[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 231 (Monday, December 1, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 72817-72819]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-28473]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Coast Guard
[Docket No. USCG-2007-0040]
Application for the Cruise Ship CORAL PRINCESS, Review for
Inclusion in the Shipboard Technology Evaluation Program; Final
Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact
AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.
ACTION: Notice of availability.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard announces the availability of the Final
Environmental Assessment (FEA) and Finding of No Significant Impact
(FONSI) that evaluated the potential environmental impacts resulting
from accepting the cruise ship CORAL PRINCESS into the Shipboard
Technology Evaluation Program (STEP). The CORAL PRINCESS runs four
regular cruising routes that include Alaska, California, the Panama
Canal, the U.S. Virgin Islands and Florida. Under the STEP, the CORAL
PRINCESS will be using and testing the Hyde Marine, INC. Guardian
Ballast Water Treatment System, when the vessel operates in U.S.
waters.
ADDRESSES: Comments and material received from the public, as well as
documents mentioned in this notice as being available in the docket,
are part of the docket USCG-2007-0040. These documents are available
for inspection or copying at the Docket Management Facility (M-30),
U.S. Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001,
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. You can also find all docketed documents on the Federal
Document Management System at http://www.regulations.gov, United States
Coast Guard docket number USCG-2007-0040.
You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-2007-0040
using any one of the following methods:
(1) Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
(2) Fax: 202-493-2251.
(3) Mail: Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department of
Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.
(4) Hand delivery: Same as mail address above, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone
number is 202-366-9329.
To avoid duplication, please use only one of these methods.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this
assessment please contact LCDR Brian Moore at 202-372-1434 or e-mail:
brian.e.moore@uscg.mil. If you have questions on viewing or submitting
material to the docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket
Operations, telephone 202-366-9826.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This document has been tiered off the
Programmatic Environmental Assessment (PEA) for the STEP dated July
2004 (69 FR 71068, Dec. 8, 2004) and was prepared in accordance with
the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (Section 102 (2)(c)), as
implemented by the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations (40 CFR
parts 1500-1508) and Coast Guard Commandant Instruction M16475.1D. From
these documents the Coast Guard has prepared a FEA and FONSI for
accepting the CORAL PRINCESS into the STEP.
Response to Comments: The Coast Guard requested comments on the
Draft Environmental Assessment (DEA) when the Notice of Availability
and Request for Public Comments was published on Friday, April 4, 2008
(73 FR 18544, Apr. 4, 2008). The Coast Guard received 19 substantive
comments total from 2 agencies. The Coast Guard has responded to all of
the comments that were within the scope of DEA.
Both commenters stated their support for the CORAL PRINCESS
acceptance into the STEP, and that the application should be granted.
The Coast Guard appreciates the support for including the CORAL
PRINCESS into the STEP.
One commenter asked why California and the U.S. Virgin Islands
(USVI) were
[[Page 72818]]
not included in the assessment as possible discharge ports, while
Florida and Alaska were included.
The California port was not included because the FEA only addressed
ports where ballast water discharge will take place. The vessel will
not discharge ballast water into California State waters. Therefore, no
discussion of California ports has been included. The USVI ports were
included in the applicable sections of the DEA and FEA.
One commenter asked for clarification regarding Table 2-1. The
commenter questioned the allotted number of port arrivals, and stated
that a vessel would make significantly more arrivals at those 10 ports.
The Coast Guard agrees with the comment; there may be up to 18
arrivals at any of the ports noted in the DEA and has changed this
number accordingly in the FEA. However, this does not mean there would
be an associated proportional increase in the amount of treated ballast
water (BW) that would be discharged into port. The vessel infrequently
takes on BW at any port and on the rare occasions when it does, it
typically discharges that water prior to departure. Therefore, the
additional number of port visits does not necessarily result in an
increase in the amount of water treated with the system or carried to a
different port or place and discharged.
One commenter asked if the CORAL PRINCESS would be treating ballast
during all ballasting operations from years one through five, and if
the testing in the other years will be for operation and maintenance.
The Coast Guard has clarified this issue by adding a summary of the
STEP procedures into the introduction of the FEA.
One commenter asked how long it would take a vessel to ballast, and
if the filter is backflushed at the end of ballasting. The commenter
also asked if the filtered organisms will be returned to their point of
uptake.
The Coast Guard has determined that the vessel normally takes on
ballast at sea and discharges that ballast also at sea. If and when it
does take on ballast at sea (which has historically been small amounts
of water), the vessel will move a short distance between the time
uptake began to the point at which the filter would begin backflushing.
During this time, the Coast Guard believes the vessel will take
approximately a half hour to fill a BW tank completely at the ballast
water pumping rate (250 m\3\/hr). At the vessel's normal operating
speeds, (12-22 kts) it will have traveled less than 20 nautical miles
in this time.
One commenter requested a list of the State codes for turbidity
requirements and interpretations on how the assessment's findings
compare to the State code.
The Coast Guard disagrees with the request. In both the PEA and
this FEA, the potential impacts due to turbidity were considered and
were deemed to be negligible; therefore the additional background
information requested would unnecessarily encumber the FEA, detracting
from its purpose.
Two comments asked if the 55 microns referred to the length/width
of the mesh openings (typical for 55 micron mesh nets), or the diagonal
opening. The comments expressed concern that if the length/width is 55
microns, the diagonal length would be approximately 78 microns and this
would allow organisms larger than 55 microns to pass through the
filter.
The Coast Guard, in reviewing the STEP application package, has
determined that the filtration system has an actual opening dimension
of 55 microns using stacked filtration discs, rather than the mesh
screen type assumed by the comments. With respect to the commenters'
other concern, the Coast Guard notes that the initial filtration stage
is only the first part of the overall treatment system. The purpose of
the experimentation conducted during the vessel's participation in the
STEP is to evaluate the efficacy of the entire treatment system in
reducing the discharge of organisms.
One commenter asked for clarification regarding the statement ``* *
* at 90% UV [Ultraviolet] transmittance in the water.'' The commenter
asked if the 90% transmittance is typical of the water that would be
taken up at the specific ports described in the assessment. The
commenter also expressed that this value would decrease in turbid
water, especially in the Alaskan waters that were highly turbid due to
glacial melt runoff.
The Coast Guard acknowledges that many source waters may have
varying transmittance values. However, the UV treatment occurs after
the water has passed through the filtration system, which is intended
to remove at least some of the suspended materials which would block UV
transmission as well as removing larger organisms. The Coast Guard
notes that the point of the experiments is to evaluate the efficacy of
the treatment system under the operating conditions experienced by the
vessel.
One commenter asked if there was any specific, pertinent
information on Alaskan wetlands that should be included in the FEA.
While there is significant information concerning Alaskan wetlands
available, the Coast Guard disagrees that the description of sensitive
areas in Alaskan waters as presented in the DEA is insufficient to make
a decision regarding the STEP acceptance. The vessel will only be
visiting areas that it is already visiting and will not be discharging
treated water in any such wetland areas.
One commenter asked if any Essential Fish Habitat was within the
Port Everglades region.
The available information on Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) shows
that the Port Everglades area has the following EFH: Coastal Migratory
Pelagics and Coral, Coral Reef, and Live/Hard Bottom Habitat. Based on
feedback from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration the proposed action will have no
negative impact to EFH in Port Everglades.
One commenter asked that more detail regarding the area(s) around
several of the ports be included.
The Coast Guard has added additional detail to the description of
Port Everglades and USVI waters.
One commenter asked how many and what types of invasive species are
found around Port Everglades. The commenter also asked if any of these
species have been known to cause any environmental or economic harm.
It is not possible to make a definitive statement about exact
numbers of invasive species in any given water body. Some notable
species have been identified and their economic and environmental harm
estimated. This information is readily available through numerous
Nonindigenous Species (NIS) focused agency reports and work groups. The
Coast Guard disagrees that enumeration of specific invasive species
occurring in the relevant ports, and further discussion of the
potential risk of transferring those specific species from Florida to
other places, is necessary or useful for the purpose of this FEA.
Further, the purpose of any ballast water management system being
evaluated under the STEP is to prevent the transference of any
organisms, whether known to be invasive or not, from one location to
another.
One commenter requested a list of NIS and if any of these species
have been known to cause any environmental or economic harm.
The Coast Guard has determined that the problem of NIS in U.S.
waters is the basis of the STEP, and research on NIS and their impacts
is readily available
[[Page 72819]]
from numerous sources. This question is outside the scope of the FEA,
and in keeping with CEQ regulations for conducting FEAs, the extensive
supporting information is not repeated here.
One commenter asked for clarification regarding the statement
``Small percentages of estuarine areas in the ports of interest were
rated `poor' * * *''. The commenter asked if it would be possible to
avoid discharging in these areas, or to list which ports have poor
light conditions. The commenter also asked what was meant by the
description ``small percentages''.
The Coast Guard has determined that the areas that are rated as
poor for light conditions are rated so due to the natural ambient
condition of glacial till suspended in the water. While it could be
possible for the CORAL PRINCESS to restrict its ballasting locations,
the Coast Guard disagrees with the need to do so in these or any other
areas. The very small volumes of water which could potentially be
discharged during operation of the ship's BWMS have been considered and
determined negligible. ``Small percentages'' refers to the waters in
the immediate vicinity of glacier termini.
One commenter stated that the environmental consequences are
generalized across all regions, with little to no specific reference to
any of the previously described discharge ports. The commenter asked
that specific examples of environmental consequences for the various
habitats/ports be provided.
The Coast Guard has determined that the water quality impacts on
the ballast water taken aboard the CORAL PRINCESS will be negligible;
therefore, generalization of the environmental impacts invalid. The
addition of repetitive specific impacts in effected ports would
unnecessarily lengthen the FEA. Based on the service history of the
CORAL PRINCESS, most ballasting is done at sea and is in small amounts.
When harbor water is intentionally pumped aboard for the tests, it will
also be discharged at sea following treatment. The proposal does
provide for the CORAL PRINCESS to use the Ballast Water Management
System as needed and occasionally a need to ballast in a port area may
be encountered. However, the Coast Guard considers the potential for
any adverse effects from ballasting, filtering, treating with
ultraviolet light and discharging relatively small quantities of sea
water back to its source to be negligible for all potential discharge
locations. As a result of the NEPA process, the only known impacts are
a slight beneficial impact on biological resources and socioeconomic
resources. Therefore, further describing habitat or location specific
impacts is not necessary.
One commenter asked what references and/or data were used to
support the conclusions about water quality impacts of the proposed
action alternative.
The Coast Guard has used the following rationale for the
description of likely impacts of using the system. The ship normally
takes on and discharges ballast at sea. In these cases, typically there
are fewer organisms in offshore waters compared to estuarine areas, and
hence less organic matter to be taken aboard, treated and discharged.
Similarly in the cases where the ship may take on and discharge ballast
in port, the use of the treatment system should have no measurable
adverse effects on the water quality of the ecosystem where the ballast
water is discharged.
One commenter asked how nonindigenous species impact low income and
minority populations under the no action alternative.
The Coast Guard has determined that an example of a potential
impact to a low income or minority population might be that a decline
in abundance of a species targeted by subsistence fisheries could occur
as a result of the introduction of nonindigenous competitors,
predators, or pathogens. Please refer to the STEP Programmatic
Environmental Assessment that also evaluated the impacts to low income
and minority populations.
Based on the information provided in the DEA, one commenter stated
that the STEP program meets their environmental standards, and is not
likely to adversely affect federally listed threatened or endangered
species under their jurisdiction.
The Coast Guard acknowledges the comment and support for the CORAL
PRINCESS and the STEP application.
Final Environmental Assessment: The Final PEA for the STEP
identified and examined the reasonable alternatives available to
evaluate novel ballast water management systems for effectiveness
against NIS transportation by ships' ballast water.
The FEA for acceptance of the CORAL PRINCESS into the STEP, and the
subsequent operation of the experimental treatment system, analyzed the
no action alternative and one action alternative that could fulfill the
purpose and need of gaining valuable scientific information on the
system's efficacy and facilitating the development of effective
treatment technologies capable of preventing the transportation of NIS
in ships' ballast water. Specifically, the FEA for the CORAL PRINCESS
acceptance into the STEP is tiered off of the PEA for the STEP, and
considers the potential impacts to the environment from the operation
of the treatment system on the CORAL PRINCESS by examining the
functioning of the system, the operational practices of the vessel, and
the potential effects on discharge water quality.
This notice is issued under authority of the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (Section 102 (2)(c)), as implemented by the Council
of Environmental Quality regulations (40 CFR parts 1500-1508) and Coast
Guard Commandant Instruction M16475.1D.
Dated: November 21, 2008.
Brian M. Salerno,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Assistant Commandant for Marine Safety,
Security and Stewardship.
[FR Doc. E8-28473 Filed 11-28-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-P