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

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

331

3.8 AQUATIC MACROINVERTEBRATES

Invertebrates are animals without backbones and are the most diverse and numerous category of animals 

in the biosphere (New and Yen, 1995), comprising over 98 percent of the animal species on Earth classified 

to date by taxonomists (MarineBio, No Date). Aquatic macroinvertebrates are those aquatic invertebrates 

visible without the aid of a microscope. They evolved to live underwater in one or more stages of their life 

history, in both fresh water and salt water (marine) habitats. They are an extremely varied assortment of 

organisms that span a considerable number of taxonomic phyla.

3.8.1 Affected Environment

This section specifically covers aquatic macroinvertebrates that are found in the marine and freshwater

environments included within the action area of this Final PEIS. 

3.8.1.1 Marine Macroinvertebrates

Marine macroinvertebrates have been classified by taxonomists into more than 30 different phyla, a very 

large number representing considerable biological diversity. A phylum (plural phyla) is a major taxonomic 

category that ranks just above class and just below kingdom (as in plant, animal, and fungus kingdoms); it 

classifies organisms by their fundamental body plan. 

Among the more prominent and better known and studied phyla of marine macroinvertebrates are the 

following (MarineBio, No Date):

• Annelids – segmented worms, including polychaetes (bristle worms);

• Arthropods – animals with exoskeletons, especially the crustaceans in marine habitats, including 

lobsters, crabs, shrimp, amphipods, barnacles, and copepods; 

• Brachiopods – marine animals with hard “valves” or shells on their upper and lower surfaces;

• Bryozoans – moss animals or sea mats;

• Cnidaria – includes jellyfish, sea anemones, and corals (Figure 3.8-1);

• Echinoderms – includes sea stars, sea urchins, sea cucumbers, sand dollars, and crinoids;

• Mollusks – includes gastropods (e.g., sea snails, whelks, limpets, abalone), bivalves (clams, 

mussels, oysters, scallops), cephalopods (e.g., squid, octopus), and chitins;

• Porifera – sponges; and 

• Tunicates – sea squirts or sea pork.
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

332

Photo Credit: Greg McFall, Gray’s Reef NMS, NOS, NOAA

Arthropods have the largest number of species of the phyla listed above, with over 1 million described 

and classified. Mollusks are the next most abundant in the ocean. 

Marine macroinvertebrates are very important ecologically (New and Yen, 1995). They constitute a vital 

food source for vertebrates such as diving sea birds, fish, sea turtles, and marine mammals in the marine 

food web. Jellyfish (Figure 3.8-2), for example, are the main food source of leatherback turtles, which also 

prey upon other marine invertebrates such as sea urchins, squid, crustaceans, and tunicates (NWF, No 

Date). Marine invertebrates in turn feed upon phytoplankton and zooplankton. Many cnidarians, 

mollusks, sponges, and crustaceans are filter feeders, playing a major role in ecosystem function (NAP, 

2010; Burge et al., 2016; Sánchez et al., 2016). They help filter and clean estuaries and bays along the 

coast by removing suspended particles and reducing the turbidity of the water column. 

Photo Credit: NOAA Okeanos Explorer Program

The sessile, soft-bodied coral polyps attached to the sea floor secrete a hard, external skeleton of 

limestone (i.e., CaCO3), constructing tropical coral reefs in the process. These reefs represent the largest 

Figure 3.8-1. NOS Diver on 

Gray's Reef with Variety of 

Marine Macroinvertebrates

Figure 3.8-2. Jellyfish in the Order 

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

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

333

structures of biological origin on the planet; the structure, complex three-dimensional geometry, and hard 

surfaces they provide are the basis for biologically diverse ecosystems (NOAA, No Date-c). Coral reefs are 

increasingly at risk around the world from increasing ocean temperatures and acidification related to 

increased atmospheric carbon dioxide levels and related global warming, as well as from more localized 

threats such as sedimentation, overfishing, dynamiting, and damage from anchors.

A number of marine macroinvertebrates support economically and socially important industries, both 

commercial and sport, along the nation’s coasts and estuaries, especially crustaceans (e.g., lobster, crab, 

shrimp) and mollusks (e.g., clam, mussel, oyster, scallop, squid, octopus). In 2015 alone, total U.S. landings 

revenues were $618 million for lobster, $489 million for shrimp, and $439 million for sea scallop, in 

comparison to $509 million for walleye pollock and $461 million for Pacific salmon, the two most 

important fin fisheries (NMFS, 2017e). Harvest of these shellfish is regulated by the federal and state 

governments, and management of the harvest of cephalopods like the octopus has also begun (Conners 

et al., 2017; Conners and Conrath, No Date). 

3.8.1.2 Freshwater Macroinvertebrates

The most important freshwater aquatic macroinvertebrates are bivalve mollusks (clams and mussels), 

crustaceans (crayfish), and arthropods (aquatic insects and their larvae). Clams and mussels are often so 

inconspicuous and immobile that they can be mistaken for cobblestones; they are found on the bottom 

of waterbodies and feed by filtering water for microscopic plant and animal food particles (plankton). Like 

marine macroinvertebrates, freshwater macroinvertebrates are very important both ecologically and 

economically (MDC, No Date). They are a vital food source for vertebrates, conveying nutrients from 

producers (plants and algae) to higher-order consumers in the aquatic food web. Many species of 

mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, and fish feed on aquatic macroinvertebrates in freshwater bodies. 

Some kinds of aquatic macroinvertebrates are indicators of water quality. Still others, notably mosquitoes

whose larvae are aquatic, are disease vectors. 

3.8.1.2.1 Freshwater Macroinvertebrate Stressors

North America has the highest freshwater mussel diversity in the world, but an estimated 70 percent of 

these are extinct or imperiled (Vollman, 2019). A number of species are listed as threatened or 

endangered because of changes to hydrology caused by dams, reservoirs, and channelization, and

because of turbidity, sedimentation, and pollution (Platt, 2018) as well as invasive species (69 FR 42198, 

July 14, 2004). Aquatic macroinvertebrates are so sensitive to water quality and susceptible to water 

pollutants that certain kinds are frequently used as reliable indicators of freshwater quality in waterbodies 

(Gaufin and Tarzwell, 1952; USU, No Date). Some species of macroinvertebrates can survive degraded 

water quality, but others survive only under nearly pure or pristine conditions (NPS, 2020a).

Among the “indicator species” of water quality and pollution are the benthic (i.e., bottom-dwelling) 

macroinvertebrates: small, fully aquatic animals and the aquatic larval stages of insects (which may be 

non-aquatic as adults). They include snails, worms, beetles, and the larvae of dragonflies, mayflies, and 

stoneflies (Figure 3.8-3). Benthic macroinvertebrates are typically found attached to rocks, vegetation, 

sticks, and logs, or within burrows in bottom sand and sediments (EPA, 2022).
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

334

Photo Credit: G. Carter via NOAA/GLERL

Non-native, invasive macroinvertebrates like the zebra mussel (Dreissena polymorpha) (Figure 3.8-4), a 

native to Eurasia introduced inadvertently into the Great Lakes ecosystem from ship ballast water 

(Vollman, 2019), have affected the aquatic ecology of entire lake and river systems (USGS, 2022a) 

including the Great Lakes, Mississippi River Basin, and other watersheds, where they have threatened 

native freshwater mussel species (USFWS, 2004). Since the early 1990s, more than 95 percent of the 

native clams once found in Lake Erie have disappeared because of the zebra mussel, which attaches itself 

to native clams in large numbers, impeding the ability of the clams to feed and burrow (Nichols and Wilcox, 

2004). Zebra mussels have spread rapidly and now infest the entire Great Lakes ecosystem (Egan, 2019).

Photo Credit: Amy Benson, USGS

In addition to its ecological impacts, the invasive zebra mussel has also become an extremely costly 

nuisance to industries and municipalities, such as water and electrical utilities, which withdraw water or 

discharge effluent, because of the mussel’s tendency to completely clog water intake and effluent outfall 

pipes. Invasion of the zebra mussel has cost billions of dollars in the last three decades because of the 

need to invent, design, construct, and maintain water treatment systems that use chemicals, heat, and 

ultraviolet light to clear pipelines, intakes, and outfalls, and to keep water and effluent flowing through 

them (Egan, 2019). 

Figure 3.8-3. Variety of Freshwater 

Benthic Macroinvertebrates

Figure 3.8-4. Zebra Mussel
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

335

The closely related quagga mussel (Dreissena bugensis), an invasive native to the Dnieper River basin in 

the Ukraine, was first discovered in Lake Erie in 1989 and has also spread very rapidly, proving even more 

ecologically destructive in the Great Lakes than the zebra mussel. Quaggas are such effective filter feeders 

that they remove substantial quantities of phytoplankton from the water column. By depleting 

phytoplankton, quaggas in turn reduce food for zooplankton, thereby co-opting and diverting energy 

flows at the base of the aquatic food pyramid into their own growth and biomass (IMC, 2018). The biomass 

of quagga mussels in Lake Michigan in one recent year was estimated to be about seven times greater 

than the entire biomass of the schools of prey fish upon which the lake’s salmon and trout depend (Egan, 

2019). Under favorable conditions, these mussels can now filter all of Lake Michigan’s water in less than 

two weeks. Removal of suspended particles increases water clarity (decreasing turbidity) and reduces 

chlorophyll (phytoplankton) concentrations. In turn, increased light penetration leads to a proliferation of 

certain aquatic plants, altered species dominance, and changes in the entire aquatic ecosystem.

Pseudofeces (i.e., mucous-coated grit expelled by filter-feeding gastropod mollusks, distinct from actual 

feces) produced by quagga mussels from filtering water accumulate and foul the underwater environment 

(USGS, 2022b). As these waste particles decompose, DO is depleted and the water becomes very acidic; 

additionally, toxic byproducts are generated. Moreover, quagga mussels magnify organic pollutants 

within their tissues to concentrations 300,000 times greater than in the environment; these toxins can be 

passed up the food chain, increasing exposure of wildlife to organic pollutants (Snyder et al., 1997).

3.8.1.3 Sound Production and Hearing

The science of how aquatic macroinvertebrates, with their exceptional morphological and physiological 

diversity, use sound or are affected by anthropogenic sources of underwater sound is in its infancy 

(Mooney et al., 2010; Acoustical Society of America, 2017; Hawkins and Popper, 2012, 2017; NSF and 

USGS, 2011). Certain macroinvertebrates, such as cnidarians, annelids, arthropods, and mollusks, are 

known to have external sensory cilia (i.e., hair-like structures) and/or internal statocysts (i.e., sac-like 

organs with sensory cilia) to detect vibrations in the water (Navy, 2015). 

Similar to the way that some fish sense sound, scientists believe that macroinvertebrates are able to sense 

vibrations and particle motion – rather than sound pressure, which is detected by and affects marine 

mammals (DOSITS, No Date-b; Nedelec et al., 2016; Edmonds et al., 2016). Because any acoustic sensory 

capabilities in aquatic macroinvertebrates, to the extent they exist at all, are limited to detecting particle 

motion, and this decreases rapidly with distance from the sound source, invertebrates are probably 

restricted to detecting sound sources in close proximity rather than sound caused by pressure waves from 

distant sources (Navy, 2015). Due to their commercial importance, most attention has focused on the 

acoustic capabilities and sensitivities of marine crustaceans (e.g., lobsters, shrimp, crabs). While 

crustaceans are known to detect, produce, and respond to sound, their sensitivity to sound is unknown 

(Edmonds et al., 2016). 

The hearing range of macroinvertebrates is uncertain and likely varies from phylum to phylum. At present, 

no acoustic frequency or sound intensity thresholds exist above which there are known or observed 

impacts (Edmonds et al., 2016). All of the NOS underwater sound sources, such as echo sounders and 

ADCPs, associated with the project alternatives should be well above the hearing range of 

macroinvertebrates (Hawkins and Popper, 2012). However, certain macroinvertebrates can probably 

detect low-frequency sounds from ship movement (Mooney et al., 2010), though scientists still lack an 

understanding of what that means to them. To date, there are no studies indicating whether masking
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

336

occurs in aquatic macroinvertebrates or suggesting that anthropogenic sounds would have any impact on 

invertebrate behavior (Hawkins and Popper, 2012).

3.8.1.4 Regional Distribution

Aquatic macroinvertebrates are found in all regions of the action area, though different phyla and taxa 

predominate in different regions and habitats. In the freshwater navigable rivers throughout the 

continental U.S., as well as the Great Lakes, mollusks, in particular mussels, are ecologically predominant. 

Native insect larva and crustaceans such as amphipods and crayfish (which are all arthropods), as well as

annelids (segmented worms), are also present in these freshwater habitats. Brachiopods, bryozoans, 

Cnidaria (jellyfish and corals), echinoderms (sea stars, etc.), Porifera (sponges), and tunicates are some of 

the prominent macroinvertebrates not found to any extent or at all in freshwater environments. 

It is in the marine environment that macroinvertebrate diversity and abundance reach their zenith, 

especially in warmer waters and the tropics. All five marine regions of the EEZ support abundant 

macroinvertebrate populations, biomass, and species diversity. 

Tropical coral reefs of any significance, and the diverse animal assemblages and ecosystems they support, 

occur only in the Southeast Region and Pacific Islands Region. The economic value of particular 

commercially important macroinvertebrates varies substantially from region to region. Shrimp are 

particularly important in the Gulf states of the Southeast Region, while lobster support an important 

fishery in the Greater Atlantic Region. Oyster harvest in Chesapeake Bay (on the boundary between the 

Greater Atlantic Region and Southeast Region) used to support a major industry that is now much 

diminished, but crabs continue to be economically and culturally important. Crabs also support a large 

commercial fishery in the Alaska Region. 

3.8.1.5 Threatened and Endangered Species

NMFS and the USFWS have listed a number of imperiled aquatic macroinvertebrates as either threatened 

or endangered under the ESA. 

3.8.1.5.1 Marine Macroinvertebrates

A total of 17 ESA-listed or candidate species of marine macroinvertebrates, 15 coral species and two 

species of abalone (a marine gastropod mollusk), potentially occur in the action area (Table 3.8-1). The 

corals are all within the Southeast Region and the Pacific Islands Region, while the abalones are found in 

the West Coast Region. Two species of ESA-listed coral and one species of abalone have designated critical 

habitat. 

Table 3.8-1. ESA-Listed Marine Macroinvertebrates Occurring in the Action Area

Common Name Scientific Name ESA Status

Lead 

Agency Region* Critical Habitat

Staghorn coral Acropora cervicornis Threatened NMFS SER Yes

Coral: no common 

name

Acropora globiceps Threatened NMFS PIR No

Coral: no common 

name

Acropora 

jacquelineae

Threatened NMFS PIR No
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

337

Common Name Scientific Name ESA Status

Lead 

Agency Region* Critical Habitat

Elkhorn coral Acropora palmata Threatened NMFS SER Yes

Coral: no common 

name

Acropora retusa Threatened NMFS PIR No

Coral: no common 

name

Acropora speciosa Threatened NMFS PIR No

Pillar coral Dendrogyra cylindrus Threatened NMFS SER No

Coral: no common 

name

Euphyllia paradivisa Threatened NMFS PIR No

Black abalone Haliotis cracherodii Endangered NMFS WCR Yes

White abalone Haliotis sorenseni Endangered NMFS WCR No

Coral: no common 

name

Isopora crateriformis Threatened NMFS PIR No

Rough cactus coral Mycetophyllia ferox Threatened NMFS SER No

Lobed star coral Orbicella annularis Threatened NMFS SER No

Mountainous star 

coral

Orbicella faveolata Threatened NMFS SER No

Boulder star coral Orbicella franksi Threatened NMFS SER No

Coral: no common 

name

Pocillopora 

meandrina

Candidate NMFS PIR --

Coral: no common 

name

Seriatopora aculeata Threatened NMFS PIR No

*SER = Southeast Region (includes Gulf of Mexico, the Caribbean, and the Atlantic seaboard from North Carolina to 

Florida); WCR = West Coast Region (includes Washington, Oregon, and California); PIR = Pacific Islands Region 

(includes the Hawaiian, Marianas, and American Samoa archipelagos, Wake Island, and the Remote Pacific Islands).

3.8.1.5.1.1 Acropora cervicornis (Staghorn Coral)

Staghorn coral (Figure 3.8-5) is considered one of the most important corals in the Caribbean Sea because 

it furnishes crucial habitat for other reef animals, especially fish. It lives in a number of coral reef habitats: 

spur and groove, bank reef, patch reef, transitional reef habitats, limestone ridges, terraces, and hard 

bottom. Along with elkhorn and star corals, staghorn coral gradually built Caribbean coral reefs across 

millennia. However, in the early 1980s, a severe epidemic of white band disease swept across its range, 

and now the surviving staghorn population is a tiny fraction (less than three percent) of its former 

abundance. Staghorn populations now comprise isolated colonies compared to the vast thickets that once 

predominated across its range. Thickets remain a prominent feature at just a few known locations. 

Staghorn coral populations have difficulty reproducing because of white band disease and other stressors 

(NMFS, No Date-a).
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

338

Photo Credit: NMFS

The greatest single threat now facing staghorn coral is a warming ocean. This forces the corals to expel 

the photosynthetic algae (zooxanthellae) living in their tissue that provide them with food, causing “coral 

bleaching” and often leading to death. A related threat is ocean acidification, a decrease in water pH 

caused by increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, which dissolves in the surface water to form 

carbonic acid. This makes it harder for corals to build their skeletons. Other threats are unsustainable 

fishing practices, which deplete the herbivorous fish that clean the reef, and pollutants originating on 

adjacent lands such as sediments and nutrients (NMFS, No Date-a).

In 2014, staghorn coral was listed as ESA-threatened throughout its range, which includes the Bahamas, 

Caribbean, Florida, and Gulf of Mexico. NMFS has designated four critical habitat areas recognized as 

providing critical recruitment habitat for staghorn corals off the coast of Florida and off the islands of 

Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands (NMFS, No Date-a).

3.8.1.5.1.2 Acropora globiceps

Within the action area, this species of coral, which lacks a common name, occurs in the central and 

western Pacific Ocean. Within the EEZ, it is found in Guam, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana 

Islands, American Samoa, and the Pacific Remote Island Area (NMFS, No Date-a). 

A. globiceps coral has branches resembling fingers; their size and shape depend on the degree of wave 

action to which they are exposed. Colonies subject to strong wave action have pyramid-shaped 

branchlets. Colonies can range in color from uniform blue to cream, brown, or fluorescent green.

A. globiceps is susceptible to the three major threats identified for many corals, namely ocean warming, 

disease, and ocean acidification, as well as many of the other threats common to corals, such as 

unsustainable fishing, land-based pollution sources, small population size, and habitat degradation. 

Despite its widespread geographic distribution, this species occurs primarily in a limited depth range of 0 

to 8 m (0-26 ft). Shallow reef areas like these can be complex and physically diverse but are often 

vulnerable to multiple stressors, both localized and global in nature. 

The projected impact of climate change to coral reef ecosystems indicates that the shallow depth range 

that characterizes this species, in conjunction with other biological, demographic, and spatial elements, 

Figure 3.8-5. Staghorn Coral 

and Fish for Which They 

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

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

339

threaten it with extinction in the foreseeable future. In 2014, A. globiceps was listed as ESA-threatened 

throughout its range (NMFS, No Date-a).

3.8.1.5.1.3 Acropora jacquelineae

Within the action area, this species of coral, which lacks a common name, is found in the central and 

western Pacific Ocean. Within the EEZ, it is considered to be present in American Samoa. In addition, its 

current known geographic range is mostly confined to the Coral Triangle, a roughly triangular region of 

the tropical marine waters of Indonesia, Malaysia, Papua New Guinea, Philippines, Solomon Islands, and

Timor-Leste. The Coral Triangle contains at least 500 species of reef-building corals and is considered a 

biodiversity hotspot (Allen, 2007). A number of ocean-warming events have already happened in recent 

years within the western equatorial Pacific, including the Coral Triangle, suggesting that future ocean 

warming events may be more severe than average in this part of the world. 

Closely related to the previous species (A. globiceps), A. jacquelineae consists of gray-brown or pinkish 

flat plates up to 1 m (3 ft) in diameter (Figure 3.8-6). Its upper surface has many smooth-sided thin 

projections called corallites (NMFS, No Date-a). A. jacquelineae occurs in many subtidal reef slope and 

back-reef habitats, including lower reef slopes, walls and ledges, mid-slopes, and upper reef slopes 

protected from wave action. Its depth range is 10 to 35 m (33 to 115 ft). Like A. globiceps, A. jacquelineae

is vulnerable to the three major threats facing corals, including ocean warming, disease, and ocean 

acidification. This combination of factors contributes to a risk of extinction within the foreseeable future 

for A. jaquelineae. Accordingly, in 2014 it was listed as ESA-threatened throughout its range (NMFS, No 

Date-a).

Photo Credit: NMFS

3.8.1.5.1.4 Acropora palmata (Elkhorn Coral)

Elkhorn coral is in the same taxonomic genus as fellow Caribbean reef-builder staghorn coral (Acropora) 

and is threatened by the same factors. Elkhorn coral typically occurs in clear, shallow water 0.3 to 4 m (1 

to 15 ft) deep on coral reefs throughout the Bahamas, Florida, and the Caribbean. It lives in high-energy 

zones with substantial wave action (NMFS, No Date-a). 

Elkhorn coral colonies are golden tan or pale brown in color, with white tips. Like other corals, they derive 

their color from the symbiotic algae (zooxanthellae) that reside within their tissue and convert sunlight 

Figure 3.8-6. Acropora 

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

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

340

into food. Elkhorn corals have flattened frond-like branches, which typically angle upward from a central 

trunk. Individual elkhorn colonies can grow to at least 2 m (6 ft) in height and 4 m (12 ft) in diameter, as 

well as in dense stands with interlocking frameworks known as thickets. Due to their tree-like form, 

elkhorn corals furnish valuable, spatially complex habitat for fish and other coral reef organisms. In 

addition, dense thickets of elkhorn corals help prevent shoreline erosion from storm-generated waves 

(NMFS, No Date-a). 

In 2014, elkhorn coral was listed as ESA-threatened throughout its range. NMFS has designated four 

critical habitat areas recognized as providing critical recruitment habitat for elkhorn corals off the coast 

of Florida and off the islands of Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands.

3.8.1.5.1.5 Acropora retusa

A. retusa, which lacks a common name, is a species of coral found within the EEZ at Guam, American 

Samoa, and the Pacific Remote Island Area, occurring at relatively shallow depths ranging from 0 to 5 m 

(0 to 17 ft). Colonies of A. retusa, typically brown or green in color, are composed of flat plates with short, 

thick finger-like branches. These branches appear rough and spiky because their radial corallites vary in 

length. A. retusa is characterized as rare even where it is found. This species is vulnerable to the same 

global threats as other coral species, such as ocean warming, disease, and acidification. 

Projections of climate change impacts to coral reef environments indicate that the shallow depth range 

of A. retusa, in combination with its other biological, demographic, and spatial factors, contributes to a 

risk of its extinction within the foreseeable future. Accordingly, in 2014 A. retusa was listed as ESAthreatened throughout its range (NMFS, No Date-a). 

3.8.1.5.1.6 Acropora speciosa

This species of coral, which lacks a common name, is likely distributed from Indonesia to the Marshall 

Islands in the western and central Pacific. Within the EEZ, it might be found in the Pacific Remote Island 

area and American Samoa. Its colonies, which are cream or light brown in color with delicately colored 

branch tips, form thick cushions or bottlebrush branches (Figure 3.8-7). A. speciosa is found on lower reef 

slopes and walls, especially those with clear water and high Acropora diversity, at a depth ranging 12 to 

40 m (40 to 132 ft) (NMFS, No Date-a). 

This species is threatened by the same global factors as other coral species, such as ocean warming, 

disease, and acidification. Due to the widespread nature of these threats, any one threat event has the 

potential to adversely affect many coral colonies simultaneously. Thus, a species with a relatively small 

effective population size, like A. speciosa, may have a high proportion of genetically unique individuals 

harmed by threats at any given time within the foreseeable future. This, in combination with other 

biological, demographic, and spatial elements, contributes to a risk of extinction for this species within 

the foreseeable future. Accordingly, in 2014 A. speciosa was listed as ESA-threatened throughout its range 

(NMFS, No Date-a).
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

341

Photo Credit: NMFS

3.8.1.5.1.7 Dendrogyra cylindrus (Pillar Coral)

Pillar coral (Figure 3.8-8) is a hard coral found in the western Atlantic Ocean and the Caribbean Sea. It 

often resembles a cluster of cigars or fingers protruding from the sea floor (NMFS, No Date-a). Pillar coral 

colonies occur on flat or gently sloping back reef and fore reef environments from 1 to 25 m (3 to 83 ft) in 

depth. Pillar coral colonies are resistant to heavy wave surge, but colonies will occasionally topple due to 

erosion at the bases. However, upper portions of the colonies generally survive, and they produce multiple 

new pillars which continue to grow upward. 

Pillar coral is imperiled throughout its range by climate change, including ocean warming and ocean 

acidification. Diseases, land-based sources of pollution from residential and commercial development, 

overfishing, and habitat degradation are also threats (NMFS, No Date-a). In 2014, pillar coral was listed as 

ESA-threatened throughout its range. 

Photo Credit: NMFS

Figure 3.8-7. Acropora 

speciosa

Figure 3.8-8. Pillar Coral
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

342

3.8.1.5.1.8 Euphyllia paradivisa

This species of coral, which lacks a common name, is native to the Indo-Pacific islands, occurring mostly 

in the Coral Triangle area, but is also found in the waters around American Samoa. It favors underwater 

habitats sheltered from surface wave action on fringing reef crests, mid-slope terraces, and lagoons at 

depths ranging from 2-25 m (6-82 ft). Like A. globiceps and A. jacquelineae discussed above, Euphyllia 

paradivisa faces a variety of global and localized threats that in aggregate contribute to a risk of extinction 

for this species within the foreseeable future. In 2014, it was listed as ESA-threatened throughout its range 

(NMFS, No Date-a).

3.8.1.5.1.9 Haliotis cracherodii (Black Abalone)

The black abalone is an herbivorous marine snail that was once widespread and abundant along the 

California coast but is now endangered. For millennia before modern commercial fisheries appeared to 

exploit it, indigenous Californians harvested and ate abalone. Large piles of abalone shells called middens 

document human settlement dating back more than 7,000 years. Abalone shells were even traded by 

Native Americans along routes that began in southern California and extended east of the Mississippi 

River (NMFS, No Date-a).

The black abalone continues to survive in rocky intertidal pools and subtidal reefs along the California and 

Baja California coasts. Their oval-shaped shells protect them from predators, while their strong, muscular 

“foot” attaches to rocks and other hard substrates, from which they release eggs and sperm into the water 

by the millions when prompted by the right environmental conditions. Harvesting black abalone has been 

illegal in California since 1993, but the high price of abalone meat, considered a delicacy, maintains 

poaching pressure. This endangered species has declined significantly along the Southern California coast 

because of historical overharvest and poaching, and more recently, mass mortality has occurred from a 

disease known as withering syndrome. In 2009, black abalone was listed as ESA-endangered throughout 

its range (NMFS, No Date-a). Critical habitat was designated in 2011 to include approximately 360 km2 of 

rocky intertidal and subtidal habitat within five segments of the California coast between the Del Mar 

Landing Ecological Reserve to the Palos Verdes Peninsula, as well as on the Farallon Islands, Año Nuevo 

Island, San Miguel Island, Santa Rosa Island, Santa Cruz Island, Anacapa Island, Santa Barbara Island, and 

Santa Catalina Island (76 FR 66806, October 27, 2011).

3.8.1.5.1.10 Haliotis sorenseni (White Abalone)

Closely related to the black abalone, in 2001 the white abalone (Figure 3.8-9) was listed as ESAendangered throughout its range along the California coast because of overharvest and poaching. 

Although harvest of white abalone has been illegal in California since 1997, the high price of abalone meat 

on the black market makes them a continuing target of poachers. Surveys in southern California show a 

99 percent decline in the white abalone stock since the 1970s. In 2001, NMFS determined that it would 

be imprudent to designate critical habitat because identification of such habitat might increase the threat 

of poaching for white abalone (NMFS, No Date-a).
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

343

Photo Credit: NMFS

3.8.1.5.1.11 Isopora crateriformis

This coral, which lacks a common name, is believed to be distributed within the Coral Triangle, in addition 

to some of the western Pacific, including American Samoa and the Marshall Islands. It forms brown, 

fattened, solid encrusting plates which can reach over 1 m (3 ft) in diameter. When a colony grows on a 

slope, the lower edge is usually lifted as a plate. Its main habitats are shallow, high-wave-energy 

environments, including reef flats and lower crests, as well as upper reef slopes. It has been reported from 

low tide to at least 12 m (40 ft) deep. Its abundance is characterized as “rare” (NMFS, No Date-a). 

I. crateriformis is threatened by the same global and localized factors as the other species in the Coral 

Triangle and western Pacific, including ocean warming, disease, and ocean acidification. Thus, in 2014 it 

was listed as ESA-threatened throughout its range (NMFS, No Date-a). 

3.8.1.5.1.12 Mycetophyllia ferox (Rough Cactus Coral)

Rough cactus coral is distributed in the Caribbean, southern Gulf of Mexico, Florida, and the Bahamas. It 

usually exhibits shades of grey or brown, but may also be reddish or green (NMFS, No Date-a). This species 

is most abundant in fore reef environments from 5-30 m (17-100 ft), but it is also found at low abundance 

in certain deeper back reef habitats and deep lagoons (IUCN, 2022).

Rough cactus coral is threatened by many of the same factors that threaten other corals: residential and 

commercial development, transportation corridors, fishing and harvesting of aquatic resources, human 

intrusions and disturbance (e.g., recreational activities), invasive species, pollution, and climate change. 

In 2014, rough cactus coral was listed as ESA-threatened throughout its range (IUCN, 2022; NMFS, No 

Date-a). 

3.8.1.5.1.13 Orbicella annularis (Lobed Star Coral)

This species is one of the dominant corals in the reefs of the Caribbean Sea and Gulf of Mexico, where it 

can form extremely large colonies. However, it is ESA-listed as threatened due to sharp population 

declines. The size of this species makes it an ecologically and structurally important component of coral 

reefs. It provides refuge for reef-dwelling fish and other animals and can alter marine microclimates to 

suit other coral species (EDGE, No Date). 

Lobed star coral is threatened by residential and commercial development, shipping lanes, fishing and 

harvesting of aquatic resources, human intrusions and disturbance (e.g., recreational activities), invasive 

Figure 3.8-9. White Abalone
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

344

species, pollution, and climate change. In 2014, lobed star coral was listed as ESA-threatened throughout 

its range (NMFS, No Date-a). 

3.8.1.5.1.14 Orbicella faveolata (Mountainous Star Coral)

Mountainous star coral (Figure 3.8-10) is found in the Caribbean Sea and Gulf of Mexico. It is usually pale 

brown but may be deep brown with fluorescent green highlights (NMFS, No Date-a). Befitting its name, 

colonies of mountainous star coral are massive, forming large rounded domes and becoming plate-like at 

the edges (Corals of the World, No Date). While this species is one of the most important reef-building 

corals in the Caribbean Sea, its populations have recently declined severely (Rippe et al., 2017).

Photo Credit: NMFS

The mountainous star coral is threatened by a combination of climate change, including ocean warming 

and ocean acidification, diseases, land-based sources of pollution, and habitat degradation. Accordingly, 

in 2014 it was listed as ESA-threatened throughout its range (NMFS, No Date-a). 

3.8.1.5.1.15 Orbicella franksi (Boulder Star Coral)

This coral species is native to shallow waters in the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, Bahamas, Bermuda, and 

Florida. Colonies of boulder star coral generally form very large clumps with uneven surfaces; they 

sometimes form plates. Boulder star coral is usually orange-brown, greenish-brown or greyish-brown. 

However, extremities of the lumps are frequently pale or white (NMFS, No Date-a). 

The boulder star coral, like its close relative the mountainous star coral, is threatened by a combination 

of climate change, including ocean warming and ocean acidification, diseases, land-based sources of 

pollution, small population size, and habitat degradation. In 2014, it was listed as ESA-threatened 

throughout its range (NMFS, No Date-a). 

3.8.1.5.1.16 Pocillopora meandrina (Cauliflower Coral)

This coral species, sometimes called cauliflower coral, occurs at depths of 1-27 m (3-89 ft) in shallow reefs 

exposed to strong wave action. It is distributed on coral reefs across the Pacific, with a range extending 

from the Seychelles Islands in the Indian Ocean to the west coast of Central America in the eastern Pacific. 

It is found in all U.S. Pacific Islands jurisdictions (NMFS, No Date-a). 

Figure 3.8-10. Mountainous 

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

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

345

Colonies of P. meandrina are usually cream colored but can also be green or pink; they resemble small 

upright bushes (Figure 3.8-11), with branches radiating outward from the initial point of growth. These 

branches are flattened and are covered by bumps called verrucae (NMFS, No Date-a). 

P. meandrina is threatened by climate change, including ocean warming and ocean acidification, habitat 

degradation, diseases, and unsustainable fishing. It is an ESA-candidate species for listing through its 

entire range (NMFS, No Date-a). 

Photo Credit: NMFS

3.8.1.5.1.17 Seriatopora aculeata

This coral species, which lacks a common name, is likely distributed mostly within the Coral Triangle, as 

well as adjacent areas in the western Pacific Ocean including the Mariana Islands and Guam. Colonies of

S. aculeata are pink or cream in color and have short, tapered branches, about the width of a pencil, 

usually in fused clumps (NMFS, No Date-a).

This species is found in a wide range of habitats, both on the reef slope and back reef. It occurs on upper 

reef slopes, mid-slope terraces, lower reef slopes, reef flats, and lagoons at a depth range of 3-40 m (10-

132 ft).

S. aculeata is vulnerable to the three major, interrelated global threats documented for corals: ocean 

warming, disease, and ocean acidification. A number of ocean warming events have already taken place 

within the western equatorial Pacific, an indication that future ocean warming events in this part of the 

planet may be more severe than average. A substantial portion of its current known geographic range is 

located within the Coral Triangle, which over the 21st century, is predicted to experience the most rapid 

and severe impacts on the world’s coral reefs both from global climate change and localized human 

actions. In aggregate, these stressors contribute to a risk of extinction within the foreseeable future for S. 

aculeata. In 2014, this coral was listed as ESA-threatened throughout its range (NMFS, No Date-a).

3.8.1.5.2 Freshwater Macroinvertebrates

A total of three ESA-listed species of aquatic macroinvertebrates, all mussels, have been documented in 

the Great Lakes (Table 3.8-2). 

Figure 3.8-11. Pocillopora meandrina
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

346

Table 3.8-2. ESA-Listed Aquatic Macroinvertebrates Occurring in the Great Lakes

Common Name Scientific Name ESA Status Lead Agency Critical Habitat

Northern Riffleshell Epioblasma torulosa 

rangiana

Endangered USFWS No

Snuffbox Epioblasma triquetra Endangered USFWS No

Rayed Bean Villosa fabalis Endangered USFWS No

3.8.1.5.2.1 Epioblasma torulosa rangiana (Northern Riffleshell)

This mussel occurs in both small and large streams, as well as in Lake Erie, although it now survives in less 

than five percent of its former range in the upper Midwest. It buries into substrates of firmly packed sand 

or gravel, leaving its feeding siphons exposed. Like many mussels, it has a complex life history. Its 

reproduction requires undisturbed habitat and adequate numbers of host fish necessary for the mussel's 

larval development. After male mussels discharge sperm into the water, females siphon in the sperm to 

fertilize their eggs, which they store in their gill pouches until larvae hatch and are expelled. Those larvae 

that find a fish host to fasten onto by means of tiny clasping valves grow into juveniles with shells of their 

own. At that stage they detach from the host fish and settle into the stream or lakebed, ready to begin a 

long life (up to half a century) as an adult mussel (PNHP, No Date). 

Dams and reservoirs have flooded most of the northern riffleshell’s habitat. Reservoirs act as barriers that 

isolate upstream populations from downstream ones. Erosion from strip mining, logging, farming, and 

grading introduces sediments to many waterbodies. Suspended and deposited sediments can clog 

mussels’ feeding siphons and smother them. Point-source and non-point-source pollution from 

agricultural runoff and industrial discharge is another threat. These toxins can accumulate and 

concentrate in the body tissues of filter-feeders like mussels, eventually poisoning them. In addition, the 

invasive zebra mussel poses a threat because they attach in great numbers to native mussels such as the 

northern riffleshell, suffocating and killing them. In 1993, this species was listed as ESA-endangered 

“wherever found” throughout its range (ECOS, No Date-a).

3.8.1.5.2.2 Epioblasma triquetra (Snuffbox)

The snuffbox is a small, triangular freshwater mussel with a yellow, green or brown shell that occurs in a 

number of states in the South and upper Midwest, as well as Pennsylvania and West Virginia. However, 

its range and numbers have decreased by at least 90 percent. It lives in small to medium-sized creeks with 

swift currents, although it also occurs in Lake Erie and some larger rivers (USFWS, 2012a). Males can grow 

up to 7.1 cm (2.8 in), with females reaching 4.6 cm (1.8 in). Adults often burrow deep in sandy, gravel, or 

cobble substrates, except when they are spawning or when the females are attempting to attract host 

fish. Snuffbox mussels are suspension feeders, feeding on algae, bacteria, detritus, microscopic animals, 

and dissolved organic material (USFWS, 2012a).

Adapted to living in currents, the snuffbox cannot survive in the lentic (still water) conditions created by 

dams. These mussels are also adversely affected by pollution, sedimentation, and invasive specieslike the 

zebra mussel. In 2012, the snuffbox mussel was listed as ESA-endangered “wherever found” throughout 

its range (ECOS, No Date-a).
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

347

3.8.1.5.2.3 Villosa fabalis (Rayed Bean)

The rayed bean (Figure 3.8-12) is a small freshwater mussel, typically less than 3.8 cm (1.5 in) long. Its 

shell is smooth-textured and green, yellowish-green, or brown with many dark-green wavy lines. It 

generally lives in smaller, headwater creeks, but is sometimes found in large rivers and wave-washed 

areas of glacial lakes, as well as Lake Erie. It prefers sand or gravel substrates, often in and around the 

roots of aquatic vegetation. Adult rayed beans spend their entire lives partially or completely submerged 

in the substrate, filtering water through their gills to feed upon algae, bacteria, detritus, microscopic 

animals, and dissolved organic material (USFWS, 2012b).

Photo Credit: Angela Boyer, USFWS

Historically, the rayed bean used to range across a wide area in the upper Midwest and eastern states, 

north to Ontario. Once found in at least 115 streams, canals, and lakes, it now occurs in only 31 streams 

and one lake, as well as Lake Erie. It has suffered a 73 percent reduction in the number of occupied streams 

and lakes. It has been extirpated entirely from three states but is still found in several others, as well as 

Ontario, Canada. After extirpation from Tennessee and West Virginia, reintroductions have restored the 

rayed bean to these states (USFWS, 2012b).

This mussel is endangered for the same reasons as the snuffbox mussel: dams and reservoirs, pollution, 

sedimentation, and invasive species. In 2012, the rayed bean mussel was listed as ESA-endangered 

“wherever found” throughout its range (ECOS, No Date-a).

3.8.1.5.2.4 Other ESA-Listed Freshwater Mussel Species

A number of other ESA-listed freshwater mussel species are found throughout navigable rivers of the U.S., 

particularly in the major tributaries of the Mississippi River System, including the Tennessee, Ohio, Illinois, 

Arkansas, and Red Rivers; these species are unlikely to be affected by NOS projects. 

3.8.2 Environmental Consequences for Aquatic Macroinvertebrates

This section discusses the potential impacts of proposed activities associated with Alternatives A, B, and 

C on aquatic macroinvertebrates. ESA-listed endangered and threatened species are included as part of

the discussion along with non-listed species because the potential impact mechanisms are the same. 

However, any impacts on managed species are of particular concern since they could affect commercially 

and recreationally important populations of these species. Effects determinations for ESA-listed species 

are presented in Section 3.8.2.5.

Figure 3.8-12. Rayed Bean 

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

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

348

Activities described in Sections 2.1.1 through 2.1.13 that occur on NOS projects and that could be 

expected to impact aquatic macroinvertebrates 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.

3.8.2.1 Methodology

The factors from NOS activities that could impact aquatic macroinvertebrates in the action area include:

(1) active underwater acoustic sources (e.g., echo sounders, ADCPs, and acoustic communication 

systems); (2) vessel sound (e.g., from surface vessels, ROVs, and autonomous vehicles); (3) vessel surface 

wake and underwater turbulence (e.g., from surface vessels; ROVs and autonomous vehicles; survey 

equipment; and anchors); (4) accidental leakage or spillage of oil, fuel, and chemicals into surrounding 

waters (e.g., from vessel operations); (5) disturbance of the sea floor (e.g., from anchoring and collection 

of bottom grab samples); and (6) air emissions (e.g., from smokestacks and outboard motors). These 

potential impact causing factors and their associated impacts on aquatic macroinvertebrates are 

discussed below for each alternative. 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 aquatic macroinvertebrates are shown in Table 3.8-3.

Table 3.8-3. Significance Criteria for the Analysis of Impacts

to Aquatic Macroinvertebrates

Impact 

Descriptor Context and Intensity

Significance 

Conclusion

Negligible

Impacts to aquatic macroinvertebrates would be limited to 

temporary (lasting up to several hours) behavioral and stress-startle 

responses to individual invertebrates found within the project area. 

Impacts on habitat would be temporary (e.g., temporary placement 

of an object on the sea floor or increased turbidity) with no lasting 

damage or alteration.

Insignificant

Minor

Impacts to aquatic macroinvertebrates would be temporary or shortterm (lasting several days to several weeks) but would not be outside 

the natural range of variability of species’ populations, their habitats, 

or the natural processes sustaining them. This could include 

temporary or repeated short-term stress responses without 

permanent physiological damage. Behavioral responses to 

disturbance by some individuals, groups, populations, or colonies

could be expected, but only temporary disturbance of breeding, 

feeding, or other activities would occur, without any impacts on 

population levels. Displacement would be short-term and limited to 

the project area or its immediate surroundings. Impacts on habitat

(e.g., short-term placement of an object on the sea floor, increased 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

349

Impact 

Descriptor Context and Intensity

Significance 

Conclusion

turbidity, or loss of a small area of vegetation) would be easily 

recoverable, with no long-term or permanent damage or alteration. 

Moderate

Impacts to aquatic macroinvertebrates would be short-term or longterm (lasting several months or longer) and outside the natural range 

of variability of species’ populations, their habitats, or the natural 

processes sustaining them. This could include physiological injury to 

individuals, repeated stress responses, or mortality. Behavioral 

responses to disturbance by numerous individuals could be expected 

in the project area, its immediate surroundings, or beyond. These 

could include negative impacts to breeding, feeding, growth, or other 

factors affecting population levels, including population-level 

mortality to or extended displacement (up to 1 year) of large numbers 

(e.g., population-level) of invertebrates. However, they would not 

threaten the continued existence of a stock, population, or species. 

Habitat would be potentially damaged or altered over the long term 

but would continue to support the species reliant on it.

Major

Impacts to aquatic macroinvertebrates would be short-term or longterm and well outside the natural range of variability of species’ 

populations, their habitats, or the natural processes sustaining them. 

Behavioral and stress responses would be repeated or permanent. 

Actions would affect any stage of a species’ life cycle (i.e., breeding, 

feeding, growth, and maturity), alter population structure, genetic 

diversity, or other demographic factors, and/or cause mortality 

beyond a small number of individuals, resulting in a decrease in 

population levels. Displacement and stress responses would be shortor long-term within and well beyond the project area. Habitat would 

be degraded over the long term or permanently so that it would no 

longer support a sustainable fishery and/or would cause the 

population of a managed species to become stressed, less productive, 

or unstable.

Significant

3.8.2.2 Alternative A: No Action - Conduct Surveying and Mapping Projects for 

Coastal and Marine Data Collection with Current Technology and Methods, at 

Current Funding Levels

Under Alternative A, NOS survey effort would cover a total of 2,647,958 nm (4,904,017 km) across all five 

regions over the five-year period. Although the survey effort under Alternative A would vary by year (see 

Table 3.4-4), 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 perhaps slightly greater in the Alaska 

Region where the survey effort would be somewhat higher overall (approximately 18 percent). 

Additionally, survey effort in the Great Lakes would average 2,917 nm (5,402 km) annually, as compared 

to an annual average survey effort of 529,592 nm (980,803 km) for the remainder of the action area. 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 and depth of surveys, hearing 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

350

frequency of aquatic macroinvertebrates, and population densities of aquatic macroinvertebrates, that 

add nuance to this trend.

Overall, vessel activity during NOS projects would comprise a negligible proportion of vessel traffic in the 

action area (not including recreational vessels as they are not generally included in the count). 

Additionally, whenever possible, the location and timing of a given project would be purposefully 

coordinated to ensure that areas are not repeatedly surveyed (although ONMS and IOOS surveys may 

occur multiple times in one year). This ensures that the potential environmental impacts directly resulting 

from NOS projects would not be exacerbated by repeated surveys within a given area.

3.8.2.2.1 Aquatic Macroinvertebrates

The analysis of impacts on aquatic macroinvertebrates considers all of the impact causing factors listed 

above, except for air emissions which are analyzed in Section 3.8.2.2.2. Potential impacts could occur in 

all of the geographic regions. Three of the regions (Southeast, West Coast, Pacific Islands) include one or

more ESA-listed species, and two regions, the Southeast Region and the West Coast Region, include 

designated critical habitat for aquatic macroinvertebrates. The Pacific Islands Region contains the greatest 

number of ESA-listed species (all corals), closely followed by the Southeast Region (also corals). The only 

designated critical habitat is for staghorn and elkhorn coral in the Southeast Region and black abalone in 

the West Coast Region (see Table 3.8-1). 

In addition to the impacts on aquatic macroinvertebrates discussed in this section, these organisms may 

also be indirectly affected by habitat modification, such as degradation of water quality and disturbance 

of benthos, aquatic vegetation, and sediments. These potential impacts are discussed in Section 3.8.2.2.2. 

3.8.2.2.1.1 Active Underwater Acoustic Sources

As noted in Section 3.8.1.3, research into the effects of underwater sound waves on aquatic 

macroinvertebrates has barely begun and there are still many unknowns. While they lack ears and related 

structures associated with hearing, certain aquatic macroinvertebrates do possess morphological 

structures (external cilia sensory hairs, and internal statocysts), and at close range to a sound source, they 

are believed to be capable of detecting low-frequency vibrations and particle motion in water. However, 

unlike aquatic vertebrates, aquatic macroinvertebrates, lacking ears with which to hear, would not be 

vulnerable to potential hearing loss from loud underwater sounds. Furthermore, virtually all of the highfrequency underwater acoustic sources used during NOS projects should be above the detection range of

aquatic macroinvertebrates.

Overall, active underwater acoustic sources including echo sounders and ADCPs, when considered with 

the mobile and temporary character of NOS projects, the limited low-frequency detection range of aquatic 

macroinvertebrates documented to date, as well as the small area of the water column and sea floor 

affected during the projects relative to the entire EEZ, would have adverse, negligible impacts on aquatic 

macroinvertebrates. Impacts on aquatic macroinvertebrates, both marine and fresh water (Great Lakes 

and major navigable rivers), including ESA-listed species, would continue to be insignificant.

3.8.2.2.1.2 Vessel Sound

As noted in earlier sections, all vessels generate low-frequency underwater sound in the 20 to 500 Hz 

range and are major contributors to the overall background sound in the sea, which has been increasing 

for decades. As indicated in Section 3.8.1.3, aquatic macroinvertebrates can probably detect lowfrequency sound from ships, but scientists do not yet understand what, if anything, this sound at these 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

351

levels means to them. It is likely that aquatic macroinvertebrates found in locations with high vessel traffic 

have already habituated to this background sound. Underwater vessel sound could potentially disturb 

certain nearby aquatic macroinvertebrates, interrupt feeding, cause other behavior modifications, and 

possibly mask biologically important signals; such impacts would vary among aquatic macroinvertebrate 

taxa. Impacts on invertebrate behavior are anticipated to be temporary and localized to areas of vessel 

activity.

ROVs also generate engine sound, and effects on aquatic macroinvertebrates would likely be similar to 

those from sound from surface vessels but likely at a reduced magnitude as ROVs are smaller, thus 

producing less sound, and they would not be used as extensively as surface vessels (see Table 2.4-1).

Given the proposed volume of vessel traffic associated with projects within the EEZ, the effects of sound

from vessels used by NOS on aquatic macroinvertebrates, including ESA-listed species, would be adverse 

and negligible. Multiple activities in one area could lead to larger magnitudes and more widespread 

impacts, but they would still be considered insignificant.

3.8.2.2.1.3 Vessel Wake and Underwater Turbulence

Water disturbance by surface vessel and ROV wakes and underwater turbulence could temporarily disturb 

nearby invertebrates and displace mobile taxa. However, these impacts would be minimal as the vessel 

used by NOS would quickly pass by or stop moving. Impacts could increase if the frequency of disturbance 

becomes greater (i.e., repeated passes). In any event, mobile aquatic macroinvertebrates would be

expected to return to the area and resume normal activities once the vessel used by NOS departs or the 

ROV is no longer present.

Equipment used in NOS projects, such as echo sounders and ADCPs, is typically attached to a crewed

vessel, ROV, or an autonomous vehicle, thus effects on invertebrates due to water movement that is 

created would occur from the use of these carriers, rather than any disturbance from the equipment itself. 

An exception would be in the rare instances when echo sounders are placed directly on the sea floor or 

operated by divers, who would possibly disturb nearby invertebrates temporarily by moving through the 

water column.

Some equipment such as sound speed data collection equipment, bottom grab samplers, and drop/towed 

cameras is lowered and raised through the water column or falls through the water. This movement 

through the water could temporarily disturb and displace nearby aquatic macroinvertebrates such as 

crabs, shrimp, or lobsters, although it is not expected that most would move very far. These impacts would 

be temporary, as these organisms are expected to return once water column turbulence ceases.

Effects on aquatic macroinvertebrates, including ESA-listed species, from vessel wake and underwater

turbulence would be adverse and negligible. Multiple activities in one area could lead to more widespread 

impacts of greater magnitude, but impacts would still be considered insignificant.

3.8.2.2.1.4 Accidental Leakage or Spillage of Oil, Fuel, and Chemicals

An accidental event could result in release of fuel or diesel by a vessel used by NOS. Adverse impacts on 

aquatic macroinvertebrates could also occur from pumping of oily bilge water overboard, discharged 

wastewater/graywater that may contain nutrients and fecal coliform, and accidental oil, fuel, and 

chemical spills. Discharges other than accidental ones are regulated by the MARPOL 73/78 protocol, to 

which the U.S. is a signatory. Moreover, all hazardous or regulated materials would be handled in 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

352

accordance with applicable laws and crew members would be appropriately trained in materials storage 

and usage.

Such accidents may be caused by equipment malfunction, human error, or natural phenomena and are 

not expected during the course of NOS operations. In the unlikely event of an accidental spill, there would 

be very low likelihood for contaminants to make contact with the water because vessel operations 

personnel are required to respond immediately using established spill response procedures. For example, 

on NOAA fleet vessels, in the event of an oil, hazardous substance, or marine pollutant spill, the 

Commanding Officer takes appropriate action to minimize the effects of the spill. OMAO Procedure 0701-

06 VRP/SOPEP provides policy and guidance to all NOAA vessels regarding oil pollution emergency 

planning and response, in accordance with MARPOL 73/78, Annex I. The plan contains all the information 

and instruction required for responding to shipboard oil spills, such as general spill mitigation and 

response, shipboard spill mitigation and response, reporting requirements, completing Corrective Action 

Assessments, trainings, drills, and exercises. This plan has been approved by the USCG, and complies with 

the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 and Federal Water Pollution Act of 1973.

Some aquatic macroinvertebrates (e.g., crustaceans) are mobile enough to avoid areas of higher 

concentrations of oil and other contaminants, while others such as corals, sea anemones, and sea urchins

are sessile or immobile. Depending on the product, most oil would remain at or near the surface and 

typically would not impact aquatic macroinvertebrates in deeper water, where most are located. Lighter 

substances can disperse into the water column or might dissolve in water, potentially impacting sessile 

eggs and larvae, as well as more mobile juvenile aquatic macroinvertebrates and adult crustaceans. 

Although the probability of an accidental oil or chemical spill from a vessel used by NOS is very low, if 

exposed, aquatic macroinvertebrates can be affected directly either by ingestion of oil or oiled prey, 

through uptake of dissolved petroleum compounds, and through effects on eggs and larvae survival. 

Sublethal effects may cause stress and could be transient and only slightly debilitating, but invertebrates

may also be killed by coming into contact with oil and other contaminants. Recovery requires energy, and 

this could eventually lead to increased vulnerability to disease, diminished growth and reproductive 

success, and reduced fitness overall. 

Aquatic macroinvertebrates can be affected indirectly by oil and chemicals via modifications of the 

ecosystem that affect their prey species and habitats. Many aquatic macroinvertebrates feed upon

phytoplankton and zooplankton during various life stages. However, even if a large amount of plankton 

were affected, it can recover rapidly due to high reproductive rates, rapid replacement from adjacent 

waters, widespread distribution, and exchange with tidal currents. Moreover, the vessels used for NOS 

projects and the quantity of fuel and other chemicals they carry are extremely small compared to the 

extensive size of the action area. Thus, the impact on a pelagic phytoplankton community, and on aquatic

macroinvertebrates, would not be substantial, widespread, or long-term.

The likelihood of an accidental spill from a vessel used for NOS projects would be very low, and thus 

impacts are expected to be adverse and negligible to minor. All hazardous or regulated materials would

be handled in accordance with applicable laws, crew members would be appropriately trained in materials 

storage and usage, and all MARPOL discharge protocols would be followed. Impacts on aquatic 

macroinvertebrates, including ESA-listed species, would be considered insignificant. In the event that an 

accidental spill did occur, the volume of oil, fuel, and/or chemicals would be fairly small, so that the impact 

on aquatic macroinvertebrates would still be considered insignificant. 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

353

3.8.2.2.1.5 Disturbance of the Sea Floor

Water disturbance by anchors and chains moving in the water, and by collection of bottom grab samples, 

can temporarily disturb, displace, damage, or crush, injure, and kill nearby aquatic macroinvertebrates, 

both mobile (e.g., crustaceans) and immobile (e.g., corals, sea urchins, sea anemones, mollusks, sponges). 

Impacts would be minimal and extremely localized (BOEM, 2014b), and would cease with the removal of 

the grab sampler, with the anchoring system coming to rest, or with the equipment being taken out of 

the water. Any displaced benthic aquatic macroinvertebrates are expected to return to the area and 

resume normal activities as soon as water column turbulence ceases.

Dropping an anchor onto the seabed or lake/river bottom would disturb a very small area (1-2 m2 [3-6 

ft2

]). If anchor chains drag across the sea floor, they can create a circular scour hole. Anchor scour has the 

potential to create localized turbidity that could reduce water clarity and increase sediment deposition. 

Increased sedimentation can impact aquatic macroinvertebrates by reducing feeding efficiency, altering 

reproductive cycles, and reducing response to physical stimulus. In cases where organisms are exposed 

to excessive turbidity, the suspended sediments can potentially limit gas exchange and possibly lead to 

asphyxiation. However, suspended sediments are expected to settle quickly and long exposures are not 

likely to occur. Furthermore, NOS personnel would be careful not to drag anchor chains, would ensure 

that anchors are properly secured so as to minimize bottom disturbance, and would generally avoid 

anchoring on coral reefs.

Samples would not be collected on coral reefs, shipwrecks, obstructions, or hard bottom areas, further 

minimizing direct impacts to aquatic macroinvertebrates. Overall effects on aquatic macroinvertebrates 

from disturbance of the sea floor would be adverse and negligible. Impacts on aquatic

macroinvertebrates, including ESA-listed species, would continue to be insignificant.

3.8.2.2.2 Habitat for Aquatic Macroinvertebrates

The analysis of impacts on habitat for aquatic macroinvertebrates does not consider active underwater 

acoustic sources or vessel and equipment sound, as these impact causing factors would not affect habitat 

characteristics.

3.8.2.2.2.1 Vessel Wake and Underwater Turbulence

Vessel wakes and turbulence can generate wave and surge effects on shorelines and stir up bottom 

sediments, increasing localized turbidity in shallow areas depending on the wake wave energy, the water 

depth, and the type of shoreline. Wakes can cause shoreline erosion, degrade wetland habitat, and

increase water turbidity. Water column habitat gradients would be temporarily disrupted by wake action, 

including temperature, salinity, DO, turbidity, and nutrient supply. Stirring up lake sediment can resuspend nutrients such as phosphorus, potentially contributing to harmful, DO-consuming algal blooms. 

The suspension of disturbed sediments from wake action and shoreline erosion could minimize the light 

intensity that reaches aquatic vegetation which depends on light for photosynthesis. High turbidity that 

causes a substantial reduction in light availability can lead to sublethal adverse effects or mortality of 

aquatic vegetation. Suspended material may also react with DO in the water and result in short-term 

oxygen depletion to aquatic resources, including vegetation and aquatic macroinvertebrates.

The movement of ROVs, such as sound speed data collection equipment, bottom grab samplers, 

drop/towed cameras, and anchors and chains through the water column could temporarily cause localized 

turbulence and disturb nearby prey species, as well as potentially cause damage to submerged aquatic 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

354

vegetation. These impacts would be temporary as prey species are expected to return once water column 

turbulence ceases.

Equipment such as echo sounders, ADCPs, and acoustic communication systems, are typically attached to 

a crewed vessel, ROV, or autonomous vehicle, thus effects on habitat would occur from the use of these 

carriers, rather than any disturbance from the equipment itself. The one exception would be in the rare 

instances when echo sounders are placed directly on the sea floor or operated by divers. In such cases, 

divers would move through the water column temporarily disturbing prey species.

Underwater turbulence could occur during tide gauge installation even though it occurs primarily out of 

the water at existing piers, docks, bulkheads, and other such locales. All buoys would be attached to the 

sea floor using the best available mooring systems to reduce entanglement. Generally, no impact on 

habitat would occur except when tide gauge installation requires in-water work that could cause sediment 

disturbance. In remote areas which are reached by boat for installation, maintenance, and removal, 

impacts on habitat could occur and would be similar to those for surface vessel operations. Likewise, 

installation of a shore-based GPS reference station would not have any effects on habitat other than 

potentially from accessing the site via a surface vessel, which would be similar to those from surface vessel 

operations.

Effects on habitat, designated critical habitat, and other aquatic macroinvertebrate habitat, from vessel 

wake and underwater turbulence would be adverse and negligible to minor. Multiple activities in one 

area could lead to greater magnitudes and extents of impacts, but impacts would still be considered 

insignificant.

3.8.2.2.2.2 Accidental Leakage or Spillage of Oil, Fuel, and Chemicals

An accidental event could result in release of fuel or oil by a vessel used by NOS. The accidental loss of a 

substantial amount of fuel or oil during projects could affect water quality, the water column, the sea

floor, intertidal habitats, and associated biota (i.e., submerged aquatic vegetation) resulting in their 

mortality or substantial injury, and in alteration of the existing quality of aquatic macroinvertebrate 

habitats. Cleaning and inspecting vessels prior to use would reduce the risk of accidental spills. In addition,

implementation of a spill prevention and recovery plan and shipboard emergency plans that outline 

measures to reduce the potential for spills and isolate accidental spills should they occur would further 

reduce the potential for adverse impacts on habitat. In addition, onboard and supporting equipment and 

the procedures specified in the spill plan are expected to reduce the effects of accidentally discharged 

fuel and other petroleum products (e.g., oil, lubricants) by facilitating rapid response and cleanup 

operations. 

Such accidents may be caused by equipment malfunction, human error, or natural phenomena and are 

not expected during the course of NOS operations. In the unlikely event of an accidental spill, there would 

be very low likelihood for contaminants to make contact with the water because vessel operations 

personnel are required to respond immediately using established spill response procedures. For example, 

on NOAA fleet vessels, in the event of an oil, hazardous substance, or marine pollutant spill, the 

Commanding Officer takes appropriate action to minimize the effects of the spill. OMAO Procedure 0701-

06 VRP/SOPEP provides policy and guidance to all NOAA vessels regarding oil pollution emergency 

planning and response, in accordance with MARPOL 73/78, Annex I. The plan contains all the information 

and instruction required for responding to shipboard oil spills, such as general spill mitigation and 

response, shipboard spill mitigation and response, reporting requirements, completing Corrective Action 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

355

Assessments, trainings, drills, and exercises. This plan has been approved by the USCG, and complies with 

the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 and Federal Water Pollution Act of 1973.

Vessel bilge water discharges, engine operations, bottom paint sloughing, boat washdowns, and other 

vessel activities or wear can also deliver debris, nutrients, and contaminants to waterways. This may 

degrade water quality, contaminate sediments, and alter benthic communities and other aquatic

macroinvertebrate habitats. Vessel wash, including gray water, deck runoff and cooling water can damage 

aquatic vegetation and disturb benthos and sediments, which may increase turbidity and suspend 

contaminants. Any liquid contaminants are expected to be rapidly diluted. 

The likelihood of occurrence of an accidental fuel or oil spill from a vessel used by NOS would be very low, 

although the release of other contaminants is a little more likely. All hazardous or regulated materials 

would be handled in accordance with applicable laws, crew members would be appropriately trained in 

materials storage and usage, and all MARPOL discharge protocols would be followed. Thus, impacts are 

expected to be adverse and negligible to minor. Impacts on habitat, as well as designated critical habitat, 

would continue to be insignificant.

3.8.2.2.2.3 Disturbance of the Sea Floor

Adverse impacts on aquatic macroinvertebrate habitat can occur when vessels used by NOS anchor in 

shallow nearshore waters and the anchor chain drags across the sea floor, destroying submerged 

vegetation and creating a circular scour hole. Anchor scour has the potential to create localized turbidity 

and affect soft-bottomed seafloor habitat and/or rocky substrates, potentially creating turbidity that 

could reduce water clarity and increase sediment deposition. NOS personnel would deploy anchors so as 

to minimize anchor drag, would ensure that anchors are properly secured so as to minimize bottom 

disturbance, and would not anchor on known coral reef areas.

Increased turbidity immediately following anchoring events could temporarily reduce foraging ability of

prey due to decreased visibility in the water column; however, these conditions would be of short duration 

and would soon return to baseline. Suspended material may also react with DO in the water and result in 

short-term oxygen depletion to aquatic resources.

Collecting bottom samples could create localized turbidity and affect soft-bottomed seafloor habitat, 

potentially creating turbidity that could reduce water clarity temporarily. Such turbidity would likely be 

minimal as samplers are designed to close to contain the sediment and prevent sample washout. Samples 

would not be collected on coral reefs, shipwrecks, obstructions, or hard bottom areas, further minimizing 

impacts on aquatic macroinvertebrate habitat. Placement of equipment or moorings on the sea floor has 

the potential to create localized turbidity that could reduce water clarity temporarily, although this would 

be minimal. Additionally, equipment such as AUVs would be programmed and operated so as to avoid sea 

floor disturbance, SCUBA divers would avoid inadvertent disturbance to the sea floor, and stiffer line 

material would be used and kept taut during operations to reduce potential for entanglement with 

bottom features such as coral habitat.

Effects from disturbance of the sea floor would be adverse and negligible to minor. Impacts on habitats 

and designated critical habitat would be insignificant.

3.8.2.2.2.4 Air Emissions

Since the pre-industrial era, increased anthropogenic emissions of GHGs (CO2, CH4, and N2O) have 

influenced changes in oceanic conditions (as well as atmospheric and terrestrial conditions) (Limpinsel et 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

356

al., 2017). Higher atmospheric CO2 levels increase dissolved CO2 and bicarbonate ions in seawater, which 

subsequently leads to a decrease in carbonate ions and pH, termed “ocean acidification.” Changes in 

seawater carbon chemistry may affect marine biota through a variety of biochemical, physiological, and 

physical processes. 

Smokestack and two-stroke outboard motor emissions from vessels used by NOS would release air 

pollutants which can be deposited on the water surface and contribute to such adverse effects as 

increasing water acidity in aquatic macroinvertebrate habitat. Adverse impacts can be reduced by such 

measures as integrating new technologies, operational controls, replacing old engine systems, and 

switching to low sulfur fuels. Furthermore, the amount of emissions from vessels used by NOS would be 

a negligible fraction as compared to emissions from all other non-project related vessel activity. 

Thus, impacts from air emissions are expected to be adverse and negligible. Impacts on habitat and 

designated critical habitat for aquatic macroinvertebrates would be insignificant. 

3.8.2.2.3 Conclusion

Since the effects of impact causing factors on aquatic macroinvertebrates and their habitats range from 

negligible to minor, the overall impact of Alternative A on aquatic macroinvertebrates, including ESA-listed 

species, and designated critical habitat would be adverse and minor; thus, impacts of Alternative A would 

continue to be insignificant.

3.8.2.3 Alternative B: Conduct Surveying and Mapping Projects for Coastal and 

Marine Data Collection with Equipment Upgrades, Improved Hydroacoustic 

Devices, and New Tide Stations

The same impact causing factors for aquatic macroinvertebrates and habitat considered under Alternative 

A are considered under Alternative B. Under Alternative B, all of the activities 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. The greatest 

level of effort would occur in the Southeast Region (with approximately 47 percent of the survey effort); 

level of effort in the other four regions would occur 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 18 percent). The level of effort in the Great Lakes would 

remain much lower as compared to the annual total marine survey effort. 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 and depth of surveys, hearing frequency of aquatic 

macroinvertebrates, and population densities of aquatic macroinvertebrates, that add nuance to this 

trend.

Survey activities 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, NOS survey effort would cover a total of 

2,912,753 nm (5,394,419 km) across all five regions over the five-year period. Overall, survey effort would 

cover an additional 264,796 nm (490,402 km) under Alternative B as compared to Alternative A (see Table 

3.4-5). 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

357

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 aquatic macroinvertebrates and habitat related to vessel 

sound, vessel wake and underwater turbulence, accidental spills, and air emissions. Although the amount 

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

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). The magnitude of impacts would likewise remain the same for other proposed activities 

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

communication systems; and bottom disturbance from anchoring, bottom grab samples, and sound speed 

data collection.

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 aquatic macroinvertebrates, including ESA-listed 

species, and on habitat and designated critical habitat, would be the same or slightly, but not appreciably, 

larger than those discussed above under Alternative A for each impact causing factor. Overall, impacts on 

aquatic macroinvertebrates and habitat would be adverse, minor, and insignificant.

3.8.2.4 Alternative C: Upgrades and Improvements with Greater Funding Support

The same impact causing factors for aquatic macroinvertebrates and habitat considered under Alternative 

A are considered under Alternative C. Under Alternative C, all the activities and equipment operation 

proposed in Alternative A 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 survey activity 

would increase. The greatest level of effort would occur in the Southeast Region (with approximately 47 

percent of the survey effort); in the other four regions level of effort would occur 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 18 percent). The level 

of effort in the Great Lakes would remain much lower as compared to the annual total marine survey 

effort. 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 and depth of surveys, 

hearing frequency of aquatic macroinvertebrates, and population densities of aquatic 

macroinvertebrates, that add nuance to this trend.

Survey activities 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 activities and thus 

more nautical miles traveled, than Alternatives A and B. Under Alternative C, NOS survey effort would 

cover a total of 3,177,549 nm (5,884,821 km) across all five regions over the five-year period. Overall, 

there would be an additional 264,796 nm (490,402 km) covered by vessels used by NOS under Alternative 

C (see Table 3.4-6) as compared to Alternative B, and an additional 529,592 nm (980,803 km) as compared 

to Alternative A. The types and mechanisms of impacts would remain the same in Alternative C as 

discussed for Alternatives A and B. 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 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

358

under Alternative C across five regions would result in greater impacts on aquatic macroinvertebrates 

overall, but not so great that the magnitude of a particular impact causing factor would increase (e.g., 

from negligible to minor).

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. Impacts of Alternative C on aquatic 

macroinvertebrates, including ESA-listed species, habitats, and designated critical habitat, would be the 

same or slightly, but not appreciably, larger than those discussed above under Alternatives A and B for 

each impact causing factor. Overall, impacts on aquatic macroinvertebrates and their habitats would be 

adverse, minor, and insignificant.

3.8.2.5 Endangered Species Act Effects Determination

Federal agencies are required under the ESA to determine whether their actions may affect ESA-listed 

species or their designated critical habitat. Effects determinations divide potential effects into three 

categories: No Effect; May Affect, but Not Likely to Adversely Affect; and May Affect, and is Likely to 

Adversely Affect. Actions receiving a “No Effect” designation do not impact listed species or their 

designated critical habitat (hereafter listed resources) either positively or negatively and is typically only 

used in situations where no listed resources are present in the action area. Actions receiving a “May Affect, 

but Not Likely to Adversely Affect” designation have only beneficial, insignificant, or discountable effects 

to listed resources. Insignificant effects under the ESA relate to the size of the impact and should never 

reach the scale where take occurs; they are of low relative impact, not measurable, or cannot be 

evaluated. Adverse effects are considered discountable if they are extremely unlikely to occur. Actions 

designated as “May Affect, and is Likely to Adversely Affect” will negatively impact any exposed listed 

resources in a manner that is not insignificant or discountable.

ESA-listed aquatic macroinvertebrate species – all of which are bottom-dwelling corals and mollusks 

(abalone and mussels) – are not believed to detect the mid-to-high frequencies emitted by active 

underwater acoustic sources. Additionally, due to the mobile and temporary nature of NOS projects and

the small area of the sea floor affected during the projects relative to the entire EEZ, the response to 

underwater sound exposure from active underwater acoustic sources would be short term, limited to only 

a few individuals, and therefore, discountable (i.e., extremely unlikely to occur).

The proposed volume of sound from vessel traffic associated with NOS projects would be very small in 

comparison to sound from all the other non-project related vessel traffic within the EEZ. Additionally, 

there is no indication that ESA-listed corals and mollusks are susceptible to adverse effects from sound

emitted by vessels. Because sound disturbance would be of temporary or short duration and would occur 

infrequently in any given area, the response by ESA-listed taxa to sound from vessels used by NOS would 

be short term, limited to only a few individuals, and therefore, discountable (i.e., extremely unlikely to 

occur).

Although water disturbance by surface vessel and ROV wakes and underwater turbulence could 

temporarily disturb and nearby corals and mollusks, effects would be temporary and minimal; thus, the 

response by ESA-listed aquatic macroinvertebrates would be short term, limited to only a few individuals, 

and therefore, discountable (i.e., extremely unlikely to occur).

The likelihood for an accidental spill is expected to be discountable (i.e., extremely unlikely to occur), and 

exposure of ESA-listed aquatic macroinvertebrate species and critical habitats to oil, fuel, and other 
National Ocean Service Surveying and Mapping Projects in U.S. Waters for

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

359

contaminants is not expected. These accidents may be caused by equipment malfunction, human error, 

or natural phenomena and are not expected during the course of NOS operations. In the unlikely event of 

an accidental spill, there would be very low likelihood for contaminants to make contact with the water 

because vessel operations personnel are required to respond immediately using established spill response 

procedures. Thus, effects from chemical contamination on ESA-listed species are, therefore, discountable

(i.e., extremely unlikely to occur).

Mitigation measures to reduce or avoid disturbance of the sea floor are included in Appendix D. Given the 

minimal amount of potential turbidity and fine sediment created by disturbance of the sea floor, the effect 

on ESA-listed species would be short term, limited to only a few individuals, and therefore, discountable 

(i.e., extremely unlikely to occur).

Thus, NOS concludes that the Proposed Action “May Affect, but [is] Not Likely to Adversely Affect” any of 

the ESA-listed aquatic macroinvertebrate species occurring in the action area (Table 3.8-4). Additionally, 

these aquatic macroinvertebrate species serve as prey to marine mammals, and thus, effects on them 

would constitute indirect effects to marine mammals. Thus, the “May Affect, but Not Likely to Adversely 

Affect” determination for ESA-listed aquatic macroinvertebrates also applies indirectly to ESA-listed 

marine mammals.

Since NOS projects may occur in some areas within or adjacent to designated critical habitats for elkhorn 

and staghorn coral in the Caribbean Sea, and for black abalone off the California coast, there is the 

potential for impacts on critical habitat characteristics that support these two ESA-listed species. Critical 

habitat may be minimally disturbed but would remain functional to maintain viability of the species reliant 

on it. Due to the potential for effects that could be negligible or minor, the Proposed Action “May Affect, 

but Not Likely to Adversely Affect” the designated critical habitat occurring in the action area (Tables 3.8-

4).

Table 3.8-4. Summary of Effects Determinations for ESA-Listed Aquatic 

Macroinvertebrates and Critical Habitat

Common Name Scientific Name Species Determination

Critical Habitat 

Determination

Great Lakes

Northern Riffleshell Epioblasma torulosa 

rangiana

May Affect, but Not 

Likely to Adversely Affect

N/A (no critical habitat 

designated)

Snuffbox Epioblasma triquetra May Affect, but Not 

Likely to Adversely Affect

N/A (no critical habitat 

designated)

Rayed Bean Villosa fabalis May Affect, but Not 

Likely to Adversely Affect

N/A (no critical habitat 

designated)

Marine

Staghorn coral Acropora cervicornis May Affect, but Not 

Likely to Adversely Affect

May Affect, but Not 

Likely to Adversely Affect

Coral: no common name Acropora globiceps May Affect, but Not 

Likely to Adversely Affect

N/A (no critical habitat 

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

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Coastal and Marine Data Acquisition

360

Common Name Scientific Name Species Determination

Critical Habitat 

Determination

Coral: no common name Acropora jacquelineae May Affect, but Not 

Likely to Adversely Affect

N/A (no critical habitat 

designated)

Elkhorn coral Acropora palmata May Affect, but Not 

Likely to Adversely Affect

May Affect, but Not 

Likely to Adversely Affect

Coral: no common name Acropora retusa May Affect, but Not 

Likely to Adversely Affect

N/A (no critical habitat 

designated)

Coral: no common name Acropora speciosa May Affect, but Not 

Likely to Adversely Affect

N/A (no critical habitat 

designated)

Pillar coral Dendrogyra cylindrus May Affect, but Not 

Likely to Adversely Affect

N/A (no critical habitat 

designated)

Coral: no common name Euphyllia paradivisa May Affect, but Not 

Likely to Adversely Affect

N/A (no critical habitat 

designated)

Black abalone Haliotis cracherodii May Affect, but Not 

Likely to Adversely Affect

May Affect, but Not 

Likely to Adversely Affect

White abalone Haliotis sorenseni May Affect, but Not 

Likely to Adversely Affect

N/A (no critical habitat 

designated)

Coral: no common name Isopora crateriformis May Affect, but Not 

Likely to Adversely Affect

N/A (no critical habitat 

designated)

Rough cactus coral Mycetophyllia ferox May Affect, but Not 

Likely to Adversely Affect

N/A (no critical habitat 

designated)

Lobed star coral Orbicella annularis May Affect, but Not 

Likely to Adversely Affect

N/A (no critical habitat 

designated)

Mountainous star coral Orbicella faveolata May Affect, but Not 

Likely to Adversely Affect

N/A (no critical habitat 

designated)

Boulder star coral Orbicella franksi May Affect, but Not 

Likely to Adversely Affect

N/A (no critical habitat 

designated)

Coral: no common name Pocillopora meandrina May Affect, but Not 

Likely to Adversely Affect

N/A (no critical habitat 

designated)

Coral: no common name Seriatopora aculeata May Affect, but Not 

Likely to Adversely Affect

N/A (no critical habitat 

designated)