NAO 216-6 Exhibits

NAO 216-6 Exhibits List
Exhibit 1 Acronyms
Exhibit 2 The NEPA Process
Exhibit 3 NOAA Contacts for Common Actions Subject to NEPA
Exhibit 4 Format for Preparing a Notice of Intent
Exhibit 5a Format for Documenting Categorical Exclusion of Several Actions
Exhibit 5b Format for Documenting Categorical Exclusion of Several Actions
Exhibit 6 Format for EIS Transmittal Letter to Reviewers
Exhibit 7 Format for Draft EIS/Final EIS Transmittal to EPA
Exhibit 8 Format for FONSI Transmittal Letter to Interested Parties
Exhibit 9 Format for FONSI Transmittal Memorandum (from appropriate Assistant Administrator, Staff Office or Program Office Director to NEPA Coordinator)

Exhibit 1. Acronyms

The following acronyms are used in this Order:

AA Assistant Administrator
APA Administrative Procedure Act
CE Categorical Exclusion
CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
CEQ Council on Environmental Quality, Executive Office of the President
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CZMA Coastal Zone Management Act
DAO Department Administrative Order
DEIS Draft Environmental Impact Statement
DOC U.S. Department of Commerce
EA Environmental Assessment
EEZ U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone
EIS Environmental Impact Statement
E.O. Executive Order
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
ESA Endangered Species Act
FEIS Final Environmental Impact Statement
FMP Fishery Management Plan
FONSI Finding of No Significant Impact
LEIS Legislative Environmental Impact Statement
MMPA Marine Mammal Protection Act
MSFCMA Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act
NAO NOAA Administrative Order
NEPA National Environmental Policy Act
NEXRAD Next Generation Radar
NMSA National Marine Sanctuaries Act
NOA Notice of Availability
NOI Notice of Intent
NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
OPA Oil Pollution Act
PO Program Office
RFMC Regional Fishery Management Council
ROD Record of Decision
RPM Responsible Program Manager
SEIS Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement
SO Staff Office
U.S.C. United States Code

[Back to top]

Exhibit 2. The NEPA Process

View or Download the NEPA Process, Exhibit 2 diagram

Exhibit 3. NOAA Contacts for Common Actions Subject to NEPA

Program Application NOAA Contact
Coastal Zone Management Programs (Sec. 306, CZMA) Coastal States, Territories and Commonwealths National Ocean Service, Office of Ocean and Coastal Resources Management (OCRM)
National Marine Sanctuaries (Title III, (NMSA) States, private individuals and organizations National Ocean Service, OCRM
Estuarine Sanctuaries Beach Access Acquisition (Sec. 315, CZMA) States National Ocean Service, OCRM
Fishery Management Plans (Sec. 305, MSFCMA) Regional Fishery Management Councils or NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service Headquarters
Regulations, Permits and Waivers under the MMPA [Secs. 101(a)(2), 101(a)(3), and 104, MMPA] Private parties, scientific institutions, and foreign nations National Marine Fisheries Service, Office of Protected Species and Habitat
Deep Seabed Mining Licenses and Permits (DSM) Private industry National Ocean Service, OCRM
Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion Licenses (OTEC) Private industry National Ocean Service, OCRM

[Back to top]

Exhibit 4. Format for Preparing a Notice of Intent

Billing Code: 3510-22-F

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
[I.D. 021596A]

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Proposed Consolidation of NOAA Facilities in Juneau, AK

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), U.S. Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare an EIS; request for comments.

SUMMARY: NOAA announces its intention to prepare an EIS in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 for the proposed consolidation of NOAA/NMFS facilities in Juneau, AK. The University of Alaska may also develop facilities as part of the proposed consolidation.

DATES: Written comments on the intent to prepare an EIS will be accepted on or before March 25, 1996. Scoping meetings are scheduled as follows:

  1. March 29, 1996, 1 p.m., Federal Building, Juneau, AK.
  2. May 24, 1996, 1 p.m., Federal Building, Juneau, AK.
  3. May 24, 1996, 5 p.m., Centennial Hall, Juneau, AK.

ADDRESSES: Written comments on suggested alternatives and potential impacts should be sent to John Gorman, Responsible Program Manager, National Marine Fisheries Service, Alaska Region, P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK 99802-1668 or to Robb Gries, Contract Office Technical Representative, NOAA, Facilities and Logistics Division, 7600 Sand Point Way NE, BIN C15700, Seattle, WA 98115.

Scoping meetings will be held as follows:

  1. NOAA/NMFS personnel - Friday, March 29, 1996, 4th Floor Conference Room, Federal Building, 709 West 9th Street, Juneau, AK, 1-4 p.m.
  2. NOAA/NMFS personnel - Friday, May 24, 1996, 4th Floor Conference Room, Federal Building, 709 West 9th Street, Juneau, AK, 1-4 p.m.
  3. Open to the public - Friday, May 24, 1996, Centennial Hall, 101 Egan Drive, Juneau, AK, 5 p.m.-10 p.m.


The proposed action would involve consolidation of NOAA/NMFS offices, laboratory, and enforcement facilities in Juneau, AK. NOAA operations are currently in four space assignments in the Federal Building and at an aging, overcrowded Commerce-owned laboratory facility at Auke Bay. The NOAA/NMFS portion of the facility will be about 91,628 net square ft (8,512.5 square meters) in size and constructed on 28 acres (11.3 hectares (ha)) of Commerce-owned property at Auke Cape. The 28 acre (11.3 ha) site is situated on saltwater (Auke Bay) and will require access and utility improvements. Approximately 273 NOAA/NMFS related personnel would be housed in the consolidated facilities. The University of Alaska School of Fisheries and Ocean Sciences is interested in collocating 22,000 net square ft (2,044 square meters) of laboratory, classroom, and office space with NOAA/NMFS at Auke Cape. The University of Alaska space would house about 90 faculty, staff, and students. The EIS will examine three alternative locations for the proposed consolidation and also evaluate the proposed action with and without University of Alaska participation. The no action alternative will also be evaluated. The agency's preferred alternative is to locate on approximately 28 acres (11.3 ha) of agency-owned land at Auke Cape/Indian Point on Auke Bay.

To identify the scope of issues that will be addressed in the EIS and to identify potential impacts on the quality of the human environment, public participation is invited by providing written comments to NMFS and attending the scoping meeting.

Public Information Meetings:

Additional public information meetings and community workshops on the proposed project will be held in Juneau beginning in March. These meetings will be held in various locations and will be advertised in local Juneau newspapers.

Special Accommodations:

The meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to John Gorman or Robb Gries (see ADDRESSES) at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.

Dated: February 15, 1996

Richard W. Surdi
Acting Director
Office of Fisheries Conservation and Management
National Marine Fisheries Service

[Back to top]

Exhibit 5a. Format for Documenting Categorical Exclusion of Several Actions

FROM: Donna Marino
Construction Staff
SUBJECT: Categorical Exclusion, Oxford Cooperative Laboratory

NAO 216-6, Environmental Review Procedures, requires all proposed projects to be reviewed with respect to environmental consequences on the human environment.

The proposed project is to renovate and expand the existing main structure at the research facility known as The Cooperative Oxford Laboratory, Oxford, Maryland. The scope of the proposed project is:

Renovation of 10,000 Gross Square Feet (GSF) and construction of a 7,000 GSF expansion to the main structure at the Cooperative Oxford Laboratory. Renovation work will consist of removal and replacement of either partial or whole components of existing mechanical, electrical, and architectural features. Expansion work will consist of construction of a slab foundation, brick super structure, and a wood trussed and asphalt shingled roof, and build out of interior components.

Expansion and renovation involves furnishing materials, tools, equipment, supervision, and incidentals by the Federal Government. In a cost sharing arrangement with the State of Maryland, the state will provide the funds for labor as required. All work will be conducted by state employees or licensed contractors in conformance with applicable conventional engineering and construction practices. Work will be performed on site, in one location at Oxford, Maryland.

This proposed project represents repair, renovation, and expansion activities to an existing Federal facility. Expansion of the facility will occur. Appropriate State and Federal agencies with jurisdictions over waterfront and shore lands have been advised of the proposed project. A copy of the Maryland State Department of Natural Resources May 9, 1995, memorandum of Federal Consistency with the State’s Coastal Zone Management Program, as are required by Section 307 of the Federal Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, is attached. Also attached is the Maryland State Department of Natural Resources “Stormwater Management and Sediment & Erosion Control Approval/Waiver” dated June16, 1995.

This project would not result in any changes to the human environment. As defined in Sections 5.05 and 6.03a.3b. of NAO 216-6, this is an action of limited size or magnitude. As such, it is categorically excluded from the need to prepare an Environmental Assessment.

[Back to top]

Exhibit 5b. Format for Documenting Categorical Exclusion of Several Actions

FROM: F/SF1 - Rebecca Lent
SUBJECT: Proposed Atlantic Bluefin Tuna Trade Restrictions B Categorical Exclusion Under NEPA

The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), under the authority of the Atlantic Tunas Convention Act (ATCA), is proposing to restrict the import of Atlantic bluefin tuna (ABT) from Panama, Belize, and Honduras. This proposed action would require minor changes to the existing regulations for the ABT fishery.

After reviewing the proposed rule (copy attached) in relation to NOAA 216-6, including the criteria used to determine significance, we have concluded that the proposed action would not have a significant effect, individually or cumulatively, on the human environment. Further, we have determined that the proposed action is categorically excluded from the requirement to prepare an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement in accordance with Section 6.03a.3b. of NOAA Administrative Order 216-6. Specifically, this is an “action of limited size or magnitude” that does not result in a significant change in the original environmental action and involves only minor changes to the regulations.


In an effort to conserve and manage North Atlantic bluefin tuna, the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) adopted two recommendations at its 1996 meeting requiring its Contracting Parties to take the appropriate measures to the effect that the import of Atlantic bluefin tuna and its products in any form from Belize, Honduras, and Panama be prohibited.

ICCAT has been concerned about the status of North Atlantic bluefin tuna for many years. The most recent scientific stock assessment shows that mid-year spawning biomass (age 8+) of the western management stock in 1995 was estimated to be 13 percent of the 1975 level (which is considered an appropriate proxy for the spawning stock biomass level corresponding to maximum sustainable yield (MSY). Eastern Atlantic bluefin tuna is estimated to be at 19 percent of the level that would produce MSY.

The U.S. Atlantic bluefin tuna fishery is managed under ATCA. Regulation of the fishery is required to implement applicable ICCAT recommendations and ATCA and Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSFCMA) requirements. Over the years, ICCAT has adopted numerous conservation and management measures aimed at addressing the decline in this resource. These measures have included establishing (1) catch limits and quotas, (2) time and area closures to protect spawning fish, (3) a minimum size to protect juvenile fish, (4) the Bluefin Tuna Statistical Document (BSD) program to track the trade of bluefin tuna, (5) the Bluefin Tuna Action Plan Resolution that establishes a process to identify non-Contracting Parties whose vessels are fishing in a manner that diminishes the effectiveness of ICCAT’s bluefin tuna conservation recommendations, and, after giving identified counties an opportunity to rectify the activities of their vessels, can lead to a recommendation of trade measures, (6) measures to enhance Contracting Party compliance with ICCAT’s bluefin tuna quotas that can result in quota penalties and, ultimately, trade restrictions. Environmental assessments, resulting in Findings of No Significant Impact, were prepared by NMFS for the actions that resulted in these recommendations. All substantive ABT regulations to date have been evaluated consistent with NEPA. This proposed action does not significantly alter those regulations.

Under the proposed trade restrictions, U.S. dealers would be prohibited from importing ABT products from Belize, Honduras, or Panama. No bluefin tuna were imported from Belize, Honduras, or Panama during 1979-196. It is unlikely that any importers, wholesalers, or freight forwarders have any significant dependence on bluefin tuna imports from these three countries and there are no extraordinary circumstances that would remove this action from consideration as a categorical exclusion.

Following are the most salient factors contributing to our determination that a categorical exclusion is appropriate for this action:

  1. The principal effect of the proposed action would be to penalize, through trade restrictions, countries that do not support conservation and management measures recommended for ABT by ICCAT.
  2. The action would not, in the United States, result in any increase in fishing mortality; change any basic fishing practices (i.e., fishing effort, areas fished, etc.); or pose any significant threat to the human environment.
  3. The action is of “limited size”; requires only minor changes to existing regulations; and does not result in “a significant change in the original environmental action.” It is intended to help ensure effective implementation of ICCAT conservation recommendations for bluefin tuna.


Exhibit 6. Format for EIS Transmittal Letter to Reviewers

Dear Reviewer:

In accordance with provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, we enclose for your review the NOAA/NMFS Consolidated Facility Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS).

This FEIS is prepared pursuant to NEPA to assess the environmental impacts associated with NOAA proceeding with development and operation of a consolidated NOAA/NMFS facility. The facility may also contain space for the University of Alaska Fairbanks (UAF) School of Fisheries and Ocean Sciences. The FEIS examines impacts with and without the UAF presence.

Any written comments on the FEIS should be directed to the responsible official identified below by February 23, 1998. A copy of your comments should also go to me in Room 5805, OPSP, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, D.C. 20230.

NOAA is not required to respond to comments received as a result of issuance of the FEIS, however comments will be reviewed and considered for their impact on issuance of a record of decision (ROD). The ROD will be printed in the Federal Register some time after February 23, 1998.

Responsible Person:
John Gorman
National Marine Fisheries Service
Alaska Region
P.O. Box 21668
Juneau, Alaska 99802-1668

Telephone number (907) 586-7641
Facsimile (907) 586-7249


                      NEPA Coordinator


[[Back to top]]

Exhibit 7. Format for Draft EIS/Final EIS Transmittal to EPA

Director, Office of Federal Activities (A-104)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Ariel Rios Bldg.
South Oval Lobby
1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
Washington, D.C. 20044




If you have any questions about the enclosed statement, contact either the official responsible for this program (NAME and TELEPHONE NUMBER) or me at (202) 482-5181.

Concurrent with this transmittal to EPA, copies of the (DEIS//FEIS) are being mailed to Federal agencies and other interested parties.


                      (Insert Name)
                      NEPA Coordinator


[Back to top]

Exhibit 8. Format for FONSI Transmittal Letter to Interested Parties

To All Interested Government Agencies and Public Groups:

Under the National Environmental Policy Act, an environmental review has been performed on the following action.


RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: (Assistant Administrator, Staff Office or Program Office Director Level with Address and Telephone Number)

The environmental review process led us to conclude that this action will not have a significant effect on the human environment. Therefore, an environmental impact statement will not be prepared. A copy of the finding of no significant impact including the supporting environmental assessment is enclosed for your information. Please submit any written comments to the responsible official named above by (DUE DATE FOR COMMENTS).

Also, please send one copy of your comments to me in Room 6117, Herbert C. Hoover Building, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, D.C. 20230.


                      (Insert Name)
                      NEPA Coordinator


[Back to top]

Exhibit 9. Format for FONSI Transmittal Memorandum (from appropriate Assistant Administrator, Staff Office or Program Office Director to NEPA Coordinator)

NEPA Coordinator
SUBJECT: Finding of No Significant Impact on the Environmental Assessment on (TITLE OF ACTION OR PROJECT) -- DECISION MEMORANDUM

Based on the subject environmental assessment, I have determined that no significant environmental impacts will result from the proposed action. I request your concurrence in this determination by signing below. Please return this memorandum for our files.

1. I concur. ________________________________________________ Date

2. I do not concur. __________________________________________ Date


[Back to top]