Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing 

Final Environmental Impact Statement/

Overseas Environmental Impact Statement

United States Department of the Navy September 2018

Volume I
Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing 

Final Environmental Impact Statement/

Overseas Environmental Impact Statement 

Volume I

United States Department of the Navy

September 2018
Final 

Environmental Impact Statement/Overseas Environmental Impact Statement 

Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing

September 2018

Lead Agency: United States Department of Navy

Cooperating Agency: National Marine Fisheries Service

Title of Proposed Action: Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing Activities

Designation: Final Environmental Impact Statement/Overseas Environmental 

Impact Statement

Abstract

The United States Department of the Navy (Navy) prepared this Environmental Impact Statement 

(EIS)/Overseas Environmental Impact Statement (OEIS) to comply with the National Environmental Policy 

Act (NEPA) and Executive Order (EO) 12114. This EIS/OEIS evaluates the potential environmental impacts 

of conducting training and testing activities in the Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing (AFTT) Study Area

after November 2018 into the future. The AFTT Study Area is located within the in-water areas of the 

western Atlantic Ocean along the eastern coast of North America, in portions of the Caribbean Sea and 

the Gulf of Mexico, at select Navy pierside locations, within port transit channels, near select civilian ports, 

and in bays, harbors, and inshore waterways (e.g., lower Chesapeake Bay).

Three alternatives were analyzed in the EIS/OEIS: 

 The No Action Alternative considers that the Proposed Action would not take place (i.e., the 

proposed training and testing would not occur in the AFTT Study Area).

 Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative) reflects a representative year of training to account for the 

natural fluctuation of training cycles and deployment schedules that generally influence the 

maximum level of training that may occur year after year in any 5-year period. Alternative 1 also 

includes an annual level of testing that reflects the fluctuations in testing programs by recognizing 

that the maximum level of testing will not be conducted each year. This alternative contains a 

more realistic annual representation of activities, but includes years of a higher maximum amount 

of testing to account for these fluctuations. This alternative would not include the contingency for 

augmenting some weapon system tests and presumes a typical level of readiness requirements.

 Alternative 2 includes a higher number of training unit exercises and sonar hours than Alternative 

1 but is still a reduction from the past. This alternative, reflects the maximum number of training 

activities that could occur within a given year and assumes that the maximum level of activity 

would occur every year over any 5-year period. Alternative 2 includes the testing of new

platforms, systems, and related equipment. This alternative assumes that the maximum annual 

testing efforts predicted for each individual system or program could occur concurrently in any 

given year. This alternative includes the contingency for augmenting some weapon systems tests 

in response to potential increased world conflicts and changing Navy leadership priorities as the 

result of a direct challenge from a naval opponent that possesses near-peer capabilities.

The Navy analyzed potential impacts on environmental resources resulting from activities under 

Alternatives 1 and 2. This EIS/OEIS also includes an analysis of environmental effects from taking no action 

as a comparison to the effects of the Proposed Action. Evaluated resources included air quality, sediments 

and water quality, vegetation, invertebrates, marine habitats, reptiles, fishes, marine mammals, birds,

bats, cultural resources, socioeconomic resources, public health and safety, and cumulative impacts.

Prepared by: United States Department of the Navy

Point of Contact: Naval Facilities Engineering Command Atlantic

Attn: EV22KP (AFTT EIS/OEIS Project Manager)

6506 Hampton Blvd

Norfolk, VA 23508-1278

Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

F-i

Foreword

FOREWORD

The Draft Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing (AFTT) Environmental Impact Statement/Overseas 

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS/OEIS) was released for public review and comment 30 June 2017 

through 29 August 2017. Changes in this Final EIS/OEIS reflect responses to all substantive comments 

made on the Draft EIS/OEIS during the public comment period as well as Navy refinements to the 

Proposed Action. Additionally, the analysis has been refined to more accurately quantify the expected 

acoustic effects on marine mammals, taking into consideration animal avoidance or movement and 

Navy mitigation measures. Public comments are summarized, and the responses to them are included in 

Appendix H, Public Comments and Responses. 

While most sections in the EIS/OEIS were changed in some manner between the draft and final versions, 

many of those changes entailed minor modifications to improve clarity. The key changes between the 

AFTT Draft EIS/OEIS and Final EIS/OEIS follow. 

 Chapter 1 (Purpose and Need and Alternatives) and Chapter 2 (Description of Proposed 

Action and Alternatives): 

Reiterated that from the outset of this EIS/OEIS Navy and National Marine Fisheries Service 

(NMFS) have worked closely together, with an appreciation of each agency’s respective 

purpose and need. Included additional clarifying language further articulating NMFS’ distinct 

purpose and need, as well as further explaining their role in the development of mitigation 

measures that shaped the Action Alternatives.

 Chapter 2 (Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives):

Annual levels of certain activities and resulting quantities of associated military expended 

materials and stressors were adjusted to reflect more accurate estimates of future training 

and testing needs and to correct errors. The general types and locations of training and 

testing did not change. 

Some of these changes affected the modeled marine mammal exposure results, such that 

some modeled exposures changed for both training and testing activities. Reduction of 

Undersea Warfare Testing Activities in the Northeast Range Complex reduced potential 

impacts from sonar and other transducers to Endangered Species Act (ESA)-listed whales 

and harbor porpoises. Modeled impacts (primarily behavioral response) increased overall 

for training with sonar and other transducers. For training activities with explosives, total 

estimated impacts decreased slightly for many species, especially behavioral impacts. 

Estimated impacts increased slightly for testing activities that use explosive for most species 

groups except mysticetes, which decreased slightly. Acoustic impacts from other sound 

sources such as air gun and pile driving remained unchanged from the Draft EIS/OEIS. 

Additionally, a few minor errors were identified and corrected. The updated exposure 

numbers are presented in Appendix E (Acoustic Impact Tables). 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

F-ii

Foreword

 Section 3.0 (Introduction to Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences):

Tables were updated to reflect different annual levels of certain activities and resulting 

quantities of associated military expended materials and other non-acoustic and explosive 

stressors based on changes to Chapter 2 (Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives). 

Changes in the number of activities proposed also prompted updates to the tables 

describing the level of use of acoustic sources.

Tables 1 through 8 identify the changes between the Draft EIS/OEIS and this Final EIS/OEIS 

for sonar and explosive usage during training and testing by alternative. Some of these 

changes affected the modeled marine mammal exposure results as described above in the 

Chapter 2 summary. Proposed sonar and other transducers remained mostly consistent 

between the Draft and Final EIS/OEISs, with minor exceptions shown in Table 1 and Table 2. 

The number of hours in the low-frequency (LF) 5 bin for training increased between the 

Draft EIS/OEIS and the Final EIS/OEIS because this sound source was added to the 

Submarine Sonar Maintenance activity in the Final EIS/OEIS. The amount of mid-frequency 

(MF) 3 sonar for both training and testing changed between the Draft EIS/OEIS and the Final 

EIS/OEIS because of the way this bin is reported. In the Draft EIS/OEIS the MF3 bin was 

reported as a count. However, to be more accurate, for the Final EIS/OEIS, the bin MF3 was 

converted into hours. Therefore, the overall amount of sonar in this bin did not change, 

however how the sonar is reported did change. The number of hours in the MF10 bin for 

training increased because this sonar bin was added to the Maritime Security Operations 

activity to support improvements on how this activity is conducted. The torpedoes (TORP) 3 

bin for testing was added for the FEIS/OEIS due to a new requirement in the testing 

community that did not exist during the DEIS/OEIS. 

Proposed explosives use also remained mostly consistent between the Draft EIS/OEIS and 

this Final EIS/OEIS. Exceptions are noted in Table 3 and Table 4.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

F-iii

Foreword

Table 1: Change in Annual Sonar and Other Transducers Usage during Training Activities Analyzed in this Final EIS/OEIS Compared 

to the Draft EIS/OEIS

For Annual Training Activities

Source Class Category Bin Unit1

Annual Usage2

Alternative 1 Alternative 2

Draft Final Change Draft Final Change

Low-Frequency (LF):

Sources that produce signals less 

than 1 kHz

LF3 H 0 0 – 0 0 –

LF4

H 0 0 – 0 0 –

C 0 0 – 0 0 –

LF5 H 0 9 +9 0 9 +9

LF6 H 145–175 145–175 – 204 204 –

Mid-Frequency (MF):

Tactical and non-tactical sources 

that produce signals between 1 

and 10 kHz

MF1 H 5,005–5,605 5,005–5,605 – 7,081 7,081 –

MF1K H 117 117 – 117 117 –

MF3 H 49,188–49,227 2,078–2,097 -47,1303,4 49,265 2,116 -47,1494

MF4 H 591–611 591–611 – 630 630 –

MF5 C 6,708–6,836 6,708–6,836 – 6,964 6,964 –

MF6 C 0 0 – 0 0 –

MF8 H 0 0 – 0 0 –

MF9 H 0 0 – 0 0 –

MF10 H 0 870 +870 0 870 +870

MF11 H 873–1,001 873–1,001 – 1,399 1,399 –

MF12 H 367–397 367–397 – 596 596 –

MF14 H 0 0 – 0 0 –

High-Frequency (HF):

Tactical and non-tactical sources 

that produce signals between 10 

and 100 kHz

HF1 H 1,928–1,932 1,928–1,932 – 1,935 1,935 –

HF3 H 0 0 – 0 0 –

HF4 H 5,411–6,371 5,411–6,371 – 6,371 6,371 –

HF5

H 0 0 – 0 0 –

C 0

0 – 0 0 –
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

F-iv

Foreword

Table 1: Change in Annual Sonar and Other Transducers Usage during Training Activities Analyzed in this Final EIS/OEIS Compared 

to the Draft EIS/OEIS (continued)

For Annual Training Activities

Source Class Category Bin Unit1

Annual Usage2

Alternative 1 Alternative 2

Draft Final Change Draft Final Change

High-Frequency (HF):

Tactical and non-tactical sources 

that produce signals between 10 

and 100 kHz (continued)

HF6 H 0 0 – 0 0 –

HF7 H 0 0 – 0 0 –

HF8 H 20 20 – 20 20 –

Very High Frequency Sonars 

(VHF): 

Non-tactical sources that 

produce signals between 100 and 

200 kHz 

VHF1 H 0

0 – 0 0 –

Anti-Submarine Warfare (ASW):

Tactical sources (e.g., active 

sonobuoys and acoustic 

countermeasures systems) used 

during ASW training and testing 

activities

ASW1 H 582–641 582–641 – 1,040 1,040 –

ASW2 C 1,476–1,556 1,476–1,556 – 1,636 1,636 –

ASW3 H 4,485–5,445 4,485–5,445 – 6,690 6,690 –

ASW4 C 426–432 425–431 -1

3 438 437 -1

ASW55 H 572–652 572–652 – 732 732 –

Torpedoes (TORP):

Source classes associated with 

the active acoustic signals 

produced by torpedoes

TORP1 C 57 57 – 57 57 –

TORP2 C 80 80 – 80 80 –

TORP3 C 0

0

– 0 0 –

Forward Looking Sonar (FLS):

Forward or upward looking 

object avoidance sonars used for 

ship navigation and safety

FLS2 H 0

0

– 0 0 –

Acoustic Modems (M):

Systems used to transmit data 

through the water

M3 H 0

0

– 0 0 –
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

F-v

Foreword

Table 1: Change in Annual Sonar and Other Transducers Usage during Training Activities Analyzed in this Final EIS/OEIS Compared 

to the Draft EIS/OEIS (continued)

For Annual Training Activities

Source Class Category Bin Unit1

Annual Usage2

Alternative 1 Alternative 2

Draft Final Change Draft Final Change

Swimmer Detection Sonars (SD):

Systems used to detect divers 

and submerged swimmers

SD1–

SD2

H 0

0

– 0 0 –

Synthetic Aperture Sonars (SAS):

Sonars in which active acoustic 

signals are post-processed to 

form high-resolution images of 

the seafloor

SAS1 H 0 0 – 0 0 –

SAS2 H 0–8,400 0–8,400 – 8,400 8,400 –

SAS3 H 0 0 – 0 0 –

SAS4 H 0 0 – 0 0 –

Broadband Sound Sources (BB):

Sonar systems with large 

frequency spectra, used for 

various purposes 

BB1 H 0 0 – 0 0 –

BB2 H 0 0 – 0 0 –

BB4 H 0 0 – 0 0 –

BB5 H 0 0 – 0 0 –

BB6 H 0 0 – 0 0 –

BB7 C 0 0 – 0 0 –

1H = hours; C = count (e.g., number of individual pings or individual sonobuoys).

2Expected annual use may vary per bin because the number of events may vary from year to year, as described in Chapter 2, Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives.

3Where a range of values is given, the maximum values are compared.

4Change due to updated units for this bin between Draft and Final. Draft reported in count (C) and Final reported in hours (H). 

5Formerly ASW2 (H) in Phase II. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

F-vi

Foreword

Table 2: Change in Annual Sonar and Other Transducers Usage during Testing Activities Analyzed in this Final EIS/OEIS Compared 

to the Draft EIS/OEIS

For Annual Testing Activities

Source Class Category Bin Unit1

Annual Usage2

Alternative 1 Alternative 2

Draft Final Change Draft Final Change

Low-Frequency (LF):

Sources that produce signals less 

than 1 kHz

LF3 H 1,308 1,308 – 1,308 1,308 –

LF4

H 971 971 – 971 971 –

C 20 20 – 20 20 –

LF5 H 1,752 1,752 – 1,752 1,752 –

LF6 H 40 40 – 40 40 –

Mid-Frequency (MF):

Tactical and non-tactical sources 

that produce signals between 1 

and 10 kHz

MF1 H 3,337 3,337 – 3,337 3,337 –

MF1K H 152 152 – 152 152 –

MF3 H 12,291 1,257 -11,0344 12,291 1,257 -11,0344

MF4 H 370–803 370–803 – 803 761-803 –

3

MF5 C 5,070–6,182 5,070–6,182 – 6,382 6,382 –

MF6 C 1,256–1,341 1,256–1,341 – 1,391 1,391 –

MF8 H 348 348 – 348 348 –

MF9 H 7,394–7,561 7,395–7,562 7,561 7,561 –

MF10 H 5,690 5,690 – 5,690 5,690 –

MF11 H 1,424 1,424 – 1,424 1,424 –

MF12 H 1,388 1,388 – 1,388 1,388 –

MF14 H 1,440 1,440 – 1,440 1,440 –
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

F-vii

Foreword

Table 2: Change in Annual Sonar and Other Transducers Usage during Testing Activities Analyzed in this Final EIS/OEIS Compared 

to the Draft EIS/OEIS (continued)

For Annual Testing Activities

Source Class Category Bin Unit1

Annual Usage2

Alternative 1 Alternative 2

Draft Final Change Draft Final Change

High-Frequency (HF):

Tactical and non-tactical sources 

that produce signals between 10 

and 100 kHz

HF1 H 397 397 – 397 397 –

HF3 H 31 31 – 31 31 –

HF4 H 30,772–30,828 30,772–30,828 – 30,828 30,828 –

HF5

H 1,864–2,056 1,864–2,056 – 2,056 2,056 –

C 40 40 – 40 40 –

High-Frequency (HF):

Tactical and non-tactical sources 

that produce signals between 10 

and 100 kHz

HF6 H 2,193 2,193 – 2,193 2,193 –

HF7 H 1,224 1,224 – 1,224 1,224 –

HF8 H 2,084 2,084 – 2,084 2,084 –

Very High Frequency Sonars 

(VHF): 

Non-tactical sources that 

produce signals between 100 and 

200 kHz 

VHF1 H 12 12 – 12 12 –

Anti-Submarine Warfare (ASW):

Tactical sources (e.g., active 

sonobuoys and acoustic 

countermeasures systems) used 

during ASW training and testing 

activities

ASW1 H 820 820 – 820 820 –

ASW2 C 4,756–5,606 4,756–5,606 – 6,106 6,106 –

ASW3 H 2,941–3,325 2,941–3,325 – 3,325 3,325 –

ASW4 C 3,493 3,493 – 3,493 3,493 –

ASW55 H 608–628 608–628 – 708 708 –

Torpedoes (TORP):

Source classes associated with 

the active acoustic signals 

produced by torpedoes

TORP1 C 806–980 806–980 – 980 980 –

TORP2 C 344–408 344–408 – 408 408 –

TORP3 C 0100 +100 0 100 +100
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

F-viii

Foreword

Table 2: Change in Annual Sonar and Other Transducers Usage during Testing Activities Analyzed in this Final EIS/OEIS Compared 

to the Draft EIS/OEIS (continued)

For Annual Testing Activities

Source Class Category Bin Unit1

Annual Usage2

Alternative 1 Alternative 2

Draft Final Change Draft Final Change

Forward Looking Sonar (FLS):

Forward or upward looking 

object avoidance sonars used for 

ship navigation and safety

FLS2 H 1,224 1,224 – 1,224 1,224 –

Acoustic Modems (M):

Systems used to transmit data 

through the water

M3 H 634 634 – 634 634 –

Swimmer Detection Sonars (SD):

Systems used to detect divers 

and submerged swimmers

SD1–

SD2

H 176 176 – 176 176 –

Synthetic Aperture Sonars (SAS):

Sonars in which active acoustic 

signals are post-processed to 

form high-resolution images of 

the seafloor

SAS1 H 960 960 – 960 960 –

SAS2 H 3,512 3,512 – 3,512 3,512 –

SAS3 H 960 960 – 960 960 –

SAS4 H 960 960 – 960 960 –

Broadband Sound Sources (BB):

Sonar systems with large 

frequency spectra, used for 

various purposes 

BB1 H 960 960 – 960 960 –

BB2 H 960 960 – 960 960 –

BB4 H 876–3,252 876–3,252 – 3,252 3,252 –

BB5 H 672 672 – 672 672 –

BB6 H 672 672 – 672 672 –

BB7 C 120 120 – 120 120 –

1H = hours; C = count (e.g., number of individual pings or individual sonobuoys).

2Expected annual use may vary per bin because the number of events may vary from year to year, as described in Chapter 2, Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives.

4Change due to updated units for this bin between Draft and Final. Draft reported in count (C) and Final reported in hours (H). 

5Formerly ASW2 (H) in Phase II. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

F-ix

Foreword

Table 3: Change in Annual Explosive Usage during Training Activities Analyzed in this Final EIS/OEIS Compared to the Draft 

EIS/OEIS

For Annual Training Activities

Bin

Net Explosive 

Weight1

(lb.)

Example Explosive Source

Annual2 Usage

Alternative 1 Alternative 2

Draft Final Change Draft Final Change

E1 0.1–0.25 Medium-caliber projectile 10,340 7,700 -2,640 10,340 7,700 -2,640

E2 > 0.25–0.5 Medium-caliber projectile 210–214 210–214 – 214 214 –

E3 > 0.5–2.5 Large-caliber projectile 3,286 4,592 +1,306 3,286 4,592 +1,306

E4 > 2.5–5

Mine neutralization 

charge 127–133 127–133 – 133 133 –

E5 > 5–10 5 in. projectile 4,140 1,436 -2,704 4,140 1,436 -2,704

E6 > 10–20 Hellfire missile 602 602 – 602 602 –

E7 > 20–60 Demo block/ shaped 

charge 4 4 – 4 4 –

E8 > 60–100 Lightweight torpedo 48 22 -26 48 22 -26

E9 > 100–250 500 lb. bomb 66 66 – 66 66 –

E10 > 250–500 Harpoon missile 90 90 – 90 90 –

E11 > 500–650 650 lb. mine 1 1 – 1 1 –

E12 > 650–1,000 2,000 lb. bomb 18 18 – 18 18 –

E143

> 1,741–

3,625 Line charge 0 0 – 0 0 –

E164

> 7,250–

14,500

Littoral Combat Ship full 

ship shock trial 0 0 – 0 0 –

E174

> 14,500–

58,000

Aircraft carrier full ship 

shock trial 0 0 – 0 0 –

1 Net Explosive Weight refers to the equivalent amount of trinitrotoluene (TNT) the actual weight of a munition may be larger due to other components.

2 Expected annual use may vary per bin because the number of events may vary from year to year, as described in Chapter 2, Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives.

3 E14 is not modeled for protected species impacts in water because most energy is lost into the air or to the bottom substrate due to detonation in very shallow water.

4 Shock trials consist of four explosions each. In any given year there could be 0-3 small ship shock trials (E16) and 0-1 large ship shock trials (E17). Over a 5-year period, there 

could be three small ship shock trials (E16) and one large ship shock trial (E17).
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

F-x

Foreword

Table 4: Change in Annual Explosive Usage during Testing Activities Analyzed in this Final EIS/OEIS Compared to the Draft 

EIS/OEIS

For Annual Testing Activities

Bin

Net Explosive 

Weight1

(lb.)

Example Explosive Source

Annual2 Usage

Alternative 1 Alternative 2

Draft Final Change Draft Final Change

E1 0.1–0.25 Medium-caliber projectile 17,840–26,840 17,840–26,840 – 26,840 26,840 –

E2 > 0.25–0.5 Medium-caliber projectile 0 0 – 0 0 –

E3 > 0.5–2.5 Large-caliber projectile 2,814–3,182 3,054–3,422 +2405 3,182 3,422 +240

E4 > 2.5–5

Mine neutralization 

charge 746–800 746–800 – 810 810 –

E5 > 5–10 5 in. projectile 1,325 1,325 – 1,325 1,325 –

E6 > 10–20 Hellfire missile 28–48 28–48 – 48 48 –

E7 > 20–60 Demo block/ shaped 

charge 0 0 – 0 0 –

E8 > 60–100 Lightweight torpedo 33 33 – 33 33 –

E9 > 100–250 500 lb. bomb 4 4 – 4 4 –

E10 > 250–500 Harpoon missile 68–98 68–98 – 98 98 –

E11 > 500–650 650 lb. mine 10 10 – 20 20 –

E12 > 650–1,000 2,000 lb. bomb 0 0 – 0 0 –

E143

> 1,741–

3,625 Line charge 4 4 – 4 4 –

E164

> 7,250–

14,500

Littoral Combat Ship full 

ship shock trial 0–12 0–12 – 0–12 0–12 –

E174

> 14,500–

58,000

Aircraft carrier full ship 

shock trial 0–4 0–4 – 0–4 0–4 –

1 Net Explosive Weight refers to the equivalent amount of trinitrotoluene (TNT) the actual weight of a munition may be larger due to other components.

2 Expected annual use may vary per bin because the number of events may vary from year to year, as described in Chapter 2, Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives.

3 E14 is not modeled for protected species impacts in water because most energy is lost into the air or to the bottom substrate due to detonation in very shallow water.

4 Shock trials consist of four explosions each. In any given year there could be 0-3 small ship shock trials (E16) and 0-1 large ship shock trials (E17). Over a 5-year period, there 

could be three small ship shock trials (E16) and one large ship shock trial (E17).

5 Where a range of values is given, the maximum values are compared.
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

F-xi

Foreword

 Section 3.1 (Air Quality):

Changes were made to the General Conformity Rule Evaluation section clarifying total direct 

and indirect emissions and emissions from mobile sources as well as more information 

regarding attainment and National Ambient Air Quality Standards was added. The Record of 

Non-Applicability was signed by the Navy and included in Appendix C.

 Section 3.2 (Sediments and Water Quality):

Changes were made to the description of sediment class sizes in the Affected Environment 

section to be consistent with a single, modern classification system. Adjustments to all

figures were made to ensure the figures are consistent in labeling and nomenclature with 

other sections in the Final EIS/OEIS. The remaining changes were minor editorial changes to 

correct errors in grammar and spelling or to clarify the meaning of a statement or 

description. 

 Section 3.3 (Vegetation):

Adjustments to all figures were made to ensure the figures are consistent in labeling and 

nomenclature with other sections in the Final EIS/OEIS. Impacts to bottom habitats were 

updated as appropriate. Additional description and analysis was provided for tidal emergent 

marsh vegetation and marine debris impacts. ESA conclusions for Johnson’s seagrass were 

updated to “no effect.” The remaining changes were minor editorial changes to correct 

errors in grammar and spelling or to clarify the meaning of a statement or description.

 Section 3.4 (Marine Invertebrates):

The General Background section was updated to include information on the revised 

estimated number of marine invertebrate species, habitat use, movement and behavior, 

and threats. Descriptions of sound (particle acceleration) and sediment vibration perception 

capabilities were updated based on numerous recent studies, and analysis of acoustic 

impacts on invertebrates was updated accordingly. Descriptions of species listed under the 

ESA was revised to reflect listing decisions on several coral species and the queen conch 

(Lobatus gigas), as well as changes to common and scientific names. Information on the 

occurrence of deep-water corals, mesophotic corals, and chemosynthetic communities was 

added or substantially revised. Overall analyses of impacts on invertebrates were revised 

based on recent scientific research and changes to the type and number of training and 

testing activities and expended materials, as described in Chapter 2 (Description of 

Proposed Action and Alternatives), Section 3.0.3.3 (Identifying Stressors for Analysis), and 

Appendices A (Navy Activity Descriptions), B (Activity Stressor Matrices), and F (Military 

Expended Materials and Direct Strike Impact Analyses). Discussion of Essential Fish Habitat 

was removed from the invertebrates section, and discussion of hard bottom habitat was 

moved to the Habitats section (Section 3.0.5). 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

F-xii

Foreword

 Section 3.5 (Marine Habitats):

Changes in quantities of explosives on or near the bottom and military expended materials 

were adjusted based on changes made to Chapter 2 (Description of Proposed Action and 

Alternatives) and tables in Section 3.0.5.3 (Identification of Stressors for Analysis). The 

analyses of impacts on marine habitats as a result of these changes were modified 

accordingly. Impacts of explosives and military expended materials were assessed based on 

three types of analyses: (1) a conservative scenario assuming all the impacts occur on a 

single habitat type in an affected area (in a one year-increment), (2) a more realistic 

situation in which the impacts are spread proportionally among the habitat types in an 

affected area (e.g., if hard bottom represents 10 percent of the total habitat within a 

particular testing or training area or range complex, then 10 percent of the total impact is 

assumed to occur on hard bottom), and (3) in an increment of 5 years.

In addition, abiotic habitat types were further differentiated in the Navy’s Aquatic Habitat 

Mapping Database as “soft”, “intermediate”, and “hard” substrate. Soft substrate areas are 

dominated by mud (including clay and silt) or sand. Hard substrate areas are dominated by 

rocks or consolidated bedrock. Intermediate substrate areas are dominated by 

unconsolidated material larger than sand but smaller than rocks (e.g., gravel). Additionally, 

the habitats database was updated to include recently published data sources including 

both mapped polygon and point data. 

 Section 3.6 (Fishes):

ESA status of various species were updated based on National Marine Fisheries Service 

(NMFS) Final Rules that were published after the Draft EIS/OEIS. Also, ESA analysis and 

conclusions were updated to correspond with the results of recent ESA consultations. After 

the release of the Draft EIS/OEIS, NMFS designated critical habitat for the Atlantic sturgeon. 

That information has been added to this Final EIS/OEIS.

 Section 3.7 (Marine Mammals):

Marine mammal species listing status, abundance estimates, and general threats discussions 

were updated based on the most recent stock assessment reports and new literature. The 

analyses of impacts on marine mammals as a result of changes to annual levels of certain 

activities, as detailed in Chapter 2 (Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives) and 

updated information on entanglement stressors described in Section 3.0.5.3 (Identification 

of Stressors for Analysis) were modified accordingly. The acoustic analysis was revised to 

more accurately quantify the expected acoustic effects on marine mammals, taking into 

consideration animal avoidance or movement and procedural mitigation measures. The ship 

strike probability analysis was revised to address a request from the NMFS that was raised 

during ESA consultation. Updates to mitigation measures were also included as a result of 

completing consultations under the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) and ESA.
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

F-xiii

Foreword

 Section 3.8 (Reptiles):

The analyses of impacts to sea turtles and other marine reptiles as a result of changes to 

annual levels of certain activities, as detailed in Chapter 2 (Description of Proposed Action 

and Alternatives) and tables in Section 3.0.3.3 (Identifying Stressors for Analysis) were 

modified accordingly. Additional information and analyses were added to the Final EIS/OEIS 

regarding training and testing activities in inshore locations. Specifically, more detailed 

analyses regarding terrapins and crocodilians were added to this section.

 Section 3.9 (Birds and Bats):

Adjustments to all figures were made to ensure the figures are consistent in labeling and 

nomenclature with other sections in the Final EIS/OEIS. Background information on whitenosed syndrome in northeastern states, closer to the Study Area, was added. ESA 

conclusions were updated to reflect the Biological Assessment and section 7 consultation 

package. Additional hearing references were added. Potential for helicopter noise exposure 

was clarified, and additional information about animal flight altitude was added for 

assessing acoustic exposures. The remaining changes were minor editorial changes to 

correct errors in grammar and spelling or to clarify the meaning of a statement or 

description. 

 Section 3.10 (Cultural Resources):

Minor corrections and edits were made, including correcting cross-references to tables in 

Section 3.0.

 Section 3.11 (Socioeconomic Resources):

Changes were made to the descriptions of offshore wind and hydrokinetic energy 

development projects to update the status of the projects. Adjustments to all figures were 

made to ensure the figures are consistent in labeling and nomenclature with other sections 

in the Final EIS/OEIS. Updates to data on recreational fisheries, commercial fisheries, 

commercial transportation and shipping, and tourism were made to incorporate the most 

recent available annual data, such as the amount and value of commercial landings, the 

volume of goods processed at commercial ports, and the economic contribution of tourism 

the states’ economies.

 Section 3.12 (Public Health and Safety):

Updates and edits were made with regard to the latest regulations and standard operating 

procedures that benefit public health and safety.

 Chapter 4 (Cumulative Impacts):

Non-substantive changes were made throughout Chapter 4 (Cumulative Impacts) to 

maintain alignment and consistency with updates to Chapters 1-3 (Purpose and Need, 

Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives, and Affected Environment and 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

F-xiv

Foreword

Environmental Consequences), to reflect the availability of updated data, and to correct 

minor editorial issues. 

Additionally, the past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects and industry 

information described in Table 4.2-1 was updated where new information was available, 

and this new information was incorporated into the cumulative analysis for each resource as 

warranted. Revisions to military projects in Table 4.2-1 included the update of Eglin Air 

Force Base Gulf Test and Training Range activities; the addition of the Demolition/ 

Replacement of Pier 32/ Demolition of Pier 10 at Naval Submarine Base New London, 

Connecticut; the addition of AFTT Phase II discussion of past and ongoing activities; and a 

revised discussion of Surveillance Towed Array Sensor System Low Frequency Active Sonar 

systems to clarify that this activity has never been operated within the project area. Updates 

to outer continental shelf commercial industries information included discussion of 2017 

Executive Order Implementing an America-First Offshore Energy Strategy and May 2017 

Department of the Interior Secretary Order 3350 Implementing the America-First Offshore 

Energy Strategy and addition of marine hydrokinetic power generation as a potential future 

action. Ocean pollution and ecosystem alteration trends were removed from Table 4.2-1 to 

create Table 4.2-2 in the Final EIS/OEIS that focuses on the known impacts of each specific 

stressor. 

Minor changes were made with respect to the cumulative effects analysis of specific 

resources. Discussion of invertebrates, particularly the impact of climate change on corals, 

was expanded. Additional stressors of power plant entrainment and disease, parasites, and 

algae were added to marine mammals discussion, and a limited discussion of diamondback 

terrapin was added to the reptiles discussion. All other changes to the cumulative analysis of 

specific resources incorporate relevant changes that were made to corresponding resource 

analyses in Chapter 3 (see bullet list, above).

 Chapter 5 (Mitigation):

Based on its ongoing analysis of the best available science and potential mitigation 

measures, the Navy determined it would be practical to implement additional mitigation 

measures to enhance protection of marine mammals (including Bryde's whales and ESAlisted North Atlantic right whales) to the maximum extent practicable. The new mitigation 

measures are detailed in the Final EIS/OEIS and include: (1) enlarging the Northeast North 

Atlantic Right Whale Mitigation Area to cover the full extent of the northeast North Atlantic 

right whale critical habitat, (2) expanding the Gulf of Mexico Planning Awareness Area to 

cover the full extent of the Bryde's whale small and resident population area that was 

expanded during the 2016 NMFS status review, (3) developing a new Bryde's Whale 

Mitigation Area to restrict all explosives except for mine warfare activities in the expanded 

Bryde's whale small and resident population area, (4) implementing special reporting 

procedures for the use of active sonar and in-water explosives within the newly developed 

Southeast North Atlantic Right Whale Critical Habitat Special Reporting Area and Bryde's 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

F-xv

Foreword

Whale Mitigation Area, and newly expanded Northeast North Atlantic Right Whale 

Mitigation Area and Southeast North Atlantic Right Whale Mitigation Area, (5) adding a 

requirement for Navy units conducting training or testing activities in the Jacksonville 

Operating Area to use Early Warning System North Atlantic right whale sightings data as 

they plan specific details of events and to assist visual observation of applicable mitigation 

zones to minimize potential interactions with North Atlantic right whales to the maximum 

extent practicable, (6) adding seafloor resource mitigation areas for submerged aquatic 

vegetation, (7) adding a requirement to confer with NMFS if the Navy needs to conduct 

additional major training exercises in the Gulf of Maine Planning Awareness Mitigation Area 

or Gulf of Mexico Planning Awareness Mitigation Area, (8) adding a requirement to transmit 

special notification messages to applicable naval units with information from the North 

Atlantic right whale Dynamic Management Areas, (9) adding a requirement to survey for 

marine mammals and ESA-listed species after the completion of explosive activities in the 

vicinity of where detonations occurred (when practical), (10) requiring additional platforms 

already participating in explosive activities to support observing for applicable biological 

resources before, during, and after the activity, (11) adding reporting requirements, such as 

a requirement to report sea turtle vessel strikes and a monitoring initiative to evaluate the 

extent to which military expended materials may have impacted ESA-listed corals and 

designated coral critical habitat in or near the Key West Range Complex, (12) adding a 

requirement for vessels to operate within specific water depths within the Key West Range 

Complex to avoid bottom scouring and prop dredging, and (13) adding a mitigation measure 

to not use explosive sonobuoys, explosive torpedoes, explosive medium-caliber and largecaliber projectiles, explosive missiles and rockets, explosive bombs, explosive mines during 

mine countermeasure and neutralization activities, and anti-swimmer grenades within 3.2 

NM of an estuarine inlet and within 1.6 NM of the shoreline in the Navy Cherry Point Range 

Complex from March through September to the maximum extent practicable to avoid or 

reduce potential impacts on sea turtles near nesting beaches during the nesting season and 

on sandbar sharks in Habitat Areas of Particular Concern.

 Chapter 6 (Regulatory Considerations):

The summary paragraphs for each National Marine Sanctuary were updated to more clearly 

state whether or not section 304(d) consultation was required for the Sanctuary and to 

include the findings from the Sanctuary Resource Statements. Updates were made to the 

status of the Coastal Zone Management Act Compliance process as well as the MagnusonStevens Fishery and Conservation Management Act subsection. To address public comments 

received, new Marine Protected Areas that border inland waters included in the Proposed 

Action were added to Table 6.1-2, and a new figure was added to display the Marine 

Protected Areas around Puerto Rico and the Caribbean. 

 Chapter 7 (List of Preparers):

Changes were made to update the List of Preparers based on changes in personnel working 

on the project. 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

F-xvi

Foreword

 Chapter 8 (Public Involvement):

Information regarding the public participation process, related to the release of the Draft 

EIS/OEIS, public meetings held, and the public comments received on the Draft EIS/OEIS 

comments were added.

 Appendix A (Navy Activity Descriptions):

Changes were made to reflect modifications made to Chapter 2 (Description of Proposed 

Action and Alternatives) and to correct errors.

 Appendix B (Activity Stressor Matrices):

Changes were made to reflect corrections made to Chapter 2 (Description of Proposed 

Action and Alternatives), Appendix A (Navy Activity Descriptions), and to correct errors.

 Appendix C (Air Quality Emission Calculations and Record of Non-Applicability):

The example emissions calculations and Record of Non-Applicability were modified based on 

changes in numbers of annual events in Chapter 2 (Description of Proposed Action and 

Alternatives).

 Appendix D (Acoustic and Explosive Impacts):

No changes have been made since the release of the Draft EIS/OEIS. 

 Appendix E (Estimated Marine Mammal and Sea Turtle Impacts from Exposure to Acoustic 

and Explosive Stressors Under Navy Training and Testing Activities):

Changes made to the exposure numbers reflected changes made to the sonar hours and 

counts, explosives, and activity numbers in Chapter 2 (Description of Proposed Action and 

Alternatives).

 Appendix F (Military Expended Material and Direct Strike Impact Analysis):

Changes were made to the military expended materials tables and the benthic substrate 

impact tables to reflect modifications made to activity numbers in Chapter 2 (Description of 

Proposed Action and Alternatives) and to correct minor errors. 

 Appendix G (Federal Register Notices):

Additional Federal Register Notices since the public release of the Draft EIS/OEIS were 

added.

 Appendix H (Public Comment Responses):

This Appendix was added since the release of the Draft EIS/OEIS and includes an explanation 

of the public comment process for the Draft EIS/OEIS, list of agencies and organizations that 

provided comments, and a table containing the comments received and the Navy’s 

responses.
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

F-xvii

Foreword

 Appendix I (Geographic Information System Data Sources):

Geographic Information System data features and source information was updated.

 Appendix J (Agency Correspondence):

Agency correspondence received since the public release of the Draft EIS/OEIS is included.
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

F-xviii

Foreword

This page intentionally left blank.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

i 

Table of Contents

Final 

Environmental Impact Statement/Overseas Environmental Impact Statement 

Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY _________________________________________________________ ES-1

ES.1 Introduction .........................................................................................................ES-1

ES.2 Purpose and Need................................................................................................ES-1

ES.3 Scope and Content of the Environmental Impact Statement/Overseas 

Environmental Impact Statement........................................................................ES-1

ES.3.1 National Environmental Policy Act ......................................................ES-3

ES.3.2 Executive Order 12114 ........................................................................ES-3

ES.3.3 Marine Mammal Protection Act..........................................................ES-3

ES.3.4 Endangered Species Act.......................................................................ES-4

ES.3.5 Additional Environmental Requirements Considered.........................ES-4

ES.4 Proposed Action and Alternatives.......................................................................ES-5

ES.4.1 No Action Alternative ..........................................................................ES-5

ES.4.2 Alternative 1 ........................................................................................ES-6

ES.4.2.1 Training ................................................................................................ES-6

ES.4.2.2 Testing..................................................................................................ES-6

ES.4.3 Alternative 2 ........................................................................................ES-7

ES.4.3.1 Training ................................................................................................ES-7

ES.4.3.2 Testing..................................................................................................ES-7

ES.5 Summary of Environmental Effects .....................................................................ES-8

ES.5.1 Sonar and Explosives ...........................................................................ES-8

ES.5.2 Acoustic and Explosive Analysis.........................................................ES-30

ES.6 Cumulative Impacts ...........................................................................................ES-30

ES.6.1 Project and Other Activities Analyzed for Cumulative 

Impacts..............................................................................................ES-30

ES.6.2 Resource-Specific Cumulative Impact Conclusions...........................ES-31

ES.6.2.1 Air Quality ..........................................................................................ES-31

ES.6.2.2 Sediments and Water Quality............................................................ES-32

ES.6.2.3 Vegetation .........................................................................................ES-32

ES.6.2.4 Invertebrates .....................................................................................ES-32

ES.6.2.5 Habitats..............................................................................................ES-33

ES.6.2.6 Fishes ................................................................................................. ES-33

ES.6.2.7 Marine Mammals...............................................................................ES-33

ES.6.2.8 Reptiles..............................................................................................ES-33
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

ii

Table of Contents

ES.6.2.9 Birds and Bats....................................................................................ES-34

ES.6.2.10 Cultural Resources.........................................................................ES-34

ES.6.2.11 Socioeconomics.............................................................................ES-34

ES.6.2.12 Public Health and Safety................................................................ES-34

ES.6.3 Summary of Cumulative Impacts.......................................................ES-34

ES.7 Mitigation...........................................................................................................ES-35

ES.8 Other Considerations.........................................................................................ES-39

ES.8.1 Consistency with Regulatory Considerations ....................................ES-39

ES.8.2 Relationship Between Short-term Use of the Environment 

and Maintenance and Enhancement of Long-term 

Productivity .......................................................................................ES-39

ES.8.3 Irreversible or Irretrievable Commitment of Resources ...................ES-39

ES.8.4 Energy Requirements and Conservation Potential of 

Alternatives .......................................................................................ES-39

ES.9 Public Involvement ............................................................................................ES-39

ES.9.1 Scoping Process .................................................................................ES-40

ES.9.2 Scoping Comments............................................................................ES-40

ES.9.3 Public Comments...............................................................................ES-40

List of Figures 

Figure ES-1: Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing Study Area.................................................................... ES-2

Figure ES-2: Summary of Mitigation Areas in the Study Area ............................................................... ES-38

List of Tables

Table ES.5-1: Summary of Environmental Impacts for the No Action Alternative, 

Alternative 1, and Alternative 2.......................................................................................... ES-9

Table ES.7-1: Summary of Procedural Mitigation.................................................................................. ES-36

Table ES.7-2: Summary of Mitigation Areas.......................................................................................... ES-37
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

ES-1 

Executive Summary

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

ES.1 INTRODUCTION

The United States (U.S.) Department of the Navy (Navy) prepared this Environmental Impact Statement 

(EIS)/Overseas EIS (OEIS) to assess the potential environmental impacts associated with two categories 

of military readiness activities: training and testing. Collectively, the at-sea areas in this EIS/OEIS are 

referred to as the Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing (AFTT) Study Area (Study Area) (Figure ES-1). The 

Navy also prepared this EIS/OEIS to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and 

Executive Order (EO) 12114.

Major conflicts, terrorism, lawlessness, and natural disasters all have the potential to threaten the 

national security of the United States. United States national security, prosperity, and vital interests are 

increasingly tied to other nations because of the close relationships between the United States and 

other national economies. The Navy carries out training and testing activities to be able to protect the 

United States against its enemies, as well as to protect and defend the rights of the United States and its 

allies to move freely on the oceans. Training and testing activities that prepare the Navy to fulfill its 

mission to protect and defend the United States and its allies potentially impact the environment. These 

activities may trigger legal requirements identified in many U.S. federal environmental laws, regulations, 

and executive orders.

ES.2 PURPOSE AND NEED 

The Navy and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) (as a cooperating agency) have coordinated 

from the outset and developed this document to meet each agency’s distinct NEPA obligations and 

support the decision making of both agencies. The purpose of the Proposed Action is to ensure that the 

Navy meets its mission under Title 10 United States Code Section 5062, which is to maintain, train, and 

equip combat-ready naval forces capable of winning wars, deterring aggression, and maintaining 

freedom of the seas. This mission is achieved in part by conducting training and testing within the Study 

Area. NMFS’s purpose is to evaluate the Navy's proposed action pursuant to NMFS’s authority under the 

Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), and to make a determination whether to issue incidental take 

regulations and Letters of Authorization, including any conditions needed to meet the statutory 

mandates of the MMPA. 

ES.3 SCOPE AND CONTENT OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT 

STATEMENT/OVERSEAS ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

In this EIS/OEIS, the Navy assessed military readiness activities that could potentially impact human and 

natural resources, especially marine mammals, sea turtles, and other marine resources. The range of 

alternatives includes a No Action Alternative and other reasonable courses of action. Direct, indirect, 

cumulative, short-term, long-term, irreversible, and irretrievable impacts were also analyzed. Data sets 

used for analysis were considered across the full spectrum of Navy training and testing for the 

foreseeable future. For the purposes of analysis and presentation within this EIS/OEIS, data was 

organized and evaluated in 1-year and 5-year increments. Based upon current knowledge and the 

proposed training and testing, the Navy does not reasonably foresee a change to the Navy's direct and 

indirect impact conclusions across other time frames (ex., 2, 7, 10 years). The Navy is the lead agency for 

the Proposed Action and is responsible for the scope and content of this EIS/OEIS. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

ES-2 

Executive Summary

Notes: AFTT: Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing; OPAREA: Operating Area; SINKEX: Sinking Exercises; VACAPES: Virginia Capes

Figure ES-1: Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing Study Area
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

ES-3 

Executive Summary

The NMFS is a cooperating agency pursuant to 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) section 1501.6 

because of its expertise and regulatory authority over certain marine resources. Additionally, NMFS 

plans to use this document as its NEPA documentation for the rule making process under the MMPA.

In accordance with the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations, 40 CFR section 1505.2, the Navy 

will issue a Record of Decision. The decision will be based on factors analyzed in this EIS/OEIS, including 

military training and testing objectives, best available science and modeling data, potential 

environmental impacts, and public interest.

ES.3.1 NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT

Federal agencies are required under NEPA to examine the environmental impacts of their proposed 

actions within the United States and its territories. An EIS is a detailed public document that provides an 

assessment of the potential effects that a major Federal action might have on the human environment, 

which includes the natural environment. The Navy undertakes environmental planning for major Navy 

actions occurring throughout the world in accordance with applicable laws, regulations, and Executive 

Orders. Presidential Proclamation 5928, issued December 27, 1988, extended the exercise of U.S. 

sovereignty and jurisdiction under international law to 12 nautical miles (NM); however, the 

proclamation expressly provides that it does not extend or otherwise alter existing Federal law or any 

associated jurisdiction, rights, legal interests, or obligations. Thus, as a matter of policy, the Navy 

analyzes environmental effects and actions within 12 NM under NEPA (an EIS).

ES.3.2 EXECUTIVE ORDER 12114

This OEIS has been prepared in accordance with Executive Order 12114 (44 Federal Register 1957) and 

Navy implementing regulations in 32 CFR part 187, Environmental Effects Abroad of Major Department 

of Defense Actions. An OEIS is required when a proposed action and alternatives have the potential to 

significantly harm the environment of the global commons. The global commons are defined as 

geographical areas outside the jurisdiction of any nation and include the oceans outside of the territorial 

limits (more than 12 NM from the coast) and Antarctica but do not include contiguous zones and 

fisheries zones of foreign nations (32 CFR section 187.3). The EIS and OEIS have been combined into one 

document, as permitted under NEPA and Executive Order 12114, to reduce duplication.

ES.3.3 MARINE MAMMAL PROTECTION ACT

The MMPA of 1972 (16 US Code [U.S.C.] section 1361 et seq.) established, with limited exceptions, a 

moratorium on the “taking” of marine mammals in waters or on lands under U.S. jurisdiction. The act 

further regulates “takes” of marine mammals on the high seas by vessels or persons subject to U.S. 

jurisdiction. The term “take,” as defined in section 3 [16 U.S.C. section 1362(13)] of the MMPA, means 

“to harass, hunt, capture, or kill, or attempt to harass, hunt, capture, or kill any marine mammal.” 

“Harassment” was further defined in the 1994 amendments to the MMPA, which provided two levels of 

harassment: Level A (potential injury) and Level B (potential behavioral disturbance).

The MMPA directs the Secretary of Commerce (as delegated to NMFS) to allow, upon request, the 

incidental, but not intentional, taking of small numbers of marine mammals by U.S. citizens who engage 

in a specified activity (other than commercial fishing) within a specified geographical region if NMFS 

finds that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or stock(s), and will not have an 

unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for subsistence uses (where 

relevant). The authorization must set forth the permissible methods of taking, other means of effecting

the least practicable adverse impact on the species or stock and its habitat, and on the availability of the
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

ES-4 

Executive Summary

species or stock for subsistence uses (where relevant), and requirements pertaining to the monitoring, 

and reporting of such taking.

The National Defense Authorization Act of Fiscal Year 2004 (Public Law 108-136) amended the definition 

of harassment and removed the “small numbers” provision as applied to military readiness activities or 

scientific research activities conducted by or on behalf of the federal government consistent with 

section 104(c)(3) (16 U.S.C. section 1374 [c][3]). The Fiscal Year 2004 National Defense Authorization Act 

adopted the definition of “military readiness activity” as set forth in the Fiscal Year 2003 National 

Defense Authorization Act (Public Law 107-314). A “military readiness activity” is defined as “all training 

and operations of the Armed Forces that relate to combat” and “the adequate and realistic testing of 

military equipment, vehicles, weapons, and sensors for proper operation and suitability for combat 

use.” Since the Proposed Action involves conducting military readiness activities, the relevant definition 

of harassment is any act that: 

• injures or has the significant potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in 

the wild (“Level A harassment”) or

• disturbs or is likely to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing 

disruption of natural behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, surfacing, 

nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering to a point where such behavioral patterns are 

abandoned or significantly altered (“Level B harassment”) [16 U.S.C. section 1362(18)(B)(i) and 

(ii)].

ES.3.4 ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT

The Endangered Species Act (ESA of 1973 (16 U.S.C. section 1531 et seq.) provides for the conservation 

of endangered and threatened species, and of the ecosystems on which they depend. The Act defines

“endangered” species as a species in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its 

range. A “threatened” species is one that is likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future 

throughout all or a significant portion of its range. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and NMFS 

jointly administer the ESA and are responsible for listing species (as threatened or endangered) and for 

designating critical habitat for listed species. Section 7(a)(2) requires each federal agency to ensure that 

any action it authorizes, funds, or carries out is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any 

endangered or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat 

of such species. When a federal agency's action “may affect” a listed species, that agency is required to 

consult with the Service (NMFS or USFWS) that has jurisdiction over the species in question [50 CFR

section 402.14(a)]. Under the terms of section 7(b)(4) and section 7(o)(2) of the ESA, taking that is 

incidental to and not intended as part of the agency action is not considered to be a prohibited taking 

under the act provided that such taking complies with the terms and conditions of an Incidental Take 

Statement. 

ES.3.5 ADDITIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL REQUIREMENTS CONSIDERED

The Navy must comply with all applicable federal environmental laws, regulations, and Executive Orders, 

including, but not limited to, those listed below. Further information on Navy compliance with these and 

other environmental laws, regulations, and Executive Orders can be found in Chapter 1 (Purpose and 

Need), Chapter 3 (Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences) and Chapter 6 (Regulatory 

Considerations). 

• Abandoned Shipwreck Act
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

ES-5 

Executive Summary

• Antiquities Act

• Clean Air Act

• Clean Water Act

• Coastal Zone Management Act

• Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act

• Migratory Bird Treaty Act

• National Historic Preservation Act

• National Marine Sanctuaries Act

• Rivers and Harbors Act

• Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations 

and Low-Income Populations

• Executive Order 12962, Recreational Fisheries

• Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks

• Executive Order 13089, Coral Reef Protection

• Executive Order 13158, Marine Protected Areas

• Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments

• Executive Order 13547, Stewardship of the Ocean, Our Coasts, and the Great Lakes

ES.4 PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES

The U.S. Navy proposes to conduct military readiness training activities (hereinafter referred to as 

“training”) and research, development, testing, and evaluation (hereinafter referred to as “testing”) 

activities in the AFTT Study Area, as represented in (Figure ES-1). These military readiness activities 

include the use of active sonar and explosives within the in-water areas of the western Atlantic Ocean 

along the eastern coast of North America, in portions of the Caribbean Sea and the Gulf of Mexico, at 

select Navy pierside locations, within port transit channels, near select civilian ports, and in bays, 

harbors, and inshore waterways (e.g., lower Chesapeake Bay). These military readiness activities are 

generally consistent with those analyzed in the AFTT EIS/OEIS completed in November 2013 and are 

representative of training and testing that the Navy has been conducting in the AFTT Study Area for 

decades.

The Navy’s entire suite of mitigation measures was developed in coordination with NMFS. The Action 

Alternatives and mitigation measures meet both the Navy’s and NMFS’s purpose and need. The Navy 

will implement mitigation to avoid or reduce potential impacts of training and testing activities on 

environmental and cultural resources under both action alternatives (Alternative 1 [Preferred 

Alternative] and Alternative 2).

ES.4.1 NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE

Under the No Action Alternative, the Proposed Action would not take place (i.e., the Navy would not 

conduct proposed training and testing activities in the AFTT Study Area). For NMFS, denial of an 

application for an incidental take authorization constitutes the NMFS No Action Alternative, which is 

consistent with NMFS’ statutory obligation under the MMPA to grant or deny requests for take 

incidental to specified activities. The resulting environmental effects from taking no action will be 

compared with the effects of the Proposed Action. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

ES-6 

Executive Summary

ES.4.2 ALTERNATIVE 1 

Alternative 1 is the Preferred Alternative. 

ES.4.2.1 TRAINING

Under this alternative, the Navy proposes to conduct military readiness training activities into the 

reasonably foreseeable future, as necessary to meet current and future readiness requirements. These 

military readiness training activities include new activities as well as activities subject to previous 

analysis that are currently ongoing and have historically occurred in the Study Area. These activities 

account for force structure (organization of ships, weapons, and personnel) changes and include training 

with new aircraft, vessels, unmanned/autonomous systems, and weapon systems that will be 

introduced to the fleets after November 2018. The numbers and locations of all proposed training 

activities are provided in Table 2.6-1, in Section 2.6.1 (Proposed Training Activities).

Alternative 1 reflects a representative year of training to account for the natural fluctuation of training 

cycles and deployment schedules that generally limit the maximum level of training from occurring year 

after year in any five-year period. Using a representative level of activity rather than a maximum tempo 

of training activity in every year has reduced the amount of hull-mounted mid-frequency active sonar 

estimated to be necessary to meet training requirements, as discussed below. Both unit-level training 

and major training exercises are adjusted to meet this representative year.

Under Alternative 1, the Navy assumes that some unit-level training would be conducted using synthetic 

means (e.g., simulators). Additionally, this alternative assumes that some unit-level active sonar training 

will be completed through other training exercises by using a representative level of training activity 

rather than a maximum level of training activity in every year. 

The Optimized Fleet Response Plan (which outlines the training activities required to achieve a state of 

Naval readiness) and various training plans identify the number and duration of training cycles that 

could occur over a five-year period. Alternative 1 considers fluctuations in training cycles and 

deployment schedules that do not follow a traditional annual calendar but instead are influenced by intheater demands and other external factors. Similar to unit-level training, this alternative does not 

analyze a maximum number of carrier strike group Composite Training Unit Exercises (one type of major 

exercise) every year, but instead assumes a maximum number of exercises would occur during two 

years of any five-year period. As a result, Alternative 1 will analyze a maximum of three Composite 

Training Unit Exercises in any given year and not more than 12 over any five-year period. This alternative 

does not provide for the conduct of a contingency Composite Training Unit Exercise in the Gulf of 

Mexico and, hence, incorporates a degree of risk that the Navy will not have sufficient capacity to 

support the full spectrum of training potentially necessary to respond to a future national emergency 

crisis.

ES.4.2.2 TESTING

Alternative 1 entails a level of testing activities to be conducted into the reasonably foreseeable future, 

with adjustments that account for changes in the types and tempo (increase or decrease) of testing 

activities, as necessary, to meet current and future military readiness requirements. This alternative 

includes the testing of new platforms, systems, and related equipment that will be introduced after 

November 2018. The majority of types of testing activities that would be conducted under this 

alternative are the same as or similar as those conducted currently or in the past. This alternative 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

ES-7 

Executive Summary

includes the testing of some new systems using new technologies and takes into account inherent 

uncertainties in this type of testing. 

Under Alternative 1, the Navy proposes an annual level of testing that reflects the fluctuations in testing 

programs by recognizing that the maximum level of testing will not be conducted each year. This 

alternative contains a more realistic annual representation of activities, but includes years of a higher 

maximum amount of testing to account for these fluctuations. This alternative would not include the 

contingency for augmenting some weapon system tests, which would increase levels of annual testing of 

anti-submarine warfare and mine warfare systems, and presumes a typical level of readiness 

requirements. All proposed testing activities are listed in Table 2.6-2 through Table 2.6-4, in Section 

2.6.2 (Testing).

ES.4.3 ALTERNATIVE 2 

ES.4.3.1 TRAINING

As under Alternative 1, Alternative 2 includes new and ongoing activities. Under Alternative 2, training 

activities are based on requirements established by the Optimized Fleet Response Plan. Under this 

alternative, the Navy would be enabled to meet the highest levels of required military readiness by 

conducting the majority of its training live at sea, and by meeting unit level training requirements using 

dedicated, discrete training events, instead of combining them with other training activities as described 

in alternative 1. The numbers and locations of all proposed training activities are provided in Table 2.6 1, 

in Section 2.6.1 (Proposed Training Activities).

Alternative 2 reflects the maximum number of training activities that could occur within a given year, 

and assumes that the maximum level of activity would occur every year over any 5-year period. This 

allows for the greatest capacity for the Navy to maintain readiness when considering potential changes 

in the national security environment, fluctuations in training and deployment schedules, and potential 

in-theater demands. Both unit-level training and major training exercises are assumed to occur at a 

maximum level every year. 

Additionally, this alternative will analyze three Composite Training Unit Exercises each year along with a 

contingency Composite Training Unit Exercise in the Gulf of Mexico each year, for a total number of 

Composite Training Unit Exercises to 20, including the Gulf of Mexico contingency Composite Training 

Unit Exercise, over any five-year period. 

ES.4.3.2 TESTING

Alternative 2 entails a level of testing activities to be conducted into the reasonably foreseeable future, 

and includes the testing of new platforms, systems, and related equipment that will be introduced after 

November 2018. The majority of testing activities that would be conducted under this alternative are 

the same as or similar to those conducted currently or in the past. 

Alternative 2 would include the testing of some new systems using new technologies, taking into 

account the potential for delayed or accelerated testing schedules, variations in funding availability, and 

innovation in technology development. To account for these inherent uncertainties in testing, this 

alternative assumes that the maximum annual testing efforts predicted for each individual system or 

program could occur concurrently in any given year. This alternative also includes the contingency for 

augmenting some weapon systems tests in response to potential increased world conflicts and changing 

Navy leadership priorities as the result of a direct challenge from a naval opponent that possesses nearpeer capabilities. Therefore, this alternative includes the provision for higher levels of annual testing of 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

ES-8 

Executive Summary

certain anti-submarine warfare and mine warfare systems to support expedited delivery of these 

systems to the fleet. All proposed testing activities are listed in Table 2.6-2 through Table 2.6-4, in 

Section 2.6.2 (Proposed Testing Activities).

ES.5 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS

Environmental effects which might result from implementing the Navy’s Proposed Action or alternatives 

have been analyzed in this EIS/OEIS. Resource areas analyzed include air quality, sediments and water 

quality, vegetation, invertebrates, habitats, fishes, marine mammals, reptiles, birds and bats, cultural 

resources, socioeconomics, and public health and safety. Table ES 5-1 provides a comparison of the 

potential environmental impacts of the No Action Alternative, Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative), and 

Alternative 2. 

This EIS/OEIS covers similar types of Navy training and testing activities in the same study area analyzed 

in the 2013 AFTT Final EIS/OEIS. The Navy has re-evaluated impacts from these ongoing activities in 

existing ranges and operating areas (OPAREAs) offshore of the eastern and gulf coasts. The Navy 

analyzed new or changing military readiness activities into the reasonably foreseeable future based on 

evolving operational requirements, including those associated with new platforms and systems not 

previously analyzed, and new inshore water training locations. Additionally, the Navy thoroughly 

reviewed and incorporated the best available science relevant to analyzing the environmental impacts 

of the proposed activities. Changes from the 2013 AFTT Final EIS/OEIS include the following:

ES.5.1 SONAR AND EXPLOSIVES

The Navy's refined analysis of anti-submarine warfare activities results in reduced levels of active sonar 

being analyzed. The new presentation of anti-submarine warfare activities more accurately reflects the

variability in the number of certification related events (e.g., Composite Training Exercise) conducted 

per year due to varying deployment schedules and ship availabilities. This new analysis also better 

accounts for a portion of unit level surface ship tracking exercise requirements being met during 

coordinated/integrated anti-submarine warfare training and major training exercises, or through 

synthetic training. These refinements to the analysis result in fewer hours of acoustic sources, such as 

hull-mounted mid-frequency active acoustic systems, when estimating marine mammal exposures from 

training events.

This EIS/OEIS supports the Navy's increased focus on live training to meet evolving surface warfare 

challenges. This results in a proposed increase in levels of Air-to-Surface Warfare activities and an 

increased reliance on non-explosive and explosive munitions usage of rockets, missiles, and bombs.

The number of Sinking Exercises proposed by the Navy has been reduced to reflect expected availability 

of Sinking Exercise targets.

Increases in training for maritime security operations (e.g., drug interdiction, anti-piracy) are proposed 

to ensure Sailors are prepared to meet this important mission area.

The sonar bin list has been updated/refined to reflect new active sonar sources, such as high-frequency 

imaging sonars and broadband sound sources proposed for testing and experimentation. Similarly, 

specific existing bins were refined to better reflect testing realism in the analysis. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

ES-9

Executive Summary

Table ES.5-1: Summary of Environmental Impacts for the No Action Alternative, Alternative 1, and Alternative 2

Resource 

Category Summary of Impacts

Section 3.1-Air 

Quality

The Navy considered all potential stressors that air quality could be exposed to from the Proposed Action. The following conclusions 

have been reached for the project alternatives:

No Action Alternative:

 Under the No Action Alternative, the Navy would not conduct the proposed training and testing activities in the AFTT Study 

Area. The No Action Alternative would not measurably improve air quality in the Study Area because of the discontinuous 

nature of the events that constitute the Proposed Action and the fact that most of the air emissions that are generated occur at 

sea over a wide geographic area. The elimination of the air emissions associated with activities in the lower Chesapeake Bay 

and its tributaries may be beneficial to local air quality in this region because it is the area of highest activity in state waters. It 

should be noted that the air quality in this area already surpasses the National Ambient Air Quality Standards.

Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative):

 Criteria Pollutants: The emission of criteria pollutants resulting from training and testing activities in the Study Area would not 

cause a violation or contribute to an ongoing violation of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards.

Alternative 2:

 Criteria Pollutants: The emission of criteria pollutants resulting from training and testing activities associated with Alternative 2 

would increase slightly over emissions from Alternative 1; however, they would not cause a violation or contribute to an 

ongoing violation of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards.

Section 3.2-

Sediments and 

Water Quality

The Navy considered all potential stressors that sediments and water quality could be exposed to from the Proposed Action. The 

following conclusions have been reached for the project alternatives:

No Action Alternative:

 Under the No Action Alternative there would be no adverse impacts on sediments and water quality from training and testing 

activities. It is reasonable to assume that ceasing all training and testing activities involving the use of explosives and explosives 

byproducts, metals, chemicals other than explosives, and other military expended materials would decrease the amounts of

these materials in marine waters and sediments. The effect, however, would likely not be measureable due to the slow, 

sometimes decades-long corrosion of metals on the seafloor. 

Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative):

 Explosives and explosives byproducts: Impacts from explosives and explosives byproducts would be short term and local. 

Impacts from unconsumed explosives and constituent chemical compounds would be minimal and limited to the area adjacent 

to the munition. Explosives and constituent compounds could persist in the environment depending on the integrity of the 

undetonated munitions casing and the physical conditions on the seafloor where the munition resides. Chemical and physical 

changes to sediments and water quality, as measured by the concentrations of contaminants or other anthropogenic 

compounds, may be detectable and would be below applicable regulatory standards for determining effects on biological 

resources and habitats.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

ES-10

Executive Summary

Table ES.5-1: Summary of Environmental Impacts for the No Action Alternative, Alternative 1, and Alternative 2 (continued)

Resource 

Category Summary of Impacts

Section 3.2-

Sediments and 

Water Quality

(continued)

 Chemicals other than explosives: Impacts from other chemicals not associated with explosives would be both short term and 

long term depending on the chemical and the physical conditions on the seafloor where the source of the chemicals resides. 

Impacts would be minimal and localized to the immediate area surrounding the source of the chemical release.

 Metals: Impacts from metals would be minimal, long-term, and dependent on the metal and the physical conditions on the 

seafloor where the metal object (e.g., non-explosive munition) resides. Impacts would be localized to the area adjacent to the 

metal object. Concentrations of metal contaminants near the expended material or munition may be measurable and are likely

to be similar to the concentrations of metals in sediments from nearby reference locations.

 Other materials: Impacts from other expended materials not associated with munitions would be both short term and long

term depending on the material and the physical conditions (e.g., substrate, temperature, currents) on the seafloor where the 

material resides. Impacts would be localized to the immediate area surrounding the material. Chemical and physical changes to 

sediments and water quality, as measured by the concentrations of contaminants or other anthropogenic compounds near the 

expended material, are not likely to be detectable and would be similar to the concentrations of chemicals and material residue 

from nearby reference locations.

Alternative 2:

 Explosives and explosives byproducts: Impacts from explosives under Alternative 2 for training and testing activities would be 

identical (less than 1 percent difference in any location or overall) to those of Alternative 1.

 Chemicals other than explosives: Impacts from other chemicals not associated with explosives under Alternative 2 would 

increase slightly compared to those of Alternative 1 because of a small increase in expended materials, but the difference in

impacts would be undetectable. 

 Metals: Impacts from other chemicals not associated with explosives under Alternative 2 would increase slightly compared to 

those of Alternative 1 because of a small increase in expended materials, but the difference in impacts would be undetectable.

 Other military expended materials: Impacts from other chemicals not associated with explosives under Alternative 2 would 

increase slightly compared to those of Alternative 1 because of a small increase in expended materials, but the difference in

impacts would be undetectable.

Section 3.3-

Vegetation

The Navy considered all potential stressors that vegetation could be exposed to from the Proposed Action. The following conclusions 

have been reached for the project alternatives: 

No Action Alternative: 

 Under the No Action Alternative, the Navy would not conduct the proposed training and testing activities in the AFTT 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.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

ES-11

Executive Summary

Table ES.5-1: Summary of Environmental Impacts for the No Action Alternative, Alternative 1, and Alternative 2 (continued)

Resource 

Category Summary of Impacts

Section 3.3-

Vegetation

(continued)

Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative): 

 Acoustics: There is no evidence that underwater acoustic stressors impact marine vegetation. Acoustic stressors, therefore, are

not analyzed for vegetation.

 Energy: Energy stressors are not applicable to vegetation because vegetation have a limited sensitivity to energy stressors and 

therefore will not be analyzed further in vegetation.

 Explosives: Explosives could affect vegetation by destroying individual plants or damaging parts of plants; however, there would 

be no persistent or large-scale effects on the growth, survival, distribution or structure of vegetation due to relatively fast 

growth, resilience, and abundance of the most affected species (e.g., phytoplankton, seaweed).

 Physical Disturbance and Strikes: Physical disturbance and strike could affect vegetation by destroying individual plants or 

damaging parts of plants; however, there would be no persistent or large-scale effects on the growth, survival, distribution or 

structure of vegetation due to relatively fast growth, resilience, and abundance of the most affected species (e.g., 

phytoplankton, seaweed).

 Entanglement: Entanglement stressors are not applicable to vegetation due to the sedentary nature of vegetation and is not 

analyzed further in this section.

 Ingestion: Ingestion stressors are not applicable because all vegetation analyzed uses photosynthesis vice ingestion to obtain 

necessary nutrients. Therefore, the ingestion stressor is not analyzed for vegetation.

 Secondary Stressors: Project effects on secondary stressors such as sediment, water, or air quality would be minor, temporary, 

and localized and could have short-term, small-scale secondary effects on vegetation; however, there would be no persistent or 

large-scale effects on the growth, survival, distribution, or structure of vegetation due to relatively fast growth, resilience, and 

abundance of the most affected species (e.g., phytoplankton, seaweed).

Alternative 2:

 Explosives: Impacts from explosives under Alternative 2 for training and testing activities would be virtually identical (less than 

1 percent difference in any location or overall) to those of Alternative 1. 

 Physical Disturbance and Strikes: Compared to Alternative 1, under Alternative 2, training and testing activities would be 

similarly distributed across ranges and facilities, but the number of activities would increase by a small percent. The net impact 

on vegetation is still expected to be nearly identical to that of Alternative 1. 

 Secondary Stressors: The difference in project effects on secondary stressors between Alternative 1 and 2 is inconsequential.

Section 3.4-

Invertebrates

The Navy considered all potential stressors that invertebrates could be exposed to from the Proposed Action. The following conclusions 

have been reached for the project alternatives:

No Action Alternative: 

 Under the No Action Alternative, the Navy would not conduct the proposed training and testing activities in the AFTT Study 

Area. Various 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.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

ES-12

Executive Summary

Table ES.5-1: Summary of Environmental Impacts for the No Action Alternative, Alternative 1, and Alternative 2 (continued)

Resource 

Category Summary of Impacts

Section 3.4-

Invertebrates

(continued)

Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative):

 Acoustics: Invertebrates could be exposed to noise from the proposed training and testing activities. However, available 

information indicates that invertebrate sound detection is primarily limited to low-frequency (less than 1 kilohertz [kHz]) 

particle motion and water movement that diminishes rapidly with distance from a sound source. The expected impact of noise 

on invertebrates is correspondingly diminished and mostly limited to offshore surface layers of the water column where only 

zooplankton, squid, and jellyfish are prevalent mostly at night when training and testing occur less frequently. Invertebrate 

populations are typically lower offshore, where most training and testing occurs, than inshore due to the scarcity of habitat

structure and comparatively lower nutrient levels. Exceptions occur at nearshore and inshore locations where occasional 

pierside sonar, air gun, or pile driving actions occur near relatively resilient soft bottom or artificial substrate communities. 

Because the number of individuals affected would be small relative to population numbers, population-level impacts are 

unlikely.

 Explosives: Explosives produce pressure waves that can harm invertebrates in the vicinity of where they typically occur: mostly 

offshore surface waters where zooplankton, squid, and jellyfish are prevalent mostly at night when training and testing with 

explosives do not typically occur. Invertebrate populations are generally lower offshore than inshore due to the scarcity of 

habitat structure and comparatively lower nutrient levels. Exceptions occur where explosives are used on the bottom within 

nearshore or inshore waters on or near sensitive live hard bottom communities. Soft bottom communities are resilient to 

occasional disturbances. Due to the relatively small number of individuals affected, population-level impacts are unlikely.

 Energy: The proposed activities would produce electromagnetic energy that briefly affects a very limited area of water, based 

on the relatively weak magnetic fields and mobile nature of the stressors. Whereas some invertebrate species can detect 

magnetic fields, the effect has only been documented at much higher field strength than what the proposed activities generate. 

High-energy lasers can damage invertebrates. However, the effects are limited to surface waters where relatively few 

invertebrates species occur (e.g., zooplankton, squid, jellyfish), mostly at night when actions do not typically occur, and only 

when the target is missed. Due to the relatively small number of individuals that may be affected, population-level impacts are 

unlikely.

 Physical Disturbance and Strikes: Invertebrates could experience physical disturbance and strike impacts from vessels and inwater devices, military expended materials, seafloor devices, and pile driving. Most risk occurs offshore (where invertebrates 

are less abundant) and near the surface where relatively few invertebrates occur during the day when actions are typically 

occurring. The majority of expended materials are used in areas far from nearshore and inshore bottom areas where 

invertebrates are the most abundant. Exceptions occur for actions taking place within inshore and nearshore waters over 

primarily soft bottom communities, such as related to vessel transits, inshore and nearshore vessel training, nearshore 

explosive ordnance disposal training, operation of bottom-crawling seafloor devices, and pile driving. Invertebrate communities 

in affected soft bottom areas are naturally resilient to occasional disturbances. Accordingly, population-level impacts are 

unlikely.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

ES-13

Executive Summary

Table ES.5-1: Summary of Environmental Impacts for the No Action Alternative, Alternative 1, and Alternative 2 (continued)

Resource 

Category Summary of Impacts

Section 3.4-

Invertebrates

(continued)

 Entanglement: Invertebrates could be entangled by various expended materials (wires, cables, decelerators/parachutes, 

biodegradable polymer). Most entanglement risk occurs in offshore areas where invertebrates are relatively less abundant. 

The risk of entangling invertebrates is minimized by the typically linear nature of the expended structures (e.g., wires, cables), 

although decelerators/parachutes have mesh that could pose a risk to those invertebrates that are large and slow enough to 

be entangled (e.g., jellyfish). Deep-water coral could also be entangled by drifting decelerators/parachutes, but a cooccurrence is highly unlikely given the extremely sparse coverage of corals in the deep ocean. Accordingly, population-level 

impacts are unlikely.

 Ingestion: Small expended materials and material fragments pose an ingestion risk to some invertebrates. However, most 

military expended materials are too large to be ingested, and many invertebrate species are unlikely to consume an item that 

does not visually or chemically resemble its natural food. Exceptions occur for materials fragmented by explosive charges or 

weathering, which could be ingested by filter- or deposit-feeding invertebrates. Ingestion of such materials would likely occur 

infrequently, and only invertebrates located very close to the fragmented materials would potentially be affected. 

Furthermore, the vast majority of human deposited ingestible materials in the ocean originate from non-military sources. 

Accordingly, population-level impacts are unlikely.

 Secondary Stressors: Secondary impacts on invertebrates are possible via changes to habitats (sediment or water) and to prey 

availability due to explosives, explosives byproducts, unexploded munitions, metals, and toxic expended material 

components. Other than bottom-placed explosives, the impacts are mostly in offshore waters where invertebrates are less 

abundant. The impacts of occasional bottom-placed explosives are mostly limited to nearshore soft bottom habitats that 

recover quickly from disturbance. Following detonation, concentrations of explosive byproducts are rapidly diluted to levels 

that are not considered toxic to marine invertebrates. Furthermore, most explosive byproducts are common seawater 

constituents. Contamination leaching from unexploded munitions is likely inconsequential because the material has low 

solubility in seawater and is slowly delivered to the water column. Heavy metals and chemicals such as unspent propellants 

can reach harmful levels around stationary range targets but are not likely in open waters where proposed action targets are 

typically mobile or temporarily stationary. Accordingly, overall impacts of secondary stressors on widespread invertebrate 

populations are not likely. Impacts due to decreased availability of prey items (fish and other invertebrates) would likely be 

undetectable.

Alternative 2:

 Acoustics: Potential impacts to invertebrates would be similar to those discussed for training and testing activities under 

Alternative 1. The only difference in sonar and other transducer use between Alternatives 1 and 2 is that the number of sonar 

hours used would be greater under Alternative 2. Air guns and pile driving impacts would be the same under Alternative 2. 

Potential impacts resulting from vessel noise would be similar to those discussed for activities under Alternative 1. Vessel use 

in the Study Area would increase by a very small amount (about one percent). The only difference in weapons noise impacts 

between Alternatives 1 and 2 is that the number of munitions used would be greater under Alternative 2. While the types of 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

ES-14

Executive Summary

Table ES.5-1: Summary of Environmental Impacts for the No Action Alternative, Alternative 1, and Alternative 2 (continued)

Resource 

Category Summary of Impacts

Section 3.4-

Invertebrates

(continued)

 expected impacts to any individual invertebrate or group of invertebrates capable of detecting sounds produced during 

training and testing activities would remain the same, more animals could be affected.

 Explosives: The locations, number of events, and potential effects associated with explosives would be the same under 

Alternatives 1 and 2.

 Energy: The locations, number of events, and potential effects associated with energy stressors would be the same under 

Alternatives 1 and 2.

 Physical Disturbance and Strikes: Under Alternative 2, potential physical disturbance and strike impacts to invertebrates 

associated with training and testing activities would be similar to those discussed for activities under Alternative 1. The total 

area affected for all training and testing activities combined would increase by less than 1 acre under Alternative 2. There 

would be a very small increase in vessel and in-water device use in the Study Area. However, the difference would not result 

in substantive changes to the potential for or types of impacts on invertebrates. 

 Entanglement: There would be a small increase in the number of military expended materials associated with Alternative 2 

activities. However, the increase is negligible and the potential impacts from wires and cables, decelerators/parachutes, and

biodegradable polymer under Alternative 2 would be similar to that of Alternative 1. 

 Ingestion: Under Alternative 2, the locations and types of military expended materials used would be the same as those of 

Alternative 1. There would be an increase in the number of some items expended, such as targets, sonobuoys, 

bathythermograph equipment, and small decelerators/parachutes. This relatively small increase in the total number of items 

expended would not be expected to result in substantive changes to the type or degree of impacts to invertebrates. 

 Secondary Stressors: Secondary impacts on invertebrates resulting from Alternative 2 activities would be nearly identical to 

those for Alternative 1.

Section 3.5-

Habitats

The Navy considered all potential stressors that habitats could be exposed to from the Proposed Action. The following conclusions have 

been reached for the project alternatives:

No Action Alternative: 

 Under the No Action Alternative, the Navy would not conduct the proposed training and testing activities in the AFTT 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.

Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative):

 Acoustics: Acoustic stressors are not applicable to habitats, due to the fact that habitats do not have hearing capabilities, and 

are not analyzed in this section.

 Explosives: Most explosives would detonate in air or at or near the water surface. Some explosives would be placed on the 

bottom. Explosive detonations on or near the bottom would produce percussive energy that could impact bottom habitat. 

While hard bottom would mostly reflect the energy, a crater would form in soft bottom. On substrates other than clay, the 

effects would be temporary, whereas craters in clay may be persistent. Craters in soft bottom, where substrate moves around 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

ES-15

Executive Summary

Table ES.5-1: Summary of Environmental Impacts for the No Action Alternative, Alternative 1, and Alternative 2 (continued)

Resource 

Category Summary of Impacts

Section 3.5-

Habitats

(continued)

with the tides and currents, would only last for days to weeks. The surface area of bottom substrate affected would be a tiny

fraction of the total training and testing area available in the Study Area.

 Energy: Energy stressors are not applicable to habitats because of the lack of sensitivity of habitats and are not analyzed in this 

section.

 Physical Disturbance and Strikes: Most seafloor devices would be placed in areas that would result in minor and temporary 

bottom substrate impacts. Once on the seafloor and over time, military expended material would be buried by sediment, 

corroded from exposure to the marine environment, or colonized by benthic organisms. The surface area of bottom substrate 

affected over the short-term would be a tiny fraction of the total training and testing area available in the Study Area.

 Entanglement: Entanglement stressors are not applicable because habitats do not have the ability to become “entangled” by 

materials. The potential for expended material to cover a substrate is discussed under the physical disturbance and strike 

stressor.

 Ingestion: Ingestion stressors are not applicable because habitats lack the ability to ingest; therefore, ingestion stressors are 

not analyzed for habitats.

 Secondary Stressors: Secondary stressors are not applicable to habitats, as they are not susceptible to impacts from secondary 

stressors, and are not analyzed further.

Alternative 2:

 Explosives: Explosive activities would be nearly identical under Alternative 2 as those analyzed under Alternative 1, as only the 

frequency and duration of activities would differ. In-water explosions under Alternative 2 training and testing activities would 

be limited to local and short-term impacts on marine habitat structure in the AFTT Study Area.

 Physical Disturbance and Strikes: Most seafloor devices would be placed in areas that would result in minor and temporary 

bottom substrate impacts. Once on the seafloor and over time, military expended material would be buried by sediment, 

corroded from exposure to the marine environment, or colonized by benthic organisms. The surface area of bottom substrate 

affected over the short-term would be a tiny fraction of the total training and testing area available in the Study Area.

Section 3.6-

Fishes

The Navy considered all potential stressors that fishes could be exposed to from the Proposed Action. The following conclusions have

been reached for the project alternatives:

No Action Alternative:

 Under the No Action Alternative, the Navy would not conduct the proposed training and testing activities in the AFTT Study 

Area. The combined impacts of all stressors for fishes 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 and no impacts on fish population would occur.

Alterantive1 (Preferred Alternative):

 Acoustics: The use of sonar and other transducers, air guns, pile driving, vessel noise, aircraft noise, and weapons noise could 

result in impacts on fishes in the Study Area. Some sonars and other transducers, vessel noise, and weapons noise could
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

ES-16

Executive Summary

Table ES.5-1: Summary of Environmental Impacts for the No Action Alternative, Alternative 1, and Alternative 2 (continued)

Resource 

Category Summary of Impacts

Section 3.6-

Fishes

(continued)

 result in hearing loss, masking, physiological stress, or behavioral reactions. Aircraft noise would not likely result in impacts 

other than brief, mild behavioral responses in fishes that are close to the surface. Air guns and pile driving have the potential to

result in the same effects in addition to mortality or injury. Most impacts, such as masking or behavioral reactions, are expected 

to be temporary and infrequent as most activities involving acoustic stressors would be at low levels of noise, temporary, 

localized, and infrequent. More severe impacts such as mortality or injury could lead to permanent or long-term consequences 

for individuals but, overall, long-term consequences for fish populations are not expected.

 Explosives: The use of explosives could result in impacts on fishes within the Study Area. Sound and energy from explosions is 

capable of causing mortality, injury, hearing loss, masking, physiological stress, or behavioral responses. The time scale of

individual explosions is very limited, and training and testing activities involving explosions are dispersed in space and time. 

Therefore, repeated exposure of individual fishes are unlikely. Most effects such as hearing loss or behavioral responses are 

expected to be short-term and localized. More severe impacts such as mortality or injury could lead to permanent or long-term 

consequences for individuals but, overall, long-term consequences for fish populations are not expected.

 Energy: The use of electromagnetic devices may elicit brief behavioral or physiological stress responses only in those exposed 

fishes with sensitivities to the electromagnetic spectrum. This behavioral impact is expected to be temporary and minor. Similar 

to regular vessel traffic that is continuously moving and covers only a small spatial area during use, electromagnetic fields would 

be continuously moving and cover only a small spatial area during use, so population-level impacts are unlikely.

 Physical Disturbance and Strikes: Vessel strikes, in-water device strikes, military expended material strikes, and seafloor device 

strikes present a risk for collision with fishes, particularly near coastal areas, seamounts, and other bathymetric features where 

densities are higher. While the potential for physical disturbance and strikes of fishes can occur anywhere vessels are operated 

or training and testing activities occur, most fishes are highly mobile and have sensory capabilities which enable the detection 

and avoidance of vessels, expended materials, or objects in the water column or on the seafloor.

 Entanglement: Fishes could be exposed to multiple entanglement stressors associated with Navy training and testing activities. 

The potential for impacts is dependent on the physical properties of the expended materials and the likelihood that a fish would 

encounter a potential entanglement stressor and then become entangled in it. Physical characteristics of wires and cables, 

decelerators/parachutes, and biodegradable polymers, combined with the sparse distribution of these items throughout the 

Study Area, indicates a very low potential for fishes to encounter and become entangled in them. Because of the low numbers of 

fish potentially impacted by entanglement stressors, population-level impacts are unlikely.

 Ingestion: The likelihood that expended items would cause a potential impact on a given fish species depends on the size and 

feeding habits of the fish and the rate at which the fish encounters the item and the composition of the item. Military expended 

materials from munitions present an ingestion risk to fishes that forage in the water column and on the seafloor. Military 

expended materials other than munitions present an ingestion risk for fishes foraging at or near the surface while these 

materials are buoyant, and on the seafloor when the materials sink. Because of the low numbers of fish potentially impacted by 

ingestion stressors, population-level impacts are unlikely.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

ES-17

Executive Summary

Table ES.5-1: Summary of Environmental Impacts for the No Action Alternative, Alternative 1, and Alternative 2 (continued)

Resource 

Category Summary of Impacts

Section 3.6-

Fishes

(continued) 

 Secondary Stressors: Effects on sediment or water quality would be minor, temporary, and localized and could have short-term, 

small-scale secondary effects on fishes; however, there would be no persistent or large-scale effects on the growth, survival, 

distribution, or population-level of fishes.

Alternative 2:

 Acoustics: Potential impacts to fishes would be similar to those discussed for training activities under Alternative 1. The only 

difference in sonar and other transducer use between Alternatives 1 and 2 is that the number of sonar hours used would be 

greater under Alternative 2. Air guns and pile driving impacts would be the same under Alternative 2. Potential impacts resulting 

from vessel noise would be similar to those discussed for activities under Alternative 1. Vessel use in the Study Area would 

increase by a very small amount (about one percent). The only difference in weapons noise impacts between Alternatives 1 and 

2 is that the number of munitions used would be greater under Alternative 2, however, the types and severity of impacts would

not be discernible from those described under Alternative 1.

 Explosives: The locations, number of events, and potential effects associated with explosives would be the same under 

Alternatives 1 and 2.

 Energy: The locations, number of events, and potential effects associated with energy stressors would be the same under 

Alternatives 1 and 2.

 Physical Disturbance and Strikes: Under Alternative 2, potential physical disturbance and strike impacts to fishes associated with 

training and testing activities would be similar to those discussed for activities under Alternative 1. There would be a very small 

increase in vessel and in-water device use in the Study Area. However, the difference would not result in substantive changes to 

the potential for or types of impacts on fishes.

 Entanglement: There would be a small increase in the number of military expended materials associated with Alternative 2 

activities. However, the increase is negligible and the potential impacts from wires and cables, decelerators/parachutes, and

biodegradable polymer under Alternative 2 would be similar to that of Alternative 1.

Section 3.7-

Marine 

Mammals

The Navy considered all stressors that marine mammals could be exposed to from the Proposed Action. The following conclusions have 

been reached for the following stressors under the project alternatives:

No Action Alternative:

 Under the No Action Alternative, the Navy would not conduct the proposed training and testing activities in the AFTT Study 

Area. Various secondary 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.

Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative):

 Acoustics: Navy training and testing activities have the potential to expose marine mammals to multiple acoustic stressors. 

Exposure to sound-producing activities presents risks to marine mammals that could include temporary or permanent hearing 

threshold shift, auditory masking, physiological stress, or behavioral responses. Because individual animals would typically only 

experience a small number of behavioral responses or temporary hearing threshold shifts per year from exposure to acoustic
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

ES-18

Executive Summary

Table ES.5-1: Summary of Environmental Impacts for the No Action Alternative, Alternative 1, and Alternative 2 (continued)

Resource 

Category Summary of Impacts

Section 3.7-

Marine 

Mammals

(continued)

stressors and are unlikely to incur substantive costs to the individual, population level effects are unlikely.

 Explosives: Explosions underwater or near the surface present a risk to marine mammals located in close proximity to the 

explosion, because the resulting shock waves can cause injury or result in the death of an animal. Beyond the zone of injury, the 

impulsive, broadband noise introduced into the marine environment may cause temporary or permanent hearing threshold 

shift, auditory masking, physiological stress, or behavioral responses. Because most estimated impacts from explosions are 

behavioral responses or temporary threshold shifts (TTS) and because the number of marine mammals potentially impacted by 

explosives are small compared to each species’ respective abundance, population level effects are unlikely.

 Energy: Navy training and testing activities have the potential to expose marine mammals to multiple energy stressors. The 

likelihood and magnitude of energy impacts depend on the proximity of marine mammals to energy stressors. Based on the 

relatively weak strength of the electromagnetic field created by Navy activities, a marine mammal would have to be in close 

proximity for there to be any effect, and impacts on marine mammal migrating behaviors and navigational patterns are not 

anticipated. Potential impacts from high-energy lasers would only result for marine mammals directly struck by the laser beam. 

Statistical probability analyses demonstrate with a high level of certainty that no marine mammals would be struck by a highenergy laser. Energy stressors associated with Navy training and testing activities are temporary and localized in nature and, 

based on patchy distribution of animals, no impacts to individual marine mammals and marine mammal populations are 

anticipated.

 Physical Disturbance and Strike: Marine mammals would potentially be exposed to multiple physical disturbance and strike 

stressors associated with Navy training and testing activities. The potential for impacts relies heavily on the probability that 

marine mammals would be in close proximity to a physical disturbance and strike stressor (e.g., a vessel or a non-explosive 

munition). Historical data on Navy ship strike records demonstrate a low occurrence of interactions with marine mammals over 

the last 10 years. Since the Navy does not anticipate a change in the level of vessel use compared to the last decade, the 

potential for striking a marine mammal remains low. Physical disturbance due to vessel movement and in-water devices, but any 

stress response of avoidance behavior would not be severe enough to have long-term fitness consequences for individual 

marine mammals. The use of in-water devices during Navy activities involves multiple types of vehicles or towed devices 

traveling on the water surface, through the water column, or along the seafloor, all of which having the potential to disturb or 

physically strike marine mammals. No recorded or reported instances of marine mammal strikes have resulted from in-water 

devices; therefore, impacts to individuals or long-term consequences to marine mammal populations are not anticipated. 

Potential physical disturbance and strike impacts from military expended materials and seafloor devices are determined through 

statistical probability analyses. Results for each of these physical disturbance and strike stressors suggests a very low potential 

for marine mammals to be struck by any of these items. Long-term consequences to marine mammal populations from physical 

disturbance and strike stressors associated with Navy training and testing activities are not anticipated.

 Entanglement: Marine mammals could be exposed to multiple entanglement stressors associated with Navy training and testing 

activities. The potential for impacts is dependent on the physical properties of the expended materials and the likelihood that a 

marine mammal would encounter a potential entanglement stressor and then become entangled in it. Physical characteristics of
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

ES-19

Executive Summary

Table ES.5-1: Summary of Environmental Impacts for the No Action Alternative, Alternative 1, and Alternative 2 (continued)

Resource 

Category Summary of Impacts

Section 3.7-

Marine 

Mammals

(continued)

wires and cables, decelerators/parachutes, and biodegradable polymers combined with the sparse distribution of these items 

throughout the Study Area indicate a very low potential for marine mammals to encounter and become entangled in them. 

Long-term impacts to individual marine mammals and marine mammal populations from entanglement stressors associated 

with Navy training and testing activities are not anticipated.

 Ingestion: Navy training and testing activities have the potential to expose marine mammals to multiple ingestion stressors and 

associated impacts. The likelihood and magnitude of impacts depend on the physical properties of the military expended items,

the feeding behaviors of marine mammals that occur in the Study Area, and the likelihood that a marine mammal would 

encounter and incidentally ingest the items. Adverse impacts from ingestion of military expended materials would be limited to 

the unlikely event that a marine mammal would be harmed by ingesting an item that becomes embedded in tissue or is too 

large to be passed through the digestive system. The likelihood that a marine mammal would encounter and subsequently 

ingest a military expended item associated with Navy training and testing activities is considered low. Long-term consequences 

to marine mammal populations from ingestion stressors associated with Navy training and testing activities are not anticipated.

 Secondary Stressors: Marine mammals could be exposed to multiple secondary stressors (indirect stressors to habitat or prey) 

associated with Navy training and testing activities in the Study Area. In-water explosions have the potential to injure or kill prey 

species that marine mammals feed on within a small area affected by the blast; however, impacts would not substantially 

impact prey availability for marine mammals. Explosion byproducts and unexploded munitions would have no meaningful effect 

on water or sediment quality; therefore, they are not considered to be secondary stressors for marine mammals. Metals are 

introduced into the water and sediments from multiple types of military expended materials. Available research indicates metal 

contamination is very localized and that bioaccumulation resulting from munitions would not occur. Several Navy training and 

testing activities introduce chemicals into the marine environment that are potentially harmful in concentration; however, 

through rapid dilution, toxic concentrations are unlikely to be encountered by marine mammals. Furthermore, bioconcentration 

or bioaccumulation of chemicals introduced by Navy activities at levels that would significantly alter water quality and degrade 

marine mammal habitat has not been documented. The Navy’s use of marine mammals is not likely to increase the risk of 

transmitting diseases or parasites to wild marine mammals. Secondary stressors from Navy training and testing activities in the 

Study Area are not expected to have short-term impacts on individual marine mammals or long-term impacts on marine 

mammal populations.

Alternative 2:

 Acoustics: Potential impacts to marine mammals would be similar to those discussed for training activities under Alternative 1. 

The only difference in sonar and other transducer use between Alternatives 1 and 2 is that the number of sonar hours used

would be greater under Alternative 2. Air guns and pile driving impacts would be the same under Alternative 2. Potential 

impacts resulting from vessel noise would be similar to those discussed for activities under Alternative 1. Vessel use in the Study 

Area would increase by a very small amount (about one percent). The only difference in weapons noise impacts between 

Alternatives 1 and 2 is that the number of munitions used would be greater under Alternative 2. While the types of expected 

impacts to on any individual marine mammal would remain the same, more animals could be affected.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

ES-20

Executive Summary

Table ES.5-1: Summary of Environmental Impacts for the No Action Alternative, Alternative 1, and Alternative 2 (continued)

Resource 

Category Summary of Impacts

Section 3.7-

Marine 

Mammals

(continued)

 Explosives: The locations, number of events, and potential effects associated with explosives would be the same under 

Alternatives 1 and 2.

 Energy: The locations, number of events, and potential effects associated with energy stressors would be the same under 

Alternatives 1 and 2.

 Physical Disturbance and Strikes: Under Alternative 2, potential physical disturbance and strike impacts to marine mammals 

associated with training and testing activities would be similar to those discussed for activities under Alternative 1. There would 

be a very small increase in vessel and in-water device use in the Study Area. However, the difference would not result in 

substantive changes to the potential for or types of impacts on marine mammals.

 Entanglement: There would be a small increase in the number of military expended materials associated with Alternative 2 

activities. However, the increase is negligible and the potential impacts from wires and cables, decelerators/parachutes, and

biodegradable polymer under Alternative 2 would be similar to that of Alternative 1.

 Ingestion: Under Alternative 2, the locations and types of military expended materials used would be the same as those of 

Alternative 1. There would be an increase in the number of some items expended, such as targets, sonobuoys, 

bathythermograph equipment, and small decelerators/parachutes. This relatively small increase in the total number of items 

expended would not be expected to result in substantive changes to the type or degree of impacts to marine mammals.

 Secondary Stressors: Secondary impacts on marine mammals resulting from Alternative 2 activities would be nearly identical to 

those from Alternative 1.

Section 3.8-

Reptiles

The Navy considered all potential stressors that reptiles could be exposed to from the Proposed Action. The following conclusions have 

been reached for the project alternatives:

No Action Alternative:

 Under the No Action Alternative, training and testing activities associated with the Proposed Action will not be conducted within 

the AFTT Study Area. Under this alternative, there would be no potential for impacts on sea turtles. The cessation of some 

stressors would be more beneficial than others. For instance, because of the localized and short-term duration of any potential 

impact from an electromagnetic field on a sea turtle, the potential benefits to sea turtles is not likely measureable. The removal 

of fast vessel movement training activities, however, would likely decrease behavioral impacts and responses to vessels, but 

again, the impact is likely short-term, with normal behaviors resuming within minutes of a passing vessel. Vessel strike risk 

would be reduced, which would likely increase survivability and individual fitness for a small number of sea turtles or 

crocodilians. Further, the synergistic effects of multiple stressors would not occur, thereby providing benefits to sea turtles and 

crocodilians by removing short-term and long-term potential impacts. The implementation of the No Action Alternative would

remove risks of impacts associated with training and testing activities; however, monitoring data accumulated through range 

sustainment programs would cease. These data provide foundational data for the research and regulatory communities to 

assess ongoing threats and conservation status of various species.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

ES-21

Executive Summary

Table ES.5-1: Summary of Environmental Impacts for the No Action Alternative, Alternative 1, and Alternative 2 (continued)

Resource 

Category Summary of Impacts

Section 3.8-

Reptiles

(continued)

Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative):

 Acoustics: Navy training and testing activities have the potential to expose reptiles to multiple types of acoustic stressors, 

including sonars, other transducers, air guns, pile driving, and vessel, aircraft, and weapons noise. Reptiles could be affected by 

only a limited portion of acoustic stressors because reptiles have limited hearing abilities. Exposures to sound-producing 

activities present risks that could range from hearing loss, auditory masking, physiological stress, and changes in behavior; 

however, no injurious impacts are predicted due to exposure to any acoustic stressor. Because the number of sea turtles 

potentially impacted by sound-producing activities is small, population level effects are unlikely. Few, if any impacts on 

crocodilians or terrapins are anticipated from acoustic stressors because of the location of training activities relative to 

crocodilian and terrapin habitats. 

 Explosives: Explosions in the water or near the water's surface present a risk to reptiles located in close proximity to the 

explosion, because the shock waves produced by explosives could cause injury or result in the death. If further away from the

explosion, impulsive, broadband sounds introduced into the marine environment may cause hearing loss, auditory masking, 

physiological stress, or changes in behavior. Sea turtles would be exposed to explosive stressors in the nearshore and offshore 

portions of the Study Area, while crocodilians and terrapins would be exposed to explosive stressors at two inshore training and 

testing locations. One loggerhead sea turtle mortality is predicted. Because the number of sea turtles potentially impacted by 

explosives is small, population-level effects are unlikely. It is unlikely that crocodilians and terrapins would be in close proximity 

to inshore explosions because they would likely, if present, flee the area in response to other stressors (e.g., vessel noise, visual 

stimulus). Also, the types of explosives are small limpet mine charges, which limits the area where crocodilians and terrapins 

could be exposed to injurious impacts from explosives. Because inshore explosives training activities would impact few, if any, 

crocodilians or terrapins, population-level effects are unlikely.

 Energy: Navy training and testing activities have the potential to expose reptiles to multiple energy stressors in offshore and 

inshore training and testing locations. The likelihood and magnitude of energy impacts depends on the proximity of a reptile to 

energy stressors. Based on the relatively weak strength of the electromagnetic field created by Navy activities, impacts on sea 

turtles migrating behaviors and navigational patterns are not anticipated. Potential impacts from high-energy lasers would only 

result for sea turtles directly struck by the laser beam. Statistical probability analyses demonstrate with a high level of certainty 

that no sea turtles would be struck by a high-energy laser. Activities that generate electromagnetic fields would occur in inshore 

habitats potentially inhabited by crocodilians and terrapins; however, no measureable impacts on individuals would be expected 

to occur. Activities using high-energy lasers would not occur in inshore training and testing locations Energy stressors associated 

with Navy training and testing activities are temporary and localized in nature, and based on patchy distribution of animals, no 

impacts on individual reptile or reptile populations are anticipated.

 Physical Disturbance and Strikes: Vessels, in-water devices, and seafloor devices present a risk for collision with sea turtles, 

particularly in coastal areas where densities are higher. Strike potential by expended materials is statistically small. Because of 

the low numbers of sea turtles potentially impacted by activities that may potentially cause a physical disturbance and strike, 

population level effects are unlikely. Activities that use vessels, in-water devices, and seafloor devices would occur in habitats
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

ES-22

Executive Summary

Table ES.5-1: Summary of Environmental Impacts for the No Action Alternative, Alternative 1, and Alternative 2 (continued)

Resource 

Category Summary of Impacts

Section 3.8-

Reptiles

(continued)

used by crocodilians and terrapins. Activities that expend materials would also occur in inshore habitats inhabited by 

crocodilians and terrapins; however, interactions with materials would not likely occur, and no impacts on individual 

crocodilians and terrapins are expected if a reptile encountered expended material. Because of the low numbers of crocodilians 

and terrapins potentially impacted by activities that may potentially cause a physical disturbance and strike, population-level 

effects are unlikely.

 Entanglement: Sea turtles could be exposed to multiple entanglement in inshore and offshore training and testing locations. The 

potential for impacts is dependent on the physical properties of the expended materials and the likelihood that a sea turtle 

would encounter a potential entanglement stressor and then become entangled in it. Physical characteristics of wires and 

cables, decelerators/parachutes, and biodegradable polymers combined with the sparse distribution of these items throughout 

the Study Area indicates a very low potential for sea turtles to encounter and become entangled in them. Long-term impacts on 

individual sea turtles and sea turtle populations from entanglement stressors associated with Navy training and testing activities 

are not anticipated. Entanglement stressors are not anticipated to impact crocodilians or terrapins because activities that 

expend materials that present a potential entanglement risk would not co-occur with crocodilian or terrapins habitats.

 Ingestion: Navy training and testing activities have the potential to expose reptiles to multiple ingestion stressors and associated 

impacts in inshore and offshore training and testing locations. The likelihood and magnitude of impacts depends on the physical 

properties of the military expended items and the feeding behaviors of the particular species of reptiles that occur in specific 

areas where potentially ingestible items are used. Adverse impacts from ingestion of military expended materials would be 

limited to the unlikely event that a sea turtle, crocodilian, or terrapin would be harmed by ingesting an item that becomes 

embedded in tissue or is too large to be passed through the digestive system. The likelihood that a reptile would encounter and 

subsequently ingest a military expended item associated with Navy training and testing activities is considered low. Long-term 

consequences to reptile populations from ingestion stressors associated with Navy training and testing activities are not 

anticipated.

 Secondary Stressors: Reptiles could be exposed to multiple secondary stressors (indirect stressors to habitat or prey) associated 

with Navy training and testing activities in the Study Area. In-water explosions have the potential to injure or kill prey species 

that sea turtles feed on within a small area affected by the blast; however, impacts would not substantially. impact prey 

availability for sea turtles, crocodilians, or terrapins. Explosion byproducts and unexploded munitions would have no meaningful 

effect on water or sediment quality; therefore they are not considered to be secondary stressors for reptiles. Metals are 

introduced into the water and sediments from multiple types of military expended materials. Available research indicates metal 

contamination is very localized and that bioaccumulation resulting from munitions would not occur. Several Navy training and 

testing activities introduce chemicals into the offshore and inshore environments that are potentially harmful in concentration; 

however, through rapid dilution, toxic concentrations are unlikely to be encountered by sea turtles, crocodilians, or terrapins. 

Furthermore, bioconcentration or bioaccumulation of chemicals introduced by Navy activities to levels that would significantly 

alter water quality and degrade sea turtle habitat has not been documented. Secondary stressors from Navy training and testing 

activities in the Study Area are not expected to have short-term impacts on individual sea turtles
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

ES-23

Executive Summary

Table ES.5-1: Summary of Environmental Impacts for the No Action Alternative, Alternative 1, and Alternative 2 (continued)

Resource 

Category Summary of Impacts

Section 3.8-

Reptiles

(continued)

or long-term impacts on sea turtle populations. Secondary stressors discussed above would overlap with crocodilian and 

terrapin habitats at inshore training locations. As with sea turtles, toxic concentrations of chemicals and munitions constituents 

are unlikely to be encountered by crocodilians and terrapins; therefore, bioconcentration or bioaccumulation of chemicals 

introduced by Navy activities would not likely alter water quality, degrade habitats, or reduce prey availability. Any indirect 

stressors to habitat or prey from training and testing activities are anticipated to be negligible, and no population-level impacts 

are anticipated.

Alternative 2:

 Acoustics: Potential impacts to reptiles would be similar to those discussed for training activities under Alternative 1. The only 

difference in sonar and other transducer use between Alternatives 1 and 2 is that the number of sonar hours used would be 

greater under Alternative 2. Air guns and pile driving impacts would be the same under Alternative 2. Potential impacts resulting 

from vessel noise would be similar to those discussed for activities under Alternative 1. Vessel use in the Study Area would 

increase by a very small amount (about one percent). The only difference in weapons noise impacts between Alternatives 1 and 

2 is that the number of munitions used would be greater under Alternative 2. While the types of expected impacts to any 

individual reptile would remain the same, more animals could be affected.

 Explosives: The locations, number of events, and potential effects associated with explosives would be the same under 

Alternatives 1 and 2.

 Energy: The locations, number of events, and potential effects associated with energy stressors would be the same under 

Alternatives 1 and 2.

 Physical Disturbance and Strike: Under Alternative 2, potential physical disturbance and strike impacts to reptiles would be 

similar to those discussed for activities under Alternative 1. There would be a very small increase in vessel and in-water device 

use in the Study Area. However, the difference would not result in substantive changes to the potential for or types of impacts 

on reptiles.

 Entanglement: There would be a small increase in the number of military expended materials associated with Alternative 2 

activities. However, the increase is negligible and the potential impacts from wires and cables, decelerators/parachutes, and

biodegradable polymers under Alternative 2 would be similar to that of Alternative 1.

 Ingestion: Under Alternative 2, the locations and types of military expended materials used would be the same as those of 

Alternative 1. There would be an increase in the number of some items expended, such as targets, sonobuoys, 

bathythermograph equipment, and small decelerators/parachutes. This relatively small increase in the total number of items 

expended would not be expected to result in substantive changes to the type or degree of impacts to reptiles.

 Secondary Stressors: Secondary impacts on reptiles resulting from Alternative 2 training and testing activities would be nearly 

identical to those from Alternative 1.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

ES-24

Executive Summary

Table ES.5-1: Summary of Environmental Impacts for the No Action Alternative, Alternative 1, and Alternative 2 (continued)

Resource 

Category Summary of Impacts

Section 3.9-

Birds and Bats

The Navy considered all potential stressors that birds and bats could be exposed to from the Proposed Action. The following conclusions 

have been reached for the project alternatives:

No Action Alternative: 

 Under the No Action Alternative, the Navy would not conduct the proposed training and testing activities in the AFTT 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. 

Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative):

 Acoustics: Navy training and testing activities have the potential to expose birds and bats 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 and bats 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 shift 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. 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. Unlike other mammals, bats are not susceptible to temporary and permanent threshold shifts. Bats may be 

temporarily displaced during foraging, but would return shortly after the training or testing is complete. Although individual bats 

may be impacted, population level impacts are not expected.

 Explosives: Navy training and testing activities have the potential to expose birds and bats to explosions in the water, near the 

water surface, and in air. Sounds generated by most small underwater explosions are unlikely to disturb birds and bats above 

the water surface. However, if a detonation is sufficiently large or is near the water surface, birds and bats above the pressure 

released at the air-water interface could be injured or killed. Detonations in air could injure birds and bats 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, migrating birds, and bats 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 shortterm. 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 and bats 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 or bat would be exposed to these devices in use, and (3) the

tendency of birds and bats 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 or bat 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.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

ES-25

Executive Summary

Table ES.5-1: Summary of Environmental Impacts for the No Action Alternative, Alternative 1, and Alternative 2 (continued)

Resource 

Category Summary of Impacts

Section 3.9-

Birds and Bats

(continued)

 Physical Disturbance and Strikes: There is the potential for individual birds to be injured or killed by physical disturbance and 

strikes during training and testing. However, there would not be long-term species or population level impacts due to the vast 

area over which training and testing activities occur and the small size of birds and their ability to flee disturbance. Impacts to 

bats would be similar to, but less than, those described for birds since bat occurrence in the Study Area is relatively scant

compared to birds and because bats are most active from dusk through dawn.

 Entanglement: Entanglement stressors have the potential to impact birds. However, the likelihood is low because the relatively 

small quantities of materials that could cause entanglement would be dispersed over very wide areas, often in locations or 

depth zones outside the range or foraging abilities of most birds. A small number of individuals may be impacted, but no effects 

at the population level would be expected. The possibility that an individual of an ESA-listed bird species would become 

entangled is remote due to their rarity and limited overlap with Navy activities. Since bats considered in this analysis do not 

occur in the water column and rarely occur at the water surface in the Study Area, few, if any, impacts to bats are anticipated 

from entanglement stressors.

 Ingestion: It is possible that persistent expended materials could be accidentally ingested by birds while they were foraging for 

natural prey items, though the probability of this event is low as (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. Since 

bats considered in this analysis do not occur in the water column and rarely feed at the water surface in the Study Area, few, if

any, impacts to bats are anticipated from ingestion stressors.

 Secondary Stressors: There would be relatively localized, temporary impacts from water quality (turbidity) which may alter 

foraging conditions, but no impacts on prey availability. Since bats considered in this analysis do not occur in the water column 

and rarely occur at the water surface in the Study Area, few, if any, impacts to bats are anticipated from secondary stressors.

Alternative 2:

 Acoustics: Alternative 2 has an increase in sonar use compared to Alternative 1; however, potential impacts from Alternative 2 

activities would be similar to those as Alternative 1. Air guns and pile driving impacts would be the same under Alternative 2. 

Potential impacts resulting from vessel noise would be similar to those discussed for activities under Alternative 1. Vessel use in 

the Study Area would increase by a very small amount. The only difference in weapons noise impacts between Alternatives 1 

and 2 is that the number of munitions used would be greater under Alternative 2. While individual birds or bats may be 

impacted by training or testing activities, population level impacts are not expected.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

ES-26

Executive Summary

Table ES.5-1: Summary of Environmental Impacts for the No Action Alternative, Alternative 1, and Alternative 2 (continued)

Resource 

Category Summary of Impacts

Section 3.9-

Birds and Bats

(continued)

 Explosives: There would be a minor increase in explosives use under Alternative 2 compared to Alternative 1; however, the 

types of potential impacts and locations of impacts would be the same as those described under Alternative 1. Most impacts to

individual birds and bats, 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.

 Energy: The number and distribution of training and testing activities using in-water electromagnetic devices under Alternative 

2 would differ slightly from Alternative 1; however, the difference is inconsequential and the impacts would be essentially the 

same as for Alternative 1. The use of high energy lasers under Alternative 2 would be the same as under Alternative 1; 

therefore, impacts would be the same.

 Physical Disturbance and Strikes: Under Alternative 2, potential impacts to birds or bats resulting from training and testing 

activities would be slightly greater but would still be inconsequential due to the relatively small number of individuals affected 

and the lack of population-level effects. 

 Entanglement: Under Alternative 2, increases in sonobuoy component release and the number of decelerators/parachutes that 

would be expended would proportionally increase the possibility of entanglement relative to Alternative 1. However, the 

likelihood of injury or mortality is still considered negligible, and the potential impacts from Alternative 2 activities would be 

the same as for Alternative 1.

 Ingestion: Activities under Alternative 2 would generate the same types of ingestible materials generated under Alternative 1.

While the quantities and locations of some expended materials would change slightly, the vast majority would be the same as 

under Alternative 1. Therefore, the implementation of Alternative 2 would have similar impacts to those of training and testing 

activities under Alternative 1.

 Secondary Stressors: Potential impacts from secondary stressors under Alternative 2 would be the same as Alternative 1.

Section 3.10-

Cultural 

Resources

The Navy considered all potential stressors that cultural resources could be exposed to from the Proposed Action. The following 

conclusions have been reached for the project alternatives:

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.

Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative):

 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 affected.

 Physical Disturbance and Strikes: 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 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

ES-27

Executive Summary

Table ES.5-1: Summary of Environmental Impacts for the No Action Alternative, Alternative 1, and Alternative 2 (continued)

Resource 

Category Summary of Impacts

Section 3.10-

Cultural 

Resources

(continued)

adverse effects to known or unknown submerged cultural resources. Therefore, no submerged cultural resources are expected 

to be affected.

Alternative 2: 

 Explosive: Under Alternative 2, training activities (including the use of explosives) would remain the same as those described 

under Alternative 1; therefore, potential impacts are expected to be the same as Alternative 1.

 Physical Disturbance and Strikes: Under Alternative 2, the number of training activities using in-water devices is the same as 

under Alternative 1; therefore, potential impacts are expected to be the same as Alternative 1.

Section 3.11 –

Socioeconomic 

Resources

The Navy considered all potential stressors that socioeconomics could be exposed to from the Proposed Action. The following 

conclusions have been reached for the project alternatives:

No Action Alternative:

 Under the No Action Alternative, training and testing activities associated with the Proposed Action will not be conducted 

within the AFTT 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. 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.

Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative)

 Accessibility: Limits on accessibility to marine areas used by the public (e.g., fishing areas) in the 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 sources for energy production and distribution, mineral extraction, commercial 

transportation and shipping, and aquaculture 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 they are in the general vicinity of airborne noise would be negligible. The 

public may intermittently hear noise from transiting ships or aircraft overflights if 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 sources for energy production and 

distribution, mineral extraction, commercial transportation and shipping, and aquaculture are anticipated.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

ES-28

Executive Summary

Table ES.5-1: Summary of Environmental Impacts for the No Action Alternative, Alternative 1, and Alternative 2 (continued)

Resource 

Category Summary of Impacts

Section 3.11 –

Socioeconomic 

Resources

(continued)

 Physical Disturbance and Strikes: 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 or tourism is negligible. In locations where Navy training or testing occurs in nearshore areas (e.g., pierside), 

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 sources for energy production and distribution, mineral extraction, commercial transportation 

and shipping, commercial and recreational fishing, aquaculture, and tourism would be negligible. Therefore, direct loss of 

income, revenue or employment, resource availability, or quality of experience would not be expected.

Alternative 2:

 Accessibility: Limits on accessibility to marine areas used by the public could increase under Alternative 2 due to an increase in 

some training and testing activities. However, the difference in potential impacts to access would be inconsequential.

 Airborne Acoustics: The number of activities that could generate airborne noise detectable by the public would increase under 

Alternative 2. However, the difference in acoustic impacts would be inconsequential.

 Physical Disturbance and Strike: Under Alternative 2, potential physical disturbance and strike impacts associated with training 

and testing activities would be similar to those discussed for activities under Alternative 1. There would be a very small increase 

in vessel and in-water device use in the Study Area. However, the difference would not result in substantive changes to the 

potential for or types of impacts.

Section 3.12 –

Public Health 

and Safety

The Navy considered all potential stressors that public health and safety could be exposed to from the Proposed Action. The following 

conclusions have been reached for the project alternatives:

No Action Alternative:

 Under the No Action Alternative, the Navy would not conduct the proposed training and testing activities in the AFTT Study 

Area. There would be no appreciable change in potential impacts on public health and safety under the No Action Alternative, 

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.

Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative):

 In-Water 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): Because water and sediment quality impacts would be minimal and 

temporary, and the Navy would not exceed state or federal water quality standards, impacts on public health and safety would 

be unlikely.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

ES-29

Executive Summary

Table ES.5-1: Summary of Environmental Impacts for the No Action Alternative, Alternative 1, and Alternative 2 (continued)

Resource 

Category Summary of Impacts

Section 3.12 –

Public Health 

and Safety

(continued)

Alternative 2:

 In-Water Energy: sonar and explosives would occur in the same locations and the Navy would implement standard operating 

and safety procedures. Therefore, potential for impacts on public health and safety would be the same as Alternative 1.

 In-Air Energy: electromagnetic energy and lasers training and testing activities occur in the same locations and numbers as 

described under Alternative 1. Therefore, potential impacts on public health and safety would ne same as Alternative 1.

 Physical Interactions: the Navy would increase the number of, and adjust the locations of some at-sea training and testing 

activities. The Navy would implement standard operating procedures, and therefore, the potential for impacts on public health

and safety would the same as Alternative 1.

 Secondary Stressors (sediments and water quality): Potential impacts to water quality would be temporary and minimal, same 

as Alternative 1.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

ES-30

Executive Summary

The majority of platforms, weapons and systems that were proposed for testing during the 2013-2018 

timeframe are the same or very similar to those proposed for testing in the future. However, the Navy 

projects testing of some platforms, weapons and systems will increase, while others will decrease, as 

compared to the testing requirements that were proposed for the 2013-2018 timeframe. In comparison, 

the Navy is projecting a net increase in testing systems that use sonar and a net decrease for explosives 

use, as proposed under Alternative 1, of this EIS/OEIS.

ES.5.2 ACOUSTIC AND EXPLOSIVE ANALYSIS

Improvements have been made to modeling explosive sources to optimize the analysis process and data 

handling. Statistical variability in the abundance of marine species were added to the marine species 

distribution process. The availability of additional systematic survey data as well as improvements to 

habitat modeling methods used to estimate species density resulted in substantial improvements to the 

species distribution. Marine species criteria and thresholds were also updated based on NMFS marine 

mammal criteria for permanent and temporary threshold shift for sonar and other transducers, pile 

driving, air guns and explosives. The Navy also used the best available science from the large number of 

behavioral response studies that have been conducted to-date to develop updated behavioral response 

functions.

ES.6 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

Cumulative impacts were analyzed for each resource addressed in Chapter 3 (Affected Environment and 

Environmental Consequences) for the Action Alternatives 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.

In accordance with Council on Environmental Quality guidance (Council on Environmental Quality 1997), 

the cumulative impacts analysis focused on impacts that are “truly meaningful.” The level of analysis for 

each resource was commensurate with the intensity of the impacts identified in Chapter 3 (Affected 

Environment and Environmental Consequences).

ES.6.1 PROJECT 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 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 

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. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

ES-31

Executive Summary

ES.6.2 RESOURCE-SPECIFIC CUMULATIVE IMPACT CONCLUSIONS

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, birds and bats, cultural resources, socioeconomics, 

and public health and safety.

ES.6.2.1 AIR QUALITY

The majority of emissions resulting from the Proposed Action would be released outside of state waters 

and would quickly disperse in the ocean environment. These emissions would largely disperse rather 

than concentrate due to meteorological and air chemistry processes, and these emissions could mix 

with emissions from other vessel traffic and oil and gas production activities. Additionally, activities 

occurring in state waters would likely impact onshore areas to a greater extent than more distant 

activities. The incremental additive impacts from combined emissions occurring beyond state water 

boundaries 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 2.6-4), 

and the quantities of expected emissions, it is anticipated that the incremental contribution of the 

Proposed Action beyond state waters, when added to the impacts of all other past, present and 

reasonably foreseeable future actions will not result in measurable additional impacts on air quality in 

the Study Area or beyond. 

Activities occurring within state waters can be considered as localized with greater frequency and higher 

probability of combining with past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions in and adjacent to 

the areas where the training or testing activity is occurring. With the exception of areas around 

Jacksonville, Florida where training would occur on the St. Johns River and Naval Station Mayport, these 

areas are all in attainment. The Jacksonville (Florida)-Brunswick (Georgia) Interstate Air Quality Control 

Region currently contains a small area designated as nonattainment for sulfur dioxide. An analysis of the 

emissions from the Proposed Action activities occurring in the Jacksonville, Florida area demonstrated 

that emissions are well below General Conformity thresholds (Section 3.1 Air Quality). It is anticipated 

that the incremental contribution of the Proposed Action in the state waters in the Jacksonville, Florida 

area, when added to the impacts of all other past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions, 

would not result in measurable additional impacts on air quality in the Jacksonville (Florida)-Brunswick 

(Georgia) Interstate Air Quality Control Region. A Record of Non Applicability for Clean Air Act 

Conformity was prepared and is included in Appendix C, Air Quality Emissions Calculations and Record of

Non-Applicability.

The area of greatest emissions in state waters is near the Virginia Capes Operational Area, specifically in 

the lower Chesapeake Bay, the York River, the James River, and their attendant tributaries. Training 

activities using small riverine boats and other vessels in this area were not analyzed in prior NEPA 

documents and account for approximately 2,600 tons per year of nitrogen oxide emissions. This 

represents about 21% of nitrogen oxide emissions for non-road and miscellaneous area sources in the 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

ES-32

Executive Summary

Hampton Roads Intrastate Air Quality Control Region, which covers Isle of Wight, James City, 

Nansemond, Southampton, and York counties and the cities of Chesapeake, Franklin, Hampton, 

Newport News, Norfolk, Portsmouth, Suffolk, Virginia Beach, and Williamsburg (U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, 2016). While the riverine training activities account for a substantial percentage of 

nonroad emissions in the region, the area is in attainment for all criteria pollutants and the level of 

activity has not changed appreciably over time. It is anticipated that these emissions, when added to the 

impacts of all other past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions, would not result in 

measurable additional impacts on air quality in the Study Area or beyond. 

ES.6.2.2 SEDIMENTS AND WATER QUALITY

It is possible that Navy stressors would combine with non-Navy stressors, particularly in nearshore areas 

and bays, such as Narragansett Bay or the Lower Chesapeake 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, these 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.

ES.6.2.3 VEGETATION

The effects of other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions on vegetation occur primarily in 

the coastal and inshore waters and are associated with coastal development, maritime commerce, 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 the open ocean and other areas where seagrasses and other attached marine vegetation do not 

grow; impacts would be localized; recovery would occur quickly; and none of the alternatives would 

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. 

ES.6.2.4 INVERTEBRATES

Although marine invertebrates are impacted by other stressors in the ocean environment, the Proposed 

Action is not likely to incrementally contribute to population-level stress and decline of the resource. 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.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

ES-33

Executive Summary

ES.6.2.5 HABITATS

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. 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. 

ES.6.2.6 FISHES

The aggregate impacts of past, present, and other reasonably foreseeable future actions contributing 

multiple water quality, noise, and physical risks to fishes will 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. Thus, 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.

ES.6.2.7 MARINE MAMMALS

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.

ES.6.2.8 REPTILES

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 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. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

ES-34

Executive Summary

ES.6.2.9 BIRDS AND BATS

Although other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions individually and collectively cause 

widespread disturbance and mortality of bird and bat 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 significant impacts on 

birds and bats in the Study Area or beyond.

ES.6.2.10 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, consultation with the appropriate State Historic Preservation Office will 

continue, as needed, for cultural resources located within state territorial waters (within 3 NM, with the 

exception of Texas, Puerto Rico, and Florida [Gulf Coast only], which have a 9 NM limit). 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. 

ES.6.2.11 SOCIOECONOMICS

The analysis in Section 3.11 (Socioeconomics) indicates that the Proposed Action is not expected to 

result in impacts to socioeconomic resources in the Study Area and likewise would not contribute 

incrementally to cumulative socioeconomic impacts. 

ES.6.2.12 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 likewise would not contribute incrementally to or 

combine with other impacts on health and safety within the Study Area.

ES.6.3 SUMMARY OF CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

The Action Alternatives 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 meaningful contribution to the 

ongoing stress or cause significant collapse of any particular marine resource, but it would further cause 

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 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

ES-35

Executive Summary

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 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, and coastal zone 

development. The analysis presented in Chapter 4 (Cumulative Impacts) and Chapter 3 (Affected 

Environment and Environmental Consequences) indicate that the incremental contribution of the 

Proposed Action to cumulative impacts on air quality, sediments and water quality, vegetation, 

invertebrates, marine habitats, fishes, birds and bats, cultural and socioeconomic resources, and public 

health and safety would not significantly contribute to cumulative stress on those resources.

ES.7 MITIGATION

The Navy has been mitigating impacts from military readiness activities on environmental and cultural 

resources throughout areas where it trains and tests for more than two decades. In coordination with 

the appropriate regulatory agencies, the Navy developed mitigation measures for the Proposed Action 

that will effectively avoid or reduce potential impacts and that are practical to implement. Chapter 5 

(Mitigation) presents full descriptions of mitigation measures to be implemented, discussions of how the 

Navy developed and assessed each measure, and discussions of measures considered but eliminated.

Mitigation measures that the Navy will implement under the Proposed Action are organized into two 

categories: procedural mitigation measures and mitigation areas. The Navy will implement procedural 

mitigation whenever and wherever training or testing activities involving applicable acoustic, explosive, 

and physical disturbance and strike stressors occur within the Study Area. Procedural mitigation 

generally involves: (1) the use of one or more trained Lookouts to observe for specific biological 

resources (e.g., marine mammals, sea turtles) within a mitigation zone (i.e., area around a stressor), (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 until certain recommencement conditions have been met. Table ES.7-1 contains a 

brief summary of the mitigation zones and other procedural mitigation measures that the Navy will 

implement under the Proposed Action. Additional information on procedural mitigation measures is 

presented in Section 5.3 (Procedural Mitigation to be Implemented).

Mitigation areas are geographic locations within the Study Area where the Navy will implement 

mitigation measures to: (1) avoid or reduce impacts on biological or cultural resources that are not 

observable by Lookouts from the water’s surface (i.e., resources for which procedural mitigation cannot 

be implemented), (2) in combination with procedural mitigation, to effect the least practicable adverse 

impact on marine mammal species or stocks and their habitat, or (3) in combination with procedural 

mitigation, 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. Table ES.7-2 

contains a summary of the mitigation areas that the Navy will implement under the Proposed Action. 

Figure ES-2 displays the mitigation areas in the Study Area. Additional information on mitigation areas is 

presented in Section 5.4 (Mitigation Areas to be Implemented). 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

ES-36

Executive Summary

Table ES.7-1: Summary of Procedural Mitigation 

Stressor or Activity Mitigation Zones Sizes and Other Requirements 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

 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

Aircraft Overflight Noise  Distance from shore in the Virginia Capes Range Complex and Fisherman Island 

National Wildlife Refuge during explosive mine neutralization activities 

involving Navy divers (piping plovers and other nesting birds)

 Distance from shore in the Dry Tortugas Islands for supersonic flights (Fort 

Jefferson and roseate terns)

Birds,

Cultural resources

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 surface-to-surface activities)

 200 yd. (medium-caliber projectiles during air-to-surface activities)

Marine mammals,

Sea turtles

Explosive Missiles and 

Rockets

 2,000 yd. (21–500 lb. net explosive weight)

 900 yd. (0.6–20 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

 2,100 yd. (6–650 lb. net explosive weight)

 600 yd. (0.1–5 lb. net explosive weight)

Marine mammals,

Sea turtles

Explosive Mine Neutralization 

Activities Involving Navy 

Divers

 1,000 yd. (21–60 lb. net explosive weight for positive control charges and 

charges using time-delay fuses)

 500 yd. (0.1–20 lb. net explosive weight for positive control charges)

Marine mammals,

Sea turtles

Maritime Security Operations 

– Anti-Swimmer Grenades

 200 yd. Marine mammals,

Sea turtles

Line Charge Testing  900 yd. Marine mammals,

Sea turtles,

Gulf sturgeon

Ship Shock Trials  3.5 NM Marine mammals, 

Sea turtles

Vessel Movement  500 yd. (whales)

 200 yd. (other marine mammals)

 Vicinity (sea turtles)

 North Atlantic right whale Dynamic Management Area Awareness notification 

messages

Marine mammals,

Sea turtles

Towed In-Water Devices  250 yd. (marine mammals)

 Vicinity (sea turtles)

Marine mammals, 

Sea turtles

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

Notes: lb. = pound; NM = nautical miles; yd. = yard
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

ES-37

Executive Summary

Table ES.7-2: Summary of Mitigation Areas

Summary of Mitigation Area Requirements

Mitigation Areas for Shallow-water Coral Reefs

 The Navy will not conduct precision anchoring (except in designated anchorages), explosive or non-explosive mine countermeasure and 

neutralization activities, explosive or non-explosive mine neutralization activities involving Navy divers, 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, or explosive or non-explosive bombing or mine laying activities.

 The Navy will not place mine shapes, anchors, or mooring devices on the seafloor.

 Within the Key West Range Complex, vessels will operate within waters deep enough to avoid bottom scouring or prop dredging, with at 

least a 1-ft. clearance between the deepest draft of the vessel (with the motor down) and the seafloor at mean low water.

 Within the South Florida Ocean Measurement Facility Testing Range, the Navy will implement additional measures for shallow-water 

coral reefs, such as using real-time positioning and remote sensing information to avoid shallow-water coral reefs during deployment, 

installation, and recovery of anchors and mine-like objects, and during deployment of bottom-crawling unmanned underwater vehicles.

Mitigation Areas for Live Hard Bottom, Artificial Reefs, Submerged Aquatic Vegetation, and Shipwrecks

 The Navy will not conduct precision anchoring (except in designated anchorages), explosive mine countermeasure and neutralization 

activities, or explosive mine neutralization activities involving Navy divers, and will not place mine shapes, anchors, or mooring devices 

on the seafloor.

 Within the Key West Range Complex, vessels will operate within waters deep enough to avoid bottom scouring or prop dredging, with at 

least a 1-ft. clearance between the deepest draft of the vessel (with the motor down) and the seafloor at mean low water.

 Within the South Florida Ocean Measurement Facility Testing Range, the Navy will implement additional measures for live hard bottom, 

such as using real-time positioning and remote sensing information to avoid live hard bottom during deployment, installation, and 

recovery of anchors and mine-like objects, and during deployment of bottom-crawling unmanned underwater vehicles.

Northeast North Atlantic Right Whale Mitigation Area

 The Navy will report the total hours and counts of active sonar and in-water explosives used in the mitigation area in its annual training 

and testing activity reports.

 The Navy will minimize use of active sonar to the maximum extent practicable and will not use explosives that detonate in the water.

 The Navy will conduct non-explosive torpedo testing during daylight hours in Beaufort sea state 3 or less using three Lookouts (one on a 

vessel, two in an aircraft during aerial surveys) and an additional Lookout on the submarine when surfaced; during transits, ships will 

maintain a speed of no more than 10 knots; during firing, ships will maintain a speed of no more than 18 knots except brief periods of 

time during vessel target firing. 

 Vessels will obtain the latest North Atlantic right whale sightings data and implement speed reductions after they observe a North 

Atlantic right whale, if within 5 NM of a sighting reported within the past week, and when operating at night or during periods of reduced 

visibility.

Gulf of Maine Planning Awareness Mitigation Area

 The Navy will report the total hours and counts of active sonar and in-water explosives used in the mitigation area in its annual training 

and testing activity reports.

 The Navy will not conduct major training exercises and will not conduct >200 hours of hull-mounted mid-frequency active sonar per year.

Northeast Planning Awareness Mitigation Areas and Mid-Atlantic Planning Awareness Mitigation Areas

 The Navy will avoid conducting major training exercises to the maximum extent practicable. 

 The Navy will not conduct more than four major training exercises per year.

Southeast North Atlantic Right Whale Mitigation Area (November 15 – April 15)

 The Navy will report the total hours and counts of active sonar and in-water explosives used in the mitigation area in its annual training 

and testing activity reports.

 The Navy will not use active sonar except as necessary for navigation training, object detection training, and dipping sonar.

 The Navy will not expend explosive or non-explosive ordnance.

 Vessels will obtain the latest North Atlantic right whale sightings data; will implement speed reductions after they observe a North 

Atlantic right whale, if within 5 NM of a sighting reported within the past 12 hours, and when operating at night or during periods of 

reduced visibility; and will minimize north-south transits to the maximum extent practicable.

Jacksonville Operating Area (November 15 – April 15)

 Navy units conducting training or testing activities in the Jacksonville Operating Area will obtain and use Early Warning System North 

Atlantic right whale sightings data as they plan specific details of events to minimize potential interactions with North Atlantic right 

whales to the maximum extent practicable. The Navy will use the reported sightings information to assist their visual observation of

applicable mitigation zones and to aid in the implementation of procedural mitigation.

Southeast North Atlantic Right Whale Critical Habitat Special Reporting Area (November 15 – April 15)

 The Navy will report the total hours and counts of active sonar and in-water explosives used in the mitigation area in its annual training 

and testing activity reports.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

ES-38

Executive Summary

Notes: AFTT: Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing

Figure ES-2: Summary of Mitigation Areas in the Study Area
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

ES-39

Executive Summary

ES.8 OTHER CONSIDERATIONS

ES.8.1 CONSISTENCY WITH REGULATORY CONSIDERATIONS

Based on an evaluation of consistency with statutory obligations, the Navy’s proposed training and 

testing activities would not conflict with the objectives or requirements of federal, state, regional, or 

local plans, policies, or legal requirements. The Navy will consult with regulatory agencies as appropriate 

during the NEPA process and prior to implementation of the Proposed Action to ensure all legal 

requirements are met.

ES.8.2 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SHORT-TERM USE OF THE ENVIRONMENT AND 

MAINTENANCE AND ENHANCEMENT OF LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY

In accordance with NEPA, this EIS/OEIS provides an analysis of the relationship between a project’s 

short-term impacts on the environment and the effects that these impacts may have on the 

maintenance and enhancement of the long-term productivity of the affected environment. The 

Proposed Action may result in both short- and long-term environmental effects. However, the Proposed 

Action would not be 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 the general welfare of the public.

ES.8.3 IRREVERSIBLE OR IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES

For the alternatives including the Proposed Action, most resource commitments are neither irreversible 

nor irretrievable. Most impacts are short-term and temporary or, if long lasting, are negligible. No 

habitat associated with threatened or endangered species would be lost as result of implementation of 

the Proposed Action. Since there would be no building or facility construction, the consumption of 

materials 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 irreversibly lost.

Implementation of the Proposed Action would require fuels used by aircraft and vessels. Since fixed- and 

rotary-wing flight and ship activities could increase, relative total fuel use could increase. Therefore, if 

total fuel consumption increased, this nonrenewable resource would be considered irretrievably lost.

ES.8.4 ENERGY REQUIREMENTS AND CONSERVATION POTENTIAL OF ALTERNATIVES 

Resources that will be permanently and continually consumed by project implementation include water, 

electricity, natural gas, and fossil fuels; however, the amount and rate of consumption of these 

resources would not result in significant environmental impacts or the unnecessary, inefficient, or 

wasteful use of resources. Prevention of the introduction of potential contaminants is an important 

component of standard procedures followed by the Navy. To the extent practicable, considerations in 

the prevention of introduction of potential contaminants are included.

Sustainable range management practices are in place that 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.

ES.9 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

The first step in the NEPA process for an EIS is to prepare a Notice of Intent to develop an EIS. The Navy 

published a Notice of Intent for this EIS/OEIS in the Federal Register and several newspapers on 

November 12, 2015. In addition, Notice of Intent and Scoping Notification Letters were distributed to 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

ES-40

Executive Summary

federal, state, and local elected officials and government agencies. The Notice of Intent provided an 

overview of the Proposed Action and the scope of the EIS/OEIS, and initiated the scoping process.

ES.9.1 SCOPING PROCESS

Scoping is an early and open process for developing the “scope” of issues to be addressed in an EIS and 

for identifying significant issues related to a proposed action. During scoping, the public helps define and 

prioritize issues by providing comments.

Notice of Intent and Scoping Notification letters were distributed at the beginning of the scoping period 

(November 12, 2015) to federally recognized tribes; state-elected officials; and federal, regional, and 

state agencies. On the same day, postcards were mailed to 647 recipients on the project mailing list, 

including individuals, non-profit organizations, and for-profit organizations. The postcards provided 

information on the Proposed Action, methods for commenting, and the project website address to 

obtain more information. 

To announce the scoping period, advertisements were placed in twenty-three newspapers throughout 

the AFTT Study Area. 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. 

A project video was developed to support the scoping phase and provide information to the public on 

the types of training and testing the Navy conducts and its importance. The project video was uploaded 

to the project website.

ES.9.2 SCOPING COMMENTS

The Scoping comments could be submitted via the project website or by mail. The Navy received 

comments from Federal Agencies, State Agencies, Non-governmental Organizations, individuals and 

community groups. A total of 72 scoping comments were received. The comments requested the Navy 

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.

 A True No Action Alternative Analysis

 Time-Area Management and Mitigation Areas

 Cumulative Impact Analysis

 Range of Alternatives

 Impacts of Training and Testing to Marine Mammals

 Impacts of Training and Testing to Marine Life

ES.9.3 PUBLIC COMMENTS

A Notification of the availability of the AFTT Draft EIS/OEIS for public review and comment was posted in 

the Federal Register on June 29, 2017. In addition, stakeholder letters were sent to Federal Agencies, 

State Agencies, Non-governmental Organizations, individuals and community groups. The letters 

provided a description of the Proposed Action, address of the project website, duration of the comment 

period, and information on the public meetings. A Notification of Availability of the AFTT Draft EIS/OEIS 

and public meetings advertisements were placed in twenty-three newspapers located throughout the 

AFTT study areas. Additional public efforts included the development of six informational videos that 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

ES-41

Executive Summary

were developed and posted on the project website (www.aftteis.com), mailing of more than 500 

postcards, six press releases, and five public meetings. Electronic copies of the AFTT Draft EIS/OEIS were 

also provided to 29 public libraries located throughout the AFTT study area. Comments were received 

via public comment meetings, internet, and mail from 7 federal agencies, 31 state agencies, 7 

local/regional government agencies, 5 non-governmental organizations, 2 tribal governments, 1 

commercial group, and 63 private individuals.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

ES-42

Executive Summary

This page intentionally left blank.
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

i

Table of Contents

Final

Environmental Impact Statement/Overseas Environmental Impact Statement

Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ______________________________________________________________ ES-1

ES.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................ES-1

ES.2 Purpose and Need ...................................................................................................ES-1

ES.3 Scope and Content of the Environmental Impact Statement/Overseas 

Environmental Impact Statement.............................................................................ES-1

ES.3.1 National Environmental Policy Act.....................................................................ES-3

ES.3.2 Executive Order 12114 .......................................................................................ES-3

ES.3.3 Marine Mammal Protection Act.........................................................................ES-3

ES.3.4 Endangered Species Act .....................................................................................ES-4

ES.3.5 Additional Environmental Requirements Considered........................................ES-4

ES.4 Proposed Action and Alternatives ............................................................................ES-5

ES.4.1 No Action Alternative.........................................................................................ES-5

ES.4.2 Alternative 1.......................................................................................................ES-6

ES.4.2.1 Training ................................................................................................ES-6

ES.4.2.2 Testing..................................................................................................ES-6

ES.4.3 Alternative 2.......................................................................................................ES-7

ES.4.3.1 Training ................................................................................................ES-7

ES.4.3.2 Testing..................................................................................................ES-7

ES.5 Summary of Environmental Effects...........................................................................ES-8

ES.5.1 Sonar and Explosives..........................................................................................ES-8

ES.5.2 Acoustic and Explosive Analysis .......................................................................ES-30

ES.6 Cumulative Impacts............................................................................................... ES-30

ES.6.1 Project and Other Activities Analyzed for Cumulative Impacts .......................ES-30

ES.6.2 Resource-Specific Cumulative Impact Conclusions..........................................ES-31

ES.6.2.1 Air Quality ..........................................................................................ES-31

ES.6.2.2 Sediments and Water Quality............................................................ES-32

ES.6.2.3 Vegetation .........................................................................................ES-32

ES.6.2.4 Invertebrates .....................................................................................ES-32

ES.6.2.5 Habitats..............................................................................................ES-33

ES.6.2.6 Fishes.................................................................................................ES-33

ES.6.2.7 Marine Mammals...............................................................................ES-33

ES.6.2.8 Reptiles..............................................................................................ES-33

ES.6.2.9 Birds and Bats....................................................................................ES-34

ES.6.2.10 Cultural Resources.............................................................................ES-34
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

ii

Table of Contents

ES.6.2.11 Socioeconomics.................................................................................ES-34

ES.6.2.12 Public Health and Safety....................................................................ES-34

ES.6.3 Summary of Cumulative Impacts .....................................................................ES-34

ES.7 Mitigation ............................................................................................................. ES-35

ES.8 Other Considerations............................................................................................. ES-39

ES.8.1 Consistency with Regulatory Considerations...................................................ES-39

ES.8.2 Relationship Between Short-term Use of the Environment and 

Maintenance and Enhancement of Long-term Productivity............................ES-39

ES.8.3 Irreversible or Irretrievable Commitment of Resources..................................ES-39

ES.8.4 Energy Requirements and Conservation Potential of Alternatives..................ES-39

ES.9 Public Involvement................................................................................................ ES-39

ES.9.1 Scoping Process................................................................................................ES-40

ES.9.2 Scoping Comments...........................................................................................ES-40

ES.9.3 Public Comments..............................................................................................ES-40

1 PURPOSE AND NEED_______________________________________________________1-1

1.1 Introduction ..............................................................................................................1-1

1.2 The Navy’s Environmental Compliance and At-Sea Policy............................................1-2

1.3 Proposed Action ........................................................................................................1-5

1.4 Purpose and Need .....................................................................................................1-6

1.4.1 Why the Navy Trains ............................................................................................1-7

1.4.2 Optimized Fleet Response Plan............................................................................1-9

1.4.2.1 Maintenance Phase .............................................................................1-10

1.4.2.2 Basic Phase...........................................................................................1-10

1.4.2.3 Advanced Phase...................................................................................1-11

1.4.2.4 Integrated Phase..................................................................................1-11

1.4.2.5 Sustainment Phase ..............................................................................1-12

1.4.3 Why the Navy Tests............................................................................................1-12

1.4.3.1 Types of Testing ...................................................................................1-13

1.4.3.2 Methods of Testing..............................................................................1-14

1.5 Overview and Strategic Importance of Existing Range Complexes and 

Testing Ranges.........................................................................................................1-15

1.6 The Environmental Planning Process........................................................................1-16

1.6.1 National Environmental Policy Act Requirements.............................................1-16

1.6.2 Executive Order 12114 .......................................................................................1-17

1.6.3 Other Environmental Requirements Considered...............................................1-17

1.6.3.1 Federal Statutes...................................................................................1-17

1.6.3.2 Executive Orders..................................................................................1-20

1.7 Scope and Content...................................................................................................1-21
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

iii

Table of Contents

1.8 Organization of this Environmental Impact Statement/Overseas 

Environmental Impact Statement.............................................................................1-21

2 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES ________________________2-1

2.1 Description of the Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing Study Area................................2-1

2.1.1 Northeast Range Complexes................................................................................2-5

2.1.1.1 Airspace .................................................................................................2-5

2.1.1.2 Sea and Undersea Space........................................................................2-5

2.1.2 Naval Undersea Warfare Center Division, Newport Testing Range.....................2-5

2.1.2.1 Airspace .................................................................................................2-5

2.1.2.2 Sea and Undersea Space........................................................................2-5

2.1.3 Virginia Capes Range Complex .............................................................................2-6

2.1.3.1 Airspace .................................................................................................2-6

2.1.3.2 Sea and Undersea Space........................................................................2-6

2.1.4 Navy Cherry Point Range Complex.......................................................................2-6

2.1.4.1 Airspace .................................................................................................2-6

2.1.4.2 Sea and Undersea Space........................................................................2-6

2.1.5 Jacksonville Range Complex ...............................................................................2-13

2.1.5.1 Airspace ...............................................................................................2-13

2.1.5.2 Sea and Undersea Space......................................................................2-13

2.1.6 Naval Surface Warfare Center Carderock Division, South Florida 

Ocean Measurement Facility Testing Range ......................................................2-13

2.1.6.1 Airspace ...............................................................................................2-13

2.1.6.2 Sea and Undersea Space......................................................................2-13

2.1.7 Key West Range Complex...................................................................................2-14

2.1.7.1 Airspace ...............................................................................................2-14

2.1.7.2 Sea and Undersea Space......................................................................2-14

2.1.8 Naval Surface Warfare Center, Panama City Division Testing Range ................2-14

2.1.8.1 Airspace ...............................................................................................2-14

2.1.8.2 Sea and Undersea Space......................................................................2-14

2.1.9 Gulf of Mexico Range Complex ..........................................................................2-14

2.1.9.1 Airspace ...............................................................................................2-14

2.1.9.2 Sea and Undersea Space......................................................................2-15

2.1.10 Inshore locations................................................................................................2-15

2.1.10.1 Pierside Locations................................................................................2-15

2.1.10.2 Bays, Harbors, and Inshore Waterways...............................................2-15

2.1.10.3 Civilian Ports ........................................................................................2-16

2.2 Primary Mission Areas.............................................................................................2-16

2.2.1 Air Warfare.........................................................................................................2-16
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

iv

Table of Contents

2.2.2 Amphibious Warfare ..........................................................................................2-19

2.2.3 Anti-Submarine Warfare ....................................................................................2-19

2.2.4 Electronic Warfare..............................................................................................2-19

2.2.5 Expeditionary Warfare .......................................................................................2-20

2.2.6 Mine Warfare .....................................................................................................2-20

2.2.7 Surface Warfare..................................................................................................2-21

2.3 Proposed Activities..................................................................................................2-21

2.3.1 Proposed Training Activities...............................................................................2-21

2.3.2 Proposed Testing Activities................................................................................2-27

2.3.2.1 Naval Air Systems Command Testing Activities...................................2-27

2.3.2.2 Naval Sea Systems Command Testing Activities..................................2-30

2.3.2.3 Office of Naval Research Testing Activities .........................................2-33

2.3.3 Standard Operating Procedures.........................................................................2-33

2.3.3.1 Sea Space and Airspace Deconfliction.................................................2-34

2.3.3.2 Vessel Safety ........................................................................................2-34

2.3.3.3 Aircraft Safety ......................................................................................2-35

2.3.3.4 High-Energy Laser Safety .....................................................................2-35

2.3.3.5 Weapons Firing Safety .........................................................................2-36

2.3.3.6 Target Deployment and Retrieval Safety.............................................2-36

2.3.3.7 Swimmer Defense Activity Safety........................................................2-37

2.3.3.8 Pierside Testing Safety.........................................................................2-37

2.3.3.9 Underwater Detonation Safety ...........................................................2-37

2.3.3.10 Sonic Booms.........................................................................................2-38

2.3.3.11 Unmanned Aerial System, Surface Vehicle, and Underwater 

Vehicle Safety ......................................................................................2-38

2.3.3.12 Towed In-Water Device Safety ............................................................2-38

2.3.3.13 Ship Shock Trial Safety.........................................................................2-38

2.3.3.14 Pile Driving Safety ................................................................................2-41

2.3.3.15 Sinking Exercise Safety.........................................................................2-41

2.3.3.16 Coastal Zone ........................................................................................2-41

2.3.4 Mitigation Measures..........................................................................................2-44

2.4 Action Alternative Development ..............................................................................2-47

2.4.1 Training...............................................................................................................2-48

2.4.2 Testing ................................................................................................................2-49

2.4.3 Alternatives Eliminated from Further Consideration.........................................2-49

2.4.3.1 Alternative Training and Testing Locations .........................................2-49

2.4.3.2 Simulated Training and Testing Only ...................................................2-50

2.4.3.3 Training and Testing Without the Use of Active Sonar .......................2-52
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

v

Table of Contents

2.4.3.4 Alternatives Including Geographic Mitigation Measures 

Within the Study Area .........................................................................2-52

2.5 Alternatives Carried Forward ...................................................................................2-52

2.5.1 No Action Alternative.........................................................................................2-53

2.5.2 Alternative 1.......................................................................................................2-54

2.5.2.1 Training ................................................................................................2-54

2.5.2.2 Testing..................................................................................................2-55

2.5.2.3 Mitigation Measures............................................................................2-55

2.5.3 Alternative 2.......................................................................................................2-56

2.5.3.1 Training ................................................................................................2-56

2.5.3.2 Testing..................................................................................................2-56

2.5.3.3 Mitigation Measures............................................................................2-56

2.5.4 Comparison of Proposed Sonar and Explosive Use in the Action 

Alternatives to the 2013–2018 MMPA Permit Allotment..................................2-57

2.5.4.1 Training ................................................................................................2-57

2.5.4.2 Testing..................................................................................................2-59

2.6 Proposed Training and Testing Activities for Both Alternatives..................................2-60

2.6.1 Proposed Training Activities...............................................................................2-60

2.6.2 Proposed Testing Activities................................................................................2-68

3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES_______________ 3.0-1

3.0 Introduction ...........................................................................................................3.0-1

3.0.1 Navy Compiled and Generated Data.................................................................3.0-1

3.0.1.1 Marine Species Monitoring and Research Programs .........................3.0-1

3.0.1.2 Navy’s Quantitative Analysis to Determine Impacts to Sea 

Turtles and Marine Mammals............................................................3.0-2

3.0.1.3 Aquatic Habitats Database .................................................................3.0-7

3.0.2 Ecological Characterization of the Study Area ..................................................3.0-7

3.0.2.1 Biogeographic Classifications..............................................................3.0-8

3.0.2.2 Bathymetry .......................................................................................3.0-15

3.0.2.3 Currents, Circulation Patterns, and Water Masses ..........................3.0-25

3.0.2.4 Ocean Fronts.....................................................................................3.0-28

3.0.2.5 Abiotic Substrate ..............................................................................3.0-33

3.0.3 Overall Approach to Analysis ..........................................................................3.0-33

3.0.3.1 Resources and Issues Evaluated .......................................................3.0-34

3.0.3.2 Resources and Issues Eliminated from Further 

Consideration ...................................................................................3.0-34

3.0.3.3 Identifying Stressors for Analysis......................................................3.0-34

3.0.3.4 Resource-Specific Impacts Analysis for Individual Stressors..........3.0-110
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

vi

Table of Contents

3.0.3.5 Resource-Specific Impacts Analysis for Multiple Stressors ............3.0-110

3.0.3.6 Biological Resource Methods .........................................................3.0-111

3.1 Air Quality ..............................................................................................................3.1-1

3.1.1 Introduction.......................................................................................................3.1-1

3.1.1.1 Air Quality Standards..........................................................................3.1-2

3.1.1.2 General Conformity Evaluation ..........................................................3.1-5

3.1.1.3 Approach to Analysis..........................................................................3.1-7

3.1.1.4 Emission Estimates .............................................................................3.1-9

3.1.1.5 Climate Change.................................................................................3.1-11

3.1.1.6 Other Compliance Considerations, Requirements, and 

Practices ...........................................................................................3.1-12

3.1.2 Affected Environment .....................................................................................3.1-13

3.1.2.1 General Background .........................................................................3.1-13

3.1.2.2 Sensitive Receptors...........................................................................3.1-13

3.1.2.3 Existing Air Quality............................................................................3.1-20

3.1.3 Environmental Consequences.........................................................................3.1-23

3.1.3.1 Impacts from Air Emissions Under Alternative 1..............................3.1-24

3.1.3.2 Impacts from Air Emissions under Alternative 2 ..............................3.1-26

3.1.3.3 Impacts from Air Pollutants under the No Action 

Alternative........................................................................................3.1-29

3.1.3.4 Greenhouse Gases and Climate Change...........................................3.1-29

3.1.4 Summary of Potential Impacts on Air Quality.................................................3.1-29

3.1.4.1 Combined Impacts of All Stressors under Alternative 1...................3.1-30

3.1.4.2 Combined Impacts of All Stressors under Alternative 2...................3.1-30

3.1.4.3 Combined Impacts of All Stressors under the No Action 

Alternative........................................................................................3.1-30

3.2 Sediments and Water Quality..................................................................................3.2-1

3.2.1 Introduction and Methods................................................................................3.2-1

3.2.1.1 Introduction........................................................................................3.2-1

3.2.1.2 Methods..............................................................................................3.2-5

3.2.2 Affected Environment .......................................................................................3.2-8

3.2.2.1 Sediments...........................................................................................3.2-8

3.2.2.2 Water Quality....................................................................................3.2-27

3.2.3 Environmental Consequences.........................................................................3.2-40

3.2.3.1 Explosives and Explosives Byproducts..............................................3.2-41

3.2.3.2 Chemicals Other Than Explosives.....................................................3.2-50

3.2.3.3 Metals...............................................................................................3.2-56

3.2.3.4 Other Materials.................................................................................3.2-63
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

vii

Table of Contents

3.2.4 Summary of Potential Impacts on Sediments and Water Quality ..................3.2-69

3.2.4.1 Combined Impact of all Stressors under Alternative 1.....................3.2-69

3.2.4.2 Combined Impact of all Stressors under Alternative 2.....................3.2-70

3.2.4.3 Combined Impact of all Stressors under the No Action 

Alternative........................................................................................3.2-70

3.3 Vegetation..............................................................................................................3.3-1

3.3.1 Introduction.......................................................................................................3.3-1

3.3.2 Affected Environment .......................................................................................3.3-2

3.3.2.1 General Background ...........................................................................3.3-2

3.3.2.2 Endangered Species Act-Listed Species..............................................3.3-8

3.3.2.3 Species Not Listed Under the Endangered Species Act....................3.3-11

3.3.3 Environmental Consequences.........................................................................3.3-20

3.3.3.1 Acoustic Stressors.............................................................................3.3-21

3.3.3.2 Explosive Stressors............................................................................3.3-21

3.3.3.3 Energy Stressors................................................................................3.3-27

3.3.3.4 Physical Disturbance and Strike Stressors........................................3.3-27

3.3.3.5 Entanglement Stressors....................................................................3.3-45

3.3.3.6 Ingestion Stressors............................................................................3.3-45

3.3.3.7 Secondary Stressors..........................................................................3.3-45

3.3.4 Summary of Potential Impacts on Vegetation ................................................3.3-46

3.3.4.1 Combined Impacts of All Stressors Under Alternative 1 ..................3.3-47

3.3.4.2 Combined Impacts of All Stressors Under Alternative 2 ..................3.3-47

3.3.4.3 Combined Impacts of All Stressors Under the No Action 

Alternative........................................................................................3.3-47

3.3.5 Endangered Species Act Determinations........................................................3.3-48

3.4 Invertebrates..........................................................................................................3.4-1

3.4.1 Introduction.......................................................................................................3.4-3

3.4.2 Affected Environment .......................................................................................3.4-3

3.4.2.1 General Background ...........................................................................3.4-3

3.4.2.2 Endangered Species Act-Listed Species............................................3.4-15

3.4.2.3 Species Not Listed Under the Endangered Species Act....................3.4-29

3.4.3 Environmental Consequences.........................................................................3.4-40

3.4.3.1 Acoustic Stressors.............................................................................3.4-41

3.4.3.2 Explosive Stressors............................................................................3.4-65

3.4.3.3 Energy Stressors................................................................................3.4-73

3.4.3.4 Physical Disturbance and Strike Stressors........................................3.4-78

3.4.3.5 Entanglement Stressors..................................................................3.4-103

3.4.3.6 Ingestion Stressors..........................................................................3.4-112
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

viii

Table of Contents

3.4.3.7 Secondary Stressors........................................................................3.4-121

3.4.4 Summary of Potential Impacts on Invertebrates..........................................3.4-126

3.4.4.1 Combined Impacts of All Stressors Under Alternative 1 ................3.4-126

3.4.4.2 Combined Impacts of All Stressors Under Alternative 2 ................3.4-128

3.4.4.3 Combined Impacts of All Stressors Under the No Action 

Alternative......................................................................................3.4-128

3.4.5 Endangered Species Act Determinations......................................................3.4-128

3.5 Habitats .................................................................................................................3.5-1

3.5.1 Introduction.......................................................................................................3.5-1

3.5.2 Affected Environment .......................................................................................3.5-3

3.5.2.1 General Background ...........................................................................3.5-3

3.5.3 Environmental Consequences.........................................................................3.5-29

3.5.3.1 Acoustic Stressors.............................................................................3.5-29

3.5.3.2 Explosive Stressors............................................................................3.5-29

3.5.3.3 Energy Stressors................................................................................3.5-37

3.5.3.4 Physical Disturbance and Strike Stressors........................................3.5-37

3.5.3.5 Entanglement Stressors....................................................................3.5-60

3.5.3.6 Ingestion Stressors............................................................................3.5-60

3.5.3.7 Secondary Stressors..........................................................................3.5-60

3.5.4 Summary of Potential Impacts on Habitats.....................................................3.5-60

3.5.4.1 Combined Impacts of All Stressors Under Alternative 1 ..................3.5-60

3.5.4.2 Combined Impacts of All Stressors Under Alternative 2 ..................3.5-61

3.5.4.3 Combined Impacts of All Stressors Under the No Action 

Alternative........................................................................................3.5-61

3.6 Fishes .................................................................................................................3.6-1

3.6.1 Introduction.......................................................................................................3.6-2

3.6.2 Affected Environment .......................................................................................3.6-3

3.6.2.1 General Background ...........................................................................3.6-3

3.6.2.2 Endangered Species Act-Listed Species............................................3.6-15

3.6.2.3 Species Not Listed under the Endangered Species Act ....................3.6-48

3.6.3 Environmental Consequences.........................................................................3.6-65

3.6.3.1 Acoustic Stressors.............................................................................3.6-66

3.6.3.2 Explosive Stressors..........................................................................3.6-113

3.6.3.3 Energy Stressors..............................................................................3.6-129

3.6.3.4 Physical Disturbance and Strike Stressors......................................3.6-137

3.6.3.5 Entanglement Stressors..................................................................3.6-153

3.6.3.6 Ingestion Stressors..........................................................................3.6-165

3.6.3.7 Secondary Stressors........................................................................3.6-177
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

ix

Table of Contents

3.6.4 Summary of Potential Impacts on Fishes......................................................3.6-182

3.6.4.1 Combined Impacts of All Stressors under Alternative 1.................3.6-182

3.6.4.2 Combined Impacts of All Stressors under Alternative 2.................3.6-183

3.6.4.3 Combined Impacts of All Stressors under the No Action 

Alternative......................................................................................3.6-183

3.6.5 Endangered Species Act Determinations......................................................3.6-183

3.7 Marine Mammals ...................................................................................................3.7-1

3.7.1 Introduction.......................................................................................................3.7-3

3.7.2 Affected Environment .......................................................................................3.7-3

3.7.2.1 General Background ...........................................................................3.7-3

3.7.2.2 Endangered Species Act-Listed Species............................................3.7-30

3.7.2.3 Species Not Listed Under the Endangered Species Act....................3.7-52

3.7.3 Environmental Consequences.......................................................................3.7-105

3.7.3.1 Acoustic Stressors...........................................................................3.7-106

3.7.3.2 Explosive Stressors..........................................................................3.7-362

3.7.3.3 Energy Stressors..............................................................................3.7-514

3.7.3.4 Physical Disturbance and Strike Stressors......................................3.7-523

3.7.3.5 Entanglement Stressors..................................................................3.7-552

3.7.3.6 Ingestion Stressors..........................................................................3.7-567

3.7.3.7 Secondary Stressors........................................................................3.7-581

3.7.4 Summary of Potential Impacts on Marine Mammals ...................................3.7-588

3.7.4.1 Combined Impacts of All Stressors Under Alternative 1 ................3.7-588

3.7.4.2 Combined Impacts of All Stressors Under Alternative 2 ................3.7-589

3.7.4.3 Combined Impacts of All Stressors Under the No Action 

Alternative......................................................................................3.7-589

3.7.5 Endangered Species Act Determinations......................................................3.7-590

3.7.6 Marine Mammal Protection Act Determinations..........................................3.7-593

3.8 Reptiles .................................................................................................................3.8-1

3.8.1 Introduction.......................................................................................................3.8-3

3.8.2 Affected Environment .......................................................................................3.8-4

3.8.2.1 General Background ...........................................................................3.8-4

3.8.2.2 Endangered Species Act-Listed Species............................................3.8-15

3.8.2.3 Species Not Listed under the Endangered Species Act ....................3.8-44

3.8.3 Environmental Consequences.........................................................................3.8-46

3.8.3.1 Acoustic Stressors.............................................................................3.8-46

3.8.3.2 Explosive Stressors............................................................................3.8-86

3.8.3.3 Energy Stressors..............................................................................3.8-120

3.8.3.4 Physical Disturbance and Strike Stressors......................................3.8-129
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

x

Table of Contents

3.8.3.5 Entanglement Stressors..................................................................3.8-155

3.8.3.6 Ingestion Stressors..........................................................................3.8-172

3.8.3.7 Secondary Stressors........................................................................3.8-191

3.8.4 Summary of Potential Impacts on Reptiles...................................................3.8-196

3.8.4.1 Combined Impacts of All Stressors under Alternative 1.................3.8-196

3.8.4.2 Combined Impacts of All Stressors under Alternative 2.................3.8-198

3.8.4.3 Combined Impacts of All Stressors under the No Action 

Alternative......................................................................................3.8-198

3.8.5 Endangered Species Act Determinations......................................................3.8-198

3.9 Birds and Bats.........................................................................................................3.9-1

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

3.9.2 Affected Environment .......................................................................................3.9-3

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

3.9.2.2 Endangered Species Act-Listed Species............................................3.9-14

3.9.2.3 Species Not Listed Under the Endangered Species Act....................3.9-31

3.9.3 Environmental Consequences.........................................................................3.9-49

3.9.3.1 Acoustic Stressors.............................................................................3.9-50

3.9.3.2 Explosive Stressors............................................................................3.9-80

3.9.3.3 Energy Stressors................................................................................3.9-88

3.9.3.4 Physical Disturbance and Strike Stressors........................................3.9-96

3.9.3.5 Entanglement Stressors..................................................................3.9-110

3.9.3.6 Ingestion Stressors..........................................................................3.9-115

3.9.3.7 Secondary Stressors........................................................................3.9-122

3.9.4 Summary of Potential Impacts on Birds and Bats.........................................3.9-124

3.9.4.1 Combined Impacts of All Stressors Under Alternative 1 ................3.9-124

3.9.4.2 Combined Impacts of All Stressors Under Alternative 2 ................3.9-125

3.9.4.3 Combined Impacts of All Stressors Under the No Action 

Alternative......................................................................................3.9-125

3.9.5 Endangered Species Act Determinations......................................................3.9-125

3.9.6 Migratory Bird Treaty Act Determinations....................................................3.9-125

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............................................................................................3.10-3

3.10.1.4 Methods for Impact Analysis............................................................3.10-7

3.10.2 Affected Environment .....................................................................................3.10-7
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

xi

Table of Contents

3.10.2.1 Submerged Prehistoric Resources....................................................3.10-8

3.10.2.2 Known Wrecks, Obstructions, Occurrences, or “Unknowns”...........3.10-8

3.10.2.3 Tortugas Military Operations Area ...................................................3.10-9

3.10.3 Environmental Consequences.......................................................................3.10-16

3.10.3.1 Explosive Stressors..........................................................................3.10-16

3.10.3.2 Physical Disturbance and Strike Stressors......................................3.10-21

3.10.4 Summary of Potential Impacts on Cultural Resources..................................3.10-27

3.10.4.1 Combined Impacts of All Stressors under Alternative 1.................3.10-27

3.10.4.2 Combined Impacts of All Stressors under Alternative 2.................3.10-27

3.10.4.3 Combined Impacts of All Stressors under the No Action 

Alternative......................................................................................3.10-28

3.10.4.4 National Historic Preservation Act..................................................3.10-28

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 Sources of Energy Production and Distribution................................3.11-2

3.11.2.2 Mineral Extraction ............................................................................3.11-7

3.11.2.3 Commercial Transportation and Shipping ......................................3.11-10

3.11.2.4 Commercial and Recreational Fishing ............................................3.11-23

3.11.2.5 Aquaculture ....................................................................................3.11-33

3.11.2.6 Tourism...........................................................................................3.11-35

3.11.3 Environmental Consequences.......................................................................3.11-36

3.11.3.1 Impacts on Accessibility..................................................................3.11-37

3.11.3.2 Impacts from Airborne Acoustics ...................................................3.11-47

3.11.3.3 Physical Disturbance and Strike Stressors......................................3.11-51

3.11.4 Secondary Stressors ......................................................................................3.11-57

3.11.5 Summary of Potential Impacts on Socioeconomics......................................3.11-58

3.11.5.1 Combined Impacts of All Stressors under Alternative 1.................3.11-58

3.11.5.2 Combined Impacts of All Stressors under Alternative 2.................3.11-59

3.11.5.3 Combined Impacts of All Stressors under the No Action 

Alternative......................................................................................3.11-59

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....................................................3.12-4

3.12.3 Environmental Consequences.........................................................................3.12-8

3.12.3.1 In-Water Energy................................................................................3.12-9
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

xii

Table of Contents

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

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.....................................................4-29

4.4 Resource-Specific Cumulative Impacts......................................................................4-29

4.4.1 Air Quality...........................................................................................................4-29

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.............................................................................4-49

4.4.7.5 Cumulative Impacts on Marine Mammals...........................................4-51

4.4.8 Reptiles...............................................................................................................4-52

4.4.8.1 Region of Influence..............................................................................4-52

4.4.8.2 Resource Trends ..................................................................................4-52
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

xiii

Table of Contents

4.4.8.3 Impacts of Other Actions.....................................................................4-53

4.4.8.4 Impacts of the Proposed Action That May Contribute to

Cumulative Impacts.............................................................................4-57

4.4.8.5 Cumulative Impacts on Reptiles..........................................................4-59

4.4.9 Birds and Bats.....................................................................................................4-60

4.4.10 Cultural Resources..............................................................................................4-61

4.4.11 Socioeconomics..................................................................................................4-61

4.4.12 Public Health and Safety.....................................................................................4-62

4.5 Summary of Cumulative Impacts..............................................................................4-62

5 MITIGATION _____________________________________________________________5-1

5.1 Introduction ..............................................................................................................5-1

5.1.1 Benefits of Mitigation...........................................................................................5-1

5.1.2 Compliance Initiatives..........................................................................................5-2

5.1.2.1 Protective Measures Assessment Protocol ...........................................5-2

5.1.2.2 Monitoring, Research, and Reporting Initiatives...................................5-3

5.2 Mitigation Development Process................................................................................5-8

5.2.1 Procedural Mitigation Development....................................................................5-8

5.2.1.1 Lookouts ................................................................................................5-9

5.2.1.2 Mitigation Zones..................................................................................5-10

5.2.1.3 Procedural Mitigation Implementation...............................................5-11

5.2.2 Mitigation Area Development............................................................................5-12

5.2.3 Practicality of Implementation...........................................................................5-13

5.2.3.1 Assessment Criteria .............................................................................5-13

5.2.3.2 Factors Affecting Practicality ...............................................................5-16

5.3 Procedural Mitigation to be Implemented................................................................5-18

5.3.1 Environmental Awareness and Education..........................................................5-18

5.3.2 Acoustic Stressors...............................................................................................5-19

5.3.2.1 Active Sonar.........................................................................................5-20

5.3.2.2 Air Guns ...............................................................................................5-24

5.3.2.3 Pile Driving...........................................................................................5-25

5.3.2.4 Weapons Firing Noise..........................................................................5-27

5.3.2.5 Aircraft Overflight Noise......................................................................5-29

5.3.3 Explosive Stressors.............................................................................................5-30

5.3.3.1 Explosive Sonobuoys............................................................................5-30

5.3.3.2 Explosive Torpedoes............................................................................5-33

5.3.3.3 Explosive Medium-Caliber and Large-Caliber Projectiles....................5-35

5.3.3.4 Explosive Missiles and Rockets............................................................5-39
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

xiv

Table of Contents

5.3.3.5 Explosive Bombs..................................................................................5-42

5.3.3.6 Sinking Exercises..................................................................................5-45

5.3.3.7 Explosive Mine Countermeasure and Neutralization 

Activities..............................................................................................5-48

5.3.3.8 Explosive Mine Neutralization Activities Involving Navy 

Divers...................................................................................................5-50

5.3.3.9 Maritime Security Operations – Anti-Swimmer Grenades..................5-54

5.3.3.10 Line Charge Testing..............................................................................5-56

5.3.3.11 Ship Shock Trials ..................................................................................5-58

5.3.4 Physical Disturbance and Strike Stressors..........................................................5-61

5.3.4.1 Vessel Movement................................................................................5-61

5.3.4.2 Towed In-Water Devices......................................................................5-65

5.3.4.3 Small-, Medium-, and Large-Caliber Non-Explosive Practice 

Munitions ............................................................................................5-66

5.3.4.4 Non-Explosive Missiles and Rockets....................................................5-67

5.3.4.5 Non-Explosive Bombs and Mine Shapes..............................................5-68

5.4 Mitigation Areas to be Implemented........................................................................5-69

5.4.1 Mitigation Areas for Seafloor Resources............................................................5-69

5.4.1.1 Resource Description...........................................................................5-69

5.4.1.2 Mitigation Area Assessment................................................................5-70

5.4.2 Mitigation Areas off the Northeastern United States........................................5-75

5.4.2.1 Resource Description...........................................................................5-77

5.4.2.2 Mitigation Area Assessment................................................................5-83

5.4.3 Mitigation Areas off the Mid-Atlantic and Southeastern United 

States..................................................................................................................5-87

5.4.3.1 Resource Description...........................................................................5-90

5.4.3.2 Mitigation Area Assessment................................................................5-94

5.4.4 Mitigation Areas in the Gulf of Mexico ............................................................5-100

5.4.4.1 Resource Description.........................................................................5-100

5.4.4.2 Mitigation Area Assessment..............................................................5-104

5.5 Measures Considered but Eliminated .....................................................................5-108

5.5.1 Active Sonar......................................................................................................5-109

5.5.2 Explosives.........................................................................................................5-111

5.5.3 Active and Passive Acoustic Monitoring Devices.............................................5-112

5.5.4 Thermal Detection Systems..............................................................................5-113

5.5.5 Third-Party Observers ......................................................................................5-115

5.5.6 Foreign Navy Mitigation...................................................................................5-116

5.5.7 Reporting Requirements..................................................................................5-117
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

xv

Table of Contents

5.5.8 Permission Schemes.........................................................................................5-118

5.6 Mitigation Summary ..............................................................................................5-118

6 REGULATORY CONSIDERATIONS _____________________________________________6-1

6.1 Consistency with Regulatory Considerations...............................................................6-1

6.1.1 Coastal Zone Management Act Compliance ........................................................6-5

6.1.2 Marine Protected Areas.......................................................................................6-7

6.1.2.1 State Marine Protected Areas .............................................................6-41

6.1.2.2 National Estuarine Research Reserves ................................................6-41

6.1.2.3 National Wildlife Refuges ....................................................................6-41

6.1.2.4 Gear Restricted Areas..........................................................................6-41

6.1.2.5 National Parks and Seashores..............................................................6-41

6.1.2.6 National Marine Sanctuaries ...............................................................6-42

6.1.3 Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act ......................6-65

6.2 Relationship Between Short-Term Use of the Environment and 

Maintenance and Enhancement of Long-Term Productivity.......................................6-66

6.3 Irreversible or Irretrievable Commitment of Resources.............................................6-67

6.4 Energy Requirements and Efficiency Initiatives.........................................................6-68

7 LIST OF PREPARERS________________________________________________________7-1

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....................................................................................8-7

8.2.1.3 Newspaper Advertisements ................................................................8-14

8.2.2 Project Video ......................................................................................................8-15

8.2.3 Public Scoping Comments..................................................................................8-15

8.2.3.1 A True No Action Alternative Analysis.................................................8-16

8.2.3.2 Time-Area Management and Mitigation Areas...................................8-16

8.2.3.3 Cumulative Impact Analysis.................................................................8-16

8.2.3.4 Range of Alternatives...........................................................................8-16

8.2.3.5 Impacts of Training and Testing to Marine Mammals.........................8-16

8.2.3.6 Impacts of Training and Testing to Marine Life...................................8-17

8.3 Notification of Availability of Draft Environmental Impact 

Statement/Overseas Environmental Impact Statement ............................................8-17

8.3.1 Notification of Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Overseas 

Environmental Impact Statement and Public Meetings ....................................8-17
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

xvi

Table of Contents

8.3.1.1 Notification Letters..............................................................................8-18

8.3.1.2 Subscribers Email.................................................................................8-35

8.3.1.3 Public Involvement Website................................................................8-35

8.3.1.4 Postcard Mailers..................................................................................8-37

8.3.1.5 Press Releases......................................................................................8-37

8.3.1.6 Newspaper Advertisements ................................................................8-37

8.3.2 Public Meetings..................................................................................................8-44

8.4 Distribution of the Draft and Final Environmental Impact 

Statement/Overseas Environmental Impact Statement ............................................8-44

8.4.1 Federal Agencies.................................................................................................8-44

8.4.2 State Elected Officials.........................................................................................8-45

8.4.3 Repositories........................................................................................................8-46

8.4.4 Federally-Recognized Tribes...............................................................................8-49

8.5 Comments on the Draft EIS/OEIS..............................................................................8-53

8.6 Notification of National Marine Fisheries Service Proposed Rule...............................8-53

APPENDIX A NAVY ACTIVITY DESCRIPTIONS _____________________________________________A-1

A.1 Description of Sonar, Munitions, Targets, and Other Systems Employed in 

Atlantic Fleet 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-15

A.2 Training Activities................................................................................................... A-16

A.2.1 Major Training Exercises ................................................................................... A-17

A.2.1.1 Composite Training Unit Exercise....................................................... A-17

A.2.1.2 Fleet Exercise/Sustainment Exercise .................................................. A-20

A.2.2 Integrated/Coordinated Training ...................................................................... A-22

A.2.2.1 Navy Undersea Warfare Training Assessment Course ....................... A-22

A.2.2.2 Surface Warfare Advanced Tactical Training...................................... A-24

A.2.2.3 Anti-Submarine Warfare Tactical Development Exercise................... A-26

A.2.2.4 Amphibious Ready Group Marine Expeditionary Unit 

Exercise............................................................................................... A-28

A.2.2.5 Group Sail............................................................................................ A-30

A.2.3 Air Warfare Training .......................................................................................... A-32

A.2.3.1 Air Combat Maneuver ........................................................................ A-32

A.2.3.2 Air Defense Exercise ........................................................................... A-34
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

xvii

Table of Contents

A.2.3.3 Gunnery Exercise Air-to-Air Medium-Caliber..................................... A-35

A.2.3.4 Gunnery Exercise Surface-to-Air Large-Caliber .................................. A-37

A.2.3.5 Gunnery Exercise Surface-to-Air Medium-Caliber.............................. A-39

A.2.3.6 Missile Exercise Air-to-Air................................................................... A-41

A.2.3.7 Missile Exercise – Man-Portable Air Defense System ........................ A-44

A.2.3.8 Missile Exercise Surface-to-Air ........................................................... A-46

A.2.4 Amphibious Warfare Training ........................................................................... A-48

A.2.4.1 Amphibious Assault ............................................................................ A-48

A.2.4.2 Amphibious Marine Expeditionary Unit Integration Exercise ............ A-50

A.2.4.3 Amphibious Raid................................................................................. A-51

A.2.4.4 Amphibious Vehicle Maneuvers......................................................... A-53

A.2.4.5 Humanitarian Assistance Operations................................................. A-54

A.2.4.6 Marine Expeditionary Unit Certification Exercise............................... A-55

A.2.4.7 Naval Surface Fire Support Exercise – At Sea ..................................... A-57

A.2.4.8 Naval Surface Fire Support Exercise – Land-Based Target ................. A-59

A.2.5 Anti-Submarine Warfare Training ..................................................................... A-61

A.2.5.1 Torpedo Exercise – Helicopter............................................................ A-62

A.2.5.2 Torpedo Exercise – Maritime Patrol Aircraft...................................... A-64

A.2.5.3 Torpedo Exercise – Ship...................................................................... A-66

A.2.5.4 Torpedo Exercise – Submarine ........................................................... A-68

A.2.5.5 Tracking Exercise – Helicopter............................................................ A-70

A.2.5.6 Tracking Exercise – Maritime Patrol Aircraft...................................... A-72

A.2.5.7 Tracking Exercise – Submarine ........................................................... A-74

A.2.5.8 Tracking Exercise – Ship...................................................................... A-76

A.2.6 Electronic Warfare............................................................................................. A-78

A.2.6.1 Counter Targeting Chaff Exercise – Aircraft ....................................... A-78

A.2.6.2 Counter Targeting Chaff Exercise – Ship............................................. A-80

A.2.6.3 Counter Targeting Flare Exercise........................................................ A-82

A.2.6.4 Electronic Warfare Operations........................................................... A-84

A.2.6.5 High-Speed Anti-Radiation Missile Exercise (Air-to-Surface) ............. A-86

A.2.7 Expeditionary Warfare ...................................................................................... A-88

A.2.7.1 Dive and Salvage Operations.............................................................. A-88

A.2.7.2 Maritime Security Operations – Anti-Swimmer Grenades................. A-89

A.2.7.3 Personnel Insertion/Extraction – Air .................................................. A-91

A.2.7.4 Personnel Insertion/Extraction – Surface and Subsurface ................. A-93

A.2.7.5 Personnel Insertion/Extraction – Swimmer/Diver.............................. A-94

A.2.7.6 Underwater Construction Team Training........................................... A-95

A.2.8 Mine Warfare .................................................................................................... A-96
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

xviii

Table of Contents

A.2.8.1 Airborne Mine Countermeasure – Mine Detection............................ A-96

A.2.8.2 Airborne Mine Countermeasure – Towed Mine 

Neutralization..................................................................................... A-98

A.2.8.3 Civilian Port Defense – Homeland Security AntiTerrorism/Force Protection Exercise................................................ A-100

A.2.8.4 Coordinated Unit-Level Helicopter Airborne Mine 

Countermeasures Exercise ............................................................... A-102

A.2.8.5 Mine Countermeasures – Ship Sonar............................................... A-104

A.2.8.6 Mine Countermeasures – Mine Neutralization – Remotely 

Operated Vehicle.............................................................................. A-106

A.2.8.7 Mine Laying....................................................................................... A-108

A.2.8.8 Mine Neutralization – Explosive Ordnance Disposal........................ A-110

A.2.8.9 Underwater Mine Countermeasure Raise, Tow, Beach and 

Exploitation Operations.................................................................... A-112

A.2.9 Surface Warfare Training................................................................................. A-114

A.2.9.1 Bombing Exercise Air-to-Surface ...................................................... A-114

A.2.9.2 Fast Attack Craft and Fast Inshore Attack Craft................................ A-116

A.2.9.3 Gunnery Exercise Air-to-Surface Medium-Caliber............................ A-118

A.2.9.4 Gunnery Exercise Air-to-Surface Small-Caliber ................................ A-120

A.2.9.5 Gunnery Exercise Surface-to-Surface Boat Medium-Caliber............ A-122

A.2.9.6 Gunnery Exercise Surface-to-Surface Boat Small-Caliber................. A-124

A.2.9.7 Gunnery Exercise Surface-to-Surface Ship Large-Caliber................. A-126

A.2.9.8 Gunnery Exercise Surface-to-Surface Ship Medium-Caliber ............ A-128

A.2.9.9 Gunnery Exercise Surface-to-Surface Ship Small-Caliber................. A-130

A.2.9.10 Integrated Live Fire........................................................................... A-132

A.2.9.11 Laser Targeting – Aircraft.................................................................. A-134

A.2.9.12 Laser Targeting – Ship....................................................................... A-135

A.2.9.13 Maritime Security Operations .......................................................... A-136

A.2.9.14 Missile Exercise Air-to-Surface ......................................................... A-138

A.2.9.15 Missile Exercise Air-to-Surface – Rocket........................................... A-140

A.2.9.16 Missile Exercise Surface-to-Surface.................................................. A-142

A.2.9.17 Sinking Exercise................................................................................. A-144

A.2.10 Other Training Exercises.................................................................................. A-146

A.2.10.1 Elevated Causeway System............................................................... A-146

A.2.10.2 Precision Anchoring .......................................................................... A-148

A.2.10.3 Search and Rescue............................................................................ A-149

A.2.10.4 Submarine Navigation ...................................................................... A-151

A.2.10.5 Submarine Sonar Maintenance and Systems Checks....................... A-153
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

xix

Table of Contents

A.2.10.6 Submarine Under Ice Certification ................................................... A-154

A.2.10.7 Surface Ship Object Detection.......................................................... A-155

A.2.10.8 Surface Ship Sonar Maintenance and Systems Checks .................... A-157

A.2.10.9 Waterborne Training ........................................................................ A-158

A.3 Testing Activities................................................................................................... A-160

A.3.1 Naval Air Systems Command Testing Activities .............................................. A-160

A.3.1.1 Air Warfare ....................................................................................... A-160

A.3.1.2 Anti-Submarine Warfare................................................................... A-170

A.3.1.3 Electronic Warfare............................................................................ A-181

A.3.1.4 Mine Warfare.................................................................................... A-187

A.3.1.5 Surface Warfare................................................................................ A-197

A.3.1.6 Other Testing Activities..................................................................... A-208

A.3.2 Naval Sea Systems Command Testing Activities............................................. A-218

A.3.2.1 Anti-Submarine Warfare................................................................... A-218

A.3.2.2 Electronic Warfare............................................................................ A-233

A.3.2.3 Mine Warfare.................................................................................... A-235

A.3.2.4 Surface Warfare................................................................................ A-241

A.3.2.5 Unmanned Systems.......................................................................... A-251

A.3.2.6 Vessel Evaluation.............................................................................. A-258

A.3.2.7 Submarine Sea Trials – Weapons System Testing ............................ A-277

A.3.2.8 Other Testing .................................................................................... A-283

A.3.3 Office of Naval Research Testing Activities..................................................... A-298

A.3.3.1 Acoustic and Oceanographic Science and Technology..................... A-298

APPENDIX B ACTIVITY STRESSOR MATRICES______________________________________________B-1

APPENDIX C AIR QUALITY EMISSIONS CALCULATIONS AND RECORD OF NONAPPLICABILITY____________________________________________________________C-1

C.1 Air Quality Example Calculations............................................................................... C-1

C.1.1 Surface Activities Emissions .................................................................................C-1

C.1.2 Air Activities Emissions.........................................................................................C-2

C.1.3 Munitions Emissions.............................................................................................C-2

C.1.4 Record of Non-Applicability .................................................................................C-2

C.1.5 Emissions Estimates Tables..................................................................................C-3

C.2 Record of Non-Applicability for Clean Air Act Conformity........................................C-127

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
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

xx

Table of Contents

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-7

D.3.1 Speed of Sound.................................................................................................... D-8

D.3.2 Source Directivity ................................................................................................ D-9

D.3.3 Sound Attenuation .............................................................................................. 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

D.5.2 Explosions in Water........................................................................................... D-19

APPENDIX E ESTIMATED MARINE MAMMALS AND SEA TURTLE IMPACTS FROM 

EXPOSURE TO ACOUSTIC AND EXPLOSIVE STRESSORS UNDER NAVY TRAINING 

AND TESTING ACTIVITIES ___________________________________________________E-1

E.1 Estimated Marine Mammals Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers 

Under Navy Training Activities ...................................................................................E-1

E.2 Estimated Marine Mammal Impacts per Five Year Period from Sonar and 

Other Transducers Under Navy Training Activities ......................................................E-9

E.3 Estimated Marine Mammal Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers 

Under Navy Testing Activities...................................................................................E-14
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

xxi

Table of Contents

E.4 Estimated Marine Mammal Impacts per Five Year Period from Sonar and 

Other Transducers Under Navy Testing Activities......................................................E-21

E.5 Estimated Marine Mammal Impacts from Air Guns Under Navy Training 

Activities .................................................................................................................E-26

E.6 Estimated Marine Mammal Impacts from Air Guns Under Navy Testing 

Activities .................................................................................................................E-26

E.7 Estimated Marine Mammal Impacts per Five year Period from Air Guns 

Under Navy Testing Activities...................................................................................E-28

E.8 Estimated Marine Mammal Impacts from Pile Driving Under Navy Training 

Activities .................................................................................................................E-28

E.9 Estimated Marine Mammal Impacts per Five year Period from Pile Driving 

Under Navy Training Activities .................................................................................E-30

E.10 Estimated Marine Mammal Impacts from Pile Driving Under Navy Testing 

Activities .................................................................................................................E-30

E.11 Estimated Marine Mammal Impacts from Explosives Under Navy Training 

Activities .................................................................................................................E-30

E.12 Estimated Marine Mammal Impacts per Five year Period from Explosives 

Under Navy Training Activities .................................................................................E-41

E.13 Estimated Marine Mammal Impacts from Explosives Under Navy Testing 

Activities (Excluding Ship Shock Trials)......................................................................E-49

E.14 Estimated Marine Mammal Impacts per Five Year Period from Explosives 

Under Navy Testing Activities (Excluding Ship Shock Trials).......................................E-60

E.15 Estimated Marine Mammal Impacts from Ship Shock Trials Under Navy 

Testing Activities......................................................................................................E-68

E.16 Estimated Sea Turtle Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers During 

Navy Training and Testing Activities.........................................................................E-72

E.17 Estimated Sea Turtle Impacts per Five Year Period from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Under Navy Training and Testing Activities............................................E-72

E.18 Estimated Sea Turtle Impacts from Air Guns Under Navy Training and 

Testing Activities......................................................................................................E-73

E.19 Estimated Sea Turtle Impacts from Pile Driving Under Navy Training and 

Testing Activities......................................................................................................E-73

E.20 Estimated Sea Turtle Impacts from Explosives Under Navy Training and 

Testing Activities......................................................................................................E-73

E.21 Estimated Sea Turtle Impacts per Five year Period from Explosives Under 

Navy Training and Testing Activities.........................................................................E-74

E.22 Estimated Sea Turtle Impacts from Ship Shock Trials Under Navy Testing 

Activities .................................................................................................................E-75

APPENDIX F MILITARY EXPENDED MATERIAL AND DIRECT STRIKE IMPACT ANALYSIS ____________ F-1

F.1 Estimating the Impact of Military Expended Materials and In-Water 

Explosions on Abiotic Substrates as a Habitat for Biological Resources........................F-1
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

xxii

Table of Contents

F.1.1 Military Expended and Recovered Material – Training Activities........................F-9

F.1.2 Military Expended and Recovered Materials – Testing Activities......................F-31

F.2 Impacts to Abiotic Substrate – Training and Testing Activities...................................F-47

F.3 Statistical and Probability Analysis for Estimating Direct Strike Impact and 

Number of Potential Exposures From Military Expended Materials...........................F-63

F.3.1 Direct Impact Analysis........................................................................................F-63

F.3.2 Parameters for Analysis......................................................................................F-65

F.3.3 Input Data...........................................................................................................F-66

F.3.4 Output Data........................................................................................................F-66

F.4 Poisson Probability of Direct Vessel Strike with Marine Mammals.............................F-69

APPENDIX G FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICES ______________________________________________ G-1

APPENDIX H PUBLIC COMMENT RESPONSES ____________________________________________ H-1

H.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................. H-1

H.2 Public Comment Period for the Draft Environmental Statement/Overseas 

Environmental Impact Statement.............................................................................. H-1

H.2.1 Commenters, Comments and Responses............................................................ H-1

H.2.1.1 Comment Response Process................................................................. H-2

H.2.1.2 Agency, Organization and Private Individual Comment 

Coding................................................................................................... H-2

H.2.1.3 Agency and Organization Comment Coding......................................... H-2

H.2.1.4 Private Citizen Comment Coding .......................................................... H-5

H.3 Comment Responses.................................................................................................H-6

APPENDIX I GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM DATA SOURCES ___________________________ I-1

APPENDIX JAGENCY CORRESPONDENCE_________________________________________________ J-1

J.1 Cooperating Agency Status ........................................................................................ J-2

J.2 Coastal Zone Management Act................................................................................... J-7

J.2.1 Alabama................................................................................................................ J-8

J.2.2 Connecticut ........................................................................................................ J-10

J.2.3 Delaware............................................................................................................. J-11

J.2.4 Florida................................................................................................................. J-21

J.2.5 Georgia ............................................................................................................... J-25

J.2.6 Louisiana............................................................................................................. J-39

J.2.7 Maine.................................................................................................................. J-41

J.2.8 Maryland ............................................................................................................ J-46

J.2.8 Massachusetts.................................................................................................... J-47

J.2.9 Mississippi .......................................................................................................... J-48

J.2.10 New Hampshire.................................................................................................. J-50
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

xxiii

Table of Contents

J.2.11 New Jersey.......................................................................................................... J-52

J.2.12 New York ............................................................................................................ J-53

J.2.13 North Carolina .................................................................................................... J-59

J.2.14 Rhode Island....................................................................................................... J-62

J.2.15 South Carolina .................................................................................................... J-64

J.2.16 Texas................................................................................................................... J-68

J.2.17 Virginia................................................................................................................ J-70

J.3 Endangered Species Act ........................................................................................... J-88

J.4 Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act................................ J-96

J.5 Marine Mammal Protection Act ............................................................................. J-107

J.6 National Historic Preservation Act.......................................................................... J-111

J.6.1 Alabama............................................................................................................ J-112

J.6.2 Conneticut........................................................................................................ J-115

J.6.3 Delaware........................................................................................................... J-118

J.6.4 Florida............................................................................................................... J-120

J.6.5 Georgia ............................................................................................................. J-122

J.6.6 Louisiana........................................................................................................... J-125

J.6.7 Maine................................................................................................................ J-129

J.6.8 Maryland .......................................................................................................... J-131

J.6.9 Massachusettes................................................................................................ J-133

J.6.10 Mississippi ........................................................................................................ J-136

J.6.11 New Hampshire................................................................................................ J-138

J.6.12 New Jersey........................................................................................................ J-141

J.6.13 New York .......................................................................................................... J-143

J.6.14 North Carolina .................................................................................................. J-146

J.6.15 Rhode Island..................................................................................................... J-148

J.6.16 South Carolina .................................................................................................. J-150

J.6.17 Texas................................................................................................................. J-154

J.6.18 Virginia.............................................................................................................. J-163

J.7 National Marine Sanctuaries Act ............................................................................ J-166
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

xxiv

Table of Contents

List of Figures

Figure ES-1: Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing Study Area.................................................................... ES-2

Figure ES-2: Summary of Mitigation Areas in the Study Area ............................................................... ES-38

Figure 1.2-1: Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing Study Area.....................................................................1-3

Figure 1.4-1: Optimized Fleet Response Plan ..........................................................................................1-10

Figure 1.6-1: National Environmental Policy Act Process........................................................................1-16

Figure 2.1-1: Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing Study Area.....................................................................2-3

Figure 2.1-2: Study Area, Northeast and Mid-Atlantic Region ..................................................................2-7

Figure 2.1-3: Study Area, Southeast Region and Caribbean Sea ...............................................................2-9

Figure 2.1-4: Study Area, Gulf of Mexico Region.....................................................................................2-11

Figure 2.2-1: Study Area, Inshore Locations............................................................................................2-17

Figure 2.3-1: Coastal Zones and Designated Ship Shock Trial and Sinking Exercise Areas with 

Standard Operating Procedures.........................................................................................2-39

Figure 2.3-2: Summary of Mitigation Areas in the Study Area ................................................................2-45

Figure 2.5-1: Proposed Maximum Year of Hull-Mounted Mid-Frequency Sonar Hour Use by 

Activity During Training Compared to the Number Authorized in the 2013–

2018 Marine Mammal Protection Act Permit ....................................................................2-58

Figure 2.5-2: Proposed Five-Year Total Hull-Mounted Mid-Frequency Sonar Hour Use by 

Activity During Training Compared to the Number Authorized in the 2013–

2018 Marine Mammal Protection Act Permit ....................................................................2-58

Figure 2.5-3: Proposed Number of Composite Training Unit Exercises over a Five-Year 

Period Compared to Number Authorized in the 2013–2018 Marine Mammal 

Protection Act Permit .........................................................................................................2-59

Figure 2.5-4: Change in Explosive Use (for Both Action Alternatives) During Training 

Activities Compared to the 2013–2018 Marine Mammal Protection Act Permit..............2-60

Figure 3.0-1: The Study Area with Large Marine Ecosystems and Open Ocean Areas...........................3.0-9

Figure 3.0-2: Three-Dimensional Representation of the Intertidal Zone (shoreline), 

Continental Margin, Abyssal Zone, and Water Column Zones........................................3.0-16

Figure 3.0-3: Bathymetry of the Entire Study Area...............................................................................3.0-17

Figure 3.0-4: Bathymetry of the Northeast Portion of the Study Area.................................................3.0-19

Figure 3.0-5: Bathymetry of the Southeast Portion of the Study Area.................................................3.0-21

Figure 3.0-6: Bathymetry of the Gulf of Mexico Portion of the Study Area .........................................3.0-23

Figure 3.0-7: Major Currents in the Study Area....................................................................................3.0-29

Figure 3.0-8: Average Sea Surface Temperature in the Study Area (2011–2015)................................3.0-31

Figure 3.0-9: AFTT Surface Ship Traffic By Percent Ship-Hours 2011-2015 (Mintz, 2016) ...................3.0-50

Figure 3.0-10: Relative Distribution of Commercial Vessel Traffic .......................................................3.0-53

Figure 3.0-11: Relative Distribution of U.S. Navy Vessel Traffic ...........................................................3.0-54

Figure 3.0-12: Gun Blast and Projectile from a 5-in./54 Navy Gun.......................................................3.0-59

Figure 3.0-13: Sonobuoy Launch Depicting the Relative Size of a Parachute ....................................3.0-103
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

xxv

Table of Contents

Figure 3.0-14: Aerial Target (Drone) with Parachute Deployed .........................................................3.0-104

Figure 3.0-15: Flow Chart of the Evaluation Process of Sound-Producing Activities .........................3.0-115

Figure 3.0-16: Two Hypothetical Threshold Shifts..............................................................................3.0-118

Figure 3.1-1: Applicable Nonattainment and Maintenance Areas in USEPA Region 1 and 2...............3.1-14

Figure 3.1-2: Applicable Nonattainment and Maintenance Areas in USEPA Region 3.........................3.1-15

Figure 3.1-3: Applicable Nonattainment and Maintenance Areas in USEPA Region 4.........................3.1-16

Figure 3.1-4: Applicable Nonattainment and Maintenance Areas in USEPA Region 6.........................3.1-17

Figure 3.2-1: Sediment Particle Size Comparison ...................................................................................3.2-2

Figure 3.2-2: Sediment Quality Ratings for the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic Coast .............................3.2-15

Figure 3.2-3: Sediment Quality Ratings for the Southeast Coast .........................................................3.2-19

Figure 3.2-4: Sediment Quality Ratings for the Gulf of Mexico Coast..................................................3.2-22

Figure 3.2-5: Marine Marker Deposited on a Mound at 300 meter Depth..........................................3.2-26

Figure 3.2-6: Water Quality Ratings for the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic Coast...................................3.2-30

Figure 3.2-7: Water Quality Ratings for the Southeast Coast...............................................................3.2-34

Figure 3.2-8: Water Quality Ratings for the Gulf of Mexico Coast .......................................................3.2-36

Figure 3.3-1: Designated Critical Habitat Areas for Johnson’s Seagrass Adjacent to the Study 

Area....................................................................................................................................3.3-9

Figure 3.3-2: Seagrass Occurrence in Mid-Atlantic and New England..................................................3.3-17

Figure 3.3-3: Seagrass Occurrence in South Florida .............................................................................3.3-18

Figure 3.3-4: Seagrass Occurrence in the Gulf of Mexico.....................................................................3.3-19

Figure 3.4-1: Critical Habitat Areas for Elkhorn and Staghorn Coral Within the Study Area................3.4-19

Figure 3.4-2: Prediction of Distance to 90 Percent Survivability of Marine Invertebrates 

Exposed to an Underwater Explosion (Young, 1991) ......................................................3.4-66

Figure 3.5-1: Bottom Types Within the Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf Large Marine 

Ecosystem and Open Ocean Areas....................................................................................3.5-9

Figure 3.5-2: Bottom Types Within the Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf Large Marine 

Ecosystem and Open Ocean Areas..................................................................................3.5-11

Figure 3.5-3: Bottom Types Within the Caribbean Sea Large Marine Ecosystem ................................3.5-13

Figure 3.5-4: Bottom Types Within the Gulf of Mexico Large Marine Ecosystem................................3.5-15

Figure 3.5-5: Artificial Structures Within the Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf Large Marine 

Ecosystem and Open Ocean Areas..................................................................................3.5-19

Figure 3.5-6: Artificial Structures Within the Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf Large Marine 

Ecosystem and Open Ocean Areas..................................................................................3.5-21

Figure 3.5-7: Artificial Structures Within the Caribbean Sea Large Marine Ecosystem........................3.5-23

Figure 3.5-8: Artificial Structures Within Western Portion of the Gulf of Mexico Large 

Marine Ecosystem............................................................................................................3.5-25

Figure 3.5-9: Alternative 1 – Annual Proportional Impact (Acres) from Explosives by 

Substrate Type for Training and Testing Compared to Total Vulnerable Habitat
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

xxvi

Table of Contents

Within the Range Complexes of the Large Marine Ecosystems Within the Study 

Area..................................................................................................................................3.5-32

Figure 3.5-10: Alternative 2 – Annual Proportional Impact (Acres) from Explosives 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..................................................................................................................................3.5-36

Figure 3.5-11: A Marine Marker Observed in an Area Dominated by Coral Rubble on the 

Continental Slope.............................................................................................................3.5-42

Figure 3.5-12: An Unidentified, Non-Military Structure on Hard bottom ............................................3.5-42

Figure 3.5-13: A 76-millimeter Cartridge Casing on Soft Bottom and a Blackbelly Rosefish 

(Helicolenus dactylopterus) Using the Casing for Protection When Disturbed ..............3.5-43

Figure 3.5-14: Military Expended Material Functioning as Habitat......................................................3.5-44

Figure 3.5-15: Alternative 1 – Annual Proportional Impact (Acres) from Military Expended 

Materials by Substrate Type for Training and Testing Compared to Total 

Habitat Within the Study Area.........................................................................................3.5-48

Figure 3.5-16: Alternative 2 – Annual 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.................................................................................3.5-53

Figure 3.5-17: Alternative 1 – Annual Combined Proportional Impact (Acres) from 

Explosives and Military Expended Materials for Training and Testing Within 

the Study Area .................................................................................................................3.5-62

Figure 3.5-18: Alternative 2 – Annual Combined Proportional Impact (Acres) from 

Explosives and Military Expended Materials for Training and Testing Within 

the Study Area .................................................................................................................3.5-64

Figure 3.6-1: Critical Habitat Areas for Atlantic Salmon in and Adjacent to the Study Area................3.6-23

Figure 3.6-2: Critical Habitat for Atlantic Sturgeon in and Adjacent to the Northern Portion 

of the Study Area .............................................................................................................3.6-26

Figure 3.6-3: Critical Habitat for Atlantic Sturgeon in and Adjacent to the Southern Portion 

of the Study Area .............................................................................................................3.6-27

Figure 3.6-4: Critical Habitat Areas for Smalltooth Sawfish in and Adjacent to the Study Area ..........3.6-34

Figure 3.6-5: Critical Habitat Areas for Gulf Sturgeon in and Adjacent to the Study Area...................3.6-38

Figure 3.6-6: Fish Hearing Group and Navy Sonar Frequency Ranges..................................................3.6-82

Figure 3.7-1: Composite Audiograms for Hearing Groups Likely to be Found in the 

Study Area........................................................................................................................3.7-19

Figure 3.7-2: Designated Critical Habitat Areas for North Atlantic Right Whale in the Study 

Area..................................................................................................................................3.7-35

Figure 3.7-3: Designated Critical Habitat Areas for Florida Manatee in the Study Area ......................3.7-50

Figure 3.7-4: Two Hypothetical Threshold Shifts................................................................................3.7-111

Figure 3.7-5: Critical Ratios (in dB) Measured in Different Odontocetes Species (from 

Finneran & Branstetter, 2013).......................................................................................3.7-117
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

xxvii

Table of Contents

Figure 3.7-6: Navy Auditory Weighting Functions for All Species Groups..........................................3.7-155

Figure 3.7-7: TTS and PTS Exposure Functions for Sonar and Other Transducers..............................3.7-156

Figure 3.7-8: Behavioral Response Function for Odontocetes...........................................................3.7-159

Figure 3.7-9: Behavioral Response Function for Pinnipeds................................................................3.7-159

Figure 3.7-10: Behavioral Response Function for Mysticetes and Manatees ....................................3.7-160

Figure 3.7-11: Behavioral Response Function for Beaked Whales.....................................................3.7-160

Figure 3.7-12: Relative Likelihood of a Response Being Significant Based on the Duration 

and Severity of Behavioral Reactions............................................................................3.7-162

Figure 3.7-13: North Atlantic Right Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Training and Testing Under Alternative 1 ............................3.7-181

Figure 3.7-14: North Atlantic Right Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Training and Testing Under Alternative 2 ............................3.7-183

Figure 3.7-15: Blue Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers 

Used During Training and Testing Under Alternative 1.................................................3.7-185

Figure 3.7-16: Blue Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers 

Used During Training and Testing Under Alternative 2.................................................3.7-187

Figure 3.7-17: Bryde’s Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Training and Testing Under Alternative 1 ............................3.7-190

Figure 3.7-18: Bryde’s Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Training and Testing Under Alternative 2 ............................3.7-192

Figure 3.7-19: Fin Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers 

Used During Training and Testing Under Alternative 1.................................................3.7-195

Figure 3.7-20: Fin Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers 

Used During Testing Under Alternative 2......................................................................3.7-197

Figure 3.7-21: Humpback Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Training and Testing Under Alternative 1 ............................3.7-199

Figure 3.7-22: Humpback Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Training and Testing Under Alternative 2 ............................3.7-201

Figure 3.7-23: Minke Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers 

Used During Training and Testing Under Alternative 1.................................................3.7-203

Figure 3.7-24: Minke Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers 

Used During Training and Testing Under Alternative 2.................................................3.7-205

Figure 3.7-25: Sei Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers 

Used During Training and Testing Under Alternative 1.................................................3.7-207

Figure 3.7-26: Sei Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers 

Used During Training and Testing Under Alternative 2.................................................3.7-209

Figure 3.7-27: Sperm Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers 

Used During Training and Testing Under Alternative 1.................................................3.7-214

Figure 3.7-28: Sperm Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers 

Used During Testing Under Alternative 2......................................................................3.7-216
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

xxviii

Table of Contents

Figure 3.7-29: Dwarf Sperm Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Training and Testing Under Alternative 1 ............................3.7-219

Figure 3.7-30: Pygmy Sperm Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Training and Testing Under Alternative 1 ............................3.7-220

Figure 3.7-31: Dwarf Sperm Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Training and Testing Under Alternative 2 ............................3.7-222

Figure 3.7-32: Pygmy Sperm Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Training and Testing Under Alternative 2 ............................3.7-223

Figure 3.7-33: Blainville’s Beaked Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Training and Testing Under Alternative 1 ............................3.7-226

Figure 3.7-34: Cuvier’s Beaked Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Training and Testing Under Alternative 1 ............................3.7-227

Figure 3.7-35: Gervais’ Beaked Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Training and Testing Under Alternative 1 ............................3.7-228

Figure 3.7-36: Northern Bottlenose Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and 

Other Transducers Used During Training and Testing Under Alternative 1 ..................3.7-229

Figure 3.7-37: Sowerby’s Beaked Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Training and Testing Under Alternative 1 ............................3.7-230

Figure 3.7-38: True’s Beaked Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Training and Testing Under Alternative 1 ............................3.7-231

Figure 3.7-39: Blainville’s Beaked Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Training and Testing Under Alternative 2 ............................3.7-234

Figure 3.7-40: Cuvier’s Beaked Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Training and Testing Under Alternative 2 ............................3.7-235

Figure 3.7-41: Gervais’ Beaked Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Training and Testing Under Alternative 2 ............................3.7-236

Figure 3.7-42: Northern Bottlenose Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and 

Other Transducers Used During Training and Testing Under Alternative 2 ..................3.7-238

Figure 3.7-43: Sowerby’s Beaked Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Training and Testing Under Alternative 2 ............................3.7-239

Figure 3.7-44: True’s Beaked Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Training and Testing Under Alternative 2 ............................3.7-240

Figure 3.7-45: Atlantic Spotted Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Training and Testing Under Alternative 1 ............................3.7-242

Figure 3.7-46: Atlantic Spotted Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Training and Testing Under Alternative 2 ............................3.7-244

Figure 3.7-47: Atlantic White-Sided Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and 

Other Transducers Used During Training and Testing Under Alternative 1..................3.7-246

Figure 3.7-48: Atlantic White-Sided Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and 

Other Transducers Used During Training and Testing Under Alternative 2 ..................3.7-248
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

xxix

Table of Contents

Figure 3.7-49: Bottlenose Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Training and Testing Under Alternative 1 ............................3.7-250

Figure 3.7-50: Bottlenose Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Training and Testing Under Alternative 2 ............................3.7-253

Figure 3.7-51: Clymene Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Training and Testing Under Alternative 1 ............................3.7-256

Figure 3.7-52: Clymene Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Training and Testing Under Alternative 2 ............................3.7-258

Figure 3.7-53: False Killer Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Training and Testing Under Alternative 1 ............................3.7-260

Figure 3.7-54: False Killer Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Training and Testing Under Alternative 2 ............................3.7-262

Figure 3.7-55: Fraser’s Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Training and Testing Under Alternative 1 ............................3.7-264

Figure 3.7-56: Fraser’s Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Training and Testing Under Alternative 2 ............................3.7-266

Figure 3.7-57: Killer Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers 

Used During Training and Testing Under Alternative 1.................................................3.7-268

Figure 3.7-58: Killer Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers 

Used During Training and Testing Under Alternative 2.................................................3.7-270

Figure 3.7-59: Melon-Headed Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Training and Testing Under Alternative 1 ............................3.7-272

Figure 3.7-60: Melon-Headed Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Training and Testing Under Alternative 2 ............................3.7-274

Figure 3.7-61: Pantropical Spotted Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and 

Other Transducers Used During Training and Testing Under Alternative 1 ..................3.7-276

Figure 3.7-62: Pantropical Spotted Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and 

Other Transducers Used During Training and Testing Under Alternative 2 ..................3.7-278

Figure 3.7-63: Long-Finned Pilot Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Training and Testing Under Alternative 1 ............................3.7-280

Figure 3.7-64: Short-finned Pilot Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Training and Testing Under Alternative 1 ............................3.7-281

Figure 3.7-65: Long-Finned Pilot Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Training and Testing Under Alternative 2 ............................3.7-283

Figure 3.7-66: Short-Finned Pilot Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Training and Testing Under Alternative 2 ............................3.7-284

Figure 3.7-67: Pygmy Killer Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Training and Testing Under Alternative 1 ............................3.7-286

Figure 3.7-68: Pygmy Killer Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Training and Testing Under Alternative 2 ............................3.7-288
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

xxx

Table of Contents

Figure 3.7-69: Risso’s Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Training and Testing Under Alternative 1 ............................3.7-290

Figure 3.7-70: Risso’s Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Training and Testing Under Alternative 2 ............................3.7-292

Figure 3.7-71: Rough-Toothed Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Training and Testing Under Alternative 1 ............................3.7-294

Figure 3.7-72: Rough-Toothed Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Training and Testing Under Alternative 2 ............................3.7-296

Figure 3.7-73: Short-Beaked Common Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and 

Other Transducers Used During Training and Testing Under Alternative 1..................3.7-298

Figure 3.7-74: Short-Beaked Common Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and 

Other Transducers Used During Training and Testing Under Alternative 2 ..................3.7-300

Figure 3.7-75: Spinner Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Training and Testing Under Alternative 1 ............................3.7-302

Figure 3.7-76: Spinner Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Training and Testing Under Alternative 2 ............................3.7-304

Figure 3.7-77: Striped Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Training and Testing Under Alternative 1 ............................3.7-306

Figure 3.7-78: Striped Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Training and Testing Under Alternative 2 ............................3.7-308

Figure 3.7-79: White-Beaked Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Training and Testing Under Alternative 1 ............................3.7-310

Figure 3.7-80: White-Beaked Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Training and Testing Under Alternative 2 ............................3.7-312

Figure 3.7-81: Harbor Porpoise Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Training and Testing Under Alternative 1 ............................3.7-315

Figure 3.7-82: Harbor Porpoise Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Training and Testing Under Alternative 2 ............................3.7-317

Figure 3.7-83: Gray Seal Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers 

Used During Training and Testing Under Alternative 1.................................................3.7-321

Figure 3.7-84: Harbor Seal Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers 

Used During Training and Testing Under Alternative 1.................................................3.7-322

Figure 3.7-85: Harp Seal Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers 

Used During Training and Testing Under Alternative 1.................................................3.7-323

Figure 3.7-86: Hooded Seal Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers 

Used During Training and Testing Under Alternative 1.................................................3.7-324

Figure 3.7-87: Gray Seal Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers 

Used During Training and Testing Under Alternative 2.................................................3.7-326

Figure 3.7-88: Harbor Seal Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers 

Used During Training and Testing Under Alternative 2.................................................3.7-327
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

xxxi

Table of Contents

Figure 3.7-89: Harp Seal Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers 

Used During Training and Testing Under Alternative 2.................................................3.7-328

Figure 3.7-90: Hooded Seal Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers 

Used During Training and Testing Under Alternative 2.................................................3.7-329

Figure 3.7-91: Temporary Threshold Shift and Permanent Threshold Shift Exposure 

Functions for Air Guns...................................................................................................3.7-335

Figure 3.7-92: Estimated Annual Behavioral Responses from Air Gun Use........................................3.7-337

Figure 3.7-93: Estimated Annual Impacts (Assuming Two Events per Year) from Pile Driving 

and Extraction Associated with the Construction and Removal of the Elevated 

Causeway. ......................................................................................................................3.7-342

Figure 3.7-94: Navy Phase III Weighting Functions for All Species Groups........................................3.7-370

Figure 3.7-95: Navy Phase III Behavioral, TTS and PTS Exposure Functions for Explosives................3.7-371

Figure 3.7-96: Estimated Maximum Impacts to Each Species Across All Seasons and 

Locations in Which the Large Ship Shock Trial Could Occur..........................................3.7-388

Figure 3.7-97: Estimated Maximum Impacts to Each Species Across All Seasons and 

Locations in Which Small Ship Shock Trials Could Occur...............................................3.7-389

Figure 3.7-98: North Atlantic Right Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from the Maximum 

Number of Explosions During Training and Testing (Excluding Full Ship Shock 

Trials) Under Alternative 1.............................................................................................3.7-394

Figure 3.7-99: North Atlantic Right Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from the Maximum 

Number of Explosions During Training and Testing (Excluding Full Ship Shock 

Trials) Under Alternative 2.............................................................................................3.7-396

Figure 3.7-100: Bryde’s Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from the Maximum Number of 

Explosions During Training and Testing (Excluding Full Ship Shock Trials) Under 

Alternative 1 ..................................................................................................................3.7-399

Figure 3.7-101: Bryde’s Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from the Maximum Number of 

Explosions During Training and Testing (Excluding Full Ship Shock Trials) Under 

Alternative 2 ..................................................................................................................3.7-402

Figure 3.7-102: Fin Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from the Maximum Number of 

Explosions During Training and Testing (Excluding Full Ship Shock Trials) Under

Alternative 1 ..................................................................................................................3.7-405

Figure 3.7-103: Fin Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from the Maximum Number of 

Explosions During Training and Testing (Excluding Full Ship Shock Trials) Under 

Alternative 2 ..................................................................................................................3.7-407

Figure 3.7-104: Humpback Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from the Maximum Number 

of Explosions During Training and Testing (Excluding Full Ship Shock Trials) 

Under Alternative 1 .......................................................................................................3.7-410

Figure 3.7-105: Humpback Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from the Maximum Number 

of Explosions During Training and Testing (Excluding Full Ship Shock Trials) 

Under Alternative 2 .......................................................................................................3.7-412
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

xxxii

Table of Contents

Figure 3.7-106: Minke Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from the Maximum Number of 

Explosions During Training and Testing (Excluding Full Ship Shock Trials) Under 

Alternative 1 ..................................................................................................................3.7-415

Figure 3.7-107: Minke Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from the Maximum Number of 

Explosions During Training and Testing (Excluding Full Ship Shock Trials) Under 

Alternative 2 ..................................................................................................................3.7-417

Figure 3.7-108: Sei Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from the Maximum Number of 

Explosions During Training and Testing (Excluding Full Ship Shock Trials) Under 

Alternative 1 ..................................................................................................................3.7-420

Figure 3.7-109: Sperm Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from the Maximum Number of 

Explosions During Training and Testing (Excluding Full Ship Shock Trials) Under 

Alternative 1 ..................................................................................................................3.7-424

Figure 3.7-110: Sperm Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from the Maximum Number of 

Explosions During Training and Testing (Excluding Full Ship Shock Trials) Under 

Alternative 2 ..................................................................................................................3.7-426

Figure 3.7-111: Dwarf Sperm Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from the Maximum 

Number of Explosions During Training and Testing (Excluding Full Ship Shock 

Trials) Under Alternative 1.............................................................................................3.7-429

Figure 3.7-112: Pygmy Sperm Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from the Maximum 

Number of Explosions During Training and Testing (Excluding Full Ship Shock 

Trials) Under Alternative 1.............................................................................................3.7-430

Figure 3.7-113: Dwarf Sperm Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from the Maximum 

Number of Explosions During Training and Testing (Excluding Full Ship Shock 

Trials) Under Alternative 2.............................................................................................3.7-432

Figure 3.7-114: Pygmy Sperm Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from the Maximum 

Number of Explosions During Training and Testing (Excluding Full Ship Shock 

Trials) Under Alternative 2.............................................................................................3.7-433

Figure 3.7-115: Blainville’s Beaked Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from the Maximum 

Number of Explosions During Training and Testing (Excluding Full Ship Shock 

Trials) Under Alternative 1.............................................................................................3.7-436

Figure 3.7-116: Cuvier’s Beaked Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from the Maximum 

Number of Explosions During Training and Testing (Excluding Full Ship Shock 

Trials) Under Alternative 1.............................................................................................3.7-437

Figure 3.7-117: Gervais’ Beaked Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from the Maximum 

Number of Explosions During Training and Testing (Excluding Full Ship Shock 

Trials) Under Alternative 1.............................................................................................3.7-438

Figure 3.7-118: Sowerby’s Beaked Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from the Maximum 

Number of Explosions During Training and Testing (Excluding Full Ship Shock 

Trials) Under Alternative 1.............................................................................................3.7-440

Figure 3.7-119: True’s Beaked Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from the Maximum 

Number of Explosions During Training and Testing (Excluding Full Ship Shock 

Trials) Under Alternative 1.............................................................................................3.7-441
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

xxxiii

Table of Contents

Figure 3.7-120: Atlantic Spotted Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from the Maximum 

Number of Explosions During Training and Testing (Excluding Full Ship Shock 

Trials) Under Alternative 1.............................................................................................3.7-443

Figure 3.7-121: Atlantic Spotted Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from the Maximum 

Number of Explosions During Training and Testing (Excluding Full Ship Shock 

Trials) Under Alternative 2.............................................................................................3.7-445

Figure 3.7-122: Atlantic White-Sided Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from the 

Maximum Number of Explosions During Training and Testing (Excluding Full 

Ship Shock Trials) Under Alternative 1 ..........................................................................3.7-447

Figure 3.7-123: Bottlenose Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from the Maximum Number 

of Explosions During Training and Testing (Excluding Full Ship Shock Trials) 

Under Alternative 1 .......................................................................................................3.7-451

Figure 3.7-124: Bottlenose Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from the Maximum Number 

of Explosions During Training and Testing (Excluding Full Ship Shock Trials) 

Under Alternative 2 .......................................................................................................3.7-453

Figure 3.7-125: Clymene Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from the Maximum Number 

of Explosions During Training and Testing (Excluding Full Ship Shock Trials) 

Under Alternative 1 .......................................................................................................3.7-456

Figure 3.7-126: Clymene Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from the Maximum Number 

of Explosions During Training and Testing (Excluding Full Ship Shock Trials) 

Under Alternative 2 .......................................................................................................3.7-458

Figure 3.7-127: False Killer Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from the Maximum Number 

of Explosions During Training and Testing (Excluding Full Ship Shock Trials) 

Under Alternative 1 .......................................................................................................3.7-460

Figure 3.7-128: Fraser’s Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from the Maximum Number of 

Explosions During Training and Testing (Excluding Full Ship Shock Trials) Under 

Alternative 1 ..................................................................................................................3.7-463

Figure 3.7-129: Melon-Headed Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from the Maximum 

Number of Explosions During Training and Testing (Excluding Full Ship Shock 

Trials) Under Alternative 1.............................................................................................3.7-466

Figure 3.7-130: Pantropical Spotted Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from the Maximum 

Number of Explosions During Training and Testing (Excluding Full Ship Shock 

Trials) Under Alternative 1.............................................................................................3.7-469

Figure 3.7-131: Pantropical Spotted Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from the Maximum 

Number of Explosions During Training and Testing (Excluding Full Ship Shock 

Trials) Under Alternative 2.............................................................................................3.7-471

Figure 3.7-132: Long-Finned Pilot Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from the Maximum 

Number of Explosions During Training and Testing (Excluding Full Ship Shock 

Trials) Under Alternative 1.............................................................................................3.7-474

Figure 3.7-133: Short-Finned Pilot Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from the Maximum 

Number of Explosions During Training and Testing (Excluding Full Ship Shock

Trials) Under Alternative 1.............................................................................................3.7-475
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

xxxiv

Table of Contents

Figure 3.7-134: Long-Finned Pilot Whale Impacts Estimated per Year the Maximum Number 

of Explosions During Training and Testing (Excluding Full Ship Shock Trials) 

Under Alternative 2 .......................................................................................................3.7-477

Figure 3.7-135: Short-Finned Pilot Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from the Maximum 

Number of Explosions During Training and Testing (Excluding Full Ship Shock 

Trials) Under Alternative 2.............................................................................................3.7-478

Figure 3.7-136: Pygmy Killer Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from the Maximum Number 

of Explosions During Training and Testing (Excluding Full Ship Shock Trials) 

Under Alternative 1 .......................................................................................................3.7-480

Figure 3.7-137: Risso’s Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from the Maximum Number of 

Explosions During Training and Testing (Excluding Full Ship Shock Trials) Under 

Alternative 1 ..................................................................................................................3.7-483

Figure 3.7-138: Risso’s Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from the Maximum Number of 

Explosions During Training and Testing (Excluding Full Ship Shock Trials) Under 

Alternative 2 ..................................................................................................................3.7-485

Figure 3.7-139: Rough-Toothed Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from the Maximum 

Number of Explosions During Training and Testing (Excluding Full Ship Shock 

Trials) Under Alternative 1.............................................................................................3.7-487

Figure 3.7-140: Short-Beaked Common Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from the 

Maximum Number of Explosions During Training and Testing (Excluding Full 

Ship Shock Trials) Under Alternative 1 ..........................................................................3.7-490

Figure 3.7-141: Short-Beaked Common Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from the 

Maximum Number of Explosions During Training and Testing (Excluding Full 

Ship Shock Trials) Under Alternative 2 ..........................................................................3.7-492

Figure 3.7-142: Spinner Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from the Maximum Number of 

Explosions During Training and Testing (Excluding Full Ship Shock Trials) Under 

Alternative 1 ..................................................................................................................3.7-494

Figure 3.7-143: Spinner Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from the Maximum Number of 

Explosions During Training and Testing (Excluding Full Ship Shock Trials) Under 

Alternative 2 ..................................................................................................................3.7-496

Figure 3.7-144: Striped Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from the Maximum Number of 

Explosions During Training and Testing (Excluding Full Ship Shock Trials) Under 

Alternative 1 ..................................................................................................................3.7-499

Figure 3.7-145: Striped Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from the Maximum Number of 

Explosions During Training and Testing (Excluding Full Ship Shock Trials) Under 

Alternative 2 ..................................................................................................................3.7-501

Figure 3.7-146: Harbor Porpoise Impacts Estimated per Year from the Maximum Number of 

Explosions During Training and Testing (Excluding Full Ship Shock Trials) Under 

Alternative 1 ..................................................................................................................3.7-504

Figure 3.7-147: Harbor Porpoise Impacts Estimated per Year from the Maximum Number of 

Explosions During Training and Testing (Excluding Full Ship Shock Trials) Under 

Alternative 2 ..................................................................................................................3.7-506
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

xxxv

Table of Contents

Figure 3.7-148: Gray Seal Impacts Estimated per Year from the Maximum Number of 

Explosions During Testing (Excluding Full Ship Shock Trials) Under Alternative 1 ........3.7-509

Figure 3.7-149: Harbor Seal Impacts Estimated per Year from the Maximum Number of 

Explosions During Testing (Excluding Full Ship Shock Trials) Under Alternative 1 ........3.7-510

Figure 3.7-150: Harp Seal Impacts Estimated per Year from the Maximum Number of 

Explosions During Testing (Excluding Full Ship Shock Trials) Under Alternative 1 ........3.7-511

Figure 3.7-151: Hooded Seal Impacts Estimated per Year from the Maximum Number of 

Explosions During Testing (Excluding Full Ship Shock Trials) Under Alternative 1 ........3.7-512

Figure 3.7-152: Navy Vessel Strikes Reported by Year (2009 to 2017) ..............................................3.7-526

Figure 3.8-1: Dive Depth and Duration Summaries for Sea Turtle Species ............................................3.8-6

Figure 3.8-2: Generalized Dive Profiles and Activities Described for Sea Turtles...................................3.8-7

Figure 3.8-3: Composite Underwater Audiogram for Sea Turtles..........................................................3.8-8

Figure 3.8-4: Critical Habitat Designated for the Green Sea Turtles in the Study Area........................3.8-20

Figure 3.8-5: Critical Habitat Designation for the Hawksbill Sea Turtle within the Study Area............3.8-24

Figure 3.8-6: Critical Habitat Designation for the Loggerhead Turtle within the Study Area: 

Mid-Atlantic .....................................................................................................................3.8-30

Figure 3.8-7: Critical Habitat Designation for the Loggerhead Turtle within the Study Area: 

Southeast.........................................................................................................................3.8-31

Figure 3.8-8: Critical Habitat Designation for the Loggerhead Turtle within the Study Area: 

Gulf of Mexico..................................................................................................................3.8-32

Figure 3.8-9: Critical Habitat Designation for the Leatherback Sea Turtle within the Study 

Area..................................................................................................................................3.8-37

Figure 3.8-10: Critical Habitat Designation for the American Crocodile within the Study Area ..........3.8-41

Figure 3.8-11: Auditory Weighting Function for Sea Turtles................................................................3.8-52

Figure 3.8-12: TTS and PTS Exposure Functions for Sonar and Other Transducers..............................3.8-53

Figure 3.8-13: Kemp’s Ridley Turtle Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Training and Testing under Alternative 1...............................3.8-58

Figure 3.8-14: Leatherback Sea Turtle Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Training and Testing under Alternative 1...............................3.8-58

Figure 3.8-15: Loggerhead Sea Turtle Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Training and Testing under Alternative 1...............................3.8-59

Figure 3.8-16: Kemp’s Ridley Turtle Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Training and Testing under Alternative 2...............................3.8-63

Figure 3.8-17: Leatherback Sea Turtle Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Training and Testing under Alternative 2...............................3.8-64

Figure 3.8-18: Loggerhead Sea Turtle Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Training and Testing under Alternative 2...............................3.8-65

Figure 3.8-19: TTS and PTS Exposure Functions for Impulsive Sounds.................................................3.8-68

Figure 3.8-20: Auditory Weighting Function for Sea Turtles................................................................3.8-94

Figure 3.8-21: TTS and PTS Exposure Functions for Impulsive Sounds.................................................3.8-95
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

xxxvi

Table of Contents

Figure 3.8-22: Green Turtle Impacts Estimated per Year from the Maximum Number of 

Explosions During Training and Testing under Alternative 1 (Excluding Full Ship 

Shock Trials)...................................................................................................................3.8-102

Figure 3.8-23: Kemp’s Ridley Turtle Impacts Estimated per Year from the Maximum Number 

of Explosions During Training and Testing under Alternative 1 (Excluding Full 

Ship Shock Trials) ...........................................................................................................3.8-103

Figure 3.8-24: Leatherback Turtle Impacts Estimated per Year from the Maximum Number 

of Explosions During Training and Testing under Alternative 1 (Excluding Full 

Ship Shock Trials) ...........................................................................................................3.8-104

Figure 3.8-25: Loggerhead Turtle Impacts Estimated per Year from the Maximum Number 

of Explosions during Training and Testing under Alternative 1 (Excluding Full 

Ship Shock Trials) ...........................................................................................................3.8-105

Figure 3.8-26: Estimated Impacts on Sea Turtles from a Small Ship Shock Trial under 

Alternative 1 ..................................................................................................................3.8-108

Figure 3.8-27: Estimated Impacts on Sea Turtles from a Large Ship Shock Trial under 

Alternative 1 ..................................................................................................................3.8-109

Figure 3.8-28: Green Turtle Impacts Estimated per Year from the Maximum Number of 

Explosions During Training and Testing under Alternative 2 (Excluding Full Ship 

Shock Trials)...................................................................................................................3.8-112

Figure 3.8-29: Kemp’s Ridley Turtle Impacts Estimated per Year from the Maximum Number 

of Explosions During Training and Testing under Alternative 2 (Excluding Full 

Ship Shock Trials) ...........................................................................................................3.8-113

Figure 3.8-30: Leatherback Sea Turtle Impacts Estimated per Year from the Maximum 

Number of Explosions During Training and Testing under Alternative 2 

(Excluding Full Ship Shock Trials)...................................................................................3.8-114

Figure 3.8-31: Loggerhead Sea Turtle Impacts Estimated per Year from the Maximum 

Number of Explosions During Training and Testing under Alternative 2 

(Excluding Full Ship Shock Trials)...................................................................................3.8-115

Figure 3.8-32: Estimated Impacts on Sea Turtles from a Small Ship Shock Trial................................3.8-118

Figure 3.9-1: Critical Habitat Areas for Piping Plover in and Adjacent to the Atlantic Coastal 

Portions of the Study Area...............................................................................................3.9-18

Figure 3.9-2: Critical Habitat Areas for Piping Plover in and Adjacent to the Eastern Gulf of 

Mexico Coastal Portions of the Study Area .....................................................................3.9-19

Figure 3.9-3: Critical Habitat Areas for Piping Plover in and Adjacent to the Western Gulf of 

Mexico Coastal Portions of the Study Area .....................................................................3.9-20

Figure 3.10-1: Artifacts from a Submerged Prehistoric Resource ........................................................3.10-6

Figure 3.10-2: Submerged Historic Resource (Spanish Galleon) ..........................................................3.10-7

Figure 3.10-3: High-Resolution Side-Scan Sonar Image of Submerged Historic Resource...................3.10-7

Figure 3.10-4: Known Shipwrecks, Obstructions, Occurrences, or Sites Marked as 

“Unknown” in the Northeast United States Continental Shelf Large Marine 

Ecosystem......................................................................................................................3.10-10
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

xxxvii

Table of Contents

Figure 3.10-5: Known Shipwrecks, Obstructions, Occurrences, or Sites Marked as 

“Unknown” in the Southeast United States Continental Shelf Large Marine 

Ecosystem......................................................................................................................3.10-11

Figure 3.10-6: Known Shipwrecks, Obstructions, Occurrences, or Sites Marked as 

“Unknown” in the Southeast United States Continental Shelf, Caribbean Sea, 

and Gulf of Mexico Large Marine Ecosystems...............................................................3.10-12

Figure 3.11-1: Bureau of Ocean Energy Management Planning Areas.................................................3.11-6

Figure 3.11-2: Oil and Gas Structures in the Gulf of Mexico ................................................................3.11-8

Figure 3.11-3: Active and Proposed Oil and Gas Pipelines in the Gulf of Mexico ................................3.11-9

Figure 3.11-4: Commercially Used Waterways and Major Ports in the Study Area...........................3.11-12

Figure 3.11-5: Commercial Landings Since 1950 in Atlantic Coast States..........................................3.11-24

Figure 3.11-6: Commercial Landings Since 1950 in Gulf Coast States................................................3.11-25

Figure 3.11-7: Annual Recreational Catch of All Species for the 18 Coastal States (2012–

2017)..............................................................................................................................3.11-27

Figure 3.11-8: Top Five Recreational Species Caught in the Atlantic States (2012–2017).................3.11-28

Figure 3.11-9: Top Five Recreational Species Caught in the Gulf States (2012–2017).......................3.11-29

Figure 3.11-10: Percent of Harvest in Federal Waters for Top Five Atlantic Coast 

Recreational Species (Measured By Number of Fish Caught) in 2016 ..........................3.11-30

Figure 3.11-11: Percent of Harvest in Federal Waters for Top Five Gulf Coast Recreational 

Species (Measured By Number of Fish Caught) in 2016................................................3.11-31

Figure 3.11-12: Danger Zones and Restricted Areas in the Northeast Atlantic Ocean.......................3.11-39

Figure 3.11-13: Danger Zones and Restricted Areas in the Mid-Atlantic Ocean ................................3.11-40

Figure 3.11-14: Danger Zones and Restricted Areas in the Southeast Atlantic Ocean and 

Eastern Gulf of Mexico...................................................................................................3.11-41

Figure 3.11-15: Danger Zones and Restricted Areas in the Western Gulf of Mexico.........................3.11-42

Figure 5.4-1: Seafloor Resource Mitigation Areas off the Northeastern United States..........................5-72

Figure 5.4-2: Seafloor Resource Mitigation Areas off the Mid-Atlantic and Southeastern 

United States ......................................................................................................................5-73

Figure 5.4-3: Seafloor Resource Mitigation Areas in the Gulf of Mexico ................................................5-74

Figure 5.4-4: Mitigation Areas and Habitats Considered off the Northeastern United States................5-76

Figure 5.4-5: Mitigation Areas and Habitats Considered off the Mid-Atlantic and 

Southeastern United States................................................................................................5-89

Figure 5.4-6: Mitigation Areas and Habitats Considered in the Gulf of Mexico....................................5-101

Figure 5.6-1: Summary of Mitigation Areas in the Study Area ..............................................................5-122

Figure 6.1-1: Location of National System of Marine Protected Areas within the Northeast 

and Mid-Atlantic Portion of the Study Area .......................................................................6-37

Figure 6.1-2: Location of National System of Marine Protected Areas within the Southeast 

Atlantic Portion of the Study Area......................................................................................6-38

Figure 6.1-3: Location of National System of Marine Protected Areas within the Gulf of 

Mexico Portion of the Study Area ......................................................................................6-39
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

xxxviii

Table of Contents

Figure 6.1-4: Location of National System of Marine Protected Areas within the Caribbean 

Portion of the Study Area ...................................................................................................6-40

Figure 6.1-5: Location of National Marine Sanctuaries within the Northeast and MidAtlantic Portion of the Study Area......................................................................................6-43

Figure 6.1-6: Location of National Marine Sanctuaries within the Southeast Atlantic and 

Gulf of Mexico Portion of the Study Area...........................................................................6-49

Figure 8.2-1: Stakeholder Scoping Notification Letter...............................................................................8-8

Figure 8.2-2: Postcard Mailer for Scoping (front)....................................................................................8-12

Figure 8.2-3: Postcard Mailer for Scoping (back).....................................................................................8-13

Figure 8.2-4: Newspaper Announcement of Scoping ..............................................................................8-15

Figure 8.3-1: Stakeholder Letter for the Notification of the Draft Environmental Impact 

Statement/Overseas Environmental Impact Statement ....................................................8-30

Figure 8.3-2: Project Website Subscribers Email for the Notification of the Draft 

Environmental Impact Statement/Overseas Environmental Impact Statement................8-36

Figure 8.3-3: Postcard for the Notification of Availability of the Draft Environmental Impact 

Statement/ Overseas Environmental Impact Statement and Announcement of 

Public Meetings (front).......................................................................................................8-38

Figure 8.3-4: Postcard for the Notification of Availability of the Draft Environmental Impact 

Statement/ Overseas Environmental Impact Statement and Announcement of 

Public Meetings (back)........................................................................................................8-39

Figure 8.3-5: Press Release of Notification of Availability of the Draft Environmental Impact 

Statement/ Overseas Environmental Impact Statement and Announcement of 

Public Meetings ..................................................................................................................8-40

Figure 8.3-6: Newspaper Announcement of Notification of Availability of the Draft 

Environmental Impact Statement/Overseas Environmental Impact Statement 

and Announcement of Public Meetings.............................................................................8-43

Figure A.1-1: Principle of an Active Sonar..................................................................................................A-2

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 (e.g., AN/SSQ-62).................................................................................................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-7

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: Anti-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
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

xxxix

Table of Contents

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-14

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-42

Figure A.2-2: LUU-2B/B Illuminating Flare (Aerial Target).......................................................................A-43

Figure A.2-3: Tactical Air-Launched Decoy (Aerial Target) ......................................................................A-43

Figure A.2-4: “Killer Tomato” Stationary Floating Target ......................................................................A-131

Figure A.2-5: QST-35 Seaborne Powered Target (on Left) and High-Speed Maneuvering 

Surface Target (on Right)..................................................................................................A-131

Figure C-1: Navy Record of Non-Applicability (RONA) for Clean Air Act Conformity ............................C-127

Figure D-1: Various Sound Pressure Metrics for a Hypothetical (a) Pure Tone (NonImpulsive) 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).................................................... D-16

Figure D-9: Impulse Shown as a Function of Pressure over Duration at a Specific Location ................. D-18
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

xl

Table of Contents

List of Tables

Table ES.5-1: Summary of Environmental Impacts for the No Action Alternative, 

Alternative 1, and Alternative 2.......................................................................................... ES-9

Table ES.7-1: Summary of Procedural Mitigation.................................................................................. ES-36

Table ES.7-2: Summary of Mitigation Areas.......................................................................................... ES-37

Table 2.3-1: Major Anti-Submarine Warfare Training Exercises and Integrated/Coordinated 

Training ...............................................................................................................................2-22

Table 2.3-2: Proposed Training Activities ................................................................................................2-23

Table 2.3-3: Naval Air Systems Command’s Proposed Testing Activities................................................2-28

Table 2.3-4: Naval Sea Systems Command’s Proposed Testing Activities...............................................2-31

Table 2.3-5: Office of Naval Research Proposed Testing Activities .........................................................2-33

Table 2.3-6: Training Activities Typically Not Occurring in the Coastal Zone ..........................................2-42

Table 2.3-7: Testing Activities Typically Not Occurring in the Coastal Zone............................................2-43

Table 2.3-8: Overview of Mitigation Categories......................................................................................2-44

Table 2.6-1: Proposed Training Activities per Alternative .......................................................................2-61

Table 2.6-2: Naval Air Systems Command Proposed Testing Activities per Alternative .........................2-68

Table 2.6-3: Naval Sea Systems Command Proposed Testing Activities per Alternative ........................2-71

Table 2.6-4: Office of Naval Research Proposed Testing Activities per Alternative ................................2-77

Table 3.0-1: Summary of Current Patterns in Areas Located Outside the Range Complexes..............3.0-26

Table 3.0-2: Sonar and Transducer Sources Quantitatively Analyzed..................................................3.0-39

Table 3.0-3: Sonar and Transducers Qualitatively Analyzed.................................................................3.0-46

Table 3.0-4: Training and Testing Air Gun Sources Quantitatively Analyzed in the Study Area...........3.0-47

Table 3.0-5: Elevated Causeway System Pile Driving and Removal Underwater Sound Levels...........3.0-48

Table 3.0-6: Summary of Pile Driving and Removal Activities per 24-Hour Period..............................3.0-49

Table 3.0-7: Interpolated Ship-Hours from 2011 to 2015 Positional Records in the Study 

Area..................................................................................................................................3.0-50

Table 3.0-8: Median Surface Ship Speeds for the AFTT Study Area 2011–2015 ..................................3.0-52

Table 3.0-9: Representative Aircraft Sound Characteristics.................................................................3.0-55

Table 3.0-10: Sonic Boom Underwater Sound Levels Modeled for F/A-18 Hornet 

Supersonic Flight..............................................................................................................3.0-58

Table 3.0-11: Examples of Weapons Noise...........................................................................................3.0-58

Table 3.0-12: Explosive Sources Quantitatively Analyzed that Could Be Used Underwater or 

at the Water Surface........................................................................................................3.0-63

Table 3.0-13: Typical Air Explosive Munitions During Navy Activities..................................................3.0-64

Table 3.0-14: Number and Location of Activities Including In-Water Electromagnetic Devices..........3.0-65

Table 3.0-15: Number and Location of Activities in Inshore Waters Including In-Water 

Electromagnetic Devices..................................................................................................3.0-66

Table 3.0-16: Number and Location of Activities Including High-Energy Lasers..................................3.0-68
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

xli

Table of Contents

Table 3.0-17: Representative Vessel Types, Lengths, and Speeds .......................................................3.0-69

Table 3.0-18: Number and Location of Activities Including Vessels.....................................................3.0-71

Table 3.0-19: Number and Location of Activities in Inshore Waters Including Vessels .......................3.0-72

Table 3.0-20: Number of High Speed Vessel Hours for Small Craft Associated with Training 

Activities in Inshore Waters of the Study Area................................................................3.0-73

Table 3.0-21: Representative Types, Sizes, and Speeds of In-Water Devices.......................................3.0-74

Table 3.0-22: Number and Location of Activities Including In-Water Devices.....................................3.0-74

Table 3.0-23: Number and Location of Activities in Inshore Waters Including In-Water 

Devices.............................................................................................................................3.0-75

Table 3.0-24: Number and Location of Non-Explosive Practice Munitions Expended During 

Training Activities.............................................................................................................3.0-76

Table 3.0-25: Number and Location of Non-Explosive Practice Munitions Expended During 

Training Activities in Inshore Waters...............................................................................3.0-78

Table 3.0-26: Number and Location of Non-Explosive Practice Munitions Expended During 

Testing Activities..............................................................................................................3.0-78

Table 3.0-27: Number and Location of Explosives that May Result in Fragments Used During 

Training Activities.............................................................................................................3.0-80

Table 3.0-28: Number and Location of Explosives that May Result in Fragments Used During 

Testing Activities..............................................................................................................3.0-82

Table 3.0-29: Number and Location of Targets Expended During Training Activities..........................3.0-84

Table 3.0-30: Number and Location of Targets Expended During Training Activities in 

Inshore Waters ................................................................................................................3.0-85

Table 3.0-31: Number and Location of Targets Expended During Testing Activities ...........................3.0-85

Table 3.0-32: Number and Location of Other Military Materials Expended During Training 

Activities...........................................................................................................................3.0-87

Table 3.0-33: Number and Location of Other Military Materials Expended During Training 

Activities in Inshore Waters.............................................................................................3.0-91

Table 3.0-34: Number and Location of Other Military Materials Expended During Testing 

Activities...........................................................................................................................3.0-92

Table 3.0-35: Number and Location of Activities Including Seafloor Devices......................................3.0-96

Table 3.0-36: Number and Location of Activities in Inshore Waters Including Seafloor 

Devices.............................................................................................................................3.0-97

Table 3.0-37: Number and Location of Activities Including Aircraft.....................................................3.0-98

Table 3.0-38: Number and Location of Activities in Inshore Waters Including Aircraft.......................3.0-98

Table 3.0-39: Number and Location of Wires and Cables Expended During Training Activities........3.0-101

Table 3.0-40: Number and Location of Wires and Cables Expended During Testing Activities..........3.0-102

Table 3.0-41: Size Categories for Decelerators/Parachutes Expended During Training and 

Testing Activities............................................................................................................3.0-103

Table 3.0-42: Number and Location of Activities Including Biodegradable Polymers During 

Testing............................................................................................................................3.0-105
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

xlii

Table of Contents

Table 3.0-43: Number and Location of Targets Expended During Training Activities That May 

Result in Fragments.......................................................................................................3.0-106

Table 3.0-44: Number and Location of Targets Expended During Testing Activities That May 

Result in Fragments.......................................................................................................3.0-107

Table 3.1-1: National Ambient Air Quality Standards.............................................................................3.1-3

Table 3.1-2: De Minimis Thresholds for Conformity Determinations.....................................................3.1-7

Table 3.1-3: Nonattainment and Maintenance Areas Adjacent to Study Area ....................................3.1-21

Table 3.1-4: Pierside and Coastal Activity Locations and Their Area’s Attainment Status...................3.1-22

Table 3.1-5: Estimated Annual Air Pollutant Emissions from Activities Occurring within the 

AFTT Study Area, Alternative 1........................................................................................3.1-24

Table 3.1-6: Estimated Annual Air Pollutant Emissions from Activities Occurring in State 

Waters in the Jacksonville, Florida Area, Alternative 1 ...................................................3.1-25

Table 3.1-7: Estimated Annual Air Pollutant Emissions from Activities Occurring within the 

AFTT Study Area, Alternative 2........................................................................................3.1-27

Table 3.1-8: Estimated Annual Air Pollutant Emissions from Activities Occurring within 3 NM 

of shore in the Jacksonville, Florida Area, Alternative 2..................................................3.1-28

Table 3.1-9: Total Annual Greenhouse Gas Emissions from All Study Area Training and 

Testing Activities in Metric Tons per Year .......................................................................3.1-29

Table 3.2-1: Sediment Quality Criteria and Index, U.S. Atlantic Coast and Gulf of Mexico..................3.2-10

Table 3.2-2: Comparison of Mean Pre-Industrial and Post-Industrial Metal Concentrations in 

Sediments in Long Island Sound with Sediment Effects Thresholds ...............................3.2-11

Table 3.2-3: Comparison of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons, Polychlorinated Biphenyls 

and dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane in Sediment Samples with Sediment 

Guidelines Developed by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration .................................................................................................................3.2-13

Table 3.2-4: Water Quality Screening Criteria for Metals and Organic Contaminants in 

Marine Waters.................................................................................................................3.2-27

Table 3.2-5: Percent Marine Debris by Source in Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing Study 

Area..................................................................................................................................3.2-39

Table 3.2-6: Water Solubility of Common Explosives and Explosive Degradation Products................3.2-42

Table 3.2-7: Failure and Low-Order Detonation Rates of Military Munitions......................................3.2-45

Table 3.2-8: Constituents in Munitions Other Than Explosives............................................................3.2-52

Table 3.2-9: Concentrations of and Screening Levels for Selected Metals in Marine 

Sediments, Vieques, Puerto Rico.....................................................................................3.2-58

Table 3.2-10: Summary of Components of Marine Markers and Flares...............................................3.2-64

Table 3.2-11: Major Components of Chaff ...........................................................................................3.2-65

Table 3.3-1: Major Groups of Vegetation in Study Area.......................................................................3.3-11

Table 3.3-2: Presences of Seagrass Species within the Study Area ......................................................3.3-16

Table 3.3-3: Presence of Mangrove Species in the Study Area ............................................................3.3-20
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

xliii

Table of Contents

Table 3.4-1: Status and Presence of Endangered Species Act-Listed and Species of Concern 

Invertebrate Species in the Study Area ...........................................................................3.4-15

Table 3.4-2: Major Taxonomic Groups of Marine Invertebrates in the Atlantic Fleet Training 

and Testing Study Area ....................................................................................................3.4-29

Table 3.4-3: Invertebrate Effect Determinations for Training and Testing Activities Under 

Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative).............................................................................3.4-129

Table 3.5-1: Habitat Types Within the Large Marine Ecosystems and Open Ocean of the 

Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing Study Area..................................................................3.5-3

Table 3.5-2: Percent Coverage of Abiotic Substrate Types in Large Marine Ecosystems and 

the Open Ocean Areas of the AFTT Study Area.................................................................3.5-8

Table 3.5-3: Number of Artificial Structures Documented in Large Marine Ecosystems and 

Open Ocean Areas of the AFTT Study Area .....................................................................3.5-18

Table 3.6-1: Regulatory Status and Occurrence of Endangered Species Act-Listed Fishes in 

the Study Area .................................................................................................................3.6-17

Table 3.6-2: Major Taxonomic Groups of Fishes in the Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing 

Study Area........................................................................................................................3.6-49

Table 3.6-3: Sound Exposure Criteria for TTS from Sonar ....................................................................3.6-83

Table 3.6-4: Ranges to Temporary Threshold Shift from Four Representative Sonar Bins..................3.6-85

Table 3.6-5: Sound Exposure Criteria for Mortality and Injury from Air Guns.....................................3.6-93

Table 3.6-6: Sound Exposure Criteria for TTS from Air Guns................................................................3.6-93

Table 3.6-7: Range to Effect for Fishes Exposed to 100 Air Gun Shots.................................................3.6-94

Table 3.6-8: Sound Exposure Criteria for Mortality and Injury from Impact Pile Driving.....................3.6-98

Table 3.6-9: Sound Exposure Criteria for TTS from Impact Pile Driving ...............................................3.6-98

Table 3.6-10: Impact Ranges for Transient Fishes from Impact Pile Driving for 35 Strikes 

(1 minute) ........................................................................................................................3.6-99

Table 3.6-11: Impact Ranges for Fishes with High Site Fidelity from Impact Pile Driving for 

3,150 strikes (1 Day) ......................................................................................................3.6-100

Table 3.6-12: Range to Effect from In-water Explosions for Fishes with a Swim Bladder..................3.6-116

Table 3.6-13: Sound Exposure Criteria for Mortality and Injury from Explosives ..............................3.6-121

Table 3.6-14: Sound Exposure Criteria for Hearing Loss from Explosives..........................................3.6-122

Table 3.6-15: Range to Mortality and Injury for All Fishes from Explosives.......................................3.6-123

Table 3.6-16: Range to TTS for Fishes with a Swim Bladder from Explosives.....................................3.6-124

Table 3.6-17: Ingestion Stressors Potential for Impact on Fishes Based on Location ........................3.6-167

Table 3.7-1: Marine Mammal Occurrence Within the Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing 

Study Area..........................................................................................................................3.7-7

Table 3.7-2: Species in Marine Mammal Hearing Groups Potentially Within the Study Area .............3.7-18

Table 3.7-3: Cutoff Distances for Moderate Source Level, Single Platform Training and 

Testing Events and for All Other Events with Multiple Platforms or Sonar with 

Source Levels at or Exceeding 215 dB re 1 μPa @ 1 m..................................................3.7-161

Table 3.7-4: Range to Permanent Threshold Shift for Five Representative Sonar Systems...............3.7-165
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

xliv

Table of Contents

Table 3.7-5: Ranges to Temporary Threshold Shift for Sonar Bin LF5 over a Representative 

Range of Environments Within the Study Area .............................................................3.7-166

Table 3.7-6: Ranges to Temporary Threshold Shift for Sonar Bin MF1 over a Representative 

Range of Environments Within the Study Area .............................................................3.7-166

Table 3.7-7: Ranges to Temporary Threshold Shift for Sonar Bin MF4 over a Representative 

Range of Environments Within the Study Area .............................................................3.7-167

Table 3.7-8: Ranges to Temporary Threshold Shift for Sonar Bin MF5 over a Representative 

Range of Environments Within the Study Area .............................................................3.7-167

Table 3.7-9: Ranges to Temporary Threshold Shift for Sonar BinHF4 over a Representative 

Range of Environments Within the Study Area .............................................................3.7-168

Table 3.7-10: Ranges to a Potentially Significant Behavioral Response for Sonar Bin LF5 over 

a Representative Range of Environments Within the Study Area.................................3.7-168

Table 3.7-11: Ranges to a Potentially Significant Behavioral Response for Sonar Bin MF1 

over a Representative Range of Environments Within the Study Area.........................3.7-169

Table 3.7-12: Ranges to a Potentially Significant Behavioral Response for Sonar Bin MF4 

over a Representative Range of Environments Within the Study Area.........................3.7-169

Table 3.7-13: Ranges to a Potentially Significant Behavioral Response for Sonar Bin MF5 

over a Representative Range of Environments Within the Study Area.........................3.7-170

Table 3.7-14: Ranges to a Potentially Significant Behavioral Response for Sonar Bin HF4 over 

a Representative Range of Environments Within the Study Area.................................3.7-171

Table 3.7-15: Estimated Impacts on Individual Bryde’s Whale Groups Within the Study Area 

per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers Used During Training and Testing 

Under Alternative 1 .......................................................................................................3.7-189

Table 3.7-16: Estimated Impacts on Individual Bryde’s Whale Groups Within the Study Area 

per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers Used During Training and Testing 

Under Alternative 2 .......................................................................................................3.7-191

Table 3.7-17: Estimated Impacts on Individual Sperm Whale Stocks Within the Study Area 

per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers Used During Training and Testing 

Under Alternative 1 .......................................................................................................3.7-215

Table 3.7-18: Estimated Impacts on Individual Sperm Whale Stocks Within the Study Area 

per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers Used During Training and Testing 

Under Alternative 2 .......................................................................................................3.7-217

Table 3.7-19: Estimated Impacts on Individual Dwarf Sperm Whale Stocks Within the Study 

Area per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers Used During Training and 

Testing Under Alternative 1...........................................................................................3.7-218

Table 3.7-20: Estimated Impacts on Individual Pygmy Sperm Whale Stocks Within the Study 

Area per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers Used During Training and 

Testing Under Alternative 1...........................................................................................3.7-218

Table 3.7-21: Estimated Impacts on Individual Dwarf Sperm Whale Stocks Within the Study 

Area per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers Used During Training and 

Testing Under Alternative 2...........................................................................................3.7-224
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

xlv

Table of Contents

Table 3.7-22: Estimated Impacts on Individual Pygmy Sperm Whale Stocks Within the Study 

Area per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers Used During Training and 

Testing Under Alternative 2...........................................................................................3.7-224

Table 3.7-23: Estimated Impacts on Individual Blainesville’s Beaked Whale Stocks Within 

the Study Area per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers Used During 

Training and Testing Under Alternative 1......................................................................3.7-232

Table 3.7-24: Estimated Impacts on Individual Cuvier’s Beaked Whale Stocks Within the 

Study Area per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers Used During Training 

and Testing Under Alternative 1....................................................................................3.7-232

Table 3.7-25: Estimated Impacts on Individual Gervais’ Beaked Whale Stocks Within the 

Study Area per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers Used During Training 

and Testing Under Alternative 1....................................................................................3.7-232

Table 3.7-26: Estimated Impacts on Individual Blainesville’s Beaked Whale Stocks Within 

the Study Area per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers Used During 

Training and Testing Under Alternative 2......................................................................3.7-237

Table 3.7-27: Estimated Impacts on Individual Cuvier’s Beaked Whale Stocks Within the 

Study Area per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers Used During Training 

and Testing Under Alternative 2....................................................................................3.7-237

Table 3.7-28: Estimated Impacts on Individual Gervais’ Beaked Whale Stocks Within the 

Study Area per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers Used During Training 

and Testing Under Alternative 2....................................................................................3.7-237

Table 3.7-29: Estimated Impacts on Individual Atlantic Spotted Dolphin Stocks Within the 

Study Area per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers Used During Training 

and Testing Under Alternative 1....................................................................................3.7-243

Table 3.7-30: Estimated Impacts on Individual Atlantic Spotted Dolphin Stocks Within the 

Study Area per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers Used During Training 

and Testing Under Alternative 2....................................................................................3.7-245

Table 3.7-31: Estimated Impacts on Individual Bottlenose Dolphin Stocks Within the Study 

Area per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers Used During Training and 

Testing Under Alternative 1...........................................................................................3.7-251

Table 3.7-32: Estimated Impacts on Individual Bottlenose Dolphin Stocks Within the Study 

Area per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers Used During Training and 

Testing Under Alternative 2...........................................................................................3.7-254

Table 3.7-33: Estimated Impacts on Individual Clymene Dolphin Stocks Within the Study 

Area per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers Used During Training and 

Testing Under Alternative 1...........................................................................................3.7-257

Table 3.7-34: Estimated Impacts on Individual Clymene Dolphin Stocks Within the Study 

Area per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers Used During Training and 

Testing Under Alternative 2...........................................................................................3.7-259

Table 3.7-35: Estimated Impacts on Individual False Killer Whale Stocks Within the Study 

Area per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers Used During Training and 

Testing Under Alternative 1...........................................................................................3.7-261
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

xlvi

Table of Contents

Table 3.7-36: Estimated Impacts on Individual False Killer Whale Stocks Within the Study 

Area per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers Used During Training and 

Testing Under Alternative 2...........................................................................................3.7-263

Table 3.7-37: Estimated Impacts on Individual Fraser’s Dolphin Stocks Within the Study 

Area per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers Used During Training and 

Testing Under Alternative 1...........................................................................................3.7-265

Table 3.7-38: Estimated Impacts on Individual Fraser’s Dolphin Stocks Within the Study 

Area per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers Used During Training and 

Testing Under Alternative 2...........................................................................................3.7-267

Table 3.7-39: Estimated Impacts on Individual Killer Whale Stocks Within the Study Area per 

Year from Sonar and Other Transducers Used During Training and Testing 

Under Alternative 1 .......................................................................................................3.7-269

Table 3.7-40: Estimated Impacts on Individual Killer Whale Stocks Within the Study Area per 

Year from Sonar and Other Transducers Used During Training and Testing 

Under Alternative 2 .......................................................................................................3.7-271

Table 3.7-41: Estimated Impacts on Individual Melon-Headed Whale Stocks Within the 

Study Area per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers Used During Training 

and Testing Under Alternative 1....................................................................................3.7-273

Table 3.7-42: Estimated Impacts on Individual Melon-Headed Whale Stocks Within the 

Study Area per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers Used During Training 

and Testing Under Alternative 2....................................................................................3.7-275

Table 3.7-43: Estimated Impacts on Individual Pantropical Spotted Dolphin Stocks Within 

the Study Area per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers Used During 

Training and Testing Under Alternative 1......................................................................3.7-277

Table 3.7-44: Estimated Impacts on Individual Pantropical Spotted Dolphin Stocks Within 

the Study Area per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers Used During 

Training and Testing Under Alternative 2......................................................................3.7-279

Table 3.7-45: Estimated Impacts on Individual Short-finned Pilot Whale Stocks Within the 

Study Area per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers Used During Training 

and Testing Under Alternative 1....................................................................................3.7-282

Table 3.7-46: Estimated Impacts on Individual Short-finned Pilot Whale Stocks Within the 

Study Area per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers Used During Training 

and Testing Under Alternative 1....................................................................................3.7-285

Table 3.7-47: Estimated Impacts on Individual Pygmy Killer Whale Stocks Within the Study 

Area per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers Used During Training and 

Testing Under Alternative 1...........................................................................................3.7-287

Table 3.7-48: Estimated Impacts on Individual Pygmy Killer Whale Stocks Within the Study 

Area per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers Used During Training and 

Testing Under Alternative 2...........................................................................................3.7-289

Table 3.7-49: Estimated Impacts on Individual Risso’s Dolphin Stocks Within the Study Area 

per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers Used During Training and Testing 

Under Alternative 1 .......................................................................................................3.7-291
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

xlvii

Table of Contents

Table 3.7-50: Estimated Impacts on Individual Risso’s Dolphin Stocks Within the Study Area 

per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers Used During Training and Testing 

Under Alternative 2 .......................................................................................................3.7-293

Table 3.7-51: Estimated Impacts on Individual Rough-Toothed Dolphin Stocks Within the 

Study Area per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers Used During Training 

and Testing Under Alternative 1....................................................................................3.7-295

Table 3.7-52: Estimated Impacts on Individual Rough-Toothed Dolphin Stocks Within the 

Study Area per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers Used During Training 

and Testing Under Alternative 2....................................................................................3.7-297

Table 3.7-53: Estimated Impacts on Individual Spinner Dolphin Stocks Within the Study Area 

per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers Used During Training and Testing 

Under Alternative 1 .......................................................................................................3.7-303

Table 3.7-54: Estimated Impacts on Individual Spinner Dolphin Stocks Within the Study Area 

per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers Used During Training and Testing 

Under Alternative 2 .......................................................................................................3.7-305

Table 3.7-55: Estimated Impacts on Individual Striped Dolphin Stocks Within the Study Area 

per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers Used During Training and Testing 

Under Alternative 1 .......................................................................................................3.7-307

Table 3.7-56: Estimated Impacts on Individual Striped Dolphin Stocks Within the Study Area 

per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers Used During Training and Testing 

Under Alternative 2 .......................................................................................................3.7-309

Table 3.7-57: Thresholds for Onset of TTS and PTS for Underwater Air Gun Sounds........................3.7-334

Table 3.7-58: Range to Effects from Air Guns for 10 pulses...............................................................3.7-336

Table 3.7-59: Range to Effects from Air Guns for 100 pulses.............................................................3.7-336

Table 3.7-60: Pile Driving Level B Thresholds Used in this Analysis to Predict Behavioral 

Responses from Marine Mammals................................................................................3.7-341

Table 3.7-61: Average Ranges to Effects from Impact Pile Driving Based on a Single Pile.................3.7-341

Table 3.7-62: Average Ranges to Effect from Vibratory Pile Extraction Based on a Single Pile. ........3.7-341

Table 3.7-63: Criteria to Quantitatively Assess Non-Auditory Injury Due to 

Underwater Explosions..................................................................................................3.7-369

Table 3.7-64: Navy Phase III Weighted Sound Exposure Thresholds for Underwater 

Explosive Sounds............................................................................................................3.7-372

Table 3.7-65: Ranges1 to 50 Percent Non-Auditory Injury Risk for All Marine Mammal 

Hearing Groups..............................................................................................................3.7-374

Table 3.7-66: Ranges1 to 50 Percent Mortality Risk for All Marine Mammal Hearing Groups 

as a Function of Animal Mass........................................................................................3.7-375

Table 3.7-67: SEL-Based Ranges to Onset PTS, Onset TTS, and Behavioral Reaction for HighFrequency Cetaceans.....................................................................................................3.7-376

Table 3.7-68: Peak Pressure Based Ranges to Onset PTS and Onset TTS for High-Frequency 

Cetaceans.......................................................................................................................3.7-377
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

xlviii

Table of Contents

Table 3.7-69: SEL-Based Ranges to Onset PTS, Onset TTS, and Behavioral Reaction for LowFrequency Cetaceans.....................................................................................................3.7-378

Table 3.7-70: Peak Pressure Based Ranges to Onset PTS and Onset TTS for Low-Frequency 

Cetaceans.......................................................................................................................3.7-379

Table 3.7-71: SEL-Based Ranges to Onset PTS, Onset TTS, and Behavioral Reaction for MidFrequency Cetaceans.....................................................................................................3.7-380

Table 3.7-72: Peak Pressure Based Ranges to Onset PTS and Onset TTS for Mid-Frequency 

Cetaceans.......................................................................................................................3.7-381

Table 3.7-73: SEL-Based Ranges to Onset PTS, Onset TTS, and Behavioral Reaction for 

Phocids...........................................................................................................................3.7-382

Table 3.7-74: Peak Pressure Based Ranges to Onset PTS and Onset TTS for Phocids........................3.7-383

Table 3.7-75: SEL-Based Ranges to Onset PTS, Onset TTS, and Behavioral Reaction for 

Sirenians.........................................................................................................................3.7-384

Table 3.7-76: Peak Pressure Based Ranges to Onset PTS and Onset TTS for Sirenians......................3.7-385

Table 3.7-77: Estimated Impacts on Individual Bryde’s Whale Groups Within the Study Area 

per Year from Training and Testing Explosions Using the Maximum Number of 

Explosions Under Alternative 1 .....................................................................................3.7-400

Table 3.7-78: Estimated Impacts on Individual Bryde’s Whale Groups Within the Study Area 

per Year from Training and Testing Explosions Using the Maximum Number of 

Explosions Under Alternative 2 .....................................................................................3.7-403

Table 3.7-79: Estimated Impacts on Individual Sperm Whale Stocks Within the Study Area 

per Year from Training and Testing Explosions Using the Maximum Number of 

Explosions Under Alternative 1 .....................................................................................3.7-425

Table 3.7-80: Estimated Impacts on Individual Sperm Whale Stocks Within the Study Area 

per Year from Training and Testing Explosions Using the Maximum Number of 

Explosions Under Alternative 2 .....................................................................................3.7-427

Table 3.7-81: Estimated Impacts on Individual Dwarf Sperm Whale Stocks Within the Study 

Area per Year from Training and Testing Explosions Using the Maximum 

Number of Explosions Under Alternative 1 ...................................................................3.7-431

Table 3.7-82: Estimated Impacts on Individual Pygmy Sperm Whale Stocks Within the Study 

Area per Year from Training and Testing Explosions Using the Maximum 

Number of Explosions Under Alternative 1. ..................................................................3.7-431

Table 3.7-83: Estimated Impacts on Individual Dwarf Sperm Whale Stocks Within the Study 

Area per Year from Training and Testing Explosions Using the Maximum 

Number of Explosions Under Alternative 2 ...................................................................3.7-434

Table 3.7-84: Estimated Impacts on Individual Pygmy Sperm Whale Stocks Within the Study 

Area per Year from Training and Testing Explosions Using the Maximum 

Number of Explosions Under Alternative 2 ...................................................................3.7-434

Table 3.7-85: Estimated Impacts on Individual Blainesville’s Beaked Whale Stocks Within 

the Study Area per Year from Training and Testing Explosions Using the 

Maximum Number of Explosions Under Alternative 1..................................................3.7-439
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

xlix

Table of Contents

Table 3.7-86: Estimated Impacts on Individual Cuvier’s Beaked Whale Stocks Within the 

Study Area per Year from Training and Testing Explosions Using the Maximum 

Number of Explosions Under Alternative 1...................................................................3.7-439

Table 3.7-87: Estimated Impacts on Individual Gervais’ Beaked Whale Stocks Within the 

Study Area per Year from Training and Testing Explosions Using the Maximum 

Number of Explosions Under Alternative 1 ...................................................................3.7-439

Table 3.7-88: Estimated Impacts on Individual Atlantic Spotted Dolphin Stocks Within the 

Study Area per Year from Training and Testing Explosions Using the Maximum 

Number of Explosions Under Alternative 1 ...................................................................3.7-444

Table 3.7-89: Estimated Impacts on Individual Atlantic Spotted Dolphin Stocks Within the 

Study Area per Year from Training and Testing Explosions Using the Maximum 

Number of Explosions Under Alternative 2 ...................................................................3.7-445

Table 3.7-90: Estimated Impacts on Individual Bottlenose Dolphin Stocks Within the Study 

Area per Year from Training and Testing Explosions Using the Maximum 

Number of Explosions Under Alternative 1 ...................................................................3.7-452

Table 3.7-91: Estimated Impacts on Individual Bottlenose Dolphin Stocks Within the Study 

Area per Year from Training and Testing Explosions Using the Maximum 

Number of Explosions Under Alternative 2 ...................................................................3.7-454

Table 3.7-92: Estimated Impacts on Individual Clymene Dolphin Stocks Within the Study 

Area per Year from Training and Testing Explosions Using the Maximum 

Number of Explosions Under Alternative 1 ...................................................................3.7-457

Table 3.7-93: Estimated Impacts on Individual Clymene Dolphin Stocks Within the Study 

Area per Year from Training and Testing Explosions Using the Maximum 

Number of Explosions Under Alternative 2 ...................................................................3.7-459

Table 3.7-94: Estimated Impacts on Individual False Killer Whale Stocks Within the Study 

Area per Year from Training and Testing Explosions Using the Maximum 

Number of Explosions Under Alternative 1 ...................................................................3.7-461

Table 3.7-95: Estimated Impacts on Individual Fraser’s Dolphin Stocks Within the Study 

Area per Year from Testing Explosions Using the Maximum Number of 

Explosions Under Alternative 1 .....................................................................................3.7-463

Table 3.7-96: Estimated Impacts on Individual Melon-Headed Whale Stocks Within the 

Study Area per Year from Training and Testing Explosions Using the Maximum 

Number of Explosions Under Alternative 1 ...................................................................3.7-467

Table 3.7-97: Estimated Impacts on Individual Pantropical Spotted Dolphin Stocks Within 

the Study Area per Year from Training and Testing Explosions Using the 

Maximum Number of Explosions Under Alternative 1..................................................3.7-470

Table 3.7-98: Estimated Impacts on Individual Pantropical Spotted Dolphin Stocks Within

the Study Area per Year from Training and Testing Explosions Using the 

Maximum Number of Explosions Under Alternative 2..................................................3.7-472

Table 3.7-99: Estimated Impacts on Individual Short-Finned Pilot Whale Stocks Within the 

Study Area per Year from Training and Testing Explosions Using the Maximum 

Number of Explosions Under Alternative 1 ...................................................................3.7-476
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

l

Table of Contents

Table 3.7-100: Estimated Impacts on Individual Short-Finned Pilot Whale Stocks Within the 

Study Area per Year from Training and Testing Explosions Using the Maximum 

Number of Explosions Under Alternative 2 ...................................................................3.7-479

Table 3.7-101: Estimated Impacts on Individual Pygmy Killer Whale Stocks Within the Study 

Area per Year from Training and Testing Explosions Using the Maximum 

Number of Explosions Under Alternative 1 ...................................................................3.7-481

Table 3.7-102: Estimated Impacts on Individual Risso’s Dolphin Stocks Within the Study 

Area per Year from Training and Testing Explosions Using the Maximum 

Number of Explosions Under Alternative 1 ...................................................................3.7-484

Table 3.7-103: Estimated Impacts on Individual Risso’s Dolphin Stocks Within the Study 

Area per Year from Training and Testing Explosions Using the Maximum 

Number of Explosions Under Alternative 2 ...................................................................3.7-486

Table 3.7-104: Estimated Impacts on Individual Rough-Toothed Dolphin Stocks Within the 

Study Area per Year from Training and Testing Explosions Using the Maximum 

Number of Explosions Under Alternative 1 ...................................................................3.7-488

Table 3.7-105: Estimated Impacts on Individual Spinner Dolphin Stocks Within the Study 

Area per Year from Training and Testing Explosions Using the Maximum 

Number of Explosions Under Alternative 1 ...................................................................3.7-495

Table 3.7-106: Estimated Impacts on Individual Spinner Dolphin Stocks Within the Study 

Area per Year from Training and Testing Explosions Using the Maximum 

Number of Explosions Under Alternative 2 ...................................................................3.7-497

Table 3.7-107: Estimated Impacts on Individual Striped Dolphin Stocks Within the Study 

Area per Year from Training and Testing Explosions Using the Maximum 

Number of Explosions Under Alternative 1 ...................................................................3.7-500

Table 3.7-108: Estimated Impacts on Individual Striped Dolphin Stocks Within the Study 

Area per Year from Training and Testing Explosions Using the Maximum 

Number of Explosions Under Alternative 2 ...................................................................3.7-502

Table 3.7-109: Marine Mammal Effect Determinations for Training and Testing Activities 

Under Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative)..................................................................3.7-591

Table 3.8-1: Current Regulatory Status and Presence of Endangered Species Act-Listed 

Reptiles in the Study Area................................................................................................3.8-16

Table 3.8-2: PTS and TTS Peak Pressure Thresholds for Sea Turtles Exposed to Impulsive 

Sounds..............................................................................................................................3.8-68

Table 3.8-3: Ranges to Permanent Threshold Shift and Temporary Threshold Shift for Sea 

Turtles Exposed to 100 Air Gun Firings............................................................................3.8-69

Table 3.8-4: Ranges to PTS and TTS Sea Turtles Exposed to Impact Pile Driving .................................3.8-72

Table 3.8-5: Criteria to Quantitatively Assess Non-Auditory Injury due to Underwater 

Explosions........................................................................................................................3.8-93

Table 3.8-6: TTS and PTS Peak Pressure Thresholds Derived for Sea Turtles Exposed to 

Impulsive Sounds.............................................................................................................3.8-95

Table 3.8-7: Ranges to Mortality for Sea Turtles Exposed to Explosives as a Function of 

Animal Mass.....................................................................................................................3.8-97
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

li

Table of Contents

Table 3.8-8: Ranges to Non-Auditory Injury (in meters) for Sea Turtles Exposed to Explosives 

as a Function of Animal Mass..........................................................................................3.8-98

Table 3.8-9: Peak Pressure Based Ranges to PTS and TTS for Sea Turtles Exposed to 

Explosives.........................................................................................................................3.8-99

Table 3.8-10: SEL Based Ranges to PTS and TTS for Sea Turtles Exposed to Explosives.....................3.8-100

Table 3.8-11: Summary of ESA-Effects Determinations for Reptiles (Alternative 1)..........................3.8-200

Table 3.9-1: Endangered Species Act-List Bird and Bat Species in the Study Area...............................3.9-14

Table 3.9-2: Major Taxonomic Groups of Birds in the Study Area .......................................................3.9-32

Table 3.9-3: Bats Known or Expected to Occur in the Study Area........................................................3.9-41

Table 3.9-4: Birds of Conservation Concern that Occur within the Study Area....................................3.9-47

Table 3.9-5: Range to No Blast Injury for Birds and Bats Exposed to Aerial Explosives .......................3.9-82

Table 3.9-6: Bird Effect Determinations for Training and Testing Activities Under the 

Proposed Action.............................................................................................................3.9-127

Table 3.9-7: Bat Effect Determinations for Training and Testing Activities under the 

Proposed Action.............................................................................................................3.9-129

Table 3.10-1: National Historic Landmarks, Monuments, and Cultural Resource Listed in the 

National Register of Historic Places...............................................................................3.10-13

Table 3.10-2: Summary of Section 106 Effects of Training and Testing Activities on Cultural 

Resources.......................................................................................................................3.10-28

Table 3.11-1: Value of Top Commercial Catch in Atlantic and Gulf States, 2016...............................3.11-25

Table 3.11-2: Economic Benefit of Recreational Fishing Expenditures in the Northeast in 

2014 ...............................................................................................................................3.11-31

Table 3.11-3: Economic Benefit of Recreational Fishing Expenditures in the Mid-Atlantic 

in 2014 ...........................................................................................................................3.11-32

Table 3.11-4: Economic Benefit of Recreational Fishing Expenditures in the Southeast 

Atlantic in 2014..............................................................................................................3.11-32

Table 3.11-5: Economic Benefit of Recreational Fishing Expenditures in the Gulf of Mexico 

in 2014 ...........................................................................................................................3.11-33

Table 3.11-6: Ocean Economy Data for the Tourism and Recreation Sector by State, 2014 .............3.11-36

Table 4.2-1: Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Actions .............................................................4-4

Table 4.2-2: Ocean Pollution and Ecosystem Alteration Trends .............................................................4-26

Table 4.4-1: Entanglements by Year: Summary of the Confirmed Human-Caused Mortality 

and Serious Injury Events Involving Baleen Whale Stocks along the Gulf of 

Mexico Coast, United States East Coast and Atlantic Canadian Provinces, 

2010–2014 ..........................................................................................................................4-45

Table 4.4-2: Vessel Collisions by Year: Summary of the Confirmed Human-Caused Mortality 

and Serious Injury Events Involving Baleen Whale Stocks along the Gulf of 

Mexico Coast, United States East Coast and Atlantic Canadian Provinces, 

2010–2014 ..........................................................................................................................4-47

Table 5.3-1: Environmental Awareness and Education ...........................................................................5-19
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

lii

Table of Contents

Table 5.3-2: Procedural Mitigation for Active Sonar ...............................................................................5-20

Table 5.3-3: Procedural Mitigation for Air Guns......................................................................................5-24

Table 5.3-4: Procedural Mitigation for Pile Driving .................................................................................5-26

Table 5.3-5: Procedural Mitigation for Weapons Firing Noise ................................................................5-28

Table 5.3-6: Procedural Mitigation for Aircraft Overflight Noise ............................................................5-30

Table 5.3-7: Procedural Mitigation for Explosive Sonobuoys..................................................................5-31

Table 5.3-8: Procedural Mitigation for Explosive Torpedoes ..................................................................5-34

Table 5.3-9: Procedural Mitigation for Explosive Medium-Caliber and Large-Caliber 

Projectiles ...........................................................................................................................5-36

Table 5.3-10: Procedural Mitigation for Explosive Missiles and Rockets................................................5-40

Table 5.3-11: Procedural Mitigation for Explosive Bombs.......................................................................5-43

Table 5.3-12: Procedural Mitigation for Sinking Exercises ......................................................................5-46

Table 5.3-13: Procedural Mitigation for Explosive Mine Countermeasure and Neutralization 

Activities..............................................................................................................................5-49

Table 5.3-14: Procedural Mitigation for Explosive Mine Neutralization Activities Involving 

Navy Divers.........................................................................................................................5-51

Table 5.3-15: Procedural Mitigation for Maritime Security Operations – Anti-Swimmer 

Grenades.............................................................................................................................5-55

Table 5.3-16: Procedural Mitigation for Line Charge Testing ..................................................................5-57

Table 5.3-17: Procedural Mitigation for Ship Shock Trials.......................................................................5-59

Table 5.3-18: Procedural Mitigation for Vessel Movement.....................................................................5-62

Table 5.3-19: Procedural Mitigation for Towed In-Water Devices..........................................................5-65

Table 5.3-20: Procedural Mitigation for Small-, Medium-, and Large-Caliber Non-Explosive 

Practice Munitions..............................................................................................................5-66

Table 5.3-21: Procedural Mitigation for Non-Explosive Missiles and Rockets........................................5-67

Table 5.3-22: Procedural Mitigation for Non-Explosive Bombs and Mine Shapes..................................5-68

Table 5.4-1: Mitigation Areas for Seafloor Resources.............................................................................5-70

Table 5.4-2: Mitigation Areas off the Northeastern United States .........................................................5-75

Table 5.4-3: Mitigation Areas off the Mid-Atlantic and Southeastern United States .............................5-88

Table 5.4-4: Mitigation Areas in the Gulf of Mexico..............................................................................5-100

Table 5.6-1: Summary of Procedural Mitigation....................................................................................5-119

Table 5.6-2: Summary of Mitigation Areas............................................................................................5-120

Table 6.1-1: Summary of Environmental Compliance for the Proposed Action........................................6-2

Table 6.1-2: National System of Parks and Marine Protected Areas within the Study Area...................6-10

Table 8.2-1: Entities that Received the Scoping Notification Letter..........................................................8-1

Table 8.2-2: Newspaper Announcements of Scoping Period ..................................................................8-14

Table 8.3-1: Entities that Received the Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Overseas 

Environmental Impact Notification Letter..........................................................................8-18
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

liii

Table of Contents

Table 8.3-2: Newspaper Announcements of Notification of Availability of the Draft 

Environmental Impact Statement/Overseas Environmental Impact Statement 

and Announcement of Public Meetings.............................................................................8-42

Table 8.4-1: Federal Agencies that Received the Draft and Final Environmental Impact 

Statement/ Overseas Environmental Impact Statement ...................................................8-44

Table 8.4-2: State Governors that Received the Draft and Final Environmental Impact 

Statement/Overseas Environmental Impact Statement ....................................................8-45

Table 8.4-3: Repositories that Received the Draft and Final Environmental Impact 

Statement/ Overseas Environmental Impact Statement ...................................................8-46

Table 8.4-4: Federally-Recognized Tribes that Received the Draft and Final Environmental 

Impact Statement/Overseas Environmental Impact Statement ........................................8-49

Table B-1: Stressors by Training Activity....................................................................................................B-1

Table B-2: Stressors by Testing Activity .....................................................................................................B-8

Table B-3: Stressors by Resource.............................................................................................................B-14

Tab B Table 1: Estimated Annual Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions from Training, Alternative 2...............C-6

Tab B Table 2: Estimated Annual Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions from Testing, Alternative 2 ..............C-11

Tab C Table 1: Vessel Emissions by OPAREA - outside of state waters ...................................................C-16

Tab C Table 2: Vessel Emissions by OPAREA - inside of state waters......................................................C-16

Tab C Table 3: Small Boat and Riverine Vessels by OPAREA, Alternative 1 & Alternative 2....................C-17

Tab C Table 4: Aircraft Emissions by OPAREA..........................................................................................C-17

Tab C Table 5: Aircraft Emissions within state waters boundaries by OPAREA.......................................C-18

Tab C Table 6: Munition Emissions by OPAREA.......................................................................................C-19

Tab C Table 7: Emissions within State Water Boundaries .......................................................................C-19

Tab D Table 1: Vessel Steaming Hours by State vs International Waters and by OPAREA......................C-21

Tab E Table 1: State Waters Activities .....................................................................................................C-35

Tab E Table 2: Vessel Type NE - Naragansett Bay, RI...............................................................................C-36

Tab E Table 3: Vessel Type VA Capes.......................................................................................................C-36

Tab E Table 4: Chesapeake Bay & Tributaries..........................................................................................C-37

Tab E Table 5: Vessel Type Charleston.....................................................................................................C-37

Tab E Table 6: Vessel Type JAX/ St John/ Mayport..................................................................................C-38

Tab E Table 7: Vessel Type Cape Canaveral/ SE FL ..................................................................................C-38

Tab E Table 8: Vessel Type Panama City ..................................................................................................C-39

Tab E Table 9: Vessel Type Key West.......................................................................................................C-39

Tab E Table 10: Vessel Type GOMEX/ Corpus Christie.............................................................................C-40

Tab F Table 1: Inland Water Training Events and Locations....................................................................C-41

Tab G Table 1: Training Aircraft Operational Hours below 3,000 Ft (except for GHG) by 

OPAREA (all activities in international waters)...................................................................C-45

Tab G Table 2: Aircraft Operational Hours below 3,000 Ft (except for GHG) by OPAREA (all 

activities in state waters)....................................................................................................C-49
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

liv

Table of Contents

Tab H Table 1: Munition Emissions Estimates – Testing and Training – Offshore ..................................C-51

Tab H Table 2: Munition Emissions Estimates – Testing and Training – Statewaters .............................C-75

Tab H Table 3: Emission Totals by OPAREA .............................................................................................C-83

Tab I Table 1: Ship and Boat Emission Factors.........................................................................................C-85

Tab J Table 1: Munitions Emission Factors..............................................................................................C-93

Tab K Table 1: H-53 Emissions .................................................................................................................C-95

Tab K Table 2: H-60 Emissions .................................................................................................................C-95

Tab K Table 3: E-2C Emissions..................................................................................................................C-97

Tab K Table 4: FA-18E/F and EA-18G Emissions.......................................................................................C-97

Tab K Table 5: P-3 Emissions....................................................................................................................C-99

Tab K Table 6: P-8 Emissions....................................................................................................................C-99

Tab K Table 7: AV-8B Emissions...............................................................................................................C-99

Tab K Table 8: MV-22 Emissions............................................................................................................C-101

Tab K Table 9: Learjet Emissions............................................................................................................C-101

Tab K Table 9: F-35 Emissions................................................................................................................C-103

Tab K Table 10: UH-1 Emissions.............................................................................................................C-105

Tab K Table 11: AH-1 Emissions.............................................................................................................C-105

Tab L Table 1: Aircraft Activity – Testing................................................................................................C-107

Tab M Table 1: Aircraft Activity – Training 1 (5 Years Presented Annually) ..........................................C-111

Tab O Table 1: Cruise based on 1 hour..................................................................................................C-121

Tab P Table 1: Inshore Munitions - Alternatives 1 and 2 - State Waters...............................................C-122

Tab P Table 2: Munitions for Use During Training in a Single Year under Alternatives 1 

and 2 - Beyond State Waters............................................................................................C-123

Tab P Table 3: Munitions for Use During Testing in a Single Year under Alternatives 1 

and 2 - Beyond State Waters............................................................................................C-124

Tab Q Table 1: Baseline (V2 Preferred Alternative) Munition Summary...............................................C-125

Table E.2-1: Estimated Marine Mammal Impacts per 5-Year Period from Sonar Training 

Activities................................................................................................................................E-9

Table E.3-1: Estimated Marine Mammal Impacts per Year from Sonar Testing Activities......................E-15

Table E.4-1: Estimated Marine Mammal Impacts per 5-Year Period from Sonar Testing 

Activities..............................................................................................................................E-21

Table E.6-1: Estimated Marine Mammal Impacts per Year from Air Gun Testing Activities...................E-27

Table E.7-1: Estimated Marine Mammal Impacts per 5-Year Period from Air Gun Testing 

Activities..............................................................................................................................E-28

Table E.8-1: Estimated Marine Mammal Impacts per Year from Pile Driving Training 

Activities..............................................................................................................................E-29

Table E.9-1: Estimated Marine Mammal Impacts per 5-Year Period from Pile Driving 

Training Activities................................................................................................................E-30

Table E.11-1: Estimated Marine Mammal Impacts per year from Explosive Training Activities.............E-31
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

lv

Table of Contents

Table E.12-1: Estimated Marine Mammal Impacts per 5-Year Period from Explosive Training 

Activities..............................................................................................................................E-42

Table E.13-1: Estimated Marine Mammal Impacts per Year from Explosive Testing Activities 

(Excluding Ship Shock Trials)...............................................................................................E-50

Table E.14-1: Estimated Marine Mammal Impacts per 5-Year Period from Explosive Testing 

Activities (Excluding Ship Shock Trials)...............................................................................E-61

Table E.15-1: Estimated Marine Mammal Impacts from Small and Large Ship Shock Trials 

(Explosive Testing Activity) and per 5-Year Period.............................................................E-69

Table E.16-1: Estimated Sea Turtle Impacts per Year from Sonar Training and Testing 

Activities..............................................................................................................................E-72

Table E.17-1: Estimated Sea Turtle Impacts per 5-Year Period from Sonar Training and 

Testing Activities.................................................................................................................E-73

Table E.20-1: Estimated Sea Turtle Impacts per Year from Explosive Training and Testing 

Activities..............................................................................................................................E-74

Table E.21-1: Estimated Sea Turtle Impacts per 5-Year Period from Explosive Training and 

Testing Activities (Excluding Ship Shock Trials)...................................................................E-75

Table E.22-1: Estimated Sea Turtle Impacts from Small and Large Ship Shock Trials 

(Explosive Testing Activity) and per 5-Year Period.............................................................E-76

Table F-1: Categories and Footprints for Various Materials and In-Water Explosions.............................. F-2

Table F-2: Number and Impacts* of Military Expended Materials Proposed for Use During 

Training Activities in a Single Year Under Alternatives 1 and 2.......................................... F-11

Table F-3: Number and Impacts* of Military Expended Materials Proposed for Use During 

Training Activities in a Single Year Under Alternatives 1 and 2Inshore Waters............... F-13

Table F-4: Number and Impacts* of Military Expended Materials Proposed for Use During 

Training Activities in a Single Year with Differences between Alternatives 1 

and 2 ................................................................................................................................... F-15

Table F-3: Number and Impacts* of Military Expended Materials Proposed for Use During 

Training Activities in Five Years Under Alternatives 1 and 2 .............................................. F-17

Table F-6: Number and Impacts* of Military Expended Materials Proposed for Use During 

Training Activities in Five Years Under Alternatives 1 and 2 – Inshore Waters.................. F-19

Table F-7: Number and Impacts* of Military Expended Materials Proposed for Use During 

Training Activities in Five Years with Differences between Alternatives 1 and 2............... F-21

Table F-8: Number of Recovered Materials Proposed for Use During Training Activities In a 

Single Year Under Alternatives 1 and 2 .............................................................................. F-23

Table F-9: Number and Impacts* of Recovered Bottom Placed Materials Proposed for Use 

During Training Activities In a Single Year Under Alternatives 1 and 2 ............................. F-23

Table F-10: Number and Impacts* of Recovered Bottom Placed Materials Proposed for Use 

During Training Activities in a Single Year Under Alternatives 1 and 2 - Inshore 

Waters................................................................................................................................. F-25

Table F-11: Number of Recovered Materials Proposed for Use During Training Activities In 

Five Years Under Alternatives 1 and 2................................................................................ F-27
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

lvi

Table of Contents

Table F-12: Number and Impacts* of Recovered Bottom Placed Materials Proposed for Use 

During Training Activities In Five Years Under Alternatives 1 and 2 .................................. F-27

Table F-13: Number and Impacts* of Recovered Bottom Placed Materials Proposed for Use 

During Training Activities in Five Years Under Alternatives 1 and 2 – Inshore 

Waters................................................................................................................................. F-29

Table F-14: Number and Impacts* of Military Expended Materials Proposed for Use During 

Testing Activities in a Single Year Under Alternatives 1 and 2 ........................................... F-33

Table F-15: Number and Impacts* of Military Expended Materials Proposed for Use During 

Testing Activities in a Single Year with Differences between 

Alternatives 1 and 2............................................................................................................ F-35

Table F-16: Number and Impacts* of Military Expended Materials Proposed for Use During 

Testing Activities in Five Years Under Alternatives 1 and 2................................................ F-37

Table F-17: Number and Impacts* of Military Expended Materials Proposed for Use During 

Testing Activities in a Five Years with Differences between Alternatives 1 and 2 ............. F-39

Table F-18: Number of Recovered Materials Proposed for Use During Testing Activities in a 

Single Year Under Alternatives 1 and 2 .............................................................................. F-43

Table F-19: Number and Impacts* of Recovered Bottom Placed Materials Proposed for Use 

During Testing Activities in a Single Year Under Alternatives 1 and 2................................ F-43

Table F-20: Number of Recovered Materials Proposed for Use During Testing Activities in 

Five Years Under Alternatives 1 and 2................................................................................ F-45

Table F-21: Number and Impacts* of Recovered Bottom Placed Materials Proposed for Use 

During Testing Activities in Five Years as Part of Alternatives 1 and 2............................... F-45

Table F-22: Potential Impact from Explosives On or Near the Bottom for Training Activities 

Under Alternative 1 and 2 in a Single Year......................................................................... F-47

Table F-23: Potential Impact from Explosives On or Near the Bottom for Testing Activities 

Under Alternative 1 in a Single Year................................................................................... F-49

Table F-24: Potential Impact from Explosives On or Near the Bottom for Testing Activities 

Under Alternative 2 in a Single Year................................................................................... F-50

Table F-25: Potential Impact from Explosives On or Near the Bottom for Training Activities 

under Alternatives 1 and 2 Over Five Years........................................................................ F-51

Table F-26: Potential Impact from Explosives On or Near the Bottom for Testing Activities 

under Alternatives 1 and 2 Over Five Years........................................................................ F-54

Table F-27: Potential Impact of Military Expended Materials from Training Activities on Each 

Substrate Type in a Single Year........................................................................................... F-56

Table F-28: Potential Impact of Military Expended Materials from Testing Activities on Each 

Substrate Type in a Single Year........................................................................................... F-56

Table F-29: Potential Impact of Military Expended Materials from Training Activities on Each 

Substrate Type over Five Years........................................................................................... F-57

Table F-30: Potential Impact of Military Expended Materials from Testing Activities on Each 

Substrate Type over Five Years........................................................................................... F-58
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

lvii

Table of Contents

Table F-31: Proportional Impact to Bottom Habitat from Training Activities Under 

Alternatives 1 and 2 in a Single Year................................................................................... F-59

Table F-32: Proportional Impact to Bottom Habitat from Testing Activities Under 

Alternatives 1 and 2 in a Single Year................................................................................... F-60

Table F-33: Proportional Impact to Bottom Habitat from Training Activities Under 

Alternatives 1 and 2 over Five Years................................................................................... F-61

Table F-34: Proportional Impact to Bottom Habitat from Testing Activities Under 

Alternatives 1 and 2 over Five Years................................................................................... F-62

Table F-35: Estimated Representative Marine Mammal Exposures from Direct Strike of a 

High Energy Laser by Area and Alternative in a Single Year............................................... F-67

Table F-36: Estimated Representative Sea Turtle Exposures from Direct Strike of a High 

Energy Laser by Area and Alternative in a Single Year ....................................................... F-67

Table F-37: Estimated Representative Marine Mammal Exposures from Direct Strike of 

Military Expended Materials by Area and Alternative in a Single Year.............................. F-68

Table F-38: Estimated Representative Sea Turtle Exposures from Direct Strike of Military 

Expended Materials by Area and Alternative in a Single Year............................................ F-68

Table H.2-1. Agencies and Organizations Who Commented on the Draft Environmental 

Impact Statement/Overseas Environmental Impact Statement ......................................... H-2

Table H.2-2. Private Individual Comment Response Index....................................................................... H-6

Table H.3-1. Comment Response Matrix .................................................................................................. H-8

Table I-1: Data Sources by Feature/Layer...................................................................................................I-1
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

lviii

Table of Contents

This page intentionally left blank.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

A-i

Abbreviations and Acronyms

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

ACRONYM DEFINITION

AFTT Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing 

CFR Code of Federal Regulation

DEIS Draft Environmental Impact 

Statement 

DoD Department of Defense 

EIS Environmental Impact Statement 

ESA Endangered Species Act 

FEIS Final Environmental Impact 

Statement 

MMPA Marine Mammal Protection Act 

Navy U.S. Department of the Navy 

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act 

ACRONYM DEFINITION

NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service 

OEIS Overseas Environmental Impact 

Statement 

OPAREA Operating Area 

PTS Permanent Threshold Shift

SEL Sound Exposure Level

SPL Sound Pressure Level

TTS Temporary Threshold Shift

U.S.C. United States Code

USEPA U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency

USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

A-ii

Abbreviations and Acronyms

This page intentionally left blank.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

i 

Table of Contents

Final 

Environmental Impact Statement/Overseas Environmental Impact Statement 

Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 PURPOSE AND NEED ____________________________________________________________ 1-1

1.1 Introduction ..............................................................................................................1-1

1.2 The Navy’s Environmental Compliance and At-Sea Policy............................................1-2

1.3 Proposed Action ........................................................................................................1-5

1.4 Purpose and Need .....................................................................................................1-6

1.4.1 Why the Navy Trains ............................................................................................. 1-7

1.4.2 Optimized Fleet Response Plan ............................................................................. 1-9

1.4.2.1 Maintenance Phase ............................................................................. 1-10

1.4.2.2 Basic Phase........................................................................................... 1-10

1.4.2.3 Advanced Phase................................................................................... 1-11

1.4.2.4 Integrated Phase.................................................................................. 1-11

1.4.2.5 Sustainment Phase .............................................................................. 1-12

1.4.3 Why the Navy Tests ............................................................................................. 1-12

1.4.3.1 Types of Testing ................................................................................... 1-13

1.4.3.2 Methods of Testing.............................................................................. 1-14

1.5 Overview and Strategic Importance of Existing Range Complexes and 

Testing Ranges......................................................................................................... 1-15

1.6 The Environmental Planning Process........................................................................ 1-16

1.6.1 National Environmental Policy Act Requirements............................................... 1-16

1.6.2 Executive Order 12114......................................................................................... 1-17

1.6.3 Other Environmental Requirements Considered ................................................ 1-17

1.6.3.1 Federal Statutes................................................................................... 1-17

1.6.3.2 Executive Orders.................................................................................. 1-20

1.7 Scope and Content................................................................................................... 1-21

1.8 Organization of this Environmental Impact Statement/Overseas 

Environmental Impact Statement............................................................................. 1-21
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

ii 

Table of Contents

List of Figures 

Figure 1.2-1: Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing Study Area..................................................................... 1-3

Figure 1.4-1: Optimized Fleet Response Plan .......................................................................................... 1-10

Figure 1.6-1: National Environmental Policy Act Process........................................................................ 1-16

List of Tables

This section does not contain tables.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

1-1 

1.0 Purpose and Need

1 PURPOSE AND NEED

1.1 INTRODUCTION

The United States (U.S.) Department of the Navy (Navy) proposes to conduct training activities 

(hereinafter referred to as “training”) and research, development, testing, and evaluation (hereinafter 

referred to as “testing”) activities in the Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing (AFTT) Study Area, as 

represented in Figure 1.2-1. When discussed together, training and testing are also referred to as 

“military readiness activities.” These military readiness activities include the use of active sonar and 

explosives within existing range complexes and testing ranges, in high seas areas located in the Atlantic 

Ocean along the eastern coast of North America, in portions of the Caribbean Sea and the Gulf of 

Mexico, at Navy pier side locations, within port transit channels, near civilian ports, and in bays, harbors, 

and inshore waterways (e.g., lower Chesapeake Bay). These military readiness activities are generally 

consistent with those analyzed in the AFTT Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)/Overseas 

Environmental Impact Statement (OEIS) completed in August 2013 and are representative of training 

and testing that the Navy has been conducting in the AFTT Study Area for decades.

The United States is facing increased global disorder, characterized by decline in the long-standing, 

rules-based international order and creating a more complex and volatile security environment. Major 

conflicts, terrorism, outlaw actions, and natural disasters all have the potential to threaten national 

security of the United States. The security, prosperity, and vital interests of the United States are 

increasingly tied to other nations because of the close relationships between the United States and 

other national economies. The Navy operates on the world’s oceans, seas, and coastal areas—the 

international maritime domain—on which 90 percent of the world’s trade and two-thirds of its oil are 

transported. The majority of the world’s population also lives within a few hundred miles of an ocean. 

The U.S. Navy carries out training and testing activities to be able to protect the United States against its 

potential adversaries, to protect and defend the rights and interests of the United States and its allies to 

move freely on the oceans, and to provide humanitarian assistance. 

The Navy has historically used the areas along the eastern coast of the United States and in the Gulf of 

Mexico for training and testing. These areas have been designated by the Navy as “range complexes” 

and testing ranges (Figure 1.2-1). Range complexes provide controlled environments where military 

ship, submarine, and aircraft crews can train in realistic conditions while safely deconflicting with 

non-military activities, such as civilian shipping and aircraft. The combination of undersea ranges and 

operating areas (OPAREAs) with land training ranges, divert airfields, and nearshore amphibious landing 

sites is critical to realistic training and testing. A test range may have electronic instrumentation 

including radar, optical tracking, and communication systems. Electronics on the ranges capture 

important data on the effectiveness of tactics and equipment—data that provide a feedback mechanism 

for training evaluation. While these at-sea areas provide ideal training and testing environments for the 

Navy, these areas are shared with civilian and commercial vessels and aircraft; these are not areas over 

which the Navy has exclusive control. 

Military readiness activities which prepare the Navy to fulfill its mission to protect and defend the 

United States and its allies, have the potential to impact the environment. The Navy prepared this 

EIS/OEIS to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and Executive Order 12114, 

Environmental Effects Abroad of Major Federal Actions, by assessing the potential environmental 

impacts associated with two categories of military readiness activities conducted at sea: training and
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

1-2 

1.0 Purpose and Need

testing. Collectively, the at-sea areas in this EIS/OEIS are referred to as the AFTT Study Area (Figure 

1.2-1).

Training. Naval personnel (Sailors and Marines) first undergo entry-level (or schoolhouse) training, 

which varies according to their assigned warfare community (aviation, surface warfare, submarine 

warfare, and special warfare) and the community’s unique requirements. Personnel then train within 

their warfare community at sea in preparation for deployment; each warfare community has primary 

mission areas (areas of specialized expertise that may involve or overlap with multiple warfare 

communities) that are described in detail in Chapter 2 (Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives). 

Testing. The Navy researches, develops, tests, and evaluates new platforms1, systems, and technologies, 

collectively known as testing. Many tests require realistic conditions at sea and can range from testing 

new software to complex operations of multiple systems and platforms. Testing activities may occur 

independent of or in conjunction with training activities. 

1.2 THE NAVY’S ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE AND AT-SEA POLICY

In 2000, the Navy completed a review of its environmental compliance requirements for exercises and 

training at sea. The Navy then instituted the “At-Sea Policy” to ensure compliance with applicable 

environmental regulations and policies, and preserve the flexibility necessary for the Navy and Marine 

Corps to train and test at sea. This policy directed, in part, that Fleet Commanders develop a 

programmatic approach to environmental compliance at sea for ranges and OPAREAs within their 

respective geographic areas of responsibility (U.S. Department of the Navy, 2000). Those ranges affected 

by the “At-Sea Policy” are designated water areas, sometimes containing instrumentation that are 

managed and used to conduct training and testing activities. Some ranges are further broken down into 

OPAREAs, to better manage and deconflict military readiness activities. 

In 2005, the Navy and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reached an agreement on a 

coordinated programmatic strategy for assessing certain environmental effects of military readiness 

activities at sea. The Navy is currently in the third phase of implementing this programmatic approach.

Phase I of environmental planning. The first phase of the planning program was accomplished by the 

preparation and completion of individual or separate environmental documents for each range complex 

and OPAREA. The Navy prepared NEPA/Executive Order 12114 documents for range complexes, testing 

ranges, and OPAREAs off the east coast and in the Gulf of Mexico—the Atlantic Fleet Active Sonar 

Training EIS/OEIS, Virginia Capes EIS/OEIS, Cherry Point EIS/OEIS, Jacksonville Range Complex EIS/OEIS, 

Undersea Warfare Training Range EIS/OEIS, Gulf of Mexico EIS/OEIS, and Naval Surface Warfare Panama 

City Division EIS/OEIS—to analyze training and testing activities.

 

1 Throughout this EIS/OEIS, ships, submarines, and aircraft may be referred to as “platforms”; weapons, combat systems, 

sensors, and related equipment may be referred to as “systems.”
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

1-3 

1.0 Purpose and Need

 Notes: AFTT: Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing; NAS: Naval Air Station; OPAREA: Operating Area; SINKEX: Sinking Exercise; VACAPES: Virginia Capes

Figure 1.2-1: Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing Study Area
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

1-4 

1.0 Purpose and Need

This page intentionally left blank.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

1-5 

1.0 Purpose and Need

These range complexes pre-date World War II and have been used by U.S. naval forces continuously 

since then for training and testing activities. Phase I NEPA/Executive Order 12114 documents catalogued 

training and testing activities; analyzed potential environmental impacts; and supported other 

requirements under applicable environmental laws, regulations, and executive orders. For example, 

Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) [16 United States Code (U.S.C.) sections 1361–1407] incidental 

take authorizations and incidental take statements under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) (16 U.S.C.

sections 1531–1544) were issued by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) to the Navy for range 

complexes on the east coast and in the Gulf of Mexico and the Naval Surface Warfare Center, Panama 

City Division testing range in the Gulf of Mexico; those MMPA authorizations began expiring in early 

2014. 

Phase II of environmental planning. The second phase of the Navy’s environmental compliance

planning covered activities and existing ranges and OPAREAs previously analyzed in the Phase I 

NEPA/Executive Order 12114 documents and additional geographic areas including, but not limited to, 

pierside locations and transit corridors. The Phase II EIS/OEIS for AFTT combined the geographic scope 

of the range complexes and testing ranges off the east coast and in the Gulf of Mexico, as well as study 

areas covered in NEPA documents for other at-sea areas on the east coast, and analyzed ongoing, 

routine at-sea activities that occur during transit between these range complexes, testing ranges, and 

OPAREAs. The Navy expanded the geographic scope to include additional areas where military readiness 

activities historically occurred and also included new platforms and systems not addressed in previous 

NEPA/Executive Order 12114 documents. As was done in Phase I, the Navy used this analysis to support 

new regulatory consultations and new requests for Letters of Authorization (set to expire in November 

2018) under the MMPA and incidental take statements under the ESA.

Phase III of environmental planning. The third phase of the Navy’s environmental compliance planning 

covers similar types of Navy training and testing activities as were analyzed in Phase II. The Navy has 

re-evaluated impacts from these ongoing activities in existing ranges, OPAREAs, and testing ranges, 

including activities that occur during transit between these range complexes, testing ranges, and 

OPAREAs. 

Navy has also analyzed new or changing military readiness activities into the reasonably foreseeable 

future based on evolving operational requirements, including those associated with new platforms and 

systems not previously analyzed. The Navy has thoroughly reviewed and incorporated into this analysis 

the best available science relevant to analyzing the environmental impacts of the proposed activities. As 

with previous Phases, the Navy will use this new analysis to support environmental compliance with 

other applicable environmental laws, such as the MMPA and ESA.

1.3 PROPOSED ACTION

The Navy’s Proposed Action, described in detail in Chapter 2 (Description of Proposed Action and 

Alternatives), is to conduct military readiness activities in the western Atlantic Ocean off the east coast 

of the United States, in the Gulf of Mexico, and portions of the Caribbean Sea. These activities will also 

occur at Navy pierside locations, Navy-contracted shipbuilder locations, port transit channels, and select 

bays, harbors and inshore waters, e.g., Chesapeake Bay (see Figure 1.2-1 and Section 2.1, Description of 

the Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing Study Area, for more detail on the geographic areas analyzed with 

regard to the Proposed Action). 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

1-6 

1.0 Purpose and Need

1.4 PURPOSE AND NEED 

The Navy and NMFS (as a cooperating agency) have coordinated from the outset and developed this 

document to meet each agency’s distinct NEPA obligations and support the decision making of both 

agencies. The Navy’s purpose for the Proposed Action is to ensure that the Navy meets its mission, 

which is to maintain, train, and equip combat-ready naval forces capable of winning wars, deterring 

aggression, and maintaining freedom of the seas. This mission is achieved in part by conducting training 

and testing within the Study Area in accordance with established Navy military readiness requirements. 

The sections that follow provide a description of the need for military readiness activities.

The Navy has requested authorization to take marine mammals incidental to conducting their testing 

and training activities in the Study Area by Level A and B harassment, serious injury, and/or mortality. 

Take under the MMPA is defined as “to harass, hunt, capture, or kill, or attempt to harass, hunt, 

capture, or kill any marine mammal.” For military readiness activities, harassment is defined as “(i) any 

act that injures or has the significant potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in 

the wild [Level A harassment] or (ii) any act that disturbs or is likely to disturb a marine mammal or 

marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of natural behavioral patterns, including, but not 

limited to, migration, surfacing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering, to a point where such 

behavioral patterns are abandoned or significantly altered [Level B harassment].” 

NMFS has issued proposed regulations and is considering issuance of subsequent Letters of 

Authorization under section 101(a)(5)(A) of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended 

(MMPA; 16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.) that would govern the taking of marine mammals incidental to the Navy 

training and testing activities within the Study Area. The issuance of regulations and associated Letters 

of Authorization to the Navy is a major federal action requiring NMFS to analyze the effects of their 

issuance on the human environment pursuant to NEPA requirements and National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) policies. 

The purpose of issuing incidental take authorizations is to provide an exception to the take prohibition in 

the MMPA and to ensure that the action complies with the MMPA and implementing regulations. 

Incidental take authorizations may be issued as either: (1) regulations and associated Letters of 

Authorization under section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA or (2) Incidental Harassment Authorizations 

under section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA. An Incidental Harassment Authorizations can be issued only 

when there is no potential for serious injury or mortality or where any such potential can be negated 

through required mitigation measures. Because some of the activities under the Proposed Action may 

create a potential for lethal takes or takes that may result in serious injury that could lead to mortality, 

the Navy is requesting rulemaking and the issuance of Letters of Authorization for this action.

NMFS’s purpose is to evaluate the Navy's Proposed Action pursuant to NMFS’s authority under the 

MMPA, and to make a determination whether to issue incidental take regulations and Letters of 

Authorization, including any conditions needed to meet the statutory mandates of the MMPA. To 

authorize the incidental take of marine mammals, NMFS evaluates the best available scientific 

information to determine whether the take would have a negligible impact on the affected marine 

mammal species or stocks and an unmitigable impact on their availability for taking for subsistence uses 

(not relevant here for Navy’s Proposed Action). NMFS must also prescribe permissible methods of 

taking, other "means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact" on the affected species or stocks 

and their habitat, and monitoring and reporting requirements. NMFS cannot issue an incidental take 

authorization unless it can make the required findings. The need for NMFS's action is to consider the 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

1-7 

1.0 Purpose and Need

Title 10 section 5062 of the U.S.C.

provides: “The Navy shall be organized, 

trained, and equipped primarily for 

prompt and sustained combat incident to 

operations at sea. It is responsible for the 

preparation of naval forces necessary for 

the effective prosecution of war except as 

otherwise assigned and, in accordance 

with integrated joint mobilization plans, 

for the expansion of the peacetime 

components of the Navy to meet the 

needs of war.”

impacts of the Navy’s activities on marine mammals and meet NMFS’ obligations under the MMPA. This 

Final EIS analyzes the environmental impacts associated with issuance of the requested authorization of 

the take of marine mammals incidental to the training and testing activities within the Study Area, to 

include a variety of mitigation measures that were considered during the MMPA authorization process. 

The analysis of mitigation measures considers benefits to species or stocks and their habitat, and 

analyzes the practicability and efficacy of each measure. This analysis of mitigation measures was used 

to support requirements pertaining to mitigation, monitoring, and reporting that would be specified in 

final MMPA regulations and subsequent Letters of Authorization.

1.4.1 WHY THE NAVY TRAINS

As described above, the Navy is statutorily mandated to 

protect U.S. national security by being ready, at all 

times, to effectively prosecute war and defend the 

nation by conducting operations at sea. The Navy is 

essential to protecting U.S. national interests, 

considering that 70 percent of the earth is covered in 

water, 80 percent of the planet’s population lives within 

close proximity to coastal areas, and 90 percent of 

global commerce is conducted by sea. Naval forces must 

be ready for a variety of military operations to address

the dynamic, social, political, economic, and

environmental issues that occur in today’s rapidly evolving world. Through its continuous presence on 

the world’s oceans, the Navy can respond to a wide range of situations because, on any given day, over 

one-third of its ships, submarines, and aircraft are deployed overseas. Units must be able to respond 

promptly and effectively while forward deployed. This presence helps to dissuade aggression, which 

prevents conflict escalation, and provides the President with options to promptly address global 

contingencies. Before deploying, naval forces must train to develop a broad range of capabilities to 

respond to threats, from full-scale armed conflict in a variety of different geographic areas and 

environmental conditions to humanitarian assistance and disaster relief efforts. This also prepares Navy 

personnel to be proficient in operating and maintaining the equipment, weapons, and systems they will 

use to conduct their assigned missions. The training process provides personnel with an in-depth 

understanding of their individual limits and capabilities; the training process also helps the testing 

community improve new weapon systems’ capabilities and effectiveness.

Modern weapons bring both unprecedented opportunities and challenges to the Navy. For example, 

precision (or smart) weapons help the Navy accomplish its mission with greater accuracy with far less 

collateral damage than in past conflicts; however, modern weapons are also very complex to use. 

Military personnel must train regularly with these weapons to understand the capabilities, limitations, 

and operations of the platform or system, as well as how to keep them operational under difficult 

conditions and without readily available technical or logistical assistance. 

Modern military actions require teamwork among hundreds or thousands of people, across vast 

geographic areas, and the coordinated use of various equipment, ships, aircraft, and vehicles (e.g.,
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

1-8 

1.0 Purpose and Need

unmanned aerial systems) to achieve success. Personnel increase in skill level by completing basic and

specialized individual military training, then they advance to intermediate (e.g., unit-level training) and 

larger exercise training events, which culminate in advanced, integrated training composed of large 

groups of personnel and, in some instances, joint or combined exercises.2

Military readiness training must be as realistic as possible to provide the experiences vital to success and 

survival during military operations because simulated training, even in technologically advanced 

simulators, cannot duplicate the complexity faced by Sailors and Marines in the real world. While 

simulators and synthetic training are critical elements that provide early skill repetition and enhance 

teamwork, there is no substitute for live training in a realistic environment. Just as a pilot would not be 

ready to fly solo after simulator training, a Navy commander cannot allow military personnel to engage 

in military operations based merely on simulator training.

The large size of the range complex is essential to allow for realistic training scenarios that prepare 

Sailors and Marines for real-world operations. Only a large range complex offers the space necessary for 

operations such as the launch and recovery of aircraft or replenishment maneuvers which require a 

straight line course at a fixed speed for a sustained period of time. For example, in light wind conditions, 

to maintain a safe wind speed over the carrier’s deck of 20 knots, flight operations taking 30 to 

60 minutes would require traveling in a straight line over a distance of at least 10 to 20 nautical miles 

(NM) before any restrictive boundary was approached. Furthermore, multiple fixed wing aircraft landing 

on an aircraft carrier must be organized into a holding pattern, typically located 10 to 50 NM distance 

from the carrier, depending on several factors, including weather conditions, visibility, the number of 

aircraft waiting to land, and the condition of the aircraft (e.g., fuel remaining). To practice this maneuver 

safely away from civilian airspace, the carrier would need to be 20 to 50 NM away from any OPAREA 

boundary. In short, safe and effective Navy training often requires expansive operating areas due to a 

number of complex and interrelated factors. 

The Navy also requires extensive areas of ocean to conduct its training in order to properly separate and 

coordinate different training events so that individual training events do not interfere with each other or 

with public and commercial vessels and aircraft. For example, hazardous activities such as gunnery or 

missile fire from a vessel in one training event would need to be conducted away from other training 

events. Additionally, large areas of ocean are required to ensure different training events can be 

conducted safely while minimizing the risks inherent in military training, such as aircraft flying too 

closely to one another or to commercial airways. Navy ships must also train to operate at long 

distances—often hundreds of miles—from each other while still maintaining a common picture of the 

“battlespace” so that individual Navy units can be coordinated to achieve a common objective. 

Separation of Navy units may also be required to ensure that participants of other exercises do not 

experience interference with sensors. 

This need for expansive sea space is even more critical today as the Navy has a renewed emphasis on 

“sea control,” which is the need to secure large areas of oceans from other highly capable naval forces. 

When the Cold War ended, the Navy emerged unchallenged and dominant. That dominance allowed the 

Navy to focus on projecting power ashore. The balance between sea control and power projection 

 

2 Large group exercises may include carrier strike groups, expeditionary strike groups, other U.S. services, and other nations. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

1-9 

1.0 Purpose and Need

tipped strongly in favor of the latter, and the Navy’s surface force evolved accordingly. The Navy’s 

proficiency in land-attack and maritime security operations reached new heights, while foundational 

skills in anti-submarine warfare and anti-surface warfare slowly began to erode. The emergence of more 

sophisticated capabilities by potential adversaries will require the Navy to operate farther from their 

coastline in times of conflict, and the modernization of navies able to challenge the U.S. Navy directly 

means that control of the seas can no longer be assumed. In response, the Navy is developing a model 

of “distributed lethality,” which is intended to enhance the offensive power of individual surface ships. 

The concept of distributed lethality enables the goal of sea control where and when needed. It is 

achieved by increasing the offensive and defensive capability of individual warships, employing them in 

dispersed formations across a wide expanse of geography (e.g., hundreds of thousands of square miles). 

Extensive areas of ocean are required to effectively conduct distributed lethality training. 

1.4.2 OPTIMIZED FLEET RESPONSE PLAN

The Fleet Response Plan that the Navy operated under during Phase I and II emphasized constant 

readiness. The Fleet Response Plan identified the number of personnel and vessels that had to be ready 

to deploy on short notice (i.e., surge) in order to respond to rapidly evolving world events. For example, 

the Fleet Response Plan mandated that the Navy be able to deploy six aircraft carrier strike groups3

within 3 months of a crisis and follow those with two more strike groups within 3 months after the first 

six deployed. Additionally, the Fleet Response Plan was based on a notional maintenance schedule and 

strike group deployments of 6 months in length and approximately 27 months between deployments. 

However, due to world events and the need for naval forces to be located overseas, Navy vessels were 

actually deployed for longer periods, resulting in longer maintenance periods. The Fleet Response Plan 

no longer represented actual fleet readiness preparation. 

In December 2014 the Navy initiated the Optimized Fleet Response Plan, which reinforces the three 

tenets of “Warfighting First – Operate Forward – Be Ready” (U.S. Department of the Navy, 2014a). The 

Optimized Fleet Response Plan achieves this by better aligning manning distribution with operational 

requirements; optimizing maintenance and modernization plans; improving the overall quality of work 

and life balance for personnel; and ensuring that forces deploy with the right capabilities, properly 

trained and equipped to meet mission objectives. Like the previous plan, the Optimized Fleet Response 

Plan maintains a surge requirement by sustaining readiness of deployment-certified forces to enable 

three aircraft carrier strike groups in both the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans to respond to a national crisis. 

The Optimized Fleet Response Plan is now based on notional 7-month deployments and approximately 

36 months between deployments. Following the Optimized Fleet Response Plan allows the Navy to 

respond timely to global events with the proper forces while maintaining a structured process that 

ensures continuous availability of trained, ready Navy forces. 

The Optimized Fleet Response Plan outlines the training activities required to achieve a state of military 

readiness that will allow Navy personnel to execute operations as ordered by their commanders, to 

include responding to a conflict. The plan uses a building-block approach where initial basic training 

complements later phases of more complex training, with each phase building upon the skills obtained 

 

3 While strike groups could be configured differently, a typical aircraft carrier strike group would include an aircraft 

carrier, a guided missile cruiser, two guided missile destroyers, an attack submarine, and a supply ship.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

1-10 

1.0 Purpose and Need

in the previous phase. Specifically, training activities proceed in five phases: maintenance, basic,

advanced, integrated, and sustainment, as depicted in Figure 1.4-1. The training events that occur in 

each of these phases are designed to prepare Sailors for the multitude of contingencies they may face, 

ranging from large strike group level activities such as defending against submarine or mine threats, 

conducting long-range bombing missions, putting Marines ashore in a hostile environment, to 

humanitarian responses for natural catastrophes such as earthquakes and hurricanes. To ensure Sailors 

and Marines can perform the variety of missions they could face, the training building blocks are 

designed to maximize their effectiveness at accomplishing the mission safely and professionally.

The Optimized Fleet Response Plan 

cycle starts at the beginning of the 

maintenance phase and ends upon 

the beginning of the next 

maintenance phase, as detailed 

below. Readiness increases 

throughout the cycle and culminates 

with the highest level of readiness at 

the end of the integrated or advanced 

phase.

1.4.2.1 Maintenance Phase

The beginning of the maintenance 

phase signals the start of the 

Optimized Fleet Response Plan cycle.

The goal of this phase is on-time 

completion of maintenance and 

modernization so that units are able 

to begin training and adhere to the 

Optimized Fleet Response Plan 

training schedule. All deployable Navy 

forces have a maintenance phase, 

which varies among different types of 

forces. The maintenance phase is 

critical to the success of the Optimized Fleet Response Plan since this represents the ideal time for major 

shipyard repairs, upgrades, and platform modernization. Also during this phase, Navy forces will 

complete required inspections, certifications, assist visits, and individual and team training to achieve 

required levels of personnel, equipment, supply, and ordnance readiness.

1.4.2.2 Basic Phase

The intent of the basic phase is to focus on the development of core capabilities and skills through the 

completion of basic-level training, inspections, certifications, and assessments. Achieving required levels 

of personnel, equipment, supply, and ordnance readiness is essential to success in subsequent 

Optimized Fleet Response Plan phases. Units that have completed all basic phase requirements are 

ready for more complex training and are capable of independent operations in support of homeland 

security, humanitarian assistance, and disaster relief missions.

Figure 1.4-1: Optimized Fleet Response Plan
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

1-11 

1.0 Purpose and Need

The basic phase consists of training exercises performed by individual ships and aircraft and is mostly 

characterized as unit-level training. Unit-level training focuses on fundamental combat skills for a unit, 

such as an individual ship. Operating area and range support requirements for unit-level training are 

relatively modest compared to large-scale, major exercises. Coordinated unit-level exercises involve two 

or more units, such as ships, aircraft, or both and are also included in the basic phase. These exercises 

further refine the basic, fundamental skills while increasing difficulty by requiring coordination with 

other units.

Due to the repetition required in unit-level training, proximity of local range complexes to the locations 

where Sailors and Marines are stationed is important, as it reduces the amount of travel time and 

training costs during the basic phase of training. Access to local ranges also increases the time these 

Sailors and Marines can spend at home, with their families and communities before going on long 

deployments.

Ships and aircraft conducting basic phase training are likely operating in the same range complex or 

OPAREA where other units are conducting unrelated activities in the basic phase, integrated phase, or 

sustainment phase. Without sufficiently sized OPAREAs, this necessary, simultaneous training could not 

occur.

1.4.2.3 Advanced Phase

The purpose of the advanced phase is to build on unit warfighting capabilities through academic, 

synthetic, and live training in advanced training, tactics, and procedures in all mission areas within a 

challenging warfighting environment. This phase provides an opportunity to hone advanced training, 

tactics, and procedures with other units and conduct mission-specific training to meet mission 

requirements while maintaining proficiency attained in the basic phase. The advanced phase provides a 

sufficient block of time to complete required inspections, certifications, assessments, visits, and training. 

This phase includes attainment of acceptable unit warfighting proficiency in all required mission areas 

and completion of mission-specific training for identified mission sets. Upon completion of the advanced 

phase, most Navy forces will aggregate into a strike group, amphibious ready group, or other combined 

arms force and commence the integrated phase of training. Occasionally, forces will not conduct an 

integrated phase of training because, for example, they will be ordered to deploy independently 

(separate from a strike group or amphibious ready group). In those instances, these units will be 

certified to deploy following the advanced phase. 

1.4.2.4 Integrated Phase

The goal of the integrated phase is to provide these units and staffs advanced warfare skills in a 

challenging, multidimensional, and realistic threat warfare environment. This phase allows members of 

a combined force to build on individual and unit-level skills and conduct multi-unit in-port and at-sea 

training, culminating in an assessment of their performance under high-end and high-stress realistic 

threat conditions. The integrated phase combines the units that have completed the advanced phase of 

training into strike groups (such as an Amphibious Ready Group). Strike groups are composed of 

multiple ships and aircraft operating together but covering many, sometimes thousands of square miles

to simulate a real-world situation. For example, a strike group may be expected to operate in 

coordinated fashion in the entire Persian Gulf or Mediterranean Sea. Major exercises in this phase 

require access to large, relatively unrestricted areas of ocean and airspace, multiple targets, and unique 

range attributes (complex and varying oceanographic features, close proximity to naval bases, and 

land-based targets). 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

1-12 

1.0 Purpose and Need

The integrated phase concludes with certification for deployment, meaning that the strike group has 

demonstrated the skills and proficiencies across the entire spectrum of warfare that may be needed 

during deployment.

1.4.2.5 Sustainment Phase

The sustainment phase includes all activities and training following certification for deployment until the 

next maintenance phase begins. The goal of the sustainment phase is to provide strike groups with 

training that allows forces to maintain their highest level of readiness and proficiency, as well as the 

ability to evaluate new and developing technologies, and evaluate and develop new tactics. The strike 

group needs to continue training after certification for deployment and upon return from deployment 

up until it enters the maintenance phase, to maintain its perishable skills. 

Similar to the integrated phase, sustainment exercises require access to large, relatively unrestricted 

areas of ocean and airspace and unique range attributes to support the scenarios.

Ships and aircraft conducting sustainment phase training are likely operating in the same range complex 

or OPAREA where other units are conducting unrelated activities in the basic phase, advanced phase, 

integrated phase, or sustainment phase. Without sufficiently sized OPAREAs, this necessary, 

simultaneous training could not occur.

1.4.3 WHY THE NAVY TESTS

The Navy’s research and acquisition community, including research funding organizations, laboratory 

facilities, and systems commands, have a mission to provide weapons, systems, and platforms for the 

men and women of the Navy that support their missions and give them a technological edge over the 

United States’ adversaries. This community is at the forefront of researching, developing, testing, 

evaluating, acquiring, and delivering modern platforms, systems, and related equipment to meet Fleet 

capability and readiness requirements while providing the necessary high return on investment to the 

American taxpayer. The Navy’s research funding organizations and laboratories concentrate primarily on 

the development of new science and technology and include the initial testing of concepts that are 

relevant to the Navy of the future. The results of these research efforts carry forward to the ship, 

aircraft, and weapon system products developed by systems commands, who support the full lifecycle 

of product and service delivery from research and development, to testing, acquisition, and deployment, 

to operations and logistics support, including maintenance, repair, and modernization of Navy platforms 

(e.g., ships, aircraft), weapon systems, and components. Testing begins at the research and 

development phase and continues through to the final certification of systems and hardware. For 

example, the building of a new ship would involve the development of all the software and hardware 

systems within the ship, the construction of the ship itself, and testing the ship’s seaworthiness and 

operation of its systems. After delivery to the fleet, the testing community supports maintenance, 

provides updates to software and hardware systems, and may include training Sailors on the operation 

of the ship’s systems. 

The Navy’s research, acquisition, and testing community includes the following:

• Naval Air Systems Command, which develops, acquires, delivers, and sustains naval aviation 

aircraft, weapons, and systems with proven capability and reliability to ensure Sailors and 

Marines achieve mission success. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

1-13 

1.0 Purpose and Need

• Naval Sea Systems Command, which develops, acquires, delivers, and maintains surface ships, 

submarines, unmanned vehicles, and weapon system platforms that provide the right capability 

to the Sailors and Marines. 

• Office of Naval Research, which is a research funding organization that plans, fosters, 

encourages, and conducts a broad program of scientific research (at universities, industry, small 

business, etc.) that promotes future naval sea power, enhances national security, and meets the 

complex technological challenges of today’s world. The Office of Naval Research is also a parent 

command for the Naval Research Laboratory, which operates as the Navy’s corporate research 

laboratory and conducts a multidisciplinary program of scientific research. 

• Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command, which provides the Sailor with knowledge 

superiority by developing, delivering, and maintaining effective, capable, and integrated 

command, control, communications, computer, intelligence, and surveillance systems. 

The Navy’s systems commands design, test, and build component, system, and platforms to address 

requirements identified by the fleet. The Navy’s systems commands must test and evaluate the 

platform, system, or upgrade to validate whether it performs as expected and to determine whether it is 

operationally effective, suitable, survivable, and safe for its intended use by the fleet.

1.4.3.1 Types of Testing

Testing performed by the Navy’s research and acquisition community can be categorized as scientific 

research testing, performance and specification testing, developmental testing, operational testing, fleet 

training support, follow-on test and evaluation, lot acceptance testing, or maintenance and repair 

testing. Fleet training events often offer the most suitable environment for testing a system because 

training events are designed to accurately replicate operational conditions. Testing, therefore, is often 

embedded in fleet training events such that distinguishing a testing event from a training event would 

be difficult for an observer, as the only difference could be the purpose for which the activity was being 

conducted. Categories of testing events include:

• Scientific research testing. Scientific research testing is required to evaluate emerging threats or 

technology enhancement before development of a new system. As an example, testing might 

occur on a current weapon system to determine if a newly developed technology would 

improve system accuracy or enhance safety to personnel. Additionally, scientific research 

involves the use of devices to measure the properties of the environment in which a system may 

operate. For example, acoustic propagation experiments are conducted in particular 

environments to see how far acoustic signals produced by current and future operational 

systems could travel. Other research activities involve the transmission of acoustic signals 

designed to convey information from one platform to another. This “acoustic communication” is 

also very dependent on environmental conditions and needs to be studied where a variety of 

these conditions occur.

• Performance and specification testing. Performance and specification tests are required prior 

to Navy acceptance of a new system or platform. These tests may be conducted on a Navy 

testing range, in a Navy range complex, or at pierside locations; these tests are sometimes done 

in conjunction with fleet training activities.

• Developmental testing. Developmental tests are conducted to assist in the design of a platform 

or system and to ensure that technical performance specifications have been met. For example, 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

1-14 

1.0 Purpose and Need

a weapon system may be tested using prescribed settings (e.g., a specific run pattern) to ensure 

the full range of system parameters can be met. 

• Operational testing. Operational tests are conducted by specialized Navy units to evaluate the 

platform or system under conditions as it would be used by the fleet during operations. For 

example, a weapons system may be tested without prearranged settings, such that the 

specialized unit conducting the test can make adjustments as necessary for the prevailing 

conditions.

• Fleet training support. Fleet training support is conducted when systems still under 

development may be integrated on ships or aircraft for testing, and new platforms and systems 

are transitioned to the fleet once they are ready for operational use. During this effort, the 

Navy’s systems commands may provide training on the operation, maintenance, and repair of 

the system during developmental testing activities.

• Follow-on test and evaluation. A follow-on test and evaluation occurs when a platform receives 

a new system, after a significant upgrade to an existing system, or when the system failed to 

meet performance specifications during previous testing. Follow-on tests and evaluations 

ensure that the modified or new system meets performance requirements and does not conflict 

with existing platform systems and subsystems. 

• Lot acceptance testing. Lot acceptance tests evaluate systems from the Department of Defense

contractor’s production line to ensure that the manufacturer is producing systems that conform 

to specifications and perform as designed. Lot acceptance testing serves as the Navy’s quality 

control check of the system before it is delivered to the fleet.

• Maintenance and repair testing. Following periodic maintenance, overhaul, modernization, or 

repair of systems, testing of the systems may be required to assess performance. These testing 

activities may be conducted at sea, in shipyards, or at Navy piers.

Preparatory checks of a platform or system are often made during Navy repair and construction 

activities prior to actual testing to ensure the platform or system is operating properly before expending 

the often-considerable resources involved in conducting a full-scale test. For example, a surface 

combatant may conduct a functional check of its hull-mounted sonar system in a nearshore area before 

conducting a more rigorous test of the sonar system farther offshore. 

1.4.3.2 Methods of Testing

The Navy uses a number of different testing methods, including computer simulation and analysis as 

well as at-sea testing, throughout the development of platforms and systems. Although computer 

simulation is a key component in the development of platforms and systems, it cannot provide 

information on how a platform or system will perform or whether it will be able to meet performance 

and other specification requirements in the environment in which it is intended to operate. Actual 

performance data are needed. For this reason, platforms and systems must undergo at-sea testing at 

some point in the development process. Thus, as with fleet training, the research and acquisition 

community requires access to large, relatively unrestricted ocean OPAREAs, multiple strike targets, and 

unique range attributes to support its testing requirements.

Navy platforms and systems must be tested and evaluated within the broadest range of operating 

conditions available (e.g., bathymetry, topography, geography, oceanographic conditions) because Navy 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

1-15 

1.0 Purpose and Need

personnel must be capable and confident to perform missions within the wide range of conditions that 

exist worldwide. 

However, forecasting when technologies will be mature for testing is not easy. Programs and projects 

that have successfully completed the research and development stage and are determined mature 

enough to transition into an official, fully funded program have more defined test requirements. 

However, programs and projects are still subject to fiscal constraints and technical challenges that can 

often delay their development or even cancel continuation. Technical issues can require that systems or 

platforms undergo additional tests. Continued upgrades and maintenance of systems may occur on 

variable schedules due to availability, emergent requirements, or unforeseen system issues. Therefore, 

the types, amounts, and locations of testing activities may vary across different programs and projects in 

any given year. For all of these reasons, capturing the future testing requirements for platform, 

weapons, and system programs is challenging and reflects the system commands’ best estimation based 

on historical and current best available information. To ensure comprehensive environmental impact 

analysis in this EIS/OEIS, the Navy assumes that all proposed testing projects will proceed as scheduled, 

with no unexpected delays. 

1.5 OVERVIEW AND STRATEGIC IMPORTANCE OF EXISTING RANGE COMPLEXES 

AND TESTING RANGES

The range complexes and testing ranges analyzed in this EIS/OEIS have each existed for many decades, 

some dating back to the 1940s. Range use and infrastructure have developed over time as military 

readiness requirements in support of modern warfare have evolved. 

Proximity of the AFTT range complexes to naval homeports and air stations is strategically important to 

the Navy. Close access allows for efficient execution of military readiness activities including 

maintenance functions, as well as access to alternate airfields when necessary in order to provide for a 

margin of safety. Fuel is saved and equipment is exposed to less wear when ranges are near where the 

platforms are based. The proximity of training to homeports also ensures that Sailors and Marines do 

not spend unnecessary time away from their families during the training cycle. Additionally, the Navy 

Personnel Tempo and Operating Tempo Program requires the Navy to track and, where possible, limit 

the amount of time Sailors and Marines spend deployed from home (U.S. Department of the Navy, 

2014b). Less time away from home is an important factor in military readiness, morale, and retention. 

The proximate availability of the AFTT range complexes is critical to Navy efforts in these areas.

The following range complexes and testing ranges are located in the AFTT Study Area and are described 

in further detail in Section 2.1 (Description of the Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing Study Area), as 

depicted in Figure 1.2-1: 

• Northeast Range Complexes 

• Naval Undersea Warfare Center Division, Newport Testing Range

• Virginia Capes Range Complex 

• Navy Cherry Point Range Complex 

• Jacksonville Range Complex

• Naval Surface Warfare Center Carderock Division, South Florida Ocean Measurement Facility 

Testing Range 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

1-16 

1.0 Purpose and Need

• Key West Range Complex

• Gulf of Mexico Range Complex

• Naval Surface Warfare Center, Panama City Division Testing Range

1.6 THE ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING PROCESS

This EIS/OEIS is designed to comply with the requirements of both NEPA and Executive Order 12114, 

Environmental Effects Abroad of Major Federal Actions, and support 

additional legal compliance requirements, as further described below. Since 

NEPA does not apply globally, President Carter issued Executive Order 12114 

in 1979, furthering the purpose of NEPA by creating similar procedures for 

federal agency activities affecting the environment of the global commons 

outside U.S. jurisdiction. Thus, the Navy undertakes environmental planning 

for major Navy actions occurring throughout the world in accordance with 

applicable laws, regulations, and executive orders. 

1.6.1 NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT REQUIREMENTS

When developing an EIS, the first step in the NEPA process (Figure 1.6-1) is 

to prepare a Notice of Intent to develop an EIS. The Notice of Intent is 

published in the Federal Register and in local newspapers and provides an 

overview of the proposed action and the scope of the EIS. The Notice of 

Intent is also the first step in engaging the public, initiating the scoping

process. 

Scoping is an early and open process for developing the “scope” of issues to 

be addressed in an EIS and for identifying significant issues related to a 

proposed action. During this process, the public helps define and prioritize 

issues that will be analyzed in the EIS. 

After the scoping process, a Draft EIS is prepared to assess potential impacts 

of the proposed action and alternatives on the environment. When 

completed, a Notice of Availability is published in the Federal Register and 

notices are placed in local or regional newspapers announcing the 

availability of the Draft EIS. The Draft EIS is circulated for public review and 

comment. Public meetings may also be scheduled to further inform the 

public and solicit their comments.

The Final EIS addresses all public comments received on the Draft EIS. 

Responses to public comments may include factual corrections, supplements 

or modifications to analysis, and inclusion of new information. Additionally, 

responses may explain why the comments do not warrant further agency 

response.

Finally, the decision-maker will issue a Record of Decision no earlier than 

30 days after the Final EIS is made available to the public.

For a description of how the Navy complies with each of these requirements during the development of 

the AFTT EIS/OEIS, please see Chapter 8 (Public Involvement and Distribution).

Figure 1.6-1: National 

Environmental Policy 

Act Process

Notice of Intent 

Published in 

Federal Register

Scoping

Public Comments 

Received and 

Considered

Preparation of Draft 

EIS/OEIS

Notice of Availability 

of Draft EIS/OEIS

Public Comment 

Period for Draft 

EIS/OEIS (Includes 

Public Meetings)

Public Comments 

Received and 

Incorporated

Preparation of Final 

EIS/OEIS

Notice of Availability 

of Final EIS/OEIS & 

Wait Period

Record of Decision
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

1-17 

1.0 Purpose and Need

1.6.2 EXECUTIVE ORDER 12114

Executive Order 12114 of 1979, Environmental Impacts Abroad of Major Federal Actions, furthers the 

purpose of NEPA by directing federal agencies to provide for informed environmental decision making 

for major federal actions outside the United States and its territories. Presidential Proclamation 5928, 

issued December 27, 1988, extended the exercise of U.S. sovereignty and jurisdiction under 

international law to 12 NM; however, the proclamation expressly provides that it does not extend or 

otherwise alter existing federal law or any associated jurisdiction, rights, legal interests, or obligations. 

Thus, as a matter of policy, the Navy analyzes environmental effects and actions within 12 NM under 

NEPA (an EIS) and those effects occurring beyond 12 NM under the provisions of Executive Order 12114 

(an OEIS).

1.6.3 OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL REQUIREMENTS CONSIDERED

The Navy must comply with all applicable federal environmental laws, regulations, and executive orders, 

including, but not limited to, those listed below. Further information can be found in Chapter 6 

(Regulatory Considerations). 

1.6.3.1 Federal Statutes

The following are federal statutes that are most relevant to the analysis of impacts in this EIS/OEIS.

1.6.3.1.1 Clean Air Act

The purpose of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. sections 7401–7671q) is to protect public health and welfare 

by the control of criteria air pollution at its source and set forth primary and secondary National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards to establish criteria for states to attain, or maintain, these minimum 

standards. Non-criteria air pollutants that can affect human health are categorized as hazardous air 

pollutants under section 112 of the Clean Air Act. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency identified 

189 hazardous air pollutants such as benzene, perchloroethylene, and methylene chloride. Section 

176(c)(1) of the Clean Air Act, commonly known as the General Conformity Rule, requires federal 

agencies to ensure that their actions conform to applicable state implementation plans for achieving 

and maintaining the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for criteria pollutants in non-attainment 

and maintenance areas for criteria pollutants and their precursors. 

1.6.3.1.2 Clean Water Act

The Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. sections 1251–1376) regulates discharges of pollutants in surface waters 

of the United States. The Uniform National Discharge Standards (40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 

part 1700) govern discharges incidental to the normal operation of Navy ships at sea. 

1.6.3.1.3 Coastal Zone Management Act

The Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. sections 1451–1464) 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 

reasonably foreseeable effects 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 offshore “to the outer 

limit of State title and ownership under the Submerged Lands Act” (i.e., 3 NM from the shoreline, 9 NM 

for the west coast of Florida, Texas, and Puerto Rico). 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

1-18 

1.0 Purpose and Need

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 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. 

1.6.3.1.4 Endangered Species Act 

The ESA of 1973 (16 U.S.C. sections 1531–1544) provides for the conservation of endangered and 

threatened species and the ecosystems on which they depend. The act defines an endangered species 

as a species in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range. A threatened 

species is one that is likely to become endangered within the near future throughout all or in a 

significant portion of its range. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and NMFS jointly administer 

the ESA and are responsible for listing species as threatened or endangered and for designating critical 

habitat for listed species. The ESA allows the designation of geographic areas as critical habitat for 

threatened or endangered species. Section 7(a)(2) requires each federal agency to ensure that any 

action it authorizes, funds, or carries out is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any 

endangered or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat 

of such species. When a federal agency’s action “may affect” a listed species, that agency is required to 

consult with the service (NMFS or USFWS) that has jurisdiction over the species (50 CFR section

402.14(a)). Consultation will conclude with preparation of a biological opinion that determines whether 

the federal agency action will jeopardize listed species or adversely modify or destroy critical habitat for 

formal consultation, or when the Services concur, in writing, that a proposed action “is not likely to 

adversely affect” listed species or designated critical habitat for informal consultation. An incidental take 

statement is also included in every biological opinion where take is anticipated. This incidental take 

statement allows the proposed action to occur without being subject to penalties under the ESA.

1.6.3.1.5 Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act

The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. sections 1801–1882), 

enacted in 1976 and amended by the Sustainable Fisheries Act in 1996, mandates identification and 

conservation of essential fish habitat. Essential fish habitat is defined as those waters and substrates 

necessary to fish for spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity (i.e., full life cycle). These 

waters include aquatic areas and their associated physical, chemical, and biological properties used by 

fish, and may include areas historically used by fish. Substrate types include sediment, hard bottom, 

structures underlying the waters, and associated biological communities. Federal agencies are required 

to consult with NMFS and to prepare an essential fish habitat assessment if potential adverse effects on 

essential fish habitat are anticipated from their activities. Any federal agency action that is authorized, 

funded, undertaken, or proposed to be undertaken that may affect fisheries is subject to the 

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. In addition, federal agencies shall 

consult with the Secretary of Commerce with respect to any action authorized, funded, or undertaken, 

or proposed to be authorized, funded, or undertaken, by such agency that may adversely affect any 

essential fish habitat identified under this act.

1.6.3.1.6 Marine Mammal Protection Act

The MMPA of 1972 established, with limited exceptions, a moratorium on the “taking” of marine 

mammals in waters or on lands under U.S. jurisdiction. The act further regulates “takes” of marine 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

1-19 

1.0 Purpose and Need

mammals on the high seas by vessels or persons subject to U.S. jurisdiction. The term “take,” as defined 

in section 3 (16 U.S.C. section 1362 (13)) of the MMPA, means “to harass, hunt, capture, or kill, or 

attempt to harass, hunt, capture, or kill any marine mammal.” “Harassment” was further defined in the 

1994 amendments to the MMPA, which provided two levels of harassment: Level A (potential injury) 

and Level B (potential behavioral disturbance).

The MMPA directs the Secretary of Commerce, as delegated to NMFS, to allow, upon request, the 

incidental, but not intentional, taking of small numbers of marine mammals by U.S. citizens or agencies 

who engage in a specified activity (other than commercial fishing) within a specified geographical region 

if NMFS finds that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or stock(s), and will not have an 

unmitigatable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for subsistence uses (where 

relevant). In issuing regulations authorizing the incidental taking, NMFS must set forth the permissible 

methods of taking, other means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact on the species or stock 

and its habitat and on the availability of the species or stock for subsistence uses (where relevant), and 

requirements pertaining to monitoring and reporting of such taking.

The National Defense Authorization Act of Fiscal Year 2004 (Public Law 108-136) amended the definition 

of harassment, removed the “specified geographic area” requirement, and removed the small numbers 

provision as applied to military readiness activities or scientific research activities conducted by or on 

behalf of the federal government consistent with section 104(c)(3) (16 U.S.C. section 1374(c)(3)). The 

Fiscal Year 2004 National Defense Authorization Act adopted the definition of “military readiness 

activity” as codified at 16 U.S.C. section 703 Note. A “military readiness activity” is defined as “all 

training and operations of the Armed Forces that relate to combat” and the “adequate and realistic 

testing of military equipment, vehicles, weapons, and sensors for proper operation and suitability for 

combat use.” For military readiness activities, the relevant definition of harassment is any act that: 

• injures or has the significant potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in 

the wild (“Level A harassment”) or

• disturbs or is likely to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing 

disruption of natural behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, surfacing, 

nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering to a point where such behavioral patterns are 

abandoned or significantly altered (“Level B harassment”) (16 U.S.C. section 1362(18)(B)(i) and 

(ii)).

1.6.3.1.7 Migratory Bird Treaty Act

The Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (16 U.S.C. sections 703–712) and the Migratory Bird Conservation 

Act (16 U.S.C. sections 715–715d, 715e, 715f–715r) of February 18, 1929, are the primary laws in the 

United States established to conserve migratory birds. The Migratory Bird Treaty Act prohibits the 

taking, killing, or possessing of migratory birds or the parts, nests, or eggs of such birds, unless permitted 

by regulation.

The 2003 National Defense Authorization Act provided interim authority to members of the Armed 

Forces to incidentally take migratory birds during approved military readiness activities without violating 

the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. The National Defense Authorization Act provided this interim authority to 

give the Secretary of the Interior time to exercise his/her authority under section 704(a) of the 

Migratory Bird Treaty Act to prescribe regulations authorizing such incidental take. The Secretary of the 

Interior delegated this task to the USFWS. On February 28, 2007, the USFWS issued a final military 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

1-20 

1.0 Purpose and Need

readiness rule (72 Federal Register 8931) authorizing members of the Armed Forces to incidentally take 

migratory birds during military readiness activities (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2007). 

1.6.3.1.8 National Historic Preservation Act

The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (54 U.S.C. section 300101 et seq.) establishes 

preservation as a national policy and directs the federal government to provide leadership in preserving, 

restoring, and maintaining the historic and cultural environment. Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act requires federal agencies to take into account the effects of their undertakings on 

historic properties and afford the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation a reasonable opportunity to 

comment. The National Historic Preservation Act created the National Register of Historic Places, the list 

of National Historic Landmarks, and the State Historic Preservation Offices to help protect each state’s 

historical and archaeological resources. Section 110 of the National Historic Preservation Act requires 

federal agencies to assume responsibility for the preservation of historic properties owned or controlled 

by them and to locate, inventory, and nominate all properties that qualify for the National Register. 

Agencies shall exercise caution to assure that significant properties are not inadvertently transferred, 

sold, demolished, substantially altered, or allowed to deteriorate. The National Historic Preservation Act 

applies to cultural resources evaluated in this EIS/OEIS.

1.6.3.1.9 National Marine Sanctuaries Act

Under the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (also known as the National Marine 

Sanctuaries Act), the Secretary of Commerce may establish a national marine sanctuary for marine areas 

with special conservation, recreational, ecological, historical, cultural, archaeological, scientific, 

educational, or aesthetic qualities. Day-to-day management of national marine sanctuaries has been 

delegated by the Secretary of Commerce to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s 

Office of National Marine Sanctuaries. Once a sanctuary is designated, the Secretary of Commerce may 

authorize activities in the sanctuary only if they can be certified to be consistent with the National 

Marine Sanctuaries Act and can be carried out within the regulations for the sanctuary. Regulations exist 

for each sanctuary, and military activities may be authorized within those regulations. Additionally, the 

National Marine Sanctuaries Act requires federal agencies whose actions are “likely to destroy, cause 

the loss of, or injure a sanctuary resource” to consult with the program before taking the action. In these 

cases, the Office of National Marine Sanctuaries is required to recommend reasonable and prudent 

alternatives to protect sanctuary resources if the action is likely to destroy, cause the loss of, or injure a 

sanctuary resource. If the federal agency decides not to follow the recommendations, it must respond in 

writing to the Office of National Marine Sanctuaries. 

1.6.3.2 Executive Orders 

The following are Executive Orders that are most relevant to the analysis of impacts in this EIS/OEIS.

1.6.3.2.1 Executive Order 13834, Efficient Federal Operations

Executive Order 13834 (83 Federal Register 23771) was issued on May 17, 2018 and revoked Executive 

Order 13693. The goal of Executive Order 13834 is to prioritize actions that reduce waste, cut costs, 

enhance the resilience of Federal infrastructure and operations, and enable more effective 

accomplishment of an agency’s mission. 

1.6.3.2.2 Executive Order 13158, Marine Protected Areas

Executive Order 13158 (65 Federal Register 34909) was authorized in May 2000 to protect special 

natural and cultural resources by strengthening and expanding the nation’s system of marine protected 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

1-21 

1.0 Purpose and Need

areas. The purpose of the order is to (1) strengthen the management, protection, and conservation of 

existing marine protected areas and establish new or expanded marine protected areas; (2) develop a 

scientifically based, comprehensive national system of marine protected areas representing diverse U.S. 

marine ecosystems and the nation’s natural and cultural resources; and (3) avoid causing harm to 

marine protected areas through federally conducted, approved, or funded activities.

1.6.3.2.3 Executive Order 13840, Ocean Policy to Advance the Economic, Security, and 

Environmental Interests of the United States 

On June 19, 2018, President Trump signed Executive Order 13840. The Executive Order is intended to 

advance the economic, security, and environmental interests of the United States through improved 

public access to marine data and information, efficient federal agency coordination on ocean-related 

matters, and engagement with marine industries, the science and technology community, and other 

ocean stakeholders, including Regional Ocean Partnerships. The Executive Order continues to require 

federal agencies to coordinate activities regarding ocean-related matters for effective management of 

the ocean as well as promote lawful use of the ocean by agencies, including the Armed forces. Navy 

continues to engage with regional and state ocean planning entities. This Executive Order revokes and 

replaces Executive Order 13547, Stewardship of the Ocean, Our Coasts, and the Great Lakes. 

1.7 SCOPE AND CONTENT

In this EIS/OEIS, the Navy analyzed military readiness training and testing activities that could potentially 

impact human and natural resources, especially marine mammals, sea turtles, and other marine 

resources. The range of alternatives includes the No Action Alternative and two action alternatives. In 

this EIS/OEIS, the Navy analyzed direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts. The Navy is the lead agency for 

the Proposed Action and is responsible for the scope and content of this EIS/OEIS. The National Oceanic 

Atmospheric Administration’s NMFS is a cooperating agency because the scope of the Proposed Action 

and alternatives involve activities that have the potential to impact protected resources under their 

jurisdiction and for which they have special expertise, including marine mammals, threatened and 

endangered species, essential fish habitat, and national marine sanctuaries. The National Oceanic 

Atmospheric Administration’s authorities and special expertise is based on its statutory responsibilities 

under the MMPA, as amended (16 U.S.C. section 1361 et seq.), the ESA (16 U.S.C. section 1531 et seq.), 

the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act and the National Marine Sanctuaries 

Act (16 U.S.C. sections 1431–1445c-1). In addition, NMFS, in accordance with 40 CFR sections 1506.3 

and 1505.2, intends to adopt this EIS/OEIS and issue a separate Record of Decision associated with its 

decision to grant or deny the Navy’s request for incidental take authorizations pursuant to section 

101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA. 

In accordance with the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations, 40 CFR section 1505.2, the Navy 

will issue a Record of Decision that provides the rationale for choosing one of the alternatives. 

1.8 ORGANIZATION OF THIS ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT/OVERSEAS 

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

This EIS/OEIS is organized as follows:

• Chapter 1 describes the purpose of and need for the Proposed Action.

• Chapter 2 describes the Proposed Action, alternatives considered but eliminated in the EIS/OEIS, 

and alternatives to be carried forward for analysis in the EIS/OEIS. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

1-22 

1.0 Purpose and Need

• Chapter 3 describes the existing conditions of the affected environment and analyzes the 

potential impacts of the proposed training and testing activities for each alternative.

• Chapter 4 describes the analysis of cumulative impacts, which are the impacts of the Proposed 

Action when added to past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions.

• Chapter 5 describes the protective measures the Navy evaluated that could mitigate impacts to 

the environment.

• Chapter 6 describes considerations required by NEPA and describes how the Navy complies with 

other federal, state, and local plans, policies, and regulations.

• Chapter 7 includes a list of preparers of this EIS/OEIS.

• Chapter 8 includes a list of agencies, government officials, tribes, groups, and individuals on the 

distribution list for receipt of the Draft EIS/OEIS.

• Appendix A provides descriptions of the proposed Navy activities. 

• Appendix B shows the relationship of stressors to the activities and to the environmental 

resources analyzed. 

• Appendix C provides air quality emissions calculations and Record of Non-Applicability.

• Appendix D explains acoustic and explosive concepts.

• Appendix E provides estimates of marine mammals and sea turtle impacts from exposure to 

acoustic and explosive stressors under Navy training and testing activities. 

• Appendix F presents military expended material and direct strike impact analysis. 

• Appendix G presents Federal Register notices applicable to this project. 

• Appendix H provides responses to public comments.

• Appendix I lists geographic information system data sources.

• Appendix J provides agency correspondence applicable to this project.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

1-23 

1.0 References

References 

U.S. Department of the Navy. (2000). Compliance with Environmental Requirements in the Conduct of 

Naval Exercises or Training at Sea. Washington, DC: The Under Secretary of the Navy.

U.S. Department of the Navy. (2014a). Optimized Fleet Response Plan. COMUSFLTFORCOM/ 

COMPACFLTINST 3000.15A N7. December 8, 2014. Norfolk, VA and Pearl Harbor, HI: 

Commander, U.S. Fleet Forces Command and Commander United States Pacific Fleet.

U.S. Department of the Navy. (2014b). Chief of Naval Operations Instruction 3000.13D, Navy Personnel 

Tempo and Operating Tempo Program. Washington, DC: Office of the Chief of Naval Operations.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. (2007). Migratory Bird Permits; Take of Migratory Birds by the Armed 

Forces. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

1-24 

1.0 References

This page intentionally left blank.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

i 

Table of Contents

Final 

Environmental Impact Statement/Overseas Environmental Impact Statement 

Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing

TABLE OF CONTENTS

2 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES ______________________________ 2-1

2.1 Description of the Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing Study Area................................2-1

2.1.1 Northeast Range Complexes.................................................................................. 2-5

2.1.1.1 Airspace ................................................................................................. 2-5

2.1.1.2 Sea and Undersea Space........................................................................ 2-5

2.1.2 Naval Undersea Warfare Center Division, Newport Testing Range ...................... 2-5

2.1.2.1 Airspace ................................................................................................. 2-5

2.1.2.2 Sea and Undersea Space........................................................................ 2-5

2.1.3 Virginia Capes Range Complex............................................................................... 2-6

2.1.3.1 Airspace ................................................................................................. 2-6

2.1.3.2 Sea and Undersea Space........................................................................ 2-6

2.1.4 Navy Cherry Point Range Complex ........................................................................ 2-6

2.1.4.1 Airspace ................................................................................................. 2-6

2.1.4.2 Sea and Undersea Space........................................................................ 2-6

2.1.5 Jacksonville Range Complex................................................................................. 2-13

2.1.5.1 Airspace ............................................................................................... 2-13

2.1.5.2 Sea and Undersea Space...................................................................... 2-13

2.1.6 Naval Surface Warfare Center Carderock Division, South Florida 

Ocean Measurement Facility Testing Range........................................................ 2-13

2.1.6.1 Airspace ............................................................................................... 2-13

2.1.6.2 Sea and Undersea Space...................................................................... 2-13

2.1.7 Key West Range Complex .................................................................................... 2-14

2.1.7.1 Airspace ............................................................................................... 2-14

2.1.7.2 Sea and Undersea Space...................................................................... 2-14

2.1.8 Naval Surface Warfare Center, Panama City Division Testing Range.................. 2-14

2.1.8.1 Airspace ............................................................................................... 2-14

2.1.8.2 Sea and Undersea Space...................................................................... 2-14

2.1.9 Gulf of Mexico Range Complex............................................................................ 2-14

2.1.9.1 Airspace ............................................................................................... 2-14

2.1.9.2 Sea and Undersea Space...................................................................... 2-15

2.1.10 Inshore locations.................................................................................................. 2-15
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

ii

Table of Contents

2.1.10.1 Pierside Locations................................................................................ 2-15

2.1.10.2 Bays, Harbors, and Inshore Waterways............................................... 2-15

2.1.10.3 Civilian Ports ........................................................................................ 2-16

2.2 Primary Mission Areas............................................................................................. 2-16

2.2.1 Air Warfare........................................................................................................... 2-16

2.2.2 Amphibious Warfare............................................................................................ 2-19

2.2.3 Anti-Submarine Warfare...................................................................................... 2-19

2.2.4 Electronic Warfare ............................................................................................... 2-19

2.2.5 Expeditionary Warfare......................................................................................... 2-20

2.2.6 Mine Warfare....................................................................................................... 2-20

2.2.7 Surface Warfare ................................................................................................... 2-21

2.3 Proposed Activities.................................................................................................. 2-21

2.3.1 Proposed Training Activities ................................................................................ 2-21

2.3.2 Proposed Testing Activities.................................................................................. 2-27

2.3.2.1 Naval Air Systems Command Testing Activities................................... 2-27

2.3.2.2 Naval Sea Systems Command Testing Activities.................................. 2-30

2.3.2.3 Office of Naval Research Testing Activities ......................................... 2-33

2.3.3 Standard Operating Procedures .......................................................................... 2-33

2.3.3.1 Sea Space and Airspace Deconfliction................................................. 2-34

2.3.3.2 Vessel Safety........................................................................................ 2-34

2.3.3.3 Aircraft Safety ...................................................................................... 2-35

2.3.3.4 High-Energy Laser Safety ..................................................................... 2-35

2.3.3.5 Weapons Firing Safety ......................................................................... 2-36

2.3.3.6 Target Deployment and Retrieval Safety............................................. 2-36

2.3.3.7 Swimmer Defense Activity Safety........................................................ 2-37

2.3.3.8 Pierside Testing Safety......................................................................... 2-37

2.3.3.9 Underwater Detonation Safety ........................................................... 2-37

2.3.3.10 Sonic Booms......................................................................................... 2-38

2.3.3.11 Unmanned Aerial System, Surface Vehicle, and Underwater Vehicle 

Safety................................................................................................... 2-38

2.3.3.12 Towed In-Water Device Safety ............................................................ 2-38

2.3.3.13 Ship Shock Trial Safety......................................................................... 2-38

2.3.3.14 Pile Driving Safety ................................................................................ 2-41

2.3.3.15 Sinking Exercise Safety......................................................................... 2-41

2.3.3.16 Coastal Zone ........................................................................................ 2-41

2.3.4 Mitigation Measures............................................................................................ 2-44

2.4 Action Alternative Development.............................................................................. 2-47

2.4.1 Training ................................................................................................................ 2-48
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

iii

Table of Contents

2.4.2 Testing.................................................................................................................. 2-49

2.4.3 Alternatives Eliminated from Further Consideration .......................................... 2-49

2.4.3.1 Alternative Training and Testing Locations ......................................... 2-49

2.4.3.2 Simulated Training and Testing Only ................................................... 2-50

2.4.3.3 Training and Testing Without the Use of Active Sonar ....................... 2-52

2.4.3.4 Alternatives Including Geographic Mitigation Measures Within the 

Study Area ........................................................................................... 2-52

2.5 Alternatives Carried Forward ................................................................................... 2-52

2.5.1 No Action Alternative........................................................................................... 2-53

2.5.2 Alternative 1......................................................................................................... 2-54

2.5.2.1 Training ................................................................................................ 2-54

2.5.2.2 Testing.................................................................................................. 2-55

2.5.2.3 Mitigation Measures............................................................................ 2-55

2.5.3 Alternative 2......................................................................................................... 2-56

2.5.3.1 Training ................................................................................................ 2-56

2.5.3.2 Testing.................................................................................................. 2-56

2.5.3.3 Mitigation Measures............................................................................ 2-56

2.5.4 Comparison of Proposed Sonar and Explosive Use in the Action 

Alternatives to the 2013–2018 MMPA Permit Allotment ................................... 2-57

2.5.4.1 Training ................................................................................................ 2-57

2.5.4.2 Testing.................................................................................................. 2-59

2.6 Proposed Training and Testing Activities for Both Alternatives.................................. 2-60

2.6.1 Proposed Training Activities ................................................................................ 2-60

2.6.2 Proposed Testing Activities.................................................................................. 2-68

List of Figures 

Figure 2.1-1: Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing Study Area..................................................................... 2-3

Figure 2.1-2: Study Area, Northeast and Mid-Atlantic Region .................................................................. 2-7

Figure 2.1-3: Study Area, Southeast Region and Caribbean Sea ............................................................... 2-9

Figure 2.1-4: Study Area, Gulf of Mexico Region..................................................................................... 2-11

Figure 2.2-1: Study Area, Inshore Locations ............................................................................................ 2-17

Figure 2.3-1: Coastal Zones and Designated Ship Shock Trial and Sinking Exercise Areas with 

Standard Operating Procedures......................................................................................... 2-39

Figure 2.3-2: Summary of Mitigation Areas in the Study Area ................................................................ 2-45

Figure 2.5-1: Proposed Maximum Year of Hull-Mounted Mid-Frequency Sonar Hour Use by 

Activity During Training Compared to the Number Authorized in the 2013–

2018 Marine Mammal Protection Act Permit .................................................................... 2-58
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

iv

Table of Contents

Figure 2.5-2: Proposed Five-Year Total Hull-Mounted Mid-Frequency Sonar Hour Use by 

Activity During Training Compared to the Number Authorized in the 2013–

2018 Marine Mammal Protection Act Permit .................................................................... 2-58

Figure 2.5-3: Proposed Number of Composite Training Unit Exercises over a Five-Year 

Period Compared to Number Authorized in the 2013–2018 Marine Mammal 

Protection Act Permit ......................................................................................................... 2-59

Figure 2.5-4: Change in Explosive Use (for Both Action Alternatives) During Training 

Activities Compared to the 2013–2018 Marine Mammal Protection Act 

Permit1, 2.............................................................................................................................. 2-60

List of Tables

Table 2.3-1: Major Anti-Submarine Warfare Training Exercises and Integrated/Coordinated 

Training ............................................................................................................................... 2-22

Table 2.3-2: Proposed Training Activities ................................................................................................ 2-23

Table 2.3-3: Naval Air Systems Command’s Proposed Testing Activities................................................ 2-28

Table 2.3-4: Naval Sea Systems Command’s Proposed Testing Activities............................................... 2-31

Table 2.3-5: Office of Naval Research Proposed Testing Activities ......................................................... 2-33

Table 2.3-6: Training Activities Typically Not Occurring in the Coastal Zone1 ......................................... 2-42

Table 2.3-7: Testing Activities Typically Not Occurring in the Coastal Zone1 .......................................... 2-43

Table 2.3-8: Overview of Mitigation Categories...................................................................................... 2-44

Table 2.6-1: Proposed Training Activities per Alternative ....................................................................... 2-61

Table 2.6-2: Naval Air Systems Command Proposed Testing Activities per Alternative ......................... 2-68

Table 2.6-3: Naval Sea Systems Command Proposed Testing Activities per Alternative ........................ 2-71

Table 2.6-4: Office of Naval Research Proposed Testing Activities per Alternative ................................ 2-77
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

2-1 

2.0 Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives

2 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION AND 

ALTERNATIVES

The United States (U.S.) Department of the Navy (Navy) proposes to conduct training activities

(hereinafter referred to as “training”) and research, development, testing, and evaluation (hereinafter 

referred to as “testing”) activities in the Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing (AFTT) Study Area, as 

represented in Figure 2.1-1. When discussed together, training and testing are also referred to as 

“military readiness activities.” These military readiness activities include the use of active sonar and 

explosives within existing range complexes and testing ranges, in high seas areas located in the Atlantic 

Ocean along the eastern coast of North America, in portions of the Caribbean Sea and the Gulf of 

Mexico, at Navy pierside locations, within port transit channels, near civilian ports, and in bays, harbors, 

and inshore waterways (e.g., lower Chesapeake Bay). These military readiness activities are generally

consistent with those analyzed in the AFTT Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)/Overseas 

Environmental Impact Statement (OEIS) completed in August 2013 and are representative of training 

and testing that the Navy has been conducting in the AFTT Study Area for decades. 

In this chapter, the Navy builds upon the purpose and need to train and test by describing the Study 

Area and identifying the primary mission areas under which these military readiness activities are 

conducted. Each warfare community, e.g., aviation, surface, submarine, expeditionary, conducts 

activities that contribute to the success of a primary mission area (described in Section 2.2, Primary 

Mission Areas). Each primary mission area requires unique skills, sensors, weapons, and technologies to 

accomplish the mission. For example, under the anti-submarine warfare primary mission area, surface, 

submarine, and aviation warfare communities each utilize different skills, sensors, and weapons to 

locate, track, and eliminate submarine threats. The testing community contributes to the success of 

anti-submarine warfare by anticipating and identifying technologies and systems that respond to the 

needs of the warfare communities. As each warfare community develops its basic skills and integrates 

them into combined units and strike groups, the problems of communication, coordination and 

planning, movement, and positioning of naval forces and targeting/delivery of weapons become 

increasingly complex. This complexity creates a need for coordinated training and testing between the 

fleets and systems commands.

This chapter describes the training and testing activities, which compose the Proposed Action, necessary 

to meet military readiness requirements. These activities are then analyzed for their potential effects on 

the environment in the following chapters of this EIS/OEIS. For further details regarding specific training 

and testing activities, please see Appendix A (Navy Activity Descriptions). In accordance with the Marine 

Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), the Navy plans to submit to the National Marine Fisheries Service 

(NMFS) an application requesting authorization for the take of marine mammals incidental to training 

and testing activities described in this EIS/OEIS. NMFS’s proposed action will be a direct outcome of 

responding to the Navy’s request for an incidental take authorization pursuant to the MMPA. 

2.1 DESCRIPTION OF THE ATLANTIC FLEET TRAINING AND TESTING STUDY AREA

The AFTT EIS/OEIS Study Area includes areas of the western Atlantic Ocean along the east coast of North 

America, portions of the Caribbean Sea, and the Gulf of Mexico. The Study Area begins at the mean high 

tide line along the U.S. coast and extends east to the 45-degree west longitude line, north to the 

65 degree north latitude line, and south to approximately the 20-degree north latitude line. The Study 

Area also includes Navy pierside locations and port transit channels, bays, harbors, inshore waterways, 

and civilian ports where training and testing occurs (Section 2.1.10, Inshore Locations). The Study Area 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

2-2 

2.0 Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives

generally follows the Commander Task Force 80 area of operations, covering approximately 2.6 million 

square nautical miles (NM2

) of ocean area, and includes designated Navy range complexes and 

associated operating areas (OPAREAs) and special use airspace. While the AFTT Study Area itself is very 

large, it is important to note that the vast majority of Navy training and testing occurs in designated

range complexes and testing ranges, as explained in Section 1.4 (Purpose and Need).

A Navy range complex consists of geographic areas that encompass a water component (above and 

below the surface) and airspace and may encompass a land component where training and testing of 

military platforms, tactics, munitions, explosives, and electronic warfare systems occur. Range 

complexes include established OPAREAs and special use airspace, which may be further divided to 

provide better control of the area for safety reasons. The terms used to describe the components of the 

range complexes are described below:

• Airspace

o Special Use Airspace. Airspace of defined dimensions where activities must be confined 

because of their nature or where limitations may be imposed upon aircraft operations 

that are not part of those activities (Federal Aviation Administration Order 7400.8). 

Types of special use airspace most commonly found in range complexes include the 

following: 

 Restricted Areas. Airspace where aircraft are subject to restriction due to the 

existence of unusual, often invisible hazards (e.g., release of ordnance) to 

aircraft. Some areas are under strict control of the Department of Defense

(DoD) and some are shared with non-military agencies. 

 Warning Areas. Areas of defined dimensions, extending from 3 nautical miles 

(NM) outward from the coast of the United States, which serve to warn 

non-participating aircraft of potential danger.

 Air Traffic Control Assigned Airspace. Airspace of defined vertical/lateral limits, 

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.

• Sea and Undersea Space

o Operating Areas. An ocean area defined by geographic coordinates with defined surface 

and subsurface areas and associated special use airspace. OPAREAs include the 

following:

 Restricted Areas. A restricted area is a defined water area for the purpose of 

prohibiting or limiting public access to the area. Restricted areas generally 

provide security for government property and also provide protection to the 

public from the risks of damage or injury arising from the government's use of 

that area (Title 33 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] part 334). 

The Study Area includes only the at-sea components of the range complexes and testing ranges; land 

components associated with the range complexes and testing ranges are not included in the Study Area 

and no activities on these land areas are included as part of the Proposed Action. The Study Area also 

includes various bays, harbors, inshore waterways, and pierside locations within the boundaries of the 

range complexes; these are detailed in Section 2.1.10 (Inshore Locations). 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

2-3 

2.0 Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives

Notes: AFTT: Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing; OPAREA: Operating Area; SINKEX: Sinking Exercise; USWTR: Undersea Warfare Training Range; VACAPES: Virginia Capes

Figure 2.1-1: Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing Study Area
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

2-4 

2.0 Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives

This page intentionally left blank.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

2-5 

2.0 Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives

The Study Area is depicted in Figure 2.1-1. Regional maps contained in Figure 2.1-2 through Figure 2.1-4

show additional detail of the range complexes and testing ranges. The range complexes and testing 

ranges are described in the following sections.

2.1.1 NORTHEAST RANGE COMPLEXES

The Northeast Range Complexes include the Boston Range Complex, Narragansett Bay Range Complex, 

and Atlantic City Range Complex (Figure 2.1-2). These range complexes span 761 miles (mi.) along the 

coast from Maine to New Jersey. The Northeast Range Complexes include special use airspace with 

associated warning areas and surface and subsurface sea space of the Boston OPAREA, Narragansett Bay 

OPAREA, and Atlantic City OPAREA.

2.1.1.1 Airspace

The Northeast Range Complexes include over 25,000 NM2 of special use airspace. The altitude at which 

aircraft may fly varies from just above the surface to 60,000 feet (ft.), except for one specific warning 

area (W-107A) in the Atlantic City Range Complex, which is 18,000 ft. to unlimited altitudes. Six warning 

areas are located within the Northeast Range Complexes.

2.1.1.2 Sea and Undersea Space

The Northeast Range Complexes include three OPAREAs—Boston, Narragansett Bay, and Atlantic City. 

These OPAREAs encompass over 45,000 NM2 of sea space and undersea space. The Boston, 

Narragansett Bay, and Atlantic City OPAREAs are offshore of the states of Maine, New Hampshire, 

Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, and New Jersey. The OPAREAs of the three 

complexes are outside 3 NM but within 200 NM from shore. 

2.1.2 NAVAL UNDERSEA WARFARE CENTER DIVISION, NEWPORT TESTING RANGE

The Naval Undersea Warfare Center Division, Newport Testing Range includes the waters of 

Narragansett Bay, Rhode Island Sound, Block Island Sound, Buzzards Bay, Vineyard Sound, and Long 

Island Sound (Figure 2.1-2). 

2.1.2.1 Airspace 

A portion of Naval Undersea Warfare Center Division, Newport Testing Range is under restricted area 

R-4105A, known as No Man’s Land Island. A minimal amount of testing occurs in the airspace within 

Naval Undersea Warfare Center Division, Newport Testing Range.

2.1.2.2 Sea and Undersea Space

Three restricted areas are located within the Naval Undersea Warfare Center Division, Newport Testing 

Range: 

• Coddington Cove Restricted Area (0.5 NM2 adjacent to Naval Undersea Warfare Center Division, 

Newport) 

• Narragansett Bay Restricted Area (6.1 NM2 area surrounding Gould Island), including the Hole 

Test Area and the North Test Range 

• Rhode Island Sound Restricted Area, a rectangular box (27.2 NM2

) located in Rhode Island and 

Block Island Sounds
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

2-6 

2.0 Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives

2.1.3 VIRGINIA CAPES RANGE COMPLEX

The Virginia Capes Range Complex spans 270 mi. along the coast from Delaware to North Carolina from 

the shoreline to 155 NM seaward (Figure 2.1-2). The Virginia Capes Range Complex includes special use 

airspace with associated warning and restricted areas and surface and subsurface sea space of the 

Virginia Capes OPAREA. The Virginia Capes Range Complex also includes established mine warfare 

training areas located within the lower Chesapeake Bay and off the coast of Virginia.

2.1.3.1 Airspace

The Virginia Capes Range Complex includes over 28,000 NM2 of special use airspace. Flight altitudes

range from the surface to unlimited altitudes. Five warning areas are located within the Virginia Capes

Range Complex. Restricted airspace extends from the shoreline to approximately the 3-NM state 

territorial sea limit within the Virginia Capes Range Complex and is designated as R-6606.

2.1.3.2 Sea and Undersea Space

The Virginia Capes Range Complex shore boundary roughly follows the shoreline from Delaware to 

North Carolina; the seaward boundary extends 155 NM into the Atlantic Ocean proximate to Norfolk, 

Virginia. The Virginia Capes OPAREA encompasses over 27,000 NM2 of sea space and undersea space. 

The Virginia Capes OPAREA is offshore of the states of Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, and North Carolina.

2.1.4 NAVY CHERRY POINT RANGE COMPLEX

The Navy Cherry Point Range Complex, off the coast of North Carolina and South Carolina, encompasses 

the sea space from the shoreline to 120 NM seaward. The Navy Cherry Point Range Complex includes 

special use airspace with associated warning areas and surface and subsurface sea space of the Navy 

Cherry Point OPAREA (Figure 2.1-3). The Navy Cherry Point Range Complex is adjacent to the U.S. 

Marine Corps Cherry Point and Camp Lejeune Range Complexes associated with Marine Corps Air 

Station Cherry Point and Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune. 

2.1.4.1 Airspace

The Navy Cherry Point Range Complex includes over 18,000 NM2 of special use airspace. The airspace 

varies from the surface to unlimited altitudes. A single warning area is located within the Navy Cherry 

Point Range Complex. 

2.1.4.2 Sea and Undersea Space

The Navy Cherry Point Range Complex is roughly aligned with the shoreline and extends out 120 NM 

into the Atlantic Ocean. The Navy Cherry Point OPAREA encompasses over 18,000 NM2 of sea space and 

undersea space. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

2-7 

2.0 Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives

Notes: AFTT: Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing; NSB: Naval Submarine Base; OPAREA: Operating Area; SINKEX: Sinking Exercise; VACAPES: Virginia Capes

Figure 2.1-2: Study Area, Northeast and Mid-Atlantic Region
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

2-8 

2.0 Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives

This page intentionally left blank.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

2-9 

2.0 Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives

Notes: AFTT: Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing; OPAREA: Operating Area; SINKEX: Sinking Exercise; USWTR: Undersea Warfare Training Range; VACAPES: Virginia Capes

Figure 2.1-3: Study Area, Southeast Region and Caribbean Sea
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

2-10

2.0 Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives

This page intentionally left blank.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

2-11

2.0 Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives

Notes: AFTT: Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing; OPAREA: Operating Area; USWTR: Undersea Warfare Training Range

Figure 2.1-4: Study Area, Gulf of Mexico Region 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

2-12

2.0 Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives

This page intentionally left blank.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

2-13

2.0 Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives

2.1.5 JACKSONVILLE RANGE COMPLEX

The Jacksonville Range Complex spans 520 mi. along the coast from North Carolina to Florida from the 

shoreline to 250 NM seaward. The Jacksonville Range Complex includes special use airspace with 

associated warning areas and surface and subsurface sea space of the Charleston and Jacksonville 

OPAREAs. The Undersea Warfare Training Range is located within the Jacksonville Range Complex 

(Figure 2.1-3). 

2.1.5.1 Airspace

The Jacksonville Range Complex includes approximately 40,000 NM2 of special use airspace. Flight 

altitudes range from the surface to unlimited altitudes. Nine warning areas are located within the 

Jacksonville Range Complex.

2.1.5.2 Sea and Undersea Space

The Jacksonville Range Complex shore boundary roughly follows the shoreline and extends out 250 NM 

into the Atlantic Ocean proximate to Jacksonville, Florida. The Jacksonville Range Complex includes two 

OPAREAs: Charleston and Jacksonville. Combined, these OPAREAs encompass over 50,000 NM2 of sea 

space and undersea space. The Charleston and Jacksonville OPAREAs are offshore of the states of North 

Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida. The Undersea Warfare Training Range is located within 

the Jacksonville Range Complex.

2.1.6 NAVAL SURFACE WARFARE CENTER CARDEROCK DIVISION, SOUTH FLORIDA OCEAN 

MEASUREMENT FACILITY TESTING RANGE

The Naval Surface Warfare Center Carderock Division operates the South Florida Ocean Measurement 

Facility Testing Range, an offshore testing area in support of various Navy and non-Navy programs. The 

South Florida Ocean Measurement Facility Testing Range is located adjacent to the Port Everglades 

entrance channel in Fort Lauderdale, Florida (Figure 2.1-3). The test area at the South Florida Ocean 

Measurement Facility Testing Range includes an extensive cable field located within a restricted 

anchorage area and two designated submarine OPAREAs. 

2.1.6.1 Airspace

The South Florida Ocean Measurement Facility Testing Range does not have associated special use 

airspace. The airspace adjacent to the South Florida Ocean Measurement Facility Testing Range is 

managed by the Fort Lauderdale International Airport. Air operations at the South Florida Ocean 

Measurement Facility Testing Range are coordinated with Fort Lauderdale International Airport by the 

air units involved in the testing events.

2.1.6.2 Sea and Undersea Space

The South Florida Ocean Measurement Facility Testing Range is divided into four subareas:

• The Port Everglades Shallow Submarine OPAREA is a 120-NM2 area that encompasses nearshore 

waters from the shoreline to 900 ft. deep and 8 NM offshore.

• The Training Minefield is a 41-NM2 area used for special purpose surface ship and submarine 

operations where the test vessels are restricted from maneuvering and require additional 

protection. This Training Minefield encompasses waters from 60 to 600 ft. deep and from 1 to 

3 NM offshore.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

2-14

2.0 Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives

• The Port Everglades Deep Submarine OPAREA is a 335-NM2 area that encompasses the offshore 

range from 900 to 2,500 ft. in depth and from 9 to 25 NM offshore. 

• The Port Everglades Restricted Anchorage Area is an 11-NM2 restricted anchorage area ranging 

in depths from 60 to 600 ft. where the majority of the South Florida Ocean Measurement 

Facility Testing Range cables run from offshore sensors to the shore facility and where several 

permanent measurement arrays are used for vessel signature acquisition.

2.1.7 KEY WEST RANGE COMPLEX

The Key West Range Complex lies off the southwestern coast of mainland Florida and along the 

southern Florida Keys, extending seaward into the Gulf of Mexico 150 NM and south into the Straits of 

Florida 60 NM. The Key West Range Complex includes special use airspace with associated warning 

areas and surface and subsurface sea space of the Key West OPAREA (Figure 2.1-4). 

2.1.7.1 Airspace

The Key West Range Complex includes over 20,000 NM2 of special use airspace. Flight altitudes range 

from the surface to unlimited altitudes. Eight warning areas, Bonefish Air Traffic Control Assigned 

Airspace, and Tortugas Military OPAREA are located within the Key West Range Complex. 

2.1.7.2 Sea and Undersea Space

The Key West OPAREA is over 8,000 NM2 of sea space and undersea space south of Key West, Florida. 

2.1.8 NAVAL SURFACE WARFARE CENTER, PANAMA CITY DIVISION TESTING RANGE

The Naval Surface Warfare Center, Panama City Division Testing Range is located off the panhandle of 

Florida and Alabama, extending from the shoreline to 120 NM seaward, and includes St. Andrew Bay. 

Naval Surface Warfare Center, Panama City Division Testing Range also includes special use airspace and 

offshore surface and subsurface waters of offshore OPAREAs (Figure 2.1-4). 

2.1.8.1 Airspace

Special use airspace associated with Naval Surface Warfare Center, Panama City Division Testing Range 

includes three warning areas.

2.1.8.2 Sea and Undersea Space

The Naval Surface Warfare Center, Panama City Division Testing Range includes the waters of 

St. Andrew Bay and the sea space within the Gulf of Mexico from the mean high tide line to 120 NM 

offshore. The Panama City OPAREA covers just over 3,000 NM2 of sea space and lies off the coast of the 

Florida panhandle. The Pensacola OPAREA lies off the coast of Alabama and Florida west of the Panama 

City OPAREA and totals just under 5,000 NM2

. 

2.1.9 GULF OF MEXICO RANGE COMPLEX

Unlike most of the range complexes previously described, the Gulf of Mexico Range Complex includes 

geographically separated areas throughout the Gulf of Mexico. The Gulf of Mexico Range Complex 

includes special use airspace with associated warning areas and restricted airspace and surface and 

subsurface sea space of the Panama City, Pensacola, New Orleans, and Corpus Christi OPAREAs (Figure 

2.1-4).

2.1.9.1 Airspace

The Gulf of Mexico Range Complex includes approximately 20,000 NM2 of special use airspace. Flight 

altitudes range from the surface to unlimited altitudes. Six warning areas are located within the Gulf of 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

2-15

2.0 Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives

Mexico Range Complex. Restricted airspace associated with the Pensacola OPAREA, designated R-2908, 

extends from the shoreline to approximately 3 NM offshore.

2.1.9.2 Sea and Undersea Space

The Gulf of Mexico Range Complex encompasses approximately 17,000 NM2 of sea and undersea space 

and includes 285 NM of coastline. The OPAREAs span from the eastern shores of Texas to the western 

panhandle of Florida. They are described as follows: 

• Panama City OPAREA lies off the coast of the Florida panhandle and totals approximately 

3,000 NM2

. 

• Pensacola OPAREA lies off the coast of Florida west of the Panama City OPAREA and totals 

approximately 4,900 NM2

. 

• New Orleans OPAREA lies off the coast of Louisiana and totals approximately 2,600 NM2

. 

• Corpus Christi OPAREA lies off the coast of Texas and totals approximately 6,900 NM2

. 

2.1.10 INSHORE LOCATIONS

Although within the boundaries of the range complexes detailed in Section 2.1.1 (Northeast Range 

Complex) through Section 2.1.9 (Gulf of Mexico Range Complex), various inshore locations, including 

piers, bays, and civilian ports, are identified in Appendix A (Navy Activity Descriptions) for various 

activities (Figure 2.2-1). 

2.1.10.1 Pierside Locations

For purposes of this EIS/OEIS, pierside locations include channels and transit routes in ports and facilities 

associated with the following Navy ports and naval shipyards: 

• Portsmouth Naval Shipyard, Kittery, Maine 

• Naval Submarine Base New London, 

Groton, Connecticut 

• Naval Station Norfolk, Norfolk, Virginia 

• Joint Expeditionary Base Little Creek-Fort 

Story, Virginia Beach, Virginia 

• Norfolk Naval Shipyard, Portsmouth, 

Virginia 

• Naval Submarine Base Kings Bay, Kings 

Bay, Georgia 

• Naval Station Mayport, Jacksonville, 

Florida 

• Port Canaveral, Cape Canaveral, Florida

Navy-contractor shipyards in the following cities are also in the Study Area: 

• Bath, Maine 

• Groton, Connecticut 

• Newport News, Virginia

• Mobile, Alabama 

• Pascagoula, Mississippi

2.1.10.2 Bays, Harbors, and Inshore Waterways

Inshore waterways used for training and testing activities include:

• Narragansett Bay Range Complex/Naval Undersea Warfare Center Division, Newport Testing 

Range: Thames River, Narragansett Bay

• Virginia Capes Range Complex: James River and tributaries, Broad Bay, York River

• Jacksonville Range Complex: southeast Kings Bay, Cooper River, St. Johns River
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

2-16

2.0 Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives

• Gulf of Mexico Range Complex/Naval Surface Warfare Center, Panama City Division: St. Andrew 

Bay 

• Key West Range Complex: Truman Harbor, Demolition Key

2.1.10.3 Civilian Ports

Civilian ports included for civilian port defense training events are listed in Section A.2.8.3 of Appendix A 

(Navy Activity Descriptions) and include:

• Boston, Massachusetts

• Earle, New Jersey

• Delaware Bay, Delaware

• Hampton Roads, Virginia

• Morehead City, North Carolina 

• Wilmington, North Carolina

• Kings Bay, Georgia

• Savannah, Georgia 

• Mayport, Florida 

• Port Canaveral, Florida 

• Tampa, Florida

• Beaumont, Texas

• Corpus Christi, Texas

2.2 PRIMARY MISSION AREAS

The Navy categorizes its activities into functional warfare areas called primary mission areas. These 

activities generally fall into the following seven primary mission areas: 

• air warfare

• amphibious warfare

• anti-submarine warfare

• electronic warfare

• expeditionary warfare

• mine warfare

• surface warfare

Most activities addressed in this EIS/OEIS are categorized under one of these primary mission areas; the 

testing community has three additional categories of activities for vessel evaluation, unmanned systems, 

and acoustic and oceanographic science and technology. Activities that do not fall within these areas are 

listed as “other activities.” Each warfare community (surface, subsurface, aviation, and special warfare) 

may train in some or all of these primary mission areas. The research and acquisition community also 

categorizes most, but not all, of its testing activities under these primary mission areas. A description of 

the sonar, munitions, targets, systems and other material used during training and testing activities 

within these primary mission areas is provided in Appendix A (Navy Activity Descriptions).

2.2.1 AIR WARFARE

The mission of air warfare is to destroy or reduce enemy air and missile threats (including unmanned 

airborne threats) and serves two purposes: to protect U.S. forces from attacks from the air and to gain 

air superiority. Air warfare provides U.S. forces with adequate attack warnings, while denying hostile 

forces the ability to gather intelligence about U.S. forces.

Aircraft conduct air warfare through radar search, detection, identification, and engagement of airborne 

threats. Surface ships conduct air warfare through an array of modern anti-aircraft weapon systems 

such as aircraft detecting radar, naval guns linked to radar-directed fire-control systems, surface-to-air 

missile systems, and radar-controlled cannons for close-in point defense. 

Testing of air warfare systems is required to ensure the equipment is fully functional under the 

conditions in which it will be used. Tests may be conducted on radar and other early warning detection 

and tracking systems, new guns or gun rounds, and missiles. Testing of these systems may be conducted 

on new ships and aircraft, and on existing ships and aircraft following maintenance, repair, or 

modification. For some systems, tests are conducted periodically to assess operability. Additionally, tests 

may be conducted in support of scientific research to assess new and emerging technologies. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

2-17

2.0 Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives

Notes: AFTT: Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing; OPAREA: Operating Area; SINKEX: Sinking Exercise; VACAPES: Virginia Capes

Figure 2.2-1: Study Area, Inshore Locations
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

2-18

2.0 Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives

This page intentionally left blank.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

2-19

2.0 Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives

2.2.2 AMPHIBIOUS WARFARE

The mission of amphibious warfare is to project military power from the sea to the shore (i.e., attack a 

threat on land by a military force embarked on ships) through the use of naval firepower and 

expeditionary landing forces. Amphibious warfare operations include small unit reconnaissance or raid 

missions to large-scale amphibious exercises involving multiple ships and aircraft combined into a strike 

group. 

Amphibious warfare training ranges from individual, crew, and small unit events to large task force 

exercises. Individual and crew training include amphibious vehicles and naval gunfire support training. 

Such training includes shore assaults, boat raids, airfield or port seizures, and reconnaissance. 

Large-scale amphibious exercises involve ship-to-shore maneuver, naval fire support, such as shore 

bombardment, air strikes, and attacks on targets that are in close proximity to friendly forces. 

Testing of guns, munitions, aircraft, ships, and amphibious vessels and vehicles used in amphibious 

warfare are often integrated into training activities and, in most cases, the systems are used in the same 

manner in which they are used for fleet training activities. Amphibious warfare tests, when integrated 

with training activities or conducted separately as full operational evaluations on existing amphibious 

vessels and vehicles following maintenance, repair, or modernization, may be conducted independently 

or in conjunction with other amphibious ship and aircraft activities. Testing is performed to ensure 

effective ship-to-shore coordination and transport of personnel, equipment, and supplies. Tests may 

also be conducted periodically on other systems, vessels, and aircraft intended for amphibious 

operations to assess operability and to investigate efficacy of new technologies. 

2.2.3 ANTI-SUBMARINE WARFARE

The mission of anti-submarine warfare is to locate, neutralize, and defeat hostile submarine forces that 

threaten Navy forces. Anti-submarine warfare is based on the principle that surveillance and attack 

aircraft, ships, and submarines all search for hostile submarines. These forces operate together or 

independently to gain early warning and detection and to localize, track, target, and attack submarine 

threats. 

Anti-submarine warfare training addresses basic skills such as detecting and classifying submarines, as 

well as evaluating sounds to distinguish between enemy submarines and friendly submarines, ships, and 

marine life. More advanced training integrates the full spectrum of anti-submarine warfare from 

detecting and tracking a submarine to attacking a target using either exercise torpedoes (i.e., torpedoes 

that do not contain a warhead) or simulated weapons. These integrated anti-submarine warfare training 

exercises are conducted in coordinated, at-sea training events involving submarines, ships, and aircraft. 

Testing of anti-submarine warfare systems is conducted to develop new technologies and assess 

weapon performance and operability with new systems and platforms, such as unmanned systems. 

Testing uses ships, submarines, and aircraft to demonstrate capabilities of torpedoes, missiles, 

countermeasure systems, and underwater surveillance and communications systems. Tests may be 

conducted as part of a large-scale fleet training event involving submarines, ships, fixed-wing aircraft, 

and helicopters. These integrated training events offer opportunities to conduct research and 

acquisition activities and to train aircrew in the use of new or newly enhanced systems during a 

large-scale, complex exercise.

2.2.4 ELECTRONIC WARFARE

The mission of electronic warfare is to degrade the enemy’s ability to use electronic systems, such as 

communication systems and radar, and to confuse or deny them the ability to defend their forces and 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

2-20

2.0 Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives

assets. Electronic warfare is also used to detect enemy threats and counter their attempts to degrade 

the electronic capabilities of the Navy. 

Typical electronic warfare training activities include threat avoidance, signals analysis for intelligence 

purposes, and use of airborne and surface electronic jamming devices to defeat tracking and 

communications systems. 

Testing of electronic warfare systems is conducted to improve the capabilities of systems and ensure 

compatibility with new systems. Testing involves the use of aircraft, surface ships, and submarine crews 

to evaluate the effectiveness of electronic systems. Similar to training activities, typical electronic 

warfare testing activities include the use of airborne and surface electronic jamming devices (including 

testing chaff and flares, see Appendix A, Navy Activity Descriptions, for a description of these devices) to 

defeat tracking and communications systems. Chaff tests evaluate newly developed or enhanced chaff, 

chaff dispensing equipment, or modified aircraft systems’ use against chaff deployment. Flare tests 

evaluate deployment performance and crew competency with newly developed or enhanced flares, 

flare dispensing equipment, or modified aircraft systems’ use against flare deployment.

2.2.5 EXPEDITIONARY WARFARE

The mission of expeditionary warfare is to provide security and surveillance in the littoral (at the 

shoreline), riparian (along a river), or coastal environments. Expeditionary warfare is wide ranging and 

includes defense of harbors, operation of remotely operated vehicles, defense against swimmers, and 

boarding/seizure operations. 

Expeditionary warfare training activities include underwater construction team training, dive and 

salvage operations, and insertion/extraction via air, surface, and subsurface platforms. 

2.2.6 MINE WARFARE

The mission of mine warfare is to detect, classify, and avoid or neutralize (disable) mines to protect Navy 

ships and submarines and to maintain free access to ports and shipping lanes. Mine warfare also 

includes offensive mine laying to gain control of or deny the enemy access to sea space. Naval mines can 

be laid by ships, submarines, or aircraft. 

Mine warfare neutralization training includes exercises in which ships, aircraft, submarines, underwater 

vehicles, unmanned vehicles, or marine mammal detection systems search for mine shapes. Personnel 

train to destroy or disable mines by attaching underwater explosives to or near the mine or using 

remotely operated vehicles to destroy the mine.

Testing and development of mine warfare systems is conducted to improve sonar, laser, and magnetic 

detectors intended to hunt, locate, and record the positions of mines for avoidance or subsequent 

neutralization. Mine warfare testing and development falls into two primary categories: mine detection 

and classification, and mine countermeasure and neutralization. Mine detection and classification 

testing involves the use of air, surface, and subsurface vessels and uses sonar, including towed and 

side-scan sonar, and unmanned vehicles to locate and identify objects underwater. Mine detection and 

classification systems are sometimes used in conjunction with a mine neutralization system. Mine 

countermeasure and neutralization testing includes the use of air, surface, and subsurface units to 

evaluate the effectiveness of tracking devices, countermeasure and neutralization systems, and general 

purpose bombs to neutralize mine threats. Most neutralization tests use mine shapes, or non-explosive 

practice mines, to evaluate a new or enhanced capability. For example, during a mine neutralization 

test, a previously located mine is destroyed or rendered nonfunctional using a helicopter or 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

2-21

2.0 Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives

manned/unmanned surface vehicle based system that may involve the deployment of a towed 

neutralization system.

A small percentage of mine warfare tests require the use of high-explosive mines to evaluate and 

confirm the ability of the system to neutralize a high-explosive mine under operational conditions. The 

majority of mine warfare systems are deployed by ships, helicopters, and unmanned vehicles. Tests may 

also be conducted in support of scientific research to support these new technologies.

2.2.7 SURFACE WARFARE

The mission of surface warfare is to obtain control of sea space from which naval forces may operate 

and entails offensive action against other surface and subsurface targets while also defending against 

enemy forces. In surface warfare, aircraft use cannons, air-launched cruise missiles, or other 

precision-guided munitions; ships employ torpedoes, naval guns, and surface-to-surface missiles; and 

submarines attack surface ships using torpedoes or submarine-launched, anti-ship cruise missiles. 

Surface warfare training includes surface-to-surface gunnery and missile exercises, air-to-surface 

gunnery and missile exercises, and submarine missile or torpedo launch events, and other munitions 

against surface targets.

Testing of weapons used in surface warfare is conducted to develop new technologies and to assess 

weapon performance and operability with new systems and platforms, such as unmanned systems. 

Tests include various air-to-surface guns and missiles, surface-to-surface guns and missiles, and bombing 

tests. Testing events may be integrated into training activities to test aircraft or aircraft systems in the 

delivery of ordnance on a surface target. In most cases the tested systems are used in the same manner 

in which they are used for fleet training activities. 

2.3 PROPOSED ACTIVITIES

The Navy has been conducting military readiness activities in the Study Area for well over a century and 

with active sonar for over 70 years. The tempo and types of training and testing activities have 

fluctuated because of the introduction of new technologies, the evolving nature of international events, 

advances in warfighting doctrine and procedures, and changes in force structure (organization of ships, 

weapons, and personnel). Such developments influenced the frequency, duration, intensity, and 

location of required training and testing activities. This EIS/OEIS (Phase III) reflects the most up to date 

compilation of training and testing activities deemed necessary to accomplish military readiness 

requirements. The types and numbers of activities included in the Proposed Action accounts for 

fluctuations in training and testing in order to meet evolving or emergent military readiness 

requirements. For the purposes of this EIS/OEIS, the term “ship” is inclusive of surface ships and 

surfaced submarines. The term “vessel” is inclusive of ships and small boats (e.g., rigid-hull inflatable 

boats). In the following sections, the proposed training and testing activities are detailed. 

2.3.1 PROPOSED TRAINING ACTIVITIES

A major training exercise comprises several “unit level” type 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-level training events. In a major training exercise, however, these disparate training tasks 

are conducted in concert, rather than in isolation. Some integrated or coordinated anti-submarine 

warfare exercises are similar in that they are composed of several unit level exercises but are generally 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

2-22

2.0 Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives

on a smaller scale than a major training exercise, are shorter in duration, use fewer assets, and use 

fewer hours of hull-mounted sonar per exercise. Coordinated training exercises involve multiple units 

working together to meet unit-level training requirements, whereas integrated training exercises involve 

multiple units working together to certify for deployment. These coordinated exercises are conducted 

under anti-submarine warfare. Three key factors used to identify and group the exercises are the scale 

of the exercise, duration of the exercise, and amount of hull-mounted sonar hours modeled/used for 

the exercise. 

Table 2.3-1 provides the differences between major anti-submarine warfare training events and smaller 

integrated/coordinated anti-submarine exercises based on scale, duration, and sonar hours for the 

purposes of exercise reporting requirements. 

The training activities proposed by the Navy are described in Table 2.3-2, which include the activity 

name and a short description of the activity. Appendix A (Navy Activity Descriptions) has more detailed 

descriptions of the activities. 

Table 2.3-1: Major Anti-Submarine Warfare Training Exercises and

Integrated/Coordinated Training

Integrated/

Coordinated Training

Small 

Integrated 

ASW

Small-scale, 

short duration 

integrated ASW 

exercises

Approximately 3–6 

surface ASW units, 2 

dedicated 

submarines, 2–6 

ASW aircraft

Generally 

less 

than 5 days

JAX RC

Navy Cherry 

Point RC

VACAPES RC

SWATT, 

NUWTAC 

 50–100 hours

Medium 

Coordinated 

ASW

Medium-scale, 

medium 

duration, 

coordinated 

ASW exercises

Approximately 2–4

surface ASW units, 

possibly a 

submarine, 2–5 ASW 

aircraft

Generally 

3–10 days

JAX RC

Navy Cherry 

Point RC

VACAPES RC

TACDEVEX Less than 

100 hours

Small 

Coordinated 

ASW

Small-scale, 

short duration, 

coordinated 

ASW exercises

Approximately 2–4 

surface ASW units, 

possibly a 

submarine, 1–2 ASW 

aircraft

Generally 

2–4 days

JAX RC

Navy Cherry 

Point RC

VACAPES RC

ARG/MEU, 

Group Sail 

Less than 

50 hours

Notes: ASW: anti-submarine warfare; JAX: Jacksonville; RC: Range Complex; VACAPES: Virginia Capes; COMTUEX: Composite 

Training Unit Exercise; FLEETEX/SUSTEX: Fleet Exercise/Sustainment Exercise; SWATT: Surface Warfare Advanced Tactical 

Training Exercise; NUWTAC: Navy Undersea Warfare Training Assessment Course; TACDEVEX: Tactical Development 

Exercise; ARG/MEU: Amphibious Ready Group/Marine Expeditionary Unit 

Exercise 

Group Description Scale Duration Location Exercise Examples

Modeled 

Hull-Mounted 

Sonar per 

Exercise

Major Training Exercise

Large

Integrated

ASW

Larger-scale, 

longer duration 

integrated ASW 

exercises

Greater than 6 

surface ASW units 

(up to 30 with the 

largest exercises), 2 

or more submarines, 

multiple ASW aircraft

Generally 

greater 

than 10 

days

JAX RC

Navy Cherry 

Point RC

VACAPES RC 

COMPTUEX >500 hours

Medium

Integrated

ASW

Medium-scale, 

medium 

duration 

integrated ASW 

exercises

Approximately 3–8 

surface ASW units, at 

least 1 submarine, 

multiple ASW aircraft

Generally 

4–10 days

JAX RC

Navy Cherry 

Point RC

VACAPES RC

FLEETEX/

SUSTEX 100–500 hours
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

2-23

2.0 Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives

Table 2.3-2: Proposed Training Activities

Activity Name Activity Description

Major Training Exercises – Large Integrated Anti-Submarine Warfare

Composite Training Unit Exercise

Aircraft carrier and its associated aircraft integrate with surface and 

submarine units in a challenging multi-threat operational environment in 

order to certify them for deployment. Only the anti-submarine warfare 

portion of a Composite Training Unit Exercise is included in this activity; 

other training objectives are met via unit-level training described in each 

of the primary mission areas below. 

Major Training Exercises – Medium Integrated Anti-Submarine Warfare

Fleet Exercises/Sustainment 

Exercise

Aircraft carrier and its associated aircraft integrate with surface and 

submarine units in a challenging multi-threat operational environment in 

order to maintain their ability to deploy. Fleet Exercises and Sustainment 

Exercises are similar to Composite Training Unit Exercises, but are shorter 

in duration.

Integrated/Coordinated Training – Small Integrated Anti-Submarine Warfare Training

Naval Undersea Warfare Training 

Assessment Course

Multiple ships, aircraft, and submarines integrate the use of their sensors 

to search for, detect, classify, localize, and track a threat submarine in 

order to launch an exercise torpedo.

Surface Warfare Advanced 

Tactical Training

Multiple ships and aircraft use 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.

Integrated/Coordinated Training – Medium Coordinated Anti-Submarine Warfare Training

Anti-Submarine Warfare Tactical 

Development Exercise

Surface ships, aircraft, and submarines coordinate to search for, detect, 

and track submarines.

Integrated/Coordinated Training – Small Coordinated Anti-Submarine Warfare Training

Amphibious Ready Group/Marine 

Expeditionary Unit Exercise

Navy and Marine Corps forces conduct advanced training at sea in 

preparation for deployment.

Group Sail

Surface ships and rotary-wing aircraft search for, detect, and track threat 

submarines. Group Sails are not dedicated anti-submarine warfare events 

and involve multiple warfare areas; non-anti-submarine warfare training 

objectives are met via unit-level training described in the primary mission 

areas below.

Air Warfare

Air Combat Maneuver Fixed-wing aircrews aggressively maneuver against threat aircraft to gain 

tactical advantage.

Air Defense Exercises Aircrews and ship crews conduct defensive measures against threat 

aircraft or simulated missiles.

Gunnery Exercise 

Air-to-Air Medium-Caliber Fixed-wing aircraft fire medium-caliber guns at air targets.

Gunnery Exercise 

Surface-to-Air Large-Caliber Surface ship crews fire large-caliber guns at air targets.

Gunnery Exercise 

Surface-to-Air Medium-Caliber Surface ship crews fire medium-caliber guns at air targets.

Missile Exercise 

Air-to-Air Fixed-wing and helicopter aircrews fire air-to-air missiles at air targets.

Missile Exercise 

Surface-to-Air Surface ship crews fire surface-to-air missiles at air targets.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

Table 2.3-2: Proposed Training Activities (continued)

2-24

2.0 Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives

Activity Name Activity Description

Missile Exercise

Man-Portable Air Defense System Personnel employ shoulder-fired surface-to-air missiles at air targets.

Amphibious Warfare

Amphibious Marine Expeditionary 

Unit Integration Exercise

Navy and Marine Corps forces conduct integration training at sea in 

preparation for deployment certification. 

Amphibious Assault Large unit forces move ashore from amphibious ships at sea for the 

immediate execution of inland objectives.

Amphibious Raid 

Small unit forces move from amphibious ships at sea to shore locations for 

a specific short-term mission. These are quick operations with as few 

personnel as possible. 

Amphibious Vehicle Maneuvers Personnel operate amphibious vehicles for driver training.

Humanitarian Assistance 

Operations

Navy and Marine Corps forces evacuate noncombatants from hostile or 

unsafe areas or provide humanitarian assistance in times of disaster.

Marine Expeditionary Unit 

Certification Exercise 

Amphibious Ready Group exercises are conducted to validate the Marine 

Expeditionary Unit’s readiness for deployment and includes small boat 

raids; visit, board, search, and seizure training; helicopter and mechanized 

amphibious raids; and a non-combatant evacuation operations.

Naval Surface Fire Support 

Exercise – At Sea 

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.

Naval Surface Fire Support 

Exercise – Land-Based Target 

Surface ship crews fire large-caliber guns at land-based targets to support 

forces ashore.

Anti-Submarine Warfare

Anti-Submarine Warfare Torpedo 

Exercise – Helicopter 

Helicopter aircrews search for, track, and detect submarines. Recoverable 

air launched torpedoes are employed against submarine targets.

Anti-Submarine Warfare Torpedo 

Exercise – Maritime Patrol Aircraft

Maritime patrol aircraft aircrews search for, track, and detect submarines. 

Recoverable air launched torpedoes are employed against submarine 

targets.

Anti-Submarine Warfare Torpedo 

Exercise – Ship

Surface ship crews search for, track, and detect submarines. Exercise 

torpedoes are used.

Anti-Submarine Warfare Torpedo 

Exercise – Submarine

Submarine crews search for, track, and detect submarines. Exercise 

torpedoes are used.

Anti-Submarine Warfare Tracking 

Exercise – Helicopter Helicopter aircrews search for, track, and detect submarines.

Anti-Submarine Warfare Tracking 

Exercise – Maritime Patrol Aircraft Maritime patrol aircraft aircrews search for, track, and detect submarines.

Anti-Submarine Warfare Tracking 

Exercise – Ship Surface ship crews search for, track, and detect submarines. 

Anti-Submarine Warfare Tracking 

Exercise – Submarine Submarine crews search for, track, and detect submarines. 

Electronic Warfare

Counter Targeting Chaff Exercise –

Aircraft 

Fixed-wing aircraft and helicopter aircrews deploy chaff to disrupt threat 

targeting and missile guidance radars.

Counter Targeting Chaff Exercise –

Ship 

Surface ship crews deploy chaff to disrupt threat targeting and missile 

guidance radars.

Counter Targeting Flare Exercise Fixed-wing aircraft and helicopter aircrews deploy flares to disrupt threat 

infrared missile guidance systems.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

Table 2.3-2: Proposed Training Activities (continued)

2-25

2.0 Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives

Activity Name Activity Description

Electronic Warfare Operations 

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.

High-Speed Anti-Radiation Missile 

Exercise 

Aircrews launch a High-Speed Anti-Radiation Missile against threat radar 

sites.

Expeditionary Warfare

Dive and Salvage Operations Navy divers perform dive operations and salvage training.

Maritime Security Operations –

Anti-Swimmer Grenades

Small boat crews engage in force protection activities by using 

anti-swimmer grenades to defend against hostile divers.

Personnel Insertion/Extraction –

Air 

Personnel are inserted into and extracted from an objective area by 

airborne platforms.

Personnel Insertion/Extraction –

Surface and Subsurface

Personnel are inserted into and extracted from an objective area by small 

boats or subsurface platforms.

Personnel Insertion/Extraction 

Training – Swimmer/Diver

Divers and swimmer infiltrate harbors, beaches, or moored vessels and 

conduct a variety of tasks.

Underwater Construction Team 

Training Navy divers conduct underwater repair and construction.

Mine Warfare

Airborne Mine Countermeasures –

Mine Detection

Helicopter aircrews detect mines using towed or laser mine detection 

systems.

Airborne Mine Countermeasures –

Towed Mine Neutralization

Helicopter crews tow systems through the water that are designed to 

disable or trigger mines.

Civilian Port Defense – Homeland 

Security Anti-Terrorism/Force 

Protection Exercise

Maritime security personnel train to protect civilian ports against enemy 

efforts to interfere with access to those ports.

Coordinated Unit-Level Helicopter 

Airborne Mine Countermeasure 

Exercise

A detachment of helicopter aircrews train as a unit in the use of airborne 

mine countermeasures, such as towed mine detection and neutralization 

systems.

Mine Countermeasures – Mine 

Neutralization – Remotely 

Operated Vehicles

Ship, small boat, and helicopter crews locate and disable mines using 

remotely operated underwater vehicles.

Mine Countermeasures – Ship 

Sonar

Ship crews detect and avoid mines while navigating restricted areas or 

channels using active sonar.

Mine Laying Fixed-wing aircraft drop non-explosive mine shapes.

Mine Neutralization – Explosive 

Ordnance Disposal Personnel disable threat mines using explosive charges.

Underwater Mine 

Countermeasures Raise, Tow, 

Beach, and Exploitation 

Operations

Personnel locate mines, perform mine neutralization, raise and tow the 

mines to the beach, and conduct exploitation operations for intelligence 

gathering. 

Surface Warfare

Bombing Exercise Air-to-Surface Fixed-wing aircrews deliver bombs against surface targets.

Fast Attack Craft and Fast Inshore 

Attack Craft Exercise Navy surface ship and helicopter crews defend against small boat attacks.

Gunnery Exercise

Air-to-Surface Medium-Caliber

Fixed-wing and helicopter aircrews fire medium-caliber guns at surface 

targets.

Gunnery Exercise 

Air-to-Surface Small-Caliber

Helicopter and tiltrotor aircrews use small-caliber guns to engage surface 

targets.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

Table 2.3-2: Proposed Training Activities (continued)

2-26

2.0 Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives

Activity Name Activity Description

Gunnery Exercise

Surface-to-Surface Boat MediumCaliberSmall boat crews fire medium-caliber guns at surface targets.

Gunnery Exercise

Surface-to-Surface Boat SmallCaliberSmall boat crews fire small-caliber guns at surface targets.

Gunnery Exercise 

Surface-to-Surface Ship LargeCaliberSurface ship crews fire large-caliber guns at surface targets.

Gunnery Exercise 

Surface-to-Surface Ship MediumCaliberSurface ship crews fire medium-caliber guns at surface targets.

Gunnery Exercise

Surface-to-Surface Ship SmallCaliberSurface ship crews fire small-caliber guns at surface targets.

Integrated Live Fire Exercise

Naval forces defend against a swarm of surface threats (ships or small 

boats) with bombs, missiles, rockets, and small-, medium- and 

large-caliber guns.

Laser Targeting – Aircraft Fixed-wing and helicopter aircrews illuminate targets with targeting and 

directed energy lasers. 

Laser Targeting – Ship Surface ship crews illuminate air and surface targets with targeting and 

directed energy lasers.

Maritime Security Operations Helicopter, surface ship, and small boat crews conduct a suite of maritime 

security operations. 

Missile Exercise 

Air-to-Surface

Fixed-wing and helicopter aircrews fire air-to-surface missiles at surface 

targets.

Missile Exercise 

Air-to-Surface Rocket

Helicopter aircrews fire both precision-guided and unguided rockets at 

surface targets.

Missile Exercise Surface-toSurfaceSurface ship crews defend against surface threats (ships or small boats) 

and engage them with missiles.

Sinking Exercise 

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 munitions.

Other Training Activities

Elevated Causeway System A temporary pier is constructed off the beach. Support pilings are driven 

into the sand and then later removed. 

Precision Anchoring Anchors are released in designated locations or moored to a buoy.

Search and Rescue Surface ships, small boats, and helicopter rescue personnel at sea.

Submarine Navigation Submarine crews operate sonar for navigation and object detection while 

transiting into and out of port during reduced visibility.

Submarine Sonar Maintenance

and Systems Checks Maintenance of submarine sonar systems is conducted pierside or at sea.

Submarine Under Ice Certification Submarine crews train to operate under ice. Ice conditions are simulated 

during training and certification events.

Surface Ship Object Detection Surface ship crews operate sonar for navigation and object detection 

while transiting in and out of port during reduced visibility.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

Table 2.3-2: Proposed Training Activities (continued)

2-27

2.0 Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives

Activity Name Activity Description

Surface Ship Sonar Maintenance

and Systems Checks

Maintenance of surface ship sonar systems is conducted pierside or at 

sea.

Waterborne Training

Small boat crews conduct a variety of training, including launch and 

recovery, mooring to buoys, anchoring, and maneuvering. Small boats 

include rigid hull inflatable boats, and riverine patrol, assault and 

command boats up to approximately 50 feet in length.

2.3.2 PROPOSED TESTING ACTIVITIES

The Navy’s research and acquisition community engages in a broad spectrum of testing activities in 

support of the fleet. These activities include, but are not limited to, basic and applied scientific research 

and technology development; testing, evaluation, and maintenance of systems (e.g., missiles, radar, and 

sonar) and platforms (e.g., surface ships, submarines, and aircraft); and acquisition of systems and 

platforms to support Navy missions and give a technological edge over adversaries. The individual 

commands within the research and acquisition community included in this EIS/OEIS are Naval Air 

Systems Command, Naval Sea Systems Command, and the Office of Naval Research. 

The Navy operates in an ever-changing strategic, tactical, financially constrained, and time-constrained 

environment. Testing activities occur in response to emerging science or fleet operational needs. For 

example, future Navy experiments to develop a better understanding of ocean currents may be 

designed based on advancements made by non-government researchers not yet published in the 

scientific literature. Similarly, future but yet unknown Navy operations within a specific geographic area 

may require development of modified Navy assets to address local conditions. Such modifications must 

be tested in the field to ensure they meet fleet needs and requirements. Accordingly, generic 

descriptions of some of these activities are the best that can be articulated in a long-term, 

comprehensive document, like this EIS/OEIS. 

Some testing activities are similar to training activities conducted by the fleet. For example, both the 

fleet and the research and acquisition community fire torpedoes. While the firing of a torpedo might 

look identical to an observer, the difference is in the purpose of the firing. The fleet might fire the 

torpedo to practice the procedures for such a firing, whereas the research and acquisition community 

might be assessing a new torpedo guidance technology or testing it to ensure the torpedo meets 

performance specifications and operational requirements. 

2.3.2.1 Naval Air Systems Command Testing Activities

Naval Air Systems Command testing activities generally fall in the primary mission areas used by the 

fleets. 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 the testing of 

new platforms, weapons, and systems, Naval Air Systems Command also conducts lot acceptance 

testing of weapons and systems, such as sonobuoys. 

The majority of testing activities conducted by Naval Air Systems Command are similar to fleet training 

activities, and many platforms and systems currently being tested are already being used by the fleet or 

will ultimately be integrated into fleet training activities. However, some testing activities may be 

conducted in different locations and in a different manner than similar fleet training activities and, 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

2-28

2.0 Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives

therefore, the analysis for those events and the potential environmental effects may differ. Training 

with systems and platforms delivered to the fleet within the timeframe of this document are analyzed in 

the training sections of this EIS/OEIS. Table 2.3-3 addresses Naval Air Systems Command’s proposed 

testing activities.

Table 2.3-3: Naval Air Systems Command’s Proposed Testing Activities

Activity Name Activity Description

Air Warfare

Air Combat Maneuver Test Aircrews engage in flight maneuvers designed to gain a tactical advantage 

during combat.

Air Platform Weapons Integration 

Test

Test 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.

Air Platform-Vehicle Test

Test 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.

Air-to-Air Weapons System Test Test to evaluate the effectiveness of air-launched weapons against 

designated air targets.

Air-to-Air Gunnery Test – MediumCaliberTest performed to evaluate the effectiveness of air-to-air guns against 

designated airborne targets. Fixed-wing aircraft may be used.

Air-to-Air Missile Test Test performed to evaluate the effectiveness of air-launched missiles 

against designated airborne targets. Fixed-wing aircraft will be used.

Intelligence, Surveillance, and 

Reconnaissance Test Aircrews use all available sensors to collect data on threat vessels.

Anti-Submarine Warfare

Anti-Submarine Warfare Torpedo 

Test

This event is similar to the training event torpedo exercise. Test 

evaluates anti-submarine warfare systems onboard rotary-wing (e.g., 

helicopter) and fixed-wing aircraft and the ability to search for, detect, 

classify, localize, track, and attack a submarine or similar target.

Anti-Submarine Warfare Tracking 

Test – Helicopter

This event is similar to the training event anti-submarine warfare 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 system perform to specifications.

Anti-Submarine Warfare Tracking 

Test – Maritime Patrol Aircraft

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.

Kilo Dip Functional check of a helicopter deployed dipping sonar system prior to 

conducting a testing or training event using the dipping sonar system.

Sonobuoy Lot Acceptance Test

Sonobuoys are deployed from surface vessels and aircraft to verify the 

integrity and performance of a production lot or group of sonobuoys in 

advance of delivery to the fleet for operational use.

Electronic Warfare

Chaff Test

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.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

Table 2.3-3: Naval Air Systems Command’s Proposed Testing Activities (continued)

2-29

2.0 Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives

Activity Name Activity Description

Electronic Systems Evaluation

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.

Flare Test

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 aircrews 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.

Mine Warfare

Airborne Dipping Sonar 

Minehunting Test

A mine-hunting dipping sonar system that is deployed from a helicopter 

and uses high-frequency sonar for the detection and classification of 

bottom and moored mines.

Airborne Laser Based Mine 

Detection System Test

An airborne mine hunting test of a laser based mine detection system 

that is operated from a helicopter and evaluates the system’s ability to 

detect, classify, and fix the location of floating mines and mines moored 

near the surface. The system uses a low-energy laser to locate mines.

Airborne Mine Neutralization 

System Test

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. 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.

Airborne Sonobuoy Minehunting 

Test

A mine-hunting system made up of a field of sonobuoys deployed by a 

helicopter. A field of sonobuoys, using high-frequency sonar, is used to 

detect and classify bottom and moored mines.

Mine Laying Test

Fixed-wing aircraft evaluate the performance of mine laying equipment 

and software systems to lay mines. A mine test may also train aircrews in 

laying mines using new or enhanced mine deployment system.

Surface Warfare

Air-to-Surface Bombing Test

This event is similar to the training event bombing exercise air-tosurface. 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.

Air-to-Surface Gunnery Test

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 guns, gun 

ammunition, or associated systems meet required specifications or to 

train aircrews in the operation of a new or enhanced weapon system.

Air-to-Surface Missile Test

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 weapon system or as 

part of another system’s integration test.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

Table 2.3-3: Naval Air Systems Command’s Proposed Testing Activities (continued)

2-30

2.0 Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives

Activity Name Activity Description

High-Energy Laser Weapons Test

High-energy laser weapons tests evaluate the specifications, integration, 

and performance of an aircraft-mounted, high-energy laser used to 

disable small surface vessels.

Laser Targeting Test Aircrews illuminate enemy targets with lasers.

Rocket Test

Rocket tests evaluate the integration, accuracy, performance, and safe 

separation of guided and unguided 2.75-inch rockets fired from a 

hovering or forward-flying helicopter.

Other Testing Activities

Acoustic and Oceanographic 

Research

Active transmissions within the band 10 hertz–100 kilohertz from sources 

deployed from ships and aircraft.

Air Platform Shipboard Integrate

Test

Fixed-wing and rotary-wing aircraft are tested to determine operability 

from shipboard platforms, performance of shipboard physical 

operations, and to verify and evaluate communications and tactical data 

links.

Maritime Security

Maritime patrol aircraft participate in maritime security activities and 

fleet training events. Aircraft identify, track, and monitor foreign 

merchant vessels suspected of non-compliance with United Nationsallied sanctions or conflict rules of engagement.

Shipboard Electronic Systems 

Evaluation

Tests measure ship antenna radiation patterns and test communication 

systems with a variety of aircraft.

Undersea Range System Test

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.

2.3.2.2 Naval Sea Systems Command Testing Activities

Naval Sea Systems Command activities are generally aligned with the primary mission areas used by the 

fleets. Additional activities include, but are not limited to, vessel evaluation, unmanned systems, and 

other testing activities. In this EIS/OEIS, pierside testing at Navy and contractor shipyards consists only of 

system testing. 

Testing activities are conducted throughout the life of a Navy ship, from construction through 

deactivation from the fleet, to verification of performance and mission capabilities. Activities include 

pierside and at-sea testing of ship systems, including sonar, acoustic countermeasures, radars, launch 

systems, weapons, unmanned systems, and radio equipment; tests to determine how the ship performs 

at sea (sea trials); development and operational test and evaluation programs for new technologies and 

systems; and testing on all ships and systems that have undergone overhaul or maintenance. 

One ship of each new class (or major upgrade) of combat ships constructed for the Navy typically 

undergoes an at-sea ship shock trial. A ship shock trial consists of a series of underwater detonations 

that send shock waves through the ship’s hull to simulate near misses during combat. A shock trial 

allows the Navy to assess the survivability of the hull and ship’s systems in a combat environment as 

well as the capability of the ship to protect the crew. Table 2.3-4 describes Naval Sea Systems 

Command’s proposed testing activities.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

2-31

2.0 Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives

Table 2.3-4: Naval Sea Systems Command’s Proposed Testing Activities

Activity Name Activity Description

Anti-Submarine Warfare

Anti-Submarine Warfare Mission 

Package Testing

Ships and their supporting platforms (e.g., helicopters, unmanned aerial 

systems) detect, localize, and attack submarines.

At-Sea Sonar Testing At-sea testing to ensure systems are fully functional in an open ocean 

environment.

Countermeasure Testing

Countermeasure testing involves the testing of systems that will detect, 

localize, track, and attack incoming weapons including marine vessel 

targets. Testing includes surface ship torpedo defense systems and marine 

vessel stopping payloads.

Pierside Sonar Testing Pierside testing to ensure systems are fully functional in a controlled 

pierside environment prior to at-sea test activities.

Submarine Sonar Testing/ 

Maintenance

Pierside testing of submarine systems occurs periodically following major 

maintenance periods and for routine maintenance.

Surface Ship Sonar Testing/ 

Maintenance

Pierside and at-sea testing of ship systems occur periodically following 

major maintenance periods and for routine maintenance.

Torpedo (Explosive) Testing Air, surface, or submarine crews employ explosive and non-explosive 

torpedoes against artificial targets.

Torpedo (Non-Explosive) Testing Air, surface, or submarine crews employ non-explosive torpedoes against 

submarines or surface vessels.

Electronic Warfare

Radar and Other System Testing

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.

Mine Warfare

Mine Countermeasure and 

Neutralization Testing

Air, surface, and subsurface vessels neutralize threat mines and mine-like 

objects.

Mine Countermeasure Mission 

Package Testing Vessels and associated aircraft conduct mine countermeasure operations.

Mine Detection and Classification 

Testing

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.

Surface Warfare

Gun Testing – Large-Caliber Surface crews test large-caliber guns to defend against surface targets 

with large-caliber guns.

Gun Testing – Medium-Caliber Surface crews defend against targets with medium-caliber guns.

Gun Testing – Small-Caliber Surface crews defend against targets with small-caliber guns.

Kinetic Energy Weapon Testing A kinetic energy weapon uses stored energy released in a burst to 

accelerate a projectile.

Missile and Rocket Testing

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.

Unmanned Systems 

Underwater Search, Deployment, 

and Recovery

Various underwater, bottom crawling, robotic vehicles are utilized in 

underwater search, recovery, installation, and scanning activities.

Unmanned Aerial System Testing

Unmanned aerial systems are launched from a platform (e.g., fixed 

platform or submerged submarine) to test the capability to extend the 

surveillance and communications range of unmanned underwater 

vehicles, manned and unmanned surface vehicles, and submarines.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

Table 2.3-4: Naval Sea Systems Command’s Proposed Testing Activities (continued)

2-32

2.0 Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives

Activity Name Activity Description

Unmanned Surface Vehicle 

System Testing

Testing involves the development 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.

Unmanned Underwater Vehicle 

Testing

Testing involves the development 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.

Vessel Evaluation

Aircraft Carrier Sea Trials –

Propulsion Testing

Ship is run at high speeds in various formations (e.g., straight-line and 

reciprocal paths).

Air Defense Testing

Test the ship’s capability to detect, identify, track, and successfully engage 

live and simulated targets. Gun systems are tested using explosive or 

non-explosive rounds.

Hydrodynamic and 

Maneuverability Testing Submarines maneuver in the submerged operating environment.

In-Port Maintenance Testing

Each combat system is tested to ensure they are functioning in a 

technically acceptable manner and are operationally ready to support 

at-sea testing.

Large Ship Shock Trial Underwater detonations are used to test new ships or major upgrades.

Propulsion Testing Ship is run at high speeds in various formations (e.g., straight-line and 

reciprocal paths).

Signature Analysis Operations Surface ship and submarine testing of electromagnetic, acoustic, optical, 

and radar signature measurements.

Small Ship Shock Trial Underwater detonations are used to test new ships or major upgrades.

Submarine Sea Trials – Propulsion 

Testing Submarine is run at high speeds in various formations and depths.

Submarine Sea Trials – Weapons 

System Testing

Submarine weapons and sonar systems are tested at-sea to meet 

integrated combat system certification requirements.

Surface Warfare Testing

Tests capability of shipboard sensors to detect, track, and engage surface 

targets. Testing may include ships defending against surface targets using 

explosive and non-explosive rounds, gun system structural test firing and 

demonstration of the response to Call for Fire against land-based targets 

(simulated by sea-based locations).

Total Ship Survivability Trials Series of simulated “realistic” weapon hit scenarios with resulting damage 

and recoverability exercises against an aircraft carrier.

Undersea Warfare Testing

Ships demonstrate capability of countermeasure systems and underwater 

surveillance, weapons engagement, and communications systems. This 

tests ships’ ability to detect, track, and engage underwater targets.

Vessel Signature Evaluation

Surface ship, submarine, and auxiliary system signature assessments. This 

may include electronic, radar, acoustic, infrared, and magnetic signatures, 

refueling capabilities.

Other Testing Activities

Acoustic Component Testing Various surface vessels, moored equipment, and materials are tested to 

evaluate performance in the marine environment.

Chemical and Biological Simulant 

Testing Chemical-biological agent simulants are deployed against surface ships.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

Table 2.3-4: Naval Sea Systems Command’s Proposed Testing Activities (continued)

2-33

2.0 Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives

Activity Name Activity Description

Insertion/Extraction Testing of submersibles capable of inserting and extracting personnel and 

payloads into denied areas from strategic distances.

Line Charge Testing Surface vessels deploy line charges to test the capability to safely clear an 

area for expeditionary forces.

Non-Acoustic Component Testing

Tests of towed or floating buoys for communications through radio

frequencies or two-way optical communications between an aircraft and 

underwater system(s). 

Payload Deployer Testing Launcher systems are tested to evaluate performance.

Semi-Stationary Equipment 

Testing

Semi-stationary equipment (e.g., hydrophones) is deployed to determine 

functionality.

Towed Equipment Testing Surface vessels or unmanned surface vehicles deploy and tow equipment 

to determine functionality of towed systems.

2.3.2.3 Office of Naval Research Testing Activities

As the Department of the Navy’s science and technology provider, the Office of Naval Research provides 

technology solutions for Navy and Marine Corps needs. The Office of Naval Research’s mission is to plan, 

foster, and encourage scientific research in recognition of its paramount importance as related to the 

maintenance of future naval power and the preservation of national security. The Office of Naval 

Research manages the Navy’s basic, applied, and advanced research to foster transition from science 

and technology to higher levels of research, development, test, and evaluation. The Office of Naval 

Research is also a parent organization for the Naval Research Laboratory, which operates as the Navy’s 

corporate research laboratory and conducts a broad multidisciplinary program of scientific research and 

advanced technological development. Testing conducted by the Office of Naval Research in the AFTT 

Study Area includes acoustic and oceanographic research, large displacement unmanned underwater 

vehicle (innovative naval prototype) research, and emerging mine countermeasure technology research. 

Table 2.3-5 describes the Office of Naval Research’s proposed testing activities. 

Table 2.3-5: Office of Naval Research Proposed Testing Activities

Activity Name Activity Description

Acoustic and Oceanographic Science and Technology

Acoustic and Oceanographic 

Research

Research using active transmissions from sources deployed from ships 

and unmanned underwater vehicles. Research sources can be used as 

proxies for current and future Navy systems.

Emerging Mine Countermeasure 

Technology Research

Test involves the use of broadband acoustic sources on unmanned 

underwater vehicles.

Large Displacement Unmanned 

Underwater Vehicle Testing

Autonomy testing and environmental data collection with Large 

Displacement Unmanned Underwater Vehicles.

2.3.3 STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES

For training and testing to be effective, units must be able to safely use their sensors and weapon 

systems as they are intended to be used in military missions and combat operations and to their 

optimum capabilities. Standard operating procedures applicable to training and testing have been 

developed through years of experience, and their primary purpose is to provide for safety (including 

public health and safety) and mission success. In many cases, there are benefits to environmental and 

cultural resources (some of which have high socioeconomic value in the Study Area) resulting from 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

2-34

2.0 Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives

standard operating procedures. Navy standard operating procedures are published or broadcast via 

numerous naval instructions and manuals, including but not limited to:

• Ship, submarine, and aircraft safety manuals

• Ship, submarine, and aircraft standard operating manuals

• Fleet Area Control and Surveillance Facility range operating instructions

• Fleet exercise publications and instructions

• Naval Sea Systems Command test range safety and standard operating instructions

• Navy instrumented range operating procedures

• Naval shipyard sea trial agendas

• Research, development, test, and evaluation plans

• Naval gunfire safety instructions

• Navy planned maintenance system instructions and requirements

• Federal Aviation Administration regulations

• International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea

Because they are essential to safety and mission success, standard operating procedures are part of the 

Proposed Action and are considered in the Chapter 3 (Affected Environment and Environmental 

Consequences) environmental analysis for applicable resources. Standard operating procedures that 

provide a benefit to public health and safety, environmental resources, or cultural resources are 

discussed in the sections below and included in Appendix A (Navy Activity Descriptions). 

Standard operating procedures (which are implemented for the purpose of safety and mission success) 

are different from mitigation measures (which are implemented for the purpose of avoiding or reducing 

potential impacts on environmental and cultural resources). A brief introduction to the activities, 

stressor categories, and geographic areas for which the Navy will implement mitigation is provided in 

Section 2.3.4 (Mitigation Measures). A full discussion of mitigation measures is presented in Chapter 5 

(Mitigation). 

2.3.3.1 Sea Space and Airspace Deconfliction

The Navy schedules training and testing activities to minimize conflicts with the use of sea space and 

airspace within ranges and throughout the Study Area to ensure the safety of military personnel, the 

public, commercial aircraft, commercial and recreational vessels, and military assets. The Navy 

deconflicts its own use of sea space and airspace to allow for the necessary separation of multiple Navy 

units to prevent interference with equipment sensors and avoid interaction with established commercial 

air traffic routes and commercial shipping lanes. These standard operating procedures benefit public 

health and safety (including persons participating in activities that have socioeconomic value, such as 

recreational or commercial fishing) through a reduction in the potential for interactions with training 

and testing activities.

2.3.3.2 Vessel Safety

Navy vessels are required to operate in accordance with applicable navigation rules, including Inland 

Navigation Rules (33 CFR 83) and International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea (72 

COLREGS), which were formalized in the Convention on the International Regulations for Preventing 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

2-35

2.0 Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives

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 at all times proceed at a safe speed 

so proper and effective action can be taken to avoid collision and so vessels can be stopped within a 

distance appropriate to the prevailing circumstances and conditions. Navy ships transit at speeds that 

are optimal for fuel conservation, maintaining ship schedules, and meeting mission requirements. Vessel 

captains use the totality of the circumstances to ensure the vessel is traveling at appropriate speeds in 

accordance with navigation rules. Depending on the circumstances, this may involve adjusting speeds 

during periods of reduced visibility or in certain locations. With limited exceptions (e.g., amphibious 

vessels operating in designated locations), Navy vessels avoid contact with the seafloor as a standard 

collision avoidance procedure to prevent damage to vessels. Information on vessels that will be used 

under the Proposed Action is provided in Section 3.0.3.3.4.1 (Vessels and In-Water Devices). 

Ships operated by or for the Navy have personnel assigned to stand watch at all times, day and night, 

when moving through the water (underway) for safety of navigation, collision avoidance, range 

clearance, and man-overboard precautions. Watch personnel include officers, enlisted men and women, 

and civilians operating in similar capacities. To qualify to stand watch, personnel undertake extensive 

training that includes, but is not limited to, on-the-job instruction and a formal Personal Qualification 

Standard program (or equivalent program for civilians) to certify that they have demonstrated all 

necessary skills. While on watch, personnel employ visual search and reporting procedures in 

accordance with the U.S. Navy Lookout Training Handbook or civilian equivalent. Watch personnel are 

responsible for using correct scanning procedures while monitoring an assigned sector; estimating 

relative bearing, range, position angle, and target angle of sighted objects; and rapidly sending accurate 

reports of all visual information to the bridge and combat information center. After sunset and prior to 

sunrise, watch personnel employ night visual search techniques, which could include the use of night 

vision devices. 

Watch personnel monitor their assigned sectors for any indication of danger to the ship and the 

personnel on board, such as a floating or partially submerged object or piece of debris, periscope, 

surfaced submarine, wisp of smoke, flash of light, or surface disturbance. As a standard collision 

avoidance procedure, watch personnel also monitor for marine mammals that have the potential to be 

in the direct path of the ship. Watch personnel duties may be performed in conjunction with other tasks 

or job responsibilities, such as navigating the ship or supervising other personnel. Watch personnel are 

not normally posted while ships are moored to a pier. When anchored or moored to a buoy, a watch 

team is still maintained but with fewer personnel than when underway. 

The standard operating procedures for vessel safety benefit public health and safety, marine mammals, 

and seafloor resources through a reduction in the potential for vessel strikes. 

2.3.3.3 Aircraft Safety

Pilots of Navy aircraft make every attempt to avoid large flocks of birds and bats to reduce the safety 

risk involved with a potential strike. Since 2011, the Navy has required that all Navy flying units report all 

bird and bat strikes through the Web-Enabled Safety System Aviation Mishap and Hazard Reporting 

System. The standard operating procedures for aircraft safety benefit birds and bats through a reduction 

in the potential for aircraft strike.

2.3.3.4 High-Energy Laser Safety

The Navy operates laser systems approved for fielding by the Laser Safety Review Board or service 

equivalent. Only properly trained and authorized personnel operate high-energy lasers within 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

2-36

2.0 Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives

designated OPAREAs and ranges. OPAREAs and ranges where lasers are used are required to have a 

Laser Range Safety Certification Report that is updated every 3 years. Prior to commencing activities 

involving high-energy lasers, the operator performs a search of the intended impact location to ensure 

that the area is clear of unauthorized persons. These standard operating procedures benefit public 

health and safety through a reduction in the potential for interaction with high-energy lasers. 

2.3.3.5 Weapons Firing Safety

A Notice to Mariners is issued in advance of gunnery activities to alert the public to stay clear of the 

area, except for small-caliber crew-served weapons training when the immediate area around the firing 

ship is cleared visually. Locations where explosive bombing activities occur often have a standing Notice 

to Mariners. Notices to Mariners are issued in advance of explosive bombing activities conducted in 

locations that do not already have a standing notice. Additional information on Notices to Mariners is 

provided in Section 3.12.2.1.1 (Sea Space).

Most weapons firing activities that involve the use of explosive munitions are conducted during daylight 

hours. All missile and rocket firing activities are carefully planned in advance and conducted under strict 

procedures that place the ultimate responsibility for range safety on the Officer Conducting the Exercise 

or civilian equivalent. The weapons firing hazard range must be clear of non-participating vessels and 

aircraft before firing activities commence. The size of the firing hazard range is based on the farthest 

firing range capability of the weapon being used. All weapons firing stops when the Range Safety Officer 

receives a cease-fire order or when the line of fire could endanger non-participating vessels or aircraft.

Pilots of Navy aircraft are not authorized to expend ordnance, fire missiles, or drop other airborne 

devices through extensive cloud cover where visual clearance for non-participating aircraft and vessels is 

not possible. The two exceptions to this requirement are: (1) when operating in the open ocean, 

clearance for non-participating aircraft and vessels through radar surveillance is acceptable, and 

(2) when the Officer Conducting the Exercise or civilian equivalent accepts responsibility for the 

safeguarding of airborne and surface traffic. These standard operating procedures benefit public health 

and safety, and marine mammals and sea turtles (by increasing the effectiveness of visual observations 

for mitigation in daylight hours), through a reduction in the potential for interaction with explosive 

weapons firing activities.

During activities that involve recoverable targets (e.g., aerial drones), the Navy recovers the target and 

any associated decelerators/parachutes to the maximum extent practicable consistent with personnel 

and equipment safety. Recovery of these items helps minimize materials that remain, which could 

potentially alert enemy forces to the presence of U.S. Navy assets during military missions and combat 

operations. This standard operating procedure benefits biological resources (e.g., marine mammals, sea 

turtles, fish) through a reduction in the potential for physical disturbance and strike, entanglement, and 

ingestion of applicable targets and any associated decelerators/parachutes. Additional information 

about military expended materials (including which are recoverable) is presented in Section 3.0.3.3.4.2 

(Military Expended Materials) and Appendix F (Military Expended Material and Direct Strike Impact 

Analysis). 

2.3.3.6 Target Deployment and Retrieval Safety

The deployment and retrieval of targets is dependent upon environmental conditions. The Beaufort sea 

state scale is a standardized measurement of the weather conditions, based primarily on wind speed. 

The scale is divided into levels from 0 to 12, with 12 indicating the most severe weather conditions (e.g., 

hurricane force winds). At Beaufort sea state number 4, wave heights typically range from 3.5 to 5 ft. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

2-37

2.0 Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives

Firing exercises involving the deployment and retrieval of targets (e.g., integrated maritime portable 

acoustic scoring and simulation systems) from small boats are typically conducted in daylight hours in 

Beaufort sea state number 4 conditions or better to ensure safe operating conditions during target

deployment and recovery. These standard operating procedures benefit public health and safety, and 

marine mammals and sea turtles (by increasing the effectiveness of visual observations for mitigation), 

through a reduction in the potential for interaction with the weapons firing activities associated with the 

use of applicable deployed targets. 

2.3.3.7 Swimmer Defense Activity Safety

A Notice to Mariners is issued in advance of all swimmer defense activities. Additional information on 

Notices to Mariners is provided in Section 3.12.2.1.1 (Sea Space). A daily in situ calibration of sound 

source levels is used to establish a clearance area to the 145 decibels referenced to 1 micropascal (dB re 

1 μPa) sound pressure level threshold for non-participant safety. A hydrophone is used during the 

calibration sequences in order to confirm the clearance area. Small boats patrol the 145 dB re 1 μPa 

sound pressure level area during all activities. Boat crews are equipped with binoculars and remain 

vigilant for non-participant boats, swimmers, snorkelers, divers, and dive flags. If a non-participating 

swimmer, snorkeler, or diver is observed entering into the area of the swimmer defense system, the 

power levels of the defense system are reduced. An additional 100-yard buffer is applied to the initial 

sighting location of the non-participant as an additional precaution, and this buffer area is used to 

determine if the non-participant is within the 145 dB re 1 μPa zone. If the area cannot be maintained 

free of non-participating swimmers, snorkelers, and divers, the activity will cease until the 

non-participant has moved outside the area. These standard operating procedures benefit public health 

and safety (including persons participating in activities that have socioeconomic value, such as 

recreational diving) through a reduction in the potential for interaction with swimmer defense activities. 

2.3.3.8 Pierside Testing Safety

The U.S. Navy Dive Manual (U.S. Department of the Navy, 2011) prescribes safe distances for divers 

from active sonar sources and in-water explosions. Safety distances for the use of electromagnetic 

energy are specified in DoD Instruction 6055.11 (U.S. Department of Defense, 2009) and Military 

Standard 464A (U.S. Department of Defense, 2002). These distances are used as the standard safety 

buffers for in-water energy to protect Navy divers. If an unauthorized person is detected within the 

exercise area, the activity will be temporarily halted until the area is again cleared and secured. These

standard operating procedures benefit public health and safety (including persons participating in 

activities that have socioeconomic value, such as commercial or recreational diving) through a reduction 

in the potential for interaction with pierside testing activities. 

2.3.3.9 Underwater Detonation Safety

Underwater detonation training takes place in designated areas that are located away from popular 

recreational dive sites, primarily for human safety. Recreational dive sites oftentimes include 

shallow-water coral reefs, artificial reefs, and shipwrecks. If an unauthorized person (e.g., a recreational 

diver) is detected within the exercise area, the activity will be temporarily halted until the area is cleared 

and secured. Notices to Mariners are issued when the events are scheduled to alert the public to stay 

clear of the area. Additional information on Notices to Mariners is provided in Section 3.12.2.1.1 (Sea 

Space). These standard operating procedures benefit public health and safety, environmental resources 

(e.g., shallow-water coral reefs, artificial reefs, and the biological resources that inhabit, shelter in, or 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

2-38

2.0 Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives

feed among them), and cultural resources (e.g., shipwrecks) through a reduction in the potential for 

interaction with underwater detonation activities. 

2.3.3.10 Sonic Booms

As a general policy, aircraft do not intentionally generate sonic booms below 30,000 ft. of altitude unless 

over water and more than 30 mi. from inhabited land areas or islands. The Navy may authorize 

deviations from this policy for tactical missions; phases of formal training syllabus flights; or research, 

test, and operational suitability test flights. The standard operating procedures for sonic booms benefit 

public health and safety through a reduction in the potential for exposure to sonic booms. 

2.3.3.11 Unmanned Aerial System, Surface Vehicle, and Underwater Vehicle Safety

For activities involving unmanned aerial systems, surface vehicles, or underwater vehicles, the Navy 

evaluates the need to publish a Notice to Airmen or Notice to Mariners based on the scale, location, and 

timing of the activity. When necessary, Notices to Airmen and Notices to Mariners are issued to alert the 

public to stay clear of the area. Additional information is provided on Notices to Mariners in 

Section 3.12.2.1.1 (Sea Space) and Notices to Airmen in Section 3.12.2.1.2 (Airspace). Unmanned aerial 

systems are operated in accordance with Federal Aviation Administration air traffic organization policy 

as specified in Office of the Chief of Naval Operations Instructions 3710, 3750, and 4790. These standard 

operating procedures benefit public health and safety through a reduction in the potential for 

interaction with these unmanned systems and vehicles. 

2.3.3.12 Towed In-Water Device Safety

As a standard collision avoidance procedure, prior to deploying a towed in-water device from a manned 

platform, the Navy searches the intended path of the device for any floating debris, objects, or animals 

(e.g., driftwood, concentrations of floating vegetation, marine mammals) that have the potential to 

obstruct or damage the device. This standard operating procedure benefits marine mammals, sea 

turtles, and vegetation through a reduction in the potential for physical disturbance and strike by a 

towed in-water device. Concentrations of floating vegetation can be indicators of potential marine 

mammal or sea turtle presence because marine mammals and 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.

2.3.3.13 Ship Shock Trial Safety

The Navy may conduct ship shock trials in three designated areas within the Study Area (Figure 2.3-1). 

Notices to Mariners and Notices to Airmen are issued in advance of all ship shock trial activities to alert 

the public to stay clear of the area. Additional information is provided on Notices to Mariners in 

Section 3.12.2.1.1 (Sea Space) and Notices to Airmen in Section 3.12.2.1.2 (Airspace). An area with a

5-NM radius is established around the detonation point to exclude all non-participating vessels and 

aircraft. This area will be established 5 to 6 hours prior to each detonation and may continue 

post-detonation for a total exclusionary time of up to 12 hours. This area is an electronic emissions 

control zone that virtually eliminates the possibility of an inadvertent detonation caused by a radio or 

radar-induced electrical current in the explosive firing circuit. This area also provides for safe 

maneuvering of the explosive-laden operations vessel. Since the ship being tested and the operations 

vessel are not stationary during the ship shock trial activities, the associated area around the detonation 

point moves with the vessel. Ship shock trial activities are immediately stopped when a nonparticipating vessel or aircraft enters or is detected within the 5-NM clearance area. If a nonparticipating vessel or aircraft is detected within a 10-NM radius of ship shock trial activities, the 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

2-39

2.0 Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives

Notes: AFTT: Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing; OPAREA: Operating Area; SINKEX: Ship Sinking Exercises; VACAPES: Virginia Capes

Figure 2.3-1: Coastal Zones and Designated Ship Shock Trial and Sinking Exercise Areas with Standard Operating Procedures
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

2-40

2.0 Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives

This page intentionally left blank.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

2-41

2.0 Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives

non-participant is warned to alter course. This is necessary for operational security and to allow large 

vessels sufficient time to change course to avoid entering the clearance area. These security measures 

continue until the area is clear of non-participating vessels and aircraft. 

In the unlikely event a charge fails to explode, additional attempts to detonate the charge will be made. 

If detonation fails, the explosive will be recovered and disarmed. If the explosive cannot be detonated or 

disarmed, to safeguard human life, the explosive will be disposed at sea in accordance with established 

Ammunition and Explosives Safety Afloat requirements. The location of any disposal will be recorded.

These standard operating procedures benefit public health and safety through a reduction in the 

potential for interaction with ship shock trial activities.

2.3.3.14 Pile Driving Safety

Due to pile driving system design and operation, the Navy performs soft starts during impact installation 

of each pile to ensure proper operation of the diesel impact hammer. During a soft start, the Navy 

performs an initial set of strikes from the impact hammer at reduced energy before it can be operated 

at full power and speed. The energy reduction of an individual hammer cannot be quantified because it

varies by individual driver. The number of strikes at reduced energy varies because raising the hammer 

at less than full power and then releasing it results in the hammer “bouncing” as it strikes the pile, which

results in multiple “strikes.” This standard operating procedure benefits marine mammals, sea turtles, 

and fish because soft starts may “warn” these resources and cause them to move away from the sound 

source before impact pile driving increases to full operating capacity.

2.3.3.15 Sinking Exercise Safety

The Navy is required to conduct sinking exercises greater than 50 NM from land and in waters at least 

6,000 ft. deep (40 CFR section 229.2). Within the Study Area, the Navy conducts sinking exercises only 

within a designated sinking exercise area, as depicted in Figure 2.3-1. The Navy selected the sinking 

exercise area to avoid established commercial air traffic routes, commercial vessel shipping lanes, and 

areas used for recreational activities, and to allow for the necessary separation of Navy units to ensure 

safety for Navy personnel, the public, commercial aircraft and vessels, and Navy assets. These standard 

operating procedures benefit public health and safety (including persons participating in activities that 

have socioeconomic value, such as recreational or commercial fishing) through a reduction in the 

potential for interaction with sinking exercises. 

2.3.3.16 Coastal Zone

As a matter of practice, the Navy does not typically conduct certain activities in the coastal zone due to 

specific mission requirements. The coastal zone extends 3 NM from shore everywhere in the Study Area

except off Texas, the Florida Gulf coast, and Puerto Rico, where it extends 9 NM from shore. Training 

and testing activities that do not typically occur in the coastal zone are listed in Table 2.3-6 and Table 

2.3-7, respectively. This standard operating procedure benefits public health and safety and the 

environmental and cultural resources that are located in the coastal zone through an avoidance of 

potential interaction with applicable activities. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

2-42

2.0 Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives

Table 2.3-6: Training Activities Typically Not Occurring in the Coastal Zone1

Air Warfare Mine Warfare

• Air Combat Maneuver2

• Air Defense Exercise

• Gunnery Exercises 

o all Air-to-Air

o all Surface-to-Air 

• Missile Exercises 

o Air-to-Air

o Surface-to-Air

• Mine Detection

o Mine Countermeasure Exercise – Ship Sonar

• Mine Laying

o Aircraft

o Submarine launched

Surface Warfare

• Gunnery Exercises

o All Air-to-Surface

o All Surface-to-Surface

• Missile Exercise

o Air-to-Surface (Missile and Rocket)

o Surface-to-Surface

• Laser Targeting

o Aircraft

o Ship

• Integrated Live Fire

• Bombing Exercise

• Sinking Exercise3

Amphibious Warfare

• Naval Surface Fire Support Exercise-At Sea

• Naval Surface Fire Support Exercise-Land Based Target

Anti-Submarine Warfare

• Torpedo Exercise

o Helicopter

o Maritime Patrol Aircraft

o Submarine

o Ship

• Tracking Exercise

o Helicopter

o Maritime Patrol Aircraft

o Submarine

o Ship

Major Training Exercise

• Composite Training Unit Exercise

• Fleet Exercise/Sustainment Exercise

Other Training Activities

Integrated/Coordinated Anti-Submarine Warfare • Submarine Navigation

• Anti-Submarine Warfare Tactical Development Exercise • Submarine Under Ice Certification

• Group Sail

• Navy Undersea Warfare Training Assessment Course

• Surface Warfare Advanced Tactical Training

Electronic Warfare

• Counter Targeting

o Chaff-Aircraft

o Chaff-Ship

o Flare-Aircraft 1 The coastal zone extends 3 NM from shore everywhere in the Study Area except off Texas, the Florida Gulf coast, and 

Puerto Rico, where it extends 9 NM from shore.

 

2 Air Combat Maneuver typically occurs outside the coastal zone, with an exception in the Key West Range Complex. 3 This activity only occurs in a designated area, which is located outside of the coastal zone. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

2-43

2.0 Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives

Table 2.3-7: Testing Activities Typically Not Occurring in the Coastal Zone1

Air Warfare Surface Warfare

• Air Combat Maneuver Test

• Air Platform Weapons Integration Test

• Air Platform-Vehicle Test

• Air-to-Air Weapons System Test

o Air-to-Air Gunnery Test – Medium-Caliber

o Air-to-Air Missile Test

• Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance Test

• 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

• Gun Testing – Large-Caliber

• Gun Testing – Medium-Caliber

• Gun Testing – Small-Caliber

• Kinetic Energy Weapon Testing

• Missile and Rocket Testing

Anti-Submarine Warfare

• Anti-Submarine Warfare Torpedo Test

• Anti-Submarine Warfare Tracking Test – Helicopter

• Kilo Dip

• Sonobuoy Lot Acceptance Test

• Torpedo (Explosive) Testing2

• At-Sea Sonar Testing

• Anti-Submarine Warfare Tactical Development 

Exercise

Other Testing Activities

• Air Platform Shipboard Integrate Test

• Maritime Security

• Shipboard Electronic Systems Evaluation

• Acoustic Component Testing

• Chemical and Biological Simulant Testing (coastal 

zone of Maine only)

• Hydrodynamic and Maneuverability Testing

• Signature Analysis Operations

• Acoustic and Oceanographic Research

• Emerging Mine Countermeasure Technology 

Research

• Large Displacement Unmanned Underwater Vehicle 

Testing

Electronic Warfare

• Chaff Test

• Electronic Systems Evaluation

• Flare Test

Mine Warfare

• Mine Laying Test

Vessel Evaluation

• Aircraft Carrier Sea Trials – Propulsion Testing

• Air Defense Testing

• Propulsion Testing

• Surface Warfare Testing

• Small Ship Shock Trial2

• Large Ship Shock Trial2

• Submarine Sea Trials – Propulsion Testing

• Submarine Sea Trials – Weapons System Testing

• Total Ship Survivability Trials

• Non-Acoustic Component Testing

Unmanned Systems

• Underwater Search, Deployment, and Recovery

1 The coastal zone extends 3 NM from shore everywhere in the Study Area except off Texas, the Florida Gulf coast, and Puerto 

Rico, where it extends 9 NM from shore. 2 This activity only occurs in designated areas, which are located outside of the coastal zone. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

2-44

2.0 Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives

2.3.4 MITIGATION MEASURES

The Navy will implement mitigation measures to avoid or reduce potential impacts from the Proposed 

Action on environmental and cultural resources, some of which have high socioeconomic value in the 

Study Area. Mitigation measures that the Navy will implement under the Proposed Action are organized 

into two categories: procedural mitigation measures and mitigation areas. The Navy will implement

procedural mitigation measures whenever and wherever applicable training or testing activities take 

place within the Study Area. Mitigation areas are geographic locations within the Study Area where the 

Navy will implement additional mitigation during all or part of the year. 

A list of the activity categories, stressors, and geographic locations that have mitigation measures is 

provided in Table 2.3-8. Chapter 5 (Mitigation) provides a full description of each mitigation measure 

that will be implemented under the Proposed Action, including a discussion of how the Navy developed 

and assessed each measure and detailed maps of the mitigation area locations. Relevant mitigation 

details are also provided throughout Appendix A (Navy Activity Descriptions). The Navy and NMFS 

Records of Decision, MMPA Regulations and Letters of Authorization, and Endangered Species Act (ESA) 

Biological Opinion will document all mitigation measures that the Navy will implement under the 

Proposed Action. 

Table 2.3-8: Overview of Mitigation Categories

Mitigation 

Category

Chapter 5 

(Mitigation) Section Applicable Activity Category, Stressor, or Mitigation Area Location

Procedural 

Mitigation

Section 5.3.2 

(Acoustic Stressors) 

Active Sonar

Air Guns

Pile Driving

Weapons Firing Noise

Aircraft Overflight Noise

Section 5.3.3 

(Explosive Stressors) 

Explosive Sonobuoys

Explosive Torpedoes

Explosive Medium-Caliber and Large-Caliber Projectiles

Explosive Missiles and Rockets

Explosive Bombs

Sinking Exercises

Explosive Mine Countermeasure and Neutralization Activities 

Explosive Mine Neutralization Activities Involving Navy Divers

Maritime Security Operations – Anti-Swimmer Grenades

Line Charge Testing

Ship Shock Trials

Section 5.3.4 

(Physical Disturbance 

and Strike Stressors) 

Vessel Movement

Towed In-Water Devices

Small-, Medium-, and Large-Caliber Non-Explosive Practice Munitions

Non-Explosive Missiles and Rockets 

Non-Explosive Bombs and Mine Shapes

Mitigation Areas

Section 5.4

(Mitigation Areas to 

be Implemented) 

Areas with Seafloor Resources

Areas off the Northeastern United States

Areas off the Mid-Atlantic and Southeastern United States

Areas in the Gulf of Mexico
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

2-45

2.0 Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives

Notes: AFTT: Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing; OPAREA: Operating Area; SINKEX: Ship Sinking Exercises; VACAPES: Virginia Capes

Figure 2.3-2: Summary of Mitigation Areasin the Study Area
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

2-46

2.0 Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives

This page intentionally left blank.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

2-47

2.0 Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives

2.4 ACTION ALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMENT

The identification, consideration, and analysis of alternatives are critical components of the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process and contribute to the goal of objective decision-making. The 

Council on Environmental Quality issued regulations implementing NEPA, and these regulations require 

the decision maker to consider the environmental effects of the proposed action and a range of 

alternatives (including the no action alternative) to the proposed action (40 CFR section 1502.14). 

Council on Environmental Quality guidance further provides that an EIS must rigorously and objectively 

explore all reasonable alternatives for implementing the proposed action and, for alternatives 

eliminated from detailed study, briefly discuss the reasons for having been eliminated. To be 

reasonable, an alternative, except for the no action alternative, must meet the stated purpose of and 

need for the proposed action. An alternative that does not meet the stated purpose of and need for the 

proposed action is not considered reasonable. 

The Action Alternatives, and in particular the mitigation measures that are incorporated in the Action 

Alternatives, were developed to meet both the Navy’s purpose and need to train and test, and NMFS’s 

independent purpose and need to evaluate the potential impacts of the Navy’s activities, determine 

whether incidental take resulting from the Navy’s activities will have a negligible impact on affected 

marine mammal species and stocks, and to prescribe measures to effect the least practicable adverse 

impact on species or stocks and their habitat, as well as monitoring and reporting requirements.

The Navy developed the alternatives considered in this EIS/OEIS after careful assessment by subject 

matter experts, including military commands that utilize the ranges, military range management 

professionals, and Navy environmental managers and scientists. The Navy also used new or updated 

military policy and historical data in developing alternatives.

For example, one military policy used to inform the alternatives development was the Optimized Fleet 

Response Plan, discussed in Section 1.4.2 (Optimized Fleet Response Plan), which changed how the Navy 

meets its readiness requirements. The data developed from the Optimized Fleet Response Plan inform

the level of training, including the use of sonar sources and explosives, required by the Navy to meet its 

Title 10 responsibilities, which include maintaining, training, and equipping combat-ready forces. 

Additionally, during prior phases of comprehensive environmental planning, the Navy assumed that all 

unit-level sonar training requirements were met through independent training events, meaning each 

active sonar training requirement was analyzed as a discrete event. This was done for two reasons. First, 

there was insufficient data to determine if training requirements were being met through means other 

than live at-sea training, such as through the use of simulated training. Second, since these data were 

unavailable during prior phases of environmental planning, the Navy wanted to ensure it did not 

underestimate the potential effects of these activities when seeking MMPA/ESA permits, resulting in 

permits with insufficient authority to support the Navy’s requirements. This could have resulted in the 

possibility of exceeding permit limits and resulted in non-compliance with the law.

Through the collection of several years of classified sonar use data, the Navy produced a more refined 

analysis of the amount of sonar usage that the Navy anticipates will be necessary to meet its training 

and testing requirements, which underlie the development of the action alternatives.

With regards to testing activities, as previously stated, the level of activity in any given year is highly 

variable and is dependent on technological advancements, emergent requirements identified during 

operations, and fiscal fluctuations. Therefore, the environmental analysis must consider all testing 

activities that could possibly occur to ensure that the analysis fully captures the potential environmental 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

2-48

2.0 Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives

effects. These factors were considered in alternatives carried forward for consideration and analyses as 

described in Section 2.5 (Alternatives Carried Forward).

2.4.1 TRAINING

The analysis of sonar use showed that ships are meeting their active sonar training requirements 

through a variety of methods. Ships are limited in the number of underway days that are available to 

conduct at-sea training during the training cycle due to training schedules and constrained fuel 

resources. Sailors are required to conduct a variety of unit-level training events, throughout all training 

phases to maintain readiness and conduct this training through a variety of methods, including 

simulators, unit-level live training at sea, and unit-level training accomplished in conjunction with other 

training exercises. 

Simulators are sufficient to develop basic operator efficiency and can also be used for basic training of 

watch teams. While this does build proficiency, it cannot replicate the real-world complexities Sailors 

will have to deal with while deployed. Operating active sonar in the ocean is extremely complex due to 

numerous environmental factors that affect how sound travels through water, which cannot be 

realistically replicated. Only by training in the actual ocean environment can ship crews learn how to 

deal with these rapidly changing parameters and optimize their sensors to locate underwater objects 

such as submarines and mines. In summary, while simulators are an important tool for attaining and 

maintaining readiness, they cannot completely replace live training at sea. 

To maximize training effectiveness during limited at-sea opportunities, the Navy takes advantage of 

training events that can meet multiple training requirements. For example, during an integrated or 

major training exercise that tracks a submarine with active sonar, units can also take credit for their 

unit-level training requirement to maintain proficiency in tracking submarines with active sonar. In 

previous environmental analyses, the Navy assumed that each requirement was met through 

independent training events. However, Navy’s analysis has found that, in some instances, multiple 

requirements (i.e., unit level, integrated, and major training requirements) could be met during one 

activity. This ability to meet multiple requirements during one activity effectively reduces the number of 

times the activity needs to be conducted and, therefore, the sound energy transmitted into the water. 

The Optimized Fleet Response Plan also influences the amount of active sonar transmitted during 

training. Under the prior Fleet Response Plan, as discussed in Section 1.4.2 (Optimized Fleet Response 

Plan), the Navy was required to be prepared to deploy eight carrier strike groups within 6 months. This 

meant that Navy units had to accomplish all training requirements from the basic phase through the 

integrated phase in a 6-month period. Although this level of training would occur if the Navy had to 

respond to a major national security crisis, this level of training has not been conducted in recent years.

Instead, the Navy has been responding to significant but more regional challenges through scheduled

deployments while still maintaining a stabilizing and continuous presence around the globe. From an 

environmental planning and permitting perspective, the combination of analyzing a year where world 

events require certification and deployment of eight carrier strike groups and repeating the maximum 

certification and deployment requirement every year resulted in the Navy’s analyses and permits 

overestimating the number of training requirements. This also then overestimated the potential effects 

of that training over the 5-year MMPA incidental take authorization period. Up until this point, the 

current force structure (the number of ships, submarines, and aircraft) has resulted in significantly less 

active sonar use than what was analyzed in the previous environmental planning compliance documents 

and as reflected in the 2013–2018 permits. The Navy considered these data in developing the action 

alternatives. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

2-49

2.0 Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives

2.4.2 TESTING

As described in Section 1.4.3 (Why the Navy Tests), there are multiple factors that make it challenging 

for the Navy to accurately predict future testing requirements. Testing conducted on past systems is not 

a reliable predictor of future testing duration and tempo, since testing requirements and funding can 

change. Also, testing of a given system does not occur on a predictable annual cycle but rather in 

discrete test phases that differ in duration and frequency. Some test phases are relatively short, up to a 

year, while others can take multiple years. The duration and timing of testing will vary depending on 

federal funding cycles and the success of past test events. The time, place, and details of future testing 

depend on scientific developments that are not easy to predict, and experimental designs may evolve 

with emerging science and technology. Even with these challenges, the Navy makes every effort to 

accurately forecast all future testing requirements. 

In order to adequately support Navy testing requirements that are driven by the need to support fleet 

readiness, alternatives must have an annual capacity to conduct the research, development, and testing 

to support the following:

• new systems and new technologies 

• upgrades to existing systems 

• testing of existing systems after repair and maintenance activities 

• lot acceptance testing of systems 

Depending on emerging national security interests or threats to U.S. forces, the Navy may begin rapid 

development projects that were unanticipated at the time of initial environmental planning. 

Additionally, the potential that naval forces may need to quickly respond to world conflict or evolving 

threats may mean that sometimes technical evaluation and operational evaluation of a system could be 

expedited and occur in the same year. Therefore, the planning for future testing must accommodate 

these emergent requirements as much as possible. Based on these many uncertainties, the Navy’s 

projected testing requirements and requested authorizations for testing within the AFTT Study Area 

provides the Navy the ability to test to a potential foreseeable annual maximum level. The maximum 

level is used in the analysis and authorization to ensure that Navy does not underestimate the potential 

impacts during the analysis. Consequently, Navy testing during any given year of an authorization 

timeframe can be less than the levels analyzed. 

2.4.3 ALTERNATIVES ELIMINATED FROM FURTHER CONSIDERATION

Alternatives eliminated from further consideration are described below. The Navy determined that 

these alternatives did not meet the purpose of and need for the Proposed Action after a thorough 

consideration of each.

2.4.3.1 Alternative Training and Testing Locations

Navy ranges have evolved over the decades and, considered together, allow for the entire spectrum of 

training and testing to occur in a given range complex or testing range. While some unit-level training 

and some testing activities may require only one training element (airspace, sea surface space, or 

undersea space), more advanced training and testing events may require a combination of air, surface, 

and undersea space as well as access to land ranges. The ability to utilize the diverse and 

multi-dimensional capabilities of each range complex or testing range allows the Navy to develop and 

maintain high levels of readiness. The Study Area, and the range complexes and testing ranges it 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

2-50

2.0 Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives

contains, has attributes necessary to support effective training and testing. No other locations match the 

Study Area attributes, which are as follows: 

• proximity of range complexes and testing ranges off the east coast of the United States and 

within the Gulf of Mexico to each other

• proximity to the homeport regions of Norfolk, Virginia; Camp Lejeune in Jacksonville, North 

Carolina; and Jacksonville, Florida, as well as the Navy command headquarters, training schools, 

ships, submarines, aircraft squadrons, and Marine Corps forces located in each of those 

locations

• proximity to shore-based facilities, infrastructure, and the logistical support provided for testing 

activities

• proximity to military families, minimizing the length of time Sailors and Marines spend deployed 

away from home and benefitting overall readiness

• presence of unique training and testing ranges, which include the established mine warfare 

capabilities in the Virginia Capes Range Complex, the instrumented water ranges located at the 

South Florida Ocean Measurement Facility Testing Range, and naval training beaches located at 

Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune capable of supporting large-scale amphibious training events

• environmental conditions (i.e., bathymetry, topography, and weather) found in the Study Area 

that maximize the training realism and testing effectiveness

The uniquely interrelated nature of the features and attributes of the range complexes and testing 

ranges located within the Study Area (as detailed in Section 2.1, Description of the Atlantic Fleet Training 

and Testing Study Area) provides the training and testing support needed for complex military activities. 

There is no other series of integrated ranges in the Atlantic Ocean that affords this level of operational 

support and comprehensive integration for range activities. There are no other potential locations in the 

Atlantic, where roughly half of the U.S. Navy’s fleet is located, where land ranges, OPAREAs, undersea 

terrain and ranges, testing ranges, and military airspace combine to provide the venues necessary for 

the training and testing realism and effectiveness required to train and certify naval forces ready for

combat operations. 

2.4.3.2 Simulated Training and Testing Only

The Navy currently uses simulation for training and testing whenever possible (e.g., command and 

control exercises are conducted without operational forces); however, there are significant limitations, 

and its use cannot replace live training or testing.

To detect and counter mine shapes and hostile submarines, the Navy uses both passive and active 

sonar. Sonar proficiency is a complex and perishable skill that requires regular, hands-on training in 

realistic and diverse conditions. More than 300 extremely quiet, newer-generation submarines are 

operated by more than 40 nations worldwide, and these numbers are growing. These difficult-to-detect 

submarines, as well as torpedoes and underwater mines, are true threats to global commerce, national 

security, and the safety of military personnel. As a result, defense against enemy submarines is a top 

priority for the Navy. Anti-submarine warfare training and testing activities include the use of active and 

passive sonar systems and small explosive charges, which prepare and equip Sailors for countering 

threats. Inability to train with sonar would eliminate or diminish anti-submarine warfare readiness. 

Failure to detect and defend against hostile submarines can cost lives, such as the 46 Sailors who lost 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

2-51

2.0 Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives

their lives when a Republic of Korea frigate (CHEONAN) was sunk by a North Korean submarine in March 

2010.

There are limits to the realism that current simulation technology can presently provide. Unlike live 

training, computer-based training does not provide the requisite level of realism necessary to attain 

combat readiness. Today’s simulation technology does not permit anti-submarine warfare training with 

the level of detail required to maintain proficiency. While simulators are used for the basic training of 

sonar technicians, they are of limited value beyond basic training. A simulator cannot match the 

dynamic nature of the environment, such as bathymetry and sound propagation properties, or the 

training activities involving several units with multiple crews interacting in a variety of acoustic 

environments. 

Sonar operators must train regularly and frequently to develop and maintain the skills necessary to 

master the process of identifying underwater threats in the complex subsurface environment. Sole 

reliance on simulation would deny service members the ability to develop battle-ready proficiency in the 

employment of active sonar in the following areas:

• Bottom bounce and other environmental conditions. Sound hitting the ocean floor (bottom 

bounce) reacts differently depending on the bottom type and depth. Likewise, sound passing 

through changing currents, eddies, or across differences in ocean temperature, pressure, or 

salinity is also affected. Both of these are extremely complex and difficult to simulate, and both 

are common in actual sonar operations. 

• Mutual sonar interference. When multiple sonar sources are operating in the vicinity of each 

other, interference due to similarities in frequency can occur. Again, this is a complex variable 

that must be recognized by sonar operators but is difficult to simulate with any degree of 

fidelity.

• Interplay between ship and submarine target. Ship crews, from the sonar operator to the ship’s 

Captain, must react to the changing tactical situation with a real, thinking adversary (a Navy 

submarine for training purposes). Training in actual conditions with actual submarine targets 

provides a challenge that cannot be duplicated through simulation.

• Interplay between anti-submarine warfare teams in the strike group. Similar to the interplay 

required between ships and submarine targets, a ship’s crew must react to all changes in the 

tactical situation, including changes from cooperating ships, submarines, and aircraft.

Similar to the challenges presented in the training situations above, operational testing cannot be based 

exclusively on computer modeling or simulation either (see 10 United States Code sections 2366 and 

2399). At-sea testing provides the critical information on operability and supportability needed by the 

Navy to make decisions on the procurement of platforms and systems, ensuring that what is purchased 

performs as expected and that tax dollars are not wasted. This testing requirement is also critical to 

protecting the Sailors and Marines who depend on these technologies to execute their mission with 

minimal risk to themselves.

As the acquisition authority for the Navy, the Systems Commands are responsible for administering 

large contracts for the Navy’s procurement of platforms and systems. These contracts include 

performance criteria and specifications that must be verified to ensure that the Navy accepts platforms 

and systems that support the warfighter’s needs. Although simulation is a key component in platform

and systems development, it does not adequately provide information on how a system will perform or 

whether it will be available to meet performance and other specification requirements because of the 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

2-52

2.0 Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives

complexity of the technologies in development and marine environments in which they will operate. For 

this reason, at some point in the development process, platforms and systems must undergo at-sea or 

in-flight testing. Therefore, simulation as an alternative that replaces training and testing in the field 

does not meet the purpose of and need for the Proposed Action and has been eliminated from detailed 

study.

2.4.3.3 Training and Testing Without the Use of Active Sonar

As explained in Section 2.4.3.2 (Simulated Training and Testing Only), in order to detect and counter 

submerged mines and hostile submarines, the Navy uses both passive and active sonar. Sonar 

proficiency is a complex and perishable skill that requires regular, hands-on training in realistic and 

diverse conditions. Active sonar is needed to find and counter newer-generation submarines around the 

world, which are growing in number, as are torpedoes and underwater mines, which are true threats to 

global commerce, national security, and the safety of military personnel. As a result, defense against 

enemy submarines is a top priority for the Navy.

2.4.3.4 Alternatives Including Geographic Mitigation Measures Within the Study Area

The Navy considered developing an alternative based solely on geographic mitigation that would impose 

time/area restrictions on an expanded list of specific areas in the AFTT Study Area associated with the 

presence of specific species. However, such an alternative would present a patchwork of areas and time 

periods in which the Navy could conduct required training and testing, preventing the Navy from 

conducting the full scope of activities necessary to fulfill its Title 10 responsibilities and running counter 

to the purpose and need of the Proposed Action. Thus, such an alternative would not be reasonable. 

Further, regulations governing NEPA allow agencies to “Include appropriate mitigation measures not 

already included in the proposed action or alternatives” (40 CFR 1502.14[f]). Under both action 

alternatives carried forward, the Navy would implement limited geographic mitigation areas that are 

biologically supported and practicable to implement. Such areas are more fully described in Chapter 5 

(Mitigation). Therefore, appropriate mitigation protective of impacted species would be implemented 

regardless of the alternative selected. 

2.5 ALTERNATIVES CARRIED FORWARD

The Navy’s anticipated level of training and testing activity evolves over time based on numerous factors 

as discussed in the preceding paragraphs in Section 2.4 (Action Alternative Development). Additionally, 

over the past several years, the Navy’s ongoing sonar reporting program has gathered classified data 

regarding the number of hull-mounted mid-frequency sonar hours used to meet anti-submarine warfare 

requirements, which has increased understanding of how sonar training hours are generated. These 

data allow for a more accurate projection of the number of active sonar hours required to meet

anti-submarine warfare training requirements into the reasonably foreseeable future. 

In light of this information, the Navy was able to better formulate a range of reasonable alternatives 

that meet Navy training requirements while reflecting a lower, and more realistic, impact on the 

environment. This analysis of ongoing activities also provides a more accurate assessment of the Navy’s 

current impact on the environment from ongoing Navy training and testing when compared to the 

currently permitted activities. 

As previously discussed, in addition to meeting Navy’s purpose and need to train and test, the Action 

Alternatives, and in particular the mitigation measures that are incorporated in the Action Alternatives, 

were developed to meet NMFS’s independent purpose and need to evaluate the potential impacts of 

the Navy’s activities, determine whether incidental take resulting from the Navy’s activities will have a 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

2-53

2.0 Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives

negligible impact on affected marine mammal species and stocks, and prescribe measures to effect the 

least practicable adverse impact on species or stocks and their habitat, as well as monitoring and 

reporting requirements.

2.5.1 NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE

As mentioned above in Section 2.4 (Action Alternative Development), the Council on Environmental 

Quality implementing regulations require that a range of alternatives to the proposed action, including a 

no action alternative, be analyzed to provide a clear basis for choice among options by the decision 

maker and the public (40 CFR 1502.14). Council on Environmental Quality guidance identifies two 

approaches in developing the no action alternative (46 Federal Register 18026). One approach for 

activities that have been ongoing for long periods of time is for the No Action Alternative to be thought 

of in terms of continuing the present course of action or current management direction or intensity, 

such as the continuation of Navy training and testing at sea in the AFTT Study Area at current levels, 

even if separate legal authorizations under the MMPA and ESA are required. Under this approach, which 

was used in Phases I and II of the Navy’s environmental planning and compliance program for training 

and testing activities at sea, the analysis compares the effects of continuing current activity levels (i.e., 

the “status quo”) with the effects of the Proposed Action. The second approach depicts a scenario 

where no authorizations or permits are issued, the Navy’s training and testing activities do not take 

place, and the resulting environmental effects from conducting no training or testing are compared with 

the effects of the Proposed Action. This approach is being applied in Phase III of the Navy’s 

environmental planning and compliance program, including in this EIS/OEIS.

Under the No Action Alternative analyzed in this EIS/OEIS, the Navy would not conduct the proposed 

training and testing activities in the AFTT Study Area. Consequently, the No Action Alternative of not 

conducting the proposed live, at-sea training and testing in the AFTT Study Area is inherently 

unreasonable in that it does not meet the Navy’s purpose and need (see Section 1.4, Purpose and Need) 

for the reasons noted in the next four paragraphs. However, the analysis associated with the No Action 

Alternative is carried forward in order to compare the magnitude of the potential environmental effects 

of the Proposed Action with the conditions that would occur if the Proposed Action did not occur (see 

Section 3.0, Introduction).

From NMFS’s perspective, pursuant to its obligation to grant or deny permit applications under the 

MMPA, the No Action Alternative involves NMFS denying Navy’s application for an incidental take 

authorization under section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA. If NMFS were to deny the Navy’s application, the 

Navy would not be authorized to incidentally take marine mammals in the AFTT Study Area, and under 

the No Action Alternative, as explained above, the Navy would not conduct the proposed training and 

testing activities in the AFTT Study Area. 

Cessation of proposed Navy at-sea training and testing activities would mean that the Navy would not 

meet its statutory requirements and would be unable to properly defend itself and the United States 

from enemy forces, unable to successfully detect enemy submarines, and unable to effectively use its 

weapons systems or defensive countermeasures. Navy personnel would essentially not be taught how 

to use Navy systems in any realistic scenario. For example, sonar proficiency, which is a complex and 

perishable skill, requires regular, hands-on training in realistic and diverse conditions in order to detect 

and counter hostile submarines. Inability to train with active sonar would result in no or greatly 

diminished anti-submarine warfare capability.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

2-54

2.0 Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives

Additionally, without proper training, individual Sailors and Marines serving onboard Navy vessels would 

not be taught how to properly operate complex equipment in inherently dynamic and dangerous 

environments. Even with high levels of training and a culture of safety, injuries and death have occurred 

during routine non-combat operations. Therefore, without proper training, it is likely that there would 

be an increase in the number of mishaps, potentially resulting in the death or serious injury of Sailors 

and Marines. Failing to allow our Sailors and Marines to achieve and maintain the skills necessary to 

defend the United States and its interests will result in an unacceptable increase in the danger they 

willingly face.

Finally, the lack of live training and testing would require a higher reliance on simulated training and 

testing. While the Navy continues to research new ways to provide realistic training through simulation, 

there are limits to the realism that current technology can provide. While simulators are used for the 

basic training of sonar technicians, they are of limited utility beyond basic training. A simulator cannot 

match the dynamic nature of the environment, such as bathymetry and sound propagation properties, 

or the training activities involving several units with multiple crews interacting in a variety of acoustic 

environments. Sole reliance on simulation would deny service members the ability to develop 

battle-ready proficiency in the employment of active sonar (Section 2.4.3.2, Simulated Training and 

Testing Only). 

2.5.2 ALTERNATIVE 1 

Alternative 1 is the Preferred Alternative.

2.5.2.1 Training

Under this alternative, the Navy proposes to conduct military readiness training activities into the 

reasonably foreseeable future, as necessary to meet current and future readiness requirements. These 

military readiness training activities include new activities as well as activities subject to previous 

analysis that are currently ongoing and have historically occurred in the Study Area. The requirements 

for the types of activities to be conducted, as well as the intensity at which they need to occur, have 

been validated by senior Navy leadership. Specifically, training activities are based on the requirements 

of the Optimized Fleet Response Plan and on changing world events, advances in technology, and Navy 

tactical and strategic priorities. These activities account for force structure changes and include training 

with new aircraft, vessels, unmanned/autonomous systems, and weapon systems that will be 

introduced to the fleets after November 2018. The numbers and locations of all proposed training 

activities are provided in Section 2.6.1 (Proposed Training Activities).

Alternative 1 reflects a representative year of training to account for the natural fluctuation of training 

cycles and deployment schedules that generally influence the maximum level of training that may occur

year after year in any 5-year period. Using a representative level of activity, rather than a maximum 

tempo of training activity in every year, has reduced the amount of hull-mounted mid-frequency active 

sonar estimated to be necessary to meet training requirements, as discussed below. Both unit-level 

training and major training exercises are adjusted to meet this representative year, as discussed below.

Under Alternative 1, the Navy assumes that some unit-level training would be conducted using synthetic 

means (e.g., simulators). Additionally, this alternative assumes that some unit-level active sonar training 

will be completed through other training exercises. By using a representative level of training activity 

rather than a maximum level of training activity in every year, this alternative accepts a degree of risk 

that if global events necessitated a rapid expansion of military training that Navy would not have 

sufficient capacity in its MMPA and ESA authorizations to carry out those training requirements.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

2-55

2.0 Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives

The Optimized Fleet Response Plan and various training plans identify the number and duration of 

training cycles that could occur over a 5-year period. Alternative 1 considers fluctuations in training 

cycles and deployment schedules that do not follow a traditional annual calendar but instead are 

influenced by in-theater demands and other external factors. Similar to unit-level training, this 

alternative does not analyze a maximum number carrier strike group Composite Training Unit Exercises

(one type of major exercise) every year but instead assumes a maximum number of exercises would

occur during 2 years of any 5-year period. As a result, Alternative 1 will analyze a maximum of

3 Composite Training Unit Exercises in any given year and not more than 12 over any 5-year period. This 

alternative does not provide for the conduct of a contingency Composite Training Unit Exercise in the 

Gulf of Mexico and, hence, incorporates a degree of risk that the Navy will not have sufficient capacity in 

potential MMPA permits to support the full spectrum of training potentially necessary to respond to a 

future national emergency crisis. 

This risk associated with the Preferred Alternative was deemed acceptable by the Commander of all 

Naval forces in the Study Area based on training requirements needed to meet the current geopolitical 

environment. The acceptance of this risk was contingent on using the best available science to conduct a 

thorough analysis of impacts from Alternative 2, including annual maximum levels of unit-level active 

sonar hours, Composite Training Unit Exercises, and contingency Composite Training Unit Exercises in 

the Gulf of Mexico.

2.5.2.2 Testing

Alternative 1 entails a level of testing activities to be conducted into the reasonably foreseeable future, 

with adjustments that account for changes in the types and tempo (increases or decreases) of testing 

activities to meet current and future military readiness requirements. This alternative includes the 

testing of new platforms, systems, and related equipment that will be introduced after November 2018. 

The majority of testing activities that would be conducted under this alternative are the same as or 

similar as those conducted currently or in the past. This alternative includes the testing of some new 

systems using new technologies and takes into account inherent uncertainties in this type of testing. 

Under Alternative 1, the Navy proposes an annual level of testing that reflects the fluctuations in testing 

programs by recognizing that the maximum level of testing will not be conducted each year. This 

alternative contains a more realistic annual representation of activities, but includes years of a higher 

maximum amount of testing to account for these fluctuations. This alternative would not include the 

contingency for augmenting some weapon system tests, which would increase levels of annual testing of 

anti-submarine warfare and mine warfare systems, and presumes a typical level of readiness 

requirements. The numbers and locations of all proposed testing activities are provided in Section 2.1.1

(Proposed Testing Activities). 

2.5.2.3 Mitigation Measures

The Navy’s entire suite of mitigation measures was developed in coordination with NMFS and applied to 

Alternative 1 to ensure that (1) the benefit of mitigation measures to environmental and cultural 

resources was considered during the applicable environmental analyses and (2) Navy senior leadership 

approved each mitigation measure that would be implemented under Alternative 1. Navy senior 

leadership reviewed relevant supporting information to make a fully informed decision, including the 

benefit of mitigation measures to environmental and cultural resources and the impacts that mitigation 

will have on training and testing activities under Alternative 1. As discussed in Chapter 5 (Mitigation), 

the mitigation measures represent the maximum level of mitigation that the Navy can implement after 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

2-56

2.0 Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives

consideration of personnel safety, practicality of implementation, and impact on the effectiveness of the 

military readiness activities.

2.5.3 ALTERNATIVE 2

2.5.3.1 Training

As under Alternative 1, this alternative includes new and ongoing activities. Under Alternative 2, training 

activities are based on requirements established by the Optimized Fleet Response Plan. Under this 

alternative, the Navy would be enabled to meet the highest levels of required military readiness by 

conducting the majority of its training live at sea and by meeting unit-level training requirements using 

dedicated, discrete training events, instead of combining them with other training activities as described 

for Alternative 1. The numbers and locations of all proposed training activities are provided in 

Section 2.6.1 (Proposed Training Activities), Table 2.6-1. 

Alternative 2 reflects the maximum number of training activities that could occur within a given year 

and assumes that the maximum level of activity would occur every year over any 5-year period. This 

allows for the greatest capacity for the Navy to maintain readiness when considering potential changes 

in the national security environment, fluctuations in training and deployment schedules, and potential 

in-theater demands. Both unit-level training and major training exercises are assumed to occur at a 

maximum level every year.

Additionally, this alternative will analyze 3 Composite Training Unit Exercises each year along with a 

contingency Composite Training Unit Exercise in the Gulf of Mexico each year, for a total number of 

20 Composite Training Unit Exercises, including the Gulf of Mexico contingency Composite Training Unit 

Exercise, over any 5-year period. 

2.5.3.2 Testing

Like Alternative 1, Alternative 2 entails a level of testing activities to be conducted into the reasonably 

foreseeable future and includes the testing of new platforms, systems, and related equipment that will 

be introduced beginning in November 2018. The majority of testing activities that would be conducted 

under this alternative are the same as or similar to those conducted currently or in the past. 

Alternative 2 would include the testing of some new systems using new technologies, taking into 

account the potential for delayed or accelerated testing schedules, variations in funding availability, and 

innovations in technology development. To account for these inherent uncertainties in testing, this 

alternative assumes that the maximum annual testing efforts predicted for each individual system or 

program could occur concurrently in any given year. This alternative also includes the contingency for 

augmenting some weapon systems tests in response to potential increased world conflicts and changing 

Navy leadership priorities as the result of a direct challenge from a naval opponent that possesses 

near-peer capabilities. Therefore, this alternative includes the provision for higher levels of annual 

testing of certain anti-submarine warfare and mine warfare systems to support expedited delivery of 

these systems to the fleet. All proposed testing activities are listed in Table 2.6-2 through Table 2.6-4, 

Section 2.6 (Proposed Training and Testing Activities for Both Alternatives). 

2.5.3.3 Mitigation Measures

The Navy’s entire suite of mitigation measures was developed in coordination with NMFS and applied to 

Alternative 1 to ensure that (1) the benefit of mitigation measures to environmental and cultural 

resources was considered during the applicable environmental analyses and (2) Navy senior leadership 

approved each mitigation measure that would be implemented under Alternative 1. Navy senior 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

2-57

2.0 Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives

leadership reviewed relevant supporting information to make a fully informed decision, including the 

benefit of mitigation measures to environmental and cultural resources and the impacts that mitigation 

will have on training and testing activities under Alternative 1. As discussed in Chapter 5 (Mitigation), 

the mitigation measures represent the maximum level of mitigation that the Navy can implement after 

consideration of personnel safety, practicality of implementation, and impact on the effectiveness of the 

military readiness activities.

2.5.4 COMPARISON OF PROPOSED SONAR AND EXPLOSIVE USE IN THE ACTION 

ALTERNATIVES TO THE 2013–2018 MMPA PERMIT ALLOTMENT 

2.5.4.1 Training

As a comparison to the amount of training analyzed in the previous environmental planning compliance 

documents and as reflected in the 2013–2018 MMPA permit (Phase II), the Navy considered the type of 

sonar source that resulted in the greatest number of exposures to marine mammals, which was 

identified as hull-mounted mid-frequency active sonar. The differences between use of this system from 

Phase II to Phase III are best identified in three ways: (1) completion of unit-level training via synthetic 

means or through other training exercises, (2) reduction of sonar hours associated with a Composite 

Training Unit Exercise, and (3) reduction in the number of Composite Training Unit Exercises expected 

over a 5-year period.

During Phase II, all unit-level training using hull-mounted mid-frequency sonar was assumed to be 

conducted during discrete training events. However, current practice indicates that some unit-level 

training is completed through synthetic training, as well as concurrent with other training exercises (e.g., 

unit-level training can be completed simultaneously during the conduct of an integrated training 

exercise). Alternative 1 accounts for the use of synthetic training and concurrent unit-level training 

within other exercises, although this assumes risk in the event additional live training is necessary. To 

preserve the ability for the Navy to conduct all unit-level sonar training as discrete, at-sea exercises, 

Alternative 2 does not provide for the reduction in hours for this type of activity.

Composite Training Unit Exercises are major exercises that involve multiple platforms and numerous 

hours of sonar to meet mission objectives. During Phase II, each Composite Training Unit Exercise was 

assumed to require 1,000 hours of hull-mounted mid-frequency sonar. Through analysis of data 

collected during the Phase II permit period, the Navy determined that this assumption overestimated 

the amount of hull-mounted mid-frequency sonar that was typically used in a Composite Training Unit 

Exercise by 400 hours. As such, for both Alternatives 1 and 2, an estimated 600 hours of hull-mounted 

mid-frequency sonar is included for each Composite Training Unit Exercise.

Comparisons of proposed hull-mounted mid-frequency sonar hours to the hours permitted from 2013 to 

2018 are depicted in Figure 2.5-1 and Figure 2.5-2. 

The Fleet Response Plan, in place during Phase II, identified a requirement to conduct four Composite 

Training Unit Exercises per year along the U.S. East Coast, and a contingency Composite Training Unit 

Exercise in the Gulf of Mexico was also included, resulting in a total of five exercises analyzed per year. 

For Phase III, the number of Composite Training Unit Exercises to be conducted is reduced, with fewer 

proposed exercises in Alternative 1 and Alternative 2. Alternative 1 reduces the number of Composite 

Training Unit Exercises to be conducted during any 5-year period along the east coast from the 

2013–2018 permitted level by analyzing representative years (in addition to maximum planned years) of 

training activity to account for the variability of training cycles and deployment schedules. Alternative 1 

analysis includes no more than 12 Composite Training Unit Exercises over any 5-year period into the 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

2-58

2.0 Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives

Figure 2.5-1: Proposed Maximum Year of Hull-Mounted Mid-Frequency Sonar Hour Use by 

Activity During Training Compared to the Number Authorized in the 2013–2018 Marine 

Mammal Protection Act Permit

Figure 2.5-2: Proposed Five-Year Total Hull-Mounted Mid-Frequency Sonar Hour Use by 

Activity During Training Compared to the Number Authorized in the 2013–2018 Marine 

Mammal Protection Act Permit

Alternative 1
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

2-59

2.0 Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives

foreseeable future. Alternative 2 analyzes a maximum number of Composite Training Unit Exercises 

planned per year (three) along the east coast and a contingency exercise in the Gulf of Mexico every 

year in a 5-year period. As such, Alternative 

2 provides for 4 Composite Training Unit 

Exercises each year, for a total of 20 over a 

5-year period. A comparison of the number 

of Composite Training Unit Exercises from 

the 2013–2018 permitted levels to the 

action alternatives is provided in Figure 2.5 

3.

After analyzing the level of explosive 

activities conducted during Phase II, the 

Navy identified that some explosive sources 

were incorrectly classed into bins with 

greater net explosive weights than are 

actually present in the munitions (see 

Section 3.0.3.3.2.1, Explosions in Water, for 

a discussion of explosive classification bins). 

For example, 20-millimeter rounds were 

considered in bin E1 during Phase II, but 

have less than 0.1 pound of net explosive weight (defined as bin E0) and are, therefore, analyzed 

qualitatively instead of quantitatively for Phase III. Additionally in Phase II, munitions within the same 

category were all analyzed with the highest net explosive weight for all munitions in that category. For 

example, most bombs were analyzed as bin E12 to account for the largest potential for environmental 

impact, whereas many fall within bins E9 and E10. For Phase III, munitions were divided into more 

appropriate bins based on current and anticipated weapon inventory. Due to the re-binning of multiple 

munitions, comparing the use of a single bin or type of explosive (similar to the comparison above for 

sonar) is not prudent. Figure 2.5-4 provides the change in explosive use per bin for all training activities 

between the 2013–2018 permitted level and the two action alternatives. 

2.5.4.2 Testing

As described in Sections 1.4.3.2 (Methods of Testing), 2.5.2.2 (Testing), and 2.5.3.2 (Testing), the Navy’s 

testing community faces a number of challenges in accurately defining future testing requirements. 

These challenges include varying funding availability, changes in Congressional and DoD/Navy priorities 

in response to emerging threats in the world, and the acquisition of new technologies that introduce

increased uncertainties in the timeline, tempo, or success of a system’s testing schedule. As it does now, 

the Navy testing community took into account these same challenges in projecting requirements for the 

2013–2018 (Phase II) testing timeframe. Although the best information available to the Navy has always

been taken into account, as a result of the implementation of Phase II, the Navy testing community has 

improved its ability to obtain and define that information and, consequently, its ability to project future 

testing needs. It is expected that over time, the Navy’s ability to project future testing requirements will 

continue to improve with increasing refinement of the process and more or better historical data. 

Nonetheless, the inherent challenges and uncertainties in testing, as described previously, will continue 

to make projection of future testing requirements challenging.

Figure 2.5-3: Proposed Number of Composite

Training Unit Exercises over a Five-Year Period

Compared to Number Authorized in the

2013–2018 Marine Mammal Protection Act Permit

25 

12 

20

 -

 5

 10

 15

 20

 25

 30

2013-2018

Permit Period

Alternative 1 Alternative 2

Number of Exercises

Five-Year Composite Training Unit 

Exercises
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

2-60

2.0 Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives

-3,500

-1,500

500

2,500

4,500

6,500

8,500

Numbers of Explosives

E1* E2 E3 E4* E5* E6 E7 E8 E9 E10 E11 E12

Change in Five-Year Explosive Use from Phase II to Phase III 

(Training)

* Bin E1 decreased by 571,060 explosives, bin E4 decreased by 10,303 explosives, and bin E5 decreased 

by 51,150 explosives. These bins cannot be represented in this graph without distorting the scale.

1 Alternative 1 and Alternative 2 would use the same number of explosives in Phase III; bar graph depicts 

both alternatives. 

2 As the graph indicates the change in explosive use, the 2013–2018 permitted level is represented as the 

“0” line, to which the change for Phase III is compared, such that positive values are an increase in use of 

the bin and negative values are a decrease in use of that bin. 

Figure 2.5-4: Change in Explosive Use (for Both Action Alternatives) During Training Activities 

Compared to the 2013–2018 Marine Mammal Protection Act Permit1, 2 

The majority of platforms, weapons, and systems that were proposed for testing during the Phase II 

timeframe are the same or very similar to those proposed to be tested in the future. However, the Navy 

projects that the need to test some platforms, weapons, and systems will increase, while others will 

decrease, as compared to the testing requirements that were proposed for the Phase II timeframe. 

Overall, the Navy is projecting a net increase in the need to test systems that use sonar and a net 

decrease for explosives use, as proposed under Alternative 1 and as compared to the proposed testing 

requirements of the Phase II timeframe. These future projections are based on improvements in the 

Navy’s understanding of requirements, the completion of test phases of certain projects since Phase II, 

the addition of test phases anticipated to start after December 2018, and the projected testing of new 

types of equipment since the 2013–2018 timeframe. 

2.6 PROPOSED TRAINING AND TESTING ACTIVITIES FOR BOTH ALTERNATIVES

2.6.1 PROPOSED TRAINING ACTIVITIES

All proposed training activities are listed in Table 2.6-1. It should be noted that many of the activities 

listed occur the same number of time annually under both alternatives. These activities can be thought 

of as meeting individual training requirements. Although the number of some activities may be the 

same, the difference between the alternatives is manifest in how these activities are conducted. This 

difference is explained above in Section 2.5 (Alternatives Carried Forward) and represented in Figure 

2.5-1 and Figure 2.5-2. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

2-61

2.0 Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives

Table 2.6-1: Proposed Training Activities per Alternative

Activity Name Annual # of Activitiesa 5-Year # of Activities Locationb

Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 1 Alt 2

Major Training Exercise – Large Integrated Anti-Submarine Warfare

Composite Training Unit 

Exercise

2–3 3 12 15

VACAPES RC

Navy Cherry Point RC

JAX RC

0 1 0 5 GOMEX

Major Training Exercise – Medium Integrated Anti-Submarine Warfare

Fleet Exercise/Sustainment 

Exercise

2 10 VACAPES RC

4 20 JAX RC

Integrated/Coordinated Training

Small Integrated 

Anti-Submarine Training

6 30 JAX RC

3 15 Navy Cherry Point RC

3 15 VACAPES RC

Medium Coordinated 

Anti-Submarine Warfare 

Training

2 10 JAX RC

1 5 Navy Cherry Point RC

1 5 VACAPES RC

Small Coordinated 

Anti-Submarine Warfare 

Training

4 20 JAX RC

5 25 Navy Cherry Point RC

5 25 VACAPES RC

Air Warfare

Air Combat Maneuver

1,270 6,350 JAX RC

6,300 31,500 Key West RC

1,155 5,775 Navy Cherry Point RC

1,200 6,000 VACAPES RC

Air Defense Exercise

85 425 GOMEX RC

5,157 25,785 JAX RC

5,166 25,830 Navy Cherry Point RC

3,425 17,125 VACAPES RC

Gunnery Exercise 

Air-to-Air Medium-Caliber

75 375 JAX RC

70 350 Key West RC

40 200 Navy Cherry Point RC

120 600 VACAPES RC

Gunnery Exercise 

Surface-to-Air Large Caliber

7 35 JAX RC

25 125 VACAPES RC

Gunnery Exercise 

Surface-to-Air Medium 

Caliber

10 50 Other AFTT Areas1

31 155 JAX RC

23 115 Navy Cherry Point RC

59 295 VACAPES RC

Missile Exercise

Air-to-Air

48 240 JAX RC

8 40 Key West RC

48 240 Navy Cherry Point RC

40 200 VACAPES RC

Missile Exercise 

Surface-to-Air

2 10 GOMEX RC

5 20 JAX RC

2 10 Navy Cherry Point RC

2 10 Northeast RC

30 50 VACAPES RC
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

Table 2.6-1: Proposed Training Activities per Alternative (continued)

2-62

2.0 Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives

Activity Name Annual # of Activitiesa 5-Year # of Activities Locationb

Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 1 Alt 2

Missile Exercise –

Man-Portable Air Defense 

System

5 25 Navy Cherry Point RC

Amphibious Warfare

Amphibious Assault 5 25 Navy Cherry Point RC

Amphibious Marine 

Expeditionary Unit 

Integration Exercise

1 5 Navy Cherry Point RC

Amphibious Raid 20 100 JAX RC

34 162 Navy Cherry Point RC

Amphibious Ready Group 

Marine Expeditionary Unit 

Exercise

1 5 Navy Cherry Point RC

Amphibious Vehicle 

Maneuvers

186 930 VACAPES RC

2 10 JAX RC

Humanitarian Assistance 

Operations 1 5 Navy Cherry Point RC

Marine Expeditionary Unit 

Certification Exercise 5 25 Navy Cherry Point RC

Naval Surface Fire Support 

Exercise – At Sea

4 20 GOMEX

12 60 JAX RC

2 10 Navy Cherry Point RC

38 190 VACAPES RC

Naval Surface Fire Support 

Exercise – Land–Based 

Target

13 65 Navy Cherry Point RC

Anti-Submarine Warfare

Anti-Submarine Warfare 

Torpedo Exercise – 

Helicopter

14 70 JAX RC

4 20 VACAPES RC

Anti-Submarine Warfare 

Torpedo Exercise – Maritime 

Patrol Aircraft

14 70 JAX RC

4 20 VACAPES RC

Anti-Submarine Warfare 

Torpedo Exercise – Ship

16 80 JAX RC

5 25 VACAPES RC

Anti-Submarine Warfare 

Torpedo Exercise – 

Submarine

12 60 JAX RC

6 30 Northeast RC

2 10 VACAPES RC

Anti-Submarine Warfare 

Tracking Exercise – 

Helicopter

24 120 Other AFTT Areas

370 1,850 JAX RC

12 60 Navy Cherry Point RC

8 40 VACAPES RC

Anti-Submarine Warfare 

Tracking Exercise – Maritime 

Patrol Aircraft

90 450 Northeast RC

176 880 VACAPES RC

525 2,625 JAX RC

46 230 Navy Cherry Point RC

5c 5 25c 25 Northeast RC
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

Table 2.6-1: Proposed Training Activities per Alternative (continued)

2-63

2.0 Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives

Activity Name Annual # of Activitiesa 5-Year # of Activities Locationb

Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 1 Alt 2

Anti-Submarine Warfare 

Tracking Exercise – Ship

110c 110 550c 550 Other AFTT Areas

5c 5 25c 25 GOMEX RC

440c 440 2,200c 2,200 JAX RC

55c 55 275c 275 Navy Cherry Point RC

220c 220 1,100c 1,100 VACAPES RC

Anti-Submarine Warfare 

Tracking Exercise – 

Submarine 

44 220 Other AFTT Areas

13 65 JAX RC

1 5 Navy Cherry Point RC

18 90 Northeast RC

6 30 VACAPES RC

Electronic Warfare

Counter Targeting Chaff 

Exercise – Aircraft

18 90 GOMEX RC

2,990 14,950 JAX RC

3,000 15,000 Key West RC

1,610 8,050 Navy Cherry Point RC

130 650 VACAPES RC

Counter Targeting Chaff 

Exercise – Ship

5 25 GOMEX RC

5 25 JAX RC

5 25 Navy Cherry Point RC

50 250 VACAPES RC

Counter Targeting Flare 

Exercise

92 460 GOMEX RC

1,900 9,500 JAX RC

1,550 7,750 Key West RC

1,115 5,575 Navy Cherry Point RC

50 250 VACAPES RC

Electronic Warfare 

Operations

181 905 JAX RC

2,620 13,100 Navy Cherry Point RC

302 1,510 VACAPES RC

High-Speed Anti-Radiation 

Missile Exercise 

4 20 JAX RC

10 50 Navy Cherry Point RC

11 55 VACAPES RC

Expeditionary Warfare

Dive and Salvage Operations

16 80 GOMEX RC

60 300 JAX RC

8 40 Key West RC

16 80 Navy Cherry Point RC

30 150 VACAPES RC

Maritime Security 

Operations – Anti-Swimmer 

Grenades

2 10 GOMEX RC

2 10 JAX RC

2 10 Navy Cherry Point RC

4 20 Northeast RC

5 25 VACAPES RC

Personnel Insertion/ 

Extraction – Air

10 50 JAX RC

10 50 Key West

2,164 10,820 VACAPES RC

2 10 Northeast RC
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

Table 2.6-1: Proposed Training Activities per Alternative (continued)

2-64

2.0 Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives

Activity Name Annual # of Activitiesa 5-Year # of Activities Locationb

Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 1 Alt 2

Personnel Insertion/ 

Extraction – Surface and 

Subsurface

5 25 GOMEX RC

1 5 JAX RC

360 1,800 VACAPES RC

Personnel Insertion/ 

Extraction – Swimmer/Diver

42 210 VACAPES RC

Underwater Construction 

Team Training

8 40 GOMEX RC

4 20 JAX RC

4 20 Key West RC

8 40 VACAPES RC

Mine Warfare

Airborne Mine 

Countermeasure – Mine 

Detection

66 330 GOMEX RC

317 1,585 JAX RC

371 1,855 Navy Cherry Point RC

244 1,220 NSWC Panama City 

1,540 7,700 VACAPES RC

Airborne Mine 

Countermeasures – Towed 

Mine Neutralization 

50 250 GOMEX RC

100 500 JAX RC

108 540 Navy Cherry Point RC

510 2,550 VACAPES RC

Civilian Port Defense – 

Homeland Security 

Anti-Terrorism/Force 

Protection Exercise

1 3 

Beaumont, TX

Boston, MA

Corpus Christi, TX

Delaware Bay, DE

Earle, NJ

GOMEX RC

Hampton Roads, VA

JAX RC

Kings Bay, GA

NS Mayport

Morehead City, NC

Port Canaveral, FL

Savannah, GA

Tampa, FL

VACAPES RC

Wilmington, NC

Coordinated Unit Level 

Helicopter Airborne Mine 

Countermeasure Exercise

2 10 GOMEX RC

2 10 JAX RC

2 10 Navy Cherry Point RC

2 10 VACAPES RC

Mine Countermeasures – 

Mine Neutralization – 

Remotely Operated Vehicle

132 660 GOMEX RC

71 355 JAX RC

71 355 Navy Cherry Point RC

630 3,150 VACAPES RC

Mine Countermeasures – 

Ship Sonar 

22 110 GOMEX RC

53 265 JAX RC

53 265 VACAPES RC
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

Table 2.6-1: Proposed Training Activities per Alternative (continued)

2-65

2.0 Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives

Activity Name Annual # of Activitiesa 5-Year # of Activities Locationb

Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 1 Alt 2

Mine Laying

1 5 JAX RC

2 10 Navy Cherry Point RC

4 20 VACAPES RC

Mine Neutralization – 

Explosive Ordnance Disposal

6 30 Lower Chesapeake Bay

16 80 GOMEX RC

20 100 JAX RC

17 85 Key West RC

16 80 Navy Cherry Point RC

524 2,620 VACAPES RC

Underwater Mine 

Countermeasures Raise, 

Tow, Beach, and Exploitation 

Operations

56 280 GOMEX RC

78 390 JAX RC

8 40 Key West RC

24 120 Navy Cherry Point RC

446 2,230 VACAPES RC

Surface Warfare

Bombing Exercise 

Air-to-Surface

67 335 GOMEX RC

434 2,170 JAX RC

108 540 Navy Cherry Point RC

329 1645 VACAPES RC

Fast Attack Craft and Fast 

Inshore Attack Craft Exercise

25 125 JAX RC

25 125 VACAPES RC

Gunnery Exercise 

Air-to-Surface 

Medium-Caliber

30 150 GOMEX RC

495 2,475 JAX RC

395 1,975 Navy Cherry Point RC

720 3,600 VACAPES RC

Gunnery Exercise

Air-to-Surface Small-Caliber

200 1,000 JAX RC

130 650 Navy Cherry Point RC

560 2,800 VACAPES RC

Gunnery Exercise

Surface-to-Surface Boat 

Medium-Caliber

6 30 GOMEX RC

26 130 JAX RC

128 640 Navy Cherry Point RC

2 10 Northeast RC

260 1,300 VACAPES RC

Gunnery Exercise

Surface-to-Surface Boat 

Small-Caliber

67 335 GOMEX RC

84 420 JAX RC

92 460 Navy Cherry Point RC

18 90 Northeast RC

330 650 VACAPES RC

Gunnery Exercise 

Surface-to-Surface Ship 

Large-Caliber

10 50 Other AFTT Areas

9 45 GOMEX RC

51 255 JAX RC

35 175 Navy Cherry Point RC

75 375 VACAPES RC
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

Table 2.6-1: Proposed Training Activities per Alternative (continued)

2-66

2.0 Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives

Activity Name Annual # of Activitiesa 5-Year # of Activities Locationb

Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 1 Alt 2

Gunnery Exercise

Surface-to-Surface Ship 

Medium-Caliber

41 205 Other AFTT Areas

33 165 GOMEX RC

161 805 JAX RC

72 360 Navy Cherry Point RC

321 1,605 VACAPES RC

Gunnery Exercise

Surface-to-Surface Ship 

Small-Caliber

50 250 Other AFTT Areas

10 50 GOMEX RC

300 1,500 JAX RC

20 100 Navy Cherry Point RC

450 2,250 VACAPES RC

Integrated Live Fire Exercise 2 10 JAX RC

2 10 VACAPES RC

Laser Targeting – Aircraft 315 1,575 JAX RC

272 1,360 VACAPES RC

Laser Targeting – Ship 4 20 JAX RC

4 20 VACAPES RC

Maritime Security 

Operations

59 245 GOMEX RC

210 1,050 JAX RC

75 375 Navy Cherry Point RC

13 65 Northeast RC

895 4,475 VACAPES RC

Missile Exercise

Air-to-Surface

102 510 JAX RC

52 260 Navy Cherry Point RC

88 440 VACAPES RC

Missile Exercise

Air-to-Surface – Rocket

10 50 GOMEX RC

102 510 JAX RC

10 50 Navy Cherry Point RC

92 460 VACAPES RC

Missile Exercise

Surface-to-Surface

16 80 JAX RC

12 60 VACAPES RC

Sinking Exercise 1 5 SINKEX Box

Other Training Activities

Elevated Causeway System 1 5 Lower Chesapeake Bay

1 5 Navy Cherry Point RC

Precision Anchoring

9 45 GOMEX RC

231 1,155 JAX RC

710 3,550 VACAPES RC

Search and Rescue 776 3,880 JAX RC

1,176 5,880 VACAPES RC

Submarine Navigation 

169 845 NSB New London

3 15 NSB Kings Bay

3 15 NS Mayport

84 420 NS Norfolk

23 115 Port Canaveral, FL
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

Table 2.6-1: Proposed Training Activities per Alternative (continued)

2-67

2.0 Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives

Activity Name Annual # of Activitiesa 5-Year # of Activities Locationb

Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 1 Alt 2

Submarine Sonar 

Maintenance

12 60 Other AFTT Areas

66 330 NSB New London

9 45 JAX RC

2 10 NSB Kings Bay

34 170 NS Norfolk

86 430 Northeast RC

2 10 Port Canaveral, FL

13 63 Navy Cherry Point RC

47 233 VACAPES RC

Submarine Under Ice 

Certification

3 15 JAX RC

3 15 Navy Cherry Point RC

9 45 Northeast RC

9 45 VACAPES RC

Surface Ship Object 

Detection

76 380 NS Mayport

162 810 NS Norfolk

Surface Ship Sonar 

Maintenance

0 18 0 90 Other AFTT Areas

0 18 0 90 JAX RC

50 250 NS Mayport

120 600 Navy Cherry Point RC

235 1,175 NS Norfolk

120 600 VACAPES RC

Waterborne Training

42 210 GOMEX RC

55 275 JAX RC

141 705 Northeast RC

110 550 VACAPES RC a For activities where the maximum number of events varies between years, a range is provided to indicate the 

“representative–maximum” number of events. For activities where no variation is anticipated, only the maximum 

number of events within a single year is provided. b Locations given are areas where activities typically occur. However, activities could be conducted in other locations within 

the Study Area. Where multiple locations are provided within a single cell, the number of activities could occur in any of 

the locations, not in each of the locations. c For anti-submarine warfare tracking exercise – Ship, Alternative 1, 50 percent of requirements are met through synthetic 

training or other training exercises. 1 Other AFTT Areas include areas outside of range complexes and testing ranges but still within the AFTT Study Area. Other

AFTT Area activities typically refer to those activities that occur while vessels are in transit.

Notes: AFTT: Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing; Alt: Alternative; NS: Naval Station; NSB: Naval Submarine Base; NSWC: 

Naval Surface Warfare Center; GOMEX: Gulf of Mexico; JAX: Jacksonville; RC: Range Complex; SINKEX: sinking exercises; 

VACAPES: Virginia Capes 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

2-68

2.0 Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives

2.6.2 PROPOSED TESTING ACTIVITIES

All proposed testing activities are listed in Table 2.6-2 through Table 2.6-4. 

Table 2.6-2: Naval Air Systems Command Proposed Testing Activities per Alternative

Activity Name Annual # of Activities1 5-Year # of Activities Location2

Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 1 Alt 2

Air Warfare

Air Combat Maneuver 

Test 550 2,750 VACAPES RC

Air Platform Weapons 

Integration Test 40 200 VACAPES RC

Air Platform-Vehicle Test

12 60 GOMEX RC

9 45 JAX RC

9 45 Key West RC

9 45 Navy Cherry Point RC

190 950 VACAPES RC

Air-to-Air Weapons 

System Test 10 50 GOMEX RC

Air-to-Air Gunnery Test –

Medium-Caliber 55 275 VACAPES RC

Air-to-Air Missile Test 83 415 VACAPES RC

Intelligence, Surveillance, 

and Reconnaissance Test

7 35 JAX RC

9 45 Navy Cherry Point 

RC

406 2,030 VACAPES RC

Anti-Submarine Warfare

Anti-Submarine Warfare 

Torpedo Test

20–43 43 146 215 JAX RC

40–121 121 362 605 VACAPES RC

Anti-Submarine Warfare 

Tracking Test – 

Helicopter

4–6 6 24 30 GOMEX RC

0–12 12 24 60 JAX RC

2–27 26-27 35 131 Key West RC

28–110 110 304 550 Northeast RC

137–280 280 951 1,400 VACAPES RC

Anti-Submarine Warfare 

Tracking Test – Maritime 

Patrol Aircraft

10–15 15 60 75 GOMEX RC

19 24 95 120 JAX RC

10–12 12 54 60 Key West RC

14–15 16 72 80 Navy Cherry Point RC

36–45 48 198 240 Northeast RC

25 26 125 130 VACAPES RC

Kilo Dip

2–6 6 14 30 GOMEX RC

0–6 6 6 30 JAX RC

0–6 6 6 30 Key West RC

0–4 4 8 20 Northeast RC

20–40 40 140 200 VACAPES RC

Sonobuoy Lot 

Acceptance Test 160 800 Key West RC
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

Table 2.6-2: Naval Air Systems Command Proposed Testing Activities per Alternative

(continued)

2-69

2.0 Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives

Activity Name Annual # of Activities1 5-Year # of Activities Location2

Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 1 Alt 2

Electronic Warfare

Chaff Test

20 100 GOMEX RC

4 20 JAX RC

24 120 VACAPES RC

Electronic Systems 

Evaluation

2 10 JAX RC

61 305 VACAPES RC

Flare Test

10 50 GOMEX RC

20 100 VACAPES RC

Mine Warfare

Airborne Dipping Sonar 

Minehunting Test

16–32 32 96 160 NSWC Panama City 

6–18 18 42 90 VACAPES RC

Airborne Laser Based 

Mine Detection System 

Test

40 200 NSWC Panama City

50 250 VACAPES RC

Airborne Mine 

Neutralization System 

Test

20–27 32 107 160 NSWC Panama City

25–45 50 145 250 VACAPES RC

Airborne Sonobuoy 

Minehunting Test

52 260 NSWC Panama City

24 120 VACAPES RC

Mine Laying Test

1 5 JAX RC

2 10 VACAPES RC

Surface Warfare

Air-to-Surface Bombing 

Test 20 100 VACAPES RC

Air-to-Surface Gunnery 

Test

25–55 55 215 275 JAX RC

110–140 140 640 700 VACAPES RC

Air-to-Surface Missile 

Test

0–10 10 20 50 GOMEX RC

29–38 38 167 190 JAX RC

117–148 148 663 740 VACAPES RC

High-Energy Laser 

Weapons Test 108 540 VACAPES RC

Laser Targeting Test 5 25 VACAPES RC

Rocket Test

15–19 19 87 95 JAX RC

31–35 35 167 175 VACAPES RC

Other Testing Activities

Undersea Range System 

Test 4–20 42 JAX RC

Acoustic and 

Oceanographic Research

1 5 GOMEX RC

1 5 JAX RC

1 5 Key West RC

1 5 Northeast RC

1 5 VACAPES RC
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

Table 2.6-2: Naval Air Systems Command Proposed Testing Activities per Alternative

(continued)

2-70

2.0 Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives

Activity Name Annual # of Activities1 5-Year # of Activities Location2

Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 1 Alt 2

Air Platform Shipboard 

Integrate Test 126 630 VACAPES RC

Maritime Security

12 60 JAX RC

12 60 Navy Cherry Point RC

20 100 VACAPES RC

Shipboard Electronic 

Systems Evaluation

24 120 GOMEX RC

24 120 JAX RC

24 120 Key West RC

26 130 VACAPES RC

1 For activities where the maximum number of events varies between years, a range is provided to indicate the 

“representative–maximum” number of events. For activities where no variation is anticipated, only the maximum 

number of events within a single year is provided. 2 Locations given are areas where activities typically occur. However, activities could be conducted in other locations within 

the Study Area. 

Notes: Alt: Alternative; GOMEX: Gulf of Mexico; JAX: Jacksonville; NSWC: Naval Surface Warfare Center; RC: Range Complex; 

VACAPES: Virginia Capes
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

2-71

2.0 Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives

Table 2.6-3: Naval Sea Systems Command Proposed Testing Activities per Alternative

Activity Name Annual # of Activities1 5-Year # of Activities Location2

Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 1 Alt 2

Anti-Submarine Warfare

Anti-Submarine Warfare 

Mission Package Testing

42 210 JAX RC

4 20 Newport, RI

4 20 NUWC Newport

26 130 VACAPES RC

At-Sea Sonar Testing

2 10

JAX RC

Navy Cherry Point RC

Northeast RC

VACAPES RC

1 5 

JAX RC

Navy Cherry Point RC

VACAPES RC

2 

 

10

 

Offshore Fort Pierce, FL 

GOMEX RC 

JAX RC

SFOMF 

Northeast RC 

VACAPES

4 20 JAX RC

2 10 Navy Cherry Point RC

8 40 NUWC Newport

12 60 VACAPES RC

Countermeasure Testing 

5 25

GOMEX RC

Key West RC

JAX RC

NUWC Newport

VACAPES RC

2–4 14

GOMEX RC

JAX RC

Northeast RC

VACAPES RC

Pierside Sonar Testing

1 5 

NSB New London

NS Norfolk

Port Canaveral, FL

11 55 Bath, ME

5 25 NSB New London

4 20 NSB Kings Bay

8 40 Newport, RI

13 65 NS Norfolk

2 10 Pascagoula, MS

3 15 Port Canaveral, FL

2 10 PNS

Submarine Sonar 

Testing/Maintenance 

16 80 Norfolk, VA

24 120 PNS
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

Table 2.6-3: Naval Sea Systems Command Proposed Testing Activities per Alternative

(continued)

2-72

2.0 Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives

Activity Name Annual # of Activities1 5-Year # of Activities Location2

Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 1 Alt 2

Surface Ship Sonar 

Testing/Maintenance 

1 5 JAX RC

1 5 NS Mayport

3 15 NS Norfolk

3 15 VACAPES RC

Torpedo (Explosive) 

Testing 

4 20

GOMEX RC

Offshore Fort Pierce, FL

Key West RC

Navy Cherry Point RC

Northeast RC

VACAPES RC

2 10

GOMEX RC

JAX RC

Northeast RC

VACAPES RC

Torpedo (Non-Explosive) 

Testing

7 35 GOMEX RC

11 55 Offshore Fort Pierce, FL

2 8 JAX RC

7 35 Navy Cherry Point RC

8 38 Northeast RC

30 150 NUWC Newport

11 55 VACAPES RC

Electronic Warfare

Radar and Other System 

Testing 

6–10 34

GOMEX RC

JAX RC

Key West RC

Navy Cherry Point RC

Northeast RC

NSWC Panama City

NUWC Newport

SFOMF

VACAPES RC

4 20 NSB New London

0–3 3 JEB LC-FS

NS Norfolk

2 10 NS Norfolk

2 10 Northeast RC

21–45 129 VACAPES RC

Mine Warfare

Mine Countermeasure 

and Neutralization Testing

13 65 NSWC Panama City

6 30 VACAPES RC

Mine Countermeasure 

Mission Package Testing

19 95 GOMEX RC

10 50 JAX RC

11 55 NSWC Panama City

2 10 SFOMF

5 25 VACAPES RC
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

Table 2.6-3: Naval Sea Systems Command Proposed Testing Activities per Alternative

(continued)

2-73

2.0 Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives

Activity Name Annual # of Activities1 5-Year # of Activities Location2

Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 1 Alt 2

Mine Detection and 

Classification Testing

6 30 GOMEX RC

10 50 Navy Cherry Point RC

47–55 250 NSWC Panama City

7–12 43 Riviera Beach, FL

4 20 SFOMF

3 15 VACAPES RC

Surface Warfare

Gun Testing – LargeCaliber

12 60

GOMEX RC

JAX RC

Key West RC

Navy Cherry Point RC

Northeast RC

VACAPES RC

1 5 GOMEX RC

1 5 JAX RC

1 5 Key West RC

1 5 Navy Cherry Point RC

1 5 Northeast RC

33 165 NSWC Panama City

5 25 VACAPES RC

Gun Testing – MediumCaliber 

12 60

GOMEX RC

JAX RC

Key West RC

Navy Cherry Point RC

Northeast RC

VACAPES RC

102 510 NSWC Panama City

5 24 VACAPES RC

Gun Testing – SmallCaliber

24 120

GOMEX RC

JAX RC

Key West RC

Navy Cherry Point RC

Northeast RC

VACAPES RC

13 65 GOMEX RC

7 35 NSWC Panama City

8 40 VACAPES RC

Kinetic Energy Weapon 

Testing 61 301

GOMEX RC

JAX RC

Key West RC

Navy Cherry Point RC

Northeast RC

VACAPES RC
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

Table 2.6-3: Naval Sea Systems Command Proposed Testing Activities per Alternative

(continued)

2-74

2.0 Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives

Activity Name Annual # of Activities1 5-Year # of Activities Location2

Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 1 Alt 2

Missile and Rocket Testing

13 65

GOMEX RC

JAX RC

Key West RC

Navy Cherry Point RC

Northeast RC

VACAPES RC

1 5 GOMEX RC

2 10 JAX RC

5 25 Northeast RC

22 110 VACAPES RC

Unmanned Systems

Underwater Search, 

Deployment, and 

Recovery

33 165 SFOMF

Unmanned Aerial System 

Testing

15 75 Northeast RC

17 85 NUWC Newport

15 75 VACAPES RC

Unmanned Surface 

Vehicle System Testing 132 660 NUWC Newport

Unmanned Underwater 

Vehicle Testing

16 80

GOMEX RC

JAX RC

NUWC Newport

41 205 GOMEX RC

25 125 JAX RC

145–146 727 NSWC Panama City

308–309 1,541 NUWC Newport

9 45 Riviera Beach, FL

42 210 SFOMF

Vessel Evaluation

Aircraft Carrier Sea Trials 

– Propulsion Testing 2 10 VACAPES RC

Air Defense Testing

1 5 GOMEX RC

2 10 JAX RC

1 5 Northeast RC

5 25 VACAPES RC

Hydrodynamic and 

Maneuverability Testing 2 10

GOMEX RC

JAX RC

Key West RC

Navy Cherry Point RC

Northeast RC

VACAPES RC

In-Port Maintenance 

Testing

24 120 NS Mayport

NS Norfolk

2 10 NS Mayport

5 25 NS Norfolk
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

Table 2.6-3: Naval Sea Systems Command Proposed Testing Activities per Alternative

(continued)

2-75

2.0 Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives

Activity Name Annual # of Activities1 5-Year # of Activities Location2

Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 1 Alt 2

Large Ship Shock Trial 0-1 1 

GOMEX RC

JAX RC

VACAPES RC

Propulsion Testing

34 170

GOMEX RC

JAX RC

Key West RC

Navy Cherry Point RC

Northeast RC

VACAPES RC

86 430 Gulf of Mexico

2 10 JAX RC

6 30 Navy Cherry Point RC

5 25 Northeast RC

7 35 VACAPES RC

Signature Analysis 

Operations

1 5 JAX RC

59 295 SFOMF

Small Ship Shock Trial 0–3 3 JAX RC

VACAPES RC

Surface Warfare Testing

2 10 GOMEX RC

13 65 JAX RC

1 5 Key West RC

10 50 Northeast RC

9 45 VACAPES RC

Submarine Sea Trials – 

Propulsion Testing

1 5 JAX RC

1 5 Northeast RC

1 5 VACAPES RC

Submarine Sea Trials – 

Weapons System Testing

2 10

Offshore Fort Pierce, FL

GOMEX RC

JAX RC

SFOMF

Northeast RC 

VACAPES RC

4 20 JAX RC

4 20 Northeast RC

4 20 VACAPES RC

Total Ship Survivability 

Trials 0–1 1 JAX RCVACAPES RC

Undersea Warfare Testing

2 10 JAX RC

VACAPES RC

0–2 4 

JAX RC

Navy Cherry Point RC

SFOMF

VACAPES RC

2 10 GOMEX RC

6 30 JAX RC

2 10 VACAPES RC
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

Table 2.6-3: Naval Sea Systems Command Proposed Testing Activities per Alternative

(continued)

2-76

2.0 Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives

Activity Name Annual # of Activities1 5-Year # of Activities Location2

Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 1 Alt 2

Vessel Signature 

Evaluation

9 45 JAX RC

VACAPES RC

2 10 GOMEX RC

16 80 JAX RC

5 25 JEB LC-FS

18 90 VACAPES RC

Other Testing Activities

Insertion/Extraction 4 20 Key West RC

264 1,320 NSWC Panama City

Line Charge Testing 4 20 NSWC Panama City

Acoustic Component 

Testing 33 165 SFOMF

Chemical and Biological 

Simulant Testing

80 400 JAX RC

80 400 Navy Cherry Point RC

80 400 Northeast RC

80 400 VACAPES RC

Non-Acoustic Component 

Testing

4 20 GOMEX RC

4 20 VACAPES RC

Payload Deployer Testing

1 5 GOMEX RC

1 5 Northeast RC

39 195 NUWC Newport

Semi-Stationary 

Equipment Testing

4 20 Newport, RI

11 55 NSWC Panama City

190 950 NUWC Newport

Towed Equipment Testing 36 180 NUWC Newport

1 For activities where the maximum number of events could vary between years, the information is presented as a 

“representative-maximum” number of events per year. For activities where no variation is anticipated, only the 

maximum number of events within a single year is provided. 2 Locations given are areas where activities typically occur. However, activities could be conducted in other locations within 

the Study Area. Where multiple locations are provided within a single cell, the number of activities could occur in any of 

the locations, not in each of the locations.

Notes: Alt: Alternative; GOMEX: Gulf of Mexico; JAX: Jacksonville; JEB LC-FS: Joint Expeditionary Base Little Creek-Fort Story; 

NS: Naval Station; NSB: Naval Submarine Base; NSWC: Naval Surface Warfare Center; NUWC: Naval Undersea Warfare 

Center; PNS: Portsmouth Naval Shipyard; RC: Range Complex; SFOMF: South Florida Ocean Measurement Facility Testing 

Range; VACAPES: Virginia Capes
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

2-77

2.0 Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives

Table 2.6-4: Office of Naval Research Proposed Testing Activities per Alternative

Activity Name Annual # of Activities 5-Year # of Activities Location Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 1 Alt 2

Acoustic and Oceanographic Science and Technology

Acoustic and Oceanographic 

Research

5 22 GOMEX RC

9 43 Northeast RC

2 10 Other AFTT Areas1

2 12 VACAPES RC

Emerging Mine Countermeasure 

Technology Research 

1 5 JAX RC

2 12 Northeast RC

1 5 VACAPES RC

Large Displacement Unmanned

Underwater Vehicle Testing

4 20 GOMEX RC

12 60 JAX RC

4 20 Navy Cherry Point RC

16 80 Northeast RC

8 40 VACAPES RC 1 Other AFTT Areas include areas outside of range complexes and testing ranges but still within the AFTT Study Area. Other

AFTT Area activities typically refer to those activities that occur while vessels are in transit.

Notes: AFTT: Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing; Alt: Alternative; GOMEX: Gulf of Mexico; JAX: Jacksonville, Florida; RC: 

Range Complex; VACAPES: Virginia Capes
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

2-78

2.0 Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives

This page intentionally left blank.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

2-79

2.0 References

References 

U.S. Department of Defense. (2002). Electromagnetic Environmental Effects: Requirements for Systems. 

(MIL-STD-464A). Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, OH: U.S. Air Force/Aeronautical Systems 

Center.

U.S. Department of Defense. (2009). Protecting Personnel from Electromagnetic Fields. (DoD Instruction 

6055.11). Washington, DC: Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and 

Logistics. 

U.S. Department of the Navy. (2011). U.S. Navy Dive Manual. Washington, DC: Commander, Naval Sea 

Systems Command.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

2-80

2.0 References

This page intentionally left blank.
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

i 

Table of Contents

Final

Environmental Impact Statement/Overseas Environmental Impact Statement 

Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ____________________ 3.0-1

3.0 Introduction ...........................................................................................................3.0-1

3.0.1 Navy Compiled and Generated Data ..................................................................3.0-1

3.0.1.1 Marine Species Monitoring and Research Programs .........................3.0-1

3.0.1.2 Navy’s Quantitative Analysis to Determine Impacts to Sea Turtles and 

Marine Mammals ...............................................................................3.0-2

3.0.1.3 Aquatic Habitats Database ................................................................. 3.0-7

3.0.2 Ecological Characterization of the Study Area....................................................3.0-7

3.0.2.1 Biogeographic Classifications..............................................................3.0-8

3.0.2.2 Bathymetry .......................................................................................3.0-15

3.0.2.3 Currents, Circulation Patterns, and Water Masses ..........................3.0-25

3.0.2.4 Ocean Fronts.....................................................................................3.0-28

3.0.2.5 Abiotic Substrate ..............................................................................3.0-33

3.0.3 Overall Approach to Analysis............................................................................3.0-33

3.0.3.1 Resources and Issues Evaluated .......................................................3.0-34

3.0.3.2 Resources and Issues Eliminated from Further Consideration.........3.0-34

3.0.3.3 Identifying Stressors for Analysis......................................................3.0-34

3.0.3.4 Resource-Specific Impacts Analysis for Individual Stressors..........3.0-110

3.0.3.5 Resource-Specific Impacts Analysis for Multiple Stressors ............3.0-110

3.0.3.6 Biological Resource Methods .........................................................3.0-111

List of Figures

Figure 3.0-1: The Study Area with Large Marine Ecosystems and Open Ocean Areas...........................3.0-9

Figure 3.0-2: Three-Dimensional Representation of the Intertidal Zone (shoreline), 

Continental Margin, Abyssal Zone, and Water Column Zones........................................3.0-16

Figure 3.0-3: Bathymetry of the Entire Study Area...............................................................................3.0-17

Figure 3.0-4: Bathymetry of the Northeast Portion of the Study Area.................................................3.0-19

Figure 3.0-5: Bathymetry of the Southeast Portion of the Study Area.................................................3.0-21

Figure 3.0-6: Bathymetry of the Gulf of Mexico Portion of the Study Area .........................................3.0-23

Figure 3.0-7: Major Currents in the Study Area....................................................................................3.0-29

Figure 3.0-8: Average Sea Surface Temperature in the Study Area (2011–2015)................................3.0-31
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

ii

Table of Contents

Figure 3.0-9: AFTT Surface Ship Traffic By Percent Ship-Hours 2011-2015 (Mintz, 2016) ...................3.0-50

Figure 3.0-10: Relative Distribution of Commercial Vessel Traffic .......................................................3.0-53

Figure 3.0-11: Relative Distribution of U.S. Navy Vessel Traffic ...........................................................3.0-54

Figure 3.0-12: Gun Blast and Projectile from a 5-in./54 Navy Gun.......................................................3.0-59

Figure 3.0-13: Sonobuoy Launch Depicting the Relative Size of a Parachute ....................................3.0-103

Figure 3.0-14: Aerial Target (Drone) with Parachute Deployed .........................................................3.0-104

Figure 3.0-15: Flow Chart of the Evaluation Process of Sound-Producing Activities .........................3.0-115

Figure 3.0-16: Two Hypothetical Threshold Shifts..............................................................................3.0-118

List of Tables

Table 3.0-1: Summary of Current Patterns in Areas Located Outside the Range Complexes..............3.0-26

Table 3.0-2: Sonar and Transducer Sources Quantitatively Analyzed..................................................3.0-39

Table 3.0-3: Sonar and Transducers Qualitatively Analyzed................................................................. 3.0-46

Table 3.0-4: Training and Testing Air Gun Sources Quantitatively Analyzed in the Study Area...........3.0-47

Table 3.0-5: Elevated Causeway System Pile Driving and Removal Underwater Sound Levels...........3.0-48

Table 3.0-6: Summary of Pile Driving and Removal Activities per 24-Hour Period..............................3.0-49

Table 3.0-7: Interpolated Ship-Hours from 2011 to 2015 Positional Records in the Study 

Area..................................................................................................................................3.0-50

Table 3.0-8: Median Surface Ship Speeds for the AFTT Study Area 2011–2015 ..................................3.0-52

Table 3.0-9: Representative Aircraft Sound Characteristics................................................................. 3.0-55

Table 3.0-10: Sonic Boom Underwater Sound Levels Modeled for F/A-18 Hornet 

Supersonic Flight..............................................................................................................3.0-58

Table 3.0-11: Examples of Weapons Noise...........................................................................................3.0-58

Table 3.0-12: Explosive Sources Quantitatively Analyzed that Could Be Used Underwater or 

at the Water Surface........................................................................................................3.0-63

Table 3.0-13: Typical Air Explosive Munitions During Navy Activities..................................................3.0-64

Table 3.0-14: Number and Location of Activities Including In-Water Electromagnetic Devices..........3.0-65

Table 3.0-15: Number and Location of Activities in Inshore Waters Including In-Water 

Electromagnetic Devices..................................................................................................3.0-66

Table 3.0-16: Number and Location of Activities Including High-Energy Lasers..................................3.0-68

Table 3.0-17: Representative Vessel Types, Lengths, and Speeds .......................................................3.0-69

Table 3.0-18: Number and Location of Activities Including Vessels.....................................................3.0-71

Table 3.0-19: Number and Location of Activities in Inshore Waters Including Vessels .......................3.0-72

Table 3.0-20: Number of High Speed Vessel Hours for Small Craft Associated with Training 

Activities in Inshore Waters of the Study Area................................................................3.0-73

Table 3.0-21: Representative Types, Sizes, and Speeds of In-Water Devices.......................................3.0-74

Table 3.0-22: Number and Location of Activities Including In-Water Devices.....................................3.0-74
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

iii

Table of Contents

Table 3.0-23: Number and Location of Activities in Inshore Waters Including In-Water 

Devices.............................................................................................................................3.0-75

Table 3.0-24: Number and Location of Non-Explosive Practice Munitions Expended During 

Training Activities.............................................................................................................3.0-76

Table 3.0-25: Number and Location of Non-Explosive Practice Munitions Expended During 

Training Activities in Inshore Waters...............................................................................3.0-78

Table 3.0-26: Number and Location of Non-Explosive Practice Munitions Expended During 

Testing Activities..............................................................................................................3.0-78

Table 3.0-27: Number and Location of Explosives that May Result in Fragments Used During 

Training Activities.............................................................................................................3.0-80

Table 3.0-28: Number and Location of Explosives that May Result in Fragments Used During 

Testing Activities..............................................................................................................3.0-82

Table 3.0-29: Number and Location of Targets Expended During Training Activities..........................3.0-84

Table 3.0-30: Number and Location of Targets Expended During Training Activities in 

Inshore Waters ................................................................................................................3.0-85

Table 3.0-31: Number and Location of Targets Expended During Testing Activities ...........................3.0-85

Table 3.0-32: Number and Location of Other Military Materials Expended During Training 

Activities...........................................................................................................................3.0-87

Table 3.0-33: Number and Location of Other Military Materials Expended During Training 

Activities in Inshore Waters.............................................................................................3.0-91

Table 3.0-34: Number and Location of Other Military Materials Expended During Testing 

Activities...........................................................................................................................3.0-92

Table 3.0-35: Number and Location of Activities Including Seafloor Devices......................................3.0-96

Table 3.0-36: Number and Location of Activities in Inshore Waters Including Seafloor 

Devices.............................................................................................................................3.0-97

Table 3.0-37: Number and Location of Activities Including Aircraft.....................................................3.0-98

Table 3.0-38: Number and Location of Activities in Inshore Waters Including Aircraft.......................3.0-98

Table 3.0-39: Number and Location of Wires and Cables Expended During Training Activities........3.0-101

Table 3.0-40: Number and Location of Wires and Cables Expended During Testing Activities..........3.0-102

Table 3.0-41: Size Categories for Decelerators/Parachutes Expended During Training and 

Testing Activities............................................................................................................3.0-103

Table 3.0-42: Number and Location of Activities Including Biodegradable Polymers During 

Testing............................................................................................................................3.0-105

Table 3.0-43: Number and Location of Targets Expended During Training Activities That May 

Result in Fragments.......................................................................................................3.0-106

Table 3.0-44: Number and Location of Targets Expended During Testing Activities That May

Result in Fragments.......................................................................................................3.0-107
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

iv

Table of Contents

This page intentionally left blank.
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.0-1 

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL 

CONSEQUENCES 

3.0 INTRODUCTION

This chapter describes existing environmental conditions in the Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing (AFTT) 

Study Area as well as the analysis of resources potentially impacted by the Proposed Action described in 

Chapter 2 (Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives). The Study Area is described in Section 2.1 

(Description of the Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing Study Area) and depicted in Figure 2.1-1. 

This section provides the ecological characterization 

of the Study Area and describes the resources 

evaluated in the analysis. The Overall Approach to 

Analysis section explains that each proposed military

readiness activity was examined to determine which 

environmental stressors could potentially impact 

a resource.

The sections following 3.0 (Introduction) provide 

analyses for each resource. The physical resources 

(air quality, and sediments and water quality) are 

presented first (Sections 3.1 and 3.2, respectively). 

Because impacts to air or water quality could affect 

all other marine resources, any potential impacts on 

air quality or sediments and water quality were 

considered as potential secondary stressors on the 

remaining resources to be described: vegetation, 

invertebrates, habitats, fishes, marine mammals, 

reptiles, and birds and bats (Sections 3.3 through 

3.9). Following the biological resource sections are 

human resource sections: cultural resources, 

socioeconomic resources, and public health and safety (Sections 3.10, 3.11, and 3.12).

3.0.1 NAVY COMPILED AND GENERATED DATA

While preparing this document, the United States (U.S.) Department of the Navy (Navy) used the best 

available data, science, and information accepted by the relevant and appropriate regulatory and 

scientific communities to establish a baseline and perform environmental analyses for all resources in

accordance with National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Administrative Procedure Act (5 United 

States Code sections 551–596), and Executive Order 12114.

In support of the environmental baseline and environmental consequences sections for this and other 

environmental documents, the Navy has sponsored and supported both internal and independent 

research and monitoring efforts. The Navy’s research and monitoring programs, as described below, are 

largely focused on filling data gaps and obtaining the most up-to-date science.

3.0.1.1 Marine Species Monitoring and Research Programs 

The Navy has been conducting marine species monitoring for compliance with the Marine Mammal 

Protection Act (MMPA) and Endangered Species Act (ESA) since 2006, both in association with training 

Resources Analyzed:

Physical Resources:

• Air Quality

• Sediments and Water Quality

Biological Resources: 

• Vegetation

• Invertebrates

• Habitats

• Fishes

• Marine Mammals

• Reptiles

• Birds and Bats

Human Resources: 

• Cultural Resources

• Socioeconomic Resources

• Public Health and Safety
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.0-2 

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

and testing events and independently. In addition to monitoring activities associated with regulatory 

compliance, two other Navy research programs provide extensive investments in basic and applied 

research: the Office of Naval Research Marine Mammals & Biology program, and the Living Marine 

Resources program. In fact, the U.S. Navy is one of the largest sources of funding for marine mammal 

research in the world. A survey of federally-funded marine mammal research and conservation 

conducted by the Marine Mammal Commission found that the U.S. Department of Navy was the second 

largest source of funding for marine mammal activities (direct project expenditures, as well as 

associated indirect or support costs) in the United States in 2014, second only to National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration Fisheries (Purdy, 2016). 

The monitoring program has historically focused on collecting baseline data that supports analysis of 

marine mammal occurrence, distribution, abundance, and habitat use preferences in and around ocean 

areas in the Atlantic and Pacific where the Navy conducts training and testing. More recently, the 

priority has begun to shift towards assessing the potential response of individual species to training and 

testing activities. Data collected through the monitoring program serves to inform the analysis of 

impacts on marine mammals with respect to species distribution, habitat use, and potential responses 

to training and testing activities. Monitoring is performed using various methods, including visual 

surveys from surface vessels and aircraft, passive acoustics, and tagging. Additional information on the 

program is available on the U.S. Navy Marine Species Monitoring Program website, 

https://www.navymarinespeciesmonitoring.us/, which serves as a public online portal for information 

on the background, history, and progress of the program and also provides access to reports, 

documentation, data, and updates on current monitoring projects and initiatives. 

The two other Navy programs previously mentioned invest in research on the potential effects of sound 

on marine species and develop scientific information and analytic tools that support preparation of 

environmental impact statements (EISs) and associated regulatory processes under the MMPA and ESA, 

as well as support development of improved monitoring and detection technology and advance overall 

knowledge about marine species. These programs support coordinated science, technology, research, 

and development focused on understanding the effects of sound on marine mammals and other marine 

species, including physiological, behavioral, ecological, and population-level effects.

1 Additional 

information on these programs and other ocean resources-oriented initiatives can be found at the U.S. 

Navy Green Fleet – Energy, Environment, and Climate Change website.

3.0.1.2 Navy’s Quantitative Analysis to Determine Impacts to Sea Turtles and Marine 

Mammals

If proposed Navy activities introduce sound or explosive energy into the marine environment, an 

analysis of potential impacts on marine species is conducted. Data on the density of animals (number of 

animals per unit area) of each species and stock is needed, along with criteria and thresholds defining 

the levels of sound and energy that may cause certain types of impacts. The Navy’s acoustic effects 

model takes the density and the criteria and thresholds as inputs and analyzes Navy training and testing 

activities. Finally, mitigation and animal avoidance behaviors are considered to determine the number of 

impacts that could occur. The inputs and process are described below. A detailed explanation of this 

analysis is provided in the technical report titled Quantifying Acoustic Impacts on Marine Mammals and Sea 

 

1 A population-level impact is an impact on the population numbers (survival) or growth and reproductive rates (recruitment) of 

a particular marine mammal species or stock.
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.0-3 

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Turtles: Methods and Analytical Approach for Phase III Training and Testing (U.S. Department of the Navy, 

2018b). 

3.0.1.2.1 Marine Species Density Database

A quantitative analysis of impacts on a species requires data on their abundance and distribution in the 

potentially impacted area. The most appropriate metric for this type of analysis is density, which is the 

number of animals present per unit area. Estimating marine species density requires substantial surveys 

and effort to collect and analyze data to produce a usable estimate. The National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS) is the primary agency responsible for estimating marine mammal and sea turtle density 

within the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone. Other agencies and independent researchers often publish 

density data for species in specific areas of interest, including areas outside the U.S. Exclusive Economic 

Zone. In areas where surveys have not produced adequate data to allow robust density estimates, 

methods such as model extrapolation from surveyed areas, Relative Environmental Suitability models, 

or expert opinion are used to estimate occurrence. These density estimation methods rely on 

information such as animal sightings from adjacent locations, amount of survey effort, and the 

associated environmental variables (e.g., depth, sea surface temperature). 

There is no single source of density data for every area of the world, species, and season because of the fiscal 

limitations, resources, effort involved in providing survey coverage to sufficiently estimate density, and 

practical limitations. Therefore, to characterize marine species density for large areas, such as the AFTT Study

Area, the Navy compiled data from multiple sources and developed a protocol to select the best available 

density estimates based on species, area, and time (i.e., season). When multiple data sources were available, 

the Navy ranked density estimates based on a hierarchal approach to ensure that the most accurate 

estimates were selected. The highest tier included peer-reviewed published studies of density estimates 

from spatial models since these provide spatially-explicit density estimates with relatively low 

uncertainty. Other preferred sources included peer reviewed published studies of density estimates 

derived from systematic line-transect survey data, the method typically used for the NMFS marine 

mammal stock assessment reports. In the absence of survey data, information on species occurrence 

and known or inferred habitat associations have been used to predict densities using model-based 

approaches including Relative Environmental Suitability models. Because these estimates inherently 

include a high degree of uncertainty, they were considered the least preferred data source. In cases 

where a preferred data source was not available, density estimates were selected based on expert 

opinion from scientists. 

The resulting Geographic Information System database includes seasonal density values for every 

marine mammal and sea turtle species present within the Study Area. This database is described in the 

technical report titled U.S. Navy Marine Species Density Database Phase III for the Atlantic Fleet Training 

and Testing Study Area (U.S. Department of the Navy, 2017b), hereafter referred to as the Density 

Technical Report. These data are used as an input into the Navy Acoustic Effects Model. 

The Density Technical Report describes the density models that were utilized in detail and provides 

detailed explanations of the models applied to each species density estimate. The below list describes 

models in order of preference. 

1. Spatial density models are preferred and used when available because they provide an estimate 

with the least amount of uncertainty by deriving estimates for divided segments of the sampling 

area. These models (see Becker et al., 2016; Forney et al., 2015) predict spatial variability of 

animal presence as a function of habitat variables (e.g., sea surface temperature, seafloor depth, 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.0-4 

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

etc.). This model is developed for areas, species, and, when available, specific timeframes 

(months or seasons) with sufficient survey data. 

2. Stratified design-based density estimates use line-transect survey data with the sampling area 

divided (stratified) into sub-regions, and a density is predicted for each sub-region (Barlow, 

2016; Becker et al., 2016; Bradford et al., 2017; Campbell et al., 2015; Jefferson et al., 2014). 

While geographically stratified density estimates provide a better indication of a species’ 

distribution within the Study Area, the uncertainty is typically high because each sub-region 

estimate is based on a smaller stratified segment of the overall survey effort.

3. Design-based density estimations use line-transect survey data from land and aerial surveys 

designed to cover a specific geographic area (see Carretta et al., 2015). These estimates use the 

same survey data as stratified design-based estimates, but are not segmented into sub-regions 

and instead provide one estimate for a large surveyed area. 

4. Although relative environmental suitability models provide estimates for areas of the oceans 

that have not been surveyed using information on species occurrence and inferred habitat 

associations and have been used in past density databases, these models were not used in the 

current quantitative analysis. 

When interpreting the results of the quantitative analysis, as described in the Density Technical Report, 

it is important to consider that “each model is limited to the variables and assumptions considered by 

the original data source provider. No mathematical model representation of any biological population is 

perfect, and with regards to marine mammal biodiversity, any single model will not completely explain 

the results” (U.S. Department of the Navy, 2017b). These factors and others described in the Density 

Technical Report should be considered when examining the estimated impact numbers in comparison to 

current population abundance information for any given species or stock. 

3.0.1.2.2 Developing Acoustic and Explosive Criteria and Thresholds

Information about the numerical sound and energy levels that are likely to elicit certain types of 

physiological and behavioral reactions is needed to analyze potential impacts to marine species. Revised 

Phase III criteria and thresholds for quantitative modeling of impacts use the best available existing data 

from scientific journals, technical reports, and monitoring reports to develop thresholds and functions 

for estimating impacts on marine species. Working with NMFS, the Navy has developed updated criteria 

for marine mammals and sea turtles. Criteria for estimating impacts on marine fishes are also used in 

this analysis, which largely follow the Sound Exposure Guidelines for Fishes and Sea Turtles (Popper et 

al., 2014). 

Since the release of the Criteria and Thresholds for U.S. Navy Acoustic and Explosive Effect Analysis in 

2012 (U.S. Department of the Navy, 2012c), recent and emerging science has necessitated an update to 

these criteria and thresholds for assessing potential impacts on marine mammals and sea turtles. A 

detailed description of the Phase III acoustic and explosive criteria and threshold development is 

included in the supporting technical report Criteria and Thresholds for U.S. Navy Acoustic and Explosive 

Effects Analysis (Phase III) (U.S. Department of the Navy, 2017a) and details are provided in each 

resource section. A series of behavioral studies, largely funded by the U.S. Navy, has led to a new 

understanding of how some species of marine mammals react to military sonar. This resulted in 

developing new behavioral response functions for estimating alterations in behavior. Additional 

information on auditory weighting functions has also emerged [e.g.,Mulsow et al. (2015)] leading to 

developing a new methodology to predict auditory weighting functions for each hearing group along 

with the accompanying hearing loss thresholds. These criteria for predicting hearing loss in marine 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.0-5 

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

mammals were largely adopted by NMFS for species within their purview (National Marine Fisheries 

Service, 2016)).

The Navy also uses criteria for estimating effects to fishes and the ranges to which those effects are 

likely to occur. A working group of experts generated a technical report that provides numerical criteria 

and relative likelihood of effects to fish within different hearing groups (i.e., fishes with no swim bladder 

versus fishes with a swim bladder involved in hearing) (Popper et al., 2014). Where applicable, 

thresholds and relative risk factors presented in the technical report were used to assist in the analysis 

of effects to fishes from Navy activities. Details on criteria used to estimate impacts on marine fishes are 

contained within the appropriate stressor section (e.g., sonar and other transducers, explosives) within 

Section 3.6 (Fishes). This panel of experts also estimated parametric criteria for the effects of sea turtle 

exposure to sources located at ‘near,’ ‘intermediate,’ and ‘far’ distances, assigning ‘low,’ ‘medium,’ and 

‘high’ probability to specific categories of behavioral impacts (Popper et al., 2014). 

3.0.1.2.3 The Navy’s Acoustic Effects Model

The Navy’s Acoustic Effects Model calculates sound energy propagation from sonar and other 

transducers, air guns, and explosives during naval activities and the energy or sound received by animat 

dosimeters. Animat dosimeters are virtual representations of marine mammals or sea turtles distributed 

in the area around the modeled naval activity that each animat records its individual sound “dose.” The 

model bases the distribution of animats over the Study Area on the density values in the Navy Marine 

Species Density Database and distributes animats in the water column proportional to the known time 

that species spend at varying depths. 

The model accounts for environmental variability of sound propagation in both distance and depth 

when computing the received sound level on the animats. The model conducts a statistical analysis 

based on multiple model runs to compute the estimated effects on animals. The number of animats that 

exceed the received threshold for an effect is tallied to provide an estimate of the number of marine 

mammals or sea turtles that could be affected. 

Assumptions in the Navy model intentionally err on the side of overestimation when there are 

unknowns: 

• Naval activities are modeled as though they would occur regardless of proximity to marine 

mammals or sea turtles (i.e., mitigation is not modeled) and without any avoidance of the 

activity by the animal. The final step of the quantitative analysis of acoustic effects is to consider 

the implementation of mitigation. For sonar and other transducers, the possibility that marine 

mammals or sea turtles would avoid continued or repeated sound exposures is also considered.

• Many explosions from munitions such as bombs and missiles actually occur upon impact with 

above-water targets and at the water’s surface. However, for this analysis, sources such as these 

were modeled as exploding underwater. This overestimates the amount of explosive and 

acoustic energy entering the water. 

The model estimates the impacts caused by individual training and testing activities. During any 

individual modeled event, impacts on individual animats are considered over 24-hour periods. The 

animats do not represent actual animals, but rather allow for a statistical analysis of the number of 

instances that marine mammals or sea turtles may be exposed to sound levels resulting in an effect. 

Therefore, the model estimates the number of instances in which an effect threshold was exceeded over 

the course of a year, but does not estimate the number of individual marine mammals or sea turtles

that may be impacted over a year (i.e., some marine mammals or sea turtles could be impacted several 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.0-6 

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

times, while others would not experience any impact). A detailed explanation of the Navy’s Acoustic 

Effects Model is provided in the technical report Quantifying Acoustic Impacts on Marine Mammals and 

Sea Turtles: Methods and Analytical Approach for Phase III Training and Testing (U.S. Department of the 

Navy, 2018b). 

3.0.1.2.4 Accounting for Mitigation 

3.0.1.2.4.1 Sonar and Other Transducers

The Navy implements mitigation measures (described in Section 2.3.4, Mitigation Measures) during 

activities that use sonar and other transducers, including the power-down or shut-down (i.e., power-off) 

of sonar when a marine mammal is observed in the mitigation zone. The mitigation zones encompass 

the estimated ranges to injury (including permanent threshold shift [PTS]) for a given sonar exposure.

Therefore, the impact analysis quantifies the potential for mitigation to reduce the risk of PTS. Two 

factors are considered when quantifying the effectiveness of mitigation: (1) the extent to which the type 

of mitigation proposed for a sound-producing activity (e.g., active sonar) allows for observation of the 

mitigation zone prior to and during the activity; and (2) the sightability of each species that may be 

present in the mitigation zone, which is determined by species-specific characteristics and the viewing 

platform. A detailed explanation of the analysis is provided in the technical report Quantifying Acoustic 

Impacts on Marine Mammals and Sea Turtles: Methods and Analytical Approach for Phase III Training and 

Testing (U.S. Department of the Navy, 2018b). 

In the quantitative analysis, consideration of mitigation measures means that, for activities where 

mitigation is feasible, some model-estimated PTS is considered mitigated to the level of temporary 

threshold shift (TTS). The quantitative analysis does not analyze the potential for mitigation to reduce 

TTS or behavioral effects, even though mitigation could also reduce the likelihood of these effects. In 

practice, mitigation also protects all unobserved (below the surface) animals in the vicinity, including 

other species, in addition to the observed animal. However, the analysis assumes that only animals 

sighted at the water surface would be protected by the applied mitigation. The analysis, therefore, does 

not capture the protection afforded to all marine species that may be near or within the mitigation 

zone.

The ability to observe the range to PTS was estimated for each training or testing event. The ability of 

Navy Lookouts to detect marine mammals or sea turtles in or approaching the mitigation zone is 

dependent on the animal’s presence at the surface and the characteristics of the animal that influence 

its sightability (such as group size or surface active behavior). The behaviors and characteristics of some 

species may make them easier to detect. For example, based on small boat surveys between 2000 and 

2012 in the Hawaiian Islands, pantropical spotted dolphins and striped dolphins were frequently 

observed leaping out of the water and Cuvier’s beaked whales (Baird, 2013) and Blainville’s beaked 

whales (HDR, 2012) were occasionally observed breaching. These behaviors are visible from a great 

distance and likely increase sighting distances and detections of these species. Environmental conditions 

under which the training or testing activity could take place are also considered such as the sea surface 

conditions, weather (e.g., fog or rain), and day versus night.

3.0.1.2.4.2 Explosions

The Navy implements mitigation measures (described in Section 5.3, Procedural Mitigation to be 

Implemented) during explosive activities, including delaying detonations when a marine mammal is 

observed in the mitigation zone. The mitigation zones encompass the estimated ranges to mortality for 

a given explosive. Therefore, the impact analysis quantifies the potential for mitigation to reduce the 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.0-7 

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

risk of mortality due to exposure to explosives. Two factors are considered when quantifying the 

effectiveness of mitigation: (1) the extent to which the type of mitigation proposed for a soundproducing activity (e.g., gunnery exercise) allows for observation of the mitigation zone prior to and 

during the activity; and (2) the sightability of each species that may be present in the mitigation zone, 

which is determined by species-specific characteristics and the viewing platform. A detailed explanation 

of the analysis is provided in the technical report Quantifying Acoustic Impacts on Marine Mammals and 

Sea Turtles: Methods and Analytical Approach for Phase III Training and Testing (U.S. Department of the 

Navy, 2018b). 

In the quantitative analysis, consideration of mitigation measures means that, for activities where 

mitigation is feasible, model-estimated mortality is considered mitigated to the level of injury. The 

impact analysis does not analyze the potential for mitigation to reduce non-auditory injury, PTS, TTS or 

behavioral effects, even though mitigation would also reduce the likelihood of these effects. In practice, 

mitigation also protects all unobserved (below the surface) animals in the vicinity, including other 

species, in addition to the observed animal. However, the analysis assumes that only animals sighted at 

the water surface would be protected by the applied mitigation. The analysis, therefore, does not 

capture the protection afforded to all marine species that may be near or within the mitigation zone.

3.0.1.2.5 Marine Mammal Avoidance of Sonar and other Transducers

Because a marine mammal is assumed to initiate avoidance behavior (e.g., tens of meters for most 

species groups) after an initial startle reaction when exposed to relatively high received levels of sound, 

a marine mammal could reduce its cumulative sound energy exposure over a sonar event with multiple 

pings (i.e., sound exposures). This would reduce risk of both PTS and TTS, although the quantitative 

analysis conservatively only considers the potential to reduce instances of PTS by accounting for marine 

mammals swimming away to avoid repeated high-level sound exposures. All reductions in PTS impacts 

from likely avoidance behaviors are instead considered TTS impacts.

3.0.1.3 Aquatic Habitats Database

The AFTT and Hawaii-Southern California Training and Testing Aquatic Habitat Database was developed 

after the completion of the 2013 AFTT and Hawaii-Southern California Training and Testing EIS/Overseas 

Environmental Impact Statement (OEIS) in order to refine the regional scale and overlapping habitat 

data used in the analysis of military expended materials and bottom explosives. The database includes 

more numerous data sources ranging from regional-to-local scale. These data sources are subsequently 

combined to create a non-overlapping mosaic of habitat information that presents the highest quality 

data for a given location. The database primarily includes areas within the Study Area; however, there 

are also specific point locations for selected habitat types (e.g., artificial substrate). The current 

database is limited to abiotic (physical rather than biological) substrate types assessed in Section 3.5

(Habitats) for the current AFTT and Hawaii-Southern California Training and Testing EIS documents. A 

detailed description of the database is included as a supporting technical document with associated 

Geographic Information System and database deliverables (U.S. Department of the Navy, 2018a). 

3.0.2 ECOLOGICAL CHARACTERIZATION OF THE STUDY AREA

The Study Area includes the intertidal and subtidal marine waters within the boundaries shown in Figure 

2.1-1 but does not extend above the mean high tide line. Navy activities in the marine environment 

predominately occur within established operating areas (OPAREAs), range complexes, testing ranges, 

ports, and pierside locations. These locations are determined by Navy requirements, with locations set 

so as not to interfere with existing civilian and commercial maritime and airspace boundaries. The Navy-
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.0-8 

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

defined boundaries are not consistent with ecological boundaries, such as ecosystems, that may be 

more appropriate when assessing potential impacts on marine resources. Therefore, for the purposes of 

this document, the Navy analyzed the marine resources in an ecological context to the extent possible

to more comprehensively assess the potential impacts. The Navy used biogeographic classification 

systems to frame this ecological context.

Biogeographic classifications organize and describe the patterns and distributions of organisms and the 

biological and physical processes that influence this distribution. These biogeographic classification 

systems and areas are described in Section 3.0.2.1 (Biogeographic Classifications).

3.0.2.1 Biogeographic Classifications

For context, the Navy organized the resources within coastal waters by large marine ecosystems, where 

primary productivity is higher than open ocean areas (Sherman & Hempel, 2009). Primary productivity is 

the rate of the formation of organic material from inorganic carbon via photosynthesis (e.g., by marine 

vegetation) or chemical reactions. Resources within open ocean areas are characterized by main 

oceanographic features (currents, gyres). 

The large marine ecosystem classification system originated in the mid-1980s as a spatial planning tool 

to address transboundary management issues such as fisheries and pollution (Duda & Sherman, 2002). 

Large marine ecosystems are “relatively large areas of ocean space of approximately 200,000 square 

kilometers (km2) or greater, adjacent to the continents in coastal waters where primary productivity is 

generally higher than in open ocean areas” (Duda & Sherman, 2002). The large marine ecosystem 

concept for ecosystem-based management includes a five-module approach: (1) productivity, (2) fish 

and fisheries, (3) pollution and ecosystem health, (4) socioeconomics, and (5) governance. This approach 

is being applied to 16 international projects in Africa, Asia, Latin America, and Eastern Europe (Duda & 

Sherman, 2002) as well as to the large marine ecosystems in the AFTT Study Area described in the 

sections below (Aquarone & Adams, 2009c). 

The large marine ecosystem classification system was advocated by the Council on Environmental 

Quality’s Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force (The White House Council on Environmental Quality, 

2010) as a marine spatial framework for coordinating regional planning in the waters off of the United 

States. For this EIS/OEIS, three main oceanographic features are used: the Labrador Current, the Gulf 

Stream, and the North Atlantic Gyre. The Study Area contains seven designated large marine 

ecosystems: the West Greenland Shelf, Newfoundland-Labrador Shelf, Scotian Shelf, Northeast U.S. 

Continental Shelf, Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf, Gulf of Mexico, and Caribbean Sea. The seven large 

marine ecosystems and three open ocean areas are shown in Figure 3.0-1 and outlined in Sections 

3.0.2.1.1 (West Greenland Shelf Large Marine Ecosystem) through 3.0.2.1.10 (North Atlantic Gyre Open 

Ocean Area). Designated training and testing areas in relation to each of the large marine ecosystems 

and open ocean areas are presented in Figure 3.0-1. 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.0-9 

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Notes: AFTT: Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing; OPAREA: Operating Area; SINKEX: Sinking Exercise; VACAPES: Virginia Capes

Figure 3.0-1: The Study Area with Large Marine Ecosystems and Open Ocean Areas
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.0-10

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

This page intentionally left blank.
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.0-11

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

3.0.2.1.1 West Greenland Shelf Large Marine Ecosystem

The West Greenland Shelf Large Marine Ecosystem (Figure 3.0-1) encompasses an area of 375,000 km2

(Aquarone et al., 2009). No specifically designated training or testing areas fall within the West 

Greenland Shelf Large Marine Ecosystem; however, training may occasionally occur in this area during 

transit. See Chapter 2 (Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives) for locations of activities 

conducted outside of designated training and testing ranges, identified as “Other AFTT Areas.” Examples 

of these activities include gunnery exercises and anti-submarine warfare tracking exercises. This large 

marine ecosystem extends off the west coast of Greenland adjacent to Baffin Bay and the Davis Strait. 

Most of this ecosystem extends outside the Study Area; only the southwestern portion occurs within the 

Study Area (Figure 3.0-1). Other oceanic influences on this area are the West Greenland Current Front 

and the East Greenland Current. Significant structural features of this ecosystem include the Fylass Bank 

and the Tasersuaq Estuary. Most of this large marine ecosystem is covered with ice during winter 

(Sherman & Hempel, 2009). 

The West Greenland Shelf Large Marine Ecosystem provides resources for commercial fisheries (e.g., 

northern shrimp and flounder) and is an important feeding and migration area for the ESA-endangered 

Gulf of Maine Atlantic salmon (Fay et al., 2006). The average primary productivity within this large 

marine ecosystem is low: less than 150 grams (g) of carbon per square meter (m2

) per year (Aquarone et 

al., 2009). Low primary productivity is a result of low numbers of primary producers (e.g., algae) that are 

responsible for most of the primary production in the ocean and form the base of the marine food web. 

Refer to U.S. Department of the Navy (2012b) for more information. Less than 1 percent of the Study 

Area is in the West Greenland Shelf Large Marine Ecosystem.

3.0.2.1.2 Newfoundland-Labrador Shelf Large Marine Ecosystem 

The Newfoundland-Labrador Shelf Large Marine Ecosystem (Figure 3.0-1) encompasses an area of 

approximately 896,000 km2 (Aquarone & Adams, 2009b). 

This large marine ecosystem extends off the east coast of Canada within the Labrador Current 

(Aquarone & Adams, 2009b). Other oceanic influences on this area are the Gulf Stream, Labrador 

Shelf-Slope Front, and Labrador Mid-Shelf Front. Important structural features of this ecosystem include 

a structurally complex seabed, 14 estuaries, and the Grand Banks, which is a rich fishing ground 

(Sherman & Hempel, 2009). The Newfoundland-Labrador Shelf Large Marine Ecosystem supplies an 

important ecosystem service by providing resources for commercial fisheries (e.g., cod, haddock, and 

pollock). The average primary productivity within this large marine ecosystem is moderate: 150–300 g of 

carbon per m2 per year (Aquarone & Adams, 2009b). 

No specifically designated training or testing areas fall within the Newfoundland-Labrador Shelf Large 

Marine Ecosystem; however, training may occasionally occur in this area during transit. See Chapter 2 

(Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives) for locations of activities conducted outside of 

designated training and testing ranges, identified as “Other AFTT Areas.” Examples of these activities 

include gunnery exercises and anti-submarine warfare tracking exercises. Approximately 5 percent of 

the Study Area is located in the Newfoundland-Labrador Shelf Large Marine Ecosystem.

3.0.2.1.3 Scotian Shelf Large Marine Ecosystem

The Scotian Shelf Large Marine Ecosystem (Figure 3.0-1) encompasses an area of approximately 

283,000 km2 (Aquarone & Adams, 2009a). This large marine ecosystem is located off the coast of the 

Canadian province of Nova Scotia and extends to the shelf break (Aquarone & Adams, 2009a). The 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.0-12

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Laurentian Channel in the north separates this large marine ecosystem from the NewfoundlandLabrador Shelf Large Marine Ecosystem. Oceanic influences in this area are the Gulf Stream, Nova Scotia 

Current, Cape North Front, Cabot Strait Front, Gully Front, and Shelf-Slope Front. Important structural 

features of this ecosystem include the St. Lawrence Estuary and the complex topography of the area, 

which includes deep, mid-shelf basins, and many off-shore shallow banks (Sherman & Hempel, 2009). 

The Scotian Shelf Large Marine Ecosystem supplies an important ecosystem service by providing 

resources for commercial fisheries (e.g., cod, haddock, pollock, snow crab, northern shrimp, and shortfinned squid). The average primary productivity within this large marine ecosystem is moderately high: 

150–300 g of carbon per m2 per year (Aquarone & Adams, 2009a). 

No specifically designated training or testing areas fall within the Scotian Shelf Large Marine Ecosystem; 

however, training may occasionally occur in this area during transit. See Chapter 2 (Description of 

Proposed Action and Alternatives) for locations of activities conducted outside of designated training 

and testing ranges, identified as “Other AFTT Areas.” Examples of these activities include gunnery 

exercises and anti-submarine warfare tracking exercises. Approximately 1 percent of the Study Area is 

located in the Scotian Shelf Large Marine Ecosystem.

3.0.2.1.4 Northeast United States Continental Shelf Large Marine Ecosystem

The Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf Large Marine Ecosystem (Figure 3.0-1) encompasses an area of 

approximately 310,000 km2 (Aquarone & Adams, 2009c). This large marine ecosystem extends from the 

Gulf of Maine to Cape Hatteras, North Carolina. This area includes the Gerry E. Studds Stellwagen Bank 

National Marine Sanctuary. For additional details on marine protected areas and national marine 

sanctuaries, see Section 6.1.2 (Marine Protected Areas).

Oceanic influences in this large marine ecosystem are the Gulf Stream, Cape North Front, Georges Bank 

Front, Maine Coastal Front, Mid-Shelf Front, Nantucket Shoals Front, and Shelf-Slope Front (Aquarone & 

Adams, 2009c). Important structural features of this ecosystem include 28 estuaries and river systems 

such as Penobscot Bay/River, Hudson River, Delaware Bay/River, and Chesapeake Bay (Sherman & 

Hempel, 2009). This large marine ecosystem also supplies an important ecosystem service by providing 

resources for commercial fisheries (e.g., cod, flounder, mackerel, lobster, sea scallops, and red crab). 

The Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf Large Marine Ecosystem is one of the most productive large marine 

ecosystems in the world, with a high average primary productivity of greater than 300 g of carbon per 

m2 per year (Aquarone & Adams, 2009c). 

A large proportion of Navy training and testing activities occur in the Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf 

Large Marine Ecosystem. To determine which designated training and testing areas (or portions of these 

areas) occur within this large marine ecosystem, refer to Figure 3.0-1, and for more information on the 

types of activities that will occur in range complexes within an ecosystem, refer to Tables 2.3-1 through 

2.3-5. Approximately 2 percent of the Study Area is located in the Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf Large 

Marine Ecosystem. 

3.0.2.1.5 Southeast United States Continental Shelf Large Marine Ecosystem

The Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf Large Marine Ecosystem (Figure 3.0-1) encompasses an area of 

approximately 300,000 km2

 (Aquarone, 2009). This large marine ecosystem extends from Cape Hatteras, 

North Carolina, to the Straits of Florida (Aquarone, 2009). This area includes the Monitor and Gray’s 

Reef National Marine Sanctuaries. For additional details on marine protected areas and national marine 

sanctuaries, see Section 6.1.2 (Marine Protected Areas).
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.0-13

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Oceanic influences in this large marine ecosystem are the Gulf Stream, Inshore Gulf Stream Front, 

Mid-Shelf Front, and Offshore Gulf Stream Front. Important structural features of this ecosystem include 

many types of habitat such as coral reefs, estuaries, barrier islands, and coastal marshes (Sherman & 

Hempel, 2009). The calving grounds for the North Atlantic right whale are located in this large marine 

ecosystem, as discussed in Section 3.7 (Marine Mammals). The Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf Large 

Marine Ecosystem supplies important ecosystem services by providing resources for commercial

fisheries (e.g., mackerel, swordfish, tuna, white shrimp, brown shrimp) and by supporting these fisheries 

with estuarine nurseries for these species. The Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf Large Marine Ecosystem 

includes important breeding areas for sea turtles. This large marine ecosystem is a moderately 

productive ecosystem, with an average primary productivity of 150–300 g of carbon per m2 per year

(Aquarone, 2009). This is comparable to productivity levels associated with the open ocean. 

A large proportion of Navy training and testing activities occur in the Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf 

Large Marine Ecosystem. To determine which designated training and testing areas (or portions of these 

areas) occur within this large marine ecosystem, refer to Figure 3.0-1, and for more information on the 

types of activities that will occur in range complexes within an ecosystem, refer to Tables 2.3-1 through 

2.3-5. Approximately 2 percent of the Study Area is located in the Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf Large 

Marine Ecosystem.

3.0.2.1.6 Gulf of Mexico Large Marine Ecosystem

The Gulf of Mexico Large Marine Ecosystem (Figure 3.0-1) encompasses an area of more than 

1,500,000 km2

 (Heileman & Rabalais, 2008). This large marine ecosystem is a semi-enclosed sea that 

borders the United States, Mexico, and Cuba. This area includes the Florida Keys and Flower Garden 

Banks National Marine Sanctuaries. For additional details on marine protected areas and national 

marine sanctuaries, see Section 6.1.2 (Marine Protected Areas).

Oceanic influences in this large marine ecosystem are the Loop Current, Campeche Bank Coastal Front, 

Campeche Bank Shelf-Slope Front, Inner Shelf Front, Louisiana-Texas Shelf Front, and West Florida Shelf 

Front. Important structural features of this ecosystem include the extensive continental shelf, numerous 

estuaries, and a large amount of freshwater input from the Mississippi River (Sherman & Hempel, 2009). 

The Gulf of Mexico Large Marine Ecosystem supplies an important ecosystem service by providing 

resources for commercial fisheries (e.g., Gulf menhaden, king mackerel, red grouper, brown shrimp, 

white shrimp, and pink shrimp). This large marine ecosystem has a moderately high average primary 

productivity of less than 300 g of carbon per m2 per year (Heileman & Rabalais, 2008). Other human 

uses in this large marine ecosystem include offshore oil and gas exploration.

A large number of Navy training and testing activities occur in the Gulf of Mexico Large Marine 

Ecosystem. To determine which designated training and testing areas (or portions of these areas) occur 

within this large marine ecosystem, refer to Figure 3.0-1, and for more information on the types of 

activities that will occur in range complexes within an ecosystem, refer to Tables 2.3-1 through 2.3-5. 

Approximately 13 percent of the Study Area is located in the Gulf of Mexico Large Marine Ecosystem.

3.0.2.1.7 Caribbean Sea Large Marine Ecosystem

The Caribbean Sea Large Marine Ecosystem (Figure 3.0-1) encompasses an area of approximately 

3,300,000 km2

. This large marine ecosystem is bordered by the southern part of Florida, Central and 

South America, and the Antilles (Heileman & Mahon, 2008). Oceanic influences in this area are the Loop 

Current, North Equatorial Current, and Windward Passage Front. Important structural features of this 

ecosystem include coral reefs, sea mounts, and major input of freshwater from large rivers (Sherman & 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.0-14

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Hempel, 2009). The Caribbean Sea Large Marine Ecosystem supplies an important ecosystem service by 

providing resources for commercial fisheries (e.g., king mackerel, Spanish mackerel, dolphinfish, spiny 

lobster, queen conch, and shrimp). The Caribbean Sea Large Marine Ecosystem includes important 

breeding areas for sea turtles, as discussed in Section 3.8 (Reptiles). This region has a moderate primary 

productivity of 150–300 g of carbon per m2 per year (Heileman & Mahon, 2008). 

To determine which designated training and testing areas (or portions of these areas) occur within the 

portion of the Caribbean Sea Large Marine Ecosystem that falls within the Study Area, refer to Figure 

3.0-1, and for more information on the types of activities that will occur in range complexes within an 

ecosystem, refer to Tables 2.3-1 through 2.3-5. Approximately 1 percent of the Study Area is located in 

the Caribbean Sea Large Marine Ecosystem.

3.0.2.1.8 Labrador Current Open Ocean Area

The Labrador Current Open Ocean Area (Figure 3.0-1) lies between Labrador (Canada) and Greenland 

and is characterized by the cold water of the Labrador Current that flows north to south from the Arctic 

Ocean, down along the eastern coast of Canada (Reverdin et al., 2003). The Labrador Current then joins 

the Gulf Stream Current to form the North Atlantic Current (Gould, 1985; Reverdin et al., 2003). The 

Labrador Current has an average width of 26–50 nautical miles (NM), with typical velocities of 0.3–0.5 

meters (m) per second, and flows to a maximum depth of 150 m (Halkin & Rossby, 1985; Reverdin et al., 

2003; Tomczak & Godfrey, 2003). 

The Arctic influence, combined with the southward-flowing current, results in an abundance of icebergs 

in this open ocean area, particularly during the spring and early summer months (Reverdin et al., 2003; 

Schmitz & McCartney, 1993; Tomczak & Godfrey, 2003). The cold-water Labrador Current influences the 

species assemblages found within this open ocean area (Valiela, 1995). However, farther south where 

this cold water current combines with the warm waters of the Gulf Stream (offshore of the 

Newfoundland-Labrador Shelf, Scotian Shelf, and Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf Large Marine 

Ecosystems), the species assemblage reflects both warm- and cold-water organisms (Aquarone, 2009; 

Aquarone & Adams, 2009b; Valiela, 1995). The Labrador Current Open Ocean Area is an important 

feeding and migration area for the Gulf of Maine Atlantic salmon (Fay et al., 2006). 

No specifically designated training or testing areas fall within the Labrador Current Open Ocean Area; 

however, training or testing may occasionally occur in this area during transit. See Chapter 2 

(Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives) for locations of activities within and outside of 

designated training and testing ranges. Approximately 10 percent of the Study Area is located in the 

Labrador Current Open Ocean Area.

3.0.2.1.9 Gulf Stream Open Ocean Area

The major western boundary current of the North Atlantic, the Gulf Stream, characterizes the Gulf 

Stream Open Ocean Area (Figure 3.0-1). The Gulf Stream forms where the Loop Current in the Gulf of 

Mexico (Reverdin et al., 2003) and the Florida Current (Atkinson et al., 1984) combine in the Atlantic 

Ocean. The Gulf Stream begins where the Florida Current ceases to follow the continental shelf, flowing 

northeast along the southeastern United States from Cape Canaveral, Florida, to Cape Hatteras, North 

Carolina (Atkinson & Targett, 1983). As the Gulf Stream moves away from Cape Hatteras, it flows 

northeast toward Europe (Garrison, 2004). 

The Gulf Stream has a maximum width of 200 kilometers (km), with typical velocities exceeding 1.0 m 

per second, and flows to a maximum depth of 200 m (Halkin & Rossby, 1985; Reverdin et al., 2003; 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.0-15

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Tomczak & Godfrey, 2003). The Gulf Stream flows over the shelf break south of 32 degrees (°) North (N) 

at water depths less than 800 m (Atkinson et al., 1984; Halkin & Rossby, 1985). North of 32° N, the Gulf 

Stream is displaced 54 NM offshore, at which point it abruptly turns east near the Charleston Bump (a 

deep-water outcropping) (Reverdin et al., 2003). From there, the Gulf Stream continues northeast, 

joining the Labrador Current to form the Slope Jet Current at 41° N–42° N. This branch of the Gulf 

Stream, along with the Labrador and Slope Jet Current, continues northeast as the North Atlantic 

Current (Gould, 1985; Reverdin et al., 2003). 

The Gulf Stream is an important migratory corridor for many different marine species, including marine 

mammals, sea turtles, and fishes. The influence of the warm waters of the Gulf Stream also provides 

passive dispersal of tropical species from southern portions of the Study Area into the northern portions 

of the Study Area.

A large proportion of Navy training and testing activities occur in this open ocean area. To determine 

which designated training and testing areas (or portions of these areas) occur within the Gulf Stream 

Open Ocean Area, refer to Figure 3.0-1, and for more information on the types of activities that will 

occur in range complexes within an ecosystem, refer to Tables 2.3-1 through 2.3-5. Approximately 

11 percent of the Study Area is located in the Gulf Stream Open Ocean Area.

3.0.2.1.10North Atlantic Gyre Open Ocean Area

North Atlantic Ocean circulation is driven by the anticyclonic (clockwise) motion of the North Atlantic 

Subtropical Gyre (Figure 3.0-1). The North Atlantic Gyre Open Ocean Area occurs from 10° N to 40° N 

and is delimited by the westward-flowing Canary Current, North Equatorial Current, the Caribbean 

Current, Loop Current in the Gulf of Mexico, Florida Current, Gulf Stream (Talwani et al., 1971), and the 

eastward-flowing North Atlantic Current (Schmitz & McCartney, 1993). The North Atlantic Subtropical 

Gyre is transected by the eastward-flowing Azores Current (Juliano & Alves, 2007). Only the 

northwestern portion of the North Atlantic Gyre is located in the Study Area. The North Atlantic Gyre, 

like all large subtropical gyres in the ocean, has extremely low rates of primary productivity (Valiela, 

1995). The observed low productivity is caused by a persistent thermocline (a layer of water that 

separates warm water from cold deep water) that prevents the vertical mixing of water. This 

thermocline results in dilute (nutrient-poor) surface waters in the gyre, which limits the growth of 

phytoplankton throughout the year (Valiela, 1995). The Sargasso Sea is a unique feature contained 

within this gyre, and despite the nutrient limitations of the area, is characterized by dense mats of 

floating Sargassum, a type of marine vegetation (seaweed) that provides important cover habitat for a 

variety of marine organisms (see Section 3.3, Vegetation, for more details).

To determine which designated training and testing areas (or portions of these areas) occur within the 

North Atlantic Gyre Open Ocean Area, refer to Figure 3.0-1 and for more information on the types of 

activities that will occur in range complexes within an ecosystem, refer to Tables 2.3-1 through 2.3-5. 

Although approximately 50 percent of the Study Area is located in the North Atlantic Gyre Open Ocean

Area, the majority of Navy training and testing activities do not occur here.

3.0.2.2 Bathymetry

The discussion of bathymetry includes a general overview of the Study Area followed by more detailed 

sections organized by biogeographic classification area. Bathymetry describes the surface features of the 

seafloor, and it is an important factor in understanding the potential impacts of Navy training and 

testing activities on the seafloor, the propagation of underwater sound, and species diversity. 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.0-16

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

The contour of the ocean floor as it descends from the shoreline has an important influence on the 

distribution of organisms, as well as the structure and function of marine ecosystems (Madden et al., 

2009). The continental shelf and slope make up the continental margin of oceans. The typical zonation 

of oceans is shown in Figure 3.0-2. 

Figure 3.0-2: Three-Dimensional Representation of the Intertidal Zone (shoreline), 

Continental Margin, Abyssal Zone, and Water Column Zones

The continental shelf gently slopes seaward hundreds of miles (mi.) from shore from the low tide line to 

a maximum depth of 200 m (Tomczak & Godfrey, 2003; United Nations Educational Scientific and 

Cultural Organization, 2009). The continental slope is steep; it begins seaward of the shelf break and 

extends to a depth of approximately 3,000 m. The continental rise extends from the continental slope to 

a depth of approximately 4,000 m. The abyssal zone, a relatively flat or gently sloping ocean floor, 

continues from the continental rise to depths of up to approximately 6,500 m. The abyssal zones of the 

Atlantic Ocean reach depths greater than 6,000 m. Bathymetry of the entire Study Area is shown in 

Figure 3.0-3 through Figure 3.0-6. 

Bathymetric features associated with the continental margin and the deep seafloor of the Study Area 

include canyons, seamounts (underwater mountains), trenches, ridges, and plateaus. The continental 

shelf of the northwest Atlantic ranges in width from 5 to 17 NM at its narrowest point off the coast of 

North Carolina to 215 NM at its widest point off the coast of Newfoundland (Blanton et al., 2003; Slatt, 

1984). 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.0-17

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Notes: AFTT: Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing; OPAREA: Operating Area; SINKEX: Sinking Exercise; VACAPES: Virginia Capes

Figure 3.0-3: Bathymetry of the Entire Study Area
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.0-18

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

This page intentionally left blank.
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.0-19

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Notes: AFTT: Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing; OPAREA: Operating Area; SINKEX: Sinking Exercise; VACAPES: Virginia Capes

Figure 3.0-4: Bathymetry of the Northeast Portion of the Study Area 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.0-20

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

This page intentionally left blank. 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.0-21

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Notes: AFTT: Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing; OPAREA: Operating Area; SINKEX: Sinking Exercise; VACAPES: Virginia Capes

Figure 3.0-5: Bathymetry of the Southeast Portion of the Study Area 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.0-22

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

This page intentionally left blank.
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.0-23 

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Notes: AFTT: Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing; OPAREA: Operating Area

Figure 3.0-6: Bathymetry of the Gulf of Mexico Portion of the Study Area
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.0-24

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

This page intentionally left blank.
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.0-25

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Several bathymetric features are located in the Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf, the Scotian Shelf, and 

the Newfoundland-Labrador Shelf Large Marine Ecosystems. The Grand Banks are a group of shallow 

underwater plateaus on the eastern extent of the continental shelf in 25–100 m of water. South of the 

Grand Banks is the Newfoundland Rise, which at 41° N, 50° West (W) is the northernmost extent of the 

New England Seamount Chain (Reverdin et al., 2003). This chain includes more than 30 volcanic 

seamounts that extend south to Bermuda. 

The Scotian Shelf is bordered by the Canadian province of Nova Scotia and extends offshore to the shelf 

break, more than 200 NM from the coast (Aquarone & Adams, 2009a). The continental shelf is relatively 

shallow, with an average depth of 90 m. However, in some areas it rapidly drops to depths greater than 

3,000 m. Sable Island, located 160 NM southeast of Halifax, is surrounded by shallow banks (25–100 m).

The Gulf of Maine is a semi-enclosed continental sea with an area of 89,000 km2 and average depth of 

150 m (Ballard & Uchupi, 1974). It is characterized by rocky shorelines of exposed bedrock from previous 

glacial scouring. Inland of the Gulf of Maine is the Bay of Fundy. It covers 16,500 km2 with an average

depth of 50 m (Wade et al., 1996). The Bay of Fundy and Gulf of Maine are known for having extreme 

tidal ranges as great as 15 m (Wade et al., 1996). 

The Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf Large Marine Ecosystem includes the coastal area from southern 

Florida to Cape Hatteras, North Carolina (Aquarone, 2009). It includes the topographic feature known as 

the Blake Plateau, which has water depths of 500–1,100 m (Popenoe & Manheim, 2001). The Blake 

Plateau is bounded by the continental shelf on the west, Cape Hatteras on the north, the Bahama Banks 

on the south, and the abyssal plain on the east (Gorsline, 1963; Popenoe & Manheim, 2001). The 

Charleston Bump, a rocky, high-relief outcrop, occurs on the Blake Plateau between latitude 31° N and 

32° N, and between longitude 77.5° W and 79.5° W (Popenoe & Manheim, 2001). The continental shelf 

in this area has a smooth surface and a low gradient (3° or less), while the continental slope reaches 

depths of 1,400 m (Knebel, 1984). Portions of the continental slope in this area are associated with 

deep-water coral communities at depths of 70–1,000 m (Reed & Ross, 2005). At the boundary between 

the Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf and the Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf, the continental slope is 

divided by Hatteras Canyon, the most southerly canyon along the continental margin of the U.S. east 

coast. Offshore of Hatteras Canyon, the continental slope is steep and reaches 5,000 m (Rowe, 1971). 

Other notable features are large sand shoals that extend from the barrier islands off North Carolina 

(Hunt et al., 1977; Oertel, 1985). 

The average depth of the Gulf of Mexico is 1,615 m, with a maximum depth of 3,850 m (Pequegnat et 

al., 1990). Dominant features of the Gulf of Mexico include the Sigsbee Escarpment (steep slope) and 

the Alaminos and Keathley Canyons, which divide the escarpment into western and eastern portions 

(Minerals Management Service, 2005). The eastern Gulf of Mexico is dominated by the Florida 

Escarpment, which is divided by a series of submarine canyons and contains more than 90 basins 

(Minerals Management Service, 2002). The western portion is underlain by the Louann Salt Formation, 

which creates faults and diapirs (salt domes) often associated with hydrocarbon seeps along the faults. 

Dominant features in the southern portion of the Gulf of Mexico are the Campeche Escarpment and the 

Mexican Ridge, which consists of a series of valleys and ridges (Escobar-Briones et al., 2008). 

3.0.2.3 Currents, Circulation Patterns, and Water Masses

To analyze the impact of Navy training and testing activities on marine resources (e.g., vegetation and 

animals) it is important to know where the resources occur in the Study Area. Some of the major factors 

that influence the distribution of marine resources are currents, circulation patterns, and water masses.
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.0-26

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Prevailing winds and the Coriolis effect (the deflection of objects caused by the rotation of the earth) 

cause surface waters to move in a gyre, or circular fashion, in ocean basins. In the North Atlantic Ocean, 

this gyre system is composed of the Gulf Stream, North Atlantic, Canary, and Equatorial Currents. In the 

Gulf of Mexico, the Florida Current is a strong, east-northeast-flowing current that connects the Loop 

Current to the Gulf Stream at the entrance to the Florida Straits (Figure 3.0-7).

Surface currents are horizontal movements of water primarily driven by the drag of the wind over the 

sea surface. Wind-driven circulation affects the upper 100 m of the water column and therefore drives 

the circulation over continental shelves (Hunter et al., 2007). Surface currents of the Atlantic Ocean 

have an annual average mean velocity of 0.5 m per second and include equatorial currents, circumpolar 

currents, eastern boundary currents, and western boundary currents (Juliano & Alves, 2007). Refer to 

Figure 3.0-7 and Table 3.0-1 for a depiction and description of the major surface currents in the 

Study Area.

Table 3.0-1: Summary of Current Patterns in Areas Located Outside the Range Complexes

Component Currents

Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf Large Marine Ecosystem

Bath, ME

Portsmouth Naval Riverine and tidal circulation patterns.

Shipyard, Kittery, ME

Naval Undersea Warfare 

Center Division, Newport 

Testing Range

Shallow water coastal currents generated by tidal action and wind. Currents 

are affected by open-ocean conditions as well as by tidal exchange and windgenerated currents in the estuaries.

Naval Submarine Base 

New London, Groton, CT

Riverine and tidal circulation patterns near mouth of estuary.

Subject to the influence of larger open oceanic currents and circulation 

systems.

Newport News, VA

Naval Station Norfolk,

Norfolk, VA

Joint Expeditionary Base 

Little Creek—Fort Story, 

Virginia Beach, VA

Norfolk Naval Shipyard,

Portsmouth, VA

Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf Large Marine Ecosystem

Naval Submarine Base 

Kings Bay, Kings Bay, GA Riverine and tidal circulation patterns in middle part of estuary.

Naval Station Mayport, 

Jacksonville, FL

Riverine and tidal circulation patterns in the mouth of estuary inlet.

Subject to the influence of larger open oceanic currents and circulation 

systems.

Port Canaveral, FL; South 

Florida Ocean 

Measurement Facility, FL

Tidal mixing within shallow dredged channel, plus wind driven circulation.

Gulf of Mexico Large Marine Ecosystem

Pascagoula, MS; Naval 

Surface Warfare Center, 

Panama City Division, FL

Riverine and tidal circulation patterns in mouth of estuary/inlet. Offshore, near 

coastal areas subject to influence of larger open oceanic current/circulation. 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.0-27

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Table 3.0-1: Summary of Current Patterns in Areas Located Outside the Range Complexes 

(continued)

Component Currents

Gulf of Mexico Large Marine Ecosystem (continued)

Gulf of Mexico

The Louisiana coast current flows along the coast of the United States from the 

mouth of the Mississippi River to the western Gulf of Mexico. The Yucatan 

Current flows north, east, and west as it enters the Gulf of Mexico from the 

Caribbean Sea.

The Loop Current originates as part of the Yucatan Current, and spins in a 

clockwise direction and connects with the Florida Current from west to east 

through the Florida Straits. Warm and cold core eddy rings develop in the 

western half of the Gulf of Mexico between the Loop Current and the 

Texas/Mexico coast. Cold-core eddy rings develop off the Florida Current in the 

eastern Gulf.

Caribbean Sea Large Marine Ecosystem

Other AFTT Areas (Outside 

the Range Complexes)

The Antilles Current flows southeast to northwest along the northern edge of 

the Turks and Caicos Islands and Bahama Islands. The Labrador Current flows 

south from Labrador Bay.

Labrador Current Open Ocean Area

Other AFTT Areas (Outside 

the Range Complexes)

Labrador surface current and West Greenland surface current move water in a 

counter clockwise direction around the outer edges of the Labrador Sea.

West Labrador surface current also moves water farther to the north.

Portions of the deep North Atlantic Current return cold, denser water back to 

the south, away from the Labrador Sea.

Source: Stewart, (2008)

Notes: AFTT = Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing, CT = Connecticut, FL = Florida, GA = Georgia, ME = Maine, 

MS = Mississippi, VA = Virginia

Eastern boundary currents are relatively shallow, broad, and slow-moving and travel toward the equator 

along the eastern boundaries of ocean basins. Western boundary currents are narrow, deep, and swift 

and are a result of the trade winds and the westerlies. In general, eastern boundary currents carry cold 

waters from higher latitudes to lower latitudes, and western boundary currents carry warm waters from 

lower latitudes to higher latitudes (Reverdin et al., 2003). 

In the northern hemisphere, including the Study Area, the influence of the westerlies and the 

northeasterly trade winds on North Atlantic currents produce the eastward-flowing Subtropical Counter 

Current (Tomczak & Godfrey, 2003). Subpolar gyres are also present in the North Atlantic as a result of 

the polar easterlies and the westerlies. In the North Atlantic, subpolar gyres rotate counterclockwise 

(Tomczak & Godfrey, 2003). 

The western continental margin of any ocean basin is the location of intense boundary currents; the Gulf 

Stream Current is the western boundary current found in the North Atlantic Ocean (Figure 3.0-7). The 

Gulf Stream Current is part of a larger current system called the Gulf Stream System that also includes 

the Loop Current in the Gulf of Mexico, the Florida Current in the Florida Straits, and the North Atlantic 

Current in the central North Atlantic Ocean. The Gulf Stream Current is a powerful surface current, 

carrying warm water into the cooler North Atlantic just south of the Northeast Range Complexes 

(Pickard & Emery, 1990; Verity et al., 1993). In general, the Gulf Stream flows roughly parallel to the 

coastline from the Florida Straits to Cape Hatteras, where it is deflected away from the North American 

continent and flows northeastward.
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.0-28

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

The temperature and salinity of water determines its density; density differences cause water masses to 

move both vertically and horizontally in relation to one another. Cold, salty, dense water at the surface 

will sink, and warm, less saline water will rise. Density differences also drive the horizontal circulation of 

deep-water masses throughout ocean basins.

Thermohaline circulation—also called the ocean conveyor belt or meridional overturning—is the 

continuous horizontal circulation of water masses throughout the ocean. This cycle begins when dense 

waters sink and deep-water masses form. Deep-water masses form in the North Atlantic and Southern 

oceans (Dickson & Brown, 1994). North Atlantic Deep Water is formed in the Norwegian Sea between 

Iceland and Greenland. North Atlantic Deep Water is carried by the Deep Western Boundary Current 

along the western continental slope to join Antarctic Bottom Water (Dengler et al., 2004; Pickart, 1992). 

At the surface, waters are heated and freshwater inputs result in lower salinity. As a result of density 

differences and higher sea levels in the Pacific Ocean and Indian Ocean, these surface water masses 

return to the Antarctic Ocean and North Atlantic Ocean. In the North Atlantic, these surface waters 

undergo evaporative cooling, which increases their densities, resulting in the sinking and formation of 

the North Atlantic Deep Water (Haug & Tiedemann, 1998). 

3.0.2.4 Ocean Fronts

Ocean fronts are characterized by increased productivity and biomass (e.g., marine vegetation and 

animals) (Bost et al., 2009). Fronts are the boundaries between two water masses with distinct 

temperatures or densities and are characterized by rapid changes in specific water properties over 

short distances. 

The Study Area is influenced by the Mid-Atlantic Bight (a curve in the coastline) shelf break front, the 

Gulf Stream front, and the Loop Current and Florida Current. As the Gulf Stream Current moves east 

from Cape Hatteras, North Carolina, it carries warm equatorial waters into the cooler Atlantic Ocean. 

Cold water flowing north to south from coastal areas of the northeastern United States (as shown in 

Figure 3.0-7) converges with the warmer waters of the Gulf Stream off Cape Hatteras, creating a frontal 

system. These fronts can be depicted on maps that show the drastic changes in sea surface 

temperatures between water masses. Figure 3.0-8 shows the influence of ocean fronts on the sea 

surface temperatures of the Study Area.

The front formed at the intersection of the continental shelf and slope extends from the Mid-Atlantic 

Bight into New England waters. This front is biologically important and persists year-round. 

Phytoplankton (microscopic drifting plants) production is enhanced at this frontal boundary, often with 

twice the concentration of phytoplankton found in adjacent waters (Ryan et al., 1999). 

North of Cape Hatteras, the Gulf Stream meanders in a wave-like fashion and becomes unstable. These 

instabilities in current flow lead to the pinching off of relatively warm or cool waters as either warm- or 

cold-core mesoscale eddies (Mann & Lazier, 1996). Mesoscale eddies are large (54–108 NM wide) 

rotating water currents that separate from the main current. They cause cold, deep waters to rise to the 

surface (upwelling) or conversely, warm, surface waters to sink (downwelling), and consequently 

influence primary production (Sangrà et al., 2009) and facilitate the transfer of energy to higher trophic 

levels (Thompson et al., 2012). Warm-core eddies rotate clockwise (anticyclonic) and bring warm water 

and associated plankton (drifting organisms), including ichthyoplankton (fish eggs and larvae), to the 

colder areas of the northeast shelf. Cold-core eddies rotate counterclockwise (cyclonic) and deliver cold, 

nutrient-rich waters and plankton to the surface of the ocean. These types of mesoscale eddies form 

around the Gulf Stream and influence the sea surface temperature.
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.0-29

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Notes: AFTT: Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing; OPAREA: Operating Area; SINKEX: Sinking Exercise; VACAPES: Virginia Capes

Figure 3.0-7: Major Currents in the Study Area
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.0-30

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

This page intentionally left blank.
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.0-31

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Notes: AFTT: Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing; OPAREA: Operating Area; SINKEX: Sinking Exercise; VACAPES: Virginia Capes

Figure 3.0-8: Average Sea Surface Temperature in the Study Area (2011–2015)
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.0-32

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

This page intentionally left blank.
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.0-33

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Warm- and cold-core eddy rings develop in the western half of the Gulf of Mexico between the Loop 

Current and the Texas and Mexico coast. These eddies travel westward and southward in the Gulf (Elliot, 

1982; Hamilton, 1990; Minerals Management Service, 2001). The Loop Current and associated eddies 

are responsible for circulation in the deepest portions of the Gulf of Mexico (Hamilton, 1990). Frontal 

eddies occur along the East Florida Shelf (Fiechter & Mooers, 2003; Lee et al., 1992) when warm Florida 

Current front waters meander seaward beyond the shelf break, allowing colder slope waters to upwell 

onto the East Florida Shelf.

3.0.2.5 Abiotic Substrate

In the marine and estuarine environments of the AFTT Study Area there are a variety of types of 

surfaces, or substrates, on which organisms live. Nonliving (abiotic) substrates can be categorized based 

on the grain size of unconsolidated material: “Soft” (e.g., sand, mud), “Intermediate” (e.g., cobble, 

gravel), and “Hard” (e.g., bedrock, boulders, artificial structures).

3.0.3 OVERALL APPROACH TO ANALYSIS

The Navy’s overall approach to analysis in this EIS/OEIS is consistent with the approach used in previous 

analyses and included the following general steps:

• identifying resources and stressors for analysis,

• analyzing resource-specific impacts for individual 

stressors, 

• analyzing resource-specific impacts for multiple 

stressors, 

• examining potential marine species populationlevel impacts,

• analyzing cumulative effects, and

• analyzing mitigations to reduce identified potential impacts.

Navy training and testing activities in the Proposed Action may produce one or more stimuli that cause 

stress on a resource. Each proposed Navy activity was examined to determine its potential stressors. 

The term stressor is broadly used in this document to refer to an agent, condition, or other stimulus that 

causes stress to an organism or alters physical, socioeconomic, or cultural resources. Not all stressors 

affect every resource, nor do all proposed Navy activities produce all stressors. Since the activities 

proposed in this EIS/OEIS are similar to current activities analyzed previously, the stressors considered 

are also similar.

The potential direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of the Proposed Action were analyzed based on 

these potential stressors being present with the resource. Data sets used for analysis were considered 

across the full spectrum of Navy training and testing for the foreseeable future. For the purposes of 

analysis and presentation within this EIS/OEIS, data was organized and evaluated in one-year and 

five-year increments. Direct impacts are caused by the action and occur at the same time and place. 

Indirect impacts result when a direct impact on one resource induces an impact on another resource 

(referred to as a secondary stressor). Indirect impacts would be reasonably foreseeable because of a 

functional relationship between the directly impacted resource and the secondarily impacted resource. 

For example, a significant change in water quality could secondarily impact those resources that rely on 

Stressor: an agent, condition, or 

other stimulus that causes stress 

to an organism or alters physical, 

socioeconomic, or cultural 

resources.
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.0-34

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

water quality, such as marine animals and public health and safety. Cumulative effects or impacts are 

the incremental impacts of the action added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future 

actions.

First, a preliminary analysis was conducted to determine the environmental resources potentially 

impacted and associated stressors. Secondly, each resource was analyzed for potential impacts of 

individual stressors, followed by an analysis of the combined impacts of all stressors related to the 

Proposed Action. A cumulative impact analysis was conducted to evaluate the incremental impact of the 

Proposed Action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions 

(Chapter 4, Cumulative Impacts). Mitigation measures are discussed in detail in Chapter 5 (Mitigation), 

and regulatory considerations are discussed in Chapter 6 (Regulatory Considerations).

In this sequential approach, the initial analyses were used to develop each subsequent step so the 

analysis focused on relevant issues (defined during scoping) that warranted the most attention. The 

systematic nature of this approach allowed the Proposed Action with the associated stressors and 

potential impacts to be effectively tracked throughout the process. This approach provides a 

comprehensive analysis of applicable stressors and potential impacts. Each step is described in more 

detail below.

3.0.3.1 Resources and Issues Evaluated

Physical resources evaluated include air quality, sediments and water quality. Biological resources 

(including threatened and endangered species) evaluated include vegetation, invertebrates, habitats, 

fishes, marine mammals, reptiles, and birds and bats. Human resources evaluated include cultural 

resources, socioeconomic resources, and public health and safety.

3.0.3.2 Resources and Issues Eliminated from Further Consideration

This AFTT EIS/OEIS analyzes only in-water activities and activities occurring over water. Therefore, some 

resource areas are not analyzed. Resources and issues considered but not carried forward for further 

consideration include land use, demographics, environmental justice, and children’s health and safety. 

Land use was eliminated from further consideration because the offshore activities in the Proposed 

Action are not connected to land use issues and no new actions are being proposed that would include 

relevant land use. Demographics were eliminated from further consideration because the Proposed 

Action’s effects occur at sea away from human populations, and would not result in a change in the 

demographics within the Study Area or within the counties of the coastal states that abut the Study 

Area. Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations 

and Low-Income Populations, was eliminated as an issue for further consideration because all of the 

proposed activities occur in the ocean and in harbors and bays, where there are no human residences 

present. Therefore, there are no disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental 

impacts from the Proposed Action on minority populations or low-income populations. Similarly, 

Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks, was 

eliminated as an issue for further consideration because all of the proposed activities occur in the ocean, 

where there are no child populations present. Therefore, the Proposed Action would not lead to 

disproportionate risks to children that result from environmental health risks or safety risks.

3.0.3.3 Identifying Stressors for Analysis

The proposed training and testing activities were evaluated to identify specific components that could 

act as stressors by having direct or indirect impacts on the environment. This analysis includes 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.0-35

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

identifying the spatial variation of the identified stressors. Matrices were prepared to identify 

associations between stressors, resources, and the spatial relationships of those stressors, resources, 

and activities within the Study Area under the Proposed Action. Each stressor includes a description of 

activities that may generate the stressor. Additional information on these activities and resources is also 

provided in Appendix B (Activity Stressor Matrices). Stressors for physical resources (air quality, 

sediments and water quality) and human resources (cultural resources, socioeconomics, and public 

health and safety) are described in their respective sections of Chapter 3 (Affected Environment and 

Environmental Consequences).

A preliminary analysis identified the stressor/resource interactions that warrant further analysis in the 

EIS/OEIS based on public comment received during scoping, previous NEPA analyses, and opinions of 

subject matter experts. Stressor/resource interactions that were determined to have negligible or no 

impacts were not carried forward for analysis in the EIS/OEIS. For example, some fixed-wing carrierbased aircraft may jettison fuel prior to an arrested landing to adjust their gross weight to a safe level. 

However, the fuel is jettisoned at altitudes and airspeeds that evaporate and atomize it before it reaches 

the water's surface (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2016), resulting in no detectable 

impact to air or water quality.

In subsequent sections, tables are provided in which the annual number of activities that could involve a 

particular stressor are totaled by alternative and by location, within the categories of training and 

testing. For example, see Table 3.0-14. It is important to note that the various tables are not exclusive of 

each other, and that the stressors from a single named activity from Chapter 2 (Description of Proposed 

Action and Alternatives) could show up on several tables. For example, the activity Anti-Submarine 

Warfare Tracking Exercise – Helicopter could include acoustic stressors that would appear on Table 

3.0-2, physical disturbance stressors (Table 3.0-32), strike stressors (Table 3.0-36), entanglement 

stressors (Table 3.0-39), and ingestion stressors (Table 3.0-32). Also, activities are not always conducted 

independently of each other. For example, there are instances where a training activity could occur on a 

vessel while another training activity or a testing activity is being conducted on the same vessel 

simultaneously. Finally, note that some of the tables that follow in this section count individual items 

expended (see Table 3.0-24) while others count the annual number of activities in which that stressor 

could occur at least once during the conduct of that activity (see Table 3.0-14).

3.0.3.3.1 Acoustic Stressors

This section describes the characteristics of sounds produced during naval training and testing and the 

relative magnitude and location of these sound-producing activities. This provides the basis for analysis 

of acoustic impacts on resources in the remainder of Chapter 3 (Affected Environment and 

Environmental Consequences). Explanations of the terminology and metrics used when describing 

sound in this EIS/OEIS are in Appendix D (Acoustic and Explosive Concepts).

Acoustic stressors include acoustic signals emitted into the water for a specific purpose (e.g., by active 

sonars and air guns), as well as incidental sources of broadband sound produced as a byproduct of 

vessel movement; aircraft transits; pile driving and removal; and use of weapons or other deployed 

objects. Explosives also produce broadband sound but are characterized separately from other acoustic 

sources due to their unique hazardous characteristics (see Section 3.0.3.3.2, Explosive Stressors). 

Characteristics of each of these sound sources are described in the following sections.

In order to better organize and facilitate the analysis of approximately 300 individual sources of 

underwater sound deliberately employed by the Navy including sonars, other transducers (devices that 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.0-36

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

convert energy from one form to another—in this case, to sound waves), air guns, and explosives, a 

series of source classifications, or source bins, were developed. The source classification bins do not 

include the broadband sounds produced incidental to pile driving; vessel and aircraft transits; and 

weapons firing.

The use of source classification bins provides the following benefits:

• Provides the ability for new sensors or munitions to be covered under existing authorizations, as 

long as those sources fall within the parameters of a “bin”; 

• Improves efficiency of source utilization data collection and reporting requirements anticipated 

under the MMPA authorizations; 

• Ensures a conservative approach to all impact estimates, as all sources within a given class are 

modeled as the most impactful source (highest source level, longest duty cycle, or largest net 

explosive weight) within that bin; 

• Allows analyses to be conducted in a more efficient manner, without any compromise of 

analytical results; and

• Provides a framework to support the reallocation of source usage (hours/explosives) between 

different source bins, as long as the total numbers of takes remain within the overall analyzed 

and authorized limits. This flexibility is required to support evolving Navy training and testing 

requirements, which are linked to real world events.

3.0.3.3.1.1 Sonar and Other Transducers

Active sonar and other transducers emit non-impulsive sound waves into the water to detect objects, 

safely navigate, and communicate. Passive sonars differ from active sound sources in that they do not 

emit acoustic signals; rather, they only receive acoustic information about the environment, or listen. In 

this EIS/OEIS, the terms sonar and other transducers will be used to indicate active sound sources unless 

otherwise specified. 

The Navy employs a variety of sonars and other transducers to obtain and transmit information about 

the undersea environment. Some examples are mid-frequency hull-mounted sonars used to find and 

track enemy submarines; high-frequency small object detection sonars used to detect mines; highfrequency underwater modems used to transfer data over short ranges; and extremely high-frequency 

(greater than 200 kilohertz [kHz]) Doppler sonars used for navigation, like those used on commercial and 

private vessels. The characteristics of these sonars and other transducers, such as source level, beam 

width, directivity, and frequency, depend on the purpose of the source. Higher frequencies can carry 

more information or provide more information about objects off which they reflect, but attenuate more 

rapidly. Lower frequencies attenuate less rapidly, so may detect objects over a longer distance, but with 

less detail.

Propagation of sound produced underwater is highly dependent on environmental characteristics such 

as bathymetry, bottom type, water depth, temperature, and salinity. The sound received at a particular 

location will be different than near the source due to the interaction of many factors, including 

propagation loss; how the sound is reflected, refracted, or scattered; the potential for reverberation; 

and interference due to multi-path propagation. In addition, absorption greatly affects the distance over 

which higher-frequency sounds propagate. The effects of these factors are explained in Appendix D 

(Acoustic and Explosive Concepts). Because of the complexity of analyzing sound propagation in the 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.0-37

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

ocean environment, the Navy relies on acoustic models in its environmental analyses that consider 

sound source characteristics and varying ocean conditions across the Study Area.

The sound sources and platforms typically used in naval activities analyzed in the EIS/OEIS are described 

in Appendix A (Navy Activity Descriptions). Sonars and other transducers used to obtain and transmit 

information underwater during Navy training and testing activities generally fall into several categories 

of use described below.

Anti-Submarine Warfare

Sonar used during anti-submarine warfare would impart the greatest amount of acoustic energy of any 

category of sonar and other transducers analyzed in this EIS/OEIS. Types of sonars used to detect enemy 

vessels include hull-mounted, towed, line array, sonobuoy, helicopter dipping, and torpedo sonars. In 

addition, acoustic targets and decoys (countermeasures) may be deployed to emulate the sound 

signatures of vessels or repeat received signals. 

Most anti-submarine warfare sonars are mid-frequency (1–10 kHz) because mid-frequency sound 

balances sufficient resolution to identify targets with distance over which threats can be identified. 

However, some sources may use higher or lower frequencies. Duty cycles can vary widely, from rarely 

used to continuously active. For example, anti-submarine warfare sonars can be wide-angle in a search 

mode or highly directional in a track mode.

Most anti-submarine warfare activities involving submarines or submarine targets would occur in waters 

greater than 600 feet (ft.) deep due to safety concerns about running aground at shallower depths. 

Sonars used for anti-submarine warfare activities would typically be used beyond 12 NM from shore. 

Exceptions include use of dipping sonar by helicopters, maintenance of systems while in port, and 

system checks while transiting to or from port. 

Mine Warfare, Small Object Detection, and Imaging

Sonars used to locate mines and other small objects, as well those used in imaging (e.g., for hull 

inspections or imaging of the seafloor), are typically high frequency or very high frequency. Higher 

frequencies allow for greater resolution and, due to their greater attenuation, are most effective over 

shorter distances. Mine detection sonar can be deployed (towed or vessel hull-mounted) at variable 

depths on moving platforms (ships, helicopters, or unmanned vehicles) to sweep a suspected mined 

area. Hull-mounted anti-submarine sonars can also be used in an object detection mode known as 

“Kingfisher” mode. Sonars used for imaging are usually used in close proximity to the area of interest, 

such as pointing downward near the seafloor.

Mine detection sonar use would be concentrated in areas where practice mines are deployed, typically 

in water depths less than 200 ft. and at established training minefields, temporary minefields close to 

strategic ports and harbors, or at targets of opportunity such as navigation buoys. Kingfisher mode on 

vessels is most likely to be used when transiting to and from port. Sound sources used for imaging could 

be used throughout the Study Area. 

Navigation and Safety

Similar to commercial and private vessels, Navy vessels employ navigational acoustic devices including 

speed logs, Doppler sonars for ship positioning, and fathometers. These may be in use at any time for 

safe vessel operation. These sources are typically highly directional to obtain specific navigational data. 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.0-38

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Communication

Sound sources used to transmit data (such as underwater modems), provide location (pingers), or send 

a single brief release signal to bottom-mounted devices (acoustic release) may be used throughout the 

Study Area. These sources typically have low duty cycles and are usually only used when it is desirable to 

send a detectable acoustic message.

Classification of Sonar and Other Transducers

Sonars and other transducers are grouped into classes that share an attribute, such as frequency range 

or purpose of use. Below, classes are further sorted by bins based on the frequency or bandwidth; 

source level; and, when warranted, the application in which the source would be used. Unless stated 

otherwise, a reference distance of 1 meter is used for sonar and other transducers.

• Frequency of the non-impulsive acoustic source: 

o Low-frequency sources operate below 1 kHz 

o Mid-frequency sources operate at and above 1 kHz, up to and including 10 kHz

o High-frequency sources operate above 10 kHz, up to and including 100 kHz

o Very high-frequency sources operate above 100 kHz but below 200 kHz

• Sound pressure level: 

o Greater than 160 dB re 1 μPa, but less than 180 dB re 1 μPa

o Equal to 180 dB re 1 μPa and up to 200 dB re 1 μPa

o Greater than 200 dB re 1 μPa

• Application in which the source would be used: 

o Sources with similar functions that have similar characteristics, such as pulse length 

(duration of each pulse), beam pattern, and duty cycle

The bins used for classifying active sonars and transducers that are quantitatively analyzed in the Study 

Area are shown in Table 3.0-2. While general parameters or source characteristics are shown in the 

table, actual source parameters are classified. 

Table 3.0-2 shows the bin use that could occur in any year under each action alternative for training and 

testing activities. A range of annual bin use indicates that use of that bin is anticipated to vary annually, 

consistent with the variation in the number of annual activities described in Chapter 2 (Description of 

Proposed Action and Alternatives). The five-year total for both action alternatives takes that variability 

into account.
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.0-39

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Table 3.0-2: Sonar and Transducer Sources Quantitatively Analyzed

Source Class 

Category Bin Description Unit1

Training Testing

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 1 Alternative 2

Annual2

5-year 

Total Annual2 

5-year 

Total Annual2 

5-year 

Total 1-year

5-year 

Total

Low-Frequency 

(LF): 

Sources that 

produce signals less 

than 1 kHz

LF3 LF sources greater 

than 200 dB H 0 0 0 0 1,308 6,540 1,308 6,540

LF4

LF sources equal to 

180 dB and up to 

200 dB

H 0 0 0 0 971 4,855 971 4,855

C 0 0 0 0 20 100 20 100

LF5 LF sources less 

than 180 dB H 9 43 9 43 1,752 8,760 1,752 8,760

LF6

LF sources greater 

than 200 dB with 

long pulse lengths

H 145–175 784 204 1,020 40 200 40 200

Mid-Frequency 

(MF): 

Tactical and nontactical sources that 

produce signals 

between 1 and 10 

kHz

MF1

Hull-mounted 

surface ship sonars 

(e.g., AN/SQS-53C 

and AN/SQS-61)

H 5,005–

5,605 26,224 7,081 35,404 3,337 16,684 3,337 16,684

MF1K

Kingfisher mode 

associated with 

MF1 sonars

H 117 585 117 585 152 760 152 760

MF3

Hull-mounted 

submarine sonars 

(e.g., AN/BQQ-10)

H 2,078–

2,097 10,428 2,116 10,580 1,257 6,271 1,257 6,271

MF4

Helicopterdeployed dipping 

sonars (e.g., 

AN/AQS-22)

H 591–611 2,994 630 3,150 370–803 2,624 761-803 3,847

MF5

Active acoustic 

sonobuoys (e.g., 

DICASS)

C 6,708–

6,836 33,796 6,964 34,820 5,070–

6,182 27,412 6,382 31,908
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.0-40

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Table 3.0-2: Sonar and Transducer Sources Quantitatively Analyzed (continued)

Source Class 

Category Bin Description Unit

Training Testing

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 1 Alternative 2

Annual

5-year 

Total Annual

5-year 

Total Annual

5-year 

Total Annual

5-year 

Total

Mid-Frequency 

(MF): 

Tactical and nontactical sources that 

produce signals 

between 1 and 10 

kHz

(continued)

MF6

Active underwater 

sound signal 

devices (e.g., MK 

84)

C 0 0 0 0 1,256–

1,341 6,390 1,391 6,955 

MF8

Active sources 

(greater than 200 

dB) not otherwise 

binned

H 0 0 0 0 348 1,740 348 1,740

MF9

Active sources 

(equal to 180 dB 

and up to 200 dB) 

not otherwise 

binned

H 0 0 0 0 7,395–

7,562 37,173 7,561 37,172

MF10

Active sources 

(greater than 160 

dB, but less than 

180 dB) not 

otherwise binned

H 870 4,348 870 4,348 5,690 28,450 5,690 28,450

MF11

Hull-mounted 

surface ship sonars 

with an active duty 

cycle greater than 

80%

H 873–

1,001 4,621 1,399 6,995 1,424 7,120 1,424 7,120

MF12

Towed array 

surface ship sonars 

with an active duty 

cycle greater than 

80%

H 367–397 1,894 596 2,980 1,388 6,940 1,388 6,940

MF14 Oceanographic MF 

sonar

H 0 0 0 0 1,440 7,200 1,440 7,200
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.0-41

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Table 3.0-2: Sonar and Transducer Sources Quantitatively Analyzed (continued)

Source Class 

Category Bin Description Unit

Training Testing

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 1 Alternative 2

Annual

5-year 

Total Annual

5-year 

Total Annual

5-year 

Total Annual

5-year 

Total

High-Frequency 

(HF): 

Tactical and nontactical sources that 

produce signals 

between 10 and

100 kHz

HF1

Hull-mounted 

submarine sonars 

(e.g., AN/BQQ-10)

H 1,928–

1,932 9,646 1,935 9,672 397 1,979 397 1,979

HF3

Other hullmounted 

submarine sonars 

(classified) 

H 0 0 0 0 31 154 31 154

HF4

Mine detection, 

classification, and 

neutralization 

sonar (e.g., 

AN/SQS-20)

H 5,411–

6,371 29,935 6,371 31,855 30,772–

30,828 117,916 30,828 118,140

HF5

Active sources 

(greater than 200 

dB) not otherwise 

binned

H 0 0 0 0 1,864–

2,056 9,704 2,056 10,280

C 0 0 0 0 40 200 40 200

HF6

Active sources 

(equal to 180 dB 

and up to 200 dB) 

not otherwise 

binned

H 0 0 0 0 2,193 10,868 2,193 10,868

HF7

Active sources 

(greater than 160 

dB, but less than 

180 dB) not 

otherwise binned

H 0 0 0 0 1,224 6,120 1,224 6,120

HF8

Hull-mounted 

surface ship sonars 

(e.g., AN/SQS-61)

H 20 100 20 100 2,084 10,419 2,084 10,419
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.0-42

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Table 3.0-2: Sonar and Transducer Sources Quantitatively Analyzed (continued)

Source Class 

Category Bin Description Unit

Training Testing

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 1 Alternative 2

Annual

5-year 

Total Annual

5-year 

Total Annual

5-year 

Total Annual

5-year 

Total

Very HighFrequency Sonars 

(VHF): Non-tactical 

sources that 

produce signals 

between 100 and

200 kHz 

VHF1

Very highfrequency sources 

greater than 200 

dB

H 0 0 0 0 12 60 12 60

Anti-Submarine 

Warfare (ASW): 

Tactical sources 

(e.g., active 

sonobuoys and 

acoustic 

countermeasures 

systems) used 

during ASW training 

and testing 

activities

ASW1

MF systems 

operating above 

200 dB

H 582–641 3,028 1,040 5,200 820 4,100 820 4,100

ASW2

MF Multistatic 

Active Coherent 

sonobuoy (e.g., 

AN/SSQ-125)

C 1,476–

1,556 7,540 1,636 8,180 4,756–

5,606 25,480 6,106 30,530

ASW3

MF towed active 

acoustic 

countermeasure 

systems (e.g., 

AN/SLQ-25)

H 4,485–

5,445 24,345 6,690 34,800 2,941–

3,325 15,472 3,325 16,623

ASW4

MF expendable 

active acoustic 

device 

countermeasures 

(e.g., MK 3)

C 425–431 2,137 437 2,185 3,493 17,057 3,493 17,057

ASW53 

MF sonobuoys 

with high duty 

cycles

H 572–652 3,020 732 3,660 608–628 3,080 708 3,540
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.0-43

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Table 3.0-2: Sonar and Transducer Sources Quantitatively Analyzed (continued)

Source Class 

Category Bin Description Unit

Training Testing

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 1 Alternative 2

Annual

5-year 

Total Annual

5-year 

Total Annual

5-year 

Total Annual

5-year 

Total

Torpedoes (TORP):

Source classes 

associated with the 

active acoustic 

signals produced by 

torpedoes

TORP1

Lightweight 

torpedo (e.g., MK46, MK-54, or 

Anti-Torpedo 

Torpedo)

C 57 285 57 285 806–980 4,336 980 4,840

TORP2

Heavyweight 

torpedo (e.g., MK48)C 80 400 80 400 344–408 1,848 408 2,040

TORP3

Heavyweight 

torpedo (e.g., MK48)C 0 0 0 0 100 440 100 440

Forward Looking 

Sonar (FLS):

Forward or upward 

looking object 

avoidance sonars

used for ship 

navigation and 

safety

FLS2

HF sources with 

short pulse 

lengths, narrow 

beam widths, and 

focused beam 

patterns

H 0 0 0 0 1,224 6,120 1,224 6,120

Acoustic Modems 

(M): Systems used 

to transmit data 

through the water

M3 

MF acoustic 

modems (greater 

than 190 dB)

H 0 0 0 0 634 3,169 634 3,169
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.0-44

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Table 3.0-2: Sonar and Transducer Sources Quantitatively Analyzed (continued)

Source Class 

Category Bin Description Unit

Training Testing

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 1 Alternative 2

Annual

5-year 

Total Annual

5-year 

Total Annual

5-year 

Total Annual

5-year 

Total

Swimmer Detection 

Sonars (SD): 

Systems used to 

detect divers and 

submerged 

swimmers

SD1–

SD2

HF and VHF

sources with short 

pulse lengths, used 

for the detection 

of swimmers and 

other objects for 

the purpose of 

port security

H 0 0 0 0 176 880 176 880

Synthetic Aperture 

Sonars (SAS): 

Sonars in which 

active acoustic 

signals are postprocessed to form 

high-resolution 

images of the 

seafloor

SAS1 MF SAS systems H 0 0 0 0 960 4,800 960 4,800

SAS2 HF SAS systems H 0–8,400 25,200 8,400 25,200 3,512 17,560 3,512 17,560

SAS3 VHF SAS systems H 0 0 0 0 960 4,800 960 4,800

SAS4

MF to HF 

broadband mine 

countermeasure 

sonar

H 0 0 0 0 960 4,800 960 4,800

Broadband Sound 

Sources (BB):

Sonar systems with 

large frequency 

spectra, used for 

various purposes

BB1

MF to HF mine 

countermeasure 

sonar

H 0 0 0 0 960 4,800 960 4,800

BB2

HF to VHF mine 

countermeasure 

sonar

H 0 0 0 0 960 4,800 960 4,800

BB4

LF to MF

oceanographic 

source

H 0 0 0 0 876–3,252 6,756 3,252 6,756
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.0-45

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Table 3.0-2: Sonar and Transducer Sources Quantitatively Analyzed (continued)

Source Class 

Category Bin Description Unit

Training Testing

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 1 Alternative 2

Annual

5-year 

Total Annual

5-year 

Total Annual

5-year 

Total Annual

5-year 

Total

Broadband Sound 

Sources (BB)

(continued): 

Sonar systems with 

large frequency 

spectra, used for 

various purposes

BB5

LF to MF

oceanographic 

source

H 0 0 0 0 672 3,360 672 3,360

BB6 HF oceanographic 

source

H 0 0 0 0 672 3,360 672 3,360

BB7 LF oceanographic 

source

C 0 0 0 0 120 600 120 600

1H = hours; C = count (e.g., number of individual pings or individual sonobuoys). 2Expected annual use may vary per bin because the number of events may vary from year to year, as described in Chapter 2, Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives. 3Formerly ASW2 (H) in Phase II.
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.0-46

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

There are in-water active acoustic sources with narrow beam widths, downward directed transmissions, 

short pulse lengths, frequencies above known hearing ranges, low source levels, or combinations of 

these factors, which are not anticipated to result in takes of protected species. These sources are 

categorized as de minimis sources and are qualitatively analyzed to determine the appropriate 

determinations under NEPA in the appropriate resource impact analyses, as well as under the MMPA 

and the ESA. When used during routine training and testing activities, and in a typical environment, de 

minimis sources fall into one or more of the following categories:

• Transmit primarily above 200 kHz: Sources above 200 kHz are above the hearing range of the 

most sensitive marine mammals and far above the hearing range of any other animals in the 

Study Area.

• Source levels of 160 dB re 1 μPa or less: Low-powered sources with source levels less than 

160 dB re 1 μPa are typically hand-held sonars, range pingers, transponders, and acoustic 

communication devices. Assuming spherical spreading for a 160 dB re 1 μPa source, the sound 

will attenuate to less than 140 dB within 10 m and less than 120 dB within 100 m of the source. 

Ranges would be even shorter for a source less than 160 dB re 1 μPa source level.

• Acoustic source classes listed in Table 3.0-3: Sources with operational characteristics, such as 

short pulse length, narrow beam width, downward-directed beam, and low energy release, or 

manner of system operation, which exclude the possibility of any significant impact to a 

protected species (actual source parameters are classified). Even if there is a possibility that 

some species may be exposed to and detect some of these sources, any response is expected to 

be short-term and inconsequential.

Table 3.0-3: Sonar and Transducers Qualitatively Analyzed

Source Class Category Bin Characteristics

Broadband Sound Sources (BB): 

Sources with wide frequency 

spectra

BB3 • Very-high-frequency

• Very short pulse length

BB8 • Small imploding source (lightbulb)

Doppler Sonar/Speed Logs (DS): 

High-frequency/very highfrequency navigation transducers DS2–DS4

Required for safe navigation. 

• downward focused

• narrow beam width

• very short pulse lengths

Fathometers (FA): High-frequency 

sources used to determine water 

depth

FA1–FA4

Required for safe navigation. 

• downward focused directly below the vessel

• narrow beam width (typically much less than 

30o)

• short pulse lengths (less than 

10 milliseconds)

Hand-Held Sonar (HHS): Highfrequency sonar devices used by 

Navy divers for object location

HHS1

• very high-frequency sound at low power 

levels

• narrow beam width

• short pulse lengths

• under positive control of the diver (power 

and direction)
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.0-47

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Table 3.0-3: Sonar and Transducers Qualitatively Analyzed (continued)

Source Class Category Bin Characteristics

Imaging Sonar (IMS): Sonars with 

high- or very high- frequencies 

used obtain images of objects 

underwater

IMS1–IMS3

• High-frequency or very high-frequency

• downward directed 

• narrow beam width

• very short pulse lengths (typically 

20 milliseconds)

High-Frequency Acoustic 

Modems (M): Systems that send 

data underwater 

Tracking Pingers (P): Devices that 

send a ping to identify an object 

location

M2 

P1–P4

• low duty cycles (single pings in some cases)

• short pulse lengths (typically 20 milliseconds) 

• low source levels

Acoustic Releases (R): Systems 

that ping to release a bottommounted object from its housing 

in order to retrieve the device at 

the surface

R1–R3 • typically emit only several pings to send

release order

Side-Scan Sonars (SSS): Sonars 

that use active acoustic signals to 

produce high-resolution images of 

the seafloor

SSS1–SSS2

• downward-directed beam

• short pulse lengths (less than 

20 milliseconds)

Notes: o = degree(s), kHz = kilohertz, lb. = pound(s)

3.0.3.3.1.2 Air Guns

Air guns are essentially stainless steel tubes charged with high-pressure air via a compressor. An 

impulsive sound is generated when the air is almost instantaneously released into the surrounding 

water. Small air guns with capacities up to 60 cubic inches would be used during testing activities in 

various offshore areas in the AFTT Study Area, as well as near shore at Newport, Rhode Island. 

Table 3.0-4 shows the number of air gun shots proposed in the AFTT Study Area.

Table 3.0-4: Training and Testing Air Gun Sources Quantitatively Analyzed in the Study Area

Source Class 

Category Bin Unit1 

Training Testing

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 1 Alternative 2

Annual

5-year 

Total Annual

5-year 

Total Annual

5-year 

Total Annual

5-year 

Total

Air Guns (AG):

Small 

underwater air 

guns

AG C 0 0 0 0 604 3,020 604 3,020

1 C = count. One count (C) of AG is equivalent to 100 air gun firings.

Generated impulses would have short durations, typically a few hundred milliseconds, with dominant 

frequencies below 1 kHz. The root-mean-square sound pressure level (SPL) and peak pressure (SPL peak) 

at a distance 1 m from the air gun would be approximately 215 dB re 1 μPa and 227 dB re 1 μPa, 

respectively, if operated at the full capacity of 60 cubic inches. The size of the air gun chamber can be 

adjusted, which would result in lower SPLs and sound exposure level (SEL) per shot.
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.0-48

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

For the specific applications and use of air guns in the AFTT Study Area, air guns were analyzed based on 

1, 10, and 100 firings. Ten firings of an air gun was a conservative estimate of the number of firings that 

could occur over a single exposure duration at a single location. One hundred firings was based on 

pierside use of air guns.

3.0.3.3.1.3 Pile Driving

Impact pile driving and vibratory pile removal would occur during training for the construction of an 

Elevated Causeway System, a temporary pier that allows the offloading of ships in areas without a 

permanent port. 

Installing piles for elevated causeways would involve the use of an impact hammer mechanism with 

both it and the pile held in place by a crane. The hammer rests on the pile, and the assemblage is then 

placed in position vertically on the beach or, when offshore, positioned with the pile in the water and 

resting on the seafloor. When the pile driving starts, the hammer part of the mechanism is raised up and 

allowed to fall, transferring energy to the top of the pile. The pile is thereby driven into the sediment by 

a repeated series of these hammer blows. Each blow results in an impulsive sound emanating from the 

length of the pile into the water column as well as from the bottom of the pile through the sediment. 

Because the impact wave travels through the steel pile at speeds faster than the speed of sound in 

water, a steep-fronted acoustic shock wave is formed in the water (Reinhall & Dahl, 2011) (note this 

shock wave has very low peak pressure compared to a shock wave from an explosive). An impact pile 

driver generally operates on average 35 blows per minute.

Pile removal involves the use of vibratory extraction, during which the vibratory hammer is suspended 

from the crane and attached to the top of a pile. The pile is then vibrated by hydraulic motors rotating 

eccentric weights in the mechanism, causing a rapid up and down vibration in the pile. This vibration 

causes the sediment particles in contact with the pile to lose frictional grip on the pile. The crane slowly 

lifts up on the vibratory driver and pile until the pile is free of the sediment. Vibratory removal creates 

continuous non-impulsive noise at low source levels for a short duration.

The source levels of the noise produced by impact pile driving and vibratory pile removal from an actual 

elevated causeway pile driving and removal are shown in Table 3.0-5. 

Table 3.0-5: Elevated Causeway System Pile Driving and Removal Underwater Sound Levels

Pile Size &Type Method

Average Sound Levels at 10 m

(SEL per individual pile)

24-in. Steel 

Pipe Pile Impact1 192 dB re 1 μPa SPL peak182 dB re 1 μPa2s SEL (single strike)

24-in. Steel 

Pipe Pile Vibratory2 146 dB re 1 μPa SPL rms145 dB re 1 μPa2s SEL (per second of duration)

1 (Illingworth and Rodkin, 2017), 2 Illingworth and Rodkin (2015)

Notes: in. = inch, SEL = Sound Exposure Level, SPL = Sound Pressure Level, rms = root 

mean squared, dB re 1 μPa = decibels referenced to 1 micropascal

In addition to underwater noise, the installation and removal of piles also results in airborne noise in the 

environment. Impact pile driving creates in-air impulsive sound about 100 dBA re 20 μPa at a range of 

15 m (Illingworth and Rodkin, 2017). During vibratory extraction, the three aspects that generate 

airborne noise are the crane, the power plant, and the vibratory extractor. The average sound level 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.0-49

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

recorded in air during vibratory extraction was about 85 dBA re 20 μPa (94 dB re 20 μPa) within a range 

of 10 to 15 m (Illingworth and Rodkin, 2015). 

The length of the pier, and therefore the number of piles required, would be determined by the distance 

from shore to the appropriate water depth for ship off-loading. During training exercises, Elevated 

Causeway System construction is continued until personnel become proficient in the operation of the 

pile driving equipment and construction techniques. The size of the pier and number of piles used in an 

Elevated Causeway System training event is assumed to be no greater than 1,520 ft. long, requiring 

119 supporting piles. Construction of the Elevated Causeway System would involve intermittent impact 

pile driving over approximately 20 days. Crews work 24 hours a day and would drive approximately six 

piles in that period. Each pile takes about 15 minutes to drive with time taken between piles to 

reposition the driver. When training events that use the Elevated Causeway System are complete, the 

structure would be removed using vibratory methods over approximately 10 days. Crews would remove 

about 12 piles per 24-hour period, each taking about six minutes to remove. Table 3.0-6 summarizes the 

pile driving and pile removal activities that would occur during a 24-hour period.

Table 3.0-6: Summary of Pile Driving and Removal Activities per 24-Hour Period

Method

Piles Per 24-Hour 

Period Time Per Pile

Total Estimated Time of 

Noise Per 24-Hour Period

Pile Driving (Impact) 6 15 minutes 90 minutes

Pile Removal 

(Vibratory) 12 6 minutes 72 minutes

Pile driving for the Elevated Causeway System would occur in shallower water, and sound could be 

transmitted on direct paths through the water, be reflected at the water surface or bottom, or travel 

through bottom substrate. Soft substrates such as sand bottom at the proposed elevated causeway 

system locations would absorb or attenuate the sound more readily than hard substrates (rock), which 

may reflect the acoustic wave. Most acoustic energy would be concentrated below 1,000 hertz (Hz) 

(Hildebrand, 2009). Construction of the elevated causeway could occur in sandy shallow water coastal 

areas at Joint Expeditionary Base Little Creek-Fort Story in the Virginia Capes Range Complex or Marine 

Corps Base Camp Lejeune in the Navy Cherry Point Range Complex.

3.0.3.3.1.4 Vessel Noise

Vessel noise, in particular commercial shipping, is a major contributor to noise in the ocean and inshore

waters. Frisk (2012) reported that between 1950 and 2007 ocean noise in the 25–50 Hz frequency range 

has increased 3.3 dB per decade, resulting in a cumulative increase of approximately 19 dB over a 

baseline of 52 dB. The increase in noise is associated with an increase in commercial shipping, which 

correlates with global economic growth (Frisk, 2012). 

Naval vessels (including ships and small craft) would produce low-frequency, broadband underwater 

sound, though the exact level of noise produced varies by vessel type. However, within the AFTT Study 

Area, Navy vessels represent a small amount of overall vessel traffic and an even smaller amount of 

overall vessel traffic noise. As shown in Table 3.0-7 and Figure 3.0-9, Navy ships make up roughly 

1 percent of the vessel presence in the AFTT Study Area (Mintz, 2016). In terms of anthropogenic noise, 

Navy ships are engineered to be as quiet as possible given ship class limitations, and would contribute a 

correspondingly smaller amount of shipping noise compared to more common commercial shipping and 

boating (Mintz, 2012; Mintz & Filadelfo, 2011). Exposure to vessel noise would be greatest in the areas 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.0-50

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

of highest vessel traffic. Within the Study Area, commercial traffic is heaviest along the U.S. East Coast 

and the northern coast of the Gulf of Mexico and follows distinct overseas routes and across the Gulf of 

Mexico. Navy traffic in the Study Area is concentrated along the U.S. East Coast between the mouth of 

the Chesapeake Bay and Jacksonville, Florida (Mintz, 2012), although vessels would be used during many 

training and testing activities proposed throughout the Study Area. Noise exposure due to naval vessels 

would be greatest near naval port facilities, especially around and between the ports of Norfolk, 

Virginia, and Jacksonville, Florida (Mintz & Parker, 2006). 

Table 3.0-7: Interpolated Ship-Hours from 2011 to 2015 Positional Records in the Study Area

Ship Category AFTT

U.S. Navy 525,000

U.S. Coast Guard 337,000

Foreign Military 107,000

Nonmilitary 70,478,000

Note: Interpolated SeaLink data from 2011 through 2015 which represents an 

unknown fraction of actual vessel traffic. This data represents a relative traffic 

level, not absolute ship presence (Mintz, 2016) 

Source: Mintz (2016) 

Figure 3.0-9: AFTT Surface Ship Traffic By Percent Ship-Hours 2011-2015 (Mintz, 2016) 

While commercial traffic (and, therefore, broadband noise generated by it) is relatively steady 

throughout the year, Navy traffic is episodic in the ocean. Vessels engaged in training and testing may 

consist of a single vessel involved in unit-level activity for a few hours or multiple vessels involved in a 

major training exercise that could last a few weeks within a given area. Activities involving vessel 

Foreign 

Military 

<1%

U. S. Navy 

1%

U. S. Coast 

Guard <1%

All Nonmilitary 

99%
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.0-51

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

movements occur intermittently and are variable in duration. Navy vessels do contribute to the overall 

increased ambient noise in inshore waters near Navy ports, although their contribution to the overall 

noise in these environments is a small percentage compared to the large amounts of commercial and 

recreational vessel traffic in these areas (Mintz & Filadelfo, 2011). Anti-submarine warfare surface 

combatants (such as guided missile destroyers and cruisers) and submarines make up a large part of 

Navy traffic but contribute little noise to the overall sound budget of the oceans as these vessels are 

designed to be quiet to minimize detection. These vessels are much quieter than Navy oil tankers, for 

example, which have a smaller presence but contribute substantially more broadband noise (Mintz & 

Filadelfo, 2011). A variety of smaller craft that vary in size and speed, such as service vessels for routine 

operations and opposition forces used during training and testing events, would be operating within the 

Study Area.

Studies to determine traffic patterns of Navy and non-Navy vessels in the Study Area were conducted by 

the Center for Naval Analysis (Mintz & Parker, 2006; Mintz & Filadelfo, 2011; Mintz, 2012). The most 

recent analysis covered the period 2011-2015 (Mintz, 2016) and included U.S. Navy surface ship traffic 

and non-military vessels such as cargo vessels, bulk carriers, commercial fishing vessels, oil tankers, 

passenger vessels, tugs, and research vessels. Caveats to this analysis include that only vessels over 65 

ft. in length are reported so smaller Navy vessels and civilian craft are not included, and vessel position 

records are much more frequent for Navy vessels than for commercial vessels. Therefore, the Navy is 

likely overrepresented in the data and the reported fraction of total energy is likely the upper limit of its 

contribution (Mintz & Filadelfo, 2011; Mintz, 2012). 

During training and testing, speeds of most large naval vessels (greater than 60 ft.) generally range from 

10 to 15 knots to limit fuel consumption; however, ships will, on occasion, operate at higher speeds 

within their specific operational capabilities. Mintz (2016) reported median speeds for U.S. Navy vessel 

and various commercial ship classes (Table 3.0-8) in the AFTT Study Area from 2011-2015. Radiated

noise from ships varies depending on the nature, size, and speed of the ship. Due to the large number of 

variables that determine the sound level radiated from vessels, this source will be analyzed qualitatively. 

The quietest Navy warships radiate much less broadband noise than a typical fishing vessel, while the 

loudest Navy ships during travel are almost on par with large oil tankers (Mintz & Filadelfo, 2011). The 

average acoustic signature for a Navy vessel is 163 dB re 1 μPa, while the average acoustic signature for 

a commercial vessel is 175 dB re 1 μPa (Mintz & Filadelfo, 2011). Typical large vessel ship-radiated noise 

is dominated by tonals related to blade and shaft sources at frequencies below 50 Hz and by broadband 

components related to cavitation and flow noise at higher frequencies (approximately around the onethird octave band centered at 100 Hz) (Mintz & Filadelfo, 2011; Richardson et al., 1995; Urick, 1983). 

Ship types also have unique acoustic signatures characterized by differences in dominant frequencies. 

Bulk carrier noise is predominantly near 100 Hz while container ship and tanker noise is predominantly 

below 40 Hz (McKenna et al., 2012). Small craft will emit higher-frequency noise (between 1 kHz and 50 

kHz) than larger ships (below 1 kHz). Sound produced by vessels will typically increase with speed.
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.0-52

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Table 3.0-8: Median Surface Ship Speeds for the AFTT Study Area 2011–2015

Ship Class

Median Ship 

Speed (knots)

U.S. Navy Aircraft Carrier 14.6

U.S. Navy Cruiser or Destroyer 11.0-11.4

U.S. Navy Amphibious Assault Ship 11.8-14.1

Commercial Cargo Ship 11.8

Commercial Tanker 10.9

Passenger Ship 10.1

Source: Mintz (2016)

Figure 3.0-10 and Figure 3.0-11 show the geographic distribution of commercial and Navy shipping in

the AFTT Study Area derived from the analysis in Mintz (2016). Mintz (2016) shows the geographic 

distribution of highest Navy surface ship activity within the range complexes south of Hampton Roads, 

with clear concentrations in and out of Hampton Roads, Virginia and Naval Station Mayport, Florida.

Figure 3.0-10 highlights the commercial routes along the East Coast of the U.S. and around the Bahamas. 

Also seen are great circle routes in the Atlantic Ocean.
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.0-53

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Source: Mintz (2016) 

Figure 3.0-10: Relative Distribution of Commercial Vessel Traffic
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.0-54

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Source: Mintz (2016) 

Figure 3.0-11: Relative Distribution of U.S. Navy Vessel Traffic
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.0-55

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

3.0.3.3.1.5 Aircraft Noise

Fixed-wing, tiltrotor, and rotary-wing aircraft are used for a variety of training and testing activities 

throughout the Study Area, contributing both airborne and underwater sound to the ocean 

environment. Sounds in air are often measured using A-weighting, which adjusts received sound levels 

based on human hearing abilities (see Appendix D, Acoustic and Explosive Concepts). Aircraft used in 

training and testing generally have turboprop or jet engines. Motors, propellers, and rotors produce the 

most noise, with some noise contributed by aerodynamic turbulence. Aircraft sounds have more energy 

at lower frequencies. Aircraft may transit to or from vessels at sea throughout the Study Area from 

established airfields on land. The majority of aircraft noise would be generated at air stations, which are 

outside the Study Area. Takeoffs and landings occur at established airfields as well as on vessels across 

the Study Area. Takeoffs and landings from Navy vessels could startle marine mammals; however, these 

events only produce in-water noise at any given location for a brief period as the aircraft climbs to 

cruising altitude. Military activities involving aircraft generally are dispersed over large expanses of open

ocean but can be highly concentrated in time and location. Table 3.0-9 provides source levels for some 

typical aircraft used during training and testing in the Study Area and depicts comparable airborne 

source levels for the F-35A, EA-18G, and F/A-18C/D during takeoff.

Table 3.0-9: Representative Aircraft Sound Characteristics

Noise Source Sound Pressure Level

In-Water Noise Level

F/A-18 Subsonic at 1,000 ft. (300 m) Altitude 152 dB re 1 μPa at 2 m below water surface1

F/A-18 Subsonic at 10,000 ft. (3,000 m) Altitude 128 dB re 1 μPa at 2 m below water surface1

H-60 Helicopter Hovering at 82 ft. (25 m) 

Altitude Approximately 125 dB re 1 μPa at 1 m below water surface2*

Airborne Noise Level

F/A-18C/D Under Military Power 143 dBA re 20 μPa at 13 m from source3

F/A-18C/D Under Afterburner 146 dBA re 20 μPa at 13 m from source3

F35-A Under Military Power 145 dBA re 20 μPa at 13 m from source3

F-35-A Under Afterburner 148 dBA re 20 μPa at 13 m from source3

H-60 Helicopter Hovering at 82 ft. (25 m) 

Altitude 113 dBA re 20 μPa2

F-35A Takeoff Through 1,000 ft. (300 m)

Altitude 119 dBA re 20 μPa2

s4**(per second of duration)

EA-18G Takeoff Through 1,622 ft. (500 m) 

Altitude 115 dBA re 20 μPa2

s 5**(per second of duration)

1Eller and Cavanagh (2000) 2Bousman and Kufeld (2005) 3U.S. Naval Research Advisory Committee (2009) 4U.S. Department of the Air Force (2016) 5U.S. Department of the Navy (2012a) 

*estimate based on in-air level 

**average sound exposure level 

Notes: dB re 1 μPa = decibel(s) referenced to 1 micropascal, dBA re 20 μPa = A-weighted decibel(s) referenced to 

20 micropascals, m = meter(s), ft. = feet
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.0-56

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Underwater Transmission of Aircraft Noise

Sound generated in air is transmitted to water primarily in a narrow area directly below the source 

(Appendix D, Acoustic and Explosive Concepts). A sound wave propagating from any source must enter 

the water at an angle of incidence of about 13° or less from the vertical for the wave to continue 

propagating under the water’s surface. At greater angles of incidence, the water surface acts as an 

effective reflector of the sound wave and allows very little penetration of the wave below the water 

(Urick, 1983). Water depth and bottom conditions strongly influence how the sound from airborne 

sources propagates underwater. At lower altitudes, sound levels reaching the water surface would be 

higher, but the transmission area would be smaller. As the sound source gains altitude, sound reaching 

the water surface diminishes, but the possible transmission area increases. Estimates of underwater 

sound pressure level are provided for representative aircraft in Table 3.0-9. 

Noise generated by fixed-wing aircraft is transient in nature and extremely variable in intensity. Most 

fixed-wing aircraft sorties (a flight mission made by an individual aircraft) would occur above 3,000 ft. 

Air combat maneuver altitudes generally range from 5,000 to 30,000 ft., and typical airspeeds range 

from very low (less than 100 knots) to high subsonic (less than 600 knots). Sound exposure levels at the 

sea surface from most air combat maneuver overflights are expected to be less than 85 A-weighted 

decibels (based on an F/A-18 aircraft flying at an altitude of 5,000 ft. and at a subsonic airspeed 

[400 knots] (U.S. Department of the Navy, 2016). Exposure to fixed-wing aircraft noise would be brief 

(seconds) as an aircraft quickly passes overhead.

Helicopters

Noise generated from helicopters is transient in nature and extremely variable in intensity. In general, 

helicopters produce lower-frequency sounds and vibration at a higher intensity than fixed-wing aircraft 

(Richardson et al., 1995). Helicopter sounds contain dominant tones from the rotors that are generally 

below 500 Hz. Helicopters often radiate more sound forward than backward. The underwater noise 

produced is generally brief when compared with the duration of audibility in the air and is estimated to 

be 125 dB re 1 μPa at 1 m below water surface for a UH-60 hovering at 82 ft. (25 m) altitude (Bousman 

& Kufeld, 2005). 

Helicopter unit level training typically entails single-aircraft sorties over water that start and end at an 

air station, although flights may occur from ships at sea. Individual flights typically last about two to four 

hours. Some events require low-altitude flights over a defined area, such as mine countermeasure 

activities deploying towed systems. Most helicopter sorties associated with mine countermeasures 

would occur at altitudes as low as 75-100 ft. Likewise, in some anti-submarine warfare events, a dipping 

sonar is deployed from a line suspended from a helicopter hovering at low altitudes over the water.

Sonic Booms

An intense but infrequent type of aircraft noise is the sonic boom, produced when an aircraft exceeds 

the speed of sound. Supersonic aircraft flights are not intentionally generated below 30,000 ft. unless 

over water and more than 30 NM from inhabited coastal areas or islands. Although deviation from these 

guidelines may be authorized for tactical missions that require supersonic flight, phases of formal 

training requiring supersonic speeds, research and test flights that require supersonic speeds, and for 

flight demonstration purposes when authorized by the Chief of Naval Operations (U.S. Department of 

the Navy, 2016). A supersonic test track parallel to the Eastern Shore of the Delmarva Peninsula has 

historically been used by the U.S. Navy and is regularly used for F/A-18 and F-35 sorties. Due to the 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.0-57

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

proximity of the supersonic test track to the Eastern Shore of the Delmarva Peninsula, sonic booms may 

occur closer to shore within the test track. 

Several factors that influence sonic booms include weight, size, and shape of aircraft or vehicle; altitude; 

flight paths; and atmospheric conditions. A larger and heavier aircraft must displace more air and create 

more lift to sustain flight, compared with small, light aircraft. Therefore, larger aircraft create sonic 

booms that are stronger than those of smaller, lighter aircraft. Consequently, the larger and heavier the 

aircraft, the stronger the shock waves (U.S. Department of the Navy & Department of Defense, 2007). 

Aircraft maneuvers that result in changes to acceleration, flight path angle, or heading can also affect 

the strength of a boom. In general, an increase in flight path angle (lifting the aircraft’s nose) will diffuse 

a boom while a decrease (lowering the aircraft’s nose) will focus it. In addition, acceleration will focus a 

boom while deceleration will weaken it. Any change in horizontal direction will focus a boom, causing 

two or more wave fronts that originated from the aircraft at different times to coincide exactly (U.S. 

Department of the Navy, 2001). Atmospheric conditions such as wind speed and direction, and air 

temperature and pressure can also influence the sound propagation of a sonic boom. 

Of all the factors influencing sonic booms, increasing altitude is the most effective method of reducing 

sonic boom intensity. The width of the boom “carpet” or area exposed to sonic boom beneath an 

aircraft is about 1 mi. for each 1,000 ft. of altitude. For example, an aircraft flying supersonic, straight, 

and level at 50,000 ft. can produce a sonic boom carpet about 50 mi. wide. The sonic boom, however, 

would not be uniform, and its intensity at the water surface would decrease with greater aircraft 

altitude. Maximum intensity is directly beneath the aircraft and decreases as the lateral distance from

the flight path increases until shock waves refract away from the ground or water surface and the sonic 

boom attenuates. The lateral spreading of the sonic boom depends only on altitude, speed, and the 

atmosphere and is independent of the vehicle’s shape, size, and weight. The ratio of the aircraft length 

to maximum cross-sectional area also influences the intensity of the sonic boom. The longer and more 

slender the aircraft, the weaker the shock waves. The wider and more blunt the aircraft, the stronger 

the shock waves can be (U.S. Department of the Navy & Department of Defense, 2007). 

In air, the energy from a sonic boom is concentrated in the frequency range from 0.1 to 100 Hz. The 

underwater sound field due to transmitted sonic boom waveforms is primarily composed of lowfrequency components (Sparrow, 2002), and frequencies greater than 20 Hz have been found to be 

difficult to observe at depths greater than 33 ft. (10 m) (Sohn et al., 2000). F/A-18 Hornet supersonic 

flight was modeled to obtain peak sound pressure levels and energy flux density at the water surface 

and at depth (U.S. Department of the Air Force, 2000). These results are shown in Table 3.0-10. 

3.0.3.3.1.6 Weapon Noise

The Navy trains and tests using a variety of weapons, as described in Appendix A (Navy Activity 

Descriptions). Depending on the weapon, incidental (unintentional) noise may be produced at launch or 

firing; while in flight; or upon impact. Other devices intentionally produce noise to serve as a non-lethal 

deterrent. Not all weapons utilize explosives, either by design or because they are non-explosive 

practice munitions. Noise produced by explosives, both in air and water, are discussed in Section 

3.0.3.3.2 (Explosive Stressors). 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.0-58

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Table 3.0-10: Sonic Boom Underwater Sound Levels Modeled for F/A-18 Hornet 

Supersonic Flight

Mach 

Number

*

Aircraft 

Altitude 

(km)

Peak SPL (dB re 1 μPa)

Energy Flux Density

(dB re 1 μPa2-s)1 

At 

surface

50 m 

Depth

100 m 

Depth

At 

surface

50 m 

Depth

100 m 

Depth

1.2

1 176 138 126 160 131 122

5 164 132 121 150 126 117

10 158 130 119 144 124 115

2 

1 178 146 134 161 137 128

5 166 139 128 150 131 122

10 159 135 124 144 127 119

1 Equivalent to SEL for a plane wave. 

* Mach number equals aircraft speed divided by the speed of sound.

Notes: SPL = sound pressure level, dB re 1 μPa = decibel(s) referenced to 1 micropascal, dB re 1 μPa2-s = 

decibel(s) referenced to 1 micropascal squared seconds, m = meter(s)

Noise associated with large-caliber weapons firing and the impact of non-explosive practice munitions 

or kinetic weapons would typically occur at locations greater than 12 NM from shore in warning areas or 

special use airspace for safety reasons. Small- and medium-caliber weapons firing could occur 

throughout the Study Area in identified training areas. 

Examples of some types of weapons noise are shown in Table 3.0-11. Examples of launch noise are 

provided in the table. Noise produced by other weapons and devices are described further below.

Table 3.0-11: Examples of Weapons Noise

Noise Source Sound Level

In-Water Noise Level

Naval Gunfire Muzzle Blast (5-inch) 

Approximately 200 dB re 1 μPa peak directly 

under gun muzzle at 1.5 m below the water 

surface1 

Airborne Noise Level

Naval Gunfire Muzzle Blast (5-inch) 178 dB re 20 μPa peak directly below the gun 

muzzle above the water surface1 

Hellfire Missile Launch from Aircraft 149 dB re 20 μPa at 4.5 m2

Advanced Gun System Missile (115-millimeter) 133-143 dBA re 20 μPa between 12 and 22 m 

from the launcher on shore3

RIM 116 Surface-to-Air Missile 122-135 dBA re 20 μPa between 2 and 4 m from 

the launcher on shore3

Tactical Tomahawk Cruise Missile 92 dBA re 20 μPa 529 m from the launcher on 

shore3

1Yagla and Stiegler (2003) 2U.S. Department of the Army (1999) 3U.S. Department of the Navy (2013) 

Notes: dB re 1 μPa = decibel(s) referenced to 1 micropascal, dB re 20 μPa = decibel(s) referenced to 20 

micropascals, dBA re 20 μPa = A-weighted decibel(s) referenced to 20 micropascals, m = meter(s)
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.0-59

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Muzzle Blast from Naval Gunfire 

Firing a gun produces a muzzle blast in air that propagates away from the gun with strongest directivity 

in the direction of fire (Figure 3.0-12). Because the muzzle blast is generated at the gun, the noise 

decays with distance from the gun. The muzzle blast has been measured for the largest gun analyzed in 

the EIS/OEIS, the 5-inch (in.) large-caliber naval gun. At a distance of 3,700 ft. from the gun, which was 

fired at 10° elevation angle, and at 10° off the firing line, the in-air received level was 124 dB re 20 μPa 

SPL peak for the atmospheric conditions of the test (U.S. Department of the Navy, 1981). Measurements 

were obtained for additional distances and angles off the firing line but were specific to the atmospheric 

conditions present during the testing.

As the pressure from the muzzle blast from a ship-mounted large-caliber gun propagates in air toward 

the water surface, the pressure can be both reflected from the water surface and transmitted into the 

water. As explained in Appendix D (Acoustic and Explosive Concepts), most sound enters the water in a 

narrow cone beneath the sound source (within about 13–14° of vertical), with most sound outside of 

this cone being totally reflected from the water surface. In-water sound levels were measured during 

the muzzle blast of a 5 in. large-caliber naval gun. The highest possible sound level in the water (average 

peak SPL of 200 dB re 1 μPa, measured 5 ft. below the surface) was obtained when the gun was fired at 

the lowest angle, placing the blast closest to the water surface (Yagla & Stiegler, 2003). The unweighted 

sound exposure level would be expected to be 15–20 dB lower than the peak pressure, making the 

highest possible sound exposure level in the water about 180–185 dB re 1 μPa2

-s directly below the 

muzzle blast. Other gunfire arrangements, such as with smaller-caliber weapons or greater angles of 

fire, would result in less sound entering the water. The sound entering the water would have the 

strongest directivity directly downward beneath the gun blast, with lower sound pressures at increasing 

angles of incidence until the angle of incidence is reached where no sound enters the water.

Source: (Yagla & Stiegler, 2003) 

Figure 3.0-12: Gun Blast and Projectile from a 5-in./54 Navy Gun

Large-caliber gunfire also sends energy through the ship structure and into the water. This effect was 

investigated in conjunction with the measurement of 5 in. gun firing described above. The energy 

transmitted through the ship to the water for a typical round was about 6 percent of that from the 

muzzle blast impinging on the water (U.S. Department of the Navy, 2000). Therefore, sound transmitted 

from the gun through the hull into the water is a minimal component of overall weapons firing noise.

Supersonic Projectile Bow Shock Wave

Supersonic projectiles, such as a fired gun shell or kinetic energy weapon, create a bow shock wave 

along the line of fire. A bow shock wave is an impulsive sound caused by a projectile exceeding the 

speed of sound (for more explanation, see Appendix D, Acoustic and Explosive Concepts). The bow 

shock wave itself travels at the speed of sound in air. The projectile bow shock wave created in air by a 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.0-60

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

shell in flight at supersonic speeds propagates in a cone (generally about 65°) behind the projectile in 

the direction of fire (U.S. Department of the Navy, 1981). Exposure to the bow shock wave is very brief. 

Projectiles from a 5 in./ 54 caliber gun would travel at approximately 2,600 ft./sec, and the associated 

bow shock wave is subjectively described as a “crack” noise (U.S. Department of the Navy, 1981). 

Measurements of a 5 in. projectile shock wave ranged from 140 to 147 dB re 20 μPa SPL peak taken at 

the ground surface at 0.59 NM distance from the firing location and 10° off the line of fire for safety 

(approximately 190 m from the shell’s trajectory) (U.S. Department of the Navy, 1981). 

Hyperkinetic projectiles may travel up to and exceed approximately six times the speed of sound in air, 

or about 6,500 ft./second (U.S. Department of the Navy, 2014). For a hyperkinetic projectile sized similar 

to the 5-in. shell, peak pressures would be expected to be several dB higher than those described for the 

5-in. projectile above, following the model in U.S. Department of the Navy (1981). 

Like sound from the gun muzzle blast, sound waves from a projectile in flight could only enter the water 

in a narrow cone beneath the sound source, with in-air sound being totally reflected from the water 

surface outside of the cone. The region of underwater sound influence from a single traveling shell 

would be relatively narrow, and the duration of sound influence would be brief at any location.

Launch Noise

Missiles can be rocket or jet propelled and launches typically occur far offshore or in special use airspace 

such as warning areas, air traffic control assigned airspace, and restricted areas. Sound due to missile 

and target launches is typically at a maximum at initiation of the booster rocket. It rapidly fades as the 

missile or target reaches optimal thrust conditions and the missile or target reaches a downrange 

distance where the booster burns out and the sustainer engine continues. Examples of launch noise 

sound levels are shown in Table 3.0-11. 

Impact Noise (Non-Explosive)

Any object dropped in the water would create a noise upon impact, depending on the object’s size, 

mass, and speed. Sounds of this type are produced by the kinetic energy transfer of the object with the 

target surface and are highly localized to the area of disturbance. A significant portion of an object’s 

kinetic energy would be lost to splash, any deformation of the object, and other forms of nonmechanical energy (McLennan, 1997). The remaining energy could contribute to sound generation. 

Most objects would be only momentarily detectable, if at all, but some large objects traveling at high 

speeds could generate a broadband impulsive sound upon impact with the water surface. Sound 

associated with impact events is typically of low frequency (less than 250 Hz) and of short duration.

Long Range Acoustic Device

The Long Range Acoustic Device is a communication device that can be used to warn vessels against

continuing towards a high value asset by emitting loud sounds in air. Although not a weapon, the Long 

Range Acoustic Device (and other hailing and deterrent devices) is considered along with in-air sounds 

produced by Navy sources. The system would typically be used in training activities nearshore, and use 

would be intermittent during these activities. Source levels at 1 m range between 137 dBA re 1 μPa for 

small portable systems and 153 dBA re 1 μPa for large systems. Sound would be directed within a 30–

60 degree wide zone and would be directed over open water.
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.0-61

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

3.0.3.3.2 Explosive Stressors

This section describes the characteristics of explosions during naval training and testing. The activities 

analyzed in the EIS/OEIS that use explosives are described in Appendix A (Navy Activity Descriptions). 

This section provides the basis for analysis of explosive impacts on resources in the remainder of 

Chapter 3 (Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences). Explanations of the terminology 

and metrics used when describing explosives in this EIS/OEIS are in Appendix D (Acoustic and 

Explosive Concepts).

The near-instantaneous rise from ambient to an extremely high peak pressure is what makes an 

explosive shock wave potentially damaging. Farther from an explosive, the peak pressures decay and the 

explosive waves propagate as an impulsive, broadband sound. Several parameters influence the effect 

of an explosive: the weight of the explosive warhead, the type of explosive material, the boundaries and 

characteristics of the propagation medium, and, in water, the detonation depth. The net explosive 

weight, the explosive power of a charge expressed as the equivalent weight of trinitrotoluene (TNT), 

accounts for the first two parameters. The effects of these factors are explained in Appendix D (Acoustic 

and Explosive Concepts). 

3.0.3.3.2.1 Explosions in Water

Explosive detonations during training and testing activities are associated with high-explosive munitions, 

including, but not limited to, bombs, missiles, rockets, naval gun shells, torpedoes, mines, demolition 

charges, and explosive sonobuoys. Explosive detonations during training and testing involving the use of 

high-explosive munitions, including bombs, missiles, and naval gun shells, could occur in the air or near 

the water’s surface. Explosive detonations associated with torpedoes and explosive sonobuoys would 

occur in the water column; mines and demolition charges could be detonated in the water column or on 

the ocean bottom. Most detonations would occur in waters greater than 200 ft. in depth, and greater 

than 3 NM from shore, although mine warfare, demolition, and some testing detonations would occur in 

shallow water close to shore. Section 5.3.3 (Explosive Stressors) outlines the procedural mitigation 

measures for explosive stressors to reduce potential impacts on biological resources. 

In order to better organize and facilitate the analysis of Navy training and testing activities using 

explosives that could detonate in water or at the water surface, explosive classification bins were 

developed. The use of explosive classification bins provides the same benefits as described for acoustic 

source classification bins in Section 3.0.3.3.1 (Acoustic Stressors).

Explosives detonated in water are binned by net explosive weight. The bins of explosives that are 

proposed for use in the Study Area are shown in Table 3.0-12. This table shows the number of in-water 

explosive items that could be used in any year under each action alternative for training and testing 

activities. A range of annual bin use indicates that use of that bin is anticipated to vary annually, 

consistent with the variation in the number of annual activities described in Chapter 2 (Description of 

Proposed Action and Alternatives). The five-year total for both action alternatives takes any annual 

variability into account.

In addition to the explosives quantitatively analyzed for impacts to protected species shown in Table 

3.0-12, the Navy uses some very small impulsive sources (less than 0.1 pound [lb.] net explosive weight), 

categorized in bin E0, that are not anticipated to result in takes of protected species. Quantitative

modeling in multiple locations has validated that these sources have a very small zone of influence. 

These E0 charges, therefore, are categorized as de minimis sources and are qualitatively analyzed to 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.0-62

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

determine the appropriate effects conclusions under NEPA in the appropriate resource impact analyses, 

as well as under the MMPA and the ESA.

Propagation of explosive pressure waves in water is highly dependent on environmental characteristics 

such as bathymetry, bottom type, water depth, temperature, and salinity, which affect how the pressure 

waves are reflected, refracted, or scattered; the potential for reverberation; and interference due to 

multi-path propagation. In addition, absorption greatly affects the distance over which higher-frequency 

components of explosive broadband noise can propagate. Appendix D (Acoustic and Explosive Concepts) 

explains the characteristics of explosive detonations and how the above factors affect the propagation 

of explosive energy in the water. Because of the complexity of analyzing sound propagation in the ocean 

environment, the Navy relies on acoustic models in its environmental analyses that consider sound 

source characteristics and varying ocean conditions across the Study Area.
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.0-63

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Table 3.0-12: Explosive Sources Quantitatively Analyzed that Could Be Used Underwater or at the Water Surface

Bin

Net Explosive 

Weight1 

(lb.) Example Explosive Source

Training Testing

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 1 Alternative 2

Annual2 

5-year 

Total Annual2

5-year 

Total Annual2

5-year 

Total Annual2

5-year 

Total

E1 0.1–0.25 Medium-caliber projectile 7,700 38,500 7,700 38,500 17,840–

26,840 116,200 26,840 134,200

E2 > 0.25–0.5 Medium-caliber projectile 210–214 1,062 214 1,062 0 0 0 0

E3 > 0.5–2.5 Large-caliber projectile 4,592 22,960 4,592 22,960 3,054–

3,422 16,206 3,422 17,110

E4 > 2.5–5 Mine neutralization charge 127–133 653 133 653 746–800 3,784 810 4,050

E5 > 5–10 5 in. projectile 1,436 7,180 1,436 7,180 1,325 6,625 1,325 6,625

E6 > 10–20 Hellfire missile 602 3,010 602 3,010 28–48 200 48 240

E7 > 20–60 Demo block/ shaped charge 4 20 4 20 0 0 0 0 

E8 > 60–100 Lightweight torpedo 22 110 22 110 33 165 33 165

E9 > 100–250 500 lb. bomb 66 330 66 330 4 20 4 20

E10 > 250–500 Harpoon missile 90 450 90 450 68–98 400 98 490

E11 > 500–650 650 lb. mine 1 5 1 5 10 50 20 100

E12 > 650–1,000 2,000 lb. bomb 18 90 18 90 0 0 0 0

E143 > 1,741–

3,625 Line charge 0 0 0 0 4 20 4 20

E164 > 7,250–

14,500

Littoral Combat Ship full ship 

shock trial 0 0 0 0 0–12 12 0–12 12

E174 > 14,500–

58,000

Aircraft carrier full ship shock 

trial 0 0 0 0 0–4 4 0–4 4 

1 Net Explosive Weight refers to the equivalent amount of trinitrotoluene (TNT) the actual weight of a munition may be larger due to other components. 2 Expected annual use may vary per bin because the number of events may vary from year to year, as described in Chapter 2 (Description of Proposed Action and 

Alternatives). 3 E14 is not modeled for protected species impacts in water because most energy is lost into the air or to the bottom substrate due to detonation in very shallow water. 4 Shock trials consist of four explosions each. In any given year there could be 0-3 small ship shock trials (E16) and 0-1 large ship shock trials (E17). Over a 5-year period, 

there could be three small ship shock trials (E16) and one large ship shock trial (E17).
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.0-64

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

3.0.3.3.2.2 Explosions in Air

Explosions in air include detonations of projectiles and missiles during surface-to-air gunnery and 

air-to-air missile exercises conducted during air warfare. These explosions typically occur far above the 

water surface in special use airspace. Some typical types of explosive munitions that would be 

detonated in air during Navy activities are shown in Table 3.0-13. Various missiles, rockets, and mediumand large-caliber projectiles may be explosive or non-explosive, depending on the objective of the 

training or testing activity in which they are used. Quantities of explosive and non-explosive missiles, 

rockets, and projectiles proposed for use during Navy training and testing are provided in Appendix F 

(Military Expended Materials and Direct Strike Impact Analyses).

Table 3.0-13: Typical Air Explosive Munitions During Navy Activities

Weapon Type1 Net Explosive Weight (lb.) Typical Altitude of Detonation (ft.)

Surface-to-Air Missile

RIM-66 SM-2 Standard Missile 80 > 15,000

RIM-116 Rolling Airframe Missile 39 < 3,000

RIM-7 Sea Sparrow 36 > 15,000 (can be used on low targets)

FIM-92 Stinger 7 < 3,000

Air-to-Air Missile

AIM-9 Sidewinder 38 > 15,000

AIM-7 Sparrow 36 > 15,000

AIM-120 AMRAAM 17 > 15,000

Air-to-Surface Missile

AGM-88 HARM 45 < 100

Projectile – Large-Caliber2

5"54 caliber HE -ET 7 < 100

5"54 caliber Other 8 < 3,000

1 Mission Design Series and popular name shown for missiles. 2 Most medium and large caliber projectiles used 

during Navy training and testing activities do not contain high explosives.

AMRAAM = Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missile; HARM = High-Speed Anti-Radiation Missile; HE-ET = High 

Explosive- Electronic Time

Bombs and projectiles that detonate at or near the water surface, which are considered for underwater 

impacts (see Table 3.0-12), would also release some explosive energy into the air. Appendix A (Navy 

Activity Descriptions) describes where activities with these stressors typically occur.

The explosive energy released by detonations in air has been well-studied (see Appendix D, Acoustic and 

Explosive Concepts), and basic methods are available to estimate the explosive energy exposure with 

distance from the detonation [e.g., U.S. Department of the Navy (1975)]. In air, the propagation of 

impulsive noise from an explosion is highly influenced by atmospheric conditions, including temperature 

and wind. While basic estimation methods do not consider the unique environmental conditions that

may be present on a given day, they allow for approximation of explosive energy propagation under 

neutral atmospheric conditions. Explosions that occur during air warfare would typically be at a 

sufficient altitude that a large portion of the sound refracts upward due to cooling temperatures with 

increased altitude.
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.0-65

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

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, in-air detonations 

during Navy training and testing would not result in other propelled materials such as crater debris.

3.0.3.3.3 Energy Stressors

This section describes the characteristics of energy introduced through naval training and testing 

activities and the relative magnitude and location of these activities to provide the basis for analysis of 

potential impacts on resources from in-water electromagnetic devices, in-air electromagnetic devices, 

and lasers. 

3.0.3.3.3.1 In-Water Electromagnetic Devices

Electromagnetic energy emitted into the water from magnetic influence mine neutralization systems is 

considered in this document. Table 3.0-14 shows the number and location of proposed activities,

primarily mine sweeping, that include the use of in-water electromagnetic devices. 

Table 3.0-14: Number and Location of Activities Including In-Water Electromagnetic Devices

Activity Area

Maximum Annual # of

Activities 5-Year # of Activities

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 1 Alternative 2

Training

Virginia Capes Range Complex 1,203 1,203 6,015 6,015

Navy Cherry Point Range Complex 2,823 2,283 14,115 14,115

Jacksonville Range Complex 350 350 1,750 1,750

Gulf of Mexico Range Complex 104 104 480 480

Inshore Waters (Table 3.0-15) 60 60 180 180

Total 4,540 4,000 22,540 22,540

Testing

Virginia Capes Range Complex 294 294 1,360 1,360

Navy Cherry Point Range Complex 2 2 12 12

Jacksonville Range Complex 92 92 462 462

Gulf of Mexico Range Complex 40 40 200 200

SFOMF 3 3 15 15

NSWC Panama City Testing Range 3 3 15 15

Inshore Waters (Table 3.0-15) 100 100 500 500

Total 534 534 2,564 2,564

Notes: SFOMF = South Florida Ocean Measurement Facility; NSWC = Naval Surface Warfare Center

Table 3.0-15 shows where within the inshore waters the activities would occur.

In-water electromagnetic energy devices include towed or unmanned mine warfare systems that simply 

mimic the electromagnetic signature of a vessel passing through the water. None of the devices include 

any type of electromagnetic “pulse.” A mine neutralization device could be towed through the water by 

a surface vessel or remotely operated vehicle, emitting an electromagnetic field and mechanically 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.0-66

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

generated underwater sound to simulate the presence of a ship. The sound and electromagnetic 

signature cause nearby mines to detonate.

Table 3.0-15: Number and Location of Activities in Inshore Waters Including In-Water 

Electromagnetic Devices

Activity Area

Maximum Annual # of 

Activities 5-Year # of Activities

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 1 Alternative 2

Training

Boston, MA 4 4 12 12

Earle, NJ 4 4 12 12

Delaware Bay, DE 4 4 12 12

Hampton Roads, VA 8 8 24 24

Morehead City, NC 4 4 12 12

Wilmington, NC 4 4 12 12

Savannah, GA 4 4 12 12

Kings Bay, GA 4 4 12 12

Mayport, FL 4 4 12 12

Port Canaveral, FL 4 4 12 12

Tampa, FL 4 4 12 12

Beaumont, TX 8 8 24 24

Corpus Christi, TX 4 4 12 12

Total 60 60 180 180

Testing

Little Creek, VA 100 100 500 500

Total 100 100 500 500

Generally, voltage used to power these systems is around 30 volts. Since saltwater is an excellent 

conductor, just 35 volts (capped at 55 volts) is required to generate the current. These are considered 

safe levels for marine species due to the low electric charge relative to salt water. 

The static magnetic field generated by the mine neutralization devices is of relatively minute strength. 

Typically, the maximum magnetic field generated would be approximately 2,300 microteslas2

. This level 

of electromagnetic density is very low compared to magnetic fields generated by other everyday items. 

The magnetic field generated is between the levels of a refrigerator magnet (15,000–20,000 microteslas) 

and a standard household can opener (up to 400 microteslas at 4 in.). The strength of the 

electromagnetic field decreases quickly away from the cable. The magnetic field generated is very weak, 

comparable to the earth’s natural field (U.S. Department of the Navy, 2005). 

The kinetic energy weapon (commonly referred to as the rail gun) will be tested and eventually used in 

training events aboard surface vessels, firing non-explosive projectiles at land- or sea-based targets. The 

system uses stored electrical energy to accelerate the projectiles, which are fired at supersonic speeds 

over great distances. The system charges for two minutes, and fires in less than one second; therefore, 

the release of any electromagnetic energy would occur over a very short period. Also, the system is

shielded so as not to affect shipboard controls and systems. The amount of electromagnetic energy 

 

2 The microtesla is a unit of measurement of magnetic flux density, or “magnetic induction.”
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.0-67

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

released from this system is low and contained on the surface vessel. Therefore, this device is not 

expected to result in any electromagnetic impacts and will not be further analyzed for biological 

resources in this document.

3.0.3.3.3.2 In-Air Electromagnetic Devices

Sources of electromagnetic energy in the air include kinetic energy weapons, communications 

transmitters, radars, and electronic countermeasures transmitters. Electromagnetic devices on Navy 

platforms operate across a wide range of frequencies and power. On a single ship the source 

frequencies may range from 2 megahertz (MHz) to 14,500 MHz, and transmitter maximum average 

power may range from 0.25 watts to 1,280,00 watts.

The term radar was originally coined by the Navy to refer to Radio Detection And Ranging. A radar 

system is an electromagnetic device that emits radio waves to detect and locate objects. In most cases, 

basic radar systems operate by generating pulses of radio frequency energy and transmitting these 

pulses via directional antennae into space (Courbis & Timmel, 2008). Some of this energy is reflected by 

the target back to the antenna, and the signal is processed to provide useful information to 

the operator.

Radars come in a variety of sizes and power, ranging from wide-band milliwatt systems to very highpower systems that are used primarily for long-range search and surveillance (Courbis & Timmel, 2008). 

In general, radars operate at radio frequencies that range between 300 MHz and 300 gigahertz, and are 

often classified according to their frequency range. Navy vessels commonly operate radar systems which 

include S-band and X-band electronically steered radar. S-band radar serves as the primary search and 

acquisition sensor capable of tracking and collecting data on a large number of objects while X-band 

radar can provide high resolution data on particular objects of interest and discrimination for weapons 

systems. Both systems employ a variety of waveforms and bandwidths to provide high quality data 

collection and operational flexibility (Baird et al., 2016). 

It is assumed that most Navy platforms associated with the Proposed Action will be transmitting from a 

variety of in-air electromagnetic devices at all times that they are underway, with very limited 

exceptions. Most of these transmissions (e.g., for routine surveillance, communications, and navigation) 

will be at low power. High-power settings are used for a small number of activities including ballistic 

missile defense training, missile and rocket testing, radar and other system testing, and signature 

analysis operations. The number of Navy vessels or aircraft in the Study Area at any given time varies 

and is dependent on local training or testing requirements. Therefore, in-air electromagnetic energy as 

part of the Proposed Action would be widely dispersed throughout the Study Area, but more 

concentrated in portions of the Study Area near ports, naval installations, and range complexes. Table 

3.0-18 and Table 3.0-36 show the annual number and location of activities involving vessels and aircraft, 

which provide a proxy for level of in-air electromagnetic device use for the purposes of this EIS/OEIS.

3.0.3.3.3.3 Lasers

The devices discussed here include lasers that can be organized into two categories: (1) low-energy 

lasers and (2) high-energy lasers. Low-energy lasers are used to illuminate or designate targets, to 

measure the distance to a target, to guide weapons, to aid in communication, and to detect or classify 

mines. High-energy lasers are used as weapons to create critical failures on air and surface targets.
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.0-68

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Low-Energy Lasers

Within the category of low-energy lasers, the highest potential level of exposure would be from an

underwater laser or an airborne laser beam directed at the ocean’s surface. An assessment on the use of 

low-energy lasers by the Navy determined that low-energy lasers, including those involved in the 

training and testing activities in this EIS/OEIS, have an extremely low potential to impact marine 

biological resources (U.S. Department of the Navy, 2010). The assessment determined that the 

maximum potential for laser exposure is at the ocean’s surface, where laser intensity is greatest (U.S. 

Department of the Navy, 2010). As the laser penetrates the water, 96 percent of a laser beam is 

absorbed, scattered, or otherwise lost (Ulrich, 2004). Based on the parameters of the low-energy lasers 

and the behavior and life history of major biological groups, it was determined the greatest potential for 

impact would be to the eye of a marine species. However, an animal’s eye would have to be exposed to 

a direct laser beam for at least ten seconds to sustain damage. U.S. Department of the Navy (2010)

assessed the potential for damage based on species specific eye/vision parameters and the anticipated 

output from low-energy lasers, and determined that no animals were predicted to incur damage. 

Therefore, low-energy lasers are not further analyzed in this document for biological resources.

High-Energy Lasers

High-energy laser weapons training and testing involves the use of up to 30 kilowatts of directed energy 

as a weapon against small surface vessels and airborne targets. High-energy lasers would be employed 

from surface ships and are designed to create small but critical failures in potential targets. The highenergy laser is expected to be used at short ranges. Table 3.0-16 shows the number and location of 

proposed activities that include the use of high-energy lasers. Marine life at or near the ocean surface

and birds could be susceptible to injury by high-energy lasers.

Table 3.0-16: Number and Location of Activities Including High-Energy Lasers

Activity Area

Maximum Annual # of 

Activities 5-Year # of Activities

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 1 Alternative 2

Training

Virginia Capes Range Complex 4 4 20 20

Jacksonville Range Complex 4 4 20 20

Total 8 8 40 40

Testing

Northeast Range Complexes 8 8 26 26

Virginia Capes Range Complex 116 116 565 565

Navy Cherry Point Range Complex 8 8 26 26

Jacksonville Range Complex 8 8 26 26

Key West Range Complex 8 8 26 26

Gulf of Mexico Range Complex 8 8 26 26

NUWC Newport Testing Range 8 8 26 26

SFOMF 8 8 26 26

NSWC Panama City Testing Range 8 8 26 26

Total 180 180 773 773

Notes: NUWC = Naval Undersea Warfare Center; SFOMF = South Florida Ocean Measurement Facility; 

NSWC = Naval Surface Warfare Center
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.0-69

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

3.0.3.3.4 Physical Disturbance and Strike Stressors

This section describes the characteristics of physical disturbance and strike stressors from Navy training 

and testing activities. It also describes the magnitude and location of these activities to provide the basis 

for analyzing the potential physical disturbance and strike impacts on resources in the remainder of 

Chapter 3 (Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences).

3.0.3.3.4.1 Vessels and In-Water Devices

Vessels

Vessels used as part of the Proposed Action include ships (e.g., aircraft carriers, surface combatants), 

support craft, and submarines ranging in size from 15 ft. to over 1,000 ft. Table 3.0-17 provides 

examples of the types of vessels, length, and speeds used in both testing and training activities. The U.S. 

Navy Fact Files, available on the Internet at http://www.navy.mil/navydata/fact.asp, provide the latest 

information on the quantity and specifications of the vessels operated by the Navy.

Table 3.0-17: Representative Vessel Types, Lengths, and Speeds

Type Example(s) Length

Typical 

Operating 

Speed

Aircraft Carrier Aircraft Carrier (CVN) >1,000 ft. 10–15 knots 

Surface Combatant Cruisers (CG), Destroyers (DDG), Littoral Combat 

Ships (LCS) 300–700 ft. 10–15 knots 

Amphibious Warfare 

Ship

Amphibious Assault Ship (LHA, LHD), Amphibious 

Transport Dock (LPD), Dock Landing Ship (LSD) 300–900 ft. 10–15 knots 

Combat Logistics 

Force Ships

Fast Combat Support Ship (T-AOE), Dry 

Cargo/Ammunition Ship (T-AKE), Fleet 

Replenishment Oilers (T-AO)

600–750 ft. 8–12 knots

Support Craft/Other

Amphibious Assault Vehicle (AAV); Combat Rubber 

Raiding Craft (CRRC); Landing Craft, Mechanized 

(LCM); Landing Craft, Utility (LCU); Submarine 

Tenders (AS); Yard Patrol Craft (YP)

15–140 ft. 0–20 knots

Support 

Craft/Other—

Specialized High 

Speed 

High Speed Ferry/Catamaran; Patrol Combatants 

(PC); Rigid Hull Inflatable Boat (RHIB); Expeditionary 

Fast Transport (EPF); Landing Craft, Air Cushion 

(LCAC)

33–320 ft. 0–50+ knots

Submarines

Fleet Ballistic Missile Submarines (SSBN), Attack 

Submarines (SSN), Guided Missile Submarines 

(SSGN)

300–600 ft. 8–13 knots

Notes: > = greater than, m = meters

Navy ships transit at speeds that are optimal for fuel conservation or to meet operational requirements. 

Large Navy ships (greater than 18 m in length) generally operate at average speeds of 10–15 knots, and 

submarines generally operate at speeds in the range of 8–13 knots. Small craft (for purposes of this 

discussion, less than 50 ft. in length), which are all support craft, have much more variable speeds (0–50 

knots or greater, dependent on the mission). While these speeds are considered averages and 

representative of most events, some vessels need to operate outside of these parameters during certain 

situations. For example, to produce the required relative wind speed over the flight deck for take-offs 

and landings, an aircraft carrier vessel group engaged in flight operations must adjust its speed through 

the water accordingly. Also, there are other instances such as launch and recovery of a small rigid hull 

inflatable boat; vessel boarding, search, and seizure training events; or retrieval of a target when vessels 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.0-70

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

would be idling or moving slowly ahead to maintain steerage. There are a few specific offshore events, 

including high-speed tests of newly constructed vessels, where vessels would operate at higher speeds. 

High-speed movements of smaller craft during inshore operations could occur more frequently.

The number of Navy vessels in the Study Area at any given time varies and is dependent on local training 

or testing requirements. Activities range from involving one or two vessels to several vessels operating 

over various time frames and locations. For the purposes of this analysis, vessel movements are 

discussed in two categories; (1) those activities that occur in the offshore component of the Study Area 

and (2) those activities that occur in inshore waters.

Activities that occur in the offshore component of the Study Area may last from a few hours to a few 

weeks. Vessels associated with those activities would be widely dispersed in the offshore waters, but 

more concentrated in portions of the Study Area in close proximity to ports, naval installations, range 

complexes, and testing ranges. In contrast, activities that occur in inshore waters can last from a few 

hours to up to 12 hours of daily movement per vessel per activity, and can involve speeds greater than 

10 knots. The vessels operating within the inshore waters are generally smaller than those in the 

offshore waters and are considered small craft (less than 50 ft.).

In an attempt to determine traffic patterns for Navy and non-Navy vessels, the Center for Naval Analysis 

(Mintz & Parker, 2006) conducted a review of historic data for commercial vessels, coastal shipping 

patterns, and Navy vessels. Commercial and non-Navy traffic, which included cargo vessels, bulk 

carriers, passenger vessels, and oil tankers (all over 20 m in length), was heaviest near the major 

shipping ports from the Gulf of Maine to southern Florida, as well as in specific international shipping 

lanes. Compared to coastal vessel activity, there was relatively little concentration of vessels in the other 

portions of the Study Area (Mintz & Parker, 2006). Navy traffic was heaviest just offshore of Norfolk, 

Virginia, and Jacksonville, Florida, as well as along the coastal waters between the two ports. 

Data collected for 2009 vessel traffic were analyzed by Mintz (2012) and Mintz and Filadelfo (2011) and 

indicated that within the AFTT Study Area, large Navy vessels accounted for less than 1 percent of the 

total large vessel traffic (from estimated vessel hours using positional data) in that area. In the Virginia 

Capes and Jacksonville Range Complexes where Navy vessel activity is concentrated, the Navy vessels 

accounted for 7 and 9 percent (respectively) of the total large vessel traffic. Barco et al. (2009) found 

that large military vessels (at least 65 ft. in length) were approximately 18 percent of the total large 

vessels transiting (inbound and outbound) the Chesapeake Bay channel, an area of highly concentrated 

Navy activity because of the proximity of Naval Station Norfolk. Based on the large number of 

commercial and recreational boats in the Hampton Roads area, military vessels would probably 

comprise an even smaller proportion of total vessels, if smaller vessels (less than 65 ft. in length) were 

factored into these analyses.

Table 3.0-18 shows the number and location of proposed activities that include the use of vessels in the 

Study Area. Each activity included in Table 3.0-18 could involve one or more vessels. As described above 

in Section 3.0.3.3 (Identifying Stressors for Analysis), activities are not always conducted independently 

of each other, as there are instances when a training activity could occur on a vessel while another 

training activity or a testing activity is being conducted on the same vessel simultaneously. The location 

and hours of Navy vessel usage for testing and training activities are most dependent upon the locations 

of Navy ports, piers, and established at-sea testing and training areas. Table 3.0-19 shows the number 

and location of proposed activities that include the use of vessels in the inshore waters of the Study 

Area. Each activity included in Table 3.0-19 could involve one or more vessels. 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.0-71

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Table 3.0-18: Number and Location of Activities Including Vessels

Activity Area

Maximum Annual # of 

Activities 5-Year # of Activities

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 1 Alternative 2

Training

Northeast Range Complexes 411 416 2,055 2,080

Virginia Capes Range Complex 12,412 12,632 62,019 63,158

Navy Cherry Point Range Complex 6,754 6,809 33,693 34,043

Jacksonville Range Complex 10,841 11,281 54,112 56,405

Key West Range Complex 131 131 655 655

Gulf of Mexico Range Complex 771 807 3,855 4,035

Other AFTT Areas 691 709 3,435 3,525

Inshore Waters (see Table 3.0-19) 4,197 4,197 20,935 20,935

Total 36,208 36,982 180,579 184,836

Testing

Northeast Range Complexes 1,088 1,094 4,877 5,458

Virginia Capes Range Complex 1,784 1,786 7,388 8,786

Navy Cherry Point Range Complex 791 793 3,947 3,963

Jacksonville Range Complex 1,298 1,308 6,096 6,360

Key West Range Complex 398 398 1,732 1,936

Gulf of Mexico Range Complex 618 618 2,979 3,026

NUWC Newport Testing Range 767 767 3,803 3,830

SFOMF 198 198 992 992

NSWC Panama City Testing Range 406 406 2,003 2,003

Inshore Waters (see Table 3.0-19) 216 216 1,078 1,078

Total 7,564 7,584 34,895 37,432

Notes: AFTT = Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing; NUWC = Naval Undersea Warfare Center; SFOMF = South Florida 

Ocean Measurement Facility; NSWC = Naval Surface Warfare Center
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.0-72

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Table 3.0-19: Number and Location of Activities in Inshore Waters Including Vessels

Activity Area

Maximum Annual # of 

Activities 5-Year # of Activities

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 1 Alternative 2

Training

Boston, MA 2 2 6 6

Groton, CT 235 235 1,175 1,175

Narragansett, RI 198 198 990 990

Earle, NJ 2 2 6 6 

Delaware Bay, DE 2 2 6 6 

James River & Tributaries, VA 830 830 4,200 4,200

York River, VA 129 129 645 645

Lower Chesapeake Bay, VA 1,697 1,697 8,485 8,485

Hampton Roads, VA 4 4 12 12

Norfolk, VA 515 515 2,575 2,575

Morehead City, NC 2 2 6 6

Wilmington, NC 2 2 6 6

Cooper River, SC 120 120 600 600

Savannah, GA 2 2 6 6 

Kings Bay, GA 7 7 31 31

Mayport, FL 343 343 1,711 1,711

St. Johns River, FL 2 2 10 10

Port Canaveral, FL 47 47 231 231

Tampa, FL 2 2 6 6

St. Andrew Bay, FL 50 50 250 250

Beaumont, TX 4 4 12 12

Corpus Christi, TX 2 2 6 6

Total 4,197 4,197 20,975 20,975 

Testing

Bath, ME 11 11 55 55

Portsmouth, NH 26 26 130 130

Newport, RI 4 4 20 20

Groton, CT 9 9 47 47

Little Creek, VA 61 61 301 301

Norfolk, VA 64 64 318 318

Kings Bay, GA 4 4 20 20

Mayport, FL 27 27 135 135

Port Canaveral, FL 3 3 17 17

Pascagoula, MS 7 7 35 35

Total 216 216 1,078 1,078
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.0-73

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

As stated earlier, activities that include vessel movements in the inshore waters of the Study Area occur 

on a more regular basis than the offshore activities, and often involve the vessels traveling at speeds 

greater than 10 knots, and generally in more confined waterways than activities occurring in the 

offshore waters. In order to analyze this stressor appropriately, the number of hours of high-speed

vessel movement for small craft are provided in Table 3.0-20. 

Table 3.0-20: Number of High Speed Vessel Hours for Small Craft Associated with Training 

Activities in Inshore Waters of the Study Area

Activity Area

Maximum Annual # of Hours 5-Year # of Hours

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 1 Alternative 2

Narragansett, RI 9,502 9,502 47,510 47,510

James River & Tributaries 18,108 18,108 90,540 90,540

York River 6,590 6,590 32,950 32,950

Lower Chesapeake Bay 39,325 39,325 196,625 196,625

Cooper River, SC 12,651 12,651 63,255 63,255

Mayport, FL 510 510 2,550 2,550

St. Johns River 482 482 2,410 2,410

Port Canaveral, FL 4,352 4,352 21,760 21,760

St. Andrew Bay 56 56 280 280

Total 91,576 91,576 457,880 457,880

While the estimates provided in the above tables represent the average distribution of events, actual 

locations and hours of Navy vessel usage are dependent upon requirements, deployment schedules, 

annual budgets, and other unpredictable factors. Consequently, vessel use can be highly variable. 

Multiple activities usually occur from the same vessel, particularly in offshore waters, so increases in the 

number of activities do not necessarily result in increases in vessel use or transit. The manner in which 

the Navy uses vessels to accomplish its training and testing activities is likely to remain consistent with 

the range of variability observed over the last decade. 

In-Water Devices

In-water devices as discussed in this analysis include unmanned vehicles, such as remotely operated 

vehicles, unmanned surface vehicles, unmanned underwater vehicles, motorized autonomous targets,

and towed devices. These devices are self-propelled and unmanned or towed through the water from a 

variety of platforms, including helicopters, unmanned underwater vehicles, and surface ships. In-water 

devices are generally smaller than most Navy vessels, ranging from several inches to about 50 ft. See 

Table 3.0-21 for a range of in-water devices used. These devices can operate anywhere from the water 

surface to the benthic zone. Most devices do not have a realistic potential to strike living marine 

resources because they either move slowly through the water column (e.g., most unmanned 

underwater vehicles) or are closely monitored by observers manning the towing platform who ensure 

the towed in-water device does not run into objects in the water. Because of their size and potential 

operating speed, unmanned surface vehicles are the in-water devices that operate in a manner with the

most potential to strike living marine resources. Table 3.0-22 shows the number and location of 

proposed activities that include the use of in-water devices. For a list of activities by name that include 

the use of in-water devices, see Appendix B (Activity Stressor Matrices). 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.0-74

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Table 3.0-21: Representative Types, Sizes, and Speeds of In-Water Devices

Type Example(s) Length

Typical 

Operating 

Speed

Towed 

Device

Minehunting Sonar Systems; Improved Surface Tow Target; Towed Sonar 

System; MK-103, MK-104 and MK-105 Minesweeping Systems; Organic 

Airborne and Surface Influence Sweep

< 33 ft. 10–40 

knots

Unmanned 

Surface 

Vehicle

MK-33 Seaborne Power Target Drone Boat, QST-35A Seaborne Powered 

Target, Ship Deployable Seaborne Target, Small Waterplane Area Twin Hull, 

Unmanned Influence Sweep System

< 50 ft. 

Variable, 

up to 50+ 

knots

Unmanned 

Underwater

Vehicle

Acoustic Mine Targeting System, Airborne Mine Neutralization System, 

AN/AQS Systems, Archerfish Common Neutralizer, Crawlers, CURV 21, Deep 

Drone 8000, Deep Submergence Rescue Vehicle, Gliders, Expendable 

Mobile Anti-Submarine Warfare Training Targets, Magnum Remotely 

Operated Vehicle, Manned Portables, MK 30 Anti-Submarine Warfare 

Targets, Remote Multi-Mission Vehicle, Remote Minehunting System, Large 

Displacement Unmanned Underwater Vehicle

< 60 ft. 1–15 

knots

Torpedoes Light-weight and Heavy-weight Torpedoes < 33 ft. 20–30 

knots

Table 3.0-22: Number and Location of Activities Including In-Water Devices

Activity Area

Maximum Annual # of 

Activities 5-Year # of Activities

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 1 Alternative 2

Training

Northeast Range Complexes 135 139 671 695

Virginia Capes Range Complex 7,316 7,556 36,538 37,780

Navy Cherry Point Range Complex 2,027 2,091 10,053 10,455

Jacksonville Range Complex 5,097 5,621 25,356 28,385

Key West Range Complex 32 32 160 160

Gulf of Mexico Range Complex 724 768 3,616 3,840

NSWC Panama City Testing Range 328 328 1,640 1,640

Other AFTT Areas 362 362 1,800 1,800

Inshore Waters (see Table 3.0-23) 1,217 1,217 6,335 6,335

Total 17,238 18,114 86,169 91,090

Testing

Northeast Range Complexes 450 451 1,774 2,240

Virginia Capes Range Complex 1,266 1,266 5,084 6,332

Navy Cherry Point Range Complex 137 138 679 687

Jacksonville Range Complex 800 801 3,681 3,931

Key West Range Complex 111 111 328 544

Gulf of Mexico Range Complex 322 322 1,521 1,607

NUWC Newport Testing Range 1,032 1,032 5,147 5,147
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.0-75

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Table 3.0-22: Number and Location of Activities Including In-Water Devices (continued)

Activity Area

Maximum Annual # of 

Activities 5-Year # of Activities

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 1 Alternative 2

Testing

SFOMF 204 204 1,014 1,014

NSWC Panama City Testing Range 438 438 2,047 2,111

Total 4,760 4,763 21,275 23,613

Notes: NUWC = Naval Undersea Warfare Center; SFOMF = South Florida Ocean Measurement Facility; 

NSWC = Naval Surface Warfare Center

Table 3.0-23: Number and Location of Activities in Inshore Waters Including In-Water Devices

Activity Area

Maximum Annual # of 

Activities 5-Year # of Activities

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 1 Alternative 2

Training

Boston, MA 7 7 21 21

Earle, NJ 7 7 21 21

Delaware Bay, DE 7 7 21 21

Lower Chesapeake Bay 852 852 4,260 4,260

Hampton Roads, VA 14 14 42 42

James River and Tributaries 108 108 1,000 1,000

York River 38 38 190 190

Morehead City, NC 7 7 21 21

Wilmington, NC 7 7 21 21

Savannah, GA 7 7 21 21

Kings Bay, GA 51 51 241 241

Mayport, FL 77 77 371 371

Port Canaveral, FL 7 7 21 21

Tampa, FL 7 7 21 21

Beaumont, TX 14 14 42 42

Corpus Christi, TX 7 7 21 21

Total 1,217 1,217 6,335 6,335

3.0.3.3.4.2 Military Expended Materials

Military expended materials that may cause physical disturbance or strike include: (1) all sizes of 

non-explosive practice munitions (Table 3.0-24, Table 3.0-25 and Table 3.0-26), (2) fragments from 

high-explosive munitions (Table 3.0-27 and Table 3.0-28), (3) expendable targets (Table 3.0-29, Table 

3.0-30, and Table 3.0-31), and (4) expended materials other than munitions, such as sonobuoys or 

torpedo accessories (Table 3.0-32, Table 3.0-33, and Table 3.0-34). See Appendix F (Military Expended 

Materials and Direct Strike Impact Analyses) for more information on the type and quantities of military 

expended materials proposed to be used.

For living marine resources in the water column, the discussion of military expended material strikes 

focuses on the potential of a strike at the surface of the water. The effect of materials settling on the 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.0-76

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

bottom will be discussed as an alteration of the bottom substrate and associated organisms (e.g., 

invertebrates and vegetation).

Table 3.0-24: Number and Location of Non-Explosive Practice Munitions Expended During 

Training Activities

Activity Area

Maximum Annual # of 

Munitions 5-Year # of Munitions

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 1 Alternative 2

Torpedoes 1

Northeast Range Complexes 24 24 120 120

Virginia Capes Range Complex 21 21 105 105

Jacksonville Range Complex 92 92 460 460

Total 137 137 685 685

Bombs

Virginia Capes Range Complex 2,188 2,188 10,940 10,940

Navy Cherry Point Range Complex 596 596 2,980 2,980

Jacksonville Range Complex 1,360 1,360 6,800 6,800 

Gulf of Mexico Range Complex 270 270 1,350 1,350

Total 4,414 4,414 22,070 22,070

Rockets

Northeast Range Complexes 1 1 5 5

Virginia Capes Range Complex 1,835 1,183 9,175 9,175

Navy Cherry Point Range Complex 304 304 1,520 1,520

Jacksonville Range Complex 2,095 2,095 10,474 10,474

Gulf of Mexico Range Complex 191 191 955 955

Total 4,426 3,774 22,129 22,129

Rockets (Flechette)

Virginia Capes Range Complex 95 95 475 475

Jacksonville Range Complex 110 110 551 551

Total 205 205 1,026 1,026

Large-Caliber Projectiles

Virginia Capes Range Complex 4,930 4,930 24,650 24,650

Navy Cherry Point Range Complex 1,234 1,234 6,170 6,170

Jacksonville Range Complex 2,534 2,534 12,670 12,670

Gulf of Mexico Range Complex 498 498 2,490 2,490

Other AFTT Areas 210 210 1,050 1,050

Total 9,406 9,406 47,030 47,030

Large-Caliber – Casings Only

Navy Cherry Point Range Complex 1,040 1,040 2,800 2,800

Total 1,040 1,040 2,800 2,800
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.0-77

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Table 3.0-24: Number and Location of Non-Explosive Practice Munitions Expended During 

Training Activities (continued)

Activity Area

Maximum Annual # of

Munitions 5-Year # of Munitions

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 1 Alternative 2

Medium-Caliber Projectiles

Northeast Range Complexes 1,000 1,000 5,000 5,000

Virginia Capes Range Complex 658,561 658,561 3,292,805 3,292,805

Navy Cherry Point Range Complex 328,149 328,149 1,640,745 1,640,745

Jacksonville Range Complex 383,861 383,861 1,919,305 1,919,305

Key West Range Complex 28,000 28,000 140,000 140,000

Gulf of Mexico Range Complex 28,950 28,950 144,750 144,750

Other AFTT Areas 21,150 21,150 100,750 100,750

Total 1,449,671 1,449,671 7,243,355 7,243,355

Small-Caliber Projectiles

Northeast Range Complexes 27,000 27,000 135,000 135,000

Virginia Capes Range Complex 2,262,000 2,262,000 11,310,000 11,310,000

Navy Cherry Point Range Complex 393,000 393,000 1,965,000 1,965,000

Jacksonville Range Complex 1,026,000 1,026,000 5,130,000 5,130,000

Gulf of Mexico Range Complex 83,000 83,000 415,000 415,000

Other AFTT Areas 100,000 100,000 500,000 500,000 

Total 3,891,000 3,891,000 19,455,000 19,455,000

Small-Caliber – Casings Only

Virginia Capes Range Complex 5,000 5,000 25,000 25,000

Jacksonville Range Complex 5,000 5,000 25,000 25,000

Inshore Waters (see Table 3.0-25) 202,140 202,140 1,010,700 1,010,700

Total 212,140 212,140 1,060,700 1,060,700

Kinetic Energy Round

Virginia Capes Range Complex 32 32 160 160

Navy Cherry Point Range Complex 4 4 20 20

Jacksonville Range Complex 4 4 20 20

Gulf of Mexico Range Complex 4 4 20 20

Other AFTT Areas 4 4 20 20

Total 48 48 240 240

1 Non-explosive torpedoes are recovered after use.

Notes: AFTT = Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.0-78

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Table 3.0-25: Number and Location of Non-Explosive Practice Munitions Expended During 

Training Activities in Inshore Waters

Activity Area

Maximum Annual # of 

Munitions 5-Year # of Munitions

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 1 Alternative 2

Small-Caliber – Casings Only

Narragansett, RI 8,320 8,320 41,600 41,600

James River & Tributaries 97,920 97,920 489,600 489,600

Lower Chesapeake Bay 78,000 78,000 390,000 390,000

Cooper River, SC 5,100 5,100 25,500 25,500

Port Canaveral, FL 12,800 12,800 64,000 64,000

Total 202,140 202,140 1,010,700 1,010,700

Table 3.0-26: Number and Location of Non-Explosive Practice Munitions Expended During 

Testing Activities

Activity Area

Maximum Annual # of

Munitions 5-Year # of Munitions

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 1 Alternative 2

Torpedoes 1

Northeast Range Complexes 146 146 661 709

Virginia Capes Range Complex 375 375 1,571 1,862

Navy Cherry Point Range Complex 118 118 591 591

Jacksonville Range Complex 369 369 1,673 1,790

Key West Range Complex 2 2 11 11

Gulf of Mexico Range Complex 132 132 611 659

NUWC Newport Testing Range 315 315 1,575 1,575

SFOMF 6 6 29 29

NSWC Panama City Testing Range 180 180 900 900

Total 1,643 1,643 7,622 8,126

Bombs

Virginia Capes Range Complex 916 916 4,580 4,580

Jacksonville Range Complex 12 12 60 60

Total 928 928 4,460 4,460

Rockets

Northeast Range Complexes 1 1 5 5 

Virginia Capes Range Complex 759 759 3,713 3,727

Jacksonville Range Complex 407 407 1,950 2,034

Gulf of Mexico Range Complex 1 1 5 5 

Total 1,168 1,168 5,673 5,771

Rockets (Flechette)

Virginia Capes Range Complex 249 249 1,215 1,243

Jacksonville Range Complex 136 136 648 676

Total 385 385 1,863 1,919
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.0-79

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Table 3.0-26: Number and Location of Non-Explosive Practice Munitions Expended During 

Testing Activities (continued)

Activity Area

Maximum Annual # of 

Munitions 5-Year # of Munitions

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 1 Alternative 2

Missiles

Northeast Range Complexes 25 25 122 122

Virginia Capes Range Complex 1,633 1,633 3,962 3,994

Navy Cherry Point Range Complex 25 25 122 122

Jacksonville Range Complex 594 594 814 822

Key West Range Complex 32 32 157 157

Gulf of Mexico Range Complex 42 42 207 207

Total 2,351 2,351 5,384 5,424

Kinetic Energy Rounds

Northeast Range Complexes 33,503 33,503 167,504 167,504

Virginia Capes Range Complex 35,003 35,003 167,504 167,504

Navy Cherry Point Range Complex 35,003 35,003 167,504 167,504

Jacksonville Range Complex 35,003 35,003 167,504 167,504

Key West Range Complex 35,003 35,003 167,504 167,504

Gulf of Mexico Range Complex 35,003 35,003 167,504 167,504

NUWC Newport Testing Range 4 4 4 4 

SFOMF 4 4 4 4 

NSWC Panama City Testing Range 4 4 4 4 

Total 208,530 208,530 1,005,036 1,005,036

Large-Caliber Projectiles

Northeast Range Complexes 1,761 1,761 8,805 8,805

Virginia Capes Range Complex 8,147 8,147 40,735 40,735

Navy Cherry Point Range Complex 1,440 1,440 7,200 7,200

Jacksonville Range Complex 14,524 14,524 72,620 72,620

Key West Range Complex 3,190 3,190 15,950 15,950

Gulf of Mexico Range Complex 2,774 2,774 13,870 13,870

NSWC Panama City Testing Range 280 280 1,400 1,400

Total 32,116 32,116 160,580 160,580

Medium-Caliber Projectiles

Northeast Range Complexes 9,060 9,060 45,300 45,300

Virginia Capes Range Complex 234,665 234,665 1,155,325 1,173,325

Navy Cherry Point Range Complex 8,160 8,160 40,800 40,800

Jacksonville Range Complex 237,360 237,360 1,150,800 1,186,800

Key West Range Complex 32,660 32,660 163,300 163,300

Gulf of Mexico Range Complex 22,860 22,860 114,300 114,300

NSWC Panama City Testing Range 5,100 5,100 25,500 25,500

Total 549,865 549,865 2,695,325 2,749,325
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.0-80

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Table 3.0-26: Number and Location of Non-Explosive Practice Munitions Expended During 

Testing Activities (continued)

Activity Area

Maximum Annual # of 

Munitions 5-Year # of Munitions

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 1 Alternative 2

Small-Caliber Projectiles

Northeast Range Complexes 4,800 4,800 24,000 24,000

Virginia Capes Range Complex 77,800 77,800 389,000 389,000

Navy Cherry Point Range Complex 4,800 4,800 24,000 24,000

Jacksonville Range Complex 4,800 4,800 24,000 24,000

Key West Range Complex 4,800 4,800 24,000 24,000

Gulf of Mexico Range Complex 17,800 17,800 89,000 89,000

NSWC Panama City Testing Range 7,000 7,000 35,000 35,000

Total 121,800 121,800 609,000 609,000

1 Non-explosive torpedoes are recovered after use.

Notes: AFTT = Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing; NUWC = Naval Undersea Warfare Center; SFOMF = South Florida 

Ocean Measurement Facility; NSWC = Naval Surface Warfare Center

Table 3.0-27: Number and Location of Explosives that May Result in Fragments Used During 

Training Activities

Activity Area

Maximum Annual # of

Munitions 5-Year # of Munitions

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 1 Alternative 2

Torpedoes

SINKEX Area 1 1 5 5 

Total 1 1 5 5

Neutralizers

Virginia Capes Range Complex 62 62 306 306

Navy Cherry Point Range Complex 1 1 5 5 

Jacksonville Range Complex 2 2 6 6 

Gulf of Mexico Range Complex 22 22 106 106

Total 87 87 423 423

Grenades

Northeast Range Complexes 56 56 280 280

Virginia Capes Range Complex 4,070 4,070 20,350 20,350

Navy Cherry Point Range Complex 28 28 140 140

Jacksonville Range Complex 28 28 140 140

Gulf of Mexico Range Complex 28 28 140 140

Total 4,210 4,210 21,050 21,050

Bombs

Virginia Capes Range Complex 88 88 500 500

Jacksonville Range Complex 56 56 280 280

Gulf of Mexico Range Complex 4 4 20 20
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.0-81

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Table 3.0-27: Number and Location of Explosives that May Result in Fragments Used During

Training Activities (continued)

Activity Area

Maximum Annual # of

Munitions 5-Year # of Munitions

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 1 Alternative 2

SINKEX Area 12 12 60 60

Total 160 160 860 860

Rockets

Virginia Capes Range Complex 1,748 1,748 8,740 8,740

Navy Cherry Point Range Complex 76 76 380 380

Jacksonville Range Complex 1,824 1,824 9,120 9,120

Gulf of Mexico Range Complex 190 190 950 950

Total 3,838 3,838 19,190 19,190

Missiles

Northeast Range Complexes 2 2 10 10

Virginia Capes Range Complex 199 199 995 995

Navy Cherry Point Range Complex 187 187 935 935

Jacksonville Range Complex 192 192 960 960

Key West Range Complex 8 8 40 40

Gulf of Mexico Range Complex 2 2 10 10

SINKEX Area 4 4 20 20

Total 594 594 2,970 2,970

Large-Caliber Projectiles

Virginia Capes Range Complex 762 762 3,180 3,180

Navy Cherry Point Range Complex 210 210 1,050 1,050

Jacksonville Range Complex 642 642 3,210 3,210

Gulf of Mexico Range Complex 114 114 570 570

Other AFTT Areas 114 114 570 570

SINKEX Area 200 200 1,000 1,000

Total 2,042 2,042 9,580 9,580

Medium-Caliber Projectiles

Virginia Capes Range Complex 46,100 46,100 230,500 230,500

Navy Cherry Point Range Complex 20,000 20,000 100,000 100,000

Jacksonville Range Complex 45,600 45,600 228,000 228,000

Gulf of Mexico Range Complex 6,000 6,000 30,000 30,000

Other AFTT Areas 400 400 2,000 2,000

Total 118,100 118,100 590,500 590,500

Notes: AFTT = Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing; SINKEX = Sinking Exercise
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.0-82

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Table 3.0-28: Number and Location of Explosives that May Result in Fragments Used During 

Testing Activities

Activity Area

Maximum Annual # of 

Munitions 5-Year # of Munitions

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 1 Alternative 2

Torpedoes

Northeast Range Complexes 7 7 29 29

Virginia Capes Range Complex 7 7 29 29

Navy Cherry Point Range Complex 3 3 9 9

Jacksonville Range Complex 7 7 29 29

Key West Range Complex 3 3 9 9

Gulf of Mexico Range Complex 7 7 29 29

NSWC Panama City Testing Range 12 12 60 60

Total 46 46 194 194

Explosive Sonobuoys

Key West Range Complex 36 36 180 180

Total 36 36 180 180

AMNS Neutralizers

Virginia Capes Range Complex 250 255 1,090 1,275

Jacksonville Range Complex 50 50 250 250

Gulf of Mexico Range Complex 100 100 500 500

NSWC Panama City Testing Range 328 333 1,584 1,665

Total 728 738 3,424 3,690

Bombs

Virginia Capes Range Complex 4 4 20 20

Total 4 4 20 20

Rockets

Virginia Capes Range Complex 206 206 830 1,030

Jacksonville Range Complex 200 200 800 1,000

Total 406 406 1,630 2,030

Missiles

Northeast Range Complexes 10 10 50 50

Virginia Capes Range Complex 222 222 1,033 1,110

Jacksonville Range Complex 70 70 327 350

Gulf of Mexico Range Complex 12 12 30 60

Total 314 314 1,440 1,570

Buoys

Northeast Range Complexes 736 736 3,680 3,680

Virginia Capes Range Complex 368 368 1,840 1,840

Navy Cherry Point Range Complex 152 152 760 760

Jacksonville Range Complex 152 152 760 760

Key West Range Complex 202 202 1,010 1,010

Gulf of Mexico Range Complex 368 368 1,840 1,840

Total 1,978 1,978 9,890 9,890
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.0-83

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Table 3.0-28: Number and Location of Explosives that May Result in Fragments Used During

Testing Activities (continued)

Activity Area

Maximum Annual # of

Munitions 5-Year # of Munitions

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 1 Alternative 2

Anti-Torpedo Countermeasures

Northeast Range Complexes 78 78 330 378

Virginia Capes Range Complex 96 96 432 480

Navy Cherry Point Range Complex 36 36 180 180

Jacksonville Range Complex 104 104 448 496

Gulf of Mexico Range Complex 72 72 312 360

Total 386 386 1,702 1,894

Mines

Virginia Capes Range Complex 2 7 10 35

NSWC Panama City Testing Range 4 9 20 45

Total 6 16 30 80

Large-Caliber Projectiles

Northeast Range Complexes 1,632 1,632 8160 8160

Virginia Capes Range Complex 4,763 4,763 23,815 23,815

Navy Cherry Point Range Complex 1,632 1,632 8,160 8,160

Jacksonville Range Complex 7,876 7,876 39,380 39,380

Key West Range Complex 2,332 2,332 11,660 11,660

Gulf of Mexico Range Complex 2,243 2,243 12,115 12,115

NSWC Panama City Testing Range 280 280 500 500

Total 20,758 20,758 103,790 103,790

Medium-Caliber Projectiles

Northeast Range Complexes 3,860 3,860 19,300 19,300

Virginia Capes Range Complex 17,270 17,270 80,350 86,350

Navy Cherry Point Range Complex 3,360 3,360 16,800 16,800

Jacksonville Range Complex 14,860 14,860 62,300 74,300

Key West Range Complex 3,360 3,360 16,800 16,800

Gulf of Mexico Range Complex 3,360 3,360 16,800 16,800

Total 46,070 46,070 212,350 230,350

Notes: NSWC = Naval Surface Warfare Center
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.0-84

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Table 3.0-29: Number and Location of Targets Expended During Training Activities

Activity Area

Maximum Annual # of Targets 5-Year # of Targets

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 1 Alternative 2

Air Targets (Decoy)

Northeast Range Complexes 2 2 10 10

Virginia Capes Range Complex 81 81 405 405

Navy Cherry Point Range Complex 52 52 260 260

Jacksonville Range Complex 61 61 305 305 

Key West Range Complex 9 9 47 47

Gulf of Mexico Range Complex 2 2 10 10

Total 207 207 1,037 1,037

Air Targets (Drone)

Northeast Range Complexes 0 0 2 2

Virginia Capes Range Complex 18 18 92 92

Navy Cherry Point Range Complex 28 28 138 138

Jacksonville Range Complex 7 7 34 34

Gulf of Mexico Range Complex 0 0 2 2 

Key West Range Complex 2 2 8 8 

Total 55 55 276 276

Surface Targets (Mobile)

Virginia Capes Range Complex 70 70 348 348

Navy Cherry Point Range Complex 23 23 114 114

Jacksonville Range Complex 78 78 388 388

Gulf of Mexico Range Complex 3 3 12 12

Total 174 174 862 862

Surface Targets (Stationary)

Northeast Range Complexes 20 20 100 100

Virginia Capes Range Complex 4,512 4,512 22,560 22,560

Navy Cherry Point Range Complex 1,298 1,298 6,490 6,490

Jacksonville Range Complex 3,013 3,013 15,065 15,065

Gulf of Mexico Range Complex 334 334 1,670 1,670

Other AFTT Areas 200 200 980 980

Total 9,377 9,377 46,865 46,865

Subsurface Targets (Mobile)

Northeast Range Complexes 82 84 408 420

Virginia Capes Range Complex 304 414 1,520 2,070

Navy Cherry Point Range Complex 98 125 488 625

Jacksonville Range Complex 1,057 1,272 5,303 6,362

Gulf of Mexico Range Complex 3 5 13 25

Other AFTT Areas 134 134 670 670

Total 1,678 2,034 8,402 10,172
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.0-85

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Table 3.0-29: Number and Location of Targets Expended During Training Activities (continued)

Activity Area

Maximum Annual # of Targets 5-Year # of Targets

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 1 Alternative 2

Mine Shapes

Virginia Capes Range Complex 221 221 1,105 1,105

Navy Cherry Point Range Complex 78 78 390 390

Jacksonville Range Complex 78 78 390 390

Key West Range Complex 2 2 8 8 

Gulf of Mexico Range Complex 93 93 466 466

Inshore Waters (see Table 3.0-30) 2 2 8 8 

Total 474 474 2,367 2,367

Ship Hulks

SINKEX Area 1 1 5 5

Total 1 1 5 5

Notes: AFTT = Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing; SINKEX = Sinking Exercise

Table 3.0-30: Number and Location of Targets Expended During Training Activities in Inshore

Waters

Activity Area

Maximum Annual # of Targets 5-Year # of Targets

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 1 Alternative 2

Mine Shapes

Lower Chesapeake Bay 2 2 8 8

Total 2 2 8 8

Table 3.0-31: Number and Location of Targets Expended During Testing Activities

Activity Area

Maximum Annual # of Targets 5-Year # of Targets

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 1 Alternative 2

Air Targets (Drones)

Northeast Range Complexes 6 6 28 28

Virginia Capes Range Complex 200 200 976 976

Navy Cherry Point Range Complex 8 8 8 8

Jacksonville Range Complex 62 62 286 286

Key West Range Complex 6 6 6 6 

Gulf of Mexico Range Complex 16 16 56 56

NUWC Newport Testing Range 6 6 6 6

SFOMF 6 6 6 6 

NSWC Panama City Testing Range 6 6 6 6 

Total 316 316 1,378 1,378

Air Targets (Decoy)

Virginia Capes Range Complex 5 5 22 22

Jacksonville Range Complex 2 2 6 6 

Total 7 7 28 28
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.0-86

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Table 3.0-31: Number and Location of Targets Expended During Testing Activities (continued)

Activity Area

Maximum Annual # of Targets 5-Year # of Targets

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 1 Alternative 2

Surface Targets (Mobile)

Northeast Range Complexes 1 1 5 5

Virginia Capes Range Complex 153 153 763 764

Jacksonville Range Complex 19 19 96 96

Key West Range Complex 2 2 11 11

Gulf of Mexico Range Complex 2 2 11 11

NUWC Newport Testing Range 450 450 2,250 2,250

Total 627 627 3,136 3,137 

Surface Targets (Stationary)

Northeast Range Complexes 172 172 858 858

Virginia Capes Range Complex 832 832 4,015 4,160

Navy Cherry Point Range Complex 172 172 858 858

Jacksonville Range Complex 545 545 2,576 2,727

Key West Range Complex 178 178 890 890

Gulf of Mexico Range Complex 248 248 1,212 1,242

NUWC Newport Testing Range 484 484 2,421 2,421

SFOMF 56 56 282 282

Total 2,687 2,687 13,112 13,438

Sub-Surface Targets (Mobile)

Northeast Range Complexes 54 55 198 272

Virginia Capes Range Complex 57 58 237 290

Navy Cherry Point Range Complex 7 8 32 40

Jacksonville Range Complex 184 184 867 917

Key West Range Complex 3 3 15 15

Gulf of Mexico Range Complex 208 208 983 1,040

NUWC Newport Testing Range 516 516 2,581 2,581

SFOMF 95 95 475 475

Total 1,124 1,127 5,388 5,630

Sub-Surface Targets (Stationary)

Northeast Range Complexes 2,228 2,228 10,896 11,142

Virginia Capes Range Complex 1,142 1,142 5,260 5,709

Navy Cherry Point Range Complex 81 81 407 407

Jacksonville Range Complex 320 320 1,564 1,600

Key West Range Complex 32 32 38 134

Gulf of Mexico Range Complex 960 960 4,795 4,801

NUWC Newport Testing Range 374 374 1,868 1,868

SFOMF 84 84 419 419

Total 5,221 5,221 25,247 26,080
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.0-87

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Table 3.0-31: Number and Location of Targets Expended During Testing Activities (continued)

Activity Area

Maximum Annual # of Targets 5-Year # of Targets

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 1 Alternative 2

Mine Shapes

Virginia Capes Range Complex 127 127 536 636

Jacksonville Range Complex 122 122 610 610

Gulf of Mexico Range Complex 232 232 1,158 1,158

SFOMF 40 40 200 200

NSWC Panama City Testing Range 370 370 1,815 1,850

Total 891 891 4,319 4,454

Notes: AFTT = Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing; NUWC = Naval Undersea Warfare Center; SFOMF = South Florida 

Ocean Measurement Facility; NSWC = Naval Surface Warfare Center; SINKEX = Sinking Exercise

Table 3.0-32: Number and Location of Other Military Materials Expended During Training 

Activities

Activity Area

Maximum Annual # of

Materials 5-Year # of Materials

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 1 Alternative 2

Acoustic Countermeasures

Northeast Range Complexes 84 84 420 420

Virginia Capes Range Complex 51 51 255 255

Navy Cherry Point Range Complex 24 24 120 120

Jacksonville Range Complex 184 184 902 920

Gulf of Mexico Range Complex 0 6 0 30

Other AFTT Areas 88 88 440 440

Total 431 437 2,137 2,185

Compression Pad/Piston

Virginia Capes Range Complex 1,000 1,000 5,000 5,000

Navy Cherry Point Range Complex 22,300 22,300 111,500 111,500

Jacksonville Range Complex 38,000 38,000 190,000 190,000

Key West Range Complex 31,000 31,000 155,000 155,000

Gulf of Mexico Range Complex 1,840 1,840 9,200 9,200

Inshore Waters (see Table 3.0.33) 20,400 20,400 102,000 102,000

Total 114,540 114,540 572,700 572,700

Chaff – Air Cartridge

Virginia Capes Range Complex 2,080 2,080 10,400 10,400

Navy Cherry Point Range Complex 25,760 25,760 128,800 128,800

Jacksonville Range Complex 47,840 47,840 239,200 239,200

Key West Range Complex 4,800 4,800 240,000 240,000

Gulf of Mexico Range Complex 288 288 1,440 1,440

Total 80,768 80,768 619,840 619,840
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.0-88

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Table 3.0-32: Number and Location of Other Military Materials Expended During Training 

Activities (continued)

Activity Area

Maximum Annual # of 

Materials 5-Year # of Materials

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 1 Alternative 2

Chaff – Ship Cartridge

Virginia Capes Range Complex 264 264 1,320 1,320

Navy Cherry Point Range Complex 480 480 2,400 2,400

Jacksonville Range Complex 516 516 2,580 2,580

Gulf of Mexico Range Complex 120 120 600 600

Total 1,380 1,380 6,900 6,900

Endcaps – Chaff & Flare

Virginia Capes Range Complex 3,120 3,120 15,600 15,600

Navy Cherry Point Range Complex 48,108 48,108 240,540 240,540

Jacksonville Range Complex 85,888 85,888 429,440 429,440

Key West Range Complex 79,008 79,008 395,040 395,040

Gulf of Mexico Range Complex 2,128 2,128 10,640 10,640

Inshore Waters (see Table 3.0.33) 20,400 20,400 102,000 102,000

Total 238,652 238,652 1,193,260 1,193,260

Flares

Virginia Capes Range Complex 1,040 1,040 5,200 5,200

Navy Cherry Point Range Complex 22,348 22,348 111,740 111,740

Jacksonville Range Complex 38,048 38,048 190,240 190,240

Key West Range Complex 31,008 31,008 155,040 155,040

Gulf of Mexico Range Complex 1,840 1,840 9,200 9,200

Inshore Waters (see Table 3.0-33) 20,400 20,400 102,000 102,000

Total 114,684 114,684 573,420 573,420

Flare O-Rings

Virginia Capes Range Complex 1,040 1,040 5,200 5,200

Navy Cherry Point Range Complex 22,348 22,348 111,740 111,740

Jacksonville Range Complex 38,048 38,048 190,240 190,240

Key West Range Complex 31,008 31,008 155,040 155,040

Gulf of Mexico Range Complex 1,840 1,840 9,200 9,200

Inshore Waters (see Table 3.0-33) 20,400 20,400 102,000 102,000

Total 114,684 114,684 573,420 573,420

Fiber Optic Canister

Virginia Capes Range Complex 62 62 306 306

Navy Cherry Point Range Complex 1 1 5 5 

Jacksonville Range Complex 2 2 6 6 

Gulf of Mexico Range Complex 22 22 106 106

Total 87 87 423 423
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.0-89

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Table 3.0-32: Number and Location of Other Military Materials Expended During Training 

Activities (continued)

Activity Area

Maximum Annual # of 

Materials 5-Year # of Materials

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 1 Alternative 2

Expendable Bathythermographs

Northeast Range Complexes 142 142 708 708

Virginia Capes Range Complex 414 439 2,065 2,193

Navy Cherry Point Range Complex 108 113 535 563

Jacksonville Range Complex 1,353 1,391 6,402 6,953

Gulf of Mexico Range Complex 5 128 25 640

Other AFTT Areas 154 154 770 770 

Total 2,176 2,367 10,505 11,827 

Heavyweight Torpedo Accessories

Northeast Range Complexes 24 24 120 120

Virginia Capes Range Complex 8 8 40 40

Jacksonville Range Complex 48 48 240 240

SINKEX 1 1 5 5

Total 81 81 405 405

Lightweight Torpedo Accessories

Virginia Capes Range Complex 13 13 65 65

Jacksonville Range Complex 44 44 220 220

Total 57 57 285 285

Marine Markers

Virginia Capes Range Complex 1,022 1,022 5,110 5,110

Navy Cherry Point Range Complex 332 332 1,660 1,660

Jacksonville Range Complex 1,060 1,060 5,300 5,300

Key West Range Complex 30 30 150 150

Gulf of Mexico Range Complex 53 53 265 265

Other AFTT Areas 24 24 120 120

Inshore Waters (see Table 3.0-33) 1,106 1,106 5,530 5,530

Total 3,627 3,627 18,135 18,135

Non-Explosive Buoy

Virginia Capes Range Complex 24 34 114 170

Navy Cherry Point Range Complex 17 22 73 110

Jacksonville Range Complex 116 186 550 930

Gulf of Mexico Range Complex 0 16 0 80

Total 157 258 737 1,290
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.0-90

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Table 3.0-32: Number and Location of Other Military Materials Expended During Training 

Activities (continued)

Activity Area

Maximum Annual # of 

Materials 5-Year # of Materials

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 1 Alternative 2

Non-Explosive Sonobuoy

Northeast Range Complexes 2,882 2,882 14,410 14,410

Virginia Capes Range Complex 7,484 7,484 37,204 37,420

Navy Cherry Point Range Complex 2,542 2,542 12,332 12,710

Jacksonville Range Complex 27,237 27,237 134,673 136,185

Gulf of Mexico Range Complex 0 702 0 3,510

Other AFTT Areas 432 432 2,160 2,160

Total 40,577 41,279 200,779 206,395

Decelerators/Parachutes - Small

Northeast Range Complexes 2,882 2,882 14,410 14,410

Virginia Capes Range Complex 7,497 7,497 37,244 37,460

Navy Cherry Point Range Complex 2,542 2,542 12,332 12,710

Jacksonville Range Complex 27,265 27,265 134,813 136,325

Gulf of Mexico Range Complex 0 702 0 3,510

Other AFTT Areas 432 432 2,160 2,160

Total 40,618 41,320 200,959 206,575

Decelerators/Parachutes - Medium

Virginia Capes Range Complex 40 40 200 200

Navy Cherry Point Range Complex 48 48 240 240

Jacksonville Range Complex 48 48 240 240

Key West Range Complex 8 8 40 40

Total 144 144 720 720

Decelerators/Parachutes - Large

Northeast Range Complexes 1 1 5 5 

Virginia Capes Range Complex 30 30 150 150

Gulf of Mexico Range Complex 1 1 5 5 

Jacksonville Range Complex 1 1 5 5 

Total 33 33 165 165

Decelerators/Parachutes – Extra Large

Virginia Capes Range Complex 5 5 25 25

Total 5 5 25 25

Sabot-Kinetic Energy Round

Virginia Capes Range Complex 32 32 160 160

Navy Cherry Point Range Complex 4 4 20 20

Jacksonville Range Complex 4 4 20 20

Gulf of Mexico Range Complex 4 4 20 20

Other AFTT Areas 4 4 20 20

Total 48 48 240 240
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.0-91

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Table 3.0-32: Number and Location of Other Military Materials Expended During Training 

Activities (continued)

Activity Area

Maximum Annual # of 

Materials 5-Year # of Materials

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 1 Alternative 2

JATO Bottles

Northeast Range Complexes 1 1 5 5 

Virginia Capes Range Complex 35 35 175 175

Jacksonville Range Complex 1 1 5 5 

Gulf of Mexico Range Complex 1 1 5 5 

Total 38 38 190 190

Notes: AFTT = Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing; NUWC = Naval Undersea Warfare Center; SFOMF = South Florida 

Ocean Measurement Facility; NSWC = Naval Surface Warfare Center; SINKEX = Sinking Exercise; JATO = Jet 

Assisted Take-Off

Table 3.0-33: Number and Location of Other Military Materials Expended During Training 

Activities in Inshore Waters

Activity Area

Maximum Annual # of 

Materials 5-Year # of Materials

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 1 Alternative 2

Marine Markers

Narragansett, RI 64 64 320 320

James River and Tributaries 728 728 3,640 3,640

York River 20 20 100 100

Lower Chesapeake Bay 230 230 1,150 1,150

Port Canaveral, FL 64 64 320 320

Total 1,106 1,106 5,530 5,530

Flares

James River & Tributaries 20,400 20,400 102,000 102,000

Total 20,400 20,400 102,000 102,000

Flare O-Ring

James River & Tributaries 20,400 20,400 102,000 102,000

Total 20,400 20,400 102,000 102,000

Compression Pad or Plastic Piston

James River & Tributaries 20,400 20,400 102,000 102,000

Total 20,400 20,400 102,000 102,000

Endcap – Chaff and Flare

James River & Tributaries 20,400 20,400 102,000 102,000

Total 20,400 20,400 102,000 102,000
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.0-92

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Table 3.0-34: Number and Location of Other Military Materials Expended During Testing 

Activities

Activity Area

Maximum Annual # of

Materials 5-Year # of Materials

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 1 Alternative 2

Acoustic Countermeasures

Northeast Range Complexes 843 843 4,018 4,018

Virginia Capes Range Complex 1,163 1,163 5,814 5,814

Navy Cherry Point Range Complex 708 708 3,540 3,540

Jacksonville Range Complex 1,508 1,508 7,145 7,145

Gulf of Mexico Range Complex 697 697 3,484 3,484

NUWC Newport Testing Range 64 64 320 320

SFOMF 17 17 84 84

Total 5,000 5,000 24,405 24,405

Anchors (Other)

Northeast Range Complexes 685 685 3,425 3,425

Virginia Capes Range Complex 343 343 1,713 1,713

Jacksonville Range Complex 20 20 100 100

Gulf of Mexico Range Complex 338 338 1,688 1,688

NUWC Newport Testing Range 70 70 350 350

SFOMF 654 654 3,270 3,270

Total 2,110 2,110 10,546 10,546

Anchors (Mine)

Virginia Capes Range Complex 2 7 10 35

NSWC Panama City Testing Range 4 9 20 45

Total 6 16 30 80

Concrete Slugs

Northeast Range Complexes 38 38 190 190

Gulf of Mexico Range Complex 38 38 190 190

Total 76 76 380 380

Compression Pad/Piston

Virginia Capes Range Complex 20,195 20,195 100,975 100,975

Gulf of Mexico Range Complex 600 600 3,000 3,000

Total 20,795 20,795 103,975 103,975

Chaff – Air Cartridge

Virginia Capes Range Complex 20,595 20,595 102,975 102,975

Jacksonville Range Complex 400 400 2,000 2,000

Gulf of Mexico Range Complex 1,200 1,200 6,000 6,000

Total 22,195 22,195 110,975 110,975
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.0-93

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Table 3.0-34: Number and Location of Other Military Materials Expended During Testing 

Activities (continued)

Activity Area

Maximum Annual # of 

Materials 5-Year # of Materials

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 1 Alternative 2

Chaff – Ship Cartridge

Northeast Range Complexes 144 144 720 720

Virginia Capes Range Complex 1,019 1,019 4,955 4,955

Navy Cherry Point Range Complex 144 144 720 720

Jacksonville Range Complex 480 480 2,400 2,400

Key West Range Complex 144 144 720 720

Gulf of Mexico Range Complex 144 144 720 720

Total 2,075 2,075 10,235 10,235

Canister-Miscellaneous

Northeast Range Complexes 240 240 1,200 1,200

Virginia Capes Range Complex 240 240 1,200 1,200

Total 480 480 2,400 2,400

Endcaps – Chaff & Flare

Virginia Capes Range Complex 40,790 40,790 203,950 203,950

Jacksonville Range Complex 400 400 2,000 2,000

Gulf of Mexico Range Complex 1,800 1,800 9,000 9,000

Total 42,990 42,990 214,950 214,950

Endcaps and Pistons (Non Chaff & Flare)

NUWC Newport Testing Range 379 379 1,895 1,895

Total 379 379 1,895 1,895

Flares

Virginia Capes Range Complex 20,195 20,195 100,975 100,975

Gulf of Mexico Range Complex 600 600 3,000 3,000

Total 20,795 20,795 103,975 103,975

Flare O-Rings

Virginia Capes Range Complex 20,195 20,195 100,975 100,975

Gulf of Mexico Range Complex 600 600 3,000 3,000

Total 20,795 20,795 103,975 103,975

Fiber Optic Canister

Virginia Capes Range Complex 250 255 1,090 1,275

Jacksonville Range Complex 50 50 250 250

Gulf of Mexico Range Complex 100 100 500 500

NSWC Panama City Testing Range 328 333 1,584 1,665

Total 728 738 3,424 3,690
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.0-94

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Table 3.0-34: Number and Location of Other Military Materials Expended During Testing 

Activities (continued)

Activity Area

Maximum Annual # of 

Materials 5-Year # of Materials

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 1 Alternative 2

Expendable Bathythermographs

Northeast Range Complexes 21,104 21,104 105,516 105,516

Virginia Capes Range Complex 9,740 9,740 48,697 48,697

Navy Cherry Point Range Complex 277 277 1,385 1,385

Jacksonville Range Complex 561 561 2,775 2,805

Key West Range Complex 10 10 50 50

Gulf of Mexico Range Complex 9,813 9,813 49,063 49,063

SFOMF 4 4 20 20

Total 41,509 41,509 207,506 207,536

Heavyweight Torpedo Accessories

Northeast Range Complexes 98 98 421 469

Virginia Capes Range Complex 128 128 591 639

Navy Cherry Point Range Complex 42 42 210 210

Jacksonville Range Complex 134 134 579 627

Key West Range Complex 2 2 10 10

Gulf of Mexico Range Complex 84 84 371 419

NUWC Newport Testing Range 20 20 100 100

SFOMF 6 6 29 29

Total 514 514 2,311 2,503

Lightweight Torpedo Accessories

Northeast Range Complexes 54 54 267 267

Virginia Capes Range Complex 225 225 867 1,110

Navy Cherry Point Range Complex 50 50 247 247

Jacksonville Range Complex 213 213 981 981

Key West Range Complex 2 2 7 7 

Gulf of Mexico Range Complex 54 54 267 267

NUWC Newport Testing Range 20 20 100 100

NSWC Panama City Testing Range 192 192 960 960

Total 810 810 3,696 3,939

Non-Explosive Sonobuoy

Northeast Range Complexes 3,596 3,715 15,911 18,375

Virginia Capes Range Complex 5,505 5,548 24,329 27,740

Navy Cherry Point Range Complex 2,144 2,187 10,606 10,935

Jacksonville Range Complex 5,847 6,062 29,845 29,910

Key West Range Complex 3,007 3,007 14,807 15,036

Gulf of Mexico Range Complex 2,027 2,027 9,550 10,135

NUWC Newport Testing Range 1,200 1,200 6,000 6,000

SFOMF 32 32 160 160
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.0-95

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Table 3.0-34: Number and Location of Other Military Materials Expended During Testing 

Activities (continued)

Activity Area

Maximum Annual # of 

Materials 5-Year # of Materials

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 1 Alternative 2

NSWC Panama City Testing Range 192 192 960 960

Total 23,550 23,970 112,168 119,251

Decelerators/Parachutes – Small

Northeast Range Complexes 3,637 3,756 16,116 18,580

Virginia Capes Range Complex 5,711 5,754 25,108 28,762

Navy Cherry Point Range Complex 2,185 2,228 10,811 11,140

Jacksonville Range Complex 6,037 6,252 28,718 30,852

Key West Range Complex 3,008 3,008 14,812 15,310

Gulf of Mexico Range Complex 2,068 2,068 9,755 10,340

NUWC Newport Testing Range 1,200 1,200 6,000 6,000

SFOMF 32 32 160 160

NSWC Panama City Testing Range 192 192 960 960

Total 24,070 24,490 112,440 122,104

Decelerators/Parachutes - Large

Northeast Range Complexes 1 1 5 5 

Virginia Capes Range Complex 14 14 70 70

Jacksonville Range Complex 1 1 5 5 

Gulf of Mexico Range Complex 1 1 5 5 

Total 17 17 85 85

Sabot – Kinetic Energy Round

Northeast Range Complexes 33,503 33,503 167,054 167,054

Virginia Capes Range Complex 33,503 33,503 167,054 167,054

Navy Cherry Point Range Complex 33,503 33,503 167,054 167,054

Jacksonville Range Complex 33,503 33,503 167,054 167,054

Key West Range Complex 33,503 33,503 167,054 167,054

Gulf of Mexico Range Complex 33,503 33,503 167,054 167,054

NUWC Newport Testing Range 4 4 4 4 

SFOMF 4 4 4 4 

NSWC Panama City Testing Range 4 4 4 4 

Total 201,030 201,030 1,002,336 1,002,336

JATO Bottles

Northeast Range Complexes 1 1 5 5

Virginia Capes Range Complex 14 14 70 70

Jacksonville Range Complex 1 1 5 5 

Gulf of Mexico Range Complex 1 1 5 5 

Total 17 17 85 85

Notes: AFTT = Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing; NUWC = Naval Undersea Warfare Center; SFOMF = South Florida 

Ocean Measurement Facility; NSWC = Naval Surface Warfare Center; SINKEX = Sinking Exercise; JATO = Jet 

Assisted Take-Off
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.0-96

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

3.0.3.3.4.3 Seafloor Devices

Seafloor devices represent items used during training or testing activities that are deployed onto the

seafloor and recovered. These items include moored mine shapes, recoverable anchors, bottom-placed 

instruments, and robotic vehicles referred to as “crawlers.” Seafloor devices are either stationary or 

move very slowly along the bottom and do not pose a threat to highly mobile organisms when in place, 

however during the deployment process, they may pose a physical disturbance or strike risk. The effect 

of devices on the bottom will be discussed as an alteration of the bottom substrate and associated living

resources (e.g., invertebrates and vegetation) and cultural resources. 

Table 3.0-35 and Table 3.0-36 show the number and location of proposed activities that include the use of 

seafloor devices.

Table 3.0-35: Number and Location of Activities Including Seafloor Devices

Activity Area

Maximum Annual # of 

Activities 5-Year # of Activities

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 1 Alternative 2

Training

Virginia Capes Range Complex 3,176 3,176 15,978 15,978

Navy Cherry Point Range Complex 662 662 3,260 3,260

Jacksonville Range Complex 665 665 3,321 3,321

Key West Range Complex 23 23 115 115

Gulf of Mexico Range Complex 383 383 1,911 1,911

NSWC Panama City Testing Range 244 244 1,220 1,220

Inshore Waters (see Table 3.0-36) 523 523 2,635 2,635

Total 5,676 5,676 28,440 28,440

Testing

Northeast Range Complexes 11 11 55 55

Virginia Capes Range Complex 159 169 665 843

Navy Cherry Point Range Complex 10 10 50 50

Jacksonville Range Complex 33 33 149 149

Key West Range Complex 1 1 3 3

Gulf of Mexico Range Complex 50 50 247 247

NUWC Newport Testing Range 322 322 1,608 1,608

SFOMF 100 100 498 498

NSWC Panama City Testing Range 344 354 1,600 1,742

Total 1,030 1,050 4,875 5,195

Notes: NUWC = Naval Undersea Warfare Center; SFOMF = South Florida Ocean Measurement Facility; 

NSWC = Naval Surface Warfare Center
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.0-97

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Table 3.0-36: Number and Location of Activities in Inshore Waters Including Seafloor Devices

Activity Area

Maximum Annual # of 

Activities 5-Year # of Activities

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 1 Alternative 2

Training

Boston, MA 1 1 3 3

Earle, NJ 1 1 3 3 

Delaware Bay, DE 1 1 3 3 

Hampton Roads, VA 2 2 6 6 

Lower Chesapeake Bay, VA 308 308 1,540 1,540

James River & Tributaries, VA 75 75 425 425

York River, VA 19 19 95 95

Morehead City, NC 1 1 3 3 

Wilmington, NC 1 1 3 3 

Savannah, GA 1 1 3 3

Kings Bay, GA 23 23 113 113

Mayport, FL 1 1 3 3

Port Canaveral, FL 1 1 3 3 

Truman Harbor, FL 42 42 210 210

Demolition Key 42 42 210 210

Tampa, FL 1 1 3 3 

Beaumont, TX 2 2 6 6 

Corpus Christi, TX 1 1 3 3 

Total 523 523 2,635 2,635

3.0.3.3.4.4 Aircraft 

Aircraft involved in Navy training and testing activities are separated into three categories: (1) fixed-wing 

aircraft, (2) rotary-wing aircraft, (3) tiltrotor aircraft, and (4) unmanned aerial systems. Fixed-wing 

aircraft include, but are not limited to, planes such as F-35, P-8, F/A-18, and E/A-18G. Rotary-wing 

aircraft are also referred to as helicopters (e.g., MH-60), and tiltrotor aircraft include the MV-22. 

Unmanned aerial systems include a variety of platforms, including but not limited to, the Small Tactical 

Unmanned Aerial System – Tier II, Triton unmanned aerial system, Fire Scout Vertical Take-off and 

Landing Unmanned Aerial System, and the MQ-25 Stingray Carrier Based Unmanned Aerial System.

Aircraft strikes are only applicable to birds and bats. Table 3.0-37 and Table 3.0-38 show the number and 

location of proposed activities that include the use of aircraft.
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.0-98

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Table 3.0-37: Number and Location of Activities Including Aircraft

Activity Area

Maximum Annual # of 

Activities 5-Year # of Activities

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 1 Alternative 2

Training

Northeast Range Complexes 92 92 460 460

Virginia Capes Range Complex 22,111 22,111 110,541 110,553

Navy Cherry Point Range Complex 36,031 36,031 180,134 180,155

Jacksonville Range Complex 38,101 38,101 190,470 190,503

Key West Range Complex 26,346 26,346 131,730 131,730

Gulf of Mexico Range Complex 1,088 1,099 5,438 5,493

NSWC Panama City Testing Range 244 244 1,220 1,220

Other AFTT Areas 48 48 240 240

Inshore Waters (see Table 3.0-38) 3,634 3,634 15,520 15,520

Total 127,695 127,706 635,753 635,874

Testing

Northeast Range Complexes 756 759 3,492 3,792

Virginia Capes Range Complex 4,595 4,601 21,807 22,862

Navy Cherry Point Range Complex 639 640 3,189 3,197

Jacksonville Range Complex 921 926 4,318 4,563

Key West Range Complex 253 253 1,132 1,258

Gulf of Mexico Range Complex 192 192 858 925

NUWC Newport Testing Range 49 49 239 239

SFOMF 35 35 170 170

NSWC Panama City Testing Range 229 234 1,045 1,162

Inshore Waters (see Table 3.0-38) 4 4 4 4 

Total 7,673 7,693 36,254 38,172

Notes: NUWC = Naval Undersea Warfare Center; SFOMF = South Florida Ocean Measurement Facility; 

NSWC = Naval Surface Warfare Center

Table 3.0-38: Number and Location of Activities in Inshore Waters Including Aircraft

Activity Area

Maximum Annual # of 

Activities 5-Year # of Activities

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 1 Alternative 2

Training

Boston, MA 1 1 3 3

Earle, NJ 1 1 3 3

Delaware Bay, DE 1 1 3 3

Hampton Roads, VA 2 2 6 6 

Lower Chesapeake Bay 1,624 1,624 5,500 5,500

James River & Tributaries 1,282 1,282 6,410 6,410

York River 4 4 20 20
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.0-99

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Table 3.0-38: Number and Location of Activities in Inshore Waters Including Aircraft 

(continued)

Activity Area

Maximum Annual # of 

Activities 5-Year # of Activities

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 1 Alternative 2

Morehead City, NC 1 1 3 3 

Wilmington, NC 1 1 3 3

Savannah, GA 1 1 3 3 

Kings Bay, GA 481 481 2,403 2,403 

Mayport, FL 36 36 178 178

St. Johns River, FL 144 144 720 720

Port Canaveral, FL 1 1 3 3

Tampa, FL 1 1 3 3

St. Andrew Bay, FL 50 50 250 250

Beaumont, TX 2 2 6 6 

Corpus Christi, TX 1 1 3 3 

Total 3,634 3,634 15,520 15,520

Testing

Little Creek, VA 2 2 2 2 

Norfolk, VA 2 2 2 2 

Total 4 4 4 4 

3.0.3.3.5 Entanglement Stressors

This section describes the entanglement stressors introduced into the water through naval training and 

testing, the relative magnitude and location of these activities, and provides the basis for analysis of 

potential impacts on resources in the remainder of Chapter 3 (Affected Environment and Environmental 

Consequences). To assess the entanglement risk of materials expended during training and testing, the 

Navy examined the characteristics of these items (e.g., size and rigidity) for their potential to entangle 

marine animals. For a constituent of military expended materials to entangle a marine animal the item 

must be flexible enough to wrap around the animal or appendages, or trapped in the jaw, baleen, etc.

This analysis includes the potential impacts from three types of military expended materials: (1) wires 

and cables, (2) decelerators/parachutes, and (3) biodegradable polymer. The Navy deploys equipment 

designed for military purposes and strives to reduce the risk of accidental entanglement posed by any 

item it releases into the sea. Arresting gear cables are not an entanglement concern due to their heavy 

weight and thickness. These cables weigh approximately 450 lb., reach 110 ft. in length, and are several 

inches thick. Therefore, they do not loop and are not able to wrap around an animal or appendage and 

will not be discussed further in this document.

3.0.3.3.5.1 Wires and Cables

Fiber Optic Cables

Although a portion may be recovered, some fiber optic cables used during Navy training and testing 

associated with remotely operated mine neutralization activities would be expended. The length of the 

expended tactical fiber would vary (up to about 3,000 m) depending on the activity. Tactical fiber has an 

8-micrometer (μm) (0.008 millimeter [mm]) silica core and acylate coating, and looks and feels like thin 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.0-100

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

monofilament fishing line. Other characteristics of tactical fiber are a 242-μm (0.24 mm) diameter, 12-lb. 

tensile strength, and 3.4-mm bend radius (Corning Incorporated, 2005; Raytheon Company, 2015). 

Tactical fiber is relatively brittle; it readily breaks if knotted, kinked, or abraded against a sharp object. 

Deployed tactical fiber will break if looped beyond its bend radius (3.4 mm), or exceeds its tensile 

strength (12 lb.). If the fiber becomes looped around an underwater object or marine animal, it will not 

tighten unless it is under tension. Such an event would be unlikely based on its method of deployment 

and its resistance to looping after it is expended. The tactical fibers are often designed with controlled 

buoyancy to minimize the fiber's effect on vehicle movement. The tactical fiber would be suspended 

within the water column during the activity, and then be expended and sink to the seafloor (effective 

sink rate of 1.45 cm/second (Raytheon Company, 2015) where it would be susceptible to abrasion and 

burial by sedimentation. 

Guidance Wires

Guidance wires are used during heavy-weight torpedo firings to help the firing platform control and 

steer the torpedo. They trail behind the torpedo as it moves through the water. Finally, the guidance 

wire is released from both the firing platform and the torpedo and sinks to the ocean floor. 

The torpedo guidance wire is a single-strand, thin gauge, coated copper alloy. The tensile breaking 

strength of the wire is a maximum of 40.4 lb. and can be broken by hand (Swope & McDonald, 2013), 

contrasting with the rope or lines associated with commercial fishing towed gear (trawls), stationary 

gear (traps), or entanglement gear (gillnets) that use lines with substantially higher (up to 500–2,000 lb.) 

breaking strength as their “weak links.” However, it has a somewhat higher breaking strength than the 

monofilament used in the body of most commercial gillnets (typically 31 lb. or less). The resistance to 

looping and coiling suggest that torpedo guidance wire does not have a high entanglement potential 

compared to other entanglement hazards (Swope & McDonald, 2013). Torpedo guidance wire sinks at a 

rate of 0.24 m per second (Swope & McDonald, 2013). 

Sonobuoy Wire

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, and hard-draw copper strand wire, which 

is then wrapped by a hollow rubber tubing or bungee in a spiral configuration. The tensile breaking 

strength of the wire and rubber tubing is no more than 40 lb. The length of the wire is housed in a 

plastic canister dispenser, which remains attached upon deployment. The length of wire that extends 

out is no more than 1,500 ft. and is dependent on the water depth and type of sonobuoy. Attached to 

the wire is a kite-drogue and damper disk stabilizing system made of non-woven nylon fabric. The nylon 

fabric is very thin and can be broken by hand. The wire runs through the stabilizing system and leads to 

the hydrophone components. The hydrophone components may be covered by thin plastic netting 

depending on type of sonobuoy, but pose no entanglement risk. Each sonobuoy has a 

saltwater-activated polyurethane float that inflates when the sonobuoy is submerged, keeping 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.

Bathythermographs are similar to sonobuoys in that they consist of an antenna, a float unit, and a 

subsurface unit (to measure temperature of the water column in the case of the bathythermograph) 

that is connected to the float unit by a wire. The bathythermograph wire is similar to the sonobuoy wire 

described above.
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.0-101

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Table 3.0-39 and Table 3.0-40 show the number and location of wires and cables expended during 

proposed training and testing activities.

Table 3.0-39: Number and Location of Wires and Cables Expended During Training Activities

Activity Area

Maximum Annual # of

Materials 5-Year # of Materials

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 1 Alternative 2

Fiber Optic Cables

Virginia Capes Range Complex 62 62 306 306

Navy Cherry Point Range Complex 9 9 45 45

Jacksonville Range Complex 2 2 6 6

Gulf of Mexico Range Complex 22 22 106 106

Total 95 95 463 463

Guidance Wires

Northeast Range Complexes 24 24 120 120

Virginia Capes Range Complex 8 8 40 40

Jacksonville Range Complex 48 48 240 240

SINKEX Area 1 1 5 5

Total 81 81 405 405

Sonobuoy Wires

Northeast Range Complexes 2,882 2,882 14,410 14,410

Virginia Capes Range Complex 7,484 7,484 37,204 37,420

Navy Cherry Point Range Complex 2,542 2,542 12,332 12,710

Jacksonville Range Complex 27,237 27,237 134,673 136,185

Gulf of Mexico Range Complex 0 702 0 3,510

Other AFTT Areas 432 432 2,160 2,160

Total 40,577 41,279 200,779 206,395

Expendable Bathythermograph Wires

Northeast Range Complexes 142 142 708 708

Virginia Capes Range Complex 414 439 2,065 2,193

Navy Cherry Point Range Complex 108 113 535 563

Jacksonville Range Complex 1,353 1,391 6,402 6,953

Gulf of Mexico Range Complex 5 128 25 640

Other AFTT Areas 154 154 770 770

Total 2,176 2,367 10,505 11,827

Notes: AFTT = Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing; NUWC = Naval Undersea Warfare Center; SFOMF = South Florida 

Ocean Measurement Facility; NSWC = Naval Surface Warfare Center; SINKEX = Sinking Exercise
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.0-102

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Table 3.0-40: Number and Location of Wires and Cables Expended During Testing Activities

Activity Area

Maximum Annual # of

Materials 5-Year # of Materials

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 1 Alternative 2

Fiber Optic Cables

Virginia Capes Range Complex 250 255 1,090 1,275

Jacksonville Range Complex 50 50 250 250

Gulf of Mexico Range Complex 100 100 500 500

NSWC Panama City Testing Range 328 333 1,584 1,665

Total 728 738 3,424 3,690

Guidance Wires

Northeast Range Complexes 98 98 421 469

Virginia Capes Range Complex 128 128 591 639

Navy Cherry Point Range Complex 42 42 210 210

Jacksonville Range Complex 134 134 579 627

Key West Range Complex 2 2 10 10

Gulf of Mexico Range Complex 84 84 371 419

NUWC Newport Testing Range 20 20 100 100

SFOMF 6 6 29 29

Total 514 514 2,311 2,503

Sonobuoy Wires

Northeast Range Complexes 3,596 3,715 15,911 18,375

Virginia Capes Range Complex 5,505 5,548 24,329 27,740

Navy Cherry Point Range Complex 2,144 2,187 10,606 10,935

Jacksonville Range Complex 5,847 6,062 27,845 29,910

Key West Range Complex 3,007 3,007 14,807 15,305

Gulf of Mexico Range Complex 2,027 2,027 9,550 10,135

NUWC Newport Testing Range 1,200 1,200 6,000 6,000

SFOMF 32 32 160 160

NSWC Panama City Testing Range 192 192 960 960

Total 23,550 23,970 110,168 119,520

Expendable Bathythermograph Wires

Northeast Range Complexes 21,104 21,104 105,516 105,516

Virginia Capes Range Complex 9,740 9,740 48,667 48,697

Navy Cherry Point Range Complex 277 277 1,385 1,385

Jacksonville Range Complex 561 561 2,775 2,805

Key West Range Complex 10 10 50 50

Gulf of Mexico Range Complex 9,813 9,813 49,063 49,063

SFOMF 4 4 20 20

Total 41,509 41,509 207,476 207,536

Notes: AFTT = Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing; NUWC = Naval Undersea Warfare Center; SFOMF = South Florida 

Ocean Measurement Facility; NSWC = Naval Surface Warfare Center; SINKEX = Sinking Exercise
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.0-103

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

3.0.3.3.5.2 Decelerators/Parachutes 

Decelerators/parachutes used during training and testing activities are classified into four different 

categories based on size: small, medium, large, and extra-large (Table 3.0-41). Aircraft-launched 

sonobuoys and lightweight torpedoes (such as the MK 46 and MK 54) use nylon decelerators/parachutes 

ranging in size from 18 to 48 in. in diameter (small). The majority of the decelerators/parachutes in the 

small size category are smaller (18 in.) cross shape decelerators/parachutes associated with sonobuoys

(Figure 3.0-13). Illumination flares use large decelerators/parachutes, up to approximately 19 ft. in 

diameter. Both small- and medium-sized decelerators/parachutes are made of cloth and nylon, many 

with weights attached to their short attachment lines to speed their sinking. At water impact, the 

decelerator/parachute assembly is expended and sinks away from the unit. The decelerator/parachute

assembly may remain at the surface for 5–15 seconds before the decelerator/parachute and its housing 

sink to the seafloor, where the fabric becomes flattened (Environmental Sciences Group, 2005). Once 

settled on the bottom the canopy may temporarily billow if bottom currents are present. 

Table 3.0-41: Size Categories for Decelerators/Parachutes Expended During Training and 

Testing Activities

Size Category Diameter (ft.) Associated Activity

Small 1.5–6 

Air-launched sonobuoys, lightweight 

torpedoes, and drones (drag parachute) 

Medium 19 Illumination flares

Large 30–50 drones (main parachute)

Extra-large 82 drones (main parachute)

Figure 3.0-13: Sonobuoy Launch Depicting the Relative Size of a Parachute

Aerial targets (drones) use large (between 30 and 50 ft. in diameter) and extra-large (80 ft. in diameter) 

decelerators/parachutes (Figure 3.0-14). Large and extra-large decelerators/parachutes are also made of

cloth and nylon, with suspension lines of varying lengths (large: 40–70 ft. in length [with up to 28 lines 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.0-104

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

per decelerator/parachute]; extra-large: 82 ft. in length [with up to 64 lines per decelerator/parachute]). 

Some aerial targets also use a small drag parachute (6 ft. in diameter) to slow their forward momentum 

prior to deploying the larger primary decelerator/parachute. Unlike the small- and medium-sized 

decelerators/parachutes, drone decelerators/parachutes do not have weights attached and may remain 

at the surface or suspended in the water column for some time prior to eventual settlement on 

the seafloor.

Figure 3.0-14: Aerial Target (Drone) with Parachute Deployed

Table 3.0-32 and Table 3.0-34 show the number and location of decelerator/parachutes expended 

during proposed training and testing activities.

3.0.3.3.5.3 Biodegradable Polymer

Marine Vessel Stopping payloads are systems designed to deliver the appropriate measure(s) to affect a 

vessel's propulsion and associated control surfaces to significantly slow and potentially stop the advance 

of the vessel. Marine Vessel Stopping proposed activities include the use of biodegradable polymers 

designed to entangle the propellers of in-water vessels. Biodegradable polymers degrade to smaller 

compounds as a result of microorganisms and enzymes. The biodegradable polymers that the Navy uses 

are designed to temporarily interact with the propeller(s) of a target craft rendering it ineffective. Some 

of the polymer constituents would dissolve within two hours of immersion. Based on the constituents of 

the biodegradable polymer the Navy proposes to use, it is anticipated that the material will break down 

into small pieces within a few days to weeks. This will break down further and dissolve into the water 

column within weeks to a few months. Degradation and dispersal timelines are influenced by water 

temperature, currents, and other oceanographic features. Overall, the longer the polymer remains in 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.0-105

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

the water, the weaker it becomes making it more brittle and likely to break. At the end of dispersion, the 

remaining materials are generally separated fibers with lengths on the order of 54 micrometers.

Biodegradable polymers will be used only during proposed testing activities, not during training 

activities. Table 3.0-42 shows the number and location of proposed testing activities that use 

biodegradable polymer. 

Table 3.0-42: Number and Location of Activities Including Biodegradable Polymers During 

Testing

Activity Area

Maximum Annual # of

Activities 5-Year # of Activities

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 1 Alternative 2

Biodegradable Polymer

Virginia Capes Range Complex 30 30 150 150

Jacksonville Range Complex 30 30 150 150

Key West Range Complex 30 30 150 150

Gulf of Mexico Range Complex 30 30 150 150

NUWC Newport Testing Range 30 30 150 150

Total 150 150 750 750

Notes: NUWC = Naval Undersea Warfare Center

3.0.3.3.6 Ingestion Stressors

This section describes the ingestion stressors introduced into the water through naval training and 

testing and the relative magnitude and location of these activities in order to provide the basis for 

analysis of potential impacts on resources in the remainder of Chapter 3 (Affected Environment and 

Environmental Consequences). To assess the ingestion risk of materials expended during training and 

testing, the Navy examined the characteristics of these items (such as buoyancy and size) for their 

potential to be ingested by marine animals in the Study Area. The Navy expends the following types of 

materials that could become ingestion stressors during training and testing in the Study Area: 

non-explosive practice munitions (small- and medium-caliber), fragments from high-explosives, 

fragments from targets, chaff, flare casings (including plastic end caps and pistons), and 

decelerators/parachutes. Other military expended materials such as targets, large-caliber projectiles, 

intact training and testing bombs, guidance wires, 55-gallon drums, sonobuoy tubes, and marine 

markers are too large for marine organisms to consume and are eliminated from further discussion

regarding ingestion. 

Solid metal materials, such as small-caliber projectiles or fragments from high-explosive munitions, sink 

rapidly to the seafloor. Lighter plastic items may be caught in currents and gyres or entangled in floating 

Sargassum and could remain in the water column for hours to weeks or indefinitely before sinking 

(e.g., plastic end caps [from chaff cartridges] or plastic pistons [from flare cartridges]).

3.0.3.3.6.1 Non-Explosive Practice Munitions

Only small- or medium-caliber projectiles and flechettes (small metal darts) from some non-explosive 

rockets would be small enough for marine animals to ingest. This would vary depending on the resource 

and will be discussed in more detail within each resource section. Small- and medium-caliber projectiles 

include all sizes up to and including those that are 2.25 in. in diameter. Flechettes from some nonexplosive rockets are approximately 2 in. in length. Each non-explosive flechette rocket contains 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.0-106

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

approximately 1,180 individual flechettes that are released. These solid metal materials would quickly 

move through the water column and settle to the seafloor. Table 3.0-24, Table 3.0-25, and Table 3.0-26

show the number and location of non-explosive practice munitions used during proposed training and 

testing activities.

3.0.3.3.6.2 Fragments from High-Explosive Munitions

Many different types of high-explosive munitions can result in fragments that are expended at sea 

during training and testing activities.

Types of high-explosive munitions that can result in fragments include torpedoes, neutralizers, 

grenades, projectiles, missiles, rockets, buoys, sonobuoys, anti-torpedo countermeasures, mines, and 

bombs. Fragments would result from fractures in the munitions casing and would vary in size depending 

on the size of the net explosive weight and munition type; typical sizes of fragments are unknown. These 

solid metal materials would quickly sink through the water column and settle to the seafloor. Table 

3.0-27 and Table 3.0-28 show the number and location of explosives used during training and testing 

activities that may result in fragments.

3.0.3.3.6.3 Military Expended Materials Other Than Munitions

Several different types of materials other than munitions are expended at sea during training and 

testing activities.

Target-Related Materials

At-sea targets are usually remotely operated airborne, surface, or subsurface traveling units, many of 

which are designed to be recovered for reuse. However, if they are used during activities that use highexplosives then they may result in fragments and ultimate loss of the target. Expendable targets that 

may result in fragments would include air-launched decoys, surface targets (e.g., marine markers, 

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 are included in the 

analyses of ingestion potential.

There are additional types of targets discussed previously, but only surface targets, air targets, ship 

hulks, and mine shapes would be expected to result in fragments when high-explosive munitions are 

used. Table 3.0-43 and Table 3.0-44 show the number and location of targets used during proposed 

training and testing activities that may result in fragments.

Table 3.0-43: Number and Location of Targets Expended During Training Activities That May 

Result in Fragments

Activity Area

Maximum Annual # of Targets 5-Year # of Targets

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 1 Alternative 2

Air Targets

Northeast Range Complexes 2 2 12 12

Virginia Capes Range Complex 99 99 497 497

Navy Cherry Point Range Complex 80 80 398 398

Jacksonville Range Complex 68 68 339 339

Key West Range Complex 11 11 55 55
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.0-107 

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Table 3.0-43: Number and Location of Targets Expended During Training Activities That May 

Result in Fragments (continued)

Activity Area

Maximum Annual # of Targets 5-Year # of Targets

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 1 Alternative 2

Gulf of Mexico Range Complex 2 2 12 12

Total 262 262 1,313 1,313

Surface Targets

Northeast Range Complexes 20 20 100 100

Virginia Capes Range Complex 4,582 4,582 22,908 22,908

Navy Cherry Point Range Complex 1,321 1,321 6,604 6,604

Jacksonville Range Complex 3,091 3,091 15,453 15,453

Gulf of Mexico Range Complex 336 336 1,682 1,682

Other AFTT Areas 200 200 980 980

Total 9,550 9,550 47,727 47,727

Mine Shapes

Virginia Capes Range Complex 221 221 1,105 1,105

Navy Cherry Point Range Complex 78 78 390 390

Jacksonville Range Complex 78 78 390 390

Key West Range Complex 2 2 8 8

Gulf of Mexico Range Complex 93 93 466 466

Total 472 472 2,359 2,359

Notes: AFTT = Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing

Table 3.0-44: Number and Location of Targets Expended During Testing Activities That May 

Result in Fragments

Activity Area

Maximum Annual # of Targets 5-Year # of Targets

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 1 Alternative 2

Air Targets

Northeast Range Complexes 14 14 69 69

Virginia Capes Range Complex 583 583 2,916 2,916

Navy Cherry Point Range Complex 6 6 29 29

Jacksonville Range Complex 168 168 842 842

Key West Range Complex 13 13 63 63

Gulf of Mexico Range Complex 25 25 125 125

Total 809 809 4,044 4,044

Surface Targets

Northeast Range Complexes 173 173 863 863

Virginia Capes Range Complex 984 984 4,778 4,924

Navy Cherry Point Range Complex 172 172 858 858

Jacksonville Range Complex 545 545 2,673 2,824

Key West Range Complex 180 180 900 900
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.0-108

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Table 3.0-44: Number and Location of Targets Expended During Testing Activities That May 

Result in Fragments (continued)

Activity Area

Maximum Annual # of Targets 5-Year # of Targets

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 1 Alternative 2

Gulf of Mexico Range Complex 250 259 1,222 1,252

NUWC Newport Testing Range 934 934 4,671 4,671

SFOMF 56 56 282 282

Total 3,294 3,303 16,247 16,574

Mine Shapes

Virginia Capes Range Complex 127 127 536 636

Jacksonville Range Complex 122 122 610 610

Gulf of Mexico Range Complex 232 232 1,158 1,158

SFOMF 40 40 200 200

NSWC Panama City Testing Range 370 370 1,815 1,850

Total 891 891 4,319 4,454

Notes: AFTT = Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing; NUWC = Naval Undersea Warfare Center; SFOMF = South Florida 

Ocean Measurement Facility; NSWC = Naval Surface Warfare Center; SINKEX = Sinking Exercise

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. Chaff is composed of an aluminum alloy coating on glass 

fibers of silicon dioxide (U.S. Air Force, 1997). Chaff is released or dispensed in cartridges or projectiles 

that contain millions of fibers. When deployed, a diffuse cloud of fibers is formed that is undetectable to 

the human eye. Chaff is a very light material, similar to fine human hair. It can remain suspended in air 

anywhere from 10 minutes to 10 hours and can travel considerable distances from its release point, 

depending on prevailing atmospheric conditions (Arfsten et al., 2002; U.S. Air Force, 1997). Doppler 

radar has tracked chaff plumes containing approximately 900 g of chaff drifting 200 mi. from the point 

of release, with the plume covering greater than 400 mi.3

 (Arfsten et al., 2002). 

The chaff concentrations that marine animals could be exposed to following the release of multiple 

cartridges (e.g., following a single day of training) is difficult to accurately estimate because it depends 

on several variable factors. First, specific release points are not recorded and tend to be random, and

chaff dispersion in air depends on prevailing atmospheric conditions. After falling from the air, chaff 

fibers would be expected to float on the sea surface for some period, depending on wave and wind 

action. The fibers would be dispersed farther by sea currents as they float and slowly sink toward the 

bottom. Chaff concentrations in benthic habitats following the release of a single cartridge would be 

lower than the values noted in this section, based on dispersion by currents and the dilution capacity of 

the ocean.

Several literature reviews and controlled experiments indicate that chaff poses little risk to organisms, 

except at concentrations substantially higher than those that could reasonably occur from military 

training (Arfsten et al., 2002; U.S. Air Force, 1997; U.S. Department of the Navy, 1999). Nonetheless, 

some marine animal species within the Study Area could be exposed to chaff through direct body 

contact, inhalation, and ingestion. Chemical alteration of water and sediment from decomposing chaff 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.0-109

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

fibers is not expected to occur. Based on the dispersion characteristics of chaff, it is likely that marine 

animals would occasionally come in direct contact with chaff fibers while either at the water’s surface or 

while submerged, but such contact would be inconsequential. Because of the flexibility and softness of 

chaff, external contact would not be expected to impact most wildlife (U.S. Air Force, 1997) and the 

fibers would quickly wash off shortly after contact. Given the properties of chaff, skin irritation is not 

expected to be a problem (U.S. Air Force, 1997). The potential exists for marine animals to inhale chaff 

fibers if they are at the surface while chaff is airborne. Arfsten et al. (2002), (U.S. Department of the 

Navy, 1999), and U.S. Air Force (1997) reviewed the potential impacts of chaff inhalation on humans, 

livestock, and other animals and concluded that the fibers are too large to be inhaled into the lungs. The 

fibers were predicted to be deposited in the nose, mouth, or trachea and either swallowed or expelled.

In laboratory studies conducted by the University of Delaware (U.S. Department of the Navy, 1999), blue 

crabs and killifish were fed a food-chaff mixture daily for several weeks, and no significant mortality was 

observed at the highest exposure treatment. Similar results were found when chaff was added directly 

to exposure chambers containing filter-feeding menhaden. Histological examination indicated no 

damage from chaff exposures. A study on cow calves that were fed chaff found no evidence of digestive 

disturbance or other clinical symptoms (U.S. Air Force, 1997). 

Chaff cartridge plastic end caps and pistons would also be released into the marine environment, where 

they would persist for long periods and could be ingested by marine animals. Chaff end caps and pistons 

sink in saltwater (Spargo, 2007). 

Table 3.0-32 and Table 3.0-34 show the number and location of chaff cartridges, chaff canisters, and 

chaff components used during training and testing activities.

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. The flare device consists of a cylindrical cartridge approximately 1.4 in. in 

diameter and 5.8 in. in length. Flares are designed to burn completely. The only material that would 

enter the water would be a small, round, plastic compression pad or piston (0.45 to 4.1 g depending on 

flare type). The flare pads and pistons float in sea water. 

An extensive literature review and controlled experiments conducted by the U.S. Air Force revealed that 

self-protection flare use poses little risk to the environment or animals (U.S. Air Force, 1997). 

Table 3.0-32, Table 3.0-33, and Table 3.0-34 show the number and location of flares and flare 

components expended during training and testing activities. 

Decelerators/Parachutes 

Decelerators/parachutes are expended with the use of sonobuoys, lightweight torpedoes, and 

illumination flares. Only the small-size decelerators/parachutes expended with sonobuoys and 

lightweight torpedoes pose an ingestion risk to marine life. See Section 3.0.3.3.5.2 

(Decelerators/Parachutes) above for a complete description. 

Table 3.0-32 and Table 3.0-34 show the number and location of small-size decelerators/parachutes 

expended during proposed training and testing activities.
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.0-110

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

3.0.3.4 Resource-Specific Impacts Analysis for Individual Stressors

The direct and indirect impacts of each stressor are analyzed in each resource section for which there 

may be an impact. Quantitative methods were used to the extent possible, but data limitations required 

the use of qualitative methods for most stressor/resource interactions. Resource-specific methods are 

described in sections of Chapter 3 (Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences), where 

applicable. While specific methods used to analyze the impacts of individual stressors varied by 

resource, the following generalized approach was used for all stressor/resource interactions: 

• The frequency, duration, and spatial extent of exposure to stressors were analyzed for each 

resource. The frequency of exposure to stressors or frequency of a proposed activity was 

characterized as intermittent or continuous, and was quantified in terms of number per unit of 

time when possible. Duration of exposure was expressed as short or long term and was 

quantified in units of time (e.g., seconds, minutes, and hours) when possible. The spatial extent 

of exposure was generally characterized as widespread or localized, and the stressor footprint or 

area (e.g., square feet, square nautical miles) was quantified when possible.

• An analysis was conducted to determine whether and how resources are likely to respond to 

stressor exposure or be altered by stressor exposure based upon available scientific knowledge. 

This step included reviewing available scientific literature and empirical data. For many 

stressor/resource interactions, a range of likely responses or endpoints was identified. For 

example, exposure of an organism to sound produced by an underwater explosion could result 

in no response, a physiological response such as increased heart rate, a behavioral response 

such as being startled, or injury.

• The information obtained was used to analyze the likely impacts of individual stressors on a 

resource and to characterize the type, duration, and intensity (severity) of impacts. The type of 

impact was generally defined as beneficial or adverse and was further defined as a specific 

endpoint (e.g., change in behavior, mortality, change in concentration, loss of habitat, loss of 

fishing time). When possible, the endpoint was quantified. The duration of an impact was 

generally characterized as short term (e.g., minutes, days, weeks, months, depending on the 

resource), long-term (e.g., months, years, decades, depending on the resource), or permanent. 

The intensity of an impact was then determined. For biological resources, the analysis started 

with individual organisms and their habitats, and then addressed populations, species, 

communities, and representative ecosystem characteristics, as appropriate.

3.0.3.5 Resource-Specific Impacts Analysis for Multiple Stressors

The stressors associated with the proposed training and testing activities could affect the environment 

individually or in combination. The impacts of multiple stressors may be different when considered 

collectively rather than individually. Therefore, following the resource-specific impacts analysis for 

individual stressors, the combined impacts of all stressors were analyzed for that resource. This step 

determines the overall impacts of the alternatives on each resource, and it considers the potential for 

impacts that are additive (where the combined impacts on the resource are equal to the sum of the 

individual impacts), synergistic (where impacts combine in such a way as to amplify the effect on the 

resource), and antagonistic (where impacts will cancel each other out or reduce a portion of the effect 

on the resource). This analysis helps inform the cumulative impacts analysis and make overall impact 

conclusions for each resource.
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.0-111

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Evaluating the combined impacts of multiple stressors can be complex, especially when the impacts 

associated with a stressor are hard to measure. Therefore, some general assumptions were used to help 

determine the potential for individual stressors to contribute to combined impacts. For this analysis, 

combined impacts were considered more likely to occur in the following situations:

• Stressors co-occur in time and space, causing a resource to be simultaneously affected by more 

than one stressor.

• A resource is repeatedly affected by multiple stressors or is re-exposed before fully recovering 

from a previous exposure.

• The impacts of individual stressors are permanent or long-term (years or decades) versus short

term (minutes, days, or months).

• The intensity of the impacts from individual stressors contributes to a combined overall adverse 

impact.

The resource-specific impacts analysis for multiple stressors included the following steps:

• Information obtained from the analysis of individual stressors was used to develop a conceptual 

model to predict the combined impacts of all stressors on each resource. This conceptual model 

incorporated factors such as the co-occurrence of stressors in space and time; the impacts or 

assessment endpoints of individual stressors (e.g., mortality, injury, changes in animal behavior 

or physiology, habitat alteration, or changes in human use); and the duration and intensity of 

the impacts of individual stressors.

• To the extent possible, additive impacts on a given resource were considered by summing the 

impacts of individual stressors. This summation was only possible for stressors with identical and 

quantifiable assessment endpoints. For example, if one stressor disturbed 0.25 square nautical 

miles (NM2

) of benthic habitat, a second stressor disturbed 0.5 NM2, and all other stressors did 

not disturb benthic habitat, then the total benthic habitat disturbed would be 0.75 NM2

. For 

stressors with identical but not quantifiable assessment endpoints, available scientific 

knowledge, best professional judgment, and the general assumptions outlined above were used 

to evaluate potential additive impacts.

• For stressors with differing impacts and assessment endpoints, the potential for additive, 

synergistic, and antagonistic effects were evaluated based on available scientific knowledge, 

professional judgment, and the general assumptions outlined above.

A cumulative impact is the impact on the environment that results when the incremental impact of an 

action is added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. The cumulative 

impacts analysis (Chapter 4, Cumulative Impacts) considers other actions regardless of what agency 

(federal or nonfederal) or person undertakes the actions. Cumulative impacts can result from

individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time (40 Code of 

Federal Regulations part 1508.7). The goal of the analysis is to provide the decision makers with 

information relevant to reasonably foresee potentially significant impacts. See Chapter 4 (Cumulative 

Impacts) for the specific approach used for determining cumulative impacts.

3.0.3.6 Biological Resource Methods

The analysis of impacts on biological resources focused on the likelihood of encountering the stressor, 

the primary stimulus, response, and recovery of individual organisms. Where appropriate, the potential 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.0-112

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

of a biological resource to overlap with a stressor was analyzed with consideration given to the specific 

geographic area (large marine ecosystems, open ocean areas, range complexes, OPAREAs, and other 

training and testing areas) in which the overlap could occur. Additionally, the differential impacts of 

training versus testing activities that introduce stressors to the resource were considered.

For each of the non-biological resources considered in this EIS/OEIS, the methods are unique to each 

specific resource and are therefore described in each resource section. For Air Quality see Section 

3.1.1.3 (Approach to Analysis), for Sediments and Water Quality see Section 3.2.1.2 (Methods), for 

Cultural Resources see Section 3.10.1.3 (Methods), for Socioeconomics see Section 3.11.1 (Introduction 

and Methods), and for Public Health and Safety see the Methods discussion under Section 3.12.1

(Introduction).

3.0.3.6.1 Conceptual Framework for Assessing Effects from Acoustic and Explosive 

Activities

This conceptual framework describes the potential effects from exposure to acoustic and explosive 

activities and the accompanying short-term costs to the animal (e.g., expended energy or missed 

feeding opportunity). It then outlines the conditions that may lead to long-term consequences for the 

individual if the animal cannot fully recover from the short-term costs and how these in turn may affect 

the population. Within each biological resource section (e.g., marine mammals, birds and bats, and 

fishes) the detailed methods to predict effects on specific taxa are derived from this conceptual 

framework. 

An animal is considered “exposed” to a sound if the received sound level at the animal’s location is 

above the background ambient noise level within a similar frequency band. A variety of effects may 

result from exposure to acoustic and explosive activities. 

The categories of potential effects are: 

• Injury and other non-auditory injury – Injury to organs or tissues of an animal.

• Hearing loss – A noise-induced decrease in hearing sensitivity which can be either temporary or 

permanent and may be limited to a narrow frequency range of hearing.

• Masking – When the perception of a biologically important sound (i.e., signal) is interfered with by a 

second sound (i.e., noise).

• Physiological stress – An adaptive process that helps an animal cope with changing conditions; 

although, too much stress can result in physiological problems.

• Behavioral response – A reaction ranging from very minor and brief changes in attentional focus, 

changes in biologically important behaviors, and avoidance of a sound source or area, to 

aggression or prolonged flight.

Figure 3.0-15 is a flowchart that diagrams the process used to evaluate the potential effects to marine 

animals exposed to sound-producing activities. The shape and color of each box on the flowchart 

represent either a decision point in the analysis (green diamonds); specific processes such as responses, 

costs, or recovery (blue rectangles); external factors to consider (purple parallelograms); and final 

outcomes for the individual or population (orange ovals and rectangles). Each box is labeled for 

reference throughout the following sections. For simplicity, sound is used here to include not only sound 

waves but also blast waves generated from explosive sources. Box A1, the Sound-Producing Activity, is 

the source of this stimuli and therefore the starting point in the analysis. 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.0-113

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

The first step in predicting whether an activity is capable of affecting a marine animal is to define the 

stimuli experienced by the animal. The stimuli include the overall level of activity, the surrounding 

acoustical environment, and characteristics of the sound when it reaches the animal. 

Sounds emitted from a sound-producing activity (Box A1) travel through the environment to create a 

spatially variable sound field. The received sound at the animal (Box A2) determines the range of 

possible effects. The received sound can be evaluated in several ways, including number of times the 

sound is experienced (repetitive exposures), total received energy, or highest sound pressure level 

experienced. Sounds that are higher than the ambient noise level and within an animal’s hearing 

sensitivity range (Box A3) have the potential to cause effects. There can be any number of individual 

sound sources in a given activity, each with its own unique characteristics. For example, a Navy training 

exercise may involve several ships and aircraft using several types of sonar. Environmental factors such 

as temperature and bottom type impact how sound spreads and attenuates through the environment. 

Additionally, independent of the sounds, the overall level of activity and the number and movement of 

sound sources are important to help predict the probable reactions. 

The magnitude of the responses is based on the characteristics of the acoustic stimuli and the 

characteristics of the animal (species, susceptibility, life history stage, size, and past experiences). Very 

high exposure levels close to explosives have the potential to cause injury. High-level, long-duration, or 

repetitive exposures may potentially cause some hearing loss. All perceived sounds may lead to 

behavioral responses, physiological stress, and masking. Many sounds, including sounds that are not 

detectable by the animal, could have no effect (Box A4).

3.0.3.6.1.1 Injury

Injury (Box B1) refers to the direct injury of tissues and organs by shock or pressure waves impinging 

upon or traveling through an animal's body. Marine animals are well adapted to large, but relatively 

slow, hydrostatic pressures changes that occur with changing depth. However, injury may result from 

exposure to rapid pressure changes, such that the tissues do not have time to adequately adjust.

Therefore, injury is normally limited to relatively close ranges from explosions. Injury can be mild and 

fully recoverable or, in some cases, lead to mortality.

Injury includes both auditory and non-auditory injury. Auditory injury is the direct mechanical injury to 

hearing-related structures, including tympanic membrane rupture, disarticulation of the middle ear 

ossicles, and injury to the inner ear structures such as the organ of Corti and the associated hair cells. 

Auditory injury differs from auditory fatigue in that the latter involves the overstimulation of the 

auditory system at levels below those capable of causing direct mechanical damage. Auditory injury is 

always injurious but can be temporary. One of the most common consequences of auditory injury is 

hearing loss.
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.0-114

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

This page intentionally left blank.
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.0-115

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Figure 3.0-15: Flow Chart of the Evaluation Process of Sound-Producing Activities
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.0-116

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

This page intentionally left blank.
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.0-117

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Non-auditory injury can include hemorrhaging of small blood vessels and the rupture of gas-containing 

tissues such as the lung, swim bladder, or gastrointestinal tract. After the ear (or other sound-sensing 

organs), these are usually the organs and tissues most sensitive to explosive injury. An animal’s size and 

anatomy are important in determining its susceptibility to non-auditory injury (Box B2). Larger size 

indicates more tissue to protect vital organs. Therefore, larger animals should be less susceptible to 

injury than smaller animals. In some cases, acoustic resonance of a structure may enhance the 

vibrations resulting from noise exposure and result in an increased susceptibility to injury. The size, 

geometry, and material composition of a structure determine the frequency at which the object will 

resonate. Because most biological tissues are heavily damped, the increase in susceptibility from 

resonance is limited. 

Vascular and tissue bubble formation resulting from sound exposure is a hypothesized mechanism of 

injury to breath-holding marine animals. Bubble formation and growth due to direct sound exposure 

have been hypothesized (Crum & Mao, 1996; Crum et al., 2005); however, the experimental laboratory 

conditions under which these phenomena were observed would not be replicated in the wild. Certain 

dive behaviors by breath-holding animals are predicted to result in conditions of blood nitrogen 

super-saturation, potentially putting an animal at risk for decompression sickness (Fahlman et al., 2014), 

although this phenomena has not been observed (Houser et al., 2009). In addition, animals that spend 

long periods of time at great depths are predicted to have super-saturated tissues that may slowly 

release nitrogen if the animal then spends a long time at the surface (i.e., stranding) (Houser et al., 

2009). 

Injury could increase the animal’s physiological stress (Box B8), which feeds into the stress response 

(Box B7) and also increases the likelihood or severity of a behavioral response. Injury may reduce an 

animal’s ability to secure food by reducing its mobility or the efficiency of its sensory systems, making 

the injured individual less attractive to potential mates, increasing an individual’s chances of contracting 

diseases or falling prey to a predator (Box D2), or increasing an animal's overall physiological stress level 

(Box D10). Severe injury can lead to the death of the individual (Box D1). 

Damaged tissues from mild to moderate injury may heal over time. The predicted recovery of direct 

injury is based on the severity of the injury, availability of resources, and characteristics of the animal. 

The animal may also need to recover from any potential costs due to a decrease in resource gathering 

efficiency and any secondary effects from predators or disease. Severe injuries can lead to reduced 

survivorship (longevity), elevated stress levels, and prolonged alterations in behavior that can reduce an 

animal’s lifetime reproductive success. An animal with decreased energy stores or a lingering injury may 

be less successful at mating for one or more breeding seasons, thereby decreasing the number of 

offspring produced over its lifetime.

3.0.3.6.1.2 Hearing Loss

Hearing loss, also called a noise-induced threshold shift, is possibly the best studied type of effect from 

sound exposures to animals. Hearing loss manifests itself as loss in hearing sensitivity across part of an 

animal’s hearing range, which is dependent upon the specifics of the noise exposure. Hearing loss may 

be either PTS, or TTS. If the threshold shift eventually returns to zero (the animal’s hearing returns to 

pre-exposure value), the threshold shift is a TTS. If the threshold shift does not return to zero but leaves 

some finite amount of threshold shift, then that remaining threshold shift is a PTS. Figure 3.0-16 shows 

one hypothetical threshold shift that completely recovers, a TTS, and one that does not completely 

recover, leaving some PTS.
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.0-118

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Notes: PTS = Permanent Threshold Shift, TS = Threshold Shift, TTS = Temporary Threshold Shift

Figure 3.0-16: Two Hypothetical Threshold Shifts

The characteristics of the received sound stimuli are used and compared to the animal’s hearing 

sensitivity and susceptibility to noise (Box A3) to determine the potential for hearing loss. The 

amplitude, frequency, duration, and temporal pattern of the sound exposure are important parameters 

for predicting the potential for hearing loss over a specific portion of an animal’s hearing range. 

Duration is particularly important because hearing loss increases with prolonged exposure time. Longer 

exposures with lower sound levels can cause more threshold shift than a shorter exposure using the 

same amount of energy overall. The frequency of the sound also plays an important role. Experiments 

show that animals are most susceptible to hearing loss (Box B3) within their most sensitive hearing 

range. Sounds outside of an animal’s audible frequency range do not cause hearing loss. 

The mechanisms responsible for hearing loss may consist of a variety of mechanical and biochemical 

processes in the inner ear, including physical damage or distortion of the tympanic membrane (not 

including tympanic membrane rupture which is considered auditory injury), physical damage or 

distortion of the cochlear hair cells, hair cell death, changes in cochlear blood flow, and swelling of 

cochlear nerve terminals (Henderson et al., 2006; Kujawa & Liberman, 2009). Although the outer hair 

cells are the most prominent target for fatigue effects, severe noise exposures may also result in inner 

hair cell death and loss of auditory nerve fibers (Henderson et al., 2006). 

The relationship between TTS and PTS is complicated and poorly understood, even in humans and 

terrestrial mammals, where numerous studies failed to delineate a clear relationship between the two. 

Relatively small amounts of TTS (e.g., less than 40–50 dB measured two minutes after exposure) will 

recover with no apparent permanent effects; however, terrestrial mammal studies revealed that larger 

amounts of threshold shift can result in permanent neural degeneration, despite the hearing thresholds 

returning to normal (Kujawa & Liberman, 2009). The amounts of threshold shift induced by Kujawa and 

Liberman (2009) were described as being “at the limits of reversibility.” It is unknown whether smaller 

amounts of threshold shift can result in similar neural degeneration, or if effects would translate to 

other species such as marine animals. 

Hearing loss can increase an animal’s physiological stress (Box B8), which feeds into the stress response 

(Box B7). Hearing loss may increase the likelihood or severity of a behavioral response and increase an 

animal's overall physiological stress level (Box D10). Hearing loss reduces the distance over which 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.0-119

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

animals can communicate and detect other biologically important sounds (Box D3). Hearing loss could 

also be inconsequential for an animal if the frequency range affected is not critical for that animal to 

hear within, or the hearing loss is of such short duration (e.g., a few minutes) that there are no costs to 

the individual.

Small to moderate amounts of hearing loss may recover over a period of minutes to days, depending on 

the amount of initial threshold shift. Severe noise-induced hearing loss may not fully recover, resulting 

in some amount of PTS. An animal whose hearing does not recover quickly and fully could suffer a 

reduction in lifetime reproductive success. An animal with PTS may be less successful at mating for one 

or more breeding seasons, thereby decreasing the number of offspring it can produce over its lifetime.

3.0.3.6.1.3 Masking

Masking occurs if the noise from an activity interferes with an animal’s ability to detect, understand, or 

recognize biologically relevant sounds of interest (Box B4). In this context noise refers to unwanted or 

unimportant sounds that mask an animal’s ability to hear sounds of interest. Sounds of interest include 

those from conspecifics such as offspring, mates, and competitors; echolocation clicks; sounds from 

predators; natural, abiotic sounds that may aid in navigation; and reverberation, which can give an 

animal information about its location and orientation within the ocean. The probability of masking 

increases as the noise and sound of interest increase in similarity and the masking noise increases in 

level. The frequency, received level, and duty cycle of the noise determines the potential degree of 

auditory masking. Masking only occurs during the sound exposure. 

A behavior decision (either conscious or instinctive) is made by the animal when the animal detects 

increased background noise, or possibly, when the animal recognizes that biologically relevant sounds 

are being masked (Box C1). An animal’s past experiences can be important in determining the behavioral 

response when dealing with masking (Box C4). For example, an animal may modify its vocalizations to 

reduce the effects of masking noise. Other stimuli present in the environment can influence an animal’s 

behavior decision (Box C5) such as the presence of predators, prey, or potential mates. 

An animal may exhibit a passive behavioral response when coping with masking (Box C2). It may simply 

not respond and keep conducting its current natural behavior. An animal may also stop calling until the 

background noise decreases. These passive responses do not present a direct energetic cost to the 

animal; however, masking will continue, depending on the acoustic stimuli. 

An animal may actively compensate for masking (Box C3). An animal can vocalize more loudly to make 

its signal heard over the masking noise. An animal may also shift the frequency of its vocalizations away 

from the frequency of the masking noise. This shift can actually reduce the masking effect for the animal 

and other animals that are listening in the area. 

If masking impairs an animal’s ability to hear biologically important sounds (Box D3) it could reduce an 

animal's ability to communicate with conspecifics or reduce opportunities to detect or attract more 

distant mates, gain information about their physical environment, or navigate. An animal that modifies 

its vocalization in response to masking could also incur a cost (Box D4). Modifying vocalizations may cost 

the animal energy, interfere with the behavioral function of a call, or reduce a signaler’s apparent 

quality as a mating partner. For example, songbirds that shift their calls up an octave to compensate for 

increased background noise attract fewer or less-desirable mates, and many terrestrial species advertise 

body size and quality with low-frequency vocalizations (Slabbekoorn & Ripmeester, 2007). Masking may 

also lead to no measurable costs for an animal. Masking could be of short duration or intermittent such 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.0-120

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

that biologically important sounds that are continuous or repeated are received by the animal between 

masking noise. 

Masking only occurs when the sound source is operating; therefore, direct masking effects stop 

immediately upon cessation of the sound-producing activity. Masking could have long-term 

consequences for individuals if the activity was continuous or occurred frequently enough.

3.0.3.6.1.4 Physiological Stress

Marine animals naturally experience physiological stress as part of their normal life histories. The 

physiological response to a stressor, often termed the stress response, is an adaptive process that helps 

an animal cope with changing external and internal environmental conditions. Sound-producing 

activities have the potential to cause additional stress. However, too much of a stress response can be 

harmful to an animal, resulting in physiological dysfunction. 

If a sound is detected (i.e., heard or sensed) by an animal, a stress response can occur (Box B7). The 

severity of the stress response depends on the received sound level at the animal (Box A2), the details of 

the sound-producing activity (Box A1), and the animal’s life history stage (e.g., juvenile or adult, 

breeding or feeding season), and past experience with the stimuli (Box B5). An animal’s life history stage 

is an important factor to consider when predicting whether a stress response is likely (Box B5). An 

animal’s life history stage includes its level of physical maturity (i.e., larva, infant, juvenile, sexually 

mature adult) and the primary activity in which it is engaged such as mating, feeding, or rearing/caring 

for young. Prior experience with a stressor may be of particular importance because repeated 

experience with a stressor may dull the stress response via acclimation (St. Aubin & Dierauf, 2001) or 

increase the response via sensitization. Additionally, if an animal suffers injury or hearing loss, a 

physiological stress response will occur (Box B8).

The generalized stress response is characterized by a release of hormones (Reeder & Kramer, 2005) and 

other chemicals (e.g., stress markers) such as reactive oxidative compounds associated with 

noise-induced hearing loss (Henderson et al., 2006). Stress hormones include norepinephrine and 

epinephrine (i.e., the catecholamines), which produce elevations in the heart and respiration rate, 

increase awareness, and increase the availability of glucose and lipid for energy. Other stress hormones 

are the glucocorticoid steroid hormones cortisol and aldosterone, which are classically used as an 

indicator of a stress response and to characterize the magnitude of the stress response (Hennessy et al., 

1979). 

An acute stress response is traditionally considered part of the startle response and is hormonally 

characterized by the release of the catecholamines. Annoyance type reactions may be characterized by 

the release of either or both catecholamines and glucocorticoid hormones. Regardless of the 

physiological changes that make up the stress response, the stress response may contribute to an 

animal’s decision to alter its behavior. 

Elevated stress levels may occur whether or not an animal exhibits a behavioral response (Box D10). 

Even while undergoing a stress response, competing stimuli (e.g., food or mating opportunities) may 

overcome any behavioral response. Regardless of whether the animal displays a behavioral response, 

this tolerated stress could incur a cost to the animal. Reactive oxygen compounds produced during 

normal physiological processes are generally counterbalanced by enzymes and antioxidants; however, 

excess stress can lead to damage of lipids, proteins, and nucleic acids at the cellular level (Berlett & 

Stadtman, 1997; Sies, 1997; Touyz, 2004). 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.0-121

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Frequent physiological stress responses may accumulate over time increasing an animal's chronic stress 

level. Each component of the stress response is variable in time, and stress hormones return to baseline 

levels at different rates. Elevated chronic stress levels are usually a result of a prolonged or repeated 

disturbance. Chronic elevations in the stress levels (e.g., cortisol levels) may produce long-term health 

consequences that can reduce lifetime reproductive success. 

3.0.3.6.1.5 Behavioral Reactions

Behavioral responses fall into two major categories: alterations in natural behavior patterns and 

avoidance. These types of reactions are not mutually exclusive, and many overall reactions may be 

combinations of behaviors or a sequence of behaviors. Severity of behavioral reactions can vary 

drastically between minor and brief reorientations of the animal to investigate the sound, to severe 

reactions such as aggression or prolonged flight. The type and severity of the behavioral response will 

determine the cost to the animal. The total number of vehicles and platforms involved, the size of the 

activity area, the distance between the animal and activity, and the duration of the activity are 

important considerations when predicting the initial behavioral responses.

A physiological stress response (Box B7) such as an annoyance or startle reaction, or cueing or alerting 

(Box B6) may cause an animal to make a behavior decision (Box C6). Any exposure that produces an 

injury or hearing loss is also assumed to produce a stress response (Box B7) and increase the severity or 

likelihood of a behavioral reaction. Both an animal's experience (Box C4) and competing and reinforcing 

stimuli (Box C5) can affect an animal's behavior decision. The decision can result in three general types 

of behavioral reactions: no response (Box C9), area avoidance (Box C8), or alteration of a natural 

behavior (Box C7).

An animal’s past experiences can be important in determining what behavior decision it may make when 

dealing with a stress response (Box C4). Habituation is the process by which an animal learns to ignore 

or tolerate stimuli over some period and return to a normal behavior pattern, perhaps after being 

exposed to the stimuli with no negative consequences. Sensitization is when an animal becomes more 

sensitive to a set of stimuli over time, perhaps as a result of a past, negative experience that could result 

in a stronger behavioral response. 

Other stimuli (Box C5) present in the environment can influence an animal’s behavioral response. These 

stimuli may be conspecifics or predators in the area or the drive to engage in a natural behavior. Other 

stimuli can also reinforce the behavioral response caused by acoustic stimuli. For example, the 

awareness of a predator in the area coupled with the sound-producing activity may elicit a stronger 

reaction than the activity alone would have. 

An animal may reorient, become more vigilant, or investigate if it detects a sound-producing activity 

(Box C7). These behaviors all require the animal to divert attention and resources, therefore slowing or 

stopping their presumably beneficial natural behavior. This can be a very brief diversion, or an animal 

may not resume its natural behaviors until after the activity has concluded. An animal may choose to 

leave or avoid an area where a sound-producing activity is taking place (Box C8). A more severe form of 

this comes in the form of flight or evasion. Avoidance of an area can help the animal avoid further 

effects by avoiding or reducing further exposure. An animal may also choose not to respond to a soundproducing activity (Box C9). 

An animal that alters its natural behavior in response to stress or an auditory cue may slow or cease its 

natural behavior and instead expend energy reacting to the sound-producing activity (Box D5). Natural 

behaviors include feeding, breeding, sheltering, and migrating. The cost of feeding disruptions depends 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.0-122

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

on the energetic requirements of individuals and the potential amount of food missed during the 

disruption. Alteration in breeding behavior can result in delaying reproduction. The costs of a brief 

interruption to migrating or sheltering are less clear. 

An animal that avoids a sound-producing activity may expend additional energy moving around the 

area, be displaced to poorer resources, miss potential mates, or have social interactions affected 

(Box D6). The amount of energy expended depends on the severity of the behavioral response. Missing 

potential mates can result in delaying reproduction. Groups could be separated during a severe 

behavioral response such as flight and offspring that depend on their parents may die if they are 

permanently separated. Splitting up an animal group can result in a reduced group size, which can have 

secondary effects on individual foraging success and susceptibility to predators.

Some severe behavioral reactions can lead to stranding (Box D7) or secondary injury (Box D8). Animals 

that take prolonged flight, a severe avoidance reaction, may injure themselves or strand in an 

environment for which they are not adapted. Some injury is likely to occur to an animal that strands 

(Box D8). Trauma can reduce the animal’s ability to secure food and mates, and increase the animal’s 

susceptibility to predation and disease (Box D2). An animal that strands and does not return to a 

hospitable environment may die (Box D9). 

3.0.3.6.1.6 Long-Term Consequences

The potential long-term consequences from behavioral responses are difficult to discern. Animals 

displaced from their normal habitat due to an avoidance reaction may return over time and resume 

their natural behaviors. This is likely to depend upon the severity of the reaction and how often the 

activity is repeated in the area. In areas of repeated and frequent acoustic disturbance, some animals 

may habituate to the new baseline; conversely, species that are more sensitive may not return, or 

return but not resume use of the habitat in the same manner. For example, an animal may return to an 

area to feed but no longer rest in that area. Long-term abandonment or a change in the utilization of an 

area by enough individuals can change the distribution of the population. Frequent disruptions to 

natural behavior patterns may not allow an animal to recover between exposures, which increase the 

probability of causing long-term consequences to individuals.

The magnitude and type of effect and the speed and completeness of recovery (i.e., return to baseline 

conditions) must be considered in predicting long-term consequences to the individual animal (Box E4). 

The predicted recovery of the animal (Box E1) is based on the cost to the animal from any reactions, 

behavioral or physiological. Available resources fluctuate by season, location, and year and can play a 

major role in an animal’s rate of recovery (Box E2). Recovery can occur more quickly if plentiful food 

resources, many potential mates, or refuge or shelter is available. An animal’s health, energy reserves, 

size, life history stage, and resource gathering strategy affect its speed and completeness of recovery 

(Box E3). Animals that are in good health and have abundant energy reserves before an effect takes 

place will likely recover more quickly.

Animals that recover quickly and completely are unlikely to suffer reductions in their health or 

reproductive success, or experience changes in habitat utilization (Box F2). No population-level effects 

would be expected if individual animals do not suffer reductions in their lifetime reproductive success or 

change their habitat utilization (Box G2). Animals that do not recover quickly and fully could suffer 

reductions in their health and lifetime reproductive success; they could be permanently displaced or 

change how they use the environment; or they could die (Box F1). These long-term consequences to the 

individual can lead to consequences for the population (Box G1); although, population dynamics and 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.0-123

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

abundance play a role in determining how many individuals would need to suffer long-term 

consequences before there was an effect on the population.

Long-term consequences to individuals can translate into consequences for populations dependent 

upon population abundance, structure, growth rate, and carry capacity. Carrying capacity describes the 

theoretical maximum number of animals of a particular species that the environment can support. 

When a population nears its carrying capacity, its growth is naturally limited by available resources and 

predator pressure. If one, or a few animals, in a population are removed or gather fewer resources, then 

other animals in the population can take advantage of the freed resources and potentially increase their 

health and lifetime reproductive success. Abundant populations that are near their carrying capacity 

(theoretical maximum abundance) that suffer consequences on a few individuals may not be affected 

overall. Populations that exist well below their carrying capacity may suffer greater consequences from 

any lasting consequences to even a few individuals. Population-level consequences can include a change 

in the population dynamics, a decrease in the growth rate, or a change in geographic distribution.

3.0.3.6.2 Conceptual Framework for Assessing Effects from Energy-Producing Activities

3.0.3.6.2.1 Stimuli

Magnitude of the Energy Stressor 

Regulations do not provide threshold criteria to determine the significance of the potential effects from 

activities that involve the use of varying electromagnetic frequencies or lasers. Many organisms, 

primarily marine vertebrates, have been studied to determine their thresholds for detecting 

electromagnetic fields, as reviewed by Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (2011); however, there are 

no data on predictable responses to exposure above or below detection thresholds. The types of 

electromagnetic fields discussed are those from mine neutralization activities (magnetic influence 

minesweeping). High-energy and low-energy lasers were considered for analysis. Low-energy lasers 

(e.g., targeting systems, detection systems, laser light detection and ranging) do not pose a risk to 

organisms (U.S. Department of the Navy, 2010) and therefore will not be discussed further. Radar was 

also considered for analysis, and also was determined not to pose a risk to biological resources

(Bruderer et al., 1999; Manville, 2016; Wiltschko et al., 2011; Wiltschko & Wiltschko, 2005). 

Location of the Energy Stressor

Evaluation of potential energy exposure risks considered the spatial overlap of the resource occurrence 

and electromagnetic field and high-energy laser use. Wherever appropriate, specific geographic areas of 

potential impact were identified and the relative location of the resource with respect to the source was 

considered. For example, the greatest potential electromagnetic energy exposure is at the source, 

where intensity is greatest and the greatest potential for high energy laser exposure is at the ocean’s 

surface, where high-energy laser intensity is greatest. All light energy, including laser light, entering the 

ocean becomes absorbed and scattered at a rate that is dependent on the frequency of the light. For 

most laser applications, the energy is rapidly reduced as the light penetrates the ocean.

Behavior of the Organism

Evaluation of potential energy exposure risk considered the behavior of the organism, especially where 

the organism lives and feeds (e.g., surface, water column, seafloor). The analysis for electromagnetic 

devices considered those species with the ability to perceive or detect electromagnetic signals. The 

analysis for high-energy lasers and radar particularly considered those species known to occur at or 

above the surface of the ocean.
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.0-124

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

3.0.3.6.2.2 Immediate Response and Costs to the Individual

Many different types of organisms (e.g., some invertebrates, fishes, sea turtles, birds, mammals) are 

sensitive to electromagnetic fields (Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, 2011). An organism that 

encounters a disturbance in an electromagnetic field could respond by moving toward the source, 

moving away from it, or not responding at all. The types of electromagnetic devices used in the 

Proposed Action simulate the electromagnetic signature of a vessel passing through the water column, 

so the expected response would be similar to that of vessel movement. However, since there would be 

no actual strike potential, a physiological response would be unlikely in most cases. Recovery of an 

individual from encountering electromagnetic fields would be variable, but since the physiological 

response would likely be minimal, as reviewed by Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (2011), any 

recovery time would also be minimal.

Very little data are available to analyze potential impacts on organisms from exposure to high energy 

lasers. For all but the highest energy lasers, the greatest laser-related concern for marine species is 

damage to an organism’s ability to see. 

3.0.3.6.2.3 Long-Term Consequences to the Individual and Population

Long-term consequences are considered in terms of a resource’s existing population level, growth and 

mortality rates, other stressors on the resource from the Proposed Action, cumulative impacts on the 

resource, and the ability of the population to recover from or adapt to impacts. Impacts of multiple or 

repeated stressors on individuals are cumulative.

3.0.3.6.3 Conceptual Framework for Assessing Effects from Physical Disturbance or 

Strike

3.0.3.6.3.1 Stimuli

Size and Weight of the Objects

To determine the likelihood of a strike and the potential impacts on an organism or habitat that would 

result from a physical strike, the size and weight of the striking object relative to the organism or habitat 

must be considered. For example, most small organisms and early life stages would simply be displaced 

by the movement generated by a large object moving through, or falling into, the water, whereas a 

larger organism could potentially be struck by an object since it may not be displaced by the movement 

of the water. The weight of the object is also a factor that would determine the severity of a strike. A 

strike by a heavy object would be more severe than a strike by a low-weight object (e.g., a 

decelerator/parachute, flare end cap, or chaff canister).

Location and Speed of the Objects

Evaluation of potential physical disturbance or strike risk considered the spatial overlap of the resource 

occurrence and potential striking objects. Analysis of impacts from physical disturbance or strike 

stressors focuses on proposed activities that may cause an organism or habitat to be struck by an object 

moving through the air (e.g., aircraft), water (e.g., vessels, in-water devices, towed devices), or dropped 

into the water (e.g., non-explosive practice munitions and seafloor devices). The area of operation, 

vertical distribution, and density of these items also play central roles in the likelihood of impact. 

Wherever appropriate, specific geographic areas of potential impact are identified. Analysis of potential 

physical disturbance or strike risk also considered the speed of vessels as a measure of intensity. Some 

vessels move slowly, while others are capable of high speeds.
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.0-125

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Buoyancy of the Objects

Evaluation of potential physical disturbance or strike risk in the ocean considered the buoyancy of 

targets or expended materials during operation, which will determine whether the object will be 

encountered at the surface, within the water column, or on the seafloor. 

Behavior of the Organism

Evaluation of potential physical disturbance or strike risk considered where organisms occur and if they 

occur in the same geographic area and vertical distribution as those objects that pose strike risks. 

3.0.3.6.3.2 Immediate Response and Costs to the Individual

Before being struck, some organisms would sense a pressure wave through the water and respond by 

remaining in place, moving away from the object, or moving toward it. An organism displaced a small 

distance by movements from an object falling into the water nearby would likely continue on with no 

response. However, others could be disturbed and may exhibit a generalized stress response. If the 

object actually hit the organism, direct injury in addition to stress may result. The function of the stress 

response in vertebrates is to rapidly raise the blood sugar level to prepare the organism to flee or fight. 

This generally adaptive physiological response can become a liability if the stressor persists and the 

organism cannot return to its baseline physiological state. 

Most organisms would respond to sudden physical approach or contact by darting quickly away from 

the stimulus. Other species may respond by freezing in place or seeking refuge. In any case, the 

individual must stop whatever it was doing and divert its physiological and cognitive attention to 

responding to the stressor. The energy costs of reacting to a stressor depend on the specific situation, 

but in all cases the caloric requirements of stress reactions reduce the amount of energy available to the 

individual for other functions such as predator avoidance, reproduction, growth, and metabolism.

The ability of an organism to return to what it was doing following a physical strike (or near miss 

resulting in a stress response) is a function of fitness, genetic, and environmental factors. Some 

organisms are more tolerant of environmental or human-caused stressors than others and become 

acclimated more easily. Within a species, the rate at which an individual recovers from a physical 

disturbance or strike may be influenced by its age, sex, reproductive state, and general condition. An 

organism that has reacted to a sudden disturbance by swimming at burst speed would tire after some 

time; its blood hormone and sugar levels may not return to normal for 24 hours. During the recovery 

period, the organism may not be able to attain burst speeds and could be more vulnerable to predators. 

If the individual were not able to regain a steady state following exposure to a physical stressor, it may 

suffer depressed immune function and even death. 

3.0.3.6.3.3 Long-Term Consequences to the Population

Long-term consequences are considered in terms of a resource’s existing population level, growth and 

mortality rates, other stressors on the resource from the Proposed Action, cumulative impacts on the 

resource, and the ability of the population to recover from or adapt to impacts. Impacts of multiple or 

repeated stressors on individuals are cumulative. 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.0-126

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

3.0.3.6.4 Conceptual Framework for Assessing Effects from Entanglement

3.0.3.6.4.1 Stimuli 

Physical Properties of the Objects

For an organism to become entangled in military expended materials, the materials must have certain 

properties, such as the ability to form loops and a high breaking strength. Some items could have a 

relatively low breaking strength on their own, but that breaking strength could be increased if multiple 

loops were wrapped around an entangled organism. 

Physical Features of the Resource

The physical makeup of the organism itself is also considered when evaluating the risk of entanglement. 

Some species, by their size or physical features, are more susceptible to entanglement than others. For 

example, more rigid bodies with protruding snouts (e.g., hammerhead shark) or large, rigid fins (e.g., 

humpback whale) would have an increased risk of entanglement when compared to species with 

smoother, streamlined bodies such as lamprey or eels.

Location of the Objects

Evaluation of potential entanglement risk considered the spatial overlap of the resource occurrence and 

military expended materials. Distribution and density of expended items play a central role in the 

likelihood of impact. Wherever appropriate, specific geographic areas of potential impact are identified.

Buoyancy of Objects

Evaluation of potential entanglement risk considered the buoyancy of military expended materials to 

determine whether the object will be encountered within the water column (including the surface) or on 

the seafloor. Less buoyant materials, such as torpedo guidance wires, sink rapidly to the seafloor. More 

buoyant materials include less dense items (e.g., decelerators/parachutes) that are weighted and would 

sink slowly to the seafloor and could be entrained in currents. 

Behavior of the Organism

Evaluation of potential entanglement risk considered the general behavior of the organism, including 

where the organism typically occurs (e.g., surface, water column, seafloor). The analysis particularly 

considered those species known to become entangled in nonmilitary expended materials (e.g., “marine 

debris”) such as fishing lines, nets, rope, and other derelict fishing gear that often entangle marine 

organisms. 

3.0.3.6.4.2 Immediate Response and Costs to the Individual

The potential impacts of entanglement on a given organism depend on the species and size of the 

organism. Species that have protruding snouts, fins, or appendages are more likely to become entangled 

than smooth-bodied organisms. Also, items could get entangled by an organism's mouth, if caught on 

teeth or baleen, with the rest of the item trailing alongside the organism. Materials similar to fishing 

gear, which is designed to entangle an organism, would be expected to have a greater entanglement 

potential than other materials. An entangled organism would likely try to free itself of the entangling 

object and in the process may become even more entangled, possibly leading to a stress response. The 

net result of being entangled by an object could be disruption of the normal behavior, injury due to 

lacerations, and other sublethal or lethal impacts.
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.0-127

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

3.0.3.6.4.3 Long-Term Consequences to the Individual and Population

Consequences of entanglement could range from an organism successfully freeing itself from the object 

or remaining entangled indefinitely, possibly resulting in lacerations and other sublethal or lethal 

impacts. Stress responses or infection from lacerations could lead to latent mortality. The analysis will 

focus on reasonably foreseeable long-term consequences of the direct impact, particularly those that 

could impact the fitness of an individual. Changes in an individual’s growth, survival, annual

reproductive success, or lifetime reproductive success could have population-level impacts if enough 

individuals are impacted. This population-level impact would vary among species and taxonomic groups. 

3.0.3.6.5 Conceptual Framework for Assessing Effects from Ingestion

3.0.3.6.5.1 Stimuli

Size of the Objects

To assess the ingestion risk from military expended materials, this analysis considered the size of the 

object relative to the animal’s ability to swallow it. Some items are too large to be ingested (e.g., 

non-explosive practice bombs and most targets) and impacts from these items are not discussed further. 

However, these items may potentially break down into smaller ingestible pieces over time. Items that 

are of ingestible size when they are introduced into the environment and when they break down are 

carried forward for analysis within each resource section where applicable. 

Location of the Objects

Evaluation of potential ingestion risk considered the spatial overlap of the resource occurrence and 

military expended materials. The distribution and density of expended items play a central role in the 

likelihood of impact. Wherever appropriate, specific geographic areas of potential impact were 

identified.

Buoyancy of the Objects

Evaluation of potential ingestion risk considered the buoyancy of military expended materials to 

determine whether the object will be encountered within the water column (including the surface) or on 

the seafloor. Less buoyant materials, such as solid metal materials (e.g., projectiles or munitions 

fragments), sink rapidly to the seafloor. More buoyant materials include less dense items (e.g., target 

fragments and decelerators/parachutes) that may be caught in currents and gyres or entangled in 

floating Sargassum. These materials can remain in the water column for an indefinite period of time 

before sinking. However, decelerators/parachutes are weighted and would generally sink, unless that 

sinking is suspended, in the scenario described here.

Feeding Behavior

Evaluation of potential ingestion risk considered the feeding behavior of the organism, including where 

(e.g., surface, water column, seafloor) and how (e.g., filter feeding) the organism feeds and what it feeds 

on. The analysis particularly considered those species known to ingest nonfood items (e.g., plastic or 

metal items).

3.0.3.6.5.2 Immediate Response and Costs to the Individual

Potential impacts of ingesting foreign objects on a given organism depend on the species and size of the 

organism. Species that normally eat spiny hard-bodied invertebrates would be expected to have tougher 

mouths and guts than those that normally feed on softer prey. Materials similar in size and shape to the 

normal diet of an organism may be more likely to be ingested without causing harm to the animal; 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.0-128

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

however, some general assumptions were made. Relatively small objects with smooth edges, such as 

shells or small-caliber projectiles, might pass through the digestive tract without causing harm. A small 

sharp-edged item may cause the individual immediate physical distress by tearing or cutting the mouth, 

throat, or stomach. If the object is rigid and large (relative to the individual’s mouth and throat), it may 

block the throat or obstruct digestive processes. An object may even be enclosed by a cyst in the gut 

lining. The net result of ingesting large foreign objects is disruption of the normal feeding behavior, 

which could be sublethal or lethal. 

3.0.3.6.5.3 Long-Term Consequences to the Individual and Population

The consequences of ingesting nonfood items could be nutrient deficiency, bioaccumulation, uptake of 

toxic chemicals, compaction, and mortality. The analysis focused on reasonably foreseeable long-term 

consequences of the direct impact, particularly those that could impact the fitness of an individual. 

Changes in an individual’s growth, survival, annual reproductive success, or lifetime reproductive 

success could have population-level impacts if enough individuals were impacted. This population-level 

impact would vary among species and taxonomic groups.

3.0.3.6.6 Conceptual Framework for Assessing Effects from Secondary Stressors

This conceptual framework describes the potential effects to marine species exposed to stressors 

indirectly through impacts on habitat and prey availability (e.g., sediment or water quality, and physical 

disturbance). Stressors from Navy training and testing activities could pose indirect impacts to marine 

biological resources via indirect effects to habitat or to prey. These include indirect impacts from 

(1) explosives, explosives byproducts and unexploded munitions, (2) metals, (3) chemicals, and 

(4) transmission of disease and parasites. The methods used to determine secondary stressors on 

marine resources are presented below. Once a category of primary stressor has been analyzed to 

determine how a marine biological resource is impacted, an analysis follows of how a secondary stressor 

is potentially impacting a marine resource. After the secondary stressors are identified, a determination 

on the significance of the secondary impact is made. The same criteria to determine the level of 

significance for primary impacts are used for secondary stressors. In addition, it is possible for a 

significant primary impact to produce a beneficial indirect impact. For example, sinking exercises could 

generate a significant impact to the seafloor and surrounding habitats, while causing a potential 

beneficial secondary impact by creating hard-bottom habitat for invertebrates, producing a food source 

for fishes, and creating structural refuges for other biological resources.

3.0.3.6.6.1 Secondary Stressors

Impacts on Habitat

Primary impacts defined in each marine resource section were used to develop a conceptual model to 

predict the potential secondary stressors on each habitat or resource. This conceptual model 

incorporated factors such as the co-occurrence of stressors in space and time, the impacts or 

assessment endpoints of individual stressors (e.g., habitat alteration, changes in animal behavior or 

physiology, injury, mortality, or changes in human use), and the duration and intensity of the impacts of 

individual stressors. For example, a secondary stressor from a munitions strike could be habitat 

degradation. The primary impact or stressor is the actual strike on the habitat such as the seafloor, with 

the introduction of military expended materials, munitions, and fragments inducing further habitat 

degradation.

Secondary stressors can also induce additive impacts on habitats. These types of impacts are also 

determined by summing the individual stressors with identical and quantifiable assessment endpoints. 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.0-129

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

For example, if one stressor disturbed 0.25 NM2 of benthic habitat, a second stressor disturbed 0.5 NM2, 

and all other stressors did not disturb benthic habitat, then the total benthic habitat disturbed would be 

0.75 NM2

. For stressors with identical but not quantifiable assessment endpoints, potential additive 

impacts were qualitatively evaluated using available scientific knowledge and best professional 

judgment. Other habitat impacts such as underwater detonations were assessed by size of charge (net 

explosive weight), charge radius, height above the seafloor, substrate types in the area, and equations 

linking all these factors. The analysis also considered that impacts of underwater explosions vary with

the bottom substrate type and that the secondary impacts would also be variable among substrate 

types.

Impacts on Prey Availability

Assessing the impacts of secondary stressors on prey availability falls into two main areas over different 

temporal scales: the cost to an individual over a relatively short amount of time (short-term) and the 

cost to an individual or population over a longer period of time (long-term).

3.0.3.6.6.2 Immediate Response and Costs to the Individual

After a primary impact was identified, an analysis of secondary stressors on that resource was initiated. 

This analysis examined whether indirect impacts would occur after the initial (primary) impact and at 

what temporal scale that secondary stressor would affect the resource (short-term or long-term). An 

assessment was then made as to whether the secondary stressor would impact an individual or a 

population. For example, an underwater explosion could impact a single resource such as a fish or 

multiple other species in the food web (e.g., prey species such as plankton). The analysis also took into 

consideration whether the primary impact affected more than an individual or single species. For 

example, a prey species that would be directly injured or killed by an explosive blast could draw in 

predators or scavengers from the surrounding waters that would feed on those organisms, and in turn 

could be more directly susceptible to being injured or killed by subsequent explosions. For purposes of 

this analysis, indirect impacts on a resource did not require trophic transfer (e.g., bioaccumulation) in 

order to be observed. It is important to note that the terms “indirect” and “secondary” describe how the 

impact may occur in an organism or its ecosystem and does not imply reduced severity of environmental 

consequences.

3.0.3.6.6.3 Long-Term Consequences to the Individual and Population

Long-term consequences of secondary stressors on an individual or population are often difficult to 

determine. Once a primary impact is identified, the severity of that impact helps to determine the 

temporal scale at which the secondary stressor can be measured. For most marine resources, the 

abundance of prey species near a detonation point would be diminished for a short period (weeks to 

months) before being repopulated by animals from adjacent waters. In some extreme cases, recovery of 

the habitat or prey resources could occur over a relatively long time frame (months to years). It is 

important to note that indirect impacts often differ among resources, spatial, and temporal scales.
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.0-130

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

This page intentionally left blank.
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.0-131

3.0 References

References 

Aquarone, M. C. (2009). XV-51 Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf TAG: LME #6 (The UNEP Large Marine 

Ecosystem Report: A Perspective on Changing Conditions in LMEs of the World’s Regional Seas). 

Nairobi, Kenya: United Nations Environmental Programme.

Aquarone, M. C., and S. Adams. (2009a). XIX-60 Scotian Shelf TAG: LME #8 (The UNEP Large Marine 

Ecosystem Report: A Perspective on Changing Conditions in LMEs of the World’s Regional Seas). 

Nairobi, Kenya: United Nations Environmental Programme.

Aquarone, M. C., and S. Adams. (2009b). XIX-59 Newfoundland-Labrador Shelf (The UNEP Large Marine 

Ecosystem Report: A Perspective on Changing Conditions in LMEs of the World's Regional Seas). 

Nairobi, Kenya: United Nations Environmental Programme.

Aquarone, M. C., and S. Adams. (2009c). XIX-61 Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf TAG: LME #7 (The UNEP 

Large Marine Ecosystem Report: A Perspective on Changing Conditions in LMEs of the World’s 

Regional Seas). Nairobi, Kenya: United Nations Environmental Programme.

Aquarone, M. C., S. Adams, D. Mikkelson, and T. J. Pedersen. (2009). XIX-58 West Greenland Shelf: LME 

#18 (The UNEP Large Marine Ecosystem Report: A Perspective on Changing Conditions in LMEs 

of the World’s Regional Seas). Nairobi, Kenya: United Nations Environmental Programme.

Arfsten, D. P., C. L. Wilson, and B. J. Spargo. (2002). Radio frequency chaff: The effects of its use in 

training on the environment. Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety, 53, 1–11. 

Atkinson, L. P., and T. E. Targett. (1983). Upwelling along the 60-m isobath from Cape Canaveral to Cape 

Hatteras and its relationship to fish distribution. Deep-Sea Research, 30(2A), 221–226. 

Atkinson, L. P., J. A. Yoder, and T. N. Lee. (1984). Review of upwelling off the southeastern United States 

and its effect on continental-shelf nutrient concentrations and primary productivity. Rapports et 

Proces-Verbaux des Reunions Conseil International pour l'Exploration de la Mer, 183, 70–78. 

Baird, R. (2013). Odontocete Cetaceans Around the Main Hawaiian Islands: Habitat Use and Relative 

Abundance from Small-Boat Sighting Surveys. Aquatic Mammals, 39(3), 253–269. 

Baird, R. W., D. L. Webster, S. Watwood, R. Morrissey, B. K. Rone, S. D. Mahaffy, A. M. Gorgone, D. B. 

Anderson, and D. J. Moretti. (2016). Odontocete Studies on the Pacific Missile Range Facility in 

February 2015: Satellite-Tagging, Photo-Identification, and Passive Acoustic Monitoring. Final 

Report. Olympia, WA: HDR Environmental Inc.

Ballard, R. D., and E. Uchupi. (1974). Geology of the Gulf of Maine. The American Association of 

Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, 58(6), 1156–1158. 

Barco, S. G., G. G. Lockhart, K. M. Lagueux, A. R. Knowlton, and W. M. Swingle. (2009). Characterizing 

Large Vessel Traffic in the Chesapeake Bay Ocean Approach Using AIS and RADAR (VAQF 

Scientific Report). Virginia Beach, VA: Virginia Aquarium and Marine Science Center, Research 

and Conservation Division and the New England Aquarium.

Barlow, J. (2016). Cetacean Abundance in the California Current Estimated from Ship-based Line-transect 

Surveys in 1991–2014. (NOAA Administrative Report NMFS-SWFSC-LJ-1601). La Jolla, CA: 

Southwest Fisheries Science Center.

Becker, E. A., K. A. Forney, P. C. Fiedler, J. Barlow, S. J. Chivers, C. A. Edwards, A. M. Moore, and J. V. 

Redfern. (2016). Moving Towards Dynamic Ocean Management: How Well Do Modeled Ocean 

Products Predict Species Distributions? Remote Sensing, 8(2), 149. 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.0-132

3.0 References

Berlett, B. S., and E. R. Stadtman. (1997). Protein oxidation in aging, disease, and oxidative stress. The 

Journal of Biological Chemistry, 272(33), 20313–20316. 

Blanton, B. O., A. Aretxabaleta, F. E. Werner, and H. E. Seim. (2003). Monthly climatology of the 

continental shelf waters of the South Atlantic Bight. Journal of Geophysical Research, 108(C8), 

3264. 

Bost, C. A., C. Cotte, F. Bailleul, Y. Cherel, J. B. Charrassin, C. Guinet, D. G. Ainley, and H. Weimerskirch. 

(2009). The importance of oceanographic fronts to marine birds and mammals of the southern 

oceans. Journal of Marine Systems, 78, 363–376. 

Bousman, W. G., and R. M. Kufeld. (2005). UH-60A Airloads Catalog. Moffett Field, CA: National 

Aeronautics and Space Administration.

Bradford, A. L., K. A. Forney, E. M. Oleson, and J. Barlow. (2017). Abundance estimates of cetaceans 

from a line-transect survey within the U.S. Hawaiian Islands Exclusive Economic Zone. Fishery 

Bulletin, 115(2), 129–142. 

Bruderer, B., D. Peter, and T. Steuri. (1999). Behaviour of migrating birds exposed to x-band radar and a 

bright light beam. The Journal of Experimental Biology, 202, 1015–1022. 

Bureau of Ocean Energy Management. (2011). Effects of EMFs from Undersea Power Cables on 

Elasmobranchs and Other Marine Species. Camarillo, CA: U.S. Department of the Interior, 

Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement, Pacific OCS Region.

Campbell, G. S., L. Thomas, K. Whitaker, A. B. Douglas, J. Calambokidis, and J. A. Hildebrand. (2015). 

Inter-annual and seasonal trends in cetacean distribution, density and abundance off southern 

California. Deep Sea Research Part II: Topical Studies in Oceanography, 112, 143–157. 

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, and R. L. Brownell. (2015). 

U.S. Pacific Marine Mammal Stock Assessments: 2014 (NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFSSWFSC-549). La Jolla, CA: Southwest Fisheries Science Center.

Corning Incorporated. (2005). Corning SMF-28e Optical Fiber Product Information. Corning, NY: Corning 

Incorporated.

Courbis, S., and G. Timmel. (2008). Effects of vessels and swimmers on behavior of Hawaiian spinner 

dolphins (Stenella longirostris) in Kealakeakua, Honaunau, and Kauhako bays, Hawaii. Marine 

Mammal Science, 25(2), 1–11. 

Crum, L., and Y. Mao. (1996). Acoustically enhanced bubble growth at low frequencies and its 

implications for human diver and marine mammal safety. The Journal of the Acoustical Society 

of America, 99(5), 2898–2907. 

Crum, L., M. Bailey, J. Guan, P. Hilmo, S. Kargl, and T. Matula. (2005). Monitoring bubble growth in 

supersaturated blood and tissue ex vivo and the relevance to marine mammal bioeffects. 

Acoustics Research Letters Online, 6(3), 214–220. 

Dengler, M., F. A. Schott, C. Eden, P. Brandt, J. Fischer, and R. J. Zantopp. (2004). Break-up of the Atlantic 

deep western boundary current into eddies at 8o S. Nature, 432, 1018–1020. 

Dickson, R. R., and J. Brown. (1994). The production of North Atlantic deep water: Sources, rates, and 

pathways. Journal of Geophysical Research, 99(C6), 12319–12341. 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.0-133

3.0 References

Duda, A. M., and K. Sherman. (2002). A new imperative for improving management of large marine 

ecosystems. Ocean & Coastal Management, 45(11–12), 797–833. 

Eller, A. I., and R. C. Cavanagh. (2000). Subsonic Aircraft Noise at and Beneath the Ocean Surface: 

Estimation of Risk for Effects on Marine Mammals. McLean, VA: United States Air Force 

Research Laboratory.

Elliot, B. A. (1982). Anticyclonic rings in the Gulf of Mexico. Journal of Physical Oceanography, 12, 1292–

1309. 

Environmental Sciences Group. (2005). Canadian Forces Maritime Experimental and Test Ranges: 

Environmental Assessment Update 2005. Kingston, Canada: Environmental Sciences Group, 

Royal Military College.

Escobar-Briones, E. G., C. Díaz, and P. Legendre. (2008). Meiofaunal community structure of the deepsea Gulf of Mexico: Variability due to the sorting methods. Deep Sea Research Part II, 55(24–26),

2627–2633. 

Fahlman, A., P. L. Tyack, P. J. O. Miller, and P. H. Kvadsheim. (2014). How man-made interference might 

cause gas bubble emboli in deep diving whales. Frontiers in Physiology, 5(13), 1–6. 

Fay, C., M. Bartron, S. Craig, A. Hecht, J. Pruden, R. Saunders, T. Sheehan, and J. Trial. (2006). Status 

Review for Anadromous Atlantic Salmon (Salmo salar) in the United States. Washington, DC: 

National Marine Fisheries Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Fiechter, J., and C. N. K. Mooers. (2003). Simulation of frontal eddies on the East Florida Shelf. 

Geophysical Research Letters, 30(22), 2151. 

Forney, K. A., E. A. Becker, D. G. Foley, J. Barlow, and E. M. Oleson. (2015). Habitat-based models of 

cetacean density and distribution in the central North Pacific. Endangered Species Research, 27, 

1–20. 

Frisk, G. V. (2012). Noiseonomics: The relationship between ambient noise levels in the sea and global 

economic trends. Scientific Reports, 2(437). 

Garrison, T. (2004). Essentials of Oceanography (3rd ed.). Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole-Thomas 

Learning.

Gorsline, D. S. (1963). Bottom Sediments of the Atlantic Shelf and Slope off the Southern United States. 

The Journal of Geology, 71(4), 422–440. 

Gould, W. J. (1985). Physical Oceanography of the Azores Front. Progress in Oceanography, 14(1–4), 

167–190. 

Halkin, D., and T. Rossby. (1985). The structure and transport of the Gulf Stream at 73°W. Journal of 

Physical Oceanography, 15(11), 1439–1452. 

Hamilton, P. (1990). Deep currents in the Gulf of Mexico. Journal of Physical Oceanography, 20(7), 1087–

1104. 

Haug, G. H., and R. Tiedemann. (1998). Effect of the formation of the Isthmus of Panama on Atlantic 

Ocean thermohaline circulation. Nature, 393(6686), 673–676. 

HDR. (2012). Summary Report: Compilation of Visual Survey Effort and Sightings for Marine Species 

Monitoring in the Hawaii Range Complex, 2005–2012 (Prepared for Commander, U.S. Pacific 

Fleet, Pearl Harbor, Hawaii). San Diego, CA: HDR Inc.
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.0-134

3.0 References

Heileman, S., and R. Mahon. (2008). XV-49 Caribbean Sea: TAG: LME #12 (The UNEP Large Marine 

Ecosystem Report: A Perspective on Changing Conditions in LMEs of the World’s Regional Seas). 

Nairobi, Kenya: United Nations Environmental Programme.

Heileman, S., and N. Rabalais. (2008). XV-50 Gulf of Mexico: TAG: LME #5 (The UNEP Large Marine 

Ecosystem Report: A Perspective on Changing Conditions in LMEs of the World’s Regional Seas). 

Nairobi, Kenya: United Nations Environmental Programme.

Henderson, D., E. C. Bielefeld, K. C. Harris, and B. H. Hu. (2006). The role of oxidative stress in noiseinduced hearing loss. Ear & Hearing, 27, 1–19. 

Hennessy, M. B., J. P. Heybach, J. Vernikos, and S. Levine. (1979). Plasma corticosterone concentrations 

sensitively reflect levels of stimulus intensity in the rat. Physiology and Behavior, 22, 821–825. 

Hildebrand, J. (2009). Anthropogenic and natural sources of ambient noise in the ocean. Marine Ecology 

Progress Series, 395, 5–20. 

Houser, D. S., L. A. Dankiewicz-Talmadge, T. K. Stockard, and P. J. Ponganis. (2009). Investigation of the 

potential for vascular bubble formation in a repetitively diving dolphin. The Journal of 

Experimental Biology, 213, 52–62. 

Hunt, R. E., D. J. P. Swift, and H. Palmer. (1977). Constructional shelf topography, Diamond Shoals, North 

Carolina. Geological Society of America Bulletin, 88, 299–311. 

Hunter, E., R. Chant, L. Bowers, S. Glenn, and J. Kohut. (2007). Spatial and temporal variability of diurnal 

wind forcing in the coastal ocean. Geophysical Research Letters, 34(3), L03607. 

Illingworth and Rodkin, Inc. (2015). Underwater and Airborne Acoustic Monitoring for the U.S. Navy 

Elevated Causeway Removal at the JEB Little Creek Naval Station: 10–11 September 2015 (Naval 

Facilities Engineering Command Atlantic under HDR Environmental, Operations and 

Construction, Inc.). Petaluma, CA: Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc.

Illingworth and Rodkin, Inc. (2017). Pile-Driving Noise Measurements at Atlantic Fleet Naval 

Installations: 28 May 2013–28 April 2016. Final Report. Petaluma, CA: HDR.

Jefferson, T. A., M. A. Smultea, and C. E. Bacon. (2014). Southern California Bight marine mammal 

density and abundance from aerial survey, 2008–2013. Journal of Marine Animals and Their 

Ecology, 7(2), 14–30. 

Juliano, M. F., and M. L. G. R. Alves. (2007). The Atlantic subtropical front/current systems of Azores and 

St. Helena. Journal of Physical Oceanography, 37(11), 2573–2598. 

Knebel, H. J. (1984). Sedimentary Processes on the Atlantic Continental Slope of the United States. 

Marine Geology, 61(1), 43–74. 

Kujawa, S. G., and M. C. Liberman. (2009). Adding insult to injury: Cochlear nerve degeneration after 

"temporary" noise-induced hearing loss. The Journal of Neuroscience, 29(45), 14077–14085. 

Lee, T. N., C. Rooth, E. Williams, M. McGowan, A. F. Szmant, and M. E. Clarke. (1992). Influence of 

Florida current, gyres and wind-driven circulation on transport of larvae and recruitment in the 

Florida Keys coral reefs. Continental Shelf Research, 12(7–8), 971–1002. 

Madden, C. J., K. Goodin, R. J. Allee, G. Cicchetti, C. Moses, M. Finkbeiner, and D. Bamford. (2009). 

Coastal and Marine Ecological Classification Standard—Version III. Arlington, VA and Charleston, 

SC: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and NatureServe.
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.0-135

3.0 References

Mann, K. H., and J. R. N. Lazier. (1996). Dynamics of Marine Ecosystems: Biological-Physical Interactions 

in the Oceans (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Blackwell Scientific Publications.

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. Washington, DC: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

McKenna, M. F., D. Ross, S. M. Wiggins, and J. A. Hildebrand. (2012). Underwater radiated noise from 

modern commercial ships. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 131(1), 92–103. 

McLennan, M. W. (1997). A Simple Model for Water Impact Peak Pressure and Pulse Width: A Technical 

Memorandum. Goleta, CA: Greeneridge Sciences, Inc.

Minerals Management Service. (2001). The Deep Sea Gulf of Mexico: An Overview and Guide. (OCS Study 

MMS 2001-065). New Orleans, LA: U.S. Department of the Interior, Minerals Management 

Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region.

Minerals Management Service. (2002). Deepwater Program: Northern Gulf of Mexico Continental Slope 

Habitat and Benthic Ecology. (OCS Study MMS 2002-063). New Orleans, LA: U.S. Department of 

the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico Outer Continental Shelf Region.

Minerals Management Service. (2005). Mapping Areas of Hard Bottom and Other Important Bottom 

Types: Outer Continental Shelf and Upper Continental Slope. (OCS Study MMS 2005-067). Baton 

Rouge, LA: U.S. Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico Outer 

Continental Shelf Region.

Mintz, J. D., and C. L. Parker. (2006). Vessel Traffic and Speed Around the U.S. Coasts and Around Hawaii. 

Alexandria, VA: CNA Corporation.

Mintz, J. D., and R. J. Filadelfo. (2011). Exposure of Marine Mammals to Broadband Radiated Noise

(Specific Authority N0001-4-05-D-0500). Washington, DC: Center for Naval Analyses.

Mintz, J. D. (2012). Vessel Traffic in the Hawaii-Southern California and Atlantic Fleet Testing and 

Training Study Areas. (CRM D0026186.A2/Final). Alexandria, VA: Center for Naval Analyses.

Mintz, J. D. (2016). Characterization of Vessel Traffic in the Vicinities of HRC, SOCAL, and the Navy 

Operating Areas off the U.S. East Coast. Alexandria, VA: Center for Naval Analyses.

Mulsow, J., C. E. Schlundt, L. Brandt, and J. J. Finneran. (2015). Equal latency contours for bottlenose 

dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) and California sea lions (Zalophus californianus). The Journal of the 

Acoustical Society of America, 138(5), 2678. 

National Marine Fisheries Service. (2016). Technical Guidance for Assessing the Effects of Anthropogenic 

Sound on Marine Mammal Hearing Underwater Acoustic Thresholds for Onset of Permanent and 

Temporary Threshold Shifts. (NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-OPR-55). Silver Spring, MD: 

U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National 

Marine Fisheries Service.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. (2016). About the National Marine Aquaculture 

Initiative. Retrieved from http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/aquaculture/funding/nmai.html.

Oertel, G. F. (1985). The barrier island system. Marine Geology, 63(1–4), 1–18. 

Pequegnat, W. E., B. J. Gallaway, and L. H. Pequegnat. (1990). Aspects of the ecology of the deep-water 

fauna of the Gulf of Mexico. American Zoologist, 30(1), 45–64. 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.0-136

3.0 References

Pickard, G. L., and W. J. Emery. (1990). Descriptive Physical Oceanography: An Introduction (5th ed.). 

Oxford, UK: Pergamon Press.

Pickart, R. S. (1992). Water mass components of the North Atlantic deep western boundary current. 

Deep Sea Research Part A. Oceanographic Research Papers, 39(9), 1553–1572. 

Popenoe, P., and F. T. Manheim. (2001). Origin and history of the Charleston Bump—Geological 

formations, currents, bottom conditions, and their relationship to wreckfish habitats on the 

Blake Plateau. American Fisheries Society Symposium, 25, 43–94. 

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, and W. N. 

Tavolga. (2014). ASA S3/SC1.4 TR-2014 Sound Exposure Guidelines for Fishes and Sea Turtles: A 

Technical Report prepared by ANSI-Accredited Standards Committee S3/SC1 and registered with 

ANSI. New York, NY and London, United Kingdom: Acoustical Society of America Press and 

Springer Briefs in Oceanography.

Purdy, R. (2016). Kauai’s first documented green sea turtle nest of 2016 hatches: Sixty-three hatchlings 

emerge from Pacific Missile Range Facility. Currents(Fall), 24–25. 

Raytheon Company. (2015). Airborne Mine Neutralization System (AMNS): Alternative Optical Fiber 

Engineering Study Final Report. Portsmouth, RI: Integrated Defense Systems.

Reed, J. K., and S. W. Ross. (2005). Deep-water reefs of the southeastern U.S.: Recent discoveries and 

research. The Journal of Marine Education, 21(4), 33–37. 

Reeder, D. M., and K. M. Kramer. (2005). Stress in free-ranging mammals: Integrating physiology, 

ecology, and natural history. Journal of Mammalogy, 86(2), 225–235. 

Reinhall, P. G., and P. H. Dahl. (2011). Underwater Mach wave radiation from impact pile driving: Theory 

and observation. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 130(3), 1209–1216. 

Reverdin, G., P. P. Niiler, and H. Valdimarsson. (2003). North Atlantic Ocean Surface Currents. Journal of 

Geophysical Research, 108(C1), 3002. 

Richardson, W. J., C. R. Greene, Jr., C. I. Malme, and D. H. Thomson. (1995). Marine Mammals and Noise. 

San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Rowe, G. T. (1971). Observations on bottom currents and epibenthic populations in Hatteras submarine 

canyon. Deep Sea Research and Oceanographic Abstracts, 18(6), 569–576, IN561–IN562, 577–

581. 

Ryan, J. P., J. A. Yoder, and P. C. Cornillon. (1999). Enhanced chlorophyll at the shelfbreak of the MidAtlantic Bight and Georges Bank during the spring transition. Limnology and Oceanography, 

44(1), 1–11. 

Sangrà, P., A. Pascual, Á. Rodríguez-Santana, F. Machín, E. Mason, J. C. McWilliams, J. L. Pelegrí, C. Dong, 

A. Rubio, J. Arístegui, Á. Marrero-Díaz, A. Hernández-Guerra, A. Martínez-Marrero, and M. 

Auladell. (2009). The Canary Eddy Corridor: A major pathway for long-lived eddies in the 

subtropical North Atlantic. Deep Sea Research Part I, 56(12), 2100–2114. 

Schmitz, W. J., Jr., and M. S. McCartney. (1993). On the North Atlantic circulation. Reviews of 

Geophysics, 31(1), 29–49. 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.0-137

3.0 References

Sherman, K., and G. Hempel. (2009). The UNEP Large Marine Ecosystem Report: A Perspective on 

Changing Conditions in LMEs of the World’s Regional Seas. Nairobi, Kenya: United Nations 

Environmental Programme.

Sies, H. (1997). Physiological Society Symposium: Impaired Endothelial and Smooth Muscle Cell Function 

in Oxidative Stress-Oxidative Stress: Oxidants and Antioxidants. Experimental Physiology, 82, 

291–295. 

Slabbekoorn, H., and E. A. Ripmeester. (2007). Birdsong and anthropogenic noise: Implications and 

applications for conservation. Molecular Ecology, 17(1), 72–83. 

Slatt, R. (1984). Continental shelf topography: Key to understanding distribution of shelf sand-ridge 

deposits from Cretaceous western interior seaway. The American Association of Petroleum 

Geologists Bulletin, 68(9), 1107–1120. 

Sohn, R. A., F. Vernon, J. A. Hildebrand, and S. C. Webb. (2000). Field measurements of sonic boom 

penetration into the ocean. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 107(6), 3073–3083. 

Spargo, B. J. (2007). [Personal Communication with Mark Collins Regarding Chaff End Cap and Piston 

Bouyancy].

Sparrow, V. W. (2002). Review and status of sonic boom penetration into the ocean. The Journal of the 

Acoustical Society of America, 111(1), 537–543. 

St. Aubin, D., and L. A. Dierauf. (2001). Stress and Marine Mammals. In L. A. Dierauf & F. M. D. Gulland 

(Eds.), Marine Mammal Medicine (2nd ed., pp. 253–269). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.

Swope, B., and J. McDonald. (2013). Copper-Based Torpedo Guidance Wire: Applications and 

Environmental Considerations. San Diego, CA: Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command 

Center Pacific.

Talwani, M., C. C. Windisch, and M. G. Langseth, Jr. (1971). Reykjanes Ridge Crest: A detailed geophysical 

study. Journal of Geophysical Research, 76(2), 473–517. 

The White House Council on Environmental Quality. (2010). Final Recommendations of the Interagency 

Ocean Policy Task Force. Washington, DC: Executive Office of the President of the United States.

Thompson, S. A., W. J. Sydeman, J. A. Santora, B. A. Black, R. M. Suryan, J. Calambokidis, W. T. Peterson, 

and S. J. Bograd. (2012). Linking predators to seasonality of upwelling: Using food web indicators 

and path analysis to infer trophic connections. Progress in Oceanography, 101(1), 106–120. 

Tomczak, M., and J. S. Godfrey. (2003). The Atlantic Ocean. In Regional Oceanography: An Introduction

(2nd ed.). Delhi, India: Daya Publishing House.

Touyz, R. M. (2004). Reactive oxygen species, vascular oxidative stress, and redox signaling in 

hypertension: What is the clinical significance? Hypertension, 44, 248–252. 

U.S. Air Force. (1997). Environmental Effects of Self-Protection Chaff and Flares - Final Report. Langley Air 

Force Base, VA: U.S. Air Force, Headquarters Air Combat Command.

U.S. Department of the Air Force. (2000). Supersonic Aircraft Noise At and Beneath the Ocean Surface: 

Estimation of Risk for Effects on Marine Mammals (AFRL-HE-WP-TR-2000-0167). McLean, VA: 

United States Air Force Research Laboratory.

U.S. Department of the Air Force. (2016). United States Air Force F-35A Operational Beddown–Pacific 

Final Environmental Impact Statement. Eielson AFB, AK: United States Air Force.
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.0-138

3.0 References

U.S. Department of the Army. (1999). Finding of No Significant Impact for the Life Cycle Environmental 

Assessment for the HELLFIRE Modular Missile System. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of 

Defense.

U.S. Department of the Navy. (1975). Explosion Effects and Properties Part I – Explosion Effects in Air. 

Silver Spring, MD: White Oak Laboratory, Naval Surface Weapons Center.

U.S. Department of the Navy. (1981). Gun Blast Far Field Peak Overpressure Contours. (NSWC TR 79-

442). Silver Spring, MD: Naval Surface Weapons Center.

U.S. Department of the Navy. (1999). Environmental Effects of RF Chaff: A Select Panel Report to the 

Undersecretary of Defense for Environmental Security. Washington, DC: Naval Research 

Laboratory.

U.S. Department of the Navy. (2000). Noise Blast Test Results Aboard the USS Cole. Dahlgren, VA: Naval 

Surface Warfare Center Dahlgren Division.

U.S. Department of the Navy. (2001). Sonic Boom Parametric Study. Naval Air Station Patuxent River: 

Applied Ordnance Technology, Inc. and Operational Environmental Planning Office 

U.S. Department of the Navy. (2005). Final Environmental Assessment and Overseas Environmental 

Assessment for Organic Airborne and Surface Influence Sweep Mission Tests. Washington, DC:

Airborne Mine Defense Program Office, Program Executive Office: Littoral and Mine Warfare.

U.S. Department of the Navy, and Department of Defense. (2007). Finding of No Significant Harm and 

Final Environmental Assessment of the Naval Air Routine Training Exercises in East and Gulf 

Coast Operation Areas and Seaward. Norfolk, VA: Atlantic Division, Naval Facilities Engineering 

Command.

U.S. Department of the Navy. (2010). Laser System Usage in the Marine Environment: Applications and 

Environmental Considerations. San Diego, CA: Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command 

Center Pacific.

U.S. Department of the Navy. (2012a). Biological Assessment for the Expeditionary Electronic Attack 

Squadron Realignment and Transition at Naval Air Station Whidbey Island, Oak Harbor, 

Washington. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Navy.

U.S. Department of the Navy. (2012b). Ecosystem Technical Report for the Atlantic Fleet Training and 

Testing (AFTT) Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Arlington, VA: Naval Facilities Engineering 

Command, Atlantic Division. Retrieved from http://www.warcosts.net/wp-content/uploads/usnavy/317BA_1_2012_AFTT_U.S._Navy_Atlantic_Fleet_Training_Testing_Ecosystem_Final_Techn

ical_Report_April_13_2012.pdf. 

U.S. Department of the Navy. (2012c). Criteria and Thresholds for U.S. Navy Acoustic and Explosive 

Effects Analysis. San Diego CA: U.S. Department of the Navy.

U.S. Department of the Navy. (2013). Petition for Regulations Pursuant to Section 101(a)(5) of the 

Marine Mammal Protection Act Covering Taking of Marine Mammals Incidental to Target and 

Missile Launch Activities for the Period 2014–2019 at San Nicolas Island, California (50 CFR Part 

216, Subpart I). Point Mugu, CA: Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries 

Service, National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration.

U.S. Department of the Navy. (2014). U.S. Navy Testing of Hypervelocity Projectiles and an 

Electromagnetic Railgun. Wallops Island, VA: U.S. Department of the Navy.
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.0-139

3.0 References

U.S. Department of the Navy. (2016). NATOPS General Flight and Operating Instructions; OPNAV 

Instruction 3710.7V. Washington, DC: Office of the Chief of Naval Operations.

U.S. Department of the Navy. (2017a). Criteria and Thresholds for U.S. Navy Acoustic and Explosive 

Effects Analysis (Phase III). San Diego, CA: Space and Naval Warfare System Command, Pacific.

U.S. Department of the Navy. (2017b). U.S. Navy Marine Species Density Database Phase III for the 

Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing Study Area (Naval Facilities Engineering Command Atlantic 

Technical Report). Norfolk, VA: Naval Facilities Engineering Command Atlantic.

U.S. Department of the Navy. (2018a). Building and Maintaining a Comprehensive Database and 

Prioritization Scheme for Overlapping Habitat Data – Focus on Abiotic Substrates in the Atlantic 

Fleet Training and Testing Study Area. (Phase III AFTT Benthic Habitat Database Technical 

Report). Washington, DC: Naval Facilities Engineering Command.

U.S. Department of the Navy. (2018b). Quantifying Acoustic Impacts on Marine Mammals and Sea 

Turtles: Methods and Analytical Approach for Phase III Training and Testing (Technical Report 

prepared by NUWC Division Newport, Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center Pacific, G2 

Software Systems, and the National Marine Mammal Foundation). Newport, RI: Naval Undersea 

Warfare Center.

U.S. Naval Research Advisory Committee. (2009). Report on Jet Engine Noise Reduction. Patuxent River, 

MD: Department of Defense.

Ulrich, R. M. (2004). Development of a Sensitive and Specific Biosensor Assay to Detect Vibrio vulnificus 

in Estuarine Waters. (Master of Science Partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of 

Master of Science Department of Biology College of Arts and Sciences). University of South 

Florida.

United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization. (2009). Global Open Oceans and Deep 

Seabed—Biogeographic Classification. Paris, France: UNESCO - IOC.

Urick, R. J. (1983). Principles of Underwater Sound (3rd ed.). Los Altos, CA: Peninsula Publishing.

Valiela, I. (1995). Marine Ecological Processes (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.

Verity, P., N. LeeT, J. Yoder, G. Paffenhofer, J. R. J. Blanton, and C. R. Alexander. (1993). Chapter 3: Outer 

Shelf Processes. In D. W. Menzel (Ed.), Ocean Processes: U.S. Southeast Continental Shelf: A 

summary of research conducted in the South Atlantic Bight under the auspices of the U.S. 

Department of Energy from 1977 to 1991 (pp. 45–74). Office of Scientific and Technical 

Information.

Wade, J. A., D. E. Brown, A. Traverse, and R. A. Fensome. (1996). The Triassic-Jurassic Fundy Basin, 

eastern Canada: Regional setting, stratigraphy and hydrocarbon potential. Atlantic Geology, 32, 

189–231. 

Wiltschko, R., S. Denzau, D. Gehring, P. Thalau, and W. Wiltschko. (2011). Magnetic orientation of 

migratory robins, Erithacus rubecula, under long-wavelength light. The Journal of Experimental 

Biology, 214(18), 3096–3101. 

Wiltschko, W., and R. Wiltschko. (2005). Magnetic orientation and magnetoreception in birds and other 

animals. Journal of Comparative Physiology A 191(8), 675–693. 

Yagla, J., and R. Stiegler. (2003). Gun blast noise transmission across the air-sea interface. Paper 

presented at the 5th European Conference on Noise Control. Naples, Italy.
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.0-140

3.0 References

This page intentionally left blank.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

i

Table of Contents

Final 

Environmental Impact Statement/Overseas Environmental Impact Statement 

Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing

TABLE OF CONTENTS

3.1 Air Quality ..............................................................................................................3.1-1

3.1.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................3.1-1

3.1.1.1 Air Quality Standards..........................................................................3.1-2

3.1.1.2 General Conformity Evaluation ..........................................................3.1-5

3.1.1.3 Approach to Analysis..........................................................................3.1-7

3.1.1.4 Emission Estimates .............................................................................3.1-9

3.1.1.5 Climate Change.................................................................................3.1-11

3.1.1.6 Other Compliance Considerations, Requirements, and 

Practices ...........................................................................................3.1-12

3.1.2 Affected Environment.......................................................................................3.1-13

3.1.2.1 General Background .........................................................................3.1-13

3.1.2.2 Sensitive Receptors...........................................................................3.1-13

3.1.2.3 Existing Air Quality............................................................................3.1-20

3.1.3 Environmental Consequences ..........................................................................3.1-23

3.1.3.1 Impacts from Air Emissions Under Alternative 1..............................3.1-24

3.1.3.2 Impacts from Air Emissions under Alternative 2 ..............................3.1-26

3.1.3.3 Impacts from Air Pollutants under the No Action 

Alternative........................................................................................3.1-29

3.1.3.4 Greenhouse Gases and Climate Change...........................................3.1-29

3.1.4 Summary of Potential Impacts on Air Quality ..................................................3.1-29

3.1.4.1 Combined Impacts of All Stressors under Alternative 1...................3.1-30

3.1.4.2 Combined Impacts of All Stressors under Alternative 2...................3.1-30

3.1.4.3 Combined Impacts of All Stressors under the No Action 

Alternative........................................................................................3.1-30

List of Figures 

Figure 3.1-1: Applicable Nonattainment and Maintenance Areas in USEPA Region 1 and 2...............3.1-14

Figure 3.1-2: Applicable Nonattainment and Maintenance Areas in USEPA Region 3.........................3.1-15

Figure 3.1-3: Applicable Nonattainment and Maintenance Areas in USEPA Region 4.........................3.1-16

Figure 3.1-4: Applicable Nonattainment and Maintenance Areas in USEPA Region 6.........................3.1-17
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

ii

Table of Contents

List of Tables

Table 3.1-1: National Ambient Air Quality Standards.............................................................................3.1-3

Table 3.1-2: De Minimis Thresholds for Conformity Determinations.....................................................3.1-7

Table 3.1-3: Nonattainment and Maintenance Areas Adjacent to Study Area ....................................3.1-21

Table 3.1-4: Pierside and Coastal Activity Locations and Their Area’s Attainment Status...................3.1-22

Table 3.1-5: Estimated Annual Air Pollutant Emissions from Activities Occurring within the 

AFTT Study Area, Alternative 1........................................................................................3.1-24

Table 3.1-6: Estimated Annual Air Pollutant Emissions from Activities Occurring in State 

Waters in the Jacksonville, Florida Area, Alternative 1 ...................................................3.1-25

Table 3.1-7: Estimated Annual Air Pollutant Emissions from Activities Occurring within the 

AFTT Study Area, Alternative 2........................................................................................3.1-27

Table 3.1-8: Estimated Annual Air Pollutant Emissions from Activities Occurring within 3 NM 

of shore in the Jacksonville, Florida Area, Alternative 2..................................................3.1-28

Table 3.1-9: Total Annual Greenhouse Gas Emissions from All Study Area Training and 

Testing Activities in Metric Tons per Year .......................................................................3.1-29
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.1-1

3.1 Air Quality

3.1 AIR QUALITY

3.1.1 INTRODUCTION

Air pollution is a threat to human health and also damages the environment (U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, 2007). Air pollution damages trees, crops, other plants, lakes, and animals. In 

addition to damaging the natural environment, air pollution damages the exteriors of buildings, 

monuments, and statues. It creates haze or smog that reduces visibility in national parks and cities and 

interferes with aviation. To improve air quality and reduce air pollution, Congress passed the Clean Air 

Act and its amendments in 1970 and 1990, which set regulatory limits on air pollutants and help to 

ensure basic health and environmental protection from air pollution. 

Air quality is defined by ambient concentrations of specific air pollutants – pollutants the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) determined may affect the health or welfare of the public. 

The six major pollutants of concern are called “criteria pollutants”: carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, 

nitrogen dioxide, ozone, particulate matter (dust particles less than or equal to 10 microns in diameter 

and fine particulate matter less than or equal to 2.5 microns in diameter), and lead. The Clean Air Act 

required that the USEPA establish National Ambient Air Quality Standards for these criteria pollutants. 

These standards set specific concentration limits for criteria pollutants in the outdoor air. The 

concentration limits were developed because the criteria pollutants are common in outdoor air, 

considered harmful to public health and the environment, and come from numerous and diverse 

sources. The concentration limits are designed to aid in protecting public health and the environment. 

Areas with air pollution problems typically have one or more criteria pollutants consistently present at 

levels that exceed the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. These areas are designated as 

nonattainment for the standards.

Criteria air pollutants are classified as either primary or secondary pollutants based on how they are 

formed in the atmosphere. Primary air pollutants are emitted directly into the atmosphere from the 

source of the pollutant and retain their chemical form. Examples of primary pollutants are the smoke 

produced by burning wood and volatile organic compounds emitted by industrial solvents. Secondary air 

pollutants are those formed through atmospheric chemical reactions that usually involve primary air 

pollutants (or pollutant precursors) and normal constituents of the atmosphere. Ozone, a major 

component of photochemical smog, is a secondary air pollutant. Ozone precursors fall into two broad 

groups of chemicals: nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds. Nitrogen oxides consists of nitric 

oxide and nitrogen dioxide.

AIR QUALITY SYNOPSIS

The United States Department of the Navy considered all potential stressors that air quality could be 

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

Preferred Alternative (Alternative 1):

 Criteria Air Pollutants: The emission of criteria pollutants resulting from activities in the 

Study Area would not cause a violation or contribute to an ongoing violation of the National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.1-2

3.1 Air Quality

Finally, some criteria air pollutants are a combination of primary and secondary pollutants. Particulate 

matter less than or equal to 10 microns in diameter and particulate matter less than or equal to 2.5 

microns in diameter are generated as primary pollutants by various mechanical processes (e.g., abrasion, 

erosion, mixing, or atomization) or combustion processes. They are generated as secondary pollutants 

through chemical reactions or through the condensation of gaseous pollutants into fine aerosols.

In addition to the six criteria pollutants, the USEPA currently designates 187 substances as hazardous air 

pollutants under the federal Clean Air Act. Hazardous air pollutants are air pollutants known or 

suspected to cause cancer or other serious health effects, or adverse environmental and ecological 

effects (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2016a). National Ambient Air Quality Standards are not 

established for these pollutants; however, the USEPA developed rules that limit emissions of hazardous 

air pollutants from specific industrial sources. These emissions control standards are known as 

“maximum achievable control technologies” and “generally achievable control technologies.” They are 

intended to achieve the maximum degree of reduction in emissions of the hazardous air pollutants, 

taking into consideration the cost of emissions control, non-air quality health and environmental 

impacts, and energy requirements. These emissions are typically one or more orders of magnitude 

smaller than concurrent emissions of criteria air pollutants, and only become a concern when large 

amounts of fuel, explosives, or other materials are consumed during a single activity or in one location. 

Hazardous air pollutants are analyzed qualitatively in relation to the prevalence of the sources emitting 

these pollutants during training and testing activities. Mobile sources operating as a result of the 

Proposed Action would be functioning intermittently over a large area and would produce negligible 

ambient hazardous air pollutants, predominantly in areas not routinely accessed by the general public. 

For these reasons, hazardous air pollutants are not further evaluated in the analysis. Air pollutant 

emissions are reported as the rate (by weight or volume) at which specific compounds are emitted into 

the atmosphere by a source. Most air pollutant emissions are expressed as a rate (e.g., pounds per hour, 

pounds per day, or tons per year). Typical units for emission factors for a source or source activity are 

pounds per thousand gallons of fuel burned, pounds per ton of material processed, and grams per 

vehicle-mile of travel.

Ambient air quality is reported as the atmospheric concentrations of specific air pollutants at a 

particular time and location. The units of measurement are expressed as a mass per unit volume (e.g., 

micrograms per cubic meter [μg/m3] of air) or as a volume fraction (e.g., parts per million [ppm] by 

volume). The ambient air pollutant concentrations measured at a particular location are determined by 

the pollutant emissions rate, local meteorology, and atmospheric chemistry. Wind speed and direction, 

the vertical temperature gradient of the atmosphere, and precipitation patterns affect the dispersal, 

dilution, and removal of air pollutant emissions from the atmosphere.

3.1.1.1 Air Quality Standards

National Ambient Air Quality Standards for criteria pollutants are set forth in Table 3.1-1. Areas that 

exceed a standard are designated as “nonattainment” for that pollutant, while areas that are in 

compliance with a standard are in “attainment” for that pollutant. An area may be nonattainment for 

some pollutants and attainment for others simultaneously.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.1-3

3.1 Air Quality

Table 3.1-1: National Ambient Air Quality Standards

Pollutant

Primary/ 

Secondary

Averaging 

Time Level Form

Carbon monoxide primary 8 hours 9 ppm Not to be exceeded more 

than once per year

1 hour 35 ppm

Lead primary and

secondary

Rolling 3-

month period

0.15 μg/m3 (1) Not to be exceeded

Nitrogen dioxide primary 1 hour 100 parts per billion

(ppb)

98th percentile of 1-hour 

daily maximum 

concentrations, averaged 

over 3 years

primary and

secondary

1 year 53 ppb (2) Annual mean

Ozone primary and

secondary

8 hours 0.070 ppm (3) Annual fourth-highest daily 

maximum 8-hour 

concentration, averaged 

over 3 years

Particle 

pollution 

(particulate 

matter)

particulate matter 

less than or equal 

to 2.5 microns in 

diameter

primary 1 year 12.0 μg/m3 Annual mean, averaged 

over 3 years

secondary 1 year 15.0 μg/m3 Annual mean, averaged 

over 3 years

primary and

secondary

24 hours 35 μg/m3 98th percentile, averaged 

over 3 years

particulate matter 

less than or equal 

to 10 microns in 

diameter

primary and

secondary

24 hours 150 μg/m3 Not to be exceeded more 

than once per year on 

average over 3 years
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.1-4

3.1 Air Quality

Table 3.1-1: National Ambient Air Quality Standards (continued)

Pollutant

Primary/ 

Secondary

Averaging 

Time Level Form

Sulfur dioxide primary 1 hour 75 ppb(4) 99th percentile of 1-hour 

daily maximum 

concentrations, averaged 

over 3 years

secondary 3 hours 0.5 ppm Not to be exceeded more 

than once per year

(1) In areas designated nonattainment for the lead standards prior to the promulgation of the current (2008) standards, and for 

which implementation plans to attain or maintain the current (2008) standards have not been submitted and approved, 

the previous standards (1.5 μg/m3 as a calendar quarter average) also remain in effect.

(2)The level of the annual nitrogen dioxide standard is 0.053 ppm. It is shown here in terms of ppb for the purposes of clearer 

comparison to the 1-hour standard level.

(3)Final rule signed October 1, 2015, and effective December 28, 2015. The previous (2008) ozone standards additionally remain 

in effect in some areas. Revocation of the previous (2008) ozone standards and transitioning to the current (2015) 

standards will be addressed in the implementation rule for the current standards.

(4)The previous sulfur dioxide standards (0.14 ppm 24-hour and 0.03 ppm annual) will additionally remain in effect in certain 

areas: (1) any area for which it is not yet 1 year since the effective date of designation under the current (2010) standards, 

and (2) any area for which implementation plans providing for attainment of the current (2010) standard have not been 

submitted and approved and which is designated nonattainment under the previous sulfur dioxide standards or is not 

meeting the requirements of a State Implementation Plan call under the previous sulfur dioxide standards (40 Code of 

Federal Regulations [CFR] 50.4(3)). A State Implementation Plan call is a USEPA action requiring a state to resubmit all or 

part of its State Implementation Plan to demonstrate attainment of the require National Ambient Air Quality Standards.

Source: (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2016b), last updated January 7, 2016.

Notes: μg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter; ppb = parts per billion; ppm = parts per million

States, through their air quality management agencies, are required to prepare and implement State 

Implementation Plans for nonattainment areas, which demonstrate how the area will meet the National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards. Areas classified as attainment, after being designated as nonattainment, 

may be reclassified as maintenance areas subject to maintenance plans showing how the area will 

continue to meet federal air quality standards. Nonattainment areas for some criteria pollutants are 

further classified, depending on the severity of their air quality problem, to facilitate their management:

 ozone – marginal, moderate, serious, severe, and extreme

 carbon monoxide – moderate and serious

 particulate matter – moderate and serious

The USEPA delegates the regulation of air quality to the state once the state has an approved State 

Implementation Plan. If the state fails to develop an adequate plan to achieve and maintain the National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards or a State Implementation Plan revision is not approved by the USEPA, 

federal agencies must comply with the Federal Implementation Plan. States may also choose to adopt 

the Federal Implementation Plan as an alternative to developing their own State Implementation Plan.

States may establish air quality standards more stringent than the National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards, however they are prohibited from imposing more stringent conformity requirements unless 

the requirements apply equally to non-federal activities.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.1-5

3.1 Air Quality

The Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing (AFTT) Study Area is offshore of a number of states, and some 

elements of the Proposed Action occur within or over state waters. State waters extend from the 

shoreline to 3 nautical miles (NM) from Maine to the east coast of Florida, Alabama, Mississippi,

Louisiana, and to 9 NM for the west coast of Florida and Texas. A coastal state exercises sovereignty 

over its territorial sea, the air space above it, and the seabed and subsoil beneath it. Some activities

occur in state waters and primarily involve the use of small boats as is the case with inshore training on 

state waters. These activities occur in a variety of locations such as Narragansett Bay, the lower 

Chesapeake Bay, the James and York Rivers, Kings Bay, Cooper River, St. Johns River, and St. Andrew

Bay. However, most of the Study Area is substantially offshore, beyond state boundaries where 

attainment status is unclassified and Clean Air Act National Ambient Air Quality Standards do not apply. 

There may be seasonal or other temporal fluctuations in wind direction, and during these periods, air 

quality in adjacent onshore areas may be affected by releases of air pollutants from mobile sources

within the Study Area. Impacts at a scale that would produce demonstrable air quality impacts would 

typically be the result of heavy marine traffic in areas such as large ports but military activity could 

incrementally impact these areas. Therefore, National Ambient Air Quality Standards attainment status 

of adjacent onshore areas is considered in determining whether appropriate controls for air pollution 

sources in the adjacent offshore state waters is warranted.

In addition to coastal states, training may occur in areas proximate to U.S. territories; specifically, the 

U.S. Virginia Islands, Puerto Rico, Culebra and Vieques. Territorial seas for the U.S. Virgin Islands are 

within 3 NM of the islands. For Puerto Rico and its neighboring islands Culebra and Vieques, the 

territorial seas lie within 9 NM of the coast. Air quality is typically very good at all of these locations, 

which are heavily influenced by tradewinds and air currents induced by convection.

3.1.1.2 General Conformity Evaluation

Federal actions are required to conform with the approved State Implementation Plan for those areas of 

the United States designated as nonattainment or maintenance areas for any criteria air pollutant under 

the Clean Air Act (40 CFR parts 51 and 93). The purpose of the General Conformity Rule is to ensure that 

applicable federal actions, such as the Proposed Action evaluated in this Environmental Impact 

Statement (EIS)/Overseas Environmental Impact Statement (OEIS), would not cause or contribute to a 

violation of an air quality standard and that the Proposed Action would not adversely affect the 

attainment and maintenance of National Ambient Air Quality Standards. A conformity evaluation must 

be completed for every applicable Navy action that generates emissions in non-attainment or 

maintenance areas to determine and document whether a proposed action complies with the General 

Conformity Rule. 

In keeping with Navy guidance, the first step in evaluating the Navy action under General Conformity is 

to define the action, which is to conduct training activities and research, development, testing, and 

evaluation activities in the AFTT Study Area. This action will utilize numerous mobile sources, including 

aircraft, small boats, and ships, and will involve the expenditure of munitions. A detailed explanation of 

the proposed action can be found in Chapter 2 of this document. A significant portion of the Study Area 

activities would occur well offshore, but there are nearshore areas where activities will take place. One 

nearshore area that is located in a nonattainment area is a portion of Nassau County, which is part of 

the Jacksonville (Florida)-Brunswick (Georgia) Interstate Air Quality Control Region and lies adjacent to 

Duval County. Because a portion of the proposed Federal action will occur near a nonattainment area 

and the action involves the combustion of fossil fuel, an assessment has to be made as to whether or 

not the action is considered exempt or presumed to conform under the General Conformity Regulations. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.1-6

3.1 Air Quality

Exempt actions are very specifically defined by USEPA, and the list of exempt actions is available at 40 

CFR 93.153. The action’s non-exempt direct and indirect emissions are then calculated to determine the 

de minimis emission levels for the applicable pollutants. 

The total direct and indirect emissions is defined as the net emissions increase caused by the action 

considering all the emission increases and decreases that are projected to occur. The portion of 

emissions that are exempt or presumed to conform are not included in the total of direct and indirect 

emissions. The total direct and indirect emissions calculation considers all non-exempt emission 

increases and decreases, must be reasonably foreseeable at the time that the conformity evaluation is 

conducted, and the emissions considered in the calculation are within the agency’s program 

responsibility and control (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2017a).

If the total direct and indirect emissions do not exceed de minimis thresholds defined in the regulation,

then a General Conformity Determination is not required. The de minimis thresholds are presented in 

Table 3.1-2. If these emissions equal or exceed the de minimis threshold values, a formal Conformity 

Determination must be prepared to demonstrate conformity with the USEPA-approved State 

Implementation Plan. If the total direct and indirect emissions do not exceed de minimis thresholds,

then a General Conformity Determination is not required. If these emissions equal or exceed the de 

minimis threshold values, a formal Conformity Determination must be prepared to demonstrate 

conformity with the approved State Implementation Plan.

The Navy Guidance for Compliance with the Clean Air Act General Conformity Rule section 4.1, states 

that a Record of Non-Applicability must be prepared if the proposed action is subject to the Conformity 

Rule, but is exempt because it fits within one of the exemption categories listed under 40 CFR 93B, 

because the action’s projected emissions are below the de minimis conformity applicability threshold 

values, or is presumed to conform (U.S. Department of the Navy, 2013).

The Clean Air Act sets out specific requirements for a group of northeast states that make up the Ozone 

Transport Region. States in this region are required to submit a State Implementation Plan and install a 

certain level of controls for the pollutants that form ozone, even if they meet the ozone standards. The 

Ozone Transport Region includes Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, 

Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, and the Washington, D.C. 

Metropolitan Statistical Area, including the northern Virginia suburbs (Ozone Transport Commission, 

2017). The Ozone Transport Region is an area subjected to poor air quality in the warm summer months 

resulting from ozone pollution. Contributing to the problem are local sources of air pollution as well as 

air pollution transported hundreds of miles from distant sources in and outside of the Ozone Transport 

Region. Transport most frequently originates in the Midwest and the Ohio River Valley. Note that de 

minimis levels for ozone precursors may be lower where nonattainment is a serious issue in the Ozone 

Transport Region. It should be noted that not all of the Ozone Transport Region has issues with 

attainment of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. For example, the entire state of Rhode Island 

is in attainment for all criteria pollutants. However, its geographical location, as with all of the Ozone 

Transport Region, makes it potentially susceptible to pollutant emission incursions from other areas of 

the country.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.1-7

3.1 Air Quality

Table 3.1-2: De Minimis Thresholds for Conformity Determinations

Pollutant Nonattainment or Maintenance Area Type de Minimis Threshold (TPY)

Ozone (VOC or NOX)

Serious nonattainment 50

Severe nonattainment 25

Extreme nonattainment 10

Other areas outside an Ozone Transport Region 100

Ozone (NOX)

Marginal and moderate nonattainment inside an Ozone 

Transport Region 100

Maintenance 100

Ozone (VOC)

Marginal and moderate nonattainment inside an Ozone 

Transport Region 50

Maintenance within an Ozone Transport Region 50

Maintenance outside an Ozone Transport Region 100

CO, SO2 and NO2 All nonattainment and maintenance 100

PM10

Serious nonattainment 70

Moderate nonattainment and maintenance 100

PM2.5 All nonattainment and maintenance 100

Lead All nonattainment and maintenance 25

Source: 40 CFR part 93B

Notes: CO: carbon monoxide; NOX: nitrogen oxides; NO2: nitrogen dioxide; PM10: particulate matter ≤ 10 microns in diameter; 

PM2.5: particulate matter ≤ 2.5 microns in diameter; SO2: sulfur dioxide; SOX: sulfur oxides; TPY: tons per year; VOC: volatile 

organic compound

3.1.1.2.1 Conformity Analysis in Nonattainment and Maintenance Areas

Certain Navy training and testing activities take place within nonattainment and maintenance areas. 

These nonattainment and maintenance areas are identified by their air quality designated areas (an area 

designated by the federal government where communities share a common air pollution problem). 

Several designated areas were identified as relevant to AFTT EIS/OEIS training or testing activities and 

are further discussed in Section 3.1.2.3, Existing Air Quality.

3.1.1.3 Approach to Analysis

Boundaries of Analysis

The air quality impact evaluation requires two separate analyses. Impacts of air pollutants emitted by 

Navy training and testing in the Atlantic Ocean, state waters, bays and inshore locations are assessed 

under National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Impacts of air pollutants emitted by Navy training and 

testing activities outside territorial waters are evaluated as required under Executive Order 12114.

Air pollutants emitted more than 3,000 feet (ft.) above ground level are considered to be above the 

atmospheric inversion layer and, therefore, do not affect ground level air quality (U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, 2009a). These emissions thus do not affect the concentrations of criteria air 

pollutants in the lower atmosphere, which are measured at ground level monitoring stations, and upon 

which federal, state, and local regulatory decisions are based. For the analysis of the effects on global 

climate change, however, all emissions of greenhouse gases from aircraft and vessels participating in 

training and testing activities, as well as targets and munitions expended, are applicable regardless of 

altitude (Chapter 4, Cumulative Impacts). However, because activities above 3,000 ft. for individual 

aircraft activities are not specifically documented, it would be impossible to analyze with any accuracy 

the greenhouse gases associated with testing and training activity flights above 3,000 ft. For this reason, 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.1-8

3.1 Air Quality

the greenhouse gas emissions that are assessed should be understood to represent only a portion of the 

total emissions from aircraft flight activities. 

Analysis of health-based air quality impacts under NEPA and Executive Order 12114 includes estimates 

of criteria air pollutants for all training and testing activities where aircraft, missiles, or targets operate 

at or below the aforementioned inversion layer or that involve vessels in U.S. territorial seas. The 

analysis of health-based air quality impacts under Executive Order 12114 includes emissions estimates 

of only those training and testing activities in which aircraft, missiles, or targets operate at or below 

3,000 ft. above ground level, or that involve vessels outside of U.S. territorial seas. While there are a 

number of pierside locations associated with testing and training activities, emissions that may be 

generated at these locations are excluded from this analysis because they have already been previously 

analyzed in other NEPA documentation.

Emission Sources

Criteria air pollutants are generated by the combustion of fuel by surface vessels and by fixed-wing and 

rotary-wing aircraft. These mobile sources are the primary emitters of air pollution associated with 

testing and training activities. The emissions from these mobile sources are a function of combustion of 

fuel and emissions are estimated using information provided by the Navy and other reputable, 

sanctioned sources. Emissions are also generated by the combustion of explosives and propellants in 

various types of munitions. Propellants used to fire small-, medium-, and large-caliber projectiles 

generate criteria pollutants when detonated. Non-explosive practice munitions contain spotting charges 

and propellants that generate criteria air pollutants when they function. Powered targets require fuel, 

generating criteria air pollutants during their operation, and towed targets generate criteria air 

pollutants secondarily because another aircraft or vessel is required to provide power. Stationary targets 

may generate criteria air pollutants if all or portions of the item burn in a high-order detonation. Chaff 

cartridges used by ships and aircraft are launched by an explosive charge that generates small quantities 

of criteria air pollutants. Countermeasure flares, parachute flares, and smoke floats are designed to burn 

for a prescribed period, emitting criteria pollutants in the process.

The primary emissions from many munition types are carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, and particulate 

matter; hazardous air pollutants are emitted at low levels (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

2009a).

Electronic warfare countermeasures generate emissions of chaff, a form of particulate not regulated 

under the federal Clean Air Act as a criteria air pollutant because virtually all radio frequency chaff is 10 

to 100 times larger than particulate matter less than or equal to 10 microns in diameter (PM10)(U.S. 

Department of the Navy, 1999). The types of training and testing that produce these other emissions 

may take place throughout the Study Area, but occur primarily within special use airspace. Chaff 

emissions during training and testing primarily occur 3 NM or more from shore and at altitudes over 

3,000 ft. (above the mixing layer). Chaff released over the ocean would disperse in the atmosphere and 

then settle onto the ocean surface. 

A study at Naval Air Station Fallon found that the release of 50,000 cartridges of chaff per year over 

10,000 square miles (m2) would result in an annual average concentration of 0.018 μg/m3for regulated 

particulate matter. This is far below the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. Similar predictions were 

made for St. Mary’s County, Maryland (on the Chesapeake Bay), where chaff releases contribute no 

more than 0.008 percent of total particulate matter emissions (Arfsten et al., 2001). Therefore, chaff is 

not further evaluated as an air quality stressor in this EIS/OEIS.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.1-9

3.1 Air Quality

3.1.1.3.1 Analysis Framework

Emissions sources and the approach used to estimate emissions under Alternative 1 and Alternative 2 

for the air quality analysis are based, wherever possible, on information from Navy subject matter 

experts and established training and testing requirements. These data were used to estimate the 

numbers and types of aircraft, surface ships and vessels, submarines, and munitions (i.e., potential 

sources of air emissions) that would be involved in training and testing activities under each alternative.

Emissions were assessed to identify any possibility for the magnitude of Proposed Action emissions to 

result in a violation of one or more National Ambient Air Quality Standards. The pollutants for which 

calculations are made include exhaust total hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, 

particulate matter, carbon dioxide, and sulfur dioxide and carbon dioxide.

The NEPA analysis includes a separate section for a Clean Air Act General Conformity Applicability 

Analysis to support a determination pursuant to the General Conformity Rule (40 CFR part 93B). This 

analysis focuses on training and testing activities that could impact nonattainment or maintenance areas 

within the region of influence. As noted above, the Study Area lies partly within or adjacent to some air 

quality designated areas. To evaluate whether or not the General Conformity Rule applies, air pollutant 

emissions associated with the Proposed Action within the applicable designated nonattainment or 

maintenance areas are estimated, based on the distribution of mobile source activity in state waters and 

mobile source activity beyond state waters. The proposed training and testing activities within this 

portion of the Study Area are then compared to the General Conformity Rule de minimis thresholds. 

3.1.1.4 Emission Estimates

3.1.1.4.1 Aircraft Activities

To estimate aircraft emissions, the operating modes, number of hours of operation, and type of engine 

for each type of aircraft were evaluated.

Emissions associated with airfield or air station operations ashore are analyzed within the home basing 

environmental planning process (e.g., environmental impact statements or environmental assessments 

for (1) Introduction of F/A-18 E/F (Super Hornet) Aircraft to the East Coast of the United States (U.S. 

Department of the Navy, 2003); (2) Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the Introduction 

of the P-8A Multi-Mission Aircraft into the U.S. Navy Fleet (U.S. Department of the Navy, 2014); (3) 

Transition of E-2C Hawkeye to E-2D Advanced Hawkeye at Naval Station Norfolk, Virginia, and Naval 

Base Ventura County Point Mugu, California (U.S. Department of the Navy, 2009), and (4) F-35B East 

Coast Basing Environmental Impact Statement) (U.S. Department of the Navy, 2010). All fixed-wing 

aircraft are assumed to travel to and from training and testing ranges at or above 3,000 ft. above mean 

sea level and, therefore, their transits to and from the ranges do not affect surface air quality. Air 

combat maneuvers and air-to-air missile exercises are primarily conducted at altitudes well in excess of 

3,000 ft. above mean sea level and, therefore, are not included in the estimated emissions of criteria air 

pollutants. Activities or portions of those training or testing activities occurring below 3,000 ft. are 

included in emissions estimates. Examples of activities typically occurring below 3,000 ft. include those 

involving helicopter platforms such as mine warfare, surface warfare, and anti-submarine warfare 

training and testing activities. The number of all training and testing activities and the estimated time 

spent above or below 3,000 ft. for calculation purposes is included in the air quality emissions estimates 

presented in Appendix C (Air Quality Emissions Calculations and Record of Non-Applicability).

The types of aircraft identified include the typical aircraft platforms that conduct a particular training or 

testing exercise (or the closest surrogate when information is not available), including range support 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.1-10

3.1 Air Quality

aircraft (e.g., non-Navy commercial air services). Estimates of future aircraft sorties are based on 

evolutionary changes in the Navy’s force structure and mission assignments. Where there are no major 

changes in types of aircraft, future activity levels are estimated from the distribution of baseline 

activities. The types of aircraft used in each training or testing activity along with hours operated in the 

mission activity, as well as data on landings and take-offs from ships, and numbers of sorties flown by 

such aircraft are presented in Appendix C (Air Quality Emissions Calculations).

Several testing activities are similar to training activities, and therefore similar assumptions were made 

for such activities in terms of aircraft type, altitude, and flight duration. Table 2.3-3 lists Naval Air 

Systems Command testing activities similar to certain training activities. Where aircraft testing activities 

were dissimilar to training activities, assumptions for time on ranges, and landing and takeoff

information were derived by Navy subject matter experts.

Air pollutant emissions from aircraft were primarily estimated based on the training and testing hours 

provided by subject matter experts, as well as emission indices published in the Navy’s Aircraft 

Environmental Support Office Memorandum Reports for individual aircraft categories. When Aircraft 

Environmental Support Office emission factor data were not available, emission factors were obtained 

from other published sources.

The emissions calculations performed for each alternative conservatively assume that each aircraft 

training and testing activity listed in Tables 2.3-1 to 2.3-4 is separately conducted. In practice, a testing 

activity may be conducted during a training flight. It is also probable that two or more training activities 

may be conducted during one flight (e.g., chaff or flare exercises may occur during electronic warfare 

activities; or air-to-surface gunnery and air-to-surface bombing activities may occur during a single flight 

operation). Conservative assumptions may produce elevated aircraft emissions calculations but account 

for the possibility, however remote, that each aircraft training and testing activity is separately 

conducted.

3.1.1.4.2 Military Vessel Activities

Military vessel traffic in the Study Area includes military ships and smaller boats providing services for 

military training and testing activities. The methods for estimating military ship emissions involve 

evaluating the type of activity, generating the average steaming hours for ships in each operational area, 

both within state waters and beyond state waters. This was done to create annual averages for the 

years 2010 through 2015. The average annual hours were used for Alternative 1. Alternative 1 reflects a 

representative year of training to account for the natural fluctuation of training cycles and deployment 

schedules that generally influence the maximum level of training that may occur year after year in any 5-

year period. For Alternative 2, the year with the highest number of operational hours (2011) was 

selected as the year to represent maximum operations. Alternative 2 reflects the maximum number of 

training activities that could occur within a given year and assumes that the maximum level of activity 

would occur every year over any 5-year period. For both alternatives, the hourly data was used with 

data from the Naval Sea Systems Command database, Navy and Military Sealift Command Marine 

Engine Fuel Consumption and Emission Calculator to calculate the emissions from the propulsion and 

onboard generation systems. Data from the calculator included emission factors for each type of 

propulsion and type of onboard generator by ship type, as well as the fuel used and applicable power 

levels. The types of ships and numbers of activities for Alternatives 1 and 2 are derived from range 

records and Navy subject matter experts regarding ship participant data. Estimates of future ship 

activities are based on anticipated evolutionary changes in the Navy’s force structure and mission 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.1-11

3.1 Air Quality

assignments. Where there are no major changes in types of ships, estimates of future activities are 

based on the historical distribution of ship activities. The resulting calculations provided information on 

the time spent at each power level in each part of the Study Area, emission factors for that power level 

(in pounds of pollutant per hour), and total emissions for each marine vessel for each operational type 

and mode.

Small boat emissions were estimated based on activity data provided by the Navy, which included the 

type and number of small boats, locations, and total number of hours running. Each alternative 

conservatively assumes that small boat training and testing activities are separately conducted and 

separately produces emissions. In practice, multiple training/testing activities may be conducted during 

one training/testing event. Conservative assumptions may produce elevated vessel emissions 

calculations but account for the possibility, however remote, that each training and testing activity is 

separately conducted.

Emissions factor data came from the Naval Sea Systems Command database, Navy and Military Sealift 

Command Marine Engine Fuel Consumption and Emission Calculator. For non-road engines, 100 percent

of all of the particulate matter less than or equal to 10 microns in diameter from gasoline and dieselfueled engines is assumed to be particulate matter less than or equal to 2.5 microns in diameter (U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 2010). 

3.1.1.4.3 Submarine Activities

No U.S. submarines burn fossil fuel under normal operating conditions. However, testing of the 

emergency diesel generator or training practice of emergency conditions can result in the generator 

running. For this reason, the emergency generator emissions have been included for submarines, 

conservatively estimated for steaming hours. This overestimates the actual emissions, but ensures the 

occasional running of emergency diesel generators is documented as an emission.

3.1.1.4.4 Naval Gunfire, Missiles, Bombs, Other Munitions, and Military Expended 

Material

Naval gunfire, missiles, bombs, and other types of munitions used in training and testing activities emit 

air pollutants. To estimate the amounts of air pollutants emitted by munitions during their use, the 

numbers and types of munitions used during training or testing activities are first totaled. Then generally 

accepted emissions factors (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2009a) for criteria air pollutants are 

applied to the total amounts. Finally, the total amounts of air pollutants emitted by each munition type 

are summed to produce total amounts of each criteria air pollutant under each alternative.

3.1.1.5 Climate Change

Greenhouse gases are compounds that contribute to the greenhouse effect—a natural phenomenon in 

which gases trap heat within the lowest portion of the earth’s atmosphere (surface-troposphere

system), causing heating (radiative forcing) at the surface of the earth. The primary long-lived 

greenhouse gases directly emitted by human activities are carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, 

hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, nitrogen trifluoride, and sulfur hexafluoride. Carbon dioxide, 

methane, and nitrous oxide occur naturally in the atmosphere. These gases influence the global climate 

by trapping heat in the atmosphere that would otherwise escape to space. The heating effect from 

these gases is considered the primary cause of the global warming observed over the last 50 years (U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 2009b). Global warming and climate change affect many aspects of 

the environment. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.1-12

3.1 Air Quality

The administrator of the USEPA determined that six greenhouse gases in combination endanger both 

the public health and the public welfare of current and future generations. The USEPA specifically 

identified carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur 

hexafluoride as greenhouse gases (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2009c).

To estimate global warming potential, which is the heat trapping capacity of a gas, the United States 

quantifies greenhouse gas emissions using the 100-year timeframe values established in the 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fourth Assessment Report (Intergovernmental Panel on 

Climate Change, 2007), in accordance with United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change 

(United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, 2013) reporting procedures. All global 

warming potentials are expressed relative to a reference gas, carbon dioxide, which is assigned a global 

warming potential equal to 1. Six other primary greenhouse gases have global warming potentials: 25 

for methane, 298 for nitrous oxide, 124 to 14,800 for hydrofluorocarbons, 7,390 to greater than 17,340 

for perfluorocarbons, 17,200 for nitrogen trifluoride, and up to 22,800 for sulfur hexafluoride. To 

estimate the carbon dioxide equivalency of a non-carbon dioxide greenhouse gas, the appropriate global 

warming potential of that gas is multiplied by the amount of the gas emitted. All seven greenhouse 

gases are multiplied by their global warming potential and the results are added to calculate the total 

equivalent emissions of carbon dioxide. The dominant greenhouse gas emitted is carbon dioxide, mostly 

from fossil fuel combustion (85.4 percent) (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2016c). Weighted by 

global warming potential, methane is the second largest component of emissions, followed by nitrous 

oxide. Global warming potential-weighted emissions are presented in terms of equivalent emissions of 

carbon dioxide, using units of metric tonnes. The Proposed Action is anticipated to release greenhouse 

gases to the atmosphere. These emissions are quantified (primarily using methods elaborated upon in 

the Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990 – 2014) for the proposed Navy training 

and testing in the Study Area, and estimates are presented in Chapter 4 (Cumulative Impacts) (U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 2016c).

The potential effects of proposed greenhouse gas emissions are by nature global and may result in 

cumulative impacts because most individual sources of greenhouse gas emissions are not large enough 

to have any noticeable effect on climate change. Therefore, the impact of proposed greenhouse gas 

emissions to climate change is discussed in the context of cumulative impacts.

3.1.1.6 Other Compliance Considerations, Requirements, and Practices

Executive Order 13834, Executive Order Regarding Efficient Federal Operations, issued on May 17, 2018, 

establishes policy for federal agencies to prioritize actions that reduce waste, cut costs, enhance the 

resilience of Federal infrastructure and operations, and enable more effective accomplishment of their

missions..

In January 2018, the Department of Defense (DoD) published the results of a global screening level 

assessment of installation vulnerabilities to climate-related security risks with the goal of identifying 

serious vulnerabilities and developing necessary adaptation strategies. The survey evaluated risk from 

flooding, extreme temperatures, wind, drought and wildfire. 

In June 2014, DoD released the 2014 Climate Change Adaptation Roadmap to document DoD’s efforts to 

plan for the changes that are occurring or expected to occur as a result of climate change. The Roadmap 

provides an overview and specific details on how DoD’s adaptation will occur and describes ongoing 

efforts (U.S. Department of Defense, 2014). The Navy is committed to improving energy security and 

environmental stewardship by reducing reliance on fossil fuels. The Navy is actively developing and 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.1-13

3.1 Air Quality

participating in energy, environmental, and climate change initiatives that will increase use of 

alternative energy and reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. The Navy has adopted energy, 

environmental, and climate change goals. These goals include increasing alternative energy use Navywide to 50 percent by 2020; reducing non-tactical petroleum use; ensuring environmentally sound 

acquisition practices; ensuring environmentally compliant operations for ships, submarines, aircraft, and 

facilities operated by the Navy; and implementing applicable elements of the Climate Change 

Adaptation Roadmap.

Equipment used by military units in the Study Area, including ships and other marine vessels, aircraft,

and other equipment, are properly maintained and fueled in accordance with applicable Navy

requirements. Operating equipment meets federal and state emission standards, where applicable.

3.1.2 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

3.1.2.1 General Background

3.1.2.1.1 Region of Influence

The region of influence for air quality is a function of the type of pollutant, emission rates of the 

pollutant source, proximity to other emission sources, and local and regional meteorology. Figure 3.1-1

through Figure 3.1-4 present maps of the nonattainment and maintenance areas in the vicinity of the 

Study Area. For inert pollutants (all pollutants other than ozone and its precursors), the region of 

influence is generally limited to a few miles downwind from the source. For a photochemical pollutant 

such as ozone, however, the region of influence may extend much farther downwind. Ozone is a 

secondary pollutant formed in the atmosphere by photochemical reactions of previously emitted 

pollutants, or precursors (volatile organic compounds and nitrogen oxides). The maximum impacts of 

precursors on ozone levels tend to occur several hours after the time of emission during periods of high 

solar load, and may occur many miles from the source. Ozone and ozone precursors transported from 

other regions can also combine with local emissions to produce high local ozone concentrations. 

Therefore, the region of influence for air quality includes the Study Area as well as adjoining land areas 

several miles inland, which may from time to time be downwind from emission sources associated with 

the Proposed Action.

3.1.2.2 Sensitive Receptors

Identification of sensitive receptors is part of describing the existing air quality environment. Sensitive

receptors are individuals in residential areas, schools, parks, hospitals, or other sites for which there is a

reasonable expectation of continuous human exposure during the timeframe coinciding with peak 

pollution concentrations. On the oceanic portions of the Study Area, crews of commercial vessels and 

recreational users of the northern Atlantic Ocean and Gulf of Mexico could encounter the air pollutants 

generated by the Proposed Action. Few such individuals are expected to be present and the duration of

substantial exposure to these pollutants is limited because the areas are cleared of nonparticipants

before event commencement. These potential receptors are not considered sensitive.

3.1.2.2.1 Climate of the Study Area

The climatic conditions in the Study Area provide background on factors influencing air quality. Climate 

zones within the Study Area vary with latitude or region. For air quality, the Study Area can be divided 

into four areas: the North Atlantic Region (Arctic region to Nova Scotia), the Mid-Atlantic Region (Maine 

to Virginia), the Southeast Atlantic Region (North Carolina to southern Florida) and the Gulf of Mexico 

Region (southern Florida to Texas).
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.1-14

3.1 Air Quality

Notes: AFTT: Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing; OPAREA: Operation Area; VACAPES: Virginia Capes; PM 2.5: particulate matter 

less than or equal to 2.5 microns in diameter; PM10: particulate matter less than or equal to 10 microns in diameter. 

Figure 3.1-1: Applicable Nonattainment and Maintenance Areas in USEPA Region 1 and 2
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.1-15

3.1 Air Quality

Notes: AFTT: Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing; OPAREA: Operation Area; VACAPES: Virginia Capes; PM 2.5: particulate

matter less than or equal to 2.5 microns.

Figure 3.1-2: Applicable Nonattainment and Maintenance Areas in USEPA Region 3
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.1-16

3.1 Air Quality

Notes: AFTT: Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing; OPAREA: Operation Area; SO2: sulfur dioxide; Pb: lead.

Figure 3.1-3: Applicable Nonattainment and Maintenance Areas in USEPA Region 4
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.1-17

3.1 Air Quality

Notes: AFTT: Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing; OPAREA: Operation Area: SO2: sulfur dioxide

Figure 3.1-4: Applicable Nonattainment and Maintenance Areas in USEPA Region 6
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.1-18

3.1 Air Quality

The climate is arctic near the 65-degree north latitude line and tropical at the 20-degree north latitude 

line, but most activities and their potential effects would occur in the northern temperate to subtropical 

climate zones between Maine, Florida, and the Gulf Coast.

The climate of the offshore Atlantic Ocean and adjacent land areas is influenced by the temperatures of 

the surface waters and water currents as well as by wind blowing across the water. Offshore climates 

are moderate and seldom have extreme seasonal variations because the ocean is slow to change 

temperature. Ocean currents of the Atlantic Ocean (i.e., Labrador, Gulf Stream, North Atlantic Drift, 

Canary, and North Equatorial) influence climate by moving warm and cold water between regions. 

Adjacent land areas are affected by wind that is cooled or warmed when blowing over these currents. In 

addition to its influence on temperature, the wind moves evaporated moisture from the ocean to 

adjacent land areas and is a major source of rainfall.

With the advent of human induced climate change, spatial and temporal variations in weather patterns 

have emerged or have become more pronounced. Very heavy precipitation events have increased 

across the eastern half of the United States, with the most pronounced increase involving the midAtlantic and New England states (Melillo et al., 2014). Other changes apparent along the eastern 

seaboard include the rising incidence of heat waves and their extended duration and coastal flooding 

due to sea level rise and storm surge. In the South and along the Gulf Coast, the incidence of extreme 

storms, such as hurricanes, continues to rise. These changes to weather patterns have long-term 

consequences for regional climates and the flora and fauna of the regions.

3.1.2.2.1.1 Newfoundland-Labrador Shelf and Scotian Shelf

The Newfoundland-Labrador Shelf and Scotian Shelf are not connected to the continental United States 

and do not include state waters, but do fall within the AFTT Study Area. This area does not fall under the 

purview of the Clean Air Act and, therefore, is not included in the regulatory air quality analysis. In the 

North Atlantic (Newfoundland-Labrador Shelf and Scotian Shelf) winter begins (when daily temperatures 

average 32° Fahrenheit [° F]) as early as mid-August in the Labrador Sea or as late as October 1 off the 

coast of the island of Newfoundland (Canadian Coast Guard, 2010). Winter ends in this region in midJune. Sea ice begins to grow shortly after the onset of winter as average sea temperatures reach 29° to 

35° F. Polar lows usually occur during the fall, winter, and early spring. 

3.1.2.2.1.2 Mid-Atlantic United States Continental Shelf

Along the coasts of Maine to Virginia, the most frequent wind directions measured by buoys are from 

the west or west-northwest, but wind can come from any direction (National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration, 2017). The average wind speeds are between 12.4 and 16.2 miles per hour (mph). Wind 

speeds are typically lowest in July at 9.0 to 12.1 mph, and highest in January at 15.7 to 20.0 mph.

Annual average air temperature ranges from 47° to 68° F along the coast of Maine to Virginia (National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2017). Seasonal variations in temperature are greatest during 

the winter months. In January and February, the ambient temperature average ranges from 28° F along 

the coast of Maine to 52° F in Virginia. During the warmer months, there is little daily variation in 

temperature. In August, the average temperature is 75° F along the coast of this region.

Along the coasts of Maine to Virginia, precipitation is frequent and abundant but occurs evenly 

throughout the year (Minerals Management Service, 2007a). Average annual rainfall along the Atlantic 

coast is about 42 inches (in.). Rainfall in the warmer months is usually associated with cloud systems 

that produce showers and thunderstorms. Winter rains are associated with the passage of frontal 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.1-19

3.1 Air Quality

systems through the eastern seaboard. Precipitation also falls as snow along the coasts of Maine to the 

highlands of Virginia. The highest snowfall among coastal U.S. areas within the Study Area occurs in 

Portland, Maine, with a maximum yearly average of 62.4 in.

3.1.2.2.1.3 Southeast United States Continental Shelf

Off the coast of North Carolina, the prevailing winds are from south to southwest, with average wind 

speeds between 13 to 16 mph. Off the coasts of South Carolina and Georgia, the prevailing wind 

direction is from south to southwest, and from southeast to east-southeast off of Florida. Average wind 

speeds range from 12 to 14 mph and wind speeds exhibit smaller monthly variations than northern 

coastal states.

Annual average air temperatures range from 70° to 75° F along the coast of the Southeast U.S. 

Continental Shelf (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2017). In January and February, 

ambient temperatures average 55°F along the coast of the Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf. During the 

warmer months, there is little daily variation in temperature. In August, average temperatures are 83° F 

along the coast of this region. Air temperatures over the southern coast and offshore Atlantic Ocean 

have smaller daily and seasonal ranges than temperatures over inland areas because the ocean, which is 

slow to change temperature, has a stabilizing influence on ocean and coastal atmospheric temperatures.

At various locations along the Atlantic coast, fog occurs occasionally in the cooler months as a result of 

warm, moist air from the Gulf of Mexico blowing over cool land or water surfaces. The poorest visibility 

occurs from November through April. During periods of air stagnation, industrial pollution and 

agricultural burning also can affect visibility.

In the Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf coastal areas (generally from North Carolina to Florida), 

precipitation is frequent and abundant throughout the year, but tends to peak in the summer months.

Hurricanes develop in the southern part of the Atlantic Ocean. Hurricane season in the Atlantic Ocean 

runs from June to November, with a peak in mid-September. Most storms form in warm waters several 

hundred miles north of the equator. Once a tropical system forms, it usually travels west and slightly 

north while strengthening. Many storms curve to the northeast near the Florida peninsula. The Atlantic 

basin averages about 10 storms of tropical storm strength or greater per year; about half reach 

hurricane level (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2005). Storms weaken as they 

encounter cooler water, land, or vertical wind shear, sometimes slowing to an extra-tropical storm, 

mostly affecting northern Atlantic coastal areas.

3.1.2.2.1.4 Gulf of Mexico

The climate of the Gulf of Mexico is influenced mainly by the clockwise circulation around the semipermanent area of high barometric pressure commonly known as the Bermuda High (Minerals 

Management Service, 2002). The Gulf of Mexico is southwest of this center of circulation. This highpressure system results in a predominantly southeasterly wind flow in the Gulf of Mexico. Two 

important classes of storms occasionally occur with this circulation pattern. During the winter months, 

cold fronts associated with cold air masses from land influence the northern coast of the Gulf of Mexico. 

Behind the fronts, strong north winds bring drier air into the region. Secondly, hurricanes may develop 

in or migrate into the Gulf of Mexico during the warmer months. These storms may affect any area of 

the Gulf of Mexico and substantially change the local wind circulation around them. In coastal areas, the 

sea breeze may become the primary circulation feature during the summer months. Conversely, land 

breezes (particularly at night) transport air pollutants from land to offshore areas. Locally, the land 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.1-20

3.1 Air Quality

breeze diminishes as more heat is retained within large, growing coastal cities (National Science 

Foundation, 2011). In general, however, the subtropical maritime climate is the dominant feature 

driving all aspects of the weather in this region. As a result, the climate shows very little daily or 

seasonal variation (Minerals Management Service, 2002).

Average air temperatures at Gulf of Mexico coastal locations (Texas to Florida) vary with latitude and 

exposure. Air temperatures range from highs in the summer of 88° to 96° F to lows in the winter of 37° 

to 59° F (Minerals Management Service, 2002). Temperatures depend on the frequency and intensity of 

polar air masses from the north. Air temperatures over the open waters of the Gulf of Mexico are more 

moderate and have smaller daily and seasonal temperature ranges than land temperatures because the 

Gulf of Mexico is slow to change temperature (Minerals Management Service, 2007b). The average 

temperature over the center of the Gulf of Mexico is about 84° F in the summer and between 63° to 73° 

F in the winter (Minerals Management Service, 2007b).

In the Gulf of Mexico portion of the Study Area, precipitation is frequent and abundant throughout the 

year (Minerals Management Service, 2002). Stations along the entire Gulf Coast record the highest 

precipitation values during the warmer months of the year. The warmer months usually have cloud 

systems that produce showers and thunderstorms; however, these thunderstorms rarely cause any 

damage or have hail (Minerals Management Service, 2002). The month of maximum rainfall for most 

locations in the Gulf of Mexico is July. Winter rains often come with frontal systems passing through the 

area. Rainfall is generally light, steady, and relatively continuous, often lasting several days. Snowfall is 

rare, and when snow or sleet does occur, it usually melts on contact with the ground. The chance for 

snow or sleet decreases with distance from shore, rapidly reaching zero.

Hurricanes affecting the Gulf of Mexico form near the equator in the Atlantic Ocean, the Caribbean Sea, 

and the Gulf of Mexico (Minerals Management Service, 2002). Data from 1886 to 1986 show that almost 

half (44.5 percent) of these hurricanes, or 3.7 storms per year, will affect the Gulf of Mexico (Minerals 

Management Service, 2002).

3.1.2.3 Existing Air Quality

As a whole, the air quality of the Study Area is very good. As shown in Figure 3.1-1 through Figure 3.1-3, 

most nonattainment and maintenance areas in the eastern half of the continental United States are in 

the northeastern states. Many are located in inland, urban, industrialized areas. This limited 

geographical extent with regard to potential air pollution results from the relatively low number of air 

pollutant sources, size, and topography of the Study Area, and prevailing meteorological conditions. In 

general, the coastal counties of the lower-middle and southern Atlantic as well as the Gulf of Mexico, 

including the Hampton Roads Intrastate area (in the vicinity of Naval Station Norfolk on Figure 3.1-2), 

are in attainment of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. Being in attainment means that the 

areas maintain air quality better than the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. 

Some other coastal areas, however, are either in nonattainment or are a designated maintenance area 

for one or more of the criteria pollutants. These designations are based on air quality data collected 

from monitors at locations in urban and rural setting, as well as modeling. Based on available 

information, the USEPA designates an area as attainment, maintenance, nonattainment, or if there is a 

lack of available monitoring data for the area, it may be designated unclassifiable. Nonattainment and 

maintenance designations range from as small as a single location to large multi-state regions. Table 

3.1-3 identifies the nonattainment and maintenance areas that are adjacent to the Study Area.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.1-21

3.1 Air Quality

Table 3.1-3: Nonattainment and Maintenance Areas Adjacent to Study Area

Area Name Coastal Locations Included Designation

USEPA Regions 1 & 2

Central New Hampshire, NH Rockingham County (p), Hillsborough County (p) 2010 SO2 (n)

Greater Connecticut New London County Ozone (n-moderate)

Hartford –New BritainMiddletown, CTMiddlesex County CT (p) CO (m)

New Haven-Meriden-Waterbury, 

CT

New Haven County CT CO (m)

New York-Northern New JerseyLong Island, NY-NJ-CT

Fairfield, New Haven & Middlesex Counties (CT);

Bronx, Kings, Nassau, New York, Queens, 

Richmond, Rockland, Suffolk, & Westchester 

Counties (NY); Bergen, Essex, Hudson, Union, 

Middlesex & Monmouth Counties (NJ)

Ozone (n-moderate)

Fairfield & New Haven Counties (CT); 

Bronx, Kings, Nassau, New York, Queens, 

Richmond, Rockland, Suffolk, & Westchester 

Counties (NY); 

Bergen, Essex, Hudson, Union, Middlesex & 

Monmouth Counties (NJ)

1997 PM2.5 (m) and

2006 PM2.5 (m)

New Haven County CT (p)

New York County NY

PM10 (m)

PM10 (n)

Fairfield County CT (p) CO (m)

Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic 

City, PA-NJ-MD-DE

Atlantic, Cape May & Ocean Counties Ozone (n-marginal)

USEPA Region 3

Seaford, DE Sussex County Ozone (n-marginal)

USEPA Region 4

Nassau County, FL Nassau County, FL (p) 2010 SO2 (n)

Hillsborough County, FL Hillsborough County, FL (p) 2010 SO2 (n)

Tampa, FL (p) 2008 Lead

USEPA Region 6

Saint Bernard Par LA Saint Bernard Parish, LA 2010 SO2 (n)

Houston-Galveston-Brazoria, TX Brazoria, Chambers, Galveston Counties, TX Ozone (n-moderate)

Source: (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2017b)

Notes: (p) means partial; (n) means nonattainment; (m) means maintenance

CO: carbon monoxide; PM10: particulate matter ≤ 10 microns in diameter; PM2.5: particulate matter ≤ 2.5 microns in 

diameter; SO2: sulfur dioxide
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.1-22

3.1 Air Quality

The Greater Connecticut area is designated as moderate nonattainment for ozone. Table 3.1-4 lists 

Study Area pierside locations and the attainment status for each.

Table 3.1-4: Pierside and Coastal Activity Locations and Their Area’s Attainment Status

Pierside Location Designated Area

National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards Attainment Status

Portsmouth Naval Shipyard, Kittery 

Maine; Shipyard – Bath, Maine

Metropolitan Portland/ 

Cumberland County

Attainment of all applicable standards

Naval Undersea Warfare Center, 

Division, Newport, Newport, Rhode 

Island

Providence (all of RI), RI Attainment of all applicable standards

Naval Submarine Base New London; 

Groton, Connecticut Shipyard –

Groton, Connecticut and Thames 

River

Greater Connecticut, CT Moderate nonattainment of the 8-hour 

ozone standard

Attainment of all other applicable 

standards

Naval Station Norfolk, Norfolk, 

Virginia; Joint Expeditionary Base 

Little Creek-Fort Story, Virginia 

Beach, Virginia; Norfolk Naval 

Shipyard, Portsmouth, Virginia; 

Shipyard – Newport News, Virginia;

Broad Bay; York River; James River 

and Tributaries

Hampton Roads Intrastate Attainment of all applicable standards

Cooper River; Charleston Pier, South 

Carolina

Charleston County Attainment of all applicable standards

Naval Submarine Base Kings Bay, 

Georgia 

Camden County Attainment of all applicable standards

Naval Station Mayport, Jacksonville, 

Florida; St. Johns River, Florida

Duval County Attainment of all applicable standards

Port Canaveral, Cape Canaveral, 

Florida

Brevard County Attainment of all applicable standards

Saint Andrew Bay, Florida Bay County Attainment of all applicable standards

Shipyard – Pascagoula, Mississippi Jackson County Attainment of all applicable standards

Source: 40 CFR part 81, Subpart C and Green Book Nonattainment and Maintenance Areas (U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, 2017b)

Figure 3.1-1 through Figure 3.1-4 show the nonattainment and maintenance areas that are within or 

adjacent to the AFTT Study Area.

3.1.2.3.1 Other Air Basins Adjacent to the Study Area

A substantial portion (over 70 percent) of all AFTT EIS/OEIS training and testing activities occur within 

the range complexes, which are adjacent to coastal attainment areas but located beyond state waters. 

The remaining 30 percent are largely conducted well offshore and a small percentage is performed in 

areas offshore of coastal nonattainment or maintenance areas. These areas include stretches of coastal 

areas of the northeast, areas adjacent to Nassau County, Florida, the Tampa area, the New Orleans area, 

and coastal areas around Houston. The migration of emissions from offshore sources to land is welldocumented. In 1997, the International Maritime Organization adopted Annex VI, Regulations for the 

Prevention of Air Pollution from ships. These regulations were instituted for the commercial maritime 

industry due to recognition of the impact of vessel emissions, which can travel hundreds of miles, on 

coastal receptors and further inland. These emissions are particularly significant around the large ports 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.1-23

3.1 Air Quality

on the coast of the United States, which include New York/New Jersey, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Norfolk, 

Charleston, Savannah, Jacksonville, Miami, South Louisiana, and Houston (U.S. Maritime Administration, 

2016).

In addition to the Operational Areas (OPAREAs) and other areas further out to sea, there are also 

activities that occur within state waters. Vessels traverse state water during ingress/egress to OPAREAs 

and other Study Area locations further offshore. There are also training activities in particular that occur 

in coastal areas, including riverine and bay locations. The area of greatest activity is in the lower 

Chesapeake Bay and in tributaries to the bay, primarily the James and York Rivers in Virginia. Activities in 

Narragansett Bay are associated with the Naval Undersea Warfare Center Division, Newport in Rhode 

Island. Additional areas where training or testing occurs within state waters include the St. Johns River 

near Naval Station Mayport, Florida, Port Canaveral, Florida, St. Andrew Bay near Naval Support Activity 

Panama City, Florida and the Cooper River near Charleston, South Carolina. Of these, only Naval Station 

Mayport is located in an Air Quality Control Region with a nonattainment designation within its borders.

3.1.3 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

This section evaluates how and to what degree the activities described in Chapter 2 (Description of 

Proposed Action and Alternatives) potentially impact air quality within the Study Area. The air quality 

stressors vary in intensity, frequency, duration, and location within the Study Area. The stressor 

applicable to air quality in the Study Area is analyzed below: 

 Criteria Air Pollutants

In this analysis, criteria air pollutant emissions estimates were calculated for vessels, aircraft, and 

munitions. For each alternative, emissions estimates were developed by range complex and other 

training or testing locations and totaled for the Study Area. Additionally, state waters emissions are 

separately analyzed for air quality impacts. Details of the emission estimates are provided in Appendix C 

(Air Quality Emissions Calculations and Record of Non-Applicability). Hazardous air pollutants are 

analyzed qualitatively in relation to the prevalence of the sources emitting hazardous air pollutants 

during training and testing activities.

Estimating Emissions of Criteria Air Pollutants

The potential impacts of criteria air pollutants are evaluated by first estimating the emissions from 

training and testing activities in the Study Area for each alternative. These estimates are then used to 

determine the potential impact of the emissions on the attainment status of the adjacent designated air 

quality area. 

The estimate of criteria air pollutant emissions for each alternative is categorized by region (e.g., by 

range complex or testing range) so that differences in background air quality, atmospheric circulation 

patterns, regulatory requirements, and sensitive receptors can be addressed. An overall estimate of air 

pollutant emissions for Navy training and testing activities in the Study Area under each alternative is 

also provided. Under Alternative 1, emissions were based on the average number of training and testing 

activities anticipated, based on the prior 6 years of data. Under Alternative 2, emissions were based on 

the anticipated maximum number of training and testing activities. For vessel operations, the maximum 

was based on the operations that occurred in 2011 the year of the highest number of operations in the 

range 2010 – 2015. While this represented the year of most total operations, the number of operations 

involving specific vessels in the individual operational areas may or may not have been higher than the
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.1-24

3.1 Air Quality

average number used in Alternative 1. These individual variances do not change the overall result of 

greater total operations when accounting for all vessels in all regions under Alternative 2. 

Table 3.1-5 and Table 3.1-7 present the total emissions for the proposed training and testing activity 

locations under each alternative. Table 3.1-6 and Table 3.1-8 present the emissions specific to the 

Jacksonville nonattainment/maintenance area with a comparison to the General Conformity de minimis

thresholds to assess the applicability of the General Conformity Regulations to the proposed action in 

this area.

The analysis below is organized by Alternative and provides both the NEPA impact analysis, and where 

appropriate, a separate discussion related to General Conformity requirements.

3.1.3.1 Impacts from Air Emissions Under Alternative 1

3.1.3.1.1 NEPA Impacts from Air Emissions under Alternative 1

Table 3.1-5 presents the total estimated emission results under Alternative 1 for each operational region 

in the Study Area and includes all emissions generated, regardless of proximity to the coastline. Most of 

these emissions occur beyond state waters. For Virginia Capes Range Complex, the use of vessels within 

the state waters is up to 2 percent, and in the Jacksonville Range Complex, the use of vessels within 

state waters is up to 1 percent.

The subsections that follow evaluate the emissions, both within the entire Study Area, and in state 

waters within the Study Area, under NEPA.

Table 3.1-5: Estimated Annual Air Pollutant Emissions from Activities Occurring within the 

AFTT Study Area, Alternative 1

Range Complex Emissions by Air Pollutant (TPY)

VOC CO NOX SOX PM10 PM2.5

Northeast 6.0 25.0 143.4 28.3 9.7 9.7

Virginia Capes 121.9 939.8 3,722.7 984.1 190.7 190.7

Cherry Point 43.8 348.8 918.7 172.7 42.3 42.3

Jacksonville 49.4 485.7 1,069.8 306.6 71.5 71.5

Key West 2.8 12.2 76.7 12.9 5.4 5.4

Gulf of Mexico 8.3 122.3 416.5 108.6 25.2 25.2

Outside Range Complex Areas 53.7 332.8 1,683.1 383.5 55.5 55.5

Notes: CO: carbon monoxide; NOx: oxides of nitrogen; VOC: volatile organic compounds; SOx: sulfur oxides; PM10: particulate

matter less than or equal to 10 microns in diameter; PM2.5: particulate matter less than or equal to 2.5 microns in 

aerodynamic diameter; TPY: tons per year.

A significant portion of the Study Area activities would occur well offshore. While pollutants emitted in 

the Study Area under Alternative 1 may at times be carried ashore by winds, most training and testing 

activities would occur more than 12 NM offshore, and natural mixing would substantially disperse 

pollutants before they reach the coastal land mass. The contributions of air pollutants generated in the 

Study Area to the air quality in onshore areas are unlikely to measurably add to existing onshore 

pollutant concentrations because of the distances these offshore pollutants would be transported and 

their substantial dispersion during transport.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.1-25

3.1 Air Quality

3.1.3.1.2 General Conformity Analysis under Alternative 1 in Northeast Areas Designated 

Nonattainment or Maintenance

In the northeast, the primary areas where air pollution has resulted in designation of nonattainment or 

maintenance areas lie in the New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT Air Quality Control 

Region (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1972) (see Figure 3.1-1) which is moderate 

nonattainment for ozone, a maintenance area for particulate matter less than or equal to 2.5 microns in 

diameter, and includes a maintenance area for particulate matter less than or equal to 10 microns in 

diameter. A portion of the Eastern Connecticut Intrastate Control Region is also designated as moderate 

nonattainment for ozone. A very small area of coastal New Hampshire is nonattainment for sulfur 

dioxide, and there is a small area of ozone nonattainment in the coastal counties of New Jersey as well 

as near the coast at Seaford, Delaware. Activities in state waters are not scheduled to occur in any of 

these nonattainment or maintenance areas. The primary location where activities in state waters occur 

is at Naval Undersea Warfare Center Newport and Narragansett Bay, both of which are in Rhode Island, 

an area in attainment for all pollutants.

3.1.3.1.3 General Conformity Analysis under Alternative 1 in Jacksonville Florida Areas 

Designated Nonattainment or Maintenance

In the southeast, the area where air pollution has resulted in designation of a coastal nonattainment or 

maintenance area lies in Nassau County, Florida, which is just north of Jacksonville (see Figure 3.1-3).

Both of these counties are in the Jacksonville (Florida)-Brunswick (Georgia) Interstate Air Quality Control 

Region. A portion of Nassau County is nonattainment for sulfur dioxide which will require that a General 

Conformity applicability analysis be performed to determine if a formal General Conformity 

Determination is required. Table 3.1-6 presents the estimated state waters emissions and their 

relevance to applicable General Conformity thresholds.

Table 3.1-6: Estimated Annual Air Pollutant Emissions from Activities Occurring in State 

Waters in the Jacksonville, Florida Area, Alternative 1

Emissions by Air Pollutant (TPY)

VOC CO NOX SOX PM10 PM2.5

Nassau, FL SO2 Nonattainment Area

Total Emissions from all Sources 1.3 6.6 24.6 4.9 1.3 1.3

General Conformity Thresholds NA NA NA 100 NA NA

Exceedance? NA NA NA No NA NA

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; PM2.5: particulate matter less than or equal to 2.5 microns in diameter; 

PM10: particulate matter less than or equal to 10 microns in diameter; SOX: sulfur oxides; TPY: tons per year; VOC: volatile 

organic compounds

Sulfur dioxide emissions in state waters associated with AFTT activities would be below the General 

Conformity de minimis thresholds. As a result, no further analysis of conformity is required and a Record 

of Non-Applicability, located in Appendix C, was prepared in accordance with Navy guidance.

3.1.3.1.4 General Conformity Analysis under Alternative 1 in the Gulf of Mexico Areas 

Designated Nonattainment or Maintenance

In the Gulf of Mexico, the primary areas where air pollution has resulted in designation of 

nonattainment or maintenance areas lie in Hillsborough County, Florida (see Figure 3.1-1) which is 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.1-26

3.1 Air Quality

nonattainment for sulfur dioxide and lead; Saint Bernard Parish, Louisiana, which is also nonattainment 

for sulfur dioxide; and the Houston-Galveston-Brazoria ozone nonattainment area. Activities in state 

waters are not scheduled to occur in any of these nonattainment or maintenance areas. The primary 

location where state water activities in this region do occur is at Naval Surface Warfare Center Panama 

City Division, Florida which is in attainment for all pollutants.

3.1.3.1.5 Summary of Impacts from Criteria Pollutants under Alternative 1

While both criteria and hazardous air pollutants emitted in the Study Area under Alternative 1 may at 

times be carried ashore by prevailing winds, most training and testing activities would occur beyond 

state water boundaries and natural mixing would substantially disperse pollutants before they reach the 

boundaries of the adjacent air quality control regions. Additionally, the primary wind pattern moves 

from shore to offshore (National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 2018). The contributions of air 

pollutants generated in the Study Area to the air quality in the air quality control regions are unlikely to 

measurably add to existing onshore pollutant concentrations because of the distances these offshore 

pollutants would be transported, their substantial dispersion during transport and the intermittent

short-term nature of the activities. Therefore, no significant impacts on air quality as a result of criteria 

pollutants over state waters would occur; and no significant harm to air quality as a result of criteria 

pollutant emissions beyond state waters would occur. Total direct and indirect emissions of criteria 

pollutants under Alternative 1 also fall below de minimis levels, thus a General Conformity Analysis is 

not required.

3.1.3.2 Impacts from Air Emissions under Alternative 2

3.1.3.2.1 NEPA Impacts from Air Emissions under Alternative 2

Table 3.1-7 presents the total estimated emission results under Alternative 2 for each operational region 

in the Study Area and includes all emissions generated, regardless of proximity to the coastline. Most of 

these emissions occur beyond state waters. For Virginia Capes Range Complex, the use of vessels within 

the state waters is greater than in other portions of the Study Area. 

The subsections that follow evaluate the state waters emissions within the regional areas that include 

nonattainment or maintenance areas. These emissions are compared to the General Conformity de 

minimis thresholds, and are not specific to specific localities. This conservative approach, then, evaluates 

all nearshore emissions as potentially occurring in any of the applicable nonattainment or maintenance 

areas.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.1-27

3.1 Air Quality

Table 3.1-7: Estimated Annual Air Pollutant Emissions from Activities Occurring within the 

AFTT Study Area, Alternative 2

Emissions by Air Pollutant (TPY)

VOC CO NOX SOX PM10 PM2.5

Northeast 5.5 26.3 120.8 20.3 12.1 12.1

Virginia Capes 118.0 935.9 3,993.9 1,070.8 211.6 211.6

Cherry Point 33.1 185.9 821.5 194.7 39.9 39.9

Jacksonville 61.2 602.8 1,994.2 540.3 88.9 88.9

Key West 0.9 14.3 30.3 10.6 3.7 3.7

Gulf of Mexico 1.7 27.4 59.7 19.7 9.7 9.7

Outside Range Complex 

Areas 162.4 569.7 4,160.7 656.8 90.2 90.2

Notes: CO: carbon monoxide; NOx: oxides of nitrogen; VOC: volatile organic compounds; SOx: sulfur oxides; PM10: particulate 

matter less than or equal to 10 microns in diameter; PM2.5: particulate matter less than or equal to 2.5 microns in 

diameter; TPY: tons per year.

A significant portion of the Study Area activities would occur well offshore. While pollutants emitted in 

the Study Area under Alternative 2 may at times be carried ashore by winds, most training and testing 

activities would occur more than 12 NM offshore, and natural mixing would substantially disperse 

pollutants before they reach the coastal land mass. The contributions of air pollutants generated in the 

Study Area to the air quality in onshore areas are unlikely to measurably add to existing onshore 

pollutant concentrations because of the distances these offshore pollutants would be transported and 

their substantial dispersion during transport.

3.1.3.2.2 General Conformity Analysis under Alternative 2 in Northeast Areas Designated 

Nonattainment or Maintenance

In the northeast, the primary areas where air pollution has resulted in designation of nonattainment or 

maintenance areas lies in the New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT Air Quality Control 

Region (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1972) (see Figure 3.1-1) which is moderate 

nonattainment for ozone, a maintenance area for particulate matter less than or equal to 2.5 microns in 

diameter, and includes a maintenance area for particulate matter less than or equal to 10 microns in 

diameter. A portion of the Eastern Connecticut Intrastate Control Region is also designated as moderate 

nonattainment for ozone. A very small area of coastal New Hampshire is nonattainment for sulfur 

dioxide, and there is a small area of ozone nonattainment near the coast at Seaford, Delaware. State 

waters activities are not scheduled to occur in any of these nonattainment or maintenance areas. The 

primary location where state waters activities in this region do occur is at Naval Undersea Warfare 

Center Division Newport and Narragansett Bay, both of which are in Rhode Island, an area in attainment 

for all pollutants.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.1-28

3.1 Air Quality

3.1.3.2.3 General Conformity Analysis under Alternative 2 in Jacksonville Florida Areas 

Designated Nonattainment or Maintenance

In the southeast, the area where air pollution has resulted in designation of a coastal nonattainment or 

maintenance area lies in the Nassau County, Florida, which is just north of Jacksonville (see Figure 3.1-3).

Both of these counties are in the Jacksonville (Florida)-Brunswick (Georgia) Interstate Air Quality Control 

Region. A portion of this county is nonattainment for sulfur dioxide. Table 3.1-8 presents the estimated 

nearshore emissions and their relevance to applicable General Conformity thresholds.

Table 3.1-8: Estimated Annual Air Pollutant Emissions from Activities Occurring within 3 NM 

of shore in the Jacksonville, Florida Area, Alternative 2

Emissions by Air Pollutant (TPY)

VOC CO NOX SOX PM10 PM2.5

Nassau, FL SO2 Nonattainment Area

Total Emissions from all Sources 1.5 9.6 30.7 6.1 1.6 1.6

General Conformity Thresholds NA NA NA 100 NA NA

Exceedance? NA NA NA No NA NA

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; PM2.5: particulate matter less than or equal to 2.5 microns in diameter; PM10:

particulate matter less than or equal to 10 microns in diameter; SOX: sulfur oxides; TPY: tons per year; VOC: volatile 

organic compounds

Sulfur dioxide emissions in state waters that are associated with AFTT activities would be below the 

General Conformity de minimis thresholds. As a result, no further analysis of conformity is required and 

a Record of Non-Applicability, located in Appendix C, was prepared in accordance with Navy guidance.

3.1.3.2.4 General Conformity Analysis under Alternative 2 in the Gulf of Mexico Adjacent 

Areas Designated Nonattainment or Maintenance

In the Gulf of Mexico, the primary areas where air pollution has resulted in designation of 

nonattainment or maintenance areas lie in Hillsborough County, Florida (see Figure 3.1-1) which is 

nonattainment for sulfur dioxide and lead; Saint Bernard Parish, Louisiana, which is also nonattainment 

for sulfur dioxide; and the Houston-Galveston-Brazoria ozone nonattainment area. State waters 

activities are not scheduled to occur in any of these nonattainment or maintenance areas. The primary 

location where state waters activities in this region do occur is at Naval Surface Warfare Center Panama 

City Division, Florida which is in attainment for all pollutants. As a result, the General Conformity 

Regulations do not apply.

3.1.3.2.5 Summary of Impacts from Criteria Pollutants under Alternative 2

While pollutants emitted in the Study Area under Alternative 2 may at times be carried ashore by 

prevailing winds, most training and testing activities would occur more than 3 NM offshore, and natural 

mixing would substantially disperse pollutants before they reach the boundaries of the adjacent air 

quality control regions. The contributions of air pollutants generated in the Study Area to the air quality 

in the air quality control regions are unlikely to measurably add to existing onshore pollutant 

concentrations because of the distances these offshore pollutants would be transported and their 

substantial dispersion during transport. Total direct and indirect emissions of criteria pollutants under 

Alternative 1 also fall below de minimis levels, thus a General Conformity Analysis is not required.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.1-29

3.1 Air Quality

3.1.3.3 Impacts from Air Pollutants under the No Action Alternative

Under the No Action Alternative, training and testing activities associated with the Proposed Action 

would not be conducted within the AFTT Study Area. Discontinuing training and testing activities in the 

Study Area under the No Action Alternative would not measurably improve air quality in the Study Area

because of the discontinuous nature of the events that constitute the Proposed Action and the fact that 

most of the air emissions that are generated occur at sea over a wide geographic area. The elimination 

of the air emissions associated with training activities in the lower Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries 

may be beneficial to local air quality in this region because it is the area of highest activity in state 

waters. It should be noted that the air quality in this area already surpasses the National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards.

3.1.3.4 Greenhouse Gases and Climate Change

Activities conducted as part of the Proposed Action would involve mobile sources using fossil fuel 

combustion as a source of power. Additionally, the expenditure of munitions could generate greenhouse 

gas emissions. While the emissions generated by testing and training activities alone would not be 

enough to cause global warming, in combination with past and future emissions from all other sources 

they would contribute incrementally to the global warming that produces the adverse effects of climate 

change. 

Greenhouse gas emissions for all of the training and testing activities occurring annually throughout the 

entire Study Area were calculated using emissions factors provided by the U.S. Navy for aircraft and 

vessels, and published by the USEPA for munitions. The analysis of greenhouse gas emissions associated 

with aircraft is limited to those emissions below 3,000 ft. because there is insufficient historical data to 

document the entire flight path or flight duration of any given aircraft for a specific training or testing 

event. This is also true for the baseline data so that the totals for the baseline, Alternative 1 and 

Alternative 2 are comparable. A comparative analysis was performed using the greenhouse gas emission 

estimates prepared for the Preferred Alternative in the 2013 AFTT Final EIS/OEIS. A net decrease in 

greenhouse gas emissions would be anticipated compared to the 2013 estimates, with the largest 

decrease associated with Alternative 1, as indicated in Table 3.1-9.

Table 3.1-9: Total Annual Greenhouse Gas Emissions from All Study Area Training and Testing 

Activities in Metric Tons per Year

2013 Emission

Estimates

Alternative 1 

Emissions

Net Change from 

2013 Estimates

Alternative 2 

Emissions

Net Change from 

2013 Estimates

1,360,794 1,027,261 -333,533 1,235,075 -125,719

3.1.4 SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL IMPACTS ON AIR QUALITY

In this analysis, criteria air pollutant and greenhouse gas emissions estimates were calculated for 

vessels, aircraft, and munitions. For each alternative, emissions estimates were developed by range 

complex and other training or testing locations and totaled for the Study Area. Details of the emission 

estimates are provided in Appendix C (Air Quality Emissions Calculations and Example Record of NonApplicability). 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.1-30

3.1 Air Quality

3.1.4.1 Combined Impacts of All Stressors under Alternative 1

Emissions associated with Study Area training and testing activities under Alternative 1 primarily occur 

beyond the boundary for state waters. For fixed-wing aircraft activities, emissions typically occur above 

the 3,000 ft. mixing layer. Given these characteristics, the impact on air quality from the combination of 

these resource stressors are expected to be similar to the impacts on air quality for any of these 

stressors taken individually without any additive synergistic, or antagonistic interaction. To provide a 

general comparative analysis, the emissions data for each alternative were compared to the emission 

data from the Preferred Alternative selected in the 2013 AFTT Final EIS/OEIS. A comparison of estimated 

emissions under Alternative 1 to the 2013 Preferred Alternative (which was subsequently adopted)

indicates that some pollutant emissions would be reduced and others would increase. Emissions of

volatile organic compounds, carbon monoxide, and greenhouse gases would decrease. Nitrogen oxides, 

sulfur dioxide and particulate matter would increase. A significant cause of the increase in nitrogen 

oxide, particulate matter, and sulfur dioxide emissions is due to the inclusion of riverine and bay testing 

and training activities, particularly in the Virginia environs. These activities were not analyzed as part of 

the air quality analysis in the 2013 document.

3.1.4.2 Combined Impacts of All Stressors under Alternative 2

Emissions associated with Study Area training and testing activities under Alternative 2 primarily occur 

beyond the boundary for state waters. For fixed-wing aircraft activities, emissions typically occur above 

the 3,000 ft. mixing layer. Given these characteristics, the impact on air quality from the combination of 

these resource stressors are expected to be similar to the impacts on air quality for any of these 

stressors taken individually without any additive synergistic, or antagonistic interaction. A comparison of 

estimated emissions under Alternative 2 in comparison to the baseline indicates that some pollutants 

emissions would be reduced and others would increase. Emissions of volatile organic compounds, 

carbon monoxide, and greenhouse gases would decrease. Nitrogen oxides, particulate matter, and 

sulfur dioxide would increase. A significant cause of the increase in nitrogen oxide and sulfur dioxide 

emissions is due to the inclusion riverine and bay testing and training activities, particularly in the 

Virginia environs. These activities were not accounted for in the analyses presented in the phase 2013 

AFTT Final EIS/OEIS Proposed Action.

3.1.4.3 Combined Impacts of All Stressors under the No Action Alternative

Training and testing activities associated with the Proposed Action would not be conducted within the 

AFTT Study Area. 

Discontinuing training and testing activities in the Study Area under the No Action Alternative would not 

measurably improve air quality in the Study Area because of the discontinuous nature of the events that 

constitute the Proposed Action and the fact that most of the air emissions that are generated occur at 

sea over a wide geographic area. The elimination of the air emissions associated with training activities 

in the lower Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries may be beneficial to local air quality in this region 

because it is the area of highest activity in state waters. It should be noted that the air quality in this 

area is already better than the National Ambient Air Quality Standards.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.1-31

3.1 References

References

Arfsten, D. P., C. L. Wilson, and B. J. Spargo. (2001). Human environmental health issues related to use of 

radio frequency chaff. Navy Medicine, 92(5), 12–16. 

Canadian Coast Guard. (2010). Chapter 3: Ice and Weather Environment. Retrieved from 

http://www.ccg-gcc.gc.ca/e0010733.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (2007). Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report, IPCC 

Fourth Assessment. Geneva, Switzerland: IPCC.

Melillo, J. M., T. Richmond, and G. W. Yohe. (2014). Climate Change Impacts in the United States: The 

Third National Climate Assessment. Washington, DC: U.S. Global Change Research Program.

Minerals Management Service. (2002). Final Environmental Impact Statement for Gulf of Mexico OCS Oil 

and Gas Lease Sales: 2003–2007; Central Planning Area Sales 185, 190, 194, 198, and 201; 

Western Planning Area Sales 187, 192, 196, and 200. New Orleans, LA: U.S. Department of the 

Interior. Retrieved from https://www.boem.gov/BOEMNewsroom/Library/Publications/2002/2002-052-vol1.aspx.

Minerals Management Service. (2007a). Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for Alternative 

Energy Development and Production and Alternate Use of Facilities on the Outer Continental 

Shelf: Final Environmental Impact Statement. New Orleans, LA: Gulf of Mexico OCS Region.

Minerals Management Service. (2007b). Gulf of Mexico OCS Oil and Gas Lease Sales: 2007–2012. New 

Orleans, LA: U.S. Department of the Interior.

National Aeronautics and Space Administration. (2018). Why do storms generally move from west to 

east in the USA? , Retrieved from https://pmm.nasa.gov/education/content/why-do-stormsgenerally-move-west-east-usa.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. (2005). Hurricane Katrina: A Climatological 

Perspective. (Technical Report 2005-01). Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Commerce. Retrieved 

from https://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/techrpts/tr200501/tech-report-200501z.pdf.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. (2017). National Data Buoy Center. Retrieved from 

http://www.ndbc.noaa.gov/obs.shtml.

National Science Foundation. (2011). Air Quality Worsened by Paved Surfaces. Retrieved from 

http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=119606.

Ozone Transport Commission. (2017). What is the Ozone Transport Commission? , Retrieved from 

http://www.otcair.org/about.asp.

U.S. Department of Defense. (2014). 2014 Climate Change Adaptation Roadmap. Alexandria, VA: 

Department of Defense.

U.S. Department of the Navy. (1999). Environmental Effects of RF Chaff: A Select Panel Report to the 

Undersecretary of Defense for Environmental Security. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the 

Navy, Naval Research Laboratory.

U.S. Department of the Navy. (2003). Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Introduction of the

F/A-18 E/F (Super Hornet) Aircraft to the East Coast of the United States.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.1-32

3.1 References

U.S. Department of the Navy. (2009). Final Environmental Assessment Transition of E-2C Hawkeye to E2D Advanced Hawkeye at Naval Station Norfolk, Virginia and Naval Base Ventura County Point 

Mugu, California. Washington, DC.

U.S. Department of the Navy. (2010). United States Marine Corps F-35B East Coast Basing Environmental 

Impact Statement. Norfolk, VA: Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Mid-Atlantic.

U.S. Department of the Navy. (2013). Navy Guidance for Compliance with the Clean Air Act General 

Conformity Rule. Washington, DC: Office of the Chief of Naval Operations Energy and 

Environmental Readiness Division.

U.S. Department of the Navy. (2014). Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the 

Introduction of the P-8A Multi-Mission Maritime Aircraft into the U.S. Navy Fleet. Norfolk, VA: 

Naval Facilities Engineering Command Atlantic.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1972). Mixing Heights, Wind Speeds, and Potential for Urban Air 

Pollution Throughout the Contiguous United States. Research Triangle Park, NC: Environmental 

Protection Agency Office of Air Programs.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2007). The Plain English Guide to the Clean Air Act. (EPA-456/K07-001). Research Triangle Park, NC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2009a). AP-42, Compilation of Air Pollutant Emissions Factors, 

Volume 1: Stationary Point and Area Sources. Retrieved from https://www.epa.gov/airemissions-factors-and-quantification/ap-42-compilation-air-emission-factors#5thed.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2009b). Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for 

Greenhouse Gases under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act. Washington, DC: U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2009c). Technical support document for endangerment and 

cause or contribute findings for greenhouse gases under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act. 

Washington, DC: Council on Foreign Relations.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2010). Exhaust and Crankcase Emission Factors for Nonroad 

Engine Modeling–Compression-Ignition. (EPA-420-R-10-018). Retrieved from 

https://www3.epa.gov/otaq/models/nonrdmdl/nonrdmdl2010/420r10018.pdf.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2016a). Hazardous Air Pollutants. Retrieved from 

http://www.epa.gov/haps.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2016b). National Ambient Air Quality Standards. Retrieved from 

https://www.epa.gov/criteria-air-pollutants/naaqs-table.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2016c). Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 

1990–2014. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2017a). General Conformity Training Module 2.2: Emissions and 

Review. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2017b). Nonattainment Areas for Criteria Pollutants (Green 

Book). Retrieved from https://www.epa.gov/green-book.

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.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.1-33

3.1 References

United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. (2013). Revision of the UNFCCC Reporting 

Guidelines on Annual Inventories for Parties included in Annex I to the Convention (Following 

Incorporation of the Provisions of Decision 24/CP.19). (FCCC/CP/2013/10/Add.3).
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.1-34

3.1 References

This page intentionally left blank.
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

i

Table of Contents

Final

Environmental Impact Statement/Overseas Environmental Impact Statement 

Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

3.2 Sediments and Water Quality..................................................................................3.2-1

3.2.1 Introduction and Methods..................................................................................3.2-1

3.2.1.1 Introduction........................................................................................3.2-1

3.2.1.2 Methods..............................................................................................3.2-5

3.2.2 Affected Environment.........................................................................................3.2-8

3.2.2.1 Sediments...........................................................................................3.2-8

3.2.2.2 Water Quality....................................................................................3.2-27

3.2.3 Environmental Consequences ..........................................................................3.2-40

3.2.3.1 Explosives and Explosives Byproducts..............................................3.2-41

3.2.3.2 Chemicals Other Than Explosives.....................................................3.2-50

3.2.3.3 Metals...............................................................................................3.2-56

3.2.3.4 Other Materials.................................................................................3.2-63

3.2.4 Summary of Potential Impacts on Sediments and Water Quality ....................3.2-69

3.2.4.1 Combined Impact of all Stressors under Alternative 1.....................3.2-69

3.2.4.2 Combined Impact of all Stressors under Alternative 2.....................3.2-70

3.2.4.3 Combined Impact of all Stressors under the No Action 

Alternative........................................................................................3.2-70

List of Figures

Figure 3.2-1: Sediment Particle Size Comparison ...................................................................................3.2-2

Figure 3.2-2: Sediment Quality Ratings for the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic Coast .............................3.2-15

Figure 3.2-3: Sediment Quality Ratings for the Southeast Coast .........................................................3.2-19

Figure 3.2-4: Sediment Quality Ratings for the Gulf of Mexico Coast..................................................3.2-22

Figure 3.2-5: Marine Marker Deposited on a Mound at 300 meter Depth..........................................3.2-26

Figure 3.2-6: Water Quality Ratings for the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic Coast...................................3.2-30

Figure 3.2-7: Water Quality Ratings for the Southeast Coast...............................................................3.2-34

Figure 3.2-8: Water Quality Ratings for the Gulf of Mexico Coast .......................................................3.2-36
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

ii

Table of Contents

List of Tables

Table 3.2-1: Sediment Quality Criteria and Index, U.S. Atlantic Coast and Gulf of Mexico..................3.2-10

Table 3.2-2: Comparison of Mean Pre-Industrial and Post-Industrial Metal Concentrations in 

Sediments in Long Island Sound with Sediment Effects Thresholds ...............................3.2-11

Table 3.2-3: Comparison of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons, Polychlorinated Biphenyls 

and dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane in Sediment Samples with Sediment 

Guidelines Developed by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration .................................................................................................................3.2-13

Table 3.2-4: Water Quality Screening Criteria for Metals and Organic Contaminants in 

Marine Waters.................................................................................................................3.2-27

Table 3.2-5: Percent Marine Debris by Source in Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing Study 

Area..................................................................................................................................3.2-39

Table 3.2-6: Water Solubility of Common Explosives and Explosive Degradation Products................3.2-42

Table 3.2-7: Failure and Low-Order Detonation Rates of Military Munitions......................................3.2-45

Table 3.2-8: Constituents in Munitions Other Than Explosives............................................................3.2-52

Table 3.2-9: Concentrations of and Screening Levels for Selected Metals in Marine 

Sediments, Vieques, Puerto Rico.....................................................................................3.2-58

Table 3.2-10: Summary of Components of Marine Markers and Flares...............................................3.2-64

Table 3.2-11: Major Components of Chaff ...........................................................................................3.2-65
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.2-1

3.2 Sediments and Water Quality

3.2 SEDIMENTS AND WATER QUALITY

3.2.1 INTRODUCTION AND METHODS

3.2.1.1 Introduction

The following sections provide an overview of the characteristics of sediments and water quality in the 

Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing (AFTT) Study Area (Study Area), and describe, in general terms, the 

methods used to analyze potential impacts of the Proposed Action on these resources.

SEDIMENTS AND WATER QUALILTY SYNOPSIS

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

and water quality could potentially be exposed to from the Proposed Action. The following 

conclusions have been reached for the Preferred Alternative: 

 Explosives and explosives byproducts: Impacts from explosives and explosives byproducts 

would be short term and local. Impacts from unconsumed explosives and constituent 

chemical compounds would be minimal and limited to the area adjacent to the munition. 

Explosives and constituent compounds could persist in the environment depending on the 

integrity of the undetonated munitions casing and the physical conditions on the seafloor 

where the munition resides. Chemical and physical changes to sediments and water quality, 

as measured by the concentrations of contaminants or other anthropogenic compounds, 

may be detectable and would be below applicable regulatory standards for determining 

effects on biological resources and habitats.

 Chemicals other than explosives: Impacts from other chemicals not associated with 

explosives would be both short term and long term depending on the chemical and the 

physical conditions on the seafloor where the source of the chemicals resides. Impacts would 

be minimal and localized to the immediate area surrounding the source of the chemical 

release.

 Metals: Impacts from metals would be minimal and long term and dependent on the metal 

and the physical conditions on the seafloor where the metal object (e.g., non-explosive 

munition) resides. Impacts would be localized to the area adjacent to the metal object. 

Concentrations of metal contaminants near the expended material or munition may be 

measurable and are likely to be similar to the concentrations of metals in sediments from 

nearby reference locations.

 Other materials: Impacts from other expended materials not associated with munitions 

would be both short term and long term depending on the material and the physical 

conditions (e.g., substrate, temperature, currents) on the seafloor where the material 

resides. Impacts would be localized to the immediate area surrounding the material. 

Chemical and physical changes to sediments and water quality, as measured by the 

concentrations of contaminants or other anthropogenic compounds near the expended 

material, are not likely to be detectable and would be similar to the concentrations of 

chemicals and material residue from nearby reference locations.
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.2-2

3.2 Sediments and Water Quality

3.2.1.1.1 Sediments

The discussion of sediments begins with an overview of sediment sources and characteristics in the 

Study Area, and considers factors that have the potential to affect sediment quality.

3.2.1.1.1.1 Characteristics of Sediments

Sediments consist of solid 

fragments of organic and 

inorganic matter forming the 

bottom, or substrate, of bodies 

of water. Sediments in the 

marine environment (e.g., in 

ocean basins) are either 

terrigenous, meaning that they 

originate from land, or are 

biogenic (i.e., formed from the 

remains of marine organisms). 

Terrigenous sediments come 

from the weathering of rock 

and other land-based 

substrates and are transported 

by water, wind, and ice

(glaciers) to the seafloor. 

Biogenic sediments are 

produced in the oceans by the 

skeletal remains of singlecelled benthic and planktonic

organisms (e.g., foraminiferans 

and diatoms). When an

organism dies, its remains are deposited on the seafloor. The remains are composed primarily of either 

calcium carbonate (e.g., a shell) or silica, and mixed with clays, form either a calcareous or siliceous ooze 

(Chester, 2003). Sediments in the Atlantic Ocean are predominantly composed of calcareous oozes, and 

the Pacific Ocean has more siliceous oozes (Kennett, 1982). In addition to composition, sediments are 

also classified by size. Blott and Pye (2012) reviewed commonly used historical classification systems and 

offered a refined system that is adopted for describing sediments in this section. Sediments are grouped 

into five size classes: boulders, gravel, sand, silt, and clay. Sands range in size from 0.063 millimeter 

(mm) (very fine sands) to 2 mm (very coarse sands) (Figure 3.2-1). For comparison, the thickness of a 

nickel is approximately 2 mm. Sediment types smaller than sands are silts (0.002 to 0.063 mm in 

diameter) and clays (particles less than 0.002 mm in diameter). Sediments larger than sands are various 

types of gravel ranging in size from 2 mm (granules) to 64 mm (cobbles). Sediments greater than 64 mm 

in diameter are defined as boulders and range up to 2,048 mm (Blott & Pye, 2012; U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, 1993). Fine-grained silts and clays are often found mixed together in areas beyond the 

continental slope, such as on abyssal plains, and are referred to generally as mud (Kennett, 1982). 

Sediments in nearshore waters and on the continental shelf contain more sands that are primarily 

terrigenous, and sediments farther from shore in deep ocean basins are primarily biogenic. As organic 

and inorganic particles move downward through the water column and ultimately to the seafloor, many 

Figure 3.2-1: Sediment Particle Size Comparison
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.2-3

3.2 Sediments and Water Quality

substances, including contaminants, that adhere to the particles and are otherwise scarce in the water 

column, become concentrated in bottom sediments (Chapman et al., 2003; Kszos et al., 2003).

3.2.1.1.1.2 Factors Affecting Marine Sediment Quality

The quality of sediments is influenced by their physical, chemical, and biological components; by where 

they are deposited; by the properties of seawater; and by other inputs and sources of contamination. 

Sediments tend to be dynamic, where factors affecting marine sediments often interact and influence 

each other. These factors are summarized below.

Physical characteristics and processes: At any given site, the texture and composition of sediments are 

important physical factors that influence the types of substances that are retained in the sediments, and 

subsequent biological and chemical processes. For example, clay-sized and smaller sediments and 

similarly sized organic particles tend to bind potential sediment contaminants and potentially limit their 

movement in the environment (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2009). Conversely, fine-grained 

sediments are easily disturbed by currents and bottom-dwelling organisms, dredging, storms, and 

bottom trawling (Eggleton & Thomas, 2004; Hedges & Oades, 1997). Disturbance is also possible in 

deeper areas, where currents are minimal (Carmody et al., 1973), from mass wasting events such as 

underwater slides and debris flows (Coleman & Prior, 1988). If re-suspended, fine-grained sediments 

(and any substances bound to them) can be transported long distances.

Chemical characteristics and processes: The concentration of oxygen in sediments strongly influences 

sediment quality through its effect on the binding of materials to sediment particles. At the sediment 

surface, the level of oxygen is usually the same as that of the overlying water. Deeper sediment layers, 

however, are often low in oxygen (i.e., hypoxic) or have no oxygen (i.e., anoxic), and have a low 

oxidation-reduction potential, which predicts the stability of various compounds that regulate nutrient 

and metal availability in sediments. Certain substances combine in oxygen-rich environments and 

become less available for other chemical or biological reactions.

Biological characteristics and processes: Organic matter in sediments provides food for resident 

microbes. The metabolism of these microbes can change the chemical environment in sediments and 

thereby increase or decrease the mobility of various substances and influence the ability of sediments to 

retain and transform those substances (Mitsch et al., 2009; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

2008c). Bottom-dwelling animals often rework sediments in the process of feeding or burrowing. In this 

way, marine organisms influence the structure, texture, and composition of sediments, as well as, the 

horizontal and vertical distribution of substances in the sediment (Boudreau, 1998). Moving substances 

out of or into low or no-oxygen zones in the sediment may alter the form and availability of various 

substances. The metabolic processes of bacteria also influence sediment components directly. For 

example, sediment microbes may convert mercury to methyl mercury, increasing its toxicity (Mitchell & 

Gilmour, 2008). However, it is more common that biological processes breakdown contaminants and 

reduce toxicity in sediments (White et al., 1997).

Location: The quality of coastal and marine sediments is influenced substantially by inputs from 

adjacent watersheds (Turner & Rabalais, 2003). Proximity to watersheds with large cities or intensively 

farmed lands often increases the amount of both inorganic and organic contaminants that find their way 

into coastal and marine sediments. A wide variety of metals and organic substances, such as polycyclic 

aromatic hydrocarbons, polychlorinated biphenyls, and pesticides—often referred to collectively as 

“persistent organic pollutants”—are discharged into coastal waters by urban, agricultural, and industrial 

point and non-point sources in the watershed (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2008c). Location 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.2-4

3.2 Sediments and Water Quality

on the ocean floor also influences the distribution and concentration of various elements through local 

geology and volcanic activity (Demina & Galkin, 2009), as well as through landslides and debris flow

events (Coleman & Prior, 1988).

Other Contributions to Sediments: While the greatest mass of sediments is carried into marine systems 

by rivers (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2008c), wind and rain also deposit materials in coastal 

waters and contribute to the mass and quality of sediments. For example, approximately 80 percent of 

the mercury released by human activities comes from coal combustion, mining and smelting, and solid 

waste incineration (Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, 1999). These activities are 

generally considered to be the major sources of mercury in marine systems (Fitzgerald et al., 2007).

Atmospheric deposition of lead is similar in that human activity is a major source of lead in sediments 

(Wu & Boyle, 1997). 

3.2.1.1.2 Water Quality

The discussion of water quality begins with an overview of the characteristics of marine waters, 

including pH (a measure of acidity), temperature, oxygen, nutrients, salinity, and dissolved elements. 

The discussion then considers how those characteristics of marine waters are influenced by physical, 

chemical, and biological processes.

3.2.1.1.2.1 Characteristics of Marine Waters

The composition of water in the marine environment is determined by complex interactions among 

physical, chemical, and biological processes. Physical processes include region-wide currents and tidal 

flows, seasonal weather patterns and temperature, sediment characteristics, and unique local 

conditions, such as the volume of fresh water delivered by large rivers. Chemical processes involve 

salinity, pH, dissolved minerals and gases, particulates, nutrients, and pollutants. Biological processes 

involve the influence of living things on the physical and chemical environment. The two dominant 

biological processes in the ocean are photosynthesis and respiration, particularly by microorganisms. 

These processes involve the uptake, conversion, and excretion of waste products during growth, 

reproduction, and decomposition (Mann & Lazier, 1996).

3.2.1.1.2.2 Influences of Marine Properties and Processes on Seawater Characteristics

Ocean currents and tides mix and redistribute seawater. In doing so, they alter surface water 

temperatures, transport and deposit sediment, and concentrate and dilute substances that are dissolved 

and suspended in the water. These processes operate to varying degrees from nearshore areas to the 

abyssal plain. Salinity also affects the density of seawater and, therefore, its movement relative to the 

sea surface (Libes, 2009). Upwelling brings cold, nutrient-rich waters from deeper areas, increasing the 

productivity of local surface waters (Mann & Lazier, 1996). Storms and hurricanes also cause strong 

mixing of marine waters (Li et al., 2008).

Temperature and pH influence the behavior of trace metals in seawater, such as the extent to which 

they dissolve in water (i.e., the metal’s solubility) or their tendency to adsorb organic and inorganic 

particles. However, the degree of influence differs widely among metals (Byrne, 1996). The 

concentration of a given element may change with position in the water column. For example, some 

metals (e.g., cadmium) are present at low concentrations in surface waters and at higher concentrations 

at depth (Bruland, 1992), while others decline quickly with increasing depth below the surface (e.g., zinc 

and iron) (Nozaki, 1997). On the other hand, dissolved aluminum concentrations are highest at the 

surface, lowest at mid-depths, and increase again at depths below about 1,000 meters (Li et al., 2008).
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.2-5

3.2 Sediments and Water Quality

Substances, such as nitrogen, carbon, silicon, and trace metals, are extracted from the water by 

biological processes. Others, like oxygen and carbon dioxide, are produced by biological processes. 

Metabolic waste products add organic compounds to the water, and may also absorb trace metals, 

removing those metals from the water column. Those organic compounds may then be consumed by 

biological organisms, or they may aggregate with other particles and sink (Mann & Lazier, 1996; Wallace 

et al., 1977).

Runoff from coastal watersheds influences local and regional coastal water conditions, especially large 

rivers. Influences include increased sediments and pollutants, and decreased salinity (Rabalais et al., 

2002; Turner & Rabalais, 2003; Wiseman & Garvine, 1995). Coastal bays and large estuaries serve to 

filter river outflows and reduce total discharge of runoff to the ocean (Edwards et al., 2006; Mitsch et 

al., 2009). Depending on their structure and components, estuaries can directly or indirectly affect 

coastal water quality by recycling various compounds (e.g., excess nutrients), sequestering elements in 

more inert forms (e.g., trace metals), or altering them, such as the conversion of mercury to methyl 

mercury (Mitchell & Gilmour, 2008; Mitsch & Gosselink, 2007).

3.2.1.1.2.3 Coastal Water Quality

Most water quality problems in coastal waters of the United States are from degraded water clarity or 

increased concentrations of phosphates or chlorophyll-a (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2012b). 

Water quality indicators measured are dissolved inorganic nitrogen, dissolved inorganic phosphorus, 

water clarity or turbidity, dissolved oxygen, and chlorophyll-a. Chlorophyll-a is an indicator of 

microscopic algae (phytoplankton) abundance used to judge nutrient availability (e.g., phosphates and 

nitrates). Excess phytoplankton blooms can decrease water clarity and, when phytoplankton die off 

following blooms, lower concentrations of dissolved oxygen. Most sources of these impacts arise from 

on-shore point and non-point sources of pollution. Point sources are direct water discharges from a 

single source, such as industrial or sewage treatment plants, while non-point sources are the result of 

many diffuse sources, such as runoff caused by rainfall.

3.2.1.2 Methods

The following four stressors may impact sediments or water quality: (1) explosives and explosives 

byproducts, (2) metals, (3) chemicals other than explosives, and (4) a miscellaneous category of other 

materials (e.g., plastics). The term “stressor” is used because the military expended materials in these 

four categories may affect sediments or water quality by altering their physical or chemical 

characteristics. The potential impacts of these stressors are evaluated based on the extent to which the 

release of these materials could directly or indirectly impact sediments or water quality such that 

existing laws or standards would be violated or recommended guidelines would be exceeded. The 

differences between standards and guidelines are described below.

 Standards are established by law or through government regulations that have the force of law. 

Standards may be numerical or narrative. Numerical standards set allowable concentrations of 

specific pollutants (e.g., micrograms per liter [μg/L]) or levels of other parameters (e.g., pH) to 

protect the water’s designated uses. Narrative standards describe water conditions that are 

not acceptable.

 Guidelines are non-regulatory, and generally do not have the force of law. They reflect an 

agency’s preference or suggest conditions that should prevail. Guidelines are often used to 

assess the condition of a resource to guide subsequent steps, such as the disposal of dredged 

materials. Terms such as screening criteria, effect levels, and recommendations are also used.
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.2-6

3.2 Sediments and Water Quality

3.2.1.2.1 State Standards and Guidelines

State jurisdiction regarding sediments and water quality extends from the low tide line to 3 nautical 

miles (NM) offshore for all states except Texas and the Gulf coast of Florida where state waters extend 

to 9 NM offshore. Waters under the jurisdiction of Puerto Rico also extend to 9 NM, and waters under 

the control of the United States (U.S.) Virgin Islands extend to 3 NM offshore. Creating state-level 

sediments and water quality standards and guidelines begins with each state establishing a use for the 

water, which is referred to as its “designated” use. Examples of such uses of marine waters include 

fishing, shellfish harvesting, and recreation. For this section, a water body is considered “impaired” if 

any one of its designated uses is not met. Once this use is designated, standards or guidelines are 

established to protect the water at the desired level of quality. Applicable state standards and guidelines 

specific to each stressor are detailed in Section 3.2.3 (Environmental Consequences).

3.2.1.2.2 Federal Standards and Guidelines

Federal jurisdiction regarding sediments and water quality extends from 3 to 200 NM along the Atlantic 

and Gulf coasts of the United States. However, as discussed in the prior paragraph, for Texas, Puerto 

Rico, and Florida’s Gulf coast, federal jurisdiction begins at 9 NM from shore and extends seaward to 

200 NM. These standards and guidelines are mainly the responsibility of the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency (USEPA), specifically ocean discharge provisions of the Clean Water Act (33 United 

States Code [U.S.C.] section 1343). Ocean discharges may not result in “unreasonable degradation of the 

marine environment.” Specifically, disposal may not result in: (1) unacceptable negative effects on 

human health; (2) unacceptable negative effects on the marine ecosystem; (3) unacceptable negative 

persistent or permanent effects due to the particular volumes or concentrations of the dumped 

materials; and (4) unacceptable negative effects on the ocean for other uses as a result of direct 

environmental impact (40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] section 125.122). Applicable federal 

standards and guidelines specific to each stressor are detailed in Section 3.2.3 (Environmental 

Consequences). Proposed training and testing activities also occur beyond 200 NM. Even though Clean 

Water Act regulations may not apply, pertinent water quality standards are used as accepted scientific 

standards to assess potential impacts on sediments and water quality from the Proposed Action.

The International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (Convention) addresses 

pollution generated by normal vessel operations. The Convention is incorporated into U.S. law as 

33 U.S.C. sections 1901–1915. The Convention includes six annexes: Annex I, oil discharge; Annex II, 

hazardous liquid control; Annex III, hazardous material transport; Annex IV, sewage discharge; Annex V, 

plastic and garbage disposal; and Annex VI, air pollution. The Navy is required to comply with the 

Convention; however, the United States is not a party to Annex IV. The discharge of sewage by military 

vessels is regulated by Section 312(d) of the Clean Water Act. The Convention contains handling 

requirements and specifies where materials can be discharged at sea, but it does not contain standards 

related to sediments nor water quality.

The National Defense Authorization Act of 1996 amended Section 312 of the Clean Water Act, directing 

the USEPA and the Department of Defense to jointly establish the Uniform National Discharge Standards 

for discharges (other than sewage) incidental to the normal operation of military vessels. The Uniform 

National Discharge Standards program establishes national discharge standards for military vessels in 

U.S. coastal and inland waters extending seaward to 12 NM. Twenty-five types of discharges were 

identified as requiring some form of pollution control (e.g., a device or policy) to reduce or eliminate the 

potential for impacts. The discharges addressed in the program include, ballast water, deck runoff, and 

seawater used for cooling equipment. For a complete list of discharges refer to 40 CFR part 1700.4.
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.2-7

3.2 Sediments and Water Quality

These national discharge standards reduce the environmental impacts associated with vessel discharges, 

stimulate the development of improved pollution control devices aboard vessels, and advance the 

development of environmentally sound military vessels. The U.S. Navy adheres to regulations outlined in 

the Uniform National Discharge Standards program, and, as such, the analysis of impacts in this

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)/Overseas Environmental Impact Statement (OEIS) will be limited 

to potential impacts from training and testing activities including impacts from military expended 

materials, but not impacts from discharges addressed under the Convention or the Uniform National 

Discharge Standards program.

3.2.1.2.3 Intensity and Duration of Impact

The intensity or severity of impact is defined as follows (listed by increasing level of impact):

 Chemical, physical, or biological changes in sediment or water quality would not be detectable as 

a result of the use of military materials. The proposed activities would not violate water quality 

standards.

 Chemical, physical, or biological changes in sediment or water quality would be measurable, but 

total concentrations would not violate applicable standards, regulations, and guidelines. 

Sediment or water quality would be equivalent to existing conditions, and designated uses of the 

water body or substrate would not change.

 Chemical, physical, or biological changes in sediment or water quality would be measurable and 

readily apparent, but total concentrations would not violate applicable standards, regulations, 

and guidelines. Sediment or water quality would be altered compared to the historical baseline

or desired conditions, and designated uses of the water body or substrate would be changed. 

Mitigation would be necessary and would likely be successful.

 Chemical, physical, or biological changes in sediment or water quality would be readily 

measurable, and some standards, regulations, and guidelines would be periodically approached, 

equaled, or exceeded as measured by total concentrations. Sediment or water quality would be 

frequently altered from the historical baseline or desired conditions, and designated uses of the 

water body or substrate would be changed. Mitigation measures would be necessary to limit or 

reduce impacts on sediment or water quality, although the efficacy of those measures would not 

be assured.

Duration is characterized as either short term or long term. Short-term is defined as days or months. 

Long-term is defined as months or years, depending on the type of activity or the materials involved.

3.2.1.2.4 Measurement and Prediction

Many of the conditions discussed above often influence each other, so measuring and characterizing 

various substances in the marine environment is often difficult (Byrne, 1996; Ho et al., 2007). For 

instance, sediment contaminants may also change over time. Valette-Silver (1993) reviewed several 

studies that demonstrated the gradual increase in a variety of contaminants in coastal sediments that 

began as early as the 1800s, continued into the 1900s, peaked between the 1940s and 1970s, and 

declined thereafter (e.g., lead, dioxin, polychlorinated biphenyls). After their initial deposition, normal 

physical, chemical, and biological processes can re-suspend, transport, and redeposit sediments and 

associated substances in areas far removed from the source (Hameedi et al., 2002; U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, 2012b). The conditions noted above further complicate predictions of the impact of 

various substances on the marine environment.
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.2-8

3.2 Sediments and Water Quality

3.2.1.2.5 Sources of Information

Relevant literature was systematically reviewed to complete this analysis of sediments and water 

quality. The review included journals, technical reports published by government agencies, work 

conducted by private businesses and consulting firms, U.S. Department of Defense reports, operational 

manuals, natural resource management plans, and current and prior environmental documents for 

facilities and activities in the Study Area.

Because of the proximity of inshore and nearshore areas to humans, information on the condition of 

sediments and water quality in those areas tends to be relatively readily available. However, much less 

is known about deep ocean sediments and open ocean water quality. Since sediments and water quality 

in inshore and nearshore areas tends to be affected by various human social and economic activities, 

two general assumptions are used in this discussion: (1) sediments and water quality generally improve 

as distance from shore increases; and (2) sediments and water quality generally improve as depth 

increases.

3.2.1.2.6 Areas of Analysis

The locations where specific military expended materials would be used are discussed under each 

stressor in Section 3.2.3 (Environmental Consequences).

3.2.2 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

The affected environment includes sediments and water quality within the Study Area, from nearshore 

areas to the open-ocean and deep sea bottom. Existing sediment conditions are discussed first and 

water quality conditions thereafter.

3.2.2.1 Sediments

The following subsections discuss sediments for each region in the Study Area. Note that sand and

gravel harvested from offshore along the U.S. Atlantic coast and in the Gulf of Mexico are discussed as a 

socioeconomic resource in Section 3.11 (Socioeconomic Resources). Impacts on sediments discussed in 

Section 3.2.3 (Environmental Consequences) are also relevant to sand and gravel, but Section 3.11 

(Socioeconomic Resources) analyzes the use of sand and gravel as a resource for purposes such as beach 

replenishment.

3.2.2.1.1 Sediment Descriptions in Geographic Regions of the Study Area

3.2.2.1.1.1 Sediments in the North Atlantic Region

The North Atlantic region consists of the West Greenland Shelf, the Newfoundland-Labrador Shelf, and 

the Scotian Shelf Large Marine Ecosystems, as well as the Labrador Current Open Ocean Area (see 

Figure 3.0-1 in Section 3.0, Introduction). The region includes the coasts and offshore marine areas 

southwest of Greenland, east and northeast of Newfoundland and Labrador, and surrounding Nova 

Scotia. Substrate in the North Atlantic region is comprised almost entirely of soft, unconsolidated 

sediments derived from terrestrial erosion of sedimentary rock. The most common types of sedimentary 

rock are sandstone and shale. The majority of sediments on the continental shelf were deposited by 

receding glaciers and weathered terrestrial rock (Kennett, 1982). Within the region, deposits of larger 

grain-sized gravel are found in the Gulf of Maine, whereas smaller grain-sized, quartz-rich sands 

dominate the remainder of the northeastern continental shelf (Churchill, 1989). Sediments in the North 

Atlantic region contain very little carbonate (less than 5 percent) (Chang et al., 2001; Kennett, 1982).
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.2-9

3.2 Sediments and Water Quality

Although there are no designated range complexes in this region, the area may be used for Navy 

training and testing activities. See Figure 3.0-1 in Section 3.0 (Introduction) for range complexes within 

each large marine ecosystem.

Low population densities and low levels of coastal development in the North Atlantic region, limit the 

amount of pollution from land-based sources in the North Atlantic region (Aquarone & Adams, 2009a, 

2009b; Aquarone et al., 2009). However, pollution is increasing from offshore oil and gas development 

activities (Aquarone & Adams, 2009a, 2009b), and metal pollution exists from prior mineral 

development activity and atmospheric deposition (Bindler et al., 2001; Larsen et al., 2001). Natural 

hydrocarbon seeps are located near Baffin Island to the north (Kvenvolden & Cooper, 2003). 

3.2.2.1.1.2 Sediments in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic Region

Section 3.5 (Habitats) provides a detailed discussion of substrate types within the Northeast and 

Mid-Atlantic Region, and is summarized here. Almost the entire continental shelf along the U.S. Atlantic 

coast is composed of sandy sediments. Sediments north of Cape Hatteras are dominated by quartz and 

feldspar from Precambrian and Paleozoic rocks that were mechanically weathered and deposited by 

glaciers and rivers. Silicon- and phosphorus-based sediments are locally abundant (Milliman et al., 

1972). Sediment in deep areas beyond the continental shelf break is often dominated by biogenic 

calcareous ooze (i.e., calcium carbonate and clays) (Kennett, 1982). Nearshore areas off capes and at the 

mouths of bays, such as Chesapeake Bay and Delaware Bay, are influenced by longshore and cross-shelf 

currents as well as tidal fluctuations (McBride & Moslow, 1991; Murray & Thieler, 2004). Extensive

estuaries on the Atlantic coast tend to trap much of the sediment delivered by rivers. Fine-grained 

sediments that reach the ocean are usually transported shoreward by tides or deposited on the 

continental slope and beyond.

In contrast to the surrounding areas, fine-grained, sandy clay and silt sediments occur on the continental 

shelf south of Nantucket Shoals and the coast of Martha’s Vineyard in an area known as the “Mud 

Patch” (Chang et al., 2001). This is the only area of its size on the eastern U.S. continental shelf where 

surface sediments contain up to 95 percent silt and clay and no rock fragments (Chang et al., 2001; 

Churchill, 1989).

Sediment Quality in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic Region

States bordering the Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf Large Marine Ecosystem include Maine, New 

Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, 

Virginia, and northeast North Carolina (Figure 3.0-1 in Section 3.0, Introduction). Information regarding 

the current quality of sediment in nearshore areas of these states is provided below (Table 3.2-1). 

Except where otherwise indicated, information provided below, including the data used in the sediment 

quality map, was drawn from the U.S Environmental Protection Agency National Aquatic Resource 

Surveys database (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2016).

In 2008, sediments in the northeast coastal region—Maine through Virginia—were rated 76 percent 

good, 11 percent fair, and 13 percent poor (no data were reported for 1 percent) in an evaluation of 

coastal conditions by the USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2008a). Criteria used in the 

agency’s sediment quality index included sediment toxicity, sediment contaminants, and excess 

sediment carbon contained in organic compounds (total organic carbon). To receive a good rating, no 

individual samples in the region could be rated as poor, and the rating for sediment contaminants had to 

be good. A fair rating indicated that none of the individual samples were rated as poor, and the 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.2-10

3.2 Sediments and Water Quality

sediment contaminant index was fair. Sediments in an area were rated as poor if one or more samples 

were rated poor (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2012b).

Areas that were rated poor in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic Region were mostly adjacent to urbanized 

areas and areas of past industrial activity, and included Narragansett Bay, western Long Island Sound, 

New York-New Jersey Harbor, and the upper portions of Chesapeake Bay. Elevated levels of sediment 

contaminants, including metals (e.g., arsenic, chromium, mercury, nickel, silver, and zinc), 

polychlorinated biphenyl, and dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT), were the primary reason for the 

poor ratings in these areas. Overall, in the 2008 assessment, the region rated fair for contaminants, but 

good for sediment toxicity (only 4 percent of sites rated poor), and good for total organic carbon in 

sediments (1 percent poor) (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2012b).

In 2016, the USEPA published another national coastal condition assessment, updating the 2008 

assessment with 2010 sampling results (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2016). In comparison to 

the 2008 assessment, sediment quality in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic Region has declined, with 

60 percent of sediments rated good, 20 percent rated fair, and 9 percent rated poor (data were missing 

for 11 percent of sampling sites). While 80 percent of sediments were rated good for contaminants, only 

58 percent were rated good for sediment toxicity, which was the primary reason for the decline in 

overall sediment quality.

The sediment toxicity index for marine and estuarine sediments is based on the survival rate of selected 

estuarine amphipods when the specimens are exposed to samples collected in the field. Sediment 

toxicity indicates how combinations of anthropogenic and natural chemicals might affect the survival of 

benthic organisms.

Table 3.2-1: Sediment Quality Criteria and Index, U.S. Atlantic Coast and Gulf of Mexico

Parameter

Site Criteria Regional Criteria

Good Fair Poor Good Fair Poor

Sediment 

Toxicity

Amphipod1

survival rate 

≥ 80%

n/a

Amphipod1

survival rate 

< 80%

< 5% of coastal 

area in poor 

condition

n/a

≥ 5% of 

coastal area 

in poor 

condition

Sediment 

Contaminants

No ERM2

concentration 

exceeded, and 

< 5 ERL3

concentrations 

exceeded

No ERM2

concentratio

n exceeded 

and ≥ 5 ERL3

concentratio

ns exceeded

An ERM2

concentration 

exceeded for 

one or more 

contaminants

< 5% of coastal 

area in poor 

condition

5–15% of 

coastal area in 

poor condition

> 15% of 

coastal area 

in poor 

condition

Excess 

Sediment TOC

TOC 

concentration 

< 2%

TOC 

concentratio

n 2% to 5%

TOC 

concentration 

> 5%

< 20% of 

coastal area in 

poor condition

20–30% of 

coastal area in 

poor condition

> 30% of 

coastal area 

in poor 

condition
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.2-11

3.2 Sediments and Water Quality

Table 3.2-1: Sediment Quality Criteria and Index, U.S. Atlantic Coast and Gulf of Mexico

(continued)

Parameter

Site Criteria Regional Criteria

Good Fair Poor Good Fair Poor

Sediment 

Quality Index

No poor ratings, 

sediment 

contaminants 

criteria are 

rated “good”

No poor 

ratings, 

sediment 

contaminants 

criteria are 

rated “fair”

One or more 

individual 

criteria rated 

poor

< 5% of coastal 

area in poor 

condition, and 

> 50% in good 

condition

5–15% of 

coastal area in 

poor condition, 

and > 50% in 

combined fair 

and poor 

condition

> 15% of 

coastal area 

in poor 

condition

1Amphipods are small animals found in a wide variety of aquatic habitats. Because they are so widely distributed, they are 

often used as an indicator of toxicity in sediments and water bodies.

2ERM (effects range-median) is the level measured in the sediment below which adverse biological effects were measured 

50 percent of the time.

3ERL (effects range-low) is the level measured in the sediment below which adverse biological effects were measured 10

percent of the time (Long et al., 1995).

Source: (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2012b)

Notes: % = percent, ≥ = equal to or greater than, < = less than, > = greater than, n/a = not applicable, TOC = total 

organic carbon

The impact that anthropogenic activities can have over the long term is exemplified by changes 

observed in Long Island Sound, where development dates to colonial times. Mean concentrations of 

metals in Long Island Sound have increased substantially and steadily since pre-industrial levels (Table 

3.2-2) (Varekamp et al., 2014). The concentrations of silver, cadmium, copper, and mercury showed the 

greatest increases (between 30 and 6.5 times over background levels); lead, arsenic, and zinc have 

increased between 2.4 and 3.6 times; and chromium, vanadium, nickel, and barium concentrations have 

remained close to background levels.

Table 3.2-2: Comparison of Mean Pre-Industrial and Post-Industrial Metal Concentrations in 

Sediments in Long Island Sound with Sediment Effects Thresholds

Metal

Pre-Industrial 

Background 

Mean 

Concentration

(μg/g)

PostIndustrial 

Mean 

Concentration

(μg/g)

Mean 

Enrichment 

Factor

National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration

Effects Range-Low 

(ppm)

Effects RangeMedian (ppm)

Cadmium 0.2 2 9.9 1.2 9.6

Chromium 59 78 1.3 81 370

Copper 8 117 14.6 34 270

Lead 23 83 3.6 46.7 218

Mercury 0.1 0.7 6.5 0.15 0.71

Nickel 25 26 1.0 20.9 51.6

Silver 0.05 1.5 29.8 1.0 3.7

Zinc 68 160 2.4 150 410

Arsenic 2.5 6 2.5 8.2 70

Vanadium 90 101 1.1 NA NA
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.2-12

3.2 Sediments and Water Quality

Table 3.2-2: Comparison of Mean Pre-Industrial and Post-Industrial Metal Concentrations in 

Sediments in Long Island Sound with Sediment Effects Thresholds (continued)

Metal

Pre-Industrial 

Background 

Mean 

Concentration

(μg/g)

PostIndustrial 

Mean 

Concentration

(μg/g)

Mean 

Enrichment 

Factor

National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration

Effects Range-Low 

(ppm)

Effects RangeMedian (ppm)

Barium 377 230 0.6 NA NA

Effects range-low is the level measured in the sediment below which adverse biological effects were measured 10 percent of 

the time Long et al. (1995).

Effects range-median is the level measured in the sediment below which adverse biological effects were measured 50 percent 

of the time.

Enrichment Factor is the ratio of the postindustrial and preindustrial concentrations and is a measure of the change in 

concentration over time (e.g., the concentration of cadmium has increase 9.9 times since preindustrial levels)

Source: Varekamp et al. (2014)

Notes: g /g = micrograms per gram, ppm = parts per million, NA = Not applicable

The distribution of metals within sediments in the sound varied widely, as did maximum concentrations, 

and was strongly correlated with fine-grained sediments rich in organic material. With the exception of 

arsenic, all post-industrial metal concentrations exceeded Effects Range-Low levels and were less than 

Effects Range-Median levels; the concentration of arsenic was less than the Effects Range-Low level; 

however, the authors note that there were fewer samples for arsenic available for analysis (Table 3.2-2).

Increases in metal concentrations were closely linked to the industrialization of the region, and included 

many non-point source discharges, such as urban runoff, and point source discharges, such as effluent 

from waste water treatment facilities located along tributaries of the sound. Overall, concentrations of 

metal contaminants increased with proximity to New York City, lending additional support to the close 

association between industrialization and increased sediment contamination. 

Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and polychlorinated biphenyls, two widely dispersed contaminants 

found worldwide in marine sediments have been present in the Study Area for decades (Boehm & 

Requejo, 1986; Farrington & Takada, 2014; Farrington & Tripp, 1977; Lamoreaux & Brownawell, 1999). 

The source of most polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons introduced into the environment (terrestrial and 

marine) is from the incomplete combustion of biofuels (Ravindra et al., 2008). Aromatic hydrocarbons 

can enter the marine environment through multiple means, including as urban runoff, effluent from 

outfalls serving densely populated urban regions, and as deposition from airborne particulate matter

(Farrington & Takada, 2014). While there are natural sources of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, such 

as wildfires and volcanic eruptions, the primary source of aromatic hydrocarbons in the marine 

environment is emissions from the anthropogenic combustion of fossil fuels, including oil and coal

(Farrington & Takada, 2014; Ravindra et al., 2008). 

Polychlorinated biphenyls are anthropogenic organic chemicals made up of carbon, hydrogen, and 

chlorine atoms, and were produced in the United States from 1929 until they were banned in 1979, 

because of growing concerns over their toxicity and links to a number of adverse health effects, 

including cancers, neurological disorders, reproductive effects, and immune system effects (Manta 

Trust, 2017). Even though the production of polychlorinated biphenyls has not occurred in the United 

States for decades, the chemicals are present in products manufactured prior to 1979 and still in use 

today (e.g., electrical transformers, cable insulation, paints, and plastics) as well as imported products 

from countries where polychlorinated biphenyls have not been banned for as long (or at all). The 

chemicals are resistant to breakdown in the environment, including in the marine environment, 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.2-13

3.2 Sediments and Water Quality

enabling them to persist in a variety forms far from where they originated (Farrington & Takada, 2014; 

Manta Trust, 2017).

Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT) is a pesticide that was widely used in the United States in the 

1950s and 1960s until its production and use was banned in 1972 over concerns of adverse 

environmental effects (e.g., thinning of bird egg shells resulting in poor reproductive success in multiple 

species) (Sericano et al., 2014).

The concentration of aromatic hydrocarbons and polychlorinated biphenyls in sediments is positively 

correlated with total organic carbon content in sediments. Fine-grained sediments (silts and clays) have 

higher total organic carbon levels than sandy sediments, and areas dominated by fine-grained 

sediments, like the Mud Patch, tend to act as sinks for polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and other 

contaminants like polychlorinated biphenyls (Boehm & Requejo, 1986; Lamoreaux & Brownawell, 1999). 

Disturbance of seafloor sediments with high concentrations of these chemical contaminants can cause 

resuspension, increased bioavailability, and facilitate the widespread distribution of these contaminants. 

The use of equipment and products manufactured prior to 1979 with polychlorinated biphenyls can 

continue to introduce the contaminant into the environment. 

Farrington and Takada (2014) provide a summary of four decades of research on persistent organic 

pollutants, including polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, polychlorinated biphenyls, and 

dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT). Concentrations of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons measured 

in benthic dwelling bivalves, so called sentinel organisms, exceeded the National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration thresholds for environmental effects in multiple samples collected in the 

northeast and mid-Atlantic regions (Table 3.2-3). Although a number of sites have exceeded effects 

thresholds, (Farrington & Takada, 2014) the overwhelming trend is that concentrations of these three 

chemical contaminants is decreasing in bivalves, a proxy for sediments, along the entire U.S. coastline. 

Only one site in the Study Area, off the coast of North Carolina, is showing an increase in the 

concentration of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, and no sites in the Study Area are showing an 

increase in concentrations of polychlorinated biphenyls. Concentrations of 

dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT) are also decreasing in coastal areas along the U.S. coastline (as 

measured in bivalve bioassays) (Sericano et al., 2014); however, dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT) 

is also resistant to breakdown in the environment, as are its breakdown products. Nevertheless, by 

2050, the concentration of DDT and its breakdown products are expected to be at 10 percent of current

levels (Sericano et al., 2014).

Table 3.2-3: Comparison of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons, Polychlorinated Biphenyls and 

dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane in Sediment Samples with Sediment Guidelines Developed 

by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

Sediment 

Contaminant

Contaminant Concentration (ppb) National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration

Northeast MidAtlantic Southeast Gulf of Mexico Effects RangeLow1

Effects RangeMedian2

PAHs 63–7,561 47–10,717 47–2,511 47–2,511 4,022 44,792

PCBs 3–1,413 4–157 4–157 4–157 22.7 180
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.2-14

3.2 Sediments and Water Quality

Table 3.2-3: Comparison of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons, Polychlorinated Biphenyls and 

dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane in Sediment Samples with Sediment Guidelines Developed 

by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (continued)

Sediment 

Contaminant

Contaminant Concentration (ppb) National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration

Northeast MidAtlantic Southeast Gulf of Mexico Effects RangeLow1

Effects RangeMedian2

DDT3 0.001 – 0.15 <MDL– 0.087 1.58 46.1

1Effects range-low is the level measured in the sediment below which adverse biological effects were measured 10 percent of the 

time Long et al. (1995).

2Effects range-median is the level measured in the sediment below which adverse biological effects were measured 50 percent of 

the time.

3Data are from 2009: Sericano et al. (2014).

Source: Farrington and Takada (2014)

Notes: PAHs = polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, ppb = parts per billion, PCBs = polychlorinated biphenyls, 

DDT = dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane, MDL = minimum detection level

Maine. Sediment quality along the Maine coast was rated 51 percent good and 12 percent poor; 

37 percent of sampling site data were labeled as missing (Figure 3.2-2). Concerns related to sediments in 

Maine include polychlorinated biphenyls, mercury, and dioxin. As a result, seafood consumption 

advisories have been issued. These concerns involve all the state’s estuarine and marine habitats. In 

much smaller areas, bacteria, low dissolved oxygen, copper contamination, and polycyclic aromatic 

hydrocarbons were also identified (State of Maine Department of Environmental Protection, 2006). 

Wade and Sweet (2005) reported that sediment from the interior of Casco Bay (Portland, Maine) 

contains elevated levels of trace metals, polychlorinated biphenyls, dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane

(DDT), and the pesticide chlordane.

New Hampshire. Sediment quality along the New Hampshire coast was rated 67 percent good, 

17 percent fair, and 17 percent poor (Figure 3.2-2). Concerns related to sediments in New Hampshire 

include included metals, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, and dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT). 

These concerns involve all the state’s estuarine and marine waters. Marine sediment samples were 

analyzed for heavy metals (cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, mercury, nickel, and zinc) and organic

compounds (polychlorinated biphenyls and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons). Results indicate that, 

with few exceptions, the levels of contaminants detected in shellfish and sediment were within the 

range of contaminants found elsewhere in New England, other regions of the United States, and the 

world. Two estuarine areas were impaired due to pesticides. Ocean waters are listed as impaired due to 

dioxin, mercury, and polychlorinated biphenyls. As noted above, concerns are related to seafood 

consumption (Comstock et al., 2008; Paliwoda et al., 2016).

Massachusetts. Sediment quality along the Massachusetts coast was rated 67 percent good, 6 percent 

fair, and 24 percent poor; 5 percent of sampling site data were labeled as missing (Figure 3.2-2). Most 

poor sediment was concentrated in the Boston Harbor area, which rated as 100 percent poor. For 

Buzzards Bay, sediment quality was rated 50 percent good and 40 percent poor; 10 percent of sampling 

site data were labeled as missing.
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.2-15

3.2 Sediments and Water Quality

Notes: AFTT: Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing; OPAREA: Operating Area; SINKEX: Sinking Exercise; VACAPES: Virginia Capes

Figure 3.2-2: Sediment Quality Ratings for the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic Coast
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.2-16

3.2 Sediments and Water Quality

Rhode Island. Sediment quality along the Rhode Island coast was rated 64 percent good, 7 percent fair, 

and 29 percent poor (Figure 3.2-2). In Narragansett Bay sediment quality was rated 50 percent good and 

50 percent poor. Issues included high concentrations of metals, dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT), 

and polychlorinated biphenyls. Contaminated sediments were listed as a concern for 1 square mile (mi.2) 

of estuarine habitat in Rhode Island. The issue involved “legacy/historical pollutants,” such as 

polychlorinated biphenyls in Narragansett Bay (Rhode Island Department of Environmental 

Management, 2008). No data were available for Block Island Sound.

Connecticut. Long Island Sound comprises most of the nearshore and estuarine habitat along the 

Connecticut coast. Sediment quality in Long Island Sound was rated 71 percent good, 14 percent fair, 

and 14 percent poor (Figure 3.2-2). Sampling indicated a trend of decreasing impacts from runoff 

moving east from New York City (Mecray & Buchholtz ten Brink, 2000; Varekamp et al., 2014). As 

discussed above (see Section 3.2.2.1.1.2, Sediments in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic Region),

sediments in Long Island Sound have been enriched many times over pre-industrial background levels 

with silver, cadmium, copper, mercury, and lead. Metal concentrations have been decreasing since the 

peak levels in the 1970s, due in large part to upgrades of sewage treatment facilities to meet 

requirement of the Clean Water Act and the laws strictly regulating the use of persistent chemical 

contaminants, such as polychlorinated biphenyls (Varekamp et al., 2014). However, contaminants still 

occur in concentrations that impact habitat, particularly along the Connecticut coast, which borders the 

western portion of Long Island Sound where 50 percent of sediments are rated as poor.

New York/New Jersey. Sediment quality in the New York-New Jersey Bay were rated 100 percent poor 

on the New York side of the Bay, closer to New York City, and as 67 percent good and 33 percent poor 

on the New Jersey side (Figure 3.2-2). Issues included elevated concentrations of metals and 

polychlorinated biphenyls resulting from decades of industrialization and unregulated use and disposal 

of chemical contaminants (Varekamp et al., 2014). Information for Long Island Sound sediment is 

presented under the entry for Connecticut and above in Section 3.2.2.1.1.2 (Sediments in the Northeast 

and Mid-Atlantic Region). Sediment quality in Barnegat Bay on the Atlantic coast was rated 50 percent 

good and 50 percent poor. Sediment quality for Peconic Bay was rated 100 percent good. Information 

for Delaware Bay is provide under the entry for Delaware.

Delaware. Sediment quality in Delaware Bay was rated 67 percent good; however 33 percent of 

sampling site data were missing (Figure 3.2-2). The highest levels of sediment contaminants were near 

Philadelphia and the Maurice River. There may be some point sources for metals, but organic 

contaminants appear to be primarily from nonpoint sources. Metals and organic contaminants in 

sediments tend to decrease from upper to lower Delaware Bay. Sediments in coastal zones have trace 

amounts of metals and organic contaminants (Hartwell & Hameedi, 2006). 

Maryland. Maryland’s coastal bays provide a natural buffer between Maryland’s Eastern Shore and the 

Atlantic Ocean. Sediment quality in Maryland’s three largest coastal bays on the Atlantic coast, 

Chincoteague Bay, Assawoman Bay, and Isle of Wight Bay, were all rated 100 percent good in the 

National Coastal Condition Assessment (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2016) (Figure 3.2-2). 

However, the Maryland Coastal Bays Program assess other metrics, including the density of bottom 

dwelling hard clams and seagrasses, which are an indicator of the quality of benthic habitat. According 

to the Maryland Coastal Bays Program (2015) “report card,” the six coastal bays, including the three 

already mentioned, collectively received a grade of C+, on a scale of A (good to very good) to F (very 

poor), for 2014 on the program’s index for characterizing the health of each coastal bay. Factors that 

contribute to the grade include water quality indicators (e.g., chlorophyll-a, dissolved oxygen), as well
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.2-17

3.2 Sediments and Water Quality

as, seagrass and hard clam densities. Chincoteague Bay (B-) scored well for seagrasses but poor for hard 

clams. Assawoman Bay (C) had poor to very poor grades for both seagrasses and hard clams, and Isle of 

Wight Bay (C) also received a very poor grade for seagrasses and saw declines in the density of hard 

clams. While sediment quality may be good, as reported in the coastal condition assessment, other 

habitat metrics provide additional insight into the suitability of the benthic habitat for sustaining 

biological resources.

Virginia. The James River flows into the lower Chesapeake Bay north of Norfolk Harbor. Sediment 

quality in the lower James River is rated 50 percent good and 50 percent poor (Figure 3.2-2). Sediment 

quality in the Elizabeth River, which flows through heavily industrialized and urban areas in the cities of 

Norfolk, Portsmouth, and Chesapeake was rated 100 percent poor. On Virginia’s Atlantic coast, Back 

Bay, which is adjacent to Back Bay National Wildlife Refuge, received a sediment quality rating of 

100 percent good. 

North Carolina. Sediment quality in Albemarle Sound was rated 83 percent good and 17 percent poor. 

Sediment quality in Pamlico Sound located south of Albemarle Sound and west of Cape Hatteras is rated 

86 percent good and 14 percent poor. Currituck Sound, located along the Atlantic coast north of 

Albemarle Sound received a rating of 100 percent good for sediment quality (Figure 3.2-2). Hackney et 

al. (1998) stated that, “between 37.5 and 75.8 percent of surface sediments in North Carolina’s sounds 

and estuaries were contaminated, and between 19 and 36 percent were highly contaminated.” 

Contaminants included nickel, arsenic, dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT), chromium, 

polychlorinated biphenyls, and mercury. The most contaminated areas were the Neuse and Pamlico 

Rivers. In general, areas with limited tidal flushing and high river discharge were most contaminated. 

Hyland et al. (2000), reported that 38 percent of the total area of North Carolina estuaries had at least 

one chemical contaminant present at a concentration in excess of levels at which biological effects can 

be expected. The most common contaminants in their study were arsenic, mercury, chromium, nickel, 

pesticides, and polychlorinated biphenyls. There were relatively few degraded sites in the open portions 

of Pamlico Sound and smaller estuaries south of Cape Lookout.

Chesapeake Bay. The Chesapeake Bay watershed includes portions of Delaware, Maryland, New York, 

Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia, and the District of Columbia. In order to simplify the discussion and 

reduce repetition, sediment issues in Chesapeake Bay are not reviewed on a state-by-state basis 

because: (1) many of the sediment issues are common to most or all of these bordering states, and 

(2) Navy training and testing activities discussed in this Environmental Impact Statement/Overseas 

Environmental Impact Statement are limited to the extreme southeast portion of the bay and do not 

appreciably impact sediment quality in the bay as a whole.

Point source pollution, urban and suburban runoff from continued development, atmospheric 

deposition, and agricultural practices in the bay’s watershed introduce contaminants into the bay 

(Coxon et al., 2016). The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2012b) reports widespread occurrence 

of polychlorinated biphenyls, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, herbicides, and mercury. Localized 

occurrence of pesticides, including dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT), and certain metals 

(i.e., aluminum, chromium, iron, lead, manganese, and zinc) within the bay also contribute to degraded 

habitat in those areas.

In 2014, the Chesapeake Bay Program adopted a goal to create or reestablish 85,000 acres (ac.) of tidal 

and non-tidal wetlands in the bay’s watershed by 2025, with the ultimate goal of reducing the bay’s 

Total Maximum Daily Load, a measure of pollutants entering the bay. The bulk of the created or 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.2-18

3.2 Sediments and Water Quality

reestablished wetlands acreage (83,000 ac.) would be on agricultural lands, which are significant source 

of point source pollutants. As of 2016, 7,623 ac. have been created or reestablished on formerly 

agricultural lands, which is 7.45 percent of the overall goal (Bonfil et al., 2008). 

Fish consumption advisories have been issued in all watershed states primarily out of concerns for 

contamination from mercury and polychlorinated biphenyls (Bonfil et al., 2008). Chesapeake Bay and 

several small tidal tributaries have had fish advisories for polychlorinated biphenyls in place since 2004

(Virginia Department of Public Health, 2016).

3.2.2.1.1.3 Sediments in the Southeast Region

Moving south from Cape Hatteras, coastal sediment changes from largely land-based sources to largely 

marine-based sources. Weathering of sediment in the piedmont and coastal plain provinces in the 

southeast is mostly chemical; deposition of sediment is mostly by rivers. Sediment farther north was 

more heavily influenced by mechanical (glacial) processes and glacial deposition. Off the coast of the 

Carolinas, the calcium carbonate content of sediment is between 5 and 50 percent; this increases to 

100 percent on the East Florida Shelf. Sources of calcium carbonate include the shells of molluscs, 

echinoderms, barnacles, coralline algae, foraminifera; and ooids, small (0.25 to 2 mm) spherical deposits 

of calcium carbonate (Milliman et al., 1972). Some areas of the continental shelf along the southeast 

coast have been swept clean of sediment by the Gulf Stream, exposing the underlying bedrock (Riggs et 

al., 1996). Sediment on the continental shelf off the east coast of Florida is primarily composed of silt 

and clay sized particles (Milliman et al., 1972).

Sediment Quality in the Southeast Region

States in the Southeast Region bordering on the Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf Large Marine 

Ecosystem include southeastern North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, and the Atlantic coast of 

Florida. See Figure 3.0-1 in Section 3.0 (Introduction) for range complexes occurring within this region, 

and Figure 3.0-5 for bathymetry in the Southeast region. The current quality of sediments in nearshore 

areas in this regions is described below. Overall sediment quality for the coastal areas from North 

Carolina through the southern tip of Florida is rated as good. Sediments for 80 percent of this coastal 

area rated good, 2 percent rated fair, and 12 percent rated poor (6 percent of the data was missing)

(Figure 3.2-3). Except where otherwise indicated, information provided below, including the data used in 

the sediment quality map, was drawn from the USEPA’s National Aquatic Resource Surveys database 

(U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2016). Concentrations of the contaminant chemicals polycyclic 

aromatic hydrocarbons, polychlorinated biphenyls, and dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT) for the 

southeast region are provided in (Table 3.2-3). Windom et al. (1989) noted that it is not unusual for 

natural trace metal concentrations in coastal sediment to range over two orders of magnitude, 

particularly in the southeastern United States. Boehm and Gequejo (1986) noted that sediment 

hydrocarbons along the southeast coast were less than 10 parts per million (ppm) in all cases.

North Carolina. Information regarding sediment along the North Carolina coast is provided in 

Section 3.2.2.1.1.2 (Sediments in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic Region).
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.2-19

3.2 Sediments and Water Quality

Notes: AFTT: Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing; OPAREA: Operating Area; SINKEX: Sinking Exercise; VACAPES: Virginia Capes 

Figure 3.2-3: Sediment Quality Ratings for the Southeast Coast
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.2-20

3.2 Sediments and Water Quality

South Carolina. Sediment quality along the South Carolina coast was rated 62 percent good and 

33 percent poor; 5 percent of sampling site data were missing (Figure 3.2-3). Just over 4 percent of the 

state’s estuarine area (17.3 mi.2) is impaired by metals, mostly by copper, but also nickel and zinc (South 

Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control, 2008). A 2006 study found that 

33 monitoring points (12 open water and 21 tidal creeks) had at least one contaminant that exceeded 

concentrations shown to have biological effects in 10 percent of published studies. Contaminants 

included polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT), and five metals: 

arsenic, cadmium, copper, lead, and zinc (Van Dolah et al., 2006).

Georgia. Sediment quality along the Georgia coast was rated 71 percent good, 22 percent fair, and 

7 percent poor (Georgia Department of Natural Resources, 2010). In terms of toxicity, 97 percent of 

Georgia’s sediments rated as good and 2 percent rated as poor; 1 percent of sampling site data were 

missing. In terms of sediment likely to have biological effects, 72 percent rated good, 24 percent rated 

fair, and 4 percent rated poor. Four miles of coastal streams were reported as impaired by mercury, and 

2 miles (mi.) were impaired by elevated levels of cadmium. Pesticides (in fish tissue) impaired 8 mi. of 

coastal streams, and polychlorinated biphenyls (in fish tissue) impaired 26 mi. of coastal streams 

(Georgia Department of Natural Resources, 2010). Hyland et al. (2000) examined the presence of a wide 

variety of trace metals and persistent organic pollutants in the water and sediment between 2 and 77 

kilometers (km) off the Georgia coast. The maximum values found were well below levels expected to 

induce biological effects.

Florida. Sediment quality along the Atlantic coast of Florida varied by location. Sediments in the 

Matanzas River, which runs parallel to coastal route A1A and empties into the ocean at the city of 

St. Augustine, rated as 100 percent poor (Figure 3.2-3). Sediment quality in the Mosquito Lagoon just 

north of Cape Canaveral rated as 100 percent good. Sediments in the Indian River Lagoon also rated as 

100 percent good based on total organic carbon content. Farther south, sediment quality in Biscayne 

Bay, located adjacent to and south of Miami, was rated 60 percent good and 40 percent poor. In a 

discussion of sediment quality guidelines, MacDonald et al. (1996) noted that Biscayne Bay is 

contaminated with trace metals, polychlorinated biphenyls, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, and 

pesticides, and that sediment from the St. Johns River had elevated levels of polychlorinated biphenyls. 

Windom et al. (1989) found lead and zinc-contaminated sediment from Biscayne Bay, apparently 

influenced by discharge from the Miami River. 

In 2010, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (2010) assessed metal concentrations in 

estuarine sediments and determined that concentrations were most often above background levels for 

cadmium, mercury, lead, and zinc. Also, 70 percent of samples tested for organic chemicals indicated 

the presence of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. The following metals impaired estuarine habitat: 

copper (100 mi.2), iron (98 mi.2), nickel (40 mi.2), arsenic (8 mi.2), and lead (7 mi.2). Copper has also 

impaired 83 mi. of Florida’s 8,400 mi of coastal waters (Florida Department of Environmental Protection, 

2010). More than 993,000 acres of the 1,671,159 acres assessed by the Florida Department of 

Environmental Protection in 2016 were impaired with at least one contaminant (Washington Tribes, 

2015). A study of sediment in south Florida estuaries by Macauley et al. (2002) also found that elevated 

concentrations of pesticides were fairly common, but that elevated levels of metals were not 

as common.
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.2-21

3.2 Sediments and Water Quality

3.2.2.1.1.4 Sediments in the Gulf of Mexico Region

States bordering the Gulf of Mexico Large Marine Ecosystem include the west coast of Florida, Alabama, 

Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas. Refer to Figure 3.0-1 in Section 3.0 (Introduction) for range complexes 

within the Gulf of Mexico Large Marine Ecosystem and Figure 3.0-6 for bathymetry in the Gulf of Mexico 

region. Except where otherwise indicated, information provided below, including the data used in the 

sediment quality map, was drawn from the USEPA’s National Aquatic Resource Surveys database (U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 2016).

The western and central portions of the Gulf of Mexico are dominated by sediment deposition from the 

Rio Grande and Mississippi River systems, mostly in the form of sandstone and shale (Galloway et al., 

2000). DeSoto Canyon, a submarine feature southwest of Pensacola, Florida, marks the transition 

between the Mississippi River-influenced sediment to the west (Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, and 

Texas) and the carbonate-dominated sediment to the east and south along western Florida (Gearing et 

al., 1976). The Naval Surface Warfare Center, Panama City Division Testing Range straddles this 

transition area. Sediment is predominantly carbonate-sand mixture. Carbonate sources include corals, 

molluscs, and marine microbes. The amount of organic material mixed with the sand generally increases 

with the distance from shore. Like other deep ocean areas, the central portions of the Gulf of Mexico 

are dominated by clay-sized particles (less than 0.002 mm).

Sediment Quality in the Gulf of Mexico Region

Information regarding the quality of sediments in nearshore areas of the states bordering the Gulf of 

Mexico—Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas—is provided below. Except where 

otherwise indicated, information provided below, including the data used in the sediment quality map, 

was drawn from the USEPA’s National Aquatic Resource Surveys database (U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, 2016). In the Gulf of Mexico—from the southern tip of Florida to the Texas-Mexico 

border—sediment quality was rated 54 percent good, 17 percent fair, and 25 poor; 4 percent of 

sampling site data were reported as missing (Figure 3.2-4). 

According to Summers et al. (1996), of the sites in the Gulf of Mexico enriched by three or more metals, 

44 percent occur near populated areas and 56 percent occur in agricultural watersheds or the 

Mississippi River. Many contaminated sites are in watersheds with Superfund sites established under 

the authority of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 

or are identified by the USEPA National Sediment Inventory as “areas of probable concern” (U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 2008a). Wade et al. (1988) evaluated coastal sediment at 51 sites in 

the Gulf of Mexico chosen for their distance from known point sources of polycyclic aromatic 

hydrocarbons, polychlorinated biphenyls, and chlorinated pesticides. The concentrations of the 

18 polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons tested averaged 507 parts per billion (ppb) (range: less than 5 ppb 

to 36,701 ppb). Eleven percent of all samples had no detectable polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. 

Polychlorinated biphenyl concentrations ranged from less than 5 to 50 ppb, and chlorinated pesticides 

ranged from less than 0.02 to 5 ppb, with most samples below the limits of detection.

The Gulf of Mexico has several natural hydrocarbon seeps (Kvenvolden & Cooper, 2003). In the eastern 

Gulf of Mexico, Boehm and Gequejo (1986) found that sediment hydrocarbons are mainly marine in 

origin, although the Loop Current carries hydrocarbon-laden sediment from the Mississippi River into 

the eastern Gulf (concentration: 0.4–0.5 ppm). West of the Mississippi River, the concentration of 

hydrocarbons increases in shallow (less than 30 feet [ft.]) nearshore areas (20–70 ppm), and those 

increases are predominantly from anthropogenic sources. 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.2-22

3.2 Sediments and Water Quality

Notes: AFTT: Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing; OPAREA: Operating Area

Figure 3.2-4: Sediment Quality Ratings for the Gulf of Mexico Coast
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.2-23

3.2 Sediments and Water Quality

Along the Texas coast, sediment hydrocarbon concentrations ranged from 0.5 to 20 ppm; proximity to 

urban and riverine sources increased the contribution from man-made sources. Farther offshore, 

hydrocarbons carried on wind as a result of burning fuels were more common. 

Concentrations of the contaminant chemicals polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, polychlorinated 

biphenyls, and dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT) for the Gulf of Mexico region are provided in 

Table 3.2-3.

Coastal sediments rated as 93 percent good for contaminants (3 percent fair and 0 percent poor), but 

just 46 percent good for toxicity (15 percent fair and 25 percent poor). The poor rating for toxicity is the 

primary reason the extent of the region rated as good for sediment quality decreased from nearly 70 to 

54 percent between 2006 and 2010. Contaminants resulting in elevated levels of toxicity included

metals, pesticides, polychlorinated biphenyls, and, occasionally, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 2016). Except where otherwise indicated, information provided 

below was drawn from the National Coastal Condition Aquatic Resource Surveys (U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, 2016). 

The Deepwater Horizon oil spill occurred in the Gulf of Mexico in 2010, leaking millions of gallons of oil 

into the Gulf over 87 days. The impact area extended from the Florida panhandle to western Louisiana, 

and 143 of the sites sampled during the 2010 survey fell within those boundaries (U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, 2016). The same sampling protocols used to collect samples for previous coastal 

condition assessments were used during the 2010 survey, which allowed for a comparison with past 

survey results. Sediment toxicity in the areas impacted by the oil spill showed an increase from 

8 percent in the 2005-2006 survey to 27 percent in the 2010 survey, which was a significantly greater 

increase than observed in other areas of the Gulf. 

Florida. Within the Gulf of Mexico, the sediment quality in Charlotte Harbor, Tampa Bay, and Sarasota 

Bay were all rated 100 percent good (Figure 3.2-4). Sediment quality in Florida Bay, located between the 

southern tip of Florida and the Florida Keys, was rated 83 percent poor with 17 percent of sampling site 

data reported as missing. Florida Bay was severely impacted by a seagrass die-off in 1987, which led to 

subsequent increases in turbidity and the frequency of algal blooms (Boyer et al., 1999). Restoration of 

the bay is dependent on reestablishing seagrass communities to their historic state. Modeling by 

Herbert et al. (2011) predicts that increasing the freshwater inflow from the Everglades would 

substantially alter conditions within the eastern portion of the bay and create favorable habitat for 

seagrasses that were present in the bay prior to the die-off.

Sediment samples from Pensacola Bay near port facilities were contaminated by lead and zinc (Windom 

et al., 1989). Lewis et al. (2001) noted that sediment in three bayous of Pensacola Bay contained, on 

average, as much as 10 times more total heavy metals (e.g., cadmium, copper, and zinc) than sediment 

collected in Pensacola Bay near the entrance to the bayous. Pesticide concentrations were as much as 

45 times greater in the bayou sediment than in those from Pensacola Bay. The authors noted that the 

bayous were acting as sinks or reservoirs for many contaminants, reducing their transport and 

availability in Pensacola Bay. The probable source of the contamination was storm water runoff from 

urbanized watersheds. The authors also indicated that metals and persistent organic pollutant levels in 

three bayous of Pensacola Bay decreased with distance from shore (seaward).

MacDonald et al. (1996) noted that sediment from Tampa Bay and Pensacola Bay is contaminated with 

trace metals, polychlorinated biphenyls, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, and pesticides. Sediment 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.2-24

3.2 Sediments and Water Quality

from Choctawhatchee Bay and St. Andrew Bay is contaminated by metals, polycyclic aromatic 

hydrocarbons, and pesticides; and sediments from St. Andrew, Apalachicola, Naples, Rookery bays, and 

Charlotte Harbor had elevated levels of polychlorinated biphenyls. As noted above, more recent data 

indicate that sediment quality has improved in Tampa Bay and Charlotte Harbor (and possibly in other 

locations as well) since the mid-1990s. 

Alabama. Mobile Bay make up nearly the entire Alabama coastline. Sediment quality in Mobile Bay was

rated 92 percent good and 8 percent poor (Figure 3.2-4). Mobile Bay, in addition to the sources of 

polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons common to a major port, is also the site of coal burning facilities, 

natural gas production facilities, and drilling platforms (Peachey, 2003). The Alabama coast has impaired 

ocean and estuarine habitat due to mercury (201 mi.2) and thallium (94 mi.2) (Alabama Department of 

Environmental Management, 2010). According to Peachey (2003), Mobile Bay and eight smaller bodies 

of water were designated as impaired due to high levels of pesticides, persistent organic pollutants, and 

metals. The study found that the level of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in bay sediments decreased 

from the upper bay to the lower bay, and that the main source of the polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons 

was the burning of fossil fuels. 

Mississippi. Sediment quality in the Mississippi Sound was rated 86 percent good and 14 percent poor

(Figure 3.2-4). Most sites sampled along the Mississippi coast indicated good sediment quality, including 

in Biloxi Bay and the eastern portion of Chandeleur Sound.

Louisiana. Louisiana has numerous coastal water bodies that were assessed as part of the national 

coastal condition assessment (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2016); however, sediment quality 

in the larger coastal bays and in smaller bays adjacent to the Gulf of Mexico are most relevant to the 

analysis in the EIS/OEIS. Sediment quality in the western portion of Chandeleur Sound was rated 

50 percent good and 50 percent poor (Figure 3.2-4). Sediment quality in Black Bay, which is closer to 

shore than Chandeleur Sound and downstream of New Orleans, was rated 100 percent poor. East Bay is 

located at the mouth of the Mississippi River and adjacent to the southernmost coastline in Louisiana. 

Sediments in East Bay were rated 33 percent good and 67 percent poor. Sediments in coastal areas 

downstream of New Orleans and other areas receiving outflow from the Mississippi River have 

historically been affected by polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, pesticides, and some heavy metals

(Santschi et al., 2001; Van Metre & Horowitz, 2013; Wang et al., 2014). In addition, polycyclic aromatic 

hydrocarbons, which are associated with petroleum products, were detected farther from shore in 

sediments on the continental shelf; however these hydrocarbons differed in chemical structure from 

those found in nearshore marsh sediments, indicating that the shelf hydrocarbons originated from 

offshore sources rather than urban runoff or atmospheric deposition (Wang et al., 2014). Farther west 

and adjacent to undeveloped coastline, sediment quality in Caillou Bay and Terrebone Bay were rated 

100 percent good. Sediment quality in Atchafalaya Bay at the mouth of the Atchafalaya River was rated 

67 percent good and 33 percent poor. 

Texas. Galveston Bay, Matagorda Bay, and Corpus Christi Bay are the three largest coastal embayments

along the Texas coast. Sediment quality in in Galveston Bay rated as 50 percent good and 50 percent 

poor (Figure 3.2-4). Galveston Bay sediments were rated as very good for metal contaminants (Gonzalez, 

2011). Sediment concentrations in the five areas within the bay that have been sampled regularly since 

the 1970s have improved for all metals, with the exception of mercury levels in the Houston shipping 

channel. The concentrations of organic contaminants associated with industrial processes, including 

polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and polychlorinated biphenyls, have also increased in the Houston 

shipping channel while sediments in other areas of the bay remain in very good condition. Farther south 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.2-25

3.2 Sediments and Water Quality

along the coastline, Matagorda Bay sediment quality was rated 67 percent good and 33 percent poor, 

and sediment quality in Corpus Christi Bay was rated 29 percent good and 71 percent poor. 

3.2.2.1.1.5 Sediments in the Caribbean Region

The Caribbean Sea Large Marine Ecosystem includes offshore marine areas south and southeast of the 

Florida Keys. The majority of the Key West Range Complex is located within this ecosystem. See 

Figure 3.0-1 in Section 3.0 (Introduction) for range complexes located within each large marine 

ecosystem in the Study Area and Figure 3.0-5 for bathymetry in the Caribbean region. Sediment in the 

Straits of Florida consists of 50–95 percent carbonate sand, mud, and silt (Cronin, 1983). Sediment 

distribution in shallower areas (100 to 500 m) is influenced by tides and the Gulf of Mexico Loop 

Current; those at intermediate depths are influenced by the eastward-flowing Florida Current; and 

low-energy, westward-flowing currents dominate in deeper areas (greater than 800 m) (Brooks & 

Holmes, 1990). Sediments in Florida Bay are discussed above in the sections specific to Florida. 

Contamination of sediment and shellfish by organic and inorganic compounds was low in nearshore 

areas of Key West (Cantillo et al., 1997). 

Sediment Quality in the Caribbean Region

Sediment quality in Puerto Rico was not assessed in the 2016 publication of the coastal condition 

assessment, but a 2012 publication, the National Coastal Condition Report IV, did assess sediment 

quality in island territories (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2012b). Coastal sediment in Puerto 

Rico was rated 72 percent good, 2 percent fair, and 20 percent poor with 6 percent of data missing. 

Elevated levels of total organic carbon and contaminants in approximately 10 percent of coastal areas 

sample contributed to the poor ratings (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2012b).

As discussed in Section 3.2.3.3 (Metals), Pait et al. (2010) surveyed areas at Vieques, Puerto Rico, that 

had been used extensively for Navy training and found generally low concentrations of metals in marine 

sediments. Coastal sediment in the U.S. Virgin Islands was rated 83 percent good and 17 percent poor. 

Elevated levels of total organic carbon and sediment toxicity were found at several sites across the 

islands of St. Croix, St. Thomas, and St. John (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2012b). Whitall et 

al. (2015) sampled sediments in Fish and Coral bays on St. John Island in the U.S. Virgin Islands and 

analyzed the samples for metal contaminants, polychlorinated biphenyls, polycyclic aromatic 

hydrocarbons, and other chemical contaminants. Sediment contamination was low, with the exception 

of copper and chlordane concentrations which exceeded their Effects Range-Low thresholds. 

3.2.2.1.2 Marine Debris, Military Materials, and Marine Sediments

In 2010, the Navy conducted hydrographic and geophysical surveys and sediment sampling with benthic 

imagery acquisitions off the coast of Florida so that sensitive underwater features could be avoided 

during construction of the Undersea Warfare Training Range. Approximately 700 square nautical miles 

(NM2) of seabed across the shelf break in water depths ranging from 120 to 1,200 ft. were mapped, with 

image acquisition from a remotely operated vehicle. Although the study’s intent was not to inventory 

debris on the seafloor, observations of debris were noted when observed. Trash was noted in multiple 

locations; however, only one instance of military materials was detected (a MK 58 Mod 1 marine 

location marker used for antisubmarine warfare, search and rescue operations, man-overboard 

markings, and as a target for practice bombing at sea) (U.S. Department of the Navy, 2010c). Evidence of 

decomposition and colonization of benthic organisms can be seen in Figure 3.2-5. Other studies in the 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.2-26

3.2 Sediments and Water Quality

Atlantic Ocean inventoried marine debris (i.e., Law et al., 2010; Sheavly, 2007; U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, 2010), but did not differentiate military materials from trash from other sources.

As suggested by the seafloor survey 

reported in Keller et al. (2010), of the 

469 tows in which marine debris was 

recovered, none of the debris off of 

Washington, Oregon, or Northern 

California contained military 

expended material. Watters et al. 

(2010) conducted a visual survey of 

the seafloor that included a portion 

of the Navy’s Southern California 

Range Complex as part of a 15-year 

quantitative assessment of marine 

debris on the seafloor off the 

California coast. Watters et al. (2010)

found plastic was the most abundant 

material and, along with recreational 

monofilament fishing line, dominate 

in the debris (note that U.S. Navy 

vessels have a zero-plastic trash 

discharge policy and return all plastic waste to appropriate disposition sites on shore). There was only 

one item found that was potentially “military” in origin.

Because they are buoyant, many types of plastic items float and may travel thousands of miles in the 

ocean (U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy, 2004). Exceptions include heavy nets and ropes. Because many 

plastics remain in the water column, additional discussion of marine debris is provided in 

Section 3.0.3.3.6 (Ingestion Stressors). Although plastics are resistant to degradation, they do gradually 

break down into smaller particles due to sunlight (photolysis) and mechanical wear (Law et al., 2010). 

Thompson et al. (2004) found that microscopic particles were common in sediment at 18 beaches 

around the United Kingdom. They noted that such particles were ingested by small filter and deposit 

feeders, with unknown effects. The fate of plastics that sink beyond the continental shelf is largely 

unknown. However, analysis of debris in the center of an area near Bermuda with a high concentration 

of plastic debris on the surface showed no evidence of plastic as a substantial contributor to debris 

sinking at depths of 1,650–10,500 ft. (Law et al., 2010). Marine microbes and fungi are known to 

degrade biologically produced polyesters such as polyhydroxyalkanoates, a bacterial carbon and energy 

source (Doi et al., 1992). Marine microbes also degrade other synthetic polymers, although at slower 

rates (Shah et al., 2008). 

3.2.2.1.3 Climate Change and Sediment

Aspects of climate change that influence sediment include increasing ocean acidity (pH), increasing sea 

surface water temperatures, and increasing storm activity. Breitbarth et al. (2010) referred to seawater 

temperature and pH as “master variables for chemical and biological processes,” and noted that effects 

of changes on trace metal biogeochemistry “may be multifaceted and complex.” Under more acidic 

conditions, metals tend to dissociate from particles to which they are bound in sediment, become more 

soluble, and potentially more available. 

Figure 3.2-5: Marine Marker Deposited on a Mound at 

300 meter Depth
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.2-27

3.2 Sediments and Water Quality

As noted in the beginning of this section, tropical storms can have significant impacts on the 

resuspension and distribution of bottom sediment (Wren & Leonard, 2005). However, no consensus 

appears to exist on whether climate change will generate more tropical storms or whether those storms 

will be more intense. If storm frequency and intensity increase, the additional disturbance of sediment 

may impact water quality in nearshore and coastal areas. A more detailed discussion of this issue is 

provided in Section 3.2.2.2 (Water Quality). 

3.2.2.2 Water Quality

The current state of water quality in the Study Area, from nearshore areas to the open-ocean and deep 

sea bottom, is discussed below. Additional information on ocean currents in the Study Area is included 

in Section 3.0.2 (Ecological Characterization of the Study Area). Water quality screening criteria for 

contaminants in marine waters are shown in Table 3.2-4 and are referred to in assessing contaminant 

concentrations in the Atlantic and Gulf coast regions in the Study Area.

Table 3.2-4: Water Quality Screening Criteria for Metals and Organic Contaminants in Marine 

Waters

Metal

Water Quality Guidelines – National Oceanic 

and Atmospheric Administration (ppb)

Acute Chronic

Antimony 1,500 500

Arsenic 69 36

Barium 1,000 200

Beryllium 1,500 100

Boron N 1,200

Cadmium 40 8.8

Chromium III 10,300 27.4

Chromium IV 1,100 50

Cobalt N 1

Copper 4.8 3.1

Iron 300 50

Lead 210 8.1

Mercury 1.8 0.94

Molybdenum N 23

Nickel 74 8.2

Silver 0.95 N

Tin (tributyltin) 0.42 0.0074

Zinc 90 81

Organic Chemicals

PAHs (Total) 300 N

PCBs (Sum) 0.033 0.03

DDT (Sum) 0.065 0.0005

Dieldrin 0.355 0.00095

Notes: Criteria are pH dependent. N = None provided. 

PCBs = polychlorinated biphenyls, PAHs = polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, 

DDT = dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane, ppb = parts per billion
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.2-28

3.2 Sediments and Water Quality

3.2.2.2.1 Water Quality in the North Atlantic Region

The North Atlantic Region consists of the West Greenland Shelf, the Newfoundland-Labrador Shelf, and 

the Scotian Shelf Large Marine Ecosystems, as well as the Labrador Current Open Ocean Area. The area 

includes the coasts and offshore marine areas southwest of Greenland, east and northeast of 

Newfoundland and Labrador, and those surrounding Nova Scotia. Although there are no designated 

range complexes in this region, the area may be used for Navy training and testing activities. 

Because of the low population densities and low levels of development, pollution from land-based 

sources is limited in the North Atlantic area (Aquarone & Adams, 2009a, 2009b; Aquarone et al., 2009). 

However, pollution is increasing from oil and gas development activities (Aquarone & Adams, 2009a, 

2009b), and concern has been expressed regarding spills, discharges, and contaminants from marine 

vessels (Aquarone & Adams, 2009a). 

3.2.2.2.2 Water Quality in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic Region

The Northeast Region includes the Northeast and Virginia Capes Range Complexes and the Naval 

Undersea Warfare Center Division, Newport Testing Range. The testing range includes waters of 

Narragansett Bay, Rhode Island Sound, Block Island Sound, Buzzards Bay, Vineyard Sound, and Long 

Island Sound. The range complexes and testing range partially overlay the Northeast U.S. Continental 

Shelf Large Marine Ecosystem. See Figure 3.0-1 in Section 3.0 (Introduction) for the locations of these 

areas and Figure 3.0-4 for bathymetry in the northeast and mid-Atlantic region.

3.2.2.2.2.1 Open Ocean Water Quality 

Sauer et al. (1989) surveyed the micro-surface layer and subsurface water at five open ocean sites off 

the Delaware-New Jersey shore for the presence of polychlorinated biphenyls and several chlorinated 

pesticides. Micro-surface layer samples collected contained polychlorinated biphenyl concentrations 

between less than 2 and 20 nanograms per liter (ng/L; 2–20 parts per trillion) and pesticide 

concentrations between less than 7 and 80 ng/L (7–80 parts per trillion). Subsurface water samples 

contained polychlorinated biphenyl concentrations between 0.007 and 0.17 ng/L (0.007–0.17 parts per 

trillion), and pesticide concentrations between 0.01 and 0.09 ng/L (0.01–0.09 parts per trillion). The 

screening criterion for acute concentrations of polychlorinated biphenyls is 0.033 parts per billion 

(equivalent to 33 parts per trillion), which is greater than the concentrations measured in the 

micro-surface layer measured by Sauer et al. (1989) (Table 3.2-4). The upper limit of the concentration 

of pesticides measured in the micro-surface layer exceeded the acute criterion for

dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT), but was well below the chronic level. The micro-surface layer 

represents the interface between the ocean and the atmosphere and is defined as the upper 1.0 mm of 

the water column (Wurl & Obbard, 2004). However the interface can serve as both a sink and a source 

of anthropogenic contaminants, including chlorinated hydrocarbons and heavy metals, and because of 

its physical and chemical properties, concentrations of chemicals can be several hundred times greater 

than in subsurface waters (Wurl & Obbard, 2004). Concentrations of polychlorinated biphenyls in the 

open ocean in the North Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico have been measures at less than 1 ng/L and openocean concentrations of dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT) were measured as less than 0.2 ng/L 

(Wurl & Obbard, 2004).

In the western North Atlantic, Wallace et al. (1977) tested surface waters between Massachusetts and 

Bermuda. The authors reported that concentrations of metals measured in the study were well below 

the effects thresholds shown in Table 3.2-4. 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.2-29

3.2 Sediments and Water Quality

In all cases except cadmium, the maximum values were found closest to the shore southeast of Cape 

Cod. The authors noted that suspended clay minerals and biologically produced particles are important 

concentrators of trace metals in the marine environment, and that the influence of river-borne 

suspended sediment extends approximately 1 mile offshore.

3.2.2.2.2.2 Nearshore Water Quality

States bordering the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic Region include Maine, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, 

Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, and northeast North 

Carolina. Information regarding the current quality of marine waters in nearshore areas of these states 

is provided below. 

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2016) rated the waters along the northeast U.S. Atlantic 

coast as 44 percent good, 49 percent fair and 6 percent poor (Figure 3.2-6). Most of these poor sites 

were concentrated in a few estuarine systems, such as the New York/New Jersey Harbor, upper 

Delaware Bay, and upper Chesapeake Bay. The poor ratings were based on chlorophyll-a (a measure of 

turbidity) and low dissolved oxygen. Past and ongoing industrial activities also impact water quality

(Aquarone & Adams, 2009c). Except where otherwise indicated, information provided below, including 

the data used in the water quality map, was drawn from the USEPA’s National Aquatic Resource Surveys 

database (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2016).

Maine. Water quality for all the estuaries and bays assessed in Maine is rated 88 percent good and 

12 percent fair (Figure 3.2-6). All estuarine and marine waters in Maine have an advisory for the 

consumption of shellfish, specifically lobster tomalley, the green substance found inside the carapace 

that many consider to be a delicacy, due to the presence of polychlorinated biphenyls and dioxins, 

presumed to be from atmospheric deposition or prior industrial activity (U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, 2008b).

New Hampshire. Water quality for coastal waters, including estuaries and bays, assessed in New 

Hampshire was rated 33 percent good and 67 percent fair (Figure 3.2-6). The main concerns were over 

the contaminants dioxin, polychlorinated biphenyls, and mercury. Elevated levels of nutrients, 

pathogens, and turbidity were also noted as factors impacting water quality. Offshore and nearshore 

waters assessed in the surveys were also considered impaired based on similar concerns.

Massachusetts. Water quality for 82 percent of estuaries and bays assessed in Massachusetts is rated 

good, and 15 percent is rated fair, and 3 percent is poor, mostly due to the presence of pathogens 

(Figure 3.2-6). Toxic organics, high levels of nutrients, and low dissolved oxygen were also cited as 

contributors to fair and poor water quality.

Rhode Island. Water quality for 64 percent of estuaries and bays assessed in Rhode Island is rated good, 

and 36 percent is rated fair (Figure 3.2-6). The main contributors to impaired water quality included low 

dissolved oxygen levels, fecal coliform, and excess nutrients (i.e., nitrogen). 

Connecticut. Water quality for 25 percent of estuaries and bays assessed in Connecticut is rated good, 

and 75 percent is rated fair (Figure 3.2-6). The main contributors to impaired water quality included low 

dissolved oxygen levels, eutrophication, and excess nutrients (i.e., nitrogen).
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.2-30F

3.2 Sediments and Water Quality

Notes: AFTT: Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing; OPAREA: Operating Area; SINKEX: Sinking Exercise; VACAPES: Virginia Capes 

Figure 3.2-6: Water Quality Ratings for the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic Coast
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.2-31

3.2 Sediments and Water Quality

New York. Water quality for 45 percent of estuaries and bays assessed in New York is rated good,

33 percent is rated fair, and 20 percent is rated poor (Figure 3.2-6). The main contaminant affecting 

water quality was polychlorinated biphenyls; other factors contributing to poor water quality included 

total coliform (bacteria in the water), low dissolved oxygen levels, elevated concentrations of cadmium, 

and excess nutrients (i.e., nitrogen). The most highly polluted areas were nearshore waters off of New 

York Harbor.

New Jersey. Water quality for 61 percent of estuaries and bays assessed in New Jersey is considered 

fair, and 39 percent is considered poor (Figure 3.2-6). The main contributors to impaired water quality 

included pesticides, polychlorinated biphenyls, low dissolved oxygen levels, and elevated concentrations 

of mercury. The report notes similar concerns for coastal and offshore marine waters.

Delaware. Water quality for all the estuaries and bays assessed in Delaware was rated 45 percent fair 

and 45 percent poor with 10 percent of data reported as missing (Figure 3.2-6). Excess nutrients 

(nitrogen and phosphorus), and pathogens were contributed approximately equally to reduced water 

quality. Poorest water quality was in the upper Delaware Bay downstream of Wilmington, the state’s 

largest city.

Maryland. Water quality for 44 percent of the Maryland’s coastal waters is rated good, 33 percent is 

rated fair, and 22 percent is rated poor (Figure 3.2-6). Wazniak et al. (2004) indicates that water quality 

conditions in Maryland’s coastal bays range from generally degraded conditions within or close to 

tributaries to better conditions in the bay regions farther from shore. Excess nutrient levels are a 

contributor to most of the impaired waters. Tributaries generally show poor to very degraded water 

quality, primarily due to high nutrient inputs, while the open bays have good to excellent water quality. 

The Maryland Coastal Bays Program uses water quality indicators (e.g., chlorophyll-a, dissolved oxygen) 

as well as other metrics such as seagrass and hard clam densities to assess or grade the health of 

Maryland’s coastal bays (Maryland Coastal Bays Program, 2015). The 2014 “report card” indicates that 

the collectively received a grade of C+, on a scale of A (good to very good) to F (very poor), on the 

program’s index for characterizing the health of each coastal bay. Specifically for the water quality 

components of the report card, Chincoteague Bay (overall B-) scored good to very good for nitrogen, 

phosphorus, and chlorophyll-a, and dissolved oxygen was moderate. Assawoman Bay (C), scored as 

moderate for dissolved oxygen, nitrogen, and phosphorus (declined since 2013), and chlorophyll-a was 

very good (improved since 2013). Isle of Wight Bay (C) scored good to very good for nitrogen and 

chlorophyll-a, moderate for dissolved oxygen (a significant improvement), but poor to very poor for 

phosphorus. In Newport Bay (C-), chlorophyll-a was very good, and dissolved oxygen, nitrogen, and 

phosphorus were all moderate, an overall improvement since 2013.

Also, the northern bays are generally in poorer condition than the southern bays due to the extent of 

development and, to a lesser degree, the extent of flushing that occurs. Areas within the tidal portion of 

the Potomac River have been placed on the state 303(d) “impaired waters” list because of 

contamination by polychlorinated biphenyls (Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin, 2008).

Virginia. Water quality for 22 percent of coastal waters in Virginia is rated good, 74 percent is rated fair, 

and 4 percent is rated poor (Figure 3.2-6). The main issues involve polychlorinated biphenyls, noxious 

aquatic plants, and low dissolved oxygen. Water quality parameters are measured at over 4,000 stations 

in Virginia’s coastal zone. Monitoring data show that 316 coastal water bodies are impaired (Virginia 

Department of Environmental Quality, 2001). Shellfish concerns are related to bacteria, and health 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.2-32

3.2 Sediments and Water Quality

advisories have been issued for fish consumption related to polychlorinated biphenyls and mercury 

(Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, 2016). 

North Carolina. Water quality along the North Carolina coast was rated 25 percent good, 64 percent 

fair, and 11 percent poor. The main issues reported are mercury and selenium (at limited locations) in 

fish tissue. Impaired water quality was observed in the state’s large coastal estuaries. In Albemarle 

Sound, 67 percent of survey sites reported either fair or poor water quality, and in Currituck Sound, 

100 percent of sites rate poor for water quality. According to Mallin (2000), most estuaries in North

Carolina exhibit low-to-moderate eutrophication. However, conditions in three estuaries—the Pamlico 

River, Neuse River, and New River—were rated as highly eutrophic based on frequency and extent of 

algal blooms, bottom-water hypoxia and anoxia, fish kills, and loss of submerged aquatic vegetation. 

Impairment is primarily the result of runoff from agricultural and urban areas that leads to excess 

nutrients and increased turbidity from algal blooms. 

Chesapeake Bay. Bay water is listed as impaired under Section 303(d) of the federal Clean Water Act 

due to excess nutrients and sediment (U.S. Geological Survey, 2005). The most contaminated sites were 

concentrated at the northern end of the bay, where development is most intensive. Nutrient 

enrichment in the bay arises from agricultural and other nonpoint source runoff, and municipal and 

industrial wastewater treatment facilities (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2009).

The Chesapeake Bay watershed includes portions of Delaware, Maryland, New York, Pennsylvania, 

Virginia, West Virginia, and the District of Columbia. In order to simplify the discussion and reduce 

repetition, water quality issues in the bay are not reviewed on a state-by-state basis because: (1) many 

of the water quality issues are common to most or all of these bordering states; and (2) Navy training 

and testing activities are limited to the extreme southeast portion of the bay and do not appreciably 

impact water quality in the bay as a whole.

3.2.2.2.3 Water Quality in the Southeast Region

The Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf Large Marine Ecosystem includes the Navy Cherry Point and 

Jacksonville Range Complexes, and the South Florida Ocean Measurement Facility Testing Range. See 

Figure 3.0-1 in Section 3.0 (Introduction) for the locations of these areas and Figure 3.0-5 for bathymetry 

in the Southeast region. 

3.2.2.2.3.1 Open Ocean Water Quality

Of the large marine ecosystems in the Study Area, the southeast is judged to be in the best ecological 

condition (Aquarone et al., 2009). Sauer et al. (1989) surveyed the micro-surface layer and subsurface 

water at five open ocean sites between Cape Hatteras, North Carolina and Florida for the presence of 

polychlorinated biphenyls and several chlorinated pesticides. Micro-surface layer samples collected 

contained polychlorinated biphenyl concentrations between less than 0.5 and 1.5 ng/L and pesticide 

concentrations between less than 0.5 and 1.0 ng/L. Subsurface water samples contained polychlorinated 

biphenyl concentrations between 0.003 and 0.424 ng/L and pesticide concentrations between 0.013 and 

0.1 ng/L. No concentrations exceeded the acute concentration criteria for either contaminant. The 

concentration of pesticides exceeded the chronic concentration criterion for 

dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT) in the micro-surface layer, but not in the subsurface layers (Table 

3.2-4).
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.2-33

3.2 Sediments and Water Quality

3.2.2.2.3.2 Nearshore Water Quality

States bordering the Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf Large Marine Ecosystem include southeast North 

Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, and the Atlantic coast of Florida. Information regarding the current 

quality of marine waters in the nearshore areas of these states is provided below (Figure 3.2-7). The 

USEPA (2016) rated 21 percent good, 69 percent of the waters along the southeast coast as fair, and

9 percent of the sites sampled rated poor. Except where otherwise indicated, information provided 

below, including the data used in the water quality map, was drawn from the USEPA’s National Aquatic 

Resource Surveys database (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2016).

North Carolina. Refer to the Section 3.2.2.2.2.2 (Nearshore Water Quality) for the Northeast and 

Mid-Atlantic states.

South Carolina. For South Carolina, water quality for 86 percent of coastal waters was rated fair, 

10 percent is rated poor, and 5 percent is reported as missing (Figure 3.2-7). Estuaries in South Carolina 

exhibit low or moderate eutrophication (Mallin et al., 2000). Poor water quality is primarily linked to 

high turbidity levels, which reduce water clarity in coastal and estuarine areas. 

Georgia. Water quality along Georgia’s coast was rated 57 percent fair and 43 percent poor based on 

five indicators: dissolved oxygen, dissolved inorganic nitrogen, dissolved inorganic phosphorus, turbidity 

as measured by chlorophyll-a, and water clarity (Figure 3.2-7). Eighty percent of the state’s estuaries 

rated fair, 18 percent rated poor, and 2 percent rated good. Increasing eutrophication and decreasing 

water clarity were noted as concerns (Sheldon & Alber, 2010).

Florida. Water quality along Florida’s Atlantic coast is rated 13 percent good, 70 percent fair, and 

17 percent poor (Figure 3.2-7). Most of the state’s estuaries and coastal waters are considered impaired 

because of mercury in fish tissue, low dissolved oxygen, high turbidity as measured by chlorophyll-a

concentrations, fecal coliform, and bacteria in shellfish. Harmful algal blooms and nutrient enrichment 

are of increasing concern (Florida Department of Environmental Protection, 2010). 

3.2.2.2.4 Water Quality in the Gulf of Mexico Region

The Gulf of Mexico Region includes the Gulf of Mexico Range Complex, which consists of four Operating 

Areas: Panama City, Pensacola, New Orleans, and Corpus Christi. Also within the Gulf of Mexico Large 

Marine Ecosystem are the Naval Surface Warfare Center, Panama City Division Testing Range (Florida) 

and a portion of the Key West Range Complex. See Figure 3.0-1 in Section 3.0 (Introduction) for range 

complexes within each large marine ecosystem and Figure 3.0-6 for bathymetry in the Gulf of Mexico 

region. 

3.2.2.2.4.1 Open Ocean Water Quality 

Unlike the other areas, no open ocean areas are specifically designated for the Gulf of Mexico. However, 

Sauer et al. (1989) surveyed the micro-surface layer and subsurface water at six sites in the west central 

part of the Gulf of Mexico for the presence of polychlorinated biphenyls and several chlorinated 

pesticides. Micro-surface layer samples collected contained polychlorinated biphenyl concentrations 

between less than 0.2 and 1.0 ng/L and pesticide concentrations between less than 0.1 and 0.5 ng/L. 

Subsurface water samples contained polychlorinated biphenyl concentrations between 0.0006 and 

0.0024 ng/L and pesticide concentrations between 0.0002 and 1.46 ng/L. No concentrations exceeded 

the acute concentration criteria for either contaminant. The highest concentration of pesticides equaled 

the chronic concentration criterion for dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT) in the micro-surface layer, 

and exceeded the chronic concentration criterion in the subsurface layers (Table 3.2-4).
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.2-34

3.2 Sediments and Water Quality

Notes: AFTT: Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing; OPAREA: Operating Area; SINKEX: Sinking Exercise; VACAPES: Virginia Capes 

Figure 3.2-7: Water Quality Ratings for the Southeast Coast
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.2-35

3.2 Sediments and Water Quality

3.2.2.2.4.2 Nearshore Water Quality

States bordering the Gulf of Mexico Region include the Gulf coast of Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, 

Louisiana, and Texas. Information regarding the current quality of marine waters in the nearshore areas 

of these states is provided. The USEPA (2016) rated the gulf waters as 16 percent good, 58 percent fair, 

and 24 percent poor. Various combinations of all the water quality indicators were responsible for poor 

site conditions. Onshore development, oil and gas extraction, and excess nutrients are the main sources 

of stress on the Gulf of Mexico (Heileman & Rabalais, 2008). Except where otherwise indicated, 

information provided below, including the data used in the water quality map, was drawn from the 

USEPA’s National Aquatic Resource Surveys database (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2016).

Florida. Water quality along Florida’s Gulf coast was rated 47 percent good, 47 percent fair, and 

4 percent poor with 3 percent of data reported as missing (Figure 3.2-8). Mercury in fish tissue, bacteria 

in shellfish, low dissolved oxygen, high turbidity as measured by chlorophyll-a, and fecal coliform are 

also concerns along the Gulf coast.

Lewis et al. (2001) studied the impacts of urbanization on three areas in Pensacola Bay. Although total 

metal concentrations varied widely, copper and zinc were most commonly detected in surface waters. 

Average levels for copper exceeded both the chronic (3.1 μg/L) and acute (4.8 μg/L) exposure levels 

established to protect marine life. Cadmium, chromium, and nickel were detected in fewer samples but, 

where detected, concentrations exceeded chronic exposure levels. Concentrations of most chlorinated 

pesticides, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, and all polychlorinated biphenyls were below the limits of 

detection. The most commonly detected pesticides were diazinon (0.03–0.22 μg/L) and atrazine (0.03–

0.30 μg/L). The authors noted that some pesticides occasionally exceeded the recommended maximum 

surface water concentration of 0.004 μg/L and that total polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon

concentrations at some sites exceeded the recommended annual average of less than or equal to 

0.031 μg/L, but these occasions were “uncommon.” Petroleum hydrocarbons were detected in surface 

water collected from several sites, but most commonly in Bayou Grande, where the average 

concentrations ranged from 1.1 to 8.9 μg/L.

Alabama. Water quality for the coastal waters assessed for Alabama was rated 35 percent good and 

65 percent fair (Figure 3.2-8). Pathogens (e.g., fecal bacteria) and mercury in fish tissue contributed to 

reduced water quality.

Mississippi. Of the 23 mi. of coastal Mississippi shoreline assessed, 10 percent rated good, 80 percent 

rated fair, and 10 percent rated poor (Figure 3.2-8). The main issue was pathogens (fecal bacteria). 

Sampling along the coast indicated degraded water clarity and high phosphorus levels contributed to 

poor water quality. 

Louisiana. Water quality for the coastal waters assessed for Louisiana was rated 3 percent good, 

47 percent fair, and 46 percent poor with 3 percent of data reported as missing (Figure 3.2-8). Clark and 

Goolsby (2000) studied herbicide concentrations in the Mississippi River at Baton Rouge between 1991 

and 1997. Peak herbicide concentrations generally followed peak discharges in late winter or early 

spring. Herbicides and their metabolites were detected in more than half of the samples (e.g., alachlor, 

atrazine, metolachlor, deethylatrazine, and cyanazine). No compound exceeded 5 μg/L, and the total 

herbicide concentration did not exceed 10 μg/L. None of the average annual concentrations of the 

herbicides examined in that study exceeded maximum contaminant levels or the health advisory levels 

established at that time.
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.2-36

3.2 Sediments and Water Quality

Notes: AFTT: Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing; OPAREA: Operating Area

Figure 3.2-8: Water Quality Ratings for the Gulf of Mexico Coast
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.2-37

3.2 Sediments and Water Quality

Texas. Water quality for the coastal waters in Texas was rated 11 percent good, 55 percent fair, and 

34 percent poor (Figure 3.2-8). In nearshore waters and estuaries, the main concerns were with bacteria 

(in oyster waters) and low dissolved oxygen. Farther offshore, impairment was associated with bacteria 

concentrations and mercury in fish tissue.

3.2.2.2.5 Water Quality in the Caribbean Region 

The Caribbean Region includes offshore marine areas south and southeast of the Florida Keys. The 

majority of the Key West Range Complex is located within this ecosystem. See Figure 3.0-1 in Section 3.0 

(Introduction) for range complexes within each large marine ecosystem and Figure 3.0-5 for bathymetry 

in the Caribbean region. These marine waters are clear and poor in nutrients (Heileman & Mahon, 

2008). Water quality in nearshore waters of Puerto Rico was not assessed in the 2016 publication of the 

coastal condition assessment, but a 2012 publication, the National Coastal Condition Report IV, did 

assess sediment quality in island territories (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2012b). Coastal 

water quality in Puerto Rico was rated 50 percent good, 40 percent fair, and 10 percent poor. Poor 

water clarity ratings in combination with elevated dissolved inorganic phosphorous levels or chlorophylla concentrations at individual sites resulted in the poor ratings (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

2012b). Several of the poor water quality ratings were in coastal areas near San Juan, the most populous 

city on the island. Coastal water quality in the U.S. Virgin Islands was rated 60 percent good, 34 percent 

fair, and 0 percent poor with 6 percent of data reported as missing (U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, 2012b). 

Specific information regarding water quality in the Key West Range Complex could not be located. As 

with other coastal areas, nearshore water quality is mostly influenced by onshore activities and 

development, plus the discharge of solid waste and wastewater from commercial and cruise vessels 

(Heileman & Mahon, 2008; Lapointe et al., 1994). 

3.2.2.2.6 Marine Debris and Water Quality

The National Marine Debris Monitoring Program developed three categories of marine debris for its 

study of the extent of man-made materials in the oceans: land-based, ocean-based, and general (i.e., 

origin unspecified) (Sheavly, 2007). Land-based debris may blow in on the wind, be washed in with 

storm water, arise from recreational use of coastal areas, and be generated by extreme weather such as 

hurricanes. Ocean-based sources of marine debris include commercial shipping and fishing, private 

boating, offshore mining and extraction, and legal and illegal dumping at sea. Ocean current patterns, 

weather and tides, and proximity to urban centers, industrial and recreational areas, shipping lanes, and 

fishing grounds influence the types and amount of debris found (Sheavly, 2010). These materials are 

concentrated at the surface and in the near-surface water column.

According to Sheavly (2010), land-based sources account for about half of marine debris, and ocean- and 

waterway-based sources contribute another 18 percent. Galgani et al. (2015) confirm that the majority 

of marine debris originates from land. Land-based debris included syringes, condoms, metal beverage 

cans, motor oil containers, balloons, six-pack rings, straws, tampon applicators, and cotton swabs as well 

as other items. Ocean-based debris included gloves, plastic sheets, light bulbs and tubes, oil and gas 

containers, pipe-thread protectors, nets, traps and pots, fishing line, light sticks, rope, salt bags, fish 

baskets, cruise line logo items, and floats and buoys. Plastics, generally referring to petroleum-based, 

manmade materials, make up the vast majority of marine debris (Galgani et al., 2015; Law et al., 2014).

Microscopic plastic fragments enter the marine environment from use as scrubbers in hand cleaning and 

other cosmetic products, abrasive beads for cleaning ships, and deterioration of macroscopic plastics 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.2-38

3.2 Sediments and Water Quality

(Teuten et al., 2007). Microplastic beads commonly used in cosmetic products such as facial scrubs and 

other exfoliants are not broken down in wastewater treatment facilities and are largely not filtered out 

of the waste stream before they are flushed into the marine environment in enormous quantities 

(Chang, 2015; Napper et al., 2015). These microbeads are found worldwide in marine sediments, persist 

in the marine environment, and accumulate up the food chain (Cole & Galloway, 2015).

Plastics may serve as vehicles for transport of various pollutants, whether by binding them from 

seawater or from the constituents of the plastics themselves. Mato et al. (2001) noted that 

polypropylene resin pellets (precursors to certain manufactured plastics) collected from sites in Japan 

contained polychlorinated biphenyls, dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene (a breakdown product of DDT), 

and the persistent organic pollutant nonylphenol (a precursor to certain detergents). Polychlorinated 

biphenyls and dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene were adsorbed from seawater. The original source of 

nonylphenol was less clear; it may have originated from the pellets themselves or may have been 

adsorbed from the seawater and accumulated on the surface of plastics. Microbeads have also been 

shown to adsorb hydrophobic chemical contaminants, such as DDT, from seawater, allowing for the 

accumulation and transport of these often toxic chemicals to widely dispersed areas of the oceans. 

While the impacts on the marine ecosystem are largely unknown, some examples illustrating potential 

widespread impacts have been discussed. For example, it has been suggested that white and blue 

microplastic beads, common in many exfoliants, resemble plankton and may be mistakenly ingested by 

plankton-feeding fishes, which rely on visual cues to find prey (Napper et al., 2015; Wright et al., 2013). 

The long-term effects on the environment from the proliferation of microbeads and other microplastics 

are still being researched. Since there is no way of effectively removing microplastics from the marine 

environment, and given that plastics are highly resistant to degradation, it is likely that the quantity of 

microplastics in the marine environment will only continue to increase, and therefore the likelihood of 

environmental impacts can only increase (Napper et al., 2015). The only way to reduce long-term 

impacts is to reduce or eliminate the use of microplastics, a course of action that is gaining recognition 

(Chang, 2015).

Marine debris findings in the Study Area (Sheavly, 2007) are provided in Table 3.2-5. In a recent survey 

of marine debris in the North Atlantic, 62 percent of all net tows contained detectable amounts of 

plastic debris (Law et al., 2010). The highest concentrations were observed between 22° and 38° north

latitude (roughly south of Florida to Maine). Tows closest to land, such as along the Florida coast and in 

the Gulf of Maine, found relatively small amounts of plastic.

Because of their buoyancy, many types of plastic items float and may travel thousands of miles in the 

ocean (U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy, 2004). Exceptions include heavy nets and ropes. Although 

plastics are resistant to degradation, they do gradually break down into smaller particles due to sunlight 

and mechanical wear (Law et al., 2010). A study by Teuten et al. (2007) indicated that the water-borne 

phenanthrene (a type of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon) adhered preferentially to small pieces of 

plastic ingested by a bottom-dwelling marine lugworm and incorporated into its tissue. Marine microbes 

and fungi are known to degrade biologically produced polyesters, such as polyhydroxyalkanoates, a 

bacterial carbon and energy source (Doi et al., 1992). Marine microbes also degrade other synthetic 

polymers, although at slower rates (Shah et al., 2008).
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.2-39

3.2 Sediments and Water Quality

Table 3.2-5: Percent Marine Debris by Source in Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing Study Area

Sheavly Study Area

Locations within 

Study Area

LandBased (%)1

OceanBased 

(%)1

General 

(%)1

Region 1 (Provincetown, 

Massachusetts to Canadian border) Northeast Range Complexes 28 42 30

Region 2 (Cape Cod, Massachusetts 

to Beaufort, North Carolina)

Northeast and Virginia Capes Range 

Complexes; Naval Undersea 

Warfare Center Division, Newport 

Testing Range

63 7 30

Region 3 (Morehead City, North 

Carolina to Port Everglades, Florida)

Navy Cherry Point and Jacksonville 

Range Complexes; South Florida 

Ocean Measurement Facility

41 14 44

Regions 4 & 5 (Port Everglades, 

Florida to Mexican border)

Gulf of Mexico and Key West Range 

Complexes; Naval Surface Warfare 

Center, Panama City Division 

Testing Range

48 16 36

1Numbers may not sum due to rounding.

Notes: % = percent

Annex V of the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships prohibits the 

discharge of plastic waste from vessels at sea, and the U.S. Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships brought 

U.S. public vessels in alignment with the international convention. The National Defense Authorization 

Act of 1996 specifically directed the Navy to install plastic waste processors aboard the surface fleet. The 

U.S. Navy’s plastics waste processors compress and melt shipboard-generated plastic waste into dense, 

sanitary disks of compressed plastics that can be stored over long at-sea deployments. The plastic waste 

items include lightly contaminated food containers as well as clean plastics and other materials that may 

be combined with, or contain, plastic components that cannot be processed in the normal solid waste 

stream. The plastic waste disks are offloaded for proper disposal once a ship comes into port. The plastic 

compression technology enables Navy ships to operate at sea over long time periods without 

discharging plastics into the oceans.

3.2.2.2.7 Climate Change and Water Quality

According to the U.S. Global Change Research Program, the rise in ocean temperature over the last 

century will continue into the future, with continued and perhaps increasing impacts on ocean 

circulation, marine chemistry, and marine ecosystems. Because the ocean currently absorbs about a 

quarter of human-produced carbon dioxide emissions, increasing carbon dioxide absorption will 

increase acidification of ocean waters. This in turn will alter the distribution, abundance, and 

productivity of many marine species and affect water quality in coastal and open ocean waters (Melillo 

et al., 2014). 

Key findings of the 2014 National Climate Assessment that may pertain to waters in the AFTT 

Study Area: 

 Local sea level rise (amplified by coastal subsidence) is greater than the global average for the 

Chesapeake Bay.

 Sea level rise and related flooding and erosion threaten coastal homes, infrastructure, and 

commercial development, including ports.
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.2-40

3.2 Sediments and Water Quality

 Ecosystems of the southeast are vulnerable to loss from relative sea level rise, especially tidal 

marshes and swamps.

 The incidence of harmful algal blooms is expected to increase with climate change, as are health 

problems previously uncommon in the region.

 The number of land-falling tropical storms may decline in the gulf, reducing important rainfall, 

while there has been an increase in the frequency of tropical storms and major hurricanes in the 

North Atlantic.

 The Florida Keys, South Florida, and coastal Louisiana are particularly vulnerable to additional sea 

level rise and saltwater intrusion.

The Paris Agreement builds upon the Convention and — for the first time — brings all nations into a 

common cause to undertake ambitious efforts to combat climate change and adapt to its effects, with 

enhanced support to assist developing countries to do so. As such, it charts a new course in the global 

climate effort. 

At the 2015 Paris Climate Conference, 195 parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on 

Climate Change adopted the first-ever universal, global climate agreement, referred to as the Paris 

Agreement in which all countries voluntarily set and committed to individual carbon reduction goals. 

The Agreement marks the latest step in the evolution of the United Nations climate change initiative 

and builds on the work undertaken under the Convention over the past several decades. 

The Paris Agreement seeks to accelerate and intensify the actions and investment needed for sustaining 

low carbon emissions into the future. Its central aim is to strengthen the global response to the threat of 

climate change and greenhouse gas emissions by limiting a global temperature rise over this century to 

no more than 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels. The Paris Agreement also includes a 

commitment to pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase even further to 1.5 degrees Celsius. 

The United States signed the Paris Agreement on April 22, 2016, and on September 3, 2016, the United 

States accepted ratification of the Agreement. However, on June 1, 2017, the President announced that 

the United States would withdraw from the Paris Agreement. The official withdrawal requires a formal 

process, which will take nearly four years to complete. According to the rules of the Paris Agreement, a 

nation wishing to withdraw must first submit a document to the United Nations specifying its intent to 

withdraw. The submission of the document is permitted only after three years have passed since the 

agreement entered into force, in this case November 4, 2016. The earliest the United States can submit 

its written notice is November 4, 2019, and the earliest the United States could complete the 

withdrawal process is November 4, 2020. 

3.2.3 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

This section evaluates how and to what degree the training and testing activities described in Chapter 2 

(Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives) may impact sediments and water quality in the Study 

Area. Tables 2.6-1 through 2.6-4 present proposed training and testing activity locations for each 

alternative, including number of events conducted annually and over a five-year period for alternatives 

1 and 2. Each water quality stressor is introduced, analyzed by alternative, and analyzed for training 

activities and testing activities. Potential impacts could be from:

 releasing materials into the water that subsequently disperse, react with seawater, or may 

dissolve over time;
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.2-41

3.2 Sediments and Water Quality

 depositing materials on the ocean bottom and any subsequent interactions with sediments or 

the accumulation of such materials over time;

 depositing materials or substances on the ocean bottom and any subsequent interaction with the 

water column; and

 depositing materials on the ocean bottom and any subsequent disturbance of those sediments 

or their resuspension in the water column.

These potential impacts may result from four stressors: (1) explosives and explosives byproducts, 

(2) metals, (3) chemicals other than explosives, and (4) other materials. The term “stressor” is used 

because materials in these four categories may directly impact sediments and water quality by altering 

their physical and chemical characteristics.

The area of analysis for sediments and water quality includes the estuaries, nearshore areas, and the 

open ocean (including the seafloor) in the Study Area. The environmental fate of explosives, explosives

byproducts, metals, and other materials depends on environmental factors, geochemical conditions, and 

various mechanisms that transport the constituents in the environment. Some natural transport 

mechanisms, such as advection by currents, dispersion, dissolution (dissolving), precipitation by 

chemical reaction, and adsorption (the adhesion of a chemical constituent onto the surface of a particle 

in the environment [e.g., clay]) reduce concentrations in water and redistribute constituents between 

the water and sediments. Other processes, such as biodegradation, may change or destroy the explosive 

compounds but would not affect metals. For this analysis, potential impacts on sediments and water 

quality from military expended materials that come to rest in sediment at a given distance from shore 

are assumed to be similar whether off the Atlantic coast or the Gulf of Mexico.

3.2.3.1 Explosives and Explosives Byproducts

Explosives may be introduced into the seawater and sediments by the Proposed Action. The explosive 

fillers contained within the munitions used during training and testing activities and their degradation 

products can enter the environment through high-order detonations (i.e., the munition functions as 

intended and the vast majority of explosives are consumed), low-order detonations (i.e., the munition 

partially functions with only a portion of the explosives consumed), or unexploded munitions (i.e., the 

munition fails to detonate and explosives remain in the casing). In the case of a successful detonation, 

only a small or residual amount of explosives may enter the marine environment (U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, 2012a). A low-order detonation would result in some residual explosives and some 

unconsumed explosives remaining in the munitions casing entering the water. In the case of unexploded 

munitions, the explosives contained in the munition would not be consumed and would remain encased 

within the munition as it enters the marine environment. The munitions casing may corrode or rupture 

over time and release explosives into the sediments and water column. 

The behavior of explosives and explosives byproducts in marine environments and the extent to which 

those constituents of explosives have adverse impacts are influenced by a number of processes, 

including the ease with which the explosive dissolves in a liquid such as water (solubility), the degree to 

which explosives are attracted to other materials in the water (e.g., clay-sized particles and organic 

matter, sorption), and the tendency of the explosives to evaporate (volatilization). These characteristics, 

in turn, influence the extent to which the material is subject to biotic (biological) and abiotic (physical 

and chemical) transformation and degradation (Pennington & Brannon, 2002). The solubility of various 

explosives is provided in Table 3.2-6. In the table, higher values indicate greater solubility. For example, 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.2-42

3.2 Sediments and Water Quality

high melting explosive is virtually insoluble in water. Table salt, which dissolves easily in water, is 

included in the table for comparison.

Table 3.2-6: Water Solubility of Common Explosives and Explosive Degradation Products

Compound

Water Solubility1

(mg/L at 20  ̊C)

Table salt (sodium chloride)2 357,000

Ammonium perchlorate (O) 249,000

Picric acid (E) 12,820

Nitrobenzene (D) 1,900

Dinitrobenzene (E) 500

Trinitrobenzene (E) 335

Dinitrotoluene (D) 160

Trinitrotoluene (TNT) (E) 130

Tetryl (E) 51

Pentaerythritol tetranitrate (E) 43

Royal Demolition Explosive (E) 38

High Melting Explosive (E) 7

1Units are milligrams per liter (mg/l) at 20 degrees Celsius.

2Table salt is not an explosive degradation product

Notes: D = explosive degradation product, E = explosive, O = oxidizer additive; 

TNT = trinitrotoluene 

Source: U.S. Department of the Navy (2008a)

According to Walker et al. (2006), trinitrotoluene (TNT), royal demolition explosive, and high melting 

explosive experience rapid biological and photochemical degradation in marine systems. The authors 

noted that productivity in marine and estuarine systems is largely controlled by the limited availability of 

nitrogen. Because nitrogen is a key component of explosives, they are attractive as substrates for 

marine bacteria that metabolize other naturally occurring organic matter, such as polycyclic aromatic 

hydrocarbons. Juhasz and Naidu (2007) also noted that microbes use explosives as sources of carbon 

and energy.

Carr and Nipper (2003) indicated that conversion of trinitrotoluene (TNT) to carbon dioxide, methane, 

and nitrates in coastal sediments (a process referred to as mineralization) occurred at rates that were 

typical for naturally occurring compounds such as phenanthrene, fluoranthene, toluene, and 

naphthalene. They noted that transformation of 2, 6-dinitrotoluene and picric acid by organisms in 

sediments is dependent on temperature and type of sediment (e.g., finer-grained). Pavlostathis and 

Jackson (2002) reported that the marine microalgae Anabaena spp. were highly efficient at the removal 

and metabolism of trinitrotoluene (TNT) in a continuous flow experiment. Nipper et al. (2002) noted that 

irreversible binding to sediments and biodegradation of 2, 6-dinitrotoluene, tetryl, and picric acid 

occurred in fine-grained sediments high in organic carbon resulting in lower concentrations of the 

contaminants. Cruz-Uribe et al. (2007) noted that three species of marine macroalgae metabolize 

trinitrotoluene (TNT) to 2-amino-4,6-dinitrotoluene and 4-amino-2, 6-dinitrotoluene, and speculate that 

“the ability of marine macroalgae to metabolize trinitrotoluene (TNT) is widespread, if not generic.” The 

studies cited above indicate that trinitrotoluene (TNT) and its constituent products can be removed from 

the environment by naturally occurring biological processes in sediments, reducing sediment toxicity

from these chemical contaminants.
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.2-43

3.2 Sediments and Water Quality

Singh et al. (2009) indicated that biodegradation of royal demolition explosive and high melting 

explosive occurs with oxygen (aerobic) and without oxygen (anoxic or anaerobic), but that they were 

more easily degraded under anaerobic conditions. Crocker et al. (2006) indicated that the mechanisms 

of high melting explosive and royal demolition explosive biodegradation are similar, but that high 

melting explosive degrades more slowly. Singh et al. (2009) noted that royal demolition explosive and 

high melting explosive are biodegraded under a variety of anaerobic conditions by specific microbial 

species and by mixtures of such species. Zhao et al. (2004a); (2004b) found that biodegradation of royal 

demolition explosive and high melting explosive occurs in cold marine sediments.

According to Singh et al. (2009), typical end products of the degradation of royal demolition explosive 

include nitrite, nitrous oxide, nitrogen, ammonia, formaldehyde, formic acid, and carbon dioxide. 

Crocker et al. (2006) stated that many of the primary and secondary intermediate compounds from 

biodegradation of royal demolition explosive and high melting explosive are unstable in water and 

spontaneously decompose. Thus, these explosives are degraded by a combination of biotic and abiotic 

reactions. Formaldehyde is subsequently metabolized to formic acid, methanol, carbon dioxide, or 

methane by various microorganisms (Crocker et al., 2006).

A series of research efforts focused on World War II underwater munitions disposal sites in Hawaii 

(Briggs et al., 2016; Kelley et al., 2016; Koide et al., 2016; University of Hawaii, 2010) and an intensively 

used live fire range in the Mariana Islands (Smith & Marx, 2016) provide information in regard to the 

impacts of undetonated materials and unexploded munitions on marine life. 

On a localized scale, research at World War II munitions ocean disposal sites in Hawaii investigated 

nearby sediments, seawater, or marine life to determine if released constituents from the munitions 

(including explosive components and metals) could be detected. Comparisons were made between 

disposal site samples and “clean” reference sites. The samples analyzed showed no confirmed detection 

for explosives.

Investigations by Kelley et al. (2016) and Koide et al. (2016) found that intact munitions (i.e., ones that 

failed to detonate or non-explosive practice munitions) residing in or on soft sediments habitats 

provided hard substrate similar to other disposed objects or “artificial reefs” that attracted “hard 

substrate species,” which would not have otherwise colonized the area. Sampling these species revealed 

that there was no bioaccumulation of munitions-related chemicals in the species (Koide et al., 2016). 

On a broader scale, the island of Farallon De Medinilla (in the Mariana Islands) has been used as a target 

area for both explosive and non-explosive munitions since 1971. Between 1997 and 2012, the Navy has 

conducted 14 underwater scientific surveys around the island, providing a consistent, long-term 

investigation of a single site where munitions have been used regularly (Smith & Marx, 2016). Marine 

life assessed during these surveys included algae, corals, benthic invertebrates, sharks, rays, bony fishes, 

and sea turtles. The investigators found no evidence over the 16-year period, that the condition of the 

physical or biological resources had been adversely impacted to a significant degree by the training 

activities (Smith & Marx, 2016). Furthermore, they found that the health, abundance, and biomass of 

fishes, corals and other marine resources were comparable to or superior to those in similar habitats at 

other locations within the Mariana Archipelago. 

These findings are consistent with other assessments such as that done for the Potomac River Test 

Range at Dahlgren, Virginia, which was established in 1918 and is the nation’s largest fully instrumented, 

over-the-water gun-firing range. Munitions tested at Dahlgren have included rounds from small-caliber 

guns up to the Navy’s largest (16 inch [in.] guns), bombs, rockets, mortars, grenades, mines, depth 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.2-44

3.2 Sediments and Water Quality

charges, and torpedoes (U.S. Department of the Navy, 2013b). Results from the assessment indicate 

that munitions expended at Dahlgren have not contributed significant concentrations of explosive 

materials or explosives byproducts to the Potomac River water and sediments given those contributions 

are orders of magnitude less than concentrations already present in the Potomac River from natural and 

manmade sources (U.S. Department of the Navy, 2013a). 

Underwater detonations for training purposes have been conducted approximately five miles off the 

coast of Virginia Beach, Virginia using demolition charges on non-explosive underwater mine shapes. 

Training activities at the underwater ordnance disposal site began after World War II, but became a 

regular occurrence in 1968. The primary munitions used at the site are the M112 demolition charge 

(consisting of 91 percent hexahydro-1,3,5-trinitro-1,3,5-triazine [i.e., royal demolition explosive]), M456 

detonation cord (containing pentaerythritoltetranitre [also referred to as “PETN”]), and the M700 time 

blasting fuse. Based on the analysis reported in U.S. Department of the Navy (2012), accumulation of 

explosive byproducts was not expected to occur in sediments at the site, because of the infrequent 

nature of the detonations, the small amounts of chemicals of concern produced by the detonations, and 

the large attenuation capacities of the affected water body (i.e., nearshore areas of the Atlantic Ocean).

In summary, multiple investigations since 2007 involving survey and sampling of World War II munition 

dump sites off Oahu Hawaii and other locations, have found the following: (1) chemicals and 

degradation products from underwater munitions “do not pose a risk to human health or to fauna living 

in direct contact with munitions,” (2) metals measured in sediment samples next to World War II

munitions are lower than naturally occurring marine levels and “do not cause a significant impact on the 

environment,” and (3) sediment is not a significant sink of chemicals released by degradation of the 

explosive components in munitions (Edwards et al., 2016). 

Bauer and Kendall (2010) reported on the collection and analysis of sediment samples that were tested 

for the presence of explosive compounds at Vieques, Puerto Rico following the cessation of Navy 

training activities on the island. Sediment samples were analyzed for the parent compounds,

2,4,6-trinitrotoluene (TNT), high melting explosive, royal demolition explosive, and Tetryl 

(2,4,6-trinitrophenyl-n-methylnitramine), and for degradation products including 1,3,5-trinitrobenzene, 

2,4-dinitrotoluene, and 2,6-dinitrotoluene. Of the 78 samples collected, 14 showed signs of explosive 

compounds and required a more in depth analysis to confirm the presence of explosive compounds or 

degradation products. The analysis revealed that explosives were either not present or were present at 

such low concentrations that they could not be measured.

The concentration of explosive munitions and any associated explosives byproducts at any single 

location in the Study Area would be a small fraction of the totals that have accumulated over decades at 

World War II era dump sites and military ranges. Based on findings from much more intensively used 

locations, effects on sediments from the use of explosive munitions during training and testing activities 

would be negligible by comparison. As a result, explosives by‐products and unexploded munitions would 

have no meaningful effect on sediments.

Most explosive material is consumed in an explosion, so the vast majority of intact explosive material 

entering the marine environment would be encased in munitions that failed to detonate. Failure rates 

are not available for the vast majority of munitions used in the Proposed Action; however, based on the 

data that are available Table 3.2-7, a 5-percent munitions failure rate was selected as a reasonable 

average rate to estimate the failure rates for all munitions used in the Proposed Action. Based on the 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.2-45

3.2 Sediments and Water Quality

available data, low-order detonation rates for all munitions are assumed to be at least an order of 

magnitude less than the failure rates and are not considered in the analysis.

Table 3.2-7: Failure and Low-Order Detonation Rates of Military Munitions

Munitions Failure Rate (Percent) Low-Order Detonation Rate (Percent)

Guns/artillery 4.68 0.16

Hand grenades 1.78 n/a

Explosive munitions 3.37 0.09

Rockets 3.84 n/a

Submunitions 8.23 n/a

Source: MacDonald and Mendez (2005)

Note: n/a = not available

Most activities involving explosives and explosives byproducts would be conducted more than 3 NM 

offshore in each range complex and testing range. Activities in these areas (3–200 NM) would be subject 

to federal sediment and water quality standards and guidelines. 

Explosives are also used in nearshore areas (low tide line to 3 NM) specifically designated for mine 

countermeasure and mine neutralization activities. These activities would be subject to state sediment 

and water quality standards and guidelines.

For explosives byproducts, “local” refers to the water column in the vicinity of the underwater 

detonation. For unconsumed explosives, “local” refers to the area of potential impact from explosives in 

a zone of sediment about 6 ft. in diameter around the unconsumed explosive where it comes to rest on 

the seafloor.

3.2.3.1.1 Impacts from Explosives and Explosives Byproducts under Alternative 1

3.2.3.1.1.1 Impacts from Explosives and Explosives Byproducts under Alternative 1 for 

Training Activities

The distribution of explosives used in training activities is not uniform throughout the Study Area. 

Approximately 30 percent of the explosives used annually during training activities would be used in the 

Jacksonville Range Complex and 60 percent would be used in the Virginia Capes Range Complex. The 

remaining 10 percent would be distributed in other locations of the Study Area. Of all explosive 

munitions used during training activities, approximately 55 percent of explosives used in the Jacksonville 

Range Complex and 60 percent of explosives used in the Virginia Capes Range Complex would have a net 

explosive weight between 0.1 and 0.25 pounds (lb.) per munition. Training activities are further 

described in Chapter 2 (Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives) and listed in Table 2.3-2 and 

Table 2.6-1.

The highest concentrations of munitions residues results from munitions failures (i.e., low-order 

detonations). As a general rule, between 10,000 and 100,000 high-order detonations deposit the same 

mass of explosives residue as one low-order detonation of the same munition (U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, 2012a) Therefore, an estimate of the amount of explosives material and byproducts 

from an explosion that would be introduced into the environment is based solely on the failure rate for 

each type of munition, discounting the negligible contribution from munitions that successfully 

detonate. The military does not track failure rates for all munitions. The available data typically report 

failure rates ranging from less than 2 percent up to 10 percent (Table 3.2-7). For the purpose of 

estimating the amount of explosives and explosives byproducts entering the marine environment, a 

5-percent failure rate is applied to all types of munitions used during training activities. The amount of 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.2-46

3.2 Sediments and Water Quality

explosive materials is estimated by multiplying the failure rate by the number of explosive munitions 

and the net explosive weight of each munition used during training activities. 

To better organize and facilitate the analysis of different types of explosive munitions, each munition 

using in training and testing activities was grouped into a series of source classification bins, or source 

bins (see Section 3.0.3.3.2, Explosive Stressors). Each source bin is defined by a range of net explosive 

weights (e.g., bin E3 has a range of 0.5 to 2.5 lb. net explosive weight). To estimate the amount of 

explosive materials entering the marine environment, the average net explosive weight was calculated 

for each source bin. For example, for bin E1 (0.1 to 0.25 lb. net explosive weight) under Alternative 1:

Explosives = 0.05 (Failure Rate) x 1,600 (Munitions in Bin E1) x 0.175 lb. (Average Net Explosive 

Weight) = 14 lb.

One other factor needs to be considered when estimating the amount of explosives entering the marine 

environment in munitions that fail to detonate. The net explosive weight of an explosive munition is 

based on the equivalent amount of trinitrotoluene (TNT) that would be required to generate the desired 

amount of energy upon detonation. Most modern munitions no longer use trinitrotoluene (TNT) as the 

primary explosive material. Other more powerful and stable explosives such as royal demolition 

explosive are used in a greater number of explosive munitions. Because royal demolition explosive is 

more powerful than trinitrotoluene (TNT), a lesser amount of royal demolition explosive is needed to 

generate the equivalent explosion using trinitrotoluene (TNT). The equivalency factors for royal 

demolition explosive is 1.60, meaning that, to generate an explosion equivalent to 1 kilogram (kg) of 

trinitrotoluene (TNT) only 0.625 kg of royal demolition explosive is needed. Revising the equation above 

to incorporate the trinitrotoluene (TNT) equivalency factor:

Explosives = 0.05 (Failure Rate) x 1,600 (Munitions in Bin E1) x 0.175 lb. (Average Net Explosive 

Weight) x 0.625 (equivalency factor) = 8.75 lb.

Using this approach, and considering all training activities in the AFTT Study Area, up to approximately 

4,000 lb. of explosive material could enter the environment annually in the form of munitions that failed 

to detonate. Approximately 40 percent, or 1,600 lb. of explosives, would come from munitions in the E5

bin. These munitions are used at least 3 NM and often more than 12 NM from shore, which diminishes 

any potential impact on nearshore sediments and water quality. Water depth increases with distance 

from shore, such that munitions residing on the seafloor at depths greater than 250 m would be in a low 

light, low temperature environment slowing the corrosion of munitions casings and that degradation of 

any exposed explosives. Larger projectiles (e.g., missiles, rockets, bombs) that fail to detonate would 

enter the water at a high rate of speed, and, depending on the type of seafloor substrate (e.g., soft 

sediments), can become imbedded in the seafloor. Munitions that are buried partially or completely 

beneath sediments may remain intact for decades where geochemical conditions (e.g., low dissolved 

oxygen) inhibit corrosion of the metal casing. Studies conducted at several Navy ranges where 

explosives have been used for decades indicate that explosives constituents are released into the 

aquatic environment over long periods of time and do not result in water or sediment toxicity (Briggs et 

al., 2016; U.S. Department of the Navy, 2010a, 2010b, 2013a). 

The overarching conclusions from the Hawaii Undersea Military Munitions Assessment project is that 

degrading munitions at the disposal site do not pose a risk to human health or to the fauna living in 

direct contact with the degrading munitions (Edwards et al., 2016). During a comprehensive survey of 

the site, explosive materials were detected in sediments at only two locations and the concentrations 

were low. Concentrations of metals introduced into sediments and the water column from deteriorating 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.2-47

3.2 Sediments and Water Quality

munitions casings were below screening levels for the marine environment, and the authors concluded 

that the metals are not impacting the environment.

Data supporting these conclusions were collected from World War II era munitions disposal sites 

characterized by relatively high concentrations of munitions. Munitions used in the proposed training 

activities would be widely dispersed by comparison, resulting in lower concentrations of munitions that 

failed to detonate and lower concentrations of residual explosives and explosives byproducts than 

reported in Edwards et al. (2016). Based on this analysis, impacts on sediments and water quality are 

expected to be minimal.

In the event a munition fails to detonate, the explosives contained within the intact munition would 

remain isolated from the water column and sediments. Based on analyses of munitions disposal sites, 

explosives would only leach from the munitions casing slowly, over decades, once the munitions casing 

corrodes and is breached, exposing the explosives to seawater or sediments (Briggs et al., 2016). Small 

amounts of explosives may leach into sediments and the adjacent water column. In the event the 

munition fails to detonate but the casing is nevertheless breached upon impact, explosives may enter 

the water column as the breached munitions sinks to the seafloor. Analysis from munitions disposal 

sites indicates that munitions constituents and degradation products are only detected at measurable 

levels in sediments within a few feet of a degrading munition. Many constituents released into the 

water column would be expected to dissolve (refer to Table 3.2-6 for water solubility) and disperse with 

ocean currents and not concentrate at levels that would result in water toxicity. Explosives released into 

sediments from a partially buried munition may persist in sediments or degrade slowly over time if the 

explosive material or its constituents are not soluble in seawater (e.g., royal demolition explosive). In 

deep water (greater than 250 m), benthic habitats, bottom temperatures are near freezing, and 

dissolved oxygen levels are low (or event anoxic) in sediments only a few inches below the water 

column-seafloor interface. These physical conditions inhibit degradation and dispersion of the explosives 

and constituents beyond an isolated area adjacent to the munition. Based on this analysis, impacts on 

sediments and water quality are expected to be minimal.

The sinking exercise activity is likely to result in the highest concentration of munitions of any proposed 

training or testing activity. During each sinking exercise, for example, an estimated 216 explosive 

munitions would be expended, 93 percent of which would consist of large-caliber projectiles in the 

E5 bin. Approximately 178 lb. of explosive materials could be released per sinking exercise if the 

munitions utilized failed to detonate. For the purpose of this example, the area encompassing the 

sinking exercise activity is estimated to be approximately 2 NM2. Thus, during each sinking exercise, 

approximately 108 munitions would be used per NM2 and 89 lb. of explosive material per NM2 would 

sink to the ocean floor encased within munitions that failed to detonate. During an actual sinking 

exercise munitions are directed at the target vessel, which occupies an area much smaller than 2 NM2, 

and it is likely that a failure rate of less than 5 percent would occur for this type of activity. All Sinking 

Exercises are conducted at least 50 NM from shore in waters at least 6,000 ft. deep. Based on these 

conditions and the results of the analysis of munitions degradation rates in the studies described above, 

which occurred at shallower depths and closer to shore, adverse effects on seafloor sediments and 

water quality are not expected even in areas where the concentration of munitions is likely to be 

relatively high.
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.2-48

3.2 Sediments and Water Quality

3.2.3.1.1.2 Impacts from Explosives and Explosives Byproducts under Alternative 1 for 

Testing Activities

The distribution of explosives used in testing activities is not uniform throughout the Study Area. 

Approximately 30 percent of the explosives used annually during testing activities would be used in the 

Jacksonville Range Complex and 50 percent would be used in the Virginia Capes Range Complex. The 

remaining 20 percent would be distributed in other locations of the Study Area. Of all explosive 

munitions used during testing activities, approximately 70 percent are in the E1 bin (0.1 to 0.25 lb. per 

munition). Excluding munitions in the E1 bin, which primarily consist of medium-caliber projectiles, 

approximately 50 percent of other munitions are in the E3 bin (0.5 to 2.5 lb. net explosive weight) and 

30 percent are in the E5 bin (5 to 10 lb.). 

As described for training activities in Section 3.2.3.1.1.1 (Impacts from Explosives and Explosives 

Byproducts under Alternative 1 for Training Activities), over 98 percent of explosives byproducts 

introduced into the environment would result from the failure of a munition to detonate, because little 

to no explosive material remains after a successful detonation. The amount of residual explosives 

materials resulting from testing activities is estimated in the same way it was estimated for training 

activities: by multiplying the failure rate by the number of explosive munitions and the average net 

explosive weight for the bin in which each explosive munitions is classified.

The Ship Shock Trial activity conducted by Naval Sea Systems Command is the only activity that would 

use explosives in the E16 and E17 bins. In the unlikely event munitions in either of these two bins failed 

to detonate during a Ship Shock Trial activity, additional attempts would be made to detonate the 

explosive. If an explosive cannot be detonated or disarmed and recovered, then to safeguard human 

life, the explosive will be disposed of at sea in accordance with established Ammunition and Explosives 

Safety Afloat requirements. 

Over the past 29 years, there have been approximately 11 Ship Shock Trials involving a combined total 

of between 33 and 40 separate detonations. Of those detonations, only two munitions did not detonate 

as planned. One of those munitions was ultimately detonated after the activity was completed, and the 

second was disposed of at sea in a known and marked area designated for unexploded ordnance and 

munitions disposal. Based on three decades of Ship Shock Trials, a detonation failure rate of 2.5 to 3 

percent could be expected. The proposed Large Ship Shock Trial activity would occur once over a 5-year 

period and use up to 64 munitions in the E17 bin, and the Small Ship Shock Trial activity would occur up 

to three times over a 5-year period and use up to 64 munitions in the E16 bin (see Table 2.6-3 in Chapter 

2 [Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives]). Applying a failure rate of 3 percent results in 

approximately two failed detonations in the E17 bin and two in the E16 bin. Considering that only one 

munition in one of the two bins remained intact in the marine environment after conducting 11 Ship 

Shock Trails over nearly 30 years, the probability of a detonation failure occurring during no more than 4 

Ship Shock Trials over a 5-year period is expected to be very low. Therefore, munitions in the E16 and 

E17 bins were excluded from estimates of the amount of explosives entering the marine environment in 

the event of a detonation failure.

For testing activities in the AFTT Study Area, up to approximately 2,400 lb. of explosive material would 

enter the environment annually in munitions that failed to detonate. Approximately 44 percent, 1,150 

lb., are from munitions in the E10 bin (250 to 500 lb.), which are used at least 3 NM and often more than 

12 NM from shore, and 15 percent are from munitions failures in the E5 bin. The testing activities Air to 

Surface Missile Test and Missile and Rocket Testing use all munitions in the E10 bin. For more 

information on those activities, refer to Appendix A (Navy Activity Descriptions).
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.2-49

3.2 Sediments and Water Quality

In the event a munition fails to detonate, the explosives would remain mostly intact and contained 

within the munitions casing, which is composed mostly of iron with smaller quantities of other metals. 

Explosive materials would only leach from the casing slowly, over years, as the casing corrodes and 

degrades in the deepwater (greater than 250 m) environment. Once exposed to the environment, 

explosives materials are quickly broken down into constituent materials (Briggs et al., 2016). Ocean 

currents would quickly disperse constituents entrained into the water column. Chemical constituents 

that settle onto sediments in the immediate vicinity of the munition are likely to persist in the 

environment due to a combination of low water solubility, the products of hydrolysis forming a coating 

that prevents further decomposition, and near freezing temperatures at deepwater sites that typically 

inhibit chemical dissolution (Briggs et al., 2016).

Larger projectiles used in testing activities that fail to detonate would enter the water at a high rate of 

speed and may become imbedded in soft sediments, depending on water depth and the composition of 

seafloor substrate. Munitions buried partially or completely beneath sediments may remain intact for 

decades in places where geochemical conditions (e.g., low dissolved oxygen) inhibit corrosion of the 

metal casing. Studies conducted at several Navy ranges where explosives have been used for decades 

indicate that explosives constituents are released into the aquatic environment over long periods of 

time and do not result in water or sediment toxicity (Briggs et al., 2016; U.S. Department of the Navy, 

2010a, 2010b, 2013a). Based on the results from studies of underwater munitions disposal sites and 

water ranges, impacts on sediments and water quality are expected to be minimal and localized.

The overarching conclusions from the Hawaii Undersea Military Munitions Assessment project is that 

degrading munitions at the disposal site do not pose a risk to human health or to the fauna living in 

direct contact with the degrading munitions (Edwards et al., 2016). During a comprehensive survey of 

the site, explosive materials were detected in sediments at only two locations and the concentrations 

were low. Concentrations of metals introduced into sediments and the water column from deteriorating 

munitions casings were below screening levels for the marine environment, and the authors concluded 

that the metals are not impacting the environment.

Data supporting these conclusions were collected from World War II era munitions disposal sites 

characterized by relatively high concentrations of munitions. Munitions used in the proposed testing 

activities would be widely dispersed by comparison, resulting in lower concentrations of munitions that 

failed to detonate and lower concentrations of residual explosives and explosives byproducts than 

reported in Edwards et al. (2016). Based on this analysis, impacts on sediments and water quality are 

expected to be minimal.

3.2.3.1.2 Impacts from Explosives and Explosives Byproducts under Alternative 2

3.2.3.1.2.1 Impacts from Explosives and Explosives Byproducts under Alternative 2 for 

Training Activities

Under Alternative 2, the number of explosive munitions used during training activities would be the 

same as under Alternative 1. Therefore, the impacts of underwater explosives and explosives

byproducts would be the same as described under Alternative 1.

3.2.3.1.2.2 Impacts from Explosives and Explosives Byproducts under Alternative 2 for 

Testing Activities

Under Alternative 2, the number of explosive munitions used during the Airborne Mine Neutralization 

Test conducted by Naval Air Systems Command would increase over Alternative 1. The activity, which is

conducted at the NSWC Panama City Training Range and the Virginia Capes Range Complex would use 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.2-50

3.2 Sediments and Water Quality

10 E11 mines (5 in each location) and 10 E4 neutralizers (5 in each location). However, the amount of 

explosives entering the environment would remain essentially the same, because mines that failed to 

detonate as planned would be detonated by other means and would not be permitted to remain in the 

environment as intact munitions. Based on a 5-percent failure rate, only 2 to 3 neutralizers would be 

expected to fail over five years, resulting in no more than 15 lb. of explosives deposited on the seafloor 

in intact munitions over five years. This is a less than one-tenth of 1 percent of the total amount of 

explosives released under Alternative 1 and is negligible. The amount of explosives byproducts would 

increase; however, for the reasons described above in Section 3.2.3.1.1.1 (Impacts from Explosives and 

Explosives Byproducts under Alternative 1 for Training Activities), the amount of additional explosives 

byproducts entering the environment would be undetectable and impacts would therefore be the same 

as under Alternative 1.

3.2.3.1.3 Impacts from Explosives and Explosives Byproducts under the No Action 

Alternative

Under the No Action Alternative, the Navy would not conduct the proposed training and testing 

activities in the AFTT Study Area. Under this alternative, there would be no potential for impacts on

sediments and water quality from training and testing activities. It is reasonable to assume that ceasing 

all training and testing activities involving the use of explosives would decrease the amounts of related 

chemical constituents in marine waters and sediments in the Study Area. The effect, however, would 

likely not be measurable due to the rapid dissolution and dispersion of explosives and explosives 

byproducts in the water column and the slow, sometimes decades-long corrosion of undetonated 

munitions on the seafloor. Explosives and explosives byproducts released into sediments from degrading 

munitions would be decomposed and disperse, or, if persistent in sediments, would only be expected at 

higher concentrations in sediments within a few feet of the munition.

3.2.3.2 Chemicals Other Than Explosives

Under the Proposed Action, chemicals other than explosives are associated with the following military 

expended materials: (1) solid-fuel propellants in missiles and rockets; (2) Otto Fuel II torpedo propellant 

and combustion byproducts; (3) polychlorinated biphenyls in target vessels used during sinking 

exercises; (4) other chemicals associated with munitions; and (5) chemicals that simulate chemical 

warfare agents, referred to as “chemical simulants.”

Hazardous air pollutants from explosives and explosives byproducts are discussed in Section 3.1 (Air 

Quality). Explosives and explosives byproducts are discussed in Section 3.2.3.1 (Explosives and 

Explosives Byproducts). Fuels onboard manned aircraft and vessels are not reviewed, nor are fuelloading activities, refueling at sea, onboard operations, or maintenance activities reviewed, because 

normal operation and maintenance of Navy equipment is not part of the Proposed Action.

The largest chemical constituent of missiles is solid propellant. Solid propellant contains both the fuel 

and the oxidizer, a source of oxygen needed for combustion. An extended-range Standard Missile-2 

typically contains 1,822 lb. of solid propellant. Ammonium perchlorate is an oxidizing agent used in most 

modern solid-propellant formulas (Chaturvedi & Dave, 2015). It normally accounts for 50 to 85 percent 

of the propellant by weight. Ammonium dinitramide may also be used as an oxidizing agent. Aluminum 

powder as a fuel additive ranges from 5 to 22 percent by weight of solid propellant; it is added to 

increase missile range and payload capacity. The high-explosives high melting explosive (octahydro1,3,5,7-tetranitro-1,3,5,7-tetrazocine) and royal demolition explosive (hexahydro-1,3,5-trinitro-1,3,5-

triazine) may be added, although they usually comprise less than 30 percent of the propellant by weight. 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.2-51

3.2 Sediments and Water Quality

Many of the constituents used in propellants are also commonly used for commercial purposes but 

require additional processing to achieve certain properties necessary for rocket and missile propulsion.

(Missile Technology Control Regime, 1996).

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency issued a paper characterizing the munitions constituents 

accumulated at over 30 military sites around the United States and Canada where explosives and 

propellants have been used (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2012b). The sites assessed in the 

paper were all land-based ranges; however, the results are useful for analyzing similar activities 

conducted at sea. The paper noted that perchlorate was generally not detected at anti-tank ranges and 

that perchlorate is so soluble in water and mobile in soil that surface accumulation apparently does not 

occur. The paper includes a case study that estimates the amount of residual perchlorate deposited 

from a rocket fired at a test track. The rocket propellant contained 68 lb. of ammonium perchlorate. 

Samples were collected both behind the firing point and along the test track before and after the rocked 

was fired. No differences in perchlorate concentrations in soils were detected at any location before or 

after the firing, and all measurements recorded perchlorate concentrations of less than 1 microgram per 

kilogram (g/kg). That case study concluded that 99.997 percent of perchlorate is consumed by the 

rocket motor (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2012b). Jenkins et al. (2008) found similar results 

from an air-launched AIM-7 missile, a missile used by the Navy and similar to missiles used in the 

Proposed Action. These studies, and others cited in each paper, demonstrate that the motors used in 

rockets and missiles are highly efficient at burning propellant fuels, leaving only trace amounts often at 

undetectable levels in the environment.

Several torpedoes (e.g., MK-54) use Otto Fuel II as a liquid propellant. Otto Fuel II is composed of 

primarily three synthetic substances: Propylene glycol dinitrate and nitro-diphenylamine (76 percent), 

dibutyl sebacate (22 percent) and 2-nitrodiphenylamine as a stabilizer (2 percent). Propylene glycol 

dinitrate, which is a liquid, is the explosive component of Otto Fuel II. Dibutyl sebacate, also known as 

sebacic acid, is also a liquid. It is used commercially to make plastics, many of which are used for 

packaging food, and to enhance flavor in foods such as ice cream, candy, baked goods, and nonalcoholic 

drinks. The third component, 2-nitrodiphenylamine, is a solid substance used to control the combustion 

of the propylene glycol dinitrate (U.S. Health and Human Services 1995). Combustion byproducts of Otto 

Fuel II include nitrous oxides, carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, hydrogen, nitrogen, methane, 

ammonia, and hydrogen cyanide. During normal venting of excess pressure or upon failure of the 

torpedo's buoyancy bag, the following constituents are discharged: carbon dioxide, water, hydrogen, 

nitrogen, carbon monoxide, methane, ammonia, hydrochloric acid, hydrogen cyanide, formaldehyde, 

potassium chloride, ferrous oxide, potassium hydroxide, and potassium carbonate (Arai & Chino, 2012).

Target vessels are only used during sinking exercises, which occur infrequently. Polychlorinated 

biphenyls are a concern because they are present in certain solid materials (e.g., insulation, wires, felts, 

and rubber gaskets) on vessels used as targets for sinking exercises. These vessels are selected from a 

list of Navy-approved vessels that have been cleaned in accordance with USEPA guidelines (U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 2014). By rule, a sinking exercise must be conducted at least 50 NM 

offshore and in water at least 6,000 ft. deep (40 CFR part 229.2).

The USEPA estimates that as much as 100 lb. of polychlorinated biphenyls remain onboard sunken 

target vessels. The USEPA considers the contaminant levels released during the sinking of a target to be 

within the standards of the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act (16 U.S.C. 1341, et seq.)

(U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2014). Under a 2014 agreement with the USEPA, the Navy will 

not likely use aircraft carriers or submarines as the targets for a sinking exercise (U.S. Environmental 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.2-52

3.2 Sediments and Water Quality

Protection Agency, 2014). Based on these considerations, polychlorinated biphenyls will not be 

considered further.

Table 3.2-8 lists the chemical constituents produced in the combustion of propellants and fuels, as 

described above, and lists constituents remaining after the detonations of non-munitions, such as 

spotting charges and tracers. Not all of the listed chemical constituents in propellant and Otto Fuel II 

would be used in combination; some are substitutes that would replace another chemical in the list, 

depending on the type of propellant used. For example, ammonium perchlorate is the preferred oxidizer 

in propellant, but ammonium dinitramide could act as the oxidizer in some propellants. These 

constituents are in addition to the explosives contained in munitions, which were discussed in Section 

3.2.3.1 (Explosives and Explosives Byproducts).

The environmental fate of Otto Fuel II and its components is largely unknown. Neither the fuel mixture 

nor its three main components are particularly volatile or soluble in water; however, when mixed with 

water propylene glycol dinitrate forms a volatile mixture, making evaporation an important fate process 

(U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 1995). The compound 2-Nitrodiphenylamine may 

precipitate from water or be taken up by particulates. Dibutyl sebacate is rapidly biodegraded. Neither 

propylene glycol dinitrate nor 2-nitrodiphenylamine are readily biodegradable, but both of these 

chemicals break down when exposed to ultraviolet light (Powell et al., 1998). 

Table 3.2-8: Constituents in Munitions Other Than Explosives

Munitions Component Constituent

Pyrotechnics

Tracers

Spotting Charges

Barium chromate

Potassium perchlorate

Chlorides

Phosphorus

Titanium compounds

Oxidizers Lead (II) oxide

Propellant (rockets and missiles)

High melting explosive

Royal demolition explosive

Hydroxyl-terminated polybutadiene

Carboxyl-terminated polybutadiene 

Polybutadiene-acrylic acid-acrylonitrile

Triphenyl bismuth

Nitrate esters 

Nitrated plasticizers

Polybutadiene-acrylic acid polymer

Elastomeric polyesters

Polyethers

Nitrocellulose plasticized with nitroglycerine

2-nitrodiphenylamine 

N-methyl-4-nitroaniline

Hydrazine

Lead azide, titanium compounds, perchlorates, barium chromate, and fulminate of mercury are not 

natural constituents of seawater. Lead oxide is a rare, naturally occurring mineral. It is one of several 

lead compounds that form films on lead objects in the marine environment (Agency for Toxic 

Substances and Disease Registry, 2007). Metals are discussed in more detail in Section 3.2.3.3 (Metals).
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.2-53

3.2 Sediments and Water Quality

Because chemical and biological warfare agents remain a security threat, the Department of Defense 

uses relatively harmless compounds (chemical simulants) as substitutes for chemical and biological 

warfare agents to test equipment intended to detect their presence. Chemical and biological agent 

detectors monitor for the presence of chemical and biological warfare agents and protect military 

personnel and civilians from the threat of exposure to these agents. The simulants trigger a response by 

sensors in the detection equipment without irritating or injuring personnel involved in testing detectors. 

Table 3.2-8: Constituents in Munitions Other Than Explosives (continued)

Munitions Component Constituent

Otto Fuel II (torpedoes)

Propylene glycol dinitrate and Nitro-diphenylamine (76 percent 

by weight)

dibutyl sebacate (22 percent by weight

2-nitrodiphenylamine (2 percent by weight)

Combustion products (nitrous oxides, carbon monoxide, carbon 

dioxide, hydrogen, nitrogen, methane, ammonia, hydrogen 

cyanide)

Venting or buoyancy bag failure (hydrochloric acid, hydrogen 

cyanide, formaldehyde, potassium chloride, ferrous oxide, 

potassium hydroxide, and potassium carbonate)

Chemical Simulants

Navy Chemical Agent Simulant 82

glacial acetic acid

triethyl phosphate

sulfur hexafluoride

1,1,1,2 tetrafluoroethane 

1,1-difluoroethane

Delay Elements

Barium chromate

Potassium perchlorate

Lead chromate

Fuses Potassium perchlorate

Detonators Fulminate of mercury

Potassium perchlorate

Primers Lead azide 

Navy Chemical Agent Simulant 82 (commonly referred to as NCAS-82), glacial acetic acid, triethyl 

phosphate, sulfur hexafluoride, 1,1,1,2 tetrafluoroethane (a refrigerant commonly known as R134), and 

1,1-difluoroethane (a refrigerant commonly known as R-152a) are also referred to as gaseous simulants 

and can be released in smaller quantities in conjunction with glacial acetic acid or triethyl phosphate 

releases. The types of biological simulants that may be used include spore-forming bacteria, 

non-spore-forming bacteria, ovalbumin, bacteriophage MS2, and Aspergillus niger. The simulants are 

generally dispersed by hand at the detector or by aircraft as a fine mist or aerosol. The exposure of 

military personnel or the public to even small amounts of real warfare agents, such as nerve or blistering 

agents, or harmful biological organisms, such as anthrax, is potentially harmful and is illegal in most 

countries, including the United States. Furthermore, their use, including for the testing of detection 

equipment, is banned by international agreement. 

Simulants must have one or more characteristic of a real chemical or biological agents—size, density, or 

aerosol behavior—to effectively mimic the agent. Simulants must also pose a minimal risk to human 

health and the environment to be used safely in outdoor tests. Simulants are selected using the 

following criteria: (1) safety to humans and the environment, and (2) the ability to trigger a response by 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.2-54

3.2 Sediments and Water Quality

sensors used in the detection equipment. Simulants must be relatively benign (e.g., low toxicity or 

effects potential) from a human health, safety, and environmental perspective. Exposure levels during 

testing activities should be well below concentrations associated with any adverse human health or 

environmental effects. The degradation products of simulants must also be harmless. Given these 

criteria for choosing simulants for use in testing activities, it is reasonable to conclude that simulants 

would have no impact on sediments and water quality in the Study Area. Simulants are not analyzed 

further in this section.

3.2.3.2.1 Impacts from Chemicals Other Than Explosives under Alternative 1

3.2.3.2.1.1 Impacts from Chemicals Other Than Explosives under Alternative 1 for 

Training Activities

The distribution of munitions that use chemicals other than explosives is not uniform throughout the 

Study Area. The largest quantities of chemicals would be derived from the use of propellants and fuels in 

munitions, specifically rockets, missiles, and torpedoes. Approximately 48 percent of these munitions, 

used annually during training activities would be used in the Jacksonville Range Complex and 43 percent 

would be used in the Virginia Capes Range Complex. The remaining 9 percent would be distributed in 

other locations of the Study Area. Of all of these munitions, approximately 94 percent are rockets 

(expending the byproducts of propellant combustion), and 4 percent are missiles. Approximately 100 

torpedoes using Otto Fuel II would be used annually. The propellant used by rockets and missiles is 

typically consumed prior to impact at the water’s surface even if the munition fails to detonate upon 

impact, leaving little residual propellant to enter the water. By contrast, torpedo fuel is consumed 

underwater and all combustion products enter the marine environment. 

For properly functioning munitions, chemical, physical, or biological changes in sediments or water 

quality would not be detectable. Impacts would be minimal for the following reasons: (1) the size of the 

area in which expended materials would be distributed is large; (2) most propellant combustion 

byproducts are benign, while those of concern would be diluted to below detectable levels within a 

short time; (3) most propellants are consumed during normal operations; (4) most byproducts of Otto 

Fuel II combustion are naturally occurring chemicals, and most torpedoes are recovered after use, such 

that any fuel that is not consumed would be recovered along with the torpedo, limiting any direct 

exposure of sediments and water to Otto Fuel II; (5) the failure rate of munitions using propellants and 

other combustible materials is low; and (6) most of the constituents of concern are biodegradable by 

various marine organisms or by physical and chemical processes common in marine ecosystems.

3.2.3.2.1.2 Impacts from Chemicals Other Than Explosives under Alternative 1 for 

Testing Activities

The distribution of munitions that use chemicals other than explosives is not uniform throughout the 

Study Area. Approximately 28 percent of these munitions used annually during testing activities would 

be used in the Virginia Capes Range Complex, 25 percent would be used in the Jacksonville Range

Complex, 23 percent would be used in the Navy Cherry Point Range Complex, and 23 percent would be 

used in the Northeast Range Complexes. Of all of these munitions used during testing activities, 

approximately 90 percent are biological chemical simulants, which, as noted above, are benign and 

would have no impact on sediments and water quality. Excluding biological simulants, 38 percent of 

munitions using chemicals other than explosives are rockets (expending the byproducts of propellant 

combustion), 30 percent are missiles, and 30 percent are torpedoes (using Otto Fuel II). 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.2-55

3.2 Sediments and Water Quality

For properly functioning munitions, chemical, physical, or biological changes in sediments or water 

quality would not be detectable. Impacts would be minimal for the following reasons: (1) the size of the 

area in which expended materials would be distributed is large; (2) most propellant combustion 

byproducts are benign, while those of concern would be diluted to below detectable levels within a 

short time; (3) most propellants are consumed during normal operations; (4) most byproducts of Otto 

Fuel II combustion are naturally occurring chemicals, and most torpedoes are recovered after use, such 

that any fuel that is not consumed would be recovered along with the torpedo, limiting any direct 

exposure of sediments and water to Otto Fuel II; (5) the failure rate of munitions using propellants and 

other combustible materials is low; and (6) most of the constituents of concern are biodegradable by 

various marine organisms or by physical and chemical processes common in marine ecosystems. 

3.2.3.2.2 Impacts from Chemicals Other Than Explosives under Alternative 2

3.2.3.2.2.1 Impacts from Chemicals Other Than Explosives under Alternative 2 for 

Training Activities

Under Alternative 2, the number of expended munitions that use propellants (missiles and rockets) and 

Otto Fuel II (torpedoes) would be the same as described under Alternative 1. The amounts of other 

expended materials which could release chemicals into the marine environment would be similar to the 

amounts under Alternative 1. Therefore, the release of chemicals derived from propellants and fuels 

would have the same environmental impacts as described under Alternative 1.

3.2.3.2.2.2 Impacts from Chemicals Other Than Explosives under Alternative 2 for 

Testing Activities

The number of munitions that use propellants (rockets and missiles) and Otto Fuel II (torpedoes)

annually would increase under Alternative 2. Over a five-year period, an additional 400 rockets, 

130 missiles, and 300 torpedoes would be used during testing activities. Because rocket and missile 

motors are over 99 percent efficient at burning propellant, no additional measurable amounts of 

propellant or combustion products would enter the water column. As described in Section 3.2.3.2

(Chemicals Other than Explosives), most byproducts of Otto Fuel II combustion are naturally occurring 

chemicals. Most practice torpedoes are recovered after use, such that any fuel that is not consumed 

would be recovered along with the torpedo limiting any direct exposure of sediments and water to Otto 

Fuel II. Therefore, the use of torpedoes would not result in the accumulation of byproducts of Otto Fuel 

II in water or sediments. The amounts of other expended materials which could release chemicals into 

the marine environment would be similar to the amounts under Alternative 1. Therefore, the release of 

chemicals derived from propellants and fuels would have the same environmental impacts as described 

under Alternative 1.

3.2.3.2.3 Impacts from Chemicals Other Than Explosives under the No Action Alternative

Under the No Action Alternative, the Navy would not conduct the proposed training and testing 

activities in the AFTT Study Area. Under this alternative, there would be no potential for impacts on

sediments and water quality from training and testing activities. It is reasonable to assume that ceasing 

all training and testing activities involving the use of chemicals other than explosives would decrease the 

amounts of these chemicals and their constituents in marine waters and sediments in the Study Area. 

The effect, however, would likely not be measurable due to the highly efficient use of propellants and 

fuels by motors used in rockets and missiles, resulting in often undetectable trace amounts of 

propellants expended into the environment. Perchlorates, which make up a large percentage of rocket 

and missile propellants, are also water soluble and would dissolve and be dispersed in surface waters 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.2-56

3.2 Sediments and Water Quality

and would not accumulate in marine sediments. Similarly, it is unlikely that Otto Fuel II used in 

torpedoes would be exposed to sediments or water, and most combustion byproducts of Otto Fuel II 

occur naturally in the marine environment.

3.2.3.3 Metals

Anthropogenic sources of metals include the processing of industrial ores (e.g., iron ore), production of 

chemicals, fertilizers used in agriculture, the marine industry (e.g., anti-fouling anti-corrosion paints), 

runoff from urban and suburban sprawl, dredge spoil disposal, exhaust from automotive transportation, 

atmospheric deposition, and industrial emissions (Järup, 2003). Metals are introduced into nearshore 

and offshore marine waters and sediments by the Proposed Action. Because of the physical and 

chemical reactions that occur with metals in marine systems, many metals will precipitate out of 

seawater and settle in solid form on the seafloor where they can concentrate in sediments. Thus, metal 

contaminants in sediments pose a greater environmental concern than metals in the water column.

Military expended materials such as steel bomb bodies or fins, missile casings, small arms projectiles, 

and naval gun projectiles may contain small percentages (less than 1 percent by weight) of lead, 

manganese, phosphorus, sulfur, copper, nickel, tungsten, chromium, molybdenum, vanadium, boron, 

selenium, columbium, or titanium. Small-caliber projectiles are composed of steel with small amounts of 

aluminum and copper and brass casings that are 70 percent copper and 30 percent zinc. Medium- and 

large-caliber projectiles are composed of steel, brass, copper, tungsten, and other metals. The 20-mm 

cannon shells used in close-in weapons systems are composed mostly of tungsten alloy. Some 

projectiles have lead cores (U.S. Department of the Navy, 2008b). Torpedo guidance wire is composed of 

copper and cadmium coated with plastic (U.S. Department of the Navy, 2008a). Sonobuoy components 

include batteries and battery electrodes, lead solder, copper wire, and lead used for ballast. Thermal 

batteries in sonobuoys are contained in an airtight, sealed and welded stainless steel case that is 0.03–

0.1 in. thick and resistant to the battery electrolytes (U.S. Department of the Navy, 2008a). Rockets are 

usually composed of steel and steel alloys, although composite cases made of glass, carbon, or Kevlar 

fiber are also used (Missile Technology Control Regime, 1996).

Non-explosive practice munitions consist of ammunition and components that contain no explosive 

material, and may include (1) ammunition and components that have had all explosive material 

removed and replaced with non-explosive material, (2) empty ammunition or components, and 

(3) ammunition or components that were manufactured with non-explosive material in place of all 

explosive material. These practice munitions vary in size from 25 to 500 lb. and are designed to simulate 

the characteristics of explosive munitions for training and testing activities. Some non-explosive practice 

munitions may also contain unburned propellant (e.g., rockets), and some may contain spotting charges 

or signal cartridges for locating the point of impact (e.g., smoke charges for daylight spotting or flash 

charges for night spotting) (U.S. Department of the Navy, 2010a). Non-explosive bombs—also called 

“practice” or “bomb dummy units”—are composed mainly of iron and steel casings filled with sand, 

concrete, or vermiculite. These materials are similar to those used to construct artificial reefs. Large,

non-explosive bombs are configured to have the same weight, size, center of gravity, and ballistics as 

explosive bombs (U.S. Department of the Navy, 2006). Practice bombs do not contain the 

explosives materials.

Decommissioned vessels used as targets for sinking exercises are selected from a list of U.S. 

Navy-approved vessels that have been cleaned or remediated in accordance with USEPA guidelines. By 

rule, vessel-sinking exercises must be conducted at least 50 NM offshore and in water at least 6,000 ft. 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.2-57

3.2 Sediments and Water Quality

deep (40 CFR part 229.2). The USEPA requires the contaminant levels released during the sinking of a 

target to be within the standards of the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act (16 U.S.C.

1341, et seq.).

In general, three things happen to materials that come to rest on the ocean floor: (1) they lodge in 

sediments where there is little or no oxygen below 4 in., (2) they remain on the ocean floor and begin to 

react with seawater, or (3) they remain on the ocean floor and become encrusted by marine organisms. 

As a result, rates of deterioration depend on the metal or metal alloy and the conditions in the 

immediate marine and benthic environment. If buried deep in ocean sediments, materials tend to 

decompose at much lower rates than when exposed to seawater (Ankley, 1996). With the exception of 

torpedo guidance wires and sonobuoy parts, sediment burial appears to be the fate of most munitions 

used in marine warfare (Environmental Sciences Group, 2005).

When metals are exposed to seawater, they begin to slowly corrode, a process that creates a layer of 

corroded material between the seawater and uncorroded metal. This layer of corrosion removes the 

metal from direct exposure to the corrosiveness of seawater, a process that further slows movement of 

the metals into the adjacent sediments and water column. This is particularly true of aluminum. 

Elevated levels of metals in sediments would be restricted to a small zone around the metal, and any 

release to the overlying water column would be diluted. In a similar fashion, as materials become 

covered by marine life, both the direct exposure of the material to seawater and the rate of corrosion 

decrease. Dispersal of these materials in the water column is controlled by physical mixing and diffusion, 

both of which tend to vary with time and location. The analysis of metals in marine systems begins with 

a review of studies involving metals used in military training and testing activities that may be 

introduced into the marine environment.

In one study, the water was sampled for lead, manganese, nickel, vanadium, and zinc at a shallow 

bombing range in Pamlico Sound (estuarine waters of North Carolina) immediately following a training 

event with non-explosive practice bombs. All water quality parameters tested, except nickel, were 

within the state limits. The nickel concentration was significantly higher than the state criterion, 

although the concentration did not differ significantly from the control site located outside the bombing 

range. The results suggest that bombing activities were not responsible for the elevated nickel 

concentrations (U.S. Department of the Navy, 2010a, 2012). 

The results of a separate study conducted by the U.S. Marine Corps near the bombing sites in Pamlico 

Sound sampled sediments and water quality for 26 different constituents, including lead and 

magnesium, related to munitions use. With the exception of perchlorate, which was found at extremely 

low concentrations in only 4 of 95 sediment samples, no constituents were found above minimum 

detection limits (U.S. Department of the Navy, 2010a). The concentrations of all other chemical 

constituencies were believed to be consistent with background levels in nearshore sediments and sea 

water. Perchlorate concentrations in sediments near the bombing targets were more likely to be from 

naturally occurring sources rather than associated with bombing range activities given that perchlorate 

is extremely soluble in water. The results of the sampling indicate that munitions constituents are not 

accumulating at concentrations that pose a risk to ecological receptors or humans and are not migrating 

from the bombing sites to off-range areas.

A study by Pait et al. (2010) of previous Navy training areas at Vieques, Puerto Rico found generally low 

concentrations of metals in marine sediments. Areas in which live ammunition and loaded weapons 

were used (“live-fire areas”) were included in the analysis. These results are relevant because the 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.2-58

3.2 Sediments and Water Quality

concentrations of expended munitions at Vieques are significantly greater than would be found 

anywhere in the AFTT Study Area. Table 3.2-9 compares the sediment concentrations of several metals 

from those naval training areas with sediment screening levels established by the National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (Buchman, 2008).

As shown in Table 3.2-9, average sediment concentrations of the metals evaluated, except for copper, 

were below both the threshold and probable effects levels (metrics similar to the effects range levels). 

The average copper concentration was above the threshold effect level, but below the probable effect 

level. For other elements: (1) the mean sediment concentration of arsenic at Vieques was 

4.37 micrograms per gram (μg/g), and the highest concentration was 15.4 μg/g. Both values were below 

the sediment quality guidelines examined, and (2) the mean sediment concentration of manganese in 

sediment was 301 μg/g, and the highest concentration was 967 μg/g (Pait et al., 2010). The National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration did not report threshold or probable effects levels 

for manganese.

Table 3.2-9: Concentrations of and Screening Levels for Selected Metals in Marine Sediments, 

Vieques, Puerto Rico

Metal

Sediment Concentration (μg/g)

Sediment Guidelines – National Oceanic 

and Atmospheric Administration (μg/g)

Minimum Maximum Average

Threshold Effects

Level*

Probable Effects

Level*

Cadmium 0 1.92 0.15 0.68 4.21

Chromium 0 178 22.5 52.3 160

Copper 0 103 25.9 18.7 390

Lead 0 17.6 5.42 30.24 112

Mercury N/R 0.112 0.019 130 700

Nickel N/R 38.3 7.80 15.9 42.8

Zinc N/R 130 34.4 124 271

*Threshold Effects Level and Probable Effects Level are metrics similar to the effects range metrics (i.e., Effects 

Range-Low and Effects Range-Median) used to assess potential effects of contaminants on sediments. The 

Threshold Effects Levels is the average of the 50th percentile and the 15th percentile of a dataset and the 

Probable Effects Level is the average of the 50th percentile and the 85th percentile of a dataset.

Notes: μg/g = micrograms per gram, N/R = not reported

The impacts of lead and lithium were studied at the Canadian Forces Maritime Experimental and Test 

Ranges near Nanoose Bay, British Columbia, Canada (Environmental Sciences Group, 2005). These 

materials are common to expendable mobile anti-submarine warfare training targets, acoustic device 

countermeasures, sonobuoys, and torpedoes. The study noted that lead is a naturally occurring metal in 

the environment, and that typical concentrations of lead in seawater in the test range were between 

0.01 and 0.06 ppm, while concentration of lead in sediments was between 4 and 16 ppm. Cores of 

marine sediments in the test range show a steady increase in lead concentration from the bottom of the 

core to a depth of approximately 20 cm. This depth corresponds to the late 1970s and early 1980s, and 

the lead contamination was attributed to atmospheric deposition of lead from gasoline additives. The 

sediment cores showed a general reduction in lead concentration to the present time, coincident with 

the phasing out of lead in gasoline by the mid-1980s. The study also noted that other training ranges 

have shown minimal impacts of lead ballasts because they are usually buried deep in marine sediments 

where they are not biologically available. The study concluded that the lead ballasts would not adversely 

impact marine organisms because of the low probability of mobilization of lead.
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.2-59

3.2 Sediments and Water Quality

A study by the Navy examined the impacts of materials from activated seawater batteries in sonobuoys 

that freely dissolve in the water column (e.g., lead, silver, and copper ions), as well as nickel-plated steel 

housing, lead solder, copper wire, and lead shot used for sonobuoy ballast (U.S. Department of the 

Navy, 1993). The study concluded that constituents released by saltwater batteries as well as the 

decomposition of other sonobuoy components did not exceed state or federal standards, and that the 

reaction products are short-lived in seawater.

A series of research efforts focused on World War II underwater munitions disposal sites in Hawaii 

(Briggs et al., 2016; Kelley et al., 2016; Koide et al., 2016; University of Hawaii, 2010) and an intensively 

used live fire range in the Mariana Islands (Smith & Marx, 2016) provide information in regard to the 

impacts of undetonated materials and unexploded munitions on marine life. 

On a localized scale, research at World War II munitions ocean disposal sites in Hawaii investigated 

nearby sediments, seawater, or marine life to determine if metals could be detected. For metals, 

although there were localized elevated levels of arsenic and lead in several biota samples and in the 

sediment adjacent to the munitions, the origin of those metals could not be definitively linked to the 

munitions since comparison of sediment between the clean reference site and the disposal site showed 

relatively little difference. This was especially the case for a comparison with samples for ocean disposed 

dredge spoils sites (locations where material taken from the dredging of harbors on Oahu was disposed). 

At individual sampling sites adjacent to munitions, the concentrations of metals were not significantly 

higher as compared to the background at control sites and not significant in comparison to typical 

deep-sea marine sediments (Briggs et al., 2016). Observations and data collected also did not indicate 

any adverse impact to the localized ecology due to the presence of munitions degrading for over 

75 years when compared to control sites. When specifically looking at marine organisms around the 

munitions (Kelley et al., 2016; Koide et al., 2016), the analysis indicated that in soft bottom habitats the 

expended items were providing hard substrate similar to other disposed objects or “artificial reefs” that 

attracted “hard substrate species” that would not have otherwise colonized the area and that there was 

no bioaccumulation of munitions-related chemicals for the species sampled (Koide et al., 2016). 

On a broader scale, the island of Farallon de Medinilla (in the Mariana Islands) has been used as a target 

area since 1971. Between 1997 and 2012, there were 14 underwater scientific survey investigations 

around the island providing a long-term look at potential impacts on the marine life from training and 

testing involving the use of munitions (Smith & Marx, 2016). Munitions use has included explosive 

rounds from gunfire, high explosive bombs by Navy aircraft and U.S. Air Force B-52s, in addition to the 

expenditure of inert rounds and non-explosive practice bombs. Marine life assessed during these 

surveys included algae, corals, benthic invertebrates, sharks, rays, bony fishes, and sea turtles. The 

investigators found no evidence over the 16-year period, that the condition of the biological resources 

had been adversely impacted to a significant degree by the training activities (Smith & Marx, 2016). 

Furthermore, they found that the health, abundance, and biomass of fishes, corals, and other marine 

resources were comparable to or superior to those in similar habitats at other locations within the 

Mariana Archipelago. 

These findings are consistent with other assessments such as those performed for the Potomac River 

Test Range at Dahlgren, Virginia, which was established in 1918 and is the nation’s largest fully 

instrumented, over-the-water gun-firing range. Munitions tested at Dahlgren have included rounds from 

small-caliber guns up to the Navy’s largest (16-in. guns), bombs, rockets, mortars, grenades, mines, 

depth charges, and torpedoes (U.S. Department of the Navy, 2013b). Results from the assessment 

indicate that munitions expended at Dahlgren have not contributed significant concentrations of metals 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.2-60

3.2 Sediments and Water Quality

to the Potomac River and that the concentrations of metals in local sediments are orders of magnitude 

lower than in other areas of the Potomac River where metals are introduced from natural and other 

manmade sources (U.S. Department of the Navy, 2013a).

3.2.3.3.1 Impacts from Metals under Alternative 1

3.2.3.3.1.1 Impacts from Metals under Alternative 1 for Training Activities

Many activities included in the Proposed Action would involve the expenditure of munitions and other 

materials with metal components. Refer to Chapter 2 (Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives) 

for information on training activities and their frequency of annual occurrence under Alternative 1 and 

Appendix A (Navy Activity Descriptions) for a detailed description of munitions and other materials that 

would be used during training activities. 

The distribution of non-explosive munitions and other expended materials composed of or containing 

metals that are used in training activities is not uniform throughout the Study Area. Non-explosive 

munitions are the largest portion of expended objects composed of metal or containing metal 

components (with the exception of target vessels). Approximately 50 percent of the non-explosive 

munitions and other expended metals used annually during training activities would be used in the 

Virginia Capes Range Complex, 24 percent in the Jacksonville Range Complex, and 15 percent would be 

used in the Navy Cherry Point Range Complex. The remaining 11 percent would be distributed in other 

locations of the Study Area. Over 8 million munitions and other items containing metals would be used 

in the Study Area annually; 75 percent of those munitions and items are small-caliber projectiles and 

over 20 percent are medium-caliber projectiles. Small-caliber projectiles are less than 0.5 in. in diameter 

and a few inches in length, and weigh up to 0.17 lb. A 30 mm medium-caliber projectile is larger, 

weighing just under 1 lb., and it is approximately 30 mm (or about 1 in.) in diameter and 7 in. long.

While the Navy is proposing to conduct one Sinking Exercise per year, historically, the Navy has not 

conducted this activity on an annual basis. The last Sinking Exercise conducted in the Atlantic was in 

2009; one was also conducted in 2008. A Navy vessel used as a target would weigh between 5,000 and 

10,000 tons (aircraft carriers would not be used as a target in Sinking Exercises). The vessel used during 

the Sinking Exercise would comprise a substantial amount of the metal used in the Study Area by 

weight, and would also represent the greatest concentration of expended metal objects (including 

munitions) in any location in the Study Area once the vessel sinks to the seafloor. As noted in previous 

sections, decommissioned vessels used as targets for sinking exercises have been cleaned or remediated 

in accordance with USEPA guidelines. Sinking exercises must be conducted at least 50 NM offshore and 

in water at least 6,000 ft. deep (40 CFR part 229.2). The USEPA considers the contaminant levels 

associated with the sinking of a target vessel to be within the standards of the Marine Protection, 

Research, and Sanctuaries Act (16 U.S.C. 1341, et seq.).

Metals from munitions, vessels and other targets, and other expended materials would sink to the 

seafloor where they would most likely be buried or partially buried in sediments, depending on the type 

of seafloor substrate. In the AFTT Study Area, the offshore substrate is predominantly composed of soft 

sediments (see Section 3.5, Habitats), which would increase the likelihood of complete or partial burial 

of expended materials, including munitions. Metals exposed to the seawater would slowly corrode over 

years or decades, releasing small amounts of water soluble metal compounds into the water column 

and corrosion products into adjacent sediments. The low, near freezing water temperatures and low 

oxygen levels in sediments only a few inches below the water column-seafloor interface that 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.2-61

3.2 Sediments and Water Quality

characterize deep water (greater than 250 m), benthic habitats would inhibit corrosion of metals and 

any dispersion of metals and corrosion products beyond isolated areas adjacent to the munition. 

As described in Section 3.2.3.3 (Metals), sediment samples collected from World War II era munitions 

disposal sites and heavily used Navy ranges show that metals are not impacting sediment quality despite 

longtime use and high concentrations of military munitions composed primarily of metal components. 

The concentration of munitions and other expended materials containing metals in any one location in 

the AFTT Study Area would be a small fraction of that from a munitions disposal site, a target island used 

for 45 years, or a water range in a river used for almost 100 years. Chemical, physical, or biological 

changes to sediments or water quality in the Study Area would not be detectable and would be similar 

to nearby areas without munitions or other expended materials containing metals. This conclusion is 

based on the following: (1) most of the metals are benign, and those of potential concern make up a 

small percentage of expended munitions and other metal objects; (2) metals released through corrosion 

would be diluted by currents or bound up and sequestered in adjacent sediment; (3) elevated 

concentrations of metals in sediments would be limited to the immediate area around the expended 

material; and (4) the areas over which munitions and other metal components would be distributed 

are large.

Based on findings from these and other intensively used locations, the sediment and water quality 

effects from metals used in munitions, expended materials, target vessels, or other devices resulting 

from any of the proposed activities would be negligible by comparison.

3.2.3.3.1.2 Impacts from Metals under Alternative 1 for Testing Activities

The distribution of non-explosive munitions and other expended materials composed of or containing 

metals that are used in testing activities is not uniform throughout the Study Area. Munitions are the 

largest portion of expended objects composed of metal or containing metal components. Approximately 

36 percent of the non-explosive munitions and other expended metals used annually during testing 

activities would be used in the Virginia Capes Range Complex, and 29 percent would be used in the 

Jacksonville Range Complex. The remaining 35 percent would be more widely distributed in other 

locations of the Study Area. Over 12 million munitions and other items containing metals would be used 

in the Study Area annually; over 45 percent of those munitions and items are non-explosive mediumcaliber projectiles, 17 percent are non-explosive large-caliber projectiles, and 10 percent are smallcaliber projectiles. 

As described in Section 3.2.3.3 (Metals), sediment samples collected from World War II era munitions 

disposal sites and heavily used Navy ranges show that metals are not impacting sediment quality despite 

longtime use and high concentrations of military munitions composed primarily of metal components. 

The concentration of munitions and other expended materials containing metals in any one location in 

the Study Area would be a small fraction of that found in a munitions disposal site, a target island used 

for 45 years, or a water range in a river used for almost 100 years. Chemical, physical, or biological 

changes to sediments or water quality in the Study Area would not be detectable and would be similar 

to nearby areas without munitions or other expended materials containing metals. This conclusion is 

based on the following: (1) most of the metals are benign, and those of potential concern make up a 

small percentage of expended munitions and other metal objects; (2) metals released through corrosion 

would be diluted by currents or bound up and sequestered in adjacent sediment; (3) elevated 

concentrations of metals in sediments would be limited to the immediate area around the expended 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.2-62

3.2 Sediments and Water Quality

material; and (4) the areas over which munitions and other metal components would be distributed are 

large (thousands of square nautical miles).

Based on findings from these and other intensively used locations, the sediment and water quality 

effects from metals used in munitions, expended materials, or other devices resulting from any of the 

proposed activities would be negligible by comparison.

3.2.3.3.2 Impacts from Metals under Alternative 2

3.2.3.3.2.1 Impacts from Metals under Alternative 2 for Training Activities

Under Alternative 2, the number of munitions and other expended materials containing metals used 

during training activities would be the same as under Alternative 1. Therefore, metals contained in 

munitions and other military expended materials would have the same environmental impacts as 

described under Alternative 1.

3.2.3.3.2.2 Impacts from Metals under Alternative 2 for Testing Activities

Under Alternative 2, the number of munitions and other expended materials containing metals used 

during testing activities would increase compared to the number under Alternative 1. As shown in 

Chapter 2 (Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives) Tables 2.6-2 through 2.6-4, several Navy 

testing activities would be conducted more often under Alternative 2, resulting in an increase of 

10 explosive mines and 40 neutralizers (10 explosive and 30 non-explosive) used annually. Under 

Alternative 1, no explosive mines would be used by Naval Air Systems Command. In addition, some 

activities would be conducted more frequently over a five-year period, resulting in the use of more 

munitions and other expended materials (see Tables 2.6-2 through 2.6-4). Over a five-year period, there 

would be an overall 8 percent increase in munitions and other expended materials containing metals 

used under Alternative 2. These include 300 additional torpedo accessories, which contain lead ballast; 

over 600 neutralizers, over 70,000 medium-caliber projectiles (30 percent explosive and 70 percent nonexplosive); 170 missiles (70 percent explosive and 30 percent non-explosive); over 600 rockets (60 

percent explosive and 40 percent non-explosive); and 60 surface targets.

The increase in the use of munitions and other objects containing metals would increase the amount of 

metals introduced into the seafloor environment over the amount in Alternative 1. However, the 

increase is not a substantial increase over the number of munitions used under Alternative 1 and would 

not alter the conclusions presented for Alternative 1. Specifically, the concentration of munitions and 

other expended materials containing metals in any one location in the AFTT Study Area would be a small 

fraction of the concentrations found on a munitions disposal site, a target island used for 45 years, or a 

water range in a river used for almost 100 years. The increase in the chemical, physical, or biological 

changes to sediments or water quality in the Study Area would not be detectable. The areas over which 

the additional 9 percent of munitions and other metal components would be distributed are large 

(thousands of square nautical miles); therefore, any increase would have a negligible effect on metal 

concentrations in seafloor sediments.

Based on findings from intensively used locations, the sediment and water quality effects from metals 

used in munitions, expended materials, or other devices resulting from any of the proposed activities 

would be negligible by comparison. Therefore, metals in munitions and other military expended 

materials are expected to have similar potential environmental impacts as under Alternative 1.
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.2-63

3.2 Sediments and Water Quality

3.2.3.3.3 Impacts from Metals under the No Action Alternative

Under the No Action Alternative, the Navy would not conduct the proposed training and testing 

activities in the AFTT Study Area. Under this alternative, there would be no adverse impacts on

sediments and water quality from training and testing activities. It is reasonable to assume that ceasing 

all training and testing activities involving the use of non-explosive munitions and other expended 

materials containing metals would decrease the amounts of metal contaminants in marine waters and 

sediments. The effect, however, would likely not be measurable due to the slow, sometimes decadeslong corrosion rates of metals on the seafloor. Metals released into sediments from corroding munitions 

and other metallic materials would only be expected at marginally higher concentrations in sediments 

within a few feet of the munition relative to a nearby location without munitions. Furthermore, most 

metals used in non-explosive munitions and other expended materials occur naturally in the marine 

environment and would not be elevated to toxic levels by slowly corroding munitions or other 

metallic materials.

3.2.3.4 Other Materials

Under the Proposed Action, other materials include marine markers and flares, chaff, towed and 

stationary targets, and miscellaneous components of other expended objects. These materials and 

components are either made mainly of non-reactive or slowly reactive materials (e.g., glass, carbon 

fibers, and plastics) or break down or decompose into benign byproducts (e.g., rubber, steel, iron, and 

concrete). Most of these objects would settle to the seafloor where they would (1) be exposed to 

seawater, (2) become lodged in or covered by seafloor sediments, (3) become encrusted by oxidation 

products such as rust, (4) dissolve slowly, or (5) be covered by marine organisms such as coral. Plastics 

may float or descend to the bottom, depending upon their buoyancy. Marine markers and flares are 

largely consumed during use.

Towed and stationary targets include floating steel drums, towed aerial targets, the trimaran, and 

inflatable, floating targets. The trimaran is a three-hulled boat with a 4 ft. square sail that is towed as a 

moving target. Large, inflatable, plastic targets can be towed or left stationary. Towed aerial targets are 

either (1) rectangular pieces of nylon fabric 7.5 ft. by 40 ft. that reflect radar or lasers or (2) aluminum

cylinders with a fiberglass nose cone, aluminum corner reflectors (fins), and a short plastic tail section. 

This second target is about 10 ft. long and weighs about 75 lb. These four targets are recovered after 

use, and will not be considered further.

Marine markers are pyrotechnic devices that are dropped on the water’s surface during training 

exercises to mark a position, to support search and rescue activities, or as a bomb target. The MK 58 

marker is a tin tube that weighs about 12 lb. Markers release smoke at the water surface for 40 to 

60 minutes. After the pyrotechnics are consumed, the marine marker fills with seawater and sinks. Iron 

and aluminum constitute 35 percent of the marker by weight. To produce the lengthy smoke effect, 

approximately 40 percent of the marker by weight is made up of pyrotechnic materials. The propellant, 

explosive, and pyrotechnic constituents of the MK 58 include red phosphorus (2.19 lb.) and manganese 

(IV) dioxide (1.40 lb.). Other constituents include magnesium powder (0.29 lb.), zinc oxide (0.12 lb.), 

nitrocellulose (0.000017 lb.), nitroglycerin (0.000014 lb.), and potassium nitrate (0.2 lb.). The failure rate 

of marine markers is approximately 5 percent (U.S. Department of the Navy, 2010a, 2010b). 

Flares are used to signal, to illuminate surface areas at night in search and attack operations, and to 

assist with search and rescue activities. They range in weight from 12 to 30 lb. The major constituents of 

flares include magnesium granules and sodium nitrate. Containers are constructed of aluminum, and the 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.2-64

3.2 Sediments and Water Quality

entire assembly is usually consumed during flight. Flares may also contain a primer such as 

trinitrotoluene (TNT), propellant (ammonium perchlorate), and other explosives. These materials are 

present in small quantities (e.g., 1.0 x 10-4 ounces [oz.] of ammonium perchlorate and 1.0 x 10-7 oz. of 

explosives). Small amounts of metals are used to give flares and other pyrotechnic materials bright and 

distinctive colors. Combustion products from flares include magnesium oxide, sodium carbonate, carbon 

dioxide, and water. Illuminating flares and marine markers are usually entirely consumed during use; 

neither is intended to be recovered. Table 3.2-10 summarizes the components of markers and flares

(U.S. Air Force, 1997). 

Table 3.2-10: Summary of Components of Marine Markers and Flares

Flare or Marker Constituents Composition (%)

LUU-2 Paraflare

Magnesium granules, sodium nitrate, aluminum, iron, 

trinitrotoluene (TNT), royal demolition explosive, 

ammonium perchlorate, potassium nitrate, lead, 

chromium, magnesium, manganese, nickel

Magnesium (54), sodium 

nitrate (26), aluminum (14), 

iron (5)

MK45 Paraflare

Aluminum, sodium nitrate, magnesium powder, 

nitrocellulose, trinitrotoluene (TNT), copper, lead, zinc, 

chromium, manganese, potassium nitrate, pentaerythritoltetranitrate, nickel, potassium perchlorate

Magnesium (45), sodium 

nitrate (30), aluminum (22)

MK58 Marine 

Marker

Aluminum, iron, chromium, copper, lead, lead dioxide, 

manganese dioxide, manganese, nitroglycerin, red 

phosphorus, potassium nitrate, silver, zinc, zinc oxide

Iron (60), aluminum (35)

Most of the pyrotechnic components of marine markers are consumed and byproducts are released into

the air. Thereafter, the aluminum and steel canister sinks to the bottom. Combustion of red phosphorus 

produces phosphorus oxides, which have a low toxicity to aquatic organisms. The amount of flare 

residue is negligible. Phosphorus contained in the marker settles to the seafloor, where it reacts with 

the water to produce phosphoric acid until all phosphorus is consumed by the reaction. Phosphoric acid 

is a variable, but normal, component of seawater (Sverdrup et al., 1970). The aluminum and iron 

canisters are expected to be covered by sand and sediment over time, to become encrusted by chemical 

corrosion, or to be covered by marine plants and animals. Elemental aluminum in seawater tends to be 

converted by hydrolysis to aluminum hydroxide, which is relatively insoluble, adheres to particulates, 

and is transported to the bottom sediments (Monterey Bay Research Institute, 2010).

Red phosphorus, the primary pyrotechnic ingredient, constitutes 18 percent of the marine marker 

weight. Toxicological studies of red phosphorus revealed an aquatic toxicity in the range of 10–

100 milligrams per liter (10–100 ppm) for fish, Daphnia (a small aquatic crustacean), and algae

(European Flame Retardants Association, 2002). Red phosphorus slowly degrades by chemical reactions 

to phosphine and phosphorus acids. Phosphine is very reactive and usually undergoes rapid oxidation. 

The final products, phosphates, are harmless (Salocks & Kaley, 2003). A study by the U.S. Air Force 

(1997) found that, in salt water, the degradation products of flares that do not function properly include 

magnesium and barium.

Chaff is an electronic countermeasure designed to confuse enemy radar by deflecting radar waves and 

thereby obscuring aircraft, ships, and other equipment from radar tracking sources. Chaff consists of 

small, thin glass fibers coated in aluminum that are light enough to remain in the air anywhere from 

10 minutes to 10 hours (Farrell & Siciliano, 2007). Chaff is typically packaged in cylinders that measure 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.2-65

3.2 Sediments and Water Quality

approximately 6 in. by 1.5 in. (15.2 cm by 3.8 cm), weigh about 5 oz. (140 grams [g]), and contain a few 

million fibers. Chaff may be deployed from an aircraft or may be launched from a surface vessel.

The chaff fibers are approximately the thickness of a human hair (generally 25.4 microns in diameter), 

and range in length from 0.8 to 5.1 cm. The major components of the chaff glass fibers and the 

aluminum coating are provided in Table 3.2-11 (Arfsten et al., 2002; Farrell & Siciliano, 2007; Spargo, 

1999; U.S. Air Force, 1997; U.S. Department of the Navy, 1999).

Factors influencing chaff dispersion include the altitude and location where it is released, prevailing 

winds, and meteorological conditions (Spargo, 1999, 2007). Doppler radar has tracked chaff plumes 

containing approximately 900 g of chaff drifting 200 mi. from the point of release, with the plume 

covering a volume of greater than 400 cubic miles (Arfsten et al., 2002). Based on the dispersion 

characteristics of chaff, large areas of open water would be exposed to chaff, but the chaff 

concentrations would be low. For example, Spargo (1999) calculated that an area 8 km by 12 km 

(96 square kilometers) would be affected by deployment of a single cartridge containing 150 g of chaff. 

The resulting chaff concentration would be about 5.4 g per NM2. This corresponds to less than 0.005 

fiber per squaremeters, assuming that each canister contains 5 million fibers.

Chaff is generally resistant to chemical weathering and likely remains in the environment for long 

periods. However, all the components of chaff’s aluminum coating are present in seawater in trace 

amounts, except magnesium, which is present at 0.1 percent (Nozaki, 1997). Aluminum and silicon are 

the most common minerals in the earth’s crust as aluminum oxide and silicon dioxide, respectively. 

Aluminum is the most common metal in the Earth’s crust and also occurs naturally in trace amounts in 

the aquatic environment. Ocean waters are constantly exposed to these minerals, so the addition of 

small amounts of chaff would not affect water quality or sediment composition (Spargo, 1999).

Table 3.2-11: Major Components of Chaff

Component Percent by Weight

Glass Fiber

Silicon dioxide 52–56

Alumina 12–16

Calcium oxide, magnesium oxide 16–25

Boron oxide 8–13

Sodium oxide, potassium oxide 1–4

Iron oxide ≤ 1

Aluminum Coating

Aluminum 99.45 (minimum)

Silicon and Iron 0.55 (maximum)

Copper 0.05

Manganese 0.05

Zinc 0.05

Vanadium 0.05

Titanium 0.05

Others 0.05

The dissolved concentration of aluminum in seawater ranges from 1 to 10 μg/L (1 to 10 ppb). For 

comparison, the concentration in rivers is 50 μg/L (50 ppb). In the ocean, aluminum concentrations tend 

to be higher on the surface, lower at middle depths, and higher again at the bottom (Li et al., 2008). 

Aluminum is a very reactive element, and is seldom found as a free metal in nature except under highly 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.2-66

3.2 Sediments and Water Quality

acidic (low pH) or alkaline (high pH) conditions. It is found combined with other elements, most

commonly with oxygen, silicon, and fluorine. These chemical compounds are commonly found in soil, 

minerals, rocks, and clays (Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, 2008; U.S. Department of 

the Air Force, 1994). Elemental aluminum in seawater tends to be converted by hydrolysis to aluminum 

hydroxide, which is relatively insoluble, and is scavenged by particulates and transported to bottom 

sediments (Monterey Bay Research Institute, 2010).

Because of their light weight, chaff fibers tend to float on the water surface for a short period. The fibers 

are quickly dispersed by waves and currents. They may be accidentally or intentionally ingested by 

marine life, but the fibers are non-toxic. Chemicals leached from the chaff would be diluted by the 

surrounding seawater, reducing the potential for chemical concentrations to reach levels that can affect 

sediment quality or benthic habitats.

Systems Consultants (1977) placed chaff samples in Chesapeake Bay water for 13 days. No increases in 

concentration of greater than 1 ppm of aluminum, cadmium, copper, iron, or zinc were detected. 

Accumulation and concentration of chaff constituents is not likely under natural conditions. A U.S. Air 

Force study of chaff analyzed nine elements under various pH conditions: silicon, aluminum, 

magnesium, boron, copper, manganese, zinc, vanadium, and titanium. Only four elements were 

detected above the 0.02 milligrams per liter detection limit (0.02 ppm): magnesium, aluminum, zinc, and 

boron (U.S. Air Force, 1994). Tests of marine organisms detected no impacts of chaff exposure at levels 

above those expected in the Study Area (Farrell & Siciliano, 2007).

3.2.3.4.1 Impacts from Other Materials under Alternative 1

3.2.3.4.1.1 Impacts from Other Materials under Alternative 1 for Training Activities

The distribution of other expended materials used in training activities would not be uniform 

throughout the Study Area. These other expended materials include marine markers and flares, chaff, 

expendable towed and stationary targets, non-explosive sonobuoys, fiber-optic cables, and 

miscellaneous components. Approximately 44 percent of these other expended materials would be used 

annually in the Jacksonville Range Complex, 30 percent in the Key West Range Complex, and 20 percent 

would be used in the Navy Cherry Point Range Complex. Over 270,000 other expended materials would 

be used in the Study Area annually; 46 percent of those materials are chaff, 34 percent are flares, and 

16 percent are non-explosives sonobuoys (i.e., passive and acoustic), which contain metals and other 

materials including plastics. The composition of chaff is much like clay minerals common in ocean 

sediments (aluminosilicates), and studies indicate that impacts are not anticipated even at 

concentrations many times the level anticipated during proposed training activities. Most pyrotechnics 

in marine markers and flares are consumed during use and combustion byproducts are expended into 

the air. The failure rate of flares and marine markers is low (5 percent), and the remaining amounts are 

small and subject to additional chemical reactions and subsequent dilution in the ocean. 

Under Alternative 1, approximately 94,000 flares would be used in the AFTT Study Area, and 

approximately 4,700 (5 percent) would enter the water with unconsumed pyrotechnic materials. As 

show in Table 3.2-10, the bulk of these materials are metals and other chemical compounds that occur 

naturally in the marine environment and would be dispersed at low concentrations in the water column 

or would sink to the seafloor. The analysis and conclusions presented in Section 3.2.3.3 (Metals) would 

apply to metals in pyrotechnics as well, and the analysis concludes that sediment and water quality 

effects from metals would be negligible. The small amounts of explosives used in flares, specifically 

trinitrotoluene (TNT) and royal demolition explosive, released into the sediments would not impact 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.2-67

3.2 Sediments and Water Quality

marine sediments for the same reasons presented in Section 3.2.3.1 (Explosives and Explosives 

Byproducts). Based on the results of studies conducted at multiple marine and freshwater ranges where 

explosives have been used intensively over decades, no impacts on sediments and water quality from 

explosives in unconsumed flares would be expected. 

Plastics and other floating expended materials (e.g., rubber components) would either degrade over 

time in the water column or on the seafloor or wash ashore. Materials that sink to the seafloor would be 

widely distributed over the large areas used for training. As described in Section 3.2.2.1.2 (Marine 

Debris, Military Materials, and Marine Sediments), the worldwide use and disposal of plastics is rapidly 

increasing the amount of plastic debris accumulating in large areas of the world’s oceans. Small pieces of 

plastic associated with the use of chaff, flares, and targets would likely persist in the marine 

environment as floating debris in the water column or on the seafloor. Plastic floating near the surface 

and exposed to the sun and mechanical wear and tear would break down over time. Plastic that sinks in 

the water column below the photic zone or to the seafloor would degrade more slowly or not at all. 

Because only small pieces of plastics would be expended—larger pieces from targets are recovered—

and dispersed over a large area, only negligible impacts on sediments or water quality are expected. The 

potential effects of plastic from military expended materials on living marine resources and habitats are 

analyzed in other sections of the EIS/OEIS.

Devices temporarily deployed on the seafloor and then recovered following completion of the activity 

would likely increase turbidity in the vicinity of the device. Most seafloor devices are stationary; 

however, some devices (e.g., crawlers) are mobile and move very slowly along the bottom. While a 

minimal increase in turbidity would be expected during installation, recovery, and, if applicable, 

movement of seafloor devices, particularly where the seafloor is composed of soft sediments, the 

increase is expected to be negligible and have no lasting impact on sediments or water quality.

3.2.3.4.1.2 Impacts from Other Materials under Alternative 1 for Testing Activities

The distribution of other expended materials used in testing activities would not be uniform throughout 

the Study Area. These other expended materials include marine markers and flares, chaff, expendable 

towed and stationary targets, non-explosive sonobuoys, fiber-optic cables, and miscellaneous 

components. Approximately 35 percent of these other expended materials would be used annually in 

the Virginia Capes Range Complex, 29 percent in the Jacksonville Range Complex, 9 percent would be 

used in the Gulf of Mexico Range Complex, and 8 percent each would be used in the Key West Range 

Complex and the Northeast Range Complexes. The remaining 11 percent would be distributed in other 

locations of the Study Area. Over 264,000 other expended materials would be used in the Study Area 

annually; 65 percent of those materials are sabots. A sabot is a device used to keep a projectile centered 

in the barrel during firing. Sabots are constructed of metal with plastic parts. Of the remaining other 

expended materials, 13 percent are non-explosive sonobuoys, 9 percent are chaff, and 8 percent 

are flares.

Most pyrotechnics in marine markers and flares are consumed during use combustion byproducts are 

expended into the air. The failure rate of flares and marine makers is low (5 percent), and the remaining 

amounts are small and subject to additional chemical reactions and subsequent dilution in the ocean. 

The analysis and conclusions presented in Section 3.2.3.3 (Metals) would apply to metals in pyrotechnics 

as well, and the analysis concludes that sediment and water quality effects from metals would be 

negligible. The small amounts of explosives used in flares, specifically trinitrotoluene (TNT) and royal 

demolition explosive, released into the sediments would not impact marine sediments for the same 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.2-68

3.2 Sediments and Water Quality

reasons presented in Section 3.2.3.1 (Explosives and Explosives Byproducts). Based on the results of

studies conducted at multiple marine and freshwater ranges where explosives have been used 

intensively over decades, no impacts on sediments and water quality from explosives in unconsumed 

flares would be expected. 

Plastics and other floating expended materials (e.g., rubber components) would either degrade over 

time in the water column or on the seafloor or wash ashore. Materials that sink to the seafloor would be 

widely distributed over the large areas used for testing. As described in Section 3.2.2.1.2 (Marine Debris, 

Military Materials, and Marine Sediments), the worldwide use and disposal of plastics is rapidly 

increasing the amount of plastic debris accumulating in large areas of the world’s oceans. Small pieces of 

plastic associated with the use of chaff, flares, and targets would likely persist in the marine 

environment as floating debris in the water column or on the seafloor. Plastic floating near the surface 

and exposed to the sun and mechanical wear and tear would break down over time. Plastic that sinks in 

the water column below the photic zone or to the seafloor would degrade more slowly or not at all. 

Because only small pieces of plastics would be expended—larger pieces from targets are recovered—

and dispersed over a large area, only negligible impacts on sediments or water quality are expected. The 

potential effects of plastic from military expended materials on living marine resources and habitats are 

analyzed in other sections of the Final EIS/OEIS. Some testing activities would involve the use of a 

biodegradable polymer as part of a vessel entanglement system. Based on the constituents of the 

biodegradable polymer, the Navy anticipated that the material will break down into small pieces within 

a few days to weeks. The polymer will break down further and dissolve into the water column within 

weeks to a few months. The final breakdown products are all environmentally benign and will be 

dispersed quickly to undetectable concentrations within the water column.

Devices temporarily deployed on the seafloor and then recovered following completion of the activity 

would likely increase turbidity in the vicinity of the device. Most seafloor devices are stationary; 

however, some devices (e.g., crawlers) are mobile and move very slowly along the bottom. While a 

minimal increase in turbidity would be expected during installation, recovery, and, if applicable, 

movement of seafloor devices, particularly where the seafloor is composed of soft sediments, the 

increase is expected to be negligible and have no lasting impact on sediments or water quality.

3.2.3.4.2 Impacts from Other Materials under Alternative 2

3.2.3.4.2.1 Impacts from Other Materials under Alternative 2 for Training Activities

Under Alternative 2, the number of other expended materials would increase by just 0.6 percent. The 

additional expended materials are non-explosive buoys and their small decelerators/parachutes and

bathythermographs. The small increase in plastics, metals, and explosives in the additional expended 

materials would not change the conclusions presented under Alternative 1. Therefore, impacts from 

other materials would be expected to be the same as those analyzed under Alternative 1.

3.2.3.4.2.2 Impacts from Other Materials under Alternative 2 for Testing Activities

Under Alternative 2, the number of other expended materials would increase by 0.3 percent. The 

additional expended materials are non-explosive sonobuoys and their small decelerators/parachutes. 

The small increase in plastics and metals in the additional expended materials would not change the 

conclusions presented under Alternative 1. Therefore, impacts from other materials would be expected 

to be the same as those analyzed under Alternative 1.
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.2-69

3.2 Sediments and Water Quality

3.2.3.4.3 Impacts from Other Materials under the No Action Alternative

Under the No Action Alternative, the Navy would not conduct the proposed training and testing 

activities in the AFTT Study Area. Under this alternative, there would be no adverse impacts on

sediments and water quality from training and testing activities. It is reasonable to assume that ceasing 

all training and testing activities involving the use of military expended materials would decrease the 

amounts of these materials in marine waters and sediments. The effect, however, would likely not be 

measurable due to the slow, sometimes decades-long degradation of these materials, including plastics, 

in the water column and on the seafloor. Other expended materials in sediments would have only 

negligible impacts, because only small pieces of plastics would be expended—larger pieces from targets 

are recovered—and dispersed over a large area. 

3.2.4 SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL IMPACTS ON SEDIMENTS AND WATER QUALITY

The stressors that may impact sediments and water quality include explosives and explosives 

byproducts, metals, chemicals other than explosives, and other materials. 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 the stressors on sediments and water quality. 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, some anti-submarine warfare activities use explosive sonobuoys, 

which may introduce residual explosives, explosives byproducts, metals, and plastic materials into the 

environment during a single activity. An analysis of the combined impacts of all stressors on sediments 

and water quality considers the potential consequences of aggregate exposure to all stressors and the 

repetitive or additive consequences of exposure over multiple years. 

3.2.4.1 Combined Impact of all Stressors under Alternative 1

Most Navy training and testing activities impact small, widely dispersed areas of the Study Area, limiting 

the spatial extent of sediments and the water column that would be exposed to contaminants to 

isolated areas within the Study Area. However, some Navy activities recur in the same location 

(e.g., gunnery and mine warfare activities), which concentrates munitions and other materials and their 

associated stressors in those areas. Despite recent, comprehensive data collection and analysis specific 

to military munitions impacts on sediments and water quality (Briggs et al., 2016; Edwards & Bełdowski, 

2016; Edwards et al., 2016; Tomlinson & De Carlo, 2016), analysis of the potential effects from the 

Proposed Action is mainly qualitative. Where combinations of explosives, explosives byproducts, metals, 

and other chemicals and materials are co-located, the potential for combined impacts is present

(Thompson et al., 2009). 

When considered together, the impact of the four stressors would be additive. Under Alternative 1, 

chemical, physical, or biological changes in sediments and water quality would be minimal and only 

detectable in the immediate vicinity of munitions. Even in areas where multiple munitions and 

expended materials are located in close proximity (e.g., munitions disposal sites) chemical degradation 

products from each source or item are largely isolated from each other. The low failure rate of explosive 

munitions proposed for use reduces the likelihood of exposure to explosives materials that remain in 

intact munitions. Measurable concentrations of contaminants and other chemicals in the marine 

environment from munitions disposal sites have been shown to be below screening levels or similar to 

nearby reference areas where munitions are not present. Many components of non-explosive munitions 

and other expended materials are inert or corrode slowly over years. Metals that could impact benthic 

habitat at higher concentrations comprise only a small portion of the alloys used in expended materials, 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.2-70

3.2 Sediments and Water Quality

and corrosion of metals in munitions casings and other expended materials is a slow process that allows 

for dilution. The chemicals products from hydrolysis are predominantly naturally occurring chemicals. 

Elevated concentrations of metals and other chemical constituents in sediments would be limited to 

small zones adjacent to the munitions or other expended materials and would still most likely remain 

below screening levels even after years residing on the seafloor. It is also possible that Navy stressors 

will combine with non-Navy stressors, particularly in nearshore areas and bays, such as the mouth of 

Chesapeake Bay, to exacerbate already impacted sediments and water quality. This is qualitatively 

discussed in Chapter 4 (Cumulative Impacts).

3.2.4.2 Combined Impact of all Stressors under Alternative 2

Under Alternative 2, when considered separately, the impacts of the four stressors on sediments and 

water quality would be the same as discussed under Alternative 1, because the types and amounts of 

explosives, chemicals other than explosives, metals, and military expended materials are approximately 

equivalent under the two alternatives.

The amounts of explosives are greater under Alternative 2, because of the nominal increase in 

munitions used in some testing activities under Alternative 2. While the potential impact to sediments 

would be greater than under Alternative 1, metals in the additional munitions would be subject to the 

same slow degradation rates expected to occur in the deepwater environment limiting any increase in 

metal concentrations to sediments that are immediately adjacent a munition (see Section 3.2.3.3,

Metals, for additional discussion). As non-explosive or unexploded munitions degrade over time on the 

seafloor, they may become encrusted with oxidation products (e.g., rust) or by marine organisms 

attracted to hard substrates, which would further slow degradation rates. As discussed in Section 3.2.3.1

(Explosives and Explosives Byproducts), degrading munitions at World War II era munitions disposal sites 

do not pose a risk to human health or to the fauna living in direct contact with the degrading munitions 

(Edwards et al., 2016). During a comprehensive survey of a disposal site off of Hawaii, explosive 

materials were detected in sediments at only two locations and the concentrations were low. Data 

supporting these conclusions were collected from several World War II era munitions disposal sites and 

ranges characterized by relatively high concentrations of munitions. Munitions used in the proposed 

training and testing activities would be widely dispersed by comparison, resulting in lower 

concentrations of munitions that failed to detonate and lower concentrations of residual explosives and 

explosives byproducts than reported in Edwards et al. (2016).

Based on this analysis, impacts on sediments and water quality may be greater than under Alternative 1, 

but would still be minimal. Therefore, combined impacts from all stressors would also be similar to 

impacts described under Alternative 1.

3.2.4.3 Combined Impact 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 AFTT Study Area. Under this alternative, there would be no adverse impacts on

sediments and water quality from training and testing activities. It is reasonable to assume that ceasing 

all training and testing activities involving the use of explosives and explosives byproducts, metals, 

chemicals other than explosives, and other materials would decrease the amounts these materials in 

marine waters and sediments. The effect, however, would likely not be measurable due to the slow, 

sometimes decades-long corrosion of metals on the seafloor. Metals, explosives, and explosives 

byproducts released into sediments from corroding munitions and other metallic materials would only 

be expected at marginally higher concentrations in sediments within a few feet of the munition relative 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.2-71

3.2 Sediments and Water Quality

to a nearby location without munitions. Furthermore, most metals used in non-explosive munitions and 

other expended materials occur naturally in the marine environment and would not be elevated to toxic 

levels by slowly corroding munitions or other metallic materials. The effect of chemicals other than 

explosives would likely not be measurable due to the highly efficient use of propellants and fuels by 

motors used in rockets and missiles, resulting in often undetectable trace amounts of propellants 

expended into the environment. Perchlorates, which make up a large percentage of rocket and missile 

propellants, are also water soluble and would dissolve and be dispersed in surface waters and would not 

accumulate in marine sediments. Other expended materials in sediments would have only negligible 

impacts, because only small pieces of plastics would be expended—larger pieces from targets are 

recovered—and dispersed over a large area.
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.2-72

3.2 Sediments and Water Quality

This page intentionally left blank.
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.2-73

3.2 References

References

Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. (1999). Toxicological Profile for Mercury. Atlanta, GA: 

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service.

Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. (2007). Toxicological Profile for Lead. Atlanta, GA: U.S. 

Department of Health and Human Services.

Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. (2008). Toxicological Profile for Perchlorates. Atlanta, 

GA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

Alabama Department of Environmental Management. (2010). 2010 Integrated Water Quality Monitoring 

and Assessment Report: Water Quality, in Alabama 2008–2009. Montgomery, AL: Water 

Division-Water Quality Branch.

Ankley, G. T. (1996). Evaluation of metal/acid-volatile sulfide relationships in the prediction of metal 

bioaccumulation by benthic macroinvertebrates. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 15, 

2138–2146. 

Aquarone, M. C., and S. Adams. (2009a). XIX-60 Scotian Shelf TAG: LME #8 (The UNEP Large Marine 

Ecosystem Report: A Perspective on Changing Conditions in LMEs of the World’s Regional Seas). 

Nairobi, Kenya: United Nations Environmental Programme.

Aquarone, M. C., and S. Adams. (2009b). XIX-59 Newfoundland-Labrador Shelf (The UNEP Large Marine 

Ecosystem Report: A Perspective on Changing Conditions in LMEs of the World's Regional Seas). 

Nairobi, Kenya: United Nations Environmental Programme.

Aquarone, M. C., and S. Adams. (2009c). XIX-61 Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf TAG: LME #7 (The UNEP 

Large Marine Ecosystem Report: A Perspective on Changing Conditions in LMEs of the World’s 

Regional Seas). Nairobi, Kenya: United Nations Environmental Programme.

Aquarone, M. C., S. Adams, D. Mikkelson, and T. J. Pedersen. (2009). XIX-58 West Greenland Shelf: LME 

#18 (The UNEP Large Marine Ecosystem Report: A Perspective on Changing Conditions in LMEs 

of the World’s Regional Seas). Nairobi, Kenya: United Nations Environmental Programme.

Arai, T., and N. Chino. (2012). Diverse migration strategy between freshwater and seawater habitats in 

the freshwater eel genus Anguilla. Journal of Fish Biology, 81(2), 442–455. 

Arfsten, D. P., C. L. Wilson, and B. J. Spargo. (2002). Radio frequency chaff: The effects of its use in 

training on the environment. Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety, 53, 1–11. 

Bindler, R., N. J. Anderson, I. Renberg, and C. Malmquist. (2001). Palaeolimnological investigation of 

atmospheric pollution in the Sondre Stromfjord region, southern West Greenland: Accumulation 

rates and spatial patterns. Geology of Greenland Survey Bulletin, 189, 48–53. 

Blott, S. J., and K. Pye. (2012). Particle size scales and classification of sediment types based on particle 

size distributions: Review and recommended procedures. Sedimentology, 59(7), 2071–2096. 

Boehm, P. D., and A. G. Requejo. (1986). Overview of the recent sediment hydrocarbon geochemistry of 

Atlantic and Gulf Coast Outer Continental Shelf Environments. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf 

Science, 23, 29–58. 

Bonfil, R., S. Clarke, and H. Nakano. (2008). The Biology and Ecology of the Oceanic Whitetip Shark, 

Carcharhinus longimanus. In M. D. Camhi, E. K. Pikitch, & E. A. Babcock (Eds.), Sharks of the 

Open Ocean: Biology, Fisheries, and Conservation (pp. 128–139). Oxford, UK: Blackwell 

Publishing.
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.2-74

3.2 References

Boudreau, B. P. (1998). Mean mixed depth of sediments: The wherefore and the why. Limnology and 

Oceanography, 43(3), 524–526. 

Boyer, J. N., J. W. Fourqurean, and R. D. Jones. (1999). Seasonal and long-term trends in the water 

quality of Florida Bay (1989–1997). Estuaries, 22(2), 417–430. 

Breitbarth, E., E. P. Achterberg, M. V. Ardelan, A. R. Baker, E. Bucciarelli, F. Chever, P. L. Croot, S. 

Duggen, M. Gledhill, M. Hassellov, C. Hassler, L. J. Hoffmann, K. A. Hunter, D. A. Hutchins, J. 

Ingri, T. Jickells, M. C. Lohan, M. C. Nielsdottir, G. S. Sarthou, V., J. M. Trapp, D. R. Turner, and Y. 

Ye. (2010). Iron biogeochemistry across marine systems—progress from the past decade. 

Biogeosciences, 7, 1075–1097. 

Briggs, C., S. M. Shjegstad, J. A. K. Silva, and M. H. Edwards. (2016). Distribution of chemical warfare 

agent, energetics, and metals in sediments at a deep-water discarded military munitions site. 

Deep Sea Research Part II: Topical Studies in Oceanography, 128, 63–69. 

Brooks, G. R., and C. W. Holmes. (1990). Modern configuration of the southwest Florida carbonate 

slope: Development by shelf margin progradation. Marine Geology, 94(4), 301–315. 

Bruland, K. W. (1992). Complexation of cadmium by natural organic ligands in the Central North Pacific. 

ASLO Limnology and Oceanography, 37(5), 1008–1017. 

Buchman, M. (2008). National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Screening Quick Reference 

Tables, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration OR&R Report 08-1. Seattle, WA: Office 

of Response and Restoration Division National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

Byrne, R. H. (1996). Specific problems in the measurement and intrepretation of complexation 

phenomena in seawater. Pure and Applied Chemistry, 68(8), 1639–1656. 

Cantillo, A. Y., G. G. Lauenstein, and T. P. O'Connor. (1997). Mollusc and sediment contaminant levels 

and trends in south Florida coastal waters. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 34(7), 511–521. 

Carmody, D. J., J. B. Pearce, and W. E. Yasso. (1973). Trace metals in sediments of New York Bight. 

Marine Pollution Bulletin, 4, 132–135. 

Carr, R. S., and M. Nipper. (2003). Assessment of Environmental Effects of Ordnance Compounds and 

their Transformation Products in Coastal Ecosystems. Port Hueneme, CA: Naval Facilities 

Engineering Service Center.

Chang, G. C., T. D. Dickey, and A. J. Williams, III. (2001). Sediment resuspension over a continental shelf 

during Hurricanes Edouard and Hortense. Journal of Geophysical Research, 106(C5), 9517–9531. 

Chang, M. (2015). Reducing microplastics from facial exfoliating cleansers in wastewater through 

treatment versus consumer product decisions. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 101, 330–333.

Chapman, P. M., F. Wang, C. R. Janssen, R. R. Goulet, and C. N. Kamunde. (2003). Conducting Ecological 

Risk Assessments of Inorganic Metals and Metalloids: Current Status. Human and Ecological Risk 

Assessment, 9(4), 641–697. 

Chaturvedi, S., and P. N. Dave. (2015). Solid propellants: AP/HTPB composite propellants. Arabian 

Journal of Chemistry. 

Chester, R. (2003). Marine Geochemistry (2nd ed.). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing Company.

Churchill, J. H. (1989). The effect of commercial trawling on sediment resuspension and transport over 

the Middle Atlantic Bight continental shelf. Continental Shelf Research, 9(9), 841–864. 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.2-75

3.2 References

Clark, G. M., and D. A. Goolsby. (2000). Occurrence and load of selected herbicides and metabolites in 

the lower Mississippi River. The Science of the Total Environment, 248, 101–113. 

Cole, M., and T. S. Galloway. (2015). Ingestion of nanoplastics and microplastics by Pacific oyster larvae. 

Environmental Science & Technology, 49(24), 14625–14632. 

Coleman, J. M., and D. B. Prior. (1988). Mass wasting on continental margins. Annual Review of Earth 

Planet Science, 16, 101–119. 

Comstock, G., K. Edwardson, P. E. Edwardson, T. S. Burack, M. J. Walls, H. T. Stewart, and P. M. Currier. 

(2008). New Hampshire 2008 Section 305(b) and 303(d) Surface Water Quality Report and RSA 

485-A:4.XIV Report to the Governor and General Court. Concord, NH: New Hampshire 

Department of Environmental Services.

Coxon, T. M., B. K. Odhiambo, and L. C. Giancarlo. (2016). The impact of urban expansion and 

agricultural legacies on trace metal accumulation in fluvial and lacustrine sediments of the lower 

Chesapeake Bay basin, U.S.A. Science of The Total Environment, 568, 402–414. 

Crocker, F. H., K. J. Indest, and H. L. Fredrickson. (2006). Biodegradation of the cyclic nitramine 

explosives RDX, HMX, and CL-20. Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology, 73, 274–290. 

Cronin, T. M. (1983). Bathyal ostracodes from the Florida-Hatteras slope, the straits of Florida, and the 

Blake Plateau. Marine Micropaleontology, 8, 89–119. 

Cruz-Uribe, O., D. P. Cheney, and G. L. Rorrer. (2007). Comparison of TNT removal from seawater by 

three marine macroalgae. Chemsphere, 67, 1469–1476. 

Demina, L. L., and S. V. Galkin. (2009). Geochemical features of heavy metal bioaccumulation in the 

Guaymas Basin of the Gulf of California. Oceanology, 49(5), 697–706. 

Doi, Y., Y. Kanesawa, N. Tanahashi, and Y. Kumagai. (1992). Biodegradation of microbial polyesters in the 

marine environment. Polymer Degradation and Stability, 36, 173–177. 

Edwards, K. P., J. A. Hare, F. E. Werner, and B. O. Blanton. (2006). Lagrangian circulation on the 

Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf: Implications for larval dispersal and retention. Continental 

Shelf Research, 26(12–13), 1375–1394. 

Edwards, M., and J. Bełdowski. (2016). Chemical munitions dumped at sea. Deep Sea Research Part II: 

Topical Studies in Oceanography, 128, 1–3. 

Edwards, M. H., S. M. Shjegstad, R. Wilkens, J. C. King, G. Carton, D. Bala, B. Bingham, M. C. Bissonnette, 

C. Briggs, N. S. Bruso, R. Camilli, M. Cremer, R. B. Davis, E. H. DeCarlo, C. DuVal, D. J. Fornari, I. 

Kaneakua-Pia, C. D. Kelley, S. Koide, C. L. Mah, T. Kerby, G. J. Kurras, M. R. Rognstad, L. Sheild, J. 

Silva, B. Wellington, and M. V. Woerkom. (2016). The Hawaii undersea military munitions 

assessment. Deep Sea Research Part II: Topical Studies in Oceanography, 128, 4–13. 

Eggleton, J., and K. V. Thomas. (2004). A review of factors affecting the release and bioavailability of 

contaminants during sediment disturbance events. Environment International, 30(7), 973–980. 

Environmental Sciences Group. (2005). Canadian Forces Maritime Experimental and Test Ranges: 

Environmental Assessment Update 2005. Kingston, Canada: Environmental Sciences Group, 

Royal Military College.

European Flame Retardants Association. (2002). Flame retardant fact sheet: Red phosphorus. Retrieved 

from http://www.cefic-efra.com/Objects/2/Files/RedPhosphorusFactSheet.pdf.
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.2-76

3.2 References

Farrell, R. E., and S. D. Siciliano. (2007). Environmental Effects of Radio Frequency Chaff Released During 

Military Training Exercises: A Review of the Literature. Saskatoon, Canada: Goose Bay Office of 

the Department of National Defense.

Farrington, J., and H. Takada. (2014). Persistent organic pollutants (POPs), polycyclic aromatic 

hydrocarbons (PAHs), and plastics: Examples of the status, trend, and cycling of organic 

chemicals of environmental concern in the ocean. Oceanography, 27(1), 196–213. 

Farrington, J. W., and B. W. Tripp. (1977). Hydrocarbons in western North Atlantic surface sediments. 

Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, 41, 1627–1641. 

Fitzgerald, W. F., C. H. Lamborg, and C. R. Hammerschmidt. (2007). Marine biogeochemical cycling of 

mercury. Chemical Reviews, 107, 641–662. 

Florida Department of Environmental Protection. (2010). Integrated Water Quality Assessment for 

Florida: 2010 305(b) Report and 303(d) List Update. Tallahassee, FL: Florida Department of 

Environmental Protection.

Galgani, F., G. Hanke, and T. Maes. (2015). Global Distribution, Composition and Abundance of Marine 

Litter. In M. Bergmann, L. Gutow, & M. Klages (Eds.), Marine Anthropogenic Litter. New York, 

NY: Springer International Publishing.

Galloway, W. E., P. E. Ganey-Curry, X. Li, and R. T. Buffler. (2000). Cenozoic depositional history of the 

Gulf of Mexico basin. AAPG Bulletin, 84(11), 1743–1774. 

Gearing, P., J. N. Gearing, T. F. Lytle, and J. S. Lytle. (1976). Hydrocarbons in 60 northeast Gulf of Mexico 

shelf sediments: A preliminary survey. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, 40, 1005–1017. 

Georgia Department of Natural Resources. (2010). Water Quality in Georgia 2008–2009. Atlanta, GA: 

Environmental Protection Division.

Gonzalez, L. A. (2011). State of the Bay: Water and Sediment Quality. In A Characterization of the 

Galveston Bay Ecosystem (Third ed., pp. 1–45). Austin, TX: Texas Commission on Environmental 

Quality, Galveston Bay Estuary Program.

Hackney, C. T., J. Grimley, M. Posey, and T. Alphin. (1998). Sediment Contamination in North Carolina's 

Estuaries (Publication 198). Wilmington, NC: Center for Marine Science Research, University of 

North Carolina at Wilmington.

Hameedi, M., A. Pait, and R. Warner. (2002). Environmental Contaminant Monitoring in the Gulf of 

Maine. Paper presented at the Northeast Coastal Monitoring Summit. Durham, NH.

Hartwell, S. I., and M. J. Hameedi. (2006). Habitat conditions and correlations of sediment quality triad 

indicators in Delaware Bay. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 121, 181–212. 

Hedges, J. I., and J. M. Oades. (1997). Review Paper: Comparative organic geochemistries of soils and 

marine sediments. Organic Geochemistry, 27(7–8), 319–361. 

Heileman, S., and R. Mahon. (2008). XV-49 Caribbean Sea: TAG: LME #12 (The UNEP Large Marine 

Ecosystem Report: A Perspective on Changing Conditions in LMEs of the World’s Regional Seas). 

Nairobi, Kenya: United Nations Environmental Programme.

Heileman, S., and N. Rabalais. (2008). XV-50 Gulf of Mexico: TAG: LME #5 (The UNEP Large Marine 

Ecosystem Report: A Perspective on Changing Conditions in LMEs of the World’s Regional Seas). 

Nairobi, Kenya: United Nations Environmental Programme.
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.2-77

3.2 References

Herbert, D. A., W. B. Perry, B. J. Cosby, and J. W. Fourqurean. (2011). Projected reorganization of Florida 

bay seagrass communities in response to the increased freshwater inflow of Everglades 

restoration. Estuaries and Coasts, 34, 973–992. 

Ho, T.-Y., L.-S. Wen, C.-F. You, and D.-C. Lee. (2007). The trace metal composition of size-fractionated 

plankton in the South China Sea: Biotic versus abiotic sources. Limnology and Oceanography, 

52(5), 1776–1788. 

Hyland, J. L., W. L. Balthis, C. T. Hackney, and M. Posey. (2000). Sediment quality of North Carolina 

estuaries: An integrative assessment of sediment contamination, toxicity, and condition of 

benthic fauna. Journal of Aquatic Ecosystem Stress and Recovery, 8, 107–124. 

Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin. (2008). Tidal Potomac Polychlorinated Biphenyls 

Total Maximum Daily Load Development. Retrieved from http://www.potomacriver.org.

Järup, L. (2003). Hazards of heavy metal contamination. British Medical Bulletin, 68(1), 167–182. 

Jenkins, T. F., G. Ampleman, S. Thiboutot, S. R. Bigl, S. Taylor, M. R. Walsh, D. Faucher, R. Martel, I. 

Poulin, K. M. Dontsova, M. E. Walsh, S. Brochu, A. D. Hewitt, G. Comeau, E. Diaz, M. A. Chappell, 

J. L. Fadden, A. Marois , R. Fifield, Lt., B. Quémerais, J. Šimunek, N. M. Perron, A. Gagnon, T. 

Gamache, J. C. Pennington, V. Moors, D. J. Lambert, M. D. Gilbert, R. N. Bailey, V. Tanguay, C. A. 

Ramsey, L. Melanson, and M.-C. Lapointe. (2008). Characterization and Fate of Gun and Rocket 

Propellant Residues on Testing and Training Ranges: Final Report. (ERDC TR-08-1). Arlington, VA: 

Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program.

Juhasz, A. L., and R. Naidu. (2007). Explosives: Fate, dynamics, and ecological impact in terrestrial and 

marine environments. Reviews of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, 191, 163–215. 

Keller, A. A., E. L. Fruh, M. M. Johnson, V. Simon, and 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. 

Kelley, C., G. Carton, M. Tomlinson, and A. Gleason. (2016). Analysis of towed camera images to 

determine the effects of disposed mustard-filled bombs on the deep water benthic community 

off south Oahu. Deep Sea Research Part II: Topical Studies in Oceanography, 128, 34–42. 

Kennett, J. P. (1982). Marine Geology. New York, NY: Prentice-Hall.

Koide, S., J. A. K. Silva, V. Dupra, and M. Edwards. (2016). Bioaccumulation of chemical warfare agents, 

energetic materials, and metals in deep-sea shrimp from discarded military munitions sites off 

Pearl Harbor. Deep Sea Research Part II: Topical Studies in Oceanography, 128, 53–62. 

Kszos, L. A., J. J. Beauchamp, and A. J. Stewart. (2003). Toxicity of lithium to three freshwater organisms 

and the antagonistic effect of sodium. Ecotoxicology, 12(5), 427–437. 

Kvenvolden, K. A., and C. K. Cooper. (2003). Natural seepage of crude oil into the marine environment. 

Geo-Marine Letters, 23(3–4), 140–146. 

Lamoreaux, E. M., and B. J. Brownawell. (1999). Chemical and biological availability of sediment-sorbed 

hydrophobic organic contaminants. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 18(8), 1733–1741. 

Lapointe, B. E., D. A. Tomasko, and W. R. Matzie. (1994). Eutrophication and trophic state classification 

of seagrass communities in the Florida Keys. Bulletin of Marine Science, 54(3), 696–717. 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.2-78

3.2 References

Larsen, T. S., J. A. Kristensen, G. Asmund, and P. Bjerregaard. (2001). Lead and zinc in sediments and 

biota from Maarmorilik, West Greenland: An assessment of the environmental impact of mining 

wastes on an arctic fjord system. Environmental Pollution, 114(2001), 275–283. 

Law, K. L., S. Moret-Ferguson, N. A. Maximenko, G. Proskurowski, E. E. Peacock, J. Hafner, and C. M. 

Reddy. (2010). Plastic accumulation in the North Atlantic Subtropical Gyre. Sciencexpress, 329, 

1–8. 

Law, K. L., S. E. Moret-Ferguson, D. S. Goodwin, E. R. Zettler, E. Deforce, T. Kukulka, and G. Proskurowski. 

(2014). Distribution of surface plastic debris in the eastern Pacific Ocean from an 11-year data 

set. Environmental Science & Technology, 48(9), 4732–4738.

Lewis, M. A., J. C. Moore, L. R. Goodman, J. M. Patrick, R. S. Stanley, T. H. Roush, and R. L. Quarles. 

(2001). The effects of urbanization on the chemical quality of three tidal bayous in the Gulf of 

Mexico. Water, Air, and Soil Pollution, 127, 65–91. 

Li, J., J. Ren, J. Zhang, and S. Liu. (2008). The distribution of dissolved aluminum in the Yellow and East 

China Seas. Journal of Ocean University of China, 7(1), 48–54. 

Libes, S. M. (2009). Introduction to Marine Biogeochemistry (2nd ed.). Burlington, MA, San Diego, CA, 

and London, United Kingdom: Academic Press.

Long, E. R., D. D. MacDonald, S. L. Smith, and F. D. Calder. (1995). Incidence of adverse biological effects 

within ranges of chemical concentrations in marine and estuarine sediments. Environmental 

Management, 19(1), 81–97. 

Macauley, J. M., J. K. Summers, V. D. Engle, and L. C. Harwell. (2002). The ecological condition of South 

Florida estuaries. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 75, 253–269. 

MacDonald, D. D., R. S. Carr, F. D. Calder, E. R. Long, and C. G. Ingersoll. (1996). Development and 

evaluation of sediment quality guidelines for Florida coastal waters. Ecotoxicology, 5, 253–278. 

MacDonald, J., and C. Mendez. (2005). Unexploded ordnance cleanup costs: Implications of alternative 

protocols. Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation.

Mallin, M. A., J. M. Burkholder, L. B. Cahoon, and M. H. Posey. (2000). North and South Carolina coasts. 

Marine Pollution Bulletin, 41(1–6), 56–75. 

Mann, K. H., and J. R. N. Lazier. (1996). Dynamics of Marine Ecosystems: Biological-Physical Interactions 

in the Oceans (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Blackwell Scientific Publications.

Manta Trust. (2017). Natural Predation. Retrieved from http://www.mantatrust.org/threats/naturalpredation/.

Maryland Coastal Bays Program. (2015). Coastal Bays Report Card 2014. Retrieved from 

http://www.mdcoastalbays.org/content/files/report%20card%202014%20FINAL.pdf.

Mato, Y., T. Isobe, H. Takada, H. Kanehiro, C. Ohtake, and T. Kaminuma. (2001). Plastic resin pellets as a 

transport medium for toxic chemicals in the marine environment. Environmental Science 

Technology, 35, 318–324. 

McBride, R. A., and T. F. Moslow. (1991). Origin, evolution, and distribution of shoreface sand ridges, 

Atlantic inner shelf, U.S.A. Marine Geology, 97, 57–85. 

Mecray, E., and M. R. Buchholtz ten Brink. (2000). Containment distribution and accumulation in the 

surface sediments of Long Island Sound. Journal of Coastal Research, 16(3), 575–590. 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.2-79

3.2 References

Melillo, J. M., T. Richmond, and G. W. Yohe. (2014). Climate Change Impacts in the United States: The 

Third National Climate Assessment. Washington, DC: U.S. Global Change Research Program.

Milliman, J., O. Pilkey, and D. Ross. (1972). Sediments of the Continental Margin off the Eastern United 

States. Geological Society of America Bulletin, 83, 1315–1334. 

Missile Technology Control Regime. (1996). Missile Technology Control Regime. Retrieved from 

http://mtcr.info.

Mitchell, C. P. J., and C. C. Gilmour. (2008). Methylmercury production in a Chesapeake Bay salt marsh. 

Journal of Geophysical Research, 113(G2), G00C04. 

Mitsch, W. J., and J. G. Gosselink. (2007). Wetlands (Fourth ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Mitsch, W. J., J. G. Gosselink, C. J. Anderson, and L. Zhang. (2009). Wetland Ecosystems. Hoboken, NJ: 

John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Monterey Bay Research Institute. (2010). Periodic Table of Elements in the Ocean. The MBARI Chemical 

Sensor Program. Retrieved from www.mbari.org/chemsensor/pteo.htm.

Murray, A. B., and E. R. Thieler. (2004). A new hypothesis and exploratory model for the formation of 

large-scale inner-shelf sediment sorting and ripped scour depressions. Continental Shelf 

Research, 24, 295–315. 

Napper, I. E., A. Bakir, S. J. Rowland, and R. C. Thompson. (2015). Characterisation, quantity and sorptive 

properties of microplastics extracted from cosmetics. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 99(1–2), 178–

185. 

Nipper, M., R. S. Carr, J. M. Biedenbach, R. L. Hooten, and K. Miller. (2002). Toxicological and chemical 

assessment of ordnance compounds in marine sediments and porewaters. Marine Pollution 

Bulletin, 44, 789–806. 

Nozaki, Y. (1997). Supplementary Materials to "A Fresh Look at Element Distribution in the North Pacific". 

Retrieved from http://www.agu.org/pubs/eos-news/supplements/1995-2003/97026e.shtml.

Pait, A. S., A. L. Mason, D. R. Whitall, J. D. Christensen, and S. I. Hartwell. (2010). Chapter 5: Assessment 

of Chemical Contaminants in Sediments and Corals in Vieques. In L. J. Bauer & M. S. Kendall 

(Eds.), An Ecological Characterization of the Marine Resources of Vieques, Puerto Rico (pp. 101–

150). Silver Spring, MD: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

Paliwoda, R. E., A. M. Newbigging, Z. Wang, and X. C. Le. (2016). Benefits and risks associated with 

consumption of Great Lakes fish containing omega-3 fatty acids and polychlorinated biphenyls 

(PCBs). Journal of Environmental Science (China), 41, 1–5. 

Pavlostathis, S. G., and G. H. Jackson. (2002). Biotransformation of 2, 4, 6-trinitrotoluene in a 

continuous-flow Anabaena sp. system. Water Research, 36, 1699–1706. 

Peachey, R. B. J. (2003). Tributyltin and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon levels in Mobile Bay, Alabama: 

A review. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 46, 1365–1371. 

Pennington, J. C., and J. M. Brannon. (2002). Environmental fate of explosives. Thermochimica Acta, 

384(1–2), 163–172. 

Powell, S., P. D. Franzmann, R. Cord-Ruwisch, and S. Toze. (1998). Degradation of 2-nitrodiphenylamine, 

a component of Otto Fuel II, by Clostridium spp. Anaerobe, 4, 95–102. 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.2-80

3.2 References

Rabalais, N. N., R. E. Turner, and W. J. Wiseman, Jr. (2002). Gulf of Mexico hypoxia, a.k.a. "The Dead 

Zone" Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 33, 235–263. 

Ravindra, K., R. Sokhi, and R. Van Grieken. (2008). Atmospheric polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons: 

Source attribution, emission factors and regulation. Atmospheric Environment, 42(13), 2895–

2921. 

Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management. (2008). 2008 Integrated Water Quality 

Monitoring and Assessment Report: Section 305(b) State of the State's Waters Report and 

Section 303(d) List of Impaired Waters. Providence, RI: State of Rhode Island and Providence 

Plantations.

Riggs, S. R., S. W. Snyder, A. C. Hine, and D. L. Mearns. (1996). Hardbottom morphology and relationship 

to the geologic framework: Mid-Atlantic continental shelf. Journal of Sedimentary Research, 

66(4), 830–846. 

Salocks, C., and K. B. Kaley. (2003). Red Phosphorus (Technical Support Document: Toxicology 

Clandestine Drug Labs/Methamphetamine). Sacramento, CA: California Office of Environmental 

Health Hazard.

Santschi, P. H., B. J. Presley, T. L. Wade, B. Garcia-Romero, and M. Baskaran. (2001). Historical 

contamination of PAHs, PCBs, DDTs, and heavy metals in Mississippi River delta, Galveston Bay 

and Tampa Bay sediment cores. Marine Environmental Research, 52(1), 51–79. 

Sauer, T. C., Jr., G. S. Durell, J. S. Brown, D. Redford, and P. D. Boehm. (1989). Concentrations of 

chlorinated pesticides and PCBs in microlayer and seawater samples collected in open-ocean 

waters off the U.S. East Coast and in the Gulf of Mexico. Marine Chemistry, 27, 235–257. 

Sericano, J. L., T. L. Wade, S. T. Sweet, J. Ramirez, and G. G. Lauenstein. (2014). Temporal trends and 

spatial distribution of DDT in bivalves from the coastal marine environments of the continental 

United States, 1986–2009. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 81, 303–316. 

Shah, A. A., F. Hasan, A. Hameed, and S. Ahmed. (2008). Biological degradation of plastics: A 

comprehensive review. Biotechnology Advances, 26(3), 246–265. 

Sheavly, S. B. (2007). National Marine Debris Monitoring Program: Final Program Report, Data Analysis, 

and Summary. Washington, DC: Ocean Conservancy.

Sheavly, S. B. (2010). National Marine Debris Monitoring Program: Lessons Learned. Virginia Beach, VA: 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

Sheldon, J., and M. Alber. (2010). The condition of Georgia's coastal waters: Development and analysis

of water quality indicators. Athens, GA: Georgia Coastal Research Council.

Singh, R., P. Soni, P. Kumar, S. Purohit, and A. Singh. (2009). Biodegradation of high explosive production 

effluent containing RDX and HMX by denitrifying bacteria. World Journal of Microbiology and 

Biotechnology, 25, 269–275. 

Smith, S. H., and D. E. Marx, Jr. (2016). De-facto marine protection from a Navy bombing range: Farallon 

de Medinilla, Mariana Archipelago, 1997 to 2012. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 102(1), 187–198. 

South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control. (2008). State of South Carolina 

Integrated Report for 2008. Part II: Section 305(b) Assessment and Reporting. Columbia, SC: 

South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control.
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.2-81

3.2 References

Spargo, B. J. (1999). Environmental Effects of RF Chaff: A Select Panel Report to the Undersecretary of 

Defense for Environmental Security. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Navy, Naval 

Research Laboratory.

Spargo, B. J. (2007). [Personal Communication with Mark Collins Regarding Chaff End Cap and Piston 

Bouyancy].

State of Maine Department of Environmental Protection. (2006). 2006 Integrated Water Quality 

Monitoring and Assessment Report (DEPLW0817). ME: 2006 Maine Integrated Water Quality 

Report.

Summers, J. K., T. L. Wade, V. D. Engle, and Z. A. Malaeb. (1996). Normalization of metal concentrations 

in estuarine sediments from the Gulf of Mexico. Estuaries, 19(3), 581–594. 

Sverdrup, H., M. Johnson, and R. Fleming. (1970). The Oceans: Their Physics, Chemistry, and Biology. 

New Jersey, NJ: Prentice Hall, Inc.

Systems Consultants, I. (1977). Effects of aluminized fiberglass on representative Chesapeake Bay marine 

organisms. Washington, D.C.: Systems Consultants, Inc.

Teuten, E. L., S. J. Rowland, T. S. Galloway, and R. C. Thompson. (2007). Potential for plastics to transport 

hydrophobic contaminants. Environmental Science and Technology, 41(22), 7759–7764. 

Thompson, B., A. R. Melwani, and J. A. Hunt. (2009). Estimated Sediment Contaminant Concentrations 

Associated with Biological Impacts at San Diego Bay Clean-up Sites. (SWRCB Agreement No. 08-

194-190 Contribution No. 584). Oakland, CA: Aquatic Science Center.

Thompson, R., Y. Olsen, R. Mitchell, A. Davis, S. Rowland, A. John, D. McGonigle, and A. Russell. (2004). 

Lost at sea: Where is all the plastic? Science, New Series, 304(5672), 838. 

Tomlinson, M. S., and E. H. De Carlo. (2016). Occurrence and possible sources of arsenic in seafloor 

sediments surrounding sea-disposed munitions and chemical agents near Oahu, Hawaii. Deep 

Sea Research Part II: Topical Studies in Oceanography, 128, 70–84. 

Turner, R. E., and N. N. Rabalais. (2003). Linking landscape and water quality in the Mississippi River 

basin for 200 years. BioScience, 53(6), 563–572. 

U.S. Air Force. (1994). Technical reports on chaff and flares-Technical report No. 5: Laboratory analysis of 

chaff and flare materials. Langley Air Force Base, VA: U.S. Air Force Headquarters Air Combat 

Command.

U.S. Air Force. (1997). Environmental Effects of Self-Protection Chaff and Flares - Final Report. Langley Air 

Force Base, VA: U.S. Air Force, Headquarters Air Combat Command.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. (2009). Report Anaheim Bay Harbor Sediment Sampling and Tier III Ocean 

Disposal Testing. Los Angeles District. Los Angeles, CA.

U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy. (2004). An Ocean Blueprint for the 21st Century (Final Report). 

Washington, DC: U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy.

U.S. Department of Agriculture. (1993). Soil Survey Manual. In Soil Conservation Service (Ed.), U.S. 

Department of Agriculture Handbook 18 (3rd ed.). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (1995). Toxicological Profile for Otto Fuel II and Its 

Components. Atlanta, GA: Public Health Service Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease 

Registry.
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.2-82

3.2 References

U.S. Department of the Air Force. (1994). Technical Reports on Chaff and Flares-Technical Report No. 5: 

Laboratory Analysis of Chaff and Flare Materials. Langley Air Force Base, VA: U.S. Air Force 

Headquarters Air Combat Command.

U.S. Department of the Navy. (1993). Report on Continuing Action: Standard Range Sonobuoy Quality 

Assurance Program, San Clemente Island, California. San Diego, CA: Naval Facilities Engineering 

Command, Pacific.

U.S. Department of the Navy. (1999). Environmental Effects of RF Chaff: A Select Panel Report to the 

Undersecretary of Defense for Environmental Security. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the 

Navy, Naval Research Laboratory.

U.S. Department of the Navy. (2006). Final environmental assessment, San Clemente Island wastewater 

treatment plant: Increase in maximum allowable discharge volume. San Diego, CA: Naval 

Facilities Engineering Command Southwest.

U.S. Department of the Navy. (2008a). Final Atlantic Fleet Active Sonar Training Environmental Impact 

Statement/Overseas Environmental Impact Statement. Norfolk, VA: Naval Facilities Engineering 

Command, Atlantic.

U.S. Department of the Navy. (2008b). Southern California Range Complex Environmental Impact 

Statement/Overseas Environmental Impact Statement. San Diego, CA: Naval Facilities 

Engineering Command Southwest.

U.S. Department of the Navy. (2010a). Water Range Assessment for the VACAPES Range Complex (Final 

Report). Norfolk, VA: Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Atlantic Division.

U.S. Department of the Navy. (2010b). Water Range Assessment for the Jacksonville Range Complex. 

Norfolk, VA: Parsons.

U.S. Department of the Navy. (2010c). Jacksonville Range Complex Operating Area Undersea Warfare 

Training Range Bottom Mapping and Habitat Characterization, Florida. Final Cruise Report. 

Jacksonville, FL: Naval Facilities Engineering Command Atlantic.

U.S. Department of the Navy. (2012). Final VACAPES Range Complex Water Range Assessment 

Operational Range Site Model Validation Report: Category 1 Water Ranges. (Contract N62470-

10-D-3009, Task Order 002). Virginia Beach, VA: Naval Facilities Engineering Command.

U.S. Department of the Navy. (2013a). Water Range Sustainability Environmental Program Assessment: 

Potomac River Test Range. Dahlgren, VA: Naval Surface Warfare Center.

U.S. Department of the Navy. (2013b). Comprehensive Exercise and Marine Species Monitoring Report 

For the U.S. Navy’s Atlantic Fleet Active Sonar Training (AFAST) and Virginia Capes, Cherry Point, 

Jacksonville, and Gulf of Mexico Range Complexes 2009–2012. Norfolk, VA: United States Fleet 

Forces Command.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2008a). National Coastal Condition Report III. (Environmental 

Protection Agency/842-R-08-002). Washington, DC: Office of Research and Development/Office 

of Water. Retrieved from https://www.epa.gov/national-aquatic-resource-surveys/nationalcoastal-condition-report-iii-2008.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2008b). National Estuary Program Coastal Condition Report 

Chapter 3: Northeast National Estuary Program coastal condition, Long Island Sound Study. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.2-83

3.2 References

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2008c). Interim Drinking Water Health Advisory For Perchlorate. 

Washington, DC: Health and Ecological Criteria Division.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2009). National Recommended Water Quality Criteria. 

Washington, DC: Office of Water and the Office of Science and Technology. Retrieved from 

http://www.epa.gov/ost/criteria/wqctable/.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2010). National Marine Debris Monitoring Program: Lessons 

Learned. Virginia Beach, VA: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2012a). EPA Federal Facilities Forum Fact Sheet. (Environmental 

Protection Agency/505/S-11/001). Washington, DC: Solid Waste and Emergency Response.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2012b). National Coastal Condition Report IV. Washington, DC: 

Office of Research and Development/Office of Water. Retrieved from 

http://water.epa.gov/type/oceb/assessmonitor/nccr/index.cfm.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2014). 2014 Letter: Marine Protection, Research, and 

Sanctuaries Act (MPRSA) General Permit for the Sinking Exercise (SINKEX) Program; Evaluation, 

Determination, and Agreement. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Navy.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2016). National Coastal Condition Assessment 2010. 

(Environmental Protection Agency 841-R-15-006). Washington, DC: Office of Water and Office of 

Research and Development. Retrieved from http://www.epa.gov/national-aquatic-resourcesurveys/ncca.

U.S. Geological Survey. (2005). The Impact of Sediment on the Chesapeake Bay and Its Watershed

(Sediment Pollution and the Bay). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior and U.S. 

Geological Survey.

University of Hawaii. (2010). Hawaii Undersea Military Munitions Assessment, Final Investigation Report 

HI-05, South of Pearl Harbor, Oahu, HI. Honolulu, HI: University of Hawaii at Manoa.

Valette-Silver, N. J. (1993). The use of sediment cores to reconstruct historical trends in contamination 

of estuarine and coastal sediments. Estuaries, 16(3, Part B: Dedicated Issue: Historical Trends in 

Contamination of Estuarine and Coastal Sediments: Symposium Papers from the Eleventh 

Biennial International Estuarine Research Conference), 577–588. 

Van Dolah, R. F., D. C. Bergquist, G. H. M. Riekerk, M. V. Levisen, S. E. Crowe, S. B. Wilde, and J. Harvey. 

(2006). The Condition of South Carolina's Estuarine and Coastal Habitats During 2003–2004. 

Charleston, SC: South Carolina Marine Resources Division.

Van Metre, P. C., and A. J. Horowitz. (2013). An 80‐year record of sediment quality in the lower 

Mississippi River. Hydrological Processes, 27(17), 2438–2448. 

Varekamp, J. C., A. E. McElroy, J. R. Mullaney, and V. T. Breslin. (2014). Metals, Organic Compounds, and 

Nutrients in Long Island Sound: Sources, Magnitudes, Trends, and Impacts. In S. J. Latimer, A. M. 

Tedesco, L. R. Swanson, C. Yarish, E. P. Stacey, & C. Garza (Eds.), Long Island Sound: Prospects for 

the Urban Sea (pp. 203–283). New York, NY: Springer New York.

Virginia Department of Environmental Quality. (2001). State of Virginia's Coast. Richmond, VA: Virginia 

Coastal Program.

Virginia Department of Environmental Quality. (2016). Virginia Water Quality Assessment 305(b)/303(d) 

Integrated Report. Richmond, VA: Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation and 

Virginia Department of Health.
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.2-84

3.2 References

Virginia Department of Public Health. (2016). Beach Monitoring. Retrieved from 

http://www.vdh.virginia.gov/environmental-epidemiology/beach-monitoring/.

Wade, T. L., E. L. Atlas, J. M. Brooks, M. C. Kennicutt, II, R. G. Fox, J. Sericano, and D. DeFreitas. (1988). 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Gulf of Mexico status and trends program: 

Trace organic contaminant distribution in sediments and oysters. Estuaries, 11(3), 171–179. 

Wade, T. L., and S. T. Sweet. (2005). Assessment of sediment contamination in Casco Bay. Portland, ME: 

Prepared by Geochemical and Environmental Research Group, Texas A&M University.

Walker, S. W., C. L. Osburn, T. J. Boyd, L. J. Hamdan, R. B. Coffin, M. T. Montgomery, J. P. Smith, Q. X. Li, 

C. Hennessee, F. Monteil, and J. Hawari. (2006). Mineralization of 2, 4, 6-Trinitrotoluene (TNT) in 

Coastal Waters and Sediments. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Navy, Naval Research 

Laboratory.

Wallace, G. T., Jr., G. L. Hoffman, and R. A. Duce. (1977). The influence of organic matter and 

atmospheric deposition on the particulate trace metal concentration of northwest Atlantic 

surface seawater. Marine Chemistry, 5, 143–170. 

Wang, Z., Z. Liu, K. Xu, L. M. Mayer, Z. Zhang, A. S. Kolker, and W. Wu. (2014). Concentrations and 

sources of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in surface coastal sediments of the northern Gulf of 

Mexico. Geochemical Transactions, 15(1), 1. 

Washington Tribes. (2015). Washington Tribes. Retrieved from 

https://www.washingtontribes.org/tribes-map.

Watters, D. L., M. M. Yoklavich, M. S. Love, and D. M. Schroeder. (2010). Assessing marine debris in deep 

seafloor habitats off California. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 60, 131–138. 

Wazniak, C., M. Hall, C. Cain, D. Wilson, R. Jesien, J. Thomas, and W. Dennison. (2004). State of the 

Maryland Coastal Bays. Berlin, MD: Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Maryland 

Coastal Bays Program, and University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science.

Whitall, D., A. Pait, and S. I. Hartwell. (2015). Chemical contaminants in surficial sediment in Coral and 

Fish Bays, St. John, U.S. Virgin Islands. Marine Environmental Research, 112, 1–8. 

White, C., J. A. Sayer, and G. M. Gadd. (1997). Microbial solubilization and immobilization of toxic 

metals: Key biogeochemical processes for treatment of contamination. FEMS Microbiology 

Reviews, 20, 503–516. 

Windom, H. L., S. J. Schropp, F. D. Calder, J. D. Ryan, R. G. Smith, Jr., L. C. Burney, and C. H. Rawlinson. 

(1989). Natural trace metal concentration in estuarine and coastal marine sediments of the 

southeastern United States. Environmental Science and Technology, 23, 314–320. 

Wiseman, W. J., Jr., and R. W. Garvine. (1995). Plumes and coastal currents near large river mouths. 

Estuaries, 18(3), 509–517. 

Wren, P. A., and L. A. Leonard. (2005). Sediment transport on the mid-continental shelf in Onslow Bay, 

North Carolina during Hurricane Isabel. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science, 63(1–2), 43–56. 

Wright, S. L., R. C. Thompson, and T. S. Galloway. (2013). The physical impacts of microplastics on 

marine organisms: A review. Environmental Pollution, 178, 483–492. 

Wu, J., and E. Boyle. (1997). Lead in the western North Atlantic Ocean: Completed response to leaded 

gasoline phaseout. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, 61(15), 3279–3283. 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.2-85

3.2 References

Wurl, O., and J. P. Obbard. (2004). A review of pollutants in the sea-surface microlayer (SML): A unique 

habitat for marine organisms. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 48(11–12), 1016–1030. 

Zhao, J. S., C. W. Greer, S. Thiboutot, G. Ampleman, and J. Hawari. (2004a). Biodegradation of the 

nitramine explosives hexahydro-1,3,5-triazine and octahydro-1,3,5,7-tetranitro-1,3,5,7-

tetrazocine in cold marine sediment under anaerobic and oligotrophic conditions. Canadian 

Journal of Microbiology, 50, 91–96. 

Zhao, J. S., J. Spain, S. Thiboutot, G. Ampleman, C. Greer, and J. Hawari. (2004b). Phylogeny of cyclic 

nitramine-degrading psychrophilic bacteria in marine sediment and their potential role in the 

natural attenuation of explosives. FEMS Microbiology Ecology, 49(3), 349–357. 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.2-86

3.2 References

This page intentionally left blank.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

i

Table of Contents

Final 

Environmental Impact Statement/Overseas Environmental Impact Statement 

Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing

TABLE OF CONTENTS

3.3 Vegetation..............................................................................................................3.3-1

3.3.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................3.3-1

3.3.2 Affected Environment.........................................................................................3.3-2

3.3.2.1 General Background ...........................................................................3.3-2

3.3.2.2 Endangered Species Act-Listed Species..............................................3.3-8

3.3.2.3 Species Not Listed Under the Endangered Species Act....................3.3-11

3.3.3 Environmental Consequences ..........................................................................3.3-20

3.3.3.1 Acoustic Stressors.............................................................................3.3-21

3.3.3.2 Explosive Stressors............................................................................3.3-21

3.3.3.3 Energy Stressors................................................................................3.3-27

3.3.3.4 Physical Disturbance and Strike Stressors........................................3.3-27

3.3.3.5 Entanglement Stressors....................................................................3.3-45

3.3.3.6 Ingestion Stressors............................................................................3.3-45

3.3.3.7 Secondary Stressors..........................................................................3.3-45

3.3.4 Summary of Potential Impacts on Vegetation..................................................3.3-46

3.3.4.1 Combined Impacts of All Stressors Under Alternative 1 ..................3.3-47

3.3.4.2 Combined Impacts of All Stressors Under Alternative 2 ..................3.3-47

3.3.4.3 Combined Impacts of All Stressors Under the No Action 

Alternative........................................................................................3.3-47

3.3.5 Endangered Species Act Determinations..........................................................3.3-48

List of Figures 

Figure 3.3-1: Designated Critical Habitat Areas for Johnson’s Seagrass Adjacent to the Study 

Area....................................................................................................................................3.3-9

Figure 3.3-2: Seagrass Occurrence in Mid-Atlantic and New England..................................................3.3-17

Figure 3.3-3: Seagrass Occurrence in South Florida .............................................................................3.3-18

Figure 3.3-4: Seagrass Occurrence in the Gulf of Mexico.....................................................................3.3-19
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

ii

Table of Contents

List of Tables

Table 3.3-1: Major Groups of Vegetation in Study Area.......................................................................3.3-11

Table 3.3-2: Presences of Seagrass Species within the Study Area ......................................................3.3-16

Table 3.3-3: Presence of Mangrove Species in the Study Area ............................................................3.3-20
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.3-1

3.3 Vegetation

3.3 VEGETATION

3.3.1 INTRODUCTION

This section provides analysis of potential impacts on vegetation found in the Atlantic Fleet Training and 

Testing (AFTT) Study Area (Study Area) and an introduction to the species that occur in the Study Area. 

Vegetation includes diverse taxonomic/ecological groups of marine algae throughout the Study Area, as 

well as flowering plants in the coastal and inshore waters. The types of vegetation present in the Study 

Area are described in this section and the affected environmental baseline is discussed in Section 3.3.2

(Affected Environment). The analysis of environmental consequences is presented in Section 3.3.3

(Environmental Consequences), and the potential impacts of Alternative 1 and Alternative 2 are 

summarized in Section 3.3.4 (Summary of Potential Impacts on Vegetation). Additional information on 

VEGETATION SYNOPSIS

The United States (U.S.) Department of the Navy (Navy) considered all potential stressors that 

vegetation could potentially be exposed to from the Proposed Action. The following conclusions 

have been reached for the Preferred Alternative (Alternative 1):

• Acoustics: There is no evidence that underwater acoustic stressors impact marine vegetation.

Acoustic stressors, therefore, are not analyzed for vegetation.

• Energy: Energy stressors are not applicable to vegetation because vegetation have a limited

sensitivity to energy stressors and therefore will not be analyzed further in this section.

• Explosives: Explosives could affect vegetation by destroying individual plants or damaging

parts of plants; however, there would be no persistent or large-scale effects on the growth,

survival, distribution or structure of vegetation due to relatively fast growth, resilience, and

abundance of the most affected species (e.g., phytoplankton, seaweed).

• Physical Disturbance and Strike: Physical disturbance and strike could affect vegetation by

destroying individual plants or damaging parts of plants; however, there would be no

persistent or large-scale effects on the growth, survival, distribution or structure of vegetation

due to relatively fast growth, resilience, and abundance of the most affected species (e.g.,

phytoplankton, seaweed).

• Entanglement: Entanglement stressors are not applicable to vegetation due to the sedentary

nature of vegetation and is not analyzed further in this section.

• Ingestion: Ingestion stressors are not applicable because all vegetation analyzed uses

photosynthesis vice ingestion to obtain necessary nutrients. Therefore, the ingestion stressor

is not analyzed for vegetation.

• Secondary: Project effects on sediment, water, or air quality would be minor, temporary, and

localized and could have short-term, small-scale secondary effects on vegetation; however,

there would be no persistent or large-scale effects on the growth, survival, distribution, or

structure of vegetation due to relatively fast growth, resilience, and abundance of the most

affected species (e.g., phytoplankton, seaweed). 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.3-2

3.3 Vegetation

the biology, life history, and conservation of marine vegetation can be found on the websites of the 

following agencies and groups: 

 National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)

 Conservation International

 Algaebase

 National Museum of Natural History

3.3.2 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

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

3.3.2.1 (General Background), which provides brief summaries of habitat use and threats that affect or 

have the potential to affect natural communities of vegetation within the Study Area. Protected species 

listed under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) are described in Section 3.3.2.2 (Endangered Species ActListed Species). General types of vegetation that are not listed under the ESA are briefly reviewed in 

Section 3.3.2.3 (Species Not Listed under the Endangered Species Act).

3.3.2.1 General Background

3.3.2.1.1 Habitat Use

Factors that influence the distribution and abundance of vegetation in the coastal and open ocean areas 

of the Study Area are the availability of light, nutrients, salinity, substrate type (important for rooted or 

attached vegetation), storms and currents, tidal schedule, temperature, and grazing by herbivores 

(Green & Short, 2003; Short et al., 2007). 

Marine ecosystems depend almost entirely on the energy produced by marine vegetation through 

photosynthesis (Castro & Huber, 2000), which is the transformation of the sun’s energy into chemical 

energy. In the lighted surface waters of the open ocean and coastal waters, marine algae and flowering 

plants have the potential to provide oxygen and habitat for many organisms in addition to forming the 

base of the marine food web (Dawes, 1998). 

The affected environment comprises two major ecosystem types - the open ocean and coastal waters

(including the inshore waters of the Study Area), and two major habitat types: the water column and 

bottom (benthic) habitat. Vegetation grows only in the sunlit portions of the open ocean and coastal 

waters, referred to as the “photic” or “euphotic” zone, which extends to a maximum depth of roughly 

200 meters (m) (National Ocean Service, 2015). Because depth in most of the open ocean exceeds the 

euphotic zone, benthic habitat for vegetation is limited primarily to the large marine ecosystem 

landward of the open ocean. The basic taxonomic groupings of vegetation include microalgae (e.g., 

phytoplankton), macroalgae (e.g., seaweed), submerged rooted vegetation (e.g., seagrass), and 

emergent wetlands (e.g., cordgrass).

The euphotic zones of the water column in the Study Area are inhabited by phytoplankton, single-celled 

(sometimes filamentous or chain forming), free-floating algae primarily of four groups including bluegreen algae, dinoflagellates, coccolithophores, and diatoms. The importance of each group is 

summarized below (Levinton, 2013b, 2013c):

 Diatoms dominate the phytoplankton at high latitudes. They are single-celled organisms with 

shells made of silica, which sometimes form chains of cells. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.3-3

3.3 Vegetation

 Blue-green algae are found in and may dominate nearshore waters of restricted circulation 

and/or brackish (low salinity) waters as well as the open ocean. Blue-green algae convert 

atmospheric nitrogen to ammonia which can then be taken up by plants and animals.

 Dinoflagellates are covered with cellulose plates that dominate the phytoplankton at low 

latitudes and in summer and autumn at higher latitudes. Rapid population increases in 

dinoflagellates can result in “red tides” and “harmful algal blooms.” Toxins produced by some 

dinoflagellates accumulate in the animals that consume them and can cause poisoning among 

the higher level human and marine mammal consumers.

 Coccolithophores are nearly spherical and secrete a skeleton of calcium carbonate plates. They 

can be dominant in the phytoplankton of tropical as well as sub-polar seas. They account for 

approximately one-third of calcium carbonate production in the entire ocean.

Other types of algae that can also be abundant in the phytoplankton, although usually less so than the 

four groups above, include silicoflagellates, green algae, and cryptomonad flagellates (Levinton, 2013d).

Multicellular, macroscopic algae, commonly referred to as seaweeds, include green, brown, and red 

algae. Seaweeds have complex life histories; the stage that is attached to the hard substrate is called a 

thallus. The thallus may be attached by means of a specialized structure (the holdfast), and further 

differentiated into a stem-like structure (stipe), and flattened sections (blades or fronds) that are 

specialized for light capture, whereas other parts are specialized for reproduction or flotation (Levinton, 

2013d).

Algae distributions are shaped by water temperature differences that are directed by the Loop Current, 

Gulf Stream, and North Atlantic Gyre Open Ocean Areas (Spalding et al., 2003). The number of species 

and proportion of red, brown, and green algae vary along the coast of the Study Area. The overall 

number of species of red and green algae is higher than brown algae in the warmer waters of the 

Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf, Gulf of Mexico, and Caribbean Sea Large Marine Ecosystems. Brown 

algae species are more common in the colder waters of the Newfoundland-Labrador Shelf, Scotian Shelf, 

and Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf Large Marine Ecosystems (Dawes, 1998). 

Some of the common and ecologically important seaweeds found on shoreline and bottom habitats of 

the Study Area include the following:

 Sea lettuce (green algae comprising multiple species of Ulva) is abundant on intertidal sand and 

mudflats as well as on rocky shores throughout the Study Area. Sea lettuce is an important food 

source for fish and invertebrates.

 Rockweeds (brown algae including Ascophyllum nodosum and Fucus spp.) typically dominate the 

mid intertidal portions of rocky shores in the inshore waters and open coast of the North 

Atlantic coast. The rockweed canopy provides a protected habitat for other plants and 

invertebrates, as well as foraging habitat for fishes at high tide and shorebirds at low tide. 

 Kelps (brown algae of the genus Laminaria) are dominant on temperate, low intertidal and 

shallow subtidal rocky shores of the Study Area. Kelp beds are important 3-dimensional habitats 

for fish and invertebrates.

 Coralline algae (several genera of red algae) incorporate calcite into the thallus — which makes 

them relatively resistant to grazing — and include both crustose (flat) and foliose (branching) 

forms. Coralline algae contribute to reef development in tropical environments.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.3-4

3.3 Vegetation

In general, more delicate, highly branched or foliose seaweeds with high surface area are prevalent in 

low-energy, high-light environments, whereas crustose and robust forms with sturdy thalli and holdfasts 

are more prevalent in high energy environment (Levinton, 2013d; Peckol & Searles, 1984).

Finally, large areas of the western tropical to subtropical Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico, in both open ocean 

and coastal regions, are covered with floating mats of Sargassum (a brown alga). Sargassum mats are an 

important source of primary production, and constitute a type of Essential Fish Habitat (Gower & King, 

2008; Gower et al., 2013; South Atlantic Fishery Management Council, 2002). In recent years, 

accumulations of Sargassum along the Gulf of Mexico coast of the southern United States have led to 

eutrophication, fish die-offs, and have negatively affected local economies (Doyle & Franks, 2015).

Vascular plants in the Study Area have more limited distributions than algae (which are non-vascular)

and typically occur in intertidal to shallow (less than 40 feet [ft.]) subtidal waters, in soft substrate on 

low-energy (sheltered) shorelines (Green & Short, 2003). Vascular plants that can dominate the 

vegetation in such areas include seagrasses, cordgrasses, and mangroves, each of which provides a 

structurally distinct and ecologically important habitat. 

The relative distribution of seagrasses is influenced by the availability of suitable substrate occurring in 

low-wave energy areas at depths that allow sufficient light exposure for growth. Seagrasses as a rule 

require more light than algae, generally 15 to 25 percent of surface incident light (Fonseca et al., 1998; 

Green & Short, 2003). Seagrass species distribution is also influenced by water temperatures of the Loop 

Current, Florida Current, and Gulf Stream (Spalding et al., 2003).

The intertidal, emergent wetland vegetation of salt marshes throughout the Study Area typically 

includes a middle zone dominated by cordgrasses (Spartina spp.), which form dense colonies in coastal 

lagoons, tidal creeks or rivers, or estuaries, wherever the sediment is adequate to support plant root 

development (Levinton, 2013e; Mitsch et al., 2009). Other vascular plant species can be dominant below 

or above the cordgrass zones, or where oligohaline (low salinity) conditions prevail, as in the upper 

reaches of the inshore waters.

Mangroves and cordgrasses have similar requirements, but mangroves are not tolerant of freezing 

temperatures. Their occurrence on the Atlantic coast of the United States is concentrated in tropical and 

subtropical waters with sufficient freshwater input. Refer to Section 3.3.2.3 (Species Not Listed under 

the Endangered Species Act) for distribution information.

3.3.2.1.2 General Threats

Environmental stressors on marine vegetation are the result of human activities (industrial, residential, 

and recreational activities) and natural occurrences (e.g., storms, surf, and tides). 

Human-made stressors that act on marine vegetation include excessive nutrient input (such as 

fertilizers), siltation (the addition of fine particles to the ocean), pollution (oil, sewage, trash) (Mearns et 

al., 2011), climate change (Arnold et al., 2012; Doney et al., 2012; Martinez et al., 2012; Olsen et al., 

2012), fishing practices (Mitsch et al., 2009; Steneck et al., 2002), shading from structures, habitat 

degradation from construction and dredging (National Marine Fisheries Service, 2002), and introduced 

or invasive species (Hemminga & Duarte, 2000; Spalding et al., 2003; Williams & Smith, 2007). The 

seagrass, cordgrass, and mangrove taxonomic group is often more sensitive to stressors than the algal 

taxonomic groups, and their presence in the Study Area has decreased as a result. A review of seagrass 

from 1879 to 2006 found that global seagrass coverage decreased by 75 percent overall (Waycott et al., 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.3-5

3.3 Vegetation

2009). The great diversity of algae makes generalization difficult, but overall, algae are resilient and are 

able to colonize disturbed environments created by stressors (Levinton, 2013b).

Areas of tidal marsh are also diminished by sinking substrate, a process known as marsh subsidence.

Shoreline development can also have fairly severe impacts on coastal wetland habitats, including 

accelerated erosion, loss of fringing marshes, and increased scouring and turbidity in nearshore waters 

(Bozek & Burdick, 2005; National Research Council, 2007). Areal coverage of salt marsh typically 

dominated by cordgrass on the U.S. Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico coasts decreased dramatically during 

the 20th century, with additional losses of 1 and 1.8 percent on the Atlantic and Gulf coasts, respectively, 

from 1998 to 2004 (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration & U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

2008). Likewise, the global mangrove resource decreased by 50 percent from aquaculture, changes in 

hydrology (water movement and distribution), and sea level rise (Feller et al., 2010).

Each type of vegetation is sensitive to additional unique stressors as discussed below. 

3.3.2.1.2.1 Water Quality

Water quality in the Study Area is impacted by sedimentation and turbidity as well as the introduction of 

harmful contaminants. Common ocean pollutants include toxic compounds such as metals, herbicides, 

and other organic chemicals; excess nutrients from fertilizers and sewage; detergents; oil; and other 

solids. Coastal pollution and agricultural runoff may cause toxic red tide events in the Study Area (Hayes 

et al., 2007). Degraded water quality also has the potential to damage seagrass by stimulating algal 

growth, which results in negative impacts on seagrass habitat such as shading (Thomsen et al., 2012).

The majority of seagrass loss mentioned earlier (Waycott et al., 2009) is attributable to anthropogenic 

stressors, especially large-scale nutrient enrichment and sedimentation which reduces light penetration 

to the leaf (Dennison et al., 1993; Orth et al., 2006; Stevenson et al., 1993; Steward & Green, 2007; 

Twilley et al., 1985).

Oil in runoff from land-based sources, natural seeps, and accidental spills (such as offshore drilling and 

oil tanker leaks) are some of the major sources of pollution in the marine environment (Levinton, 

2013a). The type and amount of oil spilled, weather conditions, season, location, oceanographic 

conditions, and the method used to remove the oil (containment or chemical dispersants) are some of 

the factors that determine the severity of the impacts. Sensitivity to oil varies among species and within 

species, depending on the life stage; generally, early life stages are more sensitive than adult stages

(Hayes et al., 1992; Michel & Rutherford, 2013). The tolerance to oil pollutants varies among the types 

of marine vegetation, but their exposure to sources of oil pollutants makes them all vulnerable. 

Oil pollution, as well as chemical dispersants used in response to oil spills, can impact seagrasses directly 

by smothering the plants, or indirectly by lowering their ability to combat disease and other stressors

(Michel & Rutherford, 2013; U.S. National Response Team, 2010). Seagrasses that are totally submerged 

are less susceptible to oil spills since they largely escape direct contact with the pollutant. Depending on 

various factors, oil spills can result in a range of effects from no impact to long-lasting impacts, such as 

decreases in eelgrass density (Kenworthy et al., 1993; Peterson, 2001). Algae are relatively resilient to oil 

spills, while mangroves are highly sensitive to oil exposure. Contact with oil can cause mangrove death, 

leaf loss, and failure to germinate (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2002). Salt 

marshes (e.g., cordgrass) can also be severely impacted by oil spills, with long-term effects (Culbertson 

et al., 2008; Michel & Rutherford, 2013).
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.3-6

3.3 Vegetation

3.3.2.1.2.2 Commercial Industries

Seagrasses are uprooted by dredging, scarred by boat propellers (Hemminga & Duarte, 2000; Spalding et 

al., 2003), and uprooted and broken by anchors (Francour et al., 1999). Seagrass that is uprooted can 

take years to regrow (Dawes et al., 1997). A variety of commercial development, operations, and 

activities may impact marine vegetation (e.g., oil/gas development, telecommunications infrastructure, 

wind energy development, shipping and cruise vessels, commercial and recreational fishing, 

aquaculture, and eco-tourism) (Crain et al., 2009). Commercial activities are conducted under permits 

and regulations that require companies to avoid and minimize impacts to sensitive vegetation (e.g., 

seagrass, emergent wetlands). Commercial and recreational fishing in bays and estuaries directly and 

indirectly impacts seagrass beds and emergent wetlands in shallow coastal waters of the Southeast U.S. 

Continental Shelf, Caribbean Sea, and Gulf of Mexico Large Marine Ecosystems the Study Area. Physical 

damage to seagrass beds results from anchoring, propeller scarring, and the deployment of traps, trawl 

gear, and rakes to harvest fish and invertebrates; seagrass beds are slow to recover from damage. Boat 

wakes in sheltered inshore waters can erode shorelines and fringing wetlands that would otherwise be 

relatively stable (Fonseca & Malhotra, 2012; Parnell et al., 2007). Bottom disturbance incidental to 

fishing also increases turbidity, reducing seagrass establishment, growth, and recovery from disturbance

(Blaber et al., 2000). 

Sargassum is harvested as an adjunct for a variety of products including medicines, fertilizer, livestock 

feed and edible seaweed products. Harvesting too much Sargassum is a threat to this resource

(McHugh, 2003; Trono & Tolentino, 1993). To maintain this resource, Sargassum is managed under the 

Fishery Management Plan for Pelagic Sargassum Habitat of the South Atlantic Region due to its 

importance as Essential Fish Habitat for numerous species (South Atlantic Fishery Management Council, 

2002).

Kelp harvesting for edible seaweed is expanding as an industry in New England, raising concerns about 

the ecological effects of harvesting on the associated marine animals that depend on kelp beds as 

habitat. Maine has recently developed a rockweed fishery management plan aimed at ensuring the 

sustainable use of this resource (Maine Department of Marine Resources, 2014).

Finally, intensifying port development overlaps and threatens seagrass meadows in bays and estuaries 

throughout the world (Benham et al., 2016). Port development is accompanied by development of 

surrounding areas which tends to increase runoff and sedimentation; the construction of over-water 

structures that shade the bottom; and dredging, which eliminates shallow water habitat, reduces light 

availability by increasing turbidity, and also contributes to sedimentation. Shading and sedimentation 

have been shown to have combined negative effects on seagrass growth, indicating the potential for 

large-scale impacts to seagrass ecosystems from port development (Benham et al., 2016).

3.3.2.1.2.3 Disease and Parasites

Diseases and parasites are not known to constitute a major threat to marine vegetation at present. 

3.3.2.1.2.4 Invasive Species

Invasive species are those that have been introduced into an area and tend to spread rapidly, often 

aided by disturbed conditions and the absence of natural enemies, causing ecological and/or economic 

harm (National Ocean Service, 2015). Invasive species are inadvertently discharged in ballast water, 

arrive in “fouling” communities on boat hulls, and imported through aquaculture and the aquarium 

trade. Invasive marine species compete with and displace native marine vegetation, whereas invasive 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.3-7

3.3 Vegetation

invertebrate and fish species impact native marine vegetation through herbivory and more subtly 

through the alteration of ecological relationships. Changes in marine vegetation caused by invaders have 

cascading effects on the associated fish and invertebrate communities. The exact number of invasive 

species in the Study Area is uncertain but is undoubtedly in the hundreds given that at least 64 have 

been documented in the Gulf of Maine alone (Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council, 2010). At 

least 17 species of non-native marine algae are established in Massachusetts (Massachusetts Office of 

Coastal Zone Management, 2013).

Examples of invasive species’ impacts on vegetation in the Study Area include an invasive seagrass, 

Halophila stipulacea, from the Indian Ocean, that has recently become established in the Eastern 

Caribbean and is displacing the native seagrass, Syringodium filiforme (Willette & Ambrose, 2012). In 

emergent wetlands, cordgrasses are damaged by storms and have been replaced in many locations 

along the Atlantic coast in recent decades by an invasive non-native genotype of the common reed

(Phragmites australis). Whereas the native common reed is restricted to the upper fringes of salt 

marshes, the non-native genotype spreads throughout the intertidal zone and into freshwater marshes, 

displacing a variety of emergent wetland plants and altering the structure and function of marsh 

communities (Levinton, 2013b).

3.3.2.1.2.5 Climate Change

The impacts of anthropogenically induced climate change on the marine environments include rising sea 

levels, ocean acidification, increased sea temperature, and an increase in severe weather events. All of 

these changes may have impacts on vegetation in the Study Area. As described by Harley et al. (2006), 

“Abiotic changes in the environment have direct impacts on dispersal and recruitment, and on individual 

performance at various stages in the life cycle. Additional effects are felt at the community level via 

changes in the population size and per capita effects of interacting species. The proximate ecological 

effects of climate change thus include shifts in the performance of individuals, the dynamics of 

populations, and the structure of communities. Taken together, these proximate effects lead to 

emergent patterns such as changes in species distributions, biodiversity, productivity, and 

microevolutionary processes provide a general model of potential ecological responses to climate 

change.”

The most obvious consequence of sea level rise will be an upward shift in species distributions, but this 

can only occur along natural or undisturbed shorelines, where the overall photic zone can move upslope 

with sea level rise. Under such conditions, most species are expected to be able to keep pace with 

predicted rates of sea level rise, with the exception of some slow-growing, long lived species such as 

many corals (Knowlton & Kraus, 2001). The effect of sea level rise on bottom illumination is more 

significant along shorelines with artificial vertical stabilization (e.g., bulkheads, sea walls) that prevent 

upslope movement of shallow, nearshore habitats (Harley et al., 2006). However, dramatic ecological 

changes could result from decreased habitat availability within a particular depth zone. For example, 

intertidal habitat area may be reduced by 20 - 70 percent over the next 100 years in ecologically 

important North American bays, where steep topography and anthropogenic structures (e.g., sea walls) 

prevent the inland migration of mudflats and sandy beaches (Galbraith et al., 2005). Sea level rise may 

also reduce the spatial extent of biogenic habitat by outpacing the accretion rates of marshes and coral 

reefs (Knowlton & Kraus, 2001; Rabalais et al., 2002). 

Rising sea levels will alter the amount of sunlight reaching various areas, which may decrease the 

photosynthetic capabilities of vegetation in those areas. However, the fast growth and resilient nature 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.3-8

3.3 Vegetation

of vegetation may enable most species to adapt to these changes (Harley et al., 2006). Increased sea 

temperature may lead to several impacts that could affect vegetation. Warmer waters may lead to a 

greater stratification in the water column which may support harmful algal blooms (World Ocean 

Review, 2015). The stratification may also inhibit upwelling, as seen during El Niño events, which would 

prevent nutrients from circulating to the surface (Lehmköster, 2015; World Ocean Review, 2015). 

Additionally, increased sea temperatures may lead to changes in the composition of vegetation 

communities (Schiel et al., 2004). Increases in severe weather events may lead to increased erosion and 

sedimentation in the marine environments and higher energy wave action (Coelho et al., 2009).

Vegetation is susceptible to water quality changes from erosion and disturbances from storm events. 

Increased storm events are expected to have negative impacts on the species diversity in kelp 

ecosystems (Byrnes et al., 2011). The impacts of ocean acidification on vegetation are poorly understood

(Harley et al., 2006).

3.3.2.1.2.6 Marine Debris

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

abandoned into the marine environment. This includes materials such as plastic, glass, rubber, metal, as 

well as derelict (lost or abandoned) fishing gear and vessels, ranging in size from micrometers to meters 

(National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Marine Debris Program, 2016). Emergent wetland 

vegetation in coastal marshes can trap and concentrate debris, whether disposed of locally or brought in 

by waves and currents, along natural wrack lines. Heavy debris, such as tires, can physically damage or 

remove vegetation, and large pieces of plastic can cover the vegetation, reducing photosynthesis and 

productivity in marshes and submerged aquatic vegetation. Drifting debris can also impact marsh and 

mangrove productivity by clogging tidal channels and impeding circulation. Derelict fishing gear 

(especially traps) can tear, break, abrade, and remove submerged aquatic vegetation as it drifts along 

the bottom in shallow water. The severity of debris impacts is related to the type of debris, proximity to 

debris sources, and physical conditions that concentrate and lead to the accumulation of debris. 

Although marine debris impacts on vegetation are likely widespread, the magnitude (extent, and 

duration) of such impacts on vegetation communities and the associated fauna are poorly understood

(National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Marine Debris Program, 2016).

3.3.2.2 Endangered Species Act-Listed Species

One species of vegetation federally listed as endangered, threatened, candidate, or proposed under the 

ESA potentially occurs in the Study Area. That species, Johnson’s seagrass (Halophila johnsonii) (listed as 

threatened), is described below.

3.3.2.2.1 Johnson’s Seagrass (Halophila johnsonii)

3.3.2.2.1.1 Status and Management

In 1998, Johnson’s seagrass was the first marine plant species to be designated as federally threatened

under the ESA by NMFS (Federal Register 63[117]: 49035-49041, September 14, 1998). In 2000, 10 areas 

in Southeast Florida were designated as critical habitat (Federal Register 65[66]: 17786-17804, April 5, 

2000); see Figure 3.3-1. The general physical and biological features of the critical habitat areas are 

“adequate water quality, salinity levels, water transparency, and stable, unconsolidated sediments that 

are free from physical disturbance” (Federal Register 65[66]: 17786-17804, April 5, 2000). Designated 

critical habitat areas also fulfill one or more of the following five criteria (Federal Register 65[66]: 17786-

17804, April 5, 2000): 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.3-9

3.3 Vegetation

Notes: AFTT: Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing; OPAREA: Operating Area

Figure 3.3-1: Designated Critical Habitat Areas for Johnson’s Seagrass Adjacent to the Study Area
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.3-10

3.3 Vegetation

 locations with populations that have persisted for 10 years,

 locations with persistent flowering plant populations,

 locations at the northern and southern range limits of the species,

 locations with unique genetic diversity, and

 locations with a documented high abundance of Johnson’s seagrass compared to other areas in 

the species’ range.

3.3.2.2.1.2 Habitat and Geographic Range

The preferred habitat for Johnson’s seagrass is coastal lagoons and bays, from the area covered at high 

tide to depths of up to 3 m (National Marine Fisheries Service, 2002). It is found year-round in sediments 

of loose sand and silt-clay in beds with other species of seagrass (Creed et al., 2003; Eiseman & 

McMillan, 1980).

Johnson’s seagrass has a discontinuous and patchy distribution along the Southeast coast of Florida in 

the Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf Large Marine Ecosystem. This species is not found in any other 

large marine ecosystem or in any open ocean areas. It is reported to occur between 11.5 nautical miles 

(NM) north of Sebastian Inlet (Indian River Lagoon) and Biscayne Bay on the Southeast coast of Florida in 

lagoons and bays (Florida Department of Environmental Protection, 2010a; National Marine Fisheries 

Service, 2002). Although the geographic range of the species overlaps the Study Area, designated critical 

habitat areas do not; they are more limited and occur in parts of the Indian River Lagoon and Biscayne 

Bay in Florida (Figure 3.3-1). A recent study reported Johnson’s seagrass north of Sebastian Inlet, which 

extends the northern limit of this species by 11.5 (NM); the extension is considered temporary and only 

expected to occur under favorable conditions (Virnstein & Hall, 2009).

No training or testing activities are proposed in the lagoons or bays where Johnson’s seagrass occurs 

and they do not overlap with the critical habitat of this species. The naval facilities at Port Canaveral and 

the South Florida Ocean Measurement Facility Testing Range are the closest Navy training and testing 

areas to the distribution of Johnson’s seagrass. Taking the northern extension into consideration, the 

northern limit for Johnson’s seagrass is estimated to be 22 NM away from Port Canaveral. The South 

Florida Ocean Measurement Facility Testing Range is less than 2 NM away from Johnson’s seagrass 

critical habitat.

3.3.2.2.1.3 Population Trends

There are an estimated 502,000 acres (ac) of Johnson’s seagrass between Sebastian Inlet and Biscayne 

Bay, Florida (Florida Department of Environmental Protection, 2010a; National Marine Fisheries Service, 

2002). Population and abundance trends for this species are difficult to approximate due to its fairly 

recent identification as a distinct species (Eiseman & McMillan, 1980), short-lived nature, and rareness 

of quantitative population data (Creed et al., 2003; National Marine Fisheries Service, 2002; Virnstein et 

al., 2009). Since the 1970s, seagrass species have decreased by approximately 50 percent in the Indian 

River Lagoon, which constitutes a large part of the range for Johnson’s seagrass (Woodward-Clyde 

Consultants, 1994). This decline of seagrasses in the Indian River Lagoon was likely due to human 

impacts on water quality and marine substrates (Woodward-Clyde Consultants, 1994). Compared to 

other seagrasses within its range in the Indian River area (Hobe Sound, Jupiter Sound, and Fort Pierce 

Inlet), Johnson’s seagrass is the least abundant (Virnstein et al., 1997; Virnstein & Hall, 2009).
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.3-11

3.3 Vegetation

3.3.2.2.1.4 Species-Specific Threats

Johnson’s seagrass is vulnerable to the threats to seagrasses discussed in Section 3.3.2.1.2 (General 

Threats). This species is especially vulnerable to these threats because of its limited distribution and 

reproductive capability (no seed production), which result in its limited potential for recovery (National 

Marine Fisheries Service, 2002).

3.3.2.3 Species Not Listed Under the Endangered Species Act

Vegetation within the Study Area is comprised of many thousands of species of plants spanning many 

taxonomic groups (taxonomy is a method of classifying and naming organisms). For this analysis, 

vegetation has been divided into eight major taxonomic groups, referred to as phyla (plural of phylum), 

that have distinct morphological, biochemical, physiological, and life history traits that reflect their 

evolutionary history and influence their distributions and ecological relationships Table 3.3-1 below 

provides general descriptions of these major vegetation groups in the Study Area and their vertical 

distributions. Subsections following Table 3.3-1 describe these groups in more detail. The distribution 

and condition of abiotic (non-living) substrate associated with habitats for attached macroalgae and 

rooted vascular plants (e.g., seagrass), and the impact of stressors are described in Section 3.5 

(Habitats).

Table 3.3-1: Major Groups of Vegetation in Study Area

Major Vegetation Groups Distribution within Study Area2

Common Name1

(Taxonomic Group) Description Open Ocean

Large 

Marine 

Ecosystem

Inshore

Waters

Blue-green algae

(phylum 

Cyanobacteria)

Photosynthetic bacteria that are 

abundant constituents of phytoplankton 

and benthic algal communities, 

accounting for the largest fraction of 

carbon and nitrogen fixation by marine 

vegetation; existing as single cells or 

filaments, the latter forming mats or 

crusts on sediments and reefs.

Water 

column

Water 

column, 

bottom

Water 

column, 

bottom

Dinoflagellates

(phylum Dinophyta 

[Pyrrophyta])

Most are single-celled, marine species of 

algae with two whip-like appendages 

(flagella). Some live inside other 

organisms, and some produce toxins that 

can result in red tide or ciguatera 

poisoning. 

Water 

column

Water 

column

Water 

column

Green algae

(phylum Chlorophyta)

May occur as single-celled algae, 

filaments, and seaweeds. None

Water 

column, 

bottom

Water 

column, 

bottom

Coccolithophores 

(phylum Haptophyta 

[Chrysophyta, 

Prymnesiophyceae])

Single-celled marine phytoplankton that 

surround themselves with microscopic 

plates of calcite. They are abundant in the 

surface layer and are a major contributor 

to global carbon fixation.

Water 

column

Water 

column

Water 

column
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.3-12

3.3 Vegetation

Table 3.3-1: Major Groups of Vegetation in Study Area (continued)

Major Vegetation Groups Distribution within Study Area2

Common Name1

(Taxonomic Group) Description Open Ocean

Large 

Marine 

Ecosystem

Inshore 

Waters

Diatoms (phylum 

Ochrophyta 

[Heterokonta, 

Chrysophyta, 

Bacillariophyceae]) 

Single-celled algae with a cylindrical cell 

wall (frustule) composed of silica. Diatoms 

are a primary constituent of the 

phytoplankton and account up to 20 

percent of global carbon fixation.

Water 

column

Water 

column, 

bottom

Water 

column, 

bottom

Brown algae

(phylum Phaeophyta 

[Ochrophyta])

Brown algae are large multi-celled 

seaweeds that include vast floating mats 

of Sargassum.

Water 

column

Water 

column, 

bottom

Water 

column, 

bottom

Red algae

(phylum Rhodophyta)

Single-celled algae and multi-celled large 

seaweeds; some form calcium deposits.

Water 

column

Water 

column, 

bottom

Water 

column, 

bottom

Vascular plants 

(phylum 

Tracheophyta)

Includes seagrasses, cordgrass, 

mangroves and other rooted aquatic and 

wetland plants in marine and estuarine 

environments, providing food and habitat 

for many species.

None Bottom Bottom

Notes: 1Taxonomic groups are based on Roskov et al. (2015); (Ruggiero & Gordon, 2015). Alternative classifications are in 

brackets []. Phylum and division may be used interchangeably.

2Vertical distribution in the Study Area is characterized by open ocean oceanographic features (Labrador Current, Gulf 

Stream, and North Atlantic Gyre) or by coastal waters of large marine ecosystems (Caribbean Sea, Gulf of Mexico, 

Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf, Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf, Scotian Shelf, Newfoundland-Labrador Shelf, and 

West Greenland Shelf).

3.3.2.3.1 Blue-Green Algae (Phylum Cyanobacteria)

Blue-green algae are photosynthetic bacteria that include single-celled and filamentous forms that 

inhabit the lighted surface water and seafloor of the world’s oceans (Roskov et al., 2015). Like other 

bacteria, they are prokaryotes – their cells lack internal membrane-bound organelles such as a nucleus 

and they do not reproduce by mitosis. The remaining groups of plants discussed below are eukaryotes –

whose cells have internal organelles and reproduce by mitosis. Blue-green algae are important primary 

producers, accounting for much of the carbon (and nitrogen) fixation and oxygen production in the 

ocean. More than 1,000 species of blue-green algae occur in the Study Area (Castro & Huber, 2000). 

Blue-green algae are an important food source for both zooplankton (free-floating animals) and grazing 

organisms (e.g., molluscs: chitons and limpets) on the seafloor. Blue-green algae occur in all large 

marine ecosystems, open ocean areas, and inshore waters (e.g., lower Chesapeake Bay, Narragansett 

Bay, and St. Andrew Bay) of the Study Area. Common species of blue-green algae that occur in the Study 

Area are Microcystis aeruginosa and members of the genus Synechococcus.

3.3.2.3.2 Dinoflagellates (Phylum Dinophyta)

Dinoflagellates are single-celled, predominantly marine algae (Roskov et al., 2015). Together with 

diatoms and coccolithophorids, they constitute the majority of marine eukaryotic phytoplankton

(Marret & Zonneveld, 2003). Thousands of species live in the surface waters of the Study Area (Castro & 

Huber, 2000). Most dinoflagellates are photosynthetic, and many can also ingest small food particles. 

They occur in all large marine ecosystems, open ocean areas, and inshore waters of the Study Area. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.3-13

3.3 Vegetation

Photosynthetic dinoflagellate symbionts (zooxanthellae) live inside corals and are essential to 

calcification and reef-building. Organisms such as zooplankton feed on dinoflagellates. Some 

dinoflagellates produce toxins and are responsible for some types of harmful algal blooms caused by 

sudden increases of nutrients (e.g., fertilizers) from land into the ocean or changes in temperature and 

sunlight (Levinton, 2013a). Additional information on harmful algal blooms can be accessed on the 

Centers for Disease Control and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration websites. 

Common species of dinoflagellates that occur in the Study Area are Polysphaeridium zoharyi and 

Tectatodinium pellitum (Marret & Zonneveld, 2003).

3.3.2.3.3 Green Algae (Phylum Chlorophyta)

Green algae include single-celled and multi-celled types that form sheets or branched structures (Roskov 

et al., 2015). These multi-celled types of green algae are referred to as macroalgae (seaweed) (National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2011). Hundreds of marine species of green algae are 

common in well-lit, shallow water. Green seaweeds, like most macroalgae, are found attached to hard 

to intermediate (gravel to cobble-sized particles) substrate throughout the Study Area, although some 

species occur on firm sand and mud (Levinton, 2013a). Other types of green single-celled algae are 

planktonic (float freely in the ocean) and are found in the surface waters of the open ocean areas of the 

Study Area in addition to the areas where the macroalgae occur. Green algae species are eaten by 

various organisms, including zooplankton and snails. Some common species of green algae that occur in 

the Study Area are sea lettuce (Ulva lactuca) and members of the genus Enteromorpha.

3.3.2.3.4 Coccolithophores (Phylum Haptophyta)

Coccolithophores are single-celled phytoplankton that are especially abundant in tropical oceans but 

also bloom seasonally at higher latitudes. They are nearly spherical and covered with plates made of 

calcite (calcium carbonate) which account for approximately one-third of calcium carbonate production

in the ocean. They are an often abundant component of the phytoplankton and account for a large

fraction of primary production and carbon sequestration in the ocean. Blooms produce a strong bluishwhite reflection that may cover thousands of square miles (Levinton, 2013b).

3.3.2.3.5 Diatoms (Phylum Ochrophyta)

Diatoms are primarily planktonic (although many species are benthic), single-celled organisms with cell 

walls made of silica (Castro & Huber, 2000). Approximately 6,000 species of marine diatoms are known. 

Diatoms occur in the lighted areas - the upper 200 m (see Figure 3.0-3 in Section 3.0.2.2, Bathymetry) –

of the water column and benthic habitat throughout the Study Area. Diatoms also contribute 

significantly to the long-term sequestration of carbon in the oceans and are a major food source for 

zooplankton. The silica content of diatom cells has been shown to significantly affect zooplankton 

grazing, growth, and reproduction rates; rates are reduced when silica content is higher (Liu et al., 

2016).

3.3.2.3.6 Brown Algae (Phylum Phaeophyta)

Brown algae are predominately marine species with structures varying from fine filaments to thick 

leathery forms (Castro & Huber, 2000). Most species are attached to the seafloor in coastal waters

although a free-floating type of brown algae, Sargassum (Sargassum spp.) occurs in the Study Area. 

Another major type of brown macroalgae that occurs in the Study Area is kelp (Laminaria spp.). Kelp and 

Sargassum are discussed in more detail below.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.3-14

3.3 Vegetation

3.3.2.3.6.1 Kelp

Kelp is a general term that refers to brown algae of the order Laminariales. Kelp plants are made of 

three parts: the leaf-like blade(s), the stipe (a stem-like structure), and the holdfast (a root-like structure 

that anchors the plant to the bottom). Kelps are represented by three macroalgae species in the Study 

Area: Laminaria saccharina, Laminaria longicruris, and Laminaria digitata (Egan & Yarish, 1988). These 

species are prostrate; their blades form low beds covering the bottom (Steneck et al., 2002). Kelp are 

anchored to hard surfaces on the seafloor (Levinton, 2013b). These kelp species occur from the low tide 

line out to depths as great as 65 ft. (20 m) depending on the water clarity (Luning, 1990; Steneck et al., 

2002) along the rocky, northwest Atlantic shores in large subtidal stands where sufficient nutrients are 

available (Vadas et al., 2004). In the Study Area, Laminaria spp. occur from Greenland to Long Island in 

the Newfoundland-Labrador Shelf and Scotian Shelf Large Marine Ecosystems, and in the northern part 

of the Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf Large Marine Ecosystem (Mathieson et al., 2009; Steneck et al., 

2002). In Long Island Sound, one of the most extensive kelp beds, consisting of Laminaria longicuris, is at 

Black Ledge, Groton, Connecticut, just offshore of the Thames River Estuary. Growth rates of 1 inch (in.)

(2.5 centimeters [cm]) per day were measured at this location, which is also at the southern limit for 

kelp in the Study Area (Egan & Yarish, 1990). 

The primary productivity and structural complexity of kelp forests support diverse communities of fish 

and invertebrates. In addition, kelp beds are extremely important in moderating the effects of wave 

action on shorelines. Organisms such as sea urchins and crustaceans feed on kelp (Steneck et al., 2002).

3.3.2.3.6.2 Sargassum

The dominant open ocean species of Sargassum in the Study Area are Sargassum natans and Sargassum

fluitans. These species float freely on the sea surface and grow in clumps and mats (Coston-Clements et 

al., 1991). Accumulations of Sargassum are vital to some species and economically important to 

commercial fisheries and other industries. It provides foraging areas and habitat for marine organisms 

(e.g., sea turtles, birds, and fish) and raw materials for fertilizers and medicines (South Atlantic Fishery 

Management Council, 2002). Designated critical habitat for loggerhead sea turtles (Caretta caretta) 

includes Sargassum habitat, defined as developmental and foraging habitat for young loggerheads 

where surface waters form accumulations of floating material, especially Sargassum (50 CFR Part 226). 

See Sections 3.6 (Fishes), 3.7 (Marine Mammals), 3.8 (Reptiles), and 3.9 (Birds and Bats), for more 

information. 

Over-harvesting of Sargassum is a threat to this resource (McHugh, 2003; Trono & Tolentino, 1993). To 

maintain this resource, Sargassum is managed under the Fishery Management Plan for Pelagic 

Sargassum Habitat of the South Atlantic Region due to its importance as Essential Fish Habitat for 

numerous species (South Atlantic Fishery Management Council, 2002). 

In the Study Area, Sargassum is widely distributed in the Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf, Southeast 

U.S. Continental Shelf, Caribbean Sea, and Gulf of Mexico Large Marine Ecosystems, and in the Gulf 

Stream and North Atlantic Gyre Open Ocean Areas. In the North Atlantic, Sargassum occurs mainly 

within the physical bounds of the North Atlantic Gyre Open Ocean Area (see Figure 3.0-1), between 

latitudes 20 degrees (°) N and 40° N, and between longitude 30° W and the western edge of the Gulf 

Stream—a region known as the Sargasso Sea (Gower et al., 2006; South Atlantic Fishery Management 

Council, 2002). Some exchange occurs among the Sargassum populations in the Caribbean Sea, Gulf of 

Mexico, and the North Atlantic. Recent satellite image evidence suggests that Sargassum originates in 

the northwest Gulf of Mexico every spring and is moved into the Atlantic east of Cape Hatteras in late 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.3-15

3.3 Vegetation

summer by the Loop Current and Gulf Stream, and later appears Northeast of the Bahamas in the 

beginning of the next year (Gower & King, 2008). See Section 3.0.2.3 (Currents, Circulation Patterns, and 

Water Masses) for more information on the Loop Current and Gulf Stream.

The difficulty of tracking and sampling Sargassum makes acquiring information about its distribution and 

abundance difficult. Estimates based on towed net samples for the North Atlantic range from 4.4 to 

12 million U.S. tons (Butler et al., 1983; South Atlantic Fishery Management Council, 2002). A more 

recent estimate based on satellite imaging data puts the average total mass of Sargassum at 2 million 

U.S. tons in the Gulf of Mexico and the Atlantic (1 million U.S. tons in each) (Gower & King, 2008). Using 

the low and high abundance estimates (2 million U.S. tons to 12 million U.S. tons) and a conversion 

factor of 25 grams per square meter of Sargassum (Gower et al., 2006), approximately 21,000 square 

nautical miles (NM2) to 130,000 NM2 of the Study Area is covered by Sargassum. Given the size of the 

Study Area (approximately 2.6 million NM2), the relative coverage of Sargassum ranges from less than 

1 percent to 5 percent of the sea surface.

3.3.2.3.7 Red Algae (Phylum Rhodophyta)

Red algae are predominately marine, with approximately 4,000 species of microalgae worldwide (Castro 

& Huber, 2000). Red macroalgae species have various forms from fine filaments to thick calcium 

carbonate crusts and require a surface to attach to such as hard bottom or another plant. Red 

macroalgae and some microalgae species are found attached to the seafloor or on sediment, 

respectively, in all of the large marine ecosystems and the inshore waters of the Study Area (Adey & 

Hayek, 2011; Levinton, 2013b). Planktonic microalgae are present in the surface waters of the open 

ocean areas of the Study Area in addition to the areas where the macroalgae occur. Some common 

species of red algae that occur in the Study Area are in the genus Lithothamnion (crustose coralline 

algae). Red algae are a food source for various zooplankton, sea urchins, fishes, and chitons.

3.3.2.3.8 Seagrasses, Cordgrasses, and Mangroves (Phylum Spermatophyta)

3.3.2.3.8.1 Seagrasses

Seagrasses are unique among flowering plants in their ability to grow submerged in shallow marine 

environments. Seagrasses grow predominantly in shallow, subtidal, or intertidal sediments sheltered 

from wave action in estuaries, lagoons, and bays (Phillips & Meñez, 1988) and can extend over a large 

area to form seagrass beds (Garrison, 2004; Gulf of Mexico Program, 2004; Phillips & Meñez, 1988). 

Seagrasses, including ESA-listed Johnson’s seagrass, serve as a food source for numerous species (e.g., 

green sea turtles, West Indian manatees, and various plant-eating fishes) (Heck et al., 2003; National 

Marine Fisheries Service, 2010). Seagrasses also constitute Essential Fish Habitat for managed fisheries 

and are important as nursery habitat for juvenile stages along the eastern seaboard (South Atlantic 

Fishery Management Council, 2009). Seagrass meadows may provide an “acoustic refuge” for fish by 

impeding the transmission of high-frequency clicks used by bottlenose dolphins to detect fish, while 

enhancing the transmission of low-frequency sounds used in fish communication (Wilson et al., 2013).

Seagrasses occur in all Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico coastal states, except for Georgia and South Carolina

(Fonseca et al., 1998). In the Study Area, seagrasses grow from the intertidal zone to a maximum depth 

of 295 ft. (90 m) as reported for Halophila engelmannii in the clear, protected waters off southern 

Florida (Ferguson & Wood, 1994; Florida Department of Environmental Protection, 2010b; Fourqurean 

et al., 2002; Green & Short, 2003; Gulf of Mexico Program, 2004). 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.3-16

3.3 Vegetation

Depth limits for seagrasses in inshore portions of the Study Area are 6 m in Narragansett Bay

(Narragansett Bay Estuary Program, 2010), 1 m in Chesapeake Bay (Orth & Moore, 1988), and 2.4 m in 

St. Andrew Bay (Florida Department of Environmental Protection, 2010b). The largest area of seagrass in 

the Study Area occurs in the Gulf of Mexico Large Marine Ecosystem, followed by the Southeast 

U.S. Continental Shelf, and the Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf Large Marine Ecosystems (see Figure 

3.3-2 through Figure 3.3-4 and Table 3.3-2) (Spalding et al., 2003). The vast majority of the mapped 

seagrass area is located within inshore waters or very close to shore in the nearshore-estuarine 

environment; unvegetated beaches or vegetated rocky shores border the vast majority of the 

oceanic/marine portion of the Study Area.

Table 3.3-2: Presences of Seagrass Species within the Study Area

Seagrass Species Presence in the Study Area1

Clover grass (Halophila baillonii) Gulf of Mexico, Caribbean Sea

Eelgrass (Zostera marina)

West Greenland Shelf, Newfoundland-Labrador Shelf, Scotian 

Shelf, Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf

Engelmann's seagrass (Halophila 

engelmannii)

Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf, Gulf of Mexico, Caribbean Sea

Johnson’s seagrass (Halophila johnsonii) Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf

Manatee grass (Syringodium filiforme) Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf, Gulf of Mexico, Caribbean Sea

Paddle grass (Halophila decipiens) Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf, Gulf of Mexico, Caribbean Sea

Shoal grass (Halodule wrightii)

Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf, Southeast U.S. Continental 

Shelf, Gulf of Mexico, Caribbean Sea

Turtlegrass (Thalassia testudinum) Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf, Gulf of Mexico, Caribbean Sea

Widgeon grass (Ruppia maritima)

Newfoundland-Labrador Shelf, Scotian Shelf, Northeast 

U.S. Continental Shelf, Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf, Gulf of 

Mexico, Caribbean Sea

Note(s): 1Presence in the Study Area indicates the coastal waters of large marine ecosystems (Gulf of Mexico, Southeast 

U.S. Continental Shelf, Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf, Caribbean Sea, Scotian Shelf, Newfoundland-Labrador Shelf, and 

West Greenland Shelf) in which the species are found.

Source(s): Spalding et al. (2003)

3.3.2.3.8.2 Cordgrasses

The most common plant species of salt and brackish marshes in the Study Area is known as smooth or 

salt marsh cordgrass (Spartina alterniflora) (Mitsch et al., 2009). Cordgrasses and other emergent 

wetland species are salt-tolerant, moderate-weather (temperate) species and an integral component of 

salt and brackish marsh vegetation in the Study Area. Salt and brackish marshes develop in intertidal, 

protected low-energy environments, usually in coastal lagoons, tidal creeks or rivers, or estuaries. The 

difference between salt and brackish marsh is based on salinity, reflecting the amount of freshwater 

inflow: salt marshes have salinities of 18 - 30 parts per thousand (ppt), whereas brackish marshes have 

salinities of 0.5 -18 ppt (Mitsch et al., 2009). Brackish marshes occur where there is freshwater inflow, 

i.e., in the inshore waters of the Study Area. Brackish marsh dominants include other species of 

cordgrass (Spartina spp.), giant reed (Phragmites australis), cattails (Typha spp.), and bulrushes 

(Bolboschoenus and Schoenoplectus spp.) (Beckett et al., 2016; Massachusetts Natural Heritage and 

Endangered Species Program, 2016; Pennings et al., 2012; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1999).
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.3-17

3.3 Vegetation

Notes: AFTT: Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing; OPAREA: Operating Area; SINKEX: Ship Sinking Exercise; VACAPES: Virginia 

Capes 

Figure 3.3-2: Seagrass Occurrence in Mid-Atlantic and New England
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.3-18

3.3 Vegetation

Notes: AFTT: Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing; OPAREA: Operating Area 

Figure 3.3-3: Seagrass Occurrence in South Florida
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS V4 September 2018

3.3-19

3.3 Vegetation

Notes: AFTT: Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing; OPAREA: Operating Area 

Figure 3.3-4: Seagrass Occurrence in the Gulf of Mexico
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.3-20

3.3 Vegetation

Salt and brackish marshes are the dominant coastal wetland types along much of the Atlantic and Gulf

Coasts of the United States. Cordgrasses occur in salt marshes from Maine to Florida, and along the Gulf 

of Mexico from Louisiana to Texas (Mitsch et al., 2009). On shorelines bordering the Study Area, the 

largest areas of cordgrass-dominated salt marsh are in the Gulf of Mexico Large Marine Ecosystem,

covering an estimated 2,498,225 ac (1,011,000 hectares [ha]), while an additional 1,653,130 ac (669,000 

ha) of salt marsh occurs in the Northeast and Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf Large Marine Ecosystems

(Watzin & Gosselink, 1992). The vast majority of marsh shoreline, however, is located within inshore

waters along soft shorelines, mostly outside of the Study Area, e.g., upstream in tidal creeks and on the 

upper part of the shore. Beaches or rocky shores border the vast majority of the oceanic portion of the 

Study Area (Spalding et al., 2003).

3.3.2.3.8.3 Mangroves

Mangroves are a group of woody plants that have adapted to estuarine environments (where salt water 

and freshwater mix) (Ruwa, 1996). Mangroves inhabit marshes and mudflats in tropical and subtropical 

areas. Within the Study Area, three mangrove species occur in the Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf and 

Gulf of Mexico Large Marine Ecosystems (Table 3.3-3). Mangroves occur from Cedar Key to Cape 

Canaveral, Florida (Mitsch et al., 2009). The northern limit for mangroves in Florida is St. Augustine. The 

largest continuous tract of mangrove forest in the Study Area is found in the Florida Everglades system

(U.S. Geological Survey, 2003).

Table 3.3-3: Presence of Mangrove Species in the Study Area

Mangrove Species Presence in the Study Area1

Red mangrove (Rhizophora mangle) Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf, Gulf of Mexico, Caribbean Sea

Black mangrove (Avicennia germinans) Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf, Gulf of Mexico, Caribbean Sea

White mangrove (Laguncularia racemosa) Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf, Gulf of Mexico, Caribbean Sea

Sources: (Ellison et al., 2007a, 2007b, 2007c)

Notes: 1Presence in the Study Area indicates the coastal waters of large marine ecosystems (Gulf of Mexico, Southeast U.S. 

Continental Shelf, Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf, Caribbean Sea, Scotian Shelf, Newfoundland-Labrador Shelf, and 

West Greenland Shelf) in which the species are found.

3.3.3 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

This section evaluates how and to what degree the activities described in Chapter 2 (Description of 

Proposed Action and Alternatives) potentially impact vegetation known to occur within the Study Area. 

Tables 2.6-1 through 2.6-4 present the baseline and proposed typical training and testing activity 

locations for each alternative (including number of annual events). General characteristics of all Navy 

stressors were introduced in Section 3.0.3.3 (Identifying Stressors for Analysis), and the susceptibility to 

stressors for living resources were introduced in Section 3.0.3.6 (Biological Resource Methods). The 

stressors vary in intensity, frequency, duration, and location within the Study Area. Each stressor is 

discussed below, and those that are applicable (having potential impacts) to vegetation are listed below 

and analyzed for impacts.

 Explosives (explosions in-air, explosions in-water)

 Physical disturbance and strikes (vessels and in-water devices, aircraft and aerial targets, 

military expended materials, seafloor devices, pile driving)

 Secondary stressors (impacts to habitat, impacts to prey availability) 

The analysis includes consideration of the mitigation that the Navy will implement to avoid potential

impacts on vegetation from explosives and from physical disturbance and strikes. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.3-21

3.3 Vegetation

3.3.3.1 Acoustic Stressors

There is no evidence that underwater acoustic stressors impact marine vegetation. Acoustic stressors 

therefore are not applicable and will not be analyzed in this section.

3.3.3.2 Explosive Stressors

3.3.3.2.1 Impacts from Explosives

Various types of explosives are used during training and testing activities. The type, number, and 

location of activities that use explosives are described in Section 3.0.3.3.2 (Explosive Stressors) and the 

resulting footprints on bottom habitats are quantified in Appendix F (Military Expended Materials and 

Direct Strike Impact Analysis) and summarized in Section 3.5 (Habitats). Most detonations would occur 

in waters greater than 200 ft. in depth and more than 3 NM from shore. 

The potential for an explosion to injure or destroy vegetation would depend on the amount of 

vegetation present, the number of munitions used, and their net explosive weights. In areas where 

vegetation and locations for explosions overlap, vegetation on the surface of the water, in the water 

column, or rooted in the seafloor may be impacted. 

Single-celled algae likely overlap with underwater and sea surface explosion locations. If single-celled 

algae are in the immediate vicinity of an explosion, only a small number of them are likely to be 

impacted relative to their total population-level. Additionally, the extremely fast growth rate and 

ubiquitous distribution of phytoplankton (Caceres et al., 2013; Levinton, 2013b) suggest no meaningful 

impact on this resource. The low number of explosions in the water column relative to the amount of 

single-celled algae in the Study Area also decreases the potential for impacts. The impact on singlecelled algae populations would not be detectable; therefore, it will not be discussed further. 

Macroalgae attached to the seafloor, floating Sargassum, and seagrasses may all occur in locations 

where explosions are conducted and may be adversely impacted for different reasons. Much of the 

attached macroalgae grows on hard bottom areas and artificial structures.

Attached macroalgae grow quickly and are resilient to high levels of wave action (Mach et al., 2007), 

which may aid in their ability to recover from and withstand wave action caused by underwater 

explosions near them on the seafloor. Floating Sargassum is more resilient to physical disturbance than 

seagrass, but there are more explosions on or near the surface where they co-occur. Seagrasses (i.e., 

submerged aquatic vegetation) take longer to recover from physical disturbance than macroalgae, but 

activities involving explosions on the seabed will not be conducted within a 350-yd. radius of submerged 

aquatic vegetation, with the exception of designated locations such as Truman Harbor and Demolition 

Key (in the Key West Range Complex), where these resources will be avoided to the maximum extent 

practicable (Table 5.4-1). Neither the ESA-listed species Johnson’s seagrass, nor its critical habitat, 

overlap areas that would be subject to impacts from explosives. 

Attached macroalgae typically need hard or artificial substrate in order to grow. The potential 

distribution of attached macroalgae can be inferred by the presence of hard or artificial substrate that 

occurs at depths of less than 200 m throughout the Study Area, although most macroalgae growth and

kelp in, particular, in the Study Area occurs at depths less than about 45 m, depending on water clarity, 

temperature, and nutrients (Peckol & Ramus, 1988). See Section 3.5 (Habitats) for information regarding 

the distribution of hard substrate in the Study Area. Calculations in Appendix F (Military Expended 

Materials and Direct Strike Calculations) indicate that only a very small fraction of the total amount of 

hard substrate in any part of the Study Area would be impacted by explosives. As a result, if attached 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.3-22

3.3 Vegetation

macroalgae are in the immediate vicinity of an explosion, only a small number of them are likely to be 

impacted relative to their total population-level.

Sargassum distribution is difficult to predict (Gower & King, 2008; South Atlantic Fishery Management 

Council, 2002) and it may overlap with any of the locations where sea surface and underwater 

explosions are conducted. Only explosions occurring on or at shallow depth beneath the surface have 

the potential to impact floating macroalgae like Sargassum. In the Study Area, the relative coverage of 

Sargassum is very low ranging from less than 1 percent to 5 percent of the sea surface; see Section 

3.3.2.3.5 (Diatoms and Brown Algae [Phylum Ochrophyta]) for details. Sargassum may be impacted by 

surface disturbances from shallow underwater or sea surface explosions, although Sargassum is resilient

to natural conditions caused by wind, wave action, and severe weather that may break apart pieces of 

the mat or cause the mats to sink. In the unlikely situation that a Sargassum mat is broken by an 

explosion, the broken pieces may develop into new Sargassum mats because Sargassum reproduces by 

vegetative fragmentation (new plants develop from pieces of the parent plant) (South Atlantic Fishery 

Management Council, 1998). Impacts to Sargassum from explosions may potentially collapse the 

pneumatocysts (air sacs) that keep the mats floating at the surface. Evidence suggests that Sargassum

will remain floating even when up to 80 percent of the pneumatocysts are removed (Zaitsev, 1971). So 

even if an explosion caused the collapse of most of a Sargassum mat’s pneumatocysts, it may not cause 

it to sink. 

Ship shock trials employ the underwater detonation of large explosives but occur in designated areas 

well offshore, in waters too deep for bottom impacts (see Figure 2.3-1). As described above, Sargassum 

is fairly resilient to damage from explosions, and procedural mitigation for ship shock trials (Table 5.3-

17) includes the avoidance of mats of floating vegetation. Accordingly, ship shock trials would not affect 

attached or floating vegetation and will not be analyzed further in this section.

The potential for seagrass to overlap with underwater and surface explosions is limited to the Key West 

Range Complex based on relevant mapping data, Figure 3.3-3 (Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation 

Commission-Fish and Wildlife Research Institute, 2012). Seagrasses may potentially be uprooted or 

damaged by sea surface or underwater explosions. They are much less resilient to disturbance relative 

to Sargassum; regrowth after uprooting can take up to 10 years (Dawes et al., 1997). Explosions may 

also temporarily increase the turbidity (sediment suspended in the water) of nearby waters, but the 

sediment would be expected to settle or disperse to pre-explosion conditions within a relatively short 

time (minutes to hours depending on sediment type and currents). Sustained high levels of turbidity 

may reduce the amount of light that reaches vegetation which it needs to survive. This scenario is not 

likely given the avoidance of explosions in almost all areas where seagrasses grow, i.e., estuaries, 

lagoons, and bays (Phillips & Meñez, 1988), and the use of best available georeferenced data to avoid 

submerged aquatic vegetation to the maximum extent practicable as described in Section 5.4.1.2 

(Mitigation Area Assessment).

3.3.3.2.1.1 Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 1

Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 1 for Training Activities

Under Alternative 1, vegetation would be exposed to surface and underwater explosions and associated 

underwater impulsive sounds from high-explosive munitions (including bombs, missiles, torpedoes, 

medium- and large-caliber projectiles), mines, and demolition charges. Explosives would be used 

throughout the Study Area but typically in the Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf, Southeast 

U.S. Continental Shelf, and Gulf of Mexico Large Marine Ecosystems and in the Gulf Stream Open Ocean 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.3-23

3.3 Vegetation

Area. Explosives at or beneath the water surface would be used in all training range complexes. The only 

underwater explosions in the Key West Range Complex would result from use of 10- to 60-lb. shaped 

charges placed on the bottom by divers. Training activities involving the use of explosives are listed in 

Table B-1 of Appendix B (Activity Stressor Matrices), whereas the number and proposed locations of 

those activities are presented in Table 2.6-1 of Chapter 2 (Description of Proposed Action and 

Alternatives). A discussion of explosives and the number of detonations in each source class are 

provided in Section 3.0.3.3.2 (Explosive Stressors). The largest source class proposed for training under 

Alternative 1 is E12 (650 - 1,000 lb. net explosive weight), used during bombing exercises (air-to-surface) 

and sinking exercises.

Impacts to algae near the surface (phytoplankton and Sargassum) would be localized and temporary as 

discussed above and are unlikely to affect the abundance, distribution or productivity of vegetation. As 

discussed above, the depths, substrates, and relatively small areas of explosive footprints in comparison 

to vegetation distributions and total habitat areas in the Study Area indicate relatively little potential 

overlap between explosive footprints and the distribution of attached macroalgae or seagrasses. In 

addition, 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 live hard bottom 

and submerged aquatic vegetation, except in designated locations, such as at Truman Harbor and 

Demolition Key, where these resources will be avoided to the maximum extent practicable (Table 5.4-1). 

Furthermore, the majority of explosions take place in soft bottom habitats as described in Section 3.5 

(Habitats). As a result, explosions would have (if any) localized, temporary impacts consisting of damage 

to or the removal of individual plants and relatively small patches of vegetation. Vegetation is expected 

to regrow or recolonize the open patches created by explosives within a fairly short time (less than one 

year), resulting in no long-term effects on the productivity or distribution of attached macroalgae or 

seagrasses. Similarly, for Sargassum floating on the surface, explosions may shred individual plants in 

patches of Sargassum, but vegetative regrowth as well as the redistribution of Sargassum by currents 

would occur, resulting in only localized, temporary effects on distribution, cover and productivity. As 

described in Chapter 5 (Mitigation), activities that use explosives would not commence when

concentrations of floating vegetation are observed prior to an activity, although Sargassum could be 

impacted where small patches are undetected or it drifts into the area after the activity starts. While the 

intent of the mitigation measure is to avoid impacting animals often associated with Sargassum mats, 

the mitigation provides the secondary effect of minimizing potential damage to Sargassum itself.

Based on Appendix F (Military Expended Material and Direct Strike Impact Analysis, Tables F-25 and F33), it is estimated that over a 5-year period, a total of approximately 44.0 ac of bottom habitat would 

be impacted by explosives from training activities under Alternative 1. Eighty-nine percent of the area 

potentially impacted would be soft bottom habitat and thus have no direct impact on vegetation. The

area of attached macroalgae habitats potentially impacted represents a very small fraction of the 

habitat within each training area and the Study Area as a whole, and much of that area would be 

avoided with the implementation of mitigation for seafloor resources or too deep for bottom impacts 

from surface explosions. The greatest potential for impacts on attached macroalgae would be on 

relatively small patches of hard or intermediate substrate that are unmapped or otherwise not included 

in the Protective Measures Assessment Protocol. Temporary disturbance of these habitats is not 

expected to affect the distribution, abundance, or productivity of vegetation.

As discussed in Section 5.3.3 (Explosive Stressors) and Section 5.4 (Mitigation Areas to be Implemented), 

the Navy will implement mitigation to avoid impacts from explosives on marine mammals and sea 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.3-24

3.3 Vegetation

turtles (wherever activities occur) and on seafloor resources (within mitigation areas throughout the 

Study Area). 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. For applicable explosive activities, 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 the floating vegetation concentrations (there is no 

requirement to halt activities if vegetation floats into the mitigation zone after activities commence). 

One example of a mitigation designed for marine mammals and sea turtles that will consequently also 

help avoid potential impacts on vegetation is a requirement for the Navy to avoid commencing 

detonations within 600 yd. of an explosive sonobuoy if floating vegetation is observed. One example of a 

mitigation for seafloor resources is that the Navy will not conduct explosive mine countermeasure and 

neutralization activities within a specified distance of shallow-water coral reefs, live hard bottom 

habitat, artificial reefs, and shipwrecks The mitigation for seafloor resources will consequently also help 

avoid potential impacts on vegetation that occurs in these areas.

The overlap of seagrass with this stressor does not include ESA-listed Johnson’s seagrass (Figure 3.3-1), 

and the annual impact footprint of the planned underwater explosions on bottom habitats in the Key 

West Range Complex is estimated as only 0.20 ac under Alternative 1 for training activities (Appendix F

[Military Expended Materials and Direct Strike Impact Analysis, Table F-22]). Explosive activities would 

not be conducted within 350 yd. of submerged aquatic vegetation except in designated areas which 

have been used historically, and where submerged aquatic vegetation would be avoided to the 

maximum extent practicable (Table 5.4-1). Thus only a very small area of seagrass could be impacted

relative to the gross estimation of 130 NM2 of seagrass in the range complex. Underwater explosions 

conducted for training activities are not expected to cause any risk to seagrass because: (1) the potential 

impact area of underwater explosions is very small relative to seagrass distribution, (2) the low number 

of charges reduces the potential for impacts, (3) disturbance (substrate disruption and turbidity) would 

be temporary, and 4) most importantly, the designation of submerged aquatic vegetation as a mitigation 

area, as well as the proximity of seagrass to shallow-water coral reefs, live hard bottom, and other 

mitigation areas (see Figures 3.4-8 and 3.4-9) protects large areas of seagrass from explosives training. 

Underwater and surface explosions are not anticipated to affect any of the general physical and 

biological features of critical habitat or areas that meet critical habitat criteria for Johnson’s seagrass.

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of explosives during training activities as described under Alternative 1 

would have no effect on Johnson’s seagrass or its designated critical habitat.

Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 1 for Testing Activities

Under Alternative 1, vegetation would be exposed to explosions at or beneath the water surface and the 

associated underwater impulsive sounds from high-explosive munitions (including bombs, missiles, 

torpedoes, and naval gun shells), mines, demolition charges, explosive sonobuoys, and ship shock trial 

charges. Explosives would be used throughout the Study Area, but most typically in the Northeast 

U.S. Continental Shelf, Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf, Gulf of Mexico, and Caribbean Sea Large Marine 

Ecosystems and in the Gulf Stream Open Ocean Area. Underwater explosions at or near the water 

surface could occur in all of the testing ranges and range complexes. Testing activities involving the use 

of explosives are listed in Table B-2 of Appendix B (Activity Stressor Matrices), whereas the number and 

proposed locations of those activities are presented in Table 2.6-2 and Table 2.6-3 of Chapter 2 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.3-25

3.3 Vegetation

(Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives). A discussion of explosives and the number of 

detonations in each source class are provided in Section 3.0.3.3.2 (Explosive Stressors). The largest 

source class proposed for annually occurring testing under Alternative 1 is E14 (1,741 to 3,625 lb. net 

explosive weight), used during mine warfare testing at Naval Surface Warfare Center, Panama City 

Division Testing Range. Larger source classes may be used in the Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf Large 

Marine Ecosystem, Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf Large Marine Ecosystem, and in the Gulf Stream 

Open Ocean Area during ship shock trials of three platforms in the Virginia Capes, Jacksonville, or Gulf of 

Mexico Range Complexes. Large ship shock trials could use charges up to source class E17 (14,500 -

58,000 lb. net explosive weight), while small ship shock trials could use charges up to source class E16 

(7,250 - 14,500 lb. net explosive weight). Each full ship shock trial would use up to four of these charges 

in total (each one detonated about a week apart). In addition, use of explosives would occur in the Key 

West Range Complex during sonobuoy lot acceptance testing and at Naval Surface Warfare Center,

Panama City Division for line charge testing.

Impacts to algae near the surface (phytoplankton and Sargassum) would be localized and temporary as 

discussed above for training activities and are unlikely to affect the abundance, distribution, or 

productivity of vegetation. As discussed above, the depths, substrates, and relatively small areas of 

explosive footprints in comparison to vegetation distributions and total habitat areas in the Study Area 

indicate relatively little overlap between explosive footprints and the distribution of attached 

macroalgae or seagrasses. As a result, explosions would have (if any) localized, temporary impacts 

consisting of damage to or the removal of individual plants and relatively small patches of vegetation. 

Vegetation is expected to regrow or recolonize the open patches created by explosives within a fairly 

short time (less than one year), resulting in no long-term effects on the productivity or distribution of 

attached macroalgae or seagrasses. Similarly, for Sargassum floating on the surface, explosions may 

shred individual plants in patches of Sargassum, but vegetative regrowth as well as the redistribution of 

Sargassum by currents would occur, resulting in only localized, temporary effects on distribution, cover,

and productivity. 

Based on Appendix F (Military Expended Material and Direct Strike Impact Analysis, Table F-34), it is

estimated that over a 5-year period, a total of approximately 43.5 ac of bottom habitat would be 

impacted by the crater, expelled material, and explosive fragments associated with explosive testing 

activities under Alternative 1. Eighty-three percent of the area impacted would be offshore soft bottom 

habitat and thus have no effect on vegetation that is limited to hard substrate. The impacted area of 

hard and intermediate bottom habitat, as well as inshore soft bottom habitat represents a very small 

fraction of the habitat within each range and the Study Area as a whole. With the exception of line 

charge testing, which occurs in the surf zone at Naval Surface Warfare Center Panama City Division 

(Table 2.6-3; see activity description in Appendix A, A.3.2.7.3), most of the area affected would be too 

deep to support benthic algae. Line charge testing at Naval Surface Warfare Center Panama City Division

occurs on sandy bottom habitats that do not support seagrass or algae. As a result, temporary 

disturbance of these habitats is not expected to affect the distribution, abundance, or productivity of 

vegetation.

As discussed in Section 5.3.3 (Explosive Stressors) and Section 5.4 (Mitigation Areas to be Implemented), 

the Navy will implement mitigation to avoid impacts from explosives on marine mammals and sea 

turtles (wherever activities occur) and on seafloor resources (within mitigation areas throughout the 

Study Area). 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 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.3-26

3.3 Vegetation

among them. For example, young sea turtles have been known to hide from predators and eat the algae 

associated with floating concentrations of Sargassum. For applicable explosive activities, 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 the floating vegetation concentrations (there is no 

requirement to halt activities if vegetation floats into the mitigation zone after activities commence). 

One example of a mitigation designed for marine mammals and sea turtles that will consequently also 

help avoid potential impacts on vegetation is a requirement for the Navy to avoid commencing 

detonations within 600 yd. of an explosive sonobuoy if floating vegetation is observed. A prime example 

of mitigation for seafloor resources is that the Navy will not conduct explosive mine countermeasure 

and neutralization activities within 350 yd. of submerged aquatic vegetation, shallow-water coral reefs, 

live hard bottom, artificial reefs, and shipwrecks except in designated locations, where these resources 

will be avoided to the maximum extent practicable (Table 5.4-1). The mitigation for seafloor resources 

will consequently also help avoid and minimize potential impacts on vegetation that occurs in these 

areas.

The overlap of seagrass with this stressor does not include ESA-listed Johnson’s seagrass (Figure 3.3-1), 

although explosives would be used for testing activities in the Key West Range Complex under 

Alternative 1 (Table 3.0-28).

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of explosives during testing activities as described under Alternative 1 

would have no effect on Johnson’s seagrass or its designated critical habitat.

3.3.3.2.1.2 Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 2

Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 2 for Training Activities

Impacts from explosives under Alternative 2 for training activities would be virtually identical (less than 

1 percent difference in any location or overall) to those of Alternative 1 (Appendix F [Military Expended 

Materials and Direct Strike Impact Analysis, Table F-33]). 

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of explosives during training activities as described under Alternative 2 

would have no effect on Johnson’s seagrass or its designated critical habitat.

Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 2 for Testing Activities

Impacts from explosives under Alternative 2 for testing activities would affect slightly greater areas than 

those of Alternative 1 (Appendix F [Military Expended Materials and Direct Strike Impact Analysis, Table 

F-32]). Based on proportional impacts as calculated in Appendix F (Military Expended Materials and 

Direct Strike Impact Analysis, Table F-34), it is estimated that over a 5-year period, approximately 

50.5 ac of bottom habitat would be impacted by explosive fragments associated with testing activities 

under Alternative 2, versus 43.5 ac under Alternative 1. The difference is almost entirely due to the 

greater number of testing activities conducted on the Virginia Capes Range Complex and Naval Surface 

Warfare Center, Panama City Division Testing Range under Alternative 2; these activities would impact 

soft bottom habitat in relatively deep water and thus have no effect on benthic vegetation. Testing 

activities under Alternative 2 would result in the temporary disturbance of relatively small areas of hard 

and intermediate bottom habitat, but is not expected to affect the distribution, abundance, or 

productivity of vegetation.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.3-27

3.3 Vegetation

The overlap of seagrass with this stressor does not include ESA-listed Johnson’s seagrass (Figure 3.3-1), 

although explosives would be used for testing activities in designated portions of the Key West Range 

Complex under Alternative 2 (Table 3.0-27). 

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of explosives during testing activities as described under Alternative 2 

would have no effect on Johnson’s seagrass or its designated critical habitat.

3.3.3.2.1.3 Impacts from Explosives Under the No Action Alternative

Impacts from Explosives 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 AFTT 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.

3.3.3.3 Energy Stressors

Energy stressors include electromagnetic devices, lasers, and radar; their use and characteristics are 

described in Section 3.0.3.3.3 (Energy Stressors). Although plants are known to respond to magnetic 

field variations, effects on plant growth and development are not well understood (Maffei, 2014). The 

area of potential effects from electromagnetic devices or lasers is so small (limited to a few meters from 

source), and temporary, as to be discountable in terms of any effect on vegetation. Radar, which is highfrequency electromagnetic radiation, is not known to affect plants, and is rapidly absorbed and does not 

propagate more than a few feet under water. Energy stressors are not applicable to vegetation because 

of the lack of sensitivity of vegetation and will not be analyzed further in this section.

3.3.3.4 Physical Disturbance and Strike Stressors

This section analyzes the potential impacts on vegetation of the various types of physical disturbance 

and strike stressors that may occur during Navy training and testing activities within the Study Area. For 

a list of Navy training and testing activities that involve these stressors refer to Tables B-1 and B-2, 

respectively, in Appendix B (Activity Stressor Matrices). The physical disturbance and strike stressors 

that may impact marine vegetation include (1) vessels, (2) in-water devices, (3) military expended 

materials, and (4) seafloor devices. Explosives are analyzed separately in Section 3.3.3.2 (Explosive 

Stressors).

The evaluation of the impacts from physical disturbance and strike stressors on vegetation focuses on 

proposed activities that may cause vegetation to be damaged by an object that is moving through the 

water (e.g., vessels and in-water devices), dropped into the water (e.g., military expended materials), 

deployed on the seafloor (e.g., mine shapes and anchors), or detonated in the water column (e.g., 

explosive fragments). Not all activities are proposed throughout the Study Area. Wherever appropriate, 

specific geographic areas of potential impact are identified. 

Single-celled algae may overlap with physical disturbance or strike stressors, but the impact would be 

minimal relative to their total population-level and extremely high growth rates (Caceres et al., 2013).

They also move with the surface tension of the water and tend to flow around a disturbance. Therefore, 

they will not be discussed further. Seagrasses and macroalgae on the seafloor and Sargassum on the sea 

surface are the only types of vegetation that occur in locations where physical disturbance or strike 

stressors may be more than minimal, in terms of impact. Therefore, only seagrasses, macroalgae, and 

Sargassum are analyzed further for potential impacts from physical disturbance or strike stressors.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.3-28

3.3 Vegetation

There is no overlap of any of the physical disturbance and strike stressors with the known distribution of 

or designated critical habitat for Johnson’s seagrass.

3.3.3.4.1 Impacts from Vessels and In-Water Devices

Vessels

Several different types of vessels (ships, submarines, boats, amphibious vehicles) are used during 

training and testing activities throughout the Study Area, as described in Section 3.0.3.3.4.1 (Vessels and 

In-Water Devices). Vessel movements occur intermittently, are variable in duration, ranging from a few 

hours to a few weeks, and are dispersed throughout the Study Area. Events involving large vessels are 

widely spread over offshore areas, while smaller vessels are more active in nearshore areas and inshore

waters. The location and hours of Navy vessel usage for testing and training activities are most 

dependent upon the location of Navy ports, piers, and established at-sea testing and training ranges. 

With the exception of the establishment of the Undersea Warfare Training Range, the Navy’s use of 

these areas has not appreciably changed in the last decade and are not expected to change in the 

foreseeable future. 

The potential impacts from Navy vessels used during training and testing activities on vegetation are 

based on the vertical distribution of the vegetation. Vessels may impact vegetation by striking or 

disturbing vegetation on the sea surface or on the seafloor (the latter would only occur where 

amphibious vessels operate in nearshore to shore environments) (Spalding et al., 2003). Considering

attached macroalgae does not typically persist along high energy beaches where amphibious landings

occur, the only type of marine vegetation that may potentially be disturbed by vessels is Sargassum. 

Sargassum distribution is difficult to predict (Gower & King, 2008; South Atlantic Fishery Management 

Council, 2002) and it may overlap with many locations where vessels are used. In the Study Area, the 

relative coverage of Sargassum is very low, ranging from less than 1 percent to 5 percent of the sea 

surface; see Section 3.3.2.3.5 (Brown Algae [Phylum Phaeophyta]) for details. Sargassum may be 

impacted by vessels, although Sargassum is resilient to natural conditions caused by wind, wave action, 

and severe weather that may break apart pieces of the mat or cause the mats to sink. In the unlikely 

situation that a Sargassum mat is broken by a vessel or in-water device, the broken pieces may develop 

into new Sargassum mats because Sargassum reproduces by vegetative fragmentation (new plants 

develop from pieces of the parent plant) (South Atlantic Fishery Management Council, 1998). Impacts to 

Sargassum from vessels may potentially collapse the pneumatocysts that keep the mats floating at the 

surface. Evidence suggests that Sargassum will remain floating even when up to 80 percent of the 

pneumatocysts are removed (Zaitsev, 1971). Even if a vessel strike results in the collapse of most of a 

Sargassum mat’s pneumatocysts, it may not cause it to sink.

Seagrasses are resilient to the lower levels of wave action that occur in sheltered estuarine shorelines, 

but are susceptible to vessel propeller scarring and substrate erosion by vessel wakes (Sargent et al., 

1995; Stevenson et al., 1979), although vessel wakes appear to have only localized effects and are not 

considered a significant threat to seagrasses in general (Orth et al., 2010). Some tropical seagrasses can

take up to 10 years to fully regrow and recover from propeller scars (Dawes et al., 1997). However,

seagrasses do not typically grow along high energy beaches with shifting soft shore and bottom habitat, 

and thus do not overlap with amphibious combat vehicle activities based on relevant literature and 

resource maps (Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission-Fish and Wildlife Research Institute, 

2012; North Carolina Department of Environmental and Natural Resources, 2012). Within the Key West 

Range Complex, vessels will operate within waters deep enough to avoid bottom scouring or prop 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.3-29

3.3 Vegetation

dredging, with at least a 1-ft. clearance between the deepest draft of the vessel (with the motor down) 

and the seafloor at mean low water (Table 5.4-1).

Additional mitigation for potential vessel-anchoring impacts is that the Navy will not conduct precision 

anchoring (except in designated anchorages) within the anchor swing circle of shallow-water coral reefs, 

live hard bottom, artificial reefs, submerged aquatic vegetation, and shipwrecks (Table 5.4-1).

Seafloor macroalgae may be present in locations where these vessels occur, but the impacts would be 

minimal because vessels typically avoid direct contact with the bottom, and due to the resilience, 

distribution, and biomass of macroalgae. Because seafloor macroalgae in coastal areas are adapted to 

natural disturbances, such as storms and wave action that can exceed 10 m per second (Mach et al., 

2007), macroalgae will quickly recover from vessel movements. 

In-Water Devices

Several different types of in-water devices (i.e., towed devices, unmanned surface and underwater 

vehicles) are used during training and testing activities throughout the Study Area, as described in 

Chapter 2 (Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives) and Section 3.0.3.3.4.1 (Vessels and InWater Devices). As described in Section 2.3.3 (Standard Operating Procedures), prior to deploying a 

towed in-water device from a manned platform, the Navy searches the intended path of the device for 

any floating debris (e.g., driftwood) and other objects (e.g., concentrations of floating vegetation), which 

have the potential to obstruct or damage the device. The standard operating procedure for towed 

in-water device safety could result in a secondary benefit to vegetation through a reduction in the 

potential for physical disturbance and strike of a towed in-water device.

The potential impacts from Navy in-water devices used during training and testing activities on marine 

vegetation are largely the same as those described above for vessels except as noted below. Vegetation 

on the seafloor such as seagrasses and macroalgae are unlikely to be impacted by in-water devices,

which do not normally contact the bottom. Towed in-water devices include towed targets that are used 

during activities such as missile exercises and gun exercises. These devices are operated at low speeds 

either on the sea surface or below it. The analysis of in-water devices will focus on towed surface targets 

because of the potential for impacts on marine algae.

The only type of marine vegetation that may potentially be disturbed by in-water devices is Sargassum. 

Potential impacts would be as described for vessels and would be localized and temporary due to the 

ability of Sargassum mats to remain floating and regrow despite fragmentation from strikes. 

3.3.3.4.1.1 Impacts from Vessels and In-Water Devices Under Alternative 1

Estimates of relative vessel and in-water device use by location for each alternative are provided in 

Tables 3.0-18, 3.0-19, 3.0-22, and 3.0-23 of Section 3.0.3.3.4.1 (Vessels and In-Water Devices). These 

estimates are based on the number of activities predicted for each alternative. While these estimates 

provide a prediction of use, actual Navy vessel and in-water device use depends upon military training 

and testing requirements, deployment schedules, annual budgets, and other unpredictable factors. 

Testing and training concentrations are most dependent upon locations of Navy shore installations and 

established training and testing ranges.

Impacts from Vessels and In-Water Devices Under Alternative 1 for Training Activities

Vessels

Under Alternative 1, a variety of vessels would be used in the Study Area during up to 36, 208 annual 

training activities, as described in Section 3.0.3.3.4.1 (Vessels and In-Water Devices). Most activities 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.3-30

3.3 Vegetation

would include either one or two vessels and may last from a few hours to two weeks. Roughly 85

percent of vessel activities would occur in the Virginia Capes, Navy Cherry Point, and Jacksonville Range 

Complexes, while another 10 percent would occur in the inshore waters (Tables 3.0-18 and 3.0-19). 

Vessel use would occur elsewhere throughout the Study Area but at much lower frequency. A large 

proportion of the vessel activity in the inshore waters consists of small craft (less than 50 ft.) which 

often travel at high speed (greater than 10 knots) (Tables 3.0-19 and 3.0-20). The most heavily used 

areas would be in the Southeast and Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf Large Marine Ecosystems, as well 

as the Gulf Stream Open Ocean Area.

The wakes from large, high speed ferries have been implicated in shoreline erosion in at least one study 

(Parnell et al., 2007). More generally, however, the wakes associated with vessel traffic have not been 

identified as a cause of seagrass declines (Orth et al., 2010; Stevenson et al., 1979). Wakes from small 

Navy boats in the inshore waters are unlikely to have measurable impacts on vegetation because Navy 

vessels represents a small fraction of total maritime traffic and the wakes generated by small Navy boats 

which, for safety reasons are not operated at excessive speeds nearshore, are similar to wind waves that 

naturally occur.

Amphibious training events occur on sandy beaches such as at Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune and at 

Naval Station Mayport, where seagrass and attached macroalgae are not expected because of the 

regular use and disturbance of the same areas by amphibious training exercises, as well as waves and 

currents that are too strong for vegetation to establish. The training ranges noted above for the majority 

of training activities intersect habitat for attached macroalgae and floating vegetation (Sargassum), 

suggesting potential impacts. However, the attached macroalgae may only be temporarily disturbed, 

and the floating Sargassum mats are resilient to disturbance as described in the previous introductory 

section on impacts. 

Vessels used in training activities under Alternative 1 would not cause a detectable impact on Sargassum

because: (1) the relative coverage of Sargassum in the Study Area is low, and (2) Sargassum is resilient 

and regrowth after exposure to vessels is expected to be rapid. Based on these factors, potential 

impacts to Sargassum from vessels are not expected to result in detectable changes to its growth, 

survival, or propagation, and are not expected to result in population-level impacts.

Because of the nature of vessel operation and intentional avoidance of bottom strikes, most shore and 

bottom habitats would not be exposed to vessel strikes but could be exposed to vessel disturbance by 

propeller wash. Groundings would be accidental and are rare. Amphibious vehicles are an exception, but 

only designated beaches that are naturally resilient to disturbance are used. Therefore, while vessels 

may affect shore and bottom habitats, adverse impacts are not likely. Seagrasses are vulnerable to 

localized damage from propellers where inshore vessel training overlaps the navigable portion of their 

habitat, though this stressor is considering very minor compared to other seagrass stressors (e.g., 

nutrient enrichment). The impact of vessel wakes on emergent wetlands is confined to high speed vessel 

movement along sheltered inland shorelines where a minimal impact is likely indistinguishable from that 

of other vessel traffic.

On the open ocean, strikes of vegetation would be limited to floating marine algae. Vessel movements

may disperse or fragment algal mats. Because algal distribution is patchy, mats may re-form, and events 

would be on a small spatial scale.

The net impact of vessels on vegetation is expected to be negligible under Alternative 1, based on 

(1) relatively small areas of spatial coincidence between vessel disturbance zones and the distribution of 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.3-31

3.3 Vegetation

sensitive vegetation; (2) the quick recovery of most vegetation types; and (3) the short-term nature of 

most vessel movements and local disturbances of the surface water, with some temporary increase in 

suspended sediment in shallow areas.

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of vessels during training activities as described under Alternative 1 would 

have no effect on Johnson’s seagrass or its designated critical habitat.

In-Water Devices

The use of in-water devices for training under Alternative 1 would occur during up to 17,238 annual 

activities. Activities would be concentrated in the Virginia Capes Range Complex with up to 7,316

activities annually, over half of the total for Alternative 1. The Jacksonville Range Complex would 

support up to 5,097 (20 percent of total) activities annually, whereas the Navy Cherry Point Range 

Complex would support up to 2,027 (12 percent of total) activities annually. Other parts of the Study 

Area would be used less frequently (Tables 3.0-22 and 3.0-23). 

Under Alternative 1, the impacts from in-water devices during training activities would amount to

minimal disturbances of algal mats and seaweeds. As described in Section 2.3.3.12 (Towed In-Water 

Device Safety), direct impacts would be minimized by the standard collision avoidance procedure for 

towed in-water devices, which includes searching the intended path of the device and avoiding 

concentrations floating vegetation. Seagrass bed damage is not likely but, if it occurs, the impacts would 

be minor, such as damage from short-term turbidity increases. 

In-water devices used in training activities under Alternative 1 would not cause a detectable impact on 

Sargassum because: (1) the relative coverage of Sargassum in the Study Area is low, and (2) new growth 

may result from Sargassum exposure to in-water devices. Based on these factors, potential impacts to 

Sargassum from in-water devices are not expected to result in detectable changes to its growth, 

survival, or propagation, and are not expected to result in population-level impacts.

On the open ocean, strikes of vegetation would be limited to floating marine algae. Unmanned surface 

vessel or towed device movements may disperse or fragment algal mats. Because algal distribution is 

patchy, mats may re-form, and events would be on a small spatial scale.

Under Alternative 1, the impacts from in-water devices during training activities would be minimal 

disturbances of algal mats and seaweeds, primarily due to localized water motion, sediment disturbance 

and short-term turbidity increases. Seagrass bed damage is not likely to occur. 

The net impact of in-water devices on vegetation is expected to be negligible under Alternative 1, based 

on (1) relatively small areas of spatial coincidence between disturbance zones from in-water devices and 

the distribution of sensitive vegetation; (2) the quick recovery of most vegetation types; and (3) the 

short-term nature of in-water device usage and local disturbances of the surface water and bottom 

habitat (the latter by bottom-crawling devices), with some temporary increase in suspended sediment in 

shallow areas.

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of in-water devices during training activities as described under Alternative 

1 would have no effect on Johnson’s seagrass or its designated critical habitat.

Impacts from Vessels and In-Water Devices Under Alternative 1 for Testing Activities

Vessels

Under Alternative 1, the Navy would use a variety of vessels in up to 7,564 annual testing activities in

the Study Area, as described in Section 3.0.3.3.4.1 (Vessels and In-Water Devices). Most activities would
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.3-32

3.3 Vegetation

include either one or two vessels and may last from a few hours to two weeks. Vessel testing activities 

would occur in all range complexes and testing ranges, and would be spread somewhat more evenly 

than training activities (Tables 3.0-18 and 3.0-19).

On the open ocean, vessel strikes of vegetation would be limited to floating marine algae, primarily 

Sargassum in the Study Area. Vessel movements may disperse or fragment algal mats. Because floating 

algae distributions are driven by winds and currents, mats that are broken up by vessel movements 

would tend to re-form, and events would be on a small spatial scale. Navy testing activities involving 

vessel movement would not impact the general health of marine algae. 

Vessel disturbance and strike impacts on emergent marsh and seagrass vegetation due to testing 

activities would be essentially the same as described previously for training activities, with the exception 

that no amphibious vehicles are used in testing. 

Testing activities may occur near seagrass beds (e.g., in the South Florida Ocean Measurement Facility)

where vessels participating in testing events may cross sandy shallow habitat that could support the 

ESA-listed Johnson’s seagrass. However, vessel movements at this location and elsewhere would not 

directly impact the bottom and the temporary increase in-water motion from vessels would be similar to 

natural wave action and unlikely to dislodge plants or increase turbidity to the point that photosynthesis 

may be impacted.

Vessels used in testing activities under Alternative 1 would not cause a detectable impact on Sargassum

because: (1) the relative coverage of Sargassum in the Study Area is low, and (2) new growth may result 

from Sargassum exposure to vessels. Based on these factors, potential impacts to Sargassum from 

vessels are not expected to result in detectable changes to its growth, survival, or propagation, and are 

not expected to result in population-level impacts.

The net impact of vessels on vegetation is expected to be negligible under Alternative 1, based on 

(1) relatively small areas of spatial coincidence between vessel disturbance zones and the distribution of 

sensitive vegetation; (2) the quick recovery of most vegetation types; and (3) the short-term nature of 

most vessel movements and local disturbances of the surface water, with some temporary increase in 

suspended sediment in shallow areas.

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of in-vessels during testing activities as described under Alternative 1 

would have no effect on Johnson’s seagrass or its designated critical habitat.

In-Water Devices

The use of in-water devices for testing under Alternative 1 would occur during up to 4,760 annual 

activities. Activities would be concentrated in the Virginia Capes Range Complex and Naval Undersea 

Warfare Center Newport, these two locations accounting for 48 percent of all activities (Table 3.0-22). 

Under Alternative 1, the impacts from in-water devices during training activities would be minimal 

disturbances of algal mats and seaweeds. Seagrass bed damage is not likely but, if it occurs, the impacts 

would be minor, such as damage from short-term turbidity increases. In-water devices used in testing

activities under Alternative 1 would not cause a detectable impact on Sargassum because: (1) the 

relative coverage of Sargassum in the Study Area is low, and (2) new growth may result from Sargassum

exposure to in-water devices. Based on these factors, potential impacts to Sargassum from in-water 

devices are not expected to result in detectable changes to its growth, survival, or propagation, and are 

not expected to result in population-level impacts.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.3-33

3.3 Vegetation

Under Alternative 1, the impacts from in-water devices during testing activities would be minimal 

disturbances of algal mats and seaweeds, primarily due to localized water motion, sediment disturbance 

and short-term turbidity increases. Seagrass bed damage is not likely to occur.

On the sea surface, towed and unmanned surface target strikes of vegetation would be limited to 

floating marine algal mats. Towed surface target and unmanned surface vehicle movements may 

disperse or injure algal mats. However, algal mats may re-form, and testing events would be on a small 

spatial scale. Therefore, Navy testing activities involving towed surface targets are not expected to 

impact the general health of marine algae. 

The net impact of in-water devices on vegetation is expected to be negligible under Alternative 1, based 

on (1) relatively small areas of spatial coincidence between in-water device disturbance zones and the 

distribution of sensitive vegetation; (2) the quick recovery of most vegetation types; and (3) the shortterm nature of in-water device movements and local disturbances of the surface water, with some 

temporary increase in suspended sediment in shallow areas.

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of in-water devices during testing activities as described under Alternative 

1 would have no effect on Johnson’s seagrass or its designated critical habitat.

3.3.3.4.1.2 Impacts from Vessels and In-Water Devices Under Alternative 2

Impacts from Vessels and In-Water Devices Under Alternative 2 for Training Activities

Vessels

Vessel impacts from training under Alternative 2 would be as described previously for Alternative 1, but 

for minor differences in the number of activities by location. Compared to Alternative 1, under 

Alternative 2, training activities including vessels would be similarly distributed across ranges and 

facilities, but the number of activities over 5 years would increase by roughly 2 percent (Tables 3.0-18

and 3.0-19). Taking into account this small incremental increase in activities, the net impact on 

vegetation is still expected to be nearly identical to that of Alternative 1, and negligible based on 

(1) relatively small areas of spatial coincidence between vessel disturbance zones and the distribution of 

sensitive vegetation; (2) the quick recovery of most vegetation types; and (3) the short-term nature of 

most vessel movements and local disturbances of the surface water, with some temporary increase in 

suspended sediment in shallow areas. 

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of vessels during training activities as described under Alternative 2 would 

have no effect on Johnson’s seagrass or its designated critical habitat.

In-Water Devices

In-water device impacts from training under Alternative 2 would be as described previously for 

Alternative 1, but for minor differences in the number of activities by location. Compared to Alternative 

1, under Alternative 2, training activities including in-water devices would be similarly distributed across 

ranges and facilities, but the number of activities over 5 years would increase by roughly 6 percent 

(Table 3.0-22). Taking into account this small incremental increase in activities, the net impact on 

vegetation is still expected to be nearly identical to that of Alternative 1, and negligible based on 

(1) relatively small areas of spatial coincidence between vessel disturbance zones and the distribution of 

sensitive vegetation; (2) the quick recovery of most vegetation types; and (3) the short-term nature of 

most vessel movements and local disturbances of the surface water, with some temporary increase in 

suspended sediment in shallow areas. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.3-34

3.3 Vegetation

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of in-water devices during training activities as described under Alternative 

2 would have no effect on Johnson’s seagrass or its designated critical habitat.

Impacts from Vessels and In-Water Devices Under Alternative 2 for Testing Activities

Vessels

Vessel impacts from testing under Alternative 2 would be as described previously for Alternative 1, but 

for minor differences in the number of activities by location. Compared to Alternative 1, under 

Alternative 2, testing activities including vessels would be similarly distributed across ranges and 

facilities, but the number of activities over 5 years would increase by roughly 7 percent (Table 3.0-18

and 3.0-19). Taking into account this small incremental increase in activities, the net impact on 

vegetation is still expected to be nearly identical to that of Alternative 1, and negligible based on (1) 

relatively small areas of spatial coincidence between vessel disturbance zones and the distribution of 

sensitive vegetation; (2) the quick recovery of most vegetation types; and (3) the short-term nature of 

most vessel movements and local disturbances of the surface water, with some temporary increase in 

suspended sediment in shallow areas. 

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of vessels during testing activities as described under Alternative 2 would 

have no effect on Johnson’s seagrass or its designated critical habitat.

In-Water Devices

In-water device impacts from testing under Alternative 2 would be as described previously for 

Alternative 1, but for minor differences in the number of activities by location. Compared to Alternative 

1, under Alternative 2, training activities including in-water devices would be similarly distributed across 

ranges and facilities, but the number of activities over 5 years would increase by roughly 11 percent 

(Table 3.0-22). Taking into account this incremental increase in activities, the net impact on vegetation is 

still expected to be nearly identical to that of Alternative 1, and negligible based on (1) relatively small 

areas of spatial coincidence between vessel disturbance zones and the distribution of sensitive 

vegetation; (2) the quick recovery of most vegetation types; and (3) the short-term nature of most 

vessel movements and local disturbances of the surface water, with some temporary increase in 

suspended sediment in shallow areas. 

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of in-water devices during testing activities as described under Alternative 

2 would have no effect on Johnson’s seagrass or its designated critical habitat.

3.3.3.4.1.3 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 AFTT Study Area. Various physical disturbance and strike stressors (e.g., vessels and inwater 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.

3.3.3.4.2 Impacts from Aircraft and Aerial Targets

Aircraft and aerial target stressors are not applicable to vegetation and will not be analyzed further in 

this section.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.3-35

3.3 Vegetation

3.3.3.4.3 Impacts from Military Expended Materials

This section analyzes the strike potential to vegetation of the following categories of military expended 

materials: (1) all sizes of non-explosive practice munitions, (2) expendable targets, and (3) expended 

materials other than munitions, such as sonobuoys, ship hulks, and miscellaneous accessories 

(e.g., canisters, endcaps, and pistons). Fragments from explosives are analyzed in Section 3.3.3.2.1

(Impacts from Explosives). See Appendix F (Military Expended Material and Direct Strike Impact Analysis)

for more information on the types, locations, and quantities of military expended materials proposed to 

be used. The potential for impacts to marine vegetation from military expended materials would depend 

on the presence and amount of vegetation, and the size and number of military expended materials. 

Areas expected to have the greatest amount of expended materials are the Northeast U.S. Continental 

Shelf Large Marine Ecosystem, the Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf Large Marine Ecosystem, and the 

Gulf Stream Open Ocean Area (specifically within the Virginia Capes and Jacksonville Range Complexes).

Most types of military expended materials are deployed in the open ocean where they may impact 

Sargassum. Based on Appendix A (Navy Activity Descriptions), however, some expended materials 

including small- and medium-caliber projectiles and their associated casings, target fragments, marine 

markers (e.g., smoke floats), and countermeasures could be introduced into estuarine or nearshore 

areas where shallow water vegetation such as emergent wetlands, seagrass, and macroalgae may be 

located. 

In the Study Area, the relative coverage of Sargassum is very low, ranging from less than 1 percent to 

5 percent of the sea surface. Section 3.3.2.3.6.2 (Sargassum) contains additional detail. Sargassum may 

be impacted by military expended materials, although Sargassum is resilient to natural conditions 

caused by wind, wave action, and severe weather that may break apart pieces of the mat or cause the 

mats to sink. In the unlikely situation that a Sargassum mat is broken by military expended materials, 

the broken pieces may develop into new Sargassum mats because Sargassum reproduces by vegetative 

fragmentation (new plants develop from pieces of the parent plant) (South Atlantic Fishery 

Management Council, 1998). Impacts to Sargassum from military expended materials may potentially 

collapse the pneumatocysts that keep the mats floating at the surface. Evidence suggests that 

Sargassum will remain floating even when up to 80 percent of the pneumatocysts are removed (Zaitsev, 

1971). Even if a military expended material’s strike results in the collapse of most of a Sargassum mat’s 

pneumatocysts, it may not cause it to sink. In addition, if enough military expended materials are 

deposited on Sargassum, the mats can potentially sink, but sinking also occurs as a natural part of the 

aging process of Sargassum (Schoener & Rowe, 1970).

Some types of attached macroalgae such as kelp only occur in a very small part of the Study Area in the 

Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf Large Marine Ecosystem, specifically in the Northeast Range 

Complexes, where a small fraction of the activities that involve military expended materials would be 

conducted. Most of these activities occurring in the Northeast Range Complexes would likely impact 

offshore soft bottom habitat that does not support kelp (Section 3.0.3.3.4.2, Military Expended 

Materials and Appendix F, Military Expended Material and Direct Strike Impact Analysis [Tables F-33 and 

F-34]; see also Figure 3.5-15). Other species of attached macroalgae may be found throughout the 

offshore range complexes on hard substrates in waters deeper than kelp but no deeper than about 200 

m. Shallower offshore waters could be impacted by falling military expended materials, but the 

vegetation is fast growing and resilient to physical disturbance (Mach et al., 2007). 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.3-36

3.3 Vegetation

Most deposition of military expended materials occurs within the confines of established training and 

testing areas, although there is some deposition of expended materials in inshore waters (e.g., smallcaliber shell casings and smoke floats in Chesapeake Bay and tributaries). The most heavily impacted 

areas are away from the coastline on the continental shelf and slope and the potential for impacts to 

vegetation other than Sargassum is low. 

Military expended materials can potentially impact seagrass on the seafloor by disturbing, crushing, or 

shading which may interfere with photosynthesis. In the event that seagrass is not able to 

photosynthesize, its ability to produce energy is compromised. The intersection of seagrasses and the 

use of military expended materials is limited. The only range complex where military expended 

materials overlap with seagrasses is in the Key West Range Complex based on relevant mapping data, 

Figure 3.3-3 (Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission-Fish and Wildlife Research Institute, 

2012). Seagrass also occurs in relatively close proximity to testing ranges where expended materials 

would be generated, including the Naval Undersea Warfare Center Newport Testing Range and South 

Florida Ocean Measurement Facility (Figure 3.3-2 and Figure 3.3-3) and may be affected by materials 

that drift shoreward in these locations. 

Seagrasses generally grow in waters that are sheltered from wave action such as estuaries, lagoons, and 

bays (Phillips & Meñez, 1988) landward of offshore training and testing ranges. However, seagrass does 

occur within some inshore training locations such as lower Chesapeake Bay (Figure 3.3-2). The impacts 

of military expended materials falling on seagrass beds are minimized by the flexible/fluid nature of 

seagrass blades and typical avoidance of extremely shallow water where vessel propulsion is impacted.

The potential for detectable impacts on seagrasses from expended materials would be low given the 

small size or low density (e.g., small projectiles, decelerators/parachutes, endcaps, and pistons) of the 

majority of the materials that could be used in or drift into these areas from offshore. Larger, denser 

materials, such as non-explosive practice munitions and sonobuoys would be used farther offshore and 

are likely to sink rapidly where they land. Falling materials could cause bottom sediments to be 

suspended. Resuspension of the sediment could temporarily impact water quality and decrease light 

exposure but since it would be short-term (hours), the combined stressors from military expended 

materials would not likely impact the general health of seagrasses. Neither the ESA-listed species 

Johnson’s seagrass, nor its critical habitat, overlap with the Study Area; however, an analysis of potential 

impacts is included due to its proximity to training and testing activity areas.

The following are descriptions of the types of military expended materials that can potentially impact 

Sargassum, attached macroalgae, and seagrass. Sargassum may potentially overlap with military 

expended materials anywhere in the Study Area. Attached macroalgae could be associated with hard 

bottom or intermediate bottom habitat (as described in Section 3.5, Habitats) anywhere in the Study 

Area in depths less than 200 m. The Key West Range Complex is the only location where these materials 

may overlap with seagrasses. Appendix F (Military Expended Materials and Direct Strike Impacts) 

present the number and location of activities that involve military expended materials that are proposed 

for use during training and testing activities by location and alternative.

Small-, Medium-, and Large-Caliber Projectiles. Small-, medium-, and large-caliber non-explosive 

practice munitions, or fragments of high-explosive projectiles expended during training and testing 

activities rapidly sink to the seafloor. The majority of these projectiles would be expended in the

Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf Large Marine Ecosystem and Gulf Stream Open Ocean Area in the 

Virginia Capes Range Complex. Because of the small size of projectiles and their casings, damage to 

marine vegetation is unlikely. Large-caliber projectiles are primarily used offshore (at depths mostly 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.3-37

3.3 Vegetation

greater than 85 ft.) while small- and medium-caliber projectiles may be expended in both offshore and 

coastal areas (at depths mostly less than 85 ft.). Sargassum and other marine algae and, to a lesser 

extent (because of their limited coastal distribution), seagrasses, could occur where these materials are 

expended. 

Bombs, Missiles, and Rockets. Bombs, missiles, and rockets, or their fragments (if high-explosive) are 

expended offshore (at depths mostly greater than 85 ft.) during training and testing activities, and 

rapidly sink to the seafloor. Sargassum and other marine algae could occur where these materials are 

expended, but seagrass generally does not because of water depth limitations for activities that expend 

these materials.

Decelerators/Parachutes. Decelerators/Parachutes of varying sizes are used during training and testing 

activities. The types of activities that use decelerators/parachutes are listed in Appendix B (Activity 

Stressor Matrices), whereas the physical characteristics of these expended materials, where they are 

used, and the number of activities that would occur under each alternative are described in Section 

3.0.3.3.5.2 (Decelerators/Parachutes). Seagrass may overlap with the use of small and medium-size

decelerators/parachutes in the Gulf of Mexico Large Marine Ecosystem in the Key West Range Complex

(Tables 3.0-32 and 3.0-34). Sargassum and other marine algae could occur in any of the locations where 

these materials are expended.

Targets. Many training and testing activities use targets. Targets that are struck by munitions could 

break into fragments, whereas targets such as Expendable Mobile Anti-Submarine Training Targets

(Table 3.0-29) that are expended without being struck by munitions and broken into fragments are also 

considered. Expended targets and fragments vary in size and type, but most are expected to sink. Pieces 

of targets that are designed to float are recovered when possible. Target fragments would be spread out 

over large areas. Sargassum and other marine algae and seagrass could occur where these materials are 

expended.

Countermeasures. Defensive countermeasures (e.g., chaff and flares) are used to protect against 

incoming weapons (e.g., missiles). Chaff is made of aluminum-coated glass fibers and flares are 

pyrotechnic devices. Chaff, chaff canisters (pistons), and flare end caps are expended materials. Chaff 

and flares are dispensed from aircraft or fired from ships. Seagrass may overlap with chaff and flares 

expended in the Gulf of Mexico Large Marine Ecosystem in the Key West Range Complex. Sargassum

and other marine algae could occur in any of the locations in which these materials are expended.

Vessel Hulks. Vessel hulks are large expended materials that result from sinking exercises in specific 

open ocean areas, outside the coastal portions of the range complexes. Since the potential impacts of 

vessel movements and munitions use are considered elsewhere, and the vessel hulks are sunk in the 

abyssal zone (too deep to support attached vegetation), potential impacts from vessel hulks as a 

physical disturbance and strike stressor will not be analyzed further in this section.

3.3.3.4.3.1 Impacts from Military Expended Materials Under Alternative 1

Impacts from Military Expended Materials Under Alternative 1 for Training Activities

As indicated in Appendix F (Military Expended Material and Direct Strike Impact Analysis), for training 

activities under Alternative 1, areas with the greatest number of expended materials are expected to be 

the Northeast and Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf, and Gulf of Mexico Large Marine Ecosystems, and 

the Gulf Stream Open Ocean Area. By far the greatest numbers of materials would be expended within 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.3-38

3.3 Vegetation

the Virginia Capes, Jacksonville, and Navy Cherry Point Range Complexes, which would also have the 

largest areas of impact, along with the area used for sinking exercises (Table F-2). 

Appendix F (Military Expended Material and Direct Strike Impact Analysis) provides the approximate 

footprints of military expended materials associated with training activities. The worst-case analysis of 

potential impacts (Tables F-27 and F-29) shows that even if impacts were to be concentrated within hard 

or intermediate bottom habitats, much less than 0.01 percent of any substrate type could be affected

annually or over 5 years. For the analysis of potential impacts to vegetation, the proportional impact, 

assuming a uniform, non-overlapping distribution of activities and associated military expended 

materials within each training area, is considered a more realistic, though still unlikely, approximation of 

the acreage affected. This scenario does not account for areas of concentrated training, nor does it 

account for the clumping of military expended materials and explosives in a particular area and over a 

particular substrate type where a training or testing activity occurs. In reality, there are numerous 

factors presented in the previous section that reduce the impacts footprints on substrate types and 

associated vegetation reported in Appendix F. Based on proportional impacts as provided in Table F-31,

it is estimated that annually, approximately 11.5 ac of hard bottom habitat, 10.5 ac of intermediate 

bottom habitat, 84.5 ac of soft bottom habitat, and 1.5 ac of unknown bottom habitat would be 

impacted by military expended materials associated with training activities under Alternative 1 (see 

Section 3.5, Habitats, for more detailed analysis). Macroalgae occurs primarily on hard substrate but 

may be present on all substrate types in waters less than approximately 200 m deep. The expended 

material footprint areas also include mapped seagrass in the Key West Range Complex in addition to 

some inshore training areas.

As discussed in Section 5.4.1 (Mitigation Areas for Seafloor Resources), the Navy will implement 

mitigation to avoid impacts from military expended materials on seafloor resources in mitigation areas 

throughout the Study Area. For example, the Navy will not conduct gunnery activities within a specified 

distance of shallow-water coral reefs. The mitigation will consequently also help avoid potential impacts 

on vegetation that occurs in these areas.

Military expended materials used for training activities are not expected to pose a severe risk to marine 

algae or seagrass because: (1) there would be relatively small areas impacted relative to the area of

vegetation; (2) most of the expended materials would fall offshore where only resilient macroalgae 

(either floating or attached to the seafloor) are present; (3) rapid recovery of macroalgae where impacts 

did occur either by colonizing the surface of expended materials or regrowth; and (4) mitigation will 

incidentally help avoid impacts to marine algae or seagrasses that are in proximity to shallow-water 

coral reefs. Based on the factors summarized here and described in Section 3.3.3.4.3 (Impacts from 

Military Expended Materials), potential impacts on marine algae and seagrass from military expended 

materials are not expected to result in detectable changes in their growth, survival, or propagation, and 

are not expected to result in population-level impacts or affect the distribution, abundance, or 

productivity of vegetation.

As shown in Figure 3.3-1, Johnson’s seagrass occurs adjacent to, not within the Study Area, and the 

possibility that military expended materials would drift into and deposit within habitats supporting 

Johnson’s seagrass is remote. Therefore, pursuant to the ESA, military expended materials associated 

with training activities as described under Alternative 1 would have no effect on Johnson’s seagrass or 

its designated critical habitat.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.3-39

3.3 Vegetation

Impacts from Military Expended Materials Under Alternative 1 for Testing Activities

As indicated in Appendix F (Military Expended Material and Direct Strike Impact Analysis), for testing 

activities under Alternative 1, areas with the greatest number of expended materials are expected to be 

the Northeast and Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf, and Gulf of Mexico Large Marine Ecosystems, and 

the Gulf Stream Open Ocean Area. By far the greatest numbers of materials would be expended within 

the Jacksonville and Virginia Capes Range Complexes, which would also have the largest areas impacted 

(Tables F-14 and F-15).

Appendix F (Military Expended Material and Direct Strike Impact Analysis) provides the approximate 

footprints of military expended materials associated with testing activities. The worst-case analysis of 

potential impacts (Tables F-28 and F-30) shows that even if impacts were to be concentrated within hard 

or intermediate bottom habitats, much less than 0.01 percent of any substrate type could be affected 

annually or over 5 years. For the analysis of potential impacts to vegetation, the proportional impact, 

assuming a uniform, non-overlapping distribution of activities and associated military expended 

materials within each testing area, is considered a more realistic, though still unlikely, approximation of 

the acreage affected. This scenario does not account for areas of concentrated training, nor does it 

account for the clumping of military expended materials and explosives in a particular area and over a 

particular substrate type where a training or testing activity occurs. In reality, there are numerous 

factors presented in the previous section that reduce the impacts footprints on substrate types and 

associated vegetation reported in Appendix F. Based on proportional impacts as provided in Table F-32, 

it is estimated that annually, approximately 5.0 ac of hard bottom habitat, 5.0 ac of intermediate 

bottom habitat, 42.0 ac of soft bottom habitat, and 0.5 ac of unknown bottom habitat would be 

impacted by military expended materials associated with testing activities under Alternative 1 (see 

Section 3.5, Habitats for more detailed analysis). Macroalgae occurs primarily on hard substrate but may 

be present on all substrate types in waters less than approximately 200 m deep. The expended material 

footprint areas also include mapped seagrass in the Key West Range Complex in addition to some 

inshore training areas. 

Depending on the size and type or composition of the expended materials and where they happen to 

strike vegetation, plants could be killed, fragmented, covered, buried, sunk, or redistributed. This type of 

disturbance would not likely differ from conditions created by waves or rough weather. If enough 

military expended materials land on algal mats, the mats can sink. Sinking occurs as a natural part of the 

aging process of marine algae (Schoener & Rowe, 1970). The likelihood is low that mats would 

accumulate enough material to cause sinking from military activities, as military expended materials are 

dispersed widely through an activity area. The few algal mats that would prematurely sink would not 

have an impact on populations. Strikes would have little impact, and would not likely result in the 

mortality of floating algal mats or other algae, although these strikes may injure the organisms that 

inhabit or are often associated with floating vegetation, including invertebrates, fish, sea turtles, marine 

mammals, and birds. See Sections 3.4 (Invertebrates), 3.6 (Fishes), 3.7 (Marine Mammals), 3.8 (Reptiles), 

and 3.9 (Birds and Bats) respectively.

As discussed in Section 5.4.1 (Mitigation Areas for Seafloor Resources), the Navy will implement 

mitigation to avoid impacts from military expended materials on seafloor resources in mitigation areas 

throughout the Study Area. For example, the Navy will not conduct gunnery activities within a specified 

distance of shallow-water coral reefs. The mitigation will consequently also help avoid potential impacts 

on vegetation that occurs in these areas.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.3-40

3.3 Vegetation

Military expended materials used for testing activities are not expected to pose a risk to marine algae or 

seagrass because: (1) there would be relatively small areas of spatial coincidence between military 

expended material footprints and the distribution of sensitive vegetation; (2) plants and patches of 

vegetation affected by expended materials are likely to regrow when torn or damaged, and to 

recolonize temporarily disturbed areas, within a relatively short time; and (3) seagrass overlap with 

areas where the stressor occurs is very limited (see Figure 3.3-3). Based on these factors, potential 

impacts on marine algae and seagrass from military expended materials are not expected to result in 

detectable changes in their growth, survival, or propagation, and are not expected to result in 

population-level impacts or affect the distribution, abundance, or productivity of vegetation.

Pursuant to the ESA, military expended materials produced by testing activities as described under 

Alternative 1 would have no effect on Johnson’s seagrass or its designated critical habitat.

3.3.3.4.3.2 Impacts from Military Expended Materials Under Alternative 2

Impacts from Military Expended Materials under Alternative 2 for Training Activities

Based on Appendix F (Military Expended Material and Direct Strike Impact Analysis, Tables F-27, F-29, F31, and F-33) the footprints of military expended materials associated with training under Alternative 2 

would be very similar those of Alternative 1 as described previously. For hard, intermediate, and 

unknown bottom habitats, there would be less than 0.5 acre difference over 5 years, whereas for soft 

bottom, the impact over 5 years would be 2.5 ac greater under Alternative 2. The slight increase in soft 

bottom impact would occur primarily within the Gulf of Mexico and Jacksonville Range Complexes and 

would be of no consequence to vegetation.

Activities under Alternative 2 would occur at a similar rate and frequency relative to Alternative 1, and 

physical disturbance and strike stressors experienced by individual plants or plant communities from 

military expended materials under Alternative 2 are not expected to be meaningfully different than 

those described under Alternative 1. Therefore, military expended materials associated with training 

activities under Alternative 2 would have essentially the same impacts as Alternative 1 and, similar to 

Alternative 1, would not affect the distribution, abundance, or productivity of vegetation, or have 

population-level effects.

Pursuant to the ESA, military expended materials produced by training activities as described under 

Alternative 2 would have no effect on Johnson’s seagrass or its designated critical habitat.

Impacts from Military Expended Materials Under Alternative 2 for Testing Activities

Based on Appendix F (Military Expended Material and Direct Strike Impact Analysis, Tables F-28 and F30) the footprints of military expended materials associated with testing under Alternative 2 would be 

very similar to those of Alternative 1. Based on proportional impacts as provided in Table F-32, over a 5-

year period, testing under Alternative 2 would impact 0.5 ac more hard bottom, 1.0 ac more 

intermediate bottom, 5.5 ac more soft bottom, and less than 0.01 ac more of unknown bottom, with the 

largest differences occurring in the Virginia Capes, Northeast, and Jacksonville Range Complexes.

Activities under Alternative 2 would occur at a similar rate and frequency relative to Alternative 1, and 

physical disturbance and strike stressors experienced by individual plants or plant communities from 

military expended materials under Alternative 2 for testing activities are not expected to be 

meaningfully different than those described under Alternative 1. Therefore, military expended materials 

associated with testing activities under Alternative 2 would be essentially the same as those of 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.3-41

3.3 Vegetation

Alternative 1 and would not affect the distribution, abundance, or productivity of vegetation or have 

population-level effects.

Pursuant to the ESA, military expended materials produced by testing activities as described under 

Alternative 2 would have no effect on Johnson’s seagrass or its designated critical habitat.

3.3.3.4.3.3 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 AFTT 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.

3.3.3.4.4 Impacts from Seafloor Devices

For lists of the activities that use seafloor devices, see Appendix B (Activity Stressor Matrices); Section 

3.0.3.3.4.3 (Seafloor Devices, Tables 3.0-35 and 3.0-36) provides locations and numbers of those 

activities. Seafloor devices include items that are placed on, dropped on, or moved along the seafloor

such as anchors, anchor blocks, mine shapes, bottom-placed instruments, bottom-placed targets that 

are recovered (not expended), and robotic bottom-crawling unmanned underwater vehicles.

The use of anchors for precision anchoring training exercises involves the release of anchors in 

designated locations. These training activities typically occur within predetermined shallow water 

anchorage locations near ports with seafloors consisting of soft bottom substrate in areas that do not 

typically support seagrass or attached macroalgae. Mine shapes are deployed from various platforms 

and secured with up to a 2,700 lb. concrete mooring block. Mine shapes and anchors are normally 

deployed over soft sediments and are generally recovered within 7 to 30 days following the completion 

of the training or testing events. In the unlikely event of a drop on attached macroalgae, there would be 

a temporary impact while the anchor is present and thereafter, before regrowth. Mines shapes would 

likely not be deployed in the seagrass meadows because they are too shallow for typical deployments 

designed to simulate contact with a surface ship transiting deeper water. Mine shapes laid by fixed-wing 

aircraft in mine laying training exercises may not be recoverable, and are not recovered for several of 

the testing activities (Appendix A, Navy Activity Descriptions).

Bottom-placed instruments and targets would not be deployed in shallow and intertidal habitats that 

support seagrass or emergent marsh, or on deeper hard bottom habitats that support macroalgae. 

Therefore these devices are not expected to impact vegetation. 

Crawlers are fully autonomous, battery-powered amphibious vehicles used for functions such as 

reconnaissance missions in territorial waters. These devices are used to classify and map underwater 

mines in shallow water areas. The crawler is capable of traveling 2 ft. per second along the seafloor and 

can avoid obstacles. The crawlers are equipped with various sonar sensors and communication 

equipment that enable these devices to locate and classify underwater objects and mines while 

rejecting miscellaneous clutter that would not pose a threat. Crawlers move over the surface of the 

seafloor could damage fragile vegetation as they move over the substrate. The crawlers may leave a 

trackline of depressed vegetation and sediments approximately 2 ft. wide (the width of the device) in 

their wake. However, since these crawlers operate in shallow water, any disturbed sediments would be 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.3-42

3.3 Vegetation

redistributed by wave and tidal action shortly (days to weeks) following the disturbance. Disturbed 

vegetation should recover quickly from the temporary depression, as opposed to dredging or similar 

adverse impacts.

3.3.3.4.4.1 Impacts from Seafloor Devices Under Alternative 1

Impacts from Seafloor Devices Under Alternative 1 for Training Activities

As indicated in Section 3.0.3.3.4.3 (Seafloor Devices), for training activities under Alternative 1, seafloor 

devices would be used in the Northeast and Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf, and Gulf of Mexico Large 

Marine Ecosystems, as well as the Gulf Stream Open Ocean Area—predominantly within the Virginia 

Capes, Navy Cherry Point, Jacksonville, and Gulf of Mexico Range Complexes; and in many inshore water 

locations but predominantly in lower Chesapeake Bay, James River & Tributaries, and York River (VA);

Kings Bay (GA); and Truman Harbor and Demolition Key (FL) (Tables 3.0-35 and 3.0-36).

As detailed in Appendix F (Military Expended Material and Direct Strike Impact Analysis, Tables F-9, F-10, 

F-12), the overwhelming majority of bottom-placed devices used in training are recovered mine shapes.

Seafloor device operation, installation, or removal can potentially impact seagrass by physically 

removing vegetation (e.g., uprooting), crushing, temporarily increasing the turbidity (sediment 

suspended in the water) of waters nearby, or shading seagrass which may interfere with photosynthesis. 

If seagrass is not able to photosynthesize, its ability to produce energy is compromised. However, the 

intersection of seagrasses and the use of seafloor devices is limited. Bottom disturbance would be 

limited to the immediate area where the device is deployed. Fine sediments would be suspended in 

small quantities and be widely dispersed by waves and currents, settling back to the bottom in minutes 

to hours. No persistent or widespread effects on sedimentation or turbidity within or adjacent to the 

Study Area are anticipated. The only training use of seafloor devices that may potentially overlap with 

seagrass in the Study Area involves mine shapes used in the Gulf of Mexico Large Marine Ecosystem in 

the Naval Surface Warfare Center, Panama City Division Testing Range, St. Andrew Bay, Florida

(Appendix F [Military Expended Material and Direct Strike Impact Analysis, Table F-12]).

Seagrasses and other vegetation found within relatively shallow waters of the Study Area are adapted to 

natural disturbance, and recover quickly from storms, as well as from wave and surge action. Bayside 

marine plant species, such as seagrasses, are found in areas where wave action is minimal. The use of 

seafloor devices may impact benthic habitats with vegetation, but the impacts would be limited in scale 

and temporary (not resulting in permanent loss of vegetation or damage to the habitat and its ability to 

support vegetation) for the following reasons:

 Impacts to vegetation would be limited to temporary coverage (7 to 30 days) until the mine 

shape is retrieved. Where vegetation is present, the most abundant and important species, 

including seagrasses and various types of macroalgae (Bedinger et al., 2013), propagate through 

subsurface rhizomes which function in nutrient uptake as well as in anchoring the plant. Mine 

shapes would cover a few square feet, affecting a small portion of an algal or seagrass bed. 

Following retrieval of the mine shape, relatively rapid regrowth of shoots from rhizomes would 

occur in the affected area. 

 The impact of seafloor devices on attached macroalgae or seagrass is likely to be 

inconsequential because: (1) the area exposed to the stressor is extremely small relative to 

overall availability of habitat of each type, (2) most seafloor devices would be placed in soft 

bottom areas lacking attached macroalgae or seagrass habitat, to avoid snagging, and (3) rapid 

recovery of macroalgae or seagrass expected in the unlikely event of deployment on hard 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.3-43

3.3 Vegetation

substrate or seagrass habitat. Based on the factors summarized here and described in Section 

3.3.3.4.4 (Impacts from Seafloor Devices), activities involving seafloor devices are not expected 

to yield any discernable impacts on the population of vegetation in the Study Area.

The Navy will implement mitigation that includes not conducting precision anchoring (except in 

designated anchorages) within the anchor swing circle of shallow-water coral reefs, live hard bottom, 

artificial reefs, and shipwrecks to avoid potential impacts from seafloor devices on seafloor resources in 

mitigation areas throughout the Study Area (see Section 5.4.1, Mitigation Areas for Seafloor Resources). 

This mitigation will consequently help avoid potential impacts on vegetation that occurs in these areas.

Impacts from Seafloor Devices Under Alternative 1 for Testing Activities

As indicated in Section 3.0.3.3.4.3 (Seafloor Devices), under Alternative 1, seafloor device use for testing 

activities would occur with greatest frequency at the Naval Surface Warfare Center Panama City Testing 

Range, Naval Undersea Warfare Center Division Newport Testing Range, Virginia Capes Range 

Complexes, and South Florida Ocean Measurement Facility. Crawlers are used primarily on testing 

ranges (Appendix A, Navy Activity Descriptions, see A.3.2.4.6). Otherwise, as detailed in Appendix F 

(Military Expended Material and Direct Strike Impact Analysis, Table F-19), the overwhelming majority of 

bottom-placed devices used in testing activities are recovered mine shapes.

As for training activities, the use of seafloor devices may impact benthic habitats with vegetation, but 

the impacts would be limited in scale and temporary (not resulting in permanent loss of vegetation or 

damage to the habitat and its ability to support vegetation) for the same reasons as stated above for 

training. In addition, crawler movement over the surface of the seafloor could cause some limited 

damage to portions of plants through the crushing, abrasion, or snagging and tearing of thalli by the 

tracks of the crawler, but this would occur within a very small area (approximately 2 ft. wide) and is not 

expected to remove the holdfasts or rhizomes of plants, or to alter the substrate for longer than a single 

tidal cycle.

Seafloor devices installed in shallow water habitats under Alternative 1 testing activities would pose a 

negligible risk to vegetation because the effects would be generally limited to damage to portions of 

plants which would regrow within a fairly short time (weeks to months); and the underlying substrate 

conditions that influence the growth of vegetation would be briefly, if at all affected. Population- or 

community level impacts are unlikely because of the small, local impact areas, the frequency of testing

activities, and the wider geographic distribution of seagrasses and macroalgae in and adjacent to range 

complexes and testing ranges.

The Navy will implement mitigation to avoid potential impacts from seafloor devices on seafloor 

resources in mitigation areas within the South Florida Ocean Measurement Facility, as discussed in 

Section 5.4.1 (Mitigation Areas for Seafloor Resources). For example, the Navy will use real-time 

geographic information system and global positioning system (along with remote sensing verification)

during deployment, installation, and recovery of anchors and mine-like objects to avoid impacts on

shallow-water coral reefs and live hard bottom. This mitigation will consequently help avoid potential 

impacts on vegetation that occurs in these areas.

Johnson’s seagrass and its critical habitat do not occur within the Study Area, and the possibility of 

indirect effects from sediment or expended materials generated elsewhere by testing use of seafloor 

devices under Alternative 1 is remote. Pursuant to the ESA, the use of seafloor devices during testing 

activities as described under Alternative 1 would have no effect on Johnson’s seagrass or its designated 

critical habitat.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.3-44

3.3 Vegetation

3.3.3.4.4.2 Impacts from Seafloor Devices Under Alternative 2

Impacts from Seafloor Devices Under Alternative 2 for Training Activities

The use of seafloor devices for training activities under Alternative 2 would be identical, in terms of 

locations and number of activities, to those occurring under Alternative 1 (refer to Tables 3.0-35 and 

3.0-36). As detailed in Appendix F (Military Expended Material and Direct Strike Impact Analysis, Tables

F-9, F-10, F-12), the overwhelming majority of bottom-placed devices used in training activities are 

recovered mine shapes. As discussed under Alternative 1, these activities would have minor, temporary 

impacts under Alternative 2.

Johnson’s seagrass and its critical habitat do not occur within the Study Area, and the possibility of 

indirect effects from sediment or expended materials generated elsewhere by training use of seafloor 

devices under Alternative 2 is remote. Pursuant to the ESA, the use of seafloor devices during training 

activities as described under Alternative 2 would have no effect on Johnson’s seagrass or its designated 

critical habitat.

Impacts from Seafloor Devices Under Alternative 2 for Testing Activities

The use of seafloor devices for testing activities under Alternative 2 would increase by approximately 7

percent over a 5-year period under Alternative 2 (refer to Table 3.0-35). The difference is due to the 

greater number of activities under Alternative 2 in the Virginia Capes Range Complex and at Naval 

Surface Warfare Center Panama City Testing Range. Neither location overlaps the distribution of the ESAlisted Johnson’s seagrass, so there would be no difference between alternatives in the effect to this 

species.

As discussed under Alternative 1, these activities would have localized, temporary impacts. While there 

would be incrementally greater temporary impacts to vegetation under Alternative 2, the difference is 

considered minor and inconsequential. 

Johnson’s seagrass and its critical habitat do not occur within the Study Area, and the possibility of 

indirect effects from sediment or expended materials generated elsewhere by testing use of seafloor 

devices under Alternative 2 is remote. Pursuant to the ESA, the use of seafloor devices during testing 

activities as described under Alternative 2 would have no effect on Johnson’s seagrass or its designated 

critical habitat.

3.3.3.4.4.3 Impacts from Seafloor Devices Under the No Action Alternative

Impacts from Seafloor 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 AFTT 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.

3.3.3.4.5 Impacts from Pile Driving

The effects of pile driving on vegetation would be limited to non-acoustic effects, i.e., substrate 

disturbance and the possible removal of relatively small amounts of vegetation during pile installation 

and removal. It is assumed that pile driving would occur in soft bottom habitats with unconsolidated 

sediments that would allow pile installation and removal at a fairly rapid pace (Section 3.0.3.3.1.3, Pile 

Driving). Such areas are not expected to support appreciable amounts of vegetation. However, both 

micro- and macroalgae colonize hard substrate quickly and would be removed when the pilings are 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.3-45

3.3 Vegetation

removed (yet there would be no net loss of vegetation). Therefore, pile driving would have no impact to 

vegetation and will not be analyzed further in this section.

3.3.3.5 Entanglement Stressors

Entanglement stressors associated with Navy training and testing activities are described in Section 

3.0.3.3.5 (Entanglement Stressors). Expended materials that have the potential to cause entanglement 

generally sink to the bottom or drift ashore, and thereby could come into contact with macroalgae or 

seagrasses, possibly abrading or breaking plants, but such effects would be isolated, very small in scale, 

and temporary as the vegetation would regrow. No effects on the productivity or distribution of 

vegetation are anticipated. The likelihood of entanglement stressors drifting ashore and damaging 

plants of the ESA-listed Johnson’s seagrass is extremely remote. Pursuant to the ESA, potential 

entanglement stressors associated with training and testing activities would have no effect on Johnson’s 

seagrass or its designated critical habitat.

3.3.3.6 Ingestion Stressors

Ingestion stressors associated with Navy training and testing activities are described in Section 3.0.3.3.6 

(Ingestion Stressors). Ingestion stressors will not impact vegetation because plants use photosynthesis 

to obtain nutrients and energy and versus ingest foot matter; therefore, ingestion stressors are not 

discussed further in this section.

3.3.3.7 Secondary Stressors

This section analyzes potential impacts on marine vegetation exposed to stressors indirectly through 

impacts on habitat and prey availability.

3.3.3.7.1 Impacts on Habitat

Section 3.2 (Sediments and Water Quality) and Section 3.5 (Habitats) considered the impacts on marine 

sediments and water quality and abiotic habitats from explosives and explosion by-products, metals, 

chemicals other than explosives, and other materials (marine markers, flares, chaff, targets, and 

miscellaneous components of other materials). One example of a local impact on water quality could be 

an increase in cyanobacteria associated with munitions deposits in marine sediments. Cyanobacteria 

may proliferate when iron is introduced to the marine environment, and this proliferation can negatively 

affect adjacent habitats by releasing toxins, potentially creating hypoxic conditions. Introducing iron into 

the marine environment from munitions or infrastructure is not known to cause toxic red tide events; 

rather, these harmful events are more associated with natural causes (e.g., upwelling) and the effects of 

other human activities (e.g., agricultural runoff and other coastal pollution) (Hayes et al., 2007).

The analysis included in Section 3.2 (Sediments and Water Quality) determined that neither state nor 

federal standards or guidelines for sediments nor water quality would be violated by the No Action 

Alternative, Alternative 1, or Alternative 2. Therefore, because these standards and guidelines are 

structured to protect human health and the environment, and the proposed activities do not violate 

them, no indirect impacts are anticipated on vegetation from the No Action Alternative or by training 

and testing activities proposed by Alternative 1 or Alternative 2.

The analysis included in Section 3.5 (Habitats) determined that, for Alternative 1 and Alternative 2, 

impacts to abiotic substrates from military expended materials and explosives would amount to less 

than 0.04 percent of each substrate type, resulting in little impact on the ability of substrates to support 

biological communities (including attached vegetation). The No Action Alternative would eliminate these 

impacts. The indirect impact due to substrate disturbance would be relatively minor and 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.3-46

3.3 Vegetation

inconsequential because of the small areas of the seafloor that would be affected and the temporary 

nature of the impact. Substrate would be disturbed, but not removed, and hence would be available for 

recolonization.

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). Mitigation will consequently help avoid potential secondary 

impacts on vegetation habitat within shallow-water coral reefs, live hard bottom, artificial reefs, and 

shipwrecks.

3.3.3.7.2 Impacts on Prey Availability

Prey availability as a stressor is not applicable to vegetation and will not be analyzed further in this 

section. Impacts from the No Action Alternative or by training and testing activities proposed by 

Alternative 1 or Alternative 2 on prey availability are analyzed in the respective prey sections, such as 

invertebrates and fishes; see Sections 3.4 (Invertebrates) and 3.6 (Fishes) respectively.

Therefore, based on the information provided in these subsections, secondary stressors would not have 

an impact on vegetation.

3.3.4 SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL IMPACTS ON VEGETATION

Exposures to physical disturbance and strike stressors, and to explosives, occur primarily within the 

range complexes and testing ranges associated with the Study Area. The Navy identified and analyzed 

four physical disturbance or strike sub-stressors that have potential to impact vegetation: vessel strikes, 

in-water device strikes, military expended material strikes, and seafloor device strikes. Vessels and inwater devices may impact vegetation by striking or disturbing vegetation on the sea surface or seafloor.

Marine algae could be temporarily disturbed if struck by moving vessels and in-water devices or by the 

propeller action of transiting vessels. 

Vegetation may be temporarily disturbed if struck by military expended materials. This type of 

disturbance would not likely differ from conditions created by waves or rough weather. If enough 

military expended materials land on algal mats, the mats can sink. The likelihood is low that mats would 

accumulate enough material to cause sinking from military activities, as military expended materials are 

dispersed widely through an activity area. Seafloor device operation, installation, or removal could 

impact vegetation by physically removing portions of plants, crushing, temporarily increasing the 

turbidity (sediment suspended in the water) of waters nearby, or increasing shading which may interfere 

with photosynthesis. 

The potential for an explosion to injure or destroy vegetation would depend on the amount of 

vegetation present, the number of munitions used, and their net explosive weight. In areas where 

vegetation and locations for explosions overlap, vegetation on the surface of the water, in the water 

column, or rooted in the seafloor may be impacted.

The net impact of physical disturbance and strike stressors and explosives on vegetation is expected to 

be negligible, based on (1) the implementation of mitigation; (2) the quick recovery of most vegetation 

types from holdfasts or rhizomes that are unlikely to be removed by the activities; and (3) the shortterm nature of most activities and local disturbances of the surface water, with some temporary 

increase in suspended sediment in shallow areas.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.3-47

3.3 Vegetation

Activities described in this EIS/OEIS that have potential impacts on vegetation are widely dispersed, 

affecting a very small portion of the vegetation in the Study Area at any given time. The stressors that 

have potential impacts on marine vegetation include physical disturbances or strikes (vessels and inwater devices, military expended materials, and seafloor devices), explosives, and secondary stressors, 

i.e., impacts on habitat. Unlike mobile organisms, vegetation cannot flee from stressors once exposed. 

Vegetation in the Study Area would experience localized, temporary impacts, from stressors having the 

potential to physically damage or disperse individual plants or patches of vegetation. Impacted areas are 

expected to recover in a short time through regrowth, reproduction, and passive dispersal by currents, 

without measurable population-level effects to distribution, abundance, or productivity.

3.3.4.1 Combined Impacts of All Stressors Under Alternative 1

Activities described in this EIS/OEIS under Alternative 1 that have potential impacts on marine 

vegetation are widely dispersed, and not all stressors would occur simultaneously in a given location. 

The stressors that have potential impacts on marine vegetation include physical disturbances or strikes 

(vessel and in-water devices, military expended materials, and seafloor devices) and explosives. Unlike 

mobile organisms, vegetation cannot flee from stressors once exposed. Sargassum is the type of marine 

vegetation most likely to be exposed to multiple stressors in combination because it occurs in large 

expanses and because more activities and the associated stressors occur at the surface than on the 

bottom. Discrete areas of the Study Area (mainly within offshore areas with depths mostly greater than 

85 ft. in portions of range complexes and testing ranges) could experience higher levels of activity 

involving multiple stressors, which could result in a higher potential risk for impacts on Sargassum

within those areas. The potential for seagrasses and attached macroalgae to be exposed to multiple 

stressors would be low because activities are not concentrated in areas with depths less than 85 ft. or in 

inshore waters where seagrasses are concentrated. Furthermore, relatively few activities involve 

explosions on the bottom. The combined impacts of all stressors would not be expected to impact 

marine vegetation populations because: (1) activities involving more than one stressor are generally 

short in duration, (2) such activities are dispersed throughout the Study Area, and (3) activities are 

generally scheduled where previous activities have occurred; e.g., underwater detonation areas in the 

Key West Range Complex that do not overlap mapped seagrass beds. The aggregate effect on marine 

vegetation would not observably differ from existing conditions.

3.3.4.2 Combined Impacts of All Stressors Under Alternative 2

Activities described in this EIS/OEIS under Alternative 2 that have potential impacts on marine 

vegetation are widely dispersed, and not all stressors would occur simultaneously in a given location. 

The stressors that have potential impacts on marine vegetation include physical disturbances or strikes 

(vessel and in-water devices, military expended materials, seafloor devices) and explosives. Combined 

Impacts of all stressors under Alternative 2 would similar to those under Alternative 1.

3.3.4.3 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 AFTT 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.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.3-48

3.3 Vegetation

3.3.5 ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT DETERMINATIONS

Pursuant to the ESA, Navy training and testing activities would have no effect on Johnson’s seagrass or 

its designated critical habitat because the Proposed Action does not have any elements with the 

potential to modify such habitat. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.3-49

3.3 References

References

Adey, W. H., and L. A. C. Hayek. (2011). Elucidating marine biogeography with Macrophytes: 

Quantitative analysis of the north Atlantic supports the thermogeographic model and 

demonstrates a distinct subarctic region in the northwestern Atlantic. Northeastern Naturalist, 

18(8), 1–128. 

Arnold, T., C. Mealey, H. Leahey, A. W. Miller, J. M. Hall-Spencer, M. Milazzo, and K. Maers. (2012). 

Ocean acidification and the loss of phenolic substances in marine plants. PLoS ONE, 7(4), 

e35107–e35107. 

Beckett, L., A. Baldwin, and M. Kearney. (2016). Tidal Marshes across a Chesapeake Bay Subestuary Are 

Not Keeping up with Sea-Level Rise. PLoS ONE, 11(7), 1–12. 

Bedinger, L. A., S. S. Bell, and C. J. Dawes. (2013). Rhizophytic algal communities of shallow, coastal 

habitats in Florida: Components above and below the sediment surface. Bulletin of Marine 

Science, 89(2), 437–461. 

Benham, C. F., S. G. Beavis, R. A. Hendry, and E. L. Jackson. (2016). Growth effects of shading and 

sedimentation in two tropical seagrass species: Implications for port management and impact 

assessment. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 109(1), 461–470. 

Blaber, S. J., D. P. Cyrus, J. J. Albaret, C. V. Ching, J. W. Day, M. Elliott, M. S. Fonseca, D. E. Hoss, J. 

Orensanz, and I. C. Potter. (2000). Effects of fishing on the structure and functioning of estuarine 

and nearshore ecosystems. ICES Journal of Marine Sciences, 57, 590–613. 

Bozek, C., and D. Burdick. (2005). Impacts of seawalls on saltmarsh plant communities in the Great Bay 

Estuary, New Hampshire USA. Wetlands Ecology and Management, 13, 553–568. 

Butler, J. N., B. F. Morris, J. Cadwallader, and A. W. Stoner. (1983). Studies of Sargassum and the 

Sargassum Community. Bermuda: Bermuda Biological Station for Research, Inc.

Byrnes, J. E., D. C. Reed, B. J. Cardinale, K. C. Cavanaugh, S. J. Holbrooks, and R. J. Schmitts. (2011). 

Climate-driven increases in storm frequency simplify kelp forest food webs. Global Change 

Biology, 17, 2513–2525. 

Caceres, C., F. G. Taboada, J. Hofer, and R. Anadon. (2013). Phytoplankton Growth and 

Microzooplankton Grazing in the Subtropical Northeast Atlantic. PLoS ONE, 8(7). 

Castro, P., and M. E. Huber. (2000). Marine prokaryotes, protists, fungi, and plants. In: Marine Biology

(3rd ed., pp. 83–103). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Coelho, C., R. Silva, F. Veloso-Gomes, and F. Taveira-Pinto. (2009). Potential effects of climate change on 

northwest Portuguese coastal zones. ICES Journal of Marine Sciences, 66, 1497–1508. 

Coston-Clements, L., L. R. Settle, D. E. Hoss, and F. A. Cross. (1991). Utilization of the Sargassum habitat 

by marine invertebrates and vertebrates—A review. Technical Memorandum: National Oceanic 

and Atmospheric Administration.

Crain, C. M., B. S. Halpern, M. W. Beck, and C. V. Kappel. (2009). Understanding and Managing Human 

Threats to the Coastal Marine Environment. In R. S. Ostfeld & W. H. Schlesinger (Eds.), The Year 

in Ecology and Conservation Biology, 2009 (pp. 39–62). Oxford, United Kingdom: Blackwell 

Publishing.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.3-50

3.3 References

Creed, J. C., R. C. Phillips, and B. I. Van Tussenbroek. (2003). The seagrasses of the Caribbean. In E. P. 

Green & F. T. Short (Eds.), World Atlas of Seagrasses (pp. 234–242). Berkeley, CA: University of 

California Press.

Culbertson, J. B., I. Valiela, M. Pickart, E. E. Peacock, and C. M. Reddy. (2008). Long-term consequences 

of residual petroleum on salt marsh grass. Journal of Applied Ecology, 45(4), 1284–1292. 

Dawes, C. J., J. Andorfer, C. Rose, C. Uranowski, and N. Ehringer. (1997). Regrowth of the seagrass, 

Thalassia testudinum, into propeller scars. Aquatic Botany, 59(1–2), 139–155. 

Dawes, C. J. (1998). Marine Botany (2nd ed.). New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.

Dennison, W., R. Orth, K. Moore, J. Stevenson, V. Carter, S. Kollar, P. Bergstrom, and R. Batiuk. (1993). 

Assessing water quality with submersed aquatic vegetation: Habitat requirements as 

barometers of Chesapeake Bay health. BioScience, 43(2), 86–94. 

Doney, S. C., M. Ruckelshaus, D. J. Emmett, J. P. Barry, F. Chan, C. A. English, H. M. Galindo, J. M. 

Grebmeier, A. B. Hollowed, N. Knowlton, J. Polovina, N. N. Rabalais, W. J. Sydeman, and L. D. 

Talley. (2012). Climate change impacts on marine ecosystems. Annual Review of Marine Science, 

4(1), 11–37. 

Doyle, E., and J. Franks. (2015). Sargassum Fact Sheet. In Gulf and Caribbean Fisheries Institute (Ed.).

Egan, B., and C. Yarish. (1988). The distribution of the genus Laminaria (Phaeophyta) at its southern limit 

in the western Atlantic Ocean. Botanica Marina, 31, 155–161. 

Egan, B., and C. Yarish. (1990). Productivity and life history of Laminaria longicruris at its southern limit 

in the Western Atlantic Ocean. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 67, 263–273. 

Eiseman, N. J., and C. McMillan. (1980). A new species of seagrass, Halophila johnsonii, from the Atlantic 

coast of Florida. Aquatic Botany, 9, 15–19. 

Ellison, A., E. Farnsworth, and G. Moore. (2007a). Avicennia germinans. Retrieved from 

http://www.iucnredlist.org/apps/redlist/details/178811/0.

Ellison, A., E. Farnsworth, and G. Moore. (2007b). Rhizophora mangle. Retrieved from 

http://www.iucnredlist.org/apps/redlist/details/178851/0.

Ellison, A., E. Farnsworth, and G. Moore. (2007c). Laguncularia racemosa. Retrieved from 

http://www.iucnredlist.org/apps/redlist/details/178798/0.

Feller, I. C., C. E. Lovelock, U. Berger, K. L. McKee, S. B. Joye, and M. C. Ball. (2010). Biocomplexity in 

mangrove ecosystems. Annual Review of Marine Science, 2(1), 395–417. 

Ferguson, R. L., and L. L. Wood. (1994). Rooted Vascular Beds in the Albemarle-Pamlico Estuarine 

System. Albemarle Sound, NC and Pamlico Sound, NC: Albemarle-Pamlico Estuarine Study.

Florida Department of Environmental Protection. (2010a). Seagrasses. Tallahassee, FL: Florida Coastal 

Office.

Florida Department of Environmental Protection. (2010b). Site-Specific Information in Support of 

Establishing Numeric Nutrient Criteria for St. Andrew Bay Florida. Tallahassee, FL: Florida Coastal 

Office.

Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission-Fish and Wildlife Research Institute. (2012). Marine 

Resources Geographic Information System. Retrieved from 

http://ocean.floridamarine.org/mrgis/.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.3-51

3.3 References

Fonseca, M., and A. Malhotra. (2012). Boat Wakes and Their Influence on Erosion in the Atlantic 

Intracoastal Waterway, North Carolina. Beaufort, NC: National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration.

Fonseca, M. S., W. J. Kenworthy, and G. W. Thayer. (1998). Guidelines for the Conservation and 

Restoration of Seagrasses in the United States and Adjacent Waters. (National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration's Coastal Ocean Program Decision Analysis Series No. 12). Silver 

Spring, MD: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Coastal Ocean Office.

Fourqurean, J. W., M. J. Durako, M. O. Hall, and L. N. Hefty. (2002). Seagrass distribution in South 

Florida: A multi-agency coordinated monitoring program. In J. W. Porter & K. G. Porter (Eds.), 

The Everglades, Florida Bay, and Coral Reefs of the Florida Keys: An Ecosystem Sourcebook (pp. 

497–522). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.

Francour, P., A. Ganteaume, and M. Poulain. (1999). Effects of boat anchoring in Posidonia oceanica

seagrass beds in the Port-Cros National Park (north-western Mediterranean Sea). Aquatic 

Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems, 9(4), 391–400. 

Galbraith, H., R. Jones, R. Park, J. Clough, S. Herrod-Julius, B. Harrington, and G. Page. (2005). Global 

Climate Change and Sea Level Rise: Potential Losses of Intertidal Habitat for Shorebirds. 

Newfane, VT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service.

Garrison, T. (2004). Essentials of Oceanography (3rd ed.). Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole-Thomas 

Learning.

Gower, J., C. Hu, G. Borstad, and S. King. (2006). Ocean color satellites show extensive lines of floating 

Sargassum in the Gulf of Mexico. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, 44(12), 

3619–3625. 

Gower, J., and S. King. (2008). Satellite images show the movement of floating Sargassum in the Gulf of 

Mexico and Atlantic Ocean. Nature Precedings. Unpublished Manuscript.

Gower, J., E. Young, and S. King. (2013). Satellite images suggest a new Sargassum source region in 2011. 

Remote Sensing Letters, 4(8), 764–773. 

Green, E. P., and F. T. Short. (2003). World Atlas of Seagrasses. Berkeley, CA: University of California 

Press.

Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council. (2010). Species Listed in the Fishery Management Plans of 

the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council. Tampa, FL: Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management 

Council.

Gulf of Mexico Program. (2004). Seagrass Habitat in the Northern Gulf of Mexico: Degradation, 

Conservation and Restoration of a Valuable Resource. Washington, DC: United States 

Environmental Protection Agency.

Harley, C. D., A. R. Hughes, K. M. Hultgren, B. G. Miner, C. J. B. Sorte, C. S. Thomber, L. F. Rodriguez, T. L., 

and S. L. Williams. (2006). The impacts of climate change in coastal marine systems. Ecology 

Letters, 9, 228–242. 

Hayes, M. O., R. Hoff, J. Michel, D. Scholz, and G. Shigenaka. (1992). An Introduction to Coastal Habitats 

and Biological Resources for Oil Spill Response. Seattle, WA: U.S. Department of Commerce, 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Hazardous Materials Response and 

Assessment Division.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.3-52

3.3 References

Hayes, P. K., N. A. El Semary, and P. Sanchez-Baracaldo. (2007). The taxonomy of cyanobacteria: 

Molecular insights into a difficult problem. In J. Brodie & J. Lewis (Eds.), Unravelling the Algae: 

The Past, Present, and Future of Algal Systematics (pp. 93–102). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.

Heck, K. L., Jr., G. Hays, and R. J. Orth. (2003). Critical evaluation of the nursery role hypothesis for 

seagrass meadows. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 253, 123–136. 

Hemminga, M., and C. Duarte. (2000). Seagrasses in the human environment. In Seagrass Ecology (pp. 

248–291). Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.

Kenworthy, W. J., M. J. Durako, S. M. R. Fatemy, H. Valavi, and G. W. Thayer. (1993). Ecology of 

seagrasses in northeastern Saudi Arabia one year after the Gulf War oil spill. Marine Pollution 

Bulletin, 27, 213–222. 

Knowlton, A. R., and S. D. Kraus. (2001). Mortality and serious injury of northern right whales (Eubalaena 

glacialis) in the western North Atlantic Ocean. Journal of Cetacean Resource Management, 

Special Issue 2, 193–208. 

Lehmköster, J. (2015). Climate change impacts on marine ecosystems. In T. Schröder (Ed.), World Ocean 

Review (pp. 102–117). Hamburg, Germany: Mareverlag Publishing House.

Levinton, J. S. (2013a). Environmental impacts of industrial activities and human populations. In Marine 

Biology: Function, Biodiversity, Ecology (4th ed., pp. 492–516). New York, NY: Oxford University 

Press.

Levinton, J. S. (2013b). Plankton. In Marine Biology: Function, Biodiversity, Ecology (4th ed., pp. 141–

162). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Levinton, J. S. (2013c). Benthic microorganisms, seaweeds, and sea grasses. In Marine Biology: Function, 

Biodiversity, Ecology (4th ed., pp. 242–253). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Levinton, J. S. (2013d). Seaweeds. In Marine Biology: Function, Biodiversity, Ecology (4th ed., pp. 246–

252). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Levinton, J. S. (2013e). Marine Biology: Function, Biodiversity, Ecology (4th ed.). New York, NY: Oxford 

University Press.

Liu, H., M. Chen, F. Zhu, and P. J. Harrison. (2016). Effect of Diatom Silica Content on Copepod Grazing, 

Growth and Reproduction. Frontiers in Marine Science, 3(89), 1–7. 

Luning, K. (1990). Seaweeds: Their Environment, Biogeography, and Ecophysiology. New York, NY: John 

Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Mach, K. J., B. B. Hale, M. W. Denny, and D. V. Nelson. (2007). Death by small forces: A fracture and 

fatigue analysis of wave-swept macroalgae. The Journal of Experimental Biology, 210(13), 2231–

2243. 

Maffei, M. E. (2014). Magnetic field effects on plant growth, development, and evolution. Frontiers in 

Plant Science, 5(445), 1–15. 

Maine Department of Marine Resources. (2014). Fishery Management Plan for Rockweed (Ascophyllum 

nodosum). Augusta, ME: Maine Department of Marine Resources.

Marret, F., and K. A. F. Zonneveld. (2003). Atlas of modern organic-walled dinoflagellate cyst 

distribution. Review of Palaeobotany and Palynology, 125(1–2), 1–200. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.3-53

3.3 References

Martinez, B., F. Arenas, M. Rubal, S. Burgues, R. Esteban, I. Garcia-Plazaola, F. L. Figueroa, R. Pereira, L. 

Saldana, I. Sousa-Pinto, A. Trilla, and R. M. Viejo. (2012). Physical factors driving intertidal 

macroalgae distribution: Physiological stress of a dominant fucoid at its southern limit. 

Oecologia, 170(2), 341–353. 

Massachusetts Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program. (2016). Classification of Natural 

Communities of Massachusetts, Version 2.0, Brackish Tidal Marsh. Westborough, MA: Division of 

Fisheries and Wildlife. Retrieved from www.mass.gov/nhesp/.

Massachusetts Office of Coastal Zone Management. (2013). Non-Native Seaweed in Massachusetts. 

Boston, MA: Massachusetts Office of Coastal Management.

Mathieson, A. C., C. J. Dawes, E. J. Hehre, and L. G. Harris. (2009). Floristic studies of seaweeds from 

Cobscook Bay, Maine. Northeastern Naturalist, 16(mo5), 1–48. 

McHugh, D. J. (2003). A Guide to the Seaweed Industry. Canberra, Australia: Food & Agriculture 

Organization.

Mearns, A. J., D. J. Reish, P. S. Oshida, T. Ginn, and M. A. Rempel-Hester. (2011). Effects of Pollution on 

Marine Organisms. Water Environment Research, 83(10), 1789–1852. 

Michel, J., and N. Rutherford. (2013). Oil Spills in Marshes: Planning and Response Considerations. 

Columbia, SC and Seattle, WA: U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration, National Ocean Service Office of Response and Restoration.

Mitsch, W. J., J. G. Gosselink, C. J. Anderson, and L. Zhang. (2009). Wetland Ecosystems. Hoboken, NJ: 

John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Narragansett Bay Estuary Program. (2010). Rhode Island's Coastal Habitats. Retrieved from 

http://www.edc.uri.edu/restoration/html/intro/sea.htm.

National Marine Fisheries Service. (2002). Final Recovery Plan for Johnson's Seagrass (Halophia 

johnsonni). Silver Spring, MD: National Marine Fisheries Service.

National Marine Fisheries Service. (2010). Johnson's Seagrass (Halophila johnsonii). Retrieved from 

https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/species/johnsons-seagrass.

National Ocean Service. (2015). How far does light travel in the ocean? , Retrieved from 

http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/light_travel.html.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. (2002). Oil Spills in Mangroves: Planning and 

Response Considerations. Silver Spring, MD: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 

Ocean Service, Office of Response and Restoration.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. (2008). Status and 

Trends of Wetlands in the Coastal Watersheds of the Eastern United States 1998 to 2004. Silver 

Spring, MD: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries 

Service and U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. (2011). State of the Coasts. Retrieved from 

https://coast.noaa.gov/.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Marine Debris Program. (2016). Marine Debris 

Impacts on Coastal and Benthic Habitats. Silver Spring, MD: National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.3-54

3.3 References

National Research Council. (2007). Mitigating Shore Erosion Along Sheltered Coasts. Washington, DC: 

The National Academies Press.

North Carolina Department of Environmental and Natural Resources. (2012). North Carolina Submerged 

Aquatic Vegetation. Retrieved from http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/apnep/sav-map.

Olsen, Y. S., M. Sanchez-Camacho, N. Marba, and C. M. Duarte. (2012). Mediterranean seagrass growth 

and demography responses to experimental warming. Estuaries and Coasts, 35(5), 1205–1213. 

Orth, R., T. Carruthers, W. Dennison, C. Duarte, J. Fourqurean, K. Heck Jr., A. Hughes, G. Kendrick, W. 

Kenworthy, S. Olyarnik, F. Short, M. Waycott, and S. Williams. (2006). A Global Crisis for Seagrass 

Ecosystems. BioScience, 56(12), 987–996. 

Orth, R., S. Marion, K. Moore, and D. Wilcox. (2010). Eelgrass (Zostera marina L.) in the Chesapeake Bay 

Region of Mid-Atlantic Coast of the USA: Challenges in Conservation and Restoration. Estuaries 

and Coasts, 33, 139–150. 

Orth, R. J., and K. A. Moore. (1988). Distribution of Zostera marina L. and Ruppia maritima L. sensu lato 

along depth gradients in the lower Chesapeake Bay, U.S.A. Aquatic Botany, 32(3), 291–305. 

Parnell, K., S. McDonald, and A. Burke. (2007). Shoreline effects of vessel wakes, Marlborough Sounds, 

New Zealand. Journal of Coastal Research(Special Issue 50), 502–506. 

Peckol, P., and R. Searles. (1984). Temporal and Spatial Patterns of Growth and Survival of Invertebrate 

and Algal Populations of a North Carolina Continental Shelf Community. Estuarine and Coastal 

Shelf Science, 18, 133–143. 

Peckol, P., and J. Ramus. (1988). Abundances and physiological properties of deep-water seaweeds from 

Carolina outer continental shelf. Journal of Experiemental Marine Biology and Ecology, 115(1), 

25-39. 

Pennings, S., M. Alber, C. Alexander, M. Booth, A. Burd, W. Cai, C. Craft, C. Depratter, D. Di Iorio, C. 

Hopkinson, S. Joye, C. Meile, W. Moore, B. Silliman, V. Thompson, and J. Wares. (2012). South 

Atlantic Tidal Wetlands. Wetland Habitats of North America: Ecology and Conservation Concerns

(pp. 45–61). Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Peterson, C. H. (2001). The "Exxon Valdez" oil spill in Alaska: Acute, indirect and chronic effects on the 

ecosystem. In A. J. Southward, P. A. Tyler, C. M. Young, & L. A. Fuiman (Eds.), Advances in 

Marine Biology (Vol. 39, pp. 1–103). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Phillips, R. C., and E. G. Meñez. (1988). Seagrasses. Smithsonian Contributions to the Marine Sciences, 34, 

104. 

Rabalais, N. N., R. E. Turner, and D. Scavia. (2002). Beyond science into policy: Gulf of Mexico Hypoxia 

and the Mississippi River. BioScience, 52(2), 129. 

Roskov, Y., L. Abucay, T. Orrell, D. Nicolson, T. Kunze, A. Culham, N. Bailly, P. Kirk, T. Bourgoin, R. E. 

DeWalt, W. Decock, and A. De Weaver. (2015). Species 2000 & ITIS Catalogue of Life, 2015 

Annual Checklist. Retrieved from http://www.catalogueoflife.org/annual-checklist/2015/.

Ruggiero, M., and D. Gordon. (2015). ITIS Standard Report Page: Ochrophyta. Retrieved from 

http://www.itis.gov/servlet/SingleRpt/SingleRpt.

Ruwa, R. K. (1996). Intertidal wetlands. In T. R. McClanahan & T. P. Young (Eds.), East African Ecosystems 

and Their Conservation (pp. 101–130). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.3-55

3.3 References

Sargent, F. J., T. J. Leary, D. W. Crewz, and C. R. Kruer. (1995). Scarring of Florida's Seagrasses: 

Assessment and Management Options. St. Petersburg, FL: Florida Department of Environmental 

Protection.

Schiel, D. R., J. R. Steinbeck, and M. S. Foster. (2004). Ten years of induced ocean warming causes 

comprehensive changes in marine benthic communities. Ecology, 85(7), 1833–1839. 

Schoener, A., and G. T. Rowe. (1970). Pelagic Sargassum and its presence among the deep-sea benthos. 

Deep-Sea Research, 17, 923–925. 

Short, F., T. Carruthers, W. Dennison, and M. Waycott. (2007). Global seagrass distribution and diversity: 

A bioregional model. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 350, 3–21. 

South Atlantic Fishery Management Council. (1998). Final Habitat Plan for the South Atlantic Region: 

Essential Fish Habitat Requirements for Fishery Management Plans of the South Atlantic Fishery 

Management Council. North Charleston, SC: South Atlantic Fishery Management Council.

South Atlantic Fishery Management Council. (2002). Fishery management plan for pelagic Sargassum 

habitat of the South Atlantic Region. North Charleston, SC: South Atlantic Fishery Management 

Council.

South Atlantic Fishery Management Council. (2009). Fishery Ecosystem Plan of the South Atlantic Region: 

South Atlantic Habitats and Species. North Charleston, SC: South Atlantic Fishery Management 

Council.

Spalding, M., M. Taylor, C. Ravilious, F. Short, and E. Green. (2003). Global overview: The distribution 

and status of seagrasses. In E. P. Green & F. T. Short (Eds.), World Atlas of Seagrasses (pp. 5–26). 

Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Steneck, R. S., M. H. Graham, B. J. Bourque, D. Corbett, J. M. Erlandson, J. A. Estes, and M. J. Tegner. 

(2002). Kelp forest ecosystems: Biodiversity, stability, resilience and future. Environmental 

Conservation, 29(4), 436–459. 

Stevenson, J., C. Piper, and N. Confer. (1979). Decline of Submerged Plants in Chesapeake Bay. Retrieved 

from https://www.fws.gov/chesapeakebay/savpage.htm.

Stevenson, J., L. Staver, and K. Staver. (1993). Water quality associated with survival of submersed 

aquatic vegetation along an estuarine gradient. Estuaries, 16(2), 346–361. 

Steward, J., and W. Green. (2007). Setting Load Limits for Nutrients and Suspended Solids Based upon 

Seagrass Depth-limit Targets. Estuaries and Coasts, 30(4), 657–670. 

Thomsen, M., T. Wernberg, A. Engelen, F. Tuya, M. Vanderklift, M. Holmer, K. McGlathery, F. Arenas, J. 

Kotta, and B. Silliman. (2012). A meta-analysis of seaweed impacts on seagrasses: Generalities 

and knowledge gaps. PLoS ONE, 7(1), 1–8. 

Trono, G., and G. Tolentino. (1993). Studies on the management of sargassum (Fucales, Phaeophyta) 

bed in Bolinao, Pangasinan, Phillipines. The Korean Journal of Phycology, 8(2), 249–257. 

Twilley, R., W. Kemp, K. Staver, J. Stevenson, and W. Boynton. (1985). Nutrient enrichment of estuarine 

submersed vascular plant communities. 1. Algal growth and effects on production of plants and 

associated communities. Marine Ecology - Progress Series, 23, 179–191. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. (1999). Multi-Species Recovery Plan for South Florida: Coastal Salt Marsh. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.3-56

3.3 References

U.S. Geological Survey. (2003). Predicting Future Mangrove Forest Migration in the Everglades Under 

Rising Sea Level. (FS-030-03). Lafayette, LA: U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological 

Survey.

U.S. National Response Team. (2010). What are the Effects of Oil on Seagrass? Washington, DC: U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency. Retrieved from 

http://www.nrt.org/production/NRT/RRTHome.nsf/resources/RRTIVPamphlets/$File/27_RRT4_Seagrass_Pamphlet.pdf.

Vadas, R. L., Sr., B. F. Beal, W. A. Wright, S. Nickl, and S. Emerson. (2004). Growth and productivity of 

sublittoral fringe kelps (Laminaria longicruris) Bach. Pyl. in Cobscook Bay, Maine. Northeastern 

Naturalist, 11(Special Issue 2), 143–162. 

Virnstein, R. W., L. J. Morris, J. D. Miller, and R. Miller-Myers. (1997). Distribution and Abundance of 

Halophila johnsonii in the Indian River Lagoon. Palatka, FL: St. Johns River Water Management 

District.

Virnstein, R. W., and L. M. Hall. (2009). Northern range extension of the seagrasses Halophila johnsonii 

and Halophila decipiens along the east coast of Florida, U.S.A. Aquatic Botany, 90(1), 89–92. 

Virnstein, R. W., L.-A. C. Hayek, and L. J. Morris. (2009). Pulsating patches: A model for the spatial and 

temporal dynamics of the threatened seagrass, Halophila johnsonii. Marine Ecology Progress 

Series, 385, 97–109. 

Watzin, M. C., and J. G. Gosselink. (1992). The Fragile Fringe: Coastal Wetlands of the Continental United 

States. Washington, DC: United States Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

Retrieved from http://nla.gov.au/nla.cat-vn3842373.

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, and 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. 

Willette, D., and R. Ambrose. (2012). Effects of the invasive seagrass Halophila stipulacea on the native 

seagrass, Syringodium filiforme, and associated fish and epibiota communities in the Eastern 

Caribbean. Aquatic Botany, 103, 74–82. 

Williams, S. L., and J. E. Smith. (2007). A Global Review of the Distribution, Taxonomy, and Impacts of 

Introduced Seaweeds. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics, 38(1), 327–359. 

Wilson, C. J., P. S. Wilson, C. A. Greene, and K. H. Dunton. (2013). Seagrass meadows provide an acoustic 

refuge for estuarine fish. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 472, 117–128. 

Woodward-Clyde Consultants. (1994). Historical Imagery Inventory and Seagrass Assessment, Indian 

River Lagoon. Melborne, FL: Indian River Lagoon National Estuary Program.

World Ocean Review. (2015). Sustainable Use of Our Oceans - Making Ideas Work. Hamburg, Germany: 

Maribus.

Zaitsev, Y. P. (1971). Marine Neustonology. Jerusalem, Israel: Israel Program for Scientific Translations.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

i

3.4 Invertebrates

Final

Environmental Impact Statement/Overseas Environmental Impact Statement 

Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing

TABLE OF CONTENTS

3.4 Invertebrates..........................................................................................................3.4-1

3.4.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................3.4-3

3.4.2 Affected Environment.........................................................................................3.4-3

3.4.2.1 General Background ...........................................................................3.4-3

3.4.2.2 Endangered Species Act-Listed Species............................................3.4-15

3.4.2.3 Species Not Listed Under the Endangered Species Act....................3.4-29

3.4.3 Environmental Consequences ..........................................................................3.4-40

3.4.3.1 Acoustic Stressors.............................................................................3.4-41

3.4.3.2 Explosive Stressors............................................................................3.4-65

3.4.3.3 Energy Stressors................................................................................3.4-73

3.4.3.4 Physical Disturbance and Strike Stressors........................................3.4-78

3.4.3.5 Entanglement Stressors..................................................................3.4-103

3.4.3.6 Ingestion Stressors..........................................................................3.4-112

3.4.3.7 Secondary Stressors........................................................................3.4-121

3.4.4 Summary of Potential Impacts on Invertebrates............................................3.4-126

3.4.4.1 Combined Impacts of All Stressors Under Alternative 1 ................3.4-126

3.4.4.2 Combined Impacts of All Stressors Under Alternative 2 ................3.4-128

3.4.4.3 Combined Impacts of All Stressors Under the No Action 

Alternative......................................................................................3.4-128

3.4.5 Endangered Species Act Determinations........................................................3.4-128

List of Figures 

Figure 3.4-1: Critical Habitat Areas for Elkhorn and Staghorn Coral Within the Study Area................3.4-19

Figure 3.4-2: Prediction of Distance to 90 Percent Survivability of Marine Invertebrates 

Exposed to an Underwater Explosion (Young, 1991) ......................................................3.4-66
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

ii

3.4 Invertebrates

List of Tables

Table 3.4-1: Status and Presence of Endangered Species Act-Listed and Species of Concern 

Invertebrate Species in the Study Area ...........................................................................3.4-15

Table 3.4-2: Major Taxonomic Groups of Marine Invertebrates in the Atlantic Fleet Training 

and Testing Study Area ....................................................................................................3.4-29

Table 3.4-3: Invertebrate Effect Determinations for Training and Testing Activities Under 

Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative).............................................................................3.4-129
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.4-1

3.4 Invertebrates

3.4 INVERTEBRATES

INVERTEBRATES SYNOPSIS

The United States Department of the Navy considered all potential stressors that invertebrates could 

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

Preferred Alternative (Alternative 1):

 Acoustics: Invertebrates could be exposed to noise from the proposed training and testing 

activities. However, available information indicates that invertebrate sound detection is primarily 

limited to low-frequency (less than 1 kilohertz [kHz]) particle motion and water movement that 

diminishes rapidly with distance from a sound source. The expected impact of noise on 

invertebrates is correspondingly diminished and mostly limited to offshore surface layers of the 

water column where only zooplankton, squid, and jellyfish are prevalent mostly at night when 

training and testing occur less frequently. Invertebrate populations are typically lower offshore, 

where most training and testing occurs, than inshore due to the scarcity of habitat structure and 

comparatively lower nutrient levels. Exceptions occur at nearshore and inshore locations where 

occasional pierside sonar, air gun, or pile driving actions occur near relatively resilient soft bottom 

or artificial substrate communities. Because the number of individuals affected would be small 

relative to population numbers, population-level impacts are unlikely. 

 Explosives: Explosives produce pressure waves that can harm invertebrates in the vicinity of 

where they typically occur: mostly offshore surface waters where zooplankton, squid, and 

jellyfish are prevalent mostly at night when training and testing with explosives do not typically 

occur. Invertebrate populations are generally lower offshore than inshore due to the scarcity of 

habitat structure and comparatively lower nutrient levels. Exceptions occur where explosives are 

used on the bottom within nearshore or inshore waters on or near sensitive live hard bottom 

communities. Soft bottom communities are resilient to occasional disturbances. Due to the 

relatively small number of individuals affected, population-level impacts are unlikely.

 Energy: The proposed activities would produce electromagnetic energy that briefly affects a very 

limited area of water, based on the relatively weak magnetic fields and mobile nature of the 

stressors. Whereas some invertebrate species can detect magnetic fields, the effect has only 

been documented at much higher field strength than what the proposed activities generate. 

High-energy lasers can damage invertebrates. However, the effects are limited to surface waters 

where relatively few invertebrates species occur (e.g., zooplankton, squid, jellyfish), mostly at 

night when actions do not typically occur, and only when the target is missed. Due to the 

relatively small number of individuals that may be affected, population-level impacts are unlikely.

 Physical Disturbance and Strike: Invertebrates could experience physical disturbance and strike 

impacts from vessels and in-water devices, military expended materials, seafloor devices, and pile 

driving. Most risk occurs offshore (where invertebrates are less abundant) and near the surface 

where relatively few invertebrates occur during the day when actions are typically occurring. The 

majority of expended materials are used in areas far from nearshore and inshore bottom areas 

where invertebrates are the most abundant. Exceptions occur for actions taking place within 

inshore and nearshore waters over primarily soft bottom communities, such as related to vessel 

transits, inshore and nearshore vessel training, nearshore explosive ordnance disposal training, 

Continued on the next page...
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.4-2

3.4 Invertebrates

Continued from the previous page...

INVERTEBRATES SYNOPSIS

 Physical Disturbance and Strike (continued): operation of bottom-crawling seafloor devices, and 

pile driving. Invertebrate communities in affected soft bottom areas are naturally resilient to 

occasional disturbances. Accordingly, population-level impacts are unlikely.

 Entanglement: Invertebrates could be entangled by various expended materials (wires, cables, 

decelerators/parachutes, biodegradable polymer). Most entanglement risk occurs in offshore 

areas where invertebrates are relatively less abundant. The risk of entangling invertebrates is 

minimized by the typically linear nature of the expended structures (e.g., wires, cables), although 

decelerators/parachutes have mesh that could pose a risk to those invertebrates that are large 

and slow enough to be entangled (e.g., jellyfish). Deep-water coral could also be entangled by 

drifting decelerators/parachutes, but co-occurrence is highly unlikely given the extremely sparse 

coverage of corals in the deep ocean. Accordingly, population-level impacts are unlikely.

 Ingestion: Small expended materials and material fragments pose an ingestion risk to some 

invertebrates. However, most military expended materials are too large to be ingested, and many 

invertebrate species are unlikely to consume an item that does not visually or chemically 

resemble its natural food. Exceptions occur for materials fragmented by explosive charges or 

weathering, which could be ingested by filter- or deposit-feeding invertebrates. Ingestion of such 

materials would likely occur infrequently, and only invertebrates located very close to the 

fragmented materials would potentially be affected. Furthermore, the vast majority of 

human-deposited ingestible materials in the ocean originate from non-military sources. 

Accordingly, population-level impacts are unlikely.

 Secondary: Secondary impacts on invertebrates are possible via changes to habitats (sediment or 

water) and to prey availability due to explosives, explosives byproducts, unexploded munitions, 

metals, and toxic expended material components. Other than bottom-placed explosives, the 

impacts are mostly in offshore waters where invertebrates are less abundant. The impacts of 

occasional bottom-placed explosives are mostly limited to nearshore soft bottom habitats that 

recover quickly from disturbance. Following detonation, concentrations of explosive byproducts 

are rapidly diluted to levels that are not considered toxic to marine invertebrates. Furthermore, 

most explosive byproducts are common seawater constituents. Contamination leaching from 

unexploded munitions is likely inconsequential because the material has low solubility in 

seawater and is slowly delivered to the water column. Heavy metals and chemicals such as 

unspent propellants can reach harmful levels around stationary range targets but are not likely in 

open waters where proposed action targets are typically mobile or temporarily stationary. 

Accordingly, overall impacts of secondary stressors on widespread invertebrate populations are 

not likely. Impacts due to decreased availability of prey items (fish and other invertebrates) would 

likely be undetectable. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.4-3

3.4 Invertebrates

3.4.1 INTRODUCTION

This chapter provides the analysis of potential impacts on marine invertebrates found in the Atlantic 

Fleet Training and Testing (AFTT) 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 activities on invertebrates. Because invertebrates occur in all habitats, activities that interact 

with the water column or the bottom could potentially impact many species and individuals, including 

microscopic zooplankton (e.g., invertebrate larvae, copepods, protozoans) that drift with currents, 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). Because many benthic animals have limited 

mobility compared to pelagic species, activities that contact the bottom generally have a greater 

potential for impact. Activities that occur in the water column generally have a lesser potential for 

impact due to dilution and dispersion of some stressors (e.g., chemical contaminants), potential drifting 

of small invertebrates out of an impact area, and the relatively greater mobility of open water 

invertebrates large enough to actively leave an impact area.

The following subsections provide brief introductions to the major taxonomic groups and Endangered 

Species Act (ESA)-listed species of marine invertebrates that occur in the Study Area. The National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) maintains a 

website that provides additional information on the biology, life history, species distribution (including 

maps), and conservation of invertebrates.

3.4.2 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

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

Section 3.4.2.1 (General Background), which provides summaries of habitat use, movement and 

behavior, sound sensing and production, and threats that affect or have the potential to affect natural 

communities of marine invertebrates within the Study Area. Species listed under the ESA are described 

in Section 3.4.2.2 (Endangered Species Act-Listed Species). General types of marine invertebrates that 

are not listed under the ESA are reviewed in Section 3.4.2.3 (Species Not Listed Under the Endangered 

Species Act).

3.4.2.1 General Background

Invertebrates, which are animals without backbones, are the most abundant life form on Earth, with 

marine invertebrates representing a large, diverse group with approximately 367,000 species described 

worldwide to date (World Register of Marine Species Editorial Board, 2015). However, it is estimated 

that most existing species have not yet been described (Mora et al., 2011). The total number of 

invertebrate species that occur in the Study Area is unknown, but is likely to be many thousands. The 

results of a research effort to estimate the number of marine invertebrate species in various areas

identified over 3,000 species in the Northeast United States (U.S.) Continental Shelf Large Marine 

Ecosystem and over 10,000 species in the Gulf of Mexico (Fautin et al., 2010). Invertebrate species vary 

in their use of abiotic habitats and some populations are threatened by human activities and other 

natural changes, especially endangered species.

Marine invertebrates are important ecologically and economically, providing an important source of 

food, essential ecosystem services (coastal protection, nutrient recycling, food for other animals, habitat 

formation), and income from tourism and commercial fisheries (Spalding et al., 2001). The health and 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.4-4

3.4 Invertebrates

abundance of marine invertebrates are vital to the marine ecosystem and the sustainability of the 

world’s fisheries (Pauly et al., 2002). Economically important invertebrate groups that are fished, 

commercially and recreationally, for food in the United States include crustaceans (e.g., shrimps, 

lobsters, and crabs), bivalves (e.g., scallops, clams, and oysters), echinoderms (e.g., sea urchins and sea 

cucumbers), and cephalopods (e.g., squids and octopuses) (Chuenpagdee et al., 2003; Food and 

Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 2005; Pauly et al., 2002). Marine invertebrates or the 

structures they form (e.g., shells and coral colonies) are harvested for many purposes, including jewelry, 

curios, and the aquarium trade. In addition, some marine invertebrates are sources of chemical 

compounds with potential medical applications. Natural products have been isolated from a variety of 

marine invertebrates and have shown a wide range of therapeutic properties, including anti-microbial, 

antioxidant, anti-hypertensive, anticoagulant, anticancer, anti-inflammatory, wound healing and 

immune modulation, and other medicinal effects (De Zoysa, 2012).

3.4.2.1.1 Habitat Use

Marine invertebrates live in all of the world’s oceans, from warm shallow waters to cold deep waters. 

They inhabit the bottom and all depths of the water column in all the large marine ecosystems (West 

Greenland, Newfoundland-Labrador Shelf, Scotian Shelf, Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf, Southeast 

U.S. Continental Shelf, Gulf of Mexico, and Caribbean Sea) and open ocean areas (Labrador Current, Gulf 

Stream, and North Atlantic Gyre) in the Study Area (Brusca & Brusca, 2003). Many species that occur in 

the water column are either microscopic or not easily observed with the unaided eye (e.g., protozoans, 

copepods, and the larvae of larger invertebrate species). Many invertebrates migrate to deeper waters 

during the day, presumably to decrease predation risk. However, some invertebrates, such as some 

jellyfish and squid species, may occur in various portions of the water column, including near the 

surface, at any time of day. In addition, under certain oceanographic conditions, other types of 

invertebrates (e.g., pelagic crabs and by-the-wind sailors [Velella velella]) may occur near the surface 

during the day. The Study Area extends from the bottom up to the mean high tide line (often termed 

mean high water in literature). The description of habitat use in this section pertains to common marine 

invertebrates found in the different habitats. This section also identifies marine invertebrates that form

persistent habitats, which are considered to be structures that do not quickly disintegrate or become 

incorporated into soft or intermediate substrate after the death of the organism. The principal habitatforming invertebrates are corals and shellfish species (e.g., oysters, mussels). In a strict sense, individual 

invertebrates with hard shells (e.g., molluscs), outer skeletons (e.g., crabs), tubes (e.g., annelid worms), 

or cavities (e.g., sponges) also may be habitat-forming, providing attachment surfaces or living spaces 

for other organisms. The abiotic (nonliving) components of all habitat types are addressed in Section 3.5 

(Habitats), and marine vegetation components are discussed in Section 3.3 (Vegetation). 

Marine invertebrate distribution in the Study Area is influenced by habitat (e.g., abiotic substrate, 

topography, biogenic [formed by living organisms] features), ocean currents, and physical and water 

chemistry factors such as temperature, salinity, and nutrient content (Levinton, 2009). Distribution is 

also influenced by distance from the equator (latitude) and distance from shore. In general, the number 

of marine invertebrate species (species richness) increases toward the equator (Cheung et al., 2005; 

Macpherson, 2002). Species richness and overall abundance are typically greater in coastal water 

habitats compared to the open ocean due to the increased availability of food and protection that 

coastal habitats provide (Levinton, 2009).

The diversity and abundance of Arthropoda (e.g., crabs, lobsters, and barnacles) and Mollusca (e.g., 

snails, clams, scallops, and squid) are highest on the bottom over the continental shelf due to high 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.4-5

3.4 Invertebrates

productivity and availability of complex habitats relative to typical soft bottom habitat of the deep 

ocean (Karleskint et al., 2006). Organisms occurring in the bathyal and abyssal zones of the ocean are 

generally small and have sparse populations (Nybakken, 1993). The deep ocean has a limited food 

supply for sedentary deposit or filter feeders. The only areas of the deep ocean known to be densely 

populated are hydrothermal vents and cold seeps (refer to Section 3.5, Habitats, for additional 

information on these features).

Sandy coastal shores are dominated by species that are adapted to living in shifting substrates, many of 

which are highly mobile and can burrow. Common invertebrates in these habitats include mole crabs

(Emerita talpoida), coquina clams (Donax variabilis), and a variety of isopods, amphipods, snails, and 

worms (South Carolina Department of Natural Resources & National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration, 1996b; Tewfik et al., 2016). Inland soft shores consist of mud flats and sand flats that

occur in areas sheltered from strong currents and waves. Soft shore habitats may support a wide variety 

of invertebrate species including amphipods, decapods, snails, bivalves, worms, and echinoderms

(Dineen, 2010; South Carolina Department of Natural Resources & National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration, 1996a). Habitat-forming invertebrates such as eastern oyster (Crassostrea virginica) may 

occur in coastal flats.

Intermediate (e.g., cobble, gravel) and rocky shores provide habitat for a variety of marine 

invertebrates, such as sea anemones, barnacles, chitons, limpets, mussels, urchins, sea stars, sponges, 

tunicates, and various worms. Rocky intertidal invertebrates may be attached or free living/mobile, and 

use various feeding strategies (filter-feeders, herbivores, carnivores, scavengers). Many invertebrates 

occurring in rocky intertidal zones are preyed upon by fish, birds, and other invertebrates. This particular 

habitat does not coincide with any of the proposed actions and will therefore not be discussed further. 

However, hard artificial structures such as pier pilings and seawalls can have a similar community of 

invertebrates that are in close proximity to some of the proposed actions.

Vegetated habitats, such as kelp forests in nearshore subtidal habitats, seagrasses found in sheltered 

inshore or nearshore waters, and floating Sargassum aggregations in nearshore and offshore locations, 

support a wide variety of marine invertebrate species. Kelp (primarily Laminaria species) occurs in the 

North Atlantic portion of the Study Area, with the southern limit considered to be Long Island Sound

(Steimle & Zetlin, 2000). A large number of invertebrate species may be associated with this vegetated 

habitat. For example, kelp habitats in the Gulf of Maine support a variety of amphipods, isopods, 

shrimps, crabs, lobsters, sea stars, hydroids, and tunicates (Woodward, 2012). Seagrasses may support 

numerous worms, sea cucumbers, crabs, molluscs, and anemones, among other taxa. Seagrasses 

provide a rich source of food for many invertebrates, primarily in the form of epiphytes (non-parasitic 

plants that grow on other plants) (Florida Museum of Natural History, 2016). Approximately 

145 invertebrate species representing a wide range of taxa have been identified in association with

floating Sargassum algae (Trott et al., 2011). Ten of these species are thought to be endemic to 

Sargassum habitats (South Atlantic Fishery Management Council, 2002).

Rocky reefs and other rocky habitats may occur in subtidal zones. Invertebrate species composition 

associated with rocky subtidal habitats may be influenced by depth, size, and structural complexity of

the habitat. Hundreds of invertebrate species may occur in rocky habitats, which provide attachment 

sites for sessile (attached to the bottom) species such as barnacles, bryozoans, limpets, sea anemones, 

sea fans, sponges, and tunicates, among others. Other invertebrates move about or shelter in crevices, 

including crustaceans (e.g., crabs, lobsters), echinoderms (e.g., brittle stars, sea cucumbers, sea urchins, 

sea stars), and molluscs (e.g., snails, nudibranchs, sea hares, octopus).
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.4-6

3.4 Invertebrates

Shallow-water coral reefs are formed by individual corals with symbiotic, structure-forming algae that 

require both light and a mean annual water temperature greater than about 64 degrees Fahrenheit

(National Ocean Service, 2016a; Nybakken, 1993). Shallow-water corals occur in the euphotic zone, 

which is the upper layer of the ocean where light levels are sufficient to support photosynthesis in the 

symbiotic algae. Shallow-water coral species typically occur in water depths less than 30 meters (m).

Shallow-water coral reefs occur on hard substrate in southern and southeastern portions of the Study 

Area, including the southern part of the Gulf of Mexico Large Marine Ecosystem, throughout the 

Caribbean Sea Large Marine Ecosystem, and in the southern part of the Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf 

Large Marine Ecosystem. In addition to the presence of many individual corals, coral reefs also support 

hundreds of other marine invertebrate species, including representatives of most taxa. Researchers

compiled historical and recent information on the amount of hard reef structure covered by living corals

at 90 reef locations in the wider Caribbean Sea (primarily shallow reefs in water depths of 1 to 20 m)

(Jackson et al., 2014). Average coral coverage on the hard reef structure is estimated to be 

approximately 14 to 17 percent, down from approximately 35 percent during the period of 1970 to 

1983. Coverage declined in 75 percent of surveyed locations, including the Upper Florida Keys and Dry 

Tortugas areas. Shallow-water coral reefs may contain ESA-listed coral species, and changes in overall 

coral coverage provides a context for subsequent discussion of these species Section 3.4.2.2

(Endangered Species Act-Listed Species).

Deep-water corals occur in water depths where there is low or no light penetration and therefore 

typically lack symbiotic algae. As such, deep-water corals do not typically form biogenic reefs, but rather 

form mounds of intermediate (cobble-sized) substrate termed “lithoherms” over hard bottom areas

(Lumsden et al., 2007). Differences in water clarity and the resulting light penetration at various 

locations affect the specific depth at which deep-water corals are found. However, in general, 

deep-water species are considered to occur at depths below 50 m (National Ocean and Atmospheric 

Administration, 2016; National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration & National Marine Fisheries 

Service, 2008). To build their supporting structures, stony corals require calcium carbonate in the form 

of aragonite or calcite, which they obtain from seawater where carbonate is in solution. Combinations of 

temperature and pressure result in a boundary, often called the saturation depth, below which 

aragonite and calcite tend to dissolve. Therefore, corals (and other invertebrates) occurring below this 

boundary have difficulty forming persistent structures that contain calcium carbonate, and the aragonite 

saturation boundary imposes a depth limit for stony coral occurrence. The depth of the saturation 

boundary varies in different locations, ranging from about 200 to 3,000 m. Accordingly, deep-water 

corals are found in the depth range of about 50 to 3,000 m (Bryan & Metaxas, 2007; Lumsden et al., 

2007; Quattrini et al., 2015; Tittensor et al., 2009), which confines them to the Coastal Large Marine 

Ecosystems and seamounts. The primary taxa of deep-water corals include hexacorals (stony corals, 

black corals, and gold corals), octocorals (e.g., true soft corals, gorgonians, and sea pens), and 

hydrocorals (e.g., lace corals) (Hourigan et al., 2017a). Of the approximately 600 coral species that occur 

at depths below 50 m, about 20 are considered structure-forming (Hourigan et al., 2017a). Stony corals 

such as ivory tree coral (Oculina varicosa), Lophelia pertusa, and Enallopsammia profunda provide threedimensional structure that may be utilized by other marine species. However, taxa such as black corals, 

gorgonians, and sea pens may also provide habitat for other marine species, particularly when they 

occur in dense aggregations. With the exception of sea pens, which occur in soft substrate, deep-water 

corals generally attach to hard or intermediate substrates exposed to strong currents that provide a 

steady supply of plankton (algae and small animals that drift in the water) to feed on, and that reduce

sedimentation that would inhibit colonization and growth of these slow-growing species (Bryan & 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.4-7

3.4 Invertebrates

Metaxas, 2007; Tsao & Morgan, 2005). Spatial information on the hard and intermediate substrate 

habitats typically occupied by deep-water structure-forming corals is provided in Section 3.5 (Habitats).

A transition zone of reduced light levels, called the mesophotic zone, occurs between the water depths 

typically associated with shallow-water and deep-water corals. Mesophotic coral communities are 

composed of stony corals, soft corals, and other structure-forming organisms such as algae and sponges. 

Some corals with symbiotic, photosynthetic algae occur in the mesophotic zone, although the algae 

often undergo photosynthesis at reduced rates and the corals, therefore, rely more heavily on 

planktonic food capture compared to individuals that occur in the euphotic zone. Black corals and 

octocorals, which do not contain photosynthetic algae, are also characteristic of mesophotic 

communities. The depth range of the mesophotic zone depends on water clarity, but it is generally 

considered to extend from 30 m to about 100 to 150 m. Mesophotic communities may occur as deeper 

extensions of shallow-water reefs or other hard bottom communities (typically in the coastal zone), or 

they may occur in offshore locations with no connection to shallow-water communities. Mesophotic 

reefs are usually not detectable on satellite images, which increases the difficulty of identifying and 

mapping these features. The highest concentrations of stony corals typically occur on persistent, highrelief bottom features that represent a small subset of the hard and, to a lesser extent, intermediate 

substrates of the Study Area. Spatial information on the hard and intermediate habitats typically 

occupied by mesophotic structure-forming corals is provided in Section 3.5 (Habitats). Pulley Ridge, 

which is located within the Key West Range Complex about 100 miles west of the Dry Tortugas, is an 

example of a mesophotic coral ecosystem occurring in the Study Area. The ridge is about 5 kilometers 

(km) wide and rises less than 10 m above the surrounding seafloor, with a depth range of about 60 to 

90 m (Baker et al., 2016; Halley et al., 2005). Corals containing photosynthetic algae occur in water 

depths to 70 m. Surveys conducted at Pulley Ridge using remotely operated vehicles found that stony 

corals covered only about 1.3 percent of observed substrate overall (Reed et al., 2015).

Chemosynthetic communities may support a relatively high biomass of marine invertebrates. Instead of 

using photosynthesis driven by sunlight, chemosynthetic organisms derive energy from chemicals

originating from the earth’s crust. The primary types of habitats supporting chemosynthetic 

communities are hydrothermal vents and cold seeps. Hydrothermal vents form when seawater 

permeates downward through the earth’s crust and upper mantle, becomes superheated, and removes 

minerals and chemicals from the crust. The heated fluid may then rise through fissures in the crust and 

reach cold ocean water at the seafloor, where metals and other minerals precipitate out of solution to 

form mounds or chimneys. Communities of microbes, such as bacteria, may colonize these structures 

and use chemicals occurring in the fluid (primarily hydrogen sulfide or methane) to make energy. The 

microbes may then become the base of a food web that contains invertebrates such as crabs, clams, 

mussels, worms, snails, and shrimp (Ross et al., 2012; Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, 2015). 

Cold seeps are similar to hydrothermal vents, but the fluid exiting the crust is cooler, typically moves at a 

slower rate, and may spread over a larger area. Methane hydrates (ice-like structures that contain 

methane) are associated with some chemosynthetic communities. Cold seeps are generally associated 

with hard substrate on offshore shelf breaks, submarine canyons, seamounts, and along the 

Mid-Atlantic Ridge; refer to Section 3.5 (Habitats) for spatial information on the habitats typically 

occupied by chemosynthetic communities. Of these features, only seamounts and the Mid-Atlantic 

Ridge occur in the abyssal zone portion of the Study Area, outside of the Coastal Large Marine 

Ecosystems. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.4-8

3.4 Invertebrates

Although chemosynthetic communities have not been well studied off the U.S. Atlantic coast in the past, 

the number of known and potential sites has increased substantially due to recent investigations. 

Whereas hydrothermal vents are primarily located in geologically active areas (e.g., seamounts, 

Mid-Atlantic Ridge), cold seeps have been documented off Massachusetts, Maryland, Virginia, and 

South Carolina (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2013; National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration Ocean Explorer, 2010, 2012, 2013). Over 500 seeps have been identified at

upper portions of the continental slope between Cape Hatteras, North Carolina and Georges Bank, 

Maine, many of which are associated with submarine canyons (Skarke et al., 2014). Multiple areas 

containing chemosynthetic communities and methane hydrates have been documented within the 

Exclusive Economic Zone off the northeastern United States (Quattrini et al., 2015). Hydrocarbon seeps 

are widespread in the Atlantic Ocean basin, including the Gulf of Mexico (Fisher et al., 2007). Seep 

communities in the Gulf are typically dominated by mussels, polychaete tube worms, and clams (Ross et 

al., 2012), although numerous other taxa may be present. Communities located in water depths of less 

than 1,000 m off Louisiana are considered the most intensively studied and well understood seep 

communities in the world (Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, 2014). There are relatively few 

bioherms in the northern Gulf of Mexico; most deep-sea corals are found on existing hard substrata. 

Hundreds of mounds and ridges have been identified along the continental slope off western Florida 

(Ross et al., 2017). Many of these features that occur in water depths above 525 m appear to be 

colonized by deep-water corals (primarily L. pertusa) and sponges. A rocky scarp running north-to-south 

along the slope for at least 229 km also supports corals, although at a lower abundance than on the 

mounds and ridges.

3.4.2.1.2 Movement and Behavior

Marine benthic and epibenthic (animals that live on the surface of the substrate) invertebrates may be 

sessile, sedentary (limited mobility), or highly mobile (but typically slower than large vertebrates). 

Several beach invertebrates (e.g., sand crabs, polychaete worms) recruit to beaches during spring and 

summer and seasonally move to shallow nearshore waters during late fall and winter. Some subtidal 

epibenthic invertebrates undergo seasonal onshore-offshore migrations associated with reproduction.

Pelagic marine invertebrates include plankton (organisms that do not swim or generally cannot swim 

faster than water currents) and nekton (active swimmers that can generally swim faster than water 

currents). Planktonic animals commonly undergo daily migrations to surface waters at dusk and return 

to deeper waters at dawn. This includes small, microscopic zooplankton and larvae, larger crustaceans 

(e.g., small shrimp), and jellyfish. Planktonic organisms vary in their swimming abilities, ranging from 

weak (e.g., larvae) to substantial (e.g., box jellyfish). Nekton such as prawns, shrimps, and squid have 

relatively strong swimming ability, although they are typically slower than most vertebrate animals.

3.4.2.1.3 Sound Sensing and Production

In general, organisms may detect sound by sensing either the particle motion or pressure component of 

sound, or both (refer to Appendix D, Acoustic and Explosive Concepts, for an explanation of these sound 

components). Aquatic invertebrates probably do not detect pressure since many are generally the same 

density as water and few, if any, have air cavities that would respond to pressure (Budelmann, 1992a; 

Popper et al., 2001). Marine invertebrates are generally thought to perceive sound via either external 

sensory hairs or internal statocysts. Many aquatic invertebrates have ciliated “hair” cells that may be 

sensitive to water movements, such as those caused by currents or water particle motion very close to a 

sound source (Budelmann, 1992a, 1992b; Mackie & Singla, 2003). This may allow sensing of nearby prey 

or predators, or help with local navigation. Detection of particle motion is thought to occur in 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.4-9

3.4 Invertebrates

mechanical receptors found on various body parts (Roberts et al., 2016a). Aquatic invertebrates that are 

able to sense local water movements with ciliated cells include cnidarians, flatworms, segmented 

worms, molluscs, and arthropods (Budelmann, 1992a, 1992b; Popper et al., 2001). Crustaceans in 

particular seem to have extensive occurrence of these structures. The sensory capabilities of adult corals 

are largely limited to detecting water movement using receptors on their tentacles (Gochfeld, 2004), 

and the exterior cilia of coral larvae likely help them detect nearby water movements (Vermeij et al., 

2010).

Some aquatic invertebrates have specialized organs called statocysts that enable an animal to determine 

orientation, balance, and, in some cases, linear or angular acceleration. Statocysts allow the animal to 

sense movement and may enable some species, such as cephalopods and crustaceans, to be sensitive to 

water particle movements associated with sound or vibration (Hu et al., 2009; Kaifu et al., 2008; 

Montgomery et al., 2006; Normandeau Associates, 2012; Popper et al., 2001). Because any acoustic 

sensory capabilities, if present, are apparently limited to detecting the local particle motion component 

of sound (Edmonds et al., 2016), and because water particle motion near a sound source falls off rapidly 

with distance, aquatic invertebrates are probably limited to detecting nearby sound sources rather than 

sound caused by pressure waves from distant sources.

In addition to hair cells and statocysts that allow some marine invertebrates to detect water particle 

motion, some species also have sensory organs called chordotonal organs that can detect substrate 

vibrations. Chordotonal organs are typically attached to connective tissue of flexible appendages such as 

antennae and legs (Edmonds et al., 2016). The structures are connected to the central nervous system 

and can detect some movements or vibrations that are transmitted through substrate.

Available information indicates that aquatic invertebrates are primarily sensitive to low-frequency 

sounds. Both behavioral and auditory brainstem response studies suggest that crustaceans may sense 

sounds up to 3 kilohertz (kHz), but greatest sensitivity is likely below 200 hertz (Hz) (Goodall et al., 1990; 

Lovell et al., 2005; Lovell et al., 2006). Most cephalopods (e.g., octopus and squid) likely sense lowfrequency sound below 1 kHz, with best sensitivities at lower frequencies (Budelmann, 1992a; Mooney 

et al., 2010; Packard et al., 1990). A few cephalopods may sense frequencies up to 1.5 kHz (Hu et al., 

2009). Squid did not respond to playbacks of odontocete (e.g., toothed whales) ultrasonic echolocation 

clicks, likely because these clicks were outside of squid hearing range (Wilson et al., 2007). Although 

information on the frequency range of the clicks was not provided, ultrasonic sound typically refers to 

high-frequency sounds above the limit of human hearing (greater than about 20 kHz). Similarly, squid 

did not respond to killer whale echolocation clicks ranging from 199 to 226 decibels (dB) referenced to 

1 micropascal (dB re 1 μPa) (Wilson et al., 2007) (refer to Appendix D, Acoustic and Explosive Concepts, 

for an explanation of this and other acoustic terms). The frequency of the clicks was not provided. 

However, killer whale echolocation clicks have been reported to be mostly between 45 and 80 kHz (Au 

et al., 2004). Some researchers have suggested sensitivity to sounds of higher frequencies in some 

species, although study results are inconclusive. European spiny lobsters (Palinurus elephas), some of 

which were exposed to predators, were found to produce ultrasound signals up to about 75 kHz 

(Buscaino et al., 2011). The investigators speculated that the signals might have an anti-predator 

function or might be used in intraspecific communication, although these functions (particularly 

communication) were considered hypothetical. The results of another study suggest that European 

spiny lobsters likely use acoustic signals to aggregate (frequency was not specified, although lobsters in 

the study produced sounds of up to 30 kHz) (Filiciotto et al., 2014). However, information currently 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.4-10

3.4 Invertebrates

available indicates that invertebrates are likely sensitive only to local water movement and to lowfrequency particle accelerations generated in their close vicinity (Normandeau Associates, 2012).

Although many types of aquatic invertebrates produce sound and at least some species have the ability 

to detect low-frequency particle motion, little is known about the use of sound or whether all sound 

production is purposeful or merely incidental in some cases (Hawkins et al., 2015; Normandeau 

Associates, 2012). Some invertebrates have structures that appear to be designed specifically for sound 

production, and the results of various studies (summarized in the following paragraphs) indicate that 

sound is used for communication or other behaviors in some species. For example, it has been 

suggested by numerous researchers that the larvae of some marine species (e.g., crustaceans, molluscs, 

and corals) use sound cues for directional orientation (Budelmann, 1992a, 1992b; Montgomery et al., 

2006; Popper et al., 2001).

Aquatic invertebrates may produce and use sound in territorial behavior, to detect or deter predators, 

and in reproduction (Popper et al., 2001). Some crustaceans produce sound by rubbing or closing hard 

body parts together (Au & Banks, 1998; Heberholz & Schmitz, 2001; Latha et al., 2005; Patek & Caldwell, 

2006). The snapping shrimp chorus makes up a significant portion of the ambient noise in many 

locations (Au & Banks, 1998; Cato & Bell, 1992; Heberholz & Schmitz, 2001). Each snapping shrimp click 

is up to 215 dB re 1 μPa at 1 m (root mean square [rms] is implied, but the authors did not explicitly 

state sound pressure level [SPL] or peak SPL), with a peak around 2 to 5 kHz. Some crustaceans, such as 

the American lobster (Homarus americanus) and California mantis shrimp (Hemisquilla californiensis), 

may also produce sound by vibrating the carapace (Henninger & Watson, 2005; Patek & Caldwell, 2006). 

Spiny lobsters typically produce low-frequency rasps by moving a structure at the base of the antennae 

over a rigid file (Buscaino et al., 2011). Other crustaceans make low-frequency rasping or rumbling 

noises, perhaps used in defense or territorial display (Patek & Caldwell, 2006; Patek et al., 2009), or 

perhaps used incidental to a visual display. The aquatic isopod Cymodoce japonica produces sound by 

rubbing body parts together (Nakamachi et al., 2015).

Reef noises, such as fish pops and grunts, sea urchin grazing (around 1 kHz), parrotfish grazing, and 

snapping shrimp noises (around 5 kHz) (Radford et al., 2010), may be used as a cue by some aquatic 

invertebrates. Nearby reef noises were observed to affect movements and settlement behavior of coral 

and crab larvae (Jeffs et al., 2003; Radford et al., 2007; Stanley et al., 2010; Vermeij et al., 2010), 

although chemical cues and substrate color are also used by some species (Foster & Gilmour, 2016). 

Larvae of other crustacean species, including pelagic and nocturnally emergent species that benefit from 

avoiding coral reef predators, appear to avoid reef noises (Simpson et al., 2011). Detection of reef noises 

is likely limited to short distances. Low-frequency sound pressure and particle motion have been 

measured near a coral reef off Maui, Hawaii (Kaplan & Mooney, 2016). Results indicate that adult 

cephalopod species would not be able to detect the low level of particle acceleration at the 

measurement point nearest the reef (50 m). The specific particle acceleration levels detected by marine 

invertebrate larvae are unknown, but the authors suggest that invertebrate larvae would be unlikely to 

detect particle acceleration at distances beyond 150 m at this reef. Playback of reef sounds increased 

the settlement rate of eastern oyster (Crassostrea virginica) larvae (Lillis et al., 2013). Green-lipped 

mussel (Perna canaliculus) larvae settlement rate increased when exposed to underwater noise 

produced by a ferry (Wilkens et al., 2012).
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.4-11

3.4 Invertebrates

3.4.2.1.4 General Threats

General threats to marine invertebrates include overexploitation and destructive fishing practices

(Halpern et al., 2008; Jackson et al., 2001; Kaiser et al., 2002; Miloslavich et al., 2011; Pandolfi et al., 

2003), habitat degradation resulting from pollution and coastal development (Cortes & Risk, 1985; 

Downs et al., 2009; Mearns et al., 2011), disease (Porter et al., 2001), invasive species (Bryant et al., 

1998; Galloway et al., 2009; Wilkinson, 2002) (which may be introduced as a result of growth on vessel 

hulls or bilge water discharge), oil spills (Yender et al., 2010), global climate change and ocean 

acidification (Hughes et al., 2003), and possibly human-generated noise (Brainard et al., 2011; Vermeij et 

al., 2010). A relatively new threat to marine invertebrates is bioprospecting, which is the collection of 

organisms in pursuit of new compounds for development of pharmaceutical products (Radjasa et al., 

2011). Coastal waters of the entire Study Area are subject to intense bioprospecting, although the 

overall impacts may be minimal (Hunt & Vincent, 2006).

Compared to many other invertebrate taxa, the threats to corals and oysters are well-studied. 

Numerous natural and human-caused stressors may affect corals, including 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 (National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2008a, 2008b; Sakashita & Wolf, 2009). Coral bleaching, which 

occurs when corals expel the symbiotic algae living in their tissues, is a stress response to changes in 

environmental parameters such as temperature or light. A widespread bleaching event occurred 

throughout the Caribbean Sea, extending to Florida and the Gulf of Mexico, in 2005 (Wilkinson & Souter, 

2008). More recently, bleaching occurred in portions of the Caribbean Sea and off the coast of Florida in 

2015 (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2016a). In 2016, a mass die-off of corals and 

other invertebrates (e.g., sponges, urchins, brittle stars, and clams) was documented in the Flower 

Garden Banks National Marine Sanctuary in the Gulf of Mexico (National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration, 2016b, 2016c). The cause of the die-off is currently unknown. A large disease outbreak 

was documented in numerous coral species off southeastern Florida in 2014 (Precht et al., 2016). 

Primary threats to deep-water or cold-water corals include bottom fishing, hydrocarbon exploration, 

cable and pipeline placement, and waste disposal (e.g., discarded or lost rope and fishing equipment, 

dredged sediments) (Freiwald et al., 2004). Threats to oysters include habitat degradation (due to fishing 

practices, terrestrial runoff, coastal development, dredging, and vessel strikes), predation, and disease 

(Eastern Oyster Biological Review Team, 2007). Overharvesting is currently considered only a minor 

threat.

Threats related to water quality, marine debris, and climate change are further described in the 

subsections below.

3.4.2.1.4.1 Water Quality

Invertebrates may be affected by changes in water quality resulting from pollution, turbidity and 

increased particle deposition that may occur as a result of sediment disturbance, and waste discharge. 

Stormwater runoff and point source discharges associated with coastal development may introduce 

pollutants into bays and other nearshore coastal areas. The pollutants may degrade sediment and water 

quality, which in turn can impact marine invertebrate communities. Sediment disturbance may result 

from activities such as dredging, which can affect sensitive species such as some corals (Erftemeijer et 

al., 2012). In addition to dredging, erosion due to storm runoff may cause changes in the frequency or 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.4-12

3.4 Invertebrates

magnitude of sedimentation in areas in proximity to ocean outfalls, estuarine inlets, and major river 

discharges.

Ship discharges may affect water quality and invertebrates associated with the impacted water. 

Discharged materials include sewage, bilge water, graywater, ballast water, and solid waste (e.g., food 

and garbage). Discharges may originate from military, commercial, and recreational vessels. Under 

provisions of the Clean Water Act, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and the U.S. 

Department of Defense have developed Uniform National Discharge Standards to address discharges 

from U.S. military vessels. Refer to Section 3.2.1.2.2 (Federal Standards and Guidelines) for more 

information on water quality, including Uniform National Discharge Standards.

Marine invertebrates can be impacted by exposure to oil due to runoff from land, natural seepage, or 

accidental spills from offshore drilling/extraction or tankers (White et al., 2012). Reproductive and early 

life stages are especially sensitive to oil exposure. Factors such as oil type, quantity, exposure time, and 

season can affect the toxicity level. Experiments using corals indicate that oil exposure can result in 

death, decreased reproductive success, altered development and growth, and altered behavior (White 

et al., 2012; Yender et al., 2010). For example, investigations conducted between 2011 and 2014 near 

the site of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico found continuing evidence of injury to 

gorgonian octocoral colonies (Etnoyer et al., 2016). 

3.4.2.1.4.2 Climate Change

The primary concerns of climate change in the context of impacts to marine invertebrates include 

increased water temperature, ocean acidification, increased frequency or intensity of cyclonic storm 

events, and sea level rise. 

Increases in ocean temperature can lead to coral stress, bleaching, and mortality (Lunden et al., 2014). 

Bleaching of corals and other invertebrates that contain symbiotic algae in their tissues (e.g., some 

anemones and clams) is often tied to atypically high sea temperatures (Lough & van Oppen, 2009; 

National Ocean Service, 2016b). Bleaching events have increased in frequency in recent decades. Coral 

bleaching on a global scale occurred during the summers of 2014, 2015, and 2016 (Eakin et al., 2016). In 

addition to elevated sea temperatures, atypically low sea temperatures may also cause mortality to 

corals and most other reef organisms (Colella et al., 2012; Lirman et al., 2011; National Ocean Service, 

2016b), suggesting that widening climate extremes could cause more coral bleaching. In one 

experiment, three coral species that experienced bleaching had reduced ability to remove sediments 

from their tissue surface (Bessell-Browne et al., 2017). Response to thermal stress may differ across 

species or within different environmental contexts, with some species or taxa being more tolerant than 

others (Bahr et al., 2016; Guest et al., 2016; Hoadley et al., 2015). For example, in the Caribbean Sea, 

while numerous stony corals may be negatively affected by increased water temperature, some 

gorgonian corals have been found to persist or increase in abundance under similar conditions (Goulet 

et al., 2017). The results of one study suggest that some corals may acclimate to increased water 

temperature over time, exhibiting less temperature sensitivity and resulting bleaching activity 

(McClanahan, 2017). Skeletal formation of post-settlement individuals of the plate coral Acropora 

spicifera was not affected by increased water temperature (Foster et al., 2016). However, exposure to 

lowered pH was found to increase the potential for negative effects associated with subsequent water 

temperature increase in one stony coral species (Towle et al., 2016). In addition to potential 

physiological effects, the distribution of some invertebrates may be affected by changing water 

temperature. Northern and southern shifts in the geographic center of abundance of some benthic 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.4-13

3.4 Invertebrates

invertebrates along the U.S. Atlantic coast have occurred over the last 20 years, presumably in response 

to increased water temperature (Hale et al., 2017).

Ocean acidification has the potential to reduce calcification and growth rates in species with calcium 

carbonate skeletons, including shellfish (e.g., clams, oysters), corals, and sponges (Cohen et al., 2009), 

and crustose coralline algae that contain calcite in their cell walls (Roleda et al., 2015). For example, 

newly settled individuals of the plate coral A. spicifera that were exposed to elevated carbon dioxide and 

lowered pH levels showed decreased mineral deposition and evidence of skeletal malformation (Foster 

et al., 2016), and water acidification decreased the survival, size, and weight of bay barnacles (Balanus 

improvises) (Pansch et al., 2018). The results of one study suggest that community-level effects to corals 

can be more evident than effects to individual corals (Carpenter et al., 2018). Many species within these 

taxa are important structure-building organisms. In addition to corals and shellfish, acidification may 

also affect weakly calcified taxa such as lobsters and sea cucumbers (Small et al., 2016; Verkaik et al., 

2016). Some climate change models predict that the depth below which corals are unable to form 

calcium carbonate skeletons will become shallower as the oceans acidify and temperatures increase, 

potentially decreasing the occurrence and habitat-forming function of corals and other invertebrates.

Deep-sea scleractinian stony corals could be particularly vulnerable due to habitat loss and decreased 

larvae dispersal (Fox et al., 2016; Miller et al., 2011). However, a recent study of successive generations 

of shallow-water reef-building corals exposed to increased water temperature and acidification suggests 

some corals may be able to tolerate rapidly changing environmental conditions better than previously 

thought (Putnam & Gates, 2015). In addition to physical effects, increased acidity may result in 

behavioral changes in some species. For example, acidification of porewater was found to affect 

burrowing behavior and juvenile dispersal patterns of the soft-shell clam (Mya arenaria) (Clements et 

al., 2016), and increased acidity caused a reduction in the loudness and number of snaps in the snapping 

shrimp Alpheus novaezelandiae (Rossi et al., 2016). As discussed for thermal stress, some invertebrate

species may be more tolerant of changing acidity levels than others (Bahr et al., 2016). One study found 

that lowered pH caused a significant decrease in black band disease progression in mountainous star 

coral (Muller et al., 2017). Another study of three Arctic marine bivalves concluded that at least two of 

the species are generally resilient to decreased pH (Goethel et al., 2017). A study of the deep-water 

stony coral Desmophyllum dianthus found that the species was not affected by increased acidity under 

conditions of ambient water temperature but that stress and decreased calcification occurred when 

acidity and water temperature were both increased (Murray et al., 2016). Gelatinous invertebrates such 

as jellyfish generally seem to be tolerant of increased water acidity (Treible et al., 2018).

Although the potential effects that climate change could have on future storm activity is uncertain, 

numerous researchers suggest that rising temperatures could result in little change to the overall 

number of storms, but that storm intensity could increase (Voiland, 2013). Increased storm intensity 

could result in increased physical damage to individual corals and reefs constructed by the corals (which 

support numerous other invertebrate taxa), overturning of coral colonies, and a decrease in structural 

complexity due to disproportionate breakage of branching species (Heron et al., 2008; The Nature 

Conservancy, 2015). 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 (Fujii, 2012). It is possible that 

intertidal invertebrates would colonize newly submerged areas over time if suitable habitat is present. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.4-14

3.4 Invertebrates

Coral reef growth may be able to keep pace with sea level rise because accretion rates of individual 

corals are generally greater than projected potential rates of sea level rise (The Nature Conservancy, 

2016). Corals are currently subjected to tidal fluctuations of up to several meters (The Nature 

Conservancy, 2015; U.S. Geological Survey, 2016). However, the overall net accretion rate of coral reefs 

may be much slower than the rate of individual corals, decreasing the overall ability of reefs to keep 

pace with rising water levels. In addition, the compounding effect of other stressors (e.g., ocean 

acidification) is unknown. In an evaluation of threats to corals previously petitioned for listing under the 

ESA, sea level rise was considered a low to medium influence on extinction risk (Brainard et al., 2011).

Additional concerns include the potential for changes in ocean circulation patterns that affect the 

planktonic food supply of filter- and suspension-feeding invertebrates (e.g., corals) (Etnoyer, 2010). An 

increase in the future incidence of diseases in marine organisms is also theorized (Harvell et al., 2002). In 

addition, there is concern that cumulative effects of threats from fishing, pollution, and other human 

disturbance may reduce the tolerance of corals to global climate change (Ateweberhan & McClanahan, 

2010; Ateweberhan et al., 2013).

3.4.2.1.4.3 Marine Debris

Marine debris (especially plastics) is a threat to many marine ecosystems, particularly in coastal waters 

adjacent to urban development. Microplastics (generally considered to be particles less than 

5 millimeters [mm] in size), which may consist of degraded fragments of larger plastic items or 

intentionally manufactured items (e.g., abrasive plastic beads found in some personal care products or 

used in blast-cleaning), are of concern because of their durability and potential to enter marine food 

webs (Setala et al., 2016). Field and laboratory investigations have documented ingestion of 

microplastics by marine invertebrates including bivalve molluscs; crustacean arthropods such as 

lobsters, shore crabs, and amphipods; annelid lugworms; and zooplankton (Browne et al., 2013; Setala 

et al., 2014; Von Moos et al., 2012; Watts et al., 2014). While animals with different feeding modes have 

been found to ingest microplastics, laboratory studies suggest that filter-feeding and deposit feeding 

benthic invertebrates are at highest risk (Setala et al., 2016). Refer to Section 3.2 (Sediments and Water 

Quality) for a more detailed discussion of marine debris and the associated effects on water quality.

Researchers conducted an extensive marine debris survey at selected beach locations from Maine to the 

southern Florida Atlantic coast (Ribic et al., 2010). The survey found relatively low debris levels in the 

northern and southern portions of the investigated area but higher amounts of debris and a trend of 

increasing debris occurrence over time in the mid-Atlantic region. All debris items were identified as 

either land-based, general-source (e.g., plastic bags and bottles), or ocean-based (e.g., items originating 

from recreational and commercial fishing, shipping, and tourism activities). No items of military origin 

were differentiated. An assessment of marine debris collected between 2008 and 2015 in the midAtlantic region (Delaware to Virginia) found that the most abundant debris items were plastic, foam, and 

tobacco-related products (Mid-Atlantic Regional Council On The Ocean, 2015). Overall, plastic was the 

type of debris most often observed. A study of marine debris in the Gulf of Mexico and U.S. Caribbean 

Sea (Puerto Rico and U.S. Virgin Islands) conducted from 1996 to 2003 found a decrease in the amount 

of land-based, ocean-based, and general debris in the eastern Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean (Ribic et al., 

2011). A decrease in land-based debris only was noted in the western Gulf of Mexico. Similar to survey 

results of the U.S. Atlantic coast, the majority of debris items were plastic bottles. U.S. Navy vessels have 

a zero-plastic discharge policy and return all plastic waste to appropriate disposal or recycling sites 

onshore.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.4-15

3.4 Invertebrates

3.4.2.2 Endangered Species Act-Listed Species

As shown in Table 3.4-1, there are eight species of invertebrates listed as Threatened or Species of 

Concern under the ESA in the Study Area. Seven coral species listed as threatened are discussed in 

Sections 3.4.2.2.1 (Elkhorn Coral [Acropora palmata]) through Section 3.4.2.2.7 (Rough Cactus Coral 

[Mycetophyllia ferox]). Ivory tree coral (Oculina varicosa) is a species of concern. Species of concern are 

those for which NMFS has some concern regarding status and threats, but for which insufficient 

information is available to indicate a need to list them under the ESA. The species of concern 

designation does not impose any procedural or substantive requirements under the ESA. Until recently, 

the queen conch (Lobatus gigas, formerly Strombus gigas) was also listed as a species of concern. 

However, in 2014, NMFS announced that listing the queen conch under the ESA is not warranted 

(Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: Notice of 12-Month Finding on a Petition To List the 

Queen Conch as Threatened or Endangered Under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), 79 Federal 

Register 65628–65643 [November 5, 2014]).

In this section, corals are discussed in terms of individual coral polyps or early life stages, where “coral” 

is defined as follows: Species of the phylum Cnidaria, including all species of the orders Antipatharia 

(black corals), Scleractinia (stony corals), Gorgonacea (horny corals), Stolonifera (organ pipe corals and 

others), Alcyonacea (soft corals), and Helioporacea (blue coral) of the class Anthozoa; and all species of 

the families Milleporidea (fire corals) and Stylasteridae (stylasterid hydrocorals) of the class Hydrozoa.

NMFS has identified the overall primary factors contributing to decline of coral species listed under the 

ESA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Fisheries, 2015). The factors are disease 

outbreaks; habitat degradation and modification due to sedimentation; increased predation; hurricanes; 

pollution; introduced species; invasive green algae; limited distribution; damage from mechanical fishing 

gear, anchors, fish pots, divers, and swimmers; and coral bleaching.

Table 3.4-1: Status and Presence of Endangered Species Act-Listed and

Species of Concern Invertebrate Species in the Study Area

Species Name and Regulatory Status Location in Study Area1

Common 

Name

Scientific 

Name

Endangered 

Species Act Listing

Open 

Ocean

Large Marine 

Ecosystem

Bays, Harbors, and 

Inshore Waterways

Elkhorn coral Acropora 

palmata Threatened None

Gulf of Mexico, 

Southeast U.S.

Continental Shelf, 

Caribbean Sea

Florida Bay and 

Biscayne Bay

Staghorn coral Acropora 

cervicornis Threatened None

Gulf of Mexico, 

Southeast U.S.

Continental Shelf, 

Caribbean Sea

Florida Bay and 

Biscayne Bay

Lobed star 

coral

Orbicella 

annularis Threatened None

Gulf of Mexico, 

Southeast U.S.

Continental Shelf, 

Caribbean Sea

Florida Bay and 

Biscayne Bay

Boulder star 

coral

Orbicella 

franksi Threatened None

Gulf of Mexico, 

Southeast U.S.

Continental Shelf, 

Caribbean Sea

Florida Bay and 

Biscayne Bay
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

Table 3.4-1: Status and Presence of Endangered Species Act-Listed and

Species of Concern Invertebrate Species in the Study Area (continued)

3.4-16

3.4 Invertebrates

Species Name and Regulatory Status Location in Study Area1

Common 

Name

Scientific 

Name

Endangered 

Species Act Listing

Open 

Ocean

Large Marine 

Ecosystem

Bays, Harbors, and 

Inshore Waterways

Mountainous 

star coral

Orbicella 

faveolata Threatened None

Gulf of Mexico, 

Southeast U.S.

Continental Shelf, 

Caribbean Sea

Florida Bay and 

Biscayne Bay

Pillar coral Dendrogyra 

cylindrus Threatened None

Gulf of Mexico, 

Southeast U.S.

Continental Shelf, 

Caribbean Sea

Florida Bay and 

Biscayne Bay

Rough cactus 

coral

Mycetophyll

ia ferox Threatened None

Gulf of Mexico, 

Southeast U.S.

Continental Shelf, 

Caribbean Sea

Biscayne Bay

Ivory tree coral Oculina 

varicosa

Species of 

Concern None

Gulf of Mexico, 

Southeast U.S.

Continental Shelf, 

Caribbean Sea

None

1 Presence in the Study Area is characterized by biogeographic units: open-ocean oceanographic features (Labrador Current, 

Gulf Stream, and North Atlantic Gyre) or by coastal waters of large marine ecosystems (Caribbean Sea, Gulf of Mexico, 

Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf, Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf, Scotian Shelf, Newfoundland-Labrador Shelf, and West 

Greenland Shelf) in the Study Area.

3.4.2.2.1 Elkhorn Coral (Acropora palmata)

3.4.2.2.1.1 Status and Management

Elkhorn coral is listed as a threatened species under the ESA, and critical habitat has been designated. 

The critical habitat designation identifies the physical or biological features essential to the species’

conservation as “substrate of suitable quality and availability to support larval settlement and 

recruitment, and reattachment and recruitment of asexual fragments.” For purposes of this definition, 

“substrate of suitable quality and availability” means natural consolidated hard substrate or dead coral 

skeleton that is free from fleshy or turf macroalgae cover and sediment cover (Endangered and 

Threatened Species; Critical Habitat for Threatened Elkhorn and Staghorn Corals, 73 Federal Register

72210–72241 [November 26, 2008]). This definition applies to depths from mean low water to 30 m. No 

other essential features were sufficiently definable. The critical habitat designation for elkhorn coral 

applies to staghorn coral as well (see Section 3.4.2.2.2, Staghorn Coral [Acropora cervicornis]). While 

most shallow-water coral habitat in the Study Area falls within the definition of critical habitat for 

elkhorn and staghorn coral, the United States contains only about 10 percent of all potential critical 

habitat in the Caribbean (Bryant et al., 1998). Exemptions from critical habitat designations include a 

small zone around Naval Air Station Key West and a small area within the South Florida Ocean 

Measurement Facility Testing Range. The exemption for Naval Air Station Key West was granted in 

accordance with a provision of the National Defense Authorization Act that allows such exemptions for 

installations with approved Integrated Natural Resources Management Plans. The exemption for the 

South Florida Ocean Measurement Facility was granted for national security reasons (73 Federal 

Register 229: 72210–72241, November 26, 2008). However, ESA protection is not limited to critical 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.4-17

3.4 Invertebrates

habitat designations; the species and where it might occur are also protected via regulatory consultation 

requirements. 

The species’ four areas of critical habitat are the Florida area (1,329 square miles [mi2]), the Puerto Rico 

area (1,383 mi

2

), the St. John/St. Thomas area (121 mi2), and the St. Croix area (126 mi2) (see 

Figure 3.4-1). Areas adjacent to the Naval Air Station Key West and within the footprint of the South 

Florida Ocean Measurement Facility Testing Range include areas that meet the definition of elkhorn 

critical habitat. However, areas within 50 yards of the shore of Naval Air Station Key West and a small 

portion of the nearshore footprint of the South Florida Ocean Measurement Facility Testing Range 

(combined total of 5.5 mi2) have been exempted from the critical habitat designation (Endangered and 

Threatened Species; Critical Habitat for Threatened Elkhorn and Staghorn Corals, 73 Federal Register

72210–72241 [November 26, 2008]).

3.4.2.2.1.2 Habitat and Geographic Range

Elkhorn coral is typically found on outer reef crests and slopes with exposure to wave action at depths of 

1 to 20 m, although it has been reported as deep as 30 m (Aronson et al., 2008b; Boulon et al., 2005). 

The optimal water temperature range for elkhorn coral is 77 to 84 degrees Fahrenheit, and it requires a 

salinity range of 34 to 37 parts per thousand (Aronson et al., 2008b; Boulon et al., 2005; Goreau & Wells, 

1967). Elkhorn coral inhabits shallow waters with high oxygen content and low nutrient levels (Spalding 

et al., 2001). Clear, shallow water allows the coral sufficient sunlight exposure to support zooxanthellae 

(symbiotic photosynthetic organisms; analogous to plants living inside the animals). Elkhorn coral 

primarily inhabits the seaward margins of reefs where appropriate conditions are more likely to occur 

(Ginsburg & Shinn, 1964).

Elkhorn corals are typically found in the southeastern part of the Gulf of Mexico Large Marine 

Ecosystem, the northern part of the Caribbean Sea Large Marine Ecosystem, and the southern part of 

the Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf Large Marine Ecosystem. Elkhorn coral distribution in the Study 

Area extends from southeastern Florida through the Florida Keys, and surrounds Puerto Rico and the 

U.S. Virgin Islands (Aronson et al., 2008b). Elkhorn coral is known to occur in portions of the South 

Florida Ocean Measurement Facility Testing Range (Gilliam & Walker, 2011) and the Key West Range 

Complex. Two colonies of elkhorn coral occur in the Flower Garden Banks National Marine Sanctuary in

the Gulf of Mexico, but this area is not included in designated elkhorn critical habitat (Endangered and 

Threatened Species; Critical Habitat for Threatened Elkhorn and Staghorn Corals, 73 Federal Register 

72210–72241 [November 26, 2008]). Although the Flower Garden Banks National Marine Sanctuary is 

located in the Gulf of Mexico, it does not intersect a training or testing range and would not likely be 

directly impacted. Therefore, this area is excluded from further analysis.

3.4.2.2.1.3 Population Trends

Elkhorn coral is in the Acroporidae family of corals. A review of quantitative data of Acroporidae in the 

wider Caribbean area, including the Florida Keys and Dry Tortugas, indicates a greater than 97 percent 

reduction of Acroporidae coverage since the 1970s with peak declines in the 1980s (Boulon et al., 2005; 

National Marine Fisheries Service, 2015). Multiple stressors, including disease, increased water

temperature, decreased breeding population, loss of recruitment habitat, and sedimentation, may be 

affecting the recovery of this species. The current range of Acroporidae is considered to be the same as 

the historical range, despite the more than 97 percent reduction of individual corals (Bruckner, 2003; 

Rothenberger et al., 2008).
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.4-18

3.4 Invertebrates

Research on the population status of elkhorn coral in particular indicates a drastic decline. Surveys of 

Carysfort Reef (1974 to 1982) and Molasses Reef (1981 and 1986) revealed slight declines or stable 

colonies (Jaap et al., 1988). It was not until the observation of a 93 percent decrease of coral in Looe Key 

(1983 to 2000) that the elkhorn coral populations mirrored the substantial decline of other coral species 

such as staghorn coral (Miller et al., 2002). Continued long-term monitoring in the Florida Keys and the 

U.S. Virgin Islands has found that elkhorn coral remains at less than 1 percent of all corals on reefs 

(Rothenberger et al., 2008), and the species’ continued decline since 2004 is attributed principally to 

fragmentation, disease, and predation (Williams & Miller, 2011). Notwithstanding the additional focus 

provided by the 2006 decision to list elkhorn coral as threatened, the population has continued to 

decline by 50 percent or more, recruitment failure has been observed, and genetic studies have shown 

that approximately half of all colonies are clones, which reduces the number of genetically 

distinguishable individuals. 

Elkhorn coral can reproduce sexually by spawning (once each year in August or September) (Boulon et 

al., 2005), or asexually by fragmentation (National Marine Fisheries Service, 2010). Although 

fragmentation of adult colonies helps maintain high growth rates (from 4 to 11 centimeters (cm) 

[approximately 2 to 4 inches (in.)] per year), fragmentation reduces the reproductive potential of 

elkhorn coral by delaying the production of eggs and sperm for 4 years after the damage occurs (Lirman, 

2000). Furthermore, large intact colonies produce proportionally more gametes than small colonies 

(such as new colonies started from fragmentation) because tissue at growing portions of the base and 

branch tips is not fertile (National Marine Fisheries Service, 2015). During sexual reproduction, eggs and 

sperm immediately float to the sea surface where multiple embryos can develop from the 

fragmentation of a single embryo. Developing larvae travel at or near the sea surface for up to several

weeks (Boulon et al., 2005) before actively seeking specific micro-habitats suitable for growth. Maturity 

is reached between 3 and 8 years (Wallace, 1999). The average generation time is 10 years, and 

longevity is likely longer than 10 years based on average growth rates and size (Aeby et al., 2008). 

Combined with a severely reduced population, these factors restrict the species’ capacity for recovery.

3.4.2.2.1.4 Predator and Prey Interactions

Predators of corals include sea stars, snails, and fishes (e.g., parrotfish and damselfish) (Boulon et al., 

2005; Roff et al., 2011). The marine snail, Coralliophila abbreviata, and the bearded fireworm 

(Hermodice carunculata), are the primary predators on elkhorn coral (Boulon et al., 2005).

Corals feed on zooplankton, which are small organisms that inhabit the ocean water column. Corals 

capture prey with tentacles armed with stinging cells that surround the mouth or by employing a 

mucus-net to catch suspended prey. In addition to capturing prey, these corals also acquire nutrients 

through their symbiotic relationship with zooxanthellae. The coral host provides nitrogen in the form of 

waste to the zooxanthellae, and the zooxanthellae provide organic compounds produced by 

photosynthesis (the process by which sunlight is used to produce food) to the host (Brusca & Brusca, 

2003; Schuhmacher & Zibrowius, 1985). Zooxanthellae also provide corals with their characteristic color.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.4-19

3.4 Invertebrates

Notes: AFTT: Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing; FL: Florida; OPAREA: Operating Area

Figure 3.4-1: Critical Habitat Areas for Elkhorn and Staghorn Coral Within the Study Area
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.4-20

3.4 Invertebrates

This page intentionally left blank.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.4-21

3.4 Invertebrates

3.4.2.2.1.5 Species-Specific Threats

Elkhorn coral is more susceptible to disease than many other Caribbean corals (Pandolfi et al., 2003)

(Patterson et al., 2002; Porter et al., 2001). In particular, elkhorn coral is susceptible to a disease named 

“white pox” or “acroporid serratiosis” caused by a human fecal bacterium (Serratia marcescens). The 

bacterium is present in other coral species, but causes disease only in elkhorn coral (Sutherland et al., 

2011). Discharge of sewage from all oceangoing vessels therefore has the potential to expose elkhorn 

coral to this bacterium. Navy vessel discharges are managed according to established Uniform National 

Discharge Standards (refer to Section 3.2.1.2.2, Federal Standards and Guidelines, for more 

information). Elkhorn coral is also susceptible to the same suite of stressors that generally threaten 

corals (Section 3.4.2.1.4, General Threats). 

NMFS evaluated the population’s demographic, spatial structure, and vulnerability factors to determine 

whether the species was likely to have an “...extremely high risk of extinction with little chance for 

recovery...” by 2100 (Brainard et al., 2011). Elements that contribute to elkhorn coral’s threatened listing 

are: high vulnerability to ocean warming, ocean acidification and disease, high vulnerability to 

sedimentation and elevated nutrient levels, uncommon abundance, decreasing trend in abundance, low 

relative recruitment rate, restricted geographic range, concentrated in the Caribbean, and inadequacy of 

regulatory mechanisms.

3.4.2.2.2 Staghorn Coral (Acropora cervicornis)

3.4.2.2.2.1 Status and Management

Staghorn coral is designated as a threatened species under the ESA. Staghorn coral shares the four areas 

of designated critical habitat with elkhorn coral, as well as the two exemptions at Navy facilities (refer to 

Section 3.4.2.2.1.1, Status and Management, for information on critical habitat for these two species). 

Exemptions from critical habitat designations include a small zone around Naval Air Station Key West 

and a small area within the South Florida Ocean Measurement Facility Testing Range. The exemption for 

Naval Air Station Key West was granted in accordance with a provision of the National Defense 

Authorization Act that allows such exemptions for installations with approved Integrated Natural 

Resources Management Plans. The exemption for the South Florida Ocean Measurement Facility was 

granted for national security reasons (73 Federal Register 229: 72210–72241, November 26, 2008).

3.4.2.2.2.2 Habitat and Geographic Range

Staghorn coral is commonly found in lagoons and the upper to mid-reef slopes, at depths of 1 to 20 m, 

and requires a salinity range of 34 to 37 parts per thousand (Aronson et al., 2008d; Boulon et al., 2005)

(refer to Section 3.4.2.2.1.2, Habitat and Geographic Range, as habitat information provided for elkhorn 

coral applies to staghorn coral as well). 

In the Study Area, staghorn distribution extends south from Palm Beach, Florida and along the east coast 

to the Florida Keys and Dry Tortugas (Jaap, 1984), in the southern part of the Gulf of Mexico Large 

Marine Ecosystem, the northern part of the Caribbean Sea Large Marine Ecosystem, and the southern 

part of the Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf Large Marine Ecosystem. Staghorn coral is known to occur 

in portions of the Key West Range Complex (Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: Proposed 

Listing Determinations for 82 Reef-Building Coral Species; Proposed Reclassification of Acropora palmata

and Acropora cervicornis from Threatened to Endangered, 77 Federal Register 73219–73262 [December 

7, 2012]).
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.4-22

3.4 Invertebrates

3.4.2.2.2.3 Population Trends

Most population monitoring of shallow-water corals is focused on the Florida Keys, which straddle three 

large marine ecosystems: Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf, Caribbean Sea, and Gulf of Mexico. Because 

the Florida Keys comprise their own ecological subregion, most reports categorize coral data as Floridian 

versus Caribbean rather than distinguishing populations on one side of these artificial boundaries. 

Research on the population status of staghorn coral indicates a drastic decline throughout the Caribbean 

that peaked in the 1980s. At four long-monitored reefs in the Florida Keys, staghorn coral cover 

decreased as follows: 

 18 percent on Carysfort Reef (1974 to 1982) (Dustan & Halas, 1987)

 96 percent on Molasses Reef (1981 to 1986) (Jaap et al., 1988)

 80 to 98 percent in the Dry Tortugas (Davis, 1982)

Continued long-term monitoring in the Florida Keys and the U.S. Virgin Islands has found that staghorn 

coral remains at 2 percent or less of all corals on reefs, a fraction of its former abundance (Boulon et al., 

2005; Rothenberger et al., 2008) (refer to Section 3.4.2.2.1.3, Population Trends, for general population 

and abundance information regarding acroporid corals). Staghorn coral grown in “nurseries” to assist 

recovery programs had substantially higher survival rates after a catastrophic cold-water bleaching

event in 2010, suggesting that restoration projects have potential for success (Schopmeyer et al., 2011). 

This same 2010 cold-water event killed an average of 15 percent of staghorn colonies at monitored reefs 

in the Florida Keys, a substantial decline in this remnant population (Lirman et al., 2011; National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2012). Since the 2006 decision to list staghorn coral as 

threatened, some populations have continued to decline by 50 percent or more, and reliance on asexual 

fragmentation as a source of new colonies is not considered sufficient to prevent extinction 

(Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: Proposed Listing Determinations for 82 Reef-Building 

Coral Species; Proposed Reclassification of Acropora palmata and Acropora cervicornis from Threatened 

to Endangered, 77 Federal Register 73219–73262 [December 7, 2012]).

Growth rates for this species range from approximately 1 to 5 in. per year (Boulon et al., 2005). 

Reproductive strategies and characteristics are not materially different from elkhorn coral 

(Section 3.4.2.2.1.3, Population Trends).

3.4.2.2.2.4 Predator and Prey Interactions

Predators of corals include sea stars, snails, and fishes (e.g., parrotfish and damselfish) (Boulon et al., 

2005; Roff et al., 2011). The marine snail, Coralliophila abbreviata (Grober-Dunsmore et al., 2006), and 

the bearded fireworm, are the primary predators on staghorn coral. Staghorn coral feeding strategies 

and symbioses are not materially different than those described for elkhorn coral (Section 3.4.2.2.1.4, 

Predator and Prey Interactions).

3.4.2.2.2.5 Species-Specific Threats

Staghorn coral has no species-specific threats. It is susceptible to the same suite of stressors that 

generally threaten corals (Section 3.4.2.2.1.5, Species-Specific Threats). However it is more susceptible 

to disease such as white band disease (Patterson et al., 2002; Porter et al., 2001), even though other 

diseases also can impact staghorn coral survival (National Marine Fisheries Service, 2015). A white band 

type II disease which is linked with the bacterial infection, Vibrio carchariae, also referred to as V. 

charchariae or V. harveyi (Gil-Agudelo et al., 2006), has also been described. A transmissible disease that 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.4-23

3.4 Invertebrates

caused rapid tissue loss in staghorn corals in the Florida Keys was described in 2003 (Williams & Miller, 

2005). Similar to white pox in A. palmata, the disease manifested with irregular multifocal tissue lesions 

with apparently healthy tissue remaining in between. Ciliate infections have also been documented at 

several locations in the Caribbean (Croquer et al., 2006).

NMFS evaluated the population’s demographic, spatial structure, and vulnerability factors to determine 

whether the species was likely to have an “...extremely high risk of extinction with little chance for 

recovery...” by 2100 (Brainard et al., 2011). Elements that contribute to staghorn coral’s threatened 

status include high vulnerability to ocean warming, ocean acidification and disease, high vulnerability to 

sedimentation and elevated nutrient levels, uncommon abundance, decreasing trend in abundance, low 

relative recruitment rate, restricted geographic range, and inadequacy of regulatory mechanisms.

3.4.2.2.3 Lobed Star Coral (Orbicella annularis)

3.4.2.2.3.1 Status and Management

Lobed star coral (Orbicella [formerly Montastraea] annularis) is listed as threatened under the ESA. 

Orbicella annularis, boulder star coral (Orbicella franksi) and mountainous star coral (Orbicella 

faveolata) have partially overlapping morphological characteristics, particularly in northern sections of 

their range, making identification less certain than for most other Caribbean corals. While there now is 

reasonable acceptance that these are three separate and valid species, decades of taxonomic 

uncertainty and difficult field identification have led many to consider these a single species complex. 

Consequently, many long-term monitoring data sets and previous ecological studies did not distinguish 

among the three species, instead pooling them together as “M. annularis complex” or “M. annularis

sensu lato” (Brainard et al., 2011; Jaap et al., 2002; National Marine Fisheries Service, 2012a; Somerfield 

et al., 2008).

3.4.2.2.3.2 Habitat and Geographic Range

Lobed star coral has been reported from depths of 0.5 to 20 m (Brainard et al., 2011; National Marine 

Fisheries Service, 2012a). Orbicella species, including lobed star coral, occur in most reef habitat types, 

although less commonly on the reef flat and in the shallow zones formerly dominated by elkhorn coral

(Brainard et al., 2011; Goreau, 1959; National Marine Fisheries Service, 2012a). Orbicella species are key 

reef-builders. They are known throughout the Caribbean, Bahamas, and the Flower Garden Banks, but 

are uncommon or possibly absent from Bermuda. 

Within the Study Area, lobed star coral is typically found in the southern and southeastern parts of the 

Gulf of Mexico Large Marine Ecosystem, the northern part of the Caribbean Sea Large Marine 

Ecosystem, and the southern part of the Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf Large Marine Ecosystem. 

Lobed star coral range includes most portions of the Study Area where shallow-water coral reefs occur. 

The principal areas of coincidence between lobed star coral habitat and the Study Area are near Puerto 

Rico and south Florida. Lobed star coral is known to occur in the South Florida Ocean Measurement 

Facility Testing Range, adjacent to the Naval Air Station Key West, and the Key West Range Complex. 

However, some of this geographic range information is based on ecological studies that identified the

O. annularis complex rather than specifying O. annularis in particular.

3.4.2.2.3.3 Population Trends

Lobed star coral in the U.S. Virgin Islands declined 72 percent during the years from 1988 to 1999

(Edmunds & Elahi, 2007). Declines between 40 and 60 percent were recorded in Puerto Rico, and 80 to 

95 percent declines were observed in Florida between the late 1970s and 2003 (Aronson et al., 2008c; 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.4-24

3.4 Invertebrates

Brainard et al., 2011). However, because many studies in Puerto Rico and Florida did not reliably 

distinguish between the three species, these changes in abundance should be assumed to apply 

generally to the O. annularis species complex (Brainard et al., 2011). In addition to these declines, the 

remnant population of O. annularis in the Florida Keys was decimated by the 2010 cold-water bleaching 

event that killed about 56 percent of all O. annularis colonies at monitored reefs (Lirman et al., 2011). 

All three of the O. annularis complex species are hermaphroditic, spawning over 6 to 8 nights following 

the new moon in late summer (late August to early October) (Brainard et al., 2011). Buoyant gametes 

are fertilized at the surface. Fertilization success is low and recruitment rates are apparently extremely 

low. For example, one study found only a single O. annularis recruit over 16 years of observation of 12 

square meters of reef in Discovery Bay, Jamaica (Hughes & Tanner, 2000). Asexual reproduction by 

fragmentation is occasionally successful, but in general, reproduction rates of this species are extremely 

low (Aronson et al., 2008c; Brainard et al., 2011). Genetic studies of boulder star coral found that 

populations in the eastern and western Caribbean are relatively genetically distinct, suggesting that 

regional differences in population trends or regulations for corals may influence their populations’ 

genetic diversity (Foster et al., 2012).

Growth rates are approximately 1 cm per year for colonies at depths of less than 12 m and growth rates 

decrease sharply as depth increases (Brainard et al., 2011). Slow growth coupled with low recruitment 

rates contribute to the three O. annularis complex species’ vulnerability to extinction (Brainard et al., 

2011).

3.4.2.2.3.4 Predator and Prey Interactions

Lobed star coral is much less susceptible to predation by snails than the Acropora species, and although 

preyed on by parrotfish, the species is not targeted (Brainard et al., 2011; Roff et al., 2011). Lobed star 

coral, as well as other species of Orbicella, is susceptible to yellow band disease (Closek et al., 2014).

Yellow band disease progresses slowly, but can cause large die-offs over the course of several seasons.

The disease is known to affect several other types of coral and is pervasive in the Caribbean (Closek et 

al., 2014). Lobed star coral feeding strategies and symbioses are not materially different than those 

described for elkhorn coral (Section 3.4.2.2.1.4, Predator and Prey Interactions).

3.4.2.2.3.5 Species-Specific Threats

All three species of the O. annularis complex are highly susceptible to thermal bleaching, both warm and 

cool extremes (Brainard et al., 2011; National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2012). Recently, 

lobed star coral and mountainous star coral (O. faveolata) were found to have higher susceptibility to 

coral bleaching than many other species (van Hooidonk et al., 2012). Among the 25 coral species 

assessed after a 2010 cold-water bleaching event in Florida, O. annularis was the most susceptible to 

mortality by a factor of almost two (Lirman et al., 2011). Otherwise, this coral has no species-specific 

threats, and is susceptible to the same suite of stressors that generally threaten corals (Section 3.4.2.1.4, 

General Threats). Disease and pollution (e.g., nutrients, herbicides, and pesticides) are the most 

damaging of the general threats (Brainard et al., 2011; Hughes et al., 2003; Pandolfi et al., 2005).

NMFS evaluated the population’s demographic, spatial structure, and vulnerability factors to determine 

whether the species was likely to have an “...extremely high risk of extinction with little chance for 

recovery...” by 2100 (Brainard et al., 2011). Elements that contribute to lobed star coral’s threatened

status are: susceptibility to ocean temperature shifts, disease, sedimentation, elevated nutrient levels, 

and ocean acidification; susceptibility to trophic effects of fishing; inadequate existing regulatory 

mechanisms to address global threats; threats by human impacts; decreasing trend in abundance; low 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.4-25

3.4 Invertebrates

relative recruitment rate; narrow overall distribution (based on narrow geographic distribution and 

moderate depth distribution); the concentration of the species in the Caribbean; and shifts to small size 

classes via fission and partial mortality of older, larger colonies (National Marine Fisheries Service, 

2014).

3.4.2.2.4 Boulder Star Coral (Orbicella franksi)

3.4.2.2.4.1 Status and Management

Boulder star coral is designated as a threatened species under the ESA. 

This species, previously identified as Montastraea franksi, is part of the O. annularis complex (identified 

in Section 3.4.2.2.3, Lobed Star Coral [Orbicella annularis]), which also includes lobed star coral and 

mountainous star coral.

3.4.2.2.4.2 Habitat and Geographic Range

Boulder star coral is found at least as deep as 50 m (Brainard et al., 2011), and is found in most reef 

environments. The O. annularis complex has been reported to at least 70 to 90 m, though only 

O. faveolata and O. franksi are likely to occur at these depths. The species is found in Bermuda but 

otherwise its geographic range is not materially different from O. annularis. 

Boulder star coral is known to occur in the South Florida Ocean Measurement Facility Testing Range, 

adjacent to Naval Air Station Key West, and the Key West and Gulf of Mexico Range Complexes. 

However, some of this geographic range information is based on ecological studies that identified the 

O. annularis complex rather than specifying O. franksi in particular.

3.4.2.2.4.3 Population Trends

This species information is assumed not to be materially different from lobed star coral; however, 

differences may be masked since many ecological studies collected data at the O. annularis complex 

level rather than specifying O. franksi in particular.

3.4.2.2.4.4 Predator and Prey Interactions

This species information is assumed not to be materially different from lobed star coral; however, 

differences may be masked since many ecological studies collected data at the O. annularis complex 

level rather than specifying O. franksi in particular.

3.4.2.2.4.5 Species-Specific Threats

Boulder star coral was less susceptible to mortality after a 2010 cold-water bleaching event in Florida 

than any of its congeners (different species of the same genus) by at least a factor of three (Lirman et al., 

2011). Otherwise, susceptibility to threats is not assumed to be materially different from lobed star 

coral. However, differences may be masked because many ecological studies identified the O. annularis

complex rather than specifying O. franksi in particular. 

NMFS evaluated the population’s demographic, spatial structure, and vulnerability factors to determine 

whether the species was likely to have an “...extremely high risk of extinction with little chance for

recovery...” by 2100 (Brainard et al., 2011). Elements that contribute to boulder star coral’s threatened 

status are: high susceptibility to ocean warming, disease, elevated nutrient levels, ocean acidification, 

and sedimentation; susceptibility to trophic effects of fishing; inadequate existing regulatory 

mechanisms to address global threats; threats by human impacts; decreasing trend in abundance; slow 

growth rate; low relative recruitment rate; moderate overall distribution (based on narrow geographic 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.4-26

3.4 Invertebrates

distribution and wide depth distribution); restriction to the Caribbean; and shifts to small size classes via 

fission and partial mortality of older, larger colonies (National Marine Fisheries Service, 2014).

3.4.2.2.5 Mountainous Star Coral (Orbicella faveolata)

3.4.2.2.5.1 Status and Management

Mountainous star coral is designated as a threatened species under the ESA.

The species was previously identified as Montastraea faveolata. Mountainous star coral is part of the 

O. annularis complex (identified in Section 3.4.2.2.3.1, Status and Management), which also includes 

lobed star coral and boulder star coral.

3.4.2.2.5.2 Habitat and Geographic Range

Mountainous star coral occurs within depths from 0.5 m to at least 40 m (Brainard et al., 2011), and like 

O. annularis it is more commonly found in the shallower portions of this depth range. The O. annularis

complex has been reported to at least 70 to 90 m, though only O. faveolata and O. franksi are likely to 

occur at these depths. This species is found in Bermuda but otherwise its geographic range is not 

materially different from O. annularis. 

Mountainous star coral is known to occur in the South Florida Ocean Measurement Facility Testing 

Range, adjacent to the Naval Air Station Key West, and the Key West Range Complex. However, some of 

this geographic range information is based on ecological studies that identified the O. annularis complex 

rather than specifying O. faveolata in particular.

3.4.2.2.5.3 Population Trends

This species information is assumed not to be materially different from lobed star coral; however, 

differences may be masked since many ecological studies collected data at the O. annularis complex 

level rather than specifying O. faveolata in particular.

3.4.2.2.5.4 Predator and Prey Interactions

This species information is assumed not to be materially different from lobed star coral; however, 

differences may be masked since many ecological studies collected data at the O. annularis complex 

level rather than specifying O. faveolata in particular.

3.4.2.2.5.5 Species-Specific Threats

This species information is assumed not to be materially different from lobed star coral; however, 

differences may be masked since many ecological studies collected data at the O. annularis complex 

level rather than specifying O. faveolata in particular.

NMFS evaluated the population’s demographic, spatial structure, and vulnerability factors to determine 

whether the species was likely to have an “...extremely high risk of extinction with little chance for 

recovery...” by 2100 (Brainard et al., 2011). Elements that contribute to mountainous star coral’s 

threatened status are: high susceptibility ocean warming, disease, sedimentation and elevated nutrient

levels; susceptibility to trophic effects of fishing; inadequate existing regulatory mechanisms to address 

global threats; decreasing trend in abundance; low relative recruitment rate; late reproductive maturity;

moderate overall distribution with concentration in areas of high human impact; and shifts to small size 

classes via fission and partial mortality of older, larger colonies (National Marine Fisheries Service, 

2014).
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.4-27

3.4 Invertebrates

3.4.2.2.6 Pillar Coral (Dendrogyra cylindrus)

3.4.2.2.6.1 Status and Management

Pillar Coral is designated as a threatened species under the ESA.

3.4.2.2.6.2 Habitat and Geographic Range

Pillar coral most frequently occurs at depths of 3 to 8 m but has been documented at depths of 1 to 

25 m (Brainard et al., 2011; National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2012). It is found on 

rocky outcrops in areas of high wave activity (Marhaver et al., 2015). It is known to occur in south 

Florida as far north as Broward County and from one colony in Bermuda, but is not known to occur at 

the Flower Garden Banks or elsewhere in the northern or western Gulf of Mexico. 

Within the Study Area, pillar corals are typically found in the southern and southeastern parts of the 

Gulf of Mexico Large Marine Ecosystem, the northern part of the Caribbean Sea Large Marine 

Ecosystem, and the southern part of the Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf Large Marine Ecosystem. Pillar 

coral range includes most portions of the Study Area where shallow-water coral reefs occur. The 

principal areas of coincidence between pillar coral habitat and the Study Area are near Puerto Rico and 

south Florida. Pillar coral is known to occur in portions of the South Florida Ocean Measurement Facility 

Testing Range, adjacent to the Naval Air Station Key West, and the Key West Range Complex.

3.4.2.2.6.3 Population Trends

Pillar coral is both rare and conspicuous (due to its growth form). It has a limited habitat preference and 

colonies are often dispersed and isolated throughout the habitat range (National Marine Fisheries 

Service, 2014). Because pillar coral colonies have been killed by warm and cold water bleaching, disease, 

and physical damage, it has been assumed that this rare species is in decline. In general, pillar coral is 

too rare for meaningful trends in abundance to be detected by typical reef monitoring programs

(Brainard et al., 2011). However, recent studies on reproductive strategies and life history have shown 

low sexual recruitment rates and slow growth, adding further population and genetic diversity concerns 

for the species (Marhaver et al., 2015).

Growth rates for this species are typically 8 mm (0.3 in.) per year, though rates up to 20 mm (0.8 in.) per 

year have been reported (Brainard et al., 2011). Pillar coral spawns, and the first observation of 

spawning activity was recorded in August 2012, 3 to 4 days after a full moon. Further studies found this 

spawning activity to be consistent through 2014 (Marhaver et al., 2015). The rate of sexual reproduction 

is likely to be low because the species is so rare and colonies are gonochoric (i.e., a colony is either male 

or female); male and female colonies are unlikely to be in close enough proximity for reliable 

fertilization. For this reason, no juveniles of pillar coral have been observed in the past several decades, 

and fragmentation seems to be the only successful mode of reproduction for this species (National 

Marine Fisheries Service, 2012a).

3.4.2.2.6.4 Predator and Prey Interactions

Predators of this species seem to be few, and though the corallivorous fireworm (Hermodice 

carunculata) feeds on diseased pillar coral, it does not seem to be a major predator (Brainard et al., 

2011). A species of sea urchin (Diadema antillarum) has been known to cause partial mortality at the 

base of pillar coral colonies (National Marine Fisheries Service, 2014). Pillar coral is distinctive among 

Caribbean corals because its tentacles are extended for feeding on zooplankton during the day, while 

most other corals’ tentacles are retracted during the day (Boulon et al., 2005; Brainard et al., 2011). 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.4-28

3.4 Invertebrates

Pillar coral feeding strategies and symbioses are not materially different than those described for 

elkhorn coral (Section 3.4.2.2.1.4, Predator and Prey Interactions).

3.4.2.2.6.5 Species-Specific Threats

Pillar coral has no species-specific threats. It is susceptible to the same suite of stressors that generally 

threaten corals (Section 3.4.2.1.4, General Threats); however, it was historically more susceptible to 

exploitation by the curio trade (Brainard et al., 2011). Low population density and separation of male 

and female colonies are the principal threats to the species (Brainard et al., 2011; National Marine 

Fisheries Service, 2012a).

NMFS evaluated the population’s demographic, spatial structure, and vulnerability factors to determine 

whether the species was likely to have an “...extremely high risk of extinction with little chance for 

recovery...” by 2100 (Brainard et al., 2011). Elements that contribute to pillar coral’s threatened status 

are: susceptibility to ocean warming, disease, acidification, elevated nutrient levels, sedimentation, and 

trophic effects of fishing; inadequate existing regulatory mechanisms to address global threats; threats 

by human impacts; rare general range-wide abundance; low relative recruitment rate; narrow overall 

distribution (based on narrow geographic distribution and moderate depth distribution); and restriction 

to the Caribbean (National Marine Fisheries Service, 2014).

3.4.2.2.7 Rough Cactus Coral (Mycetophyllia ferox)

3.4.2.2.7.1 Status and Management

Rough cactus coral is designated as a threatened species under the ESA.

3.4.2.2.7.2 Habitat and Geographic Range

Rough cactus coral is known to occur as deep as 80 to 90 m (Brainard et al., 2011; National Marine 

Fisheries Service, 2012a). Though reported to commonly occur at depths of 5 to 30 m (Aronson et al., 

2008a), this could be an artifact of scuba diver-based survey intensity, which decreases dramatically 

below 30 m. Rough cactus coral occurs in patch and fore reef (the part of the reef exposed to the open 

ocean) habitat types, generally in lower energy parts of the reef (Brainard et al., 2011; National Marine 

Fisheries Service, 2012a). It is known to occur throughout the Caribbean and southern Gulf of Mexico, 

but is absent from the Flower Garden Banks, Bermuda, and the southeast United States north of south 

Florida (National Marine Fisheries Service, 2014).

Within the Study Area, rough cactus coral is typically found in the southern and southeastern parts of 

the Gulf of Mexico Large Marine Ecosystem, the northern part of the Caribbean Sea Large Marine 

Ecosystem, and the southern part of the Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf Large Marine Ecosystem. 

Rough cactus coral range includes most portions of the Study Area where shallow-water coral reefs 

occur. The principal areas of coincidence between rough cactus coral habitat and the Study Area are 

near Puerto Rico and south Florida. Rough cactus coral is known to occur in the South Florida Ocean 

Measurement Facility Testing Range, adjacent to the Naval Air Station Key West, and the Key West 

Range Complex.

3.4.2.2.7.3 Population Trends

Though probably never abundant, rough cactus coral in the Florida Keys has declined by at least 

80 percent since 1996 and perhaps by much more since the 1970s (Brainard et al., 2011). The 

abundance of rough cactus coral has been estimated to be at least hundreds of thousands of colonies in 

the Florida Keys and Dry Tortugas (National Marine Fisheries Service, 2014). 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.4-29

3.4 Invertebrates

Rough cactus coral is a hermaphroditic brooder, releasing fully-developed larvae in the late winter 

(February to March) (Aronson et al., 2008a). Recruitment rates are extremely low or absent, as 

evidenced by observation of anchor-damaged site in the U.S. Virgin Islands over a 10-year period

(Brainard et al., 2011). No colonies of rough cactus coral were observed to recruit to the site despite the 

presence of adults on an adjacent reef (National Marine Fisheries Service, 2014).

3.4.2.2.7.4 Predator and Prey Interactions

Rough cactus coral is not known to be particularly susceptible to predators (Brainard et al., 2011), and 

feeding strategies and symbioses are not materially different than those described for elkhorn coral 

(Section 3.4.2.2.1.4, Predator and Prey Interactions).

3.4.2.2.7.5 Species-Specific Threats

Though not especially susceptible to mortality from warm-water bleaching (Brainard et al., 2011; Lough 

& van Oppen, 2009), 15 percent of Mycetophyllia species were killed after a cold-water bleaching event 

in Florida (Lirman et al., 2011). Some coral diseases are characterized by the white-colored bands or pox 

they cause, but are otherwise difficult to discriminate (Porter et al., 2001). While diseases such as “white 

plague” do not seem to be species-specific (Porter et al., 2001), rough cactus coral in the Florida Keys 

has been particularly susceptible to this type of disease (Brainard et al., 2011). 

NMFS evaluated the population’s demographic, spatial structure, and vulnerability factors to determine 

whether the species was likely to have an “...extremely high risk of extinction with little chance for 

recovery...” by 2100 (Brainard et al., 2011). Elements that contribute to rough cactus coral’s 

(Mycetophyllia ferox) threatened status are: high susceptibility to disease; susceptibility to ocean 

warming, acidification, trophic effects of fishing, elevated nutrient levels, and sedimentation; 

inadequate existing regulatory mechanisms to address global threats; threats by human impacts; rare 

general range-wide abundance; decreasing trend in abundance; low relative recruitment rate; moderate 

overall distribution (based on narrow geographic distribution and wide depth distribution); and 

restriction to the Caribbean (National Marine Fisheries Service, 2014).

3.4.2.3 Species Not Listed Under the Endangered Species Act

Thousands of invertebrate species occur in the Study Area; however, the only species with ESA status 

are seven coral species listed as threatened and one coral species designated as a species of concern. 

The variety of species spans many taxonomic groups (taxonomy is a method of classifying and naming 

organisms). Many species of marine invertebrates are commercially or recreationally fished. Several 

species are federally managed as part of fisheries under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation 

and Management Act.

Marine invertebrates are classified within major taxonomic groups, generally referred to as a phylum.

Major invertebrate phyla—those with greater than 1,000 species (Roskov et al., 2015; World Register of 

Marine Species Editorial Board, 2015)—and the general zones they inhabit in the Study Area are listed in 

Table 3.4-2. Vertical distribution information is generally shown for adults; the larval stages of most of 

the species occur in the water column. In addition to the discrete phyla listed, there is a substantial 

variety of single-celled organisms, commonly referred to as protozoan invertebrates, that represent 

several phyla (Kingdom Protozoa in Table 3.4-2). Throughout the invertebrates section, organisms may 

be referred to by their phylum name or, more generally, as marine invertebrates.

Table 3.4-2: Major Taxonomic Groups of Marine Invertebrates in the Atlantic Fleet Training 

and Testing Study Area
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

Table 3.4-2: Major Taxonomic Groups of Marine Invertebrates in the Atlantic Fleet Training 

and Testing Study Area (continued)

3.4-30

3.4 Invertebrates

Major Invertebrate Groups1 Presence in the Study Area2

Common Name

(Classification)3 Description4 Open Ocean Areas

Large Marine 

Ecosystems

Inshore 

Waters

Foraminifera, 

radiolarians, ciliates

(Kingdom Protozoa)

Benthic and planktonic singlecelled organisms; shells typically 

made of calcium carbonate or 

silica.

Water column, 

bottom

Water 

column, 

bottom

Water 

column, 

bottom

Sponges 

(Porifera)

Mostly benthic animals; sessile 

filter feeders; large species have 

calcium carbonate or silica 

structures embedded in cells to 

provide structural support.

Bottom Bottom Bottom

Corals, anemones, 

hydroids, jellyfish 

(Cnidaria)

Benthic and pelagic animals 

with stinging cells; sessile corals 

are main builders of coral reef 

frameworks.

Water column, 

bottom

Water 

column, 

bottom

Water 

column, 

bottom

Flatworms

(Platyhelminthes)

Mostly benthic; simplest form 

of marine worm with a 

flattened body.

Water column, 

bottom

Water 

column, 

bottom

Water 

column, 

bottom

Ribbon worms

(Nemertea)

Benthic marine worms with an 

extendable, long tubularshaped extension (proboscis) 

that helps capture food.

Water column, 

bottom Bottom Bottom

Round worms 

(Nematoda)

Small benthic marine worms; 

free-living or may live in close 

association with other animals.

Water column, 

bottom

Water 

column, 

bottom

Water 

column, 

bottom

Segmented worms 

(Annelida)

Mostly benthic, sedentary to 

highly mobile segmented 

marine worms (polychaetes); 

free-living and tube-dwelling 

species; predators, scavengers, 

herbivores, detritus feeders, 

deposit feeders, and filter or 

suspension feeders.

Bottom Bottom Bottom

Bryozoans 

(Bryzoa)

Small, colonial animals with 

gelatinous or hard exteriors 

with a diverse array of growth 

forms; filter feeding; attached 

to a variety of substrates 

(e.g., rocks, plants, shells or 

external skeletons of 

invertebrates.

Bottom Bottom Bottom
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

Table 3.4-2: Major Taxonomic Groups of Marine Invertebrates in the Atlantic Fleet Training 

and Testing Study Area (continued)

3.4-31

3.4 Invertebrates

Major Invertebrate Groups1 Presence in the Study Area2

Common Name

(Classification)3 Description4 Open Ocean Areas

Large Marine 

Ecosystems

Inshore 

Waters

Cephalopods, 

bivalves, sea snails, 

chitons

(Mollusca)

Soft-bodied benthic or pelagic 

predators, filter feeders, 

detritus feeders, and herbivore 

grazers; many species have a 

shell and muscular foot; in some 

groups, a ribbon-like band of 

teeth is used to scrape food off 

rocks or other hard surfaces.

Water column, 

bottom

Water 

column, 

bottom

Water 

column, 

bottom

Shrimp, crabs, 

lobsters, barnacles, 

copepods 

(Arthropoda)

Benthic and pelagic predators, 

herbivores, scavengers, detritus 

feeders, and filter feeders; 

segmented bodies and external 

skeletons with jointed 

appendages. 

Water column, 

bottom

Water 

column, 

bottom

Water 

column, 

bottom

Sea stars, sea 

urchins, sea 

cucumbers 

(Echinodermata)

Benthic animals with 

endoskeleton made of hard 

calcareous structures (plates, 

rods, spicules); five-sided radial 

symmetry; many species with 

tube feet; predators, 

herbivores, detritus feeders, 

and suspension feeders.

Bottom Bottom Bottom

1 Major species groups (those with more than 1,000 species) are based on the World Register of Marine Species (World 

Register of Marine Species Editorial Board, 2015) and Catalogue of Life (Roskov et al., 2015).

2 Presence in the Study Area includes open ocean areas; large marine ecosystems; and bays, rivers, and estuaries. 

Occurrence on or within seafloor (bottom or benthic) or water column (pelagic) pertains to juvenile and adult stages; 

however, many phyla may include pelagic planktonic larval stages. 

3 Classification generally refers to the rank of phylum, although Protozoa is a traditionally recognized group of several phyla

of single-celled organisms (e.g., historically referred to as Kingdom Protozoa, which is still retained in some references, 

such as in the Integrated Taxonomic Information System).

4 benthic = a bottom-dwelling organism associated with seafloor or substrate; planktonic = an organism (or life stage of an 

organism) that drifts in pelagic (water) environments; nekton = actively swimming pelagic organism.

Additional information on the biology, life history, and conservation of marine invertebrates can be 

found on the websites maintained by the following organizations:

 NMFS, particularly for ESA-listed species and species of concern

 United States Coral Reef Task Force

 MarineBio Conservation Society

3.4.2.3.1 Foraminifera, Radiolarians, Ciliates (Kingdom Protozoa)

Foraminifera, radiolarians, and ciliates are miniscule singled-celled organisms, sometimes forming 

colonies of cells, belonging to the kingdom Protozoa (Appeltans et al., 2010; Castro & Huber, 2000b). 

They are found in the water column and on the bottom of the world’s oceans, and while most are 

microscopic, some species grow to approximately 20 cm (Hayward et al., 2016). In general, the 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.4-32

3.4 Invertebrates

distribution of foraminifera, radiolarians, and ciliates is patchy, occurring in regions with favorable 

growth conditions.

Foraminifera form diverse and intricate shells out of calcium carbonate, organic compounds, or sand or 

other particles cemented together (University of California Berkeley, 2010d). The shells of foraminifera 

that live in the water column eventually sink to the bottom, forming soft bottom sediments known as 

foraminiferan ooze. Foraminifera feed on diatoms and other small organisms. Their predators include 

copepods and other zooplankton.

Radiolarians are microscopic zooplankton that form shells made of silica. Radiolarian ooze covers large 

areas of soft bottom habitat on the ocean floor (Pearse et al., 1987; University of California Berkeley, 

2010b). Many radiolarian species contain symbiotic dinoflagellates (a type of single-celled organism) or 

algae. Radiolarians may also trap small particles or other organisms (e.g., diatoms) that drift in the water 

column.

Ciliates are protozoans with small hair-like extensions that are used for feeding and movement. They are 

a critical food source for primary consumers and are considered important parasites of many marine 

invertebrates. Ciliates feed on bacteria and algae, and some species contain symbiotic algae.

3.4.2.3.2 Sponges (Phylum Porifera)

Sponges include approximately 8,550 marine species worldwide and are classified in the Phylum Porifera

(Van Soest et al., 2012; World Register of Marine Species Editorial Board, 2015). Sponges are 

bottom-dwelling, multicellular animals that can be best described as an aggregation of cells that 

perform different functions. Sponges are largely sessile, and are common throughout the Study Area at 

all depths. Sponges are typically found on intermediate bottoms (unconsolidated substrate that is 

mostly gravel or cobble-sized) to hard bottoms, artificial structures, and biotic reefs. Sponges reproduce 

both sexually and asexually. Water flow through the sponge provides food and oxygen, and removes 

wastes (Pearse et al., 1987; University of California Berkeley, 2010c). This filtering process is an 

important coupler of processes that occur in the water column and on the bottom (Perea-Blázquez et 

al., 2012). Many sponges form calcium carbonate or silica spicules or bodies embedded in cells to 

provide structural support (Castro & Huber, 2000a; Van Soest et al., 2012). Sponges provide homes for a 

variety of animals including shrimp, crabs, barnacles, worms, brittle stars, sea cucumbers, and other 

sponges (Colin & Arneson, 1995b). Within the western Atlantic coral reef and related ecosystems, there 

are 117 genera of sponges (Spalding et al., 2001). Some sponge species are harvested commercially. For 

example, the sheepswool sponge (Hippiospongia lachne) and yellow sponge (Cleona celata) are 

commercially harvested in Florida waters located in the Gulf of Mexico Large Marine Ecosystem (Stevely 

& Sweat, 2008).

Most sponges do not form reefs because their skeletons do not persist intact after the colony’s death. 

However, the skeletal structure of a few hexactinellid sponge species may form reefs or mounds. 

Sponge reefs are currently only known off the western coast of Canada. Hexactinellid sponges were 

documented on bottom features along the shelf break and on Mytilus Seamount in the Northeast U.S. 

Continental Shelf Large Marine Ecosystem, but reef structures were not reported (Quattrini et al., 2015). 

Known threats to reef-building sponges are physical strike and disturbance from anthropogenic activities

(Whitney et al., 2005).
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.4-33

3.4 Invertebrates

3.4.2.3.3 Corals, Hydroids, Jellyfish (Phylum Cnidaria)

There are over 10,000 marine species within the phylum Cnidaria worldwide (World Register of Marine 

Species Editorial Board, 2015), although there is taxonomic uncertainty within some groups (Veron, 

2013). Cnidarians are organized into four classes: Anthozoa (corals, sea anemones, sea pens, sea 

pansies), Hydrozoa (hydroids and hydromedusae), Scyphozoa (true jellyfish), and Cubozoa (box jellyfish, 

sea wasps). Individuals are characterized by a simple digestive cavity with an exterior mouth surrounded 

by tentacles. Microscopic stinging capsules known as nematocysts are present (especially in the 

tentacles) in all cnidarians and are a defining characteristic of the phylum. The majority of species are 

carnivores that eat zooplankton, small invertebrates, and fishes. However, many species feed on 

plankton and dissolved organic matter, or contain symbiotic dinoflagellate algae (zooxanthellae) that 

produce nutrients by photosynthesis (Brusca & Brusca, 2003; Dubinsky & Berman-Frank, 2001; Lough & 

van Oppen, 2009; National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration & NOAA’s Coral Reef Conservation 

Program, 2016). Representative predators of cnidarians include sea slugs, snails, crabs, sea stars, coraland jellyfish-eating fish, and marine turtles. Cnidarians may be solitary or may form colonies. 

Cnidarians have many diverse body shapes, but may generally be categorized as one of two basic forms: 

polyp and medusa. The polyp form is tubular and sessile, attached at one end with the mouth 

surrounded by tentacles at the free end. Corals and anemones are examples of the polyp form. The 

medusa form is bell- or umbrella-shaped (e.g., jellyfish), with tentacles typically around the rim. The 

medusa form generally is pelagic, although there are exceptions. Many species alternate between these 

two forms during their life cycle. All cnidarian species are capable of sexual reproduction, and many 

cnidarians also reproduce asexually. The free-swimming larval stage is usually planktonic, but is benthic 

in some species.

A wide variety of cnidarian species occur throughout the Study Area at all depths and in most habitats, 

including hard and intermediate shores; soft, intermediate, and hard bottom; aquatic vegetation beds; 

and artificial substrates. Some cnidarians form biotic habitats that harbor other animals and influence 

ecological processes, the primary examples being shallow-water and deep-water stony corals.

ESA-listed coral species are primarily associated with shallow-water coral reefs. In the Study Area, 

shallow-water coral reefs occur in the southern part of the Gulf of Mexico Large Marine Ecosystem, 

throughout the Caribbean Sea Large Marine Ecosystem, and in the southern part of the Southeast U.S. 

Continental Shelf Large Marine Ecosystem, including southeast Florida and the Bahamas (Spalding et al., 

2001). In the central and eastern part of the Gulf of Mexico Large Marine Ecosystem, coral reefs occur in 

the Flower Garden Banks National Marine Sanctuary, Pulley Ridge Ecological Reserve, Dry Tortugas 

Ecological Reserve, and Florida Keys (Monaco et al., 2008; Spalding et al., 2001; U.S. Department of the 

Navy, 2007; U.S. Geological Survey, 2013). In the Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf Large Marine 

Ecosystem, shallow-water coral reefs occur throughout the Florida Keys and southeast Florida (Burke & 

Maidens, 2004). Reefs also occur in the Caribbean Sea Large Marine Ecosystem surrounding Puerto Rico 

and the U.S. Virgin Islands. Several Caribbean coral species are listed under the ESA (Sections 3.4.2.2.1, 

Elkhorn Coral [Acropora palmata] to Section 3.4.2.2.7, Rough Cactus Coral [Mycetophyllia ferox]).

Corals that are associated with tropical shallow reefs and temperate rocky habitats are vulnerable to a 

range of threats, including fishing impacts, pollution, erosion/sedimentation, coral harvesting, vessel 

damage, temperature increase, and climate change. Fishing practices such as blast fishing and trapping 

may be particularly destructive to coral reefs. In addition, removal of herbivorous fishes may result in 

overgrowth of coral reefs by algae (DeMartini & Smith, 2015). Corals associated with shallow-water 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.4-34

3.4 Invertebrates

reefs in the Florida Keys and some areas of the Caribbean have been substantially degraded by human 

activities and other factors. Threats are further discussed in Section 3.4.2.1.4 (General Threats) and in 

the individual descriptions of ESA-listed coral species. Because corals are slow growing and can survive 

for hundreds of years (Love et al., 2007; Roberts & Hirshfield, 2003), recovery from damage could take 

many years. Corals that occur in association with shallow-water coral reefs are protected by Executive 

Order 13089, Coral Reef Protection, and managed by the Coral Reef Task Force (Executive Order 13089: 

Coral Reef Protection, 63 Federal Register 32701–32703 [June 16, 1998]). The Navy is the U.S. 

Department of Defense representative to the United States Coral Reef Task Force and also carries out 

the Coral Reef Protection Implementation Plan (Lobel & Lobel, 2000).

Deep-water corals are azooxanthellate (lack symbiotic algae) and thus do not form consolidated 

biogenic substrate, but rather form mounds of intermediate substrate over hard bottom areas. 

Deep-water coral taxa in the Study Area consist primarily of hexacorals (stony corals, black corals, and 

gold corals), octocorals (e.g., true soft corals, gorgonians, sea pens), and hydrocorals (e.g., lace corals) 

(Hourigan et al., 2017a). A total of 77 deep-water coral species have been identified off the northeastern

United States from Maine to North Carolina, including the continental shelf and slope of the Gulf of 

Maine, Georges Bank, southern New England, Mid-Atlantic Bight (to Cape Hatteras), and various 

seamounts located off New England near Georges Bank (Packer et al., 2017). The majority of these coral 

species consist of gorgonians. Soft corals are more common at shallower sites. Large bioherm 

formations resulting from stony coral species such as L. pertusa have not been observed in the northeast 

region. Numerous submarine canyons, which often contain hard substrate necessary for most 

deep-water corals, occur on the continental slope and shelf from Georges Bank to Cape Hatteras. 

Available information indicates that deep-water corals are more densely distributed in canyons than on 

the adjacent slope, although there is considerable variation between individual canyons (Packer et al., 

2017). Colonial and solitary stony corals, black corals, and gorgonians have often been observed on hard 

substrate within the canyons, while solitary stony corals, sea pens, and bamboo corals are common on 

soft sediments. Overall, gorgonians appear to be the dominant structure-forming corals. Deep-sea coral 

occurrence in canyons along Georges Bank and the Mid-Atlantic Bight generally extends from depths of 

about 200 m to below 2,000 m. Corals were generally found to be uncommon in most open slope and 

inter-canyon sites, with the exception of some soft-sediment areas that supported sea pens and 

bamboo corals (Quattrini et al., 2015). Corals and deep-sea sponges were also observed on boulders and 

outcrops in some open slope and inter-canyon areas. Multiple seamount areas off the northeastern 

United States have been explored in recent years (Packer et al., 2017; Quattrini et al., 2015). Species 

composition was different among the various seamounts but generally included sea pens and stony cups 

corals in soft-sediment areas, and taxa such as black corals and gorgonians on hard bottom, walls, 

ledges, and rocky outcrops. Exploratory surveys in the Gulf of Maine have documented extensive coral 

aggregations in surveyed areas at depths of about 200 to 250 m. Structure-forming corals at these sites 

consisted mostly of gorgonians. Dense sea pen patches were observed in some mud and gravel habitats 

adjacent to hard bottom habitats. Two of the surveyed sites that support dense coral growth (Outer 

Schoodic Ridge and Mount Desert Rock) occur in the inshore portion of the Gulf of Maine, 

approximately 20 to 25 nautical miles (NM) from the coast. In 2016, the Northeast Canyons and 

Seamounts Marine National Monument was designated. The monument consists of two units, with one 

unit encompassing three canyons on the edge of Georges Bank and the other encompassing four 

seamounts. Designation of the monument is intended to protect deep-sea corals, among other 

resources.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.4-35

3.4 Invertebrates

In the southeastern U.S. region (Cape Hatteras, North Carolina to the Straits of Florida, including deep 

water areas such as Blake Plateau), deep-water stony corals reach their greatest abundance and 

structure formation in U.S. waters (Hourigan et al., 2017b). Research has been more extensive in this 

area than in the northeast United States, although many of the deeper portions remain poorly explored. 

A total of 197 deep-water coral species have been identified off the southeastern United States. Most of 

these species consist of stony and gorgonian corals. Broadly, the major concentrations of hard bottom 

habitat that are known to support or likely support deep-water corals off the southeastern United States 

include the continental shelf break, Oculina coral mounds, the continental slope and Blake Plateau, and 

the Miami and Pourtales Terraces and Escarpments. High relief ridges and rock outcrops at the shelf 

break and on the upper slope are often heavily encrusted with gorgonians. Other coral taxa observed in 

these areas include colonial stony corals (e.g., O. varicosa, Madracis myriaster, and Madrepora oculata), 

black corals, and soft corals. Oculina bioherms (also referred to as reefs or mounds) occur extensively 

along the shelf break off central Florida. These bioherms function as habitat for other coral taxa 

including gorgonians, soft corals, black corals, and stony cup corals. O. varicosa coverage may reach up 

to 30 to 40 percent of available hard substrate in some areas, although in other areas the density may 

be much less and specimens may occur as thickets, isolated colonies, and coral rubble. L. pertusa

bioherms have been recently found in relatively shallow water (about 200 m) off northeastern Florida. 

Relative to other parts of the Study Area, L. pertusa distribution in the vicinity of Navy training areas of 

the Jacksonville Range Complex is exceptionally well mapped (U.S. Department of the Navy, 2009). In 

the Jacksonville Operating Area (OPAREA), deep-water corals are found along the continental slope 

between 200 and 1,000 m (Reed et al., 2006). Communities of L. pertusa have also been found to inhabit 

substrate at relatively shallow depths of 180 to 250 m off the coast of northeastern Florida in the 

Jacksonville Range Complex (Ross et al., 2015; U.S. Department of the Navy, 2010). The dominant 

structure-forming scleractinian corals on the southeastern continental slope (waters generally deeper 

than 200 m) are L. pertusa and Enallopsammia profunda, which may form bioherms or other types of

mounds. Such structures are dominant features of the Blake Plateau from North Carolina to south 

Florida and the Bahamas. Lophelia mounds off North Carolina are apparently the northernmost 

bioherms in the United States. Coral occurrence in the central Blake Plateau region appears to consist 

mostly of smaller aggregations on coral mounds and rocky substrate. Non-structure forming octocorals, 

black corals, bamboo corals, soft corals, and cup corals may be relatively abundant throughout the 

southeast region in areas of suitable habitat. The Miami Terrace occurs off southeast Florida beginning 

at about 275 m depth, with a series of terraces and ridges at increasing depth (beyond 870 m). The 

Pourtales Terrace occurs at depths of 200 to 450 m along the southern edge of the Florida Keys reef 

tract and provides extensive, high relief, hard bottom habitat (Hourigan et al., 2017b). Various 

deep-water corals occur on these features, including L. pertusa, E. profunda, octocorals, gorgonians, 

black corals, and stylasterids (hydrocorals). Bioherms are rare in these areas, although a Lophelia mound 

at Pourtales Terrace represents the southernmost occurrence known in U.S. waters.

The geological complexity of the deep northern Gulf of Mexico (U.S.-Mexico border to the Florida 

Straits) supports a high diversity of deep-water corals (Boland et al., 2016). A total of 258 deep-water 

coral species have been identified in the Gulf (Etnoyer & Cairns, 2017). Substrate in the western and 

central portion of the Gulf generally consists of fine sand, silt, and clay, while hard bottom consists of 

old coral reefs, salt domes, and carbonate structures. In the eastern Gulf, the Florida platform and 

escarpment were primarily formed by sediment deposition and carbonate-producing organisms. 

Research to date indicates that mesophotic reefs (approximately 30 to 150 m depth) and deep coral 

habitats are widespread throughout the Gulf of Mexico, but are generally restricted to relatively rare 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.4-36

3.4 Invertebrates

hard substrates. Although data specific to the west Florida shelf are limited, available information 

suggests the extent of hard bottom habitat and the associated abundance and diversity of deep-sea 

corals is high. Structure-forming corals are generally found on hard substrates with moderate to high 

relief, including banks, mounds, carbonate structures, and artificial substrates (e.g., shipwrecks and 

offshore energy platforms). Various species of stony corals (e.g., Enallopsammia, Lophelia, Oculina, and 

Madrepora species), black corals, soft corals, gorgonians, and sea pens have been documented in 

suitable habitat throughout the Gulf of Mexico along the continental shelf and slope, and on the outer 

portion of the west Florida shelf. Hydrozoans (e.g., lace corals) have only been identified in the eastern 

Gulf, primarily along the shelf break and slope of the southern portion of the west Florida shelf.

Deep-water corals are likely absent from the open ocean biogeographic zone because water depth is 

typically greater than the depth of the aragonite saturation zone (in the case of stony corals), and 

because of the scarcity of planktonic food in the abyssal zone (Morris et al., 2013). An exception could 

be the seamounts located seaward of the Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf Large Marine Ecosystem. The 

results of habitat suitability modeling of seamounts located in less than 2,500 m water depth and rising 

at least 1,000 m off the bottom suggest the potential for deep-water corals to occur at seamounts 

located off the northeast U.S. continental shelf (Tittensor et al., 2009), which is consistent with the 

observation of corals on Mytilus Seamount in the Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf Large Marine 

Ecosystem (Quattrini et al., 2015).

The greatest threat to deep-water coral is physical strike and disturbance resulting from human 

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. For example, studies of the of the black coral Leiopathes glaberrima in the 

northern Gulf of Mexico suggest that bathymetry and water circulation patterns could limit larval 

dispersal and recovery in the event of a large disturbance (Cardona et al., 2016). Fishing activities, 

particularly trawling, are the primary threats to deep corals (Boland et al., 2016; Hourigan et al., 2017b; 

Packer et al., 2017; Rooper et al., 2017; Rooper et al., 2016; Yoklavich et al., 2017). It has been estimated 

that only about 10 percent of ivory tree coral habitat remains intact off Florida’s eastern coast, 

presumably due mostly to trawling (Koenig et al., 2005). Marine debris is also a potential threat. For 

example, during one study, a fishing trap, fishing line, balloon remnants, and ribbon was observed either 

lying on or wrapped around deep-sea corals located off the northeastern United States (Quattrini et al., 

2015). Other potential human-caused threats to deep-water corals include hydrocarbon exploration and 

extraction, cable and pipeline installation, and other bottom-disturbing activities (Boland et al., 2016; 

Hourigan et al., 2017b; Packer et al., 2017). Natural threats consist of sedimentation and bioerosion of 

the substrate.

3.4.2.3.4 Flatworms (Phylum Platyhelminthes)

Flatworms include between 12,000 and 20,000 marine species worldwide (World Register of Marine 

Species Editorial Board, 2015) and are the simplest form of marine worm (Castro & Huber, 2000a). The 

largest single group of flatworms are parasites commonly found in fishes, seabirds, and marine 

mammals (Castro & Huber, 2000a; University of California Berkeley, 2010e). The life history of parasitic 

flatworms plays a role in the regulation of populations of the marine vertebrates they inhabit. Ingestion 

by the host organism is the primary dispersal method for parasitic flatworms. Parasitic forms are not 

typically found in the water column outside of a host organism. The remaining groups are non-parasitic 

carnivores, living without a host. A large number of flatworm species from numerous families are found 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.4-37

3.4 Invertebrates

in various habitats throughout the Study Area. Several species of wrasses and other reef fish prey on 

flatworms (Castro & Huber, 2000a, 2000b).

3.4.2.3.5 Ribbon Worms (Phylum Nemertea)

Ribbon worms include over 1,300 marine species worldwide (World Register of Marine Species Editorial 

Board, 2015). Ribbon worms, with their distinct gut and mouth parts, are more complex than flatworms

(Castro & Huber, 2000a). A unique feature of ribbon worms is the extendable proboscis (an elongated, 

tubular mouth part), which can be ejected to capture prey, to aid in movement, or for defense (Brusca & 

Brusca, 2003). Most ribbon worms are active, bottom-dwelling predators of small invertebrates such as 

annelid worms and crustaceans (Brusca & Brusca, 2003; Castro & Huber, 2000b). Some are scavengers 

or symbiotic (parasites or commensals). Some ribbon worms are pelagic, with approximately 100 pelagic 

species identified from all oceans (Roe & Norenburg, 1999). Pelagic species generally drift or slowly 

swim by undulating the body. Ribbon worms exhibit a variety of reproductive strategies, including direct 

development with juveniles hatching from egg cases and indirect development from planktonic larvae

(Brusca & Brusca, 2003). In addition, many species are capable of asexual budding or regeneration from 

body fragments. Ribbon worms have a relatively small number of predators, including some birds, 

fishes, crabs, molluscs, squid, and other ribbon worms (McDermott, 2001). Ribbon worms are found 

throughout the Study Area. They occur in most marine environments, although usually in low 

abundances. They occur in embayments; soft, intermediate, and rocky shores and subtidal habitats of 

coastal waters; and deep-sea habitats. Some are associated with biotic habitats such as mussel clumps, 

coral reefs, kelp holdfasts, seagrass beds, and worm burrows (Thiel & Kruse, 2001). Approximately 

50 species of ribbon worms are known along the Atlantic coast of North America (Encyclopedia of Life, 

2017), and 24 species are known from Florida and the Virgin Islands (Aguilar, 2008; Correa, 1961).

Approximately 40 species of nemerteans occur in the Gulf of Mexico (Norenburg, 2009).

3.4.2.3.6 Round Worms (Phylum Nematoda)

Round worms include over 7,000 marine species (World Register of Marine Species Editorial Board, 

2015). Round worms are small and cylindrical, abundant in sediment habitats such as soft to 

intermediate shores and soft to intermediate bottoms, and also found in host organisms as parasites

(Castro & Huber, 2000a). Round worms are some of the most widespread marine invertebrates, with 

population densities of up to 1 million or more organisms per square meter of sediment (Levinton, 

2009). This group has a variety of food preferences, including algae, small invertebrates, annelid worms, 

and organic material from sediment. Like parasitic flatworms, parasitic nematodes play a role in 

regulating populations of other marine organisms by causing illness or mortality. Species in the family 

Anisakidae infect marine fish, and may cause illness in humans if fish are consumed raw without proper 

precautions (Castro & Huber, 2000a). Round worms are found throughout the Study Area.

3.4.2.3.7 Segmented Worms (Phylum Annelida)

Segmented worms include approximately 14,000 marine species worldwide in the phylum Annelida, 

although the number of potentially identified marine species is nearly 25,000 (World Register of Marine 

Species Editorial Board, 2015). Most marine annelids are in the class Polychaeta. Polychaetes are the 

most complex group of marine worms, with a well-developed respiratory and gastrointestinal system

(Castro & Huber, 2000a). Different species of segmented worms may be highly mobile or burrow in the 

bottom (soft to intermediate shore or bottom habitats) (Castro & Huber, 2000b). Polychaete worms 

exhibit a variety of life styles and feeding strategies, and may be predators, scavengers, deposit-feeders, 

filter-feeders, or suspension feeders (Jumars et al., 2015). The variety of feeding strategies and close 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.4-38

3.4 Invertebrates

connection to the bottom make annelids an integral part of the marine food web (Levinton, 2009). 

Burrowing and agitating the sediment increases the oxygen content of bottom sediments and makes 

important buried nutrients available to other organisms. This allows bacteria and other organisms, 

which are also an important part of the food web, to flourish on the bottom. Benthic polychaetes also 

vary in their mobility, including sessile attached or tube-dwelling worms, sediment burrowing worms, 

and mobile surface or subsurface worms. Some polychaetes are commensal or parasitic. Many 

polychaetes have planktonic larvae.

Polychaetes are found throughout the Study Area inhabiting rocky, sandy, and muddy areas of the 

bottom, vegetated habitats, and artificial substrates. Some are associated with biotic habitats such as 

mussel clumps, coral reefs, and worm burrows. Some species of worms build rigid (e.g., Diopatra spp.)

or sand-encrusted (Phragmatapoma spp.) tubes, and aggregations of these tubes form a structural 

habitat. Giant tube worms (Riftia pachyptila) are chemosynthetic (using a primary production process 

without sunlight) reef-forming worms living on hydrothermal vents of the abyssal oceans. Their 

distribution is poorly known in the Study Area, although hydrothermal vents are more likely to occur in 

association with seamounts and the Mid-Atlantic Ridge.

The reef-building tube worm (Phragmatopoma caudata, synonymous with P. lapidosa) constructs 

shallow-water worm reefs in some portions of the Study Area (Read & Fauchald, 2012). Large 

pseudocolonies of worms (formed from large numbers of individual larvae that settle in close proximity 

and undergo fusion to form complex habitats) develop relatively smooth mounds up to 2 m high (Zale & 

Merrifield, 1989). In the Study Area, the species is particularly common in the Southeastern U.S.

Continental Shelf Large Marine Ecosystem along Florida’s east coast, at depths up to 2 m; however, 

colonies are found infrequently to depths of 100 m in areas with strong currents (South Atlantic Fishery 

Management Council, 1998; Zale & Merrifield, 1989).

3.4.2.3.8 Bryozoans (Phylum Bryozoa)

Bryozoans include approximately 6,000 marine species worldwide (World Register of Marine Species 

Editorial Board, 2015). They are small box-like, colony-forming animals that make up the “lace corals.” 

Colonies can be encrusting, branching, or free-living. Bryozoans may form habitat similar in complexity 

to sponges (Buhl-Mortensen et al., 2010). Bryozoans attach to a variety of surfaces, including 

intermediate and hard bottom, artificial structures, and algae, and feed on particles suspended in the 

water (Hoover, 1998b; Pearse et al., 1987; University of California Berkeley, 2010a). Bryozoans are of 

economic importance for bioprospecting (the search for organisms for potential commercial use in 

pharmaceuticals). As common biofouling organisms, bryozoans also interfere with boat operations and 

clog industrial water intakes and conduits (Hoover, 1998b; Western Pacific Regional Fishery 

Management Council, 2001). Bryozoans occur throughout the Study Area but are not expected at depths 

beyond the continental slope (Ryland & Hayward, 1991). Habitat-forming species are most common on 

temperate continental shelves with relatively strong currents (Wood et al., 2012).

3.4.2.3.9 Squid, Bivalves, Sea Snails, Chitons (Phylum Mollusca)

The phylum Mollusca includes approximately 45,000 marine species worldwide (World Register of 

Marine Species Editorial Board, 2015). These organisms occur throughout the Study Area, including 

inshore waters and open ocean areas, at all depths. Sea snails and slugs (gastropods), clams and mussels 

(bivalves), chitons (polyplacophorans), and octopus and squid (cephalopods) are examples of common 

molluscs in the Study Area. Snails and slugs occur in a variety of soft, intermediate, hard, and biogenic 

habitats. Chitons are typically found on hard bottom and artificial structures from the intertidal to 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.4-39

3.4 Invertebrates

littoral zone but may also be found in deeper water and on substrates such as aquatic plants. Many 

molluscs possess a muscular organ called a foot, which is used for mobility. Many molluscs also secrete 

an external shell (Castro & Huber, 2000a), although some molluscs have an internal shell or no shell at 

all (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2015). Sea snails and slugs eat fleshy algae and a 

variety of invertebrates, including hydroids, sponges, sea urchins, worms, other snails, and small 

crustaceans, as well as detritus (Castro & Huber, 2000a; Colin & Arneson, 1995a; Hoover, 1998c). Clams, 

mussels, and other bivalves are filter feeders, ingesting suspended food particles (e.g., phytoplankton, 

detritus) (Castro & Huber, 2000a). Chitons, sea snails, and slugs use rasping tongues, known as radula, to 

scrape food (e.g., algae) off rocks or other hard surfaces (Castro & Huber, 2000b; Colin & Arneson, 

1995a). Squid and octopus are active swimmers at all depths and use a beak to prey on a variety of 

organisms including fish, shrimp, and other invertebrates (Castro & Huber, 2000a; Hoover, 1998c; 

Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council, 2001). Octopuses mostly prey on fish, shrimp, 

eels, and crabs (Wood & Day, 2005). 

Important commercial, ecological, and recreational species of molluscs in the Study Area include:

Atlantic scallop (Placopecten megallanicus), Atlantic surfclam (Spisula solidissima), ocean quahog

(Arctica islandica), and several squid species (Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, 2016; New 

England Fishery Management Council, 2013; Voss & Brakoniecki, 1985). Some mollusc species, 

principally bivalves, are habitat-forming organisms, forming sedentary invertebrate beds and biotic 

reefs. Examples include mussels of the genus Mytilus, found in intertidal areas, and the genus 

Bathymodiolus, which occur at deep-sea hydrothermal vents. Oysters in general, and principally the 

eastern oyster (Crassostrea virginica), may form extensive reefs, or beds, in estuarine waters of the 

Atlantic Ocean (including inshore waters) and Gulf of Mexico. Oyster reefs are highly productive habitats 

in inter-tidal or shallow subtidal ecosystems, providing many of the same habitat values as coral reefs.

3.4.2.3.10Shrimp, Crab, Lobster, Barnacles, Copepods (Phylum Arthropoda)

Shrimp, crabs, lobsters, barnacles, and copepods are animals with an exoskeleton, which is a skeleton on 

the outside of the body (Castro & Huber, 2000a), and are classified as crustaceans in the Phylum 

Arthropoda. The exoskeletons are made of a polymer called chitin, similar to cellulose in plants, to which 

the animals add other compounds to achieve flexibility or hardness. There are over 57,000 marine 

arthropod species, with about 53,000 of these belonging to the subphylum Crustacea (World Register of 

Marine Species Editorial Board, 2015). These organisms occur throughout the Study Area at all depths. 

Crustaceans may be carnivores, omnivores, predators, or scavengers, preying on molluscs (primarily 

gastropods), other crustaceans, echinoderms, small fishes, algae, and seagrass (Waikiki Aquarium, 

2009a, 2009b, 2009c; Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council, 2009). Barnacles and some 

copepods are filter feeders, extracting algae and small organisms from the water (Levinton, 2009). 

Copepods may also be parasitic, affecting most phyla of marine animals (Walter & Boxshall, 2017). As a 

group, arthropods occur in a wide variety of habitats. Shrimp, crabs, lobsters, and copepods may be 

associated with soft to hard substrates, artificial structures, and biogenic habitats. Barnacles inhabit 

hard and artificial substrates.

Important commercial, ecological, and recreational species of the Atlantic Ocean, Caribbean Sea, and 

Gulf of Mexico include various crab species (e.g., red crab [Chaceon quinquedens] and golden crab 

[Chaceon fenneri]), shrimp species (e.g., white shrimp [Litopenaeus setiferus] and royal red shrimp 

[Pleoticus robustus], and spiny lobster (Panulirus argus) (Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council, 

2015; New England Fishery Management Council, 2010; South Atlantic Fishery Management Council, 

2016). Eggs of the horseshoe crab (Limulus polyphemus) are a particularly important food source for 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.4-40

3.4 Invertebrates

some migratory birds at spring stopover sites along the northeastern U.S. coast (U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, 2011). The American lobster is a commercially and recreationally important crustacean that has 

increased dramatically in population due, in part, to successful fishery management (National Marine 

Fisheries Service, 2012b).

3.4.2.3.11Sea Stars, Sea Urchins, Sea Cucumbers (Phylum Echinodermata)

Organisms in this phylum include over 7,000 marine species, such as sea stars, sea urchins, and sea 

cucumbers (World Register of Marine Species Editorial Board, 2015). Asteroids (e.g., sea stars), 

echinoids (e.g., sea urchins), holothuroids (e.g., sea cucumbers), ophiuroids (e.g., brittle stars and basket 

stars), and crinoids (e.g., feather stars and sea lilies) are symmetrical around the center axis of the body

(Mah & Blake, 2012). Echinoderms occur at all depth ranges from the intertidal zone to the abyssal zone 

and are almost exclusively benthic, potentially found on all substrates and structures. Most echinoderms 

have separate sexes, but a few species of sea stars, sea cucumbers, and brittle stars have both male and 

female reproductive structures. Many species have external fertilization, releasing gametes into the 

water to produce planktonic larvae, but some brood their eggs and release free-swimming larvae (Mah 

& Blake, 2012; McMurray et al., 2012). Many echinoderms are either scavengers or predators on sessile 

organisms such as algae, stony corals, sponges, clams, and oysters. Some species, however, filter food 

particles from sand, mud, or water (Hoover, 1998a). Predators of echinoderms include a variety of fish 

species (e.g., triggerfish, eels, rays, sharks), crabs, shrimps, octopuses, birds, and other echinoderms (sea 

stars).

Echinoderms are found throughout the Study Area. An important commercial echinoderm species in the 

Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf Large Marine Ecosystem is the green sea urchin (Strongylocentrotus 

drobachiensis) (Maine Department of Marine Resources, 2010), although this species is not federally 

managed.

3.4.3 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

This section evaluates how and to what degree the activities described in Chapter 2 (Description of 

Proposed Action and Alternatives) potentially impact invertebrates known to occur within the Study 

Area. Table 2.6-1 (Proposed Training Activities per Alternative) through Table 2.6-4 (Office of Naval 

Research Proposed Testing Activities per Alternative) present the proposed training and testing activity

locations for each alternative (including number of activities). General characteristics of all Navy 

stressors were introduced in Section 3.0.3.3 (Identifying 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 invertebrates are:

 Acoustics (sonar and other transducers; air guns; pile driving; vessel noise; weapons noise)

 Explosives (explosions in water)

 Energy (in-water electromagnetic devices; high-energy lasers)

 Physical disturbance and strikes (vessels and in-water devices; military expended materials;

seafloor devices; pile driving)

 Entanglement (wires and cables; decelerators/parachutes; biodegradable polymers) 

 Ingestion (military expended materials - munitions; military expended materials other than 

munitions)
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.4-41

3.4 Invertebrates

 Secondary stressors (impacts to habitat; impacts to prey availability)

The analysis includes consideration of the mitigation that the Navy will implement to avoid potential 

impacts on invertebrates from explosives, and physical disturbance and strikes.

3.4.3.1 Acoustic Stressors

Assessing whether sounds may disturb or injure an animal involves understanding the characteristics of 

the acoustic sources, the animals that may be near the sound, and the effects that sound may have on 

the physiology and behavior of those animals. Marine invertebrates are likely only sensitive to water 

particle motion caused by nearby low-frequency sources, and likely do not sense distant or mid- and 

high-frequency sounds (Section 3.4.2.1.3, Sound Sensing and Production). Compared to some other taxa 

of marine animals (e.g., fishes, marine mammals), little information is available on the potential impacts 

on marine invertebrates from exposure to sonar and other sound-producing activities (Hawkins et al., 

2015). Historically, many studies focused on squid or crustaceans and the consequences of exposures to 

broadband impulsive air guns typically used for oil and gas exploration. More recent investigations have 

included additional taxa (e.g., molluscs) and sources, although extensive information is not available for 

all potential stressors and impact categories. The following Background sections discuss the currently 

available information on acoustic effects to marine invertebrates. These effects range from physical 

injury to behavioral or stress response. Aspects of acoustic stressors that are applicable to marine 

organisms in general are presented in Section 3.0.3.6.1 (Conceptual Framework for Assessing Effects 

from Acoustic and Explosive Activities).

3.4.3.1.1 Background

A summary of available information related to each type of effect is presented in the following sections.

Some researchers discuss effects in terms of the acoustic near field and far field. The near field is an area 

near a sound source where considerable interference between sound waves emerging from different 

parts of the source is present. Amplitude may vary widely at different points within this acoustically 

complex zone, and sound pressure and particle velocity are generally out of phase. The far field is the 

distance beyond which sound pressure and particle velocity are in phase, all sound waves appear to 

originate from a single point, and pressure levels decrease predictably with distance. The boundary 

between the near and far field is frequency-dependent, with the near field extending farther at lower 

frequencies. It has been estimated that the near field for a sound of 500 Hz (intensity not specified) 

would extend about 3 m from the source (Myrberg, 2001).

3.4.3.1.1.1 Injury

Injury refers to the direct effects on the tissues or organs of an animal due to exposure to pressure 

waves or particle motion. Available information on injury to invertebrates resulting from acoustic 

sources pertains mostly to damage to the statocyst, an organ sensitive to water particle motion and 

responsible for balance and orientation in some invertebrates. A few studies have also investigated 

effects to appendages and other organs, and one study investigated zooplankton mortality in response 

to air gun firing.

Researchers have investigated the effects of noise on American lobsters exposed to air gun firings in an 

aquarium and in the field (Payne et al., 2007). Lobsters in the aquarium were placed about 3.5 m from 

the air guns and exposed to sound levels of about 200 dB (peak-to-peak). Caged lobsters in the field 

were located 2 m from the air guns and exposed to higher-intensity sound levels (about 230 dB 

peak-to-peak). No physical damage to appendages and no effects on balance or orientation (indicating 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.4-42

3.4 Invertebrates

no damage to statocysts) were observed in any lobsters. No visible evidence of damage to 

hepatopancreata (digestive glands) or ovaries were found. Caged snow crabs (Chionoecetes opilio) were 

exposed to repeated air gun firings in the field (Christian et al., 2003). Crabs exposed to a single air gun 

were placed at depths of 2 to 15 m, while crabs exposed to air gun arrays were placed at depths of 4 to 

170 m. Air guns were fired during multiple sessions, with each session consisting of a firing every 

10 seconds for 33 minutes. Peak received levels were up to 207 dB re 1 μPa and 187 dB referenced to 

1 squared micropascal (dB re 1 μPa2) (single gun), and 237 dB re 1 μPa and 175 dB re 1 μPa2(array). 

Post-experimental examination showed no physical damage to statocysts, hepatopancreata, heart 

muscle or surrounding tissue, carapace, or appendages. As a comparison, air guns operated at full 

capacity during Navy activities would produce a SPL of approximately 206 dB re 1 μPa rms and a sound 

exposure level (SEL) of 185 to 196 dB re 1 μPa2 per second (dB re 1 μPa2-s) at a distance 1 m from the air 

gun. Air guns are also operated at less than full capacity, resulting in reduced sound levels.

In three instances, seismic air gun use has been hypothesized as the cause of giant squid strandings. This 

was based on the proximity in time and space of the squid and operating seismic vessels and, in two of 

the events, to physical injuries considered consistent with exposure to impulsive acoustic waves (Guerra 

et al., 2004; Guerra & Gonzales, 2006; Leite et al., 2016). However, because the animals were not 

observed at the time of potential impact, the cause(s) of the injuries and strandings cannot be 

determined conclusively.

Zooplankton abundance and mortality was investigated in the context of exposure to air gun firings in an 

open ocean environment (McCauley et al., 2017). Net tows and sonar surveys were conducted after 

transects involving air gun firings were completed. The results indicated decreased zooplankton 

abundance and increased mortality as a result of exposure. The most abundant organisms (copepods 

and cladocerans [water fleas]) showed a 50 percent decrease in abundance at distances of about 500 to 

700 m from the source. Received noise level at this distance was about 156 dB re 1 μPa2 per 1 second 

(dB re 1 μPa2s

-1

) SEL and 183 dB re 1 μPa peak-to-peak. There was no effect on the abundance of these 

specific taxa at distances of about 1 km from the source (153 dB re 1 μPa2s

-1

SEL and 178 dB re 1 μPa 

peak-to-peak). However, an overall decrease in zooplankton abundance was reported at distances to 

about 1.2 km from the source. The authors speculate that the effects could have been caused by 

damage to external sensory hairs on the organisms.

Physiological studies of wild captured cephalopods found progressive damage to statocysts in squid and 

octopus species after exposure to 2 hours of low-frequency (50 to 400 Hz) sweeps (100 percent duty 

cycle) at SPL of 157 to 175 dB re 1 μPa (André et al., 2011; Sole et al., 2013). It is noted that the animals 

were in the near field (distance was not specified in the report, but animals were likely within a few to 

several feet of the sound source based on the experiment description) where there is significant particle 

motion. In a similar experiment designed to control for possible confounding effects of experimental 

tank walls, common cuttlefish (Sepia officinalis) were exposed to 2 hours of low-frequency sweeps 

(100 to 400 Hz; 100 percent duty cycle with a 1-second sweep period) in an offshore environment (Sole 

et al., 2017). Sounds were produced by a transducer located near the surface, and caged experimental 

animals were placed at depths between 7 and 17 m. Received sound levels ranged from 139 to 142 dB 

re 1 μPa2. Maximum particle motion of 0.7 meter per squared second was recorded at the cage nearest 

the transducer (7.1 m between source and cage). Progressive damage to sensory hair cells of the 

statocysts were found immediately after and 48 hours after sound exposure, with the severity of effects 

being proportional to distance from the transducer. The authors suggest that whole-body vibrations 

resulting from particle motion were transmitted to the statocysts, causing damage to the structures. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.4-43

3.4 Invertebrates

Statocyst damage was also found in captive individuals of two jellyfish species (Mediterranean jellyfish 

[Cotylorhiza tuberculata] and barrel jellyfish [Rhizostoma pulmo]) under the same exposure parameters 

(50 to 400 Hz sweeps; 2 hour exposure time; 100 percent duty cycle with a 1-second sweep period; 

approximately 157 to 175 dB re 1 μPa received SPL) (Sole et al., 2016). In the context of overall 

invertebrate population numbers, most individuals exposed to acoustic stressors would be in the far 

field where particle motion would not occur and, therefore, the types of damage described above would 

not be expected. In addition, exposure duration would be substantially less than 2 hours. 

This limited information suggests that the potential for statocyst damage may differ according to the 

type of sound (impulsive or continuous) or among invertebrate taxa (e.g., crustaceans and 

cephalopods). Therefore, a definitive conclusion regarding potential impacts to invertebrates in general 

is unsupported. Although invertebrate occurrence varies based on location, depth, season, and time of 

day (for example, the rising of the deep scattering layer, which consists of numerous invertebrate taxa), 

individuals could be present in the vicinity of impulsive or non-impulsive sounds produced by Navy 

activities. Estimation of invertebrate abundance at any particular location would generally not be 

feasible, but there is a general pattern of higher abundances in relatively productive estuarine and 

nearshore waters compared to abundances in offshore portions of the Study Area. The number of 

individuals affected would be influenced by sound sensing capabilities. As discussed in Section 3.4.2.1.3

(Sound Sensing and Production), invertebrate acoustic sensing is probably limited to the particle motion 

component of sound. Water particle motion is most detectable near a sound source and at lower 

frequencies, which likely limits the range at which invertebrates can detect sound.

3.4.3.1.1.2 Physiological Stress

A stress response consists of one or more physiological changes (e.g., production of certain hormones)

that help an organism cope with a stressor. However, if the magnitude or duration of the stress 

response is too great or too prolonged, there can be negative consequences to the organism. 

Physiological stress is typically evaluated by measuring the levels of relevant biochemicals in the subject 

organisms.

The results of two investigations of physiological stress in adult invertebrates caused by impulsive noise 

varied by species. Some biochemical stress markers and changes in osmoregulation were observed in 

American lobsters exposed to air gun firings at distances of approximately 2 to 4 m from the source

(Payne et al., 2007). Increased deposits of carbohydrates, suggesting a possible stress response, were 

noted in digestive gland cells 4 months after exposure. Conversely, repeated air gun exposures caused 

no changes in biochemical stress markers in snow crabs located from 2 to 170 m from the source

(Christian et al., 2003).

Several investigations of physiological reactions of captive adult invertebrates exposed to boat noise 

playback and other continuous noise have been conducted. Continuous exposure to boat noise playback 

resulted in changes to some biochemical levels indicating stress in common prawns (Palaemon serratus) 

(30-minute exposure to sound levels of 100 to 140 dB re 1 μPa rms) and European spiny lobsters 

(30-minute exposure to sound levels up to 125 dB re 1μPa rms) (Celi et al., 2015; Filiciotto et al., 2014; 

Filiciotto et al., 2016). Increased oxygen consumption, potentially indicating stress, was found in shore 

crabs exposed to ship-noise playback of 148 to 155 dB re 1 μPa for 15 minutes (Wale et al., 2013b). Red 

swamp crayfish (Procambarus clarkii) exposed to 30-minute continuous acoustic sweeps (frequency 

range of 0.1 to 25 kHz, peak amplitude of 148 dB rms at 12 kHz) showed changes in some biochemical 

levels indicating stress (Celi et al., 2013). Captive sand shrimp (Crangon crangon) exposed to 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.4-44

3.4 Invertebrates

low-frequency noise (30 to 40 dB above ambient) continuously for 3 months demonstrated decreases in 

growth rate and reproductive rate (Lagardère, 1982). Mediterranean mussels (Mytilus galloprovincialis) 

exposed to 30-minute continuous acoustic sweeps (frequency range of 0.1 to 60 kHz, maximum SPL of 

150 dB rms re 1 μPa), although exhibiting no behavioral changes at any tested frequency, showed 

statistically significant increases in some biochemical stress indicators (e.g., glucose and heat shock 

protein) in the low-frequency exposure category (0.1 to 5 kHz) (Vazzana et al., 2016). Changes in glucose 

levels were found in blue crabs (Callinectes sapidus) exposed to low-frequency sound (broadband noise 

with a significant component of 60 Hz at approximately 170 dB re 1 μPa SPL) and mid-frequency pulsed 

tones and chirps (1.7 to 4 kHz at approximately 180 dB re 1 μPa SPL) (Dossot et al., 2017).

In addition to experiments on adult invertebrates, some studies have investigated the effects of

impulsive and non-impulsive noise (air guns, boat noise, turbine noise) on invertebrate eggs and larvae. 

Data on similar effects resulting from sonar are currently unavailable. Developmental delays and body 

malformations were reported in New Zealand scallop (Pecten novaezelandiae) larvae exposed to seismic 

air gun playbacks at frequencies of 20 Hz to 22 kHz with SPL of 160 to 164 dB re 1 μPa (Aguilar de Soto et 

al., 2013). Although uncertain, the authors suggested physiological stress as the cause of the effects. 

Larvae in the relatively small (2 m diameter) experimental tank were considered close enough to the 

acoustic source to experience particle motion, which would be unlikely at the same pressure levels in 

the far field. Playbacks occurred once every 3 seconds and the larvae were periodically examined over 

the course of 90 hours. Snow crab (Chionoecetes opilio) eggs located in 2 m water depth and exposed to 

repeated firings of a seismic air gun (peak received SPL was 201 dB re 1 μPa) had slightly increased 

mortality and apparent delayed development (Christian et al., 2003). However, Dungeness crab 

(Metacarcinus magister) zoeae were not affected by repeated exposures to an air gun array (maximum 

distance of about 62 feet [ft.] slant distance) (Pearson et al., 1994), and exposure of southern rock 

lobster (Jasus edwardsii) eggs to air gun SELs of up to 182 dB re 1 μPa2-s did not result in embryonic 

developmental effects (Day et al., 2016). An investigation of the effects of boat noise playback on the 

sea hare (Stylocheilus striatus) found reduced embryo development and increased larvae mortality, but 

no effect on the rate of embryo development (Nedelec et al., 2014). Specimens were exposed to 

boat-noise playback for 45 seconds every 5 minutes over a 12-hour period. Continuous playback of 

simulated underwater tidal and wind turbine sounds resulted in delayed metamorphosis in estuarine 

crab larvae (Austrohelice crassa and Hemigrapsus crenulatus) that were observed for up to about 

200 hours (Pine et al., 2016).

Overall, the results of these studies indicate the potential for physiological effects in some, but not all,

adult invertebrates exposed to air guns near the source (about 2 to 4 m) and to boat and other 

continuous noise for durations of 15 to 30 minutes or longer. Larvae and egg development effects were 

reported for impulsive (distance from source of about 2 m) and non-impulsive noise exposures of 

extended duration (intermittently or continuously for several to many hours) and for air gun playback 

and field exposure, although air gun noise had no effect in one study. In general, exposure to continuous 

noise such as vessel operation during Navy training or testing events would occur over a shorter 

duration and sound sources would be more distant than those associated with most of the studies.

Adverse effects resulting from short exposure times have not been shown experimentally. A range to 

effects was not systematically investigated for air gun use. Experiments using playback of air gun and 

boat noise were conducted in relatively small tanks where particle motion, which decreases rapidly with 

distance, could have been significant. Marine invertebrate egg and larval abundances are high relative to 

the number of adults, and eggs and larvae are typically subject to high natural mortality rates. These 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.4-45

3.4 Invertebrates

factors decrease the likelihood of population-level effects resulting from impacts to eggs and larvae

from physiological stress associated with Navy training and testing events.

3.4.3.1.1.3 Masking

Masking occurs when one sound interferes with the detection or recognition of another sound. Masking 

can limit the distance over which an organism can communicate or detect biologically relevant sounds. 

Masking can also potentially lead to behavioral changes.

Little is known about how marine invertebrates use sound in their environment. Some studies show that 

crab, lobster, oyster, and coral larvae and post-larvae may use nearby reef sounds when in their 

settlement phase. Orientation and movement toward reef sounds was found in larvae located at 60 to 

80 m from a sound source in open water and in experimental tanks (distance from the sound source was 

about 150 cm in one laboratory study) (Radford et al., 2007; Stanley et al., 2010; Vermeij et al., 2010). 

The component of reef sound used is generally unknown, but an investigation found that low-frequency 

sounds (200 to 1,000 Hz) produced by fish at dawn and dusk on a coral reef were the most likely sounds 

to be detectable a short distance from the reef (Foster et al., 2012; Kaplan & Mooney, 2016). Similarly, 

lobed star coral larvae were found to have increased settlement on reef areas with elevated sound 

levels, particularly in the frequency range of 25 to 1,000 Hz (Lillis et al., 2016). Mountainous star coral 

larvae in their settlement phase were found to orient toward playbacks of reef sounds in an 

experimental setup, where received sound levels were about 145 to 149 dB re 1 μPa and particle 

velocity was about 9 x 10-8 meters per second (Vermeij et al., 2010). Playback speakers were located 

approximately 1 to 2 m from the larvae, although the authors suggest marine invertebrates may also use 

sound to communicate and avoid predators (Popper et al., 2001). Crabs (Panopeus species) exposed to 

playback of predatory fish vocalizations reduced foraging activity, presumably to avoid predation risk

(Hughes et al., 2014). The authors suggest that, due to lack of sensitivity to sound pressure, crabs are 

most likely to detect fish sounds when the fish are nearby. Anthropogenic sounds could mask important 

acoustic cues such as detection of settlement cues or predators, and potentially affect larval settlement 

patterns or survivability in highly modified acoustic environments (Simpson et al., 2011). Low-frequency 

sounds could interfere with perception of low-frequency rasps or rumbles among crustaceans, 

particularly when conspecific sounds are produced at the far end of the hearing radius. Navy activities 

occurring relatively far from shore would produce transient sounds potentially resulting in only 

intermittent, short-term masking, and would be unlikely to impact the same individuals within a short 

time. Training and testing activities would generally not occur at known reef sites within the probable 

reef detection range of larvae. Impacts could be more likely in locations where anthropogenic noise 

occurs frequently within the perceptive range of invertebrates (e.g., pierside locations in estuaries). 

There are likely many other non-Navy noise sources present in such areas, and potential impacts on 

invertebrates would be associated with all anthropogenic sources.

3.4.3.1.1.4 Behavioral Reactions

Behavioral reactions refer to alterations of natural behaviors due to exposure to sound. Most 

investigations involving invertebrate behavioral reactions have been conducted in relation to air gun 

use, pile driving, and vessel noise. Studies of air gun impacts on marine invertebrates (crustaceans and 

cephalopods) have typically been conducted with equipment used for seismic exploration, and the 

limited results suggest responses may vary among taxa. Snow crabs placed 48 m below a seismic air gun 

array did not react behaviorally to repeated firings (peak received SPL was 201 dB re 1 μPa) (Christian et 

al., 2003). Studies of commercial catch of rock lobsters (Panulirus cygnus) and multiple shrimp species in

the vicinity of seismic prospecting showed no long-term adverse effects to catch yields, implying no
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.4-46

3.4 Invertebrates

detectable long-term impacts on abundance from intermittent anthropogenic sound exposure over long 

periods (Andriguetto-Filho et al., 2005; Parry & Gason, 2006). Conversely, squid have exhibited various 

behavioral reactions when exposed to impulsive noise such as air gun firing (McCauley et al., 2000a; 

McCauley et al., 2000b). Some squid showed strong startle responses, including inking, when exposed to 

the first shot of broadband sound from a nearby seismic air gun (received SEL of 174 dB re 1 μPa rms).

Strong startle response was not seen when sounds were gradually increased, but the squid exhibited 

alarm responses at levels above 156 dB re 1 μPa rms (McCauley et al., 2000a; McCauley et al., 2000b). 

Southern reef squids (Sepioteuthis australis) exposed to air gun noise displayed alarm responses at 

levels above 147 dB re 1 μPa2-s (Fewtrell & McCauley, 2012). 

Pile driving produces sound pressure that moves through the water column and into the substrate, 

which may therefore affect both pelagic and benthic invertebrates. Impact pile driving produces a 

repetitive impulsive sound, while vibratory pile extraction produces a nearly continuous sound at a 

lower source level. Although few investigations have been conducted regarding impacts to invertebrates 

resulting from impact pile driving and extraction, the effects are likely similar to those resulting from 

other impulsive and vibrational (e.g., drilling) sources. When an underwater sound encounters the 

substrate, particle motion can be generated, resulting in vibration. Invertebrates may detect and 

respond to such vibrations. Playback of impact pile driving sound (137 to 152 dB re 1 μPa peak to peak)

in the water column near chorusing snapping shrimp resulted in an increase in the snap number and 

amplitude (Spiga, 2016). When exposed to playback of broadband impulsive pile driving sound of 150 dB 

SEL, Japanese carpet shell clams (Ruditapes philippinarum) exhibited reduced activity and valve closing, 

while Norway lobsters (Nephrops norvegicus) repressed burying, bioirrigation, and locomotion activity 

(Solan et al., 2016). Brittlestars (Amphiura filiformis) included in the experiment exhibited no overall 

statistically detectable behavioral changes, although the authors note that a number of individuals 

exhibited changes in the amount of sediment reworking activity. Pacific oysters (Magallana gigas) 

exposed to 3-minute pure tones responded behaviorally (shell closure) to low-frequency sounds, 

primarily in the range of 10 to 200 Hz (Charifi et al., 2017). The oysters were most sensitive to sounds of 

10 to 80 Hz at 122 dB rms re 1 μPa, with particle acceleration of 0.02 meter per squared second. 

Invertebrates exposed to vibrations of 5 to 410 Hz (which is a proxy for the effects of vibratory pile 

removal) at various particle acceleration amplitudes in the substrate of a holding tank for 8-second 

intervals exhibited behavioral reactions ranging from valve closure (common mussel [Mytilus edulis]) to 

antennae sweeping, changes in locomotion, and exiting the shell (common hermit crab [Pagurus 

bernhardus]) (Roberts et al., 2015; Roberts et al., 2016a). Sensitivity was greatest at 10 Hz and at particle 

acceleration of 0.1 meter per squared second. The authors analyzed data on substrate acceleration 

produced by pile driving in a river and found levels that would be detectable by the hermit crabs at 

17 and 34 m from the source. Measurements were not available for other distances or in marine 

environments. Similarly, underwater construction-related detonations of about 14-pound (lb.) charge 

weight (presumably in fresh water) resulted in substrate vibrations 297 m from the source that would 

likely be detected by crabs. Follow-up experiments showed that particle acceleration detection 

sensitivity in mussels and hermit crabs ranged from 0.06 to 0.55 meters per squared second (Roberts et 

al., 2016b). Subsequent semi-field experiments consisted of operating a small pile driver for 2-hour 

periods in an enclosed dock (90 m long by 18 m wide, water depth of 2 to 3 m, and sediment depth of 

3 to 4 m). Vibration in the sediment propagated farther (up to 30 m) in shallower water than in deeper 

water (up to 15 m). The signal in the sediment was mostly below 100 Hz and primarily from 25 to 35 Hz. 

Experimental animals in the enclosed area exhibited behavioral (e.g., width of shell opening) and 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.4-47

3.4 Invertebrates

physiological (e.g., oxygen demand) responses as a result of exposure, although information such as 

distance from the pile driver and particle acceleration at specific locations was not provided.

Common prawns and European spiny lobsters exposed to 30 minutes of boat noise playback in 

frequencies of 200 Hz to 3 kHz (sound levels of approximately 100 to 140 dB SPL [prawns] and 75 to 

125 dB SPL [lobsters]) showed behavioral responses including changes in movement velocity, and 

distance moved, as well as time spent inside a shelter (Filiciotto et al., 2014; Filiciotto et al., 2016).

Common cuttlefish exposed to playback of underwater ferry engine noise for 3.5 minutes (maximum 

sound level of about 140 dB re 1 μPa SPL) changed color more frequently, swam more, and raised their 

tentacles more often than control specimens or individuals exposed to playback of wave sounds (Kunc 

et al., 2014). Shore crabs (Carcinus maenas) exposed to ship noise playback did not exhibit changes in 

the ability or time required to find food, but feeding was often suspended during the playback (Wale et 

al., 2013a). Japanese carpet shell clams and Norway lobsters exposed to playback of ship noise for 

7 days at received levels of 135 to 140 dB re 1 μPa exhibited reactions such as reduced activity, 

movement, and valve closing (Solan et al., 2016). Brittlestars (A. filiformis) included in the study showed 

no overall statistically detectable behavioral changes, although individual animals were affected. 

Antarctic krill (Euphausia superba) did not respond to a research vessel approaching at 2.7 knots (source 

level below 150 dB re 1 μPa) (Brierley et al., 2003). Decreased activity levels were found in blue crabs 

exposed to low-frequency broadband sound with a significant component of 60 Hz (approximately 

170 dB re 1 μPa SPL) and mid-frequency pulsed tones and chirps (1.7 to 4 kHz at approximately 180 dB 

re 1 μPa SPL) (Dossot et al., 2017). Exposure to low-frequency sounds resulted in more pronounced 

effects than exposure to mid-frequency sounds. American lobsters appeared to be less affected than 

crabs.

A limited number of studies have investigated behavioral reactions to non-impulsive noise other than 

that produced by vessels. Red swamp crayfish (Procambarus clarkii) exposed to 30-minute continuous 

acoustic sweeps (frequency range of 0.1 to 25 kHz, peak amplitude of 148 dB rms at 12 kHz) exhibited 

changes in social behaviors (Celi et al., 2013). Caribbean hermit crabs (Coenobita clypeatus) delayed 

reaction to an approaching visual threat when exposed to continuous noise (Chan et al., 2010a; Chan et 

al., 2010b). The delay potentially put them at increased risk of predation, although the studies did not 

address possible simultaneous distraction of predators. Razor clams (Sinonovacula constricta) exposed 

to white noise and sine waves of 500 and 1,000 Hz responded by digging at a sound level of about 

100 dB re 1 μPa (presumably as a defense reaction), but did not respond to sound levels of 80 dB re 

1 μPa (Peng et al., 2016). Mediterranean mussels exposed to 30-minute continuous acoustic sweeps 

(frequency range of 0.1 to 60 kHz, maximum SPL of 150 dB rms re 1 μPa) showed no statistically 

significant behavioral changes compared to control organisms (Vazzana et al., 2016).

The results of these studies indicate that at least some invertebrate taxa would respond behaviorally to 

various levels of sound and substrate vibration produced within their detection capability. 

Comprehensive investigations of the range to effects of different sound and vibration sources and levels 

are not available. However, sound source levels for Navy pile diving and air gun use are within the range 

of received levels that have caused behavioral effects in some species. The low-frequency component of 

vessel noise would likely be detected by some invertebrates, although the number of individuals 

affected would be limited to those near enough to a source to experience particle motion.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.4-48

3.4 Invertebrates

3.4.3.1.2 Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers

Many non-impulsive sounds associated with training and testing activities are produced by sonar. Other 

transducers include items such as acoustic projectors and countermeasure devices. Most marine 

invertebrates do not have the capability to sense sound pressure; however, some are sensitive to 

nearby low-frequency sounds, such as could be approximated by some low-frequency sonars. As 

described in Section 3.4.2.1.3 (Sound Sensing and Production), invertebrate species detect sound 

through particle motion, which diminishes rapidly with distance from the sound source. Therefore, the 

distance at which they may detect a sound is probably limited. Most activities using sonar or other 

transducers would be conducted in deep-water, offshore portions of the Study Area and are not likely to 

affect most benthic invertebrate species (including ESA-listed coral species), although invertebrates in 

the water column could be affected. However, portions of the range complexes and testing ranges 

overlap nearshore waters of the continental shelf, and it is possible that sonar and other transducers 

could be used and affect benthic invertebrates in these areas. Sonar is also used in shallow water during 

pierside testing and maintenance testing.

Invertebrate species generally have their greatest sensitivity to sound below 1 to 3 kHz (Kunc et al., 

2016) and would therefore not be capable of detecting mid- or high-frequency sounds, including the 

majority of sonars, or distant sounds in the Study Area. Studies of the effects of continuous noise such 

as boat noise, acoustic sweeps, and tidal/wind turbine sound (information specific to sonar use was not 

available) on invertebrates have found statocyst damage, elevated levels of biochemicals indicative of 

stress, changes in larval development, masking, and behavioral reactions under experimental conditions

(see Section 3.4.3.1.1, Background). Noise exposure in the studies generally lasted from a few minutes 

to 30 minutes. The direct applicability of these results is uncertain because the duration of sound 

exposure in many of the studies is greater than that expected to occur during Navy activities, and factors 

such as environmental conditions (captive versus wild conditions) may affect individual responses (Celi 

et al., 2013). Individuals of species potentially susceptible to statocyst damage (e.g., some cephalopods) 

could be physically affected by nearby noise. Available research has shown statocyst damage to occur 

after relatively long-duration exposures (2 hours), which would be unlikely to occur to individual 

invertebrates due to transiting sources and potential invertebrate movement. An exception is pierside 

sonar testing and maintenance testing, where invertebrates (particularly sessile or slow-moving taxa 

such as bivalve molluscs, hydroids, and marine worms) could be exposed to sound for longer time 

periods compared to at-sea activities. Some studies also indicate the potential for impacts to 

invertebrate larval development resulting from exposure to non-impulsive noise (continuous or 

intermittent exposures over time periods of 12 to 200 hours) although, similar to stress effects, sonar 

has not been studied specifically. Masking could affect behaviors such as larvae settlement, 

communication, predator avoidance, and foraging in mollusc, crustacean, and coral species.

3.4.3.1.2.1 Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers Under Alternative 1

Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers Under Alternative 1 for Training Activities

Under Alternative 1, marine invertebrates would be exposed to low-, mid-, and high-frequency sonar 

and sound produced by other transducers during training activities. These activities could occur 

throughout the Study Area, including all range complexes except the Key West Range Complex, where 

the majority of shallow-water coral habitat is located. The locations and number of activities proposed 

for training under Alternative 1 are shown in Table 2.6-1 (Proposed Training Activities per Alternative) of 

Chapter 2 (Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives). Sounds produced during training are 

described in Section 3.0.3.3.1.1 (Sonar and Other Transducers).
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.4-49

3.4 Invertebrates

Invertebrates would likely only sense low-frequency sonar or the low-frequency component of nearby 

sounds associated with other transducers. Sonar and other transducers are often operated in deep 

water, where impacts would be more likely for pelagic species than for benthic species. Only individuals 

within a short distance (potentially a few feet) of the most intense sound levels would experience 

impacts to sensory structures such as statocysts. Any marine invertebrate that detects low-frequency 

sound produced during training activities may alter its behavior (e.g., change swim speed, move away 

from the sound, or change the type or level of activity). Given the limited distance to which marine 

invertebrates are sensitive to sound, only a small number of individuals relative to overall population 

sizes would likely have the potential to be impacted. Because the distance over which most marine 

invertebrates are expected to detect any sounds is limited and because most sound sources are 

transient or intermittent (or both), any physiological effects, masking, or behavioral responses would be 

short term and brief. Without prolonged exposures to nearby sound sources, adverse impacts to 

individual invertebrates are not expected, and there would be no effects at the population level. Sonar 

and other sounds may result in brief, intermittent impacts to individual marine invertebrates and groups 

of marine invertebrates close to a sound source, but they are unlikely to impact survival, growth, 

recruitment, or reproduction of marine invertebrate populations or subpopulations.

Current research does not support a biologically relevant impact of sound from sonar and other 

transducers at the levels predicted to occur within the Key West Range Complex or Gulf of Mexico.

Sound produced by sonar and other transducers is, therefore, not likely to impact ESA-listed coral 

species in these areas. In addition, training activities would not occur in elkhorn and staghorn critical 

habitat that is designated in shallow waters along southern Florida and around Puerto Rico. Pursuant to 

the ESA, the use of sonar and other transducers during training activities as described under Alternative 

1 would have no effect on ESA-listed coral species or critical habitat.

Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers Under Alternative 1 for Testing Activities

Under Alternative 1, marine invertebrates could be exposed to low-, mid-, and high-frequency acoustic 

sources during testing activities. Testing activities using sonar and other transducers could occur 

throughout the Study Area, including all range complexes; at Naval Undersea Warfare Center Division, 

Newport Testing Range; Naval Surface Warfare Center, Panama City Division Testing Range; South 

Florida Ocean Measurement Facility Testing Range; and pierside at Navy ports (Little Creek, Virginia; 

Kings Bay, Georgia; and Port Canaveral, Florida), naval shipyards, and Navy-contractor shipyards. The 

locations and number of activities proposed for testing under Alternative 1 are shown in Tables 2.6-2, 

2.6-3, and 2.6-4 (respectively, Naval Air Systems Command, Naval Sea Systems Command, and Office of 

Naval Research Proposed Testing Activities per Alternative) of Chapter 2 (Description of Proposed Action 

and Alternatives). Sounds produced during testing are described in Section 3.0.3.3.1.1 (Sonar and Other 

Transducers).

Invertebrates would likely only sense low-frequency sonar or the low-frequency component of nearby 

sounds associated with other transducers. Sonar and other transducers are often operated in deep 

water, where impacts would be more likely for pelagic species than for benthic species. Only individuals 

within a short distance (potentially a few feet) of the most intense sound levels would experience 

impacts on sensory structures such as statocysts. Any marine invertebrate that senses nearby or 

low-frequency sounds could react behaviorally. However, given the limited distance to which marine 

invertebrates are sensitive to sound, only a small number of individuals would likely be impacted. With 

the exception of pierside sonar testing, most sound sources are transient, and any physiological or 

behavioral responses or masking would be short term and brief. During pierside testing, invertebrates 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.4-50

3.4 Invertebrates

could be exposed to sound for longer time periods compared to at-sea testing. Pierside testing events 

generally occur over several hours of intermittent use. Sessile species or species with limited mobility 

located near pierside activities would be exposed multiple times. Species with greater mobility could 

potentially be exposed multiple times, depending on the time between testing events and the activity of 

individual animals. The limited information available suggests that sessile marine invertebrates 

repeatedly exposed to sound could experience physiological stress or react behaviorally (e.g., shell 

closing). However, recent survey work by the Virginia Institute of Marine Science suggests large 

populations of oysters inhabit Navy piers in the Chesapeake Bay that have persisted despite a history of 

sonar use in the area (Horton, 2016). In general, during use of sonar and other transducers, impacts 

would be more likely for sessile or limited-mobility taxa (e.g., sponges, bivalve molluscs, and 

echinoderms) than for mobile species (e.g., squids). Overall, given the limited distance to which marine 

invertebrates are sensitive to sound and the transient or intermittent nature (or both) of most sound 

sources, sonar and other sounds may result in brief, intermittent impacts to individual marine 

invertebrates and groups of marine invertebrates close to a sound source. The number of individuals 

affected would likely be small relative to overall population sizes. Sonar and other sounds are unlikely to 

impact survival, growth, recruitment, or reproduction of marine invertebrate populations or 

subpopulations.

Testing activities using sonar and other transducers are not proposed in ESA-listed elkhorn and staghorn 

critical habitat designated in shallow waters along southern Florida and around Puerto Rico. Pierside 

sonar testing at Port Canaveral would not result in sound exposure to ESA-listed corals because the 

northernmost distribution of these species occurs south of Port Canaveral. Sonar would be used during 

testing activities at the South Florida Ocean Measurement Facility Testing Range and could therefore 

expose corals to underwater sound. However, activities using low-frequency sonar would not be 

conducted within the coastal zone (3 NM from shore), and coral exposure would therefore not be 

expected because the distribution of shallow-water corals in the South Florida Ocean Measurement 

Facility Testing Range is limited to a relatively narrow band very close to shore. ESA-listed coral species 

may occur in deeper mesophotic waters seaward of the coastal zone, but an exposure close enough to 

cause particle motion and potential response from coral species also represents a hazard to safe 

navigation and would, therefore, be avoided. Coral larvae may be exposed to sonar and other 

transducers close enough to experience brief particle motion, but the available research does not 

support a biologically relevant response to that level of exposure. In general, sound exposure would be 

temporary, from primarily mobile sources, and ESA-listed corals would therefore not be subjected to 

prolonged sonar exposure in any portion of the Study Area. Pursuant to the ESA, the use of sonar and 

other transducers during testing activities as described under Alternative 1 would have no effect on 

ESA-listed coral species because of the following:

 Prolonged pierside sonar testing would not intersect the distribution of ESA-listed shallow-water 

or mesophotic coral species in the Study Area.

 Testing of sonar and other transducers from mobile platforms in mostly deeper water (away 

from areas where ESA-listed shallow-water corals would most likely occur) would result in a 

temporary exposure only very close to the near surface sources affecting primarily pelagic 

invertebrates. ESA-listed coral species may occur in deeper mesophotic waters seaward of the 

coastal zone, but an exposure close enough to cause particle motion and potential response 

from coral species also represents a hazard to safe navigation and would, therefore, be avoided. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.4-51

3.4 Invertebrates

Although coral larvae may occur near the surface, brief exposure to a transient source would 

result in no detectable behavioral or physiological impacts, including larvae settlement.

 Corals are only known to be able to detect low-frequency sounds, meaning only low-frequency 

sonar would have the potential to be detected by corals. However, in the South Florida Ocean 

Measurement Facility Testing Range, low-frequency sonar would not be used within 3 NM of 

shore, and shallow-water coral exposure would therefore not be expected.

3.4.3.1.2.2 Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers Under Alternative 2

Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers Under Alternative 2 for Training Activities

Under Alternative 2, marine invertebrates would be exposed to low-, mid-, and high-frequency sonar 

and sound produced by other transducers during training activities. The location of training activities 

would be the same as those described for Alternative 1, and are shown in Table 2.6-1 (Proposed Training 

Activities per Alternative) of Chapter 2 (Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives). Sounds 

produced during training are described in Section 3.0.3.3.1.1 (Sonar and Other Transducers).

Potential impacts to invertebrates would be similar to those discussed for training activities under 

Alternative 1. The only difference between Alternatives 1 and 2 in sonar and other transducer use is that 

the number of sonar hours used would be greater under Alternative 2 (Table 3.0-2, Sonar and 

Transducer Sources Quantitatively Analyzed). While the types of expected impacts to any individual 

invertebrate or group of invertebrates capable of detecting sonar or other sounds produced during 

training activities would remain the same, more animals would likely be affected. In the context of 

overall invertebrate population sizes and vertical distribution (benthic versus pelagic) within training 

areas, few individuals of any species would be close enough to the most intense sound level to 

experience impacts to sensory structures such as statocysts. Sonar and other sounds could result in 

stress, masking, or behavioral effects to marine invertebrates occurring close to a sound source. These 

exposures would generally be short term and brief, and a small number of individuals would be affected 

relative to overall population sizes. Physiological or behavioral effects resulting from sonar and other 

sounds are unlikely to impact survival, growth, recruitment, or reproduction of invertebrate populations 

or subpopulations.

Current research does not support a biologically relevant impact of sound from sonar and other 

transducers at the levels predicted to occur within the Key West Range Complex or Gulf of Mexico.

Sound produced by sonar and other transducers is, therefore, not likely to impact ESA-listed coral 

species in these areas. In addition, training activities would not occur in elkhorn and staghorn critical 

habitat that is designated in shallow waters along southern Florida and around Puerto Rico. Pursuant to 

the ESA, the use of sonar and other transducers during training activities as described under Alternative 

2 would have no effect on ESA-listed coral species or critical habitat.

Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers Under Alternative 2 for Testing Activities

Under Alternative 2, marine invertebrates would be exposed to low-, mid-, and high-frequency acoustic 

sources during testing activities. The location of testing activities using sonar and other transducers 

would be the same as those described for Alternative 1 and are shown in Tables 2.6-2, 2.6-3, and 2.6-4 

(respectively, Naval Air Systems Command, Naval Sea Systems Command, and Office of Naval Research 

Proposed Testing Activities per Alternative) of Chapter 2 (Description of Proposed Action and 

Alternatives). Sounds produced during testing are described in Section 3.0.3.3.1.1 (Sonar and Other 

Transducers).
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.4-52

3.4 Invertebrates

Potential impacts to invertebrates would be similar to those discussed for testing activities under 

Alternative 1. The only difference between Alternatives 1 and 2 in sonar and other transducer use is that 

the number of sonar hours used would be greater under Alternative 2 (Table 3.0-2, Sonar and 

Transducer Sources Quantitatively Analyzed). The increase is associated with mid-frequency and 

high-frequency sonar, which is probably outside the detection capability of most marine invertebrates. 

Therefore, the increase in sonar and other transducer use would likely result in only a negligible increase 

in the number of individual invertebrates potentially affected. In the context of overall invertebrate 

population sizes and vertical distribution (benthic versus pelagic) within testing areas, few individuals of 

any species would be close enough to the most intense sound level to experience impacts to sensory 

structures such as statocysts. Sonar and other sounds could result in stress, masking, or behavioral 

effects to marine invertebrates occurring close to a sound source. These effects would generally be 

short term and brief, and a small number of individuals would be affected relative to overall population 

sizes. Physiological or behavioral effects resulting from sonar and other sounds are unlikely to impact

survival, growth, recruitment, or reproduction of invertebrate populations or subpopulations. Testing

activities using sonar and other transducers are not proposed in ESA-listed elkhorn and staghorn critical 

habitat designated in shallow waters along southern Florida and around Puerto Rico. Pierside sonar 

testing at Port Canaveral would not result in sound exposure to shallow-water corals. Sonar would be 

used during testing activities at the South Florida Ocean Measurement Facility Testing Range. However, 

activities using low-frequency sonar would not be conducted within the coastal zone (3 NM from shore), 

and coral exposure would therefore not be expected because the distribution of corals in the South 

Florida Ocean Measurement Facility Testing Range is limited to a relatively narrow band very close to 

shore. ESA-listed coral species may occur in deeper mesophotic waters seaward of the coastal zone, but 

an exposure close enough to cause particle motion and potential response from coral species also 

represents a hazard to safe navigation and would, therefore, be avoided. Coral larvae may be exposed 

to sonar and other transducers close enough to experience brief particle motion, but the available 

research does not support a biologically relevant response to that level of exposure. In general, sound 

exposure would be temporary, from primarily mobile sources, and ESA-listed corals would therefore not 

be subjected to prolonged sonar exposure in any portion of the Study Area. Pursuant to the ESA, the use 

of sonar and other transducers during testing activities as described under Alternative 2 would have no 

effect on ESA-listed coral species because of the following:

 Prolonged pierside sonar testing would not intersect the distribution of ESA-listed shallow-water 

or mesophotic coral species in the Study Area.

 Testing of sonar and other transducers from mobile platforms in mostly deeper water (away 

from shallow areas where ESA-listed corals would most likely occur) would result in a temporary 

exposure only very close to the near surface sources affecting primarily pelagic invertebrates.

ESA-listed coral species may occur in deeper mesophotic waters seaward of the coastal zone,

but an exposure close enough to cause particle motion and potential response from coral 

species also represents a hazard to safe navigation and would, therefore, be avoided. Although 

coral larvae may occur near the surface, brief exposure to a transient source would result in no 

detectable behavioral or physiological impacts, including larvae settlement.

 Corals are only known to be able to detect low-frequency sounds, meaning only low-frequency 

sonar would have the potential to be detected by corals. However, in the South Florida Ocean 

Measurement Facility Testing Range, low-frequency sonar would not be used within 3 NM of 

shore, and shallow-water coral exposure would therefore not be expected.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.4-53

3.4 Invertebrates

3.4.3.1.2.3 Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers Under the No Action Alternative

Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers 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 AFTT 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.

3.4.3.1.3 Impacts from Air Guns

Air guns produce shock waves that are somewhat similar to those produced by explosives (see 

Section 3.4.3.2.2, Impacts from Explosives) but of lower intensity and slower rise times. An impulsive 

sound is generated when pressurized air is released into the surrounding water. Some studies of air gun

impacts on marine invertebrates have involved the use of an array of multiple seismic air guns, although 

arrays are not used during Navy training and testing activities. The volume capacity of air guns used for 

Navy testing (60 cubic inches at full capacity) is generally within the volume range of single air guns used 

in seismic exploration (typically 20 to 800 cubic inches). However, seismic air guns are used in arrays 

with a total volume of several thousands of cubic inches, which is far more than would be associated 

with any Navy activities. Generated impulses would have short durations, typically a few hundred 

milliseconds. The root-mean-squared SPL and SEL at a distance of 1 m from the air gun would be 

approximately 200 to 210 dB re 1 μPa and 185 to 195 dB re 1 μPa2-s, respectively.

The results of studies of the effects of seismic air guns on marine invertebrates, described in detail in 

Section 3.4.3.1 (Acoustic Stressors), suggest possible differences between taxonomic groups and life 

stages. Physical injury has not been reported in relatively large crustaceans (crabs, shrimp, and lobsters) 

exposed to seismic air guns at received levels comparable to the source level of Navy air guns operated 

at full capacity, but one study reported injury and mortality for zooplankton at exposures below Navy 

source levels. Evidence of physiological stress was not found in crabs exposed to sound levels up to 187 

dB re 1 μPa2. However, stress response was reported for lobsters located about 3.5 m from the source, 

where particle motion was likely detectable. While behavioral reaction to air guns has not been 

documented for crustaceans, squid have exhibited startle and alarm responses at various sound levels. 

Squid have shown startle response at received levels of 156 to 174 dB re 1 μPa rms (distance from sound 

source is unclear but presumed to be 30 m based on experimental description), although the reactions 

were less intense when ramp-up procedures (beginning with lower-intensity sound and progressing to 

higher levels) were used. In one study, onset of alarm response occurred at 147 dB re 1 μPa2-s; distance 

from the source was not provided. Developmental effects to crab eggs and scallop larvae were found at 

received levels of 210 and 164 dB 1 μPa SPL (about 7 ft. from the source). Conversely, crab zoeae

located 62 ft. from an air gun source showed no developmental effects. Air gun use could also result in 

substrate vibration, which could cause behavioral effects in nearby benthic invertebrates.

3.4.3.1.3.1 Impacts from Air Guns Under Alternative 1

Impacts from Air Guns Under Alternative 1 for Training Activities

There would be no air gun use associated with training activities. Therefore, air guns are not analyzed in 

this subsection.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.4-54

3.4 Invertebrates

Impacts from Air Guns Under Alternative 1 for Testing Activities

Air guns would be used in the Northeast, Gulf of Mexico, and Virginia Capes Range Complexes, the Naval 

Surface Warfare Center, Panama City Division and Naval Underwater Warfare Center, Newport, Testing 

Ranges, and pierside at Newport, Rhode Island (Section 3.0.3.3.1.2, Air Guns; Tables A.3.2.7.7, SemiStationary Equipment Testing, and A.3.3.1.1, Acoustic and Oceanographic Research, in Appendix A, Navy 

Activity Descriptions). Sounds produced by air guns are described in Section 3.0.3.3.1.2 (Air Guns).

Compared to offshore areas where air gun use would primarily affect invertebrates in the water column, 

air gun use at pierside locations would potentially affect a greater number of benthic and sessile 

invertebrates due to proximity to the bottom and structures (e.g., pilings) that may be colonized by 

invertebrates. Invertebrates such as sponges, hydroids, worms, bryozoans, bivalves, snails, and 

numerous types of crustaceans and echinoderms could be exposed to sound. Air gun use in offshore 

areas has the potential to affect pelagic invertebrates such as jellyfish and squid. Zooplankton could be 

affected by air gun use at any location. Available information indicates that zooplankton could be 

injured or killed, but injury to relatively large crustaceans (e.g., lobsters and crabs) would not be 

expected. Potential injury to squid located very near the source has been suggested but not 

demonstrated. It is unlikely that air guns would affect egg or larvae development due to the brief time 

that they would be exposed to impulsive sound (a few hundred milliseconds per firing). Activities 

conducted at pierside locations could potentially result in multiple exposures of sessile species or 

species with limited mobility to impulsive sound. Air gun use in offshore areas would be unlikely to 

affect individuals multiple times due to the relative mobility of invertebrates in the water column 

(passive and active movement) and the mobile nature of the sound source. Some number of 

invertebrates of various taxa exposed to air gun noise could experience a physiological stress response 

and would likely show startle reactions or short-term behavioral changes. For example, squid exposed to 

air gun noise would probably react behaviorally (e.g., inking, jetting, or changing swim speed or location 

in the water column), as these behaviors were observed in animals exposed to sound levels lower than 

the source levels of Navy air guns (distance from the source associated with these reactions was not 

provided). The results of one study suggests that affected individuals may exhibit less intense reactions 

when exposed to multiple air gun firings (McCauley et al., 2000a). In shallow water where air gun firing 

could cause sediment vibration, nearby benthic invertebrates could react behaviorally (e.g., shell closing 

or changes in foraging activity). Adult crustaceans may be less affected than other life stages. 

Sound and sediment vibrations caused by air gun events would be brief, although multiple firings would 

occur per event. In addition, testing activities would be conducted infrequently. Although some 

individuals would be affected, the number would be small relative to overall population sizes, and 

activities would be unlikely to impact survival, growth, recruitment, or reproduction of marine 

invertebrate populations or subpopulations.

Testing activities involving air guns would not occur in the Key West Range Complex or South Florida 

Ocean Measurement Facility Testing Range, and would not intersect elkhorn or staghorn coral critical 

habitat. Pursuant to the ESA, the use of air guns during testing activities as described under Alternative 1 

would have no effect on ESA-listed coral species or critical habitat.

3.4.3.1.3.2 Impacts from Air Guns Under Alternative 2

Impacts from Air Guns Under Alternative 2 for Training Activities

There would be no air gun use associated with training activities. Therefore, air guns are not analyzed in 

this subsection.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.4-55

3.4 Invertebrates

Impacts from Air Guns Under Alternative 2 for Testing Activities

The locations, number of events, and potential effects associated with air gun use would be the same 

under Alternatives 1 and 2. Refer to Section 3.4.3.1.3.1 (Impacts from Air Guns Under Alternative 1) for 

a discussion of impacts on invertebrates.

Testing activities involving air guns would not occur in the Key West Range Complex or South Florida 

Ocean Measurement Facility Testing Range, and would not intersect elkhorn or staghorn coral critical 

habitat. Pursuant to the ESA, the use of air guns during testing activities as described under Alternative 2 

would have no effect on ESA-listed coral species or critical habitat.

3.4.3.1.3.3 Impacts from Air Guns Under the No Action Alternative

Impacts from Air Guns Under the No Action Alternative for Training and Testing 

Activities

Under the No Action Alternative, the Navy would not conduct the proposed testing activities in the 

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.

3.4.3.1.4 Impacts from Pile Driving

Pile driving and removal involves both impact and vibratory methods. Impact pile driving produces 

repetitive, impulsive, broadband sound with most of the energy in lower frequencies where 

invertebrate hearing sensitivity is greater. Vibratory pile removal produces nearly continuous sound at a 

lower source level. See Section 3.0.3.3.1.3, Pile Driving, for a discussion of sounds produced during 

impact pile driving and vibratory pile removal.

Impacts on invertebrates resulting from pile driving and removal are considered in the context of 

impulsive sound and substrate vibration. Impact pile driving produces a pressure wave that is 

transmitted to the water column and the sediment (Reinhall & Dahl, 2011). The pressure wave may 

cause vibration within the sediment. Most acoustic energy would be concentrated below 1,000 Hz, 

which is within the general sound sensing range of invertebrates. Available information indicates that 

invertebrates may respond to particle motion and substrate vibration produced by pile driving or 

removal. As discussed in Section 3.4.3.1 (Acoustic Stressors), recent investigations have found effects to 

crustacean and mollusc species resulting from pile driving noise playback and substrate vibration 

(Roberts et al., 2015; Roberts et al., 2016a; Solan et al., 2016; Spiga, 2016). Responses include changes in 

chorusing (snapping shrimp), shell closing (clams and mussels), and changes in activity level (clams, 

lobsters, and hermit crabs). However, no statistically detectable changes were observed in brittlestars, 

suggesting that impacts may vary among taxa or species. While one study was conducted in a sheltered 

coastal area (Spiga, 2016), the others used small experimental tanks with maximum dimension of about 

20 inches. Therefore, many of the effects were observed very close to the sound sources. Navy scientists 

are in the early stages of observing the response of marine life to pile driving in their unconfined 

environment using an adaptive resolution imaging sonar that allows observations in low-visibility 

estuarine waters. Samples acquired to date include the response (or lack thereof) of various fish and 

crabs to Navy pile driving in the Mid-Atlantic region (Chappell, 2018).
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.4-56

3.4 Invertebrates

3.4.3.1.4.1 Impacts from Pile Driving Under Alternative 1

Impacts from Pile Driving Under Alternative 1 for Training Activities

Under Alternative 1, pile driving and removal associated with Elevated Causeway System placement 

would occur once per year in the nearshore and surf zone at one of the following locations: Virginia 

Capes Range Complex (Joint Expeditionary Base Little Creek, Virginia or Joint Expeditionary Base Fort 

Story, Virginia) or Navy Cherry Point Range Complex (Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune, North Carolina) 

(Section 3.0.3.3.1.3, Pile Driving). Marine invertebrates in the area around a pile driving and vibratory 

removal site would be exposed to multiple impulsive sounds and other disturbance intermittently over 

an estimated 20 days during installation and 10 days during removal. Invertebrates could be exposed to 

impact noise for a total of 90 minutes per 24-hour period during installation, and could be exposed to 

noise and substrate vibration for a total of 72 minutes per 24-hour period during pile removal. It may be 

theorized that repeated exposures to impulsive sound could damage the statocyst of individuals of some 

taxa (e.g., crustaceans and cephalopods); however, experimental data on such effects are not available. 

Exposure to impulsive sound and substrate vibration would likely cause behavioral reactions in 

invertebrates located in the water column or on the bottom for some distance from the activities. 

Reactions such as shell closure or changes in activity could affect feeding, and auditory masking could 

affect other behaviors such as communication and predator avoidance. Repetitive impulses and 

substrate vibration may also cause short-term avoidance of the affected area by mobile invertebrates. 

Available experimental results do not provide estimates of the distance to which such reactions could 

occur. Although some number of individuals would experience physiological and behavioral effects, the 

activities would occur intermittently (one event occurring intermittently over approximately 30 days per 

year) in very limited areas and would be of short duration (maximum of 90 minutes per 24-hour period). 

Therefore, the number of invertebrates affected would be small compared to overall population 

numbers. Pile driving and removal activities would be unlikely to impact survival, growth, recruitment, 

or reproduction of marine invertebrate populations or subpopulations.

ESA-listed coral species and critical habitat do not occur in areas proposed for pile driving. Pursuant to 

the ESA, the use of pile driving during training activities as described under Alternative 1 would have no 

effect on ESA-listed coral species or critical habitat.

Impacts from Pile Driving Under Alternative 1 for Testing Activities

There would be no pile driving or removal associated with testing activities. Therefore, pile driving is not 

analyzed in this subsection.

3.4.3.1.4.2 Impacts from Pile Driving Under Alternative 2

Impacts from Pile Driving Under Alternative 2 for Training Activities

The locations, number of events, and potential effects associated with pile driving and removal would be 

the same under Alternatives 1 and 2. Refer to Section 3.4.3.1.4.1 (Impacts from Pile Driving Under 

Alternative 1) for a discussion of impacts on invertebrates.

ESA-listed coral species and critical habitat do not occur in areas proposed for pile driving. Pursuant to 

the ESA, the use of pile driving during training activities as described under Alternative 2 would have no 

effect on ESA-listed coral species or critical habitat.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.4-57

3.4 Invertebrates

Impacts from Pile Driving Under Alternative 2 for Testing Activities

There would be no pile driving or removal associated with testing activities. Therefore, pile driving is not 

analyzed in this subsection.

3.4.3.1.4.3 Impacts from Pile Driving Under the No Action Alternative

Impacts from Pile Driving Under the No Action Alternative for Training and Testing 

Activities

Under the No Action Alternative, the Navy would not conduct the proposed training activities in the 

AFTT Study Area. Various acoustic 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.

3.4.3.1.5 Impacts from Vessel Noise

As described in Section 3.0.3.3.1.4 (Vessel Noise), naval vessels (including ships and small craft) produce 

low-frequency, broadband underwater sound that ranges over several sound levels and frequencies. 

Some invertebrate species would likely be able to detect the low-frequency component of vessel noise. 

Several studies, described in detail in Section 3.4.3.1 (Acoustic Stressors), have found physiological and 

behavioral responses in some invertebrate species in response to playback of vessel noise, although one 

study found no reaction by krill to an approaching vessel. Physiological effects included biochemical 

changes indicative of stress in crustacean species, decreased growth and reproduction in shrimp, and 

changes in sea hare embryo development. It is also possible that vessel noise may contribute to masking 

of relevant environmental sounds, such as predator detection or reef sounds. Low-frequency reef 

sounds are used as a settlement cue by the larvae of some invertebrate species. Behavioral effects 

resulting from boat noise playback have been observed in various crustacean, cephalopod, and bivalve 

species and include shell closing and changes in feeding, coloration, swimming, and other movements. 

Exposure to other types of non-impulsive noise (and therefore potentially relevant to vessel noise 

effects), including continuous sweeps and underwater turbine noise playback, has resulted in statocyst 

damage (squid and octopus), physiological stress, effects to larval development, and behavioral 

reactions. Noise exposure in several of the studies using boat and other continuous noise sources 

occurred over a duration of 3.5 to 30 minutes to captive individuals unable to escape the stimulus. In 

other studies, noise playback ranged from hours to days (and up to 3 months in one investigation) of 

continuous or intermittent exposure. Given the duration of exposure, direct applicability of the results 

to Navy training and testing activities is uncertain for mobile species. However, it is possible that 

invertebrates in the Study Area that are exposed to vessel noise could exhibit similar reactions.

While commercial vessel traffic and associated noise is relatively steady over time, Navy traffic is 

episodic in the ocean. Activities involving vessel movements occur intermittently and are variable in 

duration, ranging from a few hours to a few weeks. Vessels engaged in training and testing may consist 

of a single vessel involved in unit-level activity for a few hours or multiple vessels involved in a major 

training exercise that could last a few days within a given area. In the East Coast Exclusive Economic 

Zone, Navy ships are estimated to contribute only roughly 1 percent of the total large vessel broadband 

energy noise (Mintz & Filadelfo, 2011). However, the percentage of naval vessel traffic in port areas with 

Navy installations, such as Norfolk and Mayport, is probably greater than 1 percent.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.4-58

3.4 Invertebrates

3.4.3.1.5.1 Impacts from Vessel Noise Under Alternative 1

Impacts from Vessel Noise Under Alternative 1 for Training Activities

Under Alternative 1, naval vessels would be used during many of the proposed activities, and naval 

vessel noise associated with vessel transit during training could occur in all of the range complexes and 

inshore waters throughout the Study Area. Activities that occur in the offshore component of the Study 

Area may last from a few hours to a few weeks, and vessels would generally be widely dispersed. 

However, exposure to naval vessel noise would be greatest in the areas of highest naval vessel traffic, 

which generally occurs in the Virginia Capes and Jacksonville Range Complexes. Noise exposure would 

be particularly concentrated near naval port facilities, especially around and between the ports of 

Norfolk, Virginia, and Jacksonville, Florida. Activities that occur in inshore waters can last from a few 

hours to up to 12 hours of daily movement per vessel per activity, and can involve speeds greater than 

10 knots. Vessels that would operate within inshore waters are generally smaller than those in offshore 

waters (small craft less than 50 ft.). Vessel movements in the inshore waters of the Study Area occur on 

a more regular basis than the offshore activities, and generally occur in more confined waterways

(primarily in the Lower Chesapeake Bay and James River). Information on the number and location of 

activities using vessels, as well as the number of hours of operation for inshore waters, is provided in 

Section 3.0.3.3.4.1 (Vessels and In-Water Devices).

Marine invertebrates capable of sensing sound may alter their behavior or experience masking of other 

sounds if exposed to vessel noise. Because the distance over which most marine invertebrates are 

expected to detect sounds is limited, and because most vessel noise is transient or intermittent (or 

both), most behavioral reactions and masking effects from Navy activities would likely be short term, 

ceasing soon after Navy vessels leave an area. An exception would be areas in and around port 

navigation channels and inshore waters that receive a high volume of ship or small craft traffic, where 

sound disturbance would be more frequent. The relatively high frequency and intensity of vessel traffic 

in many inshore training areas may have given organisms an opportunity to adapt behaviorally to a 

noisier environment. For example, recent survey work by the Virginia Institute of Marine Science 

suggests that large populations of oysters inhabit Navy piers in the Chesapeake Bay that have persisted 

despite a history of chronic vessel noise (Horton, 2016). Without prolonged exposure to nearby sounds, 

measurable impacts are not expected. In general, intermittent vessel noise produced during training 

activities may briefly impact some individuals, but exposures are not expected to impact survival, 

growth, recruitment, or reproduction of marine invertebrate populations or subpopulations.

Concentrated vessel operation in areas such as port navigation channels could result in repeated noise 

exposure and chronic physiological or behavioral effects to individuals of local invertebrate 

subpopulations, particularly sessile species, located near the sound source. However, vessel noise would 

not be expected to adversely affect the viability of common or widely distributed invertebrate species in 

navigation channels or near naval port facilities.

Some adults of ESA-listed corals could potentially detect the low-frequency component of nearby vessel 

noise, although there are no studies of the effects of vessel noise on corals. Coral larvae exposed to 

vessel noise near a reef could experience temporary masking and brief disruption of settlement cues. 

Mapped areas of shallow-water coral reefs, live hard bottom, artificial reefs, submerged aquatic 

vegetation, and shipwrecks would be avoided during precision anchoring and explosive mine 

countermeasure and neutralization activities. In addition, mapped areas of shallow-water coral reefs 

would be avoided during explosive and non-explosive gunnery, missile, and bombing activities.

Avoidance of these areas would decrease vessel transit and associated vessel noise through areas 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.4-59

3.4 Invertebrates

supporting shallow-water corals, including ESA-listed staghorn and elkhorn corals. Vessel noise would 

not affect the physical components designated critical habitat for elkhorn coral and staghorn coral. 

Pursuant to the ESA, vessel noise produced during training activities as described under Alternative 1 

would have no effect on ESA-listed coral species or critical habitat.

Impacts from Vessel Noise Under Alternative 1 for Testing Activities

Under Alternative 1, naval vessels would be used during many of the proposed activities, and naval 

vessel noise associated with testing could occur in all of the range complexes and testing ranges

throughout the Study Area, and in some inshore waters. However, exposure to naval vessel noise would 

be greatest in the areas of highest naval vessel traffic, which generally occurs in the Virginia Capes and 

Jacksonville Range Complexes. Noise exposure would be particularly concentrated near naval port

facilities, especially around and between the ports of Norfolk, Virginia, and Jacksonville, Florida. 

Information on the number and location of activities using vessels, as well as the number of hours of 

operation for inshore waters, is provided in Section 3.0.3.3.4.1 (Vessels and In-Water Devices).

Any marine invertebrate capable of sensing sound may alter its behavior or experience masking of other 

sounds if exposed to vessel noise. Because the distance over which most marine invertebrates are 

expected to detect sounds is limited and because most vessel noise is transient or intermittent (or both), 

most behavioral reactions and masking effects from Navy activities would likely be short term, ceasing 

soon after Navy vessels leave an area. An exception would be areas in and around port navigation 

channels and inshore waters that receive a high volume of ship or small craft traffic, where sound 

disturbance would be more frequent. The relatively high frequency and intensity of vessel traffic in 

many inshore areas may have given organisms an opportunity to adapt behaviorally to a noisier 

environment. For example, recent survey work by the Virginia Institute of Marine Science suggests that 

large populations of oysters inhabit Navy piers in the Chesapeake Bay that have persisted despite a 

history of chronic vessel noise (Horton, 2016). Without prolonged exposure to nearby sounds, 

measurable impacts are not expected. In general, intermittent vessel noise produced during testing 

activities may briefly impact some individuals, but exposures are not expected to impact survival, 

growth, recruitment, or reproduction of marine invertebrate populations or subpopulations. 

Concentrated vessel operation in areas such as port navigation channels could result in repeated noise 

exposure and chronic physiological or behavioral effects to individuals of local invertebrate 

subpopulations, particularly sessile species, located near the sound source. However, vessel noise would 

not be expected to adversely affect the viability of common or widely distributed invertebrate species in 

navigation channels or near naval port facilities.

Some adults of ESA-listed corals could potentially detect the low-frequency component of nearby vessel 

noise, and coral larvae exposed to vessel noise near a reef could experience temporary masking and 

brief disruption of settlement cues. Mapped areas of shallow-water coral reefs, live hard bottom, 

artificial reefs, submerged aquatic vegetation, and shipwrecks would be avoided during explosive mine 

countermeasure and neutralization activities. In addition, mapped areas of shallow-water coral reefs 

would be avoided during explosive and non-explosive gunnery, missile, rocket, and bombing activities

and mine-laying activities. Avoidance of these areas would decrease vessel transit and associated vessel 

noise through areas supporting shallow-water corals, including ESA-listed staghorn and elkhorn corals. 

Vessel noise would not affect the physical components of designated critical habitat for elkhorn coral 

and staghorn coral. Pursuant to the ESA, vessel noise produced during testing activities as described 

under Alternative 1 would have no effect on ESA-listed coral species or critical habitat.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.4-60

3.4 Invertebrates

3.4.3.1.5.2 Impacts from Vessel Noise Under Alternative 2

Impacts from Vessel Noise Under Alternative 2 for Training Activities

Under Alternative 2, potential impacts to invertebrates resulting from vessel noise associated with 

training activities would be similar to those discussed for activities under Alternative 1. Vessel use in the 

Study Area would increase by a very small amount (about 1 percent) due to differences in the number of 

events such as Composite Training Unit Exercises. However, the increase would not result in substantive 

changes to the potential for or types of impacts on invertebrates. Refer to Section 3.4.3.1.5.1 (Impacts 

from Vessel Noise Under Alternative 1) for a discussion of potential impacts.

As discussed in Section 3.4.3.1.5.1 (Impacts from Vessel Noise Under Alternative 1), mapped areas of 

shallow-water coral reefs, live hard bottom, artificial reefs, submerged aquatic vegetation, and 

shipwrecks would be avoided during precision anchoring and explosive mine countermeasure and 

neutralization activities. In addition, mapped areas of shallow-water coral reefs would be avoided during 

explosive and non-explosive gunnery, missile, and bombing activities. Avoidance of these areas would 

decrease vessel transit and associated vessel noise through areas supporting shallow-water corals, 

including ESA-listed staghorn and elkhorn corals. Vessel noise would not affect the physical components 

of designated critical habitat for elkhorn coral and staghorn coral. Pursuant to the ESA, vessel noise 

produced during training activities as described under Alternative 2 would have no effect on ESA-listed 

coral species or critical habitat.

Impacts from Vessel Noise Under Alternative 2 for Testing Activities

Under Alternative 2, potential impacts to invertebrates resulting from vessel noise associated with 

testing activities would be similar to those discussed for activities under Alternative 1. Vessel use in the 

Study Area would increase by a very small amount (less than 1 percent). However, the increase would 

not result in substantive changes to the potential for or types of impacts on invertebrates. Refer to 

Section 3.4.3.1.5.1 (Impacts from Vessel Noise Under Alternative 1) for a discussion of potential impacts.

As discussed in Section 3.4.3.1.5.1 (Impacts from Vessel Noise under Alternative 1), mapped areas of 

shallow-water coral reefs, live hard bottom, artificial reefs, submerged aquatic vegetation, and 

shipwrecks would be avoided during explosive mine countermeasure and neutralization activities. In 

addition, mapped areas of shallow-water coral reefs would be avoided during explosive and nonexplosive gunnery, missile, rocket, and bombing activities and mine-laying activities. Avoidance of these 

areas would decrease vessel transit and associated vessel noise through areas supporting shallow-water 

corals, including ESA-listed staghorn and elkhorn corals. Vessel noise would not affect the physical 

components of designated critical habitat for elkhorn coral and staghorn coral. Pursuant to the ESA, 

vessel noise produced during testing activities as described under Alternative 2 would have no effect on 

ESA-listed coral species or critical habitat.

3.4.3.1.5.3 Impacts from Vessel Noise Under the No Action Alternative

Impacts from Vessel Noise 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 AFTT 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.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.4-61

3.4 Invertebrates

3.4.3.1.6 Impacts from Aircraft Noise

Aircraft and missile overflight noise is not applicable to invertebrates due to the very low transmission of 

sound pressure across the air/water interface and will not be analyzed further in this section.

3.4.3.1.7 Impacts from Weapons Noise

As discussed in Section 3.0.3.3.1.6 (Weapon Noise), noise associated with weapons firing and the impact 

of non-explosive munitions could occur during training or testing events. In-water noise would result 

from naval gunfire (muzzle blast), bow shock waves from supersonic projectiles, missile and target 

launch, and vibration from a blast propagating through a ship’s hull. In addition, larger non-explosive 

munitions could produce low-frequency impulses when striking the water, depending on the size, 

weight, and speed of the object at impact. Small- and medium-caliber munitions would not produce 

substantial impact noise.

Underwater sound produced by weapons firing, launch, and impact of non-explosive practice munitions 

would be greatest near the surface and would attenuate with depth. However, the potential for in-air 

weapons noise to impact invertebrates would be small. Much of the energy produced by muzzle blasts 

and flying projectiles is reflected off the water surface. As discussed in Section 3.0.3.3.1.6 (Weapon

Noise), sound generally enters the water only in a cone beneath the blast or projectile trajectory (within 

13 to 14 degrees of vertical for muzzle blast noise, and 65 degrees behind the projectile in the direction 

of fire for projectile shock waves). An SEL of 180 to 185 dB re 1 μPa2-s was measured at water depth of 

5 ft. directly below the muzzle blast of the largest gun analyzed, at the firing position closest to the 

water. Different weapons and angles of fire would produce less sound in the water. Bow waves from 

supersonic projectiles produce a brief “crack” noise at the surface, but transmission of sound into the 

water is minimal. Launch noise fades rapidly as the missile or target moves downrange and the booster 

burns out. Hull vibration from large-caliber gunfire produces only a small level of underwater noise. For 

example, analysis of 5-in. gun firing found that energy transmitted into the water by hull vibration is only 

6 percent of that produced by the muzzle blast. Compared to weapons firing, launches, and hull 

vibration, impulsive sound resulting from non-explosive practice munition strikes on the water surface 

could affect a somewhat larger area, though far less than an explosive blast. Underwater sound would 

generally be associated only with relatively large munitions impacting at high speed.

Based on the discussion above, invertebrates would likely only be affected by noise produced by muzzle 

blasts and impact of large non-explosive practice munitions. Impacts would likely be limited to pelagic 

invertebrates, such as squid, jellyfish, and zooplankton, located near the surface. Injury and 

physiological stress has not been found in limited studies of invertebrates exposed to impulsive sound 

levels comparable to those produced beneath the muzzle blast of a 5-in. gun. Behavioral reactions have 

not been found in crustaceans, but have been observed for squid. While squid could display short-term 

startle response, behavioral reactions in response to sound is not known for jellyfish or zooplankton. 

Zooplankton may include gametes, eggs, and larval forms of various invertebrate species, including 

corals. Although prolonged exposure to repeated playback of nearby impulsive sound (air guns) has 

resulted in developmental effects to larvae and eggs of some invertebrate species, brief exposure to a 

single or limited number of muzzle blasts or munition impacts would be unlikely to affect development. 

Other factors would limit the number and types of invertebrates potentially affected. Most squid are 

active near the surface at night, when weapons firing and launch occur infrequently. Weapons firing and 

launch typically occurs greater than 12 NM from shore, which because of the greater water depths 

would substantially limit the sound level reaching the bottom. Therefore, impacts to benthic 

invertebrates (e.g., bivalve molluscs, worms, and crabs) are unlikely.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.4-62

3.4 Invertebrates

3.4.3.1.7.1 Impacts from Weapons Noise Under Alternative 1

Impacts from Weapons Noise Under Alternative 1 for Training Activities

Under Alternative 1, invertebrates would be exposed to noise primarily from weapons firing and impact 

of non-explosive practice munitions during training activities. Noise associated with these activities 

could be produced throughout the Study Area, including when ships are in transit, but would typically be 

concentrated in the Virginia Capes, Navy Cherry Point, Jacksonville, and Gulf of Mexico Range 

Complexes. Noise associated with large caliber weapons firing and the impact of non-explosive practice 

munitions or kinetic weapons would typically occur at locations greater than 12 NM from shore. Small 

caliber weapons firing could occur throughout the Study Area. 

Noise produced by these activities would consist of a single or several impulses over a short period. 

Impulses resulting from muzzle blasts and non-explosive practice munitions impact would likely affect 

only individuals near the surface, and are not likely to result in injury. Some invertebrates may exhibit 

startle reactions (e.g., abrupt changes in swim speed or direction). For example, based on observed 

reactions to other impulsive sounds (air guns), squid located near the surface in the vicinity of a firing 

event could show startle reactions such as inking or jetting. Impacts of non-explosive practice munitions 

could affect a comparatively larger volume of water and associated invertebrates. The number of 

organisms affected would depend on the area exposed and the invertebrate density. Squid and 

zooplankton are typically more abundant near the surface at night, when weapon firing occurs 

infrequently. In addition, most weapons firing would take place in offshore waters, decreasing the 

potential for impacts to benthic invertebrates and coral eggs and larvae. 

Impacts would be of brief duration and limited to a relatively small volume of water near the surface. It 

is expected that only a small number of pelagic invertebrates (e.g., squid, jellyfish, and zooplankton) 

would be exposed to weapons firing and impact noise. Squid and zooplankton would be less abundant 

during the day, when weapons firing typically occurs, and jellyfish are not known to react to sound. The 

activities would be unlikely to impact survival, growth, recruitment, or reproduction of marine 

invertebrate populations or subpopulations.

ESA-listed coral species and designated critical habitat would not likely be exposed to noise from 

weapons firing, launch, and impact of non-explosive practice munitions during training activities 

because those activities are generally conducted in offshore waters where shallow-water corals do not 

typically occur. Noise produced at the surface or as a result of vessel hull vibration would be unlikely to 

cause physiological or behavioral responses in corals due to their limited sound detection range. Noise 

produced by weapons firing, launch, and impact of non-explosive practice items would not affect the 

characteristics of elkhorn coral and staghorn coral critical habitat. Pursuant to the ESA, weapons noise 

produced during training activities as described under Alternative 1 would have no effect on ESA-listed 

coral species or critical habitat.

Impacts from Weapons Noise Under Alternative 1 for Testing Activities

Under Alternative 1, invertebrates would be exposed to noise primarily from weapons firing and impact 

of non-explosive practice munitions during testing activities. Testing activities would be concentrated in 

the Northeast, Virginia Capes, Navy Cherry Point, Jacksonville, Key West, and Gulf of Mexico Range 

Complexes, and could also occur in the Naval Surface Warfare Center, Panama City Testing Range. Noise 

associated with large caliber weapons firing and the impact of non-explosive practice munitions or 

kinetic weapons would typically occur at locations greater than 12 NM from shore. Small caliber 

weapons firing could occur throughout the Study Area. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.4-63

3.4 Invertebrates

Noise produced by these activities would consist of a single or several impulses over a short period. 

Impulses resulting from muzzle blasts and non-explosive practice munitions impact would likely affect 

only individuals near the surface, and are not likely to result in injury. Some invertebrates may exhibit 

startle reactions (e.g., abrupt changes in swim speed or direction). For example, based on observed 

reactions to other impulsive sounds (air guns), squid located near the surface in the vicinity of a firing 

event could show startle reactions such as inking or jetting. Impacts of non-explosive practice munitions 

could affect a comparatively larger volume of water and associated number of invertebrates. The 

number of organisms affected would depend on the area exposed and the invertebrate density. Squid 

and zooplankton are typically more abundant near the surface at night, when weapon firing occurs 

infrequently. In addition, most weapons firing would take place in offshore waters, decreasing the 

potential for impacts to benthic invertebrates and coral eggs and larvae. 

Impacts would be of brief duration and would be limited to a relatively small volume of water near the 

surface. It is expected that only a small number of pelagic invertebrates (e.g., squid, jellyfish, and 

zooplankton) would be exposed to weapons firing and impact noise. Squid and zooplankton would be 

less abundant during the day, when weapons firing typically occurs, and jellyfish are not known to react 

to sound. The activities would be unlikely to impact survival, growth, recruitment, or reproduction of 

marine invertebrate populations or subpopulations.

Testing activities would be conducted in the Key West Range Complex, where ESA-listed corals (and 

associated coral eggs and larvae) and elkhorn and staghorn coral critical habitat occur. However, 

ESA-listed coral species and designated critical habitat would not likely be exposed to noise from 

weapons firing, launch, and impact of non-explosive practice munitions during testing activities because 

those activities are generally conducted in offshore waters where shallow-water corals do not typically 

occur. Noise produced at the surface or as a result of vessel hull vibration would be unlikely to cause 

physiological or behavioral responses in corals due to their limited sound detection range. Noise 

produced by weapons firing, launch, and impact of non-explosive practice items would not affect the 

characteristics of elkhorn coral and staghorn coral critical habitat. Pursuant to the ESA, weapons noise 

produced during testing activities as described under Alternative 1 would have no effect on ESA-listed 

coral species or critical habitat.

3.4.3.1.7.2 Impacts from Weapons Noise Under Alternative 2

Impacts from Weapons Noise Under Alternative 2 for Training Activities

The locations, number of events, and potential effects associated with weapons firing, launch, and 

non-explosive practice munition impact noise for training activities would be the same under 

Alternatives 1 and 2. Refer to Section 3.4.3.1.5.1 (Impacts from Weapons Noise Under Alternative 1) for 

a discussion of impacts on invertebrates.

Pursuant to the ESA, weapons noise produced during training activities as described under Alternative 2 

would have no effect on ESA-listed coral species or critical habitat.

Impacts from Weapons Noise Under Alternative 2 for Testing Activities

Under Alternative 2, the location of testing activities would be the same as those described for 

Alternative 1, and potential impacts to invertebrates would be similar (refer to Section 3.4.3.1.5.1, 

Impacts from Weapons Noise Under Alternative 1). The only difference between Alternatives 1 and 2 is 

that the number of munitions used would be greater under Alternative 2. While the types of expected 

impacts to any individual invertebrate or group of invertebrates capable of detecting sounds produced 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.4-64

3.4 Invertebrates

during testing activities would remain the same, more animals could be affected because the number of 

munitions potentially used during testing activities under Alternative 2 would be greater. It is expected 

that only a small number of pelagic invertebrates (e.g., squid, jellyfish, and zooplankton) would be 

exposed. Squid and zooplankton would be less abundant near the surface during the day, when 

weapons firing typically occurs, and jellyfish are not known to react to sound. The activities would be 

unlikely to impact survival, growth, recruitment, or reproduction of marine invertebrate populations or 

subpopulations.

ESA-listed coral species and designated critical habitat would not likely be exposed to noise from 

weapons firing, launch, and impact of non-explosive practice munitions during testing activities because 

those activities are generally conducted in offshore waters where shallow-water corals do not typically 

occur. Noise produced at the surface or as a result of vessel hull vibration would be unlikely to cause 

physiological or behavioral responses in corals due to their limited sound detection range. Noise 

produced by weapons firing, launch, and impact of non-explosive practice munitions would not affect 

the characteristics of elkhorn coral and staghorn coral critical habitat. Pursuant to the ESA, weapons 

noise produced during testing activities as described under Alternative 2 would have no effect on 

ESA-listed coral species or critical habitat.

3.4.3.1.7.3 Impacts from Weapons Noise Under the No Action Alternative

Impacts from Weapons Noise 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 AFTT Study Area. Various acoustic stressors (e.g., weapons firing, launch, and 

non-explosive practice impact 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.

3.4.3.1.8 Summary of Potential Acoustic Impacts

Invertebrates would be exposed to potential acoustic stressors resulting from sonar and other 

transducers; pile driving; air guns; weapons firing, launch, and non-explosive practice munition impact 

noise; and vessel noise. Based on currently available information, invertebrates would only sense water 

particle motion near a sound source and at low frequencies, which limits the distance from the source in

which individual invertebrates would potentially be exposed to acoustic impacts. The potential for injury 

would be limited to invertebrates occurring very close to an impulsive sound such as an air gun. Impacts 

would primarily consist of physiological stress or behavioral reactions. Most sound exposures would 

occur in offshore areas and near the surface, where pelagic species such as squid, jellyfish, and 

zooplankton would be affected. Squid and some zooplankton species occur infrequently at the surface 

during the day, when most Navy activities would take place. Overall, there would be comparatively 

fewer impacts to benthic species. Exceptions would include pierside sonar and air gun use, and 

concentration of vessel operation in certain areas, where sessile or sedentary individuals could be 

repeatedly exposed to acoustic stressors. Most sound exposures would be brief and transient and would 

affect a small number of individuals.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.4-65

3.4 Invertebrates

3.4.3.2 Explosive Stressors

3.4.3.2.1 Background

Aspects of explosive stressors that are applicable to marine organisms in general are presented in 

Section 3.0.3.6.1 (Conceptual Framework for Assessing Effects from Acoustic and Explosive Activities). 

Explosions produce pressure waves with the potential to cause injury or physical disturbance due to 

rapid pressure changes, as well as loud, impulsive, broadband sounds. Impulsive sounds are 

characterized by rapid pressure rise times and high peak pressures (Appendix D, Acoustic and Explosive 

Concepts). Potential impacts on invertebrates resulting from the pressure wave and impulsive sound 

resulting from a detonation are discussed in this section. When explosive munitions detonate, fragments 

of the weapon are thrown at high velocity from the detonation point, which can injure or kill 

invertebrates if they are struck. However, the friction of the water quickly slows these fragments to the

point where they no longer pose a threat. Given the small range of effects due to fragments, the 

potential for impacts on invertebrates at the population or subpopulation level would be negligible. 

Therefore, the potential for fragmentation to impact invertebrates is not discussed further in this 

analysis.

Explosions may impact invertebrates at the water surface, in the water column, or on the bottom. The 

potential for impacts is influenced by typical detonation scenarios and invertebrate distribution. The 

majority of explosions would occur in the air or at the surface, with relatively few at the bottom 

(Appendix A, Navy Activity Descriptions), which would decrease the potential for impacts to benthic 

invertebrate species. Surface explosions typically occur during the day at offshore locations more than 

12 NM from shore. There is a general pattern of lower invertebrate abundance in offshore portions of 

the Study Area compared to relatively productive estuarine and nearshore waters. Therefore, the typical 

offshore location of detonations would result in fewer invertebrates potentially exposed to detonation 

effects. In addition, invertebrate abundances in offshore surface waters tend to be lower during the day, 

when surface explosions typically occur, than at night.

In general, an explosion may result in direct trauma and mortality due to the associated rapid pressure 

changes. For example, gas-containing organs such as the swim bladder in many fish species and the 

lungs of marine mammals are subject to rapid contraction and overextension (potentially causing 

rupture) when exposed to explosive shock waves. Most marine invertebrates lack air cavities and are 

therefore comparatively less vulnerable to damaging effects of pressure waves. A report summarizing 

the results of all known historical experiments (from 1907 to the 1980s) involving invertebrates and 

detonations concluded that marine invertebrates are generally insensitive to pressure-related damage 

from underwater explosions (Keevin & Hempen, 1997). Limited studies of crustaceans have examined 

mortality rates at various distances from detonations in shallow water (Aplin, 1947; Chesapeake 

Biological Laboratory, 1948; Gaspin et al., 1976). Similar studies of molluscs have shown them to be 

more resistant than crustaceans to explosive impacts (Chesapeake Biological Laboratory, 1948; Gaspin 

et al., 1976). Other invertebrates, such as sea anemones, polychaete worms, isopods, and amphipods, 

were observed to be undamaged in areas near detonations (Gaspin et al., 1976). Data from these 

experiments were used to develop curves that estimate the distance from an explosion beyond which at 

least 90 percent of certain adult benthic marine invertebrates would survive, depending on the weight 

of the explosive (Young, 1991) (Figure 3.4-2). For example, 90 percent of crabs would survive a 200-lb.

explosion if they are greater than about 350 ft. from the source, and shrimp, lobster, and oysters are 

less sensitive (i.e., greater survivability) to underwater explosions than crabs. Similar information on the 

effects of explosions to planktonic invertebrates and invertebrate larvae is not available.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.4-66

3.4 Invertebrates

Figure 3.4-2: Prediction of Distance to 90 Percent Survivability

of Marine Invertebrates Exposed to an Underwater Explosion (Young, 1991)

Charges detonated in shallow water or near the bottom, including explosive munitions disposal charges 

and some explosions associated with mine warfare, could kill and injure marine invertebrates on or near 

the bottom, depending on the species and the distance from the explosion. Taxonomic groups typically 

associated with the bottom, such as sponges, marine worms, crustaceans, echinoderms, corals, and 

molluscs, could be affected. Net explosive weight (NEW) for activities involving detonations on or near 

the bottom is relatively low. Most detonations occurring on or near the bottom would have a NEW of 

60 lb. or less, although some explosives would be up to 3,625 lb. NEW. Based on the estimates shown on 

Figure 3.4-2, most benthic marine invertebrates beyond approximately 275 ft. from a 60-lb. blast would 

survive. The potential mortality zone for some taxa (e.g., shrimp, lobsters, worms, amphipods) would be 

substantially smaller. A blast near the bottom could disturb sessile invertebrates such as mussels and 

hard substrate suitable for their colonization. A blast in the vicinity of hard corals could cause direct 

impact to coral polyps or early life-stages of pre-settlement corals, or fragmentation and siltation of the 

corals. For example, in one study, moderate to substantial recovery from a single small blast directly on 

a reef was observed within 5 years, but reef areas damaged by multiple blasts showed no evidence of 

recovery during the 6-year observation period (Fox & Caldwell, 2006). In another study, modeling results 

indicated that deep-water corals off Alaska damaged by trawling activities could require over 30 years to 

recover 80 percent of the original biomass (Rooper et al., 2011). The extent of trawling damage is 

potentially greater than that associated with detonations due to the small footprints of detonations 

compared to the larger surface area typically affected by trawling, as well as the avoidance of known 

shallow-water coral reefs and live hard bottom habitat during activities involving detonations. While the 

effects of trawling activities and underwater detonations are not directly comparable, the trawling 

model results illustrate the extended recovery time that may be required for deep-water coral regrowth

following physical disturbance.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.4-67

3.4 Invertebrates

Impacts to benthic invertebrates in deeper water would be infrequent because most offshore 

detonations occur in the air or at the surface. Benthic invertebrates in the abyssal zone (generally 

considered to be deeper than about 6,000 ft.) seaward of the coastal large marine ecosystems are 

sparsely distributed and tend to be concentrated around hydrothermal vents and cold seeps. These 

topographic features are typically associated with steep or high-relief areas of the continental shelf 

break (e.g., canyons, outcrops) or open ocean (e.g., seamounts, Mid-Atlantic Ridge).

Underwater surveys of a Navy bombing range in the Pacific Ocean (Farallon De Medinilla) were 

conducted from 1999 to 2012 (Smith & Marx, 2016). Although Farallon De Medinilla is a land range, 

bombs and other munitions occasionally strike the water. A limited number of observations of 

explosion-related effects were reported, and the results are summarized here to provide general 

information on the types of impacts that may occur. However, the effects are not presumed to be 

broadly applicable to Navy training and testing activities. During the 2010 survey, it was determined that 

a blast of unknown size (and therefore of unknown applicability to proposed training and testing 

activities) along the waterline of a cliff ledge caused mortality to small oysters near the impact point. 

Corals occurring within 3 m of the affected substrate were apparently healthy. A blast crater on the 

bottom that was 5 m in diameter and 50 cm deep, presumably resulting from a surface detonation, was 

observed during one survey in water depth of 12 m. Although it may be presumed that corals or other 

invertebrates located within the crater footprint would have been damaged or displaced, evidence of 

such impacts was not detected. The blast occurred in an area of sparse coral coverage and it is therefore 

unknown whether coral was present in the crater area prior to the blast.

The applicability of the mortality distance estimates shown on Figure 3.4-2 to invertebrates located in 

the water column is unknown. However, detonations that occur near the surface release a portion of 

the explosive energy into the air rather than the water, reducing impacts to invertebrates in the water 

column. In addition to effects caused by a shock wave, organisms in an area of cavitation that forms 

near the surface above a large underwater detonation could be killed or injured. Cavitation is where the 

reflected shock wave creates a region of negative pressure followed by a collapse, or water hammer 

(see Appendix D, Acoustic and Explosive Concepts). The number of organisms affected by explosions at 

the surface or in the water column would depend on the size of the explosive, the distance of organisms 

from the explosion, and the specific geographic location within the Study Area. As discussed previously, 

many invertebrates that occur near the surface at night (e.g., squid and zooplankton) typically move 

down in the water column during the day, making them less vulnerable to explosions when most Navy 

activities involving detonations occur.

Marine invertebrates beyond the range of mortality or injurious effects may detect the impulsive sound 

produced by an explosion. At some distance, impulses lose their high pressure peak and take on 

characteristics of non-impulsive acoustic waves. Invertebrates that detect impulsive or non-impulsive 

sounds may experience stress or exhibit behavioral reactions in response to the sound (see Section

3.4.3.1.1, Background). Repetitive impulses during multiple explosions, such as during a surface firing 

exercise, may be more likely to cause avoidance reactions. However, the distance to which invertebrates 

are likely to detect sounds is limited due to their sensitivity to water particle motion caused by nearby 

low-frequency sources. Sounds produced in water during training and testing activities, including 

activities that involve multiple impulses, occur over a limited duration. Any auditory masking, in which 

the sound of an impulse could prevent detection of other biologically relevant sounds, would be very 

brief. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.4-68

3.4 Invertebrates

3.4.3.2.2 Impacts from Explosives

3.4.3.2.2.1 Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 1

Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 1 for Training Activities

Under Alternative 1, marine invertebrates would be exposed to surface and underwater explosions and 

associated underwater impulsive sounds from high-explosive munitions (including bombs, missiles, 

torpedoes, and projectiles), mines, and demolition charges. Explosives would be used throughout the 

Study Area, but most typically in the Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf, Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf, 

and Gulf of Mexico Large Marine Ecosystems and in the Gulf Stream Open Ocean Area. The only 

underwater explosions that would occur on or near the bottom in the Key West Range Complex would 

result from use of 5- to 20-lb. charges. A discussion of explosives, including explosive source classes, is 

provided in Section 3.0.3.3.2 (Explosive Stressors). The largest source class proposed for training under 

Alternative 1 is E12 (650 to 1,000 lb. NEW), used during bombing exercises (air-to-surface) and sinking 

exercises.

In general, explosive events would consist of a single explosion or a few smaller explosions over a short 

period, and would occur infrequently over the course of a year. With the exception of mine warfare, 

demolition, and a relatively small number of other training events that occur in shallow water close to 

shore (typically in the same locations that are regularly disturbed), most detonations would occur in 

water depths greater than 200 ft. (but still at the surface) and greater than 3 to 9 NM from shore. As 

water depth increases away from shore, benthic invertebrates would be less likely to be impacted by 

detonations at or near the surface because the impact of the underwater impulsive sounds would be 

dampened. Pelagic invertebrates, such as squid and zooplankton, are typically less abundant near the 

surface during the day, when explosions typically occur. In addition, detonations near the surface would 

release a portion of their explosive energy into the air, reducing the potential for impacts to pelagic 

invertebrates.

Mine warfare activities are typical examples of activities involving detonations on or near the bottom in 

nearshore waters. Invertebrates in these areas are adapted to frequent disturbance from storms and 

associated sediment redistribution. Studies of the effects of large-scale sediment disturbance, such as 

dredging and sediment borrow projects, have found recovery of benthic communities over a period of 

weeks to years (Posey & Alphin, 2002; U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2012). Recovery time is variable 

and may be influenced by multiple factors, but is generally faster in areas dominated by sand and 

moderate to strong water movement. The area of bottom habitat disturbed by explosions would be less 

than that associated with dredging or other large projects, and would occur mostly in soft bottom areas 

that are regularly disturbed by natural processes such as water currents and waves. It is therefore 

expected that areas affected by detonations would rapidly be recolonized (potentially within weeks) by 

recruitment from the surrounding invertebrate community. Craters resulting from detonations in the 

soft bottom would be filled and smoothed by waves and long-shore currents over time, resulting in no 

permanent change to bottom profiles that could affect invertebrate species assemblages. The time 

required to fill craters would depend on the size and depth, with deeper craters likely requiring more 

time to fill (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2001). The amount of bottom habitat impacted by explosions 

would be a very small percentage of the habitat available in the Study Area. The total bottom area 

potentially disturbed by explosions over a 5-year period would be approximately 44 acres (see 

Table F-25, Potential Impact from Explosives On or Near the Bottom for Training Activities Under 

Alternatives 1 and 2 Over Five Years, in Appendix F, Military Expended Materials and Direct Strike 

Impact Analysis). Of this total, less than 0.03 percent of the total area of each habitat type (hard, 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.4-69

3.4 Invertebrates

intermediate, and soft) would be impacted, including less than 0.01 percent of hard bottom habitat. This 

affected area occurs within the context of over 100 million acres of undersea space encompassed by the 

range complexes associated with mine neutralization training activities (Gulf of Mexico, Jacksonville, Key 

West, Navy Cherry Point, and Virginia Capes Range Complexes).

Many corals and hard bottom invertebrates are sessile, fragile, and particularly vulnerable to shock 

wave impacts. Many of these organisms are slow-growing and could require decades to recover (Precht 

et al., 2001). However, most explosions would occur at or near the water surface and offshore, reducing 

the likelihood of bottom impacts on shallow-water corals.

In summary, explosives produce pressure waves that can harm invertebrates in the vicinity of where 

they typically occur: mostly offshore surface waters where only zooplankton, squid, and jellyfish are less 

abundant during the day when training activities typically occur. Exceptions occur where explosives are 

used on the bottom within nearshore or inshore waters on or near sensitive hard bottom communities 

that are currently not mapped or otherwise protected; shallow-water coral reefs are protected from 

such explosions whereas other live hard bottom communities are protected to the extent they are 

included in current mitigation measures. Soft bottom communities are resilient to occasional 

disturbances. Accordingly, the overall impacts of explosions on widespread invertebrate populations 

would likely be undetectable. Although individuals of widespread marine invertebrate species would 

likely be injured or killed during an explosion, the number of such invertebrates affected would be small 

relative to overall population sizes, and activities would be unlikely to impact survival, growth, 

recruitment, or reproduction of populations or subpopulations. Species with limited distribution, such as 

stony corals, would be of greater concern.

As discussed in Section 5.4.1 (Mitigation Areas for Seafloor Resources), the Navy will implement 

mitigation to 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 shallow-water coral reefs, live hard bottom, artificial reefs, 

submerged aquatic vegetation, and shipwrecks. The mitigation will consequently also help avoid 

potential impacts on invertebrates that inhabit these areas, including several areas inhabited by ESAlisted coral species. In addition, procedural mitigations include the requirement to avoid jellyfish 

aggregations during sinking exercises (Section 5.3.3.6, Sinking Exercises) and ship shock trials (Section 

5.3.3.11, Ship Shock Trials).

Due to the mitigation described above, the probability of shallow-water corals being exposed to 

detonation effects is low. Explosions on or over soft bottom up-current from shallow-water coral reefs 

could kill or injure some coral larvae that could have otherwise settled on suitable habitat down-current. 

However, this situation is unlikely considering most water-based training areas in the Key West OPAREA 

do not intersect shallow-water coral reefs. Exposure in the context of shock wave impacts would occur 

only if explosions inadvertently occurred near unmapped shallow-water coral reefs or other substrate 

potentially supporting shallow-water corals (e.g., hard substrate in the mesophotic zone). Although such 

a scenario is unlikely, there is a small potential for exposure. Pursuant to the ESA, the use of explosives 

during training activities as described under Alternative 1 may affect ESA-listed coral species and critical 

habitat. The Navy has consulted with the NMFS, as required by section 7(a)(2) of the ESA in that regard.

Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 1 for Testing Activities

Under Alternative 1, marine invertebrates could be exposed to surface and underwater explosions from 

high-explosive munitions (including bombs, missiles, torpedoes, and projectiles), mines, demolition 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.4-70

3.4 Invertebrates

charges, explosive sonobuoys, and ship shock trial charges. Explosives would be used throughout the 

Study Area, but most typically in the Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf, Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf, 

Gulf of Mexico, and Caribbean Sea Large Marine Ecosystems and in the Gulf Stream Open Ocean Area. 

The largest source classes proposed for testing under Alternative 1 would be used in the Northeast U.S.

Continental Shelf Large Marine Ecosystem, Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf Large Marine Ecosystem, or 

in the Gulf Stream Open Ocean Area during ship shock trials in the Virginia Capes, Jacksonville, or Gulf of 

Mexico Range Complexes. Large ship shock trials could use charges up to source class E17 (14,500 to

58,000 lb. NEW), while small ship shock trials could use charges up to source class E16 (7,250 to

14,500 lb. NEW). Each full ship shock trial would use up to four of these charges in total (each one 

detonated about a week apart, although smaller charges may be detonated on consecutive days). Use of 

explosives is described in Section 3.0.3.3.2 (Explosive Stressors).

In general, explosive events would consist of a single explosion or a few smaller explosions over a short 

period, and would occur infrequently over the course of a year. With the exception of mine warfare, 

demolition charges, and line charge testing events that occur in shallow water close to shore (typically in 

the same locations that are regularly disturbed), most detonations would occur in areas with water 

depths greater than 200 ft. (but detonations still would occur at the surface) and greater than 3 NM 

from shore. Ship shock charges would occur off the continental shelf in water depths greater than 

600 ft. As water depth increases away from shore, benthic invertebrates would be less likely to be 

impacted by detonations at or near the surface. The invertebrates that occur at or near the surface 

consist primarily of squid, jellyfish, and zooplankton, which are typically active near the surface at night, 

when explosions occur infrequently. In addition, detonations near the surface would release a portion of 

their explosive energy into the air, reducing the potential for impacts to pelagic invertebrates.

Mine warfare activities are typical examples of activities involving detonations on or near the bottom in 

nearshore waters. Invertebrates in these areas are adapted to frequent disturbance from storms and 

associated sediment redistribution. Studies of the effects of large-scale sediment disturbance such as 

dredging and sediment borrow projects have found recovery of benthic communities over a period of 

weeks to years (Posey & Alphin, 2002; U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2012). Recovery time is variable 

and may be influenced by multiple factors, but is generally faster in areas dominated by sand and 

moderate to strong water movement. The area of bottom habitat disturbed by explosions would be less 

than that associated with dredging or other large projects, and would occur mostly in soft bottom areas 

that are regularly disturbed by natural processes such as water currents and waves. It is therefore 

expected that areas affected by detonations would be recolonized rapidly (potentially within weeks) by 

recruitment from the surrounding invertebrate community. Craters resulting from detonations in the 

soft bottom would be filled and smoothed by waves and long-shore currents over time, resulting in no 

permanent change to bottom profiles that could affect invertebrate species assemblages. The time 

required to fill craters would depend on the size and depth, with deeper craters likely requiring more 

time to fill (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2001). The total bottom area potentially disturbed by 

explosions over a 5-year period would be approximately 43 acres (see Table F-26, Potential Impact from 

Explosives On or Near the Bottom for Testing Activities Under Alternatives 1 and 2 Over Five Years, in 

Appendix F, Military Expended Materials and Direct Strike Impact Analysis). Of this total, less than 0.04

percent of the total area of each habitat type (hard, intermediate, and soft) would be impacted.

In summary, explosives produce pressure waves that can harm invertebrates in the immediate vicinity of 

where the explosions occur. The majority of explosions would occur in offshore surface waters where 

the predominant invertebrate species are prevalent mostly at night when testing activities typically 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.4-71

3.4 Invertebrates

occur infrequently. Exceptions occur where explosives are used on the bottom within nearshore or 

inshore waters, on or near sensitive hard bottom communities that are currently not mapped or 

otherwise protected; shallow-water coral reefs are protected from such explosions whereas other live 

hard bottom communities are protected to the extent they are included in current mitigation measures. 

Soft bottom communities are resilient to occasional disturbances. Accordingly, the overall impacts of 

explosions on widespread invertebrate populations would likely be undetectable because of the small 

spatial and temporal scale of potential changes. Although individual marine invertebrates would likely 

be injured or killed during an explosion, the activities would be unlikely to impact survival, growth, 

recruitment, or reproduction of marine invertebrate populations or subpopulations.

As discussed in Section 5.4.1 (Mitigation Areas for Seafloor Resources), the Navy will implement 

mitigation to 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 shallow-water coral reefs, live hard bottom, artificial reefs, 

submerged aquatic vegetation, and shipwrecks. The mitigation will consequently also help avoid 

potential impacts on invertebrates that inhabit these areas, including several areas inhabited by ESAlisted coral species. In addition, procedural mitigations include the requirement to avoid jellyfish 

aggregations during the use of explosive torpedoes (Section 5.3.3.2, Explosive Torpedoes).

The only in-water explosions in the Key West Range Complex, where ESA-listed corals are known to 

occur, would result from explosive buoys, sonobuoys, torpedoes, and medium- and large-caliber 

projectiles detonating at or near the surface. Due to the mitigation described above, in addition to the 

fact that most of these activities would occur more than 12 NM from shore, the probability of 

shallow-water corals being exposed to detonation effects is low. Exposure would result only if 

explosions inadvertently occurred near unmapped shallow-water coral reefs, other substrate potentially 

supporting shallow-water corals, or deeper (i.e., greater than 30 m) hard substrate supporting

mesophotic coral species. Although unlikely, there is a small potential for exposure. Pursuant to the ESA, 

the use of explosives during testing activities as described under Alternative 1 may affect ESA-listed 

coral species and designated critical habitat. The Navy has consulted with the NMFS, as required by 

section 7(a)(2) of the ESA in that regard.

3.4.3.2.2.2 Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 2

Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 2 for Training Activities

The locations of training activities using explosives on or near the bottom would be the same under 

Alternatives 1 and 2. The total area affected for all training activities combined over a 5-year period 

would decrease by less than 1 acre under Alternative 2 (see Table F-25, Potential Impact from Explosives 

On or Near the Bottom for Training Activities Under Alternatives 1 and 2 Over Five Years, in Appendix F, 

Military Expended Materials and Direct Strike Impact Analysis) and, therefore, the potential impacts 

would be similar between the two alternatives. Refer to Section 3.4.3.2.2.1 (Impacts from Explosives 

Under Alternative 1) for a discussion of impacts on invertebrates.

As discussed in Section 3.4.3.2.2.1 (Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 1), the Navy will 

implement mitigation to 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 shallow-water coral reefs, live hard bottom, 

artificial reefs, submerged aquatic vegetation, and shipwrecks. The mitigation will consequently also 

help avoid potential impacts on invertebrates that inhabit these areas, including several areas inhabited 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.4-72

3.4 Invertebrates

by ESA-listed coral species. In addition, procedural mitigations include the requirement to avoid jellyfish 

aggregations during sinking exercises (Section 5.3.3.6, Sinking Exercises) and ship shock trials (Section 

5.3.3.11, Ship Shock Trials).

Due to the mitigation described above, the probability of shallow-water corals being exposed to

detonation effects is low. Explosions on or over soft bottom up-current from shallow-water coral reefs 

could kill or injure some coral larvae that could have otherwise settled on suitable habitat down-current. 

However, this situation is unlikely considering most water-based training areas in the Key West OPAREA 

do not intersect shallow-water coral reefs. Exposure in the context of shock wave impacts would occur 

only if explosions inadvertently occurred near unmapped shallow-water coral reefs or other substrate 

potentially supporting shallow-water corals, including hard substrate areas up to 90 m deep. Although 

such a scenario is unlikely, there is a small potential for exposure. Pursuant to the ESA, the use of 

explosives during training activities as described under Alternative 2 may affect ESA-listed coral species

and critical habitat.

Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 2 for Testing Activities

The locations of testing activities using explosives on or near the bottom would be the same under 

Alternatives 1 and 2. The total area affected for all testing activities combined over a 5-year period 

would increase by approximately 17 acres, including about 12 acres in the Virginia Capes Range Complex 

and 5 acres in the Naval Surface Warfare Center, Panama City Testing Range (see Table F-26, Potential 

Impact from Explosives On or Near the Bottom for Testing Activities Under Alternatives 1 and 2 Over 

Five Years, in Appendix F, Military Expended Materials and Direct Strike Impact Analysis). The area of 

hard substrate potentially impacted would increase by less than 0.01 percent in each of these areas. The 

increased area of bottom habitat affected would not result in substantive changes to the potential for or 

the types of impacts on invertebrates. Refer to Section 3.4.3.2.2.1 (Impacts from Explosives Under 

Alternative 1) for a discussion of impacts on invertebrates.

As discussed in Section 3.4.3.2.2.1 (Impacts from Explosives under Alternative 1), the Navy will 

implement mitigation to 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 shallow-water coral reefs, live hard bottom, 

artificial reefs, submerged aquatic vegetation, and shipwrecks. The mitigation will consequently also 

help avoid potential impacts on invertebrates that inhabit these areas, including several areas inhabited 

by ESA-listed coral species. In addition, procedural mitigations include the requirement to avoid jellyfish 

aggregations during the use of explosive torpedoes (Section 5.3.3.2, Explosive Torpedoes).

The only in-water explosions in the Key West Range Complex, where ESA-listed corals are known to 

occur, would result from explosive buoys, sonobuoys, torpedoes, and medium- and large-caliber 

projectiles detonating at or near the surface. Due to the mitigation described above, in addition to the 

fact that most of these activities occur more than 12 NM from shore, the probability of shallow-water 

corals being exposed to detonation effects is low. Exposure would occur only if explosions inadvertently 

occurred near unmapped shallow-water coral reefs or other substrate potentially supporting 

shallow-water corals, including hard substrate areas to 90 m deep. Although unlikely, there is a small 

potential for exposure. Pursuant to the ESA, the use of explosives during testing activities as described 

under Alternative 2 may affect ESA-listed coral species and designated critical habitat.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.4-73

3.4 Invertebrates

3.4.3.2.2.3 Impacts from Explosives Under the No Action Alternative

Impacts from Explosives 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 AFTT Study Area. 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.

3.4.3.3 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) high-energy lasers. Aspects of energy 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).

3.4.3.3.1 Impacts from In-Water Electromagnetic Devices

Several different types of electromagnetic devices are used during training and testing activities. 

Information on the types of activities that use in-water electromagnetic devices is provided in 

Appendix B (Activity Stressor Matrices). 

Little information is available regarding marine invertebrates’ susceptibility to electromagnetic fields.

Magnetic fields are not known to control spawning or larval settlement in any invertebrate species. 

Existing information suggests sensitivity to electric and magnetic fields in at least three marine 

invertebrate phyla: Mollusca, Arthropoda, and Echinodermata (Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, 

2011; Lohmann et al., 1995; Lohmann & Lohmann, 2006). A possible magnetic sense has been suggested 

in jellyfish as well, although this has not been demonstrated experimentally (Fossette et al., 2015). Much 

of the available information on magnetic field sensitivity of marine invertebrates pertains to 

crustaceans. For example, a magnetic compass sense has been demonstrated in the spiny lobster (Ernst 

& Lohmann, 2018; Lohmann et al., 1995; Lohmann & Lohmann, 2006), and researchers suggest subtle 

behavioral response to magnetic fields of about 1 millitesla (1,000 microtesla) in the Dungeness crab 

and American lobster (Woodruff et al., 2013). A review of potential effects of undersea power cables on 

marine species provides a summary of numerous studies of the sensitivity of various invertebrate 

species to electric and magnetic fields (Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, 2011). Electric field 

sensitivity is reported in the summary for only two freshwater crayfish species, while magnetic field 

sensitivity is reported for multiple marine invertebrate species, including molluscs, crustaceans, and 

echinoderms. Sensitivity thresholds range from 300 to 30,000 microtesla, depending on the species. 

Most responses consisted of behavioral changes, although non-lethal physiological effects were noted in 

two sea urchin species in a 30,000 microtesla field (embryo development) and a marine mussel exposed 

to 300 to 700 microtesla field strength (cellular processes). Marine invertebrate community structure 

was not affected by placement of energized underwater power cables with field strengths of 73 to 

100 microtesla (Love et al., 2016). Effects to eggs of the sea urchin Paracentrotus lividus and to brine 

shrimp (Artemia spp.) cysts have been reported at relatively high magnetic field strengths (750 to 

25,000 microtesla) (Ravera et al., 2006; Shckorbatov et al., 2010).The magnetic field generated by the 

Organic Airborne and Surface Influence Sweep (a typical electromagnetic device used in Navy training 

and testing) is about 2,300 microtesla at the source. Field strength drops quickly with distance from the 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.4-74

3.4 Invertebrates

source, decreasing to 50 microtesla at 4 m, 5 microtesla at 24 m, and 0.2 microtesla at 200 m from the 

source. Therefore, temporary disruption of navigation and directional orientation is the primary impact 

considered in association with magnetic fields.

Studies of the effects of low-voltage direct electrical currents in proximity to marine invertebrates 

suggest a beneficial impact to at least some species at appropriate current strength. American oysters

(Crassostrea virginica) and various stony and soft corals occurring on substrates exposed to low-voltage 

currents (between approximately 10 and 1,000 microamperes) showed increased growth rates and 

survival (Arifin et al., 2012; Goreau, 2014; Jompa et al., 2012; Shorr et al., 2012). It is theorized that the 

benefits may result from a combination of more efficient uptake of calcium and other structure-building 

minerals from the surrounding seawater, increased cellular energy production, and increased pH near 

the electrical currents. The beneficial effects were noted in a specific range of current strength; higher 

or lower currents resulted in either no observable effects or adverse effects. The moderate voltage and 

current associated with the Organic Airborne and Surface Influence Sweep are not expected to result in 

adverse effects to invertebrates. In addition, due to the short-term, transient nature of electromagnetic 

device use, there would be no beneficial effects associated with small induced electrical currents in 

structures colonized by invertebrates.

3.4.3.3.1.1 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 would occur in the Virginia Capes, Navy Cherry 

Point, Jacksonville, and Gulf of Mexico Range Complexes. A small number of activities could also occur in 

any of 13 inshore water locations (Table 3.0-15, Number and Location of Activities in Inshore Waters 

Including In-Water Electromagnetic Devices).

The impact of electromagnetic devices to marine invertebrates would depend upon the sensory 

capabilities of a species and the life functions that its magnetic or electric sensory systems support

(Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, 2011). The primary potential effect would be temporary 

directional disorientation for individuals encountering a human-produced magnetic field. For example, 

an individual could be confused or change its movement direction while exposed to a field. However, a 

limited number of studies suggest other effects, such as changes in embryo development, are possible 

within relatively strong fields for an extended time (10 to 150 minutes). Electromagnetic devices used in 

Alternative 1 would only affect marine invertebrates located within a few feet of the source. In addition, 

most electromagnetic devices are mobile and would produce detectable magnetic fields for only a short 

time at any given location. Further, due to the exponential drop in field strength with distance and the 

fact that electromagnetic devices are operated in the water column away from the bottom, it is unlikely 

that benthic invertebrates such as lobsters and crabs would be affected. For example, operation of the 

Organic Airborne and Surface Influence Sweep in 13 ft. water depth would produce field strength at the 

bottom that is an order of magnitude lower than any field strength associated with behavioral or 

physiological effects in the available study reports. Therefore, exposed species would be those typically 

found in the water column such as jellyfish, squid, and zooplankton, and mostly at night when squid and 

zooplankton have migrated up in the water column. Although a small number of invertebrates would be 

exposed to electromagnetic fields, exposure is not expected to yield any lasting effects on the survival, 

growth, recruitment, or reproduction of invertebrate species at the population level.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.4-75

3.4 Invertebrates

In-water electromagnetic devices would not be used in the Key West Range Complex and would 

therefore not expose ESA-listed coral species to electromagnetic fields. There is no overlap of 

electromagnetic device use in the Key West Range Complex with designated critical habitat for elkhorn 

and staghorn coral. Therefore, electromagnetic devices would not affect elkhorn and staghorn coral

critical habitat. Pursuant to the ESA, the use of in-water electromagnetic devices during training 

activities as described under Alternative 1 would have no effect on ESA-listed coral species or critical 

habitat.

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 within the Virginia Capes, Navy Cherry 

Point, Jacksonville, and Gulf of Mexico Range Complexes. In addition, activities would occur at the Naval 

Surface Warfare Center, Panama City Testing Range, South Florida Ocean Measurement Facility Testing 

Range, and one inshore water location (Little Creek Virginia).

The impact of electromagnetic devices to marine invertebrates would depend upon the sensory 

capabilities of a species and the life functions that it’s magnetic or electric sensory systems support 

(Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, 2011). The primary potential effect would be temporary 

directional disorientation for individuals encountering a human-produced magnetic field. For example, 

an individual could be confused or change its movement direction while exposed to a field. However, a 

limited number of studies suggest other effects such as changes in embryo development are possible 

within relatively strong fields for an extended time (10 to 150 minutes). Electromagnetic devices used in 

Alternative 1 would only affect marine invertebrates located within a few feet of the source. In addition, 

most electromagnetic devices are mobile and would produce detectable magnetic fields for only a short 

time at any given location. Further, due to the exponential drop in field strength with distance and the 

fact that electromagnetic devices are operated in the water column away from the bottom, it is unlikely 

that benthic invertebrates such as lobsters and crabs would be affected. For example, operation of the 

Organic Airborne and Surface Influence Sweep in 13 ft. water depth would produce field strength at the 

bottom that is an order of magnitude lower than any field strength associated with behavioral or 

physiological effects in the available study reports. Therefore, exposed species would be those typically 

found in the water column such as jellyfish, squid, and zooplankton, and mostly at night when squid and 

zooplankton have migrated up in the water column. Although a small number of invertebrates would be 

exposed to electromagnetic fields, exposure is not expected to yield any lasting effects on the survival, 

growth, recruitment, or reproduction of invertebrate species at the population level.

ESA-listed coral species in the South Florida Ocean Measurement Facility Testing Range would have the 

potential to be exposed to electromagnetic fields. However, this exposure from predominantly mobile 

sources is considered unlikely because the coral is distributed as a narrow band that is avoided as a 

navigation hazard during testing activities. The electromagnetic devices used to trigger mines during 

testing activities are towed by helicopters near the surface and away from potential obstructions. 

Portions of the range are exempt from designation of elkhorn and staghorn coral critical habitat. In 

addition, electromagnetic devices would not affect important characteristics of critical habitat. The 

available research on the effects of electromagnetic energy on invertebrates suggests there would be no 

meaningful impact on invertebrates, including ESA-listed coral species, even in the highly unlikely event 

of exposure for a prolonged duration. Pursuant to the ESA, the use of in-water electromagnetic devices 

during testing activities as described under Alternative 1 would have no effect on ESA-listed coral 

species or critical habitat.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.4-76

3.4 Invertebrates

3.4.3.3.1.2 Impacts from In-Water Electromagnetic Devices Under Alternative 2

Impacts from In-Water Electromagnetic Devices Under Alternative 2 for Training 

Activities

The locations, number of events, and potential effects associated with in-water electromagnetic devices 

would be the same under Alternatives 1 and 2. Refer to Section 3.4.3.3.1.1 (Impacts from In-Water 

Electromagnetic Devices Under Alternative 1) for a discussion of impacts on invertebrates.

As discussed in Section 3.4.3.3.1.1 (Impacts from In-Water Electromagnetic Devices Under Alternative 

1), pursuant to the ESA, the use of in-water electromagnetic devices during training activities as 

described under Alternative 2 would have no effect on ESA-listed coral species or critical habitat.

Impacts from In-Water Electromagnetic Devices Under Alternative 2 for Testing Activities

The locations, number of events, and potential effects associated with in-water electromagnetic devices 

would be the same under Alternatives 1 and 2. Refer to Section 3.4.3.3.1.1 (Impacts from In-Water 

Electromagnetic Devices Under Alternative 1) for a discussion of impacts on invertebrates.

As discussed in Section 3.4.3.3.1.1 (Impacts from In-Water Electromagnetic Devices Under Alternative 

1), pursuant to the ESA, the use of in-water electromagnetic devices during testing activities as 

described under Alternative 2 would have no effect on ESA-listed coral species or critical habitat.

3.4.3.3.1.3 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 AFTT Study Area. Various energy stressors (e.g., in-water electromagnetic 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.

3.4.3.3.2 Impacts from In-Air Electromagnetic Devices

In-air electromagnetic devices are not applicable to invertebrates because of the lack of transmission of 

electromagnetic radiation across the air/water interface and will not be analyzed further in this section.

3.4.3.3.3 Impacts from High-Energy Lasers

This section analyzes the potential impacts of high-energy lasers on invertebrates. As discussed in 

Section 3.0.3.3.3.3 (Lasers), high-energy laser weapons are designed to disable surface targets, 

rendering them immobile. The primary concern is the potential for an invertebrate to be struck with the 

laser beam at or near the water’s surface, where extended exposure could result in injury or death. 

Marine invertebrates could be exposed to the laser only if the beam misses the target. Should the laser 

strike the sea surface, individual invertebrates at or near the surface, such as jellyfish, floating eggs, and 

larvae, could potentially be exposed. The potential for exposure to a high-energy laser beam decreases 

rapidly as water depth increases and with time of day, as many zooplankton species migrate away from 

the surface during the day. Most marine invertebrates are not susceptible to laser exposure because 

they occur beneath the sea surface.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.4-77

3.4 Invertebrates

3.4.3.3.3.1 Impacts from High-Energy Lasers Under Alternative 1

Impacts from High-Energy Lasers Under Alternative 1 for Training Activities

As indicated in Section 3.0.3.3.3.3 (Lasers), under Alternative 1, training activities involving high-energy 

lasers would occur within the Virginia Capes and Jacksonville Range Complexes. Invertebrates that do 

not occur at or near the sea surface would not be exposed due to the attenuation of laser energy with 

depth. Surface invertebrates such as squid, jellyfish, and zooplankton (which may include invertebrate 

larvae) exposed to high-energy lasers could be injured or killed, but the number of individuals 

potentially impacted would be low based on the relatively low number of events, very localized 

potential impact area of the laser beam, and the temporary duration (seconds) of potential impact.

Activities involving high-energy lasers are not expected to yield any behavioral changes or lasting effects 

on the survival, growth, recruitment, or reproduction of invertebrate species at the population level 

because of the relatively small number of individuals that could be impacted.

Training activities that include high-energy lasers would not be conducted in areas where ESA-listed 

coral species or designated critical habitat occur. Pursuant to the ESA, the use of high-energy lasers 

during training activities as described under Alternative 1 would have no effect on ESA-listed coral 

species or critical habitat.

Impacts from High-Energy Lasers Under Alternative 1 for Testing Activities

As indicated in Section 3.0.3.3.3.3 (Lasers), under Alternative 1, testing activities involving high-energy 

lasers would occur within the Northeast, Virginia Capes, Navy Cherry Point, Jacksonville, Key West, and 

Gulf of Mexico Range Complexes. In addition, activities would occur within the Naval Undersea Warfare 

Center, Newport Testing Range, Naval Surface Warfare Center, Panama City Testing Range, and South 

Florida Ocean Measurement Facility Testing Range. Most activities would occur in the Virginia Capes

Range Complex.

Invertebrates that do not occur at or near the sea surface would not be exposed due to the attenuation 

of laser energy with depth. Surface invertebrates such as squid, jellyfish, and zooplankton (which may 

include invertebrate larvae) exposed to high-energy lasers could be injured or killed, but the number of 

individuals potentially impacted would be low based on the relatively low number of events, very 

localized potential impact area of the laser beam, and the temporary duration (seconds) of potential 

impact. Activities involving high-energy lasers are not expected to yield any behavioral changes or 

lasting effects on the survival, growth, recruitment, or reproduction of invertebrate species at the 

population level because of the relatively small number of individuals that could be impacted.

ESA-listed coral species occur in the Key West Range Complex and South Florida Ocean Measurement 

Facility Testing Range. High-energy lasers would not impact adult corals because the laser intensity 

would attenuate in the water column and would likely be undetectable to benthic species. Potential for 

impacts would be associated with eggs or larvae of ESA-listed coral species that could occur at the 

surface. Any eggs or larvae exposed could be injured or killed. As discussed above for invertebrates in 

general, the probability of impacting coral eggs or larvae is low based on the relatively low number of 

events, very localized potential impact area of the laser beam, and the temporary duration (seconds) of 

potential exposure. High-energy lasers would not affect important characteristics of designated elkhorn 

and staghorn critical habitat. Pursuant to the ESA, the use of high-energy lasers during testing activities 

as described under Alternative 1 would have no effect on ESA-listed coral species or critical habitat.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.4-78

3.4 Invertebrates

3.4.3.3.3.2 Impacts from High-Energy Lasers Under Alternative 2

Impacts from High-Energy Lasers Under Alternative 2 for Training Activities

The locations, number of events, and potential effects associated with high-energy lasers would be the 

same under Alternatives 1 and 2. Refer to Section 3.4.3.3.3.1 (Impacts from High-Energy Lasers Under 

Alternative 1) for a discussion of impacts on invertebrates.

As discussed in Section 3.4.3.3.1.1 (In-Water Electromagnetic Devices Under Alternative 1), pursuant to 

the ESA, the use of high-energy lasers during training activities as described under Alternative 2 would 

have no effect on ESA-listed coral species or critical habitat.

Impacts from High-Energy Lasers Under Alternative 2 for Testing Activities

The locations, number of events, and potential effects associated with high-energy lasers would be the 

same under Alternatives 1 and 2. Refer to Section 3.4.3.3.3.1 (Impacts from High-Energy Lasers Under 

Alternative 1) for a discussion of impacts on invertebrates.

As discussed in Section 3.4.3.3.3.1 (Impacts from High-Energy Lasers Under Alternative 1), pursuant to 

the ESA, the use of high-energy lasers during testing activities as described under Alternative 2 would 

have no effect on ESA-listed coral species or critical habitat.

3.4.3.3.3.3 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 AFTT Study Area. High-energy laser use is not a part of ongoing Navy activities in the 

Study Area and this energy stressor would not be introduced into the marine environment under the No 

Action Alternative. Therefore, no change in baseline conditions of the existing environment would occur.

3.4.3.4 Physical Disturbance and Strike Stressors

This section analyzes the potential impacts of the various types of physical disturbance and strike 

stressors that could result from Navy training and testing activities within the Study Area. For a list of 

locations and numbers of activities that may cause physical disturbance and strikes refer to 

Section 3.0.3.3.4 (Physical Disturbance and Strike Stressors). Aspects of physical disturbance and strike 

stressors that are applicable to marine organisms in general are presented in Section 3.0.3.6.3 

(Conceptual Framework for Assessing Effects from Physical Disturbance or Strike). The physical 

disturbance and strike stressors that may impact marine invertebrates include: (1) vessels and in-water 

devices, (2) military expended materials, (3) seafloor devices, and (4) pile driving.

Most marine invertebrate populations extend across wide areas containing hundreds or thousands of 

discrete patches of suitable habitat. Sessile invertebrate populations may be connected by complex 

currents that carry adults and young from place to place. Impacts to such widespread populations are 

difficult to quantitatively evaluate in terms of Navy training and testing activities that occur 

intermittently and in relatively small patches in the Study Area. Invertebrate habitats generally cover 

enormous areas (Section 3.5, Habitats) and, in this context, a physical strike or disturbance would 

impact individual organisms directly or indirectly, but not to the extent that viability of populations of

common species would be impacted. While the potential for overlap between Navy activities and 

invertebrates is reduced for those species living in rare habitats, if overlap does occur, any potential 

impacts would be amplified for those invertebrate species or taxa with limited spatial extent. Examples 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.4-79

3.4 Invertebrates

of such organisms include shallow-water, mesophotic, and deep-water corals and sponges, which are 

mostly restricted to hard bottom habitat. Shallow-water coral reefs and some other areas of hard 

substrate are protected to the extent they are included in current mitigation measures. With few 

exceptions, activities involving vessels and in-water devices are not intended to contact the bottom due 

to potential damage to equipment and the resulting safety risks for vessel personnel. The potential for 

strike impact and disturbance of benthic or habitat-forming marine invertebrates would result from 

amphibious activities, bottom-crawling unmanned underwater vehicles, military expended materials, 

seafloor devices, and pile driving. For environmental and safety reasons, amphibious landings and other 

nearshore activities would avoid areas where corals are known to occur.

With the exception of habitat-forming benthic taxa (e.g., corals, sea pens, sponges), most small 

invertebrate populations recover quickly from non-extractive disturbance. Many large invertebrates, 

such as crabs, shrimps, and clams, undergo massive disturbance during commercial and recreational 

harvests, storms, or beach restoration activities. Invertebrates that occur in the high-energy surf zone 

are typically resilient to dynamic processes of sediment erosion and accretion, although some 

community effects may occur due to rapid and relatively large-scale changes such as those associated 

with beach renourishment projects (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2001). 

Biogenic habitats such as shallow coral reefs, deep-water coral, and sponge communities may take 

decades to regrow following a strike or disturbance (Jennings & Kaiser, 1998; Precht et al., 2001). 

However, bottom-disturbing activities are not conducted on mapped coral reefs or live hard bottom. In 

soft bottom areas, recovery of benthic invertebrate populations after substantial human disturbance 

depends on factors such as size of the area disturbed, bottom topography, hydrodynamics of the 

affected area, seasonality of the disturbance, and the size and typical growth rate of affected species. 

Most studies of the effects of beach sand nourishment projects (which is a proxy for impacts due to 

amphibious landings) have reported initial declines in benthic invertebrate populations due to burial and 

increased turbidity (which may affect filter-feeding capability), but subsequent recovery over time scales 

of weeks to years (Posey & Alphin, 2002; U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2001, 2012; Wilber et al., 2009). 

Recovery is typically greatest at nourishment sites when there is a close match in grain size between the 

existing and supplied sediment. However, species composition may be altered in the recolonized area, 

and overall invertebrate biomass may not recover for many years. Researchers found that trawling off 

the California coast resulted in no statistical difference in the abundance of sessile or mobile benthic 

invertebrates (Lindholm et al., 2013). However, repeated and intense bottom fishing disturbance can 

result in a shift from communities dominated by relatively high-biomass individuals towards dominance 

by high abundance of small-sized organism (Kaiser et al., 2002). If activities are repeated at the same 

site, the benthic invertebrate community composition could be altered over time (years), especially for 

sessile invertebrates (e.g., coral). Some bottom-disturbing activities, such as mine countermeasures and 

neutralization training and testing, precision anchoring, and placement of the Elevated Causeway 

System, may occur in the same locations or near the same locations yearly.

3.4.3.4.1 Impacts from Vessels and In-Water Devices

Vessels

The majority of the training and testing activities under all the alternatives involve vessels. For a 

discussion of the types of activities that use vessels and where they are used, refer to Appendix B 

(Activity Stressor Matrices). See Table 3.0-17 (Representative Vessel Types, Lengths, and Speeds) for a 

representative list of Navy vessel types, lengths, and speeds. Figure 3.0-11 (Relative Distribution of U.S. 

Navy Vessel Traffic) depicts the relative intensity of Navy vessel use in the Study Area.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.4-80

3.4 Invertebrates

Vessels could impact adults and other life stages of marine invertebrates by directly striking organisms,

or by disturbing the water column or sediments (Bishop, 2008). Species that occur at or near the surface 

(e.g., jellyfish, squid) would potentially be exposed to direct vessel strikes. Exposure to propellergenerated turbulence was found to result in mortality in a zooplankton species (the copepod Acartia 

tonsa) located near the surface (Bickel et al., 2011). However, many pelagic invertebrates such as squid 

and zooplankton move away from the surface during the day, reducing potential exposures during 

daytime vessel operations. Many vessel hulls have a hydrodynamic shape, and pelagic marine 

invertebrates are therefore generally disturbed, rather than struck, as the water flows around a vessel.

Zooplankton are ubiquitous in the water column and typically experience high mortality rates.

In addition, vessel hull strikes and propeller cavitation and turbulence could displace, damage, injure, or 

kill invertebrate eggs and larvae in the upper portion of the water column throughout the Study Area. 

For example, turbulent water was found to decrease successful fertilization and resulted in abnormal 

development and low survival in eggs of the broadcast spawning purple sea urchin (Strongylocentrotus 

purpuratus) (Mead & Denny, 1995). In some areas, vessels could transit through water containing coral 

gametes, eggs, embryonic stages, or planula larvae of broadcast spawning species. These life stages 

would be most likely to occur in the Caribbean Sea, Gulf of Mexico, and Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf 

Large Marine Ecosystems. Eggs of cluster coral (Acropora millepora) were found to disintegrate into 

irregular groups or individual blastomeres when subjected to even very light shearing forces and 

turbulence (Heyward & Negri, 2012). Such dissociation can be beneficial through creation of more 

juveniles, but may also cause mortality. Early embryonic development of broadcast spawning coral 

species has reportedly been affected by handling of captive-reared embryos (Guest et al., 2010). 

Although the available information indicates that developmental stages of numerous invertebrate 

species could be physically impacted, broadcast-spawning invertebrates produce very large numbers of 

eggs and planktonic larvae that typically experience high mortality rates under normal conditions 

(Nybakken, 1993). Any impacts resulting from Navy vessel operation would be biologically insignificant 

by comparison.

The average water depth of the OPAREAs in the Study Area is 3,650 ft. Propeller wash (water displaced 

by propellers used for propulsion) of even the deepest draft vessels operated over the continental shelf 

is likely indistinguishable from the water motion associated with periodic storm events, and vessel 

operation in deeper waters beyond the shelf break would not affect the bottom. Therefore, the 

potential for vessels to disturb invertebrates on or near the bottom would occur mostly during 

nearshore and inshore training or testing activities, and along dredged navigation channels. 

Invertebrates on or near the bottom in such relatively shallow areas could be affected by sediment 

disturbance or direct strike during amphibious landings. Few sources of information are available on the 

impact of non-lethal chronic vessel disturbance to marine invertebrates. One study of 

seagrass-associated marine invertebrates, such as amphipods and polychaetes, found that chronic 

disturbance from vessel wakes resulted in the long-term displacement of some marine invertebrates 

from the impacted shallow-water area (Bishop, 2008). However, invertebrates that typically occur in 

areas associated with nearshore or inshore activities, such as shorelines, are highly resilient to vessel 

disturbance. They are regularly disturbed by natural processes such as high-energy waves and longshore 

currents, and generally recover quickly. Potential exceptions include sessile or encrusting invertebrates 

(primarily oysters) that occur along sheltered shorelines that are subject to a high frequency of boat 

propeller- or wake-induced erosion (Grizzle et al., 2002; Zabawa & Ostrom, 1980). Increased erosion of 

shoreline banks or suspension of bottom sediments may cause turbidity that settles on oysters and 

causes the oysters to ingest more non-food particles. The results of a small number of studies suggest 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.4-81

3.4 Invertebrates

that the wave energy resulting from boat wakes produced in relatively narrow water bodies may affect 

oyster occurrence, and studies of shallow freshwater areas found that waves generated from small 

boats caused about 10 percent of benthic invertebrates (e.g., amphipods) to become suspended in the 

water column where they presumably would be more vulnerable to predation (Bilkovic et al., 2017).

Non-amphibious vessels avoid contact with the bottom in order to prevent damage to the vessels and 

benthic habitat that supports encrusting organisms. The encrusting organisms (e.g., hard corals) living 

on hard substrate in the ocean are exposed to strong currents under natural conditions and would not 

likely be affected by propeller wash. Many activities occur in offshore areas and, therefore, would be 

unlikely to affect benthic invertebrates, although small-caliber gunnery exercises, blank firing, and 

smoke grenade use may occur proximate to Navy homeports in Jacksonville, Florida and Norfolk, 

Virginia. Many Navy vessel movements in nearshore waters are concentrated in established channels 

and ports or predictable transit corridors, and shallow-water vessels typically operate in defined boat 

lanes with sufficient depths to avoid propeller or hull strikes on the bottom. Exceptions include small 

vessel training in navigable inshore waters, where propeller movement may disturb sediments and 

associated benthic invertebrate communities in sheltered areas. 

Activities that occur in inshore waters can last from a few hours up to 12 hours of daily movement per 

vessel per activity, and can involve speeds greater than 10 knots. Vessel movements in the inshore

waters of the Study Area occur on a more regular basis than the offshore activities, and generally occur 

in more confined waterways (primarily in the Lower Chesapeake Bay and James River). Information on 

the number and location of activities using vessels, as well as the number of hours of operation for 

inshore waters, is provided in Section 3.0.3.3.4.1 (Vessels and In-Water Devices).

The only source of shallow-water vessel movement in the Study Area with known direct impacts to 

benthic invertebrates is amphibious landings, which are conducted in the Navy Cherry Point and 

Jacksonville Range Complexes (Appendix A, Navy Activity Descriptions). Amphibious vessels would 

contact the bottom in the surf zone during amphibious assault and amphibious raid operations. Benthic 

invertebrates of the surf zone, such as mole crabs, clams, and polychaete worms, within the disturbed 

area could be displaced, injured, or killed during amphibious operations. Burrowing species such as 

ghost shrimp are present on many beaches, and individuals in relatively shallow burrows located just 

above harder sand layers could be injured or killed if amphibious vessels compress the sand above them. 

Passage of amphibious vessels could cause some elevated turbidity in the nearshore zone seaward of 

the surf zone. However, the sediment along landing beaches is constantly being reworked by nearshore 

wave energy and, to a lesser extent (although more frequently than disturbance caused by amphibious 

landings), storm events. Benthic invertebrates inhabiting these areas are adapted to a naturally 

disturbed environment and are expected to rapidly re-colonize similarly disturbed areas by immigration 

and larval recruitment. Studies indicate that benthic communities of high-energy sandy beaches recover 

relatively quickly (typically within 2 to 7 months) following beach nourishment. Researchers found that 

the macrobenthic (visible organisms on the bottom) community required between 7 and 16 days to 

recover following excavation and removal of sand from a 200 m2 quadrant from the intertidal zone of a 

sandy beach (Schoeman et al., 2000). The number of invertebrates impacted during amphibious landings 

would be small compared to the number affected during activities such as beach nourishment. The 

impacts of amphibious vehicle operations on benthic communities would therefore likely be minor, 

short term, and local.

Other than organisms occurring at amphibious landing sites, invertebrates that occur on the bottom, 

including shallow-water corals, organisms associated with hard bottom, and deep-water corals, are not 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.4-82

3.4 Invertebrates

likely to be exposed to vessel strikes. Propeller movement has the potential to disrupt sediments that 

could affect shallow-water corals and hard bottom communities. However, shallow-water corals do not 

occur along the shoreline adjacent to the Navy Cherry Point or Jacksonville Range Complexes, where 

amphibious landings are conducted. Therefore, corals would not likely be affected by vessel 

movements.

In-Water Devices

Some of the training and testing activities under both action alternatives involve the use of in-water 

devices such as remotely operated vehicles, unmanned surface vehicles, unmanned underwater

vehicles, motorized autonomous targets, and towed devices. For a discussion of the types of activities 

that use in-water devices, see Appendix B (Activity Stressor Matrices). See Table 3.0-21 (Representative 

Types, Sizes, and Speeds of In-Water Devices) for the types, sizes, and speeds of representative Navy 

in-water devices used in the Study Area. 

In-water devices can operate from the water’s surface to the benthic zone. The devices could potentially 

impact marine invertebrates by directly striking organisms or by disturbing the water column. As 

discussed for vessel use, most invertebrates in the water column would be disturbed, rather than struck, 

as water flows around a device due to the hydrodynamic shape. In addition, in-water devices are smaller 

than most Navy vessels, decreasing the surface area in which invertebrates could be struck. The 

potential for direct strike is reduced for some types of devices because they are operated at relatively

low speeds (e.g., unmanned underwater vehicles, which are typically operated at speeds of 1 to 

15 knots). Unmanned surface vehicles are operated at the greatest speeds (up to 50 knots or more) and 

therefore have greater potential to strike invertebrates. However, relatively few invertebrates occur at 

the surface and consist mostly of squid, jellyfish, and zooplankton. Squid and many zooplankton species 

move away from the surface during the day (Nybakken, 1993), when unmanned surface vehicles are 

typically operated. In-water devices do not normally collide with invertebrates on the bottom because 

the devices are operated in relatively deep water and contact with the bottom is avoided. Devices 

operated very near the bottom could potentially disturb sediments and associated invertebrates

through propeller wash. However, such disturbance would be infrequent and would affect a small area, 

and disturbed areas would be quickly reoccupied by benthic invertebrates.

As discussed for vessels, zooplankton and invertebrate eggs and larvae could be displaced, damaged, 

injured, or killed by propeller wash or turbulence resulting from water flow around in-water devices. 

Effects due to turbulence would generally increase with increasing speed of the device. Many 

zooplankton species migrate away from the surface during the day, when Navy training and testing 

typically are conducted, decreasing the potential for impacts in the upper portions of the water column. 

The number of individuals affected would be small in comparison to overall populations, and the 

affected species generally exhibit rapid growth and recovery rates.

3.4.3.4.1.1 Impacts from Vessels and In-Water Devices Under Alternative 1

Impacts from Vessels and In-Water Devices Under Alternative 1 for Training Activities

The numbers and locations of activities that include vessels are shown in Table 3.0-18 (Number and 

Location of Activities Including Vessels) and Table 3.0-19 (Number and Location of Activities in Inshore

Waters Including Vessels), and the numbers and locations of activities that include in-water devices are

shown in Table 3.0-22 (Number and Location of Activities Including In-Water Devices) and Table 3.0-23

(Number and Location of Activities in Inshore Waters Including In-Water Devices). The majority of Navy 

training activities include vessels, while a lower number of activities include in-water devices. As 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.4-83

3.4 Invertebrates

indicated in Section 3.0.3.3.4.1 (Vessels and In-Water Devices), vessel operation would be widely 

dispersed throughout the Study Area, but would be more concentrated near ports, naval installations, 

and range complexes. Most vessel use would occur in the Virginia Capes, Navy Cherry Point, and

Jacksonville Range Complexes. In particular, Navy training vessel traffic would be concentrated in the 

Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf Large Marine Ecosystem near Naval Station Norfolk in Norfolk, Virginia, 

and in the Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf Large Marine Ecosystem near Naval Station Mayport in 

Jacksonville, Florida. Vessel operation in inshore waters would occur in numerous areas but would be 

concentrated in the Lower Chesapeake Bay and James River. Amphibious landings would be restricted to 

designated beaches. There is no seasonal differentiation in Navy vessel use. Large vessel movement 

primarily occurs within the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone, with the majority of the traffic moving 

between Naval Stations Norfolk and Mayport. 

Similar to vessel operation, activities involving in-water devices could be widely dispersed throughout 

the Study Area, but would be more concentrated near naval ports, piers, and ranges. Training activities 

would occur in the Northeast and Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf and Gulf of Mexico Large Marine 

Ecosystems, as well as the Gulf Stream Open Ocean Area. However, most events would occur within the 

Virginia Capes Range Complex and Jacksonville Range Complex.

As discussed in Section 3.4.3.4.1 (Impacts from Vessels and In-Water Devices), invertebrates located at 

or near the surface could be struck or disturbed by vessels, and invertebrates throughout the water 

column could be similarly affected by in-water devices. There would be a higher likelihood of vessel and 

in-water device strikes over the continental shelf than in the open ocean portions of the Study Area 

because of the concentration of activities and comparatively higher abundances of invertebrates in 

areas closer to shore. However, direct strikes would generally be unlikely for most species. Exceptions 

would include amphibious landings, where vessels contact the bottom and may directly impact 

invertebrates. Organisms inhabiting these areas are expected to rapidly re-colonize disturbed areas.

Other than during amphibious landings, purposeful contact with the bottom by vessels and in-water 

devices would be avoided. The potential to disturb invertebrates on or near the bottom would occur 

mostly during vessel nearshore and onshore training activities, and along dredged navigation channels. 

Invertebrates that typically occur in areas associated with nearshore or onshore activities, such as 

shorelines, are highly resilient to vessel disturbance. Potential exceptions include sessile invertebrates

that occur along sheltered shorelines that are subject to vessel-induced erosion. Propeller wash and 

turbulent water flow could damage or kill zooplankton and invertebrate gametes, eggs, embryonic 

stages, or larvae. The potential for erosion-related impacts could be greater during high speed vessel 

operation, which occurs in numerous inshore waters but would be more concentrated in the Lower 

Chesapeake Bay, James River, Cooper River, and Narragansett Bay. Overall, the area exposed to vessel 

and in-water device disturbance would be a very small portion of the surface and water column in the 

Study Area, and only a small number of individuals would be affected compared to overall abundance. 

Therefore, the impact of vessels and in-water devices on marine invertebrates would be 

inconsequential. Activities are not expected to yield any lasting effects on the survival, growth, 

recruitment, or reproduction of invertebrate species at the population level.

Species that do not occur near the surface within the Study Area, including all ESA-listed coral species, 

would not be exposed to vessel or in-water device strikes. Although some training activities would be 

conducted in the Key West Range Complex, vessels would operate within waters deep enough to avoid 

bottom scouring or prop dredging, with at least a 1-ft. clearance between the deepest draft of the vessel 

(with the motor down) and the seafloor at mean low water. There would be no overlap of vessels or in-
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.4-84

3.4 Invertebrates

water devices with designated critical habitat for elkhorn and staghorn coral (Section 3.4.2.2.1.1, Status 

and Management) because the vessels and devices are not expected to contact the bottom during 

training activities. Amphibious vehicles are an exception, but elkhorn and staghorn coral critical habitat 

does not include locations where amphibious vehicles come in contact with the bottom. Therefore, 

vessels and in-water devices would not affect elkhorn and staghorn coral critical habitat. Pursuant to the 

ESA, the use of vessels and in-water devices during training activities as described under Alternative 1 

would have no effect on ESA-listed coral species or critical habitat.

Impacts from Vessels and In-Water Devices Under Alternative 1 for Testing Activities

The numbers and locations of activities that include vessels are shown in Table 3.0-18 (Number and 

Location of Activities Including Vessels) and Table 3.0-19 (Number and Location of Activities in Inshore

Waters Including Vessels), and the numbers and locations of activities that include in-water devices are

shown in Table 3.0-22 (Number and Location of Activities Including In-Water Devices). As indicated in 

Section 3.0.3.3.4.1 (Vessels and In-Water Devices), vessel operation would be widely dispersed 

throughout the Study Area, but would be more concentrated near ports, naval installations, testing 

ranges, and range complexes. Vessel movements would occur throughout the Study Area but would be 

concentrated in the Northeast, Virginia Capes, and Jacksonville Range Complexes. Similarly, as indicated 

in Section 3.0.3.3.4.1 (Vessels and In-Water Devices), in-water devices would be used throughout the 

Study Area but would be concentrated in the Virginia Capes and Jacksonville Range Complexes, and the 

Naval Undersea Warfare Center, Newport Testing Range.

As discussed in Section 3.4.3.4.1 (Impacts from Vessels and In-Water Devices), invertebrates located at 

or near the surface could be struck or disturbed by vessels, and invertebrates throughout the water 

column could be similarly affected by in-water devices. There would be a higher likelihood of vessel and 

in-water device strikes over the continental shelf than in the open ocean portions of the Study Area 

because of the concentration of activities and the comparatively lower invertebrate abundances in 

those areas. However, direct strikes would generally be unlikely for most species, particularly for benthic 

invertebrates due to the absence of amphibious landings. Purposeful contact with the bottom would be 

avoided. Propeller wash and turbulent water flow could damage or kill zooplankton and invertebrate 

gametes, eggs, embryonic stages, or larvae. Overall, the area potentially exposed to vessel and in-water 

device disturbance is a very small portion of the surface and water column in the Study Area, and only a 

small number of individuals would be affected compared to overall abundance. The impact of vessels 

and in-water devices on marine invertebrates would be inconsequential. Activities are not expected to 

yield any lasting effects on the survival, growth, recruitment, or reproduction of invertebrate species at 

the population level.

Species that do not occur near the surface within the Study Area, including all ESA-listed coral species, 

would not be exposed to vessel or in-water device strikes. Although some activities would be conducted 

in the Key West Range Complex and South Florida Ocean Measurement Facility Testing Range, vessels 

would operate within waters deep enough to avoid bottom scouring or prop dredging, with at least a 1-

ft. clearance between the deepest draft of the vessel (with the motor down) and the seafloor at mean 

low water. There would be no overlap of vessels or in-water devices with designated critical habitat for 

elkhorn and staghorn coral (Section 3.4.2.2.1.1, Status and Management) because the vessels and 

devices do not contact the bottom. Amphibious landings are not associated with testing activities.

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of vessels and in-water devices during testing activities as described under 

Alternative 1 would have no effect on ESA-listed coral species or critical habitat.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.4-85

3.4 Invertebrates

3.4.3.4.1.2 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 invertebrates 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 in vessel and in-water device use in the Study Area. However, the 

difference would not result in substantive changes to the potential for or types of impacts on 

invertebrates. Refer to Section 3.4.3.4.1.1 (Impacts from Vessels and In-Water Devices Under 

Alternative 1) for a discussion of potential impacts.

As discussed in Section 3.4.3.4.1.1 (Impacts from Vessels and In-Water Devices Under Alternative 1), 

pursuant to the ESA, the use of vessels and in-water devices during training activities as described under 

Alternative 2 would have no effect on ESA-listed coral species or critical habitat.

Impacts from Vessels and In-Water Devices Under Alternative 2 for Testing Activities

Under Alternative 2, potential impacts to invertebrates resulting from vessels and in-water devices 

associated with testing activities would be similar to those discussed for activities under Alternative 1. 

There would be a very small increase in vessel and in-water device use in the Study Area. However, the 

difference would not result in substantive changes to the potential for or types of impacts on 

invertebrates. Refer to Section 3.4.3.4.1.1 (Impacts from Vessels and In-Water Devices Under 

Alternative 1) for a discussion of impacts on invertebrates.

As discussed in Section 3.4.3.4.1.1 (Impacts from Vessels and In-Water Devices Under Alternative 1), 

pursuant to the ESA, the use of vessels and in-water devices during testing activities as described under 

Alternative 2 would have no effect on ESA-listed coral species or critical habitat.

3.4.3.4.1.3 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 AFTT 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.

3.4.3.4.2 Impacts from Aircraft and Aerial Targets

Impacts from aircraft and aerial targets are not applicable because marine invertebrates do not occur in 

airborne environments and will not be analyzed further in this section. Refer to Section 3.4.3.4.3

(Impacts from Military Expended Materials) for potential disturbance from fragments of aircraft and 

aerial targets.

3.4.3.4.3 Impacts from Military Expended Materials

This section analyzes the strike potential to marine invertebrates from the following categories of 

military expended materials: (1) all sizes of non-explosive practice munitions, (2) fragments from 

high-explosive munitions, (3) expendable targets and target fragments, and (4) expended materials 

other than munitions, such as sonobuoys, expended bathythermographs, and torpedo accessories. For a 

discussion of the types of activities that use military expended materials, refer to Appendix B (Activity 

Stressor Matrices). For information on where they are used and how many exercises would occur under 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.4-86

3.4 Invertebrates

each alternative, see Appendix F (Military Expended Materials and Direct Strike Impact Analysis) and 

Section 3.0.3.3.4.2 (Military Expended Materials). Analysis of all potential impacts of military expended 

materials (disturbance, strike, shading, and abrasion) on invertebrates, including ESA-listed coral species 

and designated critical habitat (elkhorn and staghorn coral), is included in this section. Potential impacts 

of military expended materials resulting from entanglement and ingestion are discussed in 

Sections 3.4.3.5 (Entanglement Stressors) and Section 3.4.3.6 (Ingestion Stressors).

Military expended materials are deposited throughout the Study Area. However, the majority of military 

expended materials are deposited within established range complexes and testing ranges. These areas 

of higher military expended materials deposition are generally located away from the coastline on the 

continental shelf and slope and beyond (e.g., abyssal plain).

Physical disturbance or strikes by military expended materials on marine invertebrates is possible at the 

water’s surface, through the water column, and on the bottom. However, disturbance or strike impacts 

on marine invertebrates by military expended materials falling through the water column are not very 

likely because military expended materials do not generally sink rapidly enough to cause strike injury. 

Exposed invertebrates would likely experience only temporary displacement as the object passes by. 

Therefore, the discussion of military expended materials disturbance and strikes will focus on items at 

the water’s surface and on the bottom.

Potential impacts to invertebrates generally consist of physical trauma, stress or behavioral responses, 

abrasion, and shading. Military expended materials may injure or kill invertebrates by directly striking 

individuals, causing breakage (particularly for species with exoskeletons or that build structures), 

crushing, or other physical trauma. Direct strike may result from the initial impact, or may occur after 

items fall through the water column and settle onto invertebrates or are moved along the bottom by 

water currents or gravity. Expended items may also bury or smother organisms although, depending on 

the size of the expended item relative to the animal, some mobile invertebrates may be able to move or 

dig out from underneath an item. In addition to physical strike, military expended materials may disturb 

individuals and cause them to change locations, behaviors, or activities. Disturbance could therefore 

result in impacts such as briefly increased energy expenditure, decreased feeding, and increased 

susceptibility to predation. Expended items could also cause increased turbidity that could affect 

filter-feeding species, although such impacts are likely to be localized and temporary. Expended items 

that come to rest on or near corals could cause abrasion or shading (in the case of corals that host 

symbiotic algae) that reduces photosynthesis in the algae, although these effects are unlikely based on 

the mitigation measures in place for shallow-water coral reefs where symbiotic algae are present. 

Abrasion refers to scraping or wearing down of a supporting structure or hard body part (e.g., coral 

skeleton, shell) through repeated impact to the same individual or structure. Abrasion would generally 

be associated with military expended materials such as flexible materials (e.g., wires or cords) that 

become fixed in a location for some time but that are moved repeatedly over sessile invertebrates by 

water currents.

Military expended materials that impact the water surface could directly strike zooplankton, the 

gametes, embryos, and larvae of various invertebrate species (including ESA-listed corals), and a small 

number of adult invertebrates (e.g., squid, jellyfish, swimming crabs). However, many zooplankton and 

squid are absent from the surface water column during the day when most training and testing activities 

occur. Inert military expended materials also have the potential to impact the water and produce a large 

impulse which could disturb nearby invertebrates. Potential impacts to invertebrates resulting from 

impulsive sound and shock waves are discussed in Section 3.4.3.1 (Acoustic Stressors) and 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.4-87

3.4 Invertebrates

Section 3.4.3.2 (Explosive Stressors). In addition to direct strike of invertebrates and production of 

impulsive sound, surface water impacts could affect physical properties of the surrounding water (e.g., 

slight heating or increased dissolved gas concentrations due to turbulent mixing with the atmosphere), 

potentially affecting the suitability of the affected water mass as habitat for some invertebrate species. 

However, physical changes to the water column would be localized and temporary, persisting for only a 

few minutes. Compared to surface waters and offshore areas, a greater number of macroinvertebrates 

typically occurs on the bottom and closer to shore. Benthic invertebrate taxa, including sponges, 

cnidarians, worms, bryozoans, molluscs, arthropods, and echinoderms, may occur in areas affected by 

military expended materials. However, some of the most sensitive benthic species (e.g., corals) are more 

likely to occur on hard bottom, reefs, and other hard substrates. Shallow-water coral reefs are protected 

by mitigation measures from most activities that generate military expended materials. Military 

expended materials that impact the bottom may affect invertebrates by strike (including injury or 

mortality), disturbance, burial, abrasion, or shading within the footprint of the item (the area of 

substrate physically covered by the item). Military expended materials may also cause physiological or 

behavioral reactions to individual invertebrates outside the footprint of the items. After items come to 

rest on the bottom, continued impacts are possible if the items are mobilized by currents or waves and 

damage benthic invertebrates as they move. Turbidity may also occur as water flows around deposited 

items. However, these impacts would generally cease when the military expended materials are 

incorporated into the seafloor by natural encrustation or burial processes, or become otherwise 

immobilized.

Sessile marine invertebrates and infauna (organisms attached to the bottom or living in the sediments) 

are generally more susceptible to military expended material disturbance and strike than benthic 

species with the ability to move relatively quickly over the bottom. Some susceptible species (e.g., 

hydroids, sponges, soft corals) have fragile structures and sensitive body parts that could be damaged or 

covered by military expended materials. Military expended materials could also break hard structures 

such as coral skeletons and mussel beds. Shallow- and deep-water corals that build complex or fragile 

structures could be particularly susceptible to breakage or abrasion. Such structures are resistant to 

physical forces typical of ambient conditions (e.g., water currents), but not as resilient to other types of 

physical disturbance involving greater force. Decelerators/parachutes would be unlikely to be carried by 

currents onto reef structures due to the typical offshore locations of use and the sink rate of the items.

Expended items may provide new colonization sites for benthic invertebrates. Researchers found that 

military expended materials in a bombing range became covered by sedentary reef invertebrates over 

time (Smith & Marx, 2016). However, invertebrate species composition on artificial substrates may 

differ from that of the surrounding natural community.

Potential impacts to shallow-water corals, invertebrates associated with hard bottom habitat, or 

deep-water corals present the greatest risk of long-term damage compared with other bottom 

communities because: (1) many corals and hard bottom invertebrates are sessile, fragile, and 

particularly vulnerable; (2) many of these organisms grow slowly and could require decades to recover; 

and (3) military expended materials are likely to remain exposed on hard bottom communities whereas 

shifting sediment patterns would tend to bury military expended materials in soft bottom communities. 

The probability of striking deep-water corals or invertebrates located on hard bottom habitat is low, 

given their low percent cover on suitable habitat (see Section 3.5.2.1.2, Bottom Habitats, for a 

discussion of hard bottom habitat). For example, deep-water coral was present on less than 5 percent of 

coral rubble mounds found beyond the shelf break in the Jacksonville Range Complex (U.S. Department 

of the Navy, 2010). 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.4-88

3.4 Invertebrates

A few investigations have been conducted to determine the presence and, in some cases, possible 

impacts of military expended materials on the bottom. The results of multi-year underwater surveys at a 

military bombing range in the Mariana Archipelago (Pacific Ocean) provide an example of potential 

impacts resulting from expended munitions. Water areas were not targeted at this range; bottom 

impacts occurred only when the target land mass was missed or the munition bounced off the land into 

the water. The surveys found no overall long-term adverse impacts to corals or other invertebrates due 

to expended items, despite several decades of use (Smith & Marx, 2016). Numerous intact bombs and 

fragments were observed on the bottom. Inert 500-lb. bombs were found to disturb a bottom area of 

17 m2 each, although specific damage to invertebrates, if any, was not described. It may be presumed 

that invertebrates within this footprint could have been killed, injured, damaged, or displaced. 

Expended items, once settled in place, appeared to become encrusted with marine growth and pose no 

substantial long-term threat to invertebrates. The condition of corals indicated a healthy environment, 

with no apparent change in species composition, distribution, size, or stress indicators. However, the 

results of several other studies indicate that sessile invertebrate communities growing on artificial 

substrate such as the expended munitions are often different than those growing on natural substrate 

(Burt et al., 2009; Macreadie et al., 2011; Perkol-Finkel et al., 2006; Steimle & Zetlin, 2000). A remotely 

operated vehicle survey of deep portions of the Jacksonville Range Complex reported only two exposed 

items of military expended materials in about 37,800 m of survey line distance (U.S. Department of the 

Navy, 2010, 2011). However, it is important to note that the survey was not designed to document 

military expended materials and these were only the items photographed using still frames. Another 

extensive remotely operated vehicle survey along the continental shelf break and canyons in the 

northeast and mid-Atlantic region found marine debris in 81 percent of individual dives, but the items 

did not include any visible military expended materials (Quattrini et al., 2015). Underwater surveys of 

bottom areas off the Gulf coast of Florida with a presumably high potential for military expended 

materials (based on reported obstructions by fishermen) found no items of military origin, suggesting 

that expended materials may be widely distributed or may become covered by sediments (U.S. 

Department of the Navy, 2013). In a deep-sea trawl survey of the northern Gulf of Mexico, items of 

military origin were found (artillery shells and a missile), but were among the least-frequently 

encountered types of debris (Wei et al., 2012).

Military Expended Materials - Munitions

Military expended materials that are munitions and associated with training activities include small-, 

medium-, and large-caliber projectiles, bombs, missiles, rockets, and grenades. Fragments of exploded 

munitions are also included because they can result in impacts on invertebrates that are similar to those 

associated with smaller intact munitions. Military expended materials associated with testing activities 

are the same except that there are no grenades. Navy training and testing activities in the Study Area 

include firing a variety of weapons and using a variety of non-explosive training and testing rounds, 

including small-, medium-, and large-caliber projectiles. Large-caliber projectiles are primarily used in 

the open ocean beyond 20 NM from shore. Direct strike from bombs, missiles, and rockets would result 

in types of impacts similar to those of projectiles. However, they are larger than most projectiles and are 

likely to produce a greater number of fragments. Bombs, missiles, and rockets are designed to explode 

within about 3 ft. of the sea surface, where marine invertebrates larger than zooplankton are relatively 

infrequent.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.4-89

3.4 Invertebrates

Military Expended Materials Other Than Munitions

Military expended materials other than munitions associated with training activities include a large 

number of items such as aerial countermeasures, targets (surface and aerial), mine shapes, ship hulk, 

decelerators/parachutes, acoustic countermeasures, sonobuoys, and other materials such as torpedo 

accessories, concrete slugs, marine markers, bathythermographs, endcaps, and pistons. Expended 

materials associated with testing activities are similar but include some additional items such as 

explosive sonobuoys and explosive mines. Some expended materials used during training and testing 

activities, including some types of torpedoes and targets, non-explosive mine shapes, and 

bottom-placed instruments, are recovered.

Chaff, which consists of aluminum-coated glass fibers, may be transported great distances by the wind, 

beyond the areas where they are deployed, before contacting the sea surface. These materials contact 

the sea surface and bottom with very little kinetic energy, and their low buoyant weight makes them an 

inconsequential strike and abrasion risk. Therefore, chaff is not considered to be a potential strike and 

disturbance stressor.

During a sinking exercise, aircraft, ship, and submarine crews deliver munitions on a surface target, 

which is a clean, deactivated ship that is deliberately sunk using multiple weapon systems. Sinking 

exercises occur in specific open ocean areas, outside of the coastal range complexes. Habitat-forming 

invertebrates are likely absent where sinking exercises are planned because the activity occurs in depths

greater than the range for shallow-water and many deep-water coral species (approximately 3,000 m) 

and away from typical locations for hydrothermal vent or cold seep communities (e.g., seamounts, 

Mid-Atlantic Ridge) (Cairns, 2007). It is unlikely that deep-sea hard corals could be impacted by a sinking 

ship hulk or fragments of a hulk due to their lack of occurrence below depths of about 3,000 m (the 

depth of the aragonite saturation boundary; see Section 3.4.2.1.1, Habitat Use). 

Decelerators/parachutes of varying sizes are used during training and testing activities and may be 

deployed from aircraft or vessels. Similar to other marine debris such as derelict fishing gear, 

decelerators/parachutes may kill or injure sessile benthic invertebrates due to covering/shading or 

abrasion. Activities that expend sonobuoy and air-launched torpedo decelerators/parachutes generally 

occur in relatively deep water away from the shore. Because they are in the air and water column for a 

time span of minutes, it is improbable that a decelerator/parachute deployed over deep water could 

travel far enough to affect shallow-water species (e.g., shallow-water corals). Decelerators/parachutes 

expended over deep offshore areas may impact deep-water invertebrates (particularly sessile species) 

by disturbance, strikes, burial, smothering, or abrasion. For example, a decelerator/parachute could 

cover a sponge or deep-water coral and impair feeding.

3.4.3.4.3.1 Impacts from Military Expended Materials Under Alternative 1

Impacts from Military Expended Materials Under Alternative 1 for Training Activities

As indicated in Appendix F (Military Expended Materials and Direct Strike Impact Analysis), under 

Alternative 1, areas with the greatest amount of expended materials are expected to be the Northeast 

and Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf and the Gulf Stream Open Ocean Area—specifically within the 

Virginia Capes, Navy Cherry Point, and Jacksonville Range Complexes. In addition, military expended 

materials would be deposited at six inshore water locations. Offshore areas with the highest number of 

acres impacted by military expended materials would include the Virginia Capes and Jacksonville Range 

Complexes, and areas used for sinking exercises. Expended materials in inshore waters would include 

items such as flares (including flare o-rings and compression pad or pistons), marine markers, mine 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.4-90

3.4 Invertebrates

shapes, and non-explosive small-caliber munitions. Most items expended in inshore waters would occur 

in the James River and tributaries, Lower Chesapeake Bay, and Port Canaveral, Florida.

Military expended materials (munitions and items other than munitions) have the potential to impact 

invertebrates at the water surface and on the bottom throughout the Study Area. As described in detail 

in Section 3.4.3.4.3 (Impacts from Military Expended Materials), impacts may include injury or mortality 

due to direct strike or burial, disturbance, and indirect effects such as increased turbidity. The potential 

for direct strikes of pelagic zooplankton and squid at the surface would be minimized by their decreased 

occurrence in surface waters during the day when training activities typically occur.

Proportional impact analysis determined that the total bottom area affected by all military expended 

materials in all training areas would be about 108 acres annually (see Table F-31, Proportional Impact to 

Bottom Habitat from Training Activities Under Alternatives 1 and 2 in a Single Year, in Appendix F, 

Military Expended Materials and Direct Strike Impact Analysis). This represents only thousandths of 

1 percent of available bottom habitat in any range complex. The areas impacted by bottom type would 

be approximately 12 acres (hard substrate), 11 acres (intermediate substrate), 85 acres (soft substrate), 

and less than 2 acres (unknown substrate). The substrate types and associated invertebrate assemblages 

within the potentially disturbed areas are difficult to predict, as discussed in Appendix F (Military 

Expended Materials and Direct Strike Impact Analysis). Activities occurring at depths of less than about 

3,000 m may impact deep-water corals, particularly in the Jacksonville Range Complex where ivory tree 

coral is apparently more abundant. However, activities conducted in relatively deep water throughout 

the Study Area have the potential to impact hard bottom communities, including deep-water corals, as 

well as invertebrates within all other habitat types. Consequences could include damage, injury, or 

mortality as a result of projectiles, munitions, or other items. Decelerators/parachutes, wires, and cables 

could also impact benthic communities if they are mobilized by water currents, although it is expected 

that most such materials would become buried, encrusted, or otherwise immobilized over time and 

would not continue to impact individual invertebrates or invertebrate assemblages. Impacts would be 

most pronounced if all the materials expended within the applicable depth range were deposited on 

areas of hard substrate supporting long-lived, sessile organisms such as deep-water corals, because it 

may be assumed that many of the benthic invertebrates present in the impact area footprint would be 

killed, injured, displaced, or disturbed by the expended materials. In addition, some previously 

undisturbed bottom area would be affected by activities in subsequent years. Conversely, impacts 

would be less if the materials were deposited on soft bottom areas containing invertebrate communities 

that recover relatively quickly from disturbance. Although hard substrate potentially supporting deepwater corals and other invertebrate communities is present on the continental shelf break and slope in 

at least some areas in water depths less than 3,000 m, a scenario of all expended materials being 

deposited on such substrate is unrealistic. A low percentage of deep substrate on the continental shelf is 

suitable for hard bottom communities, and the results of limited investigation indicate a low percentage 

of this available hard substrate may be inhabited by deep-water corals or other invertebrate species in 

some areas (Harter et al., 2009; U.S. Department of the Navy, 2010). In other areas, such as parts of the 

Gulf of Maine, the shelf break offshore of central Florida (Atlantic side), and the west Florida shelf, deepwater corals may cover a greater portion of available hard habitat (refer to Section 3.4.2.3.3, Corals, 

Hydroids, Jellyfish [Phylum Cnidaria]). However, it is expected that most of the bottom type affected 

would be soft substrate (Appendix F, Military Expended Materials and Direct Strike Impact Analysis). 

Therefore, although it is possible for a portion of expended items to impact hard substrate and 

associated sensitive invertebrate communities, the number of exposed individuals would not likely 

affect the overall viability of populations or species. While the potential for overlap between Navy 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.4-91

3.4 Invertebrates

activities and invertebrates is reduced for those species living in rare habitats, if overlap does occur, any 

potential impacts would be amplified for those invertebrate species or taxa with limited spatial extent. 

With the exception of some shallow-water corals, detailed distribution and habitat utilization 

information sufficient to support species-specific analysis is generally unavailable.

The impact of military expended materials on marine invertebrates is likely to cause injury or mortality 

to individuals of soft-bodied species that are smaller than the military expended materials. Zooplankton 

could therefore be impacted by most military expended materials. Impacts to populations would likely 

be inconsequential because the number of individuals affected would be small relative to known 

population sizes, the area exposed to the stressor is extremely small relative to the area of both suitable 

and occupied habitats, the activities are dispersed such that few individuals would likely be exposed to 

more than one event, and exposures would be localized and would cease when the military expended 

material becomes part of the bottom (e.g., buried or encrusted with sessile organisms). However, as 

discussed previously, research has shown that sedentary/sessile invertebrate communities growing on 

artificial substrate are often different than those found on natural substrates. Activities involving 

military expended materials are not expected to yield any behavioral changes or lasting effects on the 

survival, growth, recruitment, or reproduction of invertebrate species at the population level. 

Potentially impacted invertebrates include ESA-listed corals and species associated with sensitive

habitats such as shallow-water, deep-water, and mesophotic reefs and live hard bottom. Most 

shallow-water corals in the Study Area occur within or adjacent to the Key West Range Complex, and all 

ESA-listed coral species occur within the Range Complex. Critical habitat for elkhorn coral and staghorn 

coral also occurs in the Key West Range Complex, although small areas around Naval Air Station Key 

West are excluded from designation (Section 3.4.2.2.1.1, Status and Management). Training activities 

involving military expended materials in the Key West Range Complex could therefore impact ESA-listed

corals by direct strike and could expose substrate to disturbances that could degrade the quality, and 

potentially the quantity, of elkhorn and staghorn coral critical habitat. Important elements of critical 

habitat consist of hard substrates. Wires and cables could kill or injure corals due to abrasion.

Military expended materials used in the Key West Range Complex are mostly medium-caliber 

projectiles, decelerators/parachutes, chaff and flares, flare o-rings, endcaps, and pistons. Recovered 

items consist of aerial targets and drones. Chaff and flares have minimal to no potential to substantially 

affect corals. With the exception of mine neutralization and explosive ordnance disposal training, 

materials are primarily expended far from shore. Most weapons firing takes place in offshore waters 

away from the source of coral eggs and larvae. Decelerator/parachute interactions are unlikely because 

they are generally expended in water deeper than 600 ft. and would most likely not travel far enough to 

impact shallow-water species. Prevailing water currents flowing parallel to the shoreline (e.g., the Loop 

Current, Florida Current, and Gulf Stream) would tend to prevent decelerators/parachutes from drifting 

onto shallow-water corals located close to shore. There would be a slightly greater potential to impact 

ESA-listed corals located in mesophotic habitats (water depths to 90 m) that occur seaward of the 

coastal zone (e.g., small sonobuoy parachutes drifting onto Pulley Ridge). However, it is unlikely that 

large parachutes (e.g., illumination flare parachutes) would settle on mesophotic habitats supporting 

ESA-listed corals because the associated activity would take place more than 40 NM from shore. These

areas are not included in designated critical habitat, and relatively few ESA-listed coral species may 

occur in mesophotic habitats due to their typical depth distribution. It is also noted that, in a ruling on 

potentially listing numerous coral species under the ESA, NMFS considered human-induced physical 

damage such as exposure to military expended material strikes to be a “negligible to low-importance” 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.4-92

3.4 Invertebrates

threat to coral species and was not cited as a factor when considering listing under the ESA (Endangered 

and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: Proposed Listing Determinations for 82 Reef-Building Coral Species; 

Proposed Reclassification of Acropora palmata and Acropora cervicornis from Threatened to 

Endangered, 77 Federal Register 73219–73262 [December 7, 2012]). As discussed in Section 5.4.1 

(Mitigation Areas for Seafloor Resources), the Navy will implement mitigation to avoid impacts from 

military expended materials on seafloor resources in mitigation areas throughout the Study Area. For 

example, the Navy will not conduct gunnery activities and will not place mine shapes, anchors, or 

mooring devices on the seafloor within a specified distance of shallow-water coral reefs. These

mitigations will consequently also help avoid potential impacts on invertebrates that inhabit these 

areas, including areas inhabited by shallow-water corals.

As discussed above, potential impacts to shallow-water corals would be minimized by the offshore 

location of many activities involving expended materials, and by mitigation that would result in 

avoidance of areas potentially supporting corals for many activities. Although the likelihood of impacts is 

correspondingly diminished, there is some potential for corals to be exposed, particularly ESA-listed 

coral species occurring in deeper mesophotic areas beyond the coastal zone. Pursuant to the ESA, the 

use of military expended materials during training activities as described under Alternative 1 may affect 

ESA-listed coral species and may affect designated critical habitat for elkhorn and staghorn coral. The 

Navy has consulted with the NMFS, as required by section 7(a)(2) of the ESA in that regard.

Impacts from Military Expended Materials Under Alternative 1 for Testing Activities

As indicated in Appendix F (Military Expended Materials and Direct Strike Impact Analysis), under 

Alternative 1, areas that involve the use of expended materials include the Northeast and Southeast 

U.S. Continental Shelf Large Marine Ecosystems and the Gulf Stream Open Ocean Area—specifically 

within the Northeast, Virginia Capes, Navy Cherry Point, Jacksonville, Key West, and Gulf of Mexico

Range Complexes, and three Testing Ranges (Naval Underwater Warfare Center, Newport, Naval Surface 

Warfare Center, Panama City Division, and South Florida Ocean Measurement Facility). 

Military expended materials (munitions and items other than munitions) have the potential to impact 

invertebrates at the water surface and on the bottom throughout the Study Area. As described in detail 

in Section 3.4.3.4.3 (Impacts from Military Expended Materials), impacts may include injury or mortality 

due to direct strike or burial, disturbance, and indirect effects such as increased turbidity. The potential 

for direct strikes of pelagic zooplankton and squid at the surface would be minimized by their decreased 

occurrence in surface waters during the day. Proportional impact analysis determined that the total 

bottom area affected by all military expended materials in all testing areas would be about 52 acres 

annually (see Table F-32, Proportional Impact to Bottom Habitat from Testing Activities Under 

Alternatives 1 and 2 in a Single Year, in Appendix F, Military Expended Materials and Direct Strike Impact 

Analysis). This represents only thousandths of 1 percent of available bottom habitat in any range 

complex. The area impacted by bottom type would be approximately 5 acres (hard substrate), 5 acres 

(intermediate substrate), 42 acres (soft substrate), and less than 1 acre (unknown substrate). The 

substrate types and associated invertebrate assemblages within the disturbed area is difficult to predict, 

as discussed in Appendix F (Military Expended Materials and Direct Strike Impact Analysis). Activities 

occurring at depths of less than about 3,000 m may impact deep-water corals, particularly in the 

Jacksonville Range Complex where ivory tree coral is apparently more abundant. However, activities 

conducted in relatively deep water throughout the Study Area have the potential to impact hard bottom 

communities, including deep-water corals, as well as invertebrates within all other habitat types. 

Consequences could include damage, injury, or mortality as a result of projectiles, munitions, or other 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.4-93

3.4 Invertebrates

items. Decelerators/parachutes, wires, and cables could also impact benthic communities if the items 

are moved by water currents, although it is expected that most such materials would become buried, 

encrusted, or otherwise immobilized over time and would not continue to impact individual 

invertebrates or invertebrate assemblages. Impacts would be most pronounced if all the materials 

expended within the applicable depth range were deposited on areas of hard substrate supporting 

long-lived, sessile organisms such as deep-water corals, because it may be assumed that many of the 

benthic invertebrates present in the impact area footprint would be killed, injured, displaced, or 

disturbed by the expended materials. In addition, some previously undisturbed bottom area would be 

affected by activities in subsequent years. Conversely, impacts would be less if the materials were 

deposited on soft bottom areas containing invertebrate communities that recover relatively quickly 

from disturbance. Although hard substrate potentially supporting deep-water corals and other 

invertebrate communities is present on the continental shelf break and slope in at least some areas in 

water depths less than 3,000 m, a scenario of all expended materials being deposited on such substrate 

is unrealistic. A low percentage of deep substrate on the continental shelf is suitable for hard bottom 

communities and, based on the results of limited investigation, a low percentage of this available hard 

substrate may be inhabited by deep-water corals or other invertebrate species in some areas (U.S. 

Department of the Navy, 2010). In other areas, such as parts of the Gulf of Maine, the shelf break 

offshore of central Florida, and the west Florida shelf, deep-water corals may cover a greater portion of 

available hard habitat (refer to Section 3.4.2.3.3, Corals, Hydroids, Jellyfish [Phylum Cnidaria]. It is 

expected that most of the bottom type affected would be soft substrate (Appendix F, Military Expended 

Materials and Direct Strike Impact Analysis). Therefore, although it is possible for a portion of expended 

items to impact hard substrate and associated sensitive invertebrate communities, the number of 

exposed individuals would not likely affect the overall viability of populations or species.

The impact of military expended materials on marine invertebrates is likely to cause injury or mortality 

to individuals, particularly soft-bodied organisms that are smaller than the military expended materials. 

Zooplankton could therefore be impacted by most military expended materials. Impacts to populations 

would likely be inconsequential because the number of individuals affected would be small relative to 

known population sizes, the area exposed to the stressor is extremely small relative to the area of both 

suitable and occupied habitats, the activities are dispersed such that few individuals would likely be 

exposed to more than one event, and exposures would be localized and would cease when the military 

expended material becomes part of the bottom (e.g., buried or encrusted with sessile organisms). 

However, as discussed previously, research has shown that sedentary/sessile invertebrate communities 

growing on artificial substrate are often different than those found on natural substrates. Activities 

involving military expended materials are not expected to yield any behavioral changes or lasting effects 

on the survival, growth, recruitment, or reproduction of invertebrate species at the population level. 

Military expended materials used for testing in the Key West Range Complex consist of various sizes of 

projectiles (including a small number of non-explosive missiles), explosive torpedoes and torpedo 

accessories, chaff cartridges, targets (air, surface, and subsurface), bathythermographs, sabots, 

explosive sonobuoys, sonobuoy wires, and decelerators/parachutes. Recovered items consist of 

non-explosive torpedoes, unmanned aerial systems, and various types of targets. Military expended 

materials utilized within the South Florida Ocean Measurement Facility Testing Range include 

projectiles, acoustic countermeasures, various targets, anchors, bathythermographs, torpedo 

accessories, sonobuoys, sonobuoy wires, decelerators/parachutes, and sabots. Recovered materials 

include non-explosive torpedoes, various targets, anchors, and mine shapes. Materials are primarily 

expended far from shore, although there are exceptions, including mine countermeasure testing and 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.4-94

3.4 Invertebrates

unmanned underwater vehicle testing. These activities may occur in the coastal zone of the Key West 

Range Complex or South Florida Ocean Measurement Facility Testing Range. Non-explosive sonobuoys 

expended during anti-submarine tracking testing include small decelerators/parachutes that could 

impact ESA-listed coral species and critical habitat. Most weapons firing takes place in offshore waters 

away from the source of coral eggs and larvae. Decelerator/parachute interactions are unlikely because, 

with the exception of anti-submarine tracking, they are generally expended in water deeper than 600 ft. 

and would most likely not travel far enough to impact shallow-water species. Prevailing water currents 

flowing parallel to the shoreline (e.g., the Loop Current, Florida Current, and Gulf Stream) would tend to 

prevent decelerators/parachutes from drifting onto shallow-water corals located close to shore. There 

would be a slightly greater potential to impact ESA-listed corals located in mesophotic habitats (water 

depths up to 90 m) that occur seaward of the coastal zone. However, these areas are not included in 

designated critical habitat, and relatively few ESA-listed coral species may occur in mesophotic habitats 

due to their typical depth distribution.

As discussed in Section 5.4.1 (Mitigation Areas for Seafloor Resources), the Navy will implement 

mitigation to avoid impacts from military expended materials on seafloor resources in mitigation areas 

throughout the Study Area. For example, the Navy will not conduct gunnery activities and will not place

mine shapes, anchors, or mooring devices on the seafloor within a specified distance of mapped

shallow-water coral reefs. These mitigations will consequently also help avoid potential impacts on 

invertebrates that inhabit these areas, including areas inhabited by shallow-water corals.

As discussed above, potential impacts to shallow-water corals would be minimized by the offshore 

location of many activities involving expended materials, and by mitigation that would result in 

avoidance of areas potentially supporting corals for many activities. Although the likelihood of impacts is 

correspondingly diminished, there is some potential for corals to be exposed, particularly ESA-listed 

coral species occurring in deeper mesophotic areas beyond the coastal zone. Pursuant to the ESA, the 

use of military expended materials during testing activities as described under Alternative 1 may affect 

ESA-listed coral species activities and may affect designated elkhorn and staghorn coral critical habitat. 

The Navy has consulted with the NMFS, as required by section 7(a)(2) of the ESA in that regard.

3.4.3.4.3.2 Impacts from Military Expended Materials Under Alternative 2

Impacts from Military Expended Materials Under Alternative 2 for Training Activities

The locations of training activities using military expended materials would be the same under 

Alternatives 1 and 2. The total area affected for all training activities combined would increase by less 

than 1 acre annually under Alternative 2 (see Table F-31, Proportional Impact to Bottom Habitat from 

Training Activities Under Alternatives 1 and 2 in a Single Year, in Appendix F, Military Expended 

Materials and Direct Strike Impact Analysis), and therefore the potential impacts would be similar 

between the two alternatives. Refer to Section 3.4.3.4.3.1 (Impacts from Military Expended Materials 

Under Alternative 1) for a discussion of impacts on invertebrates.

As discussed in Section 3.4.3.4.3.1 (Impacts from Military Expended Materials Under Alternative 1), the 

Navy will implement mitigation to avoid impacts from military expended materials on seafloor resources 

in mitigation areas throughout the Study Area. For example, the Navy will not conduct gunnery activities 

and will not place mine shapes, anchors, or mooring devices on the seafloor within a specified distance 

of shallow-water coral reefs. These mitigations will consequently also help avoid potential impacts on 

invertebrates that inhabit these areas, including areas inhabited by shallow-water corals.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.4-95

3.4 Invertebrates

Potential impacts to shallow-water corals would be minimized by the offshore location of many 

activities involving expended materials and mitigation that would result in avoidance of areas potentially 

supporting corals for many activities. Although the likelihood of impacts is correspondingly diminished, 

there is some potential for corals to be exposed, particularly ESA-listed coral species occurring in deeper 

mesophotic areas beyond the coastal zone. Pursuant to the ESA, the use of military expended materials 

during training activities as described under Alternative 2 may affect ESA-listed coral species and may

affect designated elkhorn coral and staghorn coral critical habitat.

Impacts from Military Expended Materials Under Alternative 2 for Testing Activities

The locations of testing activities using military expended materials would be the same under 

Alternatives 1 and 2. The total area affected for all testing activities combined would increase by less 

than 1 acre annually under Alternative 2 (see Table F-32, Proportional Impact to Bottom Habitat from 

Testing Activities Under Alternatives 1 and 2 in a Single Year, in Appendix F, Military Expended Materials 

and Direct Strike Impact Analysis), and therefore the potential impacts would be similar between the 

two alternatives. Refer to Section 3.4.3.4.3.1 (Impacts from Military Expended Materials Under 

Alternative 1) for a discussion of impacts on invertebrates. As discussed in Section 3.4.3.4.3.1 (Impacts 

from Military Expended Materials Under Alternative 1), the Navy will implement mitigation to avoid 

impacts from military expended materials on seafloor resources in mitigation areas throughout the 

Study Area. For example, the Navy will not conduct gunnery activities and will not place mine shapes, 

anchors, or mooring devices on the seafloor within a specified distance of mapped shallow-water coral 

reefs. These mitigations will consequently also help avoid potential impacts on invertebrates that 

inhabit these areas, including areas inhabited by shallow-water corals.

Potential impacts to shallow-water corals would be minimized by the offshore location of many 

activities involving expended materials and mitigation that would result in avoidance of areas potentially 

supporting corals for many activities. Although the likelihood of impacts is correspondingly diminished, 

there is some potential for corals to be exposed, particularly ESA-listed coral species occurring in deeper 

mesophotic areas beyond the coastal zone. Pursuant to the ESA, the use of military expended materials 

during testing activities as described under Alternative 2 may affect ESA-listed coral species and may 

affect designated elkhorn coral and staghorn coral critical habitat.

3.4.3.4.3.3 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 AFTT 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.

3.4.3.4.4 Impacts from Seafloor Devices

For a discussion of the types of activities that use seafloor devices, where they are used, and how many 

activities would occur under each alternative, see Appendix B (Activity Stressor Matrices). Seafloor 

devices include items that are placed on, dropped on, or moved along the substrate for a specific 

purpose, and include mine shapes, anchor blocks, anchors, bottom-placed instruments, bottom-crawling 

unmanned underwater vehicles, and bottom-placed targets that are recovered (not expended).

Placement or deployment of seafloor devices would cause disturbance, injury, or mortality to marine 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.4-96

3.4 Invertebrates

invertebrates within the footprint of the device. However, the number of individuals affected likely 

would be small compared to overall population numbers. These items could potentially break hard 

substrate and associated biogenic habitats (e.g., hard coral skeletons). Objects placed on the bottom 

may attract invertebrates, or provide temporary attachment points for invertebrates. Some 

invertebrates attached to the devices would be removed from the water when the devices are 

recovered. A shallow depression may remain for some time in the soft bottom sediment where an 

anchor was dropped, potentially altering the suitability of the affected substrate for benthic 

invertebrates temporarily (possibly months).

Seafloor devices may also disturb marine invertebrates outside the footprint of the device, and would 

cause temporary (possibly hours to days) local increases in turbidity and sedimentation near the 

bottom, along with some changes in scouring/deposition patterns in higher current areas with soft 

bottom. Sedimentation can smother sessile invertebrates, while turbidity may affect respiratory organs 

or impair the ability of filter-feeding invertebrates to obtain food (e.g., by clogging their feeding 

structures or diluting the amount of food in the surrounding volume of water). However, the brief 

episodes of minor turbidity associated with Navy seafloor devices would be localized and the effects do 

not change the substrate type. Compared to overall populations, relatively few individuals would be 

affected.

Precision anchoring, and the associated potential impacts, is qualitatively different than other seafloor 

devices because the activity involves repeated disturbance of the same soft bottom areas. Precision 

anchoring may result in temporary and localized disturbances to water column and bottom habitats. For 

example, an anchor may shift due to changing currents or vessel movement and the mooring chain may 

drag across the bottom, causing abrasion and impacts to benthic species (Davis et al., 2016). Anchor 

impacts on the bottom would likely crush a small number of benthic invertebrates. Bottom disturbance

would result in localized sedimentation and turbidity, which could smother invertebrates or affect 

respiration or feeding. Turbidity would quickly dissipate (i.e., minutes to hours) following the exercise, 

and many soft bottom invertebrates are burrowing organisms that would be unaffected by shallow 

burial. Although precision anchoring occurs in soft bottom areas, where invertebrate populations are 

generally resilient to disturbance, invertebrates in designated anchorage areas may be prevented from 

fully recovering due to frequent and long-term use, and benthic composition may be changed compared 

to historical conditions. 

3.4.3.4.4.1 Impacts from Seafloor Devices Under Alternative 1

Impacts from Seafloor Devices Under Alternative 1 for Training Activities

As indicated in Section 3.0.3.3.4.3 (Seafloor Devices), under Alternative 1, seafloor devices would occur 

in the Northeast and Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf Large Marine Ecosystems, as well as the Gulf 

Stream Open Ocean Area—specifically within the Virginia Capes, Navy Cherry Point, Jacksonville, Key 

West, and Gulf of Mexico Range Complexes, and within the Naval Surface Warfare Center, Panama City 

Division Testing Range. Most activities using seafloor devices are conducted in the Virginia Capes, Navy 

Cherry Point, and Jacksonville Range Complexes. In addition, seafloor devices would occur in all inshore

water locations, but primarily in the Lower Chesapeake Bay, James River and tributaries, and Truman 

Harbor and Demolition Key.

Seafloor devices are either stationary or move very slowly along the bottom and pose little threat to 

highly mobile organisms such as crabs and shrimp, with the exception of individuals that might be struck 

as an item settles on the bottom. Sessile or less mobile benthic organisms such as sponges, sea snails, 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.4-97

3.4 Invertebrates

and echinoderms would be more likely to be impacted. As discussed above in Section 3.4.3.4.4 (Impacts 

from Seafloor Devices), impacts may include injury or mortality due to direct strike, disturbance, 

smothering, and impairment of respiration or filter-feeding due to increased sedimentation and 

turbidity. Impacts to invertebrates resulting from movement of the devices through the water column 

before they contact the bottom would likely consist of only temporary displacement as the object 

passes by.

Although intentional placement of seafloor devices on bottom structure is avoided, activities occurring 

at depths less than about 3,000 m may inadvertently impact deep-water corals, other invertebrates 

associated with hard bottom, and other marine invertebrate assemblages. However, most activities 

involving seafloor devices (e.g., anchors for mine shapes, light salvage targets) are typically conducted in 

nearshore areas far from deep sea corals. Most seafloor devices are operated in the nearshore 

environment on bottom habitats suitable for deployment and retrieval (e.g., soft or intermediate 

bottom). Activities in all the affected range complexes, and particularly the Jacksonville Range Complex 

(where ivory tree coral is more abundant), have the potential to impact hard bottom and deep-water 

corals. Consequences of strikes could include damage, injury, or mortality for each device, mooring, or 

anchor. Hard substrate potentially supporting deep-water corals and other invertebrate communities is 

present on the continental shelf break and slope. A low percentage of deep substrate on the continental 

shelf is suitable for hard bottom communities. Based on the results of limited investigation, a low 

percentage of available hard substrate may be inhabited by deep-water corals or other invertebrate 

species (Harter et al., 2009; U.S. Department of the Navy, 2010), although the percentage of coverage is 

apparently higher is some areas such as the shelf break off central Florida. The number of organisms 

affected is not expected to result in impacts to the viability of invertebrate populations.

During precision anchoring, impact of the anchor on the bottom would likely crush a relatively small 

number of benthic invertebrates. Effects associated with turbidity and sedimentation would be 

temporary and localized. Precision anchoring would occur from 9 to 710 times per year in the same 

general location, depending on the specific range complex. Therefore, although invertebrates in soft 

bottom areas are generally resilient to disturbance, community composition may be chronically 

disturbed at anchoring sites that are used repeatedly. However, the impact is likely to be 

inconsequential and not detectable at the population level for species occurring in the region near the 

anchoring locations.

In summary, the impact of seafloor devices on mostly soft bottom invertebrates is likely to cause injury 

or mortality to some individuals, but impacts to populations would be inconsequential because the area 

exposed to the stressor is extremely small relative to the area of both suitable and occupied habitats, 

and the activities are generally dispersed such that few individuals would likely be exposed to more than 

one event (although seafloor device use is concentrated in some areas such as anchorages and mine 

ranges). In addition, exposures would be localized and temporary, and the organisms most frequently 

impacted would be burrowing soft bottom invertebrates that are relatively resilient to localized 

sediment disturbance. Activities involving seafloor devices are not expected to yield any behavioral 

changes or lasting effects on the survival, growth, recruitment, or reproduction of invertebrate species 

at the population level.

The Navy will implement mitigation that includes not conducting precision anchoring (except in 

designated anchorages) within the anchor swing circle of shallow-water coral reefs, live hard bottom, 

artificial reefs, submerged aquatic vegetation, and shipwrecks to avoid potential impacts from seafloor 

devices on seafloor resources in mitigation areas throughout the Study Area (see Section 5.4.1, 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.4-98

3.4 Invertebrates

Mitigation Areas for Seafloor Resources). This mitigation will consequently help avoid potential impacts 

on invertebrates that inhabit these areas, including areas inhabited by shallow-water coral species.

A relatively small number of activities involving seafloor devices would be conducted in the Key West 

Range Complex, where all ESA-listed coral species, as well as designated elkhorn coral and staghorn 

coral critical habitat, occur. Seafloor devices would consist of a small number of bottom-placed 

instruments and metal plates. Bottom-disturbing activities have the potential to impact protected coral 

species and critical habitat. The metal plates are associated with activities that would be avoided in or 

near mapped areas of shallow-water coral reefs, per established mitigation measures. The activity using 

bottom-placed instruments in the Key West Range Complex does not have mitigation measures that 

explicitly avoid shallow-water coral reefs and may occur in the coastal zone. However, the probability of 

striking an ESA-listed coral species is considered negligible given the intended recovery of the 

instruments, ESA-listed coral species habitats represent a tiny fraction of the total area in the Key West 

Range Complex mostly very close to shore, and living coral represent an even smaller fraction of the 

total habitat area. Recovered instruments would most likely be placed on soft substrates, where

ESA-listed coral species do not occur. Impacts to ESA-listed coral species would be limited to instances 

where seafloor devices were inadvertently used in areas of unknown hard substrate that is colonized by 

corals. Although unlikely, there is some potential for corals to be exposed. Pursuant to the ESA, the use 

of seafloor devices during training activities as described under Alternative 1 may affect ESA-listed coral 

species and may affect designated elkhorn and staghorn coral critical habitat. The Navy has consulted

with the NMFS, as required by section 7(a)(2) of the ESA in that regard.

Impacts from Seafloor Devices Under Alternative 1 for Testing Activities

As indicated in Section 3.0.3.3.4.3 (Seafloor Devices), under Alternative 1, the use of seafloor devices 

would occur in the Northeast and Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf Large Marine Ecosystems, the Gulf of 

Mexico Large Marine Ecosystems, and the Gulf Stream Open Ocean Area—specifically within the 

Northeast, Virginia Capes, Navy Cherry Point, Jacksonville, Key West, and Gulf of Mexico Range 

Complexes; Naval Undersea Warfare Center Division, Newport Testing Range, Naval Surface Warfare 

Center, Panama City Division Testing Range, and the South Florida Ocean Measurement Facility Testing 

Range.

Seafloor devices are either stationary or move very slowly along the bottom and pose little threat to 

highly mobile organisms such as crabs and shrimp, with the exception of individuals that might be struck 

as a device settles on the bottom. Sessile or less mobile benthic organisms such as sponges, sea snails, 

and echinoderms would be more likely to be impacted. As discussed in Section 3.4.3.4.4 (Impacts from 

Seafloor Devices), impacts may include injury or mortality due to direct strike, disturbance, smothering, 

and impairment of respiration or filter-feeding due to increased sedimentation and turbidity. Impacts to 

invertebrates resulting from movement of the devices through the water column before they contact 

the bottom would likely consist of only temporary displacement as the object passes by.

In testing areas where bottom-crawling unmanned underwater vehicles are used, benthic organisms 

would be exposed to strike and disturbance in the relatively small area transited by the vehicles. 

Potential consequences of a strike by bottom-crawling unmanned underwater vehicles would be 

dependent upon the type of benthic invertebrate encountered. Within the Naval Undersea Warfare 

Center Division, Newport Testing Range and the Naval Surface Warfare Center, Panama City Division 

Testing Range where soft bottom habitats predominate, impacts would consist primarily of disturbance;

burrowing invertebrates are unlikely to be injured or killed as a result of pressure exerted by 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.4-99

3.4 Invertebrates

bottom-crawling vehicles. The largest unmanned underwater vehicle weighs 92 lb. out of the water and 

has a footprint of 4.8 square feet. Assuming, worst case, that the unmanned underwater vehicle’s 

buoyant weight is 92 lb., it exerts a pressure of only 0.133 lb. per square inch. Few benthic marine 

invertebrates would be injured by this pressure level, particularly over soft sediments, which would 

compress under the invertebrate and relieve some of the pressure being exerted by the crawler.

Although intentional placement of seafloor devices on hard substrate is avoided, activities occurring at 

depths less than about 3,000 m may inadvertently impact deep-water corals, other invertebrates 

associated with live hard bottom, and other marine invertebrate assemblages. Activities in the 

Northeast, Virginia Capes, and Gulf of Mexico Range Complex, and particularly the Jacksonville Range 

Complex, have the potential to impact live hard bottom and deep-water corals. However, most activities 

involving seafloor devices (e.g., anchors for mine shapes, bottom crawlers) are typically conducted in 

the nearshore ocean far from deep sea corals. Most seafloor devices are operated in the nearshore 

environment, away from shallow-water corals and on bottom habitats suitable for deployment and 

retrieval (e.g., soft or intermediate bottom). Consequences of a strike could include damage, injury, or 

mortality for each device, mooring, or anchor. Hard substrate potentially supporting deep-water corals 

and other invertebrate communities is present on the continental shelf break and slope. A low 

percentage of bottom habitat in deep portions of the continental shelf is suitable for hard bottom 

communities. Based on the results of limited investigations, a low percentage of available hard substrate 

may be inhabited by deep-water corals or other invertebrate species (U.S. Department of the Navy, 

2010), although the percentage of coverage is apparently higher is some areas such as the shelf break 

off central Florida. Individual organisms would not likely be affected directly or indirectly to the extent 

that the viability of populations or species would be impacted.

The impact of seafloor devices on mostly soft bottom invertebrates is likely to cause injury or mortality 

to some individuals, but impacts to populations would be inconsequential because the area exposed to 

the stressor is extremely small relative to the area of both suitable and occupied habitats, and the 

activities are generally dispersed such that few individuals would likely be exposed to more than one 

event (although seafloor device use is concentrated in some areas such as anchorages and mine ranges). 

In addition, exposures would be localized and temporary, and the organisms most frequently impacted 

would be burrowing soft bottom invertebrates that are relatively resilient to localized sediment 

disturbance. Activities involving seafloor devices are not expected to yield any behavioral changes or 

lasting effects on the survival, growth, recruitment, or reproduction of invertebrate species at the 

population level.

All ESA-listed coral species occur in the Key West Range Complex and the South Florida Ocean 

Measurement Facility Testing Range and would have the potential to be exposed to seafloor devices. 

While critical habitat for staghorn and elkhorn coral has been designated in the Key West Range 

Complex and within part of the shallow (less than 30 m) nearshore portion of the South Florida Ocean 

Measurement Facility Testing Range, testing activities that involve the use of seafloor devices mainly 

occur offshore in deeper water. Furthermore, the use of seafloor devices is not likely to overlap with 

mapped hard substrate. 

The Navy will implement mitigation to avoid potential impacts from seafloor devices on seafloor 

resources in mitigation areas within the South Florida Ocean Measurement Facility, as discussed in 

Section 5.4.1 (Mitigation Areas for Seafloor Resources). For example, the Navy will use real-time 

geographic information system and global positioning system (along with remote sensing verification) 

during deployment, installation, and recovery of anchors and mine-like objects to avoid impacts on 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.4-100

3.4 Invertebrates

shallow-water coral reefs and live hard bottom. This mitigation will consequently help avoid potential 

impacts on invertebrates that occur in these areas.

Based on the preceding discussion, impacts to ESA-listed coral species would be limited to instances 

where seafloor devices were inadvertently used in areas of unknown hard substrate that is colonized by 

corals. Although unlikely, there is some potential for corals to be exposed. Pursuant to the ESA, the use 

of seafloor devices during testing activities as described under Alternative 1 may affect ESA-listed coral 

species and may affect designated elkhorn and staghorn coral critical habitat. The Navy has consulted

with the NMFS, as required by section 7(a)(2) of the ESA in that regard.

3.4.3.4.4.2 Impacts from Seafloor Devices Under Alternative 2

Impacts from Seafloor Devices Under Alternative 2 for Training Activities

The locations, number and type of training activities, and potential effects associated with seafloor 

devices would be the same under Alternatives 1 and 2. Refer to Section 3.4.3.4.4.1 (Impacts from 

Seafloor Devices Under Alternative 1) for a discussion of impacts on invertebrates.

The Navy will implement mitigation that includes not conducting precision anchoring (except in 

designated anchorages) within the anchor swing circle of shallow-water coral reefs, live hard bottom, 

artificial reefs, submerged aquatic vegetation, and shipwrecks to avoid potential impacts from seafloor 

devices on seafloor resources in mitigation areas throughout the Study Area (see Section 5.4.1, 

Mitigation Areas for Seafloor Resources). This mitigation will consequently help avoid potential impacts 

on invertebrates that inhabit these areas, including areas inhabited by shallow-water coral species.

A relatively small number of activities involving seafloor devices would be conducted in the Key West 

Range Complex, where all ESA-listed coral species, as well as designated elkhorn coral and staghorn 

coral critical habitat, occur. Seafloor devices would consist of a small number of bottom-placed 

instruments and metal plates. Bottom-disturbing activities have the potential to impact protected coral 

species and critical habitat. The metal plates are associated with activities that would be avoided in or 

near mapped areas of shallow-water coral reefs, per established mitigation measures. The activity using

bottom-placed instruments in the Key West Range Complex does not have mitigation measures that 

explicitly avoid shallow-water coral reefs and may occur in the coastal zone. However, the probability of 

striking an ESA-listed coral species is considered negligible given the intended recovery of the 

instruments, the location of such activities in harbors and away from mapped areas of shallow-water 

coral reefs, and the fact that ESA-listed coral species habitats represent a tiny fraction of the total area 

in the Key West Range Complex mostly very close to shore and living coral represent an even smaller 

fraction of the total habitat area. Recovered instruments would most likely be placed on soft substrates, 

where ESA-listed coral species do not occur. Impacts to ESA-listed coral species would be limited to 

instances where seafloor devices were inadvertently used in areas of unknown hard substrate that is 

colonized by corals. Although unlikely, there is some potential for corals to be exposed. Pursuant to the 

ESA, the use of seafloor devices during training activities under Alternative 2 may affect ESA-listed coral 

species and designated elkhorn and staghorn coral critical habitat.

Impacts from Seafloor Devices Under Alternative 2 for Testing Activities

The locations and type of testing activities using seafloor devices would be the same under Alternatives 

1 and 2. There would be a very small increase in the number of testing activities using seafloor devices. 

However, the increase would not result in substantive changes to the potential for or the types of 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.4-101

3.4 Invertebrates

impacts on invertebrates. Refer to Section 3.4.3.4.4.1 (Impacts from Seafloor Devices Under Alternative 

1) for a discussion of impacts on invertebrates.

The Navy will implement mitigation to avoid potential impacts from seafloor devices on seafloor 

resources in mitigation areas within the South Florida Ocean Measurement Facility, as discussed in 

Section 5.4.1 (Mitigation Areas for Seafloor Resources). For example, the Navy will use real-time 

geographic information and global positioning systems (along with remote-sensing verification) during 

deployment, installation, and recovery of anchors and mine-like objects to avoid impacts on 

shallow-water coral reefs and live hard bottom. This mitigation will consequently help avoid potential 

impacts on invertebrates that occur in these areas.

Impacts to ESA-listed coral species would be limited to instances where seafloor devices were 

inadvertently used in areas of unknown hard substrate that is colonized by corals. Although unlikely, 

there is some potential for corals to be exposed. Pursuant to the ESA, the use of seafloor devices during 

testing activities as described under Alternative 2 may affect ESA-listed coral species and may affect 

designated elkhorn and staghorn coral critical habitat.

3.4.3.4.4.3 Impacts from Seafloor Devices Under the No Action Alternative

Impacts from Seafloor 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 AFTT 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.

3.4.3.4.5 Impacts from Pile Driving

In this section, impacts to invertebrates resulting from pile driving and vibratory pile extraction are 

considered in the context of injury, mortality, or displacement that may occur due to physical strikes and 

disturbance. Pile driving produces impulsive sound that may also affect invertebrates. Impacts 

associated with impulsive sound are discussed with other acoustic stressors in Section 3.4.3.1.4 (Impacts 

from Pile Driving).

Installation and removal of piles could crush or injure invertebrates due to direct physical impact. Direct 

impacts would be most likely for sessile or slow-moving species such as bivalve molluscs, worms, and

echinoderms. Individuals located near the activities but not directly impacted could be disturbed and 

show behavioral reactions (e.g., fleeing from the area, shell closure, changes in activity). Behavioral 

reactions require energy expenditure and may result in additional effects such as feeding disruption or 

increased exposure to predators.

Bottom disturbance resulting from pile installation and removal would result in sediment displacement 

and turbidity. Suspended sediment particles may affect respiratory organs or impair the ability of 

filter-feeding invertebrates to obtain food (e.g., by clogging their feeding structures or diluting the 

amount of food in the surrounding volume of water).
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.4-102

3.4 Invertebrates

3.4.3.4.5.1 Impacts from Pile Driving Under Alternative 1

Impacts from Pile Driving Under Alternative 1 for Training Activities

Under Alternative 1, one event involving pile driving and removal would occur annually in the nearshore 

and surf zone at one of the following locations: Virginia Capes Range Complex (Joint Expeditionary Base 

Little Creek, Virginia or Joint Expeditionary Base Fort Story, Virginia) or Navy Cherry Point Range 

Complex (Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune, North Carolina) (Section 3.0.3.3.1.3, Pile Driving). Each 

annual event would consist of intermittent disturbance over an estimated 20 days during installation 

and 10 days during removal. Invertebrates could be exposed to substrate vibration and other 

disturbance for a total of 90 minutes per 24-hour period during installation, and could be similarly 

exposed for a total of 72 minutes per 24-hour period during pile removal.

Invertebrates could be crushed, injured, displaced, or react behaviorally as a result of pile installation 

and removal. In addition, turbidity could affect respiration and feeding in some individuals. However, 

this activity occurs along high energy beaches where organisms are resilient to frequent sediment 

disturbance. During the relatively short duration that piles are in the water (less than 2 weeks per year), 

limited colonization of the piles by fast-growing, sedentary invertebrates would likely occur. For 

example, the planktonic young of sedentary invertebrates such as mussels, hydroids, bryozoans, sea 

squirts, and sponges could use the piles for attachment. Adults of mobile species such as crabs could use 

the piles for foraging or refuge. Removal of the piles would result in mortality to limited-mobility and 

attached sessile species, and displacement and possibly injury to more mobile species. Compared to 

overall population size, only a very small number of individuals would be affected. In addition, pile 

driving events would occur infrequently (once per year), and impacts to the sandy substrate would be 

recoverable. Effects to overall invertebrate populations would not be discernable.

ESA-listed coral species and critical habitat do not occur in areas proposed for pile driving. Pursuant to 

the ESA, the use of pile driving during training activities as described under Alternative 1 would have no 

effect on ESA-listed coral species or critical habitat.

Impacts from Pile Driving Under Alternative 1 for Testing Activities

There would be no pile driving or vibratory pile extraction associated with testing activities. Therefore, 

pile driving is not analyzed in this subsection.

3.4.3.4.5.2 Impacts from Pile Driving Under Alternative 2

Impacts from Pile Driving Under Alternative 2 for Training Activities

The locations, number of training events, and potential effects associated with pile driving and vibratory 

pile extraction would be the same under Alternatives 1 and 2. Refer to Section 3.4.3.4.5.1 (Impacts from 

Pile Driving Under Alternative 1) for a discussion of impacts on invertebrates.

ESA-listed coral species and critical habitat do not occur in areas proposed for pile driving. Pursuant to 

the ESA, the use of pile driving during training activities as described under Alternative 2 would have no 

effect on ESA-listed coral species or critical habitat.

Impacts from Pile Driving Under Alternative 2 for Testing Activities

There would be no pile driving or vibratory pile extraction associated with testing activities. Therefore, 

pile driving is not analyzed in this subsection.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.4-103

3.4 Invertebrates

3.4.3.4.5.3 Impacts from Pile Driving Under the No Action Alternative

Impacts from Pile Driving Under the No Action Alternative for Training and Testing 

Activities

Under the No Action Alternative, the Navy would not conduct the proposed training activities in the 

AFTT 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.

3.4.3.5 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. Included are potential 

impacts from wires and cables, decelerators/parachutes, and biodegradable polymer. Aspects of 

entanglement stressors that are applicable to marine organisms in general are presented in 

Section 3.0.3.6.4 (Conceptual Framework for Assessing Effects from Entanglement). In this section, only 

potential impacts of these items as entanglement stressors are discussed. Abrasion and 

covering/shading impacts on sessile benthic invertebrates are discussed with physical impacts in 

Section 3.4.3.4.3 (Impacts from Military Expended Materials).

Marine invertebrates are likely less susceptible than vertebrates to entanglement, as illustrated by the 

fact that fishing nets which are designed to take pelagic marine invertebrates operate by enclosing or 

entrapping rather than entangling (Chuenpagdee et al., 2003). However, entanglement may be possible 

for some species and some expended items. A survey of marine debris entanglements found that 

marine invertebrates accounted for 16 percent of all animal entanglements (Ocean Conservancy, 2010). 

The same survey cites potential entanglement in military items only in the context of waste-handling 

aboard ships, and not for military expended materials. A summary of the effects of litter on various 

marine species identified potential impacts to some invertebrate taxa, particularly mobile benthic 

species such as crabs and sea stars, that may become entangled in debris (e.g., nets) after attempting to 

move through the items (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Marine Debris Program, 

2014b). The potential for a marine invertebrate to become entangled in wires, cables, 

decelerators/parachutes, or biodegradable polymer is considered remote. The materials generally do 

not have the characteristics required to entangle marine species. Wires and cables are essentially rigid 

lines. Sonobuoy components may include plastic mesh and a float unit. Although mesh items have 

increased potential for entangling marine animals in general, and invertebrates can become entangled 

in nets (Ocean Conservancy, 2010), invertebrates are not particularly susceptible to entanglement in 

these items. Decelerators/parachutes have large openings between the cords separating the 

decelerator/parachute fabric from the release mechanism. There is no plausible scenario in which 

decelerator/parachute cords would tighten around and hold a mobile invertebrate. 

Decelerators/parachutes sink slowly through the water column, although many have weights attached 

to their lines to speed their sinking. Invertebrates in the water column with limited mobility (e.g., 

jellyfish, zooplankton) could be trapped in decelerator/parachute fabric as it sinks. The potential effects

of decelerators/parachutes covering sessile invertebrate species on the bottom is discussed in Section 

3.4.3.4.3 (Impacts from Military Expended Materials). Based on the constituents of the biodegradable 

polymer the Navy proposes to use, it is anticipated that the material would break down into small pieces 

within a few days to weeks and break down further and dissolve into the water column within weeks to 

a few months.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.4-104

3.4 Invertebrates

3.4.3.5.1 Impacts from Wires and Cables

Fiber optic cables, torpedo guidance wires, sonobuoy wires, and expendable bathythermograph wires 

would be expended during training and testing activities. For a discussion of the types of activities that 

use wires and cables, see Appendix B (Activity Stressor Matrices).

A marine invertebrate could become temporarily entangled and escape unharmed, be held tightly 

enough that it could be injured during its struggle to escape, be preyed upon while entangled, or starve 

while entangled. The probability of these outcomes cannot be predicted because interactions between 

invertebrate species and entanglement hazards are not well known. However, it is unlikely that an 

invertebrate would become entangled in wires or cables. The items would be essentially linear after 

deployment, as they sink through the water column. Once the items reach the bottom, they could be 

moved into different shapes or could loop around objects due to water currents, but the items are not 

expected to form tight coils and the possibility of an invertebrate being ensnared is remote. Fiber-optic 

cables are relatively brittle and readily break if knotted, kinked, abraded against sharp objects, or looped 

beyond the items’ bend radius of 3.4 mm. The wires and cables would eventually become buried in 

sediment or encrusted by marine growth, which would eliminate or further reduce the entanglement 

potential. The small number of most items that would be expended across the Study Area would result 

in an extremely low rate of potential encounter for marine invertebrates.

3.4.3.5.1.1 Impacts from Wires and Cables Under Alternative 1

Impacts from Wires and Cables Under Alternative 1 for Training Activities

Under Alternative 1, fiber optic cables, guidance wires, sonobuoy wires, and bathythermograph wires

would be expended during sinking exercises, anti-submarine warfare activities, torpedo exercises, and 

various mine warfare and countermeasures exercises in the Northeast and Southeast U.S. Continental 

Shelf Large Marine Ecosystems as well as the Gulf Stream and North Atlantic Gyre Open Ocean Areas –

specifically within the Northeast, Virginia Capes, Navy Cherry Point, Jacksonville, and Gulf of Mexico

Range Complexes, within other AFTT areas, and within the Sink Exercise Area. The majority of expended 

items would be sonobuoy wires, and most of the sonobuoy wires would be expended in the Jacksonville

Range Complex. The number of wires and cables expended in other areas is substantially lower.

All locations of wire and cable use potentially coincide with deep-water corals and other invertebrates 

associated with live hard bottom areas in water depths less than 3,000 m. Items used in the Jacksonville

Range Complex in particular could potentially coincide with deep-water corals and live hard bottom 

habitat. The portion of suitable substrate occupied by living coral is generally low and coincidence with 

such low densities of linear materials is unlikely. However, in some areas such as the shelf break 

offshore of eastern central Florida, deep-water corals may cover a greater portion of available hard 

habitat (refer to Section 3.4.2.3.3, Corals, Hydroids, Jellyfish [Phylum Cnidaria]).

The impact of wires and cables on marine invertebrates is not likely to cause injury or mortality to 

individuals because of the linear and somewhat rigid nature of the material. Impacts to individuals and 

populations would be inconsequential because the area exposed to the stressor is extremely small 

relative to the distribution ranges of most marine invertebrates, the activities are dispersed such that 

few individuals would likely be exposed to more than one event, and exposures would be localized. In 

addition, marine invertebrates are not particularly susceptible to entanglement stressors, as most would 

avoid entanglement and simply be temporarily disturbed. Activities involving wires and cables are not 

expected to yield any behavioral changes or lasting effects on the survival, growth, recruitment, or 

reproduction of invertebrate species at individual or population levels.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.4-105

3.4 Invertebrates

No activities using fiber optic cables, guidance wires, sonobuoy wires, or bathythermograph wires would

occur in the Key West Range Complex. Therefore, there would therefore be no overlap of wires and 

cables with ESA-listed corals or critical habitat. Pursuant to the ESA, the use of wires and cables during 

training activities as described under Alternative 1 would have no effect on ESA-listed coral species or 

critical habitat. 

Impacts from Wires and Cables Under Alternative 1 for Testing Activities

Under Alternative 1, testing activities that expend fiber optic cables, guidance wires, sonobuoy wires, 

and bathythermograph wires would occur in the Northeast and Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf, Gulf of 

Mexico, and Caribbean Sea Large Marine Ecosystems, as well as the Gulf Stream Open Ocean Area—

specifically within the Northeast, Virginia Capes, Navy Cherry Point, Jacksonville, Key West, and Gulf of 

Mexico Range Complexes, and the Naval Surface Warfare Center, Panama City Testing Range, the Naval 

Undersea Warfare Center Division, Newport Testing Range, and the South Florida Ocean Measurement 

Facility Testing Range. The majority of expended items would be expendable bathythermograph wires 

and sonobuoy wires. Expendable bathythermograph wires would be expended in all the range 

complexes but would be concentrated in the Northeast, Virginia Capes, and Gulf of Mexico Range 

Complexes. Sonobuoy wires would be expended in all the range complexes, but would be concentrated 

in the Northeast, Virginia Capes, and Jacksonville Range Complexes.

All locations of fiber optic cable, guidance wire, and sonobuoy wire use potentially coincide with 

deep-water corals and other invertebrates associated with live hard bottom areas in water depths less 

than 3,000 m. The spatial distribution of items used in the Jacksonville Range Complex in particular 

could potentially coincide with deep-water corals and hard bottom habitat, although the portion of 

suitable substrate occupied by living coral is very low and coincidence with such low densities of linear 

materials is unlikely.

The impact of wires and cables on marine invertebrates is not likely to cause injury or mortality to 

individuals because of the linear and somewhat rigid nature of the material. Impacts to individuals and 

populations would be inconsequential because the area exposed to the stressor is extremely small 

relative to the distribution ranges of most marine invertebrates, the activities are dispersed such that 

few individuals would likely be exposed to more than one event, and exposures would be localized. In 

addition, marine invertebrates are not particularly susceptible to entanglement stressors, as most would 

avoid entanglement and simply be temporarily disturbed. Activities involving wires and cables are not 

expected to yield any behavioral changes or lasting effects on the survival, growth, recruitment, or 

reproduction of invertebrate species at individual or population levels.

All ESA-listed coral species, as well as designated critical habitat for elkhorn and staghorn coral, occur 

within the Key West Range Complex and South Florida Ocean Measurement Facility Testing Range. A 

total of about 3,000 combined types of wires and cables would be expended annually in the Key West 

Range Complex, and a total of 42 would be expended in the South Florida Ocean Measurement Facility 

Testing Range. Whereas some of these materials are associated with anti-submarine warfare and 

torpedo testing in deeper water seaward of typical shallow-water coral occurrence, many sonobuoy 

wires are associated with sonobuoy lot testing in Key West. However, it is not expected that corals 

would be affected by entanglement in wires or cables because there is no likely scenario in which an 

individual coral (adult polyp, egg, or larva) would be ensnared by a wire or cable and suffer adverse 

effects such as restricted movement. Potential impacts to corals, including ESA-listed species, would 

primarily be associated with covering, shading, breakage, and abrasion. These impacts are discussed in 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.4-106

3.4 Invertebrates

the context of physical disturbance and strike in Section 3.4.3.4.3 (Impacts from Military Expended 

Materials). Elkhorn and staghorn coral critical habitat consists of exposed hard substrate or dead coral 

skeleton. There is no mechanism for entanglement stressors to affect these characteristics. Therefore, 

entanglement stressors would not degrade the quality of elkhorn or staghorn coral critical habitat.

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of wires and cables during testing activities as described under Alternative 

1 would have no effect on ESA-listed coral species or critical habitat.

3.4.3.5.1.2 Impacts from Wires and Cables Under Alternative 2

Impacts from Wires and Cables Under Alternative 2 for Training Activities

Under Alternative 2, the locations and types of potentially entangling expended items used would be 

the same as Alternative 1. There would be a small increase in the number of sonobuoy wires and 

bathythermograph wires expended. Most of the increase would be due to the addition of sonobuoy 

wire expenditures in the Gulf of Mexico Range Complex. The additional items would represent an overall 

increase of less than 3 percent in the total number of items expended. The difference is not expected to 

result in substantive changes to the potential for or types of impacts on invertebrates. Refer to 

Section 3.4.3.5.1.1 (Impacts from Wires and Cables Under Alternative 1) for a discussion of potential 

entanglement impacts resulting from wires and cables associated with training activities.

As discussed in Section 3.4.3.5.1.1 (Impacts from Wires and Cables Under Alternative 1), pursuant to the 

ESA, the use of wires and cables during training activities as described under Alternative 2 would have 

no effect on ESA-listed coral species or critical habitat.

Impacts from Wires and Cables Under Alternative 2 for Testing Activities

Under Alternative 2, the locations and types of potentially entangling expended items used would be 

the same as Alternative 1. There would be a small increase in the number of fiber optic cables and 

sonobuoy wires expended. Use of fiber optic cables would increase slightly in the Virginia Capes Range 

Complex and Naval Surface Warfare Center, Panama City Division Testing Range; sonobuoy wire use 

would increase in the Northeast, Virginia Capes, Navy Cherry Point, and Jacksonville Range Complexes. 

The additional items would represent an overall increase of less than 2 percent of the total amount of 

materials expended. The difference is not expected to result in substantive changes to the potential for 

or types of impacts on invertebrates. Refer to Section 3.4.3.5.1.1 (Impacts from Wires and Cables Under 

Alternative 1) for a discussion of potential entanglement impacts resulting from wires and cables 

associated with testing activities.

As discussed in Section 3.4.3.5.1.1 (Impacts from Wires and Cables Under Alternative 1), pursuant to the 

ESA, the use of wires and cables during testing activities as described under Alternative 2 would have no 

effect on ESA-listed coral species or critical habitat.

3.4.3.5.1.3 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 AFTT 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.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.4-107

3.4 Invertebrates

3.4.3.5.2 Impacts from Decelerators/Parachutes

Decelerators/parachutes of varying sizes are used during training and testing activities. For a discussion 

of the types of activities that use decelerators/parachutes and the physical characteristics of these 

expended materials, see Section 3.0.3.3.5.2 (Decelerators/Parachutes). Aircraft-launched sonobuoys, 

lightweight torpedoes, submarine warfare training targets, aerial targets, and other devices deployed 

from aircraft or vessels use decelerators/parachutes that are made of nylon or a combination of cloth 

and nylon. Small and medium decelerators/parachutes have weights attached to the lines for rapid 

sinking, but large and extra-large decelerators/parachutes do not. At water impact, the 

decelerator/parachute assembly is expended, and it sinks away from the unit. Small and medium 

decelerator/parachute assemblies may remain at the surface for 5 to 15 seconds before the 

decelerator/parachute and its housing sink to the bottom, where it becomes flattened. Large and 

extra-large decelerators/parachutes may remain at the surface or suspended in the water column for a 

longer time due to the lack of weights, but eventually also sink to the bottom and become flattened. 

Because they are in the air and water column for a time span of minutes, it is unlikely that a small or 

medium decelerator/parachute deployed in areas greater than 3 NM from the shore could travel far 

enough to affect shallow-water corals, including ESA-listed coral species. Larger decelerators/parachutes 

could move a greater distance due to their slower sinking time. Movement of the decelerator/parachute 

in the water or along the bottom may break more fragile invertebrates such as deep-water corals which 

would also reduce suitable hard substrate for encrusting invertebrates. Deep-water coral species 

potentially occur everywhere that decelerator/parachute use occurs. Corals (shallow-water and 

deep-water) are susceptible to entanglement in decelerators/parachutes, but the principal mechanisms 

of damage are shading, abrasion, and breakage (refer to Section 3.4.3.4.3, Impacts from Military 

Expended Materials, for a discussion of these impacts). On large enough spatial and temporal scales, 

these impacts could affect a sufficient number of individuals to reduce the extent of coral coverage.

However, available studies suggest a very low percentage of suitable habitat is occupied by deep sea 

corals, making coincidence with entangling decelerators/parachutes very unlikely. Refer to Section 

3.4.2.3.3 (Corals, Hydroids, Jellyfish [Phylum Cnidaria]) for details on the study results. In addition to 

corals, other sessile benthic invertebrates such as sponges, anemones, and hydrozoans could be 

affected by damage, burial, smothering, or abrasion.

A decelerator/parachute or attached lines sinking through the water column is unlikely to affect pelagic 

invertebrates. The lines would result in only temporary displacement of individuals. Most pelagic 

invertebrates would be too small to be ensnared, and the lines would be relatively straight as the 

decelerator/parachute descends, making entanglement of larger invertebrates such as jellyfish or squid 

highly unlikely. In addition, there are large openings between the cords. The decelerator/parachute 

mesh is solid, permitting only microscopic animals to pass through it. Some individuals of relatively 

slow-moving species (e.g., jellyfish, swimming crabs) could therefore be caught in a billowed 

decelerator/parachute as it sinks. However, although some are weighted, decelerators/parachutes sink

relatively slowly through the water column (potential time span of minutes), and would likely impact 

few individuals larger than zooplankton. Any individuals trapped within the decelerator/parachute as it 

sinks may escape, or may remain enclosed for some time and experience potential effects similar to 

those described for cables and wires (e.g., injury, predation, starvation). 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.4-108

3.4 Invertebrates

3.4.3.5.2.1 Impacts from Decelerators/Parachutes Under Alternative 1

Impacts from Decelerators/Parachutes Under Alternative 1 for Training Activities

Under Alternative 1, activities involving decelerator/parachute use would occur in the Northeast, 

Virginia Capes, Navy Cherry Point, Jacksonville, Key West, and Gulf of Mexico Range Complexes, and in 

other AFTT areas. The vast majority of expended items would be small decelerators/parachutes; only a 

small number of medium, large, and extra-large decelerators/parachutes would be used. Most large 

decelerators/parachutes and all extra-large decelerators/parachutes would be expended in the Virginia 

Capes Range Complex. No large or extra-large decelerators/parachutes would be expended in the Key 

West Range Complex. 

Decelerator/parachute lines could temporarily displace invertebrates in the water column but would be 

unlikely to ensnare individuals. Decelerator/parachute mesh could envelop invertebrates as the item 

sinks through the water column. Envelopment would primarily be associated with zooplankton, 

although other relatively slow-moving invertebrates such as jellyfish and swimming crabs could be 

caught in a billowed decelerator/parachute. Ensnared individuals may be injured or killed, or may 

eventually escape. Decelerators/parachutes on the bottom could cover benthic invertebrates, but some 

would likely be able to move away from the item. It is highly unlikely that an individual invertebrate 

would be ensnared by a decelerator/parachute on the bottom and suffer adverse effects. 

Decelerators/parachutes could break or abrade deep-water corals. These impacts are discussed in 

Section 3.4.3.4.3 (Impacts from Military Expended Materials) in the context of physical disturbance and 

strike.

The vast majority of marine invertebrates would not encounter a decelerator/parachute. The impact of 

decelerators/parachutes on marine invertebrates is not likely to cause injury or mortality to individuals, 

and impacts would be inconsequential because the area exposed to the stressor is extremely small 

relative to most marine invertebrates’ ranges, the activities are dispersed such that few individuals 

would likely be exposed to more than one event, and exposures would be localized. The surface area of 

decelerators/parachutes expended across the Study Area is extremely small compared to the relatively 

low percentage of suitable substrate inhabited by deep-sea coral species, resulting in a low risk of 

coincidence. In addition, marine invertebrates are not particularly susceptible to entanglement 

stressors, as most would avoid entanglement and simply be temporarily disturbed. The number of 

individuals affected would be inconsequential compared to overall invertebrate population numbers. 

Activities involving decelerators/parachutes are not expected to yield any behavioral changes or lasting 

effects on the survival, growth, recruitment, or reproduction of invertebrate species at individual or 

population levels.

A very low number of decelerators/parachutes (eight medium decelerators/parachutes per year) would 

be expended in the Key West Range Complex, where ESA-listed coral species and elkhorn and staghorn 

critical habitat occurs. In addition, ESA-listed coral species and elkhorn and staghorn coral critical habitat 

occurs in other AFTT areas (Caribbean Sea Large Marine Ecosystem), where small 

decelerators/parachutes are expended. Decelerators/parachutes are typically expended in deep, 

offshore waters, where shallow-water corals are unlikely to occur. Impacts to ESA-listed corals could 

potentially occur if decelerators/parachutes were expended in areas of unmapped shallow-water coral 

reefs or mesophotic coral habitat seaward of the coastal zone. Small and medium 

decelerators/parachutes would not be expected to drift into nearshore areas due to the sink rate of the 

assembly. Coral eggs or larvae could be caught in a decelerator/parachute as it strikes the water surface 

and sinks, although microscopic organisms may be able to pass through the mesh. Individual coral 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.4-109

3.4 Invertebrates

polyps that are attached to hard structure would not likely be entangled in the context of being 

ensnared and experiencing subsequent effects such as restricted movement. Impacts would be 

associated with covering, shading, and abrasion that could occur to individuals or groups of individuals if 

a decelerator/parachute became entangled on hard structure. These impacts are discussed in the 

context of physical disturbance and strike in Section 3.4.3.4.3 (Impacts from Military Expended 

Materials). Elkhorn and staghorn coral critical habitat consists of exposed hard substrate or dead coral 

skeleton. There is no mechanism for entanglement stressors to affect these characteristics. Therefore, 

entanglement stressors would not degrade the quality of elkhorn or staghorn coral critical habitat.

Based on the discussion above, pursuant to the ESA, the use of decelerators/parachutes during training 

activities as described for Alternative 1 would have no effect on ESA-listed coral species or critical 

habitat.

Impacts from Decelerators/Parachutes Under Alternative 1 for Testing Activities

Under Alternative 1, activities involving decelerators/parachute use would occur in the Northeast, 

Virginia Capes, Navy Cherry Point, Jacksonville, Key West, and Gulf of Mexico Range Complexes, and in 

the Naval Underwater Warfare Center, Newport, Naval Surface Warfare Center, Panama City, and South 

Florida Ocean Measurement Facility Testing Ranges. The vast majority of expended items would be 

small decelerators/parachutes. Only a low number of large decelerators/parachutes would be used, and 

no extra-large parachutes would be expended.

Decelerator/parachute lines could temporarily displace invertebrates in the water column but would be 

unlikely to ensnare individuals. Decelerator/parachute mesh could envelop invertebrates as the item 

sinks through the water column. Envelopment would primarily be associated with zooplankton, 

although other relatively slow-moving invertebrates such as jellyfish and swimming crabs could be 

caught in a billowed decelerator/parachute. Ensnared individuals may be injured or killed, or may 

eventually escape. Decelerators/parachutes on the bottom could cover benthic invertebrates, but some 

would likely be able to move away from the item. It is highly unlikely that an individual invertebrate 

would be ensnared by a decelerator/parachute on the bottom and suffer adverse effects. 

Decelerators/parachutes could break or abrade deep-water corals. These impacts are discussed in 

Section 3.4.3.4.3 (Impacts from Military Expended Materials) in the context of physical disturbance and 

strike.

The vast majority of marine invertebrates would not encounter a decelerator/parachute. The impact of 

decelerators/parachutes on marine invertebrates is not likely to cause injury or mortality to individuals, 

and impacts would be inconsequential because the area exposed to the stressor is extremely small 

relative to the distribution ranges of most marine invertebrates, the activities are dispersed such that 

few individuals would likely be exposed to more than one event, and exposures would be localized. The 

surface area of decelerators/parachutes expended across the Study Area is extremely small compared to 

the relatively low percentage of suitable substrate inhabited by deep-sea coral species, resulting in a low 

risk of coincidence. In addition, marine invertebrates are not particularly susceptible to entanglement 

stressors, as most would avoid entanglement and simply be temporarily disturbed. The number of 

individuals affected would be inconsequential compared to overall invertebrate population numbers. 

Activities involving decelerators/parachutes are not expected to yield any behavioral changes or lasting 

effects on the survival, growth, recruitment, or reproduction of invertebrate species at individual or 

population levels.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.4-110

3.4 Invertebrates

A total of approximately 3,000 small decelerators/parachutes would be expended in the Key West 

Range Complex and South Florida Ocean Measurement Facility Testing Range, where ESA-listed coral 

species and elkhorn and staghorn critical habitat occur. Decelerators/parachutes are typically expended 

in deep, offshore waters, where shallow-water corals are unlikely to occur. Impacts to shallow-water 

corals could potentially occur if decelerators/parachutes were expended in areas of unmapped 

shallow-water coral reefs or mesophotic coral habitat seaward of the coastal zone.

Decelerators/parachutes would not be expected to drift into nearshore areas potentially supporting 

corals due to the sink rate. Coral eggs or larvae could be caught in a decelerator/parachute as it strikes 

the water surface and sinks, although microscopic organisms may be able to pass through the mesh.

Individual coral polyps that are attached to hard structure would not likely be entangled in the context 

of being ensnared and experiencing subsequent effects such as restricted movement. However, 

individuals or groups of individuals could be impacted by covering, shading, and abrasion if a 

decelerator/parachute became entangled on the reef structure. These impacts are discussed in the 

context of physical disturbance and strike in Section 3.4.3.4.3 (Impacts from Military Expended 

Materials). Elkhorn and staghorn coral critical habitat consists of exposed hard substrate or dead coral 

skeleton. There is no mechanism for entanglement stressors to affect these characteristics; impacts due 

to breakage of hard structures are discussed in Section 3.4.3.4.3 (Impacts from Military Expended 

Materials). Therefore, entanglement stressors would not degrade the quality of elkhorn or staghorn 

coral critical habitat. Based on the discussion above, pursuant to the ESA, the use of 

decelerators/parachutes during testing activities as described under Alternative 1 would have no effect 

on ESA-listed coral species or critical habitat.

3.4.3.5.2.2 Impacts from Decelerators/Parachutes Under Alternative 2

Impacts from Decelerators/Parachutes Under Alternative 2 for Training Activities

Under Alternative 2, the locations and number of decelerators/parachutes expended would be the same 

as Alternative 1, with one exception. Under Alternative 2, small decelerators/parachutes would be 

expended in the Gulf of Mexico Range Complex. This would result in 702 additional 

decelerators/parachutes expended, which represents an increase of less than 2 percent compared to 

Alternative 1. The difference is not expected to result in substantive changes to the potential for or 

types of impacts on invertebrates. Refer to Section 3.4.3.5.2.1 (Impacts from Decelerators/Parachutes 

Under Alternative 1) for a discussion of potential entanglement impacts resulting from 

decelerators/parachutes associated with training activities.

As discussed in Section 3.4.3.5.2.1 (Impacts from Decelerators/Parachutes Under Alternative 1), 

pursuant to the ESA, the use of decelerators/parachutes during training activities as described under 

Alternative 2 would have no effect on ESA-listed coral species or critical habitat.

Impacts from Decelerators/Parachutes Under Alternative 2 for Testing Activities

Under Alternative 2, the locations of activities using decelerators/parachutes would be the same as 

Alternative 1. Under Alternative 2, 420 more small decelerators/parachutes would be expended 

throughout the Northeast, Virginia Capes, Navy Cherry Point, and Jacksonville Range Complexes

compared to Alternative 1. The difference represents an increase of about 2 percent and would not be 

expected to result in substantive changes to the potential for or types of impacts on invertebrates. Refer 

to Section 3.4.3.5.2 (Impacts from Decelerators/Parachutes) for a discussion of potential entanglement 

impacts resulting from decelerators/parachutes associated with testing activities.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.4-111

3.4 Invertebrates

As discussed in Section 3.4.3.5.2.1 (Impacts from Decelerators/Parachutes Under Alternative 1), 

pursuant to the ESA, the use of decelerators/parachutes during testing activities as described under 

Alternative 2 would have no effect on ESA-listed coral species or critical habitat.

3.4.3.5.2.3 Impacts from Decelerators/Parachutes Under the No Action Alternative

Impacts from Decelerators/Parachutes Under the No Action Alternative for Training and 

Training Activities

Under the No Action Alternative, the Navy would not conduct the proposed training and testing 

activities in the AFTT 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.

3.4.3.5.3 Impacts from Biodegradable Polymer

Biodegradable polymer is an expended item that is designed to temporarily interact with the 

propeller(s) of target craft. For a discussion of the types of activities that use biodegradable polymer 

material and the physical characteristics of these expended materials, see Section 3.0.3.3.5.3 

(Biodegradable Polymer). The material would degrade into small pieces within a few days to weeks, 

after which time the entanglement potential would cease. Impacts to pelagic invertebrates would most 

likely be limited to temporary displacement as the biodegradable polymer material floats past an 

animal. Although it is unlikely that most invertebrates would become entangled in the biodegradable 

polymer material, entanglement is conceivable for relatively large invertebrates that occur in the water 

column (e.g., jellyfish and squid). Entanglement impacts to benthic species are not expected due to the 

relatively rapid degradation of the items.

3.4.3.5.3.1 Impacts from Biodegradable Polymer Under Alternative 1

Impacts from Biodegradable Polymer Under Alternative 1 for Training Activities

There would be no use of biodegradable polymer associated with training activities. Therefore, 

biodegradable polymer is not analyzed in this subsection.

Impacts from Biodegradable Polymer Under Alternative 1 for Testing Activities

Under Alternative 1, a small number of testing activities would involve the use of biodegradable polymer 

in the Virginia Capes, Jacksonville, Key West, and Gulf of Mexico Range Complexes, and in the Naval 

Undersea Warfare Center Division, Newport Testing Range. It is conceivable that relatively large pelagic 

invertebrates such as jellyfish would be temporarily entangled, although the probability is low due to 

the polymer design. The most likely effect would be temporary displacement as the material floats past 

an animal. Impacts to benthic species would not be expected. Activities involving biodegradable polymer 

would not yield any behavioral changes or lasting effects on the survival, growth, recruitment, or 

reproduction of invertebrate species at individual or population levels. 

Biodegradable polymer would be used in the Key West Range Complex and could therefore potentially 

be transported by water currents to areas occupied by ESA-listed corals or into elkhorn and staghorn 

coral critical habitat. However, the polymer material would be expected to remain buoyant until 

substantial degradation occurs and would have little potential for entanglement of sessile corals. Coral 

larvae in the water column would not be entangled due to their small size relative to the polymer 

material. Degraded polymer material would not damage or decrease the value of critical habitat. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.4-112

3.4 Invertebrates

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of biodegradable polymer during testing activities as described under 

Alternative 1 would have no effect on ESA-listed coral species or critical habitat.

3.4.3.5.3.2 Impacts from Biodegradable Polymer Under Alternative 2

Impacts from Biodegradable Polymer Under Alternative 2 for Training Activities

There would be no use of biodegradable polymer associated with training activities. Therefore, 

biodegradable polymer is not analyzed in this subsection.

Impacts from Biodegradable Polymer Under Alternative 2 for Testing Activities

The locations, number of events, and potential effects associated with biodegradable polymer use 

would be the same under Alternatives 1 and 2. Refer to Section 3.4.3.5.3.1 (Impacts from Biodegradable 

Polymer Under Alternative 1) for a discussion of the potential impacts of biodegradable polymer on 

invertebrates.

Biodegradable polymer would be used in the Key West Range Complex and could therefore potentially 

be transported by water currents to areas occupied by ESA-listed corals or into elkhorn and staghorn 

coral critical habitat. However, the polymer material would be expected to remain buoyant until 

substantial degradation occurs and would have little potential for entanglement of sessile corals. Coral 

larvae in the water column would not be entangled due to their small size relative to the polymer 

material. Degraded polymer material would not damage or decrease the value of critical habitat. 

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of biodegradable polymer during testing activities as described under 

Alternative 2 would have no effect on ESA-listed coral species or critical habitat.

3.4.3.5.3.3 Impacts from Biodegradable Polymer Under the No Action Alternative 

Impacts from Biodegradable Polymer Under the No Action Alternative for Training and 

Testing Activities

Under the No Action Alternative, the Navy would not conduct the proposed testing activities in the AFTT 

Study Area. Biodegradable polymer is not a part of ongoing Navy activities in the Study Area and this 

entanglement stressor would not be introduced into the marine environment under the No Action 

Alternative. Therefore, no change in baseline conditions of the existing environment would occur.

3.4.3.6 Ingestion Stressors

This section analyzes the potential ingestion impacts of the various types of military expended materials 

used by the Navy during training and testing activities within the Study Area, which may be broadly 

categorized as munitions and materials other than munitions. Aspects of ingestion stressors that are 

applicable to marine organisms in general are presented in Section 3.0.3.6.5 (Conceptual Framework for 

Assessing Effects from Ingestion). The Navy expends the following types of materials that could become 

ingestion stressors during training and testing in the Study Area: non-explosive practice munitions 

(small- and medium-caliber), small-caliber casings, fragments from high-explosives, fragments from 

targets, chaff and flares, chaff and flare accessories (including end caps, compression pads or pistons, 

and o-rings), and small decelerators/parachutes. Very few invertebrates are large enough to ingest 

intact small- and medium-caliber munitions and casings; potential impact resulting from these items 

would be limited to a few taxa such as squid and octopus. Other military expended materials such as 

targets, large-caliber projectiles, intact training and testing bombs, guidance wires, sonobuoy tubes, and 

marine markers are too large for any marine invertebrate to consume and are eliminated from further 

discussion. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.4-113

3.4 Invertebrates

Expended materials could be ingested by marine invertebrates in all large marine ecosystems and open 

ocean areas. Ingestion could occur at the surface, in the water column, or at the bottom, depending on 

the size and buoyancy of the expended object and the feeding behavior of the animal. Floating material 

is more likely to be eaten by animals that may feed at or near the water surface (e.g., jellyfish, squid), 

while materials that sink to the bottom present a higher risk to both filter-feeding sessile (e.g., sponges) 

and bottom-feeding animals (e.g., crabs). Most military expended materials and fragments of military 

expended materials are too large to be ingested by marine invertebrates, and relatively large predatory 

or scavenging individuals are unlikely to consume an item that does not visually or chemically resemble

food (Koehl et al., 2001; Polese et al., 2015). Many arthropods such as blue crab and spiny lobster are 

known to discriminate between palatable and unpalatable food items inside the mouth, so in a strict 

sense, only items that are passed into the interior digestive tract should be considered to be ingested

(Aggio et al., 2012). If expended material is ingested by marine invertebrates, the primary risk is 

blockage in the digestive tract. Most military expended materials are relatively inert in the marine 

environment, and are not likely to cause injury or mortality via chemical effects (see Section 3.4.3.7, 

Secondary Stressors, for more information on the chemical properties of these materials). However, 

pollutants (e.g., heavy metals and polychlorinated biphenyls) may accumulate on the plastic 

components of some military expended materials. Plastic debris pieces collected at various locations in 

the North Pacific Ocean had polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and pesticides associated with them (Rios 

et al., 2007). Relatively large plastic pieces could be ingested by some species. However, filter- or 

deposit-feeding invertebrates have the greatest potential to ingest small plastic items, and any 

associated pollutants could harm the individual animal or subsequently be incorporated into the food 

chain.

The potential for marine invertebrates to encounter fragments of ingestible size increases as the military 

expended materials degrade into smaller fragments over months to decades. Intact munitions,

fragments of munitions, and other items could degrade into metal and plastic pieces small enough to be 

consumed by indiscriminate feeders, such as some marine worms. Deposit-feeding, detritus-feeding, 

and filter-feeding invertebrates such as amphipods, polychaete worms, zooplankton, and mussels have 

been found to consume microscale plastic particles (microplastics) that result from the breakdown of 

larger plastic items (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Marine Debris Program, 2014a; 

Wright et al., 2013a). Ingestion by these types of organisms is the most likely pathway for degraded 

military expended materials to enter the marine food web. Transfer of microplastic particles to higher 

trophic levels was demonstrated in one experiment (Setala et al., 2014). Ingestion of microplastics may 

result in physical effects such as internal abrasion and gut blockage, toxicity due to leaching of 

chemicals, and exposure to attached pollutants. Potentially harmful bacteria may also grow on 

microplastic particles (Kirstein et al., 2016). In addition, consumption of microplastics may result in 

decreased consumption of natural foods such as algae (Cole et al., 2013). Microplastic ingestion by 

marine worms was shown in one study to result in lower energy reserves (Wright et al., 2013a). 

Microplastic ingestion has been documented in numerous marine invertebrates (e.g., mussels, worms,

mysid shrimp, bivalve molluscs, zooplankton, and scleractinian corals (Cole et al., 2013; Hall et al., 2015; 

Setala et al., 2016; Wright et al., 2013b). In an experiment involving pelagic and benthic marine 

invertebrates with different feeding methods, all species exposed to microplastic particles ingested 

some of the items (Setala et al., 2016). Deposit-feeding worms and an amphipod species ingested the 

fewest particles, while bivalves and free-swimming crustaceans ingested higher amounts. Ingestion of 

plastic particles may result in negative physical and chemical effects to invertebrates, although 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.4-114

3.4 Invertebrates

invertebrates are generally able to discharge these particles from the body. Overall population-level 

effects across a broad range of species are currently uncertain (Kaposi et al., 2014; Wright et al., 2013b).

Biodegradable polymer materials used during marine vessel stopping activities degrade relatively quickly 

as a result of microbial actions or enzymes. The material breaks down into small pieces within days to 

weeks, and degrades into particles small enough to dissolve in the water within weeks to months. 

Molecules formed during degradation can range from complex to simple products, depending on 

whether the polymers are natural or synthetic (Karlsson & Albertsson, 1998). Items of ingestible size 

would therefore be produced throughout the breakdown process. However, the products are 

considered environmentally benign and would be dispersed quickly to undetectable concentrations.

The most abundant military expended material of ingestible size is chaff. The materials in chaff are 

generally nontoxic in the marine environment except in quantities substantially larger than those any 

marine invertebrate would likely encounter as a result of Navy training and testing activities. Chaff fibers 

are composed of an aluminum alloy coating on glass fibers of silicon dioxide (Section 3.0.3.3.6.3, Military 

Expended Materials Other Than Munitions). Chaff is similar in form to fine human hair, and is somewhat 

analogous to the spicules of sponges or the siliceous cases of diatoms (U.S. Department of the Navy, 

1999). Many invertebrates ingest sponges, including the spicules, without suffering harm (U.S. 

Department of the Navy, 1999). Marine invertebrates may occasionally encounter chaff fibers in the 

marine environment and may incidentally ingest chaff when they ingest prey or water. Literature 

reviews and controlled experiments suggest that chaff poses little environmental risk to marine 

organisms at concentrations that could reasonably occur from military training and testing (Arfsten et 

al., 2002; U.S. Department of the Navy, 1999). Studies were conducted to determine the effects of chaff 

ingestion on various estuarine invertebrates occurring near a site of frequent chaff testing in 

Chesapeake Bay (Systems Consultants, 1977). American oysters (various life stages), blue crabs, blue 

mussels (Mytilus edulis), and the polychaete worm Nereis succinea were force fed a chaff-and-food 

mixture daily for a few weeks at concentrations 10 to 100 times the predicted exposure level in the Bay. 

Although some mortality occurred in embryonic oyster larvae from 0 to 48 hours, the authors suggest 

confounding factors other than chaff (e.g., contaminated experimental water) as the cause. The authors 

reported no statistically significant mortality or effects on growth rate for any species. Because many 

invertebrates (e.g., crabs, shrimp) actively distinguish between food and non-food particles, the 

experimental design represents an unrealistic scenario with respect to the amount of chaff consumed.

An investigation of sediments in portions of Chesapeake Bay exposed to aluminized chaff release for 

approximately 25 years found no significant increase in concentration compared to samples collected 

3.7 km from the release area (Wilson et al., 2002).

As described in Section 3.4.2 (Affected Environment), many thousands of marine invertebrate species 

inhabit the Study Area. Most available literature regarding the effects of debris ingestion on marine 

invertebrates pertains to microplastics (Goldstein & Goodwin, 2013; National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration Marine Debris Program, 2014a; Wright et al., 2013a). Discussion of potential 

consumption of larger items is typically focused on fishes, reptiles, mammals, and birds. Consequently, it 

is not feasible to speculate in detail on which invertebrates in which locations might ingest all types of 

military expended materials. Despite the potential impacts, it is reasonable to conclude that relatively 

large military expended materials would not be intentionally consumed by actively foraging 

invertebrates unless they are attracted by other cues (e.g., visual cues such as flashing metal bits that 

squid might attack). Passively-feeding invertebrates (e.g., shellfish, jellyfish) may accidently ingest small 

particles by filtration or incidental adhesion to sticky mucus. The potential for impacts on invertebrates 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.4-115

3.4 Invertebrates

from ingestion of military expended materials is also related to the locations of Navy training and testing 

activities relative to invertebrate population densities. Increased invertebrate densities are associated 

with the highest densities of microscopic plant food, which are typically located in nearshore waters in 

closer proximity to nutrient sources or in areas where upwelling tends to occur. Conversely, activities 

that generate military expended materials occur mostly seaward of nearshore water. Small 

deposit-feeding, detritus-feeding, and filter-feeding invertebrates would be most likely to ingest small 

items such as degraded plastic particles, although lobsters reportedly may also ingest microplastics

(National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Marine Debris Program, 2014a). Though ingestion is 

possible in some circumstances, due to the overall size and composition of military expended materials, 

impacts on populations would likely not be detectable. 

Important physical and biological characteristics of ESA-listed coral species are defined in 

Section 3.4.2.2.1.2 (Habitat and Geographic Range), and generally include any hard substrate suitable 

for settlement. There is no established mechanism for ingestion stressors to affect important 

characteristics of this critical habitat and the discussion of potential consequences to critical habitat will 

not be carried forward. Potential impacts of military expended material on corals and critical habitat are 

discussed and analyzed as a physical impact in Section 3.4.3.4.3 (Impacts from Military Expended 

Materials).

3.4.3.6.1 Impacts from Military Expended Materials - Munitions

Ingestion of intact military expended materials that are munitions is not likely for most types of 

expended items because they are too large to be ingested by most marine invertebrates. Though 

ingestion of intact munitions or large fragments is conceivable in some circumstances (e.g., a relatively 

large invertebrate such as an octopus or lobster ingesting a small-caliber projectile), such a scenario is 

unlikely due to the animal’s ability to discriminate between food and non-food items. Indiscriminate 

deposit- and detritus-feeding invertebrates such as some marine worms could potentially ingest 

munitions fragments that have degraded to sediment size. Metal particles in the water column may be 

taken up by suspension feeders (e.g., copepods, mussels) (Chiarelli & Roccheri, 2014; Griscom & Fisher, 

2004), although metal concentrations in the water are typically much lower than concentrations in 

sediments (Bazzi, 2014; Brix et al., 2012).

3.4.3.6.1.1 Impacts from Military Expended Materials - Munitions Under Alternative 1

Impacts from Military Expended Materials - Munitions Under Alternative 1 for Training 

Activities

Under Alternative 1, military expended materials from munitions associated with training activities that 

could potentially be ingested include non-explosive practice munitions (small- and medium-caliber), 

small-caliber casings, and fragments from high-explosives. These items could be expended throughout 

most of the Study Area but would be concentrated in the Virginia Capes, Navy Cherry Point, and 

Jacksonville Range Complexes. Small caliber casings would also be expended in some inshore waters, 

primarily in the James River and tributaries and Lower Chesapeake Bay. The types of activities that 

would produce potentially ingestible military expended materials are listed in Appendix B (Activity 

Stressor Matrices). The quantity of military expended materials associated with each training location is 

provided in Chapter 3.0 (Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences). A general discussion 

of the characteristics of ingestible materials is provided in Section 3.0.3.3.6 (Ingestion Stressors).

It is possible but unlikely that invertebrates would ingest intact munitions. Deposit- and detritus-feeding 

invertebrates could potentially ingest munitions fragments that have degraded to sediment size, and 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.4-116

3.4 Invertebrates

particulate metals may be taken up by suspension feeders. Impacts on individuals are unlikely, and 

impacts on populations would probably not be detectable.

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 military expended materials on seafloor 

resources in mitigation areas throughout the Study Area (see Section 5.4.1, Mitigation Areas for Seafloor 

Resources). This mitigation will consequently help avoid potential impacts on invertebrates associated 

with shallow-water coral reefs.

ESA-listed coral species occur in the Key West Range Complex. Military expended materials used in the 

Key West Range Complex consist of medium-caliber, non-explosive projectiles and a small number of 

missiles. The only potential impact to ESA-listed corals would be associated with ingestion of metal 

particles that are suspended in the water column or that may have been consumed by zooplankton on 

which the corals feed. With the exception of mine neutralization and countermeasures training, 

materials are primarily expended far from shore. Most weapons firing takes place in offshore waters, 

minimizing the potential for shallow-water corals to ingest metal munitions particles. There would be a 

slightly greater potential to impact ESA-listed corals located in mesophotic habitats (water depths to 

90 m) that occur seaward of the coastal zone. The potential for corals to ingest degraded metal particles 

is considered remote. Pursuant to the ESA, the use of military expended materials that are munitions 

during training activities as described under Alternative 1 would have no effect on ESA-listed coral 

species.

Impacts from Military Expended Materials - Munitions Under Alternative 1 for Testing 

Activities

Under Alternative 1, military expended materials from munitions associated with testing activities that 

could potentially be ingested include non-explosive practice munitions (small- and medium-caliber) and 

fragments from high-explosives. These items could be expended throughout most of the Study Area but 

would be concentrated in the Virginia Capes and Jacksonville Range Complexes. The types of activities 

that would produce potentially ingestible military expended materials are listed in Appendix B (Activity 

Stressor Matrices). The quantity of military expended materials associated with each testing location is 

provided in Chapter 3.0 (Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences). A general discussion 

of the characteristic of ingestible materials in provided in Section 3.0.3.3.6 (Ingestion Stressors).

It is possible but unlikely that invertebrates would ingest intact munitions. Deposit- and detritus-feeding 

invertebrates could potentially ingest munitions fragments that have degraded to sediment size, and 

particulate metals may be taken up by suspension feeders. Impacts on individuals are unlikely, and 

impacts on populations would probably not be detectable.

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 military expended materials on seafloor 

resources in mitigation areas throughout the Study Area (see Section 5.4.1, Mitigation Areas for Seafloor 

Resources). This mitigation will consequently help avoid potential impacts on invertebrates within

shallow-water coral reefs.

ESA-listed coral species occur in the Key West Range Complex and South Florida Ocean Measurement 

Facility Testing Range. Military expended materials used in the Key West Range Complex would consist 

of small- and medium-caliber, non-explosive projectiles, in addition to high-explosive items (torpedoes, 

explosive sonobuoys, large-caliber projectiles). A very small number of explosive projectiles would be 

used in the South Florida Ocean Measurement Facility Testing Range. As discussed for training activities, 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.4-117

3.4 Invertebrates

the only potential ingestion impact to ESA-listed corals would be associated with ingestion of metal 

particles that are suspended in the water column or that may have been consumed by zooplankton on 

which the corals feed. Materials are primarily expended far from shore. Most weapons firing takes place 

in offshore waters away from shallow-water corals. The potential for corals to ingest degraded metal 

particles is considered remote. Pursuant to the ESA, the use of military expended materials that are 

munitions during testing activities as described under Alternative 1 would have no effect on ESA-listed 

coral species.

3.4.3.6.1.2 Impacts from Military Expended Materials - Munitions Under Alternative 2

Impacts from Military Expended Materials - Munitions Under Alternative 2 for Training 

Activities

The types and locations of expended military munitions used would be the same under Alternatives 1 

and 2. Refer to Section 3.4.3.6.1.1 (Impacts from Military Expended Materials - Munitions Under 

Alternative 1) for a discussion of potential ingestion impacts resulting from expended military munitions

associated with training activities.

As discussed in Section 3.4.3.6.1.1 (Impacts from Military Expended Materials - Munitions Under 

Alternative 1), pursuant to the ESA, the use of military expended materials that are munitions during 

training activities as described under Alternative 2 would have no effect on ESA-listed coral species.

Impacts from Military Expended Materials - Munitions Under Alternative 2 for Testing 

Activities

The locations and types of expended military munitions would be the same under Alternatives 1 and 2. 

There would be a very small increase in the number of fragments resulting from high explosives under 

Alternative 2 associated with five Airborne Mine Neutralization System neutralizers and mines expended 

in both the Virginia Capes Range Complex and the Naval Surface Warfare Center, Panama City Division 

Testing Range. However, this increase would not be expected to result in substantive changes to the 

potential for or types of impacts on invertebrates. Refer to Section 3.4.3.6.1.1 (Impacts from Military 

Expended Materials - Munitions Under Alternative 1) for a discussion of potential ingestion impacts 

resulting from expended military munitions associated with testing activities.

As discussed in Section 3.4.3.6.1.1 (Impacts from Military Expended Materials - Munitions Under 

Alternative 1), pursuant to the ESA, the use of military expended materials that are munitions during 

testing activities as described under Alternative 2 would have no effect on ESA-listed coral species.

3.4.3.6.1.3 Impacts from Military Expended Materials - Munitions Under the No Action 

Alternative

Impacts from Military Expended Materials - Munitions 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 AFTT Study Area. Various ingestion stressors (e.g., military expended materials -

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.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.4-118

3.4 Invertebrates

3.4.3.6.2 Impacts from Military Expended Materials Other Than Munitions

Military expended materials other than munitions include a large number of items such as aerial 

countermeasures, targets (surface and aerial), mine shapes, ship hulk, small decelerators/parachutes, 

acoustic countermeasures, sonobuoys, and other various materials such as torpedo accessories, 

concrete slugs, markers, bathythermographs, and endcaps and pistons. Some expended materials are 

recovered, including torpedoes, unmanned aerial systems, some targets, mine shapes, metal plates, and 

bottom-placed instruments. Most expendable items, such as targets and target fragments, would sink to 

the bottom, while materials such as Styrofoam or degraded plastic particles could persist at the surface 

or in the water column for some time. Ingestion is not likely for most military expended materials 

because they are too large to be consumed by most marine invertebrates. Though ingestion of intact 

items on the bottom is conceivable in some circumstances (e.g., a relatively large invertebrate such as 

an octopus or lobster ingesting a small target fragment), such a scenario is unlikely due to the animal’s 

ability to discriminate between food and non-food items. Similarly, it is unlikely that an invertebrate at 

the surface or in the water column would ingest a relatively large expended item as it floats or sinks 

through the water column.

Degradation of plastic materials could result in microplastic particles being released into the marine 

environment over time. Eventually, deposit-feeding, detritus-feeding, and filter-feeding invertebrates 

could ingest these particles, and there is potential for some of the particles to be transferred up trophic 

levels. Ingestion of plastic particles may result in negative physical and chemical effects to invertebrates.

Invertebrates outside the Study Area could encounter microplastic particles if plastic items drift with 

ocean currents. Currently, overall population-level effects across a broad range of invertebrate species 

from exposures to microplastic particles are uncertain (Kaposi et al., 2014). Navy training and testing 

activities would result in a small amount of plastic particles introduced to the marine environment 

compared to other sources, as many military expended materials are not composed of plastic. The vast 

majority of marine debris by volume and ingestion potential consists of or is derived from non-military 

items (Kershaw et al., 2011).

Marine invertebrates may occasionally encounter chaff fibers and incidentally ingest chaff when they 

ingest prey or water. Literature reviews and controlled experiments suggest that chaff poses little 

environmental risk to marine organisms at concentrations that could reasonably occur from military 

training and testing (Arfsten et al., 2002; U.S. Department of the Navy, 1999).

3.4.3.6.2.1 Impacts from Military Expended Materials Other Than Munitions Under

Alternative 1

Impacts from Military Expended Materials Other Than Munitions Under Alternative 1 for 

Training Activities

Under Alternative 1, a variety of potentially ingestible military expended materials would be released to 

the marine environment by Navy training activities, including target fragments, chaff, canisters, and flare 

casings. These items could be expended throughout the Study Area, including all range complexes, other 

AFTT areas, and inshore waters. A comparatively low number of items would be expended in most 

inshore waters, although a relatively large quantity of flares and related accessories (o-rings,

compression pads or pistons, and endcaps) would occur in the James River and tributaries. The types of 

activities that would produce potentially ingestible military expended materials are listed in Appendix B 

(Activity Stressor Matrices). The quantity of military expended materials associated with each training

location is provided in Chapter 3.0 (Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences). A general 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.4-119

3.4 Invertebrates

discussion of the characteristics of ingestible materials is provided in Section 3.0.3.3.6 (Ingestion 

Stressors).

Most invertebrates would not be able to ingest most intact expended items. Ingestion would be limited 

to small items, such as chaff and fragments of larger items such as targets. Deposit- and detritus-feeding 

invertebrates could potentially ingest small items that have degraded to sediment size, and particulate

metals may be taken up by suspension feeders. In addition, small plastic pieces may be consumed by a 

wide variety of invertebrates with diverse feeding methods (detritivores, planktivores, deposit-feeders, 

filter-feeders, and suspension-feeders) in the water column or on the bottom. Adverse effects due to 

metal pieces on the bottom or in the water column are unlikely. Microplastic particles could affect 

individuals. Although the potential effects on invertebrate populations due to microplastic ingestion are 

currently uncertain, Navy activities would result in a small amount of plastic particles introduced to the 

marine environment compared to other sources. Overall, impacts on invertebrate populations due to 

military expended materials other than munitions would probably not be detectable.

ESA-listed coral species occur in the Key West Range Complex. Military expended materials used in the 

Key West Range Complex consist of chaff, flares, chaff and flare accessories, targets, and marine 

markers. Whereas sinking materials would become unavailable to corals, floating materials (e.g., flare 

compression pads) would degrade over time and release suspended particles in the water column. 

Materials are primarily expended far from shore where shallow-water corals do not occur, and it is 

unlikely that coral polyps or larvae would be impacted by ingestion of small fragments of expended 

items in the water column. There would be a slightly greater potential to impact ESA-listed corals 

located in mesophotic habitats (water depths to 90 m) seaward of the coastal zone. There is potential 

for corals to ingest very small particles of degraded plastic items suspended in the water column. 

However, no information is currently available that indicates adverse effects to coral health resulting 

from plastic ingestion. The vast majority of plastic waste in the ocean originates from non-military 

sources. Pursuant to the ESA, the use of military expended materials other than munitions during 

training activities as described under Alternative 1 would have no effect on ESA-listed coral species.

Impacts from Military Expended Materials Other Than Munitions Under Alternative 1 for 

Testing Activities

Under Alternative 1, a variety of potentially ingestible military expended materials would be released to 

the marine environment by Navy testing activities, including target fragments, chaff, concrete slugs, 

sabots, and various other items. These items could be expended throughout most of the Study Area. 

However, expended materials other than munitions would not occur in inshore waters during testing 

activities. The types of activities that would produce potentially ingestible military expended materials 

are listed in Appendix B (Activity Stressor Matrices). The quantity of military expended materials 

associated with each testing location is provided in Chapter 3.0 (Affected Environment and 

Environmental Consequences). A general discussion of the characteristics of ingestible materials is 

provided in Section 3.0.3.3.6 (Ingestion Stressors).

Most invertebrates would not be able to ingest most intact expended items. Ingestion would be limited 

to small items, such as chaff and fragments of larger items. Deposit- and detritus-feeding invertebrates 

could potentially ingest small items that have degraded to sediment size, and particulate metals may be 

taken up by suspension feeders. Small plastic pieces may be consumed by invertebrates with a wide 

diversity of feeding methods in the water column or on the bottom. In addition, products resulting from 

the breakdown of biodegradable polymer would be introduced to the water column.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.4-120

3.4 Invertebrates

The types of invertebrates that could ingest these particles would vary as the material degrades into 

smaller particles with increasing amount of time in the water. Adverse effects due to metal pieces on 

the bottom or in the water column are unlikely. Microplastic particles could affect individuals. Although 

the potential effects on invertebrate populations due to microplastic ingestion are currently uncertain, 

Navy activities would result in a small amount of plastic particles introduced to the marine environment 

compared to other sources. Overall, impacts on invertebrate populations due to military expended 

materials other than munitions would probably not be detectable.

ESA-listed coral species occur in the Key West Range Complex and South Florida Ocean Measurement 

Facility Testing Range. Chaff, targets, mine shapes, torpedo accessories, sabots, and other items would 

be expended in these areas. Whereas sinking materials would become unavailable to corals, floating 

materials would degrade over time and release suspended particles in the water column. Materials are 

primarily expended far from shore where shallow-water corals do not occur, and it is unlikely that coral 

polyps or larvae would be impacted by ingestion of small fragments of expended items in the water 

column. There would be a slightly greater potential to impact ESA-listed corals in mesophotic habitats 

(water depths to 90 m) seaward of the coastal zone. There is potential for corals to ingest very small 

particles of degraded plastic items suspended in the water column. However, no information is currently 

available that indicates adverse effects to coral health resulting from plastic ingestion. The vast majority 

of plastic waste in the ocean originates from non-military sources. Pursuant to the ESA, the use of 

military expended materials other than munitions during testing activities as described under 

Alternative 1 would have no effect on ESA-listed coral species.

3.4.3.6.2.2 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

Under Alternative 2, the locations and types of military expended materials used would be the same as 

those of Alternative 1. Under Alternative 2, there would be an increase in the number of some items 

expended, such as targets, sonobuoys, bathythermograph equipment, and small decelerators/

parachutes. This relatively small increase in the total number of items expended would not be expected 

to result in substantive changes to the type or degree of impacts to invertebrates. Refer to Section 

3.4.3.6.2.1 (Impacts from Military Expended Materials Other Than Munitions Under Alternative 1) for a 

discussion of potential ingestion impacts resulting from military expended materials other than 

munitions associated with training activities.

As discussed in Section 3.4.3.6.2.1 (Impacts from Military Expended Materials Other Than Munitions 

Under Alternative 1), pursuant to the ESA, the use of military expended materials other than munitions 

during training activities as described under Alternative 2 would have no effect on ESA-listed coral 

species.

Impacts from Military Expended Materials Other Than Munitions Under Alternative 2 for 

Testing Activities

Under Alternative 2, the locations and types of military expended materials used would be the same as 

those of Alternative 1. Under Alternative 2, there would be a slight increase in the number of some 

items expended, such as subsurface targets, sonobuoys, mines, and small decelerators/parachutes. This 

small increase in the total number of items expended would not be expected to result in substantive 

changes to the type or degree of impacts to invertebrates. Refer to Section 3.4.3.6.2.1 (Impacts from 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.4-121

3.4 Invertebrates

Military Expended Materials Other Than Munitions Under Alternative 1) for a discussion of potential 

ingestion impacts resulting from military expended materials other than munitions associated with 

testing activities.

As discussed in Section 3.4.3.6.1.1 (Impacts from Military Expended Materials Other Than Munitions 

Under Alternative 1), pursuant to the ESA, the use of military expended materials other than munitions 

during testing activities as described under Alternative 2 would have no effect on ESA-listed coral 

species.

3.4.3.6.2.3 Impacts from Military Expended Materials Other Than Munitions Under the No 

Action Alternative

Impacts from Military Expended Materials Other Than Munitions 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 AFTT 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.

3.4.3.7 Secondary Stressors

This section analyzes potential impacts on marine invertebrates exposed to stressors indirectly through 

impacts on their habitat (sediment or water quality) or prey. The assessment of potential water and 

sediment quality stressors refers to previous sections (Section 3.2, Sediments and Water Quality), and 

addresses specific activities in local environments that may affect invertebrate habitats. 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 that could pose indirect impacts to marine invertebrates via habitat or prey include: 

(1) explosives and explosive byproducts, (2) chemicals other than explosives, and (3) metals. 

Secondary or indirect stressors may impact benthic and pelagic invertebrates, gametes, eggs, and larvae 

by changes to sediment and water quality. Physical and biological features of ESA-listed elkhorn and 

staghorn coral critical habitat are defined in Section 3.4.2.2.1.2 (Habitat and Geographic Range). These 

characteristics can be summarized as any hard substrate of suitable quality and availability to support 

settlement, recruitment, and attachment at depths from mean low water to 30 m. Physical or biological 

features were not formally defined for these species. Exemptions from critical habitat designations 

include a small zone around Naval Air Station Key West and a small area within the South Florida Ocean 

Measurement Facility Testing Range (Section 3.4.2.2.1.1, Status and Management). However, exemption 

does not preclude analysis of ESA-listed coral species. Impacts to hard substrate would not result from 

the introduction of metal, plastic, or chemical substances into the water column. Potential impacts are 

associated with physical effects such as breakage or covering of hard surfaces.

Explosives and Explosives Byproducts

Secondary impacts to invertebrates resulting from explosions at the surface, in the water column, or on 

the bottom would be associated with changes to habitat structure and effects to prey species. Most 

explosions on the bottom would occur in soft bottom habitat and would displace some amount of 

sediment, potentially resulting in cratering. However, water movement would redistribute the affected 

sediment over time. A small amount of sediment would be suspended in the water column temporarily, 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.4-122

3.4 Invertebrates

but would resettle to the bottom. There would be no overall reduction in the surface area or volume of 

sediment available to benthic species that occur on the bottom or within the substrate. Activities that 

inadvertently result in explosions on or near hard bottom habitat or reefs could break hard structures 

and reduce the amount of colonizing surface available to encrusting organisms (e.g., corals, sponges).

Explosions in the water column or on the bottom could impact invertebrate prey species. Some species 

of most invertebrate taxa prey upon other invertebrate species, with prey items ranging in size from 

zooplankton to relatively large shrimps and crabs. Therefore, in a strict sense, mortality to invertebrate 

species resulting from an explosion may represent a reduction in prey to other invertebrate species. A 

few invertebrates such as squid and some jellyfish prey upon fish, although jellyfish capture fish 

passively rather than through active pursuit. Therefore, fish mortality resulting from an explosion would 

reduce the number of potential prey items for invertebrates that consume fish. In addition to mortality, 

fish located near a detonation would likely be startled and leave the area, temporarily reducing prey 

availability until the affected area is repopulated.

Some invertebrates (e.g., worms, crustaceans, sea stars) are scavengers that would feed on any 

vertebrate or invertebrate animal that is killed or significantly impaired by an explosion. Therefore, 

scavenging invertebrates that are not killed or injured themselves could benefit from physical impacts to 

other animals resulting from explosions in the water column or on the bottom.

High-order explosions consume most of the explosive material, leaving only small or residual amounts of 

explosives and combustion products. Most of the combustion products of trinitrotoluene (i.e., TNT), 

such as carbon dioxide and nitrogen, are common seawater constituents, although other products such 

as carbon monoxide are also produced (Becker, 1995). Other explosive compounds may produce 

different combustion products. All combustion products are rapidly diluted by ocean currents and 

circulation (see Section 3.2.3.1, Explosives and Explosives Byproducts). Therefore, explosives byproducts 

from high-order detonations would not degrade sediment or water quality or result in indirect stressors 

to marine invertebrates. Low-order detonations and unexploded munitions present an elevated 

potential for effects on marine invertebrates. Deposition of undetonated explosive materials into the 

marine environment can be reasonably estimated by the known failure and low-order detonation rates 

of high-explosives (Section 3.2.3.1, Explosives and Explosives Byproducts). Explosive materials not 

completely consumed during a detonation from munitions disposal and mine clearing training are 

collected after the activities are completed; therefore, potential impacts are likely inconsequential and 

not detectable for these activities. 

Exposure to relatively high concentrations of various explosive materials in sediments and in the water 

may result in lethal and sub-lethal effects to invertebrates. The type and magnitude of effects appear to 

be different among various invertebrate species and are also influenced by the type of explosive 

material and physical characteristics of the affected water and sediment. For example, lethal toxicity has 

been reported in some invertebrate species (e.g., the amphipod Eohaustorius estuarius) exposed to 

trinitrotoluene (i.e., TNT), while mortality has not been found in other species (e.g., the polychaete 

worm Neanthes arenaceodentata), even when exposed to very high concentrations (Rosen & Lotufo, 

2005). Exposure to water-borne explosive materials has been found to affect reproduction or larval 

development in bivalve, sea urchin, and polychaete worm species (Lotufo et al., 2013). Invertebrates on 

the bottom may be exposed to explosive materials by ingesting contaminated sediment particles, in 

addition to being exposed to materials in the overlying water column or in voids in the sediment (for 

burrowing invertebrates). However, toxicity and other sub-lethal effects have often been associated 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.4-123

3.4 Invertebrates

with exposure to higher concentrations of explosive materials than the concentrations expected to 

occur in marine or estuarine waters of the Study Area due to training and testing activities.

Indirect impacts of explosives and unexploded munitions on marine invertebrates via sediment are 

possible near the munitions. Rosen and Lotufo (2010) exposed mussels and deposit-feeding amphipods 

and polychaete worms to levels of trinitrotoluene (i.e., TNT) and royal demolition explosive potentially 

associated with a breached munition or low-order detonation. The authors found concentrations in the 

sediment above toxicity levels within about 1 in. of the materials, although no statistical increase in 

mortality was observed for any species. Concentrations causing toxicity were not found in the water 

column. Explosive material in the marine environment is readily degraded via several biotic and abiotic 

pathways, as discussed in Section 3.2.3.1 (Explosives and Explosives Byproducts). The results of studies 

of explosive material deposition at munitions disposal sites and active military water ranges suggest that 

explosives and explosives residues pose little risk to fauna living in direct contact with munitions, and 

that sediment is not a significant sink for these materials (Kelley et al., 2016; Koide et al., 2016; Smith & 

Marx, 2016). Munitions constituents and degradation products would likely be detectable only within a 

few feet of a degrading munition, and the spatial range of toxic sediment conditions could be less 

(inches). It has been suggested that the risk of toxicity to invertebrates in realistic exposure scenarios is 

negligible (Lotufo et al., 2013). Indirect impacts of explosives and unexploded munitions on marine 

invertebrates via water are likely to be inconsequential. Most explosives and explosive degradation 

products have relatively low solubility in seawater. This means that dissolution occurs extremely slowly, 

and harmful concentrations of explosives and degradation products are not likely to occur in the water 

column. Also, the low concentration of materials delivered slowly into the water column is readily 

diluted by ocean currents and would be unlikely to concentrate in toxic levels. Filter feeders such as 

sponges or some marine worms would be exposed to chemical byproducts only in the immediate 

vicinity of degrading explosives (inches or less) due to the low solubility and dilution by water currents. 

While marine invertebrates may be adversely impacted by the indirect effects of degrading explosives 

via water, this is unlikely in realistic scenarios. 

Impacts on marine invertebrates, including zooplankton, eggs, and larvae, are likely only within a very 

small radius of the munition (potentially inches). These impacts may continue as the munition degrades 

over decades (Section 3.2.3.1, Explosives and Explosives Byproducts). Because most munitions are 

deployed as projectiles, multiple unexploded or low-order detonations would not likely accumulate on 

spatial scales as small as feet to inches; therefore, potential impacts are likely to remain local and widely 

separated. Explosives, explosives byproducts, and unexploded munitions would therefore generally not 

be present in these habitats. 

Chemicals Other Than Explosives

Several Navy training and testing activities introduce potentially harmful chemicals into the marine 

environment, primarily propellants and combustion products, other fuels, polychlorinated biphenyls in 

target vessels, other chemicals associated with munitions, and simulants (Section 3.2.3.2, Chemicals 

Other Than Explosives). Ammonium perchlorate (a rocket and missile propellant) is the most common 

chemical used. Perchlorate is known to occur naturally in nitrate salts, such as from Chile, and it may be 

formed by atmospheric processes such as lightning and reactions between ozone and sodium chloride in 

the air (associated with evaporated seawater) (Dasgupta et al., 2005; Sijimol & Mohan, 2014; U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 2014). Perchlorate may impact metabolic processes in plants and 

animals. Effects have been found in earthworms and aquatic (freshwater) insects (Smith, 2002; 

Srinivasan & Viraraghavan, 2009), although effects specific to marine invertebrates are unknown. Other 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.4-124

3.4 Invertebrates

chemicals with potential for adverse effects to invertebrates include some propellant combustion 

products such as hydrogen cyanide and ammonia.

Potential impacts to sediments and seawater resulting from use of chemicals are discussed in Section 

3.2.3.2 (Chemicals Other Than Explosives). Rockets and missiles are highly efficient at consuming 

propellants (for example, over 99.9 percent of perchlorate is typically consumed), and therefore very 

little residual material would enter the water column. Additionally, perchlorate does not readily absorb 

into sediments, potentially reducing the risk to deposit- and detritus-feeding invertebrates. Torpedoes 

are expended in the water, and therefore torpedo propellant (e.g., Otto Fuel II) combustion products 

would enter the marine environment. Overall, analysis concludes that impacts to sediments and water 

quality would be minimal for several reasons. The size of the area affected is large, and chemicals would 

therefore not be concentrated. Most propellant combustion byproducts are benign, and those of 

concern (e.g., hydrogen cyanide) would be quickly diluted. Most propellants are consumed during 

normal operations, and the failure rate of munitions using propellants and other combustible materials 

is low. Most byproducts of Otto Fuel II combustion occur naturally in seawater and most torpedoes are 

recovered after use, limiting the potential for unconsumed fuel to enter the water. In addition, most 

constituents are readily degraded by biotic and abiotic processes. Concentrations of chemicals in 

sediment and water are not likely to cause injury or mortality to marine invertebrates, gametes, eggs, or 

larvae. 

Target vessels are only used during sinking exercises, which occur infrequently. Polychlorinated

biphenyls may be present in certain solid materials (e.g., insulation, wires, felts, and rubber gaskets) on 

target vessels. The vessels are selected from a list of Navy-approved vessels that have been cleaned in 

accordance with USEPA guidelines. Sinking exercises must be conducted at least 50 NM offshore and in 

water at least 6,000 ft. deep. USEPA estimates that as much as 100 lb. of polychlorinated biphenyls 

remain onboard sunken target vessels. USEPA considers the contaminant levels released during the 

sinking of a target to be within the standards of the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act 

(16 United States Code 1341, et seq.). Under a 2014 agreement with USEPA, the Navy will not likely use 

aircraft carriers or submarines as the targets for a sinking exercise. As discussed in Section 3.2.3.2 

(Chemicals Other Than Explosives), based on these considerations, polychlorinated biphenyls are not 

evaluated further as a secondary stressor to invertebrate habitats.

Metals

Certain metals and metal-containing compounds (e.g., cadmium, chromium, lead, mercury, zinc, copper, 

manganese, and many others) are harmful to marine invertebrates at various concentrations above 

background levels (Chan et al., 2012; Negri et al., 2002; Wang & Rainbow, 2008). For example, 

physiological effects in crabs, limpets, and mussels due to copper exposure were reported (Brown et al., 

2004), although the effects were found at concentrations substantially higher than those likely to be 

encountered due to Navy expended materials. Metals are introduced into seawater and sediments as a 

result of training and testing activities involving vessel hulks, targets, munitions, and other military 

expended materials (see Section 3.2.3.3, Metals). Some effects due to metals result from the 

concentrating effects of bioaccumulation, which is not discussed in this section. Bioaccumulation issues 

are discussed in the Ecosystem Technical Report for the Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing (AFTT) 

Environmental Impact Statement (U.S. Department of the Navy, 2012). Secondary effects may occur 

when marine invertebrates are exposed by contact with the metal, contact with trace amounts in the 

sediment or water (e.g., from leached metals), and ingestion of contaminated sediments (Brix et al., 

2012)
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.4-125

3.4 Invertebrates

Because metals tend to precipitate out of seawater and often concentrate in sediments, potential 

adverse indirect impacts are much more likely via sediment than water (Zhao et al., 2012). However, 

studies have found the concentrations of metals in the sediments within military ranges (e.g., Navy 

training areas such as Vieques, Puerto Rico) or munitions disposal sites, where deposition of metals is 

very high, to rarely be above biological effects levels (Section 3.2.3.3, Metals). For example, researchers 

sampled areas associated with Vieques in which live ammunition and weapons were used and found 

generally low concentrations of metals in the sediment (Pait et al., 2010). Comparison with guidelines 

suggested by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Status and Trends 

Program showed that average metal concentrations were below threshold effects levels for all 

constituents except copper, and were below probable effects levels for all constituents. The 

concentration of munitions at Vieques is substantially greater than would occur in the AFTT Study Area. 

Evidence from a number of studies at military ranges and disposal sites indicates metal contamination is 

very localized (Briggs et al., 2016; Kelley et al., 2016; Koide et al., 2016). Impacts to invertebrates, eggs, 

or larvae would likely be limited to exposure in the sediment within a few inches of the object. Refer to 

Section 3.2.3.3 (Metals) for more detailed study results of metal contamination in sediments at military 

ranges.

Concentrations of metals in sea water affected by Navy training and testing activities are unlikely to be 

high enough to cause injury or mortality to marine invertebrates. Benthic invertebrates occurring very 

near (within a few inches) Navy-derived materials on the seafloor could be impacted by associated 

metal concentrations, but this is expected to affect relatively few individuals.

3.4.3.7.1 Impacts on Habitat

As discussed in Section 3.4.3.7 (Secondary Stressors), impacts on invertebrate habitat resulting from 

explosives, explosives byproducts, unexploded munitions, metals, and chemicals would be minor 

overall, and the possibility of population-level impacts on marine invertebrates is remote. Explosions 

would temporarily disturb soft bottom sediments and could potentially damage hard structures, but the 

effects would likely be undetectable at the population or subpopulation level. Individuals could be killed, 

injured, or experience physiological effects due to exposure to metals and chemical materials (including 

explosives materials) in the water column or on the bottom, but these effects would be localized. The 

number of individuals affected would be small compared to overall population numbers.

Deposition of metal materials would provide new hard substrate that could be colonized by encrusting 

invertebrates (e.g., sponges, barnacles, hydrozoans, corals). The increased area of artificial hard habitat 

could therefore provide a benefit to some invertebrate species although, similar to the preceding 

discussion, any positive impacts would likely be undetectable at the population level. In addition, 

invertebrate communities on artificial substrate may be different than those found in adjacent natural 

substrate.

The potential for explosions occurring near the surface to damage seafloor resources such as ESA-listed 

coral habitat is considered negligible. The largest explosives are used more than 12 NM from shore 

where water depth is typically greater than 90 m, and explosive effects would not extend to the bottom 

at locations seaward of the coastal zone due to vertical compression of explosive impacts around the 

detonation point. Bottom explosions would not occur on known live hard bottom areas. Therefore, 

impacts to habitat potentially supporting ESA-listed corals would be limited to activities that are 

inadvertently conducted on or near unknown habitat areas. There is a relatively low abundance of 

suitable hard substrate in the zone between 3 and 12 NM from shore (U.S. Department of the Navy, 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.4-126

3.4 Invertebrates

2018), and the results of underwater surveys at one mesopohotic reef indicate a very low abundance of 

hard coral species on suitable habitat in the mesopohtic zone (Reed et al., 2015). However, any impacts 

to hard structure could reduce the amount of adequate substrate available to ESA-listed corals. Hard 

substrate is considered an essential physical feature of elkhorn coral and staghorn coral critical habitat.

Due to the possibility of inadvertent impacts to hard structure, explosions may affect ESA-listed coral 

species and critical habitat. The Navy has consulted with the NMFS, as required by section 7(a)(2) of the 

ESA in that regard.

3.4.3.7.2 Impacts on Prey Availability

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, as discussed in Section 3.6.3.7 (Secondary 

Stressors), explosive materials, metals, and chemicals would have a negligible effect on fishes. 

Therefore, secondary effects to invertebrates due to reduced fish prey availability are unlikely. 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.

Pursuant to the ESA, potential effects to prey availability would have no effect on ESA-listed coral 

species.

3.4.4 SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL IMPACTS ON INVERTEBRATES

3.4.4.1 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. 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 additive stressors and synergistic stressors, as described below. This analysis 

makes the assumption that the majority of exposures to stressors are non-lethal, and instead focuses on 

consequences potentially impacting the organism’s fitness (e.g., physiology, behavior, reproductive 

potential). Invertebrates in the Study Area could potentially be impacted by introduction of invasive 

species due to direct predation, competition for prey, or displacement from suitable habitat. Invasive 

species could be introduced by growth on vessel hulls or discharges of bilge water. Refer to 

Section 3.2.1.2.2 (Federal Standards and Guidelines) for a discussion of naval vessel discharges.

There are generally two ways that a marine invertebrate could be exposed to multiple additive 

stressors. The first would be if an invertebrate were exposed to multiple sources of stress from a single 

event or activity within a single testing or training event (e.g., a mine warfare event may include the use 

of a sound source and a vessel). The potential for a combination of these impacts from a single activity 

would depend on the range to effects of each of the stressors and the response or lack of response to 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.4-127

3.4 Invertebrates

that stressor. Most of the activities proposed under Alternative 1 generally involve the use of moving 

platforms (e.g., ships, torpedoes) that may produce one or more stressors; therefore, if invertebrates

were within the potential impact range of those activities, they may be impacted by multiple stressors 

simultaneously. Individual stressors that would otherwise have minimal to no impact, may combine to 

have a measurable response. However, due to the wide dispersion of stressors, speed of the platforms, 

and general dynamic movement of many training and testing activities, it is unlikely that a pelagic or 

mobile marine invertebrate would occur in the potential impact range of multiple sources or sequential 

exercises. Impacts would be more likely to occur to sessile and slow-moving species, and in areas where 

training and testing activities are concentrated (e.g., in the vicinity of Naval Stations Norfolk and 

Mayport, the gunnery box in the Jacksonville Range Complex, the Undersea Warfare Training Range, and 

the Naval Surface Warfare Center, Panama City Division and Naval Undersea Warfare Center Division, 

Newport Testing Ranges).

Secondly, an invertebrate could be exposed to multiple training and testing activities over the course of 

its life. It is unlikely that mobile or migratory marine invertebrates that occur within the water column 

would be exposed to multiple activities during their lifespan because they are relatively short-lived, and 

most Navy training and testing activities impact small, widely-dispersed areas, often during the day 

when many pelagic invertebrates have migrated away from the surface. It is much more likely that 

stationary organisms or those that only move over a small range (e.g., corals, sponges, worms, and sea 

urchins) would be exposed to multiple stressors for a prolonged duration. A few activities occur at a 

fixed point (e.g., port security training, pierside sonar testing), and could potentially affect the same 

sessile or sedentary individual invertebrates. However, due to invertebrate distribution and lifespan, few 

individuals compared to overall population size would likely be affected repeatedly by the same 

stressor, and the impacts would be mostly non-lethal. Other Navy activities may occur in the same 

general area (e.g., gunnery activities), but do not occur at the same specific point each time and would 

therefore be unlikely to affect the same individual invertebrates. 

Multiple stressors may also have synergistic effects. For example, although it has been suggested that 

military activities may contribute to coral decline, global impacts are driven primarily by synergistic 

impacts of pollution, overfishing, climate change, sedimentation, and naturally occurring stressors such 

as predator outbreaks and storms, among other factors (Ban et al., 2014; Muthukrishnan & Fong, 2014). 

As discussed in the analyses above, marine invertebrates are not particularly susceptible to energy, 

entanglement, or ingestion stressors resulting from Navy activities; therefore, the potential for Navy 

stressors to result in additive or synergistic consequences is most likely limited to acoustic, physical 

strike and disturbance, and secondary stressors. The potential synergistic interactions of multiple 

stressors resulting from Navy activities are difficult to predict quantitatively. Even for shallow-water 

corals, an exceptionally well-studied resource, predictions of the consequences of multiple stressors are 

semi-quantitative and generalized predictions remain qualitative (Hughes & Connell, 1999; Norstrom et 

al., 2009).

Although potential impacts on marine invertebrate species from training and testing activities under 

Alternative 1 may include injury and mortality, in addition to other effects such as physiological stress, 

masking, and behavioral effects, the impacts are not expected to lead to long-term consequences for 

invertebrate populations or subpopulations. The number of invertebrates impacted is expected to be 

small relative to overall population sizes, and would not be expected to yield any lasting effects on the 

survival, growth, recruitment, or reproduction of any invertebrate species. The potential impacts 

anticipated on ESA-listed species from Alternative 1 are summarized in Section 3.4.5 (Endangered 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.4-128

3.4 Invertebrates

Species Act Determinations). For a discussion of cumulative impacts, see Chapter 4 (Cumulative 

Impacts). For a discussion of mitigation, see Chapter 5 (Mitigation).

3.4.4.2 Combined Impacts of All Stressors Under Alternative 2

Training and testing activities proposed under Alternative 2 would represent an increase over what is 

proposed for Alternative 1. However, these minor differences are not expected to substantially increase 

the potential for impacts over what is analyzed for Alternative 1. The analysis presented in Section

3.4.4.1 (Combined Impacts of All Stressors Under Alternative 1) would similarly apply to Alternative 2. 

The combined impacts of all stressors for training and testing activities under Alternative 2 are not 

expected to lead to long-term consequences for invertebrate populations or subpopulations. The 

number of invertebrates impacted is expected to be small relative to overall population sizes and would 

not be expected to yield any lasting effects on the survival, growth, recruitment, or reproduction of any 

invertebrate species.

3.4.4.3 Combined Impacts of All Stressors Under the No Action Alternative

Under the No Action Alternative, the Navy would not conduct the proposed training or testing activities 

in the AFTT Study Area. All stressors associated with Navy training and testing activities 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.

3.4.5 ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT DETERMINATIONS

Pursuant to the ESA, the Navy has concluded training and testing activities may affect the boulder star 

coral, elkhorn coral, lobed star coral, mountainous star coral, pillar coral, rough cactus coral, and 

staghorn coral. The Navy has also concluded that training and testing activities may affect designated 

critical habitat for elkhorn coral and staghorn coral. The Navy has consulted with NMFS as required by 

section 7(a)(2) of the ESA in that regard. The Navy’s summary of effects determinations for each ESAlisted species is shown in Table 3.4-3. Where the effects determinations reached by NMFS in their 

Biological Opinion differed from the Navy’s, those differences are noted in a footnote to Table 3.4-3. 

NMFS determinations are made on the overall Proposed Action and are not separated by training and 

testing activities.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.4-129

3.4 Invertebrates

Table 3.4-3: Invertebrate Effect Determinations for Training and Testing Activities Under Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative)

Species Designation 

Unit

Effect Determinations by Stressor

Acoustic Explosives Energy Physical Disturbance and

Strike Entanglement Ingestion

Sonar and Other 

Transducers

Air Guns

Pile Driving

Vessel Noise

Aircraft Noise

Weapons Noise

Explosives

In-water Electromagnetic 

Devices

High-energy Lasers

Vessels

In-water Devices

Military Expended 

Materials

Seafloor Devices

Wires and Cables

Decelerators/Parachutes

Biodegradable Polymer

Military Expended 

Materials - Munitions

Military Expended 

Materials - Other Than 

Munitions

Training Activities

Boulder star coral Throughout 

range

NE1 N/A NE NE1 NE NE NLAA NE1 NE NE1 NE NLAA2 NLAA NE2 NE N/A NE NE1

Elkhorn coral

Throughout 

range

NE1 N/A NE NE1 NE NE NLAA NE1 NE NE1 NE NLAA2 NLAA NE2 NE N/A NE NE1

Critical 

habitat NE N/A NE NE NE NE NLAA NE NE NE1 NE NLAA2 NLAA NE2 NE N/A NE NE

Lobed star coral Throughout 

range

NE1 N/A NE NE1 NE NE NLAA NE1 NE NE1 NE NLAA2 NLAA NE2 NE N/A NE NE1

Mountainous 

star coral

Throughout 

range

NE1 N/A NE NE1 NE NE NLAA NE1 NE NE1 NE NLAA2 NLAA NE2 NE N/A NE NE1

Pillar coral Throughout 

range

NE1 N/A NE NE1 NE NE NLAA NE1 NE NE1 NE NLAA2 NLAA NE2 NE N/A NE NE1

Rough cactus 

coral

Throughout 

range

NE1 N/A NE NE1 NE NE NLAA NE1 NE NE1 NE NLAA2 NLAA NE2 NE N/A NE NE1

Staghorn coral

Throughout 

range

NE1 N/A NE NE1 NE NE NLAA NE1 NE NE1 NE NLAA2 NLAA NE2 NE N/A NE NE1

Critical 

habitat NE N/A NE NE NE NE NLAA NE NE NE1 NE NLAA2 NLAA NE2 NE N/A NE NE
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

Table 3.4-3: Invertebrate Effect Determinations for Training and Testing Activities Under Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative) (continued)

3.4-130

3.4 Invertebrates

Species Designation 

Unit

Effect Determinations by Stressor

Acoustic Explosives Energy Physical Disturbance and

Strike Entanglement Ingestion

Sonar and Other 

Transducers

Air Guns

Pile Driving

Vessel Noise

Aircraft Noise

Weapons Noise

Explosives

In-water Electromagnetic 

Devices

High-energy Lasers

Vessels

In-water Devices

Military Expended 

Materials

Seafloor Devices

Wires and Cables

Decelerators/Parachutes

Biodegradable Polymer

Military Expended 

Materials - Munitions

Military Expended 

Materials - Other Than 

Munitions

Testing Activities

Boulder star coral Throughout 

range

NE1 NE N/A NE1 NE NE NLAA NE1 NE NE1 NE NLAA2 NLAA NE2 NE NE2 NE NE1

Elkhorn coral

Throughout 

range

NE1 NE N/A NE1 NE NE NLAA NE1 NE NE1 NE NLAA2 NLAA NE2 NE NE2 NE NE1

Critical 

habitat NE NE N/A NE NE NE NLAA NE NE NE1 NE NLAA2 NLAA NE2 NE NE2 NE NE

Lobed star coral Throughout 

range

NE1 NE N/A NE1 NE NE NLAA NE1 NE NE1 NE NLAA2 NLAA NE2 NE NE2 NE NE1

Mountainous 

star coral

Throughout 

range

NE1 NE N/A NE1 NE NE NLAA NE1 NE NE1 NE NLAA2 NLAA NE2 NE NE2 NE NE1

Pillar coral Throughout 

range

NE1 NE N/A NE1 NE NE NLAA NE1 NE NE1 NE NLAA2 NLAA NE2 NE NE2 NE NE1

Rough cactus 

coral

Throughout 

range

NE1 NE N/A NE1 NE NE NLAA NE1 NE NE1 NE NLAA2 NLAA NE2 NE NE2 NE NE1

Staghorn coral Throughout 

range

NE1 NE N/A NE1 NE NE NLAA NE1 NE NE1 NE NLAA2 NLAA NE2 NE NE2 NE NE1

Critical 

habitat NE NE N/A NE NE NE NLAA NE NE NE1 NE NLAA2 NLAA NE2 NE NE2 NE NE

Note: NE = no effect; NLAA = may effect, not likely to adversely affect; LAA = may effect, likely to adversely affect; N/A = not applicable, activity related to the stressor does not occur during 

specified training or testing events (e.g., there are no testing activities that involve the use of pile driving).

1 Based on the analysis conducted in the Biological Opinion, NMFS reached the determination of NLAA.

2 Based on the analysis conducted in the Biological Opinion, NMFS reached the determination of LAA.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.4-131

3.4 References

References

Aeby, G., E. Lovell, Z. Richards, J. C. Delbeek, C. Reboton, and D. Bass. (2008). Acropora tenella. In: IUCN 

2013. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2013.1. Retrieved.

Aggio, J. F., R. Tieu, A. Wei, and C. D. Derby. (2012). Oesophageal chemoreceptors of blue crabs, 

Callinectes sapidus, sense chemical deterrents and can block ingestion of food. The Journal of 

Experimental Biology, 215(10), 1700–1710. 

Aguilar, A. (2008). Fin whale, Balaenoptera physalus. In W. F. Perrin, B. Wursig, & J. G. M. Thewissen 

(Eds.), Encyclopedia of Marine Mammals (2nd ed., pp. 433–437). Cambridge, MA: Academic 

Press.

Aguilar de Soto, N., N. Delorme, J. Atkins, S. Howard, J. Williams, and M. Johnson. (2013). Anthropogenic 

noise causes body malformations and delays development in marine larvae. Scientific Reports, 

3(2831), 2831. 

André, M., M. Solé, M. Lenoir, M. Durfort, C. Quero, A. Mas, A. Lombarte, M. van der Schaar, M. LopezBejar, M. Morell, S. Zaugg, and L. Houégnigan. (2011). Low-frequency sounds induce acoustic 

trauma in cephalopods. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 9(9), 489–493. 

Andriguetto-Filho, J. M., A. Ostrensky, M. R. Pie, U. A. Silva, and W. A. Boeger. (2005). Evaluating the 

impact of seismic prospecting on artisanal shrimp fisheries. Continental Shelf Research, 25, 

1720–1727. 

Aplin, J. A. (1947). The effect of explosives on marine life. California Fish and Game, 33, 23–30. 

Appeltans, W., P. Bouchet, G. A. Boxshall, K. Fauchald, D. P. Gordon, B. W. Hoeksema, G. C. B. Poore, R. 

W. M. van Soest, S. Stöhr, T. C. Walter, and M. J. Costello. (2010). World Register of Marine 

Species. Retrieved from http://www.marinespecies.org/index.php.

Arfsten, D. P., C. L. Wilson, and B. J. Spargo. (2002). Radio frequency chaff: The effects of its use in 

training on the environment. Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety, 53, 1–11.

Arifin, L., A. Bakti, A. Virgota, L. P. A. Damayanti, T. H. U. Radiman, A. Retnowulan, Hernawati, A. Sabil, 

and D. Robbe. (2012). Biorock Reef Restoration in Gili Trawangan, North Lombok, Indonesia. In 

T. J. Goreau & R. K. T. Trench (Eds.), Innovative Methods of Marine Ecosystem Restoration (pp. 

59–80). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.

Aronson, R., A. Bruckner, J. Moore, B. Precht, and E. Weil. (2008a). Mycetophyllia ferox. International 

Union for Conservation of Nature 2010. International Union for Conservation of Nature Red List 

of Threatened Species. Version 2010.1. Retrieved from 

http://www.iucnredlist.org/apps/redlist/details/133356/0.

Aronson, R., A. Bruckner, J. Moore, B. Precht, and E. Weil. (2008b). Acropora palmata. International 

Union for Conservation of Nature 2009. International Union for Conservation of Nature Red List 

of Threatened Species. Version 2009.2. Retrieved from 

http://www.iucnredlist.org/apps/redlist/details/133006/0.

Aronson, R., A. Bruckner, J. Moore, B. Precht, and E. Weil. (2008c). Montastraea annularis. International 

Union for Conservation of Nature 2010. International Union for Conservation of Nature Red List 

of Threatened Species. Version 2010.1. Retrieved from 

http://www.iucnredlist.org/apps/redlist/details/133134/0.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.4-132

3.4 References

Aronson, R., A. Bruckner, J. Moore, B. Precht, and E. Weil. (2008d). Acropora cervicornis. International 

Union for Conservation of Nature 2009. International Union for Conservation of Nature Red List 

of Threatened Species. Version 2009.2. Retrieved from 

http://www.iucnredlist.org/apps/redlist/details/133381/0.

Ateweberhan, M., and T. R. McClanahan. (2010). Relationship between historical sea-surface 

temperature variability and climate change-induced coral mortality in the western Indian Ocean. 

Marine Pollution Bulletin, 60(7), 964–970. 

Ateweberhan, M., D. A. Feary, S. Keshavmurthy, A. Chen, M. H. Schleyer, and C. R. Sheppard. (2013). 

Climate change impacts on coral reefs: synergies with local effects, possibilities for acclimation, 

and management implications. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 74(2), 526–539. 

Au, W. W. L., and K. Banks. (1998). The acoustics of the snapping shrimp Synalpheus parneomeris in 

Kaneohe Bay. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 103(1), 41–47. 

Au, W. W. L., J. K. B. Ford, J. K. Horne, and K. A. N. Allman. (2004). Echolocation signals of free-ranging 

killer whales (Orcinus orca) and modeling of foraging for chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus 

tshawytscha). The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 115(2), 901–909. 

Bahr, K. D., P. L. Jokiel, and K. u. S. Rodgers. (2016). Relative sensitivity of five Hawaiian coral species to 

high temperature under high-pCO2 conditions. Coral Reefs, 35(2), 729–738. 

Baker, E. K., K. A. Puglise, and P. T. Harris. (2016). Mesophotic coral ecosystems — A lifeboat for coral 

reefs? Arendal, Norway and Nairobi, Kenya: The United Nations Environment Programme and 

Global Resources Information Database.

Ban, S. S., N. A. J. Graham, and S. R. Connolly. (2014). Evidence for multiple stressor interactions and 

effects on coral reefs. Global Change Biology, 20, 681–697. 

Bazzi, A. O. (2014). Heavy metals in seawater, sediments and marine organisms in the Gulf of Chabahar, 

Oman Sea. Journal of Oceanography and Marine Science, 5(3), 20–29. 

Becker, N. M. (1995). Fate of Selected High Explosives in the Environment: A Literature Review (LAUR-95-

1018). Los Alamos, NM: Los Alamos National Laboratories.

Bessell-Browne, P., A. P. Negri, R. Fisher, P. L. Clode, and R. Jones. (2017). Cumulative impacts: thermally 

bleached corals have reduced capacity to clear deposited sediment. Scientific Reports, 7(2716), 

14. 

Bickel, S. L., J. D. Malloy Hammond, and K. W. Tang. (2011). Boat-generated turbulence as a potential 

source of mortality among copepods. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 

401(1–2), 105–109. 

Bilkovic, D., M. Mitchell, J. Davis, E. Andrews, A. King, P. Mason, J. Herman, N. Tahvildari, and J. Davis. 

(2017). Review of boat wake wave impacts on shoreline erosion and potential solutions for the 

Chesapeake Bay (STAC Publication Number 17-002). Edgewater, MD: Chesapeake Bay Program 

Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee.

Bishop, M. J. (2008). Displacement of epifauna from seagrass blades by boat wake. Journal of 

Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 354(1), 111–118. 

Boland, G. S., P. J. Etnoyer, C. R. Fisher, and E. L. Hickerson. (2016). State of Deep-Sea Coral and Sponge 

Ecosystems in the Gulf of Mexico Region: Texas to the Florida Straits. In NOAA (Ed.), The State of 

Deep-Sea Coral and Sponge Ecosystems in the United States (Vol. NOAA Technical Memorandum 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.4-133

3.4 References

NMFS-OHC-3, pp. 11–11–11–59). Silver Spring, MD: National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration.

Boulon, R., M. Chiappone, R. Halley, W. Jaap, B. Keller, B. Kruczynski, M. Miller, and C. Rogers. (2005). 

Atlantic Acropora Status Review Document Report to National Marine Fisheries Service, 

Southeast Regional Office.

Brainard, R. E., C. Birkeland, C. M. Eakin, P. McElhany, M. W. Miller, M. Patterson, and G. A. Piniak. 

(2011). Status Review Report of 82 Candidate Coral Species Petitioned Under the U.S. 

Endangered Species Act (NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-PIFSC-27). Honolulu, HI: National 

Marine Fisheries Service, Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center.

Brierley, A. S., P. G. Fernandes, M. A. Brandon, F. Armstrong, N. W. Millard, S. D. McPhail, P. Stevenson, 

M. Pebody, J. Perrett, M. Squires, D. G. Bone, and G. Griffiths. (2003). An investigation of 

avoidance by Antarctic krill of RRS James Clark Ross using the Autosub-2 autonomous 

underwater vehicle. Fisheries Research, 60, 569–576. 

Briggs, C., S. M. Shjegstad, J. A. K. Silva, and M. H. Edwards. (2016). Distribution of chemical warfare 

agent, energetics, and metals in sediments at a deep-water discarded military munitions site. 

Deep Sea Research Part II: Topical Studies in Oceanography, 128, 63–69. 

Brix, K., P. Gillette, A. Pourmand, T. Capo, and M. Grosell. (2012). The effects of dietary silver on larval 

growth in the echinoderm Lytechinus variegatus. Archives of Environmental Contamination and 

Toxicology, 63(1), 95–100. 

Brown, R. J., T. S. Galloway, D. Lowe, M. A. Browne, A. Dissanayake, M. B. Jones, and M. H. Depledge. 

(2004). Differential sensitivity of three marine invertebrates to copper assessed using multiple 

biomarkers. Aquatic Toxicology, 66, 267–278. 

Browne, M. A., S. J. Niven, T. S. Galloway, S. J. Rowland, and R. C. Thompson. (2013). Microplastic moves 

pollutants and additives to worms, reducing functions linked to health and biodiversity. Current 

Biology, 23(23), 2388–2392. 

Bruckner, A. W. (2003). Proceedings of the Caribbean Acropora Workshop: Potential Application of the 

U.S. Endangered Species Act as a Conservation Strategy. Silver Spring, MD: National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration.

Brusca, R. C., and G. J. Brusca. (2003). Phylum Cnidaria. In: Invertebrates (pp. 219–283). Sunderland, MA: 

Sinauer Associates, Inc.

Bryan, T. L., and A. Metaxas. (2007). Predicting suitable habitat for deep-water gorgonian corals on the 

Atlantic and Pacific Continental Margins of North America. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 330, 

113–126. 

Bryant, D., L. Burke, J. McManus, and M. Spalding. (1998). Reefs at Risk: A Map-Based Indicator of 

Threats to the World's Coral Reefs. Washington, DC: World Resources Institute.

Budelmann, B. U. (1992a). Hearing in nonarthropod invertebrates. In D. B. Webster, R. R. Fay, & A. N. 

Popper (Eds.), Evolutionary Biology of Hearing (pp. 141–155). New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.

Budelmann, B. U. (1992b). Hearing in Crustacea. In D. B. Webster, R. R. Fay, & A. N. Popper (Eds.), 

Evolutionary Biology of Hearing (pp. 131–139). New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.

Buhl-Mortensen, L., A. Vanreusel, A. J. Gooday, L. A. Levin, I. G. Priede, P. Buhl-Mortensen, H. 

Gheerardyn, N. J. King, and M. Raes. (2010). Biological structures as a source of habitat 

heterogeneity and biodiversity on the deep ocean margins. Marine Ecology, 31(1), 21–50. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.4-134

3.4 References

Bureau of Ocean Energy Management. (2011). Effects of EMFs from Undersea Power Cables on 

Elasmobranchs and Other Marine Species. Camarillo, CA: U.S. Department of the Interior, 

Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement, Pacific OCS Region.

Bureau of Ocean Energy Management. (2014). Investigations of Chemosynthetic Communities on the 

Lower Continental Slope of the Gulf of Mexico, Volume I: Final Report and Volume II: Appendix. 

College Station, TX: Bureau of Ocean Energy Management.

Burke, L., and J. Maidens. (2004). Reefs at Risk in the Caribbean. Washington, DC: World Resources 

Institute.

Burt, J., A. Bartholomew, P. Usseglio, A. Bauman, and P. F. Sale. (2009). Are artificial reefs surrogates of 

natural habitats for corals and fish in Dubai, United Arab Emirates? Coral Reefs, 28, 663–675. 

Buscaino, G., F. Filiciotto, M. Gristina, A. Bellante, G. Buffa, V. Di Stefano, V. Maccarrone, G. Tranchida, 

C. Buscaino, and S. Mazzola. (2011). Acoustic behavior of the European spiny lobster Palinurus 

elephas. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 441, 177–184. 

Cairns, S. D. (2007). Deep-water corals: An overview with special reference to diversity and distribution 

of deep-water Scleractinian corals. Bulletin of Marine Science, 81(3), 311–322. 

Cardona, Y., D. V. Ruiz-Ramos, I. B. Baums, and A. Bracco. (2016). Potential Connectivity of Coldwater 

Black Coral Communities in the Northern Gulf of Mexico. PLoS ONE, 11(5), 1–25. 

Carpenter, R. C., C. A. Lantz, E. Shaw, and P. J. Edmunds. (2018). Responses of coral reef community 

metabolism in flumes to ocean acidification. Marine Biology, 165(66), 1–13. 

Castro, P., and M. E. Huber. (2000a). Marine animals without a backbone. In: Marine Biology (3rd ed., 

pp. 104–138). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Castro, P., and M. E. Huber. (2000b). Marine prokaryotes, protists, fungi, and plants. In: Marine Biology

(3rd ed., pp. 83–103). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Cato, D. H., and M. J. Bell. (1992). Ultrasonic Ambient Noise in Australian Shallow Waters at Frequencies 

up to 200 kHz. Ascot Vale, Australia: Materials Research Laboratory.

Celi, M., F. Filiciotto, D. Parrinello, G. Buscaino, M. A. Damiano, A. Cuttitta, S. D'Angelo, S. Mazzola, and 

M. Vazzana. (2013). Physiological and agonistic behavioural response of Procambarus clarkii to 

an acoustic stimulus. The Journal of Experimental Biology, 216, 709–718. 

Celi, M., F. Filiciotto, M. Vazzana, V. Arizza, V. Maccarrone, M. Ceraulo, S. Mazzola, and G. Buscaino. 

(2015). Shipping noise affecting immune responses of European spiny lobster (Palinurus 

elephas). Canadian Journal of Zoology, 93, 113–121. 

Chan, A. A. Y. H., P. Giraldo-Perez, S. Smith, and D. T. Blumstein. (2010a). Anthropogenic noise affects 

risk assessment and attention: The distracted prey hypothesis. Biology Letters, 6(4), 458–461. 

Chan, A. A. Y. H., W. D. Stahlman, D. Garlick, C. D. Fast, D. T. Blumstein, and A. P. Blaisdell. (2010b). 

Increased amplitude and duration of acoustic stimuli enhance distraction. Animal Behaviour, 80, 

1075–1079. 

Chan, I., L. C. Tseng, S. Ka, C. F. Chang, and J. S. Hwang. (2012). An experimental study of the response of 

the gorgonian coral Subergorgia suberosa to polluted seawater from a former coastal mining 

site in Taiwan. Zoological Studies, 51(1), 27–37. 

Chappell, S. (2018, August 23, 2018). [Personal commuication to Combs, R. on AFTT Invertebrates Text].
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.4-135

3.4 References

Charifi, M., M. Sow, P. Ciret, S. Benomar, and J. Massabuau. (2017). The sense of hearing in the Pacific 

oyster, Magallana gigas. PLoS ONE, 12(10), 19. 

Chesapeake Biological Laboratory. (1948). Effects of Underwater Explosions on Oysters, Crabs and Fish: a 

Preliminary Report. (Publication No. 70). Solomons Island, MD: Department of Research and 

Education.

Cheung, W., J. Alder, V. Karpouzi, R. Watson, V. Lam, C. Day, K. Kaschner, and D. Pauly. (2005) Patterns 

of Species Richness in the High Seas. Technical Series no. 20. Montreal, Canada: Secretariat of 

the Convention on Biological Diversity.

Chiarelli, R., and M. C. Roccheri. (2014). Marine Invertebrates as Bioindicators of Heavy Metal Pollution. 

Open Journal of Metal, 4, 93–106. 

Christian, J. R., A. Mathieu, D. H. Thomson, D. White, and R. A. Buchanan. (2003). Effect of Seismic 

Energy on Snow Crab (Chionoecetes opilio) (Environmental Research Funds Report). Calgary, 

Alberta: LGL Ltd., Environmental Research Associates.

Chuenpagdee, R., L. E. Morgan, S. M. Maxwell, E. A. Norse, and D. Pauly. (2003). Shifting gears: 

Addressing the collateral impacts of fishing methods in U.S. waters. Frontiers in Ecology and the 

Environment, 1(10), 517–524. 

Clements, J. C., K. D. Woodard, and H. L. Hunt. (2016). Porewater acidification alters the burrowing 

behavior and post-settlement dispersal of juvenile soft-shell clams (Mya arenaria). Journal of 

Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 477, 103–111. 

Closek, C. J., S. Sunagawa, M. K. DeSalvo, Y. M. Piceno, T. Z. DeSantis, E. L. Brodie, M. X. Weber, C. R. 

Voolstra, G. L. Anderson, and M. Medina. (2014). Coral transcriptome and bacterial community 

profiles reveal distinct Yellow Band Disease states in Orbicella faveolata. The ISME Journal 8, 

2411–2422. 

Cohen, A. L., D. C. McCorkle, S. de Putron, G. A. Gaetani, and K. A. Rose. (2009). Morphological and 

compositional changes in the skeletons of new coral recruits reared in acidified seawater: 

Insights into the biomineralization response to ocean acidification. Geochemistry Geophysics 

Geosystems, 10(7), 1–12. 

Cole, M., P. Lindeque, E. Fileman, C. Halsband, R. Goodhead, J. Moger, and T. S. Galloway. (2013). 

Microplastic ingestion by zooplankton. Environmental Science & Technology, 47(12), 6646–6655. 

Colella, M., R. Ruzicka, J. Kidney, J. Morrison, and V. Brinkhuis. (2012). Cold-water event of January 2010 

results in catastrophic benthic mortality on patch reefs in the Florida Keys. Coral Reefs, 1–12. 

Colin, P. L., and A. C. Arneson. (1995a). Molluscs: Phylum Mollusca. In: Tropical Pacific Invertebrates: A 

Field Guide to the Marine Invertebrates Occurring on Tropical Pacific Coral Reefs, Seagrass Beds 

and Mangroves (pp. 157–200). Beverly Hills, CA: Coral Reef Press.

Colin, P. L., and A. C. Arneson. (1995b). Sponges: Phylum Porifera. In: Tropical Pacific Invertebrates: A 

Field Guide to the Marine Invertebrates Occurring on Tropical Pacific Coral Reefs, Seagrass Beds 

and Mangroves (pp. 17–62). Beverly Hills, CA: Coral Reef Press.

Correa, D. D. (1961). Nemerteans From Florida And Virgin Islands. Bulletin of Marine Science of the Gulf 

and Caribbean, 11(1), 1–44. 

Cortes, N. J., and M. J. Risk. (1985). A reef under siltation stress: Cahuita, Costa Rica. Bulletin of Marine 

Science, 36(2), 339–356. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.4-136

3.4 References

Croquer, A., C. Bastidas, and D. Lipscomb. (2006). Folliculinid ciliates: a new threat to Caribbean corals? 

Diseases of Aquatic Organisms, 69, 75–78. 

Dasgupta, P. K., P. K. Martinelango, W. A. Jackson, T. A. Anderson, K. Tian, R. W. Tock, and S. 

Rajagopalan. (2005). The origin of naturally occurring perchlorate: The role of atmospheric 

processes. Environmental Science and Technology, 39(6), 1569–1575. 

Davis, A. R., A. Broad, W. Gullett, J. Reveley, C. Steele, and C. Schofield. (2016). Anchors away? The 

impacts of anchor scour by ocean-going vessels and potential response options. Marine Policy, 

73, 1–7. 

Davis, G. E. (1982). A century of natural change in coral distribution at the Dry Tortugas: A comparison of 

reef maps from 1881 and 1976. Bulletin of Marine Science, 32(2), 608–623. 

Day, R. D., R. D. McCauley, Q. P. Fitzgibbon, and J. M. Semmens. (2016). Seismic air gun exposure during 

early-stage embryonic development does not negatively affect spiny lobster Jasus edwardsii

larvae (Decapoda: Palinuridae). Scientific Reports, 6(22723), 9. 

De Zoysa, M. (2012). Medicinal benefits of marine invertebrates: Sources for discovering natural drug 

candidates. Advances in Food and Nutrition Research, 65, 153–169. 

DeMartini, E. E., and J. E. Smith. (2015). Effects of fishing on the fishes and habitat of coral reefs. In C. 

Mora (Ed.), Ecology of Fishes on Coral Reefs. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University 

Press.

Dineen, J. (2010). Indian River Lagoon Species Inventory: Tidal Flat Habitats. Retrieved from 

http://www.sms.si.edu/irlspec/Tidal_Flats.htm.

Dossot, G. A., J. S. Krumholz, D. M. Hudson, D. L. Pochtar, N. C. Dickenso, E. B. Baker, and T. E. Moll. 

(2017). Simulated anthropogenic noise exposure to marine invertebrates using a standing wave 

tube. Paper presented at the Acoustical Society of America Meeting. New Orleans, LA.

Downs, C. A., E. Kramarsky-Winter, C. M. Woodley, A. Downs, G. Winters, Y. Loya, and G. K. Ostrander. 

(2009). Cellular pathology and histopathology of hypo-salinity exposure on the coral Stylophora 

pistillata. Science of the Total Environment, 407(17), 4838–4851. 

Dubinsky, Z., and I. Berman-Frank. (2001). Uncoupling primary production from population growth in 

photosynthesizing organisms in aquatic ecosystems. Aquatic Sciences, 63, 4–17. 

Dustan, P., and J. C. Halas. (1987). Changes in the reef-coral community of Carysfort Reef, Key Largo, 

Florida: 1974 to 1982. Coral Reefs, 6(2), 91–106. 

Eakin, C. M., G. Liu, A. M. Gomez, J. L. De La Cour, S. F. Heron, W. J. Skirving, E. F. Geiger, K. V. Tirak, and 

A. E. Strong. (2016). Global Coral Bleaching 2014–2017. Reef Encounter, 31, 20–26. 

Eastern Oyster Biological Review Team. (2007). Status Review of the Eastern Oyster (Crassostrea 

virginica) (NOAA Technical Memorandum National Marine Fisheries Service F/SPO-88). Silver 

Spring, MD: U.S. Department of Commerce.

Edmonds, N. J., C. J. Firmin, D. Goldsmith, R. C. Faulkner, and 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. 

Edmunds, P. J., and R. Elahi. (2007). The demographics of a 15-year decline in cover of the Caribbean 

reef coral Montastraea annularis. Ecological Monographs, 77(1), 3–18. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.4-137

3.4 References

Encyclopedia of Life. (2017). Nemertea: Ribbon Worms. Retrieved from 

http://eol.org/pages/2855/details.

Erftemeijer, P. L. A., B. Riegl, B. W. Hoeksema, and P. A. Todd. (2012). Environmental impacts of 

dredging and other sediment disturbances on corals: A review. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 64, 

1737–1765. 

Ernst, D. A., and K. J. Lohmann. (2018). Size-dependent avoidance of a strong magnetic anomaly in 

Caribbean spiny lobsters. Journal of Experimental Biology, 221, 1–6. 

Etnoyer, P. J. (2010). Deep-sea corals on seamounts. Oceanography, 23(1), 128–129. 

Etnoyer, P. J., L. N. Wickes, M. Silva, J. D. Dubick, L. Balthis, E. Salgado, and I. R. MacDonald. (2016). 

Decline in condition of gorgonian octocorals on mesophotic reefs in the northern Gulf of 

Mexico: Before and after the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. Coral Reefs, 35, 77–90. 

Etnoyer, P. J., and S. D. Cairns. (2017). Deep-Sea Coral Taxa in the U.S. Gulf of Mexico: Depth and 

Geographical Distribution. Silver Spring, MD: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

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, and N. Wolff. (2010). An overview of marine biodiversity in United States 

waters. PLoS ONE, 5(8), e11914. 

Fewtrell, J. L., and R. D. McCauley. (2012). Impact of air gun noise on the behaviour of marine fish and 

squid. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 64(5), 984–993. 

Filiciotto, F., M. Vazzana, M. Celi, V. Maccarrone, M. Ceraulo, G. Buffa, V. Di Stefano, S. Mazzola, and G. 

Buscaino. (2014). Behavioural and biochemical stress responses of Palinurus elephas after 

exposure to boat noise pollution in tank. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 84(1–2), 104–114. 

Filiciotto, F., M. Vazzana, M. Celi, V. Maccarrone, M. Ceraulo, G. Buffa, V. Arizza, G. de Vincenzi, R. 

Grammauta, S. Mazzola, and G. Buscaino. (2016). Underwater noise from boats: Measurement 

of its influence on the behaviour and biochemistry of the common prawn (Palaemon serratus, 

Pennant 1777). Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 478, 24–33. 

Fisher, C., H. Roberts, E. Cordes, and B. Bernard. (2007). Cold seeps and associated communities of the 

Gulf of Mexico. Oceanography, 20(4), 118–129. 

Florida Museum of Natural History. (2016). Life In Seagrasses. Retrieved from 

https://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/southflorida/habitats/seagrasses/life/.

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. (2005). Fishery Country Profile: United States 

of America. Retrieved from ftp://ftp.fao.org/FI/DOCUMENT/fcp/en/FI_CP_US.pdf.

Fossette, S., A. C. Gleiss, J. Chalumeau, T. Bastian, C. D. Armstrong, S. Vandenabeele, M. Karpytchev, and 

G. C. Hays. (2015). Current-oriented swimming by jellyfish and its role in bloom maintenance. 

Current Biology, 25, 342–347. 

Foster, N. L., C. B. Paris, J. T. Kool, I. B. Baums, J. R. Stevens, J. A. Sanchez, C. Bastidas, C. Agudelo, P. 

Bush, O. Day, R. Ferrari, P. Gonzalez, S. Gore, R. Guppy, M. A. McCartney, C. McCoy, J. Mendes, 

A. Srinivasan, S. Steiner, M. J. Vermeij, E. Weil, and P. J. Mumby. (2012). Connectivity of 

Caribbean coral populations: Complementary insights from empirical and modelled gene flow. 

Molecular Ecology, 21(5), 1143–1157. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.4-138

3.4 References

Foster, T., J. L. Falter, M. T. McCulloch, and P. L. Clode. (2016). Ocean acidification causes structural 

deformities in juvenile coral skeletons. Science Advances, 2(e1501130), 7. 

Foster, T., and J. P. Gilmour. (2016). Seeing red: Coral larvae are attracted to healthy-looking reefs. 

Marine Ecology Progress Series, 559, 65–71. 

Fox, A., L. Henry, D. Corne, and J. M. Roberts. (2016). The sensitivity of modelled Lophelia pertusa larval 

dispersal and population connectivity to climate variability. Paper presented at the Annual 

Science Meeting. University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, Scotland.

Fox, H. E., and R. L. Caldwell. (2006). Recovery from blast fishing on coral reefs: A tale of two scales. 

Ecological Applications, 16(5), 1631–1635. 

Freiwald, A., J. H. Fosså, A. Grehan, T. Koslow, and J. M. Roberts. (2004). Cold-water Coral Reefs: Out of 

Sight–No Longer Out of Mind. Cambridge, United Kingdom: United Nations Environmental 

Program World Conservation Monitoring Center.

Fujii, T. (2012). Climate Change, Sea-level Rise, and Implications for Coastal and Estuarine Shoreline 

Management with Particular Reference to the Ecology of Intertidal Benthic Macrofauna in 

Northwest Europe. Biology 1, 597–616. 

Galloway, S. B., A. W. Bruckner, and C. M. Woodley. (2009). Coral Health and Disease in the Pacific: 

Vision for Action. Silver Spring, MD: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

Gaspin, J. B., G. B. Peters, and M. L. Wisely. (1976). Experimental Investigations of the Effects of 

Underwater Explosions on Swimbladder Fish. Silver Spring, MD: Naval Ordnance Lab.

Gil-Agudelo, D. L., G. W. Smith, and E. Weil. (2006). The white band disease type II pathogen in Puerto 

Rico. Revista de Biología Tropical, 54 (Supplement 3), 59–67. 

Gilliam, D. S., and B. K. Walker. (2011). Benthic Habitat Characterization for the South Florida Ocean 

Measurement Facility (SFOMF) - Protected Stony Coral Species Assessment. Fort Lauderdale, FL: 

Nova Southeastern University Oceanographic Center.

Ginsburg, R. N., and E. A. Shinn. (1964). Distribution of the reef building community in Florida and the 

Bahamas. Bulletin of the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, 48, 527. 

Gochfeld, D. J. (2004). Predation-induced morphological and behavioral defenses in a hard coral: 

Implications for foraging behavior of coral-feeding butterflyfishes. Marine Ecology Progress 

Series, 267, 145–158. 

Goethel, C. L., J. M. Grebmeier, L. W. Cooper, and T. J. Miller. (2017). Implications of ocean acidification 

in the Pacific Arctic: Experimental responses of three Arctic bivalves to decreased pH and food 

availability. Deep-Sea Research Part II: Topical Studies in Oceanography, 144, 112–124. 

Goldstein, M. C., and D. S. Goodwin. (2013). Gooseneck barnacles (Lepas spp.) ingest microplastic debris 

in the North Pacific Subtropical Gyre. PeerJ, 1, e184. 

Goodall, C., C. Chapman, and D. Neil. (1990). The Acoustic Response Threshold of the Norway Lobster, 

Nephrops norvegicus (L.), in a Free Sound Field. In K. Weise, W. D. Krenz, J. Tautz, H. Reichert, & 

B. Mulloney (Eds.), Frontiers in Crustacean Neurobiology (pp. 106–113). Basel, Switzerland: 

Birkhauser-Verlag.

Goreau, T. F. (1959). The ecology of Jamaican coral reefs I. Species composition and zonation. Ecology, 

40(1), 67–90. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.4-139

3.4 References

Goreau, T. F., and J. W. Wells. (1967). The shallow-water Scleractinia of Jamaica: Revised list of species 

and their vertical distribution range. Bulletin of Marine Science, 17(2), 442–453. 

Goreau, T. J. (2014). Electrical stimulation greatly increases settlement, growth, survival, and stress 

resistance of marine organisms. Natural Resources, 5, 527–537. 

Goulet, T. L., K. P. Shirur, B. D. Ramsby, and R. Iglesias-Prieto. (2017). The effects of elevated seawater 

temperatures on Caribbean gorgonian corals and their algal symbionts, Symbiodinium spp. PLoS 

ONE, 12(2), 21 (e0171032). 

Griscom, S. B., and N. S. Fisher. (2004). Bioavailability of Sediment-bound Metals to Marine Bivalve 

Molluscs: An Overview. Estuaries, 27(5), 826–838. 

Grizzle, R. E., J. R. Adams, and L. J. Walters. (2002). Historical changes in intertidal oyster (Crassostrea 

virginica) reefs in a Florida lagoon potentially related to boating activities. Journal of Shellfish 

Research, 21(2), 749–756. 

Grober-Dunsmore, R., V. Bonito, and T. K. Frazer. (2006). Potential inhibitors to recovery of Acropora 

palmata populations in St. John, U.S. Virgin Islands. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 321, 123–

132. 

Guerra, A., A. F. Gonzalez, F. Rocha, J. Gracia, and M. Vecchione. (2004). Calamares gigantes varados. 

Investigacion y Ciencia, 35–37. 

Guerra, A., and A. F. Gonzales. (2006). Severe injuries in the giant squid, Architeuthis dux, stranded after 

seismic explorations. Paper presented at the International Workshop: Impacts of seismic survey 

activities on whales and other marine biota. Dessau, Germany.

Guest, J., M. Heyward, M. Omori, K. Iwao, A. Morse, and C. Boch. (2010). Rearing coral larvae for reef 

rehabilitation. In A. J. Edwards (Ed.), Reef Rehabilitation Manual (pp. 73–98). St. Lucia, Australia: 

The Coral Reef Targeted Research & Capacity Building for Management Program.

Guest, J. R., J. Low, K. Tun, B. Wilson, C. Ng, D. Raingeard, K. E. Ulstrup, J. T. I. Tanzil, P. A. Todd, T. C. Toh, 

D. McDougald, L. M. Chou, and P. D. Steinberg. (2016). Coral community response to bleaching 

on a highly disturbed reef. Scientific Reports, 6, 20717. 

Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council. (2015). Species Listed in the Fishery Management Plans of 

the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council. Tampa, FL: Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management 

Council.

Hale, S. S., H. W. Buffum, J. A. Kiddon, and M. M. Hughes. (2017). Subtidal Benthic Invertebrates Shifting 

Northward Along the US Atlantic Coast. Estuaries and Coasts, 40(6), 1744–1756. 

Hall, N. M., K. L. E. Berry, L. Rintoul, and M. O. Hoogenboom. (2015). Microplastic ingestion by 

scleractinian corals. Marine Biology, 162, 725–732. 

Halley, R., G. P. Dennis, D. Weaver, and F. C. Coleman. (2005). National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration Coral Reef Conservation Grants 2002: Habitat Characterization of Pulley Ridge 

and the Florida Middle Grounds. Part II: Characterization of the Pulley Ridge Coral and Fish 

Fauna (Final Report to The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Coral Reef 

Conservation Grant Program).

Halpern, B., S. Walbridge, K. A. Selkoe, C. V. Kappel, F. Micheli, C. D'Agrosa, J. F. Bruno, K. S. Casey, C. 

Ebert, H. E. Fox, R. Fujita, D. Heinemann, H. S. Lenihan, E. M. P. Madin, M. T. Perry, E. R. Selig, M. 

Spalding, R. S. Steneck, and R. Watson. (2008). A global map of human impact on marine 

ecosystems. Science, 319(5865), 948–952. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.4-140

3.4 References

Harter, S. L., M. M. Ribera, A. N. Shepard, and J. K. Reed. (2009). Assessment of fish populations and 

habitat on Oculina Bank, a deep-sea coral marine protected area off eastern Florida. Fishery 

Bulletin, 107(2), 195–206. 

Harvell, C. D., C. E. Mitchell, J. R. Ward, S. Altizer, A. P. Dobson, R. S. Ostfeld, and M. D. Samuel. (2002). 

Climate warming and disease risks for terrestrial and marine biota. Science, 296(5576), 2158–

2162. 

Hawkins, A. D., A. E. Pembroke, and A. N. Popper. (2015). Information gaps in understanding the effects 

of noise on fishes and invertebrates. Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries, 25, 39–64. 

Hayward, B. W., T. Cedhagen, M. Kaminski, and O. Gross. (2016). World Foraminifera Database. 

Retrieved from http://www.marinespecies.org/foraminifera/.

Heberholz, J., and B. A. Schmitz. (2001). Signaling via water currents in behavioral interactions of 

snapping shrimp (Alpheus heterochaelis). Biological Bulletin, 201, 6–16. 

Henninger, H. P., and W. H. Watson, III. (2005). Mechanisms underlying the production of carapace 

vibrations and associated waterborne sounds in the American lobster, Homarus americanus. The 

Journal of Experimental Biology, 208, 3421–3429. 

Heron, S., J. Morgan, M. Eakin, and W. Skirving. (2008). Chapter 3: Hurricanes and Their Effects on Coral 

Reefs. In C. Wilkinson & D. Souter (Eds.), Status of Caribbean Coral Reefs After Bleaching and 

Hurricanes in 2005 (pp. 31–36). Townsville, Australia: Global Coral Reef Monitoring Network, 

and Reef and Rainforest Research Centre.

Heyward, A. J., and A. P. Negri. (2012). Turbulence, cleavage, and the naked embryo: A case for coral 

clones. Science, 335, 1064. 

Hoadley, K. D., D. T. Pettay, A. G. Grottoli, W.-J. Cai, T. F. Melman, V. Schoepf, X. Hu, Q. Li, H. Xu, Y. 

Wang, Y. Matsui, J. H. Baumann, and M. E. Warner. (2015). Physiological response to elevated 

temperature and pCO2 varies across four Pacific coral species: Understanding the unique 

host+symbiont response. Scientific Reports 5:18371, 1–15. 

Hoover, J. P. (1998a). Echinoderms: Phylum Echinodermata. In Hawai'i's Sea Creatures: A Guide to 

Hawai'i's Marine Invertebrates (pp. 290–335). Honolulu, HI: Mutual Publishing.

Hoover, J. P. (1998b). Bryozoans: Phylum Bryozoa (or Ectoprocta) Hawai'i's Sea Creatures: A Guide to 

Hawai'i's Marine Invertebrates (pp. 87–91). Honolulu, HI: Mutual Publishing.

Hoover, J. P. (1998c). Hawaii's Sea Creatures A Guide to Hawaii's Marine Invertebrates. Korea: Mutual 

Publishing.

Horton, T. (2016, September 8, 2016). Stealth reefs and the Navy's big guns. Suffolk News-Herald.

Hourigan, T. F., P. J. Etnoyer, and S. D. Cairns. (2017a). Introduction to the State of Deep-Sea Coral and 

Sponge Ecosystems of the United States. In T. F. Hourigan, P. J. Etnoyer, & S. D. Cairns (Eds.), The 

State of Deep-Sea Coral and Sponge Ecosystems of the United States (Vol. National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration Technical Memorandum NMFS-OHC-3, pp. 1–34). Silver Spring, MD: 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

Hourigan, T. F., J. Reed, S. Pomponi, S. W. Ross, A. W. David, and S. Harter. (2017b). State of the DeepSea Coral and Sponge Ecosystems off the Southeast United States The State of Deep-Sea Coral 

and Sponge Ecosystems in the United States (pp. 13-11–13-61). Silver Spring, MD: National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.4-141

3.4 References

Hu, M. Y., H. Y. Yan, W. S. Chung, J. C. Shiao, and P. P. Hwang. (2009). Acoustically evoked potentials in 

two cephalopods inferred using the auditory brainstem response (ABR) approach. Comparative 

Biochemistry and Physiology, Part A, 153, 278–283. 

Hughes, A. R., D. A. Mann, and D. L. Kimbro. (2014). Predatory fish sounds can alter crab foraging 

behavior and influence bivalve abundance. Proceedings of the Royal Society Biological Sciences, 

281(20140715). 

Hughes, T. P., and J. H. Connell. (1999). Multiple stressors on coral reefs: A long-term perspective. 

Limnology and Oceanography, 44(3, part 2), 932–940. 

Hughes, T. P., and J. E. Tanner. (2000). Recruitment Failure, Life Histories, and Long-Term Decline of 

Caribbean Corals. Ecology, 81(8), 2250–2263. 

Hughes, T. P., A. H. Baird, D. R. Bellwood, M. Card, S. R. Connolly, C. Folke, R. Grosberg, O. HoeghGuldberg, J. B. C. Jackson, J. Kleypas, J. M. Lough, P. A. Marshall, M. Nystrom, S. R. Palumbi, J. M. 

Pandolfi, B. Rosen, and J. Roughgarden. (2003). Climate change, human impacts, and the 

resilience of coral reefs. Science, 301(5635), 929–933. 

Hunt, B., and A. C. J. Vincent. (2006). Scale and sustainability of marine bioprospecting for 

pharmaceuticals. Ambio, 35(2), 57–64. 

Jaap, W. C. (1984). The ecology of the South Florida coral reefs: A community profile (Southwest Florida 

Shelf Coastal Ecological Characterization). Washington, DC: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Jaap, W. C., J. C. Halas, and R. G. Muller. (1988). Community dynamics of stony corals (Milleporina and 

Scleractinia) at Key Largo National Marine Sanctuary, Florida during 1981–1986. Paper 

presented at the 6th International Coral Reef Symposium, Townsville, Australia.

Jaap, W. C., J. W. Porter, J. L. Wheaton, C. Beaver, K. E. Hackett, M. J. Lybolt, M. K. Callahan, J. Kidney, S. 

Kupfner, C. Torres, and K. Sutherland. (2002). EPA/NOAA Coral Reef Evaluation and Monitoring 

Project (CREMP), 2002 Executive Summary. St. Petersburg, FL: Florida Marine Research Institute.

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, and R. R. Warner. (2001). Historical 

overfishing and the recent collapse of coastal ecosystems. Science, 293, 629–638. 

Jackson, J. B. C., M. K. Donovan, K. L. Cramer, and V. V. Lam. (2014). Status and Trends of Caribbean 

Coral Reefs: 1970–2012. Gland, Switzerland: Global Coral Reef Monitoring Network, 

International Union for the Conservation of Nature.

Jeffs, A., N. Tolimieri, and J. C. Montgomery. (2003). Crabs on cue for the coast: The use of underwater 

sound for orientation by pelagic crab stages. Marine Freshwater Resources, 54, 841–845. 

Jennings, S., and M. J. Kaiser. (1998). The effects of fishing on marine ecosystems. In J. H. S. Blaxter, A. J. 

Southward, & P. A. Tyler (Eds.), Advances in Marine Biology (Vol. 34, pp. 201–352). Warwick, 

United Kingdom: Academic Press.

Jompa, J., Suharto, E. M. Anpusyahnur, P. N. Dwjja, J. Subagio, I. Alimin, R. Anwar, S. Syamsuddin, T. 

Heni, U. Radiman, H. Triyono, R. A. Sue, and N. Soeyasa. (2012). Electrically Stimulated Corals in 

Indonesia Reef Restoration Projects Show Greatly Accelerated Growth Rates. In T. J. Goreau & R. 

K. T. Trench (Eds.), Innovative Methods of Marine Ecosystem Restoration (pp. 47–58). Boca 

Raton, FL: CRC Press.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.4-142

3.4 References

Jumars, P. A., K. M. Dorgan, and S. M. Lindsay. (2015). Diet of worms emended: An update of polychaete 

feeding guilds. Annual Review of Marine Science, 7, 497–520. 

Kaifu, K., T. Akamatsu, and S. Segawa. (2008). Underwater sound detection by cephalopod statocyst. 

Fisheries Science, 74, 781–786. 

Kaiser, M. J., J. S. Collie, S. J. Hall, S. Jennings, and I. R. Poiner. (2002). Modification of marine habitats by 

trawling activities: Prognosis and solutions. Fish and Fisheries, 3(2), 114–136. 

Kaplan, M. B., and T. A. Mooney. (2016). Coral reef soundscapes may not be detectable far from the 

reef. Scientific Reports, 6(31862), 1–10. 

Kaposi, K. L., B. Mos, B. P. Kelaher, and S. A. Dworjanyn. (2014). Ingestion of microplastic has limited 

impact on a marine larva. Environmental Science & Technology, 48(3), 1638–1645. 

Karleskint, G., Jr. , R. Turner, and J. W. Small, Jr. (2006). Introduction to Marine Biology (2nd ed.). 

Belmont, CA: Thomson Brooks/Cole.

Karlsson, S., and A. C. Albertsson. (1998). Biodegradable polymers and environmental interaction. 

Polymer Engineering and Science, 38(8), 1251–1253. 

Keevin, T. M., and G. L. Hempen. (1997). The Environmental Effects of Underwater Explosions with 

Methods to Mitigate Impacts. St. Louis, MO: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

Kelley, C., G. Carton, M. Tomlinson, and A. Gleason. (2016). Analysis of towed camera images to 

determine the effects of disposed mustard-filled bombs on the deep water benthic community 

off south Oahu. Deep Sea Research Part II: Topical Studies in Oceanography, 128, 34–42. 

Kershaw, P., S. Katsuhiko, S. Lee, J. Samseth, and D. Woodring. (2011). Plastic Debris in the Ocean. In T. 

Goverse & S. Bech (Eds.), United Nations Environment Programme Yearbook 2011: Emerging 

Issues in our Global Environment. Nairobi, Kenya: United Nations Environment Programme.

Kirstein, I. V., S. Kirmizi, A. Wichels, A. Garin-Fernandez, R. Erler, M. Loder, and G. Gerdts. (2016). 

Dangerous hitchhikers? Evidence for potentially pathogenic Vibrio spp. on microplastic particles. 

Marine Environmental Research, 120, 1–8. 

Koehl, M. A. R., J. R. Koseff, J. P. Crimaldi, M. G. McCay, T. Cooper, M. B. Wiley, and P. A. Moore. (2001). 

Lobster sniffing: Antennule design and hydrodynamic filtering of information in an odor plume. 

Science, 294, 1948–1951. 

Koenig, C. C., A. N. Shepard, J. K. Reed, F. C. Coleman, S. D. Brooke, J. Brusher, and K. M. Scanlon. (2005). 

Habitat and Fish Populations in the Deep-Sea Oculina Coral Ecosystem of the Western Atlantic. 

American Fisheries Society Symposium, 41, 795–805. 

Koide, S., J. A. K. Silva, V. Dupra, and M. Edwards. (2016). Bioaccumulation of chemical warfare agents, 

energetic materials, and metals in deep-sea shrimp from discarded military munitions sites off 

Pearl Harbor. Deep Sea Research Part II: Topical Studies in Oceanography, 128, 53–62. 

Kunc, H. P., G. N. Lyons, J. D. Sigwart, K. E. McLaughlin, and J. D. R. Houghton. (2014). Anthropogenic 

noise affects behavior across sensory modalities. The American Naturalist, 184(4), 1–9. 

Kunc, H. P., K. E. McLaughlin, and R. Schmidt. (2016). Aquatic noise pollution: Implications for 

individuals, populations, and ecosystems. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B, 

283(20160839), 1–8. 

Lagardère, J. P. (1982). Effects of noise on growth and reproduction of Crangon crangon in rearing tanks. 

Marine Biology, 71, 177–185. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.4-143

3.4 References

Latha, G., S. Senthilvadivu, R. Venkatesan, and V. Rajendran. (2005). Sound of shallow and deep water 

lobsters: Measurements, analysis, and characterization. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of 

America, 117(5), 2720–2723. 

Leite, L., D. Campbell, L. Versiani, J. Anchieta, C. C. Nunes, and T. Thiele. (2016). First report of a dead 

giant squid (Architeuthis dux) from an operating seismic vessel. Marine Biodiversity Records, 

9(26), 1–3. 

Levinton, J. S. (2009). Marine Biology: Function, Biodiversity, Ecology (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Oxford 

University Press.

Lillis, A., D. B. Eggleston, and D. R. Bohnenstiehl. (2013). Oyster larvae settle in response to habitatassociated underwater sounds. PLoS ONE, 8(10), e79337. 

Lillis, A., D. Bohnenstiehl, J. W. Peters, and D. Eggleston. (2016). Variation in habitat soundscape 

characteristics influences settlement of a reef-building coral. PeerJ, 4:e2557. 

Lindholm, J., M. Gleason, D. Kline, L. Clary, S. Rienecke, and M. Bell. (2013). Central Coast Trawl Impact 

and Recovery Study: 2009–2012 Final Report. Sacramento, CA: California Ocean Protection 

Council.

Lirman, D. (2000). Fragmentation in the branching coral Acropora palmata (Lamarck): Growth, 

survivorship, and reproduction of colonies and fragments. Journal of Experimental Marine 

Biology and Ecology, 251, 41–57. 

Lirman, D., S. Schopmeyer, D. Manzello, L. J. Gramer, W. F. Precht, F. Muller-Karger, K. Banks, B. Barnes, 

E. Bartels, A. Bourque, J. Byrne, S. Donahue, J. Duquesnel, L. Fisher, D. Gilliam, J. Hendee, M. 

Johnson, K. Maxwell, E. McDevitt, J. Monty, D. Rueda, R. Ruzicka, and S. Thanner. (2011). Severe 

2010 cold-water event caused unprecedented mortality to corals of the Florida reef tract and 

reversed previous survivorship patterns. PLoS ONE, 6(8), e23047. 

Lobel, L. K., and P. Lobel. (2000). Coral Reef Protection Implementation Plan. Washington, DC: U.S. 

Department of Defense, U.S. Department of the Navy, U.S. Coral Reef Task Force.

Lohmann, K. J., N. D. Pentcheff, G. A. Nevitt, G. D. Stetten, R. K. Zimmer-Faust, H. E. Jarrard, and L. C. 

Boles. (1995). Magnetic orientation of spiny lobsters in the ocean: Experiments with undersea 

coil systems. The Journal of Experimental Biology, 198(10), 2041–2048. 

Lohmann, K. J., and C. M. F. Lohmann. (2006). Sea turtles, lobsters, and oceanic magnetic maps. Marine 

and Freshwater Behaviour and Physiology, 39(1), 49–64. 

Lotufo, G. R., G. Rosen, W. Wild, and G. Carton. (2013). Summary Review of the Aquatic Toxicology of 

Munitions Constituents. (ERDC/EL TR-13-8). Washington, DC: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

Lough, J. M., and M. J. H. van Oppen. (2009). Coral Bleaching: Patterns, Processes, Causes and 

Consequences. In M. J. H. van Oppen & J. M. Lough (Eds.), Coral Bleaching (Vol. Ecological 

Studies 205). Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag.

Love, M. S., M. M. Yoklavich, B. A. Black, and A. H. Andrews. (2007). Age of black coral (Antipathes 

dendrochristos) colonies, with notes on associated invertebrate species. Bulletin of Marine 

Science, 80(2), 391–400. 

Love, M. S., M. M. Nishimoto, S. Clark, and A. S. Bull. (2016). Renewable Energy in situ Power Cable 

Observation. (OCS Study 2016-008). Camarillo, CA: U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of 

Ocean Energy Management, Pacific OCS Region.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.4-144

3.4 References

Lovell, J. M., M. M. Findlay, R. M. Moate, and H. Y. Yan. (2005). The hearing abilities of the prawn, 

Palaemon serratus. Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology, Part A, 140, 89–100. 

Lovell, J. M., R. M. Moate, L. Christiansen, and M. M. Findlay. (2006). The relationship between body size 

and evoked potentials from the statocysts of the prawn, Palaemon serratus. The Journal of 

Experimental Biology, 209, 2480–2485. 

Lumsden, S. E., T. F. Hourigan, A. W. Bruckner, and G. Dorr. (2007). The State of Deep Coral Ecosystems 

of the United States: 2007. (NOAA Technical Memorandum CRCP-3). Silver Spring, MD: National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

Lunden, J. J., C. G. McNicholl, C. R. Sears, C. L. Morrison, and E. E. Cordes. (2014). Acute survivorship of 

the deep-sea coral Lophelia pertusa from the Gulf of Mexico under acidification, warming, and 

deoxygenation. Frontiers in Marine Science, 1(78). 

Mackie, G. O., and C. L. Singla. (2003). The capsular organ of Chelyosoma productum (Ascidiacea: 

Corellidae): A new tunicate hydrodynamic sense organ. Brain, Behavior and Evolution, 61, 45–

58. 

Macpherson, E. (2002). Large-scale species-richness gradients in the Atlantic Ocean. Proceedings of the 

Royal Society of Biology, 269(1501), 1715–1720. 

Macreadie, P. I., A. M. Fowler, and D. J. Booth. (2011). Rigs-to-reefs: Will the deep sea benefit from 

artificial habitat? Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 9(8), 455–461. 

Mah, C. L., and D. B. Blake. (2012). Global diversity and phylogeny of the Asteroidea (Echinodermata). 

PLoS ONE, 7(4), e35644. 

Maine Department of Marine Resources. (2010). Green sea urchins. Coastal Fishery Research Priorities.

Retrieved from http://www.maine.gov/dmr/research/sea_urchins.htm.

Marhaver, K. L., M. J. A. Vermeij, and M. M. Medina. (2015). Reproductive natural history and successful 

juvenile propagation of the threatened Caribbean Pillar Coral Dendrogyra cylindrus. BioMed 

Central Ecology, 15(9), 1–11. 

McCauley, R. D., J. Fewtrell, A. J. Duncan, C. Jenner, M.-N. Jenner, J. D. Penrose, R. I. T. Prince, A. 

Adhitya, J. Murdoch, and K. McCabe. (2000a). Marine seismic surveys: A study of environmental 

implications. Australian Petroleum Production Exploration Association Journal, 2000, 692–708. 

McCauley, R. D., J. Fewtrell, A. J. Duncan, C. Jenner, M.-N. Jenner, J. D. Penrose, R. I. T. Prince, A. 

Adhitya, J. Murdoch, and K. A. McCabe. (2000b). Marine Seismic Surveys: Analysis and 

Propagation of Air-gun Signals; and Effects of Air-gun Exposure on Humpback Whales, Sea 

Turtles, Fishes and Squid. Bentley, Australia: Centre for Marine Science and Technology.

McCauley, R. D., R. D. Day, K. M. Swadling, Q. P. Fitzgibbon, R. A. Watson, and J. M. Semmens. (2017). 

Widely used marine seismic survey air gun operations negatively impact zooplankton. Nature, 

1(0195). 

McClanahan, T. R. (2017). Changes in coral sensitivity to thermal anomalies. Marine Ecology Progress 

Series, 570, 71–85. 

McDermott, J. J. (2001). Status of the Nemertea as prey in marine ecosystems. Hydrobiologia, 456(1), 7–

20. 

McMurray, S., J. Vicente, K. Jabanoski, and T. Lewis. (2012). Spawning of the basket star, Astrophyton 

muricatum, in the Bahamas. Coral Reefs, 1, 1. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.4-145

3.4 References

Mead, K. S., and M. W. Denny. (1995). The effects of hydrodynamic shear stress on fertilization and early 

development of the purple sea urchin Strongylocentrotus purpuratus. The Biological Bulletin, 

188, 46–56. 

Mearns, A. J., D. J. Reish, P. S. Oshida, T. Ginn, and M. A. Rempel-Hester. (2011). Effects of Pollution on 

Marine Organisms. Water Environment Research, 83(10), 1789–1852. 

Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council. (2016). Draft Amendment 17 to the Atlantic Surfclam and 

Ocean Quahog Fishery Management Plan. Dover, DE: Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council.

Mid-Atlantic Regional Council On The Ocean. (2015). Assessment of Marine Debris in the Mid-Atlantic. 

Williamsburg, VA: Mid-Atlantic Regional Council On The Ocean.

Miller, K. J., A. A. Rowden, A. Williams, and V. Häussermann. (2011). Out of their depth? Isolated deep 

populations of the cosmopolitan coral Desmophyllum dianthus may be highly vulnerable to 

environmental change. PLoS ONE, 6(5), e19004. 

Miller, M., A. S. Bourque, and J. A. Bohnsack. (2002). An analysis of the loss of acroporid corals at Looe 

Key, Florida, U.S.A.: 1983–2000. Coral Reefs, 21(2), 179–182. 

Miloslavich, P., E. Klein, J. M. Díaz, C. E. Hernández, G. Bigatti, L. Campos, F. Artigas, J. Castillo, P. E. 

Penchaszadeh, P. E. Neill, A. Carranza, M. V. Retana, J. M. Díaz de Astarloa, M. Lewis, P. Yorio, 

M. L. Piriz, D. Rodríguez, Y. Yoneshigue-Valentin, L. Gamboa, and A. Martín. (2011). Marine 

Biodiversity in the Atlantic and Pacific Coasts of South America: Knowledge and Gaps. PLoS ONE, 

6(1), e14631. 

Mintz, J. D., and R. J. Filadelfo. (2011). Exposure of Marine Mammals to Broadband Radiated Noise

(Specific Authority N0001-4-05-D-0500). Washington, DC: Center for Naval Analyses.

Monaco, M. E., J. Waddell, A. Clarke, C. Caldow, C. F. G. Jeffrey, and S. Pittman. (2008). Status of the 

coral reef ecosystem in the U.S. Caribbean and Gulf of Mexico: Florida, Flower Garden Banks, 

Puerto Rico, Navassa and USVI In C. Wilkinson (Ed.), Status of Coral Reefs of the World: 2008 (pp. 

225–238). Townsville, Australia: Global Coral Reef Monitoring Network and Reef and Rainforest 

Research Centre.

Montgomery, J. C., A. Jeffs, S. D. Simpson, M. Meekan, and C. Tindle. (2006). Sound as an orientation cue 

for the pelagic larvae of reef fishes and decapod crustaceans. Advances in Marine Biology, 51, 

143–196. 

Mooney, T. A., R. T. Hanlon, J. Christensen-Dalsgaard, P. T. Madsen, D. Ketten, and P. E. Nachtigall. 

(2010). Sound detection by the longfin squid (Loligo pealeii) studied with auditory evoked 

potentials: Sensitivity to low-frequency particle motion and not pressure. The Journal of 

Experimental Biology, 213, 3748–3759. 

Mora, C., D. P. Tittensor, S. Adl, A. G. Simpson, and B. Worm. (2011). How many species are there on 

Earth and in the ocean? PLoS Biology, 9(8), 1–8. 

Morris, K. J., P. A. Tyler, D. G. Masson, V. I. A. Huvenne, and A. D. Rogers. (2013). Distribution of coldwater corals in the Whittard Canyon, NE Atlantic Ocean. Deep-Sea Research II, 92, 136–144. 

Muller, E. M., N. M. Leporacci, K. J. Macartney, A. G. Shea, R. E. Crane, E. R. Hall, and K. B. Ritchie. 

(2017). Low pH reduces the virulence of black band disease on Orbicella faveolata. PLoS ONE, 

12(6). 

Murray, F., S. Hennige, J. M. Roberts, E. Anagnostou, A. Gori, L. Wicks, J. Stewart, and G. Foster. (2016). 

Cold-water-corals in a high CO2 ocean: Behaviour, physiology and growth in Desmophyllum 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.4-146

3.4 References

dianthus. Paper presented at the Annual Science Meeting. University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, 

Scotland.

Muthukrishnan, R., and P. Fong. (2014). Multiple anthropogenic stressors exert complex, interactive 

effects on a coral reef community. Coral Reefs, 33, 911–921. 

Myrberg, A. A., Jr. (2001). The acoustical biology of elasmobranchs. Environmental Biology of Fishes, 60, 

31–45. 

Nakamachi, T., H. Ishida, and N. Hirohashi. (2015). Sound production in the aquatic isopod Cymodoce 

japonica (Crustacea: Peracarida). The Biological Bulletin, 229(2), 167–172. 

National Marine Fisheries Service. (2010). Elkhorn Coral (Acropora palmata). Silver Spring, MD: National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Fisheries, Office of Protected Species. Retrieved from 

https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/species/elkhorn-coral.

National Marine Fisheries Service. (2012a). Management Report for 82 Corals Status Review under the 

Endangered Species Act: Existing Regulatory Mechanisms and Conservation Efforts. Silver Spring, 

MD: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Retrieved from 

https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/resource/document/management-report-82-corals-statusreview-under-endangered-species-act-esa.

National Marine Fisheries Service. (2012b). Ecosystem Status Report for the Northeast Shelf Large 

Marine Ecosystem–2011. (Northeast Fisheries Science Center Reference Document 12-07). 

Woods Hole, MA: U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, Northeast Fisheries Science Center, 

Ecosystem Assessment Program.

National Marine Fisheries Service. (2014). Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: Final Listing 

Determinations on Proposal to List 66 Reef-Building Coral Species and To Reclassify Elkhorn and 

Staghorn Corals. Federal Register, 50(223), 53852. 

National Marine Fisheries Service. (2015). Recovery Plan. Elkhorn Coral (Acropora palmata) and 

Staghorn Coral (A. cervicornis). St. Petersburg, FL: Southeast Regional Office.

National Ocean and Atmospheric Administration. (2016). Deep-Sea Coral Ecosystems. Retrieved from 

https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/habitat-conservation/deep-sea-coral-habitat.

National Ocean Service. (2016a). Where Are Reef Building Corals Found. Retrieved from 

http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/tutorial_corals/coral05_distribution.html.

National Ocean Service. (2016b). What is coral bleaching? , Retrieved from

http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/coral_bleach.html.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. (2008a). Corals: Anthropogenic Threats to Corals. 

Retrieved from 

http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/kits/corals/coral09_humanthreats.html.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. (2008b). Corals: Natural Threats to Coral Reefs. 

Retrieved from 

http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/kits/corals/coral08_naturalthreats.html.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and National Marine Fisheries Service. (2008). 

Habitat Connections: Deep Sea Corals. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.4-147

3.4 References

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. (2012). Supplemental Information Report on Status 

Review Report and Draft Management Report for 82 Coral Candidate Species. Washington, DC: 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Pacific Islands Regional Office.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. (2013). Okeanos Explorer. Chemosynthetic 

Communities and Gas Hydrates at Cold Seeps South of Nantucket. Retrieved from 

http://oceanexplorer.noaa.gov/okeanos/explorations/ex1304/logs/july12/july12.html.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. (2015). Invertebrates and Plants. Retrieved from 

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/invertebrates/.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. (2016a). El Nino prolongs longest global coral 

bleaching event. Retrieved from http://www.noaa.gov/media-release/el-ni-o-prolongs-longestglobal-coral-bleaching-event.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. (2016b). Investigation of East Flower Garden Bank 

coral die-off continues amid new coral bleaching event. Retrieved from 

http://sanctuaries.noaa.gov/news/sep16/investigation-of-coral-die-off-continues-amidbleaching-event.html.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. (2016c). NOAA scientists report mass die-off of 

invertebrates at East Flower Garden Bank in Gulf of Mexico. Retrieved from 

http://sanctuaries.noaa.gov/news/jul16/noaa-scientists-report-mass-die-off-of-invertebratesat-east-flower-garden-bank.html.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and NOAA’s Coral Reef Conservation Program. 

(2016). Coral Facts. Retrieved from http://coralreef.noaa.gov/education/coralfacts.html.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Fisheries. (2015). Invertebrates and Plants. Office of 

Protected Resources. Retrieved from http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/invertebrates/.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Marine Debris Program. (2014a). Report on the 

Occurrence of Health Effects of Anthropogenic Debris Ingested by Marine Organisms. Silver 

Spring, MD: National Ocean Service.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Marine Debris Program. (2014b). Report on the 

Entanglement of Marine Species in Marine Debris with an Emphasis on Species in the United 

States. Silver Spring, MD: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Ocean Explorer. (2010). Mission Plan–Windows to the 

Deep: Exploration of the Blake Ridge. Retrieved from 

http://oceanexplorer.noaa.gov/explorations/03windows/background/plan/plan.html.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Ocean Explorer. (2012). Baltimore cold seeps rediscovered. Retrieved from 

http://oceanexplorer.noaa.gov/explorations/12midatlantic/logs/aug26/aug26.html.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Ocean Explorer. (2013). Discovery of a New Deep 

Chemosynthetic Community. Retrieved from 

http://oceanexplorer.noaa.gov/explorations/13midatlantic/logs/may8/may8.html.

Nedelec, S. L., A. N. Radford, S. D. Simpson, B. Nedelec, D. Lecchini, and S. C. Mills. (2014). 

Anthropogenic noise playback impairs embryonic development and increases mortality in a 

marine invertebrate. Scientific Reports, 4(5891), 1–4. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.4-148

3.4 References

Negri, A. P., L. D. Smith, N. S. Webster, and A. J. Heyward. (2002). Understanding ship-grounding impacts 

on a coral reef: Potential effects of anti-foulant paint contamination on coral recruitment. 

Marine Pollution Bulletin, 44, 111–117. 

New England Fishery Management Council. (2010). Deep-Sea Red Crab Fishery Management Plan. 

Newburyport, MA: National Marine Fisheries Service, Northeast Regional Office.

New England Fishery Management Council. (2013). Framework 24 to the Scallop Fishery Management 

Plan and Framework 49 to the Multispecies Fishery Management Plan. Newburyport, MA: New 

England Fishery Management Council.

Norenburg, J. L. (2009). Nemertea of the Gulf of Mexico. In D. L. Felder & D. K. Camp (Eds.), Gulf of 

Mexico - Origins, Waters, and Biota (pp. 553–558). College Station, TX: Texas A&M University 

Press.

Normandeau Associates, Inc. (2012). Effects of Noise on Fish, Fisheries, and Invertebrates in the U.S. 

Atlantic and Arctic from Energy Industry Sound-Generating Activities. Bedford, NH: United States 

Department of the Interior.

Norstrom, A. V., M. Nystrom, J. Lokrantz, and C. Folke. (2009). Alternative states on coral reefs: Beyond 

coral-macroalgal phase shifts. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 376, 293–306. 

Nybakken, J. W. (1993). Marine Biology, an Ecological Approach (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Harper Collins 

College Publishers.

Ocean Conservancy. (2010). Trash Travels: From Our Hands to the Sea, Around the Globe, and Through 

Time (International Coastal Cleanup Report). Washington, DC: Ocean Conservancy.

Packard, A., H. E. Karlsen, and O. Sand. (1990). Low frequency hearing in cephalopods. Journal of 

Comparative Physiology A, 166, 501–505. 

Packer, D. B., M. S. Nizinski, M. S. Bachman, A. F. Drohan, M. Poti, and B. P. Kinlan. (2017). State of the 

Deep-Sea Coral and Sponge Ecosystems off the Northeast United States. In T. F. Hourigan, P. J. 

Etnoyer, & S. D. Cairns (Eds.), The State of Deep-Sea Coral and Sponge Ecosystems in the United 

States (Vol. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-OHC-X, pp. 9–1–9–65). Silver Spring, MD: 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

Pait, A. S., A. L. Mason, D. R. Whitall, J. D. Christensen, and S. I. Hartwell. (2010). Chapter 5: Assessment 

of Chemical Contaminants in Sediments and Corals in Vieques. In L. J. Bauer & M. S. Kendall 

(Eds.), An Ecological Characterization of the Marine Resources of Vieques, Puerto Rico (pp. 101–

150). Silver Spring, MD: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

Pandolfi, J. M., R. H. Bradbury, E. Sala, T. P. Hughes, K. A. Bjorndal, R. G. Cooke, D. McArdle, L. 

McClenachan, M. J. H. Newman, G. Paredes, R. R. Warner, and J. B. C. Jackson. (2003). Global 

trajectories of the long-term decline of coral reef ecosystems. Science, 301, 955–958. 

Pandolfi, J. M., J. B. C. Jackson, N. Baron, R. H. Bradbury, H. M. Guzman, T. P. Hughes, C. V. Kappel, F. 

Micheli, J. C. Ogden, H. P. Possingham, and E. Sala. (2005). Are U.S. coral reefs on the slippery 

slope to slime? Science, 307(5716), 1725–1726. 

Pansch, C., G. S. I. Hattich, M. E. Heinrichs, A. Pansch, Z. Zagrodzka, and J. N. Havenhand. (2018). Longterm exposure to acidification disrupts reproduction in a marine invertebrate. PLoS ONE, 13(2), 

e0192036. 

Parry, G. D., and A. Gason. (2006). The effect of seismic surveys on catch rates of rock lobsters in 

western Victoria, Australia. Fisheries Research, 79, 272–284. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.4-149

3.4 References

Patek, S. N., and R. L. Caldwell. (2006). The stomatopod rumble: Low frequency sound production in 

Hemisquilla californiensis. Marine and Freshwater Behaviour and Physiology, 39(2), 99–111. 

Patek, S. N., L. E. Shipp, and E. R. Staaterman. (2009). The acoustics and acoustic behavior of the 

California spiny lobster (Panulirus interruptus). The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 

125(5), 3434–3443. 

Patterson, K. L., J. W. Porter, K. B. Ritchie, S. W. Polson, E. Mueller, E. C. Peters, D. L. Santavy, and G. J. 

Smith. (2002). The etiology of white pox, a lethal disease of the Caribbean elkhorn coral,

Acropora palmata. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 99(13), 8725–8730. 

Pauly, D., V. Christensen, S. Guenette, T. J. Pitcher, U. R. Sumaila, C. J. Walters, R. Watson, and D. Zeller. 

(2002). Towards sustainability in world fisheries. Nature, 418(6898), 689–695. 

Payne, J. F., C. A. Andrews, L. L. Fancey, A. L. Cook, and J. R. Christian. (2007). Pilot Study on the Effects of 

Seismic Air Gun Noise on Lobster (Homarus americanus). St. John's, NL Environmental Studies 

Research Funds Report 

Pearse, V., J. Pearse, M. Buchsbaum, and R. Buchsbaum. (1987). Living Invertebrates. Palo Alto, CA: 

Boxwood Press.

Pearson, W. H., J. R. Skalski, S. D. Sulkin, and C. I. Malme. (1994). Effects of seismic energy releases on 

the survival and development of zoeal larvae of dungeness crab (Cancer magister). Marine 

Environmental Research, 38, 93–113. 

Peng, C., X. Zhao, S. Liu, W. Shi, Y. Han, C. Guo, J. Jiang, H. Wan, T. Shen, and G. Liu. (2016). Effects of 

anthropogenic sound on digging behavior, metabolism, Ca2+/Mg2+ ATPase activity, and 

metabolism-related gene expression of the bivalve Sinonovacula constricta. Scientific Reports, 

6(24266), 12. 

Perea-Blázquez, A., S. K. Davy, and J. J. Bell. (2012). Estimates of particulate organic carbon flowing from 

the pelagic environment to the benthos through sponge assemblages. PLoS ONE, 7(1), e29569. 

Perkol-Finkel, S., N. Shashar, and Y. Benayahu. (2006). Can artificial reefs mimic natural reef 

communities? The roles of structural features and age. Marine Environmental Research, 61, 

121–135. 

Pine, M. K., A. J. Jeffs, and C. A. Radford. (2016). Effects of Underwater Turbine Noise on Crab Larval 

Metamorphosis. In A. Popper & A. Hawkins (Eds.), The Effects of Noise on Aquatic Life II. 

Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology (Vol. 875, pp. 847–852). New York, NY: Springer.

Polese, G., C. Bertapelle, and A. Cosmo. (2015). Role of olfaction in Octopus vulgaris reproduction. 

General and Comparative Endocrinology, 210, 55–62. 

Popper, A. N., M. Salmon, and K. W. Horch. (2001). Acoustic detection and communication by decapod 

crustaceans. Journal of Comparative Physiology A, 187, 83–89. 

Porter, J. W., P. Dustan, W. C. Jaap, K. L. Patterson, V. Kosmynin, O. W. Meier, M. E. Patterson, and M. 

Parsons. (2001). Patterns of spread of coral disease in the Florida Keys. Hydrobiologia, 460, 1–

24. 

Posey, M., and T. Alphin. (2002). Resilience and Stability in an Offshore Benthic Community: Responses 

to Sediment Borrow Activities and Hurricane Disturbance. Journal of Coastal Research, 18(4), 

685–697. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.4-150

3.4 References

Precht, W. F., R. B. Aronson, and D. W. Swanson. (2001). Improving scientific decision-making in the 

restoration of ship-grounding sites on coral reefs. Bulletin of Marine Science, 69(2), 1001–1012. 

Precht, W. F., B. E. Gintert, M. L. Robbart, R. Fura, and R. Woesik. (2016). Unprecedented DiseaseRelated Coral Mortality in Southeastern Florida. Scientific Reports, 6(31374), 11. 

Putnam, H. M., and R. D. Gates. (2015). Preconditioning in the reef-building coral Pocillopora damicornis

and the potential for trans-generational acclimatization in coral larvae under future climate 

change conditions. The Journal of Experimental Biology, 218, 2365–2372. 

Quattrini, A. M., M. S. Nizinski, J. D. Chaytor, A. W. Demopoulos, E. B. Roark, S. C. France, J. A. Moore, T. 

Heyl, P. J. Auster, B. Kinlan, C. Ruppel, K. P. Elliott, B. R. Kennedy, E. Lobecker, A. Skarke, and T. 

M. Shank. (2015). Exploration of the Canyon-Incised Continental Margin of the Northeastern 

United States Reveals Dynamic Habitats and Diverse Communities. PLoS ONE, 10(10), 1–32. 

Radford, C. A., A. G. Jeffs, and J. C. Montgomery. (2007). Directional swimming behavior by five species 

of crab postlarvae in response to reef sound. Bulletin of Marine Science, 2(80), 369–378. 

Radford, C. A., J. A. Stanley, C. T. Tindle, J. C. Montgomery, and A. G. Jeffs. (2010). Localised coastal 

habitats have distinct underwater sound signatures. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 401, 21–29. 

Radjasa, O. K., Y. M. Vaske, G. Navarro, H. C. Vervoort, K. Tenney, R. G. Linington, and P. Crews. (2011). 

Highlights of marine invertebrate-derived biosynthetic products: Their biomedical potential and 

possible production by microbial associants. Bioorganic and Medicinal Chemistry, 19(22), 6658 –

6674. 

Ravera, S., C. Falugi, D. Calzia, I. M. Pepe, I. Panfoli, and A. Morelli. (2006). First cell cycles of sea urchin 

Paracentrotus lividus are dramatically impaired by exposure to extremely low-frequency 

electromagnetic field. Biology of Reproduction, 75(6), 948–953. 

Read, G., and K. Fauchald. (2012). Phragmatopoma caudata Krøyer in Mörch, 1863. World Polychaeta 

database. Accessed through: World Register of Marine Species. Retrieved from 

http://www.marinespecies.org/aphia.php?p=taxdetails&id=330550.

Reed, J., S. Farrington, S. Harter, H. Moe, and D. Hanisak. (2015). Characterization of the Mesophotic 

Benthic Habitat and Fish Assemblages from ROV Dives on Pulley Ridge and Tortugas during 2014 

R/V Walton Smith Cruise. Fort Pierce, FL: Cooperative Institute for Ocean Exploration, Research, 

and Technology.

Reed, J. K., D. C. Weaver, and S. A. Pomponi. (2006). Habitat and fauna of deep-water Lophelia pertusa

coral reefs off the southeastern U.S.: Blake Plateau, Straits of Florida, and Gulf of Mexico. 

Bulletin of Marine Science, 78(2), 343–375. 

Reinhall, P. G., and P. H. Dahl. (2011). Underwater Mach wave radiation from impact pile driving: Theory 

and observation. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 130(3), 1209–1216. 

Ribic, C. A., S. B. Sheavly, D. J. Rugg, and E. S. Erdmann. (2010). Trends and drivers of marine debris on 

the Atlantic coast of the United States 1997–2007. Marine Pollution Bulletin 60(8), 1231–1242. 

Ribic, C. A., S. B. Sheavly, and D. J. Rugg. (2011). Trends in Marine Debris in the U.S. Caribbean and the 

Gulf of Mexico 1996-2003. Journal of Integrated Coastal Zone Management, 11(1), 7-19. 

Rios, L. M., C. Moore, and P. R. Jones. (2007). Persistent organic pollutants carried by synthetic polymers 

in the ocean environment. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 54, 1230–1237. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.4-151

3.4 References

Roberts, L., S. Cheesman, T. Breithaupt, and M. Elliott. (2015). Sensitivity of the mussel Mytilus edulis to 

substrate-borne vibration in relation to anthropogenically generated noise. Marine Ecology 

Progress Series, 538, 185–195. 

Roberts, L., S. Cheesman, M. Elliott, and T. Breithaupt. (2016a). Sensitivity of Pagurus bernhardus (L.) to 

substrate-borne vibration and anthropogenic noise. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and 

Ecology, 474, 185–194. 

Roberts, L., H. R. Harding, I. Voellmy, R. Bruintjes, S. D. Simpson, A. N. Radford, T. Breithaupt, and M. 

Elliott. (2016b). Exposure of benthic invertebrates to sediment vibration: From laboratory 

experiments to outdoor simulated pile-driving. Paper presented at the Proceedings of Meetings 

on Acoustics. Dublin, Ireland.

Roberts, S., and M. Hirshfield. (2003). Deep sea corals: Out of sight, but no longer out of mind. Frontiers 

in Ecology & the Environment, 2(3), 123–130. 

Roe, P., and J. L. Norenburg. (1999). Observations on depth distribution, diversity and abundance of 

pelagic nemerteans from the Pacific Ocean off California and Hawaii. Deep-Sea Research, 46(1), 

1201–1220. 

Roff, G., M. H. Ledlie, J. C. Ortiz, and P. J. Mumby. (2011). Spatial patterns of parrotfish corallivory in the 

Caribbean: The importance of coral taxa, density and size. PLoS ONE, 6(12), 1–11. 

Roleda, M. Y., C. E. Cornwall, Y. Feng, C. M. McGraw, A. M. Smith, and C. L. Hurd. (2015). Effect of Ocean 

Acidification and pH Fluctuations on the Growth and Development of Coralline Algal Recruits, 

and an Associated Benthic Algal Assemblage. PLoS ONE, 10(10), e0140394. 

Rooper, C., R. P. Stone, P. Etnoyer, C. Conrath, J. D. Reynolds, H. G. Greene, S. Enrique, C. Morrison, R. 

Waller, and A. Demopoulos. (2017). Deep-Sea Coral Research and Technology Program: Alaska 

Deep-Sea Coral and Sponge Initiative Final Report (NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-OHC2). Silver Spring, MD: National Marine Fisheries Service Office of Habitat Conervation.

Rooper, C. N., M. E. Wilkins, C. S. Rose, and C. Coon. (2011). Modeling the impacts of bottom trawling 

and the subsequent recovery rates of sponges and corals in the Aleutian Islands, Alaska. 

Continental Shelf Research, 31, 1827–1834. 

Rooper, C. N., P. J. Etnoyer, K. L. Stierhoff, and J. V. Olson. (2016). Effects of Fishing Gear on Deep-Sea 

Corals and Sponges in U.S. Waters. In T. F. Hourigan, P. J. Etnoyer, & S. D. Cairns (Eds.), The State 

of Deep-Sea Coral and Sponge Ecosystems in the United States (Vol. NOAA Technical 

Memorandum NMFS-OHC-3, pp. 4–1–4–19). Silver Spring, MD: National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration.

Rosen, G., and G. R. Lotufo. (2005). Toxicity and fate of two munitions constituents in spiked sediment 

exposures with the marine amphipod Eohaustorius estuarius. Environmental Toxicology and 

Chemistry, 24(11), 2887–2897. 

Rosen, G., and G. R. Lotufo. (2010). Fate and effects of composition B in multispecies marine exposures. 

Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 9999(12), 1–8. 

Roskov, Y., L. Abucay, T. Orrell, D. Nicolson, T. Kunze, A. Culham, N. Bailly, P. Kirk, T. Bourgoin, R. E. 

DeWalt, W. Decock, and A. De Weaver. (2015). Species 2000 & ITIS Catalogue of Life, 2015 

Annual Checklist. Retrieved from http://www.catalogueoflife.org/annual-checklist/2015/.

Ross, S. W., A. W. J. Demopoulos, C. A. Kellogg, C. L. Morrison, M. S. Nizinski, C. L. Ames, T. L. Casazza, D. 

Gualtieri, K. Kovacs, J. P. McClain, A. M. Quattrini, A. Y. Roa-Varón, and A. D. Thaler. (2012). 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.4-152

3.4 References

Deepwater Program: Studies of Gulf of Mexico Lower Continental Slope Communities Related to 

Chemosynthetic and Hard Substrate Habitats. (Open-File Report 2012-1032). Reston, VA: U.S.

Geological Survey.

Ross, S. W., S. Brooke, A. M. Quattrini, M. Rhode, and J. C. Watterson. (2015). A deep-sea community, 

including Lophelia pertusa, at unusually shallow depths in the western North Atlantic Ocean off 

northeastern Florida. Marine Biology, 162(3), 635–648. 

Ross, S. W., M. Rhode, and S. Brooke. (2017). Deep-sea coral and hardbottom habitats on the west 

Florida slope, eastern Gulf of Mexico. Deep–Sea Research I, 120, 14–28. 

Rossi, T., S. D. Connell, and I. Nagelkerken. (2016). Silent oceans: Ocean acidification impoverishes 

natural soundscapes by altering sound production of the world's noisiest marine invertebrate. 

Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 283(1826), 20153046. 

Rothenberger, P., J. Blondeau, C. Cox, S. Curtis, W. S. Fisher, V. Garrison, Z. Hillis-Starr, C. F. G. Jeffrey, E. 

Kadison, I. Lundgren, W. J. Miller, E. Muller, R. Nemeth, S. Paterson, C. Rogers, T. Smith, A. 

Spitzack, M. Taylor, W. Toller, J. Wright, D. Wusinich-Mendez, and J. Waddell. (2008). The State 

of Coral Reef Ecosystems of the U.S. Virgin Islands. In J. E. Waddell & A. M. Clarke (Eds.), The 

State of Coral Reef Ecosystems of the United States and Pacific Freely Associated States (pp. 29–

73). Silver Spring, MD: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

Ryland, J. S., and P. J. Hayward. (1991). Marine Flora and Fauna of the Northeastern United States. Erect 

Bryozoa. (NOAA Technical Report NMFS 99). Washington, DC: National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration.

Sakashita, M., and S. Wolf. (2009). Petition to List 83 Coral Species under the Endangered Species Act. 

San Francisco, CA: Center for Biological Diversity.

Schoeman, D. S., A. McLachlan, and J. E. Dugan. (2000). Lessons from a disturbance experiment in the 

intertidal zone of an exposed sandy beach. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science, 50(6), 869–884. 

Schopmeyer, S. A., D. Lirman, E. Bertels, J. Byrne, D. S. Gilliam, J. Hunt, M. E. Johnson, E. A. Larson, K. 

Maxwell, K. Nedimeyer, and C. Walter. (2011). In Situ Coral Nurseries Serve as Genetic 

Repositories for Coral Reef Restoration after an Extreme Cold-Water Event. Restoration Ecology, 

20(6), 696–703. 

Schuhmacher, H., and H. Zibrowius. (1985). What is hermatypic? A redefinition of ecological groups in 

corals and other organisms. Coral Reefs, 4(1), 1–9. 

Setala, O., V. Fleming-Lehtinen, and M. Lehtiniemi. (2014). Ingestion and transfer of microplastics in the

planktonic food web. Environmental Pollution, 185, 77–83. 

Setala, O., J. Norkko, and M. Lehtiniemi. (2016). Feeding type affects microplastic ingestion in a coastal 

invertebrate community. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 102, 95–101. 

Shckorbatov, Y., I. Rudneva, V. Pasiuga, V. Grabina, N. Kolchigin, D. Ivanchenko, O. Kazanskiy, V. Shayda, 

and O. Dumin. (2010). Electromagnetic field effects on Artemia hatching and chromatin state. 

Central European Journal of Biology, 5(6), 785–790. 

Shorr, J., J. Cervino, C. Lin, R. Weeks, and T. J. Goreau. (2012). Electrical Stimulation Increases Oyster 

Growth and Survival in Restoration Projects. In T. J. Goreau & R. K. Trench (Eds.), Innovative 

Methods of Marine Ecosystem Restoration (pp. 151–160). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.

Sijimol, M. R., and M. Mohan. (2014). Environmental impacts of perchlorate with special reference to 

fireworks - A review. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 186, 7203–7210. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.4-153

3.4 References

Simpson, S. D., A. N. Radford, E. J. Tickle, M. G. Meekan, and A. G. Jeffs. (2011). Adaptive avoidance of 

reef noise. PLoS ONE, 6(2), 1–5. 

Skarke, A., C. Ruppel, M. Kodis, D. Brothers, and E. Lobecker. (2014). Widespread methane leakage from 

the sea floor on the northern US Atlantic margin. Nature Geoscience, 7, 657–661. 

Small, D. P., P. Calosi, D. Boothroyd, S. Widdicombe, and J. I. Spicer. (2016). The sensitivity of the early 

benthic juvenile stage of the European lobster Homarus gammarus (L.) to elevated pCO2 and 

temperature. Marine Biology, 163(53). 

Smith, P. N. (2002). Perchlorate in the Environment: Ecological Considerations. Texas Tech University, 

Lubbock, TX: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Center for Environmental 

Assessment.

Smith, S. H., and D. E. Marx, Jr. (2016). De-facto marine protection from a Navy bombing range: Farallon 

de Medinilla, Mariana Archipelago, 1997 to 2012. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 102(1), 187–198. 

Solan, M., C. Hauton, J. A. Godbold, C. L. Wood, T. G. Leighton, and P. White. (2016). Anthropogenic 

sources of underwater sound can modify how sediment-dwelling invertebrates mediate 

ecosystem properties. Scientific Reports, 6(20540), 1–9. 

Sole, M., M. Lenoir, M. Durfort, M. Lopez-Bejar, A. Lombarte, and M. Andre. (2013). Ultrastructural 

damage of Loligo vulgaris and Illex coindetii statocysts after low frequency sound exposure. PLoS 

ONE, 8(10). 

Sole, M., M. Lenoir, J. M. Fontuno, M. Durfort, M. van der Schaar, and M. André. (2016). Evidence of 

Cnidarians sensitivity to sound after exposure to low frequency noise underwater sources.

Scientific Reports, 6(37979), 1–18. 

Sole, M., P. Sigray, M. Lenoir, M. Van der Schaar, E. Lalander, and M. André. (2017). Offshore exposure 

experiments on cuttlefish indicate received sound pressure and particle motion levels associated 

with acoustic trauma. Scientific Reports, 7(45899), 1–13. 

Somerfield, P. J., W. C. Jaap, K. R. Clarke, M. Callahan, K. Hackett, J. Porter, M. Lybolt, C. Tsokos, and G. 

Yanev. (2008). Changes in coral reef communities among the Florida Keys, 1996–2003. Coral 

Reefs, 27, 951–965. 

South Atlantic Fishery Management Council. (1998). Final Habitat Plan for the South Atlantic Region: 

Essential Fish Habitat Requirements for Fishery Management Plans of the South Atlantic Fishery 

Management Council. North Charleston, SC: South Atlantic Fishery Management Council.

South Atlantic Fishery Management Council. (2002). Fishery management plan for pelagic Sargassum 

habitat of the South Atlantic Region. North Charleston, SC: South Atlantic Fishery Management 

Council.

South Atlantic Fishery Management Council. (2016). Species Managed by the South Atlantic Fishery 

Management Council. Revised June 2016. North Charleston, SC: National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration.

South Carolina Department of Natural Resources, and National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration. (1996a). Intertidal Estuarine Subsystem: Flats - The Unvegetated Intertidal. 

Ecological characterization of Otter Island, South Carolina: A prototype for interactive access to 

coastal management information. Retrieved from 

http://webapp1.dlib.indiana.edu/virtual_disk_library/index.cgi/4274965/FID2292/HTMLS/ecosy

s/ecology/flats.htm#top.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.4-154

3.4 References

South Carolina Department of Natural Resources, and National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration. (1996b). Intertidal Estuarine Subsystem: The Intertidal Beach. Ecological 

characterization of Otter Island, South Carolina: A prototype for interactive access to coastal 

management information Retrieved from 

http://webapp1.dlib.indiana.edu/virtual_disk_library/index.cgi/4274965/FID2292/HTMLS/ecosy

s/ecology/intbeach.htm#top.

Spalding, M. D., C. Ravilious, and E. P. Green. (2001). World Atlas of Coral Reefs. Berkeley, CA: University 

of California Press.

Spiga, I. (2016). Acoustic response to playback of pile-driving sounds by snapping shrimp. In A. Popper & 

A. Hawkins (Eds.), The Effects of Noise on Aquatic Life II, Advances in Experimental Medicine and 

Biology (Vol. 875, pp. 1081–1088). New York, NY: Springer.

Srinivasan, A., and T. Viraraghavan. (2009). Perchlorate: Health effects and technologies for its removal 

from water resources. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 6(4), 

1418–1442. 

Stanley, J. A., C. A. Radford, and A. G. Jeffs. (2010). Induction of settlement in crab megalopae by 

ambient underwater reef sound. Behavioral Ecology, 21(3), 113–120. 

Steimle, F. W., and C. Zetlin. (2000). Reef Habitats in the Middle Atlantic Bight: Abundance, Distribution, 

Associated Biological Communities, and Fishery Resource Use. Marine Fisheries Review, 62(2), 

24–42. 

Stevely, J., and D. Sweat. (2008). Exploring the Potential and Protecting the Resource: Florida's Marine 

Sponges. Gainesville, FL: Sea Grant Florida.

Sutherland, K. P., S. Shaban, J. L. Joyner, J. W. Porter, and E. K. Lipp. (2011). Human pathogen shown to 

cause disease in the threatened elkhorn coral, Acropora palmata. PLoS ONE, 6(8), e23468. 

Systems Consultants, I. (1977). Effects of aluminized fiberglass on representative Chesapeake Bay marine 

organisms. Washington, D.C.: Systems Consultants, Inc.

Tewfik, A., S. S. Bell, K. S. McCann, and K. Morrow. (2016). Predator Diet and Trophic Position Modified 

with Altered Habitat Morphology. PLoS ONE, 11(1), 1–22. 

The Nature Conservancy. (2015). Reef Resilience: Changes in Storm Patterns. Retrieved from 

http://www.reefresilience.org/coral-reefs/stressors/climate-and-ocean-change/changes-instorm-patterns/.

The Nature Conservancy. (2016). Reef Resilience: Sea-level Rise. Retrieved from 

http://www.reefresilience.org/coral-reefs/stressors/climate-and-ocean-change/sea-level-rise/.

Thiel, M., and I. Kruse. (2001). Status of the Nemertea as predators in marine ecosystems. 

Hydrobiologia, 456, 21–32. 

Tittensor, D. P., A. R. Baco, P. E. Brewin, M. R. Clark, M. Consalvey, J. Hall-Spencer, A. A. Rowden, T. 

Schlacher, K. I. Stocks, and A. D. Rogers. (2009). Predicting global habitat suitability for stony 

corals on seamounts. Journal of Biogeography, 36, 1111–1128. 

Towle, E. K., A. C. Baker, and C. Langdon. (2016). Preconditioning to high CO2 exacerbates the response 

of the Caribbean branching coral Porites porites to high temperature stress. Marine Ecology 

Progress Series, 546, 75–84. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.4-155

3.4 References

Treible, L. M., K. A. Pitt, S. G. Klein, and R. H. Condon. (2018). Exposure to elevated pCO2 does not 

exacerbate reproductive suppression of Aurelia aurita jellyfish polyps in low oxygen 

environments. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 591, 129–139. 

Trott, T. M., S. A. McKenna, J. M. Pitt, A. Hemphill, F. W. Ming, P. Rouja, K. M. Gjerde, B. Causey, and S. 

A. Earle. (2011). Efforts to Enhance Protection of the Sargasso Sea. Paper presented at the 

Proceedings of the 63rd Gulf and Caribbean Fisheries Institute. San Juan, Puerto Rico.

Tsao, F., and L. E. Morgan. (2005). Corals That Live On Mountaintops. The Journal of Marine Education, 

21(4), 9–11. 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. (2001). Environmental Effects of Beach Nourishment Projects.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. (2012). New York and New Jersey Harbor Deepening Project: 2012 Benthic 

Recovery Report. (Contract #: W912DS-11-D-0008 – Task Order # 5). New York, NY: New York 

District.

U.S. Department of the Navy. (1999). Environmental Effects of RF Chaff: A Select Panel Report to the 

Undersecretary of Defense for Environmental Security. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the 

Navy, Naval Research Laboratory.

U.S. Department of the Navy. (2007). Marine Resource Assessment for Southeastern Florida and the 

AUTEC-Andros Operating Areas, Final Report. (Contract # N62470-02-D-9997, CTO 0034). 

Norfolk, VA: Naval Facilities Engineering Command.

U.S. Department of the Navy. (2009). Jacksonville Range Complex Final Environmental Impact 

Statement/Overseas Environmental Impact Statement. Jacksonville, FL: Naval Facilities 

Engineering Command Atlantic.

U.S. Department of the Navy. (2010). Jacksonville Range Complex Operating Area Undersea Warfare 

Training Range Bottom Mapping and Habitat Characterization, Florida. Final Cruise Report. 

Jacksonville, FL: Naval Facilities Engineering Command Atlantic.

U.S. Department of the Navy. (2011). CC Range Bottom Mapping and Habitat Characterization, Florida. 

Final Cruise Report. Norfolk, VA: Naval Facilities Engineering Command Atlantic.

U.S. Department of the Navy. (2012). Ecosystem Technical Report for the Atlantic Fleet Training and 

Testing (AFTT) Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Arlington, VA: Naval Facilities Engineering 

Command, Atlantic Division. Retrieved from http://www.warcosts.net/wp-content/uploads/usnavy/317BA_1_2012_AFTT_U.S._Navy_Atlantic_Fleet_Training_Testing_Ecosystem_Final_Techn

ical_Report_April_13_2012.pdf.

U.S. Department of the Navy. (2013). Military Expended Material Shrimp Fisheries Study in the U.S. South 

Atlantic and Eastern Gulf of Mexico. Newport, RI: Naval Undersea Warfare Center Division.

U.S. Department of the Navy. (2018). Building and Maintaining a Comprehensive Database and 

Prioritization Scheme for Overlapping Habitat Data – Focus on Abiotic Substrates in the Atlantic 

Fleet Training and Testing Study Area. (Phase III AFTT Benthic Habitat Database Technical 

Report). Washington, DC: Naval Facilities Engineering Command.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2014). Technical Fact Sheet: Perchlorate. (Environmental 

Protection Agency 505-F-14-003). Washington, DC: Office of Solid Waste and Emergency 

Response.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. (2011). Red Knot (Calidris canutus). Retrieved from 

https://www.fws.gov/chesapeakebay/migratory%20birds/RedKnot.html.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.4-156

3.4 References

U.S. Geological Survey. (2013). Pulley Ridge. Coastal and Marine Geology Program. Retrieved from 

http://coastal.er.usgs.gov/pulley-ridge/.

U.S. Geological Survey. (2016). Sea-Level Rise and Climate Change Impacts to Reefs. Pacific Coastal and 

Marine Science Center. Retrieved from http://coralreefs.wr.usgs.gov/climatechg.html.

University of California Berkeley. (2010a). Introduction to the Bryozoa: "Moss animals". Retrieved from 

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/bryozoa/bryozoa.html.

University of California Berkeley. (2010b). Radiolaria: Life history and ecology. Retrieved from 

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/protista/radiolaria/rads.html.

University of California Berkeley. (2010c). Introduction to Porifera. Retrieved from 

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/porifera/porifera.html.

University of California Berkeley. (2010d). Introduction to the Foraminifera. Retrieved from 

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/foram/foramintro.html.

University of California Berkeley. (2010e). Introduction to the Platyhelminthes. Retrieved from 

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/platyhelminthes/platyhelminthes.html.

van Hooidonk, R. J., D. P. Manzello, J. Moye, M. E. Brandt, J. C. Hendee, C. McCoy, and C. Manfrino. 

(2012). Coral bleaching at Little Cayman, Cayman Islands 2009. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf 

Science, 106, 1–5. 

Van Soest, R. W., N. Boury-Esnault, J. Vacelet, M. Dohrmann, D. Erpenbeck, N. J. De Voogd, N. 

Santodomingo, B. Vanhoorne, M. Kelly, and J. N. Hooper. (2012). Global diversity of sponges 

(Porifera). PLoS ONE, 7(4), e35105. 

Vazzana, M., M. Celi, G. Maricchiolo, L. Genovese, V. Corrias, E. M. Quinci, G. de Vincenzi, V. 

Maccarrone, G. Cammilleri, S. Mazzola, G. Buscaino, and F. Filiciotto. (2016). Are mussels able to 

distinguish underwater sounds? Assessment of the reactions of Mytilus galloprovincialis after 

exposure to lab-generated acoustic signals. Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology, Part A, 

201, 61–70. 

Verkaik, K., J. Hamel, and A. Mercier. (2016). Carry-over effects of ocean acidification in a cold-water 

lecithotrophic holothuroid. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 557, 189–206. 

Vermeij, M. J. A., K. L. Marhaver, C. M. Huijbers, I. Nagelkerken, and S. D. Simpson. (2010). Coral larvae 

move toward reef sounds. PLoS ONE, 5(5), e10660. 

Veron, J. (2013). Overview of the taxonomy of zooxanthellate Sceractinia. Zoological Journal of the 

Linnean Society, 169, 485–508. 

Voiland, A. (2013). In a Warming World, Storms May Be Fewer but Stronger. Retrieved from 

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/ClimateStorms/page1.php.

Von Moos, N., P. Burkhardt-Holm, and A. Kohler. (2012). Uptake and Effects of Microplastics on Cells 

and Tissue of the Blue Mussel Mytilus edulis L. after an Experimental Exposure. Environmental 

Science and Technology, 46, 11327–11335. 

Voss, G. L., and T. F. Brakoniecki. (1985). Squid Resources of the Gulf of Mexico and Southeast Atlantic 

Coasts of the United States. NAFO Scientific Council Studies, 9, 27–37. 

Waikiki Aquarium. (2009a). Marine life profile: Ghost crab. Retrieved from 

http://www.waquarium.org/marinelifeprofiles_ed.html.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.4-157

3.4 References

Waikiki Aquarium. (2009b). Marine life profile: Hawaiian slipper lobsters. Retrieved from 

http://www.waquarium.org/marinelifeprofiles_ed.html.

Waikiki Aquarium. (2009c). Marine life profile: Hawaiian spiny lobster. Retrieved from 

http://www.waquarium.org/marinelifeprofiles_ed.html.

Wale, M. A., S. D. Simpson, and A. N. Radford. (2013a). Noise negatively affects foraging and 

antipredator behaviour in shore crabs. Animal Behaviour, 86, 111–118. 

Wale, M. A., S. D. Simpson, and A. N. Radford. (2013b). Size-dependent physiological responses of shore 

crabs to single and repeated playback of ship noise. Biology Letters, 9(20121194). 

Wallace, C. (1999). Staghorn corals of the world: A revision of the coral genus Acropora (Scleractinia ; 

Astrocoeniina ; Acroporidae) worldwide, with emphasis on morphology, phylogeny and 

biogeography (pp. 438). Collingsworth, Victoria, Australia: Commonwealth Scientific and 

Industrial Research Organisation.

Walter, T. C., and G. Boxshall. (2017). World of Copepods database. Retrieved from 

http://www.marinespecies.org/copepoda/.

Wang, W. X., and P. S. Rainbow. (2008). Comparative approaches to understand metal bioaccumulation 

in aquatic animals. Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology, Part C, 148(4), 315–323. 

Watts, A. J. R., C. Lewis, R. M. Goodhead, S. J. Beckett, J. Moger, C. R. Tyler, and T. Galloway. (2014). 

Uptake and retention of microplastics by the shore crab Carcinus maenas. Environmental 

Science and Technology, 48, 8823–8830. 

Wei, C. L., G. T. Rowe, C. C. Nunnally, and M. K. Wicksten. (2012). Anthropogenic "Litter" and 

macrophyte detritus in the deep Northern Gulf of Mexico. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 64(5), 966–

973. 

Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council. (2001). Final Fishery Management Plan for Coral 

Reef Ecosystems of the Western Pacific Region. Honolulu, HI: Western Pacific Regional Fishery 

Management Council.

Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council. (2009). Fishery Ecosystem Plan for the Hawaii 

Archipelago. Honolulu, HI: Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council.

White, H. K., P. Y. Hsing, W. Cho, T. M. Shank, E. E. Cordes, A. M. Quattrini, R. K. Nelson, R. Camilli, A. W. 

Demopoulos, C. R. German, J. M. Brooks, H. H. Roberts, W. Shedd, C. M. Reddy, and C. R. Fisher. 

(2012). Impact of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill on a deep-water coral community in the Gulf 

of Mexico. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 

109(50), 20303–20308. 

Whitney, F., K. Conway, R. Thomson, V. Barrie, M. Krautter, and G. Mungov. (2005). Oceanographic 

habitat of sponge reefs on the Western Canadian Continental Shelf. Continental Shelf Research, 

25(2), 211–226. 

Wilber, D., D. Clarke, G. Ray, and R. Dolah. (2009). Lessons Learned from Biological Monitoring of Beach 

Nourishment Projects. Tempe, AZ: Western Dredging Association.

Wilkens, S. L., J. A. Stanley, and A. G. Jeffs. (2012). Induction of settlement in mussel (Perna canaliculus) 

larvae by vessel noise. Biofouling, 28(1), 65–72. 

Wilkinson, C. (2002). Executive Summary. In C. Wilkinson (Ed.), Status of Coral Reefs of the World: 2002

(pp. 7–31). Townsville, Australia: Global Coral Reef Monitoring Network.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.4-158

3.4 References

Wilkinson, C., and D. Souter. (2008). Status of Caribbean Coral Reefs after Bleaching and Hurricanes in 

2005. Townsville, Queensland, Australia: Global Coral Reef Monitoring Network, and Reef and 

Rainforest Research Centre.

Williams, D., and M. Miller. (2011). Attributing mortality among drivers of population decline in 

Acropora palmata in the Florida Keys (U.S.A.). Coral Reefs, 1–14. 

Williams, D. E., and M. W. Miller. (2005). Coral disease outbreak: pattern, prevalence and transmission 

in Acropora cervicornis. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 301, 119–128. 

Wilson, C. L., D. P. Arfsten, R. L. Carpenter, W. K. Alexander, and K. R. Still. (2002). Effect of Navy chaff 

release on aluminum levels in an area of the Chesapeake Bay. Ecotoxicology Environmental 

Safety, 52(2), 137–142. 

Wilson, M., R. T. Hanlon, P. L. Tyack, and P. T. Madsen. (2007). Intense ultrasonic clicks from 

echolocating toothed whales do not elicit anti-predator responses or debilitate the squid, Loligo 

pealeii. Biology Letters, 3, 225–227. 

Wood, A. C. L., P. K. Probert, A. A. Rowden, and A. M. Smith. (2012). Complex habitat generated by 

marine bryozoans: a review of its distribution, structure, diversity, threats and conservation. 

Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems, 22(4), 547–563. 

Wood, J. B., and C. Day. (2005). CephBase. Retrieved from http://www.cephbase.utmb.edu/.

Woodruff, D. L., V. I. Cullinan, A. E. Copping, and K. E. Marshall. (2013). Effects of Electromagnetic Fields

on Fish and Invertebrates (Task 2.1.3: Effects of Aquatic Organisms, Fiscal Year 2012 Progress 

Report). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Energy.

Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution. (2015). Life at Vents & Seeps. Retrieved from 

https://www.whoi.edu/main/topic/life-at-vents-seeps.

Woodward, S. L. (2012). Biomes of the World. Kelp Forests and Beds. Retrieved from 

https://php.radford.edu/~swoodwar/biomes/?page_id=834.

World Register of Marine Species Editorial Board. (2015). Towards a World Register of Marine Species. 

Retrieved from http://www.marinespecies.org/about.php

Wright, S. L., D. Rowe, R. C. Thompson, and T. S. Galloway. (2013a). Microplastic ingestion decreases 

energy reserves in marine worms. Current Biology, 23(23), R1031–R1033. 

Wright, S. L., R. C. Thompson, and T. S. Galloway. (2013b). The physical impacts of microplastics on 

marine organisms: A review. Environmental Pollution, 178, 483–492. 

Yender, R. A., J. Michel, and R. Hoff. (2010). Oil Spills in Coral Reefs: Planning & Response Considerations. 

Silver Spring, MD: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

Yoklavich, M. M., T. E. Laidig, K. Graiff, M. E. Clarke, and C. E. Whitmire. (2017). Incidence of disturbance 

and damage to deep-sea corals and sponges in areas of high trawl bycatch near the California 

and Oregon border. Deep-Sea Research Part II. 

Young, G. A. (1991). Concise Methods for Predicting the Effects of Underwater Explosions on Marine Life. 

Silver Spring, MD: Naval Surface Warfare Center.

Zabawa, C., and C. Ostrom. (1980). Final Report on the Role of Boat Wakes in Shore Erosion in Anne 

Arundel County, Maryland. Annapolis, MD: Maryland Department of Natural Resources.

Zale, A. V., and S. G. Merrifield. (1989). Species profiles: Life Histories and Environmental Requirements 

of Coastal Fishes and Invertebrates (South Florida)—Reef-Building Tube Worm. (Species Profiles: 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.4-159

3.4 References

Life Histories and Environmental Requirements of Coastal Fishes and Invertebrates). Vicksburg, 

MS and Washington, DC: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Zhao, S., C. Feng, W. Quan, X. Chen, J. Niu, and Z. Shen. (2012). Role of living environments in the 

accumulation characteristics of heavy metals in fishes and crabs in the Yangtze River Estuary, 

China. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 64(6), 1163–1171. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.4-160

3.4 References

This page intentionally left blank.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

i

Table of Contents

Final 

Environmental Impact Statement/Overseas Environmental Impact Statement 

Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing

TABLE OF CONTENTS

3.5 Habitats..................................................................................................................3.5-1

3.5.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................3.5-1

3.5.2 Affected Environment.........................................................................................3.5-3

3.5.2.1 General Background...........................................................................3.5-3

3.5.3 Environmental Consequences ..........................................................................3.5-29

3.5.3.1 Acoustic Stressors.............................................................................3.5-29

3.5.3.2 Explosive Stressors ...........................................................................3.5-29

3.5.3.3 Energy Stressors...............................................................................3.5-37

3.5.3.4 Physical Disturbance and Strike Stressors........................................3.5-37

3.5.3.5 Entanglement Stressors....................................................................3.5-60

3.5.3.6 Ingestion Stressors ...........................................................................3.5-60

3.5.3.7 Secondary Stressors .........................................................................3.5-60

3.5.4 Summary of Potential Impacts on Habitats......................................................3.5-60

3.5.4.1 Combined Impacts of All Stressors Under Alternative 1 ..................3.5-60

3.5.4.2 Combined Impacts of All Stressors Under Alternative 2 ..................3.5-61

3.5.4.3 Combined Impacts of All Stressors Under the No Action 

Alternative........................................................................................3.5-61

List of Figures 

Figure 3.5-1: Bottom Types Within the Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf Large Marine 

Ecosystem and Open Ocean Areas....................................................................................3.5-9

Figure 3.5-2: Bottom Types Within the Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf Large Marine 

Ecosystem and Open Ocean Areas..................................................................................3.5-11

Figure 3.5-3: Bottom Types Within the Caribbean Sea Large Marine Ecosystem ................................3.5-13

Figure 3.5-4: Bottom Types Within the Gulf of Mexico Large Marine Ecosystem................................3.5-15

Figure 3.5-5: Artificial Structures Within the Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf Large Marine 

Ecosystem and Open Ocean Areas..................................................................................3.5-19

Figure 3.5-6: Artificial Structures Within the Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf Large Marine 

Ecosystem and Open Ocean Areas..................................................................................3.5-21

Figure 3.5-7: Artificial Structures Within the Caribbean Sea Large Marine Ecosystem........................3.5-23
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

ii

Table of Contents

Figure 3.5-8: Artificial Structures Within Western Portion of the Gulf of Mexico Large 

Marine Ecosystem............................................................................................................3.5-25

Figure 3.5-9: Alternative 1 – Annual Proportional Impact (Acres) from Explosives 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..................................................................................................................................3.5-32

Figure 3.5-10: Alternative 2 – Annual Proportional Impact (Acres) from Explosives 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..................................................................................................................................3.5-36

Figure 3.5-11: A Marine Marker Observed in an Area Dominated by Coral Rubble on the 

Continental Slope.............................................................................................................3.5-42

Figure 3.5-12: An Unidentified, Non-Military Structure on Hard bottom ............................................3.5-42

Figure 3.5-13: A 76-millimeter Cartridge Casing on Soft Bottom and a Blackbelly Rosefish 

(Helicolenus dactylopterus) Using the Casing for Protection When Disturbed ..............3.5-43

Figure 3.5-14: Military Expended Material Functioning as Habitat......................................................3.5-44

Figure 3.5-15: Alternative 1 – Annual Proportional Impact (Acres) from Military Expended 

Materials by Substrate Type for Training and Testing Compared to Total 

Habitat Within the Study Area.........................................................................................3.5-48

Figure 3.5-16: Alternative 2 – Annual 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.................................................................................3.5-53

Figure 3.5-17: Alternative 1 – Annual Combined Proportional Impact (Acres) from 

Explosives and Military Expended Materials for Training and Testing Within 

the Study Area .................................................................................................................3.5-62

Figure 3.5-18: Alternative 2 – Annual Combined Proportional Impact (Acres) from 

Explosives and Military Expended Materials for Training and Testing Within 

the Study Area .................................................................................................................3.5-64

List of Tables

Table 3.5-1: Habitat Types Within the Large Marine Ecosystems and Open Ocean of the 

Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing Study Area..................................................................3.5-3

Table 3.5-2: Percent Coverage of Abiotic Substrate Types in Large Marine Ecosystems and 

the Open Ocean Areas of the AFTT Study Area.................................................................3.5-8

Table 3.5-3: Number of Artificial Structures Documented in Large Marine Ecosystems and 

Open Ocean Areas of the AFTT Study Area .....................................................................3.5-18

3 PLACEH OLDER[H EADIN G 1]
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.5-1

3.5 Habitats

3.5 HABITATS

3.5.1 INTRODUCTION

This chapter provides the analysis of potential impacts on marine and estuarine non-living (abiotic) 

substrates found in the Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing (AFTT) Study Area (Study Area). This section 

provides an introduction to the abiotic habitats that occur in the Study Area. The following sections 

describe the abiotic habitats in greater detail (Section 3.5.2, Affected Environment) and evaluate the 

potential impacts of testing and training activities on abiotic habitats (Section 3.5.3, Environmental 

Consequences). A summary of the potential impacts on abiotic habitats for each alternative is provided 

in Section 3.5.4 (Summary of Potential Impacts on Habitats).

HABITATS SYNOPSIS

The United States Department of the Navy considered all potential stressors that abiotic substrate as a 

habitat for marine life could potentially be exposed to from the Proposed Action. The following 

conclusions have been reached for the Preferred Alternative (Alternative 1):

 Acoustics: Acoustic stressors are not applicable to habitats, due to the fact that habitats do not 

have hearing capabilities, and are not analyzed in this section.

 Explosives: Most explosives would detonate in air or at or near the water surface. Some 

explosives would be placed on the bottom. Explosive detonations on or near the bottom would 

produce percussive energy that could impact bottom habitat. While hard bottom would mostly 

reflect the energy, a crater would form in soft bottom. On substrates other than clay, the effects 

would be temporary, whereas craters in clay may be persistent. Craters in soft bottom, where 

substrate moves around with the tides and currents, would only last for days to weeks. The 

surface area of bottom substrate affected would be a tiny fraction of the total training and 

testing area available in the Study Area.

 Energy: Energy stressors are not applicable to habitats because of the lack of sensitivity of 

habitats and are not analyzed in this section.

 Physical Disturbance and Strike: Most seafloor devices would be placed in areas that would 

result in minor and temporary bottom substrate impacts. Once on the seafloor and over time, 

military expended material would be buried by sediment, corroded from exposure to the marine 

environment, or colonized by benthic organisms. The surface area of bottom substrate affected 

over the short-term would be a tiny fraction of the total training and testing area available in the 

Study Area.

 Entanglement: Entanglement stressors are not applicable because habitats do not have the 

ability to become “entangled” by materials. The potential for expended material to cover a 

substrate is discussed under the physical disturbance and strike stressor.

 Ingestion: Ingestion stressors are not applicable because habitats lack the ability to ingest; 

therefore, ingestion stressors are not analyzed for habitats.

 Secondary stressors: Secondary stressors are not applicable to habitats, as they are not 

susceptible to impacts from secondary stressors, and are not analyzed further in this section.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.5-2

3.5 Habitats

The Study Area covers a range of marine and estuarine habitats, each supporting communities of 

organisms that may vary by season and location. The intent of this section is to cover abiotic habitat 

features and impacts that are not addressed in the individual living resources chapters. The water 

column and bottom substrate provide the necessary habitats for living resources, including those that 

form biotic habitats such as aquatic plant beds and coral reefs, which are discussed in other sections 

(e.g., Section 3.3, Vegetation; Section 3.4, Invertebrates). The potential for training or testing to impact 

the chemical quality of abiotic habitat is addressed in a separate chapter (Section 3.2, Sediments and 

Water Quality). Potential impacts to organisms and biotic habitats are covered in their respective 

resource sections. Potential impacts to the water column are not addressed in this section, because the 

effects would not be associated with a change in habitat type but rather would be limited to changes in 

water quality, which are addressed in Section 3.2 (Sediments and Water Quality). Further, the water 

column is discussed as a type of Essential Fish Habitat in the Navy’s Essential Fish Habitat Assessment

(U.S. Department of the Navy, 2018b, 2018c); a summary of the assessment can be found in 

Section 6.1.3 (Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act). Acoustic energy 

transmitting through the water column may temporarily affect the suitability of the water column as 

habitat for certain species of invertebrates, fish, marine mammals, and sea turtles. The potential effects 

on species that use the water column as habitat are addressed in those specific resource sections (e.g.,

Section 3.4, Invertebrates; Section 3.6, Fishes; Section 3.7, Marine Mammals; Section 3.8, Reptiles).

Therefore this section only addresses impacts to habitat substrate.

Table 3.5-1 presents the types of habitats discussed in this section in relation to the open ocean areas; 

large marine ecosystems; and bays, estuaries, and rivers in which they occur. Habitat types are derived 

from Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States (Cowardin et al., 1979), 

which includes a basic classification of intertidal shores, subtidal bottoms, and associated substrates. 

Whereas there are many classification systems spanning a range of spatial dimensions and granularity 

(Allee et al., 2000; Cowardin et al., 1979; Howell et al., 2010; Kendall et al., 2001; United Nations 

Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization, 2009; Valentine et al., 2005), there are basically three 

types of abiotic substrates based on the grain size of unconsolidated material: “soft bottom” (e.g., sand, 

mud), “intermediate” (e.g., cobble, gravel), and “hard bottom” (e.g., bedrock, boulders).

Spatial and temporal variation in abiotic substrate is created by the interplay of underlying geology, 

currents, and water quality at a location. The classification system provided in Table 3.5-1 starts at the 

subsystem level (e.g., intertidal shores and subtidal bottoms) and focuses analysis on a modified class 

level (e.g., soft shores/bottoms, intermediate shores/bottoms, hard shores/bottom). The listed 

subsystems and classes refer to non-living substrates and are differentiated from living structures on the 

substrate. Living structures on the substrate are termed biotic habitats, and include wetland shores, 

aquatic plant beds (e.g., attached macroalgae, rooted vascular plants), sedentary invertebrate beds, and 

reefs (e.g., corals, oysters). 

The physical characteristics of substrates, whether they are unconsolidated and soft or hard and rocky, 

are key factors in structuring sedentary biological communities (Nybakken, 1993). Physical 

characteristics of the different substrate types represent a viable target for the best available mapping 

technology (i.e., multibeam sonar) and are useful for characterizing Navy impacts (e.g., explosive 

charges on soft bottom).
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.5-3

3.5 Habitats

Table 3.5-1: Habitat Types Within the Large Marine Ecosystems and Open Ocean of the 

Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing Study Area

Substrate Type Subtypes (Examples) Open 

Ocean

Large Marine 

Ecosystems Bays, Estuaries, and Rivers

Intertidal Shores

Soft Shores Beach, tidal delta/flat – All All

Intermediate Shores

Cobble/gravel, mixed

–

Northeast 

U.S. Continental 

Shelf

All

Hard Shores 

Rocky intertidal

–

Northeast 

U.S. Continental 

Shelf, Caribbean 

Sea

Bath, ME; Portsmouth Naval 

Shipyard; Kittery, ME; coastal 

southern New England waters; 

Naval Submarine Base New 

London; Groton, CT

Subtidal Bottoms

Soft Bottoms Channel, flat, shoal All All All

Intermediate Bottom Cobble/gravel, mixed All All All

Hard Bottom Rocky subtidal All All All

Intertidal Shore or Subtidal Bottom

Artificial Structures 

Artificial reefs, ship 

wrecks, oil/gas platforms, 

bulkheads, and piers

All All All

Differences among the physical and chemical environments of various abiotic habitats dictate both the 

variety and abundance of sessile marine organisms supported. The assessment in this section focuses on 

the potential for testing or training activities to change or modify the physical properties of abiotic 

substrates and their ecological functions as habitat for organisms. A physical impact on abiotic marine 

habitats is anticipated where training or testing activities have the potential to displace sediment, 

convert one substrate type into another (e.g., bedrock to unconsolidated soft bottom), alter vertical 

relief, or modify structural complexity.

3.5.2 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

3.5.2.1 General Background

Abiotic marine habitats vary according to geographic location, underlying geology, hydrodynamics, 

atmospheric conditions, and suspended particles and associated biogenic features. Sediments may be 

derived from material eroded from land sources associated with coastal bluff erosion and sediment 

flows from creeks and rivers, which may create channels, tidal deltas, intertidal and subtidal flats, and 

shoals of unconsolidated material along the shorelines and estuaries. 

The influence of land-based nutrients on habitat type and sediment increases with proximity to streams, 

bays and harbors, and nearshore waters. In the open ocean, gyres, eddies, and oceanic currents 

influence the distribution of organisms. Major bottom features in the offshore areas of large marine 

ecosystems include shelves, banks, breaks, slopes, canyons, plains, and seamounts. Geologic features 

such as these affect the hydrodynamics of the ocean water column (i.e., currents, gyres, upwellings) as 

well as living resources present. Bathymetric features of the Study Area are described in Section 3.0.2.2 

(Bathymetry). The distribution of abiotic marine habitats among the large marine ecosystems and open 

ocean areas is described in their respective subsections below.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.5-4

3.5 Habitats

The majority of the Study Area lies outside of state waters. State waters extend from shore to 3 nautical 

miles (NM) throughout the Study Area, with the exception of the Gulf coast of Florida, Texas, and Puerto 

Rico, where state waters extend 9 NM offshore. Therefore, relatively little of the Study Area includes 

intertidal and shallow subtidal areas in state waters where numerous habitats are exclusively present 

(e.g., salt/brackish marsh, mangrove, seagrass beds, kelp forests, oyster reefs). Intertidal abiotic habitats 

(i.e., beaches, tidal deltas, mudflats, rocky shores) represent only a small portion of the Study Area; 

however, they are addressed along with all other habitats (where those habitats overlap with naval 

training or testing activities). 

3.5.2.1.1 Shore Habitats

3.5.2.1.1.1 Description

Soft Shores

Soft shores include all aquatic habitats that have three characteristics: (1) unconsolidated substrates 

with less than 25 percent areal cover of stones, boulders, or bedrock; (2) unconsolidated sediment 

composed of predominantly sand or mud; and (3) primarily intertidal water regimes (Cowardin et al., 

1979). Note that a shoreline covered in vegetation (e.g., marsh) could still have a soft substrate 

foundation. Soft shores include beaches, tidal flats/deltas, and streambeds of the tidal riverine and 

estuarine systems.

Intermittent or intertidal channels of the riverine system and intertidal channels of the estuarine system 

are classified as streambed. Intertidal flats, also known as tidal flats or mudflats, consist of loose mud, 

silt, and fine sand, with organic-mineral mixtures, and are regularly exposed and flooded by the tides 

(Karleskint et al., 2006). Muddy and fine sediment tends to be deposited where wave energy is low, such 

as in sheltered bays and estuaries (Holland & Elmore, 2008). Mudflats are typically unvegetated, but 

may be covered with encrusting microscopic algae (e.g., diatoms) or sparsely vegetated with 

low-growing aquatic plants (e.g., macroalgae/seaweed, seagrass). Muddy intertidal habitat occurs most 

often as part of a patchwork of intertidal habitats that may include rocky shores, tidal creeks, sandy 

beaches, salt marshes, and mangroves. A flat area of unconsolidated sediment that is covered in aquatic 

plants could be considered an aquatic bed growing on soft shore habitat. While river deltas are created 

by soil deposits forming from the outflow of the water, such as at the mouth of the Mississippi River, 

tidal deltas are depositions of sediment left by the diurnal tides and their resulting currents. Therefore, 

tidal (or tide-dominated) deltas typically occur in locations of large tidal ranges or high tidal current 

speeds (SEPM Strata, 2018).

Beaches form through the interaction of waves and tides, as particles are sorted by size and are 

deposited along the shoreline (Karleskint et al., 2006). Wide flat beaches with fine-grained sands occur 

where wave energy is limited. Narrow steep beaches of coarser sand form where energy and tidal 

ranges are high (Speybroeck et al., 2008). Three zones characterize beach habitats: (1) dry areas above 

mean high water, (2) wrack lines (the area where seaweed and debris is deposited at high tide), and 

(3) a high-energy intertidal zone (area between high and low tide). 

Intermediate Shores

Intermediate shores include all aquatic habitats with the following three characteristics: (1) substrates 

with at least 25 percent cover in particles smaller than stones; (2) unconsolidated substrate is 

predominantly gravel or cobble-sized; and (3) primarily intertidal water regimes. These areas may or 

may not be stable enough for attached vegetation or invertebrates, depending on overlying hydrology 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.5-5

3.5 Habitats

and water quality. Note that a shoreline covered in vegetation (e.g., macroalgae/seagrass) could still 

have an intermediate substrate foundation. 

Hard Shores

Rocky shores include intertidal aquatic habitats characterized by bedrock, stones, and boulders that 

cover 75 percent or more of an area (Cowardin et al., 1979). Note that a shoreline covered in vegetation 

could still have a hard substrate foundation. Rocky intertidal shores are areas of bedrock occupying the 

area between high and low tide lines (Menge & Branch, 2001). Extensive rocky shorelines can be 

interspersed with sandy areas, estuaries, or river mouths. 

Environmental gradients between hard shorelines and subtidal habitats are determined by wave action, 

depth, frequency of tidal inundation, and stability of substrate (Cowardin et al., 1979). Where wave 

energy is extreme, only rock outcrops may persist. In lower energy areas, a mixture of rock sizes will 

occur in the intertidal zone. Boulders scattered in the intertidal provide substrate for attached 

macroalgae and sessile invertebrates. 

3.5.2.1.1.2 Distribution

Soft Shores

Mudflats occur to some extent in virtually every large marine ecosystem within the Study Area. Muddy 

deposits accumulate in many wave-protected pockets on the Gulf of Maine coast along the northern 

part of the Northeast United States (U.S.) Continental Shelf Large Marine Ecosystem, especially at the 

heads of bays. Extensive mudflats occur in the upper reaches of the Bay of Fundy. In the Southeast 

U.S. Continental Shelf Large Marine Ecosystem, mudflats are most often associated with tidal creeks and 

estuaries. In the Northeast and Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf Large Marine Ecosystems, salt marshes 

and tidal creeks occur along the coastal margins behind barrier islands. Mudflats associated with 

mangroves occur on the east coast of Florida, roughly from St. Augustine to the Florida Keys, and north 

to Cedar Key on the west coast of Florida in the southern part of the Southeast U.S Continental Shelf 

Large Marine Ecosystem. Tidal deltas and intertidal flats are present along the coast of Puerto Rico and 

Vieques (National Ocean Service, 2011). 

Sandy beaches are less abundant but do occur in the northern part of the Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf

Large Marine Ecosystem, which are otherwise dominated by rocky coasts. Small pocket beaches occur 

within the northern Gulf of Maine, and sandy beaches are abundant on Cape Cod in the southern Gulf of 

Maine. Some sandy intertidal habitats occur in all the states and provinces on the Gulf of Maine coast. 

The Mid- and South Atlantic coast region is protected by an almost continuous string of barrier islands, 

which provide sandy intertidal shores (National Ocean Service, 2011). Sandy coasts and barrier islands 

are common from Long Island, New York to as far south as Florida. A long arc of barrier islands known as 

the Outer Banks protects the shore from southeastern Virginia almost to South Carolina. 

Sandy intertidal habitat predominates in the Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf Large Marine Ecosystem. 

The east and west coasts of Florida have long stretches of sandy beaches. The West Central Barrier 

Chain, a series of sandy barrier islands, stretches from Anclote Key (north of Tampa Bay) south to Cape 

Romano (near Naples) and protects the west coast of Florida. Sandy beaches are present along the 

shoreline of Puerto Rico and Vieques.

The eastern portion of the Gulf of Mexico Large Marine Ecosystem is fringed by sandy intertidal habitat,

including barrier islands off the coast of the Florida panhandle. Shorelines of the western portion of the 

Gulf of Mexico Large Marine Ecosystem are dominated by sand that forms broad straight beaches and 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.5-6

3.5 Habitats

barrier islands (Britton & Morton, 1998). The longest undeveloped barrier island in the world is Padre 

Island National Seashore in Texas, which has 70 miles of sand beaches that provide nesting ground for 

sea turtles, foraging ground for shorebirds, and sandy intertidal habitat for numerous other species

(National Park Service, 2010). Other barrier islands continue in an arc, trending up the Texas coast 

(Mustang, San Jose, Matagorda, Follets, and Galveston Islands) (Britton & Morton, 1998).

Intermediate Shores

Most of the intermediate coastline of the U.S. Atlantic coast occurs in the transitional area of the 

Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf Large Marine Ecosystem where the mostly consolidated rocky shores 

primarily off of Maine give way to the sandy shores in the south (Roman et al., 2000). On the 

U.S. Atlantic shore, intermediate rocky and gravelly areas do not typically occur south of New York 

(National Ocean Service, 2011). 

Hard Shores

Most of the rocky coastline of the U.S. Atlantic coast occurs from Massachusetts northward into the Gulf 

of Maine, in the northern part of the Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf Large Marine Ecosystem (Roman 

et al., 2000). Glacial terrain made of bedrock, gravel, and sediment typical of the New England coast is 

unique on the east coast of the United States. Rocky shorelines border training or testing activities 

originating from the shipyard in Bath, Maine; Portsmouth Naval Shipyard (Kittery, Maine); coastal 

southern New England waters; and the shipyard and Naval Submarine Base New London (Groton, 

Connecticut). On the U.S. Atlantic shore, rocky and gravelly areas do not typically occur south of New 

York (National Ocean Service, 2011). Rocky coasts in the northern areas give way to intermediate or 

mixed shores and sandy shores toward the south. In the Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf Large Marine 

Ecosystem, sandy beaches predominate. In the Caribbean Sea, rocky bedrock shorelines are mapped 

along the coast of Puerto Rico and Vieques (National Ocean Service, 2011). Very little hard shores 

habitat occurs anywhere in the northern Gulf of Mexico. 

3.5.2.1.2 Bottom Habitats

3.5.2.1.2.1 Description

Soft Bottom

Soft bottoms include all aquatic habitats with the following three characteristics: (1) at least 25 percent 

cover of particles smaller than stones, (2) unconsolidated sediment is predominantly mud or sand, and 

(3) primarily subtidal water regimes (Cowardin et al., 1979). Soft bottom forms the substrate of 

channels, shoals, subtidal flats, and other features of the bottom. Sandy channels emerge where strong 

currents connect estuarine and ocean water columns. Shoals or capes form where sand is deposited by 

interacting, sediment-laden currents. Subtidal flats occur between soft shores and channels or shoals. 

The continental shelf extends seaward of the shoals and inlet channels and includes relatively

coarse-grained, soft bottom habitats. Relatively finer-grained sediments collect off the shelf break, 

continental slope, and abyssal plain. Organisms characteristic of soft bottom environments, such as 

worms and clams, may be found at all depths where there is sufficient oxygen and sediment 

accumulation (Nybakken, 1993).

Intermediate Bottom

Intermediate bottom includes all aquatic habitats with the following three characteristics: (1) substrates 

with at least 25 percent cover in particles smaller than stones, (2) unconsolidated substrate is 

predominantly gravel or cobble-sized, and (3) primarily subtidal water regimes. These areas may or may 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.5-7

3.5 Habitats

not be stable enough for attached vegetation or sedentary invertebrates, depending on overlying 

hydrology and water quality.

Hard Bottom

Hard bottom includes all aquatic habitats with substrates having a surface of stones, boulders, or 

bedrock (75 percent or greater coverage) (Cowardin et al., 1979). Subtidal rocky habitat occurs as 

extensions of intertidal rocky shores and as isolated offshore outcrops. The shapes and textures of the 

larger rock assemblages and the fine details of cracks and crevices are determined by the type of rock, 

the wave energy, and other local variables (Davis, 2009). Maintenance of mostly low-relief hard bottom 

(e.g., bedrock) requires wave energy and/or currents sufficient to sweep sediment away (Lalli & Parsons, 

1993) or offshore areas lacking a significant sediment supply; therefore, rocky reefs are rare on broad 

coastal plains near sediment-laden rivers and are more common on high-energy shores and beneath 

strong bottom currents, where sediments cannot accumulate.

In the deep waters of the Atlantic Ocean and Gulf of Mexico, there are also a number of chemosynthetic 

communities (cold seeps and thermal vents), which tend to support unique biotic communities. A cold 

seep, or cold vent, is an area of the ocean floor where chemical fluid seepage occurs. Cold seeps develop 

unique topography over time, where reactions between methane and seawater create carbonate rock 

formations and reefs. A thermal, or hydrothermal, vent is a fissure in the seafloor where geothermally 

heated water is released. Hard substrate in the abyssal zone and some locations landward of the deep 

ocean are virtually devoid of encrusting or attached organisms due to the scarcity of drifting food 

particles in the deep ocean (Nybakken, 1993). Exceptions are areas on seamounts and along the 

Mid-Atlantic Ridge where chemosynthetic communities occur (see Section 3.4, Invertebrates, for 

additional information).

3.5.2.1.2.2 Distribution

Soft, intermediate, and hard bottom habitats occur in all large marine ecosystems and the open ocean. 

However, the distribution of different bottom types varies across the Study Area (Figure 3.5-1 through 

Figure 3.5-4) and is depicted by over 25 datasets. These datasets were ranked by quality and assembled 

into a non-overlapping mosaic as described in Building and Maintaining a Comprehensive Database and 

Prioritization Scheme for Overlapping Habitat Data (U.S. Department of the Navy, 2018a). The datasets 

employ a variety of data collection and analysis techniques to characterize the seafloor; results are 

summarized below. Thousands of acres of lower quality data were superseded by high quality data in 

the process of creating the non-overlapping abiotic substrate maps for the AFTT Study Area. 

Most of the bottom within the Study Area (approximately 80 percent) has not been mapped. However 

the majority of the unmapped portion is seaward of the U.S. continental shelf in the Atlantic 

Basin/abyssal zone (Table 3.5-2). Available mapping for abiotic substrate indicates a benthic surface 

composed of mostly soft bottom (less than 86 percent) with a little over 6 percent hard bottom, 

adjusted qualitatively for over- or underestimation. The intermediate category of substrate (8 percent) 

could add to either the soft bottom or hard bottom type, depending on other environmental variables 

affecting stability and the supply of colonizing sedentary organisms and their nutrient sources, which 

also affect hard substrate as a habitat for hard bottom organisms (to a lesser degree). It should be noted 

that the percent of bottom area stated above for each habitat type does not account for the vertical 

relief of some hard bottom areas, which contribute disproportionately to hard bottom community 

biomass. The data also do not account for small hard bottom features that may be present in 

predominantly soft bottom areas; trawl sampling results used to develop the Southeast Area Monitoring 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.5-8

3.5 Habitats

and Assessment Program – South Atlantic (Southeast Area Monitoring and Assessment Program—South 

Atlantic, 2001) line data suggest there were numerous hard bottom features too small to be resolved by 

even the highest quality data in the Study Area. U.S. Department of the Navy (2011) data and 

classification came the closest to finding these smaller areas of hard bottom and associated invertebrate 

species.

Table 3.5-2: Percent Coverage of Abiotic Substrate Types in Large Marine Ecosystems and the 

Open Ocean Areas of the AFTT Study Area

Large Marine Ecosystem and 

Open Ocean Areas

Percent of Large Marine Ecosystem

Total Acres

Hard Intermediate Soft Unknown

Caribbean Sea 9.65% 0.82% 15.67% 73.86% 32,561,898

Gulf of Mexico 3.46% 3.70% 64.71% 28.12% 388,295,532

Gulf Stream 4.91% 1.60% 20.76% 72.73% 31,139,231

Labrador Current 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 268,386,453

Newfoundland-Labrador Shelf 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 151,841,151

Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf 6.22% 28.26% 65.38% 0.14% 69,423,078

North Atlantic Gyre 0.00% 0.00% 1.92% 98.08% 1,383,112,689

Scotian Shelf 0.04% 1.69% 6.10% 92.16% 39,949,139

Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf 19.85% 10.22% 69.73% 0.20% 66,369,903

West Greenland Shelf 0 0 0 100 12,959,689

Grand Total 4.90% 5.14% 27.14% 62.81% 2,444,038,763

Soft Bottom

Soft bottom is the largest habitat type within mapped portions of the Study Area and occurs in all large 

marine ecosystems and the open ocean. Soft bottom habitat is depicted in Figure 3.5-1 through Figure 

3.5-4, based on over 25 datasets (U.S. Department of the Navy, 2018a).

Intermediate Bottom

Intermediate bottoms occur in all large marine ecosystems and the open ocean and are depicted in 

Figure 3.5-1 through Figure 3.5-4 by at least eight datasets (U.S. Department of the Navy, 2018a). 

Hard Bottom

Hard bottoms occur in all large marine ecosystems and the open ocean, and are depicted in Figure 3.5-1

through Figure 3.5-4 based on at least eight datasets (U.S. Department of the Navy, 2018a). 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.5-9

3.5 Habitats

Notes: AFTT: Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing; OPAREA: Operating Area; SINKEX: Sinking Exercise; VACAPES: Virginia Capes

Figure 3.5-1: Bottom Types Within the Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf Large Marine Ecosystem and Open Ocean Areas
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.5-10

3.5 Habitats

This page intentionally left blank.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.5-11

3.5 Habitats

Notes: AFTT: Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing; OPAREA: Operating Area; SINKEX: Sinking Exercise; VACAPES: Virginia Capes 

Figure 3.5-2: Bottom Types Within the Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf Large Marine Ecosystem and Open Ocean Areas
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.5-12

3.5 Habitats

This page intentionally left blank.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.5-13

3.5 Habitats

Notes: AFTT: Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing 

Figure 3.5-3: Bottom Types Within the Caribbean Sea Large Marine Ecosystem
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.5-14

3.5 Habitats

This page intentionally left blank.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.5-15

3.5 Habitats

Notes: AFTT: Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing; OPAREA: Operating Area 

Figure 3.5-4: Bottom Types Within the Gulf of Mexico Large Marine Ecosystem
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.5-16

3.5 Habitats

This page intentionally left blank.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.5-17

3.5 Habitats

3.5.2.1.3 Artificial Structures

3.5.2.1.3.1 Description

Man-made structures that are either deliberately or unintentionally submerged underwater create 

artificial habitats that mimic some characteristics of natural habitats, such as providing hard substrate 

and vertical relief (Broughton, 2012). Artificial reef habitats have been intentionally created with 

material from sunken ships, rock and stone, concrete and rubble, car bodies, tires, scrap metal, and

various other materials. Artificial habitats also have been created as a result of structures built for other 

purposes (e.g., breakwaters, jetties, piers, wharves, bridges, oil and gas platforms, fish aggregating 

devices) or unintentional sinking of vessels (i.e., shipwrecks).

Some artificial structures provide ecological functions similar to natural hard bottom habitats, such as 

providing attachment substrate for algae and sessile invertebrates, which in turn supports a community 

of mobile organisms that may forage, shelter, and reproduce there (National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration, 2007). Other structures may or may not support sessile organisms and only temporarily 

attract mobile organisms. Factors such as the materials, structural features, and surface area of the 

artificial substrate, as well as local environmental conditions, influence the variety and abundance of 

sessile organisms that may become established and the relative success of attracting or enhancing local 

fish populations (Ajemian et al., 2015; Broughton, 2012; Macreadie et al., 2011; Powers et al., 2003; 

Ross et al., 2016).

Artificial habitats in the Study Area include artificial reefs, shipwrecks, oil and gas platforms, man-made 

shoreline structures (e.g., piers, wharfs, docks, pilings), and obsolete military towers used for aircraft 

training (Macfadyen et al., 2009; Seaman, 2007; U.S. Department of the Navy, 2018a). Artificial reefs are 

designed and deployed to supplement the ecological services provided by coral or rocky reefs. Artificial 

reefs range from simple concrete blocks to highly engineered structures. Vessels that are unintentionally 

sunk in the Study Area may be colonized by encrusting and attached marine organisms if there is a larval 

source and enough nutrition (e.g., detritus) drifting through the water column. Wrecks in the deep 

ocean and some locations landward of the deep ocean are virtually devoid of encrusting or attached 

organisms due to the scarcity of drifting food particles in the deep ocean (Nybakken, 1993).

3.5.2.1.3.2 Distribution

Artificial shoreline structures (e.g., piers, wharfs, docks, pilings) in the Study Area occur at or along 

pierside locations (Section 2.1.10.1, Pierside Locations), including facilities associated with Navy ports 

and naval shipyards, and channels and routes to and from Navy ports. 

The centroid points of mapped artificial structures in waters of the Study Area are depicted on Figure 

3.5-5 through Figure 3.5-8. These include more than 15,000 mapped points, including mostly shipwrecks 

(over 11,000), oil/gas platforms (2,400), artificial reefs (1,400), and military towers (18) (Table 3.5-3). 

Artificial reefs may occur at individual permit sites or within large general permit areas. Very large 

individual permit areas and general permit areas range from nearly 100 to several hundred square 

miles; typical artificial reef permit areas range from less than 0.5 square mile to a few square miles (U.S. 

Department of the Navy, 2018a). Not shown on Figure 3.5-5 through Figure 3.5-8 are shipwrecks that 

are “address restricted” due to status on the National Register of Historic Places (e.g., Gen. C.B. 

Comstock located in Texas state waters) and ship hulks sunk during Naval sinking exercises. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.5-18

3.5 Habitats

Table 3.5-3: Number of Artificial Structures Documented in Large Marine Ecosystems and 

Open Ocean Areas of the AFTT Study Area

Large Marine Ecosystem and 

Open Ocean Areas

Air Force 

Towers

Artificial 

Reef

Navy 

Towers

Oil/Gas 

Platform Shipwreck Grand Total

Open Ocean 0 0 0 0 106 106

Caribbean Sea 0 9 0 0 350 359

Gulf of Mexico 6 1,166 0 2,400 6,174 9,746

Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf 0 62 4 0 3,845 3,911

Scotian Shelf 0 0 0 0 18 18

Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf 0 163 8 0 1,284 1,455

Grand Total 6 1,400 12 2,400 11,777 15,595

1There are no known, mapped artificial structures in the Gulf Stream, Labrador Current, Newfoundland-Labrador, 

North Atlantic Gyre, or West Greenland Shelf Large Marine Ecosystems.

3.5.2.1.4 General Threats

Estuarine and ocean environments worldwide are under pressure from a variety of human activities, 

such as coastal development, shoreline stabilization, dredging, flood control and water diversion; 

destructive fishing practices; offshore energy and resource development and extraction; and global 

climate change (Boehlert & Gill, 2010; Clark et al., 2016; Clarke et al., 2014; Crain et al., 2009; National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Marine Debris Program, 2016). These activities produce a 

range of physical and chemical stressors on habitats. Primary threats to marine habitats include habitat 

loss, degradation, or modification. Although stressors may be similar or wide-spread geographically, 

their effects on marine habitats are not random or equal. Human activities vary in their spatial 

distribution and intensity of impact (Halpern et al., 2008). Accordingly, their effects on habitats will vary 

depending on local differences in the duration, frequency, and intensity of stress; scale of effect; and 

environmental conditions. Areas where heavy concentrations of human activity co-occur with naval 

training and testing activities have the greatest potential for cumulative stress on the marine ecosystem 

(see Chapter 4, Cumulative Impacts, for more information). 

3.5.2.1.4.1 Urbanization

Habitat loss and degradation are the primary threats of urbanization. Coastal development has resulted 

in loss of coastal dune and wetland habitats, modification of shorelines and estuaries, and degradation 

of water quality (Crain et al., 2009; Lotze et al., 2006). In addition, development has resulted in a 

proliferation of artificial structure habitats, such as breakwaters, jetties, rock groins, seawalls, oil and gas 

platforms, docks, piers, wharves, and underwater cables and pipelines, as well as artificial reefs. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.5-19

3.5 Habitats

Notes: AFTT: Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing; OPAREA: Operating Area; SINKEX: Sinking Exercise; VACAPES: Virginia Capes

Figure 3.5-5: Artificial Structures Within the Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf Large Marine Ecosystem and Open Ocean Areas
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.5-20

3.5 Habitats

This page intentionally left blank.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.5-21

3.5 Habitats

Notes: AFTT: Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing; OPAREA: Operating Area; SINKEX: Sinking Exercise; VACAPES: Virginia Capes

Figure 3.5-6: Artificial Structures Within the Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf Large Marine Ecosystem and Open Ocean Areas
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.5-22

3.5 Habitats

This page intentionally left blank.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.5-23

3.5 Habitats

Notes: AFTT: Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing 

Figure 3.5-7: Artificial Structures Within the Caribbean Sea Large Marine Ecosystem
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.5-24

3.5 Habitats

This page intentionally left blank.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.5-25

3.5 Habitats

Notes: AFTT: Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing; OPAREA: Operating Area 

Figure 3.5-8: Artificial Structures Within Western Portion of the Gulf of Mexico Large Marine Ecosystem 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.5-26

3.5 Habitats

This page intentionally left blank.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.5-27

3.5 Habitats

Maintenance of coastal infrastructure, ports, and harbors disturbs or modifies intertidal and subtidal 

habitats, the extent of which varies depending on the type, scale, or frequency of the activity. For 

example, maintenance has increased the use of shoreline stabilization measures (engineered structures, 

beach nourishment) to reduce storm-related damages to coastal infrastructure. Flood control or 

shoreline stabilization measures may have temporary or long-term impacts on beach habitats and may 

also affect adjacent intertidal and subtidal habitats due to suspended sediment and sedimentation, 

altered sediment supply and transport dynamics, or creation of artificial substrates (Bacchiocchi & 

Airoldi, 2003). Periodic dredging and excavation of sediment is undertaken to maintain navigable 

channels, tidal exchange, and/or flood control capacity in bays and estuaries. Sediment removal directly 

disturbs subtidal soft bottom habitat and may indirectly disturb or modify adjacent habitats (Newell et 

al., 1998). A number of factors that may influence maintenance frequency include sediment 

characteristics, shoreline and watershed characteristics, oceanographic conditions, and climate.

Tourism is an important economic driver of development in coastal areas and represents an additional 

stressor in urbanized areas. For example, nearshore coral reefs in south Florida could be impacted by 

trampling; damage from divers and swimmers touching, kicking, breaking, sitting, or standing on coral; 

and improper boat anchoring. Within the highly urbanized portions of the Study Area such as in the 

northeast United States, human visitation and disturbances may impact rocky intertidal habitats (by 

trampling, overturning of rocks, collecting) and sandy beach habitats (by mechanical beach grooming).

3.5.2.1.4.2 Water Quality

Pollution of marine waters and the accumulation of contaminants in marine sediments pose threats to 

marine ecosystems, public health, and local economies of coastal regions (Crain et al., 2009). Marine 

and estuarine water and sediment quality may be influenced by industrial and wastewater discharges, 

soil erosion, stormwater runoff, vessel discharges, marine construction, and accidental spills. Activities 

that disturb or remove marine sediments also impact water quality and may alter physical and chemical 

properties of sediments at and adjacent to the disturbance due to sediment resuspension and 

sedimentation. Generally, threats to water and sediment quality are greater in waterbodies adjacent to 

watersheds with substantial urban or agriculture land uses. For more detailed discussion of water 

quality and potential impacts, see Section 3.2 (Sediments and Water Quality). 

Large areas of bottom waters lacking dissolved oxygen, or “dead zones,” are documented in the Study 

Area off the Mississippi River outlet (Rabalais et al., 2002) and other large rivers flowing into coastal 

ocean waters (Diaz & Rosenberg, 2008). Whereas the physical structure of abiotic substrate is 

unaffected by dead zones, associated organisms are adversely impacted there. Refer to individual 

resource sections for specific stressors and impacts on living resources associated with marine 

substrates.

3.5.2.1.4.3 Commercial Industries

A variety of commercial development, operations, and activities impact marine habitats and associated 

organisms (e.g., 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) (Crain et al., 2009). Commercial activities are conducted 

under permits and regulations that require companies to avoid and minimize impacts to marine 

habitats, especially sensitive hard bottom and biogenic habitats (e.g., coral reefs, shellfish beds, and 

vegetated habitats).
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.5-28

3.5 Habitats

Marine habitats may be directly impacted during marine construction (e.g., cable laying and burial, 

dredging, pipeline installation, pile driving, work boat anchoring), commercial bottom fishing, and 

commercial vessel anchoring. Generally, disturbance impacts to soft bottom habitats are temporary; 

however, there is the potential to degrade the quality of soft bottom habitat for biological resources 

depending on the extent and frequency of disturbance (Newell et al., 1998). Hard bottom and biogenic 

habitats are most vulnerable to damage or degradation by commercial industry development and 

operations. For example, anchors, anchor chains, or cables may damage habitats and abrade and 

remove organisms from hard bottom surfaces. Commercial fishing use of dredges and bottom trawls 

impacts bottom topography and sediments and may degrade habitat quality and associated biological 

communities (Clark et al., 2016). Abandoned or lost fishing gear may alter the structure of abiotic 

habitats and result in abrasion or entanglement of organisms.

Indirect impacts to habitats may occur from commercial development, discharges, or accidental spills 

that degrade water or sediment quality. Threats associated with impacts to water and sediment quality 

are further described in Section 3.2 (Sediments and Water Quality, Affected Environment). Accidental 

spills have the potential to contaminate and degrade marine habitats by coating hard bottom or 

biogenic substrates as well as mixing into bottom sediments (Hanson et al., 2003). Many factors 

determine the degree of environmental damage from oil spills, including the type of oil, size and 

duration of the spill, geographic location, season, and types of habitats and resources present. Effects of 

oil on bottom habitats include potential long-term impacts on fish and wildlife populations.

3.5.2.1.4.4 Climate Change

All marine ecosystems are vulnerable to the widespread effects of climate change, which include 

increased ocean temperatures, sea level rise, ocean acidification, and changes in precipitation patterns

(Hoegh-Guldberg & Bruno, 2010; Scavia et al., 2002). Rising ocean temperatures will cause waters to 

expand and ice caps to melt, driving sea levels to rise at various rates depending on geographic location 

and local environmental conditions. Sea level rise will have the greatest impacts on intertidal and coastal 

ecosystems that have narrow windows of tolerance to flooding frequency or depth (Crain et al., 2009). 

Changes in ocean temperatures also are projected to alter ocean circulation, upwelling, and nutrient 

distribution patterns. It is projected that wet tropical areas and mid-latitude land will experience more 

frequent and extreme precipitation, which will increase erosion-related sedimentation and runoff to 

coastal habitats (Keener et al., 2012). The climatic effects will be superimposed upon, and interact with, 

a wide array of current stresses, including excess nutrient loads, overfishing, invasive species, habitat 

destruction, and chemical contamination (Scavia et al., 2002).

3.5.2.1.4.5 Marine Debris

In the past decade, marine debris has been increasingly recognized as a key threat to marine ecosystems 

throughout the world. The Marine Debris Act (33 United States Code 1951 et seq.) defines marine debris 

as any persistent solid material that is manufactured or processed and directly or indirectly, 

intentionally or unintentionally, disposed of or abandoned into the marine environment. Artificial 

substrate that provides hard bottom habitat for marine organisms is discussed in Section 3.4 

(Invertebrates). This section focuses on the aspects of marine debris that pose a threat to marine 

habitats. The accumulation of marine debris can alter and degrade marine habitats through physical 

damage (e.g., abrasion, shearing); changes to the physical and chemical composition of sediments; and 

reductions in oxygen and underwater light levels (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

Marine Debris Program, 2016). Accumulation or concentration also can degrade the aesthetic appeal of 

coastal habitats for recreational use, decrease visitation and tourism, require costly cleanups, and 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.5-29

3.5 Habitats

impact local economies (Leggett et al., 2014). A multiyear study conducted from 1997–2007 along the 

southeast Atlantic coast concluded the vast majority of marine debris was either land based 

(38 percent), general source (42 percent), or ocean based (e.g., items originating from recreational and 

commercial fishing, shipping, and tourism activities) (20 percent) (Ribic et al., 2010); no items of military 

origin were differentiated.

3.5.3 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

This section evaluates how and to what degree the activities described in Chapter 2 (Description of 

Proposed Action and Alternatives) and Section 3.0.3.3 (Identifying Stressors for Analysis) could impact 

marine habitats as defined in this section in the Study Area. Table 2.6-1 (Proposed Training Activities per 

Alternative) through Table 2.6-4 (Office of Naval Research Proposed Testing Activities per Alternative) 

present the proposed training and testing activities (including number of events and locations). General 

characteristics of all Navy stressors were introduced in Section 3.0.3.3 (Identifying Stressors for 

Analysis). The stressors vary in intensity, frequency, duration, and location within the Study Area. The 

stressors analyzed for habitats are:

 Explosives (explosives detonated on or near the bottom)

 Physical Disturbance and Strikes (vessels and in-water devices; military expended materials; 

seafloor devices; pile driving)

Impacts of explosives and military expended materials were assessed based on three types of analyses: 

(1) a conservative scenario assuming all the impacts occur on a single habitat type in an affected area (in 

a 1-year increment), (2) a more realistic situation in which the impacts are spread proportionally among 

the habitat types in an affected area (e.g., if hard bottom represents 10 percent of the total habitat 

within a particular testing or training area or range complex, then 10 percent of the total impact is 

assumed to occur on hard bottom), and (3) in an increment of 5 years. The most accurate projection 

would be somewhere between the conservative and proportional distribution because there are 

locations in which specific training or testing occurs most frequently within range complexes. However, 

the number of training and testing activities that occur in the frequently used areas is not limited to a 

specific percentage as part of the proposed action in this document. The remaining stressors (vessels 

and in-water devices, seafloor devices, and pile driving) were analyzed based on the number of annual 

events estimated to occur within each range complex. The analysis includes consideration of the 

mitigation that the Navy will implement to avoid potential impacts on habitats from explosives and 

physical disturbance and strike stressors. 

3.5.3.1 Acoustic Stressors

Acoustic stressors are not applicable to habitats due to the lack of hearing capabilities of abiotic habitats 

and will not be analyzed in this section.

3.5.3.2 Explosive Stressors

Background

This section analyzes the potential impacts of in-water explosions on or near the bottom resulting from 

training and testing activities, because those are the only explosives that are expected to potentially 

impact abiotic substrate. 

Most explosive detonations during training and testing involving the use of high-explosive munitions, 

including bombs, missiles, and projectile casings, would occur in the air or near the water’s surface. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.5-30

3.5 Habitats

Explosives associated with torpedoes, explosive sonobuoys, and explosive mines would occur in the 

water column; demolition charges could occur near the surface, in the water column, or the ocean 

bottom. Most surface and water column detonations would occur in waters greater than 3 NM from 

shore in water depth greater than 100 feet (ft.) and would not be expected to impact the bottom, 

although mine warfare and demolition detonations could occur in shallow water, and typically in a few 

specific locations within the Study Area. This section only evaluates the impact of explosives placed on 

the bottom, because the physical structure of the water column is not affected by explosions. The 

potential impacts of in-water detonations on marine habitats are assessed according to size of charge 

(net explosive weight), charge radius, height above the bottom, substrate types in the area, and 

equations linking all these factors.

An explosive charge would produce percussive energy that would be absorbed and reflected by the 

bottom. Hard bottom would mostly reflect the energy (Berglind et al., 2009), whereas a crater would be 

formed in soft bottom (Gorodilov & Sukhotin, 1996). For a specific size of explosive charge, crater 

depths and widths would vary depending on depth of the charge and substrate type. There is a 

nonlinear relationship between crater size and depth of water, with relatively small crater sizes in the 

shallowest water, followed by a spike in size at some intermediate depth, and a decline to an average 

flat line (indicating similar crater size for all charge weights) at greater depth (Gorodilov & Sukhotin, 

1996; O'Keeffe & Young, 1984). Radii of the craters reportedly vary little among unconsolidated 

substrate types (O'Keeffe & Young, 1984). On substrate types with non-adhesive particles (everything 

except clay), the effects should be temporary, whereas craters in clay may persist for years (O'Keeffe & 

Young, 1984). Soft substrate moves around with the tides and currents and depressions are only 

short-lived (days to weeks) unless they are maintained.

3.5.3.2.1 Impacts from Explosives

3.5.3.2.1.1 Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 1

Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 1 for Training Activities

Relevant training activities under Alternative 1 include explosives used during mine countermeasures, 

mine neutralization using remotely operated vehicles, and mine neutralization explosive ordnance 

disposal, among others (see Appendix A, Navy Activity Descriptions, for descriptions of these activities).

The number and locations for explosives under Alternative 1 are provided in Section 3.0.3.3.4.2 (Military 

Expended Materials). The Navy testing and training areas listed by range complex, acreages of abiotic 

habitat by type, and percent usage on the bottom are shown in Appendix F (Military Expended Materials 

and Direct Strike Impact Analysis).

The analysis assumes that half the charges that could be detonated on the bottom during training 

activities are actually detonated on the bottom. This represents a conservative estimate, as in reality a 

much lower percentage of detonations is likely to occur directly on the seafloor. The determination of 

impact is based on estimated crater footprint sizes associated with the following net explosive weight 

explosions on the bottom: 0.5, 5, 10, 20, and 60 pounds. Note that mitigation measures that may 

prevent impacts are not included in the quantitative assessment (Chapter 5, Mitigation). Only the 

acreage in the large marine ecosystem areas was included in percentages shown in Table 3.5-2. The 

areas within the Atlantic Basin/abyssal zone were not included in order to focus on bottom areas likely 

to have a combination of suitable habitat, supply of sedentary invertebrate larvae, and sufficient food 

particles for filtration or deposit-feeding. Artificial substrate was not included, because it was 

inconsistently included for mapping and it likely represented a miniscule percentage of habitat types in 

the large marine ecosystems.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.5-31

3.5 Habitats

The mine neutralization and other training activities involving explosives could occur over a larger area, 

to support the added flexibility of conducting activities anywhere within the specified range complexes. 

Based on the number of charges and impact areas per year, the conservative scenarios for annual hard

bottom impacts are 7.5, less than 0.5, less than 0.5, and 0.5 acres in the Northeast U.S. Continental 

Shelf, Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf, Caribbean and Gulf of Mexico, and Gulf of Mexico Large Marine 

Ecosystems, respectively (see Table F-22, Potential Impact from Explosives On or Near the Bottom for 

Training Activities Under Alternative 1 and 2 in a Single Year, in Appendix F, Military Expended Materials 

and Direct Strike Impact Analysis). This represents less than 0.01 percent of the available hard bottom in 

each of the large marine ecosystems. 

An analysis was conducted in order to determine the proportional impact of explosives training on 

marine habitats in each of the training areas within the Study Area (Figure 3.5-9). Based on the 

proportional analysis, total annual explosive impacts to hard substrate from explosives training activities 

would be less than 0.5 acre. Annual impacts to other substrate types would be approximately 0.5, 8.0, 

and less than 0.5 acres for intermediate, soft, and unknown substrates, respectively (Table F-31, 

Proportional Impact to Bottom Habitat from Training Activities Under Alternatives 1 and 2 in a Single 

Year, in Appendix F, Military Expended Materials and Direct Strike Impact Analysis). See Appendix F

(Military Expended Materials and Direct Strike Impact Analysis) for detailed analysis of explosive impacts

from training activities in each Training Area. Table F-22 (Potential Impact from Explosives On or Near 

the Bottom for Training Activities Under Alternative 1 and 2 in a Single Year) provides potential annual 

impacts from explosives on or near the bottom for training activities under Alternatives 1 and 2.

An analysis was also conducted to evaluate impacts accumulating over the course of a 5-year period. 

The analysis assumed that all impacts would accumulate. In reality, some habitat would recover over 

time as soft substrates are dynamic systems and craters could refill. The total footprint for impacts from 

high explosives over a 5-year period, based on a conservative scenario, would be approximately 

44.0 acres. Of this, less than 0.03 percent of the total area of intermediate and soft bottom and less than 

0.01 percent of hard bottom would be anticipated. Details of this analysis can be found in Appendix F

(Military Expended Materials and Direct Strike Impact Analysis).

Under Alternative 1, the areas of bottom habitat in the AFTT Study Area affected annually or over a 

5-year period by in-water detonations for training activities would be a negligible portion of available 

bottom habitat. Training events that include seafloor detonations would be infrequent, the percentage 

of the Study Area affected would be small, and the disturbed areas are likely soft bottom areas that 

recover relatively quickly from disturbance. Therefore, in-water explosions under Alternative 1 would 

mostly be limited to local and short-term impacts on habitat structure in the Study Area.

As discussed in Section 5.4.1 (Mitigation Areas for Seafloor Resources), the Navy will implement 

mitigations to avoid impacts from explosives on habitats 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 shallow-water coral reefs, live hard bottom, artificial reefs, and 

shipwrecks. Mitigation for seafloor resources was not included in the quantitative assessment of habitat 

impacts; however, it will help the Navy further avoid the potential for impacts on habitats from certain 

explosive activities.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.5-32

3.5 Habitats

Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf Large Marine Ecosystem Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf Large Marine Ecosystem and Abyssal Zone

Northeast and Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf Large Marine Ecosystems Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf Large Marine Ecosystem and Abyssal Zone

Figure 3.5-9: Alternative 1 – Annual Proportional Impact (Acres) from Explosives 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
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.5-33

3.5 Habitats

Caribbean and Gulf of Mexico Large Marine Ecosystems

Gulf of Mexico Large Marine Ecosystem

Figure 3.5-9: Alternative 1 – Annual Proportional Impact (Acres) from Explosives 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 (continued)
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.5-34

3.5 Habitats

Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 1 for Testing Activities

Relevant testing activities under Alternative 1 include, among others, explosives used in anti-submarine 

warfare, mine neutralization explosive ordnance disposal, and air-to-surface bombing tests (see 

Appendix A, Navy Activity Descriptions, for descriptions of these activities).The general locations for 

Alternative 1 activities are listed in Appendix A (Navy Activity Descriptions) and shown on Figure 3.5-1

through Figure 3.5-4.

Based on the number of charges and impact areas per year, the conservative scenarios for hard bottom 

area impacted are 1.5, less than 0.5, and 7.0 acres in the Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf, Southeast 

U.S. Continental Shelf, and Gulf of Mexico Large Marine Ecosystems, respectively (Table F-23, Potential 

Impact from Explosives On or Near the Bottom for Testing Activities Under Alternative 1 in a Single Year, 

in Appendix F, Military Expended Materials and Direct Strike Impact Analysis). This represents less than 

0.01 percent of hard bottom habitat for each of the large marine ecosystems. 

Additional analysis was conducted in order to determine the proportional impact of explosives testing 

on marine habitats in each of the range complexes and testing ranges within the Study Area (Figure 

3.5-9). Based on the proportional analysis of impacts, total explosive impacts to hard substrate from 

testing activities would be approximately 0.5 acre. Impacts to other substrate types would be 

approximately 1.0 and 7.5 acres for intermediate and soft substrates, respectively. Impacts to unknown 

substrate would be less than 0.5 acre (Table F-31, Proportional Impact to Bottom Habitat from Training 

Activities Under Alternatives 1 and 2 in a Single Year, in Appendix F, Military Expended Materials and 

Direct Strike Impact Analysis). See Appendix F for detailed analysis of explosive impacts from testing 

activities in each range complex and testing range.

Analysis was also conducted to evaluate impacts accumulating over the course of a 5-year period. The 

analysis assumed that all impacts would be cumulative. In reality, some habitat would recover over time, 

as soft substrates are dynamic systems and craters could refill. Areas of hard bottom and other sensitive 

habitats could be avoided using the Protective Measures Assessment Protocol. The total footprint for 

impacts from high explosives over a 5-year period, based on a conservative scenario, would be 

approximately 43.5 acres. Of this, less than 0.01 percent of the total area of each habitat type (hard, 

intermediate, and soft) would be impacted. Details of this analysis can be found in Appendix F (Military 

Expended Materials and Direct Strike Impact Analysis).

Under Alternative 1, the areas of bottom habitat in the AFTT Study Area affected annually by in-water 

detonations for testing activities would be a negligible portion of available bottom habitat (less than 

0.01 percent for each substrate type). Testing events that include seafloor detonations would be 

infrequent, the percentage of testing area affected would be small, and the disturbed areas are likely 

soft bottom areas that recover relatively quickly from disturbance. Therefore, in-water explosions under 

Alternative 1 would mostly be limited to local and short-term impacts on habitat structure in the Study 

Area.

As discussed in Section 5.4.1 (Mitigation Areas for Seafloor Resources), the Navy will implement 

mitigations to avoid impacts from explosives on habitats 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 shallow-water coral reefs, live hard bottom, artificial reefs, and 

shipwrecks. Mitigation for seafloor resources was not included in the quantitative assessment of habitat 

impacts; however, it will help the Navy further avoid the potential for impacts on habitats from certain 

explosive activities.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.5-35

3.5 Habitats

3.5.3.2.1.2 Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 2 

Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 2 for Training Activities

Relevant training activities under Alternative 2 include explosives used during anti-submarine warfare, 

mine neutralization explosive ordnance disposal, and air-to-surface bombing tests, among others (see 

Appendix A, Navy Activity Descriptions, for descriptions of these activities.) Explosive activities would be 

the same under Alternative 2 as those analyzed under Alternative 1, as only the frequency and duration 

of sonar activities would differ. The general locations for these activities under Alternative 2 are listed in 

Appendix A (Navy Activity Descriptions) and are shown on Figure 3.5-1 through Figure 3.5-4. The Navy 

testing and training areas, listed by large marine ecosystem and acreages of abiotic habitat by type, are 

shown in Appendix F (Military Expended Materials and Direct Strike Impact Analysis).

Training events that include seafloor detonations would be infrequent, the percentage of testing area 

affected would be small, and the disturbed areas are likely soft bottom areas that recover relatively 

quickly from disturbance. Therefore, in-water explosions under Alternative 2 would mostly be limited to 

local and short-term impacts on habitat structure in the Study Area.

As discussed in Section 5.4.1 (Mitigation Areas for Seafloor Resources), the Navy will implement 

mitigations to avoid impacts from explosives on habitats 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 shallow-water coral reefs, live hard bottom, artificial reefs, and 

shipwrecks. Mitigation for seafloor resources was not included in the quantitative assessment of habitat 

impacts; however, it will help the Navy further avoid the potential for impacts on habitats from certain 

explosive activities.

Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 2 for Testing Activities

Relevant testing activities included in Alternative 2 that differ from Alternative 1 include Naval Air 

Systems Command’s airborne mine neutralization system test and anti-submarine warfare tracking 

test–maritime patrol aircraft. Impacts from other activities would remain the same as discussed above 

under Alternative 1 impacts from explosives for testing. The general locations for Alternative 2 activities 

are listed in Appendix A (Navy Activity Descriptions) and shown on Figure 3.5-1 through Figure 3.5-4.

Based on the number of charges and impact areas per year, the conservative scenarios for hard bottom 

are 2.5, less than 0.5, and 9.0 acres in the Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf, Southeast U.S. Continental 

Shelf, and Gulf of Mexico Large Marine Ecosystems, respectively (Table F-24, Potential Impact from 

Explosives On or Near the Bottom for Testing Activities Under Alternative 2 in a Single Year, in Appendix 

F, Military Expended Materials and Direct Strike Impact Analysis). This represents less than 0.01 percent 

of hard bottom, intermediate bottom, and soft bottom habitat in each area.

Analysis was conducted in order to determine the proportional impact of explosives testing on marine 

habitats in each of the training and testing areas within the Study Area. Only Virginia Capes and Naval 

Surface Warfare Center Panama City would differ in impacts from Alternative 1 (Figure 3.5-10). Based on 

the proportional analysis of impacts, total explosive impacts to hard substrate from testing activities 

would be approximately 0.5 acre. Impacts to other substrate types would be approximately 1.0 and 

9.0 acres for intermediate and soft substrates, respectively. Impacts to unknown substrate would be less 

than 0.5 acre (Table F-31, Proportional Impact to Bottom Habitat from Training Activities Under 

Alternatives 1 and 2 in a Single Year, in Appendix F, Military Expended Materials and Direct Strike Impact 

Analysis). See Appendix F for detailed analysis of explosive impacts from testing activities in each 

training area.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.5-36

3.5 Habitats

Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf Large Marine Ecosystem and Abyssal Zone Gulf of Mexico Large Marine Ecosystem

Figure 3.5-10: Alternative 2 – Annual Proportional Impact (Acres) from Explosives 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
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.5-37

3.5 Habitats

Analysis was also conducted to evaluate impacts accumulating over the course of a 5-year period. The 

analysis assumed that all impacts would accumulate. In reality, some habitat would recover over time,

as soft substrates are dynamic systems and craters could refill. The total footprint for impacts from high 

explosives over a 5-year period, based on a conservative scenario, would be approximately 58.0 acres. 

However, proportional impacts would still affect less than 0.01 percent of the total area of each habitat 

type (hard, intermediate, and soft). Details of this analysis can be found in Appendix F (Military 

Expended Materials and Direct Strike Impact Analysis).

Under Alternative 2, the areas of bottom habitat in in the large marine ecosystems affected annually by 

in-water detonations for testing activities would be a negligible portion of available bottom habitat (less 

than 0.01 percent annually). Testing events that include seafloor detonations would be infrequent and 

the percentage of testing area affected would be small, and the disturbed areas are likely soft bottom 

areas that recover relatively quickly from disturbance. Therefore, in-water explosions under Alternative 

2 would mostly be limited to local and short-term impacts on marine habitat structure in the Study Area.

As discussed in Section 5.4.1 (Mitigation Areas for Seafloor Resources), the Navy will implement 

mitigations to avoid impacts from explosives on habitats 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 shallow-water coral reefs, live hard bottom, artificial reefs, and 

shipwrecks. Mitigation for seafloor resources was not included in the quantitative assessment of habitat 

impacts; however, it will help the Navy further avoid the potential for impacts on habitats from certain 

explosive activities.

3.5.3.2.1.3 Impacts from Explosives Under the No Action Alternative

Impacts from Explosives 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 AFTT Study Area. Various explosive stressors (e.g., in-water detonations occurring on or 

near the seafloor) 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.

3.5.3.3 Energy Stressors

Energy stressors are not applicable to habitats, since activities that include the use of energy-producing 

devices are typically conducted at or above the surface of the water and would not impact bottom 

habitats. Therefore, they are not analyzed in this section.

3.5.3.4 Physical Disturbance and Strike Stressors

This section analyzes the potential impacts of the various types of physical disturbance and strike 

stressors resulting from the Navy training and testing activities within the Study Area. This analysis 

includes the potential impacts of (1) vessels and in-water devices, (2) military expended materials

(3) seafloor devices, and (4) pile driving. 

Impacts from physical disturbances or strikes resulting from Navy training and testing activities on biota 

inhabiting soft bottom (habitat for seagrasses, clams, etc.) and hard bottom (habitat for hard corals, 

seaweed, sponges, etc.) substrates are discussed in Section 3.3 (Vegetation) and Section 3.4 

(Invertebrates). Potential impacts to the underlying substrates (soft, intermediate, hard, or artificial) are 

analyzed here.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.5-38

3.5 Habitats

3.5.3.4.1 Impacts from Vessels and In-Water Devices

Vessels conducting training and testing activities in the Study Area include large ocean-going ships and 

submarines typically operating in waters deeper than 100 meters, but also occasionally transiting 

inshore waters from ports and through the operating areas. Training and testing activities also include

smaller vessels operating in inshore waters, typically at higher speeds (greater than 10 knots). Vessels 

used for training and testing activities range in size from small boats (less than 40 ft.) to nuclear aircraft 

carriers (greater than 980 ft.). Table 3.0-17 (Representative Vessel Types, Lengths, and Speeds) lists 

representative types of vessels, including amphibious warfare vessels, used during training and testing 

activities. Towed mine warfare and unmanned devices are much smaller than other Navy vessels, but 

would also disturb the water column near the device. Some activities involve vessels towing in-water 

devices used in mine warfare activities. The towed devices attached to a vessel by cables are smaller 

than most vessels, and are not towed at high speeds. Some vessels, such as amphibious vehicles, would 

intentionally contact the seafloor in the surf zone.

Vessels, in-water devices, and towed in-water devices could either directly or indirectly impact any of 

the habitat types discussed in this section, including soft and intertidal shores, soft and hard bottoms, 

and artificial substrates. In addition, a vessel or device could disturb the water column enough to stir up 

bottom sediments, temporarily increasing the local turbidity. The shore and nearshore environment is 

typically very dynamic because of its constant exposure to wave action and cycles of erosion and 

deposition. Along high-energy shorelines like ocean beaches, these areas would be reworked by waves 

and tides shortly after the disturbance. Along low-energy shorelines in sheltered inshore waters, the 

force of vessel wakes can result in elevated erosion and resuspension of fine sediment (Zabawa & 

Ostrom, 1980). In deeper waters where the tide or wave action has little influence, sediments 

suspended into the water column would eventually settle. Sediment settlement rates are highly 

dependent on grain size. Disturbance of deeper bottom habitat by vessels or in-water devices is possible 

where the propeller wash interacts with the bottom. However, most vessels transiting in shallow, 

nearshore waters are confined to navigation channels where bottom disturbance only occurs with the 

largest vessels. An exception would be for training and testing activities that occur in shallow, nearshore 

environments. Turbidity caused by vessel operation in shallow water, propeller scarring, and vessel 

grounding could impact habitats in shallow-water areas. In addition, physical contact with hard bottom 

areas can cause structural damage to the substrate. However, direct impacts to the substrate are 

typically avoided because they could slow or damage the vessel or in-water device. These disturbances 

would not alter the overall nature of the sediments to a degree that would impair their function as 

habitat. The following alternatives analysis specifies where these impacts could occur in terms of 

number of events with vessel movement or in-water devices during training or testing activities in 

different habitat areas.

3.5.3.4.1.1 Impacts from Vessels and In-Water Devices Under Alternative 1

Impacts from Vessels and In-Water Devices Under Alternative 1 for Training Activities

As indicated in Section 3.0.3.3.4.1 (Vessels and In-Water Devices), the majority of the training activities 

include vessels. These activities could be widely dispersed throughout the Study Area, but would be 

more concentrated near naval ports, piers, and ranges. Navy training vessel traffic would be 

concentrated in the Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf Large Marine Ecosystem near Naval Station Norfolk 

in Norfolk, Virginia, and in the Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf Large Marine Ecosystem near Naval 

Station Mayport in Jacksonville, Florida. Amphibious landings would be restricted to designated 

beaches. Large vessel movement primarily occurs within the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone, with the 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.5-39

3.5 Habitats

majority of the traffic flowing between Naval Stations Norfolk and Mayport. However, large vessel 

movement may also occasionally occur in any of the large marine ecosystems, as well as the Gulf Stream 

Open Ocean Area—specifically within the Northeast, Virginia Capes, Navy Cherry Point, Jacksonville, and 

Gulf of Mexico Range Complexes and anywhere in the Gulf of Mexico. Use of in-water devices is 

concentrated within the Virginia Capes, Jacksonville, and Navy Cherry Point Range Complexes.

Because of the nature of vessel operation and intentional avoidance of bottom strikes, most shore and 

bottom habitats would not be exposed to vessel strikes but could be exposed to vessel disturbance by 

propeller wash. Groundings would be accidental and are rare. Amphibious vehicles are an exception, but 

only designated beaches that are naturally resilient to disturbance would be used. Therefore, while 

vessels may affect shore and bottom habitats, adverse impacts are not likely.

Shallow water habitats within the Study Area would have a very small potential to be exposed to vessel 

strikes. Vessels would pose little risk to habitats in the open ocean although, in coastal waters, currents 

from large vessels may cause resuspension of sediment. Vessels travelling at high speeds would 

generally pose more of a risk; however, the majority of high-speed vessels use jet propulsion instead of 

propellers, which reduces the chance of impact from propeller strikes.

With the exception of amphibious operations, vessel disturbance and strikes affecting habitats would be 

extremely unlikely. Shallow-water vessels typically operate in defined boat lanes with sufficient depths 

to avoid propeller or hull strikes of bottom habitats. However, for some inshore training activities the 

training areas outside of navigation channels may not have sufficient depth to prevent contact with the 

bottom or resuspension of sediments.

The direct impact of vessels on bottom habitats is restricted to amphibious training beaches, whereas 

the indirect impact of propeller wash and wakes from vessels or in-water devices could impact 

shallow-water training areas and sheltered shoreline habitats. However, the bottom disturbance 

associated with propeller wash represents only a temporary resuspension of sediment in the shallowest 

portion of training areas. The effect of surface wakes is limited to high-speed training along relatively 

sheltered shorelines and is likely indistinguishable from the effect of other vessel wakes or storms in 

waters open to the public. Sheltered waters restricted to the public are typically harbors where no wake 

speeds are enforced.

There is very little likelihood of impacts to habitats due to in-water devices because the devices are not 

expected to contact the seafloor during training activities, operational procedures typically avoid 

shallow areas and intentionally avoid vessels or devices contacting the bottom, and exposures would be 

localized, temporary, and would cease with the conclusion of the activity. 

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 movements and in-water 

device usage for testing activities would be similar to those described previously under training 

activities.

Because of the nature of vessel and in-water device operation and intentional avoidance of bottom 

strikes, most habitat would not be exposed to vessel or in-water device direct strikes.

The impact of vessels and in-water devices on marine habitats would be inconsequential because the 

footprint of potential impact is extremely small relative to the overall availability of habitat, operational 

procedures typically avoid shallow areas and intentionally avoid vessels or devices contacting the 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.5-40

3.5 Habitats

bottom, and exposures would be localized, temporary, and would cease with the conclusion of the 

activity.

3.5.3.4.1.2 Impacts from Vessels and In-Water Devices Under Alternative 2

Impacts from Vessels and In-Water Devices Under Alternative 2 for Training Activities

As indicated in Section 3.0.3.3.4.1 (Vessels and In-Water Devices), Navy vessel movements and in-water 

device usage under Alternative 2 would be similar to those described previously under Alternative 1 

training activities, although the overall number of vessel operations would be slightly increased due to 

more active hull-mounted sonar operations. Use of in-water devices would also be slightly increased 

under this alternative.

Because of the nature of vessel and in-water device operation and intentional avoidance of bottom 

strikes, most habitat would not be exposed to vessel or in-water device direct strikes. Amphibious 

landings are an exception, but these activities are conducted in designated areas that have been 

historically used for this type of activity and are generally devoid of any quality habitat. 

The impact of vessels and in-water devices on marine habitats would be inconsequential because the 

footprint of potential impact is extremely small relative to the overall availability of habitat, operational 

procedures typically avoid shallow areas and intentionally avoid vessels or devices contacting the 

bottom, and exposures would be localized, temporary, and would cease with the conclusion of the 

activity.

Impacts from Vessels and In-Water Devices Under Alternative 2 for Testing Activities

As indicated in Section 3.0.3.3.4.1 (Vessels and In-Water Devices), Navy vessel movements and in-water 

device usage for testing activities under Alternative 2 would be similar to those described previously 

under Alternative 2 training activities.

Because of the nature of vessel and in-water device operation and intentional avoidance of bottom 

strikes, most habitats would not be exposed to vessel or in-water device direct strikes. Amphibious 

landings are an exception; however, they are not included in testing activities. 

The impact of vessels and in-water devices on marine habitats would be inconsequential because the 

footprint of potential impact is extremely small relative to the overall availability of habitat, operational 

procedures typically avoid shallow areas and intentionally avoid vessels or devices contacting the 

bottom, and exposures would be localized, temporary, and would cease with the conclusion of the 

activity.

3.5.3.4.1.3 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 AFTT 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.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.5-41

3.5 Habitats

3.5.3.4.2 Impacts from Aircraft and Aerial Targets

Impacts from aircraft and aerial targets are not applicable to habitats, because aircraft and aerial targets 

would not contact or otherwise affect shore or bottom habitats and are not analyzed further in this 

section.

3.5.3.4.3 Impacts from Military Expended Materials

This section analyzes the potential for physical disturbance to marine substrates from the following 

categories of military expended materials: (1) non-explosive practice munitions, (2) fragments from 

high-explosive munitions, and (3) expended materials other than munitions, such as sonobuoys, 

expendable targets, and ship hulks. Note that expended materials do not include materials that are 

recovered or considered in-water or seafloor devices. Areas expected to have the greatest amount of 

expended materials are the Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf Large Marine Ecosystem, the Southeast 

U.S. Continental Shelf Large Marine Ecosystem, and the Gulf Stream Open Ocean Area (specifically 

within the Virginia Capes and Jacksonville Range Complexes). For a discussion of the types of activities 

that use military expended materials, see Appendix A (Navy Activity Descriptions) or Appendix B (Activity 

Stressor Matrices); for information on where they would be used and how much of each material is 

expended under each alternative, see Tables 3.0-24 (Number and Location of Non-Explosive Practice 

Munitions Expended During Training Activities) through 3.0-34 (Number and Location of Other Military 

Materials Expended During Testing Activities). Military expended materials have the potential to 

physically disturb marine substrates to the extent that they impair the substrate’s ability to function as a 

habitat. These disturbances can result from several sources, including the impact of the expended 

material contacting the seafloor and moving around, the covering of the substrate by the expended 

material, or alteration of the substrate from one type to another. 

The potential for military expended materials to physically impact marine substrates as they come into 

contact with the seafloor depends on several factors. These factors include, but are not limited to, the 

size, shape, type, density, and speed of the material through the water column; the amount of the 

material expended; the frequency of training or testing; water depth, water currents, or other 

disturbances; and the type of substrate. Most of the kinetic energy of the expended material, however, 

is dissipated within the first few feet of the object entering the water, causing it to slow considerably by 

the time it reaches the substrate. Because the damage caused by a strike is proportional to the force of 

the strike, slower speeds result in lesser impacts. Due to the water depth at which most training and 

testing events take place, a direct strike on either hard bottom or artificial structures (e.g., artificial reefs 

and shipwrecks) is unlikely to occur with sufficient force to damage the substrate. In softer substrates 

(e.g., sand, mud, silt, clay, and composites), the impact of the expended material coming into contact 

with the seafloor, if large enough and striking with sufficient momentum, may result in a depression and 

a localized redistribution of sediments as they are temporarily suspended in the water column. There 

may also be redistribution of unconsolidated sediment in areas with sufficient flow to move the 

sediment, creating a pattern of scouring on one side of the material and deposition on the other. 

During Navy training and testing, countermeasures such as flares and chaff are introduced into marine 

habitats. These types of military expended materials are not expected to impact marine habitats as 

strike stressors, given their smaller size and low velocity when deployed compared to projectiles,

bombs, and missiles.

Another potential physical disturbance that military expended materials could have on marine 

substrates would be to cover them or to alter the type of substrate and, therefore, its function as 

habitat. The majority of military expended materials that settle on hard bottom or artificial substrates, 

while covering the seafloor, may serve a similar habitat function as the substrate it is covering by 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.5-42

3.5 Habitats

providing a hard surface on which 

organisms can attach (Figure 3.5-11

and Figure 3.5-12). Similarity in 

attached organisms over the long term 

depends on similarity in structural 

features (Perkol-Finkel et al., 2006; 

Ross et al., 2016), fine surface texture, 

and mineral content (Davis, 2009). 

Natural hard bottom and artificial 

structures of a similar shape will 

eventually have similar communities of 

attached organisms if they have similar 

fine texture and mineral content.

However, the smooth surface texture 

of intact military expended materials 

and lack of mineral content suggest a 

difference in species composition and 

associated functions. An exception 

would be expended materials, like the 

decelerators/parachutes utilized to 

deploy sonobuoys, lightweight 

torpedoes, expendable mobile 

anti-submarine warfare training 

targets, and other devices from aircraft, 

which would not provide a hard surface 

for colonization. In these cases, the 

hard bottom or artificial substrate 

covered by the expended material 

would not be physically damaged, but 

would have an impaired ability to 

function as a habitat for colonizing or 

encrusting organisms. There is 

potential for these items to drift over 

shallow-water or deep-sea coral 

habitats.

Most military expended materials that 

settle on soft bottom habitats, while 

not damaging the actual substrate, 

would inhibit the substrate’s ability to 

function as a soft bottom habitat by 

covering it with a hard surface. This 

would effectively alter the substrate 

from a soft surface to a hard structure 

and, therefore, would alter the habitat 

to be more suitable for organisms more commonly found associated with hard bottom environments 

Note: Observed at approximately 350 meters in depth and 60 nautical miles 

east of Jacksonville, Florida. Of note is the use of the smoke float as a 

colonizing substrate for a cluster of sea anemones (U.S. Department of the 

Navy, 2010). 

Figure 3.5-11: A Marine Marker Observed in an Area 

Dominated by Coral Rubble on the Continental Slope

Note: Observed on the ridge system that runs parallel to the shelf break at 

approximately 80 meters in depth and 55 nautical miles east of Jacksonville, 

Florida. Of note is that encrusting organisms and benthic invertebrates readily 

colonize the artificial structure to a similar degree as the surrounding rock 

outcrop (U.S. Department of the Navy, 2010).

Figure 3.5-12: An Unidentified, Non-Military Structure on 

Hard bottom 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.5-43

3.5 Habitats

(U.S. Department of the Navy, 2010, 2011). Expended materials that settle in the shallower, more 

dynamic environments of the continental shelf would likely be eventually covered over by sediments 

due to currents and other coastal processes, or encrusted by organisms. Depending on the substrate 

properties and the hydrodynamic characteristics of the area, military expended materials may become 

buried rather quickly while in other areas they may persist on the surface of the seafloor for a more 

extended time. The offshore portion of the continental shelf experiences more sediment redistribution 

from oceanic currents (e.g., Gulf Stream) than distant surface waves. The effect of oceanic currents on 

sediment redistribution diminishes seaward of the continental shelf break: sediment along the 

continental slope and the Atlantic Basin/abyssal zone experience very little reworking from surface 

currents and waves. In the deeper waters of the continental slope and beyond where currents do not 

play as large of a role, expended materials may remain exposed on the surface of the substrate with 

minimal change for extended periods (Figure 3.5-13). 

Note: The casing was observed in a sandy area on the continental slope approximately 425 meters in depth and 70 nautical 

miles east of Jacksonville, Florida. The casing has not become covered by sediments or encrusting organisms due to the 

depth and the relatively calm, current-free environment. 

Figure 3.5-13: A 76-millimeter Cartridge Casing on Soft Bottom and

a Blackbelly Rosefish (Helicolenus dactylopterus) Using the Casing 

for Protection When Disturbed

Whereas the impacts will accumulate somewhat through successive years of training and testing, some 

portion of the expended material will sink below the surface of shifting soft bottom habitat or become 

incorporated into natural hard bottom before crumbling into inorganic particulates. This will be the fate 

of military expended material whose density is greater than or equal to that of the underlying substrate 

(e.g., metal, cement, sand) (Traykovksi & Austin, 2017). Constituents of military expended material that 

are less dense than the underlying substrate (e.g., fabric, plastic) will likely remain on the surface 

substrate after sinking. In this case, the impact on substrate as a habitat is likely temporary and minor 

due to the mobility of such materials (refer to living resources sections for more information on the 

entanglement and ingestion risk posed by plastic and fabric constituents of military expended material). 

The impact of dense expendable materials on bottom substrate is prolonged in the large marine 

ecosystem areas that are seaward of the continental shelf. Between initial settlement and burial or 

complete degradation, these relatively stable objects will likely function as small artificial habitats for 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.5-44

3.5 Habitats

encrusting algae, attached macroalgae/seaweed, and/or sedentary invertebrates as well as small motile 

organisms (Figure 3.5-14).

Disturbance of the bottom 

from ship hulks may occur, 

but impairment of habitat 

function is not expected 

because the material is 

sunk in the abyssal zone 

where bottom organisms 

are generally small and 

sparsely populated 

(Nybakken, 1993); the 

deep ocean has a sparse 

supply of food items for 

sedentary deposit or filter 

feeders. The only densely 

populated areas in the 

deep ocean are around the 

occasional hydrothermal 

vent/cold seep.

To determine the potential 

level of disturbance that 

military expended 

materials have on soft, 

intermediate, and hard 

bottom substrates, an 

analysis to determine the 

impact footprint was 

conducted for each range 

complex for each 

alternative. Three main assumptions were made that result in the impact footprints calculated being 

generally considered overestimates. First, within each category of expended items (e.g., bombs, 

missiles, rockets, large-caliber projectiles, etc.), the size of the largest item that would be expended was 

used to represent the sizes of all items in the category. For example, the impact footprints of missiles 

used during training exercises range from 1.5 to 40 square feet. For the analyses, all missiles were 

assumed to be equivalent to the largest in size, or 40 square feet. Second, it was also assumed that the 

impact of the expended material on the seafloor was twice the size of its actual footprint. This 

assumption accounts for any displacement of sediments at the time of impact as well as any subsequent 

movement of the item on the seafloor due to currents or other forces. This should more accurately 

reflect the potential disturbance to soft bottom habitats but would overestimate disturbance to hard

bottom habitats since no displacement of the substrate would occur. Third, items with casings (e.g., 

small-, medium-, and large-caliber munitions; flares; sonobuoys; etc.) have their impact footprints 

doubled to account for both the item and its casing. Items and their casings were assumed to be the 

same size, even though depending on the munitions, one of them is often smaller than the other. 

a. MK 82 inert bomb 

(168 centimeters 

long) that directly 

impacted the 

seafloor at a depth 

of 12 meters on 

September 5 or 6,

2007; photographed 

on September 

13, 2007. Area of 

destruction/ 

disturbance was 

approximately 

17 square meters. 

b. MK 82 bombs 

with Pocilloporid 

corals, algae, etc.

Source: (Smith & Marx, 2016)

Figure 3.5-14: Military Expended Material Functioning as Habitat
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.5-45

3.5 Habitats

Once the impact footprints were calculated, three analyses were performed for each range complex: 

(1) a conservative scenario in which potential impact to each habitat type (soft, intermediate, and hard

bottom habitats) in that range complex if all expended materials settled in areas with that substrate 

type, (2) a proportional analysis in which potential impact to each habitat type expended materials 

settled proportionally across all habitat types in the area, and (3) a 5-year scenario in which potential 

impact to the bottom habitats in that range complex over a 5-year period if activities continued at 

anticipated levels and impact accumulated over that period. During the analyses, the same dimensions 

were used for high-explosive munitions as were used for non-explosive practice munitions. The total 

area of the seafloor covered by the expended materials should be similar regardless of whether the item 

is intact or fragmented, despite the fact that high-explosive munitions will explode in the air, at the 

surface, or in the water column and only fragments would make it to the substrate. 

Only the acreage in the large marine ecosystem areas was included in percentages. The areas within the 

Atlantic Basin and abyssal zone were not included in order to focus on bottom areas likely to have a 

combination of suitable habitat, supply of sedentary invertebrate larvae, and sufficient food particles for 

filtration or deposit-feeding. Artificial substrate was not included, because it was inconsistently included 

for mapping and it likely represented a miniscule percentage of habitat types in the large marine 

ecosystems. 

According to surveys conducted at Farallon De Medinilla (a Department of Defense bombing range in 

the Mariana Archipelago) between 1997 and 2012, there was no evidence that the condition of the 

living resources assessed had changed or been adversely impacted to a significant degree by the training 

activities being conducted there. It should also be noted that the intended munition target was on the 

nearby land area, and water impacts were due to inaccuracy. The health, abundance, and biomass of 

fishes, corals, and other marine resources are comparable to or superior to those in similar habitats at 

other locations within the Mariana Archipelago (Smith & Marx, 2016). However, the study noted that

the decline in some important reef fish during their latest surveys was likely due to increasing attention 

from fishermen. Also, this is expected to be an extreme case based on the proximity to shallow-water 

coral reefs and the severe wave impact and associated movement of military expended materials due to 

the shallow margins of the islands where wave impact is most severe. Impacts to habitat from military 

expended material in the Study Area would be expected to be less severe. See Appendix F (Military 

Expended Materials and Direct Strike Impact Analysis) for detailed analyses of the impacts associated 

with military expended materials from Navy training and testing activities.

3.5.3.4.3.1 Impacts from Military Expended Materials Under Alternative 1

Impacts from Military Expended Materials Under Alternative 1 for Training Activities

Training activities involving military expended materials (Appendix A, Navy Activity Descriptions) would 

have the potential to impact the marine substrates within the areas in which the training is occurring. 

Each range complex was evaluated to determine what level of impact could be expected under 

Alternative 1. 

To determine the percentage of a given substrate within a range complex that may potentially be 

impacted by military expended materials under a worst case scenario for each of the alternatives, the 

total impacted area for each range complex was divided by the total amount of that particular substrate 

type within the same range complex as provided in Table 3.5-2 (see also Appendix F, Military Expended 

Materials and Direct Strike Impact Analysis).

Military expended materials associated with training exercises under a conservative scenario would not 

impact more than 0.01 percent of the available soft bottom habitat annually within any of the training 

areas or range complexes. Likewise, the potential impact of the conservative scenario on intermediate 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.5-46

3.5 Habitats

bottom habitats within each range complex does not exceed 0.02 percent of the total available 

intermediate bottom. Impacts to hard substrate would not exceed 0.01 percent for any of the areas (see 

Table F-27, Potential Impact of Military Expended Materials from Training Activities on Each Substrate 

Type in a Single Year, in Appendix F, Military Expended Materials and Direct Strike Impact Analysis). 

Given that the probability of these conservative scenarios occurring is highly unlikely, the actual impact 

of military expended materials within each range complex under the Alternative 1 on hard bottom, 

intermediate bottom, or soft bottom substrates will be even less. 

Decelerators/parachutes may be considered the most problematic impact on live hard bottoms in the 

Study Area due to the potential for such slowly sinking items to drift over shallow-water or deep-sea 

coral habitats. A decelerator/parachute settling on hard substrate would constitute a conversion to a 

softer substrate that could persist for a long time depending on the parachute material.

Additional analysis was conducted in order to determine the proportional impact of military expended 

material from training activities on marine habitats in each of the training areas within the Study Area 

(Figure 3.5-15). Based on the proportional analysis of impacts, total military expended materials impacts 

from training activities to vulnerable hard substrate would be approximately 11.5 acres. Impacts to 

other substrate types would be approximately 10.5, 84.5, and 1.5 acres for intermediate, soft, and 

unknown substrates, respectively (Table F-31, Proportional Impact to Bottom Habitat from Training 

Activities Under Alternatives 1 and 2 in a Single Year, in Appendix F, Military Expended Materials and 

Direct Strike Impact Analysis). See Appendix F, for detailed analysis of military expended materials 

impacts from training activities in each range complex and other training locations.

An analysis was also conducted to evaluate impacts accumulating over the course of a 5-year period. 

The analysis assumed that all impacts would accumulate. In reality, soft bottom habitats may recover in 

the short term where heavier military expended materials are buried under shifting sediments; hard

bottom habitats would recover over the long term where hard, stable military expended materials

become overgrown with similar organisms. The total proportional impact footprint for impacts from 

military expended materials over a 5-year period would be approximately 58.0, 52.5, and 422.0 acres for 

hard bottom, intermediate bottom, and soft bottom, respectively. Approximately 7.5 acres of unknown 

habitat would be impacted. However, total impacts would still affect less than 0.04 percent of the total 

area of each habitat type (hard, intermediate, and soft) would be impacted. Details of this analysis can 

be found in Appendix F (Military Expended Materials and Direct Strike Impact Analysis).

Military expended materials, including small caliber projectile casings, marine markers, flares, and flare 

parts, would also be utilized in inshore waterways. In the northeast, military expended materials would 

be expended in Narragansett Bay, Rhode Island; Lower Chesapeake Bay, James River and Tributaries, 

and York River. In the southeast, military expended material is employed in Cooper River, South 

Carolina; and Port Canaveral, Florida. Impacts from training activities under Alternative 1 in inshore

waterways are very small, totaling only about 2.5 acres combined in the northeast inshore waterways 

and less than 0.5 acre in the southeast inshore waterways in the conservative scenario. Proportionally, 

in range complexes in the northeast, less than 0.5, 0.5, 2.0, and less than 0.5 acres of hard, intermediate, 

soft, and unknown substrate would be impacted, respectively (Figure 3.5-15). In the southeast, less than 

0.5 acre of hard, intermediate, soft, or unknown substrate would be impacted (Figure 3.5-15).

As discussed in Section 5.4.1 (Mitigation Areas for Seafloor Resources), the Navy will implement 

mitigation to avoid impacts from military expended materials on habitats in mitigation areas throughout 

the Study Area. For example, the Navy will not conduct gunnery activities within a specified distance of 

shallow-water coral reefs. Mitigation for seafloor resources was not included in the quantitative 

assessment of habitat impacts; however, it will help the Navy further avoid the potential for impacts on 

habitats from certain activities that involve the use of military expended materials.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.5-47

3.5 Habitats

Impacts from Military Expended Materials Under Alternative 1 for Testing Activities

Testing activities involving military expended materials (Appendix A, Navy Activity Descriptions) would 

have the potential to impact the marine substrates within the areas the testing is occurring. Each range 

complex and testing range was evaluated to determine what level of impact could be expected under 

Alternative 1.

To determine the percentage of the total soft bottom or hard bottom substrate within the Study Area 

that may potentially be impacted by military expended materials under a conservative scenario for each 

of the alternatives, the total impacted area for each testing range was divided by the total amount of 

that particular substrate type within the same testing range as provided in Table 3.5-2 (see also 

Appendix F, Military Expended Materials and Direct Strike Impact Analysis).

Military expended materials associated with testing activities under a conservative scenario would not 

impact more than 0.01 percent of the available soft bottom habitat annually within any of the testing 

areas. The potential impact of the conservative scenario on intermediate bottom habitats within each 

testing range does not exceed 0.02 percent of the total available intermediate bottom. Hard bottom 

impacts would not exceed 0.01 percent for any of the areas. Given that the probability of these worst 

case scenarios occurring is highly unlikely, the actual impact of military expended materials within each 

range complex under Alternative 1 on hard bottom, intermediate bottom, or soft bottom substrates will 

be even less. 

Decelerators/parachutes may be considered the most problematic impact on live hard bottoms in the 

Study Area due to the potential for such slowly sinking items to drift over shallow-water or deep-sea 

coral habitats. A decelerator/parachute settling on hard substrate would constitute a conversion to a 

softer substrate that could persist for a long time depending on the parachute material.

Additional analysis was conducted in order to determine the proportional impact of military expended 

material from testing activities on marine habitats in each of the range complexes and testing areas

within the Study Area (Figure 3.5-15). Based on the proportional analysis of impacts, total military 

expended materials impacts to hard substrate from testing activities would be approximately 5.0 acres. 

Impacts to other substrate types would be approximately 5.0 and 42.0 acres for intermediate and soft 

substrates, respectively. Approximately 0.5 acre of unknown substrate would be impacted (Table F-32,

Proportional Impact to Bottom Habitat from Testing Activities Under Alternatives 1 and 2 in a Single 

Year, in Appendix F, Military Expended Materials and Direct Strike Impact Analysis). See Appendix F for 

detailed analysis of military expended materials impacts from testing activities in each range complex or 

other testing area.

An analysis was also conducted to evaluate impacts accumulating over the course of a 5-year period. 

The analysis assumed that all impacts would accumulate. In reality, some habitat would recover over 

time, as soft substrates are dynamic systems and craters could refill. The total proportional impact 

footprint for impacts from high explosives over a 5-year period would be approximately 24.0, 25, and 

204.5 acres for hard bottom, intermediate bottom, and soft bottom respectively. Approximately

1.5 acres of unknown habitat would be impacted. However, total impacts would still affect less than 

0.05 percent of the total area of each habitat type (hard, intermediate, and soft) would be impacted. 

Details of this analysis can be found in Appendix F (Military Expended Materials and Direct Strike Impact 

Analysis).
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.5-48

3.5 Habitats

Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf Large Marine Ecosystem

Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf Large Marine Ecosystem and Abyssal Zone

Figure 3.5-15: Alternative 1 – Annual Proportional Impact (Acres) from Military Expended Materials by Substrate Type for Training 

and Testing Compared to Total Habitat Within the Study Area
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.5-49

3.5 Habitats

Northeast and Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf Large Marine Ecosystems Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf Large Marine Ecosystem

Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf Large Marine Ecosystem and Abyssal Zone Caribbean and Gulf of Mexico Large Marine Ecosystems

Figure 3.5-15: Alternative 1 – Annual Proportional Impact (Acres) from Military Expended Materials by Substrate Type for Training 

and Testing Compared to Total Habitat Within the Study Area (continued)
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.5-50

3.5 Habitats

Gulf of Mexico Large Marine Ecosystem

Abyssal Zone

Figure 3.5-15: Alternative 1 – Annual Proportional Impact (Acres) from Military Expended Materials by Substrate Type for Training 

and Testing Compared to Total Habitat Within the Study Area (continued)
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.5-51

3.5 Habitats

Inshore Waterways

Figure 3.5-15: Alternative 1 – Annual Proportional Impact (Acres) from Military Expended Materials by Substrate Type for Training 

and Testing Compared to Total Habitat Within the Study Area (continued)
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.5-52

3.5 Habitats

Further, many of the materials used in testing are recovered to some degree: non-explosive torpedoes 

(100 percent), unmanned aerial systems (depends on the type and exercise), targets (depends on the 

type and exercise), and mine shapes (depends on the exercise). For the purpose of analysis, if the 

recovery status was unknown, the item was assumed to be expended. The numbers are also based on a 

maximum expenditure which is typically not realized in any given year.

As discussed in Section 5.4.1 (Mitigation Areas for Seafloor Resources), the Navy will implement 

mitigation to avoid impacts from military expended materials on habitats in mitigation areas throughout 

the Study Area. For example, the Navy will not conduct gunnery activities within a specified distance of 

shallow-water coral reefs. Mitigation for seafloor resources was not included in the quantitative 

assessment of habitat impacts; however, it will help the Navy further avoid the potential for impacts on 

habitats from certain activities that involve the use of military expended materials.

3.5.3.4.3.2 Impacts from Military Expended Materials Under Alternative 2

Impacts from Military Expended Materials Under Alternative 2 for Training Activities

Training activities involving military expended materials (Appendix A, Navy Activity Descriptions) would 

have the potential to impact the marine substrates within the areas the training is occurring. Each range 

complex was evaluated to determine what the level of impact could be expected under Alternative 2. 

As indicated in Section 3.0.3.3.4.2 (Military Expended Materials), under Alternative 2 the total number 

of military expended materials would be nearly identical to those analyzed under Alternative 1 (see 

Appendix F, Military Expended Materials and Direct Strike Impact Analysis), and the primary difference 

between alternatives would be due to an increase in the amount of materials (e.g., sonobuoys) 

associated with anti-submarine warfare activities. Activities under Alternative 2 would occur in the same 

geographic locations using the same types of military expended materials as Alternative 1.

To determine the percentage of the total soft bottom, intermediate bottom, or hard bottom substrate 

within a training range that may potentially be impacted by military expended materials under a worst 

case scenario for each of the alternatives, the total impacted area for each training range was divided by 

the total amount of that particular substrate type within the same testing range. Results of this analysis 

are provided in Appendix F (Military Expended Materials and Direct Strike Impact Analysis).

Military expended materials related to training activities under a conservative scenario would not 

impact more than 0.01 percent of the available soft bottom habitat annually within any of the training

ranges. Likewise, the potential impact of the conservative scenario on intermediate bottom habitats 

within each training range does not exceed 0.01 percent of the total available intermediate bottom. 

Likewise, the potential impact of the conservative scenario on habitats within each training area, range 

complex, or other area does not exceed 0.01 percent of the total available hard bottom. 

Analysis was conducted in order to determine the proportional impact of military expended material 

from training on marine habitats in each of the range complexes within the Study Area. Under 

Alternative 2, impacts would only differ for the Jacksonville and Gulf of Mexico Range Complexes (Figure 

3.5-16). Based on the proportional analysis of impacts, military expended material impacts to hard 

substrate from training activities would be approximately 11.5 acres. Impacts to other substrate types 

would be approximately10.5, 85.0, and 1.5 acres for intermediate, soft, and unknown substrates, 

respectively. See Appendix F (Military Expended Materials and Direct Strike Impact Analysis) for detailed 

analysis of military expended materials impacts from training activities in each Training Area.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.5-53

3.5 Habitats

Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf Large Marine Ecosystem and Abyssal Zone Gulf of Mexico Large Marine Ecosystem

Figure 3.5-16: Alternative 2 – Annual 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
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.5-54

3.5 Habitats

Analysis was conducted to evaluate impacts accumulating over the course of a 5-year period. The 

analysis assumed that all impacts would accumulate. In reality, soft bottom habitats may recover in the 

short term where heavier military expended materials are buried under shifting sediments; hard bottom 

habitats would recover over the long term where hard, stable military expended materials become 

overgrown with similar organisms. The total proportional impact footprint for impacts from high 

explosives over a 5-year period would be approximately 58.5, 52.5, and 424.5 acres for hard bottom, 

intermediate bottom, and soft bottom respectively. Approximately 7.5 acres of unknown habitat would 

be impacted. However, total impacts would still affect less than 0.04 percent of the total area of each 

habitat type (hard, intermediate, and soft) would be impacted. Details of this analysis can be found in 

Appendix F (Military Expended Materials and Direct Strike Impact Analysis).

Given that the probability of these worst case scenarios occurring is highly unlikely, the actual impact of 

military expended materials within each range complex under Alternative 2 on either hard bottom or 

soft bottom substrates will be even less than shown in Figure 3.5-16.

Further, many of the military expended materials would be recovered, including, torpedoes, unmanned 

aerial systems, targets, mine shapes, and instruments.

Impacts from Military Expended Materials Under Alternative 2 for Testing Activities

Testing activities involving military expended materials (Section 3.0.3.3.4, Physical Disturbance and 

Strike Stressors, and Appendix A, Navy Activity Descriptions) would have the potential to impact the 

marine substrates within the areas the testing is occurring. Each range complex and testing range was 

evaluated to determine what the level of impact could be expected under Alternative 2. 

As indicated in Section 3.0.3.3.4.2 (Military Expended Materials), under Alternative 2 the total number 

of military expended materials would be very similar to that under Alternative 1 (see Appendix F,

Military Expended Materials and Direct Strike Impact Analysis). However, there are several types of 

activities under Alternative 2 that would require a slight increase in military expended materials. For 

example, under Alternative 2 there would be increases in torpedoes, rockets, missiles, medium-caliber 

projectiles, and torpedo accessories, along with sonobuoys associated with anti-submarine warfare. 

Activities under Alternative 2 would occur in the same geographic locations using the same types of 

military expended materials as Alternative 1.

To determine the percentage of the total soft bottom, intermediate bottom, or hard bottom substrate 

within a testing range that may potentially be impacted by military expended materials under a worst 

case scenario for each of the alternatives, the total impacted area for each testing range was divided by 

the total amount of that particular substrate type within the same testing range. Results of this analysis 

are provided in Appendix F (Military Expended Materials and Direct Strike Impact Analysis).

Military expended materials related to testing activities under a conservative scenario would not impact 

more than 0.01 percent of the available soft bottom habitat annually within any of the testing ranges. 

Likewise, the potential impact of the conservative scenario on intermediate bottom habitats within each 

testing range does not exceed 0.01 percent of the total available intermediate bottom. The potential 

impact of the conservative scenario on habitats within each testing range does not exceed 0.1 percent 

of the total available hard bottom.

Analysis was conducted in order to determine the proportional impact of military expended material 

from testing on marine habitats in each of the range complexes within the Study Area. Based on the 

proportional analysis of impacts, military expended material impacts to hard substrate from training 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.5-55

3.5 Habitats

activities would be 5.0 acres. Impacts to other substrate types would be approximately 5.0, 42.0, and 

1.5 acres for intermediate, soft, and unknown substrates, respectively. The total area of substrate 

potentially impacted due to decelerators/parachutes expended would increase by about 0.7 acre 

compared to Alternative 1, primarily in the Northeast Range Complex. See Appendix F (Military 

Expended Materials and Direct Strike Impact Analysis) for detailed analysis of explosive impacts from 

training activities in each training area.

Analysis was conducted to evaluate impacts accumulating over the course of a 5-year period. The 

analysis assumed that all impacts would accumulate. In reality, over time, some habitat would recover 

as soft substrates are dynamic systems and craters could refill. The total proportional impact footprint 

for impacts from high explosives over a 5-year period would be approximately 24.5, 26.0, and 

210.0 acres for hard bottom, intermediate bottom, and soft bottom respectively. Approximately 

1.5 acres of unknown habitat would be impacted. However, total impacts would still affect less than 

0.05 percent of the total area of each habitat type (hard, intermediate, and soft) would be impacted. 

Details of this analysis can be found in Appendix F (Military Expended Materials and Direct Strike Impact 

Analysis).

Given that the probability of these worst case scenarios occurring is highly unlikely, the actual impact of 

military expended materials within each range complex under Alternative 2 on either hard bottom or 

soft bottom substrates will be even less than shown in Figure 3.5-15. 

Further, many of the military expended materials would be recovered, including torpedoes, unmanned 

aerial systems, targets, mine shapes, and instruments.

3.5.3.4.3.3 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 AFTT 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.

3.5.3.4.4 Impacts from Seafloor Devices

The types of activities that use seafloor devices are discussed in Appendix B (Activity Stressor Matrices) 

and where they would be used and how many activities would occur under each alternative are 

discussed in Section 3.0.3.3.4.3 (Seafloor Devices). Seafloor devices include items that are placed on, 

dropped on, or moved along the substrate for a specific purpose, and include mine shapes, anchor 

blocks, vessel anchors, bottom-placed instruments, bottom-crawling unmanned underwater vehicles, 

and bottom placed targets that are recovered (not expended). Mine shapes are typically deployed via 

surface vessels or fixed-wing aircraft. These items can damage fragile abiotic or biogenic structures on 

the bottom, temporarily cover and effectively replace an area of bottom, and resuspend sediment when 

deployed/retrieved.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.5-56

3.5 Habitats

3.5.3.4.4.1 Impacts from Seafloor Devices Under Alternative 1

Impacts from Seafloor Devices Under Alternative 1 for Training Activities

As indicated in Section 3.0.3.3.4.3 (Seafloor Devices), under Alternative 1, seafloor devices are deployed 

in the Northeast and Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf, and Gulf of Mexico Large Marine Ecosystems, as 

well as Gulf Stream Open Ocean Area—specifically within the Virginia Capes, Navy Cherry Point, 

Jacksonville, Key West, and Gulf of Mexico Range Complexes and Naval Surface Warfare Center Panama 

City Testing Range. Specific bays and inshore waters where seafloor devices are deployed include 

Boston, Massachusetts; Earle, New Jersey; Delaware Bay, Delaware; Hampton Roads, Lower Chesapeake 

Bay, James River and tributaries, and York River, Virginia; Wilmington and Morehead City, North 

Carolina; Savannah, Georgia; Mayport, Port Canaveral, Truman Harbor, Demolition Key, and Tampa, 

Florida; and Beaumont and Corpus Christi, Texas.

Activities involving seafloor devices have the potential to impact bottom habitats. While hard bottom 

exists in all these areas, activities in the Virginia Capes Range Complex, Navy Cherry Point Range 

Complex, and particularly the Jacksonville Range Complex have the greatest potential to impact hard

bottom. Mine shapes or other stationary targets and anchors are typically recovered within 7 to 30 days 

following the completion of the training or testing events. As a result of their temporary nature,

recovered mine shapes do not permanently impact the substrate on which they are placed, but will 

temporarily impair the ability of the substrate to function as a habitat for as long as the mine shape and 

anchor is in place. The impairment is due to the temporary covering by artificial substrate along with 

changes in the bathymetry around the structures due to scouring and deposition patterns around 

objects on a soft bottom. Additionally, many targets used in inshore waters are placed either pierside or 

at beachfront locations where the substrate is already disturbed by dredging (for pierside locations) or 

by nearshore currents and wave action (for beach-front locations).

Potential impacts of precision anchoring are qualitatively different from other seafloor devices because 

the activity involves repeated disturbance to the same area of seafloor. Precision anchoring training 

exercises involve releasing of anchors in designated locations. The intent of these training exercises is to 

practice anchoring the vessel within 300 ft. of the planned anchorage location. These training activities 

typically occur within predetermined shallow water anchorage locations near ports with seafloors 

consisting of soft bottom substrate. The level of impact to the soft sediments would depend on the size 

of the anchor used, which would vary according to vessel type. As most of these activities occur in areas 

along navigation channels subject to strong currents and shifting sediment, disturbed areas would 

quickly return to pre-disturbance conditions. The Navy will implement mitigation that includes not 

conducting precision anchoring (except in designated anchorages) within the anchor swing circle of 

shallow-water coral reefs, live hard bottom, artificial reefs, and shipwrecks to avoid potential impacts 

from seafloor devices on habitats in mitigation areas throughout the Study Area (see Section 5.4.1, 

Mitigation Areas for Seafloor Resources). Mitigation for seafloor resources was not included in the 

quantitative assessment of habitat impacts; however, it will help the Navy further avoid the potential for 

impacts on habitats from precision anchoring activities.

Crawlers are fully autonomous, battery-powered amphibious vehicles used for functions such as 

reconnaissance missions in territorial waters. These devices are used to classify and map underwater 

mines in shallow water areas. The crawler is capable of traveling 2 ft. per second along the seafloor and 

can avoid obstacles. The crawlers are equipped with various sonar sensors and communication 

equipment that enable these devices to locate and classify underwater objects and mines while 

rejecting miscellaneous clutter that would not pose a threat. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.5-57

3.5 Habitats

Crawlers move over the surface of the seafloor and would not harm or alter any hard substrates 

encountered; therefore hard bottom habitat would not be impaired. However, fragile abiotic or biogenic 

structures could be harmed by the crawlers moving over the substrate (refer to living resources sections 

for analysis). In soft substrates, crawlers may leave a trackline of depressed sediments approximately

2 ft. wide (the width of the device) in their wake. However, since these crawlers operate in shallow 

water, any disturbed sediments would be redistributed by wave and tidal action shortly (days to weeks) 

following the disturbance. Therefore, disturbance would not impair the ability of soft sediment to 

function as a habitat.

The impact of seafloor devices on marine habitats from Alternative 1 training activities is likely to be 

inconsequential because: (1) the area exposed to the stressor is extremely small relative to overall 

availability of habitat of each type, (2) the activities are dispersed such that with the exception of 

precision anchoring activities, few habitats would be exposed to multiple events, (3) impacts would be 

localized and those involving soft bottom would likely be temporary due to the dynamic nature of the 

habitats, and (4) sensitive habitats would tend to be avoided due to snagging or entanglement that 

could hinder recovery of the device. Activities involving seafloor devices are not expected to yield any 

discernable impacts on the overall availability or quality of habitat.

Impacts from Seafloor Devices Under Alternative 1 for Testing Activities

Under Alternative 1, the use of seafloor devices occurs throughout the Study Area. Seafloor devices are 

employed in all range complexes. Crawlers would be used in the northeast in Narragansett Bay and 

waters used for testing by the Naval Undersea Warfare Center Division, Newport Testing Range; off the 

east coast of Florida at the South Florida Ocean Measurement Facility Testing Range; and at the Gulf of 

Mexico testing ranges for the Naval Surface Warfare Center, Panama City Division Testing Range. Testing 

activities involving the use of bottom crawling, unmanned underwater vehicles within the South Florida 

Ocean Measurement Facility Testing Range would be limited to the Port Everglades Restricted 

Anchorage Area (Section 2.1.6.2, Sea and Undersea Space). In other testing areas, bottom habitats 

would be exposed to strike and disturbance in the relatively small area transited by bottom-crawling 

unmanned underwater vehicles.

Testing activities involving the use of anchor blocks, which are used to moor minefield targets and 

shapes and are deployed and recovered, have the potential to impact bottom habitat throughout the 

Study Area. At the conclusion of the testing event, the minefield targets and shapes are typically 

recovered, but may be left in place.

Impacts to habitats from Alternative 1 testing activities are likely to be similar to those discussed above 

for training exercises. The impact of seafloor devices on marine habitats is likely to be inconsequential 

because: (1) the area exposed to the stressor is extremely small relative to overall availability of habitat 

of each type, (2) the activities are dispersed such that with the exception of precision anchoring 

activities, few habitats would be exposed to multiple events, (3) impacts would be localized and those 

involving soft bottom would likely be temporary due to the dynamic nature of the habitats, and 

(4) sensitive habitats would tend to be avoided due to snagging or entanglement that could hinder 

recovery of the device. Activities involving seafloor devices are not expected to yield any discernable 

impacts on the overall availability or quality of habitat.

The Navy will implement mitigation to avoid potential impacts from seafloor devices on habitats in 

mitigation areas within the South Florida Ocean Measurement Facility, as discussed in Section 5.4.1 

(Mitigation Areas for Seafloor Resources). For example, the Navy will use real-time geographic 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.5-58

3.5 Habitats

information system and Global Positioning System (along with remote sensing verification) data during 

deployment, installation, and recovery of anchors and mine-like objects to avoid impacts on 

shallow-water coral reefs and live hard bottom. 

3.5.3.4.4.2 Impacts from Seafloor Devices Under Alternative 2

Impacts from Seafloor Devices Under Alternative 2 for Training Activities

As indicated in Section 3.0.3.3.4.3 (Seafloor Devices), under Alternative 2, use of seafloor devices under 

Alternative 2 would be the same as described for Alternative 1 and occur in all large marine ecosystems, 

as well as Gulf Stream Open Ocean Area and in inshore waterways. Specific bays and inshore waters 

could include Boston, Massachusetts; Sandy Hook Bay, Earle, New Jersey; Delaware Bay, Delaware;

lower Chesapeake Bay, Hampton Roads, Virginia; Beaufort Inlet Channel, Morehead City, North Carolina; 

Cape Fear River, Wilmington, North Carolina; St. Andrew Bay, Panama City, Florida; Sabine Lake, 

Beaumont, Texas; and Corpus Christi Bay, Corpus Christi, Texas.

Impacts to habitats from training activities under Alternative 2 are likely to be the same as those 

discussed above for Alternative 1 training exercises. The number of devices and locations in which they 

would be used would be the same. The impact of seafloor devices on marine habitats is likely to be 

inconsequential because: (1) the area exposed to the stressor is extremely small relative to overall 

availability of habitat of each type, (2) the activities are dispersed such that with the exception of 

precision mooring activities, few habitats would be exposed to multiple events, (3) impacts would be 

localized and those involving soft bottom would likely be temporary due to the dynamic nature of the 

habitats, and (4) sensitive habitats would tend to be avoided due to snagging or entanglement that 

could hinder recovery of the device. Activities involving seafloor devices are not expected to yield any 

discernable impacts on the overall availability or quality of habitat.

Impacts from Seafloor Devices Under Alternative 2 for Testing Activities

Under Alternative 2, the use of seafloor devices occurs in the Northeast, and Southeast U.S. Continental 

Shelf Large Marine Ecosystems as well as Gulf Stream Open Ocean Area—specifically within the 

Northeast, Virginia Capes, Navy Cherry Point, Jacksonville, and Key West Range Complexes; Naval 

Undersea Warfare Center Division, Newport Testing Range, South Florida Ocean Measurement Facility 

Testing Range, Naval Surface Warfare Center, and the Panama City Division Testing Range and anywhere 

in the Gulf of Mexico. 

Impacts to habitats from testing activities under Alternative 2 are likely to be similar to those discussed 

above for Alternative 1 testing exercises. The number of testing activities involving seafloor devices is 

only slightly increased (approximately 0.5 percent increase) from Alternative 1. The only locations where 

activities would increase are Virginia Capes Range Complex and Naval Surface Warfare Center Panama 

City Testing Range, where 10 and 9 additional activities would occur at each location, respectively.

Impact of seafloor devices on marine habitats is likely to be inconsequential because: (1) the area 

exposed to the stressor is extremely small relative to overall availability of habitat of each type, (2) the 

activities are dispersed such that with the exception of precision mooring activities, few habitats would 

be exposed to multiple events, and (3) impacts would be localized and those involving soft bottom 

would likely be temporary due to the dynamic nature of the habitats. Activities involving seafloor 

devices are not expected to yield any discernable impacts on the overall availability or quality of habitat.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.5-59

3.5 Habitats

3.5.3.4.4.3 Impacts from Seafloor Devices Under the No Action Alternative

Impacts from Seafloor 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 AFTT 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.

3.5.3.4.5 Impacts from Pile Driving

Pile driving and removal would involve driving of piles into soft substrate with an impact hammer. Pile 

driving may have the potential to impact soft bottom habitats temporarily during driving, removal, and 

in the short term thereafter.

3.5.3.4.5.1 Impacts from Pile Driving Under Alternative 1

Impacts from Pile Driving Under Alternative 1 for Training Activities

Under Alternative 1, Elevated Causeway System training would include pile driving and removal which 

could occur once per year in the nearshore and surf zone at either or both of the following locations: 

Chesapeake Bay area or Navy Cherry Point Range Complex. While pile driving and removal may have the 

potential to impact soft bottom habitat, the impacts would be extremely limited since the number of 

piles is relatively small, and the duration is short (20 days for assembly and 10 days for disassembly).

Piles would remain in the water for up to 60 days. Since pile driving would occur in the nearshore and 

surf zone areas, the dynamic nature of the soft bottom habitat is likely to return to its previous state 

shortly following removal of the temporary piles. However, the dispersed larvae forming new hard

bottom communities may attach to the temporary structures instead of more permanent structures 

(see Section 3.4, Invertebrates, for details).

Impacts from Pile Driving Under Alternative 1 for Testing Activities

Pile driving does not occur under testing activities for Alternative 1 and will not be analyzed in this 

section.

3.5.3.4.5.2 Impacts from Pile Driving Under Alternative 2

Impacts from Pile Driving Under Alternative 2 for Training Activities

Under Alternative 2, Elevated Causeway System training would include pile driving and removal which 

could occur once per year in the nearshore and surf zone at one of the following locations: Chesapeake 

Bay area or Navy Cherry Point Range Complex. While pile driving and removal may have the potential to 

impact soft bottom habitat, the impacts would be extremely limited since the number of piles is 

relatively small, and the duration is short (20 days for assembly and 10 days for disassembly). Piles 

would remain in the water for up to 60 days. Since pile driving would occur in the nearshore and surf 

zone areas, the dynamic nature of the soft bottom habitat is likely to return to its previous state shortly 

following removal of the temporary piles. 

Impacts from Pile Driving Under Alternative 2 for Testing Activities

Pile driving does not occur under testing activities for Alternative 2 and will not be analyzed in this 

section.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.5-60

3.5 Habitats

3.5.3.4.5.3 Impacts from Pile Driving Under the No Action Alternative

Impacts from Pile Driving 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 AFTT 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.

3.5.3.5 Entanglement Stressors

Entanglement stressors are not applicable to habitats due to the lack of mobility capabilities of habitats 

and will not be analyzed in this section.

3.5.3.6 Ingestion Stressors

Ingestion stressors are not applicable to habitats due to the lack of ingestion capabilities of habitats and 

will not be analyzed in this section.

3.5.3.7 Secondary Stressors

Secondary stressors are not applicable to habitats as they are not susceptible to impacts from secondary 

stressors and will not be analyzed in this section.

3.5.4 SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL IMPACTS ON HABITATS

3.5.4.1 Combined Impacts of All Stressors Under Alternative 1

Of all the potential stressors, only explosives on or near the bottom and military expended materials 

have any measureable potential to impact marine substrates as habitat for biological communities. The 

impact area for in-water explosions and military expended materials were all much less than 1 percent 

of the total area of documented soft bottom or hard bottom in their respective training or testing areas

for each mapped substrate type, in any range complex, over 1 year. Furthermore, impacts are expected 

to be negligible for unknown substrate type habitats. The impacts are unlikely to persist in most cases. 

Large and dense military expended material (e.g., anchor blocks, large caliber projectile casings, 

non-explosive bombs) deposited on the bottom along the outer continental shelf would be the most 

persistent. However, soft bottom habitats may recover in the short term where heavier military 

expended materials are buried under shifting sediments; hard bottom habitats would recover over the 

long term where hard, stable military expended materials become overgrown with similar organisms. 

The combined impact area of explosive stressors, physical disturbances, and strike stressors proposed 

for training and testing events in Alternative 1 would have minimal impact on the ability of soft bottom, 

intermediate bottom, or hard bottom to serve their function as habitat. The total area of mapped hard

bottom (Figure 3.5-1 through Figure 3.5-4) in the Study Area is over 35,734,150 acres, which dwarfs the 

estimated 17.5 acres of potential impacts. Training activities under Alternative 1 would have a total 

footprint of potential impact across all habitat types of 108.5 acres from military expended materials 

and 8.5 acres from explosive detonations. This also represents less than 0.01 percent of the bottom 

habitat within the Study Area. Testing activities under Alternative 1 would have a total footprint of 

potential impact of 52.5 acres from military expended materials and 9.0 acres from explosive 

detonations. This represents less than 0.01 percent of the bottom habitat within the Study Area. The 

combined total proportional impact for training and testing is primarily to soft bottom habitat, much 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.5-61

3.5 Habitats

less to hard and intermediate substrate habitats, and very little to areas with unknown substrate type 

(Figure 3.5-17). See Appendix F (Military Expended Materials and Direct Strike Impact Analysis) for 

detailed impact analysis.

3.5.4.2 Combined Impacts of All Stressors Under Alternative 2

The combined effects of explosive stressors, physical disturbances, and strike stressors proposed for 

training and testing events in Alternative 2 would have minimal impact on the ability of soft bottom, 

intermediate bottom, or hard bottom to function as habitat. The total area of mapped hard bottom 

(Figure 3.5-1 through Figure 3.5-4) in the Study Area is over 35,734,150 acres, which dwarfs the 

estimated 17.5 acres of potential impacts. Training activities under Alternative 2 would have a total 

footprint of potential impact of 108.5 acres across all habitat types from military expended materials 

and 8.5 acres from explosive detonations. This represents less than 0.01 percent of the bottom habitat 

within the Study Area. Testing activities under Alternative 2 would have a total footprint of potential 

impact of 52.5 acres from military expended materials and 10.5 acres from explosive detonations. This 

also represents less than 0.01 percent of the bottom habitat within the Study Area. The combined total 

proportional impact for training and testing is primarily to soft bottom habitat, much less to hard 

bottom and intermediate bottom substrate habitats, and very little to areas with unknown substrate 

type (Figure 3.5-18). See Appendix F (Military Expended Materials and Direct Strike Impact Analysis) for 

detailed impact analysis.

3.5.4.3 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 AFTT Study Area. Various explosives and physical disturbance and strike stressors (e.g., 

in-water detonations, military expended materials, seafloor devices, vessels and in-water devices, and 

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.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.5-62

3.5 Habitats

Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf Large Marine Ecosystem

Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf Large Marine Ecosystem and Abyssal Zone

Northeast and Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf Large 

Marine Ecosystems

Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf Large Marine 

Ecosystem

Figure 3.5-17: Alternative 1 – Annual Combined Proportional Impact (Acres) from Explosives 

and Military Expended Materials for Training and Testing Within the Study Area
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.5-63

3.5 Habitats

Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf Large Marine 

Ecosystem and Abyssal Zone

Caribbean and Gulf of Mexico Large Marine 

Ecosystems

Gulf of Mexico Large Marine Ecosystem

Abyssal Zone

Figure 3.5-17: Alternative 1 – Annual Combined Proportional Impact (Acres) from Explosives 

and Military Expended Materials for Training and Testing Within the Study Area (continued)
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS   September 2018

3.5‐64

3.5 Habitats

Inshore Waterways

   

Figure 3.5‐17: Alternative 1 – Annual Combined Proportional Impact (Acres) from Explosives

and Military Expended Materials for Training and Testing Within the Study Area (continued)

Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf Large Marine

Ecosystem and Abyssal Zone

Caribbean and Gulf of Mexico Large Marine

Ecosystems

Gulf of Mexico Large Marine Ecosystem

Figure 3.5‐18: Alternative 2 – Annual Combined Proportional Impact (Acres) from Explosives

and Military Expended Materials for Training and Testing Within the Study Area
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.5-65

3.5 References

References

Ajemian, M. J., J. J. Wetz, B. Shipley-Lozano, J. D. Shively, and G. W. Stunz. (2015). An Analysis of Artificial 

Reef Fish Community Structure along the Northwestern Gulf of Mexico Shelf: Potential Impacts 

of "Rigs-to-Reefs" Programs. PLoS ONE, 10(5), e0126354. 

Allee, R. J., M. Dethier, D. Brown, L. Deegan, R. G. Ford, T. F. Hourigan, J. Maragos, C. Schoch, K. Sealey, 

R. Twilley, M. P. Weinstein, and M. Yoklavich. (2000). Marine and estuarine ecosystem and 

habitat classification (NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-F/SPO-43).

Bacchiocchi, F., and L. Airoldi. (2003). Distribution and dynamics of epibiota on hard structures for 

coastal protection. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science, 56, 1157–1166. 

Berglind, R., D. Menning, R. Tryman, A. Helte, P. Leffler, and R. M. Karlsson. (2009). Environmental 

Effects of Underwater Explosions: A Literature Study. Kjeller, Norway: Forsvarets 

Forskningsinstitut.

Boehlert, G. W., and A. B. Gill. (2010). Environmental and ecological effects of ocean renewable energy 

development: A current synthesis. Oceanography, 23(2), 68–81. 

Britton, J. C., and B. Morton. (1998). Shore Ecology of the Gulf of Mexico (3rd ed.). Austin, TX: University 

of Texas Press.

Broughton, K. (2012). Office of National Marine Sanctuaries Science Review of Artificial Reefs. (Marine 

Sanctuaries Conservation Series ONMS-12-05). Silver Spring, MD: National Ocean Service, Office 

of National Marine Sanctuaries.

Clark, M. R., F. Althaus, T. A. Schlacher, A. Williams, D. A. Bowden, and A. A. Rowden. (2016). The 

impacts of deep-sea fisheries on benthic communities: A review. ICES Journal of Marine Science: 

Journal du Conseil, 73(Supplement 1), i51–i69. 

Clarke, M. C., M. E. Mach, and R. G. Martone. (2014). Cumulative effects in marine ecosystems: scientific 

perspectives on its challenges and solutions (WWF-Canada and Center For Ocean Solutions). 

Vancouver, Canada: World Wide Fund for Nature and the Center for Ocean Solutions.

Cowardin, L. M., V. Carter, F. C. Golet, and E. T. LaRoe. (1979). Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater 

Habitats of the United States. Washington, DC: Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center Home 

Page. Retrieved from http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/1998/classwet/classwet.htm.

Crain, C. M., B. S. Halpern, M. W. Beck, and C. V. Kappel. (2009). Understanding and Managing Human 

Threats to the Coastal Marine Environment. In R. S. Ostfeld & W. H. Schlesinger (Eds.), The Year 

in Ecology and Conservation Biology, 2009 (pp. 39–62). Oxford, United Kingdom: Blackwell 

Publishing.

Davis, A. R. (2009). The role of mineral, living and artificial substrata in the development of subtidal 

assemblages. In M. Wahl (Ed.), Marine Hardbottom Communities: Patterns, Dynamics, Diversity 

and Change (Vol. 206, pp. 19–37). New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.

Diaz, R. J., and R. Rosenberg. (2008). Spreading dead zones and consequences for marine ecosystems. 

Science, 321(5891), 926–929. 

Gorodilov, L. V., and A. P. Sukhotin. (1996). Experimental investigation of craters generated by 

explosions of underwater surface charges on sand. Combustion, Explosion, and Shock Waves, 

32(3), 344–346. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.5-66

3.5 References

Halpern, B., S. Walbridge, K. A. Selkoe, C. V. Kappel, F. Micheli, C. D'Agrosa, J. F. Bruno, K. S. Casey, C. 

Ebert, H. E. Fox, R. Fujita, D. Heinemann, H. S. Lenihan, E. M. P. Madin, M. T. Perry, E. R. Selig, M. 

Spalding, R. S. Steneck, and R. Watson. (2008). A global map of human impact on marine 

ecosystems. Science, 319(5865), 948–952. 

Hanson, J., M. Helvey, and R. Strach. (2003). Non-Fishing Impacts to Essential Fish Habitat and 

Recommended Conservation Measures. Silver Spring, MD: National Marine Fisheries Service, 

Alaska Region, Northwest Region, Southwest Region.

Hoegh-Guldberg, O., and J. F. Bruno. (2010). The impact of climate change on the world's marine 

ecosystems. Science, 328(5985), 1523–1528. 

Holland, K. T., and P. A. Elmore. (2008). A review of heterogeneous sediments in coastal environments. 

Earth-Science Reviews, 89(3–4), 116–134. 

Howell, E. A., P. H. Dutton, J. J. Polovina, H. Bailey, D. M. Parker, and G. H. Balazs. (2010). Oceanographic 

influences on the dive behavior of juvenile loggerhead turtles (Caretta caretta) in the north 

Pacific Ocean. Marine Biology, 157(5), 1011–1026. 

Karleskint, G., Jr. , R. Turner, and J. W. Small, Jr. (2006). Introduction to Marine Biology (2nd ed.). 

Belmont, CA: Thomson Brooks/Cole.

Keener, V. W., J. J. Marra, M. L. Finucane, D. Spooner, and M. H. Smith. (2012). Climate Change and 

Pacific Islands: Indicators and Impacts. Report for the 2012 Pacific Islands Regional Climate 

Assessment. Washington, DC: Island Press.

Kendall, M. S., M. E. Monaco, K. R. Buja, J. D. Christensen, C. R. Kruer, M. Finkbeiner, and R. A. Warner. 

(2001). Methods Used to Map the Benthic Habitats of Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands. 

Silver Spring, MD: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Ocean Service, 

National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science Biogeography Program.

Lalli, C. M., and T. R. Parsons. (1993). Biological Oceanography: An Introduction. New York, NY: 

Pergamon Press.

Leggett, C., N. Scherer, M. Curry, R. Bailey, and T. Haab. (2014). Assessing the Economic Benefits of 

Reductions in Marine Debris: A Pilot Study of Beach Recreation in Orange County, California. 

Final Report. Silver Springs, MD: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Marine 

Debris Division.

Lotze, H. K., H. S. Lenihan, B. J. Bourque, R. H. Bradbury, R. G. Cooke, M. C. Kay, S. M. Kidwell, M. X. 

Kirby, C. H. Peterson, and J. B. Jackson. (2006). Depletion, degradation, and recovery potential of 

estuaries and coastal seas. Science, 312(5781), 1806–1809. 

Macfadyen, G., T. Huntington, and R. Cappell. (2009). Abandoned, Lost or Otherwise Discarded Fishing 

Gear. Rome, Italy: United Nations Environment Programme, Food and Agriculture Organization 

of the United Nations.

Macreadie, P. I., A. M. Fowler, and D. J. Booth. (2011). Rigs-to-reefs: Will the deep sea benefit from 

artificial habitat? Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 9(8), 455–461. 

Menge, B. A., and G. M. Branch. (2001). Rocky intertidal communities. In M. D. Bertness, S. D. Gaines, & 

M. E. Hay (Eds.), Marine Community Ecology (pp. 221–252). Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates, 

Inc.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.5-67

3.5 References

National Ocean Service. (2011). Environmental Sensitivity Index Maps. Retrieved from 

http://response.restoration.noaa.gov/maps-and-spatial-data/environmental-sensitivity-indexesi-maps.html.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. (2007). National Artificial Reef Plan (as Amended): 

Guidelines for siting, construction, development, and assessment of artifical reefs. Washington, 

DC: U.S. Department of Commerce.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Marine Debris Program. (2016). Marine Debris 

Impacts on Coastal and Benthic Habitats. Silver Spring, MD: National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration.

National Park Service. (2010). Padre Island National Seashore. Retrieved from 

https://www.nps.gov/pais/learn/nature/index.htm.

Newell, R. C., L. J. Seiderer, and D. R. Hitchcock. (1998). The Impact of Dredging Works in Coastal Waters: 

A Review of the Sensitivity to Disturbance and Subsequent Recovery of Biological Resources on 

the Sea Bed. Oceanography and Marine Biology: An Annual Review, 36, 127–178. 

Nybakken, J. W. (1993). Marine Biology, an Ecological Approach (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Harper Collins 

College Publishers.

O'Keeffe, D. J., and G. A. Young. (1984). Handbook on the Environmental Effects of Underwater 

Explosions. Silver Spring, MD: U.S. Navy, Naval Surface Weapons Center (Code R14).

Perkol-Finkel, S., N. Shashar, and Y. Benayahu. (2006). Can artificial reefs mimic natural reef 

communities? The roles of structural features and age. Marine Environmental Research, 61, 

121–135. 

Powers, S. P., J. H. Grabowski, C. H. Peterson, and W. J. Lindberg. (2003). Estimating enhancement of fish 

production by offshore artificial reefs: uncertainty exhibited by divergent scenarios. Marine 

Ecology Progress Series, 264, 265–277. 

Rabalais, N. N., R. E. Turner, and W. J. Wiseman, Jr. (2002). Gulf of Mexico hypoxia, a.k.a. "The Dead 

Zone" Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 33, 235–263. 

Ribic, C. A., S. B. Sheavly, D. J. Rugg, and E. S. Erdmann. (2010). Trends and drivers of marine debris on 

the Atlantic coast of the United States 1997–2007. Marine Pollution Bulletin 60(8), 1231–1242. 

Roman, C. T., N. Jaworski, F. T. Short, S. Findlay, and R. S. Warren. (2000). Estuaries of the northeastern 

United States: Habitat and land use signatures. Estuaries, 23(6), 743–764. 

Ross, S. W., M. Rhode, S. T. Viada, and R. Mather. (2016). Fish species associated with shipwreck and 

natural hard-bottom habitats from the middle to outer continental shelf of the Middle Atlantic 

Bight near Norfolk Canyon. Fishery Bulletin, 114(1), 45–57.

Scavia, D., J. C. Field, D. F. Boesch, R. W. Buddemeier, V. Burkett, D. R. Cayan, M. Fogarty, M. A. Harwell, 

R. W. Howarth, C. Mason, D. J. Reed, T. C. Royer, A. H. Sallenger, and J. G. Titus. (2002). Climate 

Change Impacts on U.S. Coastal and Marine Ecosystems. Estuaries, 25(2), 149–164. 

Seaman, W. (2007). Artificial habitats and the restoration of degraded marine ecosystems and fisheries. 

Hydrobiologia, 580(1), 143–155. 

SEPM Strata. (2018). Tide Dominated Deltas. Retrieved from 

http://www.sepmstrata.org/page.aspx?pageid=313.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.5-68

3.5 References

Smith, S. H., and D. E. Marx, Jr. (2016). De-facto marine protection from a Navy bombing range: Farallon 

de Medinilla, Mariana Archipelago, 1997 to 2012. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 102(1), 187–198. 

Southeast Area Monitoring and Assessment Program—South Atlantic. (2001). Distribution of bottom 

habitats on the continental shelf from North Carolina through the Florida Keys. Washington, DC: 

SEAMAP—SA Bottom Mapping Workgroup, Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission.

Speybroeck, J., D. Bonte, W. Courtens, T. Gheskiere, P. Grootaert, J. P. Maelfait, S. Provoost, K. Sabbe, E. 

W. M. Stienen, V. Van Lancker, W. Van Landuyt, M. Vincx, and S. Degraer. (2008). The Belgian 

sandy beach ecosystem: A review. Marine Ecology–an Evolutionary Perspective, 29(Supplement 

1), 171–185. 

Traykovksi, P., and T. Austin. (2017). Continuous Monitoring of Mobility, Burial, and Re-exposure of 

Underwater Munitions in Energetic Near-Shore Environments (Department of Defense Strategic 

Environmental Research and Development Program Project MR-2319 ). Woods Hole, MA: 

Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution.

U.S. Department of the Navy. (2010). Jacksonville Range Complex Operating Area Undersea Warfare 

Training Range Bottom Mapping and Habitat Characterization, Florida. Final Cruise Report. 

Jacksonville, FL: Naval Facilities Engineering Command Atlantic.

U.S. Department of the Navy. (2011). CC Range Bottom Mapping and Habitat Characterization, Florida. 

Final Cruise Report. Norfolk, VA: Naval Facilities Engineering Command Atlantic.

U.S. Department of the Navy. (2018a). Building and Maintaining a Comprehensive Database and 

Prioritization Scheme for Overlapping Habitat Data – Focus on Abiotic Substrates in the Atlantic 

Fleet Training and Testing Study Area. (Phase III AFTT Benthic Habitat Database Technical 

Report). Washington, DC: Naval Facilities Engineering Command.

U.S. Department of the Navy. (2018b). Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing Phase III Essential Fish Habitat 

Assessment for the Greater Atlantic Region Fisheries Office. (Phase III Atlantic Fleet Training and 

Testing EFHA –GARFO– Final Version 12 February 2018). Norfolk, VA: U.S. Fleet Forces 

Command, Naval Facilities Engineering Command Atlantic.

U.S. Department of the Navy. (2018c). Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing Phase III Essential Fish Habitat 

Assessment for the Southeast Region Fisheries Office. (Phase III Atlantic Fleet Training and 

Testing EFHA –SERO– Final Version Dated 12 February 2018). Norfolk, VA: U.S. Fleet Forces 

Command, Naval Facilities Engineering Command Atlantic.

United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization. (2009). Global Open Oceans and Deep 

Seabed—Biogeographic Classification. Paris, France: UNESCO - IOC.

Valentine, P. C., B. J. Todd, and V. E. Kostylev. (2005). Classification of Marine Sublittoral Habitats, with 

Application to the Northeastern North America Region. American Fisheries Society Symposium, 

41, 183–200. 

Zabawa, C., and C. Ostrom. (1980). Final Report on the Role of Boat Wakes in Shore Erosion in Anne 

Arundel County, Maryland. Annapolis, MD: Maryland Department of Natural Resources.
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

i

Table of Contents

Final

Environmental Impact Statement/Overseas Environmental Impact Statement 

Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing

TABLE OF CONTENTS

3.6 Fishes .......................................................................................................... 3.6-1

3.6.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................3.6-2

3.6.2 Affected Environment.........................................................................................3.6-3

3.6.2.1 General Background ...........................................................................3.6-3

3.6.2.2 Endangered Species Act-Listed Species............................................3.6-15

3.6.2.3 Species Not Listed under the Endangered Species Act ....................3.6-48

3.6.3 Environmental Consequences ..........................................................................3.6-65

3.6.3.1 Acoustic Stressors.............................................................................3.6-66

3.6.3.2 Explosive Stressors..........................................................................3.6-113

3.6.3.3 Energy Stressors..............................................................................3.6-129

3.6.3.4 Physical Disturbance and Strike Stressors......................................3.6-137

3.6.3.5 Entanglement Stressors..................................................................3.6-153

3.6.3.6 Ingestion Stressors..........................................................................3.6-165

3.6.3.7 Secondary Stressors........................................................................3.6-177

3.6.4 Summary of Potential Impacts on Fishes........................................................3.6-182

3.6.4.1 Combined Impacts of All Stressors under Alternative 1.................3.6-182

3.6.4.2 Combined Impacts of All Stressors under Alternative 2.................3.6-183

3.6.4.3 Combined Impacts of All Stressors under the No Action 

Alternative......................................................................................3.6-183

3.6.5 Endangered Species Act Determinations........................................................3.6-183

List of Figures

Figure 3.6-1: Critical Habitat Areas for Atlantic Salmon in and Adjacent to the Study Area................3.6-23

Figure 3.6-2: Critical Habitat for Atlantic Sturgeon in and Adjacent to the Northern Portion 

of the Study Area .............................................................................................................3.6-26

Figure 3.6-3: Critical Habitat for Atlantic Sturgeon in and Adjacent to the Southern Portion 

of the Study Area .............................................................................................................3.6-27

Figure 3.6-4: Critical Habitat Areas for Smalltooth Sawfish in and Adjacent to the Study Area ..........3.6-34

Figure 3.6-5: Critical Habitat Areas for Gulf Sturgeon in and Adjacent to the Study Area...................3.6-38

Figure 3.6-6: Fish Hearing Group and Navy Sonar Frequency Ranges..................................................3.6-82
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

ii

Table of Contents

List of Tables

Table 3.6-1: Regulatory Status and Occurrence of Endangered Species Act-Listed Fishes in 

the Study Area .................................................................................................................3.6-17

Table 3.6-2: Major Taxonomic Groups of Fishes in the Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing 

Study Area........................................................................................................................3.6-49

Table 3.6-3: Sound Exposure Criteria for TTS from Sonar ....................................................................3.6-83

Table 3.6-4: Ranges to Temporary Threshold Shift from Four Representative Sonar Bins..................3.6-85

Table 3.6-5: Sound Exposure Criteria for Mortality and Injury from Air Guns.....................................3.6-93

Table 3.6-6: Sound Exposure Criteria for TTS from Air Guns................................................................3.6-93

Table 3.6-7: Range to Effect for Fishes Exposed to 100 Air Gun Shots.................................................3.6-94

Table 3.6-8: Sound Exposure Criteria for Mortality and Injury from Impact Pile Driving.....................3.6-98

Table 3.6-9: Sound Exposure Criteria for TTS from Impact Pile Driving ...............................................3.6-98

Table 3.6-10: Impact Ranges for Transient Fishes from Impact Pile Driving for 35 Strikes 

(1 minute) ........................................................................................................................3.6-99

Table 3.6-11: Impact Ranges for Fishes with High Site Fidelity from Impact Pile Driving for 

3,150 strikes (1 Day) ......................................................................................................3.6-100

Table 3.6-12: Range to Effect from In-water Explosions for Fishes with a Swim Bladder..................3.6-116

Table 3.6-13: Sound Exposure Criteria for Mortality and Injury from Explosives ..............................3.6-121

Table 3.6-14: Sound Exposure Criteria for Hearing Loss from Explosives..........................................3.6-122

Table 3.6-15: Range to Mortality and Injury for All Fishes from Explosives.......................................3.6-123

Table 3.6-16: Range to TTS for Fishes with a Swim Bladder from Explosives.....................................3.6-124

Table 3.6-17: Ingestion Stressors Potential for Impact on Fishes Based on Location ........................3.6-167
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.6-1

3.6 Fishes

3.6 FISHES

FISHES SYNOPSIS

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

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

for the Preferred Alternative (Alternative 1):

 Acoustics: The use of sonar and other transducers, air guns, pile driving, vessel noise, aircraft 

noise, and weapons noise could result in impacts on fishes in the Study Area. Some sonars 

and other transducers, vessel noise, and weapons noise could result in hearing loss, masking, 

physiological stress, or behavioral reactions. Aircraft noise would not likely result in impacts 

other than brief, mild behavioral responses in fishes that are close to the surface. Air guns 

and pile driving have the potential to result in the same effects in addition to mortality or 

injury. Most impacts, such as masking or behavioral reactions, are expected to be temporary 

and infrequent as most activities involving acoustic stressors would be at low levels of noise, 

temporary, localized, and infrequent. More severe impacts such as mortality or injury could 

lead to permanent or long-term consequences for individuals but, overall, long-term 

consequences for fish populations are not expected.

 Explosives: The use of explosives could result in impacts on fishes within the Study Area. 

Sound and energy from explosions is capable of causing mortality, injury, hearing loss, 

masking, physiological stress, or behavioral responses. The time scale of individual explosions 

is very limited, and training and testing activities involving explosions are dispersed in space 

and time, therefore, repeated exposure of individual fishes are unlikely. Most effects such as 

hearing loss or behavioral responses are expected to be short term and localized. More 

severe impacts such as mortality or injury could lead to permanent or long-term 

consequences for individuals but, overall, long-term consequences for fish populations are 

not expected.

 Energy: The use of electromagnetic devices may elicit brief behavioral or physiological stress 

responses only in those exposed fishes with sensitivities to the electromagnetic spectrum. 

This behavioral impact is expected to be temporary and minor. Similar to regular vessel 

traffic that is continuously moving and covers only a small spatial area during use, 

electromagnetic fields would be continuously moving and cover only a small spatial area 

during use, so population-level impacts are unlikely.

 Physical Disturbance and Strike: Vessel strikes, in-water device strikes, military expended 

material strikes, and seafloor device strikes present a risk for collision with fishes, particularly 

near coastal areas, seamounts, and other bathymetric features where densities are higher. 

While the potential for physical disturbance and strikes of fishes can occur anywhere vessels 

are operated or training and testing activities occur, most fishes are highly mobile and have 

sensory capabilities which enable the detection and avoidance of vessels, expended 

materials, or objects in the water column or on the seafloor.

Continued on the next page...
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.6-2

3.6 Fishes

3.6.1 INTRODUCTION

This section analyzes the potential impacts of the Proposed Action on fishes found in the Study Area. 

Endangered Species Act (ESA) species that occur in the Study Area are discussed in Section 3.6.2.2 and 

taxonomic groupings are discussed in Section 3.6.2.3. The complete analysis of environmental 

consequences is in Section 3.6.3 (Environmental Consequences) and the potential impacts of the 

Proposed Action on marine fish species are summarized in Section 3.6.4 (Summary of Potential Impacts 

on Fishes).

For this Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)/Overseas EIS (OEIS), marine fishes are evaluated as 

groups of species characterized by distribution, morphology (body type), or behavior relevant to the 

stressor being evaluated. Activities are evaluated for their potential effects on the marine fishes in the 

Study Area that are listed, proposed, or candidate species under the ESA, as well as other fishes in the 

Study Area generally by major marine fish groupings. Fishes are not distributed uniformly throughout 

the Study Area but are closely associated with a variety of habitats. Some species, such as large sharks, 

salmon, tuna, and billfishes, range across thousands of square miles. Other species, such as gobies and 

most reef fish, generally have small home ranges and restricted distributions (Helfman et al., 2009). The 

early life stages (e.g., eggs and larvae) of many fishes may be widely distributed even when the adults 

have relatively small ranges. The movements of some open-ocean species may never overlap with 

coastal fishes that spend their lives within several hundred feet of the shore. The distribution and 

specific habitats in which an individual of a single fish species occurs may be influenced by its life stage, 

Continued from the previous page...

FISHES SYNOPSIS

 Entanglement: Fishes could be exposed to multiple entanglement stressors associated with 

Navy training and testing activities. The potential for impacts is dependent on the physical 

properties of the expended materials and the likelihood that a fish would encounter a 

potential entanglement stressor and then become entangled in it. Physical characteristics of 

wires and cables, decelerators/parachutes, and biodegradable polymers, combined with the 

sparse distribution of these items throughout the Study Area, indicates a very low potential 

for fishes to encounter and become entangled in them. Because of the low numbers of fish

potentially impacted by entanglement stressors, population-level impacts are unlikely.

 Ingestion: The likelihood that expended items would cause a potential impact on a given fish 

species depends on the size and feeding habits of the fish and the rate at which the fish 

encounters the item and the composition of the item. Military expended materials from 

munitions present an ingestion risk to fishes that forage in the water column and on the 

seafloor. Military expended materials other than munitions present an ingestion risk for 

fishes foraging at or near the surface while these materials are buoyant, and on the seafloor 

when the materials sink. Because of the low numbers of fish potentially impacted by 

ingestion stressors, population-level impacts are unlikely.

 Secondary: Effects on sediment or water quality would be minor, temporary, and localized 

and could have short-term, small-scale secondary effects on fishes; however, there would be 

no persistent or large-scale effects on the growth, survival, distribution, or population-level 

impacts of fishes.
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.6-3

3.6 Fishes

size, sex, reproductive condition, and other factors. Approximately 78 percent of all marine fish species 

occur in waters less than 200 meters (m) deep and in close association with land, while 13 percent are 

associated with the open ocean (Moyle & Cech, 2004).

3.6.2 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

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

3.6.2.1 (General Background), which provides brief summaries of habitat use, movement and behavior, 

and threats that affect or have the potential to affect fishes within the Study Area. Protected species 

listed under the ESA are described in Section 3.6.2.2 (Endangered Species Act-Listed Species). General 

taxonomic groupings of fishes not listed under the ESA are briefly reviewed in Section 3.6.2.3 (Species 

Not Listed Under the Endangered Species Act).

3.6.2.1 General Background

Fishes are the most numerous and diverse of the major vertebrate groups (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.

Many factors impact the abundance and distribution of marine fishes in the seven Large Marine 

Ecosystems (West Greenland Shelf, Newfoundland-Labrador Shelf, Scotian Shelf, Northeast United 

States (U.S.) Continental Shelf, Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf, Gulf of Mexico, and Caribbean Sea) and 

three open ocean areas (Labrador Sea, North Atlantic Subtropical Gyre, and Gulf Stream Current) in the 

Study Area. The distribution of fish species in the Study Area is influenced primarily by temperature, 

salinity, pH, physical habitat, ocean currents, and latitudinal gradients (Helfman et al., 2009; 

Macpherson, 2002). In general terms, the coastal-centered Large Marine Ecosystems support a greater 

diversity of coastal species, while the open ocean areas support a lower diversity of oceanic and deepsea species (Helfman et al., 2009). The warm waters of the Loop Current in the Gulf of Mexico promote 

the dispersal of tropical species from the Caribbean Sea into the Northern Gulf of Mexico (Shulman, 

1985). The circulation patterns of the Gulf Stream and the North Atlantic Subtropical Gyre also influence 

species distributions, particularly near Bermuda and Cape Hatteras, where the northernmost 

occurrences of sizable tropical fish assemblages are found (Love & Chase, 2007; Moyle & Cech, 2004). 

The Gulf Stream, described in Section 3.0.2 (Ecological Characterization of the Study Area), carries warm 

water to northern latitudes, where these areas can support subtropical species. For example, 

approximately half of the species occurrences in the Gulf of Maine are considered warm-water fish 

(Moyle & Cech, 2004), although some of these are sporadic or rare.

Marine fishes can be broadly categorized by their distributions within the water column or habitat 

usage. Moyle and Cech (2004) define the major marine habitat categories as estuaries, coastal habitats, 

reefs, epipelagic zone, deep sea, and the Polar regions. In the Study Area, the major habitat categories 

include all of the aforementioned except the Polar regions. Many marine fishes that occur in the Study 

Area are demersal species associated with nearshore coastal reefs or are more oceanic and live in 

surface waters (pelagic) further offshore (Schwartz, 1989). The highest number and diversity of fishes 

typically occur where the habitat has structural complexity (reef systems, continental slopes, deep 

canyons), biological productivity (areas of nutrient upwelling), and a variety of physical and chemical 

conditions (water flow, nutrients, dissolved oxygen, and temperature) (Bergstad et al., 2008; Helfman et 

al., 2009; Moyle & Cech, 2004; Parin, 1984). Some of the marine fishes that occur in the coastal zone 

migrate between marine and freshwater habitats (Helfman et al., 2009). Other distribution factors, 

including predator/prey relationships, water quality, and refuge (e.g., physical structure or vegetation 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.6-4

3.6 Fishes

cover) operate on more regional or local spatial scales (Reshetiloff, 2004). Also, fishes may move among 

habitats throughout their lives based on changing needs during different life stages (Schwartz, 1989).

Many habitat and geographic factors impact the distribution of fishes within the Study Area—including 

within range complexes, operating areas (OPAREAs), inshore waters, ports/shipyards, and testing 

ranges. In the Gulf of Mexico portion of the Study Area, water temperature, seafloor (benthic) habitat, 

and geographic location appear to be the primary factors, while in the Atlantic Ocean portion, latitudinal 

changes, temperature, and depth seem to be the most important factors influencing species distribution

(Gordon, 2001; Love & Chase, 2007; Macpherson, 2002). Each major habitat type in the Study Area (e.g., 

coral reef, hard bottom, soft bottom, and beds of aquatic vegetation) supports an associated fish 

community with the number of species increasing with decreasing latitude (transition from north to 

south). However, this pattern is not as clearly defined for wide-ranging migratory open-ocean species 

(Macpherson, 2002). The specific characteristics of the wide diversity of habitat and biotic species that 

make up these habitat types within the Study Area are discussed in Section 3.3 (Vegetation), Section 3.4 

(Invertebrates), and Section 3.5 (Habitats).

Some fish species in the United States are protected under the ESA and are managed by either the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) or National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). The recreational and 

commercial fisheries are managed within a framework of overlapping international, federal, state, 

interstate, and tribal authorities. Individual states and territories generally have jurisdiction over 

fisheries located in marine waters within 3 nautical miles (NM) of their coast, except for Texas, the Gulf 

Coast of Florida, and Puerto Rico, which have jurisdiction out to 9 NM. Federal jurisdiction includes 

fisheries in marine waters inside the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone. The area stretches from the outer 

boundary of state waters out to 200 NM offshore of any United States coastline, except where 

intersected closer than 200 NM by the Exclusive Economic Zone of bordering countries. 

The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act and Sustainable Fisheries Act led to 

the formation of eight regional fishery management councils that coordinate with NMFS to manage and 

conserve certain fisheries in federal waters. Together with NMFS, the councils maintain fishery 

management plans for species or species groups comprised of fish, invertebrates, and vegetation to 

regulate commercial and recreational harvest within their geographic regions. The Study Area overlaps 

with the jurisdiction of five regional fishery management councils, as well as the range of the highly 

migratory species (e.g., sharks, billfishes, swordfishes, and tunas), which are managed directly by NMFS.

 New England Fishery Management Council includes Maine, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, 

Rhode Island, and Connecticut.

 Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council includes New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, 

Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, and North Carolina (from its northern border to Cape Hatteras).

 South Atlantic Fishery Management Council includes North Carolina (from Cape Hatteras to its 

southern border), South Carolina, Georgia, and the east coast of Florida. 

 Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council includes west coast of Florida, Alabama, 

Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas.

 Caribbean Fishery Management Council includes the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and the 

U.S. Virgin Islands. 

 NMFS, Office of Sustainable Fisheries includes all federally managed waters in the 

Northwestern Atlantic Ocean and the Gulf of Mexico where highly migratory species occur.
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.6-5

3.6 Fishes

3.6.2.1.1 Habitat Use

Fishes inhabit most of the world’s oceans, from warm shallow coastal habitat to cold deep-sea waters, 

and are found on the surface, in the water column, and at the bottom of the seven Large Marine 

Ecosystems (West Greenland, Newfoundland-Labrador Shelf, Scotian Shelf, Northeast U.S. Continental 

Shelf, Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf, Gulf of Mexico, and Caribbean Sea) and open ocean areas 

(Labrador Current, Gulf Stream, and North Atlantic Gyre) in the Study Area. The description of habitat 

use in this section pertains to common fishes found in the different habitats. The abiotic (non-living) 

components of all habitat types are addressed in Section 3.5 (Habitats), habitat-forming invertebrates 

(e.g., coral, sponges, etc.) are covered in Section 3.4 (Invertebrates), and marine vegetation components 

are discussed in Section 3.3 (Vegetation).

Fish distribution is restricted by biotic factors (competition or predation) or by abiotic components, such 

as temperature, salinity, dissolved oxygen, and pH or by that describe the potential range of 

environmental conditions a species can inhabit in the absence of predators and competitors. A species 

can be excluded from habitat otherwise suitable for it by competitors, predators, parasites, or lack of 

suitable prey (Moyle & Cech, 2004). For example, Catano et al. (2015) found that a loss of corals and the 

resulting decline in structural complexity, as well as management efforts to protect reefs, could alter the 

territory dynamics and reproductive potential of important herbivorous fish species.

Estuaries are comprised of brackish water, where freshwater mixes with saltwater to form transitional 

environments between rivers and the ocean. The fluctuating nature of the estuarine environment 

means that the fishes inhabiting or transiting through expend considerable amounts of energy adjusting 

to the changing conditions. Fishes found in estuaries are of five broad types: (1) freshwater 

(e.g., catfishes [Ictalurus spp.]), (2) diadromous species that spend part of their lives in freshwater and 

part of their lives in saltwater (e.g., young American shad, striped bass, Atlantic sturgeon, and Gulf 

sturgeon), (3) true estuarine (e.g., white perch [Morone americana]), (4) marine species that use 

estuaries but do not necessarily need them (e.g., American plaice [Hippoglossoides platessoides]), and 

(5) marine species that need estuaries for at least one stage of their lives (e.g., croakers [Micropogonias

and Leistomus spp.]) (Moyle & Cech, 2004). Estuaries are primarily composed of soft bottom (e.g., sandy 

and mudflats) and many contain a variety of benthic habitat types such as seagrass beds and oyster 

reefs.

Marine and diadromous fishes inhabit the diverse coastal habitats on or near the edges of the 

continents, from the intertidal regions to the edge of the continental shelf (Moyle & Cech, 2004). The 

most abundant and conspicuous types of coastal habitats are hard bottom (e.g., rocky bottom which can 

include shell beds), soft bottom (e.g., sand, mud, silt), submerged aquatic vegetation (e.g., mangroves, 

salt marshes, seagrass beds, macroalgae beds), and floating macroalgae (e.g., Sargassum). Each of these 

coastal habitats has distinct types of fishes associated with it. In the Study Area, common fishes 

inhabiting the hard bottom habitat type include, but are not limited to gobies (Gobiidae), drums

(Sciaenidae), seabasses (Serranidae), groupers (Epinephelidae), snappers (Lutjanidae), and sculpins 

(Cottidae), while flounder (Bothidae and Paralichthyidae) and stingrays (Dasyatidae) are found on soft 

bottoms. Grunts (Haemulidae) and a wide variety of other fishes are common inhabitants of submerged 

aquatic vegetation habitat.

Somewhere between 30 percent and 40 percent of all fish species are associated with hard bottom 

habitats (tropical and subtropical) such as reefs, and anywhere from 250 to 2,200 species are likely to be 

found in, on, or near a major complex of reefs (Moyle & Cech, 2004). Coral reef habitats are found 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.6-6

3.6 Fishes

between latitudes 30° North (N) and 30° South (S) in shallow water (usually less than 164 feet [ft.]) that 

is warm enough to support the growth of corals and clear enough to allow photosynthesis at moderate 

depths. However, some mesophotic and deepwater corals such as Lophelia pertusa has been found on 

relatively shallow reefs (180 to 250 m) off northeastern Florida (Ross et al., 2015). Most reef habitats are 

surrounded by nutrient-poor oceanic waters. Examples of some specialized carnivore fishes include 

flounders, coronetfishes (Fistularidae), and needlefishes (Belonidae). Compared to the total number of 

species of carnivorous fishes that inhabit low-latitude coral reefs, the number of herbivores is small 

(20 percent), but they are often the most noticeable fishes. Damselfishes (Pomacentridae), parrotfishes 

(Labridae), and surgeonfishes (Acanthuridae) are examples of herbivorous fishes found in reef habitat 

(Moyle & Cech, 2004). In the Study Area, commonly recognized reef fishes include butterfly fishes 

(Chaetodontidae), puffers (Tetraodontidae), tangs (Acanthuridae), triggerfishes (Balistidae), and wrasses 

(Labridae). 

The upper 656 ft. (200 m) of the ocean is termed the photic or epipelagic zone (Moyle & Cech, 2004). 

Sunlight penetrates sufficiently to support the growth of phytoplankton and macroalgae. The area 

between 656 and 3,281 ft. (200 m and 1,000 m) is referred to as the mesopelagic zone, where light 

penetration is minimal (Moyle & Cech, 2004). Below the mesopelagic zone is the bathypelagic or aphotic 

zone, where sunlight does not penetrate. The lack of habitat complexity limits the number of fish 

species that inhabit the Epipelagic Zone. Less than 2 percent of all fish species inhabit the poor nutrient 

waters, with most occurring in the upper 328 ft. of the water column, where light can penetrate and 

permit phytoplankton growth and visual predators to see their prey. Epipelagic fishes are divided for

convenience into nearshore and oceanic groups. Nearshore epipelagic fishes are overall the most 

commercially valuable group of fishes to humans because they typically occur in large schools, such as 

herring (Clupeidae) and anchovies (Engraulidae), or are particularly favored as food, such as tunas 

(Scombridae) and salmon (Salmonidae). Predators on nearshore epipelagic fishes include billfishes and 

swordfishes (Xiphiidae), sharks (Carcharhinidae), and others. Oceanic epipelagic spend their entire life 

cycle either free swimming or can be associated with drifting macroalgae (Sargassum spp.) (Moyle & 

Cech, 2004). In the Study Area, examples of epipelagic open ocean fishes include sharks, tunas, billfishes 

and swordfishes, sauries (Scomberesocidae), and ocean sunfish (Molidae), plus the commensal remoras 

(Echeneidae).

Mesopelagic habitats reside below the well-lighted, well-mixed epipelagic zone. Between 400 ft. and 

3,280 ft. in depth, light gradually fades to extinction, and the water temperatures decreases to 

39° Fahrenheit (°F). Below 3,280 ft., bathypelagic habitats are characterized by complete darkness, low 

temperatures, low nutrients, low dissolved oxygen, and great pressure. This environment is the most 

extensive aquatic habitat on earth. The vastness of the deep-sea habitat, coupled with its probable 

stability through geological time, has led to the development of a diverse fish community, which 

accounts for 11 percent of all recorded fish species in the oceans. Lanternfishes (Myctophidae), with 

about 240 species, are an important group of mesopelagic deep sea fishes in terms of diversity, 

distribution, and numbers of individuals (Helfman et al., 2009). These species make up a large fraction of 

the deep scattering layer, so called because the sonic pulses of a sonar can reflect off the millions of 

swim bladders, often giving the impression of a false bottom (Moyle & Cech, 2004). Generally, deep-sea 

fishes are divided into two groups, those that are found in the water column and others associated with 

the seafloor. In the Study Area, the cookie cutter shark (Dalatiidae), fangtooths (Anoplogastridae), 

hatchetfishes (Sternoptychidae), and lanternfishes (Myctophidae) inhabit the water column while the 

seafloor is inhabited with grenadiers or rattails (Macrouridae), hagfishes (Myxinidae), hakes 

(Merlucciidae), and rays (Rajidae).
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.6-7

3.6 Fishes

Some fishes use one habitat type over their entire life cycle, while others associate with different habitat 

types by life stage. Anadromous fishes such as sturgeon (Acipenseridae) and salmon hatch and rear in 

freshwater rivers as larvae and early juveniles and inhabit estuaries as they transition into the latejuvenile and early sub-adult life stages before entering the ocean to mature into adults. Many other 

marine fishes inhabit the water column as larvae and settle onto soft bottom habitat as juveniles and 

remain there as adults (flatfishes). The oceanic Atlantic bluefin tuna (Thunnus thynnus) provides an 

example of a species closely connected to one habitat category across their life cycle. By comparison, 

the Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) and American shad (Alosa sapidissima) inhabit wide ranges of salinity 

and water depths that vary by season and age. 

3.6.2.1.2 Movement and Behavior

Fishes exhibit a rich array of sophisticated behavior (Meyer et al., 2010). Fishes have been shown to 

cooperate in a variety of ways during foraging, navigation, reproduction, and predator avoidance 

(Fitzpatrick et al., 2006; Huntingford et al., 2006). Some examples of the common types of behavior 

exhibited by fishes include movement or migration, schooling, feeding, and resting (Moyle & Cech, 

2004).

Migratory behavior consists of mass movements from one place to another and can range in occurrence 

from daily to seasonal, depending on the species. Tunas, salmon, and eels migrate thousands of miles in 

short periods of time (e.g., a few months). Daily or seasonal migrations are typically for feeding and/or 

predator avoidance and can also be referred to as movement patterns. Some common movement 

patterns include coastal migrations, open ocean migrations, onshore/offshore movements, vertical 

water column movements, and life stage related migrations (e.g., eggs and larvae as part of the 

plankton/nekton). Migratory behavior occurs in response to changing environmental conditions, 

particularly temperature, or the movement and abundance of food organisms. The destinations of 

migratory events are often feeding or reproductive grounds. Many fishes have the ability to find their 

way back to a “home” area and some species use olfactory and visual cues, as well as or from chemicals 

released by the other fishes to return home (Moyle & Cech, 2004). Highly migratory species such as 

hammerhead shark (Sphyrna spp.), basking shark (Cetorhinus maximus), and swordfish (Xiphias gladius), 

may move across thousands of miles of open ocean. Other migratory species such as the Atlantic salmon 

and Atlantic sturgeon exhibit seasonal movement patterns throughout coastal continental shelf waters 

and beyond. 

A shoal is defined as any group of fishes that remain together for social reasons, while a school is a 

polarized, synchronized shoal (Moyle & Cech, 2004), often swimming together in tight formations.

Schools can change shape when traveling, feeding, resting, or avoiding predators. Vision and the lateral

line system (defined below in Section 3.6.2.1.3, Hearing and Vocalization) play roles in assisting 

schooling by allowing fish to visually orientate to one another and also sense water movements when 

visibility is reduced. Schooling may also be beneficial in terms of reproduction since little energy has to 

be expended to find a mate when sexes school together (Moyle & Cech, 2004).

Feeding behavior of fishes is influenced by many factors, including characteristics of the environment, 

the predators, and prey. When food is scare, fish have been observed to capture prey items of all sizes 

for which there is likely to be a net gain of energy for the fish, however, when food is abundant, fish will 

preferentially seek the prey item that produces the most energy for the least amount of effort. The body 

shape of a fish species, specifically the mouth, reflects the general method of feeding. Many fishes must 

swallow their prey whole and have specialized mouth sizes for their prey depending on the prey’s shape 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.6-8

3.6 Fishes

and fin spines (Price et al., 2015). Fishes with their mouth on the underside of their body (e.g., sturgeon, 

rays, skates, etc.) are typically bottom feeders, while fishes with their mouths near the top of their head 

(e.g., mullets, halfbeaks, etc.) are typically surface feeders. Fishes that typically feed in the water 

column, which includes most species, have mouths that are centered in their head. Common types of 

feeding behavior include ambushing, drift feeding, and filter feeding and fishes may regularly switch 

between two or more modes of feeding behavior depending on the abundance of prey (Moyle & Cech, 

2004). 

3.6.2.1.3 Hearing and Vocalization

All fishes have two sensory systems which can detect sound in the water: the inner ear, which functions 

similarly to the inner ear in other vertebrates, and the lateral line, which consists of a series of receptors 

along the body of a fish (Popper & Schilt, 2008). The lateral line system is sensitive to external particle 

motion arising from sources within a few body lengths of the animal. The lateral line detects particle 

motion at low frequencies from below 1 hertz (Hz) up to at least 400 Hz (Coombs & Montgomery, 1999; 

Hastings & Popper, 2005; Higgs & Radford, 2013; Webb et al., 2008). Generally, the inner ears of fish 

contain three dense otoliths (i.e., small calcareous bodies) that sit atop many delicate mechanoelectric 

hair cells within the inner ear of fishes, similar to the hair cells found in the mammalian ear. Sound 

waves in water tend to pass through the fish’s body, which has a composition similar to water, and 

vibrate the otoliths. This causes a relative motion between the dense otoliths and the surrounding 

tissues causing a deflection of the hair cells, which is sensed by the nervous system.

Although a propagating sound wave contains pressure and particle motion components, particle motion 

is most significant at low frequencies (up to at least 400 Hz) and is most detectible at high sound 

pressures or very close to a sound source. The inner ears of fishes are directly sensitive to acoustic 

particle motion rather than acoustic pressure (acoustic particle motion and acoustic pressure are 

discussed in Appendix D, Acoustic and Explosive Concepts). Historically, studies that have investigated 

hearing in, and effects to, fishes have been carried out with sound pressure metrics. Although particle 

motion may be the more relevant exposure metric for many fish species, there is little data available 

that actually measures it due to a lack in standard measurement methodology and experience with 

particle motion detectors (Hawkins et al., 2015; Martin et al., 2016). In these instances, particle motion 

can be estimated from pressure measurements (Nedelec et al., 2016a).

Some fishes possess additional morphological adaptations or specializations that can enhance their 

sensitivity to sound pressure, such as a gas-filled swim bladder (Astrup, 1999; Popper & Hastings, 2009b; 

Popper & Fay, 2011). The swim bladder can enhance sound detection by converting acoustic pressure 

into localized particle motion, which may then be detected by the inner ear (Radford et al., 2012). Fishes 

with a swim bladder generally have better sensitivity and can detect higher frequencies than fishes 

without a swim bladder (Popper & Hastings, 2009a; Popper et al., 2014). In addition, structures such as 

gas-filled bubbles near the ear or swim bladder, or even connections between the swim bladder and the 

inner ear, also increase sensitivity and allow for high-frequency hearing capabilities and better sound 

pressure detection. 

Although many researchers have investigated hearing and vocalizations in fish species (Ladich & Fay, 

2013; Popper et al., 2014), hearing capability data only exist for just over 100 of the currently known 

34,000 marine and freshwater fish species (Eschmeyer & Fong, 2016). Therefore, fish hearing groups are 

defined by species that possess a similar continuum of anatomical features which result in varying 

degrees of hearing sensitivity (Popper & Hastings, 2009b; Popper & Fay, 2011). Categories and 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.6-9

3.6 Fishes

descriptions of hearing sensitivities are further defined in this document (modified from Popper et al., 

2014) as the following: 

 Fishes without a swim bladder – hearing capabilities are limited to particle motion detection at 

frequencies well below 1 kilohertz (kHz). 

 Fishes with a swim bladder not involved in hearing – species lack notable anatomical 

specializations and primarily detect particle motion at frequencies below 1 kHz.

 Fishes with a swim bladder involved in hearing – species can detect frequencies below 1 kHz and 

possess anatomical specializations to enhance hearing and are capable of sound pressure 

detection up to a few kHz.

 Fishes with a swim bladder and high-frequency hearing – species can detect frequencies below 

1 kHz and possess anatomical specializations and are capable of sound pressure detection at 

frequencies up to 10 kHz to over 100 kHz.

Data suggest that most species of marine fish either lack a swim bladder (e.g., sharks and flatfishes) or 

have a swim bladder not involved in hearing and can only detect sounds below 1 kHz. Some marine 

fishes (clupeiforms) with a swim bladder involved in hearing are able to detect sounds to about 4 kHz 

(Colleye et al., 2016; Mann et al., 2001; Mann et al., 1997). One subfamily of clupeids (i.e., Alosinae) can 

detect high- and very high-frequency sounds (i.e., frequencies from 10 to 100 kHz, and frequencies 

above 100 kHz, respectively), although auditory thresholds at these higher frequencies are elevated and 

the range of best hearing is still in the low-frequency range (below 1 kHz) similar to other fishes. Mann 

et al. (1997; 1998) theorize that this subfamily may have evolved the ability to hear relatively high sound 

levels at these higher frequencies in order to detect echolocations of nearby foraging dolphins. For 

fishes that have not had their hearing tested, such as deep sea fishes, the suspected hearing capabilities 

are based on the structure of the ear, the relationship between the ear and the swim bladder, and other 

potential adaptations such as the presence of highly developed areas of the brain related to inner ear 

and lateral line functions (Buran et al., 2005; Deng et al., 2011, 2013). It is believed that most fishes have 

their best hearing sensitivity from 100 to 400 Hz (Popper, 2003).

Species listed under the ESA within the Study Area include the Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar), shortnose 

sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum), Atlantic sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus oxyrinchus), Gulf sturgeon 

(Acipenser oxyrinchus desotoi), smalltooth sawfish (Pristis pectinata), scalloped hammerhead shark 

(Sphyrna lewini), Nassau grouper (Epinephelus striatus), giant manta ray (Manta birostris) and the 

oceanic whitetip shark (Carcharhinus longimanus). As discussed above, most marine fishes investigated 

to date lack hearing capabilities greater than 1,000 Hz. This notably includes sturgeon and salmonid 

species that have a swim bladder that is not involved in hearing however, sturgeons and salmon species 

have only been tested to date up to about 600 Hz (Hawkins & Johnstone, 1978; Kane et al., 2010; Lovell 

et al., 2005; Meyer et al., 2010). Sawfish, rays and sharks are cartilaginous fishes (i.e., elasmobranchs) 

lacking a swim bladder. Available data suggest these species can detect sounds from 20 to 1,000 Hz, 

with best sensitivity at lower ranges (Casper et al., 2003; Casper & Mann, 2006; Casper & Mann, 2009; 

Myrberg, 2001). Nassau groupers have a swim bladder that is not involved in hearing. As part of the 

family Epinephelidae, Nassau grouper may have a similar hearing range to the leopard coral grouper 

(Plectropomus leopardus), the larvae of which can detect sounds 100 to 2,000 Hz (Wright et al., 2008; 

Wright et al., 2010).

Some fishes are known to produce sound. Bony fishes can produce sounds in a number of ways and use 

them for a number of behavioral functions (Ladich, 2008, 2014). Over 30 families of fishes are known to 

use vocalizations in aggressive interactions, and over 20 families are known to use vocalizations in 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.6-10

3.6 Fishes

mating (Ladich, 2008). Sounds generated by fishes as a means of communication are generally below 

500 Hz (Slabbekoorn et al., 2010). The air in the swim bladder is vibrated by the sound producing 

structures (often muscles that are integral to the swim bladder wall) and radiates sound into the water 

(Zelick et al., 1999). Sprague and Luczkovich (2004) calculated that silver perch, of the family sciaenidae, 

can produce drumming sounds ranging from 128 to 135 decibels referenced to 1 micropascal (dB re 1 

μPa). Female midshipman fish apparently detect and locate the “hums” (approximately 90 to 400 Hz) of 

vocalizing males during the breeding season (McIver et al., 2014; Sisneros & Bass, 2003). Sciaenids 

produce a variety of sounds, including calls produced by males on breeding grounds (Ramcharitar et al., 

2001), and a “drumming” call produced during chorusing that suggested a seasonal pattern to 

reproductive-related function (McCauley & Cato, 2000). Other sounds produced by chorusing reef fishes 

include “popping,” “banging,” and “trumpet” sounds; altogether, these choruses produce sound levels 

35 dB above background levels, at peak frequencies between 250 and 1,200 Hz, and source levels 

between 144 and 157 dB re 1 μPa (McCauley & Cato, 2000).

3.6.2.1.4 General Threats

Fish populations can be influenced by various natural factors and human activities. There can be direct 

effects from disease or from commercial and recreational activities such as fishing, or indirect effects 

from reductions in prey availability or lowered reproductive success of individuals. Human-made 

impacts are widespread throughout the world’s oceans, such that very few habitats remain unaffected 

by human influence (Halpern et al., 2008a). Direct and indirect effects have shaped the condition of 

marine fish populations, particularly those species with large body size, late maturity ages, and/or low 

fecundity such as some elasmobranchs (e.g., scalloped hammerhead shark, smalltooth sawfish), 

sturgeon (e.g., Atlantic sturgeon, shortnose sturgeon, Gulf sturgeon), and some reef fishes (e.g., Nassau 

grouper), making these species especially vulnerable to habitat losses and fishing pressure (Reynolds et 

al., 2005). Human-induced stressors (e.g., threats) can be divided into four components, which often act 

on fish populations simultaneously: habitat alteration, exploitation, introduction of non-native species, 

and pollution (Moyle & Cech, 2004). Climate change and its resulting effects on the marine environment 

is another stressor on fish populations (Roessig et al., 2004).

Coastal development, deforestation, road construction, dam development, water control structures, 

and agricultural activities are types of habitat alteration that can affect fishes and their environment. 

These activities may affect the water quality of the nearshore marine environment. Threats to fishes 

related to poor water quality are discussed in Section 3.6.2.1.4.1 (Water Quality). Threats from 

exploitation, including commercial and recreational fishing and other stressors, are addressed in Section 

3.6.2.1.4.2 (Commercial and Recreational Activities). Fishes living in suboptimal habitat from habitat 

alteration and over exploitation due to fishing may be at increased risk of contracting diseases and 

acquiring parasites, and are covered in Section 3.6.2.1.4.3 (Disease and Parasites). The presence of an 

introduced species represents a major change in the native fish community, and this topic is discussed in 

Section 3.6.2.1.4.4 (Invasive Species). The threats to fish from oil spills, marine debris, and noise are

covered in Section 3.6.2.1.4.1 (Water Quality). Climate change and its effects on fishes is addressed in 

Section 3.6.2.1.4.5 (Climate Change).

3.6.2.1.4.1 Water Quality

Parameters such as temperature, dissolved oxygen, salinity, turbidity, and pH define the water quality as 

a component of habitat quality for fishes. Some land-based activities can directly and indirectly impact 

water quality in rivers, estuaries, and in the coastal waters. Sediment from activities on land may be 

transported to the marine environment. Sediment can impact water quality by increasing turbidity and 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.6-11

3.6 Fishes

decreasing light penetration into the water column, as well as transport contaminants into the marine 

environment (Allen, 2006). Increases in sediment can decrease the survival and reproduction of 

plankton and have food web and ecosystem level effects.

Hypoxia (low dissolved oxygen concentration) is a major impact associated with poor water quality. 

Hypoxia occurs when waters become overloaded with nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorus, which 

enter oceans from agricultural runoff, sewage treatment plants, bilge water, and atmospheric 

deposition. An overabundance of nutrients can stimulate algal blooms, resulting in a rapid expansion of 

microscopic algae (phytoplankton) and can cause anoxic events leading to fish kills (Corcoran et al., 

2013). Over the last several decades, coastal regions throughout the world have experienced an increase 

in the frequency of algal blooms that are toxic or otherwise harmful. Commonly called red tides, these 

events are now grouped under the descriptor harmful algal blooms or HABs (Anderson et al., 2002).

Harmful algal blooms can produce toxins, causing human illness and massive fish and other animal 

mortalities. The most common harmful algal bloom species in the Gulf of Mexico is Karenia brevis

(National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2016c).

Pollution

Chemicals and debris are the two most common types of pollutants in the marine environment. Global 

oceanic circulation patterns result in the accumulation of a considerable amount of pollutants and 

debris scattered throughout the open ocean and concentrated in gyres and other places (Crain et al., 

2009). Pollution initially impacts fishes that occur near the sources of pollution, but may also affect 

future generations from effects to reproduction and increase mortality across life stages.

Chemical pollutants in the marine environment that may impact marine fishes include organic pollutants 

(e.g., pesticides, herbicides, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, flame retardants, and oil) and inorganic 

pollutants (e.g., heavy metals) (Pew Oceans Commission, 2003). High chemical pollutant levels in marine 

fishes may cause behavioral changes, physiological changes, or genetic damage (Goncalves et al., 2008; 

Moore, 2008; Pew Oceans Commission, 2003). Bioaccumulation is the net buildup of substances (e.g., 

chemicals or metals) in an organism from inhabiting contaminated habitat or sediment through the gills 

or skin, from ingesting food or prey containing the substance (Newman, 1998), or from ingestion of the 

substance directly (Moore, 2008).Bioaccumulation of pollutants (e.g., metals and organic pollutants) is 

also a concern to human health because people consume top predators with high pollutant loads. 

Oil Spills

Groups of fish typically impacted by oil spills include surface-oriented or surface dwelling species, 

nearshore (within 3 NM of the shoreline) species, and species whose spawning time coincided with the 

timing of an oil spill (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2010). Fishes can be impacted 

by the oil directly through the gills, or by consuming oil or oiled prey. Potentially harmful physiological 

effects to fishes from oil spills include reduced growth, enlarged livers, changes to heart and respiration 

rate, fin erosion, and reproductive impairment. The most damaging effects of oil on fish populations 

may be in harming eggs and larvae, because these stages are highly sensitive to oil at the surface, in the 

water column, or on the seafloor, and are subject to increased mortality and morphological deformities 

and impaired growth (Greer et al., 2012; Ingvarsdottir et al., 2012; National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration, 2014). Discharges from ballast water and bilge water during routine ship operations and 

illegal dumping of solid waste are other sources of oil in the marine environment.
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.6-12

3.6 Fishes

3.6.2.1.4.2 Commercial and Recreational Activities

Exploitation from commercial and recreational fishing is the single biggest cause of changes in fish 

populations and communities (Moyle & Cech, 2004). Historic and current overfishing largely contributed 

to the listing of ESA-protected marine fish species (Crain et al., 2009; Kappel, 2005). Overfishing of a 

resource results from legal and illegal fishing (poaching) and bycatch of resources in quantities above a 

sustainable level. By the end of 2015, 28 managed fish stocks in the U.S. 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, 2016a).

In recent decades, commercial fisheries have targeted the larger, predatory, and sometimes 

higher-priced fish species. Gradually, the fishing pressure will make the larger species more scarce, and 

fishing will move towards the smaller species, often causing negative implications for entire marine food 

webs (Pauly & Palomares, 2005). Other factors, such as fisheries-induced evolution and intrinsic 

vulnerability to overfishing, have been shown to reduce the abundance of some populations 

(Kauparinen & Merila, 2007). Fisheries-induced evolution describes a change in genetic composition of 

the population that results from intense fishing pressure, such as a reduction in the overall size and 

growth rates of fishes in a population. Intrinsic vulnerability describes certain life history traits (e.g., 

large body size, late maturity age, low growth rate, low offspring production) that result in a species 

being more susceptible to overfishing than others (Cheung et al., 2007).

Other threats from commercial industries to fishes include vessel strikes, sea farming, and energy 

production activities. Large commercial vessels (e.g., cruise liners, cargo ships) pose threats to large, 

slow-moving open ocean fishes while moving along the sea surface. Whale sharks (Rhincodon typus), 

basking sharks (Cetorhinus maximus), sturgeons, manta rays (Manta spp.), and ocean sunfish (Mola 

mola) are vulnerable to ship strikes (National Marine Fisheries Service, 2010d; Rowat et al., 2007; 

Stevens, 2007). 

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 National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (2011) published the Marine Aquaculture Policy, which provides direction 

to enable the development of sustainable marine aquaculture.

Energy production and offshore activities associated with power-generating facilities results in direct 

and indirect injury and/or mortality of fishes. Injury and mortality sources include entrainment of eggs 

and larvae during water withdrawal and impingement of juveniles and adults (U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, 2004). Acoustic impacts from offshore wind energy development are additional 

sources of injury and mortality (Madsen et al., 2006). Williams et al. (2015) provide a comprehensive 

baseline of ecological data and associated predictive models and maps to help regulators, developers, 

and other stakeholders understand the implications of offshore wind energy development for wildlife

populations in the mid-Atlantic United States.

Anthropogenic Noise

Anthropogenic noise is generated from a variety of sources, including commercial shipping, oil and gas 

exploration and production activities, commercial and recreational fishing (including fish-finding sonar, 

fathometers, and acoustic deterrent devices), recreational boating, whale watching activities and other 

marine transportation vessels such as ferries, marine and coastal development (i.e., construction of 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.6-13

3.6 Fishes

bridges, ferry terminals, windfarms, etc.), and research (including sound from air guns, sonar, and 

telemetry). Vessel noise, in particular, is a major contributor to noise in the ocean and is intensively 

produced in inshore waters. Commercial shipping’s contribution to ambient noise in the ocean 

increased by as much as 12 dB between approximately the 1960s and 2005 (Hildebrand, 2009; 

McDonald et al., 2008). Frisk (2012) confirmed the trend, and reported that between 1950 and 2007

ocean noise in the 25 to 50 Hz frequency range has increased 3.3 dB per decade, resulting in a 

cumulative increase of approximately 19 dB over a baseline of 52 dB (decibels re 1 Pa2/Hz). The 

increase in noise is associated with an increase in commercial shipping, which correlates with global 

economic growth (Frisk, 2012). Miksis-Olds and Nichols (2015) found low-frequency ocean sound levels 

have decreased in the South Atlantic and Equatorial Pacific Oceans, similar to a trend of slightly 

decreasing low-frequency noise levels in the Northeast Pacific. In addition to vessels, other sources of 

underwater noise include pile-driving activity (Carlson et al., 2007b; Casper et al., 2012b; Casper et al., 

2013a; Casper et al., 2013b; Dahl et al., 2015; Debusschere et al., 2014; Feist et al., 1992; Halvorsen et 

al., 2012b; Popper et al., 2006; Ruggerone et al., 2008; Stadler & Woodbury, 2009), sonar (Carlson et al., 

2007b; Mueller-Blenkle et al., 2010; Popper et al., 2006), seismic activity (California Department of 

Transportation, 2001; Popper & Hastings, 2009a), and offshore construction projects (Foderaro, 2015).

Noise can cause permanent injury in some marine animals (Popper et al., 2005). Physiological responses 

to noise have shown a variety of results. For example, the giant kelpfish (Heterostichus rostratus)

exhibited acute stress response when exposed to intermittent recorded boat engine noise (Nichols et 

al., 2015). In another study, Holles et al. (2013) found that local, low intensity noise from recreational 

boat engines has the capacity to disrupt settlement in coral reef fish larvae, which may lead to impacts 

on recruitment to adult populations.

3.6.2.1.4.3 Disease and Parasites

Fishes in poor quality environments have higher incidences of disease, due to increased stress levels and 

decreased immune system function and are less resilient to fight the disease. Parasites, bacteria, 

aquaculture conditions, environmental influences, and poor nourishment contribute to fish disease 

levels (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2016b). Disease outbreaks in fishes are 

influenced by environmental conditions, which typically are more variable in inshore waters compared 

to the open ocean (Snieszko, 1978). Areas with higher density fish populations, such as marine 

protected areas and fish farms, are at higher risk for disease compared to areas with lower densities 

(National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2016c; Wootton et al., 2012). Additionally, 

introduced species may expose native species to new diseases and parasites. Sea lice (Lepeophtheirus 

spp. and Caligus spp.) are parasites and vectors of viruses commonly associated with fish farming 

activities in the Study Area that can negatively impact wild fish populations in areas surrounding fish 

farms (Thorstad et al., 2015; Whelan, 2010).

3.6.2.1.4.4 Invasive Species

Native fish populations are affected by invasive (introduced, non-native) species by predation, 

competition and hybridization (Moyle & Cech, 2004). Non-native fishes pose threats to native fishes 

when they are introduced into an environment lacking natural predators and then either compete with 

native marine fishes for resources or prey upon the native marine fishes (Crain et al., 2009). Marine 

invasions by other non-fish species also may impact fish populations. Invasive marine algae have been 

found to alter the health status of native fishes feeding on the algae, which could impact the 

reproduction success of those populations (Felline et al., 2012).
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.6-14

3.6 Fishes

In the Study Area, a particularly damaging invasive fish species is the predatory Indo-Pacific lionfish 

(Pterois volitans and P. miles). This species has spread swiftly across the Western Atlantic, producing a 

marine predator invasion of unparalleled speed and magnitude (Green et al., 2012). This study also 

found a 65 percent decline in the biomass of the lionfish’s prey fishes with the increase in lionfish 

abundance within just two years. The increase in lionfish may have long-term impacts for the marine 

ecosystem (Green et al., 2012). 

3.6.2.1.4.5 Climate Change

Global climate change is impacting and will continue to impact marine and estuarine fishes and fisheries 

(Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2014; Roessig et al., 2004). Climate change is contributing 

to a shift in fish distribution from lower to higher latitudes (Brander, 2010; Brander, 2007; Dufour et al., 

2010; Popper & Hastings, 2009a; Wilson et al., 2010). Warming waters over the past quarter-century 

have driven fish populations in the northern hemisphere northward and to deeper depths (Inman, 

2005). 

Fishes with shifting distributions have faster life cycles and smaller body sizes than non-shifting species 

(Perry et al., 2005). In addition to affecting species ranges, increasing temperature has been shown to 

alter the sex-ratio in fish species such as the freshwater zebrafish (Danio rerio) that have temperaturedependent sex determination mechanisms (Ospina-Alvarez & Piferrer, 2008). Further temperature rises 

are likely to have profound impacts on commercial fisheries through continued shifts in distribution and 

alterations in community interactions (Perry et al., 2005). It appears that diadromous and benthic fish 

species are most vulnerable to climate change impacts (Hare et al., 2016).

Ocean acidification, the process where increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations are 

reducing ocean pH and carbonate ion concentrations, may have serious impacts on fish development 

and behavior (Raven et al., 2005). Physiological development of fishes can be affected by increases in pH 

that can increase the size, density, and mass of fish otoliths (e.g., fish ear stones) which would affect 

sensory functions (Bignami et al., 2013). Ocean acidification may affect fish larvae behavior and could 

impact fish populations (Munday et al., 2009). A range of behavioral traits critical to survival of newly 

settled fish larvae are affected by ocean acidification. Settlement-stage larval marine fishes exposed to 

elevated carbon dioxide were less responsive to threats than controls. This decrease in sensitivity to risk 

might be directly related to the impaired olfactory ability (Munday et al., 2009).

Beyond direct impacts on fishes from increasing pH ocean acidification can cause changes to the ocean 

chemistry which leads to increased algal blooms (Anderson et al., 2002). Ocean acidification can also 

lead to reef impacts such as coral bleaching and can also lead to reduced larval settlement and 

abundance (Doropoulos et al., 2012). Plankton are important prey items for many fish species and are 

also impacted by ocean acidification. Ocean acidification may cause a shift in phytoplankton community 

composition and biochemical composition that can impact the transfer of essential compounds to 

predators that eat the plankton (Bermudez et al., 2016) and can cause shifts in community composition.

Another climate change effect is ocean deoxygenation. Netburn and Koslow (2015) found that the depth 

of the lower boundary of the deep scattering layer is most strongly correlated with dissolved oxygen 

concentration, and irradiance and oxygen concentration are the key variables determining the upper 

boundary. This study estimated the corresponding annual rate of change of deep scattering layer depths 

and hypothesized that if past trends continue, the upper boundary is expected to rise at a faster rate 

than the lower boundary, effectively widening the deep scattering layer under climate changes 

scenarios. Cao et al. (2014) modeled different sensitivities of ocean temperature, carbonate chemistry, 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.6-15

3.6 Fishes

and oxygen, in terms of both the sign and magnitude to the amount of climate change. Model 

simulations in this study found by the year 2500, every degree increase of climate sensitivity warms the 

ocean by 0.8 degrees Celsius (°C) and reduces ocean-mean dissolved oxygen concentration by 

5.0 percent. Conversely, every degree increase of climate sensitivity buffers CO2-induced reduction in 

ocean-mean carbonate ion concentration and pH by 3.4 percent and 0.02 units, respectively. These 

results have great implications for understanding the response of ocean biota to climate change.

3.6.2.1.4.6 Marine Debris

Marine debris is a widespread global pollution problem and trends suggest that accumulations are 

increasing with increasing plastic production (Rochman et al., 2013). Debris includes plastics, metals, 

rubber, textiles, derelict fishing gear, vessels, and other lost or discarded items. Debris such as 

abandoned nets and lines also pose a threat to fishes. Due to body shape, habitat use, and feeding 

strategies, some fishes are more susceptible to marine debris entanglement than others (Musick et al., 

2000; Ocean Conservancy, 2010). Entanglement in abandoned commercial and recreational fishing gear 

has caused declines for some marine fishes. 

Microplastics in the marine environment are well documented, and interactions with marine biota, 

including numerous fish species have been described worldwide (Lusher et al., 2016). Plastic waste in 

the ocean chemically attracts hydrocarbon pollutants such as polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) and 

dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane, which accumulate up to one million times more in plastic than in 

ocean water (Mato et al., 2001). Fishes can mistakenly consume these wastes, containing elevated levels 

of toxins, instead of their prey. Rochman et al., (2015) found marine debris in 28 percent of the 

individual fish examined and in 55 percent of all fish species analyzed. Ribic et al. (2010) concluded that 

the vast majority of marine debris along the southeast Atlantic coast was either land-based (38 percent), 

general-source debris (42 percent), or ocean-based (20 percent) recreational and commercial sources 

(Ribic et al., 2010); no items of military origin were differentiated.

3.6.2.2 Endangered Species Act-Listed Species

In the Study Area, 10 fish species are listed as endangered or threatened under the ESA (Table 3.6-1). 

Atlantic salmon, Atlantic sturgeon, and Gulf sturgeon are anadromous species that are primarily found 

in coastal waters, but which spend substantial portions of their lifecycle in estuarine and riverine waters. 

The shortnose sturgeon inhabits its natal river and estuary, and very rarely has been observed in coastal 

waters. Largetooth sawfish and smalltooth sawfish are predominately estuarine and coastal waters, but 

can also occur in freshwater and deeper ocean waters. Scalloped hammerhead is generally considered a 

marine fish but has early life stages which are estuarine. Nassau groupers, are marine fishes that inhabit 

deep coral reefs or rocky substrate in Florida and the Caribbean. Giant manta rays and oceanic whitetip 

sharks are primarily pelagic and oceanic in distribution and can occur throughout the Study Area.

In addition to the aforementioned listed species, there are also a number of other species that are 

under consideration for listing. These species are broken into two categories: candidates for listing and 

proposed for listing. Candidate species are any species that are undergoing a status review that have 

been announced in a Federal Register notice. Proposed species are those candidate species that were 

found to warrant listing as either threatened or endangered and were officially proposed as such in a 

Federal Register notice after the completion of a status review and consideration of other protective 

conservation measures. 

There are four candidate species found within the Study Area, including the alewife (Alosa 

pseudoharengus), blueback herring (Alosa aestivalis), cusk (Brosme brosme), and dwarf seahorse 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.6-16

3.6 Fishes

(Hippocampus zosterae) (Table 3.6-1). Currently, there are no fish species proposed for listing that occur 

in the Study Area. NMFS also manages a proactive conservation program that allows for species with

concerns regarding status and threats, but for which insufficient information is available to indicate a 

need for listing under the ESA. These species are listed as "species of concern." Within the Study Area, 

there are 13 fish species listed as such: Alabama shad (Alosa alabamae), Atlantic bluefin tuna (Thunnus 

thynnus), Atlantic halibut (Hippoglossus hippoglossus), Atlantic wolffish (Anarhichas lupus), dusky shark 

(Carcharhinus obscurus), key silverside (Menidia conchorum), mangrove rivulus (Kleptolebias 

marmoratus), opossum pipefish (Microphis brachyurus lineatus), rainbow smelt (Osmerus mordax), sand 

tiger shark (Carcharias taurus), speckled hind (Epinephelus drummondhayi), striped croaker (Corvula 

sanctaeluciae), and Warsaw grouper (Hyporthodus nigritus) (Table 3.6-1). As the species of concern are 

not considered for listing at this time, they will not be discussed separately in this document.
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.6-17

3.6 Fishes

Table 3.6-1: Regulatory Status and Occurrence of Endangered Species Act-Listed Fishes in the 

Study Area

Regulatory Status Occurrence in the Study Area

Common Name Scientific Name

Endangered 

Species Act 

Status

Open Ocean Large Marine 

Ecosystems Inshore Waters

Atlantic Salmon

(Gulf of Maine 

Distinct 

Population 

Segment)

Salmo salar Endangered N/A

West Greenland 

Shelf, Scotian 

Shelf, 

NewfoundlandLabrador Shelf, 

Northeast 

U.S. Continental 

Shelf

Kennebec River Estuary, 

ME

Atlantic Sturgeon

(New York Bight, 

Chesapeake Bay, 

Carolina, & South 

Atlantic Distinct 

Population 

Segments)

Acipenser 

oxyrinchus 

oxyrinchus

Endangered N/A

NewfoundlandLabrador Shelf, 

Northeast 

U.S. Continental 

Shelf, Southeast 

U.S. Continental 

Shelf

Kennebec River Estuary, 

ME; Narragansett Bay 

and Rhode Island Sound, 

RI; Thames River Estuary, 

CT; Sandy Hook Bay, NJ; 

lower Chesapeake Bay, 

VA; Beaufort Inlet 

Channel, and Cape Fear 

River, NC; Kings Bay, GA; 

St. Johns River, FL

Largetooth 

Sawfish Pristis pristis Endangered Extirpated Extirpated Extirpated

Shortnose 

Sturgeon

Acipenser 

brevirostrum Endangered N/A

Northeast U.S. 

Continental Shelf, 

Southeast 

U.S. Continental 

Shelf

Kennebec River Estuary, 

ME; Narragansett Bay 

and Rhode Island Sound, 

RI; Thames River Estuary, 

CT; Sandy Hook Bay, NJ; 

Cape Fear River, NC; 

Kings Bay, GA;

St. Johns River, FL

Smalltooth 

Sawfish Pristis pectinata Endangered N/A

Southeast U.S. 

Continental Shelf, 

Gulf of Mexico, 

Caribbean Sea

St. Andrew Bay, FL; 

Pascagoula River Estuary, 

MS; Sabine Lake and 

Corpus Christi Bay, TX

Atlantic Sturgeon

(Gulf of Maine 

Distinct 

Population 

Segment)

Acipenser 

oxyrinchus 

oxyrinchus

Threatened N/A

NewfoundlandLabrador Shelf, 

Northeast 

U.S. Continental 

Shelf

Kennebec River Estuary, 

ME; Narragansett Bay 

and Rhode Island Sound, 

RI; Thames River Estuary, 

CT; Sandy Hook Bay, NJ; 

lower Chesapeake Bay, 

VA
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.6-18

3.6 Fishes

Table 3.6-1: Regulatory Status and Occurrence of Endangered Species Act-Listed Fishes in the 

Study Area (continued)

Regulatory Status Occurrence in the Study Area

Common Name Scientific Name

Endangered 

Species Act 

Status

Open Ocean Large Marine 

Ecosystems Inshore Waters

Giant Manta Ray Manta birostris Threatened

North 

Central 

Atlantic 

Gyre, Gulf 

Stream

Northeast 

U.S. Continental 

Shelf, Southeast 

U.S. Continental 

Shelf, Gulf of 

Mexico, Caribbean 

Sea

N/A

Gulf Sturgeon

Acipenser 

oxyrinchus 

desotoi

Threatened N/A Gulf of Mexico

St. Andrew Bay, FL; 

Pascagoula River Estuary, 

MS

Nassau Grouper Epinephelus 

striatus Threatened N/A

Southeast U.S. 

Continental Shelf, 

Gulf of Mexico, 

Caribbean Sea

N/A

Oceanic Whitetip 

Shark

Carcharhinus 

longimanus Threatened

North 

Central 

Atlantic 

Gyre, Gulf 

Stream

NewfoundlandLabrador Shelf, 

Northeast 

U.S. Continental 

Shelf, Southeast 

U.S. Continental 

Shelf, Gulf of 

Mexico, Caribbean 

Sea

N/A

Scalloped 

Hammerhead

(Central and 

Southwest 

Atlantic Distinct 

Population 

Segment)

Sphyrna lewini Threatened N/A Caribbean Sea N/A

Alewife Alosa 

pseudoharengus Candidate Gulf Stream

Scotian Shelf, 

NewfoundlandLabrador Shelf, 

Northeast 

U.S. Continental 

Shelf, Southeast 

U.S. Continental 

Shelf

Kennebec River Estuary, 

ME; Narragansett Bay and 

Rhode Island Sound, RI; 

Thames River Estuary, CT; 

Sandy Hook Bay, NJ; 

lower Chesapeake Bay, 

VA; Beaufort Inlet 

Channel and Cape Fear 

River, NC; Kings Bay, GA; 

St. Johns River, FL
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.6-19

3.6 Fishes

Table 3.6-1: Regulatory Status and Occurrence of Endangered Species Act-Listed Fishes in the 

Study Area (continued)

Regulatory Status Occurrence in the Study Area

Common Name Scientific Name

Endangered 

Species Act 

Status

Open Ocean Large Marine 

Ecosystems Inshore Waters

Blueback Herring Alosa aestivalis Candidate Gulf Stream

Scotian Shelf, 

NewfoundlandLabrador Shelf, 

Northeast 

U.S. Continental 

Shelf, Southeast 

U.S. Continental 

Shelf

N/A

Cusk Brosme brosme Candidate

Labrador 

Current, 

North 

Central 

Atlantic 

Gyre, Gulf 

Stream

Scotian Shelf, 

NewfoundlandLabrador Shelf, 

Northeast 

U.S. Continental 

Shelf

N/A

Dwarf Seahorse Hippocampus 

zosterae

Candidate N/A

Southeast 

U.S. Continental 

Shelf, Gulf of 

Mexico, Caribbean 

Sea

St. Johns River and St. 

Andrew Bay, FL; 

Pascagoula River Estuary, 

MS; Sabine Lake and 

Corpus Christi Bay, TX

Alabama Shad Alosa alabamae Species of 

Concern N/A Gulf of Mexico

St. Andrew Bay, FL; 

Pascagoula River Estuary, 

MS 

Atlantic Bluefin 

Tuna Thunnus thynnus Species of Concern

North 

Central 

Atlantic 

Gyre, Gulf 

Stream

Scotian Shelf, 

NewfoundlandLabrador Shelf, 

Northeast 

U.S. Continental 

Shelf, Southeast 

U.S. Continental 

Shelf, Gulf of 

Mexico, Caribbean 

Sea

N/A
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.6-20

3.6 Fishes

Table 3.6-1: Regulatory Status and Occurrence of Endangered Species Act-Listed Fishes in the 

Study Area (continued)

Regulatory Status Occurrence in the Study Area

Common Name Scientific Name

Endangered 

Species Act 

Status Open Ocean

Large Marine 

Ecosystems Inshore Waters

Atlantic Halibut Hippoglossus 

hippoglossus

Species of 

Concern

Labrador 

Current; 

North 

Central 

Atlantic 

Gyre; Gulf 

Stream

West Greenland 

Shelf, Scotian 

Shelf, 

NewfoundlandLabrador Shelf, 

Northeast 

U.S. Continental 

Shelf

N/A

Atlantic Wolffish Anarhichas 

lupus

Species of 

Concern

Labrador 

Current, 

North 

Central 

Atlantic 

Gyre, Gulf 

Stream

West Greenland 

Shelf, Scotian 

Shelf, 

NewfoundlandLabrador Shelf, 

Northeast 

U.S. Continental 

Shelf

N/A

Dusky Shark Carcharhinus 

obscurus

Species of 

Concern Gulf Stream

Northeast 

U.S. Continental 

Shelf, Southeast 

U.S. Continental 

Shelf, Gulf of 

Mexico, Caribbean 

Sea

Juveniles only; Sandy 

Hook Bay, NJ; lower 

Chesapeake Bay, VA

Key Silverside Menidia 

conchorum

Species of 

Concern N/A Gulf of Mexico N/A

Mangrove Rivulus Kleptolebias 

marmoratus

Species of 

Concern

N/A

Southeast 

U.S. Continental 

Shelf, Gulf of 

Mexico, Caribbean

Mangroves throughout 

Study Area

Opossum Pipefish

Microphis 

brachyurus 

lineatus

Species of 

Concern Gulf Stream

Southeast 

U.S. Continental 

Shelf, Gulf of 

Mexico, Caribbean 

Sea

St. Andrew Bay, FL; 

Pascagoula River Estuary, 

MS; Sabine Lake and 

Corpus Christi Bay, TX

Rainbow Smelt Osmerus mordax Species of 

Concern N/A

Scotian Shelf, 

NewfoundlandLabrador Shelf, 

Northeast 

U.S. Continental 

Shelf

Kennebec River Estuary, 

ME; Narragansett Bay 

and Rhode Island Sound, 

RI; Thames River Estuary, 

CT; Sandy Hook Bay, NJ
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.6-21

3.6 Fishes

Table 3.6-1: Regulatory Status and Occurrence of Endangered Species Act-Listed Fishes in the 

Study Area (continued)

Regulatory Status Occurrence in the Study Area

Common Name Scientific Name

Endangered 

Species Act 

Status

Open Ocean Large Marine 

Ecosystems Inshore Waters

Sand Tiger Shark Carcharias 

taurus

Species of 

Concern

Gulf Stream

Northeast 

U.S. Continental 

Shelf, Southeast 

U.S. Continental 

Shelf, Scotian 

Shelf, 

NewfoundlandLabrador Shelf, 

Gulf of Mexico, 

Caribbean Sea

Narragansett Bay and 

Rhode Island Sound, RI; 

Thames River Estuary, CT; 

Sandy Hook Bay; lower 

Chesapeake Bay, VA; 

Beaufort Inlet Channel 

and Cape Fear River, NC; 

Kings Bay, GA; St. Johns 

River and St. Andrew Bay, 

FL; Pascagoula River 

Estuary, MS; Sabine Lake 

and Corpus Christi Bay, TX

Speckled Hind Epinephelus 

drummondhayi

Species of 

Concern N/A

Southeast U.S. 

Continental Shelf, 

Gulf of Mexico, 

Caribbean Sea

Gulf Stream

Striped Croaker Corvula

sanctaeluciae

Species of 

Concern N/A

Southeast U.S. 

Continental Shelf,

Caribbean Sea

N/A

Warsaw Grouper Hyporthodus 

nigritus

Species of 

Concern Gulf Stream

Northeast U.S. 

Continental Shelf, 

Southeast U.S. 

Continental Shelf, 

Gulf of Mexico, 

Caribbean Sea

N/A

1Candidate and species of concern status does not carry any procedural or substantive protections under the ESA, but is 

provided for informational purposes.

2N/A = not applicable

3.6.2.2.1 Atlantic Salmon (Salmo salar)

3.6.2.2.1.1 Status and Management

The Gulf of Maine Distinct Population Segment of Atlantic salmon was listed as federally endangered in 

2000 (65 Federal Register 69459). During 2009, the Gulf of Maine Distinct Population Segment was 

expanded to include Maine’s Penobscot, Kennebec, and Androscoggin rivers, which support remnant 

wild populations (74 Federal Register 29300). The Atlantic salmon is co-managed by NMFS and USFWS 

because its lifecycle spans marine, estuarine, and freshwater habitats. Although Atlantic salmon may 

occur elsewhere (e.g., hatchery programs and aquaculture), only the Gulf of Maine Distinct Population 

Segment is protected under the ESA. 

In June 2009, critical habitat was designated in 45 areas within Maine for the Gulf of Maine Distinct 

Population Segment of Atlantic salmon (74 Federal Register 117; Figure 3.6-1). Critical habitat was 

designated to include all perennial rivers, streams, and estuaries and lakes connected to the marine 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.6-22

3.6 Fishes

environment within the range of the Gulf of Maine Distinct Population Segment of Atlantic salmon, 

except for those particular areas within the range which are specifically excluded. Within the distinct 

population segment, the physical and biological features for Atlantic salmon include sites for spawning 

and incubation, sites for juvenile rearing, and sites for migration. The physical and biological features of 

habitat are those features that allow Atlantic salmon to successfully use sites for spawning and rearing 

and sites for migration. These features include:

1. Substrate of suitable size and quality; rivers and streams of adequate flow, depth, water 

temperature and water quality;

2. Rivers, streams, lakes and ponds with sufficient space and diverse, abundant food resources to 

support growth and survival;

3. Waterways that allow for free migration of both adult and juvenile Atlantic salmon; and

4. Diverse habitat and native fish communities in which salmon interact with while feeding, 

migrating, spawning, and resting.

In 2015, NMFS focused efforts to protect species that are most at risk of extinction in the near future. 

The Atlantic salmon was selected as one of the eight species because of their critically low abundance 

and declining population trends. Key actions include reconnecting the Gulf of Maine with headwater 

streams, increasing the number of juveniles successfully emigrating into the marine environment, 

reducing mortality in international fishery in West Greenland waters, and increasing the understanding 

and ability to improve survival in the marine environment (National Marine Fisheries Service, 2016b).

3.6.2.2.1.2 Habitat and Geographic Range

Atlantic salmon is an anadromous and iteroparous (does not die after spawning like other salmon) 

species. After hatching, juveniles rear in their natal rivers and estuaries. After juveniles complete the 

smolting process (e.g., physiologically transforming into marine form called a smolt), they enter the 

estuarine portion of the Study Area in the Gulf of Maine, primarily at night, during the late spring when 

water temperatures reach 10° C (50° F) (Sheehan et al., 2012) and school in coastal waters primarily in 

the upper 3 m (10 ft.), although may occur in deeper waters (Hedger et al., 2009). Adults migrate back to 

their natal river to spawn.

Labrador Current Large Marine Ecosystem. By mid-summer, smolts migrate to the Gulf of Maine along 

the Scotian Shelf Large Marine Ecosystem, reaching the Newfoundland-Labrador Shelf Large Marine 

Ecosystem and the Grand Banks (Fay et al., 2006), as indicated by tag recoveries (McCormick et al., 

1998). For much of their first summer, sub-adults inhabit the coastal waters off Canada, the Southern 

Grand Banks (Newfoundland-Labrador Shelf Large Marine Ecosystem), the Labrador Sea, and the 

northern Gulf of St. Lawrence (Reddin & Short, 1991). Decreasing nearshore water temperatures in 

autumn trigger offshore (greater than 3 NM from shoreline) movements (Dutil & Coutu, 1988). 

Sub-adults overwinter in the Labrador Sea south of Greenland. Small percentages return to Gulf of 

Maine coastal rivers after their first winter at sea (Fay et al., 2006).
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.6-23

3.6 Fishes

Note: AFTT: Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing; OPAREA: Operating Area

Figure 3.6-1: Critical Habitat Areas for Atlantic Salmon in and Adjacent to the Study Area
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.6-24

3.6 Fishes

West Greenland Shelf Large Marine Ecosystem. Atlantic salmon migrate great distances in the open 

ocean to reach feeding areas in the West Greenland Shelf Large Marine Ecosystem and in the Davis 

Strait between Labrador and Greenland, nearly 2,500 miles (mi.) from their natal rivers (Fay et al., 2006; 

Reddin & Short, 1991). North American and European stocks co-occur in these areas while feeding (Fay 

et al., 2006). They spend up to two years feeding before returning to Gulf of Maine coastal rivers to 

spawn (Reddin & Short, 1991). 

Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf Large Marine Ecosystem. The historic range of Atlantic salmon in the 

northwestern Atlantic Ocean includes coastal drainages from northern Quebec, Canada, to Connecticut. 

Smolts migrate into marine habitats during approximately two weeks each spring, usually during May 

(McCormick et al., 1998). Spawning adults migrate into estuaries and natal rivers throughout the spring 

and summer with the peak occurring in June (Fay et al., 2006).

3.6.2.2.1.3 Population Trends

By the end of the 19th century, Atlantic salmon had been extirpated from the Androscoggin, Merrimack, 

and Connecticut rivers. The Gulf of Maine Distinct Population Segment represents the last wild 

population. Populations have been extirpated or decreased from land use practices and development 

that eliminated spawning and rearing habitat and reduced water quality. The population remains in 

decline. With added conservation efforts, adult returns remain extremely low. The National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration reported an estimated extinction risk of 19 to 75 percent within the next 

100 years for the Gulf of Maine Distinct Population Segment, which included the on-going hatchery 

supplementation.

Adult return rates have continued to decline since the 1980s which indicates low marine survival 

(Chaput, 2012). Population estimates have rarely exceeded 5,000 in any given year since 1967, whereas 

historical abundances (excluding the Penobscot River) likely exceeded 100,000 (Fay et al., 2006). 

Numerous conservation and restoration practices have slowed the population decline, but have not 

increased recovery. Similar to salmon populations on the West Coast of the U.S., changes in ocean 

conditions affect recovery rates.

3.6.2.2.1.4 Predator and Prey Interactions

Upon ocean entry, smolts feed on fish larvae (Haugland et al., 2006), amphipods, euphausiids, and small 

fish (Fraser, 1987; Hislop & Youngson, 1984; Hislop & Shelton, 1993; Jutila & Toivonen, 1985). As they 

grow, small fishes become an increasingly dominant component of their diet. Striped bass, cod, 

haddock, fish-eating birds, and marine mammals feed on smolts and subadults in the marine 

environment. Adults prey on capelin, Atlantic herring, and sand lance (Hansen & Windsor, 2006). Adults 

are vulnerable to predation by seals and cormorants (Fay et al., 2006).

3.6.2.2.1.5 Species-Specific Threats

Incremental increases in marine survival (survival from emigrating smolts to adult returns) have a much 

greater impact on the population than comparable increases in freshwater survival (Legault, 2005), 

however, the factors contributing to low marine survival are not well understood. A review of existing 

studies indicates that mortality during the early marine migration varies between 8 and 71 percent, with 

predation being the most common cause of low survival in rivers and estuaries (Thorstad et al., 2015). In 

recent decades, individuals have migrated to sea at a younger age; these smaller smolts are subject to 

increased mortality (Russell et al., 2012). Sea lice infestation of farmed fish is a major cause of mortality 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.6-25

3.6 Fishes

of adults (Gargan et al., 2012). Parasitic crustaceans have also been noted to cause mortality and are 

common in areas with large aquaculture populations (Krkosek et al., 2013).

The primary threats impacting the juvenile life stages include restricted fish passage (Baum, 1997), 

degraded water quality and aluminum toxicity (Kroglund et al., 2007), commercial aquaculture (Hansen 

& Windsor, 2006), and lack of spawning habitat (Fay et al., 2006). Increases in juvenile survival could 

enhance the probability of recovery, but only if marine survival is also increased. Current research shows 

that the catch and release recreational fishery does not negatively impacted the adult population during 

the spawning migration (Lennox et al., 2016).

3.6.2.2.2 Atlantic Sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus oxyrinchus)

3.6.2.2.2.1 Status and Management

Atlantic sturgeon is co-managed by Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission and NMFS. Sharp 

declines in the abundance of Atlantic sturgeon resulting from historic overfishing, pollution, habitat loss, 

and habitat degradation led the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission to issue a coast-wide 

moratorium on the commercial harvest in state waters in 1998 (63 Federal Register 9967). This was 

followed closely by a similar moratorium in federal waters issued by NMFS in early 1999 (64 Federal 

Register 9449). When the population continued to decline, National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration listed the species as endangered or threatened throughout its range in 2012 (77 Federal 

Register 5880; 77 Federal Register 5914). The Chesapeake, New York Bight, Carolina, and South Atlantic 

Distinct Population Segments are listed as endangered and the Gulf of Maine Distinct Population 

Segment as threatened. 

In August 2017, NMFS designated critical habitat for each of the five Atlantic sturgeon distinct 

population segments: Gulf of Maine, New York Bight, Chesapeake Bay, Carolina, and South Atlantic 

(82 Federal Register 39160; Figure 3.6-2 and Figure 3.6-3). All critical habitat designations are riverine 

waters between Maine and Georgia related to spawning or potential spawning habitat.

Critical habitat for the Gulf of Maine Distinct Population Segments of Atlantic sturgeon has been 

designated in the Penobscot, Kennebec, Androscoggin, and Piscataqua rivers in Maine, Piscataqua River 

in New Hampshire, and Merrimack River in Massachusetts (82 Federal Register 39160). 

Critical habitat for the New York Bight Distinct Population Segments of Atlantic sturgeon has been 

designated in the Connecticut River in Massachusetts, Connecticut and Housatonic rivers in Connecticut, 

the Hudson River in New York, the Hudson and Delaware rivers in New Jersey, and the Delaware River in 

Pennsylvania and Delaware (82 Federal Register 39160).

Critical habitat for the Chesapeake Bay Distinct Population Segments of Atlantic sturgeon has been 

designated in the Nanticoke and Potomac rivers, as well as the Marshyhope Creek in Maryland, and the 

Rappahannock, York, Mattaponi, Pamunkey, and James rivers in Virginia (82 Federal Register 39160).

Critical habitat for the Carolina Distinct Population Segment of Atlantic sturgeon has been designated in 

the Roanoke, Tar‐Pamlico, Neuse, Northeast Cape Fear, Cape Fear, and Pee Dee rivers in North Carolina; 

and Pee Dee, Black, Santee, and Cooper rivers in South Carolina (82 Federal Register 39160). 

Critical habitat for the South Atlantic Distinct Population Segment has been designated in the Edisto, 

Combahee, and Savannah rivers in South Carolina, the Ogeechee, Altamaha, Satilla, and St. Marys rivers 

in Georgia, and the St. Marys River in Florida (82 Federal Register 39160).
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.6-26

3.6 Fishes

Note: AFTT: Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing; OPAREA: Operating Area; VACAPES: Virginia Capes

Figure 3.6-2: Critical Habitat for Atlantic Sturgeon in and Adjacent to the Northern Portion of the Study Area
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.6-27

3.6 Fishes

Note: AFTT: Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing; OPAREA: Operating Area; SINKEX: Sinking Exercise; VACAPES: Virginia Capes

Figure 3.6-3: Critical Habitat for Atlantic Sturgeon in and Adjacent to the Southern Portion of the Study Area
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.6-28

3.6 Fishes

The physical features essential for the conservation of Atlantic sturgeon belonging to the Gulf of Maine, 

New York Bight, and Chesapeake Bay Distinct Population Segments are those habitat components that 

support successful reproduction and recruitment. These include:

1. Hard bottom substrate (e.g., rock, cobble, gravel, limestone, boulder, etc.) in low salinity waters 

(i.e., 0.0 to 0.5 parts per thousand range) for settlement of fertilized eggs, refuge, growth, and 

development of early life stages; 

2. Aquatic habitat with a gradual downstream salinity gradient of 0.5 up to as high as 30 parts per 

thousand and soft substrate (e.g., sand, mud) between the river mouth and spawning sites for 

juvenile foraging and physiological development; 

3. Water of appropriate depth and absent physical barriers to passage (e.g., locks, dams, thermal 

plumes, turbidity, sound, reservoirs, gear, etc.) between the river mouth and spawning sites 

necessary to support: 

a. Unimpeded movement of adults to and from spawning sites;

b. Seasonal and physiologically dependent movement of juvenile Atlantic sturgeon to 

appropriate salinity zones within the river estuary;

c. Staging, resting, or holding of subadults or spawning condition adults. Water depths in main 

river channels must also be deep enough (e.g., at least 1.2 meters) to ensure continuous flow in 

the main channel at all times when any sturgeon life stage would be in the river;

d. Water, between the river mouth and spawning sites, especially in the bottom meter of the 

water column, with the temperature, salinity, and oxygen values that, combined, support:

i. Spawning;

ii. Annual and interannual adult, subadult, larval, and juvenile survival; and

iii. Larval, juvenile, and subadult growth, development, and recruitment (e.g., 13 —

26 °C for spawning habitat and no more than 30 °C for juvenile rearing habitat, and 

6 milligrams per liter (mg/L) or greater dissolved oxygen for juvenile rearing habitat).

The physical features essential for the conservation of Atlantic sturgeon belonging to the Carolina and 

South Atlantic Distinct Population Segments are those habitat components that support successful 

reproduction and recruitment. These include:

1. Hard bottom substrate (e.g., rock, cobble, gravel, limestone, boulder, etc.) in low salinity waters

(i.e., 0.0 to 0.5 parts per thousand range) for settlement of fertilized eggs and refuge, growth, 

and development of early life stages;

2. Aquatic habitat inclusive of waters with a gradual downstream gradient of 0.5 up to as high as 

30 parts per thousand and soft substrate (e.g., sand, mud) between the river mouth and 

spawning sites for juvenile foraging and physiological development; 

3. Water of appropriate depth and absent physical barriers to passage (e.g., locks, dams, thermal 

plumes, turbidity, sound, reservoirs, gear, etc.) between the river mouth and spawning sites 

necessary to support:

a. Unimpeded movement of adults to and from spawning sites;

b. Seasonal and physiologically dependent movement of juvenile Atlantic sturgeon to 

appropriate salinity zones within the river estuary; and 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.6-29

3.6 Fishes

c. Staging, resting, or holding of subadults or spawning condition adults. Water depths in main 

river channels must also be deep enough (at least 1.2 meters) to ensure continuous flow in the 

main channel at all times when any sturgeon life stage would be in the river; 

4. Water quality conditions, especially in the bottom meter of the water column, with temperature 

and oxygen values that support:

a. Spawning;

b. Annual and inter‐annual adult, subadult, larval, and juvenile survival; and

c. Larval, juvenile, and subadult growth, development, and recruitment. Appropriate 

temperature and oxygen values will vary interdependently, and depending on salinity in a 

particular habitat. For example, 6.0 mg/L dissolved oxygen or greater likely supports juvenile 

rearing habitat, whereas dissolved oxygen less than 5.0 mg/L for longer than 30 days is less likely 

to support rearing when water temperature is greater than 25 °C. In temperatures greater than 

26 °C, dissolved oxygen greater than 4.3 mg/L is needed to protect survival and growth. 

Temperatures of 13 to 26 °C likely support spawning habitat.

3.6.2.2.2.2 Habitat and Geographic Range

Subadult and adult Atlantic sturgeon inhabits the Newfoundland-Labrador Shelf, Scotian Shelf, 

Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf, and Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf Large Marine Ecosystems, likely 

year-round. Juveniles, sub-adults, and adults also inhabit many of the estuarine and riverine systems 

that are included in the Study Area (e.g., Kennebec River in Maine, Chesapeake Bay, James River and 

York River in Virginia, Cooper River in South Carolina, St. Johns River in Florida, and St. Marys River and 

Kings Bay in Georgia). Larvae are not known to inhabit the Study Area.

Atlantic sturgeon are fairly well studied during their juvenile and spawning life phases in riverine 

environments, but their sub-adult and adult estuarine and marine phases are less understood. Females 

spawn highly adhesive eggs on cobble substrate located on river bottoms, which are fertilized by males. 

Breece et al. (2013) found that spawning habitat was influenced by salinity and substrate composition. 

Larvae hatch out in four to seven days, and newly hatched young are active swimmers, frequently 

leaving the bottom and swimming throughout the water column. After 9 to 10 days, the yolk sac is 

absorbed and the larvae begin to show more strictly benthic behavior. Juveniles remain riverine and 

estuarine residents for two to six years before migrating to the Atlantic Ocean. After reaching 76 to 92 

centimeters (cm) in length (30 to 36 inches [in.]), subadults move from natal estuaries into the marine 

environment, and may undertake long range migrations (Atlantic Sturgeon Status Review Team, 2007).

Sub-adults disperse widely both north and south along the Atlantic coast and beyond the continental 

shelf (Bain, 1997). Sub-adults and adults were found to be strongly associated within a narrow range of 

depths 10 to 50 m over gravel and sand and, to lesser extent, silt and clay (Stein et al., 2004) and in 

temperatures around 20° C (Breece et al., 2016). Age of sexual maturity varies from 5 to 34 years 

depending on latitude, averaging 15 years (Atlantic Sturgeon Status Review Team, 2007). Sturgeon in 

the southern parts of the range tend to mature faster, but experience shorter lifespans than sturgeon in 

the northern portions of the range. Despite extensive mixing in coastal waters, adults return to their 

natal river to spawn as indicated from tagging records. During non-spawning years, adults remain in 

marine waters either year-round or seasonally venture into either natal or non-natal estuarine 

environments (Bain, 1997; Hager et al., 2016). As part of a Navy-funded research effort, Hager et al. 

(2016) found that sturgeon implanted with acoustic transmitters in the York River system in Virginia 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.6-30

3.6 Fishes

spent the summer and fall seasons of non-spawning years in either the mainstem of the Chesapeake 

Bay, the Delaware Bay and the Delaware River, or along the coast of New York and in the Hudson River.

Spawning was originally thought to occur only in the spring along the Atlantic coast; however, recent 

research indicates that spawning primarily occurs in the fall in the South Atlantic rather than spring 

(Balazik, 2012; Balazik & Musick, 2015; Hager, 2015; Kahn et al., 2014; Smith et al., 2015). Males and 

females return to the ocean shortly after spawning. The highly adhesive eggs are deposited on cobble 

substrate. Juveniles (e.g., larvae life stage) hatch out in 4 to 7 days, assume a demersal existence, and 

begin to move downstream into their natal estuary, where they remain for a period of time ranging 

from months to years (Atlantic Sturgeon Status Review Team, 2007). Breece et al. (2013) found that 

spawning habitats in the Delaware River were influenced by salinity levels and substrate composition, 

which have been heavily impacted by dredging activities and climate change.

Newfoundland-Labrador Shelf, Scotia Shelf, Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf, and Southeast 

U.S. Continental Shelf Large Marine Ecosystem. Sub-adult and adult Atlantic sturgeon inhabits the 

Newfoundland-Labrador Shelf, Scotia Shelf, Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf, and Southeast 

U.S. Continental Shelf Large Marine Ecosystem year-round. Atlantic sturgeon can range as far north as 

the coast of Labrador, and as far south as the St. Johns River in Florida.

3.6.2.2.2.3 Population Trends

Atlantic sturgeon is a long-lived (average life span of 60 years), late maturing, estuarine dependent, 

iteroparous, and anadromous species. Twelve genetically distinct population segments along the U.S. 

Atlantic coast have been differentiated (Stein et al., 2004). The Hudson River population seemed 

somewhat large in 1995 with 9,500 juveniles recorded (National Marine Fisheries Service, 2009e). The 

mean annual spawning stock size has been estimated at 870 adults, although about half may be of 

hatchery origin (National Marine Fisheries Service, 2007). The Delaware River population has only a few 

individuals remaining. St. Johns River, Florida spawning population appears to be extinct (Fox et al., 

2016; National Marine Fisheries Service, 2007; Waldman & Wirgin, 1998). The species has been 

historically overfished throughout its range with landings peaking around the turn of the 20th century 

followed by drastic declines thereafter (Smith & Clugston, 1997).

Historically, Atlantic sturgeon were recorded in 38 rivers from St. Croix, Maine to the Saint Johns River, 

Florida. As of 2007, they were only known to still occupy 35 rivers (Atlantic Sturgeon Status Review 

Team, 2007). However, spawning populations have been discovered in at least five new rivers since this 

estimate and preliminary research indicates there are likely spawning populations in several more rivers 

that have yet to be fully investigated. In the early 1600s, Atlantic sturgeon had been considered an 

important fishery. In the mid-1800s, incidental catch of Atlantic sturgeon in the shad and river herring 

seine fisheries indicated that the species was very abundant (Armstrong & Hightower, 2002). By 1870, 

females were collected for their eggs, which were sold as caviar. By 1890, over 3,350 metric tons were 

landed from rivers along the Atlantic coast (Smith & Clugston, 1997). Despite a moratorium on 

commercial fishing for this species since 1998, there has been no indication of recovery. The lack of 

recovery is attributed to coastal development, pollution, poor water quality, and habitat degradation

and loss.

3.6.2.2.2.4 Predator and Prey Interactions

Atlantic sturgeon prey upon benthic invertebrates such as isopods, crustaceans, worms, and molluscs 

(National Marine Fisheries Service, 2010c). It has also been documented to feed on fish (Bain, 1997). 

Evidence of predation on sturgeon is scant, but it is speculated that juveniles may be eaten by the 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.6-31

3.6 Fishes

American alligator (Alligator mississippiensis), alligator gar (Atractosteus spatula), striped bass 

(Dadswell, 2006), and sharks.

3.6.2.2.2.5 Species-Specific Threats

Overfishing of females for caviar prior to the 1900s resulted in large population declines. Current threats 

include: bycatch in fisheries targeting other species; habitat degradation from dredging, dams, and 

water withdrawals; passage impediments including locks and dams; and ship strikes (Atlantic Sturgeon 

Status Review Team, 2007; Balazik et al., 2012; Brown & Murphy, 2010; Foderaro, 2015). The copepod 

(Dichelesthium oblongum) parasitizes 93 percent of the Atlantic sturgeon sampled in the New York 

Bight. High parasite load, stress, and reduced immune suppression has been associated with Atlantic 

sturgeon inhabiting areas of poor water quality (e.g., sewage contamination) (Fast et al., 2009).

3.6.2.2.3 Largetooth Sawfish (Pristis pristis)

3.6.2.2.3.1 Status and Management

In July 2011, NMFS listed the largetooth sawfish, a type of elasmobranch (shark), as endangered 

throughout its U.S. range (76 Federal Register 40822). Based on the fact that the last confirmed record 

of this species in U.S. waters was from Port Aransas, Texas in 1961, the largetooth sawfish is believed to 

be extirpated from U.S. waters. No critical habitat is designated for this species (76 Federal Register

40822). 

3.6.2.2.3.2 Habitat and Geographic Range

Gulf of Mexico Large Marine Ecosystem. The largetooth sawfish has historically been found in shallow, 

subtropical-tropical, estuarine and marine waters in the southwestern portion of the Gulf of Mexico 

Large Marine Ecosystem, and was also known to occur in the rivers of Central America or lake systems 

outside the Study Area (WildEarth Guardians, 2009). Although this species is believed to be extirpated 

from the Study Area, it historically moved between freshwater and marine habitats, and likely had some 

type of dispersal between these systems (Kyne & Feutry, 2013).

The largetooth sawfish typically remains close to the bottom of sand or muddy sand, generally in depths 

less than 35 ft. (11 m) (Kyne & Feutry, 2013). The largetooth sawfish can tolerate a range of salinities, 

moving freely between salinity gradients (76 Federal Register 40822), and is reported in brackish water 

near river mouths, large embayments, and partially enclosed systems. Largetooth sawfish may occupy 

deep holes or be found over mud and sand (76 Federal Register 40822). Red mangroves and shallow 

habitats of varying salinity are important nursery habitats for the largetooth sawfish; these shallow 

habitats support an abundance of prey (WildEarth Guardians, 2009). The complexity of such habitats 

also provides juveniles with refuges from larger shark species (76 Federal Register 40822).

3.6.2.2.3.3 Population Trends

The presence of this species in U.S. waters is under review because it has not been documented in the 

United States in several decades (76 Federal Register 40822). 

3.6.2.2.3.4 Predator and Prey Interactions

The largetooth sawfish uses its saw while foraging, either by stirring up the substrate to expose 

crustaceans or by stunning and slashing schooling fish (76 Federal Register 40822). Largetooth sawfish 

have been documented in the stomachs of American crocodile, narrowtooth sharks, bull sharks, and 

tiger sharks also prey on various species of sawfishes (Florida Museum of Natural History, 2017a).
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.6-32

3.6 Fishes

3.6.2.2.3.5 Species-Specific Threats

Factors contributing to the decline of the largetooth sawfish include habitat degradation, commercial 

harvest, gear entanglements, fisheries bycatch, low productivity, and the market for rostral saws 

(WildEarth Guardians, 2009).

3.6.2.2.4 Shortnose Sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum)

3.6.2.2.4.1 Status and Management

In 1967, the U.S. Department of Interior listed the shortnose sturgeon as endangered throughout its 

range (32 Federal Register 4001). The species remained listed following enactment of the ESA in 1973

(Wippelhauser & Squiers, 2015). NMFS has recognized 19 Distinct Population Segments. These include 

New Brunswick, Canada (1); Maine (2); Massachusetts (1); Connecticut (1); New York (1); New 

Jersey/Delaware (1); Maryland/Virginia (1); North Carolina (1); South Carolina (4); Georgia (4); and 

Florida (2) (National Marine Fisheries Service, 1998). In September 2014, a petition was created to list 

the population within the St. John River in New Brunswick, Canada as a distinct population segment 

under the ESA. Critical habitat for this species remains under development.

3.6.2.2.4.2 Habitat and Geographic Range

The geographic range of shortnose sturgeon runs along eastern North America from the Saint John 

River, New Brunswick, Canada to the St. Johns River, Florida (Kynard, 1997; National Marine Fisheries 

Service, 1998). However, the distribution of shortnose sturgeon across this range is disjunct with a 

separation between the northern populations and the southern populations of approximately 400 km 

occurring in Virginia near the geographic center of their coast-wide distribution (Kynard, 1997; 

Shortnose Sturgeon Status Review Team, 2010). After hatching in rivers, larvae orient into the current 

and away from light, generally staying near the bottom and seeking cover. Within two weeks, the larvae 

emerge from cover and swim in the water column, moving downstream from the spawning site. Within

two months, juvenile behavior mimics adults, with active swimming (Deslauriers & Kieffer, 2012) and 

foraging at night along the bottom (Richmond & Kynard, 1995). The species primarily occurs in rivers 

and estuaries of the Northeast and Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf Large Marine Ecosystems, 

occasionally moving into the nearshore coastal waters (Dadswell, 2006; National Marine Fisheries 

Service, 1998; Richmond & Kynard, 1995). In estuaries, juveniles and adults occupy areas with little or no 

current over a bottom composed primarily of mud and sand (Secor et al., 2000). Adults are found in 

deep water (10 to 30 m) in winter and in shallower habitat (2 to 10 m) during summer (Welsh et al., 

2002). Juveniles are known to occur in the Study Area, particularly in the St. Johns River in Florida.

3.6.2.2.4.3 Population Trends

Shortnose sturgeon is a long-lived (average life span 30 years), riverine and estuarine habitat 

dependent, iteroparous, and anadromous species. Populations were stable or possibly increasing in the 

1990s (Wippelhauser et al., 2015). Certain subpopulations have increased in recent years, particularly 

the Hudson River stock (Bain, 1997; Stein et al., 2004). Several strong cohorts (i.e., groups of fish born in 

the same year within a population or stock) had higher-than-expected survival during the 1980s and 

1990s, then recovery slowed during the late 1990s (Woodland & Secor, 2007). Abundances in the 

Hudson River population exceed recovery criteria (Bain, 1997; Woodland & Secor, 2007). The Delaware 

River supports 8,445 individuals (Welsh et al., 2002).
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.6-33

3.6 Fishes

3.6.2.2.4.4 Predator and Prey Interactions

Prey varies with season between northern and southern river systems. In northern rivers, some 

sturgeon feed in freshwater during summer and over sand-mud bottoms in the lower estuary during fall, 

winter, and spring (National Marine Fisheries Service, 1998). In southern rivers, feeding has been 

observed during winter at or just downstream the saltwater and freshwater interface (Kynard, 1997). In 

the Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf Large Marine Ecosystem, shortnose sturgeon reduces feeding 

activity during summer months (Sulak & Randall, 2002).

The shortnose sturgeon feeds by suctioning worms, crustaceans, molluscs, and small fish from the 

bottom (National Marine Fisheries Service, 1998; Stein et al., 2004). Juveniles have been found in the 

stomachs of yellow perch (Perca flavescens). Predation on sub-adults and adults is not 

well-documented; however, sharks are likely predators in the marine environment (National Marine 

Fisheries Service, 1998).

3.6.2.2.4.5 Species-Specific Threats

The population decline has been attributed to pollution, overharvest in commercial fisheries (including 

bycatch), and its resemblance to the formerly commercially valuable Atlantic sturgeon (Bain et al., 2007; 

National Marine Fisheries Service, 1998). Other risk factors include poaching, non-native species, poor 

water quality in spawning and nursery habitats, contaminants (e.g., heavy metals, pesticides, and 

organochlorine compounds), siltation from dredging, bridge construction and demolition, impingement 

on power plant cooling water intake screens, impoundment operations, and hydraulic dredging 

operations (Collins et al., 2000; National Marine Fisheries Service, 1998).

3.6.2.2.5 Smalltooth Sawfish (Pristis pectinata)

3.6.2.2.5.1 Status and Management

The smalltooth sawfish was once common in the Gulf of Mexico and along the east coast of the United 

States. Today, the severely depleted population is restricted mostly to southern Florida (Poulakis & 

Seitz, 2004; Simpfendorfer, 2006; Simpfendorfer et al., 2011). The Distinct Population Segment of 

smalltooth sawfish in the United States, between Florida and Cape Hatteras, North Carolina, was listed 

as endangered under the ESA by NMFS in 2003 and by USFWS in 2005 (70 Federal Register 69464), and 

it is co-managed by both agencies (National Marine Fisheries Service, 2010a). 

In September 2009, NMFS designated approximately 840,472 acres in two units of critical habitat 

occupied by the U.S. Distinct Population Segment of smalltooth sawfish (74 Federal Register 45353; 

Figure 3.6-4). The two units determined for critical habitat designations are the Charlotte Harbor Estuary 

Unit, which comprises approximately 221,459 acres of habitat, and the Ten Thousand Islands/Everglades 

Unit, which comprises approximately 619,013 acres of habitat. The two units are located along the 

southwestern coast of Florida between Charlotte Harbor and Florida Bay. 

These specific areas contain the following physical and biological features that are essential to the 

conservation of smalltooth sawfish and that may require special management considerations or 

protection: red mangroves and shallow euryhaline habitats characterized by water depths between the 

mean high water line and 3 ft. (0.9 m) measured at mean lower low water. The Key West Range 

Complex does not overlap these areas; the northeastern boundary (Warning Area‐ 174) of the Key West 

Range Complex is within approximately 9 NM of critical habitat at its closest point (Figure 3.6-4).
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.6-34

3.6 Fishes

Note: AFTT: Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing; LME: Large Marine Ecosystem

Figure 3.6-4: Critical Habitat Areas for Smalltooth Sawfish in and Adjacent to the Study Area
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.6-35

3.6 Fishes

3.6.2.2.5.2 Habitat and Geographic Range

The smalltooth sawfish typically inhabit shallow tropical or subtropical estuarine and marine waters 

associated with sandy and muddy deep holes, limestone hard bottom, coral reefs, sea fans, artificial 

reefs, and offshore drilling platforms (Poulakis & Seitz, 2004). Nursery areas of the smalltooth sawfish 

include estuaries and mangroves with the roots providing refuge from predators (National Marine 

Fisheries Service, 2009a, 2010a; Seitz & Poulakis, 2006; Simpfendorfer & Wiley, 2005). Juveniles exhibit 

a high site fidelity to nearshore areas and residence up to 55 days, and upstream movement toward 

preferred lower salinity conditions (Poulakis et al., 2012; Simpfendorfer et al., 2011). Larger individuals 

may occur to a depth of 120 m (Poulakis & Seitz, 2004; Simpfendorfer, 2006), although adults are known 

to spend more time in shallower habitat than in deeper waters (Simpfendorfer & Wiley, 2005).

Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf Large Marine Ecosystem. The species is recorded in the Southeast 

U.S. Continental Shelf Large Marine Ecosystem area of the Study Area, but its range is primarily southern 

Florida. Historic records indicate that this species may have made summer migrations northward along 

the Atlantic coast.

Gulf of Mexico Large Marine Ecosystem. The smalltooth sawfish also occurs in the Gulf of Mexico Large 

Marine Ecosystem portion of the Study Area, particularly at river mouths (e.g., Mississippi River)

(National Marine Fisheries Service, 2009a; Simpfendorfer, 2006).

3.6.2.2.5.3 Population Trends

No population estimates exist of the smalltooth sawfish. The best available data suggest that the current 

population is a small fraction of its historical size (National Marine Fisheries Service, 2010a; 

Simpfendorfer, 2006). Data collected in the Everglades National Park since 1972 suggest that the 

population has stabilized, and may be increasing. Between 1989 and 2004, the population increased by 

approximately 5 percent (Carlson et al., 2007a).

3.6.2.2.5.4 Predator and Prey Interactions

Smalltooth sawfish are nocturnal feeders and use the saw-like rostrum to disrupt the substrate to 

expose crustaceans and to stun and slash schooling fish. Juveniles are preyed upon by bull sharks and 

other shark species inhabiting shallow coastal waters (National Marine Fisheries Service, 2009a).

3.6.2.2.5.5 Species-Specific Threats

Factors contributing to the historic population decline included habitat degradation, commercial 

harvest, gear entanglements, bycatch in fisheries, poaching, and the illegal market for the saw-like 

rostrum (WildEarth Guardians, 2009).

3.6.2.2.6 Giant Manta Ray (Manta birostris)

3.6.2.2.6.1 Status and Management

The giant manta ray was proposed to be listed as a threatened species under the ESA by NMFS on 

January 12, 2017 (82 Federal Register 3694). Based on the best scientific and commercial information 

available, including the status review report (Miller & Klimovich, 2016), and after taking into account 

efforts being made to protect these species, NMFS determined that the giant manta ray is likely to 

become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout a significant portion of its 

range. On January 22, 2018, NMFS published the Final Rule listing this species as threatened and also 

concluded that critical habitat is not determinable because data sufficient to perform the required 

analyses are lacking (83 Federal Register 2916).
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.6-36

3.6 Fishes

3.6.2.2.6.2 Habitat and Geographic Range

Giant manta rays are considered seasonal visitors to productive coastlines with regular upwelling, 

including oceanic island shores, and offshore pinnacles and seamounts. They utilize sandy bottom 

habitat and seagrass beds, as well as shallow reefs, and the ocean surface both inshore and offshore. 

The species ranges globally and is distributed in tropical, subtropical, and temperate waters They can 

migrate seasonally, usually more than approximately 621 mi. (1,000 km), however, they are not likely 

across ocean basins (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2016a).

Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf Large Marine Ecosystem. The ecosystem is highly productive with 

upwelling from Cape Hatteras to the Gulf of Maine (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 

2016d). Giant manta rays occur in the Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf Large Marine Ecosystem for 

feeding on plankton in the upwelling region. 

Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf Large Marine Ecosystem. Occasional short-lived plankton blooms 

occur along the Gulf Stream front and in intrusions into the Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf Large 

Marine Ecosystem (Aquarone, 2009). This draws giant manta rays to feed in this large marine ecosystem 

during these occasions. Shelf fronts are separated by wintertime cold air outbreaks, river discharge, tidal 

mixing, and wind-induced coastal upwelling, all of which attract giant manta rays for feeding, and to 

seagrass floors (Aquarone, 2009). 

Caribbean Sea Large Marine Ecosystem. In the Caribbean Sea Large Marine Ecosystem, there are 

localized upwelling areas and nearshore habitats like coral reefs, mangroves, and seagrass beds 

(Heileman & Mahon, 2008). All of these areas attract giant manta rays for feeding and attendance at 

cleaning stops on coral reefs where fishes groom the rays by eating parasites off of them (Food and 

Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 2013). 

Gulf of Mexico Large Marine Ecosystem. The Loop Current, which is created by oceanic waters entering 

the Gulf of Mexico Large Marine Ecosystem from the Yucatan channel and exiting through the Straits of 

Florida, has upwelling along its edges, as well as in its rings and eddies that are associated with it 

(Heileman & Rabalais, 2008). These rings, eddies, and upwelling zones are areas where giant manta rays 

could be found feeding.

3.6.2.2.6.3 Population Trends

No stock assessments exist for the giant manta ray. Most estimates of subpopulations are based on 

anecdotal observations by divers and fishermen, with current populations estimated between 100 and 

1,500 individuals (Miller & Klimovich, 2016). Giant manta rays reach maturity at age 10 and have one 

pup every two to three years (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2016a).

3.6.2.2.6.4 Predator and Prey Interactions

Manta rays prey exclusively on plankton (Defenders of Wildlife, 2015b). The gill plates of the giant 

manta ray filters the water as they swim, straining out any plankton that is larger than a grain of sand 

(Defenders of Wildlife, 2015b).

3.6.2.2.6.5 Species-Specific Threats

Threats to giant manta rays include fisheries and bycatch, destruction or modification of habitat, and 

disease and predation. The international market highly values the gill plates of the giant manta ray for 

use in traditional medicines. They also trade their cartilage and skins and consume the manta ray meat 

or use it for local bait. Bycatch occurs in purse seine, gillnet, and trawl fisheries as well (National Oceanic 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.6-37

3.6 Fishes

and Atmospheric Administration, 2016a). Fisheries exist outside the Study Area in Indonesia, Sri Lanka, 

India, Peru, Mexico, China, Mozambique, and Ghana (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United 

Nations, 2013). Other potential threats include degradation of coral reefs, interaction with marine 

debris, marine pollution, and boat strikes (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 

2013).

3.6.2.2.7 Gulf Sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus desotoi)

3.6.2.2.7.1 Status and Management

The Gulf sturgeon and the Atlantic sturgeon are members of the same species, but do not overlap

geographically. The Gulf sturgeon was federally listed in 1991 as threatened in the Gulf of Mexico Large

Marine Ecosystem (56 Federal Register 49653) and is co‐managed by NMFS and USFWS. The fishery for

the species has been closed since being listed. Bycatch along the Gulf coast was a major source of 

mortality (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1995), and efforts to reduce bycatch include gear modifications 

for nearshore trawl fisheries (Smith & Clugston, 1997). NMFS and USFWS concluded that the Gulf 

sturgeon population was stable and had achieved recovery objectives (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service & 

National Marine Fisheries Service, 2009).

In September 2009, NMFS designated critical habitat for Gulf sturgeon within and adjacent to the states 

of Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida (82 Federal Register 39160; Figure 3.6-5). The physical 

and biological features essential for the conservation of Gulf sturgeon were determined to be those 

habitat components that support feeding, resting, and sheltering, reproduction, migration, and physical 

features necessary for maintaining the natural processes that support these habitat components.

The physical and biological features include:

1. Abundant prey items within riverine habitats for larval and juvenile life stages, and within 

estuarine and marine habitats and substrates for juvenile, subadult, and adult life stages;

2. Riverine spawning sites with substrates suitable for egg deposition and development, such as

limestone outcrops and cut limestone banks, bedrock, large gravel or cobble beds, marl, 

soapstone or hard clay; 

3. Riverine aggregation areas, also referred to as resting, holding, and staging areas, used by adult, 

subadult, and/or juveniles, generally, but not always, located in holes below normal riverbed 

depths, believed necessary for minimizing energy expenditures during fresh water residency and 

possibly for osmoregulatory functions;

4. A flow regime (i.e., the magnitude, frequency, duration, seasonality, and rate‐of‐change of 

freshwater discharge over time) necessary for:

a. Normal behavior, growth, and survival of all life stages in the riverine environment, including

migration, breeding site selection, courtship, egg fertilization, resting, and staging; and

b. Maintaining spawning sites in suitable condition for egg attachment, eggs sheltering, resting,

and larvae staging; water quality, including temperature, salinity, pH, hardness, turbidity,

oxygen content, and other chemical characteristics, necessary for normal behavior, growth, and 

viability of all life stages;

5. Sediment quality, including texture and other chemical characteristics, necessary for normal 

behavior, growth, and viability of all life stages; and
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.6-38

3.6 Fishes

Note: AFTT: Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing; OPAREA: Operating Area

Figure 3.6-5: Critical Habitat Areas for Gulf Sturgeon in and Adjacent to the Study Area
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.6-39

3.6 Fishes

6. Safe and unobstructed migratory pathways necessary for passage within and between riverine, 

estuarine, and marine habitats (e.g. a river unobstructed by any permanent structure, or a

dammed river that still allows for passage).

Most features of the critical habitat are not applicable to the marine portions of the Study Area. The 

Panama City OPAREA and the Naval Surface Warfare Center Panama City Division Testing Range overlap 

with Gulf sturgeon critical habitat (Figure 3.6-5). This critical habitat (Unit 11) encompasses nearshore 

Gulf of Mexico waters off Escambia, Santa Rosa, Okaloosa, Walton, Bay, and Gulf counties in Florida. 

Unit 11 provides a migration corridor for Gulf sturgeon en route from winter habitat and feeding 

grounds in the Gulf of Mexico to spring and summer spawning and hatching habitat in the Yellow, 

Choctawhatchee, and Apalachicola rivers. Gulf sturgeon inhabit the nearshore coastline between 

Pensacola and Apalachicola bays, in depths of less than 6 m during winter.

3.6.2.2.7.2 Habitat and Geographic Range

Adults inhabit nearshore waters from October thru February (Robydek & Nunley, 2012) with distribution 

influenced by prey availability (Ross et al., 2009), particularly within the Suwannee River estuary (Harris 

et al., 2005). The spring spawning migration toward natal rivers begins as riverine water temperatures 

reach 64°F to 72°F (Edwards et al., 2003; Heise et al., 2004; Rogillio et al., 2007). Spawning areas include 

the Suwannee, Apalachicola, Escambia, Choctawhatchee, and Pascagoula rivers (Chapman & Carr, 1995; 

Craft et al., 2001; Fox et al., 2000; Wooley & Crateau, 1985). Spawning occurs during autumn in some 

watersheds (e.g., Suwannee) (Randall & Sulak, 2012). Once post-spawned adults leave rivers, they 

remain within 1,000 m of the shoreline (Robydek & Nunley, 2012) and often inhabit estuaries and 

nearshore bays in water less than 10 m deep (Ross et al., 2009). Some individuals, particularly females 

between spawning years (Fox et al., 2002; Ross et al., 2009) move into deeper offshore waters for short 

periods during cold weather (Sulak et al., 2009).

Sub-adult and adult foraging grounds include barrier island inlets with strong tidal currents and estuaries 

less than 2 m deep with clean sand substrate (Fox et al., 2002; Harris et al., 2005; Ross et al., 2009). Gulf 

sturgeon winter near beaches of northwestern Florida and southeast of the mouth of St. Andrew Bay 

(U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service & National Marine Fisheries Service, 2009), while others moved northeast 

of St. Andrew Bay at depths ranging from 4 to 12 m (12 to 40 ft.) at 0.5 to 2 mi. offshore, and likely 

feeding on prey associated with fine sand and shell hash substrates (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service & 

National Marine Fisheries Service, 2009).

By December, only the young-of-the-year and juveniles remain in the rivers (Carr et al., 1996; Foster & 

Clugston, 1997). Young-of-the-year nursery habitat includes riverine sandbars and shoals (Carr et al., 

1996). Juveniles show high site fidelity rates for riverine habitats used during spring and summer (Rudd 

et al., 2014), prefer sand or vegetated habitats (Wakeford, 2001), tolerate high salinity levels for 

extended durations, and appear to use estuaries infrequently (Sulak et al., 2009).

Gulf of Mexico Large Marine Ecosystem. This anadromous species occurs in the Gulf of Mexico Large 

Marine Ecosystem in bays, estuaries and rivers, and in the marine environment from Florida to Louisiana 

(National Marine Fisheries Service, 2010b).

3.6.2.2.7.3 Population Trends

Gulf sturgeon populations are stable or slowly increasing (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service & National 

Marine Fisheries Service, 2009). Current population levels in four of the seven river systems in the 

recovery plan are likely at or exceeding the mean carrying capacity, given the current levels of available 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.6-40

3.6 Fishes

habitat. In the remaining three rivers, extant Gulf Sturgeon populations are likely below their estimated 

carrying capacity levels (Ahrens & Pine, 2014). Population estimates in the Pearl and Pascagoula rivers 

are lacking because research has been limited since hurricanes Ivan in 2004 and Katrina in 2005 (Rogillio 

et al., 2007).

3.6.2.2.7.4 Predator and Prey Interactions

Prey varies on life stage, but Gulf sturgeon is considered an opportunistic feeder. Adults typically do not 

feed while in freshwater, and may lose from 12 to 30 percent of their body weight while inhabiting 

rivers. In estuarine and marine habitats, they prey upon a wide range of benthic invertebrates (Florida 

Museum of Natural History, 2017b). Sharks are likely predators while sturgeon inhabit the marine 

environment (Florida Museum of Natural History, 2017b).

3.6.2.2.7.5 Species-Specific Threats

Factors contributing to the decline include overfishing and habitat loss. Threats include dams (e.g., Pearl, 

Alabama, and Apalachicola rivers), dredged material disposal, channel maintenance, oil and gas 

exploration, shrimp trawling, and poor water quality (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service & National Marine 

Fisheries Service, 2009). Other threats include potential hybridization with non-native sturgeon from 

aquaculture farms and diseases.

3.6.2.2.8 Nassau Grouper (Epinephelus striatus)

3.6.2.2.8.1 Status and Management

The Nassau grouper is listed as threatened under the ESA in the Study Area (81 Federal Register 42268). 

Designation of critical habitat remains under study. Commercial and recreational landings declined in 

both pounds landed and average fish size from 1986 and 1991. As a result, moratoriums on take and 

possession were established in 1996 (National Marine Fisheries Service, 2015). 

By 2000, abundance had decreased approximately 60 percent over the last three generations (Cornish & 

Eklund, 2003). This decline is attributed to intensive fishing efforts on or near the spawning aggregation 

sites (Beets & Hixon, 1994; Colin, 1992). Failure of recovery in response to fishing moratoriums 

combined with concerns over habitat loss have guided management efforts toward the establishment of 

marine protected areas as a more effective means of preserving the species and its habitat, which are 

typically near current and historical spawning aggregation sites (81 Federal Register 42268).

3.6.2.2.8.2 Habitat and Geographic Range

Nassau grouper is a long-lived, late-maturing perch-like bony fish. This species is a solitary fish apart 

from spawning aggregations (Starr et al., 2007). These fish inhabit high-relief coral reefs and rocky 

bottoms from nearshore to a depth of 100 m and rest on or near the bottom, with juveniles inhabiting 

seagrass beds and patch reefs (Bester, 2012). This species also occupies caves and large overhangs 

(National Marine Fisheries Service, 2015). Spawning aggregation sites are typically located near 

significant geomorphological features, such as projections (promontories) of the reef as little as 50 m 

from the shore (81 Federal Register 42268). 

Nassau grouper congregate in large numbers at specific areas to spawn after the appropriate water 

temperature and moon phase cues (usually within a period of 10 days overlapping the full moon) 

between January and February (Archer et al., 2012; National Marine Fisheries Service, 2015; Semmens 

et al., 2006). Spawning aggregations of several thousand individuals have been reported (Bester, 2012). 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.6-41

3.6 Fishes

Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf Large Marine Ecosystem. The geographic range within Study Area is 

limited to the southeast coast of Florida.

Gulf of Mexico Large Marine Ecosystem. Within the Study Area, Nassau grouper occur in Flower 

Gardens Bank; Dry Tortugas National Park; and Key West, Florida (Bester, 2012).

Caribbean Sea Large Marine Ecosystem. Range within the Study Area includes Florida and areas near 

Puerto Rico.

3.6.2.2.8.3 Population Trends

The current worldwide population of Nassau grouper is approximately 10,000 individuals and continues 

to decline (Cornish & Eklund, 2003). Subpopulations in the United States appear stable, but Caribbean 

stocks are in decline. Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) analyses indicate no evidence of genetically distinct 

subpopulations; thus, Nassau grouper are considered as a single population (Bernard et al., 2012; 

Cornish & Eklund, 2003). More recent research has shown strong genetic differentiation in 

subpopulations in the Caribbean that may correlate to larvae dispersal barriers (Jackson et al., 2014).

3.6.2.2.8.4 Predator and Prey Interactions

Nassau groupers are preyed upon by barracuda (Sphyraena barracuda), king mackerel (Scomberomorus 

cavalla), moray eels (Gymnothorax spp.), sandbar sharks (Carcharhinus plumbeus), great hammerhead 

sharks (Sphyrna mokarran), and although rare, other groupers (Bester, 2012). 

Adult Nassau grouper is an opportunistic ambush predator, feeding on a variety of fishes, shrimps, 

crabs, lobsters, and octopuses (Sadovy & Eklund, 1999). Adults have been observed feeding on the 

invasive lionfish in the Caribbean and are currently being studied as a potential biocontrol option 

(Mumby et al., 2011). Nassau grouper larvae are filter and particulate feeders that prey on 

dinoflagellates, fish larvae, and mysids (Sadovy & Eklund, 1999).

3.6.2.2.8.5 Species-Specific Threats

Nassau grouper is sensitive to over-exploitation due to slow growth rate, late reproduction age 

(five-plus years), large size, and long lifespan (Morris et al., 2000; Sadovy & Eklund, 1999). The decline in 

population is the result of overharvest and collapse of spawning aggregations (Aguilar-Perera, 2006; 

Ehrhardt & Deleveaux, 2007) and is exacerbated by coastal development (Stallings, 2009). 

Damage to spawning sites limits reproductive success of adults if alternative habitats are unavailable. 

Loss of macroalgae and seagrass beds is damaging to Nassau grouper populations, as it often results in 

low recruitment rates (Sadovy & Eklund, 1999).

Fishing moratoriums have been ineffective at preventing illegal harvest that occurs in Puerto Rico and 

other U.S. waters. Declines have also resulted from overfishing with spear guns and bycatch of juvenile 

in fine mesh nets (National Marine Fisheries Service, 2015). 

The marine isopod Excorallana tricornis is a known parasite of the Nassau grouper, sometimes resulting 

in infestations immediately following spawning (Semmens et al., 2006).

3.6.2.2.9 Oceanic Whitetip Shark (Carcharhinus longimanus)

3.6.2.2.9.1 Status and Management

NMFS completed a comprehensive status review of the oceanic whitetip shark and, based on the best 

scientific and commercial information available, including the status review report (Young et al., 2016), 

proposed on December 29, 2016 that this species warrants listing as a threatened species under the ESA 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.6-42

3.6 Fishes

(81 Federal Register 96304). On January 30, 2018, NMFS published the Final Rule listing this species as 

threatened and also concluded that critical habitat is not determinable because data sufficient to 

perform the required analyses are lacking (83 Federal Register 4153). 

3.6.2.2.9.2 Habitat and Geographic Range

Oceanic whitetip sharks are found worldwide in warm tropical and subtropical waters between the 

20° North and 20° South latitude near the surface of the water column (Young et al., 2016). In the 

Western Atlantic, oceanic whitetips occur from Maine to Argentina, including the Caribbean and Gulf of 

Mexico. This species has a clear preference for open ocean waters, with abundances decreasing with 

greater proximity to continental shelves. Preferring warm waters near or over 20° C (68° F), and offshore 

areas, the oceanic whitetip shark is known to undertake seasonal movements to higher latitudes in the 

summer (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2016e) (National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration, 2016e) and may regularly survey extreme environments (deep depths, low 

temperatures) as a foraging strategy (Young et al., 2016). The presence of oceanic whitetip sharks 

increases further away from the continental shelf in deep water areas, but the species prefers to inhabit 

the surface waters in deep water areas at less than 328 ft. (Defenders of Wildlife, 2015a). 

Newfoundland-Labrador Shelf Large Marine Ecosystem. During warming periods, the oceanic whitetip 

shark may be present. Long-term steady warming has been observed in the ecosystem since 1957 and 

has accelerated since the mid-1990s, with the sea surface temperature rising by 1.8° C in 15 years from 

4.6° C to 6.4° C (Aquarone & Adams, 2009). As the sea temperature increases, the oceanic whitetip 

shark would be more likely to occur in this area. 

Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf Large Marine Ecosystem. The oceanic whitetip shark has declined in 

the northwest Atlantic and western central Atlantic (Baum et al., 2015). It could occur in the offshore 

open ocean areas.

Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf Large Marine Ecosystem. Oceanic whitetip sharks would be more 

likely to occur far offshore in the open sea in waters that are 200 m deep near the surface of the water 

column, although some have been recorded to occur at depths of 152 m (Baum et al., 2015).

Caribbean Sea Large Marine Ecosystem. The oceanic whitetip shark would occur in the open ocean 

offshore portions of the Caribbean Sea Large Marine Ecosystem. They would occur near the surface of 

the water column of 200 m deep or deeper areas in the ecosystem area (Baum et al., 2015). Sharks 

would be less likely to occur in the shallow habitats such as coral reefs, mangroves, and seagrass beds 

(Heileman & Mahon, 2008).

Gulf of Mexico Large Marine Ecosystem. Oceanic whitetip sharks are a species that prefers warmer 

waters, and is more likely to occur during the summer months (Baum et al., 2015). This species would 

likely occur near the surface of deep open ocean waters offshore. An analysis of the Gulf of Mexico used 

U.S. pelagic longline surveys in the mid-1950s and U.S. pelagic longline observer data in the late-1990s 

and estimated a decline of the species in the Gulf over the 40-year time period. However, due to 

temporal changes in fishing gear and practices over the time period, the study may have exaggerated or 

underestimated the magnitude of population decline (Baum et al., 2015).

3.6.2.2.9.3 Population Trends

Population trend information is not clear or available. Information shows that the population has 

declined and that there is evidence of decreasing average weights of the sharks that have been 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.6-43

3.6 Fishes

encountered. The oceanic whitetip shark population has declined by 70 percent throughout the Atlantic 

region (Defenders of Wildlife, 2015a).

3.6.2.2.9.4 Predator and Prey Interactions

As one of the major apex predators in the tropical open ocean waters, the oceanic whitetip shark feeds 

on fishes and cephalopods. As a high level predators, the oceanic whitetip shark, with its large size 

(Ebert et al., 2015) and long life, builds up high levels of pollutants due to bioaccumulation and 

bio-magnification impacting their physiology negatively (Defenders of Wildlife, 2015a). 

3.6.2.2.9.5 Species-Specific Threats

Threats include pelagic longline and drift net fisheries bycatch, targeted fisheries (for the shark fin 

trade), and threatened destruction or modification of its habitat and range (Baum et al., 2015; 

Defenders of Wildlife, 2015a). Legal and illegal fishing activities in the Atlantic have caused significant 

population declines for the oceanic whitetip shark. It is caught as bycatch in tuna and swordfish 

longlines in the northwest Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico. Habitat degradation has occurred due to 

pollutants in the environment that bioaccumulate and biomagnify to high levels in their bodies due to 

their high position in the food chain, long life, and large size (Defenders of Wildlife, 2015a).

3.6.2.2.10 Scalloped Hammerhead Shark (Sphyrna lewini)

3.6.2.2.10.1 Status and Management

The Central and Southwest Atlantic Distinct Population Segment of the scalloped hammerhead 

population are listed as threatened under the ESA (79 Federal Register 52576). The Northwest Atlantic 

and Gulf of Mexico Distinct Population Segment of scalloped hammerhead sharks has not been listed 

under the ESA at this time. There are no designated critical habitat marine areas within the jurisdiction 

of the United States. 

The scalloped hammerhead shark fishery is managed under the Large Coastal Shark Management Unit 

by NMFS through the Final Consolidated Atlantic Highly Migratory Species Fisheries Management Plan 

(Miller et al., 2013). 

3.6.2.2.10.2 Habitat and Geographic Range

The scalloped hammerhead shark is a coastal and semi-oceanic species distributed in temperate to 

tropical waters (Froese & Pauly, 2016). Scalloped hammerhead sharks inhabit the surface to depths of 

275 m (Duncan & Holland, 2006) of the Study Area. Coastal waters with temperatures between 23°C and 

26°C are preferred habitats (Castro, 1983; Compagno, 1984), with animals generally remaining close to 

shore during the day and moving into deeper waters to feed at night (Bester, 1999). Ketchum et al. 

(2014b) found scalloped hammerheads formed daytime schools at specific locations in the Galapagos 

Islands, but dispersed at night, spending more time at the northern islands during part of the warm 

season (December–February) compared to the cool. Ketchum et al. (2014a) used acoustic telemetry to 

show that scalloped hammerheads were highly selective of location (i.e., habitat on up-current side of 

island) and depth (i.e., top of the thermocline) while refuging, where they may carry out essential 

activities such as cleaning and thermoregulation, and also perform exploratory vertical movements by 

diving the width of the mixed layer and occasionally diving below the thermocline while moving 

offshore, most likely for foraging. Hoffmayer et al. (2013) also found that tagged sharks exhibited 

consistent and repeated diel vertical movement patterns, making more than 76 deep nighttime dives to 

a maximum depth of 964 m, possibly representing feeding behavior. A genetic marker study suggests 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.6-44

3.6 Fishes

that females remain close to coastal habitats, while males disperse across larger open ocean areas (DalyEngel et al., 2012). 

In the western Atlantic, their range extends from New Jersey to points south of the Study Area, including 

the Gulf of Mexico and the Caribbean Sea (Bester, 1999) with seasonal migration along the eastern 

United States. Juveniles rear in coastal nursery areas (Duncan & Holland, 2006) with all ages occurring in 

the Gulf Stream, but rarely inhabits the open ocean (Kohler & Turner, 2001). Scalloped hammerhead 

sharks that are part of the Central and Southwest Atlantic Distinct Population Segment are only found in 

the southernmost portion of the Study Area in the vicinity of Puerto Rico. Scalloped hammerhead sharks 

that occur in other portions of the Study Area are not protected under the ESA.

3.6.2.2.10.3 Population Trends

The scalloped hammerhead shark has undergone substantial declines throughout its range (Baum et al., 

2003). There is some evidence of population increase in the Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf Large 

Marine Ecosystem (Ward-Paige et al., 2012). Landings of scalloped hammerhead sharks peaked at 

8,000 metric tons in 2002 and declined to 1,000 metric tons in 2009 (Food and Agriculture Organization 

of the United Nations, 2005, 2009). Modeling results estimate the overall population range from 

approximately 142,000 to 169,000 individuals in 1981 and between 24,000 and 28,000 individuals in 

2005 (Miller et al., 2013).

3.6.2.2.10.4 Predator and Prey Interactions

Scalloped hammerhead sharks have few predators. Sharks locate potential prey by odor, particularly 

from injured prey, or low-frequency sounds, inner ear (vibrations), lateral line (turbulence) with vision 

coming into play at closer range (Moyle & Cech, 2004). They feed primarily at night (Compagno, 1984)

on a wide variety of fishes such as sardines, herring, anchovies, and jacks, and also feed on 

invertebrates, including squid, octopus, shrimp, crabs, and lobsters (Bester, 1999).

3.6.2.2.10.5 Species-Specific Threats

The primary threat is from fishing mortality by the foreign commercial shark fin fishery (Miller et al., 

2013). Longline mortality is estimated between 91 and 94 percent (National Marine Fisheries Service, 

2011) total shark bycatch in the swordfish and tuna longline fisheries and shrimp trawls in the Gulf of 

Mexico (Branstetter, 2002). This species is highly susceptible to bycatch due to schooling habits (Food 

and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 2012).

3.6.2.2.11 Alewife (Alosa pseudoharengus)

3.6.2.2.11.1 Status and Management

In August 2017, NMFS announced the initiation of a new status review of alewife to determine whether 

listing this species as endangered or threatened under the ESA is warranted (82 Federal Register 38672).

3.6.2.2.11.2 Habitat and Geographic Range

Alewife typically occur over the continental shelf in waters less than 328 ft. (100 m) (Neves, 1981). This 

species spawns in a variety of habitats, ranging from swift moving rivers to small tributaries above the 

tidal zone (National Marine Fisheries Service, 2009c).

Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf Large Marine Ecosystem and Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf Large 

Marine Ecosystem. Alewife range throughout the Northeast and Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf Large 

Marine Ecosystems from Newfoundland to North Carolina (historically to South Carolina) (National 

Marine Fisheries Service, 2009c). Alewife are anadromous, migrating during the spring months to spawn 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.6-45

3.6 Fishes

in their natal rivers on the U.S. east coast then returning to coastal waters in the summer. Juveniles 

mature for several years in coastal waters before making their first spawning run. Alewife are highly 

migratory and travel in large schools near the surface (National Marine Fisheries Service, 2009c). 

3.6.2.2.11.3 Population Trends

Alewife have undergone substantial declines throughout most of their range. At Holyoke Dam on the 

Connecticut River, the total migration has dropped from about 600,000 individuals in 1985 to only 

1,300 individuals in 2003 (National Marine Fisheries Service, 2009c). Similar trends have been observed 

in Rhode Island, Massachusetts, and North Carolina. The Rhode Island Department of Environmental 

Management reported a 95 percent decline in runs between 2000 and 2004. Similarly, alewife runs in 

the St. Croix River were reduced from a high of 2,624,000 fish in 1987 to 1,299 fish in 2004 (National 

Marine Fisheries Service, 2009b).

3.6.2.2.11.4 Predator and Prey Interactions

All life stages of alewife feed primarily on phytoplankton and zooplankton, but adults also eat mysids, 

small finfish, and benthic crustaceans (National Marine Fisheries Service, 2009b). This species is preyed 

on by a number of marine species, including striped bass, bluefish, tunas, cod, haddock, halibut, 

American eel, seabirds, and mammals.

3.6.2.2.11.5 Species-Specific Threats

Alewife have been species of concern, and now an ESA candidate, because of substantial declines in 

populations throughout their ranges. Hydroelectric facilities (dams) with poor fish passage restrict their 

access to spawning and forage areas. Fish are also injured or killed by hydroelectric turbines. 

Degradation of water quality by toxic pollutants, nutrient discharge, and sediment loads may have also 

contributed to the decline of river herring. In addition, commercial marine fishing pressure exacerbates 

the riverine threats to this species (76 Federal Register 67652).

3.6.2.2.12 Blueback Herring (Alosa aestivalis)

3.6.2.2.12.1 Status and Management

In August 2017, NMFS announced the initiation of a new status review of blueback herring to determine 

whether listing this species as endangered or threatened under the ESA is warranted (82 Federal 

Register 38672). Blueback herring exhibit very similar life histories to alewife (Section 3.6.2.2.11), and 

are often harvested and managed together because of the difficulty in distinguishing between the two 

species.

3.6.2.2.12.2 Habitat and Geographic Range

Blueback herring typically occur over the continental shelf in waters less than 328 ft. (100 m) (Neves, 

1981). This species spawns in a variety of habitats, ranging from swift moving rivers to small tributaries 

above the tidal zone (National Marine Fisheries Service, 2009c).

Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf Large Marine Ecosystem and Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf Large 

Marine Ecosystem. The blueback herring ranges throughout the Northeast and Southeast U.S. 

Continental Shelf Large Marine Ecosystems from Nova Scotia to the St. Johns River, Florida (McBride et 

al., 2010). Blueback herring are anadromous, migrating during the spring months to spawn in their natal 

rivers on the U.S. east coast then returning to coastal waters in the summer. Juveniles mature for 

several years in coastal waters before making their first spawning run. This species is highly migratory 

and travels in large schools near the surface (National Marine Fisheries Service, 2009c). 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.6-46

3.6 Fishes

3.6.2.2.12.3 Population Trends

Blueback herring have undergone substantial declines throughout most of their range. At Holyoke Dam 

on the Connecticut River, the total migration has dropped from about 600,000 individuals in 1985 to 

only 1,300 individuals in 2003 (National Marine Fisheries Service, 2009c). Similar trends have been 

observed in Rhode Island, Massachusetts, and North Carolina. The Rhode Island Department of 

Environmental Management reported a 95 percent decline in runs between 2000 and 2004. 

3.6.2.2.12.4 Predator and Prey Interactions

All life stages of blueback herring feed primarily on phytoplankton and zooplankton, but adults also eat 

mysids, small finfish, and benthic crustaceans (National Marine Fisheries Service, 2009c). This species is 

preyed on by a number of marine species, including striped bass, bluefish, tunas, cod, haddock, halibut, 

American eel, seabirds, and mammals.

3.6.2.2.12.5 Species-Specific Threats

Blueback herring have been species of concern, and now an ESA candidate, because of substantial 

declines in populations throughout their ranges. Hydroelectric facilities (dams) with poor fish passage 

restrict their access to spawning and forage areas. Fish are also injured or killed by hydroelectric 

turbines. Degradation of water quality by toxic pollutants, nutrient discharge, and sediment loads may 

have also contributed to the decline of river herring. In addition, commercial marine fishing pressure 

exacerbates the riverine threats to this species (76 Federal Register 67652).

3.6.2.2.13 Cusk (Brosme brosme)

3.6.2.2.13.1 Status and Management

The cusk was added to the Candidate Species List by NMFS on March 9, 2007 (72 Federal Register

10710). NMFS is in the process of a status review for the cusk and soliciting scientific and commercial 

information pertaining to the species.

3.6.2.2.13.2 Habitat and Geographic Range

Cusk inhabit small shoals on rock, pebble, and gravel bottoms at depths between 60 and 1,805 ft. 

(20 and 550 m) (Collette & Klein-MacPhee, 2002) and temperatures ranging from 32°F to 50°F (0°C to 

10°C) (National Marine Fisheries Service, 2009d). Cusk eggs are buoyant; after hatching, larvae remain 

near the surface, then settle to the bottom as 2 in. (5 cm) juveniles (Fisheries and Oceans Canada, 2004). 

Adult cusk are solitary and remain in offshore waters; they are rarely captured in waters less than 65 to 

100 ft. (20 to 30 m) deep (Knutsen et al., 2009). Unlike other cods, cusk rarely leave the seafloor, and do 

not disperse very far once settled into a particular habitat area (Collette & Klein-MacPhee, 2002).

Scotian Shelf Large Marine Ecosystem. The cusk occurs around the Scotian Shelf Large Marine 

Ecosystem (National Marine Fisheries Service, 2009d).

Newfoundland-Labrador Shelf Large Marine Ecosystem. Cusks occur around the Strait of Belle Isle and 

on the Grand Banks of Newfoundland in the Newfoundland-Labrador Shelf Large Marine Ecosystem 

(National Marine Fisheries Service, 2009d), and infrequently at the southern tip of Greenland in the 

Labrador Current Open Ocean Area (National Marine Fisheries Service, 2009d).

Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf Large Marine Ecosystem. The cusk is limited geographically by its need 

for cold water; it ranges only as far south as the Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf Large Marine 

Ecosystem around New Jersey (National Marine Fisheries Service, 2009d).
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.6-47

3.6 Fishes

3.6.2.2.13.3 Population Trends

Fisheries data indicate substantial decreases in biomass and abundance of cusk, most likely because of 

fishery harvest; U.S. landings dropped from approximately 4,200 tons (3,800 metric tons) in the early 

1980s to 87 tons (79 metric tons) in the year 2004 (Collette & Klein-MacPhee, 2002; National Marine 

Fisheries Service, 2009d). Very little fisheries-independent data exists for this species.

3.6.2.2.13.4 Predator and Prey Interactions

The cusk feeds primarily on crustaceans and shellfish, fishes (including flatfish and gurnard), and 

occasionally on sea stars. However, little information is available on its diet because most cusk have 

emptied their stomach contents by the time they reach the surface, making stomach-content analysis 

very difficult (Fisheries and Oceans Canada, 2004). The primary food composition (by percent weight) is 

crustaceans (51 percent), fishes (16 percent), and echinoderms (15 percent), with some variation by 

region (Collette & Klein-MacPhee, 2002). The most frequent predator of cusk are spiny dogfish (Squalus 

acanthias), but other fishes (cods, hakes, skates, and flounders) and marine mammals (hooded seal 

[Cystophora cristata] and grey seal [Halichoerus grypus]) also feed on cusk (Collette & Klein-MacPhee, 

2002).

3.6.2.2.13.5 Species-Specific Threats

Threats to cusk are poorly understood. Bycatch of cusk by commercial fisheries targeting cod and 

haddock is likely the primary cause of decline in both the United States and Canada (Fisheries and 

Oceans Canada, 2004; National Marine Fisheries Service, 2009d). Canada established a bycatch limit of 

1,000 tons of cusk in 1999 and reduced it to 750 tons of cusk in 2003 (Crozier et al., 2004). Deepwater 

seismic testing within cusk habitat by the oil and gas industry could impact fish closely associated with 

the seafloor (Fisheries and Oceans Canada, 2011).

3.6.2.2.14 Dwarf Seahorse (Hippocampus zosterae)

3.6.2.2.14.1 Status and Management

The dwarf seahorse was added to the Candidate Species List by NMFS on May 4, 2012 (77 Federal 

Register 26478). 

3.6.2.2.14.2 Habitat and Geographic Range

The dwarf seahorse has a restricted geographic range within the Study Area, inhabiting tropical and 

subtropical/warm-temperate waters of Florida, the Gulf of Mexico, and the Caribbean (Masonjones & 

Lewis, 1996). It primarily occurs in south Florida estuaries and in the Florida Keys. The dwarf seahorse 

prefers protected bays/lagoons with low water flow, high organic content, mid- to high-salinities and 

depths less than 6 ft. (Bruckner, 2005; Foster & Vincent, 2004). The species is almost exclusively 

associated with seagrass beds, particularly eelgrass (Zostera spp.) (Bruckner, 2005). It is more abundant 

in areas with higher seagrass density, canopy cover, and seagrass shoot density (Bruckner, 2005). Other 

habitats used by the dwarf seahorse include mangrove areas, unattached algae, and inshore drifting 

vegetation (Center for Biological Diversity, 2011; Hoese & Moore, 1998; Tabb & Manning, 1961).

While most seahorse species exhibit strong site-fidelity, in terms of home ranges and spawning habitat 

(Curtis & Vincent, 2006; Masonjones & Lewis, 1996), Masonjones et al. (2010) suggest that further 

seahorse dispersal outside of home ranges may occur. Dispersal may be enhanced by clinging to drifting 

Sargassum or floating debris within inshore habitats (Curtis & Vincent, 2006; Masonjones & Lewis, 

1996). Spawning occurs between February and November (Foster & Vincent, 2004).
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.6-48

3.6 Fishes

Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf Large Marine Ecosystem. The dwarf seahorse’s primary range includes 

south Florida estuaries and the Florida Keys (77 Federal Register 26478).

Gulf of Mexico Large Marine Ecosystem. Bruckner et al. (2005) report that the dwarf seahorse is 

uncommon in many areas in the Gulf of Mexico (77 Federal Register 26478), with fewer than 

20 independent collection records from the following locations: Lower Laguna Madre, South Apalachee 

Bay, North Apalachee Bay, Corpus Christi Bay, St. George Sound, East Mississippi Sound, Aransas Bay, 

Terrebonne/Timbalier Bays, Chandeleur Sound, Perdido Bay, and Pensacola Bay (Beck & Odaya, 2001).

Caribbean Sea Large Marine Ecosystem. The dwarf seahorse’s primary range includes all portions of the 

Caribbean (77 Federal Register 26478).

3.6.2.2.14.3 Population Trends

There are no published data on current global population trends or total numbers of mature dwarf 

seahorses; however, some population data exist in Florida based on numbers derived from the 

commercial seahorse fishery. NMFS reported a five-fold increase in seahorse landings between 1991 

and 1992 (from 14,000 harvested in 1991 to 83,700 harvested in 1992), with the increased landings 

primarily attributed to dwarf seahorses (77 Federal Register 26478). Over a longer period, the number of 

dwarf seahorses landed during 1990 to 2003 ranged from 2,142 to 98,779 individuals per year 

(Bruckner, 2005). Additional density data are from ichthyoplankton tows conducted in portions of 

southern Florida and range from 0 to 6 seahorses per 100 cubic meters in subtidal pools, seagrass beds, 

in channels, and along restored marsh edges (Masonjones et al., 2010; Powell et al., 2002).

3.6.2.2.14.4 Predator and Prey Interactions

Seahorses are ambush predators, consuming primarily live, mobile nekton, such as small amphipods and 

other invertebrates (Bruckner, 2005).

3.6.2.2.14.5 Species-Specific Threats

Dwarf seahorses are the second most sought after fish exported from Florida in the aquarium trade 

(77 Federal Register 26478). They are dried and sold at curio shops as souvenirs (Bruckner, 2005) and 

also are in high demand in the traditional Chinese medicine trade (77 Federal Register 26478). 

The petition for listing (Center for Biological Diversity, 2011) describes other natural or manmade factors 

that may be threatening the dwarf seahorse, including life history characteristics, bycatch mortality, 

illegal fishing, hurricanes or tropical storms, and invasive species. The petition also suggests that the 

current status of the dwarf seahorse may be related to low-frequency boat motor noise, based on a 

single lab study (77 Federal Register 26478). However, the actual negative impacts of boat motor noise 

on the health, behavior, and reproductive success of wild populations of dwarf seahorses in their natural 

habitat remain unclear at this time (77 Federal Register 26478). 

In addition to species-specific threats, threats to the dwarf seahorse’s primary habitat of seagrass are 

further described in Section 3.3.2.3.8 (Seagrasses, Cordgrasses, and Mangroves). Additional information 

on threats to dwarf seahorses are detailed by NMFS and Center for Biological Diversity (Center for 

Biological Diversity, 2011).

3.6.2.3 Species Not Listed under the Endangered Species Act

Taxonomic categories of major fish groups are provided in Table 3.6-2 and are described further in this 

section to supplement information on fishes of the Study Area that are not ESA-protected species. These 

fish groups are based on the organization presented by Moyle and Cech (2004), Nelson et al. (2016), 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.6-49

3.6 Fishes

Helfman et al. (2009), and Froese and Pauly (2016). These groupings are intended to organize the 

extensive and diverse list of fishes that occur in the Study Area and serve as a means to structure the 

analysis of potential impacts on fishes with similar physiological characteristics and habitat use. For 

example, numerous inshore fish taxonomic groups represented in Table 3.6-2 are found within diverse 

habitats in Chesapeake Bay, including striped bass, Atlantic croaker, bluefish, and shad. Exceptions to 

these generalizations exist within each group and are noted wherever appropriate in the analysis of 

potential impacts. For simplicity, the fishes are presented in generally accepted evolutionary order.

Table 3.6-2: Major Taxonomic Groups of Fishes in the Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing 

Study Area

Major Fish Groups Occurrence in the Study Area

Group Names Description

Representative 

Species Open Ocean

Large Marine 

Ecosystems

Inshore 

Waters

Jawless fishes

(Orders 

Myxiniformes and

Petromyzontiformes)

Primitive, 

cartilaginous, 

eel-like 

vertebrates, 

parasitic or 

feed on dead 

fish

Hagfishes, 

Lampreys

Seafloor Seafloor Water 

column, 

seafloor

Ground Sharks, 

Mackerel Sharks, 

Carpet Sharks, and 

Bullhead Sharks

(Orders 

Carcharhiniformes, 

Lamniformes, 

Orectolobiformes, 

and 

Heterodontiformes)

Cartilaginous, 

two dorsal fins 

or first large, 

an anal fin, and 

five gill slits

Great white, 

Oceanic 

whitetip, 

Scalloped and 

smooth 

hammerheads, 

Tiger sharks, 

sand tiger 

sharks, nurse 

sharks, whale 

sharks

Water 

column, 

Seafloor

Water column, 

Seafloor

Water column

Frilled and Cow 

Sharks, Sawsharks, 

Dogfish, and Angel 

Sharks

(Orders 

Hexanchiformes, 

Pristiophoriformes, 

Squaliformes, and 

Squatiniformes)

Cartilaginous, 

anal fin and 

nictitating 

membrane 

absent, 6-7 gill 

slits

Dogfish, Frill, 

Sawshark, 

Sevengill, Sixgill 

sharks

Water 

column, 

Seafloor

Water column, 

Seafloor

Seafloor

Stingrays, Sawfishes, 

Skates, Guitarfishes, 

and Electric Rays

(Orders 

Myliobatiformes, 

Pristiformes, 

Rajiformes, and 

Torpediniformes)

Cartilaginous, 

flat-bodied, 

usually five gill 

slits

Caribbean, 

Electric, Giant 

manta rays, 

Largetooth and 

smalltooth 

sawfishes, 

Stingrays, 

Thorny skate

Water 

column, 

Seafloor

Water column, 

Seafloor

Water 

column, 

seafloor
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.6-50

3.6 Fishes

Table 3.6-2: Major Taxonomic Groups of Fishes in the Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing 

Study Area (continued)

Major Fish Groups Occurrence in the Study Area

Group Names Description

Representative 

Species Open Ocean

Large Marine 

Ecosystems

Inshore

Waters

Ratfishes

(Order 

Chimaeriformes).

Cartilaginous, 

placoid scales

Chimaera, 

Rabbitfish

Ratfishes

Seafloor Seafloor N/A

Sturgeons

(Order 

Acipenseriformes)

Primitive, rayfinned, 

cartilaginous, 

bony plates, 

heterocercal 

tail

Atlantic, Gulf, 

Shortnose

N/A Surface, water 

column, 

seafloor

Surface, 

water 

column, 

seafloor

Gars

(Order 

Lepisosteiformes)

Primitive, 

slender body. 

ganoid scales, 

heterocercal 

tail; needle-like 

teeth

Alligator

Longnose and 

Shortnose

N/A N/A Surface, 

water 

column

Herrings and allies 

(Order Clupeiformes)

Silvery, Lateral 

line on body 

and fin spines 

absent, usually 

scutes along 

ventral profile

Alabama shad. 

Anchovies, 

Herrings, Shads

N/A Surface, water 

column

Surface, 

water 

column

Tarpons and allies

(Orders Elopiformes, 

and Albuliformes)

Body encased 

in silvery 

scales, mouth 

large, mostly a 

single dorsal 

fin, some with 

tapered tail fin, 

spines absent

Bonefishes, 

Ladyfish, 

Malacho, 

Tarpons

Water 

column, 

seafloor

Surface, water 

column

Surface, 

water 

column, 

seafloor

Eels and allies

(Orders Anguilliforms, 

Notacanthiformes, 

and 

Saccopharyngiformes)

Body very 

elongate, 

usually 

scaleless with 

pelvic fins and 

fin spines 

absent

American, 

Conger, 

Cutthroat, 

Duckbill, 

Halosaur, 

Morays, Pike, 

Sawtooth, 

Short-tailed, 

Spiny, Gulper, 

Pelican

Water 

column, 

seafloor

Water column, 

seafloor

Water 

column, 

seafloor

Salmonids

(Order 

Salmoniformes)

Silvery body, 

adipose fin 

present

Arctic char, 

Atlantic 

salmon, 

Atlantic 

whitefish

Surface, 

water column

Surface, water 

column

Surface, 

water 

column
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.6-51

3.6 Fishes

Table 3.6-2: Major Taxonomic Groups of Fishes in the Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing 

Study Area (continued)

Major Fish Groups Occurrence in the Study Area

Group Names Description

Representative 

Species Open Ocean

Large Marine 

Ecosystems

Inshore

Waters

Argentines and allies

(Order 

Argentiniformes)

Body silvery, 

and elongate; 

fin spines 

absent, 

adipose fin 

sometimes 

present, pelvic 

fins and ribs 

sometimes 

absent

Barreleyes, 

Deep-sea 

smelts, 

Slickheads, 

Tubeshoulders

Water 

column, 

seafloor

Seafloor N/A

Catfishes

(Order Siluriformes)

Barbels on 

head, spines 

on dorsal and 

pectoral fins, 

scaleless, 

adipose fin 

present

Sea Catfishes N/A Seafloor Seafloor

Bristlemouths and 

allies

(Orders 

Stomiiformes)

Photophores 

present, 

adipose and 

chin barbels fin 

sometimes 

present

Dragonfishes, 

Fangjaws, 

Hatchetfishes, 

Lightfishes,

Water 

column, 

seafloor

N/A N/A

Greeneyes and allies

(Order Aluopiformes)

Upper jaw 

protrusible 

adipose fin 

present, forked 

tail usually 

present

Barracudinas, 

Daggertooth, 

Greeneyes,

Lizardfishes, 

Pearleyes, 

Waryfishes

Surface, 

water column, 

seafloor

Water column, 

seafloor

N/A

Lanternfishes and 

allies

(Order 

Myctophiformes)

Small-sized, 

adipose fin, 

forked tail and 

photophores 

usually present

Lanternfishes Water 

column, 

seafloor

N/A N/A

Hakes and allies

(Order Gadiformes)

Long dorsal 

and anal fins; 

no true spines, 

spinous rays 

present in 

dorsal fin, 

barbels 

present

Cods, Codlings, 

Cusk,

Grenadiers, 

Hakes,

Whiptails

Water 

column, 

seafloor

Water column, 

seafloor

Surface, 

water 

column, 

seafloor

Brotulas and allies

(Order Ophidiiformes)

Pelvic absent 

or far forward 

and 

filamentous, 

Brotulas,

Cusk-eels

Water 

column, 

seafloor

Water column, 

seafloor

Water 

column, 

seafloor
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.6-52

3.6 Fishes

Table 3.6-2: Major Taxonomic Groups of Fishes in the Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing 

Study Area (continued)

Major Fish Groups Occurrence in the Study Area

Group Names Description

Representative 

Species Open Ocean

Large Marine 

Ecosystems

Inshore

Waters

no sharp 

spines, Dorsal 

and anal fins 

joined to 

caudal fins

Toadfishes and allies

(Order 

Batrachoidiformes)

Body 

compressed; 

head large, 

mouth large 

with tentacles; 

two dorsal fins, 

the first with 

spines

Toadfish,

Midshipman

N/A Seafloor Seafloor

Anglerfishes and allies 

(Order Lophiiformes)

Body 

globulose, first 

spine on dorsal 

fin usually 

modified, 

pelvic fins 

usually absent

Anglerfishes, 

Footballfishes, 

Frogfishes, 

Goosefishes, 

Sea devils

Water 

column, 

seafloor

Seafloor Seafloor

Flying Fishes 

(Order Beloniformes)

Jaws extended 

into a beak; 

pelvic fins very 

large wing-like; 

spines absent

Flying fishes, 

Halfbeaks, 

Needlefishes

Sauries

Surface, 

water column

Surface, water 

column

Surface, 

water 

column

Killifishes

(Order 

Cyprinodontiformes)

Protrusible 

upper jaw; fin 

spines rarely 

present; single 

dorsal fin

Goldenspot, 

Killifishes, 

Rivulines, 

Sheepshead 

Minnows

N/A N/A Water 

column

Silversides

(Order 

Atheriniformes)

Small-sized, 

silvery stripe 

on sides, 

pectoral fins 

high, first 

dorsal fin with 

flexible spine, 

pelvic fin with 

one spine

Atlantic, Beach, 

Inland, Rough,

N/A Surface, water 

column

Surface, 

water 

column

Opahs and allies 

(Order Lampriformes)

Upper jaw 

protrusible; 

pelvic fins 

forward on 

body, below or 

just behind 

Crestfishes, 

Oarfishes, 

Opahs,

Ribbonfishes, 

Tapertails, 

Tube-eyes

Water column N/A N/A
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.6-53

3.6 Fishes

Table 3.6-2: Major Taxonomic Groups of Fishes in the Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing 

Study Area (continued)

Major Fish Groups Occurrence in the Study Area

Group Names Description

Representative 

Species Open Ocean

Large Marine 

Ecosystems

Inshore

Waters

insertion of 

pectoral fins

Squirrelfishes and 

allies

(Order Beryciformes)

Body usually 

round, one 

dorsal fin often 

set far back, 

pelvic fins 

absent, fin 

spines often 

present

Bigscales, 

Fangtooths, 

Pricklefish,

Slimeheads, 

Squirrelfishes

Whalefishes

Water 

column, 

seafloor

Water column, 

seafloor

N/A

Dories and allies

(Order Zeiformes)

Body deeply 

compressed,

protrusible 

jaws, spines in 

dorsal fin, 

pelvic fin 

spines 

sometimes 

present

Boarfishes, 

Dories, Oreos, 

Tinselfishes

Water 

Column, 

seafloor

Water column, 

seafloor

N/A

Pipefishes

(Order 

Syngnathiformes)

Snout tubelike, mouth 

small, scales 

often modified 

bony plates

Cornetfish,

Dwarf 

Seahorse, 

Snipefishes

Water 

Column, 

seafloor

Water Column, 

seafloor

Seafloor

Sticklebacks 

(Order 

Gasterosteiformes)

mouth small, 

scales often 

modified bony 

plates

Blackspotted, 

threespine, 

fourspine, 

ninespine 

sticklebacks

Water 

Column, 

seafloor

Water Column, 

seafloor

Seafloor

Scorpionfishes 

(Order 

Scorpaeniformes)

Usually strong 

spines on head 

and dorsal fin; 

cheeks with 

bony struts, 

pectoral fins 

usually 

rounded

Poachers, 

Sculpins, 

Sea robins, 

Snailfishes

Water 

Column, 

seafloor

Water Column, 

seafloor

Seafloor

Mullets

(Order Mugiliformes)

Streamline 

body, forked 

tail, hard 

angled mouth, 

large scales

Striped, white, 

fantail, 

mountain

mullet

Spawn in 

offshore 

waters

Surface, water 

column, 

seafloor

Surface, 

water 

column, 

seafloor

Perch-like Fishes and 

Allies

(Order Perciformes)

Deep bodied, 

to moderately 

elongate, 1-2 

dorsal fins, 

Angelfishes, 

Cardinal Fishes,

Drums, Grunts, 

Groupers, 

Water 

column, 

seafloor

Surface, water 

column, 

seafloor

Water 

column, 

seafloor
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.6-54

3.6 Fishes

Table 3.6-2: Major Taxonomic Groups of Fishes in the Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing 

Study Area (continued)

Major Fish Groups Occurrence in the Study Area

Group Names Description

Representative 

Species Open Ocean

Large Marine 

Ecosystems

Inshore

Waters

large mouth 

and eyes, and 

throracic pelvic 

fins

Jacks, Remoras, 

Snappers, 

Striped bass

Wrasses and Allies

(Order Perciformes)

Compressed 

body, scales 

large, welldeveloped 

teeth, usually 

colorful

Hogfishes, 

Parrotfishes, 

Wrasses, 

Damselfishes

N/A Seafloor Seafloor

Eelpouts and Allies

(Order Perciformes)

Eel-like body, 

long dorsal and 

anal fins, pelvic 

fins usually 

absent

Gunnels,

Ocean pout, 

Pricklebacks,

Wolfeels

Seafloor Seafloor Seafloor

Stargazers

(Order Perciformes)

Body 

elongated, 

lower jaw 

usually 

projecting 

beyond upper 

jaw, pelvic and 

anal fins with 

spines

Stargazers Water 

column, 

seafloor

Water column, 

seafloor

Water 

column, 

seafloor

Blennies, Gobies, and 

Allies

(Order Perciformes)

Body eel-like to 

sculpin-like, 

pelvic fins 

reduced or 

fused

Barfin goby, 

Freckled 

blenny, Bridled 

goby, 

Sleepers,

Wormfishes

N/A Seafloor Seafloor

Surgeonfishes

(Order Perciformes)

Body deeply 

compressed 

laterally, 

mouth small, 

scales usually 

small, pelvic 

fins with spines

Blue tang, 

Surgeonfishes

N/A Seafloor N/A

Tunas and Allies

(Order Perciformes)

Large mouth, 

inlets and keels 

usually 

present, pelvic 

fins often 

absent or 

reduced, fast 

swimmers

Barracudas, 

Billfishes, 

Swordfishes, 

Tunas

Surface, 

water column

Surface, water 

column

Juvenile 

barracudas 

only
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.6-55

3.6 Fishes

Table 3.6-2: Major Taxonomic Groups of Fishes in the Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing 

Study Area (continued)

Major Fish Groups Occurrence in the Study Area

Group Names Description

Representative 

Species Open Ocean

Large Marine 

Ecosystems

Inshore

Waters

Butterfishes

(Order Perciformes)

Snout blunt 

and thick, 

teeth small, 

maxilla mostly 

covered by 

bone

Ariommatids, 

Driftfishes, 

Medusafishes

Surface, 

water column, 

seafloor

Surface, water 

column, 

seafloor

N/A

Flatfishes 

(Order 

Pleuronectiformes)

Body flattened; 

eyes on one 

side of body

Flounders, 

Halibuts,

Soles, 

Tonguefishes

Seafloor Seafloor Seafloor

Pufferfishes

(Order 

Tetraodontiformes)

Skin thick or 

rough 

sometimes 

with spines or 

scaly plates, 

pelvic fins 

absent or 

reduced, small 

mouth with 

strong teeth 

coalesced into 

biting plate

Filefishes, 

Ocean 

sunfishes, 

Triggerfishes

Water column Surface, water 

column, 

seafloor

Surface, 

water 

column, 

seafloor

Note: N/A = not applicable

3.6.2.3.1 Jawless Fishes-Hagfishes (Order Myxiniformes) and Lampreys (Order 

Petromyzontiformes)

Hagfishes and lampreys are primitive, cartilaginous, vertebrates with very limited external features 

often associated with fishes, such as fins and scales (Helfman et al., 2009). Both groups inhabit marine 

water column and soft bottom seafloor habitats in depths greater than 30 m and below 13° C in the 

West Greenland Shelf, Newfoundland-Labrador Shelf, Scotian Shelf, Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf, 

Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf, Gulf of Mexico, and Caribbean Sea Large Marine Ecosystems. 

Hagfish reproduction and early development has not been observed and captive breeding has been 

unsuccessful (Powell et al., 2005). Females lay leathery eggs on the seafloor and when the eggs hatch 

they are essentially miniature adults. Hagfishes prey on dying fishes or feed on dead fishes. Some 

hagfishes have commercial fishery importance as their external “skin” is used for making “eel 

leather” goods.

Lampreys are anadromous and larvae are buried in the soft bottoms of river backwaters (Moyle & Cech, 

2004). Juvenile lampreys filter feed on algae and detritus. Adults are parasitic and use their oral disc 

mouth to attach to other fishes and feed on their blood (Moyle & Cech, 2004; Nelson et al., 2004). 

Hagfishes and lampreys have no known predators.
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.6-56

3.6 Fishes

3.6.2.3.2 Ground Sharks (Orders Carcharhiniformes), Mackerel Sharks (Order 

Lamniformes), Carpet Sharks (Order Orectolobiformes)

Ground Sharks and allies (bull, dusky, hammerheads, oceanic whitetip, and tiger) are cartilaginous fishes 

with two dorsal fins, an anal fin, five gill slits, and eyes with nictitating membranes. Reproduction 

includes internal fertilization with the young born fully developed. These sharks are highly migratory. 

They are found in the water column and bottom/seafloor habitats in the Newfoundland-Labrador Shelf, 

Scotian Shelf, Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf, Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf, Gulf of Mexico, and 

Caribbean Sea Large Marine Ecosystems and open ocean areas. These sharks are associated with hard 

and soft bottoms, nearshore and open ocean surface waters, and deep-sea habitats.

Mackerel Sharks and allies (great white, makos, and porbeagle) are cartilaginous fishes with a large first 

dorsal fin that is high, erect, and angular or somewhat rounded, anal fin with a keel, and a mouth 

extending behind the eyes. Reproduction includes internal fertilization with young being produced by 

means of eggs that are hatched within the body of the female. They are found in the water column and 

bottom/seafloor habitats in the West Greenland Shelf, Newfoundland-Labrador Shelf, Scotian Shelf, 

Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf, Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf, Gulf of Mexico, and Caribbean Sea 

Large Marine Ecosystems and open ocean areas. These sharks are associated with nearshore and open 

ocean surface water habitats.

Carpet Sharks and allies are a diverse group inhabiting coral and rocky reefs in the order 

Orectolobiformes. This group includes whale sharks which are the largest shark in the group and are one 

of three filter feeding sharks. Many of the carpet sharks, such as whale shark are also highly migratory. 

Carpet sharks all share certain characteristics, including their mouth being completely in front of eyes, 

both dorsal fins without spines, five pairs of gill slits, and an anal fin being present. Nurse sharks are also 

in this group and are usually yellowish-tan to dark brown, average around 8 to 9 ft. long, and can weigh 

over 200 pounds (lb.). They are nocturnal, scouting the sea bottom for prey such as crustaceans, 

molluscs and stingrays. They spend most of the day resting on sandy bottom or in caves or reef crevices.

Whale sharks are another member of the carpet sharks group and are the largest shark in the world, 

growing to a length of over 40 ft.

3.6.2.3.3 Frilled and Cow Sharks (Order Hexanchiformes), Sawsharks (Order 

Pristiophoriformes), Dogfish Sharks (Order Squaliformes), and Angel Sharks 

(Order Squatiniformes)

Frill and cow sharks (sevengill, sixgill) are cartilaginous fishes, generally characterized by lacking traits 

such as an anal fin, and nictitating membrane; they do possess six to seven gill slits, compared to five gill 

slits found in all other sharks. Reproduction includes internal fertilization with young being produced by 

means of eggs that are hatched within the body of the female. They are associated with deep-sea 

habitats in the Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf, Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf, Gulf of Mexico, and 

Caribbean Sea Large Marine Ecosystems (Froese & Pauly, 2016; Moyle & Cech, 2004).

Sawshark (Bahamas) is a cartilaginous fish characterized by two spineless dorsal fins, absent anal fin, and 

five to six gill openings. Reproduction includes internal fertilization with young emerging from eggs that 

are hatched within the body of the female. This species is associated with deep-sea habitats in the 

Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf and Caribbean Sea Large Marine Ecosystems (Froese & Pauly, 2016).

Dogfish Sharks are cartilaginous fishes with both dorsal fins spines, not grooved, caudal peduncle with a 

pair of lateral keels. Reproduction includes internal fertilization with young emerging from eggs that are 

hatched within the body of the female. They are associated with soft bottom and deep-sea habitats in 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.6-57

3.6 Fishes

the West Greenland Shelf, Newfoundland-Labrador Shelf, Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf, Southeast 

U.S. Continental Shelf, Gulf of Mexico, and Caribbean Sea Large Marine Ecosystems (Froese & Pauly, 

2016; Moyle & Cech, 2004).

Angel sharks (Atlantic and sand) are cartilaginous fishes with flat, batoid-like body, two small spineless 

dorsal fins behind pelvic fins, and anal fin absent. Reproduction includes internal fertilization with young 

emerging from eggs that are hatched within the body of the female. They are associated with soft 

bottom habitat in the Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf, Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf, Gulf of Mexico, 

and Caribbean Sea Large Marine Ecosystems (Froese & Pauly, 2016; Moyle & Cech, 2004).

3.6.2.3.4 Stingrays (Order Myliobatiformes), Sawfishes (Order Pristiformes), Skates and 

Guitarfishes (Order Rajiformes), and Electric Rays (Order Torpediniformes)

Stingrays and allies (eagle ray, manta) are cartilaginous fishes, distinguished by flattened bodies, 

enlarged pectoral fins that are fused to the head and gill slits that are placed on their ventral surfaces.

Reproduction includes internal fertilization with the young born fully developed. They are associated 

with reefs, nearshore open ocean, bottom habitat, seagrass beds, and deep sea water column habitat in 

the Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf, Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf, Gulf of Mexico, and Caribbean 

Sea Large Marine Ecosystems (Froese & Pauly, 2016; Moyle & Cech, 2004).

Sawfishes and allies inhabit inshore tropical areas in warm-temperate contiental waters and can be 

found in ocean waters out to 400 ft. in depth. They are also found and in muddy bays, estuaries, river 

mouths, off of large continental islands, and in fresh water in rivers or lakes (Compagno & Last, 1984). 

They can be found at or near the surface of the water column, but are usually bottom dwellers that rest 

in mud or sandy soft bottoms. They may occur over the Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf, Southeast U.S. 

Continental Shelf, Gulf of Mexico, and Caribbean Sea Large Marine Ecosystems (Compagno & Last, 

1984).

Skates and guitarfishes are cartilaginous fishes, distinguished by flattened bodies, two reduced dorsal 

fins, and a reduced caudal fin. Reproduction includes internal fertilization and deposition of egg sacks. 

They are associated with soft bottom habitat in the Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf, Southeast U.S. 

Continental Shelf, Gulf of Mexico, and Caribbean Sea Large Marine Ecosystems. Species in this group are 

associated with soft bottom habitat (Froese & Pauly, 2016; Moyle & Cech, 2004).

Electric rays are cartilaginous fishes, distinguished by flattened bodies, two well-developed dorsal fins 

and caudal fin. Two large kidney shaped organs in a disc on either side of the electric ray’s head

distinguish it from others, as these organs are able to produce strong electric shock at will (Madl & Yip, 

2000). Reproduction includes internal fertilization with young being produced by means of eggs that are 

hatched within the body of the female. Two species, the Atlantic torpedo ray (Torpedo nobiliana) and 

lesser electric ray (Narcine bancroftii), occur in the Study Area. They are associated with soft bottom 

habitat in the Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf, Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf, Gulf of Mexico, and 

Caribbean Sea Large Marine Ecosystems (Froese & Pauly, 2016; Moyle & Cech, 2004).

3.6.2.3.5 Ratfishes (Order Chimaeriformes)

Ratfishes (chimera, rabbitfish, and ratfish) are cartilaginous fishes, with smooth skin largely covered by 

placoid scales, and their color can range from black to brownish gray. Reproduction includes internal 

fertilization and deposition of egg capsules. Fishes in this group are associated with soft bottom and 

deep-sea habitats in the West Greenland Shelf, Scotian Shelf, Newfoundland-Labrador Shelf, Northeast 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.6-58

3.6 Fishes

U.S. Continental Shelf, Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf, and Caribbean Sea Large Marine Ecosystems 

(Froese & Pauly, 2016).

3.6.2.3.6 Sturgeons (Order Acipenseriformes)

Sturgeons (Atlantic, Gulf, and shortnose) are cartilaginous, long-lived, late-maturing fishes with a 

heterocercal tail, an elongated spindle-like body that is smooth-skinned, scaleless and armored with five 

lateral rows of bony plates. They are found in riverine, estuarine, and marine environments in the water 

column, bottom, and seafloor habitats in the Newfoundland-Labrador Shelf, Northeast U.S. Continental 

Shelf, Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf, and Gulf of Mexico Large Marine Ecosystems. Sturgeons 

historically had commercial and recreational fishery importance. They are broadcast spawners (females 

release eggs into the water where the eggs are fertilized by males) and fertilized eggs attach to bottom 

substrate until hatching. Juveniles and adults prey upon bottom invertebrates such as clams and fishes. 

Sturgeons have few known predators.

3.6.2.3.7 Gars (Order Lepisosteiformes)

Gars (alligator, longnose, shortnose, and Florida) are mostly cartilaginous fishes with a slender body 

encased in heavy ganoid scales plates, abbreviated heterocercal tail, and needle-like teeth. They are 

found in chiefly in riverine and estuarine waters and considered very rare in the marine environment. In 

the marine environment, they typically occur at the surface or in the water column in the Northeast U.S. 

Continental Shelf, Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf, and Gulf of Mexico Large Marine Ecosystems. Gars 

have some recreational game fishery importance. They are broadcast spawners and fertilized eggs 

attach to submerged aquatic vegetation until hatching. Juveniles prey upon plankton, invertebrates, and 

amphibians, while adults eat blue crabs, fishes, birds, reptiles, and small mammals. Gars are preyed 

upon by fishes as juveniles and alligators as adults.

3.6.2.3.8 Herrings (Order Clupeiformes)

Herring and allies (anchovies, herrings, sardines, and shad) are bony fishes with a silvery body with the 

lateral line and fin spines absent, and usually scutes along ventral profile. They are found only in the 

marine environment in the water column, and seafloor habitats in the West Greenland Shelf, 

Newfoundland-Labrador Shelf, Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf, Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean Large 

Marine Ecosystems. Herring, menhaden, sardine, and anchovy species are well-known as valuable 

targets of commercial fisheries. Herring account for a large portion of the total worldwide fish catch 

(Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 2005, 2009). Herrings and allies are broadcast 

spawners. They are known to form schools to help conserve energy and minimize predation (Brehmer et 

al., 2007) which may facilitate some level of communication during predator avoidance (Marras et al., 

2012). They feed on decaying organic matter and plankton while swimming in the water column (Moyle 

& Cech, 2004). Herring and allies support marine food webs as a forage fish and preyed upon by fish, 

birds, and marine mammals.

3.6.2.3.9 Tarpons (Orders Elopiformes and Albuliformes)

Tarpons and allies (bonefishes, halosaurs, ladyfish, and machete) are bony fishes with the body encased 

in silvery scales, a large mouth, a single dorsal fin (most), and a somewhat tapered tail with fin spines 

absent. They are associated with riverine, estuarine and marine environments on the surface, water 

column, and seafloor/bottom habitats in the Newfoundland-Labrador Shelf (halosaurs only), Northeast 

and Southeast U.S. Continental Shelves, Gulf of Mexico, and Caribbean Large Marine Ecosystems. 

Tarpon and allies are important game species, but are not considered edible. Tarpons and allies are 

broadcast spawners. Fertilized eggs float in the water column until hatching into a leptocephalus larva 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.6-59

3.6 Fishes

(ribbon-like, with no resemblance to the adult). During the change from larvae to juvenile, the body 

shrinks in length. Juveniles prey upon plankton and marine invertebrates, while adults feed on 

mid-water fishes. Tarpon and allies are nocturnal ambush predators (Wainwright & Richard, 1995) who 

prey on bottom-dwelling invertebrates and small fishes. Tarpons and allies are preyed upon by larger 

fishes, birds, and marine mammals.

3.6.2.3.10 Eels (Orders Anguilliforms, Notacanthiformes, and Saccopharyngiformes)

Eels (conger, cutthroat, duckbill, false moray, morays, sawtooth, short-tailed, spiny, gulpers, and pelican

eels) are bony fishes with a very elongate body, usually scaleless with pelvic fins, and without fin spines. 

They are associated with riverine, estuarine and marine environments in the water column, and 

seafloor/bottom habitats in the Newfoundland-Labrador Shelf, Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf, and 

Gulf of Mexico Large Marine Ecosystems. Eels and allies have little fishery importance. Some species are 

broadcast spawners, and fertilized eggs float in the water column until hatching into a leptocephalus 

larva. Juveniles prey upon plankton and marine invertebrates, while adults feed on small fishes. 

Depending on the species and its habitat, eels can be diurnal or nocturnal ambush predators and prey 

on bottom-dwelling invertebrates and small fishes. Eels are preyed upon mostly by larger fishes.

3.6.2.3.11 Salmonids (Order Salmoniformes)

Salmon and allies (Arctic char, Atlantic salmon, and Atlantic whitefish) are bony fishes with silvery bodies 

with an adipose fin present and exhibit anadromy. They are found in riverine, estuarine, and marine 

environment in the water column, and seafloor habitats in the West Greenland Newfoundland-Labrador 

Shelf, and Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf Large Marine Ecosystems. Atlantic salmon is listed as 

endangered in the Study Area, as described in Section 3.6.2.2.1 (Atlantic Salmon [Salmo salar]). Salmon 

have historic fishery importance. The native distribution of Salmoniformes is restricted to the cold 

waters of the Northern Hemisphere. Most salmon spawn in freshwater and live in the sea; they are 

among the most thoroughly studied and commercially valuable fish groups in the world. Juveniles prey 

upon insects, plankton, and small fishes while adults feed mainly on fishes. Salmon are preyed upon by 

sharks, birds, and marine mammals.

3.6.2.3.12 Argentines and Allies (Order Argentiniformes)

Argentines and allies (argentines, barreleyes, deep-sea smelts, slickheads, and tubeshoulders) are bony 

fishes with typically silvery, elongate bodies, adipose fin and extremely large mouths sometimes 

present, and pelvic fins and spines sometimes absent. They are found only in the marine environment in 

the water column, and seafloor habitats in the Newfoundland-Labrador Shelf, Northeast U.S. 

Continental Shelf, and Gulf of Mexico Large Marine Ecosystems. Argentines and allies have little fishery 

importance. Argentines and allies vary in their reproduction strategy. Some deep-sea species are 

capable of bioluminescence and release scents that may help to attract mates. Argentines are broadcast 

spawners and fertilized eggs float in the water column until hatching. Argentines and allies likely have 

few predators, but may be preyed upon by larger fishes.

3.6.2.3.13 Catfishes (Order Siluriformes)

Catfishes (sea catfishes) are bony fishes with barbels on head, spines on dorsal and pectoral fins, lack 

scale, with an adipose fin present. They are found in estuarine and marine environment on bottom and 

seafloor habitats in the Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf, Gulf of Mexico, and Caribbean Sea Large 

Marine Ecosystems. These fishes do have recreational fishery importance. Catfishes prefer soft bottom 

habitats, and can tolerate salinities of wide ranges in the open ocean and nearshore fresh waters (Gulf 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.6-60

3.6 Fishes

Coast Research Laboratory, 2016). Reproduction is external with males incubate eggs in their mouth. All 

ages of fishes eat benthic invertebrates. Predators are likely very limited (Moyle & Cech, 2004).

3.6.2.3.14 Bristlemouths and Allies (Order Stomiiformes)

Bristlemouths and allies (dragonfishes, fangjaws, hatchfishes, and lightfishes) are bony fishes with 

photophores and adipose fin present and chin barbels sometimes present. Bristlemouths and 

hatchetfishes are small in size and the most abundant fishes in many parts of the world’s oceans. They 

are capable of eating large and small prey items and are known to engage in prey-related vertical 

migration patterns. Other species in this order prey largely on other fishes (Moyle & Cech, 2004).

3.6.2.3.15 Greeneyes and Allies (Order Aulopiformes)

Greeneyes and allies (barracudinas, daggertooth, lizardfishes, pearleyes, and waryfishes) are bony fishes 

with an upper protrusible jaw, an adipose fin and forked tail usually present with fin spines absent. Most 

greeneyes and allies are small (less than 50 cm) predators capable of devouring a wide range of species, 

including other fishes nearly their same size and pelagic invertebrates. Fishes in this order are preyed 

upon by salmon, tunas, and swordfishes. Reproduction is usually external, and includes the ability to 

change sex (Froese & Pauly, 2016).

3.6.2.3.16 Lanternfishes and Allies (Order Myctophiformes) 

Lanternfishes and allies (headlight, lampfishes, and lancetfishes) are bony fishes that are usually 

small-sized, with an adipose fin, forked tail and photophores usually present. Lanternfishes can occur 

closer to the surface at night (10 to 100 m) and deeper during the day (300 to 1200 m) (Froese & Pauly, 

2016), where they may become prey for marine mammals. These fishes often are an important part of 

the deep scattering layer (Moyle & Cech, 2004). Lanternfishes prey upon copepods and krill (Van Noord 

et al., 2016).

3.6.2.3.17 Hakes and Allies (Order Gadiformes).

Hakes and allies (cods, codlings, grenadiers, and whiptails) are bony fishes with long dorsal and anal fins, 

no true spines in fins, although spinous rays present in dorsal fin of most species, and chin barbels are 

often present. Hakes and allies account for approximately half of the global commercial landings (Food 

and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 2005). Prey items for fishes in this group include 

small crustaceans during juvenile phases and larger crustaceans, squid, and fishes as adults. Predators 

include striped bass, sharks, and cetaceans (Froese & Pauly, 2016).

3.6.2.3.18 Brotulas and Allies (Order Ophidiiformes)

Brotulas and allies (cusk-eels) are bony fishes with pelvic absent or far forward and filamentous, dorsal 

and anal fins joined to caudal fin, and spines absent. These fishes exhibit a variety of reproductive 

strategies including external fertilization and giving live birth. Prey items for fishes in this group include 

small crustaceans during juvenile phases and larger crustaceans, squid and fishes as adults. Predators 

include striped bass, sharks, and cetaceans (Froese & Pauly, 2016).

3.6.2.3.19 Toadfishes and Allies (Order Batrachoidiformes)

Toadfishes and allies (midshipman) are bony fishes with compressed bodies, large, depressed head and 

mouth usually with tentacles, and two dorsal fins with the first with spines. These fishes are known to 

build nests (Moyle & Cech, 2004).
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.6-61

3.6 Fishes

3.6.2.3.20 Anglerfishes and Allies (Order Lophiiformes)

Anglerfishes and allies (footballfishes, frogfishes, goosefishes, and sea devils) are bony fishes with 

globulose bodies, a spine on the first dorsal fin and the pelvic fins usually absent. Anglerfish attract 

potential prey using their first dorsal fin (illicium) as a lure (Yasugi & Hori, 2016). Fishes in these orders 

are found occasionally on the surface, but most frequently in the water column and seafloor habitats in 

the West Greenland Shelf, Newfoundland-Labrador Shelf, Scotian Shelf Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf, 

Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf, Gulf of Mexico, and Caribbean Sea Large Marine Ecosystems. 

Additional adaptations include large mouths, sharp teeth, and sensitive lateral line [sensory] systems 

(Haedrich, 1996; Koslow, 1996; Marshall, 1996; Rex & Etter, 1998; Warrant & Locket, 2004). These fishes 

are mostly generalist feeders. Reproduction is not well studied, but sexes are separate and some exhibit 

parasitism (Moyle & Cech, 2004). Fishes in this group generally have no fishery importance.

3.6.2.3.21 Flying Fishes (Order Beloniformes)

Flying fishes (halfbeaks, needlefishes, and sauries) are bony fishes with jaws extended into a beak; pelvic 

fins very large wing-like; spines absent. These fishes are associated with reefs, submerged aquatic 

vegetation, and open ocean habitat in the Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf, Southeast U.S. Continental 

Shelf, Gulf of Mexico, and Caribbean Sea Large Marine Ecosystems and open ocean areas (Froese & 

Pauly, 2016).

3.6.2.3.22 Killifishes (Order Cyprinodontiformes)

Killifishes (goldspotted, rivulus, and sheepshead minnows) are bony fishes with a protrusible upper jaw, 

fin spines rarely present, and a single dorsal fin. Killifishes are found in the water column of rivers and 

estuaries in the Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf, Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf, Gulf of Mexico and 

Caribbean Sea Large Marine Ecosystems. The mangrove rivulus (Kleptolebias marmoratus) is a species of 

concern in the Study Area, as listed in Table 3.6-1.

3.6.2.3.23 Silversides (Order Atheriniformes).

Silversides (Atlantic, beach, inland, and rough) are bony fishes with a silvery stripe on their sides, high 

pectoral fins, a dorsal fin, and the pelvic fin has a spine. These fishes are found on the surface and in the 

water column in the Newfoundland-Labrador Shelf, Scotian Shelf, Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf, 

Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf, Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean Sea Large Marine Ecosystems. The Key 

silverside (Menidia conchorum) is a species of concern in the Study Area, as listed in Table 3.6-1.

3.6.2.3.24 Opahs and Allies (Order Lampriformes)

Opahs and allies (crestfishes, oarfishes, ribbonfishes, tapertails, and tube-eyes) are bony fishes with an 

upper protrusible jaw, pelvic fins located forward on body, below, or just behind insertion of pectoral 

fins. Toadfishes (midshipman) have compressed bodies, large, depressed head and mouth usually with 

tentacles, and two dorsal fins with the first with spines. These fishes are found in the water column and 

seafloor habitats in the Newfoundland-Labrador Shelf, Scotian Shelf, Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf, 

Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf, Gulf of Mexico, and Caribbean Sea Large Marine Ecosystems and open 

ocean areas. Fishes in this group exhibit a variety of reproductive strategies including external 

fertilization and parasitism. Prey items for fishes in this group include crustaceans, squid, and fishes.

3.6.2.3.25 Squirrelfishes and Allies (Order Beryciformes)

Squirrelfishes and allies (bigscales, fangtooths, pricklefishes, slimeheads, and whalefishes) are bony 

fishes with round bodies, one dorsal fin often set far back, with pelvic fins absent, and fin spines often 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.6-62

3.6 Fishes

present. Squirrelfishes (family Holocentridae) are the largest and most widely distributed family in the 

order, with over 60 species found throughout tropical and subtropical marine habitats (Moyle & Cech, 

2004). Most species in this group occupy shallow nearshore reef and rocky areas where they hide during 

the day and come out at night to feed on zooplankton in the water column. 

3.6.2.3.26 Dories and Allies (Order Zeiformes)

Dories and allies (boarfishes, oreos, and tinselfishes) are bony fishes that have deeply compressed 

bodies, protrusible jaws, spines in dorsal fin, and pelvic fin spines sometimes present. There are seven 

species recorded in the Study Area (Froese & Pauly, 2016). These fishes are only found in marine 

habitats and most of are deep sea species. Fishes in this order typically have large heads with distensible 

jaws that allow them to capture larger-sized prey, including fishes and crustaceans.

3.6.2.3.27 Pipefishes and Allies (Order Syngnathiformes)

Pipefishes and allies (cornetfish, seahorses, and snipefishes) are bony fishes, which exhibit unique body 

shapes with snout tube-like, mouth small, and scales often modified bony plates. These fishes are 

associated with hard and soft bottom, submerged aquatic vegetation, reefs, and deep-sea habitats in 

the West Greenland, Newfoundland-Labrador Shelf, Scotian Shelf, Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf, 

Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf, Gulf of Mexico, and Caribbean Sea Large Marine Ecosystems (Froese & 

Pauly, 2016; Paxton & Eshmeyer, 1998). Some pipefishes and allies exhibit a high level of parental care

by, brooding pouches (male seahorses), which results in relatively few young being produced (Helfman 

et al., 2009). Most fishes in this group are diurnal ambush predators and prey on zooplankton, marine 

invertebrates, and small fishes. Pipefishes and allies are preyed upon by larger fishes, and birds.

3.6.2.3.28 Sticklebacks (Order Gasterosteiformes)

Sticklebacks are small fishes comprised of only seven species that live in freshwater, saltwater, or 

brackish water (Helfman et al., 2009; Moyle & Cech, 2004). Species in this group are easily recognized by 

the presence of three to 16 isolated spines on their back in front of the dorsal fin, large eyes, and small 

upturned mouths. Most species in this group possess a row of bony plates on each side. Some 

sticklebacks display parental care through nest building. Fishes in this group are found in littoral marine 

waters and freshwater habitats in the Study Area.

3.6.2.3.29 Scorpionfishes (Order Scorpaeniformes)

Scorpionfishes and allies (poachers, sea robins, snailfishes, and sculpins) are bony fishes with usually 

strong spines on head and dorsal fin, cheeks with bony struts, and rounded pectoral fins. These fishes 

are associated with hard and soft bottom, reefs, and deep-sea habitats in the West Greenland, 

Newfoundland-Labrador Shelf, Scotian Shelf, Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf, Southeast U.S. 

Continental Shelf, Gulf of Mexico, and Caribbean Sea Large Marine Ecosystems and open ocean areas 

(Froese & Pauly, 2016; Paxton & Eshmeyer, 1998). Some scorpionfishes have commercial and recreation 

fishery importance (Moyle & Cech, 2004). Reproduction methods vary widely between species and 

include external fertilization and egg deposition (sculpins). Most fishes in this group are diurnal ambush 

predators and prey on bottom-dwelling invertebrates and small fishes. Scorpionfishes are allies are 

preyed upon by larger fishes, birds, and marine mammals.

3.6.2.3.30 Mullets (Order Mugiliformes)

Mullets (striped, white, fantail, mountain) are bony fishes with a streamline body, forked tail, hard 

angled mouth, large scales, high pectoral fins, and pelvic fins with one spine. Striped mullet is an 

important commercial fishery (Froese & Pauly, 2016). These fishes are associated with soft bottom, 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.6-63

3.6 Fishes

reefs, and nearshore open ocean habitats in the Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf, Southeast U.S. 

Continental Shelf, Gulf of Mexico, and Caribbean Sea Large Marine Ecosystems (Froese & Pauly, 2016; 

Moyle & Cech, 2004). Mullets are catadromous; they spawn in saltwater but spend most of their lives in 

freshwater environments.

3.6.2.3.31 Order Perciformes

The Perciformes, with over 7,800 species, is the largest order of vertebrates. They are extremely diverse, 

but most species are adapted for life as predators in the shallow or surface waters of the ocean. Some of 

the characteristics include fin spines present, dorsal fins either double or made up of two distinct parts 

with the lead spiny, adipose fin absent, pelvic fins thoracic or jugular in position or absent, pectoral fins 

on side of body; ctenoid scales, and closed swim bladder. Nearly half of all species belong to four 

families: gobies, wrasses seabasses, or blennies (Moyle & Cech, 2004). Fish groupings in this section 

generally follow the classification in Nelson (2016).

3.6.2.3.31.1 Perches and Allies

Perches and allies (angelfishes, cardinal fishes, damselfishes, drums, grunts, jacks, remoras, groupers, 

sea basses, snappers, and striped bass) are bony fishes with deep to moderately elongate bodies, one to 

two dorsal fins, with large mouth and eyes and thoracic pelvic fins. These fishes are associated with hard 

and soft bottom, reefs, submerged aquatic vegetation, open ocean, and deep-sea habitats in the Scotian 

Shelf, Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf, Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf, Gulf of Mexico, and Caribbean 

Sea Large Marine Ecosystems and open ocean areas (Froese & Pauly, 2016; Moyle & Cech, 2004).

3.6.2.3.31.2 Wrasses and Allies

Wrasses and allies (hogfishes, parrotfishes, wrasses, and damselfishes) are bony fishes with a 

compressed body, large scales, well-developed teeth, usually colorful coloring. Some wrasses and allies 

have recreational fishery and aquarium trade importance. Most of these fishes are associated with 

depths less than 30 m hard and soft bottom and reef habitats in the Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf, 

Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf, Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean Large Marine Ecosystems (Froese & 

Pauly, 2016; Moyle & Cech, 2004). Wrasses and allies can change sex, usually female-to-male and exhibit 

broadcast spawning, where the fertilized eggs float in the water column or attach to substrate until 

hatching into larvae. Most are diurnal opportunistic predators (Wainwright & Richard, 1995). Prey items 

include zooplankton, invertebrates, and small fishes. Predators of wrasses and allies include larger fishes 

and marine mammals.

3.6.2.3.31.3 Eelpouts and Allies

Eelpouts and allies (gunnels, ocean pout, pricklebacks, wolfeels) are bony fishes with an eel-like body, 

long dorsal and anal fins, and pelvic fins usually absent. These fishes are associated with soft bottom and 

deep-sea habitats in the West Greenland, Newfoundland-Labrador Shelf, Scotian Shelf, Northeast U.S. 

Continental Shelf, Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf, Gulf of Mexico, and Caribbean Sea Large Marine 

Ecosystems (Froese & Pauly, 2016; Moyle & Cech, 2004). Eelpouts have been found to occur near deepsea vents in the Atlantic Ocean’s Mid-Atlantic Ridge (National Geographic, 2016).

3.6.2.3.31.4 Stargazers

Stargazers are bony fishes with an elongated body and eyes on top of their head and big oblique 

mouths. They are associated with soft bottom and deep-sea habitats in the Northeast U.S. Continental 

Shelf, Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf, Gulf of Mexico, and Caribbean Sea Large Marine Ecosystems 

(Froese & Pauly, 2016). This group of fishes ambush their prey from the sand.
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.6-64

3.6 Fishes

3.6.2.3.31.5 Blennies, Gobies, and Allies

Blennies, gobies, and allies (barfin goby, freckled blenny, bridled goby, sleepers, and wormfishes) are 

bony fishes with an eel-like to sculpin-like body, pelvic fins reduced or fused. They are associated with 

hard and soft bottoms, reefs, and deep-sea habitats in the Scotian Shelf, Northeast U.S. Continental 

Shelf, Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf, Caribbean Sea, and Gulf of Mexico Large Marine Ecosystems 

(Froese & Pauly, 2016).

3.6.2.3.31.6 Surgeonfishes

Surgeonfishes (doctorfish, Gulf surgeonfish, blue tang,) are bony fishes with bodies that are deeply 

compressed laterally, small mouth, small scales, and pelvic fins with spines. They are associated with 

reef habitats in the Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf, Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf, Caribbean Sea, 

and Gulf of Mexico Large Marine Ecosystems (Froese & Pauly, 2016). These fishes scrape algae from 

coral reefs with small, elongated mouths. These grazers provide an important function to the reef 

system by controlling the growth of algae on the reef (Goatley & Bellwood, 2009). 

3.6.2.3.31.7 Tunas and Allies

Tuna and allies (barracudas, billfishes, swordfishes, and tunas) have a large mouth, keels usually present, 

pelvic fins often absent or reduced, and are fast swimmers. These fishes are associated with reefs, 

nearshore and offshore open ocean habitats in the Newfoundland-Labrador Shelf, Scotian Shelf, 

Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf, Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf, Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean Large 

Marine Ecosystems (Froese & Pauly, 2016; Moyle & Cech, 2004). Most species have commercial and 

recreational importance. Tuna and allies are voracious open ocean predators (Estrada et al., 2003). They 

exhibit broadcast spawning and fertilized eggs float in the water column until hatching into larvae. Many 

feed nocturnally (Goatley & Bellwood, 2009) and in low-light conditions of twilight (Rickel & Genin, 

2005). Many species in this group make large-scale migrations that allow for feeding in highly productive 

areas, which vary by season (Pitcher, 1995). Prey items include zooplankton for larvae and juvenile 

stages, while fishes and squid are consumed by subadults and adults. Predators of tuna and allies 

include other tuna species, billfishes, toothed whales, and some open ocean shark species. The Atlantic 

bluefin tuna is a NMFS Species of Concern that occurs in the Study Area, as presented in Table 3.6-1.

3.6.2.3.31.8 Butterfishes

Butterfishes (Ariommatids, driftfishes, and medusafishes) are bony fishes with a blunt and thick snout, 

teeth small, and a maxilla mostly covered by bone. They are associated with soft bottom and deep-sea 

habitats in the Newfoundland-Labrador Shelf, Scotian Shelf, Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf, Southeast 

U.S. Continental Shelf, Gulf of Mexico, and Caribbean Sea Large Marine Ecosystems (Froese & Pauly,

2016). Butterfishes form large schools over the continental shelf, except during winter months when it 

may descend to deeper waters. Juveniles are associated with jellies and floating vegetation. Adults feed 

mainly on jellies, squids, and crustaceans. Some species of butterfishes are also commercially harvested 

(Froese & Pauly, 2016).

3.6.2.3.32 Flatfishes (Order Pleuronectiformes)

Flatfishes (flounders, halibut, sand dabs, soles, and tonguefish) are bony fishes with a flattened body 

and eyes on one side of body (Table 3.6-2). These fishes occur on soft bottom habitat in inshore waters, 

as well as in deep-sea habitats in the West Greenland Shelf, Newfoundland-Labrador Shelf, Scotian 

Shelf, Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf, Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf, Gulf of Mexico, and Caribbean 

Sea Large Marine Ecosystems and are an important part of commercial fisheries in the Study Area. The 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.6-65

3.6 Fishes

Atlantic halibut (Hippoglossus hippoglossus) is a representative of this group and is also a Species of 

Concern. Flatfishes are broadcast spawners. They are ambush predators, and prey on other fishes and 

bottom-dwelling invertebrates. Some species in this group have been affected by overfishing (Drazen & 

Seibel, 2007; Froese & Pauly, 2010).

3.6.2.3.33 Pufferfishes (Order Tetraodontiformes)

Pufferfishes (boxfishes, filefishes, ocean sunfishes and triggerfishes) are bony fishes with thick or rough 

skin, sometimes with spines or scaly plates, pelvic fins absent or reduced, and a small mouth with strong 

teeth coalesced into a biting plate. They are associated with hard and soft bottom, reef, submerged 

aquatic vegetation, nearshore and offshore open-ocean, and deep-sea habitats in the NewfoundlandLabrador shelf, Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf, Scotian Shelf, Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf, 

Caribbean Sea, and Gulf of Mexico Large Marine Ecosystems. Pufferfishes are broadcast spawners. 

Predators vary by species, but due to spiny and rough exterior of this group, it is likely few are 

successful. Prey vary by species, but includes jellies, crustaceans, detritus, molluscs, and other bottom 

dwelling marine invertebrates (Froese & Pauly, 2016).

3.6.3 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

This section evaluates how, and to what degree, the activities described in Chapter 2 (Description of 

Proposed Action and Alternatives) potentially impact fishes known to occur within the Study Area. 

Tables 2.6-1 through 2.6-4 present the proposed typical training and testing activity locations for each 

alternative (including number of events). General characteristics of all U.S. Department of the Navy 

(Navy) stressors were introduced in Section 3.0.3.3 (Identifying 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 fishes are:

 Acoustic (sonar and other transducers; air guns; pile driving; vessel noise; aircraft noise; and 

weapons noise)

 Explosives (in-air explosions and in-water explosions)

 Energy (in-water electromagnetic devices; in-air electromagnetic devices; high-energy lasers)

 Physical disturbance and strikes (vessels and in-water devices; aircraft and aerial targets, 

military expended materials, seafloor devices, pile driving)

 Entanglement (wires and cables, decelerators/parachutes, biodegradable polymers)

 Ingestion (military expended materials – munitions, military expended materials other 

than munitions)

 Secondary stressors (impacts to habitat and prey availability)

The analysis focuses on the fish groups and ESA-listed fish species discussed in Section 3.6.2 (Affected 

Environment). Largetooth sawfish, defined in Table 3.6-1 as extirpated, are not carried forward in the 

analysis as this species is unlikely to occur in the Study Area, and there would be no effect from training 

and testing activities. The analysis includes consideration of the mitigation that the Navy will implement 

to avoid potential impacts on fishes from explosives and the incidental benefit on fishes from the 

mitigation that the Navy will implement to avoid potential impacts on seafloor resources from 

explosives, and physical disturbance and strikes. 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.6-66

3.6 Fishes

3.6.3.1 Acoustic Stressors

The following section analyzes potential impacts on fishes from proposed activities that involve acoustic 

stressors (i.e., sonar and other transducers; air guns; pile driving; vessel noise; aircraft noise; and 

weapons noise). It follows the outline and methodology for assessing potential impacts put forth in 

Section 3.0.3.6.1 (Conceptual Framework for Assessing Effects from Acoustic and Explosive Activities). 

3.6.3.1.1 Background

Effects of human-generated sound on fishes have been examined in numerous publications (Hastings & 

Popper, 2005; Hawkins et al., 2015; Mann, 2016; National Research Council, 1994, 2003; Neenan et al., 

2016; Popper et al., 2004; Popper, 2003, 2008; Popper & Hastings, 2009b; Popper et al., 2014; Popper et 

al., 2016). The potential impacts from Navy activities are based on the analysis of available literature 

related to each type of effect. In addition, a Working Group organized under the American National 

Standards Institute-Accredited Standards Committee S3, Subcommittee 1, Animal Bioacoustics, 

developed sound exposure guidelines for fish and sea turtles (Popper et al., 2014), hereafter referred to 

as the ANSI Sound Exposure Guideline technical report. Where applicable, thresholds and relative risk 

factors presented in the ANSI Sound Exposure Guideline technical report were used to assist in the 

analysis of effects to fishes from Navy activities.

There are limited studies of fish responses to aircraft and weapons noise. For the purposes of this 

analysis, studies of the effects from sonar or vessel noise are used to inform fish responses to other 

continuous sources such as aircraft noise. Studies of the effects from impulsive sources (i.e., air guns and 

pile driving) are used to inform fish responses to other impulsive sources such as weapons noise. Where 

data from sonar and vessel noise exposures are limited, other continuous sounds such as white noise is 

used as a proxy to better understand potential reactions from fish. The following section discusses

available information for non-explosive acoustic sources. Information on potential impacts from 

explosive sources is described under Section 3.6.3.2 (Explosive Stressors) where it differs from other 

impulsive sources described below.

3.6.3.1.1.1 Injury

Injury refers to the direct effects on the tissues or organs of a fish. Research on injury in fish caused by 

exposure to high-intensity or long-duration sound from air guns, impact pile driving and some sonars is 

discussed below. Moderate- to low-level noise from vessels, aircraft, and weapons use is described in 

Section 3.0.3.3.1 (Acoustic Stressors) and lacks the amplitude and energy to cause any direct injury. 

Section 3.0.3.6.1 (Conceptual Framework for Assessing Effects from Acoustic and Explosive Activities) 

provides additional information on injury and the framework used to analyze this potential impact.

Injury due to Impulsive Sound Sources

Impulsive sounds, such as those produced by seismic air guns and impact pile driving, may cause injury 

or mortality in fishes. Mortality and potential damage to the cells of the lateral line have been observed

in fish larvae, fry, and embryos after exposure to single shots from a seismic air gun within close 

proximity to the sound source (0.1 to 6 m) (Booman et al., 1996; Cox et al., 2012). However, exposure of 

adult fish to a single shot from an air gun array (four air guns) within similar ranges (6 m), has not 

resulted in any signs of mortality within seven days after exposure (Popper et al., 2016). Although 

injuries occurred in adult fishes, they were similar to injuries seen in control subjects (i.e., fishes that 

were not exposed to the air gun) so there is little evidence that the air gun exposure solely contributed 

to the observed effects.
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.6-67

3.6 Fishes

Injuries, such as ruptured swim bladders, hematomas, and hemorrhaging of other gas-filled organs, have 

been reported in fish exposed to a large number of simulated impact pile driving strikes with cumulative 

sound exposure levels up to 219 decibels referenced to 1 micropascal squared seconds (dB re 1 μPa2-s) 

under highly controlled settings where fish were unable to avoid the source (Casper et al., 2012b; 

Casper et al., 2013a; Casper et al., 2013b; Halvorsen et al., 2011; Halvorsen et al., 2012a; Halvorsen et 

al., 2012b). However, it is important to note that these studies exposed fish to 900 or more strikes as the 

studies goal was largely to evaluate the equal energy hypothesis, which suggests that the effects of a 

large single pulse of energy is equivalent to the effects of energy received from many smaller pulses (as 

discussed in Smith & Gilley, 2008). Halvorsen (2011) and Casper et al. (2017) found that the equal 

energy hypothesis does not apply to effects of pile driving; rather, metrics relevant to injury could 

include, but not be limited to, cumulative sound exposure level, single strike sound exposure level, and 

number of strikes (Halvorsen et al., 2011). Furthermore, Casper et al. (2017) found the amount of 

energy in each pile strike and the number of strikes determines the severity of the exposure and the 

injuries that may be observed. For example, hybrid striped bass (white bass Morone chrysops x striped 

bass Morone saxaltilis) exposed to fewer strikes with higher single strike sound exposure values resulted 

in a higher number of, and more severe, injuries than bass exposed to an equivalent cumulative sound 

exposure level that contained more strikes with lower single strike sound exposure values. This is 

important to consider when comparing data from pile driving studies to potential effects from other 

impulsive sources (such as an explosion). Although single strike peak sound pressure levels were 

measured during these experiments (at average levels of 207 dB re 1 μPa), the injuries were only 

observed during exposures to multiple strikes; therefore, it is anticipated that a peak value much higher 

than those measured in these studies would be required to lead to injury. 

These studies included species both with and without swim bladders. The majority of fish that exhibited 

injuries were those with swim bladders. Lake sturgeon (Acipenser fulyescens), a physostomous fish, was 

found to be less susceptible to injury from impulsive sources than Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus) or 

hybrid striped bass, physoclistous fishes (Casper et al., 2017; Halvorsen et al., 2012a). As reported by 

Halvorsen et al. (2012a), the difference in results is likely due to the type of swim bladder in each fish. 

Physostomous fishes have an open duct connecting the swim bladder to their esophagus and may be 

able to quickly adjust the amount of gas in their body by gulping or releasing air. Physoclistous fishes do 

not have this duct and instead, gas pressure in the swim bladder is regulated by special tissues or glands. 

There were no mortalities reported during these experiments and in the studies where recovery was 

observed, the majority of exposure related injuries healed within a few days in a laboratory setting. In 

many of these controlled studies, neutral buoyancy was determined in the fishes prior to exposure to 

the simulated pile driving. However, fishes with similar physiology to those described in these studies 

that are exposed to actual pile driving activities may show varying levels of injury depending on their 

state of buoyancy.

Debusschere et al. (2014) largely confirmed the results discussed in the paragraph above with caged 

juvenile European sea bass (Dicentrarchus labrax) exposed to actual pile driving operations. No 

differences in mortality were found between control and experimental groups at similar levels tested in 

the experiments described in the paragraph above (sound exposure levels up to 215–222 dB re 1 μPa2-s) 

and many of the same types of injuries occurred. Fishes with injuries from impulsive sources such as 

these may not survive in the wild due to harsher conditions and risk of predation.

Other potential effects from exposure to impulsive sound sources include potential bubble formation 

and neurotrauma. It is speculated that high sound pressure levels may also cause bubbles to form from 

micronuclei in the blood stream or other tissues of animals, possibly causing embolism damage 

(Hastings & Popper, 2005). Fishes have small capillaries where these bubbles could be caught and lead 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.6-68

3.6 Fishes

to the rupturing of the capillaries and internal bleeding. It has also been speculated that this phenomena 

could take place in the eyes of fish due to potentially high gas saturation within the eye tissues (Popper 

& Hastings, 2009b). Additional research is necessary to verify if these speculations apply to exposures to 

non-impulsive sources such as sonars. These phenomena have not been well studied in fishes and are 

difficult to recreate under real-world conditions.

As summarized in the ANSI Sound Exposure Guideline technical report (Popper et al., 2014), exposure to 

high intensity and long duration impact pile driving or air gun shots did not cause mortality, and fishes 

typically recovered from injuries in controlled laboratory settings. Species tested to date can be used as 

viable surrogates for investigating injury in other species exposed to similar sources (Popper et al., 

2014).

Injury due to Sonar and Other Transducers

Non-impulsive sound sources (e.g., sonar, acoustic modems, and sonobuoys) have not been known to 

cause direct injury or mortality to fish under conditions that would be found in the wild (Halvorsen et al., 

2012a; Kane et al., 2010; Popper et al., 2007). Potential direct injuries (e.g., barotrauma, hemorrhage or 

rupture of organs or tissue) from non-impulsive sound sources, such as sonar, are unlikely because of 

slow rise times1, lack of a strong shock wave such as that associated with an explosive, and relatively low 

peak pressures. General categories and characteristics of Navy sonar systems are described in Section 

3.0.3.3.1.1 (Sonar and Other Transducers).

The effects of mid-frequency sonar-like signals (1.5–6.5 kHz) on larval and juvenile Atlantic herring 

(Clupea harengus), Atlantic cod (Gadus morhura), saithe (Pollachius virens), and spotted wolffish 

(Anarhichas minor) were examined by Jørgensen et al. (2005). Researchers investigated potential effects 

on survival, development, and behavior in this study. Among fish kept in tanks and observed for one to 

four weeks after sound exposure, no significant differences in mortality or growth-related parameters 

between exposed and unexposed groups were observed. Examination of organs and tissues from 

selected herring experiments did not reveal obvious differences between unexposed and exposed 

groups. However, two (out of 42) of the herring groups exposed to sound pressure levels of 189 dB re 

1 μPa and 179 dB re 1 μPa had a post-exposure mortality of 19 and 30 percent, respectively. It is not 

clear if this increased mortality was due to the received level or to other unknown factors, such as 

exposure to the resonance frequency of the swim bladder. Jørgensen et al. (2005) estimated a resonant 

frequency of 1.8 kHz for herring and saithe ranging in size from 6.3 to 7.0 cm, respectively, which lies 

within the range of frequencies used during sound exposures and therefore may explain some of the 

noted mortalities. 

Individual juvenile fish with a swim bladder resonance in the frequency range of the operational sonars 

may be more susceptible to injury or mortality. Past research has demonstrated that fish species, size 

and depth influences resonant frequency (Løvik & Hovem, 1979; McCartney & Stubbs, 1971). At 

resonance, the swim bladder, which can amplify vibrations that reach the fishes hearing organs, may 

absorb much of the acoustic energy in the impinging sound wave. It is suspected that the resulting 

oscillations may cause mortality, harm the auditory organs or the swim bladder (Jørgensen et al., 2005; 

Kvadsheim & Sevaldsen, 2005). However, damage to the swim bladder and to tissues surrounding the 

swim bladder was not observed in fishes exposed to sonar at their presumed swim bladder resonant 

 

1 Rise time: the amount of time for a signal to change from static pressure (the ambient pressure without the added sound) to 

high pressure. Rise times for non-impulsive sound typically have relatively gradual increases in pressure where impulsive sound 

has near instantaneous rise to a high peak pressure. For more detail, see Appendix D (Acoustic and Explosives Concepts).
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.6-69

3.6 Fishes

frequency (Jørgensen et al., 2005). The physiological effect of sonars on adult fish is expected to be less 

than for juvenile fish because adult fish are in a more robust stage of development, the swim bladder 

resonant frequencies would be lower than that of mid-frequency active sonar, and adult fish have more 

ability to move from an unpleasant stimulus (Kvadsheim & Sevaldsen, 2005). Lower frequencies 

(i.e., generally below 1 kHz) are expected to produce swim bladder resonance in adult fishes from about 

10–100 cm (McCartney & Stubbs, 1971). Fish, especially larval and small juveniles, are more susceptible 

to injury from swim bladder resonance when exposed to continuous signals within the resonant 

frequency range.

Hastings (1995) found “acoustic stunning” (loss of consciousness) in blue gouramis (Trichogaster 

trichopterus), a freshwater species, following an 8-minute continuous exposure to a 150 Hz pure tone 

with a sound pressure level of 198 dB re 1 μPa. This species of fish has an air bubble in the mouth cavity 

directly adjacent to the animal’s braincase that may have caused this injury. Hastings (1991; 1995) also 

found that goldfish (Carassius auratus), also a freshwater species, exposed to a 250 Hz continuous wave 

sound with peak pressures of 204 dB re 1 μPa for two hours, and blue gourami exposed to a 150 Hz 

continuous wave sound at a sound pressure level of 198 dB re 1 μPa for 0.5 hours did not survive. These 

studies are examples of the highest known levels tested on fish and for relatively long durations. 

Stunning and mortality due to exposure to non-impulsive sound exposure has not been observed in 

other studies.

Three freshwater species of fish, the rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss), channel catfish (Ictalurus 

punctatus), and the hybrid sunfish (Lepomis sp.), were exposed to both low- and mid-frequency sonar 

(Kane et al., 2010; Popper et al., 2007). Low-frequency exposures with received sound pressure levels of 

193 dB re 1 μPa occurred for either 324 or 648 seconds. Mid-frequency exposures with received sound 

pressure levels of 210 dB re 1 μPa occurred for 15 seconds. No fish mortality resulted from either 

experiment and during necropsy after test exposures, both studies found that none of the subjects 

showed signs of tissue damage related to exposure (Kane et al., 2010; Popper et al., 2007).

As summarized in the ANSI Sound Exposure Guideline technical report (Popper et al., 2014), although 

fishes have been injured and killed due to intense, long-duration non-impulsive sound exposures, fish 

exposed under more realistic conditions have shown no signs of injury. Those species tested to date can 

be used as viable surrogates for estimating injury in other species exposed to similar sources.

3.6.3.1.1.2 Hearing Loss

Researchers have examined the effects on hearing in fishes from sonar-like signals, tones, and different 

continuous noise sources; however, studies from impulsive sources are limited to air gun and impact 

pile driving exposures. Section 3.0.3.6.1 (Conceptual Framework for Assessing Effects from Acoustic and 

Explosive Activities) provides additional information on hearing loss and the framework used to analyze 

this potential impact.

Exposure to high-intensity sound can cause hearing loss, also known as a noise-induced threshold shift, 

or simply a threshold shift (Miller, 1974). A temporary threshold shift (TTS) is a temporary, recoverable 

loss of hearing sensitivity. A TTS may last several minutes to several weeks, and the duration may be 

related to the intensity of the sound source and the duration of the sound (including multiple 

exposures). A permanent threshold shift (PTS) is non-recoverable, results from the destruction of tissues 

within the auditory system, permanent loss of hair cells, or damage to auditory nerve fibers (Liberman, 

2016), and can occur over a small range of frequencies related to the sound exposure. However, the 

sensory hair cells of the inner ear in fishes are regularly replaced over time when they are damaged, 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.6-70

3.6 Fishes

unlike in mammals where sensory hair cells loss is permanent (Lombarte et al., 1993; Popper et al., 

2014; Smith et al., 2006). As a consequence, PTS has not been known to occur in fishes and any hearing 

loss in fish may be as temporary as the timeframe required to repair or replace the sensory cells that 

were damaged or destroyed (Popper et al., 2005; Popper et al., 2014; Smith et al., 2006). Although 

available data for some terrestrial mammals have shown signs of nerve damage after severe threshold 

shifts (e.g., Kujawa & Liberman, 2009; Lin et al., 2011), it is not known if damage to auditory nerve fibers 

could also occur in fishes, and if so, whether fibers would recover during this process. As with TTS, the 

animal does not become deaf but requires a louder sound stimulus, relative to the amount of PTS, to 

detect a sound within the affected frequencies.

Hearing Loss due to Impulsive Sound Sources

Popper et al. (2005) examined the effects of a seismic air gun array on a fish with a swim bladder that is 

involved in hearing, the lake chub (Couesius plumbeus), and two species that have a swim bladder that is 

not involved in hearing, the northern pike (Esox lucius) and the broad whitefish (Coregonus nasus), a 

salmonid. In this study, the lowest received cumulative sound exposure level (5 shots with a mean sound 

pressure level of 177 dB re 1 μPa) at which effects were noted was 186 dB re 1 μPa2-s. The results 

showed temporary hearing loss for both lake chub and northern pike to both 5 and 20 air gun shots, but 

not for the broad whitefish. Hearing loss was approximately 20 to 25 dB at some frequencies for both 

species, and full recovery of hearing took place within 18 hours after sound exposure. Examination of 

the sensory surfaces of the ears after allotted recovery times (one hour for 5 shot exposures, and up to 

18 hours for 20 shot exposures) showed no damage to sensory hair cells in any of the fish from these 

exposures (Song et al., 2008).

McCauley et al. (2003) and McCauley and Kent (2012) showed loss of a small percent of sensory hair 

cells in the inner ear of caged fish exposed to a towed air gun array simulating a passing seismic vessel. 

Pink snapper (Pargus auratus), a species that has a swim bladder that is not involved in hearing, were 

exposed to multiple air gun shots for up to 1.5 hours (McCauley et al., 2003) where the maximum 

received sound exposure levels exceeded 180 dB re 1 μPa2-s. The loss of sensory hair cells continued to 

increase for up to at least 58 days post exposure to 2.7 percent of the total cells. Gold band snapper 

(Pristipomoides multidens) and sea perch (Lutjanis kasmira), both fishes with a swim bladder involved in 

hearing, were also exposed to a towed air gun array simulating a passing seismic vessel (McCauley & 

Kent, 2012). Although received levels for these exposures have not been published, hair cell damage 

increased as the range of the exposure (i.e., range to the source) decreased. Again, the amount of 

damage was considered small in each case (McCauley & Kent, 2012). It is not known if this hair cell loss 

would result in hearing loss since fish have tens or even hundreds of thousands of sensory hair cells in 

the inner ear and only a small portion were affected by the sound (Lombarte & Popper, 1994; Popper & 

Hoxter, 1984). The question remains as to why McCauley and Kent (2012) found damage to sensory hair 

cells while Popper et al. (Popper et al., 2005) did not; however, there are many differences between the 

studies, including species and the precise sound source characteristics.

Hastings et al. (2008) exposed a fish with a swim bladder that is involved in hearing, the pinecone 

soldierfish (Myripristis murdjan), and three species that have a swim bladder that is not involved in 

hearing, the blue green damselfish (Chromis viridis), the saber squirrelfish (Sargocentron spiniferum), 

and the bluestripe seaperch (Lutjanus kasmira), to an air gun array. Fish in cages were exposed to 

multiple air gun shots with a cumulative sound exposure level of 190 dB re 1 μPa2-s. The authors found 

no hearing loss in any fish examined up to twelve hours after the exposures. 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.6-71

3.6 Fishes

In an investigation of another impulsive source, Casper et al. (2013b) found that some fishes may 

actually be more susceptible to barotrauma (e.g., swim bladder ruptures, herniations, and hematomas) 

than hearing effects when exposed to simulated impact pile driving. Hybrid striped bass (white bass 

[Morone chrysops] x striped bass [Morone saxatilis]) and Mozambique tilapia (Oreochromis 

mossambicus), two species with a swim bladder not involved in hearing, were exposed to sound 

exposure levels between 213 and 216 dB re 1 μPa2-s. The subjects exhibited barotrauma and although 

researchers began to observe signs of inner ear hair cell loss, these effects were small compared to the 

other non-auditory injuries incurred. Researchers speculated that injury might occur prior to signs of 

hearing loss or TTS. These sound exposure levels may present the lowest threshold at which hearing 

effects may begin to occur.

Overall, PTS has not been known to occur in fishes tested to date. Any hearing loss in fish may be as 

temporary as the timeframe required to repair or replace the sensory cells that were damaged or 

destroyed (Popper et al., 2005; Popper et al., 2014; Smith et al., 2006). The lowest sound exposure level 

at which TTS has been observed in fishes with a swim bladder involved in hearing is 186 dB re 1 μPa2-s. 

As reviewed in the ANSI Sound Exposure Guideline technical report (Popper et al., 2014), fishes without a 

swim bladder, or fishes with a swim bladder that is not involved in hearing, would be less susceptible to 

hearing loss (i.e., TTS) than fishes with swim bladders involved in hearing, even at higher levels and 

longer durations.

Hearing Loss due to Sonar and Other Transducers

Several studies have examined the effects of the sound exposures from low-frequency sonar on fish 

hearing (i.e., Halvorsen et al., 2013; Kane et al., 2010; Popper et al., 2007). Hearing was measured both 

immediately post-exposure and for up to several days thereafter (Halvorsen et al., 2013; Kane et al., 

2010; Popper et al., 2007). Maximum received sound pressure levels were 193 dB re 1 μPa for 324 or 

648 seconds (a cumulative sound exposure level of 218 or 220 dB re 1 μPa2-s, respectively) at 

frequencies ranging from 170 to 320 Hz (Kane et al., 2010; Popper et al., 2007) and 195 dB re 1 Pa for 

324 seconds (a cumulative sound exposure level of 215 dB re 1 μPa2-s) in a follow-on study (Halvorsen et 

al., 2013). Two species with a swim bladder not involved in hearing, the largemouth bass (Micropterus 

salmoides) and yellow perch (Perca flavescens), showed no loss in hearing sensitivity from sound 

exposure immediately after the test or 24 hours later. Channel catfish, a fish with a swim bladder 

involved in hearing, and some specimens of rainbow trout, a fish with a swim bladder not involved in 

hearing, showed a threshold shift (up to 10 to 20 dB of hearing loss) immediately after exposure to the 

low-frequency sonar when compared to baseline and control animals. Small thresholds shifts were 

detected for up to 24 hours after the experiment in some channel catfish. Although some rainbow trout 

showed signs of hearing loss, another group showed no hearing loss. The different results between 

rainbow trout test groups are difficult to understand, but may be due to development or genetic 

differences in the various groups of fish. Catfish hearing returned to, or close to, normal within about 

24 hours after exposure to low-frequency sonar. Examination of the inner ears of the fish during 

necropsy revealed no differences from the control groups in ciliary bundles or other features indicative 

of hearing loss. The maximum time fish were held post exposure before sacrifice was 96 hours (Kane et 

al., 2010).

The same investigators examined the potential effects of mid-frequency active sonar on fish hearing and 

the inner ear (Halvorsen et al., 2012c; Kane et al., 2010). The maximum received sound pressure level 

was 210 dB re 1 μPa at a frequency of 2.8 to 3.8 kHz for a total duration of 15 seconds (cumulative 

sound exposure level of 220 dB re 1 μPa2-s). Out of the species tested (rainbow trout and channel 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.6-72

3.6 Fishes

catfish), only one test group of channel catfish showed any hearing loss after exposure to mid-frequency 

active sonar. The investigators tested catfish during two different seasons and found that the group 

tested in October experienced TTS, which recovered within 24 hours, but fish tested in December 

showed no effect. It was speculated that the difference in hearing loss between catfish groups might 

have been due to the difference in water temperature during the testing period or due to differences 

between the two stocks of fish (Halvorsen et al., 2012b). Any effects on hearing in channel catfish due to 

sound exposure appeared to be short term and non-permanent (Halvorsen et al., 2012a; Kane et al., 

2010).

Some studies have suggested that there may be some loss of sensory hair cells due to high intensity 

sources, indicating a loss in hearing sensitivity; however, none of those studies concurrently investigated 

the subjects’ actual hearing range after exposure to these sources. Enger (1981) found loss of ciliary 

bundles of the sensory cells in the inner ears of Atlantic cod following one to five hours of exposure to 

pure tone sounds between 50 and 400 Hz with a sound pressure level of 180 dB re 1 μPa. Hastings 

(1995) found auditory hair-cell damage in goldfish, a freshwater species with a swim bladder that is 

involved in hearing. Goldfish were exposed to 250 Hz and 500 Hz continuous tones with maximum peak 

sound pressure levels of 204 dB re 1 μPa and 197 dB re 1 μPa, respectively, for about two hours. 

Similarly, Hastings et al. (1996) demonstrated damage to some sensory hair cells in oscars (Astronotus 

ocellatus) observed one to four days following a one hour exposure to a pure tone at 300 Hz with a 

sound pressure level of 180 dB re 1 μPa but no damage to the lateral line was observed. Both studies 

found a relatively small percentage of total hair cell loss from hearing organs despite long duration 

exposures. Effects from long-duration noise exposure studies are generally informative; however, they 

are not necessarily a direct comparison to intermittent short-duration sounds generated during Navy 

activities involving sonar and other transducers.

As noted in the ANSI Sound Exposure Guideline technical report (Popper et al., 2014), some fish species 

with a swim bladder that is involved in hearing may be more susceptible to TTS from high intensity nonimpulsive sound sources, such as sonar and other transducers, depending on the duration and 

frequency content of the exposure. Fishes with a swim bladder involved in hearing and fishes with highfrequency hearing may exhibit TTS from exposure to low- and mid-frequency sonar, specifically at 

cumulative sound exposure levels above 215 dB re 1 μPa2-s. Fishes without a swim bladder and fishes 

with a swim bladder that is not involved in hearing would be unlikely to detect mid- or other higherfrequency sonars and would likely require a much higher sound exposure level to exhibit the same effect 

from exposure to low-frequency active sonar.

Hearing Loss due to Vessel Noise

Little data exist on the effects of vessel noise on hearing in fishes. However, TTS has been observed in 

fishes exposed to elevated background noise and other non-impulsive sources (e.g., white noise). Caged 

studies on pressure sensitive fishes (i.e., fishes with a swim bladder involved in hearing and those with 

high frequency hearing) show some hearing loss after several days or weeks of exposure to increased 

background sounds, although the hearing loss seems to recover (e.g., Scholik & Yan, 2002b; Smith et al., 

2004a; Smith et al., 2006). Smith et al. (2004a; 2006) exposed goldfish, to noise with a sound pressure 

level of 170 dB re 1 μPa and found a clear relationship between the amount of hearing loss and the 

duration of exposure until maximum hearing loss occurred at about 24 hours of exposure. A 10-minute 

exposure resulted in 5 dB of TTS, whereas a three-week exposure resulted in a 28 dB TTS that took over 

two weeks to return to pre-exposure baseline levels (Smith et al., 2004a). Recovery times were not 

measured by investigators for shorter exposure durations. It is important to note that these exposures 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.6-73

3.6 Fishes

were continuous and subjects were unable to avoid the sound source for the duration of the 

experiment.

Scholik and Yan (2001) demonstrated TTS in fathead minnows (Pimephales promelas), another pressure 

sensitive species with similar hearing capabilities as the goldfish, after a 24-hour continuous exposure to 

white noise (0.3 to 2.0 kHz) at 142 dB re 1 μPa, that did not recover 14 days post-exposure. This is the 

longest threshold shift documented to have occurred in a fish species, with the actual duration of the 

threshold shift being unknown, but exceeding 14 days. However, the same authors found that the 

bluegill sunfish (Lepomis macrochirus), a species that primarily detects particle motion and lacks 

specializations for hearing, did not show statistically significant elevations in auditory thresholds when 

exposed to the same stimulus (Scholik & Yan, 2002a). This demonstrates that fishes with a swim bladder 

involved in hearing and those with high-frequency hearing may be more sensitive to hearing loss than 

fishes without a swim bladder or those with a swim bladder not involved in hearing. Studies such as 

these should be treated with caution in comparison to exposures in a natural environment, largely due 

to the confined nature of the controlled setting where fishes are unable to avoid the sound source 

(e.g., fishes are held stationary in a tub), and due to the long, continuous durations of the exposures 

themselves (sometimes days to weeks). Fishes that are exposed to vessel noise in their natural 

environment, even in areas with higher levels of vessel movement, would only be exposed for a short 

duration (seconds or minutes) as vessels are transient and pass by. 

As summarized in the ANSI Sound Exposure Guideline technical report (Popper et al., 2014), some fish 

species with a swim bladder that is involved in hearing may be more susceptible to TTS from long 

duration continuous noise, such as broadband2 white noise, depending on the duration of the exposure

(thresholds are proposed based on continuous exposure of 12 hours). However, it is not likely that TTS 

would occur in fishes with a swim bladder not involved in hearing or in fishes without a swim bladder.

3.6.3.1.1.3 Masking

Masking refers to the presence of a noise that interferes with a fish’s ability to hear biologically 

important sounds including those produced by prey, predators, or other fishes. Masking occurs in all 

vertebrate groups and can effectively limit the distance over which an animal can communicate and 

detect biologically relevant sounds. Human-generated continuous sounds (e.g., some sonar, vessel noise

and vibratory pile driving) have the potential to mask sounds that are biologically important to fishes. 

Researchers have studied masking in fishes using continuous masking noise but masking due to 

intermittent, short duty cycle sounds has not been studied. Section 3.0.3.6.1 (Conceptual Framework for 

Assessing Effects from Acoustic and Explosive Activities) provides additional information on masking and 

the framework used to analyze this potential impact.

Masking is likely to occur in most fishes due to varying levels of ambient or natural noise in the 

environment such as wave action, precipitation, or other animal vocalizations (Popper et al., 2014). 

Ambient noise during higher sea states in the ocean has resulted in elevated thresholds in several fish 

species (Chapman & Hawkins, 1973; Ramcharitar & Popper, 2004). Although the overall intensity or 

loudness of ambient or human-generated noise may result in masking effects in fishes, masking may be 

most problematic when human-generated signals or ambient noise levels overlap the frequencies of 

biologically important signals (Buerkle, 1968, 1969; Popper et al., 2014; Tavolga, 1974). 

 

2 A sound or signal that contains energy across multiple frequencies.
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.6-74

3.6 Fishes

Wysocki and Ladich (2005) investigated the influence of continuous white noise exposure on the 

auditory sensitivity of two freshwater fish with notable hearing specializations for sound pressure 

detection, the goldfish and the lined Raphael catfish (Platydoras costatus), and a freshwater fish without 

notable specializations, the pumpkinseed sunfish (Lepomis gibbosus). For the goldfish and catfish, 

baseline thresholds were lower than masked thresholds. Continuous white noise with a sound pressure 

level of approximately 130 dB re 1 μPa at 1 m resulted in an elevated threshold of 23 to 44 dB within the 

subjects’ region of best sensitivity between 500 and 1000 Hz. There was less evidence of masking in the 

sunfish during the same exposures with only a shift of 11 dB. Wysocki and Ladich (2005) suggest that 

ambient sound regimes may limit acoustic communication and orientation, especially in animals with 

notable hearing specializations for sound pressure detection. 

Masking could lead to potential fitness costs depending on the severity of the reaction (Radford et al., 

2014; Slabbekoorn et al., 2010). For example, masking could result in changes in predator-prey 

relationships potentially inhibiting a fish’s ability to detect predators and therefore increase its risk of 

predation (Astrup, 1999; Mann et al., 1998; Simpson et al., 2015; Simpson et al., 2016). Masking may 

also limit the distance over which fish can communicate or detect important signals (Codarin et al., 

2009; Ramcharitar et al., 2001; Ramcharitar et al., 2006a) including sounds emitted from a reef for 

navigating larvae (Higgs, 2005; Neenan et al., 2016). If the masking signal is brief (a few seconds or less), 

biologically important signals may still be detected resulting in little effect to the individual. If the signal 

is longer in duration (minutes or hours) or overlaps with important frequencies for a particular species, 

more severe consequences may occur such as the inability to attract a mate and reproduce. Holt and 

Johnston (2014) were the first to demonstrate the Lombard effect in one species of fish, a potentially 

compensatory behavior where an animal increases the source level of its vocalizations in response to 

elevated noise levels. The Lombard effect is currently understood to be a reflex which may be 

unnoticeable to the animal or may lead to increased energy expenditure during communication. 

The ANSI Sound Exposure Guideline technical report (Popper et al., 2014) highlights a lack of data that 

exist for masking by sonar but suggests that the narrow bandwidth and intermittent nature of most 

sonar signals would result in only a limited probability of any masking effects. In addition, most sonars 

(mid-, high-, and very high-frequency) are above the hearing range of most marine fish species, 

eliminating the possibility of masking for these species. In most cases, the probability of masking would 

further decrease with increasing distance from the sound source. 

In addition, no data are available on masking by impulsive signals (e.g., impact pile driving and air guns) 

(Popper et al., 2014). Impulsive sounds are typically brief, lasting only fractions of a second, where 

masking could occur only during that brief duration of sound. Biological sounds can typically be detected 

between pulses within close distances to the source unless those biological sounds are similar to the 

masking noise, such as impulsive or drumming vocalizations made by some fishes (e.g., cod or haddock). 

Masking could also indirectly occur because of repetitive impulsive signals where the repetitive sounds 

and reverberations over distance may create a more continuous noise exposure.

Although there is evidence of masking as a result of exposure to vessel noise, the ANSI Sound Exposure 

Guideline technical report (Popper et al., 2014) does not present numeric thresholds for this effect. 

Instead, relative risk factors are considered and it is assumed the probability of masking occurring is 

higher at near to moderate distances from the source (up to hundreds of meters) but decreases with 

increasing distance (Popper et al., 2014).
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.6-75

3.6 Fishes

3.6.3.1.1.4 Physiological Stress

Section 3.0.3.6.1 (Conceptual Framework for Assessing Effects from Acoustic and Explosive Activities) 

provides additional information on physiological stress and the framework used to analyze this potential 

impact. A fish must first be able to detect a sound above its hearing threshold and above the ambient 

noise level before a physiological stress reaction can occur. The initial response to a stimulus is a rapid 

release of stress hormones into the circulatory system, which may cause other responses such as 

elevated heart rate and blood chemistry changes. Although an increase in background sound has been 

shown to cause stress in humans and animals, only a limited number of studies have measured 

biochemical responses by fishes to acoustic stress (e.g., Goetz et al., 2015; Madaro et al., 2015; RemageHealey et al., 2006; Smith et al., 2004b; Wysocki et al., 2006; Wysocki et al., 2007) and the results have 

varied. Researchers have studied physiological stress in fishes using predator vocalizations, nonimpulsive or continuous, and impulsive noise exposures.

A stress response that has been observed in fishes includes the production of cortisol (a stress hormone) 

when exposed to sounds such as boat noise, tones, or predator vocalizations. Nichols et al. (2015) found 

that giant kelpfish (Heterostichus rostratus) had increased levels of cortisol with increased sound level 

and intermittency of boat noise playbacks. Cod exposed to a short-duration upsweep (a tone that 

sweeps upward across multiple frequencies) across 100 to 1,000 Hz had increases in cortisol levels, 

which returned to normal within one hour post-exposure (Sierra-Flores et al., 2015). Remage-Healey et 

al. (2006) found elevated cortisol levels in Gulf toadfish (Opsanus beta) exposed to low-frequency 

bottlenose dolphin sounds. The researchers observed none of these effects in toadfish exposed to 

low-frequency snapping shrimp “pops.”

A sudden increase in sound pressure level or an increase in overall background noise levels can increase 

hormone levels and alter other metabolic rates indicative of a stress response, such as increased 

ventilation and oxygen consumption (Pickering, 1981; Popper & Hastings, 2009a; Simpson et al., 2015; 

Simpson et al., 2016; Smith et al., 2004a, 2004b). Similarly, reef fish embryos exposed to boat noise have 

shown increases in heart rate, another indication of a physiological stress response (Jain-Schlaepfer et 

al., 2018). Although results have varied, it has been shown that chronic or long-term (days or weeks) 

exposures of continuous man-made sounds can lead to a reduction in embryo viability (Sierra-Flores et 

al., 2015) and slowed growth rates (Nedelec et al., 2015). 

However not all species tested to date show these reactions. Smith et al. (2004b) found no increase in 

corticosteroid, a class of stress hormones, in goldfish exposed to a continuous, band-limited noise 

(0.1–10 kHz) with a sound pressure level of 170 dB re 1 μPa for one month. Wysocki et al. (2007)

exposed rainbow trout to continuous band-limited noise with a sound pressure level of about 150 dB re 

1 μPa for nine months with no observed stress effects. Growth rates and effects on the trout’s immune 

systems were not significantly different from control animals held at a sound pressure level of 110 dB re 

1 μPa.

Fishes may have physiological stress reactions to sounds that they can hear. Generally, stress responses 

are more likely to occur in the presence of potentially threatening sound sources, such as predator 

vocalizations, or during the sudden onset of impulsive signals rather than from non-impulsive or 

continuous sources such as vessel noise or sonar. Stress responses are typically brief (a few seconds to 

minutes) if the exposure is short or if fishes habituate or learn to tolerate the noise that is being 

presented. Exposure to chronic noise sources can lead to more severe impacts such as reduced growth 

rates, which may lead to reduced survivability for an individual. It is assumed that any physiological 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.6-76

3.6 Fishes

response (e.g., hearing loss or injury) or significant behavioral response is also associated with a stress 

response.

3.6.3.1.1.5 Behavioral Reactions

Section 3.0.3.6.1 (Conceptual Framework for Assessing Effects from Acoustic and Explosive Activities) 

provides additional information on behavioral reactions and the framework used to analyze this 

potential impact. Behavioral reactions in fishes have been observed due to a number of different types 

of sound sources. The majority of research has been performed using air guns (including large-scale 

seismic surveys), sonar, and vessel noise. Fewer observations have been made on behavioral reactions 

to impact pile driving noise; although fish are likely to show similar behavioral reactions to any impulsive 

noise within or outside the zone for hearing loss and injury. 

As with masking, a fish must first be able to detect a sound above its hearing threshold and above the 

ambient noise level before a behavioral reaction can potentially occur. Most fishes can only detect 

low-frequency sounds with the exception of a few species that can detect some mid and high 

frequencies (above 1 kHz). 

Studies of fishes have identified the following basic behavioral reactions to sound: alteration of natural 

behaviors (e.g., startle or alarm), and avoidance (LGL Ltd Environmental Research Associates et al., 2008; 

McCauley et al., 2000; Pearson et al., 1992). In the context of this FEIS/OEIS, and to remain consistent 

with available behavioral reaction literature, the terms “startle” and “alarm” and “response” or 

“reactions” will be used synonymously.

In addition, observed behavioral effects to fish could include disruption to or alteration of natural 

activities such as swimming, schooling, feeding, breeding, and migrating. Sudden changes in sound level 

can cause fish to dive, rise, or change swimming direction. However, there is evidence that some fish 

may habituate to repeated exposures or learn to tolerate noise that is not seemingly unthreatening 

(e.g., Bruintjes et al., 2016; Nedelec et al., 2016b; Radford et al., 2016). 

Changes in sound intensity may be more important to a fishes’ behavior than the maximum sound level. 

Sounds that fluctuate in level or have intermittent pulse rates tend to elicit stronger responses from fish 

than even stronger sounds with a continuous level (Neo et al., 2014; Schwarz & Greer, 1984). 

Interpreting behavioral responses can be difficult due to species-specific behavioral tendencies, 

motivational state (e.g., feeding or mating), an individual’s previous experience, and whether or not the 

fish are able to avoid the source (e.g., caged versus free-swimming subjects). Results from caged studies 

may not provide a clear understanding of how free-swimming fishes may react to the same or similar 

sound exposures (Hawkins et al., 2015).

Behavioral Reactions due to Impulsive Sound Sources

It is assumed that most species would react similarly to impulsive sources (i.e., air guns and impact pile 

driving). These reactions include startle or alarm responses and increased swim speeds at the onset of 

impulsive sounds (Fewtrell & McCauley, 2012; Pearson et al., 1992; Roberts et al., 2016). Data on 

behavioral reactions in fishes exposed to impulsive sound sources is mostly limited to studies using 

caged fishes and the use of seismic air guns (Løkkeborg et al., 2012). Several species of rockfish 

(Sebastes species) in a caged environment exhibited startle or alarm reactions to seismic air gun pulses 

between peak-to-peak sound pressure levels of 180 dB re 1 μPa and 205 dB re 1 μPa (Pearson et al., 

1992). More subtle behavioral changes were noted at lower sound pressure levels, including decreased 

swim speeds. At the presentation of the sound, some species of rockfish settled to the bottom of the 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.6-77

3.6 Fishes

experimental enclosure and reduced swim speed. Trevally (Pseudocaranx dentex) and pink snapper 

(Pagrus auratus) also exhibited alert responses as well as changes in swim depth, speed and schooling 

behaviors when exposed to air gun noise (Fewtrell & McCauley, 2012). Both trevally and pink snapper 

swam faster and closer to the bottom of the cage at the onset of the exposure. However, trevally swam 

in tightly cohesive groups at the bottom of the test cages while pink snapper exhibited much looser 

group cohesion. These behavioral responses were seen during sound exposure levels as low as 147 up to 

161 dB re 1 μPa2-s but habituation occurred in all cases, either within a few minutes or up to 30 minutes

after the final air gun shot (Fewtrell & McCauley, 2012; Pearson et al., 1992).

Some studies have shown a lack of behavioral reactions to air gun noise. Herring exposed to an 

approaching air gun survey (from 27 to 2 km over 6 hours), resulting in single pulse sound exposure 

levels of 125 to 155 dB re 1 μPa2-s, did not react by changing direction or swim speed (Pena et al., 2013).

Although these levels are similar to those tested in other studies which exhibited responses (Fewtrell & 

McCauley, 2012), the distance of the exposure to the test enclosure, the slow onset of the sound source, 

and a strong motivation for feeding may have affected the observed response (Pena et al., 2013). In 

another study, Wardle et al. (2001) observed marine fish on an inshore reef before, during, and after an 

air gun survey at varying distances. The air guns were calibrated at a peak level of 210 dB re 1 μPa at 

16 m and 195 dB re 1 μPa at 109 m from the source. Other than observed startle responses and small 

changes in position of pollack, when the air gun was located within close proximity to the test site 

(within 10 m), they found no substantial or permanent changes in the behavior of the fish on the reef 

throughout the course of the study. Behavioral responses to impulsive sources are more likely to occur 

within near and intermediate (tens to hundreds of meters) distances from the source as opposed to far 

distances (thousands of meters) (Popper et al., 2014).

Unlike the previous studies, Slotte et al. (2004) used fishing sonar (38 kHz echo sounder) to monitor 

behavior and depth of blue whiting (Micromesistius poutassou) and Norwegian spring herring (Claupea 

harengus L.) spawning schools exposed to air gun signals. They reported that fishes in the area of the air 

guns appeared to go to greater depths after the air gun exposure compared to their vertical position 

prior to the air gun usage. Moreover, the abundance of animals 30 to 50 km away from the air guns 

increased during seismic activity, suggesting that migrating fish left the zone of seismic activity and did 

not re-enter the area until the activity ceased. It is unlikely that either species was able to detect the 

fishing sonar, however, it should be noted that these behavior patterns may have also been influenced 

by other factors such as motivation for feeding, migration, or other environmental factors 

(e.g., temperature, salinity, etc.) (Slotte et al., 2004). In a similar study, overall abundance of multiple 

species of reef fish decreased at a site monitored with video cameras approximately 8 km away from a 

seismic survey. This decrease was noted in comparison to abundances monitored on three consecutive 

days prior to the start of the survey. Received levels of the air gun signals and monitoring of other areas 

surrounding the reef were not completed during this study so it is not known how loud the signals were 

on the reef, or whether fishes avoided the area completely or simply moved to a close by reef (Paxton et 

al., 2017).

Alterations in natural behavior patterns due to exposure to pile driving noise have not been studied as 

thoroughly, but reactions noted thus far are similar to those seen in response to seismic surveys. These 

changes in behavior include startle responses, changes in depth (in both caged and free-swimming 

subjects), increased swim speeds, changes in ventilation rates, directional avoidance, and changes in 

social behaviors such as shoaling and distance from neighboring fish (observed in caged fish) (e.g., 

Hawkins et al., 2014; Herbert-Read et al., 2017; Mueller-Blenkle et al., 2010; Neo et al., 2015; Roberts et 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.6-78

3.6 Fishes

al., 2016). The severity of response varied greatly by species and received sound pressure level of the 

exposure. For example, some minor behavioral reactions such as startle responses were observed 

during caged studies with a sound pressure level as low as 140 dB re 1 μPa (Neo et al., 2014). However, 

only some free-swimming fishes avoided pile driving noise at even higher sound pressure levels between 

152 and 157 dB re 1 μPa (Iafrate et al., 2016). In addition, Roberts et al. (2016) observed that although 

multiple species of free swimming fish responded to simulated pile driving recordings, not all responded 

consistently and, in some cases, only one fish would respond while the others continued feeding from a 

baited remote underwater video. Other fish responded to different strikes. The repetition rate of pulses 

during an exposure may also have an effect on what behaviors were noted and how quickly these 

behaviors recovered as opposed to the overall sound pressure or exposure level. For example, Neo et al. 

(2014) observed slower recovery times in fishes exposed to intermittent sounds (similar to pile driving) 

compared to continuous exposures.

As summarized in the ANSI Sound Exposure Guideline technical report (Popper et al., 2014), species may 

react differently to the same sound source depending on a number of variables, such as the animal’s life 

stage or behavioral state (e.g., feeding, mating). Without specific data, it is assumed that fishes react 

similarly to all impulsive sounds outside the zone for hearing loss and injury. Observations of fish 

reactions to large-scale air gun surveys are informative, but not necessarily directly applicable to 

analyzing impacts from the short term, intermittent use of all impulsive sources. It is assumed that fish 

have a high probability of reacting to an impulsive sound source within near and intermediate distances 

(tens to hundreds of meters), and a decreasing probability of reaction at increasing distances (Popper et 

al., 2014).

Behavioral Reactions due to Sonar and Other Transducers

Behavioral reactions to sonar have been studied both in caged and free-living fish although results can 

oftentimes be difficult to interpret depending on the species tested and the study environment. 

Jørgensen et al. (2005) showed that caged cod and spotted wolf fish (Anarhichas minor) lacked any 

response to simulated sonar between 1 and 8 kHz. However, within the same study, reactions were seen 

in juvenile herring. It is likely that the sonar signals were inaudible to the cod and wolf fish (species that 

lack notable hearing specializations), but audible to herring which do possess hearing capabilities in the 

frequency ranges tested.

Doksæter et al. (2009; 2012) and Sivle et al. (2012; 2014) studied the reactions of both wild and captive 

Atlantic herring to the Royal Netherlands Navy’s experimental mid-frequency active sonar ranging from 

1 to 7 kHz. The behavior of the fish was monitored in each study either using upward looking 

echosounders (for wild herring) or audio and video monitoring systems (for captive herring). The source 

levels used within each study varied across all studies and exposures with a maximum received sound 

pressure level of 181 dB re 1 μPa and maximum cumulative sound exposure level of 184 dB re 1 μPa2·s. 

No avoidance or escape reactions were observed when herring were exposed to any sonar sources. 

Instead, significant reactions were noted at lower received sound levels of different non-sonar sound 

types. For example, dive responses (i.e., escape reactions) were observed when herring were exposed to 

killer whale feeding sounds at received sound pressure levels of approximately 150 dB re 1 μPa (Sivle et 

al., 2012). Startle responses were seen when the cages for captive herring were hit with a wooden stick 

and with the ignition of an outboard boat engine at a distance of 1 meter from the test pen (Doksaeter 

et al., 2012). It is possible that the herring were not disturbed by the sonar, were more motivated to 

continue other behaviors such as feeding, or did not associate the sound as a threatening stimulus. 

Based on these results (Doksaeter et al., 2009; Doksaeter et al., 2012; Sivle et al., 2012), Sivle et al. 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.6-79

3.6 Fishes

(2014) created a model in order to report on the possible population-level effects on Atlantic herring 

from active naval sonar. The authors concluded that the use of naval sonar poses little risk to 

populations of herring regardless of season, even when the herring populations are aggregated and 

directly exposed to sonar.

There is evidence that elasmobranchs (cartilaginous fish including sharks and rays) also respond to 

human-generated sounds. Myrberg and colleagues did experiments in which they played back sounds 

(e.g., pulsed tones below 1 kHz) and attracted a number of different shark species to the sound source 

(e.g., Casper et al., 2012a; Myrberg et al., 1976; Myrberg et al., 1969; Myrberg et al., 1972; Nelson & 

Johnson, 1972). The results of these studies showed that sharks were attracted to irregularly pulsed lowfrequency sounds (below several hundred Hz), in the same frequency range of sounds that might be 

produced by struggling prey. However, sharks are not known to be attracted to continuous signals or 

higher frequencies that they presumably cannot hear (Casper & Mann, 2006; Casper & Mann, 2009).

Only a few species of marine fishes can detect sonars above 1 kHz (see Section 3.6.2.1.3, Hearing and 

Vocalization) meaning that most fishes would not detect most mid-, high-, or very high-frequency Navy 

sonars. The few marine species that can detect above 1 kHz and have some hearing specializations may 

be able to better detect the sound and would therefore be more likely to react. However, researchers 

have found little reaction by adult fish in the wild to sonars within the animals’ hearing range (Doksaeter 

et al., 2009; Doksaeter et al., 2012; Sivle et al., 2012). The ANSI Sound Exposure Guideline technical 

report (Popper et al., 2014) suggests that fish able to hear sonars would have a low probability of 

reacting to the source within near or intermediate distances (within tens to hundreds of meters) and a 

decreasing probability of reacting at increasing distances.

Behavioral Reactions due to Vessel Noise

Vessel traffic also contributes to the amount of noise in the ocean and has the potential to affect fishes. 

Several studies have demonstrated and reviewed avoidance responses by fishes (e.g., herring and cod) 

to the low-frequency sounds of vessels (De Robertis & Handegard, 2013; Engås et al., 1995; Handegard 

et al., 2003). Misund (1997) found fish ahead of a ship that showed avoidance reactions did so at ranges 

of 50 to 150 m. When the vessel passed over them, some species of fish responded with sudden escape 

responses that included lateral avoidance or downward compression of the school.

As mentioned in Section 3.6.3.1.1.5 (Behavioral Reactions), behavioral reactions are quite variable 

depending on a number of factors such as (but not limited to) the type of fish, its life history stage, 

behavior, time of day, location, the type of vessel, and the sound propagation characteristics of the 

water column (Popper et al., 2014; Schwarz & Greer, 1984). Reactions to playbacks of continuous noise 

or passing vessels generally include basic startle and avoidance responses, as well as evidence of 

distraction and increased decision-making errors. Other specific examples of observed responses 

include; increased group cohesion, changes in vertical distribution in the water column, changes in swim 

speeds, as well as changes in feeding efficacy such as reduced foraging attempts and increased mistakes 

(i.e., lowered discrimination between food and non-food items) (Bracciali et al., 2012; De Robertis & 

Handegard, 2013; Handegard et al., 2015; Nedelec et al., 2015; Nedelec et al., 2017; e.g., Neo et al., 

2015; Payne et al., 2015; Purser & Radford, 2011; Roberts et al., 2016; Sabet et al., 2016; Simpson et al., 

2015; Simpson et al., 2016; Voellmy et al., 2014a; Voellmy et al., 2014b). As mentioned above, responses 

may also be dependent on the type of vessel fish are exposed to. For example, juvenile damselfish 

(Pomacentrus wardi) exposed to sound from a two stroke engine resulted in startle responses, reduction 

in boldness (increased time spent hiding, less time exhibiting exploratory behaviors), space use 

(maximum distance ventured from shelter), as well as more conservative reactions to visual stimuli 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.6-80

3.6 Fishes

analogous to a potential predator. However, damselfish exposed to sound from a four stroke engine 

generally displayed similar responses as control fish exposed to ambient noise (e.g., little or no change 

in boldness) (McCormick et al., 2018).

Changes in anti-predator response have also been observed but vary by species. During exposures to 

vessel noise, juvenile Ambon damselfish (Pomacentrus amboinensis) and European eels showed slower 

reaction times and lacked startle responses to predatory attacks which subsequently showed signs of 

distraction and increased their risk of predation during both simulated and actual predation experiments 

(Simpson et al., 2015; Simpson et al., 2016). Spiny chromis (Acanthochromis polyacanthus) exposed to 

chronic boat noise playbacks spent less time feeding and interacting with offspring, and increased 

defensive acts. In addition, offspring survival rates were also lower at nests exposed to chronic boat 

noise playbacks versus those exposed to ambient playbacks (Nedelec et al., 2017). This suggests that 

chronic or long term (up to 12 consecutive days) exposures could have more severe consequences than 

brief exposures. 

In contrast, larval Atlantic cod showed a stronger anti-predator response and were more difficult to 

capture during simulated predator attacks (Nedelec et al., 2015). There are also observations of a 

general lack of response to shipping and pile driving playback noise by grey mullet (Chelon labrosus) and 

two-spotted gobys (Gobiusculus flavescens) (Roberts et al., 2016). Mensinger et al. (2018) found that 

Australian snapper (Pagrus auratus) located in a protected area showed no change in feeding behavior 

or avoidance during boat passes, whereas snapper in areas where fishing occurs startled and ceased 

feeding behaviors during boat presence. This supports that location and past experience also have an 

influence on whether fishes react.

Although behavioral responses such as those listed above were often noted during the onset of most 

sound presentations, most behaviors did not last long and animals quickly returned to baseline behavior 

patterns. In fact, in one study, when given the chance to move from a noisy tank (with sound pressure 

levels reaching 120–140 dB re 1 μPa) to a quieter tank (sound pressure levels of 110 dB re 1 μPa), there 

was no evidence of avoidance. The fish did not seem to prefer the quieter environment and continued 

to swim between the two tanks comparable to control sessions (Neo et al., 2015). However, many of 

these reactions are difficult to extrapolate to real world conditions due to the captive environment in 

which testing occurred.

Most fish species should be able to detect vessel noise due to its low-frequency content and their 

hearing capabilities (see Section 3.6.2.1.3, Hearing and Vocalization). The ANSI Sound Exposure Guideline

technical report (Popper et al., 2014) suggests that fishes have a high to moderate probability of 

reacting to nearby vessel noise (i.e., within tens of meters) with decreasing probability of reactions with 

increasing distance from the source (hundreds or more meters).

3.6.3.1.1.6 Long-Term Consequences

Section 3.0.3.6.1 (Conceptual Framework for Assessing Effects from Acoustic and Explosive Activities) 

provides additional information on potential pathways for long-term consequences. Mortality removes 

an individual fish from the population and injury reduces the fitness of an individual. Few studies have 

been conducted on any long-term consequences from repeated hearing loss, stress, or behavioral 

reactions in fishes due to exposure to loud sounds (Hawkins et al., 2014; Popper & Hastings, 2009a; 

Popper et al., 2014). Repeated exposures of an individual to multiple sound-producing activities over a 

season, year, or life stage could cause reactions with costs that can accumulate over time to cause 

long-term consequences for the individual. These long-term consequences may affect the survivability 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.6-81

3.6 Fishes

of the individual or if impacting enough individuals, may have population-level effects including: 

alteration from migration paths, avoidance of important habitat, or even cessation of foraging or 

reproductive behavior (Hawkins et al., 2014). Conversely, some animals habituate to or become tolerant 

of repeated exposures over time, learning to ignore a stimulus that in the past has not accompanied any 

overt threat. In fact, Sivle et al. (2016) predicted that exposures to sonar at the maximum levels tested 

would only result in short-term disturbance and would not likely affect the overall population in 

sensitive fishes such as herring. 

3.6.3.1.2 Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers

Sonar and other transducers proposed for use are transient in most locations because activities that 

involve sonar and other transducers take place at different locations throughout the Study Area. A few 

activities involving sonar and other transducers occur in inshore waters (within bays and estuaries), 

including at pierside locations. Sonar and other transducers emit sound waves into the water to detect 

objects, safely navigate, and communicate. General categories and characteristics of these systems and 

the number of hours these sonars will be operated are described in Section 3.0.3.3 (Identifying Stressors 

for Analysis). The activities analyzed in the EIS/OEIS that use sonar and other transducers are described 

in Appendix A (Navy Activity Descriptions).

As described under Section 3.6.3.1.1.1 (Injury – Injury due to Sonar and Other Transducers), direct injury 

from sonar and other transducers is highly unlikely because injury has not been documented in fish 

exposed to sonar (Halvorsen et al., 2012c; Halvorsen et al., 2013; Popper et al., 2007) and therefore is 

not considered further in this analysis. 

Fishes are not equally sensitive to noise at all frequencies. Fishes must first be able to hear a sound in 

order to be affected by it. As discussed in Section 3.6.2.1.3 (Hearing and Vocalization), many marine fish 

species tested to date hear primarily below 1 kHz. For the purposes of this analysis, fish species were 

grouped into one of four fish hearing groups based on either their known hearing ranges (i.e., 

audiograms) or physiological features that may be linked to overall hearing capabilities (i.e., swim 

bladder with connection to, or in close proximity to, the inner ear). Figure 3.6-6 provides a summary of 

hearing threshold data from available literature (e.g., Casper & Mann, 2006; Deng et al., 2013; Kéver et 

al., 2014; Mann et al., 2001; Ramcharitar et al., 2006b) to demonstrate the maximum potential range of 

frequency detection for each hearing group. 

Due to data limitations, these estimated hearing ranges may be overly conservative in that they may 

extend beyond what some species within a given fish hearing group may actually detect. For example, 

although most sharks are sensitive to lower frequencies, well below 1 kHz, the bull shark has been 

tested and can detect frequencies up to 1.5 kHz (Kritzler & Wood, 1961; Myrberg, 2001) and therefore 

represents the uppermost known limit of frequency detection for this hearing group. The upper bound 

of each fish hearing group’s frequency range is outside of the range of best sensitivity for all fishes 

within that group. As a result, fishes within each group would only be able to detect those upper 

frequencies at close distances to the source, and from sources with relatively high source levels.
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.6-82

3.6 Fishes

Notes: kHz: kilohertz; MF1: 3.5 kHz; MF4: 4 kHz; MF5: 8 kHz.

Thin blue lines represent the estimated minimum and maximum range of frequency detection for each group. All hearing 

groups are assumed to hear down to 0.01 kHz regardless of available data. Thicker portions of each blue line represent the 

estimated minimum and maximum range of best sensitivity for that group. Currently, no data are available to estimate the 

range of best sensitivity for fishes without a swim bladder. Although each sonar class is represented graphically by the 

horizontal black, grey and brown bars, not all sources within each class would operate at all the displayed frequencies. 

Example mid-frequency sources are provided to further demonstrate this.

Figure 3.6-6: Fish Hearing Group and Navy Sonar Frequency Ranges

Figure 3.6-6 is not intended as a composite audiogram, but rather displays the basic overlap in potential 

frequency content for each hearing group with Navy defined sonar classes (i.e., low-, mid-, high- and 

very high-frequency) as discussed under Section 3.0.3.3.1.1 (Sonar and Other Transducers –

Classification of Sonar and Other Transducers).

Systems within the low-frequency sonar class present the greatest potential for overlap with fish 

hearing. Some mid-frequency sonars and other transducers may also overlap some species’ hearing 

ranges, but to a lesser extent than low-frequency sonars. For example, the only hearing groups that 

have the potential to be able to detect mid-frequency sources within bins MF1, MF4 and MF5 are fishes 

with a swim bladder involved in hearing and with high-frequency hearing. It is anticipated that most 

marine fishes would not hear or be affected by mid-frequency Navy sonars or other transducers with 

operating frequencies greater than about 1–4 kHz. Only a few fish species (i.e., fish with a swim bladder 

and high-frequency hearing specializations) can detect and therefore be potentially affected by highand very high-frequency sonars and other transducers.

0.01 0.1 1 10 100

Frequency (kHz)

Low-Frequency Sonar

Fishes Without a Swim Bladder

Very HighFrequency Sonar

High-Frequency Sonar

Mid-Frequency Sonar

Fishes with a Swim Bladder not Involved in Hearing

Fishes with a Swim Bladder Involved in Hearing

Fishes with a Swim Bladder and High-Frequency Hearing

MF1

MF4

MF5
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.6-83

3.6 Fishes

The most probable impacts from exposure to sonar and other transducers are TTS (for more detail see 

Section 3.6.3.1.1.2, Hearing Loss), masking (for more detail see Section 3.6.3.1.1.3, Masking), 

physiological stress (for more detail see Section 3.6.3.1.1.4, Physiological Stress), and behavioral 

reactions (for more detail see Section 3.6.3.1.1.5, Behavioral Reactions). Analysis of these effects is 

provided below.

3.6.3.1.2.1 Methods for Analyzing Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers

The Navy performed a quantitative analysis to estimate the range to TTS for fishes exposed to sonar and 

other transducers used during Navy training and testing activities. Inputs to the quantitative analysis 

included sound propagation modeling in the Navy’s Acoustic Effects Model to the sound exposure 

criteria and thresholds presented below. Although range to effects are predicted, density data for fish 

species within the Study Area are not available; therefore, it is not possible to estimate the total number 

of individuals that may be affected by sound produced by sonar and other transducers.

Criteria and thresholds to estimate impacts from sonar and other transducers are presented below in 

Table 3.6-3. Thresholds for hearing loss are typically reported in cumulative sound exposure level so as 

to account for the duration of the exposure. Therefore, thresholds reported in the ANSI Sound Exposure 

Guideline technical report (Popper et al., 2014) that were presented in other metrics were converted to 

sound exposure level based on the signal duration reported in the original studies (see Halvorsen et al., 

2012b; Halvorsen et al., 2013; Kane et al., 2010; Popper et al., 2007). General research findings from 

these studies can be reviewed in Section 3.6.3.1.1.2 (Hearing Loss). 

Table 3.6-3: Sound Exposure Criteria for TTS from Sonar

Fish Hearing Group

TTS from Low-Frequency 

Sonar (SELcum)

TTS from Mid-Frequency 

Sonar (SELcum)

Fishes without a swim bladder NC NC

Fishes with a swim bladder not 

involved in hearing > 210 NC

Fishes with a swim bladder involved 

in hearing 210 220

Fishes with a swim bladder and 

high-frequency hearing 210 220

Notes: TTS = Temporary Threshold Shift, SELcum = Cumulative sound exposure level (decibel referenced to 1 

micropascal squared seconds [dB re 1 μPa2-s]), NC = effects from exposure to sonar is considered to 

be unlikely, therefore no criteria are reported, “>” indicates that the given effect would occur above 

the reported threshold. 

For mid-frequency sonars, fishes with a swim bladder involved in hearing have shown signs of hearing 

loss because of mid-frequency sonar exposure at a maximum received sound pressure level of 210 dB re 

1 μPa for a total duration of 15 seconds. To account for the total duration of the exposure, the threshold 

for TTS is a cumulative sound exposure level of 220 dB re 1 μPa2-s (Halvorsen et al., 2012b; Kane et al., 

2010). The same threshold is used for fishes with a swim bladder and high-frequency hearing as a 

conservative measure although fishes in this hearing group have not been tested for the same impact. 

TTS has not been observed in fishes with a swim bladder that is not involved in hearing exposed to 

mid-frequency sonar. Fishes within this hearing group do not sense pressure well and typically cannot 

hear at frequencies above 1 kHz (Halvorsen et al., 2012b; Popper et al., 2014). Therefore, no criteria 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.6-84

3.6 Fishes

were proposed for fishes with a swim bladder that is not involved in hearing from exposure to midfrequency sonars as it is considered unlikely for TTS to occur. Fishes without a swim bladder are even 

less susceptible to noise exposure; therefore, TTS is unlikely to occur and no criteria are proposed for 

this group either.

For low-frequency sonar, as described in Section 3.6.3.1.1.2 (Hearing Loss), exposure of fishes with a 

swim bladder has resulted in TTS (Halvorsen et al., 2013; Kane et al., 2010; Popper et al., 2007). 

Specifically, fishes with a swim bladder not involved in hearing showed signs of hearing loss after 

exposure to a maximum received sound pressure level of 193 dB re 1 μPa for 324 and 648 seconds 

(cumulative sound exposure level of 218 and 220 dB re 1 μPa2-s, respectively) (Kane et al., 2010; Popper 

et al., 2007). In addition, exposure of fishes with a swim bladder involved in hearing to low-frequency 

sonar at a sound pressure level of 195 dB re 1 μPa for 324 seconds (cumulative sound exposure level of 

215 dB re 1 μPa2-s) resulted in TTS (Halvorsen et al., 2013). Although the results were variable, it can be 

assumed that TTS may occur in fishes within the same hearing groups at similar exposure levels. As a 

conservative measure, the threshold for TTS from exposure to low-frequency sonar for all fish hearing 

groups with a swim bladder was rounded down to a cumulative sound exposure level of 210 dB re 1 

μPa2-s.

Criteria for high- and very high-frequency sonar were not available in the ANSI Sound Exposure Guideline

technical report (Popper et al., 2014); however, only species with a swim bladder involved in hearing 

and with high-frequency specializations such as shad could potentially be affected. The majority of fish 

species within the Study Area are unlikely to be able to detect these sounds. There is little data available 

on hearing loss from exposure of fishes to these high-frequency sonars. Due to the lack of available data, 

and as a conservative measure, effects to these hearing groups from high-frequency sonars would utilize 

the lowest threshold available for other hearing groups (a cumulative sound exposure level of 210 dB re 

1 μPa2-s) but effects would largely be analyzed qualitatively.

3.6.3.1.2.2 Impact Ranges from Sonar and Other Transducers

The following section provides ranges to specific effects from sonar and other transducers. Ranges are 

calculated using criteria from Table 3.6-4 and the Navy Acoustic Effects Model. Only ranges to TTS were 

predicted based on available data. Sonar durations of 1, 30, 60 and 120 seconds were used to calculate 

the ranges below. However, despite the variation in exposure duration, ranges were almost identical 

across these durations and therefore were combined and summarized by bin in the table below. General 

source levels, durations and other characteristics of these systems are described in Section 3.0.3.3.1 

(Acoustic Stressors).

Ranges to TTS for mid-frequency sonar bins are only estimated for fishes with a swim bladder involved in 

hearing and fishes with high-frequency hearing. The maximum range to TTS is up to 10 m for these most 

sensitive hearing groups, but only for the most powerful sonar bins (e.g., MF1).
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.6-85

3.6 Fishes

Table 3.6-4: Ranges to Temporary Threshold Shift from Four Representative Sonar Bins

Fish Hearing Group

Range to Effects (meters)

Sonar Bin 

LF5

Lowfrequency

Sonar Bin MF1

Hull-mounted 

surface ship 

sonars (e.g., 

AN/SQS-53C and 

AN/SQS-61)

Sonar Bin MF4

Helicopterdeployed dipping 

sonars (e.g., 

AN/AQS-22)

Sonar Bin MF5

Active acoustic 

sonobuoys (e.g., 

DICASS)

Fishes without a swim bladder NR NR NR NR

Fishes with a swim bladder not 

involved in hearing 0 NR NR NR

Fishes with a swim bladder 

involved in hearing 0

7

(5 - 10) 0 0

Fishes with a swim bladder and 

high-frequency hearing 0

7

(5 - 10) 0 0

Notes: NR = no criteria are available and therefore no range to effects are estimated. 

Ranges to TTS represent modeled predictions in different areas and seasons within the Study Area. The average range to TTS is

provided as well as the minimum to the maximum range to TTS in parenthesis. Where only one number is provided the 

average, minimum, and maximum ranges to TTS are the same.

3.6.3.1.2.3 Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers under Alternative 1

Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers under Alternative 1 for Training Activities

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 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). 

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, 

and civilian port defense activities would fluctuate annually. In addition, a portion of anti-submarine 

warfare tracking exercise –ship unit-level training activities would be conducted synthetically or in 

conjunction with other training exercises. Training activities using sonar and other transducers could 

occur throughout the Study Area, although use would generally occur in Navy range complexes and 

testing ranges, or around inshore locations identified in Chapter 2 (Description of Proposed Action and 

Alternatives). Use of sonars associated with anti-submarine warfare would be greatest in the 

Jacksonville and Virginia Capes Range Complexes. 

Only a few species of shad within the Clupeidae family, subfamily Alosinae, are known to be able to 

detect high-frequency sonar and other transducers (greater than 10 kHz) and are considered a part of 

the fish hearing group for species with a swim bladder that have high-frequency hearing. Other marine 

fishes would probably not detect these sounds and therefore would not experience masking, 

physiological stress, or behavioral disturbance. Shad species, especially in nearshore and inland areas 

where mine warfare activities take place that often employ high-frequency sonar systems, could have 

behavioral reactions and experience masking during these events. However, mine warfare activities are 

typically limited in duration and geographic extent. Furthermore, sound from high-frequency systems 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.6-86

3.6 Fishes

may only be detectable above ambient noise regimes in these coastal habitats from within a few 

kilometers due to lower source levels and higher frequencies that do not propagate as far as other 

sonars. Behavioral reactions and masking, if they occurred for some shad and herring species, are 

expected to be transient and long-term consequences for populations would not be expected.

As discussed above, most marine fish species are not expected to detect sounds in the mid-frequency 

range (above a few kHz) of most operational sonars. The fish species that are known to detect midfrequencies (i.e., those with swim bladders including some sciaenids [drum], most clupeids [herring, 

shad], and potentially deep-water fish such as myctophids [lanternfish]) do not have their best 

sensitivities in the range of the operational sonars. Thus, fishes may only detect the most powerful 

systems, such as hull-mounted sonar, within a few kilometers; and most other, less powerful midfrequency sonar systems, for a kilometer or less. Fishes with a swim bladder involved in hearing and 

with high-frequency hearing are more susceptible to hearing loss due to exposure to mid-frequency 

sonars. However, the maximum estimated range to TTS for these fish hearing groups is equal to or less 

than 10 m for only the most powerful sonar bins. Fishes within these hearing groups would have to be 

very close to the source and the source levels would have to be relatively high in order to experience 

this effect.

Most mid-frequency active sonars used in the Study Area would not have the potential to substantially 

mask key environmental sounds or produce sustained physiological stress or behavioral reactions due to 

the limited time of exposure resulting from the moving sound sources and variable duty cycles. 

However, it is important to note that some mid-frequency sonars have a high duty cycle or are operated 

continuously. This may increase the risk of masking, but only for important biological sounds that 

overlap with the frequency of the sonar being operated. Furthermore, although some species may be 

able to produce sound at higher frequencies (greater than 1 kHz), vocal marine fishes, such as sciaenids, 

largely communicate below the range of mid-frequency levels used by most sonars. Any such effects 

would be temporary and infrequent as a vessel operating mid-frequency sonar transits an area. As such, 

mid-frequency sonar use is unlikely to impact individuals. Long-term consequences for fish populations 

due to exposure to mid-frequency sonar and other transducers are not expected.

All marine fish species can likely detect low-frequency sonars and other transducers. However, lowfrequency active sonar use is limited and most low-frequency active operations are typically conducted 

in deeper, offshore areas. The majority of fish species, including those that are the most highly vocal, 

exist on the continental shelf and within nearshore, estuarine areas. However, some species may still be 

present in areas where low-frequency sonar and other transducers are used, including some coastal 

areas. Most low-frequency sonar sources do not have a high enough source level to cause TTS, as shown 

in Table 3.6-4. Although highly unlikely, if TTS did occur, it may reduce the detection of biologically 

significant sounds but would likely recover within a few minutes to days.

The majority of fish species exposed to sonar and other transducers within near (tens of meters) to far 

(thousands of meters) distances of the source would be more likely to experience mild physiological 

stress; brief periods of masking; behavioral reactions such as startle or avoidance responses, although 

risk would be low even close to the source; or no reaction. However, based on the information provided 

in the ANSI Sound Exposure Guideline technical report (Popper et al., 2014), the relative risk of these 

effects at any distance are expected to be low. Due to the transient nature of most sonar operations, 

overall effects would be localized and infrequent, only lasting a few seconds or minutes. Based on the 

low level and short duration of potential exposure to low-frequency sonar and other transducers, longterm consequences for fish populations are not expected.
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.6-87

3.6 Fishes

As discussed previously in Section 3.6.2.1.3 (Hearing and Vocalization) and as shown in Figure 3.6-6, all 

ESA-listed fish species that occur in the Study Area are capable of detecting sound produced by lowfrequency sonars and other transducers. Scalloped hammerhead sharks, smalltooth sawfish, giant 

manta ray, and oceanic whitetip sharks do not have a swim bladder and cannot detect frequencies 

above 1 kHz. It is assumed that fishes without a swim bladder cannot detect high-frequency sonars and 

may only detect mid-frequency sources below 2 kHz, with high source levels, and within close proximity 

to the source (a few tens of meters). Atlantic salmon, Atlantic sturgeon, shortnose sturgeon, Gulf 

sturgeon, and Nassau groupers have a swim bladder not involved in hearing and may be able to detect 

some mid-frequency sources below 2 kHz, but they are not particularly sensitive to these frequencies. 

Therefore, impacts from mid-, high- or very high-frequency sonar and other transducers are not 

expected for any ESA-listed species.

All ESA-listed species that occur in the Study Area may be exposed to low-frequency sonar or other 

transducers associated with training activities. Atlantic salmon could be exposed to sonar and other 

transducers but only in the Northeast Range Complex during seasonal migrations in the spring and 

summer. Because most low-frequency sonar is typically operated in deeper offshore areas, ESA-listed 

shortnose sturgeon would be less likely to be exposed to low-frequency sonar due to their occurrence in 

nearshore areas. Atlantic sturgeon, Gulf sturgeon, and smalltooth sawfish typically occur in nearshore 

areas as well but can also occur farther offshore. Despite their occurrence in nearshore areas, each of 

these species may still be present in areas where low-frequency sonar and other transducers are used. 

The Central and Southwest Atlantic Distinct Population Segment of scalloped hammerhead only occur in 

the eastern portion of the Key West Range Complex (southeastern part of the Study Area) and in the 

vicinity of Puerto Rico. Nassau groupers are also limited to these southeastern portions of the Study 

Area, specifically around Key West and other areas of Florida and Puerto Rico. These species would only 

have the potential to be impacted by activities in these areas. The ESA-listed giant manta ray and 

oceanic whitetip shark would most likely be exposed to low-frequency sonar in offshore areas 

throughout the Study Area.

Overall, impacts to ESA-listed species that encounter sonar or other transducers within their hearing 

range would be similar to those discussed above for impacts to fishes in general. As described above, 

most low-frequency sonar sources do not have a high enough source level to cause TTS and TTS would 

not be anticipated in fishes without a swim bladder. Although highly unlikely, if TTS did occur in fishes 

with a swim bladder, it may result in a reduction in detection of biologically significant sounds but would 

likely recover within a few minutes to days. ESA-listed species within the Study Area would be more 

likely to experience masking, physiological stress, and behavioral reactions, although risk would be low 

even close to the source. These impacts would be short term (seconds to minutes) for individuals and

long-term consequences for populations would not be expected. Multiple exposures for individuals 

within a short period (seconds to minutes) are unlikely due to the transient nature of most sonar 

activities. Although some shark species have shown attraction to irregularly pulsed low-frequency 

sounds (below several hundred Hz), they are not known to be attracted to continuous signals or higher 

frequencies that they presumably cannot hear (Casper & Mann, 2006; Casper & Mann, 2009; Casper et 

al., 2012a). 

Proposed training activities involving the use of sonar overlap designated critical habitat for Atlantic 

sturgeon in the James River at Naval Station Norfolk in Norfolk, VA. However, most of the designated 

physical and biological features do not occur within the Study Area and the use of sonar and other 

transducers would not affect any of the physical and biological features that have been identified.
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.6-88

3.6 Fishes

Proposed training activities involving the use of sonar overlap designated critical habitat for Gulf 

sturgeon in the nearshore portion of the Panama City OPAREA. Most of the physical and biological 

features are generally not applicable to the Study Area since they occur within the riverine habitat of the 

species. Those that may occur within the Study Area include abundant prey items within marine habitats 

and safe and unobstructed migratory pathways between riverine, estuarine, and marine habitats. 

However, the use of sonar and other transducers would not affect any of the physical and biological 

features that have been identified.

Designated critical habitat for Atlantic salmon is restricted to rivers within Maine and does not overlap 

areas where sonar and other transducers are used. Likewise, designated critical habitat for smalltooth 

sawfish is restricted to nearshore, shallow waters (less than 1 m) around the tip of Florida and does not 

overlap areas where sonar and other transducers are used. 

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of sonar and other transducers during training activities, as described 

under Alternative 1, will have no effect on designated critical habitat for Atlantic salmon, Atlantic 

sturgeon, Gulf sturgeon, and smalltooth sawfish. The use of sonar and other transducers during training 

activities, as described under Alternative 1, may affect ESA-listed Atlantic salmon, Atlantic sturgeon, Gulf 

sturgeon, Nassau grouper, the Central and Southwest Atlantic Distinct Population Segment of the 

scalloped hammerhead shark, shortnose sturgeon, smalltooth sawfish, giant manta ray and oceanic 

whitetip sharks. The Navy has consulted with the National Marine Fisheries Service as required by 

section 7(a)(2) of the ESA in that regard.

Impacts from 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. Testing activities using 

sonar and other transducers could occur throughout the Study Area, although use would generally occur 

within Navy range complexes, on Navy testing ranges, or around pierside locations identified in Chapter 

2 (Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives). In particular, low-frequency sources occur in some 

coastal waters such as Newport, RI; the Naval Undersea Warfare Center Division, Newport Testing 

Range; offshore of Fort Pierce, FL; South Florida Ocean Measurement Facility; Naval Surface Warfare 

Center, Panama City Division Testing Range; as well as in any of the range complexes, with the exception 

of the Key West Range Complex, throughout the Study Area. Low-frequency sources are operated more 

frequently during testing activities than during training activities. Therefore, although the general 

impacts from sonar and other transducers during testing would be similar in severity to those described 

during training, there may be slightly more impacts during testing activities.

Hearing loss in fishes from exposure to sonar and other transducers is unlikely. Although unlikely, if TTS

did occur, it would occur within tens of meters of the source and only in select hearing groups. The 

majority of fish species exposed to sonar and other transducers within near (tens of meters) to far 

(thousands of meters) distances of the source would be more likely to experience; mild physiological 

stress; brief periods of masking; behavioral reactions such as startle or avoidance responses, although

risk would be low even close to the source; or no reaction. However, based on the information provided 

in the ANSI Sound Exposure Guideline technical report (Popper et al., 2014), the relative risk of these 

effects at any distance are expected to be low. Long-term consequences for individual fish are unlikely in 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.6-89

3.6 Fishes

most cases because acoustic exposures are intermittent, transient and unlikely to repeat over short 

periods. Since long-term consequences for most individuals are unlikely, long-term consequences for 

populations are not expected.

All ESA-listed fish species that occur in the Study Area have the potential to be exposed to sonar or other 

transducer use during testing activities, as activities involving these sources may occur in all range 

complexes, testing ranges, and at numerous inshore locations. The use of sonar in these coastal areas or 

at pierside locations may increase the likelihood of exposure for Atlantic salmon, Atlantic sturgeon, 

shortnose surgeon, smalltooth sawfish and Gulf sturgeon. Despite their occurrence in nearshore areas, 

each of these species may also be present in offshore areas where low-frequency sonar and other 

transducers are used. The Central and Southwest Atlantic Distinct Population Segment of scalloped 

hammerhead only occur in the eastern portion of the Key West Range Complex (southeastern part of 

the Study Area) and in the vicinity of Puerto Rico. Nassau groupers are also limited to these 

southeastern portions of the Study Area, specifically around Key West and other areas of Florida and 

Puerto Rico and, as such, would only likely be exposed to low-frequency sonar during its use at the 

South Florida Ocean Measurement Facility and offshore of Fort Pierce, FL. Due to this limited amount of 

overlap between range complexes and scalloped hammerhead shark and Nassau grouper habitat, 

exposure to sonar and other transducers would be extremely rare. ESA-listed giant manta ray and 

oceanic whitetip sharks would most likely be exposed to low-frequency sonar in offshore areas 

throughout the Study Area.

As discussed above, all ESA-listed fish species that occur in the Study Area are capable of detecting 

sound produced by low-frequency sonars and other transducers. Some ESA-species may only detect 

mid-frequency sources at below 2 kHz, but are not particularly sensitive to these frequencies. Therefore, 

impacts from mid-, high- or very high-frequency sonar and other transducers are not expected for any 

ESA-listed species.

Overall, impacts on ESA-listed species that encounter sonar or other transducers within their hearing 

range would be similar to those discussed for other fishes that occur in the Study Area. TTS would not be 

anticipated in fishes without a swim bladder. Most low-frequency sonar sources do not have a high 

enough source level to cause TTS. Although highly unlikely, if TTS did occur in fishes with a swim 

bladder, it may result in a reduction in detection of biologically significant sounds but would likely 

recover within a few minutes to days. Most ESA-species within the Study Area could experience 

masking, physiological stress, and behavioral reactions; however, the relative risk of these occurring is 

low and these impacts would be short term (seconds to minutes) for individuals. Multiple exposures for 

individuals within a short period (seconds to minutes) throughout most of the range complexes are 

unlikely due to the transient nature of sonar activities. Testing activities at pierside locations may 

increase the likelihood of repeated exposures. However, repeated exposures would only involve shortterm (seconds to minutes) and minor behavioral impacts, which, repeated a few times per year, would 

still only lead to short term (seconds to minutes) impacts for individuals; long-term consequences for 

populations would not be expected. 

Proposed testing activities involving the use of sonar overlap designated critical habitat for Atlantic 

sturgeon in the Kennebec River at Bath Iron Works in Bath, ME; in the Piscataqua River at Portsmouth 

Naval Shipyard in Kittery, ME; and in the James River at Naval Station Norfolk in Norfolk, VA. Most of the 

designated physical and biological features do not occur within the Study Area and the use of sonar and 

other transducers would not affect any of the physical and biological features that have been identified. 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.6-90

3.6 Fishes

Proposed testing activities involving the use of sonar overlap designated critical habitat for Gulf 

sturgeon in the nearshore portions of the Naval Surface Warfare Center Panama City Division Testing 

Range and the Panama City OPAREA. Most of the physical and biological features are generally not 

applicable to the Study Area since they occur within the riverine habitat of the species. Those that may 

occur within the Study Area include abundant prey items within marine habitats and safe and 

unobstructed migratory pathways between riverine, estuarine and marine habitats. However, the use of 

sonar and other transducers would not affect any of the physical and biological features that do occur in 

the Study Area. 

Proposed testing activities involving the use of sonar overlap critical habitat for Atlantic salmon in the 

Kennebec River near Bath Iron Works in Bath, ME. While the waters immediately surrounding Bath Iron 

Works are excluded from the critical habitat designation, sound produced by the sonars or other 

transducers may travel beyond the boundaries of the exclusion area. However, the use of sonar and 

other transducers would not affect any of the physical and biological features that have been identified.

Designated critical habitat for smalltooth sawfish is restricted to nearshore, shallow waters (less than 1 

m) around the tip of Florida (see Figure 3.6-4) and does not overlap areas where sonar and other 

transducers are used.

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of sonar and other transducers during testing activities, as described under 

Alternative 1, will have no effect on designated critical habitat for Atlantic salmon, Atlantic sturgeon, 

Gulf sturgeon and smalltooth sawfish. The use of sonar and other transducers during testing activities, 

as described under Alternative 1, may affect ESA-listed Atlantic salmon, Atlantic sturgeon, Gulf sturgeon, 

Nassau grouper, the Central and Southwest Atlantic Distinct Population Segment of scalloped 

hammerhead shark, shortnose sturgeon, smalltooth sawfish, giant manta rays and oceanic whitetip 

sharks. The Navy has consulted with the National Marine Fisheries Service as required by section 7(a)(2) 

of the ESA in that regard.

3.6.3.1.2.4 Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers under Alternative 2

Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers under Alternative 2 for Training Activities

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 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 and all unit level 

training requirements would be completed at sea rather than synthetically. In addition, all unit level 

surface ship anti-submarine warfare training requirements would be completed through individual 

events conducted at sea, rather than through leveraging other anti-submarine warfare training exercises 

or the use of synthetic trainers. This would result in an increase of sonar use compared to Alternative 1. 

Training activities using sonar and other transducers could occur throughout the Study Area.

Impacts on fishes due to sonar and other transducers are expected to be limited to minor behavioral 

responses, short-term physiological stress, and brief periods of masking (seconds to minutes at most) for 

individuals; long-term consequences for individuals and therefore populations would not be expected. 

Predicted impacts on ESA-listed fish species and designated critical habitat would not be discernible 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.6-91

3.6 Fishes

from those described above in Section 3.6.3.1.2.3 (Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers Under 

Alternative 1 for Training Activities).

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of sonar and other transducers during training activities, as described 

under Alternative 2, will have no effect on designated critical habitat for Atlantic salmon, Atlantic 

sturgeon, Gulf sturgeon, and smalltooth sawfish. The use of sonar and other transducers during training 

activities, as described under Alternative 1, may affect ESA-listed Atlantic salmon, Atlantic sturgeon, Gulf 

sturgeon, Nassau grouper, the Central and Southwest Atlantic Distinct Population Segment of the 

scalloped hammerhead shark, shortnose sturgeon, smalltooth sawfish, giant manta ray and oceanic 

whitetip sharks.

Impacts from 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 testing 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. Testing activities using sonar and 

other transducers could occur throughout the Study Area, although use would generally occur within 

Navy range complexes, on Navy testing ranges, or around inshore locations identified in Chapter 2 

(Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives).

Impacts on fishes due to sonar and other transducers are expected to be limited to minor behavioral 

responses, short-term physiological stress, and brief periods of masking (seconds to minutes) for 

individuals; long-term consequences for individuals and therefore populations would not be expected. 

Predicted impacts on ESA-listed fish species and designated critical habitat would not be discernible 

from those described above in Section 3.6.3.1.2.3 (Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers Under 

Alternative 1 for Testing Activities).

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of sonar and other transducers during testing activities, as described under 

Alternative 2, will have no effect on designated critical habitat for Atlantic salmon, Atlantic sturgeon, 

Gulf sturgeon, and smalltooth sawfish. The use of sonar and other transducers during testing activities, 

as described under Alternative 2, may affect ESA-listed Atlantic salmon, Atlantic sturgeon, Gulf sturgeon, 

Nassau grouper, the Central and Southwest Atlantic Distinct Population Segment of scalloped 

hammerhead shark, shortnose sturgeon, smalltooth sawfish, giant manta rays and oceanic whitetip 

sharks. 

3.6.3.1.2.5 Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers under the No Action Alternative

Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers 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 AFTT 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 either would remain unchanged or would improve slightly after cessation of ongoing 

training and testing activities.
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.6-92

3.6 Fishes

3.6.3.1.3 Impacts from Air Guns

Fishes could be exposed to sounds from air guns during testing activities. General categories and 

characteristics of air guns and the number of hours these air guns will be operated are described in 

Section 3.0.3.3 (Identifying Stressors for Analysis). The activities analyzed in the EIS/OEIS that use air 

guns are also described in Appendix A (Navy Activity Descriptions). 

As discussed in Section 3.6.2.1.3 (Hearing and Vocalization), most marine fish species hear primarily 

below 1 kHz. Fish species within each of the four fish hearing groups would likely be able to detect 

sounds produced by air guns. Exposure of fishes to air guns could result in direct injury, hearing loss, 

masking, physiological stress or behavioral reactions.

3.6.3.1.3.1 Methods for Analyzing Impacts for Air Guns

The Navy performed a quantitative analysis to estimate range to effects for fishes exposed to air guns 

during Navy testing activities. Inputs to the quantitative analysis included sound propagation modeling 

in the Navy’s Acoustic Effects Model to the sound exposure criteria and thresholds presented below. 

Although range to effects are predicted, density data for fish species within the Study Area are not 

available; therefore, it is not possible to estimate the total number of individuals that may be affected 

by sound produced by air guns.

Criteria and Thresholds Used to Estimate Impacts from Air Guns

Mortality and Injury from Air Guns

Criteria and thresholds to estimate impacts from sound produced by air gun activities are presented 

below in Table 3.6-5. Consistent with the ANSI Sound Exposure Guideline technical report (Popper et al., 

2014), dual metric sound exposure criteria are utilized to estimate mortality and injury from exposure to 

air guns. For purposes of this analysis, it is assumed that a specified effect will occur when either metric 

(cumulative sound exposure level or peak sound pressure level) is met or exceeded. Due to the lack of 

detailed data on injury thresholds in fishes exposed to air guns, thresholds form impact pile driving 

exposures are used as a proxy for this analysis (Halvorsen et al., 2011; Halvorsen et al., 2012a; Halvorsen 

et al., 2012b). General research findings regarding mortality and injury in fishes are discussed under 

Section 3.6.3.1.1.1 (Injury due to Impulsive Sound Sources).

As discussed under Section 3.6.3.1.1.1 (Injury due to Impulsive Sound Sources), injury and mortality in 

fishes exposed to impulsive sources may vary depending on the presence or absence of, and type of 

swim bladder. Injury and mortal injury has not been observed in fishes without a swim bladder because 

of exposure to impulsive sources (Halvorsen et al., 2011; Halvorsen et al., 2012a). Therefore, these 

effects would likely occur above the given thresholds in Table 3.6-5. Cumulative sound exposure 

thresholds for mortality and injury in fishes with a swim bladder were measured by investigators 

(Halvorsen et al., 2011; Halvorsen et al., 2012a; Halvorsen et al., 2012b). However, only the single strike 

peak sound pressure level was measured during these experiments; therefore, mortality and injury 

thresholds are assumed to be the same across all hearing groups with a swim bladder (Popper et al., 

2014).
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.6-93

3.6 Fishes

Table 3.6-5: Sound Exposure Criteria for Mortality and Injury from Air Guns

Fish Hearing Group Onset of Mortality Onset of Injury

SELcum SPLpeak SELcum SPLpeak

Fishes without a swim 

bladder > 219 > 213 > 216 > 213

Fishes with a swim 

bladder not involved in 

hearing

210 > 207 203 > 207

Fishes with a swim 

bladder involved in 

hearing

207 > 207 203 > 207

Fishes with a swim 

bladder and highfrequency hearing207 > 207 203 > 207

Notes: SELcum = Cumulative sound exposure level (decibel referenced to 1 micropascal squared seconds [dB re 1 μPa2-s]), 

SPLpeak = Peak sound pressure level (decibel referenced to 1 micropascal [dB re 1 μPa]), “>” indicates that the given 

effect would occur above the reported threshold. 

Hearing Loss from Air Guns

Criteria and thresholds to estimate TTS in fishes exposed to sound produced by air guns are presented 

below in Table 3.6-6 and are consistent with the thresholds presented in the ANSI Sound Exposure 

Guideline technical report (Popper et al., 2014). General research findings regarding hearing loss in 

fishes are discussed under Section 3.6.3.1.1.2 (Hearing Loss due to Impulsive Sound Sources).

As discussed in Section 3.6.3.1.1.2 (Hearing Loss), exposure to sound produced from an air gun at a 

cumulative sound exposure level of 186 dB re 1 μPa2-s has resulted in TTS in fishes (Popper et al., 2005). 

TTS is not likely to occur in fishes without a swim bladder and would likely occur above the given 

threshold in Table 3.6-6 for fishes with a swim bladder not involved in hearing.

Table 3.6-6: Sound Exposure Criteria for TTS from Air Guns

Fish Hearing Group

TTS

(SELcum)

Fishes without a swim bladder NC

Fishes with a swim bladder not involved in hearing > 186

Fishes with a swim bladder involved in hearing 186

Fishes with a swim bladder and high-frequency 

hearing 186

Notes: TTS = Temporary Threshold Shift, SELcum = Cumulative sound exposure level (decibel 

referenced to 1 micropascal squared seconds [dB re 1 μPa2-s]), NC = effects from exposure to 

sound produced by air guns is considered to be unlikely, therefore no criteria are reported, 

“>” indicates that the given effect would occur above the reported threshold. 

Impact Ranges for Air Guns

The following section provides to range to effects for fishes exposed to air gun activities. The majority of 

air gun activities occur offshore and involve the use of a single shot or 10 shots. Fewer activities are 

conducted pierside and could use up to a maximum of 100 shots. The following ranges are based on the 

SEL metrics for PTS and TTS for 100 firing of an air gun, a conservative estimate of the number of air gun 

firings that could occur over a single exposure duration at a single location. Table 3.6-7 presents the 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.6-94

3.6 Fishes

approximate ranges in meters to mortality (specific to the AFTT Study Area and to each fish hearing 

group), onset of injury, and TTS and are calculated using criteria (shown in Table 3.6-5 and Table 3.6-6) 

and the Navy Acoustic Effects Model. Range to effects for each hearing group may vary depending on 

the available criteria or other factors such as location of the activity, season the activity occurs, or depth 

of the activity.

Table 3.6-7: Range to Effect for Fishes Exposed to 100 Air Gun Shots

Fish Hearing Group

Rang to Effects (meters)

Onset of Mortality Onset of Injury TTS

SELcum SPLpeak SELcum SPLpeak SELcum

Fishes without swim 

bladders 0

< 5

(4—13)

0

(0—2)

< 5

(4—13) NR

Fishes with swim 

bladders not involved in 

hearing

0

< 9

(8—21)

1

(0—30)

< 9

(8—21)

< 14

(4—190)

Fishes with swim 

bladders involved in 

hearing

1

(0—1)

< 9

(8—21)

1

(0—30)

< 9

(8—21)

14

(4—190)

Fishes with 

high-frequency hearing

1

(0—1)

< 9

(8—21)

1

(0—30)

< 9

(8—21)

14

(4—190)

Notes: SELcum = Cumulative sound exposure level, SPLpeak = Peak sound pressure level, TTS = Temporary Threshold Shift, 

NR = no criteria are available and therefore no range to effects are estimated, “<” indicates that the given effect 

would occur as distances less than the reported range(s). 

Range to effects represent modeled predictions in different areas and seasons within the Study Area. Each cell contains 

the estimated average, minimum and maximum range to the specified effect.

Mortality or injury could occur in all fishes with a swim bladder from exposure to air guns within or less 

than a maximum of 21 or 30 m, respectively. These effects would only occur in fishes without a swim 

bladder out to a distance less than 13 m. Hearing loss may occur in fishes with a swim bladder from 

exposure to air gun activities out to an average of 14 m or less, depending on the hearing group. In some 

cases, these effects may occur out to a maximum of 190 m. Hearing loss is not anticipated to occur in

fishes without a swim bladder. The probability of these effects would decrease with increasing distance 

from the pile.

3.6.3.1.3.2 Impacts from Air Guns under Alternative 1

Impacts from Air Guns under Alternative 1 for Training Activities

Training activities under Alternative 1 do not include the use of air guns.

Impacts from Air Guns under Alternative 1 for Testing Activities

As described in Chapter 2 (Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives), Section 3.0.3.3 (Identifying 

Stressors for Analysis) and Appendix A (Navy Activity Descriptions), testing activities under Alternative 1 

would include the use of single air guns pierside at the Naval Undersea Warfare Center Division, 

Newport Testing Range, and at off-shore locations typically in the Northeast, Virginia Capes, and Gulf of 

Mexico Range Complexes.

Impulses from air guns lack the strong shock wave and rapid pressure increases known to cause primary 

blast injury or barotrauma during explosive events and (to a lesser degree) impact pile driving. Although 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.6-95

3.6 Fishes

data from impact pile driving are often used as a proxy to estimate effects to fish from air guns, this may 

be an overly conservative metric due to the differences in rise times between the two types of impulsive 

sources. Typically, impact pile driving signals have a much steeper rise time and higher peak pressure 

than air gun signals. While mortality, injury, or TTS may occur at the individual level because of air gun 

activities, considering the small estimated footprint of the mortality/injury zone (see Table 3.6-7) and 

the isolated and infrequent use of air guns, population-level consequences would not be expected.

Air guns produce broadband sounds; however, the duration of an individual impulse is about 1/10th of a 

second. Masking could potentially occur as a result of exposure to sound produced by air guns. 

However, due to the brief nature of each pulse, it is unlikely that fishes within relatively close distance of 

the source (tens to hundreds of meters) to experience these effects. It is more likely that masking would 

occur at farther distances from the source where signals may sound continuous. This may result in brief 

periods where fishes are unable to detect vocalizations from other fish and predators. Fishes may also 

respond by altering their vocalizations to compensate for the noise. However, these effects would only 

occur if air gun signals are detectable over the existing ambient noise.

In addition, fish that are able to detect the air gun impulses may exhibit signs of physiological stress or 

alterations in natural behavior. Some fish species with site fidelity such as reef fish may show initial 

startle reactions, returning to normal behavioral patterns within a matter of a few minutes. Pelagic and 

schooling fish that typically show less site fidelity may avoid the immediate area for the duration of the 

events. Multiple exposures to individuals (across days) are unlikely as air guns are not operated in the 

same areas from day to day, but rather would be utilized in different areas over time. Due to the limited 

use and relatively small footprint of air guns, impacts on fish are expected to be minor. Population 

consequences would not be expected.

As discussed previously in 3.6.2.1.3 (Hearing and Vocalization), all ESA-listed fish species that occur in 

the Study Area are capable of detecting sound produced by air guns. Air gun activities associated with 

testing under Alternative 1 do not overlap areas where the Central and Southwest Atlantic Distinct 

Population Segment of the scalloped hammerhead shark or Nassau grouper occur and therefore would 

not affect either species. ESA-listed Atlantic salmon, Atlantic sturgeon, Gulf sturgeon, shortnose 

sturgeon, smalltooth sawfish, giant manta ray and oceanic whitetip sharks could be exposed to sound 

from air guns associated with testing activities. Specifically, salmon, sturgeon and sawfish exposures 

would only occur in the Northeast, Virginia Capes, and Gulf of Mexico Range Complexes, and in 

Newport, RI. However, based on the low annual number of activities to occur in the Study Area and the 

short period of time (spring months) during the year that Atlantic salmon are present, the likelihood of 

exposure to testing activities is expected to be infrequent throughout a given year. Only sub adult and 

adult life phase Atlantic and Gulf sturgeon occur in offshore areas where air gun activities occur. 

Overall, impacts on ESA-listed species that encounter air gun activities would be similar to those 

discussed for other fishes that occur in the Study Area. ESA-listed fishes could potentially suffer 

mortality or injury, with the probability and severity increasing closer to the air gun. Although there are 

estimated ranges to mortality and injury, on average, these ranges are relatively short (less than 10 m) 

across all fish hearing groups, further reducing the likelihood that mortality or injury would occur due to 

exposure to air gun activities. It is more likely that ESA-listed fishes that are exposed to air gun activities 

would result in behavioral reactions or physiological stress depending on their proximity to the activity. 

As described in the ANSI Sound Exposure Guideline technical report (Popper et al., 2014), masking 

effects within hundreds of meters from the source would be highly unlikely due to the short duration of 

the signal pulse.
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.6-96

3.6 Fishes

Designated critical habitat for Atlantic salmon and Atlantic sturgeon is restricted to rivers within Maine

and within estuarine and river systems, respectively, and does not overlap areas where air guns are 

used. Likewise, designated critical habitat for smalltooth sawfish is restricted to nearshore, shallow 

waters (less than 1 m) around the tip of Florida and does not overlap areas where air guns are used.

Although designated critical habitat for Gulf sturgeon overlaps with portions of the Study Area, 

specifically in the nearshore areas of the Naval Surface Warfare Center Panama City Testing Range and 

the Panama City OPAREA, air gun activities do not occur in these areas. 

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of air guns during testing activities, as described under Alternative 1, will 

have no effect on ESA-listed Nassau grouper, the Central and Southwestern Atlantic Distinct Population 

Segment of the scalloped hammerhead shark, or designated critical habitat for Atlantic salmon, Atlantic 

sturgeon, Gulf sturgeon, and smalltooth sawfish. The use of air guns during testing activities, as 

described under Alternative 1, may affect ESA-listed Atlantic salmon, Atlantic sturgeon, Gulf sturgeon, 

shortnose sturgeon, smalltooth sawfish, giant manta rays and oceanic whitetip sharks. The Navy has 

consulted with the National Marine Fisheries Service as required by section 7(a)(2) of the ESA in that 

regard.

3.6.3.1.3.3 Impacts from Air Guns under Alternative 2

Impacts from Air Guns under Alternative 2 for Training Activities

Training activities under Alternative 2 do not include the use of air guns.

Impacts from Air Guns under Alternative 2 for Testing Activities

As described in Chapter 2 (Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives), Section 3.0.3.3 (Identifying 

Stressors for Analysis) and Appendix A (Navy Activity Descriptions), testing activities under Alternative 2 

would include activities that produce in-water noise from the use of air guns. Testing activities under 

Alternative 2 would be identical to those described under Alternative 1; therefore, the locations, types, 

and severity of predicted impacts would be identical to those described above under 3.6.3.1.3.2

(Impacts from Air Guns under Alternative 1 for Testing Activities).

Designated critical habitat for Atlantic salmon and Atlantic sturgeon is restricted to rivers within Maine

and within estuarine and river systems, respectively, and does not overlap areas where air guns are 

used. Likewise, designated critical habitat for smalltooth sawfish is restricted to nearshore, shallow 

waters (less than 1 m) around the tip of Florida and does not overlap areas where air guns are used.

Although designated critical habitat for Gulf sturgeon overlaps with portions of the study area, 

specifically in the nearshore areas of the Naval Surface Warfare Center Panama City Testing Range and 

the Panama City OPAREA, air gun activities do not occur in these areas. 

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of air guns during testing activities, as described under Alternative 2, will 

have no effect on ESA-listed Nassau grouper, the Central and Southwestern Atlantic Distinct Population 

Segment of the scalloped hammerhead shark, or designated critical habitat for Atlantic salmon, Atlantic 

sturgeon, Gulf sturgeon, and smalltooth sawfish. The use of air guns during testing activities, as 

described under Alternative 2, may affect ESA-listed Atlantic salmon, Atlantic sturgeon, Gulf sturgeon, 

shortnose sturgeon, smalltooth sawfish, giant manta rays and oceanic whitetip sharks.

3.6.3.1.3.4 Impacts from Air Guns under the No Action Alternative

Impacts from Air Guns 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 AFTT Study Area. Various acoustic stressors (i.e., air guns) would not be introduced into 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.6-97

3.6 Fishes

the marine environment. Therefore, baseline conditions of the existing environment either would 

remain unchanged or would improve slightly after cessation of ongoing training and testing activities.

3.6.3.1.4 Impacts from Pile Driving

Fishes could be exposed to sounds produced by impact pile driving and vibratory pile extraction 

activities during the construction and removal phases of the Elevated Causeway System described in 

Chapter 2 (Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives), and Appendix A (Navy Activity 

Descriptions). The training involves the use of an impact hammer to drive the 24-inch steel piles into the 

sediment and a vibratory hammer to remove later the piles that support the causeway structure. The 

impulses can produce a shock wave that is transmitted to the sediment and water column (Reinhall & 

Dahl, 2011). Elevated Causeway System pile installation and removal within the project area would 

result in a short-term increase in underwater noise levels (approximately one month out of a year). 

Section 3.0.3.3.1.3 (Pile Driving) provides additional details on pile driving and noise levels measured 

from similar operations. Pile driving activities produce broadband sound, therefore it is anticipated that 

all fishes within each fish hearing group discussed in Section 3.6.2.1.3 (Hearing and Vocalization) would 

likely be able to detect sound produced by impact pile driving and vibratory pile extraction activities.

Exposure of fishes to pile driving activities could result in direct injury, hearing loss, masking, 

physiological stress or behavioral reactions.

3.6.3.1.4.1 Methods for Analyzing Impact from Pile Driving

The Navy performed a quantitative analysis to estimate the range to effect for fishes exposed to impact 

pile driving during Navy training activities. Inputs to the quantitative analysis included basic sound 

propagation modeling and sound exposure criteria and thresholds presented below. Although range to 

effects are predicted, density data for fish species within the Study Area are not available; therefore, it is 

not possible to estimate the total number of individuals that may be affected by sound produced by 

impact pile driving.

Currently, there are no proposed criteria for vibratory pile extraction activities and therefore these 

activities are analyzed based on available literature and other observed reactions. 

Criteria and Thresholds Used to Estimate Impacts from Pile Driving

Mortality and Injury from Pile Driving

Criteria and thresholds to estimate impacts from sound produced by impact pile driving activities are 

presented below in Table 3.6-8. Consistent with the ANSI Sound Exposure Guideline technical report 

(Popper et al., 2014), dual metric sound exposure criteria are utilized to estimate mortality and injury 

from exposure to impact pile driving. For purposes of this analysis, it is assumed that a specified effect 

will occur when either metric (cumulative sound exposure level or peak sound pressure level) is met or 

exceeded. General research findings regarding mortality and injury in fishes as well as findings specific to 

exposure to other impulsive sound sources are discussed under Section 3.6.3.1.1.1 (Injury due to 

Impulsive Sound Sources).
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.6-98

3.6 Fishes

Table 3.6-8: Sound Exposure Criteria for Mortality and Injury from Impact Pile Driving

Fish Hearing Group

Onset of Mortality Onset of Injury

SELcum SPLpeak SELcum SPLpeak

Fishes without a swim 

bladder > 219 > 213 > 216 > 213

Fishes with a swim 

bladder not involved in 

hearing

210 > 207 203 > 207

Fishes with a swim 

bladder involved in 

hearing

207 > 207 203 > 207

Fishes with a swim 

bladder and highfrequency hearing207 > 207 203 > 207

Notes: SELcum = Cumulative sound exposure level (decibel referenced to 1 micropascal squared seconds [dB re 1 μPa2-s]), 

SPLpeak = Peak sound pressure level (decibel referenced to 1 micropascal [dB re 1 μPa]), “>” indicates that the given 

effect would occur above the reported threshold. 

An explanation of mortality and injury criteria are also available under Section 3.6.3.1.3.1 (Methods for 

Analyzing Impacts for Air Guns – Mortality and Injury from Air Guns).

Hearing Loss from Pile Driving

Criteria and thresholds to estimate TTS in fishes exposed to sound produced by impact pile driving 

activities are presented below in Table 3.6-9. Sound exposure thresholds are available in the ANSI Sound 

Exposure Guideline technical report (Popper et al., 2014) and inform the TTS thresholds presented here. 

Due to the lack of data on hearing loss in fishes exposed to impact pile driving, data from air gun studies 

were used as a proxy for this analysis (Popper et al., 2005). General research findings regarding hearing 

loss in fishes are discussed under Section 3.6.3.1.1.2 (Hearing Loss due to Impulsive Sound Sources).

Table 3.6-9: Sound Exposure Criteria for TTS from Impact Pile Driving

Fish Hearing Group

TTS

(SELcum)

Fishes without a swim bladder NC

Fishes with a swim bladder not involved in hearing > 186

Fishes with a swim bladder involved in hearing 186

Fishes with a swim bladder and high-frequency 

hearing 186

Notes: TTS = Temporary Threshold Shift, SELcum = Cumulative sound exposure level (decibel 

referenced to 1 micropascal squared seconds [dB re 1 μPa2-s]), NC = effects from exposure to 

sound produced by impact pile driving is considered to be unlikely, therefore no criteria are 

reported, “>” indicates that the given effect would occur above the reported threshold. 

An explanation of hearing loss criteria is also available under Section 3.6.3.1.3.1 (Methods for Analyzing 

Impacts for Air Guns – Hearing Loss from Air Guns).

Modeling of Pile Driving Noise

Underwater noise effects from pile driving and vibratory pile extraction were modeled using actual 

measures of impact pile driving and vibratory removal during construction of an elevated causeway 

(Illingworth and Rodkin, 2015, 2017). A conservative estimate of spreading loss of sound in shallow 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.6-99

3.6 Fishes

coastal waters (i.e., transmission loss = 16.5*Log10[radius]) was applied based on spreading loss 

observed in actual measurements. Inputs used in the model are provided in Section 3.0.3.3.1.3 (Pile 

Driving), including source levels; the number of strikes required to drive a pile and the duration of 

vibratory removal per pile; the number of piles driven or removed per day; and the number of days of 

pile driving and removal.

3.6.3.1.4.2 Impact Ranges for Pile Driving

The following section provides range to effects for fishes exposed to impact pile driving to specific 

criteria determined using the calculations and modeling described above. Fishes within these ranges 

would be predicted to receive the associated effect. Where effects are anticipated to occur above the 

designated criteria (see Table 3.6-10), the estimated ranges to that effect would be less than those 

displayed in the table.

Because of the static nature of pile driving activities, two different exposure times were used when 

calculating range to effects for different types of fish (e.g., transient species vs. species with high site 

fidelity). It is assumed that some transient fishes (e.g., pelagic species) would likely move through the 

area during pile driving activities, resulting in less time exposed. Therefore, range to effects for these 

species are estimated based on 35 strikes per minute, for a cumulative exposure time of one minute 

(see Table 3.6-10). In addition, it is assumed that ranges to mortality or injury would actually be less 

than the ranges shown in the table due to the criteria, which informed the range calculations.

Table 3.6-10: Impact Ranges for Transient Fishes from Impact Pile Driving for 35 Strikes 

(1 minute)

Fish Hearing Group

Range to Effects (meters)

Onset of Mortality Onset of Injury TTS

SELcum SPLpeak SELcum SPLpeak SELcum

Fishes without a swim bladder < 1 < 8 < 1 < 8 NR

Fishes with a swim bladder not 

involved in hearing 2 < 17 5 < 17 < 57

Fishes with a swim bladder 

involved in hearing 3 < 17 5 < 17 57 

Fishes with a swim bladder and 

high-frequency hearing 3 < 17 5 < 17 57 

Notes: SELcum = Cumulative sound exposure level, SPLpeak = Peak sound pressure level, TTS = Temporary Threshold Shift, 

NR = no criteria are available and therefore no range to effects are estimated, “<” indicates that the given effect would 

occur at distances less than the reported range(s). 

Based on the measured sound levels for pile driving, mortality or injury could occur in transient or 

pelagic fishes with a swim bladder from exposure to impact pile driving at a distance less than 17 m of 

the source. In addition, it is assumed that these fishes may also experience signs of hearing loss out to a 

distance of, or less than, 57 m depending on the fish hearing group. The probability of these effects 

would decrease with increasing distance from the pile. Fishes without a swim bladder would not likely 

experience TTS and would only have the potential for mortality or injury effects at a distance less than 

8 m of the source. 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.6-100

3.6 Fishes

In contrast, it is assumed that fish with high site fidelity (e.g., demersal or reef fish) may stay in the area 

during pile driving activities and therefore may receive a longer exposure. As a conservative measure, 

ranges in Table 3.6-11 were calculated based on an estimated 3,150 strikes over the course of an entire 

day. 

Table 3.6-11: Impact Ranges for Fishes with High Site Fidelity from Impact Pile Driving for 

3,150 strikes (1 Day)

Fish Hearing Group

Range to Effects (meters)

Onset of Mortality Onset of Injury TTS

SELcum SPLpeak SELcum SPLpeak SELcum

Fishes without a swim bladder < 9 < 8 < 13 < 8 NR

Fishes with a swim bladder not 

involved in hearing 30 < 17 81 < 17 < 868

Fishes with a swim bladder 

involved in hearing 46 < 17 81 < 17 868 

Fishes with a swim bladder and 

high-frequency hearing 46 < 17 81 < 17 868 

Notes: SELcum = Cumulative sound exposure level, SPLpeak = Peak sound pressure level, TTS = Temporary Threshold Shift, 

NR = no criteria are available and therefore no range to effects are estimated, < indicates that effects would occur at 

distances less than the provided range. 

Under the assumption that fish are stationary and remain in the area for the duration of a full day of pile 

driving activities, mortality and injury could occur from exposure to impact pile driving within a 

maximum distance of 46 m and potentially out to 81 m from the source, respectively, for species within 

the most sensitive hearing groups (i.e., fishes with a swim bladder involved in hearing and fishes with 

high-frequency hearing). In addition, fishes with a swim bladder may also experience signs of hearing 

loss out to 868 m. The probability of these effects would decrease with increasing distance from the pile. 

Fishes without a swim bladder would not likely experience TTS and would only have the potential for 

mortality or injury effects within 9 or 13 m of the source, respectively.

3.6.3.1.4.3 Impacts from Pile Driving under Alternative 1

Impacts from Pile Driving under Alternative 1 for Training Activities

As described in Chapter 2 (Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives), Table 2.6-1, Section 3.0.3.3 

(Identifying Stressors for Analysis), and Appendix A (Navy Activity Descriptions), training activities under 

Alternative 1 include pile driving associated with construction and removal of the Elevated Causeway 

System. This activity would take place nearshore and within the surf zone for up to 30 days (20 days for 

construction and 10 days for removal). Specifically, pile driving activities would only occur once at Joint 

Expeditionary Base Little Creek-Fort Story, Virginia, and once at Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune, North 

Carolina, per year. The pile driving locations are within coastal areas that tend to have high ambient 

noise levels due to natural and anthropogenic sources.

Impulses from the impact hammer are broadband and carry most of their energy in the lower 

frequencies. The impulses are within the hearing range of all fish, and in close proximity exhibit an 

overpressure shock front in the water due to the high-speed travel of the impact pressure wave down 

and back up the steel pile (Reinhall & Dahl, 2011). The impulse can also travel through the bottom 

sediment. Fishes may be exposed to sound or energy from impact and vibratory pile driving associated 

with training activities throughout the year.
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.6-101

3.6 Fishes

Range to effects for fishes with high site fidelity are generally longer than those reported for transient 

fishes due to the differences in cumulative exposure time (see Table 3.6-10 and Table 3.6-11). However, 

it is not likely that either type of fish would remain close enough to a pile driving source for an entire 

day or long enough to result in mortality or injury. In some cases, based on behavioral response data to 

impulsive sources, as described in Section 3.6.3.1.1.5 (Behavioral Reactions), individuals that do startle 

or avoid the immediate area surrounding a pile driving activity would likely habituate and return to 

normal behaviors after initial exposure. Signs of hearing loss however may occur in fishes exposed to 

initial pile driving activities. Fishes that experience hearing loss may have reduced ability to detect 

biologically important sounds until their hearing recovers. Recovery from hearing loss begins almost 

immediately after the noise exposure ceases and can take a few minutes to a few days to fully recover, 

depending on the magnitude of the initial threshold shift. As discussed in Section 2.3.3.14 (Pile Driving 

Safety), as a standard operating procedure, the Navy performs soft starts at reduced energy during an 

initial set of strikes from an impact hammer. Soft starts may “warn” fish and cause them to move away 

from the sound source before impact pile driving increases to full operating capacity. Considering the 

small footprint of this injury zone and standard operating procedure for soft starts, long-term 

consequences to transient individuals, and therefore population consequences, would not be expected. 

Fishes with high site fidelity would be at more risk to experience effects from impact pile driving, but 

these effects would also not be likely to result in population level consequences.

Fishes exposed to vibratory extraction would not likely result in mortality, injury, or TTS based on the 

low source level and limited duration of these activities as discussed in Section 3.0.3.3.1.3 (Pile Driving). 

Based on the predicted impact pile driving and vibratory extraction noise levels, fishes may also exhibit 

other responses such as masking, physiological stress, or behavioral responses. Masking only occurs 

when the interfering signal is present; however, impact pile driving activities are intermittent. Therefore, 

masking would be localized and of limited duration during impact pile driving. Fishes may habituate, or 

choose to tolerate pile driving sound after multiple strikes, returning to normal behavior patterns during 

the pile driving activities. Vibratory pile extraction is more likely than impact pile driving to cause 

masking of environmental sounds; however, due to its low source level, the masking effect would only 

be relevant in a small area around the vibratory pile extraction activity. Fishes may also react to pile 

driving and vibratory pile extraction sound by increasing their swimming speed, moving away from the 

source, or not responding at all.

As discussed previously (Section 3.6.2.1.3, Hearing and Vocalization), all ESA-listed fish species that 

occur in the Study Area are capable of detecting sound produced by pile driving activities. Pile driving 

activities associated with training under Alternative 1 do not overlap with Atlantic salmon, Gulf 

sturgeon, Nassau grouper, oceanic whitetip shark, the Central and Southwest Atlantic Distinct 

Population Segment of scalloped hammerhead shark, or smalltooth sawfish habitat. Atlantic sturgeon, 

shortnose sturgeon, and giant manta ray could be exposed to sound or substrate vibration from pile 

driving associated with training activities. These exposures would only occur in either Joint 

Expeditionary Base Little Creek-Fort Story, Virginia, or Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune, North Carolina,

for up to 30 days (20 days for construction and 10 days for removal) at either location in any given year. 

Atlantic sturgeon, shortnose sturgeon, and giant manta ray, if close enough to pile driving, could 

potentially suffer mortality, injury or hearing loss with the probability and severity increasing closer to 

the pile driving activity (see Table 3.6-10 and Table 3.6-11 for range to effects). However, it is unlikely 

that exposed individuals would move closer to the source after initial exposure, nor would manta rays 

remain within these zones for an entire day. Masking, physiological stress or behavioral reactions are 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.6-102

3.6 Fishes

also possible due to pile driving or vibratory pile extraction. Atlantic sturgeon and giant manta rays that 

are exposed to pile driving activities may habituate, or choose to tolerate the sound after multiple 

strikes or after multiple pile removals, returning to normal behavior patterns during the pile driving 

activities. Although Atlantic sturgeon, shortnose sturgeon, and giant manta ray may be affected, 

long-term consequences for populations would not be expected.

Designated critical habitat for Atlantic salmon, Atlantic sturgeon, Gulf sturgeon, and smalltooth sawfish

does not overlap with areas where pile driving activities will occur.

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of pile driving during training activities, as described under Alternative 1, 

will have no effect on ESA-listed Atlantic salmon, Gulf sturgeon, Nassau grouper, the Central and 

Southwest Atlantic Distinct Population Segment of the scalloped hammerhead shark, smalltooth 

sawfish, oceanic whitetip sharks, or designated critical habitat for Atlantic salmon, Atlantic sturgeon, 

Gulf sturgeon, and smalltooth sawfish. The use of pile driving during training activities, as described 

under Alternative 1, may affect ESA-listed Atlantic sturgeon, shortnose sturgeon, and giant manta rays. 

The Navy has consulted with the National Marine Fisheries Service as required by section 7(a)(2) of the 

ESA in that regard.

Impacts from Pile Driving under Alternative 1 for Testing Activities

Testing activities under Alternative 1 do not include the use of pile driving (impact or vibratory).

3.6.3.1.4.4 Impacts from Pile Driving under Alternative 2

Impacts from Pile Driving under Alternative 2 for Training Activities

As described in Chapter 2 (Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives), Section 3.0.3.3 (Identifying 

Stressors for Analysis), and Appendix A (Navy Activity Descriptions), training activities under Alternative 

2 include activities that produce in-water sound from the pile driving. Training activities under 

Alternative 2 would be identical to those described under Alternative 1; therefore, the locations, types, 

and severity of predicted impacts would be identical to those described above under Section 3.6.3.1.4.3

(Impacts from Pile Driving Under Alternative 1 for Training Activities).

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of pile driving during training activities, as described under Alternative 2, 

will have no effect on ESA-listed Atlantic salmon, Gulf sturgeon, Nassau grouper, the Central and 

Southwest Atlantic Distinct Population Segment of the scalloped hammerhead shark, smalltooth 

sawfish, oceanic whitetip sharks, or designated critical habitat for Atlantic salmon, Atlantic sturgeon, 

Gulf sturgeon, and smalltooth sawfish. The use of pile driving during training activities, as described 

under Alternative 2, may affect ESA-listed Atlantic sturgeon, shortnose sturgeon, and giant manta rays.

Impacts from Pile Driving under Alternative 2 for Testing Activities

Testing activities under Alternative 2 do not include the use of pile driving (impact or vibratory).

3.6.3.1.4.5 Impacts from Pile Driving under the No Action Alternative

Impacts from Pile Driving 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 AFTT Study Area. Various acoustic stressors (e.g., impact pile driving and vibratory pile 

extraction) would not be introduced into the marine environment. Therefore, baseline conditions of the 

existing environment either would remain unchanged or would improve slightly after cessation of 

ongoing training and testing activities.
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.6-103

3.6 Fishes

3.6.3.1.5 Impacts from Vessel Noise

Fishes may be exposed to sound from vessel movement. A detailed description of the acoustic 

characteristics and typical sound produced by vessels is in Section 3.0.3.3 (Identifying Stressors for 

Analysis). Vessel movements involve transits to and from ports to various locations within the Study 

Area. Many ongoing and proposed training and testing activities within the Study Area involve 

maneuvers by various types of surface ships, boats, and submarines (collectively referred to as vessels), 

as well as unmanned vehicles. Moderate- to low-level passive sound sources including vessel noise are 

unlikely to cause any direct injury or trauma due to characteristics of the sounds and the moderate 

source levels as discussed in Section 3.0.3.3.1 (Acoustic Stressors). Furthermore, although hearing loss 

because of continuous noise exposure has occurred, vessels are transient and would result in only brief 

periods of exposure. Injury and hearing loss because of exposure to vessel noise is not discussed further 

in this analysis. 

As discussed in Section 3.6.2.1.3 (Hearing and Vocalization), all fish species should be able to detect 

vessel noise due to its low-frequency content and their hearing capabilities. Exposure to vessel noise 

could result in short-term behavioral or physiological responses (e.g., avoidance, stress) as discussed in 

Section 3.6.3.1.1.3 (Masking), Section 3.6.3.1.1.4 (Physiological Stress), and Section 3.6.3.1.1.5

(Behavioral Reactions). 

Training and testing events involving vessel movements occur intermittently and range in duration from 

a few hours up to a few weeks. These activities are widely dispersed throughout the Study Area. The 

exception is for pierside activities, although these areas are located inshore, these are industrialized 

areas that are already exposed to high levels of anthropogenic noise due to numerous waterfront users 

(e.g., commercial properties, ports, marinas). Ships would produce low-frequency, broadband 

underwater sound below 1 kHz while smaller vessels would emit higher-frequency sound between 1 kHz 

and 50 kHz, though the exact level of sound produced varies by vessel type. Navy vessels make up a very 

small percentage of the overall traffic (Mintz, 2012), and the rise of ambient noise levels in the Study 

Area is a problem related to all ocean users, including commercial and recreational vessels and shoreline 

development and industrialization. Fishes could be exposed to a range of impacts depending on the 

source of vessel noise and context of the exposure. Specifically, impacts from exposure to vessel noise 

may include temporary hearing loss, auditory masking, physiological stress, or changes in behavior.

3.6.3.1.5.1 Methods for Analyzing Impacts from Vessel Noise

The impacts on fishes due to exposure to vessel noise are analyzed qualitatively by comparing reported 

observations under specific conditions as discussed in Section 3.6.3.1.1 (Background) to the conditions 

which fishes may be exposed to during proposed Navy activities.

3.6.3.1.5.2 Impacts from Vessel Noise under Alternative 1

Impacts from Vessel Noise under Alternative 1 for Training Activities

As discussed in Chapter 2 (Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives) and Section 3.0.3.3.1.4

(Vessel Noise), training activities under Alternative 1 include vessel movement in many events. Navy 

vessel traffic could occur anywhere within the Study Area, but would be concentrated near the Norfolk

and Mayport Navy ports and within the Virginia Capes, Navy Cherry Point, and Jacksonville Range 

Complexes. A study of Navy vessel traffic found that traffic was heaviest just offshore between the 

mouth of the Chesapeake Bay and Jacksonville, FL, with very little Navy vessel traffic in the Northeast or 

Gulf of Mexico Range Complexes (Mintz, 2012).
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.6-104

3.6 Fishes

As described in Section 3.6.2.1.3 (Hearing and Vocalization), an increase in background noise levels from 

training and testing activities have the potential to expose fishes to sound and general disturbance, 

potentially resulting in short-term physiological stress, masking, or behavioral reactions. Fishes are more 

likely to react to nearby vessel noise (i.e., within tens of meters) than to vessel noise emanating from a 

distance. Fishes may have physiological stress reactions to sounds they can hear but typically, responses 

would be brief and would not affect the overall fitness of the animal. Auditory masking due to vessel 

noise can potentially mask vocalizations and other biologically important sounds (e.g., sounds of prey or 

predators) that fish may rely on. The low-frequency sounds of large vessels or accelerating small vessels 

can cause avoidance responses by fishes. However, impacts from vessel noise would be temporary and 

localized, and such responses would not be expected to compromise the general health or condition of 

individual fish. Therefore, long-term consequences for populations are not expected.

All ESA-listed species that occur in the Study Area are likely capable of detecting vessel noise as 

discussed previously in Section 3.6.2.1.3 (Hearing and Vocalization). Atlantic salmon may be exposed to 

vessel sound from training activities throughout the year in the Northeast Range Complexes. Atlantic 

sturgeon exposures could occur at any inshore training area in the Northeast, Virginia Capes, Navy 

Cherry Point, and Jacksonville Range Complexes, particularly in the Chesapeake Bay and in the St. Marys 

River near Naval Submarine Base Kings Bay, GA. Shortnose sturgeon, which primarily inhabit rivers and 

estuaries, are not expected to occur in the off shore portions of the Study Area (Dadswell, 2006; 

National Marine Fisheries Service, 1998). However, exposures could occur in the Northeast, Virginia 

Capes, Navy Cherry Point, and Jacksonville Range Complexes. Smalltooth sawfish and Gulf sturgeon 

exposures could occur in the Gulf of Mexico Range Complexes. Smalltooth sawfish could also be 

exposed to vessel noise in the Jacksonville and Key West Range Complexes. The Central and SW Atlantic 

distinct population segment of scalloped hammerhead sharks and Nassau grouper may be exposed to 

vessel noise associated with training activities throughout the year in the Key West Range Complex and 

in waters in the vicinity of Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands. In addition, Nassau grouper may also 

be exposed to vessel noise associated with training activities throughout the year in the Jacksonville 

Range Complex. Giant manta ray and oceanic whitetip sharks may also be exposed throughout the Study 

Area. If exposure to vessel noise did occur, ESA-listed species could experience behavioral reactions, 

physiological stress, and masking, although these impacts would be expected to be short term and 

infrequent based on the low probability of co-occurrence between vessel activity and species. Long-term 

consequences for populations would not be expected.

Proposed training activities that produce vessel noise overlap designated critical habitat for Atlantic 

sturgeon in a number of areas including; Kennebec River, ME; James River, VA; York River, VA; Cooper 

River, SC; and St. Marys River, GA. Most of the designated physical and biological features do not occur 

within the Study Area and vessel noise would not affect any of the physical and biological features that 

have been identified.

Proposed training activities that produce vessel noise overlap designated critical habitat for Gulf 

sturgeon in the nearshore portions of the Panama City OPAREA. A map of critical habitat is available in 

Section 3.6.2.2.7.1 (Status and Management). Most of the physical and biological features are generally 

not applicable to the Study Area since they occur within the riverine habitat of the species. However,

vessel noise would not affect any of the physical and biological features that do occur in the Study Area, 

including abundant prey items within marine habitats and safe and unobstructed migratory pathways 

between riverine, estuarine, and marine habitats.
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.6-105

3.6 Fishes

Designated critical habitat for Atlantic salmon is restricted to rivers within Maine. All of the biological 

and physical features required by Atlantic salmon are only applicable to freshwater areas and would not 

be affected by vessel noise. Designated critical habitat for smalltooth sawfish is restricted to nearshore, 

shallow waters (less than 1 m) around the tip of Florida and does not overlap areas where vessels are 

operated. 

Pursuant to the ESA, sound produced by vessel movement during training activities, as described under 

Alternative 1, will have no effect on designated critical habitat for Atlantic salmon, Atlantic sturgeon, 

Gulf sturgeon, and smalltooth sawfish. Sound produced by vessel movement during training activities, as 

described under Alternative 1, may affect ESA-listed Atlantic salmon, Atlantic sturgeon, Gulf sturgeon,

Nassau grouper, the Central and Southwest Atlantic Distinct Population Segment of the scalloped 

hammerhead shark, shortnose sturgeon, smalltooth sawfish, giant manta ray and oceanic whitetip 

sharks. The Navy has consulted with the National Marine Fisheries Service as required by section 7(a)(2) 

of the ESA in that regard.

Impacts from Vessel Noise under Alternative 1 for Testing Activities

As discussed in Chapter 2 (Description of the Proposed Action and Alternatives) and Section 3.0.3.3.1.4

(Vessel Noise), proposed testing activities under Alternative 1 include vessel movements in many 

events. 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, primarily concentrated within the 

Jacksonville and Virginia Capes Range Complexes; the Northeast Range Complexes and adjacent inland 

waters, especially near the Naval Underwater Warfare Center Newport Testing Range; and in the Gulf of 

Mexico, especially in areas near Naval Surface Warfare Center, Panama City Division Testing Range 

(Mintz, 2012). 

Impacts on fishes due to vessel noise sound are expected to be limited to minor behavioral responses, 

short-term physiological stress, and short periods of masking; and, long-term consequences for 

populations would not be expected. Predicted impacts on ESA-listed fish species and designated critical 

habitat would not be discernible from those described above under Section 3.6.3.1.5.2 (Impacts from 

Vessel Noise Under Alternative 1 for Training Activities).

Pursuant to the ESA, sound produced by vessel movement during testing activities, as described under 

Alternative 2, will have no effect on designated critical habitat for Atlantic salmon, Atlantic sturgeon, 

Gulf sturgeon, and smalltooth sawfish. Sound produced by vessel movement during training activities, as 

described under Alternative 2, may affect ESA-listed Atlantic salmon, Atlantic sturgeon, Gulf sturgeon,

Nassau grouper, the Central and Southwest Atlantic Distinct Population Segment of the scalloped 

hammerhead shark, shortnose sturgeon, smalltooth sawfish, giant manta ray and oceanic whitetip 

sharks. The Navy has consulted with the National Marine Fisheries Service as required by section 7(a)(2) 

of the ESA in that regard.

3.6.3.1.5.3 Impacts from Vessel Noise under Alternative 2

Impacts from Vessel Noise under Alternative 2 for Training Activities

Proposed Training Activities under Alternative 2 that involve vessel movement slightly increase from 

Training Activities proposed under Alternative 1, but the locations, types, and severity of impacts would 

not be discernible from those described above under Section 3.6.3.1.5.2 (Impacts from Vessel Noise 

Under Alternative 1 for Training Activities).
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.6-106

3.6 Fishes

Pursuant to the ESA, sound produced by vessel movement during training activities, as described under 

Alternative 2, will have no effect on designated critical habitat for Atlantic salmon, Atlantic sturgeon, 

Gulf sturgeon, and smalltooth sawfish. Sound produced by vessel movement during training activities, as 

described under Alternative 2, may affect ESA-listed Atlantic salmon, Atlantic sturgeon, Gulf sturgeon,

Nassau grouper, the Central and Southwest Atlantic Distinct Population Segment of the scalloped 

hammerhead shark, shortnose sturgeon, smalltooth sawfish, giant manta ray and oceanic whitetip 

sharks.

Impacts from Vessel Noise under Alternative 2 for Testing Activities

Proposed Testing Activities under Alternative 2 that involve vessel movement slightly increase from 

Testing Activities proposed under Alternative 1, but the locations, types, and severity of impacts would 

not be discernible from those described above Section 3.6.3.1.5.2 (Impacts from Vessel Noise Under 

Alternative 1 for Testing Activities).

Pursuant to the ESA, sound produced by vessel movement during testing activities, as described under 

Alternative 2, will have no effect on designated critical habitat for Atlantic salmon, Atlantic sturgeon, 

Gulf sturgeon, and smalltooth sawfish. Sound produced by vessel movement during training activities, as 

described under Alternative 2, may affect ESA-listed Atlantic salmon, Atlantic sturgeon, Gulf sturgeon,

Nassau grouper, the Central and Southwest Atlantic Distinct Population Segment of the scalloped 

hammerhead shark, shortnose sturgeon, smalltooth sawfish, giant manta ray and oceanic whitetip 

sharks.

3.6.3.1.5.4 Impacts from Vessel Noise under the No Action Alternative

Impacts from Vessel Noise 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 AFTT Study Area. Various acoustic stressors (e.g., vessel noise) would not be introduced 

into the marine environment. Therefore, baseline conditions of the existing environment either would 

remain unchanged or would improve slightly after cessation of ongoing training and testing activities.

3.6.3.1.6 Impacts from Aircraft Noise

Fishes may be exposed to aircraft-generated overflight noise throughout the Study Area. A detailed 

description of the acoustic characteristics and typical sound produced by aircraft overflights are in 

Section 3.0.3.3 (Identifying Stressors for Analysis). Most of these sounds would be concentrated around 

airbases and fixed ranges within each of the range complexes. Aircraft noise could also occur in the 

waters immediately surrounding aircraft carriers at sea during takeoff and landing.

Aircraft produce extensive airborne noise from either turbofan or turbojet engines. A severe but 

infrequent type of aircraft noise is the sonic boom, produced when the aircraft exceeds the speed of 

sound. Rotary wing aircraft (helicopters) produce low-frequency sound and vibration (Pepper et al., 

2003). Aircraft would pass quickly overhead and rotary-wing aircraft (e.g., helicopters) may hover for a 

few minutes at a time over the ocean. Aircraft overflights have the potential to affect surface waters 

and, therefore, to expose fish occupying those upper portions of the water column to sound. 

Fish may be exposed to fixed-wing or rotary-wing aircraft-generated noise wherever aircraft overflights 

occur; however, sound is primarily transferred into the water from air in a narrow cone under the 

aircraft. Fish would have to be at or near the surface at the time of an overflight to be exposed to 

appreciable sound levels. Transmission of sound from a moving airborne source to a receptor 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.6-107

3.6 Fishes

underwater is influenced by numerous factors. These factors are discussed in detail in Appendix D 

(Acoustic and Explosives Concepts).

As discussed in Section 3.6.3.1.1.1 (Injury) and Section 3.6.3.1.1.2 (Hearing Loss), direct injury and 

hearing loss in fishes because of exposure to aircraft overflight noise is highly unlikely to occur. Sounds 

from aircraft noise, including occasional sonic booms, lack the amplitude or duration to cause injury or 

hearing loss in fishes underwater (see Section 3.6.3.1, Acoustic Stressors). Due to the brief and dispersed 

nature of aircraft overflights, the risk of masking is very low. If masking occurred, it would only be during 

periods of time where a fish is at the surface while a hovering helicopter is directly overhead.

Fixed- and rotary-wing aircraft are used for a variety of training and testing activities throughout the 

Study Area. Fishes within close proximity to the activity and closer to the surface would have a higher 

probability of detecting these sounds although exposure to aircraft overflight noise would likely only last 

while the object is directly overhead. Training and testing events involving overflight noise are widely 

dispersed throughout the Study Area.

3.6.3.1.6.1 Methods for Analyzing Impacts from Aircraft Noise

The impacts on fishes due to exposure to aircraft noise are analyzed qualitatively by comparing reported 

observations under specific conditions as discussed in Section 3.6.3.1.1 (Background) to the conditions 

which fish may be exposed to during proposed Navy activities.

3.6.3.1.6.2 Impacts from Aircraft Noise under Alternative 1

Impacts from Aircraft Noise under Alternative 1 for Training Activities

As described in Chapter 2 (Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives) and Section 3.0.3.3.1.5 

(Aircraft Noise), training activities under Alternative 1 include fixed- and rotary-wing aircraft overflights. 

Aircraft flights during training would be most concentrated within the offshore waters of the Virginia 

Capes, Navy Cherry Point, Jacksonville, and Key West Range Complexes. In addition, aircraft noise could 

also be concentrated aboard aircraft carriers where flight takeoffs and landings occur at sea. The use of 

aircrafts during training activities, primarily helicopters, would also occur within several inshore water 

locations, but would be concentrated within the James Rivers and tributaries; Lower Chesapeake Bay; 

Kings Bay, Georgia; and Mayport and St. Johns River, Florida. Helicopters use the shortest route 

available and do not fly adjacent to the coastline when flying to the training and testing areas. Takeoffs 

and landings would occur on vessels at sea would occur at unspecified locations throughout the Study 

Area. A detailed description of aircraft noise as a stressor is provided in Section 3.0.3.3.1.5 (Aircraft 

Noise). 

In most cases, exposure of fishes to fixed-wing aircraft presence and noise would be brief as the aircraft 

quickly passes overhead. Fishes would have to be at or near the surface at the time of an overflight to be 

exposed to appreciable sound levels. Due to the low sound levels in water, it is unlikely that fishes would 

respond to most fixed-wing aircraft or transiting helicopters. Because most overflight exposure would be 

brief and aircraft noise would be at low received levels, only startle reactions, if any, are expected in 

response to low altitude flights. Similarly, the brief duration of most overflight exposures would limit any 

potential for masking of relevant sounds.

Daytime and nighttime activities involving helicopters may occur for extended periods of time, up to a 

couple of hours in some areas. During these activities, helicopters would typically transit throughout an 

area but could also hover over the water. Longer activity durations and periods of time where 

helicopters hover may increase the potential for behavioral reactions, startle reactions, masking, and 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.6-108

3.6 Fishes

physiological stress. Low-altitude flights of helicopters during some activities, which often occur under 

100 ft. altitude, may elicit a stronger startle response due to the proximity of a helicopter to the water; 

the slower airspeed and longer exposure duration; and the downdraft created by a helicopter's rotor. 

If fish were to respond to aircraft noise, only short-term behavioral or physiological reactions (e.g., 

avoidance and increased heart rate) would be expected. Therefore, long-term consequences for 

individuals would be unlikely and long-term consequences for populations are not expected.

Each ESA-listed species within the Study Area could be exposed to aircraft overflight noise. However, 

due to the small area within which sound could potentially enter the water and the extremely brief 

window the sound could be present, exposures of ESA-listed fishes to aircraft noise would be extremely

rare and in the event that they did occur, would be very brief (seconds). Likewise, although some 

portions of the Study Area overlap designated critical habitat for Atlantic salmon, Atlantic sturgeon, Gulf 

sturgeon, and smalltooth sawfish, aircraft noise would not affect critical habitat or any of the physical or 

biological features. 

Pursuant to the ESA, sound produced by aircraft overflights during training activities, as described under

Alternative 1, will have no effect on designated critical habitat for Atlantic salmon, Atlantic sturgeon,

Gulf sturgeon, or smalltooth sawfish. Sound produced by aircraft overflights during training activities, as 

described under Alternative 1, may affect ESA-listed Atlantic salmon, Atlantic sturgeon, Gulf sturgeon, 

Nassau grouper, the Central and Southwest Atlantic Distinct Population Segment of the scalloped 

hammerhead shark, shortnose sturgeon, smalltooth sawfish, giant manta rays and oceanic whitetip 

sharks. The Navy has consulted with the National Marine Fisheries Service as required by section 7(a)(2) 

of the ESA in that regard.

Impacts from Aircraft Noise under Alternative 1 for Testing Activities

As discussed in Chapter 2 (Description of the Proposed Action and Alternatives) and Section 3.0.3.3.1.5

(Aircraft Noise), testing activities under Alternative 1 include fixed- and rotary-wing aircraft overflights. 

Testing activities with aircraft would be most concentrated within the offshore waters of the Northeast, 

Navy Cherry Point, Virginia Capes, and Jacksonville Range Complexes. Proposed testing activities under 

Alternative 1 that involve aircraft differ in number and location from training activities under Alternative 

1; however, the types and severity of impacts would not be discernible from those described above 

under Section 3.6.3.1.6.2 (Impacts from Aircraft Noise Under Alternative 1 for Training Activities).

Each ESA-listed species within the Study Area could be exposed to aircraft overflight noise. However, 

due to the small area within which sound could potentially enter the water and the extremely brief 

window the sound could be present, exposures of ESA-listed fishes to aircraft noise would be rare and in 

the event that they did occur, would be very brief (seconds). Likewise, although some portions of the 

Study Area overlap designated critical habitat Atlantic salmon, Atlantic sturgeon, Gulf sturgeon, and 

smalltooth sawfish, aircraft noise would not affect critical habitat or any of the physical or biological 

features.

Pursuant to the ESA, sound produced by aircraft overflights during testing activities, as described under 

Alternative 1, will have no effect on designated critical habitat for Atlantic salmon, Atlantic sturgeon,

Gulf sturgeon, or smalltooth sawfish. Sound produced by aircraft overflights during testing activities, as 

described under Alternative 1, may affect may affect ESA-listed Atlantic salmon, Atlantic sturgeon, Gulf 

sturgeon, Nassau grouper, the Central and Southwest Atlantic Distinct Population Segment of the 

scalloped hammerhead shark, shortnose sturgeon, smalltooth sawfish, giant manta rays and oceanic 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.6-109

3.6 Fishes

whitetip sharks. The Navy has consulted with the National Marine Fisheries Service as required by 

section 7(a)(2) of the ESA in that regard.

3.6.3.1.6.3 Impacts from Aircraft Noise under Alternative 2

Impacts from Aircraft Noise under Alternative 2 for Training Activities

As discussed in Chapter 2 (Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives), and Section 3.0.3.3.1.5

(Aircraft Noise), training activities under Alternative 2 include a minor increase in the number of events 

that involve aircraft as compared to Alternative 1; however, the training locations, types of aircraft, and 

severity of predicted impacts would not be discernible from those described above under Section 

3.6.3.1.6.2 (Impacts from Aircraft Noise Under Alternative 1 for Training Activities).

Pursuant to the ESA, sound produced by aircraft overflights during training activities, as described under 

Alternative 2, will have no effect on designated critical habitat for Atlantic salmon, Atlantic sturgeon,

Gulf sturgeon, or smalltooth sawfish. Sound produced by aircraft overflights during training activities, as 

described under Alternative 2, may affect ESA-listed Atlantic salmon, Atlantic sturgeon, Gulf sturgeon, 

Nassau grouper, the Central and Southwest Atlantic Distinct Population Segment of the scalloped 

hammerhead shark, shortnose sturgeon, smalltooth sawfish, giant manta rays and oceanic whitetip 

sharks.

Impacts from Aircraft Noise under Alternative 2 for Testing Activities

As discussed in Chapter 2 (Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives), and Section 3.0.3.3.1.5

(Aircraft Noise), testing activities under Alternative 2 include a minor increase in the number of events 

that involve aircraft noise as compared to Alternative 1; however, the testing locations, types of aircraft, 

and severity of predicted impacts would not be discernible from those described above in Section 

3.6.3.1.6.2 (Impacts from Aircraft Noise Under Alternative 1 for Testing Activities).

Pursuant to the ESA, sound produced by aircraft overflights during testing activities, as described under 

Alternative 2, will have no effect on designated critical habitat for Atlantic salmon, Atlantic sturgeon,

Gulf sturgeon, or smalltooth sawfish. Sound produced by aircraft overflights during testing activities, as 

described under Alternative 2, may affect may affect ESA-listed Atlantic salmon, Atlantic sturgeon, Gulf 

sturgeon, Nassau grouper, the Central and Southwest Atlantic Distinct Population Segment of the 

scalloped hammerhead shark, shortnose sturgeon, smalltooth sawfish, giant manta rays and oceanic 

whitetip sharks.

3.6.3.1.6.4 Impacts from Aircraft Noise under the No Action Alternative

Impacts from Aircraft Noise 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 AFTT Study Area. Various acoustic stressors (e.g., aircraft overflight noise) would not be 

introduced into the marine environment. Therefore, baseline conditions of the existing environment 

either would remain unchanged or would improve slightly after cessation of ongoing training and testing 

activities.

3.6.3.1.7 Impacts from Weapons Noise

Fishes could be exposed to noise from weapons firing, launch, flight downrange, and from the impact of 

non-explosive munitions on the water's surface. A detailed description of the acoustic characteristics of 

weapons noise is in Section 3.0.3.3.1.6 (Weapon Noise). Reactions by fishes to these specific stressors 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.6-110

3.6 Fishes

have not been recorded; however, fishes would be expected to react to weapons noise, as they would 

other transient sounds (Section 3.6.3.1.1.5, Behavioral Reactions).

3.6.3.1.7.1 Methods for Analyzing Impacts from Weapons Noise

The impacts on fishes due to exposure to weapons noise are analyzed qualitatively by comparing 

reported observations under specific conditions as discussed in section 3.6.3.1.1 (Background) to the 

conditions which fish may be exposed to during proposed Navy activities.

3.6.3.1.7.2 Impacts from Weapons Noise under Alternative 1

Impacts from Weapons Noise under Alternative 1 for Training Activities

As described in Chapter 2 (Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives), training activities under 

Alternative 1 include activities that produce in-water sound from weapons firing, launch, flight 

downrange, and non-explosive practice munitions impact with the water's surface. Training activities 

could occur throughout the Study Area but would be concentrated in the Virginia Capes, Navy Cherry 

Point, and Jacksonville Range Complexes, with fewer events in the Northeast, Key West, and Gulf of 

Mexico Range Complexes. Most activities involving large-caliber naval gunfire or the launching of 

targets, missiles, bombs, or other munitions are conducted more than 12 NM from shore. Impacts from 

training activities would be highly localized and concentrated in space and duration.

Mortality, injury, hearing loss and masking in fishes because of exposure to weapons noise is highly 

unlikely to occur. Sound from these sources lack the duration and high intensity to cause injury or 

hearing loss. Therefore, injury and hearing loss is not discussed further in this analysis. Due to the brief 

and dispersed nature of weapons noise, masking is also unlikely and not discussed further in this 

analysis. However, potential impacts considered are short-term behavioral or physiological reactions 

(e.g., swimming away and increased heart rate).

Animals at the surface of the water, in a narrow footprint under a weapons trajectory, could be exposed 

to naval gunfire sound and may exhibit brief behavioral reactions such as startle reactions or avoidance, 

or no reaction at all. Due to the short-term, transient nature of gunfire activities, animals may be 

exposed to multiple shots within a few seconds, but are unlikely to be exposed multiple times within a 

short period (minutes or hours). Behavioral reactions would likely be short term (minutes) and are 

unlikely to lead to substantial costs or long-term consequences for individuals or populations.

Sound due to missile and target launches is typically at a maximum during initiation of the booster 

rocket and rapidly fades as the missile or target travels downrange. Many missiles and targets are 

launched from aircraft, which would produce minimal sound in the water due to the altitude of the 

aircraft at launch. Behavioral reactions would likely be short term (minutes) and are unlikely to lead to 

long-term consequences for individuals or populations.

As discussed in Section 3.0.3.3.1.6 (Weapon Noise), any objects that are dropped and impact the water 

with great force could produce a loud broadband sound at the water’s surface. Large-caliber nonexplosive projectiles, non-explosive bombs, and intact missiles and targets could produce a large 

impulse upon impact with the water surface (McLennan, 1997). Fishes within a few meters could 

experience some temporary hearing loss, although the probability is low of the non-explosive munitions 

landing within this range while a fish is near the surface. Animals within the area may hear the impact of 

object on the surface of the water and would likely alert, dive, or avoid the immediate area. Impact

noise would not be expected to induce significant behavioral reactions from fishes, and long-term 

consequences for individuals and populations are unlikely.
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.6-111

3.6 Fishes

As discussed previously (Section 3.6.2.1.3, Hearing and Vocalization), all ESA-listed fish species that 

occur in the Study Area are capable of detecting weapons noise but not all species occur in areas where 

weapons noise is present. Nassau grouper and shortnose sturgeon will not encounter weapons noise as 

they typically are found along the seafloor and smalltooth sawfish will not encounter weapons noise due 

to a lack in habitat overlap (i.e., they are largely confined to rivers and estuaries). Scalloped 

hammerhead sharks, and Gulf and Atlantic sturgeon could occur in areas associated with weapons noise 

however, these species don't typically swim near the surface at sea, therefore decreasing the likelihood 

of exposure. Atlantic salmon, giant manta ray and oceanic white tip sharks could be exposed to weapons 

noise. In particular, oceanic whitetip sharks in deeper waters spend much of their time at the surface, 

potentially increasing the risk of exposure. However, most species that occur within 12 NM of the shore 

would have a lower probability of encountering large caliber activities. ESA-listed fishes that are exposed 

to weapons noise may exhibit minor behavioral reactions or physiological stress. Due to the short-term, 

transient nature of weapons noise, fish are unlikely to be exposed multiple times within a short period. 

Physiological stress and behavioral reactions would likely be short term (seconds to minutes) and 

substantive costs or long-term consequences for individuals or populations would not be expected.

Proposed training activities that produce weapons noise largely occur greater than 12 NM from shore.

Designated critical habitat for Gulf sturgeon only overlaps the nearshore portion of the Panama City 

OPAREA and the Naval Surface Warfare Center, Panama City Division Testing Range. A map of critical 

habitat is available in Section 3.6.2.2.7.1 (Status and Management). Most of the physical and biological 

features are generally not applicable to the Study Area since they occur within the riverine habitat of the 

species. Those that may occur within the Study Area include abundant prey items within marine habitats 

and safe and unobstructed migratory pathways between riverine, estuarine and marine habitats. 

However, weapons noise would not affect any of the physical and biological features that do occur in 

the Study Area. 

Designated critical habitat for Atlantic salmon and Atlantic sturgeon is restricted to rivers within Maine 

or are within estuarine and river systems, respectively. Likewise, designated critical habitat for 

smalltooth sawfish is restricted to nearshore, shallow waters (less than 1 m) around the tip of Florida. 

Designated critical habitat for these three species does not overlap areas where weapons are used 

(typically greater than 12 NM from shore).

Pursuant to the ESA, weapons noise produced during training activities, as described under 

Alternative 1, will have no effect on ESA-listed shortnose sturgeon, smalltooth sawfish or Nassau 

grouper, or designated critical habitat for Atlantic salmon, Atlantic sturgeon, Gulf sturgeon, or 

smalltooth sawfish. Weapons noise produced during training activities, as described under Alternative 1, 

may affect ESA-listed Atlantic salmon, Atlantic sturgeon, Gulf sturgeon, the Central and Southwest 

Atlantic Distinct Population Segment of the scalloped hammerhead shark, giant manta rays and oceanic 

whitetip sharks. The Navy has consulted with the National Marine Fisheries Service as required by 

section 7(a)(2) of the ESA in that regard.

Impacts from Weapons Noise under Alternative 1 for Testing Activities

As described in Chapter 2 (Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives), testing activities under 

Alternative 1 include activities that produce weapons noise. Testing activities could occur in the Virginia 

Capes, Navy Cherry Point, and Jacksonville Range Complexes, with fewer events in the Northeast, Key 

West, and Gulf of Mexico Range Complexes. Activities could also occur in the Naval Surface Warfare 

Center Panama Canal Testing Range. Most activities involving large-caliber naval gunfire or the 

launching of targets, missiles, bombs, or other munitions are conducted more than 12 NM from shore. 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.6-112

3.6 Fishes

Proposed testing activities under Alternative 1 differ in number and location from training activities 

under Alternative 1; however, the types and severity of impacts would not be discernible from those 

described above for Impacts from Weapons Noise under Alternative 1 for Training Activities. Impacts on 

fish due to weapons noise are expected to be limited to short-term, minor behavioral responses and

physiological stress; and, long-term consequences for an individual, and therefore populations, would 

not be expected. 

As discussed previously (Section 3.6.2.1.3, Hearing and Vocalization), all ESA-listed fish species that 

occur in the Study Area are capable of detecting weapons noise but not all species occur in areas where 

weapons noise is present. Shortnose sturgeon, smalltooth sawfish, and Nassau grouper would not likely 

encounter weapon noise. Scalloped hammerhead sharks, and Gulf and Atlantic sturgeon could occur in 

areas associated with weapons noise however, these species don't typically swim near the surface at 

sea, therefore decreasing the likelihood of exposure. Atlantic salmon, giant manta ray and oceanic white 

tip sharks could be exposed to weapons noise. Most species that occur within 12 NM of the shore would 

have a lower probability of encountering these activities. ESA-listed fishes that are exposed to weapons 

noise may exhibit minor behavioral reactions or brief physiological stress. Due to the short-term, 

transient nature of weapons noise, fish are unlikely to be exposed multiple times within a short period. 

Physiological stress and behavioral reactions would likely be short term (minutes) and substantive costs 

or long-term consequences for individuals or populations would not be expected.

Proposed training activities that produce weapons noise largely occur greater than 12 NM from shore 

but could potentially occur in the Panama City OPAREA and the Naval Surface Warfare Center Panama 

City Testing Range and may overlap designated critical habitat for Gulf sturgeon. A map of critical 

habitat is available in Section 3.6.2.2.7.1 (Status and Management). Most of the physical and biological 

features are generally not applicable to the Study Area since they occur within the riverine habitat of the 

species. Those that may occur within the Study Area include abundant prey items within marine habitats 

and safe and unobstructed migratory pathways between riverine, estuarine and marine habitats. 

However, weapons noise would not affect any of the physical and biological features that do occur in 

the Study Area.

Designated critical habitat for Atlantic salmon and Atlantic sturgeon is restricted to rivers within Maine

or are within estuarine and river systems, respectively. Likewise, designated critical habitat for 

smalltooth sawfish is restricted to nearshore, shallow waters (less than 1 m) around the tip of Florida. 

Designated critical habitat for these three species does not overlap areas where weapons are used 

(typically greater than 12 NM from shore).

Pursuant to the ESA, weapons noise produced during testing activities, as described under Alternative 1, 

will have no effect on ESA-listed shortnose sturgeon, smalltooth sawfish, Nassau grouper, or designated 

critical habitat for Atlantic salmon, Atlantic sturgeon, Gulf sturgeon, or smalltooth sawfish. Weapons 

noise produced during testing activities, as described under Alternative 1, may affect ESA-listed Atlantic 

salmon, Atlantic sturgeon, Gulf sturgeon, the Central and Southwest Atlantic Distinct Population 

Segment of the scalloped hammerhead shark, giant manta rays and oceanic whitetip shark. The Navy 

has consulted with the National Marine Fisheries Service as required by section 7(a)(2) of the ESA in that 

regard.
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.6-113

3.6 Fishes

3.6.3.1.7.3 Impacts from Weapons Noise under Alternative 2

Impacts from Weapons Noise under Alternative 2 for Training Activities

Proposed training activities under Alternative 2 that produce weapons noise differ in number and 

location from training activities under Alternative 1; however, the types and severity of impacts would 

not be discernible from those described above under Section 3.6.3.1.7.2 (Impacts from Weapons Noise 

Under Alternative 1 for Training Activities). Impacts on fishes due to weapons noise are expected to be 

limited to minor behavioral responses, short-term physiological stress, and short periods of masking; 

furthermore, long-term consequences for an individual, and therefore populations, would not be 

expected. 

Pursuant to the ESA, weapons noise produced during training activities, as described under 

Alternative 2, will have no effect on ESA-listed shortnose sturgeon, smalltooth sawfish or Nassau 

grouper, or designated critical habitat for Atlantic salmon, Atlantic sturgeon, Gulf sturgeon, or 

smalltooth sawfish. Weapons noise produced during training activities, as described under Alternative 2, 

may affect ESA-listed Atlantic salmon, Atlantic sturgeon, Gulf sturgeon, the Central and Southwest 

Atlantic Distinct Population Segment of the scalloped hammerhead shark, giant manta rays and oceanic 

whitetip sharks.

Impacts from Weapons Noise under Alternative 2 for Testing Activities

Proposed testing activities under Alternative 2 that produce weapons noise differ in number and 

location from testing activities under Alternative 1; however, the types and severity of impacts would 

not be discernible from those described above under Section 3.6.3.1.7.2 (Impacts from Weapons Noise 

Under Alternative 1 for Testing Activities). Impacts on fishes due to weapons noise are expected to be 

limited to minor behavioral responses, short-term physiological stress, and short periods of masking; 

and, long-term consequences for an individual, and therefore populations, would not be expected.

Pursuant to the ESA, weapons noise produced during testing activities, as described under Alternative 2, 

will have no effect on ESA-listed shortnose sturgeon, smalltooth sawfish, Nassau grouper, or designated 

critical habitat for Atlantic salmon, Atlantic sturgeon, Gulf sturgeon, or smalltooth sawfish. Weapons 

noise produced during testing activities, as described under Alternative 2, may affect ESA-listed Atlantic 

salmon, Atlantic sturgeon, Gulf sturgeon, the Central and Southwest Atlantic Distinct Population 

Segment of the scalloped hammerhead shark, giant manta rays and oceanic whitetip shark.

3.6.3.1.7.4 Impacts from Weapons Noise under the No Action Alternative

Impacts from Weapons Noise 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 AFTT Study Area. Various acoustic stressors (e.g., weapons noise) would not be 

introduced into the marine environment. Therefore, baseline conditions of the existing environment 

either would remain unchanged or would improve slightly after cessation of ongoing training and testing 

activities.

3.6.3.2 Explosive Stressors

Explosions in the water or near the water surface can introduce loud, impulsive, broadband sounds into 

the marine environment. However, unlike acoustic stressors, explosives release energy at a high rate 

producing a shock wave that can be injurious and even deadly. Therefore, explosive impacts on fishes 

are discussed separately from other acoustic stressors, even though the analysis of explosive impacts 

will in part rely on data from fishes exposed to impulsive sources where appropriate.
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.6-114

3.6 Fishes

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 Explosives Concepts).

The ways in which an explosive exposure could result in immediate effects or lead to long-term 

consequences for an animal are explained in Section 3.0.3.6.1 (Conceptual Framework for Assessing 

Effects from Acoustic and Explosive Activities) and the below background section follows that 

framework. The following Background section discusses what is currently known about effects of 

explosives on fishes.

3.6.3.2.1 Background

The effects of explosions on fishes have been studied and reviewed by numerous authors (Keevin & 

Hempen, 1997; O'Keeffe, 1984; O'Keeffe & Young, 1984; Popper et al., 2014). A summary of the 

literature related to each type of effect forms the basis for analyzing the potential effects from Navy 

activities. The sections below include a survey and synthesis of best-available-science published in peerreviewed journals, technical reports, and other scientific sources pertinent to impacts on fishes 

potentially resulting from Navy training and testing activities. Fishes could be exposed to a range of 

impacts 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.

3.6.3.2.1.1 Injury

The blast wave from an in-water explosion is lethal to fishes at close range, causing massive organ and 

tissue damage (Keevin & Hempen, 1997). At greater distance from the detonation point, the extent of 

mortality or injury depends on a number of factors including fish size, body shape, depth, physical 

condition of the fish, and perhaps most importantly, the presence of a swim bladder (Keevin & Hempen, 

1997; Wright, 1982; Yelverton et al., 1975; Yelverton & Richmond, 1981). At the same distance from the 

source, larger fishes are generally less susceptible to death or injury, elongated forms that are round in 

cross-section are less at risk than deep-bodied forms, and fishes oriented sideways to the blast suffer 

the greatest impact (Edds-Walton & Finneran, 2006; O'Keeffe, 1984; O'Keeffe & Young, 1984; Wiley et 

al., 1981; Yelverton et al., 1975). Species with a swim bladder are much more susceptible to blast injury 

from explosives than fishes without them (Gaspin, 1975; Gaspin et al., 1976; Goertner et al., 1994).

If a fish is close to an explosive detonation, the exposure to rapidly changing high pressure levels can 

cause barotrauma. Barotrauma is injury due to a sudden difference in pressure between an air space 

inside the body and the surrounding water and tissues. Rapid compression followed by rapid expansion 

of airspaces, such as the swim bladder, can damage surrounding tissues and result in the rupture of the 

airspace itself. The swim bladder is the primary site of damage from explosives (Wright, 1982; Yelverton 

et al., 1975). Gas-filled swim bladders resonate at different frequencies than surrounding tissue and can 

be torn by rapid oscillation between high- and low-pressure waves (Goertner, 1978). Swim bladders are 

a characteristic of most bony fishes with the notable exception of flatfishes (e.g., halibut). Sharks and 

rays are examples of fishes without a swim bladder. Small airspaces, such as micro-bubbles that may be 

present in gill structures, could also be susceptible to oscillation when exposed to the rapid pressure 

increases caused by an explosion. This may have caused the bleeding observed on gill structures of some 

fish exposed to explosions (Goertner et al., 1994). Sudden very high pressures can also cause damage at 

tissue interfaces due to the way pressure waves travel differently through tissues with different 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.6-115

3.6 Fishes

densities. Rapidly oscillating pressure waves might rupture the kidney, liver, spleen, and sinus and cause 

venous hemorrhaging (Keevin & Hempen, 1997).

Several studies have exposed fish to explosives and examined various metrics in relation to injury 

susceptibility. Sverdrup (1994) exposed Atlantic salmon (1 to 1.5 kg [2 to 3 lb.]) in a laboratory setting to 

repeated shock pressures of around 2 megapascals (300 pounds per square inch) without any 

immediate or delayed mortality after a week. Hubbs and Rechnitzer (1952) showed that fish with swim 

bladders exposed to explosive shock fronts (the near-instantaneous rise to peak pressure) were more 

susceptible to injury when several feet below the water surface than near the bottom. When near the 

surface, the fish began to exhibit injuries around peak pressure exposures of 40 to 70 pounds per square 

inch. However, near the bottom (all water depths were less than 100 ft.) fish exposed to pressures over 

twice as high exhibited no sign of injury. Yelverton et al. (1975) similarly found that peak pressure was 

not correlated to injury susceptibility. Yelverton et al. (1975) instead found that injury susceptibility of 

swim bladder fish at shallow depths (10 ft. or less) was correlated to the metric of positive impulse (Pas), which takes into account both the positive peak pressure and the duration of the positive pressure 

exposure, and the fish mass, with smaller fish being more susceptible.

Gaspin et al. (1976) exposed multiple species of fish with a swim bladder, placed at varying depths, to 

explosive blasts of varying size and depth. Goertner (1978) and Wiley (1981) developed a swim bladder 

oscillation model, which showed that the severity of injury observed in those tests could be correlated 

to the extent of swim bladder expansion and contraction predicted to have been induced by exposure to 

the explosive blasts. Per this model, the degree of swim bladder oscillation is affected by ambient 

pressure (i.e., depth of fish), peak pressure of the explosive, duration of the pressure exposure, and 

exposure to surface rarefaction (negative pressure) waves. The maximum potential for injury is 

predicted to occur where the surface reflected rarefaction (negative) pressure wave arrives coincident 

with the moment of maximum compression of the swim bladder caused by exposure to the direct 

positive blast pressure wave, resulting in a subsequent maximum expansion of the swim bladder. 

Goertner (1978) and Wiley et al. (1981) found that their swim bladder oscillation model explained the 

injury data in the Yelverton et al. (1975) exposure study and their impulse parameter was applicable 

only to fishes at shallow enough depths to experience less than one swim bladder oscillation before 

being exposed to the following surface rarefaction wave.

O’Keeffe (1984) provides calculations and contour plots that allow estimation of the range to potential 

effects of in-water explosions on fish possessing swim bladders using the damage prediction model 

developed by Goertner (1978). O’Keeffe’s (1984) parameters include the charge weight, depth of burst, 

and the size and depth of the fish, but the estimated ranges do not take into account unique 

propagation environments that could reduce or increase the range to effect. The 10 percent mortality 

range shown below in Table 3.6-12 is the maximum horizontal range predicted by O'Keeffe (1984) for 10 

percent of fish suffering injuries that are expected to not be survivable (e.g., damaged swim bladder or 

severe hemorrhaging). Fish at greater depths and near the surface are predicted to be less likely to be 

injured because geometries of the exposures would limit the amplitude of swim bladder oscillations.
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.6-116

3.6 Fishes

Table 3.6-12: Range to Effect from In-water Explosions for Fishes with a Swim Bladder

Weight of Pentolite 

(lb.)

[NEW, lb.]1

Depth of 

Explosion (ft.)

[m]

10% Mortality Maximum Range (ft.)

[m]

1 oz. Fish 1 lb. Fish 30 lb. Fish

10

[13]

10

[3]

530

[162]

315

[96]

165

[50]

50

[15]

705

[214]

425

[130]

260

[79]

200

[61]

905

[276]

505

[154]

290

[88]

100

[130]

10

[3]

985

[300]

600

[183]

330

[101]

50

[15]

1,235

[376]

865

[264]

590

[180]

200

[61]

1,340

[408]

1,225

[373]

725

[221]

1,000

[1,300]

10

[3]

1,465

[447]

1,130

[344]

630

[192]

50

[15]

2,255

[687]

1,655

[504]

1,130

[344]

200

[61]

2,870

[875]

2,390

[728]

1,555

[474]

10,000

[13,000]

10

[3]

2,490

[759]

1,920

[585]

1,155

[352]

50

[15]

4,090

[1,247]

2,885

[879]

2,350

[716]

200

[61]

5,555

[1,693]

4,153

[1,266]

3,090

[942]

1Explosive weights of pentolite converted to net explosive weight using the peak pressure 

parameters in Swisdak (1978). lb. = pounds, NEW = net explosive weight, oz. = ounce. 

Source: O’Keeffe (1984)

In contrast to fish with swim bladders, fishes without swim bladders have been shown to be more 

resilient to explosives (Gaspin, 1975; Gaspin et al., 1976; Goertner et al., 1994). For example, some small 

(average 116 mm length; approximately 1 oz.) hogchokers (Trinectes maculatus) exposed less than 5 ft. 

from a 10-lb. pentolite charge immediately survived the exposure with slight to moderate injuries and 

only a small number of fish were immediately killed; however, most of the fish at this close range did 

suffer moderate to severe injuries, typically of the gills or around the otolithic structures (Goertner et 

al., 1994). 

Studies that have documented caged fishes killed during planned in-water explosions indicate that most 

fish that die do so within one to four hours, and almost all die within a day (Yelverton et al., 1975). 

Mortality in free-swimming (uncaged) fishes may be higher due to increased susceptibility to predation. 

Fitch and Young (1948) found that the type of free-swimming fish killed changed when blasting was 

repeated at the same location within 24 hours of previous blasting. They observed that most fish killed 

on the second day were scavengers, presumably attracted by the victims of the previous day’s blasts. 

Fitch and Young (1948) also investigated whether a significant portion of fish killed would have sunk and 

not been observed at the surface. Comparisons of the numbers of fish observed dead at the surface and 

at the bottom in the same affected area after an explosion showed that fish found dead on the bottom 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.6-117

3.6 Fishes

comprised less than 10 percent of the total observed mortality. Gitschlag et al. (2000) conducted a more 

detailed study of both floating fishes and those that were sinking or lying on the bottom after explosive 

removal of nine oil platforms in the northern Gulf of Mexico. Results were highly variable. They found 

that 3 to 87 percent (46 percent average) of the red snapper killed during a blast might float to the 

surface. Currents, winds, and predation by seabirds or other fishes may be some of the reasons that the 

magnitude of fish mortality may not have been accurately captured. 

There have been few studies of the impact of underwater explosives on early life stages of fish (eggs, 

larvae, juveniles). Fitch and Young (1948) reported mortality of larval anchovies exposed to underwater 

blasts off California. Nix and Chapman (1985) found that anchovy and smelt larvae died following the 

detonation of buried charges. Similar to adult fishes, the presence of a swim bladder contributes to 

shock wave-induced internal damage in larval and juvenile fish (Settle et al., 2002). Explosive shock wave 

injury to internal organs of larval pinfish and spot exposed at shallow depths was documented by Settle 

et al. (2002) and Govoni et al. (2003; 2008) at impulse levels similar to those predicted by Yelverton et 

al. (1975) for very small fish. Settle et al. (2002) provide the lowest measured received level that injuries 

have been observed in larval fish. Researchers (Faulkner et al., 2006; Faulkner et al., 2008; Jensen, 2003)

have suggested that egg mortality may be correlated with peak particle velocity exposure (i.e., the 

localized movement or shaking of water particles, as opposed to the velocity of the blast wave), 

although sufficient data from direct explosive exposures is not available.

Rapid pressure changes could cause mechanical damage to sensitive ear structures due to differential 

movements of the otolithic structures. Bleeding near otolithic structures was the most commonly 

observed injury in non-swim bladder fish exposed to a close explosive charge (Goertner et al., 1994). 

General research findings regarding injury in fishes due to exposure to other impulsive sound sources 

are discussed under Section 3.6.3.1.1.1 (Injury due to Impulsive Sound Sources). Results from other 

impulsive sound exposure studies, such as those for seismic air guns and impact pile driving, may be 

useful in interpreting effects where data are lacking for explosive sources. As summarized by the ANSI 

Sound Exposure Guideline technical report (Popper et al., 2014), exposure to explosive energy poses the 

greatest potential threat for injury and mortality in marine fishes. However, thresholds for the onset of 

injury from exposure to explosives are not currently available and recommendations in the ANSI Sound 

Exposure Guideline technical report (Popper et al., 2014) only provide qualitative criteria for 

consideration. Therefore, available data from existing explosive studies are used to estimate a threshold 

to the onset of injury (see discussion below under Section 3.6.3.2.2.1, Methods for Analyzing Impacts 

from Explosives). In general, fishes with a swim bladder are more susceptible to injury than fishes 

without a swim bladder. The susceptibility also probably varies with size and depth of both the 

detonation and the fish. Fish larvae or juvenile fish may be more susceptible to injury from exposure to 

explosives.

3.6.3.2.1.2 Hearing Loss

There are no direct measurements of hearing loss in fishes due to exposure to explosive sources. The 

sound resulting from an explosive detonation is considered an impulsive sound and shares important 

qualities (i.e., short duration and fast rise time) with other impulsive sounds such as those produced by 

air guns. PTS in fish has not been known to occur in species tested to date and any hearing loss in fish 

may be as temporary as the timeframe required to repair or replace the sensory cells that were 

damaged or destroyed (Popper et al., 2005; Popper et al., 2014; Smith et al., 2006). 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.6-118

3.6 Fishes

As reviewed in Popper et al. (2014), fishes without a swim bladder, or fishes with a swim bladder not 

involved in hearing, would be less susceptible to hearing loss (i.e., TTS), even at higher level exposures. 

Fish with a swim bladder involved in hearing may be susceptible to TTS within very close ranges to an 

explosive. General research findings regarding TTS in fishes as well as findings specific to exposure to 

other impulsive sound sources are discussed in Section 3.6.3.2.1.2 (Hearing Loss).

3.6.3.2.1.3 Masking

Masking refers to the presence of a noise that interferes with a fish’s ability to hear biologically 

important sounds including those produced by prey, predators, or other fish in the same species 

(Myrberg, 1980; Popper et al., 2003). This can take place whenever the noise level heard by a fish

exceeds the level of a biologically relevant sound. As discussed in Section 3.0.3.6.1 (Conceptual 

Framework for Assessing Effects from Acoustic and Explosive Activities) masking only occurs in the 

presence of the masking noise and does not persist after the cessation of the noise. Masking may lead to 

a change in vocalizations or a change in behavior (e.g., cessation of foraging, leaving an area). 

There are no direct observations of masking in fishes due to exposure to explosives. Popper et al. (2014)

highlights a lack of data that exist for masking by explosives but suggests that the intermittent nature of 

explosions would result in very limited probability of any masking effects and, if masking occurred, it would 

only occur during the duration of the sound. General research findings regarding masking in fishes due 

to exposure to sound are discussed in detail in Section 3.6.3.1.1.3 (Masking). Potential masking from 

explosives is likely to be similar to masking studied for other impulsive sounds such as air guns.

3.6.3.2.1.4 Physiological Stress

Fishes naturally experience stress within their environment and as part of their life histories. The stress 

response is a suite of physiological changes that are meant to help an organism mitigate the impact of a 

stressor. However, if the magnitude and duration of the stress response is too great or too long, then it 

can have negative consequences to the organism (e.g., decreased immune function, decreased 

reproduction). Section 3.0.3.6.1 (Conceptual Framework for Assessing Effects from Acoustic and 

Explosive Activities) provides additional information on physiological stress and the framework used to 

analyze this potential impact.

Research on physiological stress in fishes due to exposure to explosive sources is limited. Sverdrup et al. 

(1994) studied levels of stress hormones in Atlantic salmon after exposure to multiple detonations in a 

laboratory setting. Increases in cortisol and adrenaline were observed following the exposure, with 

adrenaline values returning to within normal range within 24 hours. General research findings regarding 

physiological stress in fishes due to exposure to impulsive sources are discussed in detail in Section 

3.6.3.1.1.4 (Physiological Stress). Generally, stress responses are more likely to occur in the presence of 

potentially threatening sound sources such as predator vocalizations or the sudden onset of impulsive 

signals. Stress responses may be brief (a few seconds to minutes) if the exposure is short or if fishes 

habituate or learn to tolerate the noise. It is assumed that any physiological response (e.g., hearing loss 

or injury) or significant behavioral response is also associated with a stress response.

3.6.3.2.1.5 Behavioral Reactions

As discussed in Section 3.0.3.6.1 (Conceptual Framework for Assessing Effects from Acoustic and 

Explosive Activities), any stimuli in the environment can cause a behavioral response in fishes, including 

sound and energy produced by explosions. Behavioral reactions of fishes to explosions have not been 

recorded. Behavioral reactions from explosive sounds are likely to be similar to reactions studied for 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.6-119

3.6 Fishes

other impulsive sounds such as those produced by air guns. Impulsive signals, particularly at close range, 

have a rapid rise time and higher instantaneous peak pressure than other signal types, making them 

more likely to cause startle or avoidance responses. General research findings regarding behavioral 

reactions from fishes due to exposure to impulsive sounds, such as those associated with explosions, are 

discussed in detail in Section 3.6.3.1.1.5 (Behavioral Reactions).

As summarized by the ANSI Sound Exposure Guideline technical report (Popper et al., 2014), species may 

react differently to the same sound source depending on a number of variables, such as the animal’s life 

stage or behavioral state (e.g., feeding, mating). Without data that are more specific it is assumed that 

fishes with similar hearing capabilities react similarly to all impulsive sounds outside or within the zone 

for hearing loss and injury. Observations of fish reactions to large-scale air gun surveys are informative, 

but not necessarily directly applicable to analyzing impacts from the short-term, intermittent use of all 

impulsive sources. Fish have a higher probability of reacting when closer to an impulsive sound source 

(within tens of meters), and a decreasing probability of reaction at increasing distances (Popper et al., 

2014).

3.6.3.2.1.6 Long-term Consequences

Long-term consequences to a population are determined by examining changes in the population 

growth rate. For additional information on the determination of long-term consequences, see Section 

3.0.3.6.1 (Conceptual Framework for Assessing Effects from Acoustic and Explosive Activities). Physical 

effects from explosive sources 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 

impairment or chronic masking, which could affect navigation, foraging, predator avoidance, or 

communication. The long-term consequences due to individual behavioral reactions, masking and 

short-term instances of physiological stress are especially difficult to predict because individual 

experience over time can create complex contingencies, especially for fish species that live for multiple 

seasons or years. For example, a lost reproductive opportunity could be a measurable cost to the 

individual; however, short-term costs may be recouped during the life of an otherwise healthy 

individual. These factors are taken into consideration when assessing risk of long-term consequences.

3.6.3.2.2 Impacts from Explosives

Fishes could be exposed to energy and sound from underwater and in-air explosions associated with 

proposed activities. General categories and characteristics of explosives and the numbers and sizes of 

detonations proposed are described in Section 3.0.3.3.2 (Explosive Stressors). The activities analyzed in 

the EIS/OEIS that use explosives are also described in Appendix A (Navy Activity Descriptions).

As discussed throughout Section 3.6.3.2.1 (Background), sound and energy from in-water explosions are 

capable of causing mortality, injury, hearing loss, a behavioral response, masking, or physiological stress, 

depending on the level and duration of exposure. The death of an animal would eliminate future 

reproductive potential, which is considered in the analysis of potential long-term consequences to the 

population. Exposures that result in non-auditory injuries may limit an animal’s ability to find food, 

communicate with other animals, or interpret the surrounding environment. Impairment of these 

abilities can decrease an individual’s chance of survival or affect its ability to reproduce. Temporary 

threshold shift can also impair an animal’s abilities, although the individual may recover quickly with 

little significant effect.
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.6-120

3.6 Fishes

3.6.3.2.2.1 Methods for Analyzing Impacts from Explosives

The Navy performed a quantitative analysis to estimate range to effects for fishes exposed to in-water

explosions during Navy training and testing activities. Inputs to the quantitative analysis included sound 

propagation modeling in the Navy’s Acoustic Effects Model to the sound exposure criteria and 

thresholds presented below. Density data for fish species within the Study Area are not currently 

available; therefore, it is not possible to estimate the total number of individuals that may be affected 

by explosive activities.

Criteria and Thresholds used to Estimate Impacts on Fishes from Explosives

Mortality and Injury from Explosives

Criteria and thresholds to estimate impacts from sound and energy produced by explosive activities are 

presented below in Table 3.6-13).

Table 3.6-13. In order to estimate the longest range at which a fish may be killed or mortally injured, the 

Navy based the threshold for mortal injury on the lowest pressure that caused mortalities in the study 

by Hubbs and Rechnitzer (1952), consistent with the recommendation in the ANSI Sound Exposure 

Guideline technical report (Popper et al., 2014). As shown in Section 3.6.3.2.1.1 (Injury), this threshold 

likely over-estimates the potential for mortal injury. The potential for mortal injury has been shown to 

be correlated to fish size, depth, and geometry of exposure, which are not accounted for by using a peak 

pressure threshold. However, until fish mortality models are developed that can reasonably consider 

these factors across multiple environments, use of the peak pressure threshold allows for a conservative 

estimate of maximum impact ranges.

Due to the lack of detailed data for onset of injury in fishes exposed to explosives, thresholds from 

impact pile driving exposures (Halvorsen et al., 2011; Halvorsen et al., 2012a; Halvorsen et al., 2012b)

were used as a proxy for the analysis in the AFTT Draft EIS. Upon re-evaluation during consultation, it 

was decided that pile driving thresholds are too conservative and not appropriate to use in the analysis 

of explosive effects on fishes. Therefore, injury criteria were revised as follows.

Thresholds for the onset of injury from exposure to explosives are not currently available and 

recommendations in the ANSI Sound Exposure Guideline technical report (Popper et al., 2014) only 

provide qualitative criteria for consideration. Therefore, available data from existing explosive studies 

were reviewed to provide a conservative estimate for a threshold to the onset of injury (Gaspin, 1975; 

Gaspin et al., 1976; Govoni et al., 2003; Govoni et al., 2008; Hubbs & Rechnitzer, 1952; Settle et al., 

2002; Yelverton et al., 1975). It is important to note that some of the available literature is not peerreviewed and may have some caveats to consider when reviewing the data (e.g., issues with controls, 

limited details on injuries observed, etc.) but this information may still provide a better understanding of 

where injurious effects would begin to occur specific to explosive activities. The lowest thresholds at 

which injuries were observed in each study were recorded and compared for consideration in selecting 

criteria. As a conservative measure, the absolute lowest peak sound pressure level recorded that 

resulted in injury, observed in exposures of larval fishes to explosions (Settle et al., 2002), was selected 

to represent the threshold to injury (see Table 3.6-13).
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.6-121

3.6 Fishes

Table 3.6-13: Sound Exposure Criteria for Mortality and Injury from Explosives

Fish Hearing Group

Onset of 

Mortality Onset of Injury

SPLpeak SPLpeak

Fishes without a swim bladder 229 220

Fishes with a swim bladder not 

involved in hearing 229 220

Fishes with a swim bladder involved 

in hearing 229 220

Fishes with a swim bladder and 

high-frequency hearing 229 220

SPLpeak = Peak sound pressure level.

The injury threshold is consistent across all fish, regardless of hearing group, due to the lack of rigorous 

data for multiple species. It is important to note that these thresholds may be overly conservative as 

there is evidence that fishes exposed to higher thresholds than the those in Table 3.6-13 have shown no 

signs of injury (depending on variables such as the weight of the fish, size of the explosion, depth of the

cage, etc.). It is likely that adult fishes and fishes without a swim bladder would be less susceptible to 

injury than more sensitive hearing groups and larval species. 

The number of fish killed by an in-water explosion would depend on the population density near the 

blast, as well as factors discussed throughout Section 3.6.3.2.1.1 (Injury) such as net explosive weight, 

depth of the explosion, and fish size. For example, if an explosion occurred in the middle of a dense 

school of menhaden, herring, or other schooling fish, a large number of fish could be killed. However, 

the probability of this occurring is low based on the patchy distribution of dense schooling fish. Stunning 

from pressure waves could also temporarily immobilize fish, making them more susceptible to 

predation.

Fragments produced by exploding munitions at or near the surface may present a high-speed strike 

hazard for an animal at or near the surface. In water, however, fragmentation velocities decrease rapidly 

due to drag (Swisdak & Montanaro, 1992). Because blast waves propagate efficiently through water, the 

range to injury from the blast wave would likely extend beyond the range of fragmentation risk.

Hearing Loss from Explosives

Criteria and thresholds to estimate TTS from sound produced by explosive activities are presented 

below in Table 3.6-14. Direct (measured) TTS data from explosives are not available. Criteria used to 

define TTS from explosives is derived from data on fishes exposed to seismic air gun signals (Popper et 

al., 2005) as summarized in the ANSI Sound Exposure Guideline technical report (Popper et al., 2014). 

TTS has not been documented in fishes without a swim bladder from exposure to other impulsive 

sources (pile driving and air guns). Although it is possible that fishes without a swim bladder could 

receive TTS from exposure to explosives, fishes without a swim bladder are typically less susceptible to 

hearing impairment than fishes with a swim bladder. If TTS occurs in fishes without a swim bladder, it 

would likely occur within the range of injury, therefore no threshold for TTS are proposed. General 

research findings regarding hearing loss in fishes as well as findings specific to exposure to other 

impulsive sound sources are discussed in Section 3.6.3.1.1.2 (Hearing Loss due to Impulsive Sound 

Sources).
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.6-122

3.6 Fishes

Table 3.6-14: Sound Exposure Criteria for Hearing Loss from Explosives

Fish Hearing Group TTS (SELcum)

Fishes without a swim bladder NC

Fishes with a swim bladder not involved in hearing > 186

Fishes with a swim bladder involved in hearing 186

Fishes with a swim bladder and high-frequency 

hearing 186

Notes: TTS = Temporary Threshold Shift, SELcum = Cumulative sound exposure level (decibel 

referenced to 1 micropascal squared seconds [dB re 1 μPa2-s]), NC = no criteria are reported,

“>” indicates that the given effect would occur above the reported threshold. 

As discussed in Section 3.6.3.2.1.2 (Hearing Loss), exposure to sound produced from seismic air guns at a 

cumulative sound exposure level of 186 dB re 1 μPa2-s has resulted in TTS in fishes with a swim bladder 

involved in hearing (Popper et al., 2005). TTS has not occurred in fishes with a swim bladder not involved 

in hearing and would likely occur above the given threshold in Table 3.6-14.

3.6.3.2.2.2 Impact Ranges for Explosives

The following section provides estimated range to effects for fishes exposed to sound and energy 

produced by explosives. Ranges are calculated using criteria from Table 3.6-13 and Table 3.6-14 and the 

Navy Acoustic Effects Model. Fishes within these ranges would be predicted to receive the associated 

effect. Ranges may vary greatly depending on factors such as the cluster size, location, depth, and 

season of the activity. 

Table 3.6-15 provides range to mortality and injury for all fishes. Only one table (Table 3.6-16) is 

provided for range to TTS for all fishes with a swim bladder. However, ranges to TTS for fishes with a 

swim bladder not involved in hearing would be shorter than those reported because this effect has not 

been observed from the designated threshold in Table 3.6-14.

3.6.3.2.2.3 Impacts from Explosives under Alternative 1

Impacts from Explosives under Alternative 1 for Training Activities

As described in Chapter 2 (Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives), Section 3.0.3.3.2 (Explosive 

Stressors), and Appendix A (Navy Activity Descriptions), training activities under Alternative 1 would use 

underwater detonations and explosive munitions. Training activities involving explosions would be 

concentrated in the Virginia Capes Range Complex, followed in descending order of numbers of 

activities by Jacksonville, Navy Cherry Point, Gulf of Mexico, Northeast, and Key West Range Complexes, 

and the lower Chesapeake Bay, although training activities could occur anywhere within the Study Area. 

Activities that involve underwater detonations and explosive munitions typically occur more than 3 NM 

from shore however, some mine warfare and demolition activities could also occur in shallow water 

close to shore. In addition, the Navy will implement mitigation to avoid impacts from explosives on 

seafloor resources in mitigation areas throughout the Study Area (see Section 5.4.1, Mitigation Areas for 

Seafloor Resources), which will consequently also help avoid potential impacts on fishes that shelter and 

feed on shallow-water coral reefs, live hard bottom, artificial reefs, submerged aquatic vegetation, and 

shipwrecks.
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.6-123

3.6 Fishes

Table 3.6-15: Range to Mortality and Injury for All Fishes from Explosives

Bin

Range to Effects (meters)

Onset of Mortality Onset of Injury

SPLpeak SPLpeak

E1 (0.25 lb. NEW) 49

(40–80)

119

(75—220)

E2 (0.5 lb. NEW) 57

(50–70)

129

(80—230)

E3 (2.5 lb. NEW) 105

(70–220)

266

(110—800)

E4 (5 lb. NEW) 151

(140–370) 

448

(340—1,275)

E5 (10 lb. NEW) 163

(90–330) 

380

(140—875)

E6 (20 lb. NEW) 218

(120–1,275) 

518

(210—1,775)

E7 (60 lb. NEW) 465

(380–525) 

1,740

(1,275—2,025)

E8 (100 lb. NEW) 419

(160–1,275) 

1,114

(330—3,275)

E9 (250 lb. NEW) 462

(280–550) 

925

(500—3,775)

E10 (500 lb. NEW) 511

(240–925) 

1,028

(480—5,275)

E11 (650 lb. NEW) 1,075

(625–2,775) 

2,806

(1,275—7,525)

E12 (1,000 lb. NEW) 701

(360–1,025) 

1,441

(675—4,775)

E16 (14,500 lb. NEW) 5,039

(1,775–8,025) 

9,284

(3,775—15,025)

E17 (58,000 lb. NEW) 6,740

(2,775–11,525) 

12,306

(6,775—19,275)

Notes: SPLpeak = Peak sound pressure level. Range to effects represents modeled predictions in 

different areas and seasons within the Study Area. Each cell contains the estimated average, 

minimum and maximum range to the specified effect.
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.6-124

3.6 Fishes

Table 3.6-16: Range to TTS for Fishes with a Swim Bladder from Explosives

Bin

Cluster 

Size

Range to Effects 

(meters)

TTS1

SELcum

E1 (0.25 lb. NEW)

1

< 52

(45–85) 

100 < 471

(180–1,275) 

E2 (0.5 lb. NEW) 1

< 92

(55–170) 

E3 (2.5 lb. NEW)

1

< 129

(75–260) 

50 < 830

(240–2,525) 

E4 (5 lb. NEW) 1

< 432

(150–1,275) 

E5 (10 lb. NEW)

1

< 198

(100–490) 

25 < 755

(260–2,775) 

E6 (20 lb. NEW) 1

< 339

(170–1,275) 

E7 (60 lb. NEW) 1

< 1,504

(1,275–1,775) 

E8 (100 lb. NEW) 1

< 784

(240–2,525) 

E9 (250 lb. NEW) 1

< 683

(340–1,275) 

E10 (500 lb. NEW) 1

< 860

(370–7,775) 

E11 (650 lb. NEW) 1

< 3,152

(1,525–8,525) 

E12 (1,000 lb. NEW) 1

< 1,084

(525–7,525) 

E16 (14,500 lb. NEW) 1

< 14,863

(11,525–21,775) 

E17 (58,000 lb. NEW) 1

< 26,240

(13,775–51,775) 

Notes: SELcum = Cumulative sound exposure level, 

TTS = Temporary Threshold Shift, “<” indicates that the given 

effect would occur at distances less than the reported range(s).

Range to effects represent modeled predictions in different 

areas and seasons within the Study Area. Each cell contains the 

estimated average, minimum and maximum range to the 

specified effect.
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.6-125

3.6 Fishes

Sound and energy from explosions could result in mortality and injury, on average, for hundreds to even 

thousands of meters from some of the largest explosions. Exposure to explosions could also result in 

hearing loss in nearby fishes. The estimated range to each of these effects based on explosive bin size is 

provided in Table 3.6-15 and Table 3.6-16. Generally, explosives that belong to larger bins (with large 

net explosive weights) produce longer ranges within each effect category. However, some ranges vary 

depending upon a number of other factors (e.g., number of explosions in a single activity, depth of the 

charge, etc.). Fishes without a swim bladder, adult fishes, and larger species would generally be less 

susceptible to injury and mortality from sound and energy associated with explosive activities than 

small, juvenile or larval fishes. Fishes that experience hearing loss could miss opportunities to detect 

predators or prey, or show a reduction in interspecific communication. 

If an individual fish were repeatedly exposed to sound and energy from in-water explosions that caused 

alterations in natural behavioral patterns or physiological stress, these impacts could lead to long-term 

consequences for the individual such as reduced survival, growth, or reproductive capacity. If 

detonations occurred close together (within a few seconds), there could be the potential for masking to 

occur but this would likely happen at farther distances from the source where individual detonations 

might sound more continuous. Training activities involving explosions are generally dispersed in space 

and time. Consequently, repeated exposure of individual fishes to sound and energy from in-water 

explosions over the course of a day or multiple days is not likely and most behavioral effects are 

expected to be short term (seconds or minutes) and localized. Exposure to multiple detonations over 

the course of a day would most likely lead to an alteration of natural behavior or the avoidance of that 

specific area.

As discussed previously in Section 3.6.2.1.3 (Hearing and Vocalization), all ESA-listed fish species that 

occur in the Study Area are capable of detecting sound produced by explosives. Atlantic salmon, Atlantic 

sturgeon, smalltooth sawfish, Gulf sturgeon, scalloped hammerhead sharks, Nassau grouper, giant 

manta rays and oceanic whitetip sharks may be exposed to sound and energy from explosives 

associated with training activities throughout the Study Area. Atlantic salmon occur in the Northeast 

Range Complex where relatively few explosive activities occur throughout a given year. Although they 

may be more likely to be exposed to detonations at the water’s surface or throughout the water 

column, impacts, if they occur, would be infrequent due to the lack of overlap in habitat and activity 

areas. Atlantic sturgeon may be exposed throughout the year in the Northeast, Navy Cherry Point, and 

Jacksonville Range Complexes but in particular, may be more likely to be exposed to activities that occur 

in the Virginia Capes Range Complex and the lower Chesapeake Bay. Shortnose sturgeon are primarily 

restricted to inshore waters with only infrequent excursions into the marine environment and therefore 

are not likely to be exposed to sound and energy from explosives. Smalltooth sawfish and Gulf sturgeon 

may be exposed to sound and energy from explosions associated with training activities throughout the 

year in the Gulf of Mexico Range Complex or the Panama City OPAREA. In addition, smalltooth sawfish 

could also occur in the Jacksonville and Key West Range Complex. Known habitat for the Central and 

Southwest Distinct Population Segment of scalloped hammerhead shark only overlaps with a small 

southeastern portion of the Study Area, so the likelihood of exposure would be rare. Nassau grouper 

may be exposed to training activities throughout the year in the southern portions of the Jacksonville

Range Complex, as well as the Key West and Gulf of Mexico Range Complexes. Giant manta ray and 

oceanic whitetip sharks could be exposed in offshore areas throughout the Study Area.

Proposed training activities involving the use of explosives overlap designated critical habitat for Gulf 

sturgeon within one mile of the coastline in the eastern Gulf of Mexico as discussed in Section 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.6-126

3.6 Fishes

3.6.2.2.7.1 (Status and Management). Most of the physical and biological features are generally not 

applicable to the Study Area since they occur within the riverine habitat of the species. However, part of 

the physical and biological features for Gulf sturgeon critical habitat includes abundant prey items (e.g., 

amphipods, lancelets, polychaetes, gastropods, ghost shrimp, isopods, molluscs, and crustaceans) within 

estuarine and marine habitats and substrates. The use of explosives within the critical habitat may affect 

a small number of prey items. 

Designated critical habitat for Atlantic salmon and Atlantic sturgeon is restricted to rivers within Maine

or are within estuarine and river systems, respectively. Likewise, designated critical habitat for 

smalltooth sawfish is restricted to nearshore, shallow waters (less than 1 m) around the tip of Florida. 

Explosives are typically detonated 3 NM offshore and do not overlap designated critical habitat 

designated for any of these species.

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of explosives during training activities, as described under Alternative 1, 

will have no effect on designated critical habitat for Atlantic salmon, Atlantic sturgeon or smalltooth 

sawfish. The use of explosives during training activities, as described under Alternative 1, may affect 

ESA-listed Atlantic salmon, Atlantic sturgeon, Gulf sturgeon, Nassau grouper, the Central and Southwest 

Atlantic Distinct Population Segment of the scalloped hammerhead shark, shortnose sturgeon, 

smalltooth sawfish, giant manta ray, oceanic whitetip sharks, and designated critical habitat for Gulf 

sturgeon. The Navy has consulted with the National Marine Fisheries Service as required by section 

7(a)(2) of the ESA in that regard.

Impacts from Explosives under Alternative 1 for Testing Activities

As described in Chapter 2 (Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives), Section 3.0.3.3.2 (Explosive 

Stressors), and Appendix A (Navy Activity Descriptions), testing activities under Alternative 1 would 

involve underwater detonations and explosive munitions. Testing activities would be conducted, in 

descending order, in the Virginia Capes, Jacksonville, Northeast, Gulf of Mexico, Key West, and Navy 

Cherry Point Range Complexes, as well as the Naval Surface Warfare Center, Panama City Testing Range. 

Very few activities would be conducted in the Naval Undersea Warfare Center Division, Newport Testing 

Range, and the Naval Surface Warfare Center Carderock Division, South Florida Ocean Measurement 

Facility Testing Range. Small Ship Shock Trials could take place any season within the deep offshore 

water of the Virginia Capes Range Complex or in the spring, summer or fall within the Jacksonville Range 

Complex and would occur up to three times over a five-year period. The Large Ship Shock Trial could 

take place in the Jacksonville Range Complex during the spring, summer, or fall and during any season 

within the deep offshore water of the Virginia Capes Range Complex or within the Gulf of Mexico. The 

Large Ship Shock Trial would occur once over five years. Testing activities using explosives do not 

normally occur within 3 NM of shore; the exception is the designated underwater detonation area near 

Naval Surface Warfare Center, Panama City Division Testing Range, which is nearshore, partially within 

the surf zone. Although there is the potential for larger ranges to mortality or injury due to Ship Shock 

trials, proposed testing activities that involve explosives under Alternative 1 would differ in number and 

location from training activities under Alternative 1; however, the types and severity of impacts would 

not be discernible from those described above in Section 3.6.3.2.2.3 (Impacts from Explosives Under 

Alternative 1 for Training Activities).

To avoid potential impacts, the Navy will implement mitigation that includes ceasing ship shock trial 

explosive detonations if a large school of fish is observed in the mitigation zone, and seasonal mitigation 

for line charge testing specific to Gulf Sturgeon migrations in the Naval Surface Warfare Center, Panama 

City Division Testing Range, as discussed in Section 5.3.3, Explosive Stressors. In addition to procedural 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.6-127

3.6 Fishes

mitigation, the Navy will implement mitigation to avoid impacts from explosives on seafloor resources in 

mitigation areas throughout the Study Area (see Section 5.4.1, Mitigation Areas for Seafloor Resources). 

The mitigation areas will further avoid potential impacts on fishes that shelter and feed on shallowwater coral reefs, live hard bottom, artificial reefs, submerged aquatic vegetation, and shipwrecks.

As discussed previously in Section 3.6.2.1.3 (Hearing and Vocalization), all ESA-listed fish species that 

occur in the Study Area are capable of detecting sound produced by explosives. Atlantic salmon, Atlantic 

sturgeon, shortnose sturgeon, smalltooth sawfish, Gulf sturgeon, Nassau grouper, giant manta rays and 

oceanic whitetip sharks may be exposed to sound and energy from explosives associated with testing

activities throughout the Study Area. Known habitat for the Central and Southwest Distinct Population 

Segment of scalloped hammerhead shark only overlaps with a small southern portion of the Study Area, 

but would not occur in range complexes where explosives are used during testing activities. 

Atlantic salmon occur in the Northeast Range Complex where relatively few explosive activities occur 

throughout a given year. Although they may be more likely to be exposed to detonations at the water’s 

surface or throughout the water column, impacts, if they occur, would be infrequent due to the lack of 

overlap in habitat and activity areas. Atlantic sturgeon may be exposed throughout the year in the 

Northeast, Navy Cherry Point, and Jacksonville Range Complexes and the NUWC Newport Testing Range

but are more likely to be exposed to activities that occur in the Virginia Capes Range Complex and the 

lower Chesapeake Bay. Shortnose sturgeon would not likely be exposed to sound and energy from 

explosives associated with testing activities, including ship shock trials, as they are primarily restricted to 

inshore waters (rivers and estuaries) with only infrequent excursions into the marine environment.

Smalltooth sawfish and Gulf sturgeon may be exposed to sound and energy from explosive activities 

associated with testing activities throughout the year in the Gulf of Mexico Range Complex and the 

Naval Surface Warfare Center, Panama City Division Testing Range. In addition, smalltooth sawfish could 

also occur in the southern portions of the Jacksonville Range Complex and the Key West Range 

Complexes. Nassau grouper may be exposed to testing activities throughout the year in the southern 

portion of the Jacksonville Range Complex and in the Key West and Gulf of Mexico Range Complexes, 

and specifically in the Naval Surface Warfare Center, Panama City Division Testing Range. Giant manta 

ray and oceanic whitetip sharks could be exposed in offshore areas throughout the Study Area.

To avoid potential impacts during one activity that occurs close to shore in Gulf sturgeon habitat (line 

charge testing), the Navy will implement mitigation that includes avoiding line charge testing in 

nearshore waters in the Naval Surface Warfare Center, Panama City Division Testing Range (except 

within the designated location on Santa Rosa Island) between October and March. The mitigation would 

help avoid impacts from explosives during Gulf sturgeon migrations from the Gulf of Mexico winter and 

feeding grounds to the spring and summer natal (hatching) rivers (the Yellow, Choctawhatchee, and 

Apalachicola Rivers).

Designated critical habitat for Atlantic salmon is restricted to rivers within Maine. Likewise, designated 

critical habitat for smalltooth sawfish is restricted to nearshore, shallow waters (less than 1 m) around 

the tip of Florida and Atlantic sturgeon critical habitat are within estuarine and river systems. Explosives 

are typically detonated 3 NM offshore and do not overlap designated critical habitat designated for any 

of these species.

Proposed testing activities overlap designated critical habitat for Gulf sturgeon within one mile of the 

coastline in the eastern Gulf of Mexico as discussed in Section 3.6.2.2.7.1 (Status and Management). 

Most of the physical and biological features are generally not applicable to the Study Area since they 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.6-128

3.6 Fishes

occur within the riverine habitat of the species. However, part of the physical and biological features for 

Gulf sturgeon critical habitat includes abundant prey items (e.g., amphipods, lancelets, polychaetes, 

gastropods, ghost shrimp, isopods, molluscs, and crustaceans) within estuarine and marine habitats and 

substrates. The use of explosives within the critical habitat may affect a small number of prey items.

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of explosives during testing activities, as described under Alternative 1, will 

have no effect on designated critical habitat for Atlantic salmon, Atlantic sturgeon and smalltooth 

sawfish. The use of explosives during testing activities, as described under Alternative 1, may affect ESAlisted Atlantic salmon, Atlantic sturgeon, Gulf sturgeon, Nassau grouper, shortnose sturgeon, smalltooth 

sawfish, the Central and Southwest Atlantic Distinct Population Segment of the scalloped hammerhead 

shark, giant manta rays and oceanic whitetip sharks, and designated critical habitat for Gulf sturgeon.

The Navy has consulted with the National Marine Fisheries Service as required by section 7(a)(2) of the 

ESA in that regard.

3.6.3.2.2.4 Impacts from Explosives under Alternative 2

Impacts from Explosives under Alternative 2 for Training Activities

As described in Chapter 2 (Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives), Section 3.0.3.3.2 (Explosive 

Stressors), and Appendix A (Navy Activity Descriptions), training activities under Alternative 2 would be 

almost identical to those described under Alternative 1. The differences in the number of activities 

within each range complex across a year is nominal with only slight increases in activities in the Virginia 

Capes Range Complex across a five-year period; therefore, the locations, types, and severity of predicted 

impacts would not be discernible from those described above in Section 3.6.3.2.2.3 (Impacts from 

Explosives under Alternative 1 for Training Activities).

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of explosives during training activities, as described under Alternative 2, 

will have no effect on designated critical habitat for Atlantic salmon, Atlantic sturgeon or smalltooth 

sawfish. The use of explosives during training activities, as described under Alternative 2, may affect 

ESA-listed Atlantic salmon, Atlantic sturgeon, Gulf sturgeon, Nassau grouper, the Central and Southwest 

Atlantic Distinct Population Segment of the scalloped hammerhead shark, shortnose sturgeon, 

smalltooth sawfish, giant manta ray, oceanic whitetip sharks, and designated critical habitat for Gulf 

sturgeon.

Impacts from Explosives under Alternative 2 for Testing Activities

As described in Chapter 2 (Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives), testing activities under 

Alternative 2 include activities that produce sound and energy from explosives. Testing activities under 

Alternative 2 would be almost identical to those described under Alternative 1. The differences in the 

number of activities across a year is nominal with only slight increases in activities in the Virginia Capes 

Range Complex and the Naval Surface Warfare Center, Panama City Testing Range across a five-year 

period; therefore the locations, types, and severity of predicted impacts would not be discernible from 

those described above in Section 3.6.3.2.2.3 (Impacts from Explosives under Alternative 1 for Testing 

Activities).

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of explosives during testing activities, as described under Alternative 2, will 

have no effect on designated critical habitat for Atlantic salmon, Atlantic sturgeon and smalltooth 

sawfish. The use of explosives during testing activities, as described under Alternative 2, may affect ESAlisted Atlantic salmon, Atlantic sturgeon, Gulf sturgeon, Nassau grouper, shortnose sturgeon, smalltooth 

sawfish, the Central and Southwest Atlantic Distinct Population Segment of the scalloped hammerhead 

shark, giant manta rays and oceanic whitetip sharks, and designated critical habitat for Gulf sturgeon.
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.6-129

3.6 Fishes

3.6.3.2.2.5 Impacts from Explosives under the No Action Alternative

Impacts from Explosives 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 AFTT Study Area. Various explosive stressors (e.g., explosive shock wave and sound; 

explosive fragments) would not be introduced into the marine environment. Therefore, baseline 

conditions of the existing environment either would remain unchanged or would improve slightly after 

cessation of ongoing training and testing activities.

3.6.3.3 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 and in-air electromagnetic devices and (2) high energy lasers.

3.6.3.3.1 Impacts from In-Water Electromagnetic Devices

Several different electromagnetic devices are used during training and testing activities. A discussion of 

the characteristics of energy introduced into the water through naval training and testing activities and 

the relative magnitude and location of these activities is presented in Section 3.0.3.3.3.1 (In-Water 

Electromagnetic Devices), while Table B-1 and Table B-2 (Appendix B, Activity Stressor Matrices) list the 

activities that use the devices.

A comprehensive review of information regarding the sensitivity of marine organisms to electric and 

magnetic impulses is presented in (Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, 2011). The synthesis of 

available data and information contained in this report suggests that while many fish species 

(particularly elasmobranchs) are sensitive to electromagnetic fields (Hore, 2012), further investigation is 

necessary to understand the physiological response and magnitude of the potential impacts. Most 

examinations of electromagnetic fields on marine fishes have focused on buried undersea cables 

associated with offshore wind farms in European waters (Boehlert & Gill, 2010; Gill, 2005; Ohman et al., 

2007). 

Many fish groups including lampreys, elasmobranchs, sturgeon, eels, marine catfish, salmonids, 

stargazers, tuna, and others, have an acute sensitivity to electrical fields, known as electroreception 

(Bullock et al., 1983; Helfman et al., 2009). Fishes likely use the same sensory organs (e.g., lateral line 

system particularly around the head) for electroreception and also for detecting sounds. Some species 

such as sharks such as the scalloped hammerhead have small pores near the nostrils, around the head 

and on the underside of the snout, or rostrum called ampullae of Lorenzini to detect the 

electromagnetic signature of their prey. Each ESA-listed fish species has some level of electroreception, 

but elasmobranchs (including sawfishes) are more sensitive than the others. Electroreceptors are 

thought to aid in navigation, orientation, and migration of sharks and rays (Kalmijn, 2000). In 

elasmobranchs, behavioral and physiological response to electromagnetic stimulus varies by species and 

age, and appears to be related to foraging behavior (Rigg et al., 2009). Many elasmobranchs respond 

physiologically to electric fields of 10 nanovolts per cm and behaviorally at 5 nanovolts per cm (Collin & 

Whitehead, 2004), while Kajiura & Holland (2002) showed juvenile scalloped hammerhead sharks 

detected and behaviorally responded to electric fields of less than 1 nanovolt per cm. 

There are two general types of electroreceptor organs in fishes (Helfman et al., 2009). Ampullary 

receptors, located in recesses in the skin, are connected to the surface by a canal filled with a conductive 

gel and are sensitive to electric fields of low-frequency (<0.1 to 25 Hz). Tuberous receptors are located in 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.6-130

3.6 Fishes

depressions of the epidermis, are covered with loosely packed epithelial cells, and detect higherfrequency electric fields (50 Hz to > 2 kHz). They are typically found in fishes that use electric organs to 

produce their own electric fields. The distribution of electroreceptors on the head of these fishes, 

especially around the mouth (e.g., along the rostrum of sawfishes), suggests that these sensory organs 

may be used in foraging. Additionally, some researchers hypothesize that the electroreceptors aid in 

social communication (Collin & Whitehead, 2004).

Electromagnetic sensitivities of the Gulf, Atlantic, and shortnose sturgeon have not been heavily 

studied; however, the presence of electroreceptive ampullae in all sturgeon strongly supports the 

assertion that they are sensitive to electromagnetic energy (Bouyoucos et al., 2014). The ampullae of 

some fishes are sensitive to low frequencies (less than 0.1 to 25 Hz) of electrical energy (Helfman et al., 

2009), which may be of physical or biological origin, such as muscle contractions. A recent study on 

juvenile Atlantic sturgeon showed a behavioral avoidance of electropositive metals when food was 

present (Bouyoucos et al., 2014). Zhang et al. (2012) studied electroreception on Siberian sturgeon

(Acipenser baerii) and suggested that electroreception plays a role in the feeding behavior of most 

sturgeon species.

While elasmobranchs and other fishes can sense the level of the earth’s electromagnetic field, the 

potential impacts on fishes resulting from changes in the strength or orientation of the background field 

are not well understood. When the electromagnetic field is enhanced or altered, sensitive fishes may 

experience an interruption or disturbance in normal sensory perception. Research on the

electrosensitivity of sharks indicates that some species respond to electrical impulses with an apparent 

avoidance reaction (Helfman et al., 2009; Kalmijn, 2000). This avoidance response has been exploited as 

a shark deterrent, to repel sharks from areas of overlap with human activity (Marcotte & Lowe, 2008). A 

recent study on cat sharks (Scyliorhinus canicula) demonstrated that sharks may show habituation to 

electrical fields over short-term exposures (Kimber et al., 2014). Other studies suggest that sharks are 

attracted to electromagnetic sources when conditions in the water hinder their other senses such as 

sight and hearing. This attraction to electromagnetic sources helps sharks to find prey when in these low 

sensory conditions (Fields, 2007).

The mechanism for direct sensing of magnetic fields is unknown; however, the presence of magnetite (a 

magnetic mineral) in the tissues of some fishes such as tunas and salmon, or other sensory systems such 

as the inner ear and the lateral line system may be responsible for electromagnetic reception (Helfman 

et al., 2009). Magnetite of biogenic origins has been documented in the lateral line of the European eel

(Anguilla anguilla), a close relative of the American eel; both species occur in the Study Area (Moore & 

Riley, 2009). These species undergo long-distance migrations from natal waters of the Sargasso Sea 

(North Atlantic Subtropical Gyre) to freshwater habitats in Europe and North America (Helfman et al., 

2009), where they mature and then return as adults to the Sargasso Sea to spawn. Some species of 

salmon, tuna, and stargazers have likewise been shown to respond to magnetic fields and may also 

contain magnetite in their tissues (Helfman et al., 2009). 

Experiments with electromagnetic pulses can provide indirect evidence of the range of sensitivity of 

fishes to similar stimuli. Two studies reported that exposure to electromagnetic pulses do not have any 

effect on fishes (Hartwell et al., 1991; Nemeth & Hocutt, 1990). The observed 48-hour mortality of small 

estuarine fishes (e.g., sheepshead minnow, mummichog, Atlantic menhaden, striped bass, Atlantic 

silverside, fourspine stickleback, and rainwater killifish) exposed to electromagnetic pulses of 100—200 

kilovolts per meter (10 nanoseconds per pulse) from distances greater than 50 m was not statistically 

different than the control group (Hartwell et al., 1991; Nemeth & Hocutt, 1990). During a study of 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.6-131

3.6 Fishes

Atlantic menhaden, there were no statistical differences in swimming speed and direction (toward or 

away from the electromagnetic pulse source) between a group of individuals exposed to 

electromagnetic pulses and the control group (Hartwell et al., 1991; Nemeth & Hocutt, 1990). 

Electromagnetic sensitivity in some marine fishes (e.g., salmonids) is already well-developed at early life 

stages (Ohman et al., 2007); however, most of the limited research that has occurred focuses on adults. 

A laboratory study on Atlantic salmon showed no behavioral changes for adults and post-smolts passing 

through an area with a 50 Hz magnetic field activated (Armstrong et al., 2015). Some species appear to 

be attracted to undersea cables, while others show avoidance (Ohman et al., 2007). Under controlled 

laboratory conditions, the scalloped hammerhead (Sphyrna lewini) and sandbar shark (Carcharhinus 

plumbeus) exhibited altered swimming and feeding behaviors in response to very weak electric fields 

(less than 1 nanovolt per cm) (Kajiura & Holland, 2002). In a test of sensitivity to fixed magnets, five 

Pacific sharks were shown to react to magnetic field strengths of 2,500 to 234,000 μT (microtesla) at 

distances ranging between 0.26 and 0.58 m and avoid the area (Rigg et al., 2009). A field trial in the 

Florida Keys demonstrated that southern stingrays (Dasyatis americana) and nurse sharks 

(Ginglymostoma cirratum) detected and avoided a fixed magnetic field producing a flux of 95,000 μT 

(O'Connell et al., 2010). A field study on white sharks (Carcharodon carcharias) in South Africa suggested 

behavioral changes in the sharks when approaching a towed prey item with an active electromagnetic 

field (Huveneers et al., 2013). No change was noticed in the sharks’ behavior towards a static prey item. 

The maximum electromagnetic fields typically generated during Navy training and testing activities is 

approximately 2,300 μT. 

Potential impacts of electromagnetic activity on adult fishes may not be relevant to early life stages 

(eggs, larvae, juveniles) due to ontogenic (lifestage-based) shifts in habitat utilization (Botsford et al., 

2009; Sabates et al., 2007). Some skates and rays produce egg cases that lay on the bottom, while many 

neonate and adult sharks occur in the water column or near the water surface. Exposure of eggs and 

larvae (ichthyoplankton) to electromagnetic fields would be low since their distributions are extremely 

patchy. Early life history stages of ESA-listed sturgeon and Atlantic salmon occur in freshwater or 

estuarine habitats outside of the Study Area. Similarly, sawfish neonates and juveniles typically inhabit 

nearshore mangrove habitats, beyond the areas where in-water electromagnetic devices are used. For 

many sharks, skates, rays, and livebearers, the fecundity and natural mortality rates are much lower, 

and the exposure of the larger neonates and juveniles to electromagnetic energy would be similar 

across life stages for these species.

Based on current literature, only the fish groups identified above are capable of detecting 

electromagnetic fields (primarily elasmobranchs, sturgeon, salmonids, tuna, eels, and stargazers) and 

thus will be carried forward in this section. The remaining major fish groups from Table 3.6-2 will not be 

presented further. Aspects of electromagnetic stressors that are applicable to marine organisms in 

general are described in Section 3.0.3.6.2 (Conceptual Framework for Assessing Effects from 

Energy-Producing Activities).

3.6.3.3.1.1 Impacts from In-Water Electromagnetic Devices under Alternative 1

Impacts from In-Water Electromagnetic Devices under Alternative 1 for Training Activities

Under Alternative 1, training activities involving in-water electromagnetic devices occur in the Northeast 

U.S. Continental Shelf, Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf, Caribbean Sea, and Gulf of Mexico Large Marine 

Ecosystems—specifically within the Virginia Capes Range Complex, Navy Cherry Point Range Complex, 

Jacksonville Range Complex, Gulf of Mexico Range Complex, and within inshore waters in these areas. 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.6-132

3.6 Fishes

Activities that use in-water electromagnetic devices would remain concentrated within the Virginia 

Capes Range Complex, accounting for 63 percent of the annual activities. Fish species that do not occur 

within these specified areas—including the ESA-listed Atlantic salmon, Nassau groupers, and Central and 

Southwest Atlantic Distinct Population Segment of the scalloped hammerhead shark—would not be 

exposed to in-water electromagnetic devices. Species that do occur within the areas listed above—

including the ESA-listed smalltooth sawfish, Atlantic sturgeon, shortnose sturgeon, Gulf sturgeon, giant 

manta rays, and oceanic whitetip sharks—would have the potential to be exposed to in-water 

electromagnetic devices. 

Exposure is limited to those marine fish groups able to detect electromagnetic properties in the water 

column, as described in Section 3.6.2 (Affected Environment), such as elasmobranchs, sturgeon, tuna, 

salmon, eels, and stargazers (Bullock et al., 1983; Helfman et al., 2009). Fishes sensitive to 

electromagnetic fields (primarily elasmobranchs, sturgeon, salmonids, tuna, eels, and stargazers) may 

experience temporary disturbance of normal sensory perception during migratory or foraging 

movements, or they could experience avoidance or attraction reactions (Fields, 2007; Kalmijn, 2000), 

resulting in alterations of behavior and avoidance of normal foraging areas or migration routes. 

Exposure of electromagnetically sensitive fish species to electromagnetic activities has the potential to 

result in stress to the animal and may also elicit alterations in normal behavior patterns (e.g., swimming, 

feeding, resting, and spawning). Such effects may have the potential to disrupt long-term growth and 

survival of an individual. However, due to the temporary (hours) and isolated locations where in-water 

electromagnetic devices are used in the Study Area, the resulting stress on fishes is not likely to impact 

the health of resident or migratory populations. Likewise, some fish in the vicinity of training activities 

may react to in-water electromagnetic devices, but the signals are not widespread or frequent enough 

to alter behavior on a long-term basis. Any behavioral changes are not expected to have lasting effects 

on the survival, growth, recruitment, or reproduction of these marine fish groups at the 

population level.

Smalltooth sawfish, Atlantic sturgeon, shortnose sturgeon, Gulf sturgeon, oceanic whitetip sharks, and 

giant manta rays are the only ESA-listed fish species occurring in training areas that are known to be 

capable of detecting electromagnetic energy. Smalltooth sawfish could occur in the Jacksonville Range 

Complex, but any occurrences would be extremely rare (Florida Museum of Natural History, 2011). 

Atlantic sturgeon inhabit inshore and coastal waters, and therefore may encounter in-water 

electromagnetic devices used in training activities in bays and estuaries, like the lower Chesapeake Bay. 

Other locations include portions of the range complexes that lie over the Continental Shelf, overlapping 

the normal distribution of Atlantic sturgeon, shortnose sturgeon, and smalltooth sawfish. Oceanic 

whitetip sharks and giant manta rays are found in offshore waters and may encounter in-water 

electromagnetic devices used in training activities in those areas. Any behavioral changes are not 

expected to have lasting effects on the survival, growth, recruitment, or reproduction of fishes at the 

population level.

Training activities involving in‐water electromagnetic devices may overlap with Gulf sturgeon critical 

habitat in the coastal portion of the Panama City OPAREA. In addition, the civilian port defense training 

activity may occur in St. Andrew Bay in areas designated as Gulf sturgeon critical habitat. However, the 

biological and physical features associated with the critical habitat designations would not be impacted 

by these activities. In addition, civilian port defense training activities in Wilmington (NC) and Delaware 

Bay (DE) and Savannah (GA) overlap with designated Atlantic sturgeon critical habitat in the Delaware 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.6-133

3.6 Fishes

River and Savannah River, respectively. However, the biological and physical features associated with 

the designated critical habitats would not be impacted by the activities.

All of the biological and physical features required by Atlantic salmon are applicable to freshwater only 

and are outside the Study Area. Therefore, none of the electromagnetic stressors would affect Atlantic 

salmon critical habitat. The biological and physical features of critical habitat for smalltooth sawfish are 

red mangrove habitats and shallow marine waters of less than 1 m deep. Electromagnetic activities do 

not occur at these depths and thus would not overlap with smalltooth sawfish critical habitat. 

The in-water electromagnetic devices used in training activities would not be anticipated to result in 

more than minimal impact on fishes as individuals or populations because of: (1) the relatively low 

intensity of the magnetic fields generated (0.2 microtesla at 200 m from the source), (2) the highly 

localized potential impact area, and (3) the limited and temporally distinct duration of the activities 

(hours). Some fishes could have a detectable response to electromagnetic exposure, but the fields 

generated are typically well below physiological and behavioral responses of magnetoreceptive fishes, 

and any impacts would be temporary with no anticipated impact on an individual’s growth, survival, 

annual reproductive success, or lifetime reproductive success (i.e., fitness), or species recruitment, and 

are not expected to result in population-level impacts. Electromagnetic exposure of eggs and larvae of 

sensitive bony fishes would be low relative to their total ichthyoplankton biomass (Able & Fahay, 1998); 

therefore, potential impacts on recruitment would not be expected.

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of in-water electromagnetic devices during training activities, as described 

under Alternative 1, would have no effect on Atlantic salmon, Nassau grouper, and the Central and 

Southwest Atlantic Distinct Population Segment of the scalloped hammerhead shark, and critical 

habitats designated for Atlantic salmon, Atlantic sturgeon, Gulf sturgeon, and smalltooth sawfish.

Training activities under Alternative 1 involving the use of in-water electromagnetic devices may affect 

Atlantic sturgeon, giant manta ray, Gulf sturgeon, oceanic whitetip sharks, shortnose sturgeon, and 

smalltooth sawfish. The Navy has consulted with the National Marine Fisheries Service, as required by 

section 7(a)(2) of the ESA in that regard.

Impacts from In-Water Electromagnetic Devices under Alternative 1 for Testing Activities

Under Alternative 1, testing activities involving in-water electromagnetic devices occur in a number of 

areas, including Virginia Capes Range Complex, Navy Cherry Point Range Complex, Jacksonville Range 

Complex, Gulf of Mexico Range Complex, South Florida Ocean Measurement Facility, Naval Surface 

Warfare Center Panama City Testing Range, and within inshore waters (see Table 3.0-14 and Table 

3.0-15). Atlantic salmon and scalloped hammerhead sharks belonging to the Central and Southwest 

Atlantic Distinct Population Segment do not occur within these specified areas and would not be 

exposed to in-water electromagnetic devices during testing activities.

ESA-listed species that occur within these areas, including Atlantic sturgeon, shortnose sturgeon

smalltooth sawfish, Gulf sturgeon, Nassau grouper, scalloped hammerhead sharks, oceanic whitetip 

sharks, and giant manta rays would have the potential to be exposed to in-water 

electromagnetic devices.

Exposure is limited to those marine fish groups able to detect electromagnetic properties in the water 

column, as described in Section 3.6.2 (Affected Environment), such as elasmobranchs, sturgeon, tuna, 

salmon, eels, and stargazers (Bullock et al., 1983; Helfman et al., 2009). Two such species, the Atlantic 

torpedo ray (Torpedo nobiliana) and the lesser electric ray (Narcine brasiliensis) occur in the Naval 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.6-134

3.6 Fishes

Surface Warfare Center, Panama City Division Testing Range, where a portion of the electromagnetic 

activities would be concentrated.

All of the ESA-listed fish species occurring in areas where testing occurs are capable of detecting 

electromagnetic energy, with the exception of Nassau grouper. Potential exposure to electromagnetic 

testing activities may occur in the offshore portions of the testing ranges that lie within the continental 

shelf, overlapping the normal distribution of Gulf sturgeon, Atlantic sturgeon, shortnose sturgeon, and 

smalltooth sawfish. Oceanic whitetip sharks and giant manta rays are found in offshore waters and may 

encounter in-water electromagnetic devices used in testing activities in those areas. Behavioral changes 

are not expected to have lasting effects on the survival, growth, recruitment, or reproduction of fish

species. 

Testing activities involving in‐water electromagnetic devices may overlap with Gulf sturgeon critical 

habitat in the coastal waters of the Panama City OPAREA. However, the biological and physical features 

associated with the critical habitat designations would not be impacted by these activities. The use of 

electromagnetic devices during testing activities does not overlap with designated Atlantic sturgeon 

critical habitat. 

All of critical habitat biological and physical features required by Atlantic salmon are applicable to 

freshwater only and are outside the Study Area. Therefore, none of the electromagnetic stressors would 

affect Atlantic salmon critical habitat. The biological and physical features for smalltooth sawfish are red 

mangrove habitats and shallow marine waters of less than 1 m deep. Electromagnetic activities do not 

occur at these depths and thus would not overlap with smalltooth sawfish critical habitat. 

The in-water electromagnetic devices used in testing activities would not cause any risk to fish because 

of the: (1) relatively low intensity of the magnetic fields generated (0.2 microtesla at 200 m from the 

source), (2) highly localized potential impact area, and (3) limited and temporally distinct duration of the 

activities (hours). Fishes may have a detectable response to electromagnetic exposure, but would likely 

recover completely. Potential impacts of exposure to electromagnetic stressors are not expected to 

result in substantial changes to an individual’s behavior, fitness, or species recruitment, and are not 

expected to result in population-level impacts.

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of in-water electromagnetic devices during testing activities, as described 

under Alternative 1, would have no effect on Atlantic salmon, Nassau grouper, the Central and 

Southwest Atlantic Distinct Population Segment of the scalloped hammerhead shark, and designated 

critical habitat for Atlantic salmon, Atlantic sturgeon, Gulf sturgeon, and smalltooth sawfish. Testing 

activities under Alternative 1 involving the use of in-water electromagnetic devices may affect Atlantic 

sturgeon, giant manta ray, Gulf sturgeon, oceanic whitetip sharks, shortnose sturgeon, and smalltooth 

sawfish. The Navy has consulted with the National Marine Fisheries Service, as required by section 

7(a)(2) of the ESA in that regard.

3.6.3.3.1.2 Impacts from In-Water Electromagnetic Devices under Alternative 2

Impacts from In-Water Electromagnetic Devices under Alternative 2 for Training Activities

Because the locations, number of events, and potential effects associated with in-water electromagnetic 

devices would be the same under Alternatives 1 and 2, impacts experienced by fishes from in-water 

electromagnetic devices use under Alternative 2 are not expected to be meaningfully different than 

those described under Alternative 1. Therefore, impacts associated with training activities under 

Alternative 2 are the same as Alternative 1.
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.6-135

3.6 Fishes

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of in-water electromagnetic devices during training activities, as described 

under Alternative 2, would have no effect on Atlantic salmon, Nassau grouper, and the Central and 

Southwest Atlantic Distinct Population Segment of the scalloped hammerhead shark, and critical 

habitats designated for Atlantic salmon, Atlantic sturgeon, Gulf sturgeon, and smalltooth sawfish. 

Training activities under Alternative 2 involving the use of in-water electromagnetic devices may affect 

Atlantic sturgeon, giant manta ray, Gulf sturgeon, oceanic whitetip sharks, shortnose sturgeon, and 

smalltooth sawfish.

Impacts from In-Water Electromagnetic Devices under Alternative 2 for Testing Activities

Because the locations, number of events, and potential effects associated with in-water electromagnetic 

devices would be the same under Alternatives 1 and 2, impacts experienced by fishes from in-water 

electromagnetic devices use under Alternative 2 are not expected to be meaningfully different than 

those described under Alternative 1. Therefore, impacts associated with testing activities under 

Alternative 2 are the same as Alternative 1.

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of in-water electromagnetic devices during testing activities, as described 

under Alternative 2, would have no effect on Atlantic salmon, Nassau grouper, the Central and 

Southwest Atlantic Distinct Population Segment of the scalloped hammerhead shark, and designated 

critical habitat for Atlantic salmon, Atlantic sturgeon, Gulf sturgeon, and smalltooth sawfish. Testing 

activities under Alternative 2 involving the use of in-water electromagnetic devices may affect Atlantic 

sturgeon, giant manta ray, Gulf sturgeon, oceanic whitetip sharks, shortnose sturgeon, and smalltooth

sawfish.

3.6.3.3.1.3 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 AFTT Study Area. Electromagnetic fields from towed devices or unmanned mine warfare 

systems 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.

3.6.3.3.2 Impacts from In-Air Electromagnetic Devices

In-air electromagnetic stressors are not applicable to fishes because they are transmitted in the air and 

not underwater and will not be analyzed further in this section.

3.6.3.3.3 Impacts from High-Energy Lasers

This section analyzes the potential impacts of high energy lasers on fishes. As discussed in Section 

3.0.3.3.3.3 (Lasers), high energy laser weapons are designed to disable surface targets, rendering them 

immobile. The primary impact from high-energy lasers would be from the laser beam striking the fish at 

or near the water's surface, which could result in injury or death. 

Fish could be exposed to a laser only if the beam missed the target. Should the laser strike the sea 

surface, individual fish at or near the surface could be exposed. The potential for exposure to a high 

energy laser beam decreases as the water depth increases. Most fish are unlikely to be exposed to laser 

activities because they primarily occur more than a few meters below the sea surface.
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.6-136

3.6 Fishes

3.6.3.3.3.1 Impacts from High-Energy Lasers under Alternative 1

Impacts from High-Energy Lasers under Alternative 1 for Training Activities

Under Alternative 1, training activities involving high-energy lasers only occur within the Virginia Capes 

and Jacksonville Range Complexes. Fish species in these areas that occur near the surface, such as 

oceanic whitetip sharks and giant manta rays, would have the potential to be exposed to high-energy 

lasers. Although occurring in areas of laser use, while in coastal and offshore waters, Atlantic sturgeon, 

shortnose sturgeon, and smalltooth sawfish typically occur in the lower depths of the water column or 

near the seafloor and would not be exposed. Atlantic salmon, Gulf sturgeon, Nassau grouper, and the 

Central and Southwest Atlantic Distinct Population Segment of the scalloped hammerhead shark do not 

occur in areas of laser use. In addition, the use of high energy lasers under Alternative 1 for training 

activities does not overlap with the designated critical habitat for any of the ESA-listed fish species.

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of high-energy lasers during training activities, as described under 

Alternative 1, would have no effect on Atlantic salmon, Atlantic sturgeon, Gulf sturgeon, Nassau 

grouper, the Central and Southwest Atlantic Distinct Population Segment of the scalloped hammerhead 

shark, shortnose sturgeon, smalltooth sawfish, and designated critical habitat for Atlantic salmon, 

Atlantic sturgeon, Gulf sturgeon, and smalltooth sawfish. The use of high-energy lasers during training 

activities under Alternative 1 may affect giant manta rays and oceanic whitetip sharks. The Navy has 

consulted with the National Marine Fisheries Service, as required by section 7(a)(2) of the ESA in that 

regard.

Impacts from High-Energy Lasers under Alternative 1 for Testing Activities

Under Alternative 1, high-energy laser weapons would be used for testing activities in the AFTT Study 

Area, the Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf and Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf Large Marine 

Ecosystems and Gulf Stream Open Ocean Area (see Table 3.0-16). High-energy laser testing occurs at the 

highest frequency within the Virginia Capes Range Complex, but would also occur at the Northeast 

Range Complexes, Navy Cherry Point Range Complex, Jacksonville Range Complex, Key West Range 

Complex, Gulf of Mexico Range Complex, Naval Undersea Warfare Center Newport Testing Range, South 

Florida Ocean Measurement Facility, and Naval Surface Warfare Center Panama City Testing Range. 

Species that occur near the surface at these locations within these areas would have the potential to 

be exposed. 

Some ESA‐listed species such as Atlantic salmon, oceanic whitetip sharks, giant manta rays, and Central 

and Southwestern Atlantic Distinct Population Segment scalloped hammerhead sharks that are found in 

offshore locations and occur near the surface of the water column, may pose a higher risk of being 

exposed to high‐energy lasers. Although occurring in areas of laser use, while in coastal and offshore 

waters, Atlantic sturgeon, shortnose sturgeon, Gulf sturgeon, smalltooth sawfish, and Nassau grouper 

typically occur in the lower depths of the water column or near the seafloor and would not be exposed. 

High‐energy laser weapons tests would not overlap with critical habitat for Atlantic salmon, Atlantic 

sturgeon, smalltooth sawfish, or Gulf sturgeon

Fishes are unlikely to be exposed to high-energy lasers based on: (1) the relatively low number of 

events, (2) the very localized potential impact area of the laser beam, and (3) the temporary duration of 

potential impact (seconds). 

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of high-energy lasers during testing activities, as described under 

Alternative 1, would have no effect on Atlantic sturgeon, Gulf sturgeon, Nassau grouper, shortnose 

sturgeon, smalltooth sawfish, and designated critical habitat for Atlantic salmon, Atlantic sturgeon, Gulf
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.6-137

3.6 Fishes

sturgeon, and smalltooth sawfish. The use of high-energy lasers during testing activities under 

Alternative 1 may affect Atlantic salmon, giant manta rays, oceanic whitetip sharks, and the Central and 

Southwest Atlantic Distinct Population Segment of scalloped hammerhead sharks. The Navy has 

consulted with the National Marine Fisheries Service, as required by section 7(a)(2) of the ESA in that 

regard.

3.6.3.3.3.2 Impacts from High-Energy Lasers under Alternative 2

Impacts from High-Energy Lasers under Alternative 2 for Training Activities

Because activities under Alternative 2 occur at the same rate and frequency relative to Alternative 1, 

impacts experienced by fishes from high-energy laser use under Alternative 2 would be the same as

those described under Alternative 1. Therefore, impacts associated with testing activities under 

Alternative 2 are the same as Alternative 1.

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of high-energy lasers during training activities, as described under 

Alternative 2, would have no effect on Atlantic salmon, Atlantic sturgeon, Gulf sturgeon, Nassau 

grouper, the Central and Southwest Atlantic Distinct Population Segment of the scalloped hammerhead 

shark, shortnose sturgeon, smalltooth sawfish, and designated critical habitat for Atlantic salmon, 

Atlantic sturgeon, Gulf sturgeon, and smalltooth sawfish. The use of high-energy lasers during training 

activities under Alternative 2 may affect giant manta rays and oceanic whitetip sharks.

Impacts from High-Energy Lasers under Alternative 2 for Testing Activities

Because activities under Alternative 2 occur at the same rate and frequency relative to Alternative 1, 

impacts experienced by fishes from high-energy laser use under Alternative 2 are the same as those 

described under Alternative 1. Therefore, impacts associated with testing activities under Alternative 2 

are the same as Alternative 1.

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of high-energy lasers during testing activities, as described under 

Alternative 2, would have no effect on Atlantic sturgeon, Gulf sturgeon, Nassau grouper, shortnose 

sturgeon, smalltooth sawfish, and designated critical habitat for Atlantic salmon, Atlantic sturgeon, Gulf

sturgeon, and smalltooth sawfish. The use of high-energy lasers during testing activities under 

Alternative 2 may affect Atlantic salmon, giant manta rays, oceanic whitetip sharks, and the Central and 

Southwest Atlantic Distinct Population Segment of scalloped hammerhead sharks.

3.6.3.3.3.3 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 AFTT Study Area and fishes would not be exposed to high-energy lasers. Therefore, 

baseline conditions of the existing environment would either remain unchanged or would improve 

slightly after cessation of ongoing training and testing activities. 

3.6.3.4 Physical Disturbance and Strike Stressors

This section analyzes the potential impacts of the various types of physical disturbance and potential for 

strike during training and testing activities within the Study Area from (1) vessels and in water devices, 

(2) military expended materials, including non-explosive practice munitions and fragments from highexplosive munitions, and (3) seafloor devices. A discussion of the relative magnitude and location of 

physical disturbance and strike stressors is presented in Section 3.0.3.3.4 (Physical Disturbance and 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.6-138

3.6 Fishes

Strike Stressors), while Table B-1 and Table B-2 (Appendix B, Activity Stressor Matrices) list the activities 

that use the devices.

How a physical strike impacts a fish depends on the relative size of the object potentially striking the fish 

and the location of the fish in the water column. Before being struck by an object, Atlantic salmon for 

example, would sense a pressure wave through the water (Hawkins & Johnstone, 1978) and have the 

ability to swim away from the oncoming object. The movement generated by a large object moving 

through the water would simply displace small fishes in open water, such as Atlantic herring. Some fish 

might have time to detect the approaching object and swim away; others could be struck before they 

become aware of the object. An open-ocean fish that is displaced a small distance by movements from 

an object falling into the water nearby would likely continue on its original path as if nothing had 

happened. However, a bottom-dwelling fish near a sinking object would likely be disturbed, and may 

exhibit a general stress response, as described in Section 3.0.3.6 (Biological Resource Methods). As in all 

vertebrates, the function of the stress response in fish is to rapidly alter blood chemistry levels or ratios 

to prepare the fish to flee or fight (Helfman et al., 2009). This generally adaptive physiological response 

can become a liability to the fish if the stressor persists and the fish is not able to return to its baseline 

physiological state. When stressors are chronic, the fish may experience reduced growth, health, or 

survival (Wedemeyer et al., 1990). If the object hits the fish, direct injury (in addition to stress) or death 

may result.

The potential responses to a physical strike are varied, but include behavioral changes such as 

avoidance, altered swimming speed and direction, physiological stress, and physical injury or mortality. 

Despite their ability to detect approaching vessels using a combination of sensory cues (e.g., sight, 

hearing, and lateral line), larger slow-moving fishes (e.g., whale sharks [Rhincodon typus], basking sharks 

[Cetorhinus maximus], manta rays [Manta spp.), sturgeon [Acipenser spp.], and ocean sunfish) cannot 

avoid all collisions, with some collisions resulting in mortality (Balazik et al., 2012; Braun et al., 2015; 

Brown & Murphy, 2010; Couturier et al., 2012; Deakos et al., 2011; Foderaro, 2015; Germanov & 

Marshall, 2014; Graham et al., 2012; Miller & Klimovich, 2016; Ramirez-Macias et al., 2012; Rowat et al., 

2007; Speed et al., 2008; Stevens, 2007). Many fishes respond by darting quickly away from the 

stimulus. Some other species may respond by freezing in place and adopting cryptic coloration, while 

still some other species may respond in an unpredictable manner. Regardless of the response, the 

individual must stop its current activity and divert its physiological and cognitive attention to responding 

to the stressor (Helfman et al., 2009). The energy costs of reacting to a stressor depend on the specific 

situation, but in all cases the caloric requirements of stress reactions reduce the amount of energy 

available to the fish for other functions, such as predator avoidance, reproduction, growth, and 

maintenance (Wedemeyer et al., 1990). 

The ability of a fish to return to its previous activity following a physical strike (or near-miss resulting in a 

stress response) is a function of a variety of factors. Some fish species are more tolerant of stressors 

than others and become re-acclimated more easily. Within a species, the rate at which an individual 

recovers from a physical strike may be influenced by its age, sex, reproductive state, and general 

condition. A fish that has reacted to a sudden disturbance by swimming at burst speed would tire after 

only a few minutes; its blood hormone and sugar levels (cortisol and glucose) may not return to normal 

for up to, or longer than, 24 hours. During its recovery period, the fish would not be able to attain burst 

speeds and would be more vulnerable to predators (Wardle, 1986). If the individual were not able to 

regain a steady state following exposure to a physical stressor, it may suffer reduced immune function 

and even death (Wedemeyer et al., 1990). 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.6-139

3.6 Fishes

Potential impacts of physical disturbance and strike to adults may be different than for other life stages 

(e.g., eggs, larvae, juveniles) because these life stages do not necessarily occur together in the same 

location (Botsford et al., 2009; Sabates et al., 2007), and because they have different response 

capabilities. The numbers of eggs and larvae exposed to vessel movements would be low relative to 

total ichthyoplankton biomass (Able & Fahay, 1998); therefore, measurable effects on fish recruitment 

would not be expected. Also, the early life stages of most marine fishes (excluding sharks and other 

livebearers) already have extremely high natural mortality rates (10 to 85 percent per day) from 

predation on these life stages (Helfman et al., 2009), and therefore, most eggs and larvae are not 

expected to survive to the next life stage.

3.6.3.4.1 Impacts from Vessels and In-Water Devices

Representative Navy vessel types, lengths, and speeds of vessels and in-water devices used in the Study 

Area is presented in Table 3.0-17 and Table 3.0-21. The number and location of activities, including 

vessels and in-water devices for each alternative is presented in Table 3.0-18 and Table 3.0-22, while 

Table B-1 (Appendix B, Activity Stressor Matrices) lists the activities that use the devices.

Vessels

Vessels do not normally collide with adult fishes, most of which can detect and avoid them. One study 

on Barents sea capelin (Mallotus villosus) behavioral responses to vessels showed that most adults 

exhibit avoidance responses to engine noise, sonar, depth finders, and fish finders (Jørgensen et al., 

2004), reducing the potential for vessel strikes. Misund (1997) found that fishes, such as Polar cod 

(Boreogadus saida), haddock (Melanogrammus aeglefinus), jack mackerel (Trachurus symmetricus), 

sardine (Sardina pilchardus), herring, anchovy (Engraulis ringens), and capelin, that were ahead of a ship 

showed avoidance reactions and did so at ranges of 50 to 350 m. When the vessel passed over them, 

some fishes had sudden avoidance responses that included lateral avoidance or downward compression 

of the school. Conversely, Rostad et al. (2006) observed that some fishes are attracted to different types 

of vessels (e.g., research vessels, commercial vessels) of varying sizes, noise levels, and habitat locations. 

Fishes involved in that study included herring (Clupea harengus), sprat (Sprattus sprattus), and whitefish 

(Merlangius merlangus) (Rostad et al., 2006). Fish behavior in the vicinity of a vessel is therefore quite 

variable, depending on the type of fish, its life history stage, behavior, time of day, and the sound 

propagation characteristics of the water (Schwarz & Greer, 1984). Early life stages of most fishes could

be displaced by vessels and not struck in the same manner as adults of larger species. However, a 

vessel’s propeller movement or propeller wash could entrain early life stages. The low-frequency sounds 

of large vessels or accelerating small vessels caused avoidance responses among herring (Chapman & 

Hawkins, 1973), but avoidance ended within 10 seconds after the vessel departed.

There are a few notable exceptions to this assessment of potential vessel strike impacts on fish groups. 

Large slow-moving fishes such as whale sharks (Ramirez-Macias et al., 2012; Rowat et al., 2007; Speed et 

al., 2008; Stevens, 2007), basking sharks (Pacific Shark Research Center, 2017; The Shark Trust, 2017), 

manta rays (Braun et al., 2015; Couturier et al., 2012; Deakos et al., 2011; Germanov & Marshall, 2014; 

Graham et al., 2012; Miller & Klimovich, 2016), and sturgeon (Balazik et al., 2012; Brown & Murphy, 

2010; Foderaro, 2015) may occur near the surface in open-ocean and coastal areas, thus making them 

more susceptible to ship strikes which may result in blunt trauma, lacerations, fin damage, or mortality. 

Stevens (2007) noted that increases in the numbers and sizes of shipping vessels in the modern cargo 

fleets make it difficult to gather strike-related mortality data for whale sharks because personnel on 

large ships are often unaware of collisions; therefore, the occurrence of vessel strikes is likely much 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.6-140

3.6 Fishes

higher than has been documented by the few studies that have been conducted. This holds true not just 

for whale sharks, but also for any of the aforementioned fish species.

In addition to whale sharks, Atlantic sturgeon have also been documented to be susceptible to vessel 

strikes. Brown and Murphy (2010) found that 28 deaths of Atlantic sturgeon in the Delaware Bay and 

the Delaware River were reported over the four-year period of 2005 to 2008. Of those, 50 percent were 

caused by vessel collisions, although the size and type of the vessels was unknown. An unknown number 

of additional sturgeon were likely struck by vessels and were not included in this total. Based on an 

egg-per-recruit analysis of the Delaware River population, the authors concluded that an annual 

mortality rate of 2.5 percent of the females could have adverse impacts on the population (Brown & 

Murphy, 2010). In Virginia, Balazik et al. (2012) investigated Atlantic sturgeon mortalities due to vessel 

strikes that occurred in upstream areas of the James River. Based on observations of fish implanted with 

acoustic transmitters, the authors concluded that when moving the tracked individuals occurred in 

water depths overlapping with the draft of ocean cargo vessels (about 23 ft.), but were rarely in depths 

overlapping the draft of tugboats and small recreational craft (about 3 to 7 ft.). However, as a result of 

the very small sample size (three fish), this conclusion bears little support. The fish were detected in the 

navigation channel of the river 69 percent of the time. More recently in New York, it was noted that 

over the latest three-year period (2012 through 2014), there were 76 known Atlantic sturgeon fatalities 

attributed to boat strikes around the Tappan Zee Bridge on the Hudson River, in addition to over two 

dozen more reported during the first six months of 2015 (Foderaro, 2015). This reflects a significant 

increase when compared to the previous three-year period (2009 through 2011) during which only six 

sturgeon fatalities were documented. Many have attributed this increase in sturgeon mortality to the 

increased boat traffic associated with the expansion of the Tappan Zee Bridge, which began in 2012. 

However, they may also, in part, be the result of an increased effort into monitoring for fish strandings. 

Regardless, it illustrates the level of susceptibility of Atlantic sturgeon to vessel strikes.

Based on the typical physiological responses described in Section 3.6.3.4 (Physical Disturbance and 

Strike Stressors), vessel movements are not expected to compromise the general health or condition of 

individual fishes, except for large slow-moving fishes such as whale sharks, basking sharks, manta rays, 

sturgeon, and ocean sunfish (Balazik et al., 2012; Brown & Murphy, 2010; Foderaro, 2015; Rowat et al., 

2007; Speed et al., 2008; Stevens, 2007).

In-Water Devices

In-water devices do not normally collide with adult fishes, as most can detect and avoid them. Fish 

responses to in-water devices would be similar to those discussed above for vessels. Fishes would likely 

show varying behavioral avoidance responses to in-water devices. Early life stages of most fishes could 

be displaced by in-water devices and not struck in the same manner as adults of larger species. Because 

in-water devices are continuously moving, most fishes are expected to move away from it or to follow 

behind it. 

3.6.3.4.1.1 Impacts from Vessels and In-Water Devices under Alternative 1

Impacts from Vessels and In-Water Devices under Alternative 1 for Training Activities

Section 3.0.3.3.4.1 (Vessels and In-Water Devices) provide estimates of relative vessel and in-water 

devices use and location for each of the alternatives. These estimates are based on the number of 

activities predicted for each alternative. While these estimates predict use, actual Navy vessel usage 

depends on military training and testing requirements, deployment schedules, annual budgets, and 

other unpredictable factors. Training concentrations mostly depend on locations of Navy shore 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.6-141

3.6 Fishes

installations and established training areas. The Navy’s use of these areas has not appreciably changed 

in the last decade and are not expected to change in the foreseeable future. Under Alternative 1, the 

concentration of vessel movement and in-water device use and the manner in which the Navy trains 

would remain consistent with the range of variability observed over the last decade. As underwater 

technologies advance, it is likely that the frequency of in-water device use may increase. However, the 

Navy does not foresee any appreciable changes in the locations where in-water devices have been used 

over the last decade, and therefore the level at which strikes are expected to occur is likely to remain 

consistent with the previous decade.

Navy training vessel traffic could occur anywhere in the Study Area, but would especially be 

concentrated in Virginia Capes, Navy Cherry Point, and Jacksonville Range Complexes, as presented in 

Table 3.0-18. In addition, there are numerous areas within inshore waters where vessels during training 

activities would be concentrated, including the Lower Chesapeake Bay; James River and tributaries; 

Norfolk, VA; Mayport, FL; Groton, CT; and Narragansett, RI (see Table 3.0-19). Of particular importance 

would be inshore areas where activities involving large amounts of high-speed vessel movements occur, 

such as the Lower Chesapeake Bay; James River and tributaries; York River; Cooper River, SC; and 

Narragansett, RI (see Table 3.0-20). Navy training in-water device use could also take place anywhere in 

the Study Area, but primarily occurs in the Virginia Capes, Jacksonville, and Navy Cherry Point Range 

Complexes. A large number of activities involving in-water devices also occur in inshore waters, 

predominately in the Lower Chesapeake Bay; James River and tributaries; Mayport, FL; and Kings Bay, 

GA (see Table 3.0-23).

The risk of a strike from vessels and in-water devices such as a remotely operated vehicles, unmanned 

surface vehicles, unmanned underwater vehicles, motorized autonomous targets, or towed mine 

warfare devices used in training activities would be extremely low because (1) most fishes can detect 

and avoid vessel and in-water device movements; and (2) the types of fish that are likely to be exposed 

to vessel and in-water device strike are limited and occur in low concentrations where vessels and 

in-water devices are most frequently used. Potential impacts from exposure to vessels and in-water 

devices are not expected to result in substantial changes to an individual’s behavior, fitness, or species 

recruitment, and are not expected to result in population-level impacts. 

As described above, the potential exception would be large, slow-moving fish species, such as Atlantic

sturgeon, which are documented to be highly susceptible to vessel strikes and are concentrated in 

inshore areas where intense high speed vessel movement activities as part of the Proposed Action are 

common (see Table 3.0-20). Atlantic sturgeon may be susceptible to vessel strikes in these areas, 

including Lower Chesapeake Bay, James River and tributaries, York River, and Cooper River, resulting in 

potential injury or mortality. This species is most susceptible to vessel and in-water device strikes in 

these areas because all five distinct population segments congregate in large numbers in the lower 

Chesapeake Bay, all sturgeon belonging to two separate and genetically distinct spawning populations 

from the James River and the York River populations must pass through the Lower Chesapeake Bay on 

their way to and from their spawning grounds, and the York River spawning population is estimated to 

be very small (several hundred fish) and likely consists of higher numbers of males and relatively few 

females. As a result, even a loss of a couple of females to this spawning population could have long-term 

consequences. Gulf sturgeon, a congener of Atlantic sturgeon, are also likely susceptible to vessel and 

in-water device strikes. 

Due to their preference for riverine habitats, absence from the Lower Chesapeake Bay and its 

tributaries, and close association to the seafloor, shortnose sturgeon are not considered to be highly 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.6-142

3.6 Fishes

susceptible to vessel and in-water device strikes, with only a few ship strike have been documented for 

this species (Shortnose Sturgeon Status Review Team, 2010). Likewise, smalltooth sawfish are typically 

found in shallow, coastal waters where training activities do not occur. When in deeper waters, 

smalltooth sawfish tend to remain along the seafloor. Nassau grouper are strongly associated with reef 

and live hard bottom seafloor habitats and, as such, would not be susceptible to vessel and in-water

device use. 

Giant manta rays in offshore areas may be susceptible to vessel strikes in those areas, as are the closely 

related reef manta ray (Braun et al., 2015; Couturier et al., 2012; Deakos et al., 2011; Germanov & 

Marshall, 2014; Graham et al., 2012; Miller & Klimovich, 2016). However, unlike the reef manta ray, the 

giant manta ray is typically found in low numbers and rarely aggregates. 

As Atlantic salmon, scalloped hammerhead sharks, and oceanic whitetip sharks also typically occur 

within the upper water column or at the surface, there is the potential for an interaction to occur, 

though it is highly unlikely given their ability to detect and avoid vessel and in-water device movements.

Vessel and in-water device use during training activities potentially overlaps with designated critical 

habitat for Atlantic salmon, Gulf sturgeon, smalltooth sawfish and Atlantic sturgeon, but vessel and inwater device use would not impact any of the physical and biological features associated with critical 

habitat designations. 

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of vessels and in-water devices during training activities, as described 

under Alternative 1, would have no effect on Nassau grouper, smalltooth sawfish, and designated 

critical habitat for Atlantic salmon, Atlantic sturgeon, Gulf sturgeon, and smalltooth sawfish. Vessel and 

in-water device use during training activities under Alternative 1 may affect Atlantic salmon, Atlantic 

sturgeon, giant manta ray, Gulf sturgeon, oceanic whitetip sharks, the Central and Southwest Atlantic 

Distinct Population Segment of scalloped hammerhead sharks, and shortnose sturgeon. The Navy has 

consulted with the National Marine Fisheries Service, as required by section 7(a)(2) of the ESA in that 

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), most of the testing activities involve 

vessel movements. However, the number of activities that include the vessel movement for testing is 

comparatively lower than the number of training activities. In addition, testing often occurs jointly with 

a training event, so it is likely that the testing activity would be conducted from a training vessel. Vessel 

movement in conjunction with testing activities could be widely dispersed throughout the Study Area, 

but would be concentrated near naval ports, piers, range complexes, and testing ranges. Specifically, 

testing activities that include vessels would be conducted within the Northeast, Virginia Capes, Navy 

Cherry Point, Jacksonville, Key West, and Gulf of Mexico Range Complexes; the Naval Undersea Warfare 

Division, Newport Testing Range; South Florida Ocean Measurement Facility Testing Range; Naval 

Surface Warfare Center, Panama City Division Testing Range; as well as inshore waters within the AFTT 

Study Area. Testing activities involving the use of in-water devices would also occur in the AFTT Study 

Area at any time of year. Under Alternative 1, testing activities involving the use of in-water devices 

would be conducted throughout the AFTT Study Area, including the same areas where vessel movement 

is occurring (with the exception of inshore waters locations).

As previously discussed, with the exception of some large, slow-moving species that may occur at the 

surface, the risk of a strike from a vessel or in-water device used in testing activities would be extremely 

low because most fishes can detect and avoid in-water device movements, and exposure to vessels and 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.6-143

3.6 Fishes

in-water devices are not expected to result in substantial changes to an individual’s behavior, fitness, or 

species recruitment, and are not expected to result in population-level impacts.

As described above in the Alternative 1 training analysis, Atlantic sturgeon, Gulf sturgeon, and giant 

manta rays have been shown to be susceptible to vessel strikes. As Atlantic salmon, scalloped 

hammerhead sharks, and oceanic whitetip sharks also typically occur within the upper water column or 

at the surface, there is the potential for an interaction to occur, though it is highly unlikely given their 

ability to detect and avoid vessel and in-water device movements.

Due to their preference for riverine habitats, absence from the Lower Chesapeake Bay and its 

tributaries, and close association to the seafloor, shortnose sturgeon are susceptible to vessel and inwater device strikes, but the risk is low. As stated above, only a few ship strike have been documented 

for this species (Shortnose Sturgeon Status Review Team, 2010). Likewise, smalltooth sawfish are 

typically found in shallow, coastal waters where testing activities do not occur. When in deeper waters, 

smalltooth sawfish tend to remain along the seafloor. Nassau grouper are strongly associated with reef 

and live hardbottom seafloor habitats and, as such, would not be susceptible to vessel and in-water 

device use. 

Vessel and in-water device use potentially overlaps with designated critical habitat for Atlantic salmon, 

Gulf sturgeon, smalltooth sawfish, and Atlantic sturgeon, but vessel and in-water device use would not 

impact any of the physical and biological features associated with critical habitat designations. Vessel 

and in-water device use in smalltooth sawfish critical habitat is extremely unlikely and would not affect 

the physical and biological identified for these habitats.

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of vessels and in-water devices during testing activities, as described under 

Alternative 1, would have no effect on Nassau grouper, smalltooth sawfish, and designated critical 

habitat for Atlantic salmon, Atlantic sturgeon, Gulf sturgeon, and smalltooth sawfish. Vessel and 

in-water device use during testing activities under Alternative 1 may affect Atlantic salmon, Atlantic 

sturgeon, giant manta ray, Gulf sturgeon, oceanic whitetip sharks, the Central and Southwest Atlantic 

Distinct Population Segment of scalloped hammerhead sharks, and shortnose sturgeon. The Navy has 

consulted with the National Marine Fisheries Service, as required by section 7(a)(2) of the ESA in that 

regard.

3.6.3.4.1.2 Impacts from Vessels and In-Water Devices under Alternative 2

Impacts from Vessels and In-Water Devices under Alternative 2 for Training Activities

Activities under Alternative 2 would occur at a slightly higher rate and frequency relative to Alternative 1 

for certain activities. Therefore, physical disturbance and strike stress experienced by fishes from vessel 

use and in-water devices under Alternative 2 are expected to be slightly increased in comparison to 

those described under Alternative 1. Therefore, impacts associated with training activities under 

Alternative 2 are slightly greater than they are for Alternative 1.

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of vessels and in-water devices during training activities, as described 

under Alternative 2, would have no effect on Nassau grouper, smalltooth sawfish, and designated 

critical habitat for Atlantic salmon, Atlantic sturgeon, Gulf sturgeon, and smalltooth sawfish. Vessel and 

in-water device use during training activities under Alternative 2 may affect Atlantic salmon, Atlantic 

sturgeon, giant manta ray, Gulf sturgeon, oceanic whitetip sharks, the Central and Southwest Atlantic 

Distinct Population Segment of scalloped hammerhead sharks, and shortnose sturgeon. 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.6-144

3.6 Fishes

Impacts from Vessels and In-Water Devices under Alternative 2 for Testing Activities

Because testing activities under Alternative 2 would occur at the same rate and frequency relative to 

Alternative 1, physical disturbance and strike stress experienced by fishes from vessel use and in-water 

device under Alternative 2 would be the same as those described under Alternative 1. Therefore, 

impacts associated with testing activities under Alternative 2 are the same as Alternative 1.

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of vessels and in-water devices during testing activities, as described under 

Alternative 2, would have no effect on Nassau grouper, smalltooth sawfish, and designated critical 

habitat for Atlantic salmon, Atlantic sturgeon, Gulf sturgeon, and smalltooth sawfish. Vessel and inwater device use during testing activities under Alternative 2 may affect Atlantic salmon, Atlantic 

sturgeon, giant manta ray, Gulf sturgeon, oceanic whitetip sharks, the Central and Southwest Atlantic 

Distinct Population Segment of scalloped hammerhead sharks, and shortnose sturgeon. 

3.6.3.4.1.3 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 AFTT Study Area. Various physical strike stressors to fishes from vessels or 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.

3.6.3.4.2 Impacts from Aircraft and Aerial Targets

Aircraft and aerial targets stressors are not applicable to fishes because they are conducted in the air 

and not underwater and will not be analyzed further in this section.

3.6.3.4.3 Impacts from Military Expended Materials

Navy training and testing activities in the Study Area include firing a variety of weapons and employing a 

variety of explosive and non-explosive rounds including bombs; small-, medium-, and large-caliber 

projectiles; or sinking exercises with ship hulks. During these training and testing activities, various items 

may be introduced and expended into the marine environment and are referred to as military 

expended materials.

This section analyzes the disturbance or strike potential to fishes of the following categories of military 

expended materials: (1) non-explosive practice munitions, (2) fragments from high-explosive munitions, 

and (3) expended materials other than munitions, such as sonobuoys, ship hulks, and expendable 

targets. Section 3.0.3.3.4.2 (Military Expended Materials) provides information on the quantity and 

location where various types of military expended materials would occur under each alternative.

Appendix F (Military Expended Materials and Direct Strike Impact Analyses) provides additional 

information on each military expended material proposed to be used, where it would be used, how 

many would be used, and the amount of area impacted by each material. Analysis of all potential 

impacts (disturbance, strike) of military expended materials on critical habitat is included in this section.

While disturbance or strike from any of these objects as they sink through the water column is possible, 

it is not very likely for most expended materials because the objects generally sink through the water 

slowly and can be avoided by most fishes. Therefore, with the exception of sinking exercises, the 

discussion of military expended materials strikes focuses on strikes at the surface or in the upper water 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.6-145

3.6 Fishes

column from fragments (of high-explosives) and projectiles because those items have a greater potential 

for a fish strike as they hit the water, before slowing down as they move through the water column.

Ship Hulk. During a sinking exercise, aircraft, ship, and submarine crews fire or drop munitions on a 

seaborne target, usually a clean deactivated ship (Section 3.2, Sediments and Water Quality), which is 

deliberately sunk using multiple weapon systems. A description of Sinking Exercises is presented in 

Appendix A (Navy Activity Descriptions). Sinking exercises occur in specific open ocean areas, outside of 

the coastal range complexes, in waters exceeding 3,000 m (9,842.5 ft.) in depth. Direct munitions strikes 

from the various weapons used in these exercises are a source of potential impact. However, these 

impacts are discussed for each of those weapons categories in this section and are not repeated in the 

respective sections. Therefore, the analysis of sinking exercises as a strike potential for benthic fishes is 

discussed in terms of the ship hulk landing on the seafloor.

Small-, Medium-, and Large-Caliber Projectiles. Various types of projectiles could cause a temporary 

(seconds), localized impact when they strike the surface of the water. Current Navy training and testing 

in the Study Area, such as gunnery exercises and testing events, include firing a variety of weapons and 

using a variety of non-explosive training and testing rounds, including 5-in. naval gun shells, and small-, 

medium-, and large-caliber projectiles. The larger-caliber projectiles are primarily used in the open 

ocean beyond 20 NM. Direct munitions strikes from firing weapons are potential stressors to fishes. 

There is a remote possibility that an individual fish at or near the surface may be struck directly if it is at 

the point of impact at the time of non-explosive practice munitions delivery. Expended rounds may 

strike the water surface with sufficient force to cause injury or mortality. However, limited fish species 

swim right at, or near, the surface of the water (e.g., with the exception of pelagic sharks, herring, 

salmonids, flying fishes, jacks, tuna, mackerels, billfishes, ocean sunfish, and other similar species). 

Various projectiles would fall on soft or hard bottom habitats, where they could either become buried 

immediately in the sediments, or sit on the bottom for an extended time period. Most munitions would 

sink through the water column and come to rest on the seafloor, stirring up sediment and possibly 

inducing an alarm response, displacing, or injuring nearby fishes in extremely rare cases. Particular 

impacts on a given fish species would depend on the size and speed of the munitions, the water depth, 

the number of rounds delivered, the frequency of training and testing, and the sensitivity of the fish 

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

Bombs, Missiles, and Rockets. Direct munitions strikes from bombs, missiles, and rockets are potential 

stressors to fishes. Some individual fish at or near the surface may be struck directly if they are at the 

point of impact at the time of non-explosive munitions delivery. However, most missiles hit their target 

or are disabled before hitting the water. Thus, most of these missiles and aerial targets hit the water as 

fragments, which quickly dissipates their kinetic energy within a short distance of the surface. A limited 

number of fishes swim right at, or near, the surface of the water, as described for small-, medium-, and 

large-caliber projectiles.

Even though statistical modeling conducted for the Study Area (discussed in Appendix F, Military 

Expended Materials and Direct Strike Impact Analyses) indicates that the probability of military 

expended materials striking marine mammals or sea turtles is extremely low, modeling could not be 

conducted to estimate the probability of military expended material strikes on an individual fish. This is 

primarily due to the lack of fish density data available at the scale of a range complex or testing range.
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.6-146

3.6 Fishes

In lieu of strike probability modeling, the number, size, and area of potential impact (or “footprints”) of 

each type of military expended material is presented in Appendix F (Military Expended Materials and 

Direct Strike Impact Analyses). 

The application of this type of footprint analysis to fish follows the notion that a fish occupying the 

impact area could be susceptible to potential impacts, either at the water surface (e.g., pelagic sharks, 

herring, salmonids, flying fishes, jacks, tuna, mackerels, billfishes, and ocean sunfish (Table 3.6-2) or as 

military expended material falls through the water column and settles to the bottom (e.g., flounders, 

skates, and other benthic fishes listed in Table 3.6-2). Furthermore, most of the projectiles fired during 

training and testing activities are fired at targets, and most projectiles hit those targets, so only a very 

small portion of those would hit the water with their maximum velocity and force. Of that small portion, 

a small number of fishes at or near the surface (pelagic fishes) or near the bottom (benthic fishes) may 

be directly impacted if they are in the target area and near the expended item that hits the water 

surface (or bottom).

Propelled fragments are produced by an exploding bomb. Close to the explosion, fishes could potentially 

sustain injury or death from propelled fragments (Stuhmiller et al., 1991). However, studies of 

underwater bomb blasts show that fragments are large and decelerate rapidly (O'Keeffe & Young, 1984; 

Swisdak & Montanaro, 1992), posing little risk to marine organisms.

Fish disturbance or strike could result from bomb fragments (after explosion) falling through the water 

column in very small areas compared to the vast expanse of the testing ranges range complexes, or the 

remainder of the Study Area. The expected reaction of fishes exposed to military expended materials

would be to immediately leave the area where bombing is occurring, thereby reducing the probability of 

a fish strike after the initial expended materials hit the water surface. When a disturbance of this type 

concludes, the area would be repopulated and the fish stock would rebound, with inconsequential 

impacts on the resource (Lundquist et al., 2010).

3.6.3.4.3.1 Impacts from Military Expended Materials under Alternative 1

Impacts from Military Expended Materials under Alternative 1 for Training Activities

As stated above, Section 3.0.3.3.4.2 (Military Expended Materials) provides information on the quantity 

and location where various types of military expended materials would occur under each alternative, 

while Appendix F (Military Expended Materials and Direct Strike Impact Analyses) has more information 

on where the military expended material would be used, how many would be used, and the amount of 

area impacted by each material.

Major fish groups identified in Table 3.6-2 that are particularly susceptible to military expended material 

strikes are those occurring at the surface, within the offshore and continental shelf portions of the range 

complexes (where the strike would occur). Those groups include pelagic sharks, herring, salmonids, 

flying fishes, jacks, tuna, mackerels, billfish, ocean sunfish, and other similar species (Table 3.6-2). 

Additionally, certain deep-sea fishes would be exposed to strike risk as a ship hulk, expended during a 

sinking exercise, settles to the seafloor. These groups include hagfish, dragonfish, lanternfishes, 

Aulopiformes, anglerfishes, and oarfishes. 

Projectiles, bombs, missiles, rockets, and associated fragments have the potential to directly strike fish 

as they hit the water surface and below the surface to the point where the projectile loses its forward 

momentum. Fishes at and just below the surface would be most susceptible to injury or death from 

strikes, because velocity of these materials would rapidly decrease upon contact with the water and as 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.6-147

3.6 Fishes

they travel through the water column. Consequently, most water column fishes would have ample time 

to detect and avoid approaching munitions or fragments that fall through the water column. Even for an 

extreme case of expending all small-caliber projectiles within a single gunnery box, the probability of any 

of these items striking a fish (even as large as bluefin tuna or whale sharks) is extremely low. Therefore, 

since most fishes are smaller than bluefin tuna or whale sharks, and most military expended materials 

are less abundant than small-caliber projectiles, the risk of strike by these items is exceedingly low for 

fish overall. A possibility exists that a small number of fish at or near the surface may be directly 

impacted if they are in the target area and near the point of physical impact at the time of military 

expended material strike, but population-level impacts would not occur.

Sinking exercises occur in open ocean areas, outside of the coastal range complexes. While serious 

injury or mortality to individual fish would be expected if they were present within range of highexplosive activities (analyzed in Section 3.6.3.1, Acoustic Stressors), sinking exercises under Alternative 1 

would not result in impacts on pelagic fish populations at the surface based on the placement of these 

activities in deep ocean areas where fish abundance is low or widely dispersed. Also, these activities are 

very few in number. Disturbances to benthic fishes from sinking exercises would be highly localized to 

the sinking exercise box. Any deep-sea fishes on the bottom where a ship hulk would settle could 

experience displacement, injury, or death. However, population level impacts on the deep-sea fish 

community would not occur because of the limited spatial extent of the impact and the wide dispersal 

of fish in deep ocean areas.

All of the ESA-listed fish species occurring in training areas would be potentially exposed to military 

expended materials. The Atlantic salmon occurs only in the Northeast Range Complexes and in the three 

northernmost Large Marine Ecosystems, where the density of military expended materials is very low. 

Therefore, while military expended materials could overlap with Atlantic salmon, the likelihood of a 

strike would be extremely low, with discountable effects. Within the Study Area, scalloped hammerhead 

sharks belonging to the Central and Southwestern Atlantic Distinct Population Segment occur only in the

North Atlantic Gyre Open Ocean Area, the Caribbean Sea Large Marine Ecosystem and around Puerto 

Rico, and the southeastern portion of the Gulf of Mexico Large Marine Ecosystem adjacent to the Key 

West OPAREA. Therefore, while military expended materials could overlap with scalloped hammerhead 

sharks, the likelihood of a strike would be extremely low, with discountable effects. Nassau groupers are 

found in reefs areas of the Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf, Gulf of Mexico, and Caribbean Sea Large 

Marine Ecosystems. Even though there’s likely some overlap with military expended materials and 

Nassau grouper, the likelihood of a strike would be extremely low, with discountable effects. All 

sturgeon are restricted to the continental shelf, particularly the shallow, coastal, or nearshore waters of 

the Study Area (Dadswell, 2006; Ross et al., 2009) and, therefore, could be exposed to military expended 

materials in these locations. Sawfishes typically occur in shallow coastal waters of South Florida and the 

Gulf of Mexico, usually near the ocean bottom, but may occur out to depths of 120 m. 

Giant manta rays and oceanic whitetip sharks may occur anywhere within the Study Area as far north as 

New Jersey. Therefore, the giant manta ray has the potential to be present in most areas where training 

activities involving the use of military expended materials occur. As giant manta rays and oceanic 

whitetip sharks are often found near surface waters, it is possible that they may be struck by projectiles 

and other military expended materials as they enter the water. However, given the scarcity of these

species, it is highly unlikely that a giant manta ray or oceanic whitetip shark would be present at a given 

time or place that an activity is taking place. There is no overlap of military expended materials use with 

designated critical habitat for Atlantic salmon or smalltooth sawfish. All of the physical and biological 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.6-148

3.6 Fishes

features required by Atlantic salmon within the Study Area are applicable to freshwater only and are 

outside of areas where military materials may be expended. Therefore, none of the military expended 

materials would affect Atlantic salmon critical habitat. The physical and biological features for 

smalltooth sawfish critical habitat are red mangrove habitats and shallow marine waters of less than 1 m 

deep. No activities involving military expended materials would occur at these depths and thus would 

not overlap with smalltooth sawfish critical habitat. Military expended materials could be expended 

within Gulf sturgeon critical habitat within coastal waters where the Panama City Operating Area 

overlaps with the critical habitat. Likewise, the use of military expended materials during training 

activities overlaps with the designated critical habitat for Atlantic sturgeon in the James and York rivers 

in Virginia, the Cooper River in South Carolina, and the Savannah River in Georgia. In each case for both 

Gulf and Atlantic sturgeon critical habitat, while overlap occurs, military expended materials from 

training exercises are not anticipated to impact any of the physical and biological features identified for 

these habitats.

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 military expended materials on seafloor 

resources in mitigation areas throughout the Study Area (see Section 5.4.1, Mitigation Areas for Seafloor 

Resources). The mitigation will consequently help avoid potential impacts on fishes that inhabit 

shallow-water coral reefs.

The impact of military expended material strikes on fishes would be inconsequential due to: (1) the 

limited number of species found directly at the surface where military expended material strikes could 

occur, (2) the rare chance that a fish might be directly struck at the surface by military expended 

materials, (3) the ability of most fishes to detect and avoid an object falling through the water below the 

surface, and (4) the implementation of mitigation. The potential impacts of military expended material 

strikes would be short term (seconds) and localized disturbances of the water surface (and seafloor 

areas within sinking exercise boxes) and are not expected to yield any behavioral changes or lasting 

effects on the survival, growth, recruitment, or reproduction at the population level.

Pursuant to the ESA, military expended material from training activities, as described under Alternative

1, would have no effect on Atlantic salmon, Atlantic sturgeon, Gulf sturgeon, and smalltooth sawfish

critical habitat. Military expended materials from training activities under Alternative 1 may affect 

Atlantic salmon, Atlantic sturgeon, giant manta rays, Gulf sturgeon, Nassau grouper, oceanic whitetip 

sharks, Central and Southwestern Atlantic Distinct Population Segment of scalloped hammerhead 

sharks, shortnose sturgeon, and smalltooth sawfish. The Navy has consulted with the National Marine 

Fisheries Service, as required by section 7(a)(2) of the ESA in that regard.

Impacts from Military Expended Materials under Alternative 1 for Testing Activities

Appendix F (Military Expended Materials and Direct Strike Impact Analyses) has more information on 

the type and quantities of military expended materials proposed to be used. The type, quantity, and 

location of testing activities would be substantially less than training activities described above. 

Potential impacts from military expended material strikes on marine fish groups and ESA-listed species 

during testing activities would be similar to those described for comparable training activities. Some fish 

species potentially impacted by testing activities would be different than those fishes impacted during 

training activities based on the specific activity and the location of the activity. For example, torpedoes 

are tested at nine locations (Table 3.0-26 and Table 3.0-28) compared to four training locations (Table 

3.0-24 and Table 3.0-27). Military expended materials hitting the water could result in an extremely 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.6-149

3.6 Fishes

unlikely strike of an individual fish, or more likely in a short-term and local displacement of fishes in the 

water column. However, these behavioral reactions are not expected to result in substantial changes to

an individual’s fitness or species recruitment, and are not expected to result in population-level impacts.

Similarly, military expended materials are not anticipated to overlap with designated critical habitat for

Atlantic salmon, smalltooth sawfish, or Atlantic sturgeon. Military expended materials could be 

expended within Gulf sturgeon critical habitat within coastal waters where the Panama City Operating 

Area overlaps with the critical habitat. While overlap with Gulf sturgeon critical habitat may occur, 

military expended materials from testing exercises are not anticipated to impact any of the physical and 

biological features identified for these habitats.

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 military expended materials on seafloor 

resources in mitigation areas throughout the Study Area (see Section 5.4.1, Mitigation Areas for Seafloor 

Resources). The mitigation will consequently help avoid potential impacts on fishes that inhabit 

shallow-water coral reefs.

The impact of military expended material strikes would be inconsequential due to: (1) the limited 

number of species found directly at the surface where military expended material strikes could occur, 

(2) the rare chance that a fish might be directly struck at the surface by military expended materials, 

(3) the ability of most fishes to detect and avoid an object falling through the water below the surface, 

and (4) the implementation of mitigation. The potential impacts of military expended material strikes 

would range from short-term (seconds) and localized disturbances of the water surface and long-term 

impacts for individuals if struck. However, these impacts are not expected to yield any behavioral 

changes or lasting effects on the survival, growth, recruitment, or reproduction at the population level.

Pursuant to the ESA, military expended material from testing activities, as described under Alternative 1, 

would have no effect on Atlantic salmon, Atlantic sturgeon, Gulf sturgeon, and smalltooth sawfish

critical habitat. Military expended materials from training activities under Alternative 1 may affect 

Atlantic salmon, Atlantic sturgeon, giant manta rays, Gulf sturgeon, Nassau grouper, oceanic whitetip 

sharks, Central and Southwestern Atlantic Distinct Population Segment of scalloped hammerhead 

sharks, shortnose sturgeon, and smalltooth sawfish. The Navy has consulted with the National Marine 

Fisheries Service, as required by section 7(a)(2) of the ESA in that regard.

3.6.3.4.3.2 Impacts from Military Expended Materials under Alternative 2

Impacts from Military Expended Materials under Alternative 2 for Training Activities

Even though the number of military expended materials used during training activities under Alternative 

2 would be slightly greater relative to Alternative 1 (see Section 3.0.3.3.4.2, Military Expended 

Materials), the difference is negligible. Physical disturbance and strike stress experienced by fishes from 

military expended materials under Alternative 2 would be the same as those described under 

Alternative 1. Therefore, impacts associated with training activities under Alternative 2 are the same as 

Alternative 1.

Pursuant to the ESA, military expended material from training activities, as described under 

Alternative 2, would have no effect on Atlantic salmon, Atlantic sturgeon, Gulf sturgeon, and smalltooth 

sawfish critical habitat. Military expended materials from training activities under Alternative 1 may 

affect Atlantic salmon, Atlantic sturgeon, giant manta rays, Gulf sturgeon, Nassau grouper, oceanic 

whitetip sharks, Central and Southwestern Atlantic Distinct Population Segment of scalloped 

hammerhead sharks, shortnose sturgeon, and smalltooth sawfish.
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.6-150

3.6 Fishes

Impacts from Military Expended Materials under Alternative 2 for Testing Activities

Even though the number of military expended materials used during testing activities under Alternative 

2 would be slightly greater relative to Alternative 1 (see Section 3.0.3.3.4.2, Military Expended 

Materials), the difference is negligible. Physical disturbance and strike stress experienced by fishes from 

military expended materials under Alternative 2 would be the same as those described under 

Alternative 1. Therefore, impacts associated with testing activities under Alternative 2 are the same as 

Alternative 1.

Pursuant to the ESA, military expended material from testing activities, as described under Alternative 2, 

would have no effect on Atlantic salmon, Atlantic sturgeon, Gulf sturgeon, and smalltooth sawfish

critical habitat. Military expended materials from training activities under Alternative 1 may affect 

Atlantic salmon, Atlantic sturgeon, giant manta rays, Gulf sturgeon, Nassau grouper, oceanic whitetip 

sharks, Central and Southwestern Atlantic Distinct Population Segment of scalloped hammerhead 

sharks, shortnose sturgeon, and smalltooth sawfish. 

3.6.3.4.3.3 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 AFTT Study Area. Various military expended materials stressors for fishes 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.

3.6.3.4.4 Impacts from Seafloor Devices

The number and location of activities including seafloor devices is presented in Section 3.0.3.3.4.3 

(Seafloor Devices). Additional information on stressors by testing and training activity is provided in 

Appendix B (Activity Stressor Matrices). Seafloor devices include items that are placed on, dropped on, 

or moved along the seafloor, such as mine shapes, anchor blocks, anchors, bottom-placed instruments, 

bottom-crawling unmanned underwater vehicles, and bottom-placed targets that are not expended. As 

discussed in the military expended materials strike section, objects falling through the water column 

would slow in velocity as they sink toward the bottom and could be avoided by most, if not all fish. 

Seafloor devices with a strike potential for fish include those items temporarily deployed on the 

seafloor. The potential strike impacts of unmanned underwater vehicles (e.g., bottom crawl vehicles) 

are also included here. Some fishes are attracted to virtually any tethered object in the water column for 

food or refuge (Dempster & Taquet, 2004) and could be attracted to a non-explosive mine assembly. 

However, while a fish might be attracted to the object, its sensory abilities allow it to avoid colliding with 

fixed tethered objects in the water column (Bleckmann & Zelick, 2009), so the likelihood of a fish striking 

one of these objects is implausible. Therefore, strike hazards associated with collision into other seafloor 

devices such as deployed mine shapes or anchored devices are highly unlikely to pose any strike hazard 

to fishes and are not discussed further.

3.6.3.4.4.1 Impacts from Seafloor Devices under Alternative 1

Impacts from Seafloor Devices under Alternative 1 for Training Activities

Table 3.0-35 shows the number and location of activities that use seafloor devices. As indicated in 

Section 3.0.3.3.4.3 (Seafloor Devices), under Alternative 1, training activities that deploy seafloor devices 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.6-151

3.6 Fishes

occur in the Northeast and Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf, Caribbean, and Gulf of Mexico Large 

Marine Ecosystems and the Gulf Stream Open Ocean Area—specifically within seven locations, including 

Virginia Capes Range Complex, Navy Cherry Point Range Complex, Jacksonville Range Complex, Key 

West Range Complex, Gulf of Mexico Range Complex, Naval Surface Warfare Center Panama City 

Testing Range, and several inshore water locations (see Table 3.0-36).

Aircraft deployed mine shapes, anchor blocks, anchors, and bottom-placed instruments, and targets all 

have the potential to strike fish upon deployment as they are sinking through the water column and 

settling on the seafloor. While seafloor device use during training activities could overlap with ESA-listed 

species, with the exception of Atlantic salmon, the likelihood of a strike would be extremely low given 

the low abundance of ESA-listed species recorded in the Study Area, the ability for the species to detect 

and avoid falling objects through the water below the surface, and the dispersed nature of the activities. 

However, there would be the potential for effect. 

Activities that employ seafloor devices would overlap the critical habitat of the Atlantic sturgeon and 

Gulf sturgeon. For example, the use of seafloor devices during training activities would overlap 

designated critical habitat for Atlantic sturgeon in inshore waters such as the Delaware River in 

Delaware, James and York rivers in Virginia and Savannah and St. Marys rivers in Georgia and with Gulf 

sturgeon critical habitat within coastal waters where the Panama City Operating Area overlaps with the 

critical habitat. Seafloor device use would not overlap with designated Atlantic salmon and smalltooth 

sawfish critical habitat.

The Navy will implement mitigation that includes not conducting precision anchoring (except in 

designated anchorages) within the anchor swing circle of shallow-water coral reefs, live hard bottom, 

artificial reefs, and shipwrecks to avoid potential impacts from seafloor devices on seafloor resources in 

mitigation areas throughout the Study Area (see Section 5.4.1, Mitigation Areas for Seafloor Resources). 

This mitigation will consequently help avoid potential impacts on fishes that inhabit these areas.

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of seafloor devices during training activities, as described under 

Alternative 1, would have no effect on Atlantic salmon and designated critical habitat for Atlantic 

salmon and smalltooth sawfish. The use of seafloor devices during training activities may affect Atlantic 

sturgeon, giant manta rays, Gulf sturgeon, Nassau grouper, oceanic whitetip sharks, the Central and 

Southwest Atlantic Distinct Population Segment of scalloped hammerhead sharks, shortnose sturgeon, 

and smalltooth sawfish, and may affect designated critical habitat for Atlantic sturgeon and Gulf

sturgeon. The Navy has consulted with the National Marine Fisheries Service, as required by section 

7(a)(2) of the ESA in that regard.

Impacts from Seafloor Devices under Alternative 1 for Testing Activities

Table 3.0-35 shows the number and location of activities that use seafloor devices. As indicated in 

Section 3.0.3.3.4.3 (Seafloor Devices), under Alternative 1, testing activities that deploy seafloor devices 

occur in the Northeast Range Complexes, Virginia Capes Range Complex, Navy Cherry Point Range 

Complex, Jacksonville Range Complex, Key West Range Complex, Gulf of Mexico Range Complex, Naval 

Undersea Warfare Center Newport Testing Range, South Florida Ocean Measurement Facility, and Naval 

Surface Warfare Center Panama City Testing Range.

As discussed in Section 3.6.3.4.3 (Impacts from Military Expended Materials), objects falling through the 

water column would slow in velocity as they sink toward the bottom and could be avoided by most 

fishes. While seafloor device use during training activities could overlap with ESA-listed species, the 

likelihood of a strike would be extremely low given the low abundance of ESA-listed species recorded in 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.6-152

3.6 Fishes

the Study Area, the ability for the species to detect and avoid falling objects through the water below 

the surface, and the dispersed nature of the activities. However, there would be the potential for effect.

Activities that employ seafloor devices would overlap the critical habitat of Gulf sturgeon. For example, 

the use of seafloor devices during testing activities would overlap with Gulf sturgeon critical habitat 

within coastal waters in the Panama City Operating Area. Seafloor device use would not overlap with 

designated Atlantic salmon, Atlantic sturgeon, and smalltooth sawfish critical habitat.

The Navy will implement mitigation to avoid potential impacts from seafloor devices on seafloor 

resources in mitigation areas within the South Florida Ocean Measurement Facility, as discussed in 

Section 5.4.1 (Mitigation Areas for Seafloor Resources). For example, the Navy will use real-time 

geographic information system and global positioning system (along with remote sensing verification) 

during deployment, installation, and recovery of anchors and mine-like objects to avoid impacts on 

shallow-water coral reefs and live hard bottom. This mitigation will consequently help avoid potential 

impacts on fishes that occur in these areas.

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of seafloor devices during testing activities, as described under 

Alternative 1, would have no effect on designated critical habitat for Atlantic salmon, Atlantic sturgeon, 

and smalltooth sawfish. The use of seafloor devices during testing activities may affect Atlantic salmon, 

Atlantic sturgeon, giant manta rays, Gulf sturgeon, Nassau grouper, oceanic whitetip sharks, the Central 

and Southwest Atlantic Distinct Population Segment of scalloped hammerhead sharks, shortnose 

sturgeon, and smalltooth sawfish, and may affect designated critical habitat for Gulf sturgeon. The Navy 

has consulted with the National Marine Fisheries Service, as required by section 7(a)(2) of the ESA in 

that regard.

3.6.3.4.4.2 Impacts from Seafloor Devices under Alternative 2

Impacts from Seafloor Devices under Alternative 2 for Training Activities

Because training activities under Alternative 2 occur at the same rate and frequency relative to 

Alternative 1, physical disturbance and strike stress experienced by fishes from seafloor device use 

under Alternative 2 would be the same as those described under Alternative 1. Therefore, impacts 

associated with training activities under Alternative 2 are the same as Alternative 1.

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of seafloor devices during training activities, as described under Alternative 

2, would have no effect on Atlantic salmon and designated critical habitat for Atlantic salmon and

smalltooth sawfish. The use of seafloor devices during training activities may affect Atlantic sturgeon, 

giant manta rays, Gulf sturgeon, Nassau grouper, oceanic whitetip sharks, the Central and Southwest 

Atlantic Distinct Population Segment of scalloped hammerhead sharks, shortnose sturgeon, and 

smalltooth sawfish, and may affect designated critical habitat for Atlantic sturgeon and Gulf sturgeon.

Impacts from Seafloor Devices under Alternative 2 for Testing Activities

Because testing activities under Alternative 2 occur at a similar rate and frequency relative to Alternative 

1, physical disturbance and strike stress experienced by fishes from seafloor device use under 

Alternative 2 are not expected to be meaningfully different than those described under Alternative 1. 

Therefore, impacts associated with testing activities under Alternative 2 are the same as Alternative 1.

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of seafloor devices during testing activities, as described under Alternative 

2, would have no effect on Atlantic salmon or designated critical habitat for Atlantic salmon, Atlantic 

sturgeon, and smalltooth sawfish. The use of seafloor devices during testing activities may affect Atlantic 

sturgeon, giant manta rays, Gulf sturgeon, Nassau grouper, oceanic whitetip sharks, the Central and 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.6-153

3.6 Fishes

Southwest Atlantic Distinct Population Segment of scalloped hammerhead sharks, shortnose sturgeon, 

and smalltooth sawfish, and may affect designated critical habitat for Gulf sturgeon.

3.6.3.4.4.3 Impacts from Seafloor Devices under the No Action Alternative

Impacts from Seafloor 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 AFTT Study Area. Stressors for fishes such as 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.

3.6.3.4.5 Impacts from Pile Driving

Impact pile driving and vibratory pile removal would occur during training for the construction of an 

Elevated Causeway System, as described in Chapter 2 (Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives), 

Table 2.3-2. This activity was considered as a potential physical disturbance stressor. Section 3.0.3.3.1.3 

(Pile Driving) provides additional details on pile driving and noise levels measured from similar 

construction activity. Pile driving during construction of an Elevated Causeway System would not occur 

during testing activities in the AFTT Study Area.

While impacts to fishes from pile driving activities as an acoustic stressor are addressed Section 3.6.3.1.4 

(Impacts from Pile Driving), this section addresses the physical presence of the resulting temporary pier 

as part of the Elevated Causeway System as a potential physical disturbance stressor. The size of the pier 

would be no greater than 1,520 feet long, consisting of 119 supporting piles, on the beach and out into 

shallow coastal waters of Joint Expeditionary Base Little Creek-Fort Story in the Virginia Capes Range 

Complex or Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune in the Navy Cherry Point Range Complex. Given the 

nearshore locations for this training activity and the temporary nature of the structures, it is not likely 

that fishes would experience physical disturbance from the presence of the temporary pier structure. 

Furthermore, it is not likely that a fish would be struck by a piling during installation because they are 

mobile and would be able to avoid the physical disturbance and strike stressors. Although some 

ESA-listed species such as Atlantic sturgeon, shortnose sturgeon, and giant manta rays may be present 

in the vicinity of pile driving activities, it is also unlikely that they would be struck by a pile. In addition, 

there is also no overlap between pile driving activities and the designated critical habitats for any 

ESA-listed species. Therefore, the Navy has determined that the Elevated Causeway System training 

activity would not result in physical disturbance or strike impacts above those acoustic impacts 

described in Section 3.6.3.1.4 (Impacts from Pile Driving) and are not considered further in this section.

Physical disturbance and strike stressors from pile driving are not applicable to fishes because pile 

driving does not occur during testing activities. Pursuant to the ESA, the use of driving during training 

activities would have no effect on designated critical habitat for Atlantic salmon, Atlantic sturgeon, Gulf 

sturgeon, and smalltooth sawfish. Pile driving during training activities would have no effect on Atlantic 

salmon, Atlantic sturgeon, giant manta rays, Gulf sturgeon, Nassau grouper, oceanic whitetip sharks, 

Central and Southwest Atlantic Distinct Population Segment of scalloped hammerhead sharks, shortnose 

sturgeon, and smalltooth sawfish.

3.6.3.5 Entanglement Stressors

This section evaluates potential entanglement impacts of various types of expended materials used by 

the Navy during training and testing activities within the Study Area. The likelihood of fishes being 

affected by an entanglement stressor is a function of the physical properties, location, and buoyancy of 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.6-154

3.6 Fishes

the object and the behavior and physical features of the fish, as described in Section 3.0.3.6.4 

(Conceptual Framework for Assessing Effects from Entanglement). Three types of military expended 

materials are considered here: (1) wires and cables (2) decelerators/parachutes, and (3) biodegradable 

polymer.

Most entanglement observations involve abandoned or discarded nets, lines, and other materials that 

form loops or incorporate rings (Derraik, 2002; Keller et al., 2010; Laist, 1987; Macfadyen et al., 2009). A

25-year dataset assembled by the Ocean Conservancy reported that fishing line, rope, and fishing nets 

accounted for 68 percent of fish entanglements, with the remainder due to encounters with various 

items such as bottles, cans, and plastic bags (Ocean Conservancy, 2010). No occurrences involving

military expended materials were documented. 

Fish entanglement occurs most frequently at or just below the surface or in the water column where 

objects are suspended. A smaller number involve objects on the seafloor, particularly abandoned fishing 

gear designed to catch bottom fishes or invertebrates (Ocean Conservancy, 2010). More fish species are 

entangled in coastal waters and the continental shelf than elsewhere in the marine environment 

because of higher concentrations of human activity (e.g., fishing, sources of entangling debris), higher 

fish abundances, and greater species diversity (Helfman et al., 2009; Macfadyen et al., 2009). The 

consequences of entanglement range from temporary and inconsequential to major physiological stress 

or mortality. 

Some fishes are more susceptible to entanglement in derelict fishing gear and other marine debris, 

compared to other fish groups. Physical features, such as rigid or protruding snouts of sawfishes and 

sturgeon and some elasmobranchs (e.g., the wide heads of hammerhead sharks and cephalic fins on 

manta rays), increase the risk of entanglement compared to fishes with smoother, more streamlined 

bodies (e.g., lampreys and eels). High rates of shark mortality have been associated with entanglement 

in fish aggregating devices (Filmalter et al., 2013). Sawfishes occur only in nearshore, and continental 

shelf waters of the Gulf of Mexico Large Marine Ecosystem and portions of the Southeast 

U.S. Continental Shelf Large Marine Ecosystem (74 Federal Register 45353 and 74 Federal Register

37671), where they are concentrated in south Florida and the Florida Keys. Scalloped hammerhead 

sharks, giant manta rays, oceanic whitetip sharks, and ESA-listed sturgeon species occur in nearshore 

and offshore waters within one or more of the Large Marine Ecosystems that overlap Navy training and 

testing areas in the Study Area. Most fishes, except for jawless fishes and eels that are too smooth and 

slippery to become entangled, are susceptible to entanglement in gear specifically designed for that 

purpose (e.g., gillnets). The Navy uses a biodegradable polymer to function as entanglement objects.

Biodegradable polymer systems designed to entangle the propellers of small in-water vessels would only 

be used during testing activities, not during training and the number and location of proposed testing 

activities is presented in Table 3.0-42. 

The overall impacts of entanglement are highly variable, ranging from temporary disorientation to 

mortality due to predation or physical injury. The evaluation of a species’ entanglement potential should 

consider the size, location, and buoyancy of an object as well as the size, physical characteristics, and 

behavior of the fish species.

The following sections seek to identify entanglement potential due to military expended material. 

Where appropriate, specific geographic areas (Large Marine Ecosystems, open ocean areas, range 

complexes, testing ranges, and bays and inshore waters) of potential impact are identified.
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.6-155

3.6 Fishes

3.6.3.5.1 Impacts from Wires and Cables

Fiber optic cables, guidance wires, and sonobuoys (which contain a wire) are used during training and 

testing activities. The number and location of items expended under each alternative is presented in 

Sections 3.0.3.3.5.1 (Wires and Cables), with additional details on types of activities that include this 

stressor provided in Appendix B (Activity Stressor Matrices, Tables B-1 and B-2).

Some fiber optic cables used during Navy training and testing associated with remotely operated mine 

neutralization activities would be expended, although a portion may be recovered. The length of the 

expended tactical fiber would vary (up to about 3,000 m) depending on the activity. Tactical fiber has an 

8-micrometer (0.008 mm) silica core and acylate coating, and looks and feels like thin monofilament 

fishing line. Other characteristics of tactical fiber are a 242-micrometer (0.24 mm) diameter, 12 lb.

tensile strength, and 3.4-mm bend radius (Corning Incorporated, 2005; Ratheon, 2015). Tactical fiber is 

relatively brittle; it readily breaks if knotted, kinked, or abraded against a sharp object. Deployed tactical 

fibers breaks if looped beyond its bend radius (3.4 mm), or exceeds its tensile strength (12 lb.). If the 

fiber becomes looped around an underwater object or marine animal, it does not tighten unless it is 

under tension. Such an event would be unlikely based on its method of deployment and its resistance to

looping after it is expended. The tactical fibers are often designed with controlled buoyancy to minimize 

the fiber's effect on vehicle movement. The tactical fiber would be suspended within the water column 

during the activity, and then be expended and sink to the seafloor (effective sink rate of 1.45 cm/second 

[Raytheon, 2015]) where it would be susceptible to abrasion and burial by sedimentation. Additionally, 

encounter rates with fiber optic cables is limited by the small number that are expended.

Major fish groups identified in Table 3.6-2 that could be susceptible to entanglement in expended cables 

and wires are those like sawfishes, with elongated snouts lined with tooth-like structures that easily 

snag on other similar marine debris, such as derelict fishing gear (Macfadyen et al., 2009). Some 

elasmobranchs (hammerhead sharks and manta rays) and billfishes occurring within the offshore and 

continental shelf portions of the range complexes and testing ranges (where the potential for 

entanglement would occur) could be susceptible to entanglement in cables and wires. Species occurring 

outside the specified areas within these range complexes and testing ranges would not be exposed to 

fiber optic cables or guidance wires and sonobuoy wires.

Once a guidance wire is released, it is likely to sink immediately and remain on the seafloor. In some 

cases, the wire may snag on a hard structure near the bottom and remain partially or completely 

suspended. The types of fish that encounter any given wire would depend, in part, on its geographic 

location and vertical location in the water column. In any situation, the most likely mechanism for 

entanglement would involve fish swimming through loops in the wire that tighten around it; however, 

loops are unlikely to form in a guidance wire or sonobuoy wire because of its size and rigidity

(Environmental Sciences Group, 2005). 

Because of their physical characteristics, guidance wires and fiber optic cables pose a potential, though 

unlikely, entanglement risk to susceptible fishes. Analysis of potential entanglement for fishes is based 

on abandoned monofilament, nylon, and polypropylene lines used in commercial nets. Such derelict 

fishing gear is abundant in the ocean (Macfadyen et al., 2009) and pose a greater hazard to fishes than 

the wires expended by the Navy. Fishing gear materials often have breaking strengths that can be up to 

orders of magnitude greater than that of guidance wire and fiber optic cables (Environmental Sciences 

Group, 2005), and are far more prone to tangling, as discussed in Section 3.0.3.3.5.1 (Wires and Cables). 

Fiber optic cables do not easily form loops, are brittle, and break easily if bent, so they pose a negligible 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.6-156

3.6 Fishes

entanglement risk. Additionally, the encounter rate and probability of impact from guidance wires and 

fiber optic cables are low, as few are expended.

Tube-launched optically tracked wire-guided missiles would expend wires in the nearshore or offshore 

waters of the Navy Cherry Point Range Complex during training only, and are discussed together with 

torpedo guidance wires because their potential impacts would be similar to those described here for 

torpedo guidance wires. 

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, and hard-draw copper strand wire, which 

is then wrapped by a hollow rubber tubing or bungee in a spiral configuration. The tensile breaking 

strength of the wire is a maximum of 40.4 lb. (Swope & McDonald, 2013). The length of the cable is 

housed in a plastic canister dispenser, which remains attached upon deployment. The length of wire 

that extends out is no more than 1,500 ft. and is dependent on the water depth and type of sonobuoy.

Attached to the wire is a kite-drogue and damper disk stabilizing system made of non-woven nylon 

fabric. The nylon fabric is very thin and can be broken by hand. The wire runs through the stabilizing 

system, and leads to the hydrophone components. The hydrophone components may be covered by 

thin plastic netting depending on type of sonobuoy, but pose no entanglement risk. 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. 

The sonobuoy itself is not considered an entanglement hazard upon deployment (Environmental 

Sciences Group, 2005), but their components may pose an entanglement hazard once released into the 

ocean. Aerial-launched sonobuoys are deployed with a decelerator/parachute. Sonobuoys contain 

cords, electronic components, and plastic mesh that may entangle fish (Environmental Sciences Group, 

2005). Open-ocean filter feeding species, such as basking sharks, whale sharks, and manta rays could 

become entangled in these items, whereas smaller species such as Atlantic herring could become 

entangled in the plastic mesh in the same manner as a small gillnet. Smalltooth sawfish, scalloped 

hammerheads, Nassau grouper, giant manta rays, oceanic whitetip sharks, and sturgeon may co-occur 

with newly expended sonobuoy, as these fishes are found in areas where sonobuoys are expended. 

Additionally, since most sonobuoys are expended in offshore areas, many other coastal fishes would not 

encounter or have any opportunity to become entangled in materials associated with sonobuoys, apart 

from the risk of entanglement in decelerators/parachutes mentioned above.

3.6.3.5.1.1 Impacts from Wires and Cables under Alternative 1

Impacts from Wires and Cables under Alternative 1 for Training Activities

Fiber optic cables may be expended within the Virginia Capes, Navy Cherry Point, Jacksonville, and Gulf 

of Mexico range complexes. Given the locations of training activities, Atlantic salmon, Atlantic sturgeon, 

shortnose sturgeon, Gulf sturgeon, smalltooth sawfish, oceanic whitetip sharks, and giant manta rays 

may be exposed to expended cables and wires. Atlantic salmon occur only in the Northeast Range 

Complexes where the density of expended wires and cables is very low. Atlantic and shortnose sturgeon 

could encounter fiber optic cables in the Virginia Capes, Navy Cherry Point, or Jacksonville Range 

Complexes; smalltooth sawfish could occur in the Jacksonville Range Complex as well. Nassau grouper 

occur in the Jacksonville and Gulf of Mexico range complexes. For sawfishes, early life stages have the 

same body-type as adults. However, the likelihood of entanglement of early life stages would be less 

than that of adults, because nursery habitats are found in very shallow water (less than 1 m deep) 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.6-157

3.6 Fishes

(National Marine Fisheries Service, 2009e), where no cables or wires would be expended. Early life 

stages of sturgeon and Atlantic salmon are typically (or exclusively, for salmon) found in freshwater 

rivers and not in marine environments, so only sub-adults and adults would be potentially exposed to 

entanglement stressors. Gulf sturgeon could encounter fiber-optic cables because they are expended 

during training activities where these species are found, including the Gulf of Mexico. Giant manta rays 

and oceanic whitetip sharks occur in offshore areas in the large marine ecosystems where training

activities would occur. While entanglement is possible, these species would be able to break the wires

and cables.

Guidance wires may be expended in the Northeast, Virginia Capes, and Jacksonville range complexes, as 

well as in the designated Sinking Exercise areas. Benthic-associated ESA-listed species, including Atlantic 

and shortnose sturgeon, and smalltooth sawfish, could encounter guidance wire because they can occur 

in nearshore waters out to the shelf break, where they feed on the bottom and could become entangled 

in a guidance wire while feeding. Pelagic species such as Atlantic salmon and oceanic whitetip sharks

may encounter guidance wires in the water column. Guidance wires sink too quickly to be transported 

very far before reaching the seafloor (Environmental Sciences Group, 2005), thus limiting the amount of 

exposure time for pelagic species. Gulf sturgeon would not be exposed to guidance wires as they would 

not be expended within the waters of the northern Gulf of Mexico where this species occurs. Fish would 

rarely encounter guidance wires expended during training activities. If a guidance wire were 

encountered, the most likely result would be that the fish ignores it, which is an inconsequential and 

immeasurable effect. In the rare instance where an individual fish became entangled in guidance wire 

and could not break free, the individual could be impacted as a result of impaired feeding, bodily injury, 

or increased susceptibility to predators. However, this is an extremely unlikely scenario because the 

density of guidance wires would be very low, as discussed in Section 3.0.3.3.5.1 (Wires and Cables). 

Sonobuoy wires may be expended within any of the range complexes throughout the Study Area. As 

described above, a sonobuoy wire runs through the stabilizing system and leads to the hydrophone 

components. The hydrophone components may be covered by thin plastic netting depending on type of 

sonobuoy, but pose no entanglement risk. This is mainly due to the sonobuoy being made of a single 

wire that hangs vertically in the water column. Therefore, it would be highly unlikely that a fish, 

including ESA-listed species would be entangled by a sonobuoy wire.

While individual fish susceptible to entanglement could encounter guidance wires, fiber optic cables, 

and sonobuoy wires, the long-term consequences of entanglement are unlikely for either individuals or 

populations because (1) the encounter rate for cables and wires is low, (2) the types of fishes that are 

susceptible to these items is limited, (3) the restricted overlap with susceptible fishes, and (4) the 

physical characteristics of the cables and wires reduce entanglement risk to fishes compared to 

monofilament used for fishing gear. Potential impacts of exposure to guidance wires and fiber optic 

cables are not expected to result in substantial changes to an individual’s behavior, fitness, or species 

recruitment, and are not expected to result in population-level impacts.

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of wires and cables during training activities, as described under 

Alternative 1, would have no effect on designated critical habitat for Atlantic salmon, Atlantic sturgeon, 

Gulf sturgeon, and smalltooth sawfish and no effect on Nassau grouper and the Central and Southwest 

Atlantic Distinct Population Segment of scalloped hammerhead sharks. The use of wires and cables 

during training activities may affect Atlantic salmon, Atlantic sturgeon, giant manta rays, Gulf sturgeon, 

oceanic whitetip sharks, shortnose sturgeon, and smalltooth sawfish. The Navy has consulted with the 

National Marine Fisheries Service, as required by section 7(a)(2) of the ESA in that regard.
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.6-158

3.6 Fishes

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 marine 

fishes, including ESA-listed species, would be similar to those described training activities, even though 

testing activities occur at a higher frequency and in more locations compared to training activities. 

Testing activities involving wires and cables occur at Virginia Capes Range Complex, Jacksonville Range 

Complex, Key West Range Complex, Northeast Range Complexes, Navy Cherry Point Range Complex, 

Gulf of Mexico Range Complex, Naval Undersea Warfare Center Newport Testing Range, Naval Surface 

Warfare Center Panama City Testing Range, and South Florida Ocean Measurement Facility.

Atlantic salmon would not be as prone to entanglement because they do not possess the morphological 

features (rigid or protruding snouts) associated with high entanglement rates. ESA-listed species more 

susceptible to entanglement (sawfish and sturgeon species, scalloped hammerhead sharks, and giant 

manta rays) and those not as susceptible to entanglement (Atlantic salmon, Nassau grouper, and 

oceanic whitetip sharks) occur in testing locations, but are unlikely to encounter the guidance wires 

because of their low densities in the areas where they are expended. Early life stages of sturgeon and 

Atlantic salmon are typically (or exclusively, for salmon) found in freshwater rivers and not in marine 

environments, so only sub-adults and adults would be potentially exposed to entanglement stressors. 

For sawfishes, the early life stages have the same body-type as adults; however, the likelihood of 

entanglement of early life stages would be slightly less than that of adults, because nursery habitats are 

found in very shallow water (less than 1 m deep), where no cables or wires would be expended. The 

Central and Southwest Atlantic Distinct Population Segment of scalloped hammerhead sharks may 

encounter expended cables and wires in the Key West Range Complex, while the Nassau grouper may 

encounter expended cables and wires in the Key West Range Complex and the South Florida Ocean 

Measurement Facility.

While individual fish susceptible to entanglement could encounter guidance wires, fiber optic cables, 

and sonobuoy wires, the long-term consequences of entanglement are unlikely for either individuals or 

populations because (1) the encounter rate for cables and wires is low, (2) the types of fishes that are 

susceptible to these items is limited, (3) the restricted overlap with susceptible fishes, and (4) the 

physical characteristics of the cables and wires reduce entanglement risk to fishes compared to 

monofilament used for fishing gear. Potential impacts from exposure to guidance wires and fiber optic 

cables are not expected to result in substantial changes to an individual’s behavior, fitness, or species 

recruitment, and are not expected to result in population-level impacts.

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of wires and cables during testing activities, as described under 

Alternative 1, would have no effect on designated critical habitat for Atlantic salmon, Atlantic sturgeon, 

Gulf sturgeon, or smalltooth sawfish. The use of wires and cables during testing activities may affect 

Atlantic salmon, Atlantic sturgeon, giant manta rays, Gulf sturgeon, Nassau grouper, oceanic whitetip 

sharks, the Central and Southwest Atlantic Distinct Population Segment of scalloped hammerhead 

sharks, shortnose sturgeon, and smalltooth sawfish. The Navy has consulted with the National Marine 

Fisheries Service, as required by section 7(a)(2) of the ESA in that regard.

3.6.3.5.1.2 Impacts from Wires and Cables under Alternative 2

Impacts from Wires and Cables under Alternative 2 for Training Activities

Because activities under Alternative 2 occur at a similar rate and frequency relative to Alternative 1, 

entanglement stress experienced by fishes from guidance wires, fiber optic cables, and sonobuoy wires 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.6-159

3.6 Fishes

under Alternative 2 are not expected to be meaningfully different than those described under 

Alternative 1. Therefore, impacts associated with training activities under Alternative 2 are the same as 

Alternative 1.

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of wires and cables during training activities, as described under Alternative

12, would have no effect on designated critical habitat for Atlantic salmon, Atlantic sturgeon, Gulf

sturgeon, and smalltooth sawfish and no effect on Nassau grouper and the Central and Southwest 

Atlantic Distinct Population Segment of scalloped hammerhead sharks. The use of wires and cables 

during training activities may affect Atlantic salmon, Atlantic sturgeon, giant manta rays, Gulf sturgeon, 

oceanic whitetip sharks, shortnose sturgeon, and smalltooth sawfish.

Impacts from Wires and Cables under Alternative 2 for Testing Activities

Even though testing activities under Alternative 2 occur at a slightly higher rate and frequency relative to 

Alternative 1, entanglement stress experienced by fishes from guidance wires, fiber optic cables, and 

sonobuoy wires under Alternative 2 are not expected to be meaningfully different than those described 

under Alternative 1. Therefore, impacts associated with testing activities under Alternative 2 are the 

same as Alternative 1.

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of wires and cables during testing activities, as described under Alternative 

2, would have no effect on designated critical habitat for Atlantic salmon, Atlantic sturgeon, Gulf 

sturgeon, or smalltooth sawfish. The use of wires and cables during testing activities may affect Atlantic 

salmon, Atlantic sturgeon, giant manta rays, Gulf sturgeon, Nassau grouper, oceanic whitetip sharks, the 

Central and Southwest Atlantic Distinct Population Segment of scalloped hammerhead sharks, shortnose 

sturgeon, and smalltooth sawfish.

3.6.3.5.1.3 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 AFTT Study Area. Entanglement stressors for fishes from 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.

3.6.3.5.2 Impacts from Decelerators/Parachutes

Decelerators/Parachutes of varying sizes are used during training and testing activities. 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 fishes. 

The types of activities that use decelerators/parachutes can be found in Appendix B (Activity Stressor 

Matrices), the physical characteristics and size of decelerators/parachutes, locations where 

decelerators/parachutes are used, and the number of decelerator/parachutes that are proposed to be 

used under each alternative are presented in Section 3.0.3.3.5.2 (Decelerators/Parachutes).

Once a decelerator/parachute has been released to the water, it poses a potential entanglement risk to 

fishes. The Naval Ocean Systems Center identified the potential impacts of torpedo air launch 

accessories, including decelerators/parachutes, on fish (U.S. Department of the Navy, 2001a). Unlike 

other materials in which fish become entangled (such as gill nets and nylon fishing line), the 

decelerator/parachute is relatively large and visible, reducing the chance that visually oriented fish 

would accidentally become entangled in it. No cases of fish entanglement have been reported for 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.6-160

3.6 Fishes

decelerators/parachutes (Ocean Conservancy, 2010; U.S. Department of the Navy, 2001a). 

Entanglement in a newly expended decelerator/parachute and its attachment lines while it is in the 

water column is unlikely because fish generally react to sound and motion at the surface with a 

behavioral reaction by swimming away from the source (see Section 3.6.3.4.3, Impacts from Military 

Expended Materials) and would detect the oncoming decelerator/parachute in time to avoid contact. 

While the decelerator/parachute is sinking, fish would have ample opportunity to swim away from the 

large moving object. Even if the decelerator/parachute landed directly on a fish, it would likely be able 

to swim away faster than the decelerator/parachute would sink because the resistance of the water 

would slow the decelerator/parachute’s downward motion. 

Once the decelerator/parachute is on the bottom, however, it is feasible that a fish could become 

entangled in the decelerator/parachute or its attachment lines while diving and feeding, especially in 

deeper waters where it is dark. If the decelerator/parachute dropped in an area of strong bottom 

currents, it could billow open and pose a short-term entanglement threat to large fish feeding on the 

bottom. Benthic fishes with elongated spines could become caught on the decelerator/parachute or 

lines. Most sharks and other smooth-bodied fishes are not expected to become entangled because their 

soft, streamlined bodies can more easily slip through potential snares. A fish with spines or protrusions 

(e.g., some sharks, manta rays, billfishes, sturgeon, or sawfishes) on its body that swam into the 

decelerator/parachute or a loop in the lines, and then struggled, could become bound tightly enough to 

prevent escape. Although this scenario is possible based on the structure of the materials and the shape 

and behavior of fishes, it is not considered a likely event.

3.6.3.5.2.1 Impacts from Decelerators/Parachutes under Alternative 1

Impacts from Decelerators/Parachutes under Alternative 1 for Training Activities

Fish species that could be susceptible to entanglement in decelerators/parachutes are the same as 

discussed for cables and wires. As discussed in Section 3.0.3.3.5.2 (Decelerators/Parachutes), there are 

four sizes of parachutes used during training activities. Air‐launched sonobuoys deploy a small 

parachute (18 in. in diameter) to slow their descent to the water and would be deployed primarily in the 

Northeast, Virginia Capes, Navy Cherry Point, Jacksonville, and Key West Range Complexes, but may be 

used anywhere in the Study Area. Air‐dropped lightweight torpedoes utilize a small‐sized parachute, 

approximately 48 in. in diameter, for the same purpose. These items would only be deployed in the 

Virginia Capes and Jacksonville Range Complexes in very small numbers (an annual total of 36). Medium 

parachutes, approximately 19 ft. in diameter, associated with illumination flares, would be deployed in 

relatively small numbers (an annual total of 144 throughout the entire Study Area) in the Virginia Capes, 

Navy Cherry Point, Jacksonville, and Key West Range Complexes. Large (30 to 50 ft. in diameter) and 

extra-large (82 ft. in diameter) parachutes are both associated with aerial targets (drones). A small 

number of large parachutes (33 total annually) would be used primarily in the Virginia Capes Range 

Complex, but may also be used in the Northeast, Jacksonville and Gulf of Mexico Range Complexes. Only 

five extra‐large parachutes would be expended annually, solely in the Virginia Capes Range Complex. 

Based on the numbers and geographic locations of their use, decelerators/parachutes pose a risk of 

entanglement for all fish species that occur in the Study Area. Table 3.0‐32 shows the number and 

location of decelerator/parachutes expended during proposed training activities under Alternative 1. 

Some elasmobranchs (sawfishes, hammerhead sharks, and manta rays), sturgeon, swordfishes, and 

billfishes occurring within the offshore and continental shelf portions of the range complexes (where the 

potential for entanglement would occur) may be more susceptible to entanglement in 

decelerators/parachutes than most fish species due to their unusual body shape or projections. As 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.6-161

3.6 Fishes

described above, the highly maneuverable swimming capabilities of these fishes make it unlikely that 

any entanglement would occur while the decelerators/parachutes are at the surface or sinking through 

the water column. It is conceivable that ESA-listed species near the seafloor such as a sawfish or 

sturgeon could encounter an expended decelerator/parachute that has settled to the bottom. These

species could encounter decelerators/parachutes because they can occur at the surface or on the 

bottom in nearshore waters out to the shelf break. 

The Atlantic salmon occurs in offshore areas where decelerators/parachutes would be expended in the 

Northeast Range Complexes and may encounter decelerators/parachutes in the water column. 

However, the Atlantic salmon, like all salmonids, is a strong swimmer with a streamlined body that is 

unlikely to become entangled in decelerators/parachutes or lines. The impacts of entanglement with 

decelerators/parachutes are discountable because of the low density of decelerators/parachutes 

expended in this location and the body shape of Atlantic salmon, which makes it unlikely to become 

entangled. 

Sawfishes are highly mobile, visual predators that could easily avoid a floating or suspended 

decelerator/parachute. If a rare decelerator/parachute encounter by a sawfish led to entanglement, the 

fish would likely thrash its rostral saw in an effort to break free. If such an effort were unsuccessful, the 

individual could remain entangled, possibly resulting in injury or death. However, this scenario is 

considered so unlikely that it would be discountable.

For sawfishes, the early life stages have the same body-type as adults; however, the likelihood of 

entanglement of early life stages would be slightly less than that of adults because nursery habitats are 

found in very shallow water (less than 1 m deep) (National Marine Fisheries Service, 2009a), where no 

decelerators/parachutes would be expended. Early life stages of sturgeon and Atlantic salmon are 

typically (or exclusively, for salmon) found in freshwater rivers and not in marine environments, so only 

sub-adults and adults would be potentially exposed to entanglement stressors.

Scalloped hammerhead sharks belonging to the Central and Southwest Atlantic Distinct Population 

Segment may potentially encounter decelerators/parachutes in the Key West Range Complex. Likewise,

due to their widespread distribution, giant manta rays may encounter parachutes/decelerators 

throughout most of the Study Area where these items are used. Both scalloped hammerhead sharks and 

giant manta rays are highly mobile species that could likely avoid floating or suspended 

decelerators/parachutes. If a rare decelerator/parachute encounter by one of these species led to 

entanglement, it would likely thrash in an effort to break free. If such an effort were unsuccessful, the 

individual could remain entangled, possibly resulting in injury or death. However, this scenario is 

considered so unlikely that it would be discountable. Similarly, oceanic whitetip sharks occurring 

offshore could come into contact with a parachute/decelerator during training activities. This species is 

also a highly mobile, visual predator that could easily avoid floating or suspended 

decelerators/parachutes or break free if it got entangled.

Nassau groupers are found in reefs areas of the Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf, Gulf of Mexico, and 

Caribbean Sea. However, this species is known to have large spawning aggregations in areas such as the 

ends of islands or reef pinnacles seaward from the general reef contour. This species is highly mobile 

and could easily avoid floating or suspended decelerators/parachutes, so the likelihood of this species 

being entangled would be extremely low. If a rare decelerator/parachute encounter by a Nassau 

grouper led to entanglement, the fish would likely thrash in an effort to break free. If such an effort 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.6-162

3.6 Fishes

were unsuccessful, the individual could remain entangled, possibly resulting in injury or death. However, 

this scenario is considered so unlikely that it would be discountable.

Fishes are unlikely to encounter or become entangled in decelerators/parachutes because of the large 

size of the range complexes and the resulting widely scattered expended decelerators/parachutes. 

Individual fish are not prone to be repeatedly exposed to decelerators/parachutes; thus the long-term 

consequences of entanglement risks from decelerators/parachutes are unlikely for either individuals 

or populations.

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of decelerators/parachutes during training activities, as described under 

Alternative 1, would have no effect on designated critical habitat for Atlantic salmon, Atlantic sturgeon, 

Gulf sturgeon, and smalltooth sawfish. The use of decelerators/parachutes during training activities may 

affect Atlantic salmon, Atlantic sturgeon, giant manta rays, Gulf sturgeon, Nassau grouper, oceanic 

whitetip sharks, the Central and Southwest Atlantic Distinct Population Segment of scalloped 

hammerhead sharks, shortnose sturgeon, and smalltooth sawfish. The Navy has consulted with the 

National Marine Fisheries Service, as required by section 7(a)(2) of the ESA in that regard.

Impacts from Decelerators/Parachutes under Alternative 1 for Testing Activities

As discussed in Section 3.0.3.3.5.2 (Decelerators/Parachutes), under Alternative 1 testing activities, 

there are four sizes of decelerators/parachutes used. Only small–, medium‐, and large‐sized parachutes 

would be expended during testing activities. Small‐sized decelerators/parachutes used in conjunction 

with sonobuoys and light‐weight torpedoes and medium‐sized decelerators/parachutes, associated with 

illumination flares, would be used in the Northeast, Virginia Capes, Navy Cherry Point, Jacksonville, Key 

West, and Gulf of Mexico Range Complexes. In addition, small decelerators/parachutes would also be 

deployed in the Naval Undersea Warfare Center Newport Testing Range, South Florida Ocean 

Measurement Facility, and Naval Surface Warfare Center Panama City Testing Range (see Table 3.0-34). 

Large decelerators/parachutes associated with aerial targets (drones) would primarily be used in the 

Virginia Capes Range Complex but may also be used in the Northeast, Jacksonville, and Gulf of Mexico 

Range Complexes. Based on the numbers and geographic locations of their use, decelerators/parachutes 

pose a risk of entanglement for all ESA‐listed fish species that occurs in the Study Area. Table 3.0-34 

shows the number and location of each type of decelerators/parachutes expended during proposed 

testing activities under Alternative 1. Appendix F (Military Expended Materials and Direct Strike Impact 

Analyses) provides locations, quantities, and impact footprints of expended decelerator/parachutes. 

Table F-14 and F-15 provides the number of each type of military expended material used for testing 

activities under Alternative 1.

Based on the numbers and geographic locations of their use, decelerators/parachutes pose a risk of 

entanglement for all fish species that occurs in the Study Area, including ESA-listed species and would be 

the same as discussed for cables and wires. It is conceivable that a sawfish or sturgeon could encounter

an expended decelerator/parachute that has settled to the bottom. Any of the sturgeon species could 

encounter decelerators/parachutes because sturgeon can occur at the surface or on the bottom in 

nearshore waters out to the shelf break. For sawfishes, the early life stages have the same body-type as 

adults; however, the likelihood of entanglement of early life stages would be slightly less than that of 

adults because nursery habitats are found in very shallow water (less than 1 m deep), where no 

decelerators/parachutes would be expended. Early life stages of sturgeon and Atlantic salmon are 

typically (or exclusively, for salmon) found in freshwater rivers and not in marine environments, so only 

sub-adults and adults would be potentially exposed to entanglement stressors. 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.6-163

3.6 Fishes

Scalloped hammerhead sharks, oceanic whitetip sharks, and manta rays are highly mobile pelagic 

species and would likely avoid floating or suspended decelerators/parachutes. If one of these species

were to become entangled in a decelerator/parachute, they would likely thrash in an effort to break 

free. If such an effort were unsuccessful, the individual could remain entangled, possibly resulting in 

injury or death. This scenario is considered so unlikely that it would be discountable.

Fish are unlikely to encounter or become entangled in decelerators/parachutes because of the large size 

of the range complexes and testing ranges and the resulting widely scattered expended 

decelerators/parachutes. Individual fish are not prone to be repeatedly exposed to these entanglement 

stressors, thus the long-term consequences of entanglement risks from decelerators/parachutes are 

unlikely for either individuals or populations.

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of decelerators/parachutes during testing activities, as described under 

Alternative 1, would have no effect on designated critical habitat for Atlantic salmon, Atlantic sturgeon, 

Gulf sturgeon, and smalltooth sawfish. The use of decelerators/parachutes during testing activities may 

affect Atlantic salmon, Atlantic sturgeon, giant manta rays, Gulf sturgeon, Nassau grouper, oceanic 

whitetip sharks, the Central and Southwest Atlantic Distinct Population Segment of scalloped 

hammerhead sharks, shortnose sturgeon, and smalltooth sawfish. The Navy has consulted with the 

National Marine Fisheries Service, as required by section 7(a)(2) of the ESA in that regard.

3.6.3.5.2.2 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 would be similar to Alternative 1 and entanglement stress experienced by fishes from 

decelerators/parachutes under Alternative 2 are not expected to be meaningfully different than those 

described under Alternative 1. Therefore, the impact conclusion for decelerators/parachutes under 

Alternative 2 training activities is the same as for Alternative 1.

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of decelerators/parachutes during training activities, as described under 

Alternative 2, would have no effect on designated critical habitat for Atlantic salmon, Atlantic sturgeon, 

Gulf sturgeon, and smalltooth sawfish. The use of decelerators/parachutes during training activities may 

affect Atlantic salmon, Atlantic sturgeon, giant manta rays, Gulf sturgeon, Nassau grouper, oceanic 

whitetip sharks, the Central and Southwest Atlantic Distinct Population Segment of scalloped 

hammerhead sharks, shortnose sturgeon, and smalltooth sawfish.

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 would be similar to Alternative 1 and entanglement stress experienced by fishes from 

decelerators/parachutes under Alternative 2 are not expected to be meaningfully different than those 

described under Alternative 1. Therefore, the impact conclusion for decelerators/parachutes under 

Alternative 2 testing activities is the same as for Alternative 1.

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of decelerators/parachutes during testing activities, as described under 

Alternative 2, would have no effect on designated critical habitat for Atlantic salmon, Atlantic sturgeon, 

Gulf sturgeon, and smalltooth sawfish. The use of decelerators/parachutes during testing activities may 

affect Atlantic salmon, Atlantic sturgeon, giant manta rays, Gulf sturgeon, Nassau grouper, oceanic 

whitetip sharks, the Central and Southwest Atlantic Distinct Population Segment of scalloped 

hammerhead sharks, shortnose sturgeon, and smalltooth sawfish.
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.6-164

3.6 Fishes

3.6.3.5.2.3 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 AFTT Study Area. Entanglement stressors for fishes from 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.

3.6.3.5.3 Impacts from Biodegradable Polymer

For a discussion of the types of activities that use biodegradable polymers see Appendix B (Activity 

Stressor Matrices) and for a discussion on where they are used and how many activities would occur 

under each alternative, see Section 3.0.3.3.5.3 (Biodegradable Polymer). Navy activities that involve 

vessel entanglement systems include the development of the biodegradable polymer and would only be 

associated with testing activities in the AFTT Study Area. As indicated by its name, vessel entanglement 

systems that make use of biodegradable polymers are designed to entangle the propellers of vessels, 

which would significantly slow and potentially stop the advance of the vessel. A biodegradable polymer 

is a high molecular weight polymer that degrades to smaller compounds as a result of microorganisms 

and enzymes. The rate of biodegradation could vary from hours to years and the type of small molecules 

formed during degradation can range from complex to simple products, depending on whether the 

polymers are natural or synthetic (Karlsson & Albertsson, 1998). Based on the constituents of the 

biodegradable polymer the Navy proposes to use, it is anticipated that the material would breakdown 

into small pieces within a few days to weeks. This would breakdown further and dissolve into the water 

column within weeks to a few months. The final products, which are all environmentally benign, would

be dispersed quickly to undetectable concentrations. Unlike other entanglement stressors, 

biodegradable polymers only retain their strength for a relatively short period of time; therefore, the 

potential for entanglement by a fish would be limited. Furthermore, the longer the biodegradable 

polymer remains in the water, the weaker it becomes making it more brittle and likely to break. A fish 

would have to encounter the biodegradable polymer after it was expended for it to be a potential 

entanglement risk. If an animal were to approach the polymer more than a few weeks after it was 

expended, it is very likely that it would break easily and would not be able to entangle a fish. Since 

biodegradable polymers are only proposed for testing activities within the AFTT Study Area, the 

concentration of these items being expended throughout the AFTT Study Area is considered very low 

and the rate of encounter and risk of entanglement for fishes would be considered extremely low.

3.6.3.5.3.1 Impacts from Biodegradable Polymer under Alternative 1

Impacts from Biodegradable Polymer under Alternative 1 for Training Activities

Biodegradable polymers would not be used during Navy training activities associated with the 

Proposed Action and therefore will not be analyzed in this section.

Impacts from Biodegradable Polymer under Alternative 1 for Testing Activities

Testing activities under Alternative 1 that use of biodegradable polymers would be conducted within the 

Virginia Capes, Jacksonville, Key West and Gulf of Mexico Range Complexes, as well as the Naval 

Undersea Warfare Center Newport Testing Range. Biodegradable polymers would be expended equally 

throughout these areas. 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.6-165

3.6 Fishes

ESA-listed species such as smalltooth sawfish, Atlantic sturgeon, shortnose sturgeon, Gulf sturgeon, 

oceanic whitetip sharks, and giant manta rays may occur in these range complexes and may be exposed 

to the biodegradable polymer during testing activities. However, the likelihood of a fish encountering 

the biodegradable polymers when they are first expended is low because: (1) very few polymers are 

used annually within each range complex; and (2) polymers only remain intact for relatively short 

periods of time (generally a few days to weeks) and they are brittle and would break apart over time.

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of biodegradable polymers during testing activities, as described under 

Alternative 1, would have no effect on Atlantic salmon and would have no effect on designated critical 

habitat for Atlantic salmon, Atlantic sturgeon, Gulf sturgeon, and smalltooth sawfish. The use of 

biodegradable polymers during testing activities under Alternative 1 may affect Atlantic sturgeon, giant 

manta rays, Gulf sturgeon, Nassau grouper, oceanic whitetip sharks, the Central and Southwest Distinct 

Population Segment of scalloped hammerhead sharks, shortnose sturgeon, and smalltooth sawfish. The 

Navy has consulted with the National Marine Fisheries Service, as required by section 7(a)(2) of the ESA 

in that regard.

3.6.3.5.3.2 Impacts from Biodegradable Polymer under Alternative 2

Impacts from Biodegradable Polymer under Alternative 2 for Training Activities

Biodegradable polymers would not be used during Navy training activities associated with the Proposed 

Action and therefore will not be analyzed in this section.

Impacts from Biodegradable Polymer under Alternative 2 for Testing Activities

Testing activities that expend biodegradable polymers under Alternative 2 would be identical to what is 

proposed under Alternative 1. The analysis presented above in Section 3.6.3.5.3.1 (Impacts from 

Biodegradable Polymer under Alternative 1) for testing activities would also apply to Alternative 2.

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of biodegradable polymers during testing activities, as described under 

Alternative 2, would have no effect on Atlantic salmon and would have no effect on designated critical 

habitat for Atlantic salmon, Atlantic sturgeon, Gulf sturgeon, and smalltooth sawfish. The use of 

biodegradable polymers during testing activities under Alternative 2 may affect Atlantic sturgeon, giant 

manta rays, Gulf sturgeon, Nassau grouper, oceanic whitetip sharks, the Central and Southwest Distinct 

Population Segment of scalloped hammerhead sharks, shortnose sturgeon, and smalltooth sawfish.

3.6.3.5.3.3 Impacts from Biodegradable Polymer under the No Action Alternative 

Impacts from Biodegradable Polymer under the No Action Alternative for Training and Testing 

Activities

Biodegradable polymer is not a part of ongoing Navy activities in the Study Area and this entanglement 

stressor would not be introduced into the marine environment under the No Action Alternative. 

Therefore, no change in baseline conditions of the existing environment would occur.

3.6.3.6 Ingestion Stressors

This section analyzes the potential ingestion impacts of the various types of munitions and military 

expended materials other than munitions used by the Navy during training and testing activities within 

the Study Area. Aspects of ingestion stressors that are applicable to marine organisms in general are 

presented in Section 3.0.3.6.5 (Conceptual Framework for Assessing Effects from Ingestion). Ingestion of 

expended materials by fishes could occur in all Large Marine Ecosystems and open ocean areas, and can 

occur at or just below the surface, in the water column, or at the seafloor, depending on the size and 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.6-166

3.6 Fishes

buoyancy of the expended object and the feeding behavior of the fish. Floating material is more likely to 

be eaten by fishes that feed at or near the water surface (e.g., ocean sunfish, basking sharks, whale 

sharks, manta rays, herring, or flying fishes), while materials that sink to the seafloor present a higher 

risk to bottom-feeding fishes (e.g., sturgeon, hammerhead sharks, skates, and flatfishes).

It is reasonable to assume that any item of a size that can be swallowed by a fish could be eaten at some 

time; this analysis focuses on ingestion of materials in two locations: (1) at the surface or water column 

and (2) at the seafloor. Open-ocean predators and open-ocean planktivores are most likely to ingest 

materials in the water column. Coastal bottom-dwelling predators and estuarine bottom-dwelling 

predators could ingest materials from the seafloor. The potential for fish, including the ESA-listed fish 

species, to encounter and ingest expended materials is evaluated with respect to their feeding group,

size, and geographic range, which influence the probability that they would eat military expended

materials. 

The Navy expends the following types of materials during training and testing in the Study Area that 

could become ingestion stressors: non-explosive practice munitions (small- and medium-caliber), 

fragments from high-explosives, fragments from targets, chaff, flare casings (including plastic end caps 

and compression pads or pistons), small decelerators/parachutes, and biodegradable polymer. The 

location and number of expended items that are ingestion stressors are detailed in Section 3.0.3.3.6 

(Ingestion Stressors) and the types of activities that include ingestion stressors can be found in in 

Appendix B (Activity Stressor Matrices). Metal items eaten by fish are generally small (such as fishhooks, 

bottle caps, and metal springs), suggesting that small- and medium-caliber projectiles are more likely to 

be ingested. Both physical and toxicological impacts could occur as a result of consuming metal or 

plastic materials (Dantas et al., 2012; Davison & Asch, 2011; Possatto et al., 2011). Ingestion of plastics 

has been shown to increase hazardous chemicals in fish leading to liver toxicity of fishes (Rochman et al., 

2013). Items of concern are those of ingestible size that either drift at or just below the surface (or in the 

water column) for a time or sink immediately to the seafloor. The likelihood that expended items would 

cause a potential impact on a given fish species depends on the size and feeding habits of the fish and 

the rate at which the fish encounters the item and the composition of the item. In this analysis only 

small- and medium-caliber munitions (or small fragments from larger munitions), chaff, small 

decelerators/parachutes, and end caps and compression pads or pistons from flares and chaff cartridges 

are considered to be of ingestible size for a fish. For many small fish species (e.g., herring, anchovy, etc.), 

even these items (with the exception of chaff) are often too large to be ingested, even though small 

pieces could sometimes be nibbled off by small fishes. Therefore, the discussion in this section focuses 

on those fish species large enough to potentially ingest these materials.

The analysis of ingestion impacts on fishes is structured around the following feeding strategies:

Feeding at or Just Below the Surface or Within the Water Column

 Open-Ocean Predators. Large, migratory, open-ocean fishes, such as salmon, tuna, dolphin fish, 

sharks, and billfishes, feed on fast-swimming prey in the water column of the Study Area (Table 

3.6-17). These fishes range widely in search of unevenly distributed food patches. Atlantic 

salmon generally travel alone (Fay et al., 2006) but gather in common feeding areas near 

Greenland and Labrador, where they prey on schooling fish associated with the surface and 

water column of shallow open-water areas (Hansen & Windsor, 2006). Smaller military 

expended materials could be mistaken for prey items and ingested purposefully or incidentally 

as the fish is swimming. A few of these predatory fishes (e.g., bull sharks, tiger sharks) are 

known to ingest any type of marine debris that they can swallow, even automobile tires. Some 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.6-167

3.6 Fishes

marine fishes, such as the dolphinfish (Coryphaena hippurus) (South Atlantic Fishery 

Management Council, 2011) and tunas, eat plastic fragments, strings, nylon lines, ropes, or even 

small light bulbs (Choy & Drazen, 2013; Rochman et al., 2015).

Table 3.6-17: Ingestion Stressors Potential for Impact on Fishes Based on Location

Feeding Guild

Representative 

Species

Endangered 

Species ActProtected 

Species Overall Potential for Impact

Open-ocean 

predators

Dolphinfishes, most 

shark species, tuna, 

mackerel, wahoo, 

jacks, billfishes, 

swordfishes

Atlantic 

salmon, 

Scalloped 

hammerhead 

sharks, 

Oceanic 

whitetip 

sharks

These fishes may eat floating or sinking 

expended materials, but the encounter rate 

would be extremely low. May result in 

individual injury or death but is not 

anticipated to have population-level effects. 

Open-ocean Plankton 

Eaters (Planktivores)

Atlantic herrings, 

Menhaden, basking 

shark, whale shark

Giant manta 

rays

These fishes may ingest floating expended 

materials incidentally as they feed in the 

water column, but the encounter rate would 

be extremely low. May result in individual 

injury or death but is not anticipated to have 

population-level effects. 

Coastal bottomdwelling predatorsAtlantic cod, skates, 

cusks, and rays

Atlantic 

salmon, 

Scalloped 

hammerhead 

sharks, Nassau 

grouper

These fishes may eat expended materials on 

the seafloor, but the encounter rate would 

be extremely low. May result in individual 

injury or death but is not anticipated to have 

population-level effects. 

Coastal bottomdwelling foragers and 

scavengers

Skates and rays, 

flounders

Sturgeon 

species, 

Sawfish 

species

These fishes could incidentally eat some 

expended materials while foraging, especially 

in muddy waters with limited visibility. May 

result in individual injury or death but is not 

anticipated to have population-level effects. 

Note: The scientific names of the listed species are as follows: Atlantic cod (Hippoglossus hippoglossus), Atlantic salmon 

(Salmo salar), basking shark (Cetorhinus maximus), cusk (Brosme brosme), dolphinfish (Coryphaena hippurus), whale 

shark (Rhincodon typus), rays (Manta spp.), and scalloped hammerhead shark (Sphyrna lewini), sawfish species (Pristis

spp.), sturgeon species (Acipenser spp.), rays (Manta spp.), skates (Amblyraja spp.), and flounders (Bothidae).

 Open-Ocean Planktivores. Plankton-eating fishes in the open-ocean portion of the Study Area 

include herring, flying fishes, ocean sunfish, whale sharks, manta rays, and basking sharks. These 

fishes feed by either filtering plankton from the water column or by selectively ingesting larger 

zooplankton. These planktivores could encounter and incidentally feed on smaller types of 

military expended materials (e.g., chaff, end caps, pistons) at or just below the surface or in the 

water column (Table 3.6-2). Giant manta rays are the only ESA-listed species in the Study Area 

that is an open ocean planktivore, while some species in this group of fishes (e.g., herring) 

constitute a major prey base for many important predators, including salmon, tuna, sharks, 

marine mammals, and seabirds. While not a consumer of plankton, the ocean sunfish eats 

jellyfish and may consume a parachute/decelerator by accident at or just below the surface in 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.6-168

3.6 Fishes

the open ocean. Larger filter feeders such as whale sharks, basking sharks, and manta rays could 

also inadvertently ingest a parachute or decelerator.

Military expended materials that could potentially impact these types of fish at or just below the surface 

or in the water column include those items that float or are suspended in the water column for some 

period of time (e.g., decelerators/parachutes and end caps and pistons from chaff cartridges or flares).

Fishes Feeding at the Seafloor

 Bottom Dwelling Predators. Large predatory fishes near the seafloor are represented by species 

such as Atlantic cod and cusk, which are typical predators in the northern portion of the Study 

Area (Table 3.6-17). The cod and cusk feed opportunistically on or near the bottom, taking fishes

and invertebrates from the water column (e.g., shrimp) and from the sediment (e.g., crabs) 

(Collette & Klein-MacPhee, 2002). The cod also ingests marine debris while feeding on or near 

the bottom. In the United Kingdom, plastic cups thrown from ferries have been discovered in 

cod stomachs (Hoss & Settle, 1990). The varied diet of the cod and the low visibility in its deep 

shelf habitat may promote the ingestion of foreign objects. The Atlantic salmon also feeds on 

fish on or near the seafloor such as sand lances and capelin. Cusks and sturgeon normally eats 

hard-shelled and spiny organisms, increasing the likelihood that it would swallow a sharp plastic 

or metal item rather than reject it. 

 Bottom Dwelling Foragers and Scavengers. Bottom dwelling fishes in the nearshore coasts and 

estuaries may feed by seeking prey and by scavenging on dead fishes and invertebrates. All 

sturgeon in the Study Area suction-feed along the bottom in coastal waters on small fish and 

invertebrate prey, which increases the likelihood of incidental ingestion of marine debris (Ross 

et al., 2009). 

Military expended materials that could be ingested by fishes at the seafloor include items that sink (e.g., 

small-caliber projectiles and casings, fragments from high-explosive munitions).

Potential impacts of ingestion on some adult fishes are different than for other life stages (eggs, larvae, 

and juveniles) because early life stages for some species are too small to ingest any military expended 

materials except for chaff, which has been shown to have limited effects on fishes in the concentration 

levels that it is released at (Arfsten et al., 2002; U.S. Air Force, 1997; U.S. Department of the Navy, 1999). 

Therefore, no ingestion potential impacts on early life stages would occur, with the exception of later 

stage juveniles that are large enough to ingest military expended materials.

Within the context of fish location in the water column and feeding strategies, the analysis is divided 

into (1) munitions (small- and medium-caliber projectiles, and small fragments from larger munitions, 

and flechettes); and (2) military expended material other than munitions (chaff, chaff end caps, 

compression pads or pistons, decelerators/parachutes, flares, and target fragments).

3.6.3.6.1 Impacts from Military Expended Materials – Munitions

Different types of explosive and non-explosive practice munitions are expended at sea during training 

and testing activities. This section analyzes the potential for fishes to ingest non-explosive practice 

munitions and fragments from high explosive munitions. 

Types of non-explosive practice munitions generally include projectiles, missiles, and bombs. Of these, 

only small- or medium-caliber projectiles would be small enough for a large fishes to ingest. Small- and 

medium-caliber projectiles include all sizes up to and including 2.25 in. in diameter. These solid metal 

materials would quickly move through the water column and settle to the seafloor. Ingestion of non-
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.6-169

3.6 Fishes

explosive practice munitions in the water column is possible when shiny fragments of the munitions sink 

quickly and could be ingested by fast, mobile predators that chase moving prey (e.g., tunas, jacks, 

billfishes, swordfishes, dolphinfishes, mackerel, wahoo, and barracudas). In addition, these fragments 

may also be accidentally ingested by fishes that forage on the bottom such as sturgeon, flounders, 

skates, and rays.

Types of high explosive munitions that can result in fragments include demolition charges, projectiles, 

missiles, and bombs. Fragments would result from fractures in the munitions casing and would vary in 

size depending on the size of the net explosive weight and munitions type; however, typical sizes of 

fragments are unknown. These solid metal materials would quickly move through the water column and 

settle to the seafloor. Similar to non-explosive practice munitions described above, ingestion of high 

explosive munition fragments by fast-moving mobile predators such tunas, jacks, billfishes, swordfishes, 

dolphinfishes, mackerel, wahoo, and barracudas in the water column is possible, but unlikely. In the 

unlikely event that explosive material, high-melting-point explosive (known as HMX), or royal demolition 

explosive (known as RDX), is exposed on the ocean floor, it would break down in a few hours (U.S. 

Department of the Navy, 2001b). High-melting-point explosive or royal demolition explosive would not 

accumulate in the tissues of fish (Lotufo et al., 2010; Price et al., 1998). Fragments are primarily 

encountered by species that forage on the bottom. 

It is possible that expended small caliber projectiles on the seafloor could be colonized by seafloor 

organisms and mistaken for prey or that expended small caliber projectiles could be accidentally or 

intentionally eaten during foraging. Over time, the metal may corrode or become covered by sediment 

in some habitats, reducing the likelihood of a fish encountering the small caliber, non-explosive practice 

munitions. 

The potential impacts of ingesting foreign objects on a given fish depend on the species and size of the 

fish. Fishes that normally eat spiny, hard-bodied invertebrates may have tougher mouths and digestive 

systems than fish that normally feed on softer prey. Materials that are similar to the normal diet of a fish 

would be more likely to be ingested and more easily handled once ingested—for example, by fishes that 

feed on invertebrates with sharp appendages. These items could include fragments from high-explosives 

that a fish could encounter on the seafloor. Relatively small or smooth objects, such as small-caliber 

projectiles or their casings, might pass through the digestive tract without causing harm. A small 

sharp-edged item could cause a fish immediate physical distress by tearing or cutting the mouth, throat, 

or stomach. If the object is rigid and large (relative to the fish’s mouth and throat), it may block the 

throat or obstruct the flow of waste through the digestive system. An object may be enclosed by a cyst 

in the gut lining (Danner et al., 2009; Hoss & Settle, 1990). Ingestion of large foreign objects could lead 

to disruption of a fish’s normal feeding behavior, which could be sublethal or lethal.

3.6.3.6.1.1 Impacts from Military Expended Materials – Munitions under Alternative 1

Impacts from Military Expended Materials – Munitions under Alternative 1 for Training Activities

Use of military expended materials from munitions may occur throughout the AFTT Study Area. Fishes in 

the vicinity of these activities would have the remote potential to ingest military expended materials 

from munitions.

When these items explode, they may break apart or remain largely intact in irregularly shaped pieces—

some of which may be small enough for some fishes to ingest. Some fishes such as sturgeon are able to 

feed on crustaceans that have hard, sharp, or irregular parts, without any impacts. Most fragments from 

high-explosives would be too large for a fish to ingest. Also, it is assumed that fragments from larger 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.6-170

3.6 Fishes

munitions are similar in size to fragments from smaller munitions. Although fragment size cannot be 

quantified, more individual fragments would result from larger munitions than from smaller munitions. 

The number of fragments that would result from the proposed explosions cannot be quantified. 

However, it is believed to be smaller than the number of small-caliber projectiles to be expended in the 

Study Area. Small-caliber projectiles would likely be more prevalent throughout the Study Area and 

more likely to be encountered and potentially ingested by bottom-dwelling fishes and some reef fishes, 

such as Nassau grouper, than fragments from any type of high-explosive munitions.

The Atlantic and Gulf sturgeon and smalltooth sawfish may occur in portions of the Study Area out to 

the continental shelf break where projectiles and munitions are used. Shortnose sturgeon can migrate 

long distances in coastal waters to their natal river or estuary (Wippelhauser et al., 2015), only 

occasionally moving to nearshore marine environments. The current Chesapeake Bay system population 

of shortnose sturgeon appears to be centered in the upper Chesapeake Bay (Welsh et al., 2002), outside 

of the Study Area. Training activities expending projectiles or munitions could expose sturgeon and 

sawfish to ingestion risk. These species could be injured if it ingested a small-caliber projectile or 

fragment and couldn’t pass it. 

Scalloped hammerhead sharks could encounter some munitions-related material; although the 

likelihood is remote because only medium-caliber projectiles (no small-caliber projectiles) would be 

expended in the Key West Range Complex portion of the Study Area where this species would most 

likely occur. Although less likely, smalltooth sawfish could encounter some munitions-related material in 

the Jacksonville and Gulf of Mexico Range Complexes. Giant manta rays and oceanic whitetip sharks are 

generally surface-oriented feeders, with rays feeding on plankton in the upper water column, while 

oceanic whitetips are high-level predators feeding on fishes and cephalopods such as squid. It is unlikely 

that these species would mistake larger military expended materials in the water column for prey. If 

these species accidentally ingested military expended materials, it is likely that they would “taste” the

item and then expel it, in the same manner that a fish would take a lure into its mouth then spit it out. It 

is also possible that giant mantas could ingest smaller fragments as they fall through the water column, 

although this species would be able to distinguish between a food item and non-food item such as 

fragments of military expended materials. 

The likelihood of ingestion of munitions (or fragments) by early life stages of smalltooth sawfish would 

be slightly less than that of adults because nursery habitats are found in very shallow water (less than 1 

m deep), where no munitions would be expended. Juvenile sturgeon are also found in the same 

freshwater rivers and tributaries as adults, including the James River, and would also be potentially 

exposed to ingestion stressors.

Overall, the potential impacts of ingesting munitions (whole or fragments) would be limited to individual 

fish that might suffer a negative response from a given ingestion event. While ingestion of munitions or 

fragments identified here could result in sublethal or lethal effects to a small number of individuals, the 

likelihood of a fish encountering an expended item is dependent on where that species feeds and the 

amount of material expended. Furthermore, an encounter may not lead to ingestion, As a fish might 

“taste” an item, then expel it (Felix et al., 1995), in the same manner that a fish would take a lure into its 

mouth then spit it out. The number of fishes potentially impacted by ingestion of munitions or 

fragments from munitions would be assumed to be low, and population-level effects would not be 

expected. 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 military expended materials on 

seafloor resources in mitigation areas throughout the Study Area (see Section 5.4.1, Mitigation Areas for 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.6-171

3.6 Fishes

Seafloor Resources). This mitigation will consequently help avoid potential impacts on fishes that inhabit

shallow-water coral reefs.

Pursuant to the ESA, military expended materials such as munitions from training activities, as described 

under Alternative 1, would have no effect on designated critical habitat for Atlantic salmon, Atlantic 

sturgeon, Gulf sturgeon, and smalltooth sawfish, but may affect Atlantic salmon, Atlantic sturgeon, giant 

manta rays, Gulf sturgeon, Nassau grouper, oceanic whitetip sharks, Central and Southwestern Atlantic 

Distinct Population Segment of scalloped hammerhead sharks, shortnose sturgeon, and smalltooth 

sawfish. The Navy has consulted with the National Marine Fisheries Service, as required by section 

7(a)(2) of the ESA in that regard.

Impacts from Military Expended Materials – Munitions under Alternative 1 for Testing Activities

Use of military expended materials from munitions may occur throughout the AFTT Study Area. Fish in 

the vicinity of these activities would have the potential to ingest military expended materials from 

munitions.

When these items explode, they may break apart or remain largely intact in irregularly shaped pieces—

some of which may be small enough for a fish to ingest. Some fish species feed on crustaceans that have 

hard, sharp, or irregular parts, without any impacts. Most fragments from high-explosives would be too 

large for a fish to ingest. Also, it is assumed that fragments from larger munitions are similar in size to 

fragments from smaller munitions. Although fragment size cannot be quantified, more individual 

fragments would result from larger munitions than from smaller munitions. The number of fragments 

that would result from the proposed explosions cannot be quantified. However, it is believed to be 

smaller than the number of small-caliber projectiles to be expended in the Study Area. Small-caliber 

projectiles would likely be more prevalent throughout the Study Area and more likely to be encountered 

and potentially ingested by bottom-dwelling fishes than fragments from any type of high-explosive 

munitions. Furthermore, a fish might taste an item then expel it before swallowing it (Felix et al., 1995), 

in the same manner that fish would temporarily take a lure into its mouth, then spit it out. Based on 

these factors, the number of fishes potentially impacted by ingestion of munitions would be low and 

population-level impacts are not likely to occur.

The Atlantic and Gulf sturgeon and smalltooth sawfish may occur in portions of the Study Area out to 

the continental shelf break where projectiles and munitions are used. Shortnose sturgeon generally 

remain within their natal river or estuary, only occasionally moving to nearshore marine environments 

(Dadswell et al., 1984). The current Chesapeake Bay system population of shortnose sturgeon appears 

to be centered in the upper Chesapeake Bay (Welsh et al., 2002), outside of the Study Area. The 

likelihood of ingestion of munitions (or fragments) by early life stages of sawfishes would be slightly less 

than that of adults, because nursery habitats are found in very shallow water (less than 1 m deep), 

where no munitions would be expended. Early life stages of sturgeon are typically found in freshwater 

rivers and not in marine environments, so only sub-adults and adults would be potentially exposed to 

ingestion stressors.

As described above for training activities, giant manta rays and oceanic whitetip sharks are generally 

surface-oriented feeders. It is unlikely that these species would mistake larger military expended 

materials in the water column for prey, but if this occurred they accidentally ingested military expended 

materials, it is likely that they would “taste” the item and then expel it. Smaller fragments could be 

consumed and these species would be able to distinguish between food and non-food items.
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.6-172

3.6 Fishes

Overall, the impacts on fishes ingesting munitions or fragments from munitions resulting from proposed 

testing activities would be low. The number of fishes potentially impacted by ingestion of munitions or 

fragments from munitions would be low, and population-level effects would not be expected. The Navy 

will implement mitigation (e.g., not conducting gunnery activities within a specified distance of shallowwater coral reefs) to avoid potential impacts from military expended materials on seafloor resources in 

mitigation areas throughout the Study Area (see Section 5.4.1, Mitigation Areas for Seafloor Resources). 

This mitigation will consequently help avoid potential impacts on fishes that inhabit shallow-water 

coral reefs.

Pursuant to the ESA, military expended materials such as munitions from testing activities, as described 

under Alternative 1, would have no effect on designated critical habitat for Atlantic salmon, Atlantic 

sturgeon, Gulf sturgeon, and smalltooth sawfish, but may affect Atlantic salmon, Atlantic sturgeon, giant 

manta rays, Gulf sturgeon, Nassau grouper, oceanic whitetip sharks, Central and Southwestern Atlantic 

Distinct Population Segment of scalloped hammerhead sharks, shortnose sturgeon, and smalltooth 

sawfish. The Navy has consulted with the National Marine Fisheries Service, as required by section 

7(a)(2) of the ESA in that regard.

3.6.3.6.1.2 Impacts from Military Expended Materials – Munitions under Alternative 2

Impacts from Military Expended Materials – Munitions under Alternative 2 for Training Activities

Because activities under Alternative 2 occur at the same rate and frequency relative to Alternative 1, 

ingestion stress experienced by fishes from military expended materials and munitions under 

Alternative 2 would be the same as those described under Alternative 1. Therefore, impacts associated 

with training and testing activities under Alternative 2 are the same as Alternative 1.

Pursuant to the ESA, military expended materials such as munitions from training activities, as described 

under Alternative 2, would have no effect on designated critical habitat for Atlantic salmon, Atlantic 

sturgeon, Gulf sturgeon, and smalltooth sawfish, but may affect Atlantic salmon, Atlantic sturgeon, giant 

manta rays, Gulf sturgeon, Nassau grouper, oceanic whitetip sharks, Central and Southwestern Atlantic 

Distinct Population Segment of scalloped hammerhead sharks, shortnose sturgeon, and smalltooth 

sawfish.

Impacts from Military Expended Materials – Munitions under Alternative 2 for Testing Activities

Because activities under Alternative 2 occur at the same rate and frequency relative to Alternative 1, 

ingestion stress experienced by fishes from military expended materials and munitions under 

Alternative 2 would be the same as those described under Alternative 1. Therefore, impacts associated 

with testing activities under Alternative 2 are the same as Alternative 1.

Pursuant to the ESA, military expended materials such as munitions from testing activities, as described 

under Alternative 2, would have no effect on designated critical habitat for Atlantic salmon, Atlantic 

sturgeon, Gulf sturgeon, and smalltooth sawfish, but may affect Atlantic salmon, Atlantic sturgeon, giant 

manta rays, Gulf sturgeon, Nassau grouper, oceanic whitetip sharks, Central and Southwestern Atlantic 

Distinct Population Segment of scalloped hammerhead sharks, shortnose sturgeon, and smalltooth 

sawfish.
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.6-173

3.6 Fishes

3.6.3.6.1.3 Impacts from Military Expended Materials – Munitions under the No Action 

Alternative

Impacts from Military Expended Materials – Munitions 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 AFTT Study Area. Ingestion stressors for fishes from military expended materials such as 

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.

3.6.3.6.2 Impacts from Military Expended Materials – Other Than Munitions

Fishes feed throughout the water column and could mistake many types of marine debris for prey items. 

Ingesting nonfood items is common among a variety of marine fishes, particularly those that feed on the 

seafloor (Boerger et al., 2010; Hoss & Settle, 1990; Jackson et al., 2000). Many fishes are also known to 

accidentally ingest plastic materials and the extent to which an individual fish might discriminate 

between a plastic item perceived as prey and an indistinct or less appealing shape is not clear. Once 

eaten, any type of plastic could cause digestive problems for the fish (Danner et al., 2009). Fishes have 

been reported to ingest a variety of materials or debris, such as plastic pellets, bags, rope, and line (Hoss 

& Settle, 1990; Jackson et al., 2000). As discussed above in Section 3.6.3.6 (Ingestion Stressors), some 

fish species such as the ocean sunfish eat jellyfish and may consume a parachute/decelerator at or just 

below the surface in the open ocean by accident. Larger filter feeders such as whale sharks, basking 

sharks, and manta rays could also inadvertently ingest a small or medium parachute or decelerator.

Chaff is used throughout the Study Area and is composed of an aluminum alloy coating on glass fibers of 

silicon dioxide and is released or dispensed in cartridges or projectiles that contain millions of fibers. 

Based on the small size of chaff fibers, fishes would likely not confuse the fibers with prey items or 

purposefully feed on them. However, some fishes could occasionally ingest low concentrations of chaff 

incidentally while feeding on prey items on the surface, in the water column, or the seafloor. Chaff fiber 

ingestion is not expected to impact fishes based on the low concentration that could reasonably be 

ingested and the small size of the chaff fibers. Therefore, exposure to chaff would cause no injury, 

mortality, or tissue damage to fishes. Potential impacts of chaff ingestion by fishes are not discussed 

further. Impacts of ingestion of the end caps, pistons, or compression pads associated with chaff 

cartridges are analyzed together with impacts of flares below.

Chaff end caps and pistons sink in saltwater (U.S. Department of the Navy, 1999). Fishes feeding on the 

seafloor where chaff canisters and flares are expended (e.g., range complexes, and testing ranges)

would be more likely to encounter and ingest these items than in other locations. Ingested end caps or 

pistons could disrupt a fish’s feeding behavior or digestive processes. If the item is particularly large 

relative to the fish ingesting it, the item could become permanently encapsulated by the stomach lining, 

and potentially lead to starvation and death (Danner et al., 2009 ; Hoss & Settle, 1990).

As described above, surface-feeding fishes have little opportunity to ingest end caps, pistons, or 

compression pads before they sink. However, some of these items could become entangled in dense 

Sargassum mats near the surface. Predatory open-ocean fishes, such as tuna, dolphinfishes, and 

billfishes, are attracted to the many small prey species associated with Sargassum mats. While foraging 

near the floating mats, predatory fishes may incidentally ingest end caps and pistons. The density of 

these items in any given location would vary based on release points and dispersion by wind and water 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.6-174

3.6 Fishes

currents. The number of end caps, pistons, or compression pads that would remain at or just below the 

surface in Sargassum mats and potentially available to fish is unknown. Unlike other plastic types of 

marine debris, end caps, pistons, and compression pads are heavier than water and not expected to 

float unless they are enmeshed in Sargassum or other floating debris.

Most materials associated with airborne mine neutralization system activities are recovered, but pieces 

of fiber optic cable may be expended (U.S. Department of the Navy, 2001a). For a discussion of the 

physical characteristics of these expended materials, where they are used, and the number of activities,

please see Section 3.0.3.3.5.1 (Wires and Cables). Only small amounts of fiber optic cable would be 

deposited onto the seafloor each year, and the small amount of fiber optic cable expended during 

training and testing would sink to the seafloor. Pelagic fishes would be unlikely to encounter the small, 

dispersed lengths of fiber optic cable unless they were in the immediate area when the cable was 

expended. The low number of fiber optic cables expended in the Study Area during this activity makes it 

unlikely that fishes would encounter any fiber optic cables. Potential impacts of fiber optic cable 

ingestion by fishes are not discussed further.

As stated in Section 3.0.3.3.5.3 (Biodegradable Polymer), based on the constituents of the 

biodegradable polymer, it is anticipated that the material will breakdown into small pieces within a few 

days to weeks. These small pieces will breakdown further and dissolve into the water column within 

weeks to a few months and could potentially be incidentally ingested by fishes. Because the final 

products of the breakdown are all environmentally benign, the Navy does not expect the use of 

biodegradable polymer to have any negative impacts for fishes.

3.6.3.6.2.1 Impacts from Military Expended Materials – Other Than Munitions under

Alternative 1

Impacts from Military Expended Materials – Other Than Munitions under Alternative 1 for Training 

Activities

As indicated in Section 3.0.3.3.6.3 (Military Expended Materials Other Than Munitions) under 

Alternative 1, activities involving target materials use would occur throughout the Study Area. All of the 

ESA-listed species occur where target materials could potentially be expended. 

As indicated in Section 3.0.3.3.6.3 (Military Expended Materials Other Than Munitions), under 

Alternative 1, activities that expend chaff and flare occur throughout the Study Area. No potential 

impacts would occur from the chaff itself, but there is some potential for fishes to ingest the end caps, 

pistons, or compression pads associated with the chaff or flare cartridges.

Environmental concentrations would vary based on release points and dispersion by wind and water 

currents. The number of end caps and pistons that would remain at or just below the surface in 

Sargassum mats and potentially available to fish is unknown but is expected to be an extremely small 

percentage of the total. 

ESA-listed species in the Key West Range Complex such as smalltooth sawfish and scalloped 

hammerhead sharks are bottom feeders and would not encounter end caps or flares at the surface, but

could ingest an item after it settled to the bottom. However, these items would most likely pass through 

the digestive tract without causing harm. Based on the low density of expended endcaps and pistons, 

the encounter rate would be extremely low, and the ingestion rate even lower. No chaff or flares are 

planned for use in the Northeast Range Complexes where the Atlantic salmon occurs. The number of 

fishes potentially impacted by ingestion of end caps or pistons would be low based on the low 

environmental concentration. Population-level effects would not be expected.
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.6-175

3.6 Fishes

As discussed above, it is unlikely that giant manta rays or oceanic whitetip sharks could mistake larger 

military expended materials other than munitions for prey, even though these species typically forage at 

or near the surface. If these species accidentally ingested military expended materials other than 

munitions, it is likely that they would “taste” the item and then spit it out. If these species accidentally 

ingested an item, it would most likely pass through the digestive tract without causing harm.

Overall, the potential impacts of ingesting decelerators/parachutes, target fragments, or end caps, 

pistons, or compression pads would be limited to individual fish that ingest an item too large to pass 

through its gut. Fishes encounter many items (natural and manmade) in their environment that are 

unsuitable for ingestion and most species have behavioral mechanisms for spitting out the item. If the 

item were swallowed, it could either pass through the digestive system without doing any harm, or 

become lodged inside the fish and cause injury or mortality. 

For smalltooth sawfish, the likelihood of ingestion of military expended materials other than munitions 

by early life stages would be slightly less than that of adults, because nursery habitats are found in very 

shallow water (less than 1 m deep), where no military expended materials would occur. The potential 

impacts on smalltooth sawfish are discountable because they are historically rare in the locations where 

military expended materials are expended. Early life stages of sturgeon are typically found in freshwater 

rivers and not in marine environments, so only juveniles and adults would be potentially exposed to 

ingestion stressors.

Although ingestion of military expended materials identified here could result in sublethal or lethal 

effects, the likelihood of ingestion is low based on the dispersed nature of the materials, the limited 

encounter rate of fishes to the expended items, behavioral mechanisms for expelling the item, and the 

capacity of the fish’s digestive system to simply pass the item through as waste. Based on these factors, 

the number of fishes potentially impacted by ingestion of military expended materials (such as chaff and 

flare end caps and pistons) would be low, and no population-level effects would be expected.

Pursuant to the ESA, military expended materials other than munitions from training activities, as 

described under Alternative 1, would have no effect on designated critical habitat for Atlantic salmon, 

Atlantic sturgeon, Gulf sturgeon, and smalltooth sawfish, but may affect Atlantic salmon, Atlantic 

sturgeon, giant manta rays, Gulf sturgeon, Nassau grouper, oceanic whitetip sharks, Central and 

Southwestern Atlantic Distinct Population Segment of scalloped hammerhead sharks, shortnose 

sturgeon, and smalltooth sawfish. The Navy has consulted with the National Marine Fisheries Service, as 

required by section 7(a)(2) of the ESA in that regard.

Impacts from Military Expended Materials – Other Than Munitions under Alternative 1 for Testing 

Activities

As indicated in Section 3.0.3.3.6.3 (Military Expended Materials Other Than Munitions) under 

Alternative 1, testing activities involving target materials use would occur throughout the Study Area. All 

of the ESA-listed species occur where target materials could potentially be expended. 

As indicated in Section 3.0.3.3.6.3 (Military Expended Materials Other Than Munitions), under 

Alternative 1, activities involving chaff and flare use would occur in offshore locations throughout the 

Study Area. No potential impacts would occur from the chaff itself, but there is some potential for 

fishes, including ESA-listed species to ingest the end caps, pistons, or compression pads associated with 

the chaff or flare cartridges. 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.6-176

3.6 Fishes

The smalltooth sawfish or sturgeon could ingest one of these items after it settled to the bottom, but 

the item would most likely pass through the digestive tract of a larger fish without causing harm, as the 

items measure only 1.3 in. (3.3 cm) in diameter and 0.13 in. (0.3 cm) in thickness. Based on the low 

density of expended end caps and pistons, the encounter rate would be extremely low, and the 

ingestion rate even lower. The number of fishes potentially impacted by ingestion of end caps or pistons 

would be low based on the low environmental concentration. Population-level effects would not 

be expected.

The potential impacts on smalltooth sawfish are discountable because they are historically rare in the 

locations where decelerators/parachutes, chaff, targets, and end-caps are expended. Smalltooth sawfish 

are rare in the Gulf of Mexico Large Marine Ecosystem, but since 1999, the species has been 

documented in the vicinity of the Naval Surface Warfare Center, Panama City Division Testing Range, 

and a viable population exists off the coast of southwest Florida (Papastamatiou et al., 2015).

For sawfishes, the early life stages have the same body-type as adults; however, the likelihood of 

ingestion of military expended materials other than munitions by early life stages would be slightly less 

than that of adults, because nursery habitats are found in very shallow water (less than 1 m), where no 

military expended materials would be expended. Early life stages of sturgeon are typically found in 

freshwater rivers and not in marine environments, so only juveniles and adults would be potentially 

exposed to ingestion stressors.

As discussed above, it is unlikely that offshore species such as giant manta rays or oceanic whitetip 

sharks could mistake larger military expended materials other than munitions for prey during testing 

activities, even though these species typically forage at or near the surface. It is likely that these species

would “taste” and then spit it out if an item were accidentally ingested; if ingested, the item would most 

likely pass through the digestive tract without causing harm.

Overall, the risk of potential impacts of fishes ingesting military expended materials resulting from 

proposed testing activities would be low.

Pursuant to the ESA, military expended materials other than munitions from testing activities, as 

described under Alternative 1, would have no effect on designated critical habitat for Atlantic salmon, 

Atlantic sturgeon, Gulf sturgeon, and smalltooth sawfish, but may affect Atlantic salmon, Atlantic 

sturgeon, giant manta rays, Gulf sturgeon, Nassau grouper, oceanic whitetip sharks, Central and 

Southwestern Atlantic Distinct Population Segment of scalloped hammerhead sharks, shortnose 

sturgeon, and smalltooth sawfish. The Navy has consulted with the National Marine Fisheries Service, as 

required by section 7(a)(2) of the ESA in that regard.

3.6.3.6.2.2 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

Because training activities under Alternative 2 occur at a similar rate and frequency relative to 

Alternative 1, ingestion stress experienced by fishes from military expended materials other than 

munitions under Alternative 2 are not expected to be meaningfully different than those described under 

Alternative 1. Therefore, impacts associated with training activities under Alternative 2 are the same as 

Alternative 1.
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.6-177

3.6 Fishes

Pursuant to the ESA, military expended materials other than munitions from training activities, as 

described under Alternative 2, would have no effect on designated critical habitat for Atlantic salmon, 

Atlantic sturgeon, Gulf sturgeon, and smalltooth sawfish, but may affect Atlantic salmon, Atlantic 

sturgeon, giant manta rays, Gulf sturgeon, Nassau grouper, oceanic whitetip sharks, Central and 

Southwestern Atlantic Distinct Population Segment of scalloped hammerhead sharks, shortnose 

sturgeon, and smalltooth sawfish.

Impacts from Military Expended Materials – Other Than Munitions under Alternative 2 for Testing 

Activities

Because testing activities under Alternative 2 occur at a similar rate and frequency relative to Alternative 

1, ingestion stress experienced by fishes from military expended materials other than munitions under 

Alternative 2 are not expected to be meaningfully different than those described under Alternative 1. 

Therefore, impacts associated with testing activities under Alternative 2 are the same as Alternative 1.

Pursuant to the ESA, military expended materials other than munitions from testing activities, as 

described under Alternative 2, would have no effect on designated critical habitat for Atlantic salmon, 

Atlantic sturgeon, Gulf sturgeon, and smalltooth sawfish, but may affect Atlantic salmon, Atlantic 

sturgeon, giant manta rays, Gulf sturgeon, Nassau grouper, oceanic whitetip sharks, Central and 

Southwestern Atlantic Distinct Population Segment of scalloped hammerhead sharks, shortnose 

sturgeon, and smalltooth sawfish.

3.6.3.6.2.3 Impacts from Military Expended Materials – Other Than Munitions under the 

No Action Alternative

Impacts from Military Expended Materials – Other Than Munitions 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 AFTT Study Area. Ingestion stressors for fishes from 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.

3.6.3.7 Secondary Stressors

This section analyzes potential impacts on fishes exposed to stressors indirectly through impacts on their 

prey availability and habitat (e.g., sediment or water quality, and physical disturbance). For the purposes 

of this analysis, indirect impacts on fishes via sediment or water which do not require trophic transfer 

(e.g., bioaccumulation) in order to be observed are considered here. 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 fishes via 

habitat (e.g., sediment, and water quality) and prey availability. These include (1) explosives and 

explosion byproducts; (2) metals; (3) chemicals; and (4) other materials such as targets, chaff, and 

plastics. Activities associated with these stressors are detailed in Chapter 2 (Description of Proposed 

Action and Alternatives), and their potential effects are analyzed in Section 3.2 (Sediments and Water 

Quality), Section 3.4 (Invertebrates), and Section 3.5 (Habitats). 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). 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.6-178

3.6 Fishes

This mitigation will consequently help avoid potential impacts on fishes that shelter in and inhabit on 

shallow-water coral reefs, live hard bottom, artificial reefs, and shipwrecks.

3.6.3.7.1 Impacts on Habitat

The Proposed Action could result in localized and temporary changes to the benthic community during 

activities that impact fish habitat. Hard bottom is important habitat for many different species of fish, 

including those fishes managed by various fishery management plans. Fish habitat could become 

degraded during activities that would strike the seafloor or introduce military expended materials, 

bombs, projectiles, missiles, rockets, or fragments to the seafloor. The spatial area of habitat impacted 

by the Proposed Action would be relatively small compared to the available habitat in the Study Area. 

However, there would still be vast expanses of habitat adjacent to the areas of habitat impact that 

would remain undisturbed by the Proposed Action.

Explosions

Secondary impacts to fishes resulting from explosions at the surface, in the water column, or on the 

bottom would be associated with changes to habitat structure and effects to prey species. Most 

explosions on the bottom would occur in soft bottom habitat and would displace some amount of 

sediment, potentially resulting in cratering. However, water movement would redistribute the affected 

sediment over time. A small amount of sediment would be suspended in the water column temporarily 

(turbidity), but would resettle to the bottom. Activities that inadvertently result in explosions on or near 

hard bottom habitat or reefs could break hard structures and reduce the amount of colonizing surface 

available to encrusting organisms (e.g., corals, sponges). Given the large spatial area of the range 

complexes compared to the small percentage covered by hard bottom habitat, it is unlikely that most of 

the small, medium, and large projectiles expended in the Study Area would fall onto this habitat type. 

Furthermore, these activities are distributed within discrete locations within the Study Area, and the 

overall footprint of these areas is quite small with respect to the spatial extent of biogenic habitat within 

the Study Area.

Sinking exercises could also provide secondary impacts on deep-sea populations. These activities occur 

in open-ocean areas, outside of the coastal range complexes, with potential direct disturbance or strike 

impacts on deep-sea fishes, as covered in Section 3.6.3.1 (Acoustic Stressors). Secondary impacts on 

these fishes could occur after the ship hulks sink to the seafloor. Over time, the ship hulk would be 

colonized by marine organisms that attach to hard surfaces. For fishes that feed on these types of 

organisms, or whose abundances are limited by available hard structural habitat, the ships that are sunk 

during sinking exercises could provide an incidental beneficial impact on the fish community (Love & 

York, 2005; Macreadie et al., 2011).

The alternatives could result in localized and temporary changes to the benthic community during 

activities that impact fish habitat. Fish habitat could become degraded during activities that would strike 

the seafloor or introduce military expended materials, bombs, projectiles, missiles, rockets or fragments 

to the seafloor. During or following activities that impact benthic habitats, fish species may experience 

loss of available benthic prey at locations in the Study Area where these items might be expended. 

Additionally, plankton and zooplankton that are eaten by fishes may also be negatively impacted by 

these same expended materials. The spatial area of habitat impacted by the Proposed Action would be 

relatively small compared to the available habitat in the Study Area. However, there would still be vast 

expanses of habitat adjacent to the areas of habitat impact that would remain undisturbed by the 

Proposed Action.
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.6-179

3.6 Fishes

Impacts of vessel disturbance and strike during amphibious assaults could temporarily reduce the 

quality and quantity of benthic substrate (sand) over an extremely localized and limited area within 

Onslow Beach and Seminole Beach. Fishes in the taxonomic group that includes the snapper-grouper 

complex (as managed by the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council), use these designated 

amphibious assault areas with sandy benthic substrate as habitat and could be impacted by this activity. 

However, the secondary habitat impacts on these fishes would be extremely localized compared to the 

total available area of sandy substrate available in the Jacksonville and Virginia Capes Range Complexes 

and the overall Study Area. 

Impacts of physical disturbance and strikes by small-, medium-, and large-caliber projectiles would be 

concentrated within designated gunnery box areas, resulting in localized disturbances of hard bottom 

areas, but could occur anywhere in the range complexes or the Study Area. Hard bottom is important 

habitat for many different species of fish, including those fishes managed by various fishery 

management plans. The likelihood these habitats would be impacted is greater in Jacksonville and Navy 

Cherry Point Range Complexes compared to the Virginia Capes and Key West Range Complexes, based 

solely on these percentages. However, the location with the smallest proportion of hard bottom habitat 

(the Virginia Capes Range Complex) has the greatest concentration of small-caliber projectiles expended 

in the Study Area, with nearly 58 percent of the total small-caliber projectiles expended. 

Explosion By-Products

Deposition of undetonated explosive materials into the marine environment can be reasonably well 

estimated by the known failure and low-order detonation rates of high-explosives. Undetonated 

explosives associated with munitions disposal and mine clearance are collected after training is 

complete; therefore, potential impacts are assumed to be inconsequential for these training and testing 

activities, but other activities could result in unexploded munitions and unconsumed explosives on the 

seafloor. Fishes may be exposed by contact with the explosive, contact with contaminants in the 

sediment or water, and ingestion of contaminated sediments. 

High-order explosions consume most of the explosive material, creating typical combustion products. In 

the case of royal demolition explosive, 98 percent of the products are common seawater constituents, 

and the remainder is rapidly diluted below threshold effect level. Explosion byproducts associated with 

high order detonations present no indirect stressors to fishes through sediment or water. However, low 

order detonations and unexploded munitions present elevated likelihood of impacts on fishes.

Indirect impacts of explosives and unexploded munitions to fishes via sediment is possible in the 

immediate vicinity of the munitions. Degradation of explosives proceeds via several pathways discussed 

in Section 3.2 (Sediments and Water Quality). Degradation products of royal demolition explosive are 

not toxic to marine organisms at realistic exposure levels (Rosen & Lotufo, 2010). Trinitrotoluene (TNT) 

and its degradation products impact developmental processes in fishes and are acutely toxic to adults at 

concentrations similar to real-world exposures (Halpern et al., 2008b; Rosen & Lotufo, 2010). Relatively 

low solubility of most explosives and their degradation products means that concentrations of these 

contaminants in the marine environment are relatively low and readily diluted. Furthermore, while 

explosives and their degradation products were detectable in marine sediment approximately 0.15–

0.3 m away from degrading munitions, the concentrations of these compounds were not statistically 

distinguishable from background beyond 1–2 m from the degrading munitions (Section 3.2, Sediments 

and Water Quality). Taken together, it is likely that various life stages of fishes could be impacted by the 

indirect impacts of degrading explosives within a very small radius of the explosive (0.3–2 m). 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.6-180

3.6 Fishes

If high-explosive munitions does not explode, it would sink to the bottom. In the unlikely event that 

explosive material, high-melting-point explosive (known as HMX), or royal demolition explosive (known 

as RDX) is exposed on the ocean floor, it would break down in a few hours (U.S. Department of the Navy, 

2001a). High-melting-point explosive or royal demolition explosive would not accumulate in the tissues 

of fishes (Lotufo et al., 2010; Price et al., 1998). Fishes may take up trinitrotoluene (TNT) from the water 

when it is present at high concentrations but not from sediments (Lotufo et al., 2010). The rapid 

dispersal and dilution of trinitrotoluene (TNT) expected in the marine water column reduces the 

likelihood of a fish encountering high concentrations of trinitrotoluene (TNT) to near zero.

A series of research efforts focused on World War II underwater munitions disposal sites in Hawaii 

(Briggs et al., 2016; Edwards et al., 2016; Kelley et al., 2016; Koide et al., 2016; University of Hawaii, 

2010) and an intensively used live fire range in the Mariana Islands (Smith & Marx, 2016) provide 

information in regard to the impacts of undetonated materials and unexploded munitions on marine 

life. A summary of this literature which investigated water and sediment quality impacts, on a localized 

scale, from munitions ocean disposal sites and ocean disposed dredge spoils sites is presented in the 

Sediment and Water Quality section and specifically in Section 3.2.3.1 (Explosives and Explosives 

Byproducts) and Section 3.2.3.3 (Metals). Findings from these studies indicate that there were no 

adverse impacts on the local ecology from the presence of degrading munitions and there was no 

bioaccumulation of munitions-related chemicals in local marine species. Therefore, water quality effects 

from the use of munitions, expended material, or devices would be negligible, would have no long-term 

effect on water quality, and therefore would not constitute a secondary indirect stressor for fishes.

Metals

Certain metals and metal-containing compounds at concentrations above background levels (e.g., 

cadmium, chromium, lead, mercury, zinc, copper, manganese, and many others) can be toxic to fishes 

(Wang & Rainbow, 2008). Metals are introduced into seawater and sediments as a result of training and 

testing activities involving vessel hulks, targets, munitions, batteries, and other military expended 

materials (Section 3.2, Sediments and Water Quality). Some metals bioaccumulate, and physiological 

impacts begin to occur only after several trophic transfers concentrate the toxic metals (U.S. 

Department of the Navy, 2012). Indirect effects of metals on fish via sediment and water involve 

concentrations several orders of magnitude lower than concentrations achieved via bioaccumulation. 

Fishes may be exposed by contact with the metal, contact with contaminants in the sediment or water, 

and ingestion of contaminated sediments. Concentrations of metals in seawater are orders of 

magnitude lower than concentrations in marine sediments. It is extremely unlikely that fishes would be 

indirectly impacted by toxic metals via the water.

Chemicals

Several Navy training and testing activities introduce potentially harmful chemicals into the marine 

environment, principally flares and propellants for rockets, missiles, and torpedoes. Polychlorinated 

biphenyls are discussed in Section 3.2 (Sediments and Water Quality), but there is no additional risk to 

fishes because the Proposed Action does not introduce this chemical into the Study Area and the use of 

polychlorinated biphenyls has been nearly zero since 1979. Properly functioning flares, missiles, rockets, 

and torpedoes combust most of their propellants, leaving benign or readily diluted soluble combustion 

byproducts (e.g., hydrogen cyanide). Operational failures allow propellants and their degradation 

products to be released into the marine environment. 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.6-181

3.6 Fishes

The greatest risk to fishes from flares, missiles, and rocket propellants is perchlorate which is highly 

soluble in water, persistent, and impacts metabolic processes in many plants and animals. Fishes may be 

exposed by contact with contaminated water or ingestion of re-suspended contaminated sediments. 

Since perchlorate is highly soluble, it does not readily adsorb to sediments. Therefore, missile and rocket 

fuels pose no risk of indirect impact on fishes via sediment. In contrast, the principal toxic components 

of torpedo fuel, propylene glycol dinitrate, and nitrodiphenylamine, adsorb to sediments, have relatively 

low toxicity, and are readily degraded by biological processes (Section 3.2, Sediments and Water 

Quality). It is conceivable that various life stages of fishes could be indirectly impacted by propellants via 

sediment in the immediate vicinity of the object (e.g., within a few inches), but these potential impacts 

would diminish rapidly as the propellant degrades.

Other Materials

In some bottom types (without strong currents, hard-packed sediments, and low biological 

productivity), items such as projectiles might remain intact for some time before becoming degraded or 

broken down by natural processes. These potential impacts may cease only (1) when the military 

expended materials are too massive to be mobilized by typical oceanographic processes, (2) if the 

military expended materials become encrusted by natural processes and incorporated into the seafloor, 

or (3) when the military expended materials become permanently buried. In this scenario, a parachute 

could initially sink to the seafloor, but then be transported laterally through the water column or along

the seafloor, increasing the opportunity for entanglement. In the unlikely event that a fish would 

become entangled, injury or mortality could result. In contrast to large decelerators/parachutes, other 

devices with decelerators such as sonobuoys are typically used in deep open ocean areas. These areas 

are much lower in fish numbers and diversity, so entanglement hazards are greatly reduced for 

commercially and recreationally targeted species (i.e., tuna, swordfishes, etc.), as well as mesopelagic 

prey of other species. The entanglement stressor would eventually cease to pose an entanglement risk 

as it becomes encrusted or buried.

Pursuant to the ESA, impacts on habitat from secondary stressors during training and testing activities, 

as described above, would have no effect on designated critical habitat for Atlantic salmon, Atlantic 

sturgeon, Gulf sturgeon, or smalltooth sawfish, but may affect Atlantic salmon, Atlantic sturgeon, giant 

manta rays, Gulf sturgeon, Nassau grouper, oceanic whitetip sharks, Central and Southwestern Atlantic 

Distinct Population Segment of scalloped hammerhead sharks, shortnose sturgeon, and smalltooth 

sawfish. The Navy has consulted with the National Marine Fisheries Service, as required by section 

7(a)(2) of the ESA in that regard.

3.6.3.7.2 Impacts on Prey Availability

Impacts on fish prey availability resulting from explosives, explosives byproducts, unexploded munitions, 

metals, and chemicals would differ depending upon the type of prey species in the area, but would likely 

be negligible overall and have no population-level impacts on fishes. As discussed in Section 3.6.3.1

(Acoustic Stressors), fishes with swim bladders are more susceptible to blast injuries than fishes without 

swim bladders. During or following activities that impact benthic habitats, fish species may experience 

loss of available benthic prey at locations in the Study Area where these items might be expended. 

Additionally, plankton and zooplankton that are eaten by fishes may also be negatively impacted by 

these same expended materials some species of zooplankton that occur in the Pacific such as Pacific 

oyster (Crassostrea gigas) larvae have been found feeding on microplastics (Cole & Galloway, 2015). 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.6-182

3.6 Fishes

In addition to physical effects of an underwater blast such as being stunned, prey might have behavioral 

reactions to underwater sound. For instance, 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 (Mather, 2004). The sound 

from underwater explosions might induce startle reactions and temporary dispersal of schooling fish if 

they are within close proximity (Popper et al., 2014; Wright, 1982). 

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. The sound from 

underwater explosions might induce startle reactions and temporary dispersal of schooling fishes, 

potentially increasing visibility to predators, if they are within close proximity (Kastelein et al., 2008). 

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, and 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.

Pursuant to the ESA, impacts on prey availability from secondary stressors during training and testing 

activities, as described above, would have no effect on designated critical habitat for Atlantic salmon, 

Atlantic sturgeon, Gulf sturgeon, or smalltooth sawfish, but may affect Atlantic salmon, Atlantic 

sturgeon, giant manta rays, Gulf sturgeon, Nassau grouper, oceanic whitetip sharks, Central and 

Southwestern Atlantic Distinct Population Segment of scalloped hammerhead sharks, shortnose 

sturgeon, and smalltooth sawfish. The Navy has consulted with the National Marine Fisheries Service, as 

required by section 7(a)(2) of the ESA in that regard. The Navy has consulted with the National Marine 

Fisheries Service, as required by section 7(a)(2) of the ESA in that regard.

3.6.4 SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL IMPACTS ON FISHES

3.6.4.1 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 the stressors from the Proposed Action. The analysis 

and conclusions for the potential impacts from each individual stressor are discussed in the analyses of 

each stressor in the sections above and summarized in Section 3.6.5 (Endangered Species Act 

Determinations). 

There are generally two ways that a fish could be exposed to multiple stressors. The first would be if a 

fish were exposed to multiple sources of stress from a single activity (e.g., a mine warfare activity may 

include the use of a sound source and a vessel). The potential for a combination of these impacts from a 

single activity would depend on the range of effects of each stressor and the response or lack of 

response to that stressor. Most of the activities as described in the Proposed Action involve multiple 

stressors; therefore, it is likely that if a fish were within the potential impact range of those activities, it 

may be impacted by multiple stressors simultaneously. This would be even more likely to occur during 

large-scale exercises or activities that span a period of days or weeks (such as a sinking exercises or 

composite training unit exercise).

A fish could also be exposed to a combination of stressors from multiple activities over the course of its 

life. This is most likely to occur in areas where training and testing activities are more concentrated (e.g., 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.6-183

3.6 Fishes

near naval ports, testing ranges, and routine activity locations and in areas that individual fish frequent 

because it is within the animal's home range, migratory corridor, spawning or feeding area. Except for in 

the few concentration areas mentioned above, combinations are unlikely to occur because training and 

testing activities are generally separated in space and time in such a way that it would be very unlikely 

that any individual fish would be exposed to stressors from multiple activities. However, animals with a 

home range intersecting an area of concentrated Navy activity have elevated exposure risks relative to 

animals that simply transit the area through a migratory corridor. 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 (on the order of a few hours or less). 

Multiple stressors may also have synergistic effects. For example, fishes that experience temporary 

hearing loss or injury from acoustic stressors could be more susceptible to physical strike and 

disturbance stressors via a decreased ability to detect and avoid threats. Fishes that experience 

behavioral and physiological consequences of ingestion stressors could be more susceptible to 

entanglement and physical strike stressors via malnourishment and disorientation. These interactions 

are speculative, and without data on the combination of multiple Navy stressors, the synergistic impacts 

from the combination of Navy stressors are difficult to predict in any meaningful way. Navy research and 

monitoring efforts include 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. These efforts are intended to 

contribute to the overall understanding of what impacts may be occurring overall to animals in 

these areas.

The combined impacts under Alternative 1 of all stressors would not be expected to impact fish 

populations because (1) activities involving more than one stressor are generally short in duration, and 

(2) such activities are dispersed throughout the Study Area. Existing conditions would not change

considerably, therefore, no impacts on fish populations would occur with the implementation of 

Alternative 1.

3.6.4.2 Combined Impacts of All Stressors under Alternative 2

The combined impacts under Alternative 2 of all stressors would not be expected to impact fish 

populations because (1) activities involving more than one stressor are generally short in duration, and 

(2) such activities are dispersed throughout the Study Area. Existing conditions would not change

considerably, therefore, no impacts on fish populations would occur after the implementation of 

Alternative 2.

3.6.4.3 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 AFTT Study Area. The combined impacts of all stressors for fishes 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 and no impacts on fish population would occur.

3.6.5 ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT DETERMINATIONS

Pursuant to the ESA, the Navy has concluded training and testing activities may affect the Atlantic 

salmon, Atlantic sturgeon, giant manta ray, gulf sturgeon, Nassau grouper, oceanic whitetip shark, 

scalloped hammerhead shark, shortnose sturgeon, and smalltooth sawfish. The Navy has also concluded 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.6-184

3.6 Fishes

that training and testing activities may affect designated critical habitat for the Atlantic sturgeon and 

gulf sturgeon; and have no effect on designated critical habitat for the Atlantic salmon and smalltooth 

sawfish. The Navy has consulted with NMFS as required by section 7(a)(2) of the ESA in that regard. The 

Navy’s summary of effects determinations for each ESA-listed species is shown in Table 3.6-18. Where 

the effects determinations reached by NMFS in their Biological Opinion differed from the Navy’s, those 

differences are noted in a footnote to Table 3.6-18. NMFS determinations are made on the overall 

Proposed Action and are not separated by training and testing activities.
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS V3 September 2018

3.6-185

3.6 Fishes

Table 3.6-18: Fishes Effect Determinations for Training and Testing Activities under Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative)

Species Designation Unit

Effect Determinations by Stressor

Acoustic Explosives Energy Physical Disturbance and Strike Entanglement Ingestion

Sonar and Other TransducersAir GunsPile DrivingVessel NoiseAircraft NoiseWeapons NoiseExplosivesIn-water Electromagnetic DevicesHigh-energy LasersVessels In-water DevicesMilitary Expended MaterialsSeafloor DevicesWires and CablesDecelerators/ParachutesBiodegradable PolymerMilitary Expended Materials - MunitionsMilitary Expended Materials - Other Than Munitions

Training Activities

Atlantic salmon

Gulf of Maine DPS NLAA N/A NE NLAA NLAA NLAA LAA NE NE NLAA NLAA NLAA NE NLAA NLAA N/A NLAA NLAA

Critical habitat NE N/A NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE N/A NE NE

Atlantic sturgeon

Gulf of Maine DPS NLAA N/A NLAA2 NLAA NLAA NLAA LAA NLAA NE1 NLAA NLAA NLAA NLAA NLAA LAA1 N/A NLAA NLAA

New York Bight DPS NLAA N/A NLAA2 NLAA NLAA NLAA LAA NLAA NE1 NLAA NLAA NLAA NLAA NLAA LAA1 N/A NLAA NLAA

Chesapeake Bay DPS NLAA N/A NLAA2 NLAA NLAA NLAA LAA NLAA NE1 LAA LAA NLAA NLAA NLAA LAA1 N/A LAA1 LAA1

Carolina DPS NLAA N/A NLAA2 NLAA NLAA NLAA LAA NLAA NE1 LAA LAA NLAA NLAA NLAA LAA1 N/A LAA1 LAA1

South Atlantic DPS NLAA N/A NLAA2 NLAA NLAA NLAA LAA NLAA NE1 NLAA NLAA NLAA NLAA NLAA LAA1 N/A NLAA NLAA

Critical habitat NE1 N/A NE NE1 NE NE NE NE NE NE1 NE1 NE1 NLAA NE NE N/A NE NE

Giant manta ray Throughout range NLAA N/A NLAA NLAA NLAA NLAA LAA NLAA NLAA NLAA NLAA NLAA NLAA NLAA LAA1 N/A NLAA NLAA

Gulf sturgeon

Throughout range NLAA N/A NE NLAA NLAA NLAA LAA NLAA NE LAA LAA1 NLAA NLAA NLAA NLAA N/A NLAA NLAA

Critical habitat NE N/A NE NE NE NE NLAA NE NE NE NE NE NLAA NE NE N/A NE NE
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS V3 September 2018

3.6-186

3.6 Fishes

Table 3.6-18. Fishes Effect Determinations for Training and Testing Activities under Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative) (continued)

Species Designation Unit

Effect Determinations by Stressor

Acoustic Explosives Energy Physical Disturbance and Strike Entanglement Ingestion

Sonar and Other TransducersAir GunsPile DrivingVessel NoiseAircraft NoiseWeapons NoiseExplosivesIn-water Electromagnetic DevicesHigh-energy LasersVessels In-water DevicesMilitary Expended MaterialsSeafloor DevicesWires and CablesDecelerators/ParachutesBiodegradable PolymerMilitary Expended Materials - MunitionsMilitary Expended Materials - Other Than Munitions

Training Activities (continued)

Nassau grouper Throughout range NLAA N/A NE NLAA NE1 NE1 NLAA NE NE NE1 NE1 NLAA NLAA NE NLAA N/A NLAA NLAA

Oceanic whitetip shark Throughout range NLAA N/A NE NLAA NLAA NLAA LAA NLAA NLAA NLAA NLAA NLAA NLAA NLAA NLAA N/A NLAA NLAA

Scalloped hammerhead 

shark

Central and Southwest 

Atlantic DPS NLAA N/A NE NLAA NLAA NLAA LAA NE NE NLAA NLAA NLAA NLAA NE NLAA N/A NLAA NLAA

Shortnose sturgeon Throughout range NLAA N/A NLAA NLAA NLAA NE1 NLAA NLAA NE1 NLAA NLAA NLAA NLAA NLAA NLAA N/A LAA1 LAA1

Smalltooth sawfish

U.S. DPS NLAA N/A NE NLAA NLAA NE1 LAA NLAA NE1 NE NE1 NLAA NLAA NLAA NLAA N/A NLAA NLAA

Critical habitat NE N/A NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE N/A NE NE

Testing Activities

Atlantic salmon

Gulf of Maine DPS NLAA NLAA N/A NLAA NLAA NLAA LAA NE NLAA NLAA NLAA NLAA NLAA NLAA NLAA NE

1 NLAA NLAA

Critical habitat NE NE N/A NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS V3 September 2018

3.6-187

3.6 Fishes

Table 3.6-18. Fishes Effect Determinations for Training and Testing Activities under Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative) (continued)

Species Designation Unit

Effect Determinations by Stressor

Acoustic Explosives Energy Physical Disturbance and Strike Entanglement Ingestion

Sonar and Other TransducersAir GunsPile DrivingVessel NoiseAircraft NoiseWeapons NoiseExplosivesIn-water Electromagnetic DevicesHigh-energy LasersVessels In-water DevicesMilitary Expended MaterialsSeafloor DevicesWires and CablesDecelerators/ParachutesBiodegradable PolymerMilitary Expended Materials - MunitionsMilitary Expended Materials - Other Than Munitions

Testing Activities (continued)

Atlantic sturgeon

Gulf of Maine DPS NLAA NLAA N/A NLAA NLAA NLAA LAA NLAA NE1 NLAA NLAA NLAA NLAA NLAA LAA1 NLAA NLAA NLAA

New York Bight DPS NLAA NLAA N/A NLAA NLAA NLAA LAA NLAA NE1 NLAA NLAA NLAA NLAA NLAA LAA1 NLAA NLAA NLAA

Chesapeake Bay DPS NLAA NLAA N/A NLAA NLAA NLAA LAA NLAA NE1 NLAA NLAA NLAA NLAA NLAA LAA1 NLAA NLAA NLAA

Carolina DPS NLAA NLAA N/A NLAA NLAA NLAA LAA NLAA NE1 NLAA NLAA NLAA NLAA NLAA LAA1 NLAA NLAA NLAA

South Atlantic DPS NLAA NLAA N/A NLAA NLAA NLAA LAA NLAA NE1 NLAA NLAA NLAA NLAA NLAA LAA1 NLAA NLAA NLAA

Critical habitat NE1 NE N/A NE1 NE NE NE NE NE NE1 NE1 NE1 NE1 NE NE NE NE NE

Giant manta ray Throughout range NLAA NLAA N/A NLAA NLAA NLAA LAA NLAA NLAA NLAA NE NLAA NLAA NLAA LAA1 NLAA NLAA NLAA

Gulf sturgeon

Throughout range NLAA NLAA N/A NLAA NLAA NLAA LAA NLAA NE1 NLAA NLAA NLAA NLAA NLAA NLAA NLAA NLAA NLAA

Critical habitat NE NE N/A NE NE NE NLAA NE NE NE NE NE NLAA NE NE NE NE NE

Nassau grouper Throughout range NLAA NE N/A NLAA NE1 NE1 NLAA NLAA NE1 NE1 NE1 NLAA NLAA NE NLAA NLAA NLAA NLAA
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS V3 September 2018

3.6-188

3.6 Fishes

Table 3.6-18. Fishes Effect Determinations for Training and Testing Activities under Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative) (continued)

Species Designation Unit

Effect Determinations by Stressor

Acoustic Explosives Energy Physical Disturbance and Strike Entanglement Ingestion

Sonar and Other TransducersAir GunsPile DrivingVessel NoiseAircraft NoiseWeapons NoiseExplosivesIn-water Electromagnetic DevicesHigh-energy LasersVessels In-water DevicesMilitary Expended MaterialsSeafloor DevicesWires and CablesDecelerators/ParachutesBiodegradable PolymerMilitary Expended Materials - MunitionsMilitary Expended Materials - Other Than Munitions

Testing Activities (continued)

Oceanic whitetip shark Throughout range NLAA NLAA N/A NLAA NLAA NLAA LAA NLAA NLAA NLAA NLAA NLAA NLAA NLAA NLAA NLAA NLAA NLAA

Scalloped hammerhead 

shark

Central and Southwest 

Atlantic DPS NLAA NE N/A NLAA NLAA NLAA LAA NE NLAA NLAA NLAA NLAA NLAA NLAA NLAA NLAA NLAA NLAA

Shortnose sturgeon Throughout range NLAA NLAA N/A NLAA NLAA NE1 NLAA NLAA NE1 NLAA NLAA NLAA NLAA NLAA NLAA NLAA NLAA NLAA

Smalltooth sawfish

U.S. DPS NLAA NLAA N/A NLAA NLAA NE1 LAA NLAA NE1 NE NE1 NLAA NLAA NLAA NLAA NLAA NLAA NLAA

Critical habitat NE NE N/A NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE

Note: DPS= Distinct Population Segment; NE = no effect; NLAA = may effect, not likely to adversely affect; LAA = may effect, likely to adversely affect; N/A = not applicable, activity related to the stressor does not occur during specified training or testing events (e.g., there are no testing activities that involve the use of pile driving).

1 Based on the analysis conducted in the Biological Opinion, NMFS reached the determination of NLAA.

2 Based on the analysis conducted in the Biological Opinion, NMFS reached the determination of LAA.
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.6-189

3.6 References

References

Able, K. W., and M. P. Fahay. (1998). The First Year in the Life of Estuarine Fishes in the Middle Atlantic 

Bight. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

Aguilar-Perera, A. (2006). Disappearance of a Nassau grouper spawning aggregation off the southern 

Mexican Caribbean coast. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 327, 289–296. 

Ahrens, R. N. M., and W. E. Pine. (2014). Informing recovery goals based on historical population size 

and extant habitat: A case study of the Gulf sturgeon. Marine and Coastal Fisheries, 6(1), 274–

286. 

Allen, M. J. (2006). Pollution. In L. G. Allen, D. J. Pondella, II, & M. H. Horn (Eds.), The Ecology of Marine 

Fishes: California and Adjacent Waters (pp. 595–610). Berkeley, CA: University of California 

Press.

Anderson, D. M., P. M. Glibert, and J. M. Burkholder. (2002). Harmful algal blooms and eutrophication: 

Nutrient sources, composition, and consequences. Estuaries, 25(4, Part B), 704–726. 

Aquarone, M. C. (2009). XV-51 Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf TAG: LME #6 (The UNEP Large Marine 

Ecosystem Report: A Perspective on Changing Conditions in LMEs of the World’s Regional Seas). 

Nairobi, Kenya: United Nations Environmental Programme.

Aquarone, M. C., and S. Adams. (2009). XIX-59 Newfoundland-Labrador Shelf (The UNEP Large Marine 

Ecosystem Report: A Perspective on Changing Conditions in LMEs of the World's Regional Seas). 

Nairobi, Kenya: United Nations Environmental Programme.

Archer, S. K., S. A. Heppell, B. X. Semmens, C. V. Pattengill-Semmens, P. G. Bush, C. M. McCoy, and B. C. 

Johnson. (2012). Patterns of color phase indicate spawn timing at a Nassau grouper, Epinephelus 

striatus spawning aggregation. Current Zoology, 58, 73–83. 

Arfsten, D. P., C. L. Wilson, and B. J. Spargo. (2002). Radio frequency chaff: The effects of its use in 

training on the environment. Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety, 53, 1–11. 

Armstrong, J. D., D.-C. Hunter, R. J. Fryer, P. Rycroft, and J. E. Orpwood. (2015). Behavioural responses of 

Atlantic salmon to mains frequency magnetic fields. Scottish Marine and Freshwater Science, 6, 

1–17. 

Armstrong, J. L., and J. E. Hightower. (2002). Potential for restoration of the Roanoke River population of 

Atlantic sturgeon. Journal of Applied Ichthyology, 18(4-6), 475–480. 

Astrup, J. (1999). Ultrasound detection in fish—a parallel to the sonar-mediated detection of bats by 

ultrasound-sensitive insects? Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology, Part A, 124, 19–27. 

Atlantic Sturgeon Status Review Team. (2007). Status Review of Atlantic Sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus 

oxyrinchus). Gloucester, MA: National Marine Fisheries Service, Northeast Regional Office.

Bain, M. B. (1997). Atlantic and shortnose sturgeons of the Hudson River: common and divergent life 

history attributes. Environmental Biology of Fishes, 48, 347–358. 

Bain, M. B., N. Haley, D. L. Peterson, K. K. Arend, K. E. Mills, and P. J. Sullivan. (2007). Recovery of a U.S. 

endangered fish. PLoS ONE, 2(1), 1–9. 

Balazik, M. T. (2012). Life History Analysis of James River Atlantic Sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus 

oxyrinchus) with Implications for Management and Recovery of the Species. Virginia 

Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA.
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.6-190

3.6 References

Balazik, M. T., K. J. Reine, A. J. Spells, C. A. Fredrickson, M. L. Fine, G. C. Garman, and S. P. McIninch. 

(2012). The potential for vessel interactions with adult Atlantic sturgeon in the James River, 

Virginia. North American Journal of Fisheries Management, 32(6), 1062–1069. 

Balazik, M. T., and J. A. Musick. (2015). Dual annual spawning races in Atlantic sturgeon. PLoS ONE, 

10(5), e0128234. 

Baum, E. (1997). Maine Atlantic Salmon: A National Treasure. Hermon, ME: Atlantic Salmon Unlimited.

Baum, J., E. Medina, J. A. Musick, and M. Smale. (2015). Carcharhinus longimanus. The International 

Union for Conservation of Nature Red List of Threatened Species 2015: e.T39374A85699641. 

Retrieved from http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/39374/0.

Baum, J. K., R. A. Myers, D. G. Kehler, B. Worm, S. J. Harley, and P. A. Doherty. (2003). Collapse and 

conservation of shark populations in the northwest Atlantic. Science, 299(5605), 389–392. 

Beck, M. W., and M. Odaya. (2001). Ecoregional planning in marine environments: Identifying priority 

sites for conservation in the northern Gulf of Mexico. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and 

Freshwater Ecosystems, 11(4), 235–242.

Beets, J., and M. A. Hixon. (1994). Distribution, persistence, and growth of groupers (Pisces: Serranidae) 

on artificial and natural patch reefs in the Virgin Islands. Bulletin of Marine Science, 55(2–3), 

470–483. 

Bergstad, O. A., T. Falkenhaug, O. S. Astthorsson, I. Byrkjedal, A. V. Gebruk, U. Piatkowski, I. G. Priede, R. 

S. Santos, M. Vecchione, P. Lorance, and J. D. M. Gordon. (2008). Towards improved 

understanding of the diversity and abundance patterns of the mid-ocean ridge macro- and 

megafauna. Deep-Sea Research II, 55(1–2), 1–5. 

Bermudez, J. R., U. Riebesell, A. Larsen, and M. Winder. (2016). Ocean acidification reduces transfer of 

essential biomolecules in a natural plankton community. Scientific Reports, 6, 1–8. 

Bernard, A. M., K. A. Feldheim, V. P. Richards, R. S. Nemeth, and M. S. Shivji. (2012). Development and 

characterization of fifteen novel microsatellite loci for the Nassau grouper (Epinephelus striatus) 

and their utility for cross-amplification on a suite of closely related species. Conservation 

Genetics Resources, 4(4), 983–986. 

Bester, C. (1999). Biological profiles: Scalloped hammerhead. Retrieved from 

https://www.floridamuseum.ufl.edu/fish/discover/species-profiles/sphyrna-lewini/.

Bester, C. (2012). Biological profiles: Nassau grouper. Retrieved from 

http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/fish/Gallery/Descript/Nassaugrouper/Nassaugrouper.html.

Bignami, S., S. Sponaugle, and R. K. Cowen. (2013). Response to ocean acidification in larvae of a large 

tropical marine fish, Rachycentron canadum. Global Change Biology, 19(4), 996–1006. 

Bleckmann, H., and R. Zelick. (2009). Lateral line system of fish. Integrative Zoology, 4(1), 13–25. 

Boehlert, G. W., and A. B. Gill. (2010). Environmental and ecological effects of ocean renewable energy 

development: A current synthesis. Oceanography, 23(2), 68–81. 

Boerger, C. M., G. L. Lattin, S. L. Moore, and C. J. Moore. (2010). Plastic ingestion by planktivorous fishes 

in the North Pacific Central Gyre. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 60(12), 2275–2278. 

Booman, C., H. Dalen, H. Heivestad, A. Levesen, T. van der Meeren, and K. Toklum. (1996). (Seismic-fish) 

Effekter av luftkanonskyting pa egg, larver og ynell. Havforskningsinstituttet. 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.6-191

3.6 References

Botsford, L. W., D. R. Brumbaugh, C. Grimes, J. B. Kellner, J. Largier, M. R. O'Farrell, S. Ralston, E. 

Soulanille, and V. Wespestad. (2009). Connectivity, sustainability, and yield: Bridging the gap 

between conventional fisheries management and marine protected areas. Reviews in Fish 

Biology and Fisheries, 19(1), 69–95. 

Bouyoucos, I., P. Bushnell, and R. Brill. (2014). Potential for electropositive metal to reduce the 

interactions of Atlantic sturgeon with fishing gear. Conservation Biology, 28(1), 278–282. 

Bracciali, C., D. Campobello, C. Giacoma, and G. Sara. (2012). Effects of nautical traffic and noise on 

foraging patterns of Mediterranean damselfish (Chromis chromis). PLoS ONE, 7(7), e40582. 

Brander, K. (2010). Impacts of climate change on fisheries. Journal of Marine Systems, 79(3–4), 389–402. 

Brander, K. M. (2007). Global fish production and climate change. Proceedings of the National Academy 

of Sciences of the United States of America, 104(50), 19709–19714. 

Branstetter, S. (2002). Hammerhead sharks. Family Sphyrnidae. In B. B. Collette & G. Klein-MacPhee 

(Eds.), Bigelow and Schroeder's Fishes of the Gulf of Maine (3rd ed., pp. 45–47). Washington, DC: 

Smithsonian Institution Press.

Braun, C. D., G. B. Skomal, S. R. Thorrold, and M. L. Berumen. (2015). Movements of the reef manta ray 

(Manta alfredi) in the Red Sea using satellite and acoustic telemetry. Marine Biology, 162, 2351–

2362. 

Breece, M. W., M. J. Oliver, M. A. Cimino, and D. A. Fox. (2013). Shifting distributions of adult Atlantic 

sturgeon amidst post-industrialization and future impacts in the Delaware River: a maximum 

entropy approach. PLoS ONE, 8(11), e81321. 

Breece, M. W., D. A. Fox, K. J. Dunton, M. G. Frisk, A. Jordaan, M. J. Oliver, and C. Kurle. (2016). Dynamic 

seascapes predict the marine occurrence of an endangered species: Atlantic Sturgeon Acipenser 

oxyrinchus oxyrinchus. Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 7(6), 725–733. 

Brehmer, P., F. Gerlotto, C. Laurent, P. Cotel, A. Achury, and B. Samb. (2007). Schooling behaviour of 

small pelagic fish: phenotypic expression of independent stimuli. Marine Ecology Progress 

Series, 334, 263–272. 

Briggs, C., S. M. Shjegstad, J. A. K. Silva, and M. H. Edwards. (2016). Distribution of chemical warfare 

agent, energetics, and metals in sediments at a deep-water discarded military munitions site. 

Deep Sea Research Part II: Topical Studies in Oceanography, 128, 63–69. 

Brown, J. J., and G. W. Murphy. (2010). Atlantic sturgeon vessel-strike mortalities in the Delaware 

estuary. Fisheries, 35(2), 72–83. 

Bruckner, A. W. (2005). The importance of the marine ornamental reef fish trade in the wider Caribbean. 

Revista de Biología Tropical, 53, 127–137. 

Bruintjes, R., J. Purser, K. A. Everley, S. Mangan, S. D. Simpson, and A. N. Radford. (2016). Rapid recovery 

following short–term acoustic disturbance in two fish species. Royal Society - Open Science, 3(1), 

150686. 

Buerkle, U. (1968). Relation of pure tone thresholds to background noise level in the Atlantic cod (Gadus 

morhua). Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada, 25, 1155–1160. 

Buerkle, U. (1969). Auditory masking and the critical band in Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua). Journal of the 

Fisheries Research Board of Canada, 26, 1113–1119. 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.6-192

3.6 References

Bullock, T. H., D. A. Bodznick, and R. G. Northcutt. (1983). The phylogenetic distribution of 

electroreception—evidence for convergent evolution of a primitive vertebrate sense modality. 

Brain Research Reviews, 6(1), 25–46. 

Buran, B. N., X. Deng, and A. N. Popper. (2005). Structural variation in the inner ears of four deep-sea 

elopomorph fishes. Journal of Morphology, 265, 215–225. 

Bureau of Ocean Energy Management. (2011). Effects of EMFs from Undersea Power Cables on 

Elasmobranchs and Other Marine Species. Camarillo, CA: U.S. Department of the Interior, 

Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement, Pacific OCS Region.

California Department of Transportation. (2001). Pile Installation Demonstration Project Marine 

Mammal Impact Assessment (San Francisco - Oakland Bay Bridge East Span Seismic Safety 

Project). San Francisco, CA: Strategic Environmental, Inc. and Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc.

Cao, L., S. Wang, M. Zheng, and H. Zhang. (2014). Sensitivity of ocean acidification and oxygen to the 

uncertainty in climate change. Environmental Research Letters, 9(2014), 1–10. 

Carlson, J. K., J. Osborne, and T. W. Schmidt. (2007a). Monitoring the recovery of smalltooth sawfish, 

Pristis pectinata, using standardized relative indices of abundance. Biological Conservation, 

136(2), 195–202. 

Carlson, T., M. Hastings, and A. N. Popper. (2007b). Memorandum: Update on Recommendations for 

Revised Interim Sound Exposure Criteria for Fish during Pile Driving Activities (Arlington Memo 

Update 12-21-07). Sacramento, CA: California Department of Transportation.

Carr, S. H., T. Carr, and F. A. Chapman. (1996). First observations of young-of-year Gulf of Mexico 

sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus de sotoi) in the Suwannee River, Florida. Gulf of Mexico Science, 

141, 44–46. 

Casper, B., P. Lobel, and H. Yan. (2003). The hearing sensitivity of the little skate, Raja erinacea: A 

comparison of two methods. Environmental Biology of Fishes, 68, 371–379. 

Casper, B., and D. Mann. (2006). Evoked potential audiograms of the nurse shark (Ginglymostoma 

cirratum) and the yellow stingray (Urabatis jamaicensis). Environmental Biology of Fishes, 76(1), 

101–108. 

Casper, B. M., and D. A. Mann. (2009). Field hearing measurements of the Atlantic sharpnose shark, 

Rhizoprionodon terraenovae. Journal of Fish Biology, 75(10), 2768–2776. 

Casper, B. M., M. B. Halvorsen, and A. N. Popper. (2012a). Are Sharks Even Bothered by a Noisy 

Environment? In A. N. Popper & A. D. Hawkins (Eds.), The Effects of Noise on Aquatic Life II (Vol. 

730). New York, NY: Springer.

Casper, B. M., A. N. Popper, F. Matthews, T. J. Carlson, and M. B. Halvorsen. (2012b). Recovery of 

barotrauma injuries in Chinook salmon, Oncorhynchus tshawytscha from exposure to pile 

driving sound. PLoS ONE, 7(6), e39593. 

Casper, B. M., M. B. Halvorsen, F. Matthews, T. J. Carlson, and A. N. Popper. (2013a). Recovery of 

barotrauma injuries resulting from exposure to pile driving sound in two sizes of hybrid striped 

bass. PLoS ONE, 8(9), e73844. 

Casper, B. M., M. E. Smith, M. B. Halvorsen, H. Sun, T. J. Carlson, and A. N. Popper. (2013b). Effects of 

exposure to pile driving sounds on fish inner ear tissues. Comparative Biochemistry and 

Physiology, Part A, 166(2), 352–360. 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.6-193

3.6 References

Casper, B. M., M. B. Halvorsen, T. J. Carlson, and A. N. Popper. (2017). Onset of barotrauma injuries 

related to number of pile driving strike exposures in hybrid striped bass. The Journal of the 

Acoustical Society of America, 141(6), 4380. 

Castro, J. I. (1983). The Sharks of North American Waters. College Station, TX: Texas A&M University 

Press.

Catano, L. B., B. K. Gunn, M. C. Kelley, and D. E. Burkepile. (2015). Predation risk, resource quality, and 

reef structural complexity shape territoriality in a coral reef herbivore. PLoS ONE, 10(2), 

e0118764. 

Center for Biological Diversity. (2011). Petition to List the Dwarf Seahorse (Hippocampus zosterae) As 

Endangered under the United States Endangered Species Act. San Francisco, CA: Center for 

Biological Diversity.

Chapman, C. J., and A. D. Hawkins. (1973). Field study of hearing in cod, Gadus morhua L. Journal of 

Comparative Physiology, 85(2), 147–167. 

Chapman, F. A., and S. H. Carr. (1995). Implications of early life stages in the natural history of the Gulf 

of Mexico sturgeon, Acipenser oxyrinchus de sotoi. Environmental Biology of Fishes, 43, 407–

413. 

Chaput, G. (2012). Overview of the status of Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) in the North Atlantic and 

trends in marine mortality. ICES Journal of Marine Science: Journal du Conseil, 69(9), 1538–1548. 

Cheung, W. W. L., R. Watson, T. Morato, T. J. Pitcher, and D. Pauly. (2007). Intrinsic vulnerability in the 

global fish catch. Marine Ecology-Progress Series, 333, 1–12. 

Choy, C. A., and J. C. Drazen. (2013). Plastic for dinner? Observations of frequent debris ingestion by 

pelagic predatory fishes from the central North Pacific. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 485, 

155–163. 

Codarin, A., L. E. Wysocki, F. Ladich, and M. Picciulin. (2009). Effects of ambient and boat noise on 

hearing and communication in three fish species living in a marine protected area (Miramare, 

Italy). Marine Pollution Bulletin, 58(12), 1880–1887. 

Cole, M., and T. S. Galloway. (2015). Ingestion of nanoplastics and microplastics by Pacific oyster larvae. 

Environmental Science & Technology, 49(24), 14625–14632. 

Colin, P. L. (1992). Reproduction of the Nassau grouper, Epinephelus striatus (Pisces: Serranidae) and its 

relationship to environmental conditions. Environmental Biology of Fishes, 34(4), 357–377. 

Collette, B. B., and G. Klein-MacPhee. (2002). Bigelow and Schroeder's fishes of the Gulf of Maine (3rd 

ed.). Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press.

Colleye, O., L. Kever, D. Lecchini, L. Berten, and E. Parmentier. (2016). Auditory evoked potential 

audiograms in post-settlement stage individuals of coral reef fishes. Journal of Experimental 

Marine Biology and Ecology, 483, 1–9. 

Collin, S. P., and D. Whitehead. (2004). The functional roles of passive electroreception in non-electric 

fishes. Animal Biology, 54(1), 1–25. 

Collins, M. R., S. G. Rogers, T. I. J. Smith, and M. L. Moser. (2000). Primary factors affecting sturgeon 

populations in the southeastern United States: Fishing mortality and degradation of essential 

habitats. Bulletin of Marine Science, 66(3), 917–928. 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.6-194

3.6 References

Compagno, L. J. V. (1984). FAO species catalogue. Sharks of the world. An annotated and illustrated 

catalogue of shark species known to date. Part 2. Carcharhiniformes (FAO Fisheries Synopsis No. 

125). Tiburon, CA: San Francisco State University.

Compagno, L. J. V., and P. R. Last. (1984). Pristiformes: Pristidae Order Pristiformes. Sharks of the World 

– An Annotated and Illustrated Catalogue of Shark Species Known to Date (Vol. 4 – Part 1 -

Hexanchiformes to Lamniformes). Rome, Italy: Food and Agricultural Organization.

Coombs, S., and J. C. Montgomery. (1999). The Enigmatic Lateral Line System. In R. R. Fay & A. N. Popper 

(Eds.), Comparative Hearing: Fish and Amphibians (pp. 319–362). New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.

Corcoran, A., M. Dornback, B. Kirkpatrick, and A. Jochens. (2013). A Primer on Gulf of Mexico Harmful 

Algal Blooms. College Station, TX: Gulf of Mexico Alliance and the Gulf of Mexico Coastal Ocean 

Observing System.

Corning Incorporated. (2005). Corning SMF-28e Optical Fiber Product Information. Corning, NY: Corning 

Incorporated.

Cornish, A., and A. M. Eklund. (2003). Epinephelus striatus. IUCN 2012 Red List of Threatened Species. 

Version 2012.1. Retrieved from http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/full/7862/0.

Couturier, L. I. E., A. D. Marshall, F. R. A. Jaine, T. Kashiwagi, S. J. Pierce, K. A. Townsend, S. J. Weeks, M. 

B. Bennett, and A. J. Richardson. (2012). Biology, ecology and conservation of the Mobulidae. 

Journal of Fish Biology, 80, 1075–1119. 

Cox, B. S., A. M. Dux, M. C. Quist, and C. S. Guy. (2012). Use of a seismic air gun to reduce survival of 

nonnative lake trout embryos: a tool for conservation? North American Journal of Fisheries 

Management, 32(2), 292–298. 

Craft, N. M., B. Russell, and S. Travis. (2001). Identification of Gulf Sturgeon Spawning Habitats and 

Migratory Patterns in the Yellow and Escambia River Systems. Tallahassee, FL: Florida Marine 

Research Institute, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission.

Crain, C. M., B. S. Halpern, M. W. Beck, and C. V. Kappel. (2009). Understanding and Managing Human 

Threats to the Coastal Marine Environment. In R. S. Ostfeld & W. H. Schlesinger (Eds.), The Year 

in Ecology and Conservation Biology, 2009 (pp. 39–62). Oxford, United Kingdom: Blackwell 

Publishing.

Crozier, W. W., P. J. Schön, G. Chaput, E. C. E. Potter, N. Ó. Maoiléidigh, and J. C. MacLean. (2004). 

Managing Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar L.) in the mixed stock environment: Challenges and 

considerations. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 61, 1344–1358. 

Curtis, J. M. R., and A. C. J. Vincent. (2006). Life history of an unusual marine fish: Survival, growth and 

movement patterns of Hippocampus guttulatus Cuvier 1829. Journal of Fish Biology, 68(3), 707–

733. 

Dadswell, M. J., B. D. Taubert, T. S. Squiers, D. Marchette, and J. Buckley. (1984). Synopsis of biological 

data on shortnose sturgeon, Acipenser brevirostrum LeSueur 1818 (FAO Fisheries Synopsis No. 

140). Silver Spring, MD: U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration, and National Marine Fisheries Service.

Dadswell, M. J. (2006). A review of the status of Atlantic sturgeon in Canada, with comparisons to 

populations in the United States and Europe. Fisheries, 31(5), 218–229. 

Dahl, P. H., C. A. de Jong, and A. N. Popper. (2015). The underwater sound field from impact pile driving 

and its potential effects on marine life. Acoustics Today, 11(2), 18–25. 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.6-195

3.6 References

Daly-Engel, T. S., K. D. Seraphin, K. N. Holland, J. P. Coffey, H. A. Nance, R. J. Toonen, and B. W. Bowen. 

(2012). Global phylogeography with mixed-marker analysis reveals male-mediated dispersal in 

the endangered scalloped hammerhead shark (Sphyrna lewini). PLoS ONE, 7(1), e29986. 

Danner, G. R., J. Chacko, and F. Brautigam. (2009). Voluntary ingestion of soft plastic fishing lures affects 

brook trout growth in the laboratory. North American Journal of Fisheries Management, 29(2), 

352–360. 

Dantas, D. V., M. Barletta, and M. F. da Costa. (2012). The seasonal and spatial patterns of ingestion of 

polyfilament nylon fragments by estuarine drums (Sciaenidae). Environmental Science and 

Pollution Research, 19(2), 600–606. 

Davison, P., and R. G. Asch. (2011). Plastic ingestion by mesopelagic fishes in the North Pacific 

Subtropical Gyre. Marine Ecological Progress Series, 432, 173–180. 

De Robertis, A., and N. O. Handegard. (2013). Fish avoidance of research vessels and the efficacy of 

noise-reduced vessels: A review. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 70(1), 34–45. 

Deakos, M. H., J. D. Baker, and L. Bejder. (2011). Characteristics of a manta ray Manta alfredi population 

off Maui, Hawaii, and implications for management. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 429, 245–

260. 

Debusschere, E., B. De Coensel, A. Bajek, D. Botteldooren, K. Hostens, J. Vanaverbeke, S. 

Vandendriessche, K. Van Ginderdeuren, M. Vincx, and S. Degraer. (2014). In situ mortality 

experiments with juvenile sea bass (Dicentrarchus labrax) in relation to impulsive sound levels 

caused by pile driving of windmill foundations. PLoS ONE, 9(10), e109280. 

Defenders of Wildlife. (2015a). A Petition to List the Oceanic Whitetip Shark (Carcharhinus longimanus) 

as an Endangered, or Alternatively as a Threatened, Species Pursuant to the Endangered Species 

Act and for the Concurrent Designation of Critical Habitat. Denver, CO: Defenders of Wildlife.

Defenders of Wildlife. (2015b). A Petition to List the Giant Manta Ray (Manta birostris), Reef Manta Ray 

(Manta alfredi), and Caribbean Manta Ray (Manta c.f. birostris) as Endangered, or Alternatively 

as Threatened, Species Pursuant to the Endangered Species Act and for the Concurrent 

Designation of Critical Habitat. Denver, CO: Defenders of Wildlife.

Dempster, T., and M. Taquet. (2004). Fish aggregation device (FAD) research: Gaps in current knowledge 

and future direction for ecological studies. Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries, 14(1), 21–42. 

Deng, X., H. J. Wagner, and A. N. Popper. (2011). The inner ear and its coupling to the swim bladder in 

the deep-sea fish Antimora rostrata (Teleostei: Moridae). Deep Sea Research Part 1, 

Oceanographic Research Papers, 58(1), 27–37. 

Deng, X., H. J. Wagner, and A. N. Popper. (2013). Interspecific variations of inner ear structure in the 

deep-sea fish family Melamphaidae. The Anatomical Record, 296(7), 1064–1082. 

Derraik, J. G. B. (2002). The pollution of the marine environment by plastic debris: A review. Marine 

Pollution Bulletin, 44, 842–852. 

Deslauriers, D., and J. D. Kieffer. (2012). The effects of temperature on swimming performance of 

juvenile shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum). Journal of Applied Ichthyology, 28(2), 

176–181. 

Doksaeter, L., O. R. Godo, N. O. Handegard, P. H. Kvadsheim, F. P. A. Lam, C. Donovan, and P. J. O. Miller. 

(2009). Behavioral responses of herring (Clupea harengus) to 1–2 and 6 –7 kHz sonar signals and 

killer whale feeding sounds. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 125(1), 554–564. 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.6-196

3.6 References

Doksaeter, L., N. O. Handegard, O. R. Godo, P. H. Kvadsheim, and N. Nordlund. (2012). Behavior of 

captive herring exposed to naval sonar transmissions (1.0–1.6 kHz) throughout a yearly cycle. 

The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 131(2), 1632–1642. 

Doropoulos, C., S. Ward, G. Diaz-Pulido, O. Hoegh-Guldberg, and P. J. Mumby. (2012). Ocean 

acidification reduces coral recruitment by disrupting intimate larval-algal settlement 

interactions. Ecology Letters, 15(4), 338–346. 

Drazen, J. C., and B. A. Seibel. (2007). Depth-related trends in metabolism of benthic and benthopelagic 

deep-sea fishes. Limnology and Oceanography, 52(5), 2306–2316. 

Dufour, F., H. Arrizabalaga, X. Irigoien, and J. Santiago. (2010). Climate impacts on albacore and bluefin 

tunas migrations phenology and spatial distribution. Progress In Oceanography, 86(1–2), 283–

290. 

Duncan, K. M., and K. N. Holland. (2006). Habitat use, growth rates and dispersal patterns of juvenile 

scalloped hammerhead sharks, Sphyrna lewini, in a nursery habitat. Marine Ecology Progress 

Series, 312, 211–221. 

Dutil, J. D., and J. M. Coutu. (1988). Early marine life of Atlantic salmon, Salmo salar, postsmolts in the 

Northern Gulf of St. Lawrence. Fishery Bulletin, 86(2), 197–212. 

Ebert, D. A., S. Fowler, and M. Dando. (2015). A Pocket Guide to Sharks of the World. Princeton, NJ and 

Oxford, United Kingdom: Princeton University Press.

Edds-Walton, P. L., and J. J. Finneran. (2006). Evaluation of Evidence for Altered Behavior and Auditory 

Deficits in Fishes Due to Human-Generated Noise Sources. (Technical Report 1939). San Diego, 

CA: SPAWAR Systems Center.

Edwards, M. H., S. M. Shjegstad, R. Wilkens, J. C. King, G. Carton, D. Bala, B. Bingham, M. C. Bissonnette, 

C. Briggs, N. S. Bruso, R. Camilli, M. Cremer, R. B. Davis, E. H. DeCarlo, C. DuVal, D. J. Fornari, I. 

Kaneakua-Pia, C. D. Kelley, S. Koide, C. L. Mah, T. Kerby, G. J. Kurras, M. R. Rognstad, L. Sheild, J. 

Silva, B. Wellington, and M. V. Woerkom. (2016). The Hawaii undersea military munitions 

assessment. Deep Sea Research Part II: Topical Studies in Oceanography, 128, 4–13. 

Edwards, R. E., K. J. Sulak, M. T. Randall, and C. B. Grimes. (2003). Movements of Gulf sturgeon 

(Acipenser oxyrinchus desotoi) in nearshore habitat as determined by acoustic telemetry. Gulf of 

Mexico Science, 21(1), 59–70. 

Ehrhardt, N. M., and V. K. W. Deleveaux. (2007). The Bahamas’ Nassau grouper (Epinephelus striatus) 

fishery – Two assessment methods applied to a data-deficient coastal population. Fisheries 

Research, 87(1), 17–27. 

Engås, A., O. A. Misund, A. V. Soldal, B. Horvei, and A. Solstad. (1995). Reactions of penned herring and 

cod to playback of original, frequency-filtered and time-smoothed vessel sound. Fisheries 

Research, 22(3), 243–254. 

Enger, P. S. (1981). Frequency Discrimination in Teleosts–Central or Peripheral? New York, NY: SpringerVerlag.

Environmental Sciences Group. (2005). Canadian Forces Maritime Experimental and Test Ranges: 

Environmental Assessment Update 2005. Kingston, Canada: Environmental Sciences Group, 

Royal Military College.

Eschmeyer, W. N., and J. D. Fong. (2016). Species by Family/Subfamily in the Catalog of Fishes. San 

Francisco, CA: California Academy of Sciences.
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.6-197

3.6 References

Eschmeyer, W. N., and J. D. Fong. (2017). Catalog of Fishes. San Francisco, CA: California Academy of 

Sciences. Retrieved from 

http://researcharchive.calacademy.org/research/ichthyology/catalog/SpeciesByFamily.asp.

Estrada, J. A., A. N. Rice, M. E. Lutcavage, and G. B. Skomal. (2003). Predicting trophic position in sharks 

of the north-west Atlantic ocean using stable isotope analysis. Journal of the Marine Biological 

Association of the United Kingdom, 83, 1347–1350. 

Fast, M. D., M. S. Sokolowski, K. J. Dunton, and P. R. Bowser. (2009). Dichelesthium oblongum

(Copepoda: Dichelesthiidae) infestation in wild-caught Atlantic sturgeon, Acipenser oxyrinchus 

oxyrinchus. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 66(10), 2141–2147. 

Faulkner, S. G., W. M. Tonn, M. Welz, and D. R. Schmitt. (2006). Effects of explosives on incubating lake 

trout eggs in the Canadian Arctic. North American Journal of Fisheries Management, 26(4), 833–

842. 

Faulkner, S. G., M. Welz, W. M. Tonn, and D. R. Schmitt. (2008). Effects of simulated blasting on 

mortality of rainbow trout eggs. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, 137(1), 1–12. 

Fay, C., M. Bartron, S. Craig, A. Hecht, J. Pruden, R. Saunders, T. Sheehan, and J. Trial. (2006). Status 

Review for Anadromous Atlantic Salmon (Salmo salar) in the United States. Washington, DC: 

National Marine Fisheries Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Feist, B. E., J. J. Anderson, and R. Miyamoto. (1992). Potential Impacts of Pile Driving on Juvenile Pink 

(Oncorhynchus gorbuscha) and Chum (O. keta) Salmon Behavior and Distribution. Seattle, WA: 

University of Washington.

Felix, A., M. E. Stevens, and R. L. Wallace. (1995). Unpalatability of a colonial rotifer, Sinantherina 

socialis, to small zooplanktivorous fishes. Invertebrate Biology, 114(2), 139–144. 

Felline, S., R. Caricato, A. Cutignano, S. Gorbi, M. G. Lionetto, E. Mollo, F. Regoli, and A. Terlizzi. (2012). 

Subtle effects of biological invasions: Cellular and physiological responses of fish eating the 

exotic pest Caulerpa racemosa. PLoS ONE, 7(6), e38763. 

Fewtrell, J. L., and R. D. McCauley. (2012). Impact of air gun noise on the behaviour of marine fish and 

squid. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 64(5), 984–993. 

Fields, R. D. (2007). The Shark's Electric Sense: An astonishingly sensitive detector of electric fields helps 

sharks zero in on prey. Scientific American, 297(2), 75–81. 

Filmalter, J. D., M. Capello, J.-L. Deneubourg, P. D. Cowley, and L. Dagorn. (2013). Looking behind the 

curtain: Quantifying massive shark mortality in fish aggregating devices. Frontiers in Ecology and 

the Environment, 11(6), 291–296. 

Fisheries and Oceans Canada. (2004). Cusk (Brosme brosme) (Species at Risk Act Legal Listing 

Consultation Workbook). Dartmouth, Canada: Fisheries and Oceans Canada.

Fisheries and Oceans Canada. (2011). Oil and Gas Activities in the Offshore. Dartmouth, Canada: 

Fisheries and Oceans Canada. Retrieved from http://www.mar.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/e0009687.

Fitch, J. E., and P. H. Young. (1948). Use and Effect of Explosives in California Coastal Waters. 

Sacramento, CA: California Division Fish and Game.

Fitzpatrick, J. L., J. K. Desjardins, K. A. Stiver, R. Montgomerie, and S. Balshine. (2006). Male reproductive 

suppression in the cooperatively breeding fish Neolamprologus pulcher. Behavioural Ecology, 

17, 25–33. 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.6-198

3.6 References

Florida Museum of Natural History. (2011). National Smalltooth Sawfish Encounter Database. Sarasota, 

FL: Florida Museum of Natural History, Ichthyology Department.

Florida Museum of Natural History. (2017a). Largetooth Sawfish, Pristis perotteti. Retrieved from 

http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/fish/discover/species-profiles/pristis-perotteti.

Florida Museum of Natural History. (2017b). Gulf Sturgeon, Acipenser oxyrinchus desotoi. Retrieved from 

https://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/fish/discover/species-profiles/acipenser-oxyrinchus-desotoi/.

Foderaro, L. W. (2015). Group Petitions to Save a Prehistoric Fish From Modern Construction. New York 

Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/22/nyregion/group-petitions-to-savea-prehistoric-fish-from-modern-construction.html?_r=0.

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. (2005). Review of the State of World Marine 

Fishery Resources. Rome, Italy: Food and Agriculture Organization Fisheries Department, Fishery 

Resources Division, Marine Resources Service.

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. (2009). The State of World Fisheries and 

Aquaculture. Rome, Italy: Food and Agriculture Organization Fisheries Department, Fishery 

Resources Division, Marine Resources Service.

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. (2012). Species Fact Sheets, Sphyrna lewini 

Retrieved from http://www.fao.org/fishery/species/2028/en.

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. (2013). Report of the Fourth FAO Expert 

Advisory Panel for the Assessment of Proposals to Amend Appendices I and II of CITES 

Concerning Commercially-Exploited Aquatic Species. Rome, Italy: Food and Agriculture 

Organization Fisheries Department, Fishery Resources Division, Marine Resources Service.

Foster, A. M., and J. P. Clugston. (1997). Seasonal migration of Gulf sturgeon in the Suwannee River, 

Florida. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, 126, 302–308. 

Foster, S. J., and A. C. J. Vincent. (2004). Life history and ecology of seahorses: Implications for 

conservation and management. Journal of Fish Biology, 65(1), 1–61. 

Fox, A. G., E. S. Stowe, and D. L. Peterson. (2016). Occurrence and Movements of Shortnose and Atlantic 

Sturgeon in the St. Johns River, Florida (Final Report to the United States Army Corps of 

Engineers and the United States Navy). Athens, GA: University of Georgia.

Fox, D. A., J. E. Hightower, and F. M. Parauka. (2000). Gulf sturgeon spawning migration and habitat in 

the Choctawhatchee River system, Alabama-Florida. Transactions of the American Fisheries 

Society, 129, 811–826. 

Fox, D. A., J. E. Hightower, and F. M. Parauka. (2002). Estuarine and nearshore marine habitat use by 

Gulf sturgeon from the Choctawhatchee River System, Florida. American Fisheries Society 

Symposium, 28, 111–126. 

Fraser, P. J. (1987). Atlantic salmon, Salmo salar L., feed in Scottish coastal waters. Aquaculture 

Research, 18(3), 243–247. 

Frisk, G. V. (2012). Noiseonomics: The relationship between ambient noise levels in the sea and global 

economic trends. Scientific Reports, 2(437). 

Froese, R., and D. Pauly. (2010). FishBase. Version (01/2010). Retrieved from www.fishbase.org.

Froese, R., and D. Pauly. (2016). FishBase. Version (01/2016). Retrieved from www.fishbase.org.
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.6-199

3.6 References

Gargan, P. G., G. Forde, N. Hazon, D. J. F. Russell, and C. D. Todd. (2012). Evidence for sea lice-induced 

marine mortality of Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) in western Ireland from experimental releases 

of ranched smolts treated with emamectin benzoate. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic 

Sciences, 69(2), 343–353. 

Gaspin, J. B. (1975). Experimental Investigations of the Effects of Underwater Explosions on Swimbladder 

Fish, I: 1973 Chesapeake Bay Tests. Silver Spring, MD: Naval Surface Weapons Center, White Oak 

Laboratory.

Gaspin, J. B., G. B. Peters, and M. L. Wisely. (1976). Experimental Investigations of the Effects of 

Underwater Explosions on Swimbladder Fish. Silver Spring, MD: Naval Ordnance Lab.

Germanov, E. S., and A. D. Marshall. (2014). Running the gauntlet: Regional movement patterns of 

Manta alfredi through a complex of parks and fisheries. PLoS ONE, 9(10), e110071. 

Gill, A. B. (2005). Offshore renewable energy: Ecological implications of generating electricity in the 

coastal zone. Journal of Applied Ecology, 42, 605–615. 

Gitschlag, G. R., M. J. Schirripa, and J. E. Powers. (2000). Estimation of Fisheries Impacts Due to 

Underwater Explosives Used to Sever and Salvage Oil and Gas Platforms in the U.S. Gulf of 

Mexico: Final Report. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior.

Goatley, C. H. R., and D. R. Bellwood. (2009). Morphological structure in a reef fish assemblage. Coral 

Reefs, 28(2), 449–457. 

Goertner, J. F. (1978). Dynamical Model for Explosion Injury to Fish. Dalgren, VA: U.S. Department of the 

Navy, Naval Surface Weapons Center.

Goertner, J. F., M. L. Wiley, G. A. Young, and W. W. McDonald. (1994). Effects of Underwater Explosions 

on Fish Without Swimbladders. Silver Spring, MD: Naval Surface Warfare Center.

Goetz, S., M. B. Santos, J. Vingada, D. C. Costas, A. G. Villanueva, and G. J. Pierce. (2015). Do pingers 

cause stress in fish? An experimental tank study with European sardine, Sardina pilchardus

(Walbaum, 1792) (Actinopterygii, Clupeidae), exposed to a 70 kHz dolphin pinger. Hydrobiologia, 

749(1), 83–96. 

Goncalves, R., M. Scholze, A. M. Ferreira, M. Martins, and A. D. Correia. (2008). The joint effect of 

polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons on fish behavior. Environmental Research, 108, 204–213. 

Gordon, J. D. M. (2001). Deep-water fisheries at the Atlantic frontier. Continental Shelf Research, 21(8–

10), 987–1003. 

Govoni, J. J., L. R. Settle, and M. A. West. (2003). Trauma to juvenile pinfish and spot inflicted by 

submarine detonations. Journal of Aquatic Animal Health, 15, 111–119. 

Govoni, J. J., M. A. West, L. R. Settle, R. T. Lynch, and M. D. Greene. (2008). Effects of Underwater 

Explosions on Larval Fish: Implications for a Coastal Engineering Project. Journal of Coastal 

Research, 2, 228–233. 

Graham, R. T., M. J. Witt, D. W. Castellanos, F. Remolina, S. Maxwell, B. J. Godley, and L. A. Hawkes. 

(2012). Satellite tracking of manta rays highlights challenges to their conservation. PLoS ONE, 

7(5), e36834. 

Green, S. J., J. L. Akins, A. Maljkovic, and I. M. Cote. (2012). Invasive lionfish drive Atlantic coral reef fish 

declines. PLoS ONE, 7(3), e32596. 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.6-200

3.6 References

Greer, C. D., P. V. Hodson, Z. Li, T. King, and K. Lee. (2012). Toxicity of crude oil chemically dispersed in a 

wave tank to embryos of Atlantic herring (Clupea harengus). Environmental Toxicology and 

Chemistry, 31, 1–10. 

Gulf Coast Research Laboratory. (2016). Hardhead Catfish. Retrieved from 

http://gcrl.usm.edu/public/fish/hardhead.catfish.php.

Haedrich, R. L. (1996). Deep-water fishes: Evolution and adaptation in the earth's largest living spaces. 

Journal of Fish Biology, 49(Supplement A), 40–53. 

Hager, C. (2015). Telemetry tracking of Atlantic sturgeon in the lower Chesapeake Bay: Final Report for 

2014. Norfolk, VA: Naval Facilities Engineering Command Atlantic.

Hager, C., C. Watterson, and J. Kahn. (2016). Migration patterns of the Pamunkey River spawning stock 

[Presentation]. Paper presented at the Atlantic and Shortnose Sturgeon 2016 Workshop, 

Sheperdstown, WV.

Halpern, B., S. Walbridge, K. A. Selkoe, C. V. Kappel, F. Micheli, C. D'Agrosa, J. F. Bruno, K. S. Casey, C. 

Ebert, H. E. Fox, R. Fujita, D. Heinemann, H. S. Lenihan, E. M. P. Madin, M. T. Perry, E. R. Selig, M. 

Spalding, R. S. Steneck, and R. Watson. (2008a). A global map of human impact on marine 

ecosystems. Science, 319(5865), 948–952. 

Halpern, B. S., K. L. McLeod, A. A. Rosenberg, and L. B. Crowder. (2008b). Managing for cumulative 

impacts in ecosystem-based management through ocean zoning. Ocean & Coastal 

Management, 51(3), 203–211. 

Halvorsen, M. B., B. M. Casper, C. M. Woodley, T. J. Carlson, and A. N. Popper. (2011). Hydroacoustic 

Impacts on Fish from Pile Installation (Research Results Digest). Washington, DC: National 

Cooperative Highway Research Program, Transportation Research Board, National Academy of 

Sciences.

Halvorsen, M. B., B. M. Casper, F. Matthews, T. J. Carlson, and A. N. Popper. (2012a). Effects of exposure 

to pile-driving sounds on the lake sturgeon, Nile tilapia and hogchoker. Proceedings of the Royal 

Society B: Biological Sciences, 279(1748), 4705–4714. 

Halvorsen, M. B., B. M. Casper, C. M. Woodley, T. J. Carlson, and A. N. Popper. (2012b). Threshold for 

onset of injury in Chinook salmon from exposure to impulsive pile driving sounds. PLoS ONE, 

7(6), e38968. 

Halvorsen, M. B., D. G. Zeddies, W. T. Ellison, D. R. Chicoine, and A. N. Popper. (2012c). Effects of midfrequency active sonar on hearing in fish. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 

131(1), 599–607. 

Halvorsen, M. B., D. G. Zeddies, D. Chicoine, and A. N. Popper. (2013). Effects of low-frequency naval 

sonar exposure on three species of fish. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 134(2), 

EL205–210. 

Handegard, N. O., K. Michalsen, and D. Tjøstheim. (2003). Avoidance behaviour in cod (Gadus morhua) 

to a bottom-trawling vessel. Aquatic Living Resources, 16(3), 265–270. 

Handegard, N. O., A. D. Robertis, G. Rieucau, K. Boswell, G. J. Macaulay, and J. M. Jech. (2015). The 

reaction of a captive herring school to playbacks of a noise-reduced and a conventional research 

vessel. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 72(4), 491–499. 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.6-201

3.6 References

Hansen, L. P., and 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. 

Hare, J. A., W. E. Morrison, M. W. Nelson, M. M. Stachura, E. J. Teeters, R. B. Griffis, M. A. Alexander, J. 

D. Scott, L. Alade, R. J. Bell, A. S. Chute, K. L. Curti, T. H. Curtis, D. Kircheis, J. F. Kocik, S. M. Lucey, 

C. T. McCandless, L. M. Milke, D. E. Richardson, E. Robillard, H. J. Walsh, M. C. McManus, K. E. 

Marancik, and C. A. Griswold. (2016). A vulnerability assessment of fish and invertebrates to 

climate change on the Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf. PLoS ONE, 11(2), 1–30. 

Harris, J. E., D. C. Parkyn, and D. J. Murie. (2005). Distribution of Gulf of Mexico sturgeon in relation to 

benthic invertebrate prey resources and environmental parameters in the Suwannee River 

estuary, Florida. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, 134, 975–990. 

Hartwell, S. I., C. H. Hocutt, and W. F. van Heukelem. (1991). Swimming response of menhaden 

(Brevoortia tyrannus) to electromagnetic pulses. Journal of Applied Ichthyology, 7(2), 90–94. 

Hastings, M., A. Popper, J. Finneran, and P. Lanford. (1996). Effects of low-frequency underwater sound 

on hair cells of the inner ear and lateral line of the teleost fish Astronotus ocellatus. The Journal 

of the Acoustical Society of America, 99(3), 1759–1766. 

Hastings, M. C. (1991). Effects of underwater sound on bony fishes. Paper presented at the 122nd 

Meeting of the Acoustical Society of America. Houston, TX.

Hastings, M. C. (1995). Physical effects of noise on fishes. Paper presented at the 1995 International 

Congress on Noise Control Engineering. Newport Beach, CA.

Hastings, M. C., and A. N. Popper. (2005). Effects of Sound on Fish (Final Report #CA05-0537). 

Sacramento, CA: California Department of Transportation.

Haugland, M., J. C. Holst, M. Holm, and L. P. Hansen. (2006). Feeding of Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar L.) 

post-smolts in the Northeast Atlantic. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 63, 1488–1500. 

Hawkins, A. D., and A. D. F. Johnstone. (1978). The hearing of the Atlantic salmon, Salmo salar. Journal 

of Fish Biology, 13, 655–673. 

Hawkins, A. D., L. Roberts, and S. Cheesman. (2014). Responses of free-living coastal pelagic fish to 

impulsive sounds. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 135(5), 3101–3116. 

Hawkins, A. D., A. E. Pembroke, and A. N. Popper. (2015). Information gaps in understanding the effects 

of noise on fishes and invertebrates. Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries, 25, 39–64. 

Hedger, R. D., D. Hatin, J. J. Dodson, F. Martin, D. Fournier, F. Caron, and F. G. Whoriskey. (2009). 

Migration and swimming depth of Atlantic salmon kelts Salmo salar in coastal zone and marine 

habitats. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 392, 179–192. 

Heileman, S., and R. Mahon. (2008). XV-49 Caribbean Sea: TAG: LME #12 (The UNEP Large Marine 

Ecosystem Report: A Perspective on Changing Conditions in LMEs of the World’s Regional Seas). 

Nairobi, Kenya: United Nations Environmental Programme.

Heileman, S., and N. Rabalais. (2008). XV-50 Gulf of Mexico: TAG: LME #5 (The UNEP Large Marine 

Ecosystem Report: A Perspective on Changing Conditions in LMEs of the World’s Regional Seas). 

Nairobi, Kenya: United Nations Environmental Programme.
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.6-202

3.6 References

Heise, R. J., W. T. Slack, S. T. Ross, and M. A. Dugo. (2004). Spawning and associated movement patterns 

of Gulf sturgeon in the Pascagoula River drainage, Mississippi. Transactions of the American 

Fisheries Society, 133, 221–230. 

Helfman, G. S., B. B. Collette, D. E. Facey, and B. W. Bowen. (2009). The Diversity of Fishes: Biology, 

Evolution, and Ecology (2nd ed.). Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.

Herbert-Read, J. E., L. Kremer, R. Bruintjes, A. N. Radford, and C. C. Ioannou. (2017). Anthropogenic 

noise pollution from pile-driving disrupts the structure and dynamics of fish shoals. Proceedings 

of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences, 284(1863). 

Higgs, D. M. (2005). Auditory cues as ecological signals for marine fishes. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 

287, 278–281. 

Higgs, D. M., and C. A. Radford. (2013). The contribution of the lateral line to 'hearing' in fish. The 

Journal of Experimental Biology, 216(Pt 8), 1484–1490. 

Hildebrand, J. (2009). Anthropogenic and natural sources of ambient noise in the ocean. Marine Ecology 

Progress Series, 395, 5–20. 

Hislop, J. R. G., and A. F. Youngson. (1984). A note on the stomach contents of salmon caught by longline 

north of the Faroe Islands in March (International Council for the Exploration of the Sea 

Conference and Meeting Documents). Aberdeen, United Kingdom: Department of Agriculture 

and Fisheries Marine Laboratory.

Hislop, J. R. G., and R. G. J. Shelton. (1993). Marine predators and prey of Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar 

L.). In D. Mills (Ed.), Salmon in the Sea and New Enhancement Strategies (pp. 104–118). Oxford, 

United Kingdom: Fishing News Books.

Hoese, H. D., and R. H. Moore. (1998). Fishes of the Gulf of Mexico, Texas, Louisiana, and Adjacent 

Waters. College Station, TX: Texas A&M University Press.

Hoffmayer, E. R., J. S. Franks, W. B. Driggers, and P. W. Howey. (2013). Diel vertical movements of a 

scalloped hammerhead, Sphyrna lewini, in the northern Gulf of Mexico. Bulletin of Marine 

Science, 89(2), 551–557. 

Holles, S., S. D. Simpson, A. N. Radford, L. Berten, and D. Lecchini. (2013). Boat noise disrupts orientation 

behaviour in a coral reef fish. Marine Ecological Progress Series, 485, 295–300. 

Holt, D. E., and C. E. Johnston. (2014). Evidence of the Lombard effect in fishes. Behavioral Ecology, 

25(4), 819–826. 

Hore, P. J. (2012). Are biochemical reactions affected by weak magnetic fields? Proceedings of the 

National Academy of Sciences, 109(5), 1357–1358. 

Hoss, D. E., and L. R. Settle. (1990). Ingestion of plastics by teleost fishes (Proceedings of the Second 

International Conference on Marine Debris). Honolulu, HI: US Department of Commerce, 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

Hubbs, C., and A. Rechnitzer. (1952). Report on experiments designed to determine effects of 

underwater explosions on fish life. California Fish and Game, 38, 333–366. 

Huntingford, F., C. Adams, V. A. Braithwaite, S. Kadri, T. G. Pottinger, P. Sandoe, and J. F. Turnball. 

(2006). Review paper: Current issues in fish welfare. Journal of Fish Biology, 70(4), 1311–1316. 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.6-203

3.6 References

Huveneers, C., P. J. Rogers, J. M. Semmens, C. Beckmann, A. A. Kock, B. Page, and S. D. Goldsworthy. 

(2013). Effects of an electric field on white sharks: In situ testing of an electric deterrent. PLoS 

ONE, 8(5), e62730. 

Iafrate, J. D., S. L. Watwood, E. A. Reyier, D. M. Scheidt, G. A. Dossot, and S. E. Crocker. (2016). Effects of 

pile driving on the residency and movement of tagged reef fish. PLoS ONE, 11(11), e0163638. 

Illingworth and Rodkin, Inc. (2015). Underwater and Airborne Acoustic Monitoring for the U.S. Navy 

Elevated Causeway Removal at the JEB Little Creek Naval Station: 10–11 September 2015 (Naval 

Facilities Engineering Command Atlantic under HDR Environmental, Operations and 

Construction, Inc.). Petaluma, CA: Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc.

Illingworth and Rodkin, Inc. (2017). Pile-Driving Noise Measurements at Atlantic Fleet Naval 

Installations: 28 May 2013–28 April 2016. Final Report. Petaluma, CA: HDR.

Ingvarsdottir, A., C. Bjorkblom, E. Ravagnan, B. F. Godal, M. Arnberg, D. L. Joachim, and S. Sanni. (2012). 

Effects of different concentrations of crude oil on first feeding larvae of Atlantic herring (Clupea 

harengus). Journal of Marine Systems, 93, 69–76. 

Inman, M. (2005). Fish moved by warming waters. Science, 308, 937. 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (2014). Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and 

Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. New York, NY: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 

Change.

Jackson, G. D., N. G. Buxton, and M. J. A. George. (2000). Diet of the southern opah, Lampris 

immaculatus, on the Patagonian Shelf; the significance of the squid, Moroteuthis ingens, and 

anthropogenic plastic. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 206, 261–271. 

Jackson, J. B. C., M. K. Donovan, K. L. Cramer, and V. V. Lam. (2014). Status and Trends of Caribbean 

Coral Reefs: 1970–2012. Gland, Switzerland: Global Coral Reef Monitoring Network, 

International Union for the Conservation of Nature.

Jain-Schlaepfer, S., E. Fakan, J. L. Rummer, S. D. Simpson, and M. I. McCormick. (2018). Impact of 

motorboats on fish embryos depends on engine type. Conservation Physiology, 6(1), coy014. 

Jensen, J. O. T. (2003). New Mechanical Shock Sensitivity Units in Support of Criteria for Protection of 

Salmonid Eggs from Blasting or Seismic Disturbance. Nanaimo, Canada: Fisheries and Oceans 

Canada Science Branch Pacific Region, Pacific Biological Station.

Jørgensen, R., N. O. Handegard, H. Gjøsæter, and A. Slotte. (2004). Possible vessel avoidance behaviour 

of capelin in a feeding area and on a spawning ground. Fisheries Research, 69(2), 251–261. 

Jørgensen, R., K. K. Olsen, I. B. Falk-Petersen, and P. Kanapthippilai. (2005). Investigations of Potential 

Effects of Low Frequency Sonar Signals on Survival, Development and Behaviour of Fish Larvae 

and Juveniles. Tromsø, Norway: University of Tromsø, The Norwegian College of Fishery Science.

Jutila, E., and J. Toivonen. (1985). Food composition of salmon postsmolts (Salmo salar L.) in the northern 

part of the Gulf of Bothnia. Helsinki, Finland: ICES Conference and Meeting Documents.

Kahn, J. E., C. Hager, J. C. Watterson, J. Russo, K. Moore, and K. Hartman. (2014). Atlantic Sturgeon 

Annual Spawning Run Estimate in the Pamunkey River, Virginia. Transactions of the American 

Fisheries Society, 143(6), 1508–1514. 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.6-204

3.6 References

Kajiura, S. M., and K. N. Holland. (2002). Electroreception in juvenile scalloped hammerhead and 

sandbar sharks. The Journal of Experimental Biology, 205, 3609–3621. 

Kalmijn, A. J. (2000). Detection and processing of electromagnetic and near-field acoustic signals in 

elasmobranch fishes. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London Series BBiological Sciences, 355(1401), 1135–1141. 

Kane, A. S., J. Song, M. B. Halvorsen, D. L. Miller, J. D. Salierno, L. E. Wysocki, D. Zeddies, and A. N. 

Popper. (2010). Exposure of fish to high intensity sonar does not induce acute pathology. Journal 

of Fish Biology, 76(7), 1825–1840. 

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. 

Karlsson, S., and A. C. Albertsson. (1998). Biodegradable polymers and environmental interaction. 

Polymer Engineering and Science, 38(8), 1251–1253. 

Kastelein, R. A., S. van der Heul, W. C. Verboom, N. Jennings, J. van der Veen, and 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. 

Kauparinen, A., and J. Merila. (2007). Detecting and managing fisheries-induced evolution. Trends in 

Ecology & Evolution, 22(12), 652–659. 

Keevin, T. M., and G. L. Hempen. (1997). The Environmental Effects of Underwater Explosions with 

Methods to Mitigate Impacts. St. Louis, MO: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

Keller, A. A., E. L. Fruh, M. M. Johnson, V. Simon, and 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. 

Kelley, C., G. Carton, M. Tomlinson, and A. Gleason. (2016). Analysis of towed camera images to 

determine the effects of disposed mustard-filled bombs on the deep water benthic community 

off south Oahu. Deep Sea Research Part II: Topical Studies in Oceanography, 128, 34–42. 

Ketchum, J. T., A. Hearn, A. P. Klimley, E. Espinoza, C. Penaherrera, and J. L. Largier. (2014a). Seasonal 

changes in movements and habitat preferences of the scalloped hammerhead shark (Sphyrna 

lewini) while refuging near an oceanic island. Marine Biology, 161(4), 755–767. 

Ketchum, J. T., A. Hearn, A. P. Klimley, C. Penaherrera, E. Espinoza, S. Bessudo, G. Soler, and R. Arauz. 

(2014b). Inter-island movements of scalloped hammerhead sharks (Sphyrna lewini) and seasonal 

connectivity in a marine protected area of the eastern tropical Pacific. Marine Biology, 161(4), 

939–951. 

Kéver, L., O. Colleye, A. Herrel, P. Romans, and E. Parmentier. (2014). Hearing capacities and otolith size 

in two ophidiiform species (Ophidion rochei and Carapus acus). The Journal of Experimental 

Biology, 217(Pt 14), 2517–2525. 

Kimber, J. A., D. W. Sims, P. H. Bellamy, and A. B. Gill. (2014). Elasmobranch cognitive ability: using 

electroreceptive foraging behaviour to demonstrate learning, habituation and memory in a 

benthic shark. Animal Cognition, 17(1), 55–65. 

Knutsen, H., P. E. Jorde, H. Sannaes, A. R. Hoelzel, O. A. Bergstad, S. Stefanni, T. Johansen, and N. C. 

Stenseth. (2009). Bathymetric barriers promoting genetic structure in the deepwater demersal 

fish tusk (Brosme brosme). Molecular Ecology, 18(15), 3151–3162. 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.6-205

3.6 References

Kohler, N. E., and P. A. Turner. (2001). Shark tagging: A review of conventional methods and studies. 

Environmental Biology of Fishes, 60(1–3), 191–223. 

Koide, S., J. A. K. Silva, V. Dupra, and M. Edwards. (2016). Bioaccumulation of chemical warfare agents, 

energetic materials, and metals in deep-sea shrimp from discarded military munitions sites off 

Pearl Harbor. Deep Sea Research Part II: Topical Studies in Oceanography, 128, 53–62. 

Koslow, J. A. (1996). Energetic and life-history patterns of deep-sea benthic, benthopelagic and 

seamount-associated fish. Journal of Fish Biology, 49(Supplement A), 54–74. 

Kritzler, H., and L. Wood. (1961). Provisional audiogram for the shark, Carcharhinus leucas. Science, 

133(3463), 1480–1482. 

Krkosek, M., C. W. Revie, P. G. Gargan, O. T. Skilbrei, B. Finstad, and C. D. Todd. (2013). Impact of 

parasites on salmon recruitment in the Northeast Atlantic Ocean. Proceedings of the Royal 

Society B: Biological Sciences, 280(1750), 20122359. 

Kroglund, F., B. Finstad, S. O. Stefansson, T. O. Nilsen, T. Kristensen, B. O. Rosseland, H. C. Teien, and B. 

Salbu. (2007). Exposure to moderate acid water and aluminum reduces Atlantic salmon postsmolt survival. Aquaculture, 273(2–3), 360–373. 

Kujawa, S. G., and M. C. Liberman. (2009). Adding insult to injury: Cochlear nerve degeneration after 

"temporary" noise-induced hearing loss. The Journal of Neuroscience, 29(45), 14077–14085. 

Kvadsheim, P. H., and E. M. Sevaldsen. (2005). The potential impact of 1-8 kHz active sonar on stocks of 

juvenile fish during sonar exercises. In F. Forskningsinstitutt (Ed.), (pp. 1–19). Kjeller, Norway: 

Norwegian Defence Research Establishment.

Kynard, B. (1997). Life history, latitudinal patterns and status of the shortnose sturgeon, Acipenser 

brevirostrum. Environmental Biology of Fishes, 48(1–4), 319–334. 

Kyne, P. M., and P. Feutry. (2013). A Life History Overview of the Largetooth Sawfish Pristis pristis (Life 

History Overview). Canberra, Australia: National Environmental Research Program.

Ladich, F. (2008). Sound communication in fishes and the influence of ambient and anthropogenic noise. 

Bioacoustics, 17, 35–37. 

Ladich, F., and R. R. Fay. (2013). Auditory evoked potential audiometry in fish. Reviews in Fish Biology 

and Fisheries, 23(3), 317–364. 

Ladich, F. (2014). Fish bioacoustics. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 28, 121–127. 

Laist, D. W. (1987). Overview of the biological effects of lost and discarded plastic debris in the marine 

environment. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 18(6B), 319–326. 

Legault, C. M. (2005). Population viability analysis of Atlantic salmon in Maine, U.S.A. Transactions of the 

American Fisheries Society, 134(3), 549–562. 

Lennox, R. J., O. H. Diserud, S. J. Cooke, E. B. Thorstad, F. G. Whoriskey, Ø. Solem, T. B. Havn, and I. 

Uglem. (2016). Influence of gear switching on recapture of Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) in 

catch-and-release fisheries. Ecology of Freshwater Fish, 25(3), 422–428. 

LGL Ltd Environmental Research Associates, Lamont Doherty Earth Observatory, and National Science 

Foundation. (2008). Environmental Assessment of a Marine Geophysical Survey by the R/V 

Melville in the Santa Barbara Channel. King City, Ontario: La Jolla, CA, Scripps Institution of 

Oceanography and Arlington, VA, National Science Foundation: Division of Ocean Sciences.
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.6-206

3.6 References

Liberman, M. C. (2016). Noise-induced hearing loss: Permanent versus temporary threshold shifts and 

the effects of hair cell versus neuronal degeneration. Advances in Experimental Medicine and 

Biology, 875, 1–7. 

Lin, H. W., A. C. Furman, S. G. Kujawa, and 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, 12(5), 605–616. 

Løkkeborg, S., E. Ona, A. Vold, and A. Salthaug. (2012). Effects of sounds from seismic air guns on fish 

behavior and catch rates. In A. N. Popper & A. Hawkins (Eds.), The Effects of Noise on Aquatic 

Life (Vol. 730, pp. 415–419). New York, NY: Springer.

Lombarte, A., H. Y. Yan, A. N. Popper, J. C. Chang, and C. Platt. (1993). Damage and regeneration of hair 

cell ciliary bundles in a fish ear following treatment with gentamicin. Hearing Research, 66, 166–

174. 

Lombarte, A., and A. N. Popper. (1994). Quantitative analyses of postembryonic hair cell addition in the 

otolithic endorgans of the inner ear of the European hake, Merluccius merluccius (Gadiformes, 

Teleostei). The Journal of Comparative Neurology, 345, 419–428. 

Lotufo, G. R., W. Blackburn, S. J. Marlborough, and J. W. Fleeger. (2010). Toxicity and bioaccumulation of 

TNT in marine fish in sediment exposures. Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety, 73(7), 1720–

1727. 

Love, J. W., and P. D. Chase. (2007). Marine fish diversity and composition in the Mid-Atlantic and South 

Atlantic Bights. Southeastern Naturalist, 6(4), 705–714. 

Love, M. S., and A. York. (2005). A comparison of the fish assemblages associated with an oil/gas 

pipeline and adjacent seafloor in the Santa Barbara Channel, Southern California Bight. Bulletin 

of Marine Science, 77(1), 101–117. 

Lovell, J. M., M. M. Findlay, R. M. Moate, J. R. Nedwell, and M. A. Pegg. (2005). The inner ear 

morphology and hearing abilities of the paddlefish (Polyodon spathula) and the lake sturgeon 

(Acipenser fulvescens). Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology Part A, 142, 286–296. 

Løvik, A., and J. M. Hovem. (1979). An experimental investigation of swimbladder resonance in fishes. 

The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 66(3), 850–854. 

Lundquist, C. J., S. F. Thrush, G. Coco, and J. E. Hewitt. (2010). Interactions between disturbance and 

dispersal reduce persistence thresholds in a benthic community. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 

413, 217–228. 

Lusher, A. L., C. O'Donnell, R. Officer, and I. O'Connor. (2016). Microplastic interactions with North 

Atlantic mesopelagic fish. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 73(4), 1214–1225. 

Macfadyen, G., T. Huntington, and R. Cappell. (2009). Abandoned, Lost or Otherwise Discarded Fishing 

Gear. Rome, Italy: United Nations Environment Programme, Food and Agriculture Organization 

of the United Nations.

Macpherson, E. (2002). Large-scale species-richness gradients in the Atlantic Ocean. Proceedings of the 

Royal Society of Biology, 269(1501), 1715–1720. 

Macreadie, P. I., A. M. Fowler, and D. J. Booth. (2011). Rigs-to-reefs: Will the deep sea benefit from 

artificial habitat? Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 9(8), 455–461. 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.6-207

3.6 References

Madaro, A., R. E. Olsen, T. S. Kristiansen, L. O. Ebbesson, T. O. Nilsen, G. Flik, and M. Gorissen. (2015). 

Stress in Atlantic salmon: Response to unpredictable chronic stress. The Journal of Experimental 

Biology, 218(16), 2538–2550. 

Madl, P., and M. Yip. (2000). Cartilagenous fish: Colloquial Meeting of Chondrichthyes; Essay about the 

Electric Organ Discharge (EOD). Salzburg, Austria. Retrieved from 

http://biophysics.sbg.ac.at/ray/eod.htm.

Madsen, P. T., M. Wahlberg, J. Tougaard, K. Lucke, and P. Tyack. (2006). Wind turbine underwater noise 

and marine mammals: Implications of current knowledge and data needs. Marine Ecology 

Progress Series, 309, 279–295. 

Mann, D., D. Higgs, W. Tavolga, M. Souza, and A. Popper. (2001). Ultrasound detection by clupeiform 

fishes. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 3048–3054. 

Mann, D. A., Z. Lu, and A. N. Popper. (1997). A clupeid fish can detect ultrasound. Nature, 389, 341. 

Mann, D. A., Z. Lu, M. C. Hastings, and A. N. Popper. (1998). Detection of ultrasonic tones and simulated 

dolphin echolocation clicks by a teleost fish, the American shad (Alosa sapidissima). The Journal 

of the Acoustical Society of America, 104(1), 562–568. 

Mann, D. A. (2016). Acoustic Communications in Fishes and Potential Effects of Noise. In A. N. Popper & 

A. D. Hawkins (Eds.), The Effects of Noise on Aquatic Life II (pp. 673–678). New York, NY: 

Springer.

Marcotte, M. M., and C. G. Lowe. (2008). Behavioral responses of two species of sharks to pulsed, direct 

current electrical fields: Testing a potential shark deterrent. Marine Technology Society Journal, 

42(2), 53–61. 

Marras, S., R. S. Batty, and P. Domenici. (2012). Information transfer and antipredator maneuvers in 

schooling herring. Adaptive Behavior, 20(1), 44–56. 

Marshall, N. J. (1996). Vision and sensory physiology: The lateral line systems of three deep-sea fish. 

Journal of Fish Biology, 49(Supplement A), 239–258. 

Martin, B., D. G. Zeddies, B. Gaudet, and J. Richard. (2016). Evaluation of three sensor types for particle 

motion measurement. Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology, 875, 679–686. 

Masonjones, H. D., and S. M. Lewis. (1996). Courtship behavior in the dwarf seahorse, Hippocampus 

zosterae. Copeia(3), 634–640. 

Masonjones, H. D., E. Rose, L. B. McRae, and D. L. Dixson. (2010). An examination of the population 

dynamics of syngnathid fishes within Tampa Bay, Florida, U.S.A. Current Zoology, 56(1), 118–

133. 

Mather, J. (2004). Cephalopod Skin Displays: From Concealment to Communication. In D. Kimbrough 

Oller and Ulrike Griebel (Ed.), The Evolution of Communication Systems: A Comparative 

Approach. Cambridge, MA: The Vienna Series in Theoretical Biology and the Massachusetts 

Institute of Technology.

Mato, Y., T. Isobe, H. Takada, H. Kanehiro, C. Ohtake, and T. Kaminuma. (2001). Plastic resin pellets as a 

transport medium for toxic chemicals in the marine environment. Environmental Science 

Technology, 35, 318–324. 

McBride, R. S., J. E. Harris, A. R. Hyle, and J. C. Holder. (2010). The spawning run of blueback herring in 

the St. Johns River, Florida. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, 139(2), 598–609. 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.6-208

3.6 References

McCartney, B. S., and A. R. Stubbs. (1971). Measurements of the acoustic target strengths of fish in 

dorsal aspect, including swimbladder resonance. Journal of Sound and Vibration, 15(3), 397–

420. 

McCauley, R. D., and D. H. Cato. (2000). Patterns of fish calling in a nearshore environment in the Great 

Barrier Reef. Philosophical Transactions: Biological Sciences, 355(1401), 1289–1293. 

McCauley, R. D., J. Fewtrell, A. J. Duncan, C. Jenner, M.-N. Jenner, J. D. Penrose, R. I. T. Prince, A. 

Adhitya, J. Murdoch, and K. A. McCabe. (2000). Marine Seismic Surveys: Analysis and 

Propagation of Air-gun Signals; and Effects of Air-gun Exposure on Humpback Whales, Sea 

Turtles, Fishes and Squid. Bentley, Australia: Centre for Marine Science and Technology.

McCauley, R. D., J. Fewtrell, and A. N. Popper. (2003). High intensity anthropogenic sound damages fish 

ears. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 113(1), 638–642. 

McCauley, R. D., and C. S. Kent. (2012). A lack of correlation between air gun signal pressure waveforms 

and fish hearing damage. Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology, 730, 245–250. 

McCormick, M. I., B. J. M. Allan, H. Harding, and S. D. Simpson. (2018). Boat noise impacts risk 

assessment in a coral reef fish but effects depend on engine type. Scientific Reports, 8(1), 3847. 

McCormick, S. D., L. P. Hansen, T. P. Quinn, and R. L. Saunders. (1998). Movement, migration, and 

smolting of Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar). Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 

55, 77–92. 

McDonald, M., J. Hildebrand, S. Wiggins, and D. Ross. (2008). A 50 Year comparison of ambient ocean 

noise near San Clemente Island: A bathymetrically complex coastal region off Southern 

California. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 124(4), 1985–1992. 

McIver, E. L., M. A. Marchaterre, A. N. Rice, and A. H. Bass. (2014). Novel underwater soundscape: 

Acoustic repertoire of plainfin midshipman fish. The Journal of Experimental Biology, 217(Pt 13), 

2377–2389. 

McLennan, M. W. (1997). A Simple Model for Water Impact Peak Pressure and Pulse Width: A Technical 

Memorandum. Goleta, CA: Greeneridge Sciences, Inc.

Mensinger, A. F., R. L. Putland, and C. A. Radford. (2018). The effect of motorboat sound on Australian 

snapper Pagrus auratus inside and outside a marine reserve. Ecology and Evolution, 8(13), 

6438–6448. 

Meyer, M., R. R. Fay, and A. N. Popper. (2010). Frequency tuning and intensity coding of sound in the 

auditory periphery of the lake sturgeon, Acipenser fulvescens. The Journal of Experimental 

Biology, 213, 1567–1578. 

Miksis-Olds, J. L., and S. M. Nichols. (2015). Is low frequency ocean sound increasing globally? The 

Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 139(1), 501–511. 

Miller, J. D. (1974). Effects of noise on people. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 56(3), 

729–764. 

Miller, M. H., J. Carlson, P. Cooper, D. Kobayashi, M. Nammack, and J. Wilson. (2013). Status Review 

Report: Scalloped Hammerhead Shark (Sphyrna lewini). Silver Spring, MD: National Marine 

Fisheries, Office of Protected Resources.
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.6-209

3.6 References

Miller, M. H., and C. Klimovich. (2016). Endangered Species Act Status Review Report: Giant Manta Ray 

(Manta birostris) and Reef Manta Ray (Manta alfredi). Silver Spring, MD: National Marine 

Fisheries Service, Office of Protected Resources.

Mintz, J. D. (2012). Vessel Traffic in the Hawaii-Southern California and Atlantic Fleet Testing and 

Training Study Areas. (CRM D0026186.A2/Final). Alexandria, VA: Center for Naval Analyses.

Misund, O. A. (1997). Underwater acoustics in marine fisheries and fisheries research. Reviews in Fish 

Biology and Fisheries, 7, 1–34. 

Moore, A., and W. D. Riley. (2009). Magnetic particles associated with the lateral line of the European 

eel, Anguilla anguilla. Journal of Fish Biology, 74(7), 1629–1634. 

Moore, C. J. (2008). Synthetic polymers in the marine environment: A rapidly increasing, long-term 

threat. Environmental Research, 108(2), 131–139. 

Morris, A. V., C. M. Roberts, and J. P. Hawkins. (2000). The threatened status of groupers 

(Epinephelinae). Biodiversity & Conservation, 9(7), 919–942. 

Moyle, P. B., and J. J. Cech, Jr. (2004). Fishes: An Introduction to Ichthyology (5th ed.). London, United 

Kingdom: Pearson Educational, Inc.

Mueller-Blenkle, C., P. K. McGregor, A. B. Gill, M. H. Andersson, J. Metcalfe, V. Bendall, P. Sigray, D. 

Wood, and F. Thomsen. (2010). Effects of Pile-Driving Noise on the Behaviour of Marine Fish. 

London, United Kingdom: COWRIE Ltd.

Mumby, P. J., A. R. Harborne, and D. R. Brumbaugh. (2011). Grouper as a natural biocontrol of invasive 

lionfish. PLoS ONE, 6(6), e21510. 

Munday, P. L., D. L. Dixson, J. M. Donelson, G. P. Jones, M. S. Pratchett, G. V. Devitsina, and K. B. Doving. 

(2009). Ocean acidification impairs olfactory discrimination and homing ability of a marine fish. 

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 106(6), 1848–

1852. 

Musick, J. A., M. M. Harbin, S. A. Berkeley, G. H. Burgess, A. M. Eklund, L. Findley, R. G. Gilmore, J. T. 

Golden, D. S. Ha, G. R. Huntsman, J. C. McGovern, S. J. Parker, S. G. Poss, E. Sala, T. W. Schmidt, 

G. R. Sedberry, H. Weeks, and S. G. Wright. (2000). Marine, estuarine, and diadromous fish

stocks at risk of extinction in North America (exclusive of Pacific salmonids). Fisheries, 25(11), 6–

30. 

Myrberg, A. A., C. R. Gordon, and A. P. Klimley. (1976). Attraction of free ranging sharks by low 

frequency sound, with comments on its biological significance. In A. Schuijf & A. D. Hawkins 

(Eds.), Sound Reception in Fish. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier.

Myrberg, A. A. (1980). Ocean noise and the behavior of marine animals: Relationships and implications. 

In F. P. Diemer, F. J. Vernberg, & D. Z. Mirkes (Eds.), Advanced Concepts in Ocean Measurements 

for Marine Biology (pp. 461–491). Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press.

Myrberg, A. A., Jr., A. Banner, and J. D. Richard. (1969). Shark attraction using a video-acoustic system. 

Marine Biology, 2(3), 264–276. 

Myrberg, A. A., Jr., S. J. Ha, S. Walewski, and J. C. Banbury. (1972). Effectiveness of acoustic signals in 

attracting epipelagic sharks to an underwater sound source. Bulletin of Marine Science, 22, 926–

949. 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.6-210

3.6 References

Myrberg, A. A., Jr. (2001). The acoustical biology of elasmobranchs. Environmental Biology of Fishes, 60, 

31–45. 

National Geographic. (2016). Information on Deep-vent Eelpouts. Retrieved from 

http://environment.nationalgeographic.com/environment/habitats/deep‐sea‐vents/.

National Marine Fisheries Service. (1998). Final Recovery Plan for the Shortnose Sturgeon Acipenser 

brevirostrum. Silver Spring, MD: National Marine Fisheries Service.

National Marine Fisheries Service. (2007). Status Review of Atlantic sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus 

oxyrinchus). Silver Spring, MD: U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, Northeast Regional Office. 

Retrieved from http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/statusreviews/atlanticsturgeon2007.pdf.

National Marine Fisheries Service. (2009a). Recovery Plan for the Smalltooth Sawfish (Pristis pectinata). 

Silver Spring, MD: National Marine Fisheries Service.

National Marine Fisheries Service. (2009b). Endangered Species Act Section 7 Consultation: Final 

Biological Opinion, Hawaii Range Complex. Washington, DC: United States Navy and National 

Marine Fisheries Service.

National Marine Fisheries Service. (2009c). Species of Concern: River Herring (Alosa pseudoharengus and 

Alosa Aestivalis). Silver Spring, MD: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National 

Marine Fisheries Service, Office of Protected Resources. Retrieved from 

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/species/riverherring_detailed.pdf.

National Marine Fisheries Service. (2009d). Cusk (Brosme brosme). Silver Spring, MD: National Oceanic 

and Atmospheric Administration. Retrieved from 

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/species/cusk_detailed.pdf.

National Marine Fisheries Service. (2009e). Atlantic Sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus oxyrinchus). Silver 

Spring, MD: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Fisheries, Office of Protected 

Resources. Retrieved from https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/species/atlantic-sturgeon.

National Marine Fisheries Service. (2010a). Smalltooth Sawfish (Pristis pectinata). Silver Spring, MD: 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Fisheries, Office of Protected Resources. 

Retrieved from http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/fish/smalltooth-sawfish.htm.

National Marine Fisheries Service. (2010b). Gulf Sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus desotoi). Retrieved from 

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/fish/gulf-sturgeon.htm.

National Marine Fisheries Service. (2010c). Species of Concern: Atlantic sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus 

oxyrinchus). Silver Spring, MD: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National 

Marine Fisheries Service, Office of Protected Resources. Retrieved from 

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/species/atlanticsturgeon_detailed.pdf.

National Marine Fisheries Service. (2010d). Cruise Report: Oscar Elton Sette, Cruise SE-10-01 (SE-77). 

Honolulu, HI: Pacific Island Fisheries Science Center.

National Marine Fisheries Service. (2011). Petition to List the Scalloped Hammerhead Shark (Sphyrna 

lewini) Under the U.S. Endangered Species Act Either Worldwide or as One or More Distinct 

Population Segments. Silver Spring, MD: National Marine Fisheries Service.

National Marine Fisheries Service. (2015). Nassau Grouper, Epinephelus striatus (Bloch 1792) Biological 

Report. Silver Spring, MD: National Marine Fisheries Service.
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.6-211

3.6 References

National Marine Fisheries Service. (2016a). Status of Stocks 2015 (Annual Report to Congress on the 

Status of U.S. Fisheries). Silver Spring, MD: National Marine Fisheries Service.

National Marine Fisheries Service. (2016b). Species in the Spotlight: Priority Actions: 2016–2020, Atlantic 

Salmon, Salmo salar (Atlantic Salmon 5-Year Action Plan). Silver Spring, MD: National Marine 

Fisheries Service.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. (2010). Fish Stocks in the Gulf of Mexico. Silver 

Spring, MD: U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

Retrieved from 

http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/deepwater_horizon/documents/pdfs/fact_sheets/fish_economics.pd

f.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. (2011). Marine Aquaculture Policy. Silver Spring, MD: 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Retrieved from 

https://www.avma.org/Advocacy/National/Federal/Documents/noaa_aquaculture_policy_facts

heet2011.pdf.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. (2014). Crude oil causes developmental abnormalities 

in large marine fish: Study shows Deepwater Horizon oil disrupts heart development in tunas. 

Retrieved from http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2014/20140324_dwh_fishimpact.html.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. (2016a). Manta rays (Manta spp.). Retrieved from 

https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/species/giant-manta-ray.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. (2016b). About the National Marine Aquaculture 

Initiative. Retrieved from http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/aquaculture/funding/nmai.html.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. (2016c). Harmful Algal Blooms Observing System. 

Retrieved from http://habsos.noaa.gov/.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. (2016d). Ecosystem Considerations: Ecology of the 

Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf. Retrieved from 

https://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/ecosys/ecosystem-ecology/.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. (2016e). Oceanic Whitetip Shark (Carcharhinus 

longimanus). Retrieved from https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/species/oceanic-whitetip-shark.

National Research Council. (1994). Low-Frequency Sound and Marine Mammals: Current Knowledge and 

Research Needs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

National Research Council. (2003). Ocean Noise and Marine Mammals. Washington, DC: The National 

Academies Press.

Nedelec, S. L., S. D. Simpson, E. L. Morley, B. Nedelec, and A. N. Radford. (2015). Impacts of regular and 

random noise on the behaviour, growth and development of larval Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua). 

Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 282(1817), 1–7. 

Nedelec, S. L., J. Campbell, A. N. Radford, S. D. Simpson, and N. D. Merchant. (2016a). Particle motion: 

The missing link in underwater acoustic ecology. Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 7(7), 836–

842. 

Nedelec, S. L., S. C. Mills, D. Lecchini, B. Nedelec, S. D. Simpson, and A. N. Radford. (2016b). Repeated 

exposure to noise increases tolerance in a coral reef fish. Environmental Pollution, 216, 428–236. 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.6-212

3.6 References

Nedelec, S. L., A. N. Radford, L. Pearl, B. Nedelec, M. I. McCormick, M. G. Meekan, and S. D. Simpson. 

(2017). Motorboat noise impacts parental behaviour and offspring survival in a reef fish. 

Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences, 284(1856). 

Neenan, S. T. V., R. Piper, P. R. White, P. Kemp, T. G. Leighton, and P. J. Shaw. (2016). Does Masking 

Matter? Shipping Noise and Fish Vocalizations. In A. N. Popper & A. D. Hawkins (Eds.), The 

Effects of Noise on Aquatic Life II (pp. 747–754). New York, NY: Springer.

Nelson, D. R., and R. H. Johnson. (1972). Acoustic attraction of Pacific reef sharks: Effect of pulse 

intermittency and variability. Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology Part A, 42, 85–95. 

Nelson, J. S., E. J. Crossman, H. Espinosa-Pérez, L. T. Findley, C. R. Gilbert, R. N. Lea, and J. D. Williams. 

(2004). Common and scientific names of fishes from the United States, Canada, and Mexico. In: 

American Fisheries Society Special Publication 29 (6th ed.). Bethesda, MD: American Fisheries 

Society.

Nelson, J. S., T. C. Grande, and M. V. H. Wilson. (2016). Fishes of the World (5th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John 

Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Nemeth, D. J., and C. H. Hocutt. (1990). Acute effects of electromagnetic pulses (EMP) on fish. Journal of 

Applied Ichthyology, 6(1), 59–64. 

Neo, Y. Y., J. Seitz, R. A. Kastelein, H. V. Winter, C. Ten Cate, and H. Slabbekoorn. (2014). Temporal 

structure of sound affects behavioural recovery from noise impact in European seabass. 

Biological Conservation, 178, 65–73. 

Neo, Y. Y., E. Ufkes, R. A. Kastelein, H. V. Winter, C. Ten Cate, and H. Slabbekoorn. (2015). Impulsive 

sounds change European seabass swimming patterns: Influence of pulse repetition interval. 

Marine Pollution Bulletin, 97(1–2), 111–117. 

Netburn, A. N., and J. A. Koslow. (2015). Dissolved oxygen as a constraint on daytime deep scattering 

layer depth in the Southern California current ecosystem. Deep-Sea Research I, 104, 149–158. 

Neves, R. J. (1981). Offshore distribution of alewife, Alosa-Pseudoharengus, and blueback herring, Alosa 

aestivalis, along the Atlantic coast. Fishery Bulletin, 79(3), 473–485. 

Newman, M. C. (1998). Uptake, biotransformation, detoxification, elimination, and accumulation. 

Fundamentals of Ecotoxicology (pp. 25). Chelsea, MI: Ann Arbor Press.

Nichols, T. A., T. W. Anderson, and A. Širović. (2015). Intermittent noise induces physiological stress in a 

coastal marine fish. PLoS ONE, 10(9), e0139157. 

Nix, P., and P. Chapman. (1985). Monitoring of underwater blasting operations in False Creek, British 

Columbia. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the Workshop on Effects of Explosive Use in 

the Marine Environment. Ottawa, Canada.

O'Connell, C. P., D. C. Abel, P. H. Rice, E. M. Stroud, and N. C. Simuro. (2010). Responses of the southern 

stingray (Dasyatis americana) and the nurse shark (Ginglymostoma cirratum) to permanent 

magnets. Marine and Freshwater Behaviour and Physiology, 43(1), 63–73. 

O'Keeffe, D. J. (1984). Guidelines for Predicting the Effects of Underwater Explosions on Swimbladder 

Fish. Dahlgren, VA: Naval Surface Weapons Center.

O'Keeffe, D. J., and G. A. Young. (1984). Handbook on the Environmental Effects of Underwater 

Explosions. Silver Spring, MD: U.S. Navy, Naval Surface Weapons Center (Code R14).
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.6-213

3.6 References

Ocean Conservancy. (2010). Trash Travels: From Our Hands to the Sea, Around the Globe, and Through 

Time (International Coastal Cleanup Report). Washington, DC: Ocean Conservancy.

Ohman, M. C., P. Sigray, and H. Westerberg. (2007). Offshore windmills and the effects of 

electromagnetic fields on fish. Ambio, 36(8), 630–633. 

Ormerod, S. J. (2003). Current issues with fish and fisheries: Editor's overview and introduction. Journal 

of Applied Ecology, 40(2), 204–213. 

Ospina-Alvarez, N., and F. Piferrer. (2008). Temperature-dependent sex determination in fish revisited: 

Prevalence, a single sex ratio response pattern, and possible effects of climate change. PLoS 

ONE, 3(7), 1–11. 

Pacific Shark Research Center. (2017). Basking Sharks. Retrieved from 

https://psrc.mlml.calstate.edu/current-research/citizen-science/basking-shark/about-baskingsharks/.

Papastamatiou, Y. P., R. D. Grubbs, J. L. Imhoff, S. J. B. Gulak, J. K. Carlson, and G. H. Burgess. (2015). A 

subtropical embayment serves as essential habitat for sub-adults and adults of the critically 

endangered smalltooth sawfish. Global Ecology and Conservation, 3, 764–775. 

Parin, N. V. (1984). Oceanic ichthyologeography: An attempt to review the distribution and origin of 

pelagic and bottom fishes outside continental shelves and neritic zones. Fourth Congress of 

European Ichthyologists, 35(1), 5–41. 

Pauly, D., and M. L. Palomares. (2005). Fishing down marine food web: It is far more pervasive than we 

thought. Bulletin of Marine Science, 76(2), 197–211. 

Paxton, A. B., J. C. Taylor, D. P. Nowacek, J. Dale, E. Cole, C. M. Voss, and C. H. Peterson. (2017). Seismic 

survey noise disrupted fish use of a temperate reef. Marine Policy, 78, 68–73. 

Paxton, J. R., and W. N. Eshmeyer. (1998). Encyclopedia of Fishes (2nd ed.). San Diego, CA: Academic 

Press.

Payne, N. L., D. E. van der Meulen, I. M. Suthers, C. A. Gray, and M. D. Taylor. (2015). Foraging intensity 

of wild mulloway Argyrosomus japonicus decreases with increasing anthropogenic disturbance. 

Journal of Marine Biology, 162(3), 539–546. 

Pearson, W. H., J. R. Skalski, and C. I. Malme. (1992). Effects of sounds from a geophysical survey device 

on behavior of captive rockfish (Sebastes spp.). Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic 

Sciences, 49, 1343–1356. 

Pena, H., N. O. Handegard, and E. Ona. (2013). Feeding herring schools do not react to seismic air gun 

surveys. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 70(6), 1174–1180. 

Pepper, C. B., M. A. Nascarella, and R. J. Kendall. (2003). A review of the effects of aircraft noise on 

wildlife and humans, current control mechanisms, and the need for further study. 

Environmental Management, 32(4), 418–432. 

Perry, A. L., P. J. Low, J. R. Ellis, and J. D. Reynolds. (2005). Climate change and distribution shifts in 

marine fishes. Science, 308, 1912–1914. 

Pew Oceans Commission. (2003). America's Living Oceans: Charting a Course for Sea Change. Arlington, 

VA: Pew Oceans Commission.

Pickering, A. D. (1981). Stress and Fish. New York, NY: Academic Press.
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.6-214

3.6 References

Pitcher, T. J. (1995). The impact of pelagic fish behavior on fisheries. Scientia Marina, 59(3–4), 295–306. 

Popper, A., D. Plachta, D. Mann, and D. Higgs. (2004). Response of clupeid fish to ultrasound: A review. 

ICES Journal of Marine Science, 61(7), 1057–1061. 

Popper, A. N., and B. Hoxter. (1984). Growth of a fish ear: 1. Quantitative analysis of sensory hair cell 

and ganglion cell proliferation. Hearing Research, 15, 133–142. 

Popper, A. N. (2003). Effects of anthropogenic sounds on fishes. Fisheries, 28(10), 24–31. 

Popper, A. N., R. R. Fay, C. Platt, and O. Sand. (2003). Sound detection mechanisms and capabilities of 

teleost fishes. In S. P. Collin & N. J. Marshall (Eds.), Sensory Processing in Aquatic Environment. 

New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.

Popper, A. N., M. E. Smith, P. A. Cott, B. W. Hanna, A. O. MacGillivray, M. E. Austin, and D. A. Mann. 

(2005). Effects of exposure to seismic airgun use on hearing of three fish species. The Journal of 

the Acoustical Society of America, 117(6), 3958–3971. 

Popper, A. N., T. J. Carlson, A. D. Hawkins, B. L. Southall, and R. L. Gentry. (2006). Interim Criteria for 

Injury of Fish Exposed to Pile Driving Operations: A White Paper. Olympia, WA: Washington State 

Department of Transportation.

Popper, A. N., M. B. Halvorsen, A. Kane, D. L. Miller, M. E. Smith, J. Song, P. Stein, and L. E. Wysocki. 

(2007). The effects of high-intensity, low-frequency active sonar on rainbow trout. The Journal 

of the Acoustical Society of America, 122(1), 623–635. 

Popper, A. N. (2008). Effects of Mid- and High-Frequency Sonars on Fish. Newport, RI: Naval Undersea 

Warfare Center Division.

Popper, A. N., and C. R. Schilt. (2008). Hearing and acoustic behavior (basic and applied considerations). 

In J. F. Webb, R. R. Fay, & A. N. Popper (Eds.), Fish Bioacoustics. New York, NY: Springer Science + 

Business Media, LLC.

Popper, A. N., and M. C. Hastings. (2009a). The effects of anthropogenic sources of sound on fishes. 

Journal of Fish Biology, 75(3), 455–489. 

Popper, A. N., and M. C. Hastings. (2009b). The effects of human-generated sound on fish. Integrative 

Zoology, 4, 43–52. 

Popper, A. N., and R. R. Fay. (2011). Rethinking sound detection by fishes. Hearing Research, 273(1–2), 

25–36. 

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, and W. N. 

Tavolga. (2014). ASA S3/SC1.4 TR-2014 Sound Exposure Guidelines for Fishes and Sea Turtles: A 

Technical Report prepared by ANSI-Accredited Standards Committee S3/SC1 and registered with 

ANSI. New York, NY and London, United Kingdom: Acoustical Society of America Press and 

Springer Briefs in Oceanography.

Popper, A. N., J. A. Gross, T. J. Carlson, J. Skalski, J. V. Young, A. D. Hawkins, and D. G. Zeddies. (2016). 

Effects of exposure to the sound from seismic airguns on pallid sturgeon and paddlefish. PLoS 

ONE, 11(8), e0159486. 

Possatto, F. E., M. Barletta, M. F. Costa, J. A. I. do Sul, and D. V. Dantas. (2011). Plastic debris ingestion 

by marine catfish: An unexpected fisheries impact. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 62(5), 1098–1102. 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.6-215

3.6 References

Poulakis, G. R., and J. C. Seitz. (2004). Recent occurrence of the smalltooth sawfish, Pristis pectinata

(Elasmobranchiomorphi: Pristidae), in Florida Bay and the Florida Keys, with comments on 

sawfish ecology. Florida Scientist, 67, 27–35. 

Poulakis, G. R., P. W. Stevens, A. A. Timmers, C. J. Stafford, and C. A. Simpfendorfer. (2012). Movements 

of juvenile endangered smalltooth sawfish, Pristis pectinata, in an estuarine river system: Use of 

non-main-stem river habitats and lagged responses to freshwater inflow-related changes. 

Environmental Biology of Fishes, 96(6), 763–778. 

Powell, A. B., M. W. Lacroix, and R. T. Cheshire. (2002). An Evaluation of Northern Florida Bay as a 

Nursery Area for Red Drum, Sciaenops ocellatus, and Other Juvenile and Small Resident Fishes

(NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-485). Beaufort, NC: Southeast Fishery Science 

Center.

Powell, M. L., S. I. Kavanaugh, and S. A. Sower. (2005). Current knowledge of hagfish reproduction: 

Implications for fisheries management. Integrative & Comparative Biology, 45, 158–165. 

Price, C. B., J. M. Brannon, and S. L. Yost. (1998). Transformation of RDX and HMX Under Controlled 

Eh/pH Conditions. (Technical Report IRRP-98-2). Washington, DC: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 

Waterways Experiment Station.

Price, S. A., S. T. Friedman, and P. C. Wainwright. (2015). How predation shaped fish: The impact of fin 

spines on body form evolution across teleosts. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological 

Sciences, 282(1819). 

Purser, J., and A. N. Radford. (2011). Acoustic noise induces attention shifts and reduces foraging 

performance in three-spined sticklebacks (Gasterosteus aculeatus). PLoS ONE, 6(2), e17478. 

Radford, A. N., E. Kerridge, and S. D. Simpson. (2014). Acoustic communication in a noisy world: Can fish 

compete with anthropogenic noise? Behavioral Ecology, 25(5), 1022–1030. 

Radford, A. N., L. Lebre, G. Lecaillon, S. L. Nedelec, and S. D. Simpson. (2016). Repeated exposure 

reduces the response to impulsive noise in European seabass. Global Change Biology, 22(10), 

3349–3360. 

Radford, C. A., J. C. Montgomery, P. Caiger, and D. M. Higgs. (2012). Pressure and particle motion 

detection thresholds in fish: A re-examination of salient auditory cues in teleosts. The Journal of 

Experimental Biology, 215(Pt 19), 3429–3435. 

Ramcharitar, J., D. M. Higgs, and A. N. Popper. (2001). Sciaenid inner ears: A study in diversity. Brain, 

Behavior and Evolution, 58, 152–162. 

Ramcharitar, J., and A. N. Popper. (2004). Masked auditory thresholds in sciaenid fishes: A comparative 

study. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 116(3), 1687–1691. 

Ramcharitar, J., D. P. Gannon, and A. N. Popper. (2006a). Bioacoustics of fishes of the family Sciaenidae 

(croakers and drums). Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, 135, 1409–1431. 

Ramcharitar, J., D. Higgs, and A. Popper. (2006b). Audition in sciaenid fishes with different swim bladderinner ear configurations. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 119(1), 439–443. 

Ramirez-Macias, D., M. Meekan, R. De La Parra-Venegas, F. Remolina-Suarez, M. Trigo-Mendoza, and R. 

Vazquez-Juarez. (2012). Patterns in composition, abundance and scarring of whale sharks 

Rhincodon typus near Holbox Island, Mexico. Journal of Fish Biology, 80, 1401–1416. 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.6-216

3.6 References

Randall, M. T., and K. J. Sulak. (2012). Evidence of autumn spawning in Suwannee River Gulf sturgeon, 

Acipenser oxyrinchus desotoi (Vladykov, 1955). Journal of Applied Ichthyology, 28(4), 489–495. 

Ratheon. (2015). Airborne Mine Neutralization System (AMNS): Alternative Optical Fiber Engineering 

Study Final Report. Portsmouth, RI.

Raven, J., K. Caldeira, H. Elderfield, O. Hoegh-Guldberg, P. Liss, U. Riebesell, J. Sheperd, C. Turley, A. 

Watson, R. Heap, R. Banes, and R. Quinn. (2005). Ocean acidification due to increasing 

atmospheric carbon dioxide. London, United Kingdom: The Royal Society.

Reddin, D. G., and P. B. Short. (1991). Postsmolt Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) in the Labrador Sea. 

Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 48(1), 2–6. 

Reinhall, P. G., and P. H. Dahl. (2011). Underwater Mach wave radiation from impact pile driving: Theory 

and observation. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 130(3), 1209–1216. 

Remage-Healey, L., D. P. Nowacek, and A. H. Bass. (2006). Dolphin foraging sounds suppress calling and 

elevate stress hormone levels in a prey species, the Gulf toadfish. The Journal of Experimental 

Biology, 209(Pt 22), 4444–4451. 

Reshetiloff, K. (2004). Chesapeake Bay: Introduction to an Ecosystem. (EPA 903-R-04-003 and CBP/TRS 

232/00). Washington, DC: Environmental Protection Agency.

Rex, M. A., and R. J. Etter. (1998). Bathymetric patterns of body size: Implications for deep-sea 

biodiversity. Deep-Sea Research Part II-Topical Studies in Oceanography, 45, 103–127. 

Reynolds, J. D., N. K. Dulvy, N. B. Goodwin, and J. A. Hutchings. (2005). Biology of extinction risk in 

marine fishes. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 272(1579), 2337–2344. 

Ribic, C. A., S. B. Sheavly, D. J. Rugg, and E. S. Erdmann. (2010). Trends and drivers of marine debris on 

the Atlantic coast of the United States 1997–2007. Marine Pollution Bulletin 60(8), 1231–1242. 

Richmond, A. M., and B. Kynard. (1995). Ontogenetic behavior of shortnose sturgeon, Acipenser 

brevirostrum. Copeia, 1995, 172–182. 

Rickel, S., and A. Genin. (2005). Twilight transitions in coral reef fish: The input of light-induced changes 

in foraging behaviour. Animal Behaviour, 70(1), 133–144. 

Rigg, D. P., S. C. Peverell, M. Hearndon, and J. E. Seymour. (2009). Do elasmobranch reactions to 

magnetic fields in water show promise for bycatch mitigation? Marine and Freshwater Research, 

60(9), 942–948. 

Roberts, L., R. Perez-Dominguez, and M. Elliott. (2016). Use of baited remote underwater video (BRUV) 

and motion analysis for studying the impacts of underwater noise upon free ranging fish and 

implications for marine energy management. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 112(1–2), 75–85. 

Robydek, A., and J. M. Nunley. (2012). Determining Marine Migration Patterns and Behavior of Gulf 

Sturgeon in the Gulf of Mexico off Eglin Air Force Base, Florida (Department of Defense Legacy 

Program Technical Notes). Eglin Air Force Base, FL: U.S. Department of Defense.

Rochman, C. M., E. Hoh, T. Kurobe, and S. J. Teh. (2013). Ingested plastic transfers hazardous chemicals 

to fish and induces hepatic stress. Scientific Reports, 3, 3263. 

Rochman, C. M., A. Tahir, S. L. Williams, D. V. Baxa, R. Lam, J. T. Miller, F. Teh, S. Werorilangi, and S. J. 

Teh. (2015). Anthropogenic debris in seafood: Plastic debris and fibers from textiles in fish and 

bivalves sold for human consumption. Nature, 5, 14340–14350. 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.6-217

3.6 References

Roessig, J. M., C. M. Woodley, J. J. Cech, Jr., and L. J. Hansen. (2004). Effects of global climate change on 

marine and estuarine fishes and fisheries. Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries, 14(2), 251–275. 

Rogillio, H. E., R. T. Ruth, E. H. Behrens, C. N. Doolittle, W. J. Granger, and J. P. Kirk. (2007). Gulf sturgeon 

movements in the Pearl River drainage and the Mississippi Sound. North American Journal of 

Fisheries Management, 27(1), 89–95. 

Rosen, G., and G. R. Lotufo. (2010). Fate and effects of composition B in multispecies marine exposures. 

Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 9999(12), 1–8. 

Ross, S. T., W. T. Slack, R. J. Heise, M. A. Dugo, H. Rogillio, B. R. Bowen, P. Mickle, and R. W. Heard. 

(2009). Estuarine and coastal habitat use of Gulf sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus desotoi) in the 

North-Central Gulf of Mexico. Estuaries and Coasts, 32(2), 360–374. 

Ross, S. W., S. Brooke, A. M. Quattrini, M. Rhode, and J. C. Watterson. (2015). A deep-sea community, 

including Lophelia pertusa, at unusually shallow depths in the western North Atlantic Ocean off 

northeastern Florida. Marine Biology, 162(3), 635–648. 

Rostad, A., S. Kaartvedt, T. A. Klevjer, and W. Melle. (2006). Fish are attracted to vessels. ICES Journal of 

Marine Science, 63(8), 1431–1437.

Rowat, D., M. G. Meekan, U. Engelhardt, B. Pardigon, and M. Vely. (2007). Aggregations of juvenile 

whale sharks (Rhincodon typus) in the Gulf of Tadjoura, Djibouti. Environmental Biology of 

Fishes, 80(4), 465–472. 

Rudd, M. B., R. N. M. Ahrens, W. E. Pine, S. K. Bolden, and L. Jacobson. (2014). Empirical, spatially explicit 

natural mortality and movement rate estimates for the threatened Gulf sturgeon (Acipenser 

oxyrinchus desotoi). Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 71(9), 1407–1417. 

Ruggerone, G. T., S. Goodman, and R. Miner. (2008). Behavioral Response and Survival of Juvenile Coho 

Salmon Exposed to Pile Driving Sounds. Seattle, WA: Natural Resources Consultants, Inc., and 

Robert Miner Dynamic Testing, Inc.

Russell, I. C., M. W. Aprahamian, J. Barry, I. C. Davidson, P. Fiske, A. T. Ibbotson, R. J. Kennedy, J. C. 

Maclean, A. Moore, J. Otero, T. Potter, and C. D. Todd. (2012). The influence of the freshwater 

environment and the biological characteristics of Atlantic salmon smolts on their subsequent 

marine survival. ICES Journal of Marine Science: Journal du Conseil. 

Sabates, A., M. P. Olivar, J. Salat, I. Palomera, and F. Alemany. (2007). Physical and biological processes 

controlling the distribution of fish larvae in the NW Mediterranean. Progress in Oceanography, 

74(2–3), 355–376. 

Sabet, S. S., K. Wesdorp, J. Campbell, P. Snelderwaard, and H. Slabbekoorn. (2016). Behavioural 

responses to sound exposure in captivity by two fish species with different hearing ability. 

Animal Behaviour, 116, 1–11. 

Sadovy, Y., and A.-M. Eklund. (1999). NOAA Technical Report NMFS 146, Synopsis of Biological Data on 

the Nassau Grouper, Epinephelus striatus, (Block, 1972), and the Jewfish, E. itajara (Lichtenstein, 

1822) (A Technical Report of the Fishery Bulletin, FAO Fisheries Synopsis). Seattle, WA: National 

Marine Fisheries Service.

Scholik, A. R., and H. Y. Yan. (2001). Effects of underwater noise on auditory sensitivity of a cyprinid fish. 

Hearing Research, 152(1–2), 17–24. 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.6-218

3.6 References

Scholik, A. R., and H. Y. Yan. (2002a). The effects of noise on the auditory sensitivity of the bluegill 

sunfish, Lepomis macrochirus. Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology Part A: Molecular & 

Integrative Physiology, 133(1), 43–52. 

Scholik, A. R., and H. Y. Yan. (2002b). Effects of boat engine noise on the auditory sensitivity of the 

fathead minnow, Pimephales promelas. Environmental Biology of Fishes, 63, 203–209. 

Schwartz, F. J. (1989). Zoogeography and Ecology of Fishes Inhabiting North Carolina's Marine Waters to 

Depths of 600 Meters. Silver Spring, MD: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

Schwarz, A. B., and G. L. Greer. (1984). Responses of Pacific herring, Clupea harengus pallasi, to some 

underwater sounds. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science, 41, 1183–1192. 

Secor, D. H., E. J. Niklitschek, J. T. Stevenson, T. E. Gunderson, S. P. Minkkinen, B. Richardson, B. 

Florence, M. Mangold, J. Skjeveland, and A. Henderson-Arzapalo. (2000). Dispersal and growth 

of yearling Atlantic sturgeon, Acipenser oxyrinchus, released into Chesapeake Bay. Fisheries 

Bulletin, 98(4), 800–810. 

Seitz, J. C., and G. R. Poulakis. (2006). Anthropogenic effects on the smalltooth sawfish (Pristis pectinata) 

in the United States. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 52(11), 1533–1540. 

Semmens, B. X., K. E. Luke, P. G. Bush, C. M. R. McCoy, and B. C. Johnson. (2006). Isopod infestation of 

postspawning Nassau grouper around Little Cayman Island. Journal of Fish Biology, 69, 933–937. 

Settle, L. R., J. J. Govoni, M. D. Greene, M. A. West, R. T. Lynch, and G. Revy. (2002). Investigation of 

Impacts of Underwater Explosions on Larval and Early Juvenile Fishes. Beaufort, NC: Center for 

Coastal Fisheries and Habitat Research.

Shah, A. A., F. Hasan, A. Hameed, and S. Ahmed. (2008). Biological degradation of plastics: A 

comprehensive review. Biotechnology Advances, 26(3), 246–265. 

Sheehan, T. F., D. G. Reddin, G. Chaput, and M. D. Renkawitz. (2012). SALSEA North America: A pelagic 

ecosystem survey targeting Atlantic salmon in the Northwest Atlantic. ICES Journal of Marine 

Science, 69(9), 1580–1588. 

Shortnose Sturgeon Status Review Team. (2010). A Biological Assessment of Shortnose Sturgeon 

(Acipenser brevirostrum). Report to National Marine Fisheries Service, Northeast Regional

Office.

Shulman, M. J. (1985). Recruitment of coral reef fishes: Effects of distribution of predators and shelter. 

Ecology, 66(3), 1056–1066. 

Sierra-Flores, R., T. Atack, H. Migaud, and A. Davie. (2015). Stress response to anthropogenic noise in 

Atlantic cod Gadus morhua L. Aquacultural Engineering, 67, 67–76. 

Simpfendorfer, C. A., and T. R. Wiley. (2005). Determination of the Distribution of Florida's Remnant 

Sawfish Population and Identification of Areas Critical to Their Conservation. Sarasota, FL: Mote 

Marine Laboratory, Center for Shark Research.

Simpfendorfer, C. A. (2006). Movement and Habitat Use of Smalltooth Sawfish. Sarasota, FL: Mote 

Marine Laboratory, Center for Shark Research.

Simpfendorfer, C. A., B. G. Yeiser, T. R. Wiley, G. R. Poulakis, P. W. Stevens, and M. R. Heupel. (2011). 

Environmental influences on the spatial ecology of juvenile smalltooth sawfish (Pristis 

pectinata): Results from acoustic monitoring. PLoS ONE, 6(2), e16918. 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.6-219

3.6 References

Simpson, S. D., J. Purser, and A. N. Radford. (2015). Anthropogenic noise compromises antipredator 

behaviour in European eels. Global Change Biology, 21(2), 586–593. 

Simpson, S. D., A. N. Radford, S. L. Nedelec, M. C. Ferrari, D. P. Chivers, M. I. McCormick, and M. G. 

Meekan. (2016). Anthropogenic noise increases fish mortality by predation. Nature 

Communications, 7, 10544. 

Sisneros, J. A., and A. H. Bass. (2003). Seasonal plasticity of peripheral auditory frequency sensitivity. The 

Journal of Neuroscience, 23(3), 1049–1058. 

Sivle, L. D., P. H. Kvadsheim, M. A. Ainslie, A. Solow, N. O. Handegard, N. Nordlund, and F. P. A. Lam. 

(2012). Impact of naval sonar signals on Atlantic herring (Clupea harengus) during summer 

feeding. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 69(6), 1078–1085. 

Sivle, L. D., P. H. Kvadsheim, and M. A. Ainslie. (2014). Potential for population-level disturbance by 

active sonar in herring. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 72(2), 558–567. 

Sivle, L. D., P. H. Kvadsheim, and M. Ainslie. (2016). Potential population consequences of active sonar 

disturbance in Atlantic herring: Estimating the maximum risk. Advances in Experimental 

Medicine and Biology, 875, 217–222. 

Slabbekoorn, H., N. Bouton, I. van Opzeeland, A. Coers, C. ten Cate, and A. N. Popper. (2010). A noisy 

spring: The impact of globally rising underwater sound levels on fish. Trends in Ecology and 

Evolution, 25(7), 419–427. 

Slotte, A., K. Hansen, J. Dalen, and E. Ona. (2004). Acoustic mapping of pelagic fish distribution and 

abundance in relation to seismic shooting area off the Norwegian west coast. Fisheries Research, 

67, 143–150. 

Smith, A., T. Stehly, and W. Musial. (2015). 2014 U.S. Offshore Wind Market Report: Industry Trends, 

Technology Advancement, and Cost Reduction. Baltimore, MD: National Renewable Energy 

Laboratory.

Smith, M. E., A. S. Kane, and A. N. Popper. (2004a). Acoustical stress and hearing sensitivity in fishes: 

Does the linear threshold shift hypothesis hold water? The Journal of Experimental Biology, 207, 

3591–3602. 

Smith, M. E., A. S. Kane, and A. N. Popper. (2004b). Noise-induced stress response and hearing loss in 

goldfish (Carassius auratus). The Journal of Experimental Biology, 207(3), 427–435. 

Smith, M. E., A. B. Coffin, D. L. Miller, and A. N. Popper. (2006). Anatomical and functional recovery of 

the goldfish (Carassius auratus) ear following noise exposure. The Journal of Experimental 

Biology, 209(21), 4193–4202. 

Smith, M. E., and R. R. Gilley. (2008). Testing the equal energy hypothesis in noise-exposed fishes. 

Bioacoustics, 17(1–3), 343–345. 

Smith, S. H., and D. E. Marx, Jr. (2016). De-facto marine protection from a Navy bombing range: Farallon 

de Medinilla, Mariana Archipelago, 1997 to 2012. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 102(1), 187–198. 

Smith, T. I. J., and J. P. Clugston. (1997). Status and management of Atlantic sturgeon, Acipenser 

oxyrinchus, in North America. Environmental Biology of Fishes, 48, 335–346. 

Snieszko, S. F. (1978). Control of Fish Diseases. Marine Fisheries Review, 40(3), 65–68. 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.6-220

3.6 References

Song, J., D. A. Mann, P. A. Cott, B. W. Hanna, and A. N. Popper. (2008). The inner ears of northern 

Canadian freshwater fishes following exposure to seismic air gun sounds. The Journal of the 

Acoustical Society of America, 124(2), 1360–1366. 

South Atlantic Fishery Management Council. (2011). Dolphin Fish. Retrieved from 

http://www.safmc.net/FishIDandRegs/FishGallery/DolphinFish/tabid/284/Default.aspx.

Speed, C. W., M. G. Meekan, D. Rowat, S. J. Pierce, A. D. Marshall, and C. J. A. Bradshaw. (2008). Scarring 

patterns and relative mortality rates of Indian Ocean whale sharks. Journal of Fish Biology, 72(6), 

1488–1503. 

Sprague, M. W., and J. J. Luczkovich. (2004). Measurement of an individual silver perch, Bairdiella 

chrysoura, sound pressure level in a field recording. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of 

America, 116(5), 3186–3191. 

Stadler, J. H., and D. P. Woodbury. (2009). Assessing the effects to fishes from pile driving: Application of 

new hydroacoustic criteria. Paper presented at the Inter-Noise 2009: Innovations in Practical 

Noise Control. Ottawa, Canada.

Stallings, C. D. (2009). Fishery-independent data reveal negative effect of human population density on 

Caribbean predatory fish communities. PLoS ONE, 4(5), 1–9. 

Starr, R. M., E. Sala, E. Ballesteros, and M. Zabala. (2007). Spatial dynamics of the Nassau grouper, 

Epinephelus striatus, in a Caribbean atoll. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 343, 239–249. 

Stein, A. B., K. D. Friedland, and M. Sutherland. (2004). Atlantic Sturgeon Marine Distribution and 

Habitat Use along the Northeastern Coast of the United States. Transactions of the American 

Fisheries Society, 133, 527–537. 

Stevens, J. D. (2007). Whale shark (Rhincodon typus) biology and ecology: A review of the primary 

literature. Fisheries Research, 84(1), 4–9. 

Stuhmiller, J. H., Y. Y. Phillips, and D. R. Richmong. (1991). The Physics and Mechanisms of Primary Blast 

Injury. In D. P. J. R. Zatchuck, R. F. Bellamy, and C. M. Quick (Ed.), Textbook of Military Medicine. 

Part I. Warfare, Weapons, and the Casualty (Vol. 5, pp. 241–270). Washington, D.C.: TMMM 

Publications.

Sulak, K. J., and M. Randall. (2002). Understanding sturgeon life history: Enigmas, myths, and insights 

from scientific studies. Journal of Applied Ichthyology, 18, 519–528. 

Sulak, K. J., M. T. Randall, R. E. Edwards, T. M. Summers, K. E. Luke, W. T. Smith, A. D. Norem, W. M. 

Harden, R. H. Lukens, F. Parauka, S. Bolden, and R. Lehnert. (2009). Defining winter trophic 

habitat of juvenile Gulf sturgeon in the Suwannee and Apalachicola rivermouth estuaries, 

acoustic telemetry investigations. Journal of Applied Ichthyology, 25, 505–515. 

Sverdrup, A., E. Kjellsby, P. G. Krüger, R. Fløysand, F. R. Knudsen, P. S. Enger, G. Serck-Hanssen, and K. B. 

Helle. (1994). Effects of experimental seismic shock on vasoactivity of arteries, integrity of the 

vascular endothelium and on primary stress hormones of the Atlantic salmon. Journal of Fish 

Biology, 45(6), 973–995. 

Swisdak, M. M., Jr. (1978). Explosion Effects and Properties Part II–Explosion Effects in Water. 

(NSWC/WOL/TR-76-116). Dahlgren, VA and Silver Spring, MD: Naval Surface Weapons Center.

Swisdak, M. M., Jr., and P. E. Montanaro. (1992). Hazards from Underwater Explosions. Fort Belvoir, VA: 

Defense Technical Information Center.
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.6-221

3.6 References

Swope, B., and J. McDonald. (2013). Copper-Based Torpedo Guidance Wire: Applications and 

Environmental Considerations. San Diego, CA: Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command 

Center Pacific.

Tabb, D. C., and R. B. Manning. (1961). A Checklist of the Flora and Fauna of Northern Florida Bay and 

Adjacent Brackish Waters of the Florida Mainland Collected During the Period July, 1957 through 

September, 1960. Miami, FL: University of Miami.

Tavolga, W. N. (1974). Signal/noise ratio and the critical band in fishes. The Journal of the Acoustical 

Society of America, 55(6), 1323–1333. 

The Shark Trust. (2017). Basking Shark Project: Human Impacts. Retrieved from 

http://www.sharktrust.org/en/basking_shark_human_impacts.

Thorstad, E. B., C. D. Todd, I. Uglem, P. A. Bjørn, P. G. Gargan, K. W. Vollset, E. Halttunen, S. Kålås, M. 

Berg, and B. Finstad. (2015). Effects of salmon lice Lepeophtheirus salmonis on wild sea trout 

Salmo trutta—a literature review. Aquaculture Environment Interactions, 7(2), 91–113. 

U.S. Air Force. (1997). Environmental Effects of Self-Protection Chaff and Flares - Final Report. Langley Air 

Force Base, VA: U.S. Air Force, Headquarters Air Combat Command.

U.S. Department of the Navy. (1999). Environmental Effects of RF Chaff: A Select Panel Report to the 

Undersecretary of Defense for Environmental Security. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the 

Navy, Naval Research Laboratory.

U.S. Department of the Navy. (2001a). Overseas Environmental Assessment (OEA) for Cape Cod 

TORPEDO EXERCISE (TORPEX) in Fall 2001. Arlington, VA: Undersea Weapons Program Office.

U.S. Department of the Navy. (2001b). Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)/Overseas 

Environmental Impact Statement (OEIS) for the Shock Trial of the USS WINSTON S. CHURCHILL 

(DDG 81). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Navy.

U.S. Department of the Navy. (2012). Ecosystem Technical Report for the Atlantic Fleet Training and 

Testing (AFTT) Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Arlington, VA: Naval Facilities Engineering 

Command, Atlantic Division. Retrieved from http://www.warcosts.net/wp-content/uploads/usnavy/317BA_1_2012_AFTT_U.S._Navy_Atlantic_Fleet_Training_Testing_Ecosystem_Final_Techn

ical_Report_April_13_2012.pdf.

U.S. Department of the Navy. (2013). Military Expended Material Shrimp Fisheries Study in the U.S. South 

Atlantic and Eastern Gulf of Mexico. Newport, RI: Naval Undersea Warfare Center Division.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2004). Sediment-Related Criteria for Surface Water Quality. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. (1995). Gulf Sturgeon Recovery/Management Plan. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and National Marine Fisheries Service. (2009). Gulf Sturgeon (Acipenser 

oxyrinchus desotoi) 5-Year Review: Summary and Evaluation. Panama City, FL: U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service. Retrieved from 

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/species/gulfsturgeon_5yearreview.pdf.

University of Hawaii. (2010). Hawaii Undersea Military Munitions Assessment, Final Investigation Report 

HI-05, South of Pearl Harbor, Oahu, HI. Honolulu, HI: University of Hawaii at Manoa.
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.6-222

3.6 References

Van Noord, J. E., R. J. Olsen, J. V. Redfern, L. M. Duffy, and R. S. Kaufman. (2016). Oceanographic 

influences on the diet of 3 surface-migrating myctophids in the eastern tropical Pacific Ocean. 

Fishery Bulletin, 114, 274–287. 

Voellmy, I. K., J. Purser, D. Flynn, P. Kennedy, S. D. Simpson, and A. N. Radford. (2014a). Acoustic noise 

reduces foraging success in two sympatric fish species via different mechanisms. Animal 

Behaviour, 89, 191–198. 

Voellmy, I. K., J. Purser, S. D. Simpson, and A. N. Radford. (2014b). Increased noise levels have different 

impacts on the anti-predator behaviour of two sympatric fish species. PLoS ONE, 9(7), e102946. 

Wainwright, P. C., and B. A. Richard. (1995). Predicting patterns of prey use from morphology of fishes. 

Environmental Biology of Fishes, 44, 97–113. 

Wakeford, A. (2001). State of Florida Conservation Plan for Gulf Sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus desotoi)

(Florida Marine Research Institute Technical Report). St. Petersburg, FL: Florida Marine Research 

Institute.

Waldman, J. R., and I. Wirgin. (1998). Status and Restoration Options for Atlantic Sturgeon in North 

America. Conservation Biology, 12(3), 631–638. 

Wang, W. X., and P. S. Rainbow. (2008). Comparative approaches to understand metal bioaccumulation 

in aquatic animals. Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology, Part C, 148(4), 315–323. 

Ward-Paige, C. A., D. M. Keith, B. Worm, and H. K. Lotze. (2012). Recovery potential and conservation 

options for elasmobranchs. Journal of Fish Biology, 80(5), 1844–1869. 

Wardle, C. S. (1986). Fish behaviour and fishing gear. In T. J. Pitcher (Ed.), The Behavior of Teleost Fishes

(pp. 463–495). Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press.

Wardle, C. S., T. J. Carter, G. G. Urquhart, A. D. F. Johnstone, A. M. Ziolkowski, G. Hampson, and D. 

Mackie. (2001). Effects of seismic air guns on marine fish. Continental Shelf Research, 21, 1005–

1027. 

Warrant, E. J., and N. A. Locket. (2004). Vision in the deep sea. Biological Reviews, 79, 671–712. 

Webb, J. F., J. C. Montgomery, and J. Mogdans. (2008). Bioacoustics and the Lateral Line of Fishes. In J. F. 

Webb, R. R. Fay, & A. N. Popper (Eds.), Fish Bioacoustics (pp. 145–182). New York, NY: Springer.

Wedemeyer, G. A., B. A. Barton, and D. J. McLeay. (1990). Stress and acclimation. In C. B. Schreck & P. B. 

Moyle (Eds.), Methods for Fish Biology (pp. 451–489). Bethesda, MD: American Fisheries Society.

Welsh, S. A., M. F. Mangold, J. E. Skjeveland, and A. J. Spells. (2002). Distribution and movement of 

shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum) in the Chesapeake Bay. Estuaries, 25(1), 101–104. 

Whelan, K. (2010). A Review of the Impacts of the Salmon Louse, Lepeophtheirus salmonis (Krøyer, 1837) 

on Wild Salmonids. London, United Kingdom: Atlantic Salmon Trust.

WildEarth Guardians. (2009). A Petition: Requesting the Secretary of Commerce Add the Largetooth 

Sawfish, Pristis perotteti, to the List of Threatened and Endangered Species Maintained under 

the Authority of the Endangered Species Act. Denver, CO: Wild Earth Guardians.

Wiley, M. L., J. B. Gaspin, and J. F. Goertner. (1981). Effects of underwater explosions on fish with a 

dynamical model to predict fishkill. Ocean Science and Engineering, 6(2), 223–284. 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.6-223

3.6 References

Williams, K. A., I. J. Stenhouse, E. E. Connelly, and S. M. Johnson. (2015). Mid-Atlantic Wildlife Studies: 

Distribution and Abundance of Wildlife along the Eastern Seaboard 2012–2014 (Science 

Communications Series BRI 2015-19). Portland, ME: Biodiversity Research Institute.

Wilson, S. K., M. Adjeroud, D. R. Bellwood, M. L. Berumen, D. Booth, Y. M. Bozec, P. Chabanet, A. Cheal, 

J. Cinner, M. Depczynski, D. A. Feary, M. Gagliano, N. A. J. Graham, A. R. Halford, B. S. Halpern, 

A. R. Harborne, A. S. Hoey, S. J. Holbrook, G. P. Jones, M. Kulbiki, Y. Letourneur, T. L. De Loma, T. 

McClanahan, M. I. McCormick, M. G. Meekan, P. J. Mumby, P. L. Munday, M. C. Ohman, M. S. 

Pratchett, B. Riegl, M. Sano, R. J. Schmitt, and C. Syms. (2010). Crucial knowledge gaps in current 

understanding of climate change impacts on coral reef fishes. The Journal of Experimental 

Biology, 213(6), 894–900. 

Wippelhauser, G. S., and T. S. Squiers, Jr. (2015). Shortnose sturgeon and Atlantic sturgeon in the 

Kennebec River system, Maine: A 1977-2001 retrospective of abundance and important habitat. 

Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, 144, 591–601. 

Wippelhauser, G. S., G. B. Zydlewski, M. Kieffer, J. Sulikowski, and M. T. Kinnison. (2015). Shortnose 

sturgeon in the Gulf of Maine: Use of spawning habitat in the Kennebec system and response to 

dam removal. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, 144(4), 742–752. 

Woodland, R. J., and D. H. Secor. (2007). Year-class strength and recovery of endangered shortnose 

sturgeon in the Hudson River, New York. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, 136(1), 

72–81. 

Wooley, C. M., and E. J. Crateau. (1985). Movement, microhabitat, exploitation, and management of 

Gulf of Mexico sturgeon, Apalachicola River, Florida. North American Journal of Fisheries 

Management, 5, 590–605. 

Wootton, E. C., A. P. Woolmer, C. L. Vogan, E. C. Pope, K. M. Hamilton, and A. F. Rowley. (2012). 

Increased disease calls for a cost-benefits review of marine reserves. PLoS ONE, 7(12), e51615. 

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, Canada: Western Region Department of Fisheries and Oceans.

Wright, K. J., D. M. Higgs, A. J. Belanger, and J. M. Leis. (2008). Auditory and olfactory abilities of larvae 

of the Indo‐Pacific coral trout Plectropomus leopardus (Lacepède) at settlement. Journal of Fish 

Biology, 72(10), 2543–2556. 

Wright, K. J., D. M. Higgs, D. H. Cato, and J. M. Leis. (2010). Auditory sensitivity in settlement-stage 

larvae of coral reef fishes. Coral Reefs, 29, 235–243. 

Wysocki, L. E., and F. Ladich. (2005). Hearing in fishes under noise conditions. Journal of the Association 

for Research in Otolaryngology, 6(1), 28–36. 

Wysocki, L. E., J. P. Dittami, and F. Ladich. (2006). Ship noise and cortisol secretion in European 

freshwater fishes. Biological Conservation, 128, 501–508. 

Wysocki, L. E., J. W. Davidson, III, M. E. Smith, A. S. Frankel, W. T. Ellison, P. M. Mazik, A. N. Popper, and 

J. Bebak. (2007). Effects of aquaculture production noise on hearing, growth, and disease 

resistance of rainbow trout, Oncorhynchus mykiss. Aquaculture, 272, 687–697. 

Yasugi, M., and M. Hori. (2016). Predominance of parallel- and cross-predation in anglerfish. Marine 

Ecology, 37(3), 576–587. 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018

3.6-224

3.6 References

Yelverton, J. T., D. R. Richmond, W. Hicks, K. Saunders, and E. R. Fletcher. (1975). The Relationship 

between Fish Size and Their Response to Underwater Blast. Washington, DC: Defense Nuclear 

Agency.

Yelverton, J. T., and D. R. Richmond. (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.

Young, C. N., J. Carlson, C. Hutt, D. Kobayashi, C. T. McCandless, and J. Wraith. (2016). Status review 

report: Oceanic whitetip shark (Carcharhinius longimanus) (Final Report to the National Marine 

Fisheries Service, Office of Protected Resources). Silver Spring, MD: National Marine Fisheries 

Service & National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

Zelick, R., D. A. Mann, and A. N. Popper. (1999). Acoustic communication in fishes and frogs. In R. R. Fay 

& A. N. Popper (Eds.), Comparative Hearing: Fish and Amphibians (pp. 363–411). New York, NY: 

Springer-Verlag.

Zhang, X. G., J. K. Song, C. X. Fan, H. Y. Guo, X. J. Wang, and H. Bleckmann. (2012). Use of electrosense in 

the feeding behavior of sturgeons. Integrative Zoology, 7(1), 74–82.