3.9 Birds

Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

i

Table of Contents

Draft

Environmental Impact Statement/Overseas Environmental Impact 

Statement

Hawaii-Southern California Training and Testing

TABLE OF CONTENTS

3.9 Birds.......................................................................................................................3.9-1

3.9.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................3.9-2

3.9.2 Affected Environment.........................................................................................3.9-2

3.9.2.1 General Background ...........................................................................3.9-3

3.9.2.2 Endangered Species Act-Listed Species............................................3.9-11

3.9.2.3 Species Not Listed Under the Endangered Species Act....................3.9-26

3.9.2.4 Migratory Birds.................................................................................3.9-31

3.9.3 Environmental Consequences ..........................................................................3.9-33

3.9.3.1 Acoustic Stressors.............................................................................3.9-34

3.9.3.2 Explosive Stressors............................................................................3.9-61

3.9.3.3 Energy Stressors................................................................................3.9-67

3.9.3.4 Physical Disturbance and Strike Stressors........................................3.9-75

3.9.3.5 Entanglement Stressors....................................................................3.9-86

3.9.3.6 Ingestion Stressors............................................................................3.9-91

3.9.3.7 Secondary Stressors..........................................................................3.9-97

3.9.4 Summary of Potential Impacts on Birds ...........................................................3.9-99

3.9.4.1 Combined Impacts of All Stressors Under Alternative 1 ..................3.9-99

3.9.4.2 Combined Impacts of All Stressors Under Alternative 2 ................3.9-100

3.9.4.3 Combined Impacts of All Stressors Under the No Action 

Alternative ......................................................................................3.9-100

3.9.5 Endangered Species Act Determinations........................................................3.9-100

3.9.6 Migratory Bird Treaty Act Determinations.....................................................3.9-100
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

ii

Table of Contents

List of Figures

There are no figures in this section.

List of Tables

Table 3.9-1: Endangered Species Act Listed Bird Species Found in the Study Area.............................3.9-11

Table 3.9-2: Major Groups of Birds in the Study Area..........................................................................3.9-27

Table 3.9-3: Birds of Conservation Concern that Occur within the Study Area....................................3.9-32

Table 3.9-4: Range to No Blast Injury for Birds Exposed to Aerial Explosives......................................3.9-62
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.9-1

3.9 Birds

3.9 BIRDS

SYNOPSIS

The United States Department of the Navy (Navy) considered all potential stressors that birds could 

potentially be exposed to from the Proposed Action. The following conclusions have been reached 

for the Preferred Alternative:

• Acoustics: Navy training and testing activities have the potential to expose birds to a variety 

of acoustic stressors. The exposure to underwater sounds by birds depends on the species 

and foraging method. Pursuit divers may remain underwater for minutes, increasing the 

chance of underwater sound exposure. The exposure to in-air sounds by birds depends on 

the activity (in flight or on the water surface) and the proximity to the sound source. Because 

birds are less susceptible to both temporary and permanent threshold shifts than mammals, 

unless very close to an intense sound source, responses by birds to acoustic stressors would 

likely be limited to short-term behavioral responses. Because birds are less susceptible to 

both temporary and permanent threshold shifts than mammals, responses by birds to 

acoustic stressors would likely be limited to short-term behavioral responses unless very 

close to an intense sound source. Some birds may be temporarily displaced and there may 

be temporary increases in stress levels. Although individual birds may be impacted, 

population level impacts are not expected.

• Explosives: Navy training and testing activities have the potential to expose birds to 

explosions in the water, near the water surface, and in the air. Sounds generated by most 

small underwater explosions are unlikely to disturb birds above the water surface. If a 

detonation is sufficiently large or is near the water surface, however, birds above the 

pressure released at the air-water interface could be injured or killed. Detonations in air 

could injure birds while either in flight or at the water surface; however, detonations in air 

during anti-air warfare training and testing would typically occur at much higher altitudes

where seabirds and migrating birds are less likely to be present. Detonations may attract 

birds to possible fish kills, which could cause bird mortalities or injuries if there are multiple 

detonations in a single event. An explosive detonation would likely cause a startle reaction, 

as the exposure would be brief and any reactions are expected to be short-term. Although a 

few individuals may experience long-term impacts and potential mortality, population-level 

impacts are not expected.

• Energy: The impact of energy stressors on birds is expected to be negligible based on (1) the 

limited geographic area in which they are used, (2) the rare chance that an individual bird 

would be exposed to these devices in use, and (3) the tendency of birds to temporarily avoid 

areas of activity when and where the devices are in use. The impacts of energy stressors 

would be limited to individual cases where a bird might become temporarily disoriented and 

change flight direction, or be injured. Although a small number of individuals may be 

impacted, the impact at the population level would be negligible.

Continued on the next page...
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.9-2

3.9 Birds

3.9.1 INTRODUCTION

This chapter provides the analysis of potential impacts on birds found in the Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing (HSTT) Study Area (Study Area). This section provides an introduction to the species 

that occur in the Study Area.

The affected environment provides the context for evaluating the effects of the Navy training and 

testing on birds. Because birds occur throughout the Study Area along shorelines, on the surface of the 

water, in water column and shallow bottom habitats, and are airborne over these habitats, Navy 

activities within these habitats could potentially impact many individuals and species, including 

members of diverse groups, Endangered Species Act (ESA)-listed species, species protected under the 

Migratory Bird Treaty Act, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Birds of Conservation Concern. 

Following sections include Section 3.9.2 (Affected Environment), which provides a description of 

baseline conditions and brief introduction to the species and major taxonomic groups that occur in the 

Study Area; Section 3.9.3 (Environmental Consequences); and Section 3.9.4 (Summary of Potential 

Impacts on Birds). Throughout this chapter, particular consideration is given to ESA-listed species, 

species protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, and the USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern.

3.9.2 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

Three subsections are included in this section. General background information is given in 

Section 3.9.2.1 (General Background), which provides brief summaries of group size, habitat use, dive 

behavior, hearing and vocalization, and threats that affect or have the potential to affect natural 

communities of birds within the Study Area. Protected species listed under the ESA are described in 

Continued from the previous page...

• Physical Disturbance and Strike: There is the potential for individual birds to be injured or 

killed by physical disturbance and strikes during training and testing. However, species or 

population level impacts would not occur due to the vast area over which training and 

testing activities occur, the comparatively small size of birds, and their ability to 

flee disturbance.

• Entanglement: Entanglement stressors have the potential to impact birds, including 

Endangered Species Act (ESA)-listed bird species. However, the likelihood is low, since 

certain activities take place in specific locations or depth zones within the Study Area outside 

the range or foraging abilities of most birds. A small number of individuals may be impacted, 

but no direct impacts at the population level would be expected.

• Ingestion: It is possible that persistent expended materials could be accidentally ingested by 

birds during foraging. The likelihood of ingestion is low since (1) foraging depths of diving 

birds is generally restricted to the surface of the water or shallow depths, (2) the material is 

unlikely to be mistaken for prey, and (3) most of the material remains at or near the sea 

surface for a short length of time. No population-level effect to any bird species would 

be anticipated. 

• Secondary: There would be relatively localized, temporary impacts from water quality 

(turbidity) which may alter foraging conditions, but no impacts on prey availability.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.9-3

3.9 Birds

Section 3.9.2.1.5.6 (Endangered Species Act-Listed Species). Section 3.9.2.3 (Species Not Listed Under 

the Endangered Species Act) describes birds not listed under the ESA, including major taxonomic groups 

and migratory birds protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.

3.9.2.1 General Background

There are approximately 220 species of birds that regularly occur in the Study Area (Baird, 1993; Pyle & 

Pyle, 2017; Sibley, 2014). Most of these are waterbirds – birds that live in marine, estuarine, and 

freshwater habitats. Waterbirds include seabirds, wading birds, shorebirds, and waterfowl, as described 

in more detail below. The remainder of species that may be encountered in the Study Area are landbirds 

(primarily songbirds) that live on land and whose occurrence is largely limited to coastal resident 

species.

Seabirds – birds that forage primarily on the open ocean - are of particular interest as the group of birds 

with the broadest distribution and exposure to Navy activities in the Study Area. Seabirds are a diverse 

group that are adapted to living in aquatic environments (Enticott & Tipling, 1997) and, in the Study 

Area use coastal (nearshore) waters, offshore waters (continental shelf), or open ocean areas (Harrison, 

1983). There are many biological, physical, and behavioral adaptations that are different for seabirds 

than for terrestrial birds. Seabirds typically live longer, breed later in life, and produce fewer young than 

other bird species (Onley & Scofield, 2007). The feeding habits of seabirds are related to their individual 

physical characteristics, such as body mass, bill shape, and wing area (Hertel & Ballance, 1999). Some 

seabirds look for food (forage) on the sea surface, whereas others dive to variable depths to obtain prey 

(Burger, 2001). Many seabirds spend most of their lives at sea and come to land only to breed, nest, and 

occasionally rest (Schreiber & Chovan, 1986). Most species nest in groups (colonies) on the ground of 

coastal areas or oceanic islands, where breeding colonies number from a few individuals to thousands. 

However, many species are distributed nesters, and some seabirds/waterbirds are cavity nesters. Typical 

bird behavior to be encountered within the Study Area would include breeding, foraging, roosting, and 

migration. Beaches and wetlands within or bordering the Study Area may also be used as molting 

grounds by some species. 

Additional information on the biology, life history, and conservation of bird species, including speciesspecific descriptions, is available from the websites of these sources: 

• USFWS Migratory Bird Program and Endangered Species Program

• Birdlife International

• International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources Red List of Threatened 

Species

• National Audubon Society

• The Waterbird Society

• Department of Defense’s Partners in Flight

The following sections contain additional information on group size, habitat use, dive behavior, hearing 

and vocalization, and general threats.

3.9.2.1.1 Group Size

A variety of group sizes and diversity may be encountered throughout the Study Area, ranging from 

solitary migration of an individual bird to large concentrations of birds in single-species and 

mixed-species flocks. Depending on season, location, and time of day, the number of birds observed 

(group size) will vary and will likely fluctuate from year to year. During spring and fall periods, diurnal 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.9-4

3.9 Birds

and nocturnal migrants would likely occur in large groups as they migrate over open water. Many 

waterbirds migrate in very small groups or pairs, and then can be found in large groups at stopover 

areas and wintering grounds (Elphick, 2007). 

Avian radar studies at sea show nocturnal migrants as well as seabirds moving across open oceans in 

large numbers (Desholm et al., 2006; Gauthreaux & Belser, 2003). During the winter months, large 

groups of ducks (rafts) could be encountered. During the nesting and breeding season, pelagic seabirds 

could be encountered in large groups following the currents and upwellings in pursuit of prey (Sibley, 

2007). In the nearshore environments, terns, gulls, shorebirds, and plovers may occur in large groups 

while in their breeding and feeding areas. 

Most seabird species nest in groups (colonies) on the ground of coastal areas or oceanic islands, where 

breeding colonies number from a few individuals to thousands. This breeding strategy is believed to 

have evolved in response to the limited availability of relatively predator-free nesting habitats and 

distance to foraging sites from breeding grounds (Siegel-Causey & Kharitonov, 1990). Outside of the 

breeding season, most seabirds within the Order Procellariiformes (the different orders of birds in the 

Study Area are described later in Section 3.9.2.3, Species not Listed Under the Endangered Species Act), 

such as the black-vented shearwater (Puffinus opisthomelas), are solitary, though they may join mixedspecies flocks while foraging and can be associated with whales and dolphins (Onley & Scofield, 2007) or 

areas where prey density is high (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2005a). During the breeding season, 

these seabirds usually form large nesting colonies. Pelecaniform (birds within the Order Pelecaniformes) 

breeding, whether on the ground or in trees, is typically colonial and the most common species in the 

Study Area forage in groups, often in lines (e.g., double-crested cormorant [Phalacrocorax auritus]). 

Foraging seabirds of the order Charadriiformes (e.g., Heermann’s gull [Larus heermanni]) can range from 

singles or pairs (International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources, 2010a; U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, 2005b) and can extend upward into larger groups where juveniles accompany 

adults to post-breeding foraging areas, where the water is calm and the food supply is good. There are 

post-season dispersal sites, where adults and fledglings congregate (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2006). 

Large groups are occasionally observed foraging at great distances from colonies, including at inland 

water sources (Atwood & Minsky, 1983).

3.9.2.1.2 Habitat Use

The Hawaiian Islands are important habitat for seabirds in the North Pacific Subtropical Gyre. The 

shoreline, estuarine, and open ocean environments support a variety and large population of seabird 

species by providing important nesting and feeding habitats. The Hawaiian Islands are in the warm 

North Pacific water mass (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2005b). Despite low levels of localized 

production, recent research estimates that 15 million seabirds inhabit the Hawaiian Islands; 22 species 

of seabirds regularly nest in the Hawaiian Islands, and many more pass through during migration to and 

from their breeding grounds elsewhere in the Pacific (Birding Hawaii, 2004).

The entire world populations of Hawaiian petrels (Pterodroma sandwichensis) and Newell’s shearwaters 

(Puffinus auricularis newelli) and more than 95 percent of the world’s Laysan and black-footed 

albatrosses (Phoebastria immutabilis and Phoebastria nigripes, respectively) nest in the northwest 

Hawaiian Islands. Most of the world’s ashy storm-petrels (Oceanodroma homochroa), western gulls

(Larus occidentalis), and Brandt’s cormorants (Phalacrocorax penicillatus) nest along the west coast of 

the United States (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2005b). In addition to breeding seabirds, millions of 

seabirds from more than 100 different species migrate to or through the Study Area. For example, an 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.9-5

3.9 Birds

estimated 5.5 to 6 million seabirds representing more than 100 species are thought to occur off 

California based on at-sea surveys (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2005b). Surveys around the Hawaiian 

Islands found 40 different species of seabirds, half of which were local breeders and the remainder were 

migrant species (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2005b).

The Southern California Bight, within the California Current Large Marine Ecosystem, is important for 

both breeding and migratory bird species. More than 195 species of birds use coastal or offshore aquatic 

habitats in the Southern California Bight—the area of the Pacific Ocean lying between Point Conception 

on the Santa Barbara County coast to a point south of the U.S.-Mexico border (Anderson et al., 2007; 

Baird, 1993; Bearzi et al., 2009; Hunt & Butler, 1980).

More than 300 bird species have been documented in and around San Diego Bay. The majority of these 

bay birds, representing 30 families, are migratory and may only stop to rest and feed, while others 

spend the winter or breed. Several are terrestrial birds of special concern or influence that are found 

about the Bay but may not directly depend upon it. Resident birds live and breed in the area year-round. 

Migrants that would not usually be in the area, disoriented in their travel, on the edges of their range, or 

simply looking for suitable habitat are regarded as vagrants. Although vagrants are not considered 

ordinarily dependent on the bay, a considerable number of them pass through and visit each year (U.S. 

Department of the Navy, 2013b).

3.9.2.1.3 Dive Behavior

Many of the seabird species found in the Study Area will dive, skim, or grasp prey at the water’s surface 

or within the upper portion (1 to 2 meters [m]) of the water column (Cook et al., 2011; Jiménez et al., 

2012; Sibley, 2007). However, numerous seabirds, including various species of diving ducks, cormorants, 

and alcids (the family that includes murres, murrelets, auks, auklets, shearwaters, and puffins), including 

the threatened Newell’s shearwater are known to feed at depths greater than 100 feet (ft.) (Ehrlich et 

al., 1988). Some seabirds are aerial plunge divers in which they dive from above the surface and make 

generally shallow dives into the water column after prey (e.g., terns, gannets). Others are considered 

surface divers where they plunge directly from the surface underwater after prey (e.g., puffins, loons).

Most diving species tend to catch the majority of their prey near the surface of the water column or on 

the bottom in shallow water (e.g., clams, mussels, and other invertebrates) (Cook et al., 2011), although 

some pursue prey to considerable depths as noted previously. Dive durations are correlated with depth 

and range from a few seconds in shallow divers to several minutes in alcids (Ponganis, 2015). Petrels 

forage both night and day; they capture prey by resting on the water surface and dipping their bill and 

by aerial pursuit of flying fish (International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources, 

2010d). Hawaiian petrels eat mostly squid (50 to 75 percent of their diet), fish, and crustaceans 

(International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources, 2010d).

3.9.2.1.4 Hearing and Vocalization

Although hearing range and sensitivity has been measured for many land birds, little is known of seabird 

hearing. The majority of the published literature on bird hearing focuses on terrestrial birds and their 

ability to hear in air. A review of 32 terrestrial and marine species indicates that birds generally have 

greatest hearing sensitivity between 1 and 4 kilohertz (kHz) (Beason, 2004; Dooling, 2002). Very few can 

hear below 20 hertz (Hz), most have an upper frequency hearing limit of 10 kHz, and none exhibit 

hearing at frequencies higher than 15 kHz (Dooling, 2002; Dooling & Popper, 2000). Hearing capabilities 

have been studied for only a few seabirds (Beason, 2004; Beuter et al., 1986; Crowell et al., 2015; 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.9-6

3.9 Birds

Johansen et al., 2016; Thiessen, 1958; Wever et al., 1969); these studies show that seabird hearing 

ranges and sensitivity in air are consistent with what is known about bird hearing in general.

Auditory abilities have been measured in ten diving bird species in-air using electrophysiological 

techniques (Crowell et al., 2015). All species tested had the best hearing sensitivity from 1 to 3 kHz. The 

red-throated loon (Gavia stellata) and northern gannet (Morus bassanus) (both non-duck species) had 

the highest thresholds while the lesser scaup (Aythya affinis) and ruddy duck (Oxyura jamaicensis) (both 

duck species) had the lowest thresholds (Crowell et al., 2015). Auditory sensitivity varied amongst the 

species tested, spanning over 30 decibels (dB) in the frequency range of best hearing. While 

electrophysiological techniques provide insight into hearing abilities, auditory sensitivity is more 

accurately obtained using behavioral techniques. Crowell et al. (2016) used behavioral methods to 

obtain an in-air audiogram of the lesser scaup. Best hearing frequency range in air was similar to other 

birds, with best sensitivity of 14 dB referenced to (re) 20 micropascals (μPa) at 2.86 kHz.

Crowell et al. (2015) also compared the vocalizations of the same ten diving bird species to the region of 

highest sensitivity of in-air hearing (Crowell et al., 2015). Of the birds studied, vocalizations of only eight 

species were obtained due to the relatively silent nature of two of the species. The peak frequency of 

the vocalizations of seven of the eight species fell within the range of highest sensitivity of in-air hearing. 

Crowell et al. (2015) suggested that the colonial nesters tested had relatively reduced hearing sensitivity 

because they relied on individually distinctive vocalizations over short ranges. Additionally, Crowell et al. 

(2015) observed that the species with more sensitive hearing were those associated with freshwater 

habitats, which are relatively quieter compared to marine habitats with wind and wave noise.

Although important to seabirds in air, it is unknown if seabirds use hearing or vocalizations underwater 

for foraging, communication, predator avoidance or navigation (Crowell, 2016; Dooling & Therrien, 

2012). Some scientists suggest that birds must rely on vision rather than hearing while underwater 

(Hetherington, 2008), while others suggest birds must rely on an alternative sense in order to coordinate 

cooperative foraging and foraging in low light conditions (e.g., night, depth) (Dooling & Therrien, 2012).

There is little known about the hearing abilities of birds underwater (Dooling & Therrien, 2012). In air, 

the size of the bird is usually correlated with the sensitivity to sound (Johansen et al., 2016); for 

example, songbirds tend to be more sensitive to higher frequencies and larger non-songbirds tend to be 

more sensitive to lower frequencies (Dooling & Popper, 2000). Two studies have tested the ability of a 

single diving bird, a great cormorant (Phalacrocorax carbo sinensis), to respond to underwater sounds 

(Hansen et al., 2017; Johansen et al., 2016). These studies suggests that the cormorant’s hearing in air is 

less sensitive than birds of similar size; however, the hearing capabilities in water are better than what 

would be expected for a purely in-air adapted ear (Johansen et al., 2016). The frequency range of best 

hearing underwater was observed to be narrower than the frequency range of best hearing in air, with 

greatest sensitivity underwater observed around 2 kHz (about 71 dB re 1 μPa based on behavioral 

responses). Although results were not sufficient to be used to generate an audiogram, Therrien (2014)

also examined underwater hearing sensitivity of long-tailed ducks (Clangula hyemalis) by examining 

behavioral responses. The research showed that auditory thresholds at frequencies within the expected 

range of best sensitivity (1, 2, and 2.86 kHz) are expected to be between 77 and 127 dB re 1 μPa. 

Diving birds may not hear as well underwater, compared to other (non-avian) species, based on 

adaptations to protect their ears from pressure changes (Dooling & Therrien, 2012). Because 

reproduction and communication with conspecifics occurs in air, adaptations for diving may have 

evolved to protect in-air hearing ability and may contribute to reduced sensitivity underwater 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.9-7

3.9 Birds

(Hetherington, 2008). There are many anatomical adaptations in diving birds that may reduce sensitivity 

both in air and underwater. Anatomical ear adaptations are not well investigated, but include cavernous 

tissue in the meatus and middle ear that may fill with blood during dives to compensate for increased 

pressure on the tympanum, active muscular control of the meatus to prevent water entering the ear, 

and interlocking feathers to create a waterproof outer covering (Crowell et al., 2015; Rijke, 1970; Sade 

et al., 2008). The northern gannet, a plunge diver, has unique adaptations to hitting the water at high 

speeds, including additional air spaces in the head and neck to cushion the impact and a thicker 

tympanic membrane than similar sized birds (Crowell et al., 2015). All of these adaptions could explain 

the measured higher thresholds of diving birds.

3.9.2.1.5 General Threats

Populations of approximately half of the 346 species of seabirds that depend on ocean habitats are 

declining (Crowell et al., 2015; North American Bird Conservation Initiative U.S. Committee, 2009). 

Seabirds are some of the most threatened marine animals in the world, with 29 percent of species at 

risk of extinction (Spatz et al., 2014). Threats to bird populations in the Study Area include humancaused stressors (such as incidental mortality) from interactions with commercial and recreational 

fishing gear, predation and competition by introduced species, disturbance and degradation of nesting 

areas by humans and domesticated animals, noise pollution from construction and other human 

activities, nocturnal collisions with power lines and artificial lights, collisions with aircraft, and pollution, 

such as that from oil spills and plastic debris (Anderson et al., 2007; Burkett et al., 2003; California 

Department of Fish and Game, 2010; Carter & Kuletz, 1995; Clavero et al., 2009; International Union for 

Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources, 2010c; North American Bird Conservation Initiative U.S. 

Committee, 2010; Onley & Scofield, 2007; Piatt & Naslund, 1995; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2005b, 

2008a, 2010a; Waugh et al., 2012; Weimerskirch, 2004). Disease, volcanic eruptions, storms, and 

harmful algal blooms are also threats to birds (Anderson et al., 2007; Jessup et al., 2009; North American 

Bird Conservation Initiative U.S. Committee, 2010; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2005b).

Beach-nesting birds are vulnerable to disturbance from people, pets, and off road vehicles that may 

inadvertently destroy or disturb nests (North American Bird Conservation Initiative U.S. Committee, 

2009). Feral species (primarily cats [Felis catus] and rats [Rattus spp.], occasionally pigs [Sus scrofa], and 

cattle [Bos taurus]) may destroy nesting colonies. Seabirds are especially vulnerable to feral species on 

islands where nests and populations have been devastated through predation or habitat destruction. 

Invasive plants can also eliminate nesting habitat on beaches (Clavero et al., 2009; North American Bird 

Conservation Initiative U.S. Committee, 2009). 

Lighting on boats and on offshore oil and gas platforms has also contributed to bird fatalities in openocean environments when birds are attracted to these lights, usually in inclement weather conditions 

(Merkel & Johansen, 2011). Recent studies have looked at different lighting systems and how they may 

impact migrating songbirds (Poot et al., 2008). Land-based lighting has been linked to episodes of 

“fallout” (grounding) involving seabirds, especially petrels, and ship-based lighting could have similar 

effects (Rodríguez et al., 2017).

Natural causes of seabird and shorebird population declines include disease, storms, and harmful algal 

blooms, although human activities are also associated with harmful algal blooms (Jessup et al., 2009; 

North American Bird Conservation Initiative U.S. Committee, 2009; Onley & Scofield, 2007). In addition, 

seabird distribution, abundance, breeding, and other behaviors are affected by cyclical environmental 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.9-8

3.9 Birds

events, such as the El Niño Southern Oscillation and Pacific Decadal Oscillation in the Pacific Ocean

(Congdon et al., 2007; Vandenbosch, 2000). 

3.9.2.1.5.1 Water Quality

Spills of oil and other petroleum products pose a risk to seabirds and shorebirds through direct 

contamination and destruction of nesting, roosting, and foraging habitats. Estimates of bird mortality 

from the BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico during 2010 are that approximately 

200,000 birds were killed in the offshore area and approximately 700,000 killed along the coastline 

during the 103-day duration of the spill (Haney et al., 2014a, 2014b). Additional mortality occurred 

subsequently but has not been estimated.

Within the Study Area, the main risk of oil or other petroleum product spills is from ships, whether

carrying petroleum to and from ports, or in fuel tanks, and from pipelines and onshore facilities that 

transport and store oil and gas. One of the largest spills in the Study Area occurred in 1989 when the 

tanker Exxon Houston broke away from its moorings and ran aground at Barber’s Point on Oahu, spilling 

approximately 117,000 gallons of fuel and crude oil (U.S. Coast Guard, 2015).

3.9.2.1.5.2 Commercial Industries

Commercial fisheries are considered the most serious threat to the world’s seabirds, while invasive 

species are the most pervasive – affecting the largest number of species; other threats include pollution, 

hunting, trapping, energy production, and mining (BirdLife International, 2012). A recent review of 

reported bycatch estimates suggests that at least 400,000 birds die in gillnets each year (Zydelis et al., 

2013). Seabird bycatch in longline fisheries worldwide has been estimated as 160,000 to more than 

320,000 annually (Anderson et al., 2011).

3.9.2.1.5.3 Disease and Parasites

Avian diseases can cause chronic population declines, dramatic die-offs or reductions in the 

reproductive success and survival of individual birds. They can even cause extinctions. Certain avian 

diseases appear to be spreading to populations previously unaffected, including to species already 

threatened by other factors. Examples include avian botulism, cholera, Erysipelothrix rhusiopathiae, 

West Nile virus and Mycoplasmal conjunctivitis. A brief description of each follows (from (BirdLife 

International, 2008).

Avian botulism is a bacterial disease that is arguably the most important disease of migratory birds 

world-wide, affecting millions of birds. Avian cholera and Erysipelothrix rhusiopathiae are two bacterial 

diseases that caused considerable declines of Indian yellow-nosed albatross (Thalassarche carteri) on 

Amsterdam Island (French Southern Territories). These two diseases may have spread to nearby 

colonies of sooty albatross (Phoebetria fusca) and Amsterdam albatross (Diomedea amsterdamensis) 

with a world population of approximately 130 birds. Avian cholera has also devastated the population of 

Cape cormorant (Phalacrocorax capensis) in Western Cape Province, South Africa, killing approximately 

13,000 individuals between May and October 2002. The West Nile Virus, a largely mosquito-borne viral 

disease (causing both bird and human mortalities), has established itself over much of eastern US since 

1999, spreading to Latin America and the Caribbean. American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos) and other 

corvid species have shown very high levels of mortality from this disease but remains relatively stable 

across its range. Mycoplasmal conjunctivitis, as the disease is commonly called, is caused by a unique 

strain of Mycoplasmal gallisepticum, a parasitic bacterium previously known to infect only poultry. This 

infectious disease has recently caused a significant decline in the introduced population of house finch 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.9-9

3.9 Birds

(Carpodacus mexicanus) in eastern North America, and has started to spread to the native population of 

this species in western North America (BirdLife International, 2008).

Before humans arrived on the Hawaiian Islands, there were no mosquitoes or any other biting or blood 

sucking insects. By the mid 1800's however, mosquitoes were firmly established throughout the 

archipelago introduced inadvertently through human activities. Of these, the southern house mosquito, 

(Culex quinquefasciatus) is the greatest challenge to Hawaiian bird conservation. Introduced in 1926, it is 

the primary vector of avian malaria and avian pox, and is implicated in the devastation and extinction of 

many of the native forest bird populations. The first was avian pox virus, first documented in forest birds 

in 1902. The second, first detected in the 1940s, was avian malaria. These two diseases remain as major 

sources of mortality for Maui's native forest birds and are important limiting factors in their abundance 

and distribution. It is unclear when or how these diseases first appeared on the islands, it is thought they 

were first introduced with the importation of non-native bird species but it may also be that they have 

always been present on the islands at a low level with migratory seabirds, shorebirds and waterfowl. 

That all changed with the relatively recent introduction of mosquitoes (Maui Forest Bird Recovery 

Project, 2017).

Recent research suggests that avian malaria has not only contributed to population declines and 

extinctions, but is affecting the elevational distributions of many native birds on the Island of Hawai’i. 

Native bird species experience lower rates of transmission/infection in high-altitude forests where 

conditions are relatively inhospitable for the mosquito vector. Bird species endemic to low- and midaltitude forests are at greater risk from this disease (Samuel et al., 2015).

3.9.2.1.5.4 Invasive Species

Significant threats to seabirds occur on islands, which is where seabirds breed, including predation and 

habitat disturbance from invasive alien species such as rats, cats and pigs. Ground-nesting seabirds are 

particularly vulnerable to these threats, and invasive predators on islands have been the primary cause 

of global seabird declines, extirpations, and local extinctions (Spatz et al., 2014). However, in many 

cases, effective island conservation can mitigate these threats.

3.9.2.1.5.5 Climate Change

In the long term, global climate change could be the greatest threat to seabirds (North American Bird 

Conservation Initiative U.S. Committee, 2009). Species of seabirds that breed on low-lying Pacific islands 

are particularly vulnerable. For example, great frigatebird (Fregata minor) breeding colonies in the 

Pacific are largely restricted to islands with a maximum elevation of 8 m, making them vulnerable to sea 

level rise. Additionally, a sea level rise of 2 meters (m) would flood 39 to 91 percent of black-footed 

albatross nests on Midway Atoll, Hawaii (BirdLife International & National Audubon Society, 2015). 

Climate change impacts include changes in air and sea temperatures, precipitation, the frequency and 

intensity of storms, pH level of sea water, and sea level. These changes could impact the timing of 

migration and overall marine productivity, which could in turn have an impact on the food resources, 

distribution, and reproductive success of seabirds at critical times in their life cycles (Aebischer et al., 

1990; Congdon et al., 2007; Davoren et al., 2012; Melillo et al., 2014). 

Open-ocean seabird species are particularly vulnerable to climate change due to their low reproductive 

rates, their use of islands for nesting, and their reliance on a highly variable marine system (North 

American Bird Conservation Initiative U.S. Committee, 2010). Coastal birds are vulnerable to climate 

change due to rising sea levels, which are expected to impact foraging and nesting habitat quality and 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.9-10

3.9 Birds

quantity by flooding or fragmenting habitats such as barrier islands, beaches, and mudflats (North 

American Bird Conservation Initiative U.S. Committee, 2009). 

3.9.2.1.5.6 Marine Debris

Marine debris is any persistent solid material that is manufactured or processed and directly or 

indirectly, intentionally or unintentionally, disposed of or abandoned into the marine environment or 

the Great Lakes (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2016). Marine debris is a growing 

environmental concern. With the rapid increase in global plastics production and the resulting large 

volume of litter that enters the marine environment, determining the consequences of this debris on 

marine fauna, including seabirds and ocean health has now become a critical environmental priority, 

particularly for threatened and endangered species (Wilcox et al., 2016).

Plastic debris is abundant and pervasive in the world oceans and, because of its durability, is continuing 

to increase. The ingestion of plastics by seabirds such as albatrosses and shearwaters occurs with high 

frequency and is of particular concern because of impacts on body condition and the transmission of 

toxic chemicals, both of which affect mortality and reproduction. The rates of plastic ingestion by 

seabirds are closely related to the concentrations of plastics in different areas of the ocean due to waste 

discharges and ocean currents, and are increasing (Kain et al., 2016; Wilcox et al., 2015).

The impacts from entanglement of marine species in marine debris are clearly profound, and in many 

cases entanglements appear to be increasing despite efforts over four decades to reduce the threat. 

Many coastal states have undertaken certain efforts to reduce entanglement rates through marine 

debris clean-up measures and installed fishing line recycle centers at boat landings in part due to 

entanglement of seabirds and other marine species. One such program is the California Lost Fishing

Gear Recycling Project administered by the University of California–Davis Wildlife Health Center that 

began in 2005 (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Marine Debris Program, 2014).

Fishing related gear, balloons and plastic bags were estimated to pose the greatest entanglement risk to 

marine fauna. In contrast, experts identified a broader suite of items of concern for ingestion, with 

plastic bags and plastic utensils ranked as the greatest threats. Entanglement and ingestion affected a 

similar range of taxa, although entanglement was rated as slightly worse because it is more likely to be 

lethal. Contamination was scored the lowest in terms of impact, affecting a smaller portion of the taxa 

and being rated as having solely non-lethal impacts (Wilcox et al., 2016).

There are likely other species from other regions of the U.S. that suffer injury or death from being 

entangled in marine debris, but are not widely recognized or reported. Most of the literature describes 

entanglement of marine species from Alaska, California, Puget Sound, and Florida. However, the MidAtlantic and Gulf of Mexico regions of the U.S. are lacking in reports of marine debris entanglement. 

Similarly, reports of marine debris entanglement on seabirds are limited to a few papers (National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Marine Debris Program, 2014). This review reported 

entanglement in marine debris in the U.S. of 44 species of seabirds. The majority of cases revolve 

around entanglement in fishing gear and abandoned, lost or otherwise discarded fishing gear and to a 

lesser degree other plastic debris.

Variable impacts of common debris items on the health of marine wildlife were identified, with 

entanglement by fishing-related gear, balloons and plastic bags emerging as the greatest threat to 

seabirds. However, a wide variety of other items posed at least some threat to these organisms through 

either ingestion, contamination or both, suggesting that a comprehensive approach to preventing 

plastics from entering the ocean is vitally needed (Wilcox et al., 2016).
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.9-11

3.9 Birds

3.9.2.2 Endangered Species Act-Listed Species

As shown in Table 3.9-1, there are five species of birds listed as Endangered or Threatened under the 

ESA in the Study Area. Additionally, one bird species is a candidate for listing under the ESA. The status, 

presence, and nesting occurrence of ESA-listed and candidate birds in the Study Area are listed in 

Table 3.9-1.

Table 3.9-1: Endangered Species Act Listed Bird Species Found in the Study Area

Species Name and Regulatory Status1 Presence in Study Area2

Common 

Name Scientific Name ESA-Listing

Open Ocean 

Area

Large Marine 

Ecosystem

Bays and 

Harbors

California 

least tern

Sternula 

antillarum browni Endangered None California Current (nesting)

San Diego 

Bay

Hawaiian 

petrel

Pterodroma 

sandwichensis Endangered

North Pacific 

Subtropical 

Gyre

Insular Pacific-Hawaiian 

(nesting) None

Short-tailed 

albatross

Phoebastria 

albatrus Endangered

North Pacific 

Subtropical 

Gyre

California Current, 

Insular Pacific-Hawaiian None

Marbled 

murrelet

Brachyramphus 

marmoratus

Threatened None California Current None

Newell’s 

shearwater

Puffinus 

auricularis newelli Threatened

North Pacific 

Subtropical 

Gyre

Insular Pacific-Hawaiian 

(nesting) None

Band-rumped 

storm-petrel

Oceanodroma 

hydrobates castro

Candidate

North Pacific 

Subtropical 

Gyre

Insular Pacific-Hawaiian 

(nesting) None

1

ESA listing status 2

Presence in the Study Area indicates open ocean areas (North Pacific Subtropical Gyre) and coastal waters of 

large marine ecosystems (California Current, Insular Pacific-Hawaiian) in which the species are found. Nesting in 

the Study Area is indicated in parentheses. Refer to Section 3.0.2.1 (Biogeographic Classifications) for additional 

description and figures.

3.9.2.2.1 California Least Tern (Sternula antillarum browni)

The California least tern is a federal and state endangered species that has been listed since 1970. 

California least terns are coastal and nearshore foragers and surface-feeding fish eaters. They are 

opportunistic in their search for prey, eating fish that are small enough to catch including anchovies 

(Engraulidae sp.) and smelt (Atherinops sp.). California least terns have black-capped heads and long, 

black-tipped narrow pale gray wings that contrast with their white bodies, and a broad, forked tail.

When full grown, this species is less than 25 centimeters (cm) long and has a 75 cm wingspan (U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, 2010b).

3.9.2.2.1.1 Status and Management

The California least tern is listed as endangered under the ESA. No critical habitat has been designated 

for the California least tern. Conservation for the California least tern is addressed in multiple 

memoranda of understanding and Integrated Natural Resource Management Plans for military lands 

and adjacent waters in the Study Area, including Naval Amphibious Base Coronado (U.S. Department of 

the Navy, 2013a), San Diego Bay (U.S. Department of the Navy, 2013b), and Marine Corps Base Camp 

Pendleton (Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton, 2012).
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.9-12

3.9 Birds

3.9.2.2.1.2 Habitat and Geographic Range

Preferred nesting habitat for the California least tern consists of beaches, dunes, and sand bars on the 

ocean shore (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1985). The California least tern nests in areas generally free 

of vegetation above the high tide mark. Colony sites are often near estuaries, lagoons, rivers, or the 

seacoast (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1985). Atwood and Minsky (1983) noted that before the decline 

of the species, at least 82 percent of known nesting sites in California were within 1 mile (mi.) of a river 

mouth or estuarine habitat.

California least terns spend the breeding season (April through August) in coastal waters along the 

central and Southern California coast, as well as along the west and southwestern coast of Mexico. Their 

distribution is from San Francisco to Baja California on the Pacific Coast of North America (U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, 2010b). The California least tern historically nested on coastal beaches of Monterey, 

California, to Cabo San Lucas, Baja California (Atwood & Minsky, 1983). The two largest nesting colonies 

in the state are on Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton and Naval Base Coronado (Frost, 2016).

Foraging habitats include nearshore ocean waters, bays, river mouths, salt marshes, marinas, river 

channels, lakes, and ponds (Thompson et al., 1997). California least terns feed within 2 mi. of the 

shoreline in ocean waters less than 60 ft. deep, with most foraging within 1 mi. of shore (Atwood & 

Minsky, 1983). Atwood and Minsky (1983) also observed a tendency for foraging birds to be 

concentrated in coastal waters near major river mouths. Foraging habitat use varies within and between 

years, depending on the stage of breeding and prey availability (Atwood & Minsky, 1983; BirdLife 

International, 2009). Atwood and Minsky (1983) noted in their coastal colony study that, before terns 

disperse after breeding, they typically forage within 2 mi. of nesting sites, although large groups were 

occasionally observed foraging at greater distances from colonies, including inland water sources. The 

presence of eelgrass is important because it is habitat for several prey species of the least tern such as 

topsmelt (U.S. Department of the Navy, 2013b). 

California least terns occur in coastal waters throughout the Southern California portion of the Study 

Area during the breeding, non-breeding, and migration seasons. The current nesting range is from San 

Francisco Bay and south along the California coast to San Diego County which includes the Southern 

California portion of the Study Area in the California Current Large Marine Ecosystem and parts north of 

the Study Area (Massey & Fancher, 1989). During migration, California least terns remain near the coast, 

although they have been observed foraging in multispecies feeding flocks 1 to 20 mi. off the western 

coast of Baja California in late April and early May (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2005b). The California 

least tern can be found in more offshore waters during the breeding season (courtship and incubation 

stages) when they forage farther from the nest site over open and deep water. Adults tend to travel 

farther when food availability is low, foraging in open ocean waters (BirdLife International, 2009).

3.9.2.2.1.3 Population Trends

The California least tern population in California averaged about 4,300 pairs between 2000 and 2002, 

making up about 10 percent of the North American population (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2005b). 

The California population increased almost 12-fold from a low of 600 pairs in the early 1970s to roughly 

7,100 pairs in 2005 (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2001, 2005b), but declined in recent years to an 

estimated 4,202-5,295 pairs as of 2015 (Frost, 2016).
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.9-13

3.9 Birds

3.9.2.2.1.4 Predator and Prey Interactions

California least terns forage by plunge-diving to catch prey in upper surface waters, usually within the 

first 1-2 m of water depth (U.S. Department of the Navy, 2013b). No information exists on specific dive 

depths for California least terns. Prey species include anchovies, topsmelt, opaleye, and gobies (BirdLife 

International, 2009). Prey species composition varies throughout the year, depending on availability. 

Length of foraging and peak foraging behavior typically occur from the end of May through mid-July 

after chicks hatch.

California least terns are preyed upon by various species; these include gulls, ravens, crows, rodents, 

raccoons, and coyotes, which prey upon tern eggs, chicks, and adults (U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, 2006).

3.9.2.2.1.5 Species-Specific Threats

Threats to breeding least terns include the alteration of river habitat, flooding and development of 

coastal areas, disruptive recreation, an increase in aggressive gulls that compete for nesting sites, and 

predation by native and feral species, such as rats, great horned owls, black-crowned night herons, dogs, 

and cats (Sidle et al., 1992; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1990).

3.9.2.2.2 Hawaiian Petrel (Pterodroma Sandwichensis)

The Hawaiian petrel was recently split from the Galapagos petrel (Pterodroma phaeopygia) based on 

genetic and morphological evidence; before the split they were collectively known as the dark-rumped 

petrel (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2005b). The Hawaiian Petrel has a dark gray head, wings, and tail, 

and a white forehead and belly. It has a stout grayish-black bill that is hooked at the tip, and pink and 

black feet. This bird measures 16 inches (in.) in length and has a wing span of three ft. It has a distinctive 

call during breeding season that sounds like “oo ah oo.” They also have calls that sound like the yapping 

of a small dog (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2012a).

3.9.2.2.2.1 Status and Management

The Hawaiian petrel is found only in Hawaii and is listed as endangered throughout its range under the 

ESA (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2005b); there is no designated critical habitat. It is known from five 

locations in the main Hawaiian Islands, at least two of which (Mauna Loa on Hawaii Island and West 

Maui) are threatened by development. Its limited distribution and declines primarily result from 

predation by introduced mammals and urbanization (International Union for Conservation of Nature, 

2017). In some cases, predation has caused more than 70 percent nesting failure (U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, 2005b). Numerous knowledge gaps remain for the Hawaiian Petrel such as foraging and other 

at-sea behavior; annual and age-specific survival, especially for non-breeders; and the scope and 

severity of threats at sea (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2011a). On Maui, there is a long-term 

monitoring program in the Haleakala National Park and efforts are made to control introduced 

mammals. In 1976, a perimeter fence was put up around the main colony to exclude feral goats and pigs 

from the habitat. The predator enclosures placed around the national park may have facilitated an 

increase in the number of birds in eastern Maui (International Union for Conservation of Nature, 2017). 

On Kauai, auditory surveys to detect colonies are ongoing, and have included documenting the first 

known nesting sites on Kauai in the Upper Limahuli Preserve. Also on Kauai, street lighting is shielded in 

critical areas and lighting on some buildings has been modified to reduce collisions. A ruling by the 

USFWS under the ESA has resulted in a campaign running since 2005, in which non-essential lights on 

Kauai are turned off or shielded between 15 September and 15 December when young birds leave their 

nests. The island's electricity company is helping by darkening all of its 3,000 street lights, and shielding 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.9-14

3.9 Birds

or turning some of them off. The company has also fitted large balls to power lines in an effort to reduce 

the number of birds that collide with the cables. Significant improvements have been made in reducing 

light attraction and collision, although there is still a considerable amount of new and existing 

infrastructure that requires modification (International Union for Conservation of Nature, 2017).

3.9.2.2.2.2 Habitat and Geographic Range

Hawaiian Petrel ranges in the central Pacific and breeds only in the main Hawaiian Islands, though there 

are specimen records from Japan, Philippines, and Moluccas at the western edge of the distribution. On 

Maui, Mauna Kea and Mauna Loa, nesting takes place mainly between 2,000 and 3,000 m, in lava 

cavities with little vegetation nearby. Elsewhere, for example West Maui and Kauai, it nests at lower 

elevations, amongst dense shrubs and ferns, or in native grasslands with bracken. On Haleakala, Maui, 

birds nest in rock crevices and tunnels that are over 0.5 m deep, often exceeding 2 m. Generally, the 

nest chamber can be from 1 to 9 m deep. Pairs nest in cavities in the volcanic terrain, in burrows 

beneath rocks or at the base of clay cliffs. At lower altitudes, they excavate burrows or nest in cavities 

often at the base of trees, although many burrows on Lanai are not at the base of trees. On Lanai birds 

breed in dense uluhe fern habitat (Dicranopteris linearis and Diplopterygium pinnatum) and start 

breeding in March whereas on Haleakala, Maui, birds begin breeding in early February (International 

Union for Conservation of Nature, 2017).

The Hawaiian petrel typically feeds well offshore but tends to feed closer to shore (0 to 45 mi.) during 

spring than in the fall (most abundant at 170 to 230 mi.) (Spear et al., 1995). The Hawaiian petrel favors 

open ocean water conditions, with an average sea surface temperature of 80 degrees Fahrenheit, sea 

surface salinity of 34 parts per thousand, wind speed of 19 mi. per hour (mph), and a wave height of 5 ft.

It also prefers an average depth from the warmer surface water to the point where cold water begins 

(the thermocline) of 35 ft. (Spear et al., 1995).

The Hawaiian petrel is an open ocean species of the central tropical Pacific (U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, 2005b). They occur in open ocean waters throughout most of the Hawaii portion of the Study 

Area and the western portion of the Transit Corridor in the Insular Pacific-Hawaiian Large Marine 

Ecosystem. The Hawaiian petrel occurs largely in equatorial waters of the eastern tropical Pacific, 

generally from 10 degrees South to 20 degrees North. Because of the difficulty in identification, the 

precise southeastern extent of the Hawaiian petrel and the northwestern extent of the similar 

Galapagos petrel remains uncertain (Spear et al., 1995).

Hawaiian petrels have important resting sites in coastal waters throughout the Hawaii portion of the 

Study Area in portions of the Insular Pacific-Hawaiian Large Marine Ecosystem. An area of the north 

shore of Kauai is widely known as a resting location for Hawaiian petrels (Birding Hawaii, 2004). Based 

on known or suspected colony sites, gathering areas likely occur near shore on Lehua Rock, Kauai, 

Molokai, Lanai, Maui, and Hawaii (Day & Cooper, 1995; Day et al., 2003; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

2005b) and perhaps around Kahoolawe (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2005b). These areas provide 

resting habitat before the birds fly to inland nesting colonies. Hawaiian petrels move to and from 

nesting colonies during dusk and dawn (International Union for Conservation of Nature, 2017).

3.9.2.2.2.3 Population Trends

A population estimate supported by pelagic surveys put the total population at 19,000 (range 10,600–

34,400), including a best estimate of 4,500–5,000 breeding pairs. However, the discovery of previously 

unknown colonies in 2006-2007 may bring the total population closer to the upper estimate of 6,500 to 

8,300 pairs (International Union for Conservation of Nature, 2017). The current status of the Hawaiian 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.9-15

3.9 Birds

petrel is uncertain due to the difficulty surveying this species. Recent at-sea surveys are currently being 

analyzed for Hawaiian petrel and Newell’s shearwater (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2011a). The total 

population of Hawaiian petrels was estimated at 20,000, with a breeding population of 4,500–5,000 

pairs (Spear et al., 1995; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2005b) overall population trends on the Hawaiian 

Islands are not known (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2005b). Numbers of breeding Hawaiian petrels on 

Maui appear stable and have increased in areas of the Haleakala National Park, where predators are 

being managed (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2005b). On Hawaii, numbers may be declining because of 

predation by introduced species (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2005b).

3.9.2.2.2.4 Predator and Prey Interactions

It has been found that at least some Hawaiian petrels nesting on Lanai feed in waters around the 

Aleutian Islands, as shown through the use of tracking devices on several breeding individuals. The 

species usually forages in mixed species flocks, typically over schools of predatory fish species. Hawaiian 

petrels eat mostly squid (50 to 75 percent of their diet), fish, and crustaceans. They forage both night 

and day; they capture prey by resting on the water surface and dipping their bill and by aerial pursuit of 

flying fish (International Union for Conservation of Nature, 2017). The foraging member of a pair may fly 

up to 930 mi. from the nesting island (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2005b).

The most serious current threat is predation by introduced vertebrates including feral cats, barn owls 

(Tyto alba), rats, dogs, pigs and the small Asian mongoose (Herpestes javanicus) (although the latter is 

not yet established on Lanai). Nestlings are very susceptible to predation, as they cannot fly for more 

than 15 weeks after hatching. Adult and young Hawaiian petrels are preyed on by introduced animals 

(International Union for Conservation of Nature, 2017).

3.9.2.2.2.5 Species-Specific Threats

Threats to the Hawaiian petrel include predation by introduced mammals, development, light attraction 

and collision, ocean pollution, and disturbance of its breeding grounds. The petrel does not have any 

natural defenses against predators such as rats, feral cats, and mongooses, and its burrows are very 

vulnerable (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2012a). Although predator control now occurs at several 

Hawaiian petrel breeding sites, the threat posed by introduced predators remains significant throughout 

the species' range (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2011a). Collisions with artificial lights, utility poles, and 

fences kill Hawaiian petrels on some islands (International Union for Conservation of Nature, 2017).

Little progress has been made toward addressing the chief threats to or meeting the recovery criteria for 

Hawaiian petrels. Remnant breeding colonies thought to occur on west Maui, Hawaii Island, Kauai, 

Lanai, and possibly Molokai are not mapped or managed. These colonies are certainly subject to 

predation by alien mammals, possibly are subject to the threat of light attraction and collision, and most 

are thought to be dwindling as well (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2011a).

The species may be adversely affected by declines in the populations of large predatory fish that drive

prey species to the surface. In addition, a significantly lower percentage of birds come ashore to nest 

during El Niño years (ca.40 percent compared to ca.65 percent normally), suggesting that the species is 

sensitive to such disturbances in environmental conditions (International Union for Conservation of 

Nature, 2017). In addition, the species is currently threatened with habitat disturbance by goats, pigs 

and cattle. On Lanai, habitat degradation caused by the invasive tree, strawberry guava Psidium

cattleianum, may be the biggest threat to the long term survival of the colony. On occasion, fledglings 

become grounded after colliding with lights, and mortality sometimes results from collisions with fences 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.9-16

3.9 Birds

and powerlines. Once on the ground, fledglings are unable to fly and are killed by cars or cats and dogs, 

or die from starvation or dehydration (International Union for Conservation of Nature, 2017).

3.9.2.2.3 Short-tailed Albatross (Phoebastria albatrus)

The short-tailed albatross was formerly in the genus Diomedea and known as Steller’s albatross. The 

largest of the north Pacific albatrosses, the adult short-tailed albatross has a prominent pink bill, white 

body, and a yellow wash on the head. Immature birds are dark, but can be distinguished from 

black-footed albatross by their pink bill and flesh colored feet. Adults can reach wingspans of 7 ft. (U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, 2012b).

3.9.2.2.3.1 Status and Management

The status of the short-tailed albatross appears to be improving and the overall threats may be 

diminishing, although potential new threats are appearing as the climate changes and global resource 

use and development patterns shift (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2014). The short-tailed albatross is 

widely regarded as one of the rarest species of albatrosses and one of the world’s rarest birds (Harrison, 

1983). The short-tailed albatross is listed as endangered under the ESA throughout its range. 

Additionally, it is listed as endangered by the state of Hawaii (NatureServe, 2004; U.S. Fish and wildlife 

Service, 2000, 2005b). No critical habitat has been designated for this species because little is known 

about its life in the open ocean (Piatt et al., 2007; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2012b).

3.9.2.2.3.2 Habitat and Geographic Range

Short-tailed albatrosses are typically found in the open ocean and tend to concentrate along the edge of 

the continental shelf (NatureServe, 2004). Upwelling zones are not only nutrient rich, but they also bring 

prey (for example, squid and fish) typically found only in deeper water to the surface, where they 

become available to albatrosses. Upwelling occurs when the wind moves warm, nutrient poor water 

away from the area, which allows colder, nutrient rich water to rise to the surface of the ocean. 

Short-tailed albatross nest on isolated, windswept, offshore islands with restricted human access (U.S. 

Fish and wildlife Service, 2000). Current and historical nesting habitat can be described as flat to steep 

slopes that are sparsely or fully vegetated. Short-tailed albatrosses disperse throughout the temperate 

and subarctic North Pacific approximately from May to October when they are not breeding, from Japan 

through California (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2005b, 2008a). Non-breeders and failed breeders 

disperse from the colony months sooner. While many non-breeders return to the colonies each year, 

the presence of immature birds far from the colony (such as the U.S. Pacific coast) during the breeding 

season suggests that some immature birds may spend years at sea before they return to the colony (U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, 2005a).

Open Ocean

The short-tailed albatross is an open ocean species that occurs throughout the Hawaii Range Complex, 

Transit Corridor, and Southern California Range Complex portions of the Study Area. The range of the 

short-tailed albatross extends from Siberia south to the China coast, into the Bering Sea and Gulf of 

Alaska south to Baja California, Mexico, and throughout the North Pacific, including the Northwestern 

Hawaiian Islands (Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada, 2003; Harrison, 1983; 

Roberson, 2000). Their at-sea distribution includes the entire North Pacific Ocean north of about 

20 degrees North latitude. Short-tailed albatrosses move seasonally around the North Pacific Ocean, 

with high densities observed during the breeding season (December through May) in Japan and 

throughout Alaska and along the west coast of North America during the post-breeding season (April 

through September) (International Union for Conservation of Nature, 2017). Non-breeding subadults 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.9-17

3.9 Birds

can be found in all areas throughout the year. They are seen regularly in the North Pacific Subtropical 

Gyre (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2005a).

California Current Large Marine Ecosystem

Short-tailed albatrosses occasionally occur in Southern California Range Complex portion of the 

California Current Large Marine Ecosystem, which is part of the Study Area. As the population began a 

gradual recovery after 1950, sporadic sightings have been recorded off California (International Union 

for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources, 2010b). Based on the number of sightings in the 

Southern California Range Complex, the short-tailed albatross is considered rare in that portion of the 

Study Area, as well as off the entire California coast. Breeding does not occur in the Southern California 

Bight, but because of the unique circulation and upwelling characteristics of this area, potential foraging 

habitat exists. Two documented sightings of the short-tailed albatross have occurred in Southern 

California. Roberson (2000) reported a sighting in 1977 of an all-dark immature bird approximately 

90 mi. west of the San Diego area. McCaskie and Garrett (2002) reported a sighting in the vicinity of 

Santa Barbara Island in late February of 2002.

Insular Pacific-Hawaiian Large Marine Ecosystem

Short-tailed albatrosses occur in coastal waters throughout the Hawaii portion of the Study Area in the 

Insular Pacific-Hawaiian Large Marine Ecosystem. The short-tailed albatross regularly occurs on Midway 

Atoll and has been observed at other Northwestern Hawaiian Islands. Since the 1930s, short-tailed 

albatrosses have been occasionally reported during the breeding season at Midway Atoll. Some of these 

short-tailed albatrosses were recorded for several successive years. The first confirmed nest site that 

produced an egg did not occur until 1993 (International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural 

Resources, 2010b). A chick was fledged by a breeding pair on Midway Atoll in 2011, 2012, and 2014 (U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, 2014). Nesting elsewhere on the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands has been 

attempted, but successful nesting has not been confirmed (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2005a). In the 

Hawaiian Islands, there was an unconfirmed sighting at Barking Sands on Kauai during March 2000 

(Birding Hawaii, 2004). Other known occurrences in Hawaii are of single birds (in 1976 and 1981) at 

French Frigate Shoals in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2008b).

3.9.2.2.3.3 Population Trends

The total population estimate for breeding age short-tailed albatrosses as of the 2013–2014 nesting 

season is 1,928 individuals, including approximately 1,624 at Torishima (Japan), 293 on the Senkaku (or 

Diaoyutai) Islands (in disputed ownership among China, Taiwan, and Japan), 4 in the Northwestern 

Hawaiian Islands, and a few birds on other Japanese islands (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2014). The 

Torishima population is growing rapidly, averaging 7.5 percent annually (International Union for 

Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources, 2010b; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2005a). Average 

population survival rate is 96 percent, and the current annual population growth is greater than 

6 percent (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2005a). Overall, the high population growth rates continue, and 

some substantial threats are being addressed in much of the species’ range. However, to ensure the 

continuing recovery of the species, it is important to consider sources of uncertainty and work toward 

reducing those threats that adversely affect short-tailed albatrosses. The population does not yet meet 

the recovery goals for downlisting or delisting, and therefore, the short-tailed albatross remains 

endangered throughout its range (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2014).
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.9-18

3.9 Birds

3.9.2.2.3.4 Predator and Prey Interactions

Short-tailed albatrosses are surface feeders and scavengers, feeding more inshore than other North 

Pacific albatrosses. In Japan, their diet consists of shrimp, squid, and fish (including bonita, flying fish, 

and sardines); diet information is not available for birds in the Study Area (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

2005a). Unlike other North Pacific albatrosses, short-tailed albatrosses frequently feed in sight of land.

Short-tailed albatross chicks are predated by other birds and introduced mammals such as cats and rats 

on nesting colonies (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2005a).

3.9.2.2.3.5 Species-Specific Threats

Short-tailed albatrosses have survived multiple threats to their existence. During the late 1800s and 

early 1900s, feather hunters clubbed to death an estimated five million of them, stopping only when the 

species was nearly extinct. In the 1930s, nesting habitat on the only active nesting island in Japan was 

damaged by volcanic eruptions, leaving fewer than 50 birds by the 1940s. Loss of nesting habitat to 

volcanic eruptions, severe storms, and competition with black-footed albatrosses for nesting habitat 

continue to be natural threats to short-tailed albatrosses today. 

Current threats to this species include ingestion of plastics mistaken for food items, volcanic eruption (at 

Torishima, Japan), typhoons, sunken longline fishing in Alaska and Russia, jig/troll fishery in Japan, 

invasive species at colonies (cats, rats, and plants), and researcher disturbance (U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, 2005a). The prevalence and extent of plastic impacts needs further investigation to determine 

its acute and long-term effects on the short-tailed albatross (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2014). 

Additional human-induced threats include contamination from oil spills, and potential predation by 

introduced mammals on breeding islands. Furthermore, incidental interactions from commercial 

longline gear, though McCracken (2014) asserts in an internal report, there has not been an observed 

incidental interaction with a short-tailed albatross during the history of the National Marine Fisheries 

Service observer program with respect to the Hawaii deep-set longline fishery. Shipping conflicts and 

potential oil spills appear to be growing threats but the likelihood and magnitude is uncertain. Global 

climate change may be causing changes in the distribution of the short-tailed albatross in the North 

Pacific, but the overall impact of that change is also unknown. The lack of information about the 

magnitude or impact of these threats on the short-tailed albatross results in uncertainty about the 

future recovery of the population (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2014).

3.9.2.2.4 Marbled Murrelet (Brachyramphus marmoratus)

The marbled murrelet is a small, chubby seabird that has a very short neck. During the breeding season 

it has dark brown to blackish upperparts and a white belly and throat that are greatly mottled. During 

the winter the upperparts become grey, dark marks form on the sides of the breast and a white ring 

develops around the eye. Males and females are similar in appearance and size (International Union for 

Conservation of Nature, 2017; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2017b).

3.9.2.2.4.1 Status and Management

The marbled murrelet is listed as a threatened species in California, Oregon, and Washington under the 

ESA (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1992) and is considered endangered by the state of California

(California Department of Fish and Wildlife, 2016). Marbled murrelet populations have suffered 

significant declines in the Pacific Northwest, caused primarily by the removal of essential nesting habitat 

by logging and coastal development (International Union for Conservation of Nature, 2017). To stem 

these declines, critical habitat was designated in 1996 and revised in 2011 to protect mature and 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.9-19

3.9 Birds

old-growth forest nesting habitat determined to have been occupied by the species at the time of listing 

(U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1996, 2011c). The entire area of designated critical habitat is outside of 

the Study Area. The USFWS is seeking public comment on its recent determination that all areas 

currently designated meet the statutory definition of critical habitat (U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, 2015b).

3.9.2.2.4.2 Habitat and Geographic Range

Murrelets spend most of their lives in the marine environment where they forage in near-shore areas 

and consume a diversity of prey species, including small fish and invertebrates. In their terrestrial 

environment, the presence of platforms (large branches or deformities) used for nesting is the most 

important characteristic of their nesting habitat. Murrelet habitat use during the breeding season is 

positively associated with the presence and abundance of mature and old-growth forests, large core 

areas of old-growth, low amounts of edge habitat, reduced habitat fragmentation, proximity to the 

marine environment, and forests that are increasing in stand age and height (U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, 2009). Marbled murrelets do not build a nest but use natural features, such as moss, clumps of 

mistletoe, or piles of needles as a nest site on tree limbs (International Union for Conservation of 

Nature, 2017). Nests are in large conifers, such as coast redwood and western hemlock, in old-growth 

stands typically within 35 mi. of marine waters. Important features in nesting habitat are stands of 500 

acres or larger, multistoried canopy layers, and less than average canopy closures (Grenier & Nelson, 

1995; Hamer & Nelson, 1995; Miller & Ralph, 1995). In addition, habitat along major drainages (e.g., 

rivers and streams) is a key component (International Union for Conservation of Nature, 2017), as 

murrelets tend to use these drainages as flight corridors to and from inland nest sites.

Marbled murrelets generally remain near breeding sites year-round in most areas (U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, 2005b). Foraging habitat is generally found within 3 mi. from shore and in water less than 

195 ft. deep (Day & Nigro, 2000; International Union for Conservation of Nature, 2017). Birds occur 

closer to shore in exposed coastal areas and farther offshore in protected coastal areas (International 

Union for Conservation of Nature, 2017). The highest concentrations are found in protected inshore 

waters (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2005b). Physical and biological oceanographic processes that 

concentrate prey (such as upwelling and rip currents) have an important influence on the foraging 

distribution of marbled murrelets (Ainley et al., 1995; Burger, 1995, 2002; Day & Nigro, 2000; 

International Union for Conservation of Nature, 2017; Strong et al., 1995). They are more commonly 

found inland during the summer breeding season but make daily trips to the ocean to gather food and 

have been detected in forests throughout the year. When not nesting, the birds live at sea, spending 

their days feeding close to shore and then moving several miles offshore at night.

Marbled murrelets only occur in coastal waters of the California Current Large Marine Ecosystem within 

the northeast corner of the Southern California Range Complex portion of the Study Area. Eight 

reported sightings of marbled murrelets have been documented within the Study Area off the California 

coast. Sightings have been reported at Marina del Rey, off Santa Barbara Island, at Mugu Lagoon in 

Ventura County, along the coast in San Diego County, and at the northern end of the Study Area near 

San Simeon Point (McCaskie & Garrett, 2001). All of these documented sightings were recorded 

between November and March.

Foraging habitat in the Southern California Bight occurs usually within 3 mi. of the coast in waters less 

than 195 ft. deep (Day & Nigro, 2000; International Union for Conservation of Nature, 2017); however, 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.9-20

3.9 Birds

because upwelling areas represent important foraging habitat for the marbled murrelet, the potential 

exists for individuals to be observed farther offshore in the Southern California Bight.

Winter distributions of marbled murrelets are poorly documented. In California, most birds appear to be 

year-round residents near breeding areas (Naslund, 1993), although dispersal in the winter as far south 

as Southern California and northern Mexico has been documented (Erickson et al., 1995). A single 

sighting has occurred at Ensenada Harbor (Erickson et al., 1995). The species is a rare fall/winter vagrant 

(occurring outside of its normal range) to Southern California, and is “accidental” from the U.S.-Mexico 

border south along the Mexico coastline (International Union for Conservation of Nature, 2017).

3.9.2.2.4.3 Population Trends

The total estimated marbled murrelet population is 358,200 to 417,500 individuals, rounded here to 

350,000-420,000 individuals, based on 271,000 individuals in Alaska, 72,600-125,600 in British Columbia, 

and 14,631-20,952 individuals in Washington, Oregon and California (International Union for 

Conservation of Nature, 2017). The population was estimated to have declined by approximately 

15 percent in 2000 to 2007 in Washington, Oregon, and California, with a 50 percent decrease in Alaska 

in 1972 to 1992 and a 29 percent decrease in 2001 to 2010, and a 40 percent decrease in some parts of 

British Columbia in 1982-1992. At-sea surveys over the past 25 years in British Columbia suggest 

declines of approximately 1 percent per year although radar surveys suggest the population may have 

been relatively stable since 1999. Availability of nesting habitat in British Columbia, which is strongly 

correlated with local breeding populations, has declined by 22 percent between 1978 and 2008 and is 

continuing. Declines are suspected to be very rapid and on-going due to very low measured productivity 

rates (International Union for Conservation of Nature, 2017).

3.9.2.2.4.4 Predator and Prey Interactions

Marbled murrelets feed opportunistically on small fish, including sand lance, anchovy, herring, capelin, 

and smelt, and also on invertebrates (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1996, 2005a). Feeding takes place in 

the nearshore marine environment, primarily in protected waters where both Pacific sand lance and surf 

smelt occur (Burger, 2002; Whitworth et al., 2005). Individuals forage by diving, using their wings for 

underwater propulsion. The murrelet forages by pursuit diving in relatively shallow waters, usually 

between 20 and 80 m in depth. The majority of birds are found as pairs or as singles in a band about 

300–2,000 m from shore. Foraging dive times averaged about 16 seconds. Murrelets generally forage 

during the day, and are most active in the morning and late afternoon hours. Some foraging occurs at 

night (Ralph & Miller, 1995).

While at sea, marbled murrelets are preyed on by birds and mammals including peregrine falcons, bald 

eagles, western gulls, and northern fur seals. Birds such as common ravens, Steller’s jays, and 

sharp-shinned hawks are predators of marbled murrelet eggs, chicks, and adults during the nesting 

season (Nelson, 1997).

3.9.2.2.4.5 Species-Specific Threats

The decline of marbled murrelets has been largely caused by extensive removal of late-successional and 

old growth coastal forest which serve as nesting habitat for murrelets. Additional factors in its decline 

include high nest-site predation rates and human-induced mortality in the marine environment from 

disturbance, gillnets, and oil spills. In addition, murrelet reproductive success is strongly correlated with 

the abundance of mid-trophic level prey. Effects to the marine environment that impact the availability 

of prey can occur through overfishing or oceanographic variation from weather or climate events. 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.9-21

3.9 Birds

Affects to adults in the marine environment from disturbance events like underwater detonations or 

pile driving can also impact their ability to forage and successfully provide for their young (U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, 2009). An estimated 3,500 murrelets are killed annually in Alaska by gill-net fisheries

(Carter et al., 2005; Piatt & Naslund, 1995). In addition, more than 1,000 oiled marbled murrelet 

carcasses were collected after the Exxon Valdez oil spill in Alaska (Carter & Kuletz, 1995). Nest failure is 

caused by predation by raptors, ravens, and jays (Nelson, 1997).

3.9.2.2.5 Newell’s Shearwater (Puffinus newelli)

The Newell’s shearwater or ‘a‘o as native peoples refer to it, is a medium-sized shearwater measuring 

12 to 14 in. with a wing span of 30-35 in. It has a glossy black top, a white bottom, and a black bill that is 

sharply hooked at the tip. Its claws are well adapted for burrow excavation and climbing (U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, 2012c).

As of February 2016, Newell’s shearwater is considered a distinct species by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

(U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2016). Its status has been in flux, oscillating between classification as a 

distinct species and a subspecies of Townsend’s shearwater (P.auricularis newelli) in the last few years. 

It was, until recently, regarded by some authorities as a distinct species, P.newelli (International Union 

for Conservation of Nature, 2017). Since 1982, most authorities have considered it a subspecies of 

Townsend’s shearwater (P. auricularis) (American Ornithologists' Union, 1998). At least one author

(Harrison, 1983) regarded Newell’s shearwater as a subspecies of Manx shearwater (P. p. newelli). In 

2005, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service identified Newell’s shearwater as a subspecies of Townsend’s 

shearwater (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2005b). For a short period it was considered a distinct species 

before being re-classified as a subspecies. Newell’s shearwater is also known as Newell’s dark-rumped 

shearwater. The Newell’s shearwater is a bird of the open tropical seas and offshore waters near 

breeding grounds. During their nine-month breeding season from April through November, they nest in 

burrows under ferns on forested mountain slopes. These burrows are used year after year and usually 

by the same pair of birds. Although Newell’s shearwater is capable of climbing shrubs and trees before 

taking flight, it needs an open downhill flight path through which it can become airborne (U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, 2012c).

3.9.2.2.5.1 Status and Management

Newell’s shearwater appears to have declined very rapidly on its main breeding island, possibly 

associated with the impacts of Hurricane Iniki in 1992, and continues to decline, with two known 

colonies in the early 1980s, and possibly a third, now abandoned. Combined with longer term declines 

owing to a number of other threats, it qualifies as Endangered (International Union for Conservation of 

Nature, 2017). The Newell’s shearwater was listed as a threatened species by the Fish and Wildlife 

Service in 1975 (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2012c), and under evaluation to be upgraded to 

endangered (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2011b). This species is also listed as threatened by the state 

of Hawaii (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2005b). A federal recovery plan was finalized in 1983 (U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, 1983). The Newell’s shearwater was once abundant on all main Hawaiian Islands. 

Today, the majority of these birds nest primarily in mountainous terrain between 500 and 2,300 ft. on 

Kauai. This seabird was reported to be in danger of extinction by the 1930s. The introduction of the 

mongoose, cat, black rat, and Norway rat may have played a primary role in the reduction of ground 

nesting seabirds (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2012c).

Newell’s shearwater faces a high level of threat, the population is declining sharply, the threats are 

difficult and costly to mitigate, the threats are largely unmitigated, and the listed entity is currently 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.9-22

3.9 Birds

recognized as a subspecies. This species’ sharp decline and the level of threat warrant reclassification of 

Newell’s shearwater from threatened to endangered as it is no longer “likely to become an endangered 

species” but is now “in danger of extinction throughout all of its range.” (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

2011b). Within the Hawaiian Islands Bird Conservation Region, Newell’s shearwater is evaluated as 

highly imperiled, the most serious category, because of restricted breeding distribution and threats to 

breeding populations (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2003). There is no critical habitat designation for 

the Newell’s shearwater.

Newell’s shearwater was thought to be extinct by 1908 as a consequence of subsistence hunting by 

Polynesians and predation by introduced rats, pigs, and dogs. However, they were rediscovered offshore 

in 1947. One was collected on Oahu in 1954 (Day et al., 2003) and Newell’s shearwaters were confirmed 

as still breeding on Kauai in 1967 (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2005b). The two most important factors 

limiting population growth are low breeding probability (birds do not mature until 6 years of age and a 

high proportion are non-breeding adults), and high rates of predation on adults and subadults (U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, 2011b). Predator control in key habitat areas, the establishment of Bird Salvage-Aid 

Stations, translocation, and light attraction studies have been initiated to help save the Newell’s 

shearwater. Outreach to Kauai’s local community has resulted in people picking up injured birds and 

bringing them to aid stations for care and release, giving the seabirds a chance to live (U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, 2012c).

3.9.2.2.5.2 Habitat and Geographic Range

Newell’s shearwater occurs in open ocean waters in the southern portion of the Hawaii portion of the 

Study Area and into the western portion of the Transit Corridor Study Area. They spend most of their 

time in the open ocean year-round (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2005b) and come ashore only to nest. 

They avoid inshore waters except when gathering before they fly inland to breeding colonies at night 

(International Union for Conservation of Nature, 2017).

Newell’s shearwaters forage only over open ocean waters of depths reportedly much greater than 

6,560 ft. (Spear et al., 1995). Even when nesting, they feed over deep waters and are typically not within 

15 mi. of island shores (International Union for Conservation of Nature, 2017). In particular, they find 

abundant food along oceanic fronts, such as the Equatorial Countercurrent (Spear et al., 1995). 

Preferred average ocean conditions are 80 degrees Fahrenheit sea surface temperature, 34.5 parts per 

thousand sea surface salinity, and 250 ft. depth to cold water (Spear et al., 1995). The meteorological 

conditions favored by Newell’s shearwaters are frequent clouds and rain squalls typical of intertropical 

convergence zones (Spear et al., 1995).

Insular Pacific-Hawaiian Large Marine Ecosystem

Newell’s shearwater occurs in coastal waters throughout the Hawaii portion of the Study Area during 

the breeding season. Newell’s shearwater nesting is entirely confined to the main Hawaiian Islands, 

from Lehua Rock east to Hawaii. Nesting is known on Lehua Rock, Kauai, Molokai, and Hawaii. No 

population estimates exist for the small nesting colonies that exist on Lehua Rock and Molokai (Day & 

Cooper, 1995; International Union for Conservation of Nature, 2017; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

2005b). About 20 breeding colonies of Newell’s shearwaters are known in the main Hawaiian Islands, 

but others probably exist (International Union for Conservation of Nature, 2017). In 1992, 11 colonies 

were known on Kauai. There is evidence but no confirmation of nesting on Oahu, Maui, and Lanai (U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, 2005b).
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.9-23

3.9 Birds

Newell’s shearwaters nest on Kauai at high elevations (525–3,935 ft.) on steep, densely vegetated 

mountain slopes and in burrows or deep rock crevices, although a substantial number also nest on dry 

sparsely vegetated cliffs on the Na Pali coast of Kauai and on Lehua Island (Reynolds & Ritchotte, 1997; 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2005b). The use of steep slopes (mostly greater than 65 degrees) for 

nesting is probably a consequence of predation pressure from introduced pigs, mongooses, and cats; 

they select sites where there is either an open canopy of trees and ground cover of uluhe ferns or a 

dense ground cover of tussock grasses (International Union for Conservation of Nature, 2017).

On the Island of Hawaii, Newell’s shearwaters fly over the entire island except the southwestern coast. 

Shearwaters are most numerous flying to and from the Kohala Mountains on the north coast (Day et al., 

2003). During adult presence in the breeding season (April to September), Newell’s shearwaters gather 

on the water close to shore before they fly inland around sunset (International Union for Conservation 

of Nature, 2017). Based on known or suspected colony locations, Newell’s shearwaters are expected to 

be found gathering in early evening at Niihau (north end around Lehua Rock), Kauai, Oahu, Maui, 

Molokai, Lanai, and Hawaii from April to September.

Open Ocean

During the breeding season, some Newell’s shearwaters forage west and north of the Hawaiian Islands 

so that the central part of their marine range moves northward in the Transit Corridor portion of the 

Study Area (International Union for Conservation of Nature, 2017; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2005b).

3.9.2.2.5.3 Population Trends

The pelagic population of Newell’s shearwater is estimated at 84,000 individuals (with a 95 percent 

confidence interval of 57,000 to 115,000) and from this the breeding population is estimated at 16,700

to 19,300 pairs. Radar data from 1993 and 1999-2001 across 13 sites indicates a 60 to 62 percent decline 

in numbers visiting Kauai, while recoveries of stranded young birds showed a 72 percent decline over 

the same time period (Day & Cooper, 1995; Day et al., 2003). Population models incorporating best 

estimates of breeding effort and success yielded a population decline of 3.2 percent annually. When 

variables estimating the anthropogenic mortality suffered by the species (predation, light attraction, and 

collision) were included, these models predicted a population decline of 30 to 60 percent over 10 years. 

Combining this with longer term declines owing to habitat loss, introduced predators, disorientation 

owing to urban lighting and collision with power-lines, the species is estimated to be declining at rates 

exceeding 50 percent over 47 years, three generations (International Union for Conservation of Nature, 

2017). Population in the 1980s and early 1990s was estimated at about 84,000, but numbers in 2000 

may have been only 21 percent of what they were in 1987 (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2005b). The 

largest known population, found on Kauai, was devastated by two hurricanes in 1982 and 1992. Since 

that last storm, the species has been in steady decline on Kauai. The remaining adults and fledglings are 

suffering significant deaths from utility pole and line strikes (International Union for Conservation of 

Nature, 2017). Between 1978 and 2007, more than 30,000 Newell’s shearwaters were picked up by 

island residents from Kauai’s highways, athletic fields, and hotel grounds (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

2012c). Continuing forest habitat destruction and predation from introduced mammals are also taking a 

toll on this species (International Union for Conservation of Nature, 2017).

3.9.2.2.5.4 Predator and Prey Interactions

Although the diet of the Newell’s shearwater is not well known, evidence suggests that squid are a 

major dietary item. It often forages hundreds of kilometers (km) offshore, often in large, mixed species 

flocks associated with schools of large, predatory fish that drive prey species to the ocean surface. 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.9-24

3.9 Birds

Newell’s shearwaters capture food by pursuit-plunging (diving into water and swimming after prey, 

typically 10 to 30 m deep), usually in company with multispecies feeding flocks associated with tuna 

(International Union for Conservation of Nature, 2017). This species is not attracted to discarded fish 

byproducts and does not follow ships (Onley & Scofield, 2007).

Newell’s shearwaters are preyed on by introduced animals at their breeding sites, such as cats and birds 

such as barn owls (Ainley et al., 1997). Another potential predator, the small Asian mongoose Herpestes 

javanicus, has recently been discovered on Kauai (International Union for Conservation of Nature, 2017). 

Nocturnal activity and cavity-nesting behaviors are their only defense against mammalian predators.

3.9.2.2.5.5 Species-Specific Threats

Historical threats to Newell’s shearwater included subsistence hunting by Polynesians and predation by 

introduced species (a continuing threat) including rats, dogs, pigs, barn owls, feral cats, and the small 

Indian mongoose (Herpestes auropunctatus) (Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources, 2005). 

Current threats include hooking and drowning on commercial longline gear (McCracken, 2014), artificial 

lights (e.g., street and resort lights) along the coast that blind and disorient fledglings. Once on the 

ground, these fledglings are unable to fly and thousands are killed each year by cars, cats, and dogs. In 

addition, adults can collide with power facilities and associated utility wires and associated lines are in 

the direct path of known Newell’s flight corridors. Additional threats are the loss and degradation of 

forested habitat caused by introduced plants and herbivores. 

On Kauai, hurricanes Iwa and Iniki devastated the forests in 1982 and 1992 (Ainley et al., 1997) and, 

since the latter, the species' population has been declining. Given that a large proportion of the 

population breeds on Kauai, catastrophic events, like hurricanes, are a serious threat (International 

Union for Conservation of Nature, 2017).

3.9.2.2.6 Band-rumped Storm-petrel (Oceanodroma [Hydrobates] castro)

The band-rumped storm-petrel is also known as Madeira or Madeiran storm-petrel, Harcourt’s stormpetrel, or Hawaiian storm-petrel (American Ornithologists' Union, 1998; Harrison, 1983). It is 

intermediate in many respects between the Wilson's and Leach's storm-petrels. Plumage is blackishbrown overall with pale wing bars and a clear, curved white band across rump; white on rump is more 

extensive than on Leach's but less than on Wilson's (where white extends fully onto undertail coverts). 

The band-rumped storm-petrel is difficult to identify reliably at sea (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

2017a).

3.9.2.2.6.1 Status and Management

Storm-petrels are the smallest of all the oceanic seabirds (Onley & Scofield, 2007). The Hawaii 

population has been a candidate for listing under the ESA since 1989 (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

2004). Their global population is not a conservation concern due to large populations in Japan and the 

Galapagos Islands (International Union for the Conservation of Nature, 2010; U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, 2005b). In the Hawaiian Islands, band-rumped storm-petrels are the rarest breeding seabirds

(International Union for the Conservation of Nature, 2010; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2005b). The 

State of Hawaii categorizes the local population as endangered (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2005b)

and regards it as highly imperiled within the Hawaiian Islands Bird Conservation Region, based on 

population size, breeding distribution, and threats to breeding distribution (U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, 2003).
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.9-25

3.9 Birds

3.9.2.2.6.2 Habitat and Geographic Range

Band-rumped storm-petrels prefer warm deep water of 1,000 m to more than 2,000 m deep. This 

species occurs close to land where deep water is near an island; otherwise, they occur offshore or in 

upwelling regions (International Union for the Conservation of Nature, 2010). Preferred waters range 

from 80 to 84 degrees Fahrenheit (International Union for the Conservation of Nature, 2010). Nesting 

habitat in the main Hawaiian Islands consists of steep cliffs and barren lava flows at high elevations. 

Nests are in burrows or crevices in rock or lava (International Union for the Conservation of Nature, 

2010; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2004, 2005b). Also, they have been documented using artificial nest 

boxes. These sites may well be the last resort of predator avoidance for a species that formerly most 

likely nested closer to the coast (International Union for the Conservation of Nature, 2010).

Insular Pacific-Hawaiian Large Marine Ecosystem

Band-rumped storm-petrels occur in coastal waters of the Hawaii portion of the Study Area and into the 

western portion of the Transit Corridor portion of the Study Area. Colonies in the main Hawaiian Islands 

are known or suspected on Lehua Rock, Kauai, Maui, Kahoolawe, and Hawaii. Other colonies are likely in 

Waimea Canyon and Hanapepe Valley on the western side of Kauai. On Hawaii, one small population is 

known to nest on the upper west slope of Mauna Loa. There are no confirmations of occurrence on the 

other islands (Lehua Rock, Maui, and Kahoolawe), where nesting is suspected, although Lehua Rock and 

Maui (Haleakala Crater) are likely (International Union for the Conservation of Nature, 2010; U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, 2004). There is no known nesting in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands (U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, 2004).

During the nesting season, deep water (more than 1,000 m) close to shore can be used for foraging. 

Fishermen report them mostly at about 3 mi. off the Na Pali coast of Kauai (International Union for the 

Conservation of Nature, 2010). Band-rumped storm-petrels are known to gather in nearshore waters 

before they fly inland to nesting colonies in the early evening.

Open Ocean

Band-rumped storm-petrels occur in the Hawaii portion of the Study Area and the western portion of 

the Transit Corridor Study Area. They are distributed in the Pacific from Japan east to Central America 

and northern South America (Harrison, 1983). Pacific populations are divided into distinct Japanese, 

Hawaiian, and Galapagos breeding populations (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2004). The Hawaiian 

population at sea is thought to remain in the central Pacific, ranging south to the Equatorial 

Countercurrent. Some individuals spend most of their time in open ocean, occurring far offshore from 

nesting islands; others seem to remain close to nesting colonies year-round (U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, 2005b).

3.9.2.2.6.3 Population Trends

The global population of band-rumped storm-petrels is estimated to be 20,000 to 200,000 individuals. 

Due to the difficulty in studying this species, the number of birds breeding in Hawaii is currently 

unknown but is thought to be in the low hundreds (Kauai Endangered Seabird Recovery Project, 2017).

The Hawaiian populations, a tiny remnant of historical numbers, are of unknown size and trends 

(National Marine Fisheries Service & U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2005). In 2004, the population of 

band-rumped storm-petrels at sea was estimated at about 5,500 (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2004). In 

2002, the population on Kauai was estimated at 171 to 221 breeding pairs, mostly occurring along the 

Na Pali coast (Pohakuao Valley, Kalalau Valley, Awaawapuhi Valley, Nuololo Aina, and Nuololo Kay) on 

the west side of the island.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.9-26

3.9 Birds

3.9.2.2.6.4 Predator and Prey Interactions

Band-rumped storm-petrels most likely feed on small fish, squid, and crustaceans, based on records 

from the Galapagos Islands; diet information is not available for Hawaiian birds (U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, 2005b). Foraging is confirmed diurnally and suspected nocturnally. Food is captured while 

sitting on the water or off the surface by bill snatching as the bird gently flaps just above the surface of 

the water (International Union for the Conservation of Nature, 2010). Foraging occurs mostly in deep 

water in all seasons. They are attracted to discarded fish by-product from fishing boats (Onley & 

Scofield, 2007). Band-rumped storm-petrels are vulnerable to predation by introduced rats, mice, cats, 

mongooses, pigs, and barn owls (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2005b).

3.9.2.2.6.5 Species-Specific Threats

The band-rumped storm-petrel is highly vulnerable to predation by introduced rats, mice, cats, 

mongooses, pigs, and barn owls, as well as being vulnerable to striking power lines and street lights at 

night (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2005b). Street and resort lights disorient fledglings, causing them to 

collide with structures or fall to the ground, where they are at risk from predators and cars. Additional 

threats are the loss and degradation of forested habitat caused by introduced plants and herbivores.

3.9.2.3 Species Not Listed Under the Endangered Species Act

At least 195 species of birds are found within the Study Area that are not listed under the ESA. The 

major groups of birds are described in Section 3.9.2.3.1 (Major Groups), and Section 3.9.2.4 (Migratory 

Birds) describes species that are protected and of conservation concern under the Migratory Bird Treaty 

Act and Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act.

3.9.2.3.1 Major Groups

There are nine major groups of birds represented in the Study Area. These birds may be found in air, at 

the water’s surface, or in the water column of the Study Area. The vertical distribution descriptions in 

Table 3.9-2 are meant to provide a representative description of the taxonomic group; however, due to 

variations in species behavior, these descriptions may not apply to all species within each group. 

Distribution in the water column is indicative of a species that is known to dive under the surface of the 

water (for example, during foraging). More detailed species descriptions, including diving behavior, are 

provided in Sections 3.9.2.3.2 (Geese, Swans, Dabbling, and Diving Ducks [Order Anseriformes]) through

3.9.2.3.9 (Order Charadriiformes).

All nine major groups of birds in the Study Area occur either in open ocean areas (North Pacific 

Subtropical Gyre and North Pacific Transition Zone) or coastal waters of large marine ecosystems 

(California Current and Insular Pacific-Hawaiian) or coastal bays or estuaries (San Diego Bay) (see maps

of the Study Area in Figures 3.0-1 and 3.0-2).
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.9-27

3.9 Birds

Table 3.9-2: Major Groups of Birds in the Study Area

Major Bird Groups1 Vertical Distribution in the Study Area

Common Name 

(Taxonomic Group) Description

Open Ocean 

Areas2

Large Marine 

Ecosystem2

Bays and 

Harbors

Geese, swans, dabbling 

and diving ducks 

(Order Anseriformes)

Diverse group of birds that 

inhabit shallow waters, 

coastal areas, and deeper 

waters. Feed at the surface 

by dabbling or by diving in 

deeper water. Often occur 

in large flocks.

Airborne, 

surface, water 

column

Airborne, 

surface, water 

column

Airborne, 

surface, water 

column

Loons

(Order Gaviiformes)

Superficially duck-like, fisheating birds that capture 

prey by diving and 

underwater pursuit.

Airborne, 

surface, water 

column

Airborne, 

surface, water 

column

Airborne, 

surface, water 

column

Grebes

(Order Podicipediformes)

Small diving birds, 

superficially duck-like. May 

occur in small groups.

Airborne, 

surface, water 

column

Airborne, 

surface, water 

column

Airborne, 

surface, water 

column

Albatrosses, fulmars, 

petrels, shearwaters, and 

storm-petrels 

(Order Procellariiformes)

Group of largely pelagic 

seabirds. Fly nearly 

continuously when at sea. 

Soar low over the water 

surface to find prey. Some 

species dive below the 

surface.

Airborne, 

surface, water 

column

Airborne, 

surface, water 

column

Airborne, 

surface, water 

column

Boobies, gannets, 

cormorants, anhingas, and 

frigatebirds

(Order Suliformes)

Diverse group of large, 

fish-eating seabirds with 

four toes joined by 

webbing. Often occur in 

large flocks near high 

concentrations of bait fish.

Airborne, 

surface, water 

column

Airborne, 

surface, water 

column

Airborne, 

surface, water 

column

Tropicbirds (Order 

Phaethontiformes)

Oceanic birds, found far 

offshore, over warm water 

and are often seen resting 

on the water. Flight is high 

and steady and they 

plunge into water to catch 

fish.

Airborne, 

surface, water 

column

Airborne, 

surface, water 

column

Airborne, 

surface, water 

column

Pelicans, herons, egrets, 

Ibis, and spoonbills 

(Order Pelecaniformes)

Large wading birds with 

dagger-like, down-curved, 

or spoon-shaped bills used 

to capture prey in water or 

mud.

None

Airborne, 

surface, water 

column

Airborne, 

surface, water 

column
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.9-28

3.9 Birds

Table 3.9-2: Major Groups of Birds in the Study Area (continued)

Major Bird Groups1 Vertical Distribution in the Study Area

Common Name 

(Taxonomic Group) Description

Open Ocean 

Areas2

Large Marine 

Ecosystem2

Bays and 

Harbors

Osprey, bald eagles, 

peregrine falcons 

(Orders Accipitriformes, 

and Falconiformes)

Large raptors that inhabit 

habitats with open water, 

including coastal areas. 

Feed on fish, waterfowl, or 

other mammals. Migrate 

and forage over open 

water.

None Airborne, 

surface

Airborne, 

surface 

Shorebirds, phalaropes, 

gulls, noddies, terns, skua, 

jaegers, and alcids (Order 

Charadriiformes)

Diverse group of small to 

medium sized shorebirds, 

seabirds and allies 

inhabiting coastal, 

nearshore, and open ocean 

waters.

Airborne, 

surface, water 

column

Airborne, 

surface, water 

column

Airborne, 

surface, water 

column

1

American Ornithologists’ Union (1998), Sibley (2007), for major bird taxonomic groups. 2

Presence in the Study Area includes open ocean areas (North Pacific Subtropical Gyre and North Pacific Transition 

Zone) and coastal waters of two Large Marine Ecosystems (California Current and Insular Pacific-Hawaiian).

3.9.2.3.2 Geese, Swans, Dabbling and Diving Ducks (Order Anseriformes)

There are 50 species of swans, geese, and dabbling and diving ducks in the family Anatidae in North 

America. No birds from this group are considered Birds of Conservation Concern (U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, 2008a). Birds from this group range from dabbling ducks found in coastal bays, estuaries, and 

lagoons to more open water ducks found in deeper water environments. Several of these species are 

diving ducks that inhabit nearshore or offshore waters of the Study Area, and San Diego Bay in particular 

(Sibley, 2007). Scaups (Aythya spp.) and surf scoters (Melanitta perspicillata) are abundant during winter 

throughout San Diego Bay, diving and foraging on the bottom from shallow (intertidal) to relatively deep 

(> 20 ft.) waters (U.S. Department of the Navy, 2013b). 

Representative species that can be found in the Study Area include geese (e.g., Canada goose [Branta 

canadensis], brant [Branta bernicla]); dabbling ducks (e.g., mallard [Anas platyrhynchos], American 

wigeon [Anas americana], northern shoveler [Anas clypeata]); diving ducks (e.g., bufflehead [Bucephala 

albeola], greater scaup [Aythya marila], lesser scaup [Aythya affinis], and red-breasted merganser 

[Mergus serrator]); and scoters (e.g., surf scoter [Melanitta perspicillata], black scoter [Melanitta 

americana]) (American Ornithologists' Union, 1998).

3.9.2.3.3 Loons (Order Gaviiformes)

There are five species of loons in the family Gaviidae in North America (American Ornithologists' Union, 

1998), three of which occur in the Study Area. The common loon (Gavia immer) and the red-throated 

loon (G. stellata) are Birds of Conservation Concern (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2008a). Loons are 

medium to large fish-eating birds that capture prey by diving underwater (Sibley, 2007). Loons can dive 

down to 250 ft. with an average dive time of 40 seconds (Sibley, 2007). Loons move ashore only to 

breed, and all loon species nest on banks of inland ponds or lakes, requiring specific habitat features 

such as undeveloped shoreline and nest sites that have steep drop offs so they can approach their nest 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.9-29

3.9 Birds

from underwater (Cornell Lab of Ornithology, 2009a). For example, common loons spend their time in 

both freshwater and saltwater environments but prefer to nest on islands where the shoreline is not 

developed. Most loons need about 100 ft. of room to take off, so size is another habitat feature that is 

important for nesting areas. During migration, loons fly high above land or water in loose groups or 

singly. They winter in coastal, nearshore, or open water marine habitats (Sibley, 2007). For example, the 

Pacific loon (G. pacifica) prefers deep water and is found on the open ocean and in bays. The redthroated loon, a representative species within the Study Area, has a circumpolar distribution, breeds in 

high latitudes on remote ponds, and winters along the Atlantic and Pacific coasts (American 

Ornithologists' Union, 1998).

3.9.2.3.4 Albatrosses, Fulmars, Petrels, Shearwaters, and Storm-Petrels (Order 

Procellariiformes)

The Procellariiformes is a large order of open ocean seabirds that are divided into four families: 

Diomedeidae (albatrosses), Procellariidae (petrels and shearwaters), Hydrobatidae (storm-petrels), and 

Pelecanoididae (diving-petrels) (Enticott & Tipling, 1997; Onley & Scofield, 2007). These seabirds are 

generally long-lived, breed once a year, and lay only one egg, thus, they have a low reproductive output. 

They have extremely broad distributions and include all marine birds that spend most of their lives at 

sea and exclusively feed in the open ocean, primarily on fish, crustaceans, and crabs. They can be found 

in high numbers resting on the water in flocks where prey is concentrated (Enticott & Tipling, 1997). 

Some species feed around fishing boats or become injured from longline gear (Enticott & Tipling, 1997)

(Onley & Scofield, 2007). They nest in colonies on remote islands uninhabited by people. Some are 

ground nesters; others nest in cavities or burrows (Ramos et al., 1997). They return to their birth 

colonies. Most species of this order are monogamous and mate for life. Both parents participate in egg 

incubation and chick rearing (Elphick et al., 2001). Representative species that occur in the Study Area 

include Laysan albatross, Northern fulmar (Fulmaris glacialis), mottled petrel (Pterodroma inexpectata), 

pink-footed shearwater (Puffinus creatopus), and Wilson’s storm-petrel (Oceanites oceanicus).

3.9.2.3.5 Boobies, Gannets, Cormorants, and Frigatebirds (Order Suliformes)

The Suliformes order is a diverse group of large seabirds including anhingas, gannets, boobies, 

cormorants, and frigatebirds. This order is composed of 16 species in 4 families-12 species representing 

2 families that occur within the Study Area. Three of these species are considered Birds of Conservation 

Concern (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2008a). Species of concern within the Study Area include the 

brown booby (Sula leucogaster), great cormorant (Phalacrocorax carbo), and magnificent frigatebird 

(Fregata magnificens) (American Ornithologists' Union, 1998).

Suliformes are less pelagic than the Procellariiformes, although some of these species such as 

frigatebirds are pelagic. Most species are colonial, feed on fish, and use a variety of breeding habitats 

including trees and bushes (but not burrows). Breeding strategies vary among species, with some being 

long-lived and having low breeding success, while others have higher annual breeding success, but 

higher annual adult death (Enticott & Tipling, 1997; Onley & Scofield, 2007). 

Cormorants are voracious predators on inshore fishes and have been implicated as a major threat to the 

recovery efforts of Atlantic salmon in the Gulf of Maine where they feed on juvenile salmon (smolts) 

leaving the estuaries (Fay et al., 2006; National Marine Fisheries Service & U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

2005). Their offshore foraging range is limited by their need for undisturbed, dry nocturnal roosting sites 

(Shields, 2002). 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.9-30

3.9 Birds

Boobies and gannets are large seabirds that plunge from the air to capture their prey. Filling similar 

niches, boobies inhabit warmer areas and gannets colder regions. Boobies and gannets often nest on 

islands in colonies, with gannets nesting on cliffs (BirdLife International, 2012) and boobies generally on 

the ground if predators allow (Pratt et al., 1987). They forage offshore, often in large flocks, feeding on 

fish but also foraging at night, often feeding on squid (Pratt et al., 1987).

Like tropicbirds and pelicans, members of this group all have webbed feet and eight toes, and all have a 

throat sac, called a gular sac (Brown & Harshman, 2008). This sac is highly developed and visible in 

pelicans and frigatebirds but is also readily apparent in boobies and cormorants. Pelicans use the sac to 

trap fish, frigatebirds use it as a mating display and to feed on fish, squid, and similar marine life

(Dearborn et al., 2001), and cormorants and boobies use the sac for heat regulation. These birds nest in 

colonies, but individual birds are monogamous (Brown & Harshman, 2008).

3.9.2.3.6 Tropicbirds (Order Phaethontiformes)

Tropicbirds are medium-sized seabirds, predominately white with black patterning on the back, wings, 

and face. They have thick, pointed bills that are red or orange in color that are slightly decurved. Their 

most notable feature is the extremely long and narrow central tail feathers, which can be 11 to 22 in.

long. Their wingspans average around 3 ft. Superficially, tropicbirds resemble terns. Tropicbirds are 

plunge divers that feed on fish and are highly pelagic foragers in tropical and subtropical oceans, coming 

to land mainly to breed (Sibley, 2014). Red-billed tropicbirds (Phaethon aethereus) are rare visitors to 

the Study Area in both southern California and Hawaiian waters, whereas white-tailed and red-tailed 

tropicbirds (P. lepturus and P. rubricauda, respectively) nest in the Hawaiian Islands occur in the 

surrounding waters (Sibley, 2014).

3.9.2.3.7 Pelicans, Herons, Egrets, Ibis, and Spoonbills (Order Pelecaniformes)

Pelecaniformes is a large group composed of long-legged, large billed species that includes pelicans, 

herons, egrets, ibis, and spoonbills. However, with the exception of two species of pelicans (described 

below), they are inhabitants of freshwater marshes and are unlikely to occur in the Study Area.

The brown pelican (Pelecanus occidentalis) primarily occurs in shallow (less than 150 ft.) warm coastal 

marine and estuarine environments, as well as offshore where they forage primarily on fish by head first 

plunge-diving. Most plunge-diving is limited to 1 to 2 m within the water column. Foraging occurs within 

20 km of nesting islands during the breeding season, and up to 75 km offshore during the nonbreeding 

season (Shields, 2002). American white pelicans (Pelecanus erythrorhynchos) are found in shallow 

coastal bays, inlets, and estuaries that support forage fish (Knopf & Evans, 2004). Flocks forage 

cooperatively, swimming and encircling fish as a coordinated group or driving them into shallows, where 

they are caught with synchronized bill dipping (Enticott & Tipling, 1997; Onley & Scofield, 2007).

3.9.2.3.8 Osprey, Bald Eagles, Kites and Falcons (Orders Accipitriformes and 

Falconiformes)

Accipitriformes is a large group consisting of 60 species in three families (American Ornithologists' 

Union, 1998). This order generally has broad wings well-suited for soaring. Falconiformes include 

9 North American species that, with the exception of the caracara (Caracara cheriway), are fast-flying 

predators with pointed wings and a streamline body shape (Sibley, 2014). Members of both orders hunt 

by day and feed on a variety of prey, including fish, small mammals, reptiles, and carrion. Species that 

are likely to occur within the Study Area include the osprey (Pandion haliaetus) bald eagle (Haliaeetus 

leucocephalus), peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus), and swallow-tailed kite (Elanoides forficatus). The 

bald eagle, peregrine falcon, and swallow-tailed kite are Birds of Conservation Concern.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.9-31

3.9 Birds

Ospreys live near slow-moving waters of coastal, nearshore, and freshwater environments in many parts 

of the Study Area. They are plunge feeders but also have the ability to capture prey with their feet while 

keeping their head above water. Fish make up a large portion of their diet, and therefore, their vision is 

well adapted to detecting underwater objects from 10 to 40 m above water (Poole et al., 2002). Ospreys 

nest around the shores of San Diego Bay and forage in the waters of the bay (U.S. Department of the 

Navy, 2013b).

3.9.2.3.9 Shorebirds, Phalaropes, Gulls, Noddies, Terns, Skimmers, Skuas, Jaegers, and 

Alcids (Order Charadriiformes)

Shorebirds are small, generally long-legged coastal birds, many of which forage below the high tide in 

the surf zone by picking and probing for small aquatic prey (Sibley, 2007). Shorebirds undergo some of 

the longest distance migrations known for birds, for example, the red knot annually migrates more than 

15,000 km. Though most of their life cycle is spent in coastal areas, shorebird migration over open ocean 

does occur (Elphick, 2007). Although taxonomically grouped among some shorebirds, two species of 

phalaropes in the family Scolopacidae that occur within the Study Area are functionally seabirds, 

spending the nonbreeding months out on the open ocean. These include the red-necked phalarope 

(Phalaropus lobatus) and red phalarope (Phalaropus fulicarius), both of which breed in high arctic 

habitats but spend migrate and winter at sea, gathering in small flocks at upwellings and convergence 

zones, foraging on zooplankton and other small aquatic animals that rise to the surface (Rubega et 

al., 2000).

Gulls, noddies, and terns in the family Laridae are a diverse group of small to medium sized seabirds that 

inhabit coastal, nearshore, and open sea waters. Skuas and jaegers in the family Stercorariidae are 

stocky powerful birds with long pointed wings, long tails, strong hooked bills, and sharp talons known 

for robbing the food of smaller seabirds, teasing and harassing them until they drop their prey. Murres, 

murrelets, and auklets in the family Alcidae are good swimmers and divers and have short wings, which 

require them to flap their wings rapidly to fly.

Species in the order Charadriiformes occupy diverse habitats. Some species in this order spend most of 

their time at sea (e.g., jaegers, skuas, alcids), whereas others are more coastal or near shore (e.g., gulls). 

Many charadriiforms inhabit marine and freshwater wetlands; others spend most of their lives in or near 

the ocean. Many species breed in colonies, and some species lay more than one egg (Ericson et al., 

2003; Fain & Houde, 2007; Harrison, 1983; Onley & Scofield, 2007). Representative species within the 

Study Area include semipalmated plover (Charadrius semipalmatus), Bonaparte’s gull (Larus 

philadelphia), black-legged kittiwake (Rissa tridactyla), Forster’s tern (Sterna forsteri), parasitic jaeger

(Stercorarius parasiticus), common murre (Uria aalge), sooty shearwater (Puffinus tenuirostris), and 

rhinoceros auklet (Cerorhinca monocerata).

3.9.2.4 Migratory Birds

Most of the bird species that would be encountered in the Study Area are listed under the Migratory 

Bird Treaty Act (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2015a). The Migratory Bird Treaty Act established federal 

responsibilities for protecting nearly all migratory species of birds as defined in the Act, their eggs, and 

nests. Under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, migratory bird means any bird, whatever its origin and 

whether or not raised in captivity, which belongs to a species listed in Section 10.13 of the Migratory 

Bird Treaty Act, or which is a mutation or a hybrid of any such species, including any part, nest, or egg of 

any such bird, or any product, whether or not manufactured, which consists, or is composed in whole or 

part, of any such bird or any part, nest, or egg thereof. Under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act regulations 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.9-32

3.9 Birds

applicable to military readiness activities (50 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] part 21), the USFWS has 

promulgated a rule that authorizes the incidental take of migratory birds provided they do not result in a 

significant impact to the population of a migratory bird species. Of the 1,027 species protected under 

the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2013), over 100 species occur in the Study 

Area. These species are not analyzed individually, but rather are grouped based on taxonomic or 

behavioral similarities based on the stressor that is being analyzed. Conclusions of potential impacts on 

species protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act are presented at the conclusion of each stressor 

subsection as well as in Section 3.9.4 (Summary of Potential Impacts on Birds).

Birds of Conservation Concern are species, subspecies, and populations of migratory and non-migratory 

birds that the USFWS has determined to be the highest priority for conservation actions (U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, 2008a). The purpose of the Birds of Conservation Concern list is to prevent or remove 

the need for additional ESA bird listings by implementing proactive management and conservation 

actions needed to conserve these species. Of the species that occur within the Study Area, 15 are 

considered Birds of Conservation Concern (Table 3.9-3). These species are not analyzed individually, but 

rather are grouped by taxonomic or behavioral similarities based on the stressor that is being analyzed.

Table 3.9-3: Birds of Conservation Concern that Occur within the Study Area

Order/Family Common Name Scientific Name

Order Procellariiformes

Family Diomedeidae

Laysan albatross Phoebastria immutabilis

Black-footed albatross Phoebastria nigripes

Family Procellariidae

Pink-footed shearwater Puffinus creatopus

Christmas shearwater Puffinus nativitatis

Black-vented shearwater Puffinus opisthomelas

Family Hydrobatidae

Ashy storm-petrel Oceanodroma homochroa

Band-rumped storm-petrel Oceanodroma [Hydrobates]

castro

Tristram’s storm-petrel Oceanodroma tristrami

Order Falconiformes

Family Falconidae

Peregrine falcon Falco peregrinus

Order/Family Common Name Scientific Name

Order Charadriiformes

Family Lardiae

Subfamily Sterninae Blue noddy Procelsterna cerulean

Gull-billed tern Sterna nilotica

Subfamily Rynchopinae Black skimmer Rynchops niger

Family Ardeidae

Guadalupe murrelet Synthliboramphus hypoleucus

Scripps’s murrelet Synthliboramphus scrippsi

Cassin’s auklet Ptychoramphus aleuticus
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.9-33

3.9 Birds

3.9.2.4.1 Grebes (Order Podicipediformes)

There are seven species of grebes in the family Podicipedidae in North America, all of which occur in the 

Study Area (American Ornithologists' Union, 1998). Two of these species, the pied-billed grebe 

(Podilymbus podiceps) and horned grebe (Podiceps auritus) are Birds of Conservation Concern (U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, 2008a). Grebes can be found in a variety of aquatic habitats ranging from 

seasonally flooded scrubland and roadside ditches to deep lakes and coastal bays. Most grebe species 

winter in open waters while preferring marshy, vegetated habitats during the summer months (Sibley, 

2014). Grebes forage by diving for small aquatic animals such as insects, fish, and crustaceans in the 

water column. For example, horned grebes can dive for up to 3 minutes and travel 500 ft. underwater, 

where they are sometimes preyed upon by sharks and orcas (Ehrlich et al., 1988). Grebes tend to escape 

predators by diving or sinking, leaving only the head exposed, rather than taking flight. All grebe species 

build floating nests in marshes and winter on the ocean and nearshore coastal areas (Sibley, 2007).

3.9.3 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

As described in Section 3.9-2 (Affected Environment) birds are not distributed uniformly throughout the 

Study Area, instead they are closely associated with a variety of habitats upon which they are 

dependent. Coastal birds and shorebirds concentrate along nearshore habitats, and seabirds have 

patchy (uneven) distributions in offshore and open ocean habitats. This section evaluates how and to 

what degree the training and testing activities described in Chapter 2 (Description of Proposed Action 

and Alternatives) may potentially affect birds and bird communities known to occur within the Study 

Area. For this EIS/OEIS, seabirds are evaluated as major taxonomic groups of species characterized by 

distribution, body type, or behavior relevant to the stressor being evaluated. Activities are evaluated for 

their potential impact on all birds in general, however, species-specific consideration is given to the five 

species occurring in the Study Area that are ESA-listed as endangered or threatened (Section 3.9-10

ESA-Listed Species) (Table 3.9-1). An impacts analysis for birds has been conducted for potential 

mortality, habitat destruction, or other disturbance. Migratory and breeding birds use portions of the 

Study Area to differing degrees depending on the foraging and breeding requirements of each species. 

The impact analysis to the USFWS’s Birds of Conservation Concern (Table 3.9-3) and species protected 

under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act are not analyzed individually, instead are grouped and analyzed 

together by the taxonomic or behavioral similarities based on the stressor being analyzed (Section 3.9-

10, Species not ESA-Listed) (Table 3.9-1). Conclusions of potential impacts on species protected under 

the Migratory Bird Treaty Act are presented in Section 3.9.4 (Summary of Potential Impacts on Birds). As 

noted in the ESA-listed species descriptions, there is no critical habitat for these listed species within the 

Study Area. Therefore, the analysis of stressors on critical habitat is not carried through this 

EIS/OEIS document.

Impacts of the proposed military readiness activities on migratory birds not listed under ESA and their 

habitat are evaluated based on the criteria described in the final rule authorizing Department of Defense 

(DoD) to incidentally take migratory birds during military readiness activities (50 CFR part 21, 28 

February 2007). This rule authorizes incidental taking of migratory birds by the Armed Forces during 

military readiness activities. The Armed Forces must confer and cooperate with the USFWS on the 

development and implementation of conservation measures to minimize or mitigate adverse effects of a 

military readiness activity if it determines that such activity may have a “significant adverse effect” on a 

population of a migratory bird species. An activity has a significant adverse effect if, over a reasonable 

period of time, it diminishes the capacity of a population of migratory bird species to maintain genetic 

diversity, to reproduce, and to function effectively in its native ecosystem. A population is defined in the 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.9-34

3.9 Birds

final rule as “a group of distinct, coexisting, same species, whose breeding site fidelity, migration routes, 

and wintering areas are temporally and spatially stable, sufficiently distinct geographically (at some 

point of the year), and adequately described so that the population can be effectively monitored to 

discern changes in its status.”(U.S. Bureau of Land Management & U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2010).

General characteristics of all Navy stressors were introduced in Section 3.0.3.3 (Identification of 

Stressors for Analysis), and general susceptibilities of living resources to stressors were introduced in 

Section 3.0.3.6 (Biological Resource Methods). Stressors vary in intensity, frequency, duration, and 

location within the Study Area. Stressors associated with certain activities take place in locations or 

depth zones within the Study Area (Section 3.0.3, Overall Approach to Analysis), where interactions with 

birds are very unlikely. Therefore, seafloor device strike was not carried forward in this analysis for birds. 

Based on the general threats to seabirds and shorebirds discussed in Section 3.9.2 (Affected 

Environment) the stressors applicable to bird species in the Study Area and analyzed below include 

the following:

This section evaluates how and to what degree the activities described in Chapter 2 (Description of 

Proposed Action and Alternatives) potentially impact birds known to occur within the Study Area. Tables 

2.3-1 through 2.3-5 present the baseline and proposed typical training and testing activity locations for 

each alternative (including number of events). General characteristics of all Navy stressors were 

introduced in Section 3.0.3.3 (Identification of Stressors for Analysis), and living resources’ general 

susceptibilities to stressors were introduced in Section 3.0.3.6 (Biological Resource Methods). The 

stressors vary in intensity, frequency, duration, and location within the Study Area. The stressors 

analyzed for birds are:

• Acoustics (sonar and other transducers; air guns; pile driving; aircraft noise; vessel noise; and 

weapons noise)

• Explosives

• Energy (in-water electromagnetic devices, in-air electromagnetic devices; and high energy 

lasers)

• Physical disturbance and strikes (vessels & in-water devices, aircraft & aerial targets, military 

expended materials, seafloor devices)

• Entanglement (wires and cables; decelerators/parachutes; biodegradable polymers)

• Ingestion (military expended materials – munitions, military expended materials - other than 

munitions)

• Secondary stressors (impacts to habitat, impacts to prey availability)

Each of these components is analyzed for potential impacts on birds within the stressor categories 

contained in this section. The specific analysis of the training and testing activities considers these 

components within the context of geographic location and overlap of marine bird resources. In addition 

to the analysis here, the details of all training and testing activities, stressors, components that cause 

the stressor, and geographic overlap within the Study Area are summarized in Section 3.0.3.3 

(Identification of Stressors for Analysis) and detailed in Appendix B (Activity Stressor Matrices).

3.9.3.1 Acoustic Stressors

This section evaluates the potential for acoustic stressors to impact birds during training and testing 

activities in the Study Area. Assessing whether sounds may disturb or injure an animal involves 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.9-35

3.9 Birds

understanding the characteristics of the acoustic sources, the animals that may be present in the vicinity 

of the sound, and the effects that sound may have on the physiology and behavior of those animals. 

Impacts could depend on other factors besides the received level of sound, such as the animal's physical 

condition, prior experience with the sound, and proximity to the source of the sound. 

The below analysis of effects to birds follows the concepts outlined in Section 3.0.3.6.1 (Conceptual 

Framework for Assessing Effects from Acoustic and Explosive Activities). This section begins with a 

summary of relevant data regarding acoustic impacts to birds in Section 3.9.3.1.1 (Background). This is 

followed by an analysis of impacts to birds due to specific Navy acoustic stressors (sonar and other 

transducers; air guns; pile driving; vessel noise; aircraft noise; and weapons noise). Additional 

explanation of the acoustic terms and sound energy concepts used in this section is found in Appendix D 

(Acoustic and Explosive Concepts).

3.9.3.1.1 Background

The sections below include a survey and synthesis of best-available-science published in peer-reviewed 

journals, technical reports, and other scientific sources pertinent to impacts to birds potentially resulting 

from sound-producing Navy training and testing activities. Impacts to birds depends on the sound 

source and context of exposure. Possible impacts include auditory or non-auditory trauma, hearing loss 

resulting in temporary or permanent hearing threshold shift, auditory masking, physiological stress, or 

changes in behavior, including changing habitat use and activity patterns, increasing stress response, 

decreasing immune response, reducing reproductive success, increasing predation risk, degrading 

communication, and damaging hearing if the sound is sufficiently loud (Larkin et al., 1996). Numerous 

studies have documented that birds and other wild animals respond to human-made noise (Bowles et 

al., 1994; Larkin et al., 1996; National Parks Service, 1994). The manner in which birds respond to noise 

could depend on species physiology life stage, characteristics of the noise source, loudness, onset rate, 

distance from the noise source, presence/absence of associated visual stimuli, and previous exposure. 

Noise may cause physiological or behavioral responses that reduce the animals’ fitness or ability to 

grow, survive, and reproduce successfully.

The types of birds exposed to sound-producing activities depend on where training and testing activities 

occur relative to the coast. Birds in the study area can be divided into three groups based on breeding 

and foraging habitat: (1) those species such as albatrosses, petrels, frigatebirds, tropicbirds, boobies, 

alcids, and some terns that forage over the ocean and nest on oceanic islands; (2) species such as 

pelicans, cormorants, gulls, and some terns that nest along the coast and forage in nearshore areas; and 

(3) those few species such as skuas, jaegers, Franklin’s gull, Bonaparte’s gulls, ring-billed gulls, black 

terns, and ducks and loons that nest and forage in inland habitats and come to the coastal areas during 

nonbreeding seasons. In addition, birds that are typically found inland, such as songbirds, may be 

present flying in large numbers over open ocean areas during annual spring and fall migration periods.

Birds could be exposed to sounds from a variety of sources. While in flight or above the water surface, 

birds may be exposed to airborne sources such as pile driving, weapons noise, vessel noise, and aircraft 

noise. While foraging and diving, birds may be exposed to underwater sources such as sonar, pile 

driving, air guns, and vessel noise. While foraging birds will be present near the water surface, migrating 

birds may fly at various altitudes. Some species such as sea ducks and loons may be commonly seen 

flying just above the water's surface, but the same species can also be spotted flying so high (5,800 ft.) 

that they are barely visible through binoculars (Lincoln et al., 1998). While there is considerable 

variation, the favored altitude for most small birds appears to be between 500 ft. (152 m) and 1,000 ft. 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.9-36

3.9 Birds

(305 m). Radar studies have demonstrated that 95 percent of the migratory movements occur at less 

than 10,000 ft. (3,050 m), with the bulk of the movements occurring under 3,000 ft. (914 m) (Lincoln et 

al., 1998). 

Seabirds use a variety of foraging behaviors that could expose them to underwater sound. Most seabirds 

plunge-dive from the air into the water or perform aerial dipping (the act of taking food from the water 

surface in flight); others surface-dip (swimming and then dipping to pick up items below the surface) or 

jump-plunge (swimming, then jumping upward and diving underwater). Birds that feed at the surface by 

surface or aerial dipping with limited to no underwater exposure include petrels, jaegers, and 

phalaropes. Birds that plunge-dive are typically submerged for short durations, and any exposure to 

underwater sound would be very brief. Birds that plunge-dive include albatrosses, some tern species, 

masked boobies, gannets, shearwaters, and tropicbirds. Some birds, such as cormorants, seaducks, 

alcids, and loons pursue prey under the surface, swimming deeper and staying underwater longer than 

other plunge-divers. Some of these birds may stay underwater for up to several minutes and reach 

depths between 50 ft. (15 m) and 550 ft. (168 m) (Alderfer, 2003; Durant et al., 2003; Jones, 2001; Lin, 

2002; Ronconi, 2001). Birds that forage near the surface would be exposed to underwater sound for 

shorter periods of time than those that forage below the surface. Exposures of birds that forage below 

the surface may be reduced by destructive interference of reflected sound waves near the water surface 

(see Appendix D, Acoustic and Explosive Concepts). Sounds generated underwater during training and 

testing would be more likely to impact birds that pursue prey under the surface, although as previously 

stated, little is known about seabird hearing ability underwater.

3.9.3.1.1.1 Injury

Auditory structures can be susceptible to direct mechanical injury due to high levels of impulsive sound. 

This could include tympanic membrane rupture, disarticulation of the middle ear ossicles, and trauma to 

the inner ear structures such as the organ of Corti and the associated hair cells. Auditory trauma differs 

from auditory fatigue in that the latter involves the overstimulation of the auditory system, rather than 

direct mechanical damage, which may result in hearing loss (see Section 3.9.3.1.1.2, Hearing Loss). There 

are no data on damage to the middle ear structures of birds due to acoustic exposures. Because birds 

are known to regenerate auditory hair cells, studies have been conducted to purposely expose birds to 

very high sound exposure levels (SELs) in order to induce hair cell damage in the inner ear. Because 

damage can co-occur with fatiguing exposures at high SELs, effects to hair cells are discussed below in 

Section 3.9.3.1.1.2(Hearing Loss).

Because there is no data on non-auditory injury to birds from intense non-explosive sound sources, it 

may be useful to consider information for other similar-sized vertebrates. The high peak pressures of 

non-explosive impulsive underwater sound sources, such as air guns and pile driving, are thought to be 

potentially injurious to other small animals (fishes and sea turtles). Similarly, long duration exposures 

(i.e., minutes to hours) to high sound levels of sonars are thought to be injurious to fishes [see Popper et 

al. (2014)]. Injury is generally attributed to compression and expansion of body gas cavities, either due

to rapid onset of pressure changes or resonance (enhanced oscillation of a cavity at its natural 

frequency). Because water is considered incompressible and animal tissue is generally of similar density 

as water, animals would be more susceptible to injury from a high amplitude sound source in water than 

in air since waves would pass directly through the body rather than being reflected. Proximal exposures 

to high amplitude non-impulsive sounds underwater could be limited by a bird’s surfacing response.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.9-37

3.9 Birds

In air, the risk of barotrauma would be associated with high amplitude impulses, such as from explosives 

(discussed in Section 3.9.3.2, Explosive Stressors). Unlike in water, most acoustic energy will reflect off 

the surface of an animal’s body in air. Plus, air is compressible whereas water is not, allowing energy to 

dissipate more rapidly. For these reasons, in-air non-explosive sound sources in this analysis are 

considered to pose little risk of non-auditory injury.

3.9.3.1.1.2 Hearing Loss

Exposure to intense sound may result in hearing loss which persists after cessation of the noise 

exposure. Hearing loss may be temporary or permanent, depending on factors such as the exposure 

frequency, received sound pressure level (SPL), temporal pattern, and duration. Hearing loss could 

impair a bird’s ability to hear biologically important sounds within the affected frequency range. 

Biologically important sounds come from social groups, potential mates, offspring, or parents; 

environmental sounds; prey; or predators. Because in-air measures of hearing loss and recovery in birds 

due to an acoustic exposure are limited [e.g., quail, budgerigars, canaries, and zebra finches (Ryals et al., 

1999); budgerigar (Hashino et al., 1988); parakeet (Saunders & Dooling, 1974); quail (Niemiec et al., 

1994)] and no studies exist of bird hearing loss due to underwater sound exposures, auditory threshold 

shift in birds is considered to be generally consistent with general knowledge about noise-induced 

hearing loss described in the Conceptual Framework for Assessing Effects from Acoustic and Explosive 

Activities (see Section 3.0.3.6.1). The frequencies affected by hearing loss would vary depending on the 

exposure frequency. The limited data on hearing loss in birds shows that the frequency of exposure is 

the hearing frequency most likely to be affected (Saunders & Dooling, 1974). 

Hearing loss can be due to biochemical (fatiguing) processes or tissue damage. Tissue damage can 

include damage to the auditory hair cells and their underlying support cells. Hair cell damage has been 

observed in birds exposed to long duration sounds that resulted in initial threshold shifts greater than 40 

dB (Niemiec et al., 1994; Ryals et al., 1999). Unlike other species, birds have the ability to regenerate 

hair cells in the ear, usually resulting in considerable anatomical, physiological, and behavioral recovery 

within several weeks (Rubel et al., 2013; Ryals et al., 1999). Still, intense exposures are not always fully 

recoverable, even over periods up to a year after exposure, and damage and subsequent recovery vary 

significantly by species (Ryals et al., 1999). Birds may be able to protect themselves against damage from 

sustained sound exposures by reducing middle ear pressure, an ability that may protect ears while in 

flight (Ryals et al., 1999) and from injury due to pressure changes during diving (Dooling & Therrien, 

2012).

Hearing loss is typically quantified in terms of threshold shift — the amount (in dB) that hearing 

thresholds at one or more specified frequencies are elevated, compared to their pre-exposure values, at 

some specific time after the noise exposure. The amount of threshold shift measured usually decreases 

with increasing recovery time — the amount of time that has elapsed since a noise exposure. If the

threshold shift eventually returns to zero (i.e., the hearing threshold returns to the pre-exposure value), 

the threshold shift is called a temporary threshold shift (TTS). If the threshold shift does not completely 

recover (the threshold remains elevated compared to the pre-exposure value), the remaining threshold 

shift is called a permanent threshold shift (PTS). By definition, TTS is a function of the recovery time, 

therefore comparing the severity of noise exposures based on the amount of induced TTS can only be 

done if the recovery times are also taken into account. For example, a 20 dB TTS measured 24 hours 

post-exposure indicates a more hazardous exposure than one producing 20 dB of TTS measured only 

two minutes after exposure; if the TTS is 20 dB after 24 hours, the TTS measured after two minutes
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.9-38

3.9 Birds

would have likely been much higher. Conversely, if 20 dB of TTS was measured after two minutes, the 

TTS measured after 24 hours would likely have been much smaller. 

Studies in mammals have revealed that noise exposures resulting in high levels of TTS (greater than 

40 dB) may also result in neural injury without any permanent hearing loss (Kujawa & Liberman, 2009; 

Lin et al., 2011). It is unknown if a similar effect would be observed in birds.

Hearing Loss due to Non-Impulsive Sounds

Behavioral studies of threshold shift in birds within their frequencies of best hearing (between 2 and 4 

kHz) due to long duration (30 minutes to 72 hours) continuous, non-impulsive, high level sound 

exposures in air have shown that susceptibility to hearing loss varies substantially by species, even in 

species with similar auditory sensitivities, hearing ranges, and body size (Niemiec et al., 1994; Ryals et 

al., 1999; Saunders & Dooling, 1974). For example, Ryals et al. (1999) conducted the same exposure 

experiment on quail and budgerigars, which have very similar audiograms. A 12-hour exposure to a 

2.86 kHz tone at 112 dB re 20 μPa SPL [cumulative SEL of 158 dB re 20 μPa2

s] resulted in a 70 dB 

threshold shift measured after 24 hours of recovery in quail, but a substantially lower 40 dB threshold 

shift measured after just 12 hours of recovery in budgerigars which recovered to within 10 dB of 

baseline after three days and fully recovered by one month (Ryals et al., 1999). Although not directly 

comparable, this SPL would be perceived as extremely loud but just under the threshold of pain for 

humans per the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. Whereas the 158 dB re 20 μPa2

-s SEL 

tonal exposure to quail discussed above caused 20 dB of PTS (Ryals et al., 1999), a shorter (4 hour) tonal 

exposure to quail with similar SEL (157 dB re 20 μPa2

-s) caused 65 dB of threshold shift that fully 

recovered within two weeks (Niemiec et al., 1994). 

Data on threshold shift in birds due to relatively shorter duration sound exposures that could be used to 

estimate the onset of threshold shift is limited. Saunders and Dooling (1974) provide the only threshold 

shift growth data measured for birds. Saunders and Dooling (1974) exposed young budgerigars to four 

levels of continuous 1/3-octave band noise (76, 86, 96, and 106 dB re 20 μPa) centered at 2.0 kHz and 

measured the threshold shift at various time intervals during the 72-hour exposure. The earliest 

measurement found 7 dB of threshold shift after approximately 20 minutes of exposure to the 96 dB re 

20 μPa SPL noise (127 dB re 20 μPa2

-s SEL). Generally, onset of TTS in other species has been considered 

6 dB above measured threshold (Finneran, 2015), which accounts for natural variability in auditory 

thresholds. The budgerigar data is the only bird data showing low levels of threshold shift. Because of 

the observed variability of threshold shift susceptibility among bird species and the relatively long 

duration of sound exposure in Saunders and Dooling (1974), the observed onset level cannot be 

assumed to represent the SEL that would cause onset of TTS for other bird species or for shorter 

duration exposures (i.e., a higher SEL may be required to induce threshold shift for shorter 

duration exposures).

Since the goal of most bird hearing studies has been to induce hair cell damage to study regeneration 

and recovery, exposure durations were purposely long. Studies with other non-avian species have 

shown that long duration exposures tend to produce more threshold shift than short duration exposures 

with the same SEL [e.g., see Finneran (2015)]. The SELs that induced TTS and PTS in these studies likely 

over-estimate the potential for hearing loss due to any short-duration sound of comparable SEL that a 

bird could encounter outside of a controlled laboratory setting. In addition, these studies were not 

designed to determine the exposure levels associated with the onset of any threshold shift or to 

determine the lowest SEL that may result in PTS.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.9-39

3.9 Birds

With insufficient data to determine PTS onset for birds due to a non-impulsive exposure, data from 

other taxa are considered. Studies of terrestrial mammals suggest that 40 dB of threshold shift is a 

reasonable estimate of where PTS onset may begin [see (Southall et al., 2007)]. Similar amounts of 

threshold shift has been observed in some bird studies with no subsequent PTS. Of the birds studied, the 

budgerigars showed intermediate susceptibility to threshold shift; the budgerigars exhibited threshold 

shifts in the range of 40 dB to 50 dB after 12-hour exposures to 112 dB and 118 dB re 20 μPa SPL tones 

at 2.86 kHz (158 – 164 dB re 20 μPa2

-s SEL), which recovered to within 10 dB of baseline after three days 

and fully recovered by one month (Ryals et al., 1999). These experimental SELs are a conservative 

estimate of the SEL above which PTS may be considered possible for birds.

All of the above studies were conducted in air. There are no studies of hearing loss to diving birds due to 

underwater exposures.

Hearing Loss due to Impulsive Sounds

The only measure of hearing loss in a bird due to an impulsive noise exposure was conducted by Hashino 

et al. (1988), in which budgerigars were exposed to the firing of a pistol with a received level of 169 dB 

re 20 μPa peak SPL (two gunshots per each ear); SELs were not provided. While the gunshot frequency 

power spectrum had its peak at 2.8 kHz, threshold shift was most extensive below 1 kHz. Threshold shift 

recovered at frequencies above 1 kHz, while a 24 dB PTS was sustained at frequencies below 1 kHz. 

Studies of hearing loss in diving birds exposed to impulsive sounds underwater do not exist.

Because there is only one study of hearing loss in birds due to an impulsive exposure, the few studies of 

hearing loss in birds due to exposures to non-impulsive sound are the only other avian data upon which 

to assess bird susceptibility to hearing loss from an impulsive sound source. Data from other taxa [e.g., 

(U.S. Department of the Navy, 2017)] indicate that, for the same SEL, impulsive exposures are more 

likely to result in hearing loss than non-impulsive exposures. This is likely due to the high peak pressures 

and rapid pressure rise times associated with impulsive exposures.

3.9.3.1.1.3 Masking

Masking occurs when one sound, distinguished as the ‘noise,’ interferes with the detection or 

recognition of another sound. The quantitative definition of masking is the amount in decibels an 

auditory detection or discrimination threshold is raised in the presence of a masker (Erbe et al., 2015). 

As discussed in the Conceptual Framework for Assessing Effects from Acoustic and Explosive Stressors 

(Section 3.0.3.6.1), masking can effectively limit the distance over which an animal can communicate 

and detect biologically relevant sounds. Masking only occurs in the presence of the masking noise and 

does not persist after the cessation of the noise. 

Critical ratios are the lowest ratio of signal-to-noise at which a signal can be detected. When expressed 

in decibels, critical ratios can easily be calculated by subtracting the noise level (in dB re 1 μPa2 /Hz) 

from the signal level (in dB re 1 μPa) at detection threshold. A signal must be received above the critical 

ratio at a given frequency to be detectable by an animal. Critical ratios have been determined for a 

variety of bird species [e.g., Dooling (1980), Noirot et al. (2011), Dooling and Popper (2000), and Crowell 

(2016)] and inter-species variability is evident. Some birds exhibit low critical ratios at certain vocal 

frequencies, perhaps indicating that hearing evolved to detect signals in noisy environments or over 

long distances (Dooling & Popper, 2000).

The effect of masking is to limit the distance over which a signal can be perceived. An animal may 

attempt to compensate in several ways, such as by increasing the source level of vocalizations (the 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.9-40

3.9 Birds

Lombard effect), changing the frequency of vocalizations, or changing behavior (e.g., moving to another 

location, increase visual display). Birds have been shown to shift song frequencies in the presence of a 

tone at a similar frequency (Goodwin & Podos, 2013), and in continuously noisy urban habitats, 

populations have been shown to have altered song duration and shift to higher frequencies 

(Slabbekoorn & den Boer-Visser, 2006). Changes in vocalization may incur energetic costs and hinder 

communication with conspecifics, which, for example, could result in reduced mating opportunities. 

These effects are of long-term concern in constant noisy urban environments (Patricelli & Blickley, 2006)

where masking conditions are prevalent.

3.9.3.1.1.4 Physiological Stress

Animals in the marine environment naturally experience stressors within their environment and as part 

of their life histories. Changing weather and ocean conditions, exposure to diseases and naturally 

occurring toxins, lack of prey availability, social interactions with members of the same species, nesting, 

and interactions with predators all contribute to stress. Anthropogenic sound-producing activities have 

the potential to provide additional stressors beyond those that naturally occur, as described in the 

Conceptual Framework for Assessing Effects from Acoustic and Explosive Activities (see Section 

3.0.3.6.1). 

Chronic stress due to disturbance may compromise the general health and reproductive success of birds 

(Kight et al., 2012), but a physiological stress response is not necessarily indicative of negative 

consequences to individual birds or to populations (Larkin et al., 1996; National Parks Service, 1994). The 

reported behavioral and physiological responses of birds to noise exposure can fall within the range of 

normal adaptive responses to external stimuli, such as predation, that birds face on a regular basis. 

These responses can include activation of the neural and endocrine systems, causing changes such as 

increased blood pressure, available glucose, and blood levels of corticosteroids (Manci et al., 1988). It is 

possible that individuals would return to normal almost immediately after short-term or transient 

exposure, and the individual's metabolism and energy budget would not be affected long-term. Studies 

have also shown that birds can habituate to noise following frequent exposure and cease to respond 

behaviorally to the noise (Larkin et al., 1996; National Parks Service, 1994; Plumpton, 2006). However, 

the likelihood of habituation is dependent upon a number of factors, including species of bird (Bowles et 

al., 1991), and frequency of and proximity to exposure. Although Andersen et al. (1990) did not evaluate 

noise specifically, they found evidence that anthropogenic disturbance is related to changes in home 

ranges; for example, raptors have been shown to shift their terrestrial home range when concentrated 

military training activity was introduced to the area. On the other hand, cardinals nesting in areas with 

high levels of military training activity (including gunfire, artillery, and explosives) were observed to have 

similar reproductive success and stress hormone levels as cardinals in areas of low activity (Barron et al., 

2012).

While difficult to measure in the field, behavioral responses can be accompanied by some form of 

physiological response such as increased heart rate or a startle response. A startle is a rapid reflex 

characterized by rapid increase in heart rate, shutdown of nonessential functions, and mobilization of 

glucose reserves. Habituation keeps animals from expending energy and attention on harmless stimuli, 

but the physiological component might not habituate completely (Bowles, 1995).

A strong and consistent behavioral or physiological response is not necessarily indicative of negative 

consequences to individuals or to populations (Bowles, 1995; Larkin et al., 1996; National Parks Service, 

1994). For example, many of the reported behavioral and physiological responses to noise are within the 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.9-41

3.9 Birds

range of normal adaptive responses to external stimuli, such as predation, that wild animals face on a 

regular basis. In many cases, individuals would return to homeostasis or a stable equilibrium almost 

immediately after exposure. The individual’s overall metabolism and energy budgets would not be 

affected if it had time to recover before being exposed again. If the individual does not recover before 

being exposed again, physiological responses could be cumulative and lead to reduced fitness. However, 

it is also possible that an individual would have an avoidance reaction (i.e., move away from the noise 

source) to repeated exposure or habituate to the noise when repeatedly exposed.

Due to the limited information about acoustically induced stress responses, the Navy conservatively 

assumes in its effects analysis that any physiological response (e.g., hearing loss or injury) or significant 

behavioral response is also associated with a stress response.

3.9.3.1.1.5 Behavioral Reactions

Numerous studies have documented that birds and other wild animals respond to human-made noise, 

including aircraft overflights, weapons firing, and explosions (Larkin et al., 1996; National Parks Service, 

1994; Plumpton, 2006). The manner in which an animal responds to noise could depend on several 

factors, including life history characteristics of the species; characteristics of the noise source, sound 

source intensity, onset rate, distance from the noise source, presence or absence of associated visual 

stimuli, food and habitat availability, and previous exposure (see Section 3.0.3.6.1, Conceptual 

Framework for Assessing Effects from Acoustic and Explosive Activities). Researchers have documented 

a range of bird behavioral responses to noise, including no response, head turn, alert behavior, startle 

response, flying or swimming away, diving into the water, and increased vocalizations (Brown et al., 

1999; Larkin et al., 1996; National Parks Service, 1994; Plumpton, 2006; Pytte et al., 2003; Stalmaster & 

Kaiser, 1997). Some behavioral responses may be accompanied by physiological responses, such as 

increased heart rate or short-term changes in stress hormone levels (Partecke et al., 2006). 

Behavioral responses may depend on the characteristics of the noise, and whether the noise is similar to 

biologically relevant sounds such as alarm calls by other birds and predator sounds. For example, 

European starlings (Sturnus vulgaris) took significantly longer to habituate to repeated bird distress calls 

than white noise or pure tones (Johnson et al., 1985). Starlings may have been more likely to continue to 

respond to the distress because it is a more biologically meaningful sound. Starlings were also more 

likely to habituate in winter than summer, possibly meaning that food scarcity or seasonal physiological 

conditions may affect intensity of behavioral response (Johnson et al., 1985).

Behavioral Reactions to Impulsive Sound Sources

Studies regarding behavioral responses by non-nesting birds to impulsive sound sources are limited. 

Seismic surveys had no noticeable impacts on the movements or diving behavior of long-tailed ducks 

undergoing wing molt, a period in which flight is limited and food requirements are high (Lacroix et al., 

2003). The birds may have tolerated the seismic survey noise to stay in preferred feeding areas. 

Responses to aircraft sonic booms are informative of responses to single impulsive sounds. Responses to 

sonic booms are discussed below in Behavioral Reactions to Aircraft.

Behavioral Reactions to Sonar and Other Active Acoustic Sources

There are no studies of bird responses underwater to sonars, but the effect of pingers on fishing nets 

has been examined. Fewer common murres (Uria aalge) were entangled in gillnets when the gillnets 

were outfitted with 1.5 kHz pingers with a source level of 120 dB re 1 μPa; however, there was no 

significant reduction in rhinoceros auklet (Cerorhinca monocerata) bycatch in the same nets (Melvin et 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.9-42

3.9 Birds

al., 1999; Melvin et al., 2011). It was unknown whether the pingers elicited a behavioral response by the 

birds, decreased prey availability, or affected entanglement rates in some unidentified way.

Behavioral Reactions to Aircraft

There are multiple possibilities of the factors involved in behavioral responses to aircraft overflights, 

including the noise stimulus as well as the visual stimulus. 

Observations of tern colonies responses to balloon overflights suggest that visual stimulus is likely to be 

an important component of disturbance from overflights (Brown, 1990). Although it was assumed 

nesting colonial waterbirds would be more likely to flush or exhibit a mob response when disturbed, 

observations of nesting black skimmers and nesting least, gull-billed, and common terns showed they 

did not modify nesting behavior in response to military fixed-wing aircraft engaged in low-altitude 

tactical flights and rotary –wing overflights (Hillman et al., 2015). Maximum behavioral responses by 

crested tern (Sterna bergii) to aircraft noise were observed at sound level exposures greater than 85 

A-weighted decibels (dBA) re 20 μPa. However, herring gulls (Larus argentatus) significantly increased 

their aggressive interactions within the colony and their flights over the colony during overflights with 

received SPLs of 101–116 dBA re 20 μPa (Burger, 1981).

Raptor and wading birds have responded minimally to jet (110 dBA re 20 μPa) and propeller plane 

(92 dBA re 20 μPa) overflights, respectively (Ellis, 1981). Jet flights greater than 1,640 ft. (500 m) 

distance from raptors were observed to elicit no response (Ellis, 1981). The impacts of low altitude 

military training flights on wading bird colonies in Florida were estimated using colony distributions and 

turnover rates. There were no demonstrated impacts of military activity on wading bird colony 

establishment or size (Black et al., 1984). Fixed-winged jet aircraft disturbance did not seem to adversely 

affect waterfowl observed during a study in coastal North Carolina (Conomy et al., 1998); however, 

harlequin ducks were observed to show increased agonistic behavior and reduced courtship behavior up 

to one to two hours after low altitude military jet overflights (Goudie & Jones, 2004).

It is possible that birds could habituate and no longer exhibit behavioral responses to aircraft noise, as 

has been documented for some impulsive noise sources (Ellis, 1981; Russel et al., 1996) and aircraft 

noise (Conomy et al., 1998). Ellis (1981), found that raptors would typically exhibit a minor short-term 

startle response to simulated sonic booms, and no long-term effect to productivity was noted.

Near-total failure of sooty tern nesting in the Dry Tortugas in the Key West Range Complex was reported 

in 1969 during a period when the birds were regularly exposed to sonic booms (Austin et al., 1970). In 

previous seasons, the birds were reported to react to the occasional sonic booms by rising immediately 

in a "panic flight," circling over the island, and then usually settling down on their eggs again. 

Researchers had no evidence that sonic booms caused physical damage to the sooty tern eggs, but 

hypothesized that the strong booms occurred often enough to disturb the sooty terns’ incubating 

rhythm and cause nest desertion. The 1969 sooty tern nesting failure also prompted additional research 

to test the hypothesis that sonic booms could cause bird eggs to crack or otherwise affect bird eggs or 

embryos. However, the findings of the additional research determined that aircraft overflight and sonic 

booms were not a cause of the failure, and neither were panic flights, predators, weather, inadequate 

food supplies, or tick infestation (Bowles et al., 1991; Bowles et al., 1994; Teer & Truett, 1973; Ting et 

al., 2002). That same year, the colony also contained approximately 2,500 brown noddies, whose young 

hatched successfully. While it was impossible to conclusively determine the cause of the 1969 sooty tern 

nesting failure, actions were taken to curb planes breaking the sound barrier within range of the 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.9-43

3.9 Birds

Tortugas, and much of the excess vegetation was cleared (another hypothesized contributing factor to 

the nesting failure). Similar nesting failures have not been reported since the 1969 failure.

3.9.3.1.1.6 Long Term Consequences

Long term consequences to birds due to acoustic exposures are considered following the Conceptual 

Framework for Assessing Effects from Acoustic and Explosive Activities (see Section 3.0.3.6.1).

Long-term consequences due to individual behavioral reactions and short-term instances of 

physiological stress are especially difficult to predict because individual experience over time can create 

complex contingencies. It is more likely that any long-term consequences to an individual would be a 

result of costs accumulated over a season, year, or life stage due to multiple behavioral or stress 

responses resulting from exposures to multiple stressors over significant periods of time. Conversely, 

some birds may habituate to or become tolerant of repeated acoustic exposures over time, learning to 

ignore a stimulus that in the past did not accompany any overt threat. Most research on long-term 

consequences to birds due to acoustic exposures has focused on breeding colonies or shore habitats, 

and do not address the brief exposures that may be encountered during migration or foraging at sea. 

More research is needed to better understand the long-term consequences of human-made noise on 

birds, although intermittent exposures are assumed to be less likely to have lasting consequences.

3.9.3.1.2 Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers

Sonar and other transducers emit sound waves into the water to detect objects, safely navigate, and 

communicate. Use of sonar and other transducers would typically be transient and temporary. General 

categories of sonar systems are described in Section 3.0.3.3.1 (Acoustic Stressors).

Information regarding the impacts of sonar on birds is unavailable, and little is known about the ability 

for birds to hear underwater. The limited information (Johansen et al., 2016) and data from other 

species suggest the range of best hearing may shift to lower frequencies in water (Dooling & Therrien, 

2012; Therrien, 2014) (see Section 3.9.2.1.4, Hearing and Vocalization). Because few birds can hear 

above 10 kHz in air, it is likely that the only sonar sources they may be able to detect are low and midfrequency sources.

Other than pursuit diving species, the exposure to birds by these sounds is likely to be negligible because 

they spend only a very short time underwater (plunge-diving or surface-dipping) or forage only at the 

water surface. Pursuit divers may remain underwater for minutes, increasing the chance of underwater 

sound exposure.

In addition to diving behavior, the likelihood of a bird being exposed to underwater sound depends on 

factors such as duty cycle (defined as the percentage of the time during which a sound is generated over 

a total operational period), whether the source is moving or stationary, and other activities that might 

be occurring in the area. When used, continuously active sonars transmit more frequently (greater than 

80% duty cycle) than traditional sonars, but at a substantially lower source level. However, it should be 

noted that active sonar is rarely used continuously throughout the listed activities, and many sources 

are mobile. For moving sources such as hull-mounted sonar, the likelihood of an individual bird being 

repeatedly exposed to an intense sound source over a short period of time is low because the training 

activities are transient and sonar use and bird diving are intermittent. The potential for birds to be 

exposed to intense sound associated with stationary sonar sources would likely be limited for some 

training and testing activities because other activities occurring in conjunction may cause them to leave 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.9-44

3.9 Birds

the immediate area. For example, birds would likely react to helicopter noise during dipping sonar 

exercises by flushing from the immediate area. 

Injury due to acoustic resonance of air space in the lungs due to sonar and other transducers is unlikely 

in birds. Unlike mammals, birds have compact, rigid lungs with strong pulmonary capillaries that do not 

change much in diameter when exposed to extreme pressure changes (Baerwald et al., 2008), leading to 

resonant frequencies lower than the frequencies used for Navy sources. 

A physiological impact, such as hearing loss, would likely only occur if a seabird were close to an intense 

sound source. An underwater sound exposure would have to be intense and of a sufficient duration to 

cause hearing loss. Avoiding the sound by returning to the surface would limit extended or multiple 

sound exposures underwater. Additionally, some diving birds may avoid interactions with large moving 

vessels upon which the most powerful sonars are operated (Schwemmer et al., 2011). In general, birds 

are less susceptible to both temporary and permanent threshold shift than mammals (Saunders & 

Dooling, 1974). Diving birds have adaptations to protect the middle ear and tympanum from pressure 

changes during diving that may affect hearing (Dooling & Therrien, 2012). While some adaptions may 

exist to aid in underwater hearing, other adaptations to protect in-air hearing may limit aspects of 

underwater hearing (Hetherington, 2008). Because of these reasons, the likelihood of a diving bird 

experiencing an underwater exposure to sonar or other transducer that could result in an impact to 

hearing is considered low.

Because diving birds may rely more on vision for foraging and there is no evidence that diving birds rely 

on underwater acoustic communication for foraging (see Section 3.9.2.1.4, Hearing and Vocalization), 

the masking of important acoustic signals underwater by sonar or other transducers is unlikely.

There have been no studies documenting diving seabirds’ reactions to sonar. However, given the 

information and adaptations discussed above, diving seabirds are not expected to detect high frequency 

sources underwater and are only expected to detect mid- and low-frequency sources when in close 

proximity. A diving bird may not respond to an underwater source, or it may respond by altering its dive 

behavior, perhaps by reducing or ceasing a foraging bout. It is expected that any behavioral interruption 

would be temporary as the source or the bird changes location.

Some birds commonly follow vessels, including certain species of gulls, storm petrels, and albatrosses, as 

there is increased potential of foraging success as the prop wake brings prey to the surface (Hamilton, 

1958; Hyrenbach, 2001; Hyrenbach, 2006; Melvin et al., 2001). Birds that approach vessels while 

foraging are the most likely to be exposed to underwater active acoustic sources, but only if the ship is 

engaged in anti-submarine warfare or mine warfare with active acoustic sources. However, 

hull-mounted sonar does not project sound aft of ships (behind the ship, opposite the direction of 

travel), so most birds diving in ship wakes would not be exposed to sonar. In addition, based on what is 

known about bird hearing capabilities in air, it is expected that diving birds may have limited or no ability 

to perceive high-frequency sounds, so they would likely not be impacted by high-frequency sources such 

as those used in mine warfare.

3.9.3.1.2.1 Impacts for Sonar and Other Transducers Under Alternative 1

Impacts for Sonar and Other Transducers Under Alternative 1 for Training Activities

General categories and characteristics of sonar systems and the number of hours these sonars would be 

operated during training under Alternative 1 are described in Section 3.0.3.3.1 (Acoustic Stressors). 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.9-45

3.9 Birds

Activities using sonars and other transducers would be conducted as described in Chapter 2 (Description 

of Proposed Action and Alternatives) and Appendix A (Navy Activity Descriptions). 

Under Alternative 1, the number of Major Training Exercises, Integrated/Coordinated Training activities, 

Civilian Port Defense activities, and Sinking Exercises would fluctuate annually. In addition, a portion of 

Anti-Submarine Warfare Tracking Exercise-Ship unit-level training activities would be conducted using 

synthetic means (e.g., simulators) or in conjunction with other training exercises.

Sonar and other transducers would not be regularly used in nearshore areas that could be used by 

foraging shorebirds, except during maintenance and for navigation in areas around ports. The Pacific 

Current runs through the Southern California Range Complex portion of the Study Area, and is an area of 

increased productivity that attracts foraging birds. Therefore, birds that forage in these open ocean 

areas would have a greater chance of underwater sound exposure than birds that forage in coastal 

areas. 

The possibility of an ESA-listed bird species being exposed to sonar and other active acoustic sources 

depends on whether it submerges during foraging and whether it forages in areas where these sound 

sources may be used. Hawaiian petrels and short-tailed albatrosses do not submerge while foraging; 

therefore, it is unlikely they would be exposed to underwater sound from sonar and other active 

acoustic sources. Least terns, marbled murrelet, and Newell’s shearwater may briefly submerge while 

foraging, either during plunge-diving (terns) or pursuit diving (murrelet and shearwater), so there is a 

chance that these species could be exposed to underwater sound from sonar and other transducers. 

However, their plunge dives are brief, so any chance of exposure would be inconsequential. Most other 

sonar use occurs farther offshore, however, so the chance for an exposure would be low. Because 

impacts to individual birds, if any, are expected to be minor and limited, no long-term consequences to 

individuals are expected. Accordingly, there would be no consequences to any bird populations, and 

sonar and other transducers will not have a significant adverse effect on populations of migratory 

bird species.

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of sonar and other transducers during training activities as described under 

Alternative 1 will have no effect on Hawaiian petrels or short-tailed albatrosses. The use of sonar and 

other transducers during training activities described under Alternative 1 may affect least terns, marbled 

murrelet, and Newell’s shearwater. The Navy will consult with the USFWS as required by section 7(a)(2) 

of the ESA in that regard.

Impacts for Sonar and Other Transducers Under Alternative 1 for Testing Activities

General categories and characteristics of sonar systems and the number of hours these sonars would be 

operated during testing under Alternative 1 are described in Section 3.0.3.3.1 (Acoustic Stressors). 

Activities using sonars and other transducers would be conducted as described in Chapter 2 (Description 

of Proposed Action and Alternatives) and Appendix A (Navy Activity Descriptions). Under Alternative 1, 

the number of testing activities would fluctuate annually. 

The Pacific Current runs through the Southern California Range Complex portion of the Study Area, and 

is an area of increased productivity that attracts foraging birds. Therefore, birds that forage in these 

open ocean areas would have a greater chance of underwater sound exposure than birds that forage in 

coastal areas. 

The possibility of an ESA-listed bird species being exposed to sonar and other active acoustic sources 

depends on whether it submerges during foraging and whether it forages in areas where these sound 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.9-46

3.9 Birds

sources may be used. Hawaiian petrels and short-tailed albatrosses do not submerge while foraging; 

therefore, it is unlikely they would be exposed to underwater sound from sonar and other active 

acoustic sources. Least terns, marbled murrelet, and Newell’s shearwater may briefly submerge while 

foraging, either during plunge-diving (terns) or pursuit diving (murrelet and shearwater), so there is a 

chance that these species could be exposed to underwater sound from sonar and other transducers. 

However, their plunge dives are brief, so any chance of exposure would be inconsequential. Most other 

sonar use occurs farther offshore so the chance for an exposure would be low. Because impacts to 

individual birds, if any, are expected to be minor and limited, no long-term consequences to individuals 

are expected. Accordingly, there would be no consequences to any bird populations, and sonar and 

other transducers will not have a significant adverse effect on populations of migratory bird species.

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of sonar and other transducers during testing activities as described under 

Alternative 1 will have no effect on Hawaiian petrels or short-tailed albatrosses. The use of sonar and 

other transducers during testing activities described under Alternative 1 may affect least terns, marbled 

murrelet, and Newell’s shearwater. The Navy will consult with the USFWS as required by section 7(a)(2) 

of the ESA in that regard.

3.9.3.1.2.2 Impacts for Sonar and Other Transducers Under Alternative 2

Impacts for Sonar and Other Transducers Under Alternative 2 for Training Activities

General categories and characteristics of sonar systems and the number of hours these sonars would be 

operated during training under Alternative 2 are described in Section 3.0.3.3.1 (Acoustic Stressors).

Activities using sonars and other transducers would be conducted as described in Chapter 2 (Description 

of Proposed Action and Alternatives) and Appendix A (Navy Activity Descriptions). 

Under Alternative 2, the maximum number of training activities could occur every year, except the 

number of some Major Training Exercises and Integrated/Coordinated Training activities would fluctuate 

annually. In addition, all unit level Anti-Submarine Warfare Tracking Exercise-Ship activities would be 

completed through individual events conducted at sea, rather than through leveraging other antisubmarine warfare training exercises or the use of synthetic means (e.g., simulators). This would result 

in an increase of sonar use compared to Alternative 1.

Sonar and other transducers would not be regularly used in nearshore areas that could be used by 

foraging shorebirds, except during maintenance and for navigation in areas around ports. The Pacific 

Current runs through the Southern California Range Complex portion of the Study Area, and is an area of 

increased productivity that attracts foraging birds. Therefore, birds that forage in these open ocean 

areas would have a greater chance of underwater sound exposure than birds that forage in 

coastal areas. 

The possibility of an ESA-listed bird species being exposed to sonar and other active acoustic sources 

depends on whether it submerges during foraging and whether it forages in areas where these sound 

sources may be used. Hawaiian petrels and short-tailed albatrosses do not submerge while foraging; 

therefore, it is not likely they would be exposed to underwater sound from sonar and other active 

acoustic sources. Least terns, marbled murrelet, and Newell’s shearwater may briefly submerge while 

foraging, either during plunge-diving (terns) or pursuit diving (murrelet and shearwater), so there is a 

chance that these species could be exposed to underwater sound from sonar and other transducers. 

However, their plunge dives are brief, so any chance of exposure would be inconsequential. Most other 

sonar use occurs farther offshore so the chance for an exposure would be low. Because impacts to 

individual birds, if any, are expected to be minor and limited, no long-term consequences to individuals 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.9-47

3.9 Birds

are expected. Accordingly, there would be no consequences to any bird populations, and sonar and 

other transducers will not have a significant adverse effect on populations of migratory bird species.

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of sonar and other transducers during training activities as described under 

Alternative 2 will have no effect on Hawaiian petrels or short-tailed albatrosses. The use of sonar and 

other transducers during training activities described under Alternative 2 may affect least terns, marbled 

murrelet, and Newell’s shearwater. The Navy will consult with the USFWS as required by section 7(a)(2) 

of the ESA in that regard.

Impacts for Sonar and Other Transducers Under Alternative 2 for Testing Activities

General categories and characteristics of sonar systems and the number of hours these sonars would be 

operated during training under Alternative 2 are described in Section 3.0.3.3.1 (Acoustic Stressors). 

Activities using sonars and other transducers would be conducted as described in Chapter 2 (Description 

of Proposed Action and Alternatives) and Appendix A (Navy Activity Descriptions).

Under Alternative 2, the maximum number of nearly all testing activities would occur every year. This 

would result in an increase of sonar use compared to Alternative 1.

The Pacific Current runs through the Southern California Range Complex portion of the Study Area, and 

is an area of increased productivity that attracts foraging birds. Therefore, birds that forage in these 

open ocean areas would have a greater chance of underwater sound exposure than birds that forage in 

coastal areas. 

The possibility of an ESA-listed bird species being exposed to sonar and other active acoustic sources 

depends on whether it submerges during foraging and whether it forages in areas where these sound 

sources may be used. Hawaiian petrels and short-tailed albatrosses do not submerge while foraging; 

therefore, it is unlikely they would be exposed to underwater sound from sonar and other active 

acoustic sources. Least terns, marbled murrelet, and Newell’s shearwater may briefly submerge while 

foraging, either during plunge-diving (terns) or pursuit diving (murrelet and shearwater), so there is a 

chance that these species could be exposed to underwater sound from sonar and other transducers. 

However, their plunge dives are brief, so any chance of exposure would be inconsequential. Most other 

sonar use occurs farther offshore so the chance for an exposure would be low. Because impacts to 

individual birds, if any, are expected to be minor and limited, no long-term consequences to individuals 

are expected. Accordingly, there would be no consequences to any bird populations, and sonar and 

other transducers will not have a significant adverse effect on populations of migratory bird species.

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of sonar and other transducers during testing activities as described under 

Alternative 2 will have no effect on Hawaiian petrels or short-tailed albatrosses. The use of sonar and 

other transducers during testing activities described under Alternative 2 may affect least terns, marbled 

murrelet, and Newell’s shearwater. The Navy will consult with the USFWS as required by section 7(a)(2) 

of the ESA in that regard.

3.9.3.1.2.3 Impacts for Sonar and Other Transducers Under No Action Alternative

Impacts for Sonar and Other Transducers Under No Action Alternative for Training and Testing

Under the No Action Alternative, the Navy would not conduct the training and testing activities in the 

HSTT Study Area. Various acoustic stressors (e.g., sonar and other transducers) would not be introduced 

into the marine environment. Therefore, baseline conditions of the existing environment would either 

remain unchanged or would improve slightly after cessation of ongoing training and testing activities.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.9-48

3.9 Birds

3.9.3.1.3 Impacts from Air Guns

Air guns can introduce brief impulsive, broadband sounds into the marine environment. 

Section 3.0.3.3.1.2 (Air Guns) provides additional details on the use and acoustic characteristics of the 

small underwater air guns used during Navy activities. 

Impulses from air guns lack the strong shock wave and rapid pressure increases of explosions that can 

cause primary blast injury or barotraumas. Underwater impulses would be generated using small 

(approximately 60 cubic in.) air guns, which are essentially stainless steel tubes charged with highpressure air via a compressor. An impulsive sound is generated when the air is almost instantaneously 

released into the surrounding water, an effect similar to popping a balloon in air. Generated impulses 

would have short durations, typically a few hundred milliseconds. 

The exposure to these sounds by birds, other than pursuit diving species, would be negligible because 

they spend only a very short time underwater (plunge-diving or surface-dipping) or forage only at the 

water surface. Pursuit divers may remain underwater for minutes, increasing the chance of underwater 

sound exposure. However, the short duration of an air gun pulse and its relatively low source level 

means that a bird would have to be very close to a small air gun used in Navy activities at the moment of 

discharge to be exposed. In addition, air guns may be fired at greater depths than birds conduct their 

foraging dives. Because of these reasons, the likelihood of a diving bird experiencing an underwater 

exposure to an air gun that could result in an impact to hearing is negligible.

Because diving birds may rely more on vision for foraging, there is no evidence that diving birds rely on 

underwater acoustic communication for foraging (see Section 3.9.2.1.4, Hearing and Vocalization), and 

the signal from an air gun is very brief, the masking of important acoustic signals underwater by an air 

gun is unlikely.

The limited data on behavioral reactions to underwater impulsive noise suggest that birds are unlikely to 

exhibit any notable behavioral reaction toward a small air gun (see Section 3.9.3.1.1.5, 

Behavioral Reactions).

3.9.3.1.3.1 Impacts for Air Guns Under Alternative 1

Impacts for Air Guns Under Alternative 1 for Training Activities

Training activities under Alternative 1 do not use air guns.

Impacts for Air Guns Under Alternative 1 for Testing Activities

Characteristics of air guns and the number of times they would be operated during testing under 

Alternative 1 are described in Section 3.0.3.3.1 (Acoustic Stressors). Activities using air guns would be 

conducted as described in Chapter 2 (Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives) and Appendix A 

(Navy Activity Descriptions).

Under Alternative 1, small air guns (12 - 60 cubic inches) would typically be fired at off-shore locations in 

the Hawaii and Southern California Range Complexes. 

The possibility of an ESA-listed seabird species being exposed to sounds from an air gun depends on 

whether it submerges during foraging and whether it forages in areas where this sound source may be 

used. Hawaiian petrels and short-tailed albatrosses do not submerge while foraging; therefore, it is 

unlikely they would be exposed to underwater sound from air guns. Least terns, marbled murrelets, and 

Newell’s shearwater may briefly submerge while foraging, either during plunge-diving (terns) or pursuit 

diving (murrelet and shearwater). The remote possibility of exposure to a brief air gun signal exists, but 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.9-49

3.9 Birds

only for pursuit divers that may be underwater long enough to be exposed. As discussed above, impacts 

to individual birds, if any, are expected to be minor and limited. No long-term consequences to 

individuals are expected. Accordingly, there would be no consequences to any bird populations, and air 

guns will not have a significant adverse effect on populations of migratory bird species.

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of air guns during testing activities as described under Alternative 1 will 

have no effect on Hawaiian petrels, short-tailed albatrosses or least terns. The use of air guns during 

testing activities described under Alternative 1 may affect marbled murrelet and Newell’s shearwater. 

The Navy will consult with the USFWS as required by section 7(a)(2) of the ESA in that regard.

3.9.3.1.3.2 Impacts for Air Guns Under Alternative 2

Impacts for Air Guns Under Alternative 2 for Training Activities

Training activities under Alternative 2 do not use air guns.

Impacts for Air Guns Under Alternative 2 for Testing Activities

Air gun testing activities planned under Alternative 2 are identical to those planned under Alternative 1; 

therefore, the estimated impacts would be identical. Because impacts to individual birds, if any, are 

expected to be minor and limited, no long-term consequences to individuals are expected. Accordingly, 

there would be no consequences to any bird populations, and air guns will not have a significant adverse 

effect on populations of migratory bird species.

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of air guns during testing activities as described under Alternative 2 will 

have no effect on Hawaiian petrels, short-tailed albatrosses or least terns. The use of air guns during 

testing activities described under Alternative 2 may affect marbled murrelet and Newell’s shearwater. 

The Navy will consult with the USFWS as required by section 7(a)(2) of the ESA in that regard.

3.9.3.1.3.3 Impacts for Air Guns Under No Action Alternative

Impacts for Air Guns Under No Action Alternative for Training and Testing

Under the No Action Alternative, the Navy would not conduct the training and testing activities in the 

HSTT Study Area. Various acoustic stressors (e.g., air guns) would not be introduced into the marine 

environment. Therefore, baseline conditions of the existing environment would either remain 

unchanged or would improve slightly after cessation of ongoing training and testing activities.

3.9.3.1.4 Impacts from Pile Driving

Impact pile driving and vibratory pile extraction would occur during construction of an Elevated 

Causeway System, a temporary pier that allows the offloading of ships in areas without a permanent 

port. Installation of piles would involve the use of an impact hammer mechanism and pile extraction 

would involve using the vibratory mechanism. These activities would occur over multiple days, although 

noise generated by the actual pile driving and extraction would only occur over a portion of any given 

day (generally an hour or less in total). Section 3.0.3.3.1.3 (Pile Driving) provides additional details on 

pile driving activities and the noise levels measured from a prior elevated causeway installation 

and removal.

Noise from the installation and removal of piles has a potential to affect animals in the vicinity of the 

training event. Impact pile driving creates repetitive impulsive sound. An impact pile driver generally 

operates in the range of 36–50 blows per minute. Vibratory pile extraction creates a nearly continuous 

sound made up of a series of short duration rapid impulses at a much lower source level than impact 

pile driving. The sounds are emitted both in the air and in the water in nearshore areas where some 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.9-50

3.9 Birds

birds forage. It is expected that most birds would exhibit an annoyance reaction and avoid the pile 

driving location. However, if prey species, such as fish, are killed or injured as a result of pile driving, 

some birds may continue to forage close to the construction area, or may be attracted to the area, and 

be exposed to associated noise. Behavioral responses and displacement from the area are expected to 

be temporary for the duration of the pile driving and extraction activities.

Impulses from the impact hammer are broadband and carry most of their energy in the lower 

frequencies. The underwater SPLs produced by impact pile driving during Navy activities are below the 

conservatively estimated injury thresholds recommended for other small animals with similar sized air 

cavities (sea turtles and fish; see Popper et al. (2014)). Therefore, the risk of barotrauma to any diving 

birds is negligible. Impulses from the impact hammer attenuate more quickly in air than in water and 

birds are likely to avoid the area during impact driving. Therefore, the risk of barotrauma to birds in air

or at the water surface is negligible.

Pursuit divers may remain underwater for minutes, increasing the chance of underwater sound 

exposure. However, the short duration of driving or extracting a single pile would limit the likelihood of 

exposure, especially since a bird that is disturbed by pile driving while underwater may respond by 

swimming to the surface. Although it is not known what duration or intensity of underwater sound 

exposure would put a bird at risk of hearing loss, birds are less susceptible to both temporary and 

permanent threshold shift than mammals (Saunders & Dooling, 1974). Diving birds have adaptations to 

protect the middle ear and tympanum from pressure changes during diving that may affect hearing 

(Dooling & Therrien, 2012). While some adaptions may exist to aid in underwater hearing, other 

adaptations to protect in-air hearing may limit aspects of underwater hearing (Hetherington, 2008). 

Because of these reasons, the likelihood of a diving bird experiencing an underwater exposure to impact 

pile driving that could affect hearing is considered low. Vibratory pile extraction sound levels are low 

and are not considered to pose a risk to bird hearing in air or in water.

Because diving birds may rely more on vision for foraging, there is no evidence that diving birds rely on 

underwater acoustic communication for foraging (see Section 3.9.2.1.4, Hearing and Vocalization), and 

individual pile driving and extraction occurs only over a few minutes, the masking of important acoustic 

signals underwater by pile driving is unlikely. The potential for masking of calls in air would also likely be 

limited because of the limited duration of individual pile driving and extraction and the likelihood that 

birds would avoid the area around pile driving activities.

Responses by birds to noise from pile driving would be limited to short-term behavioral or physiological 

responses (e.g., alert response, startle response, and temporary increase in heart rate). Startle or alert 

reactions are not likely to disrupt major behavior patterns, such as migrating, breeding, feeding, and 

sheltering, or to result in serious injury to any birds. Some birds may be attracted to the area to forage 

on prey species killed or injured as a result of pile driving and be exposed to noise from pile driving 

temporarily. Birds may be temporarily displaced and there may be temporary increases in stress levels; 

however, behavior and use of habitat would return shortly after the training is complete.

3.9.3.1.4.1 Impacts for Pile Driving Under Alternative 1

Impacts for Pile Driving Under Alternative 1 for Training Activities

Characteristics of pile driving and the number of times pile driving for the elevated causeway system 

would occur during training under Alternative 1 are described in Section 3.0.3.3.1 (Acoustic Stressors). 

Activities with pile driving would be conducted as described in Chapter 2 (Description of Proposed 

Action and Alternatives) and Appendix A (Navy Activity Descriptions). This activity would take place 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.9-51

3.9 Birds

nearshore and within the surf zone, up to two times per year at either Silver Strand Training Complex in 

San Diego, California, or Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton, California.

The impact of noise produced by pile driving and extraction would be short-term and localized. Birds in 

the close vicinity are expected to most likely respond by increasing distance from pile driving and 

extraction activities, or not respond at all to extraction activities. As discussed above, impacts to 

individual birds, if any, are expected to be minor and limited. No long-term consequences to individuals 

are expected. Accordingly, there would be no consequences to any bird populations, and pile driving will 

not have a significant adverse effect on populations of migratory bird species.

One ESA-listed seabird is known to be present in areas where pile driving and extraction could occur. 

California least terns could be exposed to intermittent pile driving noise during the approximate two 

week period of each elevated causeway event. However, during the elevated causeway activity, any 

impact based on displacement from the activity area would be minimized due to the availability of 

suitable foraging habitat in adjacent boat training lanes at the Silver Strand Training Center portion of 

the Southern California Range Complex. Further, an exposure resulting in a short-term behavioral 

response would only be expected if the seabirds did not leave the area prior to the start of the elevated 

causeway activity. Repeated exposure of individual seabirds is unlikely based on the seabird’s capability 

to avoid or rapidly vacate an area of disturbance and availability of non-impacted foraging habitats. 

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of pile driving during training activities described under Alternative 1 will 

have no effect on Hawaiian petrels, short-tailed albatrosses, marbled murrelet, or Newell’s shearwater. 

The use of pile driving during training activities described under Alternative 1 may affect least terns. The 

Navy will consult with the USFWS as required by section 7(a)(2) of the ESA in that regard.

Impacts for Pile Driving Under Alternative 1 for Testing Activities

Testing activities under Alternative 1 do not include pile driving.

3.9.3.1.4.2 Impacts for Pile Driving Under Alternative 2

Impacts for Pile Driving Under Alternative 2 for Training Activities

Pile driving training activities planned under Alternative 2 are identical to those planned under 

Alternative 1; therefore, the estimated impacts would be identical. Because impacts to individual birds, 

if any, are expected to be minor and limited, no long-term consequences to individuals are expected. 

Accordingly, there would be no consequences to any bird populations, and pile driving will not have a 

significant adverse effect on populations of migratory bird species

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of pile driving during training activities described under Alternative 2 will 

have no effect on Hawaiian petrels, short-tailed albatrosses, marbled murrelet, or Newell’s shearwater. 

The use of pile driving during training activities described under Alternative 1 may affect least terns. The 

Navy will consult with the USFWS as required by section 7(a)(2) of the ESA in that regard.

Impacts for Pile Driving Under Alternative 2 for Testing Activities

Testing activities under Alternative 2 do not include pile driving.

3.9.3.1.4.3 Impacts for Pile Driving Under No Action Alternative

Impacts for Pile Driving Under No Action Alternative for Training and Testing

Under the No Action Alternative, the Navy would not conduct the training and testing activities in the 

HSTT Study Area. Various acoustic stressors (e.g., pile driving) would not be introduced into the marine 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.9-52

3.9 Birds

environment. Therefore, baseline conditions of the existing environment would either remain 

unchanged or would improve slightly after cessation of ongoing training and testing activities.

3.9.3.1.5 Impacts from Vessel Noise

The training and testing proposed in the Study Area involve maneuvers by various types of surface ships, 

boats, submarines, and unmanned vehicles (collectively referred to as vessels) (see Section 3.0.3.3.1.4, 

Vessel Noise). Birds could be exposed to both in air and underwater noise from vessels throughout the 

Study Area, but few exposures would occur based on the infrequency of operations and the low density 

of vessels within the Study Area at any given time. Potential for exposure to vessel noise due to Navy 

activities would be greatest near Navy ports. 

Birds respond to vessels in various ways. Some birds are commonly attracted to and follow vessels 

including certain species of gulls, storm-petrels, and albatrosses (Hamilton, 1958; Hyrenbach, 2001; 

Hyrenbach, 2006), while other species such as frigatebirds, sooty terns, and a variety of diving birds 

seem to avoid vessels (Borberg et al., 2005; Hyrenbach, 2006; Schwemmer et al., 2011). Vessel noise 

could elicit short-term behavioral or physiological responses but are not likely to disrupt major behavior 

patterns, such as migrating, breeding, feeding, and sheltering, or to result in serious injury to any birds. 

Harmful bird/vessel interactions are commonly associated with commercial fishing vessels because birds 

are attracted to concentrated food sources around these vessels (Dietrich & Melvin, 2004; Melvin & 

Parrish, 2001b). The concentrated food sources (catch and by-catch) that attract birds to commercial 

fishing vessels are not present around Navy vessels.

Although loud sudden noises can startle and flush birds, Navy vessels are not expected to result in major 

acoustic disturbance of birds in the Study Area. The continuous noise from Navy vessels has the 

potential to cause masking for birds, both in air and underwater. Due to the transient nature of Navy 

vessels, this masking is expected to be temporary. Birds near ports may experience increased masking 

and become habituated to this noise or attempt to compensate for the masking. Noises from Navy 

vessels are similar to or less than those of the general maritime environment. Birds may respond to the 

physical presence of a vessel, regardless of the associated noise (See section 3.9.3.4.1, Impacts from 

Vessels and In-water Devices). 

3.9.3.1.5.1 Impacts for Vessel Noise Under Alternative 1

Impacts for Vessel Noise Under Alternative 1 for Training Activities

Characteristics of vessel noise that would occur during training under Alternative 1 are described in 

Section 3.0.3.3.1 (Acoustic Stressors). Activities with vessel noise would be conducted as described in 

Chapter 2 (Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives) and Appendix A (Navy Activity 

Descriptions). Navy vessel traffic could occur anywhere within the Study Area, but would be 

concentrated near Navy ports such as San Diego and Pearl Harbor, and the HSTT Transit Lane, which are 

heavily trafficked by private and commercial vessels, in addition to naval vessels. Navy vessel noise 

would continue to be a minor contributor to overall radiated vessel noise in the exclusive economic 

zone. A study of Navy vessel traffic found that traffic was heaviest in the easternmost part of Southern 

California Range Complex and in the area surrounding Honolulu (Mintz, 2012). 

A bird in the open ocean could be exposed to vessel noise as the vessel passes. Birds foraging or 

migrating through a training area in the open ocean may respond by avoiding areas of temporarily 

concentrated vessel noise. Exposures to most seabirds would be infrequent, based on the brief duration 

and dispersed nature of the vessels. 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.9-53

3.9 Birds

If a bird responds to vessel noise, only short-term behavioral responses such as startle responses, head 

turning, or avoidance responses would be expected. Repeated exposures would be limited due to the 

transient nature of vessel use and regular movement of birds. Because impacts to individual birds, if any, 

are expected to be minor and limited, no long-term consequences to individuals are expected. 

Accordingly, there would be no consequences to any bird populations, and vessel noise will not have a 

significant adverse effect on populations of migratory bird species.

Hawaiian petrels, short-tailed albatrosses, least terns, marbled murrelets and Newell’s shearwaters 

could be exposed to intermittent vessel noise along the coast. If present in the open water areas where 

training activities involving vessel noise occur, Hawaiian petrels, short-tailed albatrosses, marbled 

murrelets and Newell’s shearwaters could be temporarily disturbed while foraging or migrating. 

Pursuant to the ESA, vessel noise during training activities as described under Alternative 1 may affect 

Hawaiian petrels, short-tailed albatrosses, least terns, marbled murrelets, and Newell’s shearwaters. 

The Navy will consult with the USFWS as required by section 7(a)(2) of the ESA in that regard.

Impacts for Vessel Noise Under Alternative 1 for Testing Activities

Characteristics of Navy vessel noise are described in Section 3.0.3.3.1 (Acoustic Stressors). Activities with 

vessel noise would be conducted as described in Chapter 2 (Description of Proposed Action and 

Alternatives) and Appendix A (Navy Activity Descriptions). Testing activities within the Study Area 

typically consist of a single vessel involved in unit-level activity for a few hours, one or two small boats 

conducting testing, or during a larger training event. Navy vessel traffic could occur anywhere within the 

Study Area, but would be concentrated near Navy ports such as San Diego and Pearl Harbor, which are 

heavily trafficked by private and commercial vessels, in addition to naval vessels. Navy vessel noise 

would continue to be a minor contributor to overall radiated vessel noise in the exclusive economic 

zone. A study of Navy vessel traffic found that traffic was heaviest in the easternmost part of Southern 

California Range Complex and in the area surrounding Honolulu (Mintz, 2012). 

A bird in the open ocean could be exposed to vessel noise as the vessel passes. Birds foraging or 

migrating through a testing area in the open ocean may respond by avoiding areas of temporarily 

concentrated vessel noise. Exposures to most birds would be infrequent, based on the brief duration 

and dispersed nature of the vessels. If a bird responds to vessel noise, only short-term behavioral 

responses such as startle responses, head turning, or avoidance responses would be expected. Repeated 

exposures would be limited due to the transient nature of vessel use and regular movement of birds. 

Because impacts to individual birds, if any, are expected to be minor and limited, no long-term 

consequences to individuals are expected. Accordingly, there would be no consequences to any bird 

populations, and vessel noise will not have a significant adverse effect on populations of migratory 

bird species.

Hawaiian petrels, short-tailed albatrosses, least terns, marbled murrelets and Newell’s shearwaters 

could be exposed to intermittent vessel noise along the coast. If present in the open water areas where 

training activities involving vessel noise occur, Hawaiian petrels, short-tailed albatrosses, marbled 

murrelets and Newell’s shearwaters could be temporarily disturbed while foraging or migrating. 

Pursuant to the ESA, vessel noise during training activities as described under Alternative 1 may affect 

Hawaiian petrels, short-tailed albatrosses, least terns, marbled murrelets, and Newell’s shearwaters. 

The Navy will consult with the USFWS as required by section 7(a)(2) of the ESA in that regard.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.9-54

3.9 Birds

3.9.3.1.5.2 Impacts for Vessel Noise Under Alternative 2

Impacts for Vessel Noise Under Alternative 2 for Training Activities

While there would be an increase in the amount of at-sea vessel time during training under Alternative 

2, the general locations and types of effects due to vessel noise would be the same as described in 

Alternative 1. Therefore, the general locations and types of effects due to vessel noise described above 

for testing under Alternative 1 would be the same under Alternative 2. Navy vessel noise would 

continue to be a minor contributor to overall radiated vessel noise in the exclusive economic zone.

Pursuant to the ESA, vessel noise during training activities as described under Alternative 2 may affect 

Hawaiian petrels, short-tailed albatrosses, least terns, marbled murrelets, and Newell’s shearwaters. 

The Navy will consult with the USFWS as required by section 7(a)(2) of the ESA in that regard.

Impacts for Vessel Noise Under Alternative 2 for Testing Activities

The difference in vessel noise contributed by testing activities under Alternative 2 compared to 

Alternative 1 is so small as to not be discernable. Therefore, the general locations and types of effects 

due to vessel noise described above for testing under Alternative 1 would be the same under Alternative 

2. Navy vessel noise would continue to be a minor contributor to overall radiated vessel noise in the 

exclusive economic zone.

Pursuant to the ESA, vessel noise during testing activities as described under Alternative 2 may affect 

Hawaiian petrels, short-tailed albatrosses, least terns, marbled murrelets, and Newell’s shearwaters. 

The Navy will consult with the USFWS as required by section 7(a)(2) of the ESA in that regard.

3.9.3.1.5.3 Impacts for Vessel Noise Under No Action Alternative

Impacts for Vessel Noise Under No Action Alternative for Training and Testing

Under the No Action Alternative, the Navy would not conduct the training and testing activities in the 

HSTT Study Area. Various acoustic stressors (e.g., vessel noise) would not be introduced into the marine 

environment. Therefore, baseline conditions of the existing environment would either remain 

unchanged or would improve slightly after cessation of ongoing training and testing activities.

3.9.3.1.6 Impacts from Aircraft Noise

Birds could be exposed to airborne noise associated with subsonic and supersonic fixed-wing aircraft 

overflights and helicopter operations while foraging or migrating in open water, near-shore, or coastal 

environments within the Study Area. A description of aircraft noise produced during Navy activities is 

provided in Section 3.0.3.3.1.5 (Aircraft Noise).

Exposure to fixed-wing aircraft noise would be brief (seconds) as an aircraft quickly passes overhead. 

Exposures would be infrequent based on the transitory and dispersed nature of the overflights; 

repeated exposure of individual birds over a short period of time (hours or days) is unlikely. Birds 

repeatedly exposed to aircraft noise, often become habituated to the noise and do not respond 

behaviorally (Larkin et al., 1996; National Parks Service, 1994; Plumpton, 2006). However, habituation 

seems unlikely in the Study Area given the widely dispersed nature of the operations and the relative 

infrequency of the operations.

Common behavioral responses to aircraft noise include no response or stationary alert behavior 

(Johnson & Reynolds, 2002), startle response, flying away, and increased vocalizations (Bowles, 1995; 

Larkin et al., 1996; National Parks Service, 1994). In some instances, behavioral responses could 

interfere with breeding, raising young, foraging, habitat use, and physiological energy budgets, 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.9-55

3.9 Birds

particularly when an animal continues to respond to repeated exposures. The potential for masking of 

calls in air is possible if a bird remains in the area; however, due to the transitory nature of aircraft 

overflights, the duration of masking would be limited. 

Some air combat maneuver training would involve high altitude, supersonic flight, which would produce 

sonic booms, but such airspeeds would be infrequent and are typically conducted at high altitudes and 

far from shore, limiting the areas where birds could be exposed. Boom duration is generally less than 

300 milliseconds. Sonic booms would cause seabirds to startle, but the exposure would be brief, and any 

reactions are expected to be short-term. Startle impacts range from altering behavior (e.g., stop feeding 

or preening), minor behavioral changes (e.g., head turning), or at worst, a flight response. Because most 

fixed-wing flights are not supersonic and both birds and aircraft are transient in any area, exposure of 

birds in the open ocean to sonic booms would be infrequent. It is unlikely that individual birds would be 

repeatedly exposed to sonic booms in the open ocean.

Helicopters typically operate below 1,000 ft. (304.8 m) altitude and often occur as low as 75–100 ft. 

(22.9–30.5 m) altitude. This low altitude increases the likelihood that birds would respond to noise from 

helicopter overflights with reactions such as flushing (Stalmaster & Kaiser, 1997), although a large 

portion of birds may exhibit no reaction to nearby helicopters (Grubb et al., 2010). Helicopters travel at 

slower speeds (less than 100 knots) which increases the duration of noise exposure compared to fixedwing aircraft. Helicopter flights are generally limited to locations closer to the coast, unless deployed 

onboard ships. Helicopter flights, therefore, are more likely to impact the greater numbers of birds that 

forage in coastal areas than those that forage in open ocean areas. Nearshore areas of the coast are the 

primary foraging habitat for many bird species. The presence of dense aggregations of sea ducks, other 

seabirds, and migrating land birds is a potential concern during low-altitude helicopter activities. 

Although birds may be more likely to react to helicopters than to fixed-wing aircraft, Navy helicopter 

pilots avoid large flocks of birds to protect aircrews and equipment, thereby reducing disturbance to 

birds as well. Noise from low-altitude helicopter overflights would only be expected to elicit short-term 

behavioral or physiological responses in exposed birds. 

Birds in areas that may experience repeated exposure often habituate and do not respond behaviorally 

(Larkin et al., 1996; National Parks Service, 1994; Plumpton, 2006). Throughout the Study Area, repeated 

exposure of individual birds or groups of birds is unlikely based on the dispersed nature of the 

overflights and the capability of birds to avoid or rapidly vacate an area of disturbance. Therefore, the 

general health of individual birds would not be compromised. Occasional startle or alert reactions to 

aircraft noise are not likely to disrupt major behavior patterns (such as migrating, breeding, feeding, and 

sheltering) or to result in serious injury to any birds.

3.9.3.1.6.1 Impacts for Aircraft Nosie Under Alternative 1

Impacts for Aircraft Nosie Under Alternative 1 for Training Activities

Characteristics of aircraft noise are described in Section 3.0.3.3.1 (Acoustic Stressors) and the number of 

training activities that include aircraft under Alternative 1 are shown in Section 3.0.3.3.4.4 (Aircraft). 

Training activities with aircraft would be conducted as described in Chapter 2 (Description of Proposed 

Action and Alternatives) and Appendix A (Navy Activity Descriptions Aircraft overflights would usually 

occur near Navy airfields, installations, and in special use airspace within Navy range complexes. In the 

Study Area, aircraft flights associated with training would be concentrated in the Southern California 

Range Complex compared to the Hawaii Range Complex and transit corridor.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.9-56

3.9 Birds

If a bird responds to aircraft noise, only short-term behavioral responses such as startle responses, head 

turning, or avoidance responses would be expected. Repeated exposures would be limited due to the 

transient nature of aircraft use and regular movement of birds. Because impacts to individual birds, if 

any, are expected to be minor and limited, no long-term consequences to individuals are expected. 

Accordingly, there would be no consequences to any bird populations, and aircraft overflight noise will 

not have a significant adverse effect on populations of migratory bird species.

California least terns could be exposed to intermittent aircraft noise from aircraft originating from 

airfields located along the coast. If present in the open water areas where training and testing activities 

involving aircraft overflights occur, Hawaiian petrel, short-tailed albatross, marbled murrelet, and 

Newell’s shearwater could be temporarily disturbed while foraging or migrating. 

Pursuant to the ESA, aircraft noise during training activities as described under Alternative 1 may affect 

least terns, Hawaiian petrels, short-tailed albatrosses, marbled murrelet, and Newell’s shearwater. The 

Navy will consult with the USFWS as required by section 7(a)(2) of the ESA in that regard.

Impacts for Aircraft Nosie Under Alternative 1 for Testing Activities

Characteristics of aircraft noise are described in Section 3.0.3.3.1 (Acoustic Stressors) and the number of 

testing activities with aircraft under Alternative 1 are shown in Section 3.0.3.3.4.4. (Aircraft). Testing 

activities using aircraft would be conducted as described in Chapter 2 (Description of Proposed Action 

and Alternatives) and Appendix A (Navy Activity Descriptions). Aircraft overflights would usually occur 

near Navy airfields, installations, and in special use airspace within Navy range complexes. The general 

locations and types of effects due to aircraft noise described above for training would be similar for 

many testing activities. 

If a bird responds to aircraft noise, only short-term behavioral responses such as startle responses, head 

turning, or avoidance responses would be expected. Repeated exposures would be limited due to the 

transient nature of aircraft use and regular movement of birds. Because impacts to individual birds, if 

any, are expected to be minor and limited, no long-term consequences to individuals are expected. 

Accordingly, there would be no consequences to any bird populations, and aircraft overflight noise will 

not have a significant adverse effect on populations of migratory bird species.

California least terns could be exposed to intermittent aircraft noise from aircraft originating from 

airfields located along the coast. If present in the open water areas where training and testing activities 

involving aircraft overflights occur, Hawaiian petrel, short-tailed albatross, marbled murrelet, and 

Newell’s shearwater could be temporarily disturbed while foraging or migrating. 

Pursuant to the ESA, aircraft noise during testing activities as described under Alternative 1 may affect 

least terns, Hawaiian petrels, short-tailed albatrosses, marbled murrelet, and Newell’s shearwater. The 

Navy will consult with the USFWS as required by section 7(a)(2) of the ESA in that regard.

3.9.3.1.6.2 Impacts for Aircraft Nosie Under Alternative 2

Impacts for Aircraft Nosie Under Alternative 2 for Training Activities

There would be a minor increase in aircraft overflights under Alternative 2 compared to Alternative 1; 

however, the types of impacts would not be discernible from those described for training under 

Alternative 1. 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.9-57

3.9 Birds

Pursuant to the ESA, aircraft noise during training activities as described under Alternative 2 may affect 

least terns, Hawaiian petrels, short-tailed albatrosses, marbled murrelet, and Newell’s shearwater. The 

Navy will consult with the USFWS as required by section 7(a)(2) of the ESA in that regard.

Impacts for Aircraft Nosie Under Alternative 2 for Testing Activities

There would be a minor increase in aircraft overflights under Alternative 2 compared to Alternative 1; 

however, the types of impacts would not be discernible from those described for testing under 

Alternative 1.

Pursuant to the ESA, aircraft noise during testing activities as described under Alternative 2 may affect 

least terns, Hawaiian petrels, short-tailed albatrosses, marbled murrelet, and Newell’s shearwater. The 

Navy will consult with the USFWS as required by section 7(a)(2) of the ESA in that regard.

3.9.3.1.6.3 Impacts for Aircraft Nosie Under No Action Alternative

Impacts for Aircraft Nosie Under No Action Alternative for Training and Testing

Under the No Action Alternative, the Navy would not conduct the training and testing activities in the 

HSTT Study Area. Various acoustic stressors (e.g., aircraft noise) would not be introduced into the 

marine environment. Therefore, baseline conditions of the existing environment would either remain 

unchanged or would improve slightly after cessation of ongoing training and testing activities.

3.9.3.1.7 Impacts from Weapons Noise

Birds may be exposed to sounds caused by the firing of weapons, objects in flight and the impact of nonexplosive projectiles on the water's surface. Other devices intentionally produce noise to serve as a nonlethal deterrent. These sounds are described in Section 3.0.3.3.1.6 (Weapons Noise). Navy training 

activities in the Study Area include firing or launching a variety of weapons, including missiles; rockets; 

and small-, medium-, and large-caliber projectiles. Most weapons firing activities occur far from shore, 

limiting most possible exposures to birds that forage or migrate greater than 3 NM offshore. In addition 

to noise from weapons firing and launching, birds could be briefly disturbed by the impact of nonexplosive practice munitions at the water surface. Due to the potential for blast injury due to explosives, 

the impacts due to explosive munitions and other explosives used during Navy activities are discussed in 

Section 3.9.3.2.2 (Impacts from Explosives).

Sounds produced by weapons firing (muzzle blast), launch boosters, and projectile travel are potential 

stressors to birds. Sound generated by a muzzle blast is intense, but very brief. A bird very close to a 

large weapons blast could be injured or experience hearing loss due to acoustic trauma or threshold 

shift. Sound generated by a projectile travelling at speeds greater than the speed of sound can produce 

a low amplitude bow shock wave in a narrow area around its flight path. Inert objects hitting the water 

surface would generate a splash and the noise may disturb nearby birds. Bird responses to weaponsfiring and projectile travel noise may include short-term behavioral or physiological responses such as 

alert responses, startle responses, or temporary increases in heart rate. Studies of impacts of weapons 

noise on raptors show that these birds show little reaction (e.g., head turn) and do not alter behavior in 

the presence of noise from weapons testing (Brown et al., 1999; Schueck et al., 2001; Stalmaster & 

Kaiser, 1997). Once surface weapons firing activities begin, birds would likely disperse away from the 

area around the ship and the path of projectiles. 

Other activities in the general area that precede these activities, such a vessel movement or target 

setting, could potentially disperse birds away from the area in which weapons-firing noise would occur; 

species such as frigatebirds and sooty terns seem to avoid vessels (Borberg et al., 2005; Hyrenbach, 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.9-58

3.9 Birds

2006). Increased ship activity could drive these and other species from their natural habitat at a critical 

time or in an important foraging area (Borberg et al., 2005). On the other hand, some birds commonly 

follow vessels, including certain species of gulls, storm petrels, and albatrosses (Hamilton, 1958; 

Hyrenbach, 2001; Hyrenbach, 2006). A number of bird species are attracted to ships because of the 

increased potential for foraging success (Dietrich & Melvin, 2004; Melvin et al., 2001). The propeller 

wake generated by all ships, but particularly larger ships, disrupts the water column, causing prey to be 

brought to the surface where it is more easily captured by a greater variety of bird species. Birds that 

are attracted to ships could be more likely to be exposed to weapons firing noise.

Airborne weapons firing at airborne targets typically occur at high altitudes of 15,000–25,000 ft. during 

air-to-air gunnery exercises. Noise generated by firing at such high altitudes is unlikely to generate a 

strong reaction in birds migrating at lower altitudes or foraging at the surface. The altitudes at which 

migrating birds fly can vary greatly based on the type of bird, where they are flying (over water or over 

land), and other factors such as weather. Approximately 95 percent of bird flight during migrations 

occurs below 10,000 ft. (3,048 m) with the majority below 3,000 ft. (914 m) (Lincoln et al., 1998). While 

there is considerable variation, the favored altitude for most small birds appears to be between 500 ft. 

(152 m) and 1,000 ft. (305 m).

If a bird does not avoid the area of Navy activity and is in the vicinity of a muzzle blast from a large 

caliber gun or the bow shock wave of a large supersonic projectile, the potential for auditory impacts 

exists. If in the immediate vicinity of a large gun muzzle blasts, a bird could experience peak SPLs that 

have been shown to cause a permanent reduction in hearing sensitivity over the low frequency portion 

of hearing range [see Section 3.9.3.2.2.2 (Hearing Loss)]. Similarly, the bow shock waves of larger 

projectiles would create a zone around the path of the projectile where a bird could experience auditory 

effects due to the near-instantaneous passing of a high peak pressure wave (subjectively a “crack” 

sound). The estimated range to peak sound levels shown to cause permanent reduction in hearing 

sensitivity over a portion of a bird’s hearing range from the projectile path of a large caliber gun 

projectile travelling at supersonic speed is about 10 m. Data for onset of PTS is unavailable, but the 

range to onset of PTS can be assumed to extend beyond 10 m from a large caliber projectile path. The 

amplitude of the bow shock wave would increase with supersonic projectile size and speed. Because 

most projectiles spend all or part of their travel path at altitudes above 20 m, impacts to many low-flying 

seabirds would be minimal.

The impulsive sound caused by weapon firings would have limited potential to mask any important 

biological sound simply because the duration of the impulse is brief, even when multiple shots are fired 

in series.

3.9.3.1.7.1 Impacts for Weapons Noise Under Alternative 1

Impacts for Weapons Noise Under Alternative 1 for Training Activities

Activities using weapons and deterrents would be conducted as described in Chapter 2 (Description of 

Proposed Action and Alternatives) and Appendix A (Navy Activity Descriptions). General characteristics 

of types of weapons noise are described in Section 3.0.3.3.1.6 (Weapons Noise), and quantities and 

locations of expended non-explosive practice munitions and explosives (fragment-producing) for 

training under Alternative 1 are shown in 3.0.3.3.4.2. (Military Expended Materials). [For explosive 

munitions, only associated firing noise is considered in the analysis of weapons noise. The noise 

produced by the detonation of explosive weapons is analyzed in Section 3.9.3.2 (Explosive Stressors)].
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.9-59

3.9 Birds

Use of weapons during training would typically occur in the range complexes, with fewer activities in the 

transit corridor. Most activities involving large-caliber naval gunfire or the launching of targets, missiles, 

bombs, or other munitions are conducted more than 3 nautical miles (NM) from shore. 

Most sounds would be brief, lasting from less than a second for a blast or inert impact to few seconds 

for other launch and object travel sounds. Most incidents of impulsive sounds produced by weapons 

firing, launch, or inert object impacts would be single events, with the exception of gunfire activities. 

Variants of the Long Range Acoustic Device are used both on vessels and on piers and infrastructure. 

These devices communicate voice, tones, or prerecorded tracks within the range of human hearing and 

may reach birds within 3,000 m of the device. Birds have the potential to be briefly startled or 

temporarily displaced during training with this device.

California least terns would not be exposed to large-caliber weapons noise near the coast. All species 

could be exposed to small- and medium-caliber weapons noise that may occur closer to shore. If present 

in the open water areas where training and testing activities involving weapons use occur, Hawaiian 

petrel, short-tailed albatross, marbled murrelet, and Newell’s shearwater could be temporarily 

disturbed while foraging or migrating. 

Because weapon firing occurs at varying locations over a short time period and seabird presence 

changes seasonally and on a short-term basis, individual birds would not be expected to be repeatedly 

exposed to weapons firing, launch, or projectile noise. Any impacts on migratory or breeding seabirds 

related to startle reactions, displacement from a preferred area, or reduced foraging success in offshore 

waters would likely be short-term and infrequent. Because impacts to individual birds, if any, are 

expected to be minor and limited, no long-term consequences to individuals are expected. Accordingly, 

there would be no consequences to any bird populations, and weapons noise will not have a significant 

adverse effect on populations of migratory bird species.

Pursuant to the ESA, weapons noise during training activities described under Alternative 1 may affect 

least terns, Hawaiian petrels, short-tailed albatrosses, marbled murrelet, and Newell’s shearwater. The 

Navy will consult with FWS as required by section 7(a)(2) of the ESA in that regard.

Impacts for Weapons Noise Under Alternative 1 for Testing Activities

Activities using weapons and deterrents would be conducted as described in Chapter 2 (Description of 

Proposed Action and Alternatives) and Appendix A (Navy Activity Descriptions). General characteristics 

of types of weapons noise are described in Section 3.0.3.3.1.6 (Weapons Noise), and quantities and

locations of expended non-explosive practice munitions and explosives (fragment-producing) for testing 

under Alternative 1 are shown in 3.0.3.3.4.2. (Military Expended Materials). [For explosive munitions, 

only associated firing noise is considered in the analysis of weapons noise. The noise produced by the 

detonation of explosive weapons is analyzed in Section 3.9.3.2 (Explosive Stressors)].

Use of weapons during testing would typically occur in the range complexes. Most activities involving 

large-caliber naval gunfire or the launching of targets, missiles, bombs, or other munitions are 

conducted more than 3 NM from shore. 

All of these sounds would be brief, lasting from less than a second for a blast or inert impact to few 

seconds for other launch and object travel sounds. Most incidents of impulsive sounds produced by 

weapons firing, launch, or inert object impacts would be single events, with the exception of 

gunfire activities.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.9-60

3.9 Birds

California least terns would not be exposed to large-caliber weapons noise near the coast. All species 

could be exposed to small- and medium-caliber weapons noise that may occur closer to shore. If present 

in the open water areas where training and testing activities involving weapons use occur, Hawaiian 

petrel, short-tailed albatross, marbled murrelet, and Newell’s shearwater could be temporarily 

disturbed while foraging or migrating. 

Because weapon firing occurs at varying locations over a short time period and seabird presence 

changes seasonally and on a short-term basis, individual birds would not be expected to be repeatedly 

exposed to weapons firing, launch, or projectile noise. Any impacts on migratory or breeding seabirds 

related to startle reactions, displacement from a preferred area, or reduced foraging success in offshore 

waters would likely be short-term and infrequent. Because impacts to individual birds, if any, are 

expected to be minor and limited, no long-term consequences to individuals are expected. Accordingly, 

there would be no consequences to any bird populations, and weapons noise will not have a significant 

adverse effect on populations of migratory bird species.

Pursuant to the ESA, weapons noise during testing activities described under Alternative 1 may affect 

least terns, Hawaiian petrels, short-tailed albatrosses, marbled murrelet, and Newell’s shearwater. The 

Navy will consult with FWS as required by section 7(a)(2) of the ESA in that regard.

3.9.3.1.7.2 Impacts for Weapons Noise Under Alternative 2

Impacts for Weapons Noise Under Alternative 2 for Training Activities

There would be minor increase in weapons use under Alternative 2 compared to Alternative 1; however, 

the types of impacts and locations of impacts would be the same as those described for training under 

Alternative 1. Because impacts to individual birds, if any, are expected to be minor and limited, no longterm consequences to individuals are expected. Accordingly, there would be no consequences to any 

bird populations, and weapons noise will not have a significant adverse effect on populations of 

migratory bird species.

Pursuant to the ESA, weapons noise during training activities described under Alternative 2 may affect 

least terns, Hawaiian petrels, short-tailed albatrosses, marbled murrelet, and Newell’s shearwater. The 

Navy will consult with FWS as required by section 7(a)(2) of the ESA in that regard.

Impacts for Weapons Noise Under Alternative 2 for Testing Activities

There would be minor increase in weapons use under Alternative 2 compared to Alternative 1; however, 

the types of impacts and locations of impacts would be the same as those described for testing under 

Alternative 1. Because impacts to individual birds, if any, are expected to be minor and limited, no longterm consequences to individuals are expected. Accordingly, there would be no consequences to any 

bird populations, and weapons noise will not have a significant adverse effect on populations of 

migratory bird species.

Pursuant to the ESA, weapons noise during testing activities described under Alternative 2 may affect 

least terns, Hawaiian petrels, short-tailed albatrosses, marbled murrelet, and Newell’s shearwater. The 

Navy will consult with FWS as required by section 7(a)(2) of the ESA in that regard.

3.9.3.1.7.3 Impacts for Weapons Noise Under No Action Alternative

Impacts for Weapons Noise Under No Action Alternative for Training and Testing

Under the No Action Alternative, the Navy would not conduct the training and testing activities in the 

HSTT Study Area. Various acoustic stressors (e.g., weapons noise) would not be introduced into the 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.9-61

3.9 Birds

marine environment. Therefore, baseline conditions of the existing environment would either remain 

unchanged or would improve slightly after cessation of ongoing training and testing activities.

3.9.3.2 Explosive Stressors

Explosions in the water, near the water surface, and in the air can introduce loud, impulsive, broadband 

sounds into the marine environment. But, unlike other acoustic stressors, explosives release energy at a 

high rate producing a shock wave that can be injurious and even deadly. Therefore, explosive impacts to 

birds are discussed separately from other acoustic stressors, even though the analysis of explosive 

impacts will rely on data for bird impacts due to impulsive sound exposure where appropriate.

Explosives are usually described by their net explosive weight, which accounts for the weight and type of 

explosive material. Additional explanation of the acoustic and explosive terms and sound energy 

concepts used in this section is found in Appendix D (Acoustic and Explosive Concepts).

This section begins with a summary of relevant data regarding explosive impacts to birds in Section 

3.9.3.1.1 (Background). The ways in which an explosive exposure could result in immediate effects or 

lead to long-term consequences for an animal are explained in the Conceptual Framework for Assessing 

Effects from Acoustic and Explosive Stressors (Section 3.0.3.6.1), and this section follows that 

framework. Studies of the effects of sound and energy from explosives on birds are limited, therefore, 

where necessary, knowledge of impacts to other species from explosives is used to assess impacts 

to birds.

3.9.3.2.1 Background

The sections below include a survey and synthesis of best-available-science published in peer-reviewed 

journals, technical reports, and other scientific sources pertinent to impacts to birds potentially resulting 

from Navy training and testing activities. A range of impacts could occur to a bird depending on the 

explosive source and context of the exposure. In addition to acoustic impacts including temporary or 

permanent hearing loss, auditory masking, physiological stress, or changes in behavior; potential 

impacts from an explosive exposure can include non-lethal injury and mortality.

3.9.3.2.2 Impacts from Explosives

3.9.3.2.2.1 Injury

If a bird is close to an explosive detonation, the exposure to high pressure levels and sound impulse can 

cause barotrauma. Barotrauma is physical injury due to a difference in pressure between an air space 

inside the body and the surrounding air or water. Sudden very high pressures can also cause damage at 

tissue interfaces due to the way pressure waves travel differently through tissues with different material 

properties. Damage could also occur to the structure of the ear, considered to be the body part most 

susceptible to pressure damage. 

Detonations that occur underwater could injure, kill, or disturb diving birds, particularly pursuit divers 

that spend more time underwater than other foraging birds (Danil & St. Ledger, 2011). Studies show 

that birds are more susceptible to underwater explosions when they are submerged versus partially 

submerged on the surface. Two species of duck were exposed to explosive blasts while submerged 

0.61 m and while sitting on the water surface. Onset of mortality (LD1) was predicted to occur at an 

impulse exposure of 248 pascal seconds (Pa-s) (36 pounds per square inch per millisecond [psi-ms]) for 

birds underwater and 690 Pa-s (100 psi-ms) for birds at the water surface (Yelverton & Richmond, 1981). 

No injuries would be expected for birds underwater at blast pressures below 41 Pa-s (6 psi-ms) and for 

birds on the surface at blast pressures below 207 Pa-s (30 psi-ms) (Yelverton & Richmond, 1981). Tests 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.9-62

3.9 Birds

of underwater explosive exposures to other taxa (fish, mammals) have shown that susceptibility to 

injury is related to animal mass, with smaller animals being more susceptible to injury (Yelverton & 

Richmond, 1981). It is reasonable to assume that this relationship would apply to birds as well. The 

range to these thresholds would be based on several factors including charge size, depth of the 

detonation, and how far the bird is beneath the water surface.

Detonations in air or at the water surface could also injure birds while either in flight or at the water 

surface. Experiments that exposed small, medium, and large birds to blast waves in air were conducted 

to determine the exposure levels that would be injurious (Damon et al., 1974). Birds were assessed for 

internal injuries to air sacs, organs, and vasculature, as well as injury to the auditory tympanum, but 

internal auditory damage was not assessed. Results indicated that peak pressure exposure of 5 psi 

would be expected to produce no blast injuries, 10 psi would produce slight to extensive injuries, and 

20 psi would produce 50 percent mortality. These results also suggested that birds with higher mass 

may be less susceptible to injury. In addition to the risk of direct blast injury, exposure to an explosion in 

air may cause physical displacement of a bird that could be injurious if the animal impacts a surface. The 

same study examined displacement injuries to birds (Damon et al., 1974). Results indicated that impulse 

exposures below 5 psi-ms would not be expected to result in injuries. 

One experiment was conducted with birds in flight, showing how birds can withstand relatively close 

exposures to in-air explosions (Damon et al., 1974). Flying pigeons were exposed to a 64-pound (lb.) net 

explosive weight explosion. Birds at 44 to 126 ft. from the blast exhibited no signs of injury, while 

serious injuries were sustained at ranges less than 40 ft. The no injury zone in this experiment was also 

for exposures less than 5 psi-ms impulse, similar to the results of the displacement injury study.

Ranges to the no injury threshold for a range of in-air explosives are shown in Table 3.9-4.

Table 3.9-4: Range to No Blast Injury for Birds Exposed to Aerial Explosives

Net explosive weight Range to 5 psi

5 pounds (lb.) 21 feet (ft.)

10 lb. 26 ft.

100 lb. 57 ft.

Ranges calculated using the methods in Swisdak 

(1975).

Another risk of explosions in air is exposure to explosive fragmentation, in which pieces of the casing of 

a cased explosive are ejected at supersonic speeds from the explosion. The risk of direct strike by 

fragmentation would decrease exponentially with distance from the explosion, as the worst case for 

strike at any distance is the surface area of the casing fragments, which ultimately would decrease their 

outward velocity under the influence of drag. It is reasonable to assume that a direct strike in air or at 

the water surface would be mortal. Once in water, the drag on any fragments would quickly reduce their 

velocity to non-hazardous levels (Swisdak & Montaro, 1992).

The initial detonation in a series of detonations may deter birds from subsequent exposures via an 

avoidance response, however, birds have been observed taking interest in surface objects related to 

detonation events and subsequently being killed by a following detonation [Stemp, R. in Greene et al. 

(1985)].
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.9-63

3.9 Birds

3.9.3.2.2.2 Hearing Loss

Exposure to intense sound may result in hearing loss which persists after cessation of the noise 

exposure. There are no data on hearing loss in birds specifically due to explosives; therefore, the limited 

data on hearing loss due to impulsive sounds, described for acoustic stressors in Section 3.9.3.1.1.2

(Hearing Loss), apply to explosive exposures.

3.9.3.2.2.3 Physiological Stress

Marine animals naturally experience stressors within their environment and as part of their life histories. 

Changing weather and ocean conditions, exposure to diseases and naturally occurring toxins, lack of 

prey availability, social interactions with members of the same species, nesting, and interactions with 

predators all contribute to stress. Exposures to explosives have the potential to provide additional 

stressors beyond those that naturally occur, as described in the Conceptual Framework for Assessing 

Effects from Acoustic and Explosive Activities (see Section 3.0.3.6.1). 

There are no data on physiological stress in birds specifically due to explosives; therefore, the limited 

data on physiological stress due to impulsive sounds, described for acoustic stressors in Section 

3.9.3.1.1.4 (Physiological Stress), apply to explosive exposures.

3.9.3.2.2.4 Masking

Masking occurs when one sound, distinguished as the ‘noise,’ interferes with the detection or

recognition of another sound. Exposure to explosives may result in masking. There are no data on 

masking in birds specifically due to explosives; therefore, the limited data on masking due to impulsive 

sounds, described for acoustic stressors in Section 3.9.3.1.1.3 (Masking), apply to explosive exposures.

Due to the very brief duration of an explosive sound, any masking would be brief during an 

explosive activity. 

3.9.3.2.2.5 Behavioral Reactions

Numerous studies have documented that birds and other wild animals respond to human-made noise, 

including aircraft overflights, weapons firing, and explosions (Larkin et al., 1996; National Parks Service, 

1994; Plumpton, 2006). The limited data on behavioral reactions due to impulsive sounds, described for 

acoustic stressors in Section 3.9.3.1.1.5 (Behavioral Reactions), apply to explosive exposures.

Because data on behavioral responses by birds to explosions is limited, information on bird responses to 

other impulsive sounds may be informative. Seismic surveys had no noticeable impacts on the 

movements or diving behavior of long-tailed ducks undergoing wing molt, a period in which flight is 

limited and food requirements are high (Lacroix et al., 2003). The birds may have tolerated the seismic 

survey noise to stay in preferred feeding areas. The sensitivity of birds to disturbance may also vary 

during different stages of the nesting cycle. Similar noise levels may be more likely to cause nest 

abandonment during incubation of eggs than during brooding of chicks because birds have invested less 

time and energy and have a greater chance of re-nesting (Knight & Temple, 1986).

3.9.3.2.2.6 Long-term Consequences

Long term consequences to birds due to explosive exposures are considered following the Conceptual 

Framework for Assessing Effects from Acoustic and Explosive Activities (see Section 3.0.3.6.1).

Long-term consequences to a population are determined by examining changes in the population 

growth rate. Physical effects that could lead to a reduction in the population growth rate include 

mortality or injury, which could remove animals from the reproductive pool, and permanent hearing 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.9-64

3.9 Birds

impairment, which could impact foraging and communication. The long-term consequences due to 

individual behavioral reactions and short-term instances of physiological stress are especially difficult to 

predict because individual experience over time can create complex contingencies. It is more likely that 

any long-term consequences to an individual would be a result of costs accumulated over a season, 

year, or life stage due to multiple behavioral or stress responses resulting from exposures to multiple 

stressors over significant periods of time. Conversely, some birds may habituate to or become tolerant 

of repeated acoustic exposures over time, learning to ignore a stimulus that in the past did not 

accompany any overt threat. More research is needed to better understand the long-term 

consequences of anthropogenic stressors, although intermittent exposures to explosive noise are 

assumed to be less likely to have lasting consequences.

3.9.3.2.2.7 Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 1

Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 1 for Training Activities

Activities using explosives would be conducted as described in Chapter 2 (Description of Proposed 

Action and Alternatives) and Appendix A (Navy Activity Descriptions). General characteristics, quantities, 

and net explosive weights of underwater explosives used during training under Alternative 1 are 

provided in Section 3.0.3.3.2 (Explosive Stressors). Quantities and locations of fragment-producing 

explosives during training under Alternative 1 are shown in 3.0.3.3.4.2 (Military Expended Materials). 

Under Alternative 1, there could be fluctuation in the amount of explosives use that could occur 

annually, although potential impacts would be similar from year to year. 

Training activities involving explosions would typically be conducted in the range complexes, with little 

explosive activity in the transit corridor. Activities that involve underwater detonations and explosive 

munitions typically occur more than 3 NM from shore, with exceptions for Mine Warfare ranges at Silver 

Strand Training Complex, San Clemente Island, and proximate to Pearl Harbor.

Sound and energy generated by most small underwater explosions are unlikely to disturb birds above 

the water surface. If a detonation is sufficiently large or is near the water surface, however, pressure will 

be released at the air-water interface. Birds above this pressure release could be injured or killed. 

Explosives detonated at or just above the water surface, such as those used in anti-surface warfare, 

would create blast waves that would propagate through both the water and air. Detonations in air could 

also injure birds while either in flight or at the water surface. Detonations in air during anti-air warfare 

training would typically occur at much higher altitudes (greater than 3,000 ft. [914 m] above sea level) 

where seabirds and migrating birds are less likely to be present, although some events target incoming 

threats at lower altitudes. Detonations of bombs with larger net explosive weights, any event employing 

static targets, or multiple detonations could be more likely to cause seabird mortalities or injuries. If 

prey species, such as fish, are killed or injured as a result of detonations, some birds may continue to 

forage close to the area, or may be attracted to the area, and be exposed to subsequent detonations in 

the same area within a single event, such as firing exercises, which involves firing multiple high-explosive 

5-in. rounds at a target area; bombing exercises, which could involve multiple bomb drops separated by 

several minutes; or underwater detonations, such as multiple explosive munitions disposal charges. 

However, a fleeing response to an initial explosion may reduce seabird exposure to any additional 

explosions that occur within a short timeframe.

Detonations either in air or underwater have the potential to cause a permanent or temporary 

threshold shift, which could affect the ability of a bird to communicate with conspecifics or detect 

biologically relevant sounds.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.9-65

3.9 Birds

An explosive detonation would likely cause a startle reaction, as the exposure would be brief and any 

reactions are expected to be short-term. Startle impacts range from altering behavior (e.g., stop feeding 

or preening), minor behavioral changes (e.g., head turning), or a flight response. The range of impacts 

could depend on the charge size, distance from the charge, and the animal’s behavior at the time of the 

exposure. Any impacts related to startle reactions, displacement from a preferred area, or reduced 

foraging success in offshore waters would likely be short-term and infrequent. 

Nearshore waters are the primary foraging habitat for many seabird species. Any small detonations 

close to shore could have a short-term adverse impact on nesting and nearshore foraging species. Larger 

detonations would typically occur near areas with the potential for relatively high concentrations of 

seabirds (upwelling areas associated with the Pacific Current; productive live/hard bottom habitats; and 

large algal mats); therefore, any impacts on seabirds are likely to be greater in these areas.

Least terns could startle in the vicinity of explosive detonations from training at the Silver Strand 

Training Center portion of the Southern California Range Complex as they forage areas where nearshore detonations occur. Other ESA-listed species that forage off-shore may be exposed to explosives 

used during testing activities, however, the short duration of an explosion and the dispersed presence of 

these birds means the potential for overlap would be small. 

Because most events would consist of a limited number of detonations, exposures would not occur over 

long durations, and events occur at varying locations, it is expected there would be an opportunity to 

recover from an incurred energetic cost and individual birds would not be repeatedly exposed to 

explosive detonations. Although a few individuals may experience long-term impacts and potential 

mortality, population-level impacts are not expected, and explosives will not have a significant adverse 

effect on populations of migratory bird species.

The Navy will implement mitigation for birds during explosive ordnance disposal activities and mine 

countermeasure and neutralization activities using towed influence mine sweep systems or 

unmanned/remotely operated mine neutralization systems in the Southern California Range Complex. 

The mitigation will help avoid potential impacts on concentrations of seabirds and birds that have the 

ability to forage underwater, as discussed in Section 5.3.3, Explosive Stressors.

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of explosives during training activities described under Alternative 1 may 

affect least terns, Hawaiian petrels, short-tailed albatrosses, marbled murrelets, and Newell’s 

shearwater. The Navy will consult with the USFWS as required by section 7(a)(2) of the ESA in 

that regard.

Impacts from Explosive Under Alternative 1 for Testing Activities

Activities using explosives would be conducted as described in Chapter 2 (Description of Proposed 

Action and Alternatives) and Appendix A (Navy Activity Descriptions). General characteristics, quantities, 

and net explosive weights of underwater explosives used during testing under Alternative 1 are provided 

in Section 3.0.3.3.2 (Explosive Stressors). Quantities and locations of fragment-producing explosives 

during testing under Alternative 1 are shown in 3.0.3.3.4.2 (Military Expended Materials). 

Testing activities involving explosions would typically be conducted in the range complexes, with little 

explosive activity in the transit corridor. Activities that involve underwater detonations and explosive 

munitions typically occur in the range complexes more than 3 NM from shore, with exceptions for Silver 

Strand Training Complex, San Clemente Island, and Puuloa Underwater Range. 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.9-66

3.9 Birds

Sound and energy generated by most small underwater explosions are unlikely to disturb birds above 

the water surface. If a detonation is sufficiently large or is near the water surface, however, pressure will 

be released at the air-water interface. Birds above this pressure release could be injured or killed. 

Explosives detonated at or just above the water surface, such as those used in anti-surface warfare, 

would create blast waves that would propagate through both the water and air. Detonations in air could 

also injure birds while either in flight or at the water surface. Detonations in air during anti-air warfare 

testing would typically occur at much higher altitudes (greater than 3,000 ft. [914 m] above sea level) 

where seabirds and migrating birds are less likely to be present, although some events target incoming 

threats at lower altitudes. Detonations of bombs with larger net explosive weights, any event employing 

static targets, or multiple detonations could be more likely to cause seabird mortalities or injuries. If 

prey species, such as fish, are killed or injured as a result of detonations, some birds may continue to 

forage close to the area, or may be attracted to the area, and be exposed to subsequent detonations in 

the same area within a single event, such as bombing tests, which could involve multiple bomb drops 

separated by several minutes. However, a fleeing response to an initial explosion may reduce seabird 

exposure to any additional explosions that occur within a short timeframe. 

Detonations either in air or underwater have the potential to cause a permanent or temporary 

threshold shift, which could affect the ability of a bird to communicate with conspecifics or detect 

biologically relevant sounds.

An explosive detonation would likely cause a startle reaction, as the exposure would be brief and any 

reactions are expected to be short-term. Startle impacts range from altering behavior (e.g., stop feeding 

or preening), minor behavioral changes (e.g., head turning), or a flight response. The range of impacts 

could depend on the charge size, distance from the charge, and the animal’s behavior at the time of the 

exposure. Any impacts related to startle reactions, displacement from a preferred area, or reduced 

foraging success in offshore waters would likely be short-term and infrequent. 

Nearshore waters are the primary foraging habitat for many seabird species. Any small detonations 

close to shore could have a short-term adverse impact on nesting and nearshore foraging species. Larger 

detonations would typically occur near areas with the potential for relatively high concentrations of 

seabirds (upwelling areas associated with the Pacific Current; productive live/hard bottom habitats; and 

large algal mats); therefore, any impacts on seabirds are likely to be greater in these areas.

Because most events would consist of a limited number of detonations, exposures would not occur over 

long durations, and events occur at varying locations, it is expected there would be an opportunity to 

recover from an incurred energetic cost and individual birds would not be repeatedly exposed to 

explosive detonations. Although a few individuals may experience long-term impacts and potential 

mortality, population-level impacts are not expected, and explosives will not have a significant adverse 

effect on populations of migratory bird species.

Least terns could startle in the vicinity of explosive detonations from training at the Silver Strand 

Training Center portion of the Southern California Range Complex as they forage areas where nearshore detonations occur. Other ESA-listed species that forage off-shore may be exposed to explosives 

used during testing activities, however, the short duration of an explosion and the dispersed presence of 

these birds means the potential for overlap would be small. 

The Navy will implement mitigation for birds during explosive ordnance disposal activities and mine 

countermeasure and neutralization activities using towed influence mine sweep systems or 

unmanned/remotely operated mine neutralization systems in the Southern California Range Complex. 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.9-67

3.9 Birds

The mitigation will help avoid potential impacts on concentrations of seabirds and birds that have the 

ability to forage underwater, as discussed in Section 5.3.3, Explosive Stressors.

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of explosives during testing activities described under Alternative 1 may 

affect least terns, Hawaiian petrels, short-tailed albatrosses, marbled murrelets, and Newell’s 

shearwater. The Navy will consult with the USFWS as required by section 7(a)(2) of the ESA in 

that regard.

3.9.3.2.2.8 Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 2

Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 2 for Training Activities 

There would be minor increase in explosives use under Alternative 2 compared to Alternative 1; 

however, the types of impacts and locations of impacts would be the same as those described for 

training under Alternative 1. Most impacts to individual birds, if any, are expected to be minor and 

limited. Although a few individuals may experience long-term impacts and potential mortality, 

population-level impacts are not expected, and explosives will not have a significant adverse effect on 

populations of migratory bird species.

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of explosives during training activities described under Alternative 2 may 

affect least terns, Hawaiian petrels, short-tailed albatrosses, marbled murrelets, and Newell’s 

shearwater. The Navy will consult with the USFWS as required by section 7(a)(2) of the ESA in 

that regard.

Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 2 for Testing Activities

There would be minor increase in explosives use under Alternative 2 compared to Alternative 1; 

however, the types of impacts and locations of impacts would be the same as those described for 

testing under Alternative 1. Most impacts to individual birds, if any, are expected to be minor and 

limited. Although a few individuals may experience long-term impacts and potential mortality, 

population-level impacts are not expected, and explosives will not have a significant adverse effect on 

populations of migratory bird species.

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of explosives during testing activities described under Alternative 2 may 

affect least terns, Hawaiian petrels, short-tailed albatrosses, marbled murrelets, and Newell’s 

shearwater. The Navy will consult with the USFWS as required by section 7(a)(2) of the ESA in 

that regard.

3.9.3.2.2.9 Impacts from Explosives Under the No Action Alternative

Impacts from Explosives Under the No Action Alternative Training and Testing Activities

Under the No Action Alternative, the Navy would not conduct the training and testing activities in the 

HSTT Study Area. Various explosive stressors would not be introduced into the marine environment. 

Therefore, baseline conditions of the existing environment would either remain unchanged or would 

improve slightly after cessation of ongoing training and testing activities.

3.9.3.3 Energy Stressors

This section analyzes the potential impacts of the various types of energy stressors that can occur during 

training and testing activities within the Study Area. This section includes analysis of the potential 

impacts from (1) in-water electromagnetic devices, (2) in-air electromagnetic devices, and (3) highenergy lasers. As discussed in Section 3.0.3.3.3.3 (Lasers, subsection on Low-Energy Lasers), analysis has 

shown that low-energy lasers would not affect animals and therefore do not require further analysis.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.9-68

3.9 Birds

3.9.3.3.1 Impacts from In-Water Electromagnetic Devices

Several different types of in-water electromagnetic devices are used during training and testing 

activities. In-water electromagnetic training and testing activities include an array of magnetic 

measuring components used in mine countermeasure operations in the Study Area. For a discussion of 

the types of activities that use electromagnetic devices, where they are used, and how many activities 

would occur under each alternative, see Appendix B, Table B-1. Aspects of in-water electromagnetic 

stressors that are applicable to marine organisms in general are presented in Section 3.0.3.6.2 

(Conceptual Framework for Assessing Effects from Energy-Producing Activities). Potential impacts of 

those activities on birds are applicable to everywhere in the Study Area that in-water electromagnetic 

devices are used. 

The kinetic energy weapon referred to as a rail gun is an in-water electromagnetic device that will be 

tested and eventually used in training events aboard surface vessels, firing non-explosive projectiles at 

land- or sea-based targets. This system charges for approximately two minutes and discharges in less 

than a second. The duration of the firing event is extremely short (about 8 milliseconds), which makes it 

quite unlikely that a bird would fly over at the precise moment of firing. The short duration of each firing 

event also means that the likelihood of affecting any animal using magnetic fields for orientation is 

extremely small. Further, the high magnetic field levels experienced within 80 ft. of the launcher quickly 

dissipate and return to background levels beyond 80 ft. The magnetic field levels outside of the 80 ft. 

buffer zone would be below the most stringent guidelines for humans (i.e., people with pacemakers or 

active implantable medical devices). Therefore, the electromagnetic impacts would be temporary in 

nature and not expected to result in impacts on organisms (U.S. Department of the Navy, 2009), and are 

not analyzed further in this section.

Birds are known to use the Earth’s magnetic field as a navigational cue during seasonal migrations 

(Akesson & Hedenstrom, 2007; Fisher, 1971; Wiltschko & Wiltschko, 2005). Birds use numerous other 

orientation cues to navigate in addition to magnetic fields. These include position of the sun, celestial 

cues, visual cues, wind direction, and scent (Akesson & Hedenstrom, 2007; Fisher, 1971; Haftorn et al., 

1988; Wiltschko & Wiltschko, 2005). It is believed that birds are able to successfully navigate long 

distances by using a combination of these cues. A magnetite-based (magnetic mineral) receptor 

mechanism in the upper beak of birds provides information on position and compass direction 

(Wiltschko & Wiltschko, 2005). Towed in-water electromagnetic device impacts to birds would only 

occur underwater and would only impact diving species or species on the surface in the immediate area 

where the device is deployed. There is no information available on how birds react to electromagnetic 

fields underwater.

3.9.3.3.1.1 Impacts from In-Water Electromagnetic Devices Under Alternative 1

Impacts from In-Water Electromagnetic Devices Under Alternative 1 for Training Activities

As indicated in Section 3.0.3.3.3.1 (In-Water Electromagnetic Devices), under Alternative 1, training 

activities involving in-water electromagnetic devices occur primarily near shore and near harbors (or at 

established mine warfare ranges) in the Southern California Range Complex, e.g., within the Silver 

Strand Training Complex (Appendix A, Section A.2.8.1 [Airborne Mine Countermeasures –

Mine Detection]). 

The distribution of birds in these portions of the Study Area is patchy (Fauchald et al., 2002; Haney, 

1986b; Nevitt & Veit, 1999; Savoca, 2016; Schneider & Duffy, 1985). Exposure of birds would be limited 

to those foraging at or below the surface (e.g., cormorants, loons, petrels, grebes, etc.) because that is 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.9-69

3.9 Birds

where the devices are used. Birds that forage inshore could be exposed to these in-water 

electromagnetic stressors because their habitat overlaps with some of the activities that occur in the 

nearshore portions of the Southern California Range Complex. However, the in-water electromagnetic 

fields generated would be distributed over time and location near mine warfare ranges and harbors and 

any influence on the surrounding environment would be temporary and localized. More importantly, 

the in-water electromagnetic devices used are typically towed by a helicopter, surface ship, or 

unmanned vehicle. It is likely that any birds in the vicinity an approaching vehicle towing an in-water 

electromagnetic device would be dispersed by the noise and disturbance generated by the vehicles 

(Section 3.9.3.1.6 Impacts from Aircraft Noise) and therefore move away from the vehicle and device 

before any exposure could occur.

Impacts on birds from potential exposure to in-water electromagnetic devices would be temporary and 

inconsequential based on the: (1) relatively low intensity of the magnetic fields generated 

(0.2 microtesla at 200 m from the source), (2) very localized potential impact area, (3) temporary 

duration of the activities (hours), (4) occurrence only underwater, and (5) the likelihood that that any 

birds in the vicinity of the approaching vehicles towing an in-water electromagnetic devices would move 

away from the vehicle and device before any exposure could occur. No long-term or population-level 

impacts are expected.

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of in-water electromagnetic devices during training activities as described 

under Alternative 1 may affect least terns, Hawaiian petrels, short-tailed albatrosses, marbled murrelets, 

Newell’s shearwaters, and band-rumped storm petrels. The Navy will consult with the USFWS as 

required by section 7(a)(2) of the ESA in this regard.

Impacts from In-Water Electromagnetic Devices Under Alternative 1 for Testing Activities

As indicated in Section 3.0.3.3.3.1 (In-Water Electromagnetic Devices), under Alternative 1, testing 

activities involving in-water electromagnetic devices would occur in both the California Current and the 

Insular Pacific-Hawaiian Large Marine Ecosystems, within the Southern California and Hawaii Range 

Complexes, respectively. Typical locations would include Pearl Harbor, San Diego Bay, and the Silver 

Strand Training Complex, as well as waters farther offshore (Appendix A, e.g., Sections A.2.8.3 [Civilian 

Port Defense – Homeland Security Anti-Terrorism/Force Protection Exercise] and A.3.2.1.2 [At-Sea 

Sonar Testing]). 

California least terns could be exposed to intermittent in-water electromagnetic stressors in nearshore 

areas where testing activities occur. If present in the open water areas where testing activities involving 

in-water electromagnetic stressors occur nearby, Hawaiian petrel, short-tailed albatross, marbled 

murrelet or Newell’s shearwater could be temporarily disturbed while foraging or migrating. Any 

temporary disorientation experienced by birds from in-water electromagnetic changes caused by testing 

activities in the Study Area may be considered a short-term impact and would not hinder bird navigation 

abilities. Repeated exposures would be limited due to the transient nature of the testing activities using 

in-water electromagnetic devices and regular movement of birds. For reasons stated in training activities 

discussion, any behavioral changes are not expected to have lasting effects on the survival, growth, 

recruitment, or reproduction of bird populations. No long-term or population-level impacts 

are expected.

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of in-water electromagnetic devices during testing activities as described 

under Alternative 1 may affect least terns, Hawaiian petrels, short-tailed albatrosses, marbled murrelets, 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.9-70

3.9 Birds

Newell’s shearwaters, and band-rumped storm petrels. The Navy will consult with the USFWS as 

required by section 7(a)(2) of the ESA in this regard.

3.9.3.3.1.2 Impacts from In-Water Electromagnetic Devices Under Alternative 2

Impacts from In-Water Electromagnetic Devices Under Alternative 2 for Training Activities

The number and distribution of training activities using in-water electromagnetic devices under 

Alternative 2 would be the same as for Alternative 1 (Table 3.0-12); therefore, impacts would be the 

same as for Alternative 1.

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of in-water electromagnetic devices during training activities as described 

under Alternative 2 may affect least terns, Hawaiian petrels, short-tailed albatrosses, marbled murrelets, 

Newell’s shearwaters, and band-rumped storm petrels. The Navy will consult with the USFWS as 

required by section 7(a)(2) of the ESA in this regard.

Impacts from In-Water Electromagnetic Devices Under Alternative 2 for Testing Activities

The number and distribution of testing activities using in-water electromagnetic devices under 

Alternative 2 would be the same as for Alternative 1 (Table 3.0-12); therefore, impacts would be the 

same as for Alternative 1.

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of in-water electromagnetic devices during testing activities as described 

under Alternative 2 may affect least terns, Hawaiian petrels, short-tailed albatrosses, marbled murrelets, 

Newell’s shearwaters, and band-rumped storm petrels. The Navy will consult with the USFWS as 

required by section 7(a)(2) of the ESA in this regard.

3.9.3.3.1.3 Impacts from In-Water Electromagnetic Devices Under the No Action 

Alternative

Impacts from In-Water Electromagnetic Devices Under the No Action Alternative for Training and 

Testing Activities

Under the No Action Alternative, the Navy would not conduct the proposed training and testing 

activities in the HSTT Study Area. Various in-water electromagnetic device stressors would not be 

introduced into the marine environment. Therefore, baseline conditions of the existing environment 

would either remain unchanged or would improve slightly after cessation of ongoing training and 

testing activities.

3.9.3.3.2 Impacts from In-Air Electromagnetic Devices

Several different types of in-air electromagnetic devices are used during training and testing activities, 

including an array of communications transmitters, radars, and electronic countermeasures 

transmitters. For a discussion of the types of activities that use in-air electromagnetic devices, where 

they are used, and how many activities would occur under each alternative, see Section 3.0.3.3.3.2 (InAir Electromagnetic Devices). Aspects of in-air electromagnetic stressors that are applicable to marine 

organisms in general are presented in Section 3.0.3.6.2 (Conceptual Framework for Assessing Effects 

from Energy-Producing Activities). 

As discussed in Section 3.0.3.3.3.2 (In-Air Electromagnetic Devices), most of the transmissions from inair electromagnetic devices (e.g., for routine surveillance, communications, and navigation) will be at 

low power. Based on human standards, high-power in-air electromagnetic devices are those that 

produce peak pulses of 200 kilovolts per m in a single pulse (U.S. Department of Defense, 2009); there 

are no federal standards for electromagnetic radiation exposure on wildlife (Manville, 2016; U.S. 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.9-71

3.9 Birds

Department of Defense, 2009). In-air electromagnetic devices can also be characterized as “near-field” 

or “far-field” (i.e., near to, or far from, the source of electromagnetic radiation).

Studies conducted on in-air electromagnetic sensitivity in birds have typically been associated with land, 

and little information exists specifically on seabird response to in-air electromagnetic changes at sea. 

Based on these studies, in-air electromagnetic effects can be categorized as thermal (i.e., capable of

causing damage by heating tissue) or non-thermal. Thermal effects are most likely to occur when near 

high-power systems. Should such effects occur, they would likely cause birds to temporarily avoid the 

area receiving the electromagnetic radiation until the stressor ceases (Manville, 2016; Nichols & Racey, 

2007; Nichols & Racey, 2009). 

Currently, questions exist about far-field, non-thermal effects from low-power, in-air electromagnetic 

devices. Manville (2016) performed a literature review of this topic. Although findings are not always 

consistent, Manville (2016) reported that several peer-reviewed studies have shown non-thermal effects 

can include (1) affecting behavior by preventing birds from using their magnetic compass, which may in 

turn affect migration; (2) fragmenting the DNA of reproductive cells, decreasing the reproductive 

capacity of living organisms; (3) increasing the permeability of the blood-brain barrier; (4) other 

behavioral effects; (5) other molecular, cellular, and metabolic changes; and (6) increasing cancer risk. 

Cucurachi et al. (2013) also performed a literature review of 113 studies and reported that (1) few field 

studies were performed (the majority were conducted in a laboratory setting); (2) 65 percent of the 

studies reported ecological effects both at high as well as low dosages (i.e., those that are compatible 

with real field situations, at least on land); (3) no clear dose-effect relationship could be discerned but 

that studies finding an effect applied higher durations of exposure and focused more on mobile phone 

frequency ranges; and (4) a lack of standardization and a limited number of observations limited the 

possibility of generalizing results from an organism to an ecosystem level.

Many bird species return to the same stopover, wintering, and breeding areas every year and often 

follow the exact same or very similar migration routes (U.S. Department of the Navy–Southwest 

Division, 2002), and ample evidence exists that displaced birds can successfully reorient and find their 

way when one or more cues are removed (U.S. Department of the Navy, 2009). For example, Haftorn et 

al. (1988) found that after removal from their nests and release into a different area, snow petrels 

(Pagodrama nivea) were able to successfully navigate back to their nests even when their ability to smell 

was removed. Furthermore, Wiltschko and Wiltschko (2005) report that in-air electromagnetic pulses 

administered to birds during an experimental study on orientation do not deactivate the magnetitebased receptor mechanism in the upper beak altogether but instead cause the receptors to provide 

altered information, which in turn causes birds to orient in different directions. However, these impacts 

were temporary, and the ability of the birds to correctly orient themselves eventually returned. Similar 

results were found by a subsequent study by Wiltschko et al. (2011) on European robins (Erithacus 

rubecula) that tested the effects of exposure to specific wavelengths of visible light. Therefore, in the 

unlikely event that a bird is temporarily disoriented by an electromagnetic device, it is expected that it 

would still be able to re-orient using its internal magnetic compass to aid in navigation once the stressor 

ceases or the bird and stressor are separated by sufficient distance. Therefore, any temporary 

disorientation experienced by birds from electromagnetic changes caused by training activities in the 

Study Area may be considered a short-term impact and would not hinder bird navigation abilities. 

Furthermore, other orientation cues may include position of the sun and moon, visual cues, wind 

direction, infrasound, and scent; these cues would not be affected by in-air electromagnetic devices.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.9-72

3.9 Birds

The EA for the Upgraded AEGIS Combat System concluded that the rapid increase of the bird population 

around a newly constructed radar installation “indicates that any negative effects of the radiation zone 

overhead have been negligible.” Another study on the impacts of extremely low-frequency in-air 

electromagnetic fields on breeding and migrating birds around the Navy’s extra-low-frequency 

communication system antenna in Wisconsin found no evidence that bird distribution or abundance was 

impacted by in-air electromagnetic fields produced by the antenna. In addition, radars, including X-band 

systems, are frequently used to track bird movements as it has been demonstrated that they do not 

affect bird behavior. Moreover, previous studies have consistently determined that the chances that a 

bird will move in the same direction and at the same speed as a constant beam of electromagnetic 

radiation (e.g., while an in-air electromagnetic device tracks a target), and therefore be exposed to 

radiation that could cause thermal damage, are extremely small. 

California least terns could be exposed to intermittent in-air electromagnetic stressors in nearshore 

areas where training activities occur. If present in the open water areas where training activities 

involving in-air electromagnetic stressors occur, Hawaiian petrel, short-tailed albatross, marbled 

murrelet, Newell’s shearwater, or band-rumped storm-petrel could be temporarily disturbed while 

foraging or migrating. 

Given (1) the information provided above; (2) the dispersed nature of Navy testing and training activities 

at sea; and (3) the relatively low-level and dispersed use of these systems at sea, the following 

conclusions are reached:

1. The chance that in-air electromagnetic devices would cause thermal damage to an individual 

bird is extremely low; 

2. It is possible, although unlikely, that some bird individuals would be exposed to levels of 

electromagnetic radiation that would cause discomfort, in which case they would likely avoid 

the immediate vicinity of testing and training activities; 

3. The strength of any avoidance response would decrease with increasing distance from the in-air 

electromagnetic device; and 

4. No long-term or population-level impacts would occur.

3.9.3.3.2.1 Impacts from In- Air Electromagnetic Devices Under Alternative 1

Impacts from In-Air Electromagnetic Devices Under Alternative 1 for Training Activities

As indicated in Section 3.0.3.3.3.2 (In-Air Electromagnetic Devices) and Tables 3.0-15 and 3.0-27, under 

Alternative 1, training activities involving in-air electromagnetic devices would occur throughout the 

Study Area but would be concentrated in the Hawaii Range Complex and Southern California Range 

Complexes. For the reasons described above, however, no long-term or population-level impacts to 

birds would occur.

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of in-air electromagnetic devices during training activities as described 

under Alternative 1 may affect least terns, Hawaiian petrels, short-tailed albatrosses, marbled murrelets, 

Newell’s shearwaters, and band-rumped storm petrels. The Navy will consult with the USFWS as 

required by section 7(a)(2) of the ESA in this regard.

Impacts from In- Air Electromagnetic Devices Under Alternative 1 for Testing Activities

As indicated in Section 3.0.3.3.3.2 (In-Air Electromagnetic Devices) and Tables 3.0-15 and 3.0-27, under 

Alternative 1, testing activities involving in-air electromagnetic devices would occur throughout the 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.9-73

3.9 Birds

Hawaii Range Complex and (especially) Southern California Range Complexes, but much less frequently 

than for training. For the reasons described above, however, no long-term or population-level impacts 

to birds would occur. 

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of in-air electromagnetic devices during testing activities as described 

under Alternative 1 may affect least terns, Hawaiian petrels, short-tailed albatrosses, marbled murrelets, 

Newell’s shearwaters, and band-rumped storm petrels. The Navy will consult with the USFWS as 

required by section 7(a)(2) of the ESA in this regard.

3.9.3.3.2.2 Impacts from In- Air Electromagnetic Devices Under Alternative 2

Impacts from In- Air Electromagnetic Devices Under Alternative 2 for Training Activities

The number and distribution of training activities using in-air electromagnetic devices under 

Alternative 2 would differ slightly from Alternative 1 insofar as the average number of total vessel and 

aircraft activities within the Study Area would increase slightly (by a fraction of a percent for both vessel 

and aircraft activity) over the 5-year period (Table 3.0-15 and Table 3.0-27, respectively). Given the 

foregoing analysis, this difference is inconsequential and the impacts would be essentially the same as 

for Alternative 1.

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of in-air electromagnetic devices during training activities as described 

under Alternative 2 may affect least terns, Hawaiian petrels, short-tailed albatrosses, marbled murrelets, 

Newell’s shearwaters, and band-rumped storm petrels. The Navy will consult with the USFWS as 

required by section 7(a)(2) of the ESA in this regard.

Impacts from In- Air Electromagnetic Devices Under Alternative 2 for Testing Activities

The number and distribution of testing activities using in-air electromagnetic devices under Alternative 2 

would differ slightly from Alternative 1 insofar as the average number of total vessel and aircraft 

activities within the Study Area would increase slightly (by approximately 4.6 percent and 10.3 percent, 

respectively) over the 5-year period (Table 3.0-15 and Table 3.0-27, respectively). The majority of the 

increase in activity would occur in Southern California. Given the foregoing analysis, this difference is 

inconsequential and the impacts would be essentially the same as for Alternative 1.

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of in-air electromagnetic devices during testing activities as described 

under Alternative 2 may affect least terns, Hawaiian petrels, short-tailed albatrosses, marbled murrelets, 

Newell’s shearwaters, and band-rumped storm petrels. The Navy will consult with the USFWS as 

required by section 7(a)(2) of the ESA in this regard. 

3.9.3.3.2.3 Impacts from In- Air Electromagnetic Devices Under the No Action Alternative

Impacts from In- Air Electromagnetic Devices Under the No Action Alternative for Training and 

Testing Activities

Under the No Action Alternative, the Navy would not conduct the proposed training and testing 

activities in the HSTT Study Area. Various in-air electromagnetic device stressors would not be 

introduced into the marine environment. Therefore, baseline conditions of the existing environment 

would either remain unchanged or would improve slightly after cessation of ongoing training and 

testing activities.

3.9.3.3.3 Impacts from High-Energy Lasers

This section analyzes the potential impacts of high energy lasers on birds. As discussed in 

Section 3.0.3.3.3.3 (Lasers), and described in Appendix A, Sections A.3.1.5.4 (High Energy Laser Weapons 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.9-74

3.9 Birds

Test) and A.3.2.2.1 (Radar and Other System Testing), high energy laser weapons are designed to disable 

targets, rendering them immobile. Test activities would involve firing the laser from an aircraft or vessel 

at an unmanned surface or aerial target. Tests would be conducted at unspecified locations in the 

Hawaii and Southern California Range Complexes, including but not limited to San Diego and Pearl 

Harbor. The primary concern is the potential for a bird to be directly struck with the laser beam, which 

could result in injury or death. 

3.9.3.3.3.1 Impacts from High-Energy Lasers Under Alternative 1

Impacts from High-Energy Lasers Under Alternative 1 for Training Activities

There would be no use of high energy lasers as part of Alternative 1 training activities in the Study Area 

and, therefore, no impacts from this potential stressor, under Alternative 1 for training activities 

(Table 3.0-13).

Impacts from High-Energy Lasers Under Alternative 1 for Testing Activities

Under Alternative 1, high energy laser weapons tests would take place at unspecified locations, with 

approximately 423 events occurring annually, 99 in the Hawaii Range Complex and 324 in the Southern 

California Range Complex. Bird species that occur within the Hawaii and Southern California Range 

Complexes would potentially be exposed to high energy lasers. Species that occur within these areas 

could be exposed, including the ESA-listed California least-tern, ESA-listed Hawaiian Petrel, and 

ESA-listed short-tailed albatross.

Laser safety procedures (Section 2.3.3.1.3, Laser Safety) require the clearance of unauthorized 

personnel from the range, and, while not required, marine species may incidentally be detected and 

avoided as a result. This reduces the possibility of a bird being struck by a high-energy laser beam, 

although birds could fly rapidly through a target area, or be present unseen. The avoidance of large 

flocks of birds by Navy pilots in order to lessen bird strike risks (Section 2.3.3.1.2, Aircraft Safety) also 

reduces the likelihood of large numbers of birds being in flight between the aircraft and the target when 

a laser is fired. A bird in flight or at long distance might not be detectable, but the likelihood of a bird 

crossing the laser beam at the instant the laser is fired is extremely remote but possible. 

No long-term or population-level impacts are expected. Birds are not likely to be exposed to high energy 

lasers based on the: (1) relatively low number of activities, (2) very localized potential impact area of the 

laser beam, and (3) temporary duration of potential impact (seconds). The likelihood that an ESA-listed 

bird species would be struck by a high-energy laser beam is so small as to be discountable; no impacts to 

ESA-listed species are anticipated.

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of high-energy lasers during testing activities as described under 

Alternative 1 would not affect least terns, Hawaiian petrels, short-tailed albatrosses, marbled murrelets, 

Newell’s shearwaters, and band-rumped storm petrels. 

3.9.3.3.3.2 Impacts from High-Energy Lasers Under Alternative 2

Impacts from High-Energy Lasers Under Alternative 2 for Training Activities

There would be no use of high-energy lasers as part of Alternative 2 training activities in the Study Area 

and, therefore, no impacts from this potential stressor under Alternative 2 for training activities 

(Table 3.0-13).
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.9-75

3.9 Birds

Impacts from High-Energy Lasers Under Alternative 2 for Testing Activities

The use of high-energy lasers associated with Alternative 2 testing activities will be the same as with 

Alternative 1 (Table 3.0-13); therefore potential impacts to birds resulting from high-energy lasers would 

be expected to be the same.

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of high-energy lasers during testing activities as described under 

Alternative 2 would not affect least terns, Hawaiian petrels, short-tailed albatrosses, marbled murrelets, 

Newell’s shearwaters, and band-rumped storm petrels. 

3.9.3.3.3.3 Impacts from High-Energy Lasers Under the No Action Alternative

Impacts from High-Energy Lasers Under the No Action Alternative for Training and Testing 

Activities

Under the No Action Alternative, the Navy would not conduct the proposed training and testing 

activities in the HSTT Study Area. Various high-energy laser electromagnetic device stressors would not 

be introduced into the marine environment. Therefore, baseline conditions of the existing environment 

would either remain unchanged or would improve slightly after cessation of ongoing training and 

testing activities.

3.9.3.4 Physical Disturbance and Strike Stressors

This section describes the potential impacts to birds by aircraft and aerial target strikes, vessels 

(disturbance and strike), and military expended material strike. For a list of Navy activities that involve 

this stressor refer to Section 3.0.3.3.4 (Physical Disturbance and Strike Stressors). Aircraft include fixedwing and rotary-wing aircraft; vessels include various sizes and classes of ships, and other boats; inwater devices include devices that are towed, unmanned surface, and underwater vehicles; military 

expended material includes non-explosive practice munitions, target fragments, 

decelerators/parachutes, and other objects.

Physical disturbance and strike risks, primarily from aircraft, have the potential to impact all taxonomic 

groups found within the Study Area (Table 3.9-1). In addition to the potential for injury and mortality, 

impacts of physical disturbance include behavioral responses such as temporary disorientation, collision, 

change in flight direction, and avoidance response behavior. Physical disturbances (discussed in Section 

3.9.4.3.3, Impacts from Aircraft and Aerial Targets) may elicit short-term behavioral or physiological 

responses such as alert response, startle response, cessation of feeding, fleeing the immediate area, and 

a temporary increase in heart rate. These disturbances can also result in abnormal behavioral, growth, 

or reproductive impacts in nesting birds and can cause foraging and nesting birds to flush from or 

abandon their habitats and or nests (Andersen et al., 1989; Komenda-Zehnder et al., 2003). Aircraft 

strikes often result in bird mortalities or injuries (Dolbeer, 2006).

Although birds likely hear and see approaching vessels and aircraft, they cannot avoid all collisions. 

Nighttime lighting on vessels, specifically high-powered searchlights used for navigation in icy waters off 

of Greenland, has caused birds to become confused and collide with naval vessels, cargo vessels, and 

trawlers (Gehring et al., 2009; Merkel & Johansen, 2011; Poot et al., 2008). Collisions with vessels can 

result in bird mortalities or injuries.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.9-76

3.9 Birds

3.9.3.4.1 Impacts from Vessels and In-Water Devices

Vessels

The majority of the training and testing activities in the Study Area involve vessels. For a discussion of 

the types of activities that use vessels, as well as the number and location of activities that include 

vessels under each alternative, see Section 3.0.3.3.4.1 (Vessels and In-Water Devices). Table 3.0-14 

provides representative vessel types and their sizes and typical operating speeds; Table 3.0-15 provides 

the number and locations of activities that include vessels; Table 3.0-16 provides the number and 

location of activities in inland waters that include vessels; and Table 3.0-17 provides the location and 

annual number of high speed vessel hours for small crafts in inland waters. Appendix B (Activity Stressor 

Matrices) provides the types of activities that use vessels.

Potential impacts of those activities on birds are applicable to everywhere in the Study Area that vessels 

are used. Training and testing activities within the Study Area involve maneuvers by various types of 

surface ships, boats, and submarines. The number of Navy ships and smaller vessels in the Study Area 

varies based on training and testing schedules. Activities involving vessel movements occur 

intermittently, ranging from a few hours to a few weeks. Events involving large vessels are widely spread 

over the open ocean, while smaller vessels are more active and more concentrated in nearshore areas.

Direct collisions with most Navy vessels (or a vessel’s rigging, cables, poles, or masts) are unlikely but 

may occur, especially at night. Many bird species are attracted to artificial lighting, particularly 

Procellariiformes. Newell’s shearwater and Hawaiian petrel fledglings are particularly attracted to light, 

which can cause exhaustion and increase potential for collision with land-based structures (Reed et al., 

1985). Lighting on boats and vessels has also contributed to bird fatalities in open-ocean environments 

when birds are attracted to these lights, usually in inclement weather conditions (Merkel & Johansen, 

2011). Birds can become disoriented at night in the presence of artificial light (Favero et al., 2011; 

Hamilton, 1958; Hyrenbach, 2001; Hyrenbach, 2006), and lighting on vessels may attract some birds, 

increasing the potential for harmful encounters. Other impacts would be the visual and behavioral 

disturbance from a vessel. Birds respond to moving vessels in various ways. Some birds, including certain 

species of gulls, storm petrels, and albatrosses, commonly follow vessels (Favero et al., 2011; 

Hyrenbach, 2001; Hyrenbach, 2006); while other species such as plovers, curlews, frigatebirds, and 

sooty terns seem to avoid vessels (Borberg et al., 2005; Hyrenbach, 2006). There could be a slightly 

increased risk of impacts during the winter, or fall/spring migrations when migratory birds use celestial 

clues during night time flight and are concentrated in coastal areas. However, despite this 

concentration, most birds would still be able to avoid collision with a vessel. Vessel movements could 

elicit short-term behavioral or physiological responses (e.g., alert response, startle response, fleeing the 

immediate area, temporary increase in heart rate). 

Navy aircraft carriers, surface combatant vessels, and amphibious warfare ships are minimally lighted for 

tactical purposes. For vessels of this type there are two white lights that shine forward and one that 

shines aft; these lights must be visible for at least 6 NM. A single red and a single green light are located 

on the port and starboard sides of vessels, respectively. These lights are visible for a minimum of 3 NM. 

Solid white lighting appears more problematic for birds, especially nocturnal migrants (Gehring et al., 

2009; Poot et al., 2008). Navy vessel lights are mostly solid, but sometimes may not appear solid 

because of the constant movement of the vessel (wave action), making vessel lighting potentially less 

problematic for birds in some situations.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.9-77

3.9 Birds

While some potential exists for birds to be struck by vessels as they are foraging, resting, or flying near 

the water surface, most birds would be expected to see or hear an oncoming vessel and to fly or swim 

away to avoid a potentially harmful encounter. Injury or mortality could occur if a bird were struck, but 

most bird encounters with vessels would be expected to result in a brief behavioral and physiological 

response as described above. It should be noted that such responses involve at the least a temporary 

displacement of birds from foraging areas, resulting in energetic costs to the birds (Velando & Munilla, 

2011). Birds would be expected to return and resume foraging soon after the vessel passed through the 

area, or to forage elsewhere, and the fitness of individual birds would probably not be compromised.

Other harmful bird-vessel interactions are commonly associated with commercial fishing vessels 

because birds are attracted to concentrated food sources around these vessels (Dietrich & Melvin, 2004; 

Melvin & Parrish, 2001a). However, concentrated food sources are not associated with Navy vessels, so 

birds following Navy vessels would be very unlikely.

Amphibious vessel movements could elicit short-term behavioral or physiological responses such as 

alert response, startle response, cessation of feeding, fleeing the immediate area, nest abandonment, 

and a temporary increase in heart rate. There could be a slightly increased risk of impacts during the 

winter, or fall/spring migrations and during nesting season when migratory birds are concentrated in 

coastal areas where amphibious vessels have the potential to disturb nesting or foraging shorebirds such 

as the ESA-listed California least tern. The general health of individual birds would not be compromised, 

unless a direct strike occurred. However, it is highly unlikely that a bird would be struck in this scenario 

because most foraging shorebirds in the vicinity of the approaching amphibious vessel would likely be 

dispersed by the noise of its approach before it could come close enough to strike a bird (Acoustics 

Section 3.9.3.4.1, Impacts from Vessels).

Under a worst-case scenario, vessel movements could cause the localized, temporary movement of 

birds to areas that are less desirable, resulting in some energetic cost which may or may not be 

important to an individual’s survival and reproduction. However, it is unlikely that impacts would occur 

to the point that birds would be permanently displaced from important habitats that were not already 

subject to heavy ongoing use. As such, no long-term or population-level impacts are expected. 

In-Water Devices

Section 3.0.3.3.4.1 (Vessels and In-water Devices) provides information on the types, sizes and speeds of

in-water devices. Table 3.0-18 provides the locations where they would be used. For a list of activities by 

name that include the use of in-water devices, see Appendix B (Activity Stressor Matrices). In-water 

devices include surface and underwater unmanned vehicles, torpedoes and towed devices, and their 

use occurs virtually throughout the Study Area.

Mine warfare devices that are towed through the water (or the aircraft and cables that connect the 

aircraft to the device) and remotely operated underwater vehicles used during mine neutralization 

training and testing could also strike seabirds. No documented instances of seabirds being struck by 

towed devices have occurred in the Study Area. Additionally, based on the low altitudes and relatively 

slow air speeds, seabirds would be able to detect and avoid the aircraft and cables that connect the 

aircraft to the towed device.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.9-78

3.9 Birds

3.9.3.4.1.1 Impacts from Vessels and In-Water Devices Under Alternative 1

Impacts from Vessels and In-Water Devices Under Alternative 1 for Training Activities

The majority of training activities use some type of vessel ranging from ships to submarines. Training 

involving vessel movements occurs intermittently and spans in duration from a few hours up to a few 

weeks. These activities are widely dispersed throughout the Study Area. Under Alternative 1, 

approximately 15,278 training activities involving vessels would occur annually, with 76 percent of the 

total occurring in the Southern California Range Complex, 23 percent in the Hawaii Range Complex, and 

1 percent in the Transit Corridor (Table 3.0-16). Ship movements on the ocean surface have the 

potential to affect seabirds by disturbing or striking individual animals. The probability of ship and 

seabird interactions occurring in the Study Area depends on several factors, including the presence and 

density of seabirds; numbers, types, and speeds of vessels; and the duration and spatial extent of 

activities. The number of Navy ships operating in the Study Area varies based on training schedules and 

can range up to 10 ships at any given time.

Vessel movements could result in short-term behavioral responses and low potential for injury/mortality 

from collisions, though based on the lower density of Navy vessels in pelagic waters, the generally 

intermittent and short duration of activities, and the high mobility of seabirds, the probability of 

seabird/vessel interaction is low. There would be a greater likelihood of vessel strikes over the high 

productivity portions of the Study Area, because of the concentration of seabirds is expected to be 

greater in those areas. While the density of seabirds may be higher in Southern California, the likelihood 

and consequence of interacting with an endangered species such as the Hawaiian petrel is higher in 

Hawaii Range Complex. The relatively lower vessel density in pelagic waters in the Study Area, and the 

ability of seabirds to detect and avoid vessels reduce the probability that vessel strikes would impact 

seabird populations.

As indicated in Section 3.0.3.3.4.1 (Vessels and In-Water Devices), there would be up to 2,280 training 

activities involving the use of in-water devices. These activities could be widely dispersed throughout 

the Hawaii Range Complex and Southern California Range Complex but would be more concentrated 

near naval ports, piers, and ranges. In-water devices would not be used within the HSTT Transit Corridor.

In-water devices used are typically towed by a boat, unmanned vehicles or fired from a ship. As 

discussed for electromagnetic devices (Section 3.9.3.3.1, Impacts from Electromagnetic Devices), it is 

likely that any birds in the vicinity of the approaching boat, unmanned vehicle or ship firing torpedoes

would be dispersed by their sound (Section 3.9.3.1.7, Impacts from Weapons Noise) and move away 

from the in-water device before any exposure could occur. Therefore, the use of in-water devices is 

expected to have only short-term impacts on individual birds, with very low potential for injury or 

mortality, and no population-level impacts. 

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of vessels and in-water devices during training activities as described under 

Alternative 1 may affect least terns, Hawaiian petrels, short-tailed albatrosses, marbled murrelets, 

Newell’s shearwaters, and band-rumped storm petrels. The Navy will consult with the USFWS as 

required by section 7(a)(2) of the ESA in this regard.

Impacts from Vessels and In-Water Devices Under Alternative 1 for Testing Activities

As indicated in Section 3.0.3.3.4.1 (Vessels and In-Water Devices), Navy vessel and in-water activities 

associated with testing activities would be fewer than those associated with training. Vessels 

movements would occur throughout the Study Area. Similarly, as indicated in Section 3.0.3.3.4.1 

(Vessels and In-Water Devices), the number of activities using in-water devices would be fewer for 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.9-79

3.9 Birds

testing activities than for training activities. However, a small number of activities involving in-water 

devices would be conducted in the HSTT Transit Corridor.

The potential for interaction is greater in coastal areas rather than pelagic areas where Navy vessel use 

is less concentrated. However, even in areas of concentrated vessel use, the probability of 

seabird/vessel interaction is low because of the high mobility of seabirds would allow them to move 

away from an oncoming vessel. Certain portions of the Study Area, such as areas near ports, naval 

installations, or testing locations are used more heavily by vessels than other portions of the Study Area. 

Ship movements on the ocean surface have the potential to affect seabirds by disturbing or striking 

individual seabirds. The probability of ship and seabird interactions occurring in the Study Area depends 

on several factors, including the presence and density of seabirds; numbers, types, and speeds of

vessels; and the duration and spatial extent of activities. The number of Navy ships operating in the

Study Area varies based on the testing activity taking place; up to 10 vessels could be participating in a 

testing event at any time. 

Flushing of seabirds is expected to be greatest with fast-moving, agile vessels. Impacts to seabirds from 

Navy vessels would be limited to short-term behavioral responses and are not expected to have longterm effects. While flushing or other effects from vessels on individual seabirds may occur, none of 

these temporary effects are expected to have an impact on the long-term fitness of individual birds or 

have population level impacts.

The relatively lower vessel density in pelagic waters in the Study Area, and the ability of seabirds to 

detect and avoid vessels reduce the probability that vessel strikes would impact seabird populations 

under Alternative 1. The impacts from vessel movements to individual seabirds in the vicinity would be 

short-term, temporary, and localized. If in the immediate area where vessels or in-water devices are 

operating, No long-term disturbances to the species or to the population are expected to occur.

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of vessels and in-water devices during testing activities as described under 

Alternative 1 may affect least terns, Hawaiian petrels, short-tailed albatrosses, marbled murrelets, 

Newell’s shearwaters, and band-rumped storm petrels. The Navy will consult with the USFWS as 

required by section 7(a)(2) of the ESA in this regard.

3.9.3.4.1.2 Impacts from Vessels and In-Water Devices Under Alternative 2

Impacts from Vessels and In-Water Devices Under Alternative 2 for Training Activities

Under Alternative 2, potential impacts to birds resulting from vessels and in-water devices associated 

with training activities would be similar to those discussed for activities under Alternative 1. There 

would be a very small increase (less than one percent) in vessel and in-water device use in the Study 

Area (Tables 3.0-16 and 3.0-18). However, the difference would not result in substantive changes to the 

potential for or types of impacts on birds. Refer to Section 3.9.3.4.1 (Impacts from Vessels and In-Water 

Devices under Alternative 1) for a discussion of potential impacts.

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of vessels and in-water devices during training activities as described under 

Alternative 2 may affect least terns, Hawaiian petrels, short-tailed albatrosses, marbled murrelets, 

Newell’s shearwaters, and band-rumped storm petrels. The Navy will consult with the USFWS as 

required by section 7(a)(2) of the ESA in this regard.

Impacts from Vessels and In-Water Devices Under Alternative 2 for Testing Activities

Under Alternative 2, potential impacts to birds resulting from vessels and in-water devices associated 

with testing activities would be similar to those discussed for activities under Alternative 1. Vessel use 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.9-80

3.9 Birds

would increase by about 4.6 percent (Table 3.0-15), while the number of activities involving in-water 

devices would increase by about 1.6 percent (Table 3.0-17). However, the differences in vessel and 

in-water device use would not result in substantive changes to the potential for or types of impacts on 

birds. Refer to Section 3.9.3.4.1.1 (Impacts from Vessels and In-Water Devices under Alternative 1) for a 

discussion of potential impacts.

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of vessels and in-water devices during testing activities as described under 

Alternative 2 may affect least terns, Hawaiian petrels, short-tailed albatrosses, marbled murrelets, 

Newell’s shearwaters, and band-rumped storm petrels. The Navy will consult with the USFWS as 

required by section 7(a)(2) of the ESA in this regard.

3.9.3.4.1.3 Impacts from Vessels and In-Water Devices Under the No Action Alternative

Impacts from Vessels and In-Water Devices Under the No Action Alternative for Training and 

Testing Activities

Under the No Action Alternative, the Navy would not conduct the proposed training and testing 

activities in the HSTT Study Area. Various physical disturbance and strike stressors (e.g., vessels and 

in-water devices) would not be introduced into the marine environment. Therefore, baseline conditions 

of the existing environment would either remain unchanged or would improve slightly after cessation of 

ongoing training and testing activities.

3.9.3.4.2 Impacts from Aircraft and Aerial Targets

Physical disturbance and strike risks, primarily from aircraft, have the potential to impact all taxonomic 

groups found within the Study Area if seabirds are in the same area with aircraft. Impacts of physical 

disturbance include behavioral responses such as temporary disorientation, collision, change in flight 

direction, and avoidance response behavior. Physical disturbances may elicit short-term behavioral or 

physiological responses such as alert response, startle response, cessation of feeding, fleeing the 

immediate area, and a temporary increase in heart rate. These disturbances can also result in abnormal 

behavioral, growth, or reproductive impacts in nesting seabirds and can cause foraging and nesting 

seabirds to flush from or abandon their habitats and or nests (Andersen et al., 1989; Komenda-Zehnder 

et al., 2003). Aircraft strikes often result in bird mortalities or injuries (Dolbeer, 2006). Bird-aircraft 

strikes are a grave concern for the Navy because they can damage equipment and harm aircrews (Bies 

et al., 2006). The Naval Aviation Safety Program Instruction, Chief of Naval Operations Instruction 

3750.6R, identifies measures to evaluate and reduce or eliminate bird/aircraft strike hazards to aircraft, 

aircrews, and birds and requires the reporting of all strikes when damage or injuries occur as a result of 

a bird/aircraft strike. From 2006 to 2015, the Navy Bird/Animal Aircraft Strike Hazard program recorded 

10,496 bird strikes with the majority occurring during the fall period from September to November. 

During the 10-year period, bird strikes were greatest in the year 2015 with 1,283 strikes, and lowest in 

the year 2008 with 755 (Naval Safety Center, 2017). Bird strike potential is greatest in foraging or resting 

areas, in migration corridors at night, and at low altitudes during the periods around dawn and dusk. For 

example, birds can be attracted to airports because they often provide foraging and nesting resources. 

Approximately 97 percent of the reported civilian aircraft- wildlife damaging strikes from 1990 to 1999 

involved common, large-bodied birds or large flocks of small birds. Almost 70 percent of these events 

involved gulls, waterfowl, and raptors (Federal Aviation Administration, 2003).

As described in Section 2.1.1.3 (Standard Operating Procedures), the Navy implements standard 

operating procedures for aircraft safety. Pilots of Navy aircraft make every attempt to avoid large flocks 

of birds to reduce the safety risk involved with a potential bird strike. Since 2011, the Navy has required 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.9-81

3.9 Birds

that all Navy flying units report all bird strikes through the Web-Enabled Safety System Aviation Mishap 

and Hazard Reporting System. The standard operating procedures for aircraft safety could result in a 

secondary benefit to birds through a reduction in the potential for aircraft strike.

While bird strikes can occur anywhere aircraft are operated, Navy data indicate that they occur most 

often within the airfield environment – i.e. over land or close to shore (Naval Air Station Jacksonville, 

2012). Dolbeer (2006) reports that about 95 percent of aircraft-wildlife strikes occur on or near airports, 

when aircraft are below altitudes of 3,500 ft. For military rotary-wing aircraft, wildlife strikes happened 

most frequently when the aircraft were traveling enroute (flying at an altitude greater than 1,000 ft. 

above ground level) or were engaged in terrain flight (flying at an altitude less than 1,000 ft. above 

ground level), as opposed to (1) hovering (off the ground at less than 1,000 ft. above ground level, and 

stationary), (2) on approach (in the early stages of the landing process at greater than 100 ft. above 

ground level and moving forward), (3) landing (the final stages of landing at less than 100 ft. above 

ground level), (4) taxiing (moving along the ground, or at less than 10 feet above ground level, in 

transition from one part of the airport to another), (5) taking off (leaving the ground and ascending 

upward at less than 100 ft. above ground level), or (6) climbing out (for rotary-wing aircraft in the later 

stages of taking off at greater than 100 ft. above ground level) (Washburn et al., 2014). The potential for 

bird strikes to occur in offshore areas is relatively low because Navy activities are widely dispersed and 

above 3,000 ft. (for fixed-wing aircraft) where bird densities are low. Approximately 95 percent of bird 

flight during migration occurs below 10,000 ft., with the majority below 3,000 ft. (U.S. Geological Survey, 

2006). Aircraft encounters with birds are more likely to occur during aircraft takeoffs and landings than 

when the aircraft is engaged in level low-altitude flight. In a study that examined 38,961 bird and aircraft 

collisions, Dobson (2010) found that the majority (74 percent) of collisions occurred below 500 ft. 

However, collisions have been recorded at elevations as great as 12,139 ft. (Dobson, 2010). 

In addition to manned aircraft, aerial targets such as unmanned drones could also incur a bird strike, 

however, evidence from returned drones indicate the probability is low.

3.9.3.4.2.1 Impacts from Aircraft and Aerial Targets Under Alternative 1

Impacts from Aircraft and Aerial Targets Under Alternative 1 for Training Activities

Aircraft use in the Study Area is described in Section 3.0.3.3.4.4 (Aircraft). Approximately 34,619 training 

activities involving aircraft would occur annually in the Study Area under Alternative 1. Eighty-four 

percent of the activities would occur within the Southern California Range Complex, 16 percent in the 

Hawaii Range Complex, and less than one-tenth of one percent in the transit corridor (Table 3.0-28). 

Aerial targets used in the Study Area are described in Appendix A (A.1.3, Targets). Under Alternative 1 

for training activities, air-launched decoys would be used in approximately 121 events annually, 

76 percent of these being in the Hawaii Range Complex and 24 percent occurring in the Southern 

California Range Complex (Table 3.0-28).

Some individual bird strikes and associated bird mortalities or injuries could occur as a result of aircraft 

and aerial target use in the Study Area under the Alternative 1; however, population-level impacts to 

birds would not likely result. ESA-listed species could be impacted by aircraft disturbance or strikes while 

in flight in areas where low altitude operations are taking place. However, no ESA-listed bird strikes have 

been reported during training activities.

California least terns could be exposed to intermittent aircraft overflights and strike potential in 

nearshore areas where training and testing activities occur. If present in the open water areas where 

training and testing activities involving aircraft occur, Hawaiian petrel, short-tailed albatross, marbled 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.9-82

3.9 Birds

murrelet or Newell’s shearwater could be briefly exposed to strike potential. However, the data that 

Navy has collected on bird strikes reports that no ESA-listed species have been struck in the past, so it is 

not likely they would be struck by aircraft or aerial targets during training and testing activities.

Bird exposure to strike potential would be relatively brief as an aircraft quickly passes. Bird strikes may 

occur to a relatively small number of individuals, but no long-term or population-level impacts would 

occur, especially when considering the Navy’s standard operating procedures for aircraft safety (see 

Section 2.1.1.3, Standard Operating Procedures).

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of aircraft and aerial targets during training activities as described under 

Alternative 1 may affect least terns, Hawaiian petrels, short-tailed albatrosses, marbled murrelets, 

Newell’s shearwaters, and band-rumped storm petrels. The Navy will consult with the USFWS as 

required by section 7(a)(2) of the ESA in this regard.

Impacts from Aircraft and Aerial Targets Under Alternative 1 for Testing Activities

Aircraft use in the Study Area is described in Section 3.0.3.3.4.4 (Aircraft). Approximately 2,213 testing 

activities involving aircraft would occur annually in the Study Area under Alternative 1, with 24 percent 

of activities occurring in the Hawaii Range Complex, 76 percent in the Southern California Range 

Complex, 16 percent in the Hawaii Range Complex, and none in the transit corridor (Table 3.0-28). 

Under Alternative 1 for testing activities, aerial drones would be used in approximately 92 events 

annually, all in the Southern California Range Complex (Table 3.0-28). The same types of impacts 

described above for training activities may result from testing activities but with much lower frequencies 

based on only 1/16 as many testing activities. Bird strikes may occur to a relatively small number of 

individuals, but no population-level impacts would occur, especially when considering the Navy’s 

standard operating procedures for aircraft safety (see Section 2.1.1.3, Standard Operating Procedures).

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of aircraft and aerial targets during testing activities as described under 

Alternative 1 may affect least terns, Hawaiian petrels, short-tailed albatrosses, marbled murrelets, 

Newell’s shearwaters, and band-rumped storm petrels. The Navy will consult with the USFWS as 

required by section 7(a)(2) of the ESA in this regard.

3.9.3.4.2.2 Impacts from Aircraft and Aerial Targets Under Alternative 2

Impacts from Aircraft and Aerial Targets Under Alternative 2 for Training Activities

The use of aircraft and aerial targets under Alternative 2 for training would be virtually identical (less 

than one percent difference for aircraft and no difference for targets) to what would occur under 

Alternative 1 (Table 3.0-28); therefore, the same impact conclusions apply.

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of aircraft and aerial targets during training activities as described under 

Alternative 2 may affect least terns, Hawaiian petrels, short-tailed albatrosses, marbled murrelets, 

Newell’s shearwaters, and band-rumped storm petrels. The Navy will consult with the USFWS as 

required by section 7(a)(2) of the ESA in this regard.

Impacts from Aircraft and Aerial Targets Under Alternative 2 for Testing Activities

Compared to Alternative 1, the use of aircraft and aerial targets under Alternative 2 for testing would be 

slightly greater (less than 10 percent difference) for aircraft but would be the same for targets. 

Therefore, impacts would be slightly greater under Alternative 2, but would still be inconsequential in 

terms of numbers of birds affected and population-level effects.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.9-83

3.9 Birds

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of aircraft and aerial targets during testing activities as described under 

Alternative 2 may affect least terns, Hawaiian petrels, short-tailed albatrosses, marbled murrelets, 

Newell’s shearwaters, and band-rumped storm petrels. The Navy will consult with the USFWS as 

required by section 7(a)(2) of the ESA in this regard.

3.9.3.4.2.3 Impacts from Aircraft and Aerial Targets Under the No Action Alternative

Impacts from Aircraft and Aerial Targets Under the No Action Alternative for Training and Testing 

Activities

Under the No Action Alternative, the Navy would not conduct the proposed training and testing 

activities in the HSTT Study Area. Various physical disturbance and strike stressors (e.g., aircraft and 

aerial targets) would not be introduced into the marine environment. Therefore, baseline conditions of 

the existing environment would either remain unchanged or would improve slightly after cessation of 

ongoing training and testing activities.

3.9.3.4.3 Impacts from Military Expended Materials

This section analyzes the physical disturbance and strike potential to birds from the following categories 

of military expended materials: (1) all sizes of non-explosive practice munitions, (2) fragments from highexplosive munitions, and (3) expended materials other than munitions, such as sonobuoys, vessel hulks, 

and expendable targets. See Appendix F (Military Expended Materials and Direct Strike Impact Analyses) 

for more information on the locations, types, and quantities of military expended materials proposed to 

be used. 

Exposure of birds to military expended materials during Navy training and testing activities could result 

in physical injury or behavioral disturbances to birds in air, at the surface, or underwater during foraging 

dives. Although a quantitative analysis is not possible due to the absence of bird density information in 

the Study Area and the dispersed nature of training and testing activities, an assessment of the 

likelihood of exposure to military expended materials was conducted based on general bird distributions 

in the Study Area.

The widely dispersed area in which bombs and missiles would be expended in the Study Area annually 

(see Chapter 2, Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives), coupled with the often patchy 

distribution of seabirds (Fauchald et al., 2002; Haney, 1986b; Schneider & Duffy, 1985), suggest that the 

probability of these types of munitions striking a seabird would be low. The number of small-caliber 

projectiles that would be expended annually during various activities (e.g., gunnery exercises) is much 

higher than the number of large-caliber projectiles and other large munitions. However, the total 

number of rounds expended is not a good indicator of strike probability during gunnery exercises 

because multiple rounds of large-caliber projectiles and other large munitions are generally fired at 

individual targets during a single event.

Human activity such as vessel movement, aircraft overflights, and target placement could cause birds to 

flee a target area before the onset of firing, thus avoiding harm. If birds were in the target area, they 

would likely flee the area prior to the release of military expended materials or just after the initial 

rounds strike the target area (assuming seabirds were not struck by the initial rounds). Additionally, the 

force of military expended material fragments dissipates quickly once the pieces hit the water, so direct 

strikes on seabirds foraging below the surface would not be likely. Also, munitions would not be used in 

shallow/nearshore areas. The potential likelihood of individual seabirds being struck or disturbed by 

munitions is very low; thus, impacts on seabird populations would not be expected.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.9-84

3.9 Birds

3.9.3.4.3.1 Impacts from Military Expended Materials Under Alternative 1

Impacts from Military Expended Materials Under Alternative 1 for Training Activities

Tables 3.0-20, 3.0-22, 3.0-24, and 3.0-26 in Section 3.0.3.3.4.2 (Military Expended Materials) provide a 

breakdown of the number and general location of different activities that generate these materials 

under both action alternatives for training. Military expended materials would occur throughout the 

Study Area, although relatively few items would be expended in the transit corridor. Appendix F

(Military Expended Material and Direct Strike Impact Analyses) provides details on the types, numbers 

and footprints of expended materials by location. 

The potential impact of military expended materials on birds in the Study Area is dependent on the 

ability of birds to detect and avoid foreign objects through their sensory systems and the relatively fast 

flying speeds and maneuverability of most bird species. The potential for impact is related to the 

probability of a bird and a projectile meeting in the same space at the same time. The amount of 

materials expended over the vast area over which training and testing activities occur combined with 

the ability of birds to flee disturbance, would make direct strikes unlikely. Individual birds may be 

impacted, but strikes would have no impact on species or populations.

Direct strikes from firing weapons (projectiles) or air-launched devices (e.g., sonobuoys, torpedoes) are 

a potential stressor to seabirds. Seabirds in flight, resting on the water’s surface, or foraging just below 

the water surface would be vulnerable to a direct strike. Strikes have the potential to injure or kill 

seabirds in the Study Area. However, there would not be long-term population level impacts. The 

footprint calculations in Appendix F (Military Expended Material and Direct Strike Impact Analysis, e.g., 

Table F-4) indicate very small areas of Study Area being impacted, and a consequent low probability of 

strikes to birds, by the types of materials that pose the greatest risk to birds (e.g., projectiles, torpedoes, 

surface targets) on an annual or cumulative 5-year basis. The vast area over which training activities 

occur combined with the ability of seabirds to flee disturbance, would make direct strikes unlikely. 

Individual seabirds may be affected, but strikes would have no impact on species or populations. 

If ESA-listed species were in the immediate area where military expended materials are present, they

could be impacted by military expended material strikes. It is highly unlikely that a bird would be struck 

by military expended materials because most birds in the vicinity of the approaching aircraft or vessel, 

from which the military expended materials are released, would likely be dispersed by the sound of its 

approach before it could come close enough for an impact from a strike or a disturbance to take place. 

Therefore, activities that release military expended materials would not likely cause any potential strike 

or disturbance risk to birds in the Study Area. 

Pursuant to the ESA, the use military expended materials during training activities as described under 

Alternative 1 may affect least terns, Hawaiian petrels, short-tailed albatrosses, marbled murrelets, 

Newell’s shearwaters, and band-rumped storm petrels. The Navy will consult with the USFWS as 

required by section 7(a)(2) of the ESA in this regard.

Impacts from Military Expended Materials Under Alternative 1 for Testing Activities

Tables 3.0-21, 3.0-23, 3.0-25, and 3.0-27 in Section 3.0.3.3.4.2 (Military Expended Materials) provide a 

breakdown of the number and general location of different activities that generate these materials 

under both action alternatives for testing. Testing activities would not typically occur in the transit 

corridor, but would otherwise occur throughout the Study Area. Appendix F (Military Expended Material 

and Direct Strike Impact Analyses) provides details on the types, numbers and footprints of expended 

materials by location.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.9-85

3.9 Birds

The potential impact of military expended materials on birds in the Study Area is dependent on the 

ability of birds to detect and avoid foreign objects through their sensory systems and the relatively fast 

flying speeds and maneuverability of most bird species. The potential for impact is related to the 

probability of a bird and a projectile meeting in the same space at the same time. The amount of 

materials expended over the vast area over which training and testing activities occur, combined with 

the ability of birds to flee disturbance, would make direct strikes unlikely. Individual birds may be 

impacted, but strikes would have no impact on species or populations.

Direct strikes from firing weapons (projectiles) or air-launched devices (e.g., sonobuoys, torpedoes) are 

a potential stressor to seabirds. Seabirds in flight, resting on the water’s surface, or foraging just below 

the water surface would be vulnerable to a direct strike. Strikes have the potential to injure or kill 

seabirds in the Study Area. However, there would not be long-term population level impacts. The 

footprint calculations in Appendix F (Military Expended Material and Direct Strike Impact Analyses, e.g., 

Table F-12) indicate very small areas of Study Area being impacted, and a consequent low probability of 

strikes to birds, by the types of materials that pose the greatest risk to birds (e.g., projectiles, torpedoes, 

surface targets) on an annual or cumulative 5-year basis. The vast area over which testing activities 

occur combined with the ability of seabirds to flee disturbance, would make direct strikes unlikely. 

Individual seabirds may be affected, but strikes would have no impact on species or populations.

If ESA-listed species were in the immediate area where military expended materials are present, they

could be impacted by military expended material strikes. It is highly unlikely that a bird would be struck 

by military expended materials because most birds in the vicinity of the approaching aircraft or vessel, 

from which the military expended materials are released, would likely be dispersed by the sound of its 

approach before it could come close enough for an impact from a strike or a disturbance to take place. 

Therefore, activities that release military expended materials would not likely cause any potential strike 

or disturbance risk to birds in the Study Area.

Pursuant to the ESA, the use military expended materials during testing activities as described under 

Alternative 1 may affect least terns, Hawaiian petrels, short-tailed albatrosses, marbled murrelets, 

Newell’s shearwaters, and band-rumped storm petrels. The Navy will consult with the USFWS as 

required by section 7(a)(2) of the ESA in this regard.

3.9.3.4.3.2 Impacts from Military Expended Materials Under Alternative 2

Impacts from Military Expended Materials Under Alternative 2 for Training Activities

The differences in expended materials between Alternatives 1 and 2 for training activities are relatively 

small and inconsequential with respect to the types of materials that pose the greatest risk to birds 

(Appendix F, Military Expended Material and Direct Strike Impact Analyses, Table F-5). As a result, 

impacts of military expended materials from training activities under Alternative 2 would be essentially 

the same as those of Alternative 1.

Pursuant to the ESA, the use military expended materials during training activities as described under 

Alternative 2 may affect least terns, Hawaiian petrels, short-tailed albatrosses, marbled murrelets, 

Newell’s shearwaters, and band-rumped storm petrels. The Navy will consult with the USFWS as 

required by section 7(a)(2) of the ESA in this regard.

Impacts from Military Expended Materials Under Alternative 2 for Testing Activities

The differences in expended materials between Alternatives 1 and 2 for testing activities are relatively 

small and inconsequential with respect to the types of materials that pose the greatest risk to birds 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.9-86

3.9 Birds

(Appendix F, Military Expended Material and Direct Strike Impact Analyses, Table F-12). As a result, 

impacts of military expended materials from testing activities under Alternative 2 would be essentially 

the same as those of Alternative 1.

Pursuant to the ESA, the use military expended materials during testing activities as described under 

Alternative 2 may affect least terns, Hawaiian petrels, short-tailed albatrosses, marbled murrelets, 

Newell’s shearwaters, and band-rumped storm petrels. The Navy will consult with the USFWS as 

required by section 7(a)(2) of the ESA in this regard.

3.9.3.4.3.3 Impacts from Military Expended Materials Under the No Action Alternative

Impacts from Military Expended Materials Under the No Action Alternative for Training and 

Testing Activities

Under the No Action Alternative, the Navy would not conduct the proposed training and testing 

activities in the HSTT Study Area. Various physical disturbance and strike stressors (e.g., military 

expended materials) would not be introduced into the marine environment. Therefore, baseline 

conditions of the existing environment would either remain unchanged or would improve slightly after 

cessation of ongoing training and testing activities.

3.9.3.4.4 Impacts from Seafloor Devices

As discussed in Section 3.0.3.3.4.3, seafloor devices are used during training and testing activities that 

are deployed onto the seafloor in shallow water and later recovered. Because these devices are 

stationary or very slow moving they do not pose a risk of physical disturbance or strike to birds, 

including ESA-listed species. Because of this, seafloor devices pose no threat of impact to birds and will 

not be discussed further.

3.9.3.4.5 Impacts from Pile Driving

Section 3.9.3.1.4 (Impacts from Pile Driving) describes the impacts from noise to birds that would occur 

from the installation and removal of piles in the vicinity of training events involving the construction of 

an Elevated Causeway System, a temporary pier that allows the offloading of ships in areas without a 

permanent port. Human activity such as vessel or boat movement, and equipment setting and 

movement, is expected to cause birds to flee the activity area before the onset of pile driving. If birds 

were in the activity area, they would likely flee the area prior to, or just after, the initial strike of the pile 

at the beginning of the ramp-up procedure. Pile driving is, therefore, not considered physical 

disturbance or strike stressor for birds.

3.9.3.5 Entanglement Stressors

This section analyzes the potential entanglement impacts of the various types of expended materials 

used by the Navy during training and testing activities within the Study Area. This analysis includes the 

potential impacts of three types of military expended materials, including: (1) wires and cables, 

(2) decelerators/parachutes, and (3) biodegradable polymers. Aspects of entanglement stressors that 

are applicable to marine organisms in general are presented in Section 3.0.3.3.5 (Entanglement 

Stressors). The annual numbers and locations of expended wires, cables, decelerators/parachutes, and 

activities using biodegradable polymers are provided in Tables 3.0-29 through 3.0-31. 

Along the continental U.S. and near Hawaii, at least 44 species of seabirds are known to become 

entangled in plastic or marine debris. From 2001–2005, entanglement rates ranged from 0.2 percent to 

1.2 percent for all seabirds observed by beach monitoring programs in California, Oregon, and 

Washington. Common murres and western gulls were the most common species found entangled. While
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.9-87

3.9 Birds

the vast majority of entanglements involved fishing gear (e.g., monofilament line and hooks), 

approximately 8.3 percent of the entanglements were from non-fishery-related items (e.g., plastics and 

other synthetic materials that they may gather for making nests). Cormorants in Maine have been 

observed making nests from such plastic marine debris, including net fragments and fishing line. It is 

thought that the biggest threat of entanglement from using debris as nesting material is to the chicks, 

but no such entanglements have been observed (National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration, 2016). 

Given the limited amount of time that wires and cables would remain suspended in air and the ability of 

birds to detect and avoid parachutes in-air, the likelihood that a bird would become entangled in-air is 

considered remote and discountable. As such, this analysis is focused on the potential for entanglement 

at the water surface, in the water column, or on the seafloor.

The cables, wires, decelerators/parachutes, and biodegradable polymer are relatively conspicuous in 

contrast to fishing lines, do not form long loops of line that are hard to break, do not tend to snag 

animals that swim through them, and do not persist for a long time in the water column. The Navyexpended materials sink gradually (0.24 m/second in the case of guidance wires) to the bottom. These 

materials would be readily avoided by visually oriented seabirds that could be foraging or resting in the 

water. Unlike fishing gear, the Navy’s equipment does not capture fish and therefore decreases the 

attractiveness to foraging seabirds. Additional information is provided in the sections below.

3.9.3.5.1 Impacts from Wires and Cables

Section 3.0.3.3.5.1 (Wires and Cables) discusses the types of activities that use wires and cables, where 

they are used, and how many events will occur under each alternative. These items include fiber optic 

cables, guidance wires, and sonobuoy components. 

Fiber optic cables are flexible cables that can range in size up to 300 m in length. The length of guidance 

wires would generally be equal to the distance the torpedo travels to impact the target, which may 

increase entanglement risk to birds with long wires (over 1,000 m) expended into the environment. 

Sonobuoys consist of a surface antenna and float unit and a subsurface hydrophone assembly unit. The 

two units are attached through a thin-gauge, dual-conductor, hard draw copper strand cable, which is 

then wrapped by a hollow rubber tubing or bungee in a spiral configuration. The length of cable that 

extends out is no more than 1500 ft. and is dependent on the water depth and type of sonobuoy. The 

hydrophone components maybe covered by thin plastic netting depending on type of sonobuoy. Each 

sonobuoy has a saltwater activated polyurethane float that inflates when the sonobuoy is submerged 

and keeps the sonobuoy components floating vertically in the water column below it. Sonobuoys remain 

suspended in the water column for no more than 30 hours, after which they sink to the seafloor. While 

longer cables present a higher likelihood of bird interactions, and therefore present an increased risk of 

entanglement of a bird, these cables should be readily avoidable by birds that could be foraging or 

resting in the water. 

The entanglement risk from these components would only occur when a bird and these components

were in close proximity at the water surface, in the water column, or on the seafloor. As stated above, 

however, these materials would be readily avoided by visually oriented seabirds that could be foraging 

or resting in the water and do not pose the same entanglement risks as fishing gear. Some sonobuoy 

components, once they sink to the bottom, may be transported by bottom currents or active tidal 

influence, and present an enduring entanglement risk. In the benthic environment, however, 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.9-88

3.9 Birds

subsequent colonization by encrusting organisms, burying by sediment, and chemical breakdown of the 

various materials would further reduce the potential for reintroduction as an entanglement risk.

3.9.3.5.1.1 Impacts from Wires and Cables under Alternative 1

Impacts from Wires and Cables under Alternative 1 for Training Activities

As discussed in Section 3.0.3.3.5.1 (Wires and Cables), under Alternative 1 training activities, fiber optic 

cables, guidance wires, and sonobuoy components that would pose an entanglement risk to birds would 

be expended in the Hawaii Range Complex and Southern California portion of the Study Area. However, 

given that these stressors are widely dispersed over vast areas and do not persist or accumulate at the 

surface or in the water column where seabirds forage, encounters with seabirds would be infrequent. 

This is coupled with a remote likelihood that a bird encountering the expended material would become 

entangled, as described above. As a result, the potential for entanglement from wires and cables to lead

to injury or mortality is negligible. Therefore, no long-term or population-level impacts to birds 

would occur.

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of wires and cables during training activities as described under 

Alternative 1 would not affect least terns, Hawaiian petrels, short-tailed albatrosses, marbled murrelets, 

Newell’s shearwaters, and band-rumped storm petrels. 

Impacts from Wires and Cables under Alternative 1 for Testing Activities

As discussed in Section 3.0.3.3.5.1 (Wires and Cables), under Alternative 1 testing activities, fiber optic 

cables, guidance wires, and sonobuoy components that would pose an entanglement risk to birds would 

be expended in the Hawaii and Southern California Range Complexes. However, given that these 

stressors are widely dispersed over vast areas and do not persist or accumulate at the surface or in the 

water column where seabirds forage, encounters with seabirds would be infrequent. This is coupled 

with a remote likelihood that a bird encountering the expended material would become entangled, as 

described above. As a result, the potential for entanglement from wires and cables to lead to injury or 

mortality is negligible. Therefore, no long-term or population-level impacts to birds would occur.

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of wires and cables during testing activities as described under 

Alternative 1 would not affect least terns, Hawaiian petrels, short-tailed albatrosses, marbled murrelets, 

Newell’s shearwaters, and band-rumped storm petrels.

3.9.3.5.1.2 Impacts from Wires and Cables under Alternative 2

Impacts from Wires and Cables under Alternative 2 for Training Activities

As discussed in Section 3.0.3.3.5.1 (Wires and Cables), under Alternative 2 training activities, fiber optic 

cables, guidance wires, and sonobuoy components would be expended in the same areas as Alternative 

1, with increases in the number of expended items that would pose an entanglement risk. Under 

Alternative 2, increases in sonobuoy component releases would occur in the Hawaii and Southern 

California Range Complexes, at a similar rate and frequency compared to Alternative 1. Given the 

foregoing analysis, however, the impacts would be essentially the same as for Alternative 1. Therefore, 

no long-term or population-level impacts to birds would occur.

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of wires and cables during training activities as described under 

Alternative 2 would not affect least terns, Hawaiian petrels, short-tailed albatrosses, marbled murrelets, 

Newell’s shearwaters, and band-rumped storm petrels. 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.9-89

3.9 Birds

Impacts from Wires and Cables under Alternative 2 for Testing Activities

As discussed in Section 3.0.3.3.5.1 (Wires and Cables), under Alternative 2 testing activities, fiber optic 

cables, guidance wires, and sonobuoy components would be expended in the same areas as Alternative 

1, with increases to the number of expended items that would pose an entanglement risk. Under 

Alternative 2, increases in sonobuoy component releases would occur in the Hawaii and Southern 

California Range Complexes, at a similar rate and frequency compared to Alternative 1. Given the 

foregoing analysis, however, the impacts would be essentially the same as for Alternative 1. Therefore, 

no long-term or population-level impacts to birds would occur.

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of wires and cables during testing activities as described under 

Alternative 2 would not affect least terns, Hawaiian petrels, short-tailed albatrosses, marbled murrelets, 

Newell’s shearwaters, and band-rumped storm petrels. 

3.9.3.5.1.3 Impacts from Wires and Cables under the No Action Alternative

Impacts from Wires and Cables under the No Action Alternative for Training and Testing Activities

Under the No Action Alternative, the Navy would not conduct the proposed training and testing 

activities in the HSTT Study Area. Various entanglement stressors (e.g., wires and cables) would not be 

introduced into the marine environment. Therefore, baseline conditions of the existing environment 

would either remain unchanged or would improve slightly after cessation of ongoing training and 

testing activities.

3.9.3.5.2 Impacts from Decelerators/Parachutes

Section 3.0.3.3.5.2 (Decelerators/Parachutes) describes the use and platforms where 

decelerators/parachutes would be released into the marine environment and therefore present an 

entanglement risk to birds. Aircraft-launched sonobuoys, lightweight torpedoes (such as the MK 46 and 

MK 54), illumination flares, and targets use nylon decelerators/parachutes ranging in size from 46 to 

122 cm in diameter. The majority are relatively small cruciform shape decelerators/parachutes 

associated with sonobuoys. Once a sonobuoy hits the water surface, its decelerator/parachute is 

designed to produce drag at the surface for 5 to 15 seconds, allowing for deployment of the sonobuoy, 

then the decelerator/parachute separates and sinks. The decelerator/parachute assembly contains 

metallic components and could be at the surface for a short period before sinking to the seafloor. 

Sonobuoy decelerators/parachutes are designed to sink within 15 minutes, but the rate of sinking 

depends upon sea conditions and the shape of the decelerator/parachute, and the duration of the 

descent would depend on the water depth. Decelerators/parachutes or decelerator/parachute lines 

may be a risk for birds to become entangled, particularly while at the surface. As stated above, however, 

these materials would be readily avoided by visually oriented seabirds that could be foraging or resting 

in the water and do not pose the same entanglement risks as fishing gear.

If the decelerator/parachute and its lines sink to the seafloor in an area where the bottom is calm, it 

would remain there undisturbed. Over time, it may become covered by sediment in most areas or 

colonized by attaching and encrusting organisms, which would further stabilize the material and reduce 

the potential for reintroduction as an entanglement risk. If bottom currents are present, the canopy may 

billow and pose an entanglement threat to birds that feed in benthic habitats. Bottom-feeding birds 

tend to forage in nearshore areas rather than offshore, where these decelerators/parachutes are used; 

therefore, birds are not likely to encounter decelerators/parachutes once they reach the seafloor. The 

potential for a bird to encounter an expended decelerator/parachute at the surface or in the water 

column is extremely low, it is even less probable at the seafloor given the general improbability of a bird 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.9-90

3.9 Birds

being near the deployed decelerator/parachute as well as the general behavior of birds. Depending on 

how quickly the decelerator/parachute may degrade, the risk may increase with time if the 

decelerator/parachute remains intact. Factors that may influence degradation times include exposure to 

ultraviolet radiation and the extent of physical damage of the decelerator/parachute on the water’s 

surface, as well as water temperature and sinking depth.

3.9.3.5.2.1 Impacts from Decelerators/Parachutes under Alternative 1

Impacts from Decelerators/Parachutes under Alternative 1 for Training Activities

As discussed in Section 3.0.3.3.5.2 (Decelerators/Parachutes), under Alternative 1 training activities, 

decelerators/parachutes that would pose an entanglement risk to seabirds would be expended in the 

open ocean portions of the Study Area. However, given that these stressors are widely dispersed over 

vast areas and do not persist or accumulate at the surface or in the water column where seabirds 

forage, encounters with seabirds would be infrequent. This is coupled with a remote likelihood that a 

bird encountering the expended material would become entangled, as described above. As a result, the 

potential for entanglement from decelerators/parachutes to lead to injury or mortality is negligible. 

Therefore, no long-term or population-level impacts to birds would occur.

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of decelerators/parachutes during training activities as described under 

Alternative 1 would not affect least terns, Hawaiian petrels, short-tailed albatrosses, marbled murrelets, 

Newell’s shearwaters, and band-rumped storm petrels. 

Impacts from Decelerators/Parachutes under Alternative 1 for Testing Activities

Appendix F (Military Expended Materials and Direct Strike Analyses) provides a list of expended 

materials that would include decelerators/parachutes. Table F-1 provides the number of each type of 

military expended material used for testing activities under Alternative 1. These 

decelerators/parachutes would be expended in the open ocean portions of the Study Area. However, 

given that these stressors are widely dispersed over vast areas and do not persist or accumulate at the 

surface or in the water column where seabirds forage, encounters with seabirds would be infrequent. 

This is coupled with a remote likelihood that a bird encountering the expended material would become

entangled, as described above. As a result, the potential for entanglement from 

decelerators/parachutes to lead to injury or mortality is negligible. Therefore, no long-term or 

population-level impacts to birds would occur.

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of decelerators/parachutes during testing activities as described under 

Alternative 1 would not affect least terns, Hawaiian petrels, short-tailed albatrosses, marbled murrelets, 

Newell’s shearwaters, and band-rumped storm petrels. 

3.9.3.5.2.2 Impacts from Decelerators/Parachutes under Alternative 2

Impacts from Decelerators/Parachutes under Alternative 2 for Training Activities

Under Alternative 2, the number of decelerators/parachutes that would be expended during training 

activities is the same as for Alternative 1. Therefore, the impact conclusion for decelerators/parachutes 

under Alternative 2 training activities is the same as for Alternative 1.

Impacts from Decelerators/Parachutes under Alternative 2 for Testing Activities

Under Alternative 2, the number of decelerators/parachutes that would be expended during testing 

activities is the same as for Alternative 1. Therefore, the impact conclusion for decelerators/parachutes 

under Alternative 2 testing activities is the same as for Alternative 1.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.9-91

3.9 Birds

3.9.3.5.2.3 Impacts from Decelerators/Parachutes under the No Action Alternative

Impacts from Decelerators/Parachutes under the No Action Alternative for Training and Testing 

Activities

Under the No Action Alternative, the Navy would not conduct the proposed training and testing 

activities in the HSTT Study Area. Various entanglement stressors (e.g., decelerators/parachutes) would 

not be introduced into the marine environment. Therefore, baseline conditions of the existing 

environment would either remain unchanged or would improve slightly after cessation of ongoing 

training and testing activities.

3.9.3.5.3 Impacts from Biodegradable Polymers

The possibility of entanglement in the biodegradable polymer is considered remote and discountable 

given the fact that the material is only deployed on a small-scale in test locations (Table 3.0-31), is shortlived (days to weeks) in the water, and that diving birds routinely navigate through floating vegetation 

without becoming entangled (unlike boat propellers which the polymer is designed to entangle). The 

biodegradable polymer is, therefore, not considered an entanglement stressor for birds.

3.9.3.6 Ingestion Stressors

As described in Section 3.0.3.3.6 (Ingestion Stressors), the types of expended materials that are 

potentially a source of ingestion stressors include non-explosive practice munitions (small and medium 

caliber), fragments from high-explosive munitions, fragments from targets, chaff, the plastic end caps 

and pistons from flares, small decelerators/parachutes, and biodegradable polymers. Other types of 

expended materials are too large to be mistaken for food items and consumed by birds.

3.9.3.6.1 Impacts from Military Expended Materials-Munitions

Two types of munitions are potentially a source of ingestion stressors: non-explosive practice munitions 

(small and medium caliber) and fragments from high-explosive munitions. Both types of munitions sink 

rapidly through the water column and settle to the bottom. Munitions are not used in nearshoreshallow areas and, because of their density, are likely to bury in the bottom and are unlikely to be 

transported from offshore to nearshore. It is thus highly unlikely that munitions would accumulate 

where benthic nearshore or intertidal foraging would occur. Rapidly sinking munitions and fragments 

are unlikely to be accessible or attractive as potential food items to diving birds that feed on fish and 

invertebrates in the water column. Accordingly, there are no potential impacts to birds feeding in the 

water column or on the bottom from this category of ingestion stressors and it will not be 

discussed further.

3.9.3.6.2 Impacts from Military Expended Materials Other Than Munitions

The analysis in this section includes the potential ingestion of military expended materials other than 

munitions, all of which are expended away from nearshore habitats and close to the water surface. 

Tables 3.0-24 through 3.0-27 and 3.0-32 through 3.0-37 describe the annual quantities and locations 

where these materials would be generated by training and testing activities under Alternatives 1 and 2. 

Appendix A (Navy Activity Descriptions) provides more specific information on the activities that may 

result in ingestion stressors, and the typical locations where these activities occur. 

While it has been widely documented that a wide range of marine organisms (including zooplankton, 

baleen whales, and seabirds) will ingest plastic, the mechanism that causes these organisms to do so 

was discovered only recently (Savoca, 2016; Savoca et al., 2016). Procellariiformes, or tube-nosed 

seabirds (e.g., albatrosses, shearwaters and petrels [Section 3.9.2.3.5]) utilize a highly developed sense 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.9-92

3.9 Birds

of smell to find food that is patchily distributed in offshore and open ocean environments. Specifically, 

these birds are attracted to dimethyl sulfide, which is produced when the cell walls of algae are 

damaged (e.g., when marine herbivores such as krill eat it), thereby alerting the seabirds that food (e.g., 

krill) are nearby. Through a literature review, Savoca et al. (2016) demonstrated that seabirds that utilize 

dimethyl sulfide as a foraging cue consumed plastic nearly six times more frequently than species that 

were not attracted to dimethyl sulfide. Savoca et al. (2016) also performed field studies that confirmed 

that algae growing on three of the most common types of plastic debris (polypropylene and low- and 

high-density polyethylene) can produce dimethyl sulfide within three weeks at concentrations at least 

four orders of magnitude above the behavioral detection threshold for Antarctic prions (Pachyptila 

desolata), thereby creating an “olfactory trap.” 

Birds could potentially ingest expended materials other than munitions used by the Navy during training 

and testing activities within the Study Area. The Navy expends the following types of materials that 

could become ingestion stressors for birds during training and testing in the Study Area: missile 

components, target fragments, chaff and flare endcaps/pistons, and decelerators/parachutes. 

Biodegradable polymers generated during countermeasures testing are also considered. Ingestion of 

expended materials by birds could occur in all large marine ecosystems and open ocean areas and would 

occur either at the surface or just below the surface portion of the water column, depending on the size 

and buoyancy of the expended object and the feeding behavior of the birds. Floating material of 

ingestible size could be eaten by birds that feed at or near the water surface, while materials that sink 

pose a potential risk to diving birds that feed just below the water’s surface (Titmus & Hyrenbach, 2011). 

Some items, such as decelerators/parachutes or sonobuoys are too large to be ingested and will not be 

discussed further. Also, decelerators/parachutes sink rapidly to the seafloor.

Physiological impacts to birds from ingestion include blocked digestive tracts and subsequent food 

passage, blockage of digestive enzymes, lowered steroid hormone levels, delayed ovulation (egg 

maturation), reproductive failure, nutrient dilution (nonnutritive debris displaces nutritious food in the 

gut), exposure to indirect effects from harmful chemicals found in and on the plastic material, and 

altered appetite satiation (the sensation of feeling full), which can lead to starvation (Azzarello & Van 

Vleet, 1987). While ingestion of marine debris has been linked to bird mortalities, sublethal impacts are 

more common (Moser & Lee, 1992).

Many species of seabirds are known to ingest floating plastic debris and other foreign matter while 

feeding on the surface of the ocean (Auman et al., 1997; Yamashita et al., 2011). Evidence indicates that 

physical and toxicological impacts from plastic ingestion by seabirds are widespread among species and 

pervasive in terms of the number of individuals affected, and that impacts are increasing (Kain et al., 

2016; Wilcox et al., 2015). For example, 21 of 38 seabird species (55 percent) collected off the coast of 

North Carolina from 1975 to 1989 contained plastic particles (Moser & Lee, 1992). The mean particle 

sizes of ingested plastic were positively correlated with the birds’ size though the mean mass of plastic 

found in the stomachs and gizzards of 21 species was below 3 grams. In Hawaii, the proportion of 

necropsied Newell's shearwaters and wedge-tailed shearwaters (Ardenna pacifica) that were found to 

have ingested plastic more than doubled from 1986-1987 to 2007-2014 (Kain et al., 2016). The number 

of plastic particles found in the stomachs of northern fulmars in the North Sea increased by two-tothree-fold from the mid-1980s to mid-1990s and has remained at about 30 particles per bird since then. 

Since the 1980s, concentrations of industrial plastics in the ocean waters and their consumption by 

fulmars has decreased by about 75 percent, while the abundance of user plastics and their consumption 

has shown no obvious trend (van Franeker & Law, 2015). Some seabirds have used plastic and other 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.9-93

3.9 Birds

marine debris for nest building which may lead to ingestion of that debris (Votier et al., 2011). Indirect 

ingestion of plastic also occurs from consuming prey (such as fishes) that ingest plastic.

Plastic is often mistaken for prey, and the incidence of plastic ingestion appears to be related to a bird’s 

feeding mode and diet (Henry et al., 2011; Provencher et al., 2014). Seabirds that feed by pursuit-diving, 

surface-seizing, and dipping tend to ingest plastic, while those that feed by plunging or piracy typically 

do not ingest plastic (Azzarello & Van Vleet, 1987; Provencher et al., 2014). Birds of the order 

Procellariiformes, which include petrels, shearwaters, and albatrosses, tend to accumulate more plastic 

than other species (Azzarello & Van Vleet, 1987; Moser & Lee, 1992; Pierce et al., 2004; Provencher et 

al., 2014). Some birds, including gulls and terns, commonly regurgitate indigestible parts of their food 

items such as shell and fish bones. However, the structure of the digestive systems of most 

Procellariiformes makes it difficult to regurgitate solid material such as plastic (Azzarello & Van Vleet, 

1987; Moser & Lee, 1992; Pierce et al., 2004). Two species of albatross (Diomedeidae) have also been 

reported to ingest plastic while feeding at sea. While such studies have not conclusively shown that 

plastic ingestion is a significant source of direct mortality, it may be a contributing factor to other causes 

of albatross mortality (Naughton et al., 2007).

As summarized by Pierce et al. (2004), Auman et al. (1997) and Azzarello and Van Vleet (1987)

documented consequences of plastic ingestion by seabirds include blockage of the intestines and 

ulceration of the stomach, reduction in the functional volume of the gizzard leading to a reduction of 

digestive capability, and distention of the gizzard leading to a reduction in hunger. Dehydration has also 

been documented in seabirds that have ingested plastic (Sievert & Sileo, 1993). Studies have found 

negative correlations between body weight and plastic load, as well as between body fat (a measure of 

energy reserves) and the number of pieces of plastic in a seabird's stomach (Auman et al., 1997; Ryan, 

1987; Sievert & Sileo, 1993). Other possible concerns that have been identified include toxic plastic 

additives and toxic contaminants that could be adsorbed to the plastic from ambient seawater. Pierce et 

al. (2004) described two cases where plastic ingestion caused seabird mortality from starvation. The 

examination of a deceased adult northern gannet revealed that a 1.5 in. diameter plastic bottle cap 

lodged in its gizzard blocked the passage of food into the small intestine, which resulted in its death 

from starvation. Northern gannets are substantially larger, and dive deeper than the ESA-listed birds in 

the Study Area. Also, since gannets typically utilize flotsam in nest building (Votier et al., 2011), they may 

be more susceptible to ingesting marine debris than other species as it gathers that material. Dissection 

of an adult greater shearwater’s gizzard revealed that a 1.5 by 0.5 in. fragment of plastic blocked the 

passage of food in the digestive system, which also resulted in death from starvation.

Species such as storm-petrels, albatrosses, shearwaters, fulmars, and noddies that forage by picking 

prey from the surface may have a greater potential to ingest any floating plastic debris (DonnellyGreenan et al., 2014). Ingestion of plastic military expended material by any species from the taxonomic 

groups found within the Study Area Table 3.9-2 has the potential to impact individual birds. The risk of 

plastic ingestion and impaction in chicks of many species of seabirds may be different from the risks to 

adults. Albatross chicks appear to be at greater risk than adults, because of their high rates of ingestion 

and apparent low frequency of regurgitative casting of indigestible material. Hyrenbach et al. (2015)

demonstrated that almost 100 percent of chicks of black-footed and Laysan albatrosses breeding in the 

Northwestern Hawaiian Islands ingest plastics during the pre-fledging period when they are dependent 

upon food brought to the breeding colony by parents. Floating plastic items are ingested by adult 

albatrosses and regurgitated to chicks along with normal food items. Negative effects of plastic ingestion 

may result from impaction of the upper gastrointestinal tract and interference with passage of food 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.9-94

3.9 Birds

through the digestive system, contributing to reduced resistance to disease and lowered post-fledging 

survival. Significant correlations between plastic loads and body condition or growth rates, were not 

found, however (Hyrenbach et al., 2015). Flesh-footed shearwater (Puffinus carnipes) fledglings in 

eastern Australia have been found to contain relatively large amounts of plastics, which is correlated 

with poor body condition and tissue contaminant loads (Lavers et al., 2014). 

The distribution of floating expended items would be irregular in both space and time, as training and 

testing activities do not occur in the same place each time. The random distribution of items across the 

large Study Area yields very low probabilities that seabirds will encounter a floating item. However, 

when a seabird does encounter a floating item of ingestible size, an ingestion risk may exist. Although 

most military expended material components are expected to sink to the seafloor and spend limited 

periods within the water column, some items remain buoyant for an extended period. Expended 

training and testing material, such as missile components or target fragments that float, may be 

encountered by seabirds in the waters of the Study Area, increasing the potential for ingestion of 

smaller components. Ocean currents concentrate plastic debris, making seabirds that feed along frontal 

zones more susceptible (Azzarello & Van Vleet, 1987). While some seabird ingestion of expended 

materials could occur, these factors indicate that a small number of birds would be affected and that 

population level effects would not be expected.

Target-Related Materials. As described in Section 3.0.3.3.6.3 (Military Expended Materials Other Than 

Munitions), at-sea targets are usually remotely-operated airborne, surface, or subsurface traveling units, 

most of which are designed to be recovered for reuse. However, if they are used during activities that 

use high-explosives then they may result in fragments. Expendable targets that may result in fragments 

would include air-launched decoys, surface targets (e.g., marine markers, paraflares, cardboard boxes, 

and 10 ft. diameter red balloons), and mine shapes. Most target fragments would sink quickly to the 

seafloor. Floating material, such as Styrofoam, may be lost from target boats and remain at the surface 

for some time. Only targets that may result in smaller fragments that do not immediately sink are 

included in the analyses of ingestion potential.

There are additional types of targets discussed previously, but only surface targets, sub-surface targets, 

air targets, Sinking Exercise ship hulks, and mine shapes would be expected to result in fragments when 

high-explosive munitions are used.

Chaff. As described in Section 3.0.3.3.6.3 (Military Expended Materials Other Than Munitions), large 

areas of air space and open water within the Study Area would be exposed to chaff at very low

concentrations. This same section also provides a general discussion of chaff as an ingestion stressor and 

concludes that chaff poses little risk to organisms, except at concentrations substantially higher than 

those that could reasonably occur from military training. Additional information is provided below.

It is unlikely that chaff would be selectively ingested (U.S. Department of the Air Force, 1997). Ingestion 

of chaff fibers is not expected to cause physical damage to a bird’s digestive tract based on the fibers’ 

small size (ranging in lengths of 0.25 to 3 in. with a diameter of about 40 micrometers) and flexible 

nature, as well as the small quantity that could reasonably be ingested. In addition, concentrations of 

chaff fibers that could reasonably be ingested are not expected to be toxic to seabirds. Scheuhammer 

(1987) reviewed the metabolism and toxicology of aluminum in birds and mammals and found that 

intestinal adsorption of orally ingested aluminum salts was very poor, and the small amount adsorbed 

was almost completely removed from the body by excretion. Dietary aluminum normally has minor 

impacts on healthy birds and mammals, and often high concentrations (greater than 1,000 milligrams 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.9-95

3.9 Birds

per kilogram) are needed to induce effects such as impaired bone development, reduced growth, and 

anemia (Spargo et al., 1999). A bird weighing 2.2 lb. would need to ingest more than 83,000 chaff fibers 

per day to receive a daily aluminum dose equal to 1,000 per kilogram; this analysis was based on chaff 

consisting of 40 percent aluminum by weight and a 5 ounces chaff canister containing 5 million fibers. As 

an example, an adult herring gull weighs about 1.8 to 2.7 lb. (Cornell Lab of Ornithology, 2009b). It is 

highly unlikely that a bird would ingest a toxic dose of chaff based on the anticipated environmental 

concentration of chaff (i.e., 1.8 fibers per square foot for an unrealistic, worst-case scenario of 360 chaff 

cartridges simultaneously released at a single drop point).

Flares. A general discussion of flares as an ingestion stressor is presented in Section 3.0.3.3.4.2 (Military 

Expended Materials Other Than Munitions). Ingestion of flare compression pads or pistons 1.3 in. in 

diameter and 0.13 in. thick (U.S. Department of the Air Force, 1997) by birds may result in 

gastrointestinal obstruction or reproductive complications. Based on the information presented above, 

if a seabird were to ingest a compression pads or pistons, the response would vary based on the species 

and individual bird. The responses could range from none, to sublethal (reduced energy reserves), to 

lethal (digestive tract blockage leading to starvation). Ingestion of compression pads or pistons by 

species that regularly regurgitate indigestible items would likely have no adverse impacts. However, 

compression pads or pistons are similar in size to those plastic pieces described above that caused 

digestive tract blockages and eventual starvation. Therefore, ingestion of compression pads or pistons 

could be lethal to some individual seabirds. Species with small gizzards and anatomical constrictions that 

make it difficult to regurgitate solid material would likely be most susceptible to blockage (such as 

Procellariiformes). Based on available information, it is not possible to accurately estimate actual 

ingestion rates or responses of individual birds.

Biodegradable Polymer. The biodegradable polymer used in some testing activities could theoretically 

be ingested by birds; however, the likelihood is low because the material would persist only until the 

polymer degrades, generally within days to weeks of deployment (discussed in Section 3.0.3.3.5.3, 

Biodegradable Polymer). Therefore, the biodegradable polymer is not considered an ingestion stressor 

for birds and will not be discussed further.

3.9.3.6.2.1 Impacts from Military Expended Materials Other Than Munitions Under

Alternative 1

Impacts from Military Expended Materials Other Than Munitions Under Alternative 1 for Training 

and Testing Activities

As indicated in Section 3.0.3.3.6.3 (Military Expended Materials Other Than Munitions), the use of chaff,

flares, and targets would occur and could generate expended materials constituting ingestion stressors 

throughout the Study Area. Although chaff fibers and pieces of biodegradable polymer are too small for 

birds to confuse with prey, there is some potential for chaff and biodegradable polymer to be 

incidentally ingested along with other prey items. If ingested, neither chaff nor biodegradable polymer 

are expected to impact birds, due to the low concentration that would be ingested and the small size of 

the fibers. 

The plastic materials associated with flare compression pads or pistons sink in saltwater (Spargo et al., 

1999), which reduces the likelihood of ingestion by seabirds. Although the overall concentration of 

military expended materials would be low, and Navy standard practice is to collect and remove as much 

Styrofoam as possible when retrieving a degraded target, military expended materials would not be 

evenly distributed. Similarly, seabirds are not evenly distributed in the Study Area (Fauchald et al., 2002; 

Haney, 1986a; Schneider & Duffy, 1985). As noted previously, there is some potential for expended 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.9-96

3.9 Birds

materials that float (e.g., some types of target fragments or chaff end caps or flare compression pads 

and pistons) to become concentrated along frontal zones, along with food resources that tend to attract 

foraging seabirds, resulting in the incidental ingestion of such materials, most likely as very small 

fragments. Military expended materials would constitute a minute portion of the floating debris that 

seabirds would be exposed to and may accidentally consume in such situations, but could nevertheless 

contribute to harmful effects of manmade debris on some seabirds. The overall likelihood that individual 

birds would be negatively impacted by ingestion of military expended materials in the Study Area under 

Alternative 1 for training is considered low, but not discountable. Population-level effects would be very 

unlikely given the relatively small quantities and limited persistence of military expended materials in 

habitats where birds are most likely to forage. This conclusion applies to ESA-listed bird species as well. 

Pursuant to the ESA, the use military expended materials other than munitions during training activities 

as described under Alternative 1 may affect least terns, Hawaiian petrels, short-tailed albatrosses, 

marbled murrelets, Newell’s shearwaters, and band-rumped storm petrels. The Navy will consult with 

the USFWS as required by section 7(a)(2) of the ESA in this regard.

Impacts from Military Expended Materials Other than Munitions Under Alternative 1 for Testing 

Activities

Testing activities under Alternative 1 would generate the same types of ingestible materials, and in 

similar quantities, as generated by training activities. Therefore, testing activities would have similar 

impacts to those of training activities under Alternative 1.

Pursuant to the ESA, the use military expended materials other than munitions during testing activities 

as described under Alternative 1 may affect least terns, Hawaiian petrels, short-tailed albatrosses, 

marbled murrelets, Newell’s shearwaters, and band-rumped storm petrels. The Navy will consult with 

the USFWS as required by section 7(a)(2) of the ESA in this regard.

3.9.3.6.2.2 Impacts from Military Expended Materials Other Than Munitions Under

Alternative 2

Impacts from Military Expended Materials Other Than Munitions Under Alternative 2 for Training 

Activities

The distribution and abundance of ingestion stressors would be the same under Alternative 2 for 

training activities as under Alternative 1 (Section 3.0.3.3.6, Ingestion Stressors); therefore, the impacts 

of the two alternatives would be the same.

Pursuant to the ESA, the use military expended materials other than munitions during training activities 

as described under Alternative 2 may affect least terns, Hawaiian petrels, short-tailed albatrosses,

marbled murrelets, Newell’s shearwaters, and band-rumped storm petrels. The Navy will consult with 

the USFWS as required by section 7(a)(2) of the ESA in this regard.

Impacts from Military Expended Materials Other Than Munitions Under Alternative 2 for Testing 

Activities

The distribution and abundance of ingestion stressors would be the same under Alternative 2 for testing 

activities as under Alternative 1 (Section 3.0.3.3.6, Ingestion Stressors); therefore, the impacts of the 

two alternatives would be the same.

Pursuant to the ESA, the use military expended materials other than munitions during testing activities 

as described under Alternative 2 may affect least terns, Hawaiian petrels, short-tailed albatrosses, 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.9-97

3.9 Birds

marbled murrelets, Newell’s shearwaters, and band-rumped storm petrels. The Navy will consult with 

the USFWS as required by section 7(a)(2) of the ESA in this regard.

3.9.3.6.2.3 Impacts from Military Expended Materials Other Than Munitions Under the No 

Action Alternative

Under the No Action Alternative, the Navy would not conduct the proposed training and testing 

activities in the HSTT Study Area. Various ingestion stressors (e.g., military expended materials other 

than munitions) would not be introduced into the marine environment. Therefore, baseline conditions 

of the existing environment would either remain unchanged or would improve slightly after cessation of 

ongoing training and testing activities. 

3.9.3.7 Secondary Stressors

This section analyzes potential impacts on birds exposed to stressors indirectly through impacts to 

habitat and prey availability (e.g., sediment, water and air quality). Since these stressors also affect 

primary elements of bird habitat, firm distinctions between indirect impacts and habitat impacts are 

difficult to maintain. It is important to note that the terms "indirect" and "secondary" do not imply 

reduced severity of environmental consequences, but instead describe how the impact may occur in an 

organism or its ecosystem.

Stressors from Navy training and testing activities could pose secondary or indirect impacts on birds via 

impacts to habitat, sediment, or water quality. Disturbing sediment or impacting water quality could 

also impact the food-chain, which in turn could largely impact vital seabird habitat and prey availability. 

Components of these stressors that could pose indirect impacts are detailed in Tables 2.5-1 to 2.5-5, and 

analyses of their potential impacts are discussed in Section 3.2 (Sediments and Water Quality), Section 

3.4 (Invertebrates), Section 3.5 (Habitats), and Section 3.6 (Fishes).

3.9.3.7.1 Impacts on Habitat

The potential of water, air quality, and abiotic habitat stressors associated with training and testing 

activities to indirectly affect birds, as a secondary stressor, was analyzed. The assessment of potential 

water, air quality, and abiotic habitat stressors is discussed in previous sections in this DEIS/OEIS 

(Section 3.1, Air Quality;, Section 3.2, Sediments and Water Quality; and Section 3.5, Habitats). These 

analyses address specific activities in local environments that may affect bird habitats. At-sea activities 

that may impact water and air include general emissions, and at-sea activities that may affect habitats 

include explosives and physical disturbance and strike.

As noted in Section 3.1 (Air Quality), Section 3.2 (Sediments and Water Quality), and Section 3.5 

(Habitats), implementation of the No Action Alternative, Alternative 1, or Alternative 2 would minimally 

impact sediments, water, air quality, or habitats, and therefore would not indirectly impact seabirds as 

secondary stressors. Furthermore, any physical impacts on seabird habitats would be temporary and 

localized because training and testing activities would occur infrequently. These activities would not be 

expected to adversely impact seabirds or seabird habitats. 

Indirect impacts on sediments, water or air quality under Alternative 1 or Alternative 2 would have no 

effect on ESA-listed bird species due to: (1) the temporary nature of impacts on sediments, water, or air 

quality, (2) the distribution of temporary sediments, water, or air quality impacts, (3) the wide 

distribution of birds in the Study Area, and (4) the dispersed spatial and temporal nature of the training 

and testing activities that may have temporary sediments, water, or air quality impacts. No long-term or 

population-level impacts are expected.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.9-98

3.9 Birds

Pursuant to the ESA, secondary impacts on habitat during training or testing activities as described 

under Alternative 1 and Alternative 2 may affect least terns, Hawaiian petrels, short-tailed albatrosses, 

marbled murrelets, Newell’s shearwaters, and band-rumped storm petrels. The Navy will consult with 

the USFWS as required by section 7(a)(2) of the ESA in this regard.

3.9.3.7.2 Impacts on Prey Availability

As noted in Section 3.4 (Invertebrates) and Section 3.6 (Fishes), implementation of the No Action 

Alternative, Alternative 1, or Alternative 2 would not adversely impact populations of invertebrate or 

fish prey resources (e.g., crustaceans, bivalves, worms, sand lance, herring, etc.) of birds and therefore 

would not indirectly impact birds as secondary stressors. Any impacts on seabird prey resources would 

be temporary and localized. Furthermore, as discussed above, these activities are expected to have 

minimal impacts to bird habitats. Additional detail is provided below.

As discussed in Section 3.4.3.7 (Secondary Stressors), impacts on invertebrate prey availability resulting 

from explosives, explosives byproducts, unexploded munitions, metals, and chemicals would likely be 

negligible overall and population-level impacts on marine invertebrates are not expected. Because 

individuals of many invertebrate taxa prey on other invertebrates, mortality resulting from explosions or 

exposure to metals or chemical materials would reduce the number of invertebrate prey items available. 

A few species prey upon fish, and explosions and exposure to metals and chemical materials could result 

in a minor reduction in the number of fish available. However, the effect is expected to be small and 

discountable. Any vertebrate or invertebrate animal killed or significantly impaired by Navy activities 

could potentially represent an increase in food availability for scavenging invertebrates. None of the 

effects described above would likely be detectable at the population or subpopulation level.

As noted in Section 3.6.3.7.2 (Fishes, Impacts on Prey Availability), prey species might exhibit a strong 

startle reaction to detonations that might include swimming to the surface or scattering away from the 

source. This startle and flight response is the most common secondary defense among animals (Hanlon 

& Messenger, 1996). The sound from underwater explosions might induce startle reactions and 

temporary dispersal of schooling fishes if they are within close proximity to an explosion (Popper et al., 

2014; Wright, 1982), which in turn could make them more visible to predators (Kastelein et al., 2008). 

The abundances of fish and invertebrate prey species near the detonation point could be diminished for 

a short period of time before being repopulated by animals from adjacent waters. Alternatively, any 

prey species that would be directly injured or killed by the blast could draw in scavengers from the 

surrounding waters that would feed on those organisms, who in turn could be susceptible to becoming 

directly injured or killed by subsequent explosions. Any of these scenarios would be temporary, only 

occurring during activities involving explosives, and no lasting impact on prey availability or the food 

web would be expected. Indirect impacts of underwater detonations and high explosive munitions use 

under the Proposed Action would not result in a decrease in the quantity or quality of fish populations in 

the Study Area.

Based on Sections 3.4 (Invertebrates) and 3.6 (Fishes), project-related stressors would not impact 

populations of invertebrates and fishes that support birds in the Study Area. Therefore, no secondary 

impacts associated with prey availability are expected. Furthermore, the Navy will implement mitigation 

(e.g., not conducting gunnery activities within a specified distance of shallow-water coral reefs) to avoid 

potential impacts from explosives and physical disturbance and strike stressors on seafloor resources in 

mitigation areas throughout the Study Area (see Section 5.4.1, Mitigation Areas for Seafloor Resources). 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.9-99

3.9 Birds

This mitigation will consequently help avoid potential impacts on bird prey that inhabits shallow-water 

coral reefs, live hard bottom, artificial reefs, and shipwrecks.

Pursuant to the ESA, secondary impacts on prey availability during training or testing activities as 

described under Alternative 1 and Alternative 2 may affect least terns, Hawaiian petrels, short-tailed 

albatrosses, marbled murrelets, Newell’s shearwaters, and band-rumped storm petrels. The Navy will 

consult with the USFWS as required by section 7(a)(2) of the ESA in this regard.

3.9.4 SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL IMPACTS ON BIRDS

3.9.4.1 Combined Impacts of All Stressors Under Alternative 1

As described in Section 3.0.3.5 (Resource-Specific Impacts Analysis for Multiple Stressors), this section 

evaluates the potential for combined impacts of all stressors from the proposed action. The analysis and 

conclusions for the potential impacts from each of the individual stressors are discussed in the sections 

above and, for ESA-listed species, summarized in Section 3.9.5 (Endangered Species Act 

Determinations). Stressors associated with Navy training and testing activities do not typically occur in 

isolation but rather occur in some combination. For example, mine neutralization activities include 

elements of acoustic, physical disturbance and strike, entanglement, ingestion, and secondary stressors 

that are all coincident in space and time. An analysis of the combined impacts of all stressors considers 

the potential consequences of aggregate exposure to all stressors and the repetitive or additive 

consequences of exposure over multiple years. The individual stressor analyses provided previously 

indicate that the vast majority of exposures to stressors are non-lethal. Hence the analysis of combined 

effects focuses on consequences potentially impacting the organism’s fitness (e.g., physiology, behavior, 

reproductive potential).

Most of the birds in the Study Area are relatively long-lived and wide-ranging seabirds, making it likely 

that individuals would be exposed to multiple activities and stressors over the course of their lifespans. 

Multiple stressors can affect individual birds in two ways: 1) from exposure to multiple sources of stress 

during a single event or activity; and 2) from exposure to a combination of stressors over the course of 

the bird’s life. Both general scenarios are more likely to occur where training and testing activities are 

concentrated. The key difference between the two scenarios is the amount of time between exposures 

to stressors. Time is an important factor because subsequent disturbances or injuries often increase the 

time needed for the organism to recover to baseline behavior or physiology, extending the time that the 

organism’s fitness is impacted.

Birds are susceptible to multiple stressors (see Section 3.9.2.1.5, General Threats), and the susceptibility 

of many species could be enhanced by additive or synergistic effects of multiple stressors. As discussed 

in the analyses above, birds are not particularly susceptible to energy, entanglement, or ingestion 

stressors resulting from Navy activities; therefore, the opportunity for Navy stressors to result in 

additive or synergistic consequences is most likely limited to acoustic/explosive, and physical strike and 

disturbance stressors. The potential for impacts associated with combined acoustic/explosive and 

physical strike and disturbance stressors is lessened by the fact that most activities are conducted 

offshore in areas where birds occur at relatively low concentrations. 

Despite uncertainty in the nature of consequences resulting from combined impacts, the location of 

potential combined impacts can be predicted with more certainty because combinations are much more 

likely in locations where training and testing activities are concentrated. However, analyses of the 

nature of potential consequences of combined impacts of all stressors on birds remain largely 

qualitative and speculative. For example, an individual bird that becomes injured or disoriented from an 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.9-100

3.9 Birds

acoustic or explosive exposure may be less able to avoid subsequent exposure to physical disturbance 

and strike. Where multiple stressors coincide with high abundances of birds, the possibilities of negative 

consequences are increased, but not enough is known about the potential additive or synergistic effects 

to predict them with any confidence. Stressors vary in intensity, with injuries or mortality occurring 

rarely, and most exposures not having persistent or accumulating effects to individuals or populations. 

In general, combined impacts will depend upon the coincidence of multiple stressors affecting the same 

individuals at the same place and time. Such occurrences are relatively infrequent because the activities 

and stressors are widely dispersed, affecting very small portions of the Study Area and relatively small 

numbers of individuals at any given time.

It is also likely that Navy stressors will combine with non-Navy stressors, as qualitatively discussed in

Chapter 4 (Cumulative Impacts).

3.9.4.2 Combined Impacts of All Stressors Under Alternative 2

Combined impacts of all stressors under Alternative 2 would be largely the same as, but incrementally 

greater than, those of Alternative 1. Given the slightly larger number of activities overall and 

proportionately greater exposure of birds to most types of stressors, the potential for additive or 

synergistic effects is slightly greater under Alternative 2 than Alternative 1. However, as for 

Alternative 1, the nature of combined impacts is difficult to predict or quantify. Activities and the 

resultant stressors are widely dispersed, affecting very small portions of the Study Area and relatively 

small numbers of individuals at any given time. 

3.9.4.3 Combined Impacts of All Stressors Under the No Action Alternative

Under the No Action Alternative, the Navy would not conduct the proposed training and testing 

activities in the HSTT Study Area. Various stressors would not be introduced into the marine 

environment. Therefore, baseline conditions of the existing environment would either remain 

unchanged or would improve slightly after cessation of ongoing training and testing activities.

3.9.5 ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT DETERMINATIONS

Pursuant to the ESA, Navy training and testing activities may affect ESA-listed bird species and will have 

no effect on designated critical habitat because the proposed action does not have any elements with 

the potential to modify such habitat. The Navy will consult with the USFWS as required by section 

7(a)(2) of the ESA in that regard. The outcome of those consultations pursuant to ESA will be described 

in the Final HSTT EIS/OEIS.

3.9.6 MIGRATORY BIRD TREATY ACT DETERMINATIONS

The Navy has determined that the Proposed Action may result in the “take” of migratory birds as 

designated under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. The term “take” as defined by the USFWS for Migratory 

Bird Treaty Act purposes means to “pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect” (50 CFR

part 10.12). The Proposed Action, however is a military readiness activity; therefore, “take” is in 

compliance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act regulations 

applicable to military readiness activities (50 CFR part 21), the USFWS has promulgated a rule that 

authorizes the incidental take of migratory birds provided they do not result in a significant adverse 

effect on a population of a migratory bird species. These proposed training and testing activities would 

not result in a significant adverse impact on a population of a migratory bird species.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.9-101

References

REFERENCES

Aebischer, N. J., J. C. Coulson, & J. M. Colebrook. (1990). Parallel long-term trends across four marine 

trophic levels and weather. Nature, 347(6295), 753–755. 

Ainley, D. G., S. G. Allen, & L. B. Spear. (1995). Offshore occurrence patterns of marbled murrelets in 

central California (Ecology and Conservation of the Marbled Murrelet). Albany, CA: Pacific 

Southwest Research Station, Forest Service, U. S. Department of Agriculture.

Ainley, D. G., C. T. Thomas, & M. H. Reynolds. (1997). Townsend's and Newell's Shearwater (Puffinus 

auricularis). The Birds of North America Online(297). 

Akesson, S., & A. Hedenstrom. (2007). How Migrants Get There: Migratory Performance and 

Orientation. Bioscience, 57(2), 123–133. 

Alderfer, J. (2003). Auks, murres, puffins. In M. Baughman (Ed.), National Geographic Refererence Atlas 

to the Birds of North America (pp. 176–185). Washington, DC: National Geographic Society.

American Ornithologists' Union. (1998). The AOU Check-List of North American Birds (7th ed., pp. 829). 

Washington, DC: American Ornithologists' Union.

Andersen, D. E., O. J. Rongstad, & W. R. Mytton. (1989). Response of nesting red-tailed hawks to 

helicopter overflights. The Condor, 91, 96–99. 

Andersen, D. E., O. J. Rongstad, & W. R. Mytton. (1990). Home-range changes in raptor exposed to 

increased human activity levels in southeastern Colorado. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 18, 134–142. 

Anderson, D. W., C. J. Henny, C. Godinez-Reyes, F. Gress, E. L. Palacios, K. Santos del Prado, & J. Bredy. 

(2007). Size of the California Brown Pelican Metapopulation during a non-El Niño year. Reston, 

VA: U. S. Geological Survey.

Anderson, O., C. Small, J. Croxall, E. Dunn, B. Sullivan, O. Yates, & A. Black. (2011). Global seabird bycatch 

in longline fisheries. Endangered Species Research, 14, 91–106. 

Atwood, J. L., & D. E. Minsky. (1983). Least tern foraging ecology at three major california breeding 

colonies. Western Birds, 14(2), 57–71. 

Auman, H. J., J. P. Ludwig, J. P. Giesy, & T. Colborn. (1997). Plastic ingestion by Laysan Albatross chicks 

on Sand Island, Midway Atoll, in 1994 and 1995. In G. Robinson & R. Gales (Eds.), Albatross 

Biology and Conservation (pp. 239–244). Surrey Beatty & Sons, Chipping Norton.

Austin, O. L., Jr., J. W. Robertson, & G. E. Woolfenden. (1970). Mass hatchling failure in Dry Tortugas 

sooty terns. Presented at the XVth International Ornithological Congress. 

Azzarello, M. Y., & E. S. Van Vleet. (1987). Marine birds and plastic pollution. Marine Ecology - Progress 

Series, 37, 295–303. 

Baerwald, E. F., G. H. D'Amours, B. J. Klug, & R. M. Barclay. (2008). Barotrauma is a significant cause of 

bat fatalities at wind turbines. Current Biology, 18(16), R695–R696. 

Baird, P. (1993). Ecology of the Southern California Bight: Chapter 10, Birds: University of California 

Press.

Barron, D. G., J. D. Brawn, L. K. Butler, L. M. Romero, & P. J. Weatherhead. (2012). Effects of military 

activity on breeding birds. The Journal of Wildlife Management, 76(5), 911–918. 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.9-102

References

Bearzi, M., C. A. Saylan, & J. Feenstra. (2009). Seabird observations during cetacean surveys in Santa 

Monica Bay, California. Bulletin of Southern California Academy of Sciences, 108(2), 63–69. 

Beason, R. (2004). What Can Birds Hear? Wildlife Damage Management, Internet Center for USDA 

National Wildlife Research Center - Staff Publications (pp. 6). 

Beuter, K. J., R. Weiss, & B. Frankfurt. (1986). Properties of the auditory system in birds and the 

effectiveness of acoustic scaring signals. Paper presented at the Bird Strike Committee Europe 

(BSCE), 18th Meeting Part I, 26–30 May 1986, Copenhagen, Denmark.

Bies, L., T. B. Balzer, & W. Blystone. (2006). Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge: Can the military and 

migratory birds mix? Wildlife Society Bulletin, 34, 502–503 

Birding Hawaii. (2004). Annotated list of Hawaii's breeding birds. Retrieved from 

http://www.birdinghawaii.co.uk/Annotatedlist2.htm

BirdLife International. (2008). Avian diseases are spreading to impact hitherto unaffected populations. 

Retrieved from http://datazone.birdlife.org/sowb/casestudy/avian-diseases-are-spreading-toimpact-hitherto-unaffected-populationsBirdLife International. (2009). Sterna antillarum. IUCN 2010. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. 

Version 2010.3. Retrieved from www.iucnredlist.org

BirdLife International. (2012). Spotlight on seabirds. Retrieved from 

http://datazone.birdlife.org/sowb/spotseabirds

BirdLife International, & National Audubon Society. (2015). The Messengers: What Birds Tell Us About 

Threats from Climate Change and Solutions for Nature and People.

Black, B. B., M. W. Collopy, H. F. Percival, A. A. Tiller, & P. G. Bohall. (1984). Effects of Low Level Military 

Training Flights on Wading Bird Colonies in Florida. Gainesville, FL: Florida Cooperative Fish and 

Wildlife Research Unit School of Forest Resources and Conservation University of Florida.

Borberg, J. M., L. T. Ballance, R. L. Pitman, & D. G. Ainley. (2005). A test for bias attributable to seabird 

avoidance of ships during surveys conducted in the tropical Pacific. Marine Ornithology, 33, 

173–179. 

Bowles, A. E., F. T. Awbrey, & J. R. Jehl. (1991). The Effects of High-Amplitude Impulsive Noise on 

Hatching Success: a Reanalysis of the Sooty Tern Incident. Wright Patterson Airforce Base, OH: 

Noise and Sonic Boom Impact Technology Program (NSBIT).

Bowles, A. E., M. Knobler, M. D. Seddon, & B. A. Kugler. (1994). Effects of Simulated Sonic Booms on the 

Hatchability of White Leghorn Chicken Eggs.

Bowles, A. E. (1995). Responses of Wildlife to Noise. In R. L. Knight & K. J. Gutzwiller (Eds.), Wildlife and 

Recreationists: Coexistence through management and research.

Brown, A. L. (1990). Measuring the effect of aircraft noise on sea birds. Environmental International, 16, 

587–592. 

Brown, B. T., G. S. Mills, C. Powels, W. A. Russell, G. D. Therres, & J. J. Pottie. (1999). The influence of 

weapons-testing noise on bald eagle behavior. Journal of Raptor Research, 33(3), 227–232. 

Brown, J. W., & J. Harshman. (2008). Pelecaniformes. Retrieved from 

http://tolweb.org/Pelecaniformes/57152/2008.06.27 in The Tree of Life Web Project, 

http://tolweb.org/
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.9-103

References

Burger, A. E. (1995). Marine Distribution, Abundance, and Habitats of Marbled Murrelets in British 

Columbia (Ecology and Conservation of the Marbled Murrelet). Albany, CA: Pacific Southwest 

Research Station, Forest Service, U. S. Department of Agriculture.

Burger, A. E. (2001). Diving depths of shearwaters. The Auk, 118(3), 755–759. 

Burger, A. E. (2002). Conservation Assessment of Marbled Murrelets in British Columbia, a Review of the 

Biology, Populations, Habitat Associations and Conservation. Pacific and Yukon Region, BC: 

Canadian Wildlife Service, Environmental Conservation Branch.

Burger, J. (1981). Behavioural responses of herring gulls, Larus argentatus, to aircraft noise. 

Environmental Pollution Series A, Ecological and Biological, 24(3), 177–184. 

Burkett, E. E., N. A. Rojek, A. E. Henry, M. J. Fluharty, L. Comrack, P. R. Kelly, A. C. Mahaney, & K. M. Fien. 

(2003). Status Review of Xantus's Murrelet (Synthliboramphus) in California. California 

Department of Fish and Game, Habitat Conservation Planning Branch.

California Department of Fish and Game. (2010). State and Federally listed Endangered and Threatened 

Animals of California. Sacramento, CA: California Natural Resources Agency, Department of Fish 

and Game, Biogeographic Data Branch.

California Department of Fish and Wildlife. (2016). Southern California Marine Protected Areas. 

Retrieved from 

https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/Marine/MPAs/Network/SouthernCalifornia#2682243

7accessccrtitle14section632a4

Carter, H. R., & K. J. Kuletz. (1995). Mortality of Marbled Murrelets due to oil pollution in North America. 

In C. J. Ralph, G. L. Hunt, Jr., M. G. Raphael & J. F. Piatt (Eds.), Ecology and conservation of the 

Marbled Murrelet. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report PSW-152 (pp. 261–269).

Carter, H. R., S. G. Sealy, E. E. Burkett, & J. F. Piatt. (2005). Biology and conservation of Xantus’s 

Murrelet: Discovery, taxonomy, and distribution. Marine Ornithology, 33, 81–87. 

Clavero, M., L. Brotons, P. Pons, & D. Sol. (2009). Prominent role of invasive species in avian biodiversity 

loss. Biological Conservation, 142(10), 2043–2049. 

Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. (2003). COSEWIC Assessment and Status 

Report on the Short-tailed Albatross Phoebastrie albatrus in Canada. Ottawa, Canada: 

Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada.

Congdon, B. C., C. A. Erwin, D. R. Peck, G. B. Baker, M. C. Double, & P. O'Neill. (2007). Vulnerability of 

seabirds on the Great Barrier Reef to climate change. In J. E. Johnson & P. A. Marshall (Eds.), 

Climate Change and the Great Barrier Reef: A Vulnerability Assessment (pp. 427–463). 

Townsville, Australia: Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority and Australian Greenhouse 

Office.

Conomy, J. T., J. A. Dubovsky, J. A. Collazo, & W. J. Fleming. (1998). Do black ducks and wood ducks 

habituate to aircraft disturbance? Journal of Wildlife Management, 62(3), 1135–1142. 

Cook, T. R., M. Hamann, L. Pichegru, F. Bonadonna, D. Grémillet, & P. G. Ryan. (2011). GPS and timedepth loggers reveal underwater foraging plasticity in a flying diver, the Cape Cormorant. 

Marine Biology, 159(2), 373–387. 

Cornell Lab of Ornithology. (2009a). All About Birds. Sandpipers, Phalaropes, and Allies (Order: 

CHARADRIIFORMES, Family: SCOLOPACIDAE). Retrieved from 

http://www.allaboutbirds.org/guide/browse_tax.aspx?family=53
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.9-104

References

Cornell Lab of Ornithology. (2009b). All About Birds: Herring Gull. Retrieved from 

http://www.allaboutbirds.org/guide/Herring_Gull/id

Crowell, S. C. (2016). Measuring In-Air and Underwater Hearing in Seabirds. Adv Exp Med Biol, 875, 

1155–1160. 

Crowell, S. E., A. M. Wells-Berlin, C. E. Carr, G. H. Olsen, R. E. Therrien, S. E. Ynnuzzi, & D. R. Ketten. 

(2015). A comparison of auditory brainstem responses across diving bird species. Journal of 

Comparative Physiology A, 201(8), 803–815. 

Crowell, S. E., A. M. Wells-Berlin, R. E. Therrien, S. E. Yannuzzi, & C. E. Carr. (2016). In-air hearing of a 

diving duck: A comparison of psychoacoustic and auditory brainstem response thresholds. J 

Acoust Soc Am, 139(5), 3001. 

Cucurachi, S., W. Tamis, M. Vijver, W. Peijnenburg, J. Bolte, & G. Snoo. (2013). A review of the ecological 

effects of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMF). Environmental International, 51, 

116–140. 

Damon, E. G., D. R. Richmond, E. R. Fletcher, & R. K. Jones. (1974). The tolerance of birds to airblast

(Defense Nuclear Agency Technical Report).

Danil, K., & J. A. St. Ledger. (2011). Seabird and dolphin mortality associated with underwater 

detonation exercises. Marine Technology Society Journal, 45(6), 63–87. 

Davoren, G. K., P. Penton, C. Burke, & W. A. Montevecchi. (2012). Water temperature and timing of 

capelin spawning determine seabird diets. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 69(7), 1234–1241. 

Day, R. H., & B. A. Cooper. (1995). Patterns of movement of Dark-rumped petrels and Newell's 

shearwaters on Kauai. The Condor, 97, 1011–1027. 

Day, R. H., & D. A. Nigro. (2000). Feeding ecology of Kittlitz's and marbled murrelets in Prince William 

Sound, Alaska. Waterbirds, 23(1), 1–14. 

Day, R. H., B. A. Cooper, & R. J. Blaha. (2003). Movement patterns of Hawaiian petrels and Newell's 

shearwaters on the island of Hawaii. Pacific Science, 57(2), 147–159. 

Dearborn, D. C., A. D. Anders, & P. G. Parker. (2001). Sexual dimorphism, extrapair fertilizations, and 

operational sex ratio in great frigatebirds (Fregata minor). Behavioral Ecology, 12(6), 746–752. 

Desholm, M., A. D. Fox, P. D. L. Beasley, & J. Kahlert. (2006). Remote techniques for counting and 

estimating the number of bird-wind turbine collisions at sea: A review. Ibis, 148, 76–89. 

Dietrich, K., & E. Melvin. (2004). Annotated bibliography: Seabird interactions with trawl fishing 

operations and cooperative research (Washington Sea Grant Program). Seattle, WA: University 

of Washington Board of Regents.

Dobson, A. (2010). Bird report. Bermuda Audubon Society Newsletter, 21(1). 

Dolbeer, R. A. (2006). Height distribution of birds recorded by collisions with civil aircraft. Journal of 

Wildlife Management, 70, 1345–1350.

Donnelly-Greenan, E., J. Harvey, H. Nevins, M. Hester, & W. Walker. (2014). Prey and plastic ingestion of 

Pacific Northern Fulmars (Fulmarus glacialis rogersii) from Monterey Bay, California. Marine 

Pollution Bulletin, 85, 214–224. 

Dooling, R. (2002). Avian Hearing and the Avoidance of Wind Turbines. University of Maryland.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.9-105

References

Dooling, R. J. (1980). Behavior and Psychophysics of Hearing in Birds. In A. N. Popper & R. R. Fay (Eds.), 

Comparative Studies of Hearing in Vertebrates. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.

Dooling, R. J., & A. N. Popper. (2000). Hearing in birds and reptiles. In R. J. Dooling, R. R. Fay & A. N. 

Popper (Eds.), Comparative hearing in birds and reptiles (Vol. 13, pp. 308–359). New York, NY: 

Springer-Verlag.

Dooling, R. J., & S. C. Therrien. (2012). Hearing in Birds: What Changes from Air to Water A. N. Popper & 

A. Hawkins (Eds.), The Effects of Noise Oil Aquatic Life. Advances in Experimental Medicine and 

Biology 

Durant, J. M., T. Anker-Nilssen, & N. C. Stenseth. (2003). Trophic interaction under climate fluctuations: 

The Atlantic puffin as an example. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, 270(B)(1), 461–

1466. 

Ehrlich, P. R., D. S. Dobkin, & D. Wheye. (1988). The Birder's Handbook: A Field Guide to the Natural 

History of North American Birds (pp. 785). New York, NY: Simon & Schuster, Inc.

Ellis, D. H. (1981). Responses of Raptorial Birds to Low Level Military Jets and Sonic Booms (Results of the 

1980—1981 joint U.S. Air Force—U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Study). Institute for Raptor 

Studies.

Elphick, C., J. B. Dunning, Jr., & D. A. E. Sibley. (2001). National Audubon Society: The Sibley Guide to Bird 

Life and Behavior. New York, NY: Alfred A. Knopf, Inc.

Elphick, J. (2007). Atlas of bird migration: Tracing the great journeys of the world's birds (pp. 176). 

Buffalo, NY: Firefly Books.

Enticott, J., & D. Tipling. (1997). Seabirds of the World: The Complete Reference (1st ed.). 

Mechanicsburg, PA: Stackpole Books.

Erbe, C., C. Reichmuth, K. Cunningham, K. Lucke, & R. Dooling. (2015). Communication masking in 

marine mammals: a review and research strategy. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 1–24. 

Erickson, R. A., R. A. Hamilton, S. N. G. Howell, P. Pyle, & M. A. Patten. (1995). First record of the 

marbled murrelet and third record of the ancient murrelet for Mexico. Western Birds, 26, 39–45. 

Ericson, P. G. P., I. Envall, M. Irestedt, & J. A. Norman. (2003). Inter-familial relationships of the 

shorebirds (Aves: Charadriiformes) based on nuclear DNA sequence data. BMC Evolutionary 

Biology, 3(16), 1–14. 

Fain, M. G., & P. Houde. (2007). Multilocus perspectives on the monophyly and phylogeny of the order 

Charadriiformes (Aves). BMC Evolutionary Biology, 7(35), 1–17. 

Fauchald, P., K. E. Erikstad, & G. H. Systad. (2002). Seabirds and marine oil incidents: is it possible to 

predict the spatial distribution of pelagic seabirds? Journal of Applied Ecology, 39(2), 349–360. 

Favero, M., G. Blanco, G. Garcia, S. Copello, J. P. S. Pon, E. Frere, F. Quintana, P. Yorio, F. Rabuffetti, G. 

Canete, & P. Gandini. (2011). Seabird mortality associated with ice trawlers in the Patagonian 

shelf: Effect of discards on the occurrence of interactions with fishing gear. Animal Conservation, 

14(2), 131–139. 

Fay, C., M. Bartron, S. Craig, A. Hecht, J. Pruden, R. Saunders, T. Sheehan, & J. Trial. (2006). Status 

Review for Anadromous Atlantic Salmon (Salmo salar) in the United States. National Marine 

Fisheries Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.9-106

References

Federal Aviation Administration. (2003). Memorandum of Agreement Between the Federal Aviation 

Administration, the U.S. Air Force, the U.S. Army, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture to Address Aircraft-Wildlife 

Strikes.

Finneran, J. J. (2015). Noise-induced hearing loss in marine mammals: a review of temporary threshold 

shift studies from 1996 to 2015. The Journal of Acoustical Society of America, 138(3), 1702–

1726. 

Fisher, H. I. (1971). Experiments on homing in Laysan Albatrosses, Diomedea immutabilis. The Condor, 

73(4), 389–400. 

Frost, N. (2016). California Least Tern Breeding Survey 2015 Season. San Diego, CA.

Gauthreaux, S. A., & C. G. Belser. (2003). Radar ornithology and biological conservation. Auk, 120(2), 

266–277. 

Gehring, J., P. Kerlinger, & A. M. Manville, II. (2009). Communication towers, lights, and birds: successful 

methods of reducing the frequency of avian collisions. Ecological Applications, 19(2), 505–514. 

Goodwin, S. E., & J. Podos. (2013). Shift of song frequencies in response to masking tones. Animal 

Behaviour, 85. 

Goudie, R. I., & I. L. Jones. (2004). Dose-response relationships of harlequin duck behavior to noise from 

low-level military jet over-flights in central Labrador. Environmental Conservation, 31(4), 289–

298. 

Greene, G. D., F. R. Engelhardt, & R. J. Paterson. (1985). Proceedings of the Workshop on Effects of 

Explosives Use in the Marine Environment. Canada: Canada Oil and Gas Lands Administration, 

Environmental Protection Branch.

Grenier, J. J., & S. K. Nelson. (1995). Marbled Murrelet habitat associations in Oregon. In C. J. Ralph, G. L. 

Hunt, Jr., M. G. Raphael & J. F. Piatt (Eds.), Ecology and Conservation of the Marbled Murrelet. 

USDA Forest Service General Technical Report PSW-152 (pp. 191–204).

Grubb, T. G., D. K. Delaney, W. W. Bowerman, & M. R. Wierda. (2010). Golden eagle indifference to heliskiing and military helicopters in northern Utah. Journal of Wildlife Management, 74(6), 1275–

1285. 

Haftorn, S., F. Mehlum, & C. Bech. (1988). Navigation to nest site in the snow petrel (Pagodroma nivea). 

The Condor, 90(2), 484–486. 

Hamer, T. E., & S. K. Nelson. (1995). Nesting chronology of the marbled murrelet (Ecology and 

Conservation of the Marbled Murrelet). Pacific Southwest Research Station, Forest Service, U.S. 

Department of Agriculture.

Hamilton, W. J., III. (1958). Pelagic birds observed on a North Pacific crossing. The Condor, 60(3), 159–

164. 

Haney, J., H. Geiger, & J. Short. (2014a). Bird mortality from the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. I. Exposure 

probability in the offshore Gulf of Mexico. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 513, 225–237. 

Haney, J., H. Geiger, & J. Short. (2014b). Bird mortality from the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. II. Carcass 

sampling and exposure probability in the coastal Gulf of Mexico. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 

513, 239–252. 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.9-107

References

Haney, J. C. (1986a). Seabird segregation at Gulf Stream frontal eddies. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 

28, 279–285. 

Haney, J. C. (1986b). Seabird patchiness in tropical oceanic waters: The influence of Sargassum "reefs". 

The Auk, 103(1), 141–151. 

Hanlon, R. T., & J. B. Messenger. (1996). Cephalopod Behaviour. Cambridge, NY: Cambridge University 

Press.

Hansen, K. A., A. Maxwell, U. Siebert, O. N. Larsen, & M. Wahlberg. (2017). Great cormorants 

(Phalacrocorax carbo) can detect auditory cues while diving. The Science of Nature, 104(5-6), 45. 

Harrison, P. (1983). Seabirds, an Identification Guide (pp. 445). Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Company.

Hashino, E., M. Sokabe, & K. Miyamoto. (1988). Frequency specific susceptibility to acoustic trauma in 

the buderigar (Melopsittacus undulatus). Journal of Acoustical Society of America, 83(6), 2450–

2453. 

Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources. (2005). Hawaii's Comprehensive Wildlife 

Conservation Strategy: Newell’s Shearwater (Puffinus auricularis newelli).

Henry, P. Y., G. Wey, & G. Balanca. (2011). Rubber band ingestion by a rubbish dump dweller, the white 

stork (Ciconia ciconia). Waterbirds, 34(4), 504–508. 

Hertel, F., & L. Ballance. (1999). Wing ecomorphology of seabirds from Johnston Atoll. The Condor, 101, 

549–556. 

Hetherington, T. (2008). Comparative anatomy and function of hearing in aquatic amphibians, reptiles, 

and birds. Sensory evolution on the threshold: adaptations in secondarily aquatic vertebrates, 

183–209. 

Hillman, M. D., S. M. Karpanty, J. D. Fraser, & A. Derose-Wilson. (2015). Effects of aircraft and recreation 

on colonial waterbird nesting behavior. Journal of Wildlife Management, 79(7), 1192–1198. 

Hunt, G. L., Jr., & J. L. Butler. (1980). Reproductive ecology of Western gulls and Xantus' murrelets with 

respect to food resources in the Southern California Bight. CalCOFI Reports, XXI, 62–67. 

Hyrenbach, K. (2001). Albatross response to survey vessels: implications for studies of the distribution, 

abundance, and prey consumption of seabird populations. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 212, 

283–295. 

Hyrenbach, K., M. Hester, S. Lyday, S. Youngren, D. Rapp, M. Dwyer, E. Robinson, P. Hartzell, M. DuhrShultz, & M. Fry. (2015). Overview: Developing Ecosystem Metrics for Plastic Ingestion by 

Hawaiian Seabirds. Paper presented at the World Seabird Conference II. 

Hyrenbach, K. D. (2006). Training and Problem-Solving to Address Population Information Needs for 

Priority Species, Pelagic Species and Other Birds at Sea. Paper presented at the Waterbird 

Monitoring Techniques Workshop, IV North American Ornithological Conference. 2–3 October, 

Veracruz, Mexico.

International Union for Conservation of Nature. (2017). The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. 

Retrieved from http://www.iucnredlist.org/

International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources. (2010a). The IUCN Red List of 

Threatened Species Version 2010.1. Retrieved from http://www.iucnredlist.org/
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.9-108

References

International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources. (2010b). Phoebastria albatrus. 

IUCN 2010. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2010.3. Retrieved from 

www.iucnredlist.org

International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources. (2010c). Brachyramphus 

marmoratus. IUCN 2010. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2010.3. Retrieved from 

www.iucnredlist.org

International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources. (2010d). IUCN Red List of 

Threatened Species. Version 2010.4. Retrieved from www.iucnredlist.org

International Union for the Conservation of Nature. (2010). Oceanodroma castro. IUCN 2010. IUCN Red 

List of Threatened Species. Version 2010.3. Retrieved from www.iucnredlist.org

Jessup, D. A., M. A. Miller, J. P. Ryan, H. M. Nevins, H. A. Kerkering, A. Mekebri, D. B. Crane, T. A. 

Johnson, & R. M. Kudela. (2009). Mass stranding of marine birds caused by a surfactantproducing red tide. PLoS ONE, 4(2), e4550. 

Jiménez, S., A. Domingo, M. Abreu, & A. Brazeiro. (2012). Bycatch susceptibility in pelagic longline 

fisheries: are albatrosses affected by the diving behaviour of medium-sized petrels? Aquatic 

Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems, 22(4), 436–445. 

Johansen, S., O. N. Larsen, J. Christensen-Dalsgaard, L. Siedelin, T. Huulvej, K. Jensen, S. Lunneryd, M. 

Bostrom, & M. Wahlberg. (2016). In-air and Underwater Hearing in the Great Cormorant. The 

Effects of Noise on Aquatic Life II. 

Johnson, C. L., & R. T. Reynolds. (2002). Responses of Mexican Spotted Owls to Low-Flying Military Jet 

Aircraft. US Department of Agriculture.

Johnson, R. J., P. H. Cole, & W. W. Stroup. (1985). Starling response to three auditory stimuli. Journal of 

Wildlife Management, 49(3), 620–625. 

Jones, I. L. (2001). Auks. In C. Elphick, J. B. Dunning, Jr. & D. A. Sibley (Eds.), The Sibley Guide to Bird Life 

and Behavior (pp. 309–318). New York, NY: Alfred A. Knopf, Inc.

Kain, E., J. Lavers, C. Berg, A. Raine, & A. Bond. (2016). Plastic ingestion by Newell’s (Puffinus newelli) 

and wedge-tailed shearwaters (Ardenna pacifica) in Hawaii. Environmental Science and Pollution 

Research, 1–9. 

Kastelein, R. A., S. van der Heul, W. C. Verboom, N. Jennings, J. van der Veen, & D. de Haan. (2008). 

Startle response of captive North Sea fish species to underwater tones between 0.1 and 64 kHz. 

Marine Environmental Research, 65(5), 369–377. 

Kauai Endangered Seabird Recovery Project. (2017). Band-rumped Storm-Petrel. Retrieved from 

http://kauaiseabirdproject.org/index.php/the-birds/banp-fact-sheet

Kight, C. R., S. S. Saha, & J. P. Swaddle. (2012). Anthropogenic noise is associated with reductions in the 

productivity of breeding Eastern Bluebirds (Sialia sialis). Ecological Applications, 22(7), 1989–

1996. 

Knight, R. L., & S. A. Temple. (1986). Why does intensity of avian nest defense increase during the 

nesting cycle? The Auk, 103(2), 318–327. 

Knopf, F. L., & R. M. Evans. (2004). American White Pelican (Pelecanus erythrorhynchos) The Birds of 

North America Online, 057, 6.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.9-109

References

Komenda-Zehnder, S., M. Cevallos, & B. Bruderer. (2003). Effects of disturbance by aircraft overflight on 

waterbirds—an experimental approach (International Bird Strike Committee).

Kujawa, S. G., & M. C. Liberman. (2009). Adding insult to injury: cochlear nerve degeneration after 

"temporary" noise-induced hearing loss. J Neurosci, 29(45), 14077–14085. 

Lacroix, D. L., R. B. Lanctot, J. A. Reed, & T. L. McDonald. (2003). Effect of underwater seismic surveys on 

molting male long-tailed ducks in the Beaufort Sea, Alaska. Canadian Journal of Zoology, 81, 

1862–1875. 

Larkin, R. P., L. L. Pater, & D. J. Tazlk. (1996). Effects of Military Noise on Wildlife: A Literature Review.

Lavers, J., A. Bond, & I. Hutton. (2014). Plastic ingestion by Flesh-footed Shearwaters (Puffinus 

carneipes): Implications for fledgling body condition and the accumulation of plastic-derived 

chemicals. Environmental Pollution, 187, 124–129. 

Lin, H. W., A. C. Furman, S. G. Kujawa, & M. C. Liberman. (2011). Primary neural degeneration in the 

guinea pig cochlea after reversible noise-induced threshold shift. Journal of the Association for 

Research in Otolaryngology. 

Lin, J. (2002). Alca torda: razorbill. Animal diversity web. Retrieved from 

http://animaldiversity.ummz.umich.edu/site/accounts/information/Alca_torda.html

Lincoln, F. C., S. R. Perterson, & J. L. Zimmerman. (1998). Migration of Birds (Migration of Birds Circular 

16). U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service.

Manci, K. M., D. N. Gladwin, R. Villella, & M. G. Cavendish. (1988). Effects of Aircraft Noise and Sonic 

Booms on Domestic Animals and Wildlife: A Literature Synthesis. Ft. Collins, CO: U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, National Ecology Research Center.

Manville, A. (2016). A Briefing Memorandum: What We Know, Can Infer, and Don’t Yet Know about 

Impacts from Thermal and Non-thermal Non-ionizing Radiation to Birds and Other Wildlife — for 

Public Release.

Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton. (2012). Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan for Marine 

Corps Base Camp Pendleton.

Massey, B., & J. Fancher. (1989). Renesting by California Least Terns. Journal of Field Ornithology, 60(3), 

350–357. 

Maui Forest Bird Recovery Project. (2017). Avian Disease. Retrieved from 

http://mauiforestbirds.org/articles/17

McCaskie, G., & K. Garrett. (2001). North American Birds: Southern Pacific Coast. North American Birds, 

55(2), 226–230. 

McCaskie, G., & K. Garrett. (2002). North American Birds: Southern Pacific Coast. North American Birds, 

56, 222–226. 

McCracken, M. L. (2014). Estimation of Incidental Interactions with Sea Turtles and Seabirds in the 2013 

Hawaii Deep-Set Longline Fishery. Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center National Marine 

Fisheries Service.

Melillo, J., T. Richmond, & G. Yhoe. (2014). Climate Change Impacts in the United States: The Third 

National Climate Assessmen. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.9-110

References

Melvin, E. F., J. K. Parrish, & L. L. Conquest. (1999). Novel tools to reduce seabird bycatch in coastal 

gillnet fisheries; Nuevas herramientas para reducir la captura accidental de aves marinas con 

redes agalleras de pesquerías costeras. Conservation Biology, 13(6), 1386–1397. 

Melvin, E. F., & J. K. Parrish. (2001a). Seabird bycatch: Trends, roadblocks, and solutions (Proceedings of 

the Symposium Seabird Bycatch: Trends, Roadblocks, and Solutions, February 26—27, 1999, 

Blaine, Washington, Annual Meeting of the Pacific Seabird Group). Fairbanks, AK: University of 

Alaska Sea Grant, AK-SG-01-01.

Melvin, E. F., J. K. Parrish, K. S. Dietrich, & O. S. Hamel. (2001). Solutions to seabird bycatch in Alaska's 

demersal longline fisheries. Seattle, WA.

Melvin, E. F., & J. K. E. Parrish. (2001b). Seabird bycatch: Trends, roadblocks, and solutions, February 26–

27. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Pacific Seabird Group, Blaine, WA.

Melvin, E. F., K. S. Dietrich, S. Fitzgerald, & T. Cardoso. (2011). Reducing seabird strikes with trawl cables

in the pollock catcher-processor fleet in the eastern Bering Sea. Polar Biology, 34(2), 215–226. 

Merkel, F. R., & K. L. Johansen. (2011). Light-induced bird strikes on vessels in Southwest Greenland. 

Marine Pollution Bulletin, 62(11), 2330–2336. 

Miller, S. L., & C. J. Ralph. (1995). Relationship of marbled murrelets with habitat characteristics at inland 

sites in California (Ecology and Conservation of the Marbled Murrelet). Albany, CA: Pacific 

Southwest Research Station, Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Mintz, J. D. (2012). Vessel Traffic in the Hawaii-Southern California and Atlantic Fleet Testing and 

Training Study Areas. (CRM D0026186.A2/Final). Center for Naval Analysis.

Moser, M. L., & D. S. Lee. (1992). A fourteen-year survey of plastic ingestion by western north Atlantic 

seabirds. Colonial Waterbirds, 15(1), 83–94. 

Naslund, N. (1993). Why do Marbled Murrelets Attend Old-Growth Forest Nesting Areas Year-Round? 

The Auk, 110(3), 594–602. 

National Marine Fisheries Service, & U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. (2005). Final Recovery Plan for the 

Gulf of Maine Distinct Population Segment of Atlantic Salmon (Salmo salar). Silver Spring, MD: 

National Marine Fisheries Service.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. (2016). Discover the Issue: Marine Debris. Retrieved 

from https://marinedebris.noaa.gov/discoverissue

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Marine Debris Program. (2014). Report on the 

Entanglement of Marine Species in Marine Debris with an Emphasis on Species in the United 

States. Silver Spring, MD.

National Parks Service. (1994). Report on Effects of Aircraft Overflights on the National Park System. 

Retrieved from http://www.nonoise.org/library/npreport/intro.htm

NatureServe. (2004, 23 November 2004). Comprehensive report: Phoebastria albatrus—(Pallas, 1769): 

Short-tailed albatross. Retrieved from http://www.natureserve.org

Naughton, M. B., M. D. Romano, & T. S. Zimmerman. (2007). A Conservation Action Plan for Black-footed 

Albatross (Phoebastria nigripes) and Laysan Albatross (P. immutabilis) Version 1.0.

Naval Air Station Jacksonville. (2012). Bird Aircraft Strike Hazard (BASH) Reduction Program. Jacksonville, 

FL.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.9-111

References

Naval Safety Center. (2017). Web-Enabled Safety System, Bird/Animal Aircraft Strike Statistics, 2006-

2015. Retrieved from http://www.public.navy.mil/NAVSAFECEN/Pages/WESS/index.aspx

Nelson, S. K. (1997). Marbled Murrelet (Brachyramphus marmoratus). The Birds of North America 

Online(276). 

Nevitt, G., & R. Veit. (1999). Mechanisms of preypatch detection by foraging seabirds. Paper presented 

at the 22nd International Ornithological Congress, Durban, South Africa. 

Nichols, B., & P. Racey. (2007). Bats Avoid Radar Installations: Could Electromagnetic Fields Deter Bats 

from Colliding with Wind Turbines? PLoS ONE, 2(3), 1–7. 

Nichols, B., & P. A. Racey. (2009). The Aversive Effect of Electromagnetic Radiation on Foraging Bats—A 

Possible Means of Discouraging Bats from

Approaching Wind Turbines. PLoS ONE, 4(7). 

Niemiec, A. J., Y. Raphael, & D. B. Moody. (1994). Return of auditory fuction following structural 

regeneration after acoustic truma: behavioral measures from quail. Hearing Research, 75, 209–

224. 

Noirot, I. C., E. F. Brittan-Powell, & R. J. Dooling. (2011). Masked auditory thresholds in three species of 

birds, as measured by the auditory brainstem response (L). Journal of the Acoustical Society of 

America, 129(6). 

North American Bird Conservation Initiative U.S. Committee. (2009). The State of the Birds, United States 

of America, 2009. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Interior Retrieved from 

http://www.stateofthebirds.org/pdf_files/State_of_the_Birds_2009.pdf.

North American Bird Conservation Initiative U.S. Committee. (2010). The State of the Birds 2010 Report 

on Climate Change, United States of America. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior 

Retrieved from http://www.stateofthebirds.org/.

Onley, D., & P. Scofield. (2007). Albatrosses, Petrels and Shearwaters of the World. Princeton, NJ: 

Princeton University Press.

Partecke, J., I. Schwabl, & E. Gwinner. (2006). Stress and the city: Urbanization and its effects on the 

stress physiology in european blackbirds. Ecology, 87(8), 1945–1952. 

Patricelli, G. L., & J. L. Blickley. (2006). Avian communication in urban noise: Causes and consequences of 

vocal adjustment. The Auk, 123(3), 639–649. 

Piatt, J. F., & N. L. Naslund. (1995). Abundance, distribution, and population status of marbled murrelets 

in Alaska. In C. J. Ralph, G. L. Hunt, Jr., M. G. Raphael & J. F. Piatt (Eds.), Ecology and 

Conservation of the Marbled Murrelet (pp. 285–294). Albany, CA: Pacific Southwest Research 

Station, Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. 

Piatt, J. F., K. J. Kuletz, A. E. Burger, S. A. Hatch, V. L. Friesen, T. P. Birt, M. L. Arimitsu, G. S. Drew, A. M. 

A. Harding, & K. S. Bixler. (2007). Status Review of the Marbled Murrelet (Brachyramphus 

marmoratus) in Alaska and British Columbia. Reston, VA: U.S. Geological Survey.

Pierce, K. E., R. J. Harris, L. S. Larned, & M. A. Pokras. (2004). Obstruction and starvation associated with 

plastic ingestion in a Northern gannet, Morus Bassanus, and a greater shearwater, Puffinus 

Gravis. Marine Ornithology, 32, 187–189. 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.9-112

References

Plumpton, D. (2006). Review of Studies Related to Aircraft Noise Disturbance of Waterfowl A Technical 

Report in Support of the Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) for Introduction of 

F/A-18 E/F (Super Hornet) Aircraft to the East Coast of the United States.

Ponganis, P. (2015). Diving Physiology of Marine Mammals and Seabirds. University Printing House, 

Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.

Poole, A. F., R. O. Bierregaard, & M. S. Martell. (2002). Osprey (Pandiol haliaetus). The Birds of North 

America Online. Retrieved from http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/563

Poot, H., B. J. Ens, H. de Vries, M. A. H. Donners, M. R. Wernand, & J. M. Marquenie. (2008). Green light 

for nocturnally migrating birds. Ecology and Society, 13(2), 47. 

Popper, A. N., A. D. Hawkins, R. R. Fay, D. A. Mann, S. M. Bartol, T. J. Carlson, S. Coombs, W. T. Ellison, R. 

L. Gentry, M. B. Halvorsen, S. Løkkeborg, P. H. Rogers, B. L. Southall, D. G. Zeddies, & W. N. 

Tavolga. (2014). Sound Exposure Guidelines for Fishes and Sea Turtles.

Pratt, H., P. Bruner, & D. Berrett. (1987). The Birds of Hawaii and the Tropical Pacific. Princeton, NJ: 

Princeton University Press.

Provencher, J., A. Bond, A. Hedd, W. Montevecchi, S. Muzaffar, S. Courchesne, H. Gilchrist, S. Jamieson, 

F. Merkel, K. Falk, J. Durinck, & M. Mallory. (2014). Prevalence of marine debris in marine birds 

from the North Atlantic. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 84, 411–417. 

Pyle, R., & P. Pyle. (2017, January 1). The Birds of the Hawaiian Islands: Occurrence, History, Distribution, 

and Status. Second. Retrieved from http://hbs.bishopmuseum.org/birds/rlpmonograph/Default.htm

Pytte, C. L., K. M. Rusch, & M. S. Ficken. (2003). Regulation of vocal amplitude by the blue-throated 

hummingbird, Lampornis clemenciae. Animal Behaviour, 66, 703–710. 

Ralph, C. J., & S. L. Miller. (1995). Offshore population estimates of Marbled Murrelets in California. In C. 

J. Ralph, G. L. Hunt, Jr., M. G. Raphael & J. F. Piatt (Eds.), Ecology and conservation of the 

Marbled Murrelet. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report PSW-152 (pp. 353–360).

Ramos, J., L. Monteiro, E. Sola, & Z. Moniz. (1997). Characteristics and Competition for Nest Cavities in 

Burrowing Procellariiformes. The Condor, 99, 634–641. 

Reed, J. R., J. L. Sincock, & J. P. Hailman. (1985). Light attraction in endangered procellariiform birds: 

Reduction by shielding upward radiation. The Auk, 102, 377–383. 

Reynolds, M., & G. Ritchotte. (1997). Evidence of Newell's Shearwater Breeding in Puna District, Hawaii. 

Journal of Field Ornithology, 68(1), 26–32. 

Rijke, A. M. (1970). Wettability and phylogenetic development of feather structure in water birds. 

Journal of Experimental Biology, 52(2), 469–479. 

Roberson, D. (2000, 26 May 2000). California short-tailed albatrosses. A summary at the turn of the 21st 

Century. Retrieved from http://www.montereybay.com/creagrus/CA_STAL.html

Rodríguez, A., N. Holmes, P. Ryan, K. Wilson, L. Faulquier, Y. Murillo, A. Raine, J. Penniman, V. Neves, B. 

Rodríguez, J. Negro, A. Chiaradia, P. Dann, T. Anderson, B. Metzger, M. Shirai, L. Deppe, J. 

Wheeler, P. Hodum, C. Gouveia, V. Carmo, G. Carreira, L. Delgado-Alburqueque, C. GuerraCorrea, F. Couzi, M. Travers, & M. Le Corre. (2017). A global review of seabird mortality caused 

by land-based artificial lights. Conservation Biology, 1–40. 

Ronconi, R. (2001). Cepphus grylle, black guillemot. Animal Diversity Web.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.9-113

References

http://animaldiversity.ummz.umich.edu/site/accounts/information/Cepphus_grylle.html. Retrieved 

Rubega, M. A., D. Schamel, & D. M. Tracy. (2000). Red-necked Phalarope (Phalaropus lobatus). The Birds 

of North America Online(538), 5. 

Rubel, E. W., S. A. Furrer, & J. S. Stone. (2013). A brief history of hair cell regeneration research and 

speculations on the future. Hearing Research, 297, 42–51. 

Russel, W. A., Jr., N. D. Lewis, & B. T. Brown. (1996). The impact of impulsive noise on bald eagles at 

Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland. Paper presented at the 131st Meeting: Acoustical Society 

of America.

Ryals, B. M., R. J. Dooling, E. Westbrook, M. L. Dent, A. MacKenzie, & O. N. Larsen. (1999). Avian species 

differences in susceptibility to noise exposure. Hearing Research, 131, 71–88. 

Ryan, P. (1987). The Effects of Ingested Plastic on Seabirds: Correlations between Plastic Load and Body 

Condition. Environmental Pollution, 46, 119–125. 

Sade, J., Y. Handrich, J. Bernheim, & D. Cohen. (2008). Pressure equilibration in the penguin middle ear. 

Acta Oto-Laryngologica, 128(1), 18–21. 

Samuel, M., B. Woodworth, C. Atkinson, P. Hart, & D. LaPointe. (2015). Avian malaria in Hawaiian forest 

birds: infection and population impacts across species and elevations. Ecosphere, 6(6), 1–21. 

Saunders, J. C., & R. Dooling. (1974). Noise-induced threshold shift in the parakeet (Melopsittacus 

undulatus). Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 71(5), 1962–1965. 

Savoca, M. (2016, November 10). Plastic Garbage Chemical Attracts Hungry Seabirds. Retrieved from 

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/plastic-garbage-chemical-attracts-hungry-seabirds/

Savoca, M., M. Wohlfeil, S. Ebeler, & G. Nevitt. (2016). Marine plastic debris emits a keystone 

infochemical for olfactory foraging seabirds. Science Advances, 2(e1600395), 1–9. 

Scheuhammer, A. (1987). The chronic toxicity of Aluminium, Cadmium, Mercury, and Lead in birds: A 

review. Environmental Review, 46, 263–295. 

Schneider, D. C., & D. C. Duffy. (1985). Scale-dependent variability in seabird abundance. Marine Ecology 

- Progress Series, 25, 211–218. 

Schreiber, R., & J. Chovan. (1986). Roosting by Pelagic Seabirds: Energetic, Populational, and Social 

Considerations. The Condor, 88, 487–492. 

Schueck, L. S., J. M. Marzluff, & K. Steenhof. (2001). Influence of military activities on raptor abundance 

and behavior. The Condor, 103(3), 606–615. 

Schwemmer, P., B. Mendel, N. Sonntag, V. Dierschke, & S. Garthe. (2011). Effects of ship traffic on 

seabirds in offshore waters: implications for marine conservation and spatial planning. 

Ecological Applications, 21(5), 1851–1860. 

Shields, M. (2002). Brown pelican (Pelecanus occidentalis). The Birds of North America Online(609), 5. 

Sibley, D. (2014). The Sibley Guide to Birds (Second ed.). New York, NY: Alfred A. Knopf.

Sibley, D. A. (2007). National Audubon Society: The Sibley Guide to Birds (9th ed.). New York, NY: 

Chanticleer Press.

Sidle, J. G., D. E. Carlson, E. M. Kirsch, & J. J. Dinan. (1992). Flooding: Mortality and habitat renewal for 

least terns and piping plovers. Colonial Waterbirds, 15(1), 132–136. 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.9-114

References

Siegel-Causey, D., & S. Kharitonov. (1990). The Evolution of Coloniality. Current Ornithology, 7, 285–330. 

Sievert, P. R., & L. Sileo. (1993). The effects of ingested plastic on growth and survival of albatross chicks. 

In K. Vermeer, K. T. Briggs, K. H. Morgan & D. Siegel-Causey (Eds.), The Status, Ecology, and 

Conservation of Marine Birds of the North Pacific (pp. 212–217). Ottawa, Canada: Canadian 

Wildlife Service Special Publication.

Slabbekoorn, H., & A. den Boer-Visser. (2006). Cities Change the Songs of Birds. Current Biology, 16(23), 

2326–2331. 

Southall, B. L., A. E. Bowles, W. T. Ellison, J. J. Finneran, R. L. Gentry, C. R. Greene, Jr., D. Kastak, D. R. 

Ketten, J. H. Miller, P. E. Nachtigall, W. J. Richardson, J. A. Thomas, & P. L. Tyack. (2007). Marine 

mammal noise exposure criteria: Initial scientific recommendations. Aquatic Mammals, 33(4), 

411–521. 

Spargo, B. J., T. L. Hullar, S. L. Fales, H. F. Hemond, P. Koutrakis, W. H. Schlesinger, & J. G. Watson. 

(1999). Environmental Effects of RF Chaff. Naval Research Laboratory.

Spatz, D., K. Newton, R. Heinz, B. Tershy, N. Holmes, S. Butchart, & D. Croll. (2014). The Biogeography of 

Globally Threatened Seabirds and Island Conservation Opportunities. Conservation Biology, 

00(0), 1–9. 

Spear, L. B., D. G. Ainley, N. Nur, & S. N. G. Howell. (1995). Population size and factors affecting at-sea 

distributions of four endangered procellariids in the tropical Pacific. The Condor, 97(3), 613–638. 

Stalmaster, M. V., & J. L. Kaiser. (1997). Flushing responses of wintering bald eagles to military activity. 

The Journal of Wildlife Management, 1307–1313. 

Strong, C. S., B. S. Keitt, W. R. McIver, C. J. Palmer, & I. Gaffney. (1995). Distribution and population 

estimates of marbled murrelets at sea in Oregon during the summers of 1992 and 1993 (Ecology 

and Conservation of the Marbled Murrelet). Albany, CA: Pacific Southwest Research Station, 

Forest Service, U. S. Department of Agriculture.

Swisdak, M. M. (1975). Explosion Effects and Properties Part I – Explosion Effects in Air. Silver Spring, 

MD: White Oak Laboratory, Naval Surface Weapons Center.

Swisdak, M. M., Jr., & P. E. Montaro. (1992). Airblast and fragmentation hazards produced by 

underwater explosions. Silver Springs, MD: Naval Surface Warfare Center.

Teer, J. G., & J. C. Truett. (1973). Studies of the Effects of Sonic Boom on Birds. U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration.

Therrien, S. C. (2014). In-air and underwater hearing of diving birds. (Doctor of Philosphy Dissertation). 

University of Maryland. 

Thiessen, G. J. (1958). Threshold of hearing of a ring-billed gull. The Journal of Acoustical Society of 

America, 30(11). 

Thompson, B. C., J. A. Jackson, J. Burger, L. A. Hill, E. M. Kirsch, & J. L. Atwood. (1997). Least Tern (Sterna 

antillarum). The Birds of North America Online(290). 

Ting, C., J. Garrelick, & A. Bowles. (2002). An analysis of the response of Sooty Tern eggs to sonic boom 

overpressures. The Journal of Acoustical Society of America, 111(1). 

Titmus, A. J., & K. D. Hyrenbach. (2011). Habitat associations of floating debris and marine birds in the

North East Pacific Ocean at coarse and meso spatial scales. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 62(11), 

2496–2506. 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.9-115

References

U.S. Bureau of Land Management, & U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. (2010). Memorandum of 

understanding between the U.S. Department of Interior Bureau of Land Mangement and the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service to promote the conservation of migratory birds.

U.S. Coast Guard. (2015). 2014 Recreational Boating Statistics.

U.S. Department of Defense. (2009). Protecting Personnel from Electromagnetic Fields. (DoD Instruction 

6055.11).

U.S. Department of the Air Force. (1997). Environmental effects of self-protection chaff and flares. 

Langley Air Force Base, VA: U.S. Department of the Air Force.

U.S. Department of the Navy–Southwest Division. (2002). San Clemente Island Integrated Natural 

Resources Management Plan. San Diego, CA.

U.S. Department of the Navy. (2009). Environmental Assessment for Construction & Operation of 

Electromagnetic Railgun Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation Facility MILCON P-306. 

Dahlgren, VA: Naval Surface Warfare Center, Dahlgren Laboratory.

U.S. Department of the Navy. (2013a). Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan, Naval Base 

Coronado, California.

U.S. Department of the Navy. (2013b). San Diego Bay Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan. 

NAVFAC.

U.S. Department of the Navy. (2017). Criteria and Thresholds for U.S. Navy Acoustic and Explosive 

Impacts to Marine Mammals and Sea Turtles. Space and Naval Warfare System Command, 

Pacific.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. (1983). Hawaiian Dark-rumped Petrel and Newell's Manx Shearwater 

Recovery Plan. Portland, OR: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. (1985). Recovery Plan for the California Least tern Sterna Antillarum 

brownii. Portland, OR: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. (1990). Recovery Plan for the Interior Population of the Least Tern (Sterna 

antillarum). Twin Cities, MN: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. (1992). Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Determination of 

Threatened Status for the Washington, Oregon, and California Population of the Marbled 

Murrelet. Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Final Designation of Critical Habitat for the Marbled 

Murrelet, 50 CFR Part 17 C.F.R. (1996).

U.S. Fish and wildlife Service. (2000). Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Final Rule To List 

the Short-Tailed Albatross as Endangered in the United States.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. (2001). Short-tailed Albatross (Phoebastria albatrus) Threatened and 

Endangered Species. Retrieved from www.fws.gov.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. (2003). Hawaiian Islands Birds and Draft Scores (May 2003). Portland, OR: 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Migratory Birds and Habitat Programs, Pacific Region.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. (2004). Species Assessment and Listing Priority Assignment form: 

Oceanodroma castro.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.9-116

References

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. (2005a). Short-Tailed Albatross Draft Recovery Plan. Anchorage, AK:

Retrieved from http://endangered.fws.gov/recovery/Index.html#plans.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. (2005b). Regional Seabird Conservation Plan, Pacific Region. Portland, OR: 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Migratory Birds and Habitat Programs, Pacific Region.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. (2006). California Least Tern (Sternula antillarum browni) 5-year Review. 

Summary and Evaluation. Carlsbad, CA: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife 

Office.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. (2008a). Birds of Conservation Concern 2008. Arlington, VA: U.S. 

Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Migratory Bird Management 

Retrieved from http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. (2008b). Short-tailed Albatross Recovery Plan. Anchorage, AK.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. (2009). Marbled Murrelet (Brachyramphus marmoratus) 5-Year Review. 

Lacey, WA.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. (2010a). Endangered Species Program: Species Information. Retrieved 

from http://www.fws.gov/endangered/wildlife.html.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. (2010b). Species Account: California Least Tern (Sternula antillarum 

browni). Retrieved from http://fws.gov/sacramento/es/animal_spp_acct/acctbird.htm.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. (2011a). Hawaiian Dark-rumped Petrel (Pterodroma phaeopygia 

sandwichensis) 5-Year Review: Summary and Evaluation. Honolulu, HI.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. (2011b). Newell’s Shearwater (Puffinus auricularis newelli) 5-year Review: 

Summary and Evaluation. Honolulu, HI.

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Revised Critical Habitat for the Marbled Murrelet, 50 

CFR Part 17 C.F.R. (2011c).

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. (2012a, September 20). Endangered Species in the Pacific Islands, 

Hawaiian Petrel (Pterodroma sandwichensis). Retrieved from 

https://www.fws.gov/pacificislands/fauna/uau.html

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. (2012b, September 20). Short-tailed Albatross (Phoebastria albatrus). 

Retrieved from https://www.fws.gov/pacificislands/fauna/stalbatross.html

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. (2012c, September 20). Endangered Species in the Pacific Islands: Newell’s 

Shearwater (Puffinus auricularis newelli). Retrieved from 

https://www.fws.gov/pacificislands/fauna/newellsshearwater.html

General Provisions; Revised List of Migratory Birds, 50 CFR Parts 10 and 21 C.F.R. (2013).

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. (2014). Short-tailed Albatross (Phoebastria albatrus) 5-Year Review: 

Summary and Evaluation. Anchorage, AK.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. (2015a). Information for Planning and Conservation lists of threatened and 

endangered species for the Study Area. Retrieved from https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Determination of Critical Habitat for the Marbled 

Murrelet, 50 CFR Part 17 C.F.R. (2015b).

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife; Technical Corrections for Eight Wildlife Species on the List of 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife, 50 CFR Part 17 C.F.R. (2016).
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.9-117

References

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. (2017a). Species Profile for Band-Rumped storm-petrel (Oceanodroma 

castro). Retrieved from https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp0/profile/speciesProfile?spcode=B08V

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. (2017b). Species Profile for Marbled murrelet (Brachyramphus 

marmoratus). Retrieved 

U.S. Geological Survey. (2006). Migration of Birds: Routes of Migration. In Northern Prairie Wildlife 

Research Center. Retrieved from 

http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/birds/migratio/routes.htm

van Franeker, J., & K. Law. (2015). Seabirds, gyres and global trends in plastic pollution. Environmental 

Pollution, 203, 89–96. 

Vandenbosch, R. (2000). Effects of ENSO and PDO events on seabird populations as revealed by 

Christmas bird count data. Waterbirds, 23(3), 416–422. 

Velando, A., & I. Munilla. (2011). Disturbance to a foraging seabird by sea-based tourism: Implications 

for reserve management in marine protected areas. Biological Conservation, 144, 1167–1174. 

Votier, S. C., K. Archibald, G. Morgan, & L. Morgan. (2011). The use of plastic debris as nesting material 

by a colonial seabird and associated entanglement mortality. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 62(1), 

168–172. 

Washburn, B., P. Cisar, & T. DeVault. (2014). Wildlife Strikes With Military Rotary-Wing Aircraft During 

Flight Operations Within the United States. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 38(2), 311–320. 

Waugh, S. M., D. P. Filippi, D. S. Kirby, E. Abraham, & N. Walker. (2012). Ecological Risk Assessment for 

seabird interactions in Western and Central Pacific longline fisheries. Marine Policy, 36(4), 933–

946. 

Weimerskirch, H. (2004). Diseases threaten Southern Ocean albatrosses. Polar Biology, 27, 374–379. 

Wever, E. G., P. N. Herman, J. A. Simmons, & D. R. Hertzler. (1969). Hearing in the blackfooted penguin

(Spheniscus demersus), as represented by the cochlear potentials. Proceedings of the National 

Academy of Sciences, 63, 676–680. 

Whitworth, D., J. Koepke, H. Carter, F. Gress, & S. Fangman. (2005). Nest Monitoring of Xantus’s 

Murrelets (Synthliboramphus hypoleucus) at Anacapa Island, California: 2005 annual report. 

Davis, CA: California Institute of Environmental Studies.

Wilcox, C., E. Van Sebille, & B. Hardesty. (2015). Threat of plastic pollution to seabirds is global, 

pervasive, and increasing. PNAS, 112(38), 11899–11904. 

Wilcox, C., N. J. Mallos, G. H. Leonard, A. Rodriguez, & B. D. Hardesty. (2016). Using expert elicitation to 

estimate the impacts of plastic pollution on marine wildlife. Marine Policy, 65, 107–114. 

Wiltschko, R., S. Denzau, D. Gehring, P. Thalau, & W. Wiltschko. (2011). Magnetic orientation of 

migratory robins, Erithacus rubecula, under long-wavelength light. Journal of Experimental 

Biology, 214(18), 3096–3101. 

Wiltschko, W., & R. Wiltschko. (2005). Magnetic orientation and magnetoreception in birds and other 

animals. J Comp Physiol A 191(8), 675–693. 

Wright, D. G. (1982). A discussion paper on the effects of explosives on fish and marine mammals in the 

waters of the Northwest Territories (Canadian Technical Report of Fisheries and Aquatic 

Sciences). Winnipeg, Manitoba: Western Region Department of Fisheries and Oceans.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.9-118

References

Yamashita, R., H. Takada, M. A. Fukuwaka, & Y. Watanuki. (2011). Physical and chemical effects of 

ingested plastic debris on short-tailed shearwaters, Puffinus tenuirostris, in the north Pacific 

ocean. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 62(12), 2845–2849. 

Yelverton, J. T., & D. R. Richmond. (1981, 30 November—4 December 1981). Underwater explosion 

damage risk criteria for fish, birds, and mammals. Paper presented at the 102nd Meeting of the 

Acoustical Society of America Miami Beach, FL.

Zydelis, R., C. Small, & G. French. (2013). The incidental catch of seabirds in gillnet fisheries: A global 

review. Biological Conservation, 162, 76–88. 
3.10 Cultural Resources

Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

i

Table of Contents

Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Overseas Environmental 

Impact Statement

Hawaii-Southern California Training and Testing

TABLE OF CONTENTS

3.10 Cultural Resources................................................................................................3.10-1

3.10.1 Introduction and Methods................................................................................3.10-1

3.10.1.1 Introduction......................................................................................3.10-1

3.10.1.2 Identification, Evaluation, and Treatment of Cultural 

Resources .........................................................................................3.10-2

3.10.1.3 Methods............................................................................................3.10-4

3.10.1.4 Method for Impact Analysis..............................................................3.10-7

3.10.2 Affected Environment.......................................................................................3.10-7

3.10.2.1 Hawaii ...............................................................................................3.10-7

3.10.2.2 Southern California.........................................................................3.10-12

3.10.2.3 Hawaii-Southern California Training and Testing Transit 

Corridor ..........................................................................................3.10-18

3.10.2.4 Programmatic Agreement on Navy Undertakings in Hawaii..........3.10-18

3.10.2.5 Programmatic Agreement on Operational and 

Developmental Undertakings in Southern California, 

California.........................................................................................3.10-18

3.10.3 Environmental Consequences ........................................................................3.10-19

3.10.3.1 Explosive Stressors..........................................................................3.10-19

3.10.3.2 Physical Disturbance and Strike Stressors......................................3.10-23

3.10.4 Summary of Potential Impacts on Cultural Resources ...................................3.10-30

3.10.4.1 Combined Impacts of All Stressors under Alternative 1.................3.10-30

3.10.4.2 Combined Impacts of All Stressors under Alternative 2.................3.10-30

3.10.4.3 Combined Impacts of All Stressors under the No Action 

Alternative......................................................................................3.10-30

3.10.5 National Historic Preservation Act..................................................................3.10-30

List of Figures

Figure 3.10-1: Known Shipwrecks in Hawaii.........................................................................................3.10-9

Figure 3.10-2: Known Shipwrecks in Molokai, Lanai, Maui, and Kahoolawe .....................................3.10-10

Figure 3.10-3: Known Shipwrecks in Oahu .........................................................................................3.10-11

Figure 3.10-4: Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument....................................................3.10-14

Figure 3.10-5: Known Shipwrecks and Obstructions near San Clemente Island ................................3.10-15
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

ii

Table of Contents

Figure 3.10-6: Known Shipwrecks and Obstructions in San Diego Bay and Silver Strand ..................3.10-17

List of Tables

Table 3.10-1: Summary of Section 106 Effects of Training and Testing Activities on Cultural Resources

..................................................................................................................................3.10-31
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.10-1

3.10 Cultural Resources

3.10 CULTURAL RESOURCES

3.10.1 INTRODUCTION AND METHODS

3.10.1.1 Introduction

Submerged cultural resources are found throughout the Hawaii-Southern California Training and Testing 

(HSTT) Study Area. The approach for the assessment of submerged cultural resources includes defining 

the resource; presenting the regulatory requirements for identifying, evaluating, and treating the 

resource within established jurisdictional parameters; establishing the specific resource subtypes in the 

Study Area; identifying the data used to define the current conditions; and describing the method of 

impact analysis.

Cultural resources are defined as districts, landscapes, sites, structures, objects, and ethnographic 

resources, as well as other physical evidence of human activity, that are considered to be important to a 

culture, subculture, or community for scientific, traditional, religious, or other reasons. Cultural 

resources include archaeological resources, architectural resources, and traditional cultural properties 

related to pre-contact (prior to European contact) and post-contact periods.

Archaeological resources include prehistoric and historic sites and artifacts. Archaeological resources 

can have a surface component, a subsurface component, or both. Prehistoric resources are physical 

properties resulting from human activities that predate written records, and include village sites, 

temporary camps, lithic scatters, roasting pits, hearths, milling features, petroglyphs, rock features, and 

burials. Historic resources postdate the advent of written records in a region, and include building 

foundations, refuse scatters, wells, cisterns, and privies. Submerged cultural resources include historic 

shipwrecks and other submerged historic materials, such as sunken airplanes and prehistoric cultural 

remains. Architectural resources are elements of the built environment consisting of standing buildings 

or structures from the historic period. These resources include existing buildings, dams, bridges, 

lighthouses, and forts. Traditional cultural properties are resources associated with beliefs or cultural 

practices of a living culture, subculture, or community. These beliefs and practices must be rooted in the 

group’s history and must be important in maintaining the cultural identity of the group. Prehistoric 

archaeological sites and artifacts, historic and contemporary locations of traditional events, sacred 

SYNOPSIS

The United States Department of the Navy considered all potential stressors that cultural resources 

could potentially be exposed to from the Proposed Action. The following conclusions have been 

reached for the Preferred Alternative (Alternative 1): 

• Explosive: Explosive stressors resulting from underwater explosions creating shock waves 

and cratering of the seafloor would not result in adverse effects to known submerged 

cultural resources. Therefore, no submerged cultural resources are expected to be impacted.

• Physical Disturbance and Strike: Physical disturbance and strike stressors resulting from 

in-water devices, military expended materials, seafloor devices, pile driving, and vibration 

from sonic booms during training and testing activities would not result in adverse effects to 

known or unknown submerged cultural resources. Therefore, no submerged cultural 

resources are expected to be affected.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.10-2

3.10 Cultural Resources

places, landscapes, and resource collection areas, including fishing, hunting, and gathering areas, may be 

traditional cultural resources.

3.10.1.2 Identification, Evaluation, and Treatment of Cultural Resources

Procedures for identifying, evaluating, and treating cultural resources within state territorial waters 

(within 3 nautical miles [NM] of the coast) and United States (U.S.) territorial waters (within 12 NM of 

the coast) are contained in a series of federal and state laws and regulations, and agency guidelines. 

Archaeological, architectural, and cultural (including Native American and Native Hawaiian) resources 

are protected by a variety of laws and their implementing regulations: the National Historic Preservation 

Act of 1966 as amended in 2006, the Archeological and Historic Preservation Act of 1974, the 

Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979, the American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978, 

the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990, the Submerged Lands Act of 1953, 

the Abandoned Shipwreck Act of 1987, and the Sunken Military Craft Act of 2004. The Advisory Council 

on Historic Preservation further guides treatment of archaeological and architectural resources through 

the regulations, Protection of Historic Properties (36 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] part 800). The 

category of “historic properties” is a subset of cultural resources that is defined in the National Historic 

Preservation Act (54 United States Code [U.S.C.] section 300308) as any prehistoric or historic district, 

site, building, structure, or object included in, or eligible for inclusion in, the National Register of Historic 

Places (National Register), including artifacts, records, and material remains related to such a property 

or resource.

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, currently codified in 54 U.S.C. 306108, requires 

federal agencies to consider the effects of their actions on cultural resources listed in or eligible for 

inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. The regulations implementing section 106 (36 CFR

part 800) specify a consultation process to assist in satisfying this requirement, including efforts in 

identification of historic places. Consultation with the appropriate State Historic Preservation Officers, 

the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, Native American tribes and Native Hawaiian 

organizations, the public, and state and federal agencies is required by section 106 of the National 

Historic Preservation Act. Government-to-government consultation required by Executive Order 13007 

will be accomplished concurrently with the preparation of this Environmental Impact Statement 

(EIS)/Overseas EIS (OEIS) for the portion of the Proposed Action within state territorial waters (within 

3 NM). Scoping letters for this EIS/OEIS were sent to appropriate State Historic Preservation Offices and 

federally recognized Native American tribes (refer to Chapter 8, Public Participation) on November 13, 

2015. There are Programmatic Agreements in place that streamline most compliance with National 

Historic Preservation Act and 36 CFR part 800. There is a 2003 Programmatic Agreement among the 

Commander Navy Region Hawaii, the Advisory council on Historic Preservation, and the Hawaii State 

Historic Preservation Officer regarding Navy undertakings in Hawaii (U.S. Department of the Navy, 

2003). There is a 2014 Programmatic Agreement among the Commander Naval Base Coronado and the 

California State Historic Preservation Officer regarding Naval Base Coronado undertakings (U.S. 

Department of the Navy, 2014) and a 2008 Programmatic Agreement regarding operational and 

developmental undertakings at San Clemente Island, California (U.S. Department of the Navy, 2008a).

Programmatic Agreements are prepared pursuant to 36 CFR section 800.14, and allow the U.S. 

Department of the Navy (Navy) to consult with interested parties and stakeholders on a program of 

management and reporting that substantially reduces the burden of consultation on 

individual undertakings. 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.10-3

3.10 Cultural Resources

Additional regulations and guidelines for submerged historic resources include 10 U.S.C. section 113, 

Title XIV for the Sunken Military Craft Act; the Abandoned Shipwreck Guidelines prepared by the 

National Park Service (National Park Service, 2007); and, for the purposes of conducting research or 

recovering Navy ship and aircraft wrecks, the Guidelines for Archaeological Research Permit Applications 

on Ship and Aircraft Wrecks under the Jurisdiction of the Department of the Navy (36 CFR part 767) 

overseen by the Naval History and Heritage Command. The Sunken Military Craft Act does not apply to 

actions taken by, or at the direction of, the United States. In accordance with the Abandoned Shipwreck 

Act of 1987, abandoned shipwrecks in state waters are considered the property of the U.S. government 

if the shipwreck meets the criteria for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. However, the 

federal government may transfer the title of an abandoned shipwreck to the state if the shipwreck falls 

within the jurisdiction of the state (Barnette, 2010). Warships or other vessels used for military purposes 

at the time of their sinking retain sovereign immunity (e.g., Japanese freighters). According to the 

principle of sovereign immunity, foreign warships sunk in U.S. territorial waters are protected by the 

U.S. government, which acts as custodian of the sites in the best interest of the sovereign nation 

(Neyland, 2001). In addition, the National Park Service Archeology Program, developed as a result of a 

presidential order, includes a collection of historical and archaeological resource protection laws to 

which federal managers adhere.

The U.S. government is a signatory to The Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural 

and Natural Heritage, commonly known as the 1972 World Heritage Convention. The World Heritage 

Convention protects natural and cultural sites of outstanding universal value. Specifically, the purpose of 

the Convention is to identify and conserve sites and properties of outstanding cultural or natural

importance to the common heritage of humanity and catalogue these properties and sites in an 

internationally recognized list known as the World Heritage List. In nominating sites to the World 

Heritage List, the U.S. government pledges to the international community to protect them in

perpetuity. Accordingly, the Department of Defense’s cultural resources policy and environmental 

regulations require compliance with the terms of the Convention. The addendum (addendum section

402) to the National Historic Preservation Act (recodified at 54 U.S.C. part 307101(e), Consideration of 

Undertaking on Property, International Federal Activities Affecting Historic Properties) requires an 

assessment by federal agencies of project effects on resources located outside U.S. territorial waters 

that are identified on the World Heritage List or on the applicable country’s equivalent of the National 

Register of Historic Places.

No specific procedures for identification and protection of cultural resources in the open ocean have 

been defined by the international community (Zander & Varmer, 1996). No treaty offering 

comprehensive protection of submerged cultural resources has been developed and implemented. 

However, a few international conventions prepared by the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and 

Cultural Organization apply to submerged cultural resources, including the 1970 Convention on the 

Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural 

Property; the 1972 Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage;

the 1982 Convention on the Law of the Sea; and the 2001 Convention on the Protection of the 

Underwater Cultural Heritage. Only the 1970 and 1972 conventions have been fully ratified by the 

United States.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.10-4

3.10 Cultural Resources

3.10.1.3 Methods

3.10.1.3.1 Approach

The approach for establishing current conditions is based on different regulatory parameters defined by 

geographical location. Within U.S. territorial waters (within 12 NM of the coast), the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) is the guiding mandate. Areas beyond 12 NM in the open ocean will not 

be analyzed because obtaining data beyond 12 NM and at those depths are not practical, they are not 

associated with any state, and there are no State Historic Preservation Officer consultation 

requirements. As such, impacts on potential cultural resources in the open ocean are discussed as a 

programmatic analysis in terms of the potential impact a stressor could have on a historic property 

within the Study Area beyond 12 NM.

The implementing regulations of section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act require federal 

agencies to take into account the effects that a proposed action would have on cultural resources 

included in or eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. “Historic properties” is 

synonymous with National Register-eligible or -listed archaeological, architectural, or traditional 

resources. Cultural resources that have not been formally evaluated (i.e., have not had a Consensus 

Determination in consultation with the State Historic Preservation Office) may be considered potentially 

eligible, and thus are afforded the same regulatory consideration as resources listed in the National 

Register. Evaluations and determinations of historic properties within the Study Area are the 

responsibility of the federal agency, in consultation with either the State Historic Preservation Office 

(California) or the State Historic Preservation Officer (Hawaii).

Properties are evaluated for nomination to the National Register and for National Register eligibility 

using the following criteria (36 CFR section 60.4(a)–(d)):

• Criterion A: Be associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad 

patterns of American history

• Criterion B: Be associated with the lives of persons significant in the American past

• Criterion C: Embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, 

or represent the work of a master, or possess high artistic values, or represent a significant and 

distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction

• Criterion D: Yield, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history

A historic property also must possess the following aspects of integrity: location, design, setting, 

materials, workmanship, feeling, and association to convey its significance and to qualify for the 

National Register. These seven aspects, in various combinations, define integrity. To retain integrity, a 

property will always possess several, and usually most, of these aspects.

Cultural resources in U.S. territorial waters (within 12 NM of the coast) are as follows:

• Resources listed on or eligible for listing on the National Register (section 106 of the National 

Historic Preservation Act)

• Resources entitled to sovereign immunity (e.g., Japanese midget submarine)

3.10.1.3.2 Data Sources

Cultural resources information relevant to this EIS/OEIS was derived from a variety of sources, including 

previous environmental documents, national and international shipwreck databases, the National 

Register Information System (managed by the National Park Service), information repositories 

associated with State Historic Preservation Offices, online maps and data, and published sources, as 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.10-5

3.10 Cultural Resources

cited. Previous environmental documents used for general information include the Hawaii Range 

Complex EIS/OEIS (U.S. Department of the Navy, 2008b), Southern California Range Complex EIS/OEIS 

(U.S. Department of the Navy, 2008c), and Silver Strand Training Complex EIS (U.S. Department of the 

Navy, 2011). Previous cultural resources documents used for general information include the Oahu 

Integrated Cultural Resources Management Plan (U.S. Department of the Navy, 2008d), Integrated 

Cultural Resources Management Plan for Naval Base Coronado (U.S. Department of the Navy, 2012a)

and Integrated Cultural Resources Management Plan for San Clemente Island (U.S. Department of the 

Navy, 2012b).

The national and international shipwreck databases researched included the National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration’s Office of Coast Survey Advanced Wreck and Obstruction Information 

System, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Aids to Navigation, California State Lands 

Commission Shipwrecks database, and the General Dynamics Global Maritime Wrecks Database, as well 

as secondary sources of shipwreck information. Many of the shipwreck databases and secondary 

sources overlap, generating data repetition. Many federal agencies “share” data as well as secondary 

sources. The intent of this analysis is not to provide a definitive number of shipwrecks, obstructions, or 

hazards within a defined area, however, but rather to provide an overview of the potential resources in 

an area.

The online National Register Information System was reviewed to identify National Register-listed 

properties, historic districts, and National Historic Landmarks. Appropriate information repositories 

associated with the State Historic Preservation Offices were contacted or their online databases were 

reviewed for information on shipwreck locations, types, and eligibility for listing on the state registers 

and National Register.

3.10.1.3.3 Cultural Context

Several types of cultural resources are associated with the Study Area: submerged prehistoric 

occupation sites along the continental shelf; wrecks of ships, submarines, aircraft, and barges; sunken 

navigational equipment, such as buoys; man-made obstructions; and Indian tribe and Native Hawaiian 

marine resource gathering areas (e.g., Traditional Cultural Properties such as traditional fishing, 

seaweed, mussel, abalone, and clam-gathering grounds, and whaling areas). Research suggests that the 

sea level rose steadily from about 18,000 years ago to about 7,500 years ago, whereupon it reached 

present-day levels. In California, PaleoIndian and Archaic period sites were submerged by the rising 

ocean. Many of these sites would not have been preserved as the encroaching ocean inundated, 

reworked, and redeposited sediments. In California, locations where PaleoIndian and Archaic period 

sites may have been preserved include back barrier deposits or mainland shore deposits located behind 

large, nearshore islands, estuaries, and portions of coastal floodplains.

3.10.1.3.3.1 Hawaii

Human colonization of the Hawaiian Islands occurred after sea levels stabilized, so no habitation sites 

are known to exist beyond the current coast lines. Traditional Hawaiian cultural resources, such as stone 

artifacts, sinkers, and octopus lures, may be located below the water surface; however, because of 

environmental factors, such as weathering, the location of these resources are not known, and 

therefore they are not eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (Minerals 

Management Service, 1990; National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2012). Traditional 

Hawaiian settlement along the coast was focused on the ocean and collection of its resources. Midden 

deposits indicate that the Hawaiians were gathering nearshore shellfish, and fishing for both nearshore 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.10-6

3.10 Cultural Resources

and deepwater fish. Artifacts include bone and shell fishhooks, basalt net sinkers, and adzes for carving 

outrigger canoes.

Archaeological evidence suggests that the first permanent settlements appeared in the Hawaiian Islands 

around approximately Anno Domini (A.D.) 1220–1261 with the arrival of Polynesian seafarers (Rieth et 

al., 2011). European contact with the Hawaiian Islands occurred when Captain James Cook landed in 

Waimea Harbor (Kauai) in 1778. Kamehameha I united the Hawaiian Islands in 1818. Hawaii assumed 

importance in the east-west fur trade during this period, and later became the focal point for the Pacific 

whaling industry with whaling ships sailing throughout the northwest Hawaiian Islands. Honolulu and 

Lahaina became the principal ports for the whaling fleet in Hawaii. By the 1840s, approximately 

600 whaling vessels were arriving in Hawaii each year (Kelley, 2006). Sunken vessels from this period 

and the later part of that century may be located near the coasts of the Hawaiian Islands. 

Pearl Harbor is a historically important area in Hawaii. Traditionally, Pearl Harbor was called Ka-awa-lauo-puuloa, which can be translated as the many harbored sea of Puuloa or the leaf-shaped lagoon of 

Puuloa. There are traditional references to fishponds that were constructed in the harbor as well as 

information about the abundant marine resources such as shellfish and fish. Traditional Hawaiian 

fishponds were constructed along the shores between the 14th and 19th centuries in fairly protected 

areas to raise fish (Kikuchi, 1976); (Athens et al., 2000; Athens, 2002; Athens et al., 2006). Pearl Harbor 

became an import harbor in the late 19th century and, in 1887, the U.S. Senate allowed the Navy to 

lease Pearl Harbor. The harbor was dredged in the early 20th century to accommodate large vessels 

and, in 1908, Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard was established.

Construction of naval bases in the Pacific began in the late 1930s and early 1940s with the growing 

threat of Japanese conflict. During this period, Naval Air Station Midway was constructed. On 

December 7, 1941, the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor and Naval Air Station Midway bringing the 

United States into World War II. Because of the importance of Hawaii and World War II, the Study Area 

could contain sunken vessels or other historic relics associated with the history of these areas. Within 

Pearl Harbor, the wreck sites of the USS Arizona and USS Utah are on the National Register of Historic 

Places. Sunken aircraft and ships are located around the island of Midway.

3.10.1.3.3.2 Southern California

The Late Prehistoric Period along the coast of Southern California was characterized by elaborate 

artifact inventories and distinctive local cultural complexes that lasted until contact with Europeans 

(Sutton, 2010). Artifacts from this period include circular fishhooks, whalebone markers, asphalt skirt 

weights, steatite ollas, shell beads, bone gorges, composite fishhooks, Cottonwood series projectile 

points, and spear points (Noah, 1998; Sutton, 2010). Evidence from numerous archaeological sites along 

the coast suggests an exploitation of bay and estuary kelp beds, rocky areas, and offshore environments. 

Bones from numerous species of fish and marine mammals have been recovered from middens. Coastal 

Late Prehistoric settlements were located near estuaries, along mouths of sloughs and rivers, and 

around bays, such as Mission Bay in San Diego. Prehistoric habitation sites are not commonly found 

outside of the inner continental shelf. During the Late Prehistoric Period, cultural traits associated with 

Kumeyaay, Luiseño, Cupeño, and Cahuilla peoples of the ethnographic period are found.

The maritime history along the west coast of the United States is a history of exploration, imperial 

competition, and commercial adventurism. The period of exploration began at least as early as the first 

Spanish voyages northward from Mexico in the 1530s, and by 1578 the British were encroaching on the 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.10-7

3.10 Cultural Resources

Spanish monopoly along the coast of California. Undiscovered sunken vessels from early Spanish and 

British exploration, colonization, and trade may be present in coastal Southern California.

Prior to World War I, the Navy did not have a strong presence in San Diego. By 1921, the Navy acquired 

a site for the U.S. Destroyer Base, San Diego facility. During the 1930s, San Diego Harbor was dredged as 

a result of Public Works Administration projects, and San Clemente Island was purchased by the Navy as 

a firing range. The Navy base expanded considerably during World War II, with over 5,100 ships being 

serviced as a result of the war in the Pacific. Because of the importance and military history of Naval 

Base Coronado (which includes Naval Air Station North Island, Naval Amphibious Base Coronado, and 

Silver Strand Training Complex), as well as Naval Base Point Loma and San Clemente Island, the region 

could contain sunken vessels that were associated with these facilities (Naval Base San Diego, 2012; U.S. 

Department of the Navy, 2012a).

3.10.1.4 Method for Impact Analysis

Impact analysis for cultural resources is based on different parameters defined by geographical location. 

Within U.S. territorial waters, section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and NEPA evaluation 

are the guiding mandates. In general, impacts are assessed by the importance of the resource, the 

sensitivity of the resource to the proposed activities, and the duration of the effects on the 

environment.

3.10.2 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

The Study Area is divided into three distinct regions for cultural resources evaluation: Hawaii, Southern 

California, and the open ocean Transit Corridor between them (see Figure 2.1-1). The Study Area covers

more than 355,000 square nautical miles (NM2

); however, only the regions that are located in the 

offshore waters of Hawaii and Southern California are being evaluated. In the Hawaii Operating Area 

(OPAREA) (235,000 NM2

), a component of the Hawaii Range Complex, there are a number of known 

wrecks, obstructions, and occurrences. These sites have not been evaluated as properties eligible for 

listing in the National Register of Historic Places, however, will be assumed eligible only for purposes of 

evaluating effects in this analysis. In the Southern California Range Complex within the Southern 

California OPAREA (120,000 NM2

), a few hundred such sites have been recorded. The Study Area could 

contain submerged prehistoric sites on the continental shelf.

3.10.2.1 Hawaii

3.10.2.1.1 Submerged Prehistoric Resources

A few submerged prehistoric resources are located in the waters surrounding the Hawaiian Islands. 

These resources primarily consist of old shoreline features, such as fishponds. Four extant fishponds lie 

within the boundaries of the Area of Potential Effects in Pearl Harbor. One fishpond, Pamoku/Puuloa, is 

filled in with boulders but is intact. The remaining three fish ponds, Paaiau, Okiokilepe, and Laulaunui, 

become submerged during tidal changes. These fishponds are filled with mangroves and are in waters 

too shallow for ships to safely navigate, so there would be no effect on these properties. 

3.10.2.1.2 Known Wrecks, Obstructions, Occurrences, or “Unknowns”

A number of submerged cultural resources lie in the open, deep waters surrounding the Hawaiian 

Islands. Typical among these resources are wrecks of World War II submarines and ships, commercial 

fishing vessels and tankers, and aircraft. The most likely types of shipwrecks to occur around the 

Hawaiian Islands are 19th century cargo ships, submarines, old whaling and merchant ships, fishing 

boats, 20th century U.S. warships, and recreational craft. The Automated Wreck and Obstruction 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.10-8

3.10 Cultural Resources

Information System, Region 16 (2010) records the approximate locations of some deep-water 

submerged shipwrecks. 

A variety of submerged resources are located in the waters surrounding the Hawaiian Islands (U.S. 

Department of the Navy, 2008b). Although the most common of these submerged resources are 

shipwrecks, junked vehicles, harbor features, and old shoreline features are also present. Figure 3.10-1,

Figure 3.10-2, and Figure 3.10-3 illustrate offshore shipwrecks near the Hawaiian Islands.

Shipwrecks located near the Island of Hawaii are concentrated along the northwestern coastline and 

within Hilo Bay. Because offshore shipwrecks are in relatively deep water and their locations are not 

precisely known, a figure illustrating offshore Island of Hawaii shipwrecks is not presented in this 

document. The numerous known wrecks in the waters surrounding Oahu include the largely intact Sea 

Tiger, a World War II-era Japanese midget submarine; the Mahi, a Navy minesweeper/cable layer 

intentionally sunk off the Waianae Coast to create an artificial reef; and the YO-257, a Navy yard oiler 

built in the 1940s, intentionally sunk off Waikiki to create an artificial reef. The Mahi and the YO-257 are 

both artificial reefs, so they are not eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. Within 

the Ewa Training Minefield, off of the southern coast of Oahu, there is one known shipwreck 

(Figure 3.10-3). The wreck is likely the USS Chittenden County. Because it was sunk as a target in 1958 by 

the Sargo SS 583, this shipwreck is not eligible for listing in the National Register. Submerged resources 

in Pearl Harbor are discussed in Section 3.10.2.1.3 (Cultural Resources Eligible for Listing or Listed in the 

National Register).

The Battle of Midway occurred on July 4 through 7, 1942 and marked the shift in the balance of power 

between the United States and Japan in the Pacific during World War II. The Papahanaumokuakea 

Marine National Monument boundaries include the Midway Atoll which has been designated as a 

National Memorial to the Battle of Midway (Figure 3.10-4). Aircraft and shipwrecks that are sunken from 

the Battle of Midway are considered war graves. None of the sites from the battle that are currently 

known are eligible for listing in the National Register.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.10-9

3.10 Cultural Resources

Figure 3.10-1: Known Shipwrecks in Hawaii
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.10-10

3.10 Cultural Resources

Figure 3.10-2: Known Shipwrecks in Molokai, Lanai, Maui, and Kahoolawe
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.10-11

3.10 Cultural Resources

Notes: MCB = Marine Corps Base, NAVMAG = Naval Magazine, NM = Nautical Mile(s), NRHP = National Register of Historic Places

Figure 3.10-3: Known Shipwrecks in Oahu
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.10-12

3.10 Cultural Resources

3.10.2.1.3 Cultural Resources Eligible for Listing or Listed in the National Register

The data indicate that no shipwrecks in the State of Hawaii are listed in the National Register, excluding 

those at Naval Station Pearl Harbor. At Pearl Harbor, which is listed in the National Register as a National 

Historic Landmark, an abundance of submerged cultural resources are associated with World War II. 

Major shipwrecks include the USS Arizona and the USS Utah, both of which are listed in the National 

Register. The whaleship Two Brothers, located in the Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument,

is pending nomination on the National Register (82 FR 32870). 

3.10.2.1.4 Cultural Resources Eligible for or Listed on the State Inventory of Historic Places

The Two Brothers shipwreck located in the Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument was listed 

on March 24, 2017 on the Hawaii State Register. Excluding the Two Brothers shipwreck and Pearl 

Harbor, the Study Area contains no Hawaii State Register-listed or -eligible sites.

3.10.2.1.5 World Heritage Sites

The Hawaii Range Complex contains one World Heritage Site, the Papahanaumokuakea Marine National 

Monument (Figure 3.10-4). This area encompasses 583,000 square miles of ocean and 10 islands and 

atolls northwest of Kauai. This World Heritage Site is the single largest fully-protected conservation area 

in the United States (bigger than all U.S. National Parks combined), and one of the largest marine 

conservation areas in the world. Attributes of the Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument 

that contribute to its cultural significance include notable features such as seamounts and submerged 

banks, coral reefs, and lagoons. The monument is significant to the cultural heritage of the Native 

Hawaiians not only for the unique ecosystem and geological features, but also voyaging and wayfinding. 

Wayfinding, which relies on celestial, biological, and natural signs, plays an important role within the 

cultural voyaging seascape of the Hawaiian Archipelago.

The Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument includes the island of Midway, which was 

designated as a National Memorial to the Battle of Midway (Figure 3.10-4). This battle was one of the 

most decisive naval battles of World War II. Aircraft and ships sunk during the battle, such as P-40K 

Warhawks, F2A-3 Buffalos, and F4U Corsairs, are located in the waters around Midway.

3.10.2.1.6 Resources with Sovereign Immunity

Sovereign immunity is an international law which preserves each nation’s title in their governmental 

ships and property. The Study Area contains at least one resource with sovereign immunity: a World 

War II-era Japanese Midget “A” submarine that was sunk by the USS Ward (New South Wales, 2012). 

3.10.2.2 Southern California

3.10.2.2.1 Submerged Prehistoric Resources

PaleoIndian and Archaic period sites occur on the continental shelf off the coast of California. 

Approximately 110 submerged artifacts and sites from the Archaic period have been identified in 

Southern California (Masters, 2003). However, they are located outside of Navy training and testing 

areas. Prehistoric cultural materials, such as stone bowls and mortars, are also common off the coast of 

San Diego County (Masters & Schneider, 2000). A concentration of this cultural material is located off 

La Jolla and Point Loma and within the Study Area (Masters, 2003)
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.10-13

3.10 Cultural Resources

3.10.2.2.2 Known Wrecks, Obstructions, Occurrences, or “Unknowns”

3.10.2.2.2.1 Offshore

From the early period of Spanish exploration to the intense commercialization of the 19th and 20th 

centuries, there has been a great variety of shipwrecks in the Pacific Ocean. The earliest known 

shipwreck was the Manila galleon San Agustin that sank off the northern coast of California in 1595. 

Since that time, thousands of vessels of varying types and descriptions have sunk off the coast of 

California. Various databases of these shipwrecks have been compiled, including the Automated Wreck 

and Obstruction Information System database (Automated Wreck and Obstruction Information System 

Database, 2010). As part of a Minerals Management Service study (Minerals Management Service, 

1990), a database was compiled that documents 4,676 shipwrecks off the coast of California, with 

876 wrecks in Southern California. The Automated Wreck and Obstruction Information System database 

(Automated Wreck and Obstruction Information System Database, 2010) documents 292 wrecks just in 

San Diego, Orange, Los Angeles, and Ventura Counties.

Submerged cultural resources in the waters around San Clemente Island include pleasure craft, sport 

and commercial fishers, and cargo and military vessels (U.S. Department of the Navy, 2008c). Of these 

68 submerged cultural resources, 22 are within 12 NM of San Clemente Island and seven are beyond the 

territorial limit. Submerged aircraft are also reported off San Clemente Island. Figure 3.10-5 illustrates

known submerged cultural resources near San Clemente Island. Submerged cultural resources identified 

include 35 shipwrecks, 17 aircraft, an anchor, and the abandoned Sea Lab (an old Navy asset).
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.10-14

3.10 Cultural Resources

Figure 3.10-4: Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.10-15

3.10 Cultural Resources

Figure 3.10-5: Known Shipwrecks and Obstructions near San Clemente Island
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.10-16

3.10 Cultural Resources

The waters surrounding San Clemente Island is considered a high-energy intertidal environment and 

over the period of rising sea level during the Pleistocene it is likely that any submerged archaeological 

resources have since been destroyed.

3.10.2.2.2.2 Silver Strand

On the bay side of Silver Strand peninsula, three shipwrecks are in or near the training beaches. 

Unnamed wrecks are recorded in shallow water at the northern end of Delta South beach, in the middle 

of San Diego Bay, and at the mouth of Fiddler’s Cove. The ages and cultural value of these wrecks are 

not known (U.S. Department of the Navy, 2008c).

On the ocean side of the peninsula, three shipwrecks are located near Silver Strand Training Complex 

training areas: the bark (a three- or four-masted sailing vessel) Narwhal (sank in 1934), the submarine 

S-37 (SS-142) which was decommissioned and sunk as target in 1945, and the Subchaser YC689 (sank in

1943). The destroyer USS Hogan (DD178), a military aircraft (S2F Tracker), and a sunken sailboat are 

located offshore, south of Silver Strand Training Complex and west of the City of Imperial Beach (U.S. 

Department of the Navy, 2008c). Figure 3.10-5 illustrates known submerged cultural resources in the 

vicinity of the Silver Strand Training Complex.

3.10.2.2.2.3 San Diego Bay

Known cultural resources in San Diego Bay have not been inventoried. However, cultural resources were 

reviewed for the San Diego Deepening at Tenth Avenue Marine Terminal project (EDAW, 2005). This 

review identified three known submerged cultural features: a shipwreck (the Della), an 1887 marine 

utility cable, and a sunken Ford Model T. The EDAW study identified 24 cultural resources with unknown 

location, but known to be lost in the San Diego area, including schooners, barges, a submarine, clippers,

gas and oil screws, a yacht, a bark, a ferry, a ship, and a steamer. Figure 3.10-6 illustrates known 

submerged cultural resources in San Diego Bay.

3.10.2.2.3 Cultural Resources Eligible for or Listed on the National Register

Based on a literature search and previous consultations, the Southern California portion of the Study 

Area contains no National Register-listed or -eligible sites.

3.10.2.2.4 Cultural Resources Eligible for or Listed on the California Register

Based on a literature search and previous consultations, the Southern California portion of the Study 

Area contains no California Register-listed or -eligible sites

3.10.2.2.5 World Heritage Sites

The Southern California portion of the Study Area contains no World Heritage Sites.

3.10.2.2.6 Resources with Sovereign Immunity

The Southern California portion of the Study Area contains no resources with sovereign immunity.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.10-17

3.10 Cultural Resources

Note: NAS = Naval Air Station

Figure 3.10-6: Known Shipwrecks and Obstructions in San Diego Bay and Silver Strand 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.10-18

3.10 Cultural Resources

3.10.2.3 Hawaii-Southern California Training and Testing Transit Corridor

The length and variable width of the HSTT transit corridor creates such a vast area that it precludes a 

systematic survey for submerged historic resources. Waters along the HSTT transit corridor are deep, 

sometimes over 18,000 feet (ft.); thus, identifying cultural resources on the ocean floor in the corridor is 

difficult. However, in accordance with the addendum to the National Historic Preservation Act (16 U.S.C.

470a-2) regarding international federal activities affecting historic properties, the World Heritage List 

was reviewed and no resources on the list were identified within the HSTT transit corridor.

3.10.2.4 Programmatic Agreement on Navy Undertakings in Hawaii

A programmatic agreement was executed for Navy undertakings in Hawaii, and the area of responsibility 

encompasses Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard and Intermediate Maintenance Facility; outlying Oahu 

installations; and Pacific Missile Range Facility at Barking Sands, Kauai (Hawai'i State Historic 

Preservation Division, 2003). The Programmatic Agreement includes stipulations for development of an 

integrated cultural resources management plan, determinations of areas of potential effects, 

identification of historic properties, access to historic sites and interpretative activities, review of project 

effects, monitoring of ground disturbing activities, annual reporting requirements, and consultation with 

Native Hawaiians and other consulting parties. Submerged resources are specifically identified under 

Stipulation X.D (Ground Disturbing Activities: Any undertakings in areas known to have a potential for 

submerged cultural resources will be planned in consultation with the National Park Service, State 

Historic Preservation Officer, and Office of Hawaiian Affairs as appropriate to develop a work plan and 

monitoring plan that will ensure avoidance of effects on the resource) and Stipulation XI.A (Discoveries 

and Emergencies: If during the performance of an undertaking, historic properties, including submerged 

archaeological sites and traditional cultural properties, are discovered or unanticipated effects are 

found, or a previously unidentified property which may be eligible for listing on the National Register is 

discovered, Commander, Navy Region Hawaii would take all reasonable measures to avoid harm to the 

property until it concludes consultation with the State Historic Preservation Office and any Native 

Hawaiian organization, including Oahu Council of Hawaiian Civic Clubs, which has made known to 

Commander, Navy Region Hawaii that it attaches religious and cultural significance to the historic 

property).

3.10.2.5 Programmatic Agreement on Operational and Developmental Undertakings in 

Southern California, California

Within the Southern California Range Complex, programmatic agreements have been established to 

address impacts on cultural resources for Naval Base Coronado (which includes Silver Strand Training 

Complex) and San Clemente Island, off-island ranges, and operational training areas within the 

respective territorial and administrative jurisdictions of the United States and the State of California

(U.S. Department of the Navy, 2008a). A letter of concurrence was received from the California State 

Historic Preservation Office (California State Historic Preservation Office, 2012; U.S. Department of the 

Navy, 2012a). The programmatic agreements include stipulations for the review of both range 

sustainability and operational training and support activities; determinations of areas of potential 

effects; identification of historic properties through survey; National Register evaluations through proactive testing of selected resources; findings of effect; preparation of an integrated cultural resources 

management plan; treatment of archaeological historic properties including mitigation, monitoring, and 

protective signage; preparation of annual reports; and consultation with Native American Tribes and 

other consulting parties.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.10-19

3.10 Cultural Resources

3.10.3 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

This section evaluates how and to what degree the activities described in Chapter 2 (Description of 

Proposed Action and Alternatives) could impact cultural resources within U.S. territorial waters and the 

World Heritage Site located in the Study Area. Tables 2.6-1 through 2.6-5 present the proposed training 

and testing activities and locations for each alternative. Additional details of the proposed training and 

testing activities are provided in Appendix A (Navy Activity Descriptions). Appendix B (Activity Stressor

Matrices) describes the warfare areas and associated stressors that were considered for analysis of 

cultural resources. The stressors vary in intensity, frequency, duration, and location within the Study 

Area. The stressors applicable to cultural resources in the Study Area that are analyzed include:

• Explosive Stressors (explosives – shock [pressure] waves from underwater explosions; explosives 

– cratering)

• Physical disturbance and strike stressors (in-water devices, military expended materials, seafloor 

devices, pile driving, and vibration from sonic booms)

The use of sonar does not affect the structural elements of historic shipwrecks. Archaeologists regularly 

use multi-beam sonar and side-scan sonar to explore shipwrecks without disturbing them. Based on the 

physics of underwater sound, the shipwreck would need to be very close (less than 22 ft.) to the sonar 

sound source for the shipwreck to experience any slight oscillations from the induced pressure waves. 

Any oscillations experienced at a depth of less than 22 ft. would be negligible up to within a few yards 

from the sonar source. This distance is smaller than the typical safe navigation and operating depth for 

most sonar sources, and is not expected to impact historic shipwrecks. Therefore, sonar is not 

considered a stressor that would result in an impact on cultural resources and will not be analyzed 

further in this document. The analysis includes consideration of the mitigation that the Navy will 

implement to avoid potential impacts on cultural resources from explosives and physical disturbance 

and strike stressors. Mitigation will be coordinated through the consultation processes. In the event the 

Navy impacts a submerged historic property, it will immediately commence consultation with the 

appropriate State Historic Preservation Officer in accordance with 36 CFR section 800.13(a)(3).

3.10.3.1 Explosive Stressors

Explosive stressors that could impact cultural resources are vibration and shock waves from underwater 

explosions. A shock wave and oscillating bubble pulses resulting from any kind of underwater explosion, 

such as explosive torpedoes, missiles, bombs, projectiles, mines, and certain sonobuoys and explosive 

sonobuoys, could impact the exposed portions of submerged historic resources if such resources were 

located nearby. Shock waves (pressure) generated by underwater explosions would be periodic rather 

than continuous, and could create overall structural instability and eventual collapse of architectural 

features of submerged historic resources. The amount of damage would depend on factors such as the 

size of the charge, the distance from the historic shipwreck, the water depth, and the topography of the 

ocean floor.

3.10.3.1.1 Impacts from Explosives—Shock Waves from Underwater Explosions

Anti-surface missiles and projectiles explode at or immediately below the ocean surface (within 1 

meter). Shock waves (pressure) from these types of explosions within the water column would not reach 

historic resources on the ocean floor. Underwater detonations of improved extended echo ranging 

sonobuoys and high explosives would occur below the surface and detonate in the mid-water column. 

Shock waves from nearby underwater detonations may affect the exposed portions of historic 

shipwrecks if such resources were located in the area and near the depth of the explosive. Impacts on 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.10-20

3.10 Cultural Resources

previously identified cultural resources from underwater explosions generating vibration and shock 

waves within the Study Area would not impact any cultural resources because (1) detonations at or near 

the surface from missiles and projectiles all occur in deep water, and the shock waves would not reach 

historic resources on the seafloor; and (2) detonations that occur in the mid-water column from 

explosive sonobuoys would also occur in deep water, well beyond the seafloor, so the shock waves 

would not reach historic resources on the seafloor; and (3) underwater detonations placed by Navy 

divers occur only in specially designated areas (see Section 2.3.3.9, Underwater Detonation Safety), far 

from any historic resources.

3.10.3.1.1.1 Impacts of Explosive Shock Waves from Underwater Explosions under Alternative 1

Impacts of Explosive Shock Waves from Underwater Explosions under Alternative 1 for Training

Activities

Under Alternative 1, training activities would continue within the OPAREAs in the offshore waters of 

Hawaii and Southern California. Shock waves created from underwater explosives are not expected to 

result in impacts on cultural resources or the World Heritage Site within the Study Area because the 

Navy routinely avoids locations of known obstructions, which include submerged historic resources. As 

discussed in Section 5.4.1 (Mitigation Areas for Seafloor Resources), the Navy will avoid impacts from 

explosives on seafloor resources in mitigation areas throughout the Study Area. For example, the Navy 

will not conduct explosive mine countermeasure and neutralization activities within a specified distance 

of shipwrecks (except in designated locations). Also, overall types and locations of training activities are 

not expected to change from those currently conducted by the Navy (refer to Table 3.0-20) and the 

Navy’s section 106 compliance under the Navy’s programmatic agreements includes the protection of 

cultural resources.

Impacts of Explosive Shock Waves from Underwater Explosions under Alternative 1 for Testing

Activities

Under Alternative 1, testing activities would continue within the OPAREAs in the offshore waters of 

Hawaii and Southern California. Shock waves created from underwater explosions are not expected to 

result in impacts on cultural resources or the World Heritage Site within the Study Area because the 

Navy routinely avoids locations of known obstructions, which include submerged historic resources. As 

discussed in Section 5.4.1 (Mitigation Areas for Seafloor Resources), the Navy will avoid impacts from 

explosives on seafloor resources in mitigation areas throughout the Study Area. For example, the Navy 

will not conduct explosive mine countermeasure and neutralization activities within a specified distance 

of shipwrecks (except in designated locations). Also, overall types and locations of training activities are 

not expected to change from those currently conducted by the Navy (refer to Table 3.0-21), and the 

Navy’s section 106 compliance under the Navy’s programmatic agreements includes the protection of 

cultural resources.

3.10.3.1.1.2 Impacts of Explosive Shock Waves from Underwater Explosions under Alternative 2

Impacts of Explosive Shock Waves from Underwater Explosions under Alternative 2 for Training

Activities

Under Alternative 2, training activities would remain the same as those described under Alternative 1 

and would continue to occur within designated OPAREAs in the offshore waters of Hawaii and Southern 

California. Shock waves created from underwater explosions are not expected to result in impacts on 

cultural resources or the World Heritage Site within the Study Area because the Navy routinely avoids 

locations of known obstructions, which include submerged historic resources. As discussed in 

Section 5.4.1 (Mitigation Areas for Seafloor Resources), the Navy will avoid impacts from explosives on 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.10-21

3.10 Cultural Resources

seafloor resources in mitigation areas throughout the Study Area. For example, the Navy will not 

conduct explosive mine countermeasure and neutralization activities within a specified distance of 

shipwrecks (except in designated locations). Also, overall types and locations of training activities are 

not expected to change from those currently conducted by the Navy (refer to Table 3.0-20) and the

Navy’s section 106 compliance under the Navy’s programmatic agreements includes the protection of 

cultural resources.

Impacts of Explosive Shock Waves from Underwater Explosions under Alternative 2 for Testing

Activities

Under Alternative 2, testing activities would remain the same as those described under Alternative 1 

and would continue to occur within designated OPAREAs in the offshore waters of Hawaii and Southern 

California. Shock waves created from underwater explosions are not expected to result in impacts on 

cultural resources or the World Heritage Site within the Study Area because the Navy routinely avoids 

locations of known obstructions, which include submerged historic resources. As discussed in Section 

5.4.1 (Mitigation Areas for Seafloor Resources), the Navy will avoid impacts from explosives on seafloor 

resources in mitigation areas throughout the Study Area. For example, the Navy will not conduct 

explosive mine countermeasure and neutralization activities within a specified distance of shipwrecks 

(except in designated locations). Overall types and locations of training activities are not expected to 

change from those currently conducted by the Navy (refer to Table 3.0-21) and the Navy’s section 106 

compliance under the Navy’s programmatic agreements includes the protection of cultural resources.

3.10.3.1.1.3 Impacts of Explosive Shock Waves from Underwater Explosions under the No Action 

Alternative

Under the No Action Alternative, the Navy would not conduct the proposed training and testing 

activities in the HSTT Study Area. Various explosive stressors (e.g., explosive shockwaves) would not be 

introduced into the marine environment. Therefore, baseline conditions of the existing environment 

would either remain unchanged or would improve slightly after cessation of ongoing training and 

testing activities. 

3.10.3.1.2 Impacts from Explosives—Cratering

Underwater explosions near or on the seafloor could create sediment displacement in the form of 

cratering and could affect submerged prehistoric sites and unrecorded historic resources at or near the 

explosive impact. Cratering of unconsolidated soft bottom habitats would result from charges set on or 

near the bottom. For a specific explosive charge size, crater depths and widths would vary depending on 

depth of the charge and sediment type. However, crater dimensions generally decrease as bottom 

depth increases. 

As discussed in Section 2.3.3.9 (Underwater Detonation Safety), underwater detonation training takes 

place in specially designated areas, and bottom-placed explosives are laid by divers who are able to 

observe bottom conditions and avoid sensitive areas. In addition, all other explosives would detonate 

near the surface and would occur in deep water.

3.10.3.1.2.1 Impacts from Explosives – Cratering under Alternative 1

Impacts from Explosives – Cratering under Alternative 1 for Training Activities

In Hawaii, cratering would be associated with underwater detonations at Puuloa Underwater Range, 

Barbers Point Underwater Range, Naval Inactive Ship Maintenance Facility, Lima Landing, Kingfisher, 

Shallow Water Minefield, Sonar Training Area, and Ewa Training Minefield (U.S. Department of the 

Navy, 2003). In Southern California, cratering would be associated with diver-placed underwater 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.10-22

3.10 Cultural Resources

detonations in shallow water at San Clemente Island (Northwest Harbor, Horse Beach Cove, Kingfisher), 

Southern California Anti-Submarine Warfare Range, Shallow Water Training Range, Shallow Water 

Minefield, Camp Pendleton Amphibious Assault Area, and at Silver Strand Training Complex (Boat Lanes 

1-14). Cratering created by deep underwater explosions is not expected to disturb or damage artifacts 

on the seafloor and archaeological deposits buried in the ocean sediments in the Study Area because 

bottom-placed explosives are laid by divers who are able to observe bottom conditions and avoid 

sensitive areas and all other explosives would detonate near the surface in deep water. Because 

standard operating procedures are implemented to protect submerged cultural resources, overall types 

and locations of training activities are not expected to change from those currently conducted by the 

Navy (refer to Table 3.0-20), and because the Navy’s section 106 compliance under the Navy’s

programmatic agreements includes the protection of cultural resources, effects on underwater cultural 

resources are not anticipated within the Study Area. As discussed in Section 5.4.1 (Mitigation Areas for 

Seafloor Resources), the Navy will avoid impacts from explosives on seafloor resources in mitigation 

areas throughout the Study Area (U.S. Department of the Navy, 2008a). For example, the Navy will not 

conduct explosive mine countermeasure and neutralization activities within a specified distance of 

shipwrecks (except in designated locations).

Impacts from Explosives – Cratering under Alternative 1 for Testing Activities

Under Alternative 1, high-explosive rounds associated with mine warfare activities would occur within 

the OPAREAs in the offshore waters of Hawaii and Southern California. Cratering created by deep 

underwater explosions is not expected to disturb or damage artifacts on the seafloor and archaeological 

deposits buried in the ocean sediments in the Study Area because bottom-placed explosives are laid by 

divers who are able to observe bottom conditions and avoid sensitive areas and all other explosives 

would detonate near the surface in deep water. Because standard operating procedures are 

implemented to protect submerged cultural resources, overall types and locations of testing activities 

are not expected to change from those currently conducted by the Navy (refer to Table 3.0-21), and 

because the Navy’s section 106 compliance under the Navy’s programmatic agreements includes the 

protection of cultural resources, effects on underwater cultural resources are not anticipated within the 

Study Area. As discussed in Section 5.4.1 (Mitigation Areas for Seafloor Resources), the Navy will avoid 

impacts from explosives on seafloor resources in mitigation areas throughout the Study Area. For 

example, the Navy will not conduct explosive mine countermeasure and neutralization activities within a 

specified distance of shipwrecks (except in designated locations).

3.10.3.1.2.2 Impacts from Explosives – Cratering under Alternative 2 

Impacts from Explosives – Cratering under Alternative 2 for Training Activities

Under Alternative 2, underwater detonations would remain the same as those described under 

Alternative 1. Cratering created by deep underwater explosions is not expected to disturb or damage 

artifacts on the seafloor and archaeological deposits buried in the ocean sediments in the Study Area 

because bottom-placed explosives are laid by divers who are able to observe bottom conditions and 

avoid sensitive areas and all other explosives would detonate near the surface in deep water. Because 

standard operating procedures are implemented to protect submerged cultural resources, overall types 

and locations of training activities are not expected to change from those currently conducted by the 

Navy (refer to Table 3.0-20), and because the Navy’s section 106 compliance under the Navy’s

programmatic agreements includes the protection of cultural resources, effects on underwater cultural 

resources are not anticipated within the Study Area. As discussed in Section 5.4.1 (Mitigation Areas for 

Seafloor Resources), the Navy avoid impacts from explosives on seafloor resources in mitigation areas 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.10-23

3.10 Cultural Resources

throughout the Study Area. For example, the Navy will not conduct explosive mine countermeasure and 

neutralization activities within a specified distance of shipwrecks (except in designated locations).

Impacts from Explosives – Cratering under Alternative 2 for Testing Activities

Under Alternative 2, the number of high-explosive rounds associated with mine warfare activities would 

remain the same as those described under Alternative 1 and would continue to occur within designated 

OPAREAs along the offshore waters of Hawaii and Southern California. Cratering created by deep 

underwater explosions is not expected to disturb or damage artifacts on the seafloor and archaeological 

deposits buried in the ocean sediments in the Study Area because bottom-placed explosives are laid by 

divers who are able to observe bottom conditions and avoid sensitive areas and all other explosives 

would detonate near the surface in deep water. Because standard operating procedures are 

implemented to protect submerged cultural resources, overall types and locations of testing activities 

are not expected to change from those currently conducted by the Navy (refer to Table 3.0-21), and

because the Navy’s section 106 compliance under the Navy’s programmatic agreements includes the 

protection of cultural resources, effects on underwater cultural resources are not anticipated within the 

Study Area. As discussed in Section 5.4.1 (Mitigation Areas for Seafloor Resources), the Navy will avoid 

impacts from explosives on seafloor resources in mitigation areas throughout the Study Area. For 

example, the Navy will not conduct explosive mine countermeasure and neutralization activities within a 

specified distance of shipwrecks (except in designated locations).

3.10.3.1.2.3 Impacts from Explosives – Cratering under the No Action Alternative

Under the No Action Alternative, the Navy would not conduct the proposed training and testing 

activities in the HSTT Study Area. Various explosive stressors (e.g., cratering) would not be introduced 

into the marine environment. Therefore, baseline conditions of the existing environment would either 

remain unchanged or would improve slightly after cessation of ongoing training and testing activities. 

3.10.3.2 Physical Disturbance and Strike Stressors

Any physical disturbance on the continental shelf and seafloor, such as ship anchoring, targets or mines 

resting on the seafloor, moored mines, bottom-mounted tripods, unmanned underwater vehicles, or 

bottom crawlers, could inadvertently damage or destroy submerged prehistoric sites and historic 

resources. In-water devices are operated to avoid obstructions such as submerged objects to minimize 

damage to the device. Therefore, a towed system or vessel is very unlikely to encounter a submerged 

historic resource inadvertently. Expended materials such as chaff, flares, projectiles, casings, target or 

missile fragments, non-explosive practice munitions, rocket fragments, ballast weights, sonobuoys, 

torpedo launcher accessories, or mine shapes could be deposited on the ocean bottom on or near 

submerged prehistoric sites or historic resources. Heavier expended materials could damage intact 

fragile shipwreck features if they landed with velocity on a resource.

3.10.3.2.1 Impacts from In-Water Devices under Alternative 1 

Impacts from In-Water Devices under Alternative 1 for Training Activities

Under Alternative 1, training activities using in-water devices would occur within existing designated 

OPAREAs in offshore waters of Hawaii and Southern California. No comprehensive survey or evaluation 

of submerged historic resources has occurred in the OPAREAs along the offshore waters of Hawaii and 

Southern California. However, because in-water devices are operated in a manner to avoid obstructions, 

overall types and locations of training activities are not expected to change from those currently 

conducted by the Navy (refer to Table 3.0-17), and because the Navy’s section 106 compliance under 

the programmatic agreements includes the protection of cultural resources, effects on underwater 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.10-24

3.10 Cultural Resources

cultural resources are not anticipated within the Study Area, and the World Heritage Site would not 

be affected.

Impacts from In-Water Devices under Alternative 1 for Testing Activities

Under Alternative 1, testing activities using in-water devices would occur within existing designated 

OPAREAs in offshore waters of Hawaii and Southern California. No comprehensive survey or evaluation 

of submerged historic resources has occurred in the OPAREAs along the offshore waters of Hawaii and 

Southern California. However, because in-water devices are operated in a manner to avoid obstructions, 

overall types and locations of testing activities are not expected to change from those currently 

conducted by the Navy (refer to Table 3.0-17), and because the Navy’s section 106 compliance under 

the programmatic agreements includes the protection of cultural resources, effects on underwater 

cultural resources are not anticipated within the Study Area, and the World Heritage Site would not be 

affected.

3.10.3.2.1.1 Impacts from In-Water Devices under Alternative 2 

Impacts from In-Water Devices under Alternative 2 for Training Activities

Under Alternative 2, the number of training activities using towed in-water devices would remain the 

same as those described under Alternative 1 and would continue to occur within designated OPAREAs in 

the offshore waters of Hawaii and Southern California. No comprehensive survey or evaluation of 

submerged historic resources has occurred in the OPAREAs along the offshore waters of Hawaii and 

Southern California. However, because in-water devices are operated in a manner to avoid obstructions, 

overall types and locations of training activities are not expected to change from those currently 

conducted by the Navy (refer to Table 3.0-17), and because the Navy’s section 106 compliance under 

the Navy’s programmatic agreements includes the protection of cultural resources, no impacts on 

cultural resources are expected within the Study Area, and the World Heritage Site would not be 

affected.

Impacts from In-Water Devices under Alternative 2 for Testing Activities

Under Alternative 2, the number of testing activities using towed in-water devices would remain the 

same as those described under Alternative 1 and would continue to occur within designated OPAREAs in 

the offshore waters of Hawaii and Southern California. No comprehensive survey or evaluation of 

submerged historic resources has occurred in the OPAREAs along the offshore waters of Hawaii and 

Southern California. However, because in-water devices are operated in a manner to avoid obstructions, 

overall types and locations of testing activities are not expected to change from those currently 

conducted by the Navy (refer to Table 3.0-17), and because the Navy’s section 106 compliance under 

the Navy’s programmatic agreements includes the protection of cultural resources, no impacts on 

cultural resources are expected within the Study Area, and the World Heritage Site would not be 

affected.

3.10.3.2.1.2 Impacts from In-Water Devices under the No Action Alternative

Under the No Action Alternative, the Navy would not conduct the proposed training and testing 

activities in the HSTT Study Area. Various physical disturbance and strike stressors (e.g., in-water 

devices) would not be introduced into the marine environment. Therefore, baseline conditions of the 

existing environment would either remain unchanged or would improve slightly after cessation of 

ongoing training and testing activities.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.10-25

3.10 Cultural Resources

3.10.3.2.2 Impacts from Military Expended Materials

The deposition of non-explosive practice munitions, sonobuoys, and military expended materials other 

than munitions could impact submerged cultural resources if such resources are located nearby. Most of 

the anticipated expended munitions (e.g., large-caliber explosive munitions) would be small objects and 

fragments that would slowly drift to the seafloor after striking the ocean surface. Larger and heavier 

objects (e.g., non-explosive practice munitions) could displace sediments and artifacts upon impacting 

the ocean floor despite a reduction in their descent velocity. Additionally, impacts on sites could occur 

should expended material fall on or near them. However, the likelihood of these materials either 

impacting or landing on submerged cultural resources is very low because of the size of the Study Area.

If expended materials should sink on or in the vicinity of or on a submerged cultural resource, the 

expended materials would not adversely affect the archaeological or historic characteristics of the 

submerged prehistoric site or the historic resource that would contribute to their eligibility for the 

National Register of Historic Places. 

3.10.3.2.2.1 Impacts from Military Expended Materials under Alternative 1

Impacts from Military Expended Materials under Alternative 1 for Training Activities

Under Alternative 1, the use of expended materials from training activities would occur within 

designated OPAREAs along the offshore waters of Hawaii and Southern California (most of the expended 

items are small- to medium-sized caliber and are no larger than a roll of quarters). Expended materials 

could be deposited on the ocean bottom on or near submerged prehistoric sites and historic resources. 

However, because the Study Area is so large and because the Navy avoids areas with known submerged 

obstructions, it is unlikely these materials would come into contact with a submerged prehistoric site or 

a historic resource. If they should sink on or in the vicinity of either type of cultural resource, the 

expended materials would not alter the archaeological or historic characteristics or integrity of the 

submerged prehistoric site or the historic resource.

Impacts from Military Expended Materials under Alternative 1 for Testing Activities

Under Alternative 1, the use of expended materials from testing activities would occur within 

designated OPAREAs along the offshore waters of Hawaii and Southern California (most of the expended 

items are small- to medium-sized caliber and are no larger than a roll of quarters). Expended materials 

could be deposited on the ocean bottom on or near submerged prehistoric sites and historic resources. 

However, because the Study Area is so large, and because the Navy avoids areas with known submerged 

obstructions, it is unlikely these materials would come into contact with a submerged prehistoric site or 

a historic resource. If they should sink on or in the vicinity of either type of cultural resource, the 

expended materials would not alter the archaeological or historic characteristics or integrity of the 

submerged prehistoric site or the historic resource.

3.10.3.2.2.2 Impacts from Military Expended Materials under Alternative 2 

Impacts from Military Expended Materials under Alternative 2 for Training Activities

Under Alternative 2, the number of expended materials from training activities would remain the same 

as those described under Alternative 1 and would continue to occur within designated OPAREAs along 

the offshore waters of Hawaii and Southern California (most of the expended items are small- to 

medium-sized caliber and are no larger than a roll of quarters). Expended materials could be deposited 

on the ocean bottom on or near submerged prehistoric sites and historic resources. However, because 

the Study Area is so large, and because the Navy avoids areas with known submerged obstructions, it is 

unlikely these materials would come into contact with a submerged prehistoric site or a historic 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.10-26

3.10 Cultural Resources

resource. If they should sink on or in the vicinity of either type of cultural resource, the expended 

materials would not alter the archaeological or historic characteristics or integrity of the submerged 

prehistoric site or the historic resource.

Impacts from Military Expended Materials under Alternative 2 for Testing Activities

Under Alternative 2, the number of expended materials from testing activities would remain the same 

as those described under Alternative 1 and would continue to occur within designated OPAREAs along 

the offshore waters of Hawaii and Southern California (most of the expended items are small- to 

medium-sized caliber and are no larger than a roll of quarters). Expended materials could be deposited 

on the ocean bottom on or near submerged prehistoric sites and historic resources. However, because 

the Study Area is so large and because the Navy avoids areas with known submerged obstructions, it is 

unlikely these materials would come into contact with a submerged prehistoric site or a historic 

resource. If they should sink on or in the vicinity of either type of cultural resource, the expended 

materials would not alter the archaeological or historic characteristics or integrity of the submerged 

prehistoric site or the historic resource.

3.10.3.2.2.3 Impacts from Military Expended Materials under the No Action Alternative

Under the No Action Alternative, the Navy would not conduct the proposed training and testing 

activities in the HSTT Study Area. Various physical disturbance and strike stressors (e.g., military 

expended material) would not be introduced into the marine environment. Therefore, baseline 

conditions of the existing environment would either remain unchanged or would improve slightly after 

cessation of ongoing training and testing activities.

3.10.3.2.3 Impacts from Seafloor Devices

Physical disturbances on the continental shelf and seafloor, such as precision anchoring, targets or 

mines resting on the ocean floor, moored mines, bottom-mounted tripods, and bottom crawlers 

(unmanned underwater vehicles) could damage or destroy submerged prehistoric sites or historic 

resources if such resources are located nearby. The Navy will not conduct precision anchoring within 

shallow coral reefs, live hardbottom, artificial reefs, and shipwrecks Area (see Section 5.4.1, Mitigation 

Areas for Seafloor Resources). If they should sink on or in the vicinity of either type of cultural resource, 

the expended materials would not alter the archaeological or historic characteristics or integrity of the 

submerged prehistoric site or the historic resource. Regarding targets, mines, and similar seafloor 

devices, because the Study Area is so large, and because the Navy avoids areas with known submerged 

obstructions, it is unlikely these materials would come into contact with a submerged prehistoric site or 

a historic resource. Because of their size and weight, if they should settle on or in the vicinity of either 

type of cultural resource, the seafloor devices would not alter the archaeological or historic 

characteristics or integrity of the submerged prehistoric site or the historic resource. The Navy operates 

bottom crawlers (unmanned underwater vehicles) only where the safety of the equipment and the 

success of the mission would be assured. Therefore, the Navy does not deploy these devices where 

there is a risk of snagging the vehicle on obstacles, such as shipwrecks.

Impacts on previously identified cultural resources from seafloor devices within the Study Area are not 

anticipated because (1) precision anchoring does not occur near known historic shipwrecks;

(2) obstructions, and archaeological sites are routinely avoided during training and testing; and (3) most 

shipwrecks are located at substantial depths and distributed over large areas of the seafloor. 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.10-27

3.10 Cultural Resources

3.10.3.2.3.1 Impacts from Seafloor Devices under Alternative 1

Impacts from Seafloor Devices under Alternative 1 for Training Activities

Under Alternative 1, training activities using seafloor deployed devices would occur within the offshore 

waters of the Hawaii and Southern California OPAREAs. No comprehensive survey or evaluation of 

submerged historic resources has occurred in the OPAREAs along the offshore waters of Hawaii and 

Southern California; therefore, unrecorded historic resources could be disturbed by seafloor devices. 

The Navy will implement mitigation that includes not conducting precision anchoring (except in 

designated anchorages) within the anchor swing circle of shipwrecks to avoid potential impacts from 

seafloor devices on cultural resources in mitigation areas throughout the Study Area (see Section 5.4.1, 

Mitigation Areas for Seafloor Resources). Most sea-floor devices would not be used in deep water, 

because bottom and moored mine anchors are laid by divers who are able to observe bottom conditions 

and avoid sensitive areas, cultural resources would not be impacted by bottom and moored mine 

anchors. Overall types and locations of training activities are not expected to change from those 

currently conducted by the Navy (refer to Table 3.0-26). Mitigation for precision anchoring would be 

implemented during training activities. Because the Navy’s section 106 compliance under the Navy’s

programmatic agreements includes the protection of cultural resources, no impacts on cultural 

resources are expected within the Study Area, and the World Heritage Site would not be affected.

Impacts from Seafloor Devices under Alternative 1 for Testing Activities

Under Alternative 1, testing activities using seafloor deployed devices would occur within the offshore 

waters of the Hawaii and Southern California OPAREAs. No comprehensive survey or evaluation of 

submerged historic resources has occurred in the OPAREAs along the offshore waters of Hawaii and 

Southern California; therefore, unrecorded historic resources could be disturbed by seafloor devices. 

However, because seafloor devices associated with testing activities would not be used in deep water, 

overall types and locations of testing activities are not expected to change from those currently 

conducted by the Navy (refer to Table 3.0-26), and because the Navy’s section 106 compliance under 

the programmatic agreements includes the protection of cultural resources, no impacts on cultural 

resources are expected within the Study Area, and the World Heritage Site would not be affected.

3.10.3.2.3.2 Impacts from Seafloor Devices under Alternative 2 

Impacts from Seafloor Devices under Alternative 2 for Training Activities

Under Alternative 2, the number of annual training activities using seafloor deployed devices would 

remain the same as those described under Alternative 1 and would continue to occur within offshore 

waters of the Hawaii and Southern California OPAREAs. No comprehensive survey or evaluation of 

submerged historic resources has occurred in the OPAREAs along the offshore waters of Hawaii and 

Southern California; therefore, unrecorded historic resources could be disturbed by seafloor devices. 

The Navy will implement mitigation that includes not conducting precision anchoring (except in 

designated anchorages) within the anchor swing circle of shipwrecks to avoid potential impacts from 

seafloor devices on cultural resources in mitigation areas throughout the Study Area (see Section 5.4.1, 

Mitigation Areas for Seafloor Resources). However, because bottom and moored mine anchors are laid 

by divers who are able to observe bottom conditions and avoid sensitive areas, most sea-floor devices 

would not be used in deep water, overall types and locations of training activities are not expected to 

change from those currently conducted by the Navy (refer to Table 3.0-26), mitigation for precision 

anchoring would be implemented, and because the Navy’s section 106 compliance under the Navy’s 

programmatic agreements includes the protection of cultural resources, no impacts on cultural 

resources are expected within the Study Area, and the World Heritage Site would not be affected.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.10-28

3.10 Cultural Resources

Impacts from Seafloor Devices under Alternative 2 for Testing Activities

Under Alternative 2, the number of annual testing activities using seafloor deployed devices would 

remain the same as those described under Alternative 1 and would continue to occur within offshore 

waters of the Hawaii and Southern California OPAREAs. No comprehensive survey or evaluation of 

submerged historic resources has occurred in the OPAREAs along the offshore waters of Hawaii and 

Southern California. However, because seafloor devices associated with testing activities would not be 

used in deep water, overall types and locations of testing activities are not expected to change from 

those currently conducted by the Navy (refer to Table 3.0-26), and because the Navy’s section 106 

compliance under the programmatic agreements includes the protection of cultural resources, no 

impacts on cultural resources are expected within the Study Area, and the World Heritage Site would 

not be affected.

3.10.3.2.3.3 Impacts from Seafloor Devices under the No Action Alternative

Under the No Action Alternative, the Navy would not conduct the proposed training and testing 

activities in the HSTT Study Area. Various physical disturbance and strike stressors (e.g., seafloor 

devices) would not be introduced into the marine environment. Therefore, baseline conditions of the 

existing environment would either remain unchanged or would improve slightly after cessation of 

ongoing training and testing activities. 

3.10.3.2.4 Impacts from Pile Driving

3.10.3.2.4.1 Impacts from Pile Driving under Alternative 1

Impacts from Pile Driving under Alternative 1 for Training Activities

Under Alternative 1, a total of four elevated causeway system training events would occur at the Silver 

Strand Training Complex. Pile driving would not occur in Hawaii. Pile driving for elevated causeway

system training at the Silver Strand Training Complex would subject nearshore sediments to vibration, 

disruption, and compaction. Elevated causeway system training at Silver Strand Training Complex would 

occur only in the Oceanside Boat Lanes 1–10 and in the bayside Bravo training area. A bark built in 1883, 

the Narwhal, lies in Boat Lane 1. On the bayside of Silver Strand Training Complex, sediments are

periodically dredged, and the potential for encountering submerged historic resources that retain their 

integrity is low. Surveys of the planned location of the elevated causeway system training would be 

conducted to ensure there are no obstructions prior to construction and to ensure no impact would 

occur on a submerged resource.

Impacts from Pile Driving under Alternative 1 for Testing Activities

Pile driving is not associated with any testing activities under Alternative 1.

3.10.3.2.4.2 Impacts from Pile Driving under Alternative 2 

Impacts from Pile Driving under Alternative 2 for Training Activities

Under Alternative 2, the number of elevated causeway system training events would not increase 

relative to Alternative 1. Therefore, the potential for affecting submerged historic resources would be 

the same as described under Alternative 1.

Impacts from Pile Driving under Alternative 2 for Testing Activities

Pile driving is not associated with any testing activities under Alternative 2.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.10-29

3.10 Cultural Resources

3.10.3.2.4.3 Impacts from Pile Driving under the No Action Alternative

Under the No Action Alternative, the Navy would not conduct the proposed training and testing 

activities in the HSTT Study Area. Various physical disturbance and strike stressors (e.g., pile driving) 

would not be introduced into the marine environment. Therefore, baseline conditions of the existing 

environment would either remain unchanged or would improve slightly after cessation of ongoing 

training and testing activities. 

3.10.3.2.5 Impacts from Vibration from Sonic Booms

Impulsive noise, such as that resulting from supersonic overflights (sonic booms) can create intense 

shock waves that cause airborne vibration. Repeated vibration, over time, has the potential to degrade 

or destroy sensitive structural or cultural elements. Supersonic aircraft flights can occur and are usually 

limited to altitudes above 30,000 ft. and in locations more than 30 NM from shore. Several factors 

influence sonic booms: weight, size, and shape of the aircraft; altitude; flight paths; and atmospheric 

conditions. A larger and heavier aircraft displaces more air and creates more lift to sustain flight, 

compared with small, light aircraft. Therefore, larger aircraft create sonic booms that are stronger and 

louder than those of smaller, lighter aircraft.

3.10.3.2.5.1 Impacts from Vibration from Sonic Booms under Alternative 1

Impacts from Vibration from Sonic Booms under Alternative 1 for Training and Testing Activities

The Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument, which is also designated as a World Heritage 

Site, is located within the Temporary Operating Area of the Hawaii Range Complex in the offshore 

waters of Hawaii that could be susceptible to sonic booms. However, no new activities are proposed to 

occur within the Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument, and airspace activities and that may 

occur in designated Special Use Airspace are fully in compliance with Federal Aviation Administration 

regulations and recommendations applicable to this area. There are no cultural resources within the 

OPAREAs in the offshore waters of Southern California that could be susceptible to sonic booms.

Therefore, no impacts on cultural resources are expected from vibrations from sonic booms within the 

Study Area under Alternative 1.

3.10.3.2.5.2 Impacts from Vibration from Sonic Booms under Alternative 2

Impacts from Vibration from Sonic Booms under Alternative 2 for Training and Testing Activities

Under Alternative 2, the Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument, which is also designated as 

a World Heritage Site, is located within the Temporary Operating Area of the Hawaii Range Complex in 

the offshore waters of Hawaii, could be susceptible to sonic booms. However, no new activities are 

proposed to occur within the Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument, and airspace activities 

and that may occur in designated Special Use Airspace are fully in compliance with Federal Aviation 

Administration regulations and recommendations applicable to this area. There are no cultural 

resources within the OPAREAs in the offshore waters of Southern California that could be susceptible to 

sonic booms. Therefore, no impacts on cultural resources are expected from vibrations from sonic 

booms within the Study Area under Alternative 2.

3.10.3.2.5.3 Impacts from Vibration from Sonic Booms under the No Action Alternative

Under the No Action Alternative, the Navy would not conduct the proposed training and testing 

activities in the HSTT Study Area. Various physical disturbance and strike stressors (e.g., vibration from 

sonic booms) would not be introduced into the marine environment. Therefore, baseline conditions of 

the existing environment would either remain unchanged or would improve slightly after cessation of 

ongoing training and testing activities. 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.10-30

3.10 Cultural Resources

3.10.4 SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL IMPACTS ON CULTURAL RESOURCES

3.10.4.1 Combined Impacts of All Stressors under Alternative 1

Explosive and physical disturbance and strike stressors associated with training and testing activities 

would not impact cultural resources.

3.10.4.2 Combined Impacts of All Stressors under Alternative 2 

Explosive and physical disturbance and strike stressors associated with training and testing activities 

would not impact cultural resources.

3.10.4.3 Combined Impacts of All Stressors under the No Action Alternative

Under the No Action Alternative, the Navy would not conduct the proposed training and testing 

activities. Baseline conditions of the existing environment would either remain unchanged or would 

improve slightly after cessation of ongoing training and testing activities. 

3.10.5 NATIONAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION ACT

The Navy has considered the importance of the Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument 

World Heritage site in the analysis of potential impacts in light of the United States’ obligations under 

the World Heritage Convention. In accordance with 50 CFR Part 404.9(c), all activities and exercises of 

the Armed Forces shall be carried out in a manner that avoids, to the extent practicable and consistent 

with operational requirements, adverse impacts on Monument resources and qualities. In addition, as 

required by Proclamation 9478, the Navy shall ensure, by the adoption of appropriate measures not 

impairing operations or operation capabilities, that its vessels and aircraft act in a manner consistent, so 

far as is practicable, with the Proclamation.

Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument plays a critical role for traditional Native Hawaiians in 

regards to voyaging and wayfinding and is considered a sacred site (81 FR 60225). No new activities are 

proposed to occur within the Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument, and airspace activities 

that may take place in designated Special Use Airspace overlaying the monument are in full compliance 

with Federal Aviation Administration regulations and recommendations applicable to these areas. The 

Proposed Action and alternatives would not result in changes that would alter the marine national 

monument. Potential effects within the marine national monument could include disruptions to cultural 

voyaging and wayfinding; however, these would be considered a temporary impact on cultural 

navigation because both Navy and cultural voyaging activities are considered transitory, and there 

would be minimal to no overlap.

Table 3.10-1 summarizes the potential effects on submerged resources in accordance with section 106 

of the National Historic Preservation Act for Alternative 1, Alternative 2, and the No Action Alternative. 

The Proposed Action is not anticipated to affect known cultural resources within the Study Area, and the 

Navy’s programmatic agreements include the protection and management of cultural resources. 

Accordingly, per section 106, the Navy will continue, as appropriate, to consult with the California and 

Hawaii State Historic Preservation Officers.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.10-31

3.10 Cultural Resources

Table 3.10-1: Summary of Section 106 Effects of Training and Testing Activities on 

Cultural Resources

Alternative and Stressor Section 106 Effects 

Alternative 1

Explosive Stressors

Explosive stressors resulting from underwater explosions creating shock waves and 

cratering of the seafloor would not affect known or unknown submerged cultural 

resources; mitigation measures would continue to be implemented to 

protect shipwrecks.

Physical Disturbance and 

Strike Stressors

Physical stressors resulting from in-water devices, military expended materials, 

seafloor devices, pile driving, and vibration from sonic booms during training and 

testing activities would not affect known or unknown submerged cultural 

resources; mitigation measures would continue to be implemented to 

protect shipwrecks.

Regulatory Determination No adverse effects on submerged cultural resources would occur. 

Alternative 2 

Explosive Stressors

Explosive stressors resulting from underwater explosions creating shock waves and 

cratering of the seafloor would not affect known or unknown submerged cultural 

resources; mitigation measures would continue to be implemented to 

protect shipwrecks.

Physical Disturbance and 

Strike Stressors

Physical stressors resulting from in-water devices, military expended materials, 

seafloor devices, pile driving, and vibration from sonic booms during training and 

testing activities would not affect known or unknown submerged cultural 

resources; mitigation measures would continue to be implemented to 

protect shipwrecks.

Regulatory Determination No adverse effects on submerged cultural resources would occur.

No Action Alternative

Explosive Stressors

Explosive stressors would not be introduced into the marine environment. 

Therefore, baseline conditions of the existing environment would either remain 

unchanged or would improve slightly after cessation of ongoing training and 

testing activities.

Physical Disturbance and 

Strike Stressors

Physical disturbance and strike stressors would not be introduced into the marine 

environment. Therefore, baseline conditions of the existing environment would 

either remain unchanged or would improve slightly after cessation of ongoing 

training and testing activities.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.10-32

3.10 Cultural Resources

This page intentionally left blank.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.10-33

References

REFERENCES

Athens, J. S., D. W. Blinn, C. E. Buck, J. A. Christen, R. H. Cowie, T. Dye, G. M. Murakami, & J. V. Ward. 

(2000). Ancient Hawaiian Fishponds of Pearl Harbor: Archaeological Studies on U.S. Navy Lands, 

Hawaii (Department of Defense Legacy Resource Management Program Project No. 1729). 

Honolulu, HI: International Archaeological Research Institute, Inc.

Athens, J. S. (2002). Archaeological Coring and Augering, Halekou Fishpond, Nuupia Ponds Wildlife 

Management Area, U.S. Marine Corps Base Hawaii, Kaneohe Bay, Oahu Island, Hawaii (Contract 

No. DACA83-95-D-0007; Delivery Order No. 25). Fort Shafter, HI: International Archaeological 

Research Institute, Inc.

Athens, J. S., J. V. Ward, & C. M. Rasmussen. (2006). Archaeological Monitoring and Coring for Wetland 

Restoration/Percolation Ditch Replacement, Marine Corps Base Hawaii, Kaneohe Bay, Oahu, 

Hawaii (Contract N62742-04-D-1855 Task Order 0004). Honolulu, HI: International 

Archaeological Research Institute, Inc.

Automated Wreck and Obstruction Information System Database. (2010). Shipwreck Database. 

Retrieved from http://shipwrecks.slc.ca.gov/ShipwrecksDatabase/Shipwrecks_Database.asp

Barnette, M. C. (2010). Lost at Sea: A Treatise on the Management and Ownership of Shipwrecks and 

Shipwreck Artifacts.

California State Historic Preservation Office (2012). [Hawaii-Southern California Training and Testing 

Activities, Various Ocean Areas, Southern California].

EDAW, Inc. (2005). Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) Disposition of Offshore Cooling Water 

Conduits.

Programmatic Agreement with the Commander, Navy Region Hawaii, the Advisory Council on Historic 

Preservation (Council), and the Hawai'i State Historic Preservation Division (2003).

Kelley, D. E. (2006). Historical Collections of Hawaii–Keepers of the Culture–Influence of Foreigners on 

Hawaii–Part 16 Whaling–Whalers Influence–Lord Byron and New Laws. Retrieved 

Masters, P. M., & J. S. Schneider. (2000). Cobble Mortars/Bowls: Evidence of Prehistoric Fisheries in the 

Southern California Bight.

Masters, P. M. (2003, October 14, 2003). Prehistoric Underwater Archaeological Sites of San Diego 

County. Retrieved from http://www.wanconservancy.org/pr/wan101403.htm

Minerals Management Service. (1990). California, Oregon, and Washington Archaeological Resource 

Study. Camarillo, CA.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. (2012). Maritime History. Retrieved 2012 October 4 

http://hawaiihumpbackwhale.noaa.gov/maritime/maritime_history.html

National Park Service. (2007). Abandoned Shipwreck Act Guidelines. Retrieved from 

http://www.nps.gov/archeology/submerged/intro.htm.

Naval Base San Diego. (2012). Naval Base San Diego–History. Retrieved from 

http://www.cnic.navy.mil/SanDiego/About/History/index.htm.

New South Wales. (2012). Japanese midget submarine wrecks. 

http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/M24/discovery/midgetwrecks.htm
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.10-34

References

Neyland, R. S. (2001). Sovereign Immunity and the Management of United States Naval Shipwrecks and 

Shipwreck Artifacts.

Noah, A. C. (1998). Prehistoric Fishing on the San Diego Coast. 

Rieth, T. M., T. L. Hunt, C. Lipo, & J. M. Wilmshurst. (2011). The 13th century polynesian colonization of 

Hawaii Island. Journal of Archaeological Science, 28, 2740–2749. 

Sutton, M. Q. (2010). The Del Rey tradition and its place in the prehistory of southern California. Pacific 

Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly, 44(2). 

U.S. Department of the Navy. (2003). Programmatic Agreement with the Commander, Navy Region 

Hawaii, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (Council), and the Hawaii State Historic 

Preservation Division.

U.S. Department of the Navy. (2008a). Programmatic Agreement Among the Commanding Officer, Naval 

Base Coronado, California State Historic Preservation Officer, and Advisory Council on Historic 

Preservation Regarding Operational and Developmental Undertakings at San Clemente Island, 

California.

U.S. Department of the Navy. (2008b). Hawaii Range Complex, Final Environmental Impact 

Statement/Overseas Environmental Impact Statement (EIS/OEIS). Hawaii Range Complex.

U.S. Department of the Navy. (2008c). Southern California Range Complex Environmental Impact 

Statement/Overseas Environmental Impact Statement 

U.S. Department of the Navy. (2008d). Oahu Integrated Cultural Resources Management Plan. 

Commander, Navy Region Hawaii.

U.S. Department of the Navy. (2011). Silver Strand Training Complex Environmental Impact Statement.

U.S. Department of the Navy. (2012a). Integrated Cultural Resources Management Plan for Naval Base 

Coronado, San Diego, California.

U.S. Department of the Navy. (2012b). Integrated Cultural Resources Management Plan for San 

Clemente Island Range Complex, California.

U.S. Department of the Navy. (2014). Programmatic Agreement Among the Commander Naval Base 

Coronado and the California State Historic Preservation Officer Regarding Naval Base Coronado 

Undertakings, San Diego County, California.

Zander, C. M., & O. Varmer. (1996). Closing the gaps in domestic and international law: Achieving 

comprehensive protection of submerged cultural resources. Contested Waters, 1(3/4). 
3.11 Socioeconomics

Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

i

Table of Contents

Environmental Impact Statement/Overseas Environmental Impact 

Statement

Hawaii-Southern California Training and Testing

TABLE OF CONTENTS

3.11 Socioeconomics....................................................................................................3.11-1

3.11.1 Introduction and Methods................................................................................3.11-1

3.11.2 Affected Environment.......................................................................................3.11-2

3.11.2.1 Commercial Transportation and Shipping ........................................3.11-5

3.11.2.2 Commercial and Recreational Fishing ............................................3.11-21

3.11.2.3 Subsistence Fishing.........................................................................3.11-31

3.11.2.4 Tourism...........................................................................................3.11-33

3.11.3 Environmental Consequences ........................................................................3.11-45

3.11.3.1 Impacts on Accessibility..................................................................3.11-46

3.11.3.2 Impacts from Airborne Acoustics ...................................................3.11-52

3.11.3.3 Impacts from Physical Disturbance and Strike Stressors................3.11-54

3.11.4 Secondary Stressors........................................................................................3.11-61

3.11.5 Summary of Potential Impacts on Socioeconomics........................................3.11-61

3.11.5.1 Combined Impacts of All Stressors Under Alternative 1 ................3.11-61

3.11.5.2 Combined Impacts of All Stressors Under Alternative 2 ................3.11-62

3.11.5.3 Combined Impacts of All Stressors Under the No Action

Alternative ......................................................................................3.11-62

List of Figures

Figure 3.11-1: Density of Military Vessel Traffic in the Hawaii Range Complex...................................3.11-3

Figure 3.11-2: Density of Military Vessel Traffic in the Southern California Portion of the HSTT 

Study Area........................................................................................................................3.11-4

Figure 3.11-3: Main Hawaiian Islands Shipping Routes and Major Ports.............................................3.11-8

Figure 3.11-4: Relative Density of Commercial Vessel Traffic in the Hawaii Range Complex ..............3.11-9

Figure 3.11-5: Cargo Volume of Hawaii Ports in 2015........................................................................3.11-10

Figure 3.11-6: Cargo Volume of Southern California Ports in 2015....................................................3.11-11

Figure 3.11-7: Shipping Routes and Major Ports in the Southern California Portion of the 

HSTT Study Area.............................................................................................................3.11-14

Figure 3.11-8: Density of Commercial Vessel Traffic in the Southern California Portion of the 

HSTT Study Area.............................................................................................................3.11-15

Figure 3.11-9: Air Traffic Routes and Special Use Airspace in the Hawaii Range Complex ................3.11-18
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

ii

Table of Contents

Figure 3.11-10: Air Traffic Routes and Special Use Airspace in the Southern California Portion of 

the HSTT Study Area ......................................................................................................3.11-20

Figure 3.11-11: Annual Reported Commercial Landings for All Species in Hawaii (1948–2015) .......3.11-23

Figure 3.11-12: Annual Recreational Catch in Hawaii (2010–2014)...................................................3.11-25

Figure 3.11-13: Commercial Landings (Pounds) in Southern California (2010–2015)........................3.11-28

Figure 3.11-14: Value of Commercial Landings in Southern California by Major Species Group 

(2010–2015)...................................................................................................................3.11-29

Figure 3.11-15: Annual Recreational Catch in Southern California (2010–2014)...............................3.11-31

Figure 3.11-16: Recreational Vessel Densities in the Hawaii Range Complex....................................3.11-34

Figure 3.11-17: Main Hawaiian Islands Recreation Areas ..................................................................3.11-36

Figure 3.11-18: Kauai–Niihau Island Recreation Areas.......................................................................3.11-37

Figure 3.11-19: Oahu Island Recreation Areas ...................................................................................3.11-38

Figure 3.11-20: Economic Impact of Visitors to Southern California in 2014.....................................3.11-39

Figure 3.11-21: Jobs Supported by the Travel Industry in Southern California in 2014.....................3.11-39

Figure 3.11-22: Recreational Vessel Densities in the Southern California Portion of the HSTT 

Study Area......................................................................................................................3.11-41

Figure 3.11-23: Recreation Areas Around San Clemente Island.........................................................3.11-42

Figure 3.11-24: Recreation Areas near Navy Facilities on San Diego Bay...........................................3.11-44

List of Tables

Table 3.11-1: U.S. Port Rankings and Cargo Volume for Hawaii Ports in 2015 ....................................3.11-7

Table 3.11-2: Ship Transits to and from Hawaii Ports by Privately Owned Ocean-Going Merchant 

Vessels over 1,000 Gross Tons in 2015..........................................................................3.11-10

Table 3.11-3: U.S. Port Rankings and Cargo Volume for Southern California Ports in 2015 ..............3.11-11

Table 3.11-4: Ship Transits to and from Southern California Ports by Privately Owned 

Ocean-Going Merchant Vessels over 1,000 Gross Tons in 2014 ...................................3.11-12

Table 3.11-5: Commercial Landings (Pounds) and Value (Dollars) Organized by Major Species 

Groups for Hawaii in 2015 .............................................................................................3.11-23

Table 3.11-6: Annual Catch by Recreational Fishers in Hawaii of the Top Species Ranked by 

Number of Fish Caught from 2010 to 2014...................................................................3.11-26

Table 3.11-7: Commercial Landings (Pounds) and Value (Dollars) Organized by Species Group 

within the Southern California Range Complex for 2014..............................................3.11-27
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.11-1

3.11 Socioeconomics

3.11SOCIOECONOMICS

3.11.1 INTRODUCTION AND METHODS

This section provides an overview of the characteristics of socioeconomic resources in the 

Hawaii-Southern California Training and Testing (HSTT) Study Area and describes in general terms the 

methods used to analyze potential impacts on these resources from the Proposed Action.

The Council on Environmental Quality regulations implementing the National Environmental Policy Act 

state that when economic or social effects and natural or physical environmental effects are 

interrelated, the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)/Overseas EIS will discuss these effects on the 

human environment (40 Code of Federal Regulations section 1508.14). The Council on Environmental 

Quality regulations state that the “human environment shall be interpreted comprehensively to include 

SYNOPSIS

The United States Department of the Navy considered all potential stressors that socioeconomics 

could potentially be exposed to from the Proposed Action. The following conclusions have been 

reached for the Preferred Alternative:

• Accessibility: Limits on accessibility to marine areas used by the public (e.g., fishing areas) in 

Navy training and testing areas would be temporary and of short duration (hours). 

Restrictions would be lifted, and conditions would return to normal upon completion of 

training and testing activities. Minimal impacts on commercial and recreational fishing and 

tourism may occur; however, limits on accessibility would not result in a direct loss of income, 

revenue or employment, resource availability, or quality of experience. No impacts on 

commercial transportation and shipping, and subsistence fishing are anticipated.

• Airborne Acoustics: Because the majority of Navy training and testing activities are conducted 

far from where tourism and recreational activities are concentrated, the impact of airborne 

noise would be negligible. The public may intermittently hear noise from transiting ships or 

aircraft overflights if they are in the general vicinity of a training or testing activity, but these 

occurrences would be infrequent. The infrequent exposure to airborne noise would not result 

in a direct loss of income, revenue or employment, resource availability, or quality of 

experience. No impacts on commercial transportation and shipping, and subsistence fishing 

are anticipated.

• Physical Disturbance and Strike: Because the majority of Navy training and testing activities 

are conducted farther from shore than where most recreational activities are concentrated, 

the potential for a physical disturbance or strike affecting recreational fishing and tourism in 

offshore areas is negligible. In locations where Navy training or testing occurs in nearshore 

areas (e.g., San Diego Bay), the Navy coordinates with civilian organizations to assure safe and 

unimpeded access and use of those areas. Based on the Navy’s standard operating 

procedures and the large expanse of the testing and training ranges, the likelihood of a 

physical disturbance or strike disrupting commercial transportation and shipping, commercial 

and recreational fishing, subsistence fishing, and tourism would be negligible. Therefore, 

direct loss of income, revenue or employment, resource availability, or quality of experience 

would not be expected.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.11-2

3.11 Socioeconomics

the natural and physical environment and the relationship of people with that environment.” To the 

extent that the ongoing and proposed United States (U.S.) Department of the Navy (Navy) training and 

testing activities in the Study Area could affect the natural or physical environment, the socioeconomic 

analysis evaluates how elements of the human environment might be affected. The Navy identified four

broad socioeconomic topics based on their association with human activities and livelihoods in the 

Study Area. Each of these socioeconomic resources is an aspect of the human environment that involves 

economics (e.g., employment, income, or revenue) and social conditions (i.e., enjoyment and quality of 

life) associated with the marine environment of the Study Area. Therefore, this evaluation considered 

potential impacts on four elements:

• Commercial transportation and shipping

• Commercial and recreational fishing

• Subsistence fishing

• Tourism

The baseline for identifying the socioeconomic conditions in the Study Area was derived using relevant 

published information from sources that included federal, state, regional, and local government 

agencies and databases; academic institutions; conservation organizations; technical and professional 

organizations; and private groups. Previous environmental studies were also reviewed.

The alternatives were evaluated based on the potential for and the degree to which training and testing 

activities could impact socioeconomic resources. The potential for impacts depends on the likelihood 

that the testing and training activities would interface with public activities or infrastructure. Factors 

considered in the analysis include whether there would be temporal or spatial interfaces between the 

public or infrastructure and Navy testing and training. If there is potential for this interface, factors 

considered to estimate the degree to which an exposure could impact socioeconomics include whether 

there could be an impact on livelihood, quality of experience, resource availability, income, or 

employment. If there is no expected potential for the public to interface with an activity, the impacts 

would be considered negligible.

3.11.2 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

This section describes the four socioeconomic resources associated with human activities and 

livelihoods in the Study Area. The primary area of interest for assessing potential impacts on 

socioeconomic resources is the U.S. territorial waters of Hawaii and Southern California (seaward of the 

mean high water line to 12 nautical miles [NM]). Limited socioeconomic resources outside this area of 

interest (i.e., that portion of the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone between 12 and 200 NM from shore) are 

also described when relevant to human activities. 

The relative density of military vessel traffic in the HSTT Study Area shows that most vessel traffic is 

centered on Pearl Harbor, Oahu (Figure 3.11-1) and San Diego, California (Figure 3.11-2). The data are

representative and based on a three year average (2012 – 2014) of military vessel tracking data acquired 

from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Marine Cadastre Track Builder application. 

Only vessels broadcasting their location using the Automatic Identification System are tracked, which 

excludes many military vessels at times during their transits for security reasons; however the data are 

generally representative, and useful for the analysis of impacts on socioeconomic resources by 

comparing similar data acquired from recreational and commercial vessels in the HSTT Study Area, many 

of which do use the Automatic Identification System. Also, military vessels are not exclusively Navy 

vessels and include vessels from other services (e.g., U.S. Coast Guard).
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.11-3

3.11 Socioeconomics

Notes: HSTT = Hawaii-Southern California Training and Testing; OPAREA = Operating Area

Figure 3.11-1: Density of Military Vessel Traffic in the Hawaii Range Complex
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.11-4

3.11 Socioeconomics

Notes: HSTT = Hawaii-Southern California Training and Testing; OPAREA = Operating Area

Figure 3.11-2: Density of Military Vessel Traffic in the Southern California Portion of the HSTT Study Area
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.11-5

3.11 Socioeconomics

3.11.2.1 Commercial Transportation and Shipping

Current military and civilian use of the offshore sea and air space is generally compatible, with Navy 

ships accounting for approximately 10 percent of the total ship presence out to 200 NM (Mintz, 2012a). 

The Navy conducts training and testing activities in operating areas (OPAREAs) away from commercially 

used waterways and within special use airspace (Mintz & Filadelfo, 2011; Mintz, 2012a). Notifications of 

potentially hazardous operations are communicated to all vessels and operators by use of Notices to 

Mariners issued by the U.S. Coast Guard, Notices to Airmen issued by the Federal Aviation 

Administration, and marine band radio, as needed. The Navy procedures for planning and management 

of activities are provided in the Chief of Naval Operations Instruction 3770.2K, Airspace Procedures and 

Planning Manual (U.S. Department of the Navy, 2007). The Department of Defense also publishes 

separate Notices to Airmen about runway closures, missile launches, special traffic management 

procedures, and malfunction of navigational aids.

3.11.2.1.1 Ocean Transportation

Ocean transportation is the transit of commercial, private, and military vessels at sea, 

including submarines.

Most of the waterways in the Study Area are accessible to commercial vessels; however, some areas are 

restricted. These restrictions can be permanent or temporary. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration issues nautical charts that reflect designated restricted zones. In accordance with Title 33 

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 72, the U.S. Coast Guard and Department of Homeland Security 

publish marine information pertaining to waterways (i.e., danger zones and restricted areas; see below). 

Notices to Mariners provide information to private and commercial vessels on temporary closures. 

These navigational warnings are disseminated by broadcast notices on maritime frequency radio, weekly 

publications by the appropriate U.S. Coast Guard Navigation Center, and global positioning system 

navigation charts. They provide information about duration and location of closures due to activities 

that are potentially detrimental to surface vessels. Vessels are responsible for being aware of designated 

danger areas in surface waters and any Notices to Mariners that are in effect. Operators of recreational 

or commercial vessels have a duty to abide by maritime requirements as administered by the 

U.S. Coast Guard.

The flow of vessel traffic in congested waters, especially near coastlines, is controlled by the use of 

directional shipping lanes for large vessels, including cargo ships, container ships, and tankers, and flow 

controls for all vessels in harbors, bays, and ports to ensure that ports-of-entry remain as uncongested 

as possible. Navy vessels and non-military vessels alike adhere to regulations governing shipping traffic 

in these areas. There are fewer restrictions controlling open-ocean vessel traffic. In most cases, the 

factors that influence vessel traffic include: adequate depth of water, weather conditions (primarily 

affecting smaller recreational vessels), availability and location of fish for commercial and recreational 

fishing vessels, and hazards to navigation. Large commercial shipping vessels generally follow 

well-established routes that enable efficient transport of goods between ports. Recreational boating 

activities fluctuate seasonally, with increased activity in summer when warmer weather and more 

daylight hours offer more opportunity for recreational boating activities.

Certain areas of surface water within the Study Area are designated as danger zones, safety zones,

security zones, or restricted areas as described in the CFR and established by the U.S Coast Guard and 

the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. These areas may limit access to non-military activities on either a 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.11-6

3.11 Socioeconomics

fulltime or temporary timeframe. Detailed information on these areas is provided in the CFR as 

referenced in the following brief descriptions.

Information on danger zones and restricted areas is found in 33 CFR part 334 (Navigation and Navigable 

Waters, Danger Zone and Restricted Area Regulations). A danger zone is a defined water area (or areas) 

used for target practice, bombing, rocket firing, or other especially hazardous activities. Danger zones 

may be closed to the public on a fulltime or intermittent basis, as stated in the regulations specific to 

individual danger zones. A restricted area is a defined water area prohibiting or limiting public access to

provide security for government property and to protect the public from risk of injury or damage to 

property arising from the government's use of the area.

Information on safety zones and security zones is found in 33 CFR part 165 (Regulated Navigation Areas 

and Limited Access Areas). Safety zones are specifically addressed in 33 CFR part 165.20 subpart C 

(Safety Zones). A safety zone is defined as a water area, shore area, or a combination of water and shore 

area to which, for safety or environmental purposes, access is limited to authorized persons, vehicles, or 

vessels. A safety zone may be stationary and described by fixed limits, or it may be described as a zone 

around a vessel in motion. Security zones are defined in 33 CFR part 165.30 subpart D (Security Zones). 

A security zone is defined as an area of land, water, or a combination of land and water areas that are

designated by the Captain of the Port or District Commander for a time period deemed necessary to 

prevent damage or injury to any vessel or waterfront facility; to safeguard ports, harbors, territories, or 

waters of the United States; or to ensure that the rights and obligations of the United States

are observed.

In addition to the regulations described above, a naval vessel protection zone as described in 33 CFR

part 165.20 subpart G (Protection of Navy Vessels) states that no vessel or person is allowed within 100 

yards of a large U.S. Navy vessel unless authorized by the U.S. Coast Guard, the senior naval officer 

present in command, or an official patrol. 

Furthermore, all vessels shall operate at the minimum speed necessary to maintain a safe course, unless 

required to maintain a greater speed by navigational rules, and shall proceed as directed by the U.S. 

Coast Guard, the senior naval officer present in command, or the official patrol. 

When a vessel is within a naval vessel protection zone the following rules apply:

• To request authorization to operate within 100 yards of a large U.S. Navy vessel, contact the U.S. 

Coast Guard, the senior naval officer present in command, or the official patrol on VHF-FM 

channel 16. 

When conditions permit, the U.S. Coast Guard, senior naval officer present in command, or the official 

patrol should: 

• Give advance notice on VHF-FM channel 16 of all large U.S. naval vessel movements; 

• Permit vessels constrained by their navigational draft or restricted in their ability to maneuver to 

pass within 100 yards of a large U.S. naval vessel in order to ensure a safe passage in accordance 

with the navigation rules; 

• Permit commercial vessels anchored in a designated anchorage area to remain at anchor when 

within 100 yards of passing large U.S. naval vessels; and 

• Permit vessels that must transit via a navigable channel or waterway to pass within 100 yards of 

a moored or anchored large U.S. naval vessel with minimal delay consistent with security.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.11-7

3.11 Socioeconomics

Danger zones, restricted areas, safety zones, and security zones located in the Study Area are shown in 

Figure 3.11-17 through Figure 3.11-19, Figure 3.11-23 and Figure 3.11-24. 

3.11.2.1.1.1 Hawaii Range Complex

Ocean shipping is an important component of Hawaii’s economy. Major inter-island ports include 

Honolulu, Barbers Point, Hilo, Kawaihae, and Kahului (Figure 3.11-3). The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

ranks the top 150 U.S. ports by cargo volume (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2016). Based on 2015 

rankings, Honolulu (Oahu) ranked 40th in total trade (domestic and foreign) with nearly 14 million tons 

of imports and exports. Other ranked ports in Hawaii were Barbers Point (Oahu) at 50, Kahului (Maui) at 

86, Hilo (Hawaii) at 107, and Kawaihae at 112 (Table 3.11-1). While the majority of domestic trade in the 

Hawaii Islands went through Honolulu, Barbers Point serviced the majority of foreign trade. The port of 

Kawaihae on the Island of Hawaii is used exclusively for transporting goods between the Hawaiian 

islands (Table 3.11-1).

The density of commercial vessel traffic is shown in Figure 3.11-4. Similar to military vessel traffic, 

commercial vessel traffic is also centered around Oahu, but more commercaial vessels use intra-island 

routes more frequently than military vessels. The highest densities of commercial vessel traffic are also 

mainly outside or along the perifery of military warning areas (Figure 3.11-4) 

Table 3.11-1: U.S. Port Rankings and Cargo Volume for Hawaii Ports in 2015

Port Name National 

Rank

(Total Trade: Domestic 

and Foreign) Total Domestic Trade Total Foreign Trade

Volume

(short tons)

Volume

(short tons)

Volume

(short tons)

Honolulu, Oahu 40 13,831,929 12,812,083 1,019,846

Barbers Point, Oahu 50 10,570,317 3,468,394 7,101,923

Kahului, Maui 86 3,719,568 3,714,647 4,921

Hilo, Hawaii 107 2,130,495 2,086,293 44,202

Kawaihae, Hawaii 112 1,994,961 1,994,961 0

Source: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (2016)

Note: Rankings are out of a total of 150 ports.

The level of activity at a port and its economic benefit can also be measured by the number of vessel 

calls or port calls the port receives annually. A port call is the act of a vessel docking at a port to offload 

or take on cargo or passengers. In 2015, 723 port calls from privately owned, ocean-going merchant 

vessels over 1,000 gross tons and transporting various types of cargo occurred at four ports in Hawaii: 

Honolulu, Barbers Point, Kahului, and Hilo (U.S. Maritime Administration, 2016) (Table 3.11-2). No data 

on port calls at Kawaihae were available.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.11-8

3.11 Socioeconomics

Notes: OPAREA = Operating Area, HSTT = Hawaii-Southern California Training and Testing

Figure 3.11-3: Main Hawaiian Islands Shipping Routes and Major Ports
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.11-9

3.11 Socioeconomics

Notes: OPAREA = Operating Area, HSTT = Hawaii-Southern California Training and Testing

Figure 3.11-4: Relative Density of Commercial Vessel Traffic in the Hawaii Range Complex
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.11-10

3.11 Socioeconomics

Table 3.11-2: Ship Transits to and from Hawaii Ports by Privately Owned Ocean-Going 

Merchant Vessels over 1,000 Gross Tons in 2015

Port Name Total Ship 

Transits Containers Dry Bulk Gas (LNG/LPG)

General 

Cargo

RollOn/Roll 

Off

Tankers

Honolulu 948 630 2 10 22 152 132

Barbers Point 382 0 76 22 0 0 284

Hilo 72 0 0 24 0 48 0

Kahului 44 0 0 0 0 44

Total 1446 630 78 56 22 244 416

Source: Ship transits based on port call data from U.S. Maritime Administration (2016)

Notes: LNG = Liquefied Natural Gas, LPG = Liquefied Petroleum Gas

Sixty-seven percent of 

port calls occurred at the 

port of Honolulu, with the 

vast majority of calls from 

container ships 

transporting twenty-foot 

container units containing 

various goods. The 

majority of port calls at 

Barbers Point were from 

tankers carrying 

petroleum products (U.S. 

Maritime Administration, 

2016). The majority of 

port calls at Kahului and 

Hilo were roll-on/roll-off 

cargo, which consists of 

vehicles (e.g., cars, trucks, 

trailers) that can be 

driven on and off the vessel. Primary shipping routes within the Main Hawaiian Islands and extending 

east to North America and west to Asia, primarily from Barbers Points, Oahu, are shown in Figure 3.11-3.

Based on the assumption that every port call has two ship transits, one inbound and one outbound, over 

1,400 ship transits of ocean-going merchant vessels occurred at the four Hawaii ports in 2015 (Table 

3.11-2). Sixty-six percent of vessel transits were to and from Honolulu, 26 percent were routed through 

Barbers Point, and the remaining 8 percent were divided between the ports of Kahului and Hilo (U.S. 

Maritime Administration, 2016). The majority of vessel transits (66 percent) either to or from Honolulu

were by container ships, followed by roll-on/roll-off vessels at 16 percent of the total number of transits. 

Nearly 75 percent of vessel vessels transiting through Barbers Point were tankers transporting bulk 

liquids and gas. Primarily roll-on/roll-off vessels transited to the ports of Kahului and Hilo (U.S. Maritime 

Administration, 2016).

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

Honolulu, Oahu Barbers Point,

Oahu

Kahului, Maui Hilo, Hawaii Kawaihae

Hawaii

Millions of Tons

Cargo Volume for Hawaii Ports (2015)

Total Trade

Domestic Trade

Foreign Trade

Figure 3.11-5: Cargo Volume of Hawaii Ports in 2015
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.11-11

3.11 Socioeconomics

3.11.2.1.1.2 Southern California Portion of the HSTT Study Area

Ocean shipping is a significant component of the Southern California regional economy. Key ports 

include Los Angeles, Long Beach, and, to a lesser degree, San Diego and Port Hueneme. Of 150 U.S. ports 

evaluated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (2016), Long Beach and Los Angeles ranked fifth and 

10th, respectively, in total trade 

(foreign and domestic) 

(measured in tons). The Port of

San Diego was ranked 131 and 

Port Hueneme ranked 148 in 

total domestic trade (it was 

unranked in foreign trade and 

total trade). Total trade at Long 

Beach exceeded 85 million tons 

of foreign and domestic imports 

and exports. Total trade at Los 

Angeles was just over 61 million 

tons (Figure 3.11-6 and Table 

3.11-3). Total trade at San Diego 

was substantially lower at 1.4 

million tons in 2014 with over 85 

percent from foreign imports 

and exports. Port Hueneme is 

used for domestic trade, 

processing over 25 tons of goods in 2014.

Table 3.11-3: U.S. Port Rankings and Cargo Volume for Southern California Ports in 2015

Port Name

Total Trade (Domestic and 

Foreign) Total Foreign Trade Total Domestic Trade

Rank Volume

(short tons)

Volume

(short tons)

Volume

(short tons)

Long Beach 7 78,164,597 11,214,447 66,950,150

Los Angeles 9 60,187,840 5,967,391 54,220,449

Port Hueneme 120 1,711,619 17,244 1,694,375

San Diego 129 1,454,921 156,549 1,298,372

Source: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (2016)

Notes: (1) Rankings are out of a total of 150 ports. (2) NR = Not Ranked

In 2014, nearly 4,500 port calls from privately owned, ocean-going merchant vessels over 1,000 gross 

tons and transporting various types of cargo occurred at four ports in Southern California: Long Beach, 

Los Angeles, San Diego, and Port Hueneme (U.S. Maritime Administration, 2016). Based on the 

assumption that every port call has two ship transits, one inbound and one outbound, approximately 

9,000 ship transits of ocean-going merchant vessels occurred at the four ports in 2014 (Table 3.11-4 and 

Figure 3.11-6). Eighty-two percent of vessel transits were split equally between Long Beach and Los 

Angeles, and the remaining 18 percent were split almost evenly between San Diego and Port Hueneme. 

The majority of vessel (67 percent) transiting either to or from Los Angeles were container ships

followed by tankers at 17 percent of the total number of transits. Port calls at Long Beach were more 

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Long Beach Los Angeles Port Hueneme San Diego

Millions of Tons

Cargo Volume for Southern California Ports 

(2015)

Total Trade

Domestic Trade

Foreign Trade

Figure 3.11-6: Cargo Volume of Southern California Ports in 

2015
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.11-12

3.11 Socioeconomics

diversified, with 50 percent from container ships, 27 percent from tankers, and 10 percent each from 

bulk carriers and roll-on/roll-off ships. Port Hueneme and San Diego make up only 17 percent of port 

calls in Southern California; however, more than 65 percent of roll-on/roll-off cargo ships transit to both 

ports than to either Long Beach or Los Angeles.

Container ships, which make up half of the ship transits in Southern California, have been increasing 

steadily in size and capacity over the past 50 years (World Shipping Council 2016). The largest and 

newest container ships are over 1,300 ft. long and 180 ft. wide and capable of transporting over 

19,000 20 ft. equivalent units or TEUs. These vessels are larger than the largest aircraft carriers, the 

Nimitz class, which are just over 1,000 ft. long, and can travel at approximately 23 knots. As discussed 

later in this section, over 4,500 transits of large container vessels far exceeds all Navy ship movements 

within San Diego Bay, including transits to the Southern California Range Complex.

Table 3.11-4: Ship Transits to and from Southern California Ports by Privately Owned OceanGoing Merchant Vessels over 1,000 Gross Tons in 2014

Port Name Total Ship 

Transits Containers Dry Bulk Gas (LNG/LPG)

General 

Cargo

Roll-On/Roll 

Off Tankers

Long Beach 3,670 1,840 376 0 118 358 978

Los Angeles 3,706 2,480 226 0 188 168 644

Port Hueneme 822 110 0 0 204 480 28

San Diego 770 158 18 0 78 494 22

Southern 

California 8,968 4,588 620 0 588 1,500 1,672

Source: Ship transits based on port call data from (U.S. Maritime Administration, 2016)

Notes: LNG =Liquefied Natural Gas, LPG = Liquefied Petroleum Gas

Both large and small vessels transit through the Southern California Range Complex to mainland ports 

and the Channel Islands. Major commercial shipping routes parallel the coastline, extending north to 

San Francisco, Seattle, Alaska, and Canadian ports and south to Central and South America. 

Transoceanic shipping routes extend westward from the major ports of San Diego, Long Beach, and Los 

Angeles to Hawaii. Shorter routes run perpendicular to the coastline and connect smaller ports with the 

major shipping routes and the offshore islands (Thomas et al., 2015) (Figure 3.11-7).

The majority of commercial shipping routes providing access to Long Beach and Los Angeles are located 

north of the Southern California Range Complex, including the most direct route to Hawaii. Shipping 

routes extending south from Long Beach and Los Angeles to and from the Panama Canal and South 

America pass through the nearshore portion of the Southern California Range Complex as do routes 

providing access to San Diego (U.S. Department of the Navy, 2015a). 

Smaller commercial and recreational vessels are more commonly found within several miles from shore 

and less frequently transit the offshore shipping lanes or to San Clemente Island, with the exception of 

recreational fishing (i.e., charter) and commercial fishing vessels traveling to deep water fishing sites.

Recreational fishing is described in section 3.11.2.2 (Commercial and Recreational Fishing).

Maritime vessel traffic routes in the Southern California portion of the HSTT Study Area access major 

Southern California ports (e.g., Long Beach) as well as numerous smaller ports along the U.S. coast. In 

addition to routes traveled by large commercial vessels, other routes provide access to and from 

marinas, mooring locations, fishing harbors, and military installations located both along the mainland

and on offshore islands (Figure 3.11-7). San Diego Bay is bordered by the cities of San Diego, National 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.11-13

3.11 Socioeconomics

City, Chula Vista, Imperial Beach, and Coronado, all of which provide vessels with access to the Bay. The 

Silver Strand Boat Lanes located on the ocean side of the Silver Strand portion of the Southern California

Range Complex are commonly used by sport fishing charters, bait fishing in support of sport fishing, 

lobster fishing, and competition sailing regattas. Vessels enter and exit the harbor through the mouth of 

the Bay located at the north end of the Bay or through the many marinas and boat launch facilities 

located along the perimeter of the Bay.

The density of commercial vessel traffic is shown in Figure 3.11-8. The highest densities of commercial 

vessel traffic are centered on the ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles which are located north of the 

Southern California portion of the HSTT Study Area, and the highest density of military vessel traffic is 

centered on the port of San Diego (Figure 3.11-2). Commercial vessels appear to follow three primary 

routes to and from the ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles, two of which pass either north or south of 

the Channel Islands and proceed north. The thrd heavily traveled route with high a high density of vessel 

traffic leads south along the coastline approximately 25 NM from shore (Figure 3.11-8).

The Port of San Diego records port calls by commercial vessels that are not captured in the U.S. 

Maritime Administration (2016) data, which only reports on vessels over 1,000 gross tons. From 2011 

through 2015, the Port of San Diego recorded an average of 557 port calls (or 1,114 vessel transits) of 

commercial vessels accessing the port. The number of annual transits over the five-year period has 

remained consistent; however, some trends by vessel category are apparent, including a decline in the 

number of barges and passenger vessels using the port, and an increase in the number of bulk carriers 

and vehicle carriers (Holles et al., 2013). 

From 2011 through 2015, an average of 1,898 Navy ship transits occurred between Navy piers in San 

Diego Bay and the Southern California Range Complex as well as within San Diego Bay (e.g., from one 

pier to another). Overall there was a slight decline in the number of annual ship transits and movements 

by Navy vessels within the Bay over the five-year period. In addition to commercial and military vessels, 

San Diego Bay supports a large number of privately owned vessels that travel within the Bay and into 

offshore waters. In 2014, nearly 52,000 boats were registered in San Diego County as pleasure craft 

(Laland et al., 2003). Additional information on recreational fishing and tourism activities are 

discussed below.

3.11.2.1.1.3 Transit Corridor

Major commercial shipping vessels use the transit corridor for shipping goods between Southern 

California and Hawaii, because it is the shortest distance between these two points (see Description of 

Proposed Action and Alternatives, Figure 2.1-1). Vessels using this corridor are outside of military 

training areas and typically follow all U.S. Coast Guard maritime regulations. The Navy also uses this 

corridor for training and testing activities while en route between Southern California and Hawaii.

3.11.2.1.2 Air Transport

Air transport refers to movements of aircraft through airspace. Safety and security factors dictate that 

use of airspace and control of air traffic be closely regulated. Accordingly, regulations applicable to all 

aircraft are set by the Federal Aviation Administration to define permissible uses of designated airspace, 

and to control that use. These regulations are intended to accommodate the various categories of 

aviation, whether military, commercial, or general aviation.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.11-14

3.11 Socioeconomics

Notes: HSTT = Hawaii Southern California Training and Testing 

Figure 3.11-7: Shipping Routes and Major Ports in the Southern California Portion of the HSTT Study Area
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.11-15

3.11 Socioeconomics

Notes: HSTT = Hawaii Southern California Training and Testing

Figure 3.11-8: Density of Commercial Vessel Traffic in the Southern California Portion of the HSTT Study Area
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.11-16

3.11 Socioeconomics

The system of airspace designation uses various definitions and classifications of airspace in order to 

facilitate control. Airspace is categorized generally as either “controlled” airspace or “uncontrolled” 

airspace. Controlled airspace is further organized into several different classes of airspace distinguished 

by altitude range, use (e.g., commercial or military), and proximity to a major airport. Controlled 

airspace means that services are available to support aircraft flying under Instrument. Such services 

include air-to-ground radio communication, navigational aids, and air traffic control services for 

maintaining separation between aircraft. Controlled airspace does not mean that all flights are 

controlled by air traffic control.

Special use airspace consists of both controlled and uncontrolled airspace and has defined dimensions 

where flight and other activities are confined because of their nature and the need to restrict or prohibit 

non-participating aircraft for safety reasons. Special use airspace is established under procedures 

outlined in 14 CFR part 73.1. The majority of special use airspace is established for military flight 

activities and, with the exception of prohibited areas (e.g., over the White House), may be used for 

commercial or general aviation when not reserved for military activities. There are multiple types of 

special use airspace, including prohibited, restricted, warning, alert, and military operations areas

(U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Aviation Administration, 2017). One type of special use 

airspace, of particular relevance to the Study Area, is a warning area, which is defined in 14 CFR part 1 as 

follows:

“A warning area is airspace of defined dimensions, extending from 3 NM outward from the coast of 

the United States that contains activity that may be hazardous to non-participating aircraft. The 

purpose of such warning areas is to warn non-participating pilots of the potential danger. A warning 

area may be located over domestic or international waters or both.”

Warning areas are established to contain a variety of hazardous aircraft and non-aircraft activities, such 

as aerial gunnery, air and surface missile firings, bombing, aircraft carrier operations, surface and 

subsurface operations, and naval gunfire. When these activities are conducted in international airspace, 

the Federal Aviation Administration regulations may warn against, but do not have the authority to 

prohibit, flight by non-participating aircraft. A restricted area is a type of special use airspace within 

which non-military flight activities are closely restricted.

While some special use airspace is available for daily use by the military for a designated time period 

(e.g., from 6:00 am to 6:00 pm), other airspace is only activated by issuing Notices to Airmen several 

hours in advance of the military activity.

Open-ocean Air Traffic Control Assigned Airspace within the Study Area is used for military training and 

testing activities, from unit-level training to major joint exercises. Air Traffic Control Assigned Airspaces

are activated for short periods to cover the time frames of training and testing activities (U.S. 

Department of the Navy, 2015a).

3.11.2.1.2.1 Hawaii Range Complex

Military Air Transit

Several types of special use airspace are designated in the Hawaii Range Complex (Figure 3.11-9). 

Warning area W-188 and restricted airspace R-3101 are located north and west of Kauai, and W-186 is 

located southwest of Kauai. These airspaces are controlled by the Pacific Missile Range Facility located 

on the western shores of Kauai. The warning areas W-188 A/B, W-189 and W-190 north of Oahu; W-187 

and R-3107 surrounding Kaula Island; and W-191, W-192, W-193, W-194, and W-196 south of Oahu are 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.11-17

3.11 Socioeconomics

scheduled through the Navy Fleet Area Control and Surveillance Facility Pearl Harbor, which coordinates 

with commercial air traffic control facilities. 

Special use airspace often has altitude limitations. The following warning areas and restricted area 

airspace are available from the surface to an unlimited altitude: W-188, W-189, W-190, W-192, W-193, 

W-194, and R-3101. Warning area W-191 is available from the surface to 3,000 ft. above sea level, and 

W-196 is used only for surface and helicopter operations and is available from the surface to 2,000 ft.

Warning area W-187 and R-3107 are available from the surface to 18,000 ft., and W-186 is available up 

to 9,000 ft. R-3103 is available from the surface to 30,000 ft.

There are also 12 Air Traffic Control Assigned Airspaces within the Hawaii Range Complex, which provide 

additional controlled airspace adjacent to and between the warning areas for military use. While there is 

some overlap with warning areas, most civilian and commercial air traffic routes approach from the east 

and west of the Main Hawaiian Islands, while airspace used by the military is located north and south of 

the islands (Figure 3.11-9).

Commercial and General Aviation

Airspace within the Hawaii Range Complex includes several high-altitude commercial air traffic routes 

(Figure 3.11-9). Most oceanic routes used by commercial aircraft enter the Hawaii Range Complex from 

the northeast and southwest and are generally outside the warning areas described above. The Air 

Traffic Services routes used by smaller aircraft for transit between the islands are concentrated along 

the Main Hawaiian Islands and also have limited overlap with warning areas.

Most of the airspace within the Study Area is considered international airspace, and air traffic is 

managed by the Federal Aviation Administration Honolulu Control Facility, which is comprised of the Air 

Route Traffic Control Center, the Honolulu Control Tower, and the Combined Radar Approach Control 

collocated in a single facility. 

3.11.2.1.2.2 Southern California Range Complex

Military Air Transit

The Southern California Range Complex contains three warning areas: W-290, W-291, and a small 

portion of W-289. Each warning area extends from the surface to 80,000 ft. above sea level (Figure 

3.11-10). The warning areas can be activated by the Federal Aviation Administration at the Navy’s 

request when operations that would pose a hazard to non-participating aircraft are being conducted. 

Other special use airspace within W-291 includes nine tactical maneuvering areas and two 

missile ranges. 

Military pilots travel under Instrument Flight Rules from local air bases until they reach W-291 and 

proceed under Visual Flight Rules to their instructed tactical maneuvering areas or missile range 

OPAREA. Activation by the Federal Aviation Administration is performed by notifying the controlling air 

traffic agency of the change in status in the area. This allows the agency to issue notices to pilots to alter 

their courses to avoid military activities.

In the annual utilization report issued by the Fleet Area Control and Surveillance Facility San Diego for 

fiscal year 2015 (October 1, 2014 through September 30, 2015) there were 30,800 air and surface 

operations in Southern California warning areas, excluding operations that use the Naval Auxiliary 

Landing Field at San Clemente Island (see below). 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.11-18

3.11 Socioeconomics

Notes: OPAREA = Operating Area, HSTT = Hawaii-Southern California Training and Testing 

Figure 3.11-9: Air Traffic Routes and Special Use Airspace in the Hawaii Range Complex
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.11-19

3.11 Socioeconomics

The Study Area off the coast of Southern California contains a restricted area over San Nicolas Island, 

R-2535 A/B, which is located within the Pt. Mugu Sea Range. Restricted area R-2535 A/B is designated 

from the surface to 100,000 ft. Restricted area R-2503 A/B/C/D overlays Marine Corps Air Station Camp 

Pendleton, but is located outside of the Study Area. Other types of special use airspace are found within 

the Southern California Range Complex OPAREAs, including missile ranges and tactical maneuvering 

areas. The Naval Auxiliary Landing Field at San Clemente Island is located within W-291 airspace. Class D 

airspace has been established to support safe and efficient air transit to Naval Auxiliary Landing Field 

San Clemente Island. Class D airspace is airspace tailored to the specific needs of the airport to ensure 

separation between aircraft. The airspace above San Clemente Island is defined by a 5 NM radius circle 

centered on the Fleet Area Control and Surveillance Facility and includes the airspace from the surface 

to 2,700 ft. 

Military overflights in support of activities at the Silver Strand portion of the Southern California Range 

Complex are based out of Naval Air Station North Island and Navy Outlying Landing Field Imperial Beach. 

The airspace over both facilities is classified as Class D airspace defined by a 5 NM radius and extending 

to 2,800 ft. over Naval Air Station North Island and to 1,500 ft. over Navy Outlying Landing Field Imperial 

Beach. The two airspaces, which are under Navy control, extend over the Silver Strand portion of the 

Southern California Range Complex and much of San Diego Bay and the surrounding area. Air operations 

in support of training at the Southern California Range Complex, including helicopter insertions and 

extractions as well as decelerator/parachute drops into designated drop zones, must comply with the 

Navy Air Operations Manual. Flight paths servicing nearby San Diego Airport are geographically separate 

from helicopter sorties bound for training areas at the Silver Strand portion of the Southern California

Range Complex and approach and departure patterns for fixed-wing aircraft into Naval Air Station 

North Island.

Commercial and General Aviation

Aircraft operating under Visual Flight Rules can fly along the coast between San Diego and Orange 

County and out to Santa Catalina Island largely unconstrained, except by safety requirements and 

mandated traffic flow requirements. Aircraft operating under Instrument Flight Rules clearances, 

authorized by the Federal Aviation Administration, normally fly on the airway routes. In Southern 

California, these include both high and low altitude routes between San Diego and Los Angeles and 

offshore to Santa Catalina Island (Figure 3.11-10). 

Control area extension air routes from Southern California provide access to overseas air routes to 

Hawaii and onto other transpacific locations. Control area extension 1156 extends west from San Diego 

through the northern portion of W-291. When W-291 is active, control area extension 1156 is normally 

closed. Control area extension 1318 extends west from Los Angeles and Los Angeles International 

Airport and crosses airspace in the Point Mugu Sea Range, north of the HSTT Study Area. Control area 

extension 1177 extends from Santa Catalina Island southwest between W-291 and W-289S, crossing the 

northernmost part of the Southern California portion of the HSTT Study Area. Control area extension 

1177 is closed only when weapons hazard patterns extend into the area, and this closure is fully 

coordinated with the Federal Aviation Administration. Established air routes enable general aviation and 

commercial air traffic to coordinate air travel with military operations.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.11-20

3.11 Socioeconomics

NAS = Naval Air Station, MCAS = Marine Corps Air Station, MCB = Marine Corps Base, Intl. = International

Figure 3.11-10: Air Traffic Routes and Special Use Airspace in the Southern California Portion of the HSTT Study Area
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.11-21

3.11 Socioeconomics

When W-291 is active, aircraft on Instrument Flight Rules clearances are precluded from entering W-291 

by the Federal Aviation Administration. However, since W-291 is located entirely over international 

waters, non-participating aircraft operating under Visual Flight Rules are not prohibited from entering 

the area. Examples of aircraft flights of this nature include light aircraft, fish spotters, and whale 

watchers, which occur under Visual Flight Rules throughout W-291 on a variable basis.

San Diego International Airport is located north of Naval Air Station North Island. Commercial and 

general aviation air traffic is controlled by the San Diego Air Route Traffic Control Center, and Navy Air 

Traffic Control manages military air traffic in the region. Approach and departure routes servicing San 

Diego International Airport are separate from routes used by Navy aircraft traveling to training areas at 

the Silver Strand portion of the Southern California Range Complex and Naval Air Station North Island.

Congestion in the Southern California Range Complex airspace is projected to increase over the next the 

next 25 years as the demands on commercial, military, and general aviation aircraft continue to expand. 

Commercial air traffic at San Diego International Airport and Los Angeles International Airport, the two 

largest airports in the region, is expected to grow by approximately 2 percent per year through 2040. 

Navy air operations in the Southern California Range Complex are also projected to increase over the 

next five years as the requirements for unmanned aerial system training flights, hellfire missile exercises, 

and bombing exercises increase to meet mission requirements (U.S. Department of the Navy, 2015a).

3.11.2.1.2.3 Transit Corridor

There are numerous commercial air routes over the transit corridor between Southern California and 

Hawaii. Commercial aircraft typically fly above 30,000 ft. during transoceanic flight. These air routes are 

controlled by the Federal Aviation Administration.

3.11.2.2 Commercial and Recreational Fishing

Commercial and recreational fishing takes place throughout much of the Study Area from waters 

adjacent to the mainland and offshore islands to offshore banks and deep waters far from land. Many 

different types of fishing gear are used by commercial and recreational fishers in the Study Area, such as 

gillnets, longline gear, troll gear, trawls, seines, traps or pots, harpoons, and hook and line (U.S. 

Department of the Navy, 2005, 2015b). Many fishing activities are seasonal and occur at varying degrees 

of intensity and duration throughout the year. 

Commercial and recreational fishing is subject to state and federal regulations and laws. The U.S. Coast 

Guard enforces regulations of the U.S. commercial fishing fleet. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration’s Office of Law Enforcement enforces domestic laws and international treaty 

requirements designed to ensure global fisheries resources are maintained at healthy levels for the 

future. As part of that effort, the National Marine Fisheries Service assesses the status of fisheries stocks 

to assist marine resources managers in maintaining sustainable fisheries as well as healthy ecosystems

and productive coastal communities. Fisheries stock assessment reports contain information on the 

status of the stock, such as the annual and historic catch, and, if a stock is depleted, the steps required 

to rebuild a healthy stock capable of sustaining commercial and recreational fisheries.

The management of fisheries is conducted on a regional basis to allow participatory governance by 

knowledgeable people with a stake in fishery management. Eight regional fishery management councils 

are responsible for developing fishery management plans for the fisheries in their jurisdiction. The plans 

focus on the status of the fishery in waters seaward of state waters within each region. Each fishery 

management plan describes a variety of management tools, including geographic and seasonal fishery 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.11-22

3.11 Socioeconomics

closures, catch limits and quotas, size and age limits, gear restrictions, and access controls to manage 

the fishery resources. Nationwide, 44 fishery management plans provide a framework for managing the 

harvest of 230 major fish stocks or stock complexes that make up 90 percent of the commercial harvest.

Other species, designated as highly migratory species in fisheries regulations, such as tunas, swordfish, 

sharks, and billfish are found throughout the Pacific Ocean and migrate across council jurisdictional 

boundaries. Regional offices of the National Marine Fisheries Service manage these species and engage

stakeholders and governmental groups in the management of these species at both domestic and 

international levels.

Determining whether a catch is considered a commercial or recreational catch depends on how the 

catch is used. A catch is considered commercial if sold for profit at the port (e.g., to a processor). While a 

chartered recreational fishing trip results in a commercial gain for a charter boat captain, the catch is 

retained by the fisher and is not sold at the port for a profit. Therefore, the catch is considered 

recreational. Commercial fishers often target more than one species and land their catch in multiple 

ports, depending on the season, to maximize their economic return. Recreational fishers primarily use 

hook and line (also referred to as rod and reel or pole and line), and a small number also use 

spearfishing gear (Southwick Associates, 2013).

The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) Office of Science and Technology maintains commercial 

landing data derived from comprehensive surveys of all coastal states’ landings (National Marine 

Fisheries Service, 2015a). 

3.11.2.2.1 Hawaii Range Complex

3.11.2.2.1.1 Commercial Fishing

The data that individual fishers report on commercial fishing reports are confidential, protected by 

Hawaii state law (189-3, Hawaii Revised Statutes), and can only be released to the public in summarized 

form. Major fisheries in Hawaiian waters include tuna, billfish, bottom fish, other species of pelagic fish, 

and a smaller invertebrate fishery. Commercial landings for all fisheries in 2015 in Hawaiian waters 

exceeded 36 million pounds (lb.) and were valued at $111 million (Table 3.11-5). Landings can be 

different from the catch, because the catch may include discarded fish that are not brought to port. The 

value of commercial landings has increased dramatically since the late 1980s (Figure 3.11-11). Between 

1948 and 1980, the value for all fisheries combined was less than $1 per pound, and reached a peak of 

approximately $13 million by 1978. Between 1988 and 1993 the value of landings for all species 

increased from approximately $22 million to $73 million—an increase of over 230 percent over five

years—and the price per pound increased to $2.51. After plateauing in the mid to late 1990s, the total 

value of all fisheries has increased steadily since 2001, peaking in 2012 at $112 million, which equates to 

about $3.50 per lb. (Figure 3.11-11). The increasing value of commercial fisheries over the past two 

decades is indicative of its increasing importance to the Hawaiian economy.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.11-23

3.11 Socioeconomics

Table 3.11-5: Commercial Landings (Pounds) and Value (Dollars) Organized by Major Species 

Groups for Hawaii in 2015

Major Species1 Landings

(pounds)

Pelagic Fish 

Species

Tuna (yellowfin, skipjack, albacore, bigeye, other scombrids) 23,612,899

Billfish (blue marlin, striped marlin, swordfish) 4,709,062

Other (mahi mahi, mackerel scad, bigeye scad, wahoo) 2,898,055

Benthic Fish 

Species Bottomfish (opakapaka, onaga, uku) 260,718

All Other Fish Species 5,142,959

Total Fish 36,604,432

Invertebrates

Spiny Lobster 4,314

Saltwater Shrimp 14,947

Totals

Total Invertebrates 19,261

Combined Total 36,642,954

Dollar Value of Combined Total $110,884,644

1

Species specific data are not available for all pelagic and bottomfish species (e.g., sharks). Totals for 

these species are captured under All Other Fish Species.

Source: Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center (2016)

Figure 3.11-11: Annual Reported Commercial Landings for All Species in Hawaii (1948–2015)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

1948 1952 1956 1960 1964 1968 1972 1976 1980 1984 1988 1992 1996 2000 2004 2008 2012

Millions of Pounds / Dollars

Year

1948-2015 Annual Total Reported Commercial Landings

All Species (Dollars)

All Species (Pounds)
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.11-24

3.11 Socioeconomics

Fishing regulations in Hawaii restrict the use of different types of fishing gear geographically and 

seasonally. Longline fishing gear can only be used beyond 50 NM from shore off the islands of Maui, 

Lanai, Kahoolawe, and Hawaii and beyond 75 NM from shore around the islands of Kauai and Oahu 

(National Marine Fisheries Service, 2010). However, from October through January, the boundaries of 

the fishing exclusion areas shift landward, and longline fishing gear is only restricted out to 25 NM off 

the windward side of all Hawaiian Islands, with the exception of Oahu where longline fishing is restricted 

out to 50 NM from shore. Trolling generally occurs within 20 NM of shore and can occur year round off

every Hawaiian Island but can be limited by weather in fall and winter. Popular trolling areas include 

seamounts, convergence zones (where ocean currents come together and drive productivity), near 

weather buoys, and fish aggregating devices. Hook and line fishing from boats occurs year round off all 

major islands from shore out to about 20 NM. Bottom fishing primarily occurs in state waters (within 

3 NM) where the slope of the seafloor drops off. Beyond 3 NM, bottom fishing occurs at banks, which 

rise up from the seafloor and attract target species (e.g., snapper species). Popular bottom fishing sites 

include Penguin Bank, located west of the island of Molokai, and Middle Bank, located northwest of 

Kauai. Bottom fishing can occur year round, but destructive gear, including trawl nets and bottom set gill 

nets, are prohibited, and bottom fishing vessels must be registered (50 CFR 665.206). Lobster fishing is 

prohibited within 20 NM of Laysan Island and landward of 10 fathoms as shown on the National Ocean 

Survey Charts, numbers 19022, 19019, and 19016 (50 CFR 665.251, Closed Areas). The 

Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument in the Northwest Hawaiian Islands has closed all 

Northwest Hawaiian Islands Fisheries within its boundaries (0–200 NM) since it was expanded in 

August 2016.

3.11.2.2.1.2 Recreational Fishing

Hawaii has not consistently collected data on recreational marine fishing, although surveys have been 

conducted. In 2001, NMFS and the Hawaii Division of Aquatic Resources began collecting data on 

recreational fishing in Hawaii using the Marine Recreational Fishing Survey. Hawaii does not have a 

mandatory recreational marine fishing license as many other coastal states do and does not have 

mandatory reporting of recreational catches (Hawaii Division of Aquatic Resources, 2015). The NMFS

Office of Science and Technology maintains a database of statistical data on recreational fishing 

practices in coastal states (National Marine Fisheries Service, 2015b). The data are acquired through a 

variety of surveys which are tailored to the different types of recreational fishing conducted in each 

state or region. The surveys collect data from those who fish from shore using hook and line, off private 

boats, and boats for hire, which includes charter boats, party boats, and guide boats.

From 2010 through 2014, recreational fishers caught over 19 million fish in marine and estuarine waters 

in Hawaii (Figure 3.11-12). Approximately 17.5 million were harvested for consumption or to be used as 

baitfish, and 1.5 million were released live after being caught. The total catch and harvest decreased by 

approximately half in 2011 but has been increasing steadily since. The percent released each year 

fluctuated between 6 and 10 percent of the total catch and is apparently independent of the trend in 

the overall catch (e.g., about 6.5 percent of the catch was released in 2010 and 2011 despite the steep 

decline in the total catch in 2011). 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.11-25

3.11 Socioeconomics

Figure 3.11-12: Annual Recreational Catch in Hawaii (2010–2014)

The five species caught most often by recreational fishers from 2010 to 2014, measured by the number 

of fish, were: Bigeye scad, goldspot herring, yellowstripe goatfish, skipjack tuna, and yellowfin tuna 

(Table 3.11-6) (National Marine Fisheries Service, 2015b). Excluding the scad and herring, which are 

considered baitfish, the top five species harvested for consumption include the bluefin trevally (sixth 

overall) and mackerel scad (ninth overall). Measured by weight, the largest harvests were for yellowfin 

tuna, dolphinfish, skipjack tuna, wahoo, bigeye tuna, and bluefin trevally (National Marine Fisheries 

Service, 2015c). The catch data show that the tuna fishery, in particular, is important to both commercial 

and recreational fishers.

Changes from year to year in the number of fish caught does not vary consistently across species. While 

the overall catch of all species has increased steadily since 2011 (Figure 3.11-12), none of the top species 

show a similar trend, indicating that target species may vary from year to year. Contributing factors 

influencing the number of each species caught in any given year may include changes in oceanic 

conditions that affect species presence and availability, the selection of fishing destinations, fluctuations 

in tourism, species preference, and local or federal regulations affecting access to fishing spots.

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Number of Fish (millions)

Year

Released

Harvest
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.11-26

3.11 Socioeconomics

Table 3.11-6: Annual Catch by Recreational Fishers in Hawaii of the Top Species Ranked by 

Number of Fish Caught from 2010 to 2014

Year

Catch

(Number of Fish)

Bigeye 

Scad

Goldspot 

Herring

Yellowstripe 

Goatfish

Skipjack 

Tuna

Yellowfin 

Tuna

Bluefin 

Trevally

Mackerel 

Scad

2010 675,563 795,216 165,574 288,556 302,730 173,796 164,598

2011 655,607 318,283 119,467 125,612 140,664 114,301 6,462

2012 347,515 164,676 98,781 197,115 181,927 108,207 260,276

2013 812,303 32,315 791,789 380,206 149,878 124,597 79,117

2014 731,985 366,878 380,072 199,118 220,200 269,168 166,886

Total 3,222,973 1,677,368 1,555,683 1,190,607 995,399 790,069 677,339

Source: (National Marine Fisheries Service, 2015b)

3.11.2.2.2 Southern California Range Complex

3.11.2.2.2.1 Commercial Fishing

In Southern California, many species of fish and invertebrates are targeted by both commercial and 

recreational fishers. Groundfishes (e.g., flatfishes, skates, some sharks, and rockfishes), highly migratory 

species (e.g., tuna, billfish, some sharks, dolphinfish, and swordfish), and coastal pelagic species 

(anchovies, mackerel, and sardines) are harvested and sold commercially and many of the same species 

are also sought after by recreational fishers. Invertebrate species, including the California spiny lobster, 

several crab species, and market squid are very important commercial fisheries, and far exceed the 

catch and value of the finfish fishery (Table 3.11-7).

The National Marine Fisheries Service and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife maintain data 

on commercial fisheries landings for California ports, including major and minor ports in Southern 

California (California Department of Fish and Wildlife, 2015a). Commercial landing data most relevant to 

the Study Area include data from the major ports of Santa Barbara, Los Angeles, and San Diego. These 

data also represent landings from smaller ports within the vicinity of these three major ports. For 

example, landings for the Port of San Diego include landings from the ports of Mission Bay, Oceanside, 

Point Loma, and National City.

In 2014, over 141 million lb. of fish and invertebrates valued at $79 million were harvested in Southern 

California, which accounted for 40 percent of all California fish and invertebrate landings (California 

Department of Fish and Wildlife, 2015b). In 2014, the fish species most commonly harvested by 

commercial fishers in Southern California, based on weight of the catch, were tuna, Pacific sardine, and 

mackerel (Figure 3.11-13). Swordfish, northern anchovy, sharks and rockfish were also important 

commercial fisheries. Pacific and jack mackerel made up 60 percent of the total catch of all fish species, 

but only 10 percent of the total value. While the tuna catch had the highest value at $2.8 million, 

swordfish brought the highest price at $4.30 per lb. In 2015, commercial landings continued to decline, 

totaling only 68 million lb., driven mainly by a continued reduction in the mollusk harvest.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.11-27

3.11 Socioeconomics

California waters support a large and economically important invertebrate fishery, which, at a value of 

over $67 million in 2014, was 5.5 times greater than the value of the fish catch (Table 3.11-7). Molluscs, 

specifically the market squid, made up 89 percent of the total invertebrate catch by weight and brought 

nearly $33 million into economy in 2014. California spiny lobster made up less than 1 percent of the 

2014 invertebrate catch by weight but over 27 percent of the value of the catch. All five major 

invertebrate groups had a greater value than the tuna catch—the highest catch value among major 

fish groups. 

Table 3.11-7: Commercial Landings (Pounds) and Value (Dollars) Organized by Species Group 

within the Southern California Range Complex for 2014

Major Species Landings

(pounds)

Value

(dollars)

Pelagic Fish 

Species

Tuna (albacore, bigeye, bluefin, skipjack, and yellowfin) 3,551,124 2,849,239

Billfish (swordfish) 341,328 1,475,741

Mackerel (Pacific and jack) 13,005,808 1,293,565

Pacific Sardine 3,388,446 333,623

Northern Anchovy 294,233 101,355

Groundfish

Rockfish (50 species or species groups) 109,096 363,132

Sharks1 and skates (e.g., thresher shark) 116,528 141,464

All Other Fish Species 1,991,534 5,738,088

Total Fish 22,798,097 12,296,207

Invertebrates

Molluscs (e.g., squid, snails, and whelk) 105,662,977 32,758,120

California Spiny Lobster 951,393 18,180,286

Echinoderms (sea Urchins, sea stars, sea Cucumbers, and 

sand dollars) 8,450,595 7,276,779

Prawns and Shrimp (e.g., ridgeback prawn, spot prawn, 

ghost shrimp) 859,616 5,517,094

Crabs (e.g., brown rock, red rock, yellow rock) 2,330,184 3,407,220

All Other Invertebrates 250 416

Totals

Total Invertebrates 118,255,015 67,139,915

Combined Total 141,053,112 79,436,122

1

Not all sharks are goundfish (i.e., dwell and feed primarily at or near the seafloor), but for simplicity the 

catch of all sharks are included with other cartilaginous species under Groundfish.

Source: California Department of Fish and Wildlife (2015b)

Commercial landings in Southern California for all fisheries combined decreased dramatically in the early 

1980s, as measured by reported landings from the ports of San Diego, Los Angeles, and Santa Barbara 

(National Marine Fisheries Service, 2015d). The combined catch of major species groups brought to the 

three ports declined each year from 329 million lb. in 2010 to 141 million lb. in 2014 (Figure 3.11-13).
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.11-28

3.11 Socioeconomics

Market squid made up 99.9 percent of the mollusk catch by weight over that time period and between 

73 and 80 percent of the overall catch. Any fluctuation in market squid landings at Southern California 

ports dominates fluctuations in the catch of all other species groups.

Figure 3.11-13: Commercial Landings (Pounds) in Southern California (2010–2015)

The value of commercial landings brought to Southern California ports fluctuated between $92 and $98 

million from 2010 to 2013 and then decreased to $79 million in 2014 and then by an additional 30 

percent to $56 million in 2015 (Figure 3.11-14). Over the six-year period, the value of the fish and 

echinoderm catches remained consistent with little variability, the value of the crustacean catch 

increased from $15 to $27 million between 2010 and 2014, and declined slightly to $25 million in 2015. 

The value of the mollusk (market squid) landings decreased steadily from $60 in 2010 to just $11 million

in 2015, consistent with the decrease in the amount (lb.) of mollusks landed at Southern California ports

(Figure 3.11-14).

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Commercial Landings (millions of pounds)

Year

CRUSTACEAN

S

ECHINODER

MS

FISHES
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.11-29

3.11 Socioeconomics

Figure 3.11-14: Value of Commercial Landings in Southern California by Major Species Group

(2010–2015)

3.11.2.2.2.2 Recreational Fishing

The Southern California coastal marine environment, including portions of the Southern California Range 

Complex, supports a popular and thriving recreational fishing industry. The economic impact of 

recreational fishing is considerable. In 2013, expenditures on for-hire and private boats in the region 

from San Diego to Los Angeles exceeded $155 million, and shore fishing exceeded $161 million in 

expenditures (National Marine Fisheries Service, 2014). The recreational and commercial fishing 

industries are important statewide (National Marine Fisheries Service, 2015e), but particularly in the 

Southern California region where over 3.3 million angler days were recorded (more than half of the 

state total) in 2013 and 2,950 jobs were supported (National Marine Fisheries Service, 2014). 

More than 200 for-hire fishing vessels (e.g., charter boats) operate between Point Conception and the 

U.S.–Mexico border (California Marine Life Protection Act Initiative, 2009). These vessels operate from 

ports including San Diego, Oceanside, Dana Point, Newport Beach, Long Beach, Los Angeles, and from 

many other locations along the coast. Fishing destinations are generally fluid, changing in response to 

changing fishing conditions, but numerous charter boats fish the waters of the Southern California 

portion of the HSTT Study Area on a routine basis. Sport fishers pursue various fish species with almost 

exclusively rod and reel gear (hook and line); some divers also spearfish or take invertebrates (mainly 

lobster) by hand within the Southern California portion of the HSTT Study Area. The recreational fishing 

season can be influenced by changes in oceanographic conditions that affect the presence or absence of 

target species, but recreational fishing generally occurs in late spring through the fall (Pacific Fishery 

Management Council, 2007).

Charter boats and privately operated boats enter the Southern California Range Complex and water 

surrounding San Clemente Island for salt-water sport fishing, recreational diving, and other boating 

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Commercial Landings (millions of dollars)

Year

CRUSTACEANS

ECHINODERMS

FISHES

MOLLUSKS
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.11-30

3.11 Socioeconomics

activities. Commercial passenger fishing vessels servicing recreational fishing are more likely to travel 

farther offshore to target fish than private boats, due to the increased cost of longer trips, the ability of 

the larger for-hire vessels to go father, and the greater experience of professional captains. For-hire 

fishing vessels typically conduct day-long trips, returning to port in the evening; however, some charter 

boats occasionally spend nights at sea (Naval Undersea Warfare Center, 2009).

Offshore recreational fishing and diving are centered primarily around San Clemente Island and 

secondarily in the shallower waters over Tanner and Cortes banks. These banks are inherently more 

hazardous due to their distance from shore and open-ocean diving conditions. Additional information on 

recreational activities is provided in section 3.11.2.4 (Tourism).

Species popular with sport fishers include albacore and yellowfin tuna, black rockfish, yellowtail rockfish, 

kelp bass, California sheepshead, ocean whitefish, dolphin fish, marlin, barracuda, swordfish, and 

lingcod(National Marine Fisheries Service, 2015c; SportfishingSanDiego.com, 2015). From 2010 to 2014, 

the most commonly caught species by numbers of fish was mackerel, used as bait fish (Table 3.11-7). 

The most commonly caught non-bait species were kelp bass, barred surfperch, Pacific sanddab, 

California scorpionfish, and California lizardfish. By weight, the largest harvests were lingcod, black 

rockfish, yellowtail, yellowfin tuna, albacore, and vermilion rockfish (National Marine Fisheries Service, 

2015b). Species most often targeted in the vicinity of San Clemente Island and other offshore islands 

and on Tanner and Cortes banks are bluefin tuna, yellowfin tuna, yellowtail rockfish, and rock cod.

The catch from recreational fishing has remained constant over the past three years (2012–2014) at 

nearly 10 million fish per year (Figure 3.11-15) (Recreational Fisheries Information Network, 2015). 

California sport fishers release a substantial portion of their catch. An average of 35 percent of chub 

mackerel were released each year between 2010 and 2014. Over 80 percent of kelp bass were released 

during the same timeframe with 90 percent released in 2014. On the opposite end of the spectrum, 

approximately 85 percent of all Pacific sardines are harvested with only 15 percent released. The 

majority of sharks are released, and for several species, like the blue shark, horn shark, and white shark, 

nearly 100 percent are released. Sport fishers most often harvest albacore, Pacific sanddab, yellowfin 

tuna, and many of the rockfish species, releasing less than 10 percent.

Fishing destinations are generally fluid, in response to changing fishing conditions, but many charter 

boats fish waters of the Southern California Range Complex on a routine basis. Sport fishers pursue 

various fish species with almost exclusively rod and reel gear (hook and line); some divers also spearfish 

or take invertebrates (mainly lobster) by hand within the Southern California Range Complex. The 

recreational fishing season can be influenced by oceanographic conditions that may affect the presence 

or absence of target species, but generally occurs in late spring through the fall (Pacific Fishery 

Management Council, 2007).
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.11-31

3.11 Socioeconomics

Figure 3.11-15: Annual Recreational Catch in Southern California (2010–2014)

3.11.2.2.3 Transit Corridor

There are no data on commercial or recreational fishing within the transit corridor. Little or no fishing 

activity is likely to occur in the transit corridor because of the great distance from shore.

3.11.2.3 Subsistence Fishing

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency considers subsistence fishers to be people who rely on 

non-commercial fish as a major source of protein. Schumann and Macinko (Schumann & Macinko, 

2007a) discuss the difficulties in defining “subsistence” and who meets the definition of a subsistence 

fisher. The lack of a clear and consistent definition often leads to fisheries management policies that fail 

to recognize the importance of subsistence fisheries in coastal communities (Schumann & Macinko, 

2007a). Much of the research supporting the limited policy and regulation of subsistence fishing in the 

United States is based on the practices of Native Alaskans, which is not necessarily applicable to other 

communities (Schumann & Macinko, 2007a).

Subsistence fishers tend to consume fish and shellfish at higher rates than other fishers, and for a 

greater percentage of the year, because of cultural and economic factors. There are no particular criteria 

or thresholds (such as income level or frequency of fishing) that define subsistence fishers; however, 

survey-based studies indicate that Native Americans, lower income urban populations, and 

Asian-Americans are more likely to be subsistence fishers (Gassel, 1997; Schumann & Macinko, 2007b). 

Regions with a high percentage of individuals below the poverty line or a high percentage classified as 

Native American or Asian may have a greater number of subsistence fishers.

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Number of Fish (millions)

Year

Released

Harvest
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.11-32

3.11 Socioeconomics

Low-income populations would have limited means and opportunity to travel offshore into federal 

waters (i.e., beyond 3 NM from shore) to fish. Thus, it is assumed that the majority of subsistence fishing 

would occur in waters close to the coastline. A variety of fish are caught mainly by hook and line from 

beaches, piers, and small boats (Pitchon & Norman, 2012a; Stevenson et al., 2012b). Inshore fishing 

usually occurs within sight of the shoreline in bays, flats, and marshes or under piers, bridges, or near 

the jetties where water is generally less than 100 ft. deep. Boats used by subsistence fishers are 

generally smaller, affordable, and designed for use in nearshore, relatively shallow waters.

3.11.2.3.1 Hawaii Range Complex

There have been no comprehensive surveys of subsistence-fishing activities in Hawaii; however, the 

contribution to local economies and communities is considered substantial (Zeller et al., 2014) and has 

been an integral way of life for Native Hawaiians for centuries (McClenachan & Kittinger, 2013b). The 

cultural and economic value of subsistence fishing to Native Hawaiians is considered an important 

component of many communities, particularly rural communities (Pooley, 1993), which strive to 

preserve a long-standing way of life (McClenachan & Kittinger, 2013a; Steutermann-Rogers, 2015). 

Recent efforts aimed at sustaining subsistence fishing practices have resulted in the establishment of 

community-based subsistence fishing areas (Levine & Richmond, 2014; Steutermann-Rogers, 2015). 

These areas were established through coordination between communities practicing subsistence or 

traditional fishing and state and local governments, an approach that recent studies have shown to be 

effective at achieving the regulatory goals of sustaining the fishery (Ayers & Kittinger, 2014; 

Steutermann-Rogers, 2015).

To aid in the preservation of this practice, Hawaii’s Governor signed into law the first-ever 

Community-Based Subsistence Fishing Area rules for Hāena on the island of Kauai (Khon2, 2015; 

Steutermann-Rogers, 2015). The new rules set bag limits for lobster, octopus, and urchins; prohibit the 

taking of marine snails for two years because of their imperiled state; provide restrictions on the types 

of fishing gear and methods that may be used; and prohibit commercial fishing in the subsistence fishing 

area. The state is responsible for enforcement, but the community takes on a type of 

neighborhood-watch function and engages visitors in the practices and importance of preserving 

subsistence fishing.

It is difficult to separate data on subsistence fishing from other types of non-commercial fishing (e.g., 

recreational), because both types are often conducted on the same trip. Data reconstruction efforts 

estimate that the non-commercial, including subsistence, fishing in Hawaii has traditionally far exceeded

commercial landings, particularly prior to European contact (McClenachan & Kittinger, 2013b). The 

trend has continued into modern times, when, in 2000, McClenachan and Kittinger (2013b) estimated

that the non-commercial catch exceeded commercial landings by as much as 15 times by weight.

3.11.2.3.2 Southern California Range Complex

In Southern California, many people fish off piers and in local bays, harbors, and waterways for regular 

subsistence rather than for recreation (Pitchon & Norman, 2012a; Stevenson et al., 2012b). Nearshore 

waters surrounding the city of Coronado and the Silver Strand portion of the Southern California Range 

Complex provide fishing opportunities in San Diego Bay and along the Pacific coast. In Los Angeles 

County, where a high cost of living and low incomes have produced food insecurity among certain 

populations, subsistence fishing is common, particularly among people who have a non-white, 

non-European/American ethnicity (Stevenson et al., 2012a). Pitchon and Norman (2012b) reported 

results from a survey conducted at four piers in Los Angeles County that 43 percent of respondents were 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.11-33

3.11 Socioeconomics

from Spanish, Hispanic, or Latino backgrounds. A large percentage of fishers of Asian descent were 

observed, including Samoan, Vietnamese, and Chinese; however, many declined to respond to the 

survey or did not speak English proficiently enough to complete the survey. A number of respondents 

reported fishing for both recreational and subsistence purposes, which highlights the difficulty in 

obtaining data specific to just subsistence fisheries. Although the economic value of subsistence 

fisheries may often be low in Southern California, they may be critical for the livelihoods of many 

communities.

3.11.2.3.3 Transit Corridor

It is assumed that there is no subsistence fishing within the transit corridor. It is highly unlikely that any 

substantial fishing activity occurs in the transit corridor because of the great distance from shore.

3.11.2.4 Tourism

Coastal tourism and recreation include the full range of tourism, leisure, and recreationally oriented 

activities that take place in the coastal zone and the offshore coastal waters. These activities include 

coastal tourism development (e.g., hotels, resorts, restaurants, food industry, vacation homes, and 

second homes) and the infrastructure supporting coastal development (e.g., retail businesses, marinas, 

fishing tackle stores, dive shops, fishing piers, recreational boating harbors, beaches, and recreational 

fishing facilities). Also included are ecotourism and recreational activities such as recreational boating, 

cruises, swimming, surfing, snorkeling, diving, and sightseeing (National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration, 1998). 

3.11.2.4.1 Hawaii Range Complex

Tourism represents the largest influx of private capital into the Hawaii economy (Hawai'i Tourism 

Authority, 2015b). Tourism contributed $1.6 billion in tax revenue and generated $14.9 billion in visitor 

spending in 2014, which equates to an average of $40.6 million per day. Approximately $20 million is 

spent per day on Oahu. Tourism is also the biggest generator of jobs in Hawaii, supporting 165,000 jobs 

in 2014. Over 8 million visitors arrived in Hawaii in 2014, primarily by air; only 124,000 visitors arrived by 

cruise ship (Hawai'i Tourism Authority, 2015a). On any given day, over 200,000 visitors are in Hawaii

(Hawai'i Tourism Authority, 2015b). Forecasts indicate that visitor arrivals will continue to increase each 

year through 2018, the last year for which estimates are projected. Visitor arrivals increased 1.7 percent 

in 2013, 2.3 percent in 2014, and are estimated to increase by 4.2 percent in 2015. Visitor arrivals are 

projected to increase from 2016 through 2018, but at lower annual rates of 1.5 percent in 2016, 0.9 

percent in 2017, and 1.1 percent in 2018. Despite these more modest increases, visitation will continue 

to contribute to a steady increase in the State’s gross domestic product (Department of Business 

Economic Development and Tourism, 2015; University of Hawaii, 2015).

The waters surrounding the Main Hawaiian Islands are used for a variety of recreational purposes

including tourism. The intensity of use generally declines with increasing distance from shore, although 

specific resources in the open-ocean area may result in a concentration of use (e.g., seamounts are 

preferred fishing and diving locations). Offshore areas that are shielded by landmasses from the full 

force of wind and waves, such as the channels between Maui and adjacent islands, are preferred areas 

for recreational boating and diving (Figure 3.11-16). The highest densities of recreational vessel traffic is 

centered around southern Oahu, a popular tourist area, and along the leeward coasts of the other 

frequently visited islands.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.11-34

3.11 Socioeconomics

Figure 3.11-16: Recreational Vessel Densities in the Hawaii Range Complex
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.11-35

3.11 Socioeconomics

In addition, there are numerous beaches and parks throughout the islands (Figure 3.11-17, Figure 

3.11-18, and Figure 3.11-19).

Many tourism activities use Hawaii’s coastal and offshore waters. Navy vessels present in the waters of 

the Hawaii Range Complex represent a small fraction of the overall boat traffic, and, correspondingly, 

account for only a small fraction of the circumstances that have the potential to limit public access in the 

open-ocean area around Hawaii (Mintz & Filadelfo, 2011; Mintz, 2012b).

Recreational fishing in Hawaii is very important economically with resident and non-resident anglers 

spending over $750 million on trips and equipment in 2006. The economic impact of these expenditures

added $380.6 million to the economy, generated $253.6 million in income, supported 7,000 jobs, and 

generated $105.0 million in government revenue in 2006 (Gentner & Steinback, 2008). More recently, 

Hutt et al. (2015) reported on the economic contributions of bait and tackle retailers in Hawaii. Over 

$22.6 million in expenditures added $38 million into the economy, generated $19 million in income, and 

supported 285 jobs. 

Tourism, and by extension recreational fishing by tourists, varies seasonally. Additionally, the country or 

region of origin (e.g., U.S. Pacific coast, U.S. Atlantic coast, Japan) of tourists varies seasonally, 

influencing the types of activities in which tourists participate during the year (Hawai'i Tourism 

Authority, 2015a). Surfing is a popular activity with residents and tourists in nearshore waters off all of 

the Main Hawaiian Islands. The popularity of a surfing beach varies seasonally with the swell, which 

typically approaches from the north in winter months and from the south in summer.

The whale watching industry has grown worldwide since its inception in the 1950s (O’Connor et al., 

2009). In Hawaii, approximately 30 percent of first time visitors and 20 percent of returning visitors take 

some type of a boat tour, which includes whale watching tours (Hawai'i Tourism Authority, 2015a). 

Humpback whale watching around the Main Hawaiian Islands peaks from January through March. 

Whale watching contributes approximately $20 million annually to the State’s economy (National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2013). Dolphin cruises are also popular with tourists and occur 

year round. 

Marine mammal sightings are expected to occur from the coast to 50 NM offshore, including the areas 

off the Pacific Missile Range Facility, close to shore at Pyramid Rock Beach on Oahu, or areas within the 

100-fathom contours such as the Molokai–Lanai–Maui–Kahoolawe channels and Penguin Bank. 

Although tourist day trips typically stay closer to shore or from beach vantage points, these activities can 

occur throughout the Hawaii Range Complex. Additional information on humpback whales, including 

description, habitat, abundance, and distribution, is provided in section 3.7 (Marine Mammals).
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.11-36

3.11 Socioeconomics

Figure 3.11-17: Main Hawaiian Islands Recreation Areas
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.11-37

3.11 Socioeconomics

Figure 3.11-18: Kauai–Niihau Island Recreation Areas
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.11-38

3.11 Socioeconomics

Notes: MCB = Marine Corps Base, MCTAB = Marine Corps Training Area Bellows

Figure 3.11-19: Oahu Island Recreation Areas
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.11-39

3.11 Socioeconomics

3.11.2.4.2 Southern California Range Complex

Travel and tourism are important to the Southern California economy. In 2014, travel-related spending, 

earnings (after tax profit or net income), and room sales and occupancy taxes added over $85 billion to 

the Southern California economy (Visit California, 2015) (Figure 3.11-20). In addition, over 413,000 jobs 

in Southern California were supported by travel and tourism (Figure 3.11-21). 

Figure 3.11-20: Economic Impact of Visitors to Southern California in 2014

Figure 3.11-21: Jobs Supported by the Travel Industry in Southern California in 2014

$15

$25

$11

$5

$9

$3

$5

$8

$4

$0

$5

$10

$15

$20

$25

$30

$35

$40

$45

San Diego County Los Angles County Orange County

Billions of Dollars

Tax Room Sales and

Occupancy

Earnings

Total Spending

131,000

187,000

95,000

Southern California Tourism Jobs

San Diego County Los Angeles County Orange County
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.11-40

3.11 Socioeconomics

Marine environments in the Southern California portion of the HSTT Study Area are popular locations for 

recreational activities including sightseeing, whale watching, sport fishing, boating, diving, and surfing. 

Most recreation and tourism activities occur close to the mainland coast of Southern California or 

between the mainland and the Channel Islands (Figure 3.11-22). The shallower waters near the Channel 

Islands and some offshore banks, such as Tanner and Cortes Banks, are especially popular areas for 

Self-Contained Underwater Breathing Apparatus (SCUBA) diving, fishing, and occasionally surfing. Very 

little recreational activity takes place in the southwestern portion of the Southern California Range 

Complex because of the great distance from land and deep waters.

Santa Catalina and Santa Barbara Islands are within the Study Area and visited by tourists. While Navy 

activities are conducted offshore of these islands, there is little interaction between the public and 

Navy activities.

Whale watching in Southern California waters focuses on the annual gray whale southward and 

northward migrations. The southward migration from Arctic feeding grounds to Baja California, Mexico 

where mating and calving take place, is primarily from December through February. The return 

migration northward peaks in April and May (O’Connor et al., 2009). Other marine mammal species like 

humpback whales, blue whales, and orcas are also seen during other times of the year. Though tourist 

day trips typically stay closer to the mainland, these activities can occur throughout the Southern 

California portion of the HSTT Study Area. The Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary is a popular 

destination for extended whale watching trips (O’Connor et al., 2009).

During fall and winter, charter boats and privately operated boats enter the Southern California OPAREA 

and San Clemente Island waters for salt-water sport fishing, recreational diving, surfing, and other 

boating activities (Figure 3.11-23). Salt-water sport fishing and recreational diving take place primarily 

around San Clemente Island, and to a lesser extent in the shallower waters over Tanner and Cortes 

banks. In winter, when large swells form in the North Pacific, some charter and private vessels travel to 

Cortes Bank and Tanner Bank to surf extremely large waves created at the shallow banks, which rise 

from the seafloor to within 6 ft. from the surface at one location. The right oceanographic conditions 

can generate surfable waves that exceed 70 ft., attracting “big wave” surfers from all over the world 

(Casey, 2010). Distance from shore—the banks are approximately 34 and 40 NM from San Clemente 

Island—and the open ocean conditions make any recreational activities at Tanner Bank and Cortes Bank 

inherently more hazardous. Dive sites occur throughout the nearshore areas at various shipwrecks and 

reefs and, surfing off of Point Loma and at several sites off Santa Catalina Island are popular.

The nearshore waters off San Clemente Island are a more popular destination than the more remote 

banks. Surfers can venture year round to the breaks off of San Clemente Island to surf the island’s south 

points (China and Pyramid Points) and up the west shore of the island depending on the swell direction 

of the season (Figure 3.11-23). Although both areas are within the Southern California Range Complex 

and are used throughout the year, they are not used often because of the time and effort it takes to 

reach the sites and the infrequent confluence of oceanographic conditions necessary for good surfing.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.11-41

3.11 Socioeconomics

Notes: HSTT = Southern California Training and Testing

Figure 3.11-22: Recreational Vessel Densities in the Southern California Portion of the HSTT Study Area
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.11-42

3.11 Socioeconomics

Figure 3.11-23: Recreation Areas Around San Clemente Island
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.11-43

3.11 Socioeconomics

San Clemente Island’s relatively warm waters, good underwater visibility, and largely pristine diving 

conditions make it a popular diving destination (Channel Islands Dive Adventures, 2015). Charter dive 

trips to specific sites are often published and booked as many as 6 months in advance. Diving occurs 

year round, though the number of trips to San Clemente Island and the banks appear to peak during 

lobster season (October–March).

San Diego Bay is a natural harbor adjacent to downtown San Diego, and is frequently used by 

recreational boaters who access the Bay from surrounding marinas and mooring areas. The City of San 

Diego, City of Coronado, City of Imperial Beach, City of Chula Vista, and National City surround and have 

an interest in activities within San Diego Bay. The Sweetwater Canal, located in south San Diego Bay, is 

the site of the National City Marina and Pepper Park. The Chula Vista Marina is located farther south. 

Both marinas are popular access points used by recreational boaters who spend time in the Bay and 

traveling through the Bay to access the Pacific Ocean (Figure 3.11-24).

Fiddler’s Cove Marina, operated by the Navy, is located on the bayside south of the Silver Strand

Training Complex-North (Figure 3.11-24). The marina has approximately 150 moorings and 

approximately 130 dock slips; the recreational vehicle park offers year round camping. Both facilities are 

open to active duty, retirees, Department of Defense civilians, and sponsored civilian guests.

Glorietta Bay is located on the bayside north of the Silver Strand Training Complex-North and is used by 

the public for recreation and pleasure boating. Navy piers at the Naval Amphibious Base Coronado 

extend into Glorietta Bay from its northern shore and support small boat training activities at the Silver 

Strand Training Complex (Figure 3.11-24).

In San Diego Bay, there is a designated security zone extending from the northern and eastern boundary 

of Naval Amphibious Base Coronado prohibiting all public access (33 CFR 334.860) (Figure 3.11-24). A 

separate restricted area lies on the south side of Naval Air Base Coronado on the bay side and extends 

south to Fiddler’s Cove. Activities including swimming, fishing, waterskiing, and mooring are all 

prohibited; however vessels are permitted to transit through the area. All vessels entering the restricted 

area must proceed across the area by the most direct route and without unnecessary delay. For vessels 

under sail, necessary tacking constitutes a direct route. A portion of the restricted area extending 120 ft. 

from pier heads and from the low water mark on shore where piers do not exist is closed to all persons 

and vessels except those owned by, under hire to, or performing work for, the Naval Amphibious Base. 

Recreational activities offshore of the Silver Strand Training Complex and the Naval Amphibious Base 

Coronado are permitted outside of the security zone and restricted area and include sport fishing, bait 

fishing for the sport fishers, lobster fishing, and sailboat regattas. Organized activities (such as sail races 

and regattas) within the restricted area may be allowed if a request has been made to the Commanding 

Officer, Naval Base, Coronado. Silver Strand State Beach offers ocean side camping, kite surfing, and 

surfing. The City of Coronado beach, which lies between Naval Air Station North Island and Naval 

Amphibious Base Coronado, is a major public beach. The Young Men’s Christian Association Camp Surf 

at the Silver Strand Training Complex – South is a major recreational facility for military and civilian 

families and offers surfing and beach activities.

3.11.2.4.3 Transit Corridor

It is assumed that there is no tourism activity within the transit corridor. It is highly unlikely that tourism

activities would occur in the transit corridor because of the great distance from shore.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.11-44

3.11 Socioeconomics

Notes: YMCA = Young Men’s Christian Association, NAB = Naval Amphibious Base, USFWS = United States Fish and 

Wildlife Service, NAS = Naval Air Station

Figure 3.11-24: Recreation Areas near Navy Facilities on San Diego Bay
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.11-45

3.11 Socioeconomics

3.11.3 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

This section evaluates how and to what degree the activities described in Chapter 2 (Description of 

Proposed Action and Alternatives) could impact socioeconomic resources of the Study Area. Tables 2.6-1

through 2.6-5 present the baseline and proposed training and testing activity locations for each 

alternative, including the number of events occurring annually and over a five-year period. Each 

socioeconomic resource stressor is introduced, analyzed by alternative, analyzed for training and testing 

activities, and then a National Environmental Policy Act determination is made by stressor. Tables B-1 

and B-2 in Appendix B (Activity Stressor Matrices) shows the warfare areas and associated stressors that 

were considered for analysis of socioeconomic resources. The stressors vary in intensity, frequency, 

duration, and location within the Study Area. The primary stressors applicable to socioeconomic 

resources in the Study Area and that are analyzed include the following:

• Accessibility (availability of access on the ocean and in the air)

• Airborne acoustics (weapons firing, aircraft, and vessel noise)

• Physical disturbance and strikes (aircraft, vessels and in-water devices, military 

expended materials)

Secondary stressors resulting in indirect impacts on socioeconomic resources are discussed in section 

3.11.4 (Secondary Stressors). This section evaluates the impacts of the alternatives on the economy of 

the region of influence as well as social impacts. The evaluation addresses how the action alters the way 

individuals live, work, play, relate to one another, and function as members of society. Because 

proposed HSTT activities are predominantly offshore, socioeconomic impacts would be associated with 

economic activity, employment, income, and social conditions (e.g., livelihoods) of industries or 

operations that use the ocean resources within the Study Area. Although the typical socioeconomic 

considerations such as population, housing, and employment are not applicable, this section will analyze 

the potential for economic impacts on marine-based activities and coastal communities. When 

considering impacts on recreational activities such as fishing, boating, and tourism, both the economic 

impact associated with revenue from recreational tourism and public enjoyment of recreational 

activities are considered.

The proposed HSTT training and testing activities were evaluated to identify specific components that 

could act as stressors by directly or indirectly affecting sources of commercial transportation and 

shipping, commercial and recreational fishing, subsistence fishing, and tourism. For each stressor, a 

discussion of impacts on these sources is included for each alternative. The analysis includes 

consideration of the mitigation that the Navy will implement to avoid potential impacts on seafloor 

resources, some of which are important socioeconomic resources.

The analysis indicated that the relative potential for socioeconomic impacts would be similar across 

various areas and marine ecosystems in the Study Area. Therefore, the analysis of environmental 

consequences was not broken down by large marine ecosystem. Based on an initial screening of 

potential impacts of sonar maintenance and testing, pierside locations have been eliminated from 

detailed consideration in the analysis of impacts on energy, mineral extraction, and transportation and 

shipping. Elimination of these resources was based on the extremely limited potential for active sonar to 

damage infrastructure or interfere with transportation operations.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.11-46

3.11 Socioeconomics

3.11.3.1 Impacts on Accessibility

Navy training and testing activities have the potential to temporarily limit access to areas of the ocean 

for a variety of human activities associated with commercial transportation and shipping, commercial 

recreation and fishing, subsistence fishing, and tourism in the Study Area. This section details the range 

of possible impacts, including a description of existing activities and associated impacts. Potential 

impacts from each alternative are analyzed below. In 2015, the Navy completed the Southern California 

and Northern California Range Complexes Encroachment Action Plan to evaluate the use of offshore and 

nearshore waters by military and civilian stakeholders (U.S. Department of the Navy, 2015a). The Navy 

does not possess exclusive rights to these waters. Based on freedom of the seas and open access rights 

to citizens and commercial organizations alike, these same waters are used by civilians for commercial 

and recreational activities. For safety reasons, Navy training and testing activities can occasionally limit 

public access to airspace and nearshore and offshore waters in the Study Area. Similarly, the public’s use 

of the airspace and sea space can conflict with Navy training and testing activities.

When training or testing activities are scheduled that require specific areas to be free of nonparticipating vessels and aircraft due to public safety concerns, the Navy requests that the U.S. Coast 

Guard and Federal Aviation Administration issue Notices to Mariners and Notices to Airmen, 

respectively, to warn the public of upcoming Navy activities. Many training and testing activities occur in 

established restricted areas and danger zones as published on navigational and aeronautical charts.

Some frequently used areas have standing Notices to Mariners and Notices to Airmen to allow real-time, 

immediate use.

Limits on accessibility to certain areas of the Study Area due to Navy training and testing would 

essentially remain unchanged from the current conditions. If access by the public to an area is hindered 

to the extent that equipment (e.g., fishing gear) cannot be monitored or used, then there would be an 

impact if this condition would directly contribute to loss of income, revenue, or employment. 

Disturbance to human activities associated with payrolls, revenue, or employment is quantified by the 

amount of time the activity may be halted or rerouted and the ability to perform the task in another 

location. The Navy is not proposing to add any new restricted areas and proposes to continue the same 

type of temporary area closures that have occurred for decades. 

Accessibility, or restrictions to the availability of air and ocean space, would be a temporary condition. 

While mariners and pilots have a responsibility to be aware of conditions on the ocean and in the air, it 

is not expected that direct conflicts in accessibility would occur. The locations of restricted areas are 

published and available to mariners and pilots, who typically review such information before boating or 

flying in any area. Restricted areas are typically avoided by experienced mariners and pilots. Prior to 

initiating a training activity, the Navy would follow standard operating procedures to visually scan an 

area to ensure that nonparticipants are not present. If nonparticipants are present, the Navy delays, 

moves, or cancels its activity. Accessibility is no longer restricted once the activity concludes. Additional 

information on existing Navy procedures for mitigating potential impacts on accessibility are described 

in the Southern California and Northern California Range Complexes Navy Encroachment Action Plan 

(U.S. Department of the Navy, 2015a). 

3.11.3.1.1 Impacts on Socioeconomic Activities from Limiting Accessibility

3.11.3.1.1.1 Commercial Transportation and Shipping

The offshore and nearshore areas of the Study Areas include established Navy OPAREAs used for 

military training and testing activities. Commercial vessels entering OPAREAs, including established 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.11-47

3.11 Socioeconomics

restricted areas and danger zones, within the Study Area operate under maritime regulations and are 

not limited by Navy activities. Potential disruptions to commercial shipping are limited or avoided by the 

U.S. Coast Guard issuing Notices to Mariners. Notices to Mariners advise commercial ship operators, 

commercial fishers, recreational boaters, and other users of the area that the military will be operating 

in a specific area, allowing them to plan their activities accordingly. These temporary clearance 

procedures are established and implemented for the safety of the public and have been employed 

regularly over time without substantial socioeconomic impacts on commercial shipping activities.

3.11.3.1.1.2 Commercial and Recreational Fishing

Commercial and recreational fishing activities make an appreciable contribution of 10s of millions of 

dollars to the overall economy within the Study Area (Table 3.11-5, Table 3.11-7). The Navy has 

performed military activities within this region in the past with limited interruption to fishing or 

recreational activities. Commercial and recreational interests such as fishing, boating, and beach use are 

only restricted temporarily. Temporary closing of areas within the Study Area (typically offshore areas of 

the Pacific Missile Range Facility and areas in the vicinity of San Clemente Island) for security and safety 

does not limit public access to surrounding areas. Areas that are temporarily closed are only closed for 

the duration of the activity and are re-opened at the completion of the activity. 

These temporary range clearance procedures for safety purposes do not adversely affect commercial 

and recreational fishing activities because displacement is of short duration (less than 24 hours). When 

range clearance is required, the public is notified via Notices to Mariners issued by the U.S. Coast Guard. 

These measures provide mariners with advance notice of areas being used by the Navy for training and 

testing activities. This allows the public to select an alternate destination without appreciable effect to 

their activities. 

Scheduled closures to Navy training and testing areas are also posted on several publicly accessible Navy 

websites. Closures affecting waters around San Clemente Island are posted at 

http://www.scisland.org/schedules/safetyZoneUse/days/1.html. The public website for the Naval Base 

Coronado (http://www.cnic.navy.mil/Coronado) provides advance notice of training activities 

originating from the base. 

The Notices to Mariners and postings on Navy websites are intended to prevent fishers and other 

boaters from expending time and fuel resources transiting to a closed location. In 2009, the Navy 

completed a study to assess the effects of Navy activities on commercial and recreational fishing near 

San Clemente Island in the Southern California Range Complex (Naval Undersea Warfare Center, 2009). 

The 2009 Southern California Fisheries Study resulted in several recommendations to improve 

communications between the Navy and commercial and recreational fishers. Since the completion of 

the study, the Navy has developed several methods for avoiding conflicts between civilian and military 

activities during potentially hazardous training and testing events off of San Clemente Island.

• Establishment of publically accessible websites allows the public to view the schedule of past, 

current, and upcoming closures. Temporary closure of a portion of the safety zone to 

accommodate a potentially hazardous activity is posted on the website. Most areas within the 

safety zone are accessible to the public when activities are not taking place; however, section 

“G” of the safety zone and Wilson Cove (Figure 3.11-23) are permanently restricted due to high 

use (in the case of section G) and the presence of mission critical infrastructure (in the case of 

Wilson Cove).
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.11-48

3.11 Socioeconomics

• The Navy issues regular and up-to-date broadcasts of scheduled closures by radio for fishers and 

other boaters that do not have access to the website.

• The Navy specifies if a scheduled activity requires a complete closure or if fishing or boating can 

occur simultaneously with the Navy activity.

• The Navy maintains a 24-hour watch on the safety zone. Vessels in the area can contact the 

Navy on marine-band radio, “MARBAND 82A,” to request authorization to transit (only) through 

section G or to check the status of other portions of the safety zone that may be closed 

temporarily.

• The Navy has and will continue to participate in public outreach events to discuss the 

importance of safety zones in sustaining public safety and the military's critical need to conduct 

training and testing in the waters around San Clemente Island. Recently, the U.S. Coast Guard 

invited the Navy to participate in a televised press conference at the beginning of the 2015–

2016 lobster season to present information on the San Clemente Island safety zone website.

Upon completion of the training or testing activity, the safety zone would be reopened and fishers and 

boaters would be able to return to the previously closed area. To help manage competing demands and 

maintain public access in the Study Area, the Navy conducts its offshore operations in a manner that 

minimizes restrictions to commercial fishers. Navy ships, commercial fishers, and recreational users can 

operate within the area together while maintaining a safe separation distance. If necessary, Navy 

participants would relocate to avoid conflicts with non-Navy participants and maintain the safety of 

non-participants. 

Only specific areas within the Hawaii Range Complex and Southern California Range Complex are

designated as danger zones or restricted areas. In addition to these areas, the Navy may temporarily 

establish an exclusion zone for the duration of a specific activity (e.g., an activity involving the 

detonation of explosives) to prevent non-participating vessels and aircraft from entering an unsafe area. 

Exclusion zones typically have a radius of only a couple of miles (this varies depending on the activity);

are surveyed before, during, and after the activity takes place; and end after the activity is completed. 

Establishment of an exclusion zone would temporarily limit commercial and recreational fishing in that 

specific area; however, other areas in the Study Area would remain open to commercial and 

recreational fishing (U.S. Department of the Navy, 2015a). See section 3.12 (Public Health and Safety) for 

more information on safety measures employed by the Navy to protect the public.

The Navy does not exclude fishing activities from occurring in areas of the Hawaii Range Complex and

Southern California Range Complex that are not being used by the Navy during training and testing 

activities. Off the Main Hawaiian Islands, the largest catch, by weight, are of tuna species (Table 3.11-5),

which are fished for using long-line fishing gear. Regulations require that the long-line fishery occurs 

beyond 50 to 75 NM during most of the year, with the exception of October through January, where the 

limit moves landward to between 25 and 50 NM from shore. The market squid fishery is California’s 

largest fishery by weight and value for commercial fishers (Table 3.11-7). The squid are considered a 

nearshore species, and are known to occur in bays (e.g., Monterey Bay). 

The Navy has been conducting training and testing activities within the Study Area for decades, and has 

taken and will continue to take measures to prevent interruption of commercial and recreational fishing 

activities. To minimize potential military/civilian interactions, the Navy will continue to publish 

scheduled operation times and locations on publicly accessible Navy websites and through U.S. Coast 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.11-49

3.11 Socioeconomics

Guard issued Notices to Mariners up to 6 months in advance. These efforts are intended to ensure that 

commercial and recreational users are aware of the Navy’s plans and allow users to plan their activities 

to avoid scheduled Navy activities. Therefore, decreases in the frequency of fishing trips or in the 

availability of desirable fishing locations due to Navy activities is not expected. Commercial and 

recreational fishing activities could occur in the area before and after the temporary restriction. Should 

the Navy find nonparticipants present in an exclusion zone, the Navy would halt or delay (and 

reschedule, if necessary) all potentially hazardous activity until the nonparticipants have exited the 

exclusion zone.

3.11.3.1.1.3 Subsistence Fishing

Subsistence fishing typically occurs from the shore or from small vessels within state waters (3 NM or 

closer to shore). Navy training and testing activities occur farther from shore in offshore waters where 

subsistence fishing typically does not occur. Therefore, there would be no foreseeable impact on 

subsistence fishing from the proposed training and testing activities in the Study Area.

3.11.3.1.1.4 Tourism

Tourism activities make an appreciable contribution to the overall economy within the Study Area. 

Temporary range clearance procedures in the area, mainly around the Pacific Missile Range Facility and 

San Clemente Island, for safety purposes, do not adversely affect tourism activities because 

displacement is of short duration (typically less than 24 hours) and are in areas where tourism activities 

are not as prevalent. The Navy temporarily limits public access only to areas where there is a risk of 

injury or property damage and publishes scheduled activities through the use of Notices to Mariners 

issued by the U.S. Coast Guard and publically accessible websites. The Navy strives to conduct its 

operations in a manner that is compatible with recreational ocean users by minimizing temporary access 

restrictions. Published notices allow recreational users to adjust their routes to avoid temporary 

restricted areas. If civilian vessels are within a testing or training area at the time of a scheduled 

operation, Navy personnel would continue operations only where and when it is safe and possible to 

avoid the civilian vessels. If avoidance is not safe or possible, the operation would be halted and may 

relocate or be delayed. In some instances where safety requires exclusive use of a specific area, 

nonparticipants in the area are asked to relocate to a safer area for the duration of the operation.

Therefore, there would be no foreseeable impact on tourism from conducting proposed training and 

testing activities in the Study Area.

The Navy has received comments on previous EISs expressing concern that marine mammals could be 

extirpated from areas where they have been observed or otherwise available for whale watching and 

similar recreational or tourist activities. As described in detail in section 3.7 (Marine Mammals), Navy 

training and testing has been occurring in the same areas for decades and there are no data or other 

information to indicate that populations of any marine mammals, including those popular with whale 

watchers, have been or would be affected. This assessment is based on four indicators from areas in the 

Pacific where Navy training and testing has continued for decades: (1) evidence suggesting or 

documenting increases in the numbers of marine mammals present in areas where Navy operates, 

(2) examples of documented presence and site fidelity of species and long-term residence by individual 

animals of some species, (3) use of training and testing areas for breeding and nursing activities, and 

(4) eight years of comprehensive monitoring data indicating a lack of any observable effects to marine 

mammal populations as a result of Navy training and testing activities. Therefore, no effects on wildlife 

viewing and other wildlife-dependent recreational activities and no economic effects on tourism (such 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.11-50

3.11 Socioeconomics

as whale watching) and related businesses dependent on observing wildlife in their natural habitats are 

anticipated.

3.11.3.1.1.5 Impacts on Accessibility Under Alternative 1

Impacts on Accessibility Under Alternative 1 for Training Activities

Under Alternative 1, potential accessibility impacts would be associated primarily with air warfare, 

surface warfare, anti-submarine warfare, mine warfare, and amphibious warfare. Training activities 

would continue at current levels and within established ranges and training locations. There would be 

no anticipated impacts on commercial transportation and shipping, commercial and recreational fishing, 

subsistence fishing, and tourism because inaccessibility to areas of co-use would be temporary and of 

short duration (hours). In addition, the Navy has implemented recommendations from the 2009 

Southern California Fisheries Study, which should improve communications between the Navy and 

fishers, both recreational and commercial, and reduce the number of instances when fishers must leave 

a temporarily closed area (Naval Undersea Warfare Center, 2009). Based on the Navy’s standard 

operating procedures and the large expanse of the Study Area that would be available to the public, 

accessibility impacts would be negligible.

Impacts on Accessibility Under Alternative 1 for Testing Activities

Under Alternative 1, potential accessibility issues would be associated primarily with air warfare, surface 

warfare, anti-submarine warfare, mine warfare, amphibious warfare, vessel evaluations, and other 

weapons platform testing. Testing activities would continue at current levels and within established 

training and testing ranges. There would be no anticipated impacts on commercial transportation and 

shipping, commercial and recreational fishing, subsistence fishing, and tourism because inaccessibility to 

areas of co-use would be temporary and of short duration (hours). In addition, the Navy has 

implemented recommendations from the 2009 Southern California Fisheries Study, which should 

improve communications between the Navy and fishers, both recreational and commercial, and reduce 

the number of instances when fishers must leave a temporarily closed area (Naval Undersea Warfare 

Center, 2009). Based on the Navy’s standard operating procedures and the large expanse of the Study 

Area that would be available to the public, accessibility impacts would be negligible.

3.11.3.1.1.6 Impacts on Accessibility Under Alternative 2

Alternative 2 consists of the activities described under Alternative 1 but with a nominal increase in the 

use of some sonar systems, explosives, and associated vessel and aircraft activity. The locations of these 

activities would remain the same as described under Alternative 1. Alternative 2 also includes the 

training and testing of personnel required for proficiency with these systems.

Impacts on Accessibility Under Alternative 2 for Training Activities

Under Alternative 2, potential accessibility issues would be the same as those associated with 

Alternative 1. There would be no changes to the Navy’s standard operating procedures defining safety 

precautions and actions taken by the Navy to protect the public during hazardous training activities on 

the ocean. There would be no anticipated impacts from Alternative 2 training activities on commercial 

transportation and shipping, commercial and recreational fishing, subsistence fishing, and tourism, 

because training activities would place only temporary and short duration (hours) restrictions on public 

use of scheduled training areas. In addition, the Navy is implementing recommendations from the 2009 

Southern California Fisheries Study which should improve communications between the Navy and 

recreational fishermen and reduce the number of instances when fishers must leave a temporarily 

closed area (Naval Undersea Warfare Center, 2009). Based on the Navy’s standard operating procedures 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.11-51

3.11 Socioeconomics

and the large expanse of the Study Area that would be available to the public, accessibility impacts 

would be negligible.

Impacts on Accessibility Under Alternative 2 for Testing Activities

Under Alternative 2, potential accessibility issues would be the same as those associated with 

Alternative 1. Testing of some sonar systems and explosives would increase nominally within the Study 

Area. There would be no changes to the Navy’s standard operating procedures defining safety 

precautions and actions taken by the Navy to protect the public during hazardous testing activities on 

the ocean. There would be no anticipated impacts from Alternative 2 testing activities on commercial 

transportation and shipping, commercial and recreational fishing, subsistence fishing, and tourism, 

because testing activities would place only temporary and short duration (hours) restrictions on public 

use of scheduled testing areas. In addition, the Navy is implementing recommendations from the 2009 

Southern California Fisheries Study, which should improve communications between the Navy and 

recreational fishermen and reduce the number of instances when fishers must leave a temporarily 

closed area (Naval Undersea Warfare Center, 2009). Based on the Navy’s standard operating procedures 

and the large expanse of the Study Area that would be available to the public, accessibility impacts 

would be negligible.

3.11.3.1.1.7 Impacts on Accessibility Under the No Action Alternative

Under the No Action Alternative, the Navy would not conduct the proposed training and testing 

activities in the HSTT Study Area. Various accessibility stressors (e.g., limits on access to desirable fishing 

locations) would not be introduced into the marine environment. Training and testing activities have 

occurred throughout the Study Area for decades, resulting in and sustaining increases in jobs, military 

and civilian infrastructure, and population growth in numerous towns, cities, and regions located along 

the Southern California coast and on the Main Hawaiian Islands.

While it is reasonable to assume that ceasing all training and testing activities associated with the 

Proposed Action would make certain areas where the Navy has conducted training and testing more 

accessible (i.e., available to the public more often), the effect would be minimal, because Navy 

operating areas are used for other purposes by the Navy and would likely remain in place for the 

foreseeable future. Military activities would continue to occur in some of the same areas (e.g., the range

at San Clemente Island). Furthermore, the Navy has implemented a number of methods to 

communicate upcoming activities that would result in temporary restrictions on access to training and 

testing areas. These methods, which include Notices to Mariners, Notices to Airmen, broadcasts on 

marine band radio, website postings, and direct communication with the public through media and local 

organizations, all serve to reduce impacts on accessibility. 

Ceasing training and testing activities may reduce the number and types of jobs available in locations 

where the Navy is a vital or even the primary economic driver sustaining local communities. For 

example, the use of munitions and other equipment for training and testing activities under the 

Proposed Action would no longer be needed, and, consequently, the number of jobs supporting those 

industries may be reduced or, alternatively, some jobs may be relocated. The secondary effects from 

reducing personnel who support Navy training and testing activities could include a decline in local 

business and a decrease in the need for infrastructure, such as schools. If jobs are relocated, a smaller 

population may no longer be able to sustain the local economy that developed to support the larger 

population. While more complex studies at the local level would need to be conducted to quantify 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.11-52

3.11 Socioeconomics

potential socioeconomic impacts from ceasing training and testing activities, it is highly likely that many, 

if not all, coastal communities would be impacted to varying degrees.

3.11.3.1.2 Summary of Potential Impacts on Accessibility

Access restrictions in the Navy training and testing areas would be temporary, and these conditions 

would return to normal upon completion of training and testing activities. The Navy limits access to 

areas where, due to the nature of the training or testing activity, there is a risk of injury or property 

damage. Through the use of Notices to Mariners, marine band radio, and postings on publicly accessible 

websites, the Navy provides information on scheduled closures that may limit access to areas also used 

by the public. See section 3.11.3.1.1.2 (Commercial and Recreational Fishing) for additional methods the 

Navy uses to communicate with the public about activities occurring at San Clemente Island. Similar 

procedures are implemented for other areas in the Study Area. Notification of upcoming training and 

testing activities allows the public to adjust their routes to avoid temporary restricted areas. If civilian 

vessels are within a testing or training area at the time of a scheduled activity, Navy personnel may

continue operations if it is safe and possible to do so. If avoidance of a non-participating vessel (e.g., 

fishing boat) is not safe or possible, the activity may relocate or be delayed until it can be conducted 

safely. For these reasons, limiting accessibility is unlikely to result in a direct loss of income, revenue,

employment, resource availability, or quality of experience.

3.11.3.2 Impacts from Airborne Acoustics

As an environmental stressor, loud noises, sonic booms, and vibrations generated from Navy training 

and testing activities such as weapons firing, in-air explosions, and aircraft transiting have the potential 

to disrupt wildlife and humans in the Study Area. The public might intermittently hear noise from ships 

or aircraft overflights if they are in the general vicinity of a training or testing event, but there would be 

no impact on public health and safety because of the infrequency and duration of events (section 3.12, 

Public Health and Safety).

3.11.3.2.1 Impacts on Socioeconomic Activities from Airborne Acoustics

Airborne noise would not impact commercial transportation and shipping. Based on the analysis of 

impacts from the Proposed Action, fish would not experience substantial impacts from airborne 

acoustics (section 3.6, Fishes). Invertebrates (section 3.4), also important commercial fishery resources, 

would not be affected by airborne acoustics, because most marine species are limited in their ability to 

sense sound. Therefore, airborne noise from Navy activities would not impact the availability of target 

species for commercial or recreational fishing or subsistence fishing.

Noise interference could decrease public enjoyment of recreational activities. These effects would occur 

on a temporary basis, only when weapons firing, in-air explosions, and aircraft transiting occur. Of these 

activities, Navy activities involving weapons firing and in-air explosions would only occur when the Navy 

can confirm the area is clear of nonparticipants, reducing the likelihood these activities would be a 

disturbance. The possibility of encountering some type of noise related to a training or testing activity is 

unlikely to deter a resident or tourist from participating in a recreational activity (e.g., a fishing trip) in 

nearshore or offshore areas. Most naval training would occur well out to sea, while civilian recreational 

activities are concentrated within a few miles of shore, resulting in minimal overlap and negligible 

impacts. Tourism and recreational activity revenue is not expected to be impacted by airborne noise.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.11-53

3.11 Socioeconomics

3.11.3.2.1.1 Impacts from Airborne Acoustics Under Alternative 1

Impacts from Airborne Acoustics Under Alternative 1 for Training Activities

Under Alternative 1, potential airborne noise impacts would be associated primarily with air warfare, 

surface warfare, anti-submarine warfare, mine warfare, and amphibious warfare. Training activities 

would continue at current levels and within established ranges and training locations. There would be 

no anticipated impacts on commercial transportation and shipping, commercial and recreational fishing, 

and subsistence fishing, because (1) most Navy training occurs well out to sea, while most civilian 

activities, including tourism, fishing, and recreational activities, occur closer to shore; (2) Navy training 

activities producing airborne noise are normally short term and temporary; and (3) Navy standard 

operating procedures are already in place to avoid impacts on civilian activities in training areas and 

would require that the area is clear of nonparticipants before initiating a training activity. Therefore, 

airborne noise impacts on tourism and recreational activity would be negligible.

Impacts from Airborne Acoustics Under Alternative 1 for Testing Activities

Under Alternative 1, potential airborne noise impacts would be associated primarily with air warfare, 

surface warfare, anti-submarine warfare, mine warfare, amphibious warfare, sea trials, and other 

weapons platform testing. Testing activities would continue at current levels and within established 

ranges and training locations. There would be no anticipated impacts on commercial transportation and 

shipping, commercial and recreational fishing, and subsistence fishing, because (1) most Navy training 

occurs well out to sea, while most civilian activities, including tourism, fishing, and recreational 

activities, occur closer to shore; (2) Navy training activities producing airborne noise are normally short 

term and temporary; and (3) Navy standard operating procedures are already in place to avoid impacts 

on civilian activities in training areas and would require that the area is clear of nonparticipants before 

initiating a training activity. Therefore, airborne noise impacts on tourism and recreational activity 

would be negligible.

3.11.3.2.1.2 Impacts from Airborne Acoustics Under Alternative 2

Alternative 2 consists of the activities described under Alternative 1 but with a nominal increase in the 

use of some sonar systems, explosives, and associated vessel and aircraft activity. The locations of these 

activities would remain the same as described under Alternative 1. Alternative 2 also includes the 

training and testing of personnel required for proficiency with these systems.

Impacts from Airborne Acoustics Under Alternative 2 for Training Activities

Under Alternative 2, airborne noise issues would be the same as those associated with Alternative 1, 

with the exception of a nominal increase in vessel and aircraft activity associated with an increase in the 

use of some sonar systems. However, the increase in airborne noise would be negligible. There would be 

no anticipated impacts from Alternative 2 training activities on commercial transportation and shipping, 

commercial and recreational fishing, and subsistence fishing, because (1) most Navy training occurs well 

out to sea, while most civilian activities, including tourism, fishing, and recreational activities, occur 

closer to shore; (2) Navy training activities producing airborne noise are normally short term and 

temporary; and (3) Navy standard operating procedures are already in place to avoid impacts on civilian 

activities in training areas and would require that the area is clear of nonparticipants before initiating a 

training activity. Therefore, airborne noise impacts on tourism and recreational activity would 

be negligible.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.11-54

3.11 Socioeconomics

Impacts from Airborne Acoustics Under Alternative 2 for Testing Activities

Under Alternative 2, airborne noise issues would be the same as those associated with Alternative 1, 

with the exception of a nominal increase in vessel and aircraft activity associated with an increase in the 

use of some sonar systems and explosives. However, the increase in airborne noise would be negligible. 

There would be no anticipated impacts from Alternative 2 testing activities on commercial 

transportation and shipping, commercial and recreational fishing, and subsistence fishing, because 

(1) most Navy training occurs well out to sea, while most civilian activities, including tourism, fishing, 

and recreational activities, occur closer to shore; (2) Navy training activities producing airborne noise are 

normally short term and temporary; and (3) Navy standard operating procedures are already in place to 

avoid impacts on civilian activities in training areas and would require that the area is clear of nonparticipants before initiating a training activity. Therefore, airborne noise impacts on tourism and 

recreational activity would be negligible.

3.11.3.2.1.3 Impacts from Airborne Acoustics Under the No Action Alternative

Under the No Action Alternative, the Navy would not conduct the proposed training and testing 

activities in the HSTT Study Area. Training and testing activities have occurred throughout the Study 

Area for decades, resulting in and sustaining increases in jobs, military and civilian infrastructure, and 

population growth in numerous towns, cities, and regions located along the Southern California coast 

and on the Main Hawaiian Islands. While it is reasonable to assume that ceasing all training and testing 

activities associated with the Proposed Action would reduce airborne noise, the effect would be 

negligible, because other commercial and non-military activities (e.g., shipping and recreational boating) 

that produce airborne noise occur at a higher tempo and closer to shore than Navy training and 

testing activities.

Ceasing training and testing activities may reduce the number and types of jobs available in locations 

where the Navy is a vital or even the primary economic driver sustaining local communities. For 

example, the use of munitions and other equipment used for training and testing activities would no 

longer be needed and, consequently, the number of jobs supporting those industries may be reduced or 

alternatively, some jobs may be relocated. The secondary effects from reducing personnel who conduct 

and support Navy training and testing activities could include a decline in local business and a decrease 

in the need for infrastructure, such as schools. If jobs are relocated, a smaller population may no longer 

be able to sustain the local economy that developed to support the larger population. While more 

complex studies at the local level would need to be conducted to quantify potential socioeconomic 

impacts from ceasing training and testing activities, it is highly likely that many coastal communities 

would be impacted to varying degrees.

3.11.3.2.2 Summary of Potential Impacts from Airborne Acoustics

Because the majority of Navy training and testing activities are conducted far from where tourism and 

recreational activities are concentrated, the impact of airborne noise would be negligible. The public 

might intermittently hear noise from transiting ships or aircraft overflights if they are in the general 

vicinity of a training or testing activity, but these occurrences would be infrequent. The infrequent 

exposure to airborne noise would not result in a direct loss of income, revenue or employment, 

resource availability, or quality of experience.

3.11.3.3 Impacts from Physical Disturbance and Strike Stressors

The evaluation of impacts on socioeconomic resources from physical stressors focuses on direct physical 

encounters or collisions with objects moving through the water or air (e.g., vessels, aircraft, unmanned 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.11-55

3.11 Socioeconomics

devices, and towed devices), dropped or fired into the water (non-explosive practice munitions, other 

military expended materials, and seafloor devices), or resting on the ocean floor (anchors, mines, and 

targets) that may damage or encounter civilian equipment. Physical disturbances that damage 

equipment and infrastructure could disrupt the collection and transport of products, which may impact 

industry revenue or operating costs.

Navy training and testing equipment and vessels moving through the water could collide with non-Navy 

vessels and equipment. Most of the training and testing activities involve vessel movement and use of 

towed devices. However, the likelihood that a Navy vessel would collide with a non-Navy vessel is 

remote, because of the use of navigational aids or buoys separating vessel traffic, shipboard lookouts, 

radar, and marine band radio communications by both Navy and civilians. Therefore, the potential to 

impact commercial transportation and shipping by physical disturbance or strike is negligible and 

requires no further analysis. 

Aircraft conducting training or testing activities in the Study Area operate in designated military special 

use airspace (e.g., warning areas and restricted areas). All aircraft, military and civilian, are subject to 

Federal Aviation Administration regulations, which define permissible uses of designated airspace, and 

are implemented to control those uses. These regulations are intended to accommodate the various 

categories of aviation, whether military, commercial, or general aviation. By adhering to these 

regulations, the likelihood of civilian aircraft coming into contact with military aircraft or munitions is 

remote. In addition, Navy aircraft follow procedures outlined in Navy air operations manuals, which are 

specific to a warning area or other special use airspace, and which describe procedures for operating 

safely when civilian aircraft are in the vicinity.

Military expended materials can physically interact with civilian equipment and infrastructure. Many of 

the training and testing activities use military expended materials including chaff, flares, projectiles, 

casings, target fragments, missile fragments, rocket fragments, ballast weights, and mine shapes.

3.11.3.3.1 Impacts on Socioeconomic Activities from Physical Disturbance and Strike Stressors

3.11.3.3.1.1 Commercial Transportation and Shipping

There would be no anticipated impacts on commercial transportation activities in the Study Area, 

because naval vessels and aircraft conducting training and testing generally conduct these activities far 

from commercially used waterways and airways. While physical disturbances or strikes could damage 

commercial marine vessels or aircraft, the Navy implements standard operating procedures for clearing 

training and testing areas of all nonparticipants before initiating hazardous activities. Therefore, the 

potential for Navy activities to disrupt or disturb commercial vessels or aircraft by physical disturbances 

or strikes would be negligible.

3.11.3.3.1.2 Commercial and Recreational Fishing

The majority of commercial fishing in the California takes place in state waters, less than 3 NM from 

shore, where the Navy conducts very limited training and testing activities. Nearly 80 percent (by 

weight) of commercial landings caught off California were from state waters. Offshore of the Hawaiian 

Islands, only 5 percent of commercial landings is from state waters; however over 50 percent is caught 

on the high seas, beyond 200 NM from the coast and outside of the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone. The 

majority of Navy training and testing activities takes place within 200 NM from shore(National Marine 

Fisheries Service, 2012a, 2012b). 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.11-56

3.11 Socioeconomics

Approximately 10 percent of fish caught during recreational fishing trips are caught in federal waters 

(beyond 3 NM from shore) (National Marine Fisheries Service, 2015c). Therefore, most recreational 

fishing would occur far from potential physical disturbances and strikes associated with training and 

testing activities. Some commercial fishing may occur beyond state waters in Navy training and testing 

areas and could be affected by the proposed activities if those activities were to alter fish population 

levels in those areas to such an extent that commercial fishers would no longer be able to find their 

target species. As described in section 3.6.3 (Fishes, Environmental Consequences), the behavioral 

responses that could occur from various types of physical stressors associated with training and testing 

activities would not compromise the general health or condition of fishes or populations of fishes.

Section 3.6.3 (Fishes, Environmental Consequences) also evaluated potential impacts on fish habitat 

from physical disturbances, strikes (by small-, medium-, and large-projectiles), and the use of 

electromagnetic and towed devices. Physical disturbances and strikes would be concentrated within 

designated gunnery box areas, resulting in localized disturbances of hard bottom areas, but could occur 

anywhere in the Study Area. Direct and indirect impacts on the fishes using hard bottom habitat in the 

Study Area could occur. The use of electromagnetic devices would not harm fishes, result in behavioral 

responses, or affect habitat. The use of towed devices may result in short-term and localized movement 

of fishes to avoid the device; however, long term avoidance of an area is not anticipated. Impacts on 

populations of fishes in the Study Area would not be expected, and, therefore, loss of revenue or 

employment by commercial fishers would not occur. No impacts on recreational fishing in the Study 

Area would be anticipated.

Commercial fishing activities have the potential to be impacted by military equipment placed in the 

water column or on the seafloor for use during Navy training and testing activities. This equipment could

include ship anchors; moored or bottom-mounted targets, mines, and mine shapes; bottom-mounted 

tripods; and the use of towed system and attachment cables. Many different types of commercial 

fishing gear are used in the Study Area, including gillnets, longline gear, troll gear, trawls, seines, and 

traps or pots. Commercial bottom-fishing activities, such as dredging, bottom trawling, long lines, and 

pots and traps have the greatest potential to be impacted by materials expended during training and 

testing activities and that ultimately reside on the seafloor. For example, military expended materials, 

such as decelerators/parachutes, cables, and guidance wires, would ultimately sink to the seafloor and 

could inadvertently snag, entangle, and damage fishing equipment. Interaction with bottom-fishing gear 

could result in the loss of or damage to commercial fishing gear and Navy equipment. When these rare 

events occur, they could result in loss of income, revenue, and employment. Entanglement by fiber optic 

cables and guidance wires expended during training and testing activities would not affect fish habitat 

and is unlikely to be encountered by commercial fishers. Even if encountered, fiber optic cables are 

brittle and are likely to break easily if entangled with fishing gear. Commercial fishers anticipate that 

fishing gear will be lost or damaged throughout the year and incorporate the economic loss into their 

business model.

The Navy recovers many of the targets (e.g., mines and mine shapes) and target fragments used in 

training and testing activities, and would continue to do so to minimize the potential for interaction with 

fishing gear and fishing vessels. Unrecoverable items are typically small, constructed of soft materials 

(e.g., cardboard boxes or tethered target balloons), or are intentionally designed to sink to the bottom 

after serving their purpose (such as expended 55-gallon steel drums), so that they would not represent a 

collision risk to vessels, including commercial fishing vessels. Although larger expended items, such as 

55-gallon drums, may pose a risk to certain types of fishing gear used for bottom fishing, the probability 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.11-57

3.11 Socioeconomics

of encountering such an item is remote given the large area over which expended materials would be 

distributed; the depth of the water where most activities using expended materials would occur; and 

the tendency for larger, heavier materials to become embedded in soft sediments, making them less 

likely to be snagged by fishing gear.

Based on the large size of the Study Area, the limited areas of concentrated military activity, and the 

advance release of Notices to Mariners prior to conducting activities, impacts on commercial or 

recreational fishing from physical disturbances and strikes in the Study Area would be rare and were it 

to occur would have a negligible economic impact on the commercial or recreational fishing industries.

3.11.3.3.1.3 Subsistence Fishing

Subsistence fishing typically occurs from the shore or from small vessels within state waters (3 NM or 

closer to shore). Navy training and testing activities using expended materials occur farther from shore 

in deep waters where subsistence fishing typically does not occur. Therefore, there would be no 

foreseeable physical disturbance or strike impacts on subsistence fishing from training and testing 

activities in the Study Area.

3.11.3.3.1.4 Tourism

While Navy training and testing activities can occur throughout the Study Area, most (especially 

hazardous) activities occur well out to sea. Most civilian recreational activities engaged in by both 

tourists and residents take place within a few miles of land or in many cases along the shoreline.

Snorkeling and diving take place primarily at known recreational sites, including shipwrecks and reefs. 

The locations of these popular sites are well documented, boats are typically well marked, and 

diver-down flags would be visible from, and avoided by, Navy ships conducting training and testing 

activities. As a result, conflicts between training and testing activities within the offshore areas and 

recreational diving and snorkeling would not occur. 

Other tourism activities such as whale watching, boating, or use of other watercraft or aircraft may 

occur farther offshore. Activities occurring farther from shore would usually be conducted from larger 

boats that are typically well marked and visible to Navy ships conducting training and testing activities. 

Individual boaters engaged in tourism activities, such as whale watching, monitor navigational 

information to avoid Navy training and testing areas. Vessel operators are responsible for being aware 

of designated danger zones in surface waters and any Notices to Mariners that are in effect. Operators 

of recreational or commercial vessels are responsible for abiding by U.S Coast Guard maritime 

regulations. In conjunction with these responsibilities, Navy standard operating procedures require Navy 

vessels to ensure that an area is clear of nonparticipants before initiating training and testing activities. 

Conflicts between Navy training and testing in offshore areas and whale watching or other offshore 

recreational activities are not expected to occur. The Navy would continue to recover larger pieces of 

targets used in certain training and testing activities so that target debris would not pose a collision risk 

to civilian vessels. Unrecoverable pieces of targets are typically small, constructed of soft materials such 

as cardboard, are pieces of tethered target balloons, or are designed to sink to the seafloor after use 

and would not damage civilian vessels if encountered.

Temporary range clearance procedures in the areas, mainly around the Pacific Missile Range Facility and 

San Clemente Island, for safety purposes, do not adversely affect tourism activities, because 

displacement is of short duration (typically less than 24 hours) and are in areas where tourism activities 

are not as prevalent. The Navy temporarily limits public access to areas where there is a risk of injury or 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.11-58

3.11 Socioeconomics

property damage through the use of Notices to Mariners issued by the U.S. Coast Guard. The Navy also 

maintains a website which provides information on scheduled closures around San Clemente Island (see 

section 3.11.3.1.1.2, Commercial and Recreational Fishing, for additional details). Published notices 

allow recreational users to adjust their routes to avoid temporary restricted areas. If civilian vessels are 

within a testing or training area at the time of a scheduled operation, Navy personnel continue 

operations and avoid them if it is safe and possible to do so. If avoidance is not safe or possible, the 

operation may relocate or be delayed. In some instances where safety requires exclusive use of a 

specific area, nonparticipants in the area are asked to relocate to a safer area for the duration of the 

operation. Because Navy training and testing activities vary in location and are primarily short-term in 

duration, impacts on tourism activities from rerouting or postponing activities would be negligible.

Changes to offshore tourism activities in the Study Area would not be expected, and, therefore, loss of 

revenue or employment associated with tourism would not be expected as a result of training and 

testing activities.

3.11.3.3.1.5 Impacts from Physical Disturbance and Strike Stressors Under Alternative 1

Impacts from Physical Disturbance and Strike Stressors Under Alternative 1 from Training 

Activities

Under Alternative 1, potential physical disturbance and strike impacts would be associated primarily 

with air warfare, surface warfare, anti-submarine warfare, mine warfare, and amphibious warfare. 

Training activities in these warfare areas would continue at current levels and within established ranges 

and training locations.

There would be no anticipated impacts on commercial transportation and shipping, commercial and 

recreational fishing, subsistence fishing, and tourism, because of the large size of the Study Area, the 

limited areas of operations, and implementation of the Navy’s standard operating procedures, which 

includes ensuring that an area is clear of all non-participating vessels before training activities take 

place. In addition, the Navy provides advance notification of training activities to the public through 

Notices to Mariners issued by the U.S. Coast Guard and postings on Navy websites (e.g., the San 

Clemente Island website). Damage to or loss of commercial fishing gear from interaction with Navy 

vessels, equipment, or other expended materials is unlikely. The Navy recovers many practice munitions 

(e.g., mines and mine shapes) for reuse following the activity. The Navy also recovers larger floating 

objects or materials, such as targets or target fragments, to avoid having them become hazards to 

navigation. Smaller objects that remain in the water column would be unlikely to pose a risk to fishing 

gear. Furthermore, the Navy will implement mitigation to avoid impacts from explosives and physical 

disturbance and strike stressors on seafloor resources in mitigation areas throughout the Study Area 

(see section 5.4.1, Seafloor Resource Mitigation Areas). The mitigation areas will help avoid potential 

impacts on shallow-water coral reefs, live hard bottom, artificial reefs, and shipwrecks, which are 

valuable components of the snorkeling, diving, and fishing industries. Considering the expansive size of 

the Navy’s OPAREAs, the wide distribution of military expended materials over these large areas, and 

implementation of standard operating procedures and mitigation, impacts from physical disturbances 

and strikes on commercial and recreational fishing, subsistence fishing, and tourism would be negligible.

Impacts from Physical Disturbance and Strike Stressors Under Alternative 1 from Testing 

Activities

Under Alternative 1, potential physical disturbance and strike would be associated primarily with air 

warfare, surface warfare, anti-submarine warfare, mine warfare, amphibious warfare, sea trials, and 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.11-59

3.11 Socioeconomics

other weapons platform testing. Testing activities would continue at current levels and within 

established training and testing ranges. 

There would be no anticipated impacts on commercial transportation and shipping, commercial and 

recreational fishing, subsistence fishing, and tourism, because of the large size of the Study Area, the 

limited areas of operations, and implementation of the Navy’s standard operating procedures, which 

includes ensuring that an area is clear of all non-participating vessels before testing activities take place. 

In addition, the Navy provides advance notification of testing activities to the public through Notices to 

Mariners issued by the U.S. Coast Guard and postings on Navy websites (e.g., the San Clemente Island 

website). Damage to or loss of commercial fishing gear from interaction with Navy equipment or other 

expended materials is unlikely. The Navy recovers many practice munitions (e.g., mines and mine 

shapes) for reuse following the activity. The Navy also recovers larger floating objects or materials, such 

as targets or target fragments, to avoid having them become hazards to navigation. Smaller objects that 

remain in the water column would be unlikely to pose a risk to fishing gear. Furthermore, the Navy will 

implement mitigation to avoid impacts from explosives and physical disturbance and strike stressors on 

seafloor resources in mitigation areas throughout the Study Area (see section 5.4.1, Seafloor Resource 

Mitigation Areas). The mitigation areas will help avoid potential impacts on shallow-water coral reefs, 

live hard bottom, artificial reefs, and shipwrecks, which are valuable components of the snorkeling, 

diving, and fishing industries. Considering the expansive size of the Navy’s OPAREAs, the wide 

distribution of military expended materials over these large areas, and implementation of standard 

operating procedures and mitigation, impacts from physical disturbances and strikes on commercial and 

recreational fishing, subsistence fishing, and tourism would be negligible.

3.11.3.3.1.6 Impacts from Physical Disturbance and Strike Stressors Under Alternative 2

Alternative 2 consists of the activities described under Alternative 1 but with a nominal increase in the 

use of some sonar systems and explosives associated vessel and aircraft activity. The locations of these 

activities would remain the same as described under Alternative 1. Alternative 2 also includes the 

training and testing of personnel required for proficiency with these systems.

Impacts from Physical Disturbance and Strike Stressors Under Alternative 2 from Training 

Activities

Under Alternative 2, potential physical disturbance and strike impacts would be the same as described 

under Alternative 1. A nominal increase in vessel and aircraft activity associated with an increase in the 

use of some sonar systems would occur under Alternative 2; however, the increase in the probability of 

a physical disturbance or strike would be negligible. There would be no changes to the Navy’s mitigation 

measures or standard operating procedures for hazardous training activities performed in the Study 

Area, which includes ensuring that an area is clear of all non-participating vessels before training 

activities take place. The expansive size of the Navy’s OPAREAs, the wide distribution of military 

expended materials over these large areas, and implementation of standard operating procedures and 

mitigation ensure that impacts from physical disturbances and strikes would be negligible. The advance 

public release of Notices to Mariners issued by the U.S. Coast Guard and postings of upcoming activities 

on Navy websites (e.g., the San Clemente Island website) would inform the public of upcoming activities 

and enable them to plan to avoid the area. Therefore, impacts from physical disturbance and strike on 

commercial and recreational fishing, subsistence fishing, and tourism would be negligible.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.11-60

3.11 Socioeconomics

Impacts from Physical Disturbance and Strike Stressors Under Alternative 2 from Testing 

Activities

Under Alternative 2, potential physical disturbance and strike impacts would be the same as those 

associated with Alternative 1. A nominal increase in vessel and aircraft activity associated with an 

increase in the use of some sonar systems and explosives would occur under Alternative 2; however, the 

increase in the probability of a physical disturbance or strike would be negligible. There would be no 

changes to the Navy’s mitigation measures or standard operating procedures for hazardous testing 

activities performed in the Study Area. The expansive size of the Navy’s OPAREAs, the wide distribution

of military expended materials over these large areas, and implementation of standard operating 

procedures and mitigation ensure that impacts from physical disturbances and strikes would be 

negligible. The advance public release of Notices to Mariners issued by the U.S. Coast Guard and 

postings of upcoming activities on Navy websites (e.g., the San Clemente Island website) would inform 

the public of upcoming activities, and enable them to plan to avoid the area. Therefore, impacts from 

physical disturbance and strike on commercial and recreational fishing, subsistence fishing, and tourism 

would be negligible.

3.11.3.3.1.7 Impacts from Physical Disturbance and Strike Stressors Under the No Action

Alternative

Under the No Action Alternative, the Navy would not conduct the proposed training and testing 

activities in the HSTT Study Area. Various physical disturbance and strike stressors (e.g., disruption to 

fishing) would not be introduced into the marine environment. Training and testing activities have 

occurred throughout the Study Area for decades, resulting in and sustaining increases in jobs, military 

and civilian infrastructure, and population growth in numerous towns, cities, and regions located along 

the Southern California coast and Main Hawaiian Islands. While it is reasonable to assume that ceasing 

training and testing activities associated with the Proposed Action would reduce the potential for 

disruption of civilian activities by physical disturbances or strikes, the effect would be negligible, because 

the likelihood of a disturbance, as described under Alternative 1, is already negligible. 

Ceasing training and testing activities may reduce the number and types of jobs available in locations 

where the Navy is a vital or even the primary economic driver sustaining local communities. For 

example, the use of munitions and other equipment used for training and testing activities would no 

longer be needed, and, consequently, the number of jobs supporting those industries may be reduced 

or, alternatively, some jobs may be relocated. The secondary effects from reducing personnel who 

support Navy training and testing activities could include a decline in local business and a decrease in 

the need for infrastructure, such as schools. If jobs are relocated, a smaller population may no longer be 

able to sustain the local economy that developed to support the larger population. While more complex 

studies at the local level would need to be conducted to quantify potential socioeconomic impacts from 

ceasing training and testing activities, it is highly likely that many coastal communities would be 

impacted to varying degrees.

3.11.3.3.2 Summary of Potential Impacts from Physical Disturbance and Strike Stressors

Because the majority of Navy training and testing activities are conducted far from where commercial 

and recreational activities are concentrated, the potential for a physical disturbance or strike would be 

negligible. The public might intermittently observe a transiting ship or aircraft flying overhead if they are 

in the general vicinity of a training or testing activity, but these occurrences would be infrequent and of 

short duration. The Navy does not typically train or test in areas close to civilian infrastructure and 

activities and, based on the Navy’s standard operating procedures and the large expanse of the testing 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.11-61

3.11 Socioeconomics

and training ranges, the likelihood of a physical disturbance or strike disrupting commercial or 

recreational activities in the Study Area would be negligible. Therefore, loss of revenue or employment 

changes to socioeconomic activities and resources in the Study Area would not be expected.

3.11.4 SECONDARY STRESSORS

Socioeconomics could be indirectly impacted by training and testing activities if changes to physical and 

biological resources were to alter the way commercial transportation, commercial or recreational 

fishing, subsistence fishing, and tourism were conducted. 

Impacts on sediment and water quality, fishes, invertebrates, and marine mammals were considered to 

be potential secondary stressors to socioeconomic resources. Impacts on sediment and water quality

have the potential to affect habitat for fishes and invertebrates that are of vital importance to the 

commercial fishing industry as well as recreational and subsistence fishers and the local industries that 

support those activities. A portion of the tourism industry is also dependent on coastal and 

marine-based activities in both Southern California and Hawaii and could be affected by impacts on 

fisheries. No indirect or secondary impacts on commercial transportation and shipping are anticipated.

Commercial, recreational, and subsistence fishing and tourism could be impacted if the proposed 

activities altered fish or invertebrate populations to such an extent that species abundance was no 

longer sufficient to support these socioeconomic activities. Disturbances to marine mammal populations 

that result in abandonment of areas where whales are known to occur could impact the whale watching 

industry. However, no secondary impacts on socioeconomic resources would occur based on the results 

of analyses presented in sections 3.4 (Invertebrates), 3.6 (Fishes), and 3.7 (Marine Mammals). These 

sections concluded that there would be no population-level impacts on marine species from training and 

testing activities, including from the use of explosives and sonar and other transducers. 

3.11.5 SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL IMPACTS ON SOCIOECONOMICS

This section evaluates the potential impacts on socioeconomic resources from all stressors combined. 

The analysis and conclusions for the potential impacts from each of the individual stressors are 

discussed in the sections above. Stressors associated with Navy training and testing activities do not 

typically occur in isolation but rather occur in some combination. For example, anti-submarine warfare 

activities can include elements of airborne acoustics, physical disturbance and strike, and accessibility 

restrictions that are all coincident in space and time. An analysis of the combined impacts of all stressors 

considers the potential consequences of aggregate exposure to all stressors and the repetitive or 

additive consequences of exposure over multiple years. The stressors from the proposed training and 

testing activities that have the potential to impact socioeconomic resources include limits on 

accessibility to air and sea space within the Study Area, airborne acoustics, physical disturbances and 

strikes, and indirect impacts resulting from availability of resources (e.g., target fish species). 

3.11.5.1 Combined Impacts of All Stressors Under Alternative 1

Under Alternative 1, training and testing activities would be widely dispersed throughout the Study 

Area, limiting the potential for co-occurrence of stressors from multiple training or testing activities 

being conducted at the same time but in a different location. Certain training and testing activities may 

return to a specific geographic location to use its unique physical characteristics. Repeatedly using the 

same area may limit accessibility to that area for commercial or recreational activities relative to a lessfrequently used area. The Navy typically uses established ranges, warning areas, and danger zones for 

training and testing activities that are conducted repeatedly over time. Many commercial and 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.11-62

3.11 Socioeconomics

recreational users in the region are familiar with the locations of Navy activities, which allows for better 

planning and fewer instances of conflict. When an area needs to be temporarily closed to the public, the 

Navy notifies the public through Notices to Mariners and Notices to Airmen, issued by the U.S. Coast 

Guard and the Federal Aviation Administration, respectively, ahead of time to avoid potential conflicts 

with the public. If multiple, incompatible training or testing activities need to use a specific location, the 

activities would not be scheduled at the same time, and stressors associated with each activity would 

not occur at the same time. Therefore, an increase in impacts resulting from a combination of stressors 

occurring simultaneously is not expected.

3.11.5.2 Combined Impacts of All Stressors Under Alternative 2

The number and types of training and testing activities that would be conducted under Alternative 2 is 

similar to those described under Alternative 1 (see Chapter 2, Description of Proposed Action and 

Alternatives). Therefore, the combined impacts of all stressors under Alternative 2 would be the same as 

described under Alternative 1. 

3.11.5.3 Combined Impacts of All Stressors Under the No Action Alternative

Under the No Action Alternative, the Navy would not conduct the proposed training and testing 

activities in the HSTT Study Area. Therefore, training and testing activities would not limit accessibility to 

air and sea space (although other Navy activities would still use established ranges, warning areas, and 

danger zones), generate airborne noise, or cause physical disturbances and strikes. No impacts on 

socioeconomic resources from these stressors would occur.

Ceasing the proposed training and testing activities may reduce the number and types of jobs available 

in locations where the Navy is a vital or even the primary economic driver sustaining local communities. 

For example, the use of munitions and other equipment used for training and testing activities would no 

longer be needed and, consequently, the number of jobs supporting those industries may be reduced 

or, alternatively, some jobs may be relocated. The secondary effects from reducing personnel who 

support Navy training and testing activities could include a decline in local business and a decrease in 

the need for infrastructure, such as schools. If jobs are relocated, a smaller population may no longer be 

able to sustain the local economy that developed to support the larger population. While more complex 

studies at the local level would need to be conducted to quantify potential socioeconomic impacts from 

ceasing training and testing activities, it is highly likely that many coastal communities would be 

impacted to varying degrees.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.11-63

References

REFERENCES

Ayers, A. L., & J. N. Kittinger. (2014). Emergence of co-management governance for Hawai‘i coral reef 

fisheries. Global Environmental Change, 28, 251–262. 

California Department of Fish and Wildlife. (2015a). Commercial Fishing. Retrieved from 

https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Fishing/Commercial

California Department of Fish and Wildlife. (2015b). Final California Commercial Landings for 2014. Table 

15: Poundage And Value Of Landings Of Commercial Fish Into California By Area - 2014 [Excel 

Spreadsheets]. Retrieved from: 

https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Fishing/Commercial/Landings#26004609-2014

California Marine Life Protection Act Initiative. (2009). Regional Profile of the Marine Life Protection Act 

(MLPA) South Coast Study Region (Point Conception to the California/Mexico Border). 

Sacramento, CA: California Resources Agency.

Casey, S. (2010). The Wave: In Pursuit of the Rogues, Freaks, and Giants of the Ocean. New York: 

Doubleday.

Channel Islands Dive Adventures. (2015). Dive Locations, Southern Islands. Retrieved from 

http://channelislandsdiveadventures.com/dive-spots/southern-channel-islands/

Department of Business Economic Development and Tourism. (2015). Outlook for the Economy. 

Retrieved from http://dbedt.hawaii.gov/economic/qser/outlook-economy/

Gassel, M. (1997). Chemicals in Fish, Report No. 1, Consumption of Fish and Shellfish in California and the 

United States, Final Draft Report. Berkeley, CA: Pesticide and Environmental Toxicology Section, 

Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, California Environmental Protection Agency.

Gentner, B., & S. Steinback. (2008). The Economic Contribution of Marine Angler Expenditures in the 

United States, 2006. U.S. Department of Commerce.

Hawai'i Tourism Authority. (2015a). 2014 Annual Visitor Research Report.

Hawai'i Tourism Authority. (2015b). Hawai'i Tourism Facts. Retrieved from 

http://www.hawaiitourismauthority.org/default/assets/File/HTA_Tourism%20Facts%20as%20of

%20August%202015.pdf

Hawaii Division of Aquatic Resources. (2015). FAQ's. Retrieved from 

http://dlnr.hawaii.gov/dar/fishing/hmrfs/#contact

Holles, S., S. D. Simpson, A. N. Radford, L. Berten, & D. Lecchini. (2013). Boat noise disrupts orientation 

behaviour in a coral reef fish. Marine Ecological Progress Series, 485, 295–300. 

Hutt, C., S. Lovell, & S. Steinback. (2015). The Economics of Independent Marine Recreational Fishing Bait 

and Tackle Retail Stores in the United States, 2013. (NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-F/SPO-151). U.S. 

Department of Commerce.

Khon2. (2015). Governor signs into law first community-based subsistence fishing area rules. Retrieved 

from http://khon2.com/2015/08/05/governor-signs-into-law-first-community-basedsubsistence-fishing-area-rules/

Laland, K. N., C. H. Brown, & J. Krause. (2003). Learning in fishes: from three-second memory to culture. 

Fish and Fisheries, 4, 199–202.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.11-64

References

Levine, A. S., & L. S. Richmond. (2014). Examining enabling conditions for community-based fisheries 

comanagement: comparing efforts in Hawaii and American Samoa. Economic and Social Council, 

19, 24. 

McClenachan, L., & J. N. Kittinger. (2013a). Multicentury trends and the sustainability of coral reef 

fisheries in Hawaii and Florida. Fish and Fisheries, 14(3), 239–255. 

McClenachan, L., & J. N. Kittinger. (2013b). Multicentury trends and the sustainability of coral reef 

fisheries in Hawai ‘i and Florida. Fish and Fisheries, 14(3), 239-255. 

Mintz, J. D., & R. J. Filadelfo. (2011). Exposure of Marine Mammals to Broadband Radiated Noise

(Specific Authority N0001-4-05-D-0500).

Mintz, J. D. (2012a). Vessel Traffic in the Hawaii-Southern California and Atlantic Fleet Testing and 

Training Study Areas. (CRM D0026186.A2/Final). Center for Naval Analysis.

Mintz, J. D. (2012b). Vessel Traffic in the Hawaii-Southern California and Atlantic Fleet Tresting and 

Training Study Areas. Defense Technical Information Center.

National Marine Fisheries Service. (2010). Hawaii Marine Recreational Fishing Survey (HMRFS). Hawaii 

Division of Aquatic Resources Retrieved from http://hawaii.gov/dlnr/dar/hmrfs.html.

National Marine Fisheries Service. (2012a). Landings by Distance from U.S. Shores, 2012, State of 

California. 

National Marine Fisheries Service. (2012b). Landings by Distance from U.S. Shores, 2012, State of Hawaii. 

Retrieved from: http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/pls/webpls/mf_8850_landings.results?qstate=14

National Marine Fisheries Service. (2014). 2013 California Marine Recreational Fishing Trip Effort and 

Preliminary Economic Impact Estimates. Southwest Fisheries Science Center.

National Marine Fisheries Service. (2015a). Annual Commercial Landing Statistics. Retrieved from 

http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/commercial-fisheries/commercial-landings/annual-landings/index

National Marine Fisheries Service. (2015b). Recreational Fisheries Statistics Queries. Retrieved from 

http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/st1/recreational/queries/

National Marine Fisheries Service. (2015c). Fisheries of the United States 2014. (NOAA Current Fishery 

Statistics No. 2014). Retrieved from http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/recreationalfisheries/Features/fus-2014.

National Marine Fisheries Service. (2015d). Commercial Fisheries Statistics. Retrieved from 

http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/commercial-fisheries/commercial-landings/other-specializedprograms/total-commercial-fishery-landings-at-an-individual-u-s-port-for-all-years-after1980/index

National Marine Fisheries Service. (2015e). Fisheries Economics of the United States, 2013. U.S. Dept. 

Commerce, NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-F/SPO-159.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. (1998). Year of the Ocean, Coastal Tourism and 

Recreation. Retrieved from http://www.yoto98.noaa.gov/yoto/meeting/tour_rec_316.html.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. (2013). Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale National 

Marine Sanctuary: Exploring the Sanctuary. Retrieved from 

http://hawaiihumpbackwhale.noaa.gov/explore/whale_watching.html
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.11-65

References

Naval Undersea Warfare Center. (2009). Southern California (SOCAL) Fisheries Study: Catch Statistics 

(2002–2007), Fishing Access, and Fishermen Perception. Newport, RI.

O’Connor, S., R. Campbell, H. Cortez, & T. Knowles. (2009). Whale Watching Worldwide: tourism 

numbers, expenditures and expanding economic benefits, a special report from the International 

Fund for Animal Welfare. Yarmouth MA: Economists at Large.

Pacific Fishery Management Council. (2007). Fishery Management Plan for U. S. West Coast Fisheries for 

Highly Migratory Species. As Amended by Amendment 1. Portland, OR.

Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center. (2016). Annual Commercial Landings of Major Commercial 

Species and Species Groups. Retrieved from: 

http://www.pifsc.noaa.gov/wpacfin/hi/dar/Pages/hi_data_1.php

Pitchon, A., & K. Norman. (2012a). Fishing off the dock and under the radar in Los Angeles County: 

demographics and risks. Bulletin, Southern California Academy of Sciences, 111(2), 141–152. 

Pitchon, A., & K. Norman. (2012b). Fishing off the dock and under the radar in Los Angeles County: 

demographics and risks. Bulletin, Southern California Academy of Sciences, 111(2), 141-152. 

Pooley, S. G. (1993). Hawaii's marine fisheries: some history, long term trends, and recent 

developments. Marine Fisheries Review, 55(2), 7–19. 

Recreational Fisheries Information Network. (2015). Fisheries Data. Excel Spreadsheets. Retrieved from: 

http://www.recfin.org/data/estimates/tabulate-recent-estimates-2004-current/

Schumann, S., & S. Macinko. (2007a). Subsistence in coastal fisheries policy: What's in a word? Marine 

Policy, 31(6), 706-718. 

Schumann, S., & S. Macinko. (2007b). Subsistence in coastal fisheries policy: What's in a word? Marine 

Policy, 31(6), 706–718. 

Southwick Associates. (2013). Comparing NOAA’s Recreational and Commercial Fishing Economic Data.

SportfishingSanDiego.com. (2015). Southern California seasonal fish target chart and Fish Species 

Description. Retrieved from http://www.sportfishsandiego.com/targets.html

Steutermann-Rogers, K. (2015). A New Law Brings Back Subsistence Fishing in Hawaii, The Atlantic. 

Retrieved from http://www.citylab.com/weather/2015/11/a-new-law-brings-back-subsistencefishing-in-hawaii/415575/

Stevenson, C., S. A. Sikich, & M. Gold. (2012a). Engaging Los Angeles County subsistence anglers in the 

California marine protected area planning process. Marine Policy, 36(2), 559-563. 

Stevenson, C., S. A. Sikich, & M. Gold. (2012b). Engaging Los Angeles County subsistence anglers in the 

California marine protected area planning process. Marine Policy, 36(2), 559–563. 

Thomas, P. O., R. R. Reeves, & R. L. Brownell. (2015). Status of the world's baleen whales. Marine 

Mammal Science, n/a–n/a. 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. (2016). U.S. Port Rankings by Cargo Tonnage in 2014. Retrieved from 

http://www.navigationdatacenter.us/data/datappor.htm

U.S. Department of the Navy. (2005). Overseas Environmental Assessment of Testing the Hellfire Missile 

System’s Integration with the H-60 Helicopter.

U.S. Department of the Navy. (2007). Airspace Procedures and Planning Manual. (OPNAV INSTRUCTION 

3770.2K).
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.11-66

References

U.S. Department of the Navy. (2015a). Southern California (SOCAL) and Northern California (NOCAL) 

Range Complexes Encroachment Action Plan.

U.S. Department of the Navy. (2015b). Manual for the Utilization of Fleet Area Control and Surveillance 

Facility, Virginia Capes Operating Areas (FASCFAC VACAPES Operations Manual). Commanding 

Officer, Fleet Area Control and Surveillance Facility, Virginia Capes.

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Aviation Administration. (2017). FAA Order 7400.2L 

Procedures for Handling Airspace Matters.

U.S. Maritime Administration. (2016). 2015 Vessel Calls in U.S. Ports, Selected Terminals and Lightering 

Areas. Retrieved from http://www.marad.dot.gov/resources/data-statistics/#Reports

University of Hawaii. (2015). Annual Hawaii Forecast: Public Summary. Expansion Will Continue, Despite 

Global Challenges. The Economic Research Organization at the University of Hawai'i,.

Visit California. (2015). California Statistics and Trends: Economic Impact of Travel in California. 

Retrieved from http://industry.visitcalifornia.com/Find-Research/California-Statistics-Trends/

Zeller, D., S. Harper, K. Zylich, & D. Pauly. (2014). Synthesis of underreported small-scale fisheries catch 

in Pacific island waters. Coral Reefs, 34(1), 25-39. 
3.12 Public Health and Safety

Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

i

Table of Contents

Draft

Environmental Impact Statement/Overseas Environmental Impact 

Statement

Hawaii-Southern California Training and Testing 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

3.12 Public Health and Safety .......................................................................................3.12-1

3.12.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................3.12-1

3.12.2 Affected Environment.......................................................................................3.12-2

3.12.2.1 General Background .........................................................................3.12-2

3.12.2.2 Safety and Inspection Procedures....................................................3.12-3

3.12.3 Environmental Consequences ..........................................................................3.12-8

3.12.3.1 Underwater Energy...........................................................................3.12-9

3.12.3.2 In-Air Energy ...................................................................................3.12-12

3.12.3.3 Physical Interactions.......................................................................3.12-13

3.12.3.4 Secondary (Sediments and Water Quality) ....................................3.12-16

3.12.4 Summary of Potential Impacts on Public Health and Safety ..........................3.12-17

3.12.4.1 Combined Impacts of All Stressors Under Alternative 1 ................3.12-17

3.12.4.2 Combined Impacts of All Stressors Under Alternative 2 ................3.12-17

3.12.4.3 Combined Impacts of All Stressors Under the No Action 

Alternative......................................................................................3.12-17

List of Figures

There are no figures in this section.

List of Tables

There are no tables in this section.
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

ii

Table of Contents

This page intentionally left blank.
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.12-1

3.12 Public Health and Safety

3.12 PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY

3.12.1 INTRODUCTION

This section provides the analysis of potential impacts on public health and safety within the HawaiiSouthern California Training and Testing (HSTT) Study Area. 

The affected environment provides the context for evaluating the effects of the Navy training and 

testing on public health and safety. Generally, the greatest potential for a proposed activity to impact 

the public is in nearshore areas because that is where public activities are most concentrated. Proposed 

testing and training in nearshore areas could be close to dive sites and other recreational areas where 

the collective health and safety of groups of individuals would be of concern. Most commercial and 

recreational marine activities (with the exception of commercial shipping) occur close to the shore, 

usually limited by the capabilities of the boat used.

The Navy employs standard operating procedures to provide for the safety of personnel and equipment 

as well as the success of the training and testing activities. Standard operating procedures designed to 

prevent public health and safety impacts are discussed in detail in Section 2.3.3 (Standard Operating 

Procedures). The following subsections generally discuss established safety protocols and standard 

operating procedures associated with the sea space and airspace environment, as well as specific 

procedures associated with aviation safety, submarine navigation safety, surface vessel navigation 

safety, sonar safety, electromagnetic energy safety, and munitions safety. 

Methods

The requirements for public health and safety were derived from federal regulations, Department of 

Defense (DoD) directives, and Navy instructions for training and testing. The directives and instructions 

provide specifications for mission planning and execution, including criteria for public health and 

safety considerations. 

The alternatives were evaluated based on two factors: the potential for specific training or testing 

activities to impact public health and safety, and the degree to which those activities could have an 

impact. The likelihood that members of the public would be near a training or testing activity 

SYNOPSIS

The United States Department of the Navy considered all potential stressors that public health and safety 

could potentially be exposed to from the Proposed Action. The following conclusions have been reached 

for the Preferred Alternative (Alternative 1):

• Underwater Energy: Because of the Navy’s standard operating procedures, impacts on public 

health and safety would be unlikely.

• In-Air Energy: Because of the Navy’s standard operating procedures, impacts on public health 

and safety would be unlikely.

• Physical Interactions: Because of the Navy’s standard operating procedures, impacts on public 

health and safety would be unlikely.

• Secondary Stressors (sediments and water quality): Impacts on public health and safety would 

be unlikely.
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.12-2

3.12 Public Health and Safety

determined the potential for exposure to the activity. If the 

potential for exposure exists, the degree of the potential 

impacts on public health and safety, including increased risk for 

injury or loss of life, was determined. If the potential for 

exposure does not exist, there would be no impacts on public 

health and safety. 

3.12.2 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

3.12.2.1 General Background

The area of interest for assessing potential impacts on public 

health and safety is the U.S. territorial waters of southern 

California and Hawaii (seaward of the mean high water line to 

12 nautical miles [NM]). Military, commercial, institutional, and 

recreational activities take place simultaneously in the Study 

Area and have coexisted safely for decades. These activities 

coexist safely because established rules and practices lead to safe use of the waterway and airspace. The 

following paragraphs briefly discuss the rules and practices for recreational, commercial, and military 

use in sea surface areas and airspace.

3.12.2.1.1 Sea Space

Most of the sea space in the Study Area is accessible for recreational and commercial activities; 

however, some activities are prohibited or restricted in certain areas (e.g., danger zones and 

restricted areas).

In accordance with Title 33 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 165 (Regulated Navigation Areas and 

Limited Access Areas), these restrictions can be permanent or temporary. Nautical charts issued by the 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration include these federally designated zones and areas. 

Operators of recreational and commercial vessels have a duty to abide by maritime regulations 

administered by the U.S. Coast Guard.

In accordance with Title 33 CFR part 72 (Aids to Navigation), the U.S. Coast Guard and the Department 

of Homeland Security inform private and commercial vessels about temporary closures via Notices to 

Mariners. These notices provide information about durations and locations of closures because of 

activities that are hazardous to surface vessels. Broadcast notices on maritime frequency radio, weekly 

publications by the appropriate U.S. Coast Guard Navigation Center, and global positioning system 

navigation charts disseminate these navigational warnings.

3.12.2.1.2 Airspace

Most of the airspace in the Study Area is accessible to general aviation (recreational, private, corporate) 

and commercial aircraft; however, some areas, like waterways, are temporarily off-limits to civilian and 

commercial use. The Federal Aviation Administration has established Special Use Airspace, which is 

airspace of defined dimensions wherein activities must be confined because of their nature or wherein 

limitations may be imposed upon aircraft operations that are not part of those activities (U.S. 

Department of Transportation Federal Aviation Administration, 2013). Special Use Airspace in the Study 

Area includes the following:

The Study Area is shared by 

military, commercial, 

institutional, and recreational 

users. The Navy is committed to 

ensuring public safety during 

training and testing activities. To 

protect public safety, access to 

certain ocean areas must be 

temporarily limited during 

certain training and testing 

activities.
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.12-3

3.12 Public Health and Safety

• Restricted airspace: Areas where aircraft are subject to restriction due to the existence of 

unusual (often invisible) hazards to aircraft (e.g., release of munitions). Some areas are under 

strict control of the DoD, and some are shared with nonmilitary agencies. 

• Military Operations Areas: Areas typically below 18,000 feet (ft.) used to separate certain 

nonhazardous military flight activities from Instrument Flight Rules traffic and to identify Visual 

Flight Rules traffic where these activities are conducted.

• Warning areas: Areas of defined dimensions, extending from 3 NM outward from the coast of 

the United States, that serve to warn non-participating aircraft of potential danger.

Additionally, Air Traffic Controlled Assigned Airspace is airspace of defined vertical/lateral limits, 

negotiated directly between the user and the Air Route Traffic Control Center responsible for the 

affected airspace, and assigned by Air Traffic Control for the purpose of providing air traffic segregation 

between the specified activity being conducted within the assigned airspace and other instrument flight 

rules traffic.

Notices to Airmen are created and transmitted by government agencies and airport operators to alert 

aircraft pilots of any hazards en route to or at a specific location. Notices to Airmen contain information 

(not known sufficiently in advance to publicize by other means) concerning the establishment, 

condition, or change in any component (facility, service, procedure, or hazard in the National Airspace 

System), the timely knowledge of which is essential to personnel concerned with flight operations. The 

Federal Aviation Administration issues Notices to Airmen to disseminate information on upcoming or 

ongoing military exercises with resulting airspace restrictions. Civilian aircraft operators are responsible 

for being aware of restricted areas in airspace and any Notices to Airmen in effect. Pilots have a duty to 

abide by aviation rules as administered by the Federal Aviation Administration.

Weather conditions dictate whether an aircraft (general aviation, commercial, or military) can fly under 

Visual Flight Rules or Instrument Flight Rules. Under Visual Flight Rules, the weather is favorable and the 

pilot is required to remain clear of clouds by specified distances to ensure separation from other aircraft 

under the concept of “see and avoid.” Pilots flying under Visual Flight Rules must be able to see outside 

of the cockpit, control the aircraft’s attitude, navigate, and avoid obstacles and other aircraft based on 

visual cues. Pilots flying under Visual Flight Rules assume responsibility for their separation from all 

other aircraft and are generally not assigned routes or altitudes by air traffic control.

During unfavorable weather, pilots must follow Instrument Flight Rules. Factors such as visibility, cloud 

distance, cloud ceilings, and weather phenomena cause visual conditions to drop below the minimum 

required to operate by visual flight referencing. Instrument Flight Rules are the regulations and 

restrictions a pilot must comply with when flying in weather conditions that restrict visibility. Pilots can 

fly under Instrument Flight Rules in Visual Flight Rules weather conditions; however, pilots cannot fly 

under Visual Flight Rules in Instrument Flight Rules weather conditions.

3.12.2.2 Safety and Inspection Procedures

In accordance with Navy instructions presented in this chapter, safety and inspection procedures 

discussed in this section are designed to ensure public health and safety. Through the Navy Safety 

Center and Fleet Safety Center, the Navy promotes a proactive and comprehensive safety program 

designed to reduce to the greatest extent possible any potential adverse impacts on public health and 

safety from training and testing activities.
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.12-4

3.12 Public Health and Safety

As previously stated, the greatest potential for training or testing activities to impact the public is in 

nearshore areas, because public activities are concentrated in those areas. When planning a training or 

testing event, the Navy considers proximity of the activity to public areas in choosing a location. 

Important factors considered include the ability to control access to an area; schedule (time of day, day 

of week); frequency, duration, and intensity of activities; range safety procedures; operational control of 

activities or events; and safety history.

The Navy’s Fleet Area Control and Surveillance Facilities provide active management of assigned 

airspace, operating areas (OPAREAs), ranges, and training and testing resources to enhance combat 

readiness of U.S. Pacific units. The Navy schedules activities through the Fleet Area Control and 

Surveillance Facilities, which coordinates the surface and subsurface OPAREAs and the special use 

airspace that potentially overlies these. At Navy Ranges, such as on the Pacific Missile Range Facility, 

Range Control is responsible for hazard area surveillance and clearance, and the control of all range 

operational areas. Although operations in special use airspace are scheduled through the Navy Fleet and 

Area Control and Surveillance Facilities, Range Control coordinates the real-time control of ranges in 

coordination with the Federal Aviation Administration and other military users, and communicates with 

the operations conductors and all participants entering and leaving the range areas. The Federal 

Aviation Administration and the U.S. Coast Guard issue Notices to Airmen and Notices to 

Mariners, respectively.

During training and testing activities in the Study Area, the Navy ensures that the appropriate safety 

zone is clear of non-participants before engaging in certain activities, such as firing weapons. Inability to 

obtain a “clear range” could result in the delay, cancellation, or relocation of an event. This approach 

ensures public safety during Navy activities that otherwise could harm non-participants. Current Navy 

practices employ the use of sensors and other devices (e.g., radar and big-eye binoculars) to ensure 

public health and safety while conducting training and testing activities. The following subsections 

outline the current requirements and practices for human safety as they pertain to range safety 

procedures, range inspection procedures, exercise planning, and scheduling and coordinating 

procedures for the Navy.

Training activities must comply with Fleet Area Control and Surveillance Facility procedures. Fleet Area 

Control and Surveillance Facilities San Diego and Hawaii have published safety procedures for activities 

conducted both nearshore and offshore (U.S. Department of the Navy, 2014). These guidelines (and 

others) apply to range users as follows:

• Navy personnel are responsible for ensuring that impact areas and targets are clear before 

commencing hazardous activities.

• The use of underwater munitions must be coordinated with submarine operational authorities. 

The coordination also applies to towed sound navigation and ranging (sonar) arrays and 

torpedo countermeasures.

• Aircraft or vessels expending munitions shall not commence firing without the permission of the 

Range Safety Officer for their specific range area.

• Firing units and targets must remain in their assigned areas, and units must fire in accordance 

with current safety instructions.

• Aircraft carrying munitions to or from ranges shall avoid populated areas to the maximum 

extent possible.
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.12-5

3.12 Public Health and Safety

• Strict on-scene procedures include the use of ship sensors, visual surveillance of the range from 

aircraft and range safety boats, and radar and acoustic data to confirm the firing range and 

target area are clear of civilian vessels, aircraft, or other non-participants.

Comprehensive safety planning instructions exist for specific testing activities, such as laser and 

electromagnetic energy testing (U.S. Department of Defense, 2009; U.S. Department of the Navy, 2008). 

These instructions provide guidance on how to identify the hazards, assess the potential risk, analyze 

risk control measures, implement risk controls, and review safety procedures. They apply to all testing 

activities including ground, waterborne, and airborne testing activities involving personnel, aircraft, inert 

minefields, equipment, and airspace. The guidance applies to system program managers, program 

engineers, test engineers, test directors, and aircrews that are responsible for incorporating safety 

planning and review when conducting test programs.

3.12.2.2.1 Aviation Safety

The Navy procedures regarding planning and management of Special Use Airspace are provided in the 

Chief of Naval Operations Instruction 3770.2K, Airspace Procedures and Planning Manual (U.S. 

Department of the Navy, 2007). Scheduling and planning procedures for air operations on range 

complexes are issued through the Navy’s Fleet Area Control and Surveillance Facilities San Diego and 

Hawaii (U.S. Department of the Navy, 2014). 

Testing activities have their own procedures that require that safety be considered in any testing event. 

For example, the Navy’s Operational Test Director's Manual prescribes policies and procedures for the 

planning, conducting, and reporting of Operational Test and Evaluation of new and improved naval 

weapons and warfare support systems (U.S. Department of the Navy, 2016).

Aircrews involved in training or testing exercises must be aware that non-participating aircraft and ships 

are not precluded from entering the area and may not comply with Notices to Airmen or Notices to 

Mariners. Aircrews are required to maintain a continuous lookout for non-participating aircraft while 

operating in warning areas under Visual Flight Rules. In general, aircraft carrying munitions are not 

allowed to fly over public or commercial boats or ships.

3.12.2.2.2 Submarine Navigation Safety

Submarine crews use various methods to avoid collisions while they are surfaced, including visual and 

radar scanning, acoustic depth finders, and state-of-the-art satellite navigational systems. During 

submerged transit, submarines use all available ocean navigation tools, including inertial navigation 

charts that calculate position based on the submerged movements of the submarine. Submarines use 

these systems to avoid surface vessels as well as all other hazards to navigation.

3.12.2.2.3 Surface Vessel Navigation Safety

The Navy practices the fundamentals of safe navigation. As specified in Section 2.3.3 (Standard 

Operating Procedures), ships operated by or for the Navy have personnel assigned to stand watch at all 

times, day and night, when underway. Watch personnel undertake extensive training in accordance with 

the Navy Lookout Training Handbook or civilian equivalent, including on-the-job instruction and a formal 

Personal Qualification Standard program (or equivalent program for supporting contractors or civilians), 

to certify that they have demonstrated all necessary skills (such as detection and reporting of floating or 

partially submerged objects). While on watch, personnel employ visual search techniques, including the 

use of binoculars and scanning techniques in accordance with the Navy Lookout Training Handbook or 

civilian equivalent. After sunset and prior to sunrise, watch personnel employ night visual search 
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.12-6

3.12 Public Health and Safety

techniques, which could include the use of night vision devices. Watch personnel are primarily posted 

for safety of navigation, range clearance, and man-overboard precautions. For some specific testing 

activities, such as unmanned surface vehicle testing, a support boat would be used in the vicinity of the 

testing and operation to ensure safe navigation. Before firing or launching a weapon or radiating a 

non-eye-safe laser, Navy surface vessels are required to determine that all safety criteria have been 

satisfied. When applicable, the surface vessel would use aircraft and other boats to aid in navigation.

3.12.2.2.4 Sonar Safety

Surface vessels and submarines may use active sonar in the pierside locations listed in Chapter 2 

(Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives) and during transit to training or testing exercise 

locations. To ensure safe and effective sonar use, the Navy applies the same safety procedures for 

pierside sonar use as described in Section 3.12.2.2 (Safety and Inspection Procedures).

The U.S. Navy Diving Manual, Appendix 1A, Safe Diving Distances from Transmitting Sonar, is the Navy’s 

governing document for protecting divers during active sonar use (U.S. Department of the Navy, 2011a). 

The manual provides procedures for calculating safe distances from active sonar. These procedures are 

derived from experimental and theoretical research conducted at the Naval Submarine Medical 

Research Laboratory and the Navy Experimental Diving Unit. Safety distances vary based on conditions 

that include diver dress, type of sonar, and duration of time in the water. These safety distances would 

also be applicable to recreational swimmers and divers. Some safety procedures include measurements 

to be taken during testing activities to identify an exclusion area for non-participating swimmers 

and divers.

3.12.2.2.5 Electromagnetic Energy Safety

This section discusses electromagnetic energy transmitted through the air as a result of proposed 

activities. All frequencies (or wavelengths) of electromagnetic energy are referred to as the 

electromagnetic spectrum and include electromagnetic energy and radio frequency radiation. 

Communications and electronic devices such as radar, electronic warfare devices, navigational aids, 

two-way radios, cell phones, and other radio transmitters produce electromagnetic radiation. While 

such equipment emits electromagnetic energy, some of these systems are the same as, or similar to, 

civilian navigational aids and radars at local airports and television weather stations. Radio waves and 

microwaves emitted by transmitting antennas are another form of electromagnetic energy, collectively 

referred to as radio frequency radiation. Radio frequency energy includes frequencies ranging from 0 to 

3,000 gigahertz. Exposure to radio frequency energy of sufficient intensity at frequencies between 

3 kilohertz and 300 gigahertz can adversely affect people, munitions, and fuel.

To avoid excessive exposures to electromagnetic energy, military aircraft are operated in accordance 

with standard operating procedures that establish minimum separation distances between 

electromagnetic energy emitters and people, munitions, and fuels (U.S. Department of Defense, 2009). 

Thresholds for determining hazardous levels of electromagnetic energy to humans, munitions, and fuel 

have been determined for electromagnetic energy sources based on frequency and power output, and 

practices are in place to protect the public from electromagnetic radiation hazards (U.S. Department of 

Defense, 2002, 2009). These procedures include setting the heights and angles of electromagnetic 

energy transmissions to avoid direct exposure, posting warning signs, establishing safe operating levels, 

activating warning lights when radar systems are operational, and not operating some platforms that 

emit electromagnetic energy within 15 NM of shore. Safety planning instructions provide clearance 

procedures for non-participants in operational areas before conducting training and testing activities 
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.12-7

3.12 Public Health and Safety

that involve underwater electromagnetic energy (e.g., mine warfare) (U.S. Department of Defense, 

2009; U.S. Department of the Navy, 2008).

3.12.2.2.6 Laser Safety

Lasers produce a coherent beam of light energy. The Navy uses lasers for precision range finding, as 

target designation/illumination devices for engagement with laser-guided weapons, and for mine 

detection and mine countermeasures, as well as for non-lethal deterrent. Testing activities include 

high-energy laser weapons tests to evaluate the specifications, integration, and performance of a 

vessel- or aircraft-mounted, high-energy laser. The high-energy laser would be used as a weapon to 

disable small surface vessels. The Office of the Chief of Naval Operations Instruction 5100.27B/Marine 

Corps Order 5104.1C, Navy Laser Hazards Control Program, prescribes Navy and Marine Corps policy 

and guidance in the identification and control of laser hazards. The Navy observes strict precautions and 

has written instructions in place for laser users to ensure that non-participants are not exposed to 

intense light energy. Laser safety procedures for aircraft require an initial pass over the target before 

laser activation to ensure that target areas are clear. During actual laser use, aircraft run-in headings are 

also restricted to avoid unintentional contact with personnel or non-participants. Personnel 

participating in laser training activities are required to complete a laser safety course (U.S. Department 

of the Navy, 2008).

3.12.2.2.7 Explosive Munitions Detonation Safety

Pressure waves from underwater detonations can pose a physical hazard in surrounding waters. Before 

conducting an underwater explosive training or testing activity, Navy personnel establish an 

appropriately sized exclusion zone to avoid exposing non-participants to the harmful intensities of 

pressure waves. The U.S. Navy Diving Manual, Section 2.7, Underwater Explosions, provides procedures 

for determining safe distances from underwater explosions (U.S. Department of the Navy, 2011a). In 

accordance with training and testing procedures for safety planning related to detonations (see 

Section 3.12.2.2.8, Weapons Firing and Munitions Expenditure Safety), the Navy uses the following 

detonation procedures:

• Navy personnel are responsible for ensuring that impact areas and targets are clear before 

commencing hazardous activities.

• The use of underwater munitions must be coordinated with submarine operational authorities.

• Aircraft or vessels expending munitions shall not commence firing without permission of the 

Range Safety Officer or Test Safety Officer for their specific range area.

• Firing units and targets must remain in their assigned areas, and units must fire in accordance 

with current safety instructions.

• Detonation activities would be conducted during daylight hours.

3.12.2.2.8 Weapons Firing and Munitions Expenditure Safety

Navy explosives safety policy is based on the requirements of DoD 6055.9-STD, Ammunition and 

Explosives Safety Standards. This DoD standard establishes uniform safety requirements applicable to 

ammunition and explosives and to associated and unrelated personnel and property exposed to the 

potentially damaging effects of an accident involving ammunition and explosives during, among other 

things, usage during training, testing, transportation, handling, storage, maintenance, and disposal (U.S. 

Department of Defense, 2012).
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.12-8

3.12 Public Health and Safety

Safety is a primary consideration for all training and testing activities. The range must be able to safely 

contain the hazard area of the weapons and equipment employed. The hazard area is based on the size 

and net explosive weight of the weapon, and it includes a safety buffer around the target to account for 

items going off-range or malfunctioning. The size of the buffer zone is determined by the type of 

activity. For activities with a large hazard area, special sea and air surveillance measures are 

implemented to make sure the area is clear before the activities commence. Before aircraft can drop 

munitions, they are required to make a preliminary pass over the intended target area to ensure that it 

is clear of boats, divers, or other non-participants. Aircraft carrying munitions are not allowed to fly over 

surface vessels.

Training and testing activities are delayed, moved, or cancelled if there is a question about the safety of 

the public. Target areas must be clear of non-participants before conducting training and testing. When 

using munitions with flight termination systems (which terminate the flight of airborne missiles or 

launch vehicles when they veer from their targeted path), the Navy is required to follow standard 

operating procedures to ensure public health and safety. In those cases where a weapons system does 

not have a flight termination system, the size of the target area that needs to be clear of nonparticipants is based on the flight distance of the weapon plus an additional distance beyond the 

system’s performance capability.

3.12.3 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

This section evaluates how and to what degree the activities described in Chapter 2 (Description of 

Proposed Action and Alternatives) potentially would impact public health and safety. Table 2.6-1

(Proposed Training Activities) through Table 2.6-5 (Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command 

Proposed Testing Activities) present the proposed training and testing activity locations for each 

alternative (including the number of events). Each public health and safety stressor is introduced, and 

analyzed by alternative for both training and testing activities. Tables B-1 and B-2 in Appendix B (Activity 

Stressor Matrices) show the warfare areas and associated stressors that were considered for analysis of 

public health and safety. The stressors vary in intensity, frequency, duration, and location within the 

Study Area. The stressors applicable to public health and safety are the following:

• Underwater Energy (sonar and underwater explosions)

• In-Air Energy (radar and lasers)

• Physical Interactions (aircraft, vessels, in-water devices/targets, munitions, seafloor devices)

• Secondary Stressors (impacts to water quality from explosives and explosion byproducts, 

metals, chemicals other than explosives, and other materials)

As discussed in Chapter 2 (Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives), the majority of the training 

and testing activities that would be conducted under Alternatives 1 and 2 are the same or similar as 

those currently being conducted or have been conducted in the past. 

The potential for impacts on public health and safety were evaluated assuming the implementation of 

the Navy’s standard operating procedures, as discussed in Section 2.3.3 (Standard Operating 

Procedures). Training and testing activities in the Study Area are conducted in accordance with guidance 

provided in Fleet Area Control and Surveillance Facility Instructions (U.S. Department of the Navy, 2014)

(if activities are conducted in Fleet Area Control and Surveillance Facility areas) or Test and Safety 

Planning Instructions. These instructions provide standard operating procedures for all normal range 

events. They also provide range users with information that is necessary to operate safely and avoid 
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.12-9

3.12 Public Health and Safety

affecting nonmilitary activities such as shipping, recreational boating, diving, and commercial or 

recreational fishing. Ranges are managed in accordance with standard operating procedures that ensure 

public health and safety. 

3.12.3.1 Underwater Energy

Underwater energy can come from acoustic sources or electromagnetic devices. Active sonar,

underwater explosions, air guns, and vessel movements produce underwater acoustic energy. Sound 

travels from air to water during aircraft overflights. Electromagnetic energy can enter the water from 

mine warfare training devices and unmanned underwater vehicles. The potential for the public to be 

exposed to these stressors would be limited to individuals, such as recreational swimmers or scuba 

divers who are underwater and within unsafe proximity of a training or testing event.

Underwater acoustic energy is generated from many of the proposed activities; however, not all would

be considered in detail in this environmental impact statement/overseas environmental impact 

statement (EIS/OEIS) in terms of their impact on public health and safety because the public safety risks 

from some activities are deemed to be negligible. The public might intermittently hear noise from ships 

if they are in the general vicinity of a training or testing event, but there would be no impact on public 

health and safety because of the infrequency and short duration of events. In addition, underwater air

guns are used during some pierside integrated swimmer defense training and testing activities, but 

public health and safety would not be put at risk because access to pierside locations by 

non-participants is controlled. Active sonar and underwater explosions are the only sources of 

underwater acoustic energy evaluated for potential impacts on public health and safety.

The proposed activities that would result in underwater acoustic energy include activities such as 

amphibious warfare, surface warfare, anti-submarine warfare, mine warfare, surface warfare testing, 

sonar maintenance, pierside sonar testing, and unmanned underwater vehicle testing. A limited amount 

of active sonar would be used during transit between range complexes and training and 

testing locations.

The effect of active sonar on humans varies with the frequency of sonar involved. Of the four types of 

sonar (very-high, high-, mid-, and low-frequency), mid-frequency and low-frequency sonar have the 

greatest potential to impact humans due to the range of human hearing.

Underwater explosives cause a physical shock front that compresses the explosive material, and the 

pressure wave then passes into the surrounding water. Generally, the pressure wave would be the 

primary cause of injury. The effects of an underwater explosion depend on several factors, including the 

size, type, and depth of the explosive charge and where it is in the water column.

Electromagnetic energy is associated with systems such as the Organic Airborne and Surface Influence 

Sweep System that emit an electromagnetic field to simulate the presence of a ship. Electromagnetic 

energy can also be used in a defensive mode to cause nearby mines to explode. Unmanned underwater 

vehicles, some unmanned surface vehicles, and towed devices use electromagnetic energy, either for 

navigation or as a means to be targeted. 

Electromagnetic energy dissipates quickly with distance from the source. Scientific literature does not 

conclude that there are adverse health effects from most levels of electromagnetic energy, which is why 

no federal standards have been set for occupational exposures to this type of energy. DoD Instruction

3222.03 provides guidance regarding management and implementation of the electromagnetic 
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.12-10

3.12 Public Health and Safety

environmental effects program, including hazards of electromagnetic radiation to personnel (U.S. 

Department of Defense, 2015). 

As previously stated, the potential for the public to be exposed to these stressors would be limited to 

individuals who are underwater and within unsafe proximity to an event. Scuba diving is a popular 

recreational activity that is typically concentrated around known dive attractions, such as reefs and 

shipwrecks. The Professional Association of Diving Instructors (one of several scuba diving instruction 

organizations) suggests that certified open-water divers limit their dives to 60 ft. More experienced 

divers are generally limited to 100 ft.; in general, no recreational diver should exceed 130 ft.

(Professional Association of Diving Instructors, 2011). These depths typically limit this activity’s distance 

from shore.

Navy operations overlapping with recreational swimmers or divers would be unlikely. Recreational 

swimmers and divers are not precluded from operating in public boat lanes or adjoining areas near Navy 

pierside locations (which include shipyards); however, Navy operators are diligent in identifying 

recreational swimmers and divers to ensure that these would be avoided. Additionally, recreational 

divers would not be expected near Navy ships at sea. The locations of popular offshore diving spots are 

well-documented, and dive boats (typically well-marked) and diver-down flags would be visible from the 

ships conducting the training and testing. The U.S. Navy Diving Manual (U.S. Department of the Navy, 

1999) contains methodologies to determine appropriate safety distances associated with sonar use near 

Navy divers. These safety distances would also be used as safety buffers to protect public health and 

safety. If any unauthorized personnel are detected within the sonar activity safety buffer, the activity 

would be temporarily halted until the area is again cleared.

3.12.3.1.1 Impacts from Underwater Energy Under Alternative 1

Impacts from Underwater Energy Under Alternative 1 for Training Activities

Under Alternative 1, the Navy would conduct active sonar training activities such as anti-submarine 

warfare, mine warfare, and sonar maintenance at the Hawaii Range Complex, the Southern California

(SOCAL) Range Complex, and other HSTT areas. Activities involving underwater explosions, such as 

surface warfare and mine warfare, would be conducted at established ranges and training locations. The 

Navy would conduct these activities throughout the Study Area. 

As previously discussed, the Navy implements operating procedures designed to protect public health 

and safety. These procedures include

• ensuring that training areas are clear before commencing hazardous activities,

• conducting all activities in accordance with established safety instructions,

• conducting underwater detonations only at established and approved locations,

• posting Navy lookouts at all times during an exercise to ensure non-participants do not enter the 

area, and

• coordinating with the Coast Guard to issue Notices to Mariners notifying the public about 

durations and locations of hazardous activities.

Consequently, the potential for training activities using underwater energy to impact public health and 

safety under Alternative 1 would be unlikely.
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.12-11

3.12 Public Health and Safety

Impacts from Underwater Energy Under Alternative 1 for Testing Activities

Under Alternative 1, the Navy would conduct active sonar testing activities such as anti-submarine 

warfare, mine warfare, pierside sonar testing, unmanned underwater vehicle testing, and sonar 

maintenance at the Hawaii and Southern California OPAREAs. Pierside testing of active sonar would 

occur in Pearl Harbor and San Diego. 

The Navy would conduct testing activities involving underwater detonations, such as surface warfare, 

anti-submarine warfare, mine warfare, and surface combatant sea trials at current locations, which 

include specific training areas in the Hawaii Range Complex and the SOCAL Range Complex.

As discussed in Impacts from Underwater Energy Under Alternative 1 for Training Activities, the Navy 

implements operating procedures designed to protect public health and safety. Under this alternative, 

these procedures would be implemented. Consequently, the potential for testing activities using 

underwater energy to impact public health and safety under Alternative 1 would be unlikely.

3.12.3.1.2 Impacts from Underwater Energy Under Alternative 2

Impacts from Underwater Energy Under Alternative 2 for Training Activities

Alternative 2 reflects an increase in sonar training over that presented in Alternative 1. Training 

locations would remain the same as those of Alternative 1. Alternative 2 assumes a maximum of three 

Composite Training Unit Exercises per year. The Navy would implement standard operating and safety 

procedures, as previously discussed. Therefore, potential for impacts on public health and safety beyond 

those identified for Alternative 1 would be unlikely.

The Navy would conduct activities involving underwater explosions, such as surface warfare, mine 

warfare, and civilian port defense, at current locations. In this case also, the Navy would implement

standard operating and safety procedures. Therefore, potential for impacts on public health and safety 

beyond those identified for Alternative 1 would be unlikely.

Impacts from Underwater Energy Under Alternative 2 for Testing Activities

Under Alternative 2, the Navy would conduct active sonar testing activities (both at-sea and pierside) in 

the same areas and at the same levels identified under Alternative 1. The Navy would implement

standard operating and safety procedures. Therefore, an increased potential for impacts on public 

health and safety beyond those identified for Alternative 1 would be unlikely.

The Navy would conduct testing activities involving underwater explosions, such as air warfare, surface

warfare, anti-submarine warfare, mine warfare, surface combatant sea trials, littoral combat ship 

testing, ship shock trials, combat ship qualifications, at-sea explosive testing, and sonobuoy lot 

acceptance testing in the same areas identified under Alternative 1, although Alternative 2 would 

increase the number of some testing activities involving underwater explosions. The Navy would 

implement standard operating and safety procedures. Therefore, an increased potential for impacts on 

public health and safety beyond those identified for Alternative 1 would be unlikely.

3.12.3.1.3 Impacts from Underwater Energy Under the No Action Alternative

Impacts from Underwater Energy Under the No Action Alternative for Training and 

Testing Activities

Under the No Action Alternative, the Navy would not conduct the proposed training and testing 

activities in the HSTT Study Area. Various underwater energy stressors (e.g., acoustic and 

electromagnetic) would not be introduced into the marine environment. Therefore, baseline conditions 
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.12-12

3.12 Public Health and Safety

of the existing environment would either remain unchanged or would improve slightly after cessation of 

ongoing training and testing activities. However, with regard to diminished military readiness, the No 

Action Alternative would have adverse impacts on public health and safety.

3.12.3.2 In-Air Energy

In-air energy stressors include sources of electromagnetic energy and lasers. The sources of 

electromagnetic energy include radar, and electronic warfare systems. These systems operate similarly 

to other navigational aids and radars at civilian airports and television weather stations throughout the 

United States. Electronic warfare systems emit electromagnetic energy similar to that from cell phones, 

handheld radios, commercial radio stations, and television stations. The Navy follows documented 

safety procedures to protect Navy personnel and the public from electromagnetic energy hazards. These 

procedures include setting the heights and angles of electromagnetic energy transmissions to avoid 

direct human exposure, posting warning signs, establishing safe operating levels, and activating warning 

lights when radar systems are operational. 

High-energy lasers are used as weapons to disable surface targets. The Navy would operate high-energy 

laser equipment in accordance with procedures defined in the Office of the Chief of Naval Operations 

Instruction 5100.23G, Navy Safety and Occupational Health Program Manual (U.S. Department of the 

Navy, 2011b). These high-energy light sources can cause eye injuries and burns. A comprehensive safety 

program exists for the use of lasers. Current Navy safety procedures protect individuals from the hazard 

of injuries caused by laser energy. Laser safety requirements for aircraft and vessels mandate 

verification that target areas are clear before commencement of an exercise. In the case of aircraft, 

during actual laser use, the aircraft run-in headings are restricted to preclude inadvertent lasing of areas 

where the public may be present.

Training and testing activities involving electromagnetic energy include electronic warfare activities that 

use airborne and surface electronic jamming devices to defeat tracking and communications systems. 

Training activities involving low-energy lasers include surface warfare and mine warfare; there are no 

training activities that use high-energy lasers.

3.12.3.2.1 Impacts from In-Air Energy Under Alternative 1

Impacts from In-Air Energy Under Alternative 1 for Training Activities

Under Alternative 1, the Navy would conduct electronic warfare training activities involving 

electromagnetic energy sources at current levels and locations, including the Hawaii OPAREA and the 

SOCAL Range Complex’s Electronic Warfare Range. The Navy would conduct laser targeting activities 

and mine detection activities using lasers at current levels and locations, including the Hawaii Range 

Complex’s Warning Area 188 and the SOCAL Range Complex’s Anti-Submarine Warfare Range and 

San Clemente Island Shore Bombardment Range.

It is unlikely that the public would be exposed to electromagnetic energy sources or lasers from training 

activities under Alternative 1, because the Navy would not conduct these activities in proximity to the 

public. Additionally, the Navy would employ strict safety procedures for the use of lasers and other 

electromagnetic energy sources, as discussed in Sections 3.12.2.2.5 (Electromagnetic Energy Safety) and

Section 3.12.2.2.6 (Laser Safety). Consequently, the potential for training activities to impact public 

health and safety under Alternative 1 would be unlikely.
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.12-13

3.12 Public Health and Safety

Impacts from In-Air Energy Under Alternative 1 for Testing Activities

Under Alternative 1, the Navy would conduct electronic warfare testing activities involving 

electromagnetic energy sources and low-energy lasers at locations identified under Alternative 1. 

High-energy laser weapons testing activities (the only testing activities using high-energy lasers) would 

occur only within designated areas of the Hawaii Range Complex and the SOCAL Range Complex.

The Navy would not conduct these testing activities in proximity to the public. Additionally, the Navy 

would employ strict safety procedures for the use of lasers and other electromagnetic energy sources, 

as discussed in Sections 3.12.2.2.5 (Electromagnetic Energy Safety) and Section 3.12.2.2.6 (Laser Safety).

Consequently, the potential for testing activities to impact public health and safety would be unlikely.

3.12.3.2.2 Impacts from In-Air Energy Under Alternative 2

Impacts from In-Air Energy Under Alternative 2 for Training Activities

Alternative 2 would involve the same locations and number of training activities described under 

Alternative 1 for electromagnetic energy and lasers. The Navy would implement standard operating and 

safety procedures. Therefore, an increased potential for impacts on public health and safety beyond 

those identified for Alternative 1 would be unlikely.

Impacts from In-Air Energy Under Alternative 2 for Testing Activities

Alternative 2 would involve the same locations and number of testing activities described under 

Alternative 1 for electromagnetic energy and lasers. The Navy would implement standard operating and 

safety procedures. Therefore, an increased potential for impacts on public health and safety beyond 

those identified for Alternative 1 would be unlikely for testing activities.

3.12.3.2.3 Impacts from In-Air Energy Under the No Action Alternative

Impacts from In-Air Energy Under the No Action Alternative for Training and Testing 

Activities

Under the No Action Alternative, the Navy would not conduct the proposed training and testing 

activities in the HSTT Study Area. In-air energy stressors (e.g., laser and electromagnetic) would not be 

introduced into the marine environment. Therefore, baseline conditions of the existing environment 

would either remain unchanged or would improve slightly after cessation of ongoing training and testing 

activities. However, with regard to diminished military readiness, the No Action Alternative would have 

adverse impacts on public health and safety.

3.12.3.3 Physical Interactions

This section evaluates potential impacts associated with the interaction of Navy aircraft, vessels, and 

equipment with general public. Public health and safety could be impacted by physical collisions 

between Navy assets and the public. As described in Section 3.0.3.3.4 (Physical Disturbance and Strike 

Stressors), Navy aircraft, vessels, targets, munitions, towed devices, seafloor devices, and other training 

and testing expended materials could be directly, physically encountered by recreational, commercial, 

institutional, and governmental aircraft, vessels, and individuals such as swimmers, divers, and anglers.

Like private aircraft, Navy aircraft are required to observe and avoid other aircraft. In addition, the Navy 

issues Notices to Airmen advising private and commercial pilots about scheduled Navy training and 

testing activities. Finally, Navy personnel are required to verify that the range is clear of non-participants 

before initiating any activity that could be potentially hazardous to the public. Together, these 

procedures would minimize the potential for adverse interactions between Navy and non-participant 
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.12-14

3.12 Public Health and Safety

aircraft. Application of standard operating procedures would minimize the potential for interaction 

between private or commercial aircraft with Navy training or testing activities employing aircraft, 

munitions, and aerial targets.

Private and commercial vessels traversing the Study Area during training or testing activities may 

interact with Navy vessels, munitions, and surface targets. Naval Vessel Protection Zones established by 

U.S. Coast Guard regulations (33 CFR section 165.2010) require other (non-Navy) vessels to slow down 

to a minimum speed within 500 yards of a Navy vessel greater than 100 ft. long; they are prohibited 

from approaching within 100 yards of a Navy vessel greater than 100 ft. long. Both Navy and public 

vessels operate under maritime navigational rules requiring them to observe and avoid other vessels. In 

addition, Notices to Mariners advise vessel operators about when and where Navy training and testing 

activities are scheduled. Finally, Navy personnel are required to verify that the range is clear of nonparticipants before initiating any potentially hazardous activity. Together, these procedures minimize 

the potential for adverse interactions between Navy and non-participant vessels.

Recreational diving within the Study Area takes place primarily at known diving sites such as shipwrecks 

and reefs. The locations of these popular dive sites are well-documented, dive boats are typically 

well-marked, and diver-down flags are visible from a distance. As a result, dive sites would be easily 

avoided by ships conducting training or testing activities. Interactions between training and testing 

activities and recreational divers, thus, would not be expected. Similar knowledge and avoidance of 

popular fishing areas would minimize interactions between training and testing activities and 

recreational fishing.

Commercial and recreational fishing activities could encounter military expended materials that could 

entangle fishing gear and pose a safety risk. The Navy recovers surface targets after they are used to 

avoid them becoming a collision risk or entanglement risk. Unrecoverable pieces of military expended 

materials are typically small (such as sonobuoys), constructed of soft materials (such as target cardboard 

boxes or tethered target balloons), or intended to sink to the bottom after their useful function is 

completed, so they would not pose a collision or entanglement risk to civilian vessels or equipment. 

Thus, these targets do not pose a safety risk to individuals using the area for recreation because the 

public would not likely be exposed to these items before they sank to the seafloor.

The footprint of military expended materials in the Study Area is discussed in Habitats, Section 3.5.3.4.3 

(Impacts from Military Expended Materials). Figure 3.5-13 (Alternative 1 – Proportional Impact (Acres) 

from Military Expended Materials by Substrate Type for Training and Testing Compared to Total Habitat 

Within the Study Area Over 1 Year) and Figure 3.5-15 (Alternative 2 – Proportional Impact (Acres) from 

Military Expended Materials by Substrate Type for Training and Testing Compared to Total Vulnerable 

Habitat Within the Range Complexes of the Large Marine Ecosystems Within the Study Area) illustrate 

the very small percentage of marine substrate (much less than 1 percent of the total area of 

documented soft bottom or hard bottom in their respective training or testing areas). Given the small 

footprint of military expended materials estimated here, it is unlikely the public would encounter 

military expended materials during recreational or commercial fishing activities.

Section 3.2 (Sediments and Water Quality) discusses the low failure rate of munitions, which indicates 

that most munitions operate as intended. While fishing activities may encounter undetonated 

munitions, it would be unlikely because of the deep waters and the low density of munitions within the 

large size of the Study Area. Navy Explosive Ordnance Disposal teams would respond and safely dispose 

of any hazardous munitions.
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.12-15

3.12 Public Health and Safety

Additionally, the public may encounter military expended materials, such as pieces of plastics or fabric 

that wash up on the seashore. Most of this debris does not pose a potential for safety impacts; however, 

other items, such as flares may pose potential safety impacts. Flares, such as the ones dropped into the 

ocean by military planes to use as markers, contain chemicals designed to burn at high intensity, 

allowing them to be visible from long distances. The chemicals (e.g., phosphorous) in unexpended or 

partially-burned flares can reignite when exposed to air or water, resulting in severe burns if handled.

The presence of any flares should be reported to appropriate agencies, such as the police or U.S. Coast 

Guard, who would then contact ordnance disposal personnel for their proper disposal.

The analysis focuses on the potential for a direct physical interaction with aircraft, vessels, targets, or 

other expended materials. A vessel or aircraft transiting through the water or air (as would be involved 

in the vast majority of proposed activities) inherently involves the risk of collision with other vessels or 

aircraft. But this risk is greatly diminished by a shared set of international navigational rules for vessels 

and aircraft. The greatest potential for a physical interaction would be along the coast and near 

populated areas, because that is where public activities are concentrated.

3.12.3.3.1 Impacts from Physical Interactions Under Alternative 1

Impacts from Physical Interactions Under Alternative 1 for Training Activities

Under Alternative 1, the Navy would conduct training activities at current locations. The potential for a 

direct physical interaction between the public and aircraft, vessels, targets, or expended materials 

would not change from current conditions. The Navy implements strict operating procedures that 

protect public health and safety. These operating procedures include ensuring clearance of the area 

before commencing training activities.

As discussed in Section 3.12.3.3 (Physical Interactions), there would be no impact on public health and 

safety from physical interactions with training activities, based on the Navy’s implementation of strict 

operating procedures that protect public health and safety. These operating procedures include 

ensuring clearance of the area before commencing training activities involving physical interactions. 

Because of the Navy’s safety procedures, the potential for training activities to impact public health and 

safety under Alternative 1 would be unlikely.

Impacts from Physical Interactions Under Alternative 1 for Testing Activities

Because the potential for a physical interaction is not activity or location specific, the analysis for the 

training activities above applies to testing activities under Alternative 1. As concluded above, because of 

the Navy’s safety procedures, the potential for testing activities to impact public health and safety under 

Alternative 1 would be unlikely.

3.12.3.3.2 Impacts from Physical Interactions Under Alternative 2

Impacts from Physical Interactions Under Alternative 2 for Training Activities

Under Alternative 2, the Navy would increase the number of at-sea training activities over that 

presented in Alternative 1. While Alternative 2 would adjust locations and number of some training 

activities, the Navy would implement standard operating and safety procedures, as discussed in 

Section 3.12.3.3 (Physical Interactions). Therefore, the potential for impacts on public health and safety 

would remain unlikely.
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.12-16

3.12 Public Health and Safety

Impacts from Physical Interactions Under Alternative 2 for Testing Activities

Under Alternative 2, the Navy would increase some types of testing activities. Because the potential for 

a physical interaction is not activity-specific or location-specific, the analysis for the training activities 

above applies to testing activities under Alternative 2. As concluded above, because of the Navy’s safety 

procedures, the potential for testing activities to impact public health and safety under Alternative 2 

would remain unlikely.

3.12.3.3.3 Impacts from Physical Interactions Under the No Action Alternative

Impacts from Physical Interactions Under the No Action Alternative for Training and 

Testing Activities

Under the No Action Alternative, the Navy would not conduct the proposed training and testing

activities in the HSTT Study Area. Physical interaction stressors (e.g., collision with a vessel, interaction 

with a military expended material) would not be introduced into the marine environment. Therefore, 

baseline conditions of the existing environment would remain either unchanged or would improve 

slightly after cessation of ongoing training and testing activities. However, with regard to diminished 

military readiness, the No Action Alternative would have adverse impacts on public health and safety.

3.12.3.4 Secondary (Sediments and Water Quality)

Secondary stressors are defined as those stressors that could pose indirect impacts on public health and 

safety through degradation in water quality or changes to sediment. These stressors include the use of 

explosives, explosive chemical byproducts, and other materials/debris potentially generated (marine 

markers, flares, chaff, targets, and miscellaneous components of other materials). 

3.12.3.4.1 Impacts from Sediments and Water Quality Under Alternative 1

Impacts from Sediments and Water Quality Under Alternative 1 for Training Activities

Section 3.2 (Sediments and Water Quality) considers the impacts on marine sediments and water quality 

from these stressors. The analysis in Section 3.2 (Sediments and Water Quality) determined that any 

impacts to water quality would be temporary and minimal. No state or federal standards or guidelines 

would be violated. Consequently, training under Alternative 1 would result in no indirect impacts on 

public health and safety associated with sediments and water quality.

Impacts from Sediments and Water Quality Under Alternative 1 for Testing Activities

The analysis in Section 3.2 (Sediments and Water Quality) determined that any impacts to water quality 

would be temporary and minimal. No state or federal standards or guidelines would be violated. 

Consequently, testing under Alternative 1 would result in no indirect impacts on public health and safety

associated with sediments and water quality.

3.12.3.4.2 Impacts from Sediments and Water Quality Under Alternative 2

Impacts from Sediments and Water Quality Under Alternative 2 for Training Activities

The analysis in Section 3.2 (Sediments and Water Quality) determined that any impacts to water quality 

would be temporary and minimal. No state or federal standards or guidelines would be violated. 

Consequently, training under Alternative 2 would result in no indirect impacts on public health and 

safety associated with sediments and water quality.
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.12-17

3.12 Public Health and Safety

Impacts from Sediments and Water Quality Under Alternative 2 for Testing Activities

The analysis in Section 3.2 (Sediments and Water Quality) determined that any impacts to water quality 

would be temporary and minimal. No state or federal standards or guidelines would be violated. 

Consequently, testing under Alternative 2 would result in no indirect impacts on public health and safety

associated with sediments and water quality.

3.12.3.4.3 Impacts from Sediments and Water Quality Under the No Action Alternative

Impacts from Sediments and Water Quality Under the No Action Alternative for Training 

and Testing Activities

Under the No Action Alternative, the Navy would not conduct the proposed training and testing 

activities in the HSTT Study Area. Secondary stressors (e.g., chemicals affecting water or sediment

quality) would not be introduced into the marine environment. Therefore, baseline conditions of the 

existing environment would either remain unchanged or would improve slightly after cessation of 

ongoing training and testing activities. However, with regard to diminished military readiness, the No 

Action Alternative would have adverse impacts on public health and safety.

3.12.4 SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL IMPACTS ON PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY

3.12.4.1 Combined Impacts of All Stressors Under Alternative 1

Activities described in this EIS/OEIS that have potential to impact public health and safety include those 

that release underwater energy or in-air energy or those that result in physical interactions, as well as 

those that have indirect impacts from changes to sediments and water quality. As described throughout 

this section, the Navy promotes a proactive and comprehensive safety program designed to reduce to 

the greatest extent possible any potential impacts on public health and safety from training and testing 

activities. Elements of this program include implementing strict navigation rules, coordinating and 

disseminating information on potential hazardous activities, and use of remote sensing technologies 

(e.g., radar, sonar) or trained Navy lookouts to ensure that training and testing areas are clear of nonparticipants. Navy safety considerations are appropriate to the location and type of activity being 

conducted, irrespective of the number of activities occurring concurrently; consequently, no elevated 

impacts from the combined effect of all stressors are expected.

3.12.4.2 Combined Impacts of All Stressors Under Alternative 2

As with Alternative 1, no elevated impacts under Alternative 2 are expected from the combined effect of 

all stressors. Navy safety considerations are appropriate to the location and type of activity being 

conducted, irrespective of the number of activities concurrently conducted.

3.12.4.3 Combined Impacts of All Stressors Under the No Action Alternative

Although Navy at-sea training and testing activities within the Study Area would cease under the No 

Action Alternative, with respect to combined impacts of stressors, there would be no appreciable 

change in potential impacts on public health and safety, as these activities (currently or as proposed) 

would be unlikely to affect public health and safety. However, diminished military readiness under the 

No Action Alternative would adversely affect public health and safety.
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.12-18

3.12 Public Health and Safety

This page intentionally left blank.
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.12-19

References

REFERENCES

Professional Association of Diving Instructors. (2011). Scuba Certification Frequently Asked Questions 

Professional Association of Diving Instructors. Retrieved from 

http://www.padi.com/scuba/scuba-diving-guide/start-scuba-diving/scuba-certificationfaq/default.aspx

U.S. Department of Defense. (2002). Electromagnetic Environmental Effects: Requirements for Systems. 

(MIL-STD-464A).

U.S. Department of Defense. (2009). Protecting Personnel from Electromagnetic Fields. (DoD Instruction 

6055.11).

U.S. Department of Defense. (2012). Department of Defense Manual 6055.09-M, DoD Ammunition and 

Explosives Safety Standards: General Explosives Safety Information and Requirements. 

U.S. Department of Defense. (2015). Department of Defense Instruction 3222.03, DoD Electromagnetic 

Environmental Effects (E3) Program. 

U.S. Department of the Navy. (1999). U.S. Navy Dive Manual.

U.S. Department of the Navy. (2007). Airspace Procedures and Planning Manual. (OPNAV INSTRUCTION 

3770.2K).

U.S. Department of the Navy. (2008). Navy Laser Hazards Control Program. (OPNAVINST 5100.27B).

U.S. Department of the Navy. (2011a). U.S. Navy Dive Manual.

U.S. Department of the Navy. (2011b). Navy Safety and Occupational Health Program Manual. 

(OPNAVINST 5100.23G CH-1).

U.S. Department of the Navy. (2014). Fleet Area and Control Surveillance Facility San Diego Instruction 

3120.1H. 

U.S. Department of the Navy. (2016). Commander Operational Test and Evaluation Force Instruction 

3980.2G, Operational Test Directors Manual. 

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Aviation Administration. (2013). Air Traffic Organization 

Policy: Special Use Airspace Federal Aviation Administration (Ed.).
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.12-20

References

This page intentionally left blank.
4 Cumulative Impacts

Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

i

Table of Contents

Draft

Environmental Impact Statement/Overseas Environmental Impact Statement

Hawaii-Southern California Training and Testing

TABLE OF CONTENTS

4 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS .............................................................................................................4-1

4.1 Principles of Cumulative Impacts Analysis ..................................................................4-1

4.1.1 Determination of Significance................................................................................4-1

4.1.2 Identifying Region of Influence or Geographical Boundaries for 

Cumulative Impacts Analysis ................................................................................4-2

4.2 Projects and Other Activities Analyzed for Cumulative Impacts...................................4-2

4.3 Cumulative Impacts on Environmental Resources.....................................................4-30

4.4 Resource-Specific Cumulative Impacts......................................................................4-30

4.4.1 Air Quality ............................................................................................................4-30

4.4.2 Sediments and Water Quality..............................................................................4-31

4.4.3 Vegetation............................................................................................................4-34

4.4.4 Invertebrates........................................................................................................4-35

4.4.4.1 Region of Influence..............................................................................4-35

4.4.4.2 Resource Trends ..................................................................................4-35

4.4.4.3 Impacts of Other Actions.....................................................................4-35

4.4.4.4 Impacts of the Proposed Action That May Contribute to 

Cumulative Impacts.............................................................................4-37

4.4.4.5 Cumulative Impacts on Invertebrates .................................................4-37

4.4.5 Habitats................................................................................................................4-38

4.4.6 Fishes ...................................................................................................................4-39

4.4.7 Marine Mammals.................................................................................................4-41

4.4.7.1 Region of Influence..............................................................................4-41

4.4.7.2 Resource Trends ..................................................................................4-42

4.4.7.3 Impacts of Other Actions.....................................................................4-42

4.4.7.4 Impacts of the Proposed Action That May Contribute to 

Cumulative Impacts.............................................................................4-47

4.4.8 Reptiles ................................................................................................................4-50

4.4.8.1 Region of Influence..............................................................................4-50

4.4.8.2 Resource Trends ..................................................................................4-50

4.4.8.3 Impacts of Other Actions.....................................................................4-51

4.4.8.4 Impacts of the Proposed Action That May Contribute to 

Cumulative Impacts.............................................................................4-54

4.4.8.5 Cumulative Impacts on Reptiles..........................................................4-56
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

ii

Table of Contents

4.4.9 Birds .....................................................................................................................4-57

4.4.10 Cultural Resources...............................................................................................4-58

4.4.11 Socioeconomics ...................................................................................................4-58

4.4.12 Public Health and Safety ......................................................................................4-59

4.5 Summary of Cumulative Impacts..............................................................................4-59

List of Figures

There are no figures in this section.

List of Tables

Table 4.2-1: Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Actions .............................................................4-4
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

4-1

4.0 Cumulative Impacts

4 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

4.1 PRINCIPLES OF CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ANALYSIS

The approach taken herein to analyze cumulative effects meets the objectives of the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, Council on Environmental Quality regulations, and Council on 

Environmental Quality guidance. Council on Environmental Quality regulations (40 Code of Federal 

Regulations [CFR] 1500-1508) provide the implementing procedures for NEPA. The regulations define 

“cumulative effects” as: 

...the impact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the action when 

added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what 

agency (Federal or non-Federal) or person undertakes such other actions. Cumulative impacts 

can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of 

time (40 CFR 1508.7).

The Council on Environmental Quality provides guidance on cumulative impacts analysis in Considering 

Cumulative Effects Under the NEPA (Council on Environmental Quality, 1997). This guidance further 

identifies cumulative effects as those environmental effects resulting “from spatial and temporal 

crowding of environmental perturbations. The effects of human activities will accumulate when a 

second perturbation occurs at a site before the ecosystem can fully rebound from the effects of the first 

perturbation.” Noting that environmental impacts result from a diversity of sources and processes, this 

Council on Environmental Quality guidance observes that “no universally accepted framework for 

cumulative effects analysis exists,” while also noting that certain general principles have gained 

acceptance. One such principle provides that “cumulative effects analysis should be conducted within 

the context of resource, ecosystem, and community thresholds—levels of stress beyond which the 

desired condition degrades.” Thus, “each resource, ecosystem, and human community must be analyzed 

in terms of its ability to accommodate additional effects, based on its own time and space parameters.” 

Therefore, cumulative effects analysis normally will encompass a region of influence or geographic 

boundaries beyond the immediate area of the proposed action, and a time frame including past actions 

and foreseeable future actions, to capture these additional effects. Bounding the cumulative effects 

analysis is a complex undertaking, appropriately limited by practical considerations. Thus, Council on 

Environmental Quality guidelines observe that it “is not practical to analyze cumulative effects of an 

action on the universe; the list of environmental effects must focus on those that are truly meaningful.”

4.1.1 DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE

Per the Council on Environmental Quality’s Considering Cumulative Effects Under the NEPA (Council on 

Environmental Quality, 1997), the “levels of acceptable change used to determine the significance of 

effects will vary depending on the type of resource being analyzed, the condition of the resource, and 

the importance of the resource as an issue.” Furthermore, “this change is evaluated in terms of both the 

total threshold beyond which the resource degrades to unacceptable levels and the incremental 

contribution of the proposed action to reaching that threshold.” In practice, “the analyst must 

determine the realistic potential for the resource to sustain itself in the future and whether the 

proposed action will affect this potential.” In other words, for a proposed action to have a cumulatively 

significant impact to an environmental resource, two conditions must be met. First, the combined 

effects of all identified past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects, activities, and processes on a 

resource, including the effects of the proposed action, must be significant. Second, the proposed action 

must make a measurable or meaningful contribution to that significant cumulative impact.
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

4-2

4.0 Cumulative Impacts

4.1.2 IDENTIFYING REGION OF INFLUENCE OR GEOGRAPHICAL BOUNDARIES FOR 

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ANALYSIS

The region of influence or geographic boundaries for analyses of cumulative impacts can vary for 

different resources and environmental media. Council on Environmental Quality guidance (Council on 

Environmental Quality, 1997) indicates that geographic boundaries for cumulative impacts almost 

always should be expanded beyond those for the project-specific analyses. This guidance continues, 

indicating that one way to evaluate geographic boundaries is to consider the distance an effect can 

travel, and it identifies potential cumulative assessment boundaries accordingly. For air quality, the 

potentially affected air quality regions are the appropriate boundaries for assessment of cumulative 

impacts from releases of pollutants into the atmosphere. For water resources and land-based effects, 

watershed boundaries may be the appropriate regional boundary. For wide-ranging or migratory 

wildlife, specifically marine mammals, fish, sea turtles, and sea birds, any impacts of the Proposed 

Action might combine with the impacts of other activities or processes within the range of 

the population. 

A region of influence for evaluating the cumulative impacts of the Proposed Action is defined for each 

resource in Section 4.4 (Resource-Specific Cumulative Impacts). The basic region of influence or 

geographic boundary for the majority of resources analyzed for cumulative impacts in this 

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)/Overseas Environmental Impact Statement (OEIS) is the entire 

Hawaii-Southern California Training and Testing (HSTT) Study Area (Figure 2.1-1). The Study Area 

includes two large marine ecosystems, the California Current and the Insular Pacific-Hawaiian, and one 

open ocean area, the North Pacific Subtropical Gyre (Figure 3.0-1 and Figure 3.0-2), although the 

geographic boundaries for cumulative impacts analysis for some resources are expanded to include 

activities outside the Study Area that might impact migratory or wide-ranging animals. Other activities 

potentially originating from outside the Study Area that are considered in this analysis include impacts 

associated with maritime traffic (e.g., vessel strikes and underwater noise) and commercial fishing 

(e.g., bycatch and entanglement).

4.2 PROJECTS AND OTHER ACTIVITIES ANALYZED FOR CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

Cumulative analysis includes consideration of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. 

For past actions, the cumulative impacts analysis only considers those actions or activities that have had 

ongoing impacts that may be additive to impacts of the Proposed Action. Likewise, present and 

reasonably foreseeable future actions selected for inclusion in the analysis are those that may have 

effects additive to the effects of the Proposed Action as experienced by specific 

environmental receptors.

The cumulative impacts analysis makes use of the best available data, quantifying impacts where 

possible and relying on qualitative description and best professional judgement where detailed 

measurement is unavailable. Because specific information and data on past projects and actions are 

typically scarce, the analysis of past effects is often qualitative (Council on Environmental Quality, 1997). 

Likewise, analysis for ongoing actions is often inconsistent or unavailable. All likely future development

or use of the region is considered to the greatest extent possible, even when foreseeable future action is 

not planned in sufficient detail to permit complete analysis (Council on Environmental Quality, 1997).

The cumulative impacts analysis is not bounded by a specific future timeframe. The Proposed Action 

includes general types of activities addressed by this EIS/OEIS that are expected to continue indefinitely, 

and the associated impacts could occur indefinitely. Likewise, some reasonably foreseeable future 
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

4-3

4.0 Cumulative Impacts

actions and other environmental considerations addressed in the cumulative impacts analysis are 

expected to continue indefinitely (e.g., oil and gas production, maritime traffic, commercial fishing). 

While Navy training and testing requirements change over time in response to world events, it should be 

recognized that available information, uncertainties, and other practical constraints limit the ability to 

analyze cumulative impacts for the indefinite future. Navy environmental planning and compliance for 

training and testing activities is an ongoing process, and the Navy anticipates preparing new or 

supplemental environmental planning documents covering changes in training and testing activities in

the Study Area as necessary. These future environmental planning documents would include cumulative 

impacts analysis based on information available at that time. 

Table 4.2-1 describes other actions that have had, continue to have, or would be expected to have some 

impact upon resources also impacted by the Proposed Action within the Study Area and surrounding 

areas. These activities are selected based on information obtained during the scoping process 

(Appendix H, Public Comment Responses), communications with other agencies, a review of other 

military activities, literature review, previous NEPA analyses, and other available information. Table 

4.2-1 focuses on identifying past and reasonably foreseeable future actions (military mission, testing, 

and training; offshore energy development; ocean-dependent commercial industries; and research), as 

well as other major environmental stressors or trends that tend to be widespread and arise from routine 

human activities and multiple past, present, and future actions. For perspective of general project 

locations, please refer to Figures 3.0-1 through 3.0-4, which depict the Study Area, boundaries of 

individual training and testing locations, and large marine ecosystems and open ocean areas within and 

adjacent to the Study Area.
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

4-4

4.0 Cumulative Impacts

Table 4.2-1: Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Actions

Project Location Project Description

Summary of 

Impact 

Minimization and 

Mitigation 

Measures1

Project Timeframe

C = Construction 

O = Operation

X = Other

Past Present Future

Military Mission, Testing, and Training Activities: California

Fuel Pier 

Replacement 

and Dredging

Naval Base 

Point Loma,

San Diego 

California

Replaced the existing fuel pier and dredged approximately 87,000 cubic 

yards of sediment to facilitate ongoing navigation in the vicinity of the pier 

(U.S. Department of the Navy, 2013). Dredge material was disposed in SSTC 

Boat Lanes as beach nourishment. No increased operational impacts above 

those already occurring.

No long-term environmental impacts from construction or dredging. Vessel 

traffic through the channel and to the pier would be maintained, as would 

the risk for vessel strikes; however, slow speeds would be maintained and 

the risk for inadvertent strikes minimal.

NA C O O

Helicopter 

Wings 

Realignment 

and MH-60R/S 

Helicopter 

Transition

Naval Base

Coronado -

North Island, 

California

Added four west coast helicopter squadrons, including three new squadrons 

and the relocation of one east coast squadron, anticipated to increase 

helicopter operations by up to 30%. Construction included a new 

organizational maintenance hangar and supporting facilities to 

accommodate 800 support personnel (U.S. Department of the Navy, 2011b).

As determined by the California Coastal Management Program, the action 

would have no effect on coastal resources. Minimal noise increase would be 

largely contained within installation footprint, and risk of bird/aircraft

strikes increased.

NA C O O

Replacement 

of the Fuel 

Storage and 

Distribution 

System

Naval Base 

Coronado, 

Naval Auxiliary 

Landing Field,

San Clemente 

Island, 

California

Retirement in place and replacement of the aging underground JP-5 jet fuel 

tanks and improvement of fuel receipt, storage, and delivery capabilities 

(U.S. Department of the Navy, 2012c). 

No long-term environmental impacts anticipated.

NA C
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

4-5

4.0 Cumulative Impacts

Table 4.2-1: Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Actions (continued)

Project Location Project Description

Summary of Impact 

Minimization and 

Mitigation Measures1

Project Timeframe

C = Construction 

O = Operation

X = Other

Past Present Future

Pier 12 

Replacement 

and Dredging 

Naval Base San 

Diego, 

California

Demolition and replacement of Pier 12 and associated pier utilities, 

dredging in berthing and approach for the new pier, dredged material 

disposal at an approved ocean disposal site and permitted upland landfill, 

and re-use of demolition concrete to create fish enhancement structures 

(artificial reefs) (U.S. Department of the Navy, 2011a).

No long-term environmental impacts are anticipated.

NA C O O

Homeporting 

Littoral Combat 

Ships on the 

West Coast

Naval Base 

Ventura County 

Point Mugu and 

Naval Base San 

Diego, 

California

Homeport up to 16 Littoral Combat Ships and unmanned aerial systems 

between Fiscal Year 2013 and Fiscal Year 2020. Homebasing up to 1,700 

personnel and family members. No in-water construction is proposed 

(U.S. Department of the Navy, 2012b).

No long-term environmental impacts anticipated. Increased marine 

traffic increases risks of underwater noise and vessel strikes; however, 

slow speeds would be maintained and the risk for inadvertent marine 

species strikes minimal.

NA C O O

Surveillance 

Towed Array 

Sensor System 

Low Frequency 

Active Sonar

Pacific 

(including the 

Study Area), 

Atlantic, and 

Indian Ocean 

and 

Mediterranean 

Sea Undersea, 

12 NM away 

from any 

coastline, 400 

ft. below 

surface

The Navy has been operating Surveillance Towed Array Sensor System 

Low Frequency Active Sonar systems since 2002 and plans to continue 

the operation of up to four systems for use in routine training, testing, 

and military operations (U.S. Department of the Navy, 2016a). Low 

Frequency Active/Compact Low Frequency Active sonar would operate 

for less than 255 hours per vessel (1,020 total) over 240 days per year.

Surveillance Towed Array Sensor System Low Frequency Active sonar is 

unlikely to be used in the Study Area until further Marine Mammal 

Protection Act (MMPA) authorization.

The operation of Surveillance Towed Array Sensor System Low Frequency 

Active Sonar has low to moderate potential to affect marine mammals, 

sea turtles, and fishes. Anticipated impacts on sea turtles include,

Endangered Species Act (ESA) harassment, including non-auditory, 

auditory, behavioral, masking, or physiological stress impacts when 

turtles are in close proximity. Impacts to marine mammals are 

Monitoring (visual, passive 

acoustic, and active

acoustic) and enforcing 

delay/suspension protocols. 

Use of “fish finder” (HF/M3 

sonar) detects, locates, and 

tracks marine mammals and, 

to an extent, sea turtles, that 

may pass close enough to 

the Surveillance Towed 

Array Sensor System Low 

Frequency Active sonar’s 

transmit array to enter the 

mitigation zone.

C/O O O
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

4-6

4.0 Cumulative Impacts

Table 4.2-1: Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Actions (continued)

Project Location Project Description

Summary of Impact 

Minimization and 

Mitigation Measures1

Project Timeframe

C = Construction 

O = Operation

X = Other

Past Present Future

anticipated to be Level B harassment, including auditory or behavioral 

impacts.

Joint Logistics 

Over-the-Shore, 

Maritime 

Prepositioning 

Force, and Field 

Exercise Training

Marine Corps 

Base Camp 

Pendleton, 

California, Red 

and Gold 

beaches and

associated 

inland training 

areas, and 

within and 

adjacent to the 

Del Mar Boat 

Basin

Twelve annual amphibious training activities, which consist of one Joint 

Logistics Over-the-Shore Training exercise every three years, one 

Maritime Prepositioning Force exercise every year, and up to 10 Field 

Exercise activities every year (U.S. Department of the Navy, 2015b). On 

average, approximately 2,000 to 3,500 personnel take part in Joint

Logistics Over-the-Shore Training exercises that last up to 90 days. 

Maritime Prepositioning Force exercises include an average of 

approximately 600 to 1,500 personnel and last around 30 days. Field 

Exercise activities last 7 to 14 days and typically involve 30 to 800 

personnel. Activities include projection of combat power ashore, 

followed by the ship-to-shore movement of supplies and personnel to 

sustain further operations, which may involve pile driving, beach landing, 

and equipment transfer.

The HSTT EIS/OEIS analyzes those portions of amphibious warfare

training that occur at sea (up to the mean high tide mark), to include pile 

driving and vessel movement. The Joint Logistics Over-the-Shore EA 

analyzed the potential impacts associated with the land-based portions 

of amphibious training at MCB Camp Pendleton, and there has not been 

significant new information or substantial change in the action to warrant 

further review.

The implementation of impact avoidance/minimization measures will 

mitigate environmental impacts from the exercises, which may include 

temporary and minor impacts on marine sediments, beach contours, and 

topography from anchors and surf zone/beach activities and direct and 

indirect impacts on marine organisms from strike, disturbance, noise, and 

turbidity. 

Restore beach, including 

excavation and 

reestablishment and 

stabilization of grade and 

slope. Observation for 

marine mammals, sea 

turtles, rocky reef, 

understory algal 

communities, surfgrass, kelp, 

sea fans, sea palms, grunion 

spawning, and other 

threatened and endangered 

species; ceasing of activities 

in response to sightings.

Minimization of noise, 

especially associated with 

pile driving activity.

O O O
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

4-7

4.0 Cumulative Impacts

Table 4.2-1: Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Actions (continued)

Project Location Project Description

Summary of Impact 

Minimization and 

Mitigation Measures1

Project Timeframe

C = Construction 

O = Operation

X = Other

Past Present Future

Pier 8 

Replacement

Naval Base San 

Diego, 

California

Demolition of Pier 8 and construction of a new pier and associated 

utilities with the infrastructure necessary to support modern Navy ship 

classes (U.S. Department of the Navy, 2015a).

Marine mammals are not known to visit Naval Base San Diego and any 

occurrence in the project area would be very rare. Green sea turtles may 

occur in the project area. 

Observation for marine 

mammals and sea turtles; 

ceasing of activities in 

response to sightings.

C

Seal Beach 

Ammunition 

Pier and Turning 

Basin

Naval Weapons

Station Seal 

Beach, Anaheim 

Bay, California

Construction of a replacement ammunition pier, associated waterfront 

facilities, and a new small boat access channel for civilian boat traffic. The 

project would include dredging for the pier, turning basin, and small boat 

access channel (U.S. Department of the Navy, 2017).

Environmental impacts have not been assessed yet, but would be 

associated with noise, sediment suspension, and potential disturbance 

and mortality of individuals during dredging, pile driving and other 

construction activities, and ongoing operations and increased vessel 

traffic in the project area.

No assessment has occurred; 

therefore, no specific 

mitigation measures 

identified.

C/O

Boost-Back and 

Landing of the 

Falcon 9 Full 

Thrust First 

Stage

Iridium Landing 

Area, 

Vandenberg Air 

Force Base, 

California, and 

Offshore 

Landing 

Contingency 

Option

The First Stage rocket to be tested is 12 feet in diameter and 160 feet in 

height and includes nine engines and two tanks holding 662,250 pounds 

of aluminum liquid oxygen and 260,760 pounds of rocket propellant. 

There are three options for First Stage testing: (1) it is dropped into the 

Pacific Ocean, approximately 261–435 nm west of the Baja California 

coast, and is non-recoverable; (2) it is boosted-back and lands on 

concrete padding at SLC-4W; (3) it is landed on a conditional landing area 

on an autonomous barge located at least 27 nautical miles offshore of 

Vandenberg Air Force Base; and (4) it is boosted-back and lands on an 

autonomous barge within the Iridium Landing Area, especially if carrying 

heavier payloads and the rocket cannot return to Vandenberg Air Force 

Base (may be used up to six times per year) (U.S. Air Force, 2016a).

Environmental effects from potential unsuccessful autonomous barge 

landing include the discharge of RP-1 jet fuel and debris into the marine 

Recovery of all marine debris 

to the greatest extent 

practicable.

O O O
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

4-8

4.0 Cumulative Impacts

Table 4.2-1: Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Actions (continued)

Project Location Project Description

Summary of Impact 

Minimization and 

Mitigation Measures1

Project Timeframe

C = Construction 

O = Operation

X = Other

Past Present Future

environment. Negligible risk to marine animals from direct strike or 

behavioral or physiological impacts from explosion (Level B Harassment). 

Vessel noise and traffic may affect, but are not likely to adversely affect: 

Guadalupe fur seal, blue whale, fin whale, gray whale, humpback whale, 

sei whale, sperm whale, and sea turtles (green, loggerhead, olive Ridley, 

hawksbill, and leatherback).

The Transition 

from C-2A to 

Navy V-22 

Aircraft at Fleet 

Logistics Centers

Naval Air 

Station North 

Island, San 

Diego, 

California

The Proposed Action provides facilities and functions to replace the C-2A 

Greyhound with the newer CMV-22B Osprey at either Naval Air Station 

North Island, California (within the consortium of Naval Base Coronado

installations) or Chambers Field within Naval Station Norfolk, Virginia. 

The project expands logistics support and training operations, establishes

a Navy V-22 training squadron and maintenance school, and constructs

and renovates facilities to accommodate Navy V-22 squadron aircraft and 

personnel. The Proposed Action would be implemented over a 10-year 

period beginning in 2018. Eventually, the Navy training squadron and 

maintenance school would be established, either on the west or east

coast, to support Navy training requirements. The Proposed Action is 

expected to be complete in the 2028 timeframe.

Impacts would be chiefly terrestrial, but ongoing operations might

include increased noise and disturbance over the marine environment 

resulting from additional operations and personnel.

Mitigation measures have 

yet to be identified.

C/O

Military Mission, Testing, and Training Activities: Hawaii

Long-Range 

Strike Weapons 

Systems 

Evaluation 

Program

Pacific Missile 

Range Facility, 

Kauai, Hawaii

44 miles 

offshore Kauai 

in the Barking 

Sands 

Underwater 

The long-range evaluation tests include live and inert weapon systems 

deployed from aircraft for detonation in the air as well as at and below 

the water surface (U.S. Air Force, 2016b). Missions in 2017–2020 would 

occur once a year over 5 consecutive days.

Detonation would produce underwater noise and explosions; however, 

due to shallow detonations, it is not anticipated that cratering would 

occur at the seafloor. Metals would sink, disperse, or bind to sediments. 

Observation for marine 

mammals and sea turtles; 

ceasing of activities in 

response to sightings.

O O O
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

4-9

4.0 Cumulative Impacts

Table 4.2-1: Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Actions (continued)

Project Location Project Description

Summary of Impact 

Minimization and 

Mitigation Measures1

Project Timeframe

C = Construction 

O = Operation

X = Other

Past Present Future

Range 

Extension, 10 

feet below 

surface.

Individual fish in the area may be killed by the strike or the associated 

pressure bubble. An Incidental Take Authorization for marine mammals 

and sea turtles (hawksbill, loggerhead, olive Ridley, leatherback, and 

Central North Pacific distinct population segment of green sea turtle) was 

issued for the 2016 event; and a similar Authorization is anticipated for 

the 2017–2020 tests (U.S. Air Force, 2016c). 

T-Pier 

Demolition

Marine Corps 

Base Hawaii, 

Kaneohe Bay, 

Oahu, Hawaii

Demolition of Facility 1662, the former Naval Ocean Systems Command 

Pier, to include removal of concrete decking, support pilings, and existing 

utility lines associated with the pier. 

No long-term environmental impacts are anticipated; short-term noise 

and turbidity in the nearshore marine environment during demolition 

activities expected.

C

Naval Special 

Warfare 

Undersea 

Enterprise 

Consolidation

Joint Base Pearl 

Harbor-Hickam

Consolidation of continental U.S.-based Naval Special Warfare Undersea 

Enterprise units and an existing unit currently located at Joint Base Pearl 

Harbor-Hickam. Approximately 200,000 square feet of working space and 

supporting infrastructure would be provided through adaptive reuse of a 

historic property on Ford Island (Building 55), improvements to existing 

facilities, and new construction within the existing unit’s Pearl City 

Peninsula compound. Personnel and dependents would increase the 

population on Oahu by approximately 1,200, and implementation would 

occur over a 5 to 10 year period (U.S. Department of the Navy, 2011c).

The Proposed Action would not involve in-water or over-water 

construction activities, and in-water operations are anticipated to remain 

consistent with normal base activity. Increased population would 

increase nearshore population density, including additional participation 

in recreation and consumptive activities.

C O O

Basing of MV22 and H-1 

Aircraft in 

Hawaii Kaneohe 

Bay and the 

islands of Kauai, 

Basing up to two Marine Medium Tiltrotor squadrons with a total of 24 

MV-22 Osprey aircraft and one Marine Light Attack Helicopter squadron 

with 15 AH-1 Cobra and 12 UH-1 Huey attack and utility helicopters. 

O C/O
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

4-10

4.0 Cumulative Impacts

Table 4.2-1: Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Actions (continued)

Project Location Project Description

Summary of Impact 

Minimization and 

Mitigation Measures1

Project Timeframe

C = Construction 

O = Operation

X = Other

Past Present Future

Support of III 

Marine 

Expeditionary 

Force Elements 

in Hawaii

Oahu, Molokai, 

Maui, and 

Hawaii

Kaneohe Bay, 

Hawaii, Army 

Training Areas 

on Oahu

(Kahuku 

Training Area, 

Kawailoa 

Training Area, 

Schofield 

Barracks East 

Range, and 

Dillingham

Military 

Reservation), 

and Pohakuloa 

Training Area, 

and Molokai 

Training 

Support Facility

Conducting aviation training, readiness, and special exercise operations 

at training facilities statewide (U.S. Department of the Navy, 2012d). 

Basing facilities would be developed at Marine Corps Base Hawaii 

Kaneohe Bay; conducting aviation operations at training areas on the 

islands of Kauai, Oahu, Molokai, Maui, and Hawaii; and constructing 

improvements at three existing training facilities.

For the second MV-22 squadron, construct new and renovate existing 

facilities near the southeast end of the runway at Marine Corps Base

Hawaii Kaneohe Bay (U.S. Department of the Navy, 2015f). 

Noise impacts from the new aircraft mix are expected to be less than the 

previous aircraft mix, reducing impacts on Hawaiian monk seal habitat.

Increased population would increase nearshore population density, 

including additional participation in recreation and consumptive 

activities.

Pali Kilo Beach 

Cottages 

Expansion

Marine Corps 

Base Hawaii,

Kaneohe Bay,

Pali Kilo District

Existing services include 12 single and duplex recreational cottages. 

Expansion would occur on a previously developed 0.44-acre site used to 

store emergency generators and other portable equipment and would 

construct 19 new cottages (49 total new lodging units) adjacent to the 

shoreline. Construction would be implemented throughout 2016 to 2026 

(U.S. Department of the Navy, 2016c).

The proposed action is generally terrestrial; however, future impacts on

nearshore environments and essential fish habitat are possible resulting 

Construction best 

management practices and 

conservation measures; 

measures addressing ocean 

recreation behavior 

(designation of

watercraft launch areas, 

controlling vehicle access, 

O C/O
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

4-11

4.0 Cumulative Impacts

Table 4.2-1: Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Actions (continued)

Project Location Project Description

Summary of Impact 

Minimization and 

Mitigation Measures1

Project Timeframe

C = Construction 

O = Operation

X = Other

Past Present Future

from increased recreational activity. With mitigation measures, 

construction and operation may affect, but are not likely to adversely 

affect, ESA-listed sea turtles or the Hawaiian monk seal.

etc.), and extensive outreach 

and guest education.

Cove Outdoor 

Recreation 

Center and 

Marina 

Improvements

Marine Corps 

Base Hawaii, 

Kaneohe Bay

Improvement of the Cove facilities to address deficiencies and increased 

demand for outdoor recreational resources including construction of a 

wave attenuator to protect existing and proposed boating/recreation 

facilities; construction of additional boat slips, storage, parking, and 

pavilion; on-shore and underwater improvements to three existing boat

launches and seawall improvement (U.S. Marine Corps, 2010).

The project is not likely to adversely affect Hawaiian monk seal, Hawaiian 

stilt, green sea turtle, and hawksbill sea turtle and was exempt from a 

negative determination from the Hawaii Coastal Zone Management 

Program.

Mitigation and best 

management practices, 

including minimizing shading 

from built structures and 

enforcement of appropriate 

boating practices.

C/O C/O C/O

U.S. Coast Guard 

Training 

Activities

U.S. Coast 

Guard District 

11, Southern 

California and 

District 14, 

Hawaii

Southward from 

the Dana Point 

Harbor to the 

Mexico border

The U.S. Coast Guard performs maritime humanitarian, law enforcement, 

and safety services in estuarine, coastal, and offshore waters. Equipment 

utilized by the Southern California Coast Guard includes 25-foot response 

boats, 41-foot utility boats, and 87-foot patrol boats, as well as HH-60 

helicopters. Training events include search and rescue, maritime patrol 

training, boat handling, and helicopter and surface vessel live-fire training 

with small arms. Similarly, the Coast Guard’s 14th District carries out its 

mission and conducts unit training in and around Hawaii. U.S. Coast 

Guard training in Hawaii includes surface vessel live-fire training with 

small- and medium-caliber weapons, primarily conducted in Warning 

Areas 189, 193, and 194 within the Hawaii Range Complex.

U.S. Coast Guard mission and training activities contribute vessel noise 

and could result in collisions with marine mammals and sea turtles. Sonar 

detection systems could have impacts on marine mammals, including 

toothed whales and pinnipeds, but only short-term, minor, adverse 

effects would be expected as the high frequency is not unlike common 

Establishing and monitoring 

safety zones; observation for 

marine mammals and sea 

turtles; ceasing of activities 

in response to sightings.

Enhanced environmental 

protection measures for 

marine protected species 

and areas occurring in 

District 11 and 13, including 

broadcasting Notice to 

Mariners advising caution in 

known areas of high marine 

protected species 

concentration in bays (U.S. 

Coast Guard, 2010).

O O O
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

4-12

4.0 Cumulative Impacts

Table 4.2-1: Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Actions (continued)

Project Location Project Description

Summary of Impact 

Minimization and 

Mitigation Measures1

Project Timeframe

C = Construction 

O = Operation

X = Other

Past Present Future

commercial fish finder systems (U.S. Coast Guard, 2013). Gunnery 

activities could contribute military expended material to the benthic 

environment; however, results of Navy modeling efforts discussed for the 

Proposed Action indicate a low risk that marine mammals or sea turtles 

would be struck by military expended material during training activities, 

and it is likely that similar U.S. Coast Guard activities would have a 

similarly low risk.

Submarine 

Drive-In 

Magnetic 

Silencing Facility 

Joint Base Pearl 

Harbor-Hickam, 

Beckoning 

Point, Oahu, 

Hawaii

Construction of a new drive-in submarine magnetic silencing facility was 

completed in December 2010. The project replaced existing submarine 

deperming piers and structures and constructed land-based support 

facilities. Deperming is accomplished by wrapping heavy gauge copper 

cables around the hull and superstructure of the vessel; then very high 

electrical currents are pulsed through the cables to erase the permanent 

magnetism from ships and submarines. This camouflages them against 

magnetic detection vessels, marine mines with magnetic detection 

sensors, and interference with communications and navigation 

equipment (U.S. Department of the Navy, 2008a, 2008b).

No ongoing environmental impacts are associated with construction 

activities; however, use of the facility is ongoing and risk for impacts 

associated with vessel traffic (such as strikes and noise) are present but 

negligible due to the reduced speed of vessels in this location.

C O O

Photovoltaic and 

Battery Energy 

Storage Systems

Pacific Missile 

Range Facility, 

Kauai, Hawaii

Proposed renewable energy project consisting of combined utility-scale 

photovoltaic array on 87 acres and 94 acres. The project improves power 

quality and energy resiliency in support of the Pacific Missile Range 

Facility by supplementing the more vulnerable and lower quality power 

from the local power plant (U.S. Department of the Navy, 2015d). The 

solar array system could generate up to 44 megawatts of direct current 

electrical power and would feed this electricity into the Kauai Island 

Utility Cooperative electrical grid for all users, public and military. New 

C/O
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

4-13

4.0 Cumulative Impacts

Table 4.2-1: Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Actions (continued)

Project Location Project Description

Summary of Impact 

Minimization and 

Mitigation Measures1

Project Timeframe

C = Construction 

O = Operation

X = Other

Past Present Future

electrical transmission lines would be installed either overhead or 

underground.

Environmental impacts are primarily terrestrial, but may offset energy 

demand and expand the existing energy portfolio that would reduce the 

need for development of offshore energy resources (i.e. fuel tanker 

traffic, wind energy development.

Introduction of 

the P-8A MultiMission 

Maritime 

Aircraft into the 

U.S. Navy Fleet

NAS Whidbey 

Island, 

Washington; 

Marine Corps 

Base Kaneohe

Bay, Hawaii; 

Naval Air 

Station North 

Island, San 

Diego CA

Provide facilities and functions to support the homebasing of 12 P-8A 

Mission Maritime Aircraft fleet squadrons (72 aircraft) and one fleet 

replacement squadron (12 aircraft) at established maritime patrol home 

bases (U.S. Department of the Navy, 2008c).

Project did not involve in-water or over-water construction activities, 

although air operations would increase. Increased population would 

increase nearshore population density, including additional participation 

in recreation and consumptive activities. 

C O O

Naval Special 

Warfare 

Operations 

Training

Hawaii Historical and anticipated future Special Operations Forces non-invasive 

training consists of diver swimmer; simulated building/structure 

clearance; drop zones; high angle, helicopter rope suspension 

techniques; helicopter landing zones; over the beach, small submersible 

vehicle, insertion/extraction, launch and recovery, and special 

reconnaissance involving unmanned underwater vehicles; unmanned 

surface vehicles; and unmanned aerial systems (Naval Special Warfare 

Command, 2016).

Environmental impacts have not been evaluated, but may include 

additional stress on nearshore marine resources.

O O O
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

4-14

4.0 Cumulative Impacts

Table 4.2-1: Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Actions (continued)

Project Location Project Description

Summary of Impact 

Minimization and 

Mitigation Measures1

Project Timeframe

C = Construction 

O = Operation

X = Other

Past Present Future

U.S. Outer Continental Shelf Energy Development

Oil and Gas 

Leasing 

Programs

(Section 

3.11.2.1.3, Oil 

and Gas)

Federal Waters: 

Outer 

Continental 

Shelf, 

approximately 

200 to 350 NM 

seaward from 

California 

jurisdictional 

boundary

Twenty-three oil and gas production facilities, operated by six different 

companies, are located off the coast of California (Bureau of Ocean 

Energy Management, 2017a). Twenty-two of these facilities produce oil 

and gas, while the other is a processing facility. There are 43 active leases 

encompassing 217,669 acres with an associated 213 miles of pipeline in 

the Pacific Continental Shelf Oil Region, Southern California Planning 

Area. Hawaii does not produce offshore oil or gas (U.S. Energy 

Information Administration, 2017).

Oil and gas leasing activities may occur on a given lease tract for 40 to 70 

years and include geophysical (sonar) surveys, exploration drilling, 

development and production wells; installation and operation of 

platforms, pipelines, and support facilities; transport of hydrocarbons 

using pipelines or tankers to processing locations; and decommissioning.

The Final Five-Year Program does not propose additional lease sales for 

the Pacific Outer Continental Shelf; but existing activities would continue. 

The majority of oil and gas structures and the pipelines linking those 

structures with onshore processing and refining facilities are located 

north of the Study Area, with one (near Long Beach) that overlaps with 

Navy testing ranges and OPAREAs (Figures 3.11-2 and 3.11-3). Potential 

impacts associated with Outer Continental Shelf federal oil and gas 

leasing activities include those associated with noise, traffic, waste 

discharges, sediment disturbance, and risk of accidental spills (Bureau of 

Ocean Energy Management, 2016c). These impacts are generally 

assumed to be negligible due to the dispersed and relative small footprint 

of normal operations. In the event of small to catastrophic spills, 

however, impacts grow increasingly detrimental to marine life.

Avoidance/protection of 

sensitive benthic 

communities, including no 

activity zone within 500 feet 

of live bottom habitat, 1,000 

feet of deep-water live 

corals, and 500 feet of 

chemosynthetic habitats. 

Avoidance of impacts within 

National Marine Sanctuaries, 

and air gun exploration 

timing restrictions pertinent 

to sea turtle requirements. 

Site-specific mitigation 

measures evaluated per 

project at lease sale offering.

C/O O O
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

4-15

4.0 Cumulative Impacts

Table 4.2-1: Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Actions (continued)

Project Location Project Description

Summary of Impact 

Minimization and 

Mitigation Measures1

Project Timeframe

C = Construction 

O = Operation

X = Other

Past Present Future

Outer 

Continental 

Shelf 

The Executive Order Implementing an America-First Offshore Energy 

Strategy (April 2017) and Department of the Interior Secretary Order 

3350 Implementing the America-First Offshore Energy Strategy (May 

2017) require the immediate development of a new 5-Year Outer 

Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Leasing Program with full consideration of 

areas currently withdrawn from exploration, leasing, and development. 

Additionally, the Executive and Secretarial Orders require the expedited 

consideration of NMFS Incidental Take Authorization requests and 

seismic permitting applications; review of costs, opportunity costs, and 

adequacy of previous consultations for National Marine Sanctuaries and 

Marine Monuments; reconsideration of the Bureau of Safety and 

Environmental Enforcement Oil and Gas and Sulfur Operations in the 

Outer Continental Shelf-Blowout Preventer Systems and Well Control 

Rule (April 2016); and ceasing all promulgation of the Offshore Air Quality 

Control, Reporting, and Compliance Proposed Rule (2016). Additionally, 

the Executive and Secretary Orders require a review with intent to 

rescind or revise the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

(NOAA) Technical Memorandum NMFS-OPR-55, Technical Guidance for 

Assessing the Effects of Anthropogenic Sound on Marine Mammal 

Hearing (July 2016).

O

State Waters: 

Pacific Outer 

Continental 

Shelf, 0 to 3 

miles offshore 

of California

There are four offshore wells operating in California state waters within 

the Project Area (California Department of Conservation, 2017). Hawaii 

does not produce oil or gas (U.S. Energy Information Administration, 

2017).

Activities and potential impacts for these programs are similar as 

described above for the federal program.

Site-specific mitigation

measures evaluated per 

project at lease sale offering.

C O O

Oil and Gas 

Structure 

Removal 

Operations

Outer 

Continental 

Shelf, all water 

depths 

Decommissioning seafloor obstructions (wellheads, caissons, casing 

strings, platforms, and mooring devices) includes the explosive and nonexplosive severing of structures and subsequent salvage and siteclearance operations (Minerals Management Service, 2005). 

General blasting criteria and 

scenario-specific 

requirements such as 

avoidance of hard bottom 

C C C
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

4-16

4.0 Cumulative Impacts

Table 4.2-1: Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Actions (continued)

Project Location Project Description

Summary of Impact 

Minimization and 

Mitigation Measures1

Project Timeframe

C = Construction 

O = Operation

X = Other

Past Present Future

Decommissioning operations generally occur after lease expiration, when 

the well or facility is no longer deemed economically viable, or when the 

physical condition of the structure becomes unsafe or a navigation 

hindrance. 

Potential environmental impacts, such as injury or death to marine 

mammals, fish, sea turtles, and other animals due to nearby underwater 

blasts and site-clearance trawling activities would be mitigated to 

negligible most of the time, with occasional impacts being potentially 

adverse but not significant (Minerals Management Service, 2007). The 

effects of bottom-disturbing activities, such as anchoring and toppling 

structures, on sensitive benthic habitat and resources may include 

physical damage to hard-bottom features, increased turbidity, and 

covering or smothering of sensitive habitats with re-suspended 

sediments. Site-specific NEPA analyses will be conducted on individual 

applications specifying supplementary mitigation.

habitats and anchor 

restrictions for support 

vessel and transport use; use 

of turtle exclusion devices 

and 30 minute limits for siteclearance trawling; and 

observation for marine 

mammals and turtles, 

pausing activities in 

response to sightings

Commercial 

Wind Energy 

Development

(Section 

3.11.2.1.2, 

Wind)

Pacific Ocean 

Outer 

Continental 

Shelf Federal 

waters 

(approximately 

200 to 350 

nautical miles 

seaward from 

California and 

Hawaii state 

jurisdictional 

boundary 

Although the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management and the State of 

California are planning for potential leasing for offshore wind in federal 

waters, no projects have been developed or proposed in California to 

date (Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, 2017b). Three offshore wind 

projects have been proposed for federal waters around Oahu, Hawaii 

(U.S. Energy Information Administration, 2017). 

Commercial-scale offshore wind facilities are similar to onshore wind 

facilities, and, depending on rotor size and spacing requirements, can 

include from 14 (110 meter rotor diameter) to 40 (150 meter rotor 

diameter) turbines in one Outer Continental Shelf block (3 statute miles 

by 3 statute miles) (Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, 2013). 

Average leaseholds are 8 blocks and current technology limits 

development to waters no deeper than 100 meters. Development 

includes installing the substructure, which is typically a large steel tube 

Implementation of proper 

siting and mandatory design 

criteria; sonic pingers and/or 

turtle exclusion devices to 

minimize entanglement and 

entrainment potential; 

adherence to U.S. Coast 

Guard oil spill response 

plans; use of 

environmentally friendly 

chemicals.

C/O
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

4-17

4.0 Cumulative Impacts

Table 4.2-1: Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Actions (continued)

Project Location Project Description

Summary of Impact 

Minimization and 

Mitigation Measures1

Project Timeframe

C = Construction 

O = Operation

X = Other

Past Present Future

(up to 20 feet in diameter) driven 80 to 100 feet below the mudline in 

15–100 feet water depths, with the pole and turbine mounted on top 

(Minerals Management Service, 2007). Each turbine is connected by 

power cable to an electric service platform/substation, typically located 

somewhere within the turbine array, from which buried high voltage 

cables transmit the power to an onshore substation for integration into 

the onshore grid. 

Site characterization activities include geophysical surveys, sub-bottom 

sampling, and biological surveys. Site assessment activities include 

installation of meteorological towers and meteorological buoys, data 

collection, and decommissioning of the towers and buoys (Bureau of 

Ocean Energy Management, 2012).

Most impacts occur during the construction phase, which involves the 

highest amount of vessel traffic, noise generation, seafloor disturbance 

(especially from transmission cabling), and air emissions; however, 

ongoing impacts would occur from vessel and turbine strikes; moderate 

operational noise; disturbance of nesting areas; alteration of key habitat; 

or potential fuel, oil, or dielectric fluid spills (Minerals Management 

Service, 2007). Potential population-level impacts on marine mammals, 

fish, birds, and sea turtles would be mitigated in site-specific 

environmental review and permitting processes. In particular, impacts on

sea turtles could be minor to moderate because of the technologies’ 

potential to impede sea turtle movement and the potential of 

entrainment in overtopping devices. Additionally, if related onshore 

facilities are located in nesting areas, operation could cause minor to 

moderate adverse impacts on sea turtles due to hatchling disorientation 

from lighting, with possible major impacts if turtle nests or aggregates of 

hatchings are destroyed. Proper siting and design and other mitigation 

measures would minimize potential impacts on coastal sediment 

transport processes, marine navigation, commercial shipping, fishing 
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

4-18

4.0 Cumulative Impacts

Table 4.2-1: Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Actions (continued)

Project Location Project Description

Summary of Impact 

Minimization and 

Mitigation Measures1

Project Timeframe

C = Construction 

O = Operation

X = Other

Past Present Future

activities, seafloor habitats, marine mammals, sea turtles, areas of special 

concern, archaeological sites, and U.S. Department of Defense training 

and exercise activities.

Marine 

Hydrokinetic 

Emerging waterpower technologies offer the potential to capture energy 

from waves, thermal gradients, tides, and ocean currents. Presently, 

there is significant research into the performance and economic viability 

of hydropower technologies. There is one project in the licensing process 

off the coast of Oregon, one in Alaska, and two projects underway in the 

Atlantic Ocean (Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 2017a, 2017b).

Concerns regarding waterpower technologies include the potential for 

collisions, noise, physical disturbance, disruption of marine species’ 

behavioral patterns, impacts on local community and fishing industry, 

ability to monitor projects, cumulative impacts of multiple hydrokinetic 

projects along the coasts, habitat alteration due to anchors and cables, 

and release of toxins and chemicals by the projects or by vessels servicing 

the projects. Other considerations include habitat disturbance and the 

displacement of benthic organisms. These concerns provide the potential 

for habitat loss and changes to the ecology of a region (Pacific Fishery 

Management Council, 2011); however, initial studies have indicated that 

with appropriate protocols for siting and design, these impacts are likely 

to be minimal (Union of Concerned Scientists, 2008).

C/O

Marine Corps 

Base Hawaii 

Wave Energy 

Test Site

Marine Corps 

Base Hawaii, 

Oahu, Hawaii, 

off the north 

coast of 

Mokapu 

Peninsula

The Marine Corps Base Hawaii Wave Energy Test Site has constructed two 

wave energy test sites and is testing offshore wave energy conversion 

devices. Construction included installation and operation of moorings, 

trunk power and communications transmission cables, in-water scientific 

data gathering equipment, and associated shoreside electrical 

transmission and monitoring equipment. 

Ongoing environmental considerations for operation and maintenance 

include noise, entanglement and collision hazard, electrical leakage, heat, 

Surveying for and avoidance 

of marine resources 

(especially ESA-listed species 

and coral substrate) prior to 

all activities. 

C/O O O
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

4-19

4.0 Cumulative Impacts

Table 4.2-1: Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Actions (continued)

Project Location Project Description

Summary of Impact 

Minimization and 

Mitigation Measures1

Project Timeframe

C = Construction 

O = Operation

X = Other

Past Present Future

In water depths 

of 

approximately 

197 feet and 

262 feet 6,500 

feet and 8,200 

feet

and electric and magnetic fields. It was determined that construction and 

operation are not likely to adversely affect any ESA-listed species or their 

designated or proposed critical habitat (U.S. Department of the Navy, 

2012a).

Other Commercial Industries

Commercial 

Fishing (Section 

3.11.2.2 

[Commercial and 

Recreational 

Fishing])

Twenty major fisheries in Hawaiian waters include tuna, billfish, bottom 

fish, other species of pelagic fish, and a smaller invertebrate fishery. 

These fisheries all have gear, seasonal, and geographical prohibitions 

depending on the ecological conditions of the area and the target species 

(Section 3.11.2.2.1.1, Commercial Fishing). Thirty-nine fisheries in

Southern California include groundfishes (e.g., flatfishes, skates, some 

sharks, and rockfishes), highly migratory species (e.g., tuna, billfish, some 

sharks, dolphinfish, and swordfish), coastal pelagic species (anchovies, 

mackerel, and sardines), and invertebrates (California spiny lobster, 

several crab species), and market squid are harvested and sold 

commercially. The NMFS issues fishing vessel, dealer, and commercial 

operator permits and fishing authorizations as required under the various 

Federal Fishery Regulations.

Commercial fishing can adversely affect fish populations, non-target 

species, and habitats. Bycatch includes the unintentional capture of fish, 

marine mammals, sea turtles, seabirds, and other non-targeted species 

that occur incidental to normal fishing operations. Fisheries bycatch has 

been identified as a primary driver of population declines in several 

groups of marine species, including sharks, mammals, seabirds, and sea 

turtles (Wallace et al., 2010). Commercial fishing often includes the use of 

mobile fishing gear, such as bottom trawls, which increases turbidity, 

Various bycatch mitigation 

technologies, quotas, and 

seasonal restrictions 

required per the 

fishery-specific permit 

process.

O O O
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

4-20

4.0 Cumulative Impacts

Table 4.2-1: Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Actions (continued)

Project Location Project Description

Summary of Impact 

Minimization and 

Mitigation Measures1

Project Timeframe

C = Construction 

O = Operation

X = Other

Past Present Future

alters surface sediment and bottom habitats, removes prey (leading to 

declines in predator abundance), removes predators, and generates 

marine debris. Ghost fishing occurs when lost and abandoned fishing 

gear, such as gill nets, purse seines, and long-lines, continue to ensnare 

fish and other marine animals without human oversight and removal. Lost 

gear fouls and disrupts bottom habitats and has the potential to entangle,

or be ingested by, marine animals.

Recreational 

Fishing (Section 

3.11.2.2 

[Commercial 

and 

Recreational 

Fishing])

From 2010 through 2014, recreational fishers caught over 19 million fish 

in marine and estuarine waters in Hawaii (Figure 3.11-10). Recreational 

fishing is also significant in southern California, where over 3.3 million 

angler days were recorded in 2013 (National Marine Fisheries Service, 

2015d). More than 200 for-hire fishing vessels operate from 15 separate 

ports between Point Conception and the U.S.–Mexico border (California 

Marine Life Protection Act Initiative, 2009). 

Recreational fishing includes impacts from vessel traffic (strike, noise, 

water pollution, marine debris) and can compound impacts on fish stocks 

already experiencing exploitation. Recreational fishing and boat traffic 

usually occurs nearshore rather than in the deeper open ocean, and 

recreational traffic typically frequents popular locations, which can 

concentrate damage in these areas from anchors or other bottom 

disturbing equipment.

Operational regulations, 

seasonal restrictions,

licensing, and quotas used to 

manage mitigate negative 

effects of recreational 

fishing.

O O O

Maritime Traffic 

(Section 

3.11.2.1, 

Commercial 

Transportation 

and Shipping)

U.S. West 

Coast/Pacific 

Ocean

The California and Hawaii coasts are heavily traveled by commercial, 

recreational, and government marine vessels with several commercial 

ports near Navy OPAREAs (see Figure 3.0-9). The United States has grown 

increasingly dependent on international trade over the past 50 years. As 

a result, the number of active ports in the Study Area increased, ship 

traffic increased, and ships are larger. In 2011, 7,836 oceangoing vessels 

made 68,036 calls at U.S. ports; the average number of calls from 2006 to 

2011 was 60,899 (Maritime Administration, 2013). In 2009, estimated 

Continued adherence to

state and federal marine 

traffic and operations 

regulations.

O O O
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

4-21

4.0 Cumulative Impacts

Table 4.2-1: Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Actions (continued)

Project Location Project Description

Summary of Impact 

Minimization and 

Mitigation Measures1

Project Timeframe

C = Construction 

O = Operation

X = Other

Past Present Future

vessel presence in the Study Area was a total of 971,214 hours, 90% of 

which was non-military craft (Table 3.0-6). 

Primary environmental concerns regarding increased maritime traffic 

include vessels striking marine mammals and sea turtles, introduction of 

non-native species through ballast water, and underwater sound from 

ships and other vessels. Additionally, air and water quality in busy ports 

can be diminished due to engine emissions and fuel leaks. Secondary 

impacts include maintenance of port infrastructure, which often include 

dredging requirements to maintain channel depths and habitat loss and 

degradation in coastal habitats.

Hawaii Ten harbors located on six major Hawaiian Islands serve the commercial 

cargo, passenger and fishing industries. The commercial harbors system 

receives 98 percent of all consumable goods, building materials and fuel 

imported to Hawai‘i.

Continued adherence to 

state and federal marine 

construction and operational 

regulations.

O O C/O

Kalaeloa 

Barbers Point, 

Honouliuli, Ewa 

District, Kapolei, 

Oahu

Oahu is served by two commercial harbors: Honolulu Harbor and 

Kalaeloa Barbers Point Harbor, which receive nearly all consumable 

goods and materials brought to Hawaii for shipment to neighbor Islands.

Kalaeloa Barbers Point Harbor is in the planning stages to implement 

harbor improvements, including the addition of berthing, yard space, and 

other infrastructure including a fuel pier and fuel terminal at Piers 3 and 

4.

Pier construction in harbor waters and dredging (both new and 

maintenance) will include impacts on the marine environment such as 

temporary turbidity, underwater noise/vibration due to pile-driving, 

habitat fragmentation, and dispersal of invasive species (Hawaii 

Department of Transportation, 2017). Long-term effects on marine 

resources along the harbor walls from shading from permanent pier 

structures and armoring preventing vegetation regrowth. Increased 

vessel traffic and harbor operations could also cause long-term effects on 

O O C/O
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

4-22

4.0 Cumulative Impacts

Table 4.2-1: Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Actions (continued)

Project Location Project Description

Summary of Impact 

Minimization and 

Mitigation Measures1

Project Timeframe

C = Construction 

O = Operation

X = Other

Past Present Future

threatened and endangered species, although potential impacts are 

expected to be minimal as there are no known use or occurrence of sea 

turtles, whales, dolphins, or monk seals within the harbor.

Coastal Land 

Development

and Tourism 

(Section 

3.11.2.4, 

Tourism)

California and 

Hawaii 

Coastline

Coastal land development adjacent to the Study Area is both intensive 

and extensive, including development of homes, businesses, recreation, 

vacation, and ship traffic at port facilities and marinas. The Study Area 

coastline also includes extensive coastal tourism (hotels, resorts, 

restaurants, food industry, and vacation homes) and its supporting 

infrastructure (retail businesses, marinas, fishing tackle stores, dive 

shops, fishing piers, recreational boating harbors, beaches, and 

recreational fishing and whale watching). New development in the 

coastal zone requires a permit from the state or local government per the 

Coastal Zone Management Act (Chapter 6, Regulatory Considerations).

Tourism is the single biggest industry in Hawaii, and on any given day, 

over 200,000 visitors are in Hawaii (Hawaii Tourism Authority, 2015). 

Significant activities include SCUBA, snorkeling and whale watching.

Likewise, tourism is a substantial industry in Southern California (National 

Ocean Economics Program, 2015). 

Coastal development intensifies use of coastal resources through dune 

and nearshore habitat loss and disturbance, point and nonpoint source 

water pollution, entrainment in outflows and other structures, and air 

quality degradation. SCUBA and snorkeling has the potential to degrade 

reef systems through disturbance and collecting, and collisions between 

whale watching ships and whales are common.

Site-specific mitigation often 

determined during Coastal 

Consistency Review by the 

respective state’s Coastal 

Zone Management Program

C/O C/O C/O

Undersea 

Communications 

Cables

Oceans 

worldwide

Submarine cables provide the primary means of voice, data, and Internet 

connectivity between the mainland United States and the rest of the 

world (Federal Communications Commission, 2017). The Federal 

Communications Commission grants licenses authorizing cable applicants 

to install, own, and operate submarine cables and associated landing 

Continued adherence to 

international marine 

construction and operational 

regulations.

C/O C/O C/O
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

4-23

4.0 Cumulative Impacts

Table 4.2-1: Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Actions (continued)

Project Location Project Description

Summary of Impact 

Minimization and 

Mitigation Measures1

Project Timeframe

C = Construction 

O = Operation

X = Other

Past Present Future

stations in the United States. Cables are installed by specialized boats 

across flat ocean surfaces and dug into the seabed in shallow areas. Over 

550,000 mi. of cables currently exist in the world’s oceans.

Potential impacts of installation and maintenance activities would include 

noise and vessel strikes from boat traffic and increased seafloor 

disturbance and sedimentation in localized areas where the cable is 

installed. Likewise, electromagnetic fields are generated by some cables 

that may be sensed by and affect the migration behavior of some fish, 

sharks, rays, and eels (Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, 2016b).

Aquaculture 

(Section 

3.11.2.5, 

Aquaculture)

Aquaculture is the farming of aquatic organisms such as fish, shellfish, 

and plants. Globally, 29 percent of stocks are fished at biologically 

unsustainable levels, and aquaculture helps meet demand and offsets 

stress to wild populations (National Marine Fisheries Service, 2015b). 

Aquaculture production reached an all-time high of 97 million metric tons 

in 2013 and is the fastest growing form of food production, at 6 percent 

per year globally. Forty-seven percent of aquaculture operations occur in 

the Pacific Ocean. 

The threats of aquaculture operations on wild fish populations include 

reduced water quality, competition for food, predation by escaped or 

released farmed fishes, spread of disease and parasites, and reduced 

genetic diversity (Kappel, 2005). These threats become apparent when 

farmed fish escape and enter the natural ecosystem (Hansen & Windsor, 

2006; Ormerod, 2003). The Marine Aquaculture Policy provides direction 

to enable the development of sustainable marine aquaculture (National 

Marine Fisheries Service, 2015b).

C/O C/O C/O

7.2 kilometers 

(4.5 statute 

miles) west of 

Mission Bay in 

Establishment of the first commercial-scale offshore aquaculture project 

in U.S. federal waters, and will gradually expand to produce up to 5,000 

metric tons per year (expected by year eight) of yellowtail jack, white 

seabass, and striped bass. Submersible sea cages will be deployed and 

Ongoing monitoring of 

seafloor chemistry below 

cages (sediments, water 

quality) and benthic infaunal 

C/O
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

4-24

4.0 Cumulative Impacts

Table 4.2-1: Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Actions (continued)

Project Location Project Description

Summary of Impact 

Minimization and 

Mitigation Measures1

Project Timeframe

C = Construction 

O = Operation

X = Other

Past Present Future

San Diego, 

California

improved as the project progresses, and project will implement a 

comprehensive health management program to prevent the transfer of 

pathogens or diseases to wild fish stocks as well as a comprehensive losscontrol plan to prevent escape from containment and potential impacts 

to genetic integrity of wild population (Hubbs-Seaworld Research 

Institute, 2008; U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2015).

communities; abatement 

measures due to excess 

feed, fecal matter, 

antibiotics, and other 

chemicals; appropriate 

exclusion netting to avoid 

entanglement of marine 

mammals, sea turtles, birds, 

and predator fish species; 

avoidance of anchoring on 

hard bottom habitats; vessel 

operation protocols

Research and Conservation

Academic 

Research

Global Wide-scale academic research is conducted in the region of influence by 

federal entities, such as both the Navy and National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration/NMFS, as well as state and private entities 

and other partnerships, such as the California Cooperative Oceanic 

Fisheries Investigations program.

Although academic research aims to capture data without disturbing the 

ambient conditions of the ocean environment, vessels contribute traffic, 

noise, and strike hazard; seismic activity contributes noise; and various 

other collection methods, such as trawling, could be disruptive to the 

ecosystems under observation. Impacts from academic research 

operations can be similar to the impacts expected from oil and gas air gun 

survey activities.

NMFS and states manage

scientific research permits 

for certain activities

O O O

Naval Undersea 

Warfare Center 

Division Fixed 

Surface Ship 

Barbers Point, 

Oahu, Hawaii

and 

Surrounding 

Includes the installation and operation of a hydrophone array, undersea 

data transmission cable, and a shore station cable landing to measure 

underwater vessel noise (propulsion, ship machinery, and flow noise (U.S. 

Department of the Navy, 2015c).

Industry best management 

practices for drill fluid 

management, avoidance of 

ESA-listed marine mammals, 

C O O
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

4-25

4.0 Cumulative Impacts

Table 4.2-1: Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Actions (continued)

Project Location Project Description

Summary of Impact 

Minimization and 

Mitigation Measures1

Project Timeframe

C = Construction 

O = Operation

X = Other

Past Present Future

Radiated Noise 

Measurement 

System

Ocean, 3.5 

miles offshore 

in Fleet 

Operational 

Readiness 

Accuracy Check 

Site

Temporary impacts associated with sediment suspension during drilling 

operations for undersea cable installation; anticipated negligible impacts 

to marine wildlife, including avoidance by individuals, during construction. 

No long-term impacts anticipated. 

sea turtles, fish, Essential 

Fish Habitat, and vegetation; 

diver-assisted avoidance of 

live coral or coral reef 

ecosystem and weighting 

cables for long-term 

stability; and full restoration 

in ‘Ewa hinahina critical 

habitat.

Ocean Pollution and Ecosystem Alteration

Noise Global Ambient noise is the collection of ever-present sounds of both natural 

and human origin. Ambient noise in the ocean is generated by sources 

that are natural physical (earthquakes, rainfall, waves breaking, and 

lightning hitting the ocean); natural biological (snapping shrimp and the 

vocalizations of marine mammals), and anthropogenic (humangenerated) sources. Anthropogenic sources have substantially increased 

ocean noise since the 1960s, and include commercial shipping, oil and gas 

exploration and production activities (including air gun, sonar, drilling, 

and explosive decommissioning), commercial and recreational fishing 

(including vessel noise, fish-finding sonar, fathometers, and acoustic 

deterrent and harassment devices), military (testing, training and mission 

activities), shoreline construction projects (including pile driving), 

recreational boating and whale-watching activities, offshore power 

generation (including offshore windfarms), and research (including sound 

from air guns, sonar, and telemetry). The contribution of military and 

non-military vessel traffic to the underwater noise experienced in the 

Study Area is discussed in Section 3.0.3.3.1.4 (Vessel Noise). 

O O O

Marine Debris 

Section 3.2.2.6 

(Marine Debris 

Global Marine debris is any anthropogenic object intentionally or unintentionally 

discarded, disposed of, or abandoned that enters the marine 

environment (National Marine Fisheries Service, 2006). An estimated 75%

or more of marine debris consists of plastic (Derraik, 2002; Hardesty & 

O O O
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

4-26

4.0 Cumulative Impacts

Table 4.2-1: Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Actions (continued)

Project Location Project Description

Summary of Impact 

Minimization and 

Mitigation Measures1

Project Timeframe

C = Construction 

O = Operation

X = Other

Past Present Future

and Water 

Quality)

Wilcox, 2017). Approximately 80 percent of marine debris originates 

onshore and 20 percent from offshore sources. Marine debris is governed 

internationally by the 1972 London Convention and 1996 London 

Protocol and regulated in the U.S. through the Marine Protection, 

Research, and Sanctuaries Act.

Marine debris has been discovered to be accumulating in gyres 

throughout the oceans, and two major accumulation zones exist in the 

Pacific Ocean and in the Atlantic east of Bermuda. The Hawaiian 

Archipelago is located within the North Pacific Gyre, which consolidates 

debris originating in various areas of the Pacific Ocean. Anthropogenic 

marine debris is also widespread along the continental shelf and upper 

slope of the U.S. West Coast (Washington to southern California). Military 

expended materials (ammunition boxes, helmets, rocket boosters and 

launchers, etc.) were the highest contributors to recovered metals in 

deeper waters off California in areas known for Navy activities and 

military dump sites, including around Catalina and San Clemente Islands 

(Keller et al., 2010). Recent studies in the Southern California Bight found 

that marine debris (primarily plastic) occurred in about one-third of 

seafloor areas surveyed (Moore et al., 2016). Microplastic particles were 

more prevalent in shallow nearshore areas (ports, marinas, bays, and 

estuaries) than in offshore areas.

Marine debris degrades marine habitat and water quality and poses 

ingestion and entanglement risks to marine life and birds (National 

Marine Fisheries Service, 2006).

Pollution 

(Section 3.2 

[Water and 

Sediments])

Global Common ocean pollutants are generally derived from land-based 

activities and include toxic compounds such as metals, pesticides, and 

other organic chemicals; excess nutrients from fertilizers and sewage; 

detergents; oil; plastics; and other solids. Pollutants enter oceans from 

non-point sources (stormwater runoff from watersheds), point sources 

O O O
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

4-27

4.0 Cumulative Impacts

Table 4.2-1: Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Actions (continued)

Project Location Project Description

Summary of Impact 

Minimization and 

Mitigation Measures1

Project Timeframe

C = Construction 

O = Operation

X = Other

Past Present Future

(wastewater treatment plant discharges), other land-based sources 

(windblown debris), spills, dumping, vessels, and atmospheric deposition. 

Bilge water is a mix of water, oily fluids, lubricants and grease, cleaning 

fluids, and other wastes that are pumped out periodically from vessel 

holding tanks, either to a reception facility on shore or treated with a 

bilge oil-separator and discharged at sea. Discharging sewage is largely 

prohibited under the Clean Water Act. The main risk of oil or other 

petroleum product spills is from ships, whether carrying petroleum to 

and from ports or in fuel tanks, and from pipelines and onshore facilities 

that transport and store oil and gas. 

Hawaii One of the largest oil tanker spills in the Study Area occurred in 1989 

when the tanker Exxon Houston broke away from its moorings and ran 

aground Barbers Point on Oahu, spilling approximately 117,000 gallons 

(U.S. Coast Guard, 1992).

O O O

California In 1969, a federal platform offshore Santa Barbara experienced a blowout 

in one of its wells; an estimated 80,000 barrels (3,360,000 gallons) of oil 

was released into the ocean. Since 1969, about 883 barrels of oil have 

been spilled due to natural gas and oil operations offshore California. This 

spillage represents the cumulative loss from small spills ranging in size 

from a few drops to a 163-barrel spill from a pipeline in State waters 

carrying Outer Continental Shelf production to shore. Several 

redundancies are provided in all platform systems associated with drilling 

and production operations to ensure safety and to prevent flow from 

wells during a contingency such as an earthquake.

Sewage outflow systems in both Hawaii and California can impact 

nearshore water quality. For example, during wet weather/heavy rain 

events, hundreds of millions of gallons of untreated wastewater can 

enter the inland waters of the Southern California Range Complex in San 
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

4-28

4.0 Cumulative Impacts

Table 4.2-1: Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Actions (continued)

Project Location Project Description

Summary of Impact 

Minimization and 

Mitigation Measures1

Project Timeframe

C = Construction 

O = Operation

X = Other

Past Present Future

Diego resulting in beach closures and impacts on training due to 

stormwater runoff from Mexico’s Tijuana River (U.S. Department of the 

Navy, 2015e).

Hypoxic Zones 

(Section 

3.6.2.1.5, Water 

Quality]

Global Hypoxia, or low oxygen, is an environmental phenomenon where the 

concentration of dissolved oxygen in the water column decreases to a 

level that can no longer support living aquatic organisms. Hypoxia occurs 

from the rapid growth and decay of algal blooms in response to excess 

nutrient loading (primarily nitrogen and phosphorus from agriculture 

runoff, sewage treatment plants, bilge water, and atmospheric 

deposition). Animals that encounter the Dead Zones flee, experience 

physiological stress, or suffocate (National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration, 2016; Texas A&M University, 2011, 2014). Hypoxic zones 

can be natural phenomena but are occurring in increasing size and 

frequency due to human-induced nonpoint source water pollution 

(National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2016, 2017a).

O O O

Harmful Algal 

Blooms (Section 

3.6.2.1.5, Water 

Quality)

Global Elevated nutrient loading has also been identified as a potential 

contributing cause of the increased incidence of Harmful Algal Blooms, 

proliferations of certain marine and freshwater toxin-producing algae 

(National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2016, 2017a). Of the 

5,000 known species of phytoplankton, there are about 100 species 

known to be toxic or harmful. Harmful Algal Blooms cause human illness 

and animal mortalities, including species of fish, bird, and marine 

mammals (Anderson et al., 2002; Corcoran et al., 2013; Sellner et al., 

2003). Harmful Algal Blooms can be natural phenomena but are occurring 

in increasing size and frequency due to human-induced nonpoint source 

water pollution (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2016, 

2017a).

O O O

Climate Change 

(Section 3.1, Air 

Quality)

Global Predictions of long-term negative environmental impacts due to climate 

change include sea level rise; changes in ocean surface temperature, 

acidity/alkalinity, and salinity; changing weather patterns with increases 

in the severity of storms and droughts; changes to local and regional 

X X X
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

4-29

4.0 Cumulative Impacts

Table 4.2-1: Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Actions (continued)

Project Location Project Description

Summary of Impact 

Minimization and 

Mitigation Measures1

Project Timeframe

C = Construction 

O = Operation

X = Other

Past Present Future

ecosystems (including the potential loss of species); shrinking glaciers and 

sea ice; thawing permafrost; a longer growing season; and shifts in plant 

and animal ranges, fecundity, and productivity. 

Anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions have changed the physical and 

chemical properties of the oceans, including a 1 degree Celsius 

temperature rise, increased carbon dioxide absorption, decreased pH, 

and alteration of carbonate chemistry, decline in dissolved oxygen, and 

disruption of ocean circulation (Poloczanska et al., 2016). Observations of 

species responses that have been linked to anthropogenic climate change 

are widespread, and trends include shifts in species distribution to higher 

latitudes and to deeper locations, earlier onset of spring and later arrival 

of fall, declines in calcification, and increases in the abundance of warmwater species. 

Climate change is likely to negatively impact the Study Area and will 

contribute added stressors to all resources in the Study Area. 1 Some projects/activities did not list specific impacts minimization measures (such as avoidance techniques, standard operating procedures, or industry best management practices) or 

mitigation requirements; either official documentation of project descriptions could not be obtained or did not specify these actions. In most cases, site-specific actions are to be developed as 

specific projects are developed. 
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

4-30

4.0 Cumulative Impacts

4.3 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ON ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES

Since the information available on past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions varies in quality 

and level of detail, impacts of these actions were quantified where available data made it possible; 

otherwise, professional judgment and experience were used to make a qualitative assessment of 

impacts. Due to the large scale of the Study Area and multiple activities interacting in the ocean 

environment (Table 4.2-1), the analysis for the incremental contribution to cumulative stress that the 

Proposed Action may have on a given resource is largely qualitative and speculative. Chapter 3 (Affected 

Environment and Environmental Consequences) includes a robust discussion of the “general threats”, an 

analysis of aggregate project effects, and a broader level analysis specific to areas where impacts are 

concentrated (i.e., ranges/OPAREAS). The Chapter 3 (Affected Environment and Environmental 

Consequences) analysis is referenced and briefly summarized in each section below to provide context 

and perspective to the rationale for the conclusions that the Proposed Action would have an 

insignificant contribution to the cumulative stress experienced by these resources. 

Cumulative impacts were analyzed for each resource addressed in Chapter 3 (Affected Environment and 

Environmental Consequences) for the Proposed Action in combination with past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable future actions. Analysis was not separated by Alternative because the data 

available for the cumulative effects analysis was mostly qualitative in nature and, from a landscape-level 

perspective, these qualitative impacts are expected to be generally similar. 

Under Alternative 1 or Alternative 2 of the Proposed Action, the Navy would implement the mitigation 

detailed in Chapter 5 (Mitigation) to avoid impacts on biological, socioeconomic, and cultural resources 

in the Study Area.

4.4 RESOURCE-SPECIFIC CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

In accordance with Council on Environmental Quality guidance (Council on Environmental Quality, 1997),

the following cumulative impacts analysis focuses on impacts that are “truly meaningful.” The level of 

analysis for each resource is commensurate with the intensity of the impacts identified in Chapter 3 

(Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences) and/or the level to which impacts from the 

Proposed Action are expected to mingle with similar impacts from existing activities. A full analysis of 

potential cumulative impacts is provided for marine mammals and reptiles. Rationale is also provided for 

an abbreviated analysis of the following resources: air quality, sediments and water quality, vegetation, 

invertebrates, habitat, fishes, marine mammals, reptiles, birds, cultural resources, socioeconomics, and 

public health and safety.

4.4.1 AIR QUALITY

As described in Section 3.1.2.1.1 (Region of Influence), the region of influence for air quality is 

dependent on the type of pollutant, emission rates, other emission sources, and meteorology. For inert 

pollutants, the region of influence is generally limited to a few miles downwind from the source. For a 

photochemical pollutant, such as ozone, the region of influence may extend much farther downwind.

The concentration of many small emission sources in a particular airshed, under the right circumstances,

could incrementally contribute to regional air quality degradation. 

The context for air quality analysis provided in Section 3.1 (Air Quality) includes adherence to state and 

federal plans enacted to achieve and maintain air quality. As the plans are developed, the establishment 

of significance criteria includes an inventory of existing emissions and the development of thresholds 

that ensure new activities avoid or mitigate significant air quality impacts. Unlike other resource areas, 
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

4-31

4.0 Cumulative Impacts

the analytical construct for this air quality analysis in Section 3.1 (Air Quality) is effectively a quantified 

look at applicable training and testing activity emissions and a region’s ability to maintain or recover air 

quality as measured by the criteria air pollutants in light of other, existing emissions. As a whole, the air 

quality throughout the Study Area is generally very good or excellent as shown by ongoing monitoring of 

all criteria pollutants against National Ambient Air Quality Standards and State Ambient Air Quality 

Standards (Section 3.1.2.4, Existing Air Quality). A small proportion of nonattainment and maintenance 

areas are generally concentrated in the inland, urban, industrialized areas off the coast of Southern 

California. Much of the air pollutants found in offshore areas are transported there from adjacent land 

areas by low-level offshore winds, so concentrations of criteria air pollutants generally decrease with 

increasing distance from land. The good quality of the ocean atmosphere, including Hawaii and the 

Transit Corridor, results from the relatively low number of air pollutant sources, as well as the size, 

topography, and prevailing meteorological conditions throughout the Study Area.

Other activities in the Study Area that contribute to emissions of criteria air pollutants include other 

vessel traffic and oil and gas production activities, as well as from landside power-generating stations, 

petroleum refining, agriculture, other industry, vehicle traffic, and volcanoes (Hawaii). Oil and gas 

production is regulated under state and federal programs to ensure new activities avoid or mitigate 

significant air quality impacts (Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, 2016a). Air emissions from vessel 

operations within territorial waters are not regulated and contribute air emissions to adjacent air basins. 

As detailed in Section 3.1 (Air Quality) sources of emissions from the proposed alternatives would 

include Navy vessels, aircraft, and to a lesser extent, munitions training and testing activities conducted 

throughout the Study Area. The Proposed Action alternatives would result in localized and temporarily 

elevated emissions, but overall, criteria pollutant emissions in nonattainment or maintenance areas 

would not exceed de minimis thresholds. Hazardous air pollutant emissions are anticipated to be so 

minute that they were dismissed as a stressor of impact. 

Although it is anticipated that emissions resulting from Proposed Actions would quickly disperse in the 

ocean environment and largely degrade rather than concentrate due to meteorological and air 

chemistry processes, under various scenarios these emissions could intermix with emissions from other 

vessel traffic in the open ocean. The incremental additive impacts from these combined emissions 

would be minor, localized, intermittent, and unlikely to contribute to future degradation of the ocean 

atmosphere in a way that would harm ocean ecosystems or nearshore communities. Thus, based on the 

analysis presented in Section 3.1 (Air Quality) and given the meteorology of the Study Area, the 

frequency and isolation of proposed training and testing activities (Tables 2.6-1 through 2.6-5), and the 

small quantities of expected emissions, it is anticipated that the incremental contribution of the 

Proposed Action, when added to the impacts of all other past, present and reasonably foreseeable 

future actions would not result in measurable additional impacts to air quality in the Study Area 

or beyond. 

(A cumulative analysis of greenhouse gas emissions and climate change is provided in Section 3.1, 

Air Quality).

4.4.2 SEDIMENTS AND WATER QUALITY

The region of influence for sediments and water quality includes estuaries, nearshore areas, and the 

open ocean. Although most impacts from anthropogenic sources tend to be geographically isolated in 

proximity to the source, more widespread impacts can extend into the offshore ocean environment due 

to transport through currents, storms, and persistent winds as well as vertical mixing in the water 
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

4-32

4.0 Cumulative Impacts

column. The environmental fate of materials deposited in the marine environment and the formation of 

degradation or corrosion products depends on geochemical conditions that may influence precipitation 

by chemical reaction, adsorption, and biodegradation. Transport mechanisms, such as advection by 

currents, dispersion, and dissolution can cause wide distribution of chemicals and small, buoyant 

particle debris. While this dynamic movement generally causes chemical contaminants to degrade or 

dilute, it can also concentrate materials in areas of the seafloor or water column where predictable 

currents, eddies, or gyres result in convergence zones (such as the “garbage patch” in the North Pacific 

Ocean or east of Bermuda where debris, particularly plastics, has accumulated and persists in the 

marine environment).

In order to protect sediment and water quality, several U.S. and international laws govern the discharge 

of fouling materials into the marine environment. Both nearshore discharge as well as discharges from 

open ocean activities and vessels in federal waters are regulated by the U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency and state environmental programs through the Clean Water Act National Pollutant Discharge 

Elimination System. The deliberate disposal of waste or other matter into the ocean is governed 

internationally by the 1972 London Convention and 1996 London Protocol, implemented in the U.S. 

through the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act. The International Convention for the 

Prevention of Pollution from Ships is incorporated into U.S. law and addresses pollution generated by 

normal vessel operations (see Section 3.2.2.2, Water Pollution and 3.2.2.1.2, Marine Debris for further 

discussion of sediment and water quality trends and impacts; Section 3.2.1.2, Methods lists applicable 

standards, regulations, and guidelines). 

Sediment quality of the Study Area is detailed in Section 3.2.2.1 (Sediments) and generally rated as good 

with most instances of lower quality in nearshore waters adjacent to population centers or areas that 

are geologically more enclosed (e.g., Pearl Harbor) (Table 3.2-1; Figures 3.2-2 and 3.2-3). Poor sediment 

quality related to metals contamination occur in Waimea Bay, Kauai, and in Pearl Harbor; Keehi Lagoon 

on Oahu; Hilo Bay on Hawaii; and other harbors. Off the California coast, sediments are rated good 

except for areas adjacent to Los Angeles (outside of the Study Area), and further south in the California 

Bight from Santa Catalina Island to the Mexico border. The outer continental shelf and submarine 

canyons are experiencing decreasing sediment quality, likely due to transport of historic contamination 

from inland areas.

Water quality of the Study Area is detailed in Section 3.2.2.2 (Water Quality). Threats to water quality 

are detailed in Section 3.3.2.2.3 (Marine Debris and Water Quality). Population growth is the primary 

cause of impacts on coastal water quality, including marine debris, land-based garbage, and solid wastes 

that deposit toxic chemicals and nutrients in the ocean. Water quality in the open ocean portion of the 

Study Area tends to be rated as good, but in the nearshore areas water quality ranges from good to 

poor, and is often compromised due to increased use and development in coastal waters (see Figures

3.2-4 and 3.2-5). Pearl Harbor is on the Clean Water Act Section 303(d) List of Water Quality Limited 

Segments as are many of the streams draining into the San Diego Bay. Persistent organic pollutants such 

as polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, polychlorinated biphenyls, and pesticides; nutrients; bacteria; and 

some metals are typical components of discharge. The major pollutant encountered in the open ocean is 

oil from accidental spills (including chemical dispersants used in response to spills) as well as 

natural seeps.

All past, present, and reasonably foreseeable activities listed in Table 4.2-1 affect marine sediments and 

water quality. In particular, activities contributing to climate change, continued runoff and discharge 

from nearshore land uses and coastal land development, maritime traffic, leakages and spills from oil 
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

4-33

4.0 Cumulative Impacts

and gas development, commercial fishing, mineral extraction, offshore energy development and 

removal operations, and marine trash impact water and sediment quality. Commercial, recreational, and 

institutional vessels discharge water pollutants into the Southern California portion of the HSTT Study 

Area as part of normal operations. Shipboard waste-handling procedures governing the discharge of 

Hawaii-Southern California nonhazardous waste streams have been established for commercial and 

Navy vessels. These categories of wastes include liquids: “black water” (sewage); “grey water” (water 

from deck drains, showers, dishwashers, laundries, etc.); and oily wastes (oil-water mixtures) and solids 

(garbage). Global climate change is linked with increasing ocean acidity (pH), increasing sea surface 

temperatures, and increasing frequency and intensity of storms. These factors influence marine 

chemistry and the transport and persistence of chemical contaminants within sediment and the water 

column. Chemicals that remain in particulate form below a certain temperature may dissolve into the 

water column and a higher rate as water temperatures rise and become more widely dispersed. 

Particularly in nearshore areas and bays, the concentration of Navy stressors in designated ranges and 

ports may combine with non-Navy stressors, which may also be concentrated in these areas, to 

exacerbate already impacted sediments and water quality (Figures 3.0-9 and 3.0-10).

The analysis in Section 3.2 (Sediments and Water Quality) indicates that certain training and testing

activities could result in localized, short- and long-term impacts on sediment and water quality. Activities 

that use explosive munitions would introduce explosion byproducts, metals, and other constituent 

chemicals directly into the water column when the munition detonates or into marine sediments if an 

explosive munition fails to detonate. Explosion byproducts are expected to disperse rapidly near the 

water’s surface after detonation. Explosive materials and metal corrosion products would be released 

into adjacent sediments (within a few feet) over the long-term (years to decades). However, analysis of 

decades-old munitions dump sites in multiple locations, including Hawaii, indicates that chemical 

contaminant concentrations in impacted sediment would not be expected to differ substantially from 

the chemical composition of control sediments located within the general area of impact. Other military 

expended materials, such as marine markers and flares, chaff, unrecovered towed and stationary 

targets, sonobuoys, fiber-optic cables, and miscellaneous plastic and rubber components of other 

expended objects are expected to sink to the seafloor and become buried in sediments. Depending on 

the environmental conditions, including the availability of oxygen in sediments and water temperate at 

the seafloor and the type of material (e.g., metal or plastic), expended material may degrade relatively 

quickly or persist in the environment indefinitely. Plastic and other persistent materials could 

incrementally contribute to marine “garbage patches” or other areas with accumulated debris.

Short-term impacts from activities using vessels may include increased turbidity and suspension of 

sediments in the water column (dependent on water depth) and discharge of shipboard black and grey 

water, oily wastes, and solids. Most explosion constituents are fully consumed in detonation, and 

chemical, physical, or biological changes to sediments or water quality would be below applicable 

standards, regulations, and guidelines and would be within existing conditions or designated uses. 

Military expended materials associated with the Proposed Action do not generally include the same 

chemical constituents typically affecting coastal water quality. With the exception of the few training 

and testing activities that occur in bays and harbors, it is unlikely that short-term increases in turbidity 

from training and testing activities would overlap in time and space with other past, present, or future 

actions. For example, training and testing with explosives would not occur near an oilrig structureremoval operation that could use explosives or at the same time or place as other bottom-disturbing 

activities such as trawling or laying electrical transmission or communications cables. 
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

4-34

4.0 Cumulative Impacts

It is possible that Navy stressors would combine with non-Navy stressors, particularly in nearshore areas 

and bays, such as Pearl Harbor and San Diego Bay, to exacerbate already impacted sediments and water 

quality. Although impacts may temporarily intermingle with other inputs in areas with degraded existing 

conditions, most of the Navy impacts to water quality and turbidity are expected to be negligible, 

isolated, and short-term, with disturbed sediments and particulate matter quickly dispersing within the 

water column or settling to the seafloor and turbidity conditions returning to background levels. The 

Proposed Action could incrementally contribute persistent metal and plastic materials primarily to the 

offshore ocean ecosystems. However, the relatively minute concentrations of Navy stressors are not 

likely to combine with other past, present, or reasonably foreseeable activities in a way that would 

cumulatively threaten the water and sediment quality within the Study Area.

4.4.3 VEGETATION

The Study Area for vegetation includes the sunlit portions of the open-ocean, coastal, and inland waters, 

including the surface, water column and benthic habitat to a maximum depth of roughly 200 meters. 

Vegetation of the Study Area includes algae (phytoplankton and seaweeds), and vascular plants that 

include seagrasses, emergent marsh vegetation such as cordgrass, and mangroves. Commercial activities 

are conducted under permits and regulations that require companies to avoid and minimize impacts on

sensitive vegetation, and some harvested seaweeds are managed under Fishery Management Plans and 

in Hawaii are regulated by the Department of Land and Natural Resources.

Seagrasses are susceptible to damage from storms and human activities but can regrow quickly if the 

root structure is intact and the substrate is not eroded away. Stressors include decreased light 

penetration and impacts on photosynthesis, particularly from sustained turbidity and nutrient loading, 

which can cause algal blooms. They are also susceptible to changes in environmental factors such as 

salinity, pH, water temperature, and physical damage. Section 3.3.2.1.1 (General Threats) includes an 

extensive discussion of the existing stressors to marine vegetation, including diminished water quality 

from excessive nutrient input, siltation, pollution (from oil, oil spills, and cleanup chemicals; sewage; and 

trash), climate change, fishing practices (trawling and raking), anchoring, shading from structures, 

propeller/vessel traffic, construction and dredging, commercial harvest, and introduced or invasive 

species. Many of these stressors are components of other activities in the Study Area described in Table 

4.2-1. The coverage of seagrass in the Study Area has decreased over time; from 1879 to 2006 global 

seagrass coverage decreased by 75 percent (Waycott et al., 2009). By comparison, algae includes a much 

greater diversity of species, forms, life histories, and environmental tolerances, and are thus resilient to 

stressors and able to rapidly recolonize disturbed environments (Levinton, 2009). 

Although Navy mitigation measures would help avoid impacts of the Proposed Action on vegetation in 

the Study Area, including seagrasses, macroalgae on the seafloor, Sargassum, and detached (freefloating) kelp paddies on the sea surface, vegetation may be impacted directly by explosions,

interactions with vessels, in-water and seafloor devices, and military expended materials. The analysis 

presented in Section 3.3 (Vegetation) indicates that impacts on marine vegetation are confined to 

destroying or damaging individual plants, and no persistent or large-scale effects on the growth, 

survival, distribution, or structure of vegetation are anticipated due to relatively fast growth, resilience, 

and abundance of the affected species in the Study Area. Likewise, the short-term, localized nature of 

most activities further diminishes the potential effects on marine vegetation.

The effects of other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions on vegetation occur primarily in 

the coastal and inland waters and are associated with coastal development, maritime 
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

4-35

4.0 Cumulative Impacts

commerce/dredging, and the discharge of sediment and other pollutants. The Proposed Action is not 

expected to substantially contribute to losses of vegetation that would interfere with recovery in these 

regions. The incremental contribution of the Proposed Action would be insignificant as most of the 

proposed activities would occur in areas where seagrasses and other attached marine vegetation do not 

grow; impacts would be localized; recovery would occur quickly; and the Proposed Action would not 

compound impacts that have been historically significant to marine vegetation (loss of habitat due to 

development; nutrient loading; shading; turbidity; or changes in salinity, pH, or water temperature).

Although vegetation is impacted by stressors throughout the Study Area, the Proposed Action is not 

likely to incrementally contribute to population- or ecosystem-level changes in the resource, and it is 

anticipated that the incremental contribution of the Proposed Action, when added to the impacts of all 

other past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions, would not result in measurable 

additional impacts on vegetation in the Study Area or beyond. 

4.4.4 INVERTEBRATES

4.4.4.1 Region of Influence

The region of influence for invertebrates includes the entire Study Area as invertebrates occur in all 

habitats and depths, including both the water column and benthic habitat. It has been estimated that 

nearly 6,000 species of invertebrates are present in the Insular Pacific Hawaii large marine ecosystem 

and over 8,000 species may occur in the California Current large marine ecosystem (Fautin et al., 2010). 

Invertebrate groups in the Study Area are listed in Table 3.4-2 and include microscopic zooplankton that 

drift with currents (e.g., invertebrate larvae, copepods, protozoans), larger invertebrates living in the 

water column (e.g., jellyfish, shrimp, squid), and benthic invertebrates that live on or in the seafloor 

(e.g., clams, corals, crabs, worms). Corals are specifically extensive throughout the Hawaiian 

Archipelago, which supports over 250 separate species. Deep-water corals occur at depths below 50 m 

where there is no or low sunlight penetration and do not form biogenic reefs, but rather form mounds 

of intermediate substrate over hard bottom areas.

4.4.4.2 Resource Trends

As discussed in Section 3.4.2.1, General Background, marine invertebrates are ecologically and 

economically crucial, performing essential ecosystem services such as coastal protection, nutrient 

recycling, food for other animals, and habitat formation, as well as providing income from tourism and 

commercial fisheries. The health and abundance of marine invertebrates are vital to the marine 

ecosystem and the sustainability of the world’s fisheries. Invertebrates are fished for food (e.g., shrimps, 

lobsters, and crabs, scallops, clams, and oysters, sea urchins, sea cucumbers, squids, and octopuses); 

harvested for jewelry, curios, and the aquarium trade; and some are known to secrete medicinal 

compounds of interest to the health industry.

Two abalone species (black and white) are listed as endangered under the Endangered Species Act 

(ESA), and two additional abalone species (green and pink) are designated as Species of Concern. 

Abalones occur on hard substrate from the intertidal zone to depths of 100 to 200 ft., depending on the 

species. NMFS maintains a website that provides additional information on the biology, life history, 

species distribution (including maps), and conservation of invertebrates in the Study Area.

4.4.4.3 Impacts of Other Actions

Section 3.4.2.1.5 (General Threats) includes an extensive discussion of the existing stressors to marine 

invertebrates, including overexploitation and destructive fishing practices, habitat degradation resulting 
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

4-36

4.0 Cumulative Impacts

from pollution and coastal development, disease, invasive species, oil spills, noise, and global climate 

change and ocean acidification. Stressors specific to reef-building corals, which are generally located in 

more shallow zones with adequate sunlight penetration and a mean annual water temperature greater 

than about 64 degrees Fahrenheit, include thermal stress, disease, tropical storms, coastal development 

and pollution, erosion and sedimentation, tourism/recreation, fishing, trade in coral and live reef 

species, vessel anchoring or groundings, marine debris, predation, invasive species, military and other 

security-related activities, and hydrocarbon exploration. Primary threats to deep-water or cold-water 

corals include bottom fishing, hydrocarbon exploration and extraction, petroleum contamination, cable 

and pipeline installation, and other various bottom-disturbing activities. Deep corals are susceptible to 

physical disturbance due to the branching and fragile growth form of some species, slow growth rate 

(colonies can be hundreds of years old), and low reproduction and recruitment rates. All activities 

described in Table 4.2-1 have the potential to impact marine invertebrates due to their ubiquitous 

presence and relative vulnerability.

Climate Change. As detailed in Section 3.4.2.1.4.2, Climate Change, the primary threat to corals is the 

occurrence of global climate change, which has and is projected to continue to seriously impact coral 

reefs in the near and known future. The effects of climate change include increased water temperature, 

ocean acidification, increased frequency or intensity of cyclonic storm events, and sea level rise, which 

can cause direct damage to these crucial and sensitive ecosystems as well as increase their susceptibility 

to and resilience from encounters with all other threats, including disease, pathogens, and 

genetic disorders. 

Increases in ocean temperature can lead to coral stress, bleaching, and mortality. Coral bleaching, which 

occurs when corals expel the symbiotic algae living in their tissues, is a stress response often tied to 

atypically high sea temperatures or changes in light availability but also can be attributed to nutrients, 

toxicants, and pathogens (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2017b). Bleaching events 

have increased in frequency in recent decades and coral bleaching on a global scale has occurred during 

the summers of 2014, 2015, and 2016. Until recently, major coral bleaching events had generally not 

occurred in the Hawaiian Islands. The first known large-scale bleaching event occurred in 1996, primarily 

affecting portions of the Main Hawaiian Islands. A second event occurred in 2002 in the Northwestern 

Hawaiian Islands. More recently, bleaching events were documented at Kane’ohe Bay on the northeast 

coast of Oahu in 2014 and other portions of the Main Hawaiian Islands in 2014 and 2015 through 2016. 

NOAA coral reef watch modeling has the main Hawaiian Islands bleaching annually by 2040 under 

current carbon emission levels (van Hooidonk et al., 2014).

In addition to elevated sea temperatures, atypically low sea temperatures may also cause mortality to 

corals and most other reef organisms, suggesting that widening climate extremes could proliferate 

bleaching events. Likewise, ocean acidification has the potential to reduce calcification and growth rates 

in species with calcium carbonate skeletons, including shellfish, corals, and sponges, certain kinds of 

algae, and possibly even lobsters and sea cucumbers. In addition to physical effects, increased acidity 

may result in behavioral changes in some species, such as burrowing behavior and juvenile dispersal 

patterns of the soft-shell clam and reduction in the loudness and number of snaps in the 

snapping shrimp. 

Although the potential effects that climate change could have on future storm activity are uncertain, 

numerous researchers suggest that rising temperatures could result in little change to the overall 

number of storms, but that storm intensity could increase. Increased storm intensity could result in 

increased physical damage to individual corals and reefs constructed by the corals (which support 
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

4-37

4.0 Cumulative Impacts

numerous other invertebrate taxa), overturning of coral colonies, and a decrease in structural 

complexity (due to disproportionate breakage of branching species). However, large storms such as 

hurricanes may also have positive impacts on corals, such as lowering the water temperature and 

removing less resilient macroalgae from reef structures, which can overgrow corals.

Sea level rise could affect invertebrates by modifying or eliminating habitat, particularly estuarine and 

intertidal habitats bordering steep and artificially hardened shorelines. Likewise, changes in ocean 

circulation patterns could affect the planktonic food supply of filter- and suspension-feeding 

invertebrates. Cumulative effects of threats from fishing, pollution, and other human disturbance may 

reduce the tolerance of corals and other invertebrates to global climate change.

4.4.4.4 Impacts of the Proposed Action That May Contribute to Cumulative Impacts

The analysis presented in Section 3.4 (Invertebrates) indicates that the Proposed Action could impact 

marine invertebrates through acoustic stressors (sonar and other transducers, air guns, pile driving, 

vessel noise, weapons noise), explosives, energy stressors (in-water electromagnetic devices, 

high-energy lasers), physical disturbance or strikes (vessels and in-water devices, military expended 

materials, seafloor devices, pile driving), entanglement (wires and cables, decelerators/parachutes, 

biodegradable polymers), and ingestion of military expended materials. Potential impacts include shortterm behavioral and physiological responses (Celi et al., 2015; Edmonds et al., 2016; Roberts et al., 

2016). Some stressors could also result in injury or mortality to a relatively small number of individuals.

The potential for impacts on ESA-listed abalone species (Table 3.4-1) would be avoided by mitigation 

designed to avoid locations where abalones are present. For example, the Navy will not conduct certain 

activities within a specified distance of shallow-water coral reefs, precious coral beds, live hard bottom, 

artificial reefs, and shipwrecks (Chapter 5, Mitigation). These measures will help avoid potential impacts 

on invertebrates that inhabit these areas, including several areas inhabited by ESA-listed 

abalone species.

4.4.4.5 Cumulative Impacts on Invertebrates

Some direct impacts on invertebrates are expected, and the impacts of the Proposed Action could be 

cumulative with other actions that cause disturbance and mortality of marine invertebrates. However, it 

is anticipated that the incremental contribution of the proposed alternatives would be insignificant for 

the following reasons:

• Invertebrates are generally abundant and relatively short-lived, thus, with the exception of 

sessile species located near areas of repeated Navy activities (e.g., pierside locations); few 

individuals would likely be affected repeatedly by the same event.

• Invertebrates generally have high reproductive rates, short reproductive cycles, and resilient 

dispersal mechanisms; thus, with the exception of some species such as deep-water corals, local 

communities are likely to reestablish quickly. 

• Most of the proposed activities would impact small, dispersed, deep water areas where marine 

invertebrates are more sparsely distributed. Navy activities may occur in the same general area 

(ranges), but do not occur at the same specific point each time and would therefore be unlikely 

to affect the same individual invertebrates.

• Marine invertebrates are not particularly susceptible to energy, entanglement, or ingestion

stressors resulting from Navy activities, and none of the alternatives would result in or interact 

with impacts that have been historically significant to marine invertebrates, such as overfishing, 

nutrient loading, disease, or the presence of invasive species. 
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

4-38

4.0 Cumulative Impacts

• None of the alternatives would result in long-term or widespread changes in environmental 

conditions such as turbidity, salinity, pH, or water temperature that could impact marine 

habitats or interact with existing trends affecting these parameters.

• The Navy will not conduct certain activities within a specified distance of surveyed shallow coral 

reefs, live hard bottom, artificial reefs, or shipwrecks. All features that have been identified are 

included in Chapter 5 (Mitigation).

Although the aggregate impacts of other stressors in the ocean environment continue to have significant 

impacts on some marine invertebrate species in the study area, particularly the effects of global climate 

change on corals, t, the Proposed Action is not likely to incrementally contribute to population-level 

stress and decline of the resource. Due to the effects of global climate change corals may be less 

resilient to additional stressors; however, it is not anticipated that the Navy will cause direct effects to 

surveyed reef systems. As impacts would be isolated, localized, and not likely to overlap with other 

relevant stressors, it is anticipated that the incremental contribution of the Proposed Action, when 

added to the impacts of all other past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions, would not 

result in measurable additional impacts on invertebrates in the Study Area or beyond. 

4.4.5 HABITATS

Habitats refers to the marine and estuarine nonliving (abiotic) substrates found throughout the Study 

Area, which are often colonized by biotic (vegetation and invertebrate) communities. Habitats vary 

according to geographic location, underlying geology, hydrodynamics, atmospheric conditions, and 

suspended particulate matter. Habitat types within the Study Area are described in Table 3.5-1 and 

depicted on Figure 3.5-1 through 3.5-7. There are basically three types of abiotic substrates based on 

the grain size of unconsolidated material, referred to as soft, intermediate, and hard. The soft habitats 

are generally comprised of fine grains that are more fluid and dynamic, whereas hard substrate does not 

repair and thus is susceptible to long-term scarring and damage. Artificial structures, such as shipwrecks 

oil and gas platforms, underwater cables, and outflows also provide habitat for many marine organisms.

Additionally, as detailed in Chapter 6, Other Regulatory Considerations, there are 380,000 square km of 

designated National Marine Sanctuaries in the total HSTT Study Area (8.32 percent of total Study Area), 

but none occurring within Range Complexes, Testing Ranges, or OPAREAs.

Section 3.5.2.1.4 (General Threats) includes an extensive discussion of the existing stressors to abiotic 

marine habitats, including urbanization (modification of shorelines and estuaries, dredging and 

maintenance of ports, bays, and harbors, and creation of artificial structure habitats such as 

breakwaters, jetties, rock groins, seawalls, oil and gas platforms, docks, piers, wharves, underwater 

cables and pipelines, artificial reefs); accumulation of marine debris; and commercial activities (oil/gas 

development, telecommunications infrastructure, steam and nuclear power plants, desalinization 

plants, alternative energy development, shipping and cruise vessels, commercial fishing, aquaculture, 

and tourism operations). The impact of commercial fishing trawling practices has a significant impact on 

bottom habitats. Most activities in Table 4.2-1 are conducted under permits and regulations that require 

the avoidance and minimization of impacts on marine habitats, especially shoreline and sensitive hard 

bottom and biogenic habitats (e.g., coral reefs and shellfish beds). Tourism is an additional stressor in 

urbanized areas. Nearshore coral reefs along the more developed main Hawaiian Islands have been 

impacted by trampling; damage from divers and swimmers touching, kicking, breaking, sitting, or 

standing on coral; and improper boat anchoring. Within the highly urbanized Southern California portion 

of the Study Area, human visitation and disturbances impact rocky intertidal (trampling, overturning of 

rocks, collecting) and sandy beach (mechanical beach grooming) habitats.
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

4-39

4.0 Cumulative Impacts

The analysis presented in Section 3.5 (Habitats) indicates that marine habitats could be affected by 

underwater detonations, interactions with vessels (including wave erosion and sediment suspension), 

military expended materials, or seafloor devices. Potential impacts include localized disturbance of the 

seafloor, cratering of soft bottom sediments, and structural damage to hard bottom habitats. Although 

some direct impacts on abiotic habitats are expected, it is anticipated that the incremental contribution 

of the Proposed Action would be cumulatively insignificant for the following reasons:

• Most detonations would occur at or near the water surface and would not affect bottom 

habitats. 

• Impacts to soft bottom habitat from bottom-laid explosives would be confined to a limited area, 

and it is anticipated that soft bottom habitats would recover (fill in) quickly.

• Proposed Action activities are not likely to occur at the same time/place as other activities in the 

Study Area, including commercial fishing operations, which have a large effect on bottom 

habitats. Thus, it is likely that soft bottom habitats would have the opportunity to recover from 

the Proposed Action before impacts from fishing or other operations could interact or 

compound additional stress to the ecosystems.

• Per analysis detailed in Section 3.5.3.2.2 (Impacts from Explosives) and Appendix F (Military 

Expended Materials and Direct Strike Calculations), the area of hard bottom potentially 

impacted represents a negligible percentage in each of the range complexes (less than 0.1 

percent) of the total hard bottom habitat in the Study Area (Figures 3.5-1 through 3.5-4). The 

Navy will implement mitigation to avoid impacts from explosives, physical disturbance, and 

strike stressors on seafloor resources, including shallow-water coral reefs, live hard bottom, and 

artificial reefs, as described in Chapter 5 (Mitigation) and National Marine Sanctuaries, as 

described in Chapter 6 (Other Regulatory Considerations). Potentially sensitive habitats such as 

artificial reefs, hard bottom, shallow water coral reefs, and shipwrecks are typically avoided. 

Training and testing units are reminded of the presence of potentially sensitive areas through 

the Protective Measures Assessment Protocol program, which limits certain activities in areas of 

soft, intermediate, and hard bottom habitat and National Marine Sanctuaries within the HSTT 

Study Area.

Although it is anticipated that damage to abiotic soft bottom habitat resulting from the Proposed Action 

would be limited and would recover, many other activities in the ocean are also impacting ocean bottom 

habitat. However, it is not likely that past, present, and future impacts would overlap Proposed Action 

activities in place or time before the craters or other impressions in soft bottom substrate fill in.

Likewise, hard bottom habitat would be avoided to the greatest extent possible. Based on the analysis 

presented in Section 3.5 (Habitats) and the reasons summarized above, it is anticipated that the 

incremental contribution of the Proposed Action, when added to the impacts of all other past, present 

and reasonably foreseeable future actions, would not result in measurable additional impacts on

habitats, including National Marine Sanctuaries, in the Study Area or beyond. 

4.4.6 FISHES

The general region of influence for fishes extends beyond the Study Area boundaries for some species 

because the Study Area represents only a portion of the available habitat during its lifecycle, such as 

anadromous species that spend part of their lifecycle in freshwater. Fishes are usually not distributed 

uniformly throughout the Study Area, but are typically associated with a specific habitat type (e.g., soft 

bottom, reef, or open water) or can utilize a variety of habitats at different life stages. The distribution 

and specific habitats in which an individual of a single fish species occurs may also be influenced by its 

size, sex, reproductive condition, and other factors such as water temperature and depth. The highest 
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

4-40

4.0 Cumulative Impacts

number and diversity of fishes typically occur where the habitat is most diverse; thus, coastal 

ecosystems tend to support a greater diversity of species than oceanic and deep-sea habitats (Moyle & 

Cech, 2004). 

It is estimated that there are currently over 34,000 species of fish worldwide (Eschmeyer & Fong, 2017), 

with greater than half that number of species inhabiting the oceans. There are approximately 1,260 

marine fish species reported in the Study Area, approximately 65 percent of which occur in the coastal 

zone and the remaining 35 percent occurring in the deeper oceanic zone. Table 3.6-2 lists the groups of 

fishes known to occur in the Study Area.

Table 3.6-1 lists the regulatory status and occurrence of ESA-listed fishes known to occur in the Study 

Area. Fishes are protected by the ESA, the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management 

Act, and the Sustainable Fisheries Act. The Study Area overlaps with the jurisdiction of two regional 

fishery management councils (Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council [includes Hawaii, 

American Samoa, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands] and Pacific Fishery Management Council 

[includes Washington, Oregon, and California]), as well as the range of the highly migratory species (e.g., 

sharks, billfish, swordfish, and tunas), which are managed by NMFS. Despite regulation, oversight, and 

technological improvements, the commercial fishing industry continues to have significant impacts on 

fish populations, including overfishing and bycatch of non-target species (Moyle & Cech, 2004). By the 

end of 2015, 28 fish stocks were on the overfishing list and 38 stocks were on the overfished list, while 

the number of rebuilt fish stocks since 2000 increased to 39 (National Marine Fisheries Service, 2016b). 

The current aggregate impacts of past and present human activities are significant for some fish species, 

especially those that are globally in serious decline. Very few ocean habitats remain unaffected by 

human influence, and these stressors have shaped the condition of marine fish populations, particularly 

those species with large body size, late maturity ages, and/or low fecundity such as sharks, Pacific cod, 

and Pacific bluefin tuna (Reynolds et al., 2005).

Section 3.6.2.1.4 (General Threats) includes an extensive discussion of the existing stressors, which often 

act on fish populations simultaneously, including habitat alteration (coastal development, deforestation, 

road construction, dam development, water control structures, and agricultural activities), exploitation 

and bycatch (commercial and recreational fisheries), vessel strikes, diseases and parasites (susceptibility 

and incidence increases with habitat alteration and exposure to individuals that escaped sea farms), 

introduction of non-native species, pollution (oil spills, marine debris, noise, hypoxia, and harmful algal 

blooms), and climate change. The additional threat of living in a noisy environment, such as produced by 

offshore wind energy developments, construction noise within inland waters such as pile-driving, sonar, 

seismic activity, shipping, and offshore construction projects, may contribute to cumulative stress as 

experienced by some fish populations.

It is anticipated that the Proposed Action would affect fish species within the Study Area, including 

ESA-listed fish species. The analysis presented in Section 3.6 (Fishes) indicates that fishes could be 

affected by acoustic stressors (sonar and other transducers, air guns, pile driving, vessel noise, and 

weapons noise), explosives, energy stressors, physical disturbance or strikes (vessels and in-water 

devices, military expended materials, seafloor devices, pile driving), entanglement (wires and cables, 

decelerators/parachutes), and ingestion of military expended materials. The majority of potential 

impacts include short-term behavioral and physiological responses. For example, fish species that are 

exposed to sonar and other transducers within their hearing range or that are within close proximity to 

vessel or weapons noise may experience brief periods of masking or behavioral reactions, such as startle 

or avoidance responses, or no reaction at all. Other stressors (such as explosives) could also result in 
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

4-41

4.0 Cumulative Impacts

injury or mortality to a relatively small number of individuals. Overall, long-term consequences for most 

individual fishes or populations are unlikely because exposures from the majority of stressors are 

intermittent, transient, and unlikely to repeat over short periods. 

An individual fish could be exposed to a combination of stressors from multiple activities over the course 

of its life, and multiple stressors may have synergistic effects such as reducing its overall fitness and 

ability to recover quickly from additional, compounding stressors. If the health of an individual fish is 

compromised, it is possible this condition could alter the animal’s expected response to stressors 

associated with the Proposed Action. Exposure to multiple stressors is most likely to occur in nearshore 

areas where training and testing activities are more concentrated and overlap the other nearshore 

stressors listed in Table 4.2-1. Likewise, animals with a home range intersecting concentrated Navy 

activities may be subjected to elevated exposure risks compared to those fishes that simply transit the 

area. Fishes that are malnourished, diseased, or experience temporary hearing loss, injury, or 

disorientation from acoustic stressors could suffer behavioral and physiological consequences such as 

decreased ability to detect and avoid predators, oncoming vessels, or entanglement risks. 

The aggregate impacts of past, present, and other reasonably foreseeable future actions contributing 

multiple water quality, noise, and physical risks to fishes would likely continue to have significant effects 

on individual fishes and fish populations. However, Navy training and testing activities are generally 

isolated from other activities in space and time and the majority of the proposed training and testing 

activities occur over a small spatial scale relative to the entire Study Area, have few participants, and are 

of a short duration. Although it is possible that the Proposed Action could contribute incremental 

stressors to a small number of individuals, which would further compound effects on a given individual 

already experiencing stress, it is not anticipated that the Proposed Action has the potential to put 

additional stress on entire populations. Therefore, it is anticipated that the incremental contribution of 

the Proposed Action, when added to the impacts of all other past, present and reasonably foreseeable 

future actions, would not result in measurable additional significant impacts on fishes in the Study Area 

or beyond.

4.4.7 MARINE MAMMALS

4.4.7.1 Region of Influence

The general region of influence for marine mammals extends beyond the Study Area boundaries as for 

some species the Study Area represents only a portion of the full extent of the species’ range during 

their lifecycle. Baleen whales (e.g., humpbacks) and toothed whales (e.g., sperm whales and killer

whales) seasonally migrate great distances, as do some pinnipeds (e.g., elephant seals, fur seals, sea 

lions). Pinnipeds will spend time on land, and except for brief excursions, otters occur mostly in coastal 

habitats remaining close to the coast. Activities are evaluated for their potential impact on individual 

marine mammals, on stocks and populations as appropriate, and on species or distinct population 

segments listed under the ESA.

Table 3.7-1 lists the current abundance of marine mammal species that utilize the Study Area and 

describes the locations within the Study Area that they may be encountered. There are 39 marine 

mammal species known to exist in the Study Area, including 7 mysticetes (baleen whales), 

25 odontocetes (dolphins and toothed whales), 6 pinnipeds (seals and sea lions), and the southern sea 

otter. Populations are varied; while the average population of certain dolphin and some whale 

populations include thousands of individuals (such as humpback whales in Hawaii and the short-beaked 

common dolphin in the southern California portion of the HSTT Study Area), other stock populations are 
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

4-42

4.0 Cumulative Impacts

unknown or estimated to be in the hundreds (such as some stocks of spinner dolphins in Hawaii). As 

with other marine resources, distribution is patchy and can be temporarily concentrated in specific areas 

depending on the species. 

4.4.7.2 Resource Trends

Relevant information on the status, distribution, population trends, and ecology is presented for each 

species and stock in the HSTT Study Area in Section 3.7.2 (Affected Environment). The current aggregate 

impacts of past human activities are significant for some marine mammal species, many of which were 

in serious decline across the world’s oceans. Other populations, such as the humpback whale, are 

increasing in abundance in much of their range (National Marine Fisheries Service, 2015c). All marine 

mammals in the U.S. are protected under the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), and some 

species receive additional protection under the ESA. Of the 39 species of marine mammals known to 

exist within the Study Area, there are 10 populations listed as endangered under the ESA and classified 

as strategic stocks under the MMPA (humpback whale, blue whale, fin whale, sei whale, gray whale 

[Western North Pacific stock], sperm whale, false killer whale [Main Hawaiian Islands Insular stock], 

Guadalupe fur seal, Hawaiian monk seal, and southern sea otter).

4.4.7.3 Impacts of Other Actions

4.4.7.3.1 Overview

Section 3.7.2.1.5 (General Threats to Marine Mammals) discusses the specific stressors within the 

affected environment that impact marine mammal populations in the Study Area, which include water 

quality degradation (chemical pollution), commercial industries (fisheries bycatch, explosive pest 

deterrents, and other interactions), noise, hunting, vessel strike, marine debris, disease and parasites, 

power plant entrainment, and climate change. Potential impacts of actions that affect marine mammals 

include mortality, injury, disturbance, and reduced fitness, including reproductive, foraging, and 

predator avoidance success. The susceptibility of marine mammals to these outcomes often depends on 

proximity, severity, or vulnerability to the stressor and vulnerability can be increased as multiple 

stressors compound on an individual. 

The activities as described in Table 4.2-1 each potentially contribute multiple stressors in the region of 

influence experienced by marine mammals, including vessel traffic, underwater noise, and water 

pollution. For example, most actions include marine vessel operations, which contribute to vessel strikes 

and underwater noise. Many of the actions also contribute underwater noise from sources other than 

vessels, including use of explosives for oilrig removal, seismic surveys, construction activities, and other 

military operations. Bycatch and entanglement, the main threats to marine mammal populations, are 

chiefly associated with fishing. While Table 4.2-1 discusses these stressors for individual actions, their 

aggregate impacts specific to marine mammals are detailed in Section 3.7.2.1.5 (General Threats) and 

further described below. Data availability is inconsistent between species and activities, but quantitative 

estimations are presented where available.

4.4.7.3.2 Commercial Fishing and Entanglement

Past and present commercial fishing activities have had a profound effect on some marine mammal 

species and, despite continued improvements in bycatch avoidance and the implementation of 

regulatory efforts, fisheries interactions continue to be the primary human-related source of mortality 

for most marine mammal stocks (Knowlton et al., 2012; Roman et al., 2013; Van der Hoop et al., 2013). 

In recent years, the overall number of commercial fishing vessels has decreased, which may be 
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

4-43

4.0 Cumulative Impacts

attributed to changes in environmental conditions, fishing regulations, and market forces (California 

Department of Fish and Game, 2008). Eleven ports in Southern California contain both commercial 

fishing fleets and commercial passenger fishing vessels (i.e., recreational) that use the ocean areas 

within the Southern California Range Complex portion of the Study Area (U.S. Department of the 

Navy, 2009).

4.4.7.3.2.1 Bycatch

Potential impacts from commercial fishing activities include marine mammal injury and mortality from 

bycatch, when animals are caught in commercial fishing operations targeting a different species. In 

1994, the MMPA was amended to formally require the development of a take reduction plan when 

bycatch exceeds a level considered unsustainable by the marine mammal population and will lead to 

marine mammal population decline. Although marine mammal bycatch has generally declined since the 

implementation of take reduction measures, and new management practices and consistent regulatory 

oversight could result in future reductions, bycatch is expected to remain a leading cause of mortality 

for the reasonably foreseeable future (Read et al., 2006). 

At least in part as a result of the MMPA bycatch amendment, estimates of bycatch in the Pacific 

declined by a total of 96 percent from 1994 to 2006 (Geijer & Read, 2013). Cetacean bycatch declined by 

85 percent from 342 in 1994 to 53 in 2006, and pinniped bycatch declined from 1,332 to 53 over the 

same time period. In the Hawaii portion of the Study Area, bycatch has contributed substantially to the 

decline of the Hawaiian population of false killer whales (Oleson et al., 2010). Between 2008 and 2012, 

27 known instances of false killer whale injury or mortality from bycatch were observed during Hawaii 

longline fishery activities as well as similar cases for 11 other species (Bradford & Forney, 2014; Bradford 

& Lyman, 2015; Bradford & Forney, 2016). 

The impacts of bycatch on marine mammal populations vary based on removal rates, population size, 

and reproductive rates. Small populations with relatively low reproductive rates are most susceptible. 

Bycatch rates for about 12 percent of United States marine mammal stocks (almost all cetaceans) 

exceed their potential biological removal levels (Read, 2008). The potential biological removal level is 

the number of animals that can be removed each year without preventing a stock from reaching or 

maintaining its optimal sustainable population-level.

Fisheries operations also result in profound changes to the structure and function of marine ecosystems 

that adversely affect marine mammals, including loss of prey species and alteration of benthic structure. 

Overfishing of many fish stocks results in significant changes in trophic structure, species assemblages, 

and pathways of energy flow in marine ecosystems (Jackson et al., 2001; Myers & Worm, 2003). These 

ecological changes may have important, and likely adverse, consequences for populations of marine 

mammals (DeMaster et al., 2001). For instance, depletion of preferred prey could lead to a less 

nutritional diet and decreased reproductive success.

4.4.7.3.2.2 Entanglement 

As discussed in Section 3.7.2.1.5 (General Threats to Marine Mammals), entanglement in fishing gear, 

such as abandoned or partial nets, fishing line, and the ropes and lines connected to fishing gear, is 

another major threat to marine mammals in the Study Area. National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration Marine Debris Program (2014) reports that abandoned, lost, or otherwise discarded 

fishing gear still constitutes the vast majority of mysticete entanglements. In the Southern California 

portion of the Study Area, there were 36 marine mammal bycatch entanglements from civilian fishing 

activities off San Diego from 2010 through 2014 (Carretta et al., 2016). For the area off the coasts of 
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

4-44

4.0 Cumulative Impacts

northern California, Oregon, and Washington between 1982 and 2010, Saez et al. (2013) reported there 

were 272 large whales entangled in fishing gear (whales in this area of the United States West Coast are 

generally from the same stock as in the Southern California portion of the HSTT Study Area).

For cetaceans in Hawaii during the 5-year period between 2007-2012, there were 48 humpback whales, 

a sperm whale, a bottlenose dolphin, three spinner dolphins, and a pantropical spotted dolphin 

entangled in fishing gear (Bradford & Lyman, 2015). One humpback whale was injured, and it is believed 

that interaction with fishing gear debris led to the mortality of a second humpback whale and a spinner 

dolphin (Bradford & Lyman, 2015). Over the 30-year period between 1982 and 2012, approximately 

11 Hawaiian monk seals annually have been observed entangled in fishing gear or other marine debris, 

with nine documented deaths (Carretta et al., 2015).

4.4.7.3.2.3 Recreational Fishing and Hunting

Recreational fishing also impacts marine mammals. In Hawaii in 2013, 14 Hawaiian monk seals were 

observed hooked and one was observed with an embedded fishing spear (Carretta et al., 2015). Along 

the U.S. West Coast, hook and line entanglements and gunshot wounds are two of the primary causes of 

pinniped injuries found in strandings (Carretta et al., 2013). Within the Southern California portion of 

the Study Area, there were 50 marine mammal hook and line interactions (48 pinnipeds, 2 dolphins) 

reported off San Diego from 2010 through 2014 (Carretta et al., 2016).

With the enactment of the MMPA, hunting-related mortality has decreased over the last 40 years; 

however, unregulated harvests and extensive illegal whaling activity still occur in areas outside of U.S. 

waters. Between 1948 and 1979, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics’ whale harvest totaled 195,783 

in the North Pacific Ocean. Subsistence harvest of marine mammals by Russian and Alaska Natives 

occurs in the North Pacific, Chukchi Sea, and Bering Sea affecting marine mammal stocks that may be 

present in the HSTT Study Area. For example, in 2 years of hunting (2010 and 2011) on St. Paul Island 

and St. George Island in the Bering Sea there were 878 northern fur seals harvested for subsistence 

(Testa, 2012). In Russian waters in 2013, there were 127 gray whales “struck” during subsistence 

whaling by the inhabitants of the Chukchi Peninsula between the Bering and Chukchi Sea (Ilyashenko & 

Zharikov, 2014). These gray whales, harvested in Russian waters, may be individuals from either the 

endangered Western North Pacific stock or the non-ESA listed Eastern North Pacific stock that may 

migrate through the Southern California portion of the HSTT Study Area.

4.4.7.3.2.4 Other Fishery Interactions

Common practice in offshore waters off Southern California, Washington, and Alaska include the routine 

use of non-military explosives at-sea for explosive pest control, or marine mammal deterrents known as 

“seal bombs.” Seal bombs are used by commercial fishermen to deter marine mammals from preying 

upon their catch or to prevent interaction or entanglement with fishing gear (U.S. Department of the 

Navy, 2016b). This practice is not observed in Hawaii. In the Southern California region, several fisheries 

including purse seine and set gillnet fisheries use seal bombs as deterrents (Baumann-Pickering et al., 

2013). In the 7 months from May to November 2013, over 24,000 explosions identified as seal bombs 

were recorded at a passive acoustic monitoring site off Long Beach, California approximately 

10 kilometers north of the Southern California portion of the HSTT Study Area (Debich et al., 2015). 

From August 2012 to August 2013, there were fewer than 400 underwater explosions resulting from 

Navy training and testing in the entire Southern California portion of the HSTT Study Area (BaumannPickering et al., 2013). The prevalent and continued use of seal bombs seems to indicate that, while a 

potential threat, their use has had no significant effect on populations of marine mammals given that it 
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

4-45

4.0 Cumulative Impacts

is likely that individuals, if not larger groups of marine mammals, have been repeatedly exposed to this 

explosive stressor. 

4.4.7.3.3 Maritime Traffic and Vessel Strikes

Maritime traffic has increased over the past 50 years, and vessel traffic is expected to continue to 

increase in the Study Area due to continued economic globalization, widening of the Panama Canal, and 

increases in energy development and other offshore activities. While increased risks come with 

increased vessel traffic, risks of vessel strikes could be minimized by ongoing and future education and 

awareness, marine mammal reporting, ship speed reduction measures, and maritime traffic planning 

and management. An examination of vessel traffic within the HSTT Study Area determined that Navy 

vessel occurrence is two orders of magnitude lower than that of commercial traffic. The study also 

revealed that while commercial traffic is relatively steady throughout the year, Navy vessel use is 

episodic, based on specific exercises being conducted at different times of the year (Mintz, 2012).

Most reported marine mammal vessel strikes involve commercial vessels and occur over or near the 

continental shelf (Laist et al., 2001). The most vulnerable marine mammals 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 (Gerstein, 2002; Laist & Shaw, 2006; Nowacek et al., 2004). Marine 

mammals such as dolphins, porpoises, and pinnipeds that can move quickly throughout the water 

column are not as susceptible to vessel strikes. 

From 2007 to 2012 in Hawaii, there were 39 vessel collisions between humpback whales and vessels 

(Bradford & Lyman, 2015). Lammers et al. (2013) reported that from 1975 to 2011, 61 percent of 

witnessed collisions between humpback whales and vessels in Hawaii involved tour vessels. The U.S. 

Coast Guard and the U.S. Navy report all vessel collisions with whales, thus, under-reporting of collisions 

by other vessel types may make the characterization of the civilian vessel percentage an underestimate. 

Within the Southern California portion of the Study Area, there were7 marine mammal vessel or boat 

strikes reported off San Diego from 2010 through 2014 (Carretta et al., 2016). The strikes were on two 

California sea lions, one fin whale, two gray whales, and two humpback whales. None of these strikes 

was from Navy vessels or boats (National Marine Fisheries Service, 2015d).

4.4.7.3.4 Ocean Pollution

As discussed in Table 4.2-1, multiple pollutants from numerous sources are present in, and continue to 

be released into, the oceans. These releases that affect marine mammals include water pollution as well 

as the discharge of marine debris and the proliferation of ambient as well as impulsive noise in the 

underwater ecosystem. Section 3.7.2.1.5 (General Threats to Marine Mammals) provides an overview of 

these potential impacts, which include morbidity and mortality from acute toxicity (although mortality 

has not yet specifically been shown in marine mammals); disruption of endocrine cycles and 

developmental processes causing reproductive failures or birth defects; suppression of immune system 

function; and metabolic disorders resulting in cancer or genetic abnormalities (Reijnders et al., 2008). 

The effects of exposure to and concentration of persistent organic pollutants in marine mammals, 

especially from pesticides, includes the accumulation of DDT and PCBs in certain species, and high 

concentrations of organochlorines in tissues appear to have occurred with increasing frequency disease 

outbreaks involving marine mammals. In addition, experimental and other evidence has shown that 

persistent contaminants often found in the tissues of marine mammals have deleterious effects on 

reproduction and the immune system (O'Shea et al., 1999). 
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

4-46

4.0 Cumulative Impacts

4.4.7.3.5 Ocean Noise

Ocean noise as a general stressor in modern oceans is described in Table 4.2-1 and specific stressors to 

marine mammals in Section 3.7.2.1.5 (General Threats). Noise is of particular concern to marine 

mammals because many species use sound as a primary sense for navigating, finding prey, avoiding 

predators, and communicating with other individuals. Noise can cause behavioral disturbances, mask 

other sounds (including their own vocalizations), may result in injury, including hearing loss in the form 

of temporary threshold shift or permanent threshold shift or, and, in some cases, death.

Anthropogenic noise is generated from a variety of sources throughout the region of influence, including 

commercial shipping, oil and gas exploration and production activities (including air gun, drilling, and 

explosive decommissioning), commercial and recreational fishing (including vessel noise, fish-finding 

sonar, fathometers, acoustic deterrent, and harassment devices), shoreline construction projects 

(including pile driving), recreational boating and whale-watching activities, offshore power generation 

(including offshore windfarms), and research (including sound from air guns, sonar, and telemetry). 

Shipping channels leading to and from the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach between the Channel 

Islands National Marine Sanctuary and the coast may have degraded the habitat for blue, fin, and 

humpback whales due to the loss of communication space where important habitat for these species 

overlaps with elevated noise from commercial vessel traffic (Redfern et al., 2017). The San Pedro 

Channel is at the northeastern corner of the Southern California portion of the HSTT Study Area and is 

where the Traffic Separation Scheme’s southern entrance and exit is located for these same ports (Los 

Angeles and Long Beach). A similar concentration of commercial vessel traffic moving through the San 

Pedro Channel into and out of the Southern California portion of the HSTT Study Area is also likely to 

impact marine mammal communication space in a similar manner.

The military activities addressed in Table 4.2-1 include various training and testing operations that 

contribute vessel noise, underwater and surface explosions, and sonar. While historically sonar activity 

has had various negative impacts on marine mammals, with the implementation of required mitigation 

measures associated with the Surveillance Towed Array System Low Frequency Active Sonar operations 

are not expected to result in mortality to any stock of marine mammals and minimal injury or behavioral 

changes are anticipated. Although various other military training and testing activities involve surface or 

undersea detonations or gunnery exercises, these are generally mitigated through monitored exclusion 

zones, and are infrequent, isolated events. As described in Table 4.2-1, many activities incorporate best 

management practices or standard operating procedures to minimize noise generation; in particular, inwater construction at naval piers regularly utilizes dampening and attenuation technologies and other 

practices that reduce impacts on bottlenose dolphins and other sensitive receptors in the vicinity of pile 

driving activities.

4.4.7.3.5.1 Water Pollution

Section 3.7.2.1.5 (General Threats to Marine Mammals) provides an overview of these potential 

impacts, which include morbidity and mortality from acute toxicity (although mortality has not yet 

specifically been shown in marine mammals); disruption of endocrine cycles and developmental 

processes causing reproductive failures or birth defects; suppression of immune system function; and 

metabolic disorders resulting in cancer or genetic abnormalities (Reijnders et al., 2008). The effects of 

exposure to and concentration of persistent organic pollutants in marine mammals, especially from

pesticides, includes the accumulation of Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane and Polychlorinated Biphenyls 

in certain species, and high concentrations of organochlorines in tissues appear to have occurred with 
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

4-47

4.0 Cumulative Impacts

increasing frequency disease outbreaks involving marine mammals. In addition, experimental and other 

evidence has shown that persistent contaminants often found in the tissues of marine mammals have 

deleterious effects on reproduction and the immune system (O'Shea et al., 1999). 

4.4.7.3.5.2 Marine Debris and Ingestion

Interactions between marine mammals and marine debris, including derelict fishing gear (as discussed in 

Section 4.4.7.3.2.2 Entanglements) and plastics, are significant sources of injury and mortality (Baulch & 

Perry, 2014), and the percentage of marine mammal species with documented records of entanglement 

in or ingestion of marine debris has increased from 43 to 66 percent over the past 18 years (Bergmann 

et al., 2015). Ingestion of plastic bags and Styrofoam has been identified as a cause of injury or death of 

minke whales and deep-diving odontocetes, including beaked whales, pygmy sperm whales, and sperm 

whales. On the United States West Coast, marine debris resulted in mortalities to 90 pinnipeds (the 

majority was California sea lions), two gray whales, and one each of the following species: humpback 

whale, minke whale, bottlenose dolphin, long-beaked common dolphin, and harbor porpoise (Carretta 

et al., 2016). From 2010 through 2014, within the Southern California portion of the Study Area, there 

were six marine mammal entanglements in marine debris (four pinnipeds, two dolphins) from marine 

debris reported off San Diego (Carretta et al., 2016).

4.4.7.3.6 Power Plant Entrainment

Coastal power plants use seawater as a coolant during power plant operation. Intakes into these plants 

can sometimes trap (i.e., entrain) marine mammals that swim too close to the intake pipe. There have 

been no entrainments of marine mammals reported for Hawaii. Within the Southern California portion 

of the Study Area, there were 97 marine mammal power plant entrainments (all pinnipeds) reported 

from San Diego, CA between 2010 and 2014 (Carretta et al., 2016).

4.4.7.3.7 Disease and Parasites

Section 3.7.2.1.5.3 discusses the effects of disease and parasites in marine mammals. Just like humans, 

older animals are affected by disease and likewise can disease spread through a population affecting a 

significant number of otherwise healthy individuals. Mass die-off events can also occur as a result of 

toxic algal blooms, which may be increasing in frequency due to human nutrient input and climate 

change, and the spread of certain parasites (toxoplasmosis, hookworms, lungworms, and thorny-headed 

worms) to seals, sea lions, otters, and pinnipeds from feral cats.

4.4.7.4 Impacts of the Proposed Action That May Contribute to Cumulative Impacts

Impacts of the Proposed Action are detailed in Section 3.7 (Marine Mammals). Impacts that may 

contribute to cumulative impacts on marine mammals can be generally categorized as mortality, injury 

(Level A harassment under the MMPA), and behavioral responses and temporary threshold shift (TTS) 

(Level B harassment under the MMPA). These impacts would be associated with certain acoustic (sonar 

and other transducers), physical disturbance, and strike stressors. Although behavioral impacts are 

possible from the remaining acoustic stressors (noise from air guns, weapons firing/launch/impact, 

aircraft, and vessels), energy stressors (in-water electromagnetic devices and high energy lasers), 

physical disturbance and strike stressors (in-water devices, military expended materials, and seafloor 

devices), entanglement stressors (wires and cables, decelerators/parachutes, and biodegradable 

polymers), ingestion stressors (munitions and military expended materials other than munitions), and 

secondary stressors, these stressors are not expected to result in behavioral harassment, TTS, PTS, 

injury, or mortality of marine mammals.
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

4-48

4.0 Cumulative Impacts

The analysis presented in Section 3.7 (Marine Mammals) concluded that some stressors associated with 

the Proposed Action could impact individuals of certain marine mammal species, but impacts are not 

expected to decrease the overall fitness of any marine mammal population. Species most likely to be 

impacted by training and testing activities are those that are most abundant in the Study Area, primarily 

delphinid species (dolphins and small whales) that have stocks with tens of thousands of animals. From 

a cumulative perspective, any potential impacts on species with small populations, especially ESA-listed 

species, are of particular concern, and the Navy will consult with the National Marine Fisheries Service,

as required by Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA, in that regard. The Navy will implement mitigation to avoid 

impacts from acoustic, explosive, and physical disturbance and strike stressors on marine mammals, as 

described in Chapter 5 (Mitigation).

As determined in Section 3.7.4 (Summary of Potential Impacts on Marine Mammals) it is not anticipated 

that the Proposed Action will result in significant impacts to marine mammals. The majority of the 

proposed activities are unit level training and small testing activities, which are conducted in the open 

ocean. Unit level events occur over a small spatial scale (one to a few square miles) and with few 

participants (usually one or two) or short duration (the order of a few hours or less). Additionally, 

training and testing activities are generally separated in space and time in such a way that it would be 

unlikely that any individual marine mammal would be exposed to stressors from multiple activities 

within a short timeframe. Furthermore, research and monitoring efforts have included before, during, 

and after-event observations and surveys, data collection through conducting long-term studies in areas 

of Navy activity, occurrence surveys over large geographic areas, biopsy of animals occurring in areas of 

Navy activity, and tagging studies where animals are exposed to Navy stressors. To date, the findings 

from the research and monitoring and the regulatory conclusions from previous analyses by NMFS 

(National Marine Fisheries Service, 2015a; National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2013) are 

that majority of impacts from Navy training and testing activities are not expected to have deleterious 

impacts on the fitness of any individuals or long-term consequences to populations of marine mammals.

4.4.7.4.1 Mortality

NMFS has previously concluded that the use of sonar and other transducers under the Proposed Action

in the HSTT Study Area is possible but not expected to result in marine mammal mortality (National 

Marine Fisheries Service, 2015a; National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2013). Mitigation 

measures discussed in Chapter 5 (Mitigation) are designed to avoid potential impacts of explosives, 

especially higher-order impacts such as injury and death. However, the acoustic analysis indicates that 

certain marine mammal species could be exposed to underwater pressure waves resulting from 

explosive detonations that could lead to mortality. The protections afforded by mitigation measures 

cannot be fully quantified. 

The acoustic analysis also suggests that small numbers could be exposed to underwater pressure waves 

resulting from explosive detonations that could lead to mortality. Potentially lethal impacts were not 

predicted for other ESA-listed marine mammals.

Vessel strikes could also result in mortality of certain marine mammal species under the Proposed 

Action. Based on historical records and the probability analysis presented in Section 3.7.3.4 (Physical 

Disturbance and Strike Stressors), the Navy predicts that large whales may potentially be struck by a 

large vessel as a result of training and testing activities in the offshore portion of the Study Area. While 

the species involved in a strike cannot be quantifiably predicted, the affected animals may include 
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

4-49

4.0 Cumulative Impacts

humpback whale, blue whale, Bryde’s whale, fin whale, sei whale, gray whale, minke whale, and 

sperm whale. 

4.4.7.4.2 Cumulative Impacts on Marine Mammals

Bycatch, vessel strikes, and entanglement are leading causes of direct mortality to marine mammals, 

and, although mitigated to the greatest extent practicable, the Proposed Action could also result in 

injury and mortality to individuals of some marine mammal species from underwater explosions and 

vessel strikes. Implementation of measures discussed in Chapter 5 (Mitigation) would help avoid, but 

not absolutely eliminate, the risk for potential impacts, and any incidence of injury and mortality that 

might occur under the Proposed Action could be additive to injury and mortality associated with other 

actions in the region of influence. While it is more likely that an individual of an abundant, common 

stock or species would be affected, there is a chance that a less abundant stock could be affected. 

Ocean noise is already significantly elevated over historic, natural levels, and acoustic stressors 

(underwater explosions and sonar, as well as increased Navy vessel noise) associated with the Proposed 

Action could also result in additive acoustic impacts on marine mammals. However, sonar is known to 

be neither a major threat nor a significant portion of the overall ocean noise budget (Bassett et al., 

2010; Baumann-Pickering et al., 2010; International Council for the Exploration of the Sea, 2005; 

McDonald et al., 2006). Other current and future actions such as characterization, construction, and 

operation of offshore wind energy projects; seismic surveys; and construction, operation, and removal 

of oil and gas facilities could result in underwater sound levels that could cause behavioral harassment, 

TTS, PTS, or, to a less extent, injury or mortality. Additionally, the constant elevation in ambient noise 

may produce physiological stress in individuals to which the Proposed Action would contribute.

Sounds from many of these sources travel over long distances, and it is possible that some would 

overlap in time and space with sounds from underwater explosions or Navy sonar use, in particular 

distant shipping noise, which is more widespread and continuous. It is not known whether the cooccurrence of shipping noise and sounds associated with underwater explosions and sonar use would 

result in harmful additive impacts on marine mammals. However, these activities are widely dispersed, 

the sound sources are intermittent, and mitigation measures would be implemented. Furthermore, 

safety, security, and operational considerations would preclude some training and testing activities in 

the immediate vicinity of other actions, further reducing the likelihood of simultaneous or overlapping 

exposure. For these reasons, it is unlikely that an individual marine mammal would be simultaneously 

exposed to sound levels from multiple actions that could cause behavioral harassment, TTS, PTS, 

or injury. 

If the health of an individual marine mammal were compromised, it is possible this condition could alter 

the animal’s expected response to stressors associated with the Proposed Action. The behavioral and 

physiological responses of any marine mammal to a potential stressor, such as underwater sound, could 

be influenced by various factors, including disease, dietary stress, body burden of toxic chemicals, 

energetic stress, percentage body fat, age, reproductive state, and social position. Synergistic impacts 

are also possible; for example, animals exposed to some chemicals may be more susceptible to 

noise-induced loss of hearing sensitivity (Fechter & Pouyatos, 2005). While the response of a previously 

stressed animal might be different from the response of an unstressed animal, no data are available at 

this time that accurately predict how stress caused by various ocean pollutants would alter a marine 

mammal’s response to stressors associated with the Proposed Action.
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

4-50

4.0 Cumulative Impacts

In summary, the aggregate impacts of past, present, and other reasonably foreseeable future actions 

continue to have significant impacts on some marine mammal species in the Study Area. The Proposed 

Action could contribute incremental stressors to individuals, which would both further compound 

effects on a given individual already experiencing stress and, in turn, have the potential to further stress 

populations, some of which may already be in significant decline or in the midst of stabilization and 

recovery. However, with the implementation of standard operating procedures reducing the likelihood 

of overlap in time and space with other stressors and the implementation of mitigation measures 

reducing the likelihood of impacts, the incremental stressors anticipated from the Proposed Action are 

not anticipated to be significant.

Furthermore, the regulatory process administered by NMFS, which includes Stock Assessments for all 

marine mammals, as well as 5-year reviews for all ESA-listed species, provides a backstop that informs 

decisions on take authorizations and Biological Opinions. Stock Assessments include estimates of 

Potential Biological Removal that stocks of marine mammals can sustainably absorb. MMPA take 

authorizations require the minimization of adverse effects and are explicitly limited to small numbers, 

with no more than a negligible impact on species and stocks of marine mammals. MMPA authorizations 

are reinforced by monitoring and reporting requirements so that NMFS is kept informed of deviations 

from what has been approved. Biological Opinions for federal and non-federal actions are similarly 

grounded in status reviews and conditioned to avoid jeopardy and to allow continued progress toward 

recovery. These processes help to ensure that, through compliance with these regulatory requirements, 

the Navy’s Proposed Actions will not have a measurable effect on the resource.

4.4.8 REPTILES

4.4.8.1 Region of Influence

The general region of influence for reptiles includes the coastal waters and nesting beaches of the 

Hawaiian Islands, coastal waters of California, and in open ocean areas, potentially including the transit 

corridor. The sea turtle species occurring in the Study Area include green turtles (Chelonia mydas), 

hawksbill turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata), olive Ridley turtle (Lepidochelys olivii), leatherback turtle 

(Dermochelys coriacea), and loggerhead turtle (Caretta caretta). In general, sea turtles spend most of

their time at sea, with female turtles returning to land to nest and often migrating long distances 

between feeding grounds and nesting beaches. As with other marine resources, distribution is patchy 

and can be concentrated in specific areas depending on the species, season, habitat, activity, and age of 

the individuals. The yellow-bellied sea snake (Pelamis platura) has been sighted with increasing 

frequency in waters off California, which has been attributed to both periodic El Niño cycles and longer 

oceanic warming trends. Yellow-bellied sea snakes often occur in large numbers associated with long 

lines of debris in pelagic and open ocean areas. Breeding areas are believed to be closer to shore within 

warmer waters outside of the Study Area (Brischoux et al., 2016).

4.4.8.2 Resource Trends

All sea turtles in the Study Area have experienced significant decline in population numbers over the 

past hundred years and are ESA-listed (Table 3.8-1). Because sea turtles are so long-lived, and because 

reliable data are only available for approximately the past 20 years, it is not possible to determine a 

reliable trend in abundance for most species; however, recent data show an increase in nesting trends 

for most species at some locations within the Study Area. The abundance and trends of sea snake 

populations are relatively unknown.
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

4-51

4.0 Cumulative Impacts

4.4.8.3 Impacts of Other Actions

4.4.8.3.1 Overview

Section 3.8.2.1.5 (General Threats) discusses the specific stressors within the affected environment that 

impact sea turtle and sea snake populations in the Study Area, which include water quality (marine 

debris and chemical contaminants), commercial industries (fisheries bycatch and other interactions, 

hunting/exploitation, vessel strike, oil and gas development, wind energy development, shoreline

development and recreation, dredging, military activities, invasive species, disease, habitat destruction 

(loss of seagrass habitat and nesting beaches), and climate change. Potential impacts of actions that 

affect reptiles include mortality, injury, disturbance, and reduced fitness, including reproductive, 

foraging, and predator avoidance success. 

The susceptibility of sea turtles to these outcomes often depends on proximity, severity, or vulnerability 

to the stressor, and vulnerability can be increased as multiple stressors compound on an individual. The 

abundance of the species, potential impacts that may affect localized nesting sites, and individual 

fatalities could have considerable impacts in localized populations.

The activities as described in Table 4.2-1 each potentially contribute multiple stressors in the Study Area 

experienced by reptiles, including vessel traffic, underwater noise, and water pollution. For example, 

most actions include the operation of marine vessels, which contribute to vessel strikes and underwater 

noise. Many of the actions also contribute underwater noise from sources other than vessels, including 

use of explosives for oil rig removal, seismic surveys, construction activities, and military operations. 

Bycatch and entanglement, among the main threats to reptile populations in the Study Area, are chiefly 

associated with fishing and are discussed separately. While Table 4.2-1 discusses these stressors for 

individual actions, their aggregate impacts specific to reptiles are detailed in Section 3.8.2.1.5 (General 

Threats) and further described below. 

4.4.8.3.2 Commercial Fishing and Harvest

Past and present commercial fishing activities have had a profound global effect on the recovery and 

conservation of marine turtle populations and, despite continued improvements in bycatch avoidance 

and the implementation of regulatory efforts, fisheries interactions continue to be the primary 

human-related source of mortality for most sea turtles (National Research Council, 1990; Wallace et al., 

2010). Among fisheries that incidentally capture sea turtles, certain types of trawl, gillnet, and longline 

fisheries generally pose the greatest threat. One comprehensive study estimated that worldwide, 

447,000 turtles are killed each year from bycatch in commercial fisheries (Wallace et al., 2010). In United 

States’ fisheries, bycatch resulted in 71,000 sea turtle deaths per year prior to effective protective sea 

turtle regulations (enacted in the mid-1990s); however, current mortality estimates are 94 percent 

lower than pre-regulation estimates (Finkbeiner et al., 2011). In the Pacific, NMFS requires measures 

(e.g., gear modifications, changes to fishing practices, and time/area closures) to reduce sea turtle 

bycatch in the Hawaii- and California-based pelagic longline fisheries and the California/Oregon drift 

gillnet fishery. The main threat to sea snakes globally is fisheries bycatch, although the impact is 

relatively low, with prawn fisheries presenting the highest risk to sea snakes.

In Pacific fisheries, the Hawaii pelagic shallow and deep set longline, and California set gillnet, drift 

gillnet, and pelagic deepset longline fisheries impact loggerhead, leatherback, green, and olive Ridley 

sea turtles. Within the HRC, a total of 146 turtle interactions were recorded between 2004 and 2016, 

including 7 green, 62 leatherback, 63 loggerhead, 11 olive Ridley, and 3 unidentified (National Marine 

Fisheries Service, 2016a). During the same timeframe in the Hawaiian portion of the Study Area, a total 
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

4-52

4.0 Cumulative Impacts

of 36 turtle interactions were recorded, including 9 leatherback, 4 loggerhead, and 23 olive Ridley. From 

2011 to 2013, an estimated 55, 40, and 73 sea turtles were caught in the Hawaii-based deep-set pelagic 

longline and 32, 13, and 17 in the shallow-set pelagic longline fishery (National Marine Fisheries Service, 

2016b). The predominant sea turtles caught in 2012 and 2013 were leatherback, olive Ridley, and 

loggerhead, with olive Ridley representing the predominant species caught. In 2011, green sea turtles 

were the predominant species caught, but were not represented in the 2012 and 2013 bycatch 

observations. In California, five leatherback sea turtles were estimated as bycatch in 2012, but no sea 

turtles were observed caught in all other observed fisheries and years. Coastal gillnet and other fisheries 

conducted from a multitude of smaller vessels are of increasing concern. These fisheries, called artisanal 

fisheries, can collectively have a great impact on local turtle populations, especially leatherbacks and 

loggerheads (National Marine Fisheries Service, 2016b). 

Globally, large-scale commercial exploitation also contributes to global decline in marine turtle 

populations. Currently, 42 countries and territories allow direct take of turtles and collectively take in 

excess of 42,000 turtles per year, the majority of which (greater than 80 percent) are green sea turtles 

(Humber et al., 2014). Illegal fishing for turtles and nest harvesting also continues to be a major cause of 

sea turtle mortality, both in countries that allow sea turtle take and in countries that outlaw the practice

(Lam et al., 2012; Maison et al., 2010). For example, Humber et al. (2014) estimated that in Mexico 

65,000 sea turtles have been illegally harvested since 2000. The authors, however, have seen legal and 

illegal direct take of sea turtles trending downward over the past three decades—citing a greater than 

40 percent decline in green sea turtle take since the 1980s, a greater than 60 percent decline in 

hawksbill and leatherback take, and a greater than 30 percent decline in loggerhead take (Humber et al., 

2014).

4.4.8.3.2.1 Maritime Traffic and Vessel Strikes

Maritime traffic has increased over the past 50 years, and vessel traffic is expected to continue to 

increase in the Study Area in response to continued economic globalization, increases in energy 

development, and other offshore activities. Vessel strike has been identified as one of the important 

mortality factors in several nearshore turtle habitats worldwide. Precise data are lacking for sea turtle 

mortalities directly caused by ship strikes; however, live and dead turtles are often found with deep cuts 

and fractures indicative of collision with a boat hull or propeller (Hazel et al., 2007; Lutcavage et al., 

1997). For example, scientists in Hawaii reported that 2.5 percent of green turtles found dead on the 

beaches between 1982 and 2003 were killed by boat strike (Chaloupka et al., 2008), and in the Canary 

Islands, 23 percent of stranded sea turtles showed lesions from boat strikes or fishing gear (Oros et al., 

2005). Denkinger et al. (2013) reports that boat strikes in the Galapagos Islands were most frequent at 

foraging sites close to a commercial and tourism port. 

Some vessel strikes could cause temporary impacts, such as diverting the turtle from its previous activity 

or causing minor injury. Major strikes could cause permanent injury or death from bleeding, infection, or 

inability to feed. Apart from the severity of the physical strike, the likelihood and rate of a turtle’s 

recovery from a strike may be influenced by its age, reproductive state, and general condition. 

Numerous living sea turtles bear scars that appear to have been caused by propeller cuts or collisions 

with vessel hulls (Hazel et al., 2007; Lutcavage et al., 1997), suggesting that not all vessel strikes are

lethal. While increased risks come with increased vessel traffic, risks of vessel strikes could be minimized 

by ongoing and future education and awareness, ship-speed reduction measures, and maritime traffic 

planning and management.
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

4-53

4.0 Cumulative Impacts

4.4.8.3.3 Coastal Land Development

The population along the United States coastline grew from 47 million in 1960 to 87 million in 2008, and 

during this timeframe, the Pacific Coast grew by 17 million people (U.S. Census Bureau, 2010). Human

development now dominates the coastline almost continuously throughout its extent. The limited space 

for development in coastal areas results in greater population density in these locations. In the United 

States (excluding Alaska), non-coastal counties average 98 persons per square mile while coastal 

counties average 300 persons per square mile. 

Female sea turtles migrate to their natal beaches to lay eggs, and pervasive coastal development often 

interferes with successful nesting at these locations. Shared use between turtles and human interests on 

increasingly populated and utilized beach areas has intensified the tendency for female turtles and their 

hatchlings to encounter various barriers and hazards accessing, nesting, and leaving these beaches. 

Beachfront construction of homes, hotels, restaurants, and roads; seawall construction, shoreline 

armoring, and beach erosion; ports and marinas; beach replenishment; nearshore dredging; and oil and 

gas activities can all prevent beach access and emigration; beach-going vehicles and watercraft cause 

injury and mortality; and abandoned debris and equipment are often insurmountable obstacles for both 

mother and offspring (SeeTurtles.org, 2017). Populated areas also often have excess nighttime lighting 

that confuses hatchlings’ instincts to orient toward the moon to arrive at the ocean, and in this journey 

they often fall into and can remain trapped within pits and scars left on the beach. Conservation 

awareness has increased on many popular U.S. beaches and tourist destinations, but nesting success 

remains imperiled in many others.

4.4.8.3.4 Ocean Pollution

As discussed in Table 4.2-1, multiple pollutants from numerous sources are present in, and continue to 

be released into, the oceans. Section 3.8.2.1.5.1 (Water Quality) provides an overview of these potential 

impacts on sea turtles, which include the ingestion of and entanglement in marine debris as well as 

toxicity from bisphenol-A, phthalates, and heavy metals. Sea turtles often mistake debris for prey; one 

study found 37 percent of dead leatherback turtles had ingested various types of plastic (Mrosovsky et 

al., 2009). Other marine debris, including derelict fishing gear and cargo nets, can entangle and drown 

turtles in all life stages.

4.4.8.3.5 Ocean Noise

Ocean noise as a general stressor in modern oceans is described in Table 4.2-1. Anthropogenic noise is 

generated from a variety of sources throughout the region of influence, including commercial shipping, 

oil and gas exploration and production activities (including air gun, drilling, explosive decommissioning), 

commercial and recreational fishing (including vessel noise, fish-finding sonar, fathometers, acoustic 

deterrent and harassment devices), shoreline construction projects (including pile driving), recreational 

boating and whale-watching activities, offshore power generation (including offshore windfarms), and 

research (including sound from air guns, sonar, telemetry). The military activities addressed in Table 4.2-

1 include various training and testing activities that also contribute vessel noise, underwater and surface 

explosions, and sonar; however, due to the low risk of encounter and the implementation of required 

mitigation measures, the Surveillance Towed Array Sensor System Low Frequency Active Sonar 

operations are not expected to result in mortality to any sea turtles and minimal injury or behavioral 

changes are anticipated. Although various other military training and testing activities involve surface or 

undersea detonations or gunnery exercises, these are generally mitigated through monitored exclusion 

zones, and are infrequent, and isolated events.
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

4-54

4.0 Cumulative Impacts

In general, the potential concerns associated with ocean noise and sea turtles are not as well defined as 

those for marine mammals. While it is well known that many species of marine mammals use sound as a 

primary sense for navigating, finding prey, and communicating with other individuals, little is known 

about how sea turtles use sound in their environment. Based on knowledge of their sensory biology

(Bartol & Musick, 2003; Bartol & Ketten, 2006; Ketten & Moein-Bartol, 2006; Levenson et al., 2004), sea 

turtles may be able to detect objects within the water column (e.g., vessels, prey, predators) via some 

combination of auditory and visual cues. However, research examining the ability of sea turtles to avoid 

collisions with vessels shows they may rely more on their vision than auditory cues (Hazel et al., 2007). 

Similarly, while sea turtles may rely on acoustic cues from breaking waves to identify nesting beaches, 

they also appear to rely on other nonacoustic cues for navigation, such as magnetic fields (Lohmann & 

Lohmann, 1992, 1996) and light (Avens & Lohmann, 2003). Additionally, sea turtles are not known to 

produce sounds underwater for communication. As a result, sound may play a limited role in a sea 

turtle’s environment.

Nonetheless, as discussed in Section 3.8.3.1 (Acoustic Stressors), sea turtles could experience a range of 

impacts from ocean noise, depending on the sound source. The impacts could include permanent or 

temporary hearing loss, changes in behavior, physiological stress, and auditory masking. In addition, 

potential impacts from use of explosives could range from physical discomfort to nonlethal and 

lethal injuries. 

4.4.8.3.6 Offshore Energy Development

Offshore energy development, including oil and natural gas extraction in coastal and deep waters on the 

continental shelf, as well as renewable energy projects can degrade sea turtle habitats during preconstruction and operation phases. Prior to drilling operations, vessel traffic and seismic disturbances 

through exploration activities can degrade sea turtle coastal and open ocean foraging habitats. 

4.4.8.4 Impacts of the Proposed Action That May Contribute to Cumulative Impacts

The cumulative impacts analysis is generally focused on green, hawksbill, olive Ridley, leatherback, and 

loggerhead turtles, all of which are ESA-listed species. The analysis presented in Section 3.5 (Reptiles) 

concludes that some stressors associated with the Proposed Action could impact individuals of certain 

sea turtle species, but impacts are not expected to decrease the overall fitness of any sea turtle 

population. From a cumulative perspective, potential impacts on listed species are of particular concern, 

and mitigation measures designed to avoid the potential impacts are discussed in 

Chapter 5 (Mitigation). 

Impacts from the Proposed Action that may contribute to cumulative impacts on sea turtles can be 

generally categorized as behavioral responses, temporary and permanent threshold shifts, non-auditory 

injury (modeled as slight lung injury and gastrointestinal tract injury), and mortality. As summarized 

below, these impacts would be associated with certain acoustic and physical strike stressors:

• The use of sonar and other transducers may result in behavioral responses, and temporary and 

permanent threshold shifts in sea turtles, including ESA-listed sea turtles.

• Explosives may result in behavioral responses, TTS, PTS, injury, and mortality in sea turtles, 

including ESA-listed sea turtles.

• Vessel strikes may cause injury or mortality in sea turtles, including ESA- listed sea turtles.
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

4-55

4.0 Cumulative Impacts

The Proposed Action is not anticipated to have any effect on sea turtle nesting beaches in the region of 

influence. The training and testing activities associated with the Proposed Action do not contribute to 

factors that impact nesting habitats for these species.

The remaining acoustic stressors (noise from air guns, weapons firing/launch/impact, aircraft overflight, 

vessels), energy stressors (electromagnetic, high energy lasers), physical disturbance and strike stressors 

(in-water devices, military expended materials, seafloor devices), entanglement stressors (cables, wires, 

decelerators/parachutes), ingestion stressors (munitions, military expended materials other than 

munitions), and secondary stressors are not expected to result in temporary or permanent threshold 

shifts, injury, or mortality of sea turtles under the Proposed Action, including ESA--listed sea turtles. The 

Proposed Action would not introduce significant light sources that would disorient nesting turtles or 

their hatchlings. Because the Navy’s training and testing activities do not co-occur with nesting activities, 

it is unlikely that stressors presented to sea turtles would contribute to other anthropogenic threats not 

caused by Navy activities.

Although sea turtles could be exposed to sound and energy from explosive detonations throughout the 

Study Area, the estimated impacts on individual sea turtles are unlikely to impact populations. Injured 

sea turtles could suffer reduced fitness and long-term survival. Sea turtles that experience temporary or 

permanent threshold shifts may have reduced ability to detect relevant sounds such as predators or 

prey, although some with temporary threshold shift would recover quickly, possibly in a matter of 

minutes. It is uncertain whether some permanent hearing loss over a part of a sea turtle’s hearing range 

would have long-term consequences for that individual because the sea turtle hearing range is already 

limited (Section 3.8.3.1, Acoustic Stressors). Any significant behavioral reactions to acoustic stimuli could 

lead to a sea turtle expending energy and missing opportunities to secure resources. However, most 

individuals are not likely to experience long-term consequences from behavioral reactions because 

exposures would be intermittent and widely spaced, allowing exposed individuals to recover. Since longterm consequences for most individuals are unlikely, long-term consequences for populations are 

not expected.

In summary and as determined in Section 3.8.4 (Summary of Potential Impacts on Reptiles), it is not 

anticipated that the Proposed Action would result in significant impacts to reptiles. Due to the wide 

dispersion of stressors, speed of the platforms, and general dynamic movement of many training and 

testing activities, it is very unlikely that a sea turtle or sea snake would remain in the potential impact 

range of multiple sources or sequential exercises. Additionally, the majority of the proposed activities 

are unit-level training and small testing activities, which are conducted in the open ocean. Unit level 

exercises occur over a small spatial scale (one to a few square miles) and with few participants (usually 

one or two) or short duration (the order of a few hours or less). Likewise, training and testing activities 

are generally separated in space and time in such a way that it would be unlikely that any individual sea 

turtle or sea snake would be exposed to stressors from multiple activities within a short timeframe. 

Furthermore, research and monitoring efforts have included before, during, and after-event 

observations and surveys, data collection through conducting long-term studies in areas of Navy activity, 

occurrence surveys over large geographic areas, biopsy of animals occurring in areas of Navy activity, 

and tagging studies where animals are exposed to Navy stressors. To date, the findings from the 

research and monitoring and the regulatory conclusions from previous analyses by NMFS (National 

Marine Fisheries Service, 2015a; National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2013) are that 

majority of impacts from Navy training and testing activities are not expected to have deleterious 

impacts on the fitness of any individuals or long-term consequences to populations of sea turtles.
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

4-56

4.0 Cumulative Impacts

4.4.8.5 Cumulative Impacts on Reptiles

The fact that all five species of sea turtles occurring in the Study Area are ESA-listed provides a clear 

indication that the current aggregate impacts of past human activities are significant for sea turtles. 

Bycatch, vessel strikes, coastal land development, and ocean pollution are the leading causes of 

mortality and population decline for sea turtles, and, although mitigated/avoided to the greatest extent 

practicable, the Proposed Action could result in stress, injury, and mortality to individuals of some sea 

turtle species from underwater explosions and vessel strikes. Implementation of observation and delay 

measures discussed in Chapter 5 (Mitigation) would help avoid, but not absolutely eliminate, the risk for 

potential impacts, and any incidence of injury and mortality that might occur under the Proposed Action 

could be additive to injury and mortality associated with other actions in the region of influence. 

Due to safety, security and operational standard operating procedures most impacts associated with the 

Proposed Action are not anticipated to interact with or increase similar stressors experienced 

throughout the region of influence. According to scientific studies, reptiles may rely primarily on senses 

other than hearing for interacting with their environment and appear to recover quickly from noise 

stressors (Section 3.8.3.1, Acoustic Stressors); thus, the acoustic stressors produced by Navy activities 

are anticipated to have minimal cumulative impact on sea turtles. The Proposed Action would not affect 

turtle nesting or sea snake habitat, and contaminants and debris discharged into the marine 

environment are expected to be negligible and not persistent (Section 4.4.1.2, Sediment and Water 

Quality). Affects from the Proposed Action to sea turtle food sources are avoided or insignificant 

(Section 4.4.1.4, Invertebrates and Section 4.4.1.3, Vegetation). Likewise, Navy actions generally would

not overlap in space and time with other stressors as they occur as dispersed, infrequent, and isolated 

events that do not last for extended periods. 

The potential exists for the impacts of ocean pollution (disease, malnourishment), injury, nesting habitat 

loss, starvation, and the composite increased underwater noise environment to contribute multiple 

stressors to an individual, and it is possible that the response of a previously stressed animal to impacts 

associated with the Proposed Action could be more severe than the response of an unstressed animal, 

or impacts from the Proposed Action could make an individual more susceptible to other stressors. For 

example, if a Navy vessel were to strike and injure an otherwise healthy sea turtle, exposure to multiple 

other stressors in the area may hinder the individual’s recovery from any injury sustained in the 

accident. Likewise, a sea turtle near an underwater explosion or sonar activity may become stressed or 

disoriented, and the time to recover may be increased if that individual is likewise experiencing disease, 

malnutrition, or other strike injury that may increase its vulnerability to predation or decrease its ability 

to forage.

In summary, the aggregate impacts of past, present, and other reasonably foreseeable future actions 

continue to have significant impacts on all reptile species in the Study Area. The Proposed Action could 

contribute incremental stressors to individuals, which would both further compound effects on a given 

individual already experiencing stress and in turn has the potential to further stress populations in 

significant decline or recovery efforts thereof. However, with the implementation of standard operating 

procedures reducing the likelihood of overlap in time and space with other stressors and the 

implementation of mitigation measures reducing the likelihood of impacts, the incremental stressors 

anticipated from the Proposed Action are not anticipated to be significant. Additionally, as with marine 

mammals, the NMFS regulatory process includes Stock Assessments and 5-year reviews for all ESA-listed 

species, which provides a backstop that informs decisions on take authorizations and Biological 

Opinions. Biological Opinions for federal and non-federal actions are grounded in status reviews and 
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

4-57

4.0 Cumulative Impacts

conditioned to avoid jeopardy and to allow continued progress toward recovery. This process helps to 

ensure that, through compliance with these regulatory requirements, the Navy’s Proposed Actions will 

not have a measurable effect on the resource.

4.4.9 BIRDS 

Although not uniformly distributed, the region of influence for birds includes shorelines, surface water, 

water column and shallow bottom habitats, and airspace throughout the Study Area. The majority of 

species encountered in the Study Area are water birds, including seabirds, wading birds, shorebirds, and 

waterfowl that use Study Area habitat for breeding, foraging, roosting, and migration. An estimated 15 

million seabirds inhabit the Hawaiian Islands; 22 species of seabirds regularly nest in the Hawaiian 

Islands, and many more pass through during migration to and from their breeding grounds elsewhere in 

the Pacific (Birding Hawaii, 2004). More than 195 species of birds use coastal or offshore aquatic 

habitats in the Southern California Bight, and more than 300 bird species have been documented to use 

San Diego Bay (Anderson et al., 2007; Bearzi et al., 2009; Hunt & Butler, 1980).

All projects in the Study Area that affect ESA-listed species, species protected under the Migratory Bird 

Treaty Act, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Birds of Conservation Concern are subject to 

regulatory processes and permitting that give agencies a landscape management perspective of 

population trends and conservation measures. ESA-listed species are described in Table 3.9-1. Despite 

numerous protective laws and regulations, seabirds are some of the most threatened marine animals in 

the world, with 29 percent of species at risk of extinction and approximately half of the 346 species of 

seabirds that depend on ocean habitats in decline (Section 3.9.2.1.5, General Threats). 

Birds are susceptible to multiple stressors, and the susceptibility of many species could be enhanced by 

additive or synergistic effects of multiple stressors. Section 3.9.2.1.5 (General Threats) includes an 

extensive discussion of the existing stressors to bird populations in the Study Area, and all activities 

listed in Table 4.2-1 contribute one or more of these stressors. Other activities in the Study Area that 

could have direct impacts on birds include wind energy development (strike mortality); noise, light, and 

water pollution (direct impacts from major spills, indirect impacts from habitat loss and degradation, 

and marine debris); commercial fishing (loss of food source, strike, and entanglement); climate change; 

coastal land development (loss of breeding, nesting, or foraging habitat); and operation of ports and 

terminals or military training areas (disturbance). Commercial fisheries are considered the most serious 

threat to the world’s seabirds. Most of the birds in the Study Area are relatively long-lived and 

wide-ranging seabirds, making it likely that individuals would be exposed to multiple activities and 

stressors over the course of their lifespans. 

The analysis in Section 3.9 (Birds) indicates that birds could potentially be impacted by in-air and 

underwater acoustic stressors (sonar and other transducers, pile driving, air guns, weapons firing, 

aircraft and vessel noise), explosives (shock wave, sound, fragments), energy stressors (electromagnetic 

devices, lasers), physical disturbance and strikes (aircraft, aerial targets, vessels and in-water devices, 

military expended materials, seafloor devices, pile driving), entanglement (fiber optic cables, guidance 

wires, vessel entanglement systems, and decelerators/parachutes), ingestion (military expended 

materials), and secondary stressors (explosives and explosion by-products, unexploded munition, 

metals, chemicals, other materials, physical disturbance). Some stressors, including explosions, physical 

strikes, and ingestion of plastic military expended materials, could result in mortality. In general, 

however, the potential for training and testing activities to result in bird injury or mortality is considered 

low to discountable, depending on the specific training or testing activity being considered. The vast 
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

4-58

4.0 Cumulative Impacts

majority of impacts are expected to be nonlethal: the most likely responses to training and testing 

activities are short-term behavioral or physiological, such as alert response, startle response, cessation 

of feeding, fleeing the immediate area, and a temporary increase in heart rate. Recovery from the 

impacts of most stressor exposures that elicit such short-term behavioral or physiological responses 

would occur quickly. 

Impacts that elicit behavioral or physiological impacts can combine with other stressors experienced 

elsewhere and result in decreased fitness of the individual as it moves throughout the Study Area. 

However, most of the proposed activities would be widely dispersed in offshore areas where bird 

distribution is patchy and concentrations of individuals are often low; therefore, the potential for 

interactions between birds and training and testing activities is low. Likewise, for most stressors 

associated with the Proposed Action, impacts would be short term and localized, and physiological 

recovery would occur quickly for any individuals experiencing a stress response. It is unlikely that 

training and testing activities would influence nesting because most activities take place in water and 

away from nesting habitats on land.

Although other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions individually and collectively cause 

widespread disturbance and mortality of bird populations across the ocean landscape, the Proposed 

Action is not expected to substantially contribute to their diminishing abundance, induce widespread 

behavioral or physiological stress, or interfere with recovery from other stressors. It is anticipated that 

the incremental contribution of the Proposed Action, when added to the impacts of all other past, 

present and reasonably foreseeable future actions, would not result in measurable additional impacts 

on birds in the Study Area or beyond.

4.4.10 CULTURAL RESOURCES

As discussed in Section 3.10 (Cultural Resources), stressors, including explosive and physical disturbance 

and strike stressors, associated with the Proposed Action would not affect submerged prehistoric sites 

and submerged historic resources in accordance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation 

Act because mitigation measures have been implemented to protect and avoid these resources (Chapter 

5, Mitigation). Furthermore, programmatic agreements between the Navy and State Historic 

Preservation Offices exist to address the protection and management of cultural resources. The 

Proposed Action is not expected to result in impacts on cultural resources in the Study Area and likewise 

would not contribute incrementally to cumulative impacts on cultural resources. Therefore, further 

analysis of cumulative impacts on cultural resources is not warranted.

4.4.11 SOCIOECONOMICS

The analysis in Section 3.11 (Socioeconomics) indicates that the Proposed Action is not expected to 

result in long-term impacts to socioeconomic resources in the Study Area, including energy production 

and distribution, mineral extraction, commercial transportation and shipping, commercial and 

recreational fishing, aquaculture, and tourism. Minimal temporary and short-term (hours) impacts may 

occur from limits on accessibility to marine areas used by the public (e.g., commercial and recreational 

fishing and tourism); however, accessibility restrictions would be lifted upon completion of training and 

testing activities and conditions would return to normal within hours of being initiated. The public may 

intermittently hear noise from transiting ships or aircraft overflights if they are in the general vicinity of 

a training or testing activity, but these occurrences would be infrequent, and other than transiting, most 

Navy training and testing occurs farther from shore than most recreational and tourism activities. 

Temporary limitations on accessibility to marine areas and the infrequent exposure to airborne noise 
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

4-59

4.0 Cumulative Impacts

would not result in a direct loss of income, revenue or employment, resource availability, or quality of 

experience. No impacts on sources for energy production and distribution, mineral extraction, and 

aquaculture are anticipated. Short-term impacts, should they occur, would not contribute incrementally 

to cumulative socioeconomic impacts. Therefore, further analysis of cumulative impacts on 

socioeconomic resources is not warranted.

4.4.12 PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY

All Proposed Actions would be accomplished by technically qualified personnel and would be conducted 

in accordance with applicable Navy, state, and federal safety standards and requirements. The analysis 

presented in Section 3.12 (Public Health and Safety) indicates that the Proposed Action is not expected 

to result in impacts on public health and safety and thus would not contribute incrementally to or 

combine with other impacts on health and safety within the Study Area. Therefore, further analysis of 

cumulative impacts on public health and safety is not warranted.

4.5 SUMMARY OF CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

The Proposed Action would contribute incremental effects on the ocean ecosystem, which is already 

experiencing and absorbing a multitude of stressors to a variety of receptors. In general, it is not 

anticipated that the implementation of the Proposed Action would have a meaningful contribution to 

the ongoing stress or cause significant collapse of any particular marine resource, but it would 

contribute minute impacts on resources that are already experiencing various degrees of interference 

and degradation. It is intended that the mitigation measures described in Chapter 5 (Mitigation) will 

further reduce the potential impacts of the Proposed Action in such a way that they are avoided to the 

maximum extent practicable and to ensure that impacts do not become cumulatively significant to any 

marine resource.

Marine mammals and sea turtles are the primary resources of concern for cumulative impacts analysis, 

however, the incremental contributions of the Proposed Action are not anticipated to meaningfully 

contribute to the decline of these populations or interfere with the recovery efforts thereof due to the 

implementation of standard operating procedures that reduce the likelihood of overlap in time and 

space and mitigation measures as described in Chapter 5 (Mitigation) that reduce the likelihood of 

impacts to both resources. The aggregate impacts of past, present, and other reasonably foreseeable 

future actions (Table 4.2-1) have resulted in significant impacts on some marine mammal and all sea 

turtle species in the Study Area. However, the decline of these species is chiefly attributable to other 

stressors in the environment, including the synergistic effect of bycatch, entanglement, vessel traffic, 

ocean pollution, recreation and tourism, and coastal zone development. The analysis presented in this 

Chapter 4 (Cumulative Impacts) and Chapter 3 (Affected Environment and Environmental 

Consequences) indicates that the incremental contribution of the Proposed Action to cumulative 

impacts on air quality, sediments and water quality, vegetation, invertebrates, marine habitats, fishes, 

birds, cultural and socioeconomic resources, and public health and safety would not significantly 

contribute to cumulative stress on those resources. 
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

4-60

4.0 Cumulative Impacts

This page intentionally left blank.
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

4-61

References

REFERENCES

Anderson, D. M., P. M. Glibert, & J. M. Burkholder. (2002). Harmful algal blooms and eutrophication: 

Nutrient sources, composition, and consequences. Estuaries, 25(4, Part B: Dedicated Issue: 

Nutrient Over-Enrichment in Coastal Waters: Global Patterns of Cause and Effect), 704–726. 

Anderson, D. W., C. J. Henny, C. Godinez-Reyes, F. Gress, E. L. Palacios, K. Santos del Prado, & J. Bredy. 

(2007). Size of the California Brown Pelican Metapopulation during a non-El Niño year. Reston, 

VA: U. S. Geological Survey.

Avens, L., & K. J. Lohmann. (2003). Use of multiple orientation cues by juvenile loggerhead sea turtles, 

Caretta caretta. Journal of Experiential Biology, 206(23), 4317–4325. 

Bartol, S. M., & J. A. Musick. (2003). Sensory Biology of Sea Turtles. In P. L. Lutz, J. A. Musick & J. 

Wyneken (Eds.), The biology of sea turtles (Vol. 2, pp. 16).

Bartol, S. M., & D. R. Ketten. (2006). Turtle and Tuna Hearing (Sea Turtle and Pelagic Fish Sensory 

Biology: Developing Techniques to Reduce Sea Turtle Bycatch in Longline Fisheries: NOAA 

Technical Memorandum NMFS-PIFSC-7). Honolulu, HI: Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center.

Bassett, C., J. Thomson, & B. Polagye. (2010). Characteristics of Underwater Ambient Noise at a 

Proposed Tidal Energy Site in Puget Sound. Seattle, WA: Northwest National Marine Renewable 

Energy Center.

Baulch, S., & C. Perry. (2014). Evaluating the impacts of marine debris on cetaceans. Mar Pollut Bull, 

80(1–2), 210–221. 

Baumann-Pickering, S., L. K. Baldwin, A. E. Simonis, M. A. Roche, M. L. Melcon, J. A. Hildebrand, E. M. 

Oleson, R. W. Baird, G. S. Schorr, D. L. Webster, & D. J. McSweeney. (2010). Characterization of 

Marine Mammal Recordings from the Hawaii Range Complex. Monterey, CA: Naval 

Postgraduate School.

Baumann-Pickering, S., A. J. Debich, J. T. Trickey, A. Širović, R. Gresalfi, M. A. Roch, S. M. Wiggins, J. A. 

Hildebrand, & J. V. Carretta. (2013). Examining Explosions in Southern California and their 

Potential Impact on Cetacean Acoustic Behavior. Scripps Institution of Oceanography; 

Southwest Fisheries Science Center, NOAA.

Bearzi, M., C. A. Saylan, & J. Feenstra. (2009). Seabird observations during cetacean surveys in Santa 

Monica Bay, California. Bulletin of Southern California Academy of Sciences, 108(2), 63–69. 

Bergmann, M., L. Gutow, & M. Klages. (2015). Marine Anthropogenic Litter.

Birding Hawaii. (2004). Annotated list of Hawaii's breeding birds. Retrieved from 

http://www.birdinghawaii.co.uk/Annotatedlist2.htm

Bradford, A. L., & K. A. Forney. (2014). Injury Determinations for Cetaceans Observed Interacting with 

Hawaii and American Samoa Longline Fisheries During 2008-2012. National Oceanographic and 

Atmospheric Administration Technical Memorandum.

Bradford, A. L., & E. Lyman. (2015). Injury Determinations for Humpback Whales and Other Cetaceans 

Reported to NOAA Response Networks in the Hawaiian Islands During 2007 – 2012. National 

Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration Technical Memorandum.
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

4-62

References

Bradford, A. L., & K. A. Forney. (2016). Injury Determinations for Marine Mammals Observed Interacting 

with Hawaii and American Samoa Longline Fisheries During 2009–2013. NOAA.

Brischoux, F., C. Cotte, H. B. Lillywhite, F. Bailleul, M. Lalire, & P. Gaspar. (2016). Oceanic circulation 

models help to predict global biogeography of pelagic yellow-bellied sea snake. Biology Letters, 

12(8). 

Bureau of Ocean Energy Management. (2012). Final Environmental Assessment for Commercial Wind 

Lease Issuance and Site Assessment Activities on the Atlantic Outer Continental Shelf Offshore 

New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia.

Bureau of Ocean Energy Management. (2013). Revised Environmental Assessment for Commercial Wind 

Lease Issuance and Site Assessment Activities on the Atlantic Outer Continental Shelf Offshore 

Rhode Island and Massachusetts.

Bureau of Ocean Energy Management. (2016a). 2017–2022 Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Leasing 

Proposed Final Program.

Bureau of Ocean Energy Management. (2016b). Fact Sheet: Environmental Studies–Electromagnetic 

Fields (EMF).

Bureau of Ocean Energy Management. (2016c). Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

the Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Leasing Program: 2017–2022.

Bureau of Ocean Energy Management. (2017a). Pacific Region Facts and Figures. Retrieved from 

https://www.boem.gov/Pacific-Facts-and-Figures/

Bureau of Ocean Energy Management. (2017b). California Activities. Retrieved from 

https://www.boem.gov/California/

California Department of Conservation. (2017). 2015 Report of California Oil and Gas Production 

Statistics. Sacramento, CA.

California Department of Fish and Game. (2008). Digest of California fishing laws and licensing 

requirements. 

California Marine Life Protection Act Initiative. (2009). Regional Profile of the Marine Life Protection Act 

(MLPA) South Coast Study Region (Point Conception to the California/Mexico Border). 

Sacramento, CA: California Resources Agency.

Carretta, J. V., S. M. Wilkin, M. M. Muto, & K. Wilkinson. (2013). Sources of Human-Related Injury and 

Mortality for U.S. Pacific West Coast Marine Mammal Stock Assessments, 2007–2011 (NOAA 

Technical Memorandum NMFS). Southwest Fisheries Science Center.

Carretta, J. V., E. Oleson, D. W. Weller, A. R. Lang, K. A. Forney, J. Baker, M. M. Muto, B. Hanson, A. J. 

Orr, H. Huber, M. S. Lowry, J. Barlow, J. Moore, D. Lynch, L. Carswell, & R. L. Brownell. (2015). 

U.S. Pacific Marine Mammal Stock Assessments: 2014 (NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFSSWFSC-549). La Jolla, CA: Southwest Fisheries Science Center.

Carretta, J. V., M. M. Muto, S. Wilkin, J. Greenman, K. Wilkinson, M. DeAngelis, J. Viezbicke, D. Lawson, 

& J. Jannot. (2016). Sources of Human-Related Injury and Mortality for U.S. Pacific West Coast 

Marine Mammal Stock Assessments, 2010–2014 (NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SWFSC554). La Jolla, CA: Southwest Fisheries Science Center.
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

4-63

References

Celi, M., F. Filiciotto, M. Vazzana, V. Arizza, V. Maccarrone, M. Ceraulo, S. Mazzola, & G. Buscaino. 

(2015). Shipping noise affecting immune responses of European spiny lobster (Palinurus 

elephas). Canadian Journal of Zoology, 93, 113–121. 

Chaloupka, M., T. M. Work, G. H. Balazs, S. K. K. Murakawa, & R. Morris. (2008). Cause-specific temporal 

and spatial trends in green sea turtle strandings in the Hawaiian Archipelago (1982–2003). 

Marine Biology, 154, 887–898. 

Corcoran, A., M. Dornback, B. Kirkpatrick, & A. Jochens. (2013). A Primer on Gulf of Mexico Harmful 

Algal Blooms.

Council on Environmental Quality. (1997). Considering Cumulative Effects Under the National 

Environmental Policy Act.

Debich, A. J., S. Baumann-Pickering, A. Sirovic, J. A. Hildebrand, A. L. Alldredge, R. S. Gottlieb, S. T. 

Herbert, S. C. Johnson, A. C. Rice, L. K. Roche, B. J. Thayre, J. S. Trickey, L. M. Varga, & S. M. 

Wiggins. (2015). Passive Acoustic Monitoring for Marine Mammals in the SOCAL Naval Training 

Area Dec 2012–Jan 2014 (MPL Technical Memorandum #552). La Jolla, CA: Marine Physical 

Laboratory, Scripps Institution of Oceanography.

DeMaster, D. P., C. W. Fowler, S. L. Perry, & M. F. Richlen. (2001). Predation and competition: The 

impact of fisheries on marine-mammal populations over the next one hundred years. Journal of 

Mammalogy, 82(3), 641–651. 

Denkinger, J., M. Parra, J. P. Muñoz, C. Carrasco, J. C. Murillo, E. Espinosa, F. Rubianes, & V. Koch. (2013). 

Are boat strikes a threat to sea turtles in the Galapagos Marine Reserve? Ocean & Coastal 

Management, 80, 29–35. 

Derraik, J. G. B. (2002). The pollution of the marine environment by plastic debris: A review. Marine 

Pollution Bulletin, 44, 842–852. 

Edmonds, N. J., C. J. Firmin, D. Goldsmith, R. C. Faulkner, & D. T. Wood. (2016). A review of crustacean 

sensitivity to high amplitude underwater noise: Data needs for effective risk assessment in 

relation to UK commercial species. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 108, 5–11. 

Eschmeyer, W. N., & J. D. Fong. (2017). Catalog of Fishes.

Fautin, D., P. Dalton, L. S. Incze, J. Leong, C. Pautzke, A. Rosenberg, P. Sandifer, G. Sedberry, J. W. 

Tunnell, I. Abbott, R. E. Brainard, M. Brodeur, L. E. Eldredge, M. Feldman, F. Moretzsohn, P. S. 

Vroom, M. Wainstein, & N. Wolff. (2010). An Overview of Marine Biodiversity in United States 

Waters. PLoS ONE, 5(8). 

Fechter, L. D., & B. Pouyatos. (2005). Ototoxicity. Environmental Health Perspectives, 113(7), 443–444. 

Federal Communications Commission. (2017). Submarine Cables. Retrieved from 

https://www.fcc.gov/submarine-cables

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. (2017a). Marine and Hydrokinetic Projects Map.

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. (2017b). Marine & Hydrokinetic Projects (as of April 10, 2017).

Finkbeiner, E. M., B. P. Wallace, J. E. Moore, R. L. Lewison, L. B. Crowder, & A. J. Read. (2011). 

Cumulative estimates of sea turtle bycatch and mortality in USA fisheries between 1990 and 

2007. Biological Conservation, 144(11), 2719–2727. 
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

4-64

References

Geijer, C. K. A., & A. J. Read. (2013). Mitigation of marine mammal bycatch in U.S. fisheries since 1994. 

Biological Conservation, 159, 54–60. 

Gerstein, E. (2002). Manatees, bioacoustics and boats: hearing tests, environmental measurements and 

acoustic phenomena may together explain why boats and animals collide. American Scientist, 

90(2), 154–163. 

Hansen, L. P., & M. L. Windsor. (2006). Interactions between aquaculture and wild stocks of Atlantic 

salmon and other diadromous fish species: Science and management, challenges and solutions. 

ICES Journal of Marine Science, 63(7), 1159–1161. 

Hardesty, B. D., & C. Wilcox. (2017). A risk framework for tackling marine debris. Royal Society of 

Chemistry, Analytical Methods(Paper), 8. 

Hawaii Department of Transportation. (2017). Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Kalaeloa 

Barbers Point Harbor Fuel Pier & Harbor Improvements.

Hawaii Tourism Authority. (2015). Hawaii Tourism Facts. Retrieved from 

http://www.hawaiitourismauthority.org/default/assets/File/HTA_Tourism%20Facts%20as%20of

%20August%202015.pdf

Hazel, J., I. R. Lawler, H. Marsh, & S. Robson. (2007). Vessel speed increases collision risk for the green 

turtle Chelonia mydas. Endangered Species Research, 3, 105–113. 

Hubbs-Seaworld Research Institute. (2008). Offshore Aquaculture Demonstration Project.

Humber, F., B. J. Godley, & A. C. Broderick. (2014). So excellent a fishe: a global overview of legal marine 

turtle fisheries. Diversity and Distributions, 20(5), 579–590. 

Hunt, G. L., Jr., & J. L. Butler. (1980). Reproductive ecology of Western gulls and Xantus' murrelets with 

respect to food resources in the Southern California Bight. CalCOFI Reports, XXI, 62–67. 

Ilyashenko, V., & K. Zharikov. (2014). Aboriginal Harvest of Gray and Bowhead Whales in the Russian 

Federation In 2013 

International Council for the Exploration of the Sea. (2005). Ad-Hoc Group on the Impact of Sonar on 

Cetaceans.

Jackson, J. B. C., M. X. Kirby, W. H. Berger, K. A. Bjorndal, L. W. Botsford, B. J. Bourque, R. H. Bradbury, R. 

Cooke, J. M. Erlandson, J. A. Estes, T. P. Hughes, S. Kidwell, C. B. Lange, H. S. Lenihan, J. M. 

Pandolfi, C. H. Peterson, R. S. Steneck, M. J. Tegner, & R. R. Warner. (2001). Historical 

overfishing and the recent collapse of coastal ecosystems. Science, 293. 

Kappel, C. V. (2005). Losing pieces of the puzzle; threats to marine, estuarine, and diadromous species. 

Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 3(5), 275–282. 

Keller, A. A., E. L. Fruh, M. M. Johnson, V. Simon, & C. McGourty. (2010). Distribution and abundance of 

anthropogenic marine debris along the shelf and slope of the U.S. West Coast. Marine Pollution 

Bulletin, 60(5), 692–700. 

Ketten, D. R., & S. Moein-Bartol. (2006). Functional Measures of Sea Turtle Hearing. Woods Hole, MA: 

Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution.
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

4-65

References

Knowlton, A. R., P. K. Hamilton, M. K. Marx, H. M. Pettis, & S. D. Kraus. (2012). Monitoring North Atlantic 

right whale Eubalaena glacialis entanglement rates: a 30 yr retrospective. Marine Ecology 

Progress Series, 466, 293–302. 

Laist, D. W., A. R. Knowlton, J. G. Mead, A. S. Collet, & M. Podesta. (2001). Collisions between ships and 

whales. Marine Mammal Science, 17(1), 35–75. 

Laist, D. W., & C. Shaw. (2006). Preliminary evidence that boat speed restrictions reduce deaths of 

Florida manatees. Marine Mammal Science, 22(2), 472–479. 

Lam, T., Lingxu, S. Takahashi, & E. A. Burgess. (2012). Market forces: an examination of marine turtle 

trade in China and Japan: TRAFFIC East Asia.

Lammers, M. O., A. A. Pack, E. G. Lyman, & L. Espiritu. (2013). Trends in collisions between vessels and 

North Pacific humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae) in Hawaiian waters (1975–2011). 

Journal of Cetacean Resource Management, 13(1). 

Levenson, D. H., S. A. Eckert, M. A. Crognale, J. F. Deegan, II, & G. H. Jacobs. (2004). Photopic spectral 

sensitivity of green and loggerhead sea turtles. Copeia, 4, 908–914. 

Levinton, J. S. (2009). Seaweeds, sea grasses, and benthic microorganisms Marine Biology: Function, 

Biodiversity, Ecology (3rd ed., pp. 309–320). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Lohmann, K. J., & C. M. F. Lohmann. (1992). Orientation to oceanic waves by green turtle hatchlings. 

Journal of Experimental Biology, 171, 1–13. 

Lohmann, K. J., & C. M. F. Lohmann. (1996). Orientation and open-sea navigation in sea turtles. Journal 

of Experimental Biology, 199, 73–81. 

Lutcavage, M. E., P. Plotkin, B. Witherington, & P. L. Lutz. (1997). Human impacts on sea turtle survival. 

In P. Lutz & J. A. Musick (Eds.), The biology of sea turtles (Vol. 1, pp. 387–409). Boca Raton, FL: 

CRC Press.

Maison, K. A., I. K. Kelly, & K. P. Frutchey. (2010). Green Turtle Nesting Sites and Sea Turtle Legislation 

throughout Oceania. (NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-F/SPO- 110). U.S. Department of 

Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and National Marine Fisheries 

Service.

Maritime Administration. (2013). Vessel Calls Snapshot, 2011. Washington, DC.

McDonald, M. A., J. A. Hildebrand, & S. M. Wiggins. (2006). Increases in deep ocean ambient noise in the 

Northeast Pacific west of San Nicolas Island, California. The Journal of Acoustical Society of 

America, 120(2), 711–718. 

Minerals Management Service. (2005). Structure-removal operations on the Gulf of Mexico Outer 

Continental Shelf: Programmatic environmental assessment. U.S. Department of the Interior.

Minerals Management Service. (2007). Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for Alternative 

Energy Development and Production and Alternate Use of Facilities on the Outer Continental 

Shelf: Final Environmental Impact Statement.

Mintz, J. D. (2012). Vessel Traffic in the Hawaii-Southern California and Atlantic Fleet Testing and 

Training Study Areas. (CRM D0026186.A2/Final). Center for Naval Analysis.
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

4-66

References

Moore, S., M. Sutula, T. Von Bitner, G. Lattin, & K. Schiff. (2016). Southern California Bight 2013 Regional 

Monitoring Program: Volume III. Trash and Marine Debris. (Technical Report 928). Southern 

California Coastal Water Research Project.

Moyle, P. B., & J. J. Cech, Jr. (2004). Fishes: An Introduction to Ichthyology (5th ed.): Pearson 

Educational, Inc.

Mrosovsky, N., G. D. Ryan, & M. C. James. (2009). Leatherback turtles: The menace of plastic. Marine 

Pollution Bulletin, 58(2), 287–289. 

Myers, R. A., & B. Worm. (2003). Rapid worldwide depletion of predatory fish communities. Nature, 423, 

280–283. 

National Marine Fisheries Service. (2006). Marine Debris: Impacts in the Gulf of Mexico.

National Marine Fisheries Service. (2015a). Reinitiated Biological Opinion and Conference Report on U.S. 

Navy Hawaii-Southern California Training and Testing.

National Marine Fisheries Service. (2015b). Marine Aquaculture Strategic Plan FY 2016-2020. Silver 

Spring, MD.

National Marine Fisheries Service. (2015c). Status Review of the Humpback Whale (Megaptera 

novaeangliae) Under the Endangered Species Act. (NOAA-TM-NMFS-SWFSC-540).

National Marine Fisheries Service. (2015d). Fisheries of the United States 2014. (NOAA Current Fishery 

Statistics No. 2014). Retrieved from http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/recreationalfisheries/Features/fus-2014.

National Marine Fisheries Service. (2016a). Unpublished Sea Turtle Data 2004-206.

National Marine Fisheries Service. (2016b). U.S. National Bycatch Report First Edition Update 2. 

Retrieved from http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/observer-home/first-edition-update-2.

National Ocean Economics Program. (2015). Market Data. Retrieved from 

http://www.oceaneconomics.org/Market/ocean/oceanEcon.asp?IC=N&dataSource=E

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. (2013). Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to 

Specified Activities; U.S. Navy Training and Testing Activities in the Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Study Area; Final Rule. Federal Register.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. (2016). Average ‘Dead Zone’ for Gulf of Mexico 

Predicted.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. (2017a). What are HABs. Retrieved from 

https://habsos.noaa.gov/about/

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. (2017b). Coral Bleaching and Disease. Retrieved from 

https://www.pifsc.noaa.gov/cred/coral_bleaching_and_disease.php

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Marine Debris Program. (2014). Report on the 

Entanglement of Marine Species in Marine Debris with an Emphasis on Species in the United 

States. Silver Spring, MD.

National Research Council. (1990). Decline of the Sea Turtles: Causes and Prevention. Washington, DC: 

National Academy Press.
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

4-67

References

Naval Special Warfare Command. (2016). Notification of Preparation of an Environmental Assessment 

for Naval Special Warfare Training Operations Within the State of Hawaii.

Nowacek, D. P., M. P. Johnson, & P. L. Tyack. (2004). North Atlantic right whales (Eubalaena glacialis) 

ignore ships but respond to alerting stimuli. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, 271(B), 

227–231. 

O'Shea, T. J., R. R. Reeves, & A. K. Long. (1999). Marine mammals and persistent ocean contaminants: 

Proceedings of the Marine Mammal Commission Workshop Keystone, Colorado, 12–15 October 

1998.

Oleson, E. M., C. H. Boggs, K. A. Forney, M. B. Hanson, D. R. Kobayashi, B. L. Taylor, P. R. Wade, & G. M. 

Ylitalo. (2010). Status Review of Hawaiian Insular False Killer Whales (Pseudorca crassidens) 

under the Endangered Species Act. U.S. Department of Commerce.

Ormerod, S. J. (2003). Current issues with fish and fisheries: Editor's overview and introduction. Journal 

of Applied Ecology, 40(2), 204–213. 

Oros, J., A. Torrent, P. Calabuig, & S. Deniz. (2005). Diseases and causes of mortality among sea turtles 

stranded in the Canary Islands, Spain (1998–2001). Diseases of Aquatic Organisms, 63, 13–24. 

Pacific Fishery Management Council. (2011, March 22, 2011). Habitat and Communities: Wave, Tidal, 

and Offshore Wind Energy. Retrieved from http://www.pcouncil.org/habitat-andcommunities/wave-tidal-and-offshore-wind-energy/

Poloczanska, E., M. Burrows, C. Brown, J. Molinos, B. Halpern, O. Hoegh-Guldberg, C. Kappel, P. Moore, 

A. Richardson, D. Schoeman, & W. Sydeman. (2016). Responses of Marine Organisms to Climate 

Change across Oceans. Frontiers in Marine Science, 3(62), 1–21. 

Read, A. J., P. Drinker, & S. Northridge. (2006). Bycatch of marine mammals in U.S. and global fisheries. 

Conservation Biology, 20(1), 163–169. 

Read, A. J. (2008). The looming crisis: Interactions between marine mammals and fisheries. Journal of 

Mammalogy, 89(3), 541–548. 

Redfern, J. V., L. T. Hatch, C. Caldow, M. L. DeAngelis, J. Gedamke, S. Hastings, L. Henderson, M. F. 

McKenna, T. J. Moore, & M. B. Porter. (2017). Assessing the risk of chronic shipping noise to 

baleen whales off Southern California, USA. Endangered Species Research, 32, 153–167. 

Reijnders, P. J. H., A. Aguilar, & A. Borrell. (2008). Pollution and marine mammals. In W. F. Perrin, B. 

Wursig & J. G. M. Thewissen (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Marine Mammals (2nd ed., pp. 890–898). 

San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Reynolds, J. D., N. K. Dulvy, N. B. Goodwin, & J. A. Hutchings. (2005). Biology of extinction risk in marine 

fishes. Proceedings of the Roayal Society B-Biological Sciences, 272(1579), 2337–2344. 

Roberts, L., S. Cheesman, M. Elliott, & T. Breithaupt. (2016). Sensitivity of Pagurus bernhardus (L.) to 

substrate-borne vibration and anthropogenic noise. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and 

Ecology, 474, 185–194. 

Roman, J., I. Altman, M. M. Dunphy-Daly, C. Campbell, M. Jasny, & A. J. Read. (2013). The Marine 

Mammal Protection Act at 40: status, recovery, and future of U.S. marine mammals. Annals of 

the New York Academy of Sciences, 1286, 29–49. 
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

4-68

References

Saez, L., D. Lawson, M. DeAngelis, E. Petras, S. Wilkin, & C. Fahy. (2013). Understanding the cooccurrence of large whales and commercial fixed gear fisheries off the west coast of the United 

States. NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service, Southwest Regional Office, Protected Resources 

Division.

SeeTurtles.org. (2017). Coastal Development and Sea Turtles. Retrieved from 

http://www.seeturtles.org/coastal-development/

Sellner, K., G. Doucette, & G. Kirkpatrick. (2003). Harmful algal blooms: causes, impacts and detection. 

Society for Industrial Microbiology, 30, 383–406. 

Testa, J. W. (2012). Fur seal investigations, 2010–2011 (NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-AFSC-241). 

La Jolla, CA: Southwest Fisheries Science Center.

Texas A&M University. (2011). 2011 Gulf of Mexico "Dead Zone" could be biggest ever. Retrieved from 

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/07/110718141618.htm

Texas A&M University. (2014, July 15). Gulf Dead Zone This Year is Smaller. Retrieved from 

http://today.tamu.edu/2014/07/15/gulf-dead-zone-this-year-is-smaller/

U.S. Air Force. (2016a). Final Draft Supplemental Environmental Assessment for Boost-Back and Landing 

of the Falcon 9 Full Thrust First Stage at Iridium Landing Area Vandenberg Air Force Base, 

California and Offshore Landing Contingency Option. Vandenberg Air Force Base, CA.

U.S. Air Force. (2016b). Final Environmental Assessment/Overseas Environmental Assessment for the 

Long Range Strike Weapon Systems Evaluation Program at the Pacific Missile Range Facility at 

Kauai, Hawaii.

U.S. Air Force. (2016c). Request for Letter of Authorization for the Incidental Taking of Marine Mammals 

Resulting from Long Range Strike Weapon Systems Evaluation Program at the Pacific Missile 

Range Facility at Kauai, Hawaii.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. (2015). Application for Permit: Rose Canyon Fisheries Sustainable 

Aquaculture Project.

U.S. Census Bureau. (2010). Coastline Population Trends in the United States: 1960 to 2008.

U.S. Coast Guard. (1992). S/S Exxon Houston Grounding near Barbers Point, Hawaii on 2 March 1989 

with Pollution and Subsequent Constructive Loss of Vessel. (USCG 16732/01 HQS 92). 

Washington, DC.

U.S. Coast Guard. (2010). Notice of Availability for Environmental Impact Statements U.S. Coast Guard 

Pacific Area Operations (Districts 11 and 13).

U.S. Coast Guard. (2013). Final Programmatic Environmental Assessment for the Nationwide Use of High 

Frequency (HF) and Ultra High Frequency (UHF) Active SONAR Technology. Washington, DC.

U.S. Department of the Navy. (2008a). Submarine Drive-In Magnetic Silencing Facility (MSF) Beckoning 

Point, Oahu, Hawaii. Naval Facilities Engineering Command.

U.S. Department of the Navy. (2008b). Fact Sheet—Submarine Drive-In Magnetic Silencing Facility (MSF) 

Beckoning Point, Oahu, Hawaii. Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Hawaii.

U.S. Department of the Navy. (2008c). Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Introduction of the 

P-8A Multi-Mission Maritime Aircraft into the U.S. Navy Fleet.
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

4-69

References

U.S. Department of the Navy. (2009). Southern California (SOCAL) Fisheries Study: Catch Statistics 

(2002–2007), Fishing Access, and Fishermen Perception. Newport, RI.

U.S. Department of the Navy. (2011a). Environmental Assessment MCON P-327 Pier 12 Replacement 

and Dredging Naval Base San Diego.

U.S. Department of the Navy. (2011b). Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impacts 

Helicopter Wings Realignment and MH-60R/S Helicopter Transition Naval Base Coronado, 

California. U.S. Fleet Forces Command.

U.S. Department of the Navy. (2011c). Environmental Assessment for Naval Special Warfare Undersea 

Enterprise Consolidation at Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam. Pearl Harbor, HI.

U.S. Department of the Navy. (2012a). National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Environmental 

Assessment for the Proposed Installation and Operation of a Deep-Water Wave Energy Test Site 

Off North Beach at Marine Corps Base Hawaii (MCBH) Kaneohe Bay, Oahu, Hawaii.

U.S. Department of the Navy. (2012b). Environmental Assessment for the Homeporting of the Littoral 

Combat Ship on the West coast of the United States. San Diego, CA.

U.S. Department of the Navy. (2012c). Finding of No Significant Impact and Environmental Assessment 

for the Replacement of the Fuel Storage and Distribution System Naval Auxiliary Landing Field 

San Clemente Island, California. San Diego, CA.

U.S. Department of the Navy. (2012d). Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Basing of MV-22 

and H-1 Aircraft in Support of III MEF Elements in Hawaii. Pearl Harbor, HI.

U.S. Department of the Navy. (2013). Final Environmental Assessment Naval Base Point Loma Fuel Pier 

Replacement and Dredging (P-151/DESC1306).

U.S. Department of the Navy. (2015a). Draft Environmental Assessment for Pier 8 Replacement Naval 

Base San Diego. San Diego, CA.

U.S. Department of the Navy. (2015b). Environmental Assessment for the Joint Logistics Over the Shore, 

maritime Prepositioning Force, and Field Exercising Training Marine Corps Base Pendleton, Sand 

Diego County, California. San Diego, CA.

U.S. Department of the Navy. (2015c). Final Environmental Assessment For The Installation and 

Operation of a Fixed Surface Ship Radiated Noise Measurement (SSRNM) System At the Fleet 

Test and Evaluation Center Barbers Point Oahu, Hawaii and Surrounding Ocean.

U.S. Department of the Navy. (2015d). Environmental Assessment for Photovoltaic Systems Joint Base 

Harbor-Hickam, Oahu, Hawaii. Pearl Harbor, HI.

U.S. Department of the Navy. (2015e). Southern California (SOCAL) and Northern California (NOCAL) 

Range Complexes Encroachment Action Plan.

U.S. Department of the Navy. (2015f). Final Environmental Assessment for MV-22 Facilities Relocation 

Marine Corps Base Hawaii, Kaneohe Bay. Pearl Harbor, HI.

U.S. Department of the Navy. (2016a). Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact 

Statement/Supplemental Overseas Environmental Impact Statement for Surveillance Towed 

Array Sensor System Low Frequency Active (SURTASS LFA) Sonar. Arlington, VA.
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

4-70

References

U.S. Department of the Navy. (2016b). Seal Bomb (Deterrent) Use in West Coast and Alaska Fisheries 

Account with Fishermen. Manuscript on file.

U.S. Department of the Navy. (2016c). Environmental Assessment for MCB Hawaii Kaneohe Bay Pali Kilo 

Beach Cottages Expansion. Pearl Harbor, HI.

U.S. Department of the Navy. (2017). Draft Environmental Assessment for Ammunition Pier and Turing 

Basin Naval Weapons Station Seal Beach. San Diego, CA.

U.S. Energy Information Administration. (2017). Hawaii State Energy Profile. Retrieved from 

https://www.eia.gov/state/?sid=HI

U.S. Marine Corps. (2010). Final Environmental Assessment for Cove Outdoor Recreation Center and 

Marina Improvement Marine Corps Base Hawaii, Kaneohe Bay. Kaneohe Bay, HI.

Union of Concerned Scientists. (2008). How Hydrokinetic Energy Works (Clean Energy).

Van der Hoop, J. M., M. J. Moore, S. G. Barco, T. V. Cole, P. Y. Daoust, A. G. Henry, D. F. McAlpine, W. A. 

McLellan, T. Wimmer, & A. R. Solow. (2013). Assessment of management to mitigate 

anthropogenic effects on large whales. Conservation biology: the journal of the Society for 

Conservation Biology, 27(1), 121–133. 

van Hooidonk, R., J. A. Maynard, D. Manzello, & S. Planes. (2014). Opposite latitudinal gradients in 

projected ocean acidification and bleaching impacts on coral reefs. Global Change Biology, 20(1), 

103–112. 

Wallace, B. P., R. L. Lewison, S. L. McDonald, R. K. McDonald, C. Y. Kot, S. Kelez, R. K. Bjorkland, E. M. 

Finkbeiner, S. Helmbrecht, & L. B. Crowder. (2010). Global patterns of marine turtle bycatch. 

Conservation Letters, 3, 131–142. 

Waycott, M., C. M. Duarte, T. J. B. Carruthers, R. J. Orth, W. C. Dennison, S. Olyarnik, A. Calladine, J. W. 

Fourqurean, K. L. Heck, Jr., A. R. Hughes, G. A. Kendrick, W. J. Kenworthy, F. T. Short, & S. L. 

Williams. (2009). Accelerating loss of seagrasses across the globe threatens coastal ecosystems. 

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106(30), 12377–12381. 
5 Mitigation

Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

i

Table of Contents

Draft

Environmental Impact Statement/Overseas Environmental Impact Statement 

Hawaii-Southern California Training and Testing

TABLE OF CONTENTS

5 MITIGATION ..........................................................................................................................5-1

5.1 Introduction ..............................................................................................................5-1

5.1.1 Monitoring, Research, and Reporting Initiatives .................................................5-2

5.1.1.1 Marine Species Research and Monitoring Programs ............................5-2

5.1.1.2 Training and Testing Activity Reports....................................................5-6

5.1.1.3 Incident Reports.....................................................................................5-7

5.2 Mitigation Development............................................................................................5-7

5.2.1 Procedural Mitigation Development....................................................................5-7

5.2.2 Mitigation Area Development............................................................................5-10

5.2.3 Practicability of Implementation........................................................................5-11

5.3 Procedural Mitigation to be Implemented................................................................5-12

5.3.1 Environmental Awareness and Education .........................................................5-12

5.3.2 Acoustic Stressors...............................................................................................5-14

5.3.2.1 Active Sonar.........................................................................................5-14

5.3.2.2 Air Guns ...............................................................................................5-16

5.3.2.3 Pile Driving...........................................................................................5-18

5.3.2.4 Weapons Firing Noise..........................................................................5-19

5.3.3 Explosive Stressors.............................................................................................5-20

5.3.3.1 Explosive Sonobuoys............................................................................5-20

5.3.3.2 Explosive Torpedoes............................................................................5-22

5.3.3.3 Explosive Medium-Caliber and Large-Caliber 

Projectiles ............................................................................................5-23

5.3.3.4 Explosive Missiles and Rockets............................................................5-25

5.3.3.5 Explosive Bombs..................................................................................5-27

5.3.3.6 Sinking Exercises..................................................................................5-29

5.3.3.7 Explosive Mine Countermeasure and Neutralization 

Activities...............................................................................................5-31

5.3.3.8 Explosive Mine Neutralization Activities Involving 

Navy Divers..........................................................................................5-33

5.3.3.9 Underwater Demolition Multiple Charge – Mat Weave 

and Obstacle Loading...........................................................................5-35

5.3.3.10 Maritime Security Operations – Anti-Swimmer 

Grenades..............................................................................................5-37

5.3.4 Physical Disturbance and Strike Stressors..........................................................5-38

5.3.4.1 Vessel Movement................................................................................5-38

5.3.4.2 Towed In-Water Devices......................................................................5-39

5.3.4.3 Small-, Medium-, and Large-Caliber Non-Explosive 

Practice Munitions...............................................................................5-40

5.3.4.4 Non-Explosive Missiles and Rockets....................................................5-41
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

ii

Table of Contents

5.3.4.5 Non-Explosive Bombs and Mine Shapes..............................................5-43

5.4 Mitigation Areas to be Implemented........................................................................5-44

5.4.1 Mitigation Areas for Seafloor Resources............................................................5-44

5.4.1.1 Resource Description...........................................................................5-45

5.4.1.2 Mitigation Area Assessment................................................................5-45

5.4.2 Mitigation Areas for Marine Mammals in The Hawaii Range 

Complex..............................................................................................................5-49

5.4.2.1 Resource Description Summary...........................................................5-50

5.4.2.2 Summary of Mitigation Area Assessment ...........................................5-51

5.4.3 Mitigation Areas for Marine Mammals in the Southern 

California Portion of the Study Area ..................................................................5-55

5.4.3.1 Resource Description Summary...........................................................5-56

5.4.3.2 Summary of Mitigation Area Assessment ...........................................5-57

5.5 Measures Considered but Eliminated .......................................................................5-60

5.5.1 Measures Pertaining to Acoustic and Explosive Stressors.................................5-60

5.5.1.1 Reducing Training and Testing with Active Sonar, 

Modifying Sonar Sound Sources, and Time-of-Day 

Restrictions..........................................................................................5-60

5.5.1.2 Replacing Active Sonar Training with Computer 

Simulated Activities .............................................................................5-61

5.5.1.3 Restricting the Use of Explosives.........................................................5-62

5.5.2 Measures Pertaining to Procedural Mitigation..................................................5-62

5.5.2.1 Implementing Active Sonar Ramp-Up Procedures..............................5-62

5.5.2.2 Restricting Vessel Speed......................................................................5-63

5.5.2.3 Increasing Passive Acoustic Monitoring and Visual 

Observations........................................................................................5-64

5.5.2.4 Increasing the Size and Types of Mitigation Zones..............................5-66

5.5.2.5 Adopting Mitigation Measures of Foreign Navies...............................5-67

5.5.2.6 Increasing Reporting Requirements....................................................5-68

5.5.3 Measures Pertaining to Oceanographic Features or Geographic 

Locations ............................................................................................................5-68

5.6 Mitigation Summary ................................................................................................5-70

List of Figures 

Figure 5.4-1: Seafloor Resource Mitigation Areas off Hawaii..................................................................5-47

Figure 5.4-2: Seafloor Resource Mitigation Areas off Southern California .............................................5-48

Figure 5.4-3: Mitigation Areas for Marine Mammals in the Hawaii Range Complex ..............................5-54

Figure 5.4-4: Mitigation Areas for Marine Mammals in the Southern California Portion of 

the Study Area ....................................................................................................................5-59
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

iii

Table of Contents

List of Tables

Table 5.3-1: Procedural Mitigation for Environmental Awareness and Education .................................5-12

Table 5.3-2: Procedural Mitigation for Active Sonar ...............................................................................5-14

Table 5.3-3: Procedural Mitigation for Air Guns......................................................................................5-16

Table 5.3-4: Procedural Mitigation for Pile Driving .................................................................................5-18

Table 5.3-5: Procedural Mitigation for Weapons Firing Noise ................................................................5-19

Table 5.3-6: Procedural Mitigation for Explosive Sonobuoys..................................................................5-20

Table 5.3-7: Procedural Mitigation for Explosive Torpedoes ..................................................................5-22

Table 5.3-8: Procedural Mitigation for Explosive Medium-Caliber and Large-Caliber 

Projectiles ...........................................................................................................................5-23

Table 5.3-9: Procedural Mitigation for Explosive Missiles and Rockets..................................................5-25

Table 5.3-10: Procedural Mitigation for Explosive Bombs.......................................................................5-27

Table 5.3-11: Procedural Mitigation for Sinking Exercises ......................................................................5-29

Table 5.3-12: Procedural Mitigation for Explosive Mine Countermeasure and Neutralization 

Activities..............................................................................................................................5-31

Table 5.3-13: Procedural Mitigation for Explosive Mine Neutralization Activities Involving 

Navy Divers.........................................................................................................................5-33

Table 5.3-14: Procedural Mitigation for Underwater Demolition Multiple Charge – Mat 

Weave and Obstacle Loading..............................................................................................5-36

Table 5.3-15: Procedural Mitigation for Maritime Security Operations – Anti-Swimmer 

Grenades.............................................................................................................................5-37

Table 5.3-16: Procedural Mitigation for Vessel Movement.....................................................................5-39

Table 5.3-17: Procedural Mitigation for Towed In-Water Devices..........................................................5-39

Table 5.3-18: Procedural Mitigation for Small-, Medium-, and Large-Caliber Non-Explosive 

Practice Munitions..............................................................................................................5-40

Table 5.3-19: Procedural Mitigation for Non-Explosive Missiles and Rockets........................................5-42

Table 5.3-20: Procedural Mitigation for Non-Explosive Bombs and Mine Shapes..................................5-43

Table 5.4-1: Mitigation Areas for Seafloor Resources.............................................................................5-44

Table 5.4-2: Mitigation Areas for Marine Mammals in the Hawaii Range Complex ...............................5-49

Table 5.4-3: Mitigation Areas for Marine Mammals in the Southern California Portion of the 

Study Area...........................................................................................................................5-55

Table 5.6-1: Summary of Procedural Mitigation to be Implemented......................................................5-71

Table 5.6-2: Summary of Mitigation to be Implemented within Mitigation Areas.................................5-72
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

iv

Table of Contents

This page intentionally left blank.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

5-1

5.0 Mitigation

5 MITIGATION

5.1 INTRODUCTION

This chapter describes the mitigation measures that the Navy will implement to avoid or reduce 

potential impacts from the Hawaii-Southern California Training and Testing (HSTT) Environmental 

Impact Statement Draft (EIS)/Overseas Environmental Impact Statement (OEIS) Proposed Action, which 

is described in Chapter 2 (Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives) and analyzed in Chapter 3 

(Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences). The Navy has been mitigating impacts from 

its training and testing activities for more than 2 decades in accordance with past environmental 

compliance documents, as discussed in Section 1.2 (The Navy’s Environmental Compliance and At-Sea 

Policy). The Navy, in coordination with the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), developed a suite 

of mitigations for Phase I of environmental planning (2009–2014) and subsequently revised those 

mitigations for Phase II (2013–2018). For this Draft EIS/OEIS, which represents Phase III of 

environmental planning, the Navy reanalyzed existing Phase II mitigations. In addition, the Navy 

analyzed new mitigation proposals from Navy and NMFS scientists, the public, governmental agencies, 

and non-governmental organizations.

As described in Section 2.3.3 (Standard Operating Procedures), when conducting training and testing 

activities, the United States (U.S.) Department of the Navy (Navy) implements standard operating 

procedures that are integral to the safety of personnel, equipment, and the public; and the success of 

the activity. In many cases, standard operating procedures yield benefits to the resources analyzed in 

Chapter 3 (Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences). An example of a standard 

operating procedure is that ships operated by or for the Navy have personnel assigned to stand watch at 

all times when underway. Watch personnel undergo extensive training to qualify to stand watch. A 

primary duty of watch personnel is to detect and report all objects and disturbances sighted in the water 

that may be indicative of a threat to the ship and its crew, such as debris, a periscope, a surfaced 

submarine, or a surface disturbance. The standard operating procedures for vessel safety could result in 

a benefit to marine mammals through a reduction in the potential for vessel strike. Because standard 

operating procedures are essential components of the Proposed Action, they are detailed in Chapter 2 

(Description of the Proposed Action and Alternatives) and factored into the Chapter 3 (Affected 

Environment and Environmental Consequences) environmental analyses.

The Chapter 3 (Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences) environmental analyses 

indicate that certain acoustic, explosive, and physical disturbance and strike stressors have the potential 

to impact certain biological or cultural resources (some of which have a high socioeconomic value in the 

Study Area). The Navy incorporated the mitigation described in Section 5.3 (Procedural Mitigation to be 

Implemented) and Section 5.4 (Mitigation Areas to be Implemented) into the environmental analyses 

for those stressors for both Alternative 1 and Alternative 2 of the Proposed Action, and will implement 

mitigation for either action alternative. The mitigation measures are designed to achieve one or more 

benefit, such as the following:

• Effect the least practicable adverse impact on marine mammal species or stocks and their 

habitat, and have a negligible impact on marine mammal species and stocks (as required under 

the Marine Mammal Protection Act [MMPA]);

• Ensure that the Proposed Action does not jeopardize the continued existence of endangered or 

threatened species, or result in destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat (as 

required under the Endangered Species Act [ESA]);
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

5-2

5.0 Mitigation

• Avoid or minimize adverse effects on essential fish habitat (as required under the MagnusonStevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act); and 

• Avoid adversely impacting shipwrecks (as required under the Abandoned Shipwreck Act and 

National Historic Preservation Act).

Mitigation will be coordinated with NMFS and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) through the 

consultation and permitting processes. The Navy and NMFS Records of Decision, MMPA Regulations and 

Letters of Authorization, and ESA Biological Opinions will document all mitigation that the Navy will 

implement under the Proposed Action. Should the Navy require a change in how it implements 

mitigation based on national security concerns or evolving readiness requirements, the Navy will engage 

the appropriate agencies, and through adaptive management will reevaluate its mitigation. Details on 

the Navy’s adaptive approach to adjusting mitigation for national security or other factors (e.g., 

significant advancements of the best available science) are discussed in Section 5.1.1.1.1 (Adaptive 

Management). This approach will be coordinated with NMFS during the consultation process and will be 

included in the MMPA regulations.

To disseminate mitigation requirements to the Navy training and testing community (i.e., operational

community), the Navy will input all Phase III mitigation into its Protective Measures Assessment Protocol 

and appropriate governing instructions. The Protective Measures Assessment Protocol is a software tool 

that serves as the Navy’s comprehensive data source for at-sea mitigation. The software tool provides 

operators with notification of the required mitigation and a visual display of the planned training or 

testing activity location overlaid with relevant environmental data (e.g., mapped locations of shallowwater coral reefs). Navy policy requires applicable personnel to access the Protective Measures 

Assessment Protocol during the event planning process (i.e., prior to conducting at-sea training and 

testing activities) to receive mitigation instruction and to help ensure that mitigation is implemented 

appropriately.

5.1.1 MONITORING, RESEARCH, AND REPORTING INITIATIVES

In addition to mitigation, the Navy will continue its marine species monitoring and research programs,

training and testing activity reporting, and marine species incident reporting initiatives. Many of these 

programs and reporting initiatives have been ongoing for more than a decade and are a compliance 

requirement for the MMPA or ESA. The Navy and NMFS use the information contained within 

monitoring, research, activity, and incident reports when evaluating the effectiveness and practicability 

of mitigation, when determining if adaptive adjustments to mitigation may be appropriate, and to 

facilitate a better understanding of the biological resources that inhabit the Study Area, as well as the 

impacts of the Proposed Action on those resources.

5.1.1.1 Marine Species Research and Monitoring Programs

Through its marine species research and monitoring programs, the Navy is one of the nation’s largest 

sponsors of scientific research and monitoring on marine species. Detailed information on these 

programs is provided in Section 3.0.1.1 (Marine Species Monitoring and Research Programs). Navy 

research programs focus on investments in basic and applied research that will increase fundamental 

knowledge and provide technology options for future naval capabilities. Navy monitoring programs 

focus on the potential effects of training and testing activities on biological resources. Monitoring 

reports can be found on the Navy’s marine species monitoring webpage, and future reports will be 

posted online as they become available. Specific details regarding the content of the reports will be 

coordinated with the appropriate agencies through the permitting processes. Additional information 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

5-3

5.0 Mitigation

about the U.S. Navy Marine Species Monitoring Program, including its adaptive management and 

strategic planning components, is provided in the sections below.

5.1.1.1.1 Adaptive Management

Adaptive management is an iterative process of decision-making that accounts for changes in the 

environment and scientific understanding over time through a system of monitoring and feedback. 

Within the natural resource management community, adaptive management involves ongoing, 

real-time learning and knowledge creation, both in a substantive sense and in terms of the adaptive 

process itself. Adaptive management focuses on learning and adapting, through partnerships of natural 

resource managers, scientists, and other stakeholders. Adaptive management helps managers maintain 

flexibility in their decisions and provides them the latitude to change direction to improve 

understanding of ecological systems and achieve management objectives. Taking action to improve 

progress toward desired outcomes is another function of adaptive management.

The adaptive management review process and reporting requirements serve as the basis for evaluating 

performance and compliance. The adaptive management review process involves technical review 

meetings and ongoing discussions between the Navy, NMFS, the Marine Mammal Commission, and 

other experts in the scientific community. Revisions to the compliance monitoring structure as a result 

of adaptive management review have included the development of the Strategic Planning Process (U.S. 

Department of the Navy, 2013), which is a planning tool for selection and management of monitoring 

investments, and its incorporation into the Integrated Comprehensive Monitoring Program. Recent 

monitoring efforts address the Integrated Comprehensive Monitoring Program top-level goals through a 

collection of specific regional and ocean basin studies based on scientific objectives.

5.1.1.1.2 Integrated Comprehensive Monitoring Program

The Integrated Comprehensive Monitoring Program (U.S. Department of the Navy, 2010) provides the 

overarching framework for coordination of the Navy’s marine species monitoring efforts and serves as a 

planning tool to focus Navy monitoring priorities pursuant to ESA and MMPA requirements. The purpose 

of the Integrated Comprehensive Monitoring Program is to coordinate monitoring efforts across all 

regions and to allocate the most appropriate level and type of monitoring effort for each range complex 

based on a set of standardized objectives, regional expertise, and resource availability. Although the 

Integrated Comprehensive Monitoring Program does not identify specific field work or individual 

projects, it is designed to provide a flexible, scalable, and adaptable framework using adaptive 

management and strategic planning processes that periodically assess progress and reevaluate 

objectives.

The Integrated Comprehensive Monitoring Program is evaluated through the adaptive management 

review process to: (1) assess progress, (2) provide a matrix of goals and objectives, and (3) make 

recommendations for refinement and analysis of monitoring and mitigation techniques. This process 

includes conducting an annual adaptive management review meeting, at which the Navy and NMFS 

jointly consider the prior-year goals, monitoring results, and related scientific advances to determine if 

monitoring plan modifications are warranted to address program goals more effectively. Modifications 

to the Integrated Comprehensive Monitoring Program that result from annual adaptive management 

review discussions are incorporated by an addendum or revision to the Integrated Comprehensive 

Monitoring Program as needed. As a planning tool, the Integrated Comprehensive Monitoring Program 

will be routinely updated as the program evolves and progresses. 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

5-4

5.0 Mitigation

Under the Integrated Comprehensive Monitoring Program, Navy-funded monitoring relating to the 

effects of Navy training and testing activities on protected marine species is designed to accomplish one 

or more top-level goals as described in the current version of the Integrated Comprehensive Monitoring 

Program charter (U.S. Department of the Navy, 2010): 

• An increase in the understanding of the likely occurrence of marine mammals and ESA-listed 

marine species in the vicinity of the action (i.e., presence, abundance, distribution, and density 

of species).

• An increase in the understanding of the nature, scope, or context of the likely exposure of 

marine mammals and ESA-listed species to any of the potential stressors associated with the 

action (e.g., sound, explosive detonation, or military expended materials), through better 

understanding of one or more of the following: (1) the nature of the action and its surrounding 

environment (e.g., sound-source characterization, propagation, and ambient noise levels), (2) 

the affected species (e.g., life history or dive patterns), (3) the likely co-occurrence of marine 

mammals and ESA-listed marine species with the action (in whole or part), and (4) the likely 

biological or behavioral context of exposure to the stressor for the marine mammal and ESAlisted marine species (e.g., age class of exposed animals or known pupping, calving or feeding 

areas).

• An increase in the understanding of how individual marine mammals or ESA-listed marine 

species respond (behaviorally or physiologically) to the specific stressors associated with the 

action (in specific contexts, where possible [e.g., at what distance or received level]).

• An increase in the understanding of how anticipated individual responses, to individual stressors 

or anticipated combinations of stressors, may impact either: (1) the long-term fitness and 

survival of an individual; or (2) the population, species, or stock (e.g., through impacts on annual 

rates of recruitment or survival).

• An increase in the understanding of the effectiveness of mitigation and monitoring measures.

• A better understanding and record of the manner in which the authorized entity complies with 

the Incidental Take Authorization and Incidental Take Statement.

• An increase in the probability of detecting marine mammals (through improved technology or 

methods), both specifically within the mitigation zone (thus allowing for more effective 

implementation of the mitigation) and in general, to better achieve the above goals.

The Navy established the Scientific Advisory Group in 2011 with the initial task of evaluating current 

Navy monitoring approaches under the Integrated Comprehensive Monitoring Plan and existing MMPA 

Regulations and Letters of Authorization and developing objective scientific recommendations that 

would form the basis for the Strategic Plan. While recommendations were fairly broad and not 

specifically prescriptive, the Scientific Advisory Group did provide specific programmatic 

recommendations that serve as guiding principles for the continued evolution of the Integrated 

Comprehensive Monitoring Program. Key recommendations included:

• Working within a conceptual framework of knowledge, from basic information on the 

occurrence of species within each range complex, to more specific matters of exposure, 

response, and consequences.

• Facilitating collaboration among researchers in each region, with the intent to develop a 

coherent and synergistic regional monitoring and research effort.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

5-5

5.0 Mitigation

• Striving to move away from effort-based compliance metrics (e.g., completing a pre-determined 

amount of survey hours or days, or number of surveys). Monitoring studies should be designed 

and conducted according to scientific objectives, rather than on effort expended.

• Approaching the monitoring program holistically and selecting projects that offer the best 

opportunity to advance understanding of the issues, as opposed to establishing range-specific 

requirements.

5.1.1.1.3 Strategic Planning Process

The U.S. Navy Marine Species Monitoring Program has evolved and improved as a result of the adaptive 

management review process through changes that include:

• Recognizing the limitations of effort-based compliance metrics; 

• Developing a strategic approach to monitoring based on recommendations from the Scientific 

Advisory Group (U.S. Department of the Navy, 2013);

• Shifting focus to projects based on scientific objectives that facilitate generation of statistically 

meaningful results upon which natural resources management decisions may be based;

• Focusing on priority species or areas of interest as well as best opportunities to address specific 

monitoring objectives to maximize return on investment; and

• Increasing transparency of the program and management standards, improving collaboration 

among participating researchers, and improving accessibility to data and information resulting 

from monitoring activities.

The Strategic Planning Process (U.S. Department of the Navy, 2013) serves to guide the investment of 

resources to most efficiently address Integrated Comprehensive Monitoring Program objectives and 

intermediate scientific objectives. The U.S. Navy Marine Species Monitoring Program has undergone a 

transition with the implementation of the Strategic Planning Process, with a focus on intermediate 

scientific objectives as the basis for developing and executing new monitoring projects across Navy 

training and testing areas in the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. Implementation of the Strategic Planning 

Process involves coordination among fleets, system commands, Chief of Naval Operations Energy and 

Environmental Readiness Division, NMFS, and the Marine Mammal Commission through five primary 

steps:

• Identify overarching intermediate scientific objectives. Through the adaptive management 

process, the Navy coordinates with NMFS as well as the Marine Mammal Commission to review 

and revise the list of intermediate scientific objectives that are used to guide development of 

individual monitoring projects. Examples include addressing information gaps in species 

occurrence and density, evaluating behavioral responses of marine mammals to Navy training 

and testing activities, and developing tools and techniques for passive acoustic monitoring.

• Develop individual monitoring project concepts. This step generally takes the form of soliciting 

input from the scientific community in terms of potential monitoring projects that address one 

or more of the intermediate scientific objectives. This can be accomplished through a variety of 

forums, including professional societies, regional scientific advisory groups, and contractor 

support.

• Evaluate, prioritize, and select monitoring projects. Navy technical experts and program 

managers review and evaluate all monitoring project concepts and develop a prioritized ranking. 

The goal of this step is to establish a suite of monitoring projects that address a cross-section of 

intermediate scientific objectives spread over a variety of range complexes. 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

5-6

5.0 Mitigation

• Execute and manage selected monitoring projects. Individual projects are initiated through 

appropriate funding mechanisms and include clearly defined objectives and deliverables (e.g., 

data, reports, publications).

• Report and evaluate progress and results. Progress on individual monitoring projects is updated 

through the U.S. Navy Marine Species Monitoring Program website as well as annual monitoring 

reports submitted to NMFS. Both internal review and discussions with NMFS through the 

adaptive management process are used to evaluate progress toward addressing the primary 

objectives of the Integrated Comprehensive Monitoring Program and serve to periodically 

recalibrate the focus of the monitoring program.

These steps serve three primary purposes: (1) to facilitate the Navy in developing specific projects 

addressing one or more intermediate scientific objectives; (2) to establish a more structured and 

collaborative framework for developing, evaluating, and selecting monitoring projects across all areas 

where the Navy conducts training and testing activities; and (3) to maximize the opportunity for input

and involvement across the research community, academia, and industry. Furthermore, this process is 

designed to integrate various elements, including:

• Integrated Comprehensive Monitoring Program top-level goals

• Scientific Advisory Group recommendations

• Regional scientific expert input

• Ongoing adaptive management review dialog between NMFS and the Navy

• Lessons learned from past monitoring of Navy training and testing

• Leveraging research and lessons learned from other Navy-funded science programs

The Strategic Planning Process will continue to shape the future of the U.S. Navy Marine Species 

Monitoring Program and serve as the primary decision-making tool for guiding investments. Information 

on monitoring projects currently underway in the Atlantic and Pacific oceans, as well as results, reports, 

and publications can be accessed through the U.S. Navy Marine Species Monitoring Program website.

5.1.1.2 Training and Testing Activity Reports

The Navy developed the classified Sonar Positional Reporting System as its internal record of 

underwater sound sources (e.g., active sonar) used during training and testing, and to facilitate 

reporting pursuant to its MMPA Regulations and Letters of Authorization. Using data from the Sonar

Positional Reporting System and other relevant sources, the Navy will continue to provide the NMFS 

Office of Protected Resources with classified or unclassified (depending on the data) annual reports on 

the training and testing activities that use underwater sound sources. The annual training and testing 

activity reports will describe the level of training and testing conducted during the reporting period. The 

Navy will continue reporting the total hours of operation of surface ship hull-mounted mid-frequency 

active sonar used within the Humpback Whale Special Reporting Area (which contains the Humpback 

Whale National Marine Sanctuary plus a 5-kilometer (km) buffer around the sanctuary, excluding the 

Pacific Missile Range Facility) from December 15 through April 15 in any associated annual training or 

testing activity reports. The reports will aid the Navy and NMFS in continuing to analyze the 

effectiveness of mitigation in the Hawaii Range Complex during the adaptive management process. For 

additional information, refer to Section 5.4.2 (Mitigation Areas for Marine Mammals in the Hawaii 

Range Complex). Unclassified annual training and testing activity reports that have been submitted to 

NMFS can be found on the NMFS Office of Protected Resources webpage.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

5-7

5.0 Mitigation

5.1.1.3 Incident Reports

To provide information on incidents involving biological resources (e.g., strikes and strandings), the Navy 

will continue to submit the appropriate reports to management authorities, as described below:

• Birds: As described in Section 2.3.3.3 (Aircraft Safety), bird strikes present an aviation safety risk 

for aircrews and aircraft. The Navy will report all bird strikes per standard operating procedures.

• Marine Mammals: If the Navy observes a strike or stranding of a marine mammal during 

training or testing, the Navy will notify the appropriate regulatory agency, which may include 

NMFS or the USFWS, immediately or as soon as operational security considerations allow. The 

Navy will continue to provide the appropriate personnel with training on marine mammal 

incidents and their associated reporting requirements to aid the data collection and reporting 

process (see Section 5.3.1, Environmental Awareness and Education). Information on marine 

mammal strandings is included in the U.S. Navy Marine Mammal Program (2017) technical 

report titled Marine Mammal Strandings Associated with U.S. Navy Sonar Activities. 

• Sea Turtles: The Navy will immediately (or as soon as operational security considerations allow) 

notify NMFS if a dead or seriously injured sea turtle is observed during Navy training or testing

activities that is potentially attributable to these activities, including but not limited to the use of 

explosives and vessel strikes. If the Navy observes one or more dead or seriously injured sea 

turtles in each of two consecutive years during Navy training and testing activities that is 

potentially attributable to these activities, the Navy shall contact NMFS to determine if 

reinitiation is required. The Navy will also conduct annual reviews of sea turtle stranding data 

from the regional NMFS stranding office to determine if any unusual stranding events or 

increases in stranding rates may be attributed to Navy training and testing.

• Cultural Resources: In the event the Navy impacts a submerged historic property (e.g., 

archaeological resource), it will immediately commence consultation with the appropriate State 

Historic Preservation Office in accordance with 36 Code of Federal Regulations section 

800.13(a)(3).

5.2 MITIGATION DEVELOPMENT

Navy operators, environmental planners, and scientific experts developed mitigation that is likely to be 

effective at avoiding or reducing impacts on biological or cultural resources, and that is practicable to 

implement by the definitions provided in Section 5.2.3 (Practicability of Implementation). The Navy’s 

mitigation is organized into two categories: procedural mitigation and mitigation areas. Background 

information and the Navy’s methods for developing mitigation are presented in the sections below.

5.2.1 PROCEDURAL MITIGATION DEVELOPMENT

Procedural mitigation is mitigation that the Navy will implement whenever and wherever an applicable 

training or testing activity takes place within the Study Area. The Navy customizes procedural mitigation 

for each applicable training and testing activity category or stressor. Procedural mitigation generally 

involves: (1) the use of one or more trained Lookouts to diligently observe for specific biological 

resources within a mitigation zone, (2) requirements for Lookouts to immediately communicate 

sightings of specific biological resources to the appropriate watch station for information dissemination, 

and (3) requirements for the watch station to implement mitigation (e.g., halt an activity) until certain 

recommencement conditions have been met. To supplement the implementation of mitigation, the 

Navy has agreed to undertake reporting initiatives for certain activities based on previous consultations 

with NMFS and the USFWS, as summarized in Section 5.1.1 (Monitoring, Research, and Reporting 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

5-8

5.0 Mitigation

Initiatives) and detailed where applicable in Section 5.3 (Procedural Mitigation to be Implemented). For 

some activities, the Navy agreed during previous consultations with NMFS or the USFWS to adapt some 

of its procedural mitigation for particular resources at certain locations, and plans to continue these 

mitigations for Phase III (e.g., mitigation for ESA-listed scalloped hammerhead sharks within the 

Southern California Range Complex, as discussed in Section 5.3.3.8, Explosive Mine Neutralization 

Activities Involving Navy Divers).

Lookouts are personnel who perform similar duties as the standard watch personnel described in 

Section 2.3.3 (Standard Operating Procedures), such as observing for objects that could present a 

potential danger to the observation platform (e.g., debris in the water, incoming vessels, incoming 

aircraft). Lookouts have an additional duty of helping meet the Navy’s mitigation requirements by 

visually observing mitigation zones. Mitigation zones are areas at the surface of the water (measured as 

the radius from a stressor) within which training or testing activities would be halted, powered down, or 

modified to protect specific biological resources from an injurious impact (e.g., Permanent Threshold 

Shift [PTS], vessel strike). Procedural mitigation does not pertain to stressors that do not have the 

potential to impact biological resources (e.g., de minimis acoustic and explosive sources that do not 

have the potential to impact marine mammals). Procedural mitigation primarily involves observing for 

marine mammals and sea turtles; however, for some activities, Lookouts may also be required to 

observe for additional biological resources, such as birds, fish, jellyfish aggregations, or floating 

vegetation. In this chapter, the term “floating vegetation” refers specifically to floating concentrations of 

detached kelp paddies and Sargassum. The Navy observes for these additional biological resources 

during certain activities to protect ESA-listed species or to offer an additional layer of protection for 

marine mammals and sea turtles. Some biological resources can be indicators of potential marine 

mammal or sea turtle presence because marine mammals or sea turtles have been known to seek 

shelter in, feed on, or feed among them. For example, young sea turtles have been known to hide from 

predators and eat the algae associated with floating concentrations of Sargassum.

Depending on the activity, a Lookout may be positioned on a ship (i.e., surface ships and surfaced 

submarines), on a small boat (e.g., a rigid-hull inflatable boat), in an aircraft, on a pier, or on the shore. 

Certain platforms, such as aircraft and small boats, have manning or space restrictions; therefore, the 

Lookout on these platforms is typically an existing member of the aircraft or boat crew (e.g., pilot) who 

is responsible for other essential tasks (e.g., navigation). When Lookouts are positioned in aircraft, 

mission requirements determine the flight parameters (altitude, flight path, and speed) for the fixedwing or rotary-wing aircraft involved in the activity. For example, most fixed-wing aircraft sorties would 

occur above 3,000 feet (ft.), while most rotary-wing sorties associated with mine countermeasures 

would occur at altitudes as low as 75–100 ft. On platforms that do not have manning and space 

restrictions (such as large ships), the Officer of the Deck, a member of the bridge watch team, or other 

personnel may be designated as the Lookout. The Navy is unable to position Lookouts on unmanned 

vehicles and unmanned aerial systems, or have Lookouts observe during activities that use systems 

deployed from or towed by unmanned platforms.

The Navy’s passive acoustic devices (e.g., remote acoustic sensors, expendable sonobuoys, passive 

acoustic sensors on submarines) can complement visual observations when passive acoustic assets are 

already participating in an activity. When in use, the passive acoustic assets can detect vocalizing marine 

mammals within the frequency bands already being monitored by Navy personnel. Passive acoustic 

detections would not provide range or bearing to detected animals, and therefore cannot be used to 

determine an animal’s location or confirm its presence in a mitigation zone. Marine mammal detections 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

5-9

5.0 Mitigation

made with the use of passive acoustic devices will be communicated to Lookouts to alert them of 

possible marine mammal presence in the vicinity. Lookouts will use the information from passive 

acoustic monitoring to assist their visual observations of the mitigation zone. 

The Navy takes several courses of action in response to a sighting of an applicable biological resource in 

a mitigation zone. First, a Lookout will communicate the sighting to the appropriate watch station. Next, 

the watch station will implement the prescribed mitigation (e.g., powering down sonar, halting an 

explosion, maneuvering a vessel). If floating vegetation is observed prior to the initial start of an activity, 

the activity will either be relocated to an area where floating vegetation is not observed in 

concentrations, or the initial start of the activity will be halted until the mitigation zone is clear of 

floating vegetation concentrations (there is no requirement to halt activities if vegetation floats into the 

mitigation zone after activities commence). For sightings of marine mammals, sea turtles, or other 

specified biological resources during an activity, the Navy will continue mitigating until one of the five 

recommencement conditions listed below has been met. The recommencement conditions are designed 

to allow a sighted animal to leave the mitigation zone before an activity or the use of a stressor

resumes.

• The animal is observed exiting the mitigation zone;

• The animal is thought to have exited the mitigation zone based on a determination of its course, 

speed, and movement relative to the stressor source;

• The mitigation zone has been clear from any additional sightings for a specific wait period;

• For mobile activities, the stressor source has transited a distance equal to double that of the 

mitigation zone size beyond the location of the last sighting; or

• For activities using hull-mounted sonar, the ship concludes that dolphins are deliberately closing 

in on the ship to ride the ship’s bow wave, and are therefore out of the main transmission axis 

of the sonar (and there are no other marine mammal sightings within the mitigation zone).

In some instances, such as if an animal dives underwater after a sighting, it may not be possible for a 

Lookout to visually verify if that animal has left the mitigation zone. To account for this, one of the 

recommencement conditions is an established post-sighting wait period. Wait periods are designed to 

allow animals time to resurface and be available to be sighted again before an activity or the use of a 

stressor resumes. The Navy assigns a 30-minute (min.) wait period to activities conducted from vessels 

and activities that involve aircraft that are not typically fuel constrained (e.g., maritime patrol aircraft) 

because 30 min. is the maximum amount of time that those activities can be halted without preventing 

the activity from meeting its intended objective or increasing the risk to aircraft safety. For example, 

ceasing the transmission of active sonar beyond 30 min. would eliminate valuable opportunities to 

detect submarines, objects, or other exercise targets as would be required in a real world combat 

situation; would reduce the sonar operator’s situational awareness of the environment where the 

training or testing is occurring; and would therefore have a detrimental impact on the realism and 

effectiveness of the exercise. A 30 min. period covers the average dive times of most marine mammals, 

and a portion of the dive times of sea turtles and deep-diving marine mammals (i.e., sperm whales, 

dwarf and pygmy sperm whales [Kogia species], and beaked whales). The Navy assigns a shorter wait 

period of 10 min. to activities that involve aircraft with fuel constraints (e.g., rotary-wing aircraft [i.e., 

helicopters], fighter aircraft) because 10 min. is the maximum amount of time that those activities can 

be halted without compromising safety due to aircraft fuel restrictions. For example, ceasing bombing 

activities beyond 10 min. would require aircraft to depart the activity location to refuel. Multiple 

refueling events would extend the length of the activity by 2–5 times or more, which would increase 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

5-10

5.0 Mitigation

pilot fatigue and the associated risk to pilot and aircraft safety, and would eliminate opportunities for 

aircrews to approach surface targets and deploy bombs as would be required in a real world combat 

situation. A 10 min. period covers a portion of the marine mammal and sea turtle dive times, but not the 

average dive times of all species.

The Navy worked collaboratively with the appropriate regulatory agencies to develop its procedural 

mitigation, and will continue to do so through the consultation processes. Data inputs included 

operational data, the best available science discussed in Chapter 3 (Affected Environment and 

Environmental Consequences), published literature, marine mammal and sea turtle range to effects data 

obtained through acoustic modeling, marine species monitoring and density data, and the most recent 

guidance from NMFS and the USFWS. Background information on the data that were used to develop 

the ranges to effect, such as hearing threshold metrics, is provided in Chapter 3.7 (Marine Mammals) 

and Chapter 3.8 (Reptiles). Information on the acoustic and explosive source bins and sound levels for 

stressors that the Navy analyzed in the DEIS/OEIS is provided in Section 3.0.3.3 (Identifying Stressors for 

Analysis). A discussion about how each mitigation zone was developed, to what level of effect they likely 

mitigate, and if they were modified from Phase II is provided for each mitigation measure in Section 5.3 

(Procedural Mitigation to be Implemented). To further consider the benefits of mitigation to marine 

mammals and sea turtles within the MMPA and ESA impact estimates, the Navy conservatively factored 

mitigation effectiveness into its quantitative analysis process, as described in the technical report titled 

Quantitative Analysis for Estimating Acoustic and Explosive Impacts to Marine Mammals and Sea Turtles

(U.S. Department of the Navy, 2017). The Navy’s quantitative analysis assumes that Lookouts would not 

be 100 percent effective at detecting all species for every activity because of the inherent limitations of 

observing marine species, and since the likelihood of sighting individual animals is largely dependent on 

observation conditions (e.g., time of day, sea state, mitigation zone size, observation platform). This is 

particularly true for sea turtles, small marine mammals, and marine mammals that display cryptic 

behaviors (e.g., surfacing to breathe with only a small portion of their body visible from the surface).

5.2.2 MITIGATION AREA DEVELOPMENT

Mitigation areas are geographic locations in the Study Area where the Navy will implement additional 

measures during all or a part of the year. Implementing additional measures within mitigation areas is a 

means for the Navy to further avoid or reduce impacts on marine mammals, to implement mitigation for 

stationary biological resources that are not observable by Lookouts from the water’s surface, and to 

implement mitigation for cultural resources.

The Navy reanalyzed existing mitigation areas and considered new habitat areas suggested by the 

public, NMFS, and other non-Navy organizations. The Navy worked collaboratively with NMFS to 

develop mitigation areas using inputs from the operational community, the best available science 

discussed in Chapter 3 (Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences), published literature, 

predicted activity impact footprints, and marine species monitoring and density data. The Navy will 

continue to work with NMFS to finalize its mitigation areas through the consultation processes. A 

detailed discussion of individual mitigation areas is provided in Section 5.4 (Mitigation Areas to be 

Implemented). The Navy considered a mitigation area to be effective if it met the following criteria:

• The mitigation area is a key area of biological or ecological importance or contains cultural 

resources: The best available science suggests that the mitigation area contains submerged 

cultural resources (e.g., shipwrecks) or is important to one or more species or resources for a 

biologically important life process (e.g., foraging, migration, reproduction) or ecological function 

(e.g., shallow-water coral reefs that provide critical ecosystem functions); and
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

5-11

5.0 Mitigation

• The mitigation would result in an avoidance or reduction of impacts: Implementing the 

mitigation would likely result in an avoidance or reduction of impacts on (1) species, stocks, or 

populations of marine mammals based on data regarding seasonality, density, and animal 

behavior; or (2) other biological or cultural resources based on their distribution and physical 

properties. Furthermore, implementing the mitigation would not wittingly shift or transfer 

adverse effects from one species to another, or to a more vulnerable or sensitive species.

A full technical analysis of the mitigation areas that the Navy considered for marine mammals is 

provided in Appendix K (Geographic Mitigation Assessment for Areas under Consideration within the 

Hawaii-Southern California Training and Testing Study Area). The appendix includes background 

information and additional details for each of the areas considered, which include mitigation areas 

developed for Phase II, biologically important areas identified by Van Parijs et al. (2015), provisional 

2015 prohibited or restricted areas derived from the 2015 HSTT Phase II-related lawsuit, areas identified 

by the California Coastal Commission, and areas identified during the National Environmental Policy Act 

scoping process. The mitigation areas that the Navy is developing as a result of the technical analysis are 

summarized in Section 5.4.2 (Mitigation Areas for Marine Mammals in the Hawaii Range Complex) and 

Section 5.4.3 (Mitigation Areas for Marine Mammals in the Southern California Portion of the Study 

Area). The Navy will continue collaborating with NMFS through the consultation process to finalize its

mitigation areas within the HSTT Study Area. Section 5.5 (Measures Considered but Eliminated) contains 

information on measures that the Navy will not implement under the Proposed Action.

5.2.3 PRACTICABILITY OF IMPLEMENTATION

Alternative 1 and Alternative 2 of the Proposed Action require access to waters throughout the Study 

Area within range complexes, pierside locations, nearshore areas, and large-scale open ocean areas of

the high seas. Each of these areas plays a critical role in the Navy’s ability to plan, schedule, and 

effectively execute military readiness activities. The Navy operational community assessed how and to 

what degree mitigation implementation would be compatible with planning, scheduling, and conducting 

training and testing activities under the Proposed Action. Data inputs included information from 

training, testing, and monitoring reports, and feedback from members of the training and testing 

community who are responsible for implementing the mitigation. On an area-by-area and activity-byactivity basis, the Navy considered mitigation to be practicable to implement if it met all criteria listed 

below:

• Implementing the mitigation is safe: The mitigation would not increase safety risks to Navy 

personnel and equipment, or to the public. This includes factoring in the availability of aircraft 

emergency landing fields and the ability to de-conflict platforms and activities to ensure that 

training and testing activities do not impact each other, to avoid interaction with established 

commercial air traffic routes, and to avoid commercial vessel shipping lanes.

• Implementing the mitigation is sustainable: Activities are scheduled in proximity to homeports, 

home bases, associated training ranges, testing facilities, air squadrons, and existing 

infrastructure (e.g., instrumented underwater and land ranges) to maximize capabilities and 

minimize fuel use, transport time, and the time personnel must spend away from home. The 

mitigation would not result in excessive time away from homeport for Navy personnel or an 

impracticable increase in resource requirements, such as wear and tear on equipment, 

additional fuel, additional personnel, additional funding, or undue shifting of time spent on 

operational obligations to other tasks (e.g., external requirements that would take time away 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

5-12

5.0 Mitigation

from focusing on mission requirements); and the mitigation is within the Navy’s legal authority 

to implement. 

• Implementing the mitigation allows the Navy to continue meeting its Title 10 requirements to 

successfully accomplish military readiness objectives: The Navy requires access to a variety of 

realistic tactical oceanographic and environmental conditions (e.g., varied bathymetry and open 

sea space) to maximize training effectiveness and meet testing program requirements, and the 

availability of sea space and air space that is large enough for training or testing activities to be 

completed without physical or logistical obstructions. Activities are planned and scheduled in 

compliance with the Optimized Fleet Response Plan, which details instructions on manning 

distribution, range scheduling, operational requirements, maintenance and modernization 

plans, quality of work and life for personnel, achieving training capabilities, and meeting 

strategic readiness objectives. The mitigation would not modify training and testing activities in 

a way that prevents the activity from meeting their intended objectives; does not cause an 

erosion of capabilities or reduction in perishable skills; does not decrease training or testing 

realism or access to necessary environmental or oceanographic conditions; does not present 

national security concerns (such as a reduction in the Navy’s ability to be ready, maintain 

deployment schedules, or respond to national emergencies; or a requirement to provide 

advance notification of specific times and locations of Navy platforms, such as sonar, in a way 

that would compromise security); does not prevent ready access to facilities or range support 

structures; does not impede shipboard maintenance, repairs, or pierside testing prior to at-sea 

operations; and does not unduly delay testing associated with required acquisition milestones 

or as required on an as-needed basis to meet operational requirements.

5.3 PROCEDURAL MITIGATION TO BE IMPLEMENTED

The first procedural mitigation (Section 5.3.1, Environmental Awareness and Education) is designed to 

aid Lookouts and other personnel with observation, environmental compliance, and reporting

responsibilities. The remaining procedural mitigations are organized by stressor type and training or 

testing activity category.

5.3.1 ENVIRONMENTAL AWARENESS AND EDUCATION

The Navy will continue implementing procedural mitigation to provide environmental awareness and 

education to the appropriate personnel to aid visual observation, environmental compliance, and 

reporting responsibilities, as outlined in Table 5.3-1.

Table 5.3-1: Procedural Mitigation for Environmental Awareness and Education

Procedural Mitigation Description

Stressor or Activity

• All training and testing activities, as applicable

Resource Protection Focus

• Marine mammals

• Sea turtles

Number of Lookouts and Observation Platform

• Not applicable

Mitigation Zone Size and Mitigation Requirements

• Appropriate personnel (including civilian personnel) involved in mitigation and training or testing activity 

reporting under the Proposed Action will complete one or more modules of the U.S Navy Afloat 

Environmental Compliance Training Series, as identified in their career path training plan. Modules include:
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

5-13

5.0 Mitigation

Table 5.3-1: Procedural Mitigation for Environmental Awareness and Education (continued)

Procedural Mitigation Description

− Introduction to the U.S. Navy Afloat Environmental Compliance Training Series. The introductory 

module provides information on environmental laws (e.g., ESA, MMPA) and the corresponding 

responsibilities that are relevant to Navy training and testing activities. The material explains why 

environmental compliance is important in supporting the Navy’s commitment to environmental 

stewardship.

− Marine Species Awareness Training. All bridge watch personnel, Commanding Officers, Executive 

Officers, maritime patrol aircraft aircrews, anti-submarine warfare and mine warfare rotary-wing 

aircrews, Lookouts, and equivalent civilian personnel must successfully complete the Marine Species 

Awareness Training prior to standing watch or serving as a Lookout. The Marine Species Awareness 

Training provides information on sighting cues, visual observation tools and techniques, and sighting

notification procedures. Navy biologists developed Marine Species Awareness Training to improve the 

effectiveness of visual observations for biological resources, focusing on marine mammals and sea 

turtles, and including floating vegetation, jellyfish aggregations, and flocks of seabirds.

− U.S. Navy Protective Measures Assessment Protocol. This module provides the necessary instruction 

for accessing mitigation requirements during the event planning phase using the Protective Measures 

Assessment Protocol software tool.

− U.S. Navy Sonar Positional Reporting System and Marine Mammal Incident Reporting. This module 

provides instruction on the procedures and activity reporting requirements for the Sonar Positional 

Reporting System and marine mammal incident reporting.

The Navy requires Lookouts and other watch personnel to complete environmental compliance 

responsibilities (e.g., mitigation, reporting requirements) before, during, and after conducting training 

and testing activities. Marine Species Awareness Training was first developed in 2007 and has since 

undergone numerous updates to ensure that the content remains current, with the most recent product 

approved by NMFS and released in 2014. In 2014, the Navy developed a series of educational training 

modules, known as the Afloat Environmental Compliance Training program, to ensure Navywide 

compliance with environmental requirements. The Afloat Environmental Compliance Training program 

(including the updated Marine Species Awareness Training) helps Navy personnel from the most junior 

Sailors to Commanding Officers gain a better understanding of their personal environmental compliance 

roles and responsibilities. Additional information on the Protective Measures Assessment Protocol is 

provided in Section 5.1 (Introduction), and additional information on training and testing activity and 

incident reports is provided in Section 5.1.1 (Monitoring, Research, and Reporting Initiatives).

From an operational perspective, the interactive web-based format of the U.S. Navy Afloat 

Environmental Compliance Training Series is ideal for providing engaging and educational content that is 

cost effective and convenient to access by personnel who oftentimes face rotating job assignments. 

Navy scientists and planners have observed improvements in the quality and accuracy of training and 

testing activity reports, incident reports, and Sonar Positional Reporting System reports submitted by 

the operators due to the U.S. Navy Afloat Environmental Compliance Training Series. Improved 

reporting quality indicates that the U.S. Navy Afloat Environmental Compliance Training Series is helping 

to facilitate Navywide environmental compliance as intended.

Navy scientists and planners have also observed enhanced knowledge and understanding about the 

Navy’s environmental compliance responsibilities among Lookouts and members of the operational 

community since the development of the U.S. Navy Afloat Environmental Compliance Training Series. 

From 2007 through May 2017, the Navy reported four whale strikes in the Study Area (an average of 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

5-14

5.0 Mitigation

0.39 per year), with the last strike occurring in 2009. For the 10-year period (1997-2006) prior to the 

implementation of the original Marine Species Awareness Training in 2007, the Navy reported 15 whale 

strikes during Navy activities (an average of 1.5 per year) in the Study Area, which is more than three 

times the amount reported for 2007-2017. It is likely that the implementation of the Marine Species 

Awareness Training starting in 2007, and the additional U.S. Navy Afloat Environmental Compliance 

Training Series modules starting in 2014, has contributed to this reduction in strikes. This indicates that 

the environmental awareness and education program is helping to improve the effectiveness of 

mitigation implementation. A more detailed analysis of marine mammal vessel strikes is presented in 

Section 3.7.3.4.1 (Impacts from Vessels and In-Water Devices).

5.3.2 ACOUSTIC STRESSORS

The Navy will implement procedural mitigation to avoid or reduce potential impacts on biological 

resources from the acoustic stressors or activities discussed in the sections below.

5.3.2.1 Active Sonar

The Navy will continue implementing procedural mitigation to avoid the potential for marine mammals 

and sea turtles to be exposed to levels of sound that could result in injury (i.e., PTS) from active sonar to 

the maximum extent practicable, as outlined in Table 5.3-2. This measure is a continuation from Phase II 

with a clarification that the mitigation zone for low-frequency active sonar sources at 200 decibels (dB) 

or more will be the same as the mitigation implemented for hull-mounted mid-frequency active sonar; 

whereas low-frequency active sonar sources below 200 dB will implement the same mitigation zone as 

high-frequency active sonar and mid-frequency active sonar sources that are not hull-mounted.

Table 5.3-2: Procedural Mitigation for Active Sonar

Procedural Mitigation Description

Stressor or Activity

• Low-frequency active sonar, mid-frequency active sonar, high-frequency active sonar

• For vessel-based active sonar activities, mitigation applies only to sources that are positively controlled and 

deployed from manned surface vessels (e.g., sonar sources towed from manned surface platforms). 

• For aircraft-based active sonar activities, mitigation applies only to sources that are positively controlled and 

deployed from manned aircraft that do not operate at high altitudes (e.g., rotary-wing aircraft). Mitigation 

does not apply to active sonar sources deployed from unmanned aerial systems or aircraft operating at high 

altitudes (e.g., maritime patrol aircraft).

Resource Protection Focus

• Marine mammals

• Sea turtles (only for sources below 2 kHz)

Number of Lookouts and Observation Platform

• Hull-mounted sources: 

− Platforms without space or manning restrictions while underway: 2 Lookouts at the forward part of the

ship

− Platforms with space or manning restrictions while underway: 1 Lookout at the forward part of a small 

boat or ship 

− Platforms using active sonar while moored or at anchor (including pierside): 1 Lookout

• Sources that are not hull-mounted:

− 1 Lookout on the ship or aircraft conducting the activity
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

5-15

5.0 Mitigation

Table 5.3-2: Procedural Mitigation for Active Sonar (continued)

Procedural Mitigation Description

Mitigation Zone Size and Mitigation Requirements

• Prior to the start of the activity (e.g., when maneuvering on station), observe for floating vegetation, marine 

mammals, and sea turtles; if resource is observed, do not commence use of active sonar.

• Low-frequency active sonar at or above 200 dB and hull-mounted mid-frequency active sonar will implement 

the following mitigation zones:

− During the activity, observe for marine mammals and sea turtles (for sources below 2 kHz); power down 

active sonar transmission by 6 dB if resource is observed within 1,000 yards (yd.) of the sonar source; 

power down by an additional 4 dB (10 dB total) if resource is observed within 500 yd. of the sonar 

source; and cease transmission if resource is observed within 200 yd. of the sonar source.

• Low-frequency active sonar below 200 dB, mid-frequency active sonar sources that are not hull-mounted, 

and high-frequency active sonar will implement the following mitigation zone:

− During the activity, observe for marine mammals and sea turtles (for sources below 2 kHz); cease active 

sonar transmission if resource is observed within 200 yd. of the sonar source.

• To allow a sighted marine mammal or sea turtle to leave the mitigation zone, the Navy will not recommence 

active sonar transmission until one of the recommencement conditions has been met: (1) the animal is 

observed exiting the mitigation zone; (2) the animal is thought to have exited the mitigation zone based on a 

determination of its course, speed, and movement relative to the sonar source; (3) the mitigation zone has 

been clear from any additional sightings for 10 min. for aircraft-deployed sonar sources or 30 min. for vesseldeployed sonar sources; (4) for mobile activities, the active sonar source has transited a distance equal to 

double that of the mitigation zone size beyond the location of the last sighting; or (5) for activities using hullmounted sonar, the Lookout concludes that dolphins are deliberately closing in on the ship to ride the ship’s 

bow wave, and are therefore out of the main transmission axis of the sonar (and there are no other marine 

mammal sightings within the mitigation zone).

Section 3.7.3.1.2 (Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers) and Section 3.8.3.1.2 (Impacts from Sonar 

and Other Transducers) provide a full analysis of the potential impacts of sonar on marine mammals and 

sea turtles, respectively, and include the impact ranges for various source bins. Due to sea turtle hearing 

capabilities, the mitigation only applies to sea turtles during the use of sources below 2 kilohertz (kHz). 

For low-frequency active sonar at 200 dB or more and hull-mounted mid-frequency active sonar, 

sources in bin MF1 have the longest predicted ranges to PTS. For sources within bin MF1, the 1,000 yd. 

and 500 yd. power down mitigation zones extend beyond the average ranges to PTS for all functional 

hearing groups. The 200 yd. shut down mitigation zone for bin MF1 extends beyond the average range 

to PTS for all hearing groups except high-frequency cetaceans. The impact ranges for the 200 yd. shut 

down mitigation zone were calculated based on full power transmissions and do not consider that the 

impact ranges would be reduced if one or both of the power down mitigations is implemented prior as 

required. Implementing the mitigation would likely help avoid or reduce the potential for exposure to 

higher levels of sound that may result in threshold shifts that are recoverable (i.e., Temporary Threshold 

Shift [TTS]). The mitigation would be even more protective for low-frequency active sonar at 200 dB or 

more and hull-mounted mid-frequency active sonar sources used at lower source levels with shorter 

impact ranges. Observing for indicators of marine mammal and sea turtle presence will further help 

avoid or reduce impacts on these resources within the mitigation zones.

For low-frequency active sonar below 200 dB, mid-frequency active sonar sources that are not hullmounted, and high-frequency active sonar, sources in bin HF4 have the longest predicted ranges to PTS. 

For sources within bin HF4, the 200 yd. shut down mitigation zone extends beyond the average range to 

PTS for all functional hearing groups. Implementing the 200 yd. shut down mitigation zone would likely 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

5-16

5.0 Mitigation

help avoid or reduce the potential for exposure to higher levels of sound that may result in threshold 

shifts that are recoverable (i.e., TTS). The mitigation would be even more protective for low-frequency 

active sonar below 200 dB, mid-frequency active sonar sources that are not hull-mounted, and highfrequency active sonar sources that fall within lower source bins with shorter impact ranges. Observing 

for indicators of marine mammal and sea turtle presence will further help avoid or reduce impacts on 

these resources within the mitigation zones. 

Input from the Navy operational community indicates that the mitigation detailed in Table 5.3-2 is 

practicable to implement and that Lookouts can reasonably be expected to maintain situational 

awareness and visually observe the mitigation zones during typical activity conditions. Because the 

mitigation zones extend beyond the average ranges to PTS for all functional hearing groups, increasing 

the mitigation zone size would not result in a substantial reduction of injurious impacts. Furthermore, an 

increase in mitigation zone size or observation requirements would be impracticable to implement due 

to implications for safety, sustainability, and ability to continue meeting Title 10 requirements to 

successfully accomplish military readiness objectives. For example, expanding the size of the mitigation 

zones would result in a larger area over which active sonar transmission would need to be ceased in 

response to a sighting. A larger mitigation zone would then likely increase the number of active sonar

shutdowns, which would extend the length of the activity in way that could compromise safety (e.g.,

due to aircraft fuel restrictions and increased pilot fatigue during training activities involving rotary-wing 

aircraft that use dipping sonar or sonobuoys to locate submarines or submarine targets). Anti-submarine 

warfare training involving the use of mid-frequency active sonar typically involves the periodic use of 

active sonar to develop the “tactical picture,” or an understanding of the battle space (e.g., area 

searched or unsearched, identifying false contacts, and understanding the water conditions). Developing 

the tactical picture can take several hours or days; therefore, each additional shut down can result in the 

loss of several days’ worth of training due to the loss of awareness of the tactical situation through the 

stopping and starting of active sonar. Similarly, the Navy must test its active sonar systems in the same 

manner and in the same conditions under which they will be operated during military readiness training 

exercises and real world combat situations. Additional stopping and starting of active sonar during 

testing activities would prevent the Navy from validating whether systems and sources perform as 

expected; and determining whether they are operationally effective, suitable, survivable, and safe for 

their intended uses by the fleet.

5.3.2.2 Air Guns

The Navy developed new procedural mitigation for Phase III to avoid the potential for marine mammals 

and sea turtles to be exposed to levels of sound that could result in injury (i.e., PTS) from air gun testing 

activities to the maximum extent practicable, as outlined in Table 5.3-3.

Table 5.3-3: Procedural Mitigation for Air Guns

Procedural Mitigation Description

Stressor or Activity

• Air guns

Resource Protection Focus

• Marine mammals

• Sea turtles 

Number of Lookouts and Observation Platform

• 1 Lookout positioned on a ship or pierside
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

5-17

5.0 Mitigation

Table 5.3-3: Procedural Mitigation for Air Guns (continued)

Procedural Mitigation Description

Mitigation Zone Size and Mitigation Requirements

• 150 yd. around the air gun:

− Prior to the start of the activity (e.g., when maneuvering on station), observe for floating vegetation, 

marine mammals, and sea turtles; if resource is observed, do not commence use of air guns.

− During the activity, observe for marine mammals and sea turtles; if resource is observed, cease use of air 

guns.

− To allow a sighted marine mammal or sea turtle to leave the mitigation zone, the Navy will not 

recommence the use of air guns until one of the recommencement conditions has been met: (1) the 

animal is observed exiting the mitigation zone; (2) the animal is thought to have exited the mitigation 

zone based on a determination of its course, speed, and movement relative to the air gun; (3) the 

mitigation zone has been clear from any additional sightings for 30 min.; or (4) for mobile activities, the 

air gun has transited a distance equal to double that of the mitigation zone size beyond the location of 

the last sighting.

Section 3.7.3.1.3 (Impacts from Air Guns) and Section 3.8.3.1.3 (Impacts from Air Guns) provide a full 

analysis of the potential impacts of air guns on marine mammals and sea turtles, respectively, including 

the air gun impact ranges for 1 pulse and 10 pulses. The ranges to effect for 10 pulses are longer than 

the ranges to effect for 1 pulse. For 10 pulses, the mitigation zone extends beyond the average ranges to 

PTS for all functional hearing groups. The mitigation would be even more protective for air gun activities 

that use fewer than 10 pulses, since these activities have even shorter impact ranges. Implementing the 

mitigation would likely help avoid or reduce the potential for exposure to higher levels of sound that 

may result in threshold shifts that are recoverable (i.e., TTS). The small mitigation zone size and 

proximity to the observation platform will help increase the likelihood that Lookouts would detect all 

marine mammals and sea turtles that are available to be observed. The 30 min. recommencement wait 

period would cover the average dive times of the marine mammal species that could be present in the 

mitigation zone. Observing for indicators of marine mammal and sea turtle presence will further help 

avoid or reduce impacts on these resources.

Input from the testing community indicates that the mitigation detailed in Table 5.3-3 is practicable to 

implement and that Lookouts can reasonably be expected to maintain situational awareness and visually 

observe the mitigation zones during typical testing conditions. Because the mitigation zone extends 

beyond the average ranges to PTS for all functional hearing groups, increasing the mitigation zone size 

would not result in a substantial reduction of injurious impacts. Furthermore, an increase in mitigation 

zone size or observation requirements would be impracticable to implement due to implications for the 

Navy’s ability to conduct testing associated with required acquisition milestones or as required on an asneeded basis to meet operational requirements. Air guns are used during some testing activities, such as 

semi-stationary equipment testing events, to determine the functionality of air gun equipment. The 

Navy must test air guns in the same manner and in the same conditions under which they will be 

operated during military readiness training exercises and real world combat situations. Additional 

stopping and starting of air gun testing events would extend the length of testing events, which would 

increase time at sea for vessels and increase fuel usage. Additional mitigation would prevent the Navy 

from validating whether air guns perform as expected; and determining whether they are operationally 

effective, suitable, survivable, and safe for their intended uses by the fleet.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

5-18

5.0 Mitigation

5.3.2.3 Pile Driving

The Navy will continue implementing procedural mitigation to avoid the potential for marine mammals 

and sea turtles to be exposed to levels of sound that could result in injury (i.e., PTS) from pile driving and 

pile extraction to the maximum extent practicable, as outlined in Table 5.3-4. The Navy is increasing the 

mitigation zone by 40 yd. for Phase III. 

Table 5.3-4: Procedural Mitigation for Pile Driving

Procedural Mitigation Description

Stressor or Activity

• Pile driving and pile extraction sound during Elevated Causeway System training

Resource Protection Focus

• Marine mammals

• Sea turtles 

Number of Lookouts and Observation Platform

• 1 Lookout positioned on the shore, the elevated causeway, or a small boat

Mitigation Zone Size and Mitigation Requirements

• 100 yd. around the pile driver:

− 30 min. prior to the start of the activity, observe for floating vegetation, marine mammals, and sea 

turtles; if resource is observed, do not commence impact pile driving or vibratory pile extraction.

− During the activity, observe for marine mammals and sea turtles; if resource is observed, cease impact 

pile driving or vibratory pile extraction.

− To allow a sighted marine mammal or sea turtle to leave the mitigation zone, the Navy will not 

recommence pile driving until one of the recommencement conditions has been met: (1) the animal is 

observed exiting the mitigation zone; (2) the animal is thought to have exited the mitigation zone based 

on a determination of its course, speed, and movement relative to the pile driving location; or (3) the 

mitigation zone has been clear from any additional sightings for 30 min.

Section 3.7.3.1.4 (Impacts from Pile Driving) and Section 3.8.3.1.4 (Impacts from Pile Driving) provide a 

full analysis of the potential impacts of pile driving on marine mammals and sea turtles, respectively, 

and include the approximate impact ranges for impact pile driving and vibratory pile extraction. The 

ranges to effect from impact pile driving are longer than the ranges to effect for vibratory pile 

extraction. For impact pile driving, the mitigation zone extends beyond the maximum ranges to PTS for 

all functional hearing groups. The mitigation would be even more protective for vibratory pile 

extraction, since it has even shorter impact ranges. Implementing the mitigation would likely help avoid 

or reduce the potential for exposure to higher levels of sound that may result in threshold shifts that are 

recoverable (i.e., TTS). The small mitigation zone size and proximity to the observation platform will help 

increase the likelihood that Lookouts would detect all marine mammals and sea turtles that are 

available to be observed. The 30 min. recommencement wait period would cover the average dive times 

of the marine mammal species that could be present in the mitigation zone. Observing for indicators of 

marine mammal and sea turtle presence will further help avoid or reduce impacts on these resources.

Input from the training community indicates that the mitigation detailed in Table 5.3-4 is practicable to 

implement and that Lookouts can reasonably be expected to maintain situational awareness and visually 

observe the mitigation zone during typical activity conditions. Because the mitigation zone extends 

beyond the average ranges to PTS for all functional hearing groups, increasing the mitigation zone size 

would not result in a substantial reduction of injurious impacts. Furthermore, an additional increase in 

mitigation zone size (beyond what is depicted in Table 5.3-4), mitigation techniques, or observation 

requirements would be impracticable to implement due to implications for the Navy’s ability to continue 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

5-19

5.0 Mitigation

meeting Title 10 requirements to successfully accomplish military readiness objectives. For example, the 

use of additional mitigation techniques employed by commercial construction projects (e.g., bubble 

curtains and other sound attenuation devices) would decrease the realism of the Elevated Causeway 

System training. Delays to the training schedule would result if causeway sections are not assembled on 

time due to additional stopping and starting of the pile driver, which would modify the activity in a way 

that prevents it from meeting its intended objectives.

5.3.2.4 Weapons Firing Noise

The Navy will continue implementing procedural mitigation to avoid the potential for marine mammals 

and sea turtles to be exposed to levels of sound that could result in injury (i.e., PTS) from weapons firing 

noise to the maximum extent practicable, as outlined in Table 5.3-5.

Table 5.3-5: Procedural Mitigation for Weapons Firing Noise

Procedural Mitigation Description

Stressor or Activity

• Weapons firing noise associated with large-caliber gunnery activities

Resource Protection Focus

• Marine mammals

• Sea turtles 

Number of Lookouts and Observation Platform

• 1 Lookout positioned on the ship conducting the firing

• Depending on the activity, the Lookout could be the same one described in Section 5.3.3.3 (Explosive 

Medium-Caliber and Large-Caliber Projectiles) or Section 5.3.4.3 (Small-, Medium-, and Large-Caliber NonExplosive Practice Munitions)

Mitigation Zone Size and Mitigation Requirements

• 30° on either side of the firing line out to 70 yd. from the muzzle of the weapon being fired:

− Prior to the start of the activity, observe for floating vegetation, marine mammals, and sea turtles; if 

resource is observed, do not commence weapons firing.

− During the activity, observe for marine mammals and sea turtles; if resource is observed, cease weapons 

firing.

− To allow a sighted marine mammal or sea turtle to leave the mitigation zone, the Navy will not 

recommence weapons firing until one of the recommencement conditions has been met: (1) the animal 

is observed exiting the mitigation zone; (2) the animal is thought to have exited the mitigation zone 

based on a determination of its course, speed, and movement relative to the firing ship; (3) the 

mitigation zone has been clear from any additional sightings for 30 min.; or (4) for mobile activities, the 

firing ship has transited a distance equal to double that of the mitigation zone size beyond the location 

of the last sighting.

Section 3.7.3.1.7 (Impacts from Weapons Noise) and Section 3.8.3.1.7 (Impacts from Weapons Noise) 

provide a full analysis of the potential impacts of weapons noise on marine mammals and sea turtles, 

respectively, and include a qualitative discussion of the sound generated by weapons firing. As described 

in Section 3.0.3.3.1.6 (Weapons Firing, Launch, and Inert Impact), underwater sounds would be 

strongest just below the surface and directly under the firing point. Any sound that enters the water 

only does so within a narrow cone below the firing point or path of the projectile. The mitigation zone 

extends beyond the distance to which marine mammals and sea turtles would be expected to 

experience PTS from weapons firing noise. The small mitigation zone size and proximity to the 

observation platform will help increase the likelihood that Lookouts would detect all marine mammals 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

5-20

5.0 Mitigation

and sea turtles that are available to be observed. Observing for indicators of marine mammal and sea 

turtle presence will further help avoid or reduce impacts on these resources. 

Input from the operational community indicates that the mitigation detailed in Table 5.3-5 is practicable 

to implement and that Lookouts can reasonably be expected to maintain situational awareness and 

visually observe the mitigation zones during typical activity conditions. Because the mitigation zone 

extends beyond the average ranges to PTS for all functional hearing groups, increasing the mitigation 

zone size would not result in a substantial reduction of injurious impacts. Furthermore, an increase in 

mitigation requirements would be impracticable to implement due to implications for the Navy’s ability 

to continue meeting Title 10 requirements to successfully accomplish military readiness objectives. For 

example, additional stopping and starting of a large-caliber gunnery training exercise would reduce the 

gun crew’s abilities to engage surface targets and practice defensive marksmanship, as would be 

required in a real world combat situation, which would modify the activity in a way that prevents it from 

meeting its intended objectives. During large-caliber gun testing activities, surface combatants conduct 

testing of large-caliber guns to defend against surface targets. The Navy must test its large-caliber guns 

in the same manner and in the same conditions under which they will be operated during military 

readiness training exercises and real world combat situations. Additional stopping and starting of largecaliber gunnery testing events would prevent the Navy from validating whether large-caliber guns 

perform as expected; and determining whether they are operationally effective, suitable, survivable, 

and safe for their intended uses by the fleet.

5.3.3 EXPLOSIVE STRESSORS

The Navy will implement procedural mitigation to avoid or reduce potential impacts on biological 

resources from the explosive stressors or activities discussed in the sections below. Section 3.7.3.2

(Explosive Stressors) and Section 3.8.3.2 (Explosive Stressors) provide a full analysis of the potential 

impacts of explosives on marine mammals and sea turtles, respectively, including the impact ranges.

5.3.3.1 Explosive Sonobuoys

The Navy will continue implementing procedural mitigation to avoid or reduce the potential for marine 

mammals and sea turtles to be exposed to levels of energy that could result in injury (i.e., PTS) from 

explosive sonobuoys to the maximum extent practicable, as outlined in Table 5.3-6. The mitigation for 

Phase III includes a 250 yd. increase in the mitigation zone size for sonobuoys using up to 2.5-pound (lb.)

net explosive weight so that all explosive sonobuoys will implement a 600 yd. mitigation zone, 

regardless of net explosive weight.

Table 5.3-6: Procedural Mitigation for Explosive Sonobuoys

Procedural Mitigation Description

Stressor or Activity

• Explosive sonobuoys

Resource Protection Focus

• Marine mammals

• Sea turtles 

Number of Lookouts and Observation Platform

• 1 Lookout positioned in an aircraft or on small boat
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

5-21

5.0 Mitigation

Table 5.3-6: Procedural Mitigation for Explosive Sonobuoys (continued)

Procedural Mitigation Description

Mitigation Zone Size and Mitigation Requirements

• 600 yd. around an explosive sonobuoy:

− Prior to the start of the activity (e.g., during deployment of a sonobuoy field, which typically lasts 20–30 

min.), conduct passive acoustic monitoring for marine mammals, and observe for floating vegetation, 

marine mammals, and sea turtles; if resource is visually observed, do not commence sonobuoy or 

source/receiver pair detonations.

− During the activity, observe for marine mammals and sea turtles; if resource is observed, cease 

sonobuoy or source/receiver pair detonations.

− To allow a sighted marine mammal or sea turtle to leave the mitigation zone, the Navy will not 

recommence the use of explosive sonobuoys until one of the recommencement conditions has been 

met: (1) the animal is observed exiting the mitigation zone; (2) the animal is thought to have exited the 

mitigation zone based on a determination of its course, speed, and movement relative to the sonobuoy; 

or (3) the mitigation zone has been clear from any additional sightings for 10 min. when the activity 

involves aircraft that have fuel constraints, or 30 min. when the activity involves aircraft that are not 

typically fuel constrained.

Explosive sonobuoys in bin E4 (e.g., Improved Extended Echo Ranging Sonobuoys) have longer impact 

ranges than other explosive sonobuoys used in the Study Area. For bin E4, the mitigation zone extends 

beyond the average ranges to PTS for all functional hearing groups except high-frequency cetaceans, 

low-frequency cetaceans, and phocids. The mitigation would be more protective for explosive 

sonobuoys in bin E1 or bin E3 (e.g., MK-61 SUS) with shorter impact ranges. Implementing the mitigation 

would likely help avoid or reduce the potential for some exposures to higher levels of energy that may 

result in threshold shifts that are recoverable (i.e., TTS). 

Some activities that use explosive sonobuoys involve detonations of a single sonobuoy or sonobuoy pair, 

while other activities involve deployment of a field of sonobuoys that may be dispersed over a large 

distance. Lookouts would have a better likelihood of detecting marine mammals and sea turtles when 

observing the mitigation zone around a single sonobuoy, sonobuoy pair, or a smaller sonobuoy field 

than when observing a sonobuoy field dispersed over a large distance. When observing large sonobuoy 

fields, Lookouts would be more likely to detect large visual cues (e.g., whale blows or large pods of 

dolphins) than individual marine mammals, cryptic marine mammal species, and sea turtles. Observing 

for indicators of marine mammal and sea turtle presence will further help avoid or reduce impacts on 

these resources within the mitigation zones.

Input from the testing community indicates that the mitigation detailed in Table 5.3-6 is practicable to 

implement and that Lookouts can reasonably be expected to maintain situational awareness and visually 

observe the mitigation zones during typical testing conditions. An additional increase in mitigation zone 

size (beyond what is depicted in Table 5.3-6) or observation requirements would be impracticable to 

implement due to implications for safety, sustainability, and the Navy’s ability to conduct testing 

associated with required acquisition milestones or as required on an as-needed basis to meet 

operational requirements. For example, during sonobuoy lot acceptance testing, sonobuoys are 

deployed from vessels and aircraft to verify the integrity and performance of a lot or group of 

sonobuoys in advance of delivery to the fleet for operational use. The Navy must test sonobuoys in the 

same manner and in the same conditions under which they will be operated during military readiness 

training exercises and real world combat situations. Modifying flight patterns, the number of sonobuoys 

deployed, or the size of the sonobuoy field would prevent the Navy from validating whether explosive 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

5-22

5.0 Mitigation

sonobuoys perform as expected; and determining whether they are operationally effective, suitable, 

survivable, and safe for their intended uses by the fleet. Additional stopping and starting of the activity 

would force aircraft to depart the activity location to refuel, which would reduce the aircrew’s 

situational awareness of the environment where the activity is occurring, increase pilot fatigue and the 

associated risk to pilot and aircraft safety, and decrease the realism of the event. Increasing the number 

of observation platforms would result in an increased safety risk due to airspace conflicts or the 

presence of additional vessels within an explosive sonobuoy field.

5.3.3.2 Explosive Torpedoes

The Navy will continue implementing procedural mitigation to avoid or reduce the potential for marine 

mammals and sea turtles to be exposed to levels of energy that could result in injury (i.e., PTS) from 

explosive torpedoes to the maximum extent practicable, as outlined in Table 5.3-7.

Table 5.3-7: Procedural Mitigation for Explosive Torpedoes

Procedural Mitigation Description

Stressor or Activity

• Explosive torpedoes

Resource Protection Focus

• Marine mammals

• Sea turtles 

Number of Lookouts and Observation Platform

• 1 Lookout positioned in an aircraft

Mitigation Zone Size and Mitigation Requirements

• 2,100 yd. around the intended impact location:

− Prior to the start of the activity (e.g., during deployment of the target), conduct passive acoustic 

monitoring for marine mammals, and observe for floating vegetation, jellyfish aggregations, marine 

mammals, and sea turtles; if resource is visually observed, do not commence firing.

− During the activity, observe for marine mammals, sea turtles, and jellyfish aggregations; if resource is 

observed, cease firing.

− To allow a sighted marine mammal or sea turtle to leave the mitigation zone, the Navy will not 

recommence firing until one of the recommencement conditions has been met: (1) the animal is 

observed exiting the mitigation zone; (2) the animal is thought to have exited the mitigation zone based 

on a determination of its course, speed, and movement relative to the intended impact location; or (3) 

the mitigation zone has been clear from any additional sightings for 10 min. when the activity involves 

aircraft that have fuel constraints, or 30 min. when the activity involves aircraft that are not typically fuel 

constrained.

− After completion of the activity, observe for marine mammals and sea turtles; if any injured or dead 

resources are observed, follow established incident reporting procedures.

Bin E11 has the longest impact ranges for explosive torpedoes used in the Study Area. For bin E11, the 

mitigation zone extends beyond the average ranges to PTS for all functional hearing groups except highfrequency cetaceans, low-frequency cetaceans, and phocids. The mitigation would be more protective 

for explosive torpedoes in lower bins (e.g., bin E8) with shorter impact ranges. Implementing the 

mitigation would likely help avoid or reduce the potential for some exposures to higher levels of energy 

that may result in threshold shifts that are recoverable (i.e., TTS). 

Explosive torpedo activities involve detonations at a target that is located down range of the firing 

platform. Due to the distance between the mitigation zone and the observation platform, Lookouts 

would have a better likelihood of detecting large visual cues (e.g., whale blows or large pods of dolphins) 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

5-23

5.0 Mitigation

than individual marine mammals, cryptic marine mammal species, and sea turtles. As described in 

Section 3.8 (Reptiles), some species of sea turtles forage on jellyfish, and some of the locations where 

explosive torpedo activities could occur support high densities of jellyfish throughout parts of the year. 

Observing for indicators of marine mammal and sea turtle presence (including jellyfish aggregations) will 

further help avoid or reduce impacts on these resources within the mitigation zone. The post-activity 

observations for marine mammals and sea turtles will help the Navy determine if any resources were 

injured during the activity. 

Input from the operational community indicates that the mitigation detailed in Table 5.3-7 is practicable 

to implement and that Lookouts can reasonably be expected to maintain situational awareness and 

visually observe the mitigation zone during typical testing conditions. An increase in mitigation zone size 

or observation requirements would be impracticable to implement due to implications for safety, 

sustainability, the Navy’s ability to meet Title 10 requirements to successfully accomplish military 

readiness objectives, and the Navy’s ability to conduct testing associated with required acquisition 

milestones or as required on an as-needed basis to meet operational requirements. During activities 

using explosive torpedoes, air, surface ship, or submarine crews employ explosive torpedoes against 

artificial targets to train operators to fire torpedoes as would be required in a real-world combat 

situation and to verify their integrity and performance in advance of delivery to the fleet for operational 

use. Additional stopping and starting of the activity would force aircraft to depart the activity location to 

refuel, which would reduce the aircrew’s abilities to approach surface targets and launch torpedoes, 

would increase pilot fatigue and the associated risk to pilot and aircraft safety, and would reduce the 

realism of the event.

5.3.3.3 Explosive Medium-Caliber and Large-Caliber Projectiles

The Navy will continue implementing procedural mitigation to avoid or reduce the potential for marine 

mammals and sea turtles to be exposed to levels of energy that could result in injury (i.e., PTS) from 

gunnery activities using explosive medium-caliber and large-caliber projectiles to the maximum extent 

practicable, as outlined in Table 5.3-8. The mitigation is a continuation from Phase II for air-to-surface 

activities, and a 400 yd. increase in the mitigation zone size for surface-to-surface activities.

Table 5.3-8: Procedural Mitigation for Explosive Medium-Caliber and Large-Caliber Projectiles

Procedural Mitigation Description

Stressor or Activity

• Gunnery activities using explosive medium-caliber and large-caliber projectiles

• Mitigation applies to activities using a surface target

Resource Protection Focus

• Marine mammals

• Sea turtles 

Number of Lookouts and Observation Platform

• 1 Lookout on the vessel or aircraft conducting the activity

• For activities using explosive large-caliber projectiles, depending on the activity, the Lookout could be the 

same as the one described in Section 5.3.2.4 (Weapons Firing Noise)

Mitigation Zone Size and Mitigation Requirements

• 200 yd. around the intended impact location for air-to-surface activities using explosive medium-caliber 

projectiles, or

• 600 yd. around the intended impact location for surface-to-surface activities using explosive medium-caliber 

projectiles, or
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

5-24

5.0 Mitigation

Table 5.3-8: Procedural Mitigation for Explosive Medium-Caliber and Large-Caliber Projectiles

(continued)

Procedural Mitigation Description

• 1,000 yd. around the intended impact location for surface-to-surface activities using explosive large-caliber 

projectiles:

− Prior to the start of the activity (e.g., when maneuvering on station), observe for floating vegetation, 

marine mammals, and sea turtles; if resource is observed, do not commence firing.

− During the activity, observe for marine mammals and sea turtles; if resource is observed, cease firing.

− To allow a sighted marine mammal or sea turtle to leave the mitigation zone, the Navy will not 

recommence firing until one of the recommencement conditions has been met: (1) the animal is 

observed exiting the mitigation zone; (2) the animal is thought to have exited the mitigation zone based 

on a determination of its course, speed, and movement relative to the intended impact location; (3) the 

mitigation zone has been clear from any additional sightings for 10 min. for aircraft-based firing or 

30 min. for vessel-based firing; or (4) for activities using mobile targets, the intended impact location has 

transited a distance equal to double that of the mitigation zone size beyond the location of the last 

sighting.

Of the activities that will implement the 1,000 yd. mitigation zone, explosive large-caliber projectiles in 

bin E5 (e.g., 5 in. projectiles) have the longest impact ranges. For bin E5, the 1,000 yd. mitigation zone 

extends beyond the average ranges to PTS for all functional hearing groups except high-frequency 

cetaceans, low-frequency cetaceans, and phocids. Of the activities that will implement the 600 yd. or 

200 yd. mitigation zones, explosive medium-caliber projectiles in bin E2 (e.g., 40-millimeter [mm] 

projectiles) have the longest impact ranges. For bin E2, both the 600 yd. mitigation zone and 200 yd. 

mitigation zone extend beyond the average ranges to PTS for all functional hearing groups except 

high-frequency cetaceans. The mitigation zones would be even more protective during the use of the 

smaller explosive projectiles (e.g., bin E1) with shorter impact ranges. Implementing the mitigation 

would likely help avoid or reduce the potential for some exposures to higher levels of energy that may 

result in threshold shifts that are recoverable (i.e., TTS).

Large-caliber gunnery activities involve the firing of projectiles at a target located up to 6 nautical miles 

(NM) down range from the firing ship. Medium-caliber gunnery activities involve vessels or aircraft firing 

projectiles at targets that may be located up to 4,000 yd. from the firing platform, although typically the 

targets for these activities are much closer. Lookouts would have a better likelihood of detecting marine 

mammals and sea turtles when observing mitigation zones around targets that are located close to the 

firing platform. When observing activities that use a target located far from the firing platform, Lookouts 

would be more likely to detect large visual cues (e.g., whale blows or large pods of dolphins) than 

individual marine mammals, cryptic marine mammal species, and sea turtles. When aircraft are firing, 

Lookouts would have a better vantage point for observing the mitigation zone, particularly when the 

target is located far from the firing platform. Observing for indicators of marine mammal and sea turtle 

presence will further help avoid or reduce impacts on these resources within the mitigation zone, 

particularly when observing from aircraft and when the target is located close to the firing platform.

Input from the operational community indicates that the mitigation detailed in Table 5.3-8 is practicable 

to implement and that Lookouts can reasonably be expected to maintain situational awareness and 

visually observe the mitigation zones during typical activity conditions. An additional increase in 

mitigation zone size (beyond those depicted in Table 5.3-8) or observation requirements would be 

impracticable to implement due to implications for safety, sustainability, the Navy’s ability to meeting

Title 10 requirements to successfully accomplish military readiness objectives, and the Navy’s ability to 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

5-25

5.0 Mitigation

conduct testing associated with required acquisition milestones or as required on an as-needed basis to 

meet operational requirements. The Navy will implement larger mitigation zones for large-caliber 

gunnery activities than medium-caliber gunnery activities due to the nature of how the activities are 

conducted. For example, large-caliber gunnery activities are conducted from surface combatants, many 

of which have access to high-powered binoculars mounted on the ship deck, which can assist Lookouts 

in observing a larger mitigation zone. As described in Section 5.2.1 (Procedural Mitigation 

Development), certain platforms, such as the small boats and aircraft used during explosive mediumcaliber gunnery exercises, have manning or space restrictions; therefore, the Lookout for these activities 

is typically an existing member of the aircraft or boat crew who is responsible for other essential tasks 

(e.g., navigation). Some surface-to-surface medium-caliber gunnery activities involve small boat crews 

that approach and engage targets simulating other boats, floating mines, or near shore land targets. 

During these activities, observations could occur when a small boat is moving at high speed; therefore, 

the Lookout must focus attention on a smaller mitigation zone to ensure safety of personnel and 

equipment. Air-to-surface medium-caliber gunnery exercises would involve fighter aircraft descending 

on a target, or rotary-wing aircraft flying a racetrack pattern around a target and descending on the 

target using a forward-tilted firing angle. The Lookout must focus attention on the immediate vicinity of 

the activity to ensure safety of personnel and equipment. For all medium-caliber and large-caliber 

gunnery activities, additional stopping and starting of the exercise would reduce the gun crew’s abilities 

to engage surface targets and practice defensive marksmanship as would be required in a real world 

combat situation, which would modify the activity in a way that prevents it from meeting its intended 

objectives. Increasing the number of observation platforms (e.g., positioning additional observers closer 

to the target) would result in an increased safety risk due to the presence of additional platforms nearby 

an intended impact location or in the path of an explosive projectile.

In addition to procedural mitigation, the Navy will implement mitigation for gunnery activities within 

mitigation areas to avoid or reduce impacts on seafloor resources (see Section 5.4.1, Mitigation Areas 

for Seafloor Resources).

5.3.3.4 Explosive Missiles and Rockets

The Navy will continue implementing procedural mitigation to avoid or reduce the potential for marine 

mammals and sea turtles to be exposed to levels of energy that could result in injury (i.e., PTS) from 

explosive missiles and rockets to the maximum extent practicable, as outlined in Table 5.3-9. The 

mitigation is a continuation from Phase II for missiles and rockets using 0.6–20 lb. net explosive weight 

and 251–500 lb. net explosive weight, with a 1,100 yd. increase in mitigation zone size for missiles and 

rockets using 21–250 lb. net explosive weight for enhanced protection.

Table 5.3-9: Procedural Mitigation for Explosive Missiles and Rockets

Procedural Mitigation Description

Stressor or Activity

• Aircraft-deployed explosive missiles and rockets

• Mitigation applies to activities using a surface target

Resource Protection Focus

• Marine mammals

• Sea turtles 

Number of Lookouts and Observation Platform

• 1 Lookout positioned in an aircraft
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

5-26

5.0 Mitigation

Table 5.3-9: Procedural Mitigation for Explosive Missiles and Rockets (continued)

Procedural Mitigation Description

Mitigation Zone Size and Mitigation Requirements

• 900 yd. around the intended impact location for missiles or rockets with 0.6–20 lb. net explosive weight, or

• 2,000 yd. around the intended impact location for missiles with 21–500 lb. net explosive weight:

− Prior to the start of the activity (e.g., during a fly-over of the mitigation zone), observe for floating 

vegetation, marine mammals, and sea turtles; if resource is observed, do not commence firing.

− During the activity, observe for marine mammals and sea turtles; if resource is observed, cease firing.

− To allow a sighted marine mammal or sea turtle to leave the mitigation zone, the Navy will not 

recommence firing until one of the recommencement conditions has been met: (1) the animal is 

observed exiting the mitigation zone; (2) the animal is thought to have exited the mitigation zone based 

on a determination of its course, speed, and movement relative to the intended impact location; or (3) 

the mitigation zone has been clear from any additional sightings for 10 min. when the activity involves

aircraft that have fuel constraints, or 30 min. when the activity involves aircraft that are not typically fuel 

constrained.

For explosive missiles with 21–500 lb. net explosive weight, missiles in bin E10 (e.g., Harpoon missiles) 

have the longest impact ranges. For bin E10, the 2,000 yd. mitigation zone extends beyond the average 

ranges to PTS for all functional hearing groups except high-frequency cetaceans. The mitigation would 

be even more protective for smaller explosive projectiles with shorter impact ranges (e.g., missiles in bin 

E9). Implementing the mitigation would likely help avoid or reduce the potential for some exposures to 

higher levels of energy that may result in threshold shifts that are recoverable (i.e., TTS).

For explosive missiles and rockets with 0.6–20 lb. net explosive weight, missiles in bin E6 (e.g., Hellfire 

missiles) have the longest impact ranges. For bin E6, the 900 yd. mitigation zone extends beyond the 

average ranges to PTS for all functional hearing groups except high-frequency cetaceans, low-frequency 

cetaceans, and phocids. The mitigation would be even more protective during the use of smaller 

explosive projectiles with shorter impact ranges (e.g., rockets in bin E3). Implementing the mitigation 

would likely help avoid or reduce the potential for some exposures to higher levels of energy that may 

result in threshold shifts that are recoverable (i.e., TTS).

Missile and rocket exercises involve a ship or aircraft firing munitions at a target that is typically located 

up to 15 NM away, and infrequently up to 75 NM away from the firing platform. The mitigation only 

applies to aircraft-deployed missiles and rockets because aircraft can fly over the intended impact area 

prior to firing a missile. Observation of the mitigation zone is not possible when missiles and rockets are 

fired from a ship due to the distance between the firing ship and the intended impact location. Even 

when aircraft are firing, there is a chance that animals could enter the mitigation zone after the aircraft

conducts its close-range mitigation zone observations and before firing begins (once the aircraft has 

transited to its firing position). Due to the distance between the mitigation zone and the observation 

platform, Lookouts would have a better likelihood of detecting marine mammals and sea turtles during 

the close-range observations, and are less likely to detect these resources once positioned at the firing 

location, particularly individual marine mammals, cryptic marine mammal species, and sea turtles. 

Observing for indicators of marine mammal and sea turtle presence will further help avoid or reduce 

impacts on these resources within the mitigation zone during the close-range observations.

Input from the operational community indicates that the mitigation detailed in Table 5.3-9 is practicable 

to implement and that Lookouts can reasonably be expected to maintain situational awareness and 

visually observe the mitigation zone prior to the start of the activity with a fly-over of the mitigation 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

5-27

5.0 Mitigation

zone during typical activity conditions. An increase in mitigation requirements beyond what is included 

in Table 5.3-9 would be impracticable to implement due to implications for safety and the Navy’s ability 

to continue meeting Title 10 requirements to successfully accomplish military readiness objectives. 

During Missile Exercise Air-to-Surface activities, fixed wing and rotary-wing aircraft train to approach 

and defend against enemy surface targets (e.g., ships or small boats) as they would in real world combat 

situations. During an Air-to-Surface Missile Test, fixed-wing or rotary-wing aircraft fire missiles at surface 

targets to evaluate the weapons system or as part of another systems integration test to verify the 

integrity and performance of explosive missiles in advance of delivery to the fleet for operational use. 

The Navy will implement larger mitigation zones for missiles using 21–500 lb. net explosive weight than 

missiles and rockets using 0.6–20 lb. net explosive weight due to the nature of how these activities are 

conducted. During activities using missiles in the larger net explosive weight category, aircraft that fire 

the missiles (e.g., maritime patrol aircraft) have the capability of mitigating within a larger area for this 

activity due to a larger fuel capacity, which would be required considering the size of the mitigation zone 

and distance being flown between the intended impact location and firing position. During activities 

using missiles in the smaller net explosive weight category, aircraft that fire the missiles (e.g., 

rotary-wing aircraft) are more restricted in fuel capacity. Additional stopping and starting of the activity 

would force aircraft to depart the activity location to refuel, reduce the aircrew’s abilities to approach 

surface targets and fire missiles, increase pilot fatigue and the associated risk to pilot and aircraft safety, 

modify the training activity in a way that prevents it from meeting its intended objectives, and reduce 

the realism of the activity (particularly for aircraft that have fuel constraints). Reducing realism of a 

testing event would prevent the Navy from validating whether explosive missiles perform as expected; 

and determining whether they are operationally effective, suitable, survivable, and safe for their 

intended uses by the fleet. Increasing the number of observation platforms during training or testing 

(e.g., positioning additional observers closer to the intended impact location) would result in an 

increased safety risk due to the presence of additional aircraft nearby the intended impact location or in 

the path of an explosive missile.

In addition to procedural mitigation, the Navy will implement mitigation for explosive missiles and 

rockets within mitigation areas to avoid or reduce impacts on seafloor resources (see Section 5.4.1, 

Mitigation Areas for Seafloor Resources).

5.3.3.5 Explosive Bombs

The Navy will continue implementing procedural mitigation to avoid or reduce the potential for marine 

mammals and sea turtles to be exposed to levels of energy that could result in injury (i.e., PTS) from 

explosive bombs to the maximum extent practicable, as outlined in Table 5.3-10. 

Table 5.3-10: Procedural Mitigation for Explosive Bombs

Procedural Mitigation Description

Stressor or Activity

• Explosive bombs

Resource Protection Focus

• Marine mammals

• Sea turtles 

Number of Lookouts and Observation Platform

• 1 Lookout positioned in the aircraft conducting the activity
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

5-28

5.0 Mitigation

Table 5.3-10: Procedural Mitigation for Explosive Bombs (continued)

Procedural Mitigation Description

Mitigation Zone Size and Mitigation Requirements

• 2,500 yd. around the intended target:

− Prior to the start of the activity (e.g., when arriving on station), observe for floating vegetation, marine 

mammals, and sea turtles; if resource is observed, do not commence bomb deployment.

− During target approach, observe for marine mammals and sea turtles; if resource is observed, cease 

bomb deployment.

− To allow a sighted marine mammal or sea turtle to leave the mitigation zone, the Navy will not 

recommence bomb deployment until one of the recommencement conditions has been met: (1) the 

animal is observed exiting the mitigation zone; (2) the animal is thought to have exited the mitigation 

zone based on a determination of its course, speed, and movement relative to the intended target; 

(3) the mitigation zone has been clear from any additional sightings for 10 min.; or (4) for activities using 

mobile targets, the intended target has transited a distance equal to double that of the mitigation zone 

size beyond the location of the last sighting.

Explosive bombs in bin E12 (e.g., 2,000 lb. bombs) have the longest impact ranges of any bomb used in 

the Study Area. For bin E12, the 2,500 yd. mitigation zone extends beyond the average ranges to PTS for 

all functional hearing groups except high-frequency cetaceans. The mitigation would be more protective 

during the use of smaller bombs with shorter impact ranges (e.g., 250 lb. bombs, 500 lb. bombs). 

Implementing the mitigation would likely help avoid or reduce the potential for some exposures to 

higher levels of energy that may result in threshold shifts that are recoverable (i.e., TTS).

Bombing exercises involve a participating aircraft deploying munitions at a surface target located 

beneath the firing platform. During target approach, aircraft maintain a relatively steady altitude of 

approximately 1,500 ft., and Lookouts will, by necessity for safety and mission success, primarily focus 

their attention on the water surface below and surrounding the location of bomb deployment. The 

Lookout’s vantage point will serve as an advantage for observing marine mammals and sea turtles 

within this area. Lookouts would have a better likelihood of detecting individual marine mammals and 

sea turtles that are in the central portion of the mitigation zone (around the target location where 

Lookout attention will be focused), and would be more likely to detect large visual cues (e.g., whale 

blows or large pods of dolphins) than individual marine mammals, cryptic marine mammal species, and 

sea turtles near the perimeter of the mitigation zone. Observing for indicators of marine mammal and 

sea turtle presence will further help avoid or reduce impacts on these resources within the mitigation 

zone.

Input from the operational community indicates that the mitigation detailed in Table 5.3-10 is 

practicable to implement and that Lookouts can reasonably be expected to maintain situational 

awareness and visually observe the mitigation zone during typical activity conditions. An increase in 

mitigation zone size or observation requirements would be impracticable to implement due to 

implications for safety, the Navy’s ability to continue meeting Title 10 requirements to successfully 

accomplish military readiness objectives, and the Navy’s ability to conduct testing associated with 

required acquisition milestones or as required on an as-needed basis to meet operational requirements. 

For example, during a Bombing Exercise Air-to-Surface, fixed-wing aircrews deliver bombs against 

stationary floating targets, towed targets, or maneuvering targets. Additional stopping and starting of 

the exercise would reduce the aircrew’s abilities to approach surface targets and deliver bombs as 

would be required in a real world combat situation, which would modify the activity in a way that 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

5-29

5.0 Mitigation

prevents it from meeting its intended objectives. Similarly, during an Air-to-Surface Bombing Test, 

fixed-wing aircraft test the delivery of bombs against surface targets with the goal of evaluating the 

bomb, the bomb carry and delivery system, and any associated systems that may have been newly 

developed or enhanced. The Navy must test explosive bombs and their associated systems in the same 

manner and in the same conditions under which they will be operated during real world combat 

situations. Additional stopping and starting of the activity would force aircraft to depart the activity 

location to refuel, which would reduce the aircrew’s abilities to approach surface targets and deploy 

bombs, would increase pilot fatigue and the associated risk to pilot and aircraft safety, and would 

reduce the realism of the event. This would prevent the Navy from validating whether explosive bombs 

and their associated systems perform as expected; and determining whether they are operationally 

effective, suitable, survivable, and safe for their intended uses by the fleet.

In addition to procedural mitigation, the Navy will implement mitigation for explosive bombs within 

mitigation areas to avoid or reduce impacts on seafloor resources (see Section 5.4.1, Mitigation Areas 

for Seafloor Resources).

5.3.3.6 Sinking Exercises

The Navy will continue implementing procedural mitigation to avoid or reduce the potential for marine 

mammals and sea turtles to be exposed to levels of energy that could result in injury (i.e., PTS) during 

sinking exercises to the maximum extent practicable, as outlined in Table 5.3-11.

Table 5.3-11: Procedural Mitigation for Sinking Exercises

Procedural Mitigation Description

Stressor or Activity

• Sinking exercises

Resource Protection Focus

• Marine mammals

• Sea turtles 

Number of Lookouts and Observation Platform

• 2 Lookouts (one positioned in an aircraft and one on a vessel)

Mitigation Zone Size and Mitigation Requirements

• 2.5 NM around the target ship hulk:

− 90 min. prior to the first firing, conduct aerial observations for floating vegetation, jellyfish aggregations, 

marine mammals, and sea turtles; if resource is observed, do not commence firing.

− During the activity, conduct passive acoustic monitoring and visually observe for marine mammals and 

sea turtles from the vessel; if resource is visually observed, cease firing.

− Immediately after any planned or unplanned breaks in weapons firing of longer than 2 hours, observe 

for marine mammals and sea turtles from the aircraft and vessel; if resource is observed, do not 

commence firing.

− To allow a sighted marine mammal or sea turtle to leave the mitigation zone, the Navy will not 

recommence firing until one of the recommencement conditions has been met: (1) the animal is 

observed exiting the mitigation zone; (2) the animal is thought to have exited the mitigation zone based 

on a determination of its course, speed, and movement relative to the target ship hulk; or (3) the 

mitigation zone has been clear from any additional sightings for 30 min.

− For 2 hours after sinking the vessel (or until sunset, whichever comes first), observe for marine mammals 

and sea turtles; if any injured or dead resources are observed, follow established incident reporting 

procedures.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

5-30

5.0 Mitigation

Bin E12 has the longest impact ranges for the types of explosives used during a sinking exercise in the 

Study Area. For bin E12, the mitigation zone extends beyond the average ranges to PTS for all functional 

hearing groups. The mitigation would be even more protective for explosives in lower bins with shorter 

impact ranges used during a sinking exercise (e.g., bin E5 and bin E10). Implementing the mitigation 

would likely help avoid or reduce the potential for some exposures to higher levels of energy that may 

result in threshold shifts that are recoverable (i.e., TTS). 

A sinking exercise is a specialized training exercise that provides an opportunity for ship, submarine, and 

aircraft crews to use multiple weapons systems to deliver explosive ordnance to deliberately sink a 

deactivated vessel. The exercise occurs only in daylight hours and typically lasts from four to eight hours 

over the course of one to two days. Because the activity is scheduled to ensure that it is conducted only 

in daylight hours, it is unlikely that the two-hour post-activity observation period would be shortened 

due to nightfall; therefore, during typical activity conditions, the Navy will be able to complete the full 

two-hour post-activity observation period. There is a chance that animals could enter the mitigation 

zone after the aircraft conducts its close-range mitigation zone observations and before firing begins 

(once the aircraft has transited to its distant firing position). The Lookout positioned on the vessel would 

have a better likelihood of detecting individual marine mammals and sea turtles that are in the central 

portion of the mitigation zone (near the target ship hulk). Near the perimeter of the mitigation zone, the 

Lookout would be more likely to detect large visual cues (e.g., whale blows or large pods of dolphins) 

than individual marine mammals, cryptic marine mammal species, and sea turtles. The Lookout 

positioned in an aircraft would be able to assist the vessel-based Lookout by observing the entire 

mitigation zone, including near the perimeter, because the aircraft would be able to transit a larger area 

more quickly (e.g., during range clearance), and would offer a better vantage point. As described in 

Section 3.8 (Reptiles), some species of sea turtles forage on jellyfish in the region where this activity 

occurs. Observing for indicators of marine mammal and sea turtle presence will further help avoid or 

reduce impacts on these resources within the mitigation zone. The post-activity observations for marine 

mammals and sea turtles will help the Navy determine if any resources were injured during the activity. 

The Navy will follow the incident reporting procedures outlined in Section 5.1.1.3 (Incident Reports) if an 

incident is detected at any time during the training exercise, including during the post-activity 

observations.

Input from the training community indicates that the mitigation detailed in Table 5.3-11 is practicable to 

implement and that Lookouts can reasonably be expected to maintain situational awareness and visually 

observe the mitigation zone during typical training conditions. An increase in mitigation zone size or 

observation requirements would be impracticable to implement due to implications for safety, 

sustainability, and the Navy’s ability to continue meeting Title 10 requirements to successfully 

accomplish military readiness objectives. Increasing the number of observation platforms (e.g., 

positioning additional observers closer to the target or adding aircraft to observe the perimeter of the 

mitigation zone) would not be possible due to restrictions on manpower and available resources (e.g., 

vessels, aircraft), and would result in an increased safety risk due to the presence of additional platforms 

nearby an intended impact location or in the path of explosive projectiles. Additional stopping and 

starting of the exercise would reduce the crews’ abilities to train with coordinated tactics to practice 

firing explosive ordnance on a full-size ship target, and would force aircraft to depart the activity 

location to refuel (which would reduce the aircrew’s situational awareness of the environment where 

the activity is occurring and extend the length of the activity in a way that would compromise safety due 

to increased pilot fatigue), which would modify the activity in a way that prevents it from meeting its 

intended objectives.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

5-31

5.0 Mitigation

5.3.3.7 Explosive Mine Countermeasure and Neutralization Activities

The Navy will continue implementing procedural mitigation to avoid or reduce the potential for marine 

mammals and sea turtles to be exposed to levels of energy that could result in injury (i.e., PTS) during 

explosive mine countermeasure and neutralization activities to the maximum extent practicable, as 

outlined in Table 5.3-12. The mitigation applies to all explosive mine countermeasure and neutralization 

activities except those that involve the use of Navy divers, which are discussed in Section 5.3.3.8 

(Explosive Mine Countermeasure Activities Involving Navy Divers).

Table 5.3-12: Procedural Mitigation for Explosive Mine Countermeasure and Neutralization 

Activities

Procedural Mitigation Description

Stressor or Activity

• Explosive mine countermeasure and neutralization activities

Resource Protection Focus

• Marine mammals

• Sea turtles

• Birds

Number of Lookouts and Observation Platform

• 1 Lookout positioned on a vessel or in an aircraft when implementing the smaller mitigation zone

• 2 Lookouts (one positioned in an aircraft and one on a small boat) when implementing the larger mitigation 

zone

Mitigation Zone Size and Mitigation Requirements

• 600 yd. around the detonation site for activities using 0.1–5 lb. net explosive weight, or 

• 2,100 yd. around the detonation site for activities using 6–650 lb. net explosive weight (including high 

explosive target mines):

− Prior to the start of the activity (e.g., when maneuvering on station; typically, 10 min. when the activity 

involves aircraft that have fuel constraints, or 30 min. when the activity involves aircraft that are not 

typically fuel constrained), observe for floating vegetation, marine mammals, and sea turtles; if resource 

is observed, do not commence detonations.

− During the activity, observe for marine mammals, sea turtles, concentrations of seabirds, and individual 

foraging seabirds; if resource is observed, cease detonations.

− To allow a sighted marine mammal, sea turtle, or bird to leave the mitigation zone, the Navy will not 

recommence detonations until one of the recommencement conditions has been met: (1) the animal is 

observed exiting the mitigation zone; (2) the animal is thought to have exited the mitigation zone based 

on a determination of its course, speed, and movement relative to detonation site; or (3) the mitigation 

zone has been clear from any additional sightings for 10 min. when the activity involves aircraft that 

have fuel constraints, or 30 min. when the activity involves aircraft that are not typically fuel 

constrained.

− After completion of the activity, observe for marine mammals and sea turtles (typically 10 min. when the 

activity involves aircraft that have fuel constraints, or 30 min. when the activity involves aircraft that are 

not typically fuel constrained); if any injured or dead resources are observed, follow established incident 

reporting procedures.

For activities using 6–650 lb. net explosive weight, charges in bin E11 (e.g., 650 lb. high explosive target 

mines) have the longest impact ranges. For bin E11, the 2,100 yd. mitigation zone extends beyond the 

average ranges to PTS for all functional hearing groups except high-frequency cetaceans, low-frequency 

cetaceans, and phocids. For activities using 0.1–5 lb. net explosive weight, charges in bin E4 (e.g., 5 lb. 

net explosive weight charges) have the longest impact ranges. For bin E4, the 600 yd. mitigation zone 

extends beyond the average ranges to PTS for all functional hearing groups except high-frequency 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

5-32

5.0 Mitigation

cetaceans, low-frequency cetaceans, and phocids. The mitigation zones will be more protective during 

the use of smaller explosive charges (e.g., bin E2) with shorter impact ranges. Implementing the 

mitigation would likely help avoid or reduce the potential for some exposures to higher levels of energy 

that may result in threshold shifts that are recoverable (i.e., TTS). 

The Navy employs various mine warfare sensors to detect, classify, and neutralize mines to protect Navy 

ships and submarines. Examples of the systems and devices used in these activities include airborne 

mine neutralization systems, magnetic systems, remotely operated vehicles, and unmanned underwater 

vehicles. The types of charges used in these activities are positively controlled, which means the 

detonation is controlled by the personnel conducting the activity and is not authorized until the area is 

clear at the time of detonation. For the smaller charges (bin E4 and below), the small mitigation zone 

size will help increase the likelihood that Lookouts would detect marine mammals and sea turtles that 

are available to be observed. Due to their lower vantage point, Lookouts on small boats would be more 

likely to detect large visual cues (e.g., whale blows or large pods of dolphins) or splashes of individual 

marine mammals than cryptic marine mammal species and sea turtles near the mitigation zone 

perimeter. The use of an aircraft in addition to a vessel to observe the larger sized mitigation zone would 

help increase the chance that marine mammals and sea turtles would be observed for those activities. 

Observing for indicators of marine mammal and sea turtle presence will further help avoid or reduce 

impacts on these resources within the mitigation zones. The mitigation for birds would help the Navy 

avoid or reduce impacts on ESA-listed least terns and other seabirds while foraging underwater.

Input from the operational community indicates that the mitigation detailed in Table 5.3-12 is 

practicable to implement and that Lookouts can reasonably be expected to maintain situational 

awareness and visually observe the mitigation zones during typical activity conditions. An increase in 

mitigation zone size or observation requirements would be impracticable to implement due to 

implications for safety, sustainability, and the Navy’s ability to continue meeting Title 10 requirements 

to successfully accomplish military readiness objectives. For example, during Mine Countermeasures –

Mine Neutralization – Remotely Operated Vehicle training exercises, ship, small boat, and rotary-wing 

aircraft crews train to locate and neutralize mines. Additional stopping and starting of the exercise 

would reduce the crews’ abilities to disable mines as would be required in a real world combat situation, 

which would modify the activity in a way that prevents it from meeting its intended objectives. For 

another example, Airborne Mine Neutralization Systems Test events evaluate the system’s ability to 

detect and destroy mines from an airborne mine countermeasures-capable rotary-wing aircraft in 

advance of delivery to the fleet for operational use. The Navy must test its mine neutralization systems 

in the same manner and in the same conditions under which they will be operated during military 

readiness training exercises and real world combat situations. Additional stopping and starting of the 

activity would prevent the Navy from validating whether mine neutralization systems perform as 

expected; and determining whether they are operationally effective, suitable, survivable, and safe for 

their intended uses by the fleet. Furthermore, increasing the mitigation zone sizes would require the 

Navy to use additional vessels or aircraft to observe the larger areas, which would not be possible due to 

restrictions on manpower and resources (e.g., vessels, aircraft) available for each mine countermeasure 

and neutralization activity.

In addition to procedural mitigation, the Navy will implement mitigation for these activities within 

mitigation areas to avoid or reduce impacts on seafloor resources (see Section 5.4.1, Mitigation Areas 

for Seafloor Resources).
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

5-33

5.0 Mitigation

5.3.3.8 Explosive Mine Neutralization Activities Involving Navy Divers

The Navy will continue implementing procedural mitigation to avoid or reduce the potential for marine 

mammals and sea turtles to be exposed to levels of energy that could result in injury (i.e., PTS) during 

explosive mine neutralization activities involving Navy divers (who may be explosive ordnance disposal 

personnel) to the maximum extent practicable, as outlined in Table 5.3-13. The mitigation for Phase III 

includes an increase in the mitigation zone size for positive control charges in bin E4 or below and bin E7

for enhanced protections and consistency across activities.

Table 5.3-13: Procedural Mitigation for Explosive Mine Neutralization Activities Involving 

Navy Divers

Procedural Mitigation Description

Stressor or Activity

• Explosive mine neutralization activities involving Navy divers

Resource Protection Focus

• Marine mammals

• Sea turtles 

• Birds

• Fish (hammerhead sharks)

Number of Lookouts and Observation Platform

• 2 Lookouts (two small boats with one Lookout each, or one Lookout on a small boat and one in a rotary-wing 

aircraft) when implementing the smaller mitigation zone

• 4 Lookouts (two small boats with two Lookouts each), and a pilot or member of an aircrew will serve as an 

additional Lookout if aircraft are used during the activity, when implementing the larger mitigation zone

Mitigation Zone Size and Mitigation Requirements

• The Navy will not set time-delay firing devices (0.1–29 lb. net explosive weight) to exceed 10 min.

• 500 yd. around the detonation site during activities under positive control using 0.1–20 lb. net explosive 

weight, or

• 1,000 yd. around the detonation site during all activities using time-delay fuses (0.1–29 lb. net explosive 

weight), and during activities under positive control using 21–60 lb. net explosive weight:

− Prior to the start of the activity (e.g., when maneuvering on station for activities under positive control; 

30 min. for activities using time-delay firing devices), observe for floating vegetation, marine mammals, 

and sea turtles; if resource is observed, do not commence detonations or fuse initiation.

− During the activity, observe for marine mammals, sea turtles, concentration of seabirds, and individual 

foraging seabirds (in the water and not on shore); if resource is observed, cease detonations or fuse 

initiation.

− All divers placing the charges on mines will support the Lookouts while performing their regular duties 

and will report all sightings to their supporting small boat or Range Safety Officer.

− To the maximum extent practicable depending on mission requirements, safety, and environmental 

conditions, boats will position themselves near the mid-point of the mitigation zone radius (but outside 

of the detonation plume and human safety zone), will position themselves on opposite sides of the 

detonation location (when two boats are used), and will travel in a circular pattern around the 

detonation location with one Lookout observing inward toward the detonation site and the other 

observing outward toward the perimeter of the mitigation zone.

− If used, aircraft will travel in a circular pattern around the detonation location to the maximum extent 

practicable.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

5-34

5.0 Mitigation

Table 5.3-13: Procedural Mitigation for Explosive Mine Neutralization Activities Involving 

Navy Divers (continued)

Procedural Mitigation Description

− To allow a sighted marine mammal or sea turtle to leave the mitigation zone, the Navy will not 

recommence detonations or fuse initiation until one of the recommencement conditions has been met: 

(1) the animal is observed exiting the mitigation zone; (2) the animal is thought to have exited the 

mitigation zone based on a determination of its course, speed, and movement relative to the detonation 

site; or (3) the mitigation zone has been clear from any additional sightings for 10 min. during activities 

under positive control with aircraft that have fuel constraints, or 30 min. during activities under positive 

control with aircraft that are not typically fuel constrained and during activities using time-delay firing 

devices.

− After completion of an activity using time-delay firing devices, observe for marine mammals and sea 

turtles for 30 min.; if any injured or dead resources are observed, follow established incident reporting 

procedures.

• To avoid impacts on ESA-listed scalloped hammerhead sharks within the Southern California Range Complex, 

divers will notify their supporting small boat or Range Safety Officer of hammerhead shark sightings (of any 

hammerhead species, due to the difficulty of differentiating species) during the activity. Detonations will 

cease if divers sight a hammerhead shark when setting the charge. 

• To avoid impacts on birds, during activities conducted in shallow water, a shore-based observer will use 

binoculars to survey the mitigation zone for birds prior to and after each detonation. Immediately following 

the detonation, the Navy will observe the mitigation zone for at least 30 min. For training exercises that 

include the use of multiple detonations, the second (or third, etc.) detonation will occur either immediately 

after the preceding detonation (i.e., within 10 seconds of the preceding detonation), or after 30 min. have 

passed to avoid potential impacts on birds (e.g., least terns) that are foraging underwater.

The types of charges used during explosive mine neutralization activities involving Navy divers are either 

positively controlled (i.e., the detonation is controlled by the personnel conducting the activity and is 

not authorized until the area is clear at the time of detonation), or initiated using a time-delay fuse (i.e., 

the detonation is fused with a specified time-delay by the personnel conducting the activity and is not 

authorized until the area is clear at the time the fuse is initiated, but cannot be terminated once the fuse 

is initiated due to human safety concerns). For activities using the 1,000 yd. mitigation zone, explosives 

in bin E7 (e.g., 60 lb. net explosive weight charges) have the longest impact ranges. For bin E7, the 1,000

yd. mitigation zone extends beyond the average ranges to PTS for all functional hearing groups except 

high-frequency cetaceans, low-frequency cetaceans, and phocids. All activities using a time-delay fuse 

(which have a maximum charge size of 29 lb. net explosive weight) will implement the 1,000 yd. 

mitigation zone. The mitigation would be more protective during the use of smaller charges with shorter 

impact ranges, including those using time-delay fuses (e.g., bin E6). Implementing the mitigation would 

likely help avoid or reduce the potential for some exposures to higher levels of energy that may result in 

threshold shifts that are recoverable (i.e., TTS).

For activities using the 500 yd. mitigation zone, positive control charges in bin E6 (e.g., 20 lb. net 

explosive weight) have the longest impact ranges. For bin E6, the 500 yd. mitigation zone also extends 

beyond the average ranges to PTS for all functional hearing groups except high-frequency cetaceans, 

low-frequency cetaceans, and phocids. The mitigation would be more protective during the use of 

smaller positive control charges (e.g., bin E5, bin E4) with shorter impact ranges. Implementing the 

mitigation would likely help avoid or reduce the potential for some exposures to higher levels of energy 

that may result in threshold shifts that are recoverable (i.e., TTS).
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

5-35

5.0 Mitigation

For the 1,000 yd. mitigation zone, the use of two additional Lookouts increases the likelihood that 

Lookouts would detect marine mammals and sea turtles across the larger mitigation zone size. For the 

500 yd. mitigation zone, the smaller mitigation zone size increases the likelihood that Lookouts would 

detect marine mammals and sea turtles. Due to their low vantage point on the water, Lookouts in small 

boats would be more likely to detect large visual cues (e.g., whale blows or large pods of dolphins) or 

the splashes of individual marine mammals than cryptic marine mammal species and sea turtles near 

the perimeter of the mitigation zone. When rotary-wing aircraft are used, Lookouts positioned in an 

aircraft would have a better vantage point for observing out to the perimeter of either mitigation zone 

size. For activities using a time-delay fuse, there is a remote chance that animals may swim into the 

mitigation zone after the fuse has been initiated. During activities under positive control, the Navy can 

cease detonations at any time in response to a sighting of a marine mammal or sea turtle. Observing for 

indicators of marine mammal and sea turtle presence will further help avoid or reduce impacts on these 

resources within the mitigation zones. The additional mitigation within the Southern California Range 

Complex would help the Navy avoid or reduce impacts on hammerhead sharks, least terns, and other 

seabirds while foraging underwater.

Input from the operational community indicates that the mitigation detailed in Table 5.3-13 is 

practicable to implement and that Lookouts can reasonably be expected to maintain situational 

awareness and visually observe the mitigation zones during typical activity conditions. An increase in 

mitigation zone size or observation requirements beyond what is presented in Table 5.3-13 would be 

impracticable to implement due to implications for safety, sustainability, and the Navy’s ability to 

continue meeting Title 10 requirements to successfully accomplish military readiness objectives. For 

example, during Mine Neutralization – Explosive Ordnance Disposal exercises, Navy divers train to 

disable threat mines with explosive charges to create a safe channel for friendly vessels to transit. As 

described in Section 5.2.1 (Procedural Mitigation Development), certain platforms, such as the small 

boats used during Mine Neutralization – Explosive Ordnance Disposal exercises, have manning or space 

restrictions; therefore, the Lookouts for this activity are typically existing members of the boat crews 

who are responsible for other essential tasks (e.g., navigation, dive support). Because this activity

involves training Navy divers in the safe handling of explosive charges, the Lookouts must focus 

attention on the activity area to ensure safety of personnel and equipment. Based on the number of 

personnel involved in these activities, if either mitigation zone size increased, the Navy would need to 

redirect the attention of the existing Lookouts to observe a larger area (which would increase safety 

risks due to directing attention away from mission requirements), add personnel to serve as additional 

Lookouts on the existing observation platforms (which is not possible due to space restrictions on small 

boats and aircraft), or add additional observation platforms (which is not possible due to restrictions on 

manpower and available resources [e.g., small boats, rotary-wing aircraft] available for these activities). 

Furthermore, additional stopping and starting of the exercise would reduce the divers’ abilities to 

detect, identify, evaluate, and disable mines as would be required in a real world combat situation, 

which would modify the activity in a way that prevents it from meeting its intended objectives.

In addition to procedural mitigation, the Navy will implement mitigation for these activities within 

mitigation areas to avoid or reduce impacts on seafloor resources (see Section 5.4.1, Mitigation Areas 

for Seafloor Resources).

5.3.3.9 Underwater Demolition Multiple Charge – Mat Weave and Obstacle Loading

The Navy will continue implementing procedural mitigation to avoid the potential for marine mammals 

and sea turtles to be exposed to levels of energy that could result in injury (i.e., PTS) during Underwater 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

5-36

5.0 Mitigation

Demolition Multiple Charge – Mat Weave and Obstacle Loading exercises to the maximum extent 

practicable, as outlined in Table 5.3-14.

Table 5.3-14: Procedural Mitigation for Underwater Demolition Multiple Charge – Mat Weave 

and Obstacle Loading

Procedural Mitigation Description

Stressor or Activity

• Underwater Demolition Multiple Charge – Mat Weave and Obstacle Loading exercises

Resource Protection Focus

• Marine mammals

• Sea turtles

Number of Lookouts and Observation Platform

• 2 Lookouts (one on a small boat and one on shore from an elevated platform)

Mitigation Zone Size and Mitigation Requirements

• 700 yd. around the detonation site:

− For 30 min. prior to the first detonation, the Lookout positioned on a small boat will observe for floating 

vegetation, marine mammals, and sea turtles; if resource is observed, do not commence the initial 

detonation.

− For 10 min. prior to the first detonation, the Lookout positioned on shore will use binoculars to observe 

for marine mammals and sea turtles; if resource is observed, do not commence the initial detonation

until the mitigation zone has been clear of any additional sightings for a minimum of 10 min.

− During the activity, observe for marine mammals and sea turtles; if observed, cease detonations.

− To allow a sighted marine mammal or sea turtle to leave the mitigation zone, the Navy will not 

recommence detonations until one of the recommencement conditions has been met: (1) the animal is 

observed exiting the mitigation zone; (2) the animal is thought to have exited the mitigation zone based 

on a determination of its course, speed, and movement relative to the detonation site; or (3) the 

mitigation zone has been clear from any additional sightings for 10 min. (as determined by the shore 

observer).

− After completion of the activity, the Lookout positioned on a small boat will observe for marine 

mammals and sea turtles for 30 min.; if any injured or dead resources are observed, follow established 

incident reporting procedures.

Bin E13 has the longest impact ranges of any explosive charge used during Underwater Demolition 

Multiple Charge – Mat Weave and Obstacle Loading training exercises in the Study Area. For bin E13, the 

700 yd. mitigation zone likely extends beyond the average ranges to PTS for all of the functional hearing 

groups that are likely to be present at the locations where this activity occurs except phocids. Mitigation 

would be more protective during the use of smaller charges (e.g., bin E10) with shorter impact ranges.

Implementing the mitigation would likely help avoid or reduce the potential for some exposures to 

higher levels of energy that may result in threshold shifts that are recoverable (i.e., TTS).

The mitigation zone’s proximity to shore and the use of two Lookouts from different observation 

platforms would help increase the likelihood that Lookouts would detect marine mammals and sea 

turtles throughout the mitigation zone, including near the perimeter. The Navy will implement a 10 min. 

recommencement wait period because this activity is conducted in the shallow waters of San Clemente 

Island (e.g., Northwest Harbor) where marine mammals would not be expected to undergo deep or 

prolonged dives. Shore-based Lookouts will have an enhanced vantage point for observing the 

mitigation zone to help determine that it is clear of marine mammals and sea turtles. Observing for 

indicators of marine mammal and sea turtle presence would likely further help avoid impacts on these 

resources within the mitigation zone. 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

5-37

5.0 Mitigation

Input from the training community indicates that the mitigation is practicable to implement and that 

Lookouts can reasonably be expected to maintain situational awareness and visually observe the 

mitigation zones during typical activity conditions. An increase in mitigation zone size or observation 

requirements beyond what is presented in Table 5.3-14 would be impracticable to implement due to 

implications for safety, sustainability, and the Navy’s ability to continue meeting Title 10 requirements 

to successfully accomplish military readiness objectives. During this activity, military personnel train to 

use explosive charges to destroy barriers or obstacles to amphibious vehicle access to beach areas. 

Because this activity involves training Navy divers in the safe handling of explosive charges, Lookouts 

must focus attention on the activity area to ensure safety of personnel and equipment. Based on the 

number of personnel involved in each activity, if the mitigation zone size increased, the Navy would 

need to redirect the attention of the existing Lookouts to observe a larger area (which would increase 

safety risks due to directing attention away from mission requirements), or add personnel to serve as 

additional Lookouts (which is not possible due to restrictions on manpower and resources available for 

this activity). Furthermore, additional stopping and starting of the exercise would reduce the 

personnel’s abilities to construct, place, and safely detonate multiple charges laid in a pattern for 

underwater obstacle clearance as would be required in a real world combat situation, which would 

modify the activity in a way that prevents it from meeting its intended objectives.

5.3.3.10 Maritime Security Operations – Anti-Swimmer Grenades

The Navy will continue implementing procedural mitigation to avoid or reduce the potential for marine 

mammals and sea turtles to be exposed to levels of energy that could result in injury (i.e., PTS) from 

anti-swimmer grenades during Maritime Security Operations to the maximum extent practicable, as 

outlined in Table 5.3-15.

Table 5.3-15: Procedural Mitigation for Maritime Security Operations – Anti-Swimmer 

Grenades

Procedural Mitigation Description

Stressor or Activity

• Maritime Security Operations – Anti-Swimmer Grenades

Resource Protection Focus

• Marine mammals

• Sea turtles 

Number of Lookouts and Observation Platform

• 1 Lookout positioned on the small boat conducting the activity

Mitigation Zone Size and Mitigation Requirements

• 200 yd. around the intended detonation location:

− Prior to the start of the activity (e.g., when maneuvering on station), observe for floating vegetation, 

marine mammals, and sea turtles; if resource is observed, do not commence detonations.

− During the activity, observe for marine mammals and sea turtles; if resource is observed, cease 

detonations.

− To allow a sighted marine mammal or sea turtle to leave the mitigation zone, the Navy will not 

recommence detonations until one of the recommencement conditions has been met: (1) the animal is 

observed exiting the mitigation zone; (2) the animal is thought to have exited the mitigation zone based 

on a determination of its course, speed, and movement relative to the intended detonation location; (3) 

the mitigation zone has been clear from any additional sightings for 30 min.; or (4) the intended 

detonation location has transited a distance equal to double that of the mitigation zone size beyond the 

location of the last sighting.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

5-38

5.0 Mitigation

Explosives used during Maritime Security Operations – Anti-Swimmer Grenades exercises are in bin E2 

(e.g., 0.5 lb. net explosive weight). For bin E2, the mitigation zone extends beyond the average ranges to 

PTS for all functional hearing groups except high-frequency cetaceans, low-frequency cetaceans, and 

phocids. Implementing the mitigation would likely help avoid or reduce the potential for some 

exposures to higher levels of energy that may result in threshold shifts that are recoverable (i.e., TTS). 

The small mitigation zone size will help increase the likelihood that Lookouts would detect marine 

mammals and sea turtles that are available to be observed, and observing for indicators of marine 

mammal and sea turtle presence will further help avoid or reduce impacts on these resources within the 

mitigation zone.

Input from the training community indicates that the mitigation detailed in Table 5.3-15 is practicable to 

implement and that Lookouts can reasonably be expected to maintain situational awareness and visually 

observe the mitigation zone during typical activity conditions. An increase in mitigation zone size or 

observation requirements would be impracticable to implement due to implications for safety and 

sustainability. As described in Section 5.2.1 (Procedural Mitigation Development), certain platforms, 

such as the small boats used during Maritime Security Operations – Anti-Swimmer Grenades exercises, 

have manning or space restrictions; therefore, the Lookout for this activity is typically an existing 

member of the boat crew who is responsible for other essential tasks (e.g., navigation). Because this 

activity involves training crews in the safe handling of explosive hand grenades, the Lookout must focus 

attention on the immediate vicinity of the activity to ensure safety of personnel and equipment. If the 

mitigation zone size increased, the Navy would need to redirect the attention of the existing Lookout to 

observe a larger area (which would increase safety risks due to directing attention away from mission 

requirements), add personnel to serve as additional Lookouts on the existing observation platform 

(which is not possible due to space restrictions for the small boats already participating in the activity), 

or add additional observation platforms (which is not possible due to restrictions on manpower and 

available resources [e.g., small boats]).

5.3.4 PHYSICAL DISTURBANCE AND STRIKE STRESSORS

The Navy will implement procedural mitigation to avoid or reduce potential impacts on biological 

resources from the physical disturbance and strike stressors or activities discussed in the sections below.

Section 3.7.3.4 (Physical Disturbance and Strike Stressors) and Section 3.8.3.4 (Physical Disturbance and 

Strike Stressors) provide a full analysis of the potential impacts of physical disturbance and strikes on 

marine mammals and sea turtles, respectively. Appendix F (Military Expended Material and Direct Strike 

Impact Analysis) presents the impact footprints and direct strike calculations.

5.3.4.1 Vessel Movement

The Navy will continue implementing procedural mitigation to avoid the potential for physical 

disturbance and strike of marine mammals from vessel movement to the maximum extent practicable, 

as outlined in Table 5.3-16. For information on mitigation area measures (e.g., large whale awareness 

notification messages) that are designed to further help avoid or reduce the risk of vessel strikes, refer 

to Section 5.4.2 (Mitigation Areas for Marine Mammals in the Hawaii Range Complex) and Section 5.4.3 

(Mitigation Areas for Marine Mammals in the Southern California Portion of the Study Area).
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

5-39

5.0 Mitigation

Table 5.3-16: Procedural Mitigation for Vessel Movement

Procedural Mitigation Description

Stressor or Activity

• Vessel movement

• The mitigation will not be applied if: (1) the vessel’s safety is threatened, (2) the vessel is restricted in its 

ability to maneuver (e.g., during launching and recovery of aircraft or landing craft, during towing activities, 

when mooring, etc.), (3) the vessel is operated autonomously, or (4) when impracticable based on mission 

requirements (e.g., during Amphibious Assault – Battalion Landing exercises).

Resource Protection Focus

• Marine mammals

Number of Lookouts and Observation Platform

• 1 Lookout on the vessel that is underway

Mitigation Zone Size and Mitigation Requirements

• 500 yd. around whales: 

− When underway, observe for marine mammals; if a whale is observed, maneuver to maintain distance.

• 200 yd. around all other marine mammals (except bow-riding dolphins and pinnipeds hauled out on manmade navigational structures, port structures, and vessels): 

− When underway, observe for marine mammals; if a marine mammal other than a whale, bow-riding 

dolphin, or hauled-out pinniped is observed, maneuver to maintain distance.

The mitigation zones for vessel movement are based on guidance from NMFS for vessel strike 

avoidance. The small mitigation zone size and proximity to the observation platform will help increase 

the likelihood that Lookouts would detect marine mammals that are available to be observed while 

vessels are underway. As discussed in Section 5.3.1 (Environmental Awareness and Education), it is likely 

that the implementation of the Marine Species Awareness Training starting in 2007, and the additional 

U.S. Navy Afloat Environmental Compliance Training Series modules starting in 2014, has contributed to 

a reduction in vessel strikes.

Input from the operational community indicates that the mitigation detailed in Table 5.3-16 is 

practicable to implement and that Lookouts can reasonably be expected to maintain situational 

awareness and visually observe the mitigation zone during typical activity conditions. In addition, some 

vessels that operate autonomously have imbedded sensors that aid in their avoidance of large objects, 

which may help avoid physical disturbance and strike of marine mammals from certain unmanned 

vehicles, even though the mitigation zone will not be visually observed.

5.3.4.2 Towed In-Water Devices

The Navy will continue implementing procedural mitigation to avoid the potential for physical 

disturbance and strike of marine mammals from towed in-water devices to the maximum extent 

practicable, as outlined in Table 5.3-17.

Table 5.3-17: Procedural Mitigation for Towed In-Water Devices

Procedural Mitigation Description

Stressor or Activity

• Towed in-water devices 

• Mitigation applies to devices that are towed from a manned surface platform or manned aircraft

• The mitigation will not be applied if the safety of the towing platform or in-water device is threatened

Resource Protection Focus

• Marine mammals
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

5-40

5.0 Mitigation

Table 5.3-17: Procedural Mitigation for Towed In-Water Devices (continued)

Procedural Mitigation Description

Number of Lookouts and Observation Platform

• 1 Lookout positioned on the manned towing platform

Mitigation Zone Size and Mitigation Requirements

• 250 yd. around marine mammals: 

− When towing an in-water device, observe for marine mammals; if resource is observed, maneuver to 

maintain distance.

The small mitigation zone size and proximity to the observation platform will help increase the 

likelihood that Lookouts would detect marine mammals that are available to be observed when manned 

vessels or manned aircraft are towing in-water devices. Vessels involved in towing in-water devices will 

implement the mitigation described in Section 5.3.4.1 (Vessel Movement), in addition to the mitigation 

outlined in Table 5.3-17. 

Input from the operational community indicates that the mitigation detailed in Table 5.3-17 is 

practicable to implement and that Lookouts can reasonably be expected to maintain situational 

awareness and visually observe the mitigation zone during typical activity conditions. An increase in 

mitigation requirements would be impracticable to implement due to the limited maneuverability of 

towed in-water devices.

5.3.4.3 Small-, Medium-, and Large-Caliber Non-Explosive Practice Munitions

The Navy will continue implementing procedural mitigation to avoid or reduce the potential for physical 

disturbance and strike of marine mammals and sea turtles from small-, medium-, and large-caliber nonexplosive practice munitions to the maximum extent practicable, as outlined in Table 5.3-18.

Table 5.3-18: Procedural Mitigation for Small-, Medium-, and Large-Caliber Non-Explosive 

Practice Munitions

Procedural Mitigation Description

Stressor or Activity

• Gunnery activities using small-, medium-, and large-caliber non-explosive practice munitions

• Mitigation applies to activities using a surface target

Resource Protection Focus

• Marine mammals

• Sea turtles

Number of Lookouts and Observation Platform

• 1 Lookout positioned on the platform conducting the activity

• Depending on the activity, the Lookout could be the same as the one described in Section 5.3.2.4 (Weapons 

Firing Noise)
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

5-41

5.0 Mitigation

Table 5.3-18: Procedural Mitigation for Small-, Medium-, and Large-Caliber Non-Explosive 

Practice Munitions (continued)

Procedural Mitigation Description

Mitigation Zone Size and Mitigation Requirements

• 200 yd. around the intended impact location: 

− Prior to the start of the activity (e.g., when maneuvering on station), observe for floating vegetation, 

marine mammals, and sea turtles; if resource is observed, do not commence firing.

− During the activity, observe for marine mammals and sea turtles; if resource is observed, cease firing.

− To allow a sighted marine mammal or sea turtle to leave the mitigation zone, the Navy will not 

recommence firing until one of the recommencement conditions has been met: (1) the animal is 

observed exiting the mitigation zone; (2) the animal is thought to have exited the mitigation zone based 

on a determination of its course, speed, and movement relative to the intended impact location; (3) the 

mitigation zone has been clear from any additional sightings for 10 min. for aircraft-based firing or 30 

min. for vessel-based firing; or (4) for activities using a mobile target, the intended impact location has 

transited a distance equal to double that of the mitigation zone size beyond the location of the last 

sighting.

Based on the military expended material impact footprints calculated in Appendix F (Military Expended 

Material and Direct Strike Impact Analysis), the mitigation zone for this activity is several times larger 

than the impact footprint for the largest projectiles (large-caliber non-explosive practice munitions) used 

for these activities. The mitigation would be even more protective during the use of small-caliber and 

medium-caliber non-explosive projectiles with smaller impact footprints.

Large-caliber gunnery activities involve the firing of projectiles at a target located up to 6 NM down 

range from the firing ship. Small- and medium-caliber gunnery activities involve vessels or aircraft firing 

projectiles at targets that may be located up to 4,000 yd. from the firing platform, although typically the 

targets for these activities are much closer. Lookouts would have a better likelihood of detecting marine 

mammals and sea turtles when observing mitigation zones around targets that are located close to the 

firing platform. When observing activities that use a target located far from the firing platform, Lookouts 

would be more likely to detect large visual cues (e.g., whale blows or large pods of dolphins) than 

individual marine mammals, cryptic marine mammal species, and sea turtles.

Input from the operational community indicates that the mitigation detailed in Table 5.3-18 is 

practicable to implement and that Lookouts can reasonably be expected to maintain situational 

awareness and visually observe the mitigation zones during typical activity conditions.

In addition to procedural mitigation, the Navy will implement mitigation for small-, medium-, and largecaliber non-explosive practice munitions within mitigation areas to avoid or reduce impacts on seafloor 

resources (see Section 5.4.1, Mitigation Areas for Seafloor Resources).

5.3.4.4 Non-Explosive Missiles and Rockets

The Navy will continue implementing procedural mitigation to avoid or reduce the potential for physical 

disturbance and strike of marine mammals and sea turtles from non-explosive missiles and rockets to 

the maximum extent practicable, as outlined in Table 5.3-19.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

5-42

5.0 Mitigation

Table 5.3-19: Procedural Mitigation for Non-Explosive Missiles and Rockets

Procedural Mitigation Description

Stressor or Activity

• Aircraft-deployed non-explosive missiles and rockets

• Mitigation applies to activities using a surface target

Resource Protection Focus

• Marine mammals

• Sea turtles

Number of Lookouts and Observation Platform

• 1 Lookout positioned in an aircraft

Mitigation Zone Size and Mitigation Requirements

• 900 yd. around the intended impact location:

− Prior to the start of the activity (e.g., during a fly-over of the mitigation zone), observe for floating 

vegetation, marine mammals, and sea turtles; if resource is observed, do not commence firing.

− During the activity, observe for marine mammals and sea turtles; if resource is observed, cease firing.

− To allow a sighted marine mammal or sea turtle to leave the mitigation zone, the Navy will not 

recommence firing until one of the recommencement conditions has been met: (1) the animal is 

observed exiting the mitigation zone; (2) the animal is thought to have exited the mitigation zone based 

on a determination of its course, speed, and movement relative to the intended impact location; or 

(3) the mitigation zone has been clear from any additional sightings for 10 min. when the activity 

involves aircraft that have fuel constraints, or 30 min. when the activity involves aircraft that are not 

typically fuel constrained.

Based on the military expended material impact footprints calculated in Appendix F (Military Expended 

Material and Direct Strike Impact Analysis), the mitigation zone for this activity is several times larger 

than the impact footprint for the largest non-explosive missile. The mitigation would be even more 

protective during the use of smaller non-explosive missiles and rockets with smaller impact footprints.

Missile and rocket exercises involve a participating ship or aircraft firing munitions at a target that is 

typically located up to 15 NM away, and infrequently up to 75 NM away. The mitigation only applies to 

aircraft-deployed missiles and rockets because aircraft can travel close to the intended impact area prior 

to commencing firing. Observation of the mitigation zone is not possible when missiles and rockets are 

fired from a ship due to the distance between the firing ship and the intended impact location. Even 

when aircraft are firing, there is a chance that animals could enter the mitigation zone after the aircraft 

conducts its close-range mitigation zone observations and before firing begins (once the aircraft has 

transited to its distant firing position). Due to the distance between the mitigation zone and the 

observation platform, Lookouts would have a better likelihood of detecting marine mammals and sea 

turtles during the close-range observations, but are not likely to detect these resources once positioned 

at the firing location. Observing for indicators of marine mammal and sea turtle presence will further 

help avoid or reduce impacts on these resources within the mitigation zone during the close-range 

observations. 

Input from the operational community indicates that the mitigation detailed in Table 5.3-19 is 

practicable to implement and that Lookouts can reasonably be expected to maintain situational 

awareness and visually observe the mitigation zone prior to the start of the activity with a close-range 

fly-over during typical activity conditions.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

5-43

5.0 Mitigation

In addition to procedural mitigation, the Navy will implement mitigation for non-explosive missiles and 

rockets within mitigation areas to avoid or reduce impacts on seafloor resources (see Section 5.4.1,

Mitigation Areas for Seafloor Resources).

5.3.4.5 Non-Explosive Bombs and Mine Shapes

The Navy will continue implementing procedural mitigation to avoid or reduce the potential for physical 

disturbance and strike of marine mammals and sea turtles from non-explosive bombs and mine shapes 

to the maximum extent practicable, as outlined in Table 5.3-20.

Table 5.3-20: Procedural Mitigation for Non-Explosive Bombs and Mine Shapes

Procedural Mitigation Description

Stressor or Activity

• Non-explosive bombs

• Non-explosive mine shapes during mine laying activities

Resource Protection Focus

• Marine mammals

• Sea turtles

Number of Lookouts and Observation Platform

• 1 Lookout positioned in an aircraft

Mitigation Zone Size and Mitigation Requirements

• 1,000 yd. around the intended target:

− Prior to the start of the activity (e.g., when arriving on station), observe for floating vegetation, marine 

mammals, and sea turtles; if resource is observed, do not commence bomb deployment or mine laying.

− During approach of the target or intended minefield location, observe for marine mammals and sea 

turtles; if resource is observed, cease bomb deployment or mine laying.

− To allow a sighted marine mammal or sea turtle to leave the mitigation zone, the Navy will not 

recommence bomb deployment or mine laying until one of the recommencement conditions has been 

met: (1) the animal is observed exiting the mitigation zone; (2) the animal is thought to have exited the 

mitigation zone based on a determination of its course, speed, and movement relative to the intended 

target or minefield location; (3) the mitigation zone has been clear from any additional sightings for 

10 min.; or (4) for activities using mobile targets, the intended target has transited a distance equal to 

double that of the mitigation zone size beyond the location of the last sighting.

Based on the military expended material impact footprints calculated in Appendix F (Military Expended 

Material and Direct Strike Impact Analysis), the mitigation zone for this activity is several times larger 

than the impact footprint for non-explosive bombs and mine shapes. The mitigation would be even 

more protective during the use of smaller non-explosive bombs and mine shapes with smaller impact 

footprints.

Bombing exercises and activities involving mine laying involve a participating aircraft deploying 

munitions or mine shapes at a surface target or in an intended minefield location beneath the platform. 

During approach of the target or intended minefield location, aircraft maintain a relatively steady 

altitude of approximately 1,500 ft., and Lookouts will, by necessity for safety and mission success, 

primarily focus their attention on the water surface below and surrounding the location of bomb or 

mine shape deployment. Due to the mitigation zone size and vantage point from an aircraft, Lookouts 

should be able to observe the entire mitigation zone while still maintaining situational awareness. 

Observing for indicators of marine mammal and sea turtle presence will further help avoid or reduce 

impacts on these resources within the mitigation zone.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

5-44

5.0 Mitigation

Input from the operational community indicates that the mitigation detailed in Table 5.3-20 is 

practicable to implement and that Lookouts can reasonably be expected to maintain situational 

awareness and visually observe the mitigation zone during typical activity conditions.

In addition to procedural mitigation, the Navy will implement mitigation for non-explosive bombs and 

mine shapes within mitigation areas to avoid or reduce impacts on seafloor resources (see Section 5.4.1, 

Mitigation Areas for Seafloor Resources).

5.4 MITIGATION AREAS TO BE IMPLEMENTED

The Navy will implement the procedural mitigation presented in Section 5.3.2 (Acoustic Stressors), 

Section 5.3.3 (Explosive Stressors), and Section 5.3.4 (Physical Disturbance and Strike Stressors) to avoid 

or reduce potential impacts on marine mammals and other biological resources whenever and wherever 

training and testing activities occur. In addition, the Navy will implement mitigation under Alternative 1 

or Alternative 2 of the Proposed Action within mitigation areas to further avoid or reduce potential 

impacts on biological or cultural resources to the maximum extent practicable as warranted by the 

Chapter 3 (Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences) and Appendix K (Geographic 

Mitigation Assessment for Areas under Consideration within the Hawaii-Southern California Training and 

Testing Study Area) analyses, which are based on the best available science. For a full technical analysis 

(e.g., assessment of biological effectiveness and practicability of implementation) of all mitigation areas 

that the Navy considered for marine mammals, see Appendix K (Geographic Mitigation Assessment for 

Areas under Consideration within the Hawaii-Southern California Training and Testing Study Area). A 

summary of the mitigation areas that the Navy will implement for marine mammals as a result of the 

Appendix K (Geographic Mitigation Assessment for Areas under Consideration within the HawaiiSouthern California Training and Testing Study Area) findings is provided in Section 5.4.2 (Mitigation 

Areas for Marine Mammals in the Hawaii Range Complex) and Section 5.4.3 (Mitigation Areas for 

Marine Mammals in the Southern California Portion of the Study Area). 

5.4.1 MITIGATION AREAS FOR SEAFLOOR RESOURCES

As outlined in Table 5.4-1 and shown in Figure 5.4-1 and Figure 5.4-2, the Navy will implement 

mitigation to avoid impacts on seafloor resources from explosives and physical disturbance and strike 

from military expended materials and anchorages in mitigation areas throughout the Study Area.

Table 5.4-1: Mitigation Areas for Seafloor Resources

Mitigation Area Description

Resource Protection Focus

• Shallow-water coral reefs

• Precious coral beds

• Live hard bottom

• Artificial reefs

• Shipwrecks 

Stressor or Activity

• Explosives

• Physical disturbance and strikes
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

5-45

5.0 Mitigation

Table 5.4-1: Mitigation Areas for Seafloor Resources (continued)

Mitigation Area Description

Mitigation Area Requirements

• Within the anchor swing circle of shallow-water coral reefs, precious coral beds, live hard bottom, artificial 

reefs, and shipwrecks:

− The Navy will not conduct precision anchoring (except in designated anchorages, such as areas adjoining 

the boat lanes off Silver Strand Training Complex and Naval Amphibious Base Coronado).

• Within a 350 yd. radius of shallow-water coral reefs, precious coral beds, live hard bottom, artificial reefs, 

and shipwrecks:

− The Navy will not conduct explosive mine countermeasure and neutralization activities, or explosive mine 

neutralization activities involving Navy divers.

• Within a 350 yd. radius of shallow-water coral reefs and precious coral beds:

− The Navy will not conduct explosive or non-explosive small-, medium-, and large-caliber gunnery activities 

using a surface target; explosive or non-explosive missile and rocket activities using a surface target; and 

explosive or non-explosive bombing and mine-laying activities.

5.4.1.1 Resource Description

Seafloor resources fulfill important ecosystem functions. Live hard bottom habitats and artificial 

structures (e.g., artificial reefs, shipwrecks) provide attachment substrate for algae and invertebrates, 

such as corals, seaweed, and sponges. These substrates in turn support a community of organisms, such 

as fish, shrimp, crabs, barnacles, worms, and sea cucumbers. Shallow-water coral reefs provide 

substrate, shelter, and food for hundreds of invertebrate species, sea turtles, fishes, and other biological 

resources. They are one of the most productive and diverse assemblages on Earth. 

In addition to their ecosystem functions, historic shipwrecks are classified as archaeological resources 

and are an important part of U.S. maritime history. Dive sites occur throughout nearshore areas of the 

Study Area where there are shipwrecks, artificial reefs, shallow-water coral reefs, and precious coral 

beds, making these resources highly valuable from a socioeconomic standpoint. For additional 

information on the biological, cultural, and socioeconomic importance of seafloor resources and their 

associated ecosystem components, refer to Chapter 3.3 (Vegetation), Chapter 3.4 (Invertebrates), 

Chapter 3.5 (Habitats), Chapter 3.6 (Fishes), Chapter 3.7 (Marine Mammals), Chapter 3.8 (Reptiles), 

Chapter 3.10 (Cultural Resources), and Chapter 3.11 (Socioeconomics).

5.4.1.2 Mitigation Area Assessment

Without mitigation, explosives and physical disturbance and strike stressors could potentially impact 

shallow-water coral reefs, precious coral beds, live hard bottom, artificial reefs, shipwrecks, and their 

associated ecosystem components during certain training and testing activities in the Study Area. The 

Navy developed mitigation areas as either the anchor swing circle diameter or a 350 yd. radius around a 

seafloor resource, as indicated by the best available georeferenced data. Mitigating within the anchor 

swing circle will allow protection of seafloor resources during precision anchoring activities when 

factoring in environmental conditions that could affect anchoring position and swing circle size (such as 

winds, currents, and water depth). For other activities applicable to the mitigation, a 350 yd. radius 

around a seafloor resource is a conservatively sized mitigation area that will provide protection well 

beyond the maximum expected impact footprint (e.g., crater and expelled material radius) of the 

explosives and non-explosive practice munitions used in the Study Area. As described in Appendix F 

(Military Expended Material and Direct Strike Impact Analysis), the military expended material with the 

largest footprint that applies to the mitigation is an explosive mine with a 650 lb. net explosive weight, 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

5-46

5.0 Mitigation

which has an estimated impact footprint of approximately 14,800 square ft. and an associated radius of 

22.7 yd. The 350 yd. mitigation zone is well beyond the maximum expected direct impact footprint for 

the activities listed in Table 5.4-1, and further mitigates some level of indirect impact from explosive 

disturbances. The other applicable explosive activities and non-explosive practice munitions are 

expected to have a smaller impact footprint; therefore, the mitigation area will result in additional 

protection during those activities. Mitigation would help the Navy avoid or reduce impacts from 

explosives and physical disturbance and strike stressors on seafloor resources, and consequently to any 

biological or cultural resources that inhabit, shelter, rest, feed, or occur in the mitigation areas.

To aid in the implementation of seafloor resource mitigation, the Navy will include maps of the best 

available georeferenced data (i.e., where the available data accurately indicate the natural boundary of 

a seafloor resource and are not generalized within large geometric areas, such as large grid cells) in the 

Protective Measures Assessment Protocol for shallow-water coral reefs, precious coral beds, artificial 

reefs, live hard bottom, and shipwrecks. These mitigation measures only apply to georeferenced 

resources because the Navy requires accurate resource identification and mapping for the mitigation to 

be effective and practicable to implement. Point and transect data will also be included if actual 

moderate- to high-relief live hard bottom is being documented. This criterion excludes some data (e.g., 

grid-based live hard bottom polygons and indicator fish transects). The shipwreck data documented in 

Section 3.5 (Habitats) were refined to only accurate positions using the following criteria: (1) not an 

obstruction, sounding, unknown (non-wreck), dump site, mooring buoy, sewer outfall, piling, or rock; 

(2) high or medium accuracy location; (3) not disproved; (4) not an approximate position (applied to 

medium accuracy only); and (5) source information provided. 

Input from the operational community indicates that the mitigation detailed in Table 5.4-1 is practicable 

to implement. Implementing additional mitigation for other activities or types of seafloor resources 

would not allow the Navy to continue meeting its Title 10 requirements to successfully accomplish 

military readiness objectives (e.g., would decrease access to necessary environmental or oceanographic 

conditions, would prevent ready access to facilities or range support structures, could unduly delay 

testing associated with required acquisition milestones or as required on an as-needed basis to meet 

operational requirements), and therefore would not be practicable to implement.
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

5-47

5.0 Mitigation

Notes: MCB: Marine Corps Base; SOCAL: Southern California

Figure 5.4-1: Seafloor Resource Mitigation Areas off Hawaii
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

5-48

5.0 Mitigation

Figure 5.4-2: Seafloor Resource Mitigation Areas off Southern California
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

5-49

5.0 Mitigation

5.4.2 MITIGATION AREAS FOR MARINE MAMMALS IN THE HAWAII RANGE COMPLEX

As described in Table 5.4-2 and shown in Figure 5.4-3, the Navy will implement additional mitigation 

within mitigation areas to further avoid or reduce impacts on marine mammals from acoustic and 

explosive stressors and vessel strikes from the Proposed Action in the Hawaii Range Complex. The Navy 

developed several new mitigation areas and will continue implementing mitigation within some existing 

mitigation areas for Phase III as a result of the technical analyses contained in Appendix K (Geographic 

Mitigation Assessment for Areas under Consideration within the Hawaii-Southern California Training and 

Testing Study Area).

Table 5.4-2: Mitigation Areas for Marine Mammals in the Hawaii Range Complex

Mitigation Area Description

Resource Protection Focus

• Marine mammals

Stressor or Activity

• Sonar

• Explosives 

• Vessel strikes

Mitigation Area Requirements

• West-side Hawaii Island Planning Awareness Area (year-round):

− The Navy will not conduct more than one Major Training Exercises – Large Integrated Anti-Submarine 

Warfare activity (e.g., Rim of the Pacific Exercise, Undersea Warfare Exercise) every other year, and 

three Major Training Exercises – Medium Integrated Anti-Submarine Warfare activities (e.g., Fleet 

Exercise/Sustainment Exercise) per year using surface ship hull-mounted mid-frequency active sonar.

− If the Navy needs to conduct additional major training exercises using surface ship hull-mounted midfrequency active sonar in the mitigation area for national security, it will provide NMFS with advance 

notification and include the information in any associated annual training or testing activity reports.

• West-side Hawaii Island Cautionary Area (year-round): 

− The Navy will not use in-water explosives during unit-level training, major training exercises, or testing 

events. 

− If a naval unit needs to use in-water explosives during unit-level training, major training exercises, or 

testing events in the mitigation area for national security, it will obtain permission from the appropriate 

delegated Command designee prior to commencement of the activity. The Navy will provide NMFS with 

advance notification and include the information in any associated annual training or testing activity 

reports.

• East-side Hawaii Island Cautionary Area (year-round): 

− The Navy will not use surface ship hull-mounted mid-frequency active sonar and in-water explosives 

during unit-level training, major training exercises, or testing events. 

− If a naval unit needs to use surface ship hull-mounted mid-frequency active sonar or in-water explosives 

during unit-level training, major training exercises, or testing events in the mitigation area for national 

security, it will obtain permission from the appropriate delegated Command designee prior to 

commencement of the activity. The Navy will provide NMFS with advance notification and include the 

information in any associated annual training or testing activity reports.
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

5-50

5.0 Mitigation

Table 5.4-2: Mitigation Areas for Marine Mammals in the Hawaii Range Complex (continued)

Mitigation Area Description

• Humpback Whale Cautionary Area (November 15 – April 15): 

− The Navy will not use surface ship hull-mounted mid-frequency active sonar during training or testing 

activities.

− If a naval unit needs to use surface ship hull-mounted mid-frequency active sonar during training or 

testing activities in the mitigation area for national security, the Navy will obtain permission from the 

appropriate Commander, Third Fleet or System Command delegated authority prior to commencement 

of the activity. The Navy will provide NMFS with advance notification and include the information in any 

associated annual training or testing activity reports.

• Humpback Whale Special Reporting Area (December 15 – April 15):

− As discussed in Section 5.1.1.2 (Training and Testing Activity Reports), the Navy will report the total 

hours of operation of surface ship hull-mounted mid-frequency active sonar used in the special reporting

area in any associated annual training or testing activity reports.

• Humpback Whale Awareness Notification Message Area (November 15 – April 15):

− The Navy will issue a seasonal awareness notification message to alert ships and aircraft operating in the 

area to the possible presence of concentrations of large whales, including humpback whales.

− To maintain safety of navigation and to avoid interactions with large whales during transits, the Navy will 

instruct vessels to remain vigilant to the presence of large whale species (including humpback whales), 

that when concentrated seasonally, may become vulnerable to vessel strikes. 

− Lookouts will use the information from the awareness notification message to assist their visual 

observation of applicable mitigation zones (as identified in Section 5.3, Procedural Mitigation to be 

Implemented) during training and testing activities and to aid in the implementation of procedural 

mitigation.

5.4.2.1 Resource Description Summary

When developing mitigation areas in the Hawaii Range Complex, the Navy considered habitats for 

numerous marine mammal species, including the areas listed below, which are biologically important 

areas identified by Van Parijs et al. (2015), provisional 2015 prohibited or restricted areas derived from 

the 2015 HSTT Phase II-related lawsuit, or areas identified during the National Environmental Policy Act 

scoping process. A description, biological assessment, and stressor analysis of each area is provided in 

Appendix K (Geographic Mitigation Assessment for Areas under Consideration within the HawaiiSouthern California Training and Testing Study Area).

• Biologically important areas

o Blainville’s beaked whale small and resident population area: Hawaii Island (year-round)

o Bottlenose dolphin small and resident population area: 4-Islands Area (year-round)

o Bottlenose dolphin small and resident population area: Hawaii Island (year-round)

o Bottlenose dolphin small and resident population area: Niihau and Kauai (year-round)

o Bottlenose dolphin small and resident population area: Oahu (year-round)

o Cuvier’s beaked whale small and resident population area: Hawaii Island (year-round)

o Dwarf sperm whale small and resident population area: Hawaii Island (year-round)

o False killer whale small and resident population area: Hawaii Island to Niihau Island

(year-round)

o Humpback whale reproduction habitat: Kauai, Niihau, Oahu, Maui, Hawaii Islands 

(February – March)
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

5-51

5.0 Mitigation

o Melon-headed whale small and resident population area: Hawaii Island (year-round)

o Pantropical spotted dolphin small and resident population area: Hawaii Island (yearround)

o Pantropical spotted dolphin small and resident population area: Maui and Lanai (yearround)

o Pantropical spotted dolphin small and resident population area: Oahu (year-round)

o Pygmy killer whale small and resident population area: Hawaii Island (year-round)

o Rough-toothed dolphin small and resident population area: Hawaii Island (year-round)

o Short-finned pilot whale small and resident population area: Hawaii Island (year-round)

o Spinner dolphin small and resident population area: Kauai and Niihau (year-round)

o Spinner dolphin small and resident population area: Oahu and 4-Islands Area (yearround)

o Spinner dolphin small and resident population area: Hawaii Island (year-round)

• Provisional 2015 prohibited or restricted areas

o Area 1-A: False killer whale, pygmy killer whale, short-finned pilot whale, bottlenose 

dolphin, spinner dolphin, Cuvier’s beaked whale, and Blainville’s beaked whale habitat

o Area 1-B: Humpback whale, false killer whale, short-finned pilot whale, melon-headed 

whale, bottlenose dolphin, spinner dolphin, Cuvier’s beaked whale, and Blainville’s 

beaked whale habitat

o Area 1-C: Humpback whale, false killer whale, dwarf sperm whale, pygmy killer whale, 

short-finned pilot whale, bottlenose dolphin, spotted dolphin, spinner dolphin, roughtoothed dolphin, Cuvier’s beaked whale, and Blainville’s beaked whale habitat

o Area 1-D: Dwarf sperm whale, pygmy killer whale, short-finned pilot whale, bottlenose 

dolphin, spotted dolphin, spinner dolphin, rough-toothed dolphin, Cuvier’s beaked 

whale, and Blainville’s beaked whale habitat

o Area 1-E: Dwarf sperm whale, false killer whale, pygmy killer whale, melon-headed 

whale, bottlenose dolphin, spotted dolphin, spinner dolphin, rough-toothed dolphin, 

and Blainville’s beaked whale habitat

o Area 2-A: Humpback whale, false killer whale, bottlenose dolphin, and spinner dolphin 

habitat

o Area 2-B: Humpback whale, bottlenose dolphin, spotted dolphin, and spinner dolphin 

habitat 

o Area 2-C: False killer whale, bottlenose dolphin, and spinner dolphin habitat

o Area 2-D: False killer whale, bottlenose dolphin, and spinner dolphin habitat 

o Area 2-E: Dwarf sperm whale, false killer whale, pygmy killer whale, melon-headed 

whale, bottlenose dolphin, spotted dolphin, spinner dolphin, and Blainville’s beaked 

whale habitat

• Areas suggested during scoping

o Seamounts (including Cross Seamount): Beaked whale habitat

5.4.2.2 Summary of Mitigation Area Assessment

A description and operational analysis of the Navy requirements for training and testing within each 

area listed in Section 5.4.2.1 (Resource Description Summary) is provided in Appendix K (Geographic 
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

5-52

5.0 Mitigation

Mitigation Assessment for Areas under Consideration within the Hawaii-Southern California Training and 

Testing Study Area). The Navy developed the mitigation areas identified in Table 5.4-3 to provide further 

protection for marine mammals in areas that the best available science suggests are important to one or 

more species of marine mammals for reproduction (seasonally) or occurrence as a small or resident 

population (year-round). Implementing the mitigation within the mitigation areas identified in Table 

5.4-3 for the Hawaii Range Complex would likely result in an avoidance or reduction of impacts on one 

or more marine mammal species in each area, as summarized below:

• West-side Hawaii Island Planning Awareness Area. This new mitigation is likely to result in an 

avoidance or reduction of impacts from mid-frequency active sonar on marine mammals within 

the mitigation area, which the best available science suggests contains important habitat for 

numerous small and resident populations (including Blainville’s beaked whales, bottlenose 

dolphins, Cuvier’s beaked whales, dwarf sperm whales, false killer whales, melon-headed 

whales, pantropical spotted dolphins, pygmy killer whales, rough-toothed dolphins, short-finned 

pilot whales, and spinner dolphins), and important seasonal reproductive habitat for humpback 

whales.

• West-Side Hawaii Island Cautionary Area. This new mitigation is likely to result in an avoidance 

or reduction of impacts from explosives on marine mammals within the mitigation area, which 

the best available science suggests contains important habitat for numerous small and resident 

populations (including Blainville’s beaked whales, bottlenose dolphins, Cuvier’s beaked whales, 

dwarf sperm whales, false killer whales, melon-headed whales, pantropical spotted dolphins, 

pygmy killer whales, rough-toothed dolphins, short-finned pilot whales, and spinner dolphins), 

and important seasonal reproductive habitat for humpback whales.

• East-side Hawaii Island Cautionary Area. This new mitigation is likely to result in an avoidance 

or reduction of impacts from mid-frequency active sonar and explosives on marine mammals 

within the mitigation area, which the best available science suggests contains important habitat 

for numerous small and resident populations (including Blainville’s beaked whales, bottlenose 

dolphins, Cuvier’s beaked whales, false killer whales, pygmy killer whales, and spinner dolphins).

• Humpback Whale Cautionary Area and Special Reporting Area. By expanding the boundaries 

and season of the existing Humpback Whale Cautionary Area, the Navy will further enhance 

protections for humpback whales from mid-frequency active sonar in the mitigation area, 

particularly in the area north of Maui and Molokai, which new data indicates is associated with 

high humpback whale densities. Additionally, this mitigation area expansion will help the Navy 

reduce impacts on Main Hawaiian Islands insular false killer whales, which are listed as 

endangered under the ESA and have been shown to have high occurrence in this area. Overall, 

the mitigation is likely to provide a reduction of impacts from mid-frequency active sonar within 

the mitigation area on humpback whales (which the best available science suggests contains 

important seasonal reproductive habitat), and numerous small and resident marine mammal 

populations (including bottlenose dolphins, false killer whales, pantropical spotted dolphins, and 

spinner dolphins). As discussed in Section 5.1.1.2 (Training and Testing Activity Reports), 

continuing the reporting within the existing special reporting area will aid the Navy and NMFS in 

continuing to analyze the effectiveness of mitigation in the reporting area (which contains the 

Humpback Whale National Marine Sanctuary plus a 5-km buffer around the sanctuary, excluding 

the Pacific Missile Range Facility) during the adaptive management process.

• Humpback Whale Awareness Notification Message Area. This new mitigation is likely to 

provide further avoidance or reduction of impacts from vessel strikes and training and testing 
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

5-53

5.0 Mitigation

activities on humpback whales within the mitigation area, which the best available science 

suggests contains important seasonal reproductive habitat.

As described in Appendix K (Geographic Mitigation Assessment for Areas under Consideration within the

Hawaii-Southern California Training and Testing Study Area) for each area considered, further 

restrictions on the level, number, or timing (seasonal or time of day) of training or testing activities 

beyond what is included in Table 5.4-2 would have a significant impact on military readiness, such as on 

the ability for units to meet their individual training and certification requirements; on the ability to 

certify strike groups to deploy to meet national security tasking; on the ability to meet testing program 

requirements and required acquisition milestones; on operational costs due to increased fuel, 

maintenance, and time required to complete activities; on the safety risk associated with extending 

distance offshore and accelerated fatigue-life of aircraft; on training and testing realism due to reduced 

access to necessary environmental or oceanographic conditions; and on the ability for Navy Sailors to 

train and become proficient in using the sensors and weapons systems as would be required in a real 

world combat situation. Therefore, implementing additional mitigation beyond what is described in 

Table 5.4-3 for mitigation areas in the Hawaii Range Complex would be impracticable due to 

implications for safety, sustainability, and the Navy’s ability to continue meeting its Title 10 

requirements to successfully accomplish military readiness objectives. 
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

5-54

5.0 Mitigation

Figure 5.4-3: Mitigation Areas for Marine Mammals in the Hawaii Range Complex
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

5-55

5.0 Mitigation

5.4.3 MITIGATION AREAS FOR MARINE MAMMALS IN THE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA PORTION 

OF THE STUDY AREA

As described in Table 5.4-3 and shown in Figure 5.4-4, the Navy will implement additional mitigation 

within mitigation areas to further avoid or reduce impacts on marine mammals from acoustic and 

explosive stressors and vessel strikes from the Proposed Action in the Southern California portion of the 

Study Area. The Navy developed these new mitigation areas for Phase III as a result of the technical 

analyses contained in Appendix K (Geographic Mitigation Assessment for Areas under Consideration 

within the Hawaii-Southern California Training and Testing Study Area).

Table 5.4-3: Mitigation Areas for Marine Mammals in the Southern California Portion of the 

Study Area

Mitigation Area Description

Resource Protection Focus

• Marine mammals

Stressor or Activity

• Sonar

• Explosives 

• Vessel strikes

Mitigation Area Requirements

• San Diego Arc Planning Awareness Area (June 1 – October 31):

− The Navy will not conduct more than a combined total of three Major Training Exercises – Large 

Integrated Anti-Submarine Warfare activities (e.g., Rim of the Pacific Exercise, Composite Training Unit 

Exercise) or Major Training Exercises – Medium Integrated Anti-Submarine Warfare activities (e.g., Fleet 

Exercise/Sustainment Exercise) per applicable season using surface ship hull-mounted mid-frequency 

active sonar.

− If the Navy needs to conduct additional major training exercises using surface ship hull-mounted midfrequency active sonar in the mitigation area for national security, it will provide NMFS with advance 

notification and include the information in any associated annual training or testing activity reports.

• San Diego Arc Cautionary Area (June 1 – October 31):

− The Navy will not use in-water explosives during large-caliber gunnery, torpedo, bombing, and missile 

(including 2.75” rockets) activities during unit-level training, major training exercises, or testing events. 

− If a naval unit needs to conduct large-caliber gunnery, torpedo, bombing, and missile (including 2.75” 

rockets) activities using in-water explosives during unit-level training, major training exercises, or testing 

events in the mitigation area for national security, it will obtain permission from the appropriate 

delegated Command designee prior to commencement of the activity. The Navy will provide NMFS with 

advance notification and include the information in any associated annual training or testing activity 

reports.

• Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary Cautionary Area (year-round): 

− The Navy will not use surface ship hull-mounted mid-frequency active sonar and in-water explosives 

used in small-, medium-, and large-caliber gunnery; torpedo; bombing; and missile (including 2.75” 

rockets) activities during unit-level training, major training exercises, or testing events. 

− If a naval unit needs to use surface ship hull-mounted mid-frequency active sonar and in-water 

explosives in small-, medium-, and large-caliber gunnery; torpedo; bombing; and missile (including 2.75” 

rockets) activities during unit-level training, major training exercises, or testing events in the mitigation 

area for national security, it will obtain permission from the appropriate delegated Command designee 

prior to commencement of the activity. The Navy will provide NMFS with advance notification and 

include the information in any associated annual training or testing activity reports.
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

5-56

5.0 Mitigation

Table 5.4-3: Mitigation Areas for Marine Mammals in the Southern California Portion of the 

Study Area (continued)

Mitigation Area Description

• Blue Whale Awareness Notification Message Area (June 1 – October 31):

− The Navy will issue a seasonal awareness notification message to alert ships and aircraft operating in the 

area to the possible presence of concentrations of large whales, including blue whales.

− To maintain safety of navigation and to avoid interactions with large whales during transits, the Navy will 

instruct vessels to remain vigilant to the presence of large whale species (including blue whales), that 

when concentrated seasonally, may become vulnerable to vessel strikes. 

− Lookouts will use the information from the awareness notification messages to assist their visual 

observation of applicable mitigation zones (as identified in Section 5.3, Procedural Mitigation to be 

Implemented) during training and testing activities and to aid in the implementation of procedural 

mitigation.

• Gray Whale Awareness Notification Message Area (November 1 – March 31):

− The Navy will issue a seasonal awareness notification message to alert ships and aircraft operating in the 

area to the possible presence of concentrations of large whales, including gray whales.

− To maintain safety of navigation and to avoid interactions with large whales during transits, the Navy will 

instruct vessels to remain vigilant to the presence of large whale species (including gray whales), that 

when concentrated seasonally, may become vulnerable to vessel strikes. 

− Lookouts will use the information from the awareness notification messages to assist their visual 

observation of applicable mitigation zones (as identified in Section 5.3, Procedural Mitigation to be 

Implemented) during training and testing activities and to aid in the implementation of procedural 

mitigation.

• Fin Whale Awareness Notification Message Area (November 1 – May 31):

− The Navy will issue a seasonal awareness notification message to alert ships and aircraft operating in the 

area to the possible presence of concentrations of large whales, including fin whales.

− To maintain safety of navigation and to avoid interactions with large whales during transits, the Navy will 

instruct vessels to remain vigilant to the presence of large whale species (including fin whales), that 

when concentrated seasonally, may become vulnerable to vessel strikes. 

− Lookouts will use the information from the awareness notification messages to assist their visual 

observation of applicable mitigation zones (as identified in Section 5.3, Procedural Mitigation to be 

Implemented) during training and testing activities and to aid in the implementation of procedural 

mitigation.

5.4.3.1 Resource Description Summary

When developing mitigation areas in the Southern California portion of the Study Area, the Navy 

considered habitats for numerous marine mammal species, including the areas listed below, which are 

biologically important areas identified by Van Parijs et al. (2015), provisional 2015 prohibited or 

restricted areas derived from the 2015 HSTT Phase II-related lawsuit, areas identified by the California 

Coastal Commission, or areas identified during the National Environmental Policy Act scoping process. A

description, biological assessment, and stressor analysis of each area is provided in Appendix K 

(Geographic Mitigation Assessment for Areas under Consideration within the Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Study Area).

• Biologically important areas

o Blue whale feeding area: San Diego (June through October)

o Blue whale feeding area: San Nicolas Island (June through October)

o Blue whale feeding area: Santa Monica Bay to Long Beach (June through October)
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

5-57

5.0 Mitigation

o Blue whale feeding area: Tanner-Cortez Bank (June through October)

o Gray whale migration area: Northbound – Phase A (January through July)

o Gray whale migration area: Northbound – Phase B (March through July)

o Gray whale migration area: Potential Presence (January through July; October through 

December)

o Gray whale migration area: Southbound – All (October through March)

• Provisional 2015 prohibited or restricted areas

o Area 3-A: Blue whale feeding and gray whale migration habitat

o Area 3-B: Blue whale feeding and gray whale migration habitat

o Area 3-C: Blue whale feeding and gray whale migration habitat

o Area 4-A: Blue whale feeding and gray whale migration habitat

o Area 4-B: Gray whale migration habitat

o Area 4-C: Blue whale feeding and gray whale migration habitat

o Area 4-D: Gray whale migration habitat

• California Coastal Commission-identified areas

o 3 NM Shore Area: Blue whale feeding and gray whale migration, and habitat for other 

marine mammal species (including coastal bottlenose dolphins and fin whales)

o Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary: Blue whale feeding and gray whale 

migration habitat, and habitat for other marine mammal species (including fin whales)

o San Diego Arc: Blue whale feeding and gray whale migration habitat

• Areas suggested during scoping

o Catalina Basin: Cuvier’s beaked whale habitat

o Northern Catalina Basin and San Clemente Basin: Perrin’s beaked whale habitat

o San Nicolas Basin: Cuvier’s beaked whale habitat

o Southern California Bight: Beaked whale habitat

o Southern California waters just off the mainland shelf (between the 200 m and 1,000 m 

isobaths): Fin whale habitat

5.4.3.2 Summary of Mitigation Area Assessment

A description and operational analysis of the Navy requirements for training and testing within each 

area listed in Section 5.4.3.1 (Resource Description Summary) is provided in Appendix K (Geographic 

Mitigation Assessment for Areas under Consideration within the Hawaii-Southern California Training and 

Testing Study Area). The Navy developed the mitigation areas identified in Table 5.4-3 to provide further 

protection for marine mammals in areas that the best available science suggests are important to one or 

more species of marine mammals for foraging, migrating, or other biologically important life processes 

either year-round or for part of the year (depending on the species). Implementing the mitigation within 

the mitigation areas identified in Table 5.4-3 for the Southern California portion of the Study Area would 

likely result in an avoidance or reduction of impacts on marine mammal species (including blue, gray, 

and fin whales) in each area, as summarized below:

• San Diego Arc Planning Awareness Area. This new mitigation is likely to provide a reduction of 

impacts from mid-frequency active sonar on blue whales within the mitigation area, which the 

best available science suggests contains important seasonal foraging habitat.
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

5-58

5.0 Mitigation

• San Diego Arc Cautionary Area. This new mitigation is likely to provide a reduction of impacts 

from mid-frequency active sonar and explosives on blue whales within the mitigation area, 

which the best available science suggests contains important seasonal foraging habitat.

• Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary Cautionary Area. This new mitigation is likely to 

provide a reduction of impacts from mid-frequency active sonar and explosives on numerous 

marine mammal species (including blue whales and gray whales) within the mitigation area, 

which the best available science suggest is important foraging or migration habitat. The 

explosive sources specified in Table 5.4-3 that apply to the mitigation area are sources that 

could realistically be used in this geographic area (i.e., the mitigation does not apply to 

explosives that would not ordinarily be used in this area).

• Blue Whale, Gray Whale, and Fin Whale Awareness Notification Message Areas. This new

mitigation is likely to provide further avoidance or reduction of impacts from vessel strikes and 

training and testing activities on blue whales, gray whales, and fin whales within the mitigation 

area, which the best available science suggests contains important seasonal foraging or 

migration habitat.

As described in Appendix K (Geographic Mitigation Assessment for Areas under Consideration within the 

Hawaii-Southern California Training and Testing Study Area) for each area considered, further 

restrictions on the level, number, or timing (seasonal or time of day) of training or testing activities 

beyond what is included in Table 5.4-3 would have a significant impact on military readiness, such as on 

the ability for units to meet their individual training and certification requirements; on the ability to 

certify strike groups to deploy to meet national security tasking; on the ability to meet testing program 

requirements and required acquisition milestones; on operational costs due to increased fuel, 

maintenance, and time required to complete activities; on the safety risk associated with extending 

distance offshore and accelerated fatigue-life of aircraft; on training and testing realism due to reduced 

access to necessary environmental or oceanographic conditions; and on the ability for Sailors to train 

and become proficient in using the sensors and weapons systems as would be required in a real world 

combat situation. Therefore, implementing additional mitigation beyond what is described in Table 

5.4-3 for mitigation areas in the Southern California portion of the Study Area would be impracticable 

due to implications for safety, sustainability, and the Navy’s ability to continue meeting its Title 10 

requirements to successfully accomplish military readiness objectives.
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

5-59

5.0 Mitigation

Figure 5.4-4: Mitigation Areas for Marine Mammals in the Southern California Portion of the Study Area
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

5-60

5.0 Mitigation

5.5 MEASURES CONSIDERED BUT ELIMINATED

During the mitigation development process, the Navy considered several measures that did not meet 

the appropriate balance between being biologically effective (a measure was considered biologically 

effective if it met the criteria identified in Section 5.2.1, Procedural Mitigation Development and Section 

5.2.2, Mitigation Area Development) and practicable to implement (a measure was considered 

practicable to implement if it met the criteria identified in Section 5.2.3, Practicability of 

Implementation). This section provides information on those measures that did not meet the criteria for 

biological effectiveness or practicability of implementation and why the Navy will not implement them.

5.5.1 MEASURES PERTAINING TO ACOUSTIC AND EXPLOSIVE STRESSORS

As described in Chapter 1 (Purpose and Need), the Proposed Action was developed in accordance with 

training and testing mission and program requirements. The fulfillment of these requirements ensures

that the Navy meets its mission to maintain, train, and equip combat-ready naval forces capable of 

winning wars, deterring aggression, and maintaining freedom of the seas. As described in Section 1.4.1 

(Why the Navy Trains), military readiness training must be as realistic as possible to provide the 

experiences vital to success and survival during military operations. Training requirements have been 

developed through many years of iteration and adaptation, and are designed to ensure that Sailors 

achieve the levels of readiness needed to properly respond to the multitude of contingencies they may 

face during real world combat. As described in Section 1.4.3 (Why the Navy Tests), the requirements to 

test are designed to support the full lifecycle of product and service delivery from the initial research 

and development, to acquisition and deployment, to operations and logistics support, including 

maintenance, repair, and modernization of Navy platforms, weapon systems, and components. The 

testing community must test and evaluate the platform, system, or upgrade to validate whether it 

performs as expected and determining whether it is operationally effective, suitable, survivable, and 

safe for its intended use by the fleet. 

The Navy has received public comments asking for additional procedural mitigation that pertains to 

modifying how, how much, and when the Navy uses active sonar and explosives during training and 

testing activities. A discussion of those measures is presented in the sections below.

5.5.1.1 Reducing Training and Testing with Active Sonar, Modifying Sonar Sound 

Sources, and Time-of-Day Restrictions

As discussed in Chapter 2 (Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives), the Navy assessed future 

sonar and explosive training needs based on numerous factors and data inputs, such as compliance with 

the Optimized Fleet Response Plan. The Navy developed the action alternatives for this Draft EIS/OEIS to 

allow comparison of two levels of sonar use that would meet the purpose and need. To provide a range 

of analyses of the Navy’s requirements, under Alternative 1 the Navy would request authorization for 

incidental takes of marine mammals under the MMPA for fewer hours of mid-frequency active sonar 

compared to Alternative 2. 

Training with active sonar is essential to national security because active sonar is the only reliable 

technology for detecting and tracking enemy diesel-electric submarines. Sonar equipment power levels 

are set consistent with mission requirements of training under the Proposed Action. Modifying sonar 

signals, reducing sonar source levels, and reducing training or testing (restrictions on the number of 

hours or use during a certain time of day) with mid-frequency active sonar as additional mitigation 

beyond what the Navy will implement as described in Section 5.3 (Procedural Mitigation to be 
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

5-61

5.0 Mitigation

Implemented) would not allow the Navy to achieve satisfactory levels of readiness needed to meet the 

purpose and need.

The Navy uses active sonar only when it is essential to a training mission or testing program requirement 

since active sonar has the potential to alert opposing forces to the operating platform’s presence. 

Passive sonar and other available sensors are used in concert with active sonar to the maximum extent 

practicable. The ability to operate mid-frequency active sonar is a highly perishable skill that must be 

repeatedly practiced under realistic conditions. During training exercises, sonar operators learn how to 

avoid interference and sound-reducing clutter from varying ocean floor topographies and environmental 

conditions, learn how to coordinate their efforts with other sonar operators in a strike group, develop 

skill proficiency in detecting and tracking submarines, and practice the focused endurance vital to 

effectively working as a team in shifts around the clock until the conclusion of a training exercise.

Anti-submarine warfare training involving the use of mid-frequency active sonar typically involves the 

periodic use of active sonar to develop the “tactical picture,” or an understanding of the battle space 

(e.g., area searched or unsearched, identifying false contacts, and understanding the water conditions). 

Developing the tactical picture can take several hours or days, and typically occurs over vast waters with 

varying environmental and oceanographic conditions. Operators of sonar equipment are always 

cognizant of the environmental variables affecting sound propagation. Training during both good 

visibility (e.g., daylight, favorable weather conditions) and low visibility (e.g., nighttime, inclement 

weather conditions) is vital because environmental differences between day and night and varying 

weather conditions affect sound propagation and the detection capabilities of sonar. Temperature 

layers that move up and down in the water column and ambient noise levels can vary significantly 

between night and day, which affects sound propagation and could affect how sonar systems are 

operated. Reducing or securing power in low-visibility conditions as a mitigation would affect a 

commander’s ability to develop the tactical picture and would prevent sonar operators from training in 

realistic conditions. During integrated training, multiple vessels and aircraft may participate in an 

exercise using different dimensions of warfare simultaneously. If one of these training elements were 

impacted (e.g., if effective sonar training were not possible), the training value of the other elements 

would also be degraded.

The Navy must also test its active sonar systems in the same manner and in the same conditions under 

which they will be operated during military readiness training exercises and real world combat 

situations. Some systems have a nighttime testing requirement; therefore, these tests cannot occur only 

in daylight hours or wait for the weather to become clear before or during a test event. Reducing or 

securing power in low visibility conditions would decrease the Navy’s ability to determine whether 

systems are operationally effective, suitable, survivable, and safe for their intended use by the fleet. 

For additional information on the Navy’s need to train and test in a variety of locations and

oceanographic conditions, see Section 5.5.3 (Measures Pertaining to Oceanographic Features or 

Geographic Locations).

5.5.1.2 Replacing Active Sonar Training with Computer Simulated Activities

The Navy has received requests to replace active sonar training with computer simulated activities. The 

Navy currently uses computer simulation to augment training and testing whenever possible. Computer 

simulation can provide familiarity and complement live training; however, it cannot provide the fidelity 

and level of training necessary to prepare naval forces for deployment. Furthermore, simulation cannot 

replicate all the possible environmental scenarios found in the real world and therefore cannot 
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

5-62

5.0 Mitigation

completely replace training and testing with active sonar. The Navy is required to operationally test 

major platforms, systems, and components of these platforms and systems in realistic combat 

conditions before full-scale production or delivery to the fleet can occur. In testing a system that is being 

developed, simulation can be used during the initial stages of development, but ultimately the system 

must be tested under real world conditions. Systems that have undergone maintenance need to be 

tested (not simulated) to ensure that the system is operating correctly. Replacing active sonar training 

and testing with computer simulated activities beyond the Navy’s current use of simulation fails to meet 

the purpose and need. Therefore, the Navy will continue to use simulation to augment training and 

testing whenever possible, but will not replace training or testing with active sonar for computer 

simulated activities as a mitigation.

5.5.1.3 Restricting the Use of Explosives

The locations and timing of the training and testing activities that use explosives vary throughout the 

Study Area based on range scheduling, mission requirements, testing program requirements, and the 

safety and mission considerations outlined in Section 2.3.3 (Standard Operating Procedures), and 

information provided in Appendix A (Navy Activity Descriptions). Training and testing activities that use 

explosives must mimic real world conditions (including periods of low visibility for certain activities) to 

ensure safety of personnel, skill proficiency, and validation of testing program requirements. 

Training activities that involve explosive ordnance are inherently different from those that involve nonexplosive practice munitions. For example, during a Bombing Exercise Air-to-Surface using non-explosive 

practice munitions, aircrews learn valuable skills to locate and accurately deliver munitions on a target. 

A critical component of a Bombing Exercise Air-to-Surface that uses explosives cannot be taught with 

non-explosive practice munitions, which is the assembly, loading, delivery, and assessment of the 

explosive bomb. The explosive bombing training exercise starts with ground personnel, who must 

practice the building and loading of explosive munitions. Training includes the safe handling of explosive 

material, configuring munitions to precise specifications, and the loading of munitions onto aircraft. 

Aircrew must then identify a target and safely deliver fused munitions, discerning if the bomb was 

assembled correctly, and determining bomb damage assessments based on how and where the 

explosive detonated. Restricting the use of explosives as a mitigation during training would impede the 

ability for personnel to develop critical skill proficiency and would result in significant safety risks.

Testing of explosive ordnance is necessary to quantify the compatibility of weapons with the platform 

from which they would be launched or released. Such testing requires the use of the actual explosive 

ordnance that would be used during training exercises and real world combat situations. Restricting the 

use of explosives as a mitigation during testing would impede the ability to determine whether weapons 

systems are operationally effective, suitable, survivable, and safe for their intended use by the fleet.

5.5.2 MEASURES PERTAINING TO PROCEDURAL MITIGATION

The Navy has received public comments asking for additional procedural mitigation relating to ramp-up 

procedures, vessel speed restrictions, the use of additional Lookouts, more expansive mitigation zones, 

adopting foreign navy mitigation, and increasing reporting requirements. A discussion of those 

measures is presented in the sections below.

5.5.2.1 Implementing Active Sonar Ramp-Up Procedures

The Navy has received requests to use ramp-up as a mitigation for active sonar training and testing 

activities in the Study Area. Ramp-up is used during seismic surveys and some foreign navy sonar 
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

5-63

5.0 Mitigation

activities. Ramping up involves slowly increasing sound levels over a certain length of time until the 

optimal source level is reached. The intent of ramping up a sound source is to alert marine mammals 

with a low sound level to deter them from the area and avoid higher levels of sound exposure. As 

discussed in Von Benda-Beckmann et al. (2014) and Dunlop et al. (2016), implementing ramp-up as a 

mitigation may be effective for some activities in some situations; however the best available science 

does not suggest that ramp-up would be an effective mitigation tool for U.S. Navy active sonar training 

and testing activities. Von Benda-Beckmann et al. (2014) found that the main factors limiting ramp-up 

effectiveness for a typical anti-submarine warfare activity are a high source level, a moving sonar source, 

and long silences between consecutive sonar transmissions. Based on the source levels, vessel speeds, 

and sonar transmission intervals that will be used during typical active sonar training activities under the 

Proposed Action, the Navy has determined that ramp-up would be an ineffective mitigation during 

training activities. Furthermore, the use of ramp-up is not representative of real world situations and 

would significantly impact training realism and effectiveness. For example, during an anti-submarine 

warfare exercise using active sonar, ramp-ups have the potential to alert opponents (e.g., target 

submarines) to the transmitting vessel’s presence. This would defeat the purpose of the training by 

allowing the target submarine to detect the searching unit and take evasive measures, thereby denying 

the sonar operator the opportunity to learn how to locate the submarine. The Navy will not implement 

ramp-up during training activities because training with reduced realism would alter Sailors’ abilities to 

effectively operate in a real world combat situation and diminish the ability for sonar operators to gain 

skill proficiency and achieve mission success; thereby resulting in an increased risk to personnel safety.

The Navy will also not implement ramp-up during testing activities because doing so would impede the 

Navy’s ability to collect essential data for evaluation of a system’s capabilities. Program requirements 

determine test parameters to accurately determine whether a system is meeting its operational and 

performance requirements. 

5.5.2.2 Restricting Vessel Speed

The Navy has received requests to restrict the speed of vessels participating in training and testing 

activities as a mitigation to help reduce the potential for striking marine mammals. As described in 

Section 2.3.3 (Standard Operating Procedures), as a standard operating procedure, Navy vessels operate 

in accordance with the navigation rules established by the U.S. Coast Guard. All vessels operating on the 

water are required to follow the International Navigation Rules (Commandant, United States Coast 

Guard Instruction M16672.2D). Navigation rules are formalized in the Convention on the International 

Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, 1972. Applicable navigation requirements include, but are 

not limited to, Rule 5 (Lookouts) and Rule 6 (Safe Speed). These rules require that vessels proceed at a 

safe speed so that proper and effective action can be taken to avoid collision and be stopped within a 

distance appropriate to the prevailing circumstances and conditions. As discussed in Section 3.0.3.3.4.1 

(Vessels and In-Water Devices), Navy ships transit at speeds that are optimal for fuel conservation or to 

meet operational requirements. Large Navy ships typically operate at average speeds of between 10 and 

15 knots, which for reference, is slower than large commercial vessels, such as container ships that 

steam at approximately 24 knots during normal operations (Maloni et al., 2013).

The Navy will continue implementing mitigation to avoid interactions with marine mammals during 

activities that involve vessel movements (see Section 5.3.4.1, Vessel Movement). Based on the historical 

Navy vessel strike data presented in Appendix F (Military Expended Materials and Direct Strike 

Calculations) and the analysis on vessel strikes presented in Section 3.7.3.4.1 (Impacts from Vessels and 

In-Water Devices), with the implementation of mitigation, the likelihood of a Navy vessel striking a 
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

5-64

5.0 Mitigation

marine mammal is extremely low. The Navy will not implement mitigation that restricts vessel speed in 

the Study Area because Navy vessel operators need to learn to operate vessels as they would in real 

world combat situations (including being able to react to changing tactical situations and evaluate 

system capabilities). For some activities, vessels must maintain a certain speed to carry out the activity 

safely. For example, during flight operations, an aircraft carrier must maintain a certain wind speed over 

the deck to launch or recover aircraft. Depending on wind conditions, the aircraft carrier itself must 

travel at a certain speed to generate the wind required to launch or recover aircraft. Vessel speed 

restrictions would prevent vessel operators from gaining skill proficiency, would prevent the Navy from 

properly testing vessel capabilities (e.g., full power propulsion testing during sea trials), and could 

significantly increase the time and fuel it takes to reach training and testing locations; therefore, the 

mitigation would have significant impacts on the Navy’s ability to train and test, and would prevent the 

Navy from meeting its mission requirements. 

5.5.2.3 Increasing Passive Acoustic Monitoring and Visual Observations

The Navy has received requests to increase the use of passive acoustic monitoring devices, use thermal 

detection devices for visual monitoring, increase the number of Lookouts used, and use third party 

observers during training and testing. For mitigation during an activity that is not part of the Proposed 

Action (Surveillance Towed Array Sensor System low-frequency active sonar), the Navy uses the towed 

passive acoustic array already participating in the activity in combination with a specially designed

adjunct high-frequency marine mammal monitoring sonar (known as “HF/M3”) that operates like a fish 

finder used by commercial and recreational fishermen. The Navy is not able to use the HF/M3 adjunct 

system during training and testing activities that will occur under the Proposed Action because the 

system cannot be installed on tactical sonar ships due to limitations in space, manning, and the 

resources needed to design, build, install, and maintain them. Although the Navy will not install adjunct 

marine mammal monitoring devices for mitigation during training and testing under the Proposed 

Action, the Navy will continue to monitor for marine mammals with Navy assets that have passive 

acoustic monitoring capabilities and are already participating in the activity, when applicable (see 

Section 5.3, Procedural Mitigation to be Implemented). For other activities, adding a passive acoustic 

monitoring capability (either by adding a passive acoustic monitoring device to a platform already 

participating in the activity, or by adding a platform with integrated passive acoustic monitoring 

capabilities to the activity) for mitigation is not practicable. The Navy does not have sufficient resources 

to construct and maintain additional passive acoustic monitoring systems or platforms for each training 

and testing activity. Additionally, diverting platforms that have passive acoustic monitoring capabilities

would impact their ability to meet their Title 10 requirements and reduce the service life of those 

systems.

The Navy is continuing to improve its capabilities to use range instrumentation to aid in the passive 

acoustic detection of marine mammals. For example, at the Southern California Offshore Range (SCORE)

off California, the Pacific Missile Range Facility (PMRF) off Kauai, Hawaii, and the Atlantic Undersea Test 

and Evaluation Center (AUTEC) in the Bahamas, the Navy has capabilities to monitor instrumented

ranges in real-time or through data recorded by hydrophones, which are helping to facilitate a better 

understanding of the species that are present in these areas. The Navy has sponsored numerous studies 

on marine mammal occurrence, distribution, and behavior at its instrumented ranges through the 

marine species monitoring program. For information on the U.S. Navy Marine Species Monitoring 

Program, see Section 3.0.1.1 (Marine Species Monitoring and Research Programs) and Section 5.1.1.1 

(Marine Species Research and Monitoring Programs). At this time within the Study Area, the Navy does 
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

5-65

5.0 Mitigation

not have the capability or resources to monitor instrumented ranges real-time for the purpose of 

mitigation, or to construct additional instrumented ranges as a tool to aid in the implementation of 

mitigation.

The Navy has been investigating the use of thermal detection systems with automatic marine mammal 

detection algorithms for future use, including for autonomous platforms. Thermal detection system 

technology is designed to allow observers to detect the difference in temperature between a surfaced 

marine mammal (i.e., the body or blow of a whale) and the environment (i.e., the water and air). 

Thermal detection systems are more useful in some environments than others (e.g., cold environments 

that would have a large temperature differential between an animal’s temperature and the 

environment), and for some species than others (e.g., detection of blows may be easier than detection 

of a body, particularly at a distance). Although they may be reliable in many applications and 

environments, the current technologies have limitations regarding water temperature and other 

environmental conditions, such as rain and fog, for which further effectiveness studies are required

(Zitterbart et al., 2013). At this time, the Navy will not use thermal detection systems to assist with the 

implementation of mitigation because they have not been sufficiently studied both in terms of their 

effectiveness within the environmental conditions found in the Study Area and their compatibility with 

Navy training and testing. The Navy plans to continue researching thermal detection technology to 

determine their effectiveness and compatibility with Navy applications.

For mitigation involving the use of Lookouts, the Navy’s procedural mitigation presented in Section 5.3 

(Procedural Mitigation to be Implemented) represents the maximum practicable level of resources that 

the Navy can commit to observing mitigation zones. The number of Lookouts designated for each 

activity is dependent upon the number of personnel that will be involved in the training or testing 

activity (manning restrictions) and the number and type of assets available (resource and space 

restrictions). Platforms such as the Littoral Combat Ship are minimally manned and are therefore 

physically unable to accommodate more than one Lookout or divert personnel from duties associated 

with safe and secure operation of propulsion, weapons, and damage control systems that ensure the 

safety of the ship’s crew. Training and testing activities are carefully planned with respect to personnel 

duties. The Navy will not designate additional Lookouts during training and testing because doing so 

would either require adding personnel, for which there would be no additional space, or reassigning 

duties, which would divert Navy personnel from essential tasks required to meet mission objectives or 

testing program requirements.

For activities conducted within the Study Area, the Navy will not maintain third-party observers as a 

mitigation during training and testing activities. Training and testing activities often occur 

simultaneously and in various regions throughout the Study Area, some of which last for days or weeks 

at a time. The number of third-party civilian vessels or aircraft that would be needed to observe Navy 

training and testing activities to aid in mitigation implementation would be impracticable due to 

implications for safety and sustainability. If Navy vessels were required to host third-party observers, 

conflicts would arise based on limited passenger capacities and the need to overcome security clearance 

issues. Training and testing event planning includes careful consideration of capacity limitations when 

placing personnel on the vessels involved in each activity. Navy personnel who serve as Lookouts fulfill 

other primary duties; therefore, the Navy is unable to substitute a Navy Lookout with a third-party 

observer without resulting in either a berthing shortage (or other exceedance of space limitations) or 

impacting the ability for the Lookout’s other mission-essential duties to be completed. The use of thirdparty observers would also present national security concerns due to the requirement to provide 
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

5-66

5.0 Mitigation

advance notification of specific times and locations of Navy platforms (e.g., vessels using active sonar).

Further, the presence of third-party aircraft or vessels near military readiness activities (e.g., gunnery 

training activities using explosive large-caliber projectiles, air-to-surface warfare activities) would 

present an obvious collision risk and other safety concerns. Many of the training and testing activities

take place far from land, which would limit the amount of time that third-party observers would be on 

station based on fuel restrictions, and would present a safety concern should mechanical problems 

arise. Reliance on the availability of third-party personnel to perform observations during an activity 

would be impracticable because training and testing activity timetables oftentimes cannot be precisely 

fixed, and are instead based on the free-flow development of tactical situations. Waiting for third-party 

aircraft or vessels to complete surveys, refuel, or be on station would slow progress and diminish the 

realism of the activity. The use of third-party observers to conduct pre- or post-activity biological 

resource observations would be an ineffective mitigation because marine mammals would likely move 

into or out of the activity area, and mitigation must be implemented at the time the activity is taking 

place.

5.5.2.4 Increasing the Size and Types of Mitigation Zones

The Navy has received requests to increase the size of its mitigation zones and extend the 

implementation of mitigation zones to all training and testing activities. For a description of how the 

Navy developed its mitigation zones, see Section 5.2.1 (Procedural Mitigation Development). For this 

Draft EIS/OEIS, the Navy designed its mitigation zones to avoid or reduce injurious impacts to the 

maximum extent practicable. Observing mitigation zones that are larger than those identified in Section 

5.3 (Procedural Mitigation to be Implemented) would be impracticable based on implications for safety, 

sustainability, or the ability for the Navy to continue meeting its Title 10 requirements to successfully 

accomplish military readiness objectives for the reasons specified for each stressor or activity.

For some activities, the Navy does not have the resources (e.g., personnel, vessels, aircraft) to maintain 

the number of additional Lookouts or observer platforms that would be needed to effectively observe a 

larger mitigation zone size. As mitigation zone sizes increase, the area of observation increases by an 

order of magnitude. For instance, if a mitigation zone were to increase from 1,000 yd. to 4,000 yd., the 

area that must be observed increases sixteen-fold. Implementation of procedural mitigation is most 

effective when mitigation zones are appropriately sized to be realistically observed during typical 

training and testing activity conditions. 

For other activities, a larger mitigation zone size would likely result in additional stopping and starting of 

training and testing activities, which would extend the length of the events, increase time at sea and the 

associated fuel use, increase pilot fatigue, and decrease realism of the events. For example, during antisubmarine warfare training involving the use of mid-frequency active sonar, developing the tactical 

picture can take several hours or days; therefore, each additional shut down can result in the loss of 

several days’ worth of training due to the loss of awareness of the tactical situation through the 

stopping and starting of active sonar. Additional stopping and starting of active sonar during testing 

activities would prevent the Navy from validating whether systems and sources perform as expected; 

and determining whether they are operationally effective, suitable, survivable, and safe for their 

intended uses by the fleet. For activities that involve aircraft, additional stopping and starting of an 

activity would require aircraft to depart the activity location to refuel. Multiple refueling events would 

extend the length of the activity by 2 to 5 times or more, which would increase pilot fatigue and the 

associated risk to pilot and aircraft safety, and would eliminate opportunities for training as would be 

required in a real world combat situation, or testing as required to meet program requirements.
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

5-67

5.0 Mitigation

The Navy is unable to implement mitigation for every activity, such as for missile, rocket, and gunnery 

activities against airborne targets. Unlike surface targets, most airborne targets are recoverable aerial 

drones; therefore, direct impact with the target is designed not to occur. For example, telemetryconfigured anti-air missiles used in training are designed to detonate (or simulate a detonation) near a 

target, but not as a result of a direct strike on a target. Given the speed of the missile and the mobile 

target, the high altitudes involved, and the long ranges that missiles typically travel, it is not possible to 

definitively predict or to effectively observe where the missile fragments will fall. The potential 

expended material fall zone can only be predicted within tens of miles for long range events, which can 

be more than 80 NM from the firing location; and thousands of yards for shorter events, which can 

occur within several thousand yards from the firing location. For gunnery activities using medium- and 

large-caliber munitions, the potential military expended material fall zone can only be predicted within 

thousands of yards, which can be up to 7 NM from the firing location. These areas are too large to be 

effectively observed for marine mammals and sea turtles. Furthermore, the potential risk to marine 

mammals and sea turtles from events against an airborne target is limited to the animal being directly 

struck by falling military expended materials (there would be no impact from explosives). Based on the 

extremely low potential for military expended materials to co-occur in space and time with a marine 

mammal or sea turtle at or near the surface of the water, the potential for a direct strike is negligible. 

Additional information on military expended materials is provided in Appendix F (Military Expended 

Material and Direct Strike Impact Analysis).

5.5.2.5 Adopting Mitigation Measures of Foreign Navies

The Navy has received requests to adopt the mitigation measures implemented by foreign navies. 

Mitigation measures are carefully developed for and assessed by each individual navy based on 

potential impacts of their activities on the biological resources that live in their areas of operation, and 

the practicability of mitigation implementation. Mitigation developed for one navy would not 

necessarily be effective at reducing potential impacts on marine species, nor practicable to implement 

by all navies. For example, some navies implement sonar ramp-up as a mitigation, but as described in 

Section 5.5.2.1 (Implementing Active Sonar Ramp-up Procedures), the U.S. Navy has determined that it 

would be an ineffective mitigation measure for the training and testing activities that will be conducted 

under the Proposed Action. Similarly, all navies must operate in accordance with their mission and 

testing program requirements. The U.S. Navy’s readiness considerations differ from those of foreign 

navies based on each navy’s strategic reach, global mission, country-specific legal requirements, and 

geographic considerations. Most non-U.S. navies do not possess an integrated strike group and do not 

have integrated training requirements. The U.S. Navy’s training is built around the integrated warfare 

concept and is based on the U.S. Navy’s capabilities, the threats faced, the operating environment, and 

the overall mission. The U.S. Navy will implement the mitigations presented in Section 5.3 (Procedural 

Mitigation to be Implemented) and Section 5.4 (Mitigation Areas to be Implemented) because they have 

been determined to be effective at reducing impacts from the Proposed Action and practicable to 

implement by the U.S. Navy. Although the U.S. Navy will not implement all mitigation undertaken by 

foreign navies, the U.S. Navy will implement several mitigation measures and other environmental 

compliance actions that are not required or untaken by other navies. For example, as discussed in 

Section 5.1.1 (Monitoring, Research, and Reporting Initiatives), the U.S. Navy will continue to sponsor 

scientific monitoring and research and comply with stringent reporting requirements.
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

5-68

5.0 Mitigation

5.5.2.6 Increasing Reporting Requirements

The Navy has received requests to increase its reporting requirements. As discussed in Section 5.1.1

(Marine Species Monitoring, Research, and Reporting Initiatives), the Navy developed its reporting 

requirements in conjunction with NMFS and consistent with mission requirements, balancing the 

usefulness of the information to be collected with the practicability of collecting it. The Navy’s training 

and testing activity reports are designed to verify implementation of mitigation; comply with current 

permits, authorizations, and consultation requirements; and improve future environmental analyses.

Through its marine species monitoring and research programs, the Navy is the nation’s single largest 

sponsor of scientific monitoring and research on marine species. Additional information on the U.S. 

Navy Marine Species Monitoring Program is provided in Section 3.0.1.1 (Marine Species Monitoring and 

Research Programs). The Navy will not increase reporting requirements as a mitigation because an

increased requirement to generate additional marine species observation reports during a training or a 

testing activity would draw the event participants’ attentions away from the complex tactical tasks they 

are primarily obligated to perform (such as driving a warship or engaging in a gunnery activity), which 

would adversely impact personnel safety, public health and safety, and the effectiveness of the military 

readiness activity. Lookouts are not trained to make species-specific identification, and would not be 

able to provide detailed scientific data if more detailed reports were to be required.

5.5.3 MEASURES PERTAINING TO OCEANOGRAPHIC FEATURES OR GEOGRAPHIC LOCATIONS

The Navy has received public comments asking for additional mitigation within certain geographic 

locations based on the locations of marine mammal habitat and oceanographic features (e.g., 

bathymetry, environmental conditions, distances from shore, distances from isobaths). There are certain 

geographic areas where the Navy does not typically conduct certain training or testing activities due to 

operational parameters (e.g., water depth) and planning considerations (e.g., ensuring public safety), as 

discussed in Section 2.3.3 (Standard Operating Procedures) and Appendix A (Navy Activity Descriptions). 

Refer to Section 6.1.2 (Marine Protected Areas) for information on Navy activities that are expected to 

occur within marine protected areas and National Marine Sanctuaries in the Study Area. A full technical 

analysis of the mitigation areas that the Navy considered for marine mammals is provided in Appendix K 

(Geographic Mitigation Assessment for Areas under Consideration within the Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Study Area).

The Navy incorporates requirements for public health and safety and safety of personnel when planning 

training and testing activities. Safety restrictions may include limits on the proximity to commercial 

shipping lanes to minimize sea space conflicts, and air traffic corridors to minimize airspace conflicts 

with military, commercial, and civilian aircraft. These types of limitations shape how exercise planners 

develop and implement training scenarios (e.g., integrated training activities involving the defense of 

aircraft carriers from submarines). Daily fluctuations in training and testing schedules and objectives 

could mean that, on any given day, vessels may depend on discrete locations in the Study Area for 

discrete purposes. Training and testing events may change mid-activity based on evaluators’ 

assessments of performance and other conditions (such as weather or mechanical issues), which may 

preclude the use of planning restrictions for major training exercises and other activities as a mitigation 

measure.

The Navy typically conducts training and testing in proximity to certain facilities and range complexes to

reduce travel time and funding required for conducting training away from a unit's home base. Activities 

involving the use of rotary-wing aircraft typically occur in proximity to shore or refueling stations due to 

fuel restrictions and personnel safety. Mitigation based on distance from shore would impact the safety 
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

5-69

5.0 Mitigation

of training and testing activities by requiring activities to take place in more remote areas where safety 

support may be limited. Testing activities are typically located near the support facilities of the systems 

commands, which provide critical infrastructure support and technical expertise necessary to conduct 

testing. Logistical support of testing can only be efficiently and effectively supported when the support 

is co-located with the testing activities. Test locations and associated field activities were originally 

established to support specific Navy mission testing needs using a selection process that included testing 

requirements, cost of living, availability of personnel, and low level of crowding from industry and 

development. These same principles also apply to pierside and at-sea testing that must occur in 

proximity to naval shipyards and Navy contractor shipyards. 

Many training and testing activities require continuous access to large and unobstructed areas, 

consisting potentially of thousands of square miles of ocean and air space, to provide personnel the 

ability to develop competence and confidence in their capabilities across multiple types of weapons and 

sensors. For example, major exercises using integrated warfare components may require large areas of 

the littorals, open ocean, and nearshore areas for realistic and safe anti-submarine warfare training. 

Anti-submarine warfare training involving the use of mid-frequency active sonar typically involves the 

periodic use of active sonar to develop the “tactical picture,” or an understanding of the battle space 

(e.g., area searched or unsearched, identifying false contacts, and understanding the water conditions). 

Developing the tactical picture can take several hours or days, and typically occurs over vast areas with 

varying physical and oceanographic conditions. Sonar operators must be trained to handle bottom 

bounce and sound passing through changing currents, eddies, and across changes in ocean temperature, 

pressure, salinity, depth, and in surface ducting conditions. Submarines may hide in the higher ambient 

noise levels of the shallow waters of coastal environments and surface ducts, making training in these 

conditions critical for sonar operators.

Surface ducting is a condition when water conditions (e.g., temperature layers and lack of wave action) 

result in little sound energy penetrating beyond a narrow layer near the surface of the water.

Submarines have long been known to take advantage of the phenomena associated with surface ducting 

to avoid being detected by sonar. When surface ducting occurs, active sonar becomes more useful near 

the surface but less useful at greater depths. Training with active sonar in surface ducting conditions is a 

critical component of military readiness because sonar operators need to learn how sonar transmissions 

are altered due to surface ducting, how submarines may take advantage of them, and how to operate 

sonar effectively in this environment. Similarly, systems must be tested in a variety of bathymetric and 

environmental conditions to ensure functionality and accuracy in real world environments. Avoiding 

surface ducting conditions would be impracticable because ocean conditions contributing to surface 

ducting change frequently, and surface ducts can be of varying duration. Surface ducting can also lack 

uniformity and may or may not extend over a large geographic area, making it difficult to determine 

where to reduce power and for what periods. As noted by the U.S. Supreme Court in Winter v. Natural 

Resource Defense Council, 555 U.S. 7 (2008), because surface ducting conditions occur relatively rarely 

and are unpredictable, it is especially important for the Navy to be able to train under these conditions 

when they occur.

In addition to the procedural mitigation presented in Section 5.3 (Procedural Mitigation to be 

Implemented), the Navy will implement mitigation within the designated mitigation areas presented in 

Section 5.4 (Mitigation Areas to be Implemented). For example, as described in Section 5.4.1 (Mitigation 

Areas for Seafloor Resources), the Navy will implement mitigation within mitigation areas around 

seafloor resources that serve vital ecological functions or are important cultural resources (many of 
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

5-70

5.0 Mitigation

which also have a high socioeconomic value). Additional restrictions, such as a blanket limitation or 

reduction of training and testing with sonar or explosives within broad-scale areas of water (e.g., 

embayments and large swaths of the littorals and open ocean), or within areas that are vital to mission 

requirements would be impracticable because it would prevent the Navy from accessing certain

facilities, range complexes, and open ocean areas with the unique, challenging, and diverse 

environmental and oceanographic conditions (e.g., bathymetry, topography, surface fronts, and 

variations in sea surface temperature) needed to achieve the highest skill proficiency and most accurate 

testing results possible. Threats to national security are constantly evolving and the Navy requires the 

ability to adapt training and testing to meet these emerging threats. Restricting access to broad-scale 

areas of water would also impact the ability for Navy training and testing to evolve as the threat evolves. 

Eliminating opportunities for the Navy to train and test in a myriad of at-sea conditions would put U.S. 

forces at a tactical disadvantage during real world missions when facing adversaries who were not 

restricted from training and testing in such locations, and would present a risk to national security if 

adversaries were to be alerted to the environmental conditions within which the U.S. Navy was 

prohibited from training and testing. For a full technical analysis (e.g., assessment of biological 

effectiveness and practicability of implementation) of all mitigation areas that the Navy considered for 

marine mammals, see Appendix K (Geographic Mitigation Assessment for Areas under Consideration 

within the Hawaii-Southern California Training and Testing Study Area).

5.6 MITIGATION SUMMARY

Table 5.6-1 and Table 5.6-2 summarize the mitigation that the Navy will implement under Alternative 1 

or Alternative 2 of the Proposed Action. Unless specified otherwise in the tables, the mitigation applies 

year-round. For specific requirements, additional information, and clarifications to the tables’ general

summaries, see Section 5.3 (Procedural Mitigation to be Implemented) and Section 5.4 (Mitigation Areas 

to be Implemented).
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

5-71

5.0 Mitigation

Table 5.6-1: Summary of Procedural Mitigation to be Implemented

Stressor or Activity Summary of Mitigation Requirements Resource Protection Focus

Environmental Awareness and 

Education

Afloat Environmental Compliance Training 

program for applicable personnel

Marine mammals, sea 

turtles

Active Sonar Depending on sonar source: 1,000 yd. 

power down, 500 yd. power down, and 200 

yd. shut down; or 200 yd. shut down

Marine mammals, sea 

turtles

Air Guns 150 yd. Marine mammals, sea 

turtles

Pile Driving 100 yd. Marine mammals, sea 

turtles

Weapons Firing Noise 30° on either side of the firing line out to 70 

yd.

Marine mammals, sea 

turtles

Explosive Sonobuoys 600 yd. Marine mammals, sea 

turtles

Explosive Torpedoes 2,100 yd. Marine mammals, sea 

turtles

Explosive Medium-Caliber and 

Large-Caliber Projectiles

1,000 yd. (large-caliber projectiles), 600 yd. 

(medium-caliber projectiles during surfaceto-surface activities), or 200 yd. (mediumcaliber projectiles during air-to-surface 

activities)

Marine mammals, sea 

turtles

Explosive Missiles and Rockets 900 yd. (0.6–20 lb. net explosive weight), or 

2,000 yd. (21–500 lb. net explosive weight)

Marine mammals, sea 

turtles

Explosive Bombs 2,500 yd. Marine mammals, sea 

turtles

Sinking Exercises 2.5 NM Marine mammals, sea

turtles

Explosive Mine Countermeasure 

and Neutralization Activities

600 yd. (0.1–5 lb. net explosive weight), or 

2,100 yd. (6–650 lb. net explosive weight)

Marine mammals, sea 

turtles, birds

Explosive Mine Neutralization 

Activities Involving Navy Divers

500 yd. (0.1–20 lb. net explosive weight for 

positive control charges), or 1,000 yd. (21–

60 lb. net explosive weight for positive 

control charges and all charges using timedelay fuses)

Marine mammals, sea 

turtles, birds, fish 

(hammerhead sharks) 

Underwater Demolition Multiple 

Charge – Mat Weave and Obstacle 

Loading

700 yd. Marine mammals, sea 

turtles

Maritime Security Operations –

Anti-Swimmer Grenades

200 yd. Marine mammals, sea 

turtles

Vessel Movement 500 yd. (whales), or 200 yd. (other marine 

mammals)

Marine mammals

Towed In-Water Devices 250 yd. Marine mammals

Small-, Medium-, and LargeCaliber Non-Explosive Practice 

Munitions

200 yd. Marine mammals, sea 

turtles

Non-Explosive Missiles and 

Rockets

900 yd. Marine mammals, sea 

turtles

Non-Explosive Bombs and Mine 

Shapes

1,000 yd. Marine mammals, sea 

turtles
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

5-72

5.0 Mitigation

Table 5.6-2: Summary of Mitigation to be Implemented within Mitigation Areas

Mitigation Area Summary of Mitigation Requirements

Mitigation Areas for Seafloor Resources

Shallow-water coral 

reefs and precious 

coral beds

• The Navy will not conduct precision anchoring (except in designated anchorages).

• The Navy will not conduct explosive mine countermeasure and neutralization 

activities, or mine neutralization activities involving Navy divers.

• The Navy will not conduct explosive or non-explosive small-, medium-, and largecaliber gunnery activities using a surface target.

• The Navy will not conduct explosive or non-explosive missile and rocket activities 

using a surface target.

• The Navy will not conduct explosive or non-explosive bombing or mine laying 

activities.

Live hard bottom, 

Artificial reefs,

Shipwrecks

• The Navy will not conduct precision anchoring (except in designated anchorages).

• The Navy will not conduct explosive mine countermeasure and neutralization 

activities, or mine neutralization activities involving Navy divers.

Mitigation Areas for Marine Mammals

West-side Hawaii 

Island Planning 

Awareness Area

• The Navy will not conduct more than one Major Training Exercises – Large 

Integrated Anti-Submarine Warfare activity every other year, and three Major 

Training Exercises – Medium Integrated Anti-Submarine Warfare activities per year 

using surface ship hull-mounted mid-frequency active sonar.

• If additional activities are required for national security, the Navy will provide NMFS 

with advance notification and include the information in associated reports.

West-side Hawaii 

Island Cautionary Area

• The Navy will not use in-water explosives during unit-level training, major training 

exercises, or testing events. 

• If required for national security, naval units will obtain permission from a 

Command-delegated authority prior to commencement of the activity. The Navy 

will provide NMFS with advance notification and include the information in 

associated reports.

East-side Hawaii Island 

Cautionary Area

• The Navy will not use surface ship hull-mounted mid-frequency active sonar and inwater explosives during unit-level training, major training exercises, or testing 

events. 

• If required for national security, naval units will obtain permission from a 

Command-delegated authority prior to commencement of the activity. The Navy 

will provide NMFS with advance notification and include the information in 

associated reports.

Humpback Whale 

Cautionary Area 

(November 15 – April 

15)

• The Navy will not use surface ship hull-mounted mid-frequency active sonar during 

training or testing activities.

• If required for national security, naval units will obtain permission from a 

Command-delegated authority prior to commencement of the activity. The Navy 

will provide NMFS with advance notification and will include the information in 

associated reports.

Humpback Whale 

Special Reporting Area

(December 15 – April 

15)

• The Navy will report the total hours of operation of surface ship hull-mounted midfrequency active sonar used in the reporting area in associated annual training or 

testing activity reports.
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

5-73

5.0 Mitigation

Table 5.6-2: Summary of Mitigation to be Implemented within Mitigation Areas (continued)

Mitigation Area Summary of Mitigation Requirements

Humpback Whale 

Awareness Notification 

Message Area (November 

15 – April 15)

• The Navy will issue a seasonal awareness notification message to alert ships and aircraft to the 

possible presence of humpback whales.

San Diego Arc Planning 

Awareness Area 

(June 1 – October 31)

• The Navy will not conduct more than a combined total of three Major Training Exercises – Large 

Integrated Anti-Submarine Warfare activities or Major Training Exercises – Medium Integrated 

Anti-Submarine Warfare activities per applicable season using surface ship hull-mounted midfrequency active sonar. 

• If additional activities are required for national security, the Navy will provide NMFS with advance 

notification and include the information in associated reports.

San Diego Arc Cautionary 

Area 

(June 1 – October 31)

• The Navy will not use in-water explosives during large-caliber gunnery, torpedo, bombing, and 

missile (including 2.75” rockets) activities during unit-level training, major training exercises, or 

testing events. 

• If required for national security, naval units will obtain permission from a Command-delegated 

authority prior to commencement of the activity. The Navy will provide NMFS with advance 

notification and include the information in associated reports.

Channel Islands National 

Marine Sanctuary 

Cautionary Area

• The Navy will not use surface ship hull-mounted mid-frequency active sonar and in-water 

explosives used in small-, medium-, and large-caliber gunnery; torpedo; bombing; and missile 

(including 2.75” rockets) activities during unit-level training, major training exercises, or testing 

events. 

• If required for national security, naval units will obtain permission from a Command-delegated 

authority prior to commencement of the activity. The Navy will provide NMFS with advance 

notification and include the information in associated reports.

Blue Whale Awareness 

Notification Message Area 

(June 1 – October 31)

• The Navy will issue a seasonal awareness notification message to alert ships and aircraft to the 

possible presence of blue whales.

Gray Whale Awareness 

Notification Message Area 

(November 1 – March 31)

• The Navy will issue a seasonal awareness notification message to alert ships and aircraft to the 

possible presence of gray whales.

Fin Whale Awareness 

Notification Message Area

(November 1 – May 31)

• The Navy will issue a seasonal awareness notification message to alert ships and aircraft to the 

possible presence of concentrations of fin whales.
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

5-74

5.0 Mitigation

This page intentionally left blank.
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

5-75

References

REFERENCES

Dunlop, R. A., M. J. Noad, R. D. McCauley, E. Kniest, R. Slade, D. Paton, & D. H. Cato. (2016). Response of 

humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae) to ramp-up of a small experimental air gun array. 

Marine Pollution Bulletin, 103(1–2), 72–83. 

Maloni, M., J. A. Paul, & D. M. Gligor. (2013). Slow steaming impacts on ocean carriers and shippers. 

Maritime Economics & Logistics, 15(2), 151–171. 

U.S. Department of the Navy. (2010). Navy Integrated Comprehensive Monitoring Plan.

U.S. Department of the Navy. (2013). U.S. Navy Strategic Planning Process for Marine Species 

Monitoring.

U.S. Department of the Navy. (2017). Quantitative Analysis for Estimating Acoustic and Explosive 

Impacts to Marine Mammals and Sea Turtles. Space and Naval Warfare System Command, 

Pacific and Naval Undersea Warfare Center, Newport.

U.S. Navy Marine Mammal Program. (2017). Marine Mammal Strandings Associated with U.S. Navy 

Sonar Activities. SPAWAR Systems Center Pacific.

Van Parijs, S. M., C. Curtice, & M. C. Ferguson, (Eds.). (2015). Biologically Important Areas for cetaceans 

within U.S. waters. Aquatic Mammals (Special Issue), 41(1), 128. 

Von Benda-Beckmann, A. M., P. J. Wensveen, P. H. Kvadsheim, F. P. Lam, P. J. Miller, P. L. Tyack, & M. A. 

Ainslie. (2014). Modeling effectiveness of gradual increases in source level to mitigate effects of 

sonar on marine mammals. Conservation Biology, 28(1), 119–128. 

Zitterbart, D. P., L. Kindermann, E. Burkhardt, & O. Boebel. (2013). Automatic round-the-clock detection 

of whales for mitigation from underwater noise impacts. PLoS ONE, 8(8), e71217. 
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

5-76

References

This page intentionally left blank.
6 Regulatory Considerations

Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

i

Table of Contents

Draft

Environmental Impact Statement/Overseas Environmental Impact 

Statement

Hawaii-Southern California Training and Testing

TABLE OF CONTENTS

6 REGULATORY CONSIDERATIONS ..............................................................................................6-1

6.1 Consistency with Other Applicable Federal, State, and Local Regulations, and Executive 

Orders.......................................................................................................................6-1

6.1.1 Coastal Zone Management Act Compliance..........................................................6-7

6.1.1.1 Hawaii Coastal Zone Management Program.........................................6-8

6.1.1.2 California Coastal Management Program..............................................6-8

6.1.2 Marine Protected Areas.........................................................................................6-8

6.1.2.1 State Marine Protected Areas .............................................................6-32

6.1.2.2 National Estuarine Research Reserves ................................................6-32

6.1.2.3 National Wildlife Refuges ....................................................................6-32

6.1.2.4 Gear Restricted Areas..........................................................................6-32

6.1.2.5 National Parks......................................................................................6-32

6.1.2.6 National Monuments...........................................................................6-33

6.1.2.7 National Marine Sanctuaries ...............................................................6-35

6.1.3 Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act........................6-41

6.2 Relationship Between Short-Term Use of the Environment and Maintenance and 

Enhancement of Long-Term Productivity ..................................................................6-42

6.3 Irreversible or Irretrievable Commitment of Resources.............................................6-43

6.4 Energy Requirements and Conservation Potential of Alternatives and Efficiency 

Initiatives ................................................................................................................6-43

List of Figures

Figure 6.1-1: Location of Marine Protected Areas in the Hawaii Range Complex...................................6-30

Figure 6.1-2: Location of Marine Protected Areas in the Southern California Portion of the Study Area .....

6-31

Figure 6.1-3: Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument and the Hawaiian Islands Humpback 

Whale National Marine Sanctuary......................................................................................6-38

Figure 6.1-4: Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary.......................................................................6-40
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

ii

Table of Contents

List of Tables

Table 6.1-1: Summary of Environmental Compliance for the Proposed Action........................................6-1

Table 6.1-2: Marine Protected Areas within the Hawaii-Southern California Training and Testing Study 

Area.....................................................................................................................................6-11
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

6-1

6.0 Regulatory Considerations

6 REGULATORY CONSIDERATIONS

In accordance with the Council on Environmental Quality regulations for implementing the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), federal agencies shall, to the fullest extent possible, integrate the 

requirements of NEPA with other planning and environmental review procedures required by law or by 

agency practice so that all such procedures run concurrently rather than consecutively. This chapter 

summarizes environmental compliance for the Proposed Action, consistency with other federal, state, 

and local plans, policies, and regulations not considered in Chapter 3 (Affected Environment and 

Environmental Consequences); the relationship between short-term impacts; and the maintenance and 

enhancement of long-term productivity in the affected environment; irreversible and irretrievable 

commitments of resources, and energy conservation.

6.1 CONSISTENCY WITH OTHER APPLICABLE FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL 

REGULATIONS, AND EXECUTIVE ORDERS

Implementation of the Proposed Action for the Hawaii-Southern California Training and Testing (HSTT) 

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)/Overseas Environmental Impact Statement (OEIS), would comply 

with applicable federal, state, and local laws, regulations, and executive orders. The United States (U.S.) 

Department of the Navy (Navy) is consulting with and will continue to consult with regulatory agencies, 

as appropriate, during the NEPA process and prior to implementation of the Proposed Action to ensure 

that requirements are met. Table 6.1-1 summarizes the additional environmental compliance 

requirements not specifically assessed in the resource chapters. Section 1.6 (The Environmental 

Planning Process) provides brief excerpts of the primary federal statutes, executive orders, and guidance 

that form the regulatory framework for the resource evaluations in Chapter 3 (Affected Environment 

and Environmental Consequences). Documentation of consultation and coordination with regulatory 

agencies is provided in Appendix J (Agency Correspondence).

Table 6.1-1: Summary of Environmental Compliance for the Proposed Action

Laws, Executive Orders, International 

Standards, and Guidance Status of Compliance

LAWS

Abandoned Shipwreck Act 

(43 United States Code [U.S.C.] sections

2101-2106)

For abandoned shipwrecks in United States (U.S.) Territorial Waters, 

the federal government asserts title to the resource. See Section 3.10 

(Cultural Resources) for assessment and conclusion that the Proposed 

Action is consistent with the act.
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

6-2

6.0 Regulatory Considerations

Table 6.1-1: Summary of Environmental Compliance for the Proposed Action (continued)

Laws, Executive Orders, International 

Standards, and Guidance Status of Compliance

LAWS (Continued)

Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships (33 

U.S.C. sections 1901–1915)

The Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships applies to U.S. vessels 

worldwide and implements the requirements of annexes I (Oil 

Pollution), II (Noxious Liquid Substances Carried in Bulk), V (ShipGenerated Garbage), and VI (Air Pollution) of the International 

Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL) for 

the United States. Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships excludes 

warships and naval auxiliaries from the preventive measures in 

annexes I, II, and VI. For annex V, Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships 

requires Navy ships and submarines to comply fully with discharge 

restrictions applicable outside of “special areas” designated under 

annex V and places limitations on Navy ship discharges within annex V 

special areas.

Requirements associated with the Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships 

are implemented in accordance with the Navy Environmental and 

Natural Resources Program Manual and related Navy guidance 

documents governing waste management, pollution prevention, and 

recycling. At sea, the Navy complies with these regulations and 

operates in a manner that minimizes or eliminates any adverse effects 

to the marine environment. See Section 3.2 (Sediments and Water 

Quality) for the assessment.

Antiquities Act 

(16 U.S.C. sections 431–433)

In accordance with Navy procedures, the Proposed Action is 

consistent with the act’s objectives for protection of archaeological 

and historical sites and objects, preservation of cultural resources, 

and the public's access to them. See Section 3.10 (Cultural Resources) 

for the assessment.

Coastal Zone Management Act (16 U.S.C.

sections 1451-1464)

The Navy will comply with the coastal zone federal consistency 

requirements for those states whose coastal uses or resources may 

be affected by the Proposed Action. See Section 6.1.1 below, for 

discussions of Navy compliance with the Coastal Zone Management 

Act.

National Historic Preservation Act (54 

U.S.C. section 300308)

In accordance with Navy procedures, the Proposed Action is 

consistent with the national policy for the preservation of historic 

sites, buildings, and objects of national significance. See Chapter 3.10 

(Cultural Resources) for the assessment. The Navy will comply, as 

applicable, with the Section 106 consultation requirements.

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation 

and Management Act (16 U.S.C. sections 

1801–1882)

The Proposed Action may have potential impacts on essential fish 

habitat and managed species. Essential fish habitat consultation with 

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) will be conducted for 

affected species and their habitats (see Section 6.1.3, MagnusonStevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act). 

Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C.

sections 703–712)

Implementation of the Proposed Action is not anticipated to result in 

significant adverse effects on migratory bird populations; therefore, 

the Navy does not need to confer with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service. See Section 3.9 (Birds) for the assessment.
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

6-3

6.0 Regulatory Considerations

Table 6.1-1: Summary of Environmental Compliance for the Proposed Action (continued)

Laws, Executive Orders, International 

Standards, and Guidance Status of Compliance

LAWS (Continued)

National Marine Sanctuaries Act (16 

U.S.C. sections 1431–1445c-1)

Two National Marine Sanctuaries administered by National Oceanic 

and Atmospheric Administration Office of National Marine 

Sanctuaries lie within or overlap the Study Area. These are discussed 

further in Section 6.1.2.7 (National Marine Sanctuaries). 

• The military activities the Navy proposed to be conducted in 

the Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale National Marine 

Sanctuary all fall into classes of activities covered in the 1997 

Final EIS/Management Plan for the Sanctuary, which under 

the Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale National Marine 

Sanctuary regulations do not require permits or further 

consultation under section 304(d) unless the military activity 

is modified in a manner significantly greater than was 

considered in a previous consultation. These military 

activities are also the same classes of activities previously 

analyzed in the Navy’s 2013 HSTT Final EIS/OEIS and for 

which the Office of National Marine Sanctuaries found no 

consultation was required in a letter dated August 16, 2013.

The activities have not been modified in a manner 

significantly greater than those considered in the 2013 HSTT 

Final EIS/OEIS.

• Proposed military activities in the Channel Islands National 

Marine Sanctuary are consistent with those activities 

described in the sanctuary’s regulations and in Section 3.5.9 

(Department of Defense Activities, preexisting activities) of 

the 20091 Final Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary 

Management Plan/Final Environmental Impact Statement. As 

demonstrated by the analysis in this EIS/OEIS, proposed 

activities are not significantly modified in such a way that 

possible adverse effects on Sanctuary resources or qualities 

are significantly different in manner than previously 

considered. In addition, all Navy activities are carried out in a 

manner that avoids to the maximum extent practicable any 

adverse impacts on Sanctuary resources or qualities. The 

military activities currently proposed are also the same 

classes of activities previously analyzed in the Navy’s 2013 

HSTT Final EIS/OEIS and for which the Office of National 

Marine Sanctuaries found no consultation was required in a 

letter dated August 16, 2013. The activities have not been 

modified in a manner significantly greater than those 

considered in the 2013 HSTT Final EIS/OEIS.

________________________________________

1The Final Environmental Impact Statement/Management Plan 

(FEIS/MP) for the Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary was 

released in 2009, although the regulations cite 2008 for the 

FEIS/MP.
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

6-4

6.0 Regulatory Considerations

Table 6.1-1: Summary of Environmental Compliance for the Proposed Action (continued)

Laws, Executive Orders, International 

Standards, and Guidance Status of Compliance

LAWS (Continued)

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act 

(42 U.S.C. section 6901 et seq.) /Military 

Munitions Rule

Under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, the Military 

Munitions Rule identifies when conventional and chemical military 

munitions are considered solid waste. Military munitions are not 

considered solid waste based on the following condition stated in the 

40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) section 266.202(a)(1)(i-iii). 

Specifically, munitions are not considered hazardous waste when: 

Used for their intended purpose, including training of military 

personnel and explosive emergency response specialists; research 

and development activities; and when recovered, collected, and 

destroyed during range clearance events. This condition covers the 

uses of munitions included in the Proposed Action; therefore, the 

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act does not apply.

Rivers and Harbors Act 

(33 U.S.C. section 401 et seq.)

Under the Rivers and Harbors Act, a permit is required when 

construction is proposed in navigable waterways. The Navy does not 

anticipate construction in navigable waters under the Proposed 

Action. Therefore, no Army Corps of Engineer permits would be 

required.

Submerged Lands Act of 1953 (43 U.S.C.

sections 1301–1315)

The Proposed Action is consistent with regulations concerning the 

Submerged Lands Act.

Sunken Military Craft Act (Public Law 

108–375, 10 U.S.C. section 113 Note and 

118 Stat. 2094–2098)

The Sunken Military Craft Act does not apply to actions taken by, or at 

the direction of, the United States. See Section 3.10 (Cultural 

Resources) for the assessment.

California Coastal National Monument 

Designation (Presidential Proclamation 

7264, January 11, 2000), expanded areas 

including the Point Arena-Stornetta 

Public Lands (Presidential Proclamation 

9089, March 11, 2014), and the 

Boundary Enlargement of the California 

Coastal National Monument (Presidential 

Proclamation 9563, January 12, 2017)

The California Coastal National Monument is located along the 

California coastline and comprises more than 20,000 unappropriated 

or unreserved islands, rocks, exposed reefs, and pinnacles occurring 

within 12 nautical miles off the coast of California between Mexico 

and Oregon (over 1,100 miles). Navy activities are not proposed to 

occur in these areas. The Navy and the Bureau of Land Management 

have agreed on the terms of a Memorandum of Understanding dated 

5 November 2007 regarding Navy activities in the vicinity of 

monument resources. Implementation of the Proposed Action would 

be consistent with the Memorandum of Understanding and would 

not affect monument resources.
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

6-5

6.0 Regulatory Considerations

Table 6.1-1: Summary of Environmental Compliance for the Proposed Action (continued)

Laws, Executive Orders, International 

Standards, and Guidance Status of Compliance

LAWS (Continued)

Presidential Proclamation –

Papahanaumokuakea Marine National 

Monument; Designated by Proclamation 

8031 (June 15, 2006) and amended by 

Proclamation 8112 (February 28, 2007), 

and 50 CFR part 404

The proposed Navy activities would be carried out consistent with 

applicable laws. In accordance with Presidential Proclamation 8031 

and Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument regulations (50 

CFR part 404), all activities and exercises of the Armed Forces shall be 

carried out in a manner that avoids, to the extent practicable and 

consistent with operational requirements, adverse impacts on 

Monument resources and qualities. As analyzed in section 3.10 

(Cultural Resources), no adverse impacts on submerged cultural 

resources would occur as a result of the Proposed Action. While there 

has been no incident to date, should there be a threatened or actual 

event that may cause destruction of, loss of, or injury to a monument

resource or quality (such as spill or grounding), the Department of 

Defense and Navy will coordinate with the Secretary of Commerce 

and Interior to respond to, provide mitigation, or restore the effects 

of any such harm. See Section 0 (National Monuments) for discussions 

of the Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument.

Presidential Proclamation 9478 –

Papahanaumokuakea Marine National 

Monument Expansion

The proposed Navy activities would be carried out consistent with 

applicable laws. In addition, vessels and aircraft used in the conduct 

of military training and testing would be operated in a manner 

consistent with the requirements of the proclamation, so far as is 

practicable. While there has been no incident to date, should there be 

a threatened or actual event that may cause destruction of, loss of, or 

injury to a Monument Expansion resource or quality (such as spill or 

grounding), the Department of Defense and Navy will coordinate with 

the Secretary of Commerce and Interior to respond to, provide 

mitigation, or restore the effects of any such harm.

EXECUTIVE ORDERS

Executive Order 11990, Protection of 

Wetlands

In accordance with Navy procedures, implementation of the Proposed 

Action would not affect wetlands as defined in Executive Order 

11990.

Executive Order 12114, Environmental 

Effects Abroad of Major Department of 

Defense Actions

The Navy prepared this OEIS in accordance with Executive Order 

12114 and Navy-implementing regulations found at 32 CFR part 187, 

Environmental Effects Abroad of Major Department of Defense 

Actions.

Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions 

to Address Environmental Justice in 

Minority Populations and Low-Income 

Populations

In accordance with Navy procedures, the Proposed Action would not 

result in any disproportionately high and adverse human health or 

environmental effects on minority or low-income populations. See 

Section 3.0.3.2 (Resources and Issues Eliminated from Further 

Consideration).

Executive Order 12962, Recreational 

Fisheries

In accordance with Navy procedures, the Proposed Action would not 

affect federal agencies’ ability to fulfill certain duties with regard to 

promoting the health and access of the public to recreational fishing 

areas. See Section 3.11 (Socioeconomics) for the assessment.
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

6-6

6.0 Regulatory Considerations

Table 6.1-1: Summary of Environmental Compliance for the Proposed Action (continued)

Laws, Executive Orders, International 

Standards, and Guidance Status of Compliance

EXECUTIVE ORDERS (continued)

Executive Order 13045, Protection of 

Children from Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks

In accordance with Navy procedures, the Proposed Action would not 

result in disproportionate environmental health or safety risks to 

children. See Section 3.0.3.2 (Resources and Issues Eliminated from 

Further Consideration).

Executive Order 13089, Coral Reef 

Protection

The Navy has prepared this EIS/OEIS in accordance with requirements 

that federal agencies whose actions affect U.S. coral reef ecosystems 

shall provide for implementation of measures needed to research, 

monitor, manage, and restore them, including reducing impacts from 

pollution and sedimentation. See Section 3.4 (Invertebrates) for the 

assessment.

Executive Order 13112, Invasive Species

In accordance with Navy procedures, the Proposed Action would not 

increase the number of or introduce new invasive species nor require 

the Navy to take measures to avoid introduction and spread of those 

species. Naval vessels are exempt from 33 CFR part 151 subpart D, 

Ballast Water Management for Control of Nonindigenous Species in 

Waters of the United States; however, the Navy follows ballast water 

protocols as required by the Chief of Naval Operations Instructions 

5090.1D, Environmental Readiness Program Manual.

Executive Order 13158, Marine 

Protected Areas

The Navy has prepared this EIS/OEIS in accordance with requirements 

for the protection of existing national system marine protected areas. 

See Section 6.1.2 (Marine Protected Areas) for more information.

Executive Order 13175, Consultation and 

Coordination with Indian Tribal 

Governments

In accordance with Navy procedures, the Proposed Action would not 

have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on the 

relationship between the federal government and Indian tribes, or on 

the distribution of power and responsibilities between the federal 

government and Indian tribes. See Table 8.2-1 for federallyrecognized tribes that were provided notification letters of the HSTT 

EIS/OEIS.

Executive Order 13547, Stewardship of 

the Ocean, Our Coasts, and the Great 

Lakes

The Proposed Action is consistent with the comprehensive national 

policy for the Stewardship of the Ocean, Our Coasts, and the Great 

Lakes.

Executive Order 13693, Planning for 

Federal Sustainability in the Next Decade

The Proposed Action is consistent with the federal government's 

greenhouse gas emissions reductions and sustainability goals of this 

Executive Order.
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

6-7

6.0 Regulatory Considerations

Table 6.1-1: Summary of Environmental Compliance for the Proposed Action (continued)

Laws, Executive Orders, International 

Standards, and Guidance Status of Compliance

INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS

International Convention for the 

Prevention of Pollution from Ships

The Proposed Action does include vessel operation and incidental 

discharges from ships; however, Navy vessels operating in the Study 

Area comply with applicable laws and regulations, minimizing or 

eliminating potential impact from incidental discharges from ships as 

Chief of Naval Operations Instructions 5090.1D, Environmental 

Readiness Program Manual policy dictates. Marine Pollution 

(MARPOL) is an international agreement designed to minimize 

pollution of the seas from commercial vessels. While the 

requirements and standards established by MARPOL do not apply 

directly to warships, auxiliaries, and other government owned vessels, 

parties to MARPOL have an obligation to ensure, by the adoption of 

appropriate measures not impairing the operations or operational 

capabilities of such ships, they act in a manner consistent with the 

agreement, so far as is reasonable and practicable. 

Notes: U.S. = United States, NMFS = National Marine Fisheries Service, HSTT = Hawaii and Southern California Training and 

Testing, EIS = Environmental Impact Statement, OEIS = Overseas Environmental Impact Statement, MMPA = Marine Mammal 

Protection Act, MBTA = Migratory Bird Treaty Act, ESA = Endangered Species Act

6.1.1 COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT ACT COMPLIANCE

The Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (16 United States Code [U.S.C.] section 1451, et seq.) 

encourages coastal states to be proactive in managing coastal zone uses and resources. The act 

established a voluntary coastal planning program and required participating states to submit a Coastal 

Management Plan to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration for approval. Under the act, 

federal actions that have an effect on a coastal use or resource are required to be consistent, to the 

maximum extent practicable, with the enforceable policies of federally approved Coastal 

Management Plans. 

The Coastal Zone Management Act defines the coastal zone as extending “to the outer limit of State title 

and ownership under the Submerged Lands Act” (i.e., 3 nautical miles [NM] or 9 NM from the shoreline, 

depending on the location). The coastal zone extends inland only to the extent necessary to control the 

shoreline, but the shoreward extent is not relevant to the Proposed Action.

A consistency determination, a negative determination, or a de minimis exemption may be submitted 

for review of federal agency activities. A federal agency submits a consistency determination when it 

determines that its activity may have either a direct or an indirect effect on a state coastal use or 

resource. In accordance with 15 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] section 930.39, the consistency 

determination will include a brief statement indicating whether the proposed activity will be undertaken 

in a manner consistent to the maximum extent practicable with the enforceable policies of the 

management program. The consistency determination must be based on evaluation of the relevant 

enforceable policies of the management program. In accordance with 15 CFR section 930.35, “if a 

Federal agency determines that there will not be coastal effects, then the Federal agency shall provide 

the State agencies with a negative determination for a federal agency activity: (1) Identified by a State 

agency on its list, as described in section 930.34(b), or through case-by-case monitoring of unlisted 
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

6-8

6.0 Regulatory Considerations

activities; or (2) Which is the same as or is similar to activities for which consistency determinations have 

been prepared in the past; or (3) For which the Federal agency undertook a thorough consistency 

assessment and developed initial findings on the coastal effects of the activity.” Thus, a negative 

determination must be submitted to a state if the agency determines no coastal effects and one or more 

of the triggers above is met. De minimis exemptions are activities proposed by the federal agency that 

have already been reviewed and approved by the state (after allowing for public review and comment), 

and those that the state has recognized as having insignificant direct or indirect (secondary or 

cumulative) effects on its coastal resources.

6.1.1.1 Hawaii Coastal Zone Management Program

Hawaii has an approved Coastal Zone Management Program (Chapter 205A, Hawaii Revised Statutes), 

administered by the Hawaii Office of Planning. The program meets the federal coastal zone 

management requirements in managing coastal areas and resources, including beaches, fishponds, 

scenic areas, marinas, wetlands, harbors, recreational areas, historic sites, and marine resources.

Hawaii’s Coastal Zone Management Program employs a wide variety of regulatory and non-regulatory 

techniques to address coastal issues and uphold environmental law. Among them are stewardship, 

planning, permitting, education, and outreach. In accordance with the Coastal Zone Management Act, 

the Navy will comply with Hawaii’s Coastal Zone Management Program.

6.1.1.2 California Coastal Management Program

The state of California has an approved Coastal Management Plan, administered by the California 

Coastal Commission, codifying the California Coastal Act of 1976 (California Public Resources Code, 

section 30000 et seq.), the McAteer-Petris Act (created the San Francisco Bay Conservation and 

Development Commission), and the Suisun Marsh Preservation Act implement California’s Coastal 

Management Program. The California Coastal Act includes policies to protect and expand public access 

to shorelines, and to protect, enhance, and restore environmentally sensitive habitats, including 

intertidal and nearshore waters, wetlands, bays and estuaries, riparian habitat, certain woods and 

grasslands, streams, lakes, and habitat for rare and endangered plants and animals. In accordance with 

the Coastal Zone Management Act, the Navy will comply with California’s Coastal Management Plan.

6.1.2 MARINE PROTECTED AREAS

Many areas of the marine environment have some level of federal, state, or local management or 

protection. Marine protected areas are designated and managed at all levels of government by a variety 

of agencies and have been established by more than 100 legal authorities. Marine protected areas vary 

widely in purpose, managing agencies, management approaches, level of protection, and restrictions on 

human uses. They have been designated to achieve objectives ranging from the conservation of 

biodiversity, to the preservation of sunken historic vessels, to the protection of spawning species 

important to commercial and recreational fisheries. The levels of protection provided by these marine 

protected areas range from fully protected reserves (i.e., no take of any species is permitted) to sites 

allowing multiple uses including fishing, recreation, and industrial uses (National Marine Protected Areas 

Center, 2008).

Executive Order 13158, Marine Protected Areas (Federal Register 65(105): 34909-34911, May 26, 2000), 

directs the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to establish a National Marine Protected 

Areas Center charged with developing a national system of marine protected areas, and with 

maintaining a list of sites formally accepted into the national system. A full list and map of areas 
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

6-9

6.0 Regulatory Considerations

accepted in the national system of marine protected areas is available from the National Marine 

Protected Areas Center (National Marine Protected Areas Center, 2013). Executive Order 13158 requires 

each Federal agency whose actions affect the natural or cultural resources that are protected by a 

national system of marine protected areas to identify such actions, and in taking such actions, avoid 

harm to those natural and cultural resources to the maximum extent practicable. Pursuant to Section 5 

of Executive Order 13158, agency requirements apply only to the natural or cultural resources 

specifically afforded protection by the sites recognized in the List of National System Marine Protected 

Areas. Although many sites contain coastal (within the continental shelf) lands and islands, only the 

resources of the protected coastal and ocean waters, and the submerged lands thereunder, are subject 

to Section 5 of Executive Order 13158 (National Park Service, 2006).

All resources of the marine protected areas located within the Study Area have been incorporated into 

the analyses in Sections 3.1 through 3.9 (Air Quality, Sediments and Water Quality, Vegetation, 

Invertebrates, Habitats, Fishes, Marine Mammals, Reptiles, and Birds). In accordance with Executive 

Order 13158, the Navy has considered the potential impacts of its proposed activities under the 

Preferred Alternative (Alternative 1) to the national system marine protected areas that contain marine 

waters within the Study Area, factoring in Navy standard operating procedures and mitigation when 

applicable to the stressor and resource, to avoid or minimize harm to natural and cultural resources for 

which these marine protected areas were designated to the maximum extent practicable. 

The Navy implements standard operating procedures for aircraft safety, which involves pilots of Navy 

aircraft making every attempt to avoid large flocks of birds to reduce the safety risk involved with a 

potential bird strike. Since 2011, the Navy has required that all Navy flying units report all bird strikes 

through the Web-Enabled Safety System Aviation Mishap and Hazard Reporting System. The standard 

operating procedures for aircraft safety could result in a primary benefit to birds through a reduction in 

the potential for aircraft strike. 

The Navy also has several standard operating procedures for vessel safety. For example, ships operated 

by or for the Navy assign personnel to stand watch at all times, day and night, when moving through the 

water (underway). Watch personnel undertake extensive training in accordance with the U.S. Navy 

Lookout Training Handbook or civilian equivalent. A primary duty of watch personnel is to ensure safety 

of the ship, including the requirement to detect and report all objects and disturbances sighted in the 

water that may be indicative of a threat to the ship and its crew, such as debris, a periscope, surfaced 

submarine, or surface disturbance. Per safety requirements, watch personnel also report any marine 

mammals sighted that have the potential to be in the direct path of the ship as a standard collision 

avoidance procedure. Navy vessels operate in accordance with the navigation rules established by the 

U.S. Coast Guard. All vessels operating on the water are required to follow the International Navigation 

Rules (Commandant, United States Coast Guard Instruction M16672.2D). These rules require that 

vessels at all times proceed at a safe speed so that proper and effective action can be taken to avoid 

collision and so they can be stopped within a distance appropriate to the prevailing circumstances and 

conditions. The standard operating procedures for vessel safety could result in a secondary benefit to 

marine mammals through a reduction in the potential for vessel strike. For a full discussion of standard 

operating procedures, see Section 2.3.3 (Standard Operating Procedures).

In addition to standard operating procedures, the Navy will implement mitigation to avoid potential 

impacts from sonar, explosives, and physical disturbance and strike stressors on applicable resources. 

For example, as described in Section 5.2.4 (Physical Disturbance and Strike Stressors), mitigation for 

vessel movements includes training Lookouts and watch personnel with Marine Species Awareness 
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

6-10

6.0 Regulatory Considerations

Training (which provides information on sighting cues, visual observation tools and techniques, and 

sighting notification procedures) and requiring underway vessels to maneuver to maintain a specified 

distance from marine mammals. For a full discussion of mitigation, see Chapter 5 (Mitigation). Table 

6.1-2 presents information on the national system marine protected areas located in the Study Area, as 

well as the training and testing activities that could occur within each area.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

6-11

6.0 Regulatory Considerations

Table 6.1-2: Marine Protected Areas within the Hawaii-Southern California Training and Testing Study Area

Marine 

Protected Area

Figure

6.1-1 and 

6.1-2

Reference 

Number

Location Within 

the Study Area

Protection

Focus Summary of Relevant Regulations

Navy Proposed Activities under the Preferred 

Alternative and Marine Protected Area 

Considerations

State Marine Protected Areas

Ahihi-Kinau 

Natural Area 

Reserve

(established in 

1973, 8.4 km2 in 

size)

1 Hawaii Ecosystem

Prohibited: anchoring in any 

manner, injuring or removing any 

marine organism, damaging or 

disturbing any geological features, 

moving or damaging historic or 

prehistoric remains.

No proposed activities are expected to occur in the 

area. Therefore, no impacts are expected within the 

Ahihi-Kinau Natural Area Reserve.

Hanauma Bay 

Marine Life 

Conservation 

District

(established in 

1967, 0.4 km2 in 

size)

2 Hawaii Ecosystem 

Prohibited: operating any 

watercraft, injuring or removing 

any marine organism, damaging or 

disturbing any geological features.

No proposed activities are expected to occur in the 

area. Therefore, no impacts are expected within the

Hanauma Bay Marine Life Conservation District.

Kahoolawe 

Island Reserve

(established in 

1993, 202 km2

in size)

3 Hawaii Ecosystem

Prohibited: all entrance into and 

activities within the reserve (such 

as boating, fishing and diving) 

unless specifically authorized by the 

Island Reserve Commission.

The Navy conducts no activities on or near Kahoolawe 

Island. Submarines do conduct many underwater mine 

detection activities several nautical miles west of 

Kahoolawe. However, submarine underwater mine 

detection activities are not likely to harm the area’s 

protected natural resources. No explosives are used in 

this marine protected area. Therefore, no impacts are 

expected within the Kahoolawe Island Reserve.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

6-12

6.0 Regulatory Considerations

Table 6.1-2: Marine Protected Areas within the Hawaii-Southern California Training and Testing Study Area (continued)

Marine 

Protected Area

Figure 

6.1-1 and 

6.1-2 

Reference 

Number

Location Within 

the Study Area

Protection 

Focus Summary of Relevant Regulations

Navy Proposed Activities under the Preferred 

Alternative and Marine Protected Area 

Considerations

Kealakekua Bay 

Marine Life 

Conservation 

District

(established in 

1969, 1.2 km2 in 

size)

4 Hawaii Ecosystem

Prohibited: injuring or removing 

any marine organism (except within 

Subzone B), damaging or disturbing 

any geological features, anchoring 

of boats in Subzone A (may be 

anchored in Subzone B, only in 

sand).

No proposed activities are expected to occur in the 

area. Therefore, no impacts are expected within the 

Kealakekua Bay Marine Life Conservation District.

Molokini Shoal 

Marine Life 

Conservation 

District

(established in 

1977, 0.4 km2 in 

size)

5 Hawaii Ecosystem

Prohibited: injuring or removing 

any marine organism (except in 

Subzone B), damaging or disturbing 

any geological features, moor and 

anchoring of boats.

The Navy conducts sonar in the waters near Molokini 

Shoal Marine Life Conservation District. No explosives 

are used in this marine protected area. The Navy 

avoids impacting Conservation District resources and 

qualities to the maximum extent practicable.

Avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures are 

employed whenever sonar activities occur, as 

applicable. The Navy may conduct diver insertion or 

extraction on or near Molokini. However, diver 

insertion or extraction is not likely to impact the area’s 

protected natural resources. Therefore, no impacts are 

expected to the Molokini Shoal Marine Life 

Conservation District.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

6-13

6.0 Regulatory Considerations

Table 6.1-2: Marine Protected Areas within the Hawaii-Southern California Training and Testing Study Area (continued)

Marine 

Protected Area

Figure 

6.1-1 and 

6.1-2 

Reference 

Number

Location Within 

the Study Area

Protection 

Focus Summary of Relevant Regulations Navy Proposed Activities under the Preferred Alternative and Marine Protected Area Considerations

Pupukea Marine 

Life 

Conservation 

District

(established in 

1983, 1 km2 in 

size)

6 Hawaii Ecosystem

Prohibited: injuring or removing 

any marine organism (outside of 

species and gear specific 

regulations), damaging or 

disturbing any geological features.

No proposed activities are expected to occur in the 

area. Therefore, no impacts are expected within the 

Pupukea Marine Life Conservation District.

West Hawaii 

Regional Fishery 

Management 

Area 

(established in 

1999, 226.3 km2

in size)

7 Hawaii Focal 

Resource

Prohibited: unpermitted uses of 

lay nets and aquarium collections.

Amphibious operations at Kawaihae Harbor are 

expected to occur in the area. However they would not 

impact the fishes in the area because no lay nets are 

used and fishes are not collected for any use. No 

explosives are used in this marine protected area.

Therefore, no impacts are expected within the West 

Hawaii Regional Fishery Management Area.

Arrow Point to 

Lion Head Point 

(Catalina Island) 

State Marine 

Conservation 

Area

(established in 

2012, 1.6 km2 in 

size)

8 California Ecosystem

It is unlawful to injure, damage, 

take, or possess any living, 

geological, or cultural marine 

resource for commercial and/or 

recreational purposes. However, 

all commercial and recreational 

takes are allowed in accordance 

with current regulations, except 

the recreational take of 

invertebrates which is prohibited

(California Department of Fish and 

Wildlife, 2016).

No proposed activities are expected to occur in the 

area. Therefore, no impacts are expected within the

Arrow Point to Lion Head Point (Catalina Island) State 

Marine Conservation Area.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

6-14

6.0 Regulatory Considerations

Table 6.1-2: Marine Protected Areas within the Hawaii-Southern California Training and Testing Study Area (continued)

Marine 

Protected Area

Figure

6.1-1 and 

6.1-2 

Reference 

Number

Location Within 

the Study Area

Protection 

Focus Summary of Relevant Regulations Navy Proposed Activities under the Preferred Alternative and Marine Protected Area Considerations

Blue Cavern 

(Catalina Island) 

State Marine 

Conservation 

Area

(established in 

2012, 6.8 km2 in 

size)

9 California Ecosystem

Take of all living marine resources 

is prohibited except for take

pursuant to activities authorized 

under subsections of 14 California 

Code of Regulations 632(b)(124)

(subsections 632[b][102][D] and

632[b][102] [E]). Except as 

pursuant to Federal law, 

emergency caused by hazardous

weather, or as provided in 

subsection 632(b)(102)(D), it is 

unlawful to anchor or moor a 

vessel in the Catalina Marine 

Science Center Marine Life Refuge 

(Section 10932, Fish and Game 

Code)(California Department of 

Fish and Game, 2012).

No proposed activities are expected to occur in the 

area. Therefore, no impacts are expected within the

Blue Cavern (Catalina Island) State Marine Conservation 

Area.

Bird Rock 

(Catalina Island) 

State Marine 

Conservation 

Area

(established in 

2012, 19.9 km2

in size)

10 California Ecosystem

Take of all living marine resources 

is prohibited, except by fishing 

activities, which are restricted, 

(California Department of Fish and 

Game, 2012).

No proposed activities are expected to occur in the 

area. Therefore, no impacts are expected within the

Bird Rock (Catalina Island) State Marine Conservation 

Area.

Cabrillo State 

Marine Reserve

(established in 

2012, 1 km2 in 

size)

11 California Ecosystem

It is unlawful to injure, damage, 

take, or possess any living, 

geological, or cultural marine 

resource (California Department of 

Fish and Wildlife, 2016).

No proposed activities are expected to occur in the 

area. Therefore, no impacts are expected within the

Cabrillo State Marine Reserve.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

6-15

6.0 Regulatory Considerations

Table 6.1-2: Marine Protected Areas within the Hawaii-Southern California Training and Testing Study Area (continued)

Marine Protected 

Area

Figure 6.1-

1 and 6.1-2 

Reference 

Number

Location Within 

the Study Area

Protection 

Focus Summary of Relevant Regulations

Navy Proposed Activities under the Preferred 

Alternative and Marine Protected Area 

Considerations

Casino Point 

(Catalina Island) 

State Marine 

Conservation Area

(established in 

2012, 0.02 km2 in 

size)

12 California Ecosystem

It is unlawful to injure, damage, take, 

or possess any living, geological, or 

cultural marine resource for 

commercial and/or recreational 

purposes, subject to only a few 

exceptions (California Department of 

Fish and Wildlife, 2016).

No proposed activities are expected to occur in the 

area. Therefore, no impacts are expected within the

Casino Point (Catalina Island) State Marine 

Conservation Area.

Cat Harbor (Catalina 

Island) State Marine 

Conservation Area

(established in 

2012, 0.6 km2 in 

size)

13 California Ecosystem

It is unlawful to injure, damage, take, 

or possess any living, geological, or 

cultural marine resource for 

commercial and/or recreational 

purposes, subject to only a few 

exceptions (California Department of 

Fish and Wildlife, 2016).

No proposed activities are expected to occur in the 

area. Therefore, no impacts are expected within the

Cat Harbor (Catalina Island) State Marine 

Conservation Area.

Farnsworth Bank 

ASBS1 State Water 

Quality Protection 

Area (established in 

1974, 0.15 km2 in 

size)

14 California Ecosystem Waste discharges are prohibited.

The Navy does not discharge waste in or near this 

area. Sonar-related activities and other training and 

testing activities are not likely to harm the area’s 

protected natural resources. A detailed analysis of 

Water Quality impacts in the Study Area is included in 

Section 3.2 (Sediments and Water Quality). 

Therefore, no impacts are expected within the

Farnsworth Bank ASBS1 State Water Quality 

Protection Area.

Farnsworth 

Offshore (Catalina 

Island) State Marine 

Conservation Area

(established in 

2012, 17.3 km2 in 

size)

15 California Ecosystem

It is unlawful to injure, damage, take, 

or possess any living, geological, or 

cultural marine resource for 

recreational and/or commercial 

purposes, with only a few specified 

exceptions (California Department of 

Fish and Wildlife, 2016).

Sonar-related activities and other training and testing 

activities are not likely to harm the area’s protected 

natural resources. No explosives are used in this 

marine protected area. Therefore, no impacts are 

expected within the Farnsworth Offshore (Catalina 

Island) State Marine Conservation Area.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

6-16

6.0 Regulatory Considerations

Table 6.1-2: Marine Protected Areas within the Hawaii-Southern California Training and Testing Study Area (continued)

Marine Protected 

Area

Figure 6.1-

1 and 6.1-2

Reference 

Number

Location Within 

the Study Area

Protection 

Focus

Summary of Relevant 

Regulations

Navy Proposed Activities under the Preferred 

Alternative and Marine Protected Area 

Considerations

Farnsworth 

Onshore (Catalina 

Island) State 

Marine 

Conservation 

Area (established 

in 2012, 6.6 km2

in size)

16 California Ecosystem

It is unlawful to injure, damage, 

take, or possess any living, 

geological, or cultural marine 

resource for recreational 

and/or commercial purposes, 

with only a few specified 

exceptions (California 

Department of Fish and 

Wildlife, 2016).

No proposed activities are expected to occur in the 

area. Therefore, no impacts are expected within 

the Farnsworth Onshore (Catalina Island) State 

Marine Conservation Area.

La Jolla ASBS1 

State Water 

Quality Protection 

Area (established 

in 1974, 1.8 km2

in size)

17 California Ecosystem Waste discharges are 

prohibited.

The Navy conducts training and testing in all 

warfare areas, including mine warfare training 

activities and underwater communications testing 

activities just offshore (within 3 NM) of this water 

quality protection area. No explosives are used in 

this marine protected area. The Navy does not 

discharge any waste in or near this area. Mine 

warfare training activities, underwater 

communications testing activities, and other 

training and testing activities are not likely to harm 

the area’s protected natural resources. A detailed 

analysis of Water Quality impacts in the Study Area 

is included in Section 3.2 (Sediments and Water 

Quality). Therefore, no impacts are expected 

within the La Jolla ASBS1 State Water Quality 

Protection Area.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

6-17

6.0 Regulatory Considerations

Table 6.1-2: Marine Protected Areas within the Hawaii-Southern California Training and Testing Study Area (continued)

Marine 

Protected Area

Figure 6.1-1 

and 6.1-2 

Reference 

Number

Location 

Within the 

Study Area

Protection 

Focus

Summary of Relevant 

Regulations

Navy Proposed Activities under the Preferred 

Alternative and Marine Protected Area 

Considerations

Laguna Beach 

State Marine 

Conservation 

Area

(established in 

2012, 9 km2 in 

size)

18 California Ecosystem

It is unlawful to injure, damage, 

take, or possess any living, 

geological, or cultural marine 

resource for recreational and/or 

commercial purposes, with only a 

few specified exceptions

(California Department of Fish 

and Wildlife, 2016).

No proposed activities are expected to occur in the 

area. Therefore, no impacts are expected within the

Laguna Beach State Marine Conservation Area.

Laguna Beach 

State Marine 

Reserve

(established in 

2012, 16.2 km2

in size)

19 California Ecosystem

It is unlawful to injure, damage, 

take, or possess any living, 

geological, or cultural marine 

resource (California Department 

of Fish and Wildlife, 2016).

No proposed activities are expected to occur in the 

area. Therefore, no impacts are expected within the

Laguna Beach State Marine Reserve.

Long Point 

(Catalina Island) 

State Marine 

Reserve

(established in 

2012, 4.3 km2 in 

size)

20 California Ecosystem

Take of all living marine resources 

is prohibited (California 

Department of Fish and Game, 

2012).

No proposed activities are expected to occur in the 

area. Therefore, no impacts are expected within the

Long Point (Catalina Island) State Marine Reserve.

Lover's Cove 

(Catalina Island) 

State Marine 

Conservation 

Area

(established in 

2012, 0.2 km2 in 

size)

21 California Ecosystem

Take of all living marine resources 

is prohibited except by fishing 

activities that are exempt of the 

prohibitions and maintenance of 

artificial structures, (California 

Department of Fish and Game, 

2012).

No proposed activities are expected to occur in the 

area. Therefore, no impacts are expected within the

Lover's Cove (Catalina Island) State Marine 

Conservation Area.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

6-18

6.0 Regulatory Considerations

Table 6.1-2: Marine Protected Areas within the Hawaii-Southern California Training and Testing Study Area (continued)

Marine Protected 

Area

Figure 6.1-1 

and 6.1-2 

Reference 

Number

Location 

Within the 

Study Area

Protection Focus Summary of Relevant 

Regulations

Navy Proposed Activities under the Preferred 

Alternative and Marine Protected Area Considerations

Matlahuayl State 

Marine Reserve

(established in 

2012, 2.7 km2 in 

size)

22 California Ecosystem

It is unlawful to injure, damage, 

take, or possess any living, 

geological, or cultural marine 

resource. Boats may be 

launched and retrieved only in 

designated areas and may be 

anchored within the reserve 

only during daylight hours 

(California Department of Fish 

and Wildlife, 2016).

No proposed activities are expected to occur in the 

area. Therefore, no impacts are expected within the

Matlahuayl State Marine Reserve.

Northwest Santa 

Catalina Island 

ASBS1 State Water 

Quality 

Protection Area

(established in 

1974, 53.6 km2 in 

size)

23 California Ecosystem Waste discharges are 

prohibited.

The Navy does not discharge waste in or near this area.

Sonar-related activities and other training and testing 

activities are not likely to harm the area’s protected 

natural resources. No explosives are used in this marine 

protected area. A detailed analysis of Water Quality 

impacts in the Study Area is included in Section 3.2 

(Sediments and Water Quality). Therefore, no impacts 

are expected within the Northwest Santa Catalina Island 

ASBS1 State Water Quality Protection Area.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

6-19

6.0 Regulatory Considerations

Table 6.1-2: Marine Protected Areas within the Hawaii-Southern California Training and Testing Study Area (continued)

Marine Protected 

Area

Figure 6.1-

1 and 6.1-2

Reference 

Number

Location 

Within the 

Study Area

Protection 

Focus Summary of Relevant Regulations

Navy Proposed Activities under the Preferred 

Alternative and Marine Protected Area 

Considerations

San Clemente 

Island ASBS1 State 

Water Quality 

Protection Area

(established in 

1974, 199 km2 in 

size)

24 California Ecosystem

Waste discharges are prohibited. 

However, discharges incidental to 

military training and research, 

development, test, and evaluation 

operations are allowed. 

Discharges incidental to 

underwater demolition and other 

in-water explosions are not 

allowed in the two military closure 

areas in the vicinity of Wilson 

Cove and Castle Rock. Discharges 

must not result in a violation of 

the water quality objectives, 

including the protection of the 

marine aquatic life beneficial use, 

anywhere in the ASBS1

.

The Navy conducts training and testing in all warfare 

areas, including amphibious, anti-surface warfare, 

anti-submarine warfare, electronic warfare, mine 

warfare, and expeditionary warfare activities in this 

area. The Navy does not discharge waste in or near 

this area in violation of the site specific regulations.

Amphibious, anti-surface warfare, anti-submarine 

warfare, electronic warfare, mine warfare, 

expeditionary warfare, and other training and testing 

activities are not likely to harm the area’s protected 

natural resources. No explosives are used in this 

marine protected area. A detailed analysis of Water 

Quality impacts in the Study Area is included in 

Section 3.2 (Sediments and Water Quality). 

Therefore, no impacts are expected within the San 

Clemente Island ASBS1 State Water Quality Protection 

Area.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

6-20

6.0 Regulatory Considerations

Table 6.1-2: Marine Protected Areas within the Hawaii-Southern California Training and Testing Study Area (continued)

Marine Protected 

Area

Figure 6.1-

1 and 6.1-2 

Reference 

Number

Location 

Within the 

Study Area

Protection 

Focus Summary of Relevant Regulations

Navy Proposed Activities under the Preferred 

Alternative and Marine Protected Area 

Considerations

San Diego-Scripps 

ASBS1 State Water 

Quality Protection 

Area (established 

in 1974, 0.4 km2 in 

size)

25 California Ecosystem Waste discharges are prohibited. 

The Navy conducts training and testing in all warfare 

areas, including mine warfare training activities and 

underwater communications testing activities just 

offshore (within 3 NM) of this water quality 

protection area. However, no explosives are used in 

this this marine protected area. The Navy does not 

discharge any waste in or near this area. Mine 

warfare training activities, underwater 

communications testing activities, and other training 

and testing activities are not likely to harm the area’s 

protected natural resources. A detailed analysis of 

Water Quality impacts in the Study Area is included in 

Section 3.2 (Sediments and Water Quality). 

Therefore, no impacts are expected within the San 

Diego-Scripps ASBS1 State Water Quality Protection 

Area.

San Diego-Scripps 

Coastal State 

Marine 

Conservation Area

(established in 

2012, 3.8 km2 in 

size)

26 California Ecosystem

It is unlawful to injure, damage, 

take, or possess any living, 

geological, or cultural marine 

resource for recreational and/or 

commercial purposes, unless 

following the specified exceptions 

(California Department of Fish and 

Wildlife, 2016).

Sonar-related activities and other training and testing 

activities, are not likely to harm the area’s protected 

natural resources in this marine protected area.

Therefore, no impacts are expected within the San 

Diego-Scripps Coastal State Marine Conservation 

Area.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

6-21

6.0 Regulatory Considerations

Table 6.1-2: Marine Protected Areas within the Hawaii-Southern California Training and Testing Study Area (continued)

Marine Protected 

Area

Figure 6.1-

1 and 6.1-2 

Reference 

Number

Location 

Within the 

Study Area

Protection 

Focus Summary of Relevant Regulations

Navy Proposed Activities under the Preferred 

Alternative and Marine Protected Area 

Considerations

San Nicolas Island 

and Begg Rock 

ASBS1 State Water 

Quality Protection 

Area (established 

in 1974, 257.6 km2

in size)

27 California Ecosystem

Discharges incidental to 

underwater demolition and other 

in-water explosions are not 

allowed. Discharges must not 

result in a violation of the water 

quality objectives, including the 

protection of the marine aquatic 

life beneficial use, anywhere in the 

ASBS1

.

Sonar-related activities and other training and testing 

activities are not likely to harm the area’s protected 

natural resources. No explosives are used in this 

marine protected area. A detailed analysis of Water 

Quality impacts in the Study Area is included in 

Section 3.2 (Sediments and Water Quality). 

Therefore, no impacts are expected within the San 

Nicolas Island and Begg Rock ASBS1 State Water 

Quality Protection Area.

Santa Barbara 

Island State 

Marine Reserve

(established in 

2003, 33 km2 in 

size)

28 California Ecosystem

It is unlawful to injure, damage, 

take, or possess any living, 

geological, or cultural marine 

resource (California Department of 

Fish and Wildlife, 2016).

Sonar-related activities and other training and testing 

activities are not likely to harm the area’s protected 

natural resources. No explosives are used in this 

marine protected area. Therefore, no impacts are 

expected within the Santa Barbara Island State 

Marine Reserve.

South La Jolla State 

Marine 

Conservation Area

(established in 

2012, 6.4 km2 in 

size)

29 California Ecosystem

It is unlawful to injure, damage, 

take, or possess any living, 

geological, or cultural marine 

resource for recreational and/or 

commercial purposes, unless 

following the specified exceptions

(California Department of Fish and 

Wildlife, 2016).

No proposed activities are expected to occur in the 

area. Therefore, no impacts are expected within the 

South La Jolla State Marine Conservation Area.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

6-22

6.0 Regulatory Considerations

Table 6.1-2: Marine Protected Areas within the Hawaii-Southern California Training and Testing Study Area (continued)

Marine Protected 

Area

Figure 

6.1-1 and 

6.1-2 

Reference 

Number

Location 

Within the 

Study Area

Protection 

Focus

Summary of Relevant 

Regulations

Navy Proposed Activities under the Preferred 

Alternative and Marine Protected Area 

Considerations

South La Jolla State 

Marine Reserve

(established in 2012,

13.1 km2 in size)

30 California Ecosystem

It is unlawful to injure, 

damage, take, or possess any 

living, geological, or cultural 

marine resource (California 

Department of Fish and 

Wildlife, 2016).

No proposed activities are expected to occur in the 

area. Therefore, no impacts are expected within the 

South La Jolla State Marine Reserve.

Southeast Santa 

Catalina Island ASBS1 

State Water Quality 

Protection Area

(established in 1974,

11.2 km2 in size)

31 California Ecosystem Waste discharges are 

prohibited.

The Navy does not discharge waste in or near this 

area. Sonar-related activities and other training and 

testing activities are not likely to harm the area’s 

protected natural resources. No explosives are used 

in this marine protected area. Therefore, no impacts 

are expected within the Southeast Santa Catalina 

Island ASBS1 State Water Quality Protection Area.

Swami's State 

Marine Conservation 

Area (established in 

2012, 32.8 km2 in 

size)

32 California Ecosystem

It is unlawful to injure, 

damage, take, or possess any 

living, geological, or cultural 

marine resource for 

recreational and/or 

commercial purposes, unless 

following the specified 

exceptions (California 

Department of Fish and 

Wildlife, 2016).

No proposed activities are expected to occur in the 

area. Therefore, no impacts are expected within the

Swami’s State Marine Conservation Area.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

6-23

6.0 Regulatory Considerations

Table 6.1-2: Marine Protected Areas within the Hawaii-Southern California Training and Testing Study Area (continued)

Marine Protected 

Area

Figure 

6.1-1 and 

6.1-2 

Reference 

Number

Location 

Within the 

Study Area

Protection 

Focus Summary of Relevant Regulations

Navy Proposed Activities under the Preferred 

Alternative and Marine Protected Area 

Considerations

Western Santa 

Catalina Island 

ASBS1 State Water 

Quality Protection 

Area (established 

in 1974, 9.1 km2 in 

size)

33 California Ecosystem Waste discharges are prohibited.

The Navy does not discharge waste in or near this 

area. A detailed analysis of Water Quality impacts in 

the Study Area is included in Section 3.2 (Sediments 

and Water Quality). Therefore, no impacts are 

expected within the Western Santa Catalina Island 

ASBS1 State Water Quality Protection Area.

Federal Marine Protected Areas

National Wildlife Refuges

Johnston Island 

National Wildlife 

Refuge

(established in 

1926, 2,190.5 km2

in size)

34 U.S. Territory Ecosystem

This refuge is captured within the 

Pacific Remote Islands Marine 

National Monument. The 

proclamation for that Monument 

indicates that prohibition of certain 

activities does not apply to activities 

and exercises of the Armed Forces. 

Any activities carried out within the 

area will be conducted in a manner 

consistent “so far as is reasonable 

and practical” with the prohibitions. 

If a DoD activity causes any 

destruction, loss, or injury to a 

resource within the refuge, then the 

Department of Defense (DoD) will 

coordinate with the Secretary of the 

Interior or Commerce, to take 

appropriate actions to respond, 

mitigate, restore, or replace the 

affected areas.

The Navy conducts no activities in or near the 

Johnston Island National Wildlife Refuge. Ships may 

transit in the vicinity of the refuge and within the 

Monument. Ships transiting in the vicinity are not 

likely to harm the area’s protected natural 

resources. Therefore, no impacts are expected to 

the Johnston Island National Wildlife Refuge or the 

Pacific Remote Islands Marine National Monument.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

6-24

6.0 Regulatory Considerations

Table 6.1-2: Marine Protected Areas within the Hawaii-Southern California Training and Testing Study Area (continued)

Marine Protected 

Area

Figure 

6.1-1 and 

6.1-2 

Reference 

Number

Location 

Within the 

Study Area

Protection 

Focus Summary of Relevant Regulations

Navy Proposed Activities under the Preferred 

Alternative and Marine Protected Area 

Considerations

Midway Atoll 

National Wildlife 

Refuge

(established in 

1988, 2,356.5 km2

in size)

35 Hawaii Ecosystem 

Prohibitions on activities within the 

Midway Atoll National Wildlife Refuge 

are the same as those that apply for 

the Papahanaumokuakea Marine 

National Monument and World 

Heritage Site (50 CFR part 404). 

Activities of the Armed forces are not 

subject to those prohibited acts. The 

regulations state that “all activities 

and exercises of the Armed Forces 

shall be carried out in a manner that 

avoids, to the extent practicable and 

consistent with operational 

requirements, adverse impacts on 

Monument resources and qualities.” 

Additionally, these regulations require 

that “in the event of threatened or 

actual destruction of, loss of, or injury 

to a Monument resource or quality 

resulting from an incident, including 

but not limited to spills and 

groundings, caused by a component 

of the DoD or the United States Coast 

Guard, the cognizant component shall 

promptly coordinate with the 

Secretaries for the purpose of taking 

appropriate actions to respond to and 

mitigate the harm and, if possible, 

restore or replace the Monument 

resource or quality.”

The Navy’s proposed action includes activities 

conducted east of Nihoa Island and inside the 

eastern edge of the monument boundaries. The 

Navy conducts activities in a manner that avoids, to 

the extent practicable and consistent with 

operational requirements, impacts on Refuge 

resources and qualities. 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

6-25

6.0 Regulatory Considerations

Table 6.1-2: Marine Protected Areas within the Hawaii-Southern California Training and Testing Study Area (continued)

Marine Protected 

Area

Figure 

6.1-1 and 

6.1-2

Reference 

Number

Location 

Within the 

Study Area

Protection 

Focus

Summary of Relevant 

Regulations

Navy Proposed Activities under the Preferred 

Alternative and Marine Protected Area 

Considerations

San Diego Bay 

National

Wildlife Refuge

(established in 

1988, 17.2 km2 in 

size)

36 California Ecosystem

It is unlawful to injure, damage, 

take, or possess any living, 

geological, or cultural marine 

resource for recreational or 

commercial purposes. Swimming, 

operating personal watercraft 

(e.g., jet ski), and water skiing are 

not allowed on the refuge (U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, 2014).

No activities are proposed within the San Diego Bay 

National Wildlife Refuge. Activities in the bay would 

not injure, damage, take, or possess any living, 

geological, or cultural marine resource in the Refuge. 

Therefore, no impacts are expected within the San 

Diego Bay National Wildlife Refuge.

National Parks

Kalaupapa 

National Historical 

Park (established 

in 1998, 43.1 km2

in size)

37 Hawaii Ecosystem

Prohibitions in the park include 

restrictions on commercial and 

recreational fishing.

No proposed activities overlap with the park.

Therefore, no impacts are expected within the

Kalaupapa National Historical Park.

Kaloko-Honokohau 

National Historical 

Park (established 

in 1978, 5.2 km2 in 

size)

38 Hawaii Ecosystem

Unpermitted uses of lay nets and 

aquarium collections are 

prohibited in the Park.

No proposed activities overlap with the park.

Therefore, no impacts are expected within the KalokoHonokohau National Historical Park.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

6-26

6.0 Regulatory Considerations

Table 6.1-2: Marine Protected Areas within the Hawaii-Southern California Training and Testing Study Area (continued)

Marine Protected 

Area

Figure 

6.1-1 and 

6.1-2

Reference 

Number

Location 

Within the 

Study Area

Protection 

Focus

Summary of Relevant 

Regulations

Navy Proposed Activities under the Preferred Alternative 

and Marine Protected Area Considerations

Channel Islands 

National Park 

(established in 1938,

994.3 km2 in size)

39 California Ecosystem

Vessel operations in excess of 

5 mph or creating a wake in 

areas so designated or within 

100 feet of a diver’s marker, 

downed skier, or swimmer

are prohibited; and operation 

of a vessel in excess of 

designated size, length or 

width restrictions within 

restricted areas is prohibited.

The Channel Islands National Park contains the land area of 

the islands and extends to 1 NM offshore from each island. 

A small part of Santa Barbara Island is within the Study 

Area. The only applicable activity proposed in this EIS that 

may occur near this area is sonar training, and it would not 

occur within the 1 NM boundary of the park around Santa 

Barbara Island. No explosives are used in this marine 

protected area. Therefore, no impacts are expected to 

natural resources that are protected within the Channel 

Islands National Park.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

6-27

6.0 Regulatory Considerations

Table 6.1-2: Marine Protected Areas within the Hawaii-Southern California Training and Testing Study Area (continued)

Marine Protected 

Area

Figure 

6.1-1 and 

6.1-2

Reference 

Number

Location 

Within the 

Study Area

Protection 

Focus Summary of Relevant Regulations

Navy Proposed Activities under the 

Preferred Alternative and Marine 

Protected Area Considerations

National Monuments

Papahanaumokuakea 

Marine National 

Monument and 

World Heritage Site

(established in 2006,

1,508,860.1 km2 in 

size)

n/a Hawaii Ecosystem

The Monument’s two Proclamations identify

prohibitions on activities within the 

Monument. Proclamation 8031 provides

that “all activities and exercises of the 

Armed Forces shall be carried out in a 

manner that avoids, to the extent 

practicable and consistent with operational 

requirements, adverse impacts on 

Monument resources and qualities.” 

Similarly, Proclamation 9478, which 

expanded the Monument, requires that the 

“U.S. Armed Forces ensure that its vessels 

and aircraft act in a manner consistent, so 

far as is practicable with the Proclamation by 

the adoption of appropriate measures not 

impairing operations or operation 

capabilities.” Additionally, both 

Proclamations state that “in the event of 

threatened or actual destruction of, loss of, 

or injury to a Monument resource or quality 

resulting from an incident, including but not 

limited to spills and groundings, caused by a 

component of the DoD or the United States 

Coast Guard, the cognizant component shall 

promptly coordinate with the Secretaries for 

the purpose of taking appropriate actions to 

respond to and mitigate the harm and, if 

possible, restore or replace the Monument 

resource or quality.”

Vessels and aircraft used in the conduct of 

military training and testing would be 

operated in a manner consistent with the 

requirements of Presidential Proclamations 

8031 and 9478, so far as is practicable. As 

analyzed in section 3.10 (Cultural 

Resources), no adverse impacts on cultural 

resources would occur as a result of the 

Proposed Action. While there has been no 

incident to date, should there be a 

threatened or actual event that may cause 

destruction of, loss of, or injury to a 

Monument resource or quality (such as 

spill or grounding), the Department of 

Defense and Navy will coordinate with the 

Secretary of Commerce and Interior to 

respond to, provide mitigation or 

restoration of the effects of any such harm.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

6-28

6.0 Regulatory Considerations

Table 6.1-2: Marine Protected Areas within the Hawaii-Southern California Training and Testing Study Area (continued)

Marine Protected 

Area

Figure 

6.1-1 and 

6.1-2

Reference 

Number

Location 

Within the 

Study Area

Protection 

Focus Summary of Relevant Regulations

Navy Proposed Activities under the Preferred 

Alternative and Marine Protected Area 

Considerations

National Marine Sanctuaries

Hawaiian Islands 

Humpback Whale 

National Marine 

Sanctuary

(established in 1992,

3,537.2 km2 in size)

n/a Hawaii Species and 

habitat

See Section 6.1.2.7.1 (Hawaiian 

Islands Humpback Whale National 

Marine Sanctuary) for details. 

Federal regulations prohibit 

approaching humpback whales 

within 100 yards (90 meters) when 

in the water except as authorized 

under the MMPA, as amended by 

the ESA, and 1,000 feet (300 

meters) when operating an aircraft 

except when in a designated flight 

corridor for takeoff or landing from 

an airport or runway or as 

authorized under the MMPA, as 

amended by the ESA. Other 

prohibited activities are listed in 15 

CFR 922.184. 

Military activities the Navy proposes to conduct in 

the Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale National 

Marine Sanctuary all fall into classes of activities 

covered in the 1997 Final EIS/Management Plan for 

the Sanctuary, which under the Hawaiian Islands 

Humpback Whale National Marine Sanctuary 

regulations do not require permits or further 

consultation under section 304(d) unless the 

military activity is modified in a manner significantly 

greater than was considered in a previous 

consultation. These activities are also the same 

classes of activities previously analyzed in the Navy’s

2013 HSTT Final EIS/OEIS and for which the Office of 

National Marine Sanctuaries found no consultation 

was required in a letter dated August 16, 2013. The 

activities have not been modified in a manner 

significantly greater than those considered in the 

2013 HSTT Final EIS/OEIS.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

6-29

6.0 Regulatory Considerations

Table 6.1-2: Marine Protected Areas within the Hawaii-Southern California Training and Testing Study Area (continued)

Marine Protected 

Area

Figure 

6.1-1 and 

6.1-2

Reference 

Number

Location 

Within the 

Study Area

Protection 

Focus Summary of Relevant Regulations

Navy Proposed Activities under the Preferred 

Alternative and Marine Protected Area 

Considerations

Channel Islands 

National Marine 

Sanctuary

(established in 1980,

3,804 km2 in size)

n/a California Ecosystem

See section 6.1.2.7.2 (Channel Islands 

National Marine Sanctuary) for 

details. Military activities pre-existing 

the Sanctuary effective date of 

Sanctuary regulations (September 

1980) and those specifically listed in 

the Channel Islands National Marine 

Sanctuary FMP/Final EIS are exempt 

from the prohibitions identified in 15 

CFR part 922.72 subpart G. Other 

activities that are modified, new, or 

not considered pre-existing may be 

exempted by the Director after 

consultation between the Director 

and the DoD. 

Proposed military activities are consistent with those 

activities described in the sanctuary’s regulations and 

in Section 3.5.9 (Department of Defense Activities, 

preexisting activities) of the 20091 Final Channel 

Islands National Marine Sanctuary Management 

Plan/Final Environmental Impact Statement. As 

demonstrated by the analysis in this EIS/OEIS, 

proposed activities are not significantly modified in 

such a way that possible adverse effects on Sanctuary 

resources or qualities are significantly different in 

manner than previously considered. In addition, all 

Navy activities are carried out in a manner that 

avoids to the maximum extent practicable any 

adverse impacts on Sanctuary resources or qualities. 

The military activities currently proposed are also the 

same classes of activities previously analyzed in the 

Navy’s 2013 HSTT Final EIS/OEIS and for which the 

Office of National Marine Sanctuaries found no 

consultation was required in a letter dated August 

16, 2013. The activities have not been modified in a 

manner significantly greater than those considered in 

the 2013 HSTT Final EIS/OEIS.

________________________________________

1The Final Environmental Impact Statement/ Management 

Plan (FEIS/MP) for the Channel Islands National Marine 

Sanctuary was released in 2009, although the regulations 

cite 2008 for the FEIS/MP.

Notes: (1) ASBS is an Area of Special Biological Significance; (2) mph = miles per hour, NM = nautical miles, NM2 = square nautical miles, U.S. = United States, 

n/a = not applicable, km2 = square kilometers, CFR = Code of Federal Regulations, ESA = Endangered Species Act, MMPA = Marine Mammal Protection Act,

NMSA = National Marine Sanctuaries Act
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

6-30

6.0 Regulatory Considerations

Notes: HSTT = Hawaii-Southern California Training and Testing, OPAREA = Operating Area

Figure 6.1-1: Location of Marine Protected Areas in the Hawaii Range Complex
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

6-31

6.0 Regulatory Considerations

Note: HSTT = Hawaii-Southern California Training and Testing

Figure 6.1-2: Location of Marine Protected Areas in the Southern California Portion of the Study Area
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

6-32

6.0 Regulatory Considerations

6.1.2.1 State Marine Protected Areas

State governments have established marine protected areas, including state parks and species-specific 

sanctuaries, for the management of fisheries, nursery grounds, shellfish beds, recreation, tourism, and 

for other uses. These areas have a diverse array of conservation objectives, from protecting ecological 

functions, to preserving shipwrecks, to maintaining traditional or cultural interaction with the marine 

environment. There are 43 state or local marine protected areas within the Study Area that are included 

in the National System of Marine Protected Areas (Table 6.1-2 and Figures 6.1-1 and 6.1-2).

6.1.2.2 National Estuarine Research Reserves

National Estuarine Research Reserve System sites protect estuarine land and water and provide habitat 

for wildlife. These sites also provide educational opportunities for students, teachers, and the public; 

and serve as laboratories for scientists (15 CFR part 921). The National Estuarine Research Reserve 

Program was established through the Coastal Zone Management Act and is administered in coordination 

with the National Marine Sanctuary System. Each reserve is managed by a state agency or university 

with input from local partners on a site-specific basis. There are no National Estuarine Research Reserve 

System sites within the Study Area.

6.1.2.3 National Wildlife Refuges

Refuges are managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) in accordance with Executive Order 

12996, Management and General Public Use of the National Wildlife Refuge System, the National 

Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, and the National Wildlife Refuge System 

Improvement Act of 1997. The National Wildlife Refuge System serves as a national network of lands 

and waters for the conservation, management, and where appropriate, restoration of fish, wildlife, and 

plant resources and habitats. National wildlife refuges are managed on a site-specific basis. Activities 

conducted within a refuge must not impair existing wildlife-dependent recreational uses or reduce the 

potential of the refuge to provide quality, compatible, wildlife-dependent recreation into the future. The 

USFWS is directed to continue, consistent with existing laws and interagency agreements, authorized or 

permitted refuge uses necessary to facilitate military preparedness; however, new agreements 

permitting military preparedness activities on refuges are discouraged (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

2006). There are three national wildlife refuge areas within the Study Area, the Johnston Island National 

Wildlife Refuge and Midway Atoll National Wildlife Refuge, and San Diego Bay National Wildlife Refuge

(Table 6.1-2 and Figures 6.1-1 and 6.1-2).

6.1.2.4 Gear Restricted Areas

The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) is responsible for overseeing Regional Fishery 

Management Councils (Western Pacific and Pacific Fishery Management Councils) that are established 

under the Magnuson-Stevens Act. These councils create and implement Fishery Management Plans, 

which help conserve and manage important fisheries in the United States (50 CFR Chapter 6). One 

management strategy used is the creation of Gear Restricted Areas, some of which are included in the 

National System of marine protected areas. There are no Gear Restricted Areas within the Study Area.

6.1.2.5 National Parks

The National Park Service administers all national parks, national seashores, and some of the national 

recreation areas and national monuments to conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects 

and wildlife contained within. Park managers control all park usage to ensure that park resources and 

values are preserved for the future. Unacceptable impacts are those that fall short of impairment but 
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

6-33

6.0 Regulatory Considerations

are still not acceptable within a particular park’s environment, as determined by the professional 

judgment of the park manager in accordance with National Park Service Management Policies 2006 

(National Park Service, 2006). Military services may request the use of park areas for noncombat 

exercises. Permits are approved at the discretion of the park superintendent. There are three National 

Parks (Kalaupapa National Historical Park, Kaloko-Honokohau National Historical Park, Channel Islands 

National Park) within the Study Area that are included in the National System of Marine Protected Areas 

(Table 6.1-2 and Figures 6.1-1 and 6.1-2).

6.1.2.6 National Monuments

Marine national monuments are designated through Presidential Proclamation under the authority of 

the Antiquities Act of 1906 (as codified in 54 U.S.C. section 320301). Marine national monuments are 

often co-managed by state, federal, and local governments as trustees, in order to preserve diverse 

habitats and ecosystem functions. Within the Study Area there is one marine national monument, 

Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument (Table 6.1-2). The Monument was designated 

through Proclamation 8031 of June 15, 2006, amended by Proclamation 8112 of February 28, 2007, and 

more recently expanded into an adjacent area depicted on Figure 6.1-3 through Proclamation 9478 of 

August 26, 2016. The Monument is also a United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural 

Organization World Heritage Site as discussed in Section 3.10 (Cultural Resources). 

Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument

Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument (the Monument) is one of the largest conservation 

areas in the world, encompassing 582,578 square miles in a chain of islands, reefs, and banks that 

extends to the northwest of the main Hawaiian Islands (National Marine Sanctuaries, 2016). This 

monument is within the Hawaii portion of the Study Area, northwest of the Hawaii OPAREA and 

encompassed within the Temporary Operating Area of the Hawaii Range Complex (see Figure 6.1 3). The 

Monument is managed by the State of Hawaii, Office of Hawaiian Affairs, Department of Commerce 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and the Department of Interior (USFWS), with the 

guidance of the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands Coral Reef Ecosystem Reserve Advisory Council; the 

Department of Defense (DoD) has a sitting member on this council. In 2008, the Monument co-trustees 

adopted a Management Plan. This Management Plan describes a comprehensive and coordinated 

management regime to achieve priority mission needs over the next five years with a focus on an 

ecosystem management approach for the conservation of the natural, cultural, and historic resources, 

and qualities of the Monument.

The Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument contains more than 75 seamounts and a nonvolcanic ridge that extends southwest towards Johnston Atoll (Proclamation 9478). The protected area 

contains 14 million seabirds, of which 22 species breed and nest within the boundaries of the 

monument. Of the over 7,000 species of marine life, one-quarter are found only in the Hawaiian Islands

(National Marine Sanctuaries, 2016). More than 260 fish species inhabit the reefs of the 

Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument, with relatively few species being herbivorous, the 

majority being carnivorous, or open ocean fish species (National Marine Sanctuaries, 2016). See Section 

3.3 (Vegetation), Section 3.4 (Invertebrates), and Section 3.6 (Fishes) for additional information on 

species and bathymetry in the Study Area.

The Monument’s ecosystem supports a range of marine mammals, including the Hawaiian monk seal

(Monachus schauinslandi), the Hawaiian spinner dolphin (Stenella longirostris), and bottlenose dolphins

(Tursiops truncatus) (National Marine Sanctuaries, 2009a). The Hawaiian monk seal, which does not 
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

6-34

6.0 Regulatory Considerations

exist outside of this area, is the most endangered marine mammal in the U.S. and the only seal that 

depends on coral reefs. Transient marine mammals in the Papahanaumokuakea Marine National 

Monument include spotted dolphins (Stenella frontalis) and humpback whales (Megaptera 

novaeangliae). Seasonally or periodically present whales include the sperm whale (Physeter 

macrocephalus), blue whale (Balaenoptera musculus), fin whale (Balaenoptera physalus), sei whale

(Balaenoptera borealis), and North Pacific right whale (Eubalaena japonica). See Section 3.7 (Marine 

Mammals) for additional information on these species.

Five species of sea turtles occur in the Monument (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service et al., 2008). The 

Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument islands provide important nesting habitat for the 

threatened green sea turtle, with French Frigate Shoals alone supporting more than 80 percent of the 

nesting population for all the Hawaiian Islands. See Section 3.8 (Reptiles) for additional information on 

these species.

The Monument is also a place of special cultural significance for the Native Hawaiian community and 

provides a unique opportunity to manage marine resources in a manner that honors the rich heritage of 

the Native Hawaiian culture. In the past five years, there have been a variety of permitted Native 

Hawaiian activities in the Monument, including navigator training on traditional voyaging canoes,

inter-tidal zone monitoring, experiential research during solstice and equinox events, Hawaiian language 

immersion expeditions, at sea education and culture programs, and the documentation and assessment 

of cultural sites on various islands. While most of the terrestrial activities take place on Nihoa and 

Mokumanamana at the eastern end and at Midway Atoll at the western end, the marine activities can 

take place anywhere in both the original and expanded Monument.

In addition, the Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument boundaries include Midway Atoll,

which has been designated as a National Memorial to the Battle of Midway. Aircraft and shipwrecks 

from the Battle of Midway are considered war graves.

Presidential Proclamations 8031 (June 15, 2006) and 9478 (August 25, 2016) both provide activities and 

exercises of the U.S. Armed Forces an exemption from the prohibitions that are identified in each 

Proclamation. However, within the original designated Monument area, Proclamation 8031 requires 

that activities and exercises of the U.S. Armed Forces be carried out in a manner that avoids, to the 

extent practicable and consistent with operational requirements, adverse impacts on monument 

resources and qualities (50 CFR part 404.9(c)). Within the expansion area, Proclamation 9478 requires 

that the U.S. Armed Forces ensure that its vessels and aircraft act in a manner consistent, so far as is 

practicable with the Proclamation by the adoption of appropriate measures not impairing operations or 

operation capabilities. In the event of a threatened or actual destruction of, loss of, or injury to a 

Monument resource or quality resulting from an incident, including but not limited to spills and 

groundings, caused by a component of the DoD, the cognizant Component shall promptly coordinate 

with the Secretary of Interior and Commerce to respond to and mitigate the harm, and, if possible, 

restore or replace the Monument resource.

The training and testing activities that could occur within the Monument include training by individual 

ships transiting to and from the Western Pacific on deployment or occasional positioning of ships 

supporting testing or other events outside of the Monument. Activities can include:

• Air warfare

• Surface warfare
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

6-35

6.0 Regulatory Considerations

• Anti-submarine warfare

• Electronic warfare

Infrequent missile overflight of the Monument for test events can occur as sometimes the Temporary 

Operating Area is activated for those events in conjunction with U.S. Coast Guard Notice to Mariners 

and the Federal Aviation Administration Notices to Airmen. However, the majority of test events do not 

require entry or overflight of the Monument.

Pursuant to 50 CFR 404.4(a)(1), the U.S. Armed Forces are exempt from the reporting requirements that 

apply to other vessels entering and exiting the monument.

6.1.2.7 National Marine Sanctuaries

Under Title III of the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (also known as the 

National Marine Sanctuaries Act), the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration can establish as 

national marine sanctuaries areas of the marine environment with special conservation, recreational, 

ecological, historical, cultural, archaeological, scientific, educational, or aesthetic qualities. Sanctuary 

regulations prohibit destroying, causing the loss of, or injuring any sanctuary resource managed under 

the law or regulations for that sanctuary (15 CFR part 922). National marine sanctuaries are managed on 

a site-specific basis, and each sanctuary has site-specific regulations. Most, but not all sanctuaries have

site-specific regulatory exemptions from the prohibitions for certain military activities. 

Additionally, section 304(d) of the National Marine Sanctuaries Act requires federal agencies to consult 

with the Office of National Marine Sanctuaries whenever their proposed actions are likely to destroy, 

cause the loss of, or injure a sanctuary resource. There are two national marine sanctuaries managed by 

the Office of National Marine Sanctuaries within the Study Area, the Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale 

National Marine Sanctuary and Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary (Table 6.1-2 and Figures 6.1-3 

and 6.1-4). The National Marine Sanctuaries are described in additional detail below.

6.1.2.7.1 Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale National Marine Sanctuary

The Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale National Marine Sanctuary is a single-species managed 

sanctuary, composed of 1,035 square nautical miles (NM2

) of the waters around Maui, Lanai, and 

Molokai; and smaller areas off the north shore of Kauai, off Hawaii’s west coast, and off the north and 

southeast coasts of Oahu. The Sanctuary is entirely within the Hawaii Range Complex of the Study Area 

and constitutes one of the world’s most important Hawaii humpback whale Distinct Population Segment 

habitats, and is a primary region for humpback reproduction in the United States (National Marine 

Sanctuaries Program, 2002).

Scientists estimate that more than 50 percent of the entire North Pacific humpback whale population 

migrates to Hawaiian waters each winter to mate, calve, and nurse their young. The North Pacific 

humpback whale population has been split into two Distinct Population Segments. The Hawaii 

humpback whale Distinct Population Segment migrates to Hawaiian waters each winter and is not listed 

under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). In addition to protection under the MMPA, the Hawaii 

humpback whale Distinct Population Segment is protected in Hawaiian waters by the Hawaiian Islands 

National Marine Sanctuary Act. The sanctuary boundaries extend from the shoreline to 600-feet deep in 

many areas, encompassing a variety of marine ecosystems, including sea grass beds and coral reefs. The 

sanctuary was created to protect humpback whales and their habitat (Office of National Marine 

Sanctuaries, 2010).
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

6-36

6.0 Regulatory Considerations

Congress authorized the Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale National Marine Sanctuary in 1992, and the 

Governor of Hawaii formally approved it in 1997. The Sanctuary completed its first five-year review 

process in 2002 by updating the existing management plan and the Governor approved the final revised 

management plan for implementation in state waters. 

The military activities the Navy proposed to be conducted in the Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale 

National Marine Sanctuary all fall into classes of activities covered in the 1997 Final EIS/Management 

Plan for the Sanctuary, which under the Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale National Marine Sanctuary 

regulations do not require permits or further consultation under section 304(d) unless the military 

activity is modified in a manner significantly greater than was considered in a previous consultation. 

These military activities are also the same classes of activities previously analyzed in the Navy’s 2013 

HSTT Final EIS/OEIS and for which the Office of National Marine Sanctuaries found no consultation was 

required in a letter dated August 16, 2013. The activities have not been modified in a manner 

significantly greater than those considered in the 2013 HSTT Final EIS/OEIS.

The Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale National Marine Sanctuary overlaps with the Main Hawaiian 

Islands Humpback Whale Reproduction Area identified in Van Parijs (2015) and Baird et al. (2015) and as 

shown in Figure K.2-1 of Appendix K (Geographic Mitigation Assessment). As discussed in Appendix K, 

Section K.3.1 (Main Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale Reproduction Area), the use of sonar and other 

transducers primarily occur farther offshore than the designated boundaries of the Hawaiian Islands 

Humpback Whale Reproduction Area. Explosive events are typically conducted in areas that are 

designated for explosive use, which are areas outside of the Main Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale 

Reproduction Area. Refer to Appendix K, Section 3.1 (Main Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale 

Reproduction Area) for detailed biological and operational assessments. It is also of note that Navy 

training and testing in the Sanctuary follows the procedural mitigation measure that humpbacks are not 

approached within 100 yards and aircraft operate above 1,000 feet.

Since 2009, the Navy has adhered to a humpback whale cautionary area within the Sanctuary, an area 

identified as having one of the highest concentrations of humpback whales during the critical winter 

months. The use of mid-frequency active sonar training and testing within the existing cautionary area 

between December 15 and April 15 requires authorization by the Commander, U.S. Pacific Fleet. As 

added protection, the Navy proposes to expand the size and extend the season of the current 

Humpback Whale Cautionary Area. The Navy proposes to also amend the authorization requirement for

surface ship hull-mounted mid-frequency active sonar during unit level training and major training 

exercises in the Cautionary Area. The season is currently between December 15 and April 15; the Navy 

proposes to extend it from November 15 through April 15. The size of the Cautionary Area would 

expand to include an area north of Maui and Molokai and overlaps an area identified as biologically 

important for the critically endangered main Hawaiian Islands insular false killer whales (Baird et al., 

2015; Van Parijs, 2015).

This proposed measure to include additional area north of Maui and Molokai for this Cautionary Area 

provides further protective measures for humpback whales and false killer whales. This area would not 

be off-limits; however, it would require a request to the appropriate designated Navy command 

authority prior to usage of surface ship hull-mounted mid-frequency active sonar from November 15 

through April 15. The Navy would also provide NMFS with advance notification and include the 

information in the annual training and testing reports. The reason for interest in the expansion of the 

Cautionary Area is due in part that, although humpbacks have recovered to the point of ESA delisting or 
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

6-37

6.0 Regulatory Considerations

down-listing, most Pacific stocks of humpbacks have been experiencing a decline in migratory rates and 

physical health (e.g., emaciation, increase in strandings, fewer migrations) in the Pacific.

The Navy is proposing additional geographic mitigation areas that overlap with portions of the Hawaiian 

Islands Humpback Whale National Marine Sanctuary. A West-side Hawaii Island Planning Awareness 

Area would be established where the Navy would not conduct more than one (1) large integrated 

anti-submarine major training exercise (such as Rim of the Pacific) every other year, and three (3) 

medium integrated anti-submarine major training exercises (e.g., Undersea Warfare Exercise) per year. 

This proposed mitigation area encompasses a portion of the Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale National 

Marine Sanctuary (see Figure 5.4-3, Mitigation Areas for Marine Mammals in the Hawaii Range 

Complex). This is a year-round measure. If a naval unit needs to conduct additional anti-submarine 

major training exercises with surface ship hull-mounted mid-frequency active sonar in this area for 

national security, the Navy would provide NMFS with advance notification and include the activity 

exceedance information (e.g., total sonar usage) in the annual training and testing reports.

The West-side Hawaii Island Planning Awareness Area would also overlap a newly proposed West-side 

Hawaii Island Cautionary Area where the Navy would not use any in-water explosives during testing, 

unit-level training, and major training exercises year-round. If a naval unit needs to use explosives during 

testing, unit-level training, and major training exercises in this area for national security, permission shall 

be required from the appropriate designated Navy command authority prior to their use in the 

Cautionary Area. The Navy would provide NMFS with advance notification and include the activity 

information (e.g., explosive usage) in the annual training and testing reports.

This measure is designed to provide additional protection for humpback whales, ESA-listed main 

Hawaiian Islands insular false killer whales and two species of beaked whales (Cuvier and Blainville’s). 

This area also overlaps with other identified biologically important areas for other marine mammal 

species such as dwarf sperm whale, pygmy killer whale, melon-headed whale, short-finned pilot whale,

and dolphin species for which the Planning Awareness/Cautionary Areas would provide additional 

protection (Baird et al., 2015; Van Parijs, 2015).

The Navy will continue to issue an annual humpback whale awareness notification message to remind 

ships and aircraft to be extra vigilant during times of high densities of humpback whales while in transit 

and to maintain certain distances from animals during the operation of ships and aircraft.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

6-38

6.0 Regulatory Considerations

Notes: HSTT = Hawaii-Southern California Training and Testing, OPAREA = Operating Area

Figure 6.1-3: Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument and the Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale National 

Marine Sanctuary
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

6-39

6.0 Regulatory Considerations

6.1.2.7.2 Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary

The Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary is an ecosystem-based managed sanctuary consisting of 

an area of 1,109 NM2 around Anacapa Island, Santa Cruz Island, Santa Rosa Island, San Miguel Island,

and Santa Barbara Island to the south. Only 92 NM2

, or about 8 percent of the sanctuary, occurs within 

the Southern California portion of the Study Area (see Figure 6.1-4). The Study Area overlaps with the 

sanctuary at Santa Barbara Island.

As an ecosystem-based managed sanctuary, key habitats include kelp forest, surfgrass and eelgrass, 

intertidal zone, nearshore subtidal, deepwater benthic, and water column habitat. The diversity of 

habitats onshore and offshore contributes to the high species diversity in the Channel Islands National 

Marine Sanctuary, with more than 195 species of birds, at least 33 species of cetaceans, four species of 

sea turtles, at least 492 species of algae and four species of sea grasses, a variety of invertebrates 

(including two endangered species [black abalone and the white abalone]), and 481 species of fish 

(National Marine Sanctuaries, 2009b). See Section 3.3 (Vegetation), Section 3.4 (Invertebrates), Section 

3.6 (Fishes), Section 3.7 (Marine Mammals), Section 3.8 (Reptiles), and Section 3.9 (Birds) for additional 

information on the discussion of impacts from proposed activities to these species.

Channel Island National Marine Sanctuary regulations (15 CFR part 922, subpart G) provide that 

identified prohibitions do not apply to military activities carried out by the DoD as of September 1980 

(effective date of the regulations) and specifically identified in Section 3.5.9 (Department of Defense 

Activities) of the Final Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary Management Plan/Final

Environmental Impact Statement (January 2009). The regulations also provide that the DoD exemption 

does not apply should DoD activities be modified: (1) in any way that requires preparation of an 

Environmental Assessment or Environmental Impact Statement pursuant to NEPA; or (2) in location or 

frequency, but not limited to these factors, such that possible adverse effects on Sanctuary resources 

are significantly greater or significantly different in manner than previously considered for the 

unmodified activity. In addition, the DoD exemption does not apply should there be new circumstances 

or information relevant to a Sanctuary resource or quality that were not addressed in the January 2009 

Final Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary Management Plan/Final Environmental Impact 

Statement. Lastly, all DoD activities must be carried out in a manner that avoids to the maximum extent 

practicable any adverse impacts on Sanctuary resources and qualities.

Of the DoD activities identified in the Final Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary Management 

Plan/Final Environmental Impact Statement, some sources of sonar and the use of in-water devices are 

the only training and testing activities proposed in this EIS/OEIS that occur in the overlap area between 

the Sanctuary and the HSTT Study Area. Increases to military activities described in the Proposed Action 

would not occur in the Sanctuary. Training activities that could occur in the area have not been modified 

in location/frequency in a way that would cause greater effects to sanctuary resources/qualities than 

originally contemplated. Although Navy has prepared an EIS/OEIS, the basis for the EIS/OEIS is not due 

to a modification of activities within the Channel Islands Marine National Sanctuary overlap area or in a 

manner due to relevant new circumstances or information in relation to Sanctuary resources or qualities 

in that area.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

6-40

6.0 Regulatory Considerations

Note: HSTT = Hawaii-Southern California Training and Testing

Figure 6.1-4: Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

6-41

6.0 Regulatory Considerations

Proposed military activities are consistent with those activities described in the sanctuary’s regulations

and in Section 3.5.9 (Department of Defense Activities, preexisting activities) of the 2009 Final Channel 

Islands National Marine Sanctuary Management Plan/Final Environmental Impact Statement. As 

demonstrated by the analysis in this EIS/OEIS, proposed activities are not significantly modified in such a 

way that possible adverse effects on Sanctuary resources or qualities are significantly different in 

manner than previously considered. In addition, all military activities are carried out in a manner that

avoids to the maximum extent practicable any adverse impacts on Sanctuary resources or qualities. The 

military activities currently proposed are also the same classes of activities previously analyzed in the 

Navy’s 2013 HSTT Final EIS/OEIS and for which the Office of National Marine Sanctuaries found no 

consultation was required in a letter dated August 16, 2013. The activities have not been modified in a 

manner significantly greater than those considered in the 2013 HSTT Final EIS/OEIS.

To provide additional protective measures for all protected marine species in the Channel Islands

National Marine Sanctuary, the Navy is proposing a Channel Islands Sanctuary Cautionary Area 

surrounding Santa Barbara Island out to 6 NM. This mitigation will be established to restrict the use of 

surface ship hull-mounted mid-frequency active sonar and in-water explosives used in gunnery (all 

caliber), torpedo, bombing, and missile exercises (including 2.75-inch rockets) during unit-level training, 

testing, and major training exercises year round. If a naval unit needs to use surface ship hull-mounted 

mid-frequency active sonar or in-water explosives in gunnery (all caliber), torpedo, bombing, and missile 

exercises (including 2.75-inch rockets) during unit level training and major training exercises in this area 

for national security, permission shall be required from the delegated Command authority, prior to their 

use in the Cautionary Area. The Navy will also provide NMFS with advance notification and include the 

information in the annual training and testing reports.

6.1.3 MAGNUSON-STEVENS FISHERY CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT ACT

The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. section 1801–

1891[d]), as amended by the 1996 Sustainable Fisheries Act (Public Law 104–297), and the MagnusonStevens Fishery Conservation and Management Reauthorization Act of 2006 (Public Law 109-479), 

governs marine fisheries management in U.S. waters in order to promote long-term economic and 

biological sustainability for fisheries up to 200 NM from shore. Its main objectives are to prevent 

overfishing, rebuild overfished stocks, increase long-term economic and social benefits, and ensure a 

safe and sustainable supply of seafood (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Fisheries, 

2017). The Sustainable Fisheries Act of 1996 amended the law to establish procedures that identify, 

conserve, and enhance Essential Fish Habitat for species regulated under a federal fisheries 

management plan. Consultation with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National 

Marine Fisheries Service on all actions or proposed actions that may adversely affect Essential Fish 

Habitat is required for federal action agencies under section 305(b)(2) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act.

The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act defines an adverse effect as “any 

impact that reduces quality and/or quantity of Essential Fish Habitat. Adverse effects may include direct 

or indirect physical, chemical or biological alterations of the waters or substrate and the loss of, or injury 

to, benthic organisms, prey species and their habitat and other ecosystem components, if such 

modifications reduce the quality and/or quantity of Essential Fish Habitat. Adverse effects to Essential 

Fish Habitat may result from actions occurring within Essential Fish Habitat or outside of Essential Fish 

Habitat and maybe include site-specific or habitat-wide impacts, including individual, cumulative, or 

synergistic consequences of actions” (50 CFR 600.810). In addition to Essential Fish Habitat designations, 

areas called Habitat Areas of Particular Concern are also designated by the regional Fisheries 

Management Councils. Designated Habitat Areas of Particular Concern are discrete subsets of Essential 
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

6-42

6.0 Regulatory Considerations

Fish Habitat that provide extremely important ecological functions or are especially vulnerable to 

degradation.

The Proposed Action has the potential to impact essential fish habitat and managed species within the 

Study Area. As stated in sections 3.3 (Vegetation), 3.4 (Invertebrates), 3.5 (Habitats), and 3.6 (Fishes), 

the Essential Fish Habitat Assessment prepared for the 2013 HSTT EIS/OEIS is still valid because this 

Draft EIS/OEIS covers similar activities in the same study area to those analyzed in 2013 (copy of the 

Essential Fish Habitat Assessment is available at www.hstteis.com). Based on recommendations from 

previous consultations on essential fish habitat and managed species, the Navy would continue to 

implement agreed upon mitigation and conservation measures to avoid and minimize impacts on these 

resources as well as any new areas designated as essential fish habitat since 2013. For example, data 

from benthic habitat mapping surveys conducted as a result of previous consultations are being used by 

the Navy to avoid impacts on sensitive habitats (e.g., seagrass, shallow coral reefs, precious coral beds, 

live hardbottom, etc.) to the extent practicable during activities that have the potential to impact 

sensitive habitat. The Navy will continue to include maps based on the best available georeferenced 

data for these sensitive areas as provided by NMFS (i.e., where the available data accurately indicate the 

natural boundary of a seafloor resource and are not generalized within large geometric areas, such as 

large grid cells) in the Navy’s Protective Measures Assessment Protocol to ensure these areas are 

considered in planning of training and testing and avoided as necessary. In addition, the Navy will not 

conduct precision anchoring within the anchor swing circle diameter or within a 350-yard radius around 

these seafloor resources, as indicated by the best available georeferenced data (see Section 5.4.1, 

Mitigation Areas for Seafloor Resources for details).

The Navy will continue to coordinate with NMFS to ensure that the best available data is being used for 

continued compliance with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act.

6.2 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SHORT-TERM USE OF THE ENVIRONMENT AND 

MAINTENANCE AND ENHANCEMENT OF LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY

In accordance with the Council on Environmental Quality regulations (40 CFR part 1502), this EIS/OEIS 

analyzes the relationship between the short-term impacts on the environment and the effects those 

impacts may have on the maintenance and enhancement of the long-term productivity of the affected 

environment. Impacts that narrow the range of beneficial uses of the environment are of particular 

concern. This means that choosing one option may reduce future flexibility in pursuing other options, or 

that committing a resource to a certain use may often eliminate the possibility for other uses of that 

resource. The Navy, in partnership with NMFS, is committed to furthering the understanding of marine 

resources and developing ways to lessen or eliminate the impacts Navy training and testing activities 

may have on these resources. For example, the Navy and NMFS collaborate on the Integrated 

Comprehensive Monitoring Program for marine species to assess the impacts of training activities on 

marine species and investigate population-level trends in marine species distribution, abundance, and 

habitat use in various range complexes and geographic locations where Navy training occurs.

The Proposed Action could result in both short- and long-term environmental impacts. However, these 

are not expected to result in any impacts that would reduce environmental productivity, permanently 

narrow the range of beneficial uses of the environment, or pose long-term risks to health, safety, or 

general welfare of the public. The Navy is committed to sustainable military range management, 

including co-use of the Study Area with the general public and commercial and recreational interests. 

This commitment to co-use of the Study Area will maintain long-term accessibility of the HSTT EIS/OEIS 
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

6-43

6.0 Regulatory Considerations

training and testing areas. Sustainable range management practices are specified in range complex 

management plans under the Navy’s Range Sustainment Program. Among other benefits, these 

practices protect and conserve natural and cultural resources and preserve access to training areas for 

current and future training requirements while addressing potential encroachments that threaten to 

impact range and training area capabilities.

6.3 IRREVERSIBLE OR IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES

NEPA requires that environmental analysis include identification of “any irreversible and irretrievable 

commitments of resources which would be involved in the Proposed Action should it be implemented” 

(42 U.S.C. section 4332). Irreversible and irretrievable resource commitments are related to the use of 

nonrenewable resources and the effects that the uses of these resources have on future generations. 

Irreversible effects primarily result from the use or destruction of a specific resource (e.g., energy or 

minerals) that cannot be replaced within a reasonable time frame. Irretrievable resource commitments 

involve the loss in value of an affected resource that cannot be restored as a result of the action (e.g., 

the disturbance of a cultural site).

For the Proposed Action, most resource commitments would be neither irreversible nor irretrievable. 

Most impacts would be short term and temporary, or long lasting but within historical or desired 

conditions. Because there would be no building or facility construction, the consumption of material 

typically associated with such construction (e.g., concrete, metal, sand, fuel) would not occur. Energy 

typically associated with construction activities would not be expended and irretrievably lost. 

Implementation of the Proposed Action would require fuels used by aircraft and vessels. Since fixed- and 

rotary-wing aircraft and ship activities may increase or decrease relative to the baseline, total fuel use 

would fluctuate depending on the year. Therefore, total fuel consumption would fluctuate depending on 

the year under the Proposed Action (Section 6.4, Energy Requirements and Conservation Potential of 

Alternatives and Mitigation Measures), and this nonrenewable resource would be considered 

irretrievably lost (see Chapter 4 [Cumulative Impacts] and the following discussion on the Navy’s Climate 

Change Roadmap).

6.4 ENERGY REQUIREMENTS AND CONSERVATION POTENTIAL OF ALTERNATIVES 

AND EFFICIENCY INITIATIVES

Pursuant to the operational strategy report in 2011, the DoD published an implementation plan to 

integrate operational energy considerations and transformation into existing programs, processes, and 

institutions (U.S. Department of Defense, 2012). The DoD consumed approximately 1.3 percent of the 

total U.S. oil and petroleum consumption in Fiscal Year 2013. It is the largest single user in the nation 

(Burke, 2014). The Navy consumes approximately 26 percent of the total DoD share (U.S. Department of 

Defense, 2016). In Fiscal Year 2013, the Navy consumed almost 90 million barrels of liquid fuel (Burke, 

2014). In 2016 the DoD published a new Operational Energy Strategy to update the 2011 strategy and 

transform the way energy is consumed in military operations; the strategy sets the overall direction for 

operational energy security (U.S. Department of Defense, 2011). The 2016 strategy shifts focus towards 

three objectives: (1) increasing future warfighting capability by including energy throughout future force

development; (2) identifying and reducing logistic and operational risks from operational energy 

vulnerabilities; (3) and enhancing the force’s mission effectiveness with updated equipment and 

improvements in training, exercises, and operations (U.S. Department of Defense, 2016). These 

documents provide guidance to the DoD in how to better use energy resources and transform the way 

we power current and future forces.
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

6-44

6.0 Regulatory Considerations

Training and testing activities within the Study Area would result in an increase in energy demand over 

the No Action Alternative. The energy demand would arise from fuel consumption, mainly from aircraft 

and vessels participating in training and testing. Details of fuel consumption by training and testing 

activities on an annual basis are set forth in the air quality emissions calculation spreadsheets available 

on the project website. Aircraft fuel consumption is estimated to increase by approximately 33 percent 

and 37 percent per year under Alternative 1 and Alternative 2, respectively, when compared to current 

rates of aircraft fuel consumption. Vessel fuel consumption is estimated to remain the same under 

Alternative 1 and to increase by approximately 41 percent per year under Alternative 2, when compared 

to current rates of vessel fuel consumption. Conservative assumptions were made in developing the 

estimates, and therefore the actual amount of fuel consumed during training and testing events may be 

less than estimated. The alternatives could result in a net cumulative reduction in the global energy 

(fuel) supply.

Energy requirements would be subject to any established energy conservation practices. The use of 

energy sources has been minimized wherever possible without compromising safety, training, or testing 

activities. No additional conservation measures related to direct energy consumption by the proposed 

activities are identified. The Navy’s energy vision given in the Operational Energy Strategy report (U.S. 

Department of Defense, 2016) is consistent with energy conservation practices and states that the Navy 

values energy as a strategic resource, understands how energy security is fundamental to executing our 

mission afloat and ashore, and is resilient to any potential energy future.

The Navy is committed to improving energy security and environmental stewardship by reducing its 

reliance on fossil fuels. The Navy is actively developing and participating in energy, environmental, and 

climate change initiatives that will increase use of alternative energy and help conserve the world’s 

resources for future generations. The Navy Climate Change Roadmap identifies actions the 

Environmental Readiness Division is taking to implement Executive Order 13653, Preparing the United 

States for the Impacts of Climate Change. The Navy’s Task Force Energy is responding to the Secretary of 

the Navy’s Energy Goals through energy security initiatives that reduce the Navy’s carbon footprint.

Two Navy programs—the Incentivized Energy Conservation Program and the Naval Sea Systems 

Command’s Fleet Readiness, Research and Development Program—are helping the fleet conserve fuel 

via improved operating procedures and long-term initiatives. The Incentivized Energy Conservation 

Program encourages the operation of ships in the most efficient manner while conducting their mission 

and supporting the Secretary of the Navy's efforts to reduce total energy consumption on naval ships. 

The Naval Sea Systems Command’s Fleet Readiness, Research, and Development Program includes the 

High-Efficiency Heating, Ventilating, and Air Conditioning and the Hybrid Electric Drive for DDG-51 class 

ships, which are improvements to existing shipboard technologies that will both help with fleet 

readiness and decrease the ships’ energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions. These initiatives 

are expected to greatly reduce the consumption of fossil fuels (Section 3.1, Air Quality). Furthermore, to 

offset the impact of its expected near-term increased fuel demands and achieve its goals to reduce fossil 

fuel consumption and greenhouse gas emissions, the Navy has launched the first vessels of its “Great 

Green Fleet in San Diego (Olson, 2016). The Great Green Fleet was a year-long, Department of the Navy 

initiative that demonstrated the sea service’s efforts to transform its energy use (U.S. Department of the 

Navy, 2016). The Great Green Fleet’s centerpiece was a Carrier Strike Group that deployed on 

alternative fuels, including nuclear power for the carrier and a blend of advanced biofuel made from 

beef fat and traditional petroleum for its escort ships (U.S. Department of the Navy, 2016). Throughout 

2016, other platforms included ships, aircraft, amphibious and expeditionary forces, and shore 
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

6-45

6.0 Regulatory Considerations

installations from the Department of the Navy that participated in the Great Green Fleet by using energy 

efficient systems, operational procedures, and/or alternative fuel during the course of planned mission 

functions throughout the world (U.S. Department of the Navy, 2016).
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

6-46

6.0 Regulatory Considerations

This page intentionally left blank.
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

6-47

References

REFERENCES

Baird, R. W., D. Cholewiak, D. L. Webster, G. S. Schorr, S. D. Mahaffy, C. Curtice, J. Harrison, & S. M. Van 

Parijs. (2015). 5. Biologically Important Areas for cetaceans within U.S. waters—Hawaii region. In 

S. M. Van Parijs, C. Curtice & M. C. Ferguson (Eds.), Biologically Important Areas for cetaceans 

within U.S. waters (Vol. Aquatic Mammals (Special Issue) 41, pp. 54–64).

Burke, S. (2014). Statement by Ms. Sharon Burke. Washington, DC: Subcommittee on Readiness and 

Management Support Senate Armed Services Committee United States Senate.

California Department of Fish and Game. (2012). Guide to the Southern California Marine Protected 

Areas: Point Conception to California-Mexico Border; Catalina Island MPAs. State of California.

California Department of Fish and Wildlife. (2016). Southern California Marine Protected Areas. 

Retrieved from 

https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/Marine/MPAs/Network/SouthernCalifornia#2682243

7accessccrtitle14section632a4

National Marine Protected Areas Center. (2008). Framework for the National System of Marine 

Protected Areas of the United States of America. Silver Spring, MD: U.S. Department of 

Commerce, National Ocean and Atmospheric Administration, Office of Ocean and Coastal 

Resource Management.

National Marine Protected Areas Center. (2013). List of National System Marine Protected Areas.

National Marine Sanctuaries. (2009a). Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument Condition 

Report 2009. Silver Spring, MD: U.S. Department of Commerce.

National Marine Sanctuaries. (2009b). Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary Condition Report 

2009. Silver Spring, MD: U.S. Department of Commerce.

National Marine Sanctuaries. (2016). Papahanaumokuakea Expands Now Largest Conservation Area on 

Earth. Retrieved from http://sanctuaries.noaa.gov/news/aug16/president-announcedexpansion-of-papahanaumokuakea-marine-national-monument.html

National Marine Sanctuaries Program. (2002). Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale National Marine 

Sanctuary Management Plan. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration, Office of National Marine Sanctuaries.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Fisheries. (2017). Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management Act. Retrieved from 

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/laws_policies/msa/

National Park Service. (2006). Management Policies 2006. Washington, DC.

Office of National Marine Sanctuaries. (2010). Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale National Marine 

Sanctuary. Silver Spring, MD: U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration —Office of National Marine Sanctuaries.

Olson, W. (2016, January 15, 2016). Navy launching first Great Green Fleet next week, Electronic, Stars 

and Stripes. Retrieved from http://www.stripes.com/news/pacific/navy-launching-first-greatgreen-fleet-next-week-1.388769

U.S. Department of Defense. (2011). Energy for the warfighter: Operational energy strategy. 

Washington, DC: Assistant Secretary of Defense for Operational Energy Plans & Programs.

U.S. Department of Defense. (2012). Operational Energy Strategy Implementation Plan. Washington, DC: 

Assistant Secretary of Defense for Operational Energy.

U.S. Department of Defense. (2016). 2016 Operational Energy Strategy.

U.S. Department of the Navy. (2016). Great Green Fleet. Retrieved from 

http://greenfleet.dodlive.mil/energy/great-green-fleet/
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

6-48

References

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. (2006). Refuge Management. National Wildlife Refuge System Uses. (603 

FW 1). Washington, DC: Retrieved from http://www.fws.gov/policy/603fw1.html.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration, & State of Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources. (2008). 

Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument. Management Plan.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. (2014, February 24, 2014). San Diego Bay National Wildlife Refuge, 

California; Rules and Regulations. Retrieved 

Van Parijs, S. M. (2015). Letter of Introduction to the Biologically Important Areas Issue. In S. M. Van 

Parijs, C. Curtice, & M. C. Ferguson (Eds.), Biologically Important Areas for cetaceans within U.S. 

waters, Aquatic Mammals (Special Issue) 41(1), 1. 
7 List of Preparers

Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

i

Table of Contents

Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Overseas Environmental 

Impact Statement

Hawaii-Southern California Training and Testing

TABLE OF CONTENTS

7 LIST OF PREPARERS..................................................................................................................7-1

7.1 U.S. Department of the Navy .....................................................................................7-1

7.2 Contractor Preparers .................................................................................................7-3
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

ii

Table of Contents

This page intentionally left blank.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

7-1

7.0 List of Preparers

7 LIST OF PREPARERS

This Environmental Impact Statement/Overseas Envirionmental Impact Statement was prepared 

collaboratively between the United States (U.S.) Department of the Navy (Navy) and 

contractor preparers.

7.1 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

Christiana Boerger (Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Southwest), Marine Resource Specialist 

M.S., Marine Biology

B.S., Marine Science

Years of experience: 17

Benjamin Colbert (Naval Sea Systems Command), Environmental Protection Specialist, Environmental 

Planning Branch

B.S., Organizational Leadership

Years of experience: 8

Nora Gluch (Naval Sea Systems Command), Supervisory Environmental Protection Specialist

M.E.M., Coastal Environmental Management

B.A., Sociology

Years of experience: 11

Elizabeth Henderson (Space & Naval Warfare Systems Command), Bioacoustic Scientist

Ph.D., Biological Oceanography

M.Sc., Wildlife and Fisheries Sciences

B.A., Psychobiology

Years of experience: 19

Peter Hulton (Naval Undersea Warfare Center, Division Newport), Technical Project Manager, Marine 

Species Modeling Team

B.S., Mechanical Engineering

Years of experience: 33

Keith Jenkins (Space & Naval Warfare Systems Command), Marine Scientist

M.S., Fisheries Oceanography

B.S., Marine Biology

Years of experience: 16

Chip Johnson (U.S. Navy Pacific Fleet), Marine Biologist

M.A., Marine Science

B.S., Biology

Years of experience: 18

Sarah Kotecki (Space & Naval Warfare Systems Command Pacific), Engineer 

B.S., Civil and Environmental Engineering

Years of experience: 16

Nora Macariola-See (Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Pacific), Environmental Engineer

B.S., Chemical Engineering

Years of experience: 26
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

7-2

7.0 List of Preparers

Lori Megliola (Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Southwest) Community Planner NEPA Program 

B.S., Earth Science, Emphasis Environmental Science

Years of experience: 10

Tara Moll (Naval Undersea Warfare Center, Division Newport), Marine Biologist

M.S., Biological Sciences

B.S., Marine Biology

Years of experience: 11

Jerry Olen (Space & Naval Warfare Systems Command), Environmental Readiness Program Manager

M.A., Political Science

B.S., Environmental Engineering

Years of experience: 22

Nick Paraskevas (Naval Air Systems Command), Deputy, Environmental and Energy Programs

B.S., Aerospace and Ocean Engineering

Years of experience: 41

Jennifer Paulk (Naval Air Systems Command), Environmental Scientist

M.S., Physiology

B.S., Psychology 

Years of experience: 20

Barbie Prine (Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Pacific), Environmental Scientist

M.S., Environmental-Agricultural Education

B.S., Natural Resources and Environmental Sciences

Years of experience: 13

Sara Reed (Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Southwest), Navy Regions Southwest N45 NEPA

Coordinator

M.F.A. Historic Preservation

B.A., History of Art and Architecture

Years of experience: 5

Julie Rivers (U.S. Navy Pacific Fleet), Natural and Marine Resources Program Manager—Biologist

B.S., Biology

Years of experience: 28

Tom Scarano (Naval Sea Systems Command), Supervisory Environmental Engineer

B.S., Civil Engineering

Years of experience: 47

Elizabeth Scheimer (Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Pacific), Marine Resources Specialist

M.S., Earth Systems

Years of experience: 10 

Cory Scott (U.S. Navy Pacific Fleet), Environmental Planner

B.S., Ecosystem Management and Restoration, Natural Resources Planning

Years of experience: 12

Jennie Shield (Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command), Biotechnician

B.A., International Studies 

Years of experience: 12
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

7-3

7.0 List of Preparers

Roy Sokolowski (U.S. Navy Pacific Fleet), Environmental Protection Specialist—Acoustician

Submarine Sonar Technician Senior Chief Petty Officer, USN (ret).

Years of experience: 30

Raymond Soukup (Office of Naval Research), Physicist

M.A., Mathematical Statistics

B.S., Physics

Years of experience: 28

Alex Stone (U.S. Navy Pacific Fleet), Environmental Planner

B.S., Environmental Studies

Years of experience: 20

John Van Name (U.S. Navy Pacific Fleet), Environmental Protection Specialist – Environmental Planner

P.E., Mechanical Engineering

Years of experience: 38

7.2 CONTRACTOR PREPARERS

Victoria Bowman (National Marine Mammal Foundation), Environmental Scientist

B.A., Psychology

Years of experience: 6

Brad Boykin (Leidos, Inc.), Environmental Scientist

M.S., Biotechnology 

B.S., Biomedical Science

Years of experience: 12

Blake Claypool (Cardno), Senior Biologist 

B.S., Biology

Years of experience: 17

Ronald Combs (Leidos, Inc.), Environmental Scientist

M.S., Biology

B.S., Biology

B.S., Business Administration

Years of experience: 15

Michael Dungan (Cardno), Principal, Senior Ecologist 

Ph.D., Ecology and Evolutionary Biology

B.A., Zoology

Years of experience: 35

Conrad Erkelens (ManTech International), Senior Scientist

M.A., Anthropology

B.A., Anthropology

Years of experience: 20

Vicky Frank (Leidos, Inc.), Senior Scientist

B.A., General Biology/Cell Biology

Years of experience: 28
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

7-4

7.0 List of Preparers

George Gorman (ManTech International), Senior Environmental Analyst

J.D., Law

M.R.L.S., Resources Law Studies (Environmental Law and Policy, Land Use Law and Policy)

B.A., Philosophy and Psychology

Years of Experience: 6

Karen Green (Leidos, Inc.), Senior Scientist/Project Manager

M.S., Biology

B.S., Marine Biology

Years of experience: 31

Danny Heilprin, (ManTech International), Senior Marine Biologist

M.S. Marine Sciences

B.A. Aquatic Biology

Years of Experience: 30

Taylor Houston (ManTech International), Natural Resource Specialist/Project Manager

B.S., Natural Resource Management

Years of experience: 16

Cameron Martin (National Marine Mammal Foundation), Environmental Scientist

B.S., Environmental Science

Years of experience: 3

Jamie McKee (Leidos, Inc.), Senior Scientist/Project Manager

B.S., Marine Biology

Years of experience: 32

Mike Nation (Leidos, Inc.), Senior GIS Analyst

B.S., Environmental Science/Policy

Years of experience: 15

Karyn Palma (ManTech International), Technical Editor

B.A., Environmental Studies

Years of experience: 21

Sarah Rider (G2 Software Systems), Natural Resources Management Specialist

M.E.M., Coastal Environmental Management

B.S., Marine Science

Years of experience: 10

Marya Samuelson (ManTech International), Deputy Project Manager/Environmental Scientist

M.B.A., Project Management

B.A., Environmental Studies

Years of experience: 5

Clint Scheuerman (Cardno), Certified Wildlife Biologist, Senior Biologist/Wetland Scientist

M.A., Biological Sciences

B.S., Biological Sciences

Years of experience: 13
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

7-5

7.0 List of Preparers

Valorie L. Thompson (Scientific Resources Associated), Air Quality Specialist

Ph.D., Chemical Engineering

M.S., Chemical Engineering

B.S., Chemistry

Years of experience: 29

Michelle Tishler (National Marine Mammal Foundation), Marine Resources Specialist

M.S., Marine Biology 

B.S., Wildlife Ecology and Conservation, Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences Minor

Years of Experience: 8

Heather Turner (ManTech International), Marine Biologist

M.A.S., Marine Biodiversity and Conservation

B.S., Environmental Science

Years of experience: 8

Karen Waller (ManTech International), Senior Environmental Scientist

B.S., Public Affairs

Years of experience: 26

Brian D. Wauer (ManTech International), Project Manager

B.S., Administrative Management

B.S., Industrial Management

Years of experience: 31

Rebecca Weeks (National Marine Mammal Foundation), Marine Resources Specialist

M.S., Underwater Acoustic Engineering, Ocean Engineering

B.S., Physics, Chemistry

Years of Experience: 8

Lawrence Wolski (ManTech International), Marine Scientist

M.S., Marine Sciences

B.S., Biology

Years of experience: 18

Mike Zickel (ManTech International), Senior Environmental Scientist

M.S., Marine Estuarine Environmental Sciences

B.S., Physics

Years of experience: 18
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

7-6

7.0 List of Preparers

This page intentionally left blank.
8 Public Involvement and Distribution

Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

i

Table of Contents

Draft

Environmental Impact Statement/Overseas Environmental

Impact Statement

Hawaii-Southern California Training and Testing

TABLE OF CONTENTS

8 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT AND DISTRIBUTION..............................................................................8-1

8.1 Project Website .........................................................................................................8-1

8.2 Scoping Period...........................................................................................................8-1

8.2.1 Public Scoping Notification ....................................................................................8-1

8.2.1.1 Notification Letters................................................................................8-1

8.2.1.2 Postcard Mailers..................................................................................8-10

8.2.1.3 Newspaper Advertisements ................................................................8-13

8.2.1.4 Press Releases......................................................................................8-14

8.2.2 Project Video........................................................................................................8-18

8.2.3 Public Scoping Meetings......................................................................................8-19

8.2.4 Public Scoping Comments....................................................................................8-19

8.2.4.1 A True No Action Alternative Analysis.................................................8-20

8.2.4.2 Time-Area Management and Mitigation Areas...................................8-20

8.2.4.3 Cumulative Impacts Analysis...............................................................8-20

8.2.4.4 Water Quality and Hazardous Materials.............................................8-20

8.2.4.5 Air Quality and Air Traffic Patterns......................................................8-20

8.2.4.6 Human Health and Socioeconomic Impacts........................................8-20

8.2.4.7 Simulation............................................................................................8-21

8.2.4.8 Look-out Effectiveness.........................................................................8-21

8.2.4.9 Impacts of Training and Testing on Marine Mammals........................8-21

8.2.4.10 Impacts on Focal Species and Essential Fish Habitat...........................8-21

8.3 Notification of Availability of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Overseas 

Environmental Impact Statement.............................................................................8-21

8.3.1 Notification of Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Overseas Environmental 

Impact Statement and Public Meetings...............................................................8-21

8.3.1.1 Notification Letters..............................................................................8-22

8.3.1.2 Postcards..............................................................................................8-25

8.3.1.3 Press Releases and Public Service Announcements............................8-25

8.3.1.4 Newspaper Advertisements ................................................................8-26

8.3.2 Public Meetings....................................................................................................8-26
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

ii

Table of Contents

8.4 Distribution of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Overseas Environmental 

Impact Statement....................................................................................................8-27

8.4.1 Federal Agencies..................................................................................................8-27

8.4.2 Repositories .........................................................................................................8-27

List of Figures

Figure 8.2-1: Stakeholder Scoping Notification Letter...............................................................................8-6

Figure 8.2-2: Postcard Mailer for Scoping (Front) ...................................................................................8-11

Figure 8.2-3: Postcard Mailer for Scoping (Back).....................................................................................8-12

Figure 8.2-4: Newspaper Announcement of Scoping ..............................................................................8-13

Figure 8.2-5: Navy Region Hawaii and Naval Surface Group Middle Pacific Press Release.....................8-15

Figure 8.2-6: Navy Region Southwest Press Release ...............................................................................8-17

List of Tables

Table 8.2-1: Entities that Received the Scoping Notification Letter..........................................................8-2

Table 8.2-2: Newspaper Announcements of Scoping Meetings..............................................................8-13

Table 8.3-1: Entities that Received the Draft EIS/OEIS Notification Letters............................................8-22

Table 8.3-2: Newspaper Announcements of Draft EIS/OEIS Public Meetings.........................................8-26

Table 8.3-3: Public Meetings Locations ...................................................................................................8-27

Table 8.4-1: Information Repositories with a Hard Copy and CD/DVD of the Draft EIS/OEIS.................8-28
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

8-1

8.0 Public Involvement and Distribution

8 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT AND DISTRIBUTION

This chapter describes the efforts to involve the public in preparing the Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing (HSTT) Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)/Overseas Environmental Impact 

Statement (OEIS), including distribution of the Draft EIS/OEIS. 

8.1 PROJECT WEBSITE

A public website was established for this project: www.hstteis.com. This website address was published 

in the Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement/Overseas Environmental Impact 

Statement for Hawaii-Southern California Training and Testing and Notice of Public Scoping Meetings

(Appendix G, Federal Register Notices). It was subsequently reprinted in newspaper advertisements, 

agency letters, and postcards for the Notice of Intent. The scoping meeting fact sheets, public meeting 

notifications, technical reports, and various other materials are available on the project website and will 

be made available throughout the course of the project.

8.2 SCOPING PERIOD

The public scoping period began with issuance of the Notice of Intent in the Federal Register on 

November 12, 2015. A corrected Notice of Intent was released in the Federal Register on December 1, 

2015. This notice included a project description, scoping meeting dates, and locations. Comments were 

provided by mail and through the EIS/OEIS website at: http://www.hstteis.com. The United States (U.S.) 

Department of the Navy (Navy) also conducted public scoping meetings to obtain comments on the 

scope of the EIS/OEIS and to identify specific environmental concerns or topics for consideration in the 

document. The scoping period lasted 60 days, concluding on January 12, 2016. The scoping period 

provided a variety of opportunities for the public to comment on the scope of the EIS/OEIS.

8.2.1 PUBLIC SCOPING NOTIFICATION

The Navy made significant efforts to notify the public to ensure maximum public participation during the 

scoping process. A summary of these efforts follows.

8.2.1.1 Notification Letters

Notice of Intent and Notice of Scoping Meeting letters were distributed on November 13, 2015, to 

federally recognized tribes; state-elected officials; and federal, regional, and state agencies. Entities that 

received the scoping notification letter can be found in Table 8.2-1 and an example of the letter can be 

found in Figure 8.2-1.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

8-2

8.0 Public Involvement and Distribution

Table 8.2-1: Entities that Received the Scoping Notification Letter

California Federally Recognized Tribes

Barona Band of Mission Indians

Campo Kumeyaay Nation (Formerly Campo Band of 

Mission Indians)

Ewiiaapaayp Band of Kumeyaay Indians

Iipay Nation of Santa Ysabel

Inaja-Cosmit Band of Mission Indians

Jamul Indian Village

La Jolla Band of Luiseno Mission Indians of the La Jolla 

Reservation

La Posta Band of Mission Indians

Los Coyotes Band of Cahuilla & Cupeno Indians

Manzanita Band of Mission Indians

Mesa Grande Band of Mission Indians

Pala Band of Luiseno Mission Indians

Pauma Band of Luiseno Mission Indians of

the Pauma & Yuima Reservation

Pechanga Band of Luiseno Mission Indians

San Pasqual Band of Diegueno Indians

Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians

Sycuan Band of the Kumeyaay Nation

Viejas Band of Mission Indians

California Non-Federally Recognized Tribes

Fernandeño Tataviam Band of Mission

Indians

Gabrielino-Tongva Tribal Council of San

Gabriel

Gabrielino-Tongva of the Los Angeles Basin

Gabrielino-Tongva Tribe

Hawaii

State Elected Officials and State Agencies

Office of the Governor

State Senators (all)

State Representatives (all)

Department of Business, Economic Development, and Tourism

Hawaii Coastal Zone Management Program

State Land Use Commission

Department of Hawaiian Home Lands, Office of the Chairman

Department of Health

Department of Land and Natural Resources

Division of Aquatic Resources

Division of Conservation and Resources Enforcement

Division of Forestry and Wildlife

Division of State Parks

Historic Preservation Division

Island Burial Councils (Hawaii, Kauai/Niihau, Maui/Lanai, Molokai, and Oahu)

Office of Conservation and Coastal Lands

Department of Transportation

Airports Division

Harbors Division

Office of Hawaiian Affairs

Local 

City and County of Honolulu

County of Hawaii

County of Kauai

County of Maui
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

8-3

8.0 Public Involvement and Distribution

California

State Elected Officials and State Agencies

Office of the Governor

Office of Planning and Research, Military Affairs

State Senators (Districts 27, 33, 35, 38, and 39)

State Assembly members (Districts 54, 55, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, and 79)

California Coastal Commission

Department of Conservation

Division of Land Resource Protection

Department of Fish and Game

Marine Life Protection Act Blue Ribbon Task Force

Marine Region 7

South Coast Region 5

Wildlife Branch

Department of Parks and Recreation

Department of Public Health

Department of Transportation

Division of Aeronautics, Office of Airports

Department of Toxic Substance Control

Region 4

Department of Veterans Affairs

Environmental Protection Agency

Air Resources Board

Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment 

Office of the Secretary

Natural Resources Agency

Office of Historic Preservation

State Lands Commission

State Water Resources Control Board

Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board

San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board

Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board

Wildlife Conservation Board

Local 

City of Avalon

City of Coronado

City of Dana Point

City of Huntington Beach

City of Imperial Beach

City of Laguna Beach

City of Long Beach

City of Los Angeles

City of Malibu

City of Newport Beach

City of Oceanside

City of San Diego

County of Los Angeles

County of Orange

County of San Diego

Port of Long Beach

Port of Los Angeles

San Diego Unified Port District
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

8-4

8.0 Public Involvement and Distribution

Federal Agencies

U.S. Senators (Hawaii, California)

U.S. Representatives (California Districts 35, 36, 37, 44, 46, 48, 49, 50, 52, and Hawaii Districts 1 and 2)

Federal Aviation Administration

Washington, D.C., Headquarters

Western Pacific Region

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Pacific Ocean Division

Honolulu District

South Pacific Division

Los Angeles District

U.S. Department of Commerce

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

National Marine Fisheries Service

Washington, D.C., Headquarters

Southwest Regional Offices

Southwest Fisheries Science Center

Pacific Islands Regional Office

Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center

Office of Habitat Conservation

Southwest Regional Office

Pacific Islands Regional Habitat Conservation Division

Office of Protected Resources

Headquarters and Pacific Islands Region

Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary

Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale National Marine Sanctuary

Papahānaumokuākea Marine National Monument

U.S. Department of Homeland Security

U.S. Coast Guard

District 11

District 14

Office of Operating and Environmental Standards

U.S. Department of the Interior

Bureau of Indian Affairs

Pacific Regional Office

Southern California Agency

Bureau of Land Management

California Coastal National Monument

Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement

National Offshore Office

Pacific Outer Continental Shelf Region

Channel Islands National Park

National Park Service

Pacific West Region

Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance

Oakland Region

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

National Environmental Policy Act Compliance Division

Region IX (San Francisco)

Washington, D.C., Headquarters

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Carlsbad Office
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

8-5

8.0 Public Involvement and Distribution

Pacific Regional Office

Pacific Southwest Regional Office

Ventura Office

San Diego Bay National Wildlife Refuge

San Diego National Wildlife Refuge

Hanalei National Wildlife Refuge

Huleia National Wildlife Refuge

James Campbell National Wildlife Refuge

Kealia Pond National Wildlife Refuge

Kilauea Point National Wildlife Refuge

Pearl Harbor National Wildlife Refuge

Marine Mammal Commission

U.S. Geological Survey

Western Region Offices

California Water Science Center

Pacific Islands Water Science Center

Western Fisheries Research Center
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

8-6

8.0 Public Involvement and Distribution

Figure 8.2-1: Stakeholder Scoping Notification Letter
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

8-7

8.0 Public Involvement and Distribution

Figure 8.2-1: Stakeholder Scoping Notification Letter (continued)
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

8-8

8.0 Public Involvement and Distribution

Figure 8.2-1: Stakeholder Scoping Notification Letter (continued)
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

8-9

8.0 Public Involvement and Distribution

Figure 8.2-1: Stakeholder Scoping Notification Letter (continued)
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

8-10

8.0 Public Involvement and Distribution

8.2.1.2 Postcard Mailers

On November 12, 2015, postcards were mailed to 1,051 recipients on the project mailing list, including 

individuals, nonprofit organizations, and for-profit organizations. The postcards included the dates, 

locations, and times for the scoping meetings, as well as the website address for more information. An 

example of the postcard is shown in Figure 8.2-2 and Figure 8.2-3.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

8-11

8.0 Public Involvement and Distribution

Figure 8.2-2: Postcard Mailer for Scoping (Front)
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

8-12

8.0 Public Involvement and Distribution

Figure 8.2-3: Postcard Mailer for Scoping (Back)
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

8-13

8.0 Public Involvement and Distribution

8.2.1.3 Newspaper Advertisements

To announce the scoping period, advertisements were placed in the listed newspapers in the following 

cities on the dates indicated in Table 8.2-2. The advertisements included a description of the Proposed 

Action, the address of the project website, the duration of the comment period, and information on 

how to provide comments. An example of the advertisement is shown in Figure 8.2-4.

Table 8.2-2: Newspaper Announcements of Scoping Meetings

San Diego

Union-Tribune

November 13, 2015

November 14, 2015

November 15, 2015

Maui

Maui News

November 13, 2015

November 14, 2015

November 15, 2015

Honolulu/Oahu

Honolulu Star-Advertiser

November 13, 2015

November 14, 2015

November 15, 2015

Lihue/Kauai

The Garden Island

November 13, 2015

November 15, 2015

November 16, 2015

Hilo/Big Island

Hawaii Tribune-Herald

November 13, 2015

November 14, 2015

November 15, 2015

Figure 8.2-4: Newspaper Announcement of Scoping
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

8-14

8.0 Public Involvement and Distribution

8.2.1.4 Press Releases

Press releases to announce the scoping meetings were distributed on November 12, 2015. The press 

releases provided a description of the Proposed Action, address of the project website, duration of the 

comment period, and information on the public meetings. The press releases also provided information 

on the availability of the Navy Environmental Media Officer to meet with the media in advance of the 

meetings. One of the press releases from Navy Region Hawaii and Naval Surface Group Middle Pacific is 

shown in Figure 8.2-5. A separate press release was issued by Navy Region Southwest and is shown in

Figure 8.2-6. 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

8-15

8.0 Public Involvement and Distribution

Figure 8.2-5: Navy Region Hawaii and Naval Surface Group Middle Pacific Press Release
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

8-16

8.0 Public Involvement and Distribution

Figure 8.2-5: Navy Region Hawaii and Naval Surface Group Middle Pacific Press Release 

(continued)
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

8-17

8.0 Public Involvement and Distribution

Figure 8.2-6: Navy Region Southwest Press Release
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

8-18

8.0 Public Involvement and Distribution

Figure 8.2-6: Navy Region Southwest Press Release (continued)

8.2.2 PROJECT VIDEO

Two project videos were developed to support the scoping process and provide information to the public 

on the types of training and testing the Navy conducts and its importance, and on the Navy’s marine 

species mitigation and monitoring efforts. The project videos were uploaded to the project website. 

Topics for the project video included

• general project overview

• Navy’s mission
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

8-19

8.0 Public Involvement and Distribution

• importance of training and testing in the HSTT Study Area

• importance of training and testing with sonar and explosives

• existing marine mitigation measures and monitoring efforts

• environmental stewardship programs

8.2.3 PUBLIC SCOPING MEETINGS

Scoping meetings were held on December 1, 3, and 5, 2015, in the cities of San Diego, California; Lihue, 

Hawaii; and Honolulu, Hawaii, respectively. The meetings were structured in an open-house format, 

presenting informational posters and written information, with Navy staff and project experts available 

to answer participants’ questions.

There were 11 attendees at the San Diego meeting, including a representative of Congressman Scott 

Peters, U.S. Representative of California's 52nd District; along with nongovernmental organizations such 

as the Natural Resources Defense Council, San Diego Audubon Society, Port of San Diego, University of 

San Diego, and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 

The Lihue meeting had 20 attendees and two written comments. There were representatives from the 

Kauai Community Radio, KKCR Hanalei KAQA Kilauea, The Garden Island Media; a representative of 

Governor David Ige, Governor of the State of Hawaii; and nongovernmental organizations, including 

Luluku Farmer’s Association, the University of Hawaii, the Surfrider Foundation, and the Kauai Westside 

Watershed Council. 

The Honolulu meeting had eight attendees and one written comment. Elected official representation 

included a representative of Senator Gil Riviere, Senator of Hawaii’s 23rd District; a representative of 

Congressman Mark Takai, U.S. Representative from Hawaii’s 1st Congressional District; and 

nongovernmental organizations, including Cultural Surveys Hawaii, Hawaii Pacific University, and Ke’ehi 

Memorial Organization.

8.2.4 PUBLIC SCOPING COMMENTS

Scoping participants submitted comments in four ways:

• Oral statements at the public meetings (as recorded by the tape recorder)

• Written comments at the public meetings

• Written letters (received any time during the public comment period)

• Comments submitted directly on the project website (received any time during the public 

comment period)

The Navy received oral, written, and electronic comments from federal agencies, state agencies, 

nongovernmental organizations, individuals, and community groups. A total of 534 website comments 

were submitted using the electronic comment form on the project website. A total of 24 written 

comments were also mailed or submitted at the public scoping meetings. Additionally, the Navy 

received a form letter comment with 73,529 signatures. The comments requested the Navy to analyze 

environmental issues from physical and biological resources, such as sonar impacts on marine mammals, 

to human resources, such as public health and safety. A sampling of some of the specific 

concerns follows.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

8-20

8.0 Public Involvement and Distribution

8.2.4.1 A True No Action Alternative Analysis

Comments stated that the EIS/OEIS should have a true No Action Alternative in which the National 

Marine Fisheries Service did not issue a permit for training and testing activities, and Naval Training and 

Testing activities would cease to occur in the HSTT Study Area. Comments stated that the analysis 

should include these true No Action Alternative impacts on marine biota, air quality, water quality, 

socioeconomics, cultural resources, and human health and safety.

8.2.4.2 Time-Area Management and Mitigation Areas

Comments stated that the EIS/OEIS should have reasonable alternatives that incorporate mitigation 

measures such as time-area management, which would mitigate impacts of noise and other 

disturbances to marine mammals and sea turtles as activities would happen selectively to allow for 

areas to sometimes be closed for conservation. Areas of concern include areas identified by the National 

Marine Fisheries Service as important to marine species, the Cross Seamount in Hawaii, and the 

Southern California Bight. 

8.2.4.3 Cumulative Impacts Analysis

Comments suggested that the cumulative impacts should be assessed in respect to trend data. A 

suggested methodology that was developed by the Federal Highways Administration and Caltrans with 

the assistance of the Environmental Protection Agency for assessing cumulative impacts follows an 

eight-step process (California Department of Transportation, 2005). The eight steps in the suggested 

process are summarized as (1) identify the resources to consider in the cumulative impact analysis,

(2) define the geographic boundary or Resource Study Area for each resource to be addressed,

(3) describe the current health and historical context of each resource, (4) identify the direct and 

indirect impacts of the proposed project that might contribute to a cumulative impact on the identified 

resources, (5) Identify the set of other current and reasonably foreseeable future actions or projects and 

their associated environmental impacts, (6) assess the potential cumulative impacts, (7) report the 

results of the cumulative impact analysis, and (8) assess the need for mitigation and/or 

recommendations for actions by other agencies to address a cumulative impact (California Department 

of Transportation, 2005).

8.2.4.4 Water Quality and Hazardous Materials

Comments requested that water quality and hazardous materials be evaluated in regard to the fate and 

transport of toxins from ammunition/explosives and sinking exercise vessel use, and their cumulative 

impacts on ocean water quality. 

8.2.4.5 Air Quality and Air Traffic Patterns

Comments suggested that the EIS/OEIS should quantify carbon pollution contribution from military 

activities to air quality, and the impacts on air traffic patterns.

8.2.4.6 Human Health and Socioeconomic Impacts

Comments requested that human health and socioeconomic changes be evaluated to assess whether

activities will bring new personnel stationed in the Study Area, and if there will be impacts on traffic.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

8-21

8.0 Public Involvement and Distribution

8.2.4.7 Simulation

Comments stated that simulated activities should be considered for military training and testing rather 

than using sonar and explosives.

8.2.4.8 Look-out Effectiveness

Comments questioned the effectiveness of lookouts in marine mammal monitoring and suggested that 

they should be reevaluated during poor visibility conditions. Thermal imaging should be incorporated to 

lookout for not only marine mammals but also seabirds and other species of concern. 

8.2.4.9 Impacts of Training and Testing on Marine Mammals

Comments stated that impacts of training and testing on marine mammals are of great concern and 

need to be addressed in the EIS/OEIS. Ship strikes to fin whales and other species in the HSTT Study Area 

could be mitigated by a reduction in ship speed at times or in areas that have a high density of species 

present. The Navy Acoustic Effects Model is too general and should do more to reduce takes on focal 

species. Impacts of dipping sonar should be more extensively studied and analyzed for marine 

mammals. Signal modification should be considered to reduce the takes of marine mammals. Areas of 

concern for beaked whales include the Southern California Bight, San Nicholas Basin, Santa Catalina 

Basin, the southernmost edge of the California current west of Tanner and Cortez Banks, and the 

Northern Catalina Basin and San Clemente Basin. The Proposed Action should comply with the Marine 

Mammal Protection Act and the Endangered Species Act. Vessel noise should be added to acoustic 

impacts in the Marine Mammal Analysis.

8.2.4.10 Impacts on Focal Species and Essential Fish Habitat

Comments stated that impacts on focal species and habitats, such as Essential Fish Habitat, should be 

analyzed in greater detail. These focal species include Endangered Species Act species, Marine Mammal 

Protection Act species, coral reefs, marine mammals (specifically beaked whales), fin whales, green sea 

turtles, and protected seabirds.

8.3 NOTIFICATION OF AVAILABILITY OF THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT 

STATEMENT/OVERSEAS ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

The Draft EIS/OEIS public review and comment period began with issuance of the Notice of Availability 

and Notice of Public Meetings in the Federal Register on October 13, 2017. The Federal Register notices 

included notification of the availability of the Draft EIS/OEIS and where it can be accessed; an overview 

of the Proposed Action and its purpose and need; public commenting information; and the locations, 

dates, and times of public meetings. The purpose of the public meetings is to inform the public about 

the Proposed Action and to solicit public comments on the environmental issues addressed and 

analyzed in the Draft EIS/OEIS. The Draft EIS/OEIS public review and comment period will last 60 days, 

concluding on December 12, 2017. Comments will be accepted by mail, through the EIS/OEIS website at: 

http://www.hstteis.com, and at the public meetings. 

8.3.1 NOTIFICATION OF DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT/OVERSEAS 

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT AND PUBLIC MEETINGS

The Navy has made significant efforts to facilitate maximum public participation during the Draft 

EIS/OEIS public review and comment period. A summary of these efforts follows.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

8-22

8.0 Public Involvement and Distribution

8.3.1.1 Notification Letters

A tribal notification letter was distributed on the day of the release of the Draft EIS/OEIS to appropriate 

federally recognized tribes and non-federally recognized tribes. A total of 22 tribal letters were mailed. A 

stakeholder notification letter was distributed on the day of the release of the Draft EIS/OEIS to 

appropriate and interested federal, state, and local government agencies, nongovernmental 

organizations, and persons expressing an interest in the Proposed Action and Draft EIS/OEIS. A total of 

551 stakeholder notification letters were mailed. Entities that received the notification letters can be 

found in Table 8.3-1.

Table 8.3-1: Entities that Received the Draft EIS/OEIS Notification Letters

California Federally Recognized Tribes

Barona Band of Mission Indians

Campo Kumeyaay Nation (Formerly Campo Band of 

Mission Indians)

Ewiiaapaayp Band of Kumeyaay Indians

Iipay Nation of Santa Ysabel

Inaja-Cosmit Band of Mission Indians

Jamul Indian Village

La Jolla Band of Luiseno Mission Indians of the La Jolla 

Reservation

La Posta Band of Mission Indians

Los Coyotes Band of Cahuilla & Cupeno Indians

Manzanita Band of Mission Indians

Mesa Grande Band of Mission Indians

Pala Band of Luiseno Mission Indians

Pauma Band of Luiseno Mission Indians of

the Pauma & Yuima Reservation

Pechanga Band of Luiseno Mission Indians

San Pasqual Band of Diegueno Indians

Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians

Sycuan Band of the Kumeyaay Nation

Viejas Band of Mission Indians

California Non-Federally Recognized Tribes

Fernandeño Tataviam Band of Mission Indians

Gabrielino-Tongva Tribe

Hawaii

State Elected Officials and State Agencies

Office of the Governor

Office of Lieutenant Governor

State Senators (all)

State Representatives (all)

House Committee on Veterans, Military, and International Affairs, and Culture and the Arts

Department of Business, Economic Development, and Tourism

Hawaii Coastal Zone Management Program

State Land Use Commission

Department of Defense

Army National Guard

Department of Hawaiian Home Lands, Office of the Chairman

Department of Health

Clean Water Branch

Environmental Management Division

Department of Land and Natural Resources

Division of Aquatic Resources

Division of Conservation and Resource Enforcement

Division of Forestry and Wildlife

Division of State Parks

Historic Preservation Division
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

8-23

8.0 Public Involvement and Distribution

Island Burial Councils (Hawaii, Kauai, Maui, and Oahu)

Office of Conservation and Coastal Lands

Department of Transportation

Airports Division

Harbors Division

Hazard Evaluation and Emergency Response Office

Office of Environmental Quality Control

Office of Hawaiian Affairs

Office of Planning

Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council

Local 

City and County of Honolulu

County of Hawaii

County of Kauai

County of Maui

California

State Elected Officials and State Agencies

Office of the Governor

Governor's Office of Planning and Research, Military Affairs

State Senators (Districts 27, 33, 35, 37, 38, and 39)

State Assembly members (Districts 54, 55, 71, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, and 79)

California Coastal Commission

Department of Boating and Waterways

Department of Conservation

Department of Fish and Wildlife

Air Services Unit

Habitat Conservation Planning Branch

Marine Region 7

Marine Region Habitat Conservation Program

Marine Region San Diego Field Office

South Coast Region 5

Wildlife Branch

Environmental Protection Agency

Air Resources Board

Fish and Game Commission

Marine Life Protection Act Initiative

Natural Resources Agency

Department of Conservation

Silver Strand State Beach

State Clearinghouse

State Ocean Protection Council

State Water Resources Control Board

Ocean Unit, Division of Water Quality

Wildlife Conservation Board

Local 

City of Avalon

City of Chula Vista

City of Coronado

City of Dana Point

City of Huntington Beach

City of Imperial Beach
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

8-24

8.0 Public Involvement and Distribution

City of Laguna Beach

City of Long Beach

City of Los Angeles

City of Malibu

City of National City

City of Newport Beach

City of Oceanside

City of San Diego

County of Los Angeles

County of Orange

County of San Diego

Port of Long Beach

Port of Los Angeles

Port of San Diego

Regional Water Quality Control Board

Los Angeles Region

San Diego Air Pollution Control District

San Diego Unified Port District

South Coast Air Quality Management District

Federal Agencies

U.S. Senators (Hawaii, California)

U.S. Representatives (California Districts 35, 36, 37, 42, 43, 44, 45, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, and Hawaii Districts 1 

and 2)

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation

Council on Environmental Quality

Federal Aviation Administration

Los Angeles Air Route Traffic Control Center

Washington, D.C., Headquarters

Western Pacific Region

International Boundary and Water Commission

Marine Mammal Commission

National Marine Protected Areas Center

National Science Foundation

Pacific Fishery Management Council

Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission

U.S. Department of Agriculture

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

Natural Resources Conservation Service

U.S. Department of Commerce

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

National Ocean Service

Office for Coastal Management

Office of National Marine Sanctuaries

National Marine Fisheries Service

Pacific Islands Regional Office

Protected Resources Division

West Coast Region

Pacific Islands

Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary

Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale National Marine Sanctuary

Papahānaumokuākea Marine National Monument

U.S. Department of State
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

8-25

8.0 Public Involvement and Distribution

Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs

U.S. Department of the Interior

Bureau of Indian Affairs

Southern California Agency

Bureau of Land Management

California Coastal National Monument

Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement

Bureau of Ocean Energy Management

National Offshore Office

Pacific Outer Continental Shelf Region

Channel Islands National Park

National Park Service

Pacific West Region

Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Carlsbad Office

Division of Refuges

Pacific Regional Office

Pacific Southwest Regional Office

Sacramento Office

Ventura Office

San Diego Bay National Wildlife Refuge

Hakalau Forest National Wildlife Refuge

Kakahaia National Wildlife Refuge

Kilauea Point National Wildlife Refuge

Pacific Islands Fish and Wildlife Office

U.S. Geological Survey

Western Region Offices

California Water Science Center

Marine Coastal Group

Pacific Coastal and Marine Science Center 

Pacific Islands Water Science Center

Western Fisheries Research Center

8.3.1.2 Postcards

On October 12, 2017, postcards were mailed to over 800 recipients on the project mailing list, including

individuals; nongovernmental organizations; community and business groups; fishing, aviation, and 

recreation groups, and private companies. The postcards included the dates, locations, and times for the 

public meetings, as well as the website address for more information, commenting information, and a 

brief summary of the Proposed Action.

8.3.1.3 Press Releases and Public Service Announcements

A press release to announce the availability of the Draft EIS/OEIS and public meetings was distributed on 

October 13, 2017. The press releases provided a description of the Proposed Action, project website,

duration of the comment period and commenting methods, information repositories, and location, 

dates, and times of the public meetings. The press releases also provided information on the availability 

of the Navy to meet with the media in advance of the meetings. A Public Service Announcement was 

distributed on October 13, 2017 to announce the public meetings. The Public Service Announcement

provided the public meeting locations and project website. 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

8-26

8.0 Public Involvement and Distribution

8.3.1.4 Newspaper Advertisements

To announce the availability of the Draft EIS/OEIS and public meetings, advertisements were placed in 

area newspapers in the following cities on the dates indicated in Table 8.3-2. The advertisements 

included a description of the Proposed Action, the project website, the duration of the comment period, 

and information on how to provide comments. 

Table 8.3-2: Newspaper Announcements of Draft EIS/OEIS Public Meetings

Honolulu/Oahu

Honolulu Star-Advertiser

October 13, 2017

November 4, 2017

November 5, 2017

November 6, 2017

Hilo/Big Island

Hawaii Tribune-Herald

October 13, 2017

November 5, 2017

November 8, 2017

November 9, 2017

Lihue/Kauai

The Garden Island

October 13, 2017

November 5, 2017

November 7, 2017

November 8, 2017

San Diego

The San Diego Union-Tribune

October 13, 2017

November 11, 2017

November 12, 2017

November 13, 2017

Maui

Maui News

October 13, 2017

November 5, 2017

November 6, 2017

November 7, 2017

8.3.2 PUBLIC MEETINGS

The Navy will hold public meetings to inform the public about the Proposed Action and to solicit public 

comments on the Draft EIS/OEIS. The public meetings will include informational poster stations staffed 

by Navy representatives, a brief presentation by the Navy, and a public oral comment session. Members 

of the public can arrive at any time during the public meetings. The public meetings in Hawaii will be 

held from 4:00 to 8:00 p.m. The public meeting in San Diego will be held from 5:00 to 8:00 p.m. The 

public meetings dates and locations are shown in Table 8.3-3.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

8-27

8.0 Public Involvement and Distribution

Table 8.3-3: Public Meetings Locations

LOCATION DATE ADDRESS

Honolulu, HI November 6, 2017

Oahu Veterans Center,

Fred Ballard Hall

1298 Kukila St.

Kahului, Maui November 7, 2017

Maui High School,

Cafeteria

660 S. Lono Ave.

Lihue, Kauai November 8, 2017

Kauai Veterans Center, 

Main Ballroom

3215 Kapule Highway

Hilo, Big Island November 9, 2017

Waiakea High School,

Cafeteria

155 W. Kawili St.

San Diego, CA November 13, 2017

Portuguese Hall,

Main Hall

2818 Avenida de Portugal

8.4 DISTRIBUTION OF THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT 

STATEMENT/OVERSEAS ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

All of the parties that were notified of the availability of the Draft EIS/OEIS were directed to access the 

document electronically on the project website (http://www.hstteis.com) or to access hard copies as 

available at the information repositories discussed in Section 8.4.2 (Repositories). 

8.4.1 FEDERAL AGENCIES

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency received an electronic version of the Draft EIS/OEIS on 

October 6, 2017. Regional offices of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency received electronic 

versions of the EIS/OEIS. The National Marine Fisheries Service headquarters along with National Marine 

Fisheries Service Hawaii and Southwest Regional Offices received hard copies and electronic copies of 

the Draft EIS/OEIS.

8.4.2 REPOSITORIES

The Draft EIS/OEIS was mailed in hard copy form along with an electronic CD/DVD to the information 

repository locations shown in Table 8.4-1, and should be made available to the public for a minimum of 

one year. 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

8-28

8.0 Public Involvement and Distribution

Table 8.4-1: Information Repositories with a Hard Copy and CD/DVD of the Draft EIS/OEIS

Oahu

Hawaii State Library

478 S. King St.

Honolulu, HI 96813

The Big Island

Kailua-Kona Public Library

75-138 Hualalai Road

Kailua-Kona, HI 96740

Kauai

Lihue Public Library

4344 Hardy St.

Lihue, HI 96766

San Diego

City of San Diego Central Library

330 Park Blvd.

San Diego, CA 92101

Maui

Kahului Public Library

90 School St.

Kahului, HI 96732

Coronado

Coronado Public Library

640 Orange Ave.

Coronado, CA 92118

Big Island

Hilo Public Library

300 Waianuenue Ave.

Hilo, HI 96720

Long Beach

Long Beach Main Library

101 Pacific Ave.

Long Beach, CA 90822
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

8-29

8.0 Public Involvement and Distribution

REFERENCES

California Department of Transportation. (2005). Guidance for Preparers of Cumulative Impact Analysis 

Approach and Guidance.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

8-30

8.0 Public Involvement and Distribution

This page intentionally left blank.
Appendix A: Navy Activity Descriptions

Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

A-i

Table of Contents

Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Overseas Environmental 

Impact Statement

Hawaii-Southern California Training and Testing

TABLE OF CONTENTS

A. NAVY ACTIVITY DESCRIPTIONS................................................................................................ A-1

A.1 Description of Sonar, Munitions, Targets, and Other Systems Employed in HawaiiSouthern California Training and Testing Events ........................................................ A-1

A.1.1 Sonar Systems and Other Acoustic Sources ..........................................................A-1

A.1.2 Munitions...............................................................................................................A-7

A.1.3 Targets .................................................................................................................A-11

A.1.4 Defensive Countermeasures................................................................................A-12

A.1.5 Mine Warfare Systems.........................................................................................A-13

A.1.6 Military Expended Materials................................................................................A-16

A.2 Training Activities................................................................................................... A-17

A.2.1 Major Training Exercises......................................................................................A-17

A.2.1.1 Composite Training Unit Exercise........................................................A-18

A.2.1.2 Rim of the Pacific Exercise ...................................................................A-20

A.2.1.3 Fleet Exercise/Sustainment Exercise ...................................................A-22

A.2.1.4 Undersea Warfare Exercise .................................................................A-24

A.2.2 Integrated/Coordinated Training.........................................................................A-26

A.2.2.1 Navy Undersea Warfare Training Assessment Course ........................A-26

A.2.2.2 Surface Warfare Advanced Tactical Training.......................................A-27

A.2.2.3 Submarine Commanders Course .........................................................A-30

A.2.2.4 Independent Deployer Certification Exercise/ Tailored Anti-Submarine 

Warfare Training..................................................................................A-32

A.2.2.5 Group Sail.............................................................................................A-34

A.2.3 Air Warfare Training.............................................................................................A-35

A.2.3.1 Air Combat Maneuver .........................................................................A-36

A.2.3.2 Air Defense Exercise ............................................................................A-37

A.2.3.3 Gunnery Exercise Air-to-Air Medium-Caliber......................................A-39

A.2.3.4 Gunnery Exercise Surface-to-Air Large-Caliber ...................................A-41

A.2.3.5 Gunnery Exercise Surface-to-Air Medium-Caliber...............................A-43

A.2.3.6 Missile Exercise Air-to-Air....................................................................A-45

A.2.3.7 Missile Exercise—Man Portable Air Defense System..........................A-47

A.2.3.8 Missile Exercise Surface-to-Air ............................................................A-49

A.2.4 Amphibious Warfare Training..............................................................................A-51
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

A-ii

Table of Contents

A.2.4.1 Amphibious Assault .............................................................................A-51

A.2.4.2 Amphibious Assault—Battalion Landing .............................................A-53

A.2.4.3 Amphibious Marine Expeditionary Unit Exercise ................................A-54

A.2.4.4 Amphibious Marine Expeditionary Unit Integration Exercise .............A-56

A.2.4.5 Amphibious Raid..................................................................................A-57

A.2.4.6 Amphibious Ready Group/Marine Expeditionary Unit Certification 

Exercise................................................................................................A-59

A.2.4.7 Expeditionary Fires Exercise/Supporting Arms Coordination ExerciseA-61

A.2.4.8 Humanitarian Assistance Operations..................................................A-62

A.2.4.9 Naval Surface Fire Support Exercise—At Sea ......................................A-64

A.2.4.10 Naval Surface Fire Support Exercise—Land-Based Target...................A-66

A.2.5 Anti-Submarine Warfare Training........................................................................A-67

A.2.5.1 Torpedo Exercise—Helicopter.............................................................A-68

A.2.5.2 Torpedo Exercise—Maritime Patrol Aircraft.......................................A-70

A.2.5.3 Torpedo Exercise—Ship.......................................................................A-72

A.2.5.4 Torpedo Exercise—Submarine ............................................................A-74

A.2.5.5 Tracking Exercise—Helicopter.............................................................A-76

A.2.5.6 Tracking Exercise—Maritime Patrol Aircraft .......................................A-78

A.2.5.7 Tracking Exercise—Submarine ............................................................A-80

A.2.5.8 Tracking Exercise—Ship.......................................................................A-82

A.2.5.10 Service Weapons Test..........................................................................A-84

A.2.6 Electronic Warfare ...............................................................................................A-86

A.2.6.1 Counter Targeting Chaff Exercise—Aircraft.........................................A-86

A.2.6.2 Counter Targeting Chaff Exercise—Ship..............................................A-88

A.2.6.3 Counter Targeting Flare Exercise.........................................................A-90

A.2.6.4 Electronic Warfare Operations............................................................A-92

A.2.7 Expeditionary Warfare.........................................................................................A-94

A.2.7.1 Dive and Salvage Operations...............................................................A-94

A.2.7.2 Personnel Insertion/Extraction—Surface and Subsurface ..................A-95

A.2.7.3 Personnel Insertion/Extraction Training—Swimmer/Diver.................A-96

A.2.7.4 Small Boat Attack.................................................................................A-97

A.2.8 Mine Warfare.......................................................................................................A-99

A.2.8.1 Airborne Mine Countermeasure—Mine Detection.............................A-99

A.2.8.2 Civilian Port Defense—Homeland Security Anti-Terrorism/Force 

Protection Exercise............................................................................A-101

A.2.8.3 Limpet Mine Neutralization System ..................................................A-103

A.2.8.4 Marine Mammal System....................................................................A-104

A.2.8.5 Mine Countermeasure Exercise—Ship Sonar....................................A-106
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

A-iii

Table of Contents

A.2.8.6 Mine Countermeasure Exercise – Surface.........................................A-108

A.2.8.7 Mine Countermeasures—Mine Neutralization: Remotely Operated 

Vehicle ...............................................................................................A-109

A.2.8.8 Mine Countermeasure—Towed Mine Neutralization.......................A-111

A.2.8.9 Mine Laying........................................................................................A-113

A.2.8.10 Mine Neutralization—Explosive Ordnance Disposal .........................A-115

A.2.8.12 Submarine Launched Mobile Mine Exercise......................................A-117

A.2.8.13 Submarine Mine Exercise ..................................................................A-118

A.2.8.14 Surface Ship Object Detection...........................................................A-120

A.2.8.15 Underwater Demolition Multiple Charge—Mat Weave and Obstacle 

Loading ..............................................................................................A-122

A.2.8.16 Underwater Demolition Qualification and Certification ...................A-124

A.2.9 Surface Warfare Training ...................................................................................A-125

A.2.9.1 Bombing Exercise Air-to-Surface .......................................................A-126

A.2.9.2 Gunnery Exercise Air-to-Surface Medium-Caliber.............................A-128

A.2.9.3 Gunnery Exercise Air-to-Surface Small-Caliber .................................A-130

A.2.9.4 Gunnery Exercise Surface-to-Surface Boat Medium-Caliber.............A-132

A.2.9.5 Gunnery Exercise Surface-to-Surface Boat Small-Caliber..................A-134

A.2.9.6 Gunnery Exercise Surface-to-Surface Ship Large-Caliber..................A-136

A.2.9.7 Gunnery Exercise Surface-to-Surface Ship Medium-Caliber .............A-138

A.2.9.8 Gunnery Exercise Surface-to-Surface Ship Small-Caliber..................A-140

A.2.9.9 Independent Deployer Certification Exercise/Tailored Surface Warfare 

Training..............................................................................................A-142

A.2.9.10 Integrated Live Fire............................................................................A-144

A.2.9.11 Laser Targeting—Aircraft...................................................................A-146

A.2.9.12 Maritime Security Operations ...........................................................A-148

A.2.9.13 Missile Exercise Air-to-Surface ..........................................................A-150

A.2.9.14 Missile Exercise Air-to-Surface—Rocket............................................A-152

A.2.9.15 Missile Exercise Surface-to-Surface...................................................A-154

A.2.9.16 Sinking Exercise..................................................................................A-156

A.2.10 Other Training Exercises....................................................................................A-158

A.2.10.1 Elevated Causeway System................................................................A-158

A.2.10.2 Kilo Dip...............................................................................................A-160

A.2.10.3 Offshore Petroleum Discharge ..........................................................A-162

A.2.10.4 Precision Anchoring ...........................................................................A-164

A.2.10.5 Submarine Navigation .......................................................................A-165

A.2.10.6 Submarine Sonar Maintenance and Systems Checks........................A-166

A.2.10.7 Submarine Under Ice Certification ....................................................A-167
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

A-iv

Table of Contents

A.2.10.8 Surf Zone Detachment/Equipment Test and Evaluation...................A-168

A.2.10.9 Surface Ship Sonar Maintenance and Systems Checks .....................A-169

A.2.10.10 Unmanned Aerial System Training and Certification ........................A-170

A.2.10.11 Unmanned Underwater Vehicle Training—Certification and 

Development.....................................................................................A-171

A.2.10.12 Waterborne Training .........................................................................A-173

A.3 Testing Activities....................................................................................................A-174

A.3.1 Naval Air Systems Command Testing Activities.................................................A-174

A.3.1.1 Air Warfare ........................................................................................A-175

A.3.1.2 Anti-Submarine Warfare....................................................................A-181

A.3.1.3 Electronic Warfare.............................................................................A-189

A.3.1.4 Mine Warfare.....................................................................................A-195

A.3.1.5 Surface Warfare.................................................................................A-205

A.3.1.6 Other Testing Activities......................................................................A-217

A.3.2 Naval Sea Systems Command Testing Activities................................................A-226

A.3.2.1 Anti-Submarine Warfare....................................................................A-226

A.3.2.2 Electronic Warfare.............................................................................A-239

A.3.2.3 Mine Warfare.....................................................................................A-241

A.3.2.4 Surface Warfare.................................................................................A-247

A.3.2.5 Unmanned Systems...........................................................................A-256

A.3.2.6 Vessel Evaluation...............................................................................A-260

A.3.2.7 Other Testing .....................................................................................A-272

A.3.3 Office of Naval Research Testing Activities........................................................A-277

A.3.3.1 Acoustic and Oceanographic Science and Technology......................A-277

A.3.4 Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command Testing Activities.......................A-281

A.3.4.1 Anti-Terrorism/Force Protection.......................................................A-282

A.3.4.2 Communications................................................................................A-283

A.3.4.3 Energy and Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance/Information 

Operations Sensor Systems...............................................................A-285

A.3.4.4 Vehicle Testing...................................................................................A-287

LIST OF TABLES

There are no tables in this Appendix.

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure A.1-1: Principle of an Active sonar..................................................................................................A-3
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

A-v

Table of Contents

Figure A.1-2: Guided Missile Destroyer with an AN/SQS-53 Sonar...........................................................A-4

Figure A.1-3: Submarine AN/BQQ-10 Active sonar Array..........................................................................A-4

Figure A.1-4: Sonobuoy ...............................................................................................................A-4

Figure A.1-5: Helicopter Deploys Dipping Sonar........................................................................................A-5

Figure A.1-6: Current United States Navy Torpedoes................................................................................A-5

Figure A.1-7: Anti-Submarine Warfare Targets .........................................................................................A-6

Figure A.1-8: Mine Warfare Systems.........................................................................................................A-6

Figure A.1-9: Shipboard Small Arms Training ............................................................................................A-8

Figure A.1-10: Shipboard Medium-Caliber Guns.......................................................................................A-8

Figure A.1-11: Shipboard Large-Caliber Gun and Projectiles.....................................................................A-8

Figure A.1-12: Rolling Airframe Missile and Air-to-Air Missile ..................................................................A-9

Figure A.1-13: Surface Missile Fired from MH-60 Helicopter....................................................................A-9

Figure A.1-14: F/A-18 Bomb Release and Loading General Purpose Bombs...........................................A-10

Figure A.1-15: Subscale Bombs for Training ............................................................................................A-10

Figure A.1-16: Deployment and Recovery of Air Warfare Targets..........................................................A-11

Figure A.1-17: Deploying a “Killer TomatoTM” Floating Target.................................................................A-12

Figure A.1-18: Ship Deployable Surface Target and High-Speed Maneuverable Seaborne Target.........A-12

Figure A.1-19: Acoustic Countermeasures...............................................................................................A-13

Figure A.1-20: Towed Mine Detection System ........................................................................................A-13

Figure A.1-21: AN/AES-1 Airborne Laser Mine Detection System...........................................................A-14

Figure A.1-22: Organic and Surface Influence Sweep..............................................................................A-15

Figure A.1-23: Airborne Mine Neutralization System..............................................................................A-15

Figure A.2-1: BQM-74 (Aerial Target)......................................................................................................A-46

Figure A.2-2: LUU-2B/B Illuminating Flare (Aerial Target).......................................................................A-46

Figure A.2-3: Tactical Air-Launched Decoy (Aerial Target) ......................................................................A-46
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

A-vi

Table of Contents

This page intentionally left blank.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

A-1

Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions

A. NAVY ACTIVITY DESCRIPTIONS

The Navy has been conducting military readiness activities throughout the in-water areas around the 

Hawaiian Islands and off the coast of Southern California for decades. The tempo and types of training 

and testing activities have fluctuated within the Hawaii-Southern California Training and Testing (HSTT)

Study Area (Study Area) due to changing requirements, the introduction of new technologies, the 

dynamic nature of international events, advances in warfighting doctrine and procedures, and force 

structure changes. Such developments have influenced the frequency, duration, intensity, and location 

of required training and testing.

A.1 DESCRIPTION OF SONAR, MUNITIONS, TARGETS, AND OTHER SYSTEMS 

EMPLOYED IN HAWAII-SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA TRAINING AND 

TESTING EVENTS

The Navy uses a variety of sensors, platforms, weapons, and other devices, including ones used to 

ensure the safety of Sailors and Marines, to meet its mission. Training and testing with these systems 

may have the potential to introduce acoustic (sound) energy and expended materials into the 

environment. The environmental impact of these activities was analyzed in Chapter 3 (Affected 

Environment and Environmental Consequences) of this Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)/Overseas 

Environmental Impact Statement (OEIS). This appendix presents and organizes sonar systems, 

munitions, targets, and other systems in a manner intended to facilitate understanding of both the 

activities that use them and the analysis of their environmental effects, described in Chapter 3 (Affected 

Environment and Environmental Consequences) of this EIS/OEIS. 

SONAR SYSTEMS AND OTHER ACOUSTIC SOURCES

Sonar. Sonar, originally an acronym for “SOund Navigation And Ranging,” is a technique that uses 

underwater sound to navigate, communicate, or detect underwater objects (the term sonar is also used 

for the equipment used to generate and receive sound). There are two basic types of sonar: active 

and passive. 

Active sonar emits sound waves that travel through the water, reflect off objects, and return to a

receiver. Sonar is used to determine the distance to an underwater object by calculating the speed of 

sound in water and the time for the sound wave to travel to the object and back. For example, active 

sonar systems are used to track targets or to aid in vessel navigation by identifying known ocean floor 

features. Some whales, dolphins, and bats use echolocation, a similar technique, to identify their 

surroundings and to locate prey.

Passive sonar uses listening equipment, such as underwater microphones (hydrophones) and receiving 

sensors on ships, submarines, aircraft, or autonomous vehicles, to pick up underwater sounds. The 

advantage of passive sonar is that it places no sound in the water, and thus does not reveal the location 

of the listening vessel. Passive sonar can indicate the presence, character, and direction noise-producing 

objects like ships and submarines; however, passive sonar is increasingly ineffective as modern 

submarines become quieter. Passive sonar has no potential acoustic impact on the environment, and 

therefore, is not discussed further or analyzed within this EIS/OEIS. 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

A-2

Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions

All sounds, including sonar, are categorized by frequency. For this EIS/OEIS, active sonar is categorized 

into four frequency ranges: low-frequency1, mid-frequency, high-frequency, and very high-frequency.

 Low-frequency active sonar emits sounds at frequencies less than 1 kilohertz (kHz). 

Low-frequency active sonar is useful for detecting objects at great distances because lowfrequency sounds do not dissipate as rapidly as higher frequency sounds.

 Mid-frequency active sonar emits sounds at frequencies from 1 to 10 kHz. Mid-frequency 

active sonar is the Navy’s primary tool for detecting and identifying submarines. Active 

sonar in this frequency range provides a valuable combination of range and target accuracy.

 High-frequency active sonar emits sounds at frequencies greater than 10 kHz, up to 100 kHz. 

High-frequency sounds dissipate rapidly and have a small effective range; however, highfrequency sounds provide higher resolution of objects and are useful at detecting and 

identifying smaller objects such as sea mines. 

 Very high-frequency sources are those that operate above 100 kHz but below 200 kHz.

Modern sonar technology includes a variety of sonar sensor and processing systems. In concept, the 

simplest active sonar emits sound waves, or “pings,” sent out in multiple directions and the sound 

waves then reflect off of the target object in multiple directions (Figure A.1-1). The sonar source 

calculates the time it takes for reflected sound waves to return; this calculation determines the distance 

to the target object. More sophisticated active sonars emit a ping and then rapidly scan or listen to the 

sound waves in a specific area. This provides both distance to the target and directional information. 

Even more advanced sonars use multiple receivers to listen to echoes from several directions 

simultaneously and provide efficient detection of both direction and distance. It should be noted that 

active sonar is rarely used continuously throughout the listed activities. In addition, when sonar is in use, 

the sonar ”pings” occur at intervals, referred to as a duty cycle, and the signals themselves are very 

short in duration. For example, a sonar that emits a 1-second ping every 10 seconds has a 10 percent 

duty cycle.

The Navy utilizes sonar systems and other acoustic sensors in support of a variety of mission 

requirements. Primary uses include detection of and defense against submarines (anti-submarine 

warfare) and mines (mine warfare), safe navigation and effective communications, and oceanographic 

surveys. Specific examples of how sonar systems are used for Navy activities are discussed in the

following sections.

 

1 Surveillance Towed Array Sensor System (SURTASS) Low-Frequency Active sonar, which may be used in the Study Area, is not 

among the sources analyzed in this document. The potential environmental impacts from use of SURTASS Low-Frequency 

Active sonar are analyzed in separate analyses under the National Environmental Policy Act.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

A-3

Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions

Figure A.1-1: Principle of an Active sonar

Anti-Submarine Warfare. Systems used in anti-submarine warfare include sonars, torpedoes, and 

acoustic countermeasure devices. These systems are employed from a variety of platforms (surface 

ships, submarines, helicopters, and fixed-wing aircraft). Surface ships conducting anti-submarine 

warfare are typically equipped with hull-mounted sonar (passive and active) for the detection of 

submarines (or submarine targets during training and testing events). Helicopters use dipping sonar or 

sonobuoys (passive and active) to locate submarines (or targets). Fixed-wing aircraft deploy both active 

and passive expendable sonobuoys to assist in detecting and tracking submarines (or targets). 

Submarines are equipped with hull-mounted sonars to detect, localize, and track other submarines and 

surface ships. Submarines primarily use passive sonar; active sonar is used mostly for navigation. There 

are also unmanned vehicles currently being developed to deploy anti-submarine warfare systems. 

Anti-submarine warfare activities often use mid-frequency (1 to 10 kHz) active sonar, though lowfrequency and high-frequency active sonar systems are also used for specialized purposes. The Navy is 

currently developing and testing sonar systems that may utilize lower frequencies and longer duty 

cycles—albeit at lower source levels—than current systems. However, these new systems would only be 

operational if they significantly increase the Navy’s ability to detect and identify quiet submarine 

threats.

Typical active sonar systems and acoustic sensors used during anti-submarine warfare sonar training and 

testing exercises include the following:

Surface Ship Sonar Systems: A variety of surface ships operate hull-mounted mid-frequency active 

sonar during training exercises and testing activities (Figure A.1-2). Typically, only cruisers and 

destroyers have surface ship sonar systems. Unmanned surface vessels can also include sonar systems, 

such as the variable depth sonar and mine hunting sonar. 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

A-4

Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions

Figure A.1-2: Guided Missile Destroyer with an AN/SQS-53 Sonar

Submarine Sonar Systems: Submarines are equipped with hull-mounted mid-frequency and highfrequency active sonar (Figure A.1-3) used to detect and target enemy submarines and surface ships. A 

submarine’s mission relies on its stealth; therefore, a submarine uses its active sonar sparingly because 

each sound emission gives away the submarine’s location. 

Figure A.1-3: Submarine AN/BQQ-10 Active sonar Array

Aircraft Sonar Systems: Aircraft sonar systems include sonobuoys and dipping sonars. 

 Sonobuoys: Active sonobuoys are expendable devices that contain a data transmitter and a 

hydrophone. The sounds collected by the sonobuoy are transmitted back to the operator 

(aboard ship or aircraft) for analysis. Sonobuoys allow for short and long-range detection of 

surface ships and submarines. These systems are deployed by ship, helicopter, and fixed-wing 

patrol aircraft (Figure A.1-4).

Figure A.1-4: Sonobuoy
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

A-5

Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions

 Dipping Sonars: Dipping sonars are recoverable devices lowered into the water via cable from 

manned and unmanned helicopters (Figure A.1-5). The sonar detects underwater targets and 

determines the distance and movement of the target relative to the position of the helicopter. 

Figure A.1-5: Helicopter Deploys Dipping Sonar

Exercise Torpedoes: Some torpedoes used in training and testing activities may transmit active sonar 

signals. Surface ships, aircraft, and submarines primarily use torpedoes in anti-submarine warfare 

(Figure A.1-6). Recoverable, non-explosive torpedoes, categorized as either lightweight or heavyweight, 

are used during training and testing. Torpedoes operate autonomously, or in the case of heavyweight 

torpedoes, use a guidance system to operate the torpedo remotely through an attached wire (guidance 

wire). The autonomous guidance systems operate either passively (listening for sounds generated by the 

target) or actively (pinging to search for the target). Torpedo training in the Study Area is mostly 

simulated—solid masses that approximate the weight and shape of a torpedo are fired, rather than fully 

functional torpedoes. Testing in the Study Area mostly uses fully functional exercise torpedoes.

Figure A.1-6: Current United States Navy Torpedoes

Anti-Submarine Warfare Targets: Anti-submarine warfare training targets are autonomous undersea 

vehicles used to simulate target submarines (Figure A.1-7). The training targets are equipped with one 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

A-6

Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions

or more of the following devices: (1) acoustic projectors emitting sounds to simulate submarine acoustic 

signatures, (2) echo repeaters to simulate the characteristics of the echo of a sonar signal reflected from 

a submarine, and (3) magnetic sources that mimic those of a submarine.

Figure A.1-7: Anti-Submarine Warfare Targets

(Source: Graphic on right side from Lockheed Martin)

Mine Warfare. Mine warfare training and testing activities use a variety of different sonar systems that 

are typically high frequency (greater than 10 kHz) and very high frequency (greater than 100 kHz). These 

sonar systems are used to detect, locate, and characterize moored and bottom mines (Figure A.1-8). The 

majority of mine warfare sonar sensors can be deployed by more than one platform (e.g., helicopter, 

unmanned underwater vehicle, or surface ship) and may be interchangeable among platforms. Surface 

ships and submarines use sonar to detect mines and objects, while minesweeping ships use a specialized 

variable-depth mine detection and classification high-frequency active sonar system to detect mines. 

Figure A.1-8: Mine Warfare Systems
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

A-7

Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions

Safety, Navigation, Communications, and Oceanographic Systems. Naval ships, submarines, and 

unmanned surface and subsurface vehicles rely on equipment and instrumentation that use active sonar 

during both routine operations and training and testing events. Sonar systems are used to gauge water 

depth, detect and map objects, navigational hazards, and the ocean floor, and transmit 

communication signals.

Other Acoustic Systems. The Navy uses a variety of other acoustic sensors to protect ships anchored or 

at the pier, as well as shore facilities. These systems, both active and passive, detect potentially hostile 

swimmers, broadcast warnings to alert Navy divers of potential hazards, and gather information 

regarding ocean characteristics (ocean currents and wave measurements). They are generally stationary 

systems in Navy harbors and piers. Navy marine mammals (Atlantic bottlenose dolphins [Tursiops 

truncatus] and California sea lions [Zalophus californianus]) are also used to detect hostile swimmers 

around Navy facilities. A trained animal is deployed under behavioral control of a handler to find an 

intruding swimmer. Upon finding the “target” of the search, the animal returns to the boat and alerts 

the animal handlers, and the animals are given a localization marker or leg cuff that they attach to the 

intruder. Swimmers that have been marked with a leg cuff are reeled in by security support boat 

personnel via a line attached to the cuff. In addition, the Navy’s research and acquisition community 

uses sensors for a variety of tests, including tracking during testing activities and collecting data for 

test analysis.

MUNITIONS

Most ordnance and munitions used during training and testing events fall into three basic categories: 

projectiles, missiles, and bombs. Ordnance can be further defined by their net explosive weight, which is 

the actual weight in pounds of the explosive substance without the packaging, casings, bullets, etc. Net 

explosive weight is also the trinitrotoluene (TNT) equivalent of energetic material, which is the standard 

measure of strength of bombs and other explosives. For example, a 2,000-pound (lb.) (907 kilogram [kg]) 

bomb may have anywhere from 600 to 1,000 lb. of net explosive weight.

Projectiles. Projectiles are fired during gunnery exercises and testing events from a variety of weapons, 

including pistols and rifles to large-caliber, turret-mounted guns on the decks of Navy ships. Projectiles 

can be either high-explosive munitions (e.g., certain gun shells), or non-explosive practice munitions 

(e.g., rifle/pistol bullets). Explosive rounds can be fused to either explode on impact or in the air (i.e., 

just prior to impact). Projectiles are broken down into three basic categories in this EIS/OEIS:

 Small-Caliber Projectiles: These projectiles are up to and including .50-caliber (approximately 

1/2 inch [in.] diameter). Small-caliber projectiles (e.g., bullets), are primarily fired from pistols, 

rifles, and machine guns (i.e., small arms) and mostly during training events for an individual 

Sailor to become and remain proficient (Figure A.1-9).
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

A-8

Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions

Figure A.1-9: Shipboard Small Arms Training

 Medium-Caliber Projectiles: These projectiles are larger than .50-caliber, but smaller than 

57 millimeter (mm) (approximately 2-1/4 in. diameter). The most common size medium-caliber 

projectiles are 20 mm, 25 mm, and 40 mm. Medium-caliber projectiles are fired from machine 

guns operated by one to two crewman and mounted on the deck of a ship, wing-mounted guns 

on aircraft, and fully automated guns mounted on ships for defense against missile attack 

(Figure A.1-10). Medium-caliber projectiles also include 40 mm grenades, which can be fired 

from hand-held grenade launchers or crew-served deck-mounted guns. Medium-caliber 

projectiles can be non-explosive practice munitions or high-explosive projectiles. High-explosive 

projectiles are usually fused to detonate on impact; however, advanced high-explosive 

projectiles can detonate based on time, distance, or proximity to a target.

Figure A.1-10: Shipboard Medium-Caliber Guns

 Large-Caliber Projectiles: These includes projectiles 57 mm and larger. The largest projectile 

currently in service has a 5 in. diameter, but larger weapons are under development. The most 

widely used large-caliber projectiles are 57 mm, and 5 in. (12.7 cm) (Figure A.1-11). The most 

common 5 in. projectile is approximately 26 in. (66 cm) long and weighs 70 lb. Large-caliber 

projectiles are fired exclusively from turret-mounted guns located on ship decks and can be 

used to fire on surface ships and boats, in defense against missiles and aircraft, and against landbased targets. Large-caliber projectiles can be non-explosive practice munitions or highexplosive munitions. High-explosive projectiles can detonate on impact or in the air. 

Figure A.1-11: Shipboard Large-Caliber Gun and Projectiles
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

A-9

Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions

Missiles. Missiles are rocket or jet-propelled munitions used to attack ships, aircraft, and land-based 

targets, as well as defend ships against other missiles. Guidance systems and advanced fusing 

technology ensure that missiles reliably impact on or detonate near their intended target. Missiles are 

categorized according to their intended target, as described below, and can be further classified 

according to net explosive weight. Rockets are included within the category of missiles.

 Air Missiles: Air missiles are fired from ships and aircraft against enemy aircraft and incoming 

missiles (Figure A.1-12). Air missiles are configured to explode in the air near, or on impact with 

their intended target. Missiles are the primary ship-based defense against incoming missiles.

Figure A.1-12: Rolling Airframe Missile and Air-to-Air Missile 

 Surface Missiles: Surface missiles are fired from aircraft, ships, and submarines against surface 

ships (Figure A.1-13). Surface missiles are typically configured to detonate on impact or just 

above the intended target. 

Figure A.1-13: Surface Missile Fired from MH-60 Helicopter

 Strike Missiles: Strike missiles are fired from aircraft, ships, and submarines against land-based 

targets. Strike missiles are typically configured to detonate on impact or near their intended 

target. The AGM-88 High-Speed Anti-Radiation Missile, used to destroy enemy radar sites, is an 

example of a strike missile used during at-sea training, and is fired at a floating sea-borne target 

that replicates a land-based radar site. 

Bombs. Bombs are unpowered munitions dropped from aircraft on land and water targets. The majority 

of bombs used during training and testing in the Study Area are non-explosive. However, explosive 

munitions are occasionally used for proficiency inspections and testing requirements. Bombs fall into
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

A-10

Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions

two categories: general-purpose bombs and subscale practice bombs. Similar to missiles, bombs are 

further classified according to their net explosive weights.

 General-Purpose Bombs: General-purpose bombs consist of precision-guided and unguided fullscale bombs, ranging in size from 250 to 2,000 lb. (Figure A.1-14). Common bomb nomenclature 

used includes: MK 80 series, which is the Navy’s standard model; Guided Bomb Units and Joint 

Direct Attack Munitions, which are precision guided (including laser guided) bombs; and the 

Joint Standoff weapon, which is a long-range “glider” precision weapon. General-purpose 

bombs can be either non-explosive practice munitions or high-explosive.

Figure A.1-14: F/A-18 Bomb Release and Loading General Purpose Bombs 

 Subscale Bombs: Subscale bombs (Figure A.1-15) are non-explosive practice munitions 

containing a spotting (smoke) charge to aid in scoring the accuracy of hitting the target during 

training and testing activities. Common subscale bombs are 25 lb. and less and are steelconstructed. Laser guided training rounds are another variation of a subscale practice bomb. 

They weigh approximately 100 lb. and are cost-effective non-explosive weapons used in training 

aircrew in laser-guided weapons employment. 

Figure A.1-15: Subscale Bombs for Training

Other Munitions. There are other munitions used in naval at-sea training and testing events that do not 

fit into one of the above categories, and are discussed below:

 Demolition Charges: Divers place explosive charges in the marine environment during some 

training and testing activities. These activities may include the use of timed charges, in which 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

A-11

Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions

the charge is placed, a timer is started, and the charge detonates at the set time. Munitions of 

up to 60-lb. blocks of composition 4 (C-4) plastic explosive, with the necessary detonators and 

cords, are used to support mine neutralization, demolition, and other warfare activities. All 

demolition charges are further classified according to the net explosive weight of the charge.

 Torpedoes: Explosive torpedoes are required in some training and testing events. Torpedoes are 

described as either lightweight or heavyweight and are further categorized according to the net 

explosive weight.

 Extended Echo Ranging Sonobuoys: Extended Echo Ranging sonobuoys include Improved 

Extended Echo Ranging sonobuoys and mini sound-source seeker sonobuoys that use explosive 

charges as the active sound source instead of electrically produced sounds.

TARGETS

Training and testing require an assortment of realistic and challenging targets. Targets vary from items 

as simple and ordinary as an empty steel drum used for small-caliber weapons training from the deck of 

a ship, to sophisticated, unmanned aerial drones used in air defense training. For this EIS/OEIS, targets

are organized by warfare area.

Air Warfare Targets: Air warfare targets, tow target systems, and aerial targets, are used in training and 

testing events that involve detection, tracking, defending against, and attacking enemy missiles and 

aircraft. Aerial tow target systems include textile (nylon banner) and rigid (fiberglass shapes) towed 

targets used for gunnery events. Aerial targets include expendable rocket powered missiles and 

recoverable radio-controlled drones used for gunnery and missile exercises (Figure A.1-16). Parachute 

flares are used as air-to-air missile targets. Manned high-performance aircraft may be used as targets—

to test ship and aircraft defensive systems and procedures—without the actual firing of munitions.

Figure A.1-16: Deployment and Recovery of Air Warfare Targets

Surface Warfare Targets: Stationary and towed targets are used as surface warfare targets during 

gunnery events. Targets include floating steel drums, inflatable shapes or target balloons (e.g., Killer 

TomatoTM) (Figure A.1-17), and towed sleds. Remote-controlled, high-speed targets, such as jet skis and 

motorboats, are also used (Figure A.1-18).
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

A-12

Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions

Figure A.1-17: Deploying a “Killer TomatoTM” Floating Target

Figure A.1-18: Ship Deployable Surface Target and High-Speed Maneuverable Seaborne 

Target 

Anti-Submarine Warfare Targets: Anti-submarine warfare uses multiple types of targets, including 

the following:

 Submarines: Submarines may act as tracking and detection targets during training and 

testing events.

 Motorized Autonomous Targets: Motorized autonomous targets simulate the acoustic and 

magnetic characteristics of a submarine, providing realism for exercises when a submarine is not 

available. These mobile targets resemble torpedoes, with some models designed for recovery 

and reuse, while other models are expendable.

 Stationary Artificial Targets: Stationary targets either resemble submarine hulls or are 

simulated systems with acoustic properties of enemy submarines. These targets either rest on 

the seafloor or are suspended at varying depths in the water column.

DEFENSIVE COUNTERMEASURES

Naval forces depend on effective defensive countermeasures to protect against missile and torpedo 

attack. Defensive countermeasures are devices designed to confuse, distract, and confound precisionguided munitions. Defensive countermeasures fall into three basic categories:

 Chaff: Chaff consists of reflective, aluminum-coated glass fibers used to obscure ships and 

aircraft from radar-guided systems. Chaff, which is stored in canisters, is either dispensed from 

aircraft or fired into the air from the decks of surface ships when an attack is imminent. The 

glass fibers create a radar cloud that masks the position of the ship or aircraft.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

A-13

Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions

 Flares: Flares are pyrotechnic devices used to defend against heat-seeking missiles, where the 

missile seeks out the heat signature from the flare rather than the aircraft's engines. Similar to 

chaff, flares are also dispensed from aircraft and fired from ships.

 Acoustic Countermeasures: Acoustic countermeasures are used by surface ships and 

submarines to defend against torpedo attack (Figure A.1-19). Acoustic countermeasures are 

either released from ships and submarines or towed at a distance behind the ship. Some 

systems also include electromagnetic countermeasure capabilities.

Figure A.1-19: Acoustic Countermeasures

MINE WARFARE SYSTEMS

Mine warfare systems fall into two broad categories: mine detection and mine neutralization.

Mine Detection Systems. Mine detection systems are used to locate, classify, and map suspected mines. 

Once located, the mines can either be neutralized or avoided. These systems are specialized to either 

locate mines on the surface, in the water column, or on the seafloor.

 Towed or Hull-Mounted Mine Detection Systems: These detection systems use acoustic and 

laser or video sensors to locate and classify suspect mines. Helicopters, ships, and unmanned 

vehicles are used for towed systems, which can rapidly assess large areas (Figure A.1-20).

Figure A.1-20: Towed Mine Detection System
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

A-14

Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions

 Airborne Laser Mine Detection Systems: Airborne laser detection systems work in concert with 

neutralization systems. The detection system initially locates mines and a neutralization system 

is then used to relocate and neutralize the mine (Figure A.1-21).

Figure A.1-21: AN/AES-1 Airborne Laser Mine Detection System

 Unmanned/Remotely Operated Vehicles: These vehicles use acoustic and video or lasers to 

locate and classify mines. Unmanned/remotely operated vehicles provide unique mine warfare 

capabilities in nearshore littoral areas, surf zones, ports, and channels.

 Marine Mammal System: Navy personnel and Navy marine mammals work together to detect 

specified underwater objects. The Navy deploys trained bottlenose dolphins and California sea 

lions as part of the marine mammal minehunting and object recovery system.

Mine Neutralization Systems. These systems disrupt, disable, or detonate mines to clear ports and 

shipping lanes, as well as littoral, surf, and beach areas in support of naval amphibious operations. Mine 

neutralization systems can clear individual mines or a large number of mines quickly.

 Towed Influence Mine Sweep Systems: These systems use towed equipment that mimic a 

particular ship’s magnetic and acoustic signature triggering the mine and causing it to explode 

(Figure A.1-22).
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

A-15

Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions

Figure A.1-22: Organic and Surface Influence Sweep

 Towed Mechanical Mine Sweeping Systems: These systems tow a sweep wire to snag the line 

that attaches a moored mine to its anchor and then uses a series of cables and cutters to sever 

those lines. Once these lines are cut, the mines float to the surface where explosive ordnance 

personnel can neutralize the mines.

 Unmanned/Remotely Operated Mine Neutralization Systems: Surface ship and helicopters 

operate these systems, which place explosive charges near or directly against mines to destroy 

the mine (Figure A.1-23). 

Figure A.1-23: Airborne Mine Neutralization System

 Projectiles: Small- and medium-caliber projectiles fired from surface ships or hovering 

helicopters are used to neutralize floating and near-surface mines.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

A-16

Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions

 Diver Emplaced Explosive Charges: Operating from small craft, divers place explosive charges, 

which may use time delay fusing, near or on mines to destroy the mine or disrupt its ability 

to function.

MILITARY EXPENDED MATERIALS

Navy training and testing events may introduce or expend various items, such as non-explosive 

munitions and targets, into the marine environment as a direct result of using these items for their 

intended purpose. In addition to the items described below, some accessory materials—related to the 

carriage or release of these items—may be released. These materials, referred to as military expended 

materials, are not recovered, and potentially result in environmental impacts. These impacts are 

analyzed in detail in Chapter 3 (Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences) of this 

EIS/OEIS. This section includes descriptions of a representative sample of military expended materials. 

A more comprehensive discussion can be found in Chapter 3 (Affected Environment and 

Environmental Consequences).

Military expended materials analyzed in this document include the following:

 Sonobuoys: Sonobuoys consist of decelerators/parachutes, wires, and the 

sonobuoys themselves.

 Bathythermographs: Bathythermographs as used by the Navy are similar to sonobuoys in that 

they consist of decelerators/parachutes, wires, and the buoy themselves. In the case of 

bathythermographs, the buoys are used to measure temperature information of the water 

column and transmit that information to the platform (usually a ship or aircraft) that deployed 

the bathythermograph.

 Torpedo Launch Accessories: Torpedoes are usually recovered; however, materials such as 

decelerators/parachutes used with air-dropped torpedoes, guidance wire used with submarinelaunched torpedoes, and ballast weights are expended. Explosive filled torpedoes expend 

torpedo fragments.

 Projectiles and Bombs: Non-explosive projectiles, non-explosive bombs, or fragments from 

explosive projectiles and bombs are expended during training and testing exercises. These items 

are primarily constructed of lead (most small-caliber projectiles) or steel (medium- and largecaliber projectiles and all bombs).

 Missiles and Rockets: Non-explosive missiles and missile fragments from explosive missiles are 

expended during training and testing events. Propellant, and any explosive material involved, is 

consumed during firing/detonation. Some missiles include a wire, which is also expended. 

Rockets are similar to missiles and both non-explosive and fragments may be expended.

 Countermeasures: Countermeasures (acoustic, chaff, flares, biodegradable polymer) are 

expended as a result of training exercises, with the exception of towed acoustic 

countermeasures. Chaff activities also include an expended canister, end caps, and pistons. 

Flares expend only end caps and pistons. 

 Targets: Some targets are designed to be expended; other targets, such as aerial drones and 

remote-controlled boats, are recovered for re-use. Targets struck with ordnance will result in 

target fragments.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

A-17

Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions

A.2 TRAINING ACTIVITIES

The Navy’s training activities are organized generally into eight primary mission areas and a 

miscellaneous category (Other Training) that includes those activities that do not fall within a primary 

mission area, but are an essential part of Navy training. In addition, because the Navy conducts a 

number of activities within larger training exercises, descriptions of those larger exercises are also 

included here. It is important to note that these larger exercises are comprised entirely of individual 

activities described in the primary mission areas.

MAJOR TRAINING EXERCISES

A major training exercise is comprised of several “unit level” range exercises conducted by several units 

operating together while commanded and controlled by a single commander. These exercises typically 

employ an exercise scenario developed to train and evaluate the strike group in naval tactical tasks. In a 

major training exercise, most of the operations and activities being directed and coordinated by the 

strike group commander are identical in nature to the operations conducted during individual, crew, and 

smaller-unit training events. In a major training exercise, however, these disparate training tasks are 

conducted in concert, rather than in isolation.

Major training exercises are listed below.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

A-18

Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions

Composite Training Unit Exercise

Major Training Exercises—Large Integrated Anti-Submarine Warfare

Composite Training Unit Exercise

Short 

Description

Aircraft carrier and carrier air wing integrates 

with surface and submarine units in a 

challenging multi-threat operational 

environment that certifies them ready to deploy.

Typical Duration

21 days

Long 

Description

Intermediate level carrier strike exercise designed to create a cohesive Strike Group prior to 

deployment or Joint Task Force Exercise. Typically seven surface ships, fixed-wing and rotarywing aircraft, two submarines, and various unmanned vehicles.

Each strike group performs a rehearsal called Composite Training Unit Exercise before 

deployment. Prior to the Composite Training Unit Exercise, each ship and aircraft in the strike 

group trains in their specialty. The Composite Training Unit Exercise is an intermediate-level 

strike group exercise designed to forge the group into a cohesive fighting team. Composite 

Training Unit Exercise normally consists of an 18-day schedule of event driven exercise, and a 

three-day Final Battle Problem. 

The Composite Training Unit Exercise is an integration phase, at-sea, major training exercise. 

For the Carrier Strike Group, this exercise integrates the aircraft carrier and carrier air wing 

with surface and submarine units in a challenging operational environment. Special operations 

training may also be integrated with the exercise scenario.

For Composite Training Unit Exercise only, the anti-submarine warfare activities were analyzed 

as a Composite Training Unit Exercise. Other warfare area training conducted during the 

Composite Training Unit Exercise is analyzed elsewhere as unit-level training (e.g., gunnery 

exercise, missile exercise)

Typical 

Components

Platforms: Aircraft carrier, fixed-wing aircraft, rotary-wing aircraft, submarines, surface 

combatant

Targets: Sub-surface targets; surface targets

Systems being Trained/Tested: Low-frequency sonar, mid-frequency sonar, high-frequency 

sonar

Standard 

Operating 

Procedures

(Section 

2.3.3)

Vessel safety

Aircraft safety

High-powered laser 

safety

Weapons firing safety

Unmanned aerial, 

surface, and 

subsurface vehicle 

safety

Towed in-water device 

safety

Typical Locations

Range Complexes/Testing 

Ranges:

Southern California Range 

Complex

Bays/Estuaries/Pierside:

None

Stressors to 

Biological 

Resources

Acoustic::

Sonar and other 

transducers

Aircraft noise

Vessel noise

Weapons noise

Explosive:

Explosions in air

Explosions in water

Physical Disturbance and Strike: 

Aircraft and aerial targets

Vessels and in-water devices

Military expended materials

Seafloor devices

Ingestion:

Military expended materials –

munitions

Military expended materials – other 

than munitions

Energy:

In-water electromagnetic 

devices

In-air electromagnetic 

devices

Entanglement: 

Wires and cables

Decelerators/parachutes
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

A-19

Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions

Major Training Exercises—Large Integrated Anti-Submarine Warfare

Composite Training Unit Exercise

Stressors to 

Physical 

Resources

Air Quality:

Criteria air pollutants

Sediments and Water Quality:

Chemicals

Metals

Stressors to 

Human 

Resources

Cultural Resources: 

Explosives

Physical disturbance and 

strike

Socioeconomic Resources: 

Accessibility

Airborne acoustics

Physical disturbance and strike

Public Health and Safety: 

Underwater energy

Physical interactions

Military 

Expended 

Material

Ingestible Material:

Small decelerators/parachutes

Non-Ingestible Material:

Acoustic countermeasures, 

expendable bathythermograph, 

expendable bathythermographs 

wires, sonobuoys (non-explosive), 

sonobuoy wire

Military 

Recoverable 

Material

Sub-surface targets

Surface targets

Sonar and 

Other 

Transducer 

Bins

Low-Frequency: 

LF6

Mid-Frequency: 

MF1

MF3 MF11

MF4 MF12

MF5

High-Frequency: 

HF1

Anti-Submarine Warfare: 

ASW1 ASW4

ASW2 ASW5

ASW3

Explosive 

Bins

Analyzed in individual warfare events

Procedural 

Mitigation

Measures

Acoustic Stressors: (section 5.3.2)

Active sonar

Physical Disturbance and Strike: (section 5.3.4)

Vessel movement

Towed in-water devices

Assumptions 

Used for 

Analysis

For Composite Training Unit Exercise only, the anti-submarine warfare activities were analyzed 

as a Composite Training Unit Exercise. Other warfare area training conducted during the 

Composite Training Unit Exercise is analyzed elsewhere as unit-level training (gunnery 

exercise, missile exercise, etc.)
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

A-20

Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions

Rim of the Pacific Exercise

Major Training Exercises

Rim of the Pacific Exercise

Short 

Description

A biennial multinational training exercise in 

which navies from Pacific Rim nations and the 

United Kingdom assemble in Pearl Harbor, 

Hawaii, to conduct training in a number of 

warfare areas throughout the Hawaiian Islands. 

Marine mammal systems may be used during a 

Rim of the Pacific exercise. Components of Rim 

of the Pacific may be conducted in the Southern 

California Range Complex.

Typical Duration

30 Days

Long 

Description

Rim of the Pacific is the world's largest multinational maritime exercise, typically lasting four to 

five weeks. Hosted by Commander, Pacific Fleet, the exercise is scheduled in the summer on 

even years. Rim of the Pacific includes participation by multiple nations (in 2016 included 26

nations, 45 ships, 5 submarines, more than 200 aircraft, and 25,000 personnel). The exercise 

typically consists of three major phases. Phase I, the Harbor Phase, will consist of operational 

planning meetings, safety briefings, and sporting events. This phase is designed to make final 

preparations for the at-sea phases of the exercises, as well as build on professional and 

personal relationships between the participating countries. Phase II, the Operational Phase, is 

driven by a structured schedule of events. This portion may include live-fire gunnery and 

missile exercises, maritime interdiction and vessel boarding, surface warfare, undersea 

warfare, naval maneuvers, air defense exercises, as well as explosive ordnance disposal, diving 

and salvage operations, mine clearance operations, and an amphibious landing. This phase 

exercises the ability of each nation to conduct robust command and control operations with 

multinational players and enhances each unit's operational capabilities. Phase III, the Tactical 

Phase of the exercise, is scenario-driven. The intense training during this phase allows 

participating nations to further strengthen their maritime skills and capabilities and improve 

their ability to communicate and operate in simulated hostile scenarios. This phase concludes 

with the ships' return to Pearl Harbor, where participating nations will reconvene to discuss the 

exercise and overall accomplishments.

Typical 

Components

Platforms: Aircraft carrier, combat logistics, fixed-wing aircraft, mine warfare ship, rotary-wing 

aircraft, submarines, surface combatant, unmanned aerial systems, unmanned surface vehicle,

unmanned underwater vehicle

Targets: Aerial targets; sub-surface targets; surface targets

Systems being Trained/Tested: Mid-frequency sonar, high-frequency sonar, acoustic modems

Standard 

Operating 

Procedures

(Section 

2.3.3)

Vessel safety

Aircraft safety

High-powered laser 

safety

Weapons firing safety

Swimmer defense 

activity safety

Unmanned aerial, 

surface, and 

subsurface vehicle 

safety

Towed in-water device 

safety

Typical Locations

Range Complexes/Testing Ranges:

Hawaii Range Complex

Silver Strand Training Complex

Southern California Range Complex

Bays/Estuaries/Pierside:

Pearl Harbor

Kawaihae Harbor

San Diego Bay

Stressors to 

Biological 

Acoustic:

Sonar and other 

Physical Disturbance and Strike: 

Aircraft and aerial targets

Energy:

In-water electromagnetic 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

A-21

Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions

Major Training Exercises

Rim of the Pacific Exercise

Resources transducers

Aircraft noise

Vessel noise

Weapons noise

Explosive:

Explosions in air

Explosions in water

Vessels and in-water devices

Military expended materials

Seafloor devices

Ingestion:

Military expended materials –

munitions

Military expended materials – other 

than munitions

devices

In-air electromagnetic 

devices

Entanglement: 

Wires and cables

Decelerators/parachutes

Stressors to 

Physical 

Resources

Air Quality:

Criteria air pollutants

Sediments and Water Quality:

Chemicals

Metals Other materials

Stressors to 

Human 

Resources

Cultural Resources: 

Explosives

Physical disturbance and 

strike

Socioeconomic Resources: 

Accessibility

Airborne acoustics

Physical disturbance and strike

Public Health and Safety: 

Underwater energy

In-air energy

Physical interactions

Military 

Expended 

Material

Ingestible Material:

Small decelerators/parachutes 

Non-Ingestible Material:

Acoustic countermeasures, 

sonobuoys (non-explosive), 

sonobuoy wires

Military 

Recoverable 

Material

None

Sonar and 

Other 

Transducer 

Bins

Mid-Frequency: 

MF1

MF3 MF11

MF4

MF5

High-Frequency: 

HF1

HF3

HF4

Anti-Submarine Warfare: 

ASW2

ASW3

ASW4

Acoustic Modems: 

M3

Explosive 

Bins

None

Procedural 

Mitigation

Measures

Acoustic Stressors: (section 5.3.2)

Active sonar

Physical Disturbance and Strike: (section 

5.3.4)

Vessel movement

Towed in-water devices

Assumptions 

Used for 

Analysis

All Military Expended Material, ordnance, explosives, and sonar use is included in individual 

events.

Potential locations for this activity include Hawaii Range Complex (Hawaii Operating Area), 

Silver Strand Training Complex (amphibious beaching area), and Southern California Range 

Complex (Tanner Bank Minefield, Camp Pendleton Amphibious Assault Area, and Advanced 

Research Projects Agency Training Minefield).
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

A-22

Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions

Fleet Exercise/Sustainment Exercise

Included in the Fleet Response Training Plan is a requirement to conduct post-deployment training, and 

maintenance. This ensures that the components of a strike group maintain an acceptable level of 

readiness after returning from deployment. A sustainment exercise is an exercise designed to challenge 

the strike group in all warfare areas. Marine mammal systems may be used during the exercise. This 

exercise is similar to a Composite Training Unit Exercise but is of shorter duration. 

Major Training Exercises—Medium Integrated Anti-Submarine Warfare

Fleet Exercise/Sustainment Exercise

Short 

Description

Aircraft carrier and carrier air wing integrates 

with surface and submarine units in a 

challenging multi-threat operational 

environment to maintain ability to deploy.

Typical Duration

Up to 10 days

Long 

Description

Fleet Exercises and Sustainment Exercises are similar in scope to Composite Training Unit 

Exercises but shorter in duration and use fewer active sonar hours. Fleet Exercises are 

integrated joint and coalition training events designed to maintain proficiency across 

maritime warfare disciplines. Sustainment Exercises are conducted to ensure that Carrier 

Strike Group maintains an acceptable level of readiness after returning from deployment in 

order to maintain a surge capability. Marine mammal systems may be used during the 

exercise.

All military expended materials, ordnance, explosives, and sonar use for the Fleet Exercises 

and Sustainment Exercises are included in individual events.

Typical 

Components

Platforms: Aircraft carrier, fixed-wing aircraft, rotary-wing aircraft, submarines, surface 

combatant

Targets: Sub-surface targets

Systems being Trained/Tested: Low-frequency sonar, mid-frequency sonar, highfrequency sonar

Standard 

Operating 

Procedures

(Section 

2.3.3)

Vessel safety

Aircraft safety

High-powered laser 

safety

Weapons firing safety

Unmanned aerial, 

surface, and 

subsurface vehicle 

safety

Towed in-water device 

safety

Typical Locations

Range Complexes/Testing 

Ranges:

Hawaii Range Complex

Southern California Range 

Complex

Bays/Estuaries/Pierside:

None

Stressors to 

Biological 

Resources

Acoustic::

Sonar and other 

transducers

Aircraft noise

Vessel noise

Weapons noise

Explosive:

Explosions in air

Explosions in water

Physical Disturbance and Strike: 

Aircraft and aerial targets

Vessels and in-water devices

Military expended materials

Seafloor devices

Ingestion:

Military expended materials –

munitions

Military expended materials –

other than munitions

Energy:

In-water electromagnetic 

devices

In-air electromagnetic 

devices

Entanglement: 

Wires and cables

Decelerators/parachutes

Stressors to Air Quality: Sediments and Water Quality:
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

A-23

Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions

Major Training Exercises—Medium Integrated Anti-Submarine Warfare

Fleet Exercise/Sustainment Exercise

Physical 

Resources

Criteria air pollutants Chemicals

Metals

Stressors to 

Human 

Resources

Cultural Resources: 

Explosives

Physical disturbance and 

strike

Socioeconomic Resources: 

Accessibility

Airborne acoustics

Physical disturbance and 

strike

Public Health and Safety: 

Underwater energy

Physical interactions

Military 

Expended

Material

Ingestible Material:

Small decelerators/parachutes

Non-Ingestible Material:

Acoustic countermeasures, 

sonobuoys (non-explosive), 

sonobuoy wires

Military 

Recoverable 

Material

Sub-surface targets

Sonar and 

Other 

Transducer 

Bins

Low-Frequency: 

LF6

Mid-Frequency: 

MF1

MF3 MF11

MF4 MF12

MF5

High-Frequency: 

HF1

Anti-Submarine Warfare: 

ASW1 ASW4

ASW2

ASW3

Explosive 

Bins

None (analyzed 

elsewhere)

Procedural 

Mitigation

Measures

Acoustic Stressors: (section 5.3.2)

Active sonar

Physical Disturbance and Strike: (section 5.3.4)

Vessel movement

Towed in-water devices

Explosive Stressors: (section 5.3.3)

None (analyzed elsewhere)

Assumption

s Used for 

Analysis

All Military expended materials, ordnance, explosives, and sonar use are included in 

individual events.

Potential locations for this activity include Hawaii Range Complex (Hawaii Operations Area)

and Southern California Range Complex (Northern Air Operating Area, Tactical 

Maneuvering Areas, and Southern California Anti-Submarine Warfare Range).
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

A-24

Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions

Undersea Warfare Exercise

Major Training Exercises—Medium Integrated Anti-Submarine Warfare

Undersea Warfare Exercise

Short 

Description

Elements of the anti-submarine warfare tracking 

exercise are combined in this exercise, 

comprised of multiple air, surface, and 

subsurface units, over a period of several days. 

Sonobuoys are released from aircraft. Active and 

passive sonar used.

Typical Duration

4 Days

Long 

Description

Elements of the anti-submarine warfare tracking exercise (described later in Sections A.2.5.5–

2.5.8) are combined in this exercise, comprised of multiple air, surface, and subsurface units, 

over a period of several days. No explosive ordnance will be used. Sonobuoys are released 

from aircraft. Active and passive sonar is used. Undersea Warfare Exercise is an assessmentbased anti-submarine warfare exercise conducted by Expeditionary Strike Groups and Carrier 

Strike Groups while in transit from the West Coast of the United States to the western Pacific 

Ocean. Undersea Warfare Exercise can involve more than one Carrier Strike Group or 

Expeditionary Strike Group formation and is conducted up to five times annually.

Typical 

Components

Platforms: Fixed-wing aircraft, rotary-wing aircraft, submarines, surface combatant

Targets: Sub-surface targets

Systems being Trained/Tested: Mid-frequency sonar, high-frequency sonar

Standard 

Operating 

Procedures

(Section 

2.3.3)

Vessel safety

Aircraft safety

Towed in-water device 

safety

Typical Locations

Range Complexes/Testing 

Ranges:

Hawaii Range Complex

Bays/Estuaries/Pierside:

None

Stressors to 

Biological 

Resources

Acoustic:

Sonar and other 

transducers

Aircraft noise

Vessel noise

Explosive:

None

Physical Disturbance and Strike: 

Aircraft and aerial targets

Vessels and in-water devices

Military expended materials

Seafloor devices

Ingestion:

Military expended materials –

munitions

Military expended materials – other 

than munitions

Energy:

In-air electromagnetic 

devices

Entanglement: 

Wires and cables

Decelerators/parachutes

Stressors to 

Physical 

Resources

Air Quality:

Criteria air pollutants

Sediments and Water Quality:

Chemicals

Metals Other materials

Stressors to 

Human 

Resources

Cultural Resources: 

Physical disturbance and 

strike

Socioeconomic Resources: 

Accessibility

Airborne acoustics

Physical disturbance and strike

Public Health and Safety: 

In-air energy

Physical interactions

Military 

Expended 

Material

Ingestible Material:

Small decelerators/parachutes

Non-Ingestible Material:

Sub-surface targets, surface targets, 

sonobuoys (non-explosive), 

sonobuoy wires

Military 

Recoverable 

Material

Some sub-surface targets
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

A-25

Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions

Major Training Exercises—Medium Integrated Anti-Submarine Warfare

Undersea Warfare Exercise

Sonar and 

Other 

Transducer 

Bins

Low-Frequency: 

LF6

Mid-Frequency: 

MF1 MF5

MF3 MF11

MF4 MF12

High-Frequency: 

HF1

Anti-Submarine Warfare: 

ASW3

ASW4

Explosive 

Bins

None

Procedural 

Mitigation

Measures

Acoustic Stressors: (section 5.3.2)

Active sonar

Physical Disturbance and Strike: (section 

5.3.4)

Vessel movement

Towed in-water devices

Assumptions 

Used for 

Analysis

All military expended materials, ordnance, explosives, and sonar use is included in individual 

events.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

A-26

Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions

INTEGRATED/COORDINATED TRAINING

Integrated or coordinated anti-submarine warfare training exercises are similar to major training 

exercises in that they are comprised of several basic, unit-level exercises, with training conducted by an 

individual unit, but are generally on a smaller scale, are of shorter duration, and use fewer hours of 

active sonar than a major training exercise.

Navy Undersea Warfare Training Assessment Course

Small Integrated Anti-Submarine Warfare Training

Navy Undersea Warfare Training and Assessment Course

Short 

Description

Multiple ships, aircraft, and submarines 

integrate the use of their sensors, including 

sonobuoys, to search for, detect, classify, 

localize, and track a threat submarine.

Typical Duration

2–5 days

Long 

Description

The Navy Undersea Warfare Training and Assessment Course is a tailored course of instruction 

designed to improve Sea Combat Commander and strike group integrated anti-submarine 

warfare warfighting skill sets. Navy Undersea Warfare Training and Assessment Course is a 

coordinated training scenario that typically involves five surface ships, two to three embarked 

helicopters, a submarine, and one maritime patrol aircraft searching for, locating, and attacking 

one submarine. The scenario consists of two 12-hour events that occur five times per year. The 

submarine may practice simulated attacks against the ships while being tracked. Hull-mounted, 

towed array, and dipping sonar is employed by ships and helicopters. The submarine also 

periodically operates its sonar.

Typical 

Components

Platforms: Rotary-wing aircraft, submarine, surface combatant

Targets: Sub-surface targets, surface targets

Systems being Trained/Tested: Mid-frequency sonar, high-frequency sonar

Standard 

Operating 

Procedures

(Section 

2.3.3)

Vessel safety

Aircraft safety

Towed in-water device 

safety

Typical Locations

Range Complexes/Testing 

Ranges:

Hawaii Range Complex

Southern California Range 

Complex

Bays/Estuaries/Pierside:

None

Stressors to 

Biological 

Resources

Acoustic:

Sonar and other 

transducers

Aircraft noise

Vessel noise

Explosive:

None

Physical Disturbance and Strike: 

Aircraft and aerial targets

Vessels and in-water devices

Military expended materials

Seafloor devices

Ingestion:

Military expended materials –

munitions

Military expended materials – other 

than munitions

Energy:

In-air electromagnetic 

devices

Entanglement: 

Wires and cables

Decelerators/parachutes

Stressors to 

Physical 

Resources

Air Quality:

Criteria air pollutants

Sediments and Water Quality:

Chemicals

Metals

Stressors to 

Human 

Resources

Cultural Resources: 

Physical disturbance and 

strike

Socioeconomic Resources: 

Accessibility

Airborne acoustics

Physical disturbance and strike

Public Health and Safety: 

Physical interactions
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

A-27

Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions

Small Integrated Anti-Submarine Warfare Training

Navy Undersea Warfare Training and Assessment Course

Military 

Expended 

Material

Ingestible Material:

Small decelerators/parachutes

Non-Ingestible Material:

Sub-surface targets, surface targets, 

sonobuoys (non-explosive), 

sonobuoy wires

Military 

Recoverable 

Material

Some sub-surface targets

Sonar and 

Other 

Transducer 

Bins

Mid-Frequency: 

MF1

MF3

MF4

MF5

High-Frequency: 

HF1

Anti-Submarine Warfare: 

ASW3

ASW4

Torpedoes: 

TORP1 TORP2

Explosive 

Bins

None

Procedural 

Mitigation

Measures

Acoustic Stressors: (section 5.3.2)

Active sonar

Physical Disturbance and Strike: (section 5.3.4)

Vessel movement

Towed in-water devices

Assumptions 

Used for 

Analysis

Two MK-39 Expendable Mobile Anti-Submarine Warfare Training Targets may be used in 

place of an actual submarine target.

Air deployed sonobuoys will have a decelerator/parachute.

Potential locations for this activity include Hawaii Range Complex (Warning Area 188[B], and 

Warning Area 193) and Southern California Range Complex (Southern California AntiSubmarine Warfare Range).

Surface Warfare Advanced Tactical Training

Small Integrated Anti-Submarine Warfare Training

Surface Warfare Advanced Tactical Training

Short 

Description

Multiple ships and aircraft coordinate the use of 

sensors, including sonobuoys, to search, detect, 

and track a threat submarine. Surface Warfare 

Advanced Tactical Training exercises are not 

dedicated Anti-Submarine Warfare events and 

involve multiple warfare areas.

Typical Duration

Up to 15 days
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

A-28

Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions

Small Integrated Anti-Submarine Warfare Training

Surface Warfare Advanced Tactical Training

Long 

Description

Surface Warfare Advanced Tactical Training (SWATT) is an intermediate training exercise 

designed primarily to increase operator proficiency and exercise combined force responses to 

surface warfare, anti-submarine warfare, air warfare and electromagnetic spectrum 

operations. 

Surface Warfare Advanced Tactical Training is conducted after a carrier strike group’s first 

Group Sail, and before Composite Training Unit Exercise, and consists of multiple surface 

warfare, anti-submarine, and air warfare live-fire events. Multiple ships and aircraft search for, 

locate, and track one submarine. Occurs once per carrier strike group training cycle.

All other warfare area training conducted during SWATT was analyzed as unit-level training 

(gunnery, missile exercise, etc.).

Typical 

Components

Platforms: Multiple Surface Combatants, fixed-wing aircraft, helicopters, unmanned vehicles, 

and submarines

Targets: All surface, air and anti-submarine warfare targets (e.g., MK-30s, MK-39 Expendable 

Mobile Training Targets, recoverable or expendable floating targets)

Systems being Trained/Tested: Mid-frequency sonar, high-frequency sonar, lightweight 

torpedoes, high-frequency acoustic modems

Standard 

Operating 

Procedures

(Section 

2.3.3)

Vessel safety

Aircraft safety

Weapons firing safety

Towed in-water device 

safety

Typical Locations

Range Complexes/Testing 

Ranges:

Hawaii Range Complex

Southern California Range 

Complex

Bays/Estuaries/Pierside:

None

Stressors to 

Biological 

Resources

Acoustic:

Sonar and other 

transducers

Aircraft noise

Vessel noise

Weapons noise

Explosive:

Explosions in air

Physical Disturbance and Strike: 

Aircraft and aerial targets

Vessels and in-water devices

Military expended materials

Ingestion:

Military expended materials –

munitions

Military expended materials – other 

than munitions

Energy:

In-air electromagnetic 

devices

Entanglement: 

Wires and cables

Decelerators/parachutes

Stressors to 

Physical 

Resources

Air Quality:

Criteria air pollutants

Sediments and Water Quality:

Explosives Chemicals

Metals

Stressors to 

Human 

Resources

Cultural Resources: 

Physical disturbance and 

strike

Socioeconomic Resources: 

Airborne acoustics

Physical disturbance and strike

Public Health and Safety: 

Physical interactions

Military 

Expended 

Material

Ingestible Material:

Target fragments, small-caliber 

projectiles, small 

decelerators/parachutes

Non-Ingestible Material:

Sonobuoys, large and medium-caliber 

projectiles, acoustic

countermeasures

Military 

Recoverable 

Material

Anti-submarine warfare targets

Air warfare targets

Surface warfare targets
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

A-29

Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions

Small Integrated Anti-Submarine Warfare Training

Surface Warfare Advanced Tactical Training

Sonar and 

Other 

Transducer 

Bins

Mid-Frequency: 

MF1

MF1K

MF3

MF4

MF5

MF6

MF12

High-Frequency: 

HF1

Anti-Submarine Warfare: 

ASW2

ASW3

ASW4

Torpedoes: 

TORP1 TORP2

Acoustic Modems: 

Yes

Explosive 

Bins

None

Procedural 

Mitigation

Measures

Acoustic Stressors: (section 5.3.2)

Active sonar

Physical Disturbance and Strike: (section 

5.3.4)

Vessel movement

Towed in-water devices

Assumptions 

Used for 

Analysis

All other warfare area training conducted during SWATT was analyzed as unit-level training 

(gunnery, missile exercise, etc.). All military expended materials, munitions, explosives and 

sonar use is included in individual unit-level events.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

A-30

Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions

Submarine Commanders Course

Medium Coordinated Anti-Submarine Warfare

Submarine Commanders Course

Short 

Description

Train prospective submarine Commanding 

Officers to operate against surface, air, and 

subsurface threats.

Typical Duration

16 hours

Long 

Description

Training for prospective Commanding Officers on submarines to operate against each other to 

locate and conduct simulated attacks. Submarine Commanders Course Operations is a 

Commander, U.S. Submarine Forces requirement to provide training to prospective submarine 

commanders in rigorous and realistic scenarios. This training assesses prospective commanding 

officers’ abilities to operate in numerous hostile environments, encompassing surface vessels, 

aircraft, and other submarines.

Typical 

Components

Platforms: Fixed-wing aircraft, rotary-wing aircraft, submarines, surface combatant

Targets: None

Systems being Trained/Tested: Mid-frequency sonar, high-frequency sonar, non-explosive 

torpedoes

Standard 

Operating 

Procedures

(Section 

2.3.3)

Vessel safety

Aircraft safety

Towed in-water device 

safety

Typical Locations

Range Complexes/Testing 

Ranges:

Hawaii Range Complex

Southern California Range 

Complex

Bays/Estuaries/Pierside:

None

Stressors to 

Biological 

Resources

Acoustic:

Sonar and other 

transducers

Aircraft noise

Vessel noise

Explosive:

None

Physical Disturbance and Strike: 

Aircraft and aerial targets

Vessels and in-water devices

Military expended materials

Ingestion:

Military expended materials –

munitions

Military expended materials – other 

than munitions

Energy:

In-air electromagnetic 

devices

Entanglement: 

Wires and cables

Parachutes

Stressors to 

Physical 

Resources

Air Quality:

Criteria air pollutants

Sediments and Water Quality:

Chemicals

Metals

Stressors to 

Human 

Resources

Cultural Resources: 

Physical disturbance and 

strike

Socioeconomic Resources: 

Airborne acoustics

Physical disturbance and strike

Public Health and Safety: 

Physical interactions

Military 

Expended 

Material

Ingestible Material:

Small decelerators/parachutes

Non-Ingestible Material:

Sonobuoys, (non-explosive), sonobuoy 

wires, acoustic countermeasures

Military 

Recoverable 

Material

None
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

A-31

Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions

Medium Coordinated Anti-Submarine Warfare

Submarine Commanders Course

Sonar and 

Other 

Transducer 

Bins

Mid-Frequency: 

MF1

MF3

MF4

MF5

High-Frequency: 

HF1

Anti-Submarine Warfare: 

ASW3

ASW4

Torpedoes: 

TORP1 TORP2

Explosive 

Bins

None

Procedural 

Mitigation

Measures

Acoustic Stressors: (section 5.3.2)

Active sonar

Physical Disturbance and Strike: (Section 5.3.4)

Vessel movement

Towed in-water devices

Assumptions 

Used for 

Analysis

Torpedoes are recovered.

Guidance wire is brittle and breaks easily. Weights sink rapidly.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

A-32

Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions

Independent Deployer Certification Exercise/ Tailored Anti-Submarine Warfare 

Training

Small Coordinated Anti-Submarine Warfare

Independent Deployer Certification Exercise/Tailored Anti-Submarine Warfare Training

Short 

Description

Multiple ships and helicopters integrate the use 

of their sensors, including sonobuoys, to search 

for, detect, classify, localize, and track a threat 

submarine to launch a torpedo.

Typical Duration

2–3 Days

Long 

Description

This event stresses planning, coordination, and communications during multiple warfare 

training scenarios. Two or more ships and up to two helicopters searching for, locating, and 

attacking one submarine. Typically, one ship and helicopter are actively prosecuting while the 

other ship and helicopter are repositioning. Simultaneously, the submarine may practice 

simulated attacks against the ships. Multiple acoustic sources may be active at one time.

Typical 

Components

Platforms: Fixed-wing aircraft, rotary-wing aircraft, submarines, surface combatant

Targets: Sub-surface targets

Systems being Trained/Tested: Mid-frequency sonar, high-frequency sonar

Standard 

Operating 

Procedures

(Section 

2.3.3)

Vessel safety

Aircraft safety

Towed in-water device 

safety

Typical Locations

Range Complexes/Testing 

Ranges:

Hawaii Range Complex; 

Southern California Range 

Complex

Bays/Estuaries/Pierside:

None

Stressors to 

Biological 

Resources

Acoustic:

Sonar and other 

transducers

Aircraft noise

Vessel noise

Explosive:

None

Physical Disturbance and Strike: 

Aircraft and aerial targets

Vessels and in-water devices

Military expended materials

Ingestion:

Military expended materials –

munitions

Military expended materials – other 

than munitions

Energy:

In-air electromagnetic 

devices

Entanglement: 

Wires and cables

Decelerators/parachutes

Stressors to 

Physical 

Resources

Air Quality:

Criteria air pollutants

Sediments and Water Quality:

Chemicals

Metals

Stressors to 

Human 

Resources

Cultural Resources: 

Physical disturbance and 

strike

Socioeconomic Resources: 

Airborne acoustics

Physical disturbance and strike

Public Health and Safety: 

In-air energy

Physical interactions

Military 

Expended 

Material

Ingestible Material:

Small decelerators/parachutes

Non-Ingestible Material:

Acoustic countermeasures, sonobuoys

(non-explosive), sonobuoy wires

Military 

Recoverable 

Material

Sub-surface targets

Sonar and 

Other 

Transducer

Bins

Mid-Frequency: 

MF1

MF3

MF4

MF5

MF11

Anti-Submarine Warfare: 

ASW2

ASW3

ASW4

High-Frequency: 

HF1
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

A-33

Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions

Small Coordinated Anti-Submarine Warfare

Independent Deployer Certification Exercise/Tailored Anti-Submarine Warfare Training

Explosive

Bins

None

Procedural 

Mitigation

Measures

Acoustic Stressors: (section 5.3.2)

Active sonar

Physical Disturbance and Strike: (section 

5.3.4)

Vessel movement

Towed in-water devices

Assumptions 

Used for 

Analysis

Potential locations for this activity in the Southern California Range Complex includes Southern 

California Anti-Submarine Warfare Range.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

A-34

Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions

Group Sail

Small Coordinated Anti-Submarine Warfare

Group Sail

Short 

Description

Surface ships and helicopters integrate to search 

for, detect, and track threat submarines. Group 

Sails are not dedicated anti-submarine warfare 

events and involve multiple warfare areas.

Typical Duration

2–3 days 

Long 

Description

Multiple ships and helicopters integrate the use of their sensors, including sonobuoys, to 

search for, detect, classify, localize, and track threat submarines.

Group Sail is not a dedicated anti-submarine warfare event and involves multiple warfare 

areas. Group Sail is an intermediate training exercise primarily intended to introduce 

coordinated operations after unit-level training and prior to integrated training. This event 

stresses planning, coordination, and communications during multiple warfare training 

scenarios.

Two or more ships and up to two helicopters search for, locate, and attack one submarine. 

Typically, one ship and helicopter are actively prosecuting while the other ship and helicopter

are repositioning. Simultaneously, the submarine may practice simulated attacks against the 

ships. Multiple acoustic sources may be active at one time.

Typical 

Components

Platforms: Fixed-wing aircraft, rotary-wing aircraft, surface combatant(s), submarine(s)

Targets: Sub-surface

Systems being Trained/Tested: Sonar systems

Standard 

Operating 

Procedures

(Section 

2.3.3)

Vessel Safety

Aircraft safety

Typical Locations

Range Complexes/Testing 

Ranges:

Hawaii Range Complex; 

Southern California Range 

Complex

Bays/Estuaries/Pierside:

None

Stressors to 

Biological 

Resources

Acoustic:

Sonar and other 

transducers

Aircraft noise

Vessel noise

Explosive:

None

Physical Disturbance and Strike: 

Aircraft and aerial targets

Vessels and in-water devices

Military expended material

Ingestion:

Military expended materials –

munitions

Military expended materials – other 

than munitions

Energy:

None

Entanglement: 

Parachutes

Stressors to 

Physical 

Resources

Air Quality:

Criteria air pollutants

Sediments and Water Quality:

Chemicals

Metals

Stressors to 

Human 

Resources

Cultural Resources: 

Physical disturbance and 

strike

Socioeconomic Resources: 

Accessibility

Airborne acoustics

Physical disturbance and strike

Public Health and Safety: 

Underwater energy

Physical interactions
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

A-35

Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions

Small Coordinated Anti-Submarine Warfare

Group Sail

Military 

Expended 

Material

Ingestible Material:

Small decelerators/parachutes

Non-Ingestible Material:

Acoustic countermeasures, sonobuoys 

(non-explosive), expendable 

bathythermograph, subsurface 

targets, missiles, rockets

Military 

Recoverable 

Material

Some subsurface targets

Sonar and 

Other 

Transducer

Bins

Mid-Frequency: 

MF1 MF5

MF3 MF11

MF4 MF12

High-Frequency: 

HF1

Anti-Submarine Warfare: 

ASW2 ASW4

ASW3

Explosive

Bins

None

Procedural 

Mitigation

Measures

Acoustic Stressors: (section 5.3.2)

Active sonar

Physical Disturbance and Strike: (section 

5.3.4)

Vessel movement

Non-explosive missiles and rockets

Assumptions 

Used for 

Analysis

While preference will be to train against an actual submarine or MK 30 recoverable target, 

assume only MK 39 expendable targets will be used.

One MK 39 Expendable Mobile Anti-Submarine Warfare Training Target may be used in place of 

an actual submarine target.

AIR WARFARE TRAINING

Air warfare is the primary mission area that addresses combat operations by air and surface forces 

against hostile aircraft. Navy ships contain an array of modern anti-aircraft weapon systems, including 

naval guns linked to radar-directed fire-control systems, surface-to-air missile systems, and radarcontrolled guns for close-in point defense. Strike/fighter aircraft carry anti-aircraft weapons, including 

air-to-air missiles and aircraft guns. Air warfare training encompasses events and exercises to train ship 

and aircraft crews in employment of these weapons systems against simulated threat aircraft or targets. 

Air warfare training includes surface-to-air gunnery, surface-to-air and air-to-air missile exercises, and 

aircraft force-on-force combat maneuvers.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

A-36

Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions

Air Combat Maneuver

Air Warfare

Air Combat Maneuver

Short 

Description

Fixed-wing aircrews aggressively maneuver against 

threat aircraft to gain tactical advantage.

Typical Duration

1-2 hours

Long 

Description

Basic flight maneuvers in which fixed-wing aircrew engage in offensive and defensive maneuvering 

against each other. During air combat maneuver engagements, no ordnance is fired, however 

countermeasures such as chaff and flares may be used. These maneuvers typically involve two 

aircraft; however, based upon the training requirement, air combat maneuver exercises may 

involve over a dozen aircraft.

Typical 

Components

Platforms: Fixed-wing aircraft

Targets: Air targets

Systems being Trained/Tested: None

Standard 

Operating 

Procedures

(Section 2.3.3)

Aircraft safety Typical Locations

Range Complexes/Testing Ranges:

Hawaii Range Complex

Southern California Range Complex

Bays/Estuaries/Pierside:

None

Stressors to 

Biological 

Resources

Acoustic:

Aircraft noise

Explosive:

None

Physical Disturbance and Strike: 

Aircraft and aerial targets

Ingestion:

None

Energy:

In-air electromagnetic 

devices

Entanglement: 

None

Stressors to 

Physical 

Resources

Air Quality:

Criteria air pollutants

Sediments and Water Quality:

None

Stressors to 

Human 

Resources

Cultural Resources: 

None

Socioeconomic Resources: 

Airborne acoustics

Physical disturbance and strike

Public Health and Safety: 

None

Military 

Expended 

Material

Ingestible Material:

None

Non-Ingestible Material:

None

Military 

Recoverable 

Material

None

Sonar and 

Other 

Transducer

Bins

None

Explosive 

Bins

None

Procedural 

Mitigation 

Measures

None

Assumptions 

Used for 

Analysis

No munitions fired. Flare and chaff may be used. All flare and chaff accounted for in flare 

exercise and chaff exercise events.

Potential locations for this activity include: Hawaii Range Complex (Hawaii OPAREA), and 

Southern California Range Complex (Warning area 291 (Tactical Maneuvering Areas).

For air quality analysis:

- 3 fixed-wing fighter aircraft per event

- 1 manned high-performance aircraft per event

- Average 1 hr. per event
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

A-37

Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions

Air Defense Exercise

Air Warfare

Air Defense Exercise 

Short 

Description

Aircrew and ship crews conduct defensive 

measures against threat aircraft or simulated 

missiles.

Typical Duration

1–4 hours

Long 

Description

Fixed-wing aircrew and ship personnel perform measures designed to defend against 

attacking threat aircraft or missiles or reduce the effectiveness of such attack. This exercise 

involves full detection through engagement sequence. Aircraft operate at varying altitudes 

and speeds.

This exercise may include air intercept control exercises where aircraft controllers on ships, in 

fixed-wing aircraft, or at land-based locations use search radars to track and direct friendly 

aircraft to intercept the threat aircraft, and to engage exercises where personnel on ships use 

search radars to detect, classify, and track enemy aircraft or missiles up to the point of 

engagement.

Typical 

Components

Platforms: Fixed-wing aircraft, surface combatant

Targets: Air targets

Systems being Trained/Tested: None

Standard 

Operating 

Procedures

(Section 

2.3.3)

Vessel safety

Aircraft safety

Typical Locations

Range Complexes/Testing 

Ranges:

Hawaii Range Complex

Southern California Range 

Complex

Bays/Estuaries/Pierside:

None

Stressors to 

Biological 

Resources

Acoustic:

Aircraft noise

Vessel noise

Explosive:

None

Physical Disturbance and Strike: 

Aircraft and aerial targets

Vessels and in-water devices

Ingestion:

None

Energy:

None

Entanglement: 

None

Stressors to 

Physical 

Resources

Air Quality:

Criteria air pollutants

Sediments and Water Quality:

None

Stressors to 

Human 

Resources

Cultural Resources: 

None

Socioeconomic Resources: 

Airborne acoustics

Physical disturbance and strike

Public Health and Safety: 

None

Military 

Expended 

Material

Ingestible Material:

None

Non-Ingestible Material:

None

Military 

Recoverable 

Material

None

Sonar and 

Other 

Transducer

Bins

None

Explosive

Bins

None

Procedural 

Mitigation

Measures

Physical Disturbance and Strike: (Section 5.3.4)

Vessel movement
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

A-38

Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions

Air Warfare

Air Defense Exercise 

Assumptions 

Used for 

Analysis

No munitions are fired.

Potential locations for this activity include Hawaii Range Complex (Warning Areas 188, 189, 

190, 192, 193, and 194), and Southern California Range Complex (Warning Area 291).

For air quality analysis:

- 3 fixed-wing fighter aircraft per event

- 1 manned high-performance aircraft per event

- Average 1 hour per event
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

A-39

Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions

Gunnery Exercise Air-to-Air Medium-Caliber

Air Warfare

Gunnery Exercise Air-to-Air Medium-Caliber

Short 

Description

Fixed-wing aircrews fire medium-caliber guns at 

air targets.

Typical Duration

1–2 hours

Long 

Description

Fixed-wing aircrews maneuver aircraft in a gunnery pattern to achieve a weapons firing 

solution with integrated medium-caliber guns. Typically involves two or more fixed-wing 

aircraft and a target banner towed by a contract aircraft (e.g., Lear jet). The target banner is 

recovered after the event.

Typical 

Components

Platforms: Fixed-wing aircraft

Targets: Air targets

Systems being Trained/Tested: None

Standard 

Operating 

Procedures

(Section 

2.3.3)

Aircraft safety

Weapons firing safety

Typical Locations

Range Complexes/Testing 

Ranges:

Southern California Range 

Complex

Bays/Estuaries/Pierside:

None

Stressors to 

Biological 

Resources

Acoustic:

Aircraft noise

Weapons noise

Explosive:

None

Physical Disturbance and Strike: 

Aircraft and aerial targets

Military expended materials

Ingestion:

Military expended materials –

munitions

Energy:

None

Entanglement: 

None

Stressors to 

Physical 

Resources

Air Quality:

Criteria air pollutants

Sediments and Water Quality:

Metals

Stressors to 

Human 

Resources

Cultural Resources: 

Physical disturbance and 

strike

Socioeconomic Resources: 

Accessibility

Airborne acoustics

Physical disturbance and strike

Public Health and Safety: 

Physical interactions

Military 

Expended 

Material

Ingestible Material:

Medium-caliber projectiles

Non-Ingestible Material:

None

Military 

Recoverable 

Material

None

Sonar and 

Other 

Transducer 

Bins

None

Explosive 

Bins

None

Procedural 

Mitigation

Measures

Physical Disturbance and Strike: (Section 

5.3.4)

Small-, medium-, and large-caliber nonexplosive practice munitions

Assumptions 

Used for 

Analysis

This activity is conducted at an altitude of 15,000 feet and above, during the daytime, and 

approximately 40 nautical miles from shore. A towed air target is a banner target and will be 

recovered. Only non-explosive munitions used. 

Potential locations for this activity include Warning Area 291.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

A-40

Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions

Air Warfare

Gunnery Exercise Air-to-Air Medium-Caliber

For air quality analysis:

- One fixed-wing fighter aircraft per event

- Average 2 hours per event
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

A-41

Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions

Gunnery Exercise Surface-to-Air Large-Caliber

Air Warfare

Gunnery Exercise Surface-to-Air Large-Caliber

Short 

Description

Surface ship crews fire large-caliber guns at air 

targets.

Typical Duration

1–2 Hours

Long 

Description Surface ship crews defend against threat aircraft or missiles with large-caliber guns to disable 

or destroy the threat.

An event involves one ship and a simulated threat aircraft or missile that is detected by the 

ship’s radar. Large-caliber guns fire non-explosive projectiles at the threat before it reaches the 

ship. The target is towed by a contract air services jet.

Typical 

Components

Platforms: Aircraft carrier, amphibious warfare ship, fixed-wing aircraft, surface combatant

Targets: Air targets

Systems being Trained/Tested: None

Standard 

Operating 

Procedures

(Section 

2.3.3)

Vessel safety

Aircraft safety

Weapons firing safety

Typical Locations

Range Complexes/Testing 

Ranges:

Hawaii Range Complex

Southern California Range 

Complex

Bays/Estuaries/Pierside:

None

Stressors to 

Biological 

Resources

Acoustic:

Aircraft noise

Vessel noise

Weapons noise

Explosive:

None

Physical Disturbance and Strike: 

Aircraft and aerial targets

Vessels and in-water devices

Military expended materials

Ingestion:

Military expended materials –

munitions

Energy:

None

Entanglement: 

None

Stressors to 

Physical 

Resources

Air Quality:

Criteria air pollutants

Sediments and Water Quality:

Explosives Metals

Stressors to 

Human 

Resources

Cultural Resources: 

Physical disturbance and 

strike

Socioeconomic Resources: 

Accessibility

Airborne acoustics

Physical disturbance and strike

Public Health and Safety: 

Physical interactions

Military 

Expended 

Material

Ingestible Material:

Large-caliber projectile fragments

Non-Ingestible Material:

None

Military 

Recoverable 

Material

None

Sonar and 

Other 

Transducer 

Bins

None

Explosive 

Bins

None

Procedural 

Mitigation

Measures

Acoustic Stressors: (section 5.3.2)

Physical Disturbance and Strike: (section 5.3.4)

Vessel movement
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

A-42

Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions

Air Warfare

Gunnery Exercise Surface-to-Air Large-Caliber

Assumptions 

Used for 

Analysis

The target is a fiberglass finned target that is towed approximately 3 nautical miles

behind the towing aircraft.

All projectiles are assumed to be non-explosive. 

Potential locations for this activity include Hawaii Range Complex (Warning Areas 188, 192, 193, 

194, and Mela South) and Southern California Range Complex (Warning Area 291).
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

A-43

Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions

Gunnery Exercise Surface-to-Air Medium-Caliber

Air Warfare

Gunnery Exercise Surface-to-Air Medium-Caliber

Short 

Description

Surface ship crews fire medium-caliber guns at 

air targets.

Typical Duration

1–2 hours

Long 

Description Surface ship crews defend against threat aircraft or missiles with medium-caliber guns to 

disable or destroy the threat.

An event involves one ship and a simulated threat aircraft or anti-ship missile that is detected 

by the ship's radar. Medium-caliber guns fire non-explosive projectiles to disable or destroy the 

threat before it reaches the ship. The target is towed by a contract air services jet.

Typical 

Components

Platforms: Aircraft carrier, amphibious warfare ship, fixed-wing aircraft, surface combatant

Targets: Air targets

Systems being Trained/Tested: None

Standard 

Operating 

Procedures

(Section 

2.3.3)

Vessel safety

Aircraft safety

Weapons firing safety

Typical Locations

Range Complexes/Testing 

Ranges:

Hawaii Range Complex

Southern California Range 

Complex

Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Transit 

Corridor

Bays/Estuaries/Pierside:

None

Stressors to 

Biological 

Resources

Acoustic:

Aircraft noise

Vessel noise

Weapons noise

Explosive:

Explosions in air

Physical Disturbance and Strike: 

Aircraft and aerial targets

Vessels and in-water devices

Military expended materials

Ingestion:

Military expended materials –

munitions

Energy:

None

Entanglement: 

None

Stressors to 

Physical 

Resources

Air Quality:

Criteria air pollutants

Sediments and Water Quality:

Metals

Stressors to 

Human 

Resources

Cultural Resources: 

Physical disturbance and 

strike

Socioeconomic Resources: 

Accessibility

Airborne acoustics

Physical disturbance and strike

Public Health and Safety: 

Physical interactions

Military 

Expended 

Material

Ingestible Material:

Medium-caliber projectile fragments

Non-Ingestible Material:

None

Military 

Recoverable 

Material

None

Sonar and 

Other 

Transducer 

Bins

None

Explosive 

Bins

None
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

A-44

Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions

Air Warfare

Gunnery Exercise Surface-to-Air Medium-Caliber

Procedural 

Mitigation

Measures

Acoustic Stressors: (section 5.3.2)

Physical Disturbance and Strike: (section 5.3.4)

Vessel movement

Assumptions 

Used for 

Analysis

The target is a fiberglass finned target that is towed approximately 3 nautical miles behind the 

towing aircraft.

Potential locations for this activity include Hawaii Range Complex (Warning Areas 188, 192, and 

Mela South) and Southern California Range Complex (Warning Area 291).
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

A-45

Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions

Missile Exercise Air-to-Air

Air Warfare

Missile Exercise Air-to-Air

Short 

Description

Fixed-wing aircrews fire air-to-air missiles at air 

targets.

Typical Duration

1–2 hours

Long 

Description An event involves two or more fixed-wing aircraft and a target. Missiles are either highexplosive warheads or non-explosive practice munitions. The target is an unmanned aerial 

target drone, a tactical air-launched decoy, or a parachute suspended illumination flare. Target 

drones deploy parachutes and are recovered by small boat or rotary-wing aircraft; tactical airlaunched decoys and illumination flares are expended and not recovered. These events 

typically occur at high altitudes.

Typical 

Components

Platforms: Fixed-wing aircraft; rotary-wing aircraft; small boat

Targets: Air targets, flares

Systems being Trained/Tested: None

Standard 

Operating 

Procedures

(Section 

2.3.3)

Vessel safety

Aircraft safety

Weapons firing safety

Typical Locations

Range Complexes/Testing 

Ranges:

Hawaii Range Complex

Southern California Range 

Complex

Bays/Estuaries/Pierside:

None

Stressors to 

Biological 

Resources

Acoustic:

Aircraft noise

Vessel noise

Weapons noise

Explosive:

Explosions in air

Physical Disturbance and Strike: 

Aircraft and aerial targets

Vessels and in-water devices

Military expended materials

Ingestion:

Military expended materials –

munitions

Military expended materials – other 

than munitions

Energy:

None

Entanglement: 

Decelerators/parachutes

Stressors to 

Physical 

Resources

Air Quality:

Criteria air pollutants

Sediments and Water Quality:

Explosives Chemicals

Metals

Stressors to 

Human 

Resources

Cultural Resources: 

Physical disturbance and 

strike

Socioeconomic Resources: 

Accessibility

Airborne acoustics

Physical disturbance and strike

Public Health and Safety: 

Physical interactions

Military 

Expended 

Material

Ingestible Material:

Target and missile (explosive) 

fragments

Non-Ingestible Material:

None

Military 

Recoverable 

Material

Undamaged targets

Sonar and 

Other 

Transducer 

Bins

None

Explosive 

Bins

None
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

A-46

Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions

Air Warfare

Missile Exercise Air-to-Air

Procedural 

Mitigation

Measures

Physical Disturbance and Strike: (section 5.3.4)

Vessel movement

Explosive Stressors: (Section 5.3.3)

Explosive missiles and rockets

Assumptions 

Used for 

Analysis

Assumes that all missiles are explosive, although non-explosive practice munitions may be 

used. All missiles explode at high altitude. 

All propellant and explosives are consumed.

Assume 1.5 flares per Missile Exercise event.

Potential specific locations for this activity include: Hawaii OPAREA

Figure A.2-1: BQM-74 (Aerial Target)

Figure A.2-2: LUU-2B/B Illuminating Flare (Aerial Target)

Figure A.2-3: Tactical Air-Launched Decoy (Aerial Target)
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

A-47

Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions

Missile Exercise—Man Portable Air Defense System 

Air Warfare

Missile Exercise –Man-Portable Air Defense System

Short 

Description

Personnel employ a shoulder-fired surface-to-air 

missile at air targets.

Typical Duration

Varies

Long 

Description

Personnel employ the man-portable air defense systems, a shoulder-fired surface-to-air 

missile, against threat missiles or aircraft.

An event involves personnel firing the man-portable air defense system at remote piloted or 

ballistic aerial targets. Activity is typically conducted by combat forces firing from shore 

locations at targets over the water.

Typical 

Components

Platforms: None

Targets: Air Targets

Systems being Trained/Tested: Man Portable Defense Systems

Standard 

Operating 

Procedures

(Section 

2.3.3)

Weapons firing safety

Unmanned aerial, 

surface, and 

subsurface vehicle 

safety

Typical Locations

Range Complexes/Testing 

Ranges:

Southern California Range 

Complex

Bays/Estuaries/Pierside:

None

Stressors to 

Biological 

Resources

Acoustic:

Aircraft noise

Explosive:

Explosions in air

Physical Disturbance and Strike: 

Aircraft and aerial targets

Military expended materials

Ingestion:

Military expended materials –

munitions

Military expended materials – other 

than munitions

Energy:

None

Entanglement: 

None

Stressors to 

Physical 

Resources

Air Quality:

Criteria air pollutants

Sediments and Water Quality:

Explosives Chemicals

Metals

Stressors to 

Human 

Resources

Cultural Resources: 

Physical disturbance and 

strike

Socioeconomic Resources: 

Accessibility

Airborne acoustics

Physical disturbance and strike

Public Health and Safety: 

Physical interactions

Military 

Expended 

Material

Ingestible Material:

Target and missile (explosive)

fragments

Non-Ingestible Material:

None

Military 

Recoverable 

Material

None

Sonar and 

Other 

Transducer 

Bins

None

Explosive 

Bins

None

Procedural 

Mitigation

Measures

Physical Disturbance and Strike: (section 5.3.4)

Non-explosive missiles and rockets

Explosive Stressors: (section 5.3.3)

Explosive missiles and rockets

Assumptions For analysis, all missiles are assumed to be explosive, although non-explosive practice 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

A-48

Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions

Air Warfare

Missile Exercise –Man-Portable Air Defense System

Used for 

Analysis

munitions may be used. All missiles explode in-air at low altitude.

All propellant and explosives are consumed.

Potential locations for this activity include Shore Bombardment Area.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

A-49

Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions

Missile Exercise Surface-to-Air

Air Warfare

Missile Exercise Surface-to-Air

Short 

Description

Surface ship crews fire surface-to-air missiles at 

air targets.

Typical Duration

1–2 hours

Long 

Description

Surface ship crews defend against threat missiles and aircraft with ship-launched surface-toair missiles.

The event involves a simulated threat aircraft or anti-ship missile which is detected by the ship's 

radar. Ship-launched surface-to-air missiles are fired (high-explosive) to disable or destroy the 

threat. The target typically is a remote-controlled drone. Surface-to-air missiles may also be 

used to train against land attack missiles.

Typical 

Components

Platforms: Aircraft carrier, amphibious warfare ship, surface combatant

Targets: Air targets

Systems being Trained/Tested: None

Standard 

Operating 

Procedures

(Section 

2.3.3)

Vessel safety

Aircraft safety

Weapons firing safety

Typical Locations

Range Complexes/Testing 

Ranges:

Hawaii Range Complex

Southern California Range 

Complex

Bays/Estuaries/Pierside:

None

Stressors to 

Biological 

Resources

Acoustic:

Aircraft noise

Vessel noise

Weapons noise

Explosive:

Explosions in air

Physical Disturbance and Strike: 

Aircraft and aerial targets

Vessels and in-water devices

Military expended materials

Ingestion:

Military expended materials –

munitions

Military expended materials – other 

than munitions

Energy:

None

Entanglement: 

None

Stressors to 

Physical 

Resources

Air Quality:

Criteria air pollutants

Sediments and Water Quality:

Explosives Chemicals

Metals

Stressors to 

Human 

Resources

Cultural Resources: 

Physical disturbance and 

strike

Socioeconomic Resources: 

Accessibility

Airborne acoustics

Physical disturbance and strike

Public Health and Safety: 

Physical interactions

Military 

Expended 

Material

Ingestible Material:

Target and missile (explosive)

fragments

Non-Ingestible Material:

None

Military 

Recoverable 

Material

Undamaged targets

Sonar and 

Other 

Transducer 

Bins

None

Explosive 

Bins

None
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

A-50

Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions

Air Warfare

Missile Exercise Surface-to-Air

Procedural 

Mitigation

Measures

Physical Disturbance and Strike: (section 5.3.4)

Vessel movement

Explosive Stressors: (Section 5.3.3)

Explosive missiles and rockets

Assumptions 

Used for 

Analysis

Assumes that all surface-to-air missiles are high-explosive. Missile explodes well above 

surface. All explosive and propellant are consumed. 

Potential locations for this activity include Hawaii Range Complex (Warning Area 188), and 

Southern California Range Complex (Warning Area 291).
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

A-51

Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions

AMPHIBIOUS WARFARE TRAINING

Amphibious warfare is a type of naval warfare involving the utilization of naval firepower, logistics, and 

Marine Corps landing forces to project military power ashore. Amphibious warfare encompasses a broad 

spectrum of activities involving maneuver from the sea to objectives ashore, ranging from 

reconnaissance or raid missions involving a small unit, to large-scale amphibious operations involving 

over one thousand Marines and Sailors, and multiple ships and aircraft embarked in a strike group. 

Amphibious warfare training includes tasks at increasing levels of complexity, from individual, crew, and 

small unit events to large task force exercises. Individual and crew training include the operation of 

amphibious vehicles and naval gunfire support training. Small-unit training activities include shore 

assaults, boat raids, airfield or port seizures, and reconnaissance. Larger-scale amphibious exercises 

involve ship-to-shore maneuver, shore bombardment and other naval fire support, and air strike and 

close air support training.

Amphibious Assault

Amphibious Warfare

Amphibious Assault

Short 

Description

Large unit forces move ashore from amphibious 

ships at sea for the immediate execution of 

inland objectives.

Typical Duration

Up to two weeks

Long 

Description Large unit forces move ashore from amphibious ships at sea for the immediate execution of 

inland objectives. Amphibious assault is conducted for the purposes of prosecuting further 

combat operations, obtaining a site for an advanced naval or airbase, or denying the enemy 

use of an area.

Unit-Level Training exercises involve one or more amphibious ships, and their associated 

watercraft and aircraft, to move personnel and equipment from ship to shore without the 

command and control and supporting elements involved in a full-scale event. The goal is to 

practice loading, unloading, and movement, and to develop the timing required for a fullscale exercise.

Typical 

Components

Platforms: Amphibious warfare ship, fixed-wing aircraft, rotary-wing aircraft, small boat, tiltrotor aircraft

Targets: None

Systems being Trained/Tested: None

Standard 

Operating 

Procedures

(Section 

2.3.3)

Vessel safety

Aircraft safety

Typical Locations

Range Complexes/Testing 

Ranges:

Hawaii Range Complex

Southern California Range 

Complex

Silver Strand Training Complex

Bays/Estuaries/Pierside:

None

Stressors to 

Biological 

Resources

Acoustic:

Aircraft noise

Vessel noise

Explosive:

None

Physical Disturbance and Strike: 

Aircraft and aerial targets

Vessels and in-water devices

Ingestion:

None

Energy:

None

Entanglement: 

None

Stressors to 

Physical 

Resources

Air Quality:

Criteria air pollutants

Sediments and Water Quality:

None
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

A-52

Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions

Amphibious Warfare

Amphibious Assault

Stressors to 

Human 

Resources

Cultural Resources: 

Physical disturbance and 

strike

Socioeconomic Resources: 

Accessibility

Physical disturbance and strike

Public Health and Safety: 

Physical interactions

Military 

Expended 

Material

Ingestible Material:

None

Non-Ingestible Material:

None

Military 

Recoverable 

Material

None

Sonar and 

Other 

Transducer 

Bins

None

Explosive 

Bins

None

Procedural 

Mitigation

Measures

Physical Disturbance and Strike: (section 

5.3.4)

Vessel movement

Assumptions 

Used for 

Analysis

Typical event: 1–3 amphibious ships (e.g., LHA or LHD, LPD, LSD); 2-8 landing craft (landing 

craft, air cushioned; landing craft, utility); 4–14 amphibious assault vehicles; up to 22 aircraft 

(e.g., MH-53, H-46/MV-22, AH-1, UH-1, AV-8); a Marine Expeditionary Unit (2,200 Marines).

Potential locations for this activity include Pacific Missile Range Facility (Main Base), Kawaihae 

Harbor, Marine Corps Training Area Bellows, Marine Corps Base Hawaii, San Clemente Island, 

Shore Bombardment Area, Shallow Water Training Range (nearshore), Eel Cove, West Cove, 

Wilson Cove, Camp Pendleton Amphibious Assault Area, and Silver Strand Training Complex 

Boat Lanes 11–14.

For air quality analysis:

- 4 fixed-wing strike aircraft

- 10 rotary-wing aircraft

- 12 small surface craft

- 4 V-22 Osprey aircraft

- Average 1 hour per event
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

A-53

Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions

Amphibious Assault—Battalion Landing

Amphibious Warfare

Amphibious Assault—Battalion Landing

Short 

Description

Marine Corps Battalion Landing Team forces 

launch an attack from sea to a hostile shore for 

the immediate execution of inland maneuvers.

Typical Duration

3 days

Long 

Description

Marine Corps Battalion Landing Team moves from amphibious ships at sea, into hostile 

territory, establishes a beachhead, then occupies the area or moves further inland for an 

extended period. Battalion Landing Team is a task organization composed of an infantry 

battalion reinforced by combat support and Combat Service Support units for amphibious 

assaults. The Battalion Landing Team is the ground force element of a Marine Expeditionary 

Unit when formed into a Marine Air-Ground Task Force.

Typical 

Components

Platforms: Amphibious warfare ship, fleet support ship

Targets: Land targets

Systems being Trained/Tested: None

Standard 

Operating 

Procedures

(Section 

2.3.3)

Vessel Typical Locations

Range Complexes/Testing 

Ranges:

Southern California Range 

Complex

Bays/Estuaries/Pierside:

None

Stressors to 

Biological 

Resources

Acoustic:

Vessel noise

Explosive:

None

Physical Disturbance and Strike: 

Vessels and in-water devices

Ingestion:

None

Energy:

None

Entanglement: 

None

Stressors to 

Physical 

Resources

Air Quality:

Criteria air pollutants

Sediments and Water Quality:

None

Stressors to 

Human 

Resources

Cultural Resources: 

Physical disturbance and 

strike

Socioeconomic Resources: 

Accessibility

Physical disturbance and strike

Public Health and Safety: 

Physical interactions

Military 

Expended 

Material

Ingestible Material:

None

Non-Ingestible Material:

None

Military 

Recoverable 

Material

None

Sonar and 

Other 

Transducer 

Bins

None

Explosive 

Bins

None

Procedural 

Mitigation

Measures

Physical Disturbance and Strike: (section 5.3.4)

Vessel movement

Assumptions 

Used for 

Analysis

Impacts from land based targeting are not analyzed. Only the at-sea components of this activity 

are analyzed in this document.

Potential locations for this activity include Camp Pendleton Amphibious Assault Area, San 

Clemente Island, Shore Bombardment Area, Shallow Water Training Range (Nearshore), Eel 

Cove, West Cove, and Wilson Cove.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

A-54

Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions

Amphibious Marine Expeditionary Unit Exercise

Amphibious Warfare

Amphibious Marine Expeditionary Unit Exercise

Short 

Description

Navy and Marine Corps forces conduct unit level

training at sea in preparation for deployment.

Typical Duration

5-7 days

Long 

Description Amphibious ships and embarked Marine Expeditionary Units train to a multitude of scenarios to 

test the capabilities of the amphibious force. Operations include ship to shore movement with 

tiltrotor aircraft and Landing Craft Air Cushion vessels. Marine Corps forces conduct more advanced 

amphibious operations to include small boat raids; visit, board, search, and seizure training; 

helicopter and mechanized amphibious raids; and non-combatant evacuation operations.

This exercise generally occurs during an Expeditionary Strike Group Composite Training Unit 

Exercise. All military expended materials, explosives, and use of other munitions in Amphibious 

Ready Group Marine Expeditionary Unite Exercise are included in unit-level events.

Typical 

Components Platforms: Amphibious warfare ships, fixed-wing aircraft, rotary-wing aircraft, small boats, surface 

combatants, tiltrotor aircraft

Targets: None

Systems Being Trained/Tested: Sonar systems

Standard 

Operating 

Procedures

(Section 2.3.3)

Vessel safety

Aircraft safety

Towed in-water device

safety

Typical Locations

Range Complexes/Testing 

Ranges:

Southern California Range 

Complex

Bays/Estuaries/Pierside:

None

Stressors to 

Biological 

Resources

Acoustic: 

Sonar and other 

transducers

Aircraft noise

Vessel noise

Explosives:

None

Physical Disturbance and Strike: 

Aircraft and aerial targets

Vessels and in-water devices

Military expended materials

Ingestion: 

Military expended materials – other 

than munitions

Energy:

In-air electromagnetic 

devices

In-water electromagnetic 

devices

Entanglement: 

Wires and cables

Decelerators/parachutes

Stressors to 

Physical 

Resources

Air Quality:

Criteria air pollutants

Habitats:

Physical disturbance and strike – military 

expended material

Sediments and Water Quality:

Metals Chemicals

Other materials

Stressors to 

Human 

Resources

None

Military 

Expended 

Material

Ingestible Material:

Small decelerators/parachutes

Non-Ingestible Material:

Sonobuoys, acoustic countermeasures

Military 

Recoverable 

Material

Anti-submarine warfare targets
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

A-55

Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions

Amphibious Warfare

Amphibious Marine Expeditionary Unit Exercise

Sonar and 

Other 

Transducer 

Bins

Low-Frequency:

LF6

Mid-Frequency: 

MF1 MF11

MF3 MF12

High-Frequency: 

HF1

Anti-Submarine Warfare: 

ASW1

In-Water 

Explosive 

Bins

Analyzed in individual unit-level training events.

Procedural 

Mitigation 

Measures

Acoustic Stressors: (section 5.3.2)

Active sonar 

Physical Disturbance and Strike: (Section 5.3.4)

Vessel movement

Towed in-water devices

Assumptions 

Used for 

Analysis

Sonar is not used during every exercise.

Stressors to human resources were not analyzed for this activity since it occurs greater than 12 NM

from shore.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

A-56

Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions

Amphibious Marine Expeditionary Unit Integration Exercise

Amphibious Warfare

Amphibious Marine Expeditionary Unit Integration Exercise

Short Description Navy and Marine Corps forces conduct 

integration training at sea in preparation for 

deployment.

Typical Duration

Up to 3 weeks

Long Description Amphibious ships and Marine Expeditionary Unit integrate for the first time at sea to practice

amphibious tactics, techniques, and procedures. Navy and Marine Corps forces conduct basic 

amphibious operations to include small boat raids; visit, board, search, and seizure training; 

helicopter and mechanized amphibious raids.

Typical 

Components

Platforms: Amphibious warfare ships, fixed-wing aircraft, rotary-wing aircraft, small boats,

tiltrotor aircraft

Targets: None

Systems being Trained/Tested: None

Standard 

Operating 

Procedures

(Section 2.3.3)

Vessel safety

Aircraft safety

Typical Locations

Range Complexes/Testing 

Ranges:

Southern California Range 

Complex

Bays/Estuaries/Pierside:

None

Stressors to 

Biological 

Resources

Acoustic: 

Aircraft noise

Vessel noise

Explosives:

None

Physical Disturbance and Strike: 

Aircraft and aerial targets

Vessels and in-water devices

Ingestion: 

None

Energy:

In-air electromagnetic 

devices

Entanglement: 

None

Stressors to 

Physical 

Resources

Air Quality:

Criteria air pollutants

Habitats:

None

Sediments and Water Quality:

None

Stressors to 

Human Resources

Cultural Resources: 

Physical disturbance and 

strike

Socioeconomic Resources: 

Accessibility

Airborne acoustics

Physical disturbance and strike

Public Health and Safety: 

Physical interactions

In-air energy

Military 

Expended 

Material

Ingestible Material:

None

Non-Ingestible Material:

None

Military 

Recoverable 

Material

None

Sonar and Other 

Transducer Bins

None

In-Water 

Explosive Bins

None

Procedural 

Mitigation 

Measures

Physical Disturbance and Strike: (Section 5.3.4)

Vessel movement

Assumptions 

Used for Analysis

Weapons firing during this exercise is discussed under descriptions of appropriate unit-level 

exercises (e.g., surface-to-surface and air-to-surface small-caliber gunnery exercises).
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

A-57

Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions

Amphibious Raid

Amphibious Warfare

Amphibious Raid

Short 

Description

Small unit forces move from amphibious ships at 

sea for a specific short-term mission. These are 

quick operations with as few personnel as 

possible.

Typical Duration

4–8 hours

Long 

Description Small unit forces swiftly move from amphibious vessels at sea into hostile territory for a 

specific mission, including a planned withdrawal. Raids are conducted to inflict loss or 

damage, secure information, create a diversion, confuse the enemy, or capture or evacuate 

individuals or material. Amphibious raid forces are kept as small as possible to maximize 

stealth and speed of the operation. 

An event may employ assault amphibian vehicle units, small boats, small unit live-fire and 

non-live-fire operations. Surveillance or reconnaissance unmanned surface and aerial vehicles 

may be used during this event.

Events are also conducted to train in the delivery of humanitarian assistance to remote 

locations or areas requiring assistance after natural disasters.

Typical 

Components

Platforms: Amphibious warfare ship, small boats, unmanned aerial system

Targets: Land Targets

Systems being Trained/Tested: None

Standard 

Operating 

Procedures

(Section 

2.3.3)

Vessel safety

Aircraft safety

Typical Locations

Range Complexes/Testing 

Ranges:

Southern California Range 

Complex 

Silver Strand Training Complex

Bays/Estuaries/Pierside:

None

Stressors to 

Biological 

Resources

Acoustic:

Aircraft noise

Vessel noise

Explosive:

None

Physical Disturbance and Strike: 

Aircraft and aerial target

Vessels and in-water devices

Ingestion:

None

Energy:

None

Entanglement: 

None

Stressors to 

Physical 

Resources

Air Quality:

Criteria air pollutants

Sediments and Water Quality:

None

Stressors to 

Human 

Resources

Cultural Resources: 

Physical disturbance and 

strike

Socioeconomic Resources: 

Accessibility

Physical disturbance and strike

Public Health and Safety: 

Physical interactions

Military 

Expended 

Material

Ingestible Material:

None

Non-Ingestible Material:

None

Military 

Recoverable 

Material

None

Sonar and 

Other 

Transducer 

Bins

None

Explosive 

Bins

None
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

A-58

Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions

Amphibious Warfare

Amphibious Raid

Procedural 

Mitigation

Measures

Physical Disturbance and Strike: (Section 5.3.4)

Vessel movement

Assumptions 

Used for 

Analysis

Weapons firing during this event is discussed in appropriate activity descriptions (e.g., 

surface-to-surface and air-to-surface small-caliber gunnery exercises).

Potential locations for this activity include Southern California Range Complex (West 

Cove, Horse Beach, Northwest Harbor, Pyramid Cove, Camp Pendleton Amphibious 

Assault Area ), and Silver Strand Training Complex (Boat Lanes 1–8, 11–14 [Bravo, 

Delta I, II, III, Echo, Eel Point, Foxtrot, Golf, Hotel]).

For air quality analysis:

- 1 small boat

- Average 8 hours per event
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

A-59

Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions

Amphibious Ready Group/Marine Expeditionary Unit Certification Exercise

Amphibious Warfare

Amphibious Ready Group/Marine Expeditionary Unit Certification Exercise

Short 

Description

Navy and Marine Corps forces conduct advanced 

training at sea in preparation for deployment.

Typical Duration

Up to three weeks

Long 

Description Amphibious ships and embarked Marine Expeditionary Unit train to a multitude of scenarios 

to test the capabilities of the amphibious force. Operations include ship to shore movement 

with tilt-rotor aircraft and Landing Craft Air Cushion vessels. Marine Corps forces conduct 

more advanced amphibious operations to include small boat raids; visit, board, search, and 

seizure training; helicopter and mechanized amphibious raids; and non-combatant 

evacuation operations. 

This exercise generally occurs during a composite training unit exercise.

Typical 

Components

Platforms: Amphibious warfare ship, combat logistics ship, rotary-wing aircraft, small boat,

submarines, surface combatant, tilt-rotor aircraft

Targets: None

Systems being Trained/Tested: Mid-frequency sonar

Standard 

Operating 

Procedures

(Section 

2.3.3)

Vessel safety

Aircraft safety

Typical Locations

Range Complexes/Testing 

Ranges:

Southern California Range 

Complex (including Point Mugu 

portion of Study Area)

Bays/Estuaries/Pierside:

None

Stressors to 

Biological 

Resources

Acoustic:

Sonar and other 

transducers

Aircraft noise

Vessel noise

Explosive:

None

Physical Disturbance and Strike: 

Aircraft and aerial target

Vessels and in-water devices

Ingestion:

None

Energy:

In-air electromagnetic 

devices

Entanglement: 

None

Stressors to 

Physical 

Resources

Air Quality:

Criteria air pollutants

Sediments and Water Quality:

None

Stressors to 

Human 

Resources

Cultural Resources: 

Physical disturbance and 

strike

Socioeconomic Resources: 

Accessibility

Airborne acoustics

Physical disturbance and strike

Public Health and Safety: 

Physical interactions

Military 

Expended 

Material

Ingestible Material:

None

Non-Ingestible Material:

None

Military 

Recoverable 

Material

None

Sonar and 

Other 

Transducer 

Bins

Mid-Frequency: 

MF1

Explosive 

Bins

None
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

A-60

Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions

Amphibious Warfare

Amphibious Ready Group/Marine Expeditionary Unit Certification Exercise

Procedural 

Mitigation

Measures

Acoustic Stressors: (section 5.3.2)

Active sonar

Physical Disturbance and Strike: (section 

5.3.4)

Vessel movement

Assumptions 

Used for 

Analysis

For air quality analysis:

- 8 rotary-wing aircraft

- 15 small surface craft

- 5 V-22 Osprey aircraft

- Average 24 hours per event
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

A-61

Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions

Expeditionary Fires Exercise/Supporting Arms Coordination Exercise

Amphibious Warfare

Expeditionary Fires Exercise/Supporting Arms Coordination Exercise

Short 

Description

Military units provide integrated and effective 

close air support, Naval Surface Fire Support fire, 

and Marine Corps artillery fire in support of 

amphibious operations.

Typical Duration

8–12 days

Long 

Description Military units provide integrated and effective close air support, Naval Surface Fire Support 

fire, and Marine Corps artillery fire in support of amphibious operations.

The mission of the exercise is to achieve effective integration of Naval gunfire, close air 

support, and Marine Corps artillery fire support.

Typical 

Components

Platforms: Amphibious warfare ship, fixed-wing aircraft, rotary-wing aircraft

Targets: Land targets

Systems being Trained/Tested: None

Standard 

Operating 

Procedures

(Section 

2.3.3)

Vessel safety

Aircraft safety

Weapons firing safety

Typical Locations

Range Complexes/Testing 

Ranges:

Southern California Range 

Complex

Bays/Estuaries/Pierside:

None

Stressors to 

Biological 

Resources

Acoustic:

Aircraft noise

Vessel noise

Weapons noise

Explosive:

None

Physical Disturbance and Strike: 

Vessels and in-water devices

Ingestion:

None

Energy:

None

Entanglement: 

None

Stressors to 

Physical 

Resources

Air Quality:

Criteria air pollutants

Sediments and Water Quality:

None

Stressors to 

Human 

Resources

Cultural Resources: 

None

Socioeconomic Resources: 

Accessibility

Airborne acoustics

Public Health and Safety: 

Physical interactions

Military 

Expended 

Material

Ingestible Material:

None

Non-Ingestible Material:

None

Military 

Recoverable 

Material

None

Sonar and 

Other 

Transducer 

Bins

None

Explosive 

Bins

None

Procedural 

Mitigation

Measures

Acoustic Stressors: (section 5.3.2)

Weapons firing noise

Physical Disturbance and Strike: (section 

5.3.4)

Vessel movement

Assumptions 

Used for 

Analysis

Impacts from land based targeting are not analyzed. Only the at-sea components of this activity 

are analyzed in this document.

Potential locations for this activity include Shore Bombardment Area
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

A-62

Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions

Humanitarian Assistance Operations

Amphibious Warfare

Humanitarian Assistance Operations

Short 

Description

Military units evacuate noncombatants from 

hostile or unsafe areas or provide humanitarian 

assistance in times of disaster.

Typical Duration

12 hours

Long 

Description

Military units evacuate noncombatants from hostile or unsafe areas to safe havens or to 

provide humanitarian assistance in times of disaster. Non-Combatant Evacuation Operation is 

conducted by military units (generally Marine Corps) usually operating in conjunction with 

Navy ships and aircraft. Non-combatants are evacuated when their lives are endangered by 

war, civil unrest, or natural disaster. Marine Corps Marine expeditionary units train for 

evacuations in hostile environments that require the use of force, though usually there is no 

opposition to evacuation from the host country. Helicopters and landing crafts could be 

expected to participate in this operation during day or night.

Typical 

Components

Platforms: Amphibious warfare ship, rotary-wing aircraft, tilt-rotor aircraft

Targets: None

Systems being Trained/Tested: None

Standard 

Operating 

Procedures

(Section 

2.3.3)

Vessel safety

Aircraft safety

Typical Locations

Range Complexes/Testing 

Ranges:

Hawaii Range Complex

Silver Strand Training Complex

Bays/Estuaries/Pierside:

None

Stressors to 

Biological 

Resources

Acoustic:

Aircraft noise

Vessel noise

Explosive:

None

Physical Disturbance and Strike: 

Aircraft and aerial target

Vessels and in-water devices

Ingestion:

None

Energy:

None

Entanglement: 

None

Stressors to 

Physical 

Resources

Air Quality:

Criteria air pollutants

Sediments and Water Quality:

None

Stressors to 

Human 

Resources

Cultural Resources: 

Physical disturbance and 

strike

Socioeconomic Resources: 

Accessibility

Physical disturbance and strike

Public Health and Safety: 

Physical interactions

Military 

Expended 

Material

Ingestible Material:

None

Non-Ingestible Material:

None

Military 

Recoverable 

Material

None

Sonar and 

Other 

Transducer 

Bins

None

Explosive 

Bins

None

Procedural 

Mitigation

Measures

Physical Disturbance and Strike: (section 

5.3.4)

Vessel movement
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

A-63

Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions

Amphibious Warfare

Humanitarian Assistance Operations

Assumptions 

Used for 

Analysis

Potential locations for this activity in the Hawaii Range Complex include Pacific Missile 

Range Facility).

For air quality analysis:

- 1 rotary-wing aircraft

- 1 V-22 Osprey aircraft

- Average 12 hours per event
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

A-64

Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions

Naval Surface Fire Support Exercise—At Sea

Amphibious Warfare

Naval Surface Fire Support Exercise—At Sea

Short 

Description

Surface ship crews fire large-caliber guns at a 

passive acoustic hydrophone scoring system.

Typical Duration

1–2 hours of firing, 8 hours total

Long 

Description

Surface ship crews use large-caliber guns to support forces ashore; however, the land target 

is simulated at sea. Rounds are scored by passive acoustic buoys located at or near the 

target area. 

The scoring system is comprised of hydrophones permanently installed on the ocean floor as 

part of the Barking Sands Tactical Underwater Range west of Kauai. A scoring system provides a 

realistic presentation, such as a land mass with topography, to the vessel’s combat system. This 

virtual land target area overlays the hydrophone array. The vessel fires its ordnance into the 

target area and the acoustic noise resulting from the impact of the round landing in the water is 

detected by the hydrophones. The scoring system triangulates the exact point of impact of the 

round, allowing the exercise to be conducted as if the vessel were firing at an actual land 

target. Surface ship crews use large-caliber (main battery) guns to support forces ashore.

Typical 

Components

Platforms: Surface combatant

Targets: None

Systems being Trained/Tested: None

Standard 

Operating 

Procedures

(Section 

2.3.3)

Vessel safety

Weapons firing safety

Typical Locations

Range Complexes/Testing 

Ranges:

Hawaii Range Complex

Bays/Estuaries/Pierside:

None

Stressors to 

Biological 

Resources

Acoustic:

Vessel noise

Weapons noise

Underwater explosives

Explosive:

None

Physical Disturbance and Strike: 

Vessels and in-water devices

Military expended materials

Ingestion:

Military expended materials –

munitions

Energy:

None

Entanglement: 

None

Stressors to

Physical 

Resources

Air Quality:

Criteria air pollutants

Sediments and Water Quality:

Explosives Metals

Stressors to 

Human 

Resources

Cultural Resources: 

Explosives

Physical disturbance and 

strike

Socioeconomic Resources: 

Accessibility

Airborne acoustics

Physical disturbance and strike

Public Health and Safety: 

Underwater energy

Physical interactions

Military 

Expended 

Material

Ingestible Material:

Large-caliber shell fragments

Non-Ingestible Material:

None

Military 

Recoverable 

Material

None

Sonar and 

Other 

Transducer 

Bins

None

Explosive 

Bins

E5
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

A-65

Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions

Amphibious Warfare

Naval Surface Fire Support Exercise—At Sea

Procedural 

Mitigation

Measures

Acoustic Stressors: (section 5.3.2)

Weapons firing noise

Physical Disturbance and Strike: (section 5.3.4)

Vessel movement

Small-, medium-, and large-caliber nonexplosive practice munitions

Explosive Stressors: (section 5.3.3)

Explosive medium-caliber and large-caliber 

projectiles

Assumptions 

Used for 

Analysis

Events occur greater than 12 nautical miles from shore.

Non-explosive practice munitions may be used when acoustic sensors can detect 

projectile splash. High explosives may be used during all other events.

Assume all explosive rounds detonate on impact with water surface.

Potential locations for this activity include Warning Area-188 (including Barking Sands 

Underwater Range Extension and Barking Sands Tactical Underwater Range).
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

A-66

Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions

Naval Surface Fire Support Exercise—Land-Based Target

Amphibious Warfare

Naval Surface Fire Support Exercise—Land-Based Target

Short 

Description

Surface ship crews fire large-caliber guns at 

land-based targets in support of forces ashore.

Typical Duration

1–2 hours

Long 

Description

Surface ship crews use large-caliber guns to support forces ashore.

One or more ships position themselves up to six nautical miles from the target area and a 

land-based spotter relays type and exact location of the target. After observing the fall of the 

shot, the spotter relays any adjustments needed to reach the target. Once the rounds are on 

target, the spotter requests a sufficient number to effectively destroy the target.

This exercise occurs on land ranges where high-explosive and non-explosive practice ordnance 

is authorized and is often supported by target shapes such as tanks, trucks, trains, or aircraft on 

the ground.

Typical 

Components

Platforms: Surface combatant

Targets: Land Targets

Systems being Trained/Tested: None

Standard 

Operating 

Procedures

(Section 

2.3.3)

Vessel safety

Weapons firing safety

Typical Locations

Range Complexes/Testing 

Ranges:

Southern California Range 

Complex

Bays/Estuaries/Pierside:

None

Stressors to 

Biological 

Resources

Acoustic:

Vessel noise

Weapons noise

Explosive:

None

Physical Disturbance and Strike: 

Vessels and in-water devices

Ingestion:

None

Energy:

None

Entanglement: 

None

Stressors to 

Physical 

Resources

Air Quality:

Criteria air pollutants

Sediments and Water Quality:

None

Stressors to 

Human 

Resources

Cultural Resources: 

None

Socioeconomic Resources: 

Accessibility

Public Health and Safety: 

Physical interactions

Military 

Expended 

Material

Ingestible Material:

None

Non-Ingestible Material:

None

Military 

Recoverable 

Material

None

Sonar and 

Other 

Transducer 

Bins

None

Explosive 

Bins

None

Procedural 

Mitigation

Measures

Acoustic Stressors: (section 5.3.2)

Weapons firing noise

Physical Disturbance and Strike: (section 5.3.4)

Vessel movement

Small-, medium-, and large-caliber nonexplosive practice munitions

Assumptions 

Used for 

Analysis

Projectile impact is on land and is not further analyzed. No land based impacts are included 

in this document.

Potential locations for this activity include Shore Bombardment Area
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

A-67

Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions

ANTI-SUBMARINE WARFARE TRAINING

Anti-submarine warfare involves helicopter and maritime patrol aircraft, ships, and submarines. These 

units operate alone or in combination to locate, track, and neutralize submarines. Controlling the 

undersea battlespace is a unique naval capability and a vital aspect of sea control. Undersea battlespace 

dominance requires proficiency in anti-submarine warfare. Every deploying strike group and individual 

surface combatant must possess this capability. 

Various types of active and passive sonar are used by the Navy to determine water depth, and identify, 

track, and target submarines. Passive sonar “listens” for sound waves by using underwater 

microphones, called hydrophones, which receive, amplify, and process underwater sounds. No sound is 

introduced into the water when using passive sonar. Passive sonar can indicate the presence, character, 

and movement of submarines. However, passive sonar provides only a bearing (direction) to a soundemitting source; it does not provide an accurate range (distance) to the source. Active sonar is needed 

to locate objects because active sonar provides both bearing and range to the detected contact (such as 

an enemy submarine). 

The Navy’s anti-submarine warfare training plan, including the use of active sonar in at-sea training 

scenarios, includes multiple levels of training. Individual-level anti-submarine warfare training addresses 

basic skills such as detection and classification of contacts, distinguishing discrete acoustic signatures 

including those of ships, submarines, and marine life, and identifying the characteristics, functions, and 

effects of controlled jamming and evasion devices. 

More advanced, integrated anti-submarine warfare training exercises involving active sonar are 

conducted in coordinated, at-sea operations during training events involving submarines, ships, aircraft, 

and helicopters. This training integrates the full anti-submarine warfare continuum from detecting and 

tracking a submarine to attacking a target using either exercise torpedoes or simulated weapons. 

Training events include detection and tracking exercises against “enemy” submarine contacts; torpedo 

employment exercises against the target; and exercising command and control tasks in a multidimensional battlespace.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

A-68

Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions

Torpedo Exercise—Helicopter

Anti-Submarine Warfare

Anti-Submarine Warfare Torpedo Exercise - Helicopter

Short 

Description

Helicopter crews search for, track, and detect 

submarines. Recoverable air launched torpedoes 

are employed against submarine targets.

Typical Duration

2–5 hours

Long 

Description

Helicopters using sonobuoys and dipping sonar search for, detect, classify, localize, and track a 

simulated threat submarine with the goal of determining a firing solution that could be used to 

launch a torpedo and destroy the submarine. Sonobuoys (both passive and active) are typically 

employed by a helicopter operating at altitudes below 3,000 feet (ft.). Dipping sonar (both 

passive and active) is employed from an altitude of about 50 ft. after the search area has been 

narrowed based on the sonobuoy search. The anti-submarine warfare target used for this 

exercise may be a MK-39 Expendable Mobile Anti-submarine Warfare Training Target, a MK-30 

target, or a live submarine. This exercise may involve a single aircraft, or occur during a 

coordinated larger exercise involving multiple aircraft and ships, including a major range event. 

Unmanned aerial systems, such as the MQ-8 Fire Scout, may also be used. The exercise 

torpedo is recovered by a special recovery helicopter or small craft. The preferred range for 

this exercise is an instrumented underwater range, but it may be conducted in other areas 

within the Study Area depending on training requirements and available assets.

Typical 

Components

Platforms: Rotary-wing aircraft, unmanned aerial system, small boat

Targets: Sub-surface targets

Systems being Trained/Tested: Mid-frequency sonar, torpedoes

Standard 

Operating 

Procedures

(Section 

2.3.3)

Vessel safety

Aircraft safety

Unmanned aerial, 

surface, and 

subsurface vehicle 

safety

Typical Locations

Range Complexes/Testing 

Ranges:

Hawaii Range Complex

Southern California Range 

Complex

Bays/Estuaries/Pierside:

None

Stressors to 

Biological 

Resources

Acoustic:

Sonar and other 

transducers

Aircraft noise

Vessel noise

Explosive:

None

Physical Disturbance and Strike: 

Aircraft and aerial target

Vessels and in-water devices

Military expended materials

Ingestion:

Military expended materials –

munitions

Military expended materials – other 

than munitions

Energy:

In-air electromagnetic 

devices

Entanglement: 

Decelerators/parachutes

Stressors to 

Physical 

Resources

Air Quality:

Criteria air pollutants

Sediments and Water Quality:

Chemicals

Metals Other materials

Stressors to 

Human 

Resources

Cultural Resources: 

Physical disturbance and 

strike

Socioeconomic Resources: 

Accessibility

Airborne acoustics

Physical disturbance and strike

Public Health and Safety: 

Underwater energy

Physical interactions

Military 

Expended 

Material

Ingestible Material:

Small decelerators/parachutes

Non-Ingestible Material:

None

Military 

Recoverable 

Material

Recoverable Anti-Submarine Warfare

Training Targets, Exercise 

Torpedoes
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

A-69

Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions

Anti-Submarine Warfare

Anti-Submarine Warfare Torpedo Exercise - Helicopter

Sonar and 

Other 

Transducer 

Bins

Mid-Frequency: 

MF4 MF5

Torpedoes: 

TORP1

Explosive 

Bins

None

Procedural 

Mitigation

Measures

Acoustic Stressors: (section 5.3.2)

Active sonar

Physical Disturbance and Strike: (section 

5.3.4)

Vessel movement

Assumptions 

Used for 

Analysis

Potential locations for this activity in the Hawaii Range Complex include Barking Sands 

Underwater Range Extension, Barking Sands Tactical Underwater Range, and Shallow Water 

Training Range. Locations within the Southern California Range Complex include Southern 

California Anti-Submarine Warfare Range, and Shallow Water Training Range.

For air quality analysis:

- 1 rotary-wing aircraft per event

- 1 target per event

- Average 2 hours per event
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

A-70

Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions

Torpedo Exercise—Maritime Patrol Aircraft

Anti-Submarine Warfare

Anti-Submarine Warfare Torpedo Exercise—Maritime Patrol Aircraft

Short 

Description

Maritime patrol aircraft crews search for, track, 

and detect submarines. Recoverable air 

launched torpedoes are employed against 

submarine targets.

Typical Duration

2–8 hours

Long 

Description

Fixed-wing maritime patrol aircraft employ sonobuoys to search for, detect, classify, localize, 

and track a simulated threat submarine with the goal of determining a firing solution that 

could be used to launch a torpedo and destroy the submarine.

Sonobuoys (both passive and active) are typically employed by a maritime patrol aircraft 

operating at altitudes below 3,000 feet. However, sonobuoys may be released at higher 

altitudes. Sonobuoys are deployed in specific patterns based on the expected threat submarine 

and specific water conditions. Depending on these two factors, these patterns will cover many 

different size areas. For certain sonobuoys, tactical parameters of use may be classified. The 

anti-submarine warfare target used for this exercise may be a MK-39 Expendable Mobile AntiSubmarine Warfare Training Target, a MK-30 target, or a live submarine. This exercise may 

involve a single aircraft, or be undertaken in the context of a coordinated larger exercise 

involving multiple aircraft and vessels, including a major range event. The exercise torpedo is 

recovered by helicopter or small craft. The preferred range for this exercise is an instrumented 

underwater range, but it may be conducted in other Operations Areas depending on training 

requirements and available assets.

Typical 

Components

Platforms: Fixed-wing aircraft

Targets: Sub-surface targets

Systems being Trained/Tested: Mid-frequency sonar, torpedoes

Standard 

Operating 

Procedures

(Section 

2.3.3)

Aircraft safety Typical Locations

Range Complexes/Testing 

Ranges:

Hawaii Range Complex

Southern California Range 

Complex

Bays/Estuaries/Pierside:

None

Stressors to 

Biological 

Resources

Acoustic:

Sonar and other 

transducers

Aircraft noise

Explosive:

None

Physical Disturbance and Strike: 

Aircraft and aerial target

Military expended materials

Ingestion:

Military expended materials –

munitions

Military expended materials – other 

than munitions

Energy:

None

Entanglement: 

Decelerators/parachutes

Stressors to 

Physical 

Resources

Air Quality:

Criteria air pollutants

Sediments and Water Quality:

Chemicals

Metals Other materials

Stressors to 

Human 

Resources

Cultural Resources: 

Physical disturbance and 

strike

Socioeconomic Resources: 

Accessibility

Airborne acoustics

Physical disturbance and strike

Public Health and Safety: 

Underwater energy

Physical interactions
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

A-71

Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions

Anti-Submarine Warfare

Anti-Submarine Warfare Torpedo Exercise—Maritime Patrol Aircraft

Military 

Expended 

Material

Ingestible Material:

Small decelerators/parachutes

Non-Ingestible Material:

None

Military 

Recoverable 

Material

Recoverable Anti-Submarine Warfare

Training Targets, Exercise 

Torpedoes

Sonar and 

Other 

Transducer 

Bins

Mid-Frequency: 

MF5

Torpedoes: 

TORP1

Explosive 

Bins

None

Procedural 

Mitigation

Measures

Acoustic Stressors: (section 5.3.2)

Active sonar

Assumptions 

Used for 

Analysis

Submarine may provide service as the target.

If target is air-dropped, one parachute per target.

Potential locations for this activity in the Hawaii Range Complex include Barking Sands 

Underwater Range Extension, Barking Sands Tactical Underwater Range, and Shallow Water 

Training Range. Locations within the Southern California Range Complex include Southern 

California Anti-Submarine Warfare Range, and Shallow Water Training Range (offshore and 

nearshore).

For air quality analysis:

- 1 fixed-wing patrol aircraft per event

- Average 6 hours per event
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

A-72

Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions

Torpedo Exercise—Ship 

Anti-Submarine Warfare

Anti-Submarine Warfare Torpedo Exercise—Ship

Short 

Description

Surface ship crews search for, track, and detect 

submarines. Exercise torpedoes are used during 

this event.

Typical Duration

2–5 hours

Long 

Description

Surface ships search for, detect, and track threat submarines to determine a firing position 

to launch a torpedo and attack the submarine. A surface ship operates at slow speeds while 

employing hull mounted or towed array sonar. Passive or active sonar is employed 

depending on the type of threat submarine, the tactical situation, and environmental 

conditions. The anti-submarine warfare target used for this exercise is a MK-39 Expendable 

Mobile Anti-Submarine Warfare (ASW) Training Target, MK-30 Target, or live submarine. 

This exercise may involve a single ship, or be undertaken in the context of a coordinated 

larger exercise involving multiple aircraft, ships, and submarines, including a major 

range event.

The exercise torpedo is recovered by helicopter or small craft. The preferred range for this 

exercise is an instrumented underwater range, but it may be conducted in other range 

complexes depending on training requirements and available assets.

Typical 

Components

Platforms: Rotary-wing aircraft, small boat, surface combatant

Targets: Sub-surface targets

Systems being Trained/Tested: Mid-frequency sonar, torpedoes

Standard 

Operating 

Procedures

(Section 

2.3.3)

Vessel safety

Aircraft safety

Towed in-water device 

safety

Typical Locations

Range Complexes/Testing 

Ranges:

Hawaii Range Complex

Southern California Range 

Complex

Point Mugu Sea Range Overlap

Bays/Estuaries/Pierside:

None

Stressors to 

Biological 

Resources

Acoustic:

Sonar and other 

transducers

Aircraft noise

Vessel noise

Explosive:

None

Physical Disturbance and Strike: 

Vessels and in-water devices

Military expended materials

Ingestion:

Military expended materials – other 

than munitions

Energy:

In-air electromagnetic 

devices

Entanglement: 

None

Stressors to 

Physical 

Resources

Air Quality:

Criteria air pollutants

Sediments and Water Quality:

None

Stressors to 

Human 

Resources

Cultural Resources: 

Physical disturbance and 

strike

Socioeconomic Resources: 

Accessibility

Airborne acoustics

Physical disturbance and strike

Public Health and Safety: 

Underwater energy

Physical interactions

Military 

Expended 

Material

Ingestible Material:

Lightweight Torpedo Accessories

Non-Ingestible Material:

Expendable Bathythermograph,

Lightweight Torpedo Accessories, 

Expendable ASW Training Targets

Military 

Recoverable 

Material

Recoverable ASW Training Targets, 

Exercise Torpedoes
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

A-73

Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions

Anti-Submarine Warfare

Anti-Submarine Warfare Torpedo Exercise—Ship

Sonar and 

Other 

Transducer 

Bins

Mid-Frequency: 

MF1

Anti-Submarine Warfare: 

ASW3

Torpedoes: 

TORP1

Explosive 

Bins

None

Procedural 

Mitigation

Measures

Acoustic Stressors: (section 5.3.2)

Active sonar

Physical Disturbance and Strike: (section 5.3.4)

Vessel movement

Towed in-water devices

Assumptions 

Used for 

Analysis

Submarines may provide service as the target. Torpedoes are recovered.

Potential locations for this activity in the Hawaii Range Complex include Barking Sands 

Underwater Range Extension, Barking Sands Tactical Underwater Range, and Shallow Water 

Training Range; and in the Southern California Range Complex include Southern California AntiSubmarine Warfare Range.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

A-74

Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions

Torpedo Exercise—Submarine

Anti-Submarine Warfare

Anti-Submarine Warfare Torpedo Exercise—Submarine

Short 

Description

Submarine crews search for, track, and detect 

submarines. Exercise torpedoes are used during 

this event.

Typical Duration

8 hours

Long 

Description

Submarine crews search for, detect and track a threat submarine to develop firing position to 

launch a torpedo. A single submerged submarine operates at slow speeds and various depths 

while using its hull mounted or towed array sonar to track a threat submarine. While passive 

sonar is most typically used for this training event, some active sonar may be used on 

occasion. Non-explosive exercise torpedoes may also be fired during training. 

This exercise may involve a single submarine, or be undertaken in the context of a coordinated 

larger exercise involving multiple aircraft, ships, and submarines, including a major range event.

The exercise torpedo is recovered by helicopter or small craft. The preferred range for this 

exercise is an instrumented underwater range, but it may be conducted in other areas within 

the Study Area depending on training requirements and available assets.

Typical 

Components

Platforms: Rotary-wing aircraft, small boat, submarines

Targets: Sub-surface targets

Systems being Trained/Tested: Mid-frequency and high-frequency sonar, torpedoes

Standard 

Operating 

Procedures

(Section 

2.3.3)

Vessel safety

Aircraft safety

Towed in-water device 

safety

Typical Locations

Range Complexes/Testing 

Ranges:

Hawaii Range Complex

Southern California Range 

Complex

Bays/Estuaries/Pierside:

None

Stressors to 

Biological 

Resources

Acoustic:

Sonar and other 

transducers

Vessel noise

Explosive:

None

Physical Disturbance and Strike: 

Vessels and in-water devices

Military expended materials

Ingestion:

None

Energy:

None

Entanglement: 

Wires and cables

Stressors to 

Physical 

Resources

Air Quality:

None

Sediments and Water Quality:

Metals

Stressors to 

Human 

Resources

Cultural Resources: 

Physical disturbance and 

strike

Socioeconomic Resources: 

Physical disturbance and strike

Public Health and Safety: 

Underwater energy

Physical interactions

Military 

Expended 

Material

Ingestible Material:

None

Non-Ingestible Material:

Guidance Wires

Military 

Recoverable 

Material

Anti-Submarine Warfare Training 

Targets, Exercise Torpedoes

Sonar and 

Other 

Transducer 

Bins

Mid-Frequency: 

MF3

High-Frequency: 

HF1

Anti-Submarine Warfare: 

ASW4

Torpedoes: 

TORP2

Explosive 

Bins

None
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

A-75

Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions

Anti-Submarine Warfare

Anti-Submarine Warfare Torpedo Exercise—Submarine

Procedural 

Mitigation

Measures

Acoustic Stressors: (section 5.3.2)

Active sonar

Physical Disturbance and Strike: (section 

5.3.4)

Vessel movement

Towed in-water devices

Assumptions 

Used for 

Analysis

Torpedoes are recovered.

Guidance wire has a low breaking strength and breaks easily. Weights and flex tubing sink 

rapidly.

Potential locations for this activity include Southern California Anti-Submarine Warfare Range, 

and Hawaii Operations Area, (including Barking Sands Underwater Range Extension, Barking 

Sands Tactical Underwater Range, Shallow Water Training Range, and Hawaii Area Tracking 

System).
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

A-76

Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions

Tracking Exercise—Helicopter

Anti-Submarine Warfare

Anti-Submarine Warfare Tracking Exercise - Helicopter

Short 

Description

Helicopter crews search for, track, and detect 

submarines.

Typical Duration

2–4 hours

Long 

Description

Helicopters using sonobuoys and dipping sonar search for, detect, classify, localize, and track 

a simulated threat submarine with the goal of determining a firing solution that could be 

used to launch a torpedo and destroy the submarine. 

Sonobuoys (both passive and active) are typically employed by a helicopter operating at 

altitudes below 3,000 ft. Dipping sonar (both passive and active) is employed from an altitude 

of about 50 ft. after the search area has been narrowed based on the sonobuoy search. 

The anti-submarine warfare target used for this exercise may be a MK-39 Expendable Mobile 

Anti-submarine Warfare Training Target, a MK-30 target, or a live submarine. This exercise may 

involve a single aircraft, or occur during a coordinated larger exercise involving multiple aircraft 

and ships, including a major range event. Unmanned aerial systems, such as the MQ-8 Fire 

Scout, may also be used. The preferred range for this exercise is an instrumented range, but it 

may be conducted in other range complexes depending on training requirements and available 

assets.

Typical 

Components

Platforms: Rotary-wing aircraft, small boat, unmanned aerial system

Targets: Sub-surface targets

Systems being Trained/Tested: Dipping sonar systems

Standard 

Operating 

Procedures

(Section 

2.3.3)

Vessel safety

Aircraft safety

Unmanned aerial, 

surface, and 

subsurface vehicle 

safety

Typical Locations

Range Complexes/Testing 

Ranges:

Hawaii Range Complex

Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Transit 

Corridor

Southern California Range 

Complex

Bays/Estuaries/Pierside:

None

Stressors to 

Biological 

Resources

Acoustic:

Sonar and other 

transducers

Aircraft noise

Vessel noise

Explosive:

None

Physical Disturbance and Strike: 

Aircraft and aerial target

Vessels and in-water devices

Military expended materials

Ingestion:

Military expended materials –

munitions

Military expended materials – other 

than munitions

Energy:

In-air electromagnetic 

devices

Entanglement: 

Decelerators/parachutes

Stressors to 

Physical 

Resources

Air Quality:

Criteria air pollutants

Sediments and Water Quality:

Chemicals

Metals Other materials

Stressors to 

Human 

Resources

Cultural Resources: 

Physical disturbance and 

strike

Socioeconomic Resources: 

Accessibility

Airborne acoustics

Physical disturbance and strike

Public Health and Safety: 

Underwater energy

Physical interactions
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

A-77

Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions

Anti-Submarine Warfare

Anti-Submarine Warfare Tracking Exercise - Helicopter

Military 

Expended 

Material

Ingestible Material:

Small decelerators/parachutes

Non-Ingestible Material:

Sonobuoys, Expendable ASW Training 

Targets

Military 

Recoverable 

Material

Recoverable ASW Training Targets

Sonar and 

Other 

Transducer 

Bins

Mid-Frequency: 

MF4

MF5

Explosive 

Bins

None

Procedural 

Mitigation

Measures

Acoustic Stressors: (section 5.3.2)

Active sonar

Weapons firing noise

Physical Disturbance and Strike: (section 

5.3.4)

Vessel movement

Assumptions 

Used for 

Analysis

Submarines may provide service as the target.

Tracking exercise can occur anywhere within the Study Area; however, potential locations

for this activity in the Hawaii Range Complex include Barking Sands Underwater Range 

Extension, Barking Sands Tactical Underwater Range, and Shallow Water Training Range.

For air quality analysis:

- 1 rotary-wing aircraft per event

- Average 2 hours per event
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

A-78

Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions

Tracking Exercise—Maritime Patrol Aircraft

Anti-Submarine Warfare

Anti-Submarine Warfare Tracking Exercise—Maritime Patrol Aircraft

Short 

Description

Maritime patrol aircraft crews search for, track, 

and detect submarines.

Typical Duration

2–8 hours

Long 

Description

Fixed-wing maritime patrol aircraft employ sonobuoys to search for, detect, classify, 

localize, and track a simulated threat submarine with the goal of determining a firing 

solution that could be used to launch a torpedo and destroy the submarine.

Sonobuoys (both passive and active) are typically employed by a maritime patrol aircraft 

operating at altitudes below 3,000 feet. However, sonobuoys may be released at higher 

altitudes. Sonobuoys are deployed in specific patterns based on the expected threat submarine 

and specific water conditions. Depending on these two factors, these patterns will cover many 

different size areas. For certain sonobuoys, tactical parameters of use may be classified. The 

anti-submarine warfare target used for this exercise may be a MK-39 Expendable Mobile AntiSubmarine Warfare (ASW) Training Target, a MK-30 target, or a live submarine. This exercise 

may involve a single aircraft, or be undertaken in the context of a coordinated larger exercise 

involving multiple aircraft and vessels, including a major range event.

Typical 

Components

Platforms: Fixed-wing aircraft

Targets: Sub-surface targets

Systems being Trained/Tested: Mid-frequency sonar

Standard 

Operating 

Procedures

(Section 

2.3.3)

Aircraft safety Typical Locations

Range Complexes/Testing 

Ranges:

Hawaii Range Complex

Southern California Range 

Complex

Bays/Estuaries/Pierside:

None

Stressors to 

Biological 

Resources

Acoustic:

Sonar and other 

transducers

Aircraft noise

Vessel noise

Explosive:

None

Physical Disturbance and Strike: 

Aircraft and aerial target

Vessels and in-water devices

Military expended materials

Ingestion:

Military expended materials –

munitions

Military expended materials – other 

than munitions

Energy:

In-air electromagnetic 

devices

Entanglement: 

Decelerators/parachutes

Stressors to 

Physical 

Resources

Air Quality:

Criteria air pollutants

Sediments and Water Quality:

Chemicals

Metals Other materials

Stressors to 

Human 

Resources

Cultural Resources: 

Physical disturbance and

strike

Socioeconomic Resources: 

Accessibility

Airborne acoustics

Physical disturbance and strike

Public Health and Safety: 

Underwater energy

Physical interactions

Military 

Expended 

Material

Ingestible Material:

Small decelerators/parachutes

Non-Ingestible Material:

Sonobuoys, Expendable ASW Training 

Targets

Military 

Recoverable 

Material

Recoverable ASW Training Targets
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

A-79

Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions

Anti-Submarine Warfare

Anti-Submarine Warfare Tracking Exercise—Maritime Patrol Aircraft

Sonar and 

Other 

Transducer 

Bins

Mid-Frequency: 

MF5

Explosive 

Bins

None

Procedural 

Mitigation

Measures

Acoustic Stressors: (section 5.3.2)

Active sonar

Assumptions 

Used for 

Analysis

Submarine may provide service as the target.

If target is air-dropped, one parachute per target.

Tracking exercise can occur anywhere within the Study Area; however, Potential locations for 

this activity in the Hawaii Range Complex include Barking Sands Underwater Range Extension, 

Barking Sands Tactical Underwater Range, and Shallow Water Training Range; and in

Southern California Range Complex include Southern California Anti-Submarine Warfare 

Range Shallow Water Training Range (offshore and nearshore).

For air quality analysis:

- 1 fixed-wing patrol aircraft per event

- Average 6 hours per event
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

A-80

Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions

Tracking Exercise—Submarine

Anti-Submarine Warfare

Anti-Submarine Warfare Tracking Exercise—Submarine

Short 

Description

Submarine crews search for, track, and detect 

submarines.

Typical Duration

8 hours

Long 

Description

Submarine crews search for, detect and track a threat submarine to develop firing position to 

launch a torpedo. 

A single submerged submarine operates at slow speeds and various depths while using its hull 

mounted or towed array sonar to track a threat submarine. Passive sonar is used almost 

exclusively. The target for this exercise is either an MK 39 expendable mobile anti-submarine 

warfare training target, MK 30 recoverable training target, or live submarine. 

This exercise could occur anywhere throughout the HSTT Study Area. This exercise may involve 

a single submarine, or be undertaken in the context of a coordinated larger exercise involving 

multiple aircraft, ships, and submarines, including a major range event.

Typical 

Components

Platforms: Submarines

Targets: Sub-surface targets

Systems being Trained/Tested: Mid-frequency and high-frequency sonar

Standard 

Operating 

Procedures

(Section 

2.3.3)

Vessel 

Towed in-water device 

safety

Typical Locations

Range Complexes/Testing 

Ranges:

Hawaii Range Complex

Southern California Range 

Complex

Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing (HSTT) 

Transit Corridor

Bays/Estuaries/Pierside:

None

Stressors to 

Biological 

Resources

Acoustic:

Sonar and other 

transducers

Vessel noise

Explosive:

None

Physical Disturbance and Strike: 

Vessels and in-water devices

Military expended materials

Ingestion:

None

Energy:

None

Entanglement: 

None

Stressors to 

Physical 

Resources

Air Quality:

None

Sediments and Water Quality:

Metals

Stressors to 

Human 

Resources

Cultural Resources: 

Physical disturbance and 

strike

Socioeconomic Resources: 

Physical disturbance and strike

Public Health and Safety: 

Underwater energy

Physical interactions

Military 

Expended 

Material

Ingestible Material:

None

Non-Ingestible Material:

Expendable Anti-Submarine Warfare 

(ASW) Training Targets

Military 

Recoverable 

Material

Recoverable ASW Training Targets

Sonar and 

Other 

Transducer 

Bins

Mid-Frequency: 

MF3

High-Frequency: 

HF1 HF3

Anti-Submarine Warfare: 

ASW4
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

A-81

Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions

Anti-Submarine Warfare

Anti-Submarine Warfare Tracking Exercise—Submarine

Explosive 

Bins

None

Procedural 

Mitigation

Measures

Acoustic Stressors: (section 5.3.2)

Active sonar

Physical Disturbance and Strike: (section 

5.3.4)

Towed in-water devices

Assumptions 

Used for 

Analysis

Tracking exercise can occur anywhere within the Study Area; however, potential locations for 

this activity in the Hawaii Range Complex include Barking Sands Underwater Range Extension, 

Barking Sands Tactical Underwater Range, Shallow Water Training Range, and Hawaii Area 

Tracking System; and in the Southern California Range Complex include Southern California 

Anti-Submarine Warfare Range, Shallow Water Training Range (offshore and nearshore).
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

A-82

Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions

Tracking Exercise—Ship

Anti-Submarine Warfare

Anti-Submarine Warfare Tracking Exercise—Ship

Short 

Description

Surface ship crews search for, track, and detect 

submarines.

Typical Duration

2–4 hours

Long 

Description

Surface ships search for, detect, and track threat submarines to determine a firing position 

to launch a torpedo and attack the submarine. 

A surface ship operates at slow speeds while employing sonobuoys, hull mounted sonar, or 

towed array sonar. Passive or active sonar is employed depending on the type of threat 

submarine, the tactical situation, and environmental conditions. The target for this exercise 

is either a MK-39 Expendable Mobile Anti-Submarine Warfare Training Target, MK-30 

Recoverable Training Target, or live submarine. 

Anti-Submarine Warfare (ASW) Tracking exercise—Ship could occur anywhere throughout the 

HSTT Study Area. This exercise may involve a single ship, or be undertaken in the context of a 

coordinated larger exercise involving multiple aircraft, ships, and submarines, including a major 

range event.

Typical 

Components

Platforms: Surface combatant

Targets: Sub-surface targets

Systems being Trained/Tested: Mid-frequency sonar

Standard 

Operating 

Procedures

(Section 

2.3.3)

Vessel 

Towed in-water device 

safety

Typical Locations

Range Complexes/Testing 

Ranges:

Hawaii Range Complex

Southern California Range 

Complex

Bays/Estuaries/Pierside:

None

Stressors to 

Biological 

Resources

Acoustic:

Sonar and other 

transducers

Vessel noise

Explosive:

None

Physical Disturbance and Strike: 

Vessels and in-water devices

Ingestion:

None

Energy:

In-water electromagnetic 

devices

Entanglement: 

None

Stressors to 

Physical 

Resources

Air Quality:

Criteria air pollutants

Sediments and Water Quality:

None

Stressors to 

Human 

Resources

Cultural Resources: 

Physical disturbance and 

strike

Socioeconomic Resources: 

Accessibility

Airborne acoustics

Physical disturbance and strike

Public Health and Safety: 

Underwater energy

Physical interactions

Military 

Expended 

Material

Ingestible Material:

None

Non-Ingestible Material:

Expendable ASW Training Targets, 

Expendable bathythermograph

Military 

Recoverable 

Material

Recoverable ASW Training Targets

Sonar and 

Other 

Transducer 

Bins

Mid-Frequency: 

MF1

MF11

MF12

Anti-Submarine Warfare: 

ASW3

Explosive 

Bins

None
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

A-83

Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions

Anti-Submarine Warfare

Anti-Submarine Warfare Tracking Exercise—Ship

Procedural 

Mitigation

Measures

Acoustic Stressors: (section 5.3.2)

Active sonar

Physical Disturbance and Strike: (section 5.3.4)

Vessel movement

Towed in-water devices

Assumptions 

Used for 

Analysis

A Submarine may provide service as the target.

Hawaii-Southern California Training and Testing Study Area events typically refer to 

those events that occur while vessels are in transit.

Potential locations for this activity in the Hawaii Range Complex include Barking Sands 

Underwater Range Extension, Barking Sands Tactical Underwater Range, and Shallow Water 

Training Range; and the Southern California Range Complex include Southern California AntiSubmarine Warfare Range and Warning Area 291.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

A-84

Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions

Service Weapons Test

Anti-Submarine Warfare

Service Weapons Test

Short 

Description

Air, surface, or submarine crews employ 

explosive torpedoes against virtual targets.

Typical Duration

8 hours

Long 

Description

Non-explosive and explosive torpedoes (carrying a warhead) would be launched at a 

suspended target by a submarine and fixed- or rotary-winged aircraft or surface combatants. 

Torpedoes would detonate on an artificial target located at a depth between 200 and 700 feet

below the water’s surface. Event duration is 1–2 days during daylight hours. Only one 

heavyweight torpedo test could occur in 1 day; two heavyweight torpedo tests could occur on 

consecutive days. Two lightweight torpedo tests could occur in a single day.

Typical 

Components

Platforms: Fixed-wing aircraft, submarines, support craft

Targets: Sub-surface targets; surface targets

Systems being Trained/Tested: Mid-frequency and high-frequency sonar, torpedoes

Standard 

Operating 

Procedures

(Section 

2.3.3)

Vessel safety

Aircraft safety

Weapons firing safety

Towed in-water device 

safety

Typical Locations

Range Complexes/Testing 

Ranges:

Hawaii Range Complex

Southern California Range 

Complex

Bays/Estuaries/Pierside:

None

Stressors to 

Biological 

Resources

Acoustic:

Sonar and other 

transducers

Aircraft noise

Vessel noise

Explosive:

Explosions in water

Physical Disturbance and Strike: 

Aircraft and aerial target

Vessels and in-water devices

Military expended materials

Ingestion:

Military expended materials –

munitions

Energy:

In-water electromagnetic 

devices

Entanglement: 

Wires and cables

Stressors to 

Physical 

Resources

Air Quality:

Criteria air pollutants

Sediments and Water Quality:

Explosives Chemicals

Metals Other materials

Stressors to 

Human 

Resources

Cultural Resources: 

Physical disturbance and 

strike

Socioeconomic Resources: 

Physical disturbance and strike

Public Health and Safety: 

Underwater energy

Physical interactions

Military 

Expended 

Material

Ingestible Material:

Torpedo Fragments

Non-Ingestible Material:

Guidance Wires

Military 

Recoverable 

Material

None

Sonar and 

Other 

Transducer 

Bins

Mid-Frequency: 

MF3 MF6

High-Frequency: 

HF1

Torpedoes: 

TORP2

Explosive 

Bins

E11
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

A-85

Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions

Anti-Submarine Warfare

Service Weapons Test

Procedural 

Mitigation

Measures

Acoustic Stressors: (section 5.3.2)

Active sonar

Physical Disturbance and Strike: (section 

5.3.4)

Vessel movement

Towed in-water devices

Explosive Stressors: (section 5.3.3)

Torpedo (Explosive) Testing

Assumptions 

Used for 

Analysis

Potential locations for this activity in the Hawaii Range Complex include Warning Area 188(A); 

and within the Southern California Range complex include Southern California Anti-Submarine 

Warfare Range.

For air quality analysis:

- 1 fixed-wing aircraft

- 1 support craft

- Average 8 hours per event
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

A-86

Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions

ELECTRONIC WARFARE 

Electronic warfare is the mission area of naval warfare that aims to control use of the electromagnetic 

spectrum and to deny its use by an adversary. Typical electronic warfare activities include threat 

avoidance training, signals analysis for intelligence purposes, and use of airborne and surface electronic 

jamming devices to defeat tracking systems.

Counter Targeting Chaff Exercise—Aircraft

Electronic Warfare

Counter Targeting Chaff Exercise—Aircraft

Short 

Description

Fixed-winged aircraft and helicopter aircrews 

deploy chaff to disrupt threat targeting and 

missile guidance radars.

Typical Duration

1–2 hours

Long 

Description

Fixed-winged aircraft and helicopter aircrews deploy chaff to disrupt threat targeting and 

missile guidance radars. 

Fixed-winged aircraft and helicopter aircrews detect electronic targeting signals from threat 

radars or missiles, dispense chaff, and immediately maneuver to defeat the threat. The chaff 

cloud deceives the inbound missile and the aircraft clears away from the threat. 

Chaff is a radar reflector material made of thin, narrow, metallic strips cut in various lengths to 

elicit frequency responses, which deceive enemy radars. Chaff is employed to create a target 

that will lure enemy radar and weapons system away from the actual friendly platform.

Typical 

Components

Platforms: Fixed-wing aircraft, rotary-wing aircraft

Targets: None

Systems being Trained/Tested: None

Standard 

Operating 

Procedures

(Section 

2.3.3)

Aircraft safety Typical Locations

Range Complexes/Testing 

Ranges:

Hawaii Range Complex

Southern California Range 

Complex

Bays/Estuaries/Pierside:

None

Stressors to 

Biological 

Resources

Acoustic:

Aircraft noise

Explosive:

None

Physical Disturbance and Strike: 

Aircraft and aerial target

Ingestion:

Military expended materials –

munitions

Military expended materials – other 

than munitions

Energy:

In-air electromagnetic 

devices

Entanglement: 

None

Stressors to 

Physical 

Resources

Air Quality:

Criteria air pollutants

Sediments and Water Quality:

Other materials

Stressors to 

Human 

Resources

Cultural Resources:

None

Socioeconomic Resources: 

Airborne acoustics

Public Health and Safety: 

Physical interactions

Military 

Expended 

Material

Ingestible Material:

Per chaff: one chaff plastic endcap, 

one compression pad; OR one 

plastic piston, one plastic endcap

Non-Ingestible Material:

Chaff fibers

Military 

Recoverable

Material

None
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

A-87

Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions

Electronic Warfare

Counter Targeting Chaff Exercise—Aircraft

Sonar and 

Other 

Transducer

Bins

None

Explosive

Bins

None

Procedural 

Mitigation

Measures

Acoustic Stressors: (section 5.3.2)

Assumptions 

Used for 

Analysis

Chaff is usually expended while conducting other training activities, such as air combat 

maneuvering.

Potential locations for air quality analysis:

- 1 fixed-wing strike aircraft

- Average 2 hours per event
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

A-88

Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions

Counter Targeting Chaff Exercise—Ship

Electronic Warfare

Counter Targeting Chaff Exercise—Ship

Short 

Description

Surface ship crews deploy chaff to disrupt threat 

targeting and missile guidance radars.

Typical Duration

1–2 hours

Long 

Description

Surface ship crews deploy chaff to disrupt threat targeting and missile guidance radars to 

defend against an attack. 

Surface ship crews detect electronic targeting signals from threat radars or missiles, dispense 

chaff, and immediately maneuver to defeat the threat. The chaff cloud deceives the inbound 

missile and the vessel clears away from the threat. The typical event duration is approximately 

one and one-half hours. 

Chaff is a radar reflector material made of thin, narrow, metallic strips cut in various lengths to 

elicit frequency responses, which deceive enemy radars. Chaff is employed to create a target 

that will lure enemy radar and weapons system away from the actual friendly platform. 

Ships may also train with advanced countermeasure systems, such as the MK 53 Decoy 

Launching System (Nulka).

Typical 

Components

Platforms: Navy ships

Targets: None

Systems being Trained/Tested: None

Standard 

Operating 

Procedures

(Section 

2.3.3)

Vessel safety Typical Locations

Range Complexes/Testing 

Ranges:

Hawaii Range Complex

Southern California Range 

Complex

Bays/Estuaries/Pierside:

None

Stressors to 

Biological 

Resources

Acoustic:

Vessel noise

Explosive:

None

Physical Disturbance and Strike: 

Vessels and in-water devices

Ingestion:

Military expended materials –

munitions

Military expended materials – other 

than munitions

Energy:

In-air electromagnetic 

devices

Entanglement: 

None

Stressors to 

Physical 

Resources

Air Quality:

Criteria air pollutants

Sediments and Water Quality:

Other materials

Stressors to 

Human 

Resources

Cultural Resources:

None

Socioeconomic Resources: 

Accessibility

Public Health and Safety: 

Physical interactions

Military 

Expended 

Material

Ingestible Material:

Chaff

Non-Ingestible Material:

MK 53 Decoy 

Military 

Recoverable 

Material

None

Sonar and 

Other 

Transducer

Bins

None

Explosive

Bins

None
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

A-89

Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions

Electronic Warfare

Counter Targeting Chaff Exercise—Ship

Procedural 

Mitigation

Measures

Physical Disturbance and Strike: (section 

5.3.4)

Vessel movement

Assumptions 

Used for 

Analysis

Potential locations
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

A-90

Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions

Counter Targeting Flare Exercise

Electronic Warfare

Counter Targeting—Flare Exercise

Short 

Description

Fixed-winged aircraft and helicopter aircrews 

deploy flares to disrupt threat infrared missile 

guidance systems.

Typical Duration

1–2 hours

Long 

Description

Fixed-winged aircraft and helicopter aircrews deploy flares to disrupt threat infrared missile 

guidance systems. Range personnel acting as opposition forces may use pyrotechnics to 

simulate missile launch.

Aircraft detect electronic targeting signals from threat radars or missiles, or a threat missile 

plume, when launched and dispense flares and immediately maneuver to defeat the threat. 

This exercise trains aircraft personnel in the use of defensive flares designed to confuse 

infrared sensors or infrared homing missiles, thereby causing the sensor or missile to lock onto 

the flares instead of the real aircraft. Typically an aircraft will expend five flares in an exercise 

while operating above 3,000 feet. Flare exercises are often conducted with chaff exercises, 

rather than as a stand-alone exercise.

Typical 

Components

Platforms: Fixed-wing aircraft, rotary-wing aircraft

Targets: None

Systems being Trained/Tested: None

Standard 

Operating 

Procedures

(Section 

2.3.3)

Aircraft safety Typical Locations

Range Complexes/Testing 

Ranges:

Hawaii Range Complex

Southern California Range 

Complex

Bays/Estuaries/Pierside:

None

Stressors to 

Biological 

Resources

Acoustic:

Aircraft noise

Explosive:

None

Physical Disturbance and Strike: 

Aircraft and aerial target

Ingestion:

Military expended materials –

munitions

Military expended materials – other 

than munitions

Energy:

In-air electromagnetic 

devices

Entanglement: 

None

Stressors to 

Physical 

Resources

Air Quality:

Criteria air pollutants

Sediments and Water Quality:

Metals

Stressors to 

Human 

Resources

Cultural Resources:

None

Socioeconomic Resources: 

Airborne acoustics

Public Health and Safety: 

Physical interactions

Military 

Expended 

Material

Ingestible Material:

Per flare cartridge: one silicone rubber 

compression pad OR one plastic 

piston

Non-Ingestible Material:

Per flare cartridge: flare (typically 

consumed), one plastic endcap, Oring (rubber, nitrile)

Military 

Recoverable 

Material

None
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

A-91

Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions

Electronic Warfare

Counter Targeting—Flare Exercise

Sonar and 

Other 

Transducer

Bins

None

Explosive

Bins

None

Procedural 

Mitigation

Measures

Acoustic Stressors: (section 5.3.2)

Assumptions 

Used for 

Analysis

Approximately five flares per aircraft.

Potential locations for air quality analysis:

- 1 fixed-wing strike aircraft

- Average 2 hours per event
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

A-92

Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions

Electronic Warfare Operations

Electronic Warfare

Electronic Warfare Operations

Short 

Description

Aircraft and surface ship crews control portions 

of the electromagnetic spectrum used by enemy 

systems to degrade or deny the enemy’s ability 

to take defensive actions.

Typical Duration

1–2 hours

Long 

Description

Aircraft and surface ship crews control the electromagnetic spectrum used by enemy systems 

to degrade or deny the enemy’s ability to take defensive actions. Electronic Warfare 

Operations can be active or passive, offensive or defensive. Fixed-wing aircraft employ active 

jamming and deception against enemy search radars to mask the friendly inbound strike 

aircraft mission. Surface ships detect and evaluate enemy electronic signals from enemy 

aircraft or missile radars, evaluate courses of action concerning the use of passive or active 

countermeasures, then use ship maneuvers and either chaff, flares, active electronic 

countermeasures, or a combination of them to defeat the threat.

Typical 

Components

Platforms: Fixed-wing aircraft, surface combatant

Targets: Air targets, electronic warfare targets

Systems being Trained/Tested: None

Standard 

Operating 

Procedures

(Section 

2.3.3)

Vessel safety

Aircraft safety

Typical Locations

Range Complexes/Testing 

Ranges:

Hawaii Range Complex

Southern California Range 

Complex

Bays/Estuaries/Pierside:

None

Stressors to 

Biological 

Resources

Acoustic:

Aircraft noise

Vessel noise

Explosive:

None

Physical Disturbance and Strike: 

Aircraft and aerial target

Vessels and in-water devices

Ingestion:

None

Energy:

In-air electromagnetic 

devices

Entanglement: 

None

Stressors to 

Physical 

Resources

Air Quality:

Criteria air pollutants

Sediments and Water Quality:

Explosives Chemicals

Metals Other materials

Stressors to 

Human 

Resources

Cultural Resources:

None

Socioeconomic Resources: 

Accessibility

Airborne acoustics

Physical disturbance and strike

Public Health and Safety: 

Physical interactions

Military 

Expended 

Material

Ingestible Material:

None

Non-Ingestible Material:

None

Military 

Recoverable 

Material

None

Sonar and 

Other 

Transducer

Bins

None

Explosive

Bins

None

Procedural 

Mitigation

Measures

Physical Disturbance and Strike: (section 

5.3.4)

Vessel movement
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

A-93

Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions

Electronic Warfare

Electronic Warfare Operations

Assumptions 

Used for 

Analysis

The majority of these events occur in the Southern California Range Complex at the Electronic 

Warfare Range.

All chaff and flares involved in this event are covered under chaff exercise and flare exercises, 

respectively.

For air quality analysis:

- 1 contract air services aircraft

- 1 fixed-wing electronic warfare aircraft

- 1 fixed-wing strike aircraft

- Average 2 hours per event
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

A-94

Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions

EXPEDITIONARY WARFARE

Dive and Salvage Operations

Expeditionary Warfare

Dive and Salvage Operations

Short 

Description

Navy divers perform dive operations and salvage 

training.

Typical Duration

1-5 days

Long 

Description

Navy divers will conduct a variety of salvage training to include debeaching operations, 

underwater repairs to ships, underwater survey operations, aircraft recovery, and other 

underwater training as required.

Typical 

Components

Platforms: Support craft

Targets: Sub-surface targets

Systems being Trained/Tested: None

Standard 

Operating 

Procedures

(Section 

2.3.3)

Vessel safety Typical Locations

Range Complexes/Testing 

Ranges:

Hawaii Range Complex

Bays/Estuaries/Pierside:

Pearl Harbor

Stressors to 

Biological 

Resources

Acoustic:

Vessel noise

Explosive:

None

Physical Disturbance and Strike: 

Vessels and in-water devices

Ingestion:

None

Energy:

None

Entanglement: 

None

Stressors to 

Physical 

Resources

Air Quality:

Criteria air pollutants

Sediments and Water Quality:

None

Stressors to 

Human 

Resources

Cultural Resources: 

Physical disturbance and 

strike

Socioeconomic Resources: 

Physical disturbance and strike

Public Health and Safety: 

Physical interactions

Military 

Expended 

Material

Ingestible Material:

None

Non-Ingestible Material:

None

Military 

Recoverable 

Material

None

Sonar and 

Other 

Transducer

Bins

None

Explosive

Bins

None

Procedural 

Mitigation

Measures

Physical Disturbance and Strike: (Section 

5.3.4)

Vessel movement

Assumptions 

Used for 

Analysis

Potential locations for this activity include Puuloa Underwater Range, Naval Defensive Sea 

Area, Keehi Lagoon, and Pearl Harbor. The practice salvage platform can be sunk and then 

refloated and removed.

For air quality analysis:

- 1 support craft

- Average 12 hours per event
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

A-95

Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions

Personnel Insertion/Extraction—Surface and Subsurface

Expeditionary Warfare

Personnel Insertion/Extraction—Surface and Subsurface

Short 

Description

Personnel are inserted into and extracted from 

an objective area by small boats or subsurface 

platforms.

Typical Duration

2–4 hours

Long 

Description

Utilizing both small surface and subsurface platforms, personnel are inserted in the water. 

They will conduct an infiltration to an objective (harbor, beach, moored vessel, etc.) and 

conduct a variety of tasks. The insertion/extraction activities are confined to in-water training.

Typical 

Components

Platforms: Small boat, manned underwater vehicle

Targets: None

Systems being Trained/Tested: None

Standard 

Operating 

Procedures

(Section 

2.3.3)

Vessel Typical Locations

Range Complexes/Testing 

Ranges:

Hawaii Range Complex 

Silver Strand Training Complex

Southern California Range 

Complex

Bays/Estuaries/Pierside:

Pearl Harbor

San Diego Bay

Stressors to 

Biological 

Resources

Acoustic:

Vessel noise

Explosive:

None

Physical Disturbance and Strike: 

Vessels and in-water devices

Ingestion: 

None

Energy:

None

Entanglement: 

None

Stressors to 

Physical 

Resources

Air Quality:

Criteria air pollutants

Sediments and Water Quality:

None

Stressors to 

Human 

Resources

Cultural Resources:

None

Socioeconomic Resources:

None

Public Health and Safety:

None

Military 

Expended 

Material

Ingestible Material:

None

Non-Ingestible Material:

None

Military 

Recoverable 

Material

None

Sonar and 

Other 

Transducer

Bins

None

Explosive

Bins

None

Procedural 

Mitigation

Measures

Physical Disturbance and Strike: (section 

5.3.4)

Vessel movement

Assumptions 

Used for 

Analysis

Events are typically conducted in waters near land.

This activity can occur anywhere within the Study Area; however, potential locations for this 

activity include Hawaii Range Complex (Lima Landing, Naval Defense Sea Area, Puuloa 

Underwater Range) and Southern California Range Complex (Delta I, II, III, Echo).

For air quality analysis:

- 1 small boat

- Average 8 hours per event
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

A-96

Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions

Personnel Insertion/Extraction Training—Swimmer/Diver

Expeditionary Warfare

Personnel Insertion/Extraction Training—Swimmer/Diver

Short 

Description

Divers and swimmer infiltrate harbors, beaches, 

or moored vessels and conduct a variety of 

tasks. 

Typical Duration

Up to 12 hours

Long 

Description

Divers and swimmer infiltrate harbors, beaches, or moored vessels and conduct a variety of 

tasks. Activity may include Navy personnel learning advanced self-contained underwater 

breathing apparatus (SCUBA) diving, to include tactics, techniques, and procedures and 

emergency procedures. Small boats are used for safety.

Typical 

Components

Platforms: Small boat

Targets: None

Systems being Trained/Tested: None

Standard 

Operating 

Procedures

(Section 

2.3.3)

Vessel safety Typical Locations

Range Complexes/Testing 

Ranges:

Hawaii Range Complex

Southern California Range 

Complex

Silver Strand Training Complex

Bays/Estuaries/Pierside:

Pearl Harbor

San Diego Bay

Stressors to 

Biological 

Resources

Acoustic:

Vessel noise

Explosive:

None

Physical Disturbance and Strike: 

Vessels and in-water devices

Ingestion:

None

Energy:

None

Entanglement: 

None

Stressors to 

Physical 

Resources

Air Quality:

Criteria air pollutants

Sediments and Water Quality:

None

Stressors to

Human 

Resources

Cultural Resources:

None

Socioeconomic Resources:

None

Public Health and Safety:

None

Military 

Expended 

Material

Ingestible Material:

None

Non-Ingestible Material:

None

Military 

Recoverable 

Material

None

Sonar and 

Other 

Transducer

Bins

None

Explosive

Bins

None

Procedural 

Mitigation

Measures

Physical Disturbance and Strike: (Section 

5.3.4)

Vessel movement

Assumptions 

Used for 

Analysis

For air quality analysis:

- 1 small boat

- Average 8 hours per event
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

A-97

Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions

Small Boat Attack

Expeditionary Warfare

Small Boat Attack

Short 

Description

Small attacks are conducted on boats. For this 

activity, one or two small boats or personal 

watercraft conduct attack activities on units 

afloat.

Typical Duration

6 hours

Long 

Description

Small attacks are conducted on boats, usually within anchorages or boat lanes. For this activity, 

one or two small boats or personal watercraft conduct attack activities on units afloat, firing 

munitions or blank small-caliber rounds. The activity will usually include observers.

Typical 

Components

Platforms: Small boat

Targets: Surface targets

Systems being Trained/Tested: None

Standard 

Operating 

Procedures

(Section 

2.3.3)

Vessel safety Typical Locations

Range Complexes/Testing 

Ranges:

Hawaii Range Complex 

Silver Strand Training Complex: 

Boat Lanes 1-10

Southern California Range 

Complex

Bays/Estuaries/Pierside:

None

Stressors to 

Biological 

Resources

Acoustic:

Vessel noise

Weapons noise

Explosive:

None

Physical Disturbance and Strike: 

Vessels and in-water devices

Ingestion:

Military expended materials –

munitions

Energy:

None

Entanglement: 

None

Stressors to 

Physical 

Resources

Air Quality:

Criteria air pollutants

Sediments and Water Quality:

Metals

Stressors to 

Human 

Resources

Cultural Resources:

None

Socioeconomic Resources:

None

Public Health and Safety:

None

Military 

Expended 

Material

Ingestible Material:

Projectiles, projectile casings 

Non-Ingestible Material:

None

Military 

Recoverable 

Material

Stationary surface target

Sonar and 

Other 

Transducer

Bins

None

Explosive

Bins

None

Procedural 

Mitigation

Measures

Physical Disturbance and Strike: (section 

5.3.4)

Vessel movement

Small-, medium-, and large-caliber nonexplosive practice munitions
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

A-98

Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions

Expeditionary Warfare

Small Boat Attack

Assumptions 

Used for 

Analysis

Assume for Southern California events per year:

5.56mm: 3,540 

7.62mm: 27,300

50 Cal: 13,650

40mm: 1,195

40mm Para Flares: 38

Sim Grenades: 25

Silver Strand Training Complex: Non-explosive practice munitions only

For air quality analysis:

- 1 small boat

- Average 6 hours per event
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

A-99

Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions

MINE WARFARE

Mine warfare is the naval warfare area involving the detection, avoidance, and neutralization of mines 

to protect Navy ships and submarines, and offensive mine laying in naval operations. A naval mine is a 

self-contained explosive device placed in water to destroy ships or submarines. Naval mines are 

deposited and left in place until triggered by the approach of an enemy ship, or are destroyed or 

removed. Naval mines can be laid by purpose-built minelayers, other ships, submarines, or airplanes. 

Mine warfare training includes mine countermeasures exercises and mine laying exercises.

Airborne Mine Countermeasure—Mine Detection

Mine Warfare

Airborne Mine Countermeasures—Mine Detection

Short 

Description

Helicopter aircrews detect mines using towed or 

laser mine detection systems.

Typical Duration

2 hours

Long 

Description

Helicopter aircrews use towed and airborne devices to detect, locate, and classify potential 

mines. Towed devices employ active acoustic sources, such as high-frequency and side 

scanning sonar. These devices are similar in function to systems used to map the seafloor or 

locate submerged structures/items. Airborne devices utilize laser systems to locate mines 

located below the surface. 

Devices used include the AN/AQS-20/A, towed mine-hunting sonar used to detect and classify 

bottom and floating/moored mines in deep and shallow water, and the Airborne Laser Mine 

Detection System, developed to detect and classify floating and near-surface, moored mines.

Typical 

Components

Platforms: Rotary-wing aircraft, unmanned vehicles

Targets: Sub-surface targets

Systems being Trained/Tested: Mine detection systems (e.g., AN/AQS-24 Airborne Mine 

Hunting System, AN/AQS-20 Airborne Sonar Mine Detection System, AN/AES-1 Airborne Laser 

Mine Detection System)

Standard 

Operating 

Procedures

(Section 

2.3.3)

Aircraft safety

High-powered laser 

safety

Unmanned aerial, 

surface, and 

subsurface vehicle 

safety

Typical Locations

Range Complexes/Testing 

Ranges:

Southern California Range 

Complex

Bays/Estuaries/Pierside:

None

Stressors to 

Biological 

Resources

Acoustic:

Sonar and other 

transducers

Aircraft noise

Vessel noise

Explosive:

None

Physical Disturbance and Strike: 

Aircraft and aerial target

Vessels and in-water devices

Seafloor devices

Ingestion:

None

Energy:

In-air electromagnetic 

devices

Entanglement: 

None

Stressors to 

Physical 

Resources

Air Quality:

Criteria air pollutants

Sediments and Water Quality:

None

Stressors to 

Human 

Resources

Cultural Resources: 

Physical disturbance and 

strike

Socioeconomic Resources: 

Accessibility

Airborne acoustics

Physical disturbance and strike

Public Health and Safety: 

Underwater energy

In-air energy

Physical interactions
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

A-100

Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions

Mine Warfare

Airborne Mine Countermeasures—Mine Detection

Military 

Expended 

Material

Ingestible Material:

None

Non-Ingestible Material:

None

Military 

Recoverable 

Material

None

Sonar and 

Other 

Transducer

Bins

High-Frequency: 

HF4

Explosive

Bins

None

Procedural 

Mitigation

Measures

Acoustic Stressors: (section 5.3.2)

Active sonar

Physical Disturbance and Strike: (section 

5.3.4)

Towed in-water devices

Assumptions 

Used for 

Analysis

Sonar mine detection systems towed from helicopters.

Airborne laser systems used to detect mine shapes.

Laser systems are similar to commercial Light Detection And Ranging systems. The in-air low 

energy laser stressor was used in analysis of potential impacts on human resources. 

Mine shapes may be deployed via ship and will be recovered.

Potential locations for this activity in the Southern California Range Complex include Pyramid 

Cove, Northwest Harbor, Imperial Beach Minefield, Boat Lanes 1-14 (greater than 40 ft. 

depth), Advanced Research Projects Agency Training Minefield, Pyramid Head, and Safety 

Zone A.

For air quality analysis:

- 1 rotary-wing aircraft

- Average 1.5 hours per event
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

A-101

Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions

Civilian Port Defense—Homeland Security Anti-Terrorism/Force Protection 

Exercise

Mine Warfare

Civilian Port Defense—Homeland Security Anti-Terrorism/Force Protection Exercises

Short 

Description

Maritime security personnel train to protect 

civilian ports and harbors against enemy efforts 

to interfere with access to those ports.

Typical Duration

Multiple Days

Long 

Description

Naval forces provide Mine Warfare capabilities to support Department of Homeland Security 

sponsored events. The three pillars of mine warfare, airborne (helicopter), surface (surface 

ships), and undersea (divers, marine mammals, and unmanned vehicles) mine

countermeasures will be brought to bear in order to ensure strategic U.S. ports remain free of 

mine threats. Various mine warfare sensors, which utilize active acoustics, will be employed in 

the detection, classification, and neutralization of mines. Along with traditional mine warfare 

techniques, such as helicopter towed mine countermeasures, new technologies (unmanned 

vehicles) will be utilized. Marine mammal systems may be used during this exercise. 

Event locations and scenarios will vary according to Department of Homeland Security strategic 

goals and evolving world events.

Typical 

Components

Platforms: Moored platform, rotary-wing aircraft, support craft, surface combatant, unmanned 

underwater vehicle

Targets: Sub-surface targets (mine shapes)

Systems being Trained/Tested: Mine detection systems, towed mine neutralization systems, 

airborne mine neutralization system

Standard 

Operating 

Procedures

(Section 

2.3.3)

Vessel safety

Aircraft safety

Unmanned aerial, 

surface, and 

subsurface vehicle 

safety

Towed in-water device 

safety

Typical Locations

Range Complexes/Testing 

Ranges:

Hawaii Range Complex

Pearl Harbor, Hawaii,

San Diego Bay, California, 

Silver Strand Training Complex

Bays/Estuaries/Pierside:

Pearl Harbor

San Diego Bay

Stressors to 

Biological 

Resources

Acoustic:

Sonar and other 

transducers

Aircraft noise

Vessel noise

Explosive:

Explosions in water

Physical Disturbance and Strike: 

Aircraft and aerial target

Vessels and in-water devices

Seafloor devices

Ingestion:

None

Energy:

In-water electromagnetic 

devices

In-air electromagnetic 

devices

Biodegradable Polymer

Entanglement: 

None

Stressors to 

Physical 

Resources

Air Quality:

Criteria air pollutants

Sediments and Water Quality:

Explosives

Stressors to 

Human 

Resources

Cultural Resources: 

Explosives

Physical disturbance and 

strike

Socioeconomic Resources: 

Accessibility

Airborne acoustics

Physical disturbance and strike

Public Health and Safety: 

Underwater energy

Physical interactions

Military 

Expended 

Material

Ingestible Material:

None

Non-Ingestible Material:

None

Military 

Recoverable 

Material

None
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

A-102

Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions

Mine Warfare

Civilian Port Defense—Homeland Security Anti-Terrorism/Force Protection Exercises

Sonar and 

Other 

Transducer

Bins

High-Frequency: 

HF4

Synthetic Aperture Sonars: 

SAS2

Explosive

Bins

E2

E4

Procedural 

Mitigation

Measures

Acoustic Stressors: (section 5.3.2)

Active sonar

Physical Disturbance and Strike: (section 

5.3.4)

Vessel movement

Towed in-water devices

Explosive Stressors: (section 5.3.3)

Explosive Ordnance Disposal

Assumptions 

Used for 

Analysis

Non-permanent mine shapes will be laid in various places on the bottom and will be retrieved

Shapes are varied, from about 1 m circular to about 2.5 meters long by 1 meter wide. They will 

be recovered using normal assets, with diver involvement.

Explosives may be used if required for scheduled mine neutralization events.

While goal is to conduct once per year, alternating east/west coast, assume that a west coast 

event will occur every other year with a total of three per five year period.

For air quality analysis:

- 1 rotary-wing aircraft (12 hours)

- 1 Mine Countermeasures-class ship (24 hours)

- 1 Rigid Hull Inflatable Boat (24 hours) 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

A-103

Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions

Limpet Mine Neutralization System

Mine Warfare

Limpet Mine Neutralization System

Short 

Description

Navy Explosive Ordnance Disposal divers place a 

small charge on a simulated underwater mine.

Typical Duration

2 hours

Long 

Description

A metal sheet containing a non-explosive limpet mine is lowered into the water, sometimes 

from the side of a small vessel, such as an LCM- 8 craft. Navy Explosive Ordnance Divers place a 

single shock wave generator of Limpet Mine Neutralizing Systems on the mine that is located 

mid-water column, within water depths of 10 to 20 feet. A bag is placed over the mine to catch 

falling debris.

Typical 

Component

s

Platforms: Support craft

Targets: Sub-surface target (metal sheet)

Systems being Trained/Tested: None

Standard 

Operating 

Procedures

(Section 

2.3.3)

Vessel safety Typical Locations

Range Complexes/Testing 

Ranges:

Hawaii Range Complex 

Silver Strand Training Complex

Bays/Estuaries/Pierside:

San Diego Bay (Echo)

Stressors to 

Biological 

Resources

Acoustic:

Vessel noise

Explosive:

Explosions in water

Physical Disturbance and Strike: 

Vessels and in-water devices

Ingestion:

No

Energy:

None

Entanglement: 

None

Stressors to 

Physical 

Resources

Air Quality:

Criteria air pollutants

Sediments and Water Quality:

Explosives Chemicals

Stressors to 

Human 

Resources

Cultural Resources:

None

Socioeconomic Resources:

None

Public Health and Safety:

None

Military 

Expended 

Material

Ingestible Material:

None

Non-Ingestible Material:

None

Military 

Recoverable

Material

Sub-surface target (metal sheet)

Sonar and 

Other 

Transducer

Bins

None

Explosive

Bins

De minimis

Procedural 

Mitigation

Measures

Physical Disturbance and Strike: (section 

5.3.4)

Vessel movement

Assumption

s Used for 

Analysis

De minimis small explosive charges would be used during this activity and not quantitatively 

analyzed and therefore are not included under munitions. 

Potential locations for this activity include Silver Strand Training Complex 

(Boat Lanes 1–14, San Diego Bay-Echo)

For air quality analysis:

- 2 Rigid Hull Inflatable Boats (2 hours each)
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

A-104

Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions

Marine Mammal System

Mine Warfare

Marine Mammal System

Short 

Description

The Navy deploys trained bottlenose dolphins 

(Tursiops truncatus) and California sea lions 

(Zalophus californianus) as part of the marine 

mammal mine-hunting and object-recovery 

system.

Typical Duration

Varies

Long 

Description

The Navy deploys trained bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) and California sea lions 

(Zalophus californianus) as part of the marine mammal mine-hunting and object-recovery 

system. Each system consists of a motorized small craft, several crewmembers and a trained 

dolphin or sea lion. Self-Contained Underwater Breathing Apparatus (SCUBA) assisted 

personnel and Navy marine mammals work together to detect specified underwater objects. 

Personnel work with the help of marine mammals to detect underwater objects. Approximately 

10 percent of training involves the setting of a 13 or 29 pound Net Explosive Weight charge to

detonate the objects.

Typical 

Components

Platforms: In-water structure, small boat

Targets: Sub-surface targets (mine shapes)

Systems being Trained/Tested: None

Standard 

Operating 

Procedures

(Section 

2.3.3)

Vessel safety Typical Locations

Range Complexes/Testing 

Ranges:

Hawaii Range Complex 

Silver Strand Training Complex

Bays/Estuaries/Pierside:

None

Stressors to 

Biological 

Resources

Explosive: 

Explosions in water

Explosive:

None

Physical Disturbance and Strike: 

Seafloor devices

Ingestion:

Military expended materials –

munitions

Military expended materials – other 

than munitions

Energy:

None

Entanglement: 

None

Stressors to 

Physical 

Resources

Air Quality:

Criteria air pollutants

Sediments and Water Quality:

Explosives Metals

Stressors to 

Human 

Resources

Cultural Resources: 

Physical disturbance and 

strike

Socioeconomic Resources: 

Accessibility

Airborne acoustics

Physical disturbance and strike

Public Health and Safety: 

Underwater energy

Physical interactions

Military 

Expended 

Material

Ingestible Material:

Target Fragments

Military 

Recoverable 

Material

Recoverable Training Targets (mine 

shapes)

Sonar and 

Other 

Transducer

Bins

None

Explosive

Bins

E7
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

A-105

Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions

Mine Warfare

Marine Mammal System

Procedural 

Mitigation

Measures

Physical Disturbance and Strike: (section 

5.3.4)

Vessel movement

Explosive Stressors: (section 5.3.3)

Explosive Ordnance Disposal

Assumptions 

Used for 

Analysis

Sequential detonations at water depths of 10–72 feet (ft.) and are bottom laid. Single charges 

are laid within water depths of 24–72 ft., 20 ft. from the surface or below.

Potential locations for this activity in the Hawaii Range Complex include Kingfisher and Naval 

Defense Sea Area; and in the Southern California Range Complex include Silver Strand 

Training Complex: Boat Lanes 1–14, Imperial Beach Minefield, and Breakers Beach.

For air quality analysis:

- 1 Rigid Hull Inflatable Boat (4 hours)
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

A-106

Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions

Mine Countermeasure Exercise—Ship Sonar

Mine Warfare

Mine Countermeasure Exercise—Ship Sonar

Short 

Description

Ship crews detect and avoid mines while 

navigating restricted areas or channels using 

active sonar.

Typical Duration

Up to 15 hours

Long 

Description

Surface ship crews detect and avoid mines or other underwater hazardous objects while 

navigating restricted areas or channels using active sonar. A Littoral Combat Ship utilizes 

unmanned surface vehicles and remotely operated vehicles to tow mine detection (hunting) 

equipment. Systems will operate from a shallow zone greater than 40 feet (ft.) to deep water. 

Events could be embedded within major training exercises.

Typical 

Components

Platforms: Surface combatant, unmanned surface vehicle

Targets: Sub-surface targets (mine shapes), targets of opportunity (buoys, fish aggregating 

devices)

Systems being Trained/Tested: High-frequency sonar, mid-frequency sonar, towed sonar 

systems

Standard 

Operating 

Procedures

(Section 

2.3.3)

Vessel safety

Unmanned aerial, 

surface, and 

subsurface vehicle 

safety

Towed in-water device 

safety

Typical Locations

Range Complexes/Testing 

Ranges:

Hawaii Range Complex

Southern California Range 

Complex

Bays/Estuaries/Pierside:

None

Stressors to 

Biological 

Resources

Acoustic:

Sonar and other 

transducers

Vessel noise

Explosive:

None

Physical Disturbance and Strike: 

Vessels and in-water devices

Seafloor devices

Ingestion:

No

Energy:

In-air electromagnetic 

devices

Entanglement: 

None

Stressors to 

Physical 

Resources

Air Quality:

Criteria air pollutants

Sediments and Water Quality:

None

Stressors to 

Human 

Resources

Cultural Resources:

None

Socioeconomic Resources: 

Accessibility

Public Health and Safety: 

Underwater energy

Physical interactions

Military 

Expended 

Material

Ingestible Material:

None

Non-Ingestible Material:

None

Military 

Recoverable 

Material

Recoverable Training Targets (mine 

shapes)

Sonar and 

Other 

Transducer

Bins

Mid-Frequency: 

MF1K

High-Frequency: 

HF4 HF8

Explosive

Bins

None

Procedural

Mitigation

Measures

Acoustic Stressors: (section 5.3.2)

Active sonar

Physical Disturbance and Strike: (section 5.3.4)

Vessel movement

Assumptions 

Used for 

No explosives are used.

Constraints: Assume system will be operated in areas free of obstructions, and will be towed well 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

A-107

Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions

Mine Warfare

Mine Countermeasure Exercise—Ship Sonar

Analysis above the seafloor. Towed system will be operated in a manner to avoid entanglement and 

damage. Events will take place in water depths 40 ft. and greater.

Existing placed mine shapes to be used. There is the potential for temporary placement of mine 

shapes.

Potential locations for this activity include Hawaii Range Complex (Hawaii Operations Area, 

Kingfisher, Shallow- water Minefield Sonar Training Area), and Southern California Range 

Complex (Airborne Mine Countermeasure, Camp Pendleton Amphibious Assault Area, 

Imperial Beach Minefield, Pyramid Cove, Tanner Bank Minefield).
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

A-108

Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions

Mine Countermeasure Exercise – Surface

Mine Warfare

Mine Countermeasure Exercise—Surface

Short 

Description

Mine countermeasure ship crews detect, locate, 

identify, and avoid mines while navigating 

restricted areas or channels, such as while 

entering or leaving port.

Typical Duration

Up to 15 hours

Long 

Description

This event trains mine countermeasure ship crews to detect mines for future neutralization or to 

alert other ships. Training utilizes simulated minefields constructed of moored or bottom mines, 

or instrumented mines that can record effectiveness of mine detection efforts.

Ships will accurately fix their position while navigating through the restricted mine threat area at 

slow speeds of about 5 to 10 knots or less, while using active sonar to search the area ahead of 

the ship for moored mines or other hazards of navigation.

Typical 

Components

Platforms: Surface combatant

Targets: Sub-surface targets (mine shapes)

Systems being Trained/Tested: Mid-frequency sonar

Standard 

Operating 

Procedures

(Section 

2.3.3)

Vessel safety Typical Locations

Range Complexes/Testing Ranges:

Southern California Range 

Complex

Bays/Estuaries/Pierside:

None

Stressors to 

Biological 

Resources

Acoustic:

Sonar and other 

transducers

Vessel noise

Explosive:

None

Physical Disturbance and Strike: 

Vessels and in-water devices

Seafloor devices

Ingestion:

No

Energy:

In-air electromagnetic 

devices

Entanglement: 

None

Stressors to 

Physical 

Resources

Air Quality:

Criteria air pollutants

Sediments and Water Quality:

None

Stressors to 

Human 

Resources

Cultural Resources:

None

Socioeconomic Resources: 

Accessibility

Public Health and Safety: 

Underwater energy

Physical interactions

Military 

Expended 

Material

Ingestible Material:

None

Non-Ingestible Material:

None

Military 

Recoverable 

Material

Recoverable Training Targets (mine

shapes)

Sonar and 

Other 

Transducer

Bins

High-Frequency: 

HF4

Explosive

Bins

None

Procedural 

Mitigation

Measures

Acoustic Stressors: (section 5.3.2)

Active sonar

Physical Disturbance and Strike: (section 5.3.4)

Vessel movement

Assumptions 

Used for 

Analysis

Existing placed mine shapes to be used. There is potential for temporarily placed mine shapes.

Potential locations for this activity include Southern California Range Complex (Kingfisher, Shallow 

Water Training Range-Offshore, Shallow Water Minefield, Silver Strand Training Complex, 

Camp Pendleton Amphibious Assault Area).
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

A-109

Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions

Mine Countermeasures—Mine Neutralization: Remotely Operated Vehicle

Mine Warfare

Mine Countermeasures—Mine Neutralization—Remotely Operated Vehicles

Short 

Description

Ship, small boat, and helicopter crews locate and 

disable mines using remotely operated 

underwater vehicles.

Typical Duration

1 1⁄2–4 hours

Long 

Description

Ship, small boat, and helicopter crews utilize remotely operated vehicles to neutralize potential

mines. Remotely operated vehicles will use sonar and optical systems to locate and target mine 

shapes. Explosive mine neutralizers may be used during live-fire events.

Typical 

Components

Platforms: Rotary-wing aircraft, small boat, surface combatant

Targets: Sub-surface targets (mine shapes)

Systems being Trained/Tested: Towed sonar systems, underwater explosives

Standard 

Operating 

Procedures

(Section 

2.3.3)

Vessel safety

Aircraft safety

Towed in-water device 

safety

Typical Locations

Range Complexes/Testing 

Ranges:

Hawaii Range Complex

Silver Strand Training Complex

Southern California Range 

Complex

Bays/Estuaries/Pierside:

San Diego Bay (Echo)

Stressors to 

Biological 

Resources

Acoustic:

Aircraft noise

Vessel noise

Explosive:

Explosions in water

Physical Disturbance and Strike: 

Aircraft and aerial target

Vessels and in-water devices

Military expended materials

Seafloor devices

Ingestion:

Military expended materials –

munitions

Military expended materials – other 

than munitions

Energy:

None

Entanglement: 

Wires and cables

Stressors to 

Physical 

Resources

Air Quality:

Criteria air pollutants

Sediments and Water Quality:

Explosives Metals

Stressors to 

Human 

Resources

Cultural Resources: 

Explosives

Physical disturbance and 

strike

Socioeconomic Resources: 

Accessibility

Airborne acoustics

Physical disturbance and strike

Public Health and Safety: 

Underwater energy

Physical interactions

Military 

Expended 

Material

Ingestible Material:

Neutralizer fragments

Non-Ingestible Material:

Fiber optic cables

Military 

Recoverable 

Material

Recoverable Training Targets (mine 

shapes)

Sonar and 

Other 

Transducer

Bins

High-Frequency: 

HF4

Explosive

Bins

E4
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

A-110

Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions

Mine Warfare

Mine Countermeasures—Mine Neutralization—Remotely Operated Vehicles

Procedural 

Mitigation

Measures

Acoustic Stressors: (section 5.3.2)

Active sonar

Physical Disturbance and Strike: (section 

5.3.4)

Vessel movement

Towed in-water devices

Assumptions 

Used for 

Analysis

Potential locations for this activity include Hawaii Range Complex (Puuloa Underwater Range), 

Silver Strand Training Complex (Boat Lanes 1-14, Echo), Southern California Range Complex 

(Airborne Mine Countermeasure, Camp Pendleton Amphibious Assault Area, Imperial Beach 

Minefield, Tanner Bank Minefield).

For air quality analysis:

- 2 rotary-wing aircraft

- Average 2 hours per event
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

A-111

Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions

Mine Countermeasure—Towed Mine Neutralization

Mine Warfare

Mine Countermeasures—Towed Mine Neutralization

Short 

Description

Helicopter aircrews and unmanned vehicles tow 

systems through the water which are designed 

to disable or trigger mines.

Typical Duration

Up to 12 hours

Long 

Description

Helicopter vehicle operators and unmanned vehicles use towed devices to trigger mines that 

are designed to detonate when they detect ships/submarines by engine/propeller sounds or 

magnetic (steel construction) signature. Towed devices can also employ cable cutters to detach 

floating moored mines. Training will be conducted either with non-explosive training mine 

shapes. 

Devices used include the following: Mk 105 sled, which creates a magnetic field used to trigger 

mines, and can be used in conjunction with the MK 103 cable cutter system and the Mk 104 

acoustic countermeasure, AN/SPU-1/W (Magnetic Orange Pipe), a magnetic pipe that is used 

to trigger magnetically influenced mines.

Typical 

Components

Platforms: Rotary-wing aircraft, unmanned surface vehicles

Targets: Sub-surface targets (mine shapes)

Systems being Trained/Tested: Electromagnetic devices

Standard 

Operating 

Procedures

(Section 

2.3.3)

Vessel safety

Aircraft safety

Towed in-water device 

safety

Typical Locations

Range Complexes/Testing 

Ranges:

Silver Strand Training Complex

Southern California Range 

Complex

Bays/Estuaries/Pierside:

None

Stressors to 

Biological 

Resources

Acoustic:

Aircraft noise

Vessel noise

Explosive:

None

Physical Disturbance and Strike: 

Aircraft and aerial target

Vessels and in-water devices

Seafloor devices

Ingestion:

No

Energy:

In-water electromagnetic 

devices

In-air electromagnetic 

devices

Entanglement: 

None

Stressors to 

Physical 

Resources

Air Quality:

Criteria air pollutants

Sediments and Water Quality:

None

Stressors to 

Human 

Resources

Cultural Resources: 

Physical disturbance and 

strike

Socioeconomic Resources: 

Accessibility

Airborne acoustics

Physical disturbance and strike

Public Health and Safety: 

Underwater energy

Physical interactions

Military 

Expended 

Material

Ingestible Material:

None

Non-Ingestible Material:

None 

Military 

Recoverable 

Material

Recoverable Training Targets (mine 

shapes)

Sonar and 

Other 

Transducer

Bins

None

Explosive

Bins

None
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

A-112

Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions

Mine Warfare

Mine Countermeasures—Towed Mine Neutralization

Procedural 

Mitigation

Measures

Acoustic Stressors: (section 5.3.2) Physical Disturbance and Strike: (section 

5.3.4)

Vessel movement

Towed in-water devices

Assumptions 

Used for 

Analysis

Mechanical sweeping (cable cutting), acoustic and magnetic influence sweeping devices are 

towed from helicopters. Cable cutters utilize an insignificant charge (similar to a shotgun 

shell). Acoustic sweeps generate ship type noise via a mechanical system. Towing systems 

though minefields (or without mines, to train to deploy, tow, and recover) may involve 

instrumented mines.

Mine shapes would be recovered.

Potential locations for this activity include Silver Strand Training Complex Boat Lanes 1-14, and 

Southern California Range Complex (Airborne Mine Countermeasures, Imperial Beach 

Minefield, Pyramid Head, Safety Zone A, and SWAT 2).

For air quality analysis:

- 1 rotary-wing aircraft

- Average 1 hour per event
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

A-113

Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions

Mine Laying

Mine Warfare

Mine Laying

Short 

Description

Fixed-winged aircraft drop non-explosive mine 

shapes.

Typical Duration

1 hour

Long 

Description

Fixed-winged aircraft lay offensive or defensive mines for a tactical advantage for friendly 

forces. Fixed-winged aircraft lay a precise minefield pattern for specific tactical situations. The 

aircrew typically makes multiple passes in the same flight pattern, and drop one or more 

training shapes per pass (four shapes total). Training shapes are non-explosive and are 

recovered when possible.

Typical 

Components

Platforms: Fixed-wing aircraft

Targets: None

Systems being Trained/Tested: None

Standard 

Operating 

Procedures

(Section 

2.3.3)

Aircraft safety Typical Locations

Range Complexes/Testing 

Ranges:

Hawaii Range Complex 

Southern California Range 

Complex

Bays/Estuaries/Pierside:

None

Stressors to 

Biological 

Resources

Acoustic:

Aircraft noise

Explosive:

None

Physical Disturbance and Strike: 

Aircraft and aerial target

Military expended materials

Seafloor devices

Ingestion:

No

Energy:

In-air electromagnetic 

devices

Entanglement: 

None

Stressors to 

Physical 

Resources

Air Quality:

Criteria air pollutants

Sediments and Water Quality:

Metals

Stressors to 

Human 

Resources

Cultural Resources: 

Physical disturbance and 

strike

Socioeconomic Resources: 

Accessibility

Airborne acoustics

Physical disturbance and strike

Public Health and Safety: 

Physical interactions

Military 

Expended 

Material

Ingestible Material:

None

Non-Ingestible Material:

Non-recovered mine shapes 

Military 

Recoverable 

Material

Recoverable mine shapes

Sonar and 

Other 

Transducer

Bins

None

Explosive

Bins

None

Procedural 

Mitigation

Measures

Acoustic Stressors: (section 5.3.2) Physical Disturbance and Strike: (section 5.3.4)

Non-explosive bombs and mine shapes

Assumptions 

Used for 

Analysis

Mine laying is similar to a non-explosive bombing exercise.

These events primarily occur during major training exercises.

While some mine shapes will be recovered if possible, assume they will not for the analysis.

Mine laying will typically take place in waters less than 100 feet in depth.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

A-114

Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions

Mine Warfare

Mine Laying

Assume 12 mine shapes are used per event.

Potential locations for this activity include Hawaii Range Complex (R3101) and Southern 

California Range Complex (China Point, Pyramid Head, Tanner Bank Minefield).

For air quality analysis:

- 2 fixed-wing strike aircraft

- Average 1 hour per event
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

A-115

Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions

Mine Neutralization—Explosive Ordnance Disposal

Mine Warfare

Mine Neutralization Explosive Ordnance Disposal

Short 

Description

Personnel disable threat mines using explosive 

charges.

Typical Duration

Up to 4 hours

Long 

Description

Navy divers, typically explosive ordnance disposal personnel, disable threat mines with 

explosive charges to create a safe channel for friendly vessels to transit. 

Personnel detect, identify, evaluate, and neutralize mines in the water with an explosive device 

and may involve detonation of one or more explosive charges from 4 to 60 pounds (lb.) of 

trinitrotoluene (TNT) equivalent. These operations are normally conducted during daylight 

hours for safety reasons. 

Time delay fuses may be used for these events.

Typical 

Components

Platforms: Small Boat

Targets: Sub-surface targets (mine shapes)

Systems being Trained/Tested: None

Standard 

Operating 

Procedures

(Section 

2.3.3)

Vessel safety Typical Locations

Range Complexes/Testing 

Ranges:

Hawaii Range Complex

Silver Strand Training Complex

Southern California Range 

Complex

Bays/Estuaries/Pierside:

Pearl Harbor (Naval Inactive 

Ship Maintenance Facility, 

Lima Landing)

Stressors to 

Biological 

Resources

Acoustic:

None

Explosive: 

Explosions in water

Physical Disturbance and Strike: 

Vessels and in-water devices

Military expended materials

Seafloor devices

Ingestion:

Military expended materials –

munitions

Military expended materials – other 

than munitions

Energy:

None

Entanglement: 

None

Stressors to 

Physical 

Resources

Air Quality:

Criteria air pollutants

Sediments and Water Quality:

Explosives Chemicals

Metals Other materials

Stressors to 

Human 

Resources

Cultural Resources: 

Explosives

Physical disturbance and 

strike

Socioeconomic Resources: 

Accessibility

Airborne acoustics

Physical disturbance and strike

Public Health and Safety: 

Underwater energy

Physical interactions

Military 

Expended 

Material

Ingestible Material:

Target fragments

Non-Ingestible Material:

None

Military 

Recoverable 

Material

Recoverable Training Targets (mine 

shapes)

Sonar and 

Other 

Transducer

Bins

None

Explosive E4 E5 E6 E7
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

A-116

Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions

Mine Warfare

Mine Neutralization Explosive Ordnance Disposal

Bins

Procedural 

Mitigation

Measures

Explosive Stressors: (section 5.3.3)

Explosive Ordnance Disposal

Physical Disturbance and Strike: (section 

5.3.4)

Vessel movement

Assumptions 

Used for 

Analysis

Time delayed fuses may be used (up to 10 minutes) for charges up to 29 lb. net explosive 

weight in some locations (Silver Strand Training Complex only). Charge placed anywhere in 

water column, including bottom.

Mine shapes will be recovered.

Potential locations for this activity include Hawaii Range Complex (Puuloa Underwater Range, 

Marine Corps Base Hawaii, Marine Corps Training Area Bellows, Barbers Point Underwater 

Range, Naval Inactive Ship Maintenance Facility, Lima Landing, Ewa Training Minefield), 

Southern California Range Complex (SAR2, SOAR, SWAT1, SWAT3, TAR 03, TAR 2, TAR 21), 

Imperial Beach Minefield, and Silver Strand Range Complex (Boat Lanes 1-14).

For air quality analysis:

- 3 small boats

- Average 2 hours per event
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

A-117

Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions

Submarine Launched Mobile Mine Exercise

Mine Warfare

Submarine Launched Mobile Mine Exercise

Short 

Description

Submarine crews practice deploying submarine 

launched mobile mines.

Typical Duration

6 hours

Long 

Description

The submarine launched mine exercise-submarine involves a submarine deploying mines. 

During this event, passive sonar is used almost exclusively, active sonar use is restricted 

because it would reveal the submarine’s presence. This exercise typically would involve only a 

single submarine, (but it may include more). Mine training exercises may have a range support 

vessel (surface craft or a support helicopter) to recover mines. The exercise mine is recovered 

by helicopter or small craft.

Typical 

Components

Platforms: Rotary-wing aircraft, support craft, submarines

Targets: None

Systems being Trained/Tested: None

Standard 

Operating 

Procedures

(Section 

2.3.3)

Vessel safety

Aircraft safety

Typical Locations

Range Complexes/Testing 

Ranges:

Hawaii Range Complex 

Southern California Range 

Complex

Bays/Estuaries/Pierside:

None

Stressors to 

Biological 

Resources

Acoustic:

Aircraft noise

Vessel noise

Explosive:

None

Physical Disturbance and Strike: 

Aircraft and aerial target

Vessels and in-water devices

Seafloor devices

Ingestion:

No

Energy:

In-air electromagnetic 

devices

Entanglement: 

Wires and cables

Stressors to 

Physical 

Resources

Air Quality:

None

Sediments and Water Quality:

None

Stressors to 

Human 

Resources

Cultural Resources: 

Physical disturbance and 

strike

Socioeconomic Resources: 

Airborne acoustics

Public Health and Safety:

None

Military 

Expended 

Material

Ingestible Material:

None

Non-Ingestible Material:

Guidance wires

Military 

Recoverable 

Material

Recoverable Training Targets (mine 

shapes)

Sonar and 

Other 

Transducer

Bins

None

Explosive

Bins

None

Procedural 

Mitigation

Measures

Physical Disturbance and Strike: (section 5.3.4)

Vessel movement

Assumptions 

Used for 

Analysis

Potential locations for this activity include Hawaii Range Complex (Barking Sands Tactical 

Underwater Range, Kahoolawe Sub Training Range, Shallow Weapons Testing Range), and 

Southern California Range Complex (Pyramid Head, Tanner Bank Minefield).
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

A-118

Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions

Submarine Mine Exercise

Mine Warfare

Submarine Mine Exercise

Short 

Description

Submarine crews practice detecting mines in a 

designated area.

Typical Duration

6 hours

Long 

Description

Submarine crews use active sonar to detect and avoid mines or other underwater hazardous 

objects, while navigating restricted areas or channels, such as while entering or leaving port. 

This event trains submarine crews to detect and avoid mines. Training utilizes simulated 

minefields constructed of moored or bottom mines, or instrumented mines that can record 

effectiveness of mine detection efforts. In a typical training exercise, submarine crews will use 

high-frequency sonar to locate and avoid the mine shapes. Each mine avoidance exercise 

involves one submarine operating the high-frequency sonar for 6 hours to navigate through the 

training minefield. During mine warfare exercises submarines will expend several submarinelaunched expendable bathythermographs to determine water conditions affecting 

sonar performance.

Typical 

Components

Platforms: Submarines

Targets: Sub-surface targets (mine shapes)

Systems being Trained/Tested: High-frequency sonar (hull mounted)

Standard 

Operating 

Procedures

(Section 

2.3.3)

Vessel safety Typical Locations

Range Complexes/Testing 

Ranges:

Hawaii Range Complex

Southern California Range 

Complex

Bays/Estuaries/Pierside:

None

Stressors to 

Biological 

Resources

Acoustic:

Sonar and other 

transducers

Explosive:

None

Physical Disturbance and Strike: 

Vessels and in-water devices

Ingestion:

None

Energy:

None

Entanglement: 

None

Stressors to 

Physical 

Resources

Air Quality:

None

Sediments and Water Quality:

None

Stressors to 

Human 

Resources

Cultural Resources:

None

Socioeconomic Resources:

None

Public Health and Safety:

None

Military 

Expended 

Material

Ingestible Material:

None

Non-Ingestible Material:

None

Military 

Recoverable 

Material

None

Sonar and 

Other 

Transducer

Bins

High-Frequency: 

HF1

Explosive

Bins

None

Procedural 

Mitigation

Measures

Acoustic Stressors: (section 5.3.2)

Active sonar

Physical Disturbance and Strike: (section 

5.3.4)

Vessel movement
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

A-119

Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions

Mine Warfare

Submarine Mine Exercise

Assumptions 

Used for 

Analysis

Potential locations for this activity include Hawaii Range Complex (Kahoolawe Submarine 

Training Minefield), and Southern California Range Complex (Advanced Research Project 

Agency Training Minefield, Tanner Bank Minefield).
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

A-120

Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions

Surface Ship Object Detection

Mine Warfare

Surface Ship Object Detection

Short 

Description

Ship crews detect and avoid mines while 

navigating restricted areas or channels using 

active sonar.

Typical Duration

Up to 15 hours

Long 

Description

Surface ship crews detect and avoid mines or other underwater hazardous objects while 

navigating restricted areas or channels using active sonar. A Littoral Combat Ship utilizes 

unmanned surface vehicles and remotely operated vehicles to tow mine detection (hunting) 

equipment. Systems will operate from a shallow zone greater than 40 feet (ft.) to deep water. 

Events could be embedded within major training exercises.

Typical 

Components

Platforms: Surface combatant, unmanned surface vehicle

Targets: Sub-surface targets (mine shapes), targets of opportunity (buoys, fish 

aggregating devices)

Systems being Trained/Tested: High-frequency sonar, mid-frequency sonar, towed sonar 

systems

Standard 

Operating 

Procedures

(Section 

2.3.3)

Vessel safety

Unmanned aerial, 

surface, and 

subsurface vehicle 

safety

Towed in-water device 

safety

Typical Locations

Range Complexes/Testing 

Ranges:

Hawaii Range Complex;

Silver Strand Training Complex;

Southern California Range 

Complex

Bays/Estuaries/Pierside:

Pearl Harbor

San Diego Harbor

Stressors to 

Biological 

Resources

Acoustic:

Sonar and other 

transducers

Vessel noise

Explosive:

None

Physical Disturbance and Strike: 

Vessels and in-water devices

Seafloor devices

Ingestion:

None

Energy:

In-air electromagnetic 

devices

Entanglement: 

None

Stressors to 

Physical 

Resources

Air Quality:

Criteria air pollutants

Sediments and Water Quality:

None

Stressors to 

Human 

Resources

Cultural Resources:

None

Socioeconomic Resources: 

Accessibility

Public Health and Safety: 

Underwater energy

Physical interactions

Military 

Expended 

Material

Ingestible Material:

None

Non-Ingestible Material:

None

Military 

Recoverable 

Material

Recoverable Training Targets (mine 

shapes)

Sonar and 

Other 

Transducer

Bins

Mid-Frequency: 

MF1K

High-Frequency: 

HF8

Explosive

Bins

None

Procedural 

Mitigation

Measures

Acoustic Stressors: (section 5.3.2)

Active sonar

Physical Disturbance and Strike: (section 

5.3.4)

Vessel movement

Assumptions 

Used for 

No explosives are used.

Constraints: Assume system will be operated in areas free of obstructions, and will be towed 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

A-121

Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions

Mine Warfare

Surface Ship Object Detection

Analysis well above the seafloor. Towed system will be operated in a manner to avoid entanglement 

and damage. Events will take place in water depths 40 ft. and greater.

Existing placed mine shapes to be used. There is the potential for temporary placement of mine 

shapes.

Potential locations for this activity include Hawaii Range Complex (Hawaii Operations Area, 

Kingfisher, Shallow- water Minefield Sonar Training Area), and Southern California Range 

Complex (Airborne Mine Countermeasure, Camp Pendleton Amphibious Assault Area, 

Imperial Beach Minefield, Pyramid Cove, Tanner Bank Minefield).
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

A-122

Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions

Underwater Demolition Multiple Charge—Mat Weave and Obstacle Loading

Mine Warfare

Underwater Demolitions Multiple Charge - Mat Weave and Obstacle Loading

Short 

Description

Military personnel use explosive charges to 

destroy barriers or obstacles to amphibious 

vehicle access to beach areas.

Typical Duration

4 hours

Long 

Description

Navy personnel train to construct, place, and safely detonate multiple charges laid in a pattern 

for underwater obstacle clearance.

Explosive Ordnance Disposal personnel locate barriers or obstacles designed to block 

amphibious vehicle access to beach areas, then use explosive charges to destroy them. Pattern 

charges (mat weaves) may use as much as 650 pounds of high explosive.

Time delay fuses may be used for these events.

Typical 

Components

Platforms: Support craft

Targets: Sub-surface targets

Systems being Trained/Tested: None

Standard 

Operating 

Procedures

(Section 

2.3.3)

Underwater detonation 

safety

Typical Locations

Range Complexes/Testing 

Ranges:

Southern California Range 

Complex

Bays/Estuaries/Pierside:

San Clemente Island 

(Northwest Harbor)

Stressors to 

Biological 

Resources

Acoustic:

Vessel noise

Explosive:

Explosions in water

Physical Disturbance and Strike: 

Vessels and in-water devices

Military expended materials

Seafloor devices

Ingestion:

Military expended materials –

munitions

Military expended materials – other 

than munitions

Energy:

None

Entanglement: 

None

Stressors to 

Physical 

Resources

Air Quality:

Criteria air pollutants

Sediments and Water Quality:

Explosives

Stressors to 

Human 

Resources

Cultural Resources: 

Explosives

Physical disturbance and 

strike

Socioeconomic Resources: 

Accessibility

Airborne acoustics

Physical disturbance and strike

Public Health and Safety: 

Underwater energy

Physical interactions

Military 

Expended 

Material

Ingestible Material:

Target fragments

Non-Ingestible Material:

None

Military 

Recoverable 

Material

None

Sonar and 

Other 

Transducer

Bins

None

Explosive

Bins

E10

E13
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

A-123

Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions

Mine Warfare

Underwater Demolitions Multiple Charge - Mat Weave and Obstacle Loading

Procedural 

Mitigation

Measures

Physical Disturbance and Strike: (section 

5.3.4)

Vessel movement

Explosive Stressors: (section 5.3.3)

Underwater Demolitions Multiple Charge –

Mat Weave and Obstacle Loading

Assumptions 

Used for 

Analysis

Potential locations for this activity include Northwest Harbor (Training Areas and Ranges 2 and 

3), Special Warfare Training Areas.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

A-124

Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions

Underwater Demolition Qualification and Certification 

Mine Warfare

Underwater Demolition Qualification and Certification

Short 

Description

Navy divers conduct various levels of training 

and certification in placing underwater 

demolition charges.

Typical Duration

Varies

Long 

Description

Demolition requalification and training provides teams with experience in underwater 

detonations by conducting detonations on metal plates near the shoreline. At water depths of 

10 to 72 feet (ft.), two sequential 12.5 to 13.75 pounds (lb.) Net Explosive Weight charges are 

placed on the bottom or a single 25.5 lb. charge is placed from a depth of 20 ft. to the bottom.

Typical 

Components

Platforms: Support craft

Targets: Sub-surface target (metal sheet)

Systems being Trained/Tested: None

Standard 

Operating 

Procedures

(Section 

2.3.3)

Vessel safety

Underwater detonation 

safety

Typical Locations

Range Complexes/Testing 

Ranges:

Hawaii Range Complex

Silver Strand Training Complex

Southern California Range 

Complex

Bays/Estuaries/Pierside:

None

Stressors to 

Biological 

Resources

Acoustic:

Vessel noise

Explosive:

Explosions in water

Physical Disturbance and Strike: 

Vessels and in-water devices

Ingestion:

Military expended materials –

munitions

Military expended materials – other 

than munitions

Energy:

None

Entanglement: 

None

Stressors to 

Physical 

Resources

Air Quality:

Criteria air pollutants

Sediments and Water Quality:

Explosives Chemicals

Stressors to 

Human 

Resources

Cultural Resources:

None

Socioeconomic Resources:

None

Public Health and Safety:

None

Military 

Expended 

Material

Ingestible Material:

Target fragments

Non-Ingestible Material:

None

Military 

Recoverable 

Material

None

Sonar and 

Other 

Transducer

Bins

None

Explosive

Bins

E6 E7

Procedural 

Mitigation

Measures

Explosive Stressors: (section 5.3.3)

Explosive Ordnance Disposal 

Physical Disturbance and Strike: (section 5.3.4)

Vessel movement

Assumptions 

Used for 

Analysis

Potential locations for this activity include Southern California Range Complex (SAR 2), and 

Silver Strand Training Complex (Boat and Beach Lanes 1–14).
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

A-125

Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions

SURFACE WARFARE TRAINING

Surface warfare is a type of naval warfare in which aircraft, surface ships, and submarines employ 

weapons and sensors in operations directed against enemy surface ships or small boats. Aircraft-tosurface Surface warfare is conducted by long-range attacks using air-launched cruise missiles, precision 

guided munitions, or aircraft guns. Surface warfare also is conducted by warships employing torpedoes, 

naval guns, and surface-to-surface missiles. Submarines attack surface ships using torpedoes or 

submarine-launched, anti-ship cruise missiles. Training in surface warfare includes surface-to-surface 

gunnery and missile exercises, air-to-surface gunnery and missile exercises, and submarine missile or 

torpedo launch events. Gunnery and missile training generally involves expenditure of ordnance against 

a towed target. A sinking exercise is a specialized training event that provides an opportunity for ship, 

submarine, and aircraft crews to use multiple weapons systems to deliver high-explosive ordnance on a 

deactivated vessel, which is deliberately sunk. 

Surface warfare also encompasses maritime security, that is, the interception of a suspect surface ship 

by a Navy ship for the purpose of boarding-party inspection or the seizure of the suspect ship. Training 

in these tasks is conducted in visit, board, search and seizure exercises.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

A-126

Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions

Bombing Exercise Air-to-Surface

Surface Warfare

Bombing Exercise Air-to-Surface

Short 

Description

Fixed-wing aircrews deliver bombs against 

surface targets.

Typical Duration

1 hour

Long 

Description

Fixed-wing aircraft conduct bombing exercises against stationary floating targets (e.g., MK-58 

smoke buoy), towed targets, or maneuvering targets. An aircraft clears the area, deploys a 

smoke buoy, and then delivers high-explosive or non-explosive practice munitions bombs on 

the target. A range boat may be used to deploy towed or maneuvering targets for an aircraft to 

attack. 

Exercises for strike fighters typically involve a flight of two aircraft delivering unguided or 

guided munitions that may be either high-explosive or non-explosive. The following munitions 

may be employed by strike fighter aircraft in the course of bombing exercise: Unguided 

munitions include non-explosive subscale bombs (MK-76 and BDU-45), explosive and nonexplosive general purpose bombs (MK-80 series), MK-20 cluster bomb (explosive, nonexplosive). Precision-guided munitions include laser-guided bombs (explosive, non-explosive), 

laser-guided training rounds (non-explosive), Joint Direct Attack Munition (explosive, nonexplosive).

Typical 

Components

Platforms: Fixed-wing aircraft, support craft

Targets: Surface targets

Systems being Trained/Tested: Aircraft platforms, bombs, non-explosive practice munitions

Standard 

Operating 

Procedures

(Section 

2.3.3)

Vessel safety

Aircraft safety

Weapons firing safety

Typical Locations

Range Complexes/Testing 

Ranges:

Hawaii Range Complex 

Hawaii-Southern California Transit 

Corridor

Southern California Range 

Complex

Bays/Estuaries/Pierside:

None

Stressors to 

Biological 

Resources

Acoustic:

Aircraft noise

Vessel noise

Explosive:

Explosions in water

Physical Disturbance and Strike: 

Aircraft and aerial target

Vessels and in-water devices

Military expended materials

Ingestion:

Military expended materials –

munitions

Military expended materials – other 

than munitions

Energy:

In-air electromagnetic 

devices

Entanglement: 

Decelerators/parachutes

Stressors to 

Physical 

Resources

Air Quality:

Criteria air pollutants

Sediments and Water Quality:

Explosives Metals

Stressors to 

Human 

Resources

Cultural Resources: 

Explosives

Physical disturbance and 

strike

Socioeconomic Resources: 

Accessibility

Airborne acoustics

Physical disturbance and strike

Public Health and Safety: 

Underwater energy

Physical interactions
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

A-127

Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions

Surface Warfare

Bombing Exercise Air-to-Surface

Military 

Expended 

Material

Ingestible Material:

Small decelerators/parachutes, target 

fragments, bomb fragments

Non-Ingestible Material:

Mark 58 marine marker

Military 

Recoverable 

Material

Recoverable surface targets

Sonar and 

Other 

Transducer

Bins

None

Explosive

Bins

E9 E10 E12

Procedural 

Mitigation

Measures

Acoustic Stressors: (section 5.3.2)

Explosive Stressors: (section 5.3.3)

Explosive bombs

Physical Disturbance and Strike: (section 

5.3.4)

Vessel movement

Non-explosive bombs and mine shapes

Assumptions 

Used for 

Analysis

Approximately 90 percent of non-explosive bombs are the sub-scale bombs such as the MK-76 

and BDU-48.

Potential locations for this activity include Hawaii Operations Area, and Warning Area 191.

For air quality analysis:

- 2 fixed-wing strike aircraft (1 hour)
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

A-128

Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions

Gunnery Exercise Air-to-Surface Medium-Caliber

Surface Warfare

Gunnery Exercise Air-to-Surface Medium-Caliber

Short 

Description

Fixed-wing and helicopter aircrews fire mediumcaliber guns at surface targets.

Typical Duration

1 hour

Long 

Description

Fighter and helicopter aircrew, engage surface targets with medium-caliber guns. Targets 

simulate enemy ships, boats, swimmers, and floating/near- surface mines. Fighter aircraft 

descend on a target firing high-explosive or non-explosive practice munitions medium-caliber 

projectiles. Helicopters will fly a racetrack pattern around an at-sea target. Aircrew will engage 

the target with medium-caliber weapons. Targets range from a smoke float, or an empty steel 

drum, to high speed remote controlled boats and jet-skis.

Typical 

Components

Platforms: Fixed-wing aircraft, rotary-wing aircraft

Targets: Surface targets (e.g., MK 58 marine marker, empty steel drum, high speed remote 

controlled boats and jet-skis

Systems being Trained/Tested: None

Standard 

Operating 

Procedures

(Section 

2.3.3)

Vessel safety

Aircraft safety

Weapons firing safety

Typical Locations

Range Complexes/Testing 

Ranges:

Hawaii Range Complex

Southern California Range 

Complex

Bays/Estuaries/Pierside:

None

Stressors to 

Biological 

Resources

Acoustic:

Aircraft noise

Vessel noise

Explosive:

None

Physical Disturbance and Strike: 

Aircraft and aerial target

Vessels and in-water devices

Military expended materials

Ingestion:

Military expended materials –

munitions

Military expended materials – other 

than munitions

Energy:

In-air electromagnetic 

devices

Entanglement: 

Decelerators/parachutes

Stressors to 

Physical 

Resources

Air Quality:

Criteria air pollutants

Sediments and Water Quality:

Metals

Stressors to 

Human 

Resources

Cultural Resources: 

Physical disturbance and 

strike

Socioeconomic Resources: 

Accessibility

Airborne acoustics

Physical disturbance and strike

Public Health and Safety: 

Physical interactions

Military 

Expended 

Material

Ingestible Material:

Small decelerators/parachutes, 

Projectiles, projectile casings, target 

fragments

Non-Ingestible Material:

MK 58 marine marker 

Military 

Recoverable 

Material

Recoverable surface targets

Sonar and 

Other 

Transducer

Bins

None

Explosive

Bins

None
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

A-129

Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions

Surface Warfare

Gunnery Exercise Air-to-Surface Medium-Caliber

Procedural

Mitigation

Measures

Physical Disturbance and Strike: (section 

5.3.4)

Vessel movement

Small-, medium-, and large-caliber nonexplosive practice munitions

Assumptions 

Used for 

Analysis

Most medium-caliber air-to-surface gunnery exercises will be with non-explosive training 

projectiles. High-explosive rounds will supplement when non-explosive training projectiles 

are not available. Fixed-wing casings remain with aircraft, and helicopter shell casings are 

expended into the water.

Two fixed-wing aircraft (400 rounds each) or one helicopter (400 rounds) per activity.

One target used per event: expendable smoke float (50 percent), stationary target (45 percent), 

or remote-controlled target (5 percent).

Any sources used during this activity would be de minimis and not quantitatively analyzed and, 

therefore, are not included under munitions.

Potential locations for this activity include Hawaii Range Complex (Warning Areas 188, 191, 

192, 193, 194, 196, and Mela South) and Southern California Range Complex (Southern 

California Anti-Submarine Warfare Range, [T-3, T-4, T-5, Mine Training Range-2], and 

Warning Area 291).

For air quality analysis:

- 1 fixed-wing strike aircraft

- 1 rotary-wing aircraft

- Average 1 hour per event
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

A-130

Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions

Gunnery Exercise Air-to-Surface Small-Caliber

Surface Warfare

Gunnery Exercise Air-to-Surface Small-Caliber

Short 

Description

Helicopter and tilt-rotor aircrews, use smallcaliber guns to engage surface targets.

Typical Duration

1 hour

Long 

Description

Helicopters and tilt-rotor aircraft, fly a racetrack pattern around an at-sea target. Targets 

simulate enemy ships, boats, and floating/near-surface mines. Each gunner will engage the 

target with small-caliber weapons. Targets range from a smoke float, an empty steel drum, to 

high speed remote controlled boats and jet-skis.

Typical 

Components

Platforms: Rotary-wing aircraft, tilt-rotor aircraft

Targets: Surface targets (e.g., MK 58 marine marker, empty steel drum, high speed remote 

controlled boats and jet-skis

Systems being Trained/Tested: None

Standard 

Operating 

Procedures

(Section 

2.3.3)

Vessel safety

Aircraft safety

Weapons firing safety

Typical Locations

Range Complexes/Testing 

Ranges:

Hawaii Range Complex

Southern California Range 

Complex

Bays/Estuaries/Pierside:

None

Stressors to 

Biological 

Resources

Acoustic:

Aircraft noise

Vessel noise

Explosive:

None

Physical Disturbance and Strike: 

Aircraft and aerial target

Vessels and in-water devices

Military expended materials

Ingestion:

Military expended materials –

munitions

Military expended materials – other 

than munitions

Energy:

In-air electromagnetic 

devices

Entanglement: 

Decelerators/parachutes

Stressors to 

Physical 

Resources

Air Quality:

Criteria air pollutants

Sediments and Water Quality:

Metals

Stressors to 

Human 

Resources

Cultural Resources: 

Physical disturbance and 

strike

Socioeconomic Resources: 

Accessibility

Airborne acoustics

Physical disturbance and strike

Public Health and Safety: 

Physical interactions

Military 

Expended 

Material

Ingestible Material:

Small decelerators/parachutes, 

Projectiles, projectile casings, target 

fragments

Non-Ingestible Material:

MK 58 marine marker 

Military 

Recoverable 

Material

Recoverable surface targets

Sonar and 

Other 

Transducer

Bins

None

Explosive

Bins

None
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

A-131

Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions

Surface Warfare

Gunnery Exercise Air-to-Surface Small-Caliber

Procedural 

Mitigation

Measures

Physical Disturbance and Strike: (section 

5.3.4)

Vessel movement

Small-, medium-, and large-caliber nonexplosive practice munitions

Assumptions 

Used for 

Analysis

Most events will occur proximate to Naval Stations where MH-60 helicopters are home based 

and target services are available.

Potential locations for this activity include Hawaii Range Complex (Warning Areas 188, 191, 

192, 193, 194, 196, and Mela South).

For air quality analysis:

- 1 rotary-wing aircraft

- Average 1 hour per event
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

A-132

Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions

Gunnery Exercise Surface-to-Surface Boat Medium-Caliber

Surface Warfare

Gunnery Exercise Surface-to-Surface Boat Medium-Caliber

Short 

Description

Small boat crews fire medium-caliber guns at 

surface targets.

Typical Duration

1 hour

Long 

Description

Small boat crews fire medium-caliber guns at surface targets. Boat crews may use high or low 

speeds to approach and engage targets simulating other boats, floating mines, or near shore 

land targets with medium-caliber (up to and including 40 millimeter [mm]) weapons. A 

commonly used target is an empty steel drum. This event also includes use of anti-swimmer 

grenades, which may be employed within harbors.

A number of different types of boats are used depending on the unit using the boat and their 

mission. Boats are most used to protect ships in harbors and high value units, such as: aircraft 

carriers, nuclear submarines, liquid natural gas tankers, etc., while entering and leaving ports, 

as well as to conduct riverine operations, and various naval special warfare operations. The 

boats used by these units include small unit river craft, combat rubber raiding craft, rigid-hull 

inflatable boats, patrol craft, and many other versions of these types of boats. These boats use 

inboard or outboard, diesel or gasoline engines with either propeller or water jet propulsion.

Typical 

Components

Platforms: Small boat

Targets: Surface targets (e.g., empty steel drum)

Systems being Trained/Tested: Medium-caliber gun systems

Standard 

Operating 

Procedures

(Section 

2.3.3)

Vessel safety

Weapons firing safety

Typical Locations

Range Complexes/Testing 

Ranges:

Hawaii Range Complex

Southern California Range 

Complex

Bays/Estuaries/Pierside:

Pearl Harbor

San Diego Harbor

Stressors to 

Biological 

Resources

Acoustic:

Vessel noise

Weapons noise

Explosive:

Explosions in water

Physical Disturbance and Strike: 

Vessels and in-water devices

Military expended materials

Ingestion:

Military expended materials –

munitions

Military expended materials – other 

than munitions

Energy:

None

Entanglement: 

None

Stressors to 

Physical 

Resources

Air Quality:

Criteria air pollutants

Sediments and Water Quality:

Explosives Metals

Stressors to 

Human 

Resources

Cultural Resources: 

Explosives

Physical disturbance and 

strike

Socioeconomic Resources: 

Accessibility

Airborne acoustics

Physical disturbance and strike

Public Health and Safety: 

Underwater energy

Physical interactions

Military 

Expended 

Material

Ingestible Material:

Medium-caliber shell fragments, 

target fragments

Non-Ingestible Material:

Expendable target 

Military 

Recoverable 

Material

None
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

A-133

Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions

Surface Warfare

Gunnery Exercise Surface-to-Surface Boat Medium-Caliber

Sonar and 

Other 

Transducer

Bins

None

Explosive

Bins

E1

E2

Procedural 

Mitigation

Measures

Explosive Stressors: (section 5.3.3)

Explosive medium-caliber and large-caliber 

projectiles

Maritime security operations – anti swimmer 

grenades

Physical Disturbance and Strike: (section 

5.3.4)

Vessel movement

Small-, medium-, and large-caliber nonexplosive practice munitions

Assumptions 

Used for 

Analysis

Assume all events include the use of some explosive rounds. Most events will involve boat 

crews training with MK 203 40 mm grenade launcher. Most events will occur proximate to 

naval stations.

One target used per event, typically a stationary target such as a 50-liter steel drum.

Potential locations for this activity include Hawaii Operating Area

For air quality analysis:

- 1 small boat

- Average 1 hour per event
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

A-134

Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions

Gunnery Exercise Surface-to-Surface Boat Small-Caliber

Surface Warfare

Gunnery Exercise Surface-to-Surface Boat Small-Caliber

Short 

Description

Small boat crews fire small-caliber guns at 

surface targets.

Typical Duration

1 hour

Long 

Description

Small boat crews fire small-caliber guns at surface targets. Boat crews may use high or low 

speeds to approach and engage targets simulating other boats, swimmers, floating mines, or 

near shore land targets with small-caliber (up to and including .50-caliber) weapons. A 

commonly used target is an empty steel drum. 

A number of different types of boats are used depending on the unit using the boat and their 

mission. Boats are most used to protect ships in harbors and high value units, such as: aircraft 

carriers, nuclear submarines, liquid natural gas tankers, etc., while entering and leaving ports,

as well as to conduct riverine operations, and various naval special warfare operations. The 

boats used by these units include small unit river craft, combat rubber raiding craft, rigid-hull 

inflatable boats, patrol craft, and many other versions of these types of boats. These boats use 

inboard or outboard, diesel or gasoline engines with either propeller or water jet propulsion.

Typical 

Components

Platforms: Small boat

Targets: Surface targets (e.g., empty steel drum)

Systems being Trained/Tested: None

Standard 

Operating 

Procedures

(Section 

2.3.3)

Vessel safety

Weapons firing safety

Typical Locations

Range Complexes/Testing 

Ranges:

Hawaii Range Complex

Southern California Range 

Complex

Bays/Estuaries/Pierside:

None

Stressors to 

Biological 

Resources

Acoustic:

Vessel noise

Weapons noise

Explosive:

None

Physical Disturbance and Strike: 

Vessels and in-water devices

Military expended materials

Ingestion:

Military expended materials –

munitions

Energy:

None

Entanglement: 

None

Stressors to 

Physical 

Resources

Air Quality:

Criteria air pollutants

Sediments and Water Quality:

Metals

Stressors to 

Human 

Resources

Cultural Resources: 

Physical disturbance and 

strike

Socioeconomic Resources: 

Accessibility

Airborne acoustics

Physical disturbance and strike

Public Health and Safety: 

Physical interactions

Military 

Expended 

Material

Ingestible Material:

Projectile casings, small-caliber (nonexplosive) projectiles

Non-Ingestible Material:

Expendable target

Military 

Recoverable 

Material

None

Sonar and

Other 

Transducer

Bins

None

Explosive None
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

A-135

Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions

Surface Warfare

Gunnery Exercise Surface-to-Surface Boat Small-Caliber

Bins

Procedural 

Mitigation

Measures

Physical Disturbance and Strike: (section 

5.3.4)

Vessel movement

Small-, medium-, and large-caliber nonexplosive practice munitions

Assumptions 

Used for 

Analysis

The majority of events will occur proximate to naval stations.

Events will occur relatively nearshore due to short range of boats and safety concerns. Events 

mostly occur within 3 nautical miles of the shoreline, but can occur further from shore.

Potential locations for this activity include Warning Area 291, Southern California AntiSubmarine Warfare Range, and Shore Bombardment Area.

For air quality analysis:

- 1 small boat

- Average 1 hour per event
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

A-136

Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions

Gunnery Exercise Surface-to-Surface Ship Large-Caliber

Surface Warfare

Gunnery Exercise Surface-to-Surface Ship—Large-Caliber

Short 

Description

Surface ship crews fire large-caliber guns at 

surface targets.

Typical Duration

Up to 3 hours

Long 

Description

This exercise involves ships’ gun crews engaging surface targets at sea with their main battery 

large-caliber (typically 57 millimeter [mm], 76 mm, and 5-inch) guns. Targets include the QST35 seaborne powered target, high speed maneuverable surface target, or a specially configured 

remote controlled water craft. Some targets are expended during the exercise and are not 

recovered. 

The exercise proceeds with the target boat approaching from about 10 nautical miles distance. 

The target is tracked by radar and when within a predetermined range, it is engaged first with 

large-caliber “warning shots.” As threats get closer all weapons may be used to disable the 

threat. 

This exercise may involve a single firing ship, or be undertaken in the context of a coordinated 

larger exercise involving multiple ships, including a major training exercise. 

Large-caliber guns will also be fired during weapon certification events and in conjunction with 

weapon maintenance. 

During all events, either high-explosive or non-explosive rounds may be used. High-explosive 

rounds can either be fused for detonation on impact (with water surface or target), or for 

proximity to the target (in air detonation).

Typical 

Components

Platforms: Surface combatant

Targets: Surface targets (e.g., QST-35 seaborne powered target, high speed maneuverable 

surface target, or a specially configured remote controlled water craft)

Systems being Trained/Tested: Large-caliber gun systems

Standard 

Operating 

Procedures

(Section 

2.3.3)

Vessel safety

Weapons firing safety

Typical Locations

Range Complexes/Testing 

Ranges:

Hawaii Range Complex

Hawaii-Southern California Transit 

Corridor

Southern California Range 

Complex

Bays/Estuaries/Pierside:

None

Stressors to 

Biological 

Resources

Acoustic:

Vessel noise

Weapons noise

Explosive:

Explosions in water

Physical Disturbance and Strike: 

Vessels and in-water devices

Military expended materials

Ingestion:

Military expended materials –

munitions

Military expended materials – other 

than munitions

Energy:

In-air electromagnetic 

devices

Entanglement: 

None

Stressors to 

Physical 

Resources

Air Quality:

Criteria air pollutants

Sediments and Water Quality:

Explosives Metals

Stressors to 

Human 

Resources

Cultural Resources: 

Explosives

Physical disturbance and 

Socioeconomic Resources: 

Accessibility

Airborne acoustics

Public Health and Safety: 

Underwater energy

Physical interactions
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

A-137

Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions

Surface Warfare

Gunnery Exercise Surface-to-Surface Ship—Large-Caliber

strike Physical disturbance and strike

Military 

Expended 

Material

Ingestible Material:

Target fragments, projectile fragments

Non-Ingestible Material:

None 

Military 

Recoverable 

Material

Recoverable surface targets

Sonar and 

Other 

Transducer

Bins

None

Explosive

Bins

E5

Procedural 

Mitigation

Measures

Acoustic Stressors: (section 5.3.2)

Weapons firing noise

Physical Disturbance and Strike: (section 

5.3.4)

Vessel movement

Small-, medium-, and large-caliber nonexplosive practice munitions

Explosive Stressors: (section 5.3.3)

Explosive medium-caliber and large-caliber 

projectiles

Assumptions 

Used for 

Analysis

Activity always occurs beyond 3 nautical miles of the shoreline.

For analytical purposes assume all high explosive rounds are fused to detonate upon impact 

with water surface or target.

After impacting the water, the high explosive rounds are expected to detonate within three 

feet of the surface. Non-explosive rounds and fragments from the high explosive rounds will 

sink to the bottom of the ocean.

Potential locations for this activity include Southern California Range Complex (Warning Area 

291, Southern California Anti-Submarine Warfare Range, and Shore Bombardment Area).
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

A-138

Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions

Gunnery Exercise Surface-to-Surface Ship Medium-Caliber

Surface Warfare

Gunnery Exercise Surface-to-Surface Ship Medium-Caliber

Short 

Description

Surface ship crews fire medium-caliber guns at 

surface targets.

Typical Duration

2–3 hours

Long 

Description

Surface ship crews fire medium-caliber guns at surface targets. 

Ships use medium-caliber weapons to practice defensive marksmanship, typically against a 

stationary floating target (a 10 foot diameter red balloon [Killer Tomato]) and high-speed 

mobile targets. Some targets are expended during the exercise and are not recovered. 

Shipboard protection systems (Close-In Weapon System) utilizing medium-caliber projectiles 

would train against high speed mobile targets.

Typical 

Components

Platforms: Patrol combatant, surface combatant

Targets: Surface targets (e.g., stationary floating target, high-speed mobile target)

Systems being Trained/Tested: Medium-caliber gun systems

Standard 

Operating 

Procedures

(Section 

2.3.3)

Vessel safety

Weapons firing safety

Typical Locations

Range Complexes/Testing 

Ranges:

Hawaii Range Complex

Transit Corridor 

Southern California Range 

Complex

Bays/Estuaries/Pierside:

None

Stressors to 

Biological 

Resources

Acoustic:

Vessel noise

Weapons noise

Explosive:

Explosions in water

Physical Disturbance and Strike: 

Vessels and in-water devices

Military expended materials

Ingestion:

Military expended materials –

munitions

Military expended materials – other 

than munitions

Energy:

In-air electromagnetic 

devices

Entanglement: 

None

Stressors to 

Physical 

Resources

Air Quality:

Criteria air pollutants

Sediments and Water Quality:

Explosives Metals

Stressors to 

Human 

Resources

Cultural Resources: 

Explosives

Physical disturbance and 

strike

Socioeconomic Resources: 

Accessibility

Airborne acoustics

Physical disturbance and strike

Public Health and Safety: 

Underwater energy

Physical interactions

Military 

Expended 

Material

Ingestible Material:

Target fragments, projectile fragments

Non-Ingestible Material:

None 

Military 

Recoverable 

Material

Recoverable surface targets

Sonar and

Other 

Transducer

Bins

None

Explosive

Bins

E1

E2
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

A-139

Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions

Surface Warfare

Gunnery Exercise Surface-to-Surface Ship Medium-Caliber

Procedural 

Mitigation

Measures

Acoustic Stressors: (section 5.3.2)

Weapons firing noise

Physical Disturbance and Strike: (section 

5.3.4)

Vessel movement

Small-, medium-, and large-caliber nonexplosive practice munitions

Explosive Stressors: (section 5.3.3)

Explosive medium-caliber and large-caliber 

projectiles

Assumptions 

Used for 

Analysis

One target used per event. Approximately 50 percent of targets are “Killer Tomatoes” (usually 

recovered). Approximately 35 percent are high-speed maneuvering targets, which are 

recovered. Approximately 15 percent of targets are other stationary targets such as a steel 

drum.

Potential locations for this activity include Hawaii Range Complex (Warning Areas-188, 191, 

192, 193, 194, 196, and Mela South), Southern California Range Complex (Warning Area291, Southern California Anti-Submarine Warfare Range, and Shore Bombardment Area).

For air quality analysis:

- 1 surface combatant

- 1 patrol combatant

- Average 2 hours per event
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

A-140

Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions

Gunnery Exercise Surface-to-Surface Ship Small-Caliber

Surface Warfare

Gunnery Exercise Surface-to-Surface Ship Small-Caliber

Short 

Description

Surface ship crews fire small-caliber guns at 

surface targets.

Typical Duration

2–3 hours

Long 

Description

Surface ship crews fire small-caliber guns at surface targets. 

Ships use small-caliber weapons to practice defensive marksmanship, typically against 

stationary floating targets. The target may be a 10 foot diameter red balloon (Killer Tomato, 

see Figure A-4), a 50 gallon steel drum, or other available target, such as a cardboard box. 

Some targets are expended during the exercise and are not recovered. 

Ship crew qualifications conducted at sea employ stationary targets on deck. Small-caliber 

projectiles fired during these events will be expended in the water. 

Shipboard protection systems utilizing small-caliber projectiles will train against high speed 

mobile targets.

Typical 

Components

Platforms: Navy ships

Targets: Surface targets (e.g., Killer Tomato, 50 gallon steel drum, cardboard box)

Systems being Trained/Tested: None

Standard 

Operating 

Procedures

(Section 

2.3.3)

Vessel safety

Weapons firing safety

Typical Locations

Range Complexes/Testing 

Ranges:

Hawaii Range Complex

Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Transit 

Corridor 

Southern California Range 

Complex

Bays/Estuaries/Pierside:

None

Stressors to 

Biological 

Resources

Acoustic:

Vessel noise

Explosive:

None

Physical Disturbance and Strike: 

Vessels and in-water devices

Military expended materials

Ingestion:

Military expended materials –

munitions

Military expended materials – other 

than munitions

Energy:

In-air electromagnetic 

devices

Entanglement: 

None

Stressors to 

Physical 

Resources

Air Quality:

Criteria air pollutants

Sediments and Water Quality:

Metals

Stressors to 

Human 

Resources

Cultural Resources:

None

Socioeconomic Resources: 

Accessibility

Airborne acoustics

Physical disturbance and strike

Public Health and Safety: 

Physical interactions

Military 

Expended 

Material

Ingestible Material:

Projectiles, projectile casings, target 

fragments

Non-Ingestible Material:

None

Military 

Recoverable 

Material

None
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

A-141

Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions

Surface Warfare

Gunnery Exercise Surface-to-Surface Ship Small-Caliber

Sonar and 

Other 

Transducer

Bins

None

Explosive

Bins

None

Procedural 

Mitigation

Measures

Physical Disturbance and Strike: (section 

5.3.4)

Vessel movement

Small-, medium-, and large-caliber nonexplosive practice munitions

Assumptions 

Used for 

Analysis

Small-caliber gun rounds per event: 1,000 to 3,000 non-explosive practice munitions. Majority 

of events will occur proximate to Naval stations.

Potential locations for this activity include Hawaii Range Complex (Warning Areas 188, 191, 

192, 193, 194, 196, and Mela South) Southern California Range Complex (Warning Area-291, 

Southern California Anti-Submarine Warfare Range, and Shore Bombardment Area).

For air quality analysis:

- 1 surface combatant

- Average 1 hour per event
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

A-142

Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions

Independent Deployer Certification Exercise/Tailored Surface Warfare Training

Surface Warfare

Independent Deployer Certification Exercise/Tailored Surface Warfare Training

Short 

Description

Multiple ships, aircraft and submarines conduct 

integrated multi-warfare training with a surface 

warfare emphasis. Serves as a ready-to-deploy 

certification for individual surface ships tasked 

with surface warfare missions.

Typical Duration

15 Days

Long 

Description

The Independent Deployer Certification Exercise (IDCERTEX) Tailored Surface Warfare (SUW) 

Training is a certification exercise for individual ships deploying by themselves or in small groups. 

IDCERTEX/SUW emphasizes mission planning and effective execution of surface warfare missions 

associated with LCS, and meets the integrated training requirement with other fleet assets prior to 

deployment. IDCERTEX/SUW is normally 15 days long and is the final at-sea exercise with the SUW 

mission module. Occurs 2–3 times per year. 

Due to the surface warfare-focus of the certification, all warfare area training conducted during 

IDCERTEX/SUW was analyzed as unit level training (gunnery, missile exercise, etc.). Any antisubmarine warfare training would also be unit level training.

Typical 

Components

Platforms: Multiple Surface Combatants, fixed-wing aircraft, helicopters, unmanned vehicles, and 

submarines

Targets: All surface, air and anti-submarine warfare targets (e.g. MK-39 Expendable Mobile 

Training Targets, recoverable or expendable floating

Systems being Trained/Tested: Sonar systems, lightweight torpedoes, acoustic modems

Standard 

Operating 

Procedures

(Section 2.3.3)

Vessel safety

Aircraft safety

Weapons firing safety

Typical Locations

Range Complexes/Testing Ranges:

Southern California Range Complex

Stressors to 

Biological 

Resources

Acoustic:

Sonar and other 

transducers

Aircraft Noise

Vessel Noise

Weapons firing noise

Explosive:

Explosions in air

Explosions in water

Physical Disturbance and Strike: 

Aircraft and aerial targets

Vessels and in-water devices

Military Expended Materials

Ingestion:

Military expended materials –

munitions

Military expended materials – other 

than munitions

Energy:

In-air Electromagnetic 

Devices

Entanglement: 

Wires and cables

Decelerators/Parachutes

Stressors to 

Physical 

Resources

Air Quality:

Criteria air pollutants

Sediments and Water Quality:

Explosives Chemicals

Metals

Stressors to 

Human 

Resources

Cultural Resources: 

Explosives

Physical disturbance and 

strike

Socioeconomic Resources: 

Accessibility

Airborne acoustics

Physical disturbance and strike

Public Health and Safety: 

Underwater energy

Physical interactions
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

A-143

Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions

Surface Warfare

Independent Deployer Certification Exercise/Tailored Surface Warfare Training

Military 

Expended 

Material

Ingestible Material:

Small decelerators/parachutes, target 

remnants, chaff, flares, small-caliber 

projectiles, weapons fragments

Non-Ingestible Material:

Sonobuoys, large and medium caliber 

projectiles, bombs, missiles, rockets, 

expendable acoustic 

countermeasures, MK-39 expendable 

mobile ASW target

Military 

Recoverable 

Material

MK-30 ASW target, recoverable 

floating targets

Sonar and 

Other 

Transducer

Bins

Mid-Frequency: 

MF1 MF5

MF1K MF6

MF3 MF12

MF4

High-Frequency: 

HF1

Anti-Submarine Warfare: 

ASW2 ASW4

ASW3

Torpedoes: 

TORP1

Explosive

Bins

E1 E3 E6 E10

Procedural 

Mitigation 

Measures

Acoustic Stressors: (section 5.3.2)

Low Frequency and Hull-Mounted MidFrequency Active sonar

High Frequency and Non-Hull Mounted MidFrequency Active sonar

Large Caliber Weapons Firing

Physical Disturbance and Strike: (section 5.3.4)

Vessel movement

Towed in-water devices

Non-Explosive Gunnery

Non-explosive missiles and rockets

Non-explosive bombs and mine shapes

Explosive Stressors: (section 5.3.3)

Explosive Small- and Medium-Caliber Munitions

Explosive Large-Caliber Munitions

Explosive missiles and rockets

Explosive bombs

Assumptions 

Used for 

Analysis

All warfare area training conducted during IDCERTEX/SUW was analyzed as unit level training 

(gunnery, missile exercise, etc.). All Military expended materials, ordnance, and explosives and 

sonar use is included in individual events.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

A-144

Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions

Integrated Live Fire

Surface Warfare

Integrated Live Fire

Short 

Description

Naval Forces defend against multiple surface 

threats (ships or small boats) with bombs, 

missiles, rockets, and small-, medium- and largecaliber guns.

Typical Duration

6–8 hours

Long 

Description

Naval Forces use coordinated tactics and deliver high-explosive ordnance against a swarm of 

surface maritime threats. Events within this activity include exercises for strike fighters typically 

involve a flight of two to four aircraft delivering unguided or guided munitions that may be 

either high-explosive or non-explosive bombs against surface targets. The bombs may be 

surface detonating or designed to detonate as an air-burst bomb; strike fighter aircraft, 

helicopter aircrews, and ship crews fire high-explosive precision-guided missiles against surface 

targets. If explosive, helicopter launched missiles (including rockets) typically detonate at or 

just below the water’s surface; fighter and helicopter aircrew engage surface targets with 

small- and medium-caliber guns. Ships’ gun crews engage surface targets with large-caliber 

(typically 57 millimeter and 5-inch) guns; this exercise may involve a single firing ship or be 

undertaken in the context of a coordinated larger exercise involving multiple ships, including a 

major training exercise.

Typical 

Components

Platforms: Fixed-wing aircraft, rotary-wing aircraft, surface combatant, support craft

Targets: Surface targets (e.g., remote controlled surface targets, towed surface target)

Systems being Trained/Tested: Aircraft platforms, in-air low-energy laser, medium- and largecaliber gun systems

Standard 

Operating 

Procedures

(Section 

2.3.3)

Vessel safety

Aircraft safety

High-powered laser 

safety

Weapons firing safety

Typical Locations

Range Complexes/Testing 

Ranges:

Hawaii Range Complex 

Southern California Range 

Complex

Bays/Estuaries/Pierside:

None

Stressors to 

Biological 

Resources

Acoustic:

Aircraft noise

Vessel noise

Weapons noise

Explosive:

Explosions in air

Explosions in water

Physical Disturbance and Strike: 

Aircraft and aerial target

Vessels and in-water devices

Military expended materials

Ingestion:

Military expended materials –

munitions

Military expended materials – other 

than munitions

Energy:

In-air electromagnetic 

devices

Lasers

Entanglement: 

None

Stressors to 

Physical 

Resources

Air Quality:

Criteria air pollutants

Sediments and Water Quality:

Explosives Metals

Stressors to 

Human 

Resources

Cultural Resources: 

Explosives

Physical disturbance and 

strike

Socioeconomic Resources: 

Accessibility

Airborne acoustics

Physical disturbance and strike

Public Health and Safety: 

Underwater energy

Physical interactions
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

A-145

Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions

Surface Warfare

Integrated Live Fire

Military 

Expended 

Material

Ingestible Material:

Bomb fragments, missile fragments,

projectiles, projectile casings,

projectile fragments, rocket 

fragments, target fragments

Non-Ingestible Material:

Non-explosive bombs and mine 

shapes

Military 

Recoverable 

Material

Recoverable surface targets

Sonar and 

Other 

Transducer

Bins

None

Explosive

Bins

E1 E3 E6 E10

Procedural 

Mitigation

Measures

Acoustic Stressors: (section 5.3.2)

Weapons firing noise

Physical Disturbance and Strike: (section 5.3.4)

Vessel movement

Small-, medium-, and large-caliber nonexplosive practice munitions

Non-explosive missiles and rockets

Non-explosive bombs and mine shapes

Explosive Stressors: (section 5.3.3)

Explosive medium-caliber and large-caliber 

projectiles

Explosive missiles and rockets

Explosive bombs

Assumptions 

Used for 

Analysis

Potential locations for this activity include Hawaii Range Complex (Warning Area 188) and 

Southern California Range Complex (Southern California Anti-Submarine Range).

For air quality analysis:

- 12 fixed-wing strike aircraft

- 4 rotary-wing aircraft

- 4 surface combatant

- Average 1 hour per event
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

A-146

Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions

Laser Targeting—Aircraft 

Surface Warfare

Laser Targeting—Aircraft

Short 

Description

Fixed-wing and helicopter aircrews illuminate 

enemy targets with lasers.

Typical Duration

1–2 hours

Long 

Description

Fixed-winged and helicopter aircrew illuminate enemy targets with lasers for engagement by 

aircraft with laser guided bombs or missiles. This exercise may be conducted alone or in 

conjunction with other events utilizing precision guided munitions, such as surface missiles and 

guided rockets. Events where weapons are fired are addressed in the appropriate activity (e.g.,

air-to-surface missile exercise). Lower powered lasers may also be used as non-lethal 

deterrents during maritime security operations (force protection).

Lower powered lasers may also be used as non-lethal deterrents during maritime security 

operations (force protection).

Typical 

Components

Platforms: Fixed-wing aircraft, rotary-wing aircraft, unmanned aerial system

Targets: Surface targets

Systems being Trained/Tested: Aircraft platforms

Standard 

Operating 

Procedures

(Section 

2.3.3)

Aircraft safety

Unmanned aerial, 

surface, and 

subsurface vehicle 

safety

Typical Locations

Range Complexes/Testing 

Ranges:

Hawaii Range Complex

Southern California Range 

Complex

Bays/Estuaries/Pierside:

None

Stressors to 

Biological 

Resources

Acoustic:

Aircraft noise

Explosive:

None

Physical Disturbance and Strike: 

Aircraft and aerial target

Ingestion:

None

Energy:

In-air electromagnetic 

devices

Entanglement: 

None

Stressors to 

Physical 

Resources

Air Quality:

Criteria air pollutants

Sediments and Water Quality:

None

Stressors to 

Human 

Resources

Cultural Resources:

None

Socioeconomic Resources: 

Accessibility

Airborne acoustics

Public Health and Safety: 

Physical interactions

Military 

Expended 

Material

Ingestible Material:

None

Non-Ingestible Material:

None 

Military 

Recoverable 

Material

None

Sonar and 

Other 

Transducer

Bins

None

Explosive

Bins

None

Procedural 

Mitigation

Measures

Acoustic Stressors: (section 5.3.2)

Assumptions 

Used for 

Analysis

Use of lasers as force protection non-lethal deterrents will primarily occur proximate to Navy 

homeports.

Land target impacts are not analyzed within this Environmental Impact Statement/Oversea 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

A-147

Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions

Surface Warfare

Laser Targeting—Aircraft

Environmental Impact Statement.

Potential locations for this activity include Hawaii Range Complex (Warning Area 188), and 

Southern California Range Complex (Southern California Anti-Submarine Warfare Range, 

and Shore Bombardment Area, [Laser Training Ranges 1 and 2]).

For air quality analysis:

- 1 fixed-wing strike aircraft

- 1 rotary-wing aircraft

- Average 2 hours per event
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

A-148

Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions

Maritime Security Operations

Surface Warfare

Maritime Security Operations

Short 

Description

Helicopter, surface ship, and small boat crews 

conduct a suite of maritime security operations 

at sea, to include visit, board, search and 

seizure, maritime interdiction operations, force 

protection, and anti-piracy operations.

Typical Duration

Up to 3 hours

Long 

Description

Helicopter and surface ship crews conduct a suite of maritime security operations (e.g., 

visit, board, search and seizure, maritime interdiction operations, force protection, and 

anti-piracy operations). These activities involve training of boarding parties delivered by 

helicopters and surface ships to surface vessels for the purpose of simulating vessel 

search and seizure operations. Various training scenarios are employed and may include 

small arms with non-explosive blanks and surveillance or reconnaissance unmanned 

surface and aerial vehicles. The entire exercise may last 2–3 hours.

Vessel Visit, Board, Search, and Seizure: Military personnel from ships and aircraft board 

suspect vessels, potentially under hostile conditions.

Maritime Interdiction Operations: Ships and aircraft train in pursuing, intercepting, and 

ultimately detaining suspect vessels.

Maritime Infrastructure Protection and Harbor Defense: Naval personnel train to defend 

oil platforms, similar at sea structures, harbors, piers, and other infrastructure.

Warning Shot/Disabling Fire: Naval personnel train in the use of weapons to force fleeing or 

threatening small boats (typically operating at high speeds) to come to a stop.

Ship Force Protection: Ship crews train in tracking multiple approaching, circling small craft, 

assessing threat potential, and communicating amongst crewmates and other vessels to 

ensure ships are protected against attack.

Anti-Piracy Training: Naval personnel train in deterring and interrupting piracy activity. Training 

includes large vessels (pirate “mother ships”), and multiple small, maneuverable, and fast craft.

Typical 

Components

Platforms: Amphibious warfare ship, rotary-wing aircraft, surface combatant, small boat

Targets: Surface targets

Systems being Trained/Tested: None

Standard 

Operating 

Procedures

(Section 

2.3.3)

Vessel safety

Aircraft safety

Typical Locations

Range Complexes/Testing 

Ranges:

Hawaii Range Complex

Southern California Range 

Complex

Silver Strand Training Complex

Bays/Estuaries/Pierside:

Pearl Harbor

San Diego Harbor

Stressors to 

Biological 

Resources

Acoustic:

Aircraft noise

Vessel noise

Explosive:

None

Physical Disturbance and Strike: 

Aircraft and aerial target

Vessels and in-water devices

Ingestion:

None

Energy:

In-air electromagnetic 

devices

Entanglement: 

None

Stressors to 

Physical 

Resources

Air Quality:

Criteria air pollutants

Sediments and Water Quality:

None
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

A-149

Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions

Surface Warfare

Maritime Security Operations

Stressors to 

Human 

Resources

Cultural Resources:

None

Socioeconomic Resources: 

Accessibility

Airborne acoustics

Physical disturbance and strike

Public Health and Safety: 

Physical interactions

Military 

Expended 

Material

Ingestible Material:

None

Non-Ingestible Material:

None

Military 

Recoverable 

Material

None

Sonar and 

Other 

Transducer

Bins

None

Explosive

Bins

None

Procedural 

Mitigation

Measures

Acoustic Stressors: (section 5.3.2) Physical Disturbance and Strike: (section 

5.3.4)

Vessel movement

Assumptions 

Used for 

Analysis

Maritime Security Operations is a broad term used to describe activities intended train naval 

forces in the skills necessary to protect naval vessels from small boat attack, counter piracy 

and drug operations (maritime interdiction operations and visit, board, search, and seizure), 

and protect key infrastructure (e.g., oil platforms). Maritime security operations need to 

remain broad as naval forces need to be able to tailor training events to respond to 

emergent threats. Maritime Security Operations events typically do not involve live fire of 

weapons. All maritime security operations events involve vessel movement, sometimes at 

high rates of speed (naval vessels maneuvering to overtake suspect vessel or small boats 

(targets) closing in and maneuvering around naval vessels), and some event involve 

helicopters and boarding parties. Maritime security operations training events are 

conducted proximate to naval homeports (San Diego, California and Pearl Harbor, Hawaii) 

including during times of transit in and out of port, as well as during major training 

exercises.

Potential locations for this activity include Hawaii Range Complex (Hawaii Operating area), W291, Southern California Anti-Submarine Warfare Range, OPAREA 3803, and Silver Strand 

Training Complex Boat Lanes 1–10.

For air quality analysis:

- 1 fixed-wing strike aircraft

- 1 rotary-wing aircraft

- Average 2 hours per event
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

A-150

Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions

Missile Exercise Air-to-Surface

Surface Warfare

Missile Exercise Air-to-Surface

Short 

Description

Fixed-wing and helicopter aircrews fire air-tosurface missiles at surface targets.

Typical Duration

1 hour

Long 

Description

Fighter, maritime patrol aircraft, and helicopter aircrews fire precision-guided missiles against 

surface targets. Aircraft involved may be unmanned.

Fixed-wing aircraft (fighters or maritime patrol aircraft) approach an at-sea surface target from 

high altitude, and launch high-explosive precision guided missiles.

Helicopters designate at-sea surface targets with a laser or optics for a precision guided highexplosive or non-explosive practice munitions missile. Helicopter launched missiles typically 

pass through the target’s “sail,” and, if explosive, detonate at or just below, the water’s 

surface.

Typical 

Components

Platforms: Fixed-wing aircraft, rotary-wing aircraft

Targets: Surface targets

Systems being Trained/Tested: Aircraft platforms

Standard 

Operating 

Procedures

(Section 

2.3.3)

Aircraft safety

High-powered laser 

safety

Weapons firing safety

Typical Locations

Range Complexes/Testing 

Ranges:

Hawaii Range Complex

Southern California Range 

Complex

Bays/Estuaries/Pierside:

None

Stressors to 

Biological 

Resources

Acoustic:

Aircraft noise

Explosive:

Explosions in water

Physical Disturbance and Strike: 

Aircraft and aerial target

Military expended materials

Ingestion:

Military expended materials –

munitions

Military expended materials – other 

than munitions

Energy:

In-air electromagnetic 

devices

Lasers

Entanglement: 

None

Stressors to 

Physical 

Resources

Air Quality:

Criteria air pollutants

Sediments and Water Quality:

Explosives Chemicals

Metals

Stressors to 

Human 

Resources

Cultural Resources: 

Explosives

Physical disturbance and 

strike

Socioeconomic Resources: 

Accessibility

Airborne acoustics

Physical disturbance and strike

Public Health and Safety: 

Underwater energy

In-air energy

Physical interactions

Military 

Expended 

Material

Ingestible Material:

Missile fragments, target fragments

Non-Ingestible Material:

None 

Military 

Recoverable 

Material

Recoverable surface targets

Sonar and 

Other 

Transducer

Bins

None

Explosive

Bins

E6 E8 E10
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

A-151

Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions

Surface Warfare

Missile Exercise Air-to-Surface

Procedural 

Mitigation

Measures

Acoustic Stressors: (section 5.3.2)

Physical Disturbance and Strike: (section 

5.3.4)

Non-explosive missiles and rockets

Explosive Stressors: (section 5.3.3)

Explosive missiles and rockets

Assumptions 

Used for 

Analysis

Assume one missile and one target per event.

While missiles could explode above the water’s surface after contacting targets, analysis 

assumes all warheads explode at or just below the water’s surface.

Potential locations for this activity include Pacific Missile Range Facility, Shore Bombardment 

Area, Laser Training Ranges 1 and 2, and Southern California Anti-Submarine Warfare 

Range.

For air quality analysis:

- 4 fixed-wing strike aircraft

- 3 rotary-wing aircraft

- Average 1 hour per event
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

A-152

Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions

Missile Exercise Air-to-Surface—Rocket

Surface Warfare

Missile Exercise Air-to-Surface—Rocket

Short 

Description

Helicopter aircrews fire both precision-guided 

and unguided rockets at surface targets.

Typical Duration

1 hour

Long 

Description

Helicopters designate an at-sea surface target with a laser or optics for precision-guided high 

explosive or non-explosive practice munitions rockets.

Typical 

Components

Platforms: Rotary-wing aircraft, unmanned aerial system

Targets: Surface targets

Systems being Trained/Tested: Aircraft platforms

Standard 

Operating 

Procedures

(Section 

2.3.3)

Aircraft safety

High-powered laser 

safety

Weapons firing safety

Typical Locations

Range Complexes/Testing 

Ranges:

Hawaii Range Complex

Southern California Range 

Complex

Bays/Estuaries/Pierside:

None

Stressors to 

Biological 

Resources

Acoustic:

Aircraft noise

Explosive:

Explosions in water

Physical Disturbance and Strike: 

Aircraft and aerial target

Military expended materials

Ingestion:

Military expended materials –

munitions

Military expended materials – other 

than munitions

Energy:

In-air electromagnetic 

devices

Lasers

Entanglement: 

None

Stressors to 

Physical 

Resources

Air Quality:

Criteria air pollutants

Sediments and Water Quality:

Explosives Chemicals

Metals

Stressors to 

Human 

Resources

Cultural Resources: 

Explosives

Physical disturbance and 

strike

Socioeconomic Resources: 

Accessibility

Airborne acoustics

Physical disturbance and strike

Public Health and Safety: 

Underwater energy

In-air energy

Physical interactions

Military 

Expended 

Material

Ingestible Material:

Rocket fragments, target fragments 

Non-Ingestible Material:

None

Military 

Recoverable 

Material

Recoverable surface targets

Sonar and 

Other 

Transducer

Bins

None

Explosive

Bins

E3

Procedural 

Mitigation

Measures

A

Physical Disturbance and Strike: (section 

5.3.4)

Non-explosive missiles and rockets

Explosive Stressors: (section 5.3.3)

Explosive missiles and rockets

Assumptions 

Used for 

Analysis

Assume all explosive rockets detonate in water. 

Rockets may be used in conjunction with force protection events.

The in-air low energy laser stressor was used in analysis of potential impacts on human 

resources. 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

A-153

Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions

Surface Warfare

Missile Exercise Air-to-Surface—Rocket

Potential locations for this activity include W-188 and W-189 in Hawaii, and W-291 in Southern 

California.

For air quality analysis:

- 1 rotary-wing aircraft

- Average 1 hour per event
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

A-154

Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions

Missile Exercise Surface-to-Surface

Surface Warfare

Missile Exercise Surface-to-Surface

Short 

Description

Surface ship crews defend against surface 

threats (ships or small boats) and engage them 

with missiles.

Typical Duration

2-5 hours

Long 

Description

Surface ships launch missiles at surface maritime targets with the goal of destroying or 

disabling enemy ships or boats. 

After detecting and confirming a surface threat, the ship will fire a precision guided surface 

missile. 

Events with destroyers and cruisers will involve long range (over the horizon) Harpoon (or 

similar) surface missiles. While past Harpoon events occurred during sinking exercises, the 

requirement exists for non-sinking exercise events to certify ship crews. If a sinking exercise 

target is unavailable, a towed sled would likely be used. 

Events with littoral combat and patrol combatant ships will involve shorter range surface 

missiles, such as Hellfire and Griffin. Events with littoral combat and patrol combatant ships 

would be to certify ship’s crew to defend against “close-in” (less than 10 miles) surface threats. 

These exercises are live fire, meaning that a missile is fired down range. Surface missiles could 

be equipped with either high-explosive or non-explosive warheads.

Typical 

Components

Platforms: Surface combatant

Targets: Surface targets

Systems being Trained/Tested: None

Standard 

Operating 

Procedures

(Section 

2.3.3)

Vessel safety

Weapons firing safety

Typical Locations

Range Complexes/Testing 

Ranges:

Hawaii Range Complex

Southern California Range 

Complex

Bays/Estuaries/Pierside:

None

Stressors to 

Biological 

Resources

Acoustic:

Vessel noise

Weapons noise

Explosive:

Explosions in water

Physical Disturbance and Strike: 

Vessels and in-water devices

Military expended materials

Ingestion:

Military expended materials –

munitions

Military expended materials – other 

than munitions

Energy:

In-air electromagnetic 

devices

Entanglement: 

None

Stressors to 

Physical 

Resources

Air Quality:

Criteria air pollutants

Sediments and Water Quality:

Explosives Chemicals

Metals

Stressors to 

Human 

Resources

Cultural Resources: 

Explosives

Physical disturbance and 

strike

Socioeconomic Resources: 

Accessibility

Airborne acoustics

Physical disturbance and strike

Public Health and Safety: 

Underwater energy

Physical interactions

Military 

Expended 

Material

Ingestible Material:

Missile fragments, target fragments

Non-Ingestible Material:

None 

Military 

Recoverable 

Material

Recoverable surface targets
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

A-155

Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions

Surface Warfare

Missile Exercise Surface-to-Surface

Sonar and 

Other 

Transducer

Bins

None

Explosive

Bins

E6 E10

Procedural 

Mitigation

Measures

Physical Disturbance and Strike: (section 

5.3.4)

Vessel movement

Non-explosive missiles and rockets

Explosive Stressors: (section 5.3.3)

Explosive missiles and rockets

Assumptions 

Used for 

Analysis

Assume one missile and one target used per event.

While missile could explode above water’s surface after contacting target, analysis assumes all 

warheads explode at or just below surface.

Potential locations for this activity include Hawaii Range Complex (Warning Area 188) and 

Southern California Range Complex (Warning Area 291).
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

A-156

Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions

Sinking Exercise

Surface Warfare

Sinking Exercise

Short 

Description

Aircraft, ship, and submarine crews deliberately 

sink a seaborne target, usually a 

decommissioned ship made environmentally 

safe for sinking according to U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency standards, with a variety of 

ordnance.

Typical Duration

4-8 hours, possibly over 1-2 days

Long 

Description

Ship personnel and aircrew deliver high-explosive ordnance on a seaborne target, (large 

deactivated vessel), which is deliberately sunk using multiple weapon systems. A sinking 

exercise is typically conducted by aircraft, surface vessels, and submarines in order to take 

advantage of the ability to fire high-explosive ordnance on a full size ship target. 

The target is typically a decommissioned ship made environmentally safe for sinking according 

to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency standards. The location is greater than 50 nautical 

miles from shore and in water depths greater than 6,000 feet (ft.). 

Ship, aircraft, and submarine crews attack with coordinated tactics and deliver high-explosive 

ordnance to sink the target. Non-explosive practice munitions may be used during the initial 

stages to extend target life. Typically, the exercise lasts for 4 to 8 hours and possibly over 1 to 2 

days, however it is unpredictable and ultimately ends when the ship sinks.

Typical 

Components

Platforms: Fixed-wing aircraft, submarines, surface combatant

Targets: Ship hulk

Systems being Trained/Tested: Large-caliber gun systems

Standard 

Operating 

Procedures

(Section 

2.3.3)

Vessel safety

Aircraft safety

Weapons firing safety

Sinking exercise safety

Typical Locations

Range Complexes/Testing 

Ranges:

Hawaii Range Complex

Southern California Range 

Complex

Bays/Estuaries/Pierside:

None

Stressors to 

Biological 

Resources

Acoustic:

Aircraft noise

Vessel noise

Weapons noise

Explosive:

Explosions in water

Physical Disturbance and Strike: 

Aircraft and aerial target

Vessels and in-water devices

Military expended materials

Seafloor devices

Ingestion:

Military expended materials –

munitions

Energy:

In-air electromagnetic 

devices

Entanglement: 

Wires and cables

Stressors to 

Physical 

Resources

Air Quality:

Criteria air pollutants

Sediments and Water Quality:

Explosives Chemicals

Metals

Stressors to 

Human 

Resources

Cultural Resources: 

Explosives

Physical disturbance and 

strike

Socioeconomic Resources: 

Accessibility

Airborne acoustics

Physical disturbance and strike

Public Health and Safety: 

Underwater energy

Physical interactions
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

A-157

Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions

Surface Warfare

Sinking Exercise

Military 

Expended 

Material

Ingestible Material:

Bomb fragments, projectiles,

projectile casings, projectile 

fragments, torpedo fragments 

Non-Ingestible Material:

Ship hulk 

Military 

Recoverable 

Material

None

Sonar and 

Other 

Transducer

Bins

Torpedoes: 

TORP2

Explosive

Bins

E5 E8 E10 E11 E12

Procedural 

Mitigation

Measures

Acoustic Stressors: (section 5.3.2)

Weapons firing noise

Physical Disturbance and Strike: (section 

5.3.4)

Vessel movement

Small-, medium-, and large-caliber nonexplosive practice munitions

Non-explosive missiles and rockets

Non-explosive bombs and mine shapes

Explosive Stressors: (section 5.3.3)

Explosive medium-caliber and large-caliber 

projectiles

Explosive missiles and rockets

Explosive bombs

Sinking Exercises

Assumptions 

Used for 

Analysis

Events occur greater than 50 nautical miles from shore and in water depths greater than 6,000 

ft. during daylight hours only.

Potential locations for this activity include Southern California Range Complex (Warning Area 

291).

The participants and assets typically include:

• 1 full-size target ship hulk

• 1-5 CG, DDG, or LCS ships

• 1-10 F/A-18, or maritime patrol aircraft

• 1 or 2 MH-60 helicopters

• 1 E-2 aircraft for Command and Control

• 1 submarine

• 1-3 range clearance aircraft

• 1-2 Harpoon surface-to-surface or air-to-surface missiles

• 2-4 Maverick or Hellfire air-to-surface missiles

• 2-12 MK-80 series general purpose bombs

• 200 rounds large-caliber projectiles

• 1-2 MK-48 heavyweight submarine-launched torpedo

• 2-10,000 rounds .50-caliber and 7.62 millimeter

• Assume 2 guidance wires expended per event

For air quality analysis:

- 1 fixed-wing strike aircraft

- Average four hours per event

Acoustic effects modeling assumed only a percentage of munitions missed target and exploded 

in water. Precision guided munitions are assumed to impact target well above waterline and 

are not modeled (or reported) as in water explosions.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

A-158

Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions

OTHER TRAINING EXERCISES

Elevated Causeway System

Other Training Exercises

Elevated Causeway System

Short 

Description

A temporary pier is constructed off the beach. 

Supporting pilings are driven into the sand and 

then later removed.

Typical Duration

Up to 30 days

Long 

Description

A temporary pier is constructed off of the beach. The pier is designed to allow for offloading 

materials and equipment from supply ships. Support pilings are driven into the sand with an 

impact hammer. Causeway platforms are then hoisted and secured onto the piles with 

hydraulic jacks and cranes. It is assembled by joining standard causeway sections together and 

can be assembled in 10 days. The pier, including associated piles, is removed at the conclusion 

of training.

Typical 

Components

Platforms: Combat logistics ship, fleet support ship, support craft

Targets: None

Systems being Trained/Tested: Pile driving system, vibration removal system

Standard 

Operating 

Procedures

(Section 

2.3.3)

Pile driving safety Typical Locations

Range Complexes/Testing 

Ranges:

Silver Strand Training Complex

Southern California Range 

Complex

Bays/Estuaries/Pierside:

None

Stressors to 

Biological 

Resources

Acoustic:

Vessel noise

Explosive:

None

Physical Disturbance and Strike: 

None

Ingestion:

None

Energy:

None

Entanglement: 

None

Stressors to 

Physical 

Resources

Air Quality:

None

Sediments and Water Quality:

None

Stressors to 

Human 

Resources

Cultural Resources:

None

Socioeconomic Resources: 

Accessibility

Public Health and Safety: 

Underwater energy

Military 

Expended 

Material

Ingestible Material:

None

Non-Ingestible Material:

None

Military 

Recoverable 

Material

None

Sonar and 

Other 

Transducer

Bins

Pile driving and removal

Explosive

Bins

None

Procedural 

Mitigation

Measures

Acoustic Stressors: (section 5.3.2)

Pile driving

Assumptions 

Used for 

Analysis

Programmatic analysis is only assessing acoustic impacts from the pile driving.

Potential locations for this activity include Silver Strand Training Complex (Boat Lanes 1–10), 

Southern California Range Complex (Camp Pendleton Amphibious Assault Area).

For air quality analysis:
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

A-159

Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions

Other Training Exercises

Elevated Causeway System

- 1 combat logistics craft

- 1 fleet support craft

- 1 support craft

- Average 10 hours per event
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

A-160

Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions

Kilo Dip

Other Training Exercises

Kilo Dip

Short 

Description

Functional check of the dipping sonar prior to 

conducting a full test or training event on the 

dipping sonar.

Typical Duration

One and one-half hours

Long 

Description

A kilo dip is the operational term used to describe a functional check of a helicopter deployed 

dipping sonar system. During a functional check, a single MH-60 helicopter would transit to an 

area designated for dipping sonar testing (i.e. a dip point usually close to shore) and would 

deploy the AN-AQS-22 sonar transducer assembly via a reel mechanism to a predetermined 

depth or series of depths while the helicopter hovers over the dip point. Once at the desired 

depth, the AN-AQS-22 sonar transducer would be activated and would transmit a pulsed, 

acoustic signal (i.e., ping) for approximately one minute (enough time to check that all systems 

are functioning properly). After the check is completed, the AN-AQS-22 sonar transducer 

assembly would be reeled in, and in some instances the helicopter would transit to a second 

dip point before the procedure is repeated. A kilo dip is the precursor to more comprehensive 

testing.

Typical 

Components

Platforms: Rotary-wing aircraft

Targets: None

Systems being Trained/Tested: Mid-frequency sonar

Standard 

Operating 

Procedures

(Section 

2.3.3)

Aircraft safety Typical Locations

Range Complexes/Testing 

Ranges:

Hawaii Range Complex 

Southern California Range 

Complex

Bays/Estuaries/Pierside:

None

Stressors to 

Biological 

Resources

Acoustic:

Sonar and other 

transducers

Aircraft noise

Explosive:

None

Physical Disturbance and Strike: 

Aircraft and aerial target

Ingestion:

None

Energy:

In-air electromagnetic 

devices

Entanglement: 

None

Stressors to 

Physical 

Resources

Air Quality:

Criteria air pollutants

Sediments and Water Quality:

None

Stressors to 

Human 

Resources

Cultural Resources: 

None

Socioeconomic Resources: 

Accessibility

Airborne acoustics

Physical disturbance and strike

Public Health and Safety: 

Underwater energy

Physical interactions

Military 

Expended 

Material

Ingestible Material:

None

Non-Ingestible Material:

None

Military 

Recoverable 

Material

None

Sonar and 

Other 

Transducer

Bins

Mid-Frequency: 

MF4

Explosive

Bins

None
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

A-161

Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions

Other Training Exercises

Kilo Dip

Procedural 

Mitigation

Measures

Acoustic Stressors: (section 5.3.2)

Active sonar

Assumptions 

Used for 

Analysis

Potential locations for this activity include Hawaii Range Complex (Barking Sands Tactical 

Underwater Range, and Helo Quickdraw), and Southern California Range Complex 

(Helicopter Offshore Training Areas).

For air quality analysis:

- 1 rotary-wing aircraft

- Average 0.3 hours per event
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

A-162

Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions

Offshore Petroleum Discharge

Other Training Exercises

Offshore Petroleum Discharge

Short 

Description

This activity trains personnel in the transfer of 

petroleum (though only sea water is used during 

training) from ship to shore.

Typical Duration

12 hours

Long 

Description

Offshore petroleum discharge system training consists of five training subcomponents 

including the beach termination unit, operation utility boat technicians, boat coxswain, dive 

boat operation technician, and single anchor leg moor training. This activity trains personnel in 

the transfer of petroleum (though only sea water is used during training) from ship to shore. 

From approximately one mile offshore, technicians and underwater construction team divers 

roll out conduit from a ship offshore, deploy the single anchor leg mooring which sinks to and 

settles on the ocean floor, and use anchors at various points along the conduit to secure it to 

the seafloor. The conduit terminates at the shore location of the termination unit manifold.

The current training at Silver Strand Training Complex consists of rolling out a four mile fluidtransfer conduit from the beach out to approximately one mile offshore and anchoring it to the 

seafloor with a Single Anchor Leg Moor. The improved offshore petroleum discharge system 

would have a self-sinking hose that could extend up to eight miles offshore, but like the current 

system, would still be rolled out to approximately one mile offshore during training activities at 

Silver Strand Training Complex.

Typical 

Components

Platforms: Support craft

Targets: None

Systems being Trained/Tested: None

Standard 

Operating 

Procedures

(Section 

2.3.3)

Vessel safety Typical Locations

Range Complexes/Testing 

Ranges:

Hawaii Range Complex

Silver Strand Training Complex

Bays/Estuaries/Pierside:

San Diego Bay (Bravo)

Stressors to 

Biological 

Resources

Acoustic:

None

Explosive:

None

Physical Disturbance and Strike: 

Seafloor devices

Ingestion:

None

Energy:

None

Entanglement: 

None

Stressors to 

Physical 

Resources

Air Quality:

Criteria air pollutants

Sediments and Water Quality:

None

Stressors to 

Human 

Resources

Cultural Resources:

None

Socioeconomic Resources:

None

Public Health and Safety:

None

Military 

Expended 

Material

Ingestible Material:

None

Non-Ingestible Material:

None

Military 

Recoverable 

Material

None

Sonar and 

Other 

Transducer

Bins

None

Explosive

Bins

None
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

A-163

Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions

Other Training Exercises

Offshore Petroleum Discharge

Procedural 

Mitigation

Measures

None

Assumptions 

Used for 

Analysis

Potential locations for this activity include Silver Strand Training Complex (Boat Lanes 1–10, 

Bravo, and waters outside of boat lanes).

For air quality analysis:

- 1 support craft

- Average 12 hours per event
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

A-164

Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions

Precision Anchoring

Other Training Exercises

Precision Anchoring

Short 

Description

Surface ship crews release and retrieve anchors 

in designated locations.

Typical Duration

Up to 1 hour

Long 

Description

Ship crews choose the best available anchoring sites. The ship uses all means available to 

determine its position when anchor is dropped to demonstrate calculating and plotting the 

anchor's position within 100 yards of center of planned anchorage.

Typical 

Components

Platforms: Navy ships

Targets:

Systems being Trained/Tested: None

Standard 

Operating 

Procedures

(Section 

2.3.3)

Vessel safety Typical Locations

Range Complexes/Testing 

Ranges:

Hawaii Range Complex

Silver Strand Training Complex

Bays/Estuaries/Pierside:

None

Stressors to 

Biological 

Resources

Acoustic:

Vessel noise

Explosive:

None

Physical Disturbance and Strike: 

Vessels and in-water devices

Seafloor devices

Ingestion:

None

Energy:

In-air electromagnetic 

devices

Entanglement: 

None

Stressors to 

Physical 

Resources

Air Quality:

Criteria air pollutants

Sediments and Water Quality:

None

Stressors to 

Human 

Resources

Cultural Resources: 

Physical disturbance and 

strike

Socioeconomic Resources: 

Accessibility

Physical disturbance and strike

Public Health and Safety: 

Physical interactions

Military 

Expended 

Material

Ingestible Material:

None

Non-Ingestible Material:

None

Military 

Recoverable 

Material

None

Sonar and 

Other 

Transducer

Bins

None

Explosive

Bins

None

Procedural 

Mitigation

Measures

Physical Disturbance and Strike: (section 

5.3.4)

Vessel movement

Assumptions

Used for 

Analysis

Potential locations for this activity include Hawaii Range Complex (Naval Defense Sea Area) and 

Silver Strand Training Complex (Anchorages).
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

A-165

Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions

Submarine Navigation

Other Training Exercises

Submarine Navigation

Short 

Description

Submarine crews operate sonar for navigation 

and detection while transiting into and out of 

port during reduced visibility.

Typical Duration

Up to 2 hours

Long 

Description

Submarine crews train to operate sonar for navigation. The ability to navigate using sonar is 

critical for detection while transiting into and out of port during periods of reduced visibility. 

During this activity the submarine will be surfaced.

Typical 

Components

Platforms: Submarines

Targets: None

Systems being Trained/Tested: High-frequency sonar, mid-frequency sonar (hull-mounted)

Standard 

Operating 

Procedures

(Section 

2.3.3)

Vessel safety Typical Locations

Range Complexes/Testing 

Ranges:

Hawaii Range Complex

Southern California Range 

Complex

Bays/Estuaries/Pierside:

Pearl Harbor Channel and 

virtual channel south of Pearl 

Harbor

Naval Base Point Loma and 

seaward virtual channel

Stressors to 

Biological 

Resources

Acoustic:

Sonar and other 

transducers

Explosive:

None

Physical Disturbance and Strike: 

Vessels and in-water devices

Ingestion:

None

Energy:

None

Entanglement: 

None

Stressors to 

Physical 

Resources

Air Quality:

None

Sediments and Water Quality:

None

Stressors to 

Human 

Resources

Cultural Resources:

None

Socioeconomic Resources:

None

Public Health and Safety:

None

Military 

Expended 

Material

Ingestible Material:

None

Non-Ingestible Material:

None

Military 

Recoverable 

Material

None

Sonar and 

Other 

Transducer

Bins

Mid-Frequency: 

MF3

High-Frequency: 

HF1

Explosive

Bins

None

Procedural 

Mitigation

Measures

Acoustic Stressors: (section 5.3.2)

Active sonar

Physical Disturbance and Strike: (section 

5.3.4)

Vessel movement

Assumptions 

Used for 

Analysis

None
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

A-166

Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions

Submarine Sonar Maintenance and Systems Checks

Other Training Exercises

Submarine Sonar Maintenance and Systems Checks

Short 

Description

Maintenance of submarine sonar and other 

system checks are conducted pierside or at sea.

Typical Duration

Up to 1 hour

Long 

Description

A submarine performs periodic maintenance on the AN/BQQ-10 and submarine high-frequency 

sonar systems while in port or at sea. Submarines conduct maintenance to their sonar systems 

in shallow water near their homeport, however, sonar maintenance could occur anywhere as 

the system‘s performance may warrant.

Typical 

Components

Platforms: Submarines

Targets: None

Systems being Trained/Tested: Mid-frequency hull mounted sonar

Standard 

Operating 

Procedures

(Section 

2.3.3)

Vessel safety Typical Locations

Range Complexes/Testing 

Ranges:

Hawaii Range Complex 

Hawaii-Southern California Transit 

Corridor

Southern California Range 

Complex

Bays/Estuaries/Pierside:

Pearl Harbor Submarine Pier

San Diego Submarine Pier

Stressors to 

Biological 

Resources

Acoustic:

Sonar and other 

transducers

Explosive:

None

Physical Disturbance and Strike: 

Vessels and in-water devices

Ingestion:

None

Energy:

None

Entanglement: 

None

Stressors to 

Physical 

Resources

Air Quality:

None

Sediments and Water Quality:

None

Stressors to 

Human 

Resources

Cultural Resources:

None

Socioeconomic Resources:

None

Public Health and Safety: 

Underwater energy

Military 

Expended 

Material

Ingestible Material:

None

Non-Ingestible Material:

None

Military 

Recoverable 

Material

None

Sonar and 

Other 

Transducer

Bins

Mid-Frequency: 

MF3

Explosive

Bins

None

Procedural 

Mitigation

Measures

Acoustic Stressors: (section 5.3.2)

Active sonar

Physical Disturbance and Strike: (section 

5.3.4)

Vessel movement

Assumptions 

Used for 

Analysis

Potential locations for this activity include Hawaii Range Complex (Hawaii Operations Area, and 

Pearl Harbor Navigation Track) and Southern California Range Complex (Southern California 

operating area and San Diego Navigation Track).
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

A-167

Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions

Submarine Under Ice Certification

Other Training Exercises

Submarine Under Ice Certification

Short 

Description

Submarine crews operate sonar for navigation 

and object detection while transiting into and 

out of port during reduced visibility and under 

simulated ice conditions.

Typical Duration

5 days

Long 

Description

Submarine crews train to operate under ice. Ice conditions are simulated during training and 

certification events. A single exercise is comprised of 30 hours of training, spread out over 5 

days in 6-hour training sessions.

Typical 

Components

Platforms: Submarines

Targets: None

Systems being Trained/Tested: High–frequency hull mounted sonar

Standard 

Operating 

Procedures

(Section 

2.3.3)

Vessel safety Typical Locations

Range Complexes/Testing 

Ranges:

Hawaii Range Complex

Southern California Range 

Complex

Bays/Estuaries/Pierside:

None

Stressors to 

Biological 

Resources

Acoustic:

Sonar and other 

transducers

Explosive:

None

Physical Disturbance and Strike: 

Vessels and in-water devices

Ingestion:

None

Energy:

None

Entanglement: 

None

Stressors to 

Physical 

Resources

Air Quality:

None

Sediments and Water Quality:

None

Stressors to 

Human 

Resources

Cultural Resources:

None

Socioeconomic Resources: 

Physical disturbance and strike

Public Health and Safety: 

Underwater energy

Physical interactions

Military 

Expended 

Material

Ingestible Material:

None

Non-Ingestible Material:

None

Military 

Recoverable 

Material

None

Sonar and 

Other 

Transducer

Bins

High-Frequency: 

HF1

Explosive

Bins

None

Procedural 

Mitigation

Measures

Acoustic Stressors: (section 5.3.2)

Active sonar

Physical Disturbance and Strike: (section 

5.3.4)

Vessel movement

Assumptions 

Used for 

Analysis
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

A-168

Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions

Surf Zone Detachment/Equipment Test and Evaluation

Other Training Exercises

Surf Zone Test Detachment/Equipment Test and Evaluation

Short 

Description

Navy personnel test and evaluate the 

effectiveness of new detection and 

neutralization equipment designed for detecting 

objects in surf conditions.

Typical Duration

3 hours

Long 

Description

Navy personnel test and evaluate the effectiveness of new detection and neutralization 

equipment designated for surf conditions. To support clearance capability in the surf zone (out 

to 10 feet of water), Explosive Ordnance Disposal personnel would test and evaluate the 

effectiveness of new detection and neutralization equipment designated for surf conditions. 

Use of explosives will occur during 1 percent of training activities (0.1–29 pounds Net Explosive 

Weight) and will only occur in the Silver Strand Training Complex Boat Lanes.

Time delay fuses may be used for these events.

Typical 

Components

Platforms: Small boats

Targets: Sub-surface targets

Systems being Trained/Tested: None

Standard 

Operating 

Procedures

(Section 

2.3.3)

Vessel safety Typical Locations

Range Complexes/Testing 

Ranges:

Silver Strand Training Complex

Bays/Estuaries/Pierside:

San Diego Bay (Echo)

Stressors to 

Biological 

Resources

Acoustic:

None

Explosive:

None

Physical Disturbance and Strike:

None

Ingestion:

None

Energy:

None

Entanglement: 

None

Stressors to 

Physical 

Resources

Air Quality:

None

Sediments and Water Quality:

None

Stressors to 

Human 

Resources

Cultural Resources:

None

Socioeconomic Resources:

None

Public Health and Safety:

None

Military 

Expended 

Material

Ingestible Material:

None

Non-Ingestible Material:

None

Military 

Recoverable 

Material

None

Sonar and 

Other 

Transducer

Bins

None

Explosive

Bins

None, explosive effects are rare and were analyzed as part of other activities

Procedural 

Mitigation

Measures

Explosive Stressors: (section 5.3.3)

Explosive Ordnance Disposal

Physical Disturbance and Strike: (section 

5.3.4)

Vessel movement

Assumptions 

Used for 

Analysis

Potential locations for this activity include Silver Strand Training Complex (Boat Lanes 1–14, and 

San Diego Bay-Echo).
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

A-169

Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions

Surface Ship Sonar Maintenance and Systems Checks

Other Training Exercises

Surface Ship Sonar Maintenance and Systems Checks

Short 

Description

Maintenance of surface ship sonar and other 

system checks are conducted pierside or at sea.

Typical Duration

Up to four hours

Long 

Description

This scenario consists of surface ships performing periodic maintenance to the AN/SQS-53 sonar 

and other ship systems while in port or at sea. This maintenance takes up to four hours. Surface 

ships operate active sonar systems for maintenance while in shallow water near their homeport, 

however, sonar maintenance could occur anywhere as the system‘s performance may warrant.

Typical 

Components

Platforms: Surface combatants

Targets: None

Systems being Trained/Tested: High-frequency sonar, mid-frequency hull mounted

Standard 

Operating 

Procedures

(Section 

2.3.3)

Vessel safety Typical Locations

Range Complexes/Testing 

Ranges:

Hawaii Range Complex 

Hawaii-Southern California Transit 

Corridor

Southern California Range 

Complex

Bays/Estuaries/Pierside:

Pearl Harbor Ship Pier

San Diego Naval Base Pier

Stressors to 

Biological 

Resources

Acoustic:

Sonar and other 

transducers

Vessel noise

Explosive:

None

Physical Disturbance and Strike: 

Vessels and in-water devices

Ingestion:

None

Energy:

In-air electromagnetic 

devices

Entanglement: 

None

Stressors to 

Physical 

Resources

Air Quality:

Criteria air pollutants

Sediments and Water Quality:

None

Stressors to 

Human 

Resources

Cultural Resources:

None

Socioeconomic Resources:

None

Public Health and Safety: 

Underwater energy

Military 

Expended 

Material

Ingestible Material:

None

Non-Ingestible Material:

None

Military 

Recoverable 

Material

None

Sonar and 

Other 

Transducer

Bins

Mid-Frequency: 

MF1

High-Frequency: 

HF8

Explosive

Bins

None

Procedural 

Mitigation

Measures

Acoustic Stressors: (section 5.3.2)

Active sonar

Physical Disturbance and Strike: (section 5.3.4)

Vessel movement

Assumptions 

Used for 

Analysis

Potential locations for this activity include Hawaii Range Complex (Hawaii OPAREA, and Pearl 

Harbor Navigation Track), and Southern California Range Complex (Southern California 

OPAREA, and San Diego Navigation Track).
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

A-170

Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions

Unmanned Aerial System Training and Certification

Other Training Exercises

Unmanned Aerial System Training and Certification

Short 

Description

Submarines launch unmanned aerial system

while submerged.

Typical Duration

2 days

Long 

Description

During training, a negatively buoyant capsule is deployed underwater and descends to a 

programmed depth. The capsule then drops a weight, inflates a flotation collar, rises to the 

surface, and launches an unmanned aerial system. Personnel use radio frequency 

communications to control and communicate with the unmanned aerial system during its 

flight.

Typical 

Components

Platforms: Submarines, unmanned aerial system

Targets: None

Systems being Trained/Tested: None

Standard 

Operating 

Procedures

(Section 

2.3.3)

Aircraft safety

Unmanned aerial, 

surface, and 

subsurface vehicle 

safety

Typical Locations

Range Complexes/Testing 

Ranges:

Hawaii Range Complex 

Southern California Range 

Complex

Bays/Estuaries/Pierside:

None

Stressors to 

Biological 

Resources

Acoustic:

Aircraft noise

Explosive:

None

Physical Disturbance and Strike: 

Aircraft and aerial target

Military expended materials

Ingestion:

None

Energy:

None

Entanglement: 

None

Stressors to 

Physical 

Resources

Air Quality:

Criteria air pollutants

Sediments and Water Quality:

None

Stressors to 

Human 

Resources

Cultural Resources:

None

Socioeconomic Resources:

None

Public Health and Safety:

None

Military 

Expended 

Material

Ingestible Material:

None

Non-Ingestible Material:

Canister, weight, flotation collar

Military 

Recoverable 

Material

None

Sonar and 

Other 

Transducer

Bins

None

Explosive

Bins

None

Procedural 

Mitigation

Measures

None

Assumptions 

Used for 

Analysis

Potential locations for this activity include UAS-4.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

A-171

Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions

Unmanned Underwater Vehicle Training—Certification and Development

Other Training Exercises

Unmanned Underwater Vehicle Training - Certification and Development

Short 

Description

Unmanned underwater vehicle certification 

involves training with unmanned platforms to 

ensure submarine crew proficiency. Tactical 

development involves training with various 

payloads, for multiple purposes to ensure that 

the systems can be employed effectively in an 

operational environment.

Typical Duration

Up to 24 hours

Long 

Description

Unmanned underwater vehicle certification and tactical development involves the training with 

unmanned platforms on which various payloads are attached and used for different purposes. 

Payload certification and development training assesses various systems that can be 

incorporated onto unmanned platforms for mine warfare, bottom mapping, and other 

missions. Training can range from basic remote control and autonomous navigation tests to 

deployment and activation of onboard systems which may include hydrodynamic instruments, 

launchers, and recovery capabilities. These vehicles are capable of expanding the 

communication and surveillance capabilities of submarines, and terrestrial commands.

Typical 

Components

Platforms: Submarines, support craft, unmanned underwater vehicle

Targets: None

Systems being Trained/Tested: Acoustic modem, high-frequency sonar, synthetic aperture 

sonar

Standard 

Operating 

Procedures

(Section 

2.3.3)

Vessel safety

Unmanned aerial, 

surface, and 

subsurface vehicle 

safety

Typical Locations

Range Complexes/Testing 

Ranges:

Hawaii Range Complex 

Southern California Range 

Complex

Bays/Estuaries/Pierside:

None

Stressors to 

Biological 

Resources

Acoustic:

Sonar and other 

transducers

Vessel noise

Explosive:

None

Physical Disturbance and Strike: 

Vessels and in-water devices

Military expended materials

Ingestion:

None

Energy:

None

Entanglement: 

None

Stressors to 

Physical 

Resources

Air Quality:

None

Sediments and Water Quality:

None

Stressors to 

Human 

Resources

Cultural Resources:

None

Socioeconomic Resources:

None

Public Health and Safety:

None

Military 

Expended 

Material

Ingestible Material:

None

Non-Ingestible Material:

Anchor blocks 

Military 

Recoverable 

Material

None

Sonar and 

Other 

Transducer

Bins

Forward-Looking Sonar: 

FLS2

Acoustic Modems: 

M3
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

A-172

Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions

Other Training Exercises

Unmanned Underwater Vehicle Training - Certification and Development

Explosive

Bins

None

Procedural 

Mitigation

Measures

Physical Disturbance and Strike: (section 

5.3.4)

Vessel movement

Assumptions 

Used for 

Analysis

Potential locations for this activity include Hawaii Range Complex (Pacific Missile Range Facility, 

and Hawaii Area Tracking System), and Southern California Range Complex (Southern 

California Anti-Submarine Warfare Range, Shallow Water Training Range Extension 

Nearshore, and Tanner Bank Minefield).

For air quality analysis:

- 1 support craft

- Average 8 hours per event
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

A-173

Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions

Waterborne Training

Other Training Exercises

Waterborne Training

Short 

Description

Personnel launch, operate, and recover a variety 

of small boats to achieve certifications such as 

coxswain, crewman, and safety observer.

Typical Duration

Up to 12 hours

Long 

Description

Waterborne Training may include qualification and certification as safety observer, safety 

swimmer, coxswain, and crewman utilizing a variety of small crafts to include but not limited to 

rigid hull inflatables, aluminum chambered boat, stand-up paddleboards, kayaks, and jet skis. 

Boat crews train to launch and recover, moor to buoys, anchor, and operate a variety of 

missions in shallow waters.

Typical 

Components

Platforms: Small boats

Targets: None

Systems being Trained/Tested: None

Standard 

Operating 

Procedures

(Section 

2.3.3)

Vessel safety Typical Locations

Range Complexes/Testing 

Ranges:

Hawaii Range Complex 

Southern California Range 

Complex

Bays/Estuaries/Pierside:

None

Stressors to 

Biological 

Resources

Acoustic:

Vessel noise

Explosive:

None

Physical Disturbance and Strike: 

Vessels and in-water devices

Ingestion:

None

Energy:

None

Entanglement: 

None

Stressors to 

Physical 

Resources

Air Quality:

None

Sediments and Water Quality:

None

Stressors to 

Human 

Resources

Cultural Resources:

None

Socioeconomic Resources:

None

Public Health and Safety:

None

Military 

Expended 

Material

Ingestible Material:

None

Non-Ingestible Material:

None

Military 

Recoverable 

Material

None

Sonar and 

Other 

Transducer

Bins

None

Explosive

Bins

None

Procedural 

Mitigation

Measures

Physical Disturbance and Strike: (section 

5.3.4)

Vessel movement

Assumptions 

Used for 

Analysis

For air quality analysis:

- 1 Rigid Hull Inflatable Boat

- Average four hours per event
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

A-174

Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions

A.3 TESTING ACTIVITIES

NAVAL AIR SYSTEMS COMMAND TESTING ACTIVITIES

Naval Air Systems Command activities will generally fall under fleet primary mission areas, such as the 

testing of airborne mine warfare and anti-submarine warfare weapons and systems. Naval Air Systems 

Command activities include, but are not limited to, the testing of new aircraft platforms (e.g., the F-35 

Joint Strike Fighter aircraft), weapons, and systems (e.g., newly developed sonobuoys) that will 

ultimately be integrated into fleet training activities. In addition to testing new platforms, weapons, and 

systems, Naval Air Systems Command also conducts lot acceptance testing of sonobuoys and follow-on 

testing and evaluation of updated systems in support of fleet operational units. In general, the potential 

environmental effects from most Naval Air Systems Command testing events are similar to the 

associated fleet training events.

While many of these systems tested by Naval Air Systems Command will ultimately be used by the fleet, 

testing activities involving the same or similar systems may be conducted in different locations and 

manners than when conducted by the fleet. Because of these differences, the results of the analysis for 

testing activities may differ from the results for training activities.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

A-175

Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions

Air Warfare 

A.3.1.1.1 Air Combat Maneuver Test

Air Warfare

Air Combat Maneuver Test

Short 

Description

Aircrews engage in flight maneuvers designed 

to gain a tactical advantage during combat.

Typical Duration

Up to 2 flight hours per aircraft, per event

Long 

Description

Air combat maneuver is the general term used to describe an air-to-air test event involving two 

or more aircraft, each engaged in continuous proactive and reactive changes in aircraft 

attitude, altitude, and airspeed. No weapons are fired during air combat maneuver activities.

Typical 

Components

Platforms: Fixed-wing aircraft

Targets: Air targets

Systems being Trained/Tested: Aircraft platform

Standard 

Operating 

Procedures

(Section 

2.3.3)

Aircraft safety Typical Locations

Range Complexes/Testing 

Ranges:

Hawaii Range Complex

Southern California Range 

Complex

Inland Waters/Pierside:

None

Stressors to 

Biological 

Resources

Acoustic:

Aircraft noise

Explosive:

None

Physical Disturbance and Strike: 

Aircraft and aerial target

Ingestion:

Military expended materials – other 

than munitions

Energy:

In-air electromagnetic 

devices

Entanglement: 

None

Stressors to 

Physical 

Resources

Air Quality:

Criteria air pollutants

Sediments and Water Quality:

Other materials

Stressors to 

Human 

Resources

Cultural Resources:

None

Socioeconomic Resources: 

Airborne acoustics

Physical disturbance and 

strike

Public Health and Safety: 

Physical interactions

Military 

Expended 

Material

Ingestible Material:

None

Non-Ingestible Material:

None

Military 

Recoverable 

Material

None

Sonar and 

Other 

Transducer

Bins

None

Explosive

Bins

None

Procedural 

Mitigation

Measures

Acoustic Stressors: (section 5.3.2)

Assumptions 

Used for 

Analysis

Chaff and flare expenditures are captured under Chaff Test and Flare Test, respectively.

For air quality analysis:

- two fixed-wing other aircraft (2 hours)

- six fixed-wing strike aircraft (3 hours)

- four manned high-performance aircraft (3 hours)
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

A-176

Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions

A.3.1.1.2 Air Platform—Vehicle Test

Air Warfare

Air Platform - Vehicle Test

Short 

Description

Testing performed to quantify the flying 

qualities, handling, airworthiness, stability, 

controllability, and integrity of an air platform or 

vehicle. No explosive weapons are released 

during an air platform/vehicle test.

Typical Duration

2–8 flight hours per event

Long 

Description

The air platform/vehicle test describes the testing performed to quantify the flying qualities, 

handling, airworthiness, stability, controllability, and integrity of an air platform/vehicle. 

Integration of non-weapons system including-flight refueling tests are also conducted as part of 

an air platform/vehicle test. Test results are compared against design and performance 

specifications for compliance. The test results are also used to define stability and 

controllability characteristics and limitations and to improve and update existing analytical and 

predictive models. A wide variety of fixed-wing and rotary-wing aircraft, including unmanned 

aerial systems would undergo air platform/vehicle testing. No weapons are released during an 

Air Platform/Vehicle Test. Aircraft may employ laser detection for targeting systems and 

trailing antenna. Events may involve two or more fighter jet aircraft and a towed target tractor 

by a contracted aircraft (e.g., Learjet for laser targeting tests).

Typical 

Components

Platforms: Fixed-wing aircraft, unmanned aerial systems

Targets: None

Systems being Trained/Tested: Aircraft platforms

Standard 

Operating 

Procedures

(Section 

2.3.3)

Aircraft safety

Unmanned aerial, 

surface, and 

subsurface vehicle 

safety

Typical Locations

Range Complexes/Testing 

Ranges:

Southern California Range 

Complex

Inland Waters/Pierside:

None

Stressors to 

Biological 

Resources

Acoustic:

Aircraft noise

Explosive:

None

Physical Disturbance and Strike: 

Aircraft and aerial target

Military expended material

Ingestion:

Military expended materials – other 

than munitions

Energy:

In-air electromagnetic 

devices

Lasers

Entanglement: 

None

Stressors to 

Physical 

Resources

Air Quality:

Criteria air pollutants

Sediments and Water Quality:

Metals

Other materials

Stressors to 

Human 

Resources

Cultural Resources:

Physical disturbance and 

strike

Socioeconomic Resources: 

Airborne acoustics

Physical disturbance and 

strike

Public Health and Safety: 

In-air energy

Physical interactions
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

A-177

Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions

Air Warfare

Air Platform - Vehicle Test

Military 

Expended 

Material

Ingestible Material:

Per chaff: one chaff plastic endcap, 

one compression pad; OR one 

plastic piston, one plastic endcap

Per flare cartridge: one silicone rubber 

compression pad OR one plastic 

piston

Non-Ingestible Material:

Per chaff: Chaff and chaff fibers

Per flare cartridge: flare (typically 

consumed), one plastic endcap, Oring (rubber, nitrile)

Military 

Recoverable 

Material

None

Sonar and 

Other 

Transducer

Bins

None

Explosive

Bins

None

Procedural 

Mitigation

Measures

Acoustic Stressors: (section 5.3.2)

Assumptions 

Used for 

Analysis

For air quality analysis:

- 35 annual events, 4 hours duration each, 25 percent of time below 3,000 feet for each, all 

time > 12 nautical miles from shore.

- 12 of the events: 2 FA-18E/F

- 11 events: 1 UH-1 helicopter

- 11 events: 1 E-2C
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

A-178

Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions

A.3.1.1.3 Air Platform Weapons Integration Test

Air Warfare

Air Platform Weapons Integration Test

Short 

Description

Testing performed to quantify the compatibility 

of weapons with the aircraft from which they 

would be launched or released. Non-explosive 

weapons or shapes are used.

Typical Duration

Up to 2 1/2 flight hours per aircraft per 

event

Long 

Description

The air platform weapons integration test describes the testing performed to quantify the 

compatibility of weapons with the aircraft from which they would be released. Tests evaluate 

the compatibility of the weapon and its carriage, suspension, and launch equipment with the 

performance and handling characteristics of the designated aircraft. Additional tests assess the 

ability of the weapon to separate or launch safely from the aircraft at combat velocities, 

including at supersonic speeds. Test results are compared against design specifications for 

compliance. The test results are also used to define performance characteristics and to 

improve and update existing analytical and predictive models.

Typical

Components

Platforms: Fixed-wing aircraft, rotary-wing aircraft, unmanned aerial system

Targets: None

Systems being Trained/Tested: Munitions firing/launching systems

Standard 

Operating 

Procedures

(Section 

2.3.3)

Aircraft safety

Unmanned aerial, 

surface, and 

subsurface vehicle 

safety

Typical Locations

Range Complexes/Testing 

Ranges:

Southern California Range 

Complex

Inland Waters/Pierside:

None

Stressors to 

Biological 

Resources

Acoustic:

Aircraft noise

Explosive:

None

Physical Disturbance and Strike: 

Aircraft and aerial target

Military expended materials

Ingestion:

None

Energy:

In-air electromagnetic 

devices

Entanglement: 

None

Stressors to 

Physical 

Resources

Air Quality:

Criteria air pollutants

Sediments and Water Quality:

Metals

Stressors to 

Human 

Resources

Cultural Resources: 

Physical disturbance and 

strike

Socioeconomic Resources: 

Airborne acoustics

Physical disturbance and strike

Public Health and Safety: 

Physical interactions

Military 

Expended 

Material

Ingestible Material:

None

Non-Ingestible Material:

Non-explosive practice munitions 

Military 

Recoverable 

Material

None

Sonar and 

Other 

Transducer

Bins

None

Explosive

Bins

None

Procedural 

Mitigation

Measures

Acoustic Stressors: (section 5.3.2) Physical Disturbance and Strike: (section 

5.3.4)

Non-explosive bombs and mine shapes
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

A-179

Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions

Air Warfare

Air Platform Weapons Integration Test

Assumptions 

Used for 

Analysis

For air quality analysis:

- 1 aircraft per test event

- 2 hours per event

- P-8A (3 flights annually)

- E-2C ( 3 flights)

- F/A-18E/F (4 flights) 

- Each A/C spends all of its time > 12 nautical miles from shore, 25 percent below 3,000 feet
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

A-180

Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions

A.3.1.1.4 Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance Test

Air Warfare

Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance Test

Short 

Description

Aircrews use all available sensors to collect data 

on threat vessels.

Typical Duration

2–20 flight hours per event

Long 

Description

An air warfare intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) test involves evaluating 

communications capabilities of aircraft, including unmanned aerial systems that can carry 

cameras, sensors, communications equipment, or other payloads. New systems are tested at sea 

to ensure proper communications between aircraft and ships.

Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance aircraft systems act as eyes in the sky, relaying 

raw imagery back to military personnel on the ground or to ships at-sea. The data is processed, 

analyzed, and shared with U.S. Navy or other U.S. military aircraft or vessels. New ISR technology 

systems provide combat identification (friend or foe) and are used for aircraft and ship-based 

communications.

Typical 

Componen

ts

Platforms: Fixed-wing aircraft, fixed-wing unmanned aerial system

Targets: Air targets, surface targets

Systems being Trained/Tested: None

Standard 

Operating 

Procedures

(Section 

2.3.3)

Aircraft safety

Unmanned aerial, surface, 

and subsurface vehicle 

safety

Typical Locations

Range Complexes/Testing Ranges:

Hawaii Range Complex

Southern California Range Complex

Inland Waters/Pierside:

None

Stressors 

to 

Biological 

Resources

Acoustic:

Aircraft noise

Explosive:

None

Physical Disturbance and Strike: 

Aircraft and aerial target

Ingestion:

None

Energy:

In-air electromagnetic 

devices

Entanglement: 

None

Stressors 

to Physical 

Resources

Air Quality:

Criteria air pollutants

Sediments and Water Quality:

None

Stressors 

to Human 

Resources

Cultural Resources:

None

Socioeconomic Resources: 

Airborne acoustics

Physical disturbance and strike

Public Health and Safety: 

Physical interactions

Military 

Expended 

Material

Ingestible Material:

None

Non-Ingestible Material:

None

Military 

Recoverable 

Material

None

Sonar and 

Other 

Transducer

Bins

None

Explosive

Bins

None

Procedural 

Mitigation

Measures

Acoustic Stressors: (section 5.3.2)

Assumptio

ns Used for 

Analysis

For air quality analysis:

- 1 P-8A

- 6 hours per event

- 60 percent of time <3,000 feet, 100 percent of time > 12 nautical miles from shore.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

A-181

Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions

Anti-Submarine Warfare 

A.3.1.2.1 Anti-Submarine Warfare Torpedo Test

Anti-Submarine Warfare

Anti-Submarine Warfare Torpedo Test

Short 

Description

This event is similar to the training event 

torpedo exercise. Test evaluates anti-submarine 

warfare systems onboard rotary-wing and fixedwing aircraft and the ability to search for, 

detect, classify, localize, track, and attack a 

submarine or similar target.

Typical Duration

2–6 flight hours per event

Long 

Description

Similar to a torpedo exercise, an anti-submarine warfare (ASW) torpedo test evaluates antisubmarine warfare systems onboard rotary-wing (e.g., MH-60R helicopter) and fixed-wing 

(marine patrol aircraft P-8) aircraft and the ability to search for, detect, classify, localize, track, 

and attack a submarine or similar target (e.g., MK-39 expendable mobile ASW training target 

[EMATT], or MK-30). The focus of the anti-submarine warfare torpedo test is the operation of 

non-explosive torpedoes (e.g., MK-46 or MK-54), but other anti-submarine warfare systems are 

often used during the test. MK-39 (EMATT) or MK-30 targets simulate a submarine threat and 

are deployed at varying depths and speeds. If available, tests may be conducted using an actual 

submarine as the target. This activity can be conducted in shallow or deep waters and aircraft 

can originate from a land base or from a surface ship. The torpedo test culminates with the 

release of an exercise torpedo against the target and is intended to evaluate the targeting, 

release, and tracking process of deploying torpedoes from aircraft. All exercise torpedoes used 

in testing are either running or non- running and are non-explosive. Eighty five percent of 

torpedoes are recovered. A parachute assembly used for aircraft-launched torpedoes is 

jettisoned and sinks. Ballast (typically lead weights) may be released from the torpedoes to 

allow for recovery, and sink to the bottom.

Typical 

Components

Platforms: Fixed-wing aircraft, rotary-wing aircraft

Targets: Sub-surface targets

Systems being Trained/Tested: Torpedoes/torpedo launching systems

Standard 

Operating 

Procedures

(Section 

2.3.3)

Aircraft safety Typical Locations

Range Complexes/Testing 

Ranges:

Hawaii Range Complex

Southern California Range 

Complex

Inland Waters/Pierside:

None

Stressors to 

Biological 

Resources

Acoustic:

Sonar and other 

transducers

Aircraft noise

Explosive:

None

Physical Disturbance and Strike: 

Aircraft and aerial target

Vessels and in-water devices

Military expended materials

Seafloor devices

Ingestion:

Military expended materials –

munitions

Military expended materials – other 

than munitions

Energy:

In-air electromagnetic 

devices

Entanglement: 

Wires and cables

Decelerators/parachutes

Stressors to 

Physical 

Resources

Air Quality:

Criteria air pollutants

Sediments and Water Quality:

Metals Chemicals

Other materials

Stressors to 

Human 

Cultural Resources: 

Physical disturbance and 

Socioeconomic Resources: 

Accessibility

Public Health and Safety: 

Underwater energy
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

A-182

Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions

Anti-Submarine Warfare

Anti-Submarine Warfare Torpedo Test

Resources strike Airborne acoustics

Physical disturbance and strike

Physical interactions

Military 

Expended 

Material

Ingestible Material:

Lightweight torpedo accessories 

(medium parachutes, ballast), small 

parachutes

Non-Ingestible Material:

Expendable bathythermograph, 

lightweight torpedo (non-explosive, 

recoverable), sonobuoys (nonexplosive), expendable ASW 

training targets

Military 

Recoverable 

Material

Exercise Torpedoes, Recoverable 

ASW Training Targets

Sonar and 

Other 

Transducer

Bins

Mid-Frequency: 

MF5

Torpedoes: 

TORP1

Explosive

Bins

None

Procedural 

Mitigation

Measures

Acoustic Stressors: (section 5.3.2)

Active sonar

Assumptions 

Used for 

Analysis

Assume one torpedo accessory package (parachute, ballast) per torpedo. Assume one target 

per torpedo.

For air quality analysis:

- 1 fixed-wing patrol aircraft (6 hours)

- 1 rotary-wing aircraft (2 hours)
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

A-183

Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions

A.3.1.2.2 Anti-Submarine Warfare Tracking Test—Helicopter

Anti-Submarine Warfare

Anti-Submarine Warfare Tracking Test—Helicopter

Short 

Description

This event is similar to the training event antisubmarine tracking exercise–helicopter. The test 

evaluates the sensors and systems used to 

detect and track submarines and to ensure that 

helicopter systems used to deploy the tracking 

systems perform to specifications.

Typical Duration

2 flight hours per event

Long 

Description

Similar to an anti-submarine tracking exercise–helicopter, an Anti-Submarine Warfare (ASW) 

Tracking Test — helicopter evaluates the sensors and systems used to detect and track 

submarines and to ensure that platform systems used to deploy the tracking systems perform 

to specifications. Typically, one helicopter (e.g., MH-60) conducts anti-submarine warfare 

testing using the dipping sonar (e.g., AN/AQS–22), non-impulsive sonobuoys (e.g., AN/SSQ-62), 

passive sonobuoys (e.g., AN/SSQ-53D/E), or explosive sonobuoys (e.g., mini sound-source 

seeker buoys). Targets (e.g., MK-39 EMATT or MK-30) may also be employed during an antisubmarine warfare tracking test event. If available, tests may be conducted using an actual 

submarine as the target. This activity would be conducted in shallow or deep waters and could 

initiate from a land base or from a surface ship. Helicopter anti-submarine warfare tests are 

intended to evaluate the sensors and systems used to detect and track submarines and to 

ensure that platform systems used to deploy the tracking systems perform to specifications. 

Some anti-submarine helicopter tracking tests could be conducted as part of an anti-submarine 

tracking coordinated event with Fleet training activities.

Typical 

Components

Platforms: Rotary-wing aircraft

Targets: Sub-surface targets

Systems being Trained/Tested: Sonobuoys and dipping sonar systems

Standard 

Operating 

Procedures

(Section 

2.3.3)

Aircraft safety Typical Locations

Range Complexes/Testing 

Ranges:

Southern California Range 

Complex

Inland Waters/Pierside:

None

Stressors to 

Biological 

Resources

Acoustic:

Sonar and other 

transducers

Aircraft noise

Underwater explosives

Explosive:

None

Physical Disturbance and Strike: 

Aircraft and aerial target

Vessels and in-water devices

Military expended materials

Ingestion:

Military expended materials –

munitions

Military expended materials – other 

than munitions

Energy:

In-air electromagnetic 

devices

Entanglement: 

Wires and cables

Decelerators/parachutes

Stressors to 

Physical 

Resources

Air Quality:

Criteria air pollutants

Sediments and Water Quality:

Explosives Chemicals

Metals Other materials

Stressors to 

Human 

Resources

Cultural Resources: 

Explosives

Physical disturbance and 

strike

Socioeconomic Resources: 

Accessibility

Airborne acoustics

Physical disturbance and strike

Public Health and Safety: 

Underwater energy

Physical interactions
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

A-184

Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions

Anti-Submarine Warfare

Anti-Submarine Warfare Tracking Test—Helicopter

Military 

Expended 

Material

Ingestible Material:

Small decelerators/parachutes,

sonobuoy fragments

Non-Ingestible Material:

Sonobuoys, sonobuoy wires 

Military 

Recoverable 

Material

Recoverable sub-surface targets

Sonar and 

Other 

Transducer

Bins

Mid-Frequency: 

MF4 MF5

Explosive

Bins

E3

Procedural 

Mitigation

Measures

Acoustic Stressors: (section 5.3.2)

Active sonar

Explosive Stressors: (section 5.3.3)

Explosive sonobuoys

Assumptions 

Used for 

Analysis

For air quality analysis:

- 9 rotary-wing aircraft

- Average 2 hours per event
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

A-185

Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions

A.3.1.2.3 Anti-Submarine Warfare Tracking Test—Maritime Patrol Aircraft

Anti-Submarine Warfare

Anti-Submarine Warfare Tracking Test—Maritime Patrol Aircraft

Short 

Description

The test evaluates the sensors and systems used 

by maritime patrol aircraft to detect and track 

submarines and to ensure that aircraft systems 

used to deploy the tracking systems perform to 

specifications and meet operational 

requirements.

Typical Duration

Four to six flight hours per event

Long 

Description

Similar to an anti-submarine warfare (ASW) tracking exercise-maritime patrol aircraft, an antisubmarine warfare tracking test—maritime patrol aircraft evaluates the sensors and systems 

used to detect and track submarines and to ensure that platform systems used to deploy the 

tracking systems perform to specifications and meet operational requirements. P-3 or P-8 

fixed-wing aircraft conduct anti-submarine warfare testing using non-impulsive sonobuoys 

(e.g., AN/SSQ-62 DICASS), explosive sonobuoys (e.g., MK-61 SUS), passive sonobuoys (e.g., 

AN/SSQ-53 DIFAR), and smoke devices (e.g., MK-58). Targets (e.g., MK-39 Expendable Mobile 

ASW Training Target) may also be employed during an anti-submarine warfare scenario. If 

available, tests may be conducted using an actual submarine as the target. This activity would 

be conducted in deep (typically beyond 100 feet) waters. Some anti-submarine warfare 

maritime patrol aircraft tracking tests could be conducted as part of a coordinated event with 

fleet training activities.

Typical 

Components

Platforms: Fixed-wing aircraft

Targets: Sub-surface targets

Systems being Trained/Tested: Sonobuoys/sonobuoy launching systems, data transmission 

systems

Standard 

Operating 

Procedures

(Section 

2.3.3)

Aircraft safety Typical Locations

Range Complexes/Testing 

Ranges:

Hawaii Range Complex

Southern California Range 

Complex

Inland Waters/Pierside:

None

Stressors to 

Biological 

Resources

Acoustic:

Sonar and other 

transducers

Aircraft noise

Underwater explosives

Explosive:

None

Physical Disturbance and Strike: 

Aircraft and aerial target

Vessels and in-water devices

Military expended materials

Ingestion:

Military expended materials –

munitions

Military expended materials – other 

than munitions

Energy:

In-air electromagnetic 

devices

Entanglement: 

Wires and cables

Decelerators/parachutes

Stressors to 

Physical 

Resources

Air Quality:

Criteria air pollutants

Sediments and Water Quality:

Explosives Chemicals

Metals Other materials

Stressors to 

Human 

Resources

Cultural Resources: 

Explosives

Physical disturbance and 

strike

Socioeconomic Resources: 

Accessibility

Airborne acoustics

Physical disturbance and strike

Public Health and Safety: 

Underwater energy

Physical interactions
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

A-186

Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions

Anti-Submarine Warfare

Anti-Submarine Warfare Tracking Test—Maritime Patrol Aircraft

Military 

Expended 

Material

Ingestible Material:

Small decelerators/parachutes,

sonobuoy fragments

Non-Ingestible Material:

Sonobuoys, Expendable ASW Training 

Targets, sonobuoy wires

Military 

Recoverable 

Material

Exercise Torpedoes, Recoverable 

ASW Training Targets

Sonar and 

Other 

Transducer

Bins

Mid-Frequency: 

MF5 MF6

Anti-Submarine Warfare: 

ASW2 ASW5

Explosive

Bins

E1

E3

Procedural 

Mitigation

Measures

None

Assumptions 

Used for 

Analysis

For air quality analysis:

- 8 fixed-wing patrol aircraft

- Average 8 hours per event
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

A-187

Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions

A.3.1.2.4 Sonobuoy Lot Acceptance Test

Anti-Submarine Warfare

Sonobuoy Lot Acceptance Test

Short 

Description

Sonobuoys are deployed from surface vessels 

and aircraft to verify the integrity and 

performance of a lot or group of sonobuoys in 

advance of delivery to the fleet for operational 

use.

Typical Duration

Six flight hours per event

Long 

Description

Sonobuoys are deployed from surface vessels and aircraft to verify the integrity and 

performance of a lot or group of sonobuoys in advance of delivery to the fleet for operational 

use. Lot acceptance testing would occur for multiple types of sonobuoys including nonimpulsive (e.g., AN/SSQ-62 DICASS) and explosive (e.g., MK-61 SUS).

Typical 

Components

Platforms: Fixed-wing aircraft, Navy ships

Targets: None

Systems being Trained/Tested: Sonobuoy systems

Standard 

Operating 

Procedures

(Section 

2.3.3)

Vessel safety

Aircraft safety

Typical Locations

Range Complexes/Testing 

Ranges:

Southern California Range 

Complex

Inland Waters/Pierside:

None

Stressors to 

Biological 

Resources

Acoustic:

Sonar and other 

transducers

Aircraft noise

Vessel noise

Underwater explosives

Explosive:

None

Physical Disturbance and Strike: 

Aircraft and aerial target

Vessels and in-water devices

Military expended materials

Ingestion:

Military expended materials –

munitions

Military expended materials – other 

than munitions

Energy:

In-air electromagnetic 

devices

Entanglement: 

Wires and cables

Decelerators/parachutes

Stressors to 

Physical 

Resources

Air Quality:

Criteria air pollutants

Sediments and Water Quality:

Explosives

Stressors to 

Human 

Resources

Cultural Resources: 

Explosives

Physical disturbance and 

strike

Socioeconomic Resources: 

Accessibility

Airborne acoustics

Physical disturbance and strike

Public Health and Safety: 

Underwater energy

Physical interactions

Military 

Expended 

Material

Ingestible Material:

Small decelerators/parachutes, 

sonobuoy fragments

Non-Ingestible Material:

Sonobuoys, sonobuoy wires 

Military 

Recoverable 

Material

None

Sonar and 

Other 

Transducer

Bins

Low-Frequency: 

LF4

Mid-Frequency: 

MF5 MF6

High-Frequency: 

HF5 HF6

Anti-Submarine Warfare: 

ASW2 ASW5

Explosive

Bins

E1 E3 E4
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

A-188

Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions

Anti-Submarine Warfare

Sonobuoy Lot Acceptance Test

Procedural 

Mitigation

Measures

Acoustic Stressors: (section 5.3.2)

Active sonar

Physical Disturbance and Strike: (section 

5.3.4)

Vessel movement

Explosive Stressors: (section 5.3.3)

Explosive sonobuoys

Assumptions 

Used for 

Analysis

Assume one parachute per sonobuoy

For air quality analysis:

- 1 P-8A

- 6 hours per event

- 75 percent of time <3,000 feet.

- 85 percent of time > 12 nautical miles (NM) from shore, 10 percent 3-12 NM, 5 percent <3 

NM.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

A-189

Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions

Electronic Warfare 

A.3.1.3.1 Chaff Test

Electronic Warfare

Chaff Test

Short 

Description

This event is similar to the training event chaff 

exercise. Chaff tests evaluate newly developed 

or enhanced chaff, chaff dispensing equipment, 

or modified aircraft systems against chaff 

deployment. Tests may also train pilots and 

aircrews in the use of new chaff dispensing 

equipment. Chaff tests are often conducted with 

flare tests and air combat maneuver events, as 

well as other test events, and are not typically 

conducted as standalone tests.

Typical Duration

2–4 flight hours per event

Long 

Description

Chaff tests are conducted to evaluate newly developed or enhanced chaff dispensing 

equipment, to ensure other newly developed or modified aircraft systems are compatible with 

chaff deployment, and to train pilots and aircrew in the use of new chaff dispensing 

equipment. Fixed-wing, rotary-wing, and tilt rotor aircraft deploy chaff to disrupt threat 

targeting and missile guidance radars and to defend against an attack (Electronic Protect 

deployment). Chaff tests are often conducted with flare tests or air combat maneuver events, 

as well as other tests, rather than as a standalone test. Weapons are not typically fired during 

chaff tests. Chaff is employed for a number of different tactical reasons, but the end goal is to 

create a target that will distract enemy radar and weapon systems away from the friendly 

platform. Chaff may also be employed offensively (Electronic Attack deployment), such as 

before a major strike to "hide” inbound striking aircraft. Different chaff types (e.g., RR129A/AL, RR-144A/AL, and RR-170A/AL) are used by a variety of different Navy aircraft; 

however all chaff consists of a radar reflector material made of thin, narrow, metallic strips cut 

in various lengths, and is intended to elicit frequency responses which deceive enemy radars. 

Defensive chaff tests are the most common type of chaff test. In most cases, the chaff test is 

conducted to evaluate systems on the aircraft deploying the chaff, but it is also critical to view 

the effect of the chaff from the "enemy" perspective so that radar system operators may 

practice corrective procedures to overcome the chaff jamming effect. Chaff tests are often 

designed to gain experience and data from both perspectives. Chaff is typically deployed from 

an aircraft as the aircraft makes evasive maneuvers to defeat a simulated threat missile or

threat aircraft. The chaff deploys in a cloud of the highly reflective filaments and deceives the 

guidance system of an inbound missile, allowing the aircraft to escape the threat.

Typical 

Components

Platforms: Fixed-wing aircraft, rotary-wing aircraft, tilt-rotor aircraft

Targets: None

Systems being Trained/Tested: Chaff, chaff dispensing systems

Standard 

Operating 

Procedures

(Section 

2.3.3)

Aircraft safety Typical Locations

Range Complexes/Testing 

Ranges:

Hawaii Range Complex

Southern California Range 

Complex

Inland Waters/Pierside:

None

Stressors to 

Biological 

Resources

Acoustic:

Aircraft noise

Explosive:

None

Physical Disturbance and Strike: 

Aircraft and aerial target

Ingestion:

Military expended materials – other 

than munitions

Energy:

In-air electromagnetic 

devices

Entanglement: 

None
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

A-190

Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions

Electronic Warfare

Chaff Test

Stressors to 

Physical 

Resources

Air Quality:

Criteria air pollutants

Sediments and Water Quality:

Other materials

Stressors to 

Human 

Resources

Cultural Resources:

None

Socioeconomic Resources: 

Airborne acoustics

Public Health and Safety: 

Physical interactions

Military 

Expended 

Material

Ingestible Material:

Per chaff cartridge: one plastic 

endcap, one compression pad; OR 

one plastic piston, one plastic 

endcap.

Non-Ingestible Material:

Chaff fibers

Military 

Recoverable 

Material

None

Sonar and 

Other 

Transducer

Bins

None

Explosive

Bins

None

Procedural 

Mitigation

Measures

Acoustic Stressors: (section 5.3.2)

Assumptions 

Used for 

Analysis

For air quality analysis:

- 1 fixed-wing patrol aircraft

- 1 rotary-wing aircraft

- 3 V-22 Osprey

- Average 2 hours per event
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

A-191

Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions

A.3.1.3.2 Electronic System Evaluation

Electronic Warfare

Electronic Systems Evaluation

Short 

Description

Test that evaluates the effectiveness of 

electronic systems to control, deny, or monitor 

critical portions of the electromagnetic 

spectrum. In general, electronic warfare testing 

will assess the performance of three types of 

electronic warfare systems: electronic attack, 

electronic protect, and electronic support.

Typical Duration

2–6 flight hours per event

Long 

Description

Electronic systems evaluations are performed to determine the effectiveness of designated 

electronic warfare systems to control, deny, or monitor critical portions of the electromagnetic 

spectrum. In general, electronic warfare testing will assess the performance of three types of 

electronic warfare systems; specifically, electronic attack, electronic protect, and electronic 

support.

Aircraft electronic attack systems are designed to confuse the enemy or deny the enemy the 

use of its electronically-targeted weapons systems. The suppression of enemy air defenses and 

active jamming against hostile aircraft and surface combatant radars are examples of the 

application of electronic attack. Aircraft electronic protect systems are designed to intercept, 

identify, categorize, and defeat threat weapons systems that are already targeting that or 

other friendly aircraft. Aircraft electronic support systems employ passive tactics to intercept, 

exploit, locate (target), collect, collate, and decipher information from the radio frequency 

spectrum for the purpose of determining the intentions of the radiating source. Test results are 

compared against design specifications to evaluate the performance of the actually electronic 

warfare system. The test results are also used to define performance characteristics and to 

improve and update existing analytical and predictive models.

Typical 

Components

Platforms: Fixed-wing aircraft

Targets: Air Targets, electronic warfare target

Systems being Trained/Tested: Electronic warfare systems, radar

Standard 

Operating 

Procedures

(Section 

2.3.3)

Aircraft safety Typical Locations

Range Complexes/Testing 

Ranges:

Southern California Range 

Complex

Inland Waters/Pierside:

None

Stressors to 

Biological 

Resources

Acoustic:

Aircraft noise

Explosive:

None

Physical Disturbance and Strike: 

Aircraft and aerial target

Ingestion:

None

Energy:

In-air electromagnetic 

devices

Entanglement: 

None

Stressors to 

Physical 

Resources

Air Quality:

Criteria air pollutants

Sediments and Water Quality:

None

Stressors to 

Human 

Resources

Cultural Resources:

None

Socioeconomic Resources: 

Airborne acoustics

Physical disturbance and 

strike

Public Health and Safety: 

Physical interactions

Military 

Expended 

Material

Ingestible Material:

None

Non-Ingestible Material:

None

Military 

Recoverable 

Material

None
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

A-192

Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions

Electronic Warfare

Electronic Systems Evaluation

Sonar and 

Other 

Transducer

Bins

None

Explosive

Bins

None

Procedural 

Mitigation

Measures

Acoustic Stressors: (section 5.3.2)

Assumptions 

Used for 

Analysis

All chaff and flare expenditure is captured under Chaff Test and Flare Test, respectively

For air quality analysis:

- 1 fixed-wing command and control aircraft

- Average 6 hours per event
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

A-193

Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions

A.3.1.3.3 Flare Test

Electronic Warfare

Flare Test

Short 

Description

This event is similar to the training event flare 

exercise. Flare tests evaluate newly developed 

or enhanced flares, flare dispensing equipment, 

or modified aircraft systems against flare 

deployment. Tests may also train pilots and 

aircrew in the use of newly developed or 

modified flare deployment systems. Flare tests 

are often conducted with chaff tests and air 

combat maneuver events, as well as other test 

events, and are not typically conducted as 

standalone tests.

Typical Duration

2 flight hours per event

Long 

Description

Flare tests are conducted to evaluate new flares, newly developed or modified flare 

deployment systems, to ensure that other newly enhanced aircraft systems are compatible 

with flare deployment, and to train pilots and aircrew in the use of newly developed or 

modified flare deployment systems. Flare tests are often conducted with chaff tests and air 

combat maneuver events, as well as other test events, and are not typically conducted as 

stand-alone tests. During a flare test, flares (and in some cases chaff) are deployed, but no 

weapons are typically fired. Flare dispensers may also be jettisoned during a flare test intended 

to assess the safe release of the dispenser in the event of an emergency. 

Rotary-wing and tilt rotor aircraft deploy flares as a defensive tactic (electronic protect 

deployment) to disrupt the infrared missile guidance systems used by heat-seeking missiles, 

thereby causing the missile to lock onto the flare instead of onto the aircraft and enabling the 

aircraft to avoid the threat. In a typical scenario, an aircraft may detect the electronic targeting 

signals emitted from threat radars or missiles, or aircrew may visually identify a threat missile 

plume when a missile is launched. At a strategically appropriate time, the pilot dispenses flares 

and immediately maneuvers the aircraft to distract and defeat the threat. During a typical flare 

test, an aircraft will dispense flares 3,000 feet above mean sea level and flares are completely 

consumed while in the air. 

Aircraft flares use a magnesium extruded flare grain. Flare types commonly deployed during 

Naval Air Systems Command testing activities include but are not limited to: MJU-57, MJU-49, 

and MJU-38 for high speed aircraft and MJU-32 for low speed aircraft.

Typical 

Components

Platforms: Rotary-wing aircraft, tilt-rotor aircraft

Targets: None

Systems being Trained/Tested: Flares, flare dispensing systems

Standard 

Operating 

Procedures

(Section 

2.3.3)

Aircraft safety Typical Locations

Range Complexes/Testing 

Ranges:

Hawaii Range Complex

Southern California Range 

Complex

Inland Waters/Pierside:

None

Stressors to 

Biological 

Resources

Acoustic:

Aircraft noise

Explosive:

None

Physical Disturbance and Strike: 

Aircraft and aerial target

Military expended materials

Ingestion:

Military expended materials – other 

than munitions

Energy:

In-air electromagnetic 

devices

Entanglement: 

None
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

A-194

Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions

Electronic Warfare

Flare Test

Stressors to 

Physical 

Resources

Air Quality:

Criteria air pollutants

Sediments and Water Quality:

Other materials

Stressors to 

Human 

Resources

Cultural Resources: 

Physical disturbance and 

strike

Socioeconomic Resources: 

Accessibility

Airborne acoustics

Physical disturbance and strike

Public Health and Safety: 

Physical interactions

Military 

Expended 

Material

Ingestible Material:

Per flare cartridge: one silicone rubber 

compression pad OR one plastic 

piston, one plastic endcap, O-ring 

(rubber, nitrile)

Non-Ingestible Material:

Per flare cartridge: flare (typically 

fully combusted)

Military 

Recoverable 

Material

None

Sonar and 

Other 

Transducer

Bins

None

Explosive

Bins

None

Procedural 

Mitigation

Measures

Acoustic Stressors: (section 5.3.2)

Assumptions 

Used for 

Analysis

Flare use from all other events are captured under this activity.

For air quality analysis:

- 1 rotary-wing aircraft

- 3 V-22 Osprey

- Average 2 hours per event
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

A-195

Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions

Mine Warfare 

Mine warfare involves the detection, avoidance, and neutralization of mines to protect Navy ships and 

submarines, and offensive mine laying in naval operations. A naval mine is a self-contained, explosive 

device placed in the water at predetermined depths to destroy ships or submarines. Naval mines are 

deposited and left in place until triggered by the approach of or contact with an enemy ship, or until 

removed or otherwise destroyed. Naval mines can be laid by minelayers, other ships, submarines, and 

aircraft. Naval Air Systems Command mine warfare testing events include airborne mine 

countermeasures events, mine laying events (similar to mine exercises), and mine neutralization events. 

The AN/ASQ-235 airborne mine neutralization system was developed to destroy mines or otherwise 

rendering them non-functional. The airborne laser mine detection system test, airborne dipping sonar 

minehunting test, and airborne sonobuoy minehunting test evaluate the capabilities of mine warfare 

systems to detect, classify, and fix the location of floating, near-surfaced moored, and bottom 

moored mines.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

A-196

Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions

A.3.1.4.1 Airborne Dipping Sonar Minehunting Test

Mine Warfare

Airborne Dipping Sonar Minehunting Test

Short 

Description

A mine-hunting dipping sonar system that is 

deployed from a helicopter and uses highfrequency sonar for the detection and 

classification of bottom and moored mines.

Typical Duration

2 flight hours per event

Long 

Description

Tests of a mine-hunting dipping sonar system to evaluate the search capabilities of this 

helicopter-deployed, mine hunting, detection, and classification system. The sonar identifies 

mine-like objects.

Typical 

Components

Platforms: Rotary-wing aircraft

Targets: Mine shapes

Systems being Trained/Tested: Dipping sonar systems

Standard 

Operating 

Procedures

(Section 

2.3.3)

Aircraft safety Typical Locations

Range Complexes/Testing 

Ranges:

Southern California Range 

Complex

Inland Waters/Pierside:

None

Stressors to 

Biological 

Resources

Acoustic:

Sonar and other 

transducers

Aircraft noise

Explosive:

None

Physical Disturbance and Strike: 

Aircraft and aerial target

Ingestion:

None

Energy:

In-air electromagnetic 

devices

Entanglement: 

None

Stressors to 

Physical 

Resources

Air Quality:

Criteria air pollutants

Sediments and Water Quality:

None

Stressors to 

Human 

Resources

Cultural Resources:

None

Socioeconomic Resources: 

Airborne acoustics

Physical disturbance and 

strike

Public Health and Safety: 

Underwater energy

Physical interactions

Military 

Expended 

Material

Ingestible Material:

None

Non-Ingestible Material:

None 

Military 

Recoverable 

Material

None

Sonar and 

Other 

Transducer

Bins

High-Frequency: 

HF4

Explosive

Bins

None

Procedural 

Mitigation

Measures

Acoustic Stressors: (section 5.3.2)

Active sonar

Assumptions 

Used for 

Analysis

For air quality analysis:

- 1 rotary-wing aircraft

- 50 percent within 3 miles (mi.), 30 percent 3-12 mi., 20 percent > 12 mi.

- Average 2.5 hours per event
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

A-197

Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions

A.3.1.4.2 Airborne Laser Based Mine Detection System Test

Mine Warfare

Airborne Laser-Based Mine Detection System Test

Short 

Description

An airborne mine hunting test of a laser-based 

mine detection system, that is operated from a 

helicopter (e.g., MH-60) and evaluates the 

system’s ability to detect, classify, and fix the 

location of floating and near-surface, moored 

mines. The system uses a low energy laser to 

locate mines.

Typical Duration

2 1/2 flight hours per event

Long 

Description

During an airborne mine detection system test, a helicopter (e.g., MH-60) evaluates the search 

capabilities of the AN/AES-1 Airborne Laser Mine Detection System. The Airborne Laser Mine 

Detection System is a mine hunting system designed to detect, classify, and localize floating and 

near-surface, moored sea mines using a laser system. The Airborne Laser Mine Detection System 

will be integrated into the helicopter to provide a rapid wide-area reconnaissance and assessment 

of mine threats in littoral zones, confined straits, choke points, and amphibious objective areas for 

Carrier and Expeditionary Strike Groups.

The Airborne Laser Mine Detection System uses pulsed laser light to image the entire near-surface 

volume potentially containing mines. Airborne Laser Mine Detection System is capable of day or 

night operations without stopping to deploy or recover equipment and without towing any 

equipment in the water. With untethered operations, it can attain high area search rates. This 

design uses the forward motion of the aircraft to generate image data negating the requirement 

for complex scanning mechanisms and ensuring high system reliability. Airborne Laser Mine 

Detection System also provides accurate target geo-location to support follow on neutralization of 

the detected mines.

Typical 

Components

Platforms: Rotary-wing aircraft

Targets: Mine shapes

Systems being Trained/Tested: Low-energy laser systems

Standard 

Operating 

Procedures

(Section 2.3.3)

Aircraft safety Typical Locations

Range Complexes/Testing Ranges:

Southern California Range Complex

Inland Waters/Pierside:

None

Stressors to 

Biological 

Resources

Acoustic:

Aircraft noise

Explosive:

None

Physical Disturbance and Strike: 

Aircraft and aerial target

Seafloor devices

Ingestion:

None

Energy:

In-air electromagnetic 

devices

Lasers

Entanglement: 

None

Stressors to 

Physical 

Resources

Air Quality:

Criteria air pollutants

Sediments and Water Quality:

None

Stressors to 

Human 

Resources

Cultural Resources:

None

Socioeconomic Resources: 

Accessibility

Airborne acoustics

Physical disturbance and strike

Public Health and Safety: 

In-air energy

Physical interactions

Military 

Expended 

Material

Ingestible Material:

None

Non-Ingestible Material:

None 

Military 

Recoverable 

Material

None
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

A-198

Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions

Mine Warfare

Airborne Laser-Based Mine Detection System Test

Sonar and 

Other 

Transducer

Bins

None

Explosive

Bins

None

Procedural 

Mitigation

Measures

Acoustic Stressors: (section 5.3.2)

Assumptions 

Used for 

Analysis

The activity does not require the placement of moored mines.

For air quality analysis:

- 1 rotary-wing aircraft

- 50 percent within 3 miles (mi.), 30 percent 3-12 mi., 20 percent > 12 mi.

- Average 2 hours per event
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

A-199

Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions

A.3.1.4.3 Airborne Mine Neutralization Systems Test 

Mine Warfare

Airborne Mine Neutralization System (AMNS) Test

Short 

Description

A test of the airborne mine neutralization 

system evaluates the system’s ability to detect

and destroy mines from an airborne mine 

countermeasures capable helicopter (e.g., MH60). The airborne mine neutralization system 

uses up to four unmanned underwater vehicles 

equipped with high-frequency sonar, video 

cameras, and explosive and non-explosive 

neutralizers.

Typical Duration

2 1/2 flight hours per event

Long 

Description

Mine neutralization tests evaluate aircraft and aircraft systems intended to neutralize or 

otherwise destroy mines through the use of explosives or other munitions. For most 

neutralization tests, mine shapes or non-explosive mines are used to evaluate new or 

enhanced mine neutralization systems. The airborne mine neutralization system uses up to 

four unmanned underwater vehicles equipped with high-frequency sonar and video cameras to 

relocate previously detected submerged mines. The unmanned underwater vehicles are also 

equipped with explosives to neutralize the mines after they are located. Data from unmanned 

underwater vehicles are relayed to the operator in the helicopter through a fiber-optic cable 

enabling the operator to position the neutralizing charge onto the most vulnerable area of the 

mine. The explosive charge is then detonated to neutralize the mine. For most tests, 

recoverable non-explosive neutralizers are used. A mine shape, rather than an explosive mine, 

serves as the target and a range support vessel recovers the non-explosive neutralizer and the 

mine shape following the test. Testing scenarios include a non-explosive neutralizer against an 

inert mine shape, or an explosive neutralizer against an explosive mine.

Typical 

Components

Platforms: Rotary-wing aircraft, support boat, unmanned underwater vehicle

Targets: Mine shapes

Systems being Trained/Tested: Mine neutralization systems

Standard 

Operating 

Procedures

(Section 

2.3.3)

Vessel safety

Aircraft safety

Unmanned aerial, 

surface, and 

subsurface vehicle 

safety

Typical Locations

Range Complexes/Testing 

Ranges:

Southern California Range 

Complex

Inland Waters/Pierside:

None

Stressors to 

Biological 

Resources

Acoustic:

Aircraft noise

Vessel noise

Explosives:

Underwater explosives

Physical Disturbance and Strike: 

Aircraft and aerial target

Vessels and in-water devices

Military expended materials

Seafloor devices

Ingestion: 

Military expended materials –

munitions

Military expended materials – other 

than munitions

Energy:

In-air electromagnetic 

devices

Entanglement: 

Wires and cables

Stressors to 

Physical 

Resources

Air Quality:

Criteria air pollutants

Sediments and Water Quality:

Explosives Chemicals

Metals Other materials

Stressors to 

Human 

Resources

Cultural Resources: 

Physical disturbance and 

Socioeconomic Resources: 

Accessibility

Airborne acoustics

Public Health and Safety: 

Underwater energy

In-air energy
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

A-200

Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions

Mine Warfare

Airborne Mine Neutralization System (AMNS) Test

strike Physical disturbance and strike Physical interactions

Military 

Expended 

Material

Ingestible Material:

Mine fragments (non-preferred 

alternative only), neutralizer 

(explosive) fragments

Non-Ingestible Material:

Fiber optic cable housing canister,

fiber optic cable

Military 

Recoverable 

Material

Neutralizers (non-explosive), mine 

shapes (non-explosive)

Sonar and 

Other 

Transducer

Bins

None

Explosive

Bins

E4, E11 (non-preferred alternative)

Procedural 

Mitigation

Measures

Physical Disturbance and Strike: (section 

5.3.4)

Vessel movement

Explosive Stressors: (Section 5.3.3)

Explosive mine countermeasure and 

neutralization activities

Assumptions 

Used for 

Analysis

No explosive mines (E11) would be used under the preferred alternative. Explosive mines are 

proposed and analyzed under the non-preferred alternative.

For air quality analysis:

- 1 rotary-wing aircraft

- 50 percent within 3 miles (mi.), 30 percent 3-12 mi., 20 percent > 12 mi.

- Average 2 hours per event
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

A-201

Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions

A.3.1.4.4 Airborne Sonobuoy Minehunting Test

Mine Warfare

Airborne Sonobuoy Minehunting Test

Short 

Description

A mine-hunting system made up of sonobuoys is 

deployed from a helicopter. A field of 

sonobuoys, using high-frequency sonar, is used 

for detection and classification of bottom and 

moored mines.

Typical Duration

Two flight hours per event

Long 

Description

Tests of mine-hunting sonobuoys to evaluate the search capabilities of this helicopterdeployed, mine hunting, detection, and classification system. The sonar identifies mine-like 

objects.

Typical 

Components

Platforms: Rotary-wing aircraft

Targets: Mine shapes

Systems being Trained/Tested: Sonobuoy systems

Standard 

Operating 

Procedures

(Section 

2.3.3)

Aircraft safety Typical Locations

Range Complexes/Testing 

Ranges:

Southern California Range 

Complex

Inland Waters/Pierside:

None

Stressors to 

Biological 

Resources

Acoustic:

Sonar and other 

transducers

Aircraft noise

Explosive:

None

Physical Disturbance and Strike: 

Aircraft and aerial target

Military expended materials

Ingestion:

Military expended materials –

munitions

Military expended materials – other 

than munitions

Energy:

In-air electromagnetic 

devices

Entanglement: 

Wires and cables

Decelerators/parachutes

Stressors to 

Physical 

Resources

Air Quality:

Criteria air pollutants

Sediments and Water Quality:

Metals Chemicals

Other materials

Stressors to 

Human 

Resources

Cultural Resources:

None

Socioeconomic Resources: 

Airborne acoustics

Physical disturbance and 

strike

Public Health and Safety: 

Underwater energy

Physical interactions

Military 

Expended 

Material

Ingestible Material:

Small decelerators/parachutes

Non-Ingestible Material:

Sonobuoys, sonobuoy wires

Military 

Recoverable 

Material

None

Sonar and 

Other 

Transducer

Bins

High-Frequency: 

HF6

Explosive

Bins

None

Procedural 

Mitigation

Measures

Acoustic Stressors: (section 5.3.2)

Active sonar

Assumptions 

Used for 

For air quality analysis:

- 1 rotary-wing aircraft
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

A-202

Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions

Mine Warfare

Airborne Sonobuoy Minehunting Test

Analysis - 50 percent within 3 miles (mi.), 30 percent 3-12 mi., 20 percent > 12 mi.

- Average 2 hours per event
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

A-203

Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions

A.3.1.4.5 Mine Laying Test

Mine Warfare

Mine Laying Test

Short 

Description

Fixed-wing aircraft evaluate the performance of 

mine laying equipment and software systems to 

lay mines. A mine test may also train aircrew in 

laying mines using a new or enhanced mine 

deployment system.

Typical Duration

Two flight hours per event

Long 

Description

During a mine laying test, fixed-winged aircraft evaluate the performance of aircraft mine 

laying equipment or associated software systems to lay mines using non-explosive mine 

shapes. A mine test may also train aircrew in the technique of laying mines and in using a new 

or enhanced mine deployment system. Aircrew typically drop a series of about four nonexplosive mine shapes (i.e., MK 76, BDU-45, or BDU-48), making multiple passes in the same 

flight pattern and dropping one or more shapes each time. The non-explosive mine shapes are 

expendable and are typically not recovered after the test.

Typical 

Components

Platforms: Fixed-wing aircraft

Targets: None

Systems being Trained/Tested: Mine laying systems

Standard 

Operating 

Procedures

(Section 

2.3.3)

Aircraft safety Typical Locations

Range Complexes/Testing 

Ranges:

Hawaii Range Complex

Southern California Range 

Complex

Inland Waters/Pierside:

None

Stressors to 

Biological 

Resources

Acoustic:

Aircraft noise

Explosive:

None

Physical Disturbance and Strike: 

Aircraft and aerial target

Military expended materials

Ingestion:

None

Energy:

In-air electromagnetic 

devices

Entanglement: 

None

Stressors to 

Physical 

Resources

Air Quality:

Criteria air pollutants

Sediments and Water Quality:

Metals Other materials

Stressors to 

Human 

Resources

Cultural Resources: 

Physical disturbance and 

strike

Socioeconomic Resources: 

Airborne acoustics

Physical disturbance and strike

Public Health and Safety: 

Physical interactions

Military 

Expended 

Material

Ingestible Material:

None

Non-Ingestible Material:

Mines (Non-explosive)

Military 

Recoverable 

Material

None

Sonar and 

Other 

Transducer

Bins

None

Explosive

Bins

None

Procedural 

Mitigation

Measures

Acoustic Stressors: (section 5.3.2) Physical Disturbance and Strike: (section 

5.3.4)

Non-explosive bombs and mine shapes

Assumptions When a test event occurs and aircrew receive training, the event will be analyzed as a testing 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

A-204

Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions

Mine Warfare

Mine Laying Test

Used for 

Analysis

event.

For air quality analysis:

- 1 fixed-wing patrol aircraft (P-8A)

- 50 percent within 3 miles (mi.), 30 percent 3-12 mi., 20 percent > 12 mi.

- Average 1 hour per event
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

A-205

Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions

Surface Warfare

Surface warfare is a type of naval warfare in which aircraft, surface ships, and submarines employ 

weapons, sensors, and operations directed against enemy surface vessels. Naval Air Systems Command 

surface warfare tests include air-to-surface missile, gunnery, and bombing tests, rocket tests, laser 

targeting tests, and high-energy laser weapons tests. 

A sinking exercise is a specialized Fleet training event that provides an opportunity for Naval Air Systems 

Command aircrew along with ship and submarine crews to deliver explosive ordnance on a deactivated 

vessel that has been cleaned and environmentally remediated. The vessel is deliberately sunk using 

multiple weapons systems. A Naval Air Systems Command testing event may take place in conjunction 

with a sinking exercise to test aircraft or aircraft systems in the delivery of explosive ordnance on a 

surface target.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

A-206

Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions

A.3.1.5.1 Air-to-Surface Bombing Test

Surface Warfare

Air-to-Surface Bombing Test

Short 

Description

This event is similar to the training event 

bombing exercise air-to-surface. Fixed-wing 

aircraft test the delivery of bombs against 

surface maritime targets with the goal of 

evaluating the bomb, the bomb carry and 

delivery system, and any associated systems 

that may have been newly developed or 

enhanced.

Typical Duration

Two flight hours per event

Long 

Description

Fixed-wing aircraft test the delivery of bombs against surface maritime targets with the goal of 

evaluating the bomb, the bomb carry and delivery system, and any associated systems that 

may have been newly developed or enhanced. Both explosive and non-explosive bombs will be 

released during this type of test; however, the vast majority of releases will be non-explosive 

bombs and typically include non-explosive general purpose bombs (e.g., MK 82 and MK 83) and 

guided bomb units (e.g., GBU-12 and GBU-32) of various sizes. Surface targets may also be 

used.

Typical 

Components

Platforms: Fixed-wing aircraft, unmanned aerial system

Targets: Surface targets

Systems being Trained/Tested: Bomb releasing systems

Standard 

Operating 

Procedures

(Section 

2.3.3)

Aircraft safety

Unmanned aerial, 

surface, and 

subsurface vehicle 

safety

Typical Locations

Range Complexes/Testing 

Ranges:

Hawaii Range Complex

Southern California Range 

Complex

Inland Waters/Pierside:

None

Stressors to 

Biological 

Resources

Acoustic:

Aircraft noise

Explosive:

Explosions in water

Physical Disturbance and Strike: 

Aircraft and aerial target

Military expended materials

Ingestion:

Military expended materials –

munitions

Military expended materials – other 

than munitions

Energy:

In-air electromagnetic 

devices

Entanglement: 

None

Stressors to 

Physical 

Resources

Air Quality:

Criteria air pollutants

Sediments and Water Quality:

Explosives Metals

Stressors to 

Human 

Resources

Cultural Resources: 

Explosives

Physical disturbance and 

strike

Socioeconomic Resources: 

Accessibility

Airborne acoustics

Physical disturbance and strike

Public Health and Safety: 

Underwater energy

In-air energy

Physical interactions

Military 

Expended 

Material

Ingestible Material:

Bomb fragments, target fragments

Non-Ingestible Material:

Non-explosive bombs and mine 

shapes

Military 

Recoverable 

Material

None
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

A-207

Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions

Surface Warfare

Air-to-Surface Bombing Test

Sonar and 

Other 

Transducer

Bins

None

Explosive

Bins

E9

Procedural 

Mitigation

Measures

Physical Disturbance and Strike: (section 

5.3.4)

Non-explosive bombs and mine shapes

Explosive Stressors: (section 5.3.3)

Explosive bombs

Assumptions 

Used for 

Analysis

For air quality analysis:

- Two fixed-wing strike aircraft

- Average 3 hours per event
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

A-208

Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions

A.3.1.5.2 Air-to-Surface Gunnery Test 

Surface Warfare

Air-to-Surface Gunnery Test

Short 

Description

This event is similar to the training event 

gunnery exercise air-to-surface. Fixed-wing and 

rotary-wing aircrews evaluate new or enhanced 

aircraft guns against surface maritime targets to 

test that the gun, gun ammunition, or associated 

systems meet required specifications or to train 

aircrew in the operation of a new or enhanced 

weapons system.

Typical Duration

2 to 2 1/2 flight hours per event

Long 

Description

Fixed-wing and rotary-wing aircrews evaluate new or enhanced aircraft guns against surface 

maritime targets to test that the gun, gun ammunition, or associated systems meet required 

specifications or to train aircrew in the operation of a new or enhanced weapons system. Nonexplosive practice munitions are typically used during this type of test; however, a small 

number of high explosive rounds may be used during final testing. Rounds that may be used 

include 7.62 millimeter (mm), 20 mm, 30 mm, 0.30-caliber, and 0.50-caliber gun ammunition.

Typical 

Components

Platforms: Rotary-wing aircraft, fixed-wing aircraft, tilt-rotor aircraft

Targets: Surface targets

Systems being Trained/Tested: Gun systems

Standard 

Operating 

Procedures

(Section 

2.3.3)

Aircraft safety

Weapons firing safety

Typical Locations

Range Complexes/Testing 

Ranges:

Hawaii Range Complex

Southern California Range 

Complex

Inland Waters/Pierside:

None

Stressors to 

Biological 

Resources

Acoustic:

Aircraft noise

Weapons noise

Explosive:

Explosions in water

Physical Disturbance and Strike: 

Aircraft and aerial target

Military expended materials

Ingestion:

Military expended materials –

munitions

Military expended materials – other 

than munitions

Energy:

In-air electromagnetic 

devices

Entanglement: 

None

Stressors to 

Physical 

Resources

Air Quality:

Criteria air pollutants

Sediments and Water Quality:

Explosives Metals

Stressors to 

Human 

Resources

Cultural Resources: 

Explosives

Physical disturbance and 

strike

Socioeconomic Resources: 

Accessibility

Airborne acoustics

Physical disturbance and strike

Public Health and Safety: 

Underwater energy

Physical interactions

Military 

Expended 

Material

Ingestible Material:

Projectiles, projectile casings,

projectile fragments, target 

fragments

Non-Ingestible Material:

None

Military 

Recoverable 

Material

Recoverable surface targets
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

A-209

Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions

Surface Warfare

Air-to-Surface Gunnery Test

Sonar and 

Other 

Transducer

Bins

None

Explosive

Bins

E1

Procedural 

Mitigation

Measures

Acoustic Stressors: (section 5.3.2)

Physical Disturbance and Strike: (section 

5.3.4)

Small-, medium-, and large-caliber nonexplosive practice munitions

Explosive Stressors: (section 5.3.3)

Explosive medium-caliber and large-caliber 

projectiles

Assumptions 

Used for 

Analysis

For air quality analysis:

- 1 rotary-wing aircraft

- 1 V-22 Osprey aircraft

- Average 2 hours per event
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

A-210

Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions

A.3.1.5.3 Air-to-Surface Missile Test

Surface Warfare

Air-to-Surface Missile Test

Short 

Description

This event is similar to the training event missile 

exercise air-to-surface. Test may involve both 

fixed-wing and rotary-wing aircraft launching 

missiles at surface maritime targets to evaluate 

the weapons system or as part of another 

systems integration test.

Typical Duration

2–4 flight hours per event

Long 

Description

Similar to a missile exercise air-to-surface, an air-to-surface missile test may involve both fixedwing and rotary-wing aircraft launching missiles at surface maritime targets to evaluate the 

weapons system or as part of another systems integration test. Air-to-surface missile tests can 

include high explosive, non-explosive, or non-firing (captive air training missile) weapons. Laser 

targeting systems may also be used. Both stationary and mobile targets would be utilized 

during testing.

Typical 

Components

Platforms: Fixed-wing aircraft, rotary-wing aircraft, tilt-rotor aircraft

Targets: Surface targets

Systems being Trained/Tested: Missile firing/launching systems

Standard 

Operating 

Procedures

(Section 

2.3.3)

Aircraft safety

High-powered laser 

safety

Weapons firing safety

Typical Locations

Range Complexes/Testing 

Ranges:

Hawaii Range Complex

Southern California Range 

Complex

Inland Waters/Pierside:

None

Stressors to 

Biological 

Resources

Acoustic:

Aircraft noise

Explosive:

Explosions in water

Physical Disturbance and Strike: 

Aircraft and aerial target

Military expended materials

Ingestion:

Military expended materials –

munitions

Military expended materials – other 

than munitions

Energy:

In-air electromagnetic 

devices

Lasers

Entanglement: 

None

Stressors to 

Physical 

Resources

Air Quality:

Criteria air pollutants

Sediments and Water Quality:

Explosives Chemicals

Metals Other materials

Stressors to 

Human 

Resources

Cultural Resources: 

Explosives

Physical disturbance and 

strike

Socioeconomic Resources: 

Accessibility

Airborne acoustics

Physical disturbance and strike

Public Health and Safety: 

Physical interactions

Military 

Expended 

Material

Ingestible Material:

Missile fragments, target fragments

Non-Ingestible Material:

None 

Military 

Recoverable 

Material

Recoverable surface targets

Sonar and 

Other 

Transducer

Bins

None

Explosive

Bins

E6 E9 E10
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

A-211

Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions

Surface Warfare

Air-to-Surface Missile Test

Procedural 

Mitigation

Measures

Acoustic Stressors: (section 5.3.2)

Physical Disturbance and Strike: (section 

5.3.4)

Non-explosive missiles and rockets

Explosive Stressors: (section 5.3.3)

Explosive missiles and rockets

Assumptions 

Used for 

Analysis

For air quality analysis:

- 1 fixed-wing patrol aircraft

- 2 rotary-wing aircraft

- 3 V-22 Osprey aircraft

- Average 2 hours per event
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

A-212

Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions

A.3.1.5.4 High Energy Laser Weapons Test

Surface Warfare

High Energy Laser Weapons Test

Short 

Description

High energy laser weapons tests would evaluate 

the specifications, integration, and performance 

of an aircraft mounted, approximately 25 

kilowatt high energy laser. The laser is intended 

to be used as a weapon to disable small surface 

vessels.

Typical Duration

2 1/2 flight hours per event

Long 

Description

During a high energy laser weapons test, aircrew would evaluate the specifications, integration, 

and performance of an aircraft mounted, approximately 25 kilowatt high energy laser that is 

intended to be used as a weapon against stationary and mobile, unmanned surface targets. 

The high energy laser would be employed from a helicopter (e.g., MH-60) either hovering or in

forward flight, and is designed to disable the surface vessel, rendering it immobile. The high 

energy laser would have a range of up to six kilometers. Unmanned surface targets would be 

used during the high energy laser test.

Typical 

Components

Platforms: Rotary-wing aircraft

Targets: Surface targets

Systems being Trained/Tested: High energy lasers

Standard 

Operating 

Procedures

(Section 

2.3.3)

Aircraft safety

High-powered laser 

safety

Typical Locations

Range Complexes/Testing 

Ranges:

Hawaii Range Complex

Southern California Range 

Complex

Inland Waters/Pierside:

None

Stressors to 

Biological 

Resources

Acoustic:

Aircraft noise

Vessel noise

Explosive:

None

Physical Disturbance and Strike: 

Aircraft and aerial target

Vessels and in-water devices

Ingestion:

Military expended materials – other 

than munitions

Energy:

In-air electromagnetic 

devices

Lasers

Entanglement: 

None

Stressors to 

Physical 

Resources

Air Quality:

Criteria air pollutants

Sediments and Water Quality:

None

Stressors to 

Human 

Resources

Cultural Resources:

None

Socioeconomic Resources: 

Airborne acoustics

Physical disturbance and 

strike

Public Health and Safety: 

In-air energy

Military 

Expended 

Material

Ingestible Material:

Target fragments

Non-Ingestible Material:

None

Military 

Recoverable 

Material

Remote-controlled surface targets

Sonar and 

Other 

Transducer

Bins

None

Explosive

Bins

None
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

A-213

Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions

Surface Warfare

High Energy Laser Weapons Test

Procedural 

Mitigation

Measures

None Physical Disturbance and Strike: (section 

5.3.4)

Vessel movement

Assumptions 

Used for 

Analysis

For air quality analysis:

- 1 rotary-wing aircraft

- 100 percent > 12 miles

- Average 2 hours per event
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

A-214

Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions

A.3.1.5.5 Laser Targeting Test

Surface Warfare

Laser Targeting Test

Short 

Description Aircrews illuminate enemy targets with lasers. Typical Duration

Four flight hours per event

Long 

Description

During a laser targeting test, aircrew use laser targeting devices integrated into aircraft or 

weapons systems to evaluate targeting accuracy and precision and to train aircrew in the use 

of newly developed or enhanced laser targeting devices designed to illuminate designated 

targets for engagement with laser-guided weapons. No explosive munitions are released 

during a laser targeting test.

Typical 

Components

Platforms: Fixed-wing aircraft, rotary-wing aircraft, tilt-rotor aircraft, unmanned aerial systems 

Targets: Surface targets

Systems being Trained/Tested: Laser targeting systems

Standard 

Operating 

Procedures

(Section 

2.3.3)

Aircraft safety Typical Locations

Range Complexes/Testing 

Ranges:

Southern California Range 

Complex

Inland Waters/Pierside:

None

Stressors to 

Biological 

Resources

Acoustic:

Aircraft noise

Explosive:

None

Physical Disturbance and Strike: 

Aircraft and aerial target

Ingestion:

None

Energy:

In-air electromagnetic 

devices

Lasers

Entanglement: 

None

Stressors to 

Physical 

Resources

Air Quality:

Criteria air pollutants

Sediments and Water Quality:

None

Stressors to 

Human 

Resources

Cultural Resources:

None

Socioeconomic Resources: 

Airborne acoustics

Physical disturbance and 

strike

Public Health and Safety: 

In-air energy

Physical interactions

Military 

Expended 

Material

Ingestible Material:

None

Non-Ingestible Material:

Non-explosive bombs and mine 

shapes

Military 

Recoverable 

Material

Recoverable surface targets

Sonar and 

Other 

Transducer

Bins

None

Explosive

Bins

None

Procedural 

Mitigation

Measures

Acoustic Stressors: (section 5.3.2) Physical Disturbance and Strike: (section 

5.3.4)

Non-explosive bombs

Assumptions 

Used for 

Analysis

Military expended material may be non-explosive bombs or other guided munitions.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

A-215

Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions

A.3.1.5.6 Rocket Test

Surface Warfare

Rocket Test

Short 

Description

Rocket tests are conducted to evaluate the 

integration, accuracy, performance, and safe 

separation of guided and unguided 2.75-inch 

rockets fired from a hovering or forward flying 

helicopter or tilt rotor aircraft.

Typical Duration

1.5 to 2.5 hours per event

Long 

Description

Rocket tests are conducted to evaluate the integration, accuracy, performance, and safe 

separation of laser-guided and unguided 2.75-inch rockets fired from a hovering or forward 

flying helicopter. Rocket tests would involve the release of primarily live motor/non-explosive 

warhead rockets. Some explosive warhead rockets would be tested, and during a jettison test, 

rockets with a non-explosive motor and non-explosive warhead would be jettisoned along with 

the rocket launcher. Rocket tests are also conducted to train aircrew on the use of new or 

enhanced weapons systems. Rocket types may include variations of the Hydra-70 rocket 

developed under the Advanced Precision Kill Weapons System program or similar munitions 

developed under Low-cost Guided Imaging Rocket program as well as MEDUSA rockets. All 

rockets planned for testing are 2.75-inch rockets. Some rocket tests may be conducted in 

conjunction with upgrades to or integration of the Forward Looking Infrared targeting system.

Typical 

Components

Platforms: Rotary-wing aircraft, tilt-rotor aircraft

Targets: Surface targets

Systems being Trained/Tested: Rocket firing/launching systems

Standard 

Operating 

Procedures

(Section 

2.3.3)

Aircraft safety

Weapons firing safety

Typical Locations

Range Complexes/Testing 

Ranges:

Hawaii Range Complex 

Southern California Range 

Complex

Inland Waters/Pierside:

None

Stressors to 

Biological 

Resources

Acoustic:

Aircraft noise

Explosive:

Explosions in water

Physical Disturbance and Strike: 

Aircraft and aerial target

Military expended materials

Ingestion:

Military expended materials –

munitions

Military expended materials – other 

than munitions

Energy:

In-air electromagnetic 

devices

Entanglement: 

None

Stressors to 

Physical 

Resources

Air Quality:

Criteria air pollutants

Sediments and Water Quality:

Explosives Chemicals

Metals Other materials

Stressors to 

Human 

Resources

Cultural Resources: 

Explosives

Physical disturbance and 

strike

Socioeconomic Resources: 

Accessibility

Airborne acoustics

Physical disturbance and strike

Public Health and Safety: 

Underwater energy

In-air energy

Physical interactions

Military 

Expended 

Material

Ingestible Material:

Rocket fragments, target fragments

Non-Ingestible Material:

Flechettes

Military 

Recoverable 

Material

Remote controlled surface targets,

stationary surface targets
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

A-216

Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions

Surface Warfare

Rocket Test

Sonar and 

Other 

Transducer

Bins

None

Explosive

Bins

E3

Procedural 

Mitigation

Measures

Acoustic Stressors: (section 5.3.2)

Physical Disturbance and Strike: (section 

5.3.4)

Non-explosive missiles and rockets

Explosive Stressors: (section 5.3.3)

Explosive missiles and rockets

Assumptions 

Used for 

Analysis

For air quality analysis:

- 2 rotary-wing aircraft

- 6 V-22 Osprey aircraft

- Average 2 hours per event
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

A-217

Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions

Other Testing Activities

A.3.1.6.1 Acoustic and Oceanographic Research

Other Testing Activities

Acoustic and Oceanographic Research

Short 

Description

Active transmissions within the band 10 hertz 

(Hz)-100 kilohertz (kHz) from sources deployed 

from ships and aircraft.

Typical Duration

Eight flight hours per event

Long 

Description

Active acoustic transmissions within the band 10 Hz-100 kHz used for engineering tests of 

acoustic sources, validation of ocean acoustic models, characterization of acoustic interactions 

with the ocean bottom and ocean surface.

Typical 

Components

Platforms: Fixed-wing aircraft, small boat

Targets: Sub-surface target

Systems being Trained/Tested: Low-energy laser, de minimis sonar systems

Standard 

Operating 

Procedures

(Section 

2.3.3)

Vessel safety

Aircraft safety

Typical Locations

Range Complexes/Testing 

Ranges:

Hawaii Range Complex

Southern California Range 

Complex

Inland Waters/Pierside:

None

Stressors to 

Biological 

Resources

Acoustic:

Aircraft noise

Vessel noise

Explosive:

None

Physical Disturbance and Strike: 

Aircraft and aerial target

Vessels and in-water devices

Ingestion:

None

Energy:

In-air electromagnetic 

devices

Lasers

Entanglement: 

None

Stressors to 

Physical 

Resources

Air Quality:

Criteria air pollutants

Sediments and Water Quality:

None

Stressors to 

Human 

Resources

Cultural Resources:

None

Socioeconomic Resources: 

Airborne acoustics

Physical disturbance and strike

Public Health and Safety: 

Physical interactions

Military 

Expended 

Material

Ingestible Material:

None

Non-Ingestible Material:

None

Military 

Recoverable 

Material

None

Sonar and 

Other 

Transducer

Bins

None

Explosive

Bins

None

Procedural 

Mitigation

Measures

Physical Disturbance and Strike: (Section 5.3.4)

Vessel movement

Assumptions 

Used for 

Analysis

Lasers used are in-water, low-energy lasers.

For air quality analysis:

- 1 fixed-wing patrol aircraft

- 1 small boat

- Average 8 hours per event
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

A-218

Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions

A.3.1.6.2 Air Platform Shipboard Integration Test

Other Testing Activities

Air Platform Shipboard Integration Test

Short 

Description

Aircraft are tested to determine operability from 

shipboard platforms, performance of shipboard 

physical operations, and to verify and evaluate 

communications and tactical data links.

Typical Duration

2–12 flight hours per event

Long 

Description

The air platform shipboard integration test is performed to evaluate the compatibility of an 

aircraft to operate from designated shipboard platforms, perform shipboard physical 

operations, and to verify and evaluate communications and tactical data links. This test 

function also includes an assessment of carrier-shipboard suitability, such as hazards of 

electromagnetic radiation to ordnance, hazard of electromagnetic radiation to personnel, and 

high energy radio frequency.

Typical 

Components

Platforms: Fixed-wing aircraft, unmanned aerial system, tilt-rotor aircraft

Targets: None

Systems being Trained/Tested: Communications systems

Standard 

Operating 

Procedures

(Section 

2.3.3)

Aircraft safety

Unmanned aerial, 

surface, and 

subsurface vehicle 

safety

Typical Locations

Range Complexes/Testing 

Ranges:

Hawaii Range Complex

Southern California Range 

Complex

Inland Waters/Pierside:

None

Stressors to 

Biological 

Resources

Acoustic:

Aircraft noise

Explosive:

None

Physical Disturbance and Strike: 

Aircraft and aerial target

Ingestion:

None

Energy:

In-air electromagnetic 

devices

Entanglement: 

None

Stressors to 

Physical 

Resources

Air Quality:

Criteria air pollutants

Sediments and Water Quality:

None

Stressors to

Human 

Resources

Cultural Resources:

None

Socioeconomic Resources: 

Accessibility

Airborne acoustics

Physical disturbance and 

strike

Public Health and Safety: 

Physical interactions

Military 

Expended 

Material

Ingestible Material:

None

Non-Ingestible Material:

None

Military 

Recoverable 

Material

None

Sonar and 

Other 

Transducer

Bins

None

Explosive

Bins

None

Procedural 

Mitigation

Measures

Acoustic Stressors: (section 5.3.2)
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

A-219

Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions

Other Testing Activities

Air Platform Shipboard Integration Test

Assumptions 

Used for 

Analysis

For air quality analysis:

- 1 V-22 Osprey aircraft (2 hours)

- 1 fixed-wing patrol aircraft (6 hours)

- 100 percent > 12 miles
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

A-220

Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions

A.3.1.6.3 Kilo Dip

Anti-Submarine Warfare

Kilo dip

Short 

Description

Functional check of a helicopter deployed 

dipping sonar system (e.g., AN/AQS-22) prior to 

conducting a testing or training event using the 

dipping sonar system.

Typical Duration

One and one-half flight hours per event

Long 

Description

A kilo dip is the operational term used to describe a functional check of a helicopter deployed 

dipping sonar system. During a functional check, a single helicopter (e.g., MH-60) would transit 

to an area designated for dipping sonar testing (i.e., a dip point usually close to shore) and 

would deploy the sonar transducer assembly via a reel mechanism to a predetermined depth 

or series of depths while the helicopter hovers over the dip point. Once at the desired depth, 

the sonar transducer would be activated and would briefly transmit a pulsed, acoustic signal 

(i.e., ping) to check that all systems are functioning properly. After the check is completed, the 

sonar transducer assembly would be reeled in, and in some instances the helicopter would 

transit to a second dip point before the procedure is repeated. A kilo dip is a precursor to more 

comprehensive testing.

Typical 

Components

Platforms: Rotary-wing aircraft

Targets: None

Systems being Trained/Tested: Dipping sonar systems

Standard 

Operating 

Procedures

(Section 

2.3.3)

Aircraft safety Typical Locations

Range Complexes/Testing 

Ranges:

Southern California Range 

Complex

Inland Waters/Pierside:

None

Stressors to 

Biological 

Resources

Acoustic:

Sonar and other 

transducers

Aircraft noise

Explosive:

None

Physical Disturbance and Strike: 

Aircraft and aerial target

Ingestion:

None

Energy:

In-air electromagnetic 

devices

Entanglement: 

None

Stressors to 

Physical 

Resources

Air Quality:

Criteria air pollutants

Sediments and Water Quality:

None

Stressors to 

Human 

Resources

Cultural Resources:

None

Socioeconomic Resources: 

Accessibility

Airborne acoustics

Physical disturbance and 

strike

Public Health and Safety: 

Underwater energy

Physical interactions

Military 

Expended 

Material

Ingestible Material:

None

Non-Ingestible Material:

None

Military 

Recoverable 

Material

None

Sonar and 

Other 

Transducer

Bins

Mid-Frequency: 

MF4

Explosive

Bins

None
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

A-221

Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions

Anti-Submarine Warfare

Kilo dip

Procedural 

Mitigation

Measures

Acoustic Stressors: (section 5.3.2)

Active sonar

Assumptions 

Used for 

Analysis

For air quality analysis:

- One rotary-wing aircraft

- Average 0.3 hours per event
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

A-222

Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions

A.3.1.6.4 Shipboard Electronic Systems Evaluation

Other Testing Activities

Shipboard Electronic Systems Evaluation

Short 

Description

Tests measure ship antenna radiation patterns 

and test communication systems with a variety 

of aircraft.

Typical Duration

2–20 flight hours per event

Long 

Description

Shipboard electronic systems evaluation tests measure ship antenna radiation patterns and 

evaluate communication systems linking vessels and aircraft. Aircraft capable of landing on a 

ship (e.g., aircraft carrier or littoral combat ship) temporarily deploy to a nearshore ship and 

conduct a variety of tests over a period of days to test newly installed or modified systems 

onboard the aircraft for compatibility with shipboard electronic systems. Follow-on test and 

evaluation of unmanned aerial systems would consist of dynamic interface testing, shipboard 

electromagnetic testing, and envelope expansion tests intended to evaluate capability of 

aircraft to conduct launch and recovery operations from a ship at sea as well as perform 

missions in a maritime environment. Altitudes would range from mean seal level to 15,000 feet 

(ft.) above mean sea level with the majority of flights occurring between mean sea level and 

3,000 ft. 

Shipboard testing of new technology systems to provide precision guidance to aircraft landing 

on air capable ships. At-sea flight test of the aircraft would consist of shipboard compatibility 

(dynamic interface/envelope expansion) and, during Operational Evaluation, amphibious 

assault scenarios. Shipboard electronic systems evaluation tests of aircraft would also involve 

flight and wind envelope expansion interface testing with Amphibious Assault Ships, 

Amphibious Transport Dock, and Dock Landing Ship class vessels.

Typical 

Components

Platforms: Rotary-wing aircraft, unmanned aerial systems

Targets: None

Systems being Trained/Tested: Communications systems

Standard 

Operating 

Procedures

(Section 

2.3.3)

Aircraft safety

Unmanned aerial, 

surface, and 

subsurface vehicle 

safety

Typical Locations

Range Complexes/Testing 

Ranges:

Southern California Range 

Complex

Inland Waters/Pierside:

None

Stressors to 

Biological 

Resources

Acoustic:

Aircraft noise

Explosive:

None

Physical Disturbance and Strike: 

Aircraft and aerial target

Ingestion:

None

Energy:

In-air electromagnetic 

devices

Entanglement: 

None

Stressors to 

Physical 

Resources

Air Quality:

Criteria air pollutants

Sediments and Water Quality:

None

Stressors to 

Human 

Resources

Cultural Resources:

None

Socioeconomic Resources: 

Airborne acoustics

Physical disturbance and 

strike

Public Health and Safety: 

Physical interactions

Military 

Expended 

Material

Ingestible Material:

None

Non-Ingestible Material:

None 

Military 

Recoverable 

Material

None
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

A-223

Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions

Other Testing Activities

Shipboard Electronic Systems Evaluation

Sonar and 

Other 

Transducer

Bins

None

Explosive

Bins

None

Procedural 

Mitigation

Measures

None

Assumptions 

Used for 

Analysis

For air quality analysis:

- 1 rotary-wing aircraft

- 100 percent > 12 miles

- Average 6 hours per event
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

A-224

Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions

A.3.1.6.5 Undersea Range System Test

Other Testing Activities

Undersea Range System Test

Short 

Description

Following installation of a Navy underwater 

warfare training and testing range, tests of the 

nodes (components of the range) will be 

conducted to include node surveys and testing 

of node transmission functionality.

Typical Duration

Node survey—varies, Node transmissions 8 

hours/day for 1 day

Long 

Description

The bottom mounted nodes are surveyed post installation utilizing a range pinger and the bidirectional nodes are tested post installation to establish system parameters and baseline 

hearing range as each projector is activated at full power while listening on adjacent 

hydrophones. The nodes may also be activated during periodic Operational and Maintenance 

checks and also following a significant weather event where the node locations and range 

functionality would be verified.

Typical 

Components

Platforms: Surface Vessel for Survey

Targets: None

Systems being Trained/Tested: Range Pinger (de minimus), low frequency and high frequency

Bi-directional Nodes

Standard 

Operating 

Procedures

(Section 

2.3.3)

Vessel safety Typical Locations

Range Complexes/Testing 

Ranges:

Hawaii Range Complex (Barking 

Sands Tactical Underwater 

Range)

Inland Waters/Pierside:

None

Stressors to 

Biological 

Resources

Acoustic:

Sonar and other 

transducers

Vessel noise

Explosive:

None

Physical Disturbance and Strike: 

Vessels and in-water devices

Seafloor devices

Ingestion:

None

Energy:

None

Entanglement: 

None

Stressors to 

Physical 

Resources

Air Quality:

None

Sediments and Water Quality:

None

Stressors to 

Human 

Resources

Cultural Resources:

None

Socioeconomic Resources:

None

Public Health and Safety:

None

Military 

Expended 

Material

Ingestible Material:

None

Non-Ingestible Material:

None 

Military 

Recoverable 

Material

None

Sonar and 

Other 

Transducer

Bins

Mid-Frequency: 

MF9

Broadband: 

BB4

Explosive

Bins

None

Procedural 

Mitigation

Measures

Acoustic Stressors: (section 5.3.2)

Active sonar
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

A-225

Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions

Other Testing Activities

Undersea Range System Test

Assumptions 

Used for 

Analysis

None
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

A-226

Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions

NAVAL SEA SYSTEMS COMMAND TESTING ACTIVITIES

Anti-Submarine Warfare

A.3.2.1.1 Anti-Submarine Warfare Mission Package Testing 

Anti-Submarine Warfare

Anti-Submarine Warfare Mission Package Testing

Short 

Description Ships and their supporting platforms (rotarywing aircraft and unmanned aerial systems) 

detect, localize, and prosecute submarines.

Typical Duration

1–2 weeks, with 4–8 hours of active sonar 

use with intervals of non-activity in 

between.

Long 

Description

Littoral combat ships conduct detect-to-engage operations against modern diesel-electric and 

nuclear submarines using airborne and surface assets (both manned and unmanned). Active 

and passive acoustic systems are used to detect and track submarine targets, culminating in 

the deployment of lightweight torpedoes to engage the threat.

Typical 

Components

Platforms: Rotary-wing aircraft, surface combatant

Targets: Sub-surface targets

Systems being Trained/Tested: Acoustic countermeasures, anti-submarine sonar, helicopterdeployed sonar, mid-frequency sonar, sonobuoys, torpedo sonar

Standard 

Operating 

Procedures

(Section 

2.3.3)

Vessel safety

Aircraft safety

Towed in-water device 

safety

Unmanned aerial, 

surface, and 

subsurface vehicle 

safety

Typical Locations

Range Complexes/Testing 

Ranges:

Hawaii Range Complex

Southern California Range 

Complex

Inland Waters/Pierside:

None

Stressors to 

Biological 

Resources

Acoustic:

Sonar and other 

transducers

Aircraft noise

Vessel noise

Explosive:

None

Physical Disturbance and Strike: 

Aircraft and aerial targets

Vessels and in-water devices

Military expended materials

Ingestion:

Military expended materials – other 

than munitions

Energy:

In-air electromagnetic 

devices

Entanglement: 

Wires and cables

Decelerators/parachutes

Stressors to 

Physical 

Resources

Air Quality:

Criteria air pollutants

Sediments and Water Quality:

Metals

Other materials

Stressors to 

Human 

Resources

Cultural Resources: 

Physical disturbance and 

strike

Socioeconomic Resources: 

Accessibility

Airborne acoustics

Physical disturbance and strike

Public Health and Safety: 

Underwater energy

In-air energy

Physical interactions

Military 

Expended 

Material

Ingestible Material:

Small and medium 

decelerators/parachutes

Non-Ingestible Material:

Acoustic countermeasures, sonobuoys

(non-explosive), sonobuoy wires

expendable anti-submarine warfare 

(ASW) training targets, 

bathythermographs and wires,

lightweight torpedo accessories

Military 

Recoverable 

Material

Lightweight torpedoes (nonexplosive), recoverable ASW 

Training Targets
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

A-227

Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions

Anti-Submarine Warfare

Anti-Submarine Warfare Mission Package Testing

Sonar and 

Other 

Transducer

Bins

Mid-Frequency: 

MF1 MF4

MF5 MF12

Anti-Submarine Warfare: 

ASW1 ASW2

ASW3 ASW5

Torpedoes: 

TORP1

Explosive

Bins

None

Procedural 

Mitigation

Measures

Acoustic Stressors: (section 5.3.2)

Active sonar

Physical Disturbance and Strike: (section 

5.3.4)

Vessel movement

Towed in-water devices

Assumptions 

Used for 

Analysis

For air quality analysis:

- 1 rotary-wing aircraft (SH-60)

- 100 percent <3,000 feet, 76 percent >12 miles (mi.), 24 percent 3-12 mi., 0 percent

<3 mi.

- Average 3.6 hours per event
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

A-228

Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions

A.3.2.1.2 At-Sea Sonar Testing

Anti-Submarine Warfare

At-Sea Sonar Testing

Short 

Description

At-sea testing to ensure systems are fully 

functional in an open ocean environment.

Typical Duration

From 4 hours to 11 days

Long 

Description

At-sea sonar testing is required to calibrate or document the functionality of sonar and torpedo 

systems while the ship or submarine is in an open ocean environment. At-sea sonar testing is 

conducted to verify the ship meets design acoustic specifications, define the underwater 

characteristics of the ship, determine effects of systems and equipment on ship’s acoustic 

characteristics, and provide technical background necessary to initiate development of design 

improvements to reduce noise. Tests also consist of electronic support measurement, 

photonics, and sonar sensor accuracy testing. In some instances, a submarine's passive 

detection capability is tested when a second submarine utilizes its active sonar or is equipped 

with a noise augmentation system in order to replicate acoustic or electromagnetic signatures 

of other vessel types or classes.

Typical 

Components

Platforms: Amphibious warfare ship, fixed-wing patrol aircraft, rotary-wing aircraft,

submarines, support craft, surface combatant

Targets: Sub-surface targets, surface targets

Systems being Trained/Tested: Acoustic countermeasures, acoustic modem, electromagnetic 

devices, high-frequency sonar, low-frequency sonar, mid-frequency sonar, sonobuoys,

underwater communications

Standard 

Operating 

Procedures

(Section 

2.3.3)

Vessel safety

Aircraft safety

Towed in-water device 

safety

Typical Locations

Range Complexes/Testing 

Ranges:

Hawaii Range Complex 

Southern California Range 

Complex

Inland Waters/Pierside:

None

Stressors to 

Biological 

Resources

Acoustic:

Sonar and other 

transducers

Aircraft noise

Vessel noise

Explosive:

None

Physical Disturbance and Strike: 

Aircraft and aerial targets

Vessels and in-water devices

Military expended materials

Ingestion:

Military expended materials – other 

than munitions

Energy:

In-water electromagnetic 

devices

In-air electromagnetic 

devices

Entanglement: 

Wires and cables

Decelerators/parachutes

Stressors to 

Physical 

Resources

Air Quality:

Criteria air pollutants

Sediments and Water Quality:

Metals

Other materials

Stressors to 

Human 

Resources

Cultural Resources:

None

Socioeconomic Resources: 

Accessibility

Physical disturbance and 

strike

Public Health and Safety: 

Underwater energy

In-air energy

Physical interactions

Military 

Expended 

Material

Ingestible Material:

Small decelerators/parachutes

Non-Ingestible Material:

Acoustic countermeasures, 

bathythermographs and wires,

lightweight torpedo accessories,

sonobuoys (non-explosive), 

sonobuoy wires

Military 

Recoverable 

Material

Electromagnetic devices, lightweight 

torpedo (non-explosive), recovered 

mobile sub-surface target
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

A-229

Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions

Anti-Submarine Warfare

At-Sea Sonar Testing

Sonar and 

Other 

Transducer

Bins

Mid-Frequency: 

MF1 MF1K

MF2 MF3

MF5 MF9

MF10 MF11

Low-Frequency: 

LF4 LF5

High-Frequency: 

HF1

Anti-Submarine Warfare: 

ASW3 ASW4

Acoustic Modems: 

M3

Explosive

Bins

None

Procedural 

Mitigation

Measures

Acoustic Stressors: (section 5.3.2)

Active sonar

Physical Disturbance and Strike: (section 

5.3.4)

Vessel movement

Towed in-water devices

Assumptions 

Used for 

Analysis

All torpedoes are exercise torpedoes and do not use sonar or other acoustic sources.

Active sonar is intermittent throughout the duration of this event.

For air quality analysis:

- 1 rotary-wing aircraft (SH-60)

- 1 fixed-wing patrol aircraft (P-8A)

- All activity conducted >12 miles from shore

- Average 10 hours per event
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

A-230

Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions

A.3.2.1.3 Countermeasure Testing

Anti-Submarine Warfare

Countermeasure Testing

Short 

Description

Countermeasure testing involves the testing of 

systems that will detect, localize, and track

incoming weapons, including marine vessel 

targets. Testing includes surface ship torpedo 

defense systems and marine vessel stopping 

payloads.

Typical Duration

From 4 hours to 6 days, depending on the 

countermeasure being tested

Long 

Description

Countermeasure testing involves the testing of systems that will detect, localize, and track 

incoming weapons, including marine vessel targets. At-sea testing of the Surface Ship Torpedo 

Defense systems includes towed acoustic systems, torpedo warning systems, and 

countermeasure anti-torpedo subsystems. Some countermeasure scenarios would employ 

non-explosive torpedoes against targets released by secondary platforms (helicopter or 

submarine). While surface vessels are in transit, countermeasure systems may be used to 

identify false alert rates. Testing of the Maritime Vessel Stopping payloads will deliver the 

appropriate measure(s) to affect a target vessel’s propulsion and associated control surfaces to 

significantly slow and potentially stop the advance of the vessel.

Typical 

Components

Platforms: Aircraft carrier, navy ships and boats, support craft, surface combatant

Targets: Sub-surface targets, surface targets

Systems being Trained/Tested: Acoustic countermeasures, high-frequency sonar, torpedo 

sonar

Standard 

Operating 

Procedures

(Section 

2.3.3)

Vessel safety

Towed in-water device 

safety

Typical Locations

Range Complexes/Testing 

Ranges:

Hawaii Range Complex

Southern California Range 

Complex 

Hawaii-Southern California Transit 

Corridor

Inland Waters/Pierside:

None

Stressors to 

Biological 

Resources

Acoustic:

Sonar and other 

transducers

Vessel noise

Explosive:

None

Physical Disturbance and Strike: 

Vessels and in-water devices

Military expended materials

Ingestion:

Military expended materials – other 

than munitions

Energy:

In-air electromagnetic 

devices

Entanglement: 

Wires and cables

Decelerators/parachutes

Biodegradable Polymer

Stressors to 

Physical 

Resources

Air Quality:

Criteria air pollutants

Sediments and Water Quality:

Metals Other Materials

Chemicals

Stressors to 

Human 

Resources

Cultural Resources: 

Physical disturbance and 

strike

Socioeconomic Resources: 

Accessibility

Physical disturbance and strike

Public Health and Safety: 

Underwater energy

In-air energy

Physical interactions
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

A-231

Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions

Anti-Submarine Warfare

Countermeasure Testing

Military 

Expended 

Material

Ingestible Material:

Biodegradable polymer, small 

decelerators/parachutes

Non-Ingestible Material:

Acoustic countermeasures, motorized 

autonomous targets, heavyweight 

torpedo accessories, guidance wire,

lightweight torpedo accessories,

motorized autonomous target,

sonobuoys (non-explosive), 

sonobuoy wires

Military 

Recoverable 

Material

Heavyweight torpedo (nonexplosive), lightweight torpedo 

(non-explosive), recovered mobile 

sub-surface target

Sonar and 

Other 

Transducer

Bins

High-Frequency: 

HF5

Anti-Submarine Warfare: 

ASW3 ASW4

Torpedoes: 

TORP1 TORP2

Explosive

Bins

None

Procedural 

Mitigation

Measures

Acoustic Stressors: (section 5.3.2)

Active sonar

Physical Disturbance and Strike: (section

5.3.4)

Vessel movement

Towed in-water devices

Assumptions 

Used for 

Analysis

Not all events will include the use of acoustics.

For air quality analysis:

- 2 support craft for 12 hours each, for 32 of the 35 annual activities, no support craft in 

Transit Corridor
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

A-232

Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions

A.3.2.1.4 Pierside Sonar Testing

Anti-Submarine Warfare

Pierside Sonar Testing

Short 

Description Pierside testing to ensure systems are fully 

functional in a controlled pierside environment 

prior to at-sea test activities.

Typical Duration

Up to three weeks total per ship, with each 

source run independently and not 

continuously during this time

Long 

Description

Ships and submarines would activate mid- and high-frequency tactical sonars, underwater 

communications systems, and navigational devices to ensure they are fully functional prior to 

at-sea test events. Testing may also include the firing of inert torpedo shapes.

Event duration varies; with average durations of three weeks with active sonar used 

intermittently over two days during the total event duration. This also includes pierside sonar 

testing during surface combatant sea trials.

Typical 

Components

Platforms: Moored platform, submarines, surface combatant

Targets: None

Systems being Trained/Tested: Acoustic modem, high-frequency sonar, mid-frequency sonar,

underwater communication

Standard 

Operating 

Procedures

(Section 

2.3.3)

Pierside testing safety Typical Locations

Range Complexes/Testing 

Ranges:

None

Inland Waters/Pierside:

Pierside at Pearl Harbor, 

Hawaii; San Diego, California

Stressors to 

Biological 

Resources

Acoustic:

Sonar and other 

transducers

Vessel noise

Explosive:

None

Physical Disturbance and Strike:

Vessels and in-water devices

Ingestion:

None

Energy:

None

Entanglement: 

None

Stressors to 

Physical 

Resources

Air Quality:

None

Sediments and Water Quality:

None

Stressors to 

Human 

Resources

Cultural Resources:

None

Socioeconomic Resources:

None

Public Health and Safety: 

Underwater energy

Military 

Expended 

Material

Ingestible Material:

None

Non-Ingestible Material:

None 

Military 

Recoverable 

Material

None

Sonar and 

Other 

Transducer

Bins

Mid-Frequency: 

MF1 MF3

MF9

High-Frequency: 

HF1 HF3

HF8

Acoustic Modems: 

M3

Explosive

Bins

None

Procedural 

Mitigation

Measures

Acoustic Stressors: (section 5.3.2)

Active sonar

Assumptions 

Used for 

Analysis

Event duration is three weeks with active sonar used intermittently.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

A-233

Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions

A.3.2.1.5 Submarine Sonar Testing/Maintenance 

Anti-Submarine Warfare

Submarine Sonar Testing/Maintenance

Short 

Description

Pierside and at-sea testing of submarine systems 

occurs periodically following major maintenance 

periods and for routine maintenance.

Typical Duration

Up to three weeks, with intermittent use 

of active sonar

Long 

Description

Following major and routine maintenance periods, pierside and at-sea testing and maintenance 

is required. Multiple systems with active and passive acoustic sources such as navigation 

systems, fathometers, underwater communications systems, underwater distress beacons, 

range finders, and other similar systems, will be tested.

Typical 

Components

Platforms: Submarines

Targets: None

Systems being Trained/Tested: Acoustic modem, high-frequency sonar, mid-frequency sonar

Standard 

Operating 

Procedures

(Section 

2.3.3)

Typical Locations

Range Complexes/Testing 

Ranges:

Hawaii Range Complex

Inland Waters/Pierside:

Pierside at Pearl Harbor, 

Hawaii; San Diego, California

Stressors to 

Biological 

Resources

Acoustic:

Sonar and other 

transducers

Explosive:

None

Physical Disturbance and Strike:

None

Ingestion:

None

Energy:

None

Entanglement: 

None

Stressors to 

Physical 

Resources

Air Quality:

None

Sediments and Water Quality:

None

Stressors to 

Human 

Resources

Cultural Resources:

None

Socioeconomic Resources: 

Physical disturbance and 

strike

Public Health and Safety: 

Underwater energy

Physical interactions

Military 

Expended 

Material

Ingestible Material:

None

Non-Ingestible Material:

None 

Military 

Recoverable 

Material

None

Sonar and 

Other 

Transducer

Bins

Mid-Frequency: 

MF3

High-Frequency: 

HF1 HF3

Acoustic Modems: 

M3

Explosive

Bins

None

Procedural 

Mitigation

Measures

Acoustic Stressors: (section 5.3.2)

Active sonar

Physical Disturbance and Strike: (section 

5.3.4)

Vessel movement

Assumptions 

Used for 

Analysis

Sonar would not be used continuously throughout duration of test. For biological resource 

analysis, vessel noise and vessel strike are only analyzed for the periods while the 

submarines are surfaced, typically brief in nature. Mitigation measures related to vessel 

movement are only considered during the period of surfacing as well. 

For human resource stressor analysis, physical disturbance and strike and physical interactions 

are only analyzed for the periods while the submarine are surfaced, typically brief in nature.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

A-234

Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions

A.3.2.1.6 Surface Ship Sonar Testing/Maintenance 

Anti-Submarine Warfare

Surface Ship Sonar Testing/Maintenance

Short 

Description

Pierside and at-sea testing of ship systems 

occurs periodically following major maintenance 

periods and for routine maintenance.

Typical Duration

Up to three weeks, with intermittent use 

of active sonar

Long 

Description

Following major and routine maintenance periods, pierside and at-sea testing and 

maintenance is required. Multiple systems with active and passive acoustic sources such as 

tactical sonar, navigation systems, fathometers, underwater communications systems, 

underwater distress beacons, range finders, and other similar systems will be tested.

Typical 

Components

Platforms: Surface combatant

Targets: None

Systems being Trained/Tested: Acoustic countermeasures, mid-frequency sonar, underwater 

communications

Standard 

Operating 

Procedures

(Section 

2.3.3)

Vessel safety Typical Locations

Range Complexes/Testing 

Ranges:

Hawaii Range Complex,

Southern California Range 

Complex

Inland Waters/Pierside:

Pierside at Pearl Harbor, 

Hawaii; San Diego, California

Stressors to 

Biological 

Resources

Acoustic:

Sonar and other 

transducers

Vessel noise

Explosive:

None

Physical Disturbance and Strike: 

Vessels and in-water devices

Ingestion:

None

Energy:

In-air electromagnetic 

devices

Entanglement: 

None

Stressors to 

Physical 

Resources

Air Quality:

Criteria air pollutants

Sediments and Water Quality:

None

Stressors to 

Human 

Resources

Cultural Resources:

Physical disturbance and 

strike

Socioeconomic Resources: 

Accessibility

Physical disturbance and strike

Public Health and Safety: 

Underwater energy

In-air energy

Physical interactions

Military 

Expended 

Material

Ingestible Material:

None

Non-Ingestible Material:

None

Military 

Recoverable 

Material

None

Sonar and 

Other 

Transducer

Bins

Mid-Frequency: 

MF1 MF9

MF1K MF10

Anti-Submarine Warfare: 

ASW3

Explosive

Bins

None

Procedural 

Mitigation

Measures

Acoustic Stressors: (section 5.3.2)

Active sonar

Physical Disturbance and Strike: (section 

5.3.4)

Vessel movement

Assumptions 

Used for 

Analysis

Sonar will not be continuously active for the duration of the test
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

A-235

Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions

A.3.2.1.7 Torpedo (Explosive) Testing

Anti-Submarine Warfare

Torpedo (Explosive) Testing

Short 

Description

Air, surface, or submarine crews employ

explosive and non-explosive torpedoes against

artificial targets.

Typical Duration

1–2 days during daylight hours

Long 

Description

Non-explosive and explosive torpedoes (carrying a warhead) will be launched at a suspended 

target by a submarine and fixed- or rotary-winged aircraft or surface combatants. Event 

duration is one to two days during daylight hours.

Typical 

Components

Platforms: Aircraft carrier, fixed-wing aircraft, moored platform, rotary-wing aircraft,

submarines, support craft, surface combatant

Targets: Sub-surface targets, surface targets

Systems being Trained/Tested: Acoustic countermeasures, helicopter deployed sonar, highfrequency sonar, mid-frequency sonar, sonobuoys, torpedo sonar

Standard 

Operating 

Procedures

(Section 

2.3.3)

Vessel safety

Aircraft safety

Weapons firing safety

Typical Locations

Range Complexes/Testing 

Ranges:

Hawaii Range Complex 

Southern California Range 

Complex

Inland Waters/Pierside:

None

Stressors to 

Biological 

Resources

Acoustic:

Sonar and other 

transducers

Aircraft noise

Vessel noise

Explosive:

Explosions in water

Physical Disturbance and Strike: 

Aircraft and aerial targets

Vessels and in-water devices

Military expended materials

Ingestion:

Military expended materials –

munitions

Military expended materials – other 

than munitions

Energy:

In-air electromagnetic 

devices

Entanglement: 

Wires and cables

Decelerators/parachutes

Stressors to 

Physical 

Resources

Air Quality:

Criteria air pollutants

Sediments and Water Quality:

Explosives Chemicals

Metals Other materials

Stressors to 

Human 

Resources

Cultural Resources: 

Explosives

Physical disturbance and 

strike

Socioeconomic Resources: 

Accessibility

Airborne acoustics

Physical disturbance and strike

Public Health and Safety: 

Underwater energy

Physical interactions
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

A-236

Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions

Anti-Submarine Warfare

Torpedo (Explosive) Testing

Military 

Expended 

Material

Ingestible Material:

Small decelerators/parachutes, 

parachutes – medium, target 

fragments, heavyweight and 

lightweight torpedo (explosive)

fragments

Non-Ingestible Material:

Sonobuoys, sonobuoy wires, buoy 

(non-explosive), guidance wires, 

bathythermographs and wires, 

heavyweight and lightweight 

torpedo accessories, expendable 

surface target, expendable ASW 

training target, stationary artificial 

target, canister

Military 

Recoverable 

Material

Heavyweight torpedoes (nonexplosive), lightweight torpedoes 

(non-explosive), recovered mobile 

sub-surface target, recovered 

stationary sub-surface target, 

recovered stationary surface 

target

Sonar and 

Other 

Transducer

Bins

Mid-Frequency: 

MF1 MF5

MF3 MF6

MF4

High-Frequency: 

HF1 HF6

HF5

Anti-Submarine Warfare: 

ASW3

Torpedoes: 

TORP1 TORP2

Explosive

Bins

E8 E11

Procedural 

Mitigation

Measures

Acoustic Stressors: (section 5.3.2)

Active sonar

Physical Disturbance and Strike: (section 

5.3.4)

Vessel movement

Explosive Stressors: (section 5.3.3)

Torpedo (Explosive) Testing

Assumptions 

Used for 

Analysis

Only one heavyweight torpedo test could occur in 1 day; two heavyweight torpedo tests could 

occur on consecutive days. Two lightweight torpedo tests could occur in a single day.

All non-explosive torpedoes are recovered.

For air quality analysis:

- 1 rotary-wing (SH-60) aircraft (8 hours)

- 1 fixed-wing patrol (P-8A) aircraft (8 hours)

- 100 percent < 3,000 feet, >12 miles

- 6 support craft (12 hours)
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

A-237

Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions

A.3.2.1.8 Torpedo (Non-Explosive) Testing 

Anti-Submarine Warfare

Torpedo (Non- Explosive) Testing

Short 

Description

Air, surface, or submarine crews employ nonexplosive torpedoes against submarines or 

surface vessels.

Typical Duration

Up to two weeks

Long 

Description

Aerial, surface, and subsurface assets fire exercise torpedoes against surface or subsurface 

targets or at no target and programmed with a particular run geometry. Torpedo testing 

evaluates the performance and the effectiveness of hardware and software upgrades of 

heavyweight or lightweight torpedoes. It also includes testing of experimental torpedoes. Not all 

torpedo tests involve acoustics. Exercise torpedoes are recovered, typically from surface ships 

and helicopters that are specifically crewed and outfitted for torpedo recovery. Event duration is 

dependent on number of torpedoes fired.

Typical 

Components

Platforms: Fixed-wing patrol aircraft, moored platform, rotary-wing aircraft, submarines,

support craft, surface combatant

Targets: Sub-surface Targets, Surface Targets

Systems being Trained/Tested: Acoustic countermeasures, acoustic modem, helicopterdeployed sonar, high-frequency sonar, mid-frequency sonar, sonobuoys, torpedo sonar

Standard 

Operating 

Procedures

(Section 

2.3.3)

Vessel safety

Aircraft safety

Weapons firing safety

Typical Locations

Range Complexes/Testing Ranges:

Hawaii Range Complex 

Southern California Range Complex

Inland Waters/Pierside:

None

Stressors to 

Biological 

Resources

Acoustic:

Sonar and other 

transducers

Aircraft noise

Vessel noise

Explosive:

None

Physical Disturbance and Strike: 

Aircraft and aerial targets

Vessels and in-water devices

Military expended materials

Ingestion:

Military expended materials – other 

than munitions

Energy:

In-air electromagnetic 

devices

Entanglement: 

Wires and cables

Decelerators/parachutes

Stressors to 

Physical 

Resources

Air Quality:

Criteria air pollutants

Sediments and Water Quality:

Explosives Chemicals

Metals Other materials

Stressors to 

Human 

Resources

Cultural Resources: 

Physical disturbance and 

strike

Socioeconomic Resources: 

Accessibility

Airborne acoustics

Physical disturbance and strike

Public Health and Safety: 

Underwater energy

In-air energy

Physical interactions

Military 

Expended 

Material

Ingestible Material:

Small and medium 

decelerators/parachutes, 

Non-Ingestible Material:

Acoustic countermeasures, buoy (nonexplosive), bathythermograph and

wires, heavyweight and lightweight

torpedo accessories, guidance wires, 

sonobuoys (non-explosive), 

sonobuoy wires, canister, motorized 

autonomous target, stationary 

artificial target

Military 

Recoverable 

Material

Lightweight (non-explosive) 

torpedoes, heavyweight (nonexplosive) torpedoes, recoverable 

acoustic countermeasures, 

recovered mobile sub-surface 

target, recovered stationary subsurface target
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

A-238

Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions

Anti-Submarine Warfare

Torpedo (Non- Explosive) Testing

Sonar and 

Other 

Transducer

Bins

Mid-Frequency: 

MF1 MF5

MF3 MF6

MF4

High-Frequency: 

HF1 HF6

Anti-Submarine Warfare: 

ASW3 ASW4

Torpedoes: 

TORP1 TORP2

TORP3

Acoustic Modems: 

M3

Explosive

Bins

None

Procedural 

Mitigation

Measures

Acoustic Stressors: (section 5.3.2)

Active sonar

Physical Disturbance and Strike: (section 

5.3.4)

Vessel movement

Assumptions 

Used for 

Analysis

All torpedoes are recovered.

Events can last up to two weeks and use up to 40 torpedoes. Typically, no more than eight 

torpedoes are fired per day during daylight hours.

For air quality analysis:

- One rotary-wing (SH-60) aircraft (8 hours)

- One fixed-wing patrol (P-8A) aircraft (8 hours)

- 100 percent < 3,000 feet, >12 miles

- Six support craft (8 hours)
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

A-239

Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions

Electronic Warfare

A.3.2.2.1 Radar and Other System Testing

Electronic Warfare

Radar and Other System Testing

Short 

Description

Test may include radiation of military or 

commercial radar, communication systems (or 

simulators), or high energy lasers. Testing may 

occur aboard a ship against drones, small boats, 

rockets, missiles, or other targets.

Typical Duration

12 hours per day over a 7-day period

Long 

Description

At-sea and docked testing may include radiation of military or commercial radar, 

communication systems (or simulators), or high energy lasers. No subsurface transmission will 

occur during this testing. Testing of various air and surface targets may include unmanned 

aerial systems, missiles, or small craft (floating cardboard triwalls, towed, anchored, or selfpropelled vessels). High energy laser testing may include tracking, scoring, and neutralization 

runs with single or multiple targets.

Typical 

Components

Platforms: Combat logistics ship, rotary-wing aircraft, small boat, submarines, surface 

combatant, tilt-rotor

Targets: Air targets, surface targets

Systems being Trained/Tested: Radar, high energy lasers

Standard 

Operating 

Procedures

(Section 

2.3.3)

Vessel safety

Aircraft safety

High-powered laser 

safety

Towed in-water device 

safety

Unmanned aerial, 

surface, and 

subsurface vehicle 

safety

Typical Locations

Range Complexes/Testing 

Ranges:

Hawaii Range Complex

Southern California Range 

Complex

Inland Waters/Pierside:

Pearl Harbor, Hawaii 

San Diego, California

Stressors to 

Biological 

Resources

Acoustic:

Aircraft noise

Vessel noise

Explosive:

None

Physical Disturbance and Strike: 

Aircraft and aerial targets

Vessels and in-water devices

Military expended materials

Ingestion:

Military expended materials –

munitions

Military expended materials – other 

than munitions

Energy:

In-air electromagnetic 

devices

In-water electromagnetic 

devices

Lasers

Entanglement: 

None

Stressors to 

Physical 

Resources

Air Quality:

Criteria air pollutants

Sediments and Water Quality:

Metals Other materials

Stressors to 

Human 

Resources

Cultural Resources:

Physical disturbance and 

strike

Socioeconomic Resources: 

Accessibility

Airborne acoustics

Physical disturbance and 

strike

Public Health and Safety: 

In-air energy

Physical interactions
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

A-240

Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions

Electronic Warfare

Radar and Other System Testing

Military 

Expended 

Material

Ingestible Material:

Per chaff: one chaff plastic endcap, 

one compression pad; OR one 

plastic piston, one plastic endcap;

missile fragments, target fragments

Non-Ingestible Material:

Non-explosive missiles, kinetic energy 

projectiles, sabot – kinetic energy 

round, expendable aerial drones, 

expendable surface targets, canister

Military 

Recoverable 

Material

Recoverable towed surface targets, 

recoverable stationary surface 

target, recoverable aerial drones

Sonar and 

Other 

Transducer

Bins

None

Explosive

Bins

None

Procedural 

Mitigation

Measures

Acoustic Stressors: (section 5.3.2)

Physical Disturbance and Strike: (section 

5.3.4)

Vessel movement

Non-explosive missiles and rockets

Explosive Stressors: (section 5.3.3)

Explosive missiles and rockets

Assumptions 

Used for 

Analysis

All explosive missiles detonate in air during this test event.

HE lasers will not be tested pierside.

Any sources used during this activity would be de minimis and not quantitatively analyzed and 

therefore are not included under munitions.

For air quality analysis:

- 3 contract jet aircraft

- 1 rotary-wing aircraft (SH-60)

- 1 fixed-wing strike aircraft (F/A-18E)

- 100 percent >12 miles

- Average 12 hours per event
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

A-241

Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions

Mine Warfare 

A.3.2.3.1 Mine Countermeasure and Neutralization Testing

Mine Warfare

Mine Countermeasure and Neutralization Testing

Short 

Description Air, surface, and subsurface vessels neutralize 

threat mines and mine-like objects.

Typical Duration

1–10 days, with intermittent use of 

countermeasure/neutralization systems 

during this period

Long 

Description

Mine countermeasure-neutralization and mine system testing is required to ensure systems 

can effectively neutralize threat (live or inert) mines that will otherwise restrict passage 

through an area and to ensure U.S. Navy mines remain effective against enemy ships. These 

systems may be deployed with a variety of ships, aircraft, submarines, or unmanned 

autonomous vehicles and operate in water depths up to 6,000 feet. Mines are neutralized by 

cutting mooring cables of buoyant mines, producing acoustic energy that fires acousticinfluence mines, employing radar or laser fields, producing electrical energy to replicate the 

magnetic signatures of surface ships in order to detonate threat mines, detonation of mines 

using remotely-operated vehicles, and using explosive charges to destroy threat mines.

Typical 

Components

Platforms: Combat logistics ship, moored platform, rotary-wing aircraft, support craft, surface 

combatant, unmanned underwater vehicle

Targets: Sub-surface targets

Systems being Trained/Tested: Electromagnetic devices, high-frequency sonar, radar, low 

energy lasers

Standard 

Operating 

Procedures

(Section 

2.3.3)

Vessel safety

Aircraft safety

High-powered laser 

safety

Unmanned aerial, 

surface, and 

subsurface vehicle 

safety

Towed in-water device 

safety

Typical Locations

Range Complexes/Testing 

Ranges:

Southern California Range 

Complex

Inland Waters/Pierside:

None

Stressors to 

Biological 

Resources

Acoustic:

Sonar and other 

transducers

Aircraft noise

Vessel noise

Explosive:

Explosions in water

Physical Disturbance and Strike: 

Aircraft and aerial targets

Vessels and in-water devices

Military expended materials

Seafloor devices

Ingestion:

Military expended materials –

munitions

Energy:

In-water electromagnetic 

devices

In-air electromagnetic 

devices

Lasers

Entanglement: 

Wires and cables

Stressors to 

Physical 

Resources

Air Quality:

Criteria air pollutants

Sediments and Water Quality:

Explosives Other materials

Metals

Stressors to 

Human 

Resources

Cultural Resources: 

Explosives

Socioeconomic Resources: 

Accessibility

Airborne acoustics

Physical disturbance and strike

Public Health and Safety: 

Underwater energy

In-air energy

Physical interactions
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

A-242

Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions

Mine Warfare

Mine Countermeasure and Neutralization Testing

Military 

Expended 

Material

Ingestible Material:

Airborne Mine Neutralization System 

neutralizer fragments

Non-Ingestible Material:

Fiber optic cable, mine shapes (nonexplosive), airborne targets

Military 

Recoverable 

Material

Mine shapes (non-explosive)

Sonar and 

Other 

Transducer

Bins

High-Frequency: 

HF4

Explosive

Bins

E4

Procedural 

Mitigation

Measures

Acoustic Stressors: (section 5.3.2)

Active sonar

Physical Disturbance and Strike: (section 

5.3.4)

Vessel movement

Towed in-water devices

Explosive Stressors: (Section 5.3.3) 

Explosive mine countermeasure and 

neutralization activities

Assumptions 

Used for 

Analysis

For air quality analysis:

- 2 rotary-wing aircraft (SH-60)

- 2 support craft

- 50 percent within 3 miles (mi.), 30 percent 3-12 mi., 20 percent outside 12 mi.

- Average 8 hours per event
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

A-243

Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions

A.3.2.3.2 Mine Countermeasure Mission Package Testing 

Mine Warfare

Mine Countermeasure Mission Package Testing

Short 

Description Vessels and associated aircraft conduct mine 

countermeasure operations.

Typical Duration

1–2 weeks with intervals of mine 

countermeasure mission package use 

during this time

Long 

Description

Littoral Combat Ships conduct mine detection using unmanned submersible and aerial vehicles, 

magnetic and acoustic sensor systems deployed by vessel or support helicopters, and laser 

systems. Mines are then neutralized using magnetic, acoustic, and supercavitating systems.

Typical 

Components

Platforms: Rotary-wing aircraft, surface combatant, unmanned aerial system, unmanned 

underwater vehicle

Targets: Sub-surface targets

Systems being Trained/Tested: High-frequency sonar, towed sonar systems

Standard 

Operating 

Procedures

(Section 

2.3.3)

Vessel safety

Aircraft safety

Unmanned aerial, 

surface, and 

subsurface vehicle 

safety

Towed in-water device 

safety

Typical Locations

Range Complexes/Testing 

Ranges:

Hawaii Range Complex 

Southern California Range 

Complex

Inland Waters/Pierside:

None

Stressors to 

Biological 

Resources

Acoustic:

Sonar and other 

transducers

Aircraft noise

Vessel noise

Explosive:

Explosions in water

Physical Disturbance and Strike: 

Aircraft and aerial targets

Vessels and in-water devices

Military expended materials

Seafloor devices

Ingestion:

Military expended materials –

munitions

Energy:

In-air electromagnetic 

devices

Entanglement: 

Wires and cables

Stressors to 

Physical 

Resources

Air Quality:

Criteria air pollutants

Sediments and Water Quality:

Explosives

Metals

Stressors to 

Human 

Resources

Cultural Resources:

None

Socioeconomic Resources: 

Accessibility

Airborne acoustics

Physical disturbance and 

strike

Public Health and Safety: 

Underwater energy

In-air energy

Physical interactions

Military 

Expended 

Material

Ingestible Material:

Airborne Mine Neutralization System 

neutralizer fragments

Non-Ingestible Material:

Fiber optic cable, mine shapes (nonexplosive)

Military 

Recoverable 

Material

Mine shapes (non-explosive)

Sonar and 

Other 

Transducer

Bins

High-Frequency: 

HF4

Synthetic Aperture Sonars: 

SAS2

Explosive

Bins

E4
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

A-244

Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions

Mine Warfare

Mine Countermeasure Mission Package Testing

Procedural 

Mitigation

Measures

Acoustic Stressors: (section 5.3.2)

Active sonar

Physical Disturbance and Strike: (section 

5.3.4)

Vessel movement

Towed in-water devices

Explosive Stressors: (Section 5.3.3)

Explosive mine countermeasure and 

neutralization activities

Assumptions 

Used for 

Analysis

For air quality analysis:

- 1 rotary-wing aircraft (SH-60)

- 50 percent within 3 miles (mi.), 30 percent 3-12 mi., 20 percent outside 12 mi.

- Average 5 hours per event
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

A-245

Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions

A.3.2.3.3 Mine Detection and Classification Testing 

Mine Warfare

Mine Detection and Classification Testing

Short 

Description

Air, surface, and subsurface vessels and systems

detect, classify, and avoid mines and mine-like 

objects. Vessels also assess their potential 

susceptibility to mines and mine-like objects.

Typical Duration

Up to 24 days, with up to 12 hours of 

acoustic activity each day

Long 

Description

Mine detection and classification systems require testing to evaluate the capability of 

generating underwater magnetic and acoustic signature fields as well as sonar systems that can 

detect, and classify a wide range of threat mines at tactically different water depths. Surface 

craft may deploy an underwater sensor system that uses ship signature to develop a 

susceptibility profile against mine-like objects. In order to develop better and safer methods of 

minesweeping, the Navy is currently testing new systems to detect locate, identify, and avoid 

mines including a laser airborne mine detection system that uses laser illumination coupled 

with sensitive electro-optic receivers to find mines in the upper part of the water column. This 

type of equipment has traditionally been designed for operation from a manned helicopter; 

however, the Navy is developing the capability to operate from unmanned aerial systems.

Typical 

Components

Platforms: Moored platform, rotary-wing aircraft, sea basing ship, small boat, submarines,

support craft, surface combatant

Targets: Sub-surface targets

Systems being Trained/Tested: High-frequency sonar, mid-frequency sonar, sonobuoys, low 

energy laser

Standard 

Operating 

Procedures

(Section 

2.3.3)

Vessel safety

Aircraft safety

High-powered laser 

safety

Typical Locations

Range Complexes/Testing 

Ranges:

Hawaii Range Complex

Southern California Range 

Complex

Inland Waters/Pierside:

None

Stressors to 

Biological 

Resources

Acoustic:

Sonar and other 

transducers

Aircraft noise

Vessel noise

Explosive:

None

Physical Disturbance and Strike: 

Aircraft and aerial targets

Vessels and in-water devices

Seafloor devices

Ingestion:

Military expended materials – other 

than munitions

Energy:

In-air electromagnetic 

devices

In-water electromagnetic 

devices

Lasers

Entanglement: 

Decelerators/parachutes

Stressors to 

Physical 

Resources

Air Quality:

Criteria air pollutants

Sediments and Water Quality:

Metals

Stressors to 

Human 

Resources

Cultural Resources:

Physical disturbance and 

strike

Socioeconomic Resources: 

Accessibility

Airborne acoustics

Physical disturbance and 

strike

Public Health and Safety: 

Underwater energy

In-air energy

Physical interactions

Military 

Expended 

Material

Ingestible Material:

Small decelerators/parachutes

Non-Ingestible Material:

Sonobuoys (non-explosive), sonobuoy 

wires, mine shapes (non-explosive), 

stationary artificial targets

Military 

Recoverable 

Material

Mine shapes (non-explosive)
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

A-246

Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions

Mine Warfare

Mine Detection and Classification Testing

Sonar and 

Other 

Transducer

Bins

Mid-Frequency: 

MF1 MF5

High-Frequency: 

HF1 HF8

Explosive

Bins

None

Procedural 

Mitigation

Measures

Acoustic Stressors: (section 5.3.2)

Active sonar

Physical Disturbance and Strike: (section 

5.3.4)

Vessel movement

Assumptions 

Used for 

Analysis

Some mine shapes could be deployed for a specific event, and then retrieved afterwards. 

However, some mine shapes are left in place so that multiple events could use the same 

shapes without needing to redeploy.

The in-air low energy laser stressor was used in analysis of potential impacts on human 

resources.

For air quality analysis:

- 2 rotary-wing aircraft (SH-60) (8 hours each)

- 4 support craft (12 hours each)

- 50 percent within 3 miles (mi.), 30 percent 3–12 mi., 20 percent outside 12 mi.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

A-247

Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions

Surface Warfare

A.3.2.4.1 Gun Testing—Large-Caliber 

Surface Warfare

Gun Testing—Large-Caliber

Short 

Description

Surface crews test large-caliber guns to defend 

against surface targets.

Typical Duration

1–2 weeks

Long 

Description

Surface combatants conduct surface warfare by detecting, tracking, and prosecuting small-boat 

threats. Gun testing may also include the surface warfare mission package for the Littoral 

Combat Ship, which provides a layered strike-defensive capability by use of its embarked 

support aircraft, medium range surface-to-surface missiles, and 57 millimeter gun weapon 

system.

Typical 

Components

Platforms: Surface combatant

Targets: Surface targets

Systems being Trained/Tested: None

Standard 

Operating 

Procedures

(Section 

2.3.3)

Vessel safety

Weapons firing safety

Towed in-water device 

safety

Typical Locations

Range Complexes/Testing 

Ranges:

Hawaii Range Complex 

Southern California Range 

Complex

Inland Waters/Pierside:

None

Stressors to 

Biological 

Resources

Acoustic:

Vessel noise

Weapons noise

Explosive:

Explosions in air

Explosions in water

Physical Disturbance and Strike: 

Vessels and in-water devices

Military expended materials

Ingestion:

Military expended materials –

munitions

Military expended materials – other 

than munitions

Energy:

In-air electromagnetic 

devices

Entanglement: 

None

Stressors to 

Physical 

Resources

Air Quality:

Criteria air pollutants

Sediments and Water Quality:

Explosives Metals

Stressors to 

Human 

Resources

Cultural Resources: 

Explosives

Physical disturbance and 

strike

Socioeconomic Resources: 

Accessibility

Airborne acoustics

Physical disturbance and strike

Public Health and Safety: 

Underwater energy

Physical interactions

Military 

Expended 

Material

Ingestible Material:

Large-caliber projectile (explosive) 

fragments, target fragments

Non-Ingestible Material:

Expendable surface target, largecaliber (non-explosive) projectiles,

large caliber casings

Military 

Recoverable 

Material

Remote controlled surface target,

towed surface target

Sonar and 

Other 

Transducer

Bins

None

Explosive

Bins

E3
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

A-248

Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions

Surface Warfare

Gun Testing—Large-Caliber

Procedural 

Mitigation

Measures

Acoustic Stressors: (section 5.3.2)

Weapons firing noise

Physical Disturbance and Strike: (section 

5.3.4)

Vessel movement

Small-, medium-, and large-caliber nonexplosive practice munitions

Explosive Stressors: (section 5.3.3)

Explosive medium-caliber and large-caliber 

projectiles

Assumptions 

Used for 

Analysis

None
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

A-249

Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions

A.3.2.4.2 Gun Testing—Medium-Caliber 

Surface Warfare

Gun Testing—Medium-Caliber

Short 

Description Surface crews test medium-caliber guns to

defend against surface targets.

Typical Duration

1–2 weeks, with intervals of surface 

warfare mission package use during this 

time

Long 

Description

Surface combatants conduct surface warfare by detecting, tracking, and prosecuting small-boat 

threats. Gun testing may also include the surface warfare mission package on the Littoral 

Combat Ship, which provides a layered strike-defensive capability by use of its embarked 

support aircraft, medium range surface-to-surface missiles, and 30 mm gun weapon system.

Typical 

Components

Platforms: Surface combatant

Targets: Surface targets

Systems being Trained/Tested: None

Standard 

Operating 

Procedures

(Section 

2.3.3)

Vessel safety

Weapons firing safety

Towed in-water device 

safety

Typical Locations

Range Complexes/Testing 

Ranges:

Hawaii Range Complex

Southern California Range 

Complex

Inland Waters/Pierside:

None

Stressors to 

Biological 

Resources

Acoustic:

Vessel noise

Weapons noise

Explosive:

Explosions in air

Explosions in water

Physical Disturbance and Strike: 

Vessels and in-water devices

Military expended materials

Ingestion:

Military expended materials –

munitions

Military expended materials – other 

than munitions

Energy:

In-air electromagnetic 

devices

Entanglement: 

None

Stressors to 

Physical 

Resources

Air Quality:

Criteria air pollutants

Sediments and Water Quality:

Explosives Metals

Stressors to 

Human 

Resources

Cultural Resources: 

Explosives

Physical disturbance and 

strike

Socioeconomic Resources: 

Accessibility

Airborne acoustics

Physical disturbance and strike

Public Health and Safety: 

Underwater energy

In-air energy

Physical interactions

Military 

Expended 

Material

Ingestible Material:

Medium-caliber projectile (explosive)

fragments, medium-caliber (nonexplosive) projectiles, mediumcaliber projectile casings, target 

fragments

Non-Ingestible Material:

Expendable surface target 

Military 

Recoverable 

Material

Remote controlled surface target,

towed surface target

Sonar and 

Other 

Transducer

Bins

None

Explosive

Bins

E1
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

A-250

Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions

Surface Warfare

Gun Testing—Medium-Caliber

Procedural 

Mitigation

Measures

Physical Disturbance and Strike: (section 

5.3.4)

Vessel movement

Small-, medium-, and large-caliber nonexplosive practice munitions

Explosive Stressors: (section 5.3.3)

Explosive medium-caliber and large-caliber 

projectiles

Assumptions 

Used for 

Analysis

Explosive events fire 450 rounds.

Non-explosive events fire 960 rounds.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

A-251

Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions

A.3.2.4.3 Gun Testing—Small-Caliber 

Surface Warfare

Gun Testing—Small-Caliber

Short 

Description

Surface crews test small-caliber guns to defend 

against surface targets.

Typical Duration

1 day to 2 weeks

Long 

Description

Small-caliber guns are fired from surface vessels. This testing also includes anti-terrorism/force 

protection. During this event, surface craft surface targets will make threat profile approaches 

to the ship. Ship will demonstrate small-caliber gun testing with non-explosive rounds against 

the threat target. Small-caliber gun testing includes other class ship sea trials and surface 

warfare mission package testing.

Typical 

Components

Platforms: Sea basing ship, surface combatant

Targets: Surface targets

Systems being Trained/Tested: None

Standard 

Operating 

Procedures

(Section 

2.3.3)

Vessel safety

Weapons firing safety

Towed in-water device 

safety

Typical Locations

Range Complexes/Testing Ranges:

Hawaii Range Complex 

Southern California Range Complex

Inland Waters/Pierside:

None

Stressors to 

Biological 

Resources

Acoustic:

Vessel noise

Weapons noise

Explosive:

None

Physical Disturbance and Strike: 

Vessels and in-water devices

Military expended materials

Ingestion:

Military expended materials –

munitions

Energy:

In-air electromagnetic 

devices

Entanglement: 

None

Stressors to 

Physical 

Resources

Air Quality:

Criteria air pollutants

Sediments and Water Quality:

Metals

Stressors to 

Human 

Resources

Cultural Resources: 

Physical disturbance and 

strike

Socioeconomic Resources: 

Accessibility

Airborne acoustics

Physical disturbance and strike

Public Health and Safety: 

Physical interactions

Military 

Expended 

Material

Ingestible Material:

Small-caliber projectile casings, smallcaliber projectiles (non-explosive)

Non-Ingestible Material:

Expendable surface target

Military 

Recoverable 

Material

Remote controlled surface target,

towed surface target

Sonar and 

Other 

Transducer

Bins

None

Explosive

Bins

None

Procedural 

Mitigation

Measures

Physical Disturbance and Strike: (section 5.3.4)

Vessel movement

Small-, medium-, and large-caliber nonexplosive practice munitions

Assumptions 

Used for 

Analysis

400–2,000 rounds per event

Ships may not be conducting tests consistently for the entire duration.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

A-252

Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions

A.3.2.4.4 Kinetic Energy Weapon Testing 

Surface Warfare

Kinetic Energy Weapon Testing

Short 

Description

A kinetic energy weapon uses stored energy 

released in a burst to accelerate a projectile.

Typical Duration

1 day

Long 

Description

A kinetic energy weapon uses stored energy released in a burst to accelerate a projectile to 

more than seven times the speed of sound to a range of up to 200 miles.

Typical 

Components

Platforms: Surface combatant

Targets: Air targets, surface targets

Systems being Trained/Tested: Kinetic energy weapon

Standard 

Operating 

Procedures

(Section 

2.3.3)

Vessel safety

Weapons firing safety

Typical Locations

Range Complexes/Testing 

Ranges:

Hawaii Range Complex

Southern California Range 

Complex

Inland Waters/Pierside:

None

Stressors to 

Biological 

Resources

Acoustic:

Vessel noise

Weapons noise

Explosive:

Explosions in air

Physical Disturbance and Strike: 

Aircraft and aerial targets

Vessels and in-water devices

Military expended materials

Ingestion:

Military expended materials –

munitions

Military expended materials – other 

than munitions

Energy:

In-air electromagnetic 

devices

Entanglement: 

None

Stressors to 

Physical 

Resources

Air Quality:

Criteria air pollutants

Sediments and Water Quality:

Metals

Stressors to 

Human 

Resources

Cultural Resources: 

Physical disturbance and 

strike

Socioeconomic Resources: 

Accessibility

Airborne acoustics

Physical disturbance and strike

Public Health and Safety: 

In-air energy

Physical interactions

Military 

Expended 

Material

Ingestible Material:

Large caliber (explosive) projectile 

fragments, target fragments

Non-Ingestible Material:

Expendable aerial drones, expendable 

stationary surface targets, kinetic 

energy rounds, sabot – kinetic 

energy rounds, large caliber 

projectile casings

Military 

Recoverable 

Material

None

Sonar and 

Other 

Transducer

Bins

None

Explosive

Bins

None
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

A-253

Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions

Surface Warfare

Kinetic Energy Weapon Testing

Procedural 

Mitigation

Measures

Physical Disturbance and Strike: (section 

5.3.4)

Vessel movement

Small-, medium-, and large-caliber nonexplosive practice munitions

Assumptions 

Used for 

Analysis

Assume one target per event

Explosive rounds are designed to detonate above the surface target.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

A-254

Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions

A.3.2.4.5 Missile and Rocket Testing

Surface Warfare

Missile and Rocket Testing

Short 

Description

Missile and rocket testing includes various 

missiles or rockets fired from submarines and 

surface combatants. Testing of the launching 

system and ship defense is performed.

Typical Duration

1 day to 2 weeks

Long 

Description

Missile and rocket testing includes various missiles or rockets (standard missiles, Water 

Piercing Missile Launch) fired from submarines and surface combatants. Testing may occur 

during surface combatant sea trials and surface warfare mission package testing.

Typical 

Components

Platforms: Submarines, surface combatant

Targets: Air targets, land targets, surface targets

Systems being Trained/Tested: Missile and rocket firing systems

Standard 

Operating 

Procedures

(Section 

2.3.3)

Vessel safety

Weapons firing safety

Typical Locations

Range Complexes/Testing 

Ranges:

Hawaii Range Complex 

Southern California Range 

Complex

Inland Waters/Pierside:

None

Stressors to 

Biological 

Resources

Acoustic:

Vessel noise

Weapons noise

Explosive:

Explosions in air

Explosions in water

Physical Disturbance and Strike: 

Aircraft and aerial targets

Vessels and in-water devices

Military expended materials

Ingestion:

Military expended materials –

munitions

Military expended materials – other 

than munitions

Energy:

In-air electromagnetic 

devices

Entanglement: 

None

Stressors to 

Physical 

Resources

Air Quality:

Criteria air pollutants

Sediments and Water Quality:

Explosives Chemicals

Metals

Stressors to 

Human 

Resources

Cultural Resources: 

Explosives

Physical disturbance and 

strike

Socioeconomic Resources: 

Accessibility

Airborne acoustics

Physical disturbance and strike

Public Health and Safety: 

Underwater energy

In-air energy

Physical interactions

Military 

Expended 

Material

Ingestible Material:

Missile (explosive) fragments, rocket 

(explosive) fragments, target 

fragments, small-caliber (nonexplosive) projectiles, small caliber 

(non-explosive) casings

Non-Ingestible Material:

Expendable aerial drones, missiles 

(non-explosive), rockets (nonexplosive)

Military 

Recoverable 

Material

Recoverable air and surface targets

Sonar and 

Other 

Transducer

Bins

None
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

A-255

Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions

Surface Warfare

Missile and Rocket Testing

Explosive

Bins

E6

Procedural 

Mitigation

Measures

Explosive Stressors: (section 5.3.3)

Explosive missiles and rockets

Physical Disturbance and Strike: (section 

5.3.4)

Vessel movement

Non-explosive missiles and rockets

Assumptions 

Used for 

Analysis

Targets used during non-explosive tests will be recovered.

Explosive missiles will detonate either in the air or at the water’s surface.

Ships will not be conducting test constantly for the entire duration.

This activity includes both air warfare and surface warfare events, but is captured under the 

Surface Warfare Protective Measures Assessment Protocol for simplicity.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

A-256

Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions

Unmanned Systems

A.3.2.5.1 Unmanned Surface Vehicle System Testing 

Unmanned Systems

Unmanned Surface Vehicle System Testing

Short 

Description

Testing involves the production or upgrade of 

unmanned surface vehicles. This may include 

testing of mine detection capabilities, evaluating 

the basic functions of individual platforms, or 

complex events with multiple vehicles.

Typical Duration

Up to 10 days. Some propulsion systems 

(gilders) could operate continuously for 

multiple months.

Long 

Description

Unmanned surface vehicle testing includes assessment of single-vehicle and multi-vehicle 

technical performance and functionality during mission operations. Most unmanned vehicle 

mission operations include launch, transit, mission profile execution, and recovery operations. 

Unmanned surface vehicles are generally remote-controlled, semi-autonomous, modular, 

multi-mission platforms. Unmanned surface vehicles include rigid hull inflatable boats, 

cooperative autonomous research platform (autonomous kayaks), and remote-controlled jet 

skis. Unmanned surface vehicles may be launched from surface vessels, piers, or land. Once 

launched, the vehicles may be towed or self-propelled to the test area. Unmanned surface 

vehicles may deploy, tow, operate, or recover payload systems such as tow bodies containing 

multi-function sensors. Systems on or towed by the unmanned surface vehicle may be 

acoustically active or produce radio-frequency transmissions or provide laser illumination for 

electro-optical detection.

Typical 

Components

Platforms: Unmanned surface vehicles, support boat

Targets: None

Systems being Trained/Tested: High-frequency sonar

Standard 

Operating 

Procedures

(Section 

2.3.3)

Vessel safety

Unmanned aerial, 

surface, and 

subsurface vehicle 

safety

Towed in-water device 

safety

Typical Locations

Range Complexes/Testing 

Ranges:

Hawaii Range Complex 

Southern California Range 

Complex

Inland Waters/Pierside:

None

Stressors to 

Biological 

Resources

Acoustic:

Sonar and other 

transducers

Vessel noise

Explosive:

None

Physical Disturbance and Strike: 

Vessels and in-water devices

Ingestion:

None

Energy:

In-air electromagnetic 

devices 

Entanglement: 

None

Stressors to 

Physical 

Resources

Air Quality:

Criteria air pollutants

Sediments and Water Quality:

None

Stressors to 

Human 

Resources

Cultural Resources: 

Physical disturbance and 

strike

Socioeconomic Resources: 

Accessibility

Physical disturbance and strike

Public Health and Safety: 

In-air energy

Physical interactions

Military 

Expended 

Material

Ingestible Material:

None

Non-Ingestible Material:

None

Military 

Recoverable 

Material

None
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

A-257

Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions

Unmanned Systems

Unmanned Surface Vehicle System Testing

Sonar and 

Other 

Transducer

Bins

High-Frequency: 

HF4

Synthetic Aperture Sonars: 

SAS2

Explosive

Bins

None

Procedural 

Mitigation

Measures

Physical Disturbance and Strike: (section 

5.3.4)

Vessel movement

Towed in-water devices

Assumptions 

Used for 

Analysis

None
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

A-258

Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions

A.3.2.5.2 Unmanned Underwater Vehicle Testing 

Unmanned Systems

Unmanned Underwater Vehicle Testing

Short 

Description

Testing involves the production or upgrade of 

unmanned underwater vehicles. This may 

include testing of mine detection capabilities, 

evaluating the basic functions of individual 

platforms, or complex events with multiple 

vehicles.

Typical Duration

Up to 35 days. Some propulsion systems 

(gliders) could operate continuously for 

multiple months.

Long 

Description

Unmanned underwater vehicle testing ranges from single-vehicle tests to evaluate 

hydrodynamic parameters, to full mission, multiple vehicle functionality assessments. Most 

unmanned underwater vehicle operations include a launch, transit, mission profile execution, 

and recovery operations. Unmanned underwater vehicles include modular, multi-mission 

platforms and their payloads, and anti-submarine warfare targets. Unmanned underwater 

vehicles may be launched from aircraft, surface craft, submarines, piers, or land. Once 

launched, the vehicles are either towed or self-propelled to the test area. Unmanned 

underwater vehicles may also deploy, tow, operate, or recover remote sensors and payload 

systems. Systems on or towed by the unmanned vehicle may be acoustically active, produce 

radio-frequency transmissions or provide laser illumination for electro-optical detection. 

Vehicle development involves the production and upgrade of new unmanned platforms on 

which to attach various payloads used for different purposes. Platforms can include unmanned 

underwater vehicles, unmanned surface vehicles, and unmanned aerial systems. Payload 

testing assesses various systems that can be incorporated onto unmanned platforms for mine 

warfare, bottom mapping, and other missions.

Typical 

Components

Platforms: Patrol boats, small boat, submarines, support craft, surface combatant, unmanned 

underwater vehicle

Targets: Mine warfare targets, sub-surface targets, surface targets

Systems being Trained/Tested: High-frequency sonar, underwater communications (MF9)

Standard 

Operating 

Procedures

(Section 

2.3.3)

Vessel safety

Unmanned aerial, 

surface, and 

subsurface vehicle 

safety

Towed in-water device 

safety

Typical Locations

Range Complexes/Testing 

Ranges:

Hawaii Range Complex

Southern California Range 

Complex

Inland Waters/Pierside:

None

Stressors to 

Biological 

Resources

Acoustic:

Sonar and other 

transducers

Vessel noise

Explosive:

None

Physical Disturbance and Strike: 

Vessels and in-water devices

Seafloor devices

Ingestion:

None

Energy:

In-air electromagnetic 

devices 

Entanglement: 

None

Stressors to 

Physical 

Resources

Air Quality:

None

Sediments and Water Quality:

None

Stressors to 

Human 

Resources

Cultural Resources:

Physical disturbance and 

strike

Socioeconomic Resources:

None

Public Health and Safety:

None
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

A-259

Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions

Unmanned Systems

Unmanned Underwater Vehicle Testing

Military 

Expended 

Material

Ingestible Material:

None

Non-Ingestible Material:

Anchors, mines shapes (nonexplosive), expendable motorized 

autonomous target, expendable 

stationary artificial target, 

miscellaneous surface targets, 

stationary surface targets

Military 

Recoverable 

Material

Anchors, recoverable stationary 

artificial target, mine shape (nonexplosive)

Sonar and 

Other 

Transducer

Bins

Mid-Frequency: 

MF9

High-Frequency: 

HF4

Explosive

Bins

None

Procedural

Mitigation

Measures

Acoustic Stressors: (section 5.3.2)

Active sonar

Physical Disturbance and Strike: (section 5.3.4)

Vessel movement

Towed in-water devices

Assumptions 

Used for 

Analysis

Some mine shapes could be deployed for a specific event, and then retrieved afterwards. 

However, some mine shapes are left in place so that multiple events could use the same 

shapes without needing to redeploy.

Multiple vehicles may operate simultaneously in one or multiple areas.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

A-260

Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions

Vessel Evaluation 

A.3.2.6.1 Air Defense Testing 

Vessel Evaluation

Air Defense Testing

Short 

Description

Tests the ship’s capability to detect, identify, 

track, and successfully engage live and simulated 

targets. Gun systems are tested using explosive 

and non-explosive rounds.

Typical Duration

7 days

Long 

Description

Air Defense events are conducted in clear and varied electronic attack environments, using a

mix of missile firings to verify the ship’s capability to detect, identify, track, and successfully 

engage live and simulated targets. The tests include testing the radar’s track load in the

presence of debris, long range engagement processing, low-elevation detection and tracking,

track load in the presence of electronic attack and chaff, and missile performance. Tests 

currently include firing of the 5 inch .62-caliber gun, and will potentially include a 155 

millimeter gun.

Typical 

Components

Platforms: Amphibious warfare ship, rotary-wing aircraft, support craft, surface combatant

Targets: Air targets

Systems being Trained/Tested: Radar systems, gun systems

Standard 

Operating 

Procedures

(Section 

2.3.3)

Vessel safety

Aircraft safety

Weapons firing safety

Typical Locations

Range Complexes/Testing 

Ranges:

Southern California Range 

Complex

Hawaii Range Complex

Inland Waters/Pierside:

None

Stressors to 

Biological 

Resources

Acoustic:

Aircraft noise

Vessel noise

Weapons noise

Explosive:

Explosions in air

Physical Disturbance and Strike: 

Aircraft and aerial targets

Vessels and in-water devices

Military expended materials

Ingestion:

Military expended materials –

munitions

Military expended materials – other 

than munitions

Energy:

In-air electromagnetic 

devices

Entanglement: 

None

Stressors to 

Physical 

Resources

Air Quality:

Criteria air pollutants

Sediments and Water Quality:

Metals Other materials

Stressors to 

Human 

Resources

Cultural Resources: 

Physical disturbance and 

strike

Socioeconomic Resources: 

Accessibility

Airborne acoustics

Physical disturbance and strike

Public Health and Safety: 

In-air energy

Physical interactions
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

A-261

Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions

Vessel Evaluation

Air Defense Testing

Military 

Expended 

Material

Ingestible Material:

Per chaff: one chaff plastic endcap, 

one compression pad; OR one 

plastic piston, one plastic endcap; 

chaff fibers, missile (explosive) 

fragments, large-caliber (explosive) 

projectile fragments, target 

fragments, medium-caliber (nonexplosive) projectiles, medium 

caliber (non-explosive) projectile 

casings

Non-Ingestible Material:

Canister, large-caliber (non-explosive)

projectiles, missiles (non-explosive),

large-caliber projectile casings, 

expendable aerial drones

Military 

Recoverable 

Material

None

Sonar and 

Other 

Transducer

Bins

None

Explosive

Bins

None

Procedural 

Mitigation

Measures

Acoustic Stressors: (section 5.3.2)

Weapons firing noise

Explosive Stressors: (Section 5.3.3) 

Explosive medium-caliber and large-caliber 

projectiles

Physical Disturbance and Strike: (section 

5.3.4)

Vessel movement

Small-, medium-, and large-caliber nonexplosive practice munitions

Non-explosive missiles and rockets

Assumptions 

Used for 

Analysis

Ships will not be conducting test constantly for the entire duration.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

A-262

Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions

A.3.2.6.2 In-Port Maintenance Testing 

Vessel Evaluation

In-Port Maintenance Testing

Short 

Description

Each combat system is tested to ensure they are 

functioning in a technically acceptable manner 

and are operationally ready to support at-sea 

Combat System Ship Qualification Trial events.

Typical Duration

Three weeks

Long 

Description

Each combat system is tested to ensure they are functioning in a technically acceptable 

manner and are operationally ready to support at-sea Combat System Ship Qualification Trial 

events. The ship’s test plans and procedures, Maintenance Repair/Requirements Cards, and 

computerized planned maintenance system are used in establishing testing standards for each 

system and pieces of equipment. Ship’s crew, under supervision of subject matter experts, 

complete all actions and receive remedial training where required. Trouble Observation 

Reports are written on noted discrepancies.

Typical 

Components

Platforms: Amphibious warfare ship, surface combatant

Targets: None

Systems being Trained/Tested: Radar, low energy lasers

Standard 

Operating 

Procedures

(Section 

2.3.3)

Vessel safety Typical Locations

Range Complexes/Testing 

Ranges:

None

Inland Waters/Pierside:

Pearl Harbor, Hawaii

San Diego, California

Stressors to 

Biological 

Resources

Acoustic:

None

Explosive:

None

Physical Disturbance and Strike:

None

Ingestion:

None

Energy:

In-air electromagnetic 

devices

Lasers

Entanglement: 

None

Stressors to 

Physical 

Resources

Air Quality:

None

Sediments and Water Quality:

None

Stressors to 

Human 

Resources

Cultural Resources:

None

Socioeconomic Resources:

None

Public Health and Safety: 

Underwater energy

In-air energy

Military 

Expended 

Material

Ingestible Material:

None

Non-Ingestible Material:

None

Military 

Recoverable 

Material

None

Sonar and 

Other 

Transducer

Bins

None

Explosive

Bins

None

Procedural 

Mitigation

Measures

None

Assumptions 

Used for 

Analysis

None
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

A-263

Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions

A.3.2.6.3 Propulsion Testing 

Vessel Evaluation

Propulsion Testing

Short 

Description

Ship is run at high speeds in various formations 

(straight-line and reciprocal paths).

Typical Duration

1 day

Long 

Description

Propulsion testing is one part of the total sea trial activity. During this event, the ship is tested 

for maneuverability, including full power and endurance runs.

Typical 

Components

Platforms: Amphibious warfare ship, fleet support ship, sea basing ship, surface combatant

Targets: Systems being Trained/Tested: None

Standard 

Operating 

Procedures

(Section 

2.3.3)

Vessel safety Typical Locations

Range Complexes/Testing 

Ranges:

Hawaii Range Complex 

Southern California Range 

Complex

Inland Waters/Pierside:

None

Stressors to 

Biological 

Resources

Acoustic:

Vessel noise

Explosive:

None

Physical Disturbance and Strike: 

Vessels and in-water devices

Aircraft and aerial targets

Ingestion:

None

Energy:

In-air electromagnetic 

devices

Entanglement: 

None

Stressors to 

Physical 

Resources

Air Quality:

Criteria air pollutants

Sediments and Water Quality:

None

Stressors to 

Human 

Resources

Cultural Resources:

Physical disturbance and 

strike

Socioeconomic Resources: 

Accessibility

Physical disturbance and 

strike

Public Health and Safety: 

In-air energy

Physical interactions

Military 

Expended 

Material

Ingestible Material:

None

Non-Ingestible Material:

None

Military 

Recoverable 

Material

None

Sonar and 

Other 

Transducer

Bins

None

Explosive

Bins

None

Procedural 

Mitigation

Measures

Physical Disturbance and Strike: (section 

5.3.4)

Vessel movement

Assumptions 

Used for 

Analysis

Ships will not be conducting test constantly for the entire duration.

Ships may not be traveling in a straight line.

Ships will operate across the full spectrum of capable speeds.

During surface combatant sea trials full-power runs are conducted for a total of 4 hours, and 

endurance runs are conducted for a total of 2 hours.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

A-264

Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions

A.3.2.6.4 Submarine Sea Trials—Propulsion Testing 

Vessel Evaluation

Submarine Sea Trials—Propulsion Testing

Short

Description

Submarine is run at high speeds in various 

formations, and at various depths.

Typical Duration

Up to 5 days

Long 

Description

Propulsion testing is one part of the total submarine sea trial activity. During this activity, 

submarines undergo a controlled deep dive to test depth, emergency surfacing, full-power 

operations, high speed turns, and extreme depth changes.

Typical 

Components

Platforms: Submarines

Targets: None

Systems being Trained/Tested: None

Standard 

Operating 

Procedures

(Section 

2.3.3)

Typical Locations

Range Complexes/Testing 

Ranges:

Hawaii Range Complex

Southern California Range 

Complex

Inland Waters/Pierside:

None

Stressors to 

Biological 

Resources

Acoustic:

None

Explosive:

None

Physical Disturbance and Strike:

None

Ingestion:

None

Energy:

None

Entanglement: 

None

Stressors to 

Physical 

Resources

Air Quality:

None

Sediments and Water Quality:

None

Stressors to 

Human 

Resources

Cultural Resources:

None

Socioeconomic Resources: 

Accessibility

Physical disturbance and 

strike

Public Health and Safety: 

Physical interactions

Military 

Expended 

Material

Ingestible Material:

None

Non-Ingestible Material:

None

Military 

Recoverable 

Material

None

Sonar and 

Other 

Transducer

Bins

None

Explosive

Bins

None

Procedural 

Mitigation

Measures

Physical Disturbance and Strike: (section 

5.3.4)

Vessel movement

Assumptions 

Used for 

Analysis

Subs will not be conducting test constantly for the entire duration.

Subs may not be traveling in a straight line.

Subs will operate across the full spectrum of capable speeds.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

A-265

Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions

A.3.2.6.5 Submarine Sea Trials—Weapons System Testing 

Vessel Evaluation

Submarine Sea Trials—Weapons System Testing

Short 

Description

Submarine weapons and sonar systems are 

tested at-sea to meet the integrated combat 

system certification requirements.

Typical Duration

Up to 7 days

Long 

Description

Submarine weapons and sonar systems are tested at-sea to meet the integrated combat 

system certification requirements. This test involves subjecting the integrated combat system 

through rigorous testing which consists of passive and active sonar activities, launching "water 

slugs" and exercise torpedoes.

Typical 

Components

Platforms: Moored platform, submarines, support craft

Targets: Sub-surface targets

Systems being Trained/Tested: Acoustic modem, high-frequency sonar, mid-frequency sonar,

underwater communications, torpedo sonar

Standard 

Operating 

Procedures

(Section 

2.3.3)

Vessel safety Typical Locations

Range Complexes/Testing Ranges:

Hawaii Range Complex

Southern California Range 

Complex

Inland Waters/Pierside:

None

Stressors to 

Biological 

Resources

Acoustic:

Sonar and other 

transducers

Vessel noise

Explosive:

None

Physical Disturbance and Strike: 

Vessels and in-water devices

Ingestion:

None

Energy:

In-air electromagnetic 

devices

Entanglement: 

Wires and cables

Stressors to 

Physical 

Resources

Air Quality:

Criteria air pollutants

Sediments and Water Quality:

None

Stressors to 

Human 

Resources

Cultural Resources: 

Physical disturbance and 

strike

Socioeconomic Resources: 

Accessibility

Physical disturbance and strike

Public Health and Safety: 

Underwater energy

In-air energy

Physical interactions

Military 

Expended 

Material

Ingestible Material:

None

Non-Ingestible Material:

Heavyweight torpedo accessories,

guidance wire, motorized 

autonomous targets

Military 

Recoverable 

Material

Heavyweight (non-explosive) 

torpedoes

Sonar and 

Other 

Transducer

Bins

Mid-Frequency: 

MF3 MF10

MF9

High-Frequency: 

HF1

Acoustic Modems: 

M3

Torpedoes: 

TORP2

Explosive

Bins

None

Procedural 

Mitigation

Measures

Acoustic Stressors: (section 5.3.2)

Active sonar

Physical Disturbance and Strike: (section 

5.3.4)

Vessel movement

Assumptions 

Used for 

Analysis

Submarines will not be conducting test constantly for the entire duration.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

A-266

Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions

A.3.2.6.6 Surface Warfare Testing 

Vessel Evaluation

Surface Warfare Testing

Short 

Description

Tests the capabilities of shipboard sensors to 

detect, track, and engage surface targets. 

Testing may include ships defending against 

surface targets using explosive and nonexplosive rounds, gun system structural test 

firing and demonstration of the response to Call 

for Fire against land based targets (simulated by 

sea based locations).

Typical Duration

7 days

Long 

Description

Surface warfare events are gun weapons system tests conducted in a clear environment to 

demonstrate the capability of shipboard and remote (helicopter) sensors to detect and track 

surface or land based (simulated by sea based locations) targets and engage targets with 

simulated and live gun and missile firings. The event may qualify the ship’s surface warfare gun 

capability to receive track data from the sensors, filter it, calculate ballistics, recommend 

aimpoint corrections (spots), generate gun orders, select ammunition properly for targets at 

differing ranges, and deliver surface direct fire on the surface or land based targets. Testing can 

also include structural test firing.

Typical 

Components

Platforms: Amphibious warfare ship, support craft, surface combatant

Targets: Air targets, electronic warfare targets, surface targets

Systems being Trained/Tested: Gun systems, electronic warfare systems

Standard 

Operating 

Procedures

(Section 

2.3.3)

Vessel safety

Weapons firing safety

Towed in-water device 

safety

Typical Locations

Range Complexes/Testing 

Ranges:

Southern California Range 

Complex

Hawaii Range Complex

Inland Waters/Pierside:

None

Stressors to 

Biological 

Resources

Acoustic:

Aircraft noise

Vessel noise

Weapons noise

Explosive:

Explosions in air

Explosions in water

Physical Disturbance and Strike: 

Aircraft and aerial targets

Vessels and in-water devices

Military expended materials

Ingestion:

Military expended materials –

munitions

Military expended materials – other 

than munitions

Energy:

In-air electromagnetic 

devices

Entanglement: 

Wires and cables

Stressors to 

Physical 

Resources

Air Quality:

Criteria air pollutants

Sediments and Water Quality:

Metals Other materials

Stressors to 

Human 

Resources

Cultural Resources: 

Explosives

Physical disturbance and 

strike

Socioeconomic Resources: 

Accessibility

Airborne acoustics

Physical disturbance and strike

Public Health and Safety: 

Physical interactions

In-air energy

Underwater energy
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

A-267

Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions

Vessel Evaluation

Surface Warfare Testing

Military 

Expended 

Material

Ingestible Material:

Per chaff: one chaff plastic endcap, 

one compression pad; OR one 

plastic piston, one plastic endcap; 

chaff fibers; 

Large-caliber projectile (explosive)

fragments, medium-caliber 

projectile (explosive) fragments, 

missile (explosive) fragments, 

medium caliber (non-explosive) 

projectiles, medium-caliber 

projectile casings, small-caliber 

projectile (explosive) fragments, 

small-caliber (non-explosive) 

projectiles, small caliber projectile 

casings, target fragments

Non-Ingestible Material:

Large-caliber (non-explosive)

projectiles, large-caliber projectile 

casings, missiles (non-explosive), air 

targets

Military 

Recoverable 

Material

Aerial drones, remote controlled 

surface target, stationary surface 

target, towed air target, towed 

surface target, fixed and mobile 

threat emitters

Sonar and 

Other 

Transducer

Bins

None

Explosive

Bins

E1 E5 E8

Procedural 

Mitigation

Measures

Acoustic Stressors: (section 5.3.2)

Weapons firing noise

Physical Disturbance and Strike: (section 

5.3.4)

Vessel movement

Small-, medium-, and large-caliber nonexplosive practice munitions

Non-explosive missiles and rockets

Explosive Stressors: (section 5.3.3)

Explosive medium-caliber and large-caliber 

projectiles

Explosive missiles and rockets 

Assumptions 

Used for 

Analysis

Ships will not be conducting tests constantly for the entire duration
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

A-268

Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions

A.3.2.6.7 Undersea Warfare Testing 

Vessel Evaluation

Undersea Warfare Testing

Short 

Description

Ships demonstrate capability of countermeasure 

systems and underwater surveillance, weapons 

engagement and communications systems. This 

tests ships ability to detect, track, and engage 

undersea targets.

Typical Duration

Up to 10 days

Long 

Description

Undersea warfare events may be comprised of tracking and firing events or tests of hullmounted sonar system capabilities to detect and avoid torpedo type targets. Tracking and 

firing events ensure the operability of the undersea warfare suite and its interface with the 

rotary-wing helicopter. Tests include demonstrating the ability of the ship to search, detect and 

track a target and conduct attacks with exercise torpedoes. Detection and avoidance events 

may use surface craft and underwater platforms to test the capability of mid- and highfrequency acoustic sources. Subsurface moving targets, rocket and air-dropped weapons, 

sonobuoys, towed arrays and sub-surface torpedo-like devices may be used. Approximately 

one week of in-port training may precede the event.

Typical 

Components

Platforms: Rotary-wing aircraft, submarines, support craft, surface combatant

Targets: Sub-surface targets, surface targets

Systems being Trained/Tested: Acoustic countermeasures, helicopter-deployed dipping sonar,

high-frequency sonar, mid-frequency sonar, sonobuoys, torpedo sonar

Standard 

Operating 

Procedures

(Section 

2.3.3)

Vessel safety

Aircraft safety

Typical Locations

Range Complexes/Testing Ranges:

Southern California Range Complex

Hawaii Range Complex

Inland Waters/Pierside:

None

Stressors to 

Biological 

Resources

Acoustic:

Sonar and other 

transducers

Aircraft noise

Vessel noise

Explosive:

None

Physical Disturbance and Strike: 

Aircraft and aerial targets

Vessels and in-water devices

Military expended materials

Ingestion:

Military expended materials – other 

than munitions

Energy:

In-air electromagnetic 

devices

Entanglement: 

Wires and cables

Decelerators/parachutes

Stressors to 

Physical 

Resources

Air Quality:

Criteria air pollutants

Sediments and Water Quality:

Metals Other materials

Stressors to 

Human 

Resources

Cultural Resources: 

Physical disturbance and 

strike

Socioeconomic Resources: 

Accessibility

Airborne acoustics

Physical disturbance and strike

Public Health and Safety: 

Underwater energy

In-air energy

Physical interactions
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

A-269

Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions

Vessel Evaluation

Undersea Warfare Testing

Military 

Expended 

Material

Ingestible Material:

Small decelerators/parachutes, 

parachutes - medium

Non-Ingestible Material:

Acoustic countermeasures, buoy (nonexplosive), heavyweight and 

lightweight torpedo accessories,

guidance wire, rockets (nonexplosive), sonobuoys (nonexplosive), sonobuoy wires, 

expendable motorized autonomous 

target, miscellaneous surface 

targets

Military 

Recoverable 

Material

Heavyweight (non-explosive)

torpedo, lightweight (nonexplosive) torpedo, miscellaneous 

surface target, recoverable 

motorized autonomous target

Sonar and 

Other 

Transducer

Bins

Mid-Frequency: 

MF1 MF5

MF4 MF6

High-Frequency: 

HF4 HF8

Anti-Submarine Warfare: 

ASW4

Torpedoes: 

TORP1 TORP2

Explosive

Bins

None

Procedural 

Mitigation

Measures

Acoustic Stressors: (section 5.3.2)

Active sonar

Physical Disturbance and Strike: (section 

5.3.4)

Vessel movement

Assumptions 

Used for 

Analysis

Five targets per event

All sonobuoys have a parachute unless otherwise noted. 

Ships will not be conducting test constantly during the entire duration.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

A-270

Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions

A.3.2.6.8 Vessel Signature Evaluation 

Vessel Evaluation

Vessel Signature Evaluation

Short 

Description

Surface ship, submarine and auxiliary system 

signature assessments. This may include 

electronic, radar, acoustic, infrared and 

magnetic signatures.

Typical Duration

Typically 1–5 days, up to 20 days 

depending on the test being conducted

Long 

Description

Radar cross signature testing of surface ships and submarines is accomplished on new ships 

and periodically throughout a ship’s life cycle to measure how detectable the ship is to radar. 

For example, Assessment Identification of Mine Susceptibility assessments are passive 

electromagnetic and acoustic measurements performed on mine countermeasure ships and on 

the Littoral Combat Ship mine countermeasure modules (i.e. auxiliary systems) to determine 

their mine susceptibility using seafloor deployed magnetometers and hydrophones, and a shipboard GPS tracking system. Signature testing of all surface ships and submarines verifies that 

each vessel’s signature is within specifications, and may include the use of helicopter-deployed 

instrumentation, ship-mounted safety and navigation systems, fathometers, tracking devices, 

radar systems, and underwater communications equipment. Also included in this activity is the

Shipboard Electronic Systems Evaluation Facility which conducts measurements of antenna 

radiation patterns, Federal Aviation Administration identification of Friend or Foe systems, and 

Tactical Air Navigation Systems.

Typical 

Components

Platforms: Aircraft carrier, amphibious warfare ship, combat logistics ship, fixed-wing aircraft,

fleet support ship, mine warfare, patrol boats, rotary-wing aircraft, sea basing ship, small boat,

special mission ship, specialized high speed vehicle, submarines, support craft, surface 

combatant

Targets: None

Systems being Trained/Tested: Acoustic countermeasures, radar, electromagnetic devices

Standard 

Operating 

Procedures

(Section 

2.3.3)

Vessel safety

Aircraft safety

Typical Locations

Range Complexes/Testing 

Ranges:

Hawaii Range Complex

Southern California Range 

Complex

Inland Waters/Pierside:

Pearl Harbor, Hawaii

Stressors to 

Biological 

Resources

Acoustic:

Aircraft noise

Vessel noise

Explosive:

None

Physical Disturbance and Strike: 

Aircraft and aerial targets

Vessels and in-water devices

Ingestion:

None

Energy:

In-water electromagnetic 

devices

In-air electromagnetic 

devices

Entanglement: 

None

Stressors to 

Physical 

Resources

Air Quality:

Criteria air pollutants

Sediments and Water Quality:

None

Stressors to 

Human 

Resources

Cultural Resources: 

Physical disturbance and 

strike

Socioeconomic Resources: 

Accessibility

Physical disturbance and strike

Public Health and Safety: 

Underwater energy

In-air energy

Physical interactions

Military 

Expended 

Material

Ingestible Material:

None

Non-Ingestible Material:

Acoustic countermeasures

Military 

Recoverable 

Material

None
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

A-271

Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions

Vessel Evaluation

Vessel Signature Evaluation

Sonar and 

Other 

Transducer

Bins

Anti-Submarine Warfare: 

ASW3

Explosive

Bins

None

Procedural 

Mitigation

Measures

Acoustic Stressors: (section 5.3.2)

Active sonar

Physical Disturbance and Strike: (section 

5.3.4)

Vessel movement

Assumptions 

Used for 

Analysis

None
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

A-272

Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions

Other Testing

A.3.2.7.1 Chemical and Biological Simulant Testing 

Other Testing Activities

Chemical and Biological Simulant Testing

Short 

Description

Chemical-biological agent simulants are

deployed against surface ships.

Typical Duration

3 days

Long 

Description

Chemical or biological agent simulants are deployed against surface ships to verify the integrity 

of the ship’s defense system including installed detection, protection, and decontamination 

systems. Methods of simulant delivery include aerial dispersal and hand-held spray.

Typical 

Components

Platforms: Fixed-wing aircraft, rotary-wing aircraft, surface combatant

Targets: None

Systems being Trained/Tested: None

Standard 

Operating 

Procedures

(Section 

2.3.3)

Vessel safety

Aircraft safety

Typical Locations

Range Complexes/Testing 

Ranges:

Hawaii Range Complex 

Southern California Range 

Complex

Inland Waters/Pierside:

None

Stressors to 

Biological 

Resources

Acoustic:

Aircraft noise

Vessel noise

Explosive:

None

Physical Disturbance and Strike: 

Aircraft and aerial targets

Vessels and in-water devices

Ingestion:

None

Energy:

In-air electromagnetic 

devices

Entanglement: 

None

Stressors to 

Physical 

Resources

Air Quality:

Criteria air pollutants

Sediments and Water Quality:

Chemicals Other materials

Stressors to 

Human 

Resources

Cultural Resources:

None

Socioeconomic Resources: 

Accessibility

Airborne acoustics

Physical disturbance and 

strike

Public Health and Safety: 

Physical interactions

Military 

Expended 

Material

Ingestible Material:

None

Non-Ingestible Material:

None 

Military 

Recoverable 

Material

None

Sonar and 

Other 

Transducer

Bins

None

Explosive

Bins

None

Procedural 

Mitigation

Measures

Physical Disturbance and Strike: (section 

5.3.4)

Vessel movement

Assumptions 

Used for 

Analysis

Examples of Chemical Simulants: glacial acetic acid, triethyl phosphate

Examples of Biological Simulants: spore-forming bacteria, non-spore-forming bacteria, the

protein ovalbumin, MS2 bacteriophages, and the fungus Aspergillus niger
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

A-273

Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions

A.3.2.7.2 Insertion/Extraction

Other Testing Activities

Insertion/Extraction

Short 

Description

Testing of submersibles capable of inserting and 

extracting personnel and payloads into denied 

areas from strategic distances.

Typical Duration

Up to 30 days

Long 

Description

Testing of submersibles capable of inserting and extracting personnel and payloads into denied 

areas from strategic distances. Testing could include the use of forces deployed from 

submerged submarines while at sea.

Typical

Components

Platforms: Submarines

Targets: None

Systems being Trained/Tested: Submersibles, mid-frequency sonar, acoustic modems

Standard 

Operating 

Procedures

(Section 

2.3.3)

Vessel safety Typical Locations

Range Complexes/Testing 

Ranges:

Hawaii Range Complex 

Southern California Range 

Complex

Inland Waters/Pierside:

None

Stressors to 

Biological 

Resources

Acoustic:

Sonar and other 

transducers

Explosive:

None

Physical Disturbance and Strike: 

None

Ingestion:

None

Energy:

None

Entanglement: 

None

Stressors to 

Physical 

Resources

Air Quality:

Criteria air pollutants

Sediments and Water Quality:

None

Stressors to 

Human 

Resources

Cultural Resources:

None

Socioeconomic Resources:

None

Public Health and Safety:

Underwater energy

Physical interactions

Military 

Expended 

Material

Ingestible Material:

None

Non-Ingestible Material:

None

Military 

Recoverable 

Material

None

Sonar and 

Other 

Transducer

Bins

Mid-Frequency: 

MF9

Acoustic Modems: 

M3

Explosive

Bins

None

Procedural 

Mitigation

Measures

None

Assumptions 

Used for 

Analysis

Test will not occur constantly throughout duration. For biological resource analysis, vessel noise 

and vessel strike are only analyzed for the periods while the submarines are surfaced, 

typically brief in nature. Mitigation measures related to vessel movement are only 

considered during the period of surfacing as well. For human resource stressor analysis, 

physical disturbance and strike and physical interactions are only analyzed for the periods 

while the submarine are surfaced, typically brief in nature.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

A-274

Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions

A.3.2.7.3 Non-Acoustic Component Testing 

Other Testing Activities

Non-Acoustic Component Testing

Short 

Description

Testing of towed or floating buoys for 

communications through radio-frequencies or 

two-way optical communications between an 

aircraft and underwater system(s).

Typical Duration

3 days (4 hours per day for 3 days)

Long 

Description

Testing associated with radio frequency communications could occur from towed antennas 

from surface vessels, from single-transmit buoys released from submarines, or tethered buoys 

from submarines for two-way communication. Optical communications tests may include 

communication between helicopter or fixed-wing aircraft and manned or unmanned 

underwater systems, and may also include ground truth sensors mounted on surface craft.

Typical 

Components

Platforms: Navy ships and boats, amphibious warfare ship, combat logistics ship, fixed-wing 

aircraft, moored platform, rotary-wing aircraft, sea basing ship, small boat, submarines,

support craft, unmanned underwater vehicle

Targets: None

Systems being Trained/Tested: Communication systems, lasers

Standard 

Operating 

Procedures

(Section 

2.3.3)

Aircraft safety

Vessel safety

High-powered laser 

safety

Unmanned aerial, 

surface, and 

subsurface vehicle 

safety

Typical Locations

Range Complexes/Testing 

Ranges:

Hawaii Range Complex

Southern California Range 

Complex

Inland Waters/Pierside:

None

Stressors to 

Biological 

Resources

Acoustic:

Aircraft noise

Vessel noise

Explosive:

None

Physical Disturbance and Strike: 

Aircraft and aerial targets

Vessels and in-water devices

Ingestion:

None

Energy:

In-air electromagnetic 

devices

Lasers

Entanglement: 

None

Stressors to 

Physical 

Resources

Air Quality:

None

Sediments and Water Quality:

None

Stressors to 

Human 

Resources

Cultural Resources:

None

Socioeconomic Resources:

None

Public Health and Safety:

None

Military 

Expended 

Material

Ingestible Material:

None

Non-Ingestible Material:

None

Military 

Recoverable 

Material

None

Sonar and 

Other 

Transducer

Bins

None

Explosive

Bins

None

Procedural 

Mitigation

Measures

Physical Disturbance and Strike: (section 

5.3.4)

Vessel movement
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

A-275

Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions

Other Testing Activities

Non-Acoustic Component Testing

Assumptions 

Used for 

Analysis

None
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

A-276

Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions

A.3.2.7.4 Signature Analysis Operations

Other Testing Activities

Signature Analysis Operations

Short 

Description

Surface ship and submarine testing of 

electromagnetic, acoustic, optical, and radar 

signature measurements.

Typical Duration

Periodically over multiple days

Long 

Description

Signature analysis activities include electromagnetic, acoustic, optical, and radar signature 

measurements, recording, and post-run analyses of data of Navy surface and subsurface 

vessels. These activities include electromagnetic signature measurement, calibration, and 

detection of submarines, acoustic and magnetic signature detection of unmanned underwater 

vehicles and surface ships, radar, and optical detection of surface ships. Testing includes 

intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance missions.

Typical 

Components

Platforms: Moored platform, submarines, support craft

Targets: None

Systems being Trained/Tested: Electromagnetic, acoustic, optical, and radar systems, acoustic 

modems, high-frequency sonar, underwater communications

Standard 

Operating 

Procedures

(Section 

2.3.3)

Vessel safety Typical Locations

Range Complexes/Testing Ranges:

Hawaii Range Complex

Southern California Range Complex

Inland Waters/Pierside:

None

Stressors to 

Biological 

Resources

Acoustic:

Sonar and other 

transducers

Vessel noise

Explosive:

None

Physical Disturbance and Strike: 

Vessels and in-water devices

Military Expended Materials

Ingestion:

None

Energy:

In-air electromagnetic 

devices

Entanglement: 

Wires and cables

Stressors to 

Physical 

Resources

Air Quality:

Criteria air pollutants

Sediments and Water Quality:

None

Stressors to 

Human 

Resources

Cultural Resources:

None

Socioeconomic Resources: 

Physical disturbance and strike

Public Health and Safety: 

Physical interactions

Military 

Expended 

Material

Ingestible Material:

None

Non-Ingestible Material:

Expendable anchors, 

bathythermographs and wires

Military 

Recoverable 

Material

Recoverable anchors

Sonar and 

Other 

Transducer

Bins

Mid-Frequency: 

MF9

High-Frequency: 

HF1

Acoustic Modems: 

M3

Explosive

Bins

None

Procedural 

Mitigation

Measures

Acoustic Stressors: (section 5.3.2)

Active sonar

Physical Disturbance and Strike: (section 5.3.4)

Vessel movement

Assumptions 

Used for 

Analysis

None
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

A-277

Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions

OFFICE OF NAVAL RESEARCH TESTING ACTIVITIES

Acoustic and Oceanographic Science and Technology

A.3.3.1.1 Acoustic and Oceanographic Research

Acoustic and Oceanographic Science and Technology

Acoustic and Oceanographic Research

Short 

Description

Research using active transmissions from 

sources deployed from ships, aircraft, and 

unmanned underwater vehicles. Research 

sources can be used as proxies for current and 

future Navy systems.

Typical Duration

Up to 14 days

Long 

Description

Active acoustic transmissions used for engineering tests of acoustic sources, validation of 

ocean acoustic models, tests of signal processing algorithms, and characterization of acoustic 

interactions with the ocean bottom, fish and ocean surface. Standard oceanographic research 

sensing (acoustic doppler current profiler, fathometer-like systems) also to be employed.

Typical 

Components

Platforms: Special mission ship, unmanned underwater vehicle

Targets: Sub-surface targets

Systems being Trained/Tested: Airguns, sonar, sonobuoys, underwater communications, lowpower lasers

Standard 

Operating 

Procedures

(Section 

2.3.3)

Vessel safety

High-powered laser 

safety

Unmanned aerial, 

surface, and 

subsurface vehicle 

safety

Typical Locations

Range Complexes/Testing 

Ranges:

Hawaii Range Complex

Southern California Range 

Complex

Inland Waters/Pierside:

None

Stressors to 

Biological 

Resources

Acoustic:

Vessel noise

Aircraft noise

Explosive:

None

Physical Disturbance and Strike: 

Aircraft and aerial targets

Vessels and in-water devices

Military expended materials

Seafloor devices

Ingestion:

None

Energy:

In-air electromagnetic 

devices

Lasers

Entanglement: 

Wires and cables

Stressors to 

Physical 

Resources

Air Quality:

Criteria air pollutants

Sediments and Water Quality:

None

Stressors to 

Human 

Resources

Cultural Resources: 

Physical disturbance and 

strike

Socioeconomic Resources: 

Physical disturbance and strike

Public Health and Safety: 

In-air energy

Physical interactions

Military 

Expended

Material

Ingestible Material:

None

Non-Ingestible Material:

Expendable inert mine shapes,

sonobuoys (non-explosive), 

stationary artificial targets

Military 

Recoverable 

Material

Anchors, recoverable inert mine 

shapes, small parachutes 

(recovered), target fragments 

(recovered)
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

A-278

Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions

Acoustic and Oceanographic Science and Technology

Acoustic and Oceanographic Research

Sonar and 

Other 

Transducer

Bins

Low-Frequency: 

LF3 LF5

LF4

Mid-Frequency: 

MF8 MF9

Anti-Submarine Warfare: 

ASW2

Air gun: 

AG

Broadband: 

BB4

Explosive

Bins

E3

Procedural 

Mitigation

Measures

Acoustic Stressors: (section 5.3.2)

Active sonar

Air guns

Physical Disturbance and Strike: (section 

5.3.4)

Vessel movement

Assumptions 

Used for 

Analysis

None
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

A-279

Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions

A.3.3.1.2 Large Displacement Unmanned Underwater Vehicle Testing

Acoustic and Oceanographic Science and Technology

Large Displacement Unmanned Undersea Vehicle Testing

Short 

Description

Autonomy testing and environmental data 

collection with Large Displacement Unmanned 

Undersea Vehicles (Innovative Navy Prototype).

Typical Duration

Up to 60 days per deployment

Long 

Description

Large Displacement Unmanned Undersea Vehicle Innovative Navy Prototype (LDUUV INP) 

testing includes launch, autonomous transit (up to 60 days), environmental data collection 

(e.g., bathymetry, water column properties, ocean surface properties) and retrieval. LDUUV INP 

testing throughout the study area will include de minimis acoustic sources (modems, imaging 

sonars and fathometers) for safe navigation and data collection.

Typical 

Components

Platforms: Unmanned Underwater Vehicle

Targets: Sub-surface Targets

Systems being Trained/Tested: Undersea vehicle, environmental data collection systems

Standard 

Operating 

Procedures

(Section 

2.3.3)

Vessel safety

Unmanned aerial, 

surface, and 

subsurface vehicle 

safety

Typical Locations

Range Complexes/Testing 

Ranges:

Hawaii Range Complex

Southern California Range 

Complex 

Hawaii-Southern California Transit 

Corridor

Inland Waters/Pierside:

None

Stressors to 

Biological 

Resources

Acoustic:

Vessel noise

Explosive:

None

Physical Disturbance and Strike: 

Vessels and in-water devices

Ingestion:

None

Energy:

None

Entanglement: 

None

Stressors to 

Physical 

Resources

Air Quality:

None

Sediments and Water Quality:

None

Stressors to 

Human 

Resources

Cultural Resources: 

Physical disturbance and 

strike

Socioeconomic Resources: 

Physical disturbance and strike

Public Health and Safety: 

Physical interactions

Military 

Expended 

Material

Ingestible Material:

None

Non-Ingestible Material:

Stationary artificial target

Military

Recoverable 

Material

None

Sonar and 

Other 

Transducer

Bins

None

Explosive

Bins

None

Procedural 

Mitigation

Measures

Physical Disturbance and Strike: (section 

5.3.4)

Vessel movement

Assumptions 

Used for 

Analysis

Any sources used during this activity would be de minimis and not quantitatively analyzed and 

therefore are not included under systems.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

A-280

Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions

A.3.3.1.3 Long Range Acoustic Communications

Acoustic and Oceanographic Science and Technology

Long Range Acoustic Communications

Short 

Description

Bottom mounted acoustic source off of the 

Hawaiian Island of Kauai will transmit a variety 

of acoustic communications sequences.

Typical Duration

Year-round; active transmissions 200 days 

a year

Long 

Description

Bottom mounted acoustic source off of the Hawaiian Island of Kauai will transmit a variety of 

acoustic communications sequences that will be recorded by a variety of fixed and mobile 

platforms at ranges from the 100s to the 1,000s of kilometers.

Typical 

Components

Platforms: Moored platform, small boat

Targets: None

Systems being Trained/Tested: Low-frequency communication system

Standard 

Operating 

Procedures

(Section 

2.3.3)

Vessel safety Typical Locations

Range Complexes/Testing 

Ranges:

Hawaii Range Complex

Inland Waters/Pierside:

None

Stressors to 

Biological 

Resources

Acoustic:

Sonar and other 

transducers

Explosive:

None

Physical Disturbance and Strike: 

Vessels and in-water devices

Seafloor devices

Ingestion:

None

Energy:

None

Entanglement: 

None

Stressors to 

Physical 

Resources

Air Quality:

None

Sediments and Water Quality:

None

Stressors to 

Human 

Resources

Cultural Resources:

None

Socioeconomic Resources:

None

Public Health and Safety: 

Underwater energy

Military 

Expended 

Material

Ingestible Material:

None

Non-Ingestible Material:

None 

Military 

Recoverable 

Material

Exercise Torpedoes, Recoverable 

Anti-Submarine Warfare Training 

Targets

Sonar and 

Other 

Transducer

Bins

Low-Frequency: 

LF4

Explosive

Bins

None

Procedural 

Mitigation

Measures

Acoustic Stressors: (section 5.3.2)

Active sonar

Physical Disturbance and Strike: (section 

5.3.4)

Vessel movement

Assumptions 

Used for 

Analysis

None
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

A-281

Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions

SPACE AND NAVAL WARFARE SYSTEMS COMMAND TESTING ACTIVITIES

The Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command is the information warfare systems command for the 

U.S. Navy. The mission of the Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command is to acquire, develop, 

deliver, and sustain decision superiority for the warfighter. Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command

Systems Center Pacific is the research and development part of the Space and Naval Warfare Systems 

Command focused on developing and transitioning technologies in the area of command, control, 

communications, computers, intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance for the Navy. The Space and 

Naval Warfare Systems Command Systems Center Pacific regularly conducts research, development, 

test, and evaluation projects to support emerging technologies for intelligence, surveillance, and 

reconnaissance; anti-terrorism and force protection; mine countermeasures; anti-submarine warfare; 

oceanographic research; remote sensing; and communications. These activities include, but are not 

limited to, the regular testing of surface and subsurface vehicles; intelligence, surveillance, and 

reconnaissance/information operations sensor systems; underwater surveillance technologies; and 

underwater communications.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

A-282

Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions

Anti-Terrorism/Force Protection

Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command

Anti-Terrorism/Force Protection

Short 

Description

Testing sensor systems that can detect threats 

to naval piers, ships, and shore infrastructure.

Typical Duration

1 day

Long 

Description

Anti-Terrorism/Force Protection testing may include the following activities:

 Testing sensor systems to detect mine shapes on ship hulls and pier structures.

 Testing of sensors for swimmer interdiction and other threats.

 Testing of sensor systems that can detect explosive and radioactive signatures of 

concern.

Typical 

Components

Platforms: Moored platform, small boats, remotely operated vehicle, in-water structure,

unmanned bottom crawler, unmanned underwater vehicle

Targets: Sub-surface targets

Systems being Trained/Tested: Various sensor systems including mine and swimmer detection 

systems

Standard 

Operating 

Procedures

(Section 

2.3.3)

Swimmer defense 

activity safety

Unmanned aerial, 

surface, and 

subsurface vehicle 

safety

Typical Locations

Range Complexes/Testing 

Ranges:

Southern California Range 

Complex

Silver Strand Training Complex

Inland Waters/Pierside:

San Diego Bay

Stressors to 

Biological 

Resources

Acoustic:

Sonar and other 

transducers

Explosive:

None

Physical Disturbance and Strike: 

Vessels and in-water devices

Seafloor devices

Ingestion:

None

Energy:

None

Entanglement: 

None

Stressors to 

Physical 

Resources

Air Quality:

None

Sediments and Water Quality:

None

Stressors to 

Human 

Resources

Cultural Resources:

None

Socioeconomic Resources:

None

Public Health and Safety:

None

Military 

Expended 

Material

Ingestible Material:

None

Non-Ingestible Material:

None 

Military 

Recoverable 

Material

Target mine shapes

Sonar and 

Other 

Transducer

Bins

Swimmer Defense: 

SD1

Explosive

Bins

None

Procedural 

Mitigation

Measures

Vessel movement

Assumptions 

Used for 

Analysis

None
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

A-283

Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions

Communications

Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command

Communications

Short 

Description

Testing of underwater communications and 

networks to extend the principles of FORCEnet 

below the ocean surface.

Typical Duration

Typically 5 days for 6–8 hours per day

Long 

Description

Underwater communications testing may include following activities:

 Testing of two-way networked communications while maintaining mission profile and 

continuing operations while communicating at operating depths and speeds. The goal 

of this testing is to enable two-way communications while operating in missions that 

require submarines to remain submerged to minimize counter-detection and 

maximize tactical positioning.

 Testing underwater network systems that may include fiber optics cables, laser

communications, and acoustic modem networks.

 Testing air to water communications, such as radio frequency, laser, etc.

Typical 

Components

Platforms: Moored platform, support craft, unmanned underwater vehicle, research vessel

Targets: None

Systems being Trained/Tested: Communications systems using sonar and sonobuoys, fiber 

optic cables, in-air radio communications, and lasers

Standard 

Operating 

Procedures

(Section 

2.3.3)

Vessel safety

Unmanned Vehicle

Typical Locations

Range Complexes/Testing 

Ranges:

Hawaii Range Complex 

Southern California Range 

Complex

Inland Waters/Pierside:

None

Stressors to 

Biological 

Resources

Acoustic:

Sonar and other 

transducers

Vessel noise

Explosive:

None

Physical Disturbance and Strike: 

Vessels and in-water devices

Military expended materials

Ingestion:

Military expended materials –

munitions

Military expended materials – other 

than munitions

Energy:

Lasers

Entanglement: 

Wires and cables

Decelerators/parachutes

Stressors to 

Physical 

Resources

Air Quality:

None

Sediments and Water Quality:

None

Stressors to 

Human 

Resources

Cultural Resources:

None

Socioeconomic Resources:

None

Public Health and Safety:

None

Military 

Expended 

Material

Ingestible Material:

Small decelerators/parachutes

Non-Ingestible Material:

Sonobuoys, clump anchors

Military 

Recoverable 

Material

Fiber optic cables

Sonar and 

Other 

Transducer

Bins

Low-Frequency: 

LF4

High-Frequency: 

HF6

Anti-Submarine Warfare: 

ASW2 ASW5

Explosive

Bins

None
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

A-284

Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions

Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command

Communications

Procedural 

Mitigation

Measures

Acoustic Stressors: (section 5.3.2)

Active sonar

Physical Disturbance and Strike: (section 

5.3.4)

Vessel movement

Assumptions 

Used for 

Analysis

During certain Communications Testing events, long lengths of fiber optic cable would be 

deployed in the water column in the Southern California Range Complex. Long lengths (up 

to approximately 60 mi.) of slightly negatively buoyant fiber optic cables would be 

temporarily deployed in the water column between moored points at depths of

approximately 600 to 850 ft. for durations of approximately one week (although some 

deployments could extend to one month). Each fixed mooring points associated with the 

deployment of fiber optic cables would consist of a mooring cable suspended from a float or 

a surface ship, and is anchored to the seafloor. Fiber optic cable breaking strength would be 

approximately 100 lb. or less. Fiber optic cable is designed to resist coiling when unspooled. 

Researchers would monitor for disruption of fiber optic transmissions.

The goal is to recover all fiber optic cable; however, if cable breaks during recovery (due to its 

relatively low tensile strength), any non-recoverable pieces are expected to sink.

Underwater fiber optic nodes (or endpoints) may also be connected via cable to temporary

surface communications buoys.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

A-285

Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions

Energy and Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance/Information 

Operations Sensor Systems

Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command

Energy and Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance/Information Operations Sensor Systems

Short 

Description

Develop, integrate, and demonstrate 

Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance 

systems and in-situ energy systems to support 

deployed systems.

Typical Duration

Typically 5 days for 6–8 hours per day

Long 

Description

Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance/Information Operations systems testing and insitu energy testing may include the following activities:

 Testing deployable autonomous undersea technologies that improve the Navy’s 

capability to conduct effective anti-submarine warfare operations in littoral waters.

Such tests would measure undersea surveillance performance using networked 

electromagnetic and passive acoustic sensors. During these tests several arrays would 

be deployed on the seafloor, buried in sandy seafloors or suspended in the water 

column with a mooring structure. The arrays would be comprised of passive 

hydrophones or electromagnetic sensors. Acoustic modems/communications 

transducers would be used to send messages of varying millisecond tones. Systems 

may also employ towed devices, remotely operated vehicles, or unmanned 

underwater vehicles. Acoustic releases would be would be used for the recovery of the 

hardware.

 Testing of sensors on the undersea systems testbed trunk cable. Test nodes would be 

added/removed to the trunk cable as dictated by testing requirements.

 Testing deployment, recovery and performance of maritime charging stations and 

communication nodes.

 Testing energy harvesting technologies.

 Bioacoustics research

Typical 

Components

Platforms: Moored platform, support craft, unmanned surface vehicle, unmanned underwater 

vehicle, remotely operated vehicle

Targets: None

Systems being Trained/Tested: Airguns, sonar, underwater communications, low energy laser, 

in-air radio communications

Standard 

Operating 

Procedures

(Section 

2.3.3)

Vessel safety

High-powered laser 

safety

Unmanned aerial, 

surface, and 

subsurface vehicle 

safety

Typical Locations

Range Complexes/Testing 

Ranges:

Hawaii Range Complex

Southern California Range 

Complex

Silver Strand Training Complex

Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Transit 

Corridor

Inland Waters/Pierside:

San Diego Bay

Stressors to 

Biological 

Resources

Acoustic:

Sonar and other 

transducers

Vessel noise

Explosive:

None

Physical Disturbance and Strike: 

Vessels and in-water devices

Seafloor devices

Ingestion:

None

Energy:

Lasers

Entanglement: 

Wires and cables
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

A-286

Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions

Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command

Energy and Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance/Information Operations Sensor Systems

Stressors to 

Physical 

Resources

Air Quality:

None

Sediments and Water Quality:

None

Stressors to 

Human 

Resources

Cultural Resources:

None

Socioeconomic Resources:

None

Public Health and Safety:

None

Military 

Expended 

Material

Ingestible Material:

None

Non-Ingestible Material:

Clump anchors 

Military 

Recoverable 

Material

Anchor blocks/sand bags

Sonar and 

Other 

Transducer

Bins

Low-Frequency: 

LF4 LF5

LF6

Mid-Frequency: 

MF10

High-Frequency: 

HF2 HF7

Airgun: 

AG

Explosive

Bins

None

Procedural 

Mitigation

Measures

Physical Disturbance and Strike: (section 

5.3.4)

Vessel movement

Towed in-water devices

Acoustic Stressors: (section 5.3.2)

Air guns

Active sonar

Assumptions 

Used for 

Analysis

For energy harvesting testing, seafloor device bottom disturbance results from a mat-type

object on the bottom, with at least a portion buried up to 6 inches in the sediment. The mat 

would remain up to several months, then be recovered. The mat allows for unmanned 

underwater vehicles charging at depth. Mats would be about 8 feet x 16 feet. Unmanned 

underwater vehicle charging stations and communications nodes/docks would be 

temporarily moored to the sea floor. All devices and mooring equipment would be 

recovered.

Some recharging stations would be placed on a thermal vent, others would use a different 

technology, not requiring a thermal vent.

Some Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance activities would include temporary 

placement of cable arrays on the sea floor. All equipment is recovered at end of testing.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

A-287

Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions

Vehicle Testing

Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command

Vehicle Testing

Short 

Description

Testing of surface and subsurface vehicles and 

sensor systems, which may involve Unmanned 

Underwater Vehicles, gliders, and Unmanned 

Surface Vehicles.

Typical Duration

Typically 5 days for 6–8 hours per day

Long 

Description

The vehicle testing and sensor systems may include the following:

 General testing of the navigational and tracking systems for Unmanned Underwater 

Vehicles and Unmanned Surface Vehicles.

 Testing of mine-hunting sensors and magnetic mine countermeasure systems in 

shallow water environments and in and around rocky outcroppings. This type of 

testing supports inert mine-hunting systems and provides training to Navy personnel 

on approaches to deploy, detect, and defend against mine systems using unmanned 

undersea vehicles.

 Testing of underwater surveillance systems and anti-submarine warfare systems to 

detect and track surface and subsurface targets in support of classification, 

assessment, and response scenarios.

 Testing of passive arrays for conducting submarine detection and tracking 

experiments and demonstrations. The arrays are composed of hydrophones to receive 

acoustic energy radiated by targets of interest. 

 Testing of Autonomous Oceanographic Research and Meteorology and Oceanography 

sensors to sample and characterize the ocean water column properties at spatial and 

temporal resolutions of the bathymetry, imagery data, conductivity, temperature and 

depth data, and optical data.

 Testing the launching of communication payloads and non-explosive objects from 

temporarily-placed seafloor devices and unmanned systems in the water column.

Typical 

Components

Platforms: Moored Platform; unmanned aerial system; remote operated vehicle; support craft; 

autonomous small, medium, and large surface and subsurface vehicles

Targets: None

Systems being Trained/Tested: Underwater navigation, mine-hunting, surveillance, and 

sampling systems involving the following: forward looking sonar, sonar, synthetic aperture 

sonar, underwater communications

Standard 

Operating 

Procedures

(Section 

2.3.3)

Vessel safety

Unmanned aerial, 

surface, and 

subsurface vehicle 

safety

Typical Locations

Range Complexes/Testing 

Ranges:

Hawaii Range Complex 

Hawaii-Southern California Transit 

Corridor

Southern California Range 

Complex

Silver Strand Training Complex

Inland Waters/Pierside:

San Diego Bay

Stressors to 

Biological 

Resources

Acoustic:

Sonar and other 

transducers

Aircraft noise

Vessel noise

Explosive:

None

Physical Disturbance and Strike: 

Aircraft and aerial targets

Vessels and in-water devices

Seafloor devices

Ingestion:

None

Energy:

Lasers

Entanglement: 

None

Stressors to 

Physical 

Air Quality:

None

Sediments and Water Quality:

None
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

A-288

Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions

Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command

Vehicle Testing

Resources

Stressors to 

Human 

Resources

Cultural Resources: 

Physical disturbance and 

strike

Socioeconomic Resources: 

Airborne acoustics

Public Health and Safety: 

Physical interactions

Military 

Expended 

Material

Ingestible Material:

None

Non-Ingestible Material:

Clump anchors

Military 

Recoverable 

Material

Mine shapes, anchors, inert launched 

payloads

Sonar and 

Other 

Transducer

Bins

Mid-Frequency: 

MF9 MF13

High-Frequency: 

HF6

Low-Frequency: 

LF3

Forward-Looking Sonar: 

FLS2 FLS3

Acoustic Modems: 

M3

Synthetic Aperture Sonars: 

SAS1 SAS3

SAS2

Broadband: 

BB4

Explosive

Bins

None

Procedural 

Mitigation

Measures

Acoustic Stressors: (section 5.3.2)

Active sonar

Physical Disturbance and Strike: (section 

5.3.4)

Vessel movement

Towed In-Water Device

Assumptions 

Used for 

Analysis

Unmanned aerial systems all involve small aircraft used for communications relays.

Unmanned Underwater Vehicles range in size from small hand-launched systems to the Large 

Displacement Unmanned Undersea Vehicle. 

Unmanned Surface Vehicles would include small craft to vessels up to 200 ft. in length. Speeds 

vary based on mission requirements. 

Unmanned vessels could be autonomous and would be equipped with sensors for vessel 

avoidance to comply with International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea.
Appendix B: Activity Stressor Matrices

Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

i

Table of Contents

Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Overseas Environmental 

Impact Statement

Hawaii-Southern California Training and Testing

TABLE OF CONTENTS

APPENDIX B ACTIVITY STRESSOR MATRICES ..................................................................................................B-1

List of Tables

Table B-1: Stressors by Training Activity....................................................................................................B-3

Table B-2: Stressors by Testing Activity ...................................................................................................B-10

Table B-3: Stressors by Resource.............................................................................................................B-16

List of Figures

There are no figures in this chapter.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

ii

Table of Contents

This page intentionally left blank.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

B-1

Appendix B Activity Stressor Matrices

Appendix B Activity Stressor Matrices

This appendix contains three matrices. The first two matrices in this appendix list the training and 

testing activities that occur in the Hawaii-Southern California Study Area and their associated stressors. 

The third matrix lists the resources analyzed in this Environmental Impact Statement/Overseas 

Environmental Impact Statement and the stressors they are potentially affected by.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

B-2

Appendix B Activity Stressor Matrices

This page intentionally left blank.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

B-3

Appendix B Activity Stressor Matrices

Table B-1: Stressors by Training Activity

Hawaii-Southern 

California 

Training Activity

Biological Resources Physical Resources Human Resources 3

Acoustic Stressors Explosives Energy Stressors Physical Disturbance and 

Strike Stressors

Entanglement 

Stressors

Ingestion 

Stressors

Air 

Quality 

Stressors

Sediments and Water 

Quality Stressors

Cultural 

Resource 

Stressors

Socioeconomic 

Stressors

Public Health & 

Safety 

Stressors

Sonar & Other TransducersPile DrivingVessel NoiseAircraft NoiseWeapons NoiseExplosions in AirExplosions in WaterIn-Air Electromagnetic DevicesIn-Water ElectromagneticDevicesHigh Energy LasersVessels & In-water DevicesAircraft & Aerial TargetsMilitary Expended MaterialSeafloor DevicesWires & CablesDecelerators/ParachutesBiodegradable Polymer 1Military Expended Materials 

–

MunitionsMilitary Expended Materials 

–

Other than MunitionsCriteria Air PollutantsExplosivesMetalsChemicalsOther Materials 2Explosives 4Physical Disturbance & Strike 5Accessibility 6Airborne Acoustics 7Physical Disturbance 

& Strike 5

Underwater Energy 8In-Air Energy 9Physical Interactions 10

MAJOR TRAINING EXERCISES – LARGE INTEGRATED ANTI-SUBMARINE WARFARE

Composite Training Unit Exercise                             

Rim of the Pacific Exercise                              

MAJOR TRAINING EXERCISES – MEDIUM INTEGRATED ANTI-SUBMARINE WARFARE

Fleet Exercise/Sustainment Exercise                             

Undersea Warfare Exercise                             

INTEGRATED/COORDINATED TRAINING

Small Integrated Anti-Submarine 

Training

                   

Medium Coordinated AntiSubmarine Warfare Training

                   

Small Coordinated AntiSubmarine Warfare Training 

                   

AIR WARFARE

Air Combat Maneuver        

Air Defense Exercise        

Gunnery Exercise (Air-to-Air)             

Gunnery Exercise (Surface-to-Air)                 

Missile Exercise (Air-to-Air)                 

Missile Exercise (Surface-to-Air)                   

Missile Exercise – Man-portable 

Air Defense System

               
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

B-4

Appendix B Activity Stressor Matrices

Table B-1: Stressors by Training Activity (continued)

Hawaii-Southern 

California 

Training Activity

Biological Resources Physical Resources Human Resources 3

Acoustic Stressors Explosives Energy Stressors Physical Disturbance and 

Strike Stressors

Entanglement 

Stressors

Ingestion 

Stressors

Air 

Quality 

Stressors

Sediments and Water 

Quality Stressors

Cultural 

Resource 

Stressors

Socioeconomic 

Stressors

Public Health & 

Safety 

Stressors

Sonar & Other TransducersPile DrivingVessel NoiseAircraft NoiseWeapons NoiseExplosions in AirExplosions in WaterIn-Air Electromagnetic DevicesIn-Water ElectromagneticDevicesHigh Energy LasersVessels & In-water DevicesAircraft & Aerial TargetsMilitary Expended MaterialSeafloor DevicesWires & CablesDecelerators/ParachutesBiodegradable Polymer 1Military Expended Materials 

–

MunitionsMilitary Expended Materials 

–

Other than MunitionsCriteria Air PollutantsExplosivesMetalsChemicalsOther Materials 2Explosives 4Physical Disturbance

& Strike 5

Accessibility 6Airborne Acoustics 7Physical Disturbance 

& Strike 5

Underwater Energy 8In-Air Energy 9Physical Interactions 10

AMPHIBIOUS WARFARE

Amphibious Assault          

Amphibious Assault – Battalion 

Landing

       

Amphibious Marine Expeditionary 

Unit Exercise

              

Amphibious Marine Expeditionary 

Unit Integration Exercise

     

Amphibious Raid          

Expeditionary Fires 

Exercise/Supporting Arms 

Coordination Exercise

         

Humanitarian Assistance 

Operations

         

Marine Expeditionary Unit 

Composite Training Unit Exercise

                            

Naval Surface Fire Support 

Exercise – At Sea

                

Naval Surface Fire Support 

Exercise – Land-Based Target

       

ANTI-SUBMARINE WARFARE

Anti-Submarine Warfare Torpedo 

Exercise – Helicopter

                   

Anti-Submarine Warfare Torpedo 

Exercise – Maritime Patrol 

Aircraft

                   

Anti-Submarine Warfare Torpedo 

Exercise – Ship

             
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

B-5

Appendix B Activity Stressor Matrices

Table B-1: Stressors by Training Activity (continued)

Hawaii-Southern 

California 

Training Activity

Biological Resources Physical Resources Human Resources 3

Acoustic Stressors Explosives Energy Stressors Physical Disturbance and 

Strike Stressors

Entanglement 

Stressors

Ingestion 

Stressors

Air 

Quality 

Stressors

Sediments and Water 

Quality Stressors

Cultural 

Resource 

Stressors

Socioeconomic 

Stressors

Public Health & 

Safety 

Stressors

Sonar & Other TransducersPile DrivingVessel NoiseAircraft NoiseWeapons NoiseExplosions in AirExplosions in WaterIn-Air Electromagnetic DevicesIn-Water ElectromagneticDevicesHigh Energy LasersVessels & In-water DevicesAircraft & Aerial TargetsMilitary Expended MaterialSeafloor DevicesWires & CablesDecelerators/ParachutesBiodegradable Polymer 1Military Expended Materials 

–

MunitionsMilitary Expended Materials 

–

Other than MunitionsCriteria Air PollutantsExplosivesMetalsChemicalsOther Materials 2Explosives 4Physical Disturbance & Strike 5Accessibility 6Airborne Acoustics 7Physical Disturbance 

& Strike 5

Underwater Energy 8In-Air Energy 9Physical Interactions 10

ANTI-SUBMARINE WARFARE (Continued)

Anti-Submarine Warfare Torpedo 

Exercise – Submarine

         

Anti-Submarine Warfare Tracking 

Exercise – Helicopter

                   

Anti-Submarine Warfare Tracking 

Exercise – Maritime Patrol 

Aircraft

                   

Anti-Submarine Warfare Tracking 

Exercise – Ship

            

Anti-Submarine Warfare Tracking 

Exercise – Submarine

        

Service Weapons Test                   

ELECTRONIC WARFARE

Counter Targeting Chaff Exercise 

– Aircraft

        

Counter Targeting Chaff Exercise 

– Ship

        

Counter Targeting Flare Exercise          

Electronic Warfare Operations          

EXPEDITIONARY WARFARE

Dive and Salvage Operations       

Personnel Insertion/Extraction –

Surface and Subsurface

  

Personnel Insertion/Extraction –

Swimmer/Diver

  

Small Boat Attack      
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

B-6

Appendix B Activity Stressor Matrices

Table B-1: Stressors by Training Activity (continued)

Hawaii-Southern 

California 

Training Activity

Biological Resources Physical Resources Human Resources 3

Acoustic Stressors Explosives Energy Stressors Physical Disturbance and 

Strike Stressors

Entanglement 

Stressors

Ingestion 

Stressors

Air 

Quality 

Stressors

Sediments and Water 

Quality Stressors

Cultural 

Resource 

Stressors

Socioeconomic 

Stressors

Public Health & 

Safety 

Stressors

Sonar & Other TransducersPile DrivingVessel NoiseAircraft NoiseWeapons NoiseExplosions in AirExplosions in WaterIn-Air Electromagnetic DevicesIn-Water ElectromagneticDevicesHigh Energy LasersVessels & In-water DevicesAircraft & Aerial TargetsMilitary Expended MaterialSeafloor DevicesWires & CablesDecelerators/ParachutesBiodegradable Polymer 1Military Expended Materials 

–

MunitionsMilitary Expended Materials 

–

Other than MunitionsCriteria Air PollutantsExplosivesMetalsChemicalsOther Materials 2Explosives 4Physical Disturbance & Strike 5Accessibility 6Airborne Acoustics 7Physical Disturbance 

& Strike 5

Underwater Energy 8In-Air Energy 9Physical Interactions 10

MINE WARFARE

Airborne Mine Countermeasure –

Mine Detection

              

Civilian Port Defense – Homeland 

Security

                 

Limpet Mine Neutralization 

System

     

Marine Mammal System             

Mine Countermeasure Exercise –

Ship Sonar

        

Mine Countermeasures Mine 

Neutralization Remotely 

Operated Vehicle Operations

                   

Mine Countermeasure – Towed 

Mine Neutralization

             

Mine Laying            

Mine Neutralization Explosive 

Ordnance Disposal

               

Submarine-Launched Mobile 

Mines

      

Submarine Mine Exercise 

Surface Ship Object Detection      

Underwater Demolition Multiple 

Charge – Mat Weave and 

Obstacle Loading

               

Underwater Demolition 

Qualification/Certification

       
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

B-7

Appendix B Activity Stressor Matrices

Table B-1: Stressors by Training Activity (continued)

Hawaii-Southern 

California 

Training Activity

Biological Resources Physical Resources Human Resources 3

Acoustic Stressors Explosives Energy Stressors Physical Disturbance and 

Strike Stressors

Entanglement 

Stressors

Ingestion 

Stressors

Air 

Quality 

Stressors

Sediments and Water 

Quality Stressors

Cultural 

Resource 

Stressors

Socioeconomic 

Stressors

Public Health & 

Safety 

Stressors

Sonar & Other TransducersPile DrivingVessel NoiseAircraft NoiseWeapons NoiseExplosions in AirExplosions in WaterIn-Air Electromagnetic DevicesIn-Water ElectromagneticDevicesHigh Energy LasersVessels & In-water DevicesAircraft & Aerial TargetsMilitary Expended MaterialSeafloor DevicesWires & CablesDecelerators/ParachutesBiodegradable Polymer 1Military Expended Materials 

–

MunitionsMilitary Expended Materials 

–

Other than MunitionsCriteria Air PollutantsExplosivesMetalsChemicalsOther Materials 2Explosives 4Physical Disturbance & Strike 5Accessibility 6Airborne Acoustics 7Physical Disturbance 

& Strike 5

Underwater Energy 8In-Air Energy 9Physical Interactions 10

SURFACE WARFARE 

Bombing Exercise (Air-to-Surface)                 

Gunnery Exercise (Air-to-Surface) 

– Medium-Caliber

              

Gunnery Exercise (Air-to-Surface) 

– Small-Caliber

              

Gunnery Exercise (Surface-toSurface) Boat – Medium-Caliber

                

Gunnery Exercise (Surface-toSurface) Boat – Small-Caliber

          

Gunnery Exercise (Surface-toSurface) Ship – Large Caliber

                 

Gunnery Exercise (Surface-toSurface) Ship – Medium Caliber

                 

Gunnery Exercise (Surface-toSurface) Ship – Small-Caliber 

           

Independent Deployer 

Certification Exercise/Tailored 

Surface Warfare Training

                     

Integrated Live Fire                    

Laser Targeting – Aircraft          

Maritime Security Operations          

Missile Exercise (Air-to-Surface)                   

Missile Exercise (Air-to-Surface) 

Rocket

                  

Missile Exercise (Surface-toSurface)

                  
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

B-8

Appendix B Activity Stressor Matrices

Table B-1: Stressors by Training Activity (continued)

Hawaii-Southern 

California 

Training Activity

Biological Resources Physical Resources Human Resources 3

Acoustic Stressors Explosives Energy Stressors Physical Disturbance and 

Strike Stressors

Entanglement 

Stressors

Ingestion 

Stressors

Air 

Quality 

Stressors

Sediments and Water 

Quality Stressors

Cultural 

Resource 

Stressors

Socioeconomic 

Stressors

Public Health & 

Safety 

Stressors

Sonar & Other TransducersPile DrivingVessel NoiseAircraft NoiseWeapons NoiseExplosions in AirExplosions in WaterIn-Air Electromagnetic DevicesIn-Water ElectromagneticDevicesHigh Energy LasersVessels & In-water DevicesAircraft & Aerial TargetsMilitary Expended MaterialSeafloor DevicesWires & CablesDecelerators/ParachutesBiodegradable Polymer 1Military Expended Materials 

–

MunitionsMilitary Expended Materials 

–

Other than MunitionsCriteria Air PollutantsExplosivesMetalsChemicalsOther Materials 2Explosives 4Physical Disturbance & Strike 5Accessibility 6Airborne Acoustics 7Physical Disturbance 

& Strike 5

Underwater Energy 8In-Air Energy 9Physical Interactions 10

SURFACE WARFARE (Continued)

Sinking Exercise                      

OTHER TRAINING EXERCISES

Elevated Causeway System   

Kilo Dip         

Offshore Petroleum Discharge 

System 

 

Precision Anchoring         

Submarine Navigation Exercise  

Submarine Sonar Maintenance 

and Systems Checks

  

Submarine Under Ice Certification     

Surf Zone Test 

Detachment/Equipment Test and 

Evaluation

Surface Ship Object Detection        

Surface Ship Sonar Maintenance 

and Systems Checks

    

Unmanned Aerial System Training

and Certification

   

Unmanned Underwater Vehicle 

Training -Certification and 

Development

  

Waterborne Training  

1 Testing Activities Only

2 Other Materials include marine markers and flares, chaff, towed and stationary targets, and miscellaneous components of other expended objects
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

B-9

Appendix B Activity Stressor Matrices

3 Area of interest is U.S. Territorial Waters (seaward of the mean high water line to 12 nautical miles and any inshore waters) 4 Vibration and shock waves from underwater explosions.

5 Physical disturbance and strike stressors resulting from in-water devices, military expended materials, seafloor devices, pile driving, and vibration from sonic booms in U.S. territorial waters (seaward of the mean high water line to 12 nautical miles). 6 Availability of access on the ocean and in the air

7 Loud Noises from weapons firing, in-air explosions, and sonic booms 8 Active sonar, underwater explosions, air guns, vessel movements, mine warfare training devices, and unmanned underwater systems 9 Sources or electromagnetic energy and lasers

10 Interaction of Navy or Marine Corps aircraft, vessels, and equipment with general public

Note: A check indicates events that take place for Alternative 1 and Alternative 2.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

B-10

Appendix B Activity Stressor Matrices

Table B-2: Stressors by Testing Activity

Hawaii-Southern 

California 

Testing Activity

Biological Resources Physical Resources Human Resources 3

Acoustic Stressors Explosives Energy Stressors Physical Disturbance and 

Strike Stressors

Entanglement 

Stressors

Ingestion 

Stressors

Air

Quality 

Stressors

Sediments and Water 

Quality Stressors

Cultural 

Resource 

Stressors

Socioeconomic 

Stressors

Public Health & 

Safety 

Stressors

Sonar & Other TransducersPile DrivingVessel NoiseAircraft NoiseWeapons NoiseExplosions in AirExplosions in WaterIn-Air Electromagnetic DevicesIn-Water ElectromagneticDevicesHigh Energy LasersVessels & In-water DevicesAircraft & Aerial TargetsMilitary Expended MaterialSeafloor DevicesWires & CablesDecelerators/ParachutesBiodegradable Polymer 1Military Expended Materials 

–

MunitionsMilitary Expended Materials 

–

Other than MunitionsCriteria Air PollutantsExplosivesMetalsChemicalsOther Materials 2Explosives 4Physical Disturbance & Strike 5Accessibility 6Airborne Acoustics 7Physical Disturbance 

& Strike 5

Underwater Energy 8In-Air Energy 9Physical Interactions 10

NAVAL AIR SYSTEMS COMMAND

AIR WARFARE

Air Combat Maneuver         

Air Platform-Vehicle Test           

Air Platform Weapons Integration 

Test

         

Intelligence, Surveillance, and 

Reconnaissance Test

      

ANTI-SUBMARINE WARFARE

Anti-Submarine Warfare Torpedo 

Test

                   

Anti-Submarine Warfare Tracking 

Test – Helicopter

                      

Anti-Submarine Warfare Tracking 

Test – Maritime Patrol Aircraft

                      

Sonobuoy Lot Acceptance Test                     

ELECTRONIC WARFARE

Chaff Test        

Electronic Systems Evaluation       

Flare Test            

MINE WARFARE

Airborne Dipping Sonar 

Minehunting Test

        

Airborne Laser-Based Mine 

Detection System Test

          

Airborne Mine Neutralization 

System Test (AMNS)

                      
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

B-11

Appendix B Activity Stressor Matrices

Table B-2: Stressors by Testing Activity (continued)

Hawaii-Southern 

California 

Testing Activity

Biological Resources Physical Resources Human Resources 3

Acoustic Stressors Explosives Energy Stressors Physical Disturbance and 

Strike Stressors

Entanglement 

Stressors

Ingestion 

Stressors

Air 

Quality 

Stressors

Sediments and Water 

Quality Stressors

Cultural 

Resource 

Stressors

Socioeconomic 

Stressors

Public Health & 

Safety 

Stressors

Sonar & Other TransducersPile DrivingVessel NoiseAircraft NoiseWeapons NoiseExplosions in AirExplosions in WaterIn-Air Electromagnetic DevicesIn-Water ElectromagneticDevicesHigh Energy LasersVessels & In-water DevicesAircraft & Aerial TargetsMilitary Expended MaterialSeafloor DevicesWires & CablesDecelerators/ParachutesBiodegradable Polymer 1Military Expended Materials 

–

MunitionsMilitary Expended Materials 

–

Other than MunitionsCriteria Air PollutantsExplosivesMetalsChemicalsOther Materials 2Explosives 4Physical Disturbance & Strike 5Accessibility 6Airborne Acoustics 7Physical Disturbance 

& Strike 5

Underwater Energy 8In-Air Energy 9Physical Interactions 10

MINE WARFARE (Continued)

Airborne Sonobuoy Minehunting 

Test

            

Mine Laying Test            

SURFACE WARFARE

Air-to-Surface Bombing Test                  

Air-to-Surface Gunnery Test                  

Air-to-Surface Missile Test                  

High Energy Laser Weapons Test           

Laser Targeting Test        

Rocket Test                    

OTHER TESTING ACTIVITIES

Acoustic and Oceanographic 

Research

        

Air Platform Shipboard Integrate 

Test

       

Kilo Dip         

Shipboard Electronic Systems

Evaluation

      

Undersea Range System Test    
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

B-12

Appendix B Activity Stressor Matrices

Table B-2: Stressors by Testing Activity (continued)

Hawaii-Southern 

California 

Testing Activity

Biological Resources Physical Resources Human Resources 3

Acoustic Stressors Explosives Energy Stressors Physical Disturbance and 

Strike Stressors

Entanglement 

Stressors

Ingestion 

Stressors

Air 

Quality 

Stressors

Sediments and Water 

Quality Stressors

Cultural 

Resource 

Stressors

Socioeconomic 

Stressors

Public Health & 

Safety 

Stressors

Sonar & Other TransducersPile DrivingVessel NoiseAircraft NoiseWeapons NoiseExplosions in AirExplosions in WaterIn-Air Electromagnetic DevicesIn-Water ElectromagneticDevicesHigh Energy LasersVessels & In-water DevicesAircraft & Aerial TargetsMilitary Expended MaterialSeafloor DevicesWires & CablesDecelerators/ParachutesBiodegradable Polymer 1Military Expended Materials 

–

MunitionsMilitary Expended Materials 

–

Other than MunitionsCriteria Air PollutantsExplosivesMetalsChemicalsOther Materials 2Explosives 4Physical Disturbance & Strike 5Accessibility 6Airborne Acoustics 7Physical Disturbance 

& Strike 5

Underwater Energy 8In-Air Energy 9Physical Interactions 10

NAVAL SEA SYSTEMS COMMAND

ANTI-SUBMARINE WARFARE

Anti-Submarine Warfare Mission 

Package Testing

                   

At-sea Sonar Testing              

Countermeasure Testing              

Pierside Sonar Testing  

Submarine Sonar TestingMaintenance

     

Surface Ship Sonar TestingMaintenance

         

Torpedo (Explosive) Testing                        

Torpedo (Non-explosive) Testing                      

ELECTRONIC WARFARE

Radar and other System Testing                   

MINE WARFARE

Mine Countermeasure and 

Neutralization Testing

                       

Mine Countermeasure Mission 

Package Testing

                     

Mine Detection and Classification 

Testing

                  

SURFACE WARFARE

Gun Testing – Large Caliber                  

Gun Testing – Medium Caliber                  
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

B-13

Appendix B Activity Stressor Matrices

Table B-2: Stressors by Testing Activity (continued)

Hawaii-Southern 

California 

Testing Activity

Biological Resources Physical Resources Human Resources 3

Acoustic Stressors Explosives Energy Stressors Physical Disturbance and 

Strike Stressors

Entanglement 

Stressors

Ingestion 

Stressors

Air 

Quality 

Stressors

Sediments and Water 

Quality Stressors

Cultural 

Resource 

Stressors

Socioeconomic 

Stressors

Public Health & 

Safety 

Stressors

Sonar & Other TransducersPile DrivingVessel NoiseAircraft NoiseWeapons NoiseExplosions in AirExplosions in WaterIn-Air Electromagnetic DevicesIn-Water ElectromagneticDevicesHigh Energy LasersVessels & In-water DevicesAircraft & Aerial TargetsMilitary Expended MaterialSeafloor DevicesWires & CablesDecelerators/ParachutesBiodegradable Polymer 1Military Expended Materials 

–

MunitionsMilitary Expended Materials 

–

Other than MunitionsCriteria Air PollutantsExplosivesMetalsChemicalsOther Materials 2Explosives 4Physical Disturbance & Strike 5Accessibility 6Airborne Acoustics 7Physical Disturbance 

& Strike 5

Underwater Energy 8In-Air Energy 9Physical Interactions 10

SURFACE WARFARE

Gun Testing – Small Caliber               

Kinetic Energy Weapon Testing                  

Missile and Rocket Testing                     

UNMANNED SYSTEMS

Unmanned Surface Vehicle 

System Testing

       

Unmanned Underwater Vehicle 

Testing

   

VESSEL EVALUATION

Air Defense Testing                  

In-port Maintenance Testing  

Propulsion Testing        

Submarine Sea Trials – Propulsion 

Testing

  

Submarine Sea Trials – Weapons 

System Testing

        

Surface Warfare Testing                  

Undersea Warfare Testing                    

Vessel Signature Evaluation            
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

B-14

Appendix B Activity Stressor Matrices

Table B-2: Stressors by Testing Activity (continued)

Hawaii-Southern 

California 

Testing Activity

Biological Resources Physical Resources Human Resources 3

Acoustic Stressors Explosives Energy Stressors Physical Disturbance and 

Strike Stressors

Entanglement 

Stressors

Ingestion 

Stressors

Air 

Quality 

Stressors

Sediments and Water 

Quality Stressors

Cultural 

Resource 

Stressors

Socioeconomic 

Stressors

Public Health & 

Safety 

Stressors

Sonar & Other TransducersPile DrivingVessel NoiseAircraft NoiseWeapons NoiseExplosions in AirExplosions in WaterIn-Air Electromagnetic DevicesIn-Water ElectromagneticDevicesHigh Energy LasersVessels & In-water DevicesAircraft & Aerial TargetsMilitary Expended MaterialSeafloor DevicesWires & CablesDecelerators/ParachutesBiodegradable Polymer 1Military Expended Materials 

–

MunitionsMilitary Expended Materials 

–

Other than MunitionsCriteria Air PollutantsExplosivesMetalsChemicalsOther Materials 2Explosives 4Physical Disturbance & Strike 5Accessibility 6Airborne Acoustics 7Physical Disturbance 

& Strike 5

Underwater Energy 8In-Air Energy 9Physical Interactions 10

OTHER TESTING ACTIVITIES

Chemical and Biological Simulant 

Testing

            

Insertion/Extraction  

Non-Acoustic Component Testing      

Signature Analysis Operations       

OFFICE OF NAVAL RESEARCH

ACOUSTIC AND OCEANOGRAPHIC SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

Acoustic and Oceanographic 

Research

              

Large Displacement Undersea 

Vehicle Testing

     

Long-Range Acoustic 

Communications

 

SPACE AND NAVAL WARFARE SYSTEMS COMMAND

Anti-Terrorism/Force Protection 

(AT/FP) Fixed Sensor Systems

  

Communications       

Energy and Intelligence, 

Surveillance, and 

Reconnaissance/Information 

Operations Sensor Systems

    

Vehicle Testing        

1 Testing Activities Only

2 Other Materials include marine markers and flares, chaff, towed and stationary targets, and miscellaneous components of other expended objects 3 Area of interest is U.S. Territorial Waters (seaward of the mean high water line to 12 nautical miles and any inshore waters) 4 Vibration and shock waves from underwater explosions.

5 Physical disturbance and strike stressors resulting from in-water devices, military expended materials, seafloor devices, pile driving, and vibration from sonic booms in U.S. territorial waters (seaward of the mean high water line to 12 nautical miles). 6 Availability of access on the ocean and in the air

7 Loud Noises from weapons firing, in-air explosions, and sonic booms
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

B-15

Appendix B Activity Stressor Matrices

8 Active sonar, underwater explosions, air guns, vessel movements, mine warfare training devices, and unmanned underwater systems 9 Sources or electromagnetic energy and lasers

10 Interaction of Navy or Marine Corps aircraft, vessels, and equipment with general public

Note: A check indicates events that take place for Alternative 1 and Alternative 2.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

B-16

Appendix B Activity Stressor Matrices

Table B-3: Stressors by Resource

Stressors vs. Resources

Biological Resources Physical Resources Human Resources

Acoustic Stressors Explosives Energy Stressors

Physical Disturbance and Strike 

Stressors

Entanglement 

Stressors

Ingestion 

Stressors

Air Quality 

Stressors

Sediments and Water 

Quality Stressors

Cultural 

Resource 

Stressors

Socioeconomic 

Stressors

Public Health and 

Safety Stressors

Sonar & Other TransducersPile DrivingVessel NoiseAircraft NoiseWeapons NoiseExplosivesIn-Air Electromagnetic DevicesIn-Water Electrometric DevicesHigh Energy LasersVessels & In-water DevicesAircraft & Aerial TargetsMilitary Expended MaterialPile DrivingSeafloor DevicesWires & CablesDecelerators/ParachutesBiodegradable PolymerMilitary Expended Materials -MunitionsMilitary Expended Materials 

–

Other than MunitionsCriteria Air PollutantsHazardous Air PollutantsExplosivesMetalsChemicalsOther MaterialsAcoustics 1, 4Physical Disturbance & Strike 5Accessibility 6Airborne Acoustics 7Physical Disturbance 

& Strike 5

Underwater Energy 3In-Air Energy 3Physical Interactions 3

Physical

Air Quality  

Sediments and Water 

Quality

   

Biological

Vegetation         

Invertebrates                  

Habitats     

Fishes                  

Marine Mammals                    

Reptiles                    

Birds             

Human

Cultural Resources      

Socioeconomic                 

Public Health and 

Safety

          

1 e.g., hull-mounted mid-frequency active sonar 2 Cultural resources stressor

3 Socioeconomics stressor

4 Public health and safety stressor

5 Acoustics stressor (includes only underwater explosives and airborne sonic booms)

Note: A check indicates events that take place for Alternative 1 and Alternative 2.
Appendix C: Air Quality Emissions Calculations and 

Record of Non-Applicability

Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

i

Table of Contents

Draft

Environmental Impact Statement/Overseas Environmental

Impact Statement

Hawaii-Southern California Training and Testing

TABLE OF CONTENTS

APPENDIX C AIR QUALITY EMISSIONS CALCULATIONS AND RECORD OF NON-APPLICABILITY ......... C-1

C.1 Surface Activities Emissions......................................................................................... C-1

C.2 Air Activities Emissions................................................................................................ C-2

C.3 Ordnance and Munitions Emissions............................................................................. C-2

C.4 Emissions Estimates Spreadsheets............................................................................... C-3

C.5 Record of Non-Applicability..................................................................................... C-105

List of Tables

Table C-1: Summary of Emissions by Air Basin ..........................................................................................C-3

Table C-1: Surface Ship Emission Factors...................................................................................................C-6

Table C-2: Aircraft Engine Emissions Indices/Factors and Sources............................................................C-8

Table C-3: Total Annual Criteria Pollutant Emissions within 3 NM from Training and Testing Activities -

Baseline (tons/year [tpy]) ..................................................................................................................C-9

Table C-4: Total Annual Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Training and Testing Activities - Baseline (tpy) C10

Table C-5: Total Annual Criteria Pollutant Emissions within 3 NM from Training and Testing Activities –

Alternative 1 (tpy)............................................................................................................................C-11

Table C-6: Total Annual Criteria Pollutant Emissions from Training and Testing Activities – Alternative 1 

(tpy)..................................................................................................................................................C-12

Table C-7: Total Annual Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Training and Testing Activities – Alternative 1 

(tpy)..................................................................................................................................................C-13

Table C-8: Total Annual Criteria Pollutant Emissions within 3 NM from Training and Testing Activities –

Alternative 2 (tpy)............................................................................................................................C-14

Table C-9: Total Annual Criteria Pollutant Emissions from Training and Testing Activities – Alternative 2 

(tpy)..................................................................................................................................................C-15

Table C-10: Total Annual Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Training and Testing Activities – Alternative 2 

(tpy)..................................................................................................................................................C-16

Table C-11: Baseline Ship Emissions – SCAB............................................................................................C-17
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

ii

Table of Contents

Table C-12: Baseline Ship Emissions – SDAB............................................................................................C-18

Table C-13: Baseline Ship Emissions – Hawaii .........................................................................................C-19

Table C-14: Baseline Amphibious Vessel Emissions – SCAB Training Activities.......................................C-20

Table C-15: Baseline Amphibious Vessel Emissions – SDAB Training Activities ......................................C-22

Table C-16: Baseline Amphibious Vessel Emissions – Hawaii Training Activities....................................C-24

Table C-17: Baseline Amphibious Vessel Emissions – SCAB Testing Activities........................................C-26

Table C-18: Baseline Amphibious Vessel Emissions – SDAB Testing Activities........................................C-28

Table C-19: Baseline Amphibious Vessel Emissions – Hawaii Testing Activities......................................C-30

Table C-20: Baseline Aircraft Emissions – SCAB Training Activities.........................................................C-32

Table C-21: Baseline Aircraft Emissions – SDAB Training Activities.........................................................C-35

Table C-22: Baseline Aircraft Emissions – Hawaii Training Activities.......................................................C-38

Table C-23: Baseline Aircraft Emissions – SCAB Testing Activities...........................................................C-41

Table C-24: Baseline Aircraft Emissions – SDAB Testing Activities..........................................................C-44

Table C-25: Baseline Aircraft Emissions – Hawaii Testing Activities........................................................C-47

Table C-26: Baseline Ordnance Emissions ...............................................................................................C-50

Table C-27: Alternative 1 Ship Emissions - SCAB .....................................................................................C-52

Table C-28: Alternative 1 Ship Emissions - SDAB .....................................................................................C-53

Table C-29: Alternative 1 Ship Emissions - Hawaii...................................................................................C-54

Table C-30: Alternative 1 Amphibious Vessel Training Emissions - SCAB................................................C-55

Table C-31: Alternative 1 Amphibious Vessel Training Emissions - SDAB ...............................................C-57

Table C-32: Alternative 1 Amphibious Vessel Training Emissions - Hawaii .............................................C-59

Table C-33: Alternative 1 Amphibious Vessel Testing Emissions - SCAB .................................................C-61

Table C-34: Alternative 1 Amphibious Vessel Testing Emissions - SDAB.................................................C-62

Table C-35: Alternative 1 Amphibious Vessel Testing Emissions - Hawaii...............................................C-63

Table C-36: Alternative 1 Aircraft Training Emissions - SCAB ..................................................................C-64

Table C-37: Alternative 1 Aircraft Training Emissions – SDAB .................................................................C-66

Table C-38: Alternative 1 Aircraft Training Emissions - Hawaii................................................................C-68

Table C-39: Alternative 1 Aircraft Testing Emissions - SCAB....................................................................C-70

Table C-40: Alternative 1 Aircraft Testing Emissions - SDAB ...................................................................C-72

Table C-41: Alternative 1 Aircraft Testing Emissions - Hawaii .................................................................C-74

Table C-42: Alternative 1 Ordnance Training Emissions..........................................................................C-76

Table C-43: Alternative 1 Ordnance Testing Emissions ...........................................................................C-77

Table C-44: Alternative 2 Ship Emissions - SCAB .....................................................................................C-79

Table C-45: Alternative 2 Ship Emissions - SDAB .....................................................................................C-80

Table C-46: Alternative 2 Ship Emissions - Hawaii...................................................................................C-81

Table C-47: Alternative 2 Amphibious Vessel Training Emissions - SCAB................................................C-82
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

iii

Table of Contents

Table C-48: Alternative 2 Amphibious Vessel Training Emissions - SDAB ...............................................C-84

Table C-49: Alternative 2 Amphibious Vessel Training Emissions - Hawaii .............................................C-86

Table C-50: Alternative 2 Amphibious Vessel Testing Emissions - SCAB .................................................C-88

Table C-51: Alternative 2 Amphibious Vessel Testing Emissions - SDAB.................................................C-89

Table C-52: Alternative 2 Amphibious Vessel Testing Emissions - Hawaii...............................................C-90

Table C-53: Alternative 2 Training Emissions - SCAB ...............................................................................C-91

Table C-54: Alternative 2 Aircraft Training Emissions - SDAB..................................................................C-93

Table C-55: Alternative 2 Aircraft Training Emissions - Hawaii................................................................C-95

Table C-56: Alternative 2 Aircraft Testing Emissions - SCAB....................................................................C-97

Table C-57: Alternative 2 Aircraft Testing Emissions- SDAB ....................................................................C-99

Table C-58: Alternative 2 Aircraft Testing Emissions - Hawaii ...............................................................C-101

Table C-59: Alternative 2 Ordnance Training Emissions........................................................................C-103

Table C-60: Alternative 2 Ordnance Testing Emissions .........................................................................C-104

List of Figures

There are no figures in this Appendix.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

iv

Table of Contents

This page intentionally left blank.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

C-1

Appendix C Air Quality Emissions Calculations and RONA

APPENDIX C AIR QUALITY EMISSIONS CALCULATIONS 

AND RECORD OF NON-APPLICABILITY

This appendix discusses emission factor development, calculations, and assumptions used in the air 

quality analyses presented in the Air Quality section of Chapter 3 (see Section 3.1).

C.1 SURFACE ACTIVITIES EMISSIONS

Surface activities are associated with vessel movements. Fleet training activities use a variety of marine 

vessels, including cruisers, destroyers, frigates, carriers, submarines, amphibious vessels, and small

boats. Testing activities use a variety of marine vessels, including various testing support vessels, work 

boats, torpedo recovery vessels, unmanned surface vehicles, and small boats. These vessels use a 

variety of propulsion methods, including marine outboard engines, diesel engines, and gas turbines. 

Marine Outboard Engines:

Emission factors for small surface craft involved in amphibious training and testing activities were 

obtained from the Navy and Military Sealift Command (MSC) Marine Engine Fuel Consumption & 

Emission Calculator database. Emissions for surface craft using outboard engines were calculated using 

Navy and MSC emission factors which are provided in terms of emissions per hour, and multiplied by the 

hours of operation.

Emissions = HR/YR×EF×ENG

Where:

Emissions = surface craft emissions

HR/YR = hours per year

EF = emission factor for specific engine type

ENG = number of engines

To obtain the total criteria pollutant emissions for the Proposed Action, emissions were calculated for

each training or testing activity, type of surface vessel, and criteria pollutant. These individual estimates 

of emissions, in units of tons per year, were then summed by criteria pollutant to obtain the aggregate

emissions for surface vessel emissions activities.

Diesel Engines:

Emission factors for small surface craft involved in amphibious training and testing activities were 

obtained from the Navy and MSC Marine Engine Fuel Consumption & Emission Calculator database. 

Diesel was assumed to be the primary fuel to ensure a conservative estimate. Calculation methods 

similar to those described for Marine Outboard Engines were used to obtain emissions estimates for

diesel engines.

Emissions = HR/YR×EF×ENG

Where:

Emissions = surface craft emissions

HR/YR = hours per year

EF = emission factor for specific engine type
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

C-2

Appendix C Air Quality Emissions Calculations and RONA

ENG = number of engines

Diesel engine emission factors were multiplied by the annual hours of operation to calculate the 

pollutant emissions per year.

C.2 AIR ACTIVITIES EMISSIONS

Fleet training and Naval Air Systems Command testing consists of the activities of various aircraft,

including the F/A-18, P-8, SH-60B, MH-53, MH-60S, and Lear jet. RDT&E air activities consist of various 

aircraft, including the 1UH-1N, SH-60B, MH-53, MH-60S, and Cessna-172. Aircraft activities of concern 

are those that occur from ground level up to 3,000 feet (ft.) above ground level (AGL). The 3,000 ft. AGL 

ceiling was assumed to be the atmospheric mixing height above which any pollutant generated would 

not contribute to increased pollutant concentrations at ground level (known as the mixing zone). All 

criteria pollutant emissions from aircraft generated above 3,000 ft. AGL are excluded from analysis of 

compliance with National Ambient Air Quality Standards. The pollutant emission rate is a function of the 

aircraft engine’s fuel flow rate and efficiency. Emissions for one complete training activity for a 

particular aircraft are calculated by knowing the specific engine pollutant emission factors for each 

mode of operation.

For this EIS/OEIS, emission factors for most military engines were obtained from Navy’s Aircraft 

Environmental Support Office (AESO) memoranda and previous Navy EIS/OEIS documentation (primarily 

citing the Federal Aviation Administration’s EDMS model). For those aircraft for which engine data were

unavailable, an applicable surrogate was used. Pollutant emissions for each aircraft/organization were

calculated by applying the equation below.

Emissions = TIM×FF×EF×ENG×CF

Where:

Emissions = aircraft emissions (pounds [lb.]) (for EF in lb./1,000 gallons [gal.] fuel)

TIM = time-in-mode at a specified power setting (hours [hr.]/operation).

FF = fuel flow at a specified power setting (gal./hr./engine)

EF = emission factor for specific engine type and power setting (lb./1,000 gal. of fuel used)

ENG = number of engines on aircraft

CF = conversion factor (0.001)

C.3 ORDNANCE AND MUNITIONS EMISSIONS

Available emissions factors (AP-42, Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors) were used. These

factors were then multiplied by the net weight of the explosive and the number of items that were used 

per year. This calculation provides estimates of annual emissions.

Emissions = EXP/YR×EF×Net Wt

Where:

Emissions = ordnance emissions

EXP/YR = explosives, propellants, and pyrotechnics used per year

EF = emissions factor

Net Wt = net weight of explosive
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

C-3

Appendix C Air Quality Emissions Calculations and RONA

C.4 EMISSIONS ESTIMATES SPREADSHEETS

The following spreadsheets show the emissions calculations for ships, aircraft, and ordnance, involved in 

training and testing activities. These spreadsheets were developed for each range complex and testing 

area. The spreadsheets show the calculations developed for each alternative analyzed in this EIS/OEIS.

Table C-1: Summary of Emissions by Air Basin

Source

Emissions by Air Pollutant (TPY)

CO NOX VOC SOX PM10 PM2.5

Hawaii (Baseline Emissions) 25 60 3 19 6 6

Hawaii (Alternative 1 – Preferred Alternative) 18 58 3 18 9 9

Hawaii (Alternative 2) 20 75 3 25 9 9

South Coast Air Basin (Baseline Emissions) 98 155 23 34 21 21

South Coast Air Basin (Alternative 1 – Preferred Alternative) 72 95 27 21 19 19

South Coast Air Basin (Alternative 2) 72 96 27 21 19 19

San Diego Air Basin (Baseline Emissions) 146 855 456 332 39 39

San Diego Air Basin (Alternative 1 – Preferred Alternative) 138 835 445 330 39 39

San Diego Air Basin (Alternative 2) 139 849 445 340 40 40

1 Table includes criteria pollutant precursors (e.g., volatile organic compounds). Individual values may not add exactly to total 

values due to rounding.

Notes: CO = carbon monoxide, NOX = nitrogen oxides, PM2.5 = particulate matter ≤ 2.5 microns in diameter, PM10 = particulate 

matter≤ 10 microns in diameter, SOX = sulfur oxides, TPY = tons per year, VOC = volatile organic compounds. 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

C-4

Appendix C Air Quality Emissions Calculations and RONA

This page intentionally left blank.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

C-5

Appendix C Air Quality Emissions Calculations and RONA

Air Emission Calculations

Summary Tables

Hawaii-Southern California Training and Testing Activities
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

C-6

Appendix C Air Quality Emissions Calculations and RONA

Table C-2: Surface Ship Emission Factors
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

C-7

Appendix C Air Quality Emissions Calculations and RONA

Notes:

1. AOE-1 assumed 2 boilers operating and heavy displacement

2. AOE, LHA, LHD, and LPD class ships – Steam ship emissions are calculated based on ship’s fuel consumption.

3. Steam ship emission factors were calculated using U.S. Environmental Protection Agency AP-42 Steam Ship Emission 

Factors for Distillate Oil.

4. All SOx emission factors were based upon 0.5% sulfur content of the fuel.

5. PM10 is based on 95% of total PM based on information provided by the EPA.

6. PM2.5 emissions are assumed to be the same as PM10 emissions
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

C-8

Appendix C Air Quality Emissions Calculations and RONA

Table C-3: Aircraft Engine Emissions Indices/Factors and Sources

Notes:

1. AESO MR refers to AESO Memorandum Reports.

2. The ICAO, 2007 report was cited in DoN 2008 (EIS for Introduction of the P-8A).

3. SOHRA stands for Safety and Occupational Health Risk Analysis

4. PM2.5 emissions are assumed to be the same as PM10 emissions.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

C-9

Appendix C Air Quality Emissions Calculations and RONA

Table C-4: Total Annual Criteria Pollutant Emissions within 3 NM from Training and Testing 

Activities - Baseline (tons/year [tpy])
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

C-10

Appendix C Air Quality Emissions Calculations and RONA

Table C-5: Total Annual Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Training and Testing Activities -

Baseline (tpy)
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

C-11

Appendix C Air Quality Emissions Calculations and RONA

Table C-6: Total Annual Criteria Pollutant Emissions within 3 NM from Training and Testing 

Activities – Alternative 1 (tpy)
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

C-12

Appendix C Air Quality Emissions Calculations and RONA

Table C-7: Total Annual Criteria Pollutant Emissions from Training and Testing Activities –

Alternative 1 (tpy)
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

C-13

Appendix C Air Quality Emissions Calculations and RONA

Table C-8: Total Annual Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Training and Testing Activities –

Alternative 1 (tpy)
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

C-14

Appendix C Air Quality Emissions Calculations and RONA

Table C-9: Total Annual Criteria Pollutant Emissions within 3 NM from Training and Testing 

Activities – Alternative 2 (tpy)
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

C-15

Appendix C Air Quality Emissions Calculations and RONA

Table C-10: Total Annual Criteria Pollutant Emissions from Training and Testing Activities –

Alternative 2 (tpy)
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

C-16

Appendix C Air Quality Emissions Calculations and RONA

Table C-11: Total Annual Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Training and Testing Activities –

Alternative 2 (tpy)

Air Emission Calculations

Baseline
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

C-17

Appendix C Air Quality Emissions Calculations and RONA

Table C-12: Baseline Ship Emissions – SCAB
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

C-18

Appendix C Air Quality Emissions Calculations and RONA

Table C-13: Baseline Ship Emissions – SDAB
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

C-19

Appendix C Air Quality Emissions Calculations and RONA

Table C-14: Baseline Ship Emissions – Hawaii
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

C-20

Appendix C Air Quality Emissions Calculations and RONA

Table C-15: Baseline Amphibious Vessel Emissions – SCAB Training Activities
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

C-21

Appendix C Air Quality Emissions Calculations and RONA
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

C-22

Appendix C Air Quality Emissions Calculations and RONA

Table C-16: Baseline Amphibious Vessel Emissions – SDAB Training Activities
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

C-23

Appendix C Air Quality Emissions Calculations and RONA
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

C-24

Appendix C Air Quality Emissions Calculations and RONA

Table C-17: Baseline Amphibious Vessel Emissions – Hawaii Training Activities
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

C-25

Appendix C Air Quality Emissions Calculations and RONA
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

C-26

Appendix C Air Quality Emissions Calculations and RONA

Table C-18: Baseline Amphibious Vessel Emissions – SCAB Testing Activities
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

C-27

Appendix C Air Quality Emissions Calculations and RONA
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

C-28

Appendix C Air Quality Emissions Calculations and RONA

Table C-19: Baseline Amphibious Vessel Emissions – SDAB Testing Activities
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

C-29

Appendix C Air Quality Emissions Calculations and RONA
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

C-30

Appendix C Air Quality Emissions Calculations and RONA

Table C-20: Baseline Amphibious Vessel Emissions – Hawaii Testing Activities
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

C-31

Appendix C Air Quality Emissions Calculations and RONA
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

C-32

Appendix C Air Quality Emissions Calculations and RONA

Table C-21: Baseline Aircraft Emissions – SCAB Training Activities
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

C-33

Appendix C Air Quality Emissions Calculations and RONA
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

C-34

Appendix C Air Quality Emissions Calculations and RONA
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

C-35

Appendix C Air Quality Emissions Calculations and RONA

Table C-22: Baseline Aircraft Emissions – SDAB Training Activities
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

C-36

Appendix C Air Quality Emissions Calculations and RONA
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

C-37

Appendix C Air Quality Emissions Calculations and RONA
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

C-38

Appendix C Air Quality Emissions Calculations and RONA

Table C-23: Baseline Aircraft Emissions – Hawaii Training Activities
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

C-39

Appendix C Air Quality Emissions Calculations and RONA
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

C-40

Appendix C Air Quality Emissions Calculations and RONA
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

C-41

Appendix C Air Quality Emissions Calculations and RONA

Table C-24: Baseline Aircraft Emissions – SCAB Testing Activities
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

C-42

Appendix C Air Quality Emissions Calculations and RONA
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

C-43

Appendix C Air Quality Emissions Calculations and RONA
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

C-44

Appendix C Air Quality Emissions Calculations and RONA

Table C-25: Baseline Aircraft Emissions – SDAB Testing Activities
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

C-45

Appendix C Air Quality Emissions Calculations and RONA
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

C-46

Appendix C Air Quality Emissions Calculations and RONA
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

C-47

Appendix C Air Quality Emissions Calculations and RONA

Table C-26: Baseline Aircraft Emissions – Hawaii Testing Activities
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

C-48

Appendix C Air Quality Emissions Calculations and RONA
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

C-49

Appendix C Air Quality Emissions Calculations and RONA
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

C-50

Appendix C Air Quality Emissions Calculations and RONA

Table C-27: Baseline Ordnance Emissions
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

C-51

Appendix C Air Quality Emissions Calculations and RONA

Air Emission Calculations

Alternative 1
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

C-52

Appendix C Air Quality Emissions Calculations and RONA

Table C-28: Alternative 1 Ship Emissions - SCAB
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

C-53

Appendix C Air Quality Emissions Calculations and RONA

Table C-29: Alternative 1 Ship Emissions - SDAB
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

C-54

Appendix C Air Quality Emissions Calculations and RONA

Table C-30: Alternative 1 Ship Emissions - Hawaii
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

C-55

Appendix C Air Quality Emissions Calculations and RONA

Table C-31: Alternative 1 Amphibious Vessel Training Emissions - SCAB
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

C-56

Appendix C Air Quality Emissions Calculations and RONA
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

C-57

Appendix C Air Quality Emissions Calculations and RONA

Table C-32: Alternative 1 Amphibious Vessel Training Emissions - SDAB
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

C-58

Appendix C Air Quality Emissions Calculations and RONA
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

C-59

Appendix C Air Quality Emissions Calculations and RONA

Table C-33: Alternative 1 Amphibious Vessel Training Emissions - Hawaii
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

C-60

Appendix C Air Quality Emissions Calculations and RONA
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

C-61

Appendix C Air Quality Emissions Calculations and RONA

Table C-34: Alternative 1 Amphibious Vessel Testing Emissions - SCAB
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

C-62

Appendix C Air Quality Emissions Calculations and RONA

Table C-35: Alternative 1 Amphibious Vessel Testing Emissions - SDAB
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

C-63

Appendix C Air Quality Emissions Calculations and RONA

Table C-36: Alternative 1 Amphibious Vessel Testing Emissions - Hawaii
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

C-64

Appendix C Air Quality Emissions Calculations and RONA

Table C-37: Alternative 1 Aircraft Training Emissions - SCAB
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

C-65

Appendix C Air Quality Emissions Calculations and RONA
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

C-66

Appendix C Air Quality Emissions Calculations and RONA

Table C-38: Alternative 1 Aircraft Training Emissions – SDAB
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

C-67

Appendix C Air Quality Emissions Calculations and RONA
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

C-68

Appendix C Air Quality Emissions Calculations and RONA

Table C-39: Alternative 1 Aircraft Training Emissions - Hawaii
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

C-69

Appendix C Air Quality Emissions Calculations and RONA
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

C-70

Appendix C Air Quality Emissions Calculations and RONA

Table C-40: Alternative 1 Aircraft Testing Emissions - SCAB
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

C-71

Appendix C Air Quality Emissions Calculations and RONA
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

C-72

Appendix C Air Quality Emissions Calculations and RONA

Table C-41: Alternative 1 Aircraft Testing Emissions - SDAB
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

C-73

Appendix C Air Quality Emissions Calculations and RONA
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

C-74

Appendix C Air Quality Emissions Calculations and RONA

Table C-42: Alternative 1 Aircraft Testing Emissions - Hawaii
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

C-75

Appendix C Air Quality Emissions Calculations and RONA
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

C-76

Appendix C Air Quality Emissions Calculations and RONA

Table C-43: Alternative 1 Ordnance Training Emissions
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

C-77

Appendix C Air Quality Emissions Calculations and RONA

Table C-44: Alternative 1 Ordnance Testing Emissions
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

C-78

Appendix C Air Quality Emissions Calculations and RONA

Air Emission Calculations

Alternative 2
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

C-79

Appendix C Air Quality Emissions Calculations and RONA

Table C-45: Alternative 2 Ship Emissions - SCAB
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

C-80

Appendix C Air Quality Emissions Calculations and RONA

Table C-46: Alternative 2 Ship Emissions - SDAB
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

C-81

Appendix C Air Quality Emissions Calculations and RONA

Table C-47: Alternative 2 Ship Emissions - Hawaii
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

C-82

Appendix C Air Quality Emissions Calculations and RONA

Table C-48: Alternative 2 Amphibious Vessel Training Emissions - SCAB
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

C-83

Appendix C Air Quality Emissions Calculations and RONA
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

C-84

Appendix C Air Quality Emissions Calculations and RONA

Table C-49: Alternative 2 Amphibious Vessel Training Emissions - SDAB
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

C-85

Appendix C Air Quality Emissions Calculations and RONA
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

C-86

Appendix C Air Quality Emissions Calculations and RONA

Table C-50: Alternative 2 Amphibious Vessel Training Emissions - Hawaii
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

C-87

Appendix C Air Quality Emissions Calculations and RONA
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

C-88

Appendix C Air Quality Emissions Calculations and RONA

Table C-51: Alternative 2 Amphibious Vessel Testing Emissions - SCAB
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

C-89

Appendix C Air Quality Emissions Calculations and RONA

Table C-52: Alternative 2 Amphibious Vessel Testing Emissions - SDAB
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

C-90

Appendix C Air Quality Emissions Calculations and RONA

Table C-53: Alternative 2 Amphibious Vessel Testing Emissions - Hawaii
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

C-91

Appendix C Air Quality Emissions Calculations and RONA

Table C-54: Alternative 2 Training Emissions - SCAB
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

C-92

Appendix C Air Quality Emissions Calculations and RONA
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

C-93

Appendix C Air Quality Emissions Calculations and RONA

Table C-55: Alternative 2 Aircraft Training Emissions - SDAB
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

C-94

Appendix C Air Quality Emissions Calculations and RONA
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

C-95

Appendix C Air Quality Emissions Calculations and RONA

Table C-56: Alternative 2 Aircraft Training Emissions - Hawaii
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

C-96

Appendix C Air Quality Emissions Calculations and RONA
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

C-97

Appendix C Air Quality Emissions Calculations and RONA

Table C-57: Alternative 2 Aircraft Testing Emissions - SCAB
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

C-98

Appendix C Air Quality Emissions Calculations and RONA
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

C-99

Appendix C Air Quality Emissions Calculations and RONA

Table C-58: Alternative 2 Aircraft Testing Emissions- SDAB
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

C-100

Appendix C Air Quality Emissions Calculations and RONA
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

C-101

Appendix C Air Quality Emissions Calculations and RONA

Table C-59: Alternative 2 Aircraft Testing Emissions - Hawaii
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

C-102

Appendix C Air Quality Emissions Calculations and RONA
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

C-103

Appendix C Air Quality Emissions Calculations and RONA

Table C-60: Alternative 2 Ordnance Training Emissions
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

C-104

Appendix C Air Quality Emissions Calculations and RONA

Table C-61: Alternative 2 Ordnance Testing Emissions
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

C-105

Appendix C Air Quality Emissions Calculations and RONA

C.5 RECORD OF NON-APPLICABILITY

This appendix provides a Record of Non-Applicability (RONA) for each California Air Basin potentially 

impacted by the Proposed Action (South Coast Air Basin and San Diego Air Basin) in accordance with 40 

CFR 93.153(b).
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

C-106

Appendix C Air Quality Emissions Calculations and RONA

NAVY RECORD OF NON-APPLICABILITY FOR CLEAN AIR ACT CONFORMITY

The Proposed Action falls under the Record of Non-Applicability (RONA) category, and is documented 

with this RONA.

Action Proponents: United States Pacific Fleet, Naval Sea Systems Command, Naval Air Systems 

Command, Office of Naval Research, and Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command

Proposed Action: Hawaii-Southern California Training and Testing (HSTT) Activities

Proposed Action Location: Southern California Range Complex, CA

Proposed Action and Emissions Summary:

The action involves operation of military aircraft, vessels, and small boats in order to achieve requisite 

training and testing requirements. Some of these activities would occur in the vicinity of San Clemente 

Island, within the South Coast Air Basin. 

Attainment Area Status and Emissions Evaluation Conclusion:

The South Coast Air Basin is classified as an extreme non-attainment area for ozone, a serious nonattainment area for particulate matter with a diameter less than or equal to 2.5 microns, and a 

maintenance area for carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, and particulate matter with a diameter less 

than or equal to 10 microns. As a result, Proposed Action emissions were evaluated to assess 

compliance with the General Conformity Rule de minimis thresholds. The estimated annual emissions 

for Alternative 1 and Alternative 2 compared to the baseline are presented in Table 1. 

Table 1: Estimated Air Pollutant Emissions Under the Proposed Action

Parameter

Emissions by Air Pollutant (TPY)

CO NOX VOC PM10 PM2.5

Baseline 98 155 23 21 21

Alternative 1 72 95 27 19 19

Alternative 2 72 96 27 19 19

Net Change from 

Alternative 1 (26) (60) 4 (2) (2)

Net Change from 

Alternative 2 (26) (59) 4 (2) (2)

De Minimis Threshold 100 10 10 100 100

Alternative 1 Exceeds 

Threshold? No No No No No

Alternative 2 Exceeds 

Threshold? No No No No No

Notes: Table includes criteria pollutant precursors (e.g., VOC). Individual values may not add 

exactly to total values due to rounding. CO = carbon monoxide; NOX = nitrogen oxides; PM10 = 

particulates under 10 microns; PM2.5 = particulates under 2.5 microns; TPY = tons per year; VOC 

= volatile organic compounds

Included with this RONA is a summary of the calculations and data used. The U.S. Navy concludes that 

de minimis thresholds for all emissions would not be exceeded as a result of implementation of the 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

C-107

Appendix C Air Quality Emissions Calculations and RONA

proposed action. Formal Conformity Determination procedures are not required, resulting in this RONA. 

The emissions data supporting that conclusion is shown in Table 1, which is a summary of the 

calculations, methodology, and data attached to this RONA.”

Affected Air Basin: South Coast Air Basin

Date RONA prepared: _____________________________________

RONA prepared by: Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Southwest

RONA Approval:

Signature: ___________________________________

Name/Rank: __________________________ Date: _________________

Position: ________________________________________________
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

C-108

Appendix C Air Quality Emissions Calculations and RONA

NAVY RECORD OF NON-APPLICABILITY FOR CLEAN AIR ACT CONFORMITY

The Proposed Action falls under the Record of Non-Applicability (RONA) category, and is documented 

with this RONA.

Action Proponents: United States Pacific Fleet, Naval Sea Systems Command, Naval Air Systems 

Command, Office of Naval Research, and Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command

Proposed Action: Hawaii-Southern California Training and Testing (HSTT) Activities

Proposed Action Location: Southern California Range Complex, CA

Proposed Action and Emissions Summary:

The action involves operation of military aircraft, vessels, and small boats in order to achieve requisite 

training and testing requirements. Some of these activities would occur in the vicinity of Camp 

Pendleton and San Diego Bay, within the San Diego Air Basin.

Attainment Area Status and Emissions Evaluation Conclusion:

The San Diego Air Basin is classified as non-attainment area for ozone and as a maintenance area for 

carbon monoxide. Effective June 3, 2016, the San Diego Air Basin was reclassified to a Moderate 

nonattainment area by USEPA. The estimated annual emissions for Alternative 1 and Alternative 2 

compared to the baseline are presented in Table 1. 

Table 1: Estimated Air Pollutant Emissions Under the Proposed Action

Parameter

Emissions by Air Pollutant (TPY)

CO NOX VOC PM10 PM2.5

Baseline 146 855 456 39 39

Alternative 1 138 835 445 39 39

Alternative 2 139 849 445 40 40

Net Change from 

Alternative 1 (8) (20) (11) 0 0

Net Change from 

Alternative 2 (7) (6) (11) 1 1

De Minimis Threshold 100 10 10 100 100

Alternative 1 Exceeds 

Threshold? No No No No No

Alternative 2 Exceeds 

Threshold? No No No No No

Notes: Table includes criteria pollutant precursors (e.g., VOC). Individual values may not add 

exactly to total values due to rounding. CO = carbon monoxide; NOX = nitrogen oxides; PM10 = 

particulates under 10 microns; PM2.5 = particulates under 2.5 microns; TPY = tons per year; VOC 

= volatile organic compounds

Included with this RONA is a summary of the calculations and data used. The U.S. Navy concludes that 

de minimis thresholds for all emissions would not be exceeded as a result of implementation of the 

proposed action. Formal Conformity Determination procedures are not required, resulting in this RONA. 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

C-109

Appendix C Air Quality Emissions Calculations and RONA

The emissions data supporting that conclusion is shown in Table 1, which is a summary of the 

calculations, methodology, and data attached to this RONA.

Affected Air Basin: San Diego Air Basin 

Date RONA prepared: _____________________________________

RONA prepared by: Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Southwest

RONA Approval:

Signature: ___________________________________

Name/Rank: __________________________ Date: _________________

Position: ______________________________
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

C-110

Appendix C Air Quality Emissions Calculations and RONA

This page intentionally left blank.
Appendix D: Acoustic and Explosive Concepts

Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

i

Table of Contents

Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Overseas Environmental 

Impact Statement

Hawaii-Southern California Training and Testing

TABLE OF CONTENTS

APPENDIX D ACOUSTIC AND EXPLOSIVE CONCEPTS........................................................... D-1

D.1 Terminology ............................................................................................................. D-1

D.1.1 Sound .................................................................................................................... D-1

D.1.2 Signal versus Noise................................................................................................ D-1

D.1.3 Frequency and Wavelength.................................................................................. D-2

D.1.4 Sound Amplitude .................................................................................................. D-2

D.1.5 Impulsive versus Non-Impulsive Sounds............................................................... D-3

D.1.6 Acoustic Impedance.............................................................................................. D-3

D.1.7 Duty Cycle ............................................................................................................. D-3

D.1.8 Resonance............................................................................................................. D-3

D.2 Sound Metrics .......................................................................................................... D-4

D.2.1 Pressure ................................................................................................................ D-4

D.2.2 Sound Pressure Level............................................................................................ D-4

D.2.3 Sound Exposure Level ........................................................................................... D-5

D.2.4 Particle motion...................................................................................................... D-7

D.2.5 Impulse.................................................................................................................. D-7

D.3 Predicting How Sound Travels................................................................................... D-8

D.3.1 Speed of Sound ..................................................................................................... D-8

D.3.2 Source Directivity.................................................................................................. D-9

D.3.3 Transmission Loss ................................................................................................. D-9

D.3.3.1 Geometrical Spreading Loss ............................................................... D-10

D.3.3.2 Absorption .......................................................................................... D-11

D.3.3.3 Refraction ........................................................................................... D-11

D.3.3.4 Reflection and Multipath Propagation ............................................... D-12

D.3.3.5 Diffraction, Scattering, and Reverberation......................................... D-13

D.3.3.6 Surface and Bottom Effects................................................................ D-13

D.3.3.7 Air-Water Interface............................................................................. D-14

D.4 Auditory Perception................................................................................................ D-15

D.5 Explosives............................................................................................................... D-17

D.5.1 Explosions in Air.................................................................................................. D-18

D.5.1.1 Fragmentation .................................................................................... D-19
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

ii

Table of Contents

D.5.2 Explosions in Water ............................................................................................ D-19

List of Tables

There are no tables in this appendix.

List of Figures

Figure D-1: Various Sound Pressure Metrics for a Hypothetical (a) Pure Tone (Non-Impulsive)

and (b) Impulsive Sound ..................................................................................................... D-4

Figure D-2: Summation of Acoustic Energy from a Hypothetical, Intermittently Pinging, 

Stationary Sound Source...................................................................................................... D-6

Figure D-3: Cumulative Sound Exposure Level under Realistic Conditions with a Moving, 

Intermittently Pinging Sound Source................................................................................... D-7

Figure D-4: Sound Velocity Profile (Sound Speed) Is Related to Temperature, Salinity, and 

Hydrostatic Pressure of Seawater ....................................................................................... D-9

Figure D-5: Graphical Representation of the Inverse Square Relationship in Spherical Spreading ....... D-10

Figure D-6: Sound propagation showing Multipath Propagation and conditions for surface duct........ D-12

Figure D-7: Characteristics of Sound Transmission through the Air-Water Interface............................ D-15

Figure D-8: A-weighting for Human Hearing of Sounds in Air (OSHA). The Numbers along the 

Curve Indicate How a Received Sound Level Would Be Adjusted at that Frequency. ...... D-17

Figure D-9: Impulse Shown as a Function of Pressure over Duration at a Specific Location ................. D-18
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

D-1

Appendix D Acoustic and Explosive Concepts

APPENDIX D ACOUSTIC AND EXPLOSIVE CONCEPTS

This section introduces basic principles and terminology for acoustics and explosives to help the reader 

understand the analyses presented in this Environmental Impact Statement. This section briefly explains 

the transmission of sound and explosive energy; introduces some of the basic mathematical formulas 

used to describe propagation; and defines acoustical terms, abbreviations, and units of measurement. 

The difference between transmission of sound in water and in air is also discussed. Finally, it discusses 

methods used to analyze what animals may hear.

A number of other sources provide a more extensive background on acoustics and explosives than 

presented in this overview and are recommended for further inquiry. These include, but are not 

limited to:

 Marine Mammals and Noise (Richardson et al., 1995) for a general overview

 Principles of Underwater Sound (Urick, 1983), Fundamentals of Acoustical Oceanography

(Medwin & Clay, 1998), and Principles of Marine Bioacoustics (Au & Hastings, 2008) for 

comprehensive explanations of underwater acoustics

D.1 Terminology

The following terms are used in this document when discussing sound and the attributes of a 

sound source.

D.1.1 Sound

Sound is produced when an elastic medium (such as air or water) is set into motion, typically by a 

vibrating object within the medium. As the object vibrates, its motion is transmitted to adjacent 

“particles” of the medium. The motion of these particles is transmitted to adjacent particles, and so on. 

The result is a mechanical disturbance (the “sound wave”) that moves away from the source and 

propagates at a medium-dependent speed (the “sound speed”). As the sound wave travels through the 

medium, the individual particles of the medium oscillate about their original positions but do not 

actually move with the sound wave. As the particles of the medium move back and forth they create 

small changes about the original values of the medium density, pressure, and temperature.

Sound may be described by both physical and subjective attributes. Physical attributes, such as sound 

amplitude and frequency, may be directly measured. Subjective (or sensory) attributes like loudness 

depend on an animal’s perception of sound. Physical attributes of a sound at a particular point are 

usually obtained by measuring pressure changes as sound waves pass. 

D.1.2 Signal versus Noise

When sound is purposely created to convey information, communicate, or obtain information about the 

environment, it is often referred to as a signal. Examples of sounds that could be considered signals are 

sonar pings, marine mammal vocalizations and echolocation clicks, tones used in hearing experiments, 

and small sonobuoy explosions used for submarine detection. 

Noise is undesired sound (American National Standards Institute, 1994). Sounds produced by naval 

aircraft and vessel propulsion are considered noise because they represent possible inefficiencies and 

increased detectability. Whether a sound is perceived as noise often depends on the receiver (i.e., the 

animal or system that detects the sound). For example, small explosives and sonar used to generate 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

D-2

Appendix D Acoustic and Explosive Concepts

sounds that can locate an enemy submarine produce signals that are useful to sailors engaged in antisubmarine warfare, but are assumed to be noise when detected by marine mammals.

The combination of all sounds at a particular location, whether these sources are located near or far, is 

ambient noise (American National Standards Institute, 1994). Ambient noise includes natural sources, 

such as sound from crashing waves, rain, and animals (e.g., snapping shrimp), and anthropogenic 

sources, such as seismic surveys and vessel noise.

D.1.3 Frequency and Wavelength

Frequency is the physical attribute most closely associated with the subjective attribute “pitch”; the 

higher the frequency, the higher the pitch. Frequency is defined by the number of oscillations in the 

sound pressure or particle motion per second. One hertz (Hz) is equal to one oscillation per second, and 

one kilohertz (kHz) is equal to 1,000 oscillations per second. Human hearing generally spans the 

frequency range from 20 Hz to 20 kHz. The frequency range of a sound is called its bandwidth. 

Pure tones have energy at a constant, single frequency. Complex tones contain energy at multiple, 

discrete frequencies, rather than a single frequency. A harmonic of a sound at a particular frequency is a 

multiple of that frequency (e.g., harmonic frequencies of a 2 kHz tone are 4 kHz, 6 kHz, 8 kHz, etc.). A 

source operating at a nominal frequency may emit several harmonic frequencies, but at lower 

amplitudes. Some sources may also emit subharmonics; however, these are typically many orders of 

magnitude less powerful than at the center frequency. Sounds with large bandwidth (“broadband” 

sounds) have energy spread across many frequencies.

In this document, sounds are generally described as either low- (less than 1 kHz), mid- (1 kHz–10 kHz), 

high- (10 kHz–100 kHz), or very high- (greater than 100 kHz) frequency. Hearing ranges of marine 

animals (e.g., fish, birds, sea turtles, and marine mammals) are quite varied and are species-dependent. 

For example, some fish can hear sounds below 100 Hz and some species of marine mammals have 

hearing capabilities that extend above 100 kHz. Acoustic impact analyses must therefore focus not only 

on the sound amplitude (i.e., pressure or particle motion, see Section D.1.4), but on the sound 

frequency and the hearing capabilities of the species being considered.

The wavelength of a sound is the distance between wave peaks. Wavelength decreases as frequency 

increases. The frequency multiplied by the wavelength equals the speed of sound in a medium, as 

shown in this equation:

Frequency (s-1) x wavelength (m) = sound speed (m/s)

The approximate speed of sound in sea water is 1500 m/s and in air is 340 m/s, although speed varies 

depending on environmental conditions [e.g., pressure, temperature, and, in the case of sea water,

salinity; see Section D.3.1 (Speed of Sound)].

D.1.4 Sound Amplitude

Sound amplitude is the physical attribute most closely associated with the subjective attribute loudness. 

Amplitude is related to the amount that the medium particles oscillate about their original positions and 

can be thought of as the “strength” of a sound (as the amplitude increases, the loudness also increases).

As the sound wave travels, the particles of the medium oscillate but do not actually travel with the 

wave. The result is a mechanical disturbance (i.e., the sound wave) that propagates away from the 

sound source.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

D-3

Appendix D Acoustic and Explosive Concepts

Sound amplitude is typically characterized by measuring the acoustic pressure or particle motion (see 

Section D.2, Sound Metrics). 

D.1.5 Impulsive versus Non-Impulsive Sounds

Although no standard definitions exist, sounds may be broadly categorized as impulsive or nonimpulsive. Impulsive sounds have short durations, rapid rise-times, broad frequency content, and high 

peak sound pressures. Impulsive sounds are often produced by processes involving a rapid release of 

energy or mechanical impacts (Hamernik & Hsueh, 1991). Explosions, air guns, weapon firing, and 

impact pile driving are examples of impulsive sound sources analyzed in this document. In contrast, 

sonars, vessel operation, vibratory pile driving, and underwater transducers lack the characteristics of 

impulsive sources and are thus examples of non-impulsive sound sources. Non-impulsive sounds can be 

essentially continuous, such as machinery noise, or intermittent, such as sonar pings. 

D.1.6 Acoustic Impedance

Acoustic impedance is a property of the propagation medium (air, water, or tissue) that can be simply 

described as the opposition to flow of a pressure wave. Acoustic impedance is a function of the density 

and speed of sound in a medium. Sound transmits more readily through materials of similar acoustic 

impedance, such as water and animal tissue. When sound waves encounter a medium with different 

acoustic impedance (for example, an air-water interface), they reflect and refract (see Sections D.3.3.3, 

Refraction, and D.3.3.4, Reflection and Multipath Propagation), creating more complex propagation 

conditions. For example, sound traveling in air (low impedance) encountering the water surface (high 

impedance) will be largely reflected, preventing most sound energy in the air from being transmitted 

into the water. The impedance difference at the tissue-air interface in animals with gas-containing 

organs also makes these areas susceptible to damage when exposed to the shock wave near an 

explosion, since the transmission from high-impedance to low-impedance can result in large motion at

the boundary.

D.1.7 Duty Cycle

Duty cycle describes the portion of time that a sound source actually generates sound. It is defined as 

the percentage of time during which a sound is generated over a total operational time period. For 

example, if a sonar source produces a one-second ping once every 10 seconds, the duty cycle is 10 

percent. Duty cycles vary among different acoustic sources; in general, a low duty cycle could be 

considered 20 percent or less and a high duty cycle 80 percent or higher.

D.1.8 Resonance

Resonance occurs when an object is vibrated at a frequency near its “natural frequency” or resonant 

frequency. The resonant frequency can be considered the preferred frequency at which an object will 

oscillate at a greater magnitude than when exposed to other frequencies. In this document, resonance is 

considered in relation to the size of an air bubble or air cavity in an animal that is exposed to high 

pressure waves and the potential for injury. The natural frequencies of dolphin and beluga lungs near 

the surface are about 36 Hz and 30 Hz, respectively (Finneran, 2003), the natural frequency of lungs of a 

large whale would be lower, while the natural frequency of small air bubbles would be much higher. 

Resonant frequencies would tend to increase as an animal dives, since the increased water pressure 

would compress an air-filled structure and reduce its size. 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

D-4

Appendix D Acoustic and Explosive Concepts

D.2 Sound Metrics

The sound metrics described here are used in this document to quantify exposure to a sound 

or explosion.

D.2.1 Pressure

Sound pressure is the incremental variation in a medium’s static pressure as a sound wave travels 

through it. Sound pressure is typically expressed in units of pascals (Pa) (1 Pa = 1 N/m2 = 10 μbar = 

1.45×10-4 psi), although explosive overpressure may also be described in pounds per square inch (psi). 

Various sound pressure metrics are illustrated in Figure D-1 for (a) a non-impulsive sound (a pure tone in 

this illustration) and (b) an impulsive sound. As shown in Figure D-1, the non-impulsive sound has a 

relatively gradual rise in pressure from static pressure (the ambient pressure without the added sound), 

while the impulsive sound has a near-instantaneous rise to a high peak pressure. The peak pressure 

shown on both illustrations is the maximum absolute value of the instantaneous sound pressure during 

a specified time interval (“zero-to-peak” or “peak”), which accounts for the values of peak pressures 

below the static (ambient) pressure (American National Standards Institute, 2013). “Peak-to-peak”

pressure is the difference between the maximum and minimum sound pressures. The root-mean-square 

(rms) value is often used to describe the average sound pressure level of sounds, and sound pressure 

levels provided in this EIS/OEIS are root-mean-square values unless otherwise specified. As the name 

suggests, this method takes the square root of the average squared sound pressure values over a time 

interval. The duration of this time interval can have a strong effect on the measured rms sound pressure 

for a given sound, especially where pressure levels vary significantly, as during an impulsive sound 

exposure. If the analysis duration includes a significant portion of the waveform after the sound 

pressure has returned to zero, the rms pressure would be relatively low. If the analysis duration includes 

only the highest pressures of the impulsive exposure, the rms value would be comparatively high. For 

this reason, it is important to specify the duration used to calculate the rms pressure for 

impulsive sounds.

Figure D-1: Various Sound Pressure Metrics for a Hypothetical (a) Pure Tone (Non-Impulsive) 

and (b) Impulsive Sound

D.2.2 Sound Pressure Level

The most common sound level metric is sound pressure level (SPL). Because many animals can detect

very large pressure ranges and judge the relative loudness of sounds by the ratio of the sound pressures 

(a logarithmic behavior), sound pressure level (SPL) is described by taking the logarithm of the ratio of 

the sound pressure to a reference pressure. Use of a logarithmic scale compresses the wide range of 

measured pressure values into a more useful scale.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

D-5

Appendix D Acoustic and Explosive Concepts

Sound pressure levels are normally expressed in decibels. A decibel is 1/10 of a bel, a unit of level when 

the logarithm is to the base ten and the quantities concerned are proportional to power (American 

National Standards Institute, 2013). Sound pressure level in decibels is calculated as follows:

SPL = 20log10

P

P

ref

æ

è

ç

ö

ø

÷

where P is the sound pressure and Pref is the reference pressure. Unless stated otherwise, the pressure P 

is the rms value of the pressure (American National Standards Institute, 2013). In some situations, SPL is 

calculated for the peak pressure rather than the rms pressure. On the occasions when rms pressure is 

not used, the pressure metric will be stated (e.g., peak SPL means an SPL calculated using the peak 

pressure rather than the rms pressure). 

When a value is presented in decibels, it is important to also specify the value and units of the reference 

quantity. Normally the numeric value is given, followed by the text “re,” meaning “with reference to,”

and the numeric value and unit of the reference quantity. For example, a pressure of 1 Pa, expressed in 

decibels with a reference of 1 micropascal (μPa), is written 120 dB re 1 μPa. The standard reference 

pressures are 1 μPa for water and 20 μPa for air. The reference pressure for air, 20 μPa, is the 

approximate lowest threshold of human hearing. It is important to note that because of the differences

in reference units, the same sound pressures would result in different SPL values for each medium (the 

same sound pressure measured in water and in air would result in a higher SPL in water than in air, since 

the in-air reference is larger). Therefore, sound pressure levels in air and in water should never be 

directly compared.

D.2.3 Sound Exposure Level

Sound exposure level (SEL) can be thought of as a composite metric that represents both the SPL of a 

sound and its duration. Individual time-varying noise events (e.g., a series of sonar pings or an impulsive 

sound) have two main characteristics: (1) a sound pressure that changes throughout the event and (2) a 

period of time during which the source is exposed to the sound. SEL can be provided for a single 

exposure (i.e., a single sonar ping or single explosive detonation) or for an entire acoustic event (i.e., 

multiple sonar pings or multiple explosive detonations). Cumulative SEL provides a measure of the net 

exposure of the entire acoustic event, but it does not directly represent the sound level heard at any 

given time. SEL is determined by calculating the decibel level of the cumulative sum-of-squared 

pressures over the duration of a sound, with units of dB re 1 micropascal squared seconds (re 1 μPa2-s) 

for sounds in water and dB re (20 micropascal) squared seconds [dB re (20 μPa)2-s] for sounds in air.

Some rules of thumb for SEL are as follows:

 The numeric value of SEL is equal to the SPL of a 1-second sound that has the same total energy 

as the exposure event. If the sound duration is 1 second, SPL and SEL have the same numeric 

value (but not the same reference quantities). For example, a 1 second sound with an SPL of 100 

dB re 1 μPa has a SEL of 100 dB re 1 μPa2-s.

 If the sound duration is constant but the SPL changes, SEL will change by the same number of 

decibels as the SPL.

 If the SPL is held constant and the duration (T) changes, SEL will change as a function of 

10log10(T):

o 10 log10 (10) = 10, so increasing duration by a factor of 10 raises SEL by 10 dB.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

D-6

Appendix D Acoustic and Explosive Concepts

o 10 log10 (0.1) = -10, so decreasing duration by a factor of 10 lowers SEL by 10 dB.

o Since 10 log10 (2) ≈ 3, so doubling the duration increases SEL by 3 dB.

o 10 log10 (1/2) ≈ -3, so halving the duration lowers SEL by 3 dB.

Figure D-2 illustrates the summation of energy for a succession of sonar pings. In this hypothetical case, 

each ping has the same duration and SPL. The SEL at a particular location from each individual ping is 

100 dB re 1 μPa2-s (red circles). The upper, blue curve shows the running total or cumulative SEL.

Notes: EL = Exposure Level (i.e., Sound Exposure Level)

Figure D-2: Summation of Acoustic Energy from a Hypothetical, Intermittently Pinging, 

Stationary Sound Source

After the first ping, the cumulative SEL is 100 dB re 1 μPa2-s. Since each ping has the same duration and 

SPL, receiving two pings is the same as receiving a single ping with twice the duration. The cumulative 

SEL from two pings is therefore 103 dB re 1 μPa2-s. The cumulative SEL from four pings is 3 dB higher 

than the cumulative SEL from two pings, or 106 dB re 1 μPa2-s. Each doubling of the number of pings 

increases the cumulative SEL by 3 dB.

Figure D-3 shows a more realistic example where the individual pings do not have the same SPL or SEL. 

These data were recorded from a stationary hydrophone as a sound source approached, passed, and 

moved away from the hydrophone. As the source approached the hydrophone, the received SPL from 

each ping increased, causing the SEL of each ping to increase. After the source passed the hydrophone, 

the received SPL and SEL from each ping decreased as the source moved farther away (downward trend 

of red line), although the cumulative SEL increased with each additional ping received (slight upward 

trend of blue line). The main contributions are from those pings with the highest individual SELs. 

Individual pings with SELs 10 dB or more below the ping with the highest level contribute little (less than 

0.5 dB) to the total cumulative SEL. This is shown in Figure D-3, where only a small error is introduced by 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

D-7

Appendix D Acoustic and Explosive Concepts

summing the energy from the eight individual pings with SEL greater than 185 dB re 1 μPa2-s (black line), 

as opposed to including all pings (blue line).

Notes: EL = Exposure Level (i.e., Sound Exposure Level)

Figure D-3: Cumulative Sound Exposure Level under Realistic Conditions with a Moving, 

Intermittently Pinging Sound Source

D.2.4 Particle motion

The particles of a medium (e.g., water or air) oscillate around their original position as a sound wave 

passes. This motion is quantified using average displacement (m or dB re 1pm), velocity (m/s or dB re 1 

nm/s2), and acceleration (m/s2 or dB re 1 μm/s2) of the particles (Nedelec et al., 2016). Note that particle 

velocity is not the same as sound speed, which is how fast a sound wave moves through a medium. 

Particle motion is directional, whereas pressure measurement is not (Nedelec et al., 2016).

Far from a sound source and without any boundaries that could cause wave interference, particle 

velocity is directly proportional to sound pressure. Closer to a sound source, particle velocity begins to 

increase relative to sound pressure. Because this phenomena is related to wavelength, it may be 

relevant only when very close to sound sources with extremely low frequencies.

D.2.5 Impulse

Impulse is a metric used to describe the pressure and time component of a pressure wave. Impulse is 

typically only considered for high energy exposures to impulsive sources, such as exposures close to 

explosives. Specifically, positive impulse is the time integral of the initial peak positive pressure with 

units of Pascal-seconds (Pa-s). Impulse is a measured quantity that is distinct from the term “impulsive,” 

which is not a measurement term, but rather describes a type of sound (see Section D.1.5).
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

D-8

Appendix D Acoustic and Explosive Concepts

D.3 Predicting How Sound Travels

While the concept of a sound wave traveling from its source to a receptor is relatively simple, sound 

propagation is quite complex because of the simultaneous presence of numerous sound waves of 

different frequencies and source levels, and other phenomena such as reflections of sound waves and 

subsequent constructive (additive) or destructive (cancelling) interferences between reflected and 

incident waves. Other factors such as refraction, diffraction, bottom types, and surface conditions also 

affect sound propagation. While simple examples are provided here for illustration, the Navy Acoustic 

Effects Model used to quantify acoustic exposures to marine mammals and sea turtles takes into 

account the influence of multiple factors to predict acoustic propagation [see technical report 

Quantitative Analysis for Estimating Acoustic and Explosive Impacts to Marine Mammals and Sea Turtles

(U.S. Department of the Navy, 2017b)].

D.3.1 Speed of Sound

The speed of sound is not affected by the SPL or frequency of the sound, but rather depends wholly on 

characteristics of the medium through which it is passing (e.g., the density and the compressibility). 

Sound travels faster through a medium that is harder to compress. For example, water is more difficult 

to compress than air, and sound travels approximately 340 m/s in air and 1,500 m/s in seawater. 

The speed of sound in air is primarily influenced by temperature, relative humidity, and pressure, 

because these factors affect the density and compressibility of air. Generally, the speed of sound in air 

increases as air temperature increases. 

The speed of sound in seawater also increases with increasing temperature and, to a lesser degree, with 

increasing hydrostatic pressure and salinity. Figure D-4 shows an example of how these attributes can 

change with depth. In seawater, temperature has the most important effect on sound speed for depths 

less than about 300 m. Below 1,500 m, the increasing hydrostatic pressure is the dominant factor 

because the water temperature is relatively constant. The variation of sound speed with depth in the 

ocean is called a sound velocity profile.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

D-9

Appendix D Acoustic and Explosive Concepts

Source: http://blogs.oregonstate.edu/bioacoustics/2014/10/21/talk-weather/

Figure D-4: Sound Velocity Profile (Sound Speed) Is Related to Temperature, Salinity, and 

Hydrostatic Pressure of Seawater

D.3.2 Source Directivity

Most sonar and other active acoustic sources do not radiate sound in all directions. Rather, they emit 

sounds over a limited range of angles, in order to focus sound energy on a specific area or object of 

interest. The specific angles are sometimes given as horizontal or vertical beam width. Some sources can 

be described qualitatively as “forward-looking,” when sound energy is radiated in a limited direction in 

front of the source, or “downward-looking,” when sound energy is directed toward the bottom.

D.3.3 Transmission Loss

As a sound wave passes through a medium, the sound level decreases with distance from the sound 

source. This phenomenon is known as transmission loss (TL). The transmission loss is used to relate the 

source SPL (SL), defined as the SPL produced by a sound source at a distance of one meter, and the 

received SPL (RL) at a particular location, as follows:

RL = SL – TL
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

D-10

Appendix D Acoustic and Explosive Concepts

The main contributors to transmission loss are as follows (Urick, 1983):

 Geometric spreading of the sound wave as it propagates away from the source 

 Sound absorption (conversion of sound energy into heat)

 Scattering, diffraction, multipath interference, and boundary effects

D.3.3.1 Geometrical Spreading Loss

Spreading loss is a geometric effect representing regular weakening of a sound wave as it spreads out 

from a source. Spreading describes the reduction in sound pressure caused by the increase in surface 

area as the distance from a sound source increases. Spherical and cylindrical spreading are common 

types of spreading loss.

In the simple case of sound propagating from a point source without obstruction or reflection, the 

sound waves take on the shape of an expanding sphere. An example of spherical spreading loss is shown 

in Figure D-5. As spherical propagation continues, the sound energy is distributed over an ever-larger 

area following the inverse square law: the pressure of a sound wave decreases inversely with the square 

of the distance between the source and the receptor. For example, doubling the distance between the 

receptor and a sound source results in a reduction in the pressure of the sound to one-fourth of its 

initial value; tripling the distance results in one-ninth of the original pressure, and so on. Since the 

surface area of a sphere is 4πr2, where r is the sphere radius, the change in SPL with distance r from the 

source is proportional to the radius squared. This relationship is known as the spherical spreading law. 

The transmission loss for spherical spreading between two locations is:

TL = 20 log10 (r2/r1)

where r1 and r2 are distances from the source. Spherical spreading results in a 6 dB reduction in SPL for 

each doubling of distance from the sound source. For example, calculated transmission loss for spherical 

spreading is 40 dB at 100 m and 46 dB at 200 m.

Figure D-5: Graphical Representation of the Inverse Square Relationship in Spherical 

Spreading
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

D-11

Appendix D Acoustic and Explosive Concepts

In cylindrical spreading, spherical waves expanding from the source are constrained by the water surface 

and the seafloor and take on a cylindrical shape. In this case the sound wave expands in the shape of a 

cylinder rather than a sphere, and the transmission loss is:

TL = 10log10(r2/r1)

Cylindrical spreading is an approximation of sound propagation in a water-filled channel with horizontal 

dimensions much larger than the depth. Cylindrical spreading predicts a 3 dB reduction in SPL for each 

doubling of distance from the source. For example, calculated transmission loss for cylindrical spreading 

is 30 dB at 1,000 m and 33 dB at 2,000 m.

The cylindrical and spherical spreading equations above represent two simple hypothetical cases. In 

reality, geometric spreading loss is more spherical near a source and more cylindrical with distance, and 

is better predicted using more complex models that account for environmental variables, such as the 

Navy Acoustic Effects Model [see technical report Modeling and Quantitative Analysis of Acoustic and 

Explosive Impacts to Marine Species due to Navy Training and Testing Activities (DON 2017)].

However, when conducting simple spreading loss calculations in near shore environments, “practical 

spreading loss” can be applied, where:

TL = 15log10(r2/r1)

Practical spreading loss accounts for other realistic losses in the environment, such as absorption and 

scattering, which are not accounted for in geometrical spreading.

D.3.3.2 Absorption

Absorption is the conversion of acoustic energy to kinetic energy in the particles of the propagation 

medium (Urick, 1983). Absorption is directly related to sound frequency, with higher frequencies having 

higher rates of absorption. Absorption rates range from 0.07 dB/km for a 1 kHz sound to about 

30 dB/km for a 100 kHz sound. Therefore, absorption is the cause of a significant amount of attenuation 

for high and very high frequency sound sources, reducing the distance over which these sources may be 

perceived compared to mid- and low-frequency sound sources with the same source level.

D.3.3.3 Refraction

When a sound wave propagating in a medium encounters a second medium with a different density 

(e.g., the air-water boundary), part of the incident sound will be reflected back into the first medium 

and part will be transmitted into the second medium (Kinsler et al., 1982). The propagation direction will 

change as the sound wave enters the second medium; this phenomenon is called refraction. Refraction 

may also occur within a single medium if the properties of the medium change enough to cause a 

variation in the sound speed. Refraction of sound resulting from spatial variations in the sound speed is 

one of the most important phenomena that affect sound propagation in water (Urick, 1983). 

As discussed in Section D.3.1 (Speed of Sound), the sound speed in the ocean primarily depends on 

hydrostatic pressure (i.e., depth) and temperature. Although the actual variations in sound speed are 

small, the existence of sound speed gradients in the ocean has an enormous effect on the propagation 

of sound in the ocean. If one pictures sound as rays emanating from an underwater source, the 

propagation of these rays changes as a function of the sound speed profile in the water column. 

Specifically, the directions of the rays bend toward regions of slower sound speed. This phenomenon 

creates ducts in which sound becomes “trapped,” allowing it to propagate with high efficiency for large 

distances within certain depth boundaries. During winter months, the reduced sound speed at the 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

D-12

Appendix D Acoustic and Explosive Concepts

surface due to cooling can create a surface duct that efficiently propagates sound such as commercial 

shipping noise (Figure D-6). Sources located within this surface duct can have their sounds trapped, but 

sources located below this layer would have their sounds refracted downward. The deep sound channel,

or sound frequency and ranging (SOFAR) channel, is another duct that exists where sound speeds are 

slowest deeper in the water column (600–1,200 m depth at the mid-latitudes). 

Similarly, the path of sound will bend toward regions of lower sound speed in air. Air temperature 

typically decreases with altitude, meaning sounds produced in air tend to bend skyward. When an 

atmospheric temperature inversion is present, air is cooler near the earth’s surface. In inversion 

conditions, sound waves near the earth’s surface will tend to refract downward.

Note: 1 kiloyard (kyd) = 0.9 km

Figure D-6: Sound Propagation Showing Multipath Propagation and Conditions for Surface 

Duct

D.3.3.4 Reflection and Multipath Propagation

In multipath propagation, sound may not only travel a direct path (with no reflection) from a source to a 

receiver, but also be reflected from the surface or bottom multiple times before reaching the receiver 

(Urick, 1983). Reflection is shown in Figure D-6 at the seafloor (bottom bounce) and at the water 

surface. At some distances, the reflected wave will be in phase with the direct wave (their waveforms 

add together) and at other distances the two waves will be out of phase (their waveforms cancel). The 

existence of multiple sound paths, or rays, arriving at a single point can result in multipath interference, 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

D-13

Appendix D Acoustic and Explosive Concepts

a condition that permits the addition and cancellation between sound waves, resulting in the fluctuation 

of sound levels over short distances. 

Reflection plays an important role in the pressures observed at different locations in the water column. 

Near the bottom, the direct path pressure wave may sum with the bottom-reflected pressure wave, 

increasing the exposure. Near the surface, however, the surface-reflected pressure wave may 

destructively interfere with the direct path pressure wave, “cutting off” the wave and reducing exposure 

(called the Lloyd mirror effect). This can cause the sound level to decrease dramatically within the top 

few meters of the water column.

D.3.3.5 Diffraction, Scattering, and Reverberation

Diffraction, scattering, and reverberation are examples of what happens when sound waves interact 

with obstacles in the propagation path. 

Diffraction may be thought of as the change of direction of a sound wave as it passes around an 

obstacle. Diffraction depends on the size of the obstacle and the sound frequency. The wavelength of 

the sound must be larger than the obstacle for notable diffraction to occur. If the obstacle is larger than 

the wavelength of sound, an acoustic shadow zone will exist behind the obstacle where the sound is 

unlikely to be detected. Common examples of diffraction include sound heard from a source around the 

corner of a building and sound propagating through a small gap in an otherwise closed door or window. 

An obstacle or inhomogeneity (e.g., smoke, suspended particles, gas bubbles due to waves, and marine 

life) in the path of a sound wave causes scattering as these inhomogeneities reradiate incident sound in 

a variety of directions (Urick, 1983). Reverberation refers to the prolongation of a sound, after the 

source has stopped emitting, caused by multiple reflections at water boundaries (surface and bottom) 

and scattering.

D.3.3.6 Surface and Bottom Effects

Because the sea surface reflects and scatters sound, it has a major effect on the propagation of 

underwater sound in applications where either the source or receiver is at a shallow depth (Urick 1983). 

If the sea surface is smooth, the reflected sound pressure is nearly equal to the incident sound pressure; 

however, if the sea surface is rough, the amplitude of the reflected sound wave will be reduced. Sound 

waves reflected from the sea surface experience a phase reversal. When the surface-reflected waves 

interact with the direct path waves near the surface, a destructive interference pattern is created in 

which the received pressure approaches zero.

The sea bottom is also a reflecting and scattering surface, similar to the sea surface. Sound interaction 

with the sea bottom is more complex, however, primarily because the acoustic properties of the sea 

bottom are more variable and the bottom is often layered into regions of differing density. As sound 

travels into the seafloor it reflects off of these different density layers in complex ways. For sources in 

contact with the bottom, such as during pile driving or bottom-placed explosives, a ground wave is 

produced that travels through the bottom sediment and may refract back into the water column.

For a hard bottom such as rock, the reflected wave will be approximately in phase with the incident 

wave. Thus, near the ocean bottom, the incident and reflected sound pressures may add together

(constructive interference), resulting in an increased sound pressure near the sea bottom. Soft bottoms 

such as mud or sediment absorb sound waves and reduce the level in the water column overall. 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

D-14

Appendix D Acoustic and Explosive Concepts

D.3.3.7 Air-Water Interface

Sound from aerial sources such as aircraft and weapons firing may be transmitted into the water under 

certain conditions. The most studied of these sources are fixed-wing aircraft and helicopters, which 

create noise with most energy below 500 Hz. Noise levels in water are highest at the surface and are 

highly dependent on the altitude of the aircraft and the angle at which the aerial sound encounters the 

ocean surface. Transmission of the sound once it is in the water is identical to any other sound as 

described in the sections above.

Transmission of sound from a moving airborne source to a receptor underwater is influenced by 

numerous factors and has been addressed by Young (1973), Urick (1983), Richardson et al. (1995), Eller 

and Cavanagh (2000), Laney and Cavanagh (2000), and others. Sound is transmitted from an airborne 

source to a receptor underwater by four principal means: (1) a direct path, refracted upon passing 

through the air-water interface; (2) direct-refracted paths reflected from the bottom in shallow water; 

(3) evanescent transmission in which sound travels laterally close to the water surface; and 

(4) scattering from interface roughness due to wave motion.

When sound waves in air meet the water surface, the sound can either be transmitted across the airwater boundary or reflected off the water surface. When sound waves meet the water at a 

perpendicular angle (e.g., straight down from an in-air source to a flat water surface), the sound waves 

are both transmitted directly across the water surface in the same direction of travel and reflected 180° 

back toward the original direction of travel. This can creates a localized condition at the water surface 

where the incident and reflected waves sum, doubling the in-air overpressure (+ 6 dB). As the incident 

angle of the in-air sound wave changes from perpendicular, this phenomena is reduced, ultimately 

reaching the angle where sound waves are parallel to the water surface and there is no 

surface reflection.

The sound that enters the water is refracted due to the difference in sound velocity between air and 

water, as shown in Figure D-7. As the angle of the in-air incident wave moves away from perpendicular, 

the direction of travel of the underwater refracted waves becomes closer to parallel to the water 

surface. When the incident angle is reached where the underwater refracted sound wave is parallel to

the water surface, all of the sound is reflected back into the air and no sound enters the water. This 

occurs at an angle of about 13-14°. As a result, most of the acoustic energy transmitted into the water 

through a relatively narrow cone extending vertically downward from the in-air source. The width of the 

footprint would be a function of the source altitude. Lesser amounts of sound may enter the water 

outside of this cone due to surface scattering (e.g., from water surface waves that can vary the angle of 

incidence over an area) and as evanescent waves that are only present very near the surface.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

D-15

Appendix D Acoustic and Explosive Concepts

Source: Richardson et al. 1995

Figure D-7: Characteristics of Sound Transmission through the Air-Water Interface

If a sound wave is ideally transmitted into water (that is, with no surface transmission loss, such as due 

to foamy, wave conditions that could decrease sound entering the water), the sound pressure level 

underwater is calculated by changing the pressure reference unit from 20 μPa in air to 1 μPa in water. 

For a sound with the same pressure in air and water, this calculation results in a +26 dB sound pressure 

level in water compared to air. For this reason, sound pressure levels in water and sound pressure levels 

in air should never be directly compared.

D.4 Auditory Perception

Animals with an eardrum or similar structure, including mammals, birds, and reptiles, directly detect the 

pressure component of sound. Some marine fish also have specializations to detect pressure changes, 

although most invertebrates and many marine fish do not have anatomical structures that enable them 

to detect the pressure component of sound and are only sensitive to the particle motion component of 

sound. This difference in acoustic energy sensing mechanisms limits the range at which these animals 

can detect most sound sources analyzed in this document. This is because far from a sound source 

(i.e., in the far field), particle velocity and sound pressure are directly proportional. But close to a source 

(i.e., in the near field), particle velocity increases relative to sound pressure and may become more 

detectable to certain animals. As sound frequency increases, the wavelength becomes shorter, resulting 

in a smaller near field.

Because mammalian ears can detect large pressure ranges and humans judge the relative loudness of 

sounds by the ratio of the sound pressures (a logarithmic behavior), sound amplitude is described by the 

SPL, calculated by taking the logarithm of the ratio of the sound pressure to a reference pressure (see 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

D-16

Appendix D Acoustic and Explosive Concepts

Section D.2.2, Sound Pressure Level). Use of a logarithmic scale compresses the wide range of pressure 

values into a more usable numerical scale. On the decibel scale, the smallest audible sound in air (near 

total silence) to a human is 0 dB re 20 μPa. If the sound intensity increases by a factor of 10, the SPL 

would increase to 10 dB re 20 μPa. If the sound intensity increases by a factor of 100, the SPL would 

increase to 20 dB re 20 μPa, and if the sound intensity increases by a factor of 1000, the SPL would be

30 dB re 20 μPa. A quiet conversation has an SPL of about 50 dB re 20 μPa, while the threshold of pain is 

around 120–140 dB re 20 μPa.

As described in Section D.2.2 (Sound Pressure Level), SPLs under water differ from those in air because 

they rely on different reference pressures in their calculation; therefore, the two should never be 

directly compared. 

While sound pressure and frequency are physical measure of the sound, loudness is a subjective 

attribute that varies with not only sound pressure but also other attributes of the sound, such as 

frequency. For example, a human listener would perceive a 60 dB re 20 μPa sound at 2 kHz to be louder 

than a 60 dB re 20 μPa sound at 50 Hz, even though the SPLs are identical. This effect is most noticeable 

at lower sound pressure levels; however, at very high sound pressure levels, the difference in perceived 

loudness at different frequencies becomes smaller. 

To account for differences in hearing sensitivity at various frequencies, acoustic risk analyses commonly 

use auditory weighting functions—mathematical functions that adjust (or “weight”) received sound 

levels across sound frequency based on how the listener’s sensitivity or susceptibility to sound changes 

at different frequencies. For humans, the most common weighting function is called “A-weighting” (see 

Figure D-8). A-weighted sound levels are specified in units of “dBA” (A-weighted decibels). For example, 

if the unweighted received level of a 500 Hz tone at a human receiver was 90 dB re 20 μPa, the 

A-weighted sound level would be 90 dB – 3 dB = 87 dBA because the A-weighting function amplitude at 

500 Hz is -3 dB. Many measurements of sound in air appear as A-weighted decibels in the literature 

because the intent of the authors is to assess noise impacts on humans. 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

D-17

Appendix D Acoustic and Explosive Concepts

Figure D-8: A-weighting for Human Hearing of Sounds in Air (OSHA). The Numbers along the 

Curve Indicate How a Received Sound Level Would Be Adjusted at that Frequency.

The auditory weighting concept can be applied to other species. When used in analyzing the impacts of 

sound on an animal, auditory weighting functions adjust received sound levels to emphasize ranges of 

best hearing and de-emphasize ranges of less or no sensitivity. Auditory weighting functions were 

developed for marine mammals and sea turtles and are used to assess acoustic impacts. For more 

information on weighting functions and their derivation for this analysis see technical report Criteria and 

Thresholds for U.S. Navy Acoustic and Explosive Effects Analysis (U.S. Department of the Navy, 2017a).

D.5 Explosives

Explosive materials used in Navy testing and training activities are either (1) “high explosives,” 

sometimes referred to as HE, which means that the explosive material has a very fast rate of detonation

(exceeding the speed of sound), or (2) low explosives, which exhibit a relatively slow burn, or 

deflagration, such as black powder. Because low explosives are typically used in small quantities and 

have less destructive power, the below discussion focuses on high explosives.

This rate of detonation of a high explosive is highly supersonic, producing a high pressure, steep 

instantaneous shock wave front travelling through the explosive material. This shock front is produced 

by the supersonic expansion of the explosive products, but as the shock front travels away from the

immediate area of the detonation, it begins to behave as an acoustic wave front travelling at the speed 

of sound.

The near-instantaneous rise from ambient to an extremely high peak pressure is what makes the 

explosive shock wave potentially damaging. The area under this positive pressure duration is calculated 

as the positive impulse. 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

D-18

Appendix D Acoustic and Explosive Concepts

The positive pressure produced by an explosion is also referred to as the overpressure. As the shock 

front passes a location, the positive pressure exponentially decays, as shown in Figure D-9. As the shock 

front travels away from the detonation, the waveform is stretched – the peak pressure decreases while 

the positive duration increases. The reduction in peak pressure reduces the rate at which the positive 

impulse is received. Both the reduction in peak pressure and stretching of the positive impulse reduce 

the potential for injury. In addition, absorption losses of higher frequencies over distance results in a 

softening of the shock front, such that the rise to peak pressure is no longer near-instantaneous.

Figure D-9: Impulse Shown as a Function of Pressure over Duration at a Specific Location

The peak pressure experienced by a receptor (i.e., an animal) is a function of the explosive material, the 

net explosive weight, and the distance from the charge. Net explosive weight (NEW) is a way to classify 

and compare quantities of different explosive compounds. The net explosive weight for a charge is the 

energetic equivalent weight of trinitrotoluene (TNT). In general, shock wave effects near an explosive 

charge increase in proportion to the cube root of the explosive weight (Young, 1991). For example, 

shock wave impacts will double when the explosive charge weight is increased by a factor of eight 

(i.e., cube root of eight equals two). This relationship is known as the similarity principle, and the 

corresponding similitude equations allow for prediction of various explosive metrics for a given charge 

weight and material.

The similitude equations allow for a simple prediction of peak pressure in a uniform free field 

environment, and sources are provided below for using these equations for estimating explosive effects 

in air and in water. However, at longer distances or in more complex environments with boundaries and 

variations in the propagation medium, explosive propagation modeling is preferred.

D.5.1 Explosions in Air

Explosions in air produce an initial blast front that propagates away from the detonation. When 

pressure waves from an explosion in air meet the water surface, the pressure wave can be transmitted 

across the air-water boundary and reflected off the water surface. When pressure waves in air meet the 

water at a perpendicular angle (e.g., straight down from an in-air source to a flat water surface), the 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

D-19

Appendix D Acoustic and Explosive Concepts

sound waves are both transmitted directly across the water surface in the same direction of travel and 

reflected 180° back toward the original direction of travel. For acoustic waves, this can create a localized 

condition at the water surface where the incident and reflected waves sum, doubling the in-air 

overpressure (+ 6 dB). For shock waves with high incident pressures travelling at supersonic speeds, the 

reflection from the water surface depends on the angle of incidence and the speed of the shock wave, 

and the reflected shock wave pressure can be greater than the incident shock wave pressure(Kinney & 

Graham, 1985; Swisdak, 1975). 

In certain explosive geometries, depending on the size of the explosive and its height of detonation, a 

combined shock wave, called a Mach stem, can be created by the summing of the direct and reflected 

shock waves at larger angles of incidence (Kinney & Graham, 1985). In instances where this specific 

geometry does not occur, only the direct path wave is experienced because there is no surface 

reflection (waves are parallel to or angled away from the water surface, such as would occur when an 

explosive is detonated at the water surface), or separate direct and reflected pressure waves may be 

experienced.

D.5.1.1 Fragmentation

Missiles, rockets, projectiles, and other cased weapons will produce casing fragments upon detonation. 

These fragments may be of variable size and are ejected at supersonic speed from the detonation. The 

casing fragments will be ejected at velocities much greater than debris from any target due to the 

proximity of the casing to the explosive material. Unlike detonations on land targets, detonations during 

Navy training and testing would not result in other propelled materials such as crater debris.

Fragment density can be simply assumed to follow an inverse-square law with distance, in which the 

possibility of fragment strike is reduced by the square of the distance from the original detonation point. 

The forces of gravity and drag will further reduce the likelihood of strike with increasing distance than is 

accounted for in the inverse-square relationship (U.S. Department of Defense Explosives Safety Board, 

1975). The possible area of strike risk at any given distance from the detonation point is limited to the 

surface area of produced fragments, with drag and gravity reducing the number of produced fragments 

that travel to greater distances. 

D.5.2 Explosions in Water

At the instant of explosion underwater, gas byproducts are generated at high pressure and temperature, 

creating a bubble. The heat causes a certain amount of water to vaporize, adding to the volume of the 

bubble. This action immediately begins to force the water in contact with the blast front in an outward 

direction, creating an intense, supersonic pressure shock wave. As the high-pressure wave travels away 

from the source, it slows to the speed of sound and acts like an acoustic wave similar to other impulsive 

sources that lack a strong shock wave (e.g., air guns). Explosions have the greatest amount of energy in 

lower frequencies below 500 Hz, although energy is present in frequencies exceeding 10 kHz (Urick, 

1983). The higher frequency components exhibit more attenuation with distance due to absorption [see 

Section D.3.3.2 (Absorption)].

The shock wave caused by an explosion in deeper water may be followed by several bubble pulses in 

which the explosive byproduct gases expand and contract, with correlated high and low pressure 

oscillations. These bubble pulses lack the steep pressure front of the initial explosive pulse, but the first 

bubble pulse may still contribute to the total energy released at frequencies below 100 Hz (Urick, 1983). 

Subsequent bubble pulses contribute little to the total energy released during the explosion (Urick, 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

D-20

Appendix D Acoustic and Explosive Concepts

1983). If the detonation occurs at or just below the surface, a portion of the explosive power is released 

into the air and a pulsating gas bubble is not formed. 

The pressure waves from an explosive can constructively add or destructively cancel each other in ocean 

environments with multi-path propagation, as described for acoustic waves in Section D.3.3.3

(Refraction) and Section D.3.3.4 (Reflection and Multipath Propagation). The received impulse is

affected by the depth of the charge and the depth of the receiving animal. Pressure waves from the 

detonation may travel directly to the receiver or be reflected off the water surface before arriving at the 

receiver. If a charge is detonated closer to the surface or if an animal is closer to the surface, the time 

between the initial direct path arrival and the following surface-reflected tension wave arrival is 

reduced, resulting in a steep negative pressure cut-off of the initial direct path positive impulse 

exposure. Two animals at similar distances from a charge, therefore, may experience the same peak 

pressure but different levels of impulse at different depths.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

D-21

References

REFERENCES

American National Standards Institute. (1994). ANSI S1.1-1994 (R 2004) American National Standard 

Acoustical Terminology. Retrieved 1994, from Acoustical Society of America

American National Standards Institute. (2013). Acoustical Terminology (pp. 86): Acoustical Society of 

America.

Au, W., & M. Hastings. (2008). Principles of Marine Bioacoustics. New York: Springer-Verlag.

Eller, A. I., & R. C. Cavanagh. (2000). Subsonic Aircraft Noise At and Beneath the Ocean Surface: 

Estimation of Risk for Effects on Marine Mammals (pp. 85): United States Air Force Research 

Laboratory.

Finneran, J. J. (2003). Whole-lung resonance in a bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus) and white 

whale (Delphinapterus leucas). Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 114(1), 529–535. 

Hamernik, R. P., & K. D. Hsueh. (1991). Impulse noise: some definitions, physical acoustics and other 

considerations. The Journal of Acoustical Society of America, 90(1), 189–196. 

Kinney, G. F., & K. J. Graham. (1985). Explosive Shocks in Air (2 ed.). New York: Springer-Verlag.

Kinsler, L. E., A. R. Frey, A. B. Coppens, & J. V. Sanders. (1982). Fundamentals of Acoustics (3rd ed.). New 

York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.

Laney, H., & R. C. Cavanagh. (2000). Supersonic Aircraft Noise At and Beneath the Ocean Surface: 

Estimation of Risk for Effects on Marine Mammals (pp. 46): United States Air Force Research 

Laboratory.

Medwin, H., & C. Clay. (1998). Fundamentals of Acoustical Oceanography. San Diego: Academic Press.

Nedelec, S. L., J. Campbell, A. N. Radford, S. D. Simpson, & N. D. Merchant. (2016). Particle motion: the 

missing link in underwater acoustic ecology. Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 7(7), 836–842. 

Richardson, W. J., C. R. Greene, Jr., C. I. Malme, & D. H. Thomson. (1995). Marine Mammals and Noise 

(pp. 576). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Swisdak, M. M. (1975). Explosion Effects and Properties Part I – Explosion Effects in Air. (NSWC/WOL/TR–

75–116). White Oak Laboratory, Naval Surface Weapons Center, White Oak, Silver Spring, MD.

U.S. Department of Defense Explosives Safety Board. (1975). Fragment and Debris Hazards.

U.S. Department of the Navy. (2017a). Criteria and Thresholds for U.S. Navy Acoustic and Explosive 

Impacts to Marine Mammals and Sea Turtles. Space and Naval Warfare System Command, 

Pacific.

U.S. Department of the Navy. (2017b). Quantitative Analysis for Estimating Acoustic and Explosive 

Impacts to Marine Mammals and Sea Turtles. Space and Naval Warfare System Command, 

Pacific and Naval Undersea Warfare Center, Newport.

Urick, R. J. (1983). Principles of Underwater Sound, Principles of Underwater Sound for Engineers (3rd 

ed.). Los Altos Hills, CA: Peninsula Publishing.

Young, G. A. (1991). Concise Methods for Predicting the Effects of Underwater Explosions on Marine Life. 

Silver Spring: Naval Surface Warfare Center.

Young, R. W. (1973). Sound pressure in water from a source in air and vice versa. The Journal of 

Acoustical Society of America, 53(6), 1708–1716. 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

D-22

References

This page intentionally left blank.