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

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

INTRODUCTION

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) National Ocean Service (NOS) has prepared 

this Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) to analyze the potential environmental 

impacts associated with NOS’s recurring data collection projects (surveying and mapping) to characterize 

underwater features (e.g., habitat, bathymetry, marine debris) throughout United States (U.S.) waters. 

Data obtained from these projects are used to produce many products, including charts and maps that 

are relied upon by mariners, scientists, the shipping and fishing industries, and countless other users in 

the U.S. and beyond.

The Proposed Action evaluated in this Final PEIS is to continue NOS’s surveying and mapping projects over 

the next five years. These projects would include surveys performed from crewed vessels and remotely

operated or autonomous vehicles. Field crews would include NOS personnel, other NOAA personnel on 

behalf of NOS, contractors, grantees, or permit/authorization holders. These crews and vehicles may use 

echo sounders and other active acoustic equipment and employ other equipment, including bottom 

samplers and conductivity, temperature, and depth instruments to collect the needed data. The “action 

area” for these projects includes the U.S. territorial sea; the contiguous zone; the U.S. Exclusive Economic 

Zone (U.S. EEZ); rivers; and states’ offshore waters. The action area also includes coastal and riparian lands 

for activities such as the installation, maintenance, and removal of tide gauges. This analysis has been 

carried out to meet the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). NOS opted 

to prepare a programmatic NEPA document because the NOS mapping and surveying represents a suite 

of similar activities over a broad geographic region. 

This Final PEIS evaluates three alternatives: 1) the No Action Alternative (Alternative A), under which NOS 

would continue to gather accurate and timely data on the nature and condition of the marine and coastal 

environment, reflecting the technology, equipment, scope, and methods currently in use by NOS at the 

current level of effort (i.e., the status quo); 2) Alternative B, under which NOS would increase the adoption 

of new technologies to more efficiently perform surveying, mapping, charting and related data gathering; 

and 3) Alternative C, which also includes the adoption of new techniques and technologies and includes 

an overall funding increase of 20 percent. The Final PEIS has been prepared to: 1) inform NOS and the 

public on the physical, biological, economic, and social impacts of NOS mapping and surveying projects; 

and 2) assist NOS in deciding how to execute its mapping and surveying program over the next five years.

This Final PEIS was prepared in accordance with NEPA (42 United States Code [U.S.C.] § 4321, et seq.); 

Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) Regulations for Implementing the Procedural Provisions of NEPA

(40 CFR § 1500–1508 (1978)); NOAA Administrative Order 216-6A and other relevant federal and state 

laws and regulations. NOS revised the Final PEIS from the June 2021 draft version to reflect feedback 

received through interagency coordination and consultation, stakeholder input, and public comments. 

PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

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

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

Register on June 25, 2021 to announce the availability of the Draft PEIS for public review. Agency and 

public comments were received on the Draft PEIS, which was available for public review from June 25, 

2021 to November 22, 2021. During the public comment period for the Draft PEIS, NOS received 31 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

2

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

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

Management program offices, federally recognized tribes, Alaska Native corporations, Alaska Native 

Organizations, Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs), and members of the public. The comments 

addressed a range of issues including the following:

• Protection of cultural and historic resources;

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

• Incorporation of mitigation measures;

• Environmental justice concerns pertaining to subsistence hunting and fishing in Alaska 

communities;

• Future coordination between NOS and key stakeholders, such as Alaska Eskimo Whaling 

Commission (AEWC), North Slope Borough Department of Wildlife Management, Calista 

Corporation in Alaska, Donlin Gold, Natural Resources Defense Council, Cultural Heritage Partners 

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

Nation of New York;

• The NEPA process, scope of the PEIS, selection of a programmatic NEPA approach, alternatives to 

the Proposed Action, cumulative effects analysis, references and data cited in the effects analysis;

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

• Methodology and data consideration for the acoustic modeling;

• Impacts to socioeconomic resources such as fisheries; and

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

NOS has thoroughly considered all of the input received and has responded to comments in Appendix C.

Revisions to the Final PEIS have been made in response to comments where appropriate.

NOS developed a public webpage specifically for development of the Draft and Final PEIS, which can be 

found at https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/about/environmental-compliance/surveying-mapping.html. NOS 

will publish a Record of Decision no sooner than 30 days after publication of the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency's Notice of Availability for the Final PEIS in the Federal Register.

Coordination with Other Agencies

NOS coordinated with the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

(USFWS) during preparation of this Final PEIS. NMFS has legal jurisdiction over most marine mammal 

species (through the Marine Mammal Protection Act [MMPA]), most threatened or endangered marine 

plant and animal species (through the Endangered Species Act [ESA]), and Essential Fish Habitat (through 

the Magnuson Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act [MSA]). USFWS has legal jurisdiction 

over certain marine mammal species including manatees, walruses, polar bears, and sea otters (through 

the MMPA), most threatened or endangered terrestrial plant and animal species (through the ESA), and 

over 1,000 species of birds (through the Migratory Bird Treaty Act [MBTA]). 

Both agencies provided a comprehensive Technical Assistance Review prior to publication of the Draft 

PEIS. In coordinating with NOS, NMFS and USFWS participated in multiple meetings and reviews during 

the development of the Draft PEIS. On December 8, 2021, USFWS sent NOS a letter requesting additional 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

3

information for completing consultation under Section 7 of the ESA for the Proposed Action. NOS provided 

the requested additional information and proposed revisions to the Draft PEIS on June 1, 2022. These 

revisions have been incorporated into the Final PEIS where appropriate.

NOS also initiated consultation with NMFS under the MMPA, ESA, and MSA and with USFWS under the 

MMPA. Additionally, in compliance with the National Marine Sanctuaries Act (NMSA), NOS prepared and 

submitted a Sanctuary Resource Statement (SRS) to the Office of National Marine Sanctuaries (ONMS) to 

address the required analyses necessary to initiate a consultation under Section 304(d) of the Act.

Table ES-1 summarizes the status of NOS coordination and consultation as of the publication of the Final 

PEIS:

Table ES-1. Consultation with Other Federal Agencies

Federal Agency Statute Documentation

Consultation 

Initiated/

Completed

Completed Consultations

National Marine Fisheries 

Service Office of Habitat 

Conservation

Magnuson-Stevens 

Fishery Conservation 

and Management Act 

Essential Fish Habitat

Essential Fish Habitat 

Assessment

June 2, 2022

Final Response 

received from NMFS 

OHC on November 

1, 2022

Ongoing Consultations

National Marine Fisheries 

Service Office of Protected 

Resources

Endangered Species 

Act

Biological Assessment

(Draft PEIS)

August 26, 2021

Ongoing

Office of National Marine 

Sanctuaries

National Marine 

Sanctuaries Act

Sanctuary Resource 

Statement

June 1, 2022

Ongoing

National Marine Fisheries 

Service Office of Protected 

Resources

Marine Mammal 

Protection Act

Letter of Authorization 

Application

June 3, 2022

Ongoing

U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service

Endangered Species 

Act

Biological Assessment

(Draft PEIS)

June 1, 2022

Ongoing

U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service

Marine Mammal 

Protection Act

Incidental Take Regulation 

Request

September 12,2022

Ongoing

Coordination with Tribes

On June 28, 2021, NOS sent letters to tribes notifying them of the availability of the Draft PEIS and inviting 

them to request government-to-government consultation under Executive Order (EO) 13175, 

Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments. Federally recognized tribes are American 

Indian or Alaska Native tribal entitiesrecognized as having a government-to-government relationship with 

the U.S., with the responsibilities, powers, limitations, and obligations attached to that designation, and 

are eligible for funding and services from the Bureau of Indian Affairs. See 86 FR 7554, updated by 87 FR 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

4

4636, for the full list of 574 federally recognized tribes. NOS recognizes its unique relationship with tribes 

and trust responsibility with tribal governments as set forth in the U.S. Constitution, treaties, statutes, 

executive orders, and court decisions. It is the policy of NOAA to consult on a government-to-government

basis with federally recognized tribal governments when the federal actions and decisions have tribal 

implications.

NOS did not receive any requests from federally recognized tribes to initiate government-to-government 

consultation on the Draft PEIS. Additionally, no requests were received to initiate government-tocorporation consultation from any Alaska Native corporation. NOS intends to notify individual federally 

recognized tribes consistent with EO 13175 before conducting any project that may have tribal 

implications. Federally recognized tribes are welcome to request government-to-government 

consultation at any time for a project that may have tribal implications. The consultation and coordination 

process would be conducted in accordance with NOAA’s Procedures for Government-to-Government 

Consultation with Federally Recognized Indian Tribes and Alaska Native Corporations (NOAA 13175 policy, 

November 12, 2013).

REVISIONS SINCE THE DRAFT PEIS

NOS updated the Draft PEIS to include additional mitigation measures designed to minimize the impacts 

of surveying and mapping activities on the human environment. Additional mitigation measures 

incorporated into the Final PEIS are expected to result in a reduction of adverse environmental impacts 

analyzed in the Draft PEIS.

Due to the timing of the consultations and the publication of the Final PEIS, the temporal scope of the 

Proposed Action has been reduced from six years (2022-2027) to five years (2023-2027). The annual 

numbers for project activities and project miles are expected to remain consistent with those estimated 

in the Draft PEIS; however, since the Final PEIS covers one less year than the Draft PEIS, the total estimated 

survey effort has decreased.

NOS, in coordination with the National Marine Fisheries Service, has incorporated additional data sources 

into the determination of marine mammal density, and has made technical corrections to the acoustic 

exposure estimates. The updated data are included in the Final PEIS. 

PURPOSE AND NEED STATEMENT

The purpose of the Proposed Action is to gather accurate and timely data on the marine and U.S. coastal 

environment. The need for the Proposed Action is to provide the public and private sectors with nautical 

charts, benthic habitat condition maps, current and tide charts, and other products necessary for safe 

navigation, economic security, and environmental sustainability. The public and decision-makers need 

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

resources.

PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES

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

accurate and timely data on the nature and condition of the marine and coastal environment. This 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

5

alternative reflects the technology, equipment, scope, and methods currently in use by NOS, at the level 

of effort reflecting NOS fiscal year 2019 funding levels. NOS operations were widely disrupted during the 

2020 field season due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Therefore, the PEIS relies on 2019 as the baseline year 

for Alternative A as it is the most recent example of typical field operations that would be enacted if NOS 

chose to continue historical levels of project effort.

Alternative B: NOS Preferred Alternative – Conduct Surveys and Mapping for 

Coastal and Marine Data Collection with Equipment Upgrades, Improved 

Hydroacoustic Devices, and New Tide Stations

Alternative B consists of Alternative A plus the more widespread adoption of new techniques and 

technologies (such as remotely operated vehicles (ROVs), microwave water level (MWWL) radar sensors, 

etc.) to more efficiently perform surveying, mapping, charting and related data gathering. Specific 

examples of adaptive methods and equipment that NOS programs are likely to adopt under Alternative B 

in the next five years include:

• Greater use of ROVs with echo sounder technologies;

• Greater use of autonomous underwater vehicles (AUVs) and uncrewed surface vehicles (USVs) 

with echo sounder technologies;

• Conversion of one or more existing 10-m (33 feet) crewed survey boats into USVs;

• Greater use of more efficient, wide-beam sonar systems (i.e., phase-differencing bathymetric 

systems) for nearshore hydrographic surveys;

• Increased field operations in the National Marine Sanctuary system with associated requirements 

for hydroacoustic charting, surveying, mapping and associated activities; and

• Installation, operation, and maintenance of additional water level stations, including transitioning 

to mostly microwave water level (MWWL) radar sensors and upgraded storm strengthening to 

make stations more climate resilient.

Under Alternative B, all of the activities and equipment operation described in Alternative A would 

continue, many at a higher level of effort. The nature of these actions would not change, but the overall 

level of activity would be increased.

Alternative B is NOS’s preferred alternative because it takes advantage of newer, more efficient 

technology, responds to the needs of anticipated new marine sanctuaries, and more effectively addresses 

the nation’s needs for coastal and marine data.

Alternative C: Upgrades and Improvements with Greater Funding Support

Like Alternative B, Alternative C adopts new techniques and technologies to encourage greater program 

efficiencies regarding surveying, mapping, charting, and related data gathering activities. In addition, 

Alternative C would consist of NOS program implementation with an overall funding increase of 20 

percent relative to Alternative B. Under Alternative C, all of the activities and equipment operation 

described in Alternative B would continue, many at a higher level of effort. The nature of these actions 

would not change, but the overall level of activity would be augmented.

Table ES-2 compares the three alternatives.
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

6

Table ES-2. Comparison of NOS Annual Planned Surveying

and Mapping Activities under Alternatives A, B, and C*

Activity

Described 

in Section Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C

Crewed vessel 

operations

2.4.1 518,000 nm 

(959,000 km) 

577,000 nm 

(1,070,000 km) 

637,000 nm 

(1,180,000 km) 

Anchoring** 2.4.2 55 projects 59 projects 64 projects 

ROV/USV/ASV

movement

2.4.3 28,600 nm (53,000 

km)

86,300 nm 

(160,000 km)

102,300 nm 

(189,000 km)

Use of echo sounders 2.4.4 479,000 nm 

(887,000 km)

534,000 nm 

(988,000 km)

589,000 nm 

(1,090,000 km)

Use of sub-bottom 

profilers

2.4.4 3,210 nm (5,940 

km)

5,310 nm (9,830 

km)

7,710 nm (14,300 

km)

Use of mobile ADCPs 2.4.5 5,890 nm (10,900 

km)

11,200 nm (20,700 

km)

15,200 nm (28,200 

km)

Stationary ADCPs 

installed/visited for 

maintenance/removed

2.4.5 37 installed/78 

maintenance 

visits/33 removed

39 installed /79 

maintenance visits 

/33 removed

40 installed /79 

maintenance visits 

/33 removed

Use of acoustic 

communication 

systems

2.4.6 24 projects 33 projects 39 projects

Sound speed data 

collection

2.4.7 56 projects 64 projects 71 projects

Drop/towed 

cameras/video system 

operation

2.4.8 31 projects 36 projects 41 projects

Bottom sample 

collection

2.4.9 54 projects 61 projects 68 projects

Use of passive listening 

systems***

2.4.10 21 projects 24 projects 29 projects

SCUBA operations 2.4.11 248 projects 254 projects 269 projects

Tide gauges 

installed/visited for 

maintenance/removed

2.4.12 32 installed /305 

maintenance visits 

/30 removed

37 installed /305 

maintenance visits 

/35 removed

40 installed /305 

maintenance visits 

/38 removed

GPS reference system 

installation

2.4.13 12 installed 13 installed 15 installed

*All numbers are approximate and represent an annual level of effort. Projects for each activity were reported by 

NOS agencies without respect to the combination of activities within projects (e.g., a project involving both crewed 

vessel operation and echo sounder use would be reported as one crewed vessel project and one echo sounder 

project).

** NOS estimates that 20 percent of crewed vessel projects include an anchoring component.

***In addition to the projects presented in the table, NOS’s Center for Operational Oceanographic Products and 

Services uses passive listening systems on an as-needed basis. This entails the use of transponder or interrogator 

sensors during the deployment or retrieval of ADCPs.
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

7

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Table ES-3 presents a summary of the assessed environmental consequences associated with Alternatives 

A, B, and C for the resources analyzed in the Final PEIS. A more complete description of impacts is provided 

in Chapter 3. All environmental consequences from each of the alternatives are anticipated to be adverse, 

ranging from negligible to moderate, and insignificant, except for the environmental consequences to 

socioeconomic resources which are anticipated to be indirect, beneficial, and moderate. The primary 

difference in impacts among the alternatives is one of scale, with the impacts from Alternative B the same 

or slightly, but not appreciably, larger than those under Alternative A, and from Alternative C the same or 

slightly, but not appreciably, larger than those under Alternatives A and B for each impact causing factor.

NOS identified the potential for acoustic disturbance to marine mammals as an area warranting detailed 

analysis. In this Final PEIS, NOS finds that, after conducting quantitative acoustic impacts modeling, 

impacts on marine mammals under all alternatives are expected to be limited to behavioral disturbances 

that would be temporary or short-term and would not be considered outside the natural range of 

variability of species’ populations, their habitats, or the natural processes sustaining them. For a few 

individual high-frequency cetaceans, potential impacts from underwater acoustic sources include injury 

exposures in the form of hearing loss.
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

8

Table ES-3. Summary Comparison of Impacts

Resource

Alternative A: No Action – Conduct 

Surveys and Mapping for Coastal and 

Marine Data Collection with Current 

Technology and Methods, at Current

Funding Levels

Alternative B: Conduct Surveys and 

Mapping with Equipment 

Upgrades, Improved Hydroacoustic 

Devices, and New Tide Stations

Alternative C: Upgrades and 

Improvements with Greater 

Funding Support

Habitats Impacts to habitats from water 

column disruptions under Alternative 

A would continue to be adverse and 

negligible. 

Impacts to habitats from activities 

involving physical disturbance to 

bottom substrate; sedimentation, 

turbidity and chemical contaminants; 

increased ambient underwater sound

levels; and onshore activities under 

Alternative A would continue to be 

adverse and negligible to minor. 

The impact on habitats from invasive 

species dispersal facilitated by 

activities under Alternative A would 

likely continue to be adverse and 

minor. 

Impacts to habitat areas resulting 

from Alternative A would not cause 

long-term changes in the availability of 

space, shelter, cover, or nutrients 

necessary for dependent species. 

Impacts of Alternative B on habitats 

throughout the action area would 

be the same or slightly, but not 

appreciably, larger than those that 

would occur under Alternative A for 

each impact causing factor. 

Impacts to habitat areas resulting 

from Alternative A would not cause 

long-term changes in the availability 

of space, shelter, cover, or nutrients 

necessary for dependent species 

and would not substantially increase 

in intensity with the increased level 

of effort of Alternative B.

Overall, impacts to habitats under 

Alternative B would be adverse, 

minor, and insignificant.

Impacts of Alternative C on habitats 

throughout the action area would 

be the same or slightly, but not 

appreciably, larger than those under

Alternatives A and B for each impact 

causing factor. 

Impacts to habitat areas resulting 

from Alternatives A and B would not 

cause long-term decreases in the 

availability of space, shelter, cover, 

or nutrients necessary for 

dependent species and would not 

substantially increase in intensity 

with the increased level of effort of 

Alternative C.

Overall, impacts to habitats under 

Alternative C would be adverse, 

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

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

9

Resource

Alternative A: No Action – Conduct 

Surveys and Mapping for Coastal and 

Marine Data Collection with Current 

Technology and Methods, at Current

Funding Levels

Alternative B: Conduct Surveys and 

Mapping with Equipment 

Upgrades, Improved Hydroacoustic 

Devices, and New Tide Stations

Alternative C: Upgrades and 

Improvements with Greater 

Funding Support

Overall, impacts to habitats under 

Alternative A would continue to be 

adverse, minor, and insignificant.

Marine Mammals Impacts on marine mammals 

(cetaceans, pinnipeds, sirenians, and 

fissipeds) from trash and debris and 

air emissions under Alternative A 

would continue to be adverse and

negligible. 

Impacts from human activity under 

Alternative A would continue to be

adverse and negligible on cetaceans 

and sirenians and adverse and minor 

on pinnipeds and fissipeds. 

Impacts on marine mammals 

(cetaceans, pinnipeds, sirenians, and 

fissipeds) from accidental oil, fuel, or 

chemical spills under Alternative A 

would continue to be adverse and

negligible to minor. 

Impacts on marine mammals 

(cetaceans, pinnipeds, sirenians, and 

fissipeds) from active underwater 

acoustic sources, vessel and 

equipment sound, vessel presence 

and movement of equipment in the 

Impacts of Alternative B on marine 

mammals would be the same or 

slightly, but not appreciably, larger 

than those that would occur under 

Alternative A for each impact 

causing factor.

Impacts to marine mammals

resulting from Alternative A would 

be temporary or short-term and 

would not be considered outside the 

natural range of variability of 

species’ populations, their habitats, 

or the natural processes sustaining 

them. These impacts would not 

substantially increase in intensity 

with the increased survey effort of 

Alternative B. 

Overall, impacts of Alternative B on 

marine mammals, including ESAlisted species, and habitat, including 

designated critical habitat, would be 

adverse, minor, and insignificant.

Impacts of Alternative C on marine 

mammals would be the same or 

slightly, but not appreciably, larger 

than those that would occur under 

Alternatives A and B for each impact 

causing factor.

Impacts to marine mammals

resulting from Alternatives A and B 

would be temporary or short-term 

and would not be considered 

outside the natural range of 

variability of species’ populations, 

their habitats, or the natural 

processes sustaining them. These 

impacts would not substantially 

increase in intensity with the 

increased survey effort of 

Alternative C. 

Overall, impacts of Alternative C on 

marine mammals, including ESAlisted species, and habitat, including 

designated critical habitat, would be 

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

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

10

Resource

Alternative A: No Action – Conduct 

Surveys and Mapping for Coastal and 

Marine Data Collection with Current 

Technology and Methods, at Current

Funding Levels

Alternative B: Conduct Surveys and 

Mapping with Equipment 

Upgrades, Improved Hydroacoustic 

Devices, and New Tide Stations

Alternative C: Upgrades and 

Improvements with Greater 

Funding Support

water under Alternative A would 

continue to be adverse and minor. 

Impacts on pinnipeds and fissipeds 

from air emissions under Alternative A 

would continue to be adverse and 

negligible.

Although a vessel strike is very 

unlikely, debilitating injury or 

mortality of one or a few individuals 

could occur and impacts would be 

adverse and moderate, or greater if 

an ESA-listed species is affected. If a 

walrus stampede occurs due to vessel 

or aircraft disturbance, the impact 

could be adverse and moderate or 

greater. If polar bears are disturbed at 

denning sites or if polar bear-human 

interactions occur, the impact could 

be adverse and moderate.

Potential impacts from underwater 

acoustic sources include injury 

exposures in the form of hearing loss 

(PTS) on cetaceans, but such injury 

would be rare and confined to a few 

individual high-frequency cetaceans. It 

would also include behavioral 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

11

Resource

Alternative A: No Action – Conduct 

Surveys and Mapping for Coastal and 

Marine Data Collection with Current 

Technology and Methods, at Current

Funding Levels

Alternative B: Conduct Surveys and 

Mapping with Equipment 

Upgrades, Improved Hydroacoustic 

Devices, and New Tide Stations

Alternative C: Upgrades and 

Improvements with Greater 

Funding Support

disruption exposures of cetaceans, 

pinnipeds, sirenians and fissipeds, but 

the amount of time individuals may 

exceed the behavioral exposure 

threshold would be on average less 

than a few minutes.

Impacts to marine mammals resulting 

from Alternative A would be 

temporary or short-term and would 

not be considered outside the natural 

range of variability of species’ 

populations, their habitats, or the 

natural processes sustaining them. 

Overall, impacts of Alternative A on 

marine mammals, including ESA-listed 

species, and habitat, including 

designated critical habitat, would 

continue to be adverse, minor, and 

insignificant.

Sea Turtles Impacts to sea turtles and their 

habitats from active underwater 

acoustic sources, vessel and 

equipment sound, and onshore 

activities under Alternative A would 

continue to be adverse and negligible.

Impacts of Alternative B on sea 

turtles and their habitats would be 

the same or slightly, but not 

appreciably, larger than those that 

would occur under Alternative A for 

each impact causing factor.

Impacts of Alternative C on sea 

turtles and their habitats would be 

the same or slightly, but not 

appreciably, larger than those that 

would occur under Alternatives A

and B for each impact causing 

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

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

12

Resource

Alternative A: No Action – Conduct 

Surveys and Mapping for Coastal and 

Marine Data Collection with Current 

Technology and Methods, at Current

Funding Levels

Alternative B: Conduct Surveys and 

Mapping with Equipment 

Upgrades, Improved Hydroacoustic 

Devices, and New Tide Stations

Alternative C: Upgrades and 

Improvements with Greater 

Funding Support

Impacts to sea turtles and their 

habitats from vessel presence and 

movement, underwater activities, and 

air emissions under Alternative A 

would continue to be adverse and

negligible to minor.

Impacts to sea turtles and their 

habitats from accidental oil, fuel, or 

chemical spills would continue to be 

adverse and negligible to minor.

Although the effects of impact causing 

factors on sea turtles and their 

habitats range from negligible to 

moderate, moderate impacts could 

occur in the very unlikely event of an 

accidental spill of oil, fuel, or 

chemicals. Likewise, in the very 

unlikely event of a vessel strike, injury 

or death to sea turtles would also 

constitute a moderate or greater 

impact. 

Impacts to sea turtles resulting from 

Alternative A would not cause longterm changes in habitat availability 

and use, sea turtle behavior, or energy 

expenditures.

Impacts to sea turtles resulting from 

Alternative A would not cause longterm changes in habitat availability 

and use, sea turtle behavior, or 

energy expenditures and would not 

substantially increase in intensity 

with the increased survey effort of 

Alternative B. 

Overall, impacts on sea turtles and 

their habitat, including designated 

critical habitat, would be adverse, 

minor, and insignificant.

Impacts to sea turtles resulting from 

Alternatives A and B would not 

cause long-term changes in habitat 

availability and use, sea turtle 

behavior, or energy expenditures

and would not substantially increase 

in intensity with the increased 

survey effort of Alternative C. 

Overall, impacts on sea turtles and 

their habitat, including designated 

critical habitat, would be adverse, 

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

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

13

Resource

Alternative A: No Action – Conduct 

Surveys and Mapping for Coastal and 

Marine Data Collection with Current 

Technology and Methods, at Current

Funding Levels

Alternative B: Conduct Surveys and 

Mapping with Equipment 

Upgrades, Improved Hydroacoustic 

Devices, and New Tide Stations

Alternative C: Upgrades and 

Improvements with Greater 

Funding Support

Overall, impacts under Alternative A 

on sea turtles and their habitats, 

including designated critical habitat, 

would continue to be adverse, minor, 

and insignificant.

Fish Impacts to fish and their habitats from 

vessel wake and turbulence; vessel 

sound; accidental spill of oil, fuel, or 

chemicals; and disturbance of the 

ocean/lake/river bottom under 

Alternative A would continue to be 

adverse and negligible to minor.

Impacts to fish and their habitats from 

active underwater acoustic sources 

and air emissions under Alternative A 

would continue to be adverse and

minor.

Impacts to fish resulting from 

Alternative A may include some stress 

responses without permanent 

physiological damage, and may disturb 

breeding, feeding, or other activities 

but without any impacts on 

population levels; additionally, there

would not be long-term changes in 

Under Alternative B, impacts on fish 

and fish habitat would be the same 

or slightly, but not appreciably, 

larger than those that would occur

under Alternative A for each impact 

causing factor. 

Impacts to fish resulting from 

Alternative A may include some 

stress responses without permanent 

physiological damage, and may 

disturb breeding, feeding, or other 

activities but without any impacts 

on population levels; additionally, 

there would not be long-term 

changes in habitat availability and 

use or in fish behavior. These 

impacts would not substantially 

increase in intensity with the 

increased survey effort of 

Alternative B. 

Impacts of Alternative C on fish and 

fish habitat would be the same or 

slightly, but not appreciably, larger 

than those that would occur under 

Alternatives A and B for each impact 

causing factor. 

Impacts to fish resulting from 

Alternatives A and B may include 

some stress responses without 

permanent physiological damage, 

and may disturb breeding, feeding, 

or other activities but without any 

impacts on population levels; 

additionally, there would not be

long-term changes in habitat 

availability and use or in fish

behavior. These impacts would not 

substantially increase in intensity 

with the increased survey effort of 

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

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

14

Resource

Alternative A: No Action – Conduct 

Surveys and Mapping for Coastal and 

Marine Data Collection with Current 

Technology and Methods, at Current

Funding Levels

Alternative B: Conduct Surveys and 

Mapping with Equipment 

Upgrades, Improved Hydroacoustic 

Devices, and New Tide Stations

Alternative C: Upgrades and 

Improvements with Greater 

Funding Support

habitat availability and use or in fish

behavior.

Overall, impacts of Alternative A on 

fish, including ESA-listed species, and 

fish habitat, including designated 

critical habitat, would continue to be 

adverse, minor, and insignificant.

Overall, impacts of Alternative B on 

fish, including ESA-listed species,

and fish habitat, including 

designated critical habitat, would be 

adverse, minor, and insignificant.

Overall, impacts of Alternative C on 

fish, including ESA-listed species,

and fish habitat, including 

designated critical habitat, would be 

adverse, minor, and insignificant.

Aquatic 

Macroinvertebrates

Impacts to aquatic macroinvertebrates

and their habitats from underwater 

acoustic sources, vessel sound, and air 

emissions under Alternative A would 

continue to be adverse and negligible.

Impacts to aquatic macroinvertebrates

and their habitats from vessel wake 

and underwater turbulence;

accidental spill of oil, fuel, or 

chemicals; and disturbance of the 

ocean/lake/river bottom under 

Alternative A would continue to be 

adverse and negligible to minor.

Overall, impacts of Alternative A on 

aquatic macroinvertebrates, including 

ESA-listed species, and habitats, 

including designated critical habitat,

Under Alternative B, impacts on 

aquatic macroinvertebrates and 

their habitats would be the same or 

slightly, but not appreciably, larger 

than those that would occur under 

Alternative A for each impact 

causing factor. These impacts would 

not substantially increase in 

intensity with the increased survey 

effort of Alternative B. 

Overall, impacts of Alternative B on 

aquatic macroinvertebrates, 

including ESA-listed species, and 

habitats, including designated 

critical habitat, would be adverse, 

minor, and insignificant.

Under Alternative C, impacts on 

aquatic macroinvertebrates and 

their habitats would be the same or 

slightly, but not appreciably, larger 

than those that would occur under 

Alternatives A and B for each impact 

causing factor. These impacts would 

not substantially increase in 

intensity with the increased survey 

effort of Alternative C. 

Overall, impacts of Alternative C on 

aquatic macroinvertebrates, 

including ESA-listed species, and 

habitats, including designated 

critical habitat, would be adverse, 

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

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

15

Resource

Alternative A: No Action – Conduct 

Surveys and Mapping for Coastal and 

Marine Data Collection with Current 

Technology and Methods, at Current

Funding Levels

Alternative B: Conduct Surveys and 

Mapping with Equipment 

Upgrades, Improved Hydroacoustic 

Devices, and New Tide Stations

Alternative C: Upgrades and 

Improvements with Greater 

Funding Support

would continue to be adverse, minor, 

and insignificant.

Essential Fish Habitat

(EFH)

Impacts to EFH from disturbance of 

the water column under Alternative A 

would continue to be adverse and

negligible.

Impacts to EFH from physical impacts 

to bottom habitat; increase in 

sedimentation, turbidity, or chemical 

contamination; dispersal of invasive 

species; and increase in ambient 

sound under Alternative A would 

continue to be adverse and negligible 

to minor.

Impacts to EFH resulting from 

Alternative A would be infrequent, 

geographically widely distributed, and 

likely to elicit a minimal or temporary 

response from prey species or cause 

short-term changes to physical 

characteristics (i.e., changes in water 

quality).

Overall, impacts of Alternative A on 

EFH would continue to be adverse, 

minor, and insignificant.

Under Alternative B, impacts on EFH 

would be the same or slightly, but 

not appreciably, larger than those 

that would occur under Alternative 

A for each impact causing factor. 

Impacts to EFH resulting from 

Alternative A would be infrequent, 

geographically widely distributed, 

and likely to elicit a minimal or 

temporary response from prey 

species or cause short-term changes 

to physical characteristics (i.e., 

changes in water quality). These 

impacts would not substantially 

increase in intensity with the 

increased survey effort of 

Alternative B. 

Overall, impacts of Alternative B on 

EFH would be adverse, minor, and 

insignificant. 

Under Alternative C, impacts on EFH 

would be the same or slightly, but 

not appreciably, larger than those 

that would occur under Alternatives

A and B for each impact causing 

factor. 

Impacts to EFH resulting from 

Alternatives A and B would be 

infrequent, geographically widely 

distributed, and likely to elicit a 

minimal or temporary response

from prey species or cause shortterm changes to physical 

characteristics (i.e., changes in 

water quality). These impacts would 

not substantially increase in 

intensity with the increased survey 

effort of Alternative C. 

Overall, impacts of Alternative C on 

EFH would be adverse, minor, and 

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

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

16

Resource

Alternative A: No Action – Conduct 

Surveys and Mapping for Coastal and 

Marine Data Collection with Current 

Technology and Methods, at Current

Funding Levels

Alternative B: Conduct Surveys and 

Mapping with Equipment 

Upgrades, Improved Hydroacoustic 

Devices, and New Tide Stations

Alternative C: Upgrades and 

Improvements with Greater 

Funding Support

Seabirds, Shorebirds 

and Coastal Birds, and 

Waterfowl

Impacts to birds and their habitats 

from active underwater acoustic

sources and vessel and equipment 

sound under Alternative A would 

continue to be adverse and negligible.

Impacts to birds and their habitats 

from aircraft sound, vessel presence 

and movement, underwater activities, 

onshore activities, and air emissions 

under Alternative A would continue to 

be adverse and negligible to minor.

Impacts to birds and their habitats 

from accidental oil, fuel, or chemical 

spills would continue to be adverse 

and minor to moderate.

Although the effects of impact causing 

factors on birds and their habitats

range from negligible to moderate, 

moderate impacts could occur in the 

very unlikely event of an accidental 

spill of oil, fuel, or chemicals. Likewise, 

in the very unlikely event of a vessel 

strike, injury or death to birds could 

constitute greater impacts. 

Under Alternative B, impacts on 

birds and their habitats would be 

the same or slightly, but not 

appreciably, larger than those that 

would occur under Alternative A for 

each impact causing factor. 

Impacts to birds resulting from 

Alternative A would generally persist 

only for the duration of an activity

and would not be expected to cause 

any long-term changes in habitat 

use and availability or energy 

expenditure outside of the natural 

range of variation. These impacts

would not substantially increase in 

intensity with the increased survey 

effort of Alternative B.

Overall, impacts on of Alternative B 

on birds, including ESA-listed 

species, and habitats, including 

designated critical habitat, would be 

adverse, minor, and insignificant.

Under Alternative C, impacts on 

birds and their habitats would be 

the same or slightly, but not 

appreciably, larger than those that 

would occur under Alternatives A 

and B for each impact causing 

factor. 

Impacts to birds resulting from 

Alternatives A and B would generally 

persist only for the duration of an

activity and would not be expected 

to cause any long-term changes in 

habitat use and availability or 

energy expenditure outside of the 

natural range of variation. These 

impacts would not substantially 

increase in intensity with the 

increased survey effort of 

Alternative C. 

Overall, impacts on of Alternative C 

on birds, including ESA-listed 

species, and habitats, including 

designated critical habitat, would be 

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

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

17

Resource

Alternative A: No Action – Conduct 

Surveys and Mapping for Coastal and 

Marine Data Collection with Current 

Technology and Methods, at Current

Funding Levels

Alternative B: Conduct Surveys and 

Mapping with Equipment 

Upgrades, Improved Hydroacoustic 

Devices, and New Tide Stations

Alternative C: Upgrades and 

Improvements with Greater 

Funding Support

Impacts to birds resulting from 

Alternative A would generally persist 

only for the duration of an activity and 

would not be expected to cause any 

long-term changes in habitat use and 

availability or energy expenditure

outside of the natural range of 

variation.

Overall, impacts on of Alternative A on 

birds, including ESA-listed species, and 

habitats, including designated critical 

habitat, would continue to be 

adverse, minor, and insignificant.

Cultural and Historic 

Resources

Impacts to cultural and historic 

resources from installation, 

maintenance, and removal of tide 

gauges, buoys, and GPS reference 

stations under Alternative A would 

continue to be adverse and negligible 

to minor.

Impacts to cultural and historic 

resources from bottom sampling 

under Alternative A would continue to 

be both adverse and beneficial, 

permanent, and negligible to minor. 

Beneficial impacts would occur if a 

resource were discovered that led to 

Under Alternative B, impacts on 

cultural and historic resources

would be the same or slightly, but 

not appreciably, larger than those 

that would occur under Alternative 

A for each impact causing factor.

These impacts would not 

substantially increase in intensity 

with the increased survey effort of 

Alternative B. 

Overall, impacts of Alternative B to 

cultural and historic resources 

would be adverse, moderate, and

insignificant.

Under Alternative C, impacts on 

cultural and historic resources

would be the same or slightly, but 

not appreciably, larger than those 

that would occur under Alternatives

A and B for each impact causing 

factor. These impacts would not 

substantially increase in intensity 

with the increased survey effort of 

Alternative C. 

Overall, impacts of Alternative C to 

cultural and historic resources 

would be adverse, moderate, and

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

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

18

Resource

Alternative A: No Action – Conduct 

Surveys and Mapping for Coastal and 

Marine Data Collection with Current 

Technology and Methods, at Current

Funding Levels

Alternative B: Conduct Surveys and 

Mapping with Equipment 

Upgrades, Improved Hydroacoustic 

Devices, and New Tide Stations

Alternative C: Upgrades and 

Improvements with Greater 

Funding Support

the identification of a culturallysignificant artifact or a previously 

undocumented historic site.

Impacts to cultural and historic 

resources from anchoring under 

Alternative A would continue to be 

adverse, permanent, and negligible to

moderate.

Impacts on subsistence hunting and 

fishing, including Traditional Cultural 

Places, under Alternative A would 

continue to be adverse and negligible 

to moderate.

Although the effects of impact causing 

factors on cultural and historic 

resources range from negligible to 

moderate, moderate impacts that 

could occur if the integrity of a 

resource is diminished would be very 

unlikely. 

Overall, impacts of Alternative A to 

cultural and historic resources would 

continue to be adverse, moderate, 

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

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

19

Resource

Alternative A: No Action – Conduct 

Surveys and Mapping for Coastal and 

Marine Data Collection with Current 

Technology and Methods, at Current

Funding Levels

Alternative B: Conduct Surveys and 

Mapping with Equipment 

Upgrades, Improved Hydroacoustic 

Devices, and New Tide Stations

Alternative C: Upgrades and 

Improvements with Greater 

Funding Support

Socioeconomic 

Resources

The economic impacts of ocean data 

procured under Alternative A on 

health and safety, recreational 

economic activity, transportation, and 

energy-related activities would 

continue to be indirect, beneficial, 

and moderate. 

Impacts to commercial fishing under 

Alternative A would continue to be 

adverse and negligible.

Data collected under Alternative A 

would continue to improve the quality 

and quantity of ocean data and data 

products. 

Overall, Alternative A would continue 

to have indirect, beneficial, and 

moderate impacts on the ocean 

economy. 

The economic benefits of impacts of 

Alternative B would be the same or 

slightly, but not appreciably, larger 

than those discussed above under 

Alternative A. These impacts would 

not substantially increase in 

intensity with the increased survey 

effort of Alternative B. 

Overall, Alternative B would have 

indirect, beneficial, and moderate 

impacts on the ocean economy.

The economic benefits of impacts of 

Alternative C would be the same or 

slightly, but not appreciably, larger 

than those under Alternatives A and 

B. These impacts would not 

substantially increase in intensity 

with the increased survey effort of 

Alternative C.

Overall, Alternative C would have 

indirect, beneficial, and moderate 

impacts on the ocean economy.

Environmental Justice Impacts of underwater acoustic

sources on subsistence hunting of 

marine mammals under Alternative A 

would continue to be adverse and 

moderate, and the impacts to 

subsistence fishing communities 

would continue to be adverse and 

minor. 

Under Alternative B, impacts on 

environmental justice would be the 

same or slightly, but not 

appreciably, larger than those that 

would occur under Alternative A for 

each impact causing factor. These 

impacts would not substantially 

increase in intensity with the 

Under Alternative C, impacts on 

environmental justice would be the 

same or slightly, but not 

appreciably, larger than those that 

would occur under Alternatives A

and B for each impact causing 

factor. These impacts would not 

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

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

20

Resource

Alternative A: No Action – Conduct 

Surveys and Mapping for Coastal and 

Marine Data Collection with Current 

Technology and Methods, at Current

Funding Levels

Alternative B: Conduct Surveys and 

Mapping with Equipment 

Upgrades, Improved Hydroacoustic 

Devices, and New Tide Stations

Alternative C: Upgrades and 

Improvements with Greater 

Funding Support

Impacts of vessel and equipment noise 

on subsistence hunting of marine 

mammals under Alternative A would 

continue to be adverse and minor, 

and the impacts to subsistence fishing 

communities would continue to be 

adverse and negligible. 

Impacts of vessel and equipment 

presence and movement on 

subsistence hunting of marine 

mammals under Alternative A would 

continue to be adverse and moderate, 

and the impacts to subsistence fishing 

communities would continue to be 

adverse and negligible. 

Impacts of human activities and 

accidental leakage or spillage of oil, 

fuel, and chemicals on subsistence

hunting and fishing under Alternative 

A would continue to be adverse and 

minor.

Impacts of marine trash and debris 

and air emissions on subsistence

hunting and fishing activities under 

increased survey effort of 

Alternative B. 

Overall, impacts of Alternative B on 

environmental justice would 

continue to be adverse, minor to

moderate, and insignificant. 

with the increased survey effort of 

Alternative C. 

Overall, impacts of Alternative C on 

environmental justice would 

continue to be adverse, minor to

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

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

21

Resource

Alternative A: No Action – Conduct 

Surveys and Mapping for Coastal and 

Marine Data Collection with Current 

Technology and Methods, at Current

Funding Levels

Alternative B: Conduct Surveys and 

Mapping with Equipment 

Upgrades, Improved Hydroacoustic 

Devices, and New Tide Stations

Alternative C: Upgrades and 

Improvements with Greater 

Funding Support

Alternative A would continue to be 

adverse and negligible. 

The availability of new mapping and 

charting information under Alternative 

A would have beneficial effects on EJ 

communities.

Overall, impacts of Alternative A on 

environmental justice would continue 

to be adverse, minor to moderate, 

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

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

22