Polar Icebreaker Program; Record of Decision for the Polar Security Cutter Environmental Impact Statement, 13050-13057 [2019-06468]

Agencies

• Coast Guard
• DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 64 (Wednesday, April 3, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 13050-13057]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-06468]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

[Docket Number USCG-2018-0193]


Polar Icebreaker Program; Record of Decision for the Polar 
Security Cutter Environmental Impact Statement

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Record of decision.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The U.S. Coast Guard, as lead agency, announces the 
availability of the Record of Decision for the approved Polar Security 
Cutter Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) in accordance 
with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) for the Polar 
Security Cutter Program's design and build of up to six polar 
icebreakers. This publication serves as the Record of Decision on the 
final EIS and includes a full summary of the environmental analysis and 
consequences.

DATES: The decision became operative on March 18, 2019.

ADDRESSES: The complete text of the final EIS and any supporting 
documents related to this decision are available in the docket which 
can be found by searching the docket number USCG-2018-0193 at https://www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions about this 
Record of Decision (ROD), email Ms. Christine Wiegand, Assistant 
Program Manager for Acquisition, Polar Security Cutter Program, U.S. 
Coast Guard; email [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents

I. Table of Abbreviations
II. Record of Decision
III. Background and Issues
IV. Purpose and Need
V. Public Involevement
VI. Alternatives Considered
VII. Summary of Environmental Analysis and Consequences (Preferred 
Alternative)
    A. Acoustic Stressors
    B. Summary of Impacts From Acoustic Stressors
    C. Physical Stressors
    D. Summary of Impacts From Physical Stressors
    E. Socioeconomic Impacts
    F. Summary of Impacts to Resource Areas
    G. Mitigation Measures
    H. Monitoring, Research, and Reporting
VIII. Agency Consultation and Coordination
VIII. Conclusion

I. Table of Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CGC Coast Guard Cutter

[[Page 13051]]

EIS Environmental Impact Statement
FR Federal Register
NEPA National Environmental Policy Act
PIBs Polar Icebreakers
PSC Polar Security Cutter
ROD Record of Decision
U.S.C. United States Code

II. Record of Decision

    Pursuant to Section 102(2)(c) of the National Environmental Policy 
Act (NEPA) of 1969, Sections 4321 et seq. of Title 42 U.S.C., Council 
on Environmental Quality Regulations (1500-1508 of Title 40 Code of 
Federal Regulations [CFR], and Executive Order 12114, Environmental 
Effects Abroad of Major Federal Actions), the Coast Guard announces its 
decision to implement the Coast Guard's preferred Alternative, 
Alternative 1, including the full range of mitigation measures, as 
described in the PSC's Final Programmatic EIS. This decision will 
enable the Coast Guard to carry out the Coast Guard's primary missions 
supported by PSC. A detailed description of Alternative 1 is provided 
in Chapter 2 (Description of the Proposed Action and Alternatives) of 
the PSC Final Programmatic EIS.

III. Background and Issues

    The Coast Guard is a military, multi-mission, maritime service 
within the Department of Homeland Security and one of the nation's five 
armed services. In executing its various missions, the Coast Guard 
protects the public, the environment, and U.S. economic and security 
interests in maritime regions, including international waters and the 
coasts, ports, and inland waterways of the U.S., as required to support 
national security.
    As the polar regions of the Arctic and Antarctic become more 
accessible, they become more important to U.S. and international 
interests. Polar icebreakers enable the Coast Guard to enforce treaties 
and other laws needed to safeguard both industry and the environment; 
provide ports, waterways and coastal security; provide logistical 
support; and support all other Coast Guard missions. Any increase in 
vessel traffic in the polar regions increases the potential for more 
search and rescue missions, water pollution, illegal fishing, and 
infringement on the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone, which requires Coast 
Guard presence. In response to this potential surge in vessel traffic, 
a long term increase in Coast Guard mission demand is projected, thus 
requiring additional capacity from PSCs. The Proposed Action would 
allow the Coast Guard to meet the increasing demand in the polar 
regions, as well as year-round mission requirements.

IV. Purpose and Need

    The Coast Guard's current fleet of polar icebreakers consists of 
two heavy icebreakers, Coast Guard Cutter (CGC) POLAR STAR and CGC 
POLAR SEA, and one medium icebreaker, CGC HEALY. The Coast Guard's 
heavy icebreakers have both exceeded their designed 30-year service 
life. CGC POLAR STAR was commissioned in 1976 and CGC POLAR SEA in 
1978. CGC POLAR STAR completed a service life extension in 2013 to 
allow CGC POLAR STAR to operate for an additional seven to ten years. 
CGC POLAR SEA has remained out of service since 2010 and is not 
expected to be reactivated. The PSC program acquisition strategy to 
construct up to three PSCs and may (at a future date) expand to include 
up to three additional icebreakers, with design service lives of 30 
years each. The first of these new PSCs is expected to be delivered in 
2023. Because the first new PSC would not be operational in the Polar 
Regions until at least 2023, new information may become available after 
the completion of the Programmatic EIS. In that case, supplemental NEPA 
documentation may, as appropriate, be prepared in support of individual 
proposed actions and tiered to the PSC Final Programmatic EIS. Examples 
of new information may include, but are not limited to, changes to a 
species listing status or any other applicable laws and directives, and 
information regarding mission, training, homeporting, maintenance, and 
eventual decommissioning of the new PSCs.
    PSCs will be designed to carry out the Coast Guard's primary 
missions supported by the current polar icebreaker fleet. Expected 
missions include Ice Operations; Defense Readiness; Aids to Navigation; 
Living Marine Resources; Marine Safety; Marine Environmental 
Protection; Other Law Enforcement; Ports, Waterways, and Coastal 
Security; and Search and Rescue. In executing its various missions, the 
Coast Guard protects the public, the environment, and U.S. economic and 
security interests in maritime regions, including international waters 
and the Nation's coasts, ports, and inland waterways, as required to 
support national security. Legislation and executive orders assign the 
Coast Guard a wide range of responsibilities applicable to Polar 
Regions. The Coast Guard derives its authority for the use of 
icebreaking from several statutes governing execution of its missions. 
These include 14 U.S.C. 81 (Coast Guard establishment, maintenance, and 
operation of aids to navigation), 14 U.S.C. 88 (Coast Guard saving of 
life and property), 14 U.S.C. 89 (Coast Guard law enforcement), 14 
U.S.C. 90 (Arctic maritime transportation), 14 U.S.C. 91 (controlling 
anchorage and movement of vessels), 14 U.S.C. 94 (conduct oceanographic 
research), and 14 U.S.C. 141 (cooperation with agencies, States, 
territories, and others). In addition, Executive Order 7521 (Use of 
Vessels for Icebreaking in Channels and Harbors; 1 FR 2184; December 
24, 1936), directs the Coast Guard to assist in keeping channels and 
harbors open to navigation by means of icebreaking operations.
    The Coast Guard proposes to conduct PSC operations and training 
exercises to meet Coast Guard mission responsibilities in the U.S., 
Arctic and Antarctic Regions of operation, in addition to vessel 
performance testing post-dry dock in the Pacific Northwest near the 
current polar icebreaker homeport of Seattle, Washington. While the 
exact location for future homeporting has not been determined, the 
current fleet of polar icebreakers is homeported in Seattle, 
Washington.
    Polar Regions are becoming increasingly important to U.S. national 
interests. The changing environment in these regions could lead to a 
rise in human activity and increased commercial ship, cruise ship, and 
naval surface ship operations, as well as increased exploration for oil 
and other resources, particularly in the Arctic. One of the Coast 
Guard's highest priorities is safety of life at sea. This entails the 
Arctic responsibilities described above as well as assisting with 
Antarctica logistics at McMurdo Station. Long-term projected increases 
in Coast Guard mission demand in the Polar Regions would require 
additional support from PSCs. A lack of infrastructure, polar 
environmental conditions, and long distances between operating areas 
and support bases all influence the Coast Guard's ability to provide 
comparable service and presence in Polar Regions as compared to that 
provided in other non-polar areas of operation with existing Coast 
Guard assets.
    The PSC Final Programmatic EIS analyzed the potential impacts of up 
to six new PSCs, as this is the maximum number anticipated to be 
operational in the Polar Regions under the current PSC program 
acquisition strategy. A lesser number of icebreakers is expected to 
result in a similar or reduced impact than what was discussed and 
evaluated in the EIS. Potential environmental stressors include 
acoustic (underwater acoustic transmissions, vessel noise, icebreaking 
noise, aircraft noise, and

[[Page 13052]]

gunnery noise), and physical (vessel movement, aircraft or in-air 
device movement, in-water device movement, icebreaking, and marine 
expended materials).

V. Public Involvement

    The public scoping period began with issuance of the Notice of 
Intent in the Federal Register (83 FR 18319) on April 26, 2018. The 
scoping period lasted 60 days, concluding on June 25, 2018. The public 
was provided a variety of methods to comment on the scope of the PSC 
Final Programmatic EIS during the scoping period. Communication methods 
used by the Coast Guard to distribute the proposed project information 
to residents of Alaska included: Radio, newspapers, fliers, electronic 
mail (email), and websites. Public presentations of the Proposed Action 
and preliminary findings were provided at public meetings held in 
Alaska. These meetings were advertised with fliers and newspaper 
postings, as well as in radio announcements and on social media.
    A project website was established to facilitate public input within 
and outside the Arctic, Antarctic, and Pacific Northwest regions 
(https://www.dcms.uscg.mil/Our-Organization/Assistant-Commandant-for-Acquisitions-CG-9/Programs/Surface-Programs/Polar-Icebreaker/). The 
scheduling of public meetings was publicized in press releases 
available on the Coast Guard's website, in the Federal Register Notice 
(83 FR 18319; April 26, 2018), as well as in local newspapers--the 
Anchorage Daily News, the Arctic Sounder, and the Nome Nugget and 
social media sites, such as Facebook. Targeted emails were sent to the 
Tribal communities in the regions of Nome (Bering Straits Region), 
Kotzebue (Nana Region), Anchorage, and Barrow/Utqiagvik (Arctic Slope 
Region) to notify them that the public meetings were taking place. 
Public meetings were held in Nome (May 7, 2018), Kotzebue (May 9, 
2018), Anchorage (May 11, 2018), and in Barrow/Utqiagvik (May 14, 
2018). The public meeting in Nome had 10 attendees, the meeting in 
Kotzebue had 4 attendees, and the meeting in Barrow/Utqiagvik had 5 
attendees. The meeting in Anchorage was not attended by any members of 
the public. A Notice of Availability and request for comments was 
publicized in the Federal Register Notice (83 FR 38317; August 6, 2018) 
to notify the public of the 45-day public review period for the PSC 
Draft Programmatic EIS. Comments from the public are addressed in 
Appendix C of the PSC Final Programmatic EIS.
    A notice of availability of final programmatic EIS was posted in 
the docket on February 15, 2019 along with the full text of the final 
EIS. The program waited 30 days to make a final decision on the 
proposal. The Coast Guard received one comment which did not require 
revisions to the Final PSC Programmatic EIS.

VI. Alternatives Considered

    Two alternatives in addition to the Proposed Action (Alternative 1, 
Preferred Alternative) were evaluated in the PSC Final Programmatic 
EIS. The following provides a brief description of each alternative 
considered:
    Alternative 1. Proposed Action (Preferred Alternative). The design, 
build, and operation of up to six PSCs.
    Alternative 2. Leasing. Considered various forms of vessel leasing, 
such as those leases used by the U.S. Navy, the National Science 
Foundation, other federal agencies, and the domestic maritime industry.
    Alternative 3. No Action. No new icebreakers would be built or 
leased, and the Coast Guard would fulfill its missions in the Arctic 
and Antarctic using existing polar icebreaker assets.

VII. Summary of Environmental Analysis and Consequences (Preferred 
Alternative)

A. Acoustic Stressors

    The acoustic stressors from the Proposed Action include underwater 
acoustic transmissions (e.g., navigational technologies), vessel noise, 
icebreaking noise, aircraft noise, and gunnery noise. Potential 
acoustic impacts may include auditory masking (a sound interferes with 
the audibility of another sound that marine organisms may rely on), 
permanent threshold shift, temporary threshold shift, or a behavioral 
response. In general, the Coast Guard would use a PSC that would 
operate navigational technologies, including radar and sonar, while 
underway. Marine species within the Arctic and Antarctic proposed 
action areas may also be exposed to icebreaking noise associated with a 
PSC's activities. In assessing the potential impact to species from 
acoustic sources, a variety of factors were considered, including 
source characteristics, animal presence, animal hearing range, duration 
of exposure, and impact thresholds for those species that may be 
present. The Coast Guard evaluated the data and conducted an analysis 
of the species distribution and likely responses to the acoustic 
stressors based on available scientific literature. Icebreaking noise 
is generally described as a low frequency, 10 to 100 Hertz (Hz) (Roth 
et al. 2013), non-impulsive sound. Similarly, vessel noise is also 
characterized as low frequency. As such, a species response to 
icebreaking noise would be expected to be similar to their response to 
vessel noise. The Coast Guard used specific methods, described below, 
to quantify potential effects to marine mammals from icebreaking. Non-
marine mammal biological resources, such as seabirds, fish, and 
invertebrates that may potentially overlap with the proposed 
icebreaking area, were analyzed using qualitative methods, also 
described below, because the modeling exposure criteria were developed 
only for marine mammals and sea turtles. Sea turtles were not assessed 
for icebreaking sound exposure as their geographic ranges do not 
overlap any a proposed icebreaking areas.
    Marine mammals are difficult to observe in real time and have 
varied behaviors based on species, geographic location, and time of 
year. Furthermore, field-based information on the effects of 
icebreaking on marine mammals is unavailable. Therefore, mathematical 
modeling was necessary to estimate the number of marine mammals that 
may be affected by icebreaking activities. The U.S. Department of the 
Navy (Navy) has invested considerable effort and resources analyzing 
the potential impacts of underwater sound sources (i.e., impulsive and 
non-impulsive sources) on marine mammals and sea turtles. The Navy has 
used the Navy Acoustic Effects Model (NAEMO) to model acoustic impacts 
to marine mammals. NAEMO has been refined since its inception and 
documented in many environmental assessments and impact statements 
developed for Navy exercises. NAEMO was developed based on published 
research, in collaboration with subject matter experts, and the Center 
for Independent Experts--an external peer-review system under the 
purview of National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). The Coast Guard 
used the Navy's NAEMO model to quantify the potential impacts on marine 
mammals from icebreaking associated with the Proposed Action. Based on 
modeling results, the following marine mammals exposed to icebreaking 
would be expected to elicit a behavioral reaction: Antarctic minke 
whale (Balaenoptera bonaerensis), Arnoux's beaked whale (Berardius 
arnuxii), bearded seal (Erignathus barbatus), blue whale (Balaenoptera 
musculus), bowhead whale (Balaena mysticetus), crabeater seal (Lobodon 
carcinophaga), Gray's beaked whale (Mesoplodon

[[Page 13053]]

grayi), humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae), killer whale (Orcinus 
orca), leopard seal (Hydrurga leptonyx), minke whale (Balaenoptera 
acutorostrata), polar bear (Ursus maritimus), ringed seal (Phoca 
hispida), Ross seal (Ommatophoca rossi), southern bottlenose whale 
(Hyperoodon planifrons), and Weddell seal (Leptonychotes weddellii).
    In general, if marine mammal, invertebrate, fish, bird, or sea 
turtle hearing ranges did not overlap with the frequency of the 
acoustic sources, such as for acoustic transmissions, further analysis 
was not conducted in the Programmatic EIS. If hearing ranges did 
overlap, the analysis in the PSC Programmatic Final EIS considered the 
temporary nature of the Proposed Action and the current ambient noise 
levels in the proposed action areas, which all limited the exposure and 
impact from acoustic stressors to those species. Qualitative analyses 
of vessel noise and icebreaking noise were conducted similarly for all 
species groups, with the exception of marine mammals (where the NAEMO 
model was used to analyze potential impacts from icebreaking noise), as 
both sounds are typically characterized as low frequency (less than 1 
kilohertz and between 10 to 100 Hz, respectively) (Roth et al. 2013) 
acoustic sources. Qualitative analyses of potential impacts from 
exposure to aircraft noise considered in-air hearing ranges for exposed 
species (when known or a surrogate species was evaluated) and the 
dominant tones in noise spectra from helicopters and fixed wing 
aircraft, as below 500 Hz (Richardson et al. 1995); qualitative 
analyses evaluated both in-air and underwater exposure from the air-to-
surface interface. Since the typical operating altitude for helicopters 
and unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) associated with the Proposed Action 
would be at or above 1,000 feet (305 meters), it was assumed that the 
received levels from aircraft would significantly decrease from the 
sound levels expected at the source.

B. Summary of Impacts From Acoustic Stressors

    Based on the analysis, impacts from acoustic sources associated 
with the Proposed Action are expected to result in, at most, minor to 
moderate behavioral responses over short and intermittent periods. 
Underwater acoustic transmissions, vessel noise, icebreaking noise, 
aircraft noise, and gunnery noise would not result in significant 
impact to invertebrates, fish, essential fish habitat (EFH), birds, sea 
turtles, and marine mammals. Those species listed as endangered or 
threatened under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA), would 
not be expected to respond in ways that would significantly disrupt 
normal behavior patterns which include, but are not limited to: 
Migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering. 
Acoustic stressors from the Proposed Action would not cause population 
level effects to any ESA-listed species in the proposed action areas. 
Additionally, when possible, the Coast Guard would avoid all known 
critical habitat areas. For those species where authorizations or 
permits may be required, the Coast Guard intends to consult with the 
appropriate regulatory agency to ensure environmental compliance. The 
timing of this permit request would coincide more closely with the time 
the first PSC is operational, due to expected updates to information 
and potential changes to a species listing status.

C. Physical Stressors

    Vessels and aircraft associated with the Proposed Action would be 
widely dispersed throughout the proposed action areas. The physical 
stressors from the Proposed Action include vessel movement, aircraft 
movement, autonomous underwater vehicle (AUV) movement, icebreaking, 
and military expended materials (MEM). The physical presence of 
aircraft and vessels could lead to behavioral reactions from visual or 
auditory cues. In assessing the potential impact to species from 
physical sources, a variety of factors were considered, including 
vessel and operation characteristics, animal presence, and likelihood 
of exposure. The Coast Guard evaluated the data and conducted an 
analysis of the species distribution and likely responses to the 
physical stressors based on available scientific literature. Reactions 
to vessels often include changes in general activity (e.g., from 
resting or feeding to active avoidance), changes in surface respiration 
or dive cycles (marine mammals), and changes in speed and direction of 
movement. The severity and type of response exhibited by an individual 
may also be influenced by previous encounters with vessels. Some 
species have been noted to tolerate slow-moving vessels within several 
hundred meters, especially when the vessel is not directed toward the 
animal and when there are no sudden changes in direction or engine 
speed (Richardson et al. 1995). In addition, vessels and aircraft could 
collide with resources found in all proposed action areas.
    The PSC Final Programmatic EIS considered vessel tow training, when 
evaluating the potential impacts of vessel movement on resources in the 
proposed action areas. In general, short-term and localized 
disturbances are anticipated. The likelihood that an individual would 
interact with the vessel tow cable and become entangled is low because 
the tow lines would have no loops or slack, thereby reducing the 
likelihood of entanglement. Although the tow cable and towed vessel may 
impact fish, birds, and marine mammals encountered along a tow route, 
the chance that such an encounter would result in serious injury is 
extremely remote because of the low probability that an individual of a 
species would overlap with the infrequent tow training events.
    Potential collision of vessels with biological resources was also 
considered in the analysis of vessel movement. The likelihood that a 
vessel would strike an invertebrate or a fish is extremely low because 
many of these animals would not be expected in the path of the vessel 
due to benthic distribution and any surface-dwelling species would be 
expected to avoid the vessel. The probability of a seabird colliding 
with a vessel would increase at night and in situations of poor 
visibility; however, the likelihood of a vessel collision with a bird 
is extremely low because a PSC would likely operate farther offshore 
than where the majority of birds would be expected; a PSC would only 
operate navigational safety lights at night that would not be expected 
to attract birds; and during times of reduced visibility, a vessel 
would likely reduce vessel speeds for navigational safety. Flightless 
birds, including penguins and molting birds, would also be susceptible 
to a vessel collision; however, the Coast Guard's Standard Operating 
Procedures (SOP) and Best Management Practices (BMP) would minimize 
potential impacts. Sea turtles are also known to be attracted to 
lights, but similar to birds, the navigational safety lights would not 
be expected to act as an attractant to sea turtles.
    Marine mammal species most vulnerable to collision are thought to 
be those that spend extended periods at the surface or species whose 
unresponsiveness to vessel sound makes them more susceptible to vessel 
collisions. Although the maximum speed of the PSC during vessel 
propulsion testing is 12-17 knots, a PSC is expected to operate at 
slower speeds during most of the Proposed Action activities. While 
slower speeds could decrease the chance of a fatal collision, it will 
not eliminate the risk of a collision. In addition, any vessel 
collision has the chance of causing

[[Page 13054]]

serious injury or mortality. However, the Coast Guard's SOPs and BMPs, 
in addition to the slow vessel speeds, would decrease the risk of a 
collision with a marine mammal. AUV movement could impact biological 
resources, including invertebrates, fish, seabirds, and marine mammals; 
however, the potential for an AUV to strike individuals is similar to 
that identified for vessels in the analysis. Any animal that was 
displaced would be expected to resume normal activities due to the 
short-term and localized nature of the disturbance. Collision risk with 
an AUV is considered to be extremely low.
    With the exception of birds, no other biological resources are 
expected to interact with aircraft, so other biological resources were 
not assessed. The aircraft used during the Proposed Action would be the 
MH-60 Jayhawk helicopter and UAVs for ice reconnaissance. Birds would 
be most at risk of a strike during takeoff and landing because the 
helicopter is passing through the lower altitudes where birds may be 
found. Bird strikes are a serious concern for helicopter crews not only 
because of the risk to the birds, but also because they can harm 
aircrews and equipment. For this reason, the Coast Guard would avoid 
large flocks of birds to increase personnel safety and minimize any 
risk associated with a bird-aircraft strike and would follow SOPs and 
BMPs to avoid critical habitat areas and areas where there are known 
gatherings of seabirds. While there is some risk of an aircraft-seabird 
strike associated with the Proposed Action, the risk of a strike is 
low. Should a collision occur, bird mortality or injuries due to the 
strike caused by helicopter or UAV movement may result, but population 
level impacts to seabirds are not expected.
    Icebreaking would occur in the Arctic and Antarctic proposed action 
areas at speeds of 3 to 6 knots. It has the potential to impact marine 
species by altering habitats, causing behavior reactions, or colliding 
with resources. There would be no impact to sea turtles as they are not 
found in the icebreaking areas. Marine vegetation living under ice may 
encounter short-term and localized disturbances from icebreaking; 
however, no long-term or population level effects are expected as the 
amount of biomass that would potentially be impacted is insignificant 
relative to the overall biomass of the system. Due to the low speed of 
the PSC during icebreaking operations, it is expected that fish 
species, along with seabirds and marine mammals, would exhibit 
temporary behavioral responses to the presence of icebreaking. 
Icebreaking is not expected to significantly alter Arctic cod ice floe 
habitat, the only EFH that has the potential to overlap with potential 
icebreaking areas. In the Antarctic proposed action area, Ad[eacute]lie 
penguins breed on land, and emperor penguins breed in the austral 
autumn; however, neither species would be exposed to icebreaking 
operations in the austral summer, when most icebreaking in the 
Antarctic is expected to occur. For marine mammal species, because the 
noise associated with icebreaking activities is most likely to result 
in marine mammals avoiding the PSC or area for a short period, it is 
highly unlikely that a PSC would strike a marine mammal or cause any 
physical harm. However, pinnipeds and polar bears that haul out on the 
ice may be more susceptible to icebreaking impacts. Icebreaking may 
result in localized changes to the polar bear and proposed ringed seal 
critical habitat as larger sheets of floating ice are broken down into 
smaller sizes. However, icebreakers do not diminish or destroy ice 
habitat because the amount of ice that is broken up relative to the 
overall total amount of available ice is small. Since the impact would 
be limited only to the area directly in the path of the PSC, short-term 
and localized disturbances would be expected and any animal that was 
displaced would be expected to resume normal activities after any brief 
disturbance.
    MEM were assessed, including ingestion of MEM by marine species, 
when evaluating the potential impacts of gunnery training activities on 
resources in the proposed action areas. MEM from gunnery training 
activities would include targets, target fragments, and inert small 
caliber projectiles that would not be recovered. Most likely, the 
targets used would drift with currents until popping, then sink through 
the water column and end up on the seafloor. Impacts on soft bottom 
habitats from small caliber projectiles would be short term, as these 
are constantly moving and shifting. It is anticipated that, over time, 
projectiles could become colonized by invertebrates, thus becoming part 
of the bottom habitat. Due to the short-term impact of MEM on the 
seafloor, MEM is not anticipated to adversely affect the quality or 
quantity of EFH. Although unlikely, small pieces of MEM may be ingested 
by an organism; however, targets and target fragments left as expended 
material are not in high enough densities to cause population level 
impacts.

D. Summary of Impacts From Physical Stressors

    Based on the analysis, impacts from physical stressors associated 
with the Proposed Action are expected to result in, at most, minor to 
moderate behavioral responses over short and intermittent periods. 
Devices associated with the Proposed Action with a potential for 
entanglement include the lines used in vessel tow. For an organism to 
become entangled in a line or material, the materials must have certain 
properties, such as the ability to form loops and a high breaking 
strength. Towing lines would not be expected to have any loops or 
slack. The likelihood that a biological resource would become entangled 
in tow lines is extremely low. Vessel movement, aircraft movement, AUV 
movement, icebreaking, and MEM would not result in significant impact 
to bottom habitat and sediment, marine vegetation, invertebrates, fish, 
EFH, birds, sea turtles, and marine mammals.
    Those species listed as endangered or threatened under section 7 of 
the ESA would not be expected to respond in ways that would 
significantly disrupt normal behavior patterns which include, but are 
not limited to: Migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or 
sheltering. Physical stressors from the Proposed Action would not cause 
population level effects to any ESA-listed species in the proposed 
action areas. When possible, the Coast Guard would avoid all known 
critical habitat areas.
    The Proposed Action includes the breaking of ice and ice is a 
physical and biological feature essential to the conservation of ESA-
listed species. However, during icebreaking, the Proposed Action would 
not alter the specific physical or biological features of that ice 
which is essential to the conservation of ESA-listed species, including 
ringed seal and polar bear sea ice habitat. For those species where 
authorizations or permits may be required, the Coast Guard intends to 
consult with the appropriate regulatory agency to ensure environmental 
compliance. The timing of this permit request would coincide more 
closely with the time the first PSC is operational, due to expected 
updates to information and potential changes to a species listing 
status.

E. Socioeconomic Impacts

    Commercial fishing, recreational fishing, research, transportation 
and shipping, tourism, and subsistence hunting and cultural resources 
are the socioeconomic resources that would be impacted by the Proposed 
Action. The predominant socioeconomic impact of a PSC would be an 
increased Coast Guard presence in the proposed action areas and the 
Coast Guard's jurisdictional areas. Replacement of the Coast Guard's

[[Page 13055]]

aging polar icebreaker fleet would facilitate the Coast Guard's ability 
to support the Coast Guard missions including law enforcement, 
consistent search and rescue capabilities, and on-going research 
operation support.

F. Summary of Impacts to Resource Areas

    An increase in the Coast Guard icebreaking fleet would be 
beneficial, and any potential negative impacts caused by the Coast 
Guard's presence and operations and training would be mitigated by the 
implementation of SOPs and BMPs. Additionally, outreach and educational 
programs conducted by the Coast Guard within the proposed action areas 
would facilitate communication between Coast Guard and the communities 
that they serve. More readily available Coast Guard support during an 
at-sea emergency is the principal benefit from the Proposed Action to 
commercial fishing, recreational fishing, transportation and shipping, 
tourism, and cultural resources and the communities that depend on 
them.
    Vegetation. MEM may sink to the bottom during gunnery training, but 
any impacts to marine vegetation, if present, would be temporary. A PSC 
would also not set the anchor in areas where marine vegetation is 
likely to occur in the proposed action areas. No significant impacts or 
significant harm to marine vegetation is expected in all proposed 
action areas.
    Invertebrates. Vessel and icebreaking noise, if perceived by an 
invertebrate, would likely result in avoidance behavior or other short 
term temporary responses, but would not result in any population level 
impact. Vessel and AUV movement has the potential to impact marine 
invertebrates either by disturbing the water column or directly 
striking the organism, if it is present on or near the ice. Although 
unlikely, invertebrates could be killed or displaced during 
icebreaking. Because the impact would be localized to the immediate 
path of a PSC, icebreaking disturbance would not be expected to have 
population level impacts. Vessel noise, icebreaking noise, vessel 
movement, AUV movement, and icebreaking would not result in significant 
impact or result in significant harm to invertebrates in all proposed 
action areas.
    Habitats. Acoustic transmissions could increase in ambient sound 
level; however, this potential reduction in the quality of the acoustic 
habitat would be localized and temporary. Icebreaking associated with 
the Proposed Action may affect the quality or quantity of Arctic cod 
EFH; however, the effects of icebreaking on Arctic cod EFH would be 
minimal, due to the small area of icebreaking as compared to the 
overall quantity of ice floe habitat. MEM impacts on soft bottom 
habitats would be short term, as sediments are constantly moving and 
shifting. Underwater acoustic transmissions, icebreaking, and MEM would 
not result in significant impact or significant harm to EFH in the 
Arctic and Pacific Northwest proposed action areas. No EFH is 
designated in the Antarctic proposed action area.
    Fish. Underwater acoustic transmissions, vessel noise, icebreaking 
noise, and icebreaking would likely result in short-term and 
insignificant behavioral reactions or avoidance behavior, and thus, 
would not be expected to have any population level impacts. AUV and 
vessel movement may result in short-term and local displacement of fish 
in the water column. Although unlikely, small pieces of MEM from 
gunnery training and small caliber practice munitions may be ingested 
by an individual. Vessel noise, icebreaking noise, vessel movement, AUV 
movement, icebreaking, and MEM, would not result in significant impacts 
or significant harm to fish in all proposed action areas.
    Marine Mammals. Acoustic transmissions and icebreaking noise may 
result in minor to moderate behavioral responses to exposed 
individuals, but the behavioral response is expected to be temporary. 
Vessel noise may elicit a minor behavioral response by exposed 
individuals. Any noise generated by the UAV is expected to be minimal 
and below the hearing threshold of marine mammals, both in air and 
underwater. The noise from the UAV is not expected to penetrate below 
the water's surface; however, in the unlikely event that a marine 
mammal is exposed to UAV noise underwater, any behavioral response is 
expected to be very minor. The probability of a vessel encountering a 
marine mammal is expected to be low, decreasing the risk of a PSC-
marine mammal collision. The risk of a collision between an AUV moving 
through the water and a marine mammal is extremely low. It is expected 
that icebreaking noise would alert marine mammals to the presence of a 
PSC before icebreaking would overlap with a marine mammal. Therefore, 
due to the expected avoidance behaviors caused by icebreaking noise, 
the likelihood that a PSC would collide with a marine mammal during 
icebreaking is extremely low. Pinnipeds or polar bears that may be 
observed on the surface of the ice may be more susceptible to impacts 
caused by icebreaking, but avoidance responses are also expected and 
SOPs and BMPs, such as trained Coast Guard lookouts, would minimize any 
potential impacts. During the Arctic summer months, from May to 
September, pupping would not occur and subnivean lairs would not be 
occupied. Icebreaking would only occur when needed, and based on 
historical icebreaking, the majority occurs during the summer months. 
Therefore, the likelihood that a PSC would impact a subnivean lair is 
low. MEM has the potential to impact marine mammal species that feed on 
the bottom, if ingested, but the likelihood that a marine mammal would 
ingest MEM is extremely low. The Proposed Action is not expected to 
cause abandonment of breeding or avoidance of breeding areas, 
disruption of migration or feeding, or significant disruption to 
pinniped haul outs. Underwater acoustic transmissions, vessel noise, 
icebreaking noise, aircraft noise, vessel movement, AUV movement, 
icebreaking, and MEM would not result in significant impact or 
significant harm to marine mammals.
    Sea Turtles. Vessel noise in the open ocean may cause a startle 
response in sea turtles; however, any response is expected to be short 
term and temporary. Vessel noise from a PSC would not be expected to 
impact a sea turtle's ability to perceive other biologically relevant 
sounds. Although sea turtles would likely hear and see approaching 
vessels, a risk of a vessel collision with a sea turtle exists; 
however, sea turtles spend most of their time submerged, which would 
reduce their risk of a vessel collision. Vessel noise and vessel 
movement would not result in significant impact or result in 
significant harm to sea turtles in the Pacific Northwest proposed 
action area or in the Arctic proposed action area (although the 
leatherback sea turtle is considered extralimital). Aircraft movement, 
aircraft noise, icebreaking, and icebreaking noise would have no 
significant impact or significant harm on sea turtles as sea turtles 
would not overlap in areas where aircraft operations and icebreaking 
are expected.
    Birds. Vessel noise, icebreaking noise, vessel movement, and 
icebreaking would likely result in temporary behavioral responses. Any 
increase in ambient noise as a result of icebreaking or vessel movement 
would be temporary and localized to the position of the vessel as it 
transits or when icebreaking. Aircraft noise and gunnery noise may 
elicit, at most, short-term behavioral or physiological responses to 
exposed

[[Page 13056]]

birds, such as an alert or startle response, or temporary increase in 
heart rate. While there is some risk of an aircraft-seabird strike, due 
to Coast Guard mitigation measures (e.g., limited duration of aerial 
operations) and avoidance of aircraft by seabirds, the risk of a strike 
is low. The potential for a bird strike by the AUV is extremely low, 
given the limited amount of time seabirds spend in the water relative 
to the air and low likelihood a diving seabird would overlap with AUV 
routes. Because of the small number of gunnery training targets, and 
the distance at which targets would be dispersed in the Arctic and 
Pacific Northwest proposed action areas, target and target fragments 
would not present a significant threat to seabird populations. Vessel 
noise, icebreaking noise, aircraft noise, gunnery noise, vessel 
movement, aircraft movement, AUV movement, icebreaking, and MEM would 
not result in significant impact or significant harm to seabirds.

G. Mitigation Measures

    The Proposed Action includes SOPs and BMPs developed during federal 
and state agency permitting and approval processes, or as standard 
provisions for Coast Guard work. These SOPs and BMPs would be employed 
to avoid or minimize potential effects on the environment. Although 
SOPs and BMPs are established on a vessel-by-vessel basis, SOPs and 
BMPs currently in use by other icebreaking vessels would likely be used 
as guidance for any new PSC. Examples of SOPs and BMPs include 
avoidance of close approach to visible protected species and habitats 
and posting lookouts to alert vessels when a protected species is 
sighted to try and avoid areas where protected species are commonly 
observed.
    The programmatic approach that the Coast Guard has taken 
streamlines the procedures and time involved in consultations for broad 
agency programs or numerous similar activities with predictable effects 
on listed species and/or critical habitat, thus reducing the amount of 
time spent on individual project-by-project consultations. The Coast 
Guard has worked collaboratively with the appropriate regulatory 
agencies through the consultation process to develop mitigation 
measures. The Coast Guard also anticipates working collaboratively with 
the appropriate regulatory agencies through the permitting processes to 
finalize the mitigation measures. While these are subject to change 
(given the timeframe until PSCs are fully operational), the SOPs and 
BMPs in use by current icebreakers are as follows:
     Coast Guard Headquarters (HQ), Area, and District 
operating procedures and directives for Coast Guard vessels and 
aircraft designed to minimize negative interactions with MPS and within 
MPAs, including formalized speed and approach guidance around marine 
mammals.
     Enforcement of the ESA, MMPA, National Marine Sanctuaries 
Act (NMSA), and other pertinent environmental statutes designed to 
protect marine protected species and Marine Protected Areas.
     Participation in regional multiagency working groups, 
recovery teams, implementation teams, take reduction teams, sanctuary 
advisory councils, and task forces.
     Properly training lookouts on marine mammal detection and 
identification and maintaining those lookouts aboard vessels at all 
times.
     Establishment of Memoranda of Agreement (MOA) with the 
National Marine Sanctuaries (NMS) outlining procedures for coordinating 
enforcement activities.
     Providing routine surveillance of the NMS concurrently 
with other Coast Guard operations, and providing specific targeted or 
dedicated law enforcement as appropriate. NMS surveillance and 
enforcement is incorporated into routine patrol orders where feasible.
     Subject to availability of resources, providing other 
agencies with platforms to conduct critical MPS research and recovery 
efforts during stranding and recovery operations.
     Regional Fisheries Training Centers (RFTCs) provide 
applicable ESA, MMPA, and NMSA enforcement training to Coast Guard 
personnel supporting the MPS mission.
     Participation in the NMFS Marine Mammal Health and 
Stranding Response Program (MMHSRP) as a Co-Investigator. Via this 
designation, Coast Guard personnel provide the following support to 
NMFS: (a) Responding to distressed marine mammals, (b) temporary 
restraint or captivity, (c) disentangling, (d) transporting, (e) 
attaching tags, and (f) collecting samples.
     Formal guidelines for appropriate disposal of animal 
carcasses.
     Providing opportunistic marine mammal sighting information 
to the National Marine Mammal Laboratory (NMML) Platforms of 
Opportunity Program (POP).

H. Monitoring, Research, and Reporting

    Through its Living Marine Resource program, the Coast Guard is one 
of the nation's primary sponsors of scientific research and monitoring 
of marine species. Law enforcement operations are also a part of the 
Coast Guard mission. Law enforcement missions, including any PSC 
support of law enforcement activities, are covered under Title 14 
U.S.C. and 6 U.S.C. 468 and 14 U.S.C. 89. The Coast Guard provides 
federal law enforcement presence over the entire U.S. Exclusive 
Economic Zone, covering nearly 3.4 million square miles of ocean. Coast 
Guard activities ensure compliance with fisheries and marine protected 
species regulations on domestic vessels; prevent over-fishing, reduce 
mortality of protected species, and protect marine habitats by 
enforcing domestic fishing laws and regulations; and, enforcing the 
MMPA and the ESA.
    The Coast Guard will submit a report documenting any incident 
involving protected resources or species to the appropriate regulatory 
agency. In these reports, the Coast Guard will describe the level of 
training conducted during the reporting period. These reports will also 
include information on biological resources that were sighted, 
specifically any marine mammals or seabirds, and will include 
information on each individual sighted related to mitigation 
implementation. If they occur, the Coast Guard will report incidents 
involving biological resource, such as bird aircraft strikes, marine 
mammal vessel strikes, observed injury or mortality to marine mammals 
or sea birds, and injury or mortality of ESA-listed species.
    The Coast Guard and the regulatory agencies will use the 
information contained within monitoring, research, activity, and 
incident reports when evaluating the effectiveness and practicality of 
mitigation and determining if adaptive adjustments to mitigation 
measures may be appropriate.

VIII. Agency Consultation and Coordination

    The Coast Guard consulted and coordinated with federal agencies, 
including the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the National 
Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), and federally recognized tribes 
(Alaska and Washington) in conjunction with actions addressed in the 
PSC Final Programmatic EIS.
     Endangered Species Act. The Coast Guard submitted a 
request for consultation under section 7 of the ESA in December 2017, 
to the USFWS and NMFS for those endangered or threatened species under 
their respective jurisdictions. On October 30, 2018 and November 15, 
2018, the Coast Guard received a letter from the USFWS and NMFS, 
respectively, acknowledging

[[Page 13057]]

the start of programmatic formal consultation pursuant to section 
7(a)(2) of the ESA. On November 20, 2018, the Coast Guard sent a letter 
to the USFWS and NMFS under Section 7(d) of the ESA, indicating that 
the Coast Guard would proceed with the contract award and vessel 
construction. The Coast Guard determined that the design and 
construction of the PSCs would not constitute an irreversible or 
irretrievable commitment of resources which would foreclose the 
formulation or implementation of reasonable and prudent alternative 
measures that may be included in future biological opinions issued by 
the Services. The Coast Guard anticipates that any reasonable and 
prudent alternatives would focus on the future operations of the PSCs 
and not the design and construction of the vessels. Additionally, the 
design and build of the PSCs would have no effect on ESA-listed species 
or designated critical habitat.
    The Coast Guard anticipates that both NMFS and the USFWS will issue 
their programmatic biological opinions on the Proposed Action in 2019. 
The Coast Guard recognizes that new information regarding the Proposed 
Action and biological resources in the proposed action area may change 
before the first PSC is operational (as soon as 2023). As part of the 
programmatic consultation process, the Coast Guard will continue to 
coordinate with both regulatory agencies and if necessary, reconsult 
under section 7 of the ESA if there are any changes in the Proposed 
Action or biological resources in the proposed action areas.
     The Marine Mammal Protection Act. The MMPA of 1972, as 
amended (16 United States Code [U.S.C.] 1361 et seq.) prohibits, with 
certain exceptions, the take of marine mammals in U.S. waters and by 
U.S. citizens on the high seas and the importation of marine mammals 
and marine mammal products. Coast Guard Instruction [CGD17INST] 
16214.2A (U.S. Coast Guard 2011) outlines procedures for avoiding 
marine mammals and protected species; reporting marine mammal and 
protected species sightings, strandings and injuries; and enforcing the 
MMPA and ESA. The Coast Guard is not requesting authorization under 
Section 101(a)(5) of the MMPA at this time, because the Proposed Action 
discussed in the PSC Final Programmatic EIS will not occur until the 
first PSC is delivered and operational (2023); however, the PSC Final 
Programmatic EIS may contain information relevant and applicable to 
assist with future Coast Guard consultations that are in support of a 
request for future incidental take authorizations under the MMPA. As 
part of the MMPA, the Coast Guard intends to prepare a Plan of 
Cooperation that identifies what measures have been taken and/or will 
be taken to minimize any adverse effects on the availability of marine 
mammals for subsistence uses.
     Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. 
In accordance with the Magnuson-Stevens Act, applicable regulations, 
and the Department of Homeland Security and Coast Guard instructions 
and directives, the PSC Final Programmatic EIS evaluates the potential 
for significant impact or environmental harm from the Proposed Action. 
The Coast Guard is not requesting Magnuson-Stevens Act consultation at 
this time, because the Proposed Action discussed in the PSC Final 
Programmatic EIS concluded that based on the best available 
information, no effects to EFH are anticipated. However, since the 
first PSC is scheduled to be delivered in 2023; the PSC Final 
Programmatic EIS may contain information relevant and applicable to 
support future Coast Guard consultations on EFH as required under the 
Magnuson-Stevens Act, particularly as new information is obtained.
     The Rights of Federally Recognized Tribes (Indian and 
Alaska Native). As part of the MMPA process (see Section 1.5.17), the 
Coast Guard intends to prepare a Plan of Cooperation. To meet the Coast 
Guard's mission responsibilities in the polar regions, the Coast Guard 
plans to establish regular and meaningful communication to consult and 
collaborate with Alaska Natives and tribal officials regarding the 
Proposed Action. The Coast Guard would not interfere with a tribe's 
treaty rights or impinge on access to any area that provides these 
resources.

IX. Conclusion

    Based on factors analyzed in the Final PSC Programmatic EIS, 
including training and operations objectives, best available science 
and modeling data, potential environmental impacts, and input and 
expertise of Federal agencies, federally recognized tribes, and the 
public, the Coast Guard selects Alternative 1 for implementation. 
Alternative 1, the Coast Guard's Preferred Alternative, will fully meet 
the Coast Guard's requirements in the polar regions. By implementing 
the mitigation measures identified in the Final PSC Programmatic EIS 
and associated regulatory documents, and adhering to monitoring 
requirements and management plans described herein, the Coast Guard has 
adopted all practicable means to avoid or minimize environmental harm 
associated with implementing Alternative 1. In addition, the Coast 
Guard assessed the effects of Alternative 1 in accordance with 
Executive Order 12114 and concluded that there would be no significant 
harm to the environment in areas outside of the United States and 
possessions.
    This notice is issued under authority of 5 U.S.C. 552(a).

    Dated: March 29, 2019.
Timothy J. Connors,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Program Manager, Polar Icebreaker Program.
[FR Doc. 2019-06468 Filed 4-2-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P