[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 64 (Wednesday, April 5, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 16510-16512]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-06738]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 167
[USCG-2011-0351]
Port Access Route Study: The Atlantic Coast From Maine to Florida
AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.
ACTION: Notification.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard published a document on March 14, 2016, that
announced the availability of the final report issued by the Atlantic
Coast Port Access Route Study (ACPARS) workgroup. In addition, the
Coast Guard requested comments concerning the final report. After a
review of the comments received, the Coast Guard has determined that it
is not necessary to revise the final report, and therefore considers it
to be complete as published.
DATES: April 5, 2017.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this
notification, contact George Detweiler, Coast Guard, telephone (202)
372-1566 or email [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
[[Page 16511]]
Background and Purpose. The Coast Guard commenced its work on the
Atlantic Coast Port Access Route Study by chartering a workgroup (WG)
on May 11, 2011. The Coast Guard published the WG's Interim Report in
the Federal Register (77 FR 55781; Sep. 11, 2012), which provided a
status of efforts up to that date. Subsequently, the Coast Guard
published a notification in the Federal Register (81 FR 13307; Mar. 14,
2016) that announced the availability of the final report issued by the
ACPARS WG. This document discusses the comments received and provides
the Coast Guard's response to those comments. The final report is
available on the Federal Register docket and also on the ACPARS Web
site at www.uscg.mil/lantarea/acpars.
Discussion of Comments
Comments were submitted by representatives of the maritime
community, wind energy developers, non-government organizations,
Federal and State government agencies, academic institutions and
private citizens.
Topics covered by the comments included the Coast Guard's role and
relationship with the Department of Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy
Management (BOEM), the Coast Guard-developed Marine Planning Guidelines
and navigation corridors, protection of right whales and continued
public outreach.
Coast Guard Cooperation With Stakeholders and the Marine Planning
Process
Some commenters urged the Coast Guard to coordinate and consult
more closely with the other agencies associated with the development of
offshore wind, particularly the BOEM to finalize the ACPARS report, and
to utilize the Regional Planning Bodies to obtain broad feedback in
evaluating navigation safety issues. We generally agree with these
comments, but must state that throughout the ACPARS process, we have
worked closely with BOEM in conducting this study and developing the
final report. Additionally, broad stakeholder consultation must still
be conducted on a case-by-case basis for each particular project
proposed, as each will present unique circumstances and navigational
risks.
The Coast Guard has participated and will continue to participate
in a lead permitting agency's National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
process as a subject matter expert for navigation safety, maritime
security, maritime mobility (management of maritime traffic, commerce,
and navigation), national defense, and protection of the marine
environment. In the case of wind farms on the Outer Continental Shelf
(OCS), BOEM is the NEPA lead permitting agency and is responsible for
the evaluation of environmental impacts and preparation of associated
environmental documentation. BOEM and the Coast Guard have entered into
a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) to identify their respective roles and
responsibilities as members of BOEM/State Renewable Energy Task Forces
for Wind Energy Area (WEA) identification, the issuance of leases and
approval of Site Assessment Plans (SAPs), General Activity Plans (GAPs)
and Construction and Operations Plans (COPs) for offshore renewable
energy installations (OREIs). The Coast Guard will continue to work
closely with BOEM in support of their Offshore Renewable Energy
Program.
U.K. Marine Guidance Note 371 and Marine Planning Guidelines
Many commenters stated the Coast Guard premised its Marine Planning
Guidelines (MP Guidelines) on Marine Guidance Note (MGN) 371, a United
Kingdom (U.K.) publication that had been superseded, and further
commented that the Coast Guard had misapplied MGN 371 in developing the
MP Guidelines. Additionally, some of these comments suggested that the
Coast Guard should revise the MP Guidelines to be consistent with MGN
543, which superseded MGN 371. As discussed below, we disagree with
these comments.
The United Kingdom's Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA) published
MGN 371 in August of 2008, well before we began the ACPARS process.
Through the study, we determined that there was no single international
standard for establishing safe navigation distances from permanent
structures in the marine environment. With the development of European
offshore wind farms, several different standards or guidelines evolved,
and we considered each in development of the Coast Guard's MP
Guidelines. In particular, we considered the guidance prepared by the
Shipping Advisory Board Northsea, which was endorsed by the
Confederation of European Shipmasters' Associations and used a
formulaic approach that produces a 1.9 Nautical Mile (NM) distance from
the side of a Traffic Separation Scheme (TSS) for a 400 meter vessel.
The World Shipping Council recommended a minimum 2 NM safe distance
from side of a Traffic Separation Scheme (TSS). We also considered the
guidance prepared by the German Waterways and Shipping Directorate
North West and North, which calls for a 2 NM setback to the side of a
TSS, plus a 500 meter safety zone for each turbine. Last, we considered
MGN 371, which throughout the study period reflected the current
guidance of the U.K.'s MCA. Under MGN 371, the MCA considered a
navigation buffer of 1 NM to 2 NM from the edge of a TSS to be medium
risk, and greater than 2 NM to be low risk.
In January of 2016, after our work on the ACPARS was complete but
before we released our final report for comment, the MCA published MGN
543, which superseded MGN 371. Through MGN 543, the MCA intended to
simplify the Wind Farm Shipping Route Template (table, p. 13), which
contained four columns and twelve defined distances associated with
unique considerations (``Factors'') and degrees of risk ranging from
very high to very low. The shipping route template in MGN 543 (p. 21)
essentially consolidated the twelve safety distances to three, with
less than 0.5 NM being ``intolerable'' and a range from 0.5 NM to 3.5
NM being ``tolerable'' if risks have been mitigated to a point termed
``as low as reasonably possible'' or ALARP. Last, the MGN 543 template
considers distances beyond 3.5 NM to be ``broadly acceptable.''
Although some commenters may view MGN 543's revised template to
have relaxed the recommended safe distances in MGN 371, we do not
agree. Through MGN 543, the MCA sought to both simplify the template,
and also make clear that generally there is a range of possible safe
setback distances, and that a particular distance for any given wind
farm would be determined by the unique circumstances of the project,
which must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.
Similarly, our MP Guidelines state that the Coast Guard will be a
cooperating agency in the NEPA process wherein we will evaluate the
Navigation Safety Risk Assessment unique to each proposed project,
i.e., on a case-by-case basis. After consideration of several European
guidelines, we determined that a 2 NM setback from the side of a TSS
was the appropriate guidance for offshore wind farm developers. This
distance is consistent with the MCA 371's demarcation for low risk, it
is in the middle of MGN 543's range for ``tolerable if ALARP'' and also
consistent with the other European guidance we considered. As such, we
do not intend to revise the MP Guidelines at this time.
[[Page 16512]]
It is important to note that the distances set forth in MGN 371,
MNG 543 and our MP Guidelines are not standards, regulations or
requirements of any type, but rather are guidance for developers to
consider at the outset of a proposal. For example, both MGN 371 and MGN
543 state ``[t]his Guidance Note, as the name implies, is intended for
the guidance of developers and others.'' See p. 3 of both Notes. In
similar language, the MP Guidelines states on p. 1 ``[t]hese guidelines
are provided to assist offshore developers and marine planners with
their evaluation of the navigational impacts of any projects with
multiple permanent fixed structures.'' Furthermore, on p. 6 of the MP
Guidelines, we state ``[t]hese recommendations are based on generic
deep draft vessel maneuvering characteristics and are consistent with
existing European guidelines.''
As discussed above, the Coast Guard will evaluate each proposed
project based upon the actual risks identified in the Navigation Safety
Risk Assessment, and not by rigidly applying recommended distances from
the MP Guidelines or any other similar guidance. Because our guidelines
are neither regulations nor standards that must be applied, and because
we view MGN 543 as a simplification of its predecessor, MGN 371, we do
not believe it is necessary or prudent to revise our MP Guidelines at
this time.
Navigation Corridors
Various comments were received concerning navigation corridors.
Some commenters said the navigation corridors were too large, or simply
not necessary, whereas others said they were essential to preserve
clear shipping lanes. Prior to the advent of offshore wind development,
there was no need for a coordinated routing system along the entire
Atlantic seaboard, and existing traffic separation schemes at the
entrances to major ports were adequate to manage collision risks for
commercial vessel traffic. As the potential for conflicting uses of the
Atlantic Ocean has increased, the Coast Guard must evaluate options to
reduce associated risks to navigation and the environment. The ACPARS
identified the routes typically used by tug and barge traffic and deep
draft ocean-going vessels. The identified navigation corridors in the
final report simply reflect areas historically used by commercial
vessels. The ACPARS report recommends that the navigation corridors
should be considered during marine planning activities and incorporated
into Regional Ocean Plans to ensure appropriate consideration is given
to shipping early in the project siting process. Some commenters have
also suggested the Coast Guard apply the data and recommendations from
the ACPARS to the marine planning process, and we agree with those
comments.
The ACPARS report also recommended that the Coast Guard use the
identified navigation corridors to establish shipping safety fairways
(areas where permanent structures are not permitted) or other
appropriate ships' routing measures. The Coast Guard is considering
these recommendations, but has not yet determined if or how it may move
forward on such routing measures. In the event the Coast Guard
determines that shipping safety fairways or other routing measures must
be further explored, it will engage all relevant stakeholders and
ultimately commence a formal rulemaking process that will provide ample
notice and opportunity for public and other stakeholder comment, and a
thorough environmental review.
Protection of Right Whales
The Coast Guard received comments suggesting that offshore
navigation corridors for deep draft traffic could endanger North
Atlantic right whales if the corridors divert vessel traffic around
wind farms into areas where these endangered whales tend to migrate.
Although the offshore navigation corridors identified simply reflect
existing vessel traffic patterns already in use, the Coast Guard would
consult with National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
interagency partners and other stakeholders through the NEPA and marine
planning processes as a necessary part of any action to formally
establish routing measures associated with the ACPARS or particular
wind farm proposals.
Continued Public Outreach
Some commenters recommended that the Coast Guard continue outreach
efforts with affected states and federal agencies, the marine shipping
industry, the wind energy industry and the general public, which could
include participation in stakeholder outreach activities, public
meetings, workshops and industry meetings and conferences. The Coast
Guard concurs with the recommendation and will continue its outreach
program through the Regional Planning Bodies.
Summary
For the foregoing reasons, the Coast Guard considers the ACPARS
report to be complete and will not make changes to it at this time.
This notification is issued under authority of 33 U.S.C. 1223(c)
and 5 U.S.C. 552.
Dated: March 31, 2017.
Michael D. Emerson,
Director, Marine Transportation Systems, U.S. Coast Guard.
[FR Doc. 2017-06738 Filed 4-4-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P