine 

emergent and forested, and the estuarine water column. Marine offshore habitats include live/hard 

bottom, coral and coral reefs, artificial/manmade reefs, pelagic sargassum, and water column habitat.
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

372

HAPCs have been designated for all of the fisheries, many of which are identified for multiple managed 

species as listed in Table 3.9-3. HAPCs include: coastal inlets and Atlantic coast estuaries; pelagic and 

benthic sargassum; various discrete sites, bays, and sounds; marine protected areas and ridges; statedesignated nursery habitats; various hardbottom areas; irregular bottom; mud-clay bottoms; and various 

habitat types such as coral reefs, Phragmatopoma reefs, manganese outcroppings, mangroves, seagrass,

oyster/shell habitat, and sandy shoals.

Detailed descriptions of EFH and HAPC designations in the South Atlantic are available in the South 

Atlantic FMC’s Habitat Plan, and the South Atlantic FMCs’ multiple FMPs (SAFMC, No Date).

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

Fisheries EFH HAPC

Coral, Coral Reefs, and 

Live/Hard Bottom

Overall: hard substrate, mud, and 

silt bottoms in subtidal to outer 

shelf depths within a wide range of 

salinity and light penetration 

throughout the South Atlantic EEZ.

Big Rock; The Point; Hurl Rocks; 

Charleston Bump; Ten-Fathom 

Ledge; Georgetown Hole; The Point 

off Jupiter Inlet; The Hump off 

Islamorada; The Marathon Hump; 

The “Wall”; Hoyt Hills; Gray’s Reef 

National Marine Sanctuary (NMS); 

eight deepwater Snapper Grouper 

Marine Protected Areas (MPAs); 

Oculina Banks; Biscayne Bay; 

Biscayne National Park; Florida Keys 

National Marine Sanctuary; Cape 

Lookout; Cape Fear; Stetson Reefs;

Savannah and East Florida 

Lithoherms; Miami Terrace; Pourtals 

Terrace; Blake Ridge Diapir; Florida 

Bay; and Card Sound.

All coastal inlets and Atlantic coast 

estuaries with high numbers of 

Spanish mackerel and cobia.

All state-designated nursery habitats 

of particular importance to shrimp 

and snapper-grouper; stateidentified overwintering areas; 

localities of known or likely periodic 

spawning aggregations.

Pelagic and benthic sargassum; all 

hermatypic coral habitats and reefs;

Stetson-Miami Terrace deepwater 

coral; shrimp fishery access areas;

golden crab fishery access areas; 

Dolphin and Wahoo Overall: Gulf Stream in the Atlantic 

EEZ; Charleston Gyre, Florida 

Current, and pelagic sargassum.

Golden Crab Overall: seven habitat types (a flat 

foraminferan ooze habitat; distinct 

mounds, primarily of dead coral; 

ripple habitat; dunes; black pebble 

habitat; low outcrop; and softbioturbated habitat) throughout

the U.S. continental shelf from 

Chesapeake Bay south through the 

Florida Straits and into the Gulf of 

Mexico and the Gulf Stream.

South Atlantic Shrimp Overall: inshore estuarine nursery 

areas (including intertidal marshes, 

mangroves, and seagrass) and 

offshore marine habitats used for 

spawning and growth to maturity 

(including terrigenous and biogenic 

sand bottom and blue/black and 

white calcareous mud), and all 

interconnecting water bodies from 

North Carolina through the Florida 

Keys, shelf current systems near 

Cape Canaveral, and the Gulf 

Stream.

Snapper-Grouper Overall: coral reefs, live/hard 

bottom, macroalgae, estuarine 

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

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

373

Fisheries EFH HAPC

(saltmarshes, brackish marsh); tidal 

creeks; estuarine scrub/shrub; 

oyster reefs and shell banks; 

unconsolidated bottom; submerged 

aquatic vegetation, artificial reefs 

and outcroppings from shore up to 

610 m (2,000 ft) depth where the 

annual water temperature range is 

sufficiently warm to maintain 

populations; spawning area in the 

water column above the adult 

habitat and the additional pelagic 

environment, including sargassum; 

and Gulf Stream.

various hardbottom areas from 0-30

m depth (0-98 ft); irregular bottom 

comprising troughs and terraces 

intermingled with sand, mud, or 

shell hash bottom; mud-clay 

bottoms in depths of 150-300 m

(492-984 ft); irregular bottom 

habitats along the shelf edge in 45-

65 m (148-213 ft) depth, shelf break; 

upper slope along the 150-225 m 

(492-738 ft) contour; 

Phragmatopoma reefs off central 

and central east coast Florida; 

manganese outcroppings on the 

Blake Plateau; mangrove habitat; 

seagrass habitat; oyster/shell 

habitat; sandy shoals of Cape 

Lookout, Cape Fear, and Cape 

Hatteras; various offshore pelagic 

areas and associated benthic 

habitats.

Pelagic Sargassum 

Habitat

Where it occurs in the South 

Atlantic EEZ and in the state waters 

off of North Carolina, South 

Carolina, Georgia, and the east 

coast of Florida, including the Gulf 

Stream. 

Coastal Migratory 

Pelagics (Mackerel and 

Cobia) – Managed 

jointly by the Gulf of 

Mexico and South 

Atlantic FMCs

Overall: all coastal inlets; all statedesignated nursery habitats of 

particular importance to coastal 

migratory pelagics; high salinity 

bays, estuaries, and seagrass 

habitat; sandy shoals of capes and 

offshore bars, high profile rocky 

bottom and barrier island oceanside waters and sargassum from the 

surf to the shelf break zones 

shoreward of the Gulf stream; the 

Gulf Stream; and the South Atlantic 

and Mid-Atlantic Bights.

Atlantic Spiny Lobster –

Managed jointly by the 

Gulf of Mexico and 

South Atlantic FMCs 

Overall: nearshore shelf/oceanic 

waters; shallow subtidal bottom; 

seagrass habitat; unconsolidated 

bottom; coral and live/hard bottom 

habitat; sponges; algal 

communities; mangrove habitat;

and the Gulf Stream.

Source: SAFMC, No Date

3.9.1.1.2.2 Gulf of Mexico 

A large proportion of the marine waters and habitat inside of the U.S. EEZ off the coasts of Texas and 

states east of Texas through to western Florida and Key West have been designated as EFH for the fisheries 

managed by the Gulf of Mexico FMC (see Table 3.9-4). EFH includes the waters and substrates from 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

374

estuarine waters to depths of 100 fathoms (approximately 183 m [600 ft]) in the entire Gulf of Mexico 

and the total distribution of coral species and life stages throughout the Gulf of Mexico. EFH habitat types 

include: estuarine and marine water column; estuarine emergent wetlands; submerged aquatic 

vegetation; algal flats and non-vegetated bottoms; mangrove wetlands; live (hard) bottoms and mud, 

sand, shell, and rock substrates; and coral reefs.

HAPCs have been designated for one or more of the fisheries as 18 spatially discrete sites in waters off 

Florida, Texas, and Louisiana as listed in Table 3.9-4. These areas predominantly contain living coral reefs 

or hard bottom habitat with known coral colonies, and include various protected areas, ridges and reefs. 

Detailed descriptions of EFH and HAPC designations in the Gulf of Mexico are available in the Gulf of 

Mexico FMCs’ multiple FMPs (Gulf Council, No Date). 

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

Fisheries EFH HAPC

Coral and Coral Reefs Overall: the total distribution of coral 

species and life stages throughout 

the Gulf of Mexico including the East 

and West Flower Garden Banks, 

Florida Middle Grounds, southwest 

tip of the Florida reef tract, and 

predominant patchy hard bottom 

offshore of Florida from 

approximately Crystal River south to 

the Keys and scattered along the 

pinnacles and banks from Texas to 

Mississippi at the shelf edge.

18 areas primarily for protecting coral 

and hard bottom as identified within 

Coral FMP:

Off of Florida: Madison-Swanson 

Marine Reserve; Tortugas North; 

Tortugas South; Florida Middle 

Grounds; and Pulley Ridge.

Topographic features (reefs and 

banks) off of Texas/Louisiana: West 

Flower Garden Banks; East Flower 

Garden Banks; Stetson Bank; 29 

Fathom Bank; MacNeil Bank; Rezak 

Sidner Bank; Rankin Bright Bank; 

Geyer Bank; McGrail Bank; Bouma 

Bank; Sonnier Bank; Alderdice Bank 

and Jakkula Bank.

Coral HAPCs for reefs and banks;

Alabama Alps Reef, AT047, AT357, 

Florida Keys National Marine 

Sanctuary, Garden Banks 299, Garden 

Banks 535, Green Canyon 140 and 

272, Green Canyon 234, Green 

Canyon 354, Green Canyon 852, 

Harte Bank, L&W Pinnacle and Scamp 

Reef, MacNeil, the Mississippi 

canyons (118, 751, and 885), Rough 

Tongue Bank, South Reed Site, 

Southern Bank, Steamboat Lumps, 

Red Drum Overall: all Gulf of Mexico estuaries; 

waters and substrates extending 

from Vermilion Bay, Louisiana to the 

eastern edge of Mobile Bay, Alabama 

out to depths of 25 fathoms 

(approximately 46 m [151 ft]); 

waters and substrates extending 

from Crystal River, Florida to Naples, 

Florida between depths of 5 and 10 

fathoms (9-18 m [29-59 ft]); waters 

and substrates extending from Cape 

Sable, Florida to the boundary 

between the areas covered by the 

Gulf of Mexico FMC and the South 

Atlantic FMC between depths of 5 

and 10 fathoms (9-18 m [29-59 ft]).

Gulf of Mexico 

Shrimp

Overall: Gulf of Mexico waters and 

substrates extending from the 

U.S./Mexico border to Fort Walton 

Beach, Florida from estuarine waters 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

375

Fisheries EFH HAPC

out to depths of 100 fathoms (183 m

[600 ft]); waters and substrates 

extending from Grand Isle, Louisiana 

to Pensacola Bay, Florida between 

depths of 100 and 325 fathoms (183-

594 m [600-1,949 ft]); waters and 

substrates extending from Pensacola 

Bay, Florida to the boundary 

between the areas covered by the 

Gulf of Mexico FMC and the South 

Atlantic FMC out to depths of 35 

fathoms (64 m [210 ft]), with the 

exception of waters extending from 

Crystal River, Florida to Naples, 

Florida between depths of 10 and 25 

fathoms (18-46 m [59-151 ft]) and in 

Florida Bay between depths of 5 and 

10 fathoms (9-18 m [29-59 ft]).

West Florida Wall, The Edges, and the 

Viosca Knolls (826 and 862/906).

Reef Fish Overall: Gulf of Mexico waters and 

substrates extending from the 

U.S./Mexico border to the boundary 

between the areas covered by the 

Gulf of Mexico FMC and the South 

Atlantic FMC from estuarine waters 

out to depths of 100 fathoms (183 m

[600 ft]).

Stone Crab Overall: all Gulf of Mexico estuaries; 

Gulf of Mexico waters and substrates 

extending from the U.S./Mexico 

border to Sanibel, Florida from 

estuarine waters out to depths of 10 

fathoms (9-18 m [30-59 ft]); waters 

and substrates extending from 

Sanibel, Florida to the boundary 

between the areas covered by the 

Gulf of Mexico FMC and the South 

Atlantic FMC from estuarine waters 

out to depths of 15 fathoms (27 m

[89 ft]).

Coastal Migratory 

Pelagics (Mackerel 

and Cobia) –

Managed jointly by 

the Gulf of Mexico 

and South Atlantic

FMCs

Overall: Gulf of Mexico waters and 

substrates extending from the 

U.S./Mexico border to the boundary 

between the areas covered by the 

Gulf of Mexico FMC and the South 

Atlantic FMC from estuarine waters 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

376

Fisheries EFH HAPC

out to depths of 100 fathoms (183 m

[600 ft]).

Atlantic Spiny Lobster

– Managed jointly by 

the Gulf of Mexico 

and South Atlantic

FMCs

Overall: Gulf of Mexico waters and 

substrates extending from Tarpon 

Springs, Florida to Naples, Florida 

between depths of 5 and 10 fathoms 

(9-18 m); waters and substrates 

extending from Cape Sable, Florida 

to the boundary between the areas 

covered by the Gulf of Mexico FMC 

and the South Atlantic FMC out to 

depths of 15 fathoms (27 m [89 ft]). 

Source: Gulf Council, No Date

3.9.1.1.2.3 United States Caribbean 

A large proportion of the marine waters and habitat inside of the U.S. EEZ off the coasts of Puerto Rico 

and the U.S. Virgin Islands have been designated as EFH for the five fisheries managed by the Caribbean 

FMC (see Table 3.9-5). All waters from mean high water to the outer boundary of the EEZ and all 

substrates from mean high water to 100 fathoms (183 m [600 ft]) depth are designated as EFH for the 

eggs, larvae, juveniles and/or adults for one or more of the managed species. The various habitat types 

included are: estuarine and marine water column, salt marshes, seagrass, intertidal flats, salt ponds, sandy 

beaches, rocky shores, mangrove wetlands, live (hard) bottoms, mud, sand, shell, and rock substrates, 

and corals and coral reefs.

HAPCs have been designated for two of the fisheries as listed in Table 3.9-5, with the intent that the HAPCs

protect the life stages of all managed species. The HAPCs include: eight reef fish spawning locations in 

Puerto Rico, St. Croix and St. Thomas; and 37 Ecologically Important Habitat areas in Puerto Rico, St. 

Thomas, and St. Croix. The HAPC locations sometimes overlap with refuges, bays, and banks and include 

a variety of habitat types such as coral and coral reefs, mangrove lagoons, seagrass beds, and coastal 

wetlands.

Detailed descriptions of EFH and HAPC designations in the U.S. Caribbean are available in the Caribbean 

FMCs’ multiple FMPs (CFMC, No Date). 

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

Fisheries EFH HAPC

Reef Fish Overall: all waters from mean high 

water to the outer boundary of the 

EEZ and all substrates from mean 

high water to 100 fathoms (183 m

[600 ft]) depth. 

Eight reef fish spawning locations: 

four in Puerto Rico, two in St. Croix,

and two in St. Thomas. 

18 Ecologically Important Habitat 

areas: 11 in Puerto Rico, two in St. 

Thomas, and four in St. Croix.
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

377

Fisheries EFH HAPC

Areas/sites/habitat types include 

refuges, reefs, seagrass beds, bays, 

banks, and mangrove lagoons.

Queen Conch Overall: all waters from mean high 

water to the outer boundary of the 

EEZ and seagrass, benthic algae, 

coral, live/hard bottom and 

sand/shell substrates from mean 

high water to 100 fathoms (183 m

[600 ft]) depth.

None – no HAPC has been 

designated for the queen conch 

fishery in this region.

Spiny Lobster Overall: all waters from mean high 

water to the outer boundary of the 

EEZ and seagrass, benthic algae, 

mangrove, coral, and live/hard 

bottom substrates from mean high 

water to 100 fathoms (183 m [600 

ft]) depth.

None – no HAPC has been 

designated for the spiny lobster 

fishery in this region.

Coral and Reef 

Associated Plants and 

Invertebrates 

Overall: all waters from mean low 

water to the outer boundary of the 

EEZ and coral and hard bottom 

substrates from mean low water to 

100 fathoms (183 m [600 ft]) depth.

19 Ecologically Important Habitat 

areas: 13 in Puerto Rico and six in St. 

Croix.

Areas contain corals and are in some 

cases identified at a scale (e.g., state 

forest) that includes a variety of 

other habitat types such as 

mangroves, seagrass beds, and 

coastal wetlands. 

Source: CFMC, No Date

3.9.1.1.3 West Coast Region

One FMC occurs in the West Coast Region: the Pacific FMC. EFH for various life stages of numerous fish 

species occur in this region, including over 90 species of groundfish such as rockfish (Sebastes), Pacific 

ocean perch (Sebastes alutus), Dover sole (Solea solea), arrowtooth flounder (Atheresthes stomias), 

lingcod (Ophiodon elongatus), sablefish (Anoplopoma fimbria), spiny dogfish, leopard shark (Triakis 

semifasciata), and California skate (Raja inornata); Pacific salmon (Oncorhynchus spp.); Pacific halibut 

(Hippoglossus stenolepis); HMS such as thresher sharks (Alopias spp.), shortfin mako shark (Isurus 

oxyrinchus), blue shark (Prionace glauca), tuna (Thunnus spp.), striped marlin (Kajikia audax), swordfish

(Xiphias gladius), and mahimahi (Coryphaena hippurus); and coastal pelagic species such as Pacific sardine

(Sardinops sagax), Pacific mackerel (Scomber japonicus), jack mackerel (Trachurus symmetricus), and 

anchovy (Engraulidae) (PFMC, No Date). Along the coast of California, EFH for aquatic macroinvertebrates 

has been designated for squid and several species of krill.

A large proportion of the waters in the EEZ off the coasts of Washington, Oregon, and California have been 

designated as EFH for the approximately 119 individual fish species within four fisheries as managed by 

the Pacific FMC (see Table 3.9-6). EFH includes all freshwater water bodies occupied by Council-managed 

salmon; substrate down to 3,500 m (11,483 ft) depth and estuarine and marine waters from the high tide 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

378

line to the EEZ limit offshore of Washington, Oregon, and California; seamounts in depths greater than 

3,500 m (11,483 ft). Areas designated as HAPCs not already identified as EFH are designated as EFH for 

the eggs, larvae, juveniles and/or adults for one or more of the salmon, groundfish, coastal pelagic, and/or 

HMS. Within these boundaries, one or more of the federally managed species are associated with water 

temperature regimes bounded by 13°C and 31°C; (55 and 88 °F) oxygen saturation levels greater than 60

percent; and different prey such as anchovies, squid, and herring.

HAPCsin the West Coast Region have been designated for two of the fisheries, defined primarily as habitat 

types as listed in Table 3.9-6 and shown in Figure 3.9-6. For salmon, HAPCs include complex channels and 

floodplain habitats, thermal refugia, spawning habitat, estuaries, and marine and estuarine submerged 

aquatic vegetation. For groundfish, HAPCs include estuaries, canopy-forming kelp, seagrass, and rocky 

reefs plus several areas of interest which include all waters and sea bottom within the 3 nm (6 km) 

territorial boundary off Washington, several seamounts and banks off of Oregon and California, Monterey 

Canyon, and areas of the Channel Islands NMS offshore from each of the states. 

Detailed descriptions of EFH and HAPC designations in the West Coast Region are available in the Pacific 

FMC’s four FMPs (PFMC, No Date).

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

Fisheries EFH HAPC

Pacific Coast Salmon Overall: all freshwater water bodies 

currently or historically occupied by 

Council-managed salmon within the 

USGS 4th field hydrologic units (HU), 

and estuarine and marine areas that 

extend from the extreme high tide 

line in nearshore and tidal 

submerged environments to the EEZ 

limit offshore of Washington, 

Oregon, and California north of 

Point Conception. 

Also, marine areas off Alaska 

designated as salmon EFH by the 

North Pacific FMC for stocks also 

managed by the North Pacific FMC.

Complex channels and floodplain 

habitats, thermal refugia, 

spawning habitat, estuaries, and 

marine and estuarine submerged 

aquatic vegetation. With the 

exception of estuaries, none of 

these HAPCs have been 

comprehensively mapped, and 

some may vary in location and 

extent over time. 

Pacific Coast Groundfish Overall: all waters and substrates

down to 3,500 m (11,483 ft) depth 

from mean higher high water level

(MHHW) on shoreline or the upriver 

extent of saltwater intrusion; 

seamounts in depths greater than 

3,500 m (11,483 ft) as mapped in 

the EFH assessment GIS, and areas 

designated as HAPCs not already 

identified by the above criteria. 

Estuaries, canopy-forming kelp, 

seagrass, and rocky reefs, plus 

several “areas of interest” which 

include: all waters and sea 

bottom from the MHHW out to 

the 3 nm (6 km) boundary off 

Washington, and several 

seamounts and banks off Oregon 

and California, Monterey Canyon, 

and areas of the Channel Islands 

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

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

379

Fisheries EFH HAPC

Coastal Pelagic Species Overall: all marine and estuarine 

waters from the shoreline to the EEZ 

limit offshore of California, Oregon, 

and Washington, and above the 

thermocline where sea surface 

temperatures range between 10°C 

and 26°C (50 and 80 °F). 

None – no HAPC has been 

designated for the coastal pelagic 

species fishery in this region.

West Coast HMS Overall: coastal, epipelagic, 

mesopelagic, and oceanic waters 

extending beyond the 11 m (36 ft) 

isobath to the EEZ boundary 

offshore of California, Oregon, and 

Washington. Associated with water 

temperature regimes bounded by 

10°C and 31°C (50 and 88 °F); and 

different prey such as anchovies, 

squid and herring.

None – no HAPC has been 

designated for West Coast HMS 

in this region.

Source: PFMC, No Date
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

380

Source: NMFS, 2019a

Figure 3.9-6. HAPCs in the West Coast Region

3.9.1.1.5 Alaska Region

One FMC occurs in the Alaska Region: the North Pacific FMC. EFH for various life stages of numerous fish 

species occurs in this region, including Alaskan stocks of Pacific salmon, halibut, Pacific herring (Clupea 

pallasii), and approximately 25 species of groundfish including walleye pollock (Gadus chalcogrammus), 

Greenland turbot (Reinhardtius hippoglossoides), sablefish, Atka mackerel (Pleurogrammus 

monopterygius), cods (Gadus spp.), sole, flounders (Pleuronectiformes), sculpins (Cottoidea), skates 

(Rajidae), and rockfish (NPFMC, No Date). In Alaskan waters of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands, EFH 

for aquatic macroinvertebrates have been established for octopus (Octopoda), weathervane scallop 

(Patinopecten caurinus), tanner crab (Chionoecetes bairdi and C. opilio), snow crab (Chionoecetes opilio), 

and red king crab (Paralithodes camtschaticus).

A large proportion of the waters and habitat in the EEZ off the coast of Alaska have been designated EFH 

for over 66 individual fish species within six fisheries as managed by the Alaska FMC (see Table 3.9-7). All 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

381

marine waters above the entire continental shelf, slope, and deep basins off the coast of Alaska including 

the Gulf of Alaska (GOA), Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands (BSAI), Chukchi Sea, and Arctic Ocean from the 

mean higher tide line to the EEZ limit; bottom down to 100 m (328 ft) depth (inner and middle continental 

shelf) in Arctic waters south of Cape Lisburne, and bottom down to 200 m (656 ft) depth (inner, middle 

and deep shelf) in concentrated areas of the GOA and BSAI are designated as EFH for the eggs, larvae, 

juveniles and/or adults for one or more of the BSAI ground fish, GOA ground fish, BSAI crab, salmon, 

scallops and/or Arctic fisheries species. The various substrate types across the continental shelf, slope,

and basins above which water column has been designated EFH include: sand, mud, rock, gravel, cobble, 

vegetated areas, crevices, overhangs, vertical walls, high-relief living habitats such as coral and larger 

sponges, and biogenic structures such as boltenia, bryozoans, ascidians, and shell hash.

HAPCs in the Alaska Region have been designated for one or more of the fisheries using a site-based 

approach as listed in Table 3.9-7 and shown in Figure 3.9-7. These include Alaska Seamount Habitat 

Protection Areas, Bowers Ridge Habitat Conservation Zone, GOA Coral Habitat Protection Areas; Aleutian 

Islands Coral Habitat Protection Areas, GOA Slope Habitat Conservation Areas, and Skate Nursery Areas.

Detailed descriptions of EFH and HAPC designations in the Alaska Region are available in the North Pacific 

FMC’s six FMPs (NPFMC, No Date). 

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

Fisheries EFH HAPC

Bering Sea and Aleutian 

Islands Groundfish 

Overall: water column within bays 

and island passages, and along the 

entire shelf (0 to 200 m [0 to 656 ft]), 

upper, intermediate, and lower slope 

(200 to 3,000 m [656 to 9,843 ft) 

throughout the BSAI over various 

substrates such as sand, gravel, and 

cobble substrates of rock and in 

vegetated areas of vertical relief, 

such as crevices, overhangs, vertical 

walls, coral, and larger sponges.

Bowers Ridge Habitat 

Conservation Zone: Bowers Ridge 

and Ulm Plateau)

Alaska Seamount Habitat 

Protection Area: Bowers 

Seamount

Gulf of Alaska 

Groundfish 

Overall: water column within bays 

and island passages, and along the 

entire shelf (0 to 200 m [0 to 656 ft]), 

upper and intermediate slope (200 

to 1,000 m [656 to 3,281 ft]) and 

deep shelf gulleys throughout the 

GOA over various substrate of rock, 

cobble, gravel, sands, and muds, and 

in vegetated areas of vertical relief, 

such as crevices, overhangs, vertical 

walls, coral, and larger sponges.

Alaska Seamount Habitat 

Protection Areas: Dickens, 

Denson, Brown, Welker, Dall, 

Quinn, Giacomini, Kodiak, 

Odyssey, Patton, Chirikof & 

Marchand, Sirius, Derickson, 

Unimak, and Bowers Seamounts.

GOA Coral Habitat Protection 

Areas: Cape Ommaney, 

Fairweather Ground

NW Area, and Fairweather Ground 

Southern Area

Bering Sea and Aleutian 

Islands Crab

Overall: bottom habitats along the 

along the entire shelf (0 to 200 m [0 

Aleutian Islands Coral Habitat 

Protection Areas: Great Sitkin 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

382

Fisheries EFH HAPC

to 656 ft]) and entire slope (200 to 

3,000 m [656 to 9,843 ft]) and basins 

(more than 3,000 m [9,843 ft]) 

throughout the BSAI where there are 

substrates consisting of sand, mud, 

rock, cobble, gravel and biogenic 

structures such as boltenia, 

bryozoans, ascidians, and shell hash 

also coral, and vertical substrates, 

such as boulders, vertical walls, 

ledges, and deep water pinnacles.

Island, Cape Moffett Island, Adak 

Canyon, Bobrof Island, Ulak Island, 

and Semisopochnoi Island

Aleutian Islands Habitat 

Conservation Area: the entire 

Aleutian Islands groundfish 

management subarea

Alaska Seamount Habitat 

Protection Area: Bowers 

Seamount

Bowers Ridge Habitat 

Conservation Zone: Bowers Ridge, 

Ulm Plateau 

Alaska Scallops Overall: the sea floor along the 

entire shelf (0 to 200 m [0 to 656 ft]) 

shelf in concentrated areas of the 

GOA and BSAI where there are 

substrates of clay, mud, sand, and 

gravel that are generally elongated 

in the direction of current flow.

Alaska Seamount Habitat 

Protection Areas: Dickens, 

Denson, Brown, Welker, Dall, 

Quinn, Giacomini, Kodiak, 

Odessey, Patton, Chirikof & 

Marchand, Sirius, Derickson, 

Unimak, and Bowers Seamounts.

Bowers Ridge Habitat 

Conservation Zone: Bowers Ridge, 

Ulm Plateau

GOA Coral Habitat Protection 

Areas: Cape Ommaney, 

Fairweather Ground

NW Area, and Fairweather Ground 

Southern Area

GOA Coral Habitat Protection Area

Aleutian Islands Habitat 

Conservation Area: the entire 

Aleutian Islands groundfish 

management subarea 

Aleutian Islands Coral Habitat 

Protection Areas: Great Sitkin 

Island, Cape Moffett Island, Adak 

Canyon, Bobrof Island, Ulak Island, 

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

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

383

Fisheries EFH HAPC

GOA Slope Habitat Conservation 

Area: Yakutat, Cape Suckling, 

Kayak Island, Middleton Island 

east, Middleton Island west, 

Cable, Albatross Bank, Shumagin 

Island, Sanak Island, Unalaska and 

Island.

Alaska Salmon Overall: marine waters off the coast 

of Alaska from the mean higher tide 

line to the EEZ limit including the 

GOA, Eastern Bering Sea, Chukchi 

Sea, and Arctic Ocean along the 

entire shelf (0 to 200 m [0 to 656 ft]) 

and slope (200 to 3,000 m [656 to 

9,843 ft]); estuarine areas; fresh

waters identified in Alaska 

Department of Fish and Game’s 

Catalogue of Waters Important for 

the Spawning, Rearing, or Migration 

of Anadromous Fishes, and specific 

gravel substrate spawning areas.

Aleutian Islands Coral Habitat 

Protection Areas

Aleutian Islands Habitat 

Conservation Area: the entire 

Aleutian Islands groundfish 

management subarea 

GOA Slope Habitat Conservation 

Areas

Alaska Seamount Habitat 

Protection Areas 

Bowers Ridge Habitat 

Conservation Zone

Gulf of Alaska Coral Habitat 

Protection Areas

Skate Nursery Areas: six areas in 

the eastern Bering Sea where 

relatively high concentrations of 

skate eggs occur for several skate 

species

Arctic Fishery Overall: pelagic and epipelagic 

waters from the nearshore to 

offshore areas along the entire shelf 

(0 to 200 m [0 to 656 ft]) and upper 

slope (200 to 500 m [656 to 1,640 

ft]) throughout Arctic Ocean 

(including waters often associated 

with ice floes in deeper water, under 

nearshore ice in sand and gravel 

substrates) and bottom habitats 

along the inner and middle (0 to 100 

m [0 to 328 ft]) shelf in Arctic waters 

south of Cape Lisburne wherever 

None – no HAPC has been 

designated for the arctic fishery in 

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

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

384

Fisheries EFH HAPC

there are substrates consisting 

mainly of mud.

Source: NPFMC, No Date

Source: NMFS, 2019a

Figure 3.9-7. HAPCs in the Alaska Region

3.9.1.1.6 Pacific Islands Region

One FMC occurs in the Pacific Islands Region: the Western Pacific FMC. EFH for various life stages of 

numerous fish species occurs in this region, including bottom fish such as snappers (Lutjanidae), jacks 

(Carangidae), and groupers; coral reef fish (Figure 3.9-8) such as goatfish (Mullidae), squirrelfish and 

soldierfish (Holocentridae), parrotfish (Scaridae), and surgeonfish (Acanthuridae); and pelagic fish such as 

albacore (Thunnus alalunga), yellowfin tuna (Thunnus albacares), skipjack tuna (Katsuwonus pelamis), 

mahi (Coryphaena hippurus), wahoo (Acanthocybium solandri), blue marlin (Makaira nigricans), swordfish 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

385

(Xiphias gladius), and sharks (Selachimorpha) (WP Council, 2019a). EFH for aquatic macroinvertebrates 

has been delineated for several coral reef ecosystems. 

A large proportion of the marine waters in the EEZ surrounding the Hawaiian Archipelago, the Mariana 

Islands, American Samoa, and the Pacific Remote Island Areas (PRIAs) have been designated as EFH for 

over one thousand representative species within five fisheries as managed by the Western Pacific Regional 

FMC (see Table 3.9-8). EFH include the entire marine water column from the 0 to 1,000 m (0 to 3,281 ft) 

depth from the shoreline out to the EEZ limit, and all bottom from the shoreline down to 700 m (2,297 ft) 

depth around each of the U.S. Pacific Islands are designated as EFH for the eggs, larvae, juveniles and/or 

adults of one or more of the coral reef ecosystem, bottomfishes, crustacean, precious coral, and/or 

pelagic fisheries species. The types of habitats types within these EFH designations include: mangrove, 

lagoon, estuarine, seagrass beds, soft substrate, coral reef/hard substrate, patch reefs, surge zone, deepslope terraces, and pelagic/open ocean.

Photo Credit: NMFS

The definitions for EFH in the Pacific Islands Region changed broadly in 2019. Certain bottomfish, coral 

reef ecosystem, precious coral, and crustacean management unit species were reclassified as ecosystem 

component species, and the scientific and local names of certain species were updated (84 FR 2767, 

February 8, 2019).

HAPCs have been designated for all fisheries primarily defined in terms of habitat types within defined 

depth contours as listed in Table 3.9-8 and shown in Figure 3.9-9. HAPCsinclude the water column habitat, 

escarpments/slopes, banks with summits, MPAs, and research sites.

Detailed descriptions of EFH and HAPC designations in the U.S. Pacific Islands Region are available in the 

Western Pacific Regional FMC’s five place-based Fishery Ecosystem Plans (FEPs) for the American Samoa 

Archipelago, Hawai’i Archipelago, Mariana Archipelago, Pacific Remote Island Areas, and Pacific Pelagic 

fisheries (WP Council, 2020). Updated and amended EFH and HAPC descriptions can be found in the most 

current Annual Stock Assessment and Fishery Evaluation Reports for each of these five place-based 

fisheries (WP Council, 2019b).

Figure 3.9-8. Coral Reef EFH in 

the Pacific Islands Region
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

386

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

Fisheries EFH HAPC

Bottomfish and Seamount 

Groundfish: Hawai’i 

Archipelago, Marianas 

Archipelago, American 

Samoa Archipelago, and 

Pacific Remote Island 

Areas regions

Overall: the water column and all 

bottom habitat extending from the 

shoreline to the outer boundary of 

the EEZ to a depth of 200 fathoms 

(400 m [1,312 ft]); and all EEZ waters 

and bottom habitat bounded by 

latitude 29°–35° north and longitude 

171° E–179° west between 100 and 

300 fathoms (200 and 600 m [1,312 

and 1,969 ft]).

All escarpments and slopes 

between 20-140 fathoms (40-

280 m [131-918 ft]) throughout 

the Western Pacific Region; 

three known areas of juvenile 

opakapaka habitat (two off Oahu 

and one off Molokai).

Crustaceans: Hawai’i 

Archipelago, Marianas 

Archipelago, American 

Samoa Archipelago, and 

Pacific Remote Island 

Areas regions

Overall: water column from the 

shoreline to the outer limit of the EEZ 

down to a depth of 75 fathoms (150 

m [492 ft]) throughout the Western 

Pacific Region; bottom habitat from 

the shoreline to a depth of 50 

fathoms (100m [328 ft]); associated 

outer reef slopes at depths between 

300-700 m (984-2,297 ft).

All banks with summits less than 

or equal to 30 m (15 fathoms) 

from the surface.

Precious Corals: Hawai’i 

Archipelago, Marianas 

Archipelago, American 

Samoa Archipelago, and 

Pacific Remote Island 

Areas regions

Six known beds of precious corals 

located off Keahole

Point, Makapuu, Kaena Point, 

Wespac bed, Brooks Bank, and 180 

Fathom Bank; three black coral beds 

between Milolii and South Point on 

Hawai’i, Auau Channel between Maui 

and Lanai, and the southern border 

of Kauai.

Makapuu bed, Wespac bed, 

Brooks Banks bed; for Black 

Corals, the Auau Channel.

Coral Reef Ecosystem: 

Pacific Remote Island 

Areas region

Overall: water column and all benthic 

substrate from the shoreline to the 

outer boundary of the EEZ to a depth 

of 50 fathoms (100 m [328 ft]).

All no-take MPAs identified in 

the Coral Reef Ecosystem FMP, 

all Pacific remote islands, as well 

as numerous existing MPAs, 

research sites, and coral reef

habitats throughout the western 

Pacific.

Pelagics: Pacific Remote 

Island Areas and Pacific 

Pelagic regions

Overall: water column down to a 

depth of 500 fathoms (1,000 m 

[3,281 ft]) from the shoreline to the 

outer limit of the EEZ.

The water column from the 

surface down to a depth of 500 

fathoms (1,000 m [3,281 ft]) 

above all seamounts and banks 

with summits shallower than 

1,000 fathoms (2,000 m [6,562 

ft]) within the EEZ.

Sources: WP Council, 2019a; WP Council, 2020
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

387

Source: NMFS, 2019a

Figure 3.9-9. HAPCs in the Pacific Islands Region

3.9.2 Environmental Consequences for Essential Fish Habitat

This section discusses potential impacts of NOS activities associated with Alternatives A, B, and C on EFH, 

including HAPCs. Impacts on the managed species, fish (Section 3.7.2) and aquatic macroinvertebrates 

(Section 3.8.2), for which EFH is designated are discussed separately in their respective sections. Activities 

described in Sections 2.4.1 through 2.4.13 that occur on NOS projects and that could be expected to 

impact EFH include operation of crewed sea-going surface vessels; operation of ROVs and autonomous 

vehicles; use of echo sounders, ADCPs, acoustic communication systems, and sound speed data collection 

equipment; anchoring; collection of bottom grab samples; operation of drop/towed cameras and video 

systems; installation, maintenance, and removal of tide gauges and GPS reference stations; and SCUBA

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

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

388

3.9.2.1 Methodology

Adverse effects to EFH that could result from proposed NOS activities are discussed by the stressors that 

may occur. These stressorsinclude: (1) physical impacts to bottom habitat (e.g., from anchoring, collection 

of bottom grab samples, tide gauge installation, operation of ROVs and autonomous vehicles, and SCUBA

operations); (2) increase in sedimentation, turbidity, and/or chemical contaminants (e.g., from operation 

of crewed sea-going vessels, operation of ROVs and autonomous vehicles, anchoring, collection of bottom 

grab samples, installation of tide gauges and GPS reference stations, and SCUBA operations); (3) increase 

in ambient sound (e.g., from operation of crewed sea-going vessels, operation of ROVs and autonomous 

vehicles, use of echo sounders, ADCPs, and acoustic communication systems); (4) impacts to the water 

column (e.g., from operation of crewed sea-going vessels, operation of ROVs and autonomous vehicles, 

anchoring, use of sound speed data collection equipment and bottom grab samplers, operation of 

drop/towed cameras and video systems, and SCUBA operations); and (5) dispersal of invasive species(e.g. 

from ballast water discharged during crewed vessel operation or organisms attached to hulls, equipment, 

and anchors). Note that use of the term “sea floor” in the analysis below also includes lake and river 

bottoms where NOS activities could occur.

As discussed in Section 3.2.2, significance criteria were developed for each resource analyzed in this PEIS 

to provide a structured framework for assessing impacts from the alternatives and the significance of the 

impacts. The significance criteria for EFH are shown in Table 3.9-9.

Table 3.9-9. Significance Criteria for the Analysis of Impacts to EFH

Impact Descriptor Context and Intensity

Significance 

Conclusion

Negligible

Impacts on EFH would be temporary and minimal (e.g., 

placement of an object on the sea floor which increases

turbidity) with no lasting damage or alteration.

Insignificant

Minor

Impacts on EFH would be easily recoverable (e.g., shortterm placement of an object on the sea floor which 

increases turbidity or causes loss of small area of 

vegetation) with no long-term or permanent damage or 

alteration. Effects on EFH would be temporary and 

minimal.

Moderate

EFH would be damaged or altered potentially over the 

long term but would continue to support the species 

reliant on it. Effects on EFH would be not temporary and 

not minimal.

Major

EFH would be degraded over the long term or 

permanently so that it would no longer support a 

sustainable fishery and would cause the population of a 

managed species to become stressed, less productive, or 

unstable. Effects on EFH would be not temporary and 

substantial.

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

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

389

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

Marine Data Collection with Current Technology and Methods, at Current

Funding Levels

Under Alternative A, excluding survey effort in the Great Lakes, NOS projects are estimated to cover a 

total of 2,633,374 nm (4,877,009 km) across all five regions over the five-year period. Although the survey 

effort under Alternative A would vary by year (see Table 3.5-6), over the five-year period for proposed 

projects the greatest number of nautical miles surveyed would be in the Southeast Region (approximately 

47 percent). The survey effort in each of the other four regions is approximately 10 percent over five

years, and slightly greater in the Alaska Region where the survey effort would be somewhat higher overall 

(approximately 18 percent). In general, it is expected that level of effort and overall impacts trend 

together (i.e., greater impacts where the survey effort is higher), but there are other factors, such as 

location of surveys, physical contact with bottom habitat, and population density of prey, that add nuance 

to this trend.

Impacts of Alternative A on EFH and HAPCs are discussed below for each of the stressors introduced 

above. Potential impacts could occur in all of the geographic regions as EFH is extensive and covers a large 

majority of the EEZ. By region, there are 108 HAPC sites in the Southeast Region, 93 sites in the Greater 

Atlantic Region, 38 sites in the Alaska Region, 34 sites in the West Coast Region, and one site in the Pacific 

Islands Region. This indicates that by far the greatest number of projects, along with associated potential 

impacts, could occur in HAPC areas in the Southeast Region and Greater Atlantic Region, and the fewest 

by far could occur in the Pacific Islands Region.

3.9.2.2.1 Physical Impacts to Bottom Habitat

Activities that could result in physical disturbances or damage to the sea floor and bottom substrate 

consist of anchoring, collection of bottom grab samples, installation of tide gauges and remote GPS 

reference systems, operation of ROVs and autonomous vehicles, and SCUBA operations.

Anchoring of vessels and installation of equipment on the sea floor can cause damage to EFH/HAPCs

consisting of corals and vegetated bottom, potentially reducing available structure, cover, and 

nutrient/food availability for dependent species. Anchor chains, or their attached chains/lines, could drag 

across the sea floor, potentially destroying submerged vegetation and seafloor structure, and creating a 

circular scour hole; the anchor itself would create a hole or divot in the bottom habitat. This alteration of 

underwater structure would reduce the availability of shelter and cover necessary for the survival or 

offspring development of many aquatic taxa. This would particularly affect those organisms at lower levels 

of the aquatic food chain and could potentially reduce the overall aquatic biodiversity of the area through 

cascading trophic impacts (i.e., reduced prey availability reduces the abundance of higher-level 

predators).

Anchoring of vessels used by NOS, however, would not be a common practice. Only large vessels would 

typically anchor within or near project areas, while the small boats and survey launches used during NOS 

projects generally return to port or to the ship each day. Most vessels used by NOS would not anchor, 

except in an emergency, such as to avoid adverse weather conditions or in the unlikely event of an engine 

malfunction. Vessels would not anchor on coral reefs and would avoid anchoring in hard bottom areas in 

abalone critical habitat and seagrass whenever possible; thus, these sensitive habitats and their 

dependent species would be minimally impacted, if at all. Additionally, NOS would not drag anchor chains 

and would ensure that anchors are properly secured so as to minimize bottom disturbance. However, it 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

390

is possible that when a vessel is not collecting data, it may anchor either within the project area or nearby; 

there are approximately 55 projects with a planned anchoring component annually. 

Installation of equipment on the sea floor, such as new moorings for tide buoys, would cause relatively 

small footprints of bottom substrate disturbance (approximately 1 square meter (3 ft), see Section 2.4.12).

The disturbance could potentially create holes in the bottom sediment and damage or destruction of 

submerged vegetation/macroalgae and bottom structure. Additionally, infauna may be disturbed, 

removed, or destroyed in the immediate area where the buoy is installed. A decrease of underwater 

structure could reduce the availability of shelter and cover necessary for the survival or offspring 

development of many aquatic taxa. This could particularly affect those organisms at lower levels of the 

aquatic food chain and could potentially reduce the overall aquatic biodiversity of the area through 

cascading trophic impacts (i.e., reduced prey availability reduces the abundance of higher-level 

predators). During all buoy deployment and retrieval operations, buoys should be lowered and raised 

slowly to minimize risk to ESA-listed species and benthic habitat. NOS would ensure that all instruments 

placed in contact with the sea floor (including anchors or moorings) are properly secured to avoid the 

dragging of moorings or lines across the bottom. NOS would undertake approximately 32 projects that 

include tide gauge installations annually, but only a portion of these would involve installation of new 

moorings. Given the low number of equipment installations, the relatively small area of bottom substrate 

disturbance, and the large geographic separation between installations, the physical impact on bottom 

habitat from equipment installation is expected to be small.

Bottom sediment sample collection involves targeted removal of sediment cores in approximately 54 

projects annually across the entire action area. Bottom grab samples inherently damage bottom substrate 

and could potentially reduce or damage existing underwater structure. This could result in reducing the 

availability of cover and shelter necessary for prey species or immature marine organisms to avoid 

predation. NOS would not collect bottom samples for sediment verification on coral reefs or hard bottom 

areas. Sediment sampling activities would not target substrates such as coral reefs, seagrass beds, or hard

bottom areas. Bottom sampling may adversely affect EFH through the temporary suspension of sediment 

and the potential removal or disturbance of infauna. Given that the sampling activities would be

infrequent and geographically widespread across the action area, that the area of bottom habitat sampled 

would be very small (e.g., 15 x 15 cm [6 x 6 in] area and 5 cm [2 in] deep), and that physical contact with 

sensitive habitat would be avoided, the physical disturbance to bottom habitat associated with bottom 

grab sampling is expected to be minimal. Additionally, stiffer line materials would be used for instrument 

deployment and kept taut during operations to reduce the potential for entanglement in bottom features 

such as coral habitats.

ROVs and autonomous vehicles would be operated by NOS to maintain a slow speed and height above 

the sea floor. The use of AUVs may adversely affect EFH through unplanned contact with bottom habitats, 

which may cause physical damage or through the localized and temporary resuspension of bottom 

sediments if height above the sea floor cannot be maintained. Such adverse effects would occur 

accidentally and are expected to be rare.

Operations involving SCUBA divers may inadvertently disturb bottom substrates in EFH/HAPCs. NOS 

SCUBA operations would include approximately 248 benthic and fish monitoring projects conducted on 

hard bottom and coral reef habitats annually; these areas would contain shallow marine habitat 

characteristics necessary for many marine invertebrate and vertebrate species and are particularly 

sensitive to disturbances. Although SCUBA operations represent a very small component of NOS projects 

(mainly related to tide gauge installation/maintenance/removal projects), SCUBA divers in these areas 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

391

could potentially reduce or damage existing underwater structure, reducing the availability of cover and 

shelter necessary for prey species or immature marine organisms to avoid predation, and potentially 

inducing cascading impacts throughout the food chain. NOS divers are trained to hover over the sea floor 

to avoid inadvertent disturbance of sediments and to place or handle equipment such that impacts to 

bottom habitat are avoided. Given the low risk of contact with the sea floor during diver operations and 

large geographic separation of diving projects throughout the action area, physical disturbances to 

bottom substrate from SCUBA operations are expected to be minimal.

Any damage to bottom habitat would not have lasting effects on EFH as unvegetated softbottom habitat 

would shift and reform and coral reefs, seagrass beds, abalone habitat, and hard bottom habitat would 

be avoided. In general, physical damage to the sea floor recovers within 1.5 years through water currents 

and natural sedimentation (Stevenson et al., 2004). Overall, activities under Alternative A that would 

involve physical disturbance of the sea floor and bottom habitat would continue to have adverse and

negligible to minor impacts as the effects on EFH would be recoverable with no long-term damage or 

alteration. Impacts of Alternative A on EFH, including HAPCs, would be insignificant. 

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

Activities that could result in an increase in sedimentation, turbidity, or chemical contamination consist 

of crewed vessel operations, operation of ROVs and autonomous vehicles, anchoring, collection of bottom 

grab samples, tide gauge and GPS reference station installation or maintenance/removal, and SCUBA

operations.

Crewed vessel, ROV, and autonomous vehicle operations, in conjunction with all activities which physically 

contact bottom substrate, would increase sedimentation and turbidity in disturbed areas from bottom 

sediments loosened through displaced water from transiting vessels or physical contact with bottom 

substrate. Increased sedimentation and turbidity can potentially cause respiratory damage to aquatic 

species (e.g., damage to fish gills) and block sunlight necessary for photosynthesis by aquatic plants, 

macroalgae, and phytoplankton. These impacts could potentially lower the overall nutrient availability of 

affected EFH areas and could reduce the cover and structure available to dependent species from 

submerged vegetation or macroalgae. Furthermore, increases in suspended sediments and turbidity 

reduce the depth to which sunlight can penetrate, which changes the wavelengths of light reaching fish 

and benthic species. Divers would not stand or rest on live corals/coral reefs, and bottom contact would 

only be in unconsolidated areas or non-living hard bottom. NOS would ensure that all instruments placed 

in contact with the sea floor are properly secured to minimize bottom disturbance.

Photosynthetic marine species are dependent on sunlight and often have a narrow band of wavelengths 

of light that they are able to use. Increased sedimentation and turbidity could inhibit photosynthesis in 

oceanic habitat areas, thus reducing nutrient cycling by marine phytoplankton and reducing shelter and 

cover provided by submerged plants and macroalgae. Suspended material may also react with DO in the 

water and result in temporary or short-term oxygen depletion to aquatic resources (e.g., vegetation and 

aquatic macroinvertebrates) and could further exacerbate impacts to EFH from reduced nutrient and 

cover availability. Since most fish can avoid highly turbid areas, they may temporarily relocate to 

undisturbed areas until suspended sediments settle. Given the low frequency, large degree of geographic 

separation, and small affected area of activities physically impacting bottom substrate, the resulting 

increases in sedimentation/turbidity would be very small and would likely settle back to the sea floor or 

dissipate with prevailing currents and winds relatively quickly (within seconds or minutes).
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

392

An increase in chemical contaminants can reduce fitness and cause mortality of exposed organisms. Often, 

contaminants entering the marine environment are lighter than water, and thus float on the surface 

where most of them evaporate within a few days (Neff et al., 2000). However, this property of some 

contaminants may lead to greater exposure of seagrass ecosystems which could cause extensive mortality 

of the seabed, with the associated loss of juvenile fish and invertebrates due to the loss of habitat (Zieman 

et al., 1984). Seagrass mortality would reduce the available cover and shelter that many marine species 

require to avoid predation, reproduce, and rear or develop offspring in addition to reducing food 

availability for seagrass foragers, including prey species such as aquatic macroinvertebrates and fish. 

For those chemical contaminants that sink, the effects on coral colonies may include mortality, tissue 

death, reduced growth, impaired reproduction, bleaching, and reduced photosynthetic rates (Cook and 

Knap, 1983; Burns and Knap, 1989; Ballou et al., 1987). The effects of chemical contaminants and 

sedimentation/turbidity would range from superficial exposure of fish and aquatic macroinvertebrates to 

ingestion, sub-lethal effects and reduced fitness (due to adverse effects on sensory systems, growth, 

behavior, and/or bio-accumulation), and fatality. Reduction of corals would reduce the food, structure, 

and shelter necessary for prey species and would likely reduce the overall biodiversity of the area through 

cascading impacts throughout the food chain. Chemical contaminants could also cling or adhere to 

submerged structural features in all EFH areas, which could serve as an additional exposure vector to fish 

and aquatic macroinvertebrates and result in changes in growth rates or behavior, injuries, and death of 

exposed individuals. Bioaccumulation of some toxic chemicals could disproportionately impact higherlevel predators which consume contaminated prey items, which could ultimately reduce top-down 

ecosystem regulation and degrade the nutrient availability of affected habitat areas. To minimize impacts, 

all hazardous or regulated materials would be handled in accordance with applicable laws, and crew 

members would be appropriately trained in materials storage and usage. 

Mortality of phytoplankton and zooplankton from oil and fuel spills could indirectly affect marine 

mammals which feed on them. However, even if a large amount of plankton were affected, it can recover 

rapidly due to high reproductive rates, rapid replacement by cells from adjacent waters, widespread 

distribution, and exchange with tidal currents. Thus, the impact of changes in water quality, including an 

accidental spill on a pelagic phytoplankton community would not be substantial.

Operation of crewed vessels and of ROVs and autonomous vehicles may result in discharge (mostly 

unintentional) of harmful substances including bilge water, debris, fuel, oil, and miscellaneous chemicals. 

NOS would undertake projects covering 518,000 nm (959,000 km) of crewed vessel operations annually 

and 28,600 nm (53,000 km) of ROV and autonomous vehicles movement annually. In shallow waters, 

propellers from boats can cause increased turbidity and contamination by resuspending bottom 

materials. Equipment such as AUVs would be programmed and operated so as to avoid seafloor 

disturbance. The context and intensity of these impacts are contingent on the size, location, and chemical 

composition of the source discharge or spill. Small spills rarely occur during NOS activities, and large spills 

are unlikely given the size of vessels used during NOS projects. Given that operators of vessels used by 

NOS would strictly adhere to applicable laws and regulations pursuant to MARPOL 73/78 that restrict 

onboard hazardous material use and the discharge of contaminants into the marine environment, and 

that the probability of accidental fuel spills is very low, increases in sedimentation, turbidity, and chemical 

contamination would be relatively small, especially when compared to similar disturbance and discharges 

from the much greater number of all other vessels occurring in the EEZ, lakes, and rivers. 

Installation and removal of tide gauges on land along the shoreline could also increase the turbidity, 

sedimentation, and chemical contamination of the water column through run-off of any soil disturbed 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

393

during installation/removal on land and disturbance of bottom sediments from new buoy moorings in the 

water. The installation of buoys may have adverse impacts on EFH through direct contact with the sea 

floor or nearby habitat. During the installation process, temporary increases in sedimentation and 

turbidity may occur through the suspension of bottom sediments or drill cuttings (i.e., particles of 

rock/hard bottom). Increased sedimentation and turbidity could potentially lower the overall nutrient 

availability of affected coastal wetland and shallow marine habitat areas due to reduced photosynthesis 

by phytoplankton. Photosynthetic inhibition in these areas could also reduce the availability of cover and 

shelter created by submerged vegetation and macroalgae necessary for many species to avoid predation 

and develop offspring. Soil runoff also often includes chemical contaminants such as fertilizers or 

detergents with high levels of nitrates and phosphates. Influxes of nutrients or chemicals in shallow 

marine, estuarine, and coastal wetland habitat areas could potentially trigger algal blooms. Algal blooms 

are toxic for many marine species and they reduce DO concentrations, thus reducing the overall habitat 

quality of the affected area. However, when a tide gauge is installed on land, it would be located beyond 

the mean high tide line so any disturbed sediments from installation would not reach the water. NOS 

would undertake approximately 32 projects that include tide gauge installations annually, and 30 projects 

that include tide gauge removal annually. Given that the activities would be conducted infrequently and 

geographically widespread across the action area, that the footprints of disturbance would be small, and 

that installation and removal procedures would be applied to control sediment runoff, increases in 

turbidity and sedimentation are expected to be minimal. 

Anchoring (in approximately 55 projects annually), bottom grab sampling (approximately 54 projects 

annually), and other physical contact with bottom habitat may stir up sediments resulting in increased 

turbidity and sedimentation. The footprints of impact on bottom sediments would be relatively small and 

the sediment stirred up limited in quantity. NOS would ensure that anchors are properly secured so as to 

minimize bottom disturbance. Any sediments that are re-suspended would likely settle back to the sea 

floor relatively quickly (within seconds or minutes in the immediate area) following disturbance; fine 

sediments, however, may drift and disperse. Given that bottom sediments would be stirred up 

infrequently and activities would be dispersed across the widespread action area, increases in turbidity 

and sedimentation are expected to be minimal. 

Changes in water quality from increased sedimentation, turbidity, and chemical contamination due to 

these activities would include short-term reductions in water clarity and light availability that would 

subside shortly after activities cease. Any discharges released during vessel operation would be minimized 

through adherence to MARPOL laws and regulations. Overall, the likelihood of occurrence of an accidental 

fuel spill from a vessel used by NOS would continue to be very low. Along with the activities under 

Alternative A that would increase sedimentation, turbidity, and/or chemical discharges in EFH, this 

scenario would continue to have adverse and negligible impacts as water quality in EFH would be able to 

recover with no long-term damage or alteration. In the event that an accidental spill does occur, the 

volume of oil, fuel, and/or chemical contaminants would be fairly small given the amounts of fuel and 

other chemicals that vessels used by NOS typically carry for onboard consumption, and along with

handling hazardous and regulated materials in accordance with applicable laws, and having crew 

members appropriately trained in materials storage and usage, the impact on EFH would be adverse and

minor. Impacts of Alternative A on EFH, including HAPCs, would continue to be insignificant. 

3.9.2.2.3 Increase in Ambient Sound

Activities that could result in an increase in underwater sound consist of operation of crewed vessels, 

operation of ROVs and autonomous vehicles, and use of underwater acoustic equipment including echo 

sounders, ADCPs, and acoustic communication systems. Increases in underwater sound may adversely 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

394

affect different life stages of fish and aquatic macroinvertebrate prey species (prey is a potential habitat 

characteristic of EFH). See Section 3.7 Fish and Section 3.8 Aquatic Macroinvertebrates for full discussions 

of the hearing capabilities of fish and aquatic macroinvertebrates and the potential impacts on these 

species from vessel sound and underwater acoustic sources. Increasing the ambient sound level could 

potentially degrade the habitat value of affected areas which would be manifested through impacts such 

as behavioral disruption or injury to biological resources. Underwater sound adversely affects aquatic taxa 

variably, with effects differing considerably based on the frequency and intensity of the sound and the 

hearing sensitivity of the affected organism.

Operation of crewed vessels (approximately 518,000 nm [959,000 km] annually) and of ROV and 

autonomous vehicles (approximately 28,600 nm [53,000 km] annually) would generate underwater sound

and vibrations at low- to mid-frequencies that overlap with the hearing ranges of aquatic prey species. 

Underwater sound would not adversely affect structural EFH but may affect mobile fish that are prey 

species by temporarily altering behavior. Behavioral changes can result in animals leaving feeding or 

breeding grounds (Slabbekoorn et al., 2010) or becoming more susceptible to mortality through decrease 

predator-avoidance responses (Simpson et al., 2016). Noise can also mask biologically important sounds 

and alter the natural soundscape, cause hearing loss, and/or have an adverse effect on an organism’s 

stress levels and immune system (NOAA, 2016). Reduction of prey species would reduce food and nutrient 

availability for top-level predators in aquatic habitat areas and could potentially result in cascading 

impacts throughout the local aquatic food chain and reduce biodiversity. However, the exposure of prey 

species to vessel sound would be limited for aquatic macroinvertebrates (see Section 3.8), somewhat 

greater for fish but still with negligible to minor impacts (see Section 3.7), and the responses temporary 

in nature as activities would be infrequent in any given area and geographically widespread across the 

entire action area. Furthermore, the potential effects of sounds associated with vessel operations, which 

would be infrequent in any given area and at the most represent only a negligible proportion of total 

vessel traffic in the action area (Section 2.4.1), would be minimal as compared to the effects from sound

generated by all other ship traffic in the EEZ. The overall contribution to background sound in the ocean 

from vessels used by NOS would be negligible. Exposure to vessel sounds would only persist for the 

duration of vessel transit through the habitat area. As such, prey species would only be temporarily 

exposed to vessel sound and likely would not change their behavior or habitat occupancy in the longterm. It would be unlikely that the exposure of prey species to these sounds would exceed the levels and 

lengths of time that would result in more than minimal adverse effects.

Use of active underwater acoustic sources would involve relatively high frequency, directional, and short 

duration repeated signals which could increase the ambient sound environment of EFH areas. These 

instruments produce acoustic signals perceptible to several marine prey species; exposure of these 

marine prey species to this sound could result in the same adverse impacts to EFH as those discussed in 

the preceding paragraph. NOS would annually undertake projects covering 479,000 nm (887,000 km) of 

single beam, multibeam, and side scan sonar use; approximately 3,210 nm (5,940 km) of sub-bottom 

profiler use; approximately 5,890 nm (10,900 km) using ADCPs; and approximately 24 projects using 

acoustic communication systems. As with vessels, sound from underwater acoustic sources would not 

adversely affect structural EFH but may temporarily alter the behavior of mobile fish that are prey species. 

All of these instruments involve the production of an acoustic signal, but they are usually only operated 

while a ship is in motion, so any area would be exposed to acoustic energy for a very short duration. 

Furthermore, many of the associated sounds would be intermittent in use and highly directional in nature, 

and the energy of the signal would drop off rapidly with distance from the source (as opposed to the low 

frequency sounds emitted by vessels which can travel farther in water). Thus, any potential impacts on 

prey species would be limited to temporary behavioral and stress-startle responses. Also, more 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

395

importantly, adverse impacts are unlikely to occur due to the much higher frequencies of these 

instruments relative to the hearing capabilities of most prey species, except for a few species of shad and 

herring (as discussed in Section 3.7 Fish). 

Vessel operations, which would generate sounds in the mid- and low-level frequencies, are within the 

hearing range of most prey species but would be infrequent, geographically widely distributed, and likely 

to elicit a minimal or temporary response. A majority of the sounds generated by underwater acoustic

sources are well above the hearing frequencies of the most prey species, thus unlikely to cause behavioral 

disturbance and hearing impairment. Thus, activities under Alternative A that would create underwater 

sound would continue to have adverse and negligible to minor impacts on EFH. Impacts of Alternative A 

on EFH, including HAPCs, would continue to be insignificant. 

3.9.2.2.4 Impacts to Water Column

Impacts to the water column could be caused by vessels or equipment moving through the water column

in activities including operation of crewed sea-going vessels, operation of ROVs and autonomous vehicles, 

anchoring, use of sound speed data collection equipment and bottom grab samplers, operation of 

drop/towed cameras and video systems, and SCUBA operations.

NOS would undertake projects covering 518,000 nm (959,000 km) annually with operation of crewed 

vessels and projects covering 28,600 nm (53,000 km) annually with ROVs and autonomous vehicles. 

Wakes from crewed sea-going vessels and from ROVs and autonomous vehicles would create turbulence 

and generate wave and surge effects in the water column where habitat gradients would be temporarily 

disrupted, including temperature, salinity, DO, turbidity, and nutrient supply. Propellers from vessels 

could also cause water column destratification and elevated water temperatures. Vessel movement 

through the water column may disrupt benthic communities in shallow areas and other prey species and 

cause mortality to floating eggs and larvae by physically damaging them with the hull or other ship parts, 

including the propulsion system. These disruptions would likely reduce the availability of space, shelter, 

and nutrients for dependent species within EFH. Disruptions could also potentially affect food chains and 

ultimately reduce the overall biodiversity of affected areas. However, the vast majority of impacts to EFH 

would be temporary as disturbance would be limited to the immediate vicinity of vessels and would only 

persist for the duration of transits or projects within the affected area. Also, all vessels in coastal waters 

would operate in a manner to minimize propeller wash and seafloor disturbance, and transiting vessels 

would follow deep-water routes (e.g., marked channels), as practicable.

Instruments and gear that interact with the water column, including sound speed data collection 

equipment, bottom grab samplers, drop/towed cameras, and anchors and chains, and SCUBA divers could 

temporarily cause turbulence and disturb or displace nearby benthic communities and other prey species. 

Reduction of prey species would reduce food and nutrient availability for top-level predators in EFH. This 

could potentially result in cascading impacts throughout the local aquatic food chain and reduce 

biodiversity. Lines connecting equipment to a vessel could also become entangled with, damage, or kill 

submerged aquatic vegetation such as seagrass and corals. Reduction of underwater structure would 

likely reduce the space, shelter, and cover necessary for the avoidance of predators by prey species and 

the rearing or development of offspring. Additionally, divers in SCUBA operations that would be 

conducted as part of various projects, but mainly as a component of tide gauge

installation/maintenance/removal, would move through the water column, temporarily disturbing both 

vertebrate and invertebrate prey species. The vast majority of impacts to EFH would be temporary as 

disturbance would be limited to the immediate vicinity of instruments, gear, or personnel and would only 

persist for the duration of the activity. Mobile prey species would likely only be minimally displaced from 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

396

project areas as they would not likely move too far away and are expected to return once water column 

turbulence ceases; they would not experience long-term changes in the availability of space, structure, 

shelter, or nutrients outside the range of natural variability.

Impacts to the water column from vessels and equipment under Alternative A would continue to be 

adverse and negligible as effects on EFH would be easily recoverable with no long-term damage or 

alteration. Impacts of Alternative A on EFH, including HAPCs, would continue to be insignificant. 

3.9.2.2.5 Dispersal of Invasive Species 

Dispersal of invasive species could be caused by ballast water discharged during crewed vessel operation,

or organisms attached to hulls, equipment, and anchors. The use of the same physical equipment and 

instruments in geographically disparate regions could potentially facilitate the dispersal and 

establishment of invasive species in new areas. 

Invasive species can outcompete, displace native species, and alter biodiversity and ecosystem function.

Invasive species such as zebra mussels (Dreissena polymorpha) and lionfish (Petrois spp.) have large 

numbers of offspring and limited or no natural threats or predators outside of their native habitat, 

allowing them to outcompete locally native species for space and nutrients (TISI, 2014). Invasive seagrass 

can displace native species of seagrass, affect fish species assemblage, and decrease fish abundance 

through associated changes in habitat complexity (Becking et al., 2014). Additionally, invasive algae can 

overgrow and kill coral through smothering and shading, resulting in the reduction in biodiversity and 

coral cover (RRN, 2022). Over time, the propagation of invasive species can result in cascading impacts to 

the local food chain through the extirpation of local predators and prey due to reduced nutrient cycling 

and availability. These impacts typically reduce the habitat value of affected areas in the long-term or 

permanently after the establishment of invasive species. These species and their resulting impacts persist 

until all invasive organisms are removed from a given area through aggressive trapping, harvesting, or use 

of pesticides.

NOS would undertake projects covering 518,000 nm (959,000 km) of crewed vessel operations annually 

and 28,600 nm (53,000 km) of ROV and autonomous vehicles movement annually. NOS projects would 

occur in all regions of the action area and can potentially involve transit and surveying across large swaths 

of the action area using the same physical equipment and instrumentation. These longer voyages or 

projects could potentially inadvertently transport invasive macroinvertebrate larvae, vertebrate eggs or 

animals, plant seeds, or algae propagules in ballast water or on equipment surfaces to novel areas, 

thereby facilitating their dispersal and establishment (Gregory, 2009). 

While NOS vessel operations may unintentionally introduce or spread invasive species, the most common 

pathways for the introduction of invasive species in marine systems is shipping (i.e., ballast water and hull 

biofouling), aquaculture, canal construction, aquarium trade, and the live seafood trade (Molnar et al., 

2008). The impact of NOS activities would be miniscule in comparison, and it is unlikely that NOS activities 

would involve the release of ballast water discharge. Vessel operations could also contribute to the spread 

of invasive and nuisance species through hull fouling and anchoring. Anchoring may dislodge non-native 

or nuisance algae or seagrass, facilitating its spread; however, anchoring would be conducted 

infrequently. NOS equipment and instruments used in consecutive projects in disparate geographically 

areas could also potentially serve as transmission vectors for invasive species. However, the majority of 

NOS projects would not transit to multiple areas consecutively, and NOS project crews would implement 

mandatory invasive species control proceduresto limit or avoid hull fouling, use anti-fouling coatings, and 

clean hulls, thus limiting the potential impact to EFH in the action area.
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

397

All NOS projects, however, would include mandatory invasive species prevention procedures including, 

but not limited to, vessel and equipment washdown, cleaning, and de-ballasting (exchange of ballast 

water in open ocean waters for those vessels used by NOS that have ballast tanks). Proper implementation 

of these procedures would prevent most NOS equipment from serving as exchange vectors for invasive 

species; however, the possibility for the transmission of some invasive species would likely still exist. NOS 

project vessels, however, compose only a very small proportion of vessel traffic in the action area and 

would likely contribute marginally to the overall transmission of invasive species.

Given the relatively low likelihood of occurrence, the adverse impact on EFH, including HAPCs, of invasive 

species dispersal facilitated by NOS activities under Alternative A would continue to be adverse and 

negligible to minor, and therefore insignificant.

3.9.2.2.6 Conclusion

Under Alternative A, NOS would continue to operate a variety of equipment and technologies to gather 

data on the marine and coastal environments at the level of effort reflecting NOS fiscal year 2019 funding 

levels. Since the effects of impact causing factors on EFH range from negligible to minor, the overall impact 

of Alternative A on EFH, including HAPCs, would be adverse and minor; thus, impacts of Alternative A 

would be insignificant.

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

Collection with Equipment Upgrades, Improved Hydroacoustic Devices, and 

New Tide Stations

The same stressors on EFH considered under Alternative A are considered under Alternative B. Under 

Alternative B, all of the projects and equipment operations proposed in Alternative A would continue but 

at a higher level of effort, although the percentage of nautical miles covered by projects in each region 

would be the same as under Alternative A. Thus, the greatest level of effort would be in the Southeast 

Region (with over 50 percent of the survey effort); level of effort in the other four regions would be at 

similar levels (approximately 10 percent of the survey effort in each region), and perhaps slightly greater 

in the Alaska Region where the survey effort would be somewhat higher overall (approximately 16 

percent). In general, it is expected that level of effort and overall impacts trend together (i.e., greater 

impacts where the survey effort is higher), but there are other factors, such as location of surveys, physical 

contact with bottom habitat, and population density of prey, that add nuance to this trend.

Projects under Alternative B would take place in the same geographic areas and timeframes as under 

Alternative A; however, Alternative B would include more projects and activities, and thus more nautical 

miles traveled, than Alternative A. Under Alternative B, excluding survey effort in the Great Lakes, NOS 

projects would cover a total of 2,896,712 nm (5,364,710 km) across all five regions over the five-year 

period. Overall, vessels used by NOS would cover an additional 263,337 nm (487,701 km) under 

Alternative B (see Table 3.5-14) as compared to Alternative A (2,633,374 nm [4,877,009 km] total) across 

all regions over the five-year period. The types and mechanisms of impacts would remain the same in 

Alternative B as discussed for Alternative A. Therefore, the difference between the two alternatives is a 

matter of scale with an increased activity level, although distributed unevenly among the different types 

of activities, leading to a corresponding, incremental increase in effects under Alternative B as compared 

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

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

398

For example, under Alternative B there would be projects using crewed vessel operations covering 

577,000 nm (1,070,000 km), as compared to 518,000 nm (959,000 km) under Alternative A. Vessel 

operations could contribute to impacts on EFH related to increases in sedimentation/turbidity, and/or 

chemical contamination, increases in sound, and impacts to the water column. Although the amount of 

crewed vessel operations would be greater under Alternative B than under Alternative A, additional 

crewed vessel operations projects covering 59,000 nm (111,000 km) across five regions would result in 

greater impacts overall, but not so great that the magnitude of a particular impact-causing factor would 

increase (e.g., from negligible to minor). This would also be the case for other proposed activities 

contributing to potential impacts, such as underwater acoustic sound from echo sounders, ADCPs, and 

acoustic communication systems; and bottom disturbance from anchoring, collection of bottom grab 

samples, tide gauge installation, and SCUBA operations. 

Although NOS would add more widespread adoption of new techniques, protocols, and technologies to 

more efficiently perform surveying, mapping, charting, and related data gathering under Alternative B as 

compared to Alternative A, impacts of Alternative B on EFH and HAPCs would be the same or slightly, but 

not appreciably, larger than those discussed above under Alternative A for each stressor. Overall, impacts 

of Alternative B on EFH would be adverse, minor, and insignificant. 

3.9.2.4 Alternative C: Upgrades and Improvements with Greater Funding Support

The same stressors of EFH considered under Alternatives A and B are considered under Alternative C. 

Under Alternative C, all of the projects and equipment operation proposed in Alternatives A and B would 

continue but at a higher level of effort, although the percentage of nautical miles in each region would be 

the same as under Alternatives A and B. In addition, there would be an overall funding increase of 20 

percent relative to Alternative B, thus the level of project activity would increase further. The greatest 

level of effort would be in the Southeast Region (with over 50 percent of the survey effort); the other four 

regions would be at similar levels of effort (approximately 10 percent of the survey effort in each region), 

and perhaps slightly greater in the Alaska Region where the survey effort would be somewhat higher 

overall (approximately 16 percent). In general, it is expected that level of effort and overall impacts trend 

together (i.e., greater impacts where the survey effort is higher), but there are other factors, such as 

location of surveys, physical contact with bottom habitat, and population density of prey, that add nuance 

to this trend.

Projects under Alternative C would take place in the same geographic areas and timeframes as under 

Alternatives A and B; however, Alternative C would include more projects, and thus more nautical miles 

traveled, than Alternatives A and B. Under Alternative C, excluding survey effort in the Great Lakes, NOS 

projects would cover a total of 3,160,049 nm (5,852,411 km) across all five regions over the five-year 

period. Overall, there would be an additional survey effort of 263,337 nm (487,701 km) covered by vessels 

used by NOS under Alternative C (see Table 3.5-21) as compared to Alternative B (2,896,712 nm 

[5,364,710 km] total), and an additional 526,675 nm (975,402 km) as compared to Alternative A 

(2,633,374 nm [4,877,009 km] total) across all regions over the five-year period. The types and 

mechanisms of impacts would remain the same in Alternative C as discussed for Alternatives A and B 

across all regions over the five-year period. Therefore, the difference between the alternatives is a matter 

of scale with an increased activity level, although distributed unevenly among the different types of

activities, leading to a corresponding, incremental increase in effects under Alternative C as compared to 

Alternatives A and B. As discussed under Alternative B, the additional projects and nautical miles traveled 

under Alternative C across all five regions would result in greater impacts on EFH overall, but not so great 

that the magnitude of a particular stressor would increase (e.g., from negligible to minor). 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

399

Alternative C would be similar to Alternative B, plus it would consist of NOS program implementation with 

an overall funding increase of 20 percent relative to Alternative B. However, impacts of Alternative C on 

EFH and HAPCs would be the same or slightly, but not appreciably, larger than those discussed above 

under Alternatives A and B for each stressor. Overall, impacts of Alternative C on EFH would be adverse, 

minor, and insignificant. 

3.9.2.5 Conclusion

Proposed NOS projects in the action area across all five regions would be associated with physical impacts 

to bottom habitat, increases in sedimentation, turbidity, and/or chemical contamination, increases in 

underwater sound, impacts to the water column, and dispersal of invasive species.

A subset of NOS projects would involve physical contact with the sea floor. Where this results in physical 

disturbance to bottom habitat, the disturbance is expected to be temporary and negligible to minor in 

nature. The adverse effects from physical disturbance on EFH are expected to be temporary and minimal. 

The NOS projects with a potential to increase sedimentation, turbidity, and chemical contamination in 

EFH would be geographically widespread and expected to result in only temporary to short-term, 

localized, and negligible to minor reductions to water quality. Additionally, the likelihood of occurrence 

of an accidental spill from a vessel used by NOS would be very low. Thus, the adverse effects from an 

increase in sedimentation, turbidity, and chemical contamination in EFH would be temporary and 

minimal. 

Sound generated by proposed NOS underwater acoustic sources would be well above the hearing 

frequencies of the majority of prey species and managed species. The active sources in the midfrequencies would be within hearing of a few species, such as Atlantic herring, and the passive and 

incidental sources that generate sounds in the low-level frequencies would be within the hearing range 

of most prey and managed species. However, these sound sources would be infrequent, geographically 

widely distributed, and the sound emitted would be miniscule compared to all other vessel sound in the 

EEZ. The sounds that are audible to prey and managed species, most of which would be associated with 

vessel operations, would likely elicit negligible to minor responses as many of the sounds would be 

temporary in duration and not likely detectable at an appreciable distance from vessels used by NOS. 

Thus, the adverse effects from increased sound on EFH would be temporary and minimal.

Impacts to the water column would temporarily cause destratification and turbulence, could disturb or

displace nearby benthic communities and other prey species, and could damage or kill submerged aquatic 

vegetation. However, NOS projects would be geographically widespread and expected to result in only 

temporary, localized, negligible impacts on the water column. Thus, adverse effects on EFH would be 

temporary and minimal. 

Dispersal of invasive species could cause displacement of native species and altered biodiversity and 

ecosystem function in EFH. However, it is unlikely that NOS activities would involve the release of ballast 

water discharge, anchoring would be conducted infrequently, and NOS project crews would implement 

mandatory invasive species control procedures to limit or avoid hull fouling. Given the low likelihood of 

occurrence, the adverse effects from invasive species dispersal in EFH would be minimal.